Intentional cutmarks on an early mesolithic human calvaria from Margaux Cave (Dinant, Belgium)

Toussaint, Michel

doi:10.1002/ajpa.21375

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…During the Mesolithic period cutting of bodies was not uncommon, but the frequency of cut marks for each of the sites is generally low. For example, at Grotte Margaux (France), the remains of seven (of 11) individuals were subjected to the displacement of bones for secondary burial (Cauwe, ), but cut marks were only founds on one skull suggesting the mortuary treatment was accelerated by active defleshing to separate the head from the body to display the skull (Toussaint, ). An unexplained cut‐marked phalanx has been observed at Vela Spila (Croatia) among the non‐cut‐marked remains of an adult male individual (Wallduck, Miracle, & Radić, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Bello

Wallduck

Dimitrijević³

et al. 2016

American J Phys Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Bello

Wallduck

Dimitrijević³

et al. 2016

American J Phys Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A similar pattern in a disarticulated and commingled Neolithic assemblage from Grotta Scaloria (Puglia), Italy, probably results from ritual defleshing (Robb et al, 2015). Sporadic reports of cut-marked bones have also come from Mesolithic sites, such as Margaux Cave (Dinant, Belgium) (Toussaint, 2011) and Kent's Cavern (Devon, UK) (Schulting et al, 2015). Among the most enigmatic sites is Herxheim, Germany, where cut-marks and patterned destruction of bones may relate either to cannibalism (Boulestin et al, 2009;Boulestin and Coupey, 2015), or to funerary processing (Orschiedt andHaidle, 2006, 2012), or both from different parts of the same site.…”

Section: Cut-marksmentioning

confidence: 88%

Funerary taphonomy: An overview of goals and methods

Knüsel

Robb

2016

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Funerary taphonomy has come of age as an important field in osteoarchaeology. Its goal is to reconstruct funerary practices by using taphonomic evidence, including both evidence recorded during excavation (particularly the context and state of articulation of human remains) and evidence observable in subsequent laboratory analysis (such as element representation and traces of burning, animal modification, cut-marks, and fragmentation). This articleintended as a systematic introduction to the fieldgives an overview of funerary taphonomy. It first discusses the goals and theoretical questions, and then reviews the wide range of methods available to archaeologists using human remains to investigate funerary behaviour. It finishes with a review of how taphonomists have approached particular issues, such as single burials, commingled multiple depositions, cannibalism, and the cultural reuse of human skeletal parts.

show abstract

“…Although fragmented, manipulations on the remains are rare; exception is a skull from Grotte Margaux with perimortal cut marks on the cranium. This activity seems to be linked with the funerary practice at the site [66].…”

Section: Early Mesolithic (Preboreal and Early Boreal) Burialsmentioning

confidence: 89%

The Late Upper Palaeolithic and earliest Mesolithic evidence of burials in Europe

Orschiedt

2018

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Burials of the Late Palaeolithic (14 000-11 600 cal years before present, henceforth BP) are a rare phenomenon in Europe. Several sites possess burials of single and double individuals. As with the preceding Magdalenian, the burial of more than two individuals in the same grave cutting seems to be unusual, but does occur occasionally. The deposition of isolated and disarticulated human remains with or without cut marks seems additionally to belong to the Magdalenian context. In the final Palaeolithic phase (13 000-11 600 cal years BP) there is evidence for cemetery-like clusters of burials, which contrast to the Magdalenian evidence, instead showing some similarities with the succeeding Mesolithic. The earliest Mesolithic burials 11 600-10 500 cal BP) are a very rare phenomenon, covering a short time span between the beginning of the Preboreal and the beginning of the Boreal phase of the early Holocene. Here the evidence includes single inhumations, cemetery-like structures and a number of isolated human remains. Caves and rock shelters were the most common places for inhumations in both the final Palaeolithic and the early Mesolithic. Although the number of sites with a chronological continuity from the LUP to the Early Mesolithic burial is low, several aspects indicate a general continuity in burial patterns over this period. Apart from this continuity, the Mesolithic burials in general seem to represent a new level of diversity in burial practices.This article is part of the theme issue 'Evolutionary thanatology: impacts of the dead on the living in humans and other animals'.

show abstract

Intentional cutmarks on an early mesolithic human calvaria from Margaux Cave (Dinant, Belgium)

Cited by 13 publications

References 18 publications

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

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

Funerary taphonomy: An overview of goals and methods

The Late Upper Palaeolithic and earliest Mesolithic evidence of burials in Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About