Introduction to

Forensic Taphonomy

WILLIAM D. HAGLUND
MARCELLA H. SORG

Linking Taphonomy and Forensic Anthropology

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 anal-
ysis” 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 taphon-
omy 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 anthro-
pologists in forensic investigations, particularly scene investigations; and (3) the limited aware-
ness 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 pro-
scriptions 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.

©1997 CRC Press LLC

 The majority of death in the United States today occur in health-care facilities (70%) or
in residences or other locations that ensure almost immediate discovery (Robinson 1981).
Deaths of this nature are usually certified by individual physicians and are not subject to
comprehensive review. This is in sharp contrast to deaths which occur from unnatural or
suspicious causes, or deaths which occur without a medical attendant.
Sudden, unexpected deaths and natural deaths that occur in the absence of a physician
usually receive some form of regional review by a coroner or medical examiner. But, even in
the majority of these forensic cases, the immediacy of discovery combined with the (usually)
indoor location of the remains eliminates circumstances conducive to conventional tapho-
nomic processes. There are exceptional circumstances within particular forensic jurisdictions
which can inflate the number of cases that provide taphonomic contexts, e.g., catastrophes,
mass exhumations, and certain serial homicides.
The exceptional nature of the forensic cases which may come under the scrutiny of the
anthropologist is not peculiar to contemporary populations. Indeed, for the last 100,000 years
at least, human deaths have been handled in ritual fashion, frequently including burial. In
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 06:22 17 October 2016

paleoanthropology, as in forensic anthropology, it is the deaths which have not been attended
and have not been ritually buried that have invoked the greatest need for taphonomic models.
And the questions are the same: what is the cause and manner of death, what can we learn
about the individual’s biological and social identity, when did the death occur, how can we
discriminate postmortem changes from perimortem trauma or antemortem characteristics.
In addition to the rarity of appropriate cases, a second impediment to the study of
taphonomic processes in forensic cases is the limited involvement of archaeologists and
physical anthropologists. The absence of a trained physical anthropologist or archaeologist at
recovery sites has been decried by many (Howard et al. 1988; Rhine et al. 1988; Sigler-
Eisenberg 1985; Warren 1984; Wolf 1986). Unfortunately, it continues to be the exception
rather than the rule that anthropologists have routine access to forensic cases in which they
could potentially offer information. This absence can result in limited information about the
scene circumstances (Krogman and Iscan 1986). The anthropologist’s involvement may be
invited only when it becomes apparent that there are problems distinguishing animal from
human bones, or when race, sex, stature, and age of human skeletal material is needed to aid
establishing an identity — frequently too late to be involved in the scene investigation.
There has generally been a lack of awareness of the discipline of taphonomy on the part
of forensic anthropologists and other forensic investigators. What has been proffered as
taphonomic insight has usually been highly qualitative. For example, T.D. Stewart (1979), in
his discussion of time since death, suggested that smell and color of bones, insects, amounts
of adhering earth or amounts of associated flesh, weathering, and animal damage to bone
could generate an “impression” of the postmortem interval. When one of us (WDH) partic-
ipated in the Green River serial murder investigation, taphonomic questions became much
more precise and salient regarding the effects of scavengers, characteristics that distinguish
tooth marks from other marks on bone, expected disarticulation patterns, and scavenger
modification of soft tissue. The forensic literature at that time (mid-1980s) offered little
information about these phenomena.
There are some structural reasons for the lack of cross-fertilization between forensic
anthropology and taphonomy. Most scientists who do taphonomic research tend to be inves-
tigating deaths which occurred in the prehistoric past; forensic anthropologists tend to inves-
tigate recent deaths. Second, the forensic literature is not marketed to the bioarchaeologists,
archaeologists, and paleontologists who do taphonomic research. Third, the taphonomic
literature is somewhat diffuse due to its multidisciplinary nature; and forensic anthropologists
usually do not stay abreast of the large number of journals in which taphonomic research is
published.
One goal of this volume is to bridge this gap and illustrate that taphonomic models and
approaches can be of use in forensic contexts. But, the second and more ambitious goal is to

©1997 CRC Press LLC

 showcase properly researched forensic cases and case series as a form of actualistic research
of potential interest to taphonomists. We invite a richer interplay between these fields and
between scientists.

Definitions
Taphonomy was originally proposed as a term meaning the study of death assemblages, or
the “laws of burial” (Efremov 1940). Bonnichsen (1989) extends the definition to encompass
the study of “the accumulation and modification of osteological assemblages from a site
formation perspective.” Olsen (1980) takes a slightly different approach in his definition,
focusing on reconstructing the life history of a fossil from the time of death to the time of
recovery; for him, taphonomy includes all aspects of the passage of organisms from the
biosphere to the lithosphere. Archaeologists are perhaps more likely to assume the unit of
analysis is the site, whereas paleoanthropologists and paleontologists may be more likely to
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 06:22 17 October 2016

assume an individual (or group of) organism(s) to be the unit of analysis.

In theory, these broad definitions of taphonomy presume a multidisciplinary approach:
biological, cultural, and geological. In practice, taphonomists have tended to come from the
sister disciplines of paleontology and archaeology (Johnson 1985) as well as paleoanthropol-
ogy. Primary goals emanating from these disciplines have included: (1) reconstructing paleo-
environments; (2) determining which factors cause differential destruction or attrition of
bone; (3) understanding selective transport of remains; and (4) discriminating human from
nonhuman agents of bone modification.
Forensic anthropology shares at least the last three of these goals. However, due to the
shorter postmortem interval, forensic anthropologists are also concerned with soft tissue
changes, including decomposition rates and patterns, disarticulation, dispersion of body parts,
and modification of both soft tissue and bone. In fact, traditional taphonomic studies can be
said to suffer from, for want of a better phrase, the myth of flesh. This bias manifests itself
in experimental research and analyses which treat skeletal elements as though they had always
existed without the encumbrances of skin, muscle, ligament, and other soft tissue.
Key goals which underlie forensic investigations, overlap extensively those of taphonomy.
These include: (1) estimating the time and circumstances since death; (2) distinguishing
postmortem conditions which may serve to confound human identification and the determi-
nation of the cause and manner of death; and (3) identifying factors which relate to the
survival of human remains and other evidence.
Forensic taphonomy, as we use the term in this volume, refers to the use of taphonomic
models, approaches, and analyses in forensic contexts to estimate the time since death, recon-
struct the circumstances before and after deposition, and discriminate the products of human
behavior from those created by the earth’s biological, physical, chemical, and geological
subsystems. We argue here that the immediate postmortem interval which includes soft tissue
decomposition should be a more explicit part of the taphonomic paradigm. And, to that end,
forensic anthropology has an important role to play, both in testing traditional taphonomic
hypotheses and approaches, and also in providing actualistic models from which to create
new taphonomic approaches.

Areas of Taphonomy Applicable to Forensic Anthropology

Research areas within taphonomy that have particular relevance to forensic anthropology
include reconstructing the scene (referred to in taphonomic literature as site formation), and
studies of transport and dispersal — including selective representation, bone modification
due to perimortem trauma, scavenging, and diagenesis.

©1997 CRC Press LLC

 Forensic anthropologists who participate in scene investigations and recovery of human
remains are faced with difficulties similar to those faced in archaeological excavations. First,
the scene must be interpreted. From a taphonomic perspective, one important consideration
is whether the site is a product of autochthonous (the same as where the death occurred) or
allochthonous (different from where the death occurred) deposition.
Estimating the time since death is a difficult process in both forensic and taphonomic
contexts, but one that needs to be done as part of the scene reconstruction. Obviously, the
precision needed is much greater in forensic cases — frequently in terms of days, weeks, or
months, whereas the margin of error in taphonomy may encompass hundreds of years. The
forensic anthropologist must frequently use other organisms’ biological patterns to construct
timetable models. For example, knowledge of the life cycles of sarcosaprophagous insects helps
determine time since death in the first two weeks, or seasonality thereafter. Understanding
the growth patterns of plants can assist in both absolute and relative dating of features within
the scene.
Studies of selective representation are of great interest in reconstructing pre- and post-
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 06:22 17 October 2016

deposition events. Incomplete remains may be the result of selective transport and dispersal
by water, scavengers, or due to preservation effects. And these events may have occurred before
or since deposition. Taphonomic models can assist with interpreting how a particular scene
assemblage accumulated, how it came to have a given spatial patterning, and how different
types of bone elements came to be associated.
Overlapping with research about selective representation is the rather voluminous tapho-
nomic research about bone modification (see, for example, Bonnichsen and Sorg 1989).
Included in that literature is research about the modification of external and internal bone
structure, about fracture patterns and differentiation of human from nonhuman agents, and
about the many other alterations of bone, such as cuts, scratches, polish, flakes, punctures,
desiccation, and discoloration. The interpretative effort is complicated by the fact that different
agents can produce the same alterations and, similarly, the same agent can produce many
alterations.
The taphonomic research has produced many distinguished studies and a watershed of
information potentially applicable in the forensic context. For example, models have been
advanced for:

1. Disarticulation sequences of mammalian carcasses (Clark et al. 1967; Hill 1979; Toots
1965; Voorhies 1969; Weigelt 1989).
2. Scavenging of carcasses (Blumenschine 1986a, 1986b; Haglund 1991; Haglund et al.
1989).
3. Weathering of bones (Behrensmeyer 1978; Johnson 1985).
4. Fluvial transport of skeletal elements (Boaz and Behrensmeyer 1976; Behrensmeyer
1982). These research studies provide rich starting points from which to base forensic
speculation.

This is not to say that traditional taphonomic information can be applied indiscriminately
to the forensic context. Of necessity, much traditional taphonomic information suffers from
biases innate to its origin in archaeology and paleontology. One obvious difference from the
forensic context, already mentioned above, is the longer temporal interval encountered in
archaeology and paleontology. This affects basic assumptions. For instance, bone density has
been a major concern of traditional taphonomists to explain skeletal element survival fre-
quencies. For the much shorter time spans of forensic settings, the relative anatomic position
of a skeletal element may be more influential to its survival and recovery than its density.
Density becomes more influential as time goes on.

©1997 CRC Press LLC

 Other themes of bias, specific to actual models, may confound application of taphonomic
models to specific forensic contexts. Behrensmeyer’s weathering model is biased toward the
extremely arid conditions in which it was developed (Behrensmeyer 1978). More applicable
are the shorter-term weathering characteristics specified in models of, for example, Johnson
(1985). Scavenging and disarticulation have been examined by many investigators, but the
focal questions are different, using varied carcass and scavenger models, and varied tissue
type perspectives (Blumenschine 1986a; Haglund 1991; Haglund et al. 1989; Haynes 1980,
1982; Hill 1979; Toots 1965). Pervasive among these is a bias of portraying the bone already
skeletalized, as explained earlier.
Despite these biases, it is clear that taphonomic models are not only applicable to forensic
research, they can be extended and improved by forensic examples.

Areas of Forensic Anthropology Applicable to Taphonomy

Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 06:22 17 October 2016

We hope to argue by illustration in this volume that forensic cases can function as modern
analogs of uniformitarian processes which also occurred in the remote past. In particular,
forensic cases are informative about the immediate postmortem interval, e.g., about the fate
of soft tissue and about the modification of fleshed and skeletalized “green” bone.
Further, because it is frequently possible to discover many of the independent variables
involved in the postmortem interval, a more thorough understanding of certain processes
results. These include: (a) what happens to flesh and bone in different environmental contexts;
(b) which modifications are the result of human vs. nonhuman agents or environmental
factors; (c) patterns of modification of certain scavengers; (d) patterns of fluvial or other types
of aqueous dispersion; (e) patterns resulting from natural disasters; and (f) patterns of imme-
diate postmortem transport. Each of these topics is covered within these pages.
Less traditional contributions to taphonomic research are also represented in this volume.
For example, studies of marine contexts (see Boyle et al.; London et al.; Rathbun and Rathbun;
Sorg et al.) fill a vacant niche, in that virtually all of the traditional taphonomic studies have
focused on terrestrial or fresh water contexts. Other relatively new areas illustrated here include
the modification of remains by insects (Haskell et al.), interpreting plants and fibers (Rowe)
and the degradation of DNA (Parsons and Weedn).

Research Methods and Trends in Forensic Taphonomy

The majority of data of taphonomic relevance produced by anthropologists and other med-
icolegal death investigators are limited to cross-sectional case observations. As a consequence,
articles and presentations relating to forensic taphonomy have been treated as anecdotal case
reports, based on a limited number of examples (Bass 1984; Brooks and Brooks 1984; Sorg
1986). Such anecdotes, normal for developing fields, either appear as “case study” presentations
at professional meetings or are incorporated into case reports that do not receive wide audience.
Although noteworthy, such case studies are limited in their contributions to theory building.
Taphonomic studies involving surveys of large numbers of cases of human remains are
in the minority (Galloway et al. 1989; Haglund et al. 1987; Morse 1983; Warren 1979). Most
forensic anthropologists do not routinely see large numbers of cases. Prospective longitudinal
observations in this area are the exception, including for example the decomposition studies
at Knoxville (Rodriguez and Bass 1985) and Project PIG in Colorado (France et al. 1992).
Experimental studies of fractures and saw marks are also excellent forensic contributions to
knowledge about the modification of bone (Symes 1992).

©1997 CRC Press LLC

 Suggestions for the Future of Forensic Taphonomy
Marshall (1989) itemized five hindrances to the future of research in his overview of bone
modification and taphonomy. They include:

1. Lack of standard nomenclature

2. Dearth of comparative case studies
3. Unsynthesized and scattered data sets
4. Limited data sets
5. Researchers who lack a broad knowledge base appropriate for this multidisciplinary
field

These problems are present in forensic taphonomy as well. However, forensic anthropol-
ogists can make a real contribution in offering well-documented comparative case studies, as
well as by working to alleviate the other problems in their own research.
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 06:22 17 October 2016

In particular, forensic taphonomists should be closely examining existing taphonomic

models with an eye to refining them to our foreshortened temporal needs and to control for
ideographic variation. We need to look more closely at our use of terminology, for example
in descriptions of fractures, in what is meant by adipocere and saponification, and how we
depict the condition of remains. We need to encourage the concept of collaborative case
assemblages for research purposes. This might overcome some of the hobbling effects of low
case volume and limited examples of particular types of cases in individual case loads.
The development of shared research paradigms is imperative. If the research plan is in
place, data can be collected routinely in the normal course of the forensic investigation without
interfering with the medicolegal process. And if data collection strategies are shared among
practitioners, the data sets will be more comparable and broader-based.
An optimistic forecast for taphonomy was expressed by Clyde Snow in his discussion of
decomposition and the dispersal of evidence in the Cattone and Standish Outline of Forensic
Dentistry (1982): “Eventually, as data accumulates, it should be possible to devise more
efficient search procedures for the recovery of evidence and also improve our estimates of the
time of death by a fuller understanding of the taphonomic factors involved.” We share his
hope that these and other taphonomic research goals can be achieved through careful work
and cooperation as this new field develops.

References
Bass, W.M.
1984 Will the Forensic Anthropologist Please Help? A Case of a Woman Eaten by Dogs.
Paper presented at the 36th Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences,
Anaheim, CA.
Behrensmeyer, A.K.
1978 Taphonomic and Ecologic Information from Bone Weathering. Paleobiology
4(2):150–162.
1982 Time Resolution in Fluvial Vertebrate Assemblages. Paleobiology 8:211–227.
Blumenschine, R.J.
1986a Early Hominid Scavenging Opportunities: Implications of Carcass Availability in the
Serengeti and Ngorongoro Ecosystems. British Archaeological Reports International Series
283, Oxford, U.K.
1986b Carcass Consumption and the Archaeological Distinction of Scavenging and Hunt-
ing. Journal of Human Evolution 15:639–659.

©1997 CRC Press LLC

 Boaz, N.T., and A.K. Behrensmeyer
1976 Hominid Taphonomy: Transport of Human Skeletal Parts in an Artificial Fluviate
Environment. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 45(1):53–60.
Bonnichsen, R.
1989 An Introduction to Taphonomy with an Archaeological Focus. In Bone Modification,
edited by M.H. Sorg and R. Bonnichsen, pp. 1–6. Center for the Study of the First
Americans, University of Maine, Orono.
Bonnichsen, R., and M.H. Sorg
1989 Bone Modification. Center for the Study of the First Americans, University of Maine,
Orono.
Brooks, S., and R.H. Brooks
1984 Effects on Bone of Abrasive Contents in Moving Water. In Abstracts of the First
International Conference on Bone Modification. Center for the Study of the First Ameri-
cans, University of Maine, Orono.
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 06:22 17 October 2016

Cattone, J.A., and S.M. Standish

1982 Outline of Forensic Dentistry. Standish Year Book Medical Publishers, Chicago.
Clark, J., J.R. Beerbower, and K.K. Kietzke
1967 Oligocene Sedimentation, Stratigraphy, Paleoecology, and Paleoclimatology in the
Big Badlands of South Dakota. Fieldiana: Geology Memoirs 5:1–158.
Efremov, I.A.
1940 Taphonomy, a New Branch of Paleontology. Pan-American Geologist 74:81–93.
France, D.L., T.J. Griffin, J.G. Swanburg, J.W. Lindemann, G.C. Davenport, V. Trammell, C.T.
Travis, B. Kondratieff, A. Nelson, K. Castellano, and D. Hopkins
1992 A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Detection of Clandestine Graves. Journal of
Forensic Sciences 37:1445–1458.
Galloway, A., W.H. Birkby, A.M. Jones, T.E. Henry, and B.O. Parks
1989 Decay Rates of Human Remains in an Arid Environment. Journal of Forensic Sciences
34:607–616.
Haglund, W.D.
1991 Applications of Taphonomic Models to Forensic Investigations. Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle. University Microfilms,
Ann Arbor, MI.
Haglund, W.D., D.T. Reay, and C.C. Snow
1987 Identification of Serial Homicide Victims in the “Green River Murder” Investigation.
Journal of Forensic Sciences 32:1666–1675.
Haglund, W.D., D.T. Reay, and D.R. Swindler
1989 Canid Scavenging/Disarticulation Sequence of Human Remains in the Pacific
Northwest. Journal of Forensic Sciences 34:587–606.
Haynes, G.
1980 Prey Bones and Predators: Potential Ecologic Information from Analysis of Bone
Sites. Ossa 7:75–97.
1982 Utilization and Skeletal Disturbances of North American Prey Carcasses. Arctic
35(2):226–281.
Hill, A.P.
1979 Disarticulation and Scattering of Mammal Skeletons. Paleobiology 5(3):261–274.
Howard, J.D., D.T. Reay, W.D. Haglund, and C.L. Fligner
1988 Processing of Skeletal Remains: A Medical Examiner’s Perspective. American Journal
of Medicine and Pathology 9(3):210–216.

©1997 CRC Press LLC

 Johnson, E.
1985 Current Developments in Bone Technology. In Advances in Archaeological Method
and Theory, Vol. 8, edited by M.B. Schiffer, pp. 157–235. Academic Press, New York.
Krogman, W.M., and M.Y. Iscan
1986 The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine. Charles C Thomas, Springfield, IL.
Marshall, L.G.
1989 Bone Modification and “The Laws of Burial.” In Bone Modification, edited by R.
Bonnichsen and M.H. Sorg, pp. 7–24. Center for the Study of the First Americans,
University of Maine, Orono.
McGuire, R.
1989 The Sanctity of the Grave: White Concepts and American Indian Burials. In Conflicts
in the Archaeology of Living Traditions, edited by R. Layton, pp. 167–184. Unwin Hyman,
London.
Morse, D.
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 06:22 17 October 2016

1983 Time of Death. In Handbook of Forensic Archaeology, edited by D. Morse, J. Duncan,

and J.W. Stoutmire, pp. 124–127, 148–153. Rose Printing, Tallahassee.
Olsen, E.C.
1980 Taphonomy: Its History and Role in Community Evolution. In Fossils in the Making:
Vertebrate Taphonomy and Paleoecology, edited by A.K. Behrensmeyer and A.P. Hill, pp
5–19. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Rhine, S., B. Curran, S. Boydstun, S. Churchill, P. Ivey, and M. Ogilvie
1988 Skeletonization Rates in the Desert. In Abstracts of the 40th Annual Meeting of the
American Academy of Forensic Sciences. American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Colorado
Springs, CO.
Robinson, M.A.
1981 Informing the Family of a Sudden Death. American Family Physician 23(4):115–118.
Rodriguez, W.C., and W.M. Bass
1985 Decomposition of Buried Bodies and Methods That May Aid in Their Location.
Journal of Forensic Sciences 30:836–852.
Sigler-Eisenberg, B.
1985 Forensic Research: Explaining the Concept of Applied Archaeology. American Antiq-
uity 50:650–655.
Smith, K.G.V.
1986 A Manual of Forensic Entomology. Comstock Publishing, New York.
Sorg, M.H.
1986 Scavenger Modifications of Human Skeletal Remains in Forensic Anthropology.
Paper presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic
Sciences, New Orleans.
Stewart, T.D.
1979 Essentials of Forensic Anthropology. Charles C Thomas, Springfield, IL.
Symes, S.A.
1992 Morphology of Saw Marks in Human Bone: Identification of Class Characteristics.
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Toots, H.
1965 Sequence of Disarticulation in Mammalian Skeletons. University of Wyoming Con-
tributions in Geology 4(1):37–39.

©1997 CRC Press LLC

 Ubelaker, D.H., and Grant, L.C.
1989 Human Skeletal Remains: Preservation or Reburial? Yearbook of Physical Anthropology
32:249–287.
Voorhies, M.
1969 Taphonomy and Population Dynamics of an Early Pliocene Vertebrate Fauna, Knox
County, Nebraska. Contributions in Geology, Special Paper, No. 1. University of Wyoming
Press, Laramie.
Warren, C.P.
1979 Verifying Identification of Military Remains: A Case Report. Journal of Forensic
Sciences 24:182–188.
1984 The Recovery of Human Remains: The Weakest Link in the Chain of Forensic
Evidence. In Abstracts of the 36th Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences,
Colorado Springs, CO.
Webb, S.
1987 Reburying Australian skeletons. Antiquity 61:292–296.
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 06:22 17 October 2016

Weigelt, J.
1989 Recent Vertebrate Carcasses and Their Paleobiological Implications. Translated by J.
Schafer. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Willey, P.
1981 Another View by One of the Crow Creek Researchers. Early Man 3(3):26.
Wolf, D.J.
1986 Forensic Anthropology Scene Investigations. In Forensic Osteology: Advances in the
Identification of Human Remains, edited by K.J. Reichs, pp. 3–23. Charles C Thomas,
Springfield, IL.
Zimmerman, L.J.
1989 Made Radical by My Own: An Archaeologist Learns to Accept Reburial. In Conflicts
of Living Traditions, edited by R. Layton, pp. 60–67. Unwin Hyman, London.

©1997 CRC Press LLC