Estimation of the pre-burning condition of human remains in forensic contexts
- 812 Downloads
The determination of the original condition of human remains prior to burning is critical since it may facilitate the reconstruction of circumstances surrounding death in forensic cases. Although the use of heat-induced bone changes is not a completely reliable proxy for determining pre-burning conditions, it is not completely devoid of potential, as we can observe a clear difference in the occurrence of such features between the fleshed and dry bones. In order to quantify this difference and determine its true value for forensic research, the frequencies of heat-induced warping and thumbnail fractures were documented on modern cremations of cadavers from recently deceased individuals and from the cremations of skeletons previously inhumed. The effect of age, sex, time span from death to cremation, duration and temperature of combustion on those frequencies was statistically investigated. Results demonstrated that the heat-induced features were significantly more frequent in the sample of cadavers. In addition, warping was determined to be the most useful indicator of the pre-burning condition of human remains. Temperature of combustion was the only variable having a significant effect on the frequency of both features, suggesting that fluctuation of temperature, along with collagen preservation and recrystallization of the inorganic phase, is paramount for their occurrence. Both warping and thumbnail fractures may eventually be used for the estimation of the pre-burning condition of human remains in lack of other indicators, but their reliability is far from absolute. Ideally, such inference must be supported by other data such as skeletal representation, objects or defleshing marks on the bones.
KeywordsBiological anthropology Forensic anthropology Taphonomy Cremation Burned bones Fractures
The authors would like to thank the Câmara Municipal do Porto (Portugal) and their staff from the cemeterial services. In particular, our outmost gratitude goes to Cidália Duarte, José Luis, Amarante, Marques, and Joaquim Neves. We also thank Dr. Esmeralda Rocha and Adelaide Guedes at the Instituto dos Registos e Notariado (Portugal). We would also like to thank the comments of the two reviewers who revised this paper. David Gonçalves is supported by the Portuguese Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (SFRH/BDP/84268/2012).
This research does not infringe any Portuguese law.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 2.Baby RS (1954) Hopewell cremation practices. In: Papers in archaeology, vol 1. Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, pp 1-7Google Scholar
- 3.Binford LR (1963) An analysis of cremations from three Michigan sites. Wis Archaeol 44:98–110Google Scholar
- 4.Buikstra J, Swegle M (1989) Bone modification due to burning: experimental evidence. In: Bonnichsen R, Sorg MH (eds) Bone modification. Center for the Study of the first Americans, Orono, pp 247–258Google Scholar
- 5.Spennemann DHR, Colley SM (1989) Fire in a Pit: the effects of burning on faunal remains. Archaeozoologia 3(1–2):51–64Google Scholar
- 6.Etxeberria F (1994) Aspectos macroscópicos del hueso sometido al fuego: revisión de las cremaciones descritas en el País Vasco desde la arqueologia. Munibe 46:111–116Google Scholar
- 8.Thurman MD, Willmore LJ (1981) A replicative cremation experiment. N Am Archaeol 2(4):275–283Google Scholar
- 11.Symes SA, L'Abbé EN, Pokines JT, Yuzwa T, Messer D, Stromquist A, Keough N (2014) Thermal alteration to bone. In: Pokines JT, Symes SA (eds) Manual of forensic taphonomy. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 367–402Google Scholar
- 12.Gonçalves D (2012) The micro-analysis of human burned bones: some remarks. Cad GEEvH 1(1):32–40Google Scholar
- 14.Cohen J (1988) Statistical power and analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
- 21.Roksandic M (2002) Position of skeletal remains as key to understand mortuary behavior. In: Haglund WD, Sorg MH (eds) Advances in forensic taphonomy. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 95–113Google Scholar