Introduction to Forensic Taphonomy

Abstract

The purpose of this volume is to explain and illustrate the link between taphonomy, i.e., the study of death assemblages, and forensic anthropology, the application of the methods and theories of physical anthropology and archaeology to the medicolegal investigation of deaths. Despite the seemingly obvious connection between the two fields, they have been poorly linked in practice. In spite of long-standing forensic interest in taphonomy on the part of a few forensic anthropologists (Bass 1984; Brooks and Brooks 1984; Haglund 1991; Sorg 1986), there have been few references to “taphonomy” per se on the part of forensic authors. Taphonomy receives only three references in the second edition of the standard text by Krogman and Iscan, The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine, although this text does recommend “taphonomic analysis” of human remains (Krogman and Iscan 1986). In a 1987 manuscript, taphonomy was eliminated as a key word by an editor of the Journal of Forensic Sciences (Haglund et al. 1987). It was only after pleading for its inclusion by separate letter that “taphonomy” appeared as a key word in that journal in 1989. Since 1989, “taphonomy” as a key word appeared a second time in 1992, and four additional times by volume six of 1993. It is odd, yet understandable, that relatively little research has been devoted to the taphonomy of contemporary human remains. This paucity stems from at least three sources: (1) the infrequency of opportunities for research due to the nature and treatment of human death in this society; (2) the continued limited involvement of archaeologists or physical anthropologists in forensic investigations, particularly scene investigations; and (3) the limited awareness of taphonomy on the part of mainstream forensic death investigators in medical examiner/coroner agencies (Haglund 1991). Contemporary society’s treatment of human death generally prohibits the use of modern remains for research for religious, ethical, and emotional reasons (Smith 1986). Such proscriptions often mean that research on recent deaths occurs only as a by-product of the medicolegal investigation. Similarly, there has been pressure by modern Native Americans to “repatriate” (i.e., rebury ancient human remains and to limit research studies upon them) (McGuire 1989; Ubelaker and Grant 1989; Webb 1987; Willey 1981; Zimmerman 1989). Pragmatic forces drive forensic death investigations. Identification of the deceased and determination of the cause, manner, and time of death are primary concerns of the medical examiner/coroner. This is a medicolegal context and not conducive to research. Once the pivotal forensic questions are answered, there may be little perceived need, opportunity, or resources to pursue the investigations further, at least from the point of view of the death investigation bureaucracy.