Studies in Taphonomy: Bone and Soft Tissue Modifications by Postmortem Scavengers
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 5-2015 STUDIES IN TAPHONOMY: BONE AND SOFT TISSUE MODIFICATIONS BY POSTMORTEM SCAVENGERS Jennifer Ann Synstelien University of Tennessee - Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss Part of the Biological and Physical Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Synstelien, Jennifer Ann, "STUDIES IN TAPHONOMY: BONE AND SOFT TISSUE MODIFICATIONS BY POSTMORTEM SCAVENGERS. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2015. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/3313 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Jennifer Ann Synstelien entitled "STUDIES IN TAPHONOMY: BONE AND SOFT TISSUE MODIFICATIONS BY POSTMORTEM SCAVENGERS." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Anthropology. Walter E. Klippel, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: William M. Bass, Richard L. Jantz, Murray K. Marks Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) STUDIES IN TAPHONOMY: BONE AND SOFT TISSUE MODIFICATIONS BY POSTMORTEM SCAVENGERS A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Jennifer Ann Synstelien May 2015 Copyright © 2015 by Jennifer A. Synstelien All rights reserved. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Completion of this dissertation was only possible due to the timeless support of family, faculty, and friends. Foremost, my parents Stanley D. and Karen K. Synstelien gave me endless support and encouragement throughout my graduate studies. My older brother Jason often instructed me to hurry up and write my dissertation so that I could be finished with graduate school, and my younger brother Corey strategically reminded me of my career aspirations. I thank my major academic advisor, Dr. Walter Klippel, for his zealousness for teaching students the principles of taphonomy and for his many hours of research guidance and university support. And I thank Dr. Heli Maijanen for keeping track of me through reoccurring lunch appointments and email exchanges. I thank the Forensic Anthropology Center (FAC) at the University of Tennessee, which allowed me to make lengthy observations at the Anthropology Research Facility. In particular, Dr. Richard Jantz, Director Emeritus, and current board members Drs. Lee Meadows Jantz and Walter Klippel are recognized. Dr. Murray Marks, my master’s thesis chair, maintained an interest in my continued graduate studies. Drs. Lee Meadows Jantz and Rebecca Wilson Taylor provided valuable facility assistance and donor information. Finally, I thank Dr.William Bass, founder of the Forensic Anthropology Center, for providing me with the unique opportunity to study at the Anthropology Research Facility. This research was funded in part by the National Institute of Justice Grant No. 2002-LP- CX-K006 which was distributed by the Law Enforcement Innovation Center at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. The grant proposal was written and submitted by Dr. Walter Klippel and then doctoral student Michelle Hamilton after they conducted a preliminary study of raccoon scavenging at the Anthropology Research Facility. Additional research funding for equipment and supplies came in the form of two awards: a William M. Bass Endowment by the Forensic Anthropology Center and a Lewis-Kneberg Scholarship by the Department of Anthropology. The John C. Hodges Library Studio granted multiple, short term loans of a camcorder, which reduced equipment downtime while a project camera underwent repair. Dr. Craig Harper of Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries loaned two 35 mm wildlife cameras that reliably iii photographed animal-triggered events with minimal camera maintenance. Russ Hollingsworth and coworkers of the Video and Photography Center provided helpful recommendations on video equipment features and digital editing software. I also thank Andrea Synstelien, who twice revived equipment that had succumbed to environmental insults. Finally, I want to recognize the hard efforts of those faculty and staff who have dedicated years towards establishing the renowned skeletal collections housed within the Department of Anthropology. Much time and energy has been, and is being, invested in these lifetime endeavors. I am grateful for the opportunity to have been part of this program. iv ABSTRACT This study documented animal scavengers at the University of Tennessee’s Anthropology Research Facility. Remotely-captured digital video and still photography equipment was stationed at the outdoor human decomposition facility intermittently from September 2003 through October 2009. The primary scavengers of corpses were identified as the northern raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), brown rat (Rattus norvegicus), and white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus); and the primary scavenger of skeletal remains was the eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis). Among these species, the raccoon was the dominant scavenger and is the focus of this report. The captured imagery of raccoons documented four primary feeding behaviors at human remains: 1) scavenging soft tissue, 2) foraging in body cavities for late instar maggots en masse, 3) foraging for individual prepupae as they migrated away from the corpse, and 4) foraging for prepupae and puparia and other insects burrowed beneath ground litter and in the soil. As expected, these behaviors were largely sequential in appearance and their presence or absence depended on the conditions under which the corpse decayed, e.g., foraging for insect larvae did not occur at bodies placed in winter because few maggots were present. Raccoons at the facility preferentially scavenged on the musculature of relatively fresh bodies. Their feeding sites often appeared atypical of a mammalian carnivore, because once they chewed a hole through the skin, they repeatedly placed a forepaw—even a forelimb—deep inside the wound and extracted tissue by way of the newly-formed hole. Although fresher bodies were more extensively scavenged, raccoons modified corpses throughout flesh decomposition— especially, by chewing the fingers and toes. Bodies placed during winter were more intensively scavenged by raccoons in terms of total tissue removed and bone damage than those placed during fall or spring. Positional disturbances were noted at many bodies, but those placed in the spring incurred greater and more rapid skeletal disturbance and scatter due to warming temperatures and raccoons foraging within body cavities and the soil for maggots and pupae. v TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1! ARF history............................................................................................................. 8! General methods ................................................................................................... 11! PART 1. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................. 18! Introduction........................................................................................................... 19! The human skeleton .............................................................................................. 20! Taphonomy ........................................................................................................... 20! Animal modification ............................................................................................. 23! Carnivore..................................................................................................... 23! Rodent ......................................................................................................... 36! Ungulate ...................................................................................................... 42! Avian ........................................................................................................... 43! PART 2. NORTHERN RACCOON............................................................................................ 47! Abstract................................................................................................................. 48! Introduction........................................................................................................... 49! Methods................................................................................................................. 58! Results................................................................................................................... 59! Discussion and summary .................................................................................... 125! PART 3. VIRGINIA OPOSSUM .............................................................................................