Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
the location of part of this body in Room 32 is that this thorax and pelvis were dragged there
from their original burial location in Room 33 by scavengers, which would have held
together relatively well due to its mummified condition (the leg and foot of Skeleton #10
in Room 33 were described as “desiccated” by Pepper). Vertebral elements can retain their
anatomical association quite well due to their relatively strong ligamentous structures (
Brain,
1981
), especially when mummified. Furthermore, no other remains were buried above Skel-
eton #10 to impede scavenger access, and according to recent radiocarbon dating of these
remains, the legs associated with this individual were among the last to be buried in this
room (
Plog and Heitman, 2010
:19623,
Table 1
), suggesting that they would have been most
accessible to scavengers.
Discussion: Contributions of Taphonomy to Archaeological Interpretation
The issue of whether these remains were originally entombed in Room 32 is important to
the interpretation of this burial assemblage, because much has been made of the apparent
ritual significance of a solitary, headless body found alone in this room. The configuration
of the skeletal elements in Room 32 has been described previously as a “highly patterned
association of the vertebrae and pelvis with burial goods, the preservation of the ceremonial
sticks, arrows, and cloth, [with a]
patterned stratigraphic sequence” (
Plog and Heitman,
2010
:19622). However, taphonomic analysis and archival research instead indicate that the
arrangement of the partial remains in this roomwas the result of carnivore scavenging, rather
than a highly patterned association. The final location of this vertebral column has been
invested with an archaeological significance that appears to be inconsistent with the tapho-
nomic evidence resulting from direct analysis of the morphological characteristics of marks
on the bones and their distribution in the skeletal assemblage.
.
CONCLUSION
Taphonomy is a critical component of the discipline of skeletal biology
d
a necessary first
step in the analysis of skeletal material, whether it is archaeological or forensic in origin.
Understanding the context in which a body became skeletonized, as well as the processes
that may have acted on it
in situ
, during recovery, and since recovery should be the prelim-
inary phase for all research on skeletal material. Taphonomic analysis should routinely
include the following seven steps: (1) document context of skeletonization, recovery, and
post-recovery; (2) document potential modifications resulting from exposure, recovery,
and curation; (3) inventory and document all elements and fragments in the collection;
(4) document the condition of the remains as a whole and for each element; (5) conjoin
fractured fragments; (6) reassociate articulating elements; and (7) match antimeres (left/
right paired elements) to the greatest extent possible. In addition, the following should
be done: (1) assess potential for commingling; (2) assess potential for scavenging or
other nonhuman animal modifications; and (3) assess the potential for postmortem modi-
fications due to chemical, geological, climatological, or biological processes (e.g., burial,
scavenging, water transport, geologic transport, and extreme temperatures, moisture, or
dryness).
