Приказ основних података о документу

dc.creatorBello, Silvia M.
dc.creatorWallduck, Rosalind
dc.creatorDimitrijević, Vesna
dc.creatorŽivaljević, Ivana
dc.creatorStringer, Chris B.
dc.date.accessioned2021-10-12T12:22:39Z
dc.date.available2021-10-12T12:22:39Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.issn0002-9483
dc.identifier.urihttp://reff.f.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/2212
dc.description.abstractObjectives: Humanly induced modifications on human and non-human bones from four archaeological sites of known funerary rituals (one interpreted as cannibalism and three interpreted as funerary defleshing and disarticulation after a period of decay) were analyzed to ascertain whether macromorphological and micromorphological characteristics of cut marks can be used to distinguish cannibalistic from secondary burial practices. Material and methods: Four collections were analyzed: the Magdalenian assemblage from Gough's Cave (UK) and the Mesolithic-Neolithic bone samples from Lepenski Vir, Padina and Vlasac (Serbia). A total of 647 cut marks (345 on human and 302 on non-human remains) were imaged and measured using an optical surface measurement system, the Alicona InfiniteFocus, housed at the Natural History Museum (London, UK). Results: The frequency of cut marks at Gough's Cave exceeds 65%, while it is below 1% in the Serbian sites, and no human tooth marks and only one case of percussion damage have been observed on the three Serbian collections. The distribution of cut marks on human bones is comparable in the four assemblages. Cannibalized human remains, however, present a uniform cut mark distribution, which can be associated with disarticulation of persistent and labile articulations, and the scalping and filleting of muscles. For secondary burials where modification occurred after a period of decay, disarticulation marks are less common and the disarticulation of labile joints is rare. The micromorphometric analyses of cut marks on human and non-human remains suggest that cut marks produced when cleaning partially decayed bodies are significantly different from cut marks produced during butchery of fresh bodies. Conclusions: A distinction between cannibalism and secondary treatment of human bodies can be made based on frequency, distribution and micromorphometric characteristics of cut marks.en
dc.publisherWiley, Hoboken
dc.relationCalleva Foundation
dc.relationLeverhulme Trust [RPG-2013-348]
dc.relationinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/MESTD/Integrated and Interdisciplinary Research (IIR or III)/47001/RS//
dc.relationHuman Research Fund at the Natural History Museum (London)
dc.rightsrestrictedAccess
dc.sourceAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology
dc.subjectMesolithicen
dc.subjectMagdalenianen
dc.subjecthuman tooth marksen
dc.subjectcut marksen
dc.subjectbreakage damageen
dc.titleCannibalism versus funerary defleshing and disarticulation after a period of decay: comparisons of bone modifications from four prehistoric sitesen
dc.typearticle
dc.rights.licenseARR
dc.citation.epage743
dc.citation.issue4
dc.citation.other161(4): 722-743
dc.citation.rankM21
dc.citation.spage722
dc.citation.volume161
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/ajpa.23079
dc.identifier.pmid27561127
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84983390696
dc.identifier.wos000388200700015
dc.type.versionpublishedVersion


Документи

Thumbnail

Овај документ се појављује у следећим колекцијама

Приказ основних података о документу