Forensic anthropology 155
the flat elements of the skeleton may warp and crack, producing damage that
might be confused with injury. Similarly, buried remains subject to many
cycles of wetting and drying may display breakage of ribs, spinous processes,
and other effects. The weight of soil above a collapsed coffin may produce
damage to the rib cage or pseudotrauma in the anterior dentition or deli-
cate bones of the maxillofacial area. (2) The most common source of scat-
tering and postmortem damage in exposed remains is animal activity. Large
and small mammalian scavengers leave characteristic dental markings,
usually perpendicular to the long axis of a bone. In some cases, bones will
be crushed by powerful jaws, e.g., bears, alligators, feral hogs. When recover-
ing scattered remains, it is wise to ask what kinds of animals inhabit the
area. Some familiarity with the dentition and the characteristic patterns of
scavenging of animals within the area of search is useful.61,62 It is important
to remember that most scavengers will be attracted to wound sites, and that
evidence of injury in bone, fatal or otherwise, may thus be altered, obscured,
or eliminated altogether. (3) Anthropogenic damage is often the result of
“discovery by bulldozer backhoe.” Operators of heavy equipment in rural
areas often mangle remains in the act of discovering them, causing addi-
tional difficulty in distinguishing actual perimortem injury. One colleague
wryly noted that “if one wants to find remains in a large field, one has only
to instruct someone to ‘brush hog’ or till the area.” Colleagues in coastal
regions often describe postmortem “propeller” damage inflicted on floating
remains. The most problematic instances of anthropogenic damage are those
that produce recovery and processing artifacts. A ground probe may produce
what appears to be a bullet hole in shallow burial. Shovels and trowels in the
hands of inexperienced investigators may induce what appear to be blade
or chopping defects. Cases involving remains that have been intentionally
disarticulated by knife, saw, etc., are often seen by a pathologist before the
anthropologist is consulted. On these occasions the initial examiner must
carefully note and describe any additional cuts that have been made with
the autopsy saw for sampling or other purposes, lest these be confused with
original marks made by the assailant. Although most anthropogenic arti-
facts are easily distinguished from perimortem damage, they often provide a
skillful cross-examiner with opportunities to confuse a jury, and at the very
least, may call into question the skills of those responsible for the recovery
and analysis of the victim.
- 3 D a t a b a s e s
When the anthropological and dental analyses do not produce an identifica-
tion, the biological profile, unique identifiers, and postmortem interval data
are usually entered into a database. The most widely known U.S. database is