Cut marks, saw marks, and forensic anthropology

Human skeletal remains are not a common occurrence at forensic scenes but, when present, they can preserve a great deal of information about the events surrounding the deposition of a corpse. Forensic anthropology, the field that specializes in the analysis of human skeletal remains in medico-legal contexts, has garnered a good deal of attention from the popular media in recent years. Most of that attention comes from Fox's drama series Bones, which ran from 2005 to 2017 and followed the exploits of forensic anthropologist Temperence Brennan (a character from the novels of forensic anthropologist Kathy Reichs). Suffice it to say, forensic anthropology is now among the most popular courses offered in anthropology departments (including at UNCG where I teach), and undergraduate concentrations and graduate programs in forensic anthropology have popped up across the country. 

Forensic anthropology encompasses a wide variety of methods and techniques, one of which is forensic taphonomy. Taphonomy, broadly defined, is the study of how organic remains (like skeletons) transition from living to static entities. In a forensic context, we ask the question "what happens to a person between death and discovery"? A class of taphonomic data, known as bone surface modifications, or BSMs, is particularly useful for answering this question. Marks on bone surfaces, like carnivore tooth marks, saw marks, insect damage, and the like, can provide critical evidence concerning an individual's death and their body's journey after death. Some insects, for example, are only active on the surface, so if we find damage from that particular insect on human bones, we can be sure that the bones were exposed on the surface, at least for some period of time. A few years ago, in a high-profile murder case in North Carolina, where I live, marks on the bones of a human skeleton were used to help identify the saw used to dismember a body. 

Last fall, my friend and colleague, Travis Pickering, who has spent the better part of 25 years studying taphonomy, was solicited to write a review on the use of BSMs in forensic anthropology for the journal WIREs Forensic Science. He graciously invited me to collaborate on the undertaking, and he and I spent the last year researching how BSMs were integrated into the forensic sciences and how they've been used in crime scene reconstruction. The result of those efforts is an article titled "Cruel traces: bone surface modifications and their relevance to forensic science." (I wish I could take credit for the clever title, but that was all Travis.) As much work as they are, I enjoy writing review articles that cover such a wide swath of a particular field of inquiry because they force me to explore literature that I otherwise might not even have come into contact with. 

Several key themes emerge in our review, namely that: (1) the study of BSMs developed first in the paleontology and archaeology of the mid- to late-1800s and was later adopted by forensic investigators; (2) ultimately, a BSM's utility for forensics (or any other field) is only as good as our ability to link that BSM with a particular process, and that link can only be established through systematic observations of a process actually producing a specific BSM; (3) the features of the BSM itself are not always enough to provide a positive identification, and contextual information must always be used (e.g., serrated knives and shark teeth create very similar striations on bones surfaces, but if the bones were recovered far inland, a shark origin is much less likely); (4) the admissibility of expert scientific testimony in federal courts (the so-called "Daubert" standards) privilege the validity of a scientific methodology over the expertise and experience of any one scientific expert.

As an example, consider a linear striation on the surface of a bone recovered from a crime scene. Now, we might logically interpret that mark to have been produced by a knife. That's all well and good, but lots of things can create a linear mark on a bone: a small, sharp sand grain on the ground, the tooth of a scavenging dog, and so on. How might we know that the knife is, in fact, the source of the mark? Well, for one, we need to conduct an experiment where a knife is observed to create a particular mark on a bone's surface (this can be done with donated human skeletal material or, more commonly, the bones of other mammals like deer or pigs). That way, we know for sure what a knife mark looks like. There are lots of different types of marks, though, and even the same knife can create slightly different marks depending on how it is wielded, so one experiment is typically not enough. However, what if a knife was found alongside the human skeletal material? This sort of contextual information, when considered along with the morphology of the mark itself, can provide additional clues and make our identification that much more probable. When this evidence is presented in court, its admissibility, at least according to federal standards, will have less to do with the experience of the expert witness than with the rigor of the methodology used to identify the BSM. 

Importantly, no methodology can definitively, with 100% confidence, identify the source of a particular BSM. Why not? Well, forensic investigators do not themselves witness a crime: the relevant details must be reconstructed. This is where we get the phrase "crime scene reconstruction" and its common association with archaeology, and for good reason. Forensic investigators are in many ways like archaeologists: whereas archaeologists use artifacts and architecture to reconstruct ancient cultures, forensic investigators use evidence to reconstruct a crime. This means, though, that we must work with probabilities, rather than absolute certainties. When we are able to match up a BSM from a crime scene to an experimentally produced BSM, it becomes highly probable, thought not absolutely certain, that the object that created the crime BSM is the same as the object that created the experimental BSM.

A major hurdle for forensic investigators is that some BSMs can be difficult to tell apart from each other. The marks produced by different types of saws, for instance, share many features. So, too, do the marks produced by different types of knives. With so much overlap, how similar do the little bumps, grooves, and edges of a crime BSM have to be to an experimental BSM to be considered "the same"? What features should we even be looking at, and how do we define them? One analyst's "deep groove" may be another's "V-shaped striation." This sort of inconsistency makes it difficult for BSM analysis to attain Daubert-level methodological rigor. Travis and I conclude with the suggestion that computerized image analysis of BSMs coupled with statistical classification might get us closer to reaching that level of rigor. Either way, it will be interesting to see how the field progresses from here.

Peccaries and sabertooths

I spent my spring break down in Florida--not at the beach, but at the Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville. The draw? Sabertooths. My colleagues and I have long been interested in the behavior of these large cats, largely because they shared the landscape with the early hominins that we study at places like Olduvai Gorge. With the exception of the La Brea Tarpits in California, there is no better place in the world than Florida to uncover evidence for sabertooths. The state's karstic landscape contains an almost unrivaled collection of well-preserved Pleistocene fossil assemblages, many of which include the skeletal remains of sabertooths. One of these cats, Xenosmilus hodsonae, lived in Florida between about 2.5 and 1.5 million years ago. A nearly complete skeleton, and the species' holotype, was found a few miles west of Gainesville at a site called Haile 21A. We visited the museum's Florida Fossil exhibit to see a cast of the skeleton.

Mounted skeletons in the main hall of the Florida Fossils exhibit. The
Xenosmilus skeleton is just right of center.

Found alongside this important fossil, inside an ancient sinkhole, was a large collection of extinct peccaries. We are interested in this assemblage because it may teach us a great deal about sabertooth feeding behavior. Our working hypothesis is that the peccaries were victims of predation and that Haile 21A itself represents a Xenosmilus den. The fossil assemblage was excavated in the early 1980s and is now housed and curated by the Vertebrate Paleontology section of the Department of Natural History in Dickinson Hall. The collection is expertly managed by Richard Hulbert, Jr., who is one of the leading authorities on the vertebrate paleontology of Florida and a genuinely nice person.

Collections room of the Department of Vertebrate Paleontology in Dickinson
Hall.

My colleagues Manuel Domínguez-Rodrigo, Lucía Cobo Sanchez, Enrique Baquedano, and I were given access not only to the fossil collection, but a fully functional lab, a photography rig, and comparative skeletal material.

Our assigned lab space in the Vertebrate Paleontology
Section. 

We spent about eight hours a day for the past week looking through ~1,600 peccary specimens. Now, its time to analyze the data, so stay tuned...

Shopping for rocks in the Olduvai Basin

The invention and proliferation of stone tool technology was one of the most significant events in human evolution--the ability to use stones as tools and, eventually, the wherewithal to modify them into sharp-edged knives and other implements enabled our early ancestors to access foods that would have been difficult or impossible to obtain and consume with their relatively small, unspecialized teeth. If you spend some time working with stones, it eventually becomes apparent that not all of them are created equal: some break easily, others are tough to fracture; some produce razor-sharp edges, others generate dull ones; some are close by and/or easy to get a hold of, others are far away and/or difficult to access; some are durable and last a long time, others are brittle and must be discarded after a single use.

Now, we know that a modern human can learn to recognize these attributes and, what is more, they can (not to say that they necessarily do) plan their days with them in mind ("well, let's see...there are two ways to get to the pond for fresh water, Path #1 and Path #2, but only Path #1 has an outcrop of durable rocks on the way, so I'll kill two birds with one stone and take Path #1"). The question, then, is this: to what degree did our early human ancestors appreciate the sometimes subtle differences among rocks, and what can this tell us about their cognitive capacities?

Before we can even answer this very interesting question, however, we need to figure out a way to (1) rank rocks in terms of their usefulness, and (2) determine where on the landscape early humans were getting their rocks in the first place. There is a long history of research on these topics in Paleolithic archaeology, and my colleagues and I added some data to the debate in a recently published paper in Quaternary International. My interest in the topic goes back to the late 2000s, when David Braun wrote a couple of really interesting papers on the stone tools from Kanjera South, a two-million-year-old site in Kenya. Most studies on rock "usefulness" are based on rather subjective and imprecise categories. These categories, and the studies that utilize them, have provided key insights, including the fact that rock selection by early humans was not random. Braun, however, explored the possibility that the material sciences might provide some useful tools to help archaeologists objectively describe the characteristics of rocks.

As I mentioned above, there are a host of features that one might consider when selecting a rock. We chose to concentrate on fracture predictability, largely because the creation of many types of stone tools involves breaking a rock into smaller (and hopefully useful) pieces. If a rock breaks differently every time you hit it, there is no way to predict what you're going to end up with. Sure, it might be useful, but, then again, it might not. With a rock that fractures predictably, though, you can be reasonably sure that the time and energy you've expended will pay off with the production of a useful tool. Flint knappers have known for a long time that homogenous rocks break more predictably than do heterogeneous rocks because they are stronger (they can resist strain) and more elastic (they can resist deformation) when impacted by an outside force. Thankfully, a rock's strength and elasticity are highly correlated with its hardness, something that can be quickly assessed with a rebound hammer. These nifty handheld devices, which were originally designed for use on concrete, fire a spring-loaded plunger onto the surface of a stone. The plunger then bounces back, or "rebounds," after impact. The distance of that rebound reflects the hardness of the stone. Braun and others have used this technique to estimate fracture predictability for the rocks available to early humans at several Pleistocene archaeological sites in Kenya.   

In 2014, we set out to produce comparable data in our neck of the woods, the Olduvai Basin of northern Tanzania. What is today a deep gorge surrounded by open grasslands was, about two million years ago, a stream-fed soda lake surrounded by lush vegetation. Largely unchanged, however, are the volcanic highlands that border the basin to the south and east and the numerous hills--remnants of Archean-aged metamorphosed bedrock--that rise above the plains. Importantly, both the volcanos and the hills are made up of rocks from which stone tools can (and, in the past, could) be made.

A view of Olduvai Gorge in the foreground and, in the background, Naibor Soit, a granulite outcrop from which quartz could be procured (photo: Amy Schnell).

With the help of students from the UNCG Olduvai Gorge Paleoanthropology Field School and Earlham College's Summer Collaborative Research Program, I and my good friends and colleagues Cynthia Fadem and Ryan Byerly have been traipsing around the Olduvai Basin hammering as many rocks as we can get a hold of. Since 2014, we've accumulated a database of 110 specimens, and some interesting patterns have emerged. It turns out that the volcanic rocks that occur as rounded cobbles within the seasonal streams that drain the volcanic highlands have high rebound values and, thus, high fracture predictability, while the metamorphic rocks from the hills show either intermediate or low rebound values. Now, if early humans were selecting their rocks based on fracture predictability, we might expect that most of the artifacts from the archaeological sites would be made from volcanic sources. It turns out, however, that among Olduvai's artifact assemblages, volcanic rocks tend to be very rare, while metamorphic rocks, especially those made largely of quartz, are very common, which implies that fracture predictability was not a major concern. But why not? We might interpret this pattern to mean that early humans in the Olduvai Basin were not clever enough to recognize the value of predictably fractured volcanic rocks. We're skeptical of this hypothesis, though, because experimental work indicates that there are good reasons not to select volcanic rocks, since they:

• usually occur as rounded cobbles, which are tough to flake because they don't have very many of the acute angles that make flake removal possible;
• require more raw muscle power to flake; and
• may not be as durable as other rock types.

What is more, the quartz-rich rocks in the Olduvai Basin:

• are readily available from conspicuous landscape features that are very close to most of the archaeological sites; and 
• are very friable, which, although reducing their fracture predictability, makes them relatively easy to smash into lots of small chunks, among which are typically a handful of useable tools.  

Finally, it's not like volcanic rocks were not utilized at all. In fact, early humans appear in some cases to have selected them over metamorphic rocks when they wanted to create handaxes rather than simple flakes. This makes sense given that the more complex production sequence of a handaxe probably requires a more predictably fractured rock. Unfortunately, you can't subject fragile artifacts to the impact of a rebound hammer. However, if you can tell where the artifact originally came from, we can correlate the hardness of our geological specimens with their archaeological counterparts without subjecting the latter to any damage. Well, in addition to hammering rocks, we also subjected them to X-ray fluorescence, which can help identify their chemical composition. The volcanic rocks are easily distinguished from the metamorphic rocks just by looking at them, but the metamorphic rocks themselves, even those from different hills, can look very similar to each other. Luckily, the chemical signatures of each metamorphic hill are distinct enough for statistical algorithms to correctly match chunks of rock to the correct hill with 75-80% accuracy.

In the future, we should be able to match Olduvai's metamorphic artifacts to the hills from which they were being collected, which in turn will give us an idea of how far early humans travelled when shopping for their rocks.

References:

Egeland, CP, Fadem, CM, Byerly, RM, Henderson, C, Fitzgerald, C, Mabulla, AZP, Baquedano, E, Gidna, A (2019). Geochemical and physical characterization of lithic raw materials in the Olduvai Basin, Tanzania. Quaternary International. doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2019.09.036

Research in Spain

I am very lucky to have received a Giner de los Rios fellowship from the Universidad de Alcalá for the 2018-2019 academic year.  During my stay in Spain, which will last from March to the end of April 2019, I will be working as a visiting researcher at the Instituto de Evolución Humana en África (IDEA), which is co-directed by my friend and colleague, Manuel Domínguez-Rodrigo. My main goals are to work with colleagues on the analysis of faunal material excavated from sites at Olduvai Gorge and to construct a comprehensive database of neotaphonomic studies.

My family and I have been here in Madrid for just over a week now and are enjoying what I am told is unseasonably warm weather. I will be posting now and again during our stay...