Taphonomic Patterning of Cemetery Remains ... - Wiley Online Library

PAPER

J Forensic Sci, January 2016, Vol. 61, No. S1 doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.12902 Available online at: onlinelibrary.wiley.com

ANTHROPOLOGY James T. Pokines,1,2 Ph.D.; Debra Prince Zinni,3 Ph.D.; and Kate Crowley,1 D.M.D.

Taphonomic Patterning of Cemetery Remains Received at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, Boston, Massachusetts

ABSTRACT: A sample of 49 cases of cemetery remains received at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, Massachusetts (OCME-MA),

in Boston was compared with published taphonomic profiles of cemetery remains. The present sample is composed of a cross section of typical cases in this region that ultimately are derived from modern to historical coffin burials and get turned over to or seized by law enforcement. The present sample was composed of a large portion of isolated remains, and most were completely skeletonized. The most prevalent taphonomic characteristics included uniform staining (77.6%), coffin wear (46.9%), and cortical Exfoliation (49.0%). Other taphonomic changes occurring due to later surface exposure of cemetery remains included subaerial weathering, animal gnawing, algae formation, and excavation marks. A case of one set of skeletal remains associated with coffin artifacts and cemetery offerings that was recovered from transported cemetery fill is also presented.

KEYWORDS: forensic science, forensic anthropology, taphonomy, cemetery remains, coffin wear, skeletal preservation The classification and processing of human skeletal remains received into a Medical Examiner office or similar setting are largely based upon their taphonomic state, including markers of previous burial or other depositional environments (including surface decomposition and dispersal in a forest or recovery from a marine environment) (1–7). The taphonomic alterations to bone caused by different depositional environments and the duration of deposition can be used to separate remains into the following categories (8): (i) recent remains, sometimes with associated soft tissue, that are of definite forensic interest; (ii) cemetery remains, whether recent or not, that likely do not represent criminal activity other than possible vandalism of burial sites; (iii) remains derived from historical/archaeological burials, which normally become the responsibility of state archaeological agencies (9); (iv) remains likely derived from anatomical teaching, trophy, and/or ritual contexts, which probably have not been buried (10); and (v) unknown remains that do not fit easily into any of the above-mentioned categories. Taphonomic changes brought about by the depositional environment (or the lack of certain changes) are crucial in the categorization of human skeletal remains as being of forensic interest or not and therefore their ultimate categorization and disposition. The taphonomic profile for human skeletal remains that originally derived from a modern or recent historical cemetery burial

1

Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, 720 Albany Street, Boston, MA 02118. 2 Boston University School of Medicine, 72 East Concord Street, L1004, Boston, MA 02118. 3 Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency, 310 Worchester Avenue, Bldg. 45, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Honolulu, HI 96853. Received 6 Oct. 2014; and in revised form 23 Dec. 2014; accepted 31 Dec. 2014. © 2015 American Academy of Forensic Sciences

is among the best-defined in forensic anthropology (6,11–15), in part owing to the frequent research that forensic practitioners have performed in their careers excavating or analyzing historical cemeteries (e.g., [16]). The ubiquity of remains from cemetery origins being turned over to law enforcement for identification also makes this research pertinent to medical examiner settings. Construction projects, natural erosion, deliberate vandalism, deliberate reuse of burial plots (14), or purposeful theft to obtain human remains for ritual activities (10) may expose cemetery remains. Coffins, especially those made of wood, do not present a constant burial environment, because the coffins simultaneously are decomposing with the remains contained within them (8,16). The protection afforded by the coffin (and by the depth of soil in which they are typically buried) includes acting as a barrier to the many colonizing invertebrate scavengers that would feed upon the remains if the body were buried shallowly in direct contact with the soil or deposited on the surface. In the early stages of burial, the coffin is likely to leak enough to allow water to enter but is intact enough to allow temporary pooling of the water, which is in contrast to remains buried directly in the generally well-drained sandy soils typical of Massachusetts. The pooling of water around the remains can alter their breakdown, as discussed below. As coffin breakdown continues, plant roots may gain initial access and infiltrate the skeletal remains. The slow collapse of the coffin will also allow sediments to come into direct contact with the remains and damage them through the force of the overburden crushing down, the direct contact of soil biota, more direct access by plant roots, and the effects of soil acidity. Eventually, no traces of the coffin wood may remain except for small fragments protected from decomposition by impregnating oxidation from coffin hardware (8). S71

S72

JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES

Taphonomic Characteristics of Cemetery Remains Criteria for the recognition of coffin remains have been compiled in Table 1. Berryman et al. (11,12) focused upon more recent remains from cemeteries, and their criteria include detailed information about soft tissue preservation and the effects of previous embalming. They also discussed the importance of artifactual associations. Sledzik and Micozzi (6) examined more broadly the processes that preserve human remains, including embalming and mummification, as well as the history of embalming. Schultz et al. (15) focused upon remains from historical and more recent cemeteries, including detailed descriptions of the taphonomic alterations occurring directly to the bone itself (i.e., remains for which no significant soft tissue was present). Rogers (14) further noted more recent types of coffin hardware and common items from cemeteries, including offerings of flowers and other items often left with graves. These criteria have been grouped into taphonomic/contextual subcategories and are described below. Soft Tissue Preservation Embalming can dominate the taphonomic state of remains over the short term, because embalming practices are designed

to slow the decomposition of soft tissue at least through the viewing phase of funeral rituals and in some cases far beyond (3,17–19). Embalming in the U.S.A. gradually became more prevalent and professionalized during the Civil War, which posed the problem of large numbers of individuals dying far from home during frequent summer campaigns. In addition, a large railway network was available to return bodies to their ultimate resting places (20). The goal was to have a viewable, natural-looking body to last throughout funeral proceedings and beyond, with the illusion of incorruptibility extending into the interment period. Indicators of prior embalming are emblematic of cemetery remains, except in those rare cases where archaeological material (3,6) is mistaken for more recent remains. Similarly, the presence of soft tissue alone does not indicate embalming, because desiccated tissue often survives for long periods on recent surface-deposited remains or in other special burial environments (such as bogs or fuel-saturated soil). The more extensive indicators found in soft tissue that may indicate previous embalming are detailed by Berryman et al. (11,12) and include brain preservation, differential decomposition where the trunk is better preserved than the appendages due to the concentration of embalming chemicals in the former, the presence of head and facial hair, cracked/flaking skin, and fabric impressions upon the face from coffin lid lining, and decomposition being

TABLE 1––Published taphonomic and artifactual characteristics typical of cemetery burials.

Characteristics Soft tissue preservation Embalmed tissue/embalming chemicals Brain preservation Differential decomposition: trunk better preserved through embalming than appendages Head/facial hair Cracking/flaking skin (like old paint) Fabric impressions on facial skin Decomposition at pressure points Bone condition Coffin wear at pressure points Exfoliation of cortical bone from wetting/drying Warping/deformation of bones Uniform staining, medium to chocolate brown (wood coffins) Uniform staining, orange-brown (above-ground crypts) Uniform staining, dark to black (iron coffins) Localized staining, green (Cu), red (Fe), or dark metallic (Hg) Localized staining, black (from early historical embalming compounds and decompositional products) Other taxa Plant roots adhering or plant root damage Mold growth on body, especially on skin assoc. with hand and face cosmetics Mold on bone from coffin environment Evidence of previous autopsy and embalming/associated artifacts Evidence of previous autopsy: Y-incision of trunk, transverse incision of the scalp Evidence of previous embalming: cribriform plate fracture Evidence of previous autopsy/embalming: sectioning of skull, cutting of ribs and sternum Artifacts: embalming (including eye caps, mouth formers, injector needles, clamps, trocar buttons, sutures, cotton packing, molding wax, eyelid glue, and funerary clothing) Other artifacts Coffin hardware, durable Coffin hardware, cardboard/plastic from modern economical caskets Grave markers Grave offerings (including flower pots, flower vases, foil covering, and plastic species identification tags) Period clothing or similar items

Berryman et al. (11,12) Cemetery

Sledzik and Micozzi (6) Autopsied/Embalmed

Schultz et al. (15) Historical/Cemetery

Rogers (14) Cemetery

X X X

X

X

X

X X X X

X

X

X X

X X X X X X X

X

X X X X X X X X

X

X

X

X

X X X X X

X

POKINES ET AL.

more advanced at pressure points where those portions of the body would have rested against the coffin floor. One must note that a variety of embalming chemicals were tried in the past (17,19), including compounds with arsenic (21). Bone Condition Even after soft tissue has decomposed, the taphonomic condition of the skeleton may indicate cemetery burial, especially when coffin wear is present. Coffin wear is the localized destruction of some portions of a skeleton caused by contact with a coffin, usually the floor (5,14,15). As decomposition of the soft tissue proceeds, some portions of the skeleton come into contact with the coffin floor. These skeletal portions are usually the posterior aspects of certain elements, especially the cranium, vertebral spines and arches, scapulae, innominates, and long bones (8,11,12). Coffin wear also has more time to accrue visibly if that element is not changing its position through further shifting. Smaller elements may not settle to the bottom in consistent ways or may become so disintegrated through acidic attack and other postmortem damage that it is not possible to classify their damage specifically as coffin wear. The damage occurs on account of the weakening of the bone by pooling acidic groundwater, as bone is highly susceptible to acidic attack (22,23). The affected portions may lose relatively flat patches of bone that sometime have a sheared appearance. The cranium often develops highly visible coffin wear, because the unaffected portions are often in relatively much better condition. Coffin wear also may form on bone surfaces in contact with the settling coffin lid or the walls (15), although the conditions that could produce this pattern are likely much more rare. Bones in coffins may also become warped under the same conditions that cause coffin wear: weakening of the bone through decomposition/acidic attack and compression (15). Warping is mostly likely to be visible on the cranium due to its weak structure relative to its size, large internal hollow space, and the large surface area over which compression can act; cranial asymmetry is also easy to detect visually. Cranial warping can be found in burials made in direct contact with soil such as frequently observed among many archaeologically known populations. Similarly, the conditions of wetting and drying within coffins may lead to cortical exfoliation, due to the outer bone layers being more susceptible to repeated cycles of expansion and contraction (11,12,14,15). While this same type of cortical exfoliation may go on in other cyclically moist environments such as burials in direct contact with soil, the coffin environment if still partially intact protects the weakened, detaching surface flakes and prevents their immediate shedding. Skeletal staining also tends to be different in coffins than in other depositional environments. In particular, skeletal remains from burials tend to stain uniformly and into various shades of brown, from medium to dark or even chocolate brown. Schultz et al. (15) noted that this latter shade and the general uniformity of staining are extremely rare in remains from other contexts. Schultz et al. (15) further noted that skeletal remains from above-ground crypts may stain a uniform orange-brown color, possibly from a lack of ground water and the presence of embalming chemicals. In addition, uniform dark to black staining has been associated with iron coffins (15,24), and localized black staining has been associated with embalming and decomposition among some historical burials (6). Tannins, a large group of highly soluble, high molecular mass, organic, polyphenolic compounds, are responsible for much of

.

TAPHONOMY OF CEMETERY REMAINS

S73

the brown staining. Tannins are found in trunks and other parts of plants, including the leaves and nut shells, and these compounds can leach into groundwater and stain bones even in noncoffin burials (25). Coffin wood is a particular source of tannins. A variety of species, both hardwood and softwood, were used in wooden coffin construction (26,27), but in general, lighter species of wood tend to have lower tannin content (28). The tendency of leaking wooden coffins to pool water around bones will also subject them to staining from leached tannins. This uniform staining is in contrast to the highly variable, mottled staining typical of skeletal elements from remains decomposing on the ground surface, where they frequently take on varied colors from organic decomposition, dark topsoil, and tannins from decaying leaf litter in patches around natural beige bone color. Other environments produce uniform color in the form of bleaching, such as that undergone by bones from marine environments (29). Skeletal remains from coffin burials also may exhibit localized staining due to contact with metals reacting with other compounds. The metals include copper (Cu), iron (Fe), and mercury (Hg), which can result in red, green, or dark metallic staining areas (15,30). Such staining, however, often occurs in burials in direct contact with soil or even surface-deposited remains. These include 20th century military field burials and airplane crashes that often have large amounts of iron- and copper-based alloy objects adjacent to bones and bone fragments (31). Other Taxa The presence of other taxa, including plant roots and mold, or traces of their taphonomic alterations to bone can sometimes derive from the bones’ cemetery origin, although these taxa are not unique to that environment. Archaeological remains buried in direct contact with soil will of course be even more susceptible to plant root invasion. Skeletal remains from coffins, however, can be in excellent condition with no signs of direct soil contact and still have significant plant root invasion, with dense root mats, roots infiltrating internal spaces, and surface etching left behind by contact with the plant roots and their later decomposition (8,15). Mold may grow on bones directly due to the damp coffin environment, and Berryman et al. (11,12) noted mold growth in particular on embalmed soft tissue with heavy makeup (e.g., the hands and face). Evidence of Previous Autopsy and Embalming/Associated Artifacts This subcategory includes specific alterations to the body or artifactual evidence directly associated with autopsies and embalming. For example, remains that have been autopsied previously likely originated from a cemetery. Exceptions to this pattern include skeletons that underwent autopsy prior to their use as anatomical teaching specimens. Such remains, however, should also retain signs of subsequent maceration, hardware mounting, and handling (10). Autopsies are routinely performed where there is any question regarding the cause or manner of death and are a frequent occurrence in most jurisdictions; therefore, evidence of previous autopsy is a frequent occurrence among modern cemetery populations in the United States. Typical autopsy-related alteration of soft tissue includes a Y-incision of the torso, cutting a transverse skin flap around the cranial vault, and removal of some internal organs (19). The skeleton is affected by the circumferential sectioning of the cranial vault

S74


to access the brain and the cutting of the rib cage, including sometimes the sternum (6), to access the internal organs. Sites of bone trauma, such as gunshot wound, also may be removed. Artifacts from embalming are typically items used to help maintain the cosmetic appearance of the body or to stabilize portions from shifting. The latter items include eye caps, which are used to hold the eyelids shut, and mouth formers, which are used to hold the mouth (12). In addition, injector needles (barbs) are set into the mandible and maxilla and have wires attached; the wires are then twisted together to seal the mouth closed. Small metal calvaria clamps are used to keep the sectioned calotte from moving (5). Cosmetic items include trocar buttons, which are small, cone-shaped, threaded devices used to seal the small incisions made during embalming by a trocar (32) and sometimes to seal gunshot wounds (19). Glue and sutures also may be used for closing eyes and mouths and to seal suture lines anywhere in the skin, and cotton packing and molding wax may be used to fill in missing tissue or to shape features. Damage to the cribriform plate may be caused if a trocar is passed through the nostril or the medial corner of the eye to inject embalming fluid (11,12,14,32). Mayer (19) even noted the recent use of sections of PVC pipe to replace long bones that have been removed for tissue donation. Funerary clothing may be a further indicator of cemetery origins, as typical clothing tends toward semiformal wear: suits for men and dresses for women, with the clothing and shoes often cut up the back to facilitate dressing (11,12,14). Other Artifacts Artifacts indicative of the burial environment are often useful in determining the origin of cemetery remains to confirm direct taphonomic changes to the remains (11,12,15). Even when the wooden portions of a coffin have completely decomposed, the remnant metal coffin hardware may persist and indicate the timeframe of the associated remains (27,33–38). Hacker-Norton and Trinkley (35), in their study of early coffin hardware in the United States, list seven major categories of metal coffin hardware commonly mass-produced by multiple manufacturers. The hardware includes the following: handles, thumbscrews and escutchions/escutcheons (thumbscrew plates), plates/plaques, caplifters, decorative studs, and white metal screws. Additional functional (vs. mostly decorative) coffin hardware types include metal closures, corner braces, casket rests, hinges, latches, corrugated fasteners, and box hooks (39). Wooden coffin construction also frequently used iron/steel nails, which sometimes can be used as temporal indicators based upon their type (cut nails gradually being phased out in favor of wire nails first used in the 1860s; [40]). The iron corrosion products from the nails may impregnate the adjacent coffin wood and preserve it while the rest of the coffin decomposes (8). Rogers (14) notes that more recent burials may be marked by inexpensive coffins made of cardboard with fixtures made of plastic. Associated period clothing can indicate original cemetery provenience (6,15). These items include buttons, which are often preserved after the fabric has decomposed or otherwise been made unidentifiable and are datable in some cases to specific periods (41,42), and snap fasteners (43). Other items that may be found in association with coffinderived remains include grave markers themselves and items normally left at cemeteries as offerings (14) such as fragmented flower vases, planters, bud holders, or small flags. Other personal votive offerings are highly variable in the contemporary U.S.A. (44,45) and therefore may not necessarily be distinguishable from the random association of some modern object.

Materials and Methods The present research examines the taphonomic profile of cemetery remains compiled from previous researchers relative to a cemetery sample accumulated at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, Massachusetts (OCME-MA), in Boston. The sample derives from at least two decades’ worth of remains turned into the OCME-MA or seized by law enforcement. These cases were available for examination due to their status as unidentified cemetery remains, comprising a cross section of typical cases in this region that ultimately are derived from modern to historical coffin burials. In several cases, provenience data were available for their exact cemetery of origin. The remains were received from all over Massachusetts, both urban and rural settings, and came from modern cemeteries, at least one modern unmarked cemetery burial, and marked and unmarked historical cemeteries. In addition, one case of former cemetery remains was excavated from private property to which they had been moved accidentally in transported cemetery fill along with cemetery artifacts. Given the long history of post-European contact burials in the state, many cases may have had a wooden coffin originally that decomposed and exposed the remains to direct sediment contact. Each set of remains was given a complete taphonomic analysis as an integral part of the biological profile (13). Where necessary, a stereoscopic microscope was used to examine bone surfaces. In addition to the cemetery taphonomic characteristics described above, the following characteristics were examined for preservational state of the bone (greasy, degreased but retaining an organic sheen, and degreased and chalky or friable in texture), cortical erosion from contact with acidic soil/water, weathering stage (46), presence of algae, excavation damage (tool marks), adhering sediment, postmortem breakage, animal gnawing (carnivore and rodent), hard water stains (CaCO3 and other mineral buildup), adipocere formation, and any other unusual characteristics or alterations. The total sample size is 49. One additional cemetery case was excluded from this analysis, as it consisted only of isolated adult teeth recovered during the excavation of another partial skeleton. No known nor suspected Native American burials were included in the analysis. For one case, adult and juvenile remains were received together but were separated for analysis, and all other cases were received singly. The skeletal representation for the sample is indicated in Table 2. Taphonomic Patterns Biological Profile—The majority of cases are represented by very few skeletal elements: 35 cases (71.4% of the sample) consisted only of single postcranial elements (usually long bones) or cranial remains (partial or complete). Even among the remains with multiple postcranial elements or cranial and postcranial remains, no skeleton was complete, and the majority had only a few elements present. No recently buried, intact bodies occurred in this sample. Some of the taphonomic changes expected in cemetery burials, including rodent gnawing or coffin wear, had only a small percentage of a complete skeleton upon which to manifest themselves and thus likely were present in higher percentages among the original, undisturbed skeletal population. Five sets of remains were juvenile, with estimated ages of 9 months, 2–4 years, 3–4 years, 3–5 years, and 6–8.5 years. The majority of remains (n = 25) fell into the category of adult or older juvenile, with a further 11 adults, two middle aged or older adults, and six probable older adults. Sex could not be esti-

POKINES ET AL. TABLE 2––Skeletal representation of the cases examined. Skeletal Portions Present

n

%

Single postcranial element only Multiple postcranial elements only Partial cranial remains only Largely complete cranium or skull only Cranial and postcranial remains Total

12 6 19 4 8 49

24.5 12.2 38.8 8.2 16.3 100.0

mated for 21 cases, with seven female, 12 probable female, seven probable male, and two male cases. Ancestry could be estimated for eight cases: one probable Asian-, one Asian-, three probable European-, two European-, and one probable Africanderived ancestry cases. Taphonomic Characteristics—Table 3 shows the results of the taphonomic analysis. As the present sample lacks any largely

.


S75

intact, recently buried bodies, several of the proposed taphonomic characteristics for remains from cemetery burials were not found such as brain preservation; differential decomposition of soft tissue; cracking of, mold on, or fabric impressions on facial skin; or soft tissue indicators of previous autopsy. Other characteristics more typical of better-preserved bodies were present in small amounts. Three cases (6.1%) had some remaining soft tissue, one with significant soft tissue and two with only minor amounts. The presence of embalming chemicals in these cases is unknown. The case with significant soft tissue consisted of a cranium with partial postcranial remains. The femora in this case had been severed by postmortem sawing, and the remains likely had been used as ritual or display items after their removal from a cemetery. This case was one of two (4.1%) that included head hair (Fig. 1). Coffin wear was common (Figs 2 and 3), appearing in 23 cases (46.9%). Of these, 12 cases had coffin wear on cases that were cranial only, nine were postcranial only, and two cases had

TABLE 3––Summary of taphonomic characteristics encountered. Characteristics

n

%

Embalmed tissue/embalming chemicals Brain preservation Differential decomposition: trunk better preserved through embalming than appendages Head/facial hair Cracking/flaking skin (like old paint) Fabric impressions on facial skin Decomposition at pressure points Coffin wear at pressure points Exfoliation of cortical bone from wetting/drying Warping/deformation of bones Uniform staining, medium to chocolate brown (wood coffins) Uniform staining, orange-brown (above-ground crypts) Uniform staining, dark to black (iron coffins) Localized staining, green (Cu), red (Fe), or dark metallic (Hg) Localized staining, black (from early historical embalming compounds and decompositional products) Plant roots adhering or plant root damage Mold growth on body, especially on skin assoc. with hand and face cosmetics Mold on bone from coffin environment Evidence of previous autopsy: Y-incision of trunk, transverse incision of the scalp Evidence of previous embalming: cribriform plate fracture Evidence of previous autopsy/embalming: sectioning of skull, cutting of ribs and sternum Artifacts: embalming (including eye caps, mouth formers, injector needles, clamps, trocar buttons, sutures, cotton packing, molding wax, eyelid glue, and funerary clothing) Artifacts: coffin hardware, durable Artifacts: coffin hardware, cardboard/plastic from modern economical caskets Artifacts: grave markers Artifacts: grave offerings (including flower pots, flower vases, foil covering, and plastic species identification tags) Artifacts: period clothing or similar items Bone preservation state Greasy Degreased, retains some organic sheen Degreased, texture is chalky/friable Cortical erosion Weathered (Behrensmeyer 1978) Algae Excavation damage Adhering sediment Postmortem breakage Gnawing Water stains (CaCO3 and other minerals) Adipocere

3 0 0

6.1 0 0

2 0 0 0 23 24 4 38 0 0 7 0

4.1 0 0 0 46.9 49.0 8.2 77.6 0 0 14.3 0

20 0 1 0

40.8 0 2.0 0

0 1

0 2.0

0

0

3 0 1 1

6.1 0 2.0 2.0

0

0

1 19 29 43 13 2 9 36 48 8 8 1

2.0 38.8 59.2 87.8 26.5 4.1 18.4 73.5 98.0 16.3 16.3 2.0

Comments 1 with significant dried tissue, 2 with minor

12 cranial only, 9 postcranial only, 2 both Minor to severe All cases cranial Medium to chocolate brown or red-brown 4 Cu, 3 Fe Etching, roots present, or both May have formed after exposure

36 WS0, 8 WS1, 4 WS2, 1 WS3

From minor to extensive 6 small-medium rodent, 1 large carnivore, 1 both Includes 4 crania with clear rings

S76


FIG. 3––Coffin wear to a posterior proximal right femur. Note the erosion of bone into a generally flattened area of the head, neck, and trochanters. The pale area on the proximal shaft is underlying bone exposed from subsequent rodent gnawing (note the parallel striations), and the dark patches around this area are algae formed during surface exposure.

FIG. 1––Cranium with hair adhering to the posterior vault.

FIG. 4––Cortical exfoliation to a portion of cranial vault. Note the spalling of the thin surface layer of bone, exposing the underlying pale bone. Plant roots also adhere.

FIG. 2––Coffin wear to a right temporal area. Note the erosion of bone into a flat, sheared appearance.

coffin wear on both. Of cases that included cranial remains (n = 31), 45.2% had visible coffin wear, despite the additional heavy fragmentation that was often present. It is possible that more of the present cases formerly had evidence of coffin wear, subsequently obscured by more generalized postmortem destruction of the previously weakened portions. The postcranial elements with coffin wear among the total sample included femora (n = 9), humeri (n = 2), innominates (n = 2), and an ulna. While the femur and innominate may be particularly susceptible to forming unambiguous coffin wear due to their morphology (8), a selection bias exists in the formation of this sample favoring large, easily visible elements recognizable as human bone by nonspecialists. Exfoliation of cortical bone (Figs 4–6), which may form from the repeated wetting and drying of skeletal remains inside a damp coffin environment, was found in 24 cases (49.0%). Warping or deformation of bones was less common, occurring in only four cases (8.2%). In each case, the warping occurred in the cranial vault, likely due to the coffin lid/overburden pressing down on a cranium already weakened by acidic dissolution.

FIG. 5––Cortical exfoliation to a femur shaft. Note the spalling of the thin surface layer of bone, exposing the underlying pale bone.

FIG. 6––Cortical exfoliation to a juvenile right femur. Note the spalling of the thin surface layer of bone.

POKINES ET AL.

No fracturing of the cribriform plate attributable to embalming was noted on any of the remains, but delicate portions of the facial skeleton often were missing or fragmented, and as indicated previously, several of the cases lacked cranial remains. Despite cranial fragmentation, one case (2.0%) displayed evidence of previous autopsy in the form of sectioning of the cranial vault (Fig. 7). As the cut marks are most consistent with a mechanical saw, this case likely postdates 1948 and the introduction of the Stryker saw (10). Some categories of staining noted in previous studies were not found in the present sample. None of the skeletal remains examined here had uniform orange-brown staining (associated with crypt burials; [15]), uniform dark to black staining (associated with iron coffins; [15,24]), nor localized black staining (associated with embalming and decomposition [6]). Many crypt burials are present throughout Massachusetts, and cast iron coffins did undergo a brief vogue in the U.S.A. from 1848 to ca. 1880 (17,24). Most of the cases (n = 38) displayed uniform medium brown (the most common), reddish-brown, dark brown, or chocolate brown (a single case only; Fig. 8) staining from the coffin environment. The other cases lacked uniform staining.

FIG. 7––Saw mark from autopsy to a left parietal fragment.

FIG. 8––Dark uniform staining to an anterior mandible, in this case a deep chocolate brown, with known dog gnawing to each exposed margin. Traces of desiccated soft tissue adhere between the teeth.

.


S77

While not as varied as terrestrially deposited remains, color variations included one case of variable red-brown staining (possibly influenced by iron rust), seven cases of variable medium brown color (medium brown usually interrupted with darker areas from organic decomposition), and one case of variable medium brown to gray color. In addition to their overall staining, seven cases also had small areas of localized staining attributable to oxidizing metal in contact with the bone. Four of these seven cases had green staining from probable copper reactions, and three had red rust staining from iron oxidation. The sources of metal could have been from coffin hardware or personal items buried with the bodies. Biological growth on the bones took two forms. Mold growth directly on bone was noted in one case (2.0%). This mold, however, may have formed after exposure from the coffin environment and the greater access to spores at that time. Interaction from plant roots was much more prevalent and found in 20 cases (40.8%), including roots infiltrating trabecular and medullary spaces, roots adhering to exterior surfaces (Figs 5 and 9), and etching left behind by adhering roots. Artifactual evidence was uncommon, likely due to the isolation of scattered elements away from more complete skeletons and associated cemetery evidence or through deliberate lack of retention by the persons initially finding the bones. No recent, inexpensive plastic coffin hardware as described by Rogers (14) was associated with any of these cases, and only three were associated with durable coffin hardware. The most elaborate of these cases is described below, which also included the only association with grave markers and grave offerings (14). Neither embalming artifacts (including eye caps or mouth formers) nor period clothing was associated with these cases. The additional taphonomic characteristics examined in the present research indicate overall that the sample was buried for a significant period and in some cases exposed on the surface after exhumation and prior to discovery. Only one case (2.0%) had skeletal remains with a still-greasy texture, and this case also had the most adhering desiccated soft tissue. Most cases (n = 29; 59.2%) had skeletal remains that had broken down to such an extent that they no longer retained any sheen from their organic content, and their surface texture was chalky to friable/ crumbly. Nineteen cases (38.8%) were fully degreased but

FIG. 9––Dense root mat adhering to the interior of a juvenile frontal.

S78


retained some organic sheen. Only one case (2.0%) retained a trace of adipocere from previous decomposition. Skeletal breakdown is also indicated by the prevalence of cases (n = 43; 87.8%) displaying cortical erosion from acidic soil/water contact, ranging from light to severe. These cases also include instances where patterned cortical erosion indicated coffin wear. Almost all cases (n = 48; 98.0%) displayed some kind of postmortem breakage, ranging from minor to severe. Some of this postmortem breakage may have been caused by inexpert excavation, as nine cases (18.4%) displayed deep gouges typical of heavy tool impacts (Fig. 10). This high rate of tool marks is not surprising, given that many of these remains may have been exposed through construction work or deliberate vandalism. Sediments adhered in 36 cases (73.5%), likely from coffin decomposition/collapse followed by sediment infiltration or from being dumped on the ground surface. A period of surface exposure in an unprotected environment must have been a frequent occurrence, as 13 cases (26.5%) showed some degree of bleaching and cracking from subaerial weathering (Fig. 11). Following the

FIG. 10––Tool mark on a right humerus mid-shaft.

FIG. 11––Large area of weathering on the posterior and right vault hemisphere (down side) of a cemetery cranium partially exposed on the surface. Note the uniform staining to the remainder (minus pale areas exposed through postmortem breakage).

system of Behrensmeyer (46), eight of these had reached weathering stage 1 (WS1), four had reached WS2, and one had reached WS3. Two (4.1%) of the cases that also displayed weathering had some green algae stains (Fig. 3) indicating surface exposure in a moist environment. Eight sets of remains (16.3%) had some type of animal damage: six with the parallel striations indicating small rodent gnawing (Figs 3 and 12), one with the tooth marks and ragged margins indicative of large carnivore gnawing, and one with both. The case with large carnivore gnawing only (Fig. 8) was initially found by a dog being walked near a cemetery; the dog was seen gnawing the bone before it was retrieved by the owner and reported to the police. This bone retained no greasy texture but had a small amount of desiccated soft tissue adhering. As a further indicator of the taphonomic processes of the coffin environment, scaly white mineral buildup likely composed primarily of CaCO3 from evaporating hard water was found in eight cases (16.3%). In four of these cases, this buildup was in the form of a clear ring on the endocranial surface (Figs 13 and 14), indicating repeated pooling of water inside the coffin with the crania remaining largely unchanged in their orientation for a period of time. In each of these four cases, the water ring was accompanied by and aligned with an area of coffin wear, which appeared on the lowest point of the cranium when the water ring

FIG. 12––Extensive small-medium rodent gnawing to a right tibia shaft.

FIG. 13––Water ring formation on the endocranial surface of a cemetery cranium in the approximate orientation in which it rested when the water ring formed; not visible is the coffin wear that formed on the portion of the cranium in contact with the coffin bottom.

POKINES ET AL.

FIG. 14––Close-up of water ring formation from Fig. 13. Note the white, scaly mineral buildup.

was oriented in a level plane. Given that the postmortem breakage encountered among the cranial remains was likely accelerated by the localized destruction of coffin wear, water ring formation inside crania may be higher in general than detected here. Other taphonomic characteristics noted in only a single case included: (i) patches of blue-green pigment of unknown origin on a frontal, (ii) bright red staining (not due to rust) of unknown origin on a cranial vault, and (iii) candle wax and cobwebs on one cranium repurposed after exhumation as a candle holder/

.


S79

display item. One case with habitual pipe-clenching wear on some anterior teeth was also noted. Pipe use causing significant wear was more common historically than in recent decades, helping to date the remains in question as likely coming from an older burial. The present sample also includes one atypical case of cemetery remains accidentally transported in fill. These remains initially were reported by a homeowner in 2012, who found fragmented human skeletal remains in her garden plot and notified the local police. Police investigation revealed that the previous (now deceased) owner of the home had worked in a local Catholic cemetery and had transported home loose fill for grading the yard and other projects over the years. Further evidence of his involvement included multiple no-longer-used headstones and other stone cemetery pieces that he brought home for decorative purposes. Excavation of the fill deposit uncovered a partial cranial and postcranial skeleton in fair condition of an older adult female of probable European-derived ancestry. The minimum number of individuals was one, and the taphonomic condition of the remains was consistent throughout. Along with these remains, multiple artifacts were collected, several of which were incidental inclusions of modern origin. Other artifacts (Fig. 15), however, were metal coffin hardware (including handles, nails, and hinges) and fragments of inexpensive glass flower vases, a typical modern cemetery offering (14). That the remains were of modern cemetery origin was confirmed by the presence of composite resin dental restorations, which were introduced first in

FIG. 15––Coffin hardware and cemetery offerings found in association with cemetery remains accidentally transported and reburied in fill. The items include (left side) coffin handles, portions thereof, and thumb screws, (top center) fragments of clear and white glass vases, (bottom center) possible hardware items, and (right) nail fragments.

S80


1962 (47). Given the accompanying evidence, the remains were able to be returned to the cemetery of origin for reburial. Discussion and Summary Massachusetts has among the longest histories in the U.S.A. of cemetery burial, with the state’s first permanent European settlement dating to 1620. A great deal of research has been performed upon the varying styles of stone grave markers that have been employed in Massachusetts and the surrounding states over the successive centuries (48–51). A majority of early graves in the state were either unmarked or had markers made of perishable wood, based on the records of buried individuals for some cemeteries far outweighing the number of stone markers present (48). Accordingly, cemetery remains are often uncovered in unexpected places through construction work or erosion, even within the limits of known cemeteries that contain a mixture of marked and unmarked graves. Similarly unmarked historical graves may be a common occurrence from the early European settlement phase of several states. In all areas of the U.S.A., vandalism of marked graves is a major source of skeletal disturbance, and multiple cases in the present sample are known or suspected to have resulted from vandalism to marked cemeteries. The present research does not in any way invalidate the cemetery taphonomic characteristics presented by previous authors (6,11,12,14,15) but indicates that there are some situations where a specific subset of these characteristics is more applicable than in others. In cases that do not involve largely intact bodies, most signs of embalming and soft tissue alteration will no longer be available for analysis. Thus, many of the taphonomic characteristics described by Berryman et al. (11,12) and Sledzik and Micozzi (6) were not present or were very rare in the present sample. Indeed, very few cases with any remaining soft tissue composed the sample. The recentness of origin is also conveyed through the overall preservation of the present sample, in that only one case (2.0%) retained a greasy texture to the remains, 38.8% were fully degreased but retained some organic sheen (due to collagen retention), and 59.2% were fully degreased and had a chalky or friable texture all over. This pattern indicates that the remains examined here had been deposited in most cases over a long enough interval to result in significant breakdown of the bone structure, beyond that of the soft tissue breakdown. Similarly, most of the remains in the present sample were separated from any artifacts that may have been associated when buried. Uniform staining was present in over three quarters of cases, and exfoliation of cortical bone from wetting and drying cycles and coffin wear were each present in almost half of the cases. These characteristics are more in keeping with those reported by Schultz et al. (15), who drew their taphonomic patterns largely from intact skeletons excavated from known historical cemeteries in the U.S.A. Direct taphonomic alterations to the bones therefore take on a greater importance when isolated remains or partial skeletons are all that is received into a medical examiner office, especially those from older cemetery contexts (i.e., those likely dating in some cases to the 1800s or 1700s). Other taphonomic alterations also may be useful in the determination of cemetery origin. Plant roots were common among cases in this sample (40.8%). Bones serve as a rich source of some nutrients to plants (8), so it is unsurprising that plant roots invade even otherwise intact coffins (15). The presence of plant root invasion therefore does not necessarily indicate that bones were directly exposed to sediments through the complete disintegration or collapse of the coffin. Similarly, sediments adhered in

most cases (73.5%) and cortical erosion to some degree was present in all but one (98.0%). These types of alterations, however, may be present in surface-deposited remains in contact with acidic topsoil or from archaeological burials predating cemetery burials or in clandestine burials from historic or modern periods. Further research into the specific taphonomic profiles of remains from various settings is required to determine the relative amounts and higher-order patterning (i.e., which types of alterations covary with each other) of taphonomic changes over larger samples and from multiple deposition scenarios. Clearly, taphonomic alterations do not cease after remains are deposited into a coffin nor after the remains are purposely or accidentally exhumed. The subsequent changes may partially mask their initial coffin origin, because both coffin breakdown and direct interment in the earth (i.e., without a coffin) will admit plant roots, sediment, and soil water into contact with the remains. Once cemetery remains are disturbed and left on the ground, they become susceptible to taphonomic processes typically associated with surface-deposited remains from recent forensic cases, including carnivore gnawing, rodent gnawing, weathering, and algae growth (13). Prior traces of cemetery taphonomic processes may still be visible, including coffin wear and (otherwise) uniform staining. The probable origin of even isolated skeletal remains may be determined with careful taphonomic analysis, and future research should address a variety of taphonomic scenarios and their varying patterns of bone alteration. Acknowledgments The authors thank Dr. Henry Nields and the OCME, Massachusetts, for their kind permission to publish this research. Dr. Joan Baker and Dr. Ericka L’Abbe are thanked for their useful comments on this research, as are the two anonymous peer reviewers. References 1. Duhig C. Non-forensic remains: the use of forensic archaeology, anthropology, and burial taphonomy. Sci Justice 2003;43:211–4. 2. Hughes C, Juarez C, Zephro L, Fowler G, Chacon S. Past or present? Differentiating California prehistoric Native American remains from forensic cases: an empirical approach. Int J Osteoarchaeol 2012;22:110– 8. 3. Micozzi MS. Postmortem change in human and animal remains: a systematic approach. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1991. 4. Nawrocki SP. Forensic taphonomy. In: Blau S, Ubelaker DH, editors. Handbook of forensic archaeology and anthropology. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 2009;284–94. 5. Schultz JJ. Determining the forensic significance of skeletal remains. In: Dirkmaat DC, editor. A companion to forensic anthropology. Chichester, U.K: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012;66–84. 6. Sledzik P, Micozzi MS. Autopsied, embalmed, and preserved human remains: distinguishing features in forensic and historic contexts. In: Haglund WD, Sorg MH, editors. Forensic taphonomy: the postmortem fate of human remains. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1997;483–95. 7. Ubelaker DH. Historic cemetery analysis: practical considerations. In: Grauer A, editor. Bodies of evidence: reconstructing history through skeletal analysis. New York, NY: Wiley-Liss, 1995;37–48. 8. Pokines JT, Baker JE. Effects of burial environment on osseous remains. In: Pokines JT, Symes SA, editors. Manual of forensic taphonomy. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2014;73–114. 9. Garman JC. “This church is for the living”: an assessment of archaeological standards for the removal of cemeteries in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. Northeast Hist Archaeol 1996;25:1–12. 10. Paolello JM, Klales AR. Contemporary cultural alterations to bone. In: Pokines JT, Symes SA, editors. Manual of forensic taphonomy. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2014;181–99.

POKINES ET AL. 11. Berryman HE, Bass WM, Symes SA, Smith OC. Recognition of cemetery remains in the forensic setting. J Forensic Sci 1991;36:230–7. 12. Berryman HE, Bass WM, Symes SA, Smith OC. Recognition of cemetery remains in the forensic setting. In: Haglund WD, Sorg MH, editors. Forensic taphonomy: the postmortem fate of human remains. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1997;165–70. 13. Pokines JT, Symes SA, editors. Manual of forensic taphonomy. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2014. 14. Rogers TL. Recognition of cemetery remains in a forensic context. J Forensic Sci 2005;50:5–11. 15. Schultz JJ, Williamson M, Nawrocki SP, Falsetti A, Warren M. A taphonomic profile to aid in the recognition of human remains from historic and/or cemetery contexts. Fla Anthropolo 2003;56:141–7. 16. Nawrocki SP. Taphonomic processes in historic cemeteries. In: Grauer A, editor. Bodies of evidence: reconstructing history through skeletal analysis. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1995;49–66. 17. Habenstein RW, Lamers WM. The history of American funeral directing, 5th edn. Brookfield, WI: Burton & Mayer, 2001. 18. Mann RW, Bass WM, Meadows L. Time since death and decomposition of the human body: variables and observations in case and experimental field studies. J Forensic Sci 1990;35:103–11. 19. Mayer RG. Embalming: history, theory, and practice, 5th edn. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2012. 20. Faust DG. This republic of suffering: death and the American Civil War. New York, NY: Vintage, 2008. 21. Brenner E. Human body preservation – old and new techniques. J Anat 2014;224:316–44. 22. Gordon CG, Buikstra JE. Soil pH, bone preservation, and sampling bias at mortuary sites. Am Antiquity 1981;46:566–71. 23. Lyman RL. Vertebrate taphonomy. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1994. 24. Owsley DW, Compton BE. Preservation in late 19th century iron coffin burials. In: Haglund WD, Sorg MH, editors. Forensic taphonomy: the postmortem fate of human remains. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1997;511–26. 25. Zelinka SL, Stone DS. The effect of tannins and pH on the corrosion of steel in wood extracts. Mater Corros 2011;62:739–44. 26. Holloway RG. Appendix B: analysis of wood remains from the Morgan Chapel Cemetery, 41 BP 200. In: Taylor AJ, Fox AA, Cox JW, editors. Archaeological investigations at Morgan Chapel Cemetery (41 BP 200), a historic cemetery in Bastrop County, Texas. San Antonio, TX: The University of Texas/Center for Archaeological Research, 1986;73–6, Archaeological Survey Report No. 146. 27. Pye JW. A look through the viewing glass: social status and grave analysis in a 19th century Kansas cemetery [M.A. thesis]. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas, 2007. 28. Barbehenn RV, Constabel CP. Tannins in plant-herbivore interactions. Phytochemistry 2011;72:1551–65. 29. Higgs N, Pokines JT. Marine environmental alterations to bone. In: Pokines JT, Symes SA, editors. Manual of forensic taphonomy. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2014;143–79. 30. Dupras TL, Schultz JJ. Taphonomic bone staining and color changes in forensic contexts. In: Pokines JT, Symes SA, editors. Manual of forensic taphonomy. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2014;315–40. 31. Pokines JT. Forensic recoveries of U.S. war dead and the effects of taphonomy and other site-altering processes. In: Steadman DW, editor. Hard evidence: case studies in forensic anthropology, 2nd edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2009;141–54.

.


S81

32. Iserson KV. Death to dust: what happens to dead bodies? Tucson. AZ: Galen Press, 1994. 33. Bell EL. The historical archaeology of mortuary behavior: coffin hardware from Uxbridge, Massachusetts. Hist Archaeol 1990;24:54–78. 34. Davidson JM. Keeping the Devil at bay: the shoe on the coffin lid and other grave charms in 19th and early 20th Century America. Int J Hist Archaeol 2010;14:614–49. 35. Hacker-Norton D, Trinkley M. Remember man thou art dust: coffin hardware of the early twentieth century. Columbia, SC: Chicora Foundation, 1984; Research Series 2. 36. Pye JW, Smith HC, Roper DC. Excavations at the Meadowlark Cemetery, Manhattan. Curr Archaeolo KS 2004;5:77–92. 37. Pye JW, Smith HC, Roper DC. “With no Stillman among them”: reburial of the Stillman Family Cemetery, Manhattan, Kansas. Curr Archaeolo KS 2007;8:20–34. 38. Trinkley M, Hacker-Norton D. Analysis of coffin hardware from 38CH778, Charleston County, South Carolina. Columbia, SC: Chicora Foundation, Inc., 1984; Research Series 3. 39. Bond CL, Hoyt SD, Baxter E. Archaeological investigation report Allen Parkway Village, 41HR886 Houston, Harris County, Texas. In: Foster ER, Nance LA, editors. Austin, TX: PBS&J, Inc., 2002. 40. Priess P. Wire nails in North America. Bull Assoc Pres Tech 1973;5:87–92. 41. Luscomb SC. The collector’s encyclopedia of buttons. New York, NY: Bonanza Books, 1967. 42. Peacock P. Antique buttons: their history and how to collect them. New York, NY: Drake Publishers, 1973. 43. Rose JC, Santeford LG. Burial interpretations. In: Rose JC, editor. Gone to a better land: a biohistory of a rural black cemetery in the post-reconstruction south. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Archeological Survey, 1985;130–45; Research Series No. 25. 44. Elliott JR. Funerary artifacts in contemporary America. Death Stud 1990;14:601–12. 45. Hass KA. Carried to the wall: American memory and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1998. 46. Behrensmeyer AK. Taphonomic and ecologic information from bone weathering. Paleobiology 1978;4:150–62. 47. Schulein TM. Significant events in the history of operative dentistry. J Hist Dentistry 2005;53:63–72. 48. Thomas K. History of the south end burying grounds [editorial]. Historic Burying Grounds Initiative Newsletter 2014;4(1):1, 5–10; http://www. cityofboston.gov/images_documents/Spring%202014%20hbgi_tcm3-44657. pdf. 49. Deetz J. In small things forgotten: an archaeology of early American life. Rev exp ed. New York, NY: Anchor Books, 1996. 50. Dethlefsen EN, Deetz J. Death’s heads, cherubs, and willow trees: experimental archaeology in Colonial cemeteries. Am Antiquity 1966;31:502–10. 51. Heinrich AR. “Remember me. . .” but “be mindfull of death”: the artistic, social, and personal choice expressions observed on the gravemarkers of eighteenth century Monmouth County, New Jersey. NJ Hist 2011;126:26–57. Additional information and reprint requests: James T. Pokines, Ph.D. Office of the Chief Medical Examiner 720 Albany Street Boston, MA 02118 E-mail: [email protected]