Scanning Electron Microscopy Analysis of Experimental Bone Hacking Trauma

Abstract

The authors report on their macro- and microscopy study of bone lesions made by a sharp force instrument (a single blade knife), and a sharp-blunt instrument classified as a chopping weapon (a hatchet). The aim of this work was to attempt to identify the instrument by analyzing the general class characteristics of the cuts. Each weapon was used on human bones. The results indicate that macroscopic analysis is more problematic. The microscopic analysis assessed that characteristics examined were effective in distinguishing sharp from sharp-blunt injury to the bone. The microscope facilitates analysis unachievable with macroscopic methods, some three-dimensional characteristics not visible to the naked eye being clearly defined with its use. Emphasis has been placed on the value of SEM as an anthropologist's tool in bone lesion injuries.

Identifying sword marks on bone: criteria for distinguishing between cut marks made by different classes of bladed weapons

“…The sword and knife cut mark morphology described here is in general agreement with other small and large bladed weapon marks described in the literature (see Supplementary Text) (Alunni-Perret et al, 2005;Greenfield, 1999;Humphrey and Hutchinson, 2001;Wenham, 1989). Sword marks tend to display features associated with the sharp, cutting blade of a knife, such as smooth walls, as well as aspects of heavy weapon blunt force trauma, such as lateral pushing back, cracking, breakage, and other irregularities identified by Alunni-Perret et al (2005).…”

“…Sword marks tend to display features associated with the sharp, cutting blade of a knife, such as smooth walls, as well as aspects of heavy weapon blunt force trauma, such as lateral pushing back, cracking, breakage, and other irregularities identified by Alunni-Perret et al (2005). Variation between marks made by different swords is due to their being more or less blunt force versus sharp cutting instruments.…”

“…Subsequent work on the same cut mark surfaces using SEM showed that the weapons used to make the marks can be identified to class and possibly individual (Tucker et al, 2001). Alunni-Perret et al (2005) compared experimental knife marks (n ¼ 15) to axe marks (n ¼ 15) on defleshed human bone. They describe in detail how axe marks are a combination of smooth cut mark walls indicative of a sharp blade, as well as lateral pushing back of adjacent bone and other irregularities indicative of a blunt force mechanism (Alunni-Perret et al, 2005), but it is unclear how the absence of flesh on the bones may have influenced the results.…”

“…Alunni-Perret et al (2005) compared experimental knife marks (n ¼ 15) to axe marks (n ¼ 15) on defleshed human bone. They describe in detail how axe marks are a combination of smooth cut mark walls indicative of a sharp blade, as well as lateral pushing back of adjacent bone and other irregularities indicative of a blunt force mechanism (Alunni-Perret et al, 2005), but it is unclear how the absence of flesh on the bones may have influenced the results. These studies provide useful data regarding dismemberment, but fall short of addressing questions of inferring sword type from mark morphology: they did not actually investigate swords per se or consider combat/attack marks.…”

Analysis of experimental cranial skin wounding from screwdriver trauma

“…While some studies have investigated the morphological characteristics and individualization of sharp-force trauma to bone and cartilage [11][12][13][14], to the best of our knowledge, there has been only one such investigation on the overlying skin [15]. Typically, sharp-force trauma is described as stabbing, slashing or chopping wounds inflicted by a sharp object such as a knife or a screwdriver [10].…”