Burials, body parts and bones in the earlier Upper Palaeolithic
Erik Trinkaus, Sandra Sázelová, and Jiří Svoboda
The rich earlier Mid Upper Palaeolithic (Pavlovian) sites of Dolní
Vĕstonice I and II and Pavlov I (∼32,000–∼30,000 cal
BP) in southern Moravia (Czech Republic) have yielded a series of human burials,
isolated pairs of extremities and isolated bones and teeth. The burials occurred
within and adjacent to the remains of structures (‘huts’), among
domestic debris. Two of them were adjacent to mammoth bone dumps, but none of
them was directly associated with areas of apparent discard (or garbage). The
isolated pairs and bones/teeth were haphazardly scattered through the occupation
areas, many of them mixed with the small to medium-sized faunal remains, from
which many were identified post-excavation. It is therefore difficult to
establish a pattern of disposal of the human remains with respect to the
abundant evidence for site structure at these Upper Palaeolithic sites. At the
same time, each form of human preservation raises questions about the
differential mortuary behaviours, and hence social dynamics, of these foraging
populations and how we interpret them through an archaeological lens.
The forensic and political lives of secondary mass graves in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Admir Jugo and Sari Wastell
in Forensic Taphonomy: Method, Theory and Archaeological Perspective
(Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2002), pp. 293–308; W. Haglund, ‘Recent
mass graves, an introduction’, in Haglund & Sorg (eds), Advances in
Forensic Taphonomy, pp. 243–62.
UN Doc S/1994/674/Add.2 (vol. V), Final Report of the United Nations
Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to Security Council
Resolution 780 (1992). Annex X: Mass graves, 28 December 1994, http://
ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/ANX/X.htm#II (accessed 28 October 2012).
M. Connor, Forensic Methods: Excavation for the
Forensic and archaeological approaches to locating the remains of Holocaust victims
Caroline Sturdy Colls
‘An autopsy of the grave: recognizing, collecting and preserving forensic
geotaphonomic evidence’, in W. Haglund and M. Sorg (eds), Advances
192 Human remains in society
in Forensic Taphonomy: Method, Theory and Archaeological Perspectives
(Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2002), pp. 45–70.
56 Hunter et al., Forensic Approaches to Buried Remains.
57 Sturdy Colls, Holocaust Archaeologies, ch. 6.
58 P. Drewett, Field Archaeology: An Introduction (London: Routledge, 2011).
59 Hunter et al., Forensic Approaches to Buried Remains.
60 B. Bevan and T. Smekalova
-Saxon cemeteries ( Figure 1.2 ) and defines the archaeological evidence for the people found in those graves. It considers this evidence as being the result of a nexus of identities established by their relationship with others. It explores a variety of themes, including taphonomy, space, life course, gender, objects and osteology, within the context of cemetery organisation and regional circumstances. Early Anglo-Saxon cemeteries were the physical manifestation of community histories and early Anglo-Saxon societies; and they were textured, mutable, dynamic places within which