Position of Skeletal Remains as a Key to Understanding Mortuary Behavior

Roksandić, Mirjana

doi:10.1201/9781420058352-8

Cited by 56 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, identifying the presence of internal space requires visualization of movements that occurred Table 2 Types of spaces in graves, descriptions, and skeletal responses (after Duday, 2006;Duday and Guillon, 2006;Nilsson Stutz, 2003a;Roksandic, 2002).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to the type of space present, the grave cut or a container may have limited movement of skeletal elements through effet de parois or 'wall effects'. These result when skeletal elements rest against the limits of a grave, durable burial container or architectural structure (Roksandic, 2002). Lateral constriction in the skeleton is an example of a bilateral wall effect and shows that burial occurred in a tight container or narrow grave.…”

Section: Spacementioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of investigators have discussed the fundamental concepts behind the archaeothanatology approach (Duday, 2006(Duday, , 2009Duday and Guillon, 2006;Nilsson Stutz, 2003a, 2003bRoksandic, 2002). However, a detailed methodology for its systematic application to a large number of burials has yet to be published, although Willis and Tayles (2009) provided an overview of a method they applied to two small skeletal samples.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Burial containers – A hidden aspect of mortuary practices: Archaeothanatology at Ban Non Wat, Thailand

Harris

Tayles

2012

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Spacementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Burial containers – A hidden aspect of mortuary practices: Archaeothanatology at Ban Non Wat, Thailand

Harris

Tayles

2012

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These are key elements in identifying the exact character of the burial deposit, the sequence and timing of different episodes in skeletal deposition, as well as specific depositional choices indicative of the type of secondary interference, intentionality, and even motivation (Roksandic, 2002;Andrews and Bello, 2006;Duday, 2006Duday, , 2009. f) Assignment of the bone assemblages in well-defined types of disposal and inference of specific secondary acts.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Commingled burials and shifting notions of the self at the onset of the Mycenaean era (1700–1500 BCE): The case of the Ayios Vasilios North Cemetery, Laconia

Moutafi

Voutsaki

2016

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tMortuary practices in southern Greece undergo a radical transformation at the beginning of the Mycenaean era (or Late Bronze Age, around 1700 BCE). This period sees the introduction of formal cemeteries, larger tombs, richer burials and a more complex ritual sequence involving multiple interments, tomb re-use and the 'secondary treatment' of earlier burials. 'Secondary treatment' is a rather vague, all-inclusive term, which includes various practices, such as disarticulating skeletons, mingling the bones and relocating them in piles or scatters either inside or outside the tomb (completely or selectively). Two questions arise: Why is this practice introduced? Why does it take different forms? The recent excavation of Ayios Vasilios North Cemetery in Laconia was designed on the basis of an integrated bioarchaeological strategy in order to provide the opportunity to fully explore these issues. While our ultimate goal is to understand the causes and consequences of the wider transformations in funerary practices, the focus of this paper is on one aspect: the re-use of graves and the secondary treatment of earlier burials. Through an integrated approach which aims to reconcile archaeological theory with current methodological advances in bioarchaeology and funerary taphonomy, we seek to reconstruct the funerary activities in great detail, in order to fully observe variation and change, and, ultimately, understand how this considerable variation may inform us on the re-definition of social relations at death, or shifting notions of the self. Beyond the specifics of the Mycenaean case-study, our aim is also to address broader methodological and theoretical questions, stressing the need for a true integration in the study of mortuary assemblages. To this end, we propose a taphonomy-oriented, methodological approach for the field recording and lab analysis of the human remains, drawing on current advances in archaeothanatology, forensic science, and analysis of commingled remains. This approach works best if placed within a clear theoretical framework, which recognises the manipulation of the dead body as closely associated with notions of personhood, and at the same time respects the historical specificity of the mortuary context and engages with the full complexity of contextual empirical data. Using the case of Ayios Vasilios in order to illustrate this process, our specific questions include: the formation characteristics of funerary assemblages, frequency and sequence of tomb use, diversity of secondary treatment, and age and sex differences in funerary treatment. Our results demonstrate a considerable extent of variation in funerary disposal and secondary treatment during this transitional period. Shifts of emphasis within this diverse treatment, especially regarding bodily fragmentation and modes of dispersal, suggest that, in Ayios Vasilios, a) age, but not sex, differences in funerary treatment were at play, b) mortuary transformation embodies the transformation from narrower (possibly householdba...

show abstract

“…This is despite the development in the 1970's by French anthropologist Henri Duday of an approach to burial archaeology called 'l'Anthropologie de Terrain', or Field Anthropology. This was based on work done even earlier, on Neolithic group burials by another French researcher, André Leroi-Gourhan, in 1962(Roksandic, 2002. Field anthropology uses meticulous identification of the spatial relationships of bones in a grave, allowing interpretation of how they moved as the body decomposed and from this, conceptualisation of the original burial context.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Field anthropology: application to burial contexts in prehistoric Southeast Asia

Willis

Tayles

2009

Journal of Archaeological Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Position of Skeletal Remains as a Key to Understanding Mortuary Behavior

Cited by 56 publications

References 11 publications

Burial containers – A hidden aspect of mortuary practices: Archaeothanatology at Ban Non Wat, Thailand

Burial containers – A hidden aspect of mortuary practices: Archaeothanatology at Ban Non Wat, Thailand

Commingled burials and shifting notions of the self at the onset of the Mycenaean era (1700–1500 BCE): The case of the Ayios Vasilios North Cemetery, Laconia

Field anthropology: application to burial contexts in prehistoric Southeast Asia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About