Heads as Memorials and Status SymbolsThe Collection and Use of Skulls in the Torres Strait Islands

Osteophageous insect damage on human bone from Je'reftheel, a Maya mortuary cave site in west‐central Belize

“…Some observers have noted a preference for bones that are free of flesh and grease but are relatively fresh and thus still have a preserved organic component (Haynes, ). Bonney and Clegg () describe physical evidence of termite damage from the Torres Straight Islands confirming ethnographic accounts of crania being intentionally placed on termite nests as a means of defleshing prior to display.…”

Retrieving, Curating and Depositing Skulls at Pitted Ware culture Sites

“…The ethnographic examples of rituals including both human and dugong skulls from the Torres Strait highlight how these can be used to mediate communication between the living and the dead as well as between human hunters and prey animals. In those examples, the skull bones function as enhancements that grant humans the ability to communicate and otherwise socially engage with animals or gain insight into the future (McNiven 2010(McNiven , 2013Bonney & Clegg 2011). It is conceivable that the crania and mandibles at the PWC sites could have been employed in a similar manner, as communicative conduits enabling social relationships with dead humans and animals.…”

“…In her study of skulls found on Moche sites in Peru, Erica Hill suggests that human bodies were partitioned into discrete portions with varying efficacy, the head being the most efficacious, that could be given as sacrificial offerings to the ancestors (Hill 2003). Skulls might also be used as memorial objects and as tools to be employed during divination rituals (Bonney & Clegg 2011). One common explanation for why heads are acquired and curated in headhunting societies are that they aid and sustain the regeneration of both people and crops (Hutton 1928;Needham 1976;Hoskins 1996).…”

Archaeologies of Island Melanesia: Current Approaches to Landscapes, Exchange and Practice

“…Comparisons with other mummies from Oceania highlight the uniqueness of the Faténaoué mummies. If the removal of epidermis observed at Faténaoué is a frequent practice in mummification processes of Oceanian populations (Beckett and Nelson 2015;Pretty and Calder 1998), other features appear specific to New Caledonia: no body part was removed from the bodies, the thoraces were not opened, the necks were not disarticulated on purpose and there is no apparent effort to re-establish a living human appearance, as documented, for example, for Torres Straits mummies (Bonney and Clegg 2011;Flower 1879;Pretty and Calder 1998) or funerary mannequins of Malekula, Vanuatu (Speiser 1923). The use of basket containers at Faténaoué also differs from the stretchers used to present mummies in the Torres Strait during the 19th century (Pretty 1969) and the armchairs used today in the Anga societies of Papua New Guinea (Beckett and Nelson 2015).…”