Cleaning the dead: Neolithic ritual processing of human bone at Scaloria Cave, Italy.
Robb, John ; Elster, Ernestine S. ; Isetti, Eugenia 等
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Introduction
Death rituals can be about many things: advertising the status of
the deceased, forging political relations, fending off the vengeful
dead, and many other social tasks. A fundamental job, however, is to
accomplish the social act of dying (Kellehear 2007; Robb 2013)--to
transform someone from a living being with one set of capabilities and
social relations into a new entity with a new kind of existence, be it
an active, socially present spirit or only a well-observed memory. This
social transformation is almost always accomplished by physically
transforming the once-living body. Humans have invented an astonishing
range of ways to transform the dead, from simple burial to exposure,
cremation, secondary re-interment, mummification, ingestion by the
living, curation and display as trophies, the creation of relics and
objects of memory, or even destroying the body completely.
Neolithic Europe affords more than its share of complicated burial
transformations. Burial was rarely about simply displaying the status of
the dead or accomplishing a simple, quick send-off. As the taphonomic
study of deathways--or archaeothanatology (Duday 2009)--becomes more
common, even groups once thought to practise simple single inhumation,
such as those in the Italian Neolithic (Robb 2007) and the Central
European Linearbandkeramik, actually had highly varied ritual programmes
that deposited many, perhaps even most, bodies in other ways, often as
scattered, disarticulated bones. Well-documented Neolithic funerary
treatments include secondary burials (Whittle & Wysocki 1998; Smith
& Brickley 2009; Beckett 2011), massacres (Wahl & Konig 1987;
Teschler-Nicola et al. 1999), cannibalism (Villa et al. 1986; Boulestin
et al. 2009) and complex ritual processing of the dead (Orschiedt &
Haidle 2006). Human bone was even sometimes used as a raw material, for
instance to make a flute-like musical instrument at Riparo Gaban
(northern Italy) (Graziosi 1975). Even at Stonehenge, once thought to
celebrate only the living, large numbers of redeposited cremations were
recently uncovered (Parker Pearson et al. 2009).
Scaloria Cave and the Neolithic of the Tavoliere
Scaloria Cave is located in northern Puglia (south-eastern Italy)
where the Gargano massif meets the Tavoliere Plain (Figure 1). Since the
1950s, the Tavoliere has been one of the best-known Neolithic landscapes
in Europe: almost 1000 ditched villages have been identified through
aerial photography (Cassano & Manfredini 1983; Tine 1983; Jones
1987). Occupation dates principally to the sixth millennium BC.
Excavations have revealed a dense settlement of small groups, that were
heavily dependent upon domesticated plants and livestock. At such sites,
single burials are complemented by a range of less obvious ways of
dealing with the dead, including multiple burials, cranial retrieval,
curation and re-deposition, and exposure (Robb 2002, 2007).
Scaloria Cave is a tortuous, deep cave. In its lowest section, the
Lower Chamber, accessible through a long, steep and difficult crawl,
Neolithic people placed fine pottery vessels to collect water dripping
from stalactites: over 40 vessels were found encrusted into stalactites
(Tine & Isetti 1980a & b; Whitehouse 1992). The Upper Chamber is
a large, low chamber immediately inside the entrance (Figure 2).
Irregular in form, its currently known extent is approximately 80m x
40m, although the edges may be masked by collapse and sediments. At most
it is about 2m high but in many places is much lower. The Upper Cave was
used intermittently both for habitation and herding, and for depositing
the dead (Elster et al. in prep.). Although the cave was used in earlier
and later periods, these uses of both the Upper and Lower Chambers took
place principally between 5500 and 5200 BC, the period under discussion.
The Upper Chamber at Scaloria was explored briefly in the 1930s
(Rellini 1934; Quagliati 1936), when the principal burial deposits were
excavated, and then re-excavated in 1978-79 (Tine & Isetti 1980a
& b; Winn & Shimabuku 1988; Robb 1991). Only about 1 per cent of
the surface has been systematically excavated; other areas are known
from poorly documented work in the 1930s and from clandestine
disturbances, and in some places the cave floor is simply bedrock. The
systematic 1978-79 excavations are only now reaching full publication
(Elster et al. in prep.), and include a complete taphonomic reassessment
of the human bone assemblage. This has revealed a complex and unique
burial programme.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
The funerary use of the Upper Chamber
Although only a small fraction of the Upper Chamber has been
excavated, the assemblage contains at least 22 to 31 individuals, but
almost all of the remains are highly fragmented and commingled, and this
figure must be a gross underestimate. Between a third and a half are
juveniles, suggesting high child mortality and that many adults died
relatively young. Both adult males and females are present. Aside from
high levels of cribra orbitalia (a pathological condition caused by iron
deficiency), no particular pathological or activity-related conditions
are evident (Robb 1991; Robb et al. in prep.).
To summarise a complex situation, at least five different burial
rites are represented at Scaloria:
1) Collective secondary depositions during the Middle Neolithic
(Scaloria Bassa period, c. 5500-5200 BC). The great majority of the
assemblage comes from a highly fragmented and commingled deposit of
human bone. This particular funerary treatment is the focus of the
present analysis.
2) Individual burial with cranium retrieval: a juvenile aged 5-7
years was excavated in Trench 6, dated to 5463-5221 BC. This burial was
complete and articulated except for the cranium, which appears to have
been removed following burial, presumably for ritual use.
3) Cranial deposition: one isolated adult cranium was excavated in
Trench 1, carefully placed on its base in a small stone niche (Winn
& Shimabuku 1988) (this deposition is undated within the Neolithic).
4) Single burial without grave goods (one adult female burial,
Trench 2, dated to 53225017 BC) (Winn & Shimabuku 1988).
5) Single burial with grave goods; these are later than the period
in question here, close to the end of the sixth millennium BC (Scaloria
Alta/Serra d'Alto period, late Middle Neolithic) (Quagliati 1936).
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
The last two of these rites represent a trend towards single
burials with grave goods, evident throughout southern Italy around 5000
BC. The first three attest to the varied funerary programme known in
Neolithic southern Italy (Robb 2002, 2007). The analysis below focuses
upon the first rite listed: the deposition of commingled, fragmented
bone, which makes up well over 90 per cent of the assemblage.
Taphonomic analysis of the Upper Chamber human bone assemblage
Taphonomic analysis involved examination of all extant field
documentation and of the remains themselves. The overall human bone
sample included 2857 identifiable fragments and 1248 unidentifiable
fragments (for full data, see Knusel et al. in prep.).
Articulation and contextual deposition
Excavation notes and photographs make it clear that, aside from the
Trench 2 and 6 burials noted above, all of the human bone was found
disarticulated (Figure 3); only one or two semi-articulated segments of
vertebral column were recorded. There was no indication that the
disordered bone resulted from disturbed single burials, and no sign of a
burial pit or grave: bone was scattered more or less randomly in a
sheet-like layer on the cave floor. This layer was densest in Trench 10,
but sporadic, randomly deposited human bones were found elsewhere in the
large Upper Chamber. Human bones were found mixed with broken and
incomplete animal bones, stone tools and pottery: they show no
particular placing, groupings, orientations or association with bones or
other objects, and they sometimes seem to have been already broken and
incomplete when they were deposited. These objects did not form
'grave goods' that were intentionally positioned or associated
with particular remains. Following the Neolithic, this layer was sealed
by a sheet of calcareous concretion, confirming that this disorder was
an original aspect of the deposit. Field photographs make clear that
bones were broken before their final deposition rather than afterwards
(e.g. by trampling in situ)--, in only a few cases were conjoining
broken fragments found adjacent or near to each other. One worked piece
of human bone was found, but, unlike the elaborately carved Riparo Gaban
femur-flute, this consisted of a juvenile right femur that was lightly
abraded along part of an irregular edge that had already been broken
some time after death. Far from being a special ritual act, this appears
to attest to the casual, expedient re-use and subsequent discard of a
convenient bone fragment no longer regarded as important or perhaps even
human.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
Burning, rodent gnawing, carnivore damage, root marking and
breakage
All bones were examined for traces of animal damage, root marking,
burning and breakage. No root marking or carnivore damage was observed,
and only one case of possible rodent gnawing was noted. This suggests
that before deposition in the cave, bodies were probably not exposed
while fresh or buried shallowly, as they would have been accessible to
these agents. Around 4.5 per cent of the bone assemblage was burned,
often extending across earlier breaks and cut-marks. Burning consisted
of irregular, patchy scorching to a brownish or blackish colour;
calcination, cracking and shrinkage were never observed. Thus, rather
than intentional cremation or patterned ritual burning, occasional bone
fragments were exposed casually to fire. This is not surprising, given
the intermittent habitation of the Upper Chamber, which included hearths
(Rellini et al. in prep.).
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
The analysis of breakage aimed to establish how long after death
bones were broken, using the following categories:
'peri-mortem' and 'dry' breakage for breakage during
the interval around or soon after death when collagen still renders the
bone elastic; 'mineralised' for breakage after this interval;
and 'recent' for unweathered mineralised breaks happening at
or since excavation. Methodology for identifying these categories of
breakage follows Knusel and Outram (2006) and references therein.
Although collagen loss is a continuous process influenced by
environmental factors and it is impossible to define precisely the time
interval represented by each category, forensic work (Weiberg &
Westcott 2008) has shown that 'peri-mortem' and
'dry' breakage generally occur within the first year after
death. As many bones exhibited several types of breakage, each was
tabulated according to the break that had occurred soonest after death.
Overall, 6.4 per cent of the assemblage displayed
'peri-mortem' or 'dry' breakage (Figure 4), with the
remainder equally divided between 'mineralised breaks' (27.3
per cent), 'recent' breakages (43.0 per cent) and 'no
breaks' (23.4 per cent, mostly small juvenile bones or hand and
foot bones). By the standards of most human bone assemblages, this is a
notable level of breakage soon after death. However, in contrast to
animal bones from the site, almost no human bones (0.2 per cent) showed
clear peri-mortem breakage, as distinguished by sharp-edged helical
fractures, anvil fractures or twig peel patterns. Bones were also
examined systematically for signs of peri-mortem trauma or violence:
only one potential example was found, excluding interpretations of a
massacre site with extreme violence, and cannibalism. Instead, a fair
proportion of the assemblage was fragmented within the first year after
death, possibly before, during or shortly after deposition.
Element representation
Element representation is a standard technique in funerary
taphonomy for identifying exposure, secondary burial or other treatments
in which different body parts may have been differentially kept,
discarded, preserved, lost or destroyed. Bone recovery during the
excavations at Scaloria was careful, with most funerary deposits sieved.
All remains were inventoried using two techniques: a) the standard
method codified by Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994) that applies only to
regions more than 50 per cent complete; and b) the zonation' method
of Knusel and Outram (2006) (see also Outram et al. 2005). These were
found to give quite similar results. We then calculated a Minimum Number
of Elements (reckoning regions of major bones, sides of the body and
adults and juveniles separately) and thence a Minimum Number of
Individuals (MNI) (between 22 and 31, depending on the method). Finally,
we calculated how many of each element should theoretically be present
if each of the MNI were represented by a complete skeleton. We then
divided the observed number of elements by this theoretical figure, the
maximum possible number of that element in an assemblage with no missing
elements at all. The result is an index that measures how well
represented each element is (Ubelaker 1974; Waldron 1987). This bone
representation index allows comparison with sites where varied funerary
treatments are well documented. The Roman cemetery of West Tenter
Street, London (Waldron 1987), shows the relatively even part
representation typical of undisturbed single primary inhumations. The
Late Woodland ossuary of Nanjemoy Creek, Maryland (Ubelaker 1974), shows
a pattern typical of secondary deposition, with marked
under-representation of small and fragile elements due to loss or
destruction during transport and redeposition. Kunji Cave, Iran
(Emberling et al. 2002), displays a similar pattern but with an
over-representation of crania, which were curated and deposited
preferentially there.
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
Element representation (Figure 5 & Table 1) reveals two
important points about Scaloria Cave. First, the presence of small hand
and foot bones, and fragile bones such as sterna, vertebrae and sacra,
suggests that at least some complete bodies were introduced into the
cave; they may have been buried there first or redeposited in
disarticulated form. However, as seen at Kunji Cave in Iran and Nanjemoy
Creek in Maryland, USA, both are strongly under-represented compared
with the cranium and major long bones. This matches the breakage
patterns: the assemblage has been subjected to considerable physical
destruction, suggesting that selected elements of some bodies may have
been deposited, rather than complete individuals. The assemblage
therefore probably results from a mixture of redeposited complete and
partial bodies.
Cut-marks
The most intriguing taphonomic evidence comes from cut-marks. All
specimens were visually examined by two experienced observers (CJK and
JR) at least twice. Cut-marks were identified as linear depressions with
a V-shaped profile; we also looked for chop marks, longitudinal scraping
and chatter marks, and surface abrasion (White 1992). All potential
marks were then examined under low-magnification digital microscopy;
several were also verified through SEM imaging.
[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]
Overall, 5.5 per cent of the assemblage displays small, fine,
barely visible cut-marks (Figures 6 & 7), made using flint or
obsidian tools that were commonly found at the cave (Conati Barbaro in
prep.; Elster in prep.). No heavy chop marks, anvil marks, scraping or
chatter marks were observed. The cuts were relatively low-force,
low-impact gestures--controlled fine incisions rather than forcible
chopping. Intriguingly, cut-marks often occur in pairs, suggesting a
quick, habitually repeated gesture.
Cut-marks were found throughout the skeletons, particularly on the
cranial vault, the mandible, the clavicles and the long bones (Table 1).
Cut-marking followed two distinct patterns. In the post-cranial
skeleton, cut-marks almost always consisted of fine transverse
incisions. Occasionally these were found in places one would cut to
disassemble a fleshed body (around major joint capsules or at major
tendon attachments). Generally, however, they were distributed in series
running down the shaft of long bones, with small clusters of cut-marks a
centimetre or two apart. In several examples, a long bone shaft about
100m long displayed 20 or more transverse cut-marks distributed along
it. This technique was not aimed at removing major muscle masses, as in
butchery, which would be easier to do via strategic cuts at tendonous
attachments or via scraping longitudinally with more force (White 1992).
Instead, it seems to have been aimed at removing residual periosteal or
muscle tissue by working down the shaft and pulling or cleaning with the
hands until some particularly tenacious bit required a few slices to
free it. We have called this technique 'nick and strip'
(Figure 8).
In the head region, a few cut-marks were located at disarticulation
points such as around the temporomandibular joint (however, none
occurred around the occipital condyles, on the anterior surfaces of
cervical vertebrae for decapitation, or at points for stripping the
muscle masses of Musculus temporalis or the nuchal musculature). Most
cut-marks in the cranium were aimed at removing residual superficial
tissue for defleshing (cf. White 1986; Russell 1987; Toussaint 2011).
Many occurred in groups along the front and bottom of the mandible,
apparently to remove skin, periosteum and small muscles of facial
expression. On the vault, long, linear cut-marks were common, often
extending 20-50mm (Figure 9). These were clearly aimed at removing scalp
tissue. However, there is no recurrent pattern that might suggest
systematic scalping for trophies or other purposes (Olsen & Shipman
1994) (Figure 10). Instead, their distribution suggests that scalp
tissue was pulled laterally from the midline to expose the bone until it
encountered resistance, at which point a fresh series of cuts was made
to free it again. Strikingly, in three cases, cut-marks were observed
inside the cranium (twice upon the petrous region of the temporal bone,
and once upon the sphenoid body) (Figure 11). These appear to have been
made to sever and remove the tentorium, the tough internal membrane
lining the cranial base. These cuts could only have been made after the
skull was already opened and the brain removed. Thus, they are unrelated
to violent injury, disarticulation, or the removal of muscle or organs;
their only possible purpose was to separate residual soft tissues from
the bone itself.
[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]
Cut-marks were thus predominantly for defleshing, probably to aid
hands or other tools such as wooden spatulas. They would have been made
after the body was already at least partly disarticulated and cleaned,
but when some tissues still adhered to the bones. Bones with cut-marks
have more 'dry' (relatively fresh) breaks than unmarked bones,
suggesting that both cut-marks and fresh breaks were made during the
same period relatively soon after death, and probably during the same
processes.
Producing clean bones and then throwing them away: an end to
mourning?
How was the collective, commingled funerary deposit at Scaloria
produced? We can readily exclude many interpretations. There is no
evidence that it results from the disturbance of a cemetery of
once-articulated single burials. Disarticulated, scattered and probably
deposited episodically, it does not represent a single-event mass burial
(as in a Talheim-like massacre or a medieval plague pit). Scaloria also
lacks the evidence of peri-mortem violence one would expect in a
massacre assemblage. The absence of violence and of cut-marking aimed at
butchery also excludes dietary cannibalism (White 1992), if not the more
esoteric forms of ritual anthropophagy.
[FIGURE 9 OMITTED]
Instead, detailed taphonomic study shows that these remains were
not burials in any real sense. Some came from complete bodies; for
others, major long bones and/or crania may have been selectively
deposited. Strontium isotope evidence (Tafuri et al. in prep.) suggests
that Scaloria drew its dead from a catchment spanning at least 15-20km
that contained multiple contemporary villages. Remains brought to the
site from further away may have arrived as selected elements rather than
complete bodies. They were then defleshed to remove residual soft
tissues and sometimes to separate bones. Many bones were broken within
the first year after death, possibly at the same time as defleshing or
during additional depositions. The completely disarticulated, cleaned
bones were then strewn upon the cave floor, mixed casually with faunal
remains, broken pots and stone tools. Strikingly, bones were cleaned,
but they were not then kept for any further ritual use. The intention
seems to have been to break the body down to individual skeletal
elements, to strip them clean and then to discard them with little
further ceremony, or at least none that can be detected
archaeologically.
What was the social meaning of this act? The attention with which
bones were defleshed refutes any idea that human bodies were simply
disposed of as meaningless garbage. Instead, the production of disorder
was part of a highly structured, meaningful sequence of ritual actions.
Stripping the bones to effect a separation between any remaining soft
tissues (flesh, skin, hair) and 'pure' bone produced a new
substance; in effect, it ritually decommissioned human bone and made it
into a post-human object. Casually discarding the former remains of
friends and relations, and mixing them with objects and perhaps even
rubbish from daily life, confirmed this transformation, perhaps with a
conscious, ceremonial sense of anti-ceremoniality. The act of deposition
underlined the fact that the bones were no longer socially important
remains of human beings. Why?
Secondary burial rites often involve prolonged interaction with the
dead during a period in which they are liminal beings, spirits remaining
nearby or memories being actively mourned (Leach 1976; van Gennep 1977;
Huntington & Metcalf 1991; Hertz 2004). Here, the transformation
from entirely living to entirely dead beings had to be accomplished by
degrees, and cleaning and discarding the bone was the last (detectable)
stage. Final deposition could perhaps have signalled a termination of
this period of liminality, the moment at which the deceased reached
stability, no longer hovering and threatening (e.g. Trigger 1969), at
which the living could re-emerge from mourning (Danforth 1982).
[FIGURE 10 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 11 OMITTED]
This interpretation leads us to one final thought that is both
speculative and provocative. Why here? Is there a relationship between
the unique cult in the remote, inaccessible Lower Chamber, in which fine
pots were placed to collect water dripping from stalactites, and the
equally unique deposition of cleaned bone in the Upper Chamber? This is
probably unanswerable with present evidence, but we can propose a
hypothesis that might direct future work. One explanation involves the
potential similarity between bones and stalactites: they may have been
understood as equivalent or as transformations of each other.
Stalactites form continually in the cave and are one of its most
prominent visual features (Figure 12a). Some are massive formations, but
pencil- or finger-sized ones abound. Visually, bones and stalactites
resemble one another closely: within the dimly-lit cave, the floor is
littered with long, thin objects that are whitish or coated with mud,
and smaller stalactites are often even hollow inside. The two can
sometimes be distinguished only with difficulty even by experienced
excavators (Figure 12b). Moreover, the formation of stalactites from
dripping water is obvious: it drips continually from stalactites and
stalagmites arise below drips. It may be relevant here that in many
cultures the colour white relates to important bodily substances such as
milk and semen (Turner 1967; Knauft 1989). If we suppose that
stalactites were understood as equivalent to bones on a stone-like plane
of existence, then cleaning bones and returning them to the
stalactite-filled cave may have been understood as returning the bones
to an eternal place where they came into being, the conclusion of a
cycle of temporal incarnation. Conversely, the water that formed
'stone bones' in the cave and hence bones in the living may
have been understood as spiritually powerful or nourishing.
[FIGURE 12 OMITTED]
Conclusion
Burial in the Italian Neolithic was once considered a simple matter
of single burials around villages, but, when the evidence is assembled
in detail, a whole range of other treatments are evident. In
south-eastern Italy alone, while numerous single burials were found in
the ditched villages, many other funerary treatments are known, forming
a complex, integrated funerary programme (Robb 2007: ch. 3). This
variety is typical of the European Neolithic as a whole. From Herxheim,
Talheim and Fontbregoua to Malta and Stonehenge, Neolithic Europeans
were inventive when dealing with death, and the increasing taphonomic
study of funerary remains continually develops the known variety.
Scaloria Cave must be set among these landmark sites. Methodologically,
detailed taphonomic analysis is still far from common in European
prehistory, and this work provides a model of this potentially highly
informative technique. Conceptually, taphonomic analysis of how the dead
body is acted upon provides the bridge between bone assemblages and the
social process of dying (Kellehear 2007).
Neolithic people at Scaloria Cave engaged in a varied range of
funerary practices including primary burial, skull removal and
redeposition, and defleshing and secondary deposition, which is the
particular focus of this article. Careful taphonomic analysis has
demonstrated the practice of carefully defleshing and casually
discarding the remains of the dead, and contextual discussion has
outlined a possible framework for this practice in the final termination
of a prolonged, intimate interaction between living and dead: the end to
mourning.
doi: 10.15184/aqy.2014.35
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to our many collaborators in the larger analysis of
Scaloria Cave, to the Soprintendenza Archeologica della Puglia and the
Museo Archeologico di Manfredonia for permissions and collections
support, and to Nicola Leone and his fellow Manfredonia speleologists
for visits to the cave. We are also grateful to the Museo di
Antropologia, Universita di Roma "La Sapienza", and to the
Cotsen Intitute of Archaeology, UCLA, for logistical support. We are
grateful to Dr Jeremy Skepper at the Medical Imaging Centre, Department
of Anatomy, Cambridge, for SEM imaging of cut-marks. Funding was
generously provided by the National Endowment for the Humanities, the
Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, the EU Marie Curie Fellowships, the
Cotsen Intitute of Archaeology and the McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research. Finally, Robin Skeates and an anonymous
reviewer provided helpful comments to improve the manuscript.
References
BECKETT, J.F. 2011. Interactions with the dead: a taphonomic
analysis of burial practices in three megalithic tombs in County Clare,
Ireland.
European Journal of Archaeology 14: 394-418.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/146195711798356719
BOULESTIN, B., A. ZEEB-LANZ, C. JEUNESSE, F. HAACK, R.-M. ARBOGAST
& A. DENAIRE. 2009. Mass cannibalism in the Linear Pottery Culture
at Herxheim (Palatinate, Germany). Antiquity 83: 968-82.
BUIKSTRA, J. & D.H. UBELAKER. 1994. Standards for data
collection from human skeletal remains. Fayetteville: Arkansas
Archaeological Survey. Cassano, S. & A. Manfredini. 1983. Studi sul
Neolitico del Tavoliere della Puglia (British Archaeological Reports
international series 160). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
CONATI BARBARO, C. In preparation. Analysis of chipped stone from
the 1978 excavations, in E.S. Elster, E. Isetti, J. Robb & A.
Traverso (ed.) Scaloria Cave. Los Angeles (CA): Cotsen Institute of
Archaeology.
DANFORTH, L. 1982. The death rituals of rural Greece. Princeton
(NJ): Princeton University Press.
DUDAY, H. 2009. The archaeology of the dead: lectures in
archaeothanatology. Oxford: Oxbow.
ELSTER, E.S. In preparation. Analysis of the chipped stone from the
1979 excavations, in E.S. Elster, E. Isetti, J. Robb & A. Traverso
(ed.) Scaloria Cave. Los Angeles (CA): Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.
ELSTER, E.S., E. ISETTI, J. ROBB & A. TRAVERSO (ed.). In
preparation. Scaloria Cave. Los Angeles (CA): Cotsen Institute of
Archaeology.
EMBERLING, G., J. ROBB, J. SPETH & H. WRIGHT. 2002. Kunji Cave:
Early Bronze Age burials in Luristan. Iranica Antiqua 37: 47-104.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2143/IA.37.0.118
GRAZIOSI, P. 1975. Nuove manifestazioni d'arte mesolitica e
neolitica nel Riparo Gaban presso Trento. Rivista di Scienze
Preistoriche 30: 237-78.
HERTZ, R. 2004. A contribution to the study of the collective
representation of death, in A. Robben (ed.) Death, mourning and burial:
a cross-cultural reader. 213-22. Oxford: Blackwell.
HUNTINGTON, R. & P. METCALF. 1991. Celebrations of death: the
anthropology of mortuary ritual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
JONES, G.B.D. 1987. Apulia. London: Society of Antiquaries.
KELLEHEAR, A. 2007. A social history of dying. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511481352
KNAUFT, B. 1989. Body images in Melanesia: cultural substances and
natural metaphors, in M. Feher (ed.) Fragments for a history of the
human body, part III: 192-278. New York: Zone.
KNUSEL, C. & A. OUTRAM. 2006. Fragmentation of the body:
comestibles, compost, or customary rite?, in R. Gowland & C. Knusel
(ed.) The social archaeology of funerary remains: 253-78. Oxford: Oxbow.
KNUSEL, C., J. ROBB & M.A. TAFURI. In preparation. Funerary
practices: the evidence from burial taphonomy, in E.S. Elster, E.
Isetti, J. Robb & A. Traverso (ed.) Scaloria Cave. Los Angeles (CA):
Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.
LEACH, E. 1976. Culture and communication: the logic by which
symbols are connected. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607684
OLSEN, S.L. & P. SHIPMAN. 1994. Cut-marks and peri-mortem
treatment of skeletal remains on the Northern Plains, in D.W. Owsley
& R.L. Jantz (ed.) Skeletal biology of the Great Plains: migration,
warfare, health, and subsistence. 377-87. Washington (DC): Smithsonian
Institution Press.
ORSCHIEDT, J. & M.N. HAIDLE. 2006. The LBK enclosure of
Herxheim. Theatre of war or ritual centre? References from
osteoarchaeological investigations. Journal of Conflict Archaeology 2:
153-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157407706778942330
OUTRAM, A., C. KNOSEL, S. KNIGHT & A. HARDING. 2005.
Understanding complex fragmented assemblages of human and animal
remains: a folly integrated approach. Journal of Archaeological Science
32: 1699-710. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.05.008
PARKER PEARSON, M., A. CHAMBERLAIN, M. JAY, P. MARSHALL, J.
POLLARD, C. RICHARDS, J. THOMAS, C. TILLEY & K. WELHAM. 2009. Who
was buried at Stonehenge? Antiquity 83: 23-39.
QUAGLIATI, Q. 1936. La Puglia preistorica. Roma: Society per la
Storia Patria per la Puglia.
RELLINI, I., A. CIAMPALINI & M. FIRPO. In preparation.
Geoarcheological studies, in E.S. Elster, E. Isetti, J. Robb & A.
Traverso (ed.) Scaloria Cave. Los Angeles (CA): Cotsen Institute of
Archaeology.
RELLINI, U. 1934. La piu antica ceramica dipinta d'Italia.
Roma: Collana Meridionale Editrice.
ROBB, J. 1991. Neolithic skeletal remains from the Grotta Scaloria:
the 1979 excavations. Rivista di Antropologia 69: 111-24.
-- 2002. Time and biography, in Y. Hamilakis, M. Pluciennik &
S. Tarlow (ed.) Thinking through the body: archaeologies of
corporeality. 145-63. London: Kluwer/Academic.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/9781-4615-0693-5
-- 2007. The early Mediterranean village: agency, material culture
and social change in Neolithic Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
-- 2013. Creating death: an archaeology of dying, in L. Nilsson
Stutz & S. Tarlow (ed.) The Oxford handbook of the archaeology of
death and burial: 441-58. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199569069.001.0001
ROBB, J., M.A. TAFURI & C. KNUSEL. In preparation. The human
bone assemblage, in E.S. Elster, E. Isetti, J. Robb & A. Traverso
(ed.) Scaloria Cave. Los Angeles (CA): Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.
RUSSELL, M. 1987. Mortuary practices at the Krapina Neandertal
site. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 381-97.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330720311
SMITH, M. & M. BRICKLEY. 2009. People of the long barrows:
life, death and burial in the Earlier Neolithic. Stroud: History Press.
TAFURI, M.A., T. O'CONNELL, J. ROBB, C. KNUSEL & P.
FULLAGAR. In preparation. Mobility, landscape, and the function of the
cave: evidence from strontium isotopes, in E.S. Elster, E. Isetti, J.
Robb & A. Traverso (ed.) Scaloria Cave. Los Angeles (CA): Cotsen
Institute of Archaeology.
TESCHLER-NICOLA, M., F. GEROLD, M. BUJATTI-NARBESHUBER, T.
PROHASKA, C. LATKOCZY, G. STINGEDER & M. WATKINS. 1999. Evidence of
genocide 7000 BP--Neolithic paradigm and geo-climatic reality. Collegium
Antropologicum 23: 437-50.
TINE, S. 1983. Passo di Corvo e la civilta neolitica del Tavoliere.
Genova: Sagep.
TINE, S. & E. ISETTI. 1980a. Culto neolitico delle acque e
recenti scavi nella Grotta Scaloria. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana
82: 31-70.
-- 1980b. Recenti scavi nella Grotta Scaloria. Atti del convegno
archeologico "Civiltb e culture antiche tra Gargano e
Tavoliere": 77-96.
TOUSSAINT, M. 2011. Intentional cutmarks on an Early Mesolithic
human calvaria from Margaux Cave (Dinant, Belgium). American Journal of
Physical Anthropology 144: 100-107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.21375
TRIGGER, B.G. 1969. The Huron: farmers of the north. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
TURNER, V. 1967. The forest of symbols: aspects of Ndembu ritual.
Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press.
UBELAKER, D. 1974. Reconstruction of demographic profiles from
ossuary skeletal samples. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution
Press.
VAN GENNEP, A. 1977. The rites of passage. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
VILLA, P., J. COURTIN, D. HELMER, P. SHIPMAN, C. BOUVILLE, E.
MAHIEU, G. BELLUOMINI & M. BRANCA. 1986. Un cas de cannibalisme au
Neolithique: boucherie et rejet de restes humains et animaux dans la
grotte de Fontbregoua a Salernes (Var). Gallia Prehistoire 29: 143-71.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/galip.1986.2243
WAHL, J. & H.G. KONIG. 1987. Anthropologischtraumatologiche
Untersuchung der menschlichen Skelettreste aus dem Bandkeramischen
Massengrab bei Talheim, Kreis Heilbronn. Fundberichte aus
Baden-Wurttemberg 12: 65-193.
WALDRON, T. 1987. The relative survival of the human skeleton:
implications for palaeopathology, in A. Boddington, A. Garland & R.
Janaway (ed.) Death, decay and reconstruction: approaches to archaeology
and forensic science: 149-62. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
WEIBERG, D. & D. WESTCOTT. 2008. Estimating the timing of long
bone fracture: correlation between the postmortem interval, bone
moisture content, and blunt force trauma fracture characteristics.
Journal of Forensic Science 53: 1028-34.
WHITE, T.D. 1986. Cut marks on the Bodo cranium: a case of
prehistoric defleshing. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 69:
503-509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajpa. 1330690410
--1992. Prehistoric cannibalism at Mancos 5MTUTR-2346. Princeton
(NJ): Princeton University Press.
WHITEHOUSE, R. 1992. Underground religion: cult and culture in
prehistoric Italy. London: Accordia Research Centre.
WHITTLE, A. & M. WYSOCKI. 1998. Parc le Breos, Gowen,
transepted long cairn, west Glamorgan: date, contents and context.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 64: 139-82.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00002206
WINN, S. & D. SHIMABUKU. 1988. The heritage of two subsistance
strategies: preliminary report on the excavations at the Grotta
Scaloria, southeastern Italy, 1978. Halifax: St Mary's University.
Received: 27 November 2013; Accepted: 14 February 2014; Revised: 20
February 2014
John Robb (1), Ernestine S. Elster (2), Eugenia Isetti (3),
Christopher J. Knusel (4), Mary Anne Tafuri (5) & Antonella
Traverso (6)
(1) Department of Archaeology, Cambridge University, Downing
Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, UK (Author for correspondence; Email:
jer39@cam.ac.uk)
(2) Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los
Angeles, 308 Charles E. Young Drive North, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1510,
USA
(3) Istituto Italiano per Archeologia Sperimentale, Via di
Vallechiara 3/11, 16125 Genova, Italy UMR 5199 PACEA, Universite de
Bordeaux, Batiment B8, Allee Geoffroy Saint Hilaire, Pessac cedex 33615,
France
(5) Dipartimento di Biologia Ambientale, University di Roma
"La Sapienza", Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, Rome 00185, Italy
(6) Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Liguria, Via Balbi
10, 16126 Genova, Italy
Table 1. Element representation and frequency of cut-marks in the
skeleton.
Element
representation index
Element (based on MNI of 22) Cut-marks (%)
Cranium 59.09 9.3
Mandible 54.55 26.7
Vertebra--cervical 20.78 --
Vertebra--thoracic 15.53 --
Vertebra--lumbar 15.45 --
Vertebra (all) -- 0.4
Sacrum 4.55 0.0
Os coxae 34.09 2.3
Sternum 9.09 0.0
Rib 10.61 1.7
Clavicle 54.55 23.5
Scapula 36.36 4.1
Humerus 52.27 13.2
Radius 45.45 4.3
Ulna 40.91 0.0
Carpals 1.14 6.7
Metacarpals 11.36 2.6
Femur 79.55 7.6
Patella 22.73 9.1
Tibia 40.91 5.9
Fibula 20.45 9.1
Talus 36.36 0.0
Calcaneus 27.27 5.3
Tarsals 8.18 0.0
Metatarsals 18.64 0.0
Phalanges (hand and foot) 3.57 0.0
