2011
DOI: 10.24916/iansa.2011.1.6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Classification of Post-medieval Secondary Mortuary Practices and Disturbances

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although there are exceptions to the rule and burials were also found distorted by secondary mortuary practices (e.g. Chroustovský & Průchová, ; Unger, ).…”
Section: Single Burialsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although there are exceptions to the rule and burials were also found distorted by secondary mortuary practices (e.g. Chroustovský & Průchová, ; Unger, ).…”
Section: Single Burialsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dart collections (Dayal et al 2009). Similarly, recent donation-derived collections started off by incorporating unclaimed remains donated from medical examiners, such as the William Bass Collection (Christensen 2006;Shirley et al 2011).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This contrasts sharply with what has been the history of amassing skeletal reference collections in North America, South Africa, the UK and even northern Europe. To the Anglophone biological anthropology audience, the social history behind the development of many of the anatomy-and, more recently, donation-based collections is fairly well-known and their background has been carefully examined (Hunt and Albanese 2005;Christensen 2006;Kern 2006;Shirley et al 2011;Watkins and Muller 2015;Weiss 2015;Muller et al 2017). In addition, a comprehensive ethical framework for the use of these anatomy-or donation-derived collections has been developing and debated for some time (Christensen 2006;Edgar and Rautman 2014;Holland 2015;Weiss 2015).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation