Cited by 18Forensic Entomology and Diptera StudiesForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesAutopsy Techniques and Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Disarticulation sequences and scattering patterns in temperate southeastern Australia

Cameron, Alyce Clare, Oxenham, Marc·2012·Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences

Abstract

The effects of scavenging vertebrates and invertebrates on the processes of carcase disarticulation and skeletal scattering have been limited methodologically. This pilot study used controlled animal model research over three months during late autumn/early winter in temperate southeastern Australia to generate disarticulation sequences and skeletal scattering patterns. Four Sus scrofa (White hybrid) placed on the natural ground surface outdoors were subjected to two treatments, caged for two weeks and uncaged for the experimental phase, and observed as they decomposed, disarticulated and scattered. There was a similar disarticulation sequence among the four carcases, regardless of treatments. Ribs, cervical and thoracic vertebrae and the cranium disarticulated early in the sequence, while the forelimbs, hind-limbs, rump and lumbar vertebrae disarticulated later. The scattered skeletal material consisted mostly of back/chest elements. It is concluded that the differing disarticulation sequences between this study and published accounts is related to the effects of the invertebrates both on the scavenging behaviour of vertebrates and the process of disarticulation. The implications for forensic investigations involving scavenged remains include the ability to improve search and relocation methods, time-since-death estimation and a greater understanding of the processes occurring after death.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00450618.2011.650206

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. Oxenham M F, 2008, Forensic approaches to death, disaster and abuse, p. 1
  2. Dirkmaat D C, 1997, Forensic taphonomy: the postmortem fate of human remains, p. 39
  3. Lyman, RL. 1994. Vertebrate taphonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  4. Sorg M H, 2002, Advances in forensic taphonomy: method, theory and archaeological perspectives, p. 3
  5. 10.1002/oa.833 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1007/s12024-007-0016-3 · DOI
  7. 10.1071/ZO01010 · DOI
  8. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.01.006 · DOI · Paper page
  9. D'Andrea A C, 1984, Arctic, 37, 276, 10.14430/arctic2201 · DOI
  10. Haglund W D, 1997, Forensic taphonomy: the postmortem fate of human remains, p. 367
  11. Haglund W D, 1989, J Forensic Sci, 38, 587, 10.1520/JFS12679J · DOI
  12. 10.2307/279115 · DOI
  13. Hill A, 1979, Paleobiology, 5, 261, 10.1017/S0094837300006552 · DOI
  14. Willey P, 1989, J Forensic Sci, 34, 894, 10.1520/JFS12718J · DOI · Paper page
  15. Hill A, 1984, Paleobiology, 10, 366, 10.1017/S0094837300008332 · DOI
  16. 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00134.x · DOI · Paper page
  17. Oliver J S, 1994, Palaeobiology, 20, 229, 10.1017/S0094837300012707 · DOI
  18. Morton R J, 2002, Advances in forensic taphonomy: method, theory and archaeological perspectives, p. 151
  19. Cameron A C, A forensic study of disarticulation, scattering and scavenging [honours thesis]
  20. National Capital Development Commission, 1984, The ecological resources of the ACT
  21. Drennan R D, 1996, Statistics for archaeologists: a commonsense approach, 10.1007/978-1-4899-0165-1 · DOI
  22. Toots H, 1965, University of Wyoming Contributions to Geology, 4, 37
  23. 10.1139/z04-022 · DOI
  24. 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12378.x · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Cameron, A. C., & Oxenham, M.
Affiliations
Australian National University (AU)
Corresponding author
Cameron, Alyce Clare
Venue
Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences
Published
2012-06
Volume
44
Issue
2
Pages
197-211
ISSN
  • 0045-0618 (ISSN-L)
  • 1834-562X
OpenAlex
W1972436653
Cited by
18
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
0.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Forensic Entomology and Diptera Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Autopsy Techniques and Outcomes
Keywords
Sus scrofa, wild boar, postmortem decomposition, forensic taphonomy, postmortem interval estimation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review