Concepts of the Body and Personhood in the Mesolithic-Neolithic Danube Gorges: Interpreting Animal Remains from Human Burials

Abstract

In recent years, humanities have brought forward the idea of non-human agency; either in the form of meanings bestowed upon objects, animals and natural phenomena, or through deconstruction of ontological differences between ‘people’ and ‘things’. In case of the former, it has been argued that non-human agents have the power to act as ‘participants’ in social action (e.g. the agentive power of material properties of things, or of animal behaviour). In this paper, I discuss the practice of placing animal body parts alongside human bodies in the Mesolithic-Neolithic Danube Gorges, by using the concept of perspectivism as a theoretical framework. The choice of species and their body parts varied, but was by no means accidental. Rather, it reflected certain culturally specific taxonomies, which were based on animal properties: how they look, move, feel or what they do. Common examples include red deer antlers, which have the power to ‘regenerate’ each year, or dog mandibles (physical remains of ‘mouths’) which have the power to ‘communicate’ (i.e. bark). The aim of the paper is to explore how various aspects of animal corporeality, associated with certain ways of seeing and experiencing the world, could be ‘borrowed’ by humans utilizing animal body parts.

Cannibalism versus funerary defleshing and disarticulation after a period of decay: comparisons of bone modifications from four prehistoric sites

“…Non‐human faunal remains were found within the cultural layers, in graves, and in houses. During the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods, wild animals played a key role in subsistence as well as other activities such as tool manufacture (see Radovanović, and citations within) and ritualistic practices (e.g., Dimitrijević, ; Živaljević, ). The dense forest surrounding the sites provided a great number of mammal species (Bökönyi, ; Clason, ; Dimitrijević, ; Dinu, Boroneant, Balasescu, Soficaru, & Miritoiu, ).…”

An Engraved Human Bone from the Mesolithic–Neolithic Site of Lepenski Vir (Serbia)

“…Focus Variation Microscopy (FVM) represents a remarkable recent advance in the studies of cut-marks as it allows direct quantitative analyses of cut-mark micro-morphology in a relative short time and without damage of the bone surfaces. This new technique has been successfully applied to studies of human and animal bones during analysis of butchery and burial practices (Bello et al 2009;2011a;2015;Boschin & Crezzi 2012;Schulting et al 2015) as well as reconstructions of the chaîne opératoire of bone tools, engraved bones and antler artefacts (Abrams et al 2014;Bello et al 2013a,b;Güth 2012;Van Kolfschoten et al 2015). There are established criteria for recognizing cut-marks based on their micro-morphological features (Andrews & Cook 1985;Behrensmeyer et al 1986;Bello & Soligo 2008;Boulestin 1999;Domínguez-Rodrigo et al 2009;Greenfield 1999;2000;Potts & Shipman 1981;Shipman 1981;Shipman & Rose 1983;White 1992).…”

“…The disarticulated remains predominantly resulted from the exhumation of skeletonized corpses, relocation and reburial (secondary burial) of a specific bone or selection of elements (Wallduck 2013). In some instances the decay process was accelerated by active defleshing as cut-marks have been observed on some of the disarticulated human remains Wallduck 2013;2015;contra Boroneanţ & Bonsall 2012, 49).…”

New Radiocarbon Dates, Stable Isotope, and Anthropological Analysis of Prehistoric Human Bones from the Balkans and Southwestern Carpathian Basin

“…A similar record was noted at the nearby Early Neolithic site of Tumba -Mad∫ari, where one mandible was also discovered (Stojanova Kanzurova 2020). The practice of post-mortem manipulation and fragmentation of the body was present in the Mesolithic -Neolithic world in this region (e.g., Srejovi≤, Letica 1978;Zalai Gaál 1994Radovanovi≤ 1996;Bori≤ 2015Bori≤ , 2016Ωivaljevi≤ 2015), and most instances involved head manipulation. The funerary record from the Danube Gorges contains numerous examples of disturbed primary inhumations with missing body parts, and disarticulated elements (mainly skulls and mandibles) incorporated into later burials, or structurally deposited on their own (e.g., on stone slabs, on/below building floors, or intermingled with animal bones).…”