The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Canid modification of human remains - implications for time-since-death estimations
Abstract
Time-since-death estimations are usually based on physical decomposition of the corpse, insect succession, and contextual associations. The rates of change and succession are based on decomposition studies, most of which control access of scavengers to the corpse; however, many naturally exposed corpses are subject to scavenger modification. These modifications change the rate of decomposition, the pattern of insect succession, and the context of associations, thus altering estimations of time since death. A controlled feeding study with captive wolves and road-killed deer is pertinent to understanding canid scavenging and how scavenging may alter postmortem changes. During feeding, the wolves commonly dismember and devour the deer in a predictable sequence. Although there are some variations in the usual sequence, the carcass is always moved, and skeletal elements are separated, diminished in size and scattered. Scavenging must, therefore, be considered in estimating time since death.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Scavenging can alter the rate and pattern of decomposition and subsequently affect estimation of the postmortem interval (PMI).
“scavenging can alter the rate and pattern of decomposition and subsequently affect the estimation of the postmortem interval (PMI) [10, 11].”
From Forensic experiments on animal scavenging: A systematic literature review on what we have and what we need (2023) · cites this paper as [10]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 23
- De Saram, Estimation of the Time of Death by Medical Criteria, Journal of Forensic Medicine, 4, 47
- Marshall, 1976, Changes after Death, 78
- Morse, 1983, Time of Death, 124
- Motter, 1898, A Contribution to the Study of the Fauna of the Grave, Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 6, 201
- Rodriguez, 1983, Insect Activity and Its Relationship to Decay Rates of Human Cadavers in East Tennessee, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 28, 423, 10.1520/JFS11524J · DOI
- Denne, 1977, Dating of Events from Tree Growth and Wood Structure, Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 17, 257, 10.1016/S0015-7368(77)71159-4 · DOI
- Willey, 1987, Estimating Time Since Death Using Plant Roots and Stems, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 32, 1264, 10.1520/JFS11177J · DOI
- Morse, 1983, The Skeletal Pathology of Trauma, 145
- Binford, 1981, Bones, Ancient Men and Modern Myths
- Brain, 1981, The Hunters or the Hunted?
- Haynes, G. , Bone Modifications and Skeletal Disturbances by Natural Agencies: Studies in North America, Ph.D. dissertation published by University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI, 1981.
- Hill, 1979, Disarticulation and Scattering of Mammal Skeletons, Paleobiology, 5, 261, 10.1017/S0094837300006552 · DOI
- Trinkhaus, 1985, Cannibalism and Burial at Krapina, Journal of Human Evolution, 14, 203, 10.1016/S0047-2484(85)80007-5 · DOI
- Villa, 1986, Cannibalism in the Neolithic, Science, 233, 431, 10.1126/science.233.4762.431 · DOI
- Haglund, 1988, Abstract: “Carnivore-Assisted Disarticulation/Dismemberment of Human Remains, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 75, 218
- Klippel, 1987, Taphonomy and Archaeologically Recovered Mammal Bone from Southeast Missouri, Journal of Ethnobiology, 7, 155
- Snyder, 1986, Canid Modification of Skeketal Material from Archaeological Sites
- Lyman, R. L. , The Taphonomy of Vertebrate Archeofaunas: Bone Density and Differential Survivorship of Fossil Classes, Ph.D. dissertation published by University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI, 1982.
- Paradiso, 1982, Wolves, Canis lupus and Allies, 460
- Beckoff, 1982, Coyote, Canis latrans, 447
- 1985, The Complete Dog Book
- Blumenschine, 1986, Carcass Consumption Sequences and the Archaeological Distinction of Scavenging and Hunting, Journal of Human Evolution, 15, 639, 10.1016/S0047-2484(86)80002-1 · DOI
- Haglund, 1988, Tooth Mark Artifacts and Survival of Bones in Animal-Scavenged Human Skeletons, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 33, 985, 10.1520/JFS12521J · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Indra, L., Lösch, S., Errickson, D., & Finaughty, D. (2023) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2023.111862 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Willey, P., & Snyder, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
- University of Tennessee 2 Graduate assistant , Department of Anthropology, , Knoxville, TN .
- Venue
- Journal of Forensic Sciences
- Publisher
- ASTM International
- Published
- 1989-07-01
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 894-901
- ISSN
- 0022-1198 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W989654683
- Cited by
- 121
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 0.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Forensic Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Death, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
- Keywords
- postmortem interval estimation, postmortem decomposition, insect succession, forensic taphonomy
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Carnivora, Deer, Feeding Behavior, Female, Forensic Medicine, Humans, Insecta, Male, Postmortem Changes, Time Factors
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