See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/306134745

The Archaeology of Death: Archaeothanatology. An Introduction

Article in Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Series Historica · December 2014

DOI: 10.29302/AUASH/introduction-3

CITATIONS READS
4 6,412

1 author:

Mihai Gligor
1 Decembrie 1918 University Alba Iulia
51 PUBLICATIONS 308 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Romanian Journal of Legal Medicine, XVI(4), 2008, p. 261-268 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mihai Gligor on 19 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ANNALES
UNIVERSITATIS
APULENSIS

SERIES HISTORICA

18/II

Archaeothanatology: An Interdisciplinary Approach on Death

from Prehistory to the Middle Ages

Edited by
Mihai Gligor

Editura Mega

2014
This work was supported by a grant from the Romanian National Authority for
Scientific Research, CNCS-UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-RU-TE-2012-3-0461.
EDITORIAL BOARD
Radu Ardevan Keith Hitchins
(“Babeş-Bolyai” University (University of Illinois
Cluj-Napoca) at Urbana-Champaign)
Barbara Deppert-Lippitz Eva Mârza
(Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (“1 Decembrie 1918” University of
Frankfurt am Main) Alba Iulia)
Alex Rubel Bogdan Murgescu
(Institute of Archaeology Iaşi) (University of Bucharest)
Michael Vickers Ernst Christoph Suttner
(Jesus College Oxford) (Universität Wien)
Acad. Alexandru Zub
(“A.D. Xenopol” Institute of History
Iaşi)

EDITORIAL COMMITTEE
Daniel Dumitran (Chief-editor)
Sorin Arhire (Secretary)
Ileana Burnichioiu, Mihai Gligor, Valer Moga
Cosmin Popa-Gorjanu, Marius Rotar

Linguistic revision by
Christina Lundberg

Cover I: Ileana Burnichioiu

The cover image illustrates a human skull and the articulated limbs from
Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă, Trench I/2011, square D (Poz-47402: 5690±40 BP)

Copyright © 2014, “1 Decembrie 1918” University

ALBA IULIA
Unirii Street, no. 15-17
Tel.: +40-258-811412; Fax: +40-258-806260
E-mail: aua_historia@uab.ro
Web: http://diam.uab.ro/index.php?s=2&p=4
ISSN 1453-9306

www.edituramega.ro
 CONTENTS

The Archaeology of Death: Archaeothanatology. An Introduction 5

STUDIES AND ARTICLES

JOHN CHAPMAN, ROSALIND WALLDUCK, AND SEVI TRIANTAPHYLLOU

Disarticulated Human Bone Disposal During the Mesolithic, Neolithic
and Chalcolithic in the Balkans and Greece 11
RALUCA KOGĂLNICEANU
“Over His/Her Dead Body”: Modes of Treating the Human Body at the
Hamangia Cemetery from Cernavodă 47
MIHAI GLIGOR AND KIRSTY MCLEOD
Disarticulation as a Transylvanian Early Eneolithic Mortuary Practice?
A Case Study from Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă (Romania) 61
GEORGE BODI, LOREDANA SOLCAN, AND LUMINIŢA BEJENARU
Arguments for an Alternative Approach to the Interpretation of the
Human Remains from the Cucuteni Culture 87
GABRIEL BĂLAN
Deviant Burials of Wietenberg Culture at Miceşti-Cigaş (Alba County,
Romania) 95
GABRIEL BĂLAN AND COLIN P. QUINN
Radiocarbon Data of Funerary Discoveries from Middle Bronze Age
Settlement at Miceşti-Cigaş (Alba County, Romania) 119
CLAUDIA RADU, NORBERT SZEREDAI, AND BEATRICE KELEMEN
Anthropological Data Regarding Three Adult Individuals from a
Middle Bronze Age Archaeological Context 127
ALPÁR DOBOS
Plunder or Ritual? The Phenomenon of Grave Reopening
in the Row-Grave Cemeteries from Transylvania (6th-7th Centuries) 135
BERNADETTE M. MANIFOLD
Childhood Health and Disease in Medieval Ireland 163
Abstracts 179
 CONTENTS

List of abbreviations 183

List of authors 185

4
 THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF DEATH:
ARCHAEOTHANATOLOGY. AN INTRODUCTION

The prehistoric funerary archaeology is currently going through a fervid

period, as far as methodological and qualitative aspects are concerned.
Researching and classifying burials are dealt with, on a standard basis, by every
archaeologist involved in funerary studies. An increase in funerary discoveries
generates new approaches and interpretations of mortuary practices.
As a follow-up to the research project From Inhumation to Cremation
in Romanian Neolithic and Eneolithic. New Archaeological Evidence, Burial
Practices, and Osteological Approach, the Principal Investigator of that project,
Mihai Gligor, PhD, University “1 Decembrie 1918” of Alba Iulia hosted a
conference in 2014 entitled “Archaeothanatology: an Interdisciplinary
Approach on Death in Prehistory.” For two days (14-15 April), scholars took
part in interesting debates about: 1. Burial context and characteristics of
funerary deposits; 2. Corpse decomposition and taphonomic processes; 3.
Mortuary practices and the disposal of bodies; 4. Dismembered and scattered
human remains; 5. Missing, presumed dead. Where are people buried?
The conference was funded by a grant from the Romanian National
Authority for Scientific Research, CNCS – UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-
RU-TE-2012-3-0461 (53/30.04.2013).
The present volume, entitled Archaeothanatology: an Interdisciplinary
Approach on Death from Prehistory to the Middle Ages1 contains the most
valuable contributions from the conference, as well as other studies related to
the conference topics.
In the early 1980s, a new approach combining archaeology with
biology-derived methods was developed in France. Its original name in
literature was “l’anthropologie du terrain,” literally “field anthropology.” Due to
the fact that there were different meanings of both “anthropology” and
“fieldwork” in French, Anglo-Saxon and American literature, in 2005-2006
Bruno Boulestin and Henri Duday coined term “archaeothanatology.”2
Archaeologists are the ones who make the funerary discoveries, and
they traditionally elaborate on stratigraphy, grave goods, and architectural


This work was supported by a grant from the Romanian National Authority for Scientific
Research, CNCS–UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-RU-TE-2012-3-0461.
1 I would like to express our gratitude to Christina Lundberg (Bournemouth University, UK) for a

professional proofreading and the important help given in editing the papers.
2 Bruno Boulestin and Henri Duday, “Ethnology and Archaeology of Death: Fom the Illusion of

References to the Use of a Terminology,” Archaeologia Polona 44 (2006): 153, note 5; Henry
Duday, The Archaeology of the Dead. Lectures in Archaeothanatology (Oxford: Oxbow Books,
2009), 3.
Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Series Historica, 18, II (2014): 5-9
 MIHAI GLIGOR

structure. Rarely do they discuss the human bones in detail, this being added by
a specialized osteologist. This separation of data interpretation by specialists,
makes for an incomplete view of the funerary discoveries. Archaeothanatology’s
objective is to “reconstruct the attitudes of ancient populations towards death,
by focusing on the study of the human skeleton, and analysing the acts linked
to the management and treatment of the corpse.” This is done by “placing the
deceased at the centre of interest in the tomb.”3
The context of an excavated grave is the result of a combination of the
initial characteristics of the body deposition, and the taphonomic processes
which alter it until the grave is found. Taphonomy of the body refers to “all the
processes which affect the human remains after their deposition, for example
the level of preservation of the skeletal elements, and their arrangement in
relation to the other skeletal elements.”4 While the original characteristics of
the funerary deposit are accounted for by archaeologists, it is
archaeothanatology which aims to describe the effects of the burial processes on
the skeleton. One of the most important of these, is the effect of gravity on the
body decomposition.5
When analysing the effect of taphonomic processes on a corpse, an
important element to consider is the space, which can be internal to the body
(it appears when the soft tissues decompose), external (outside the body, but
within the grave), secondary external (organic objects inside the grave have
decomposed and left a void), or no space6 (soil slowly filled the space left by the
decomposing tissues). By combining the possibilities of the presence or absence
of space, five different burial contexts have been outlined: the body was not
wrapped (or wrapped loosely in a non-durable material), the body was tightly
wrapped in a non-durable material, the body was wrapped tightly in a durable
material, the body was interred in a narrow coffin, or the body was interred in a
wide coffin. In order to find out how the corpse was interred, N. Harris and N.
Tayles developed a method which they applied post hoc to a sample of 133
human burials from Ban Non Wat,7 North-Eastern Thailand dating from the
Neolithic to the Iron Age. By applying their method, the authors were able to
add to the knowledge of burial modes over several historic periods. They
conclude that with time the burial modes became more uniform, reducing to

3 Duday, The Archaeology of the Dead, 4.

4 Ibid., 13.
5 Eric Crubézy, “L’étude des sepultures ou du monde des morts au monde des vivants.

Anthropobiologie, archéologie funéraire et anthropologie de terrain,” in Eric Crubézy et al., eds.,

L’Archéologie funéraire (Paris: Errance, 2000), 28-30; Nathaniel John Harris and Nancy Tayles,
“Burial Containers – A Hidden Aspect of Mortuary Practices: Archaeothanatology at Ban Non
Wat, Thailand,” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31 (2012): 231.
6 Harris and Tayles, “Burial Containers,” 231, tab. 2.
7 Ibid., 231, fig. 4.

6
 The Archaeology of Death: Archaeothanatology. An Introduction

mostly using narrow and wide coffins in the Iron Age.8

H. Duday (2009) describes in more detail, with informative pictures and
plates, the relationships between the internal and external environments of the
corpse, which may be encountered in practice. These descriptions enhance the
understanding and applicability of Harris and Tayles’ method presented above.
Detailed analysis of the skeletal position and cartilage decomposition allows for
a broader understanding of the burial findings. For example, the
“verticalisation” of clavicles (they are found with the lateral extremity upwards
and the medial one downwards) is proven to be a consequence of tight
wrapping, or interment within a narrow coffin.9 Vertebral displacements are
usually due to gravity acting upon them. In the case of a Middle Neolithic burial
at Berriac,10 it indicates that the decomposition of the body happened in a void,
and that a cover made of a non-durable element such as wood, was closing the
pit. Special attention should be given to the location of the patella. The hip joint
has ligaments which decompose quickly, allowing the femur to rotate while
remaining articulated, which would cause the patella to fall outside the knee.
This means that the skeleton was originally placed in a coffin.11 In some cases,
the position of the skull relative to the atlas and axis (the first and second
vertebrae) may indicate that the head was originally elevated compared to the
rest of the skeleton.12 Flattening of the pelvis, and no constriction, indicates that
the body was interred in a supine position, in a wide coffin.13.
Sometimes skeletal elements are found in their original position, and are
not subject to the action of gravity. This happens when the void left by the
decaying soft tissue is progressively filled with the surrounding soil. In this
process, there are three mechanisms involved: sediment increase in volume as it
becomes wet, gravity acting on the soil surrounding the corpse, and actions of
small animals (earthworms) disturbing the interment.14 There are also cases
when the filling is not progressive, but happens more “abruptly”, sometime
after the soft tissue has decayed. This is known as delayed filling. One of its
characteristics is that the angles created by various limb segments (e.g. elbow,
knee) are closed by the filling.15
Funerary deposits can be classified from several points of view. When
considering the number of interred corpses, they are presented as individual

8 Ibid., 237, tab. 4.

9 Duday, The Archaeology of the Dead, 45-46.
10 Ibid., 45-46, fig. 14.
11 Ibid., 45-46, fig. 15-16, 18, 22.
12 Ibid., 45-46, fig. 32-33.
13 Harris, Tayles, “Burial Containers,” fig. 9.
14 Duday, The Archaeology of the Dead, 54-55.
15 Henri Duday, “The Archaeology of the Dead. Lectures in Archaeothanatology,” in Rebecca

Gowland and Christopher Knüsel, eds., Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains (Oxford: Oxbow
Books, 2006), 40-43.
7
 MIHAI GLIGOR

and multiple burials (several bodies were deposited together at the same time).16
The location where the body was initially placed and where it started to
decompose (or burn) is called a primary deposit, and primary burial if this is the
final deposition place.17 If the remains (or ashes) are moved elsewhere, for
deposition, this is called a secondary burial.18 A secondary deposit may be an
agglomeration of human remains with partially or completely disarticulated
skeletal elements.19 Reduction20 is a term used in relation to secondary burials,
due to the increase in available space generated by this process. An ossuary is a
place where the bones from different tombs are grouped together.21
Primary burials are mainly characterised by the presence of anatomical
connections.22 H. Duday perform a detailed analysis of an individual burial in
tomb 19 from necropolis A, Entella, Sicily, a burial which also includes
disarticulated elements, in order to see if this was a primary burial.23 The
skeletal joints break down differently. First to decompose are the joints of the
hands and the feet, then the rib cage and the muscles between it and the
scapula, while the lumbar vertebral joints, the lumbo-sacral and the sacro-iliac
joints, together with the knee and ankle joints degrade at a later stage. Duday
shows that, if the anatomical connections are maintained between the joints
which degrade the fastest, and if the skeletal elements adhere to the general
anatomical order, then the primary character of the burial can be
demonstrated.24
Duday points out that when analysing burials with more than one
individual, if anatomical connections are in place for each individual, it is not
possible to say if all were buried at the same time in one event, or if each
individual was buried separately as different events but within a short space of
time.25
A first-order relationship between bones is defined as the relationship
between the skeletal elements of the same individual, observed at the time of
excavation. When collective burials are analysed, it is more difficult to draw
conclusions, than in the case of individual, or even double interments. This is

16 Philippe Chambron and Jean Leclerc, “Les tombes multiples dans le Néolithique français: aléa
statistique ou pratique institutionnalisée,” Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 104, 2
(2007): 289.
17 Crubézy, “L’étude des sepultures,” 23.
18 Ibid.
19 Boulestin and Duday, “Ethnology and Archaeology,” 166.
20 Crubézy, “L’étude des sepultures,” 23; Boulestin and Duday, “Ethnology and Archaeology,” 164,

note 16.
21 Crubézy, “L’étude des sepultures,” 23.
22 Boulestin and Duday, “Ethnology and Archaeology,” 161, 166.
23 Duday, The Archaeology of the Dead, fig. 8-9.
24 Ibid., 25-28.
25 Ibid., 75-76.

8
 The Archaeology of Death: Archaeothanatology. An Introduction

the case particularly for very fragmented skeletons, such as the ones found in
some collective Neolithic graves. This is why the concept of second-order
relationships between bones was introduced, which refers to the pairing-up of
bones belonging to the same individual, by the anthropologist while performing
skeletal analyses in the laboratory.26
Archaeothanatology does not only tell the osteological part of the story,
but also greatly enhance our knowledge through the study of funerary practices
that the living perform on the dead, by documenting rituals and interpreting
them within their historical contexts.27

MIHAI GLIGOR

26Duday, “The Archaeology,” 50-51.

27Mike Parker Pearson, The Archaeology of Death and Burial (Gloucestershire: The History
Press, 1999), 3.
9
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AAC Acta Archaeologica Carpathica. Institut of Archaeology and

Ethnology, Krakow
AB Analele Banatului. Muzeul Banatului, Timişoara
ActaArchHung Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae,
Budapest
AJPA American Journal of Physical Anthropology. Harvard
University, Boston
AK Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt. Römisch-Germanisches
Zentralmuseum, Mainz
Aluta Aluta. Muzeul Judeţean Covasna. Sfântu Gheorghe
AM Arheologia Moldovei. Institutul de Arheologie Iaşi
AMN Acta Musei Napocensis. Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a
Transilvaniei, Cluj-Napoca
Apulum Apulum. Acta Musei Apulensis. Muzeul Naţional al Unirii,
Alba Iulia
Apulum AA Apulum. Acta Musei Apulensis. Series Archaeologica &
Anthropologica. Muzeul Naţional al Unirii, Alba Iulia
ArchAustr Archaeologia Austriaca. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press,
Vienna
ArhS Arhiva Someşană. Năsăud
AS Acta Siculica. Muzeul Naţional Secuiesc, Sfântu Gheorghe.
AUA hist. Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Series Historica. Universitatea
„1 Decembrie 1918”, Alba Iulia
AUV Analles d'Université ''Valahia". Section d'Archéologie et
d'Histoire. Universitatea "Valahia", Târgovişte
BerRGK Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission. Deutsche
Archäologische Institut
BT Bibliotheca Thracologica. București
CA Cercetări Arheologice. Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a României,
București
CCA Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice. Institutul Naţional al
Patrimoniului, București
Crisia Crisia. Muzeul Ţării Crişurilor, Oradea
Dacia N.S. Dacia. Revue d'archéologie et d'histoire ancienne. Nouvelle
série. Institutul de Arheologie "Vasile Pârvan" , București
EJST European Journal of Science and Theology, Iaşi
FI File de Istorie. Muzeul de Istorie Bistriţa
MCA Materiale și Cercetări Arheologice. Institutul de Arheologie
"Vasile Pârvan", București
OJA Oxford Journal of Archaeology. University of Oxford
PA Probleme de antropologie. Institutul de Antropologie
,,Francisc I. Rainer”, Academia Română, București
PM Probleme de muzeografie, Cluj
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

RGA Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde

RJLM Romanian Journal of Legal Medicine. Romanian Society of
Legal Medicine, Bucharest
SAA Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica. “Alexandru Ioan Cuza”
University of Iași
Sargetia Sargetia. Muzeul Civilizaţiei Dacice şi Romane, Deva
SCIV(A) SCIVA. Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche şi Arheologie,
Institutul de Arheologie "Vasile Pârvan" , București
StCom Satu Mare Studii şi Comunicări. Muzeul Judeţean Satu Mare
StCom Sibiu Studii şi Comunicări. Muzeul Bruckenthal, Sibiu
Trans R Transylvanian Review. Centrul de Studii Transilvane,
Academia Română, Cluj-Napoca
TS Terra Sebus. Acta Musei Sabesiensis. Muzeul Municipal “Ioan
Raica”, Sebeş

184
 LIST OF AUTHORS

Gabriel BĂLAN, PhD, National Museum of Union Alba Iulia

e-mail: liviugabrielbalan@yahoo.com
Luminiţa BEJENARU, Assoc. Prof. PhD, Faculty of Biology, “Al. I. Cuza” University of
Iași
e-mail: lumib@uaic.ro
George BODI, Senior Scientific Researcher PhD, Institute of Archaeology, Romanian
Academy, Iași Branch
e-mail: georgebodi@gmail.com
John CHAPMAN, PhD, Durham University, UK
e-mail: j.c.chapman@durham.ac.uk
Alpár DOBOS, Researcher, Mureș County Museum, Târgu Mureș
e-mail: alpardobos@yahoo.com
Mihai GLIGOR, PhD, “1 Decembrie 1918” University of Alba Iulia, Department of
History, Archaeology, and Museology
e-mail: mihai.gligor@uab.ro
Beatrice KELEMEN, PhD, Faculty of Biology and Geology, “Babeș-Bolyai” University
Cluj-Napoca
e-mail: bea.kelemen@gmail.com
Raluca KOGĂLNICEANU, PhD, Institutul de Arheologie “Vasile Pârvan,” Str. Henri
Coandă nr. 11, Bucureşti
e-mail: raluca.kogalniceanu@gmail.com
Bernadette M. MANIFOLD, PhD, Independent Researcher, UK
e-mail: bmmanifold@hotmail.co.uk
Kirsty MCLEOD, MSc, Liverpool John Moores University, UK
e-mail: K.J.McLeod@2009.ljmu.ac.uk
Colin P. QUINN, PhD Candidate, University of Michigan, Department of
Anthropology, USA
e-mail: cpquinn@umich.edu
Claudia RADU, PhD candidate, Molecular Biology Center, Interdisciplinary Research
Institute in Bio-Nano Sciences, “Babeș-Bolyai” University, Cluj-Napoca
e-mail: claudia.radu20@gmail.com
Loredana SOLCAN, Senior Curator PhD, Moldavia's History Museum, “Moldova”
National Museum Complex of Iași
 LIST OF AUTHORS

e-mail: loredana_solcan@yahoo.com
Norbert SZEREDAI, PhD candidate, Molecular Biology Center, Interdisciplinary
Research Institute in Bio-Nano Sciences, “Babeș-Bolyai” University, Cluj-
Napoca
e-mail: szeredai.norbert@gmail.com
Sevi TRIANTAPHYLLOU, PhD, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
e-mail: sevitr@otenet.gr
Rosalind WALLDUCK, PhD, Natural History Museum, London, UK
e-mail: r.wallduck@googlemail.com

186

View publication stats