Session no. 6: Recognising Taphonomy, by John FitzGerald

12
RECOGNISING TAPHONOMY possible confusion with pathology and the need for differential diagnosis John FitzGerald Necropolis Session #6

Transcript of Session no. 6: Recognising Taphonomy, by John FitzGerald

Page 1: Session no. 6: Recognising  Taphonomy, by John FitzGerald

RECOGNISINGTAPHONOMY

possible confusion with pathology and the need for differential diagnosis

John FitzGeraldNecropolis Session #6

Page 2: Session no. 6: Recognising  Taphonomy, by John FitzGerald

Taphonomic Processes

Physical• Mechanical (e.g.erosion)

• Thermal (e.g. cremation)

Chemical or Biological• Fungi, bacteria, beetles etc.

• Plant activity (e.g. roots)

• Animals (e.g. predation)

• Man (e.g. tomb robbing)

- any environmental factor which affects the organism after death

Evidence of Dermestid beetle activity, Bab edh-Dhra, Jordan

Page 3: Session no. 6: Recognising  Taphonomy, by John FitzGerald

Taphonomy or Pathology?

Taphonomy can mimic ante- or peri-mortem destructive processes, including both disease and trauma.

“Pseudo-trauma”:• common cause is poor excavation

Differentiation is important for:

• Asessing health/disease in past populations

• Interpreting levels of violence in communities

• Modern day forensic investigations

Page 4: Session no. 6: Recognising  Taphonomy, by John FitzGerald

“Pseudotrauma” at SaniseraPost-mortem damage• jagged, irregular, sharp edges• differentiation of colour

Proximal right tibia, Tomb 26, Sanisera

Page 5: Session no. 6: Recognising  Taphonomy, by John FitzGerald

Morphology of Ante- or Peri- Mortem Trauma

6th Left Rib

Oblique Mandibular Fracture

• Edges of fracture tend to be rounded or smooth, break is usually cleaner than post-mortem damage

Page 6: Session no. 6: Recognising  Taphonomy, by John FitzGerald

Identifying ante-mortem trauma

Frontal bone of cranium

•Most ante-mortem destruction will show evidence of (osteoblastic) repair at the edges

Page 7: Session no. 6: Recognising  Taphonomy, by John FitzGerald

Identifying disease and infection• Same rules more or less apply to diseased or infected areas, although

active pathological features are harder to differentiate from taphonomy.

Post-mortem damage to frontal bone on lateral, supraorbital bone and above the nasion

Page 8: Session no. 6: Recognising  Taphonomy, by John FitzGerald

Right calcaneus, Tomb 33, Sanisera

Page 9: Session no. 6: Recognising  Taphonomy, by John FitzGerald

Genuine Pathological Features

Frontal region of Australian aboriginal showing crater-like lesions: probably a result of yaws (syphilis)

Skull of 5 year old child (Prehistoric, Peru). Porotic hyperostosis evident on parietals and occipital bones.

Page 10: Session no. 6: Recognising  Taphonomy, by John FitzGerald

Frontal aspect of orbits showing medium degree of (still active) osteoporosis

Page 11: Session no. 6: Recognising  Taphonomy, by John FitzGerald

Mavro Mouri cave, Crete: the implications of (in)correct diagnosis

Osteoporosis and/or malnutrition?

Regurgitation

Calcanea, phalanges and metatarsus of Pleistocene Cretan deer

Calcaneum, phalange and metatarsus of modern day mountain goats (French Pyrenees)

Page 12: Session no. 6: Recognising  Taphonomy, by John FitzGerald

Masking Pathology and Forensic Applications

Skull showing multiple burns overlapping with damage from moulds

Effects of weathering on blunt force trauma to pig’s skull

Damaged and weakened bone is more susceptible to the effects of post mortem damage