Mesolithic mortuary ritual at Franchthi Cave, Greece.

Mesolithic mortuary ritual at Franchthi Cave, Greece. Franchthi Cave Franchthi cave (or Frankhthi cave, Greek Σπήλαιον Φράγχθη) in the Peloponnese, in the southeastern Argolid, is a cave overlooking the Argolic Gulf opposite the Greek village of Koilada. , on the east shore of the Gulf of Argos in southernGreece, is a key site for European prehistory prehistory,period of human evolution before writing was invented and records kept. The term was coined by Daniel Wilson in 1851. It is followed by protohistory, the period for which we have some records but must still rely largely on archaeological evidence to . The cave's complexstratigraphic stra��tig��ra��phy?n.The study of rock strata, especially the distribution, deposition, and age of sedimentary rocks.strat sequence spans at least 25,000 years, from the UpperPalaeolithic through the Neolithic, with indications of possibly earlieroccupation. The Mesolithic(1) sequence at Franchthi is of specialinterest because very few Mesolithic sites have been discovered in theAegean. The earliest secure evidence for mortuary ritual in Greece isfound in Lower Mesolithic levels at Franchthi, dating to the 10thmillennium b.p., when a cluster of eight burials, including twocremations, was placed near the mouth of the cave. Another, morefragmentary burial can be attributed to the following millennium, theUpper Mesolithic period Mesolithic period(mĕz'əlĭth`ĭk)or Middle Stone Age,period in human development between the end of the Paleolithic period and the beginning of the Neolithic period. , and 48 human bone fragments and teeth werefound scattered and mixed with cultural debris in both Lower and UpperMesolithic contexts. This small sample, our only insight into Mesolithicburial practices in Greece, supports an intriguing image of emergingsocial complexity and collective ritual in the early Holocene,particularly when viewed against the wider backdrop of Mesolithic Europeand the Near East.History of research at Franchthi CaveThe site of Franchthi Cave occupies a rocky limestone headland on thesouthern coast of the Argive peninsula [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 1OMITTED]. A horizontal cavern some 150 m long offering secure shelterfrom predators and the extremes of climate, it has been usedintermittently from the Upper Palaeolithic to the present. The mostintensive occupation of the cave dates from c. 30,000(?) to 5000 b.p.,the Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic periods, producing along sequence punctuated by several hiatuses. Massive rockfalls from theroof and brow have sent a cascade of boulders into the cave interior,opening two windows to the sky and limiting the area of excavation[ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 1 OMITTED]. The area outside the present caveentrance(2) and along the modern shore (Paralia) has yielded onlyNeolithic and later material. Formal burials and extensive human bonescatter have been found in all parts of the site (Jacobsen & Cullen1981), but the Mesolithic sample is limited to soundings within thecave.Excavations at Franchthi were directed by Thomas W. Jacobsen ofIndiana University Indiana University,main campus at Bloomington; state supported; coeducational; chartered 1820 as a seminary, opened 1824. It became a college in 1828 and a university in 1838. The medical center (run jointly with Purdue Univ. , over eight field seasons between 1967 and 1979. Theexceptional standards of the Franchthi fieldwork have come to serve as amodel for prehistoric excavation in Greece. Virtually all of theartefactual adj. 1. of or pertaining to an artefact.2. made by human actions.Adj. 1. artefactual - of or relating to artifactsartifactual remains were saved, and close attention was given tocultural and environmental classes of material alike.(3) A rigoroussystem of water-sieving was implemented in 1971, whereby sediment fromfour trenches in the cave, FAN, FAS, H1A, and H1B, and selected samplesfrom Paralia were water-sieved (Diamant 1979). Field recording methodsimproved with each season at Franchthi. Trench G1, located beside thecave wall near the present entrance and excavated early on (1968),suffered particularly from excavators' inexperience. Strata werecross-cut, and none of the sediment was water-sieved, although it waspassed through horizontal screens of graduated size. In the earlyseasons, Greek workmen did 'most of the excavating, sieving andheavy labor', and kerosene keroseneor kerosine,colorless, thin mineral oil whose density is between 0.75 and 0.85 grams per cubic centimeter. A mixture of hydrocarbons, it is commonly obtained in the fractional distillation of petroleum as the portion boiling off lamps were replaced in the deep trenchesby electric lights only in 1969 (Jacobsen 1969: 350, n. 14; 1973a: 57,n. 28).These details of evolving field methodology are of more than academicinterest when one considers the nature of the funerary fu��ner��ar��y?adj.Of or suitable for a funeral or burial.[Latin fner sample fromFranchthi. The Mesolithic burials were located in Trench G1, and,unfortunately, only one was recognized during excavation. As problemsassociated with the excavation of G1 have discouraged the project'sspecialists (for lithics, shell, etc.) from incorporating the G1material in their studies, the immediate context of the Mesolithicburials is not well defined.The late J. Lawrence Angel of the Smithsonian Institution Smithsonian Institution,research and education center, at Washington, D.C.; founded 1846 under terms of the will of James Smithson of London, who in 1829 bequeathed his fortune to the United States to create an establishment for the "increase and diffusion of wasinitially responsible for studying and publishing the human remains fromFranchthi (Angel 1969; 1973). As was customary during the 1960s and'70s, he visited the project occasionally, when a sample had beenaccumulated to study. Thus, although several graduate students on theproject had some training in physical anthropology, a professional humanosteologist osteologista specialist in osteology. was rarely present during excavation. The impact of thisprocedure on the resulting sample was considerable.After Angel's death in 1986, Jacobsen invited me to complete thepublication of the mortuary remains from the site, and Della CollinsCook of Indiana University agreed to work with me. Cook and I spentparts of three summers studying the sample of human bone recognizedduring excavation, which had been initially described by Angel and SaraBisel (Angel & Bisel 1986). Given the difficulties in distinguishinghuman from animal bone in the trench, particularly for non-specialists,we then turned to the faunal sample, looking specifically for humanremains that might have been misidentified. As a consequence, the sampleof human remains (from all periods) was more than doubled, and importantnew evidence for Mesolithic cremation cremation,disposal of a corpse by fire. It is an ancient and widespread practice, second only to burial. It has been found among the chiefdoms of the Pacific Northwest, among Northern Athapascan bands in Alaska, and among Canadian cultural groups. was discovered.(4)The Mesolithic at Franchthi CaveThe Mesolithic period is defined at Franchthi by 18 radiocarbondates, indicating a span of c. 9500-9000 b.p. for the Lower Mesolithic,and 9000-8000 b.p. for the Upper and Final Mesolithic (Perles 1990: 28,figure 2, 47, 85; Jacobsen & Farrand 1987: plate 71). Hiatuses of afew hundred years separate the Mesolithic deposits in the cave fromthose of the Palaeolithic and Neolithic (Farrand 1988: 314-15; 1993:94). The arid, cold conditions of the Palaeolithic steppe steppe(stĕp), temperate grassland of Eurasia, consisting of level, generally treeless plains. It extends over the lower regions of the Danube and in a broad belt over S and SE European and Central Asian Russia, stretching E to the Altai and S to orforest-steppe were gradually replaced in the late Pleistocene The Late Pleistocene (also known as Upper Pleistocene or the Tarantian) is a stage of the Pleistocene Epoch. The beginning of the stage is defined by the base of Eemian interglacial phase before final glacial episode of Pleistocene 126,000 �� 5,000 years ago. and earlyHolocene by a warmer, wetter climate that fostered the spread ofdeciduous deciduous/de��cid��u��ous/ (de-sid��u-us) falling off or shed at maturity, as the teeth of the first dentition. de��cid��u��ousadj.1. forest throughout the eastern Mediterranean (van Zeist &Bottema 1982: 292). The southern Argolid appears to have been coveredwith an open oak woodland, interspersed with other trees and shrubs suchas juniper, pistachio pistachio(pĭstăsh`ēō, pĭstä`shēō), tree or shrub (of the genus Pistacia) of the family Anacardiaceae (sumac family). The species that yields the pistachio nut of commerce is P. , wild pear, and almond (Hansen 1991: 18; van Andel& Hansen 1987: 58).The Mesolithic inhabitants of the cave based their livelihood on awide spectrum of resources, hunting red deer Red Deer, city, CanadaRed Deer,city (1991 pop. 58,134), S central Alta., Canada, on the Red Deer River. It developed as a trade and service center for a region of dairying and mixed farming. , pigs, and a range ofsmaller prey, fishing, and collecting nuts, land-snails, shellfish,fruits, legumes LegumesA family of plants that bear edible seeds in pods, including beans and peas.Mentioned in: Cholesterol, Highlegumes (l , and, for the first time, cereals. Hansen (1991: 119)reports 'a dramatic increase in the quantity and variety' ofrecovered plant remains at this time. An enormous leap in the number ofseeds recovered from Franchthi - from 697 seeds representing 19 speciesat the end of the Upper Palaeolithic to almost 28,000 seeds from 27species in the Lower Mesolithic - suggests not only a diversesubsistence base but also considerable activity during this phase of useof the cave.A rapid sedimentation rate particularly during the Lower Mesolithic,with some 150-200 cm of deposit accumulating every 100 years, may beattributed in part to increased human activity in the cave (cf. 6 cm/100years in the Upper Palaeolithic, and only as much as 40 cm/100 yearsduring the Neolithic). This rate declines to c. 8 cm/100 years duringthe Upper and Final Mesolithic (Farrand 1988: figure 19.5), at whichtime markedly reduced quantities of botanical remains and land-snailsare found (Hansen 1991: 135; Farrand 1993: [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 3OMITTED]). Large bluefin tunny tunny:see tuna. (Thunnus thynnus), however, suddenlydominate the faunal assemblage Faunal Assemblage is the archaeological or paleontological term for a group of associated animal fossils found together in a given stratum.The principle of faunal succession is used in biostratigraphy to determine each biostratigraphic unit, or biozone. in the Upper Mesolithic (Rose 1987), anda sharp increase in Melian obsidian, backed blades, and microliths isobserved shortly thereafter (Perles 1990: 46-7). Together, the evidenceindicates an increased dependence on marine resources and sea-faringduring the Upper Mesolithic, and a less intensive use of the cave thanpreviously.(5)The sea was clearly a critical resource during the Mesolithic atFranchthi, as elsewhere in Europe. As the polar ice caps melted, thewaters gradually rose, reducing the coastal plains significantly.Located on the coast today, Franchthi was 2 km away from the sea duringthe Mesolithic, overlooking a grassy coastal plain (today Koiladha Bay)bisected by a river (van Andel & Sutton 1987: 38, figure 16).Extensive sandy beaches, marshes or salt flats, and offshore mud shoalswould have formed at the mouth of the river, constituting a rich habitatfor a range of molluscs. In addition to collecting marine molluscs suchas Cerithium vulgatum Bruguiere to eat (and perhaps use as bait), theFranchthi inhabitants also favoured a small gastropod gastropod,member of the class Gastropoda, the largest and most successful class of mollusks (phylum Mollusca), containing over 35,000 living species and 15,000 fossil forms. , Cyclope neritea(L.), which appears to have been collected specifically for use asornaments, along with the also common Dentalium sp. shells. As with theplant remains, the number of marine molluscs radically increases in theLower Mesolithic, from 1789 shells recovered from Upper Palaeolithiclevels to 15,838 in the Lower Mesolithic, decreasing again inShackleton's Zone III (late Upper Mesolithic, Final Mesolithic, andbeginning of the Neolithic) to 5477 (Shackleton 1988; Reese 1990: 682).The ever-moving hunter-gatherers of our imagination are commonlycontrasted with a more sedentary Neolithic population, yet our strongestevidence for year-round occupation at Franchthi comes from LowerMesolithic levels. The plants identified in the Mesolithic sample werecollected in spring, summer and autumn; most of the edible speciesavailable could have been stored through the winter, so the absence ofidentifiable winter plants need not rule out winter occupation of thecave (Hansen 1991: 123, 125, 132). Furthermore, oxygen-isotope analysesof marine molluscs from the Lower Mesolithic suggest that two species,Cerithium vulgatum and Cerastoderma glaucum, were collected in all fourseasons (Deith & Shackleton 1988: 148). Groundstone objects,traditionally associated with the Neolithic period Neolithic periodor New Stone Age.The term neolithic is used, especially in archaeology and anthropology, to designate a stage of cultural evolution or technological development characterized by the use of stone tools, the existence of and sedentism, arealso found at Franchthi in Lower and Upper Mesolithic levels, some madefrom stones not locally available (Runnels 1981: 100-101; Diamantforthcoming). Excavators uncovered two possible mill-stones, polishedcobbles cob��ble?1?n.1. A cobblestone.2. Geology A rock fragment between 64 and 256 millimeters in diameter, especially one that has been naturally rounded.3. cobbles See cob coal.tr. and hand-stones, a few stained with ochre.The various strands of evidence support a picture of relativelyintensive use of the cave, particularly during the Lower Mesolithic. Awide assortment of plants and animals was exploited, perhaps year-round,by the cave-dwellers, who also actively engaged the sea, produced aninnovative chipped-stone tool-kit, and placed an emphasis on personaldecoration. Coinciding with these developments is the first appearanceof mortuary ritual in the archaeological record The archaeological record is a term used in archaeology to denote all archaeological evidence, including the physical remains of past human activities which archaeologists seek out and record in an attempt to analyze and reconstruct the past. .The Mesolithic mortuary sampleThe human skeletal remains from Mesolithic Franchthi comprise acontinuum, from an articulated burial carefully laid out in a shallowpit to isolated fragments incorporated into habitation HABITATION, civil law. It was the right of a person to live in the house of another without prejudice to the property. 2. It differed from a usufruct in this, that the usufructuary might have applied the house to any purpose, as, a store or manufactory; whereas debris. Of thesoundings into Mesolithic levels (A, FA, G1, H, H1, and H2), only TrenchH2 failed to yield any Mesolithic human remains [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE2 OMITTED]. Following Angel's practice, Cook assigned numbers (standard) assigned numbers - The RFC STD 2 documenting the currently assigned values from several series of numbers used in network protocol implementations. This RFC is updated periodically and, in any case, current information can be obtained from the Internet Assigned Numbers prefaced by Fr to individual samples, whether a burial or a single bonefragment. Compatible fragments from the same excavation unit weregrouped under one Fr number (although it is possible that they representmore than one individual) and, conversely, compatible fragments fromdifferent units, unless strikingly similar, were given different Frnumbers (yet they may derive from a single individual). The number ofFrs should thus not be equated with the number of individuals buried orexposed after death at the site. Angel and Bisel originally assigned 211Fr numbers to the total sample (all periods), included in which were 42shed milk teeth. With the addition of human remains later identified inthe faunal sample, the list now extends to Fr 444.To improve the fit between the numbers of analytical individuals(Frs) and actual individuals represented, Cook and I devoted severalweeks to searching for joins or close matches in the scatter, lookingboth within and across trenches, always trying to stay within the realmof stratigraphic possibility. This procedure is justified by the commonmixing and re-working of sediments at Franchthi throughout its longoccupation. By finding joins, we reduced the overall number of Frs to341,(6) only 34 of which can be dated to the Mesolithic period (TABLES1-2).The Mesolithic remains represent between 15 and 34 individuals, andprobably at least 28, on the basis of context. Twenty-two shed milkteeth were also found in Mesolithic levels. By the lithic lith��ic?1?adj.Consisting of or relating to stone or rock.Adj. 1. lithic - of or containing lithium2. lithic - relating to or composed of stone; "lithic sandstone" phasingestablished by Perles (1990: 21, table 15), most of the funerary remainsdate to the Lower Mesolithic; one sample is from a transitional UpperPalaeolithic/Lower Mesolithic unit, and seven Frs come from Upper andFinal Mesolithic levels. In contrast to the scatter, Fr 1-8 and Fr 401are relatively complete. The sample is small, particularly when oneconsiders that some 1500 years of habitation are represented by theMesolithic deposits. In part, this may be attributed to the relativelylimited horizontal exposure afforded by the very deep trenches. All ofthe sediment from Mesolithic levels was either water-sieved or passedthrough a horizontal shaker-sieve. Although more scattered bone wasrecovered from water-sieved sequences than dry-sieved ones, thedifferences are not dramatic and the most salient feature of the sampleremains its small size.TABLE 1. Mesolithic burials from Franchthi Cave. Identification byJ.L. Angel & D.C. Cook.Fr context age sex phase001 G1:60 adult, 25-29 years m Lower Mesolithic002 G1:65 adult, 32-36 years m Lower Mesolithic003 G1:60 adult, 35-45 years f Lower Mesolithic004 G1:65 adult, 20 years f Lower Mesolithic005 G1:65 adult, 20+ years f Lower Mesolithic006 G1:65 infant, 9 months n/d Lower Mesolithic007 G1:65 young adult m Lower Mesolithic008 G1:65 young adult f Lower Mesolithic401 FAN:179 infant n/d Upper Mesolithic[TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 2 OMITTED]InhumationsThe grave of a young man (25-29 years old), Fr 1, was discoveredduring the second season of excavation (Jacobsen 1969: 374). He hadapparently died from violent blows to the forehead, and was buried in ashallow pit near the mouth of the cave (Trench G1:60), laid out in asemi-contracted position along a north-south axis, facing east (into thecave). Care had been taken by his survivors: his arms were crossed overhis chest, which together with his pelvis was then covered by fist-sizedstones [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 3 OMITTED]. The excavators noted thatthere was some evidence that the burial pit had originally beensurrounded by stones. They found an ashy ash��y?adj. ash��i��er, ash��i��est1. Of, relating to, or covered with ashes.2. Having the color of ashes; pale.ash deposit beside the skeleton,possibly a hearth, which provided a radiocarbon determination of 9260[+or -]140 b.p. (P-1519). Ash was also observed below Fr 1, in the burialpit, and immediately above, in a layer 'sealing the skeleton'.Roughly a metre to the east, another ashy deposit was recorded, whichcontained animal bones (the excavators specify red deer). Abundantland-snail shells, whole and crushed, were in the earth around theskeleton and, in particular, under the stones covering the body. Theexcavators single out 'a helix shell' (probably Helixfigulina) over the spine, and a marine mollusc molluscmembers of the phylum Mollusca, which comprises about 50,000 species. Includes snails, slugs and the aquatic molluscs��oysters, mussels, clams, cockles, arkshells, scallop, abalone, cuttlefish, squid. ('a murex mu��rex?n. pl. mu��ri��ces or mu��rex��esAny of various marine gastropods of the genus Murex common in tropical seas and having rough spiny shells, especially M. trunculus, the source of Tyrian purple. shell', probably Murex trunculus (L.)) at the left ankle. None ofthe land-snails found elsewhere in the cave are cave-dwelling varieties(N. Whitney-Desautels pers. comm.), so it is likely that those found inG1:60 were brought in from outside, perhaps even offered deliberately tothe dead as food or decoration. The Mesolithic sediments in Trench G1are characterized throughout, however, by abundant lenses of crushedsnail shells and hearths, indicating habitation areas; it is thus notcertain that the apparent association of grave, hearth(s) and ash, andshells was deliberate. The configuration of the unit surely representsthe burial of Fr 1 in a part of the cave also used for habitation, butthe considerable ash and shell around the skeleton may well constituteresidues of rituals performed as part of the burial.Less than half a metre below Fr 1 lay the remains of another sevenindividuals, five of which represent inhumations (TABLE 1, Fr 2-6).Angel identified the remains of one infant and four adults (one male andthree females) from the collected bone. He observed that 'a numberof bones of these skeletons (of foot, ankle, knee, wrist, and elbow)were cemented together lightly by soil matrix', concluding thatlater Mesolithic occupation had disturbed originally intact, shallowburials (Angel 1969: 386). The disturbed nature of these remains isundeniable, but a portion of the responsibility for their condition mustbe given to the excavators, who did not recognize the bones as humanduring excavation. Many articulated units indeed survive, but freshbreaks are plentiful. The flexed position of several of thesearticulated joints indicates that the deceased had originally been laidout in a semi-contracted position like Fr 1. In general, thestratigraphic context of Fr 2-6 is similar to that of Fr 1: areddish-brown sediment with abundant shells, animal bones, and a hearth(Jacobsen & Farrand 1987: plate 21). The excavated unit (G1:65)consisted of a pass across the entire 1-50 x 2.50 m sounding, varying indepth from 10 to 38 cm. The excavators mention three large boulders,30-75 cm in width, in the upper part of the deposit (capstones?), and a'thin line of ash' separating unit 65 from the rocky redPalaeolithic sediments below. The only finds recorded from G1:65 (apartfrom 'an unusually large amount of well-preserved bone') were15 pieces of flint, five thought by the excavators to be tools.Although we have no precise information about the placement of theseburials, the profusion of human bone, representing several individualswithin a relatively restricted area, must be roughly contemporary, andsome individuals may originally have been buried together; that burialindeed took place, however shallow, can be inferred from the relativecompleteness of the remains. Had the dead only been exposed, greaterdisturbance by scavengers would be expected, yet we observed no toothimpressions on the bones or fragmentation patterns typical of carnivore carnivore(kär`nəvôr'), term commonly applied to any animal whose diet consists wholly or largely of animal matter. In animal systematics it refers to members of the mammalian order Carnivora (see Chordata). scavenging (see e.g. Milner & Smith 1989; Haglund et al. 1989). Ofparticular interest is the superimposition In graphics, superimposition is the placement of an image or video on top of an already-existing image or video, usually to add to the overall image effect, but also sometimes to conceal something (such as when a different face is superimposed over the original face in a of Fr 1, which attests to thecontinued use of this area of the cave for burial over time.Only one group of bones in Upper Mesolithic levels at all resemblesthe remains of an in situ In place. When something is "in situ," it is in its original location. burial: Fr 401, an infant represented by fivefragments of skull, pelvis, and ribs, found in Trench FAN. Thefragments, among those separated from the animal bone sample, werepresumably pre��sum��a��ble?adj.That can be presumed or taken for granted; reasonable as a supposition: presumable causes of the disaster. not articulated when uncovered during excavation. From thesame unit came an isolated pelvic fragment from the skeleton of a 3-6year old child (Fr 411). Unlike Trench G1, FAN was meticulouslyexcavated and the sediment water-sieved. The unit is described as partof a larger 'crunchy shell deposit', with reddish-brownsediments and much bone and shell. Immediately above was a small shellmidden middendungheap. and considerable wood charcoal; three radiocarbon determinationswere obtained from the ash, 8710[+ or -]100 b.p. (P-2096), 8730[+or -]90b.p. (P-2106) and 8530[+ or -]90 b.p. (P-2107). In addition to animalbones, microliths, and other tools, the unit with human remainscontained 67 Cyclope neritea shells (56% of the marine shell in thatunit), many of which were pierced, and a Dentalium shell coated with a'white powdery pow��der��y?adj.1. Composed of or similar to powder.2. Dusted or covered with or as if with powder.3. Easily made into powder; friable.Adj. 1. substance'. Two other Dentalium beads with oneor both ends snapped off (presumably for easier stringing) were found inthe units directly below. As so many deposits at Franchthi representsecondary refuse disposal, none of these finds can be securely linkedwith the remains of this infant burial. Nevertheless, the proximity ofdense shell and ash to the human bones, seen earlier in the LowerMesolithic sample in G1, may be significant.CremationsTwo of the seven individuals recovered from unit G1:65 appear to havebeen cremated. Angel had noted scorching scorch?v. scorched, scorch��ing, scorch��esv.tr.1. To burn superficially so as to discolor or damage the texture of. See Synonyms at burn1.2. on bones of two young adults, amale and a female (Fr 7 and 8), which he had attributed to accidentalburning long after burial (Angel 1969: 380). It is clear from his notesthat he had seen only about 20 large fragments of burned bone (125 g),most of which were only superficially charred. By going back to theoriginal unit, however, Cook was able to identify a smaller fraction ofhuman bone that was totally calcined, white or blue-black, and warpedand cracked from the heat. Extensive shrinkage had occurred, and manybones display chevron- or gill-pattern fractures [ILLUSTRATION FORFIGURE 4 OMITTED], which can only have been produced by sustainedburning at high temperatures. Moreover, a similar degree of calcination calcination(kăl'sənā`shən), in metallurgy, process of heating solid material to drive off volatile chemically combined components, e.g., carbon dioxide. It is sometimes a step in the extraction of metals from ores. on adjacent elements, such as the upper and lower jaws, neck vertebrae VertebraeBones in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar regions of the body that make up the vertebral column. Vertebrae have a central foramen (hole), and their superposition makes up the vertebral canal that encloses the spinal cord. ,and clavicle clavicle/clav��i��cle/ (klav��i-k'l) collar bone; a bone, curved like the letter f, that articulates with the sternum and scapula, forming the anterior portion of the shoulder girdle on either side. of the female, Fr 8, indicates that they were burned as anarticulated unit (Cook pers. comm.).The burned human bones from Franchthi arguably represent the remainsof deliberate cremations, the earliest known from Greece. When a body isburned intact - rather than dry or skeletonized - the back of the skulloften explodes, producing grey, calcined fragments much like vaultfragments recorded from Franchthi; the curved fracture lines andextensive warping and shrinkage observed are also characteristic ofcremations of 'green' or flesh-covered bones (Baby 1954;Binford 1972b: 375-6). Evidence for differential burning was alsoobserved by Cook, whereby those parts of the skeleton such as the longbones and pelvis, encased in thick soft tissue, were relativelyprotected, while the more exposed skull bones were totally calcined.In a study of Bronze Age Bronze Age,period in the development of technology when metals were first used regularly in the manufacture of tools and weapons. Pure copper and bronze, an alloy of copper and tin, were used indiscriminately at first; this early period is sometimes called the and Iron Age mortuary remains from Norway,Holck (1986) has carried out extensive experimental and forensicinvestigations of cremation. The degree of burning is a function offuel, including that supplied by the body itself, maximum temperature,time and oxygen flow. Holck (1986: 134-46) distinguishes five categoriesof bone alteration according to according toprep.1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.2. In keeping with: according to instructions.3. the temperatures reached duringcombustion; the second and third categories describe much of theFranchthi burned bone: 400-800 [degrees] C: extensive shrinkage withdistortion; hard, dense surface; occasional gill-pattern fractures; greyto light grey; and 800-1100 [degrees] C: pronounced distortion andgill-pattern fractures; surface scratches white; color light grey orwhite. On an open-air wood pyre, Holck (1986: 41-3) calculates that atleast 146 kg of pine wood fuel and several hours of burning - perhapsall day and night - would be required to reduce a 70-kg body to calcinedbone.Binford (1972c: 385) has estimated that the remains from a crematedadult male weigh about 1750 g, much of which will be small particlesthat would pass through a screen. The burned bone from G1:65 atFranchthi weighs 415 g, a small percentage of the original total, yetvirtually all parts of the body are represented (Cook pers. comm.). Inview of the problems associated with the excavation of G1, it seems morereasonable to assume that the cremation burials originally containedadditional bone fragments, later lost to natural processes or excavator ex��ca��va��torn.An instrument, such as a sharp spoon or curette, used in scraping out pathological tissue.excavator (eks´k error, than to see in Fr 7 and 8 evidence for selective burial ofcremated body elements.The degree of calcining observed in the human bone from Franchthicannot have occurred from accidental inclusion in hearth fires. Theevidence points instead to deliberate cremation, a process requiringlarge amounts of fuel, considerable skill, and sustained effort.Bone scatterIn addition to inhumations and cremations, 48 isolated teeth and bonefragments were found in Mesolithic levels, mixed with habitation debris.We grouped the scatter under 25 Fr numbers according to the procedureoutlined above; at least seven - and at most 25 - individuals arerepresented ([TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 2 OMITTED, [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE5 OMITTED). If one assumes that the skeletal remains of a singleindividual will be found in the same trench, not separated by any greatvertical distance, then the Franchthi Mesolithic scatter can be seen torepresent 19 individuals.Sorting of the animal bone from G1:65 and adjacent units (the area ofthe burials) yielded many additional human fragments, most of whichcould be added to the inventory for burials Fr 2-8. Five, however, mayhave derived from other individuals (TABLE 2: Fr 235, 237, 238, 239, and246). Two adults, an adolescent, juvenile, and infant are represented inthe associated scatter. Although it is possible that the two adultfragments and the infant pelvic fragment were kicked up from the lowerburials, the other two age groups are not compatible with the ages of Fr2-8, or with Fr 1 above. If one argues that the bone scatter representsdisturbed inhumations in the vicinity (see below), the number ofindividuals buried in this area of the cave is at least 10.Breaking the sample of bone scatter down by period, provenience pro��ve��nience?n.A source or origin.[Alteration of provenance.]Noun 1. , agegroup, and body part does not produce any striking patterns. Of theLower Mesolithic sample, nine fragments were recovered from Trench H,five from FA, and five from G1. Although rare, human bone scatter wasidentified in every area of the cave with evidence for Lower Mesolithicoccupation. All age groups are represented ([ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 5OMITTED], solid bars), but bones from adults (n=8) and juveniles (n=6)are most frequently found. Adults and juveniles are represented in allthree trenches, an adolescent and infant in FA and G1, and a neonate neonate/neo��nate/ (ne��o-nat) newborn infant. ne��o��naten.A neonatal infant.neonatea newborn animal. inTrench H. The composition of the bone sample is equally diverse: mostparts of the body are represented, with the exception of the scapula scapula/scap��u��la/ (skap��u-lah) pl. scap��ulae ? [L.] shoulder blade; the flat, triangular bone in the back of the shoulder. scap��ular scap��u��lan. pl. ,ribs, clavicle, sternum sternum:see rib. , and face. As the missing elements are among theleast massive and structurally strong bones of the body, it isreasonable to ascribe their absence to poor preservation (see Waldron1987 for the variable preservation of different parts of the skeleton).The body parts represented, in order of frequency, are teeth (6), pelvis(4), cranial vault cranial vaultObstetrics The bones that form the movable part of the fetal skull–bones–2 frontal, 2 parietal, occipital, and mold themselves to the ♀birth canal, allowing passage of a cephalic-presenting infant (3), arms (2), hands (1), vertebrae (1), legs (1) andfeet (2).The Upper and Final Mesolithic bone scatter ([ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE5 OMITTED], hatched bars) comprises only seven fragments, grouped bycontext as six Frs and probably representing six individuals: five fromTrench FA (three adults and two juveniles), and one from G1 (an adult).Teeth (3) and fragments from the pelvis (2), cranial vault (1) and ribs(1) are represented. In contrast to the Lower Mesolithic sample, bonesfrom the limbs, hands, and feet are absent, but the sample is too smallto attribute any significance to that observation.Bone scatter: remnants of ritual?Human bone scatter on archaeological sites is often disregarded byexcavators, making it difficult to evaluate its prevalence orsignificance. When referred to at all, it is generally not quantified,and is cited as a sign of disrespect or apathy towards the dead (e.g.Rodden 1962: 286; Rollefson et al. 1992: 463). In early publications,bone scatter frequently figures as the result of cannibalism cannibalism(kăn`ĭbəlĭzəm)[Span. caníbal, referring to the Carib], eating of human flesh by other humans. (Brothwell1961: 304). Considerable archaeological and ethnographic evidenceexists, however, to document the manipulation of human bones afterburial or exposure, not as an act of disrespect or a meal, but as adistinct feature of mortuary ritual. The skull cults of the Natufiansand early Neolithic cultures of the Levant Levant(ləvănt`)[Ital.,=east], collective name for the countries of the eastern shore of the Mediterranean from Egypt to, and including, Turkey. and Anatolia are well known(Strouhal 1973; Ozbek 1988), and archaeologists have postulated ritualremoval and rearrangement of human bones in the Neolithic barrow burialsof England and Sweden (Piggott 1962: 68; Shanks & Tilley 1982). AtMesolithic Lepenski Vir Lepenski Vir is an important Mesolithic archaeological site located in Serbia in the central Balkan peninsula. It consists of one large settlement with around ten satellite villages. in the Iron Gates Gorge, human mandibles andthigh bones, in addition to skulls, were sometimes buried separately; inone case, a mandible mandible/man��di��ble/ (man��di-b'l) the horseshoe-shaped bone forming the lower jaw, articulating with the skull at the temporomandibular joint.mandib��ular man��di��blen. was incorporated into the floor next to a builthearth (Srejovic 1972: 118-19, plate 64). The Andaman islanders in theIndian Ocean and the Papuans reportedly wear the decorated skull ormandible of recently deceased relatives around their neck, and stringphalanges phalangesplural of phalanx. , vertebrae, ulnae, clavicles and rib fragments into necklacesand bracelets (Radcliffe-Brown 1922: 113; Landtman 1927: 259; Hogbin1970: 57). Portions of the skeleton are also displayed in the livingspace as a visible memorial to the dead (Wollaston 1912: 139-40).Meiklejohn & Denston (1987: 298, table 16.2) have tabulatedMesolithic sites in Europe with relatively complete skeletons (28),those with bone scatter, or 'loose bones' (35), and those withboth (11). The obvious danger, as the authors point out, is that bonescatter will go unrecorded at sites in which discrete inhumations arefound. Nevertheless, their finding that a substantial number of sitescontained only human bone scatter, with no formal burials, opens thepossibility that the scattering of bone itself was a function ofmortuary ritual rather than a sign of disturbance. Moreover,considerable variation can be seen in the parts of the body present inthe scatter samples, leading the authors to propose specific funerarypractices - scaffolding and selective reburial Noun 1. reburial - the act of burying againreburyingburying, burial - concealing something under the ground - to account for thepatterning (Meiklejohn & Denston 1987: 298-9, table 16.3).To evaluate the possibility that the bone scatter excavated atFranchthi resulted from deliberate mortuary ritual or even cannibalism,we looked carefully for evidence of tooth-marks left by scavengers,discolouration Noun 1. discolouration - a soiled or discolored appearance; "the wine left a dark stain"discoloration, stainappearance, visual aspect - outward or visible aspect of a person or thingscorch - a discoloration caused by heat or weathering patterns likely to occur on the bones ifthe deceased were not buried, or cut-marks like those observed on thedismembered skeletons from Fontbregoua Cave in southern France (Villa etal. 1985) or Mancos in the New World (White 1992). No such marks orindications of unusual weathering could be found on the Franchthi bones,making it seem unlikely they were selectively culled from exposedcorpses and deliberately scattered within the cave. Scavengers attack acarcass in a systematic way, discoverable in an archaeological context In archaeology, not only the context (physical location) of a discovery is a significant fact, but the formation of the context is as well. An archaeological context is an event in time which has been preserved in the archaeological record. by tooth-marks and the disarticulation disarticulation/dis��ar��tic��u��la��tion/ (dis?ahr-tik?u-la��shun) exarticulation; amputation or separation at a joint. dis��ar��tic��u��la��tionn. sequence (e.g. Pasveer &Uytterschaut 1992: 7-9; Haglund et al. 1989). The absence of suchevidence in the Franchthi sample, with its apparently random make-up interms of body parts represented, is consistent with the bone scatterhaving derived from disturbed burials in the cave.Disturbance and redeposition Noun 1. redeposition - deposition from one deposit to anotherdeposition, deposit - the natural process of laying down a deposit of something of sediments occur commonly in caves,resulting from millennia of successive habitation by humans and otheranimals, trampling and digging, and a range of natural processes such aspercolation percolation/per��co��la��tion/ (per?kah-la��shun) the extraction of soluble parts of a drug by passing a solvent liquid through it. and solifluction so��li��fluc��tion?n.The slow, downhill movement of soil or other material in areas typically underlain by frozen ground.[Latin solum, soil + Latin (Straus 1990). Unintentional cross-cuttingby excavators can add to the chaos. Few living floors were securelyisolated at Franchthi, and considerable movement of bone fragments andNeolithic potsherds has been documented (Vitelli 1993: 249-53). At thistime, it therefore seems reasonable to view the Mesolithic scatter as anindex of potential disturbance in the Franchthi sequence rather than asremnants of specific rituals.Material markings of difference: mortuary ritual and personalornamentation ornamentationIn music, the addition of notes for expressive and aesthetic purposes. For example, a long note may be ornamented by repetition or by alternation with a neighboring note (“trill”); a skip to a nonadjacent note can be filled in with the intervening Primary inhumation is securely attested at Franchthi in the LowerMesolithic (Fr 1), and the rite of cremation can also be inferred (Fr7-8); the common practice by which a corpse is first exposed to the airor temporarily buried, with some or all of the disarticulated boneslater reburied, cannot be documented. While we cannot rule out secondaryburial for Fr 2-6, Fr 401, or indeed any of the scattered remains, norcan we point to any specific signs of that practice. Moreover, thearticulation still visible in the joints of Fr 2-5 makes primaryinhumation more probable. Although no indication exists that Fr 7 and 8were cremated after initial exposure or burial, a lapse in time betweencremation and final burial of the remains is plausible, particularly ifthe two adults were cremated at different times and subsequently buriedin the same area. That cremation and burial were carried out indifferent places can also be inferred from the absence of burnedsediments or thick ash deposits in Trench G1.Although it is possible that Franchthi Cave may have been shared bymore than one group of hunter-gatherers during the year, the presence ofcremations and inhumations in a single excavation unit need not beattributed to the practices of different groups. The decision to cremate cre��mate?tr.v. cre��mat��ed, cre��mat��ing, cre��matesTo incinerate (a corpse).[Latin crem some individuals and bury others may well have been governed by thedifferent roles or status they held within their community, or byvarying circumstances of death, as amply documented in the ethnographicrecord. MacLeod, for instance, reports that, although cremation was theusual practice among the Alaskan Kutchin and the Siberian Gilyak hunter- gatherers, 'a man was put on the stage [scaffold] if he was wellliked', and 'anyone slain by a bear is not cremated; his soulgoes in the forest and becomes a bear' (MacLeod 1925: 133, quotingS. Jones and M.A. Czaplicka, respectively; see also Bendann 1930: 55-6;Huntington & Metcalf 1979: 130-2).The configuration of mortuary ritual is also likely to have beenshaped by religious beliefs, another area notoriously difficult toapproach archaeologically. Most human societies have believed in a humanessence in some sense separate from the physical body, be that theEgyptian ba, the Christian soul, or the Jewish nefash; equally common isthe conception of an afterlife. Cremation has been variously seen as ameans of purification, a way to release the soul from the body, and, inmore recent contexts at least, as a hygienic hy��gien��icadj.1. Of or relating to hygiene.2. Tending to promote or preserve health.3. Sanitary. and economical method ofdisposing of a corpse. The extent to which any of these views arerelevant to Mesolithic Greek eschatology eschatologyTheological doctrine of the “last things,” or the end of the world. Mythological eschatologies depict an eternal struggle between order and chaos and celebrate the eternity of order and the repeatability of the origin of the world. remains uncertain. Although wecannot know what lay behind the decision to cremate or bury a corpse (orto attend to the body in ways that have left no trace, e.g., burial atsea Burial at sea describes the procedure of disposing of human remains in the ocean.Two reasons for burial at sea are if the deceased died while at sea and it is impractical to return the remains to shore, or if the deceased died on land but a burial at sea is requested for ), the diversity of treatment seen within even the very small samplefrom Franchthi is surely significant.With a more sedentary and possibly larger group living together atFranchthi in the Lower Mesolithic, it may have been an advantage to marksocial differences visibly. Mortuary ritual is one way in which suchdistinctions are commonly expressed. Several aspects of the Franchthifunerary record suggest ritual actions: the cremation (and eventualburial) of Fr 7 and 8; the careful laying out of Fr 1 with hands crossedover his chest; the ash above and below the skeleton, perhaps indicatingpreparation of the burial pit and a closing ceremony; and the stonespiled on the body. More ambiguous are the hearths containing animalbones in the area of Fr 1-8; the abundance of land-snails in thevicinity; and the presence of a helix and murex shell close to Fr 1.Stones are used variously in many funerary contexts in Greece andelsewhere in Europe and the Near East, to encircle en��cir��cle?tr.v. en��cir��cled, en��cir��cling, en��cir��cles1. To form a circle around; surround. See Synonyms at surround.2. To move or go around completely; make a circuit of. the skull of thedeceased, as at Mesolithic Padina (Zivanovic' 1975: 163,[ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 1 OMITTED]) and Vlasac (Letica 1969: 9) in theIron Gates Gorge along the Danube; or as a 'pillow', as atFinal Palaeolithic Vado all 'Arancio in central Italy Central Italy is a geographic area in Italy that encompasses four of the country's 20autonomous regions: Lazio Marches Tuscany Umbria See alsoGroups of regions of Italy Northern Italy Southern Italy Insular Italy (Minellono etal. 1980: 10) and, indeed, Neolithic Franchthi (Jacobsen & Cullen1981: 88). Early in this century, the Vlachs of northern Greece removeda soft pillow from under the deceased's head and, just beforeburial, replaced it with a stone or pillowcase pil��low��case?n.A removable covering for a pillow. Also called pillowslip.pillowcaseor pillowslipNouna removable washable cover for a pillowNoun 1. filled with earth (Wace& Thompson 1914: 127). Heavy stones, slabs, or mortars are alsofound on top of the limbs or chest of the dead, as at Mesolithic Vattedi Zambana in northeastern Italy (Corrain et al. 1976: 179), and AinMallaha (Perrot 1966: 461) and el-Wad in the Levant (Wright 1978: 211).The cold dark stones provide an apt metaphor for sorrow; they may alsohave been piled on to prevent the dead from rising or to discouragepredators, but at Franchthi they seem rather small and few(7) for suchambitions. Perhaps the survivors each placed one stone on the body as anoffering of respect or farewell before the grave was closed, analogousto the handfuls of earth thrown into the grave by mourners at funeralstoday.Personal ornamentation can also serve to underline social divisions.Traces of ochre on five hand-stones from Lower Mesolithic Franchthisuggest that the tools were used to prepare pigments, perhaps for bodypaint or dyes for clothing (or shrouds?). Ochre also may have been usedin the preparation of hides (Keeley 1980: 171-2) or in healing(Belfer-Cohen 1991: 578), but its presence on Dentalium shells atFranchthi (see below) surely indicates a role in personal decoration.Ochre is also visible on the surfaces of two polished limestonepebbles found in Lower Mesolithic contexts in the cave. Although theartefacts may be hand-stones, their function is unclear; they resemblethe painted pebbles Painted pebbles are a class of Pictish artifact unique to northern Scotland in the first millennium AD. AppearanceThey are small rounded beach pebbles made of quartzite, which have been painted with simple designs in a dye which is now dark brown in colour. of the roughly contemporary Azilian tradition, knownfrom caves in northern Spain and southwestern France and sometimesplaced in graves (Couraud 1985: 43-61). Painted or engraved pebbles arealso common finds at Epigravettian Italian sites (Bietti 1990: 135),occasionally occurring in funerary contexts; a pebble with red ochre Red ochre and yellow ochre (pronounced /'əʊk.ə/, from the Greek ochros, yellow) are pigments made from naturally tinted clay. It has been used worldwide since prehistoric times. wasfound, for example, under the head of the deceased at Grotte des Enfantsin northern Italy Northern Italy comprises of two areas belonging to NUTS level 1: North-West (Nord-Ovest): Aosta Valley, Piedmont, Lombardy, Liguria North-East (Nord-Est): Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Veneto, Trentino-Alto Adige/S��dtirol, Emilia-Romagna (Newell et al. 1979: 159). Larger painted pebbles arealso recorded from Mesolithic Vlasac, interpreted by the excavatorsthere as sacred objects Sacred ObjectsArk of the Covenantgilded wooden chest in which God’s presence dwelt when communicating with the people. [O.T. relating to relating torelate prep → concernantrelating torelate prep → bez��glich +gen, mit Bezug auf +accfunerary ritual (Srejovic &Letica 1978: 153).In addition to evidence for the use of ochre, we see the firstappearance of pebble pendants in the Lower Mesolithic at Franchthi (e.g.Jacobsen 1969: 371, plate 98d), and a notable increase in Dentalium andCyclope neritea shells. The tusk-like Dentalism shells, easily strung,are known from Mesolithic mortuary contexts elsewhere in theMediterranean, worn as a head-cap, for example, by a few of the Natufiandeceased in the Mt Carmel caves of the Levant (Garrod & Bate bate?1?tr.v. bat��ed, bat��ing, bates1. To lessen the force or intensity of; moderate: "To his dying day he bated his breath a little when he told the story"1937:14-19). Wright (1978: 204-19) has linked the uneven distribution ofDentalium shells at several Natufian sites to the differentiation ofstatus and the expression of inter-community alliances. The shells mayhave been worn in a variety of ways, attached to clothing or strung asnecklaces and bracelets.The seemingly ubiquitous presence of Dentalium spp. at prehistoricMediterranean sites has discouraged its careful quantification (Reese1991: 613), and in this respect Franchthi is no exception. Dentaliumshells at Franchthi were only recorded in later seasons of excavation;none was catalogued from Trench G1 but it is likely that they werepresent (as they were found in every other Mesolithic deposit in thecave), although not necessarily as decorations of the dead. From LowerMesolithic levels elsewhere in the cave, Schaeffer (1977: 78-9) counts280 Dentalium shells, at least nine of which were stained with redochre, but these figures are incomplete since they were compiled beforeall the water-sieve residue was sorted; some 258 more Dentalium shellshave since been identified in the residue from FAN and FAS alone,occurring most frequently in Lower Mesolithic units. (By contrast, only45 Dentalium shells were counted in Palaeolithic levels, 91 in Upper andFinal Mesolithic, and 15 in Neolithic units.) As noted above, threeDentalium beads, one coated with a white powder, were excavated in thearea around Upper Mesolithic Fr 401, together with dozens of Cyclopeneritea shells.The importance of personal ornamentation in the Mesolithic atFranchthi is further underscored by the sudden abundance of C. neriteashells, the majority of which were intentionally pierced from the insideand thus, as Shackleton observes (1988: 39), apparently not holed toextract the flesh. The species comprises 40-80% of the marine molluscassemblage throughout most of the Mesolithic at Franchthi, replaced inpopularity only toward the end of the period by Cerithium vulgatum,clearly prized for its food value (Shackleton 1988: 12). AlthoughShackleton (1988: 39) proposes that the small gastropod (9-10 mm indiameter) was collected first to eat and only later holed as beads,Reese (1990: 682) points out that there is no historical orarchaeological evidence that this species was ever eaten. Whether or notthe shells were collected specifically to transform into ornaments, theyeventually seem to have served in that capacity.Although J. Shackleton (1988: 14-17) only quantifies C. neritea fromfour trenches at Franchthi (FAS, FAN, HIA, HIB Hibabbr.Haemophilus influenzae type b ), N. Shackleton (1969:379) reports 'enormous numbers' of the species in Mesolithicunits of G1 as well; precise counts, however, are not offered. Given theconcentration of burials in G1, it is frustrating not to be able toreconstruct the distribution of C. neritea or Dentalium in that trench,and we are left to wonder if the 'shelly debris' associatedwith Fr 1-8 might not have included beads made from both species (cf.Srejovic & Letica 1978: plate 48 for their reconstruction of anecklace from the perforated C. neritea shells buried with an infant atVlasac). The documented presence of large numbers of C. neritea andDentalium shells elsewhere at the site, whether used to bejewel the deador the living (or both), reflects an increased interest in personalornamentation at the same time that distinctions are clearly drawn inmortuary ritual. Both phenomena might have underlined social divisionsin a society lacking clearly defined gradations of authority, butequally, both might have been used to celebrate equality and belonging(whether or not such social equality accurately described day-to-dayinteractions). In this respect, the inclusive composition of the smallburial group at Franchthi - with both sexes and more than one age grouprepresented and the sudden appearance of pendants, beads, and ochre inthe archaeological record may signify an emphasis on collectivity aswell as differentiation.Franchthi in contextThe virtual isolation of Franchthi within Greece during theMesolithic makes it impossible to place the site in a regional context.Until recently, only three other sites were confirmed with Mesolithichorizons: Sidari on Corfu (Sordinas 1970), Zaimis Cave overlooking theSaronic Gulf (Markovits 1932-33), and Ulbrich Cave in the northernArgolid (Markovits 1928), none with mortuary remains (see Perles 1990:120-26 for discussion). A contracted burial of a young, probably female,adult from Theopetra Cave in western Thessaly is purported to beMesolithic (Stravopodi et al. 1994); detailed publication is eagerlyawaited. Mesolithic occupation has been proposed for several other sitesin Greece (see e.g. Coleman 1992: 249-50), including one site, Maroulaon the island of Kythnos, with four burials sprinkled with ochre andmarked by stone cairns (Honea 1975). Subsequent study of the materialfrom these sites, however, including Maroula, has introduced seriousdoubts about their Mesolithic status (Cherry 1979: 28-32; 1990: 158-9;Perles 1990: 120, 125-6).Runnels and his colleagues have searched for Mesolithic sites inGreece for several years (Runnels 1988: 284), with limited success: inthe southern Argolid, Koukou Cave and Spitha, not far from Franchthi,are possible candidates, as is Katafiki Cave, northwest of Ermioni(Jameson et al. 1994: 338 and figure 6.5: sites F35, C6, and E80); twoother find-spots were identified in the Kleisoura gorge of the Berbativalley (Wells et al. 1993: 56); and, most recently, Runnels (1994: 315)discovered two sites in the Acheron valley of Epirus that may beMesolithic in date, as well as another four with similar microlithic mi��cro��lith?n. ArchaeologyA very small blade made of flaked stone and used as a tool, especially in the European Mesolithic Period.mi assemblages in paleosols associated with fossil sand dunes along thecoast west of Preveza (Runnels pers. comm.). This small pool ofMesolithic sites (most known only through surface survey) is in strikingcontrast to the greater numbers of Neolithic, and indeed Palaeolithic,sites recognized in Greece, making it likely that a number of coastalsites have been submerged by rising sea waters. The radical drop insettlement density in Mesolithic Greece, particularly inland, can alsobe attributed to dwindling herds of large game at that time (Perles1993: 10-11); the shift to exploiting a broad spectrum of localresources at Franchthi may not have been out of choice.Although Franchthi fits generally within the Mesolithic tradition ofEurope and the Near East, with its maritime orientation, wide range ofresources utilised and signs of incipient sedentism, it also displaysdistinct differences from the more elaborate material culture of theNatufians (c. 12,000-10,000 b.p.) and the more closely contemporaryMesolithic of Italy and the northern Balkans (Perles 1990: 126-30). Inmortuary practice, one site is strikingly similar to Franchthi: Grottadell'Uzzo, a limestone-formation cave on the east coast of Sicily,with 10 burials (12 individuals) thus far discovered within the cave(Segre & Piperno 1975; Piperno & Tusa 1976; Piperno et al. 1980;Borgognini Tarli & Repetto 1986). As at Franchthi, the LowerMesolithic inhabitants of Uzzo apparently concentrated mainly on huntingred deer and pig, despite the proximity of the sea. All of theMesolithic burials at Uzzo were primary inhumations, with most agegroups and both sexes represented. Two of the burials were double, witha male and a female adult in each, dated to 8600 b.p. and 9500 b.p.,respectively (Piperno 1985: 83). The graves were cut into the livingspace of the cave, near the cave wall, and an accumulation of ash wasrecognized above both the burial pit of an adult male (Uzzo 5) and oneof the double burials (Uzzo 1A-1B). The adult male in Uzzo 5 held a deermandible in his hand, and a single limpet limpet,marine gastropod mollusk with a simple, flattened, conical shell, found in cooler waters of the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans. Certain species creep over rocks, feeding on algae during high tides, but when the tide recedes they return instinctively to the shell (Patella patella(pətĕl`ə): see kneecap. ferruginea) laynext to the body; two bone tools were also thought to represent gifts tothe dead man. The excavators acknowledge the difficulty ofdistinguishing intentional grave goods from habitation debris, butcomment on the frequency of flat pebbles, deer teeth, shells,chipped-stone fragments, and animal bones in the vicinity of the burials(Piperno et al. 1980). A similar ambiguity surrounds the findsassociated with the G1 burials at Franchthi.The relatively large number of individuals identified in G1:65 atFranchthi and the position of Fr 1 above the other skeletons suggest theuse of this area of the cave for successive interments. It is possiblethat a single grave was reopened periodically for the sequential burialof group or family members, a practice documented at several sites inEurope and the Near East during the Mesolithic. At el-Wad in the Levant,for example, six group burials were found, five on the cave terrace andone within the cave (Wright 1978: 207). The cave burial was reopened atleast twice for successive primary burials: a child in the lowest level;three adults, one child, and three infants in the second level; and anadult and infant in the uppermost level. The terrace burials, on theother hand, each contained one intact burial and a number of fragmentaryremains from other individuals, leading Wright to suggest that oneprimary inhumation and several secondary burials were deposited in asingle grave at one time. The structure of the mortuary sample fromFranchthi is not unlike that from el-Wad, with individuals of differentages buried together and attention to the corpse taking different forms(in the case of Franchthi, cremation and inhumation).We find similar signs of multiple and successive burials in Europe inthe Mesolithic, although single burials are more common (Clark &Neeley 1987). At Teviec in Brittany, for example, graves dug into shellmiddens were regularly reopened to accept new burials; after the finalburial, stones were laid over the grave and a hearth constructed(Pequart et al. 1937). Multiple burials are also reported from Vlasac(Srejovic & Letica 1978: 148) and Lepenski Vir (Srejovic 1972: 119).Throughout Europe, males and females, adults and children, are buriedtogether, with about half of the total female sample, and two-thirds ofthe male sample, receiving grave goods (Clark & Neeley 1987: 123,based on Newell's 1979 sample of c. 700 burials). Offerings includeantlers, animal bones, fish teeth, stone and bone tools, shells, andperhaps stones. Ochre also is sometimes recorded (e.g. Mussi 1986: tableIII; Clark & Neeley 1987: table 10.13). Variation in grave offeringsand grave-side ritual has generally been thought to echo socialdivisions drawn along lines of sex, age and individual achievement,expectable in small hunting bands. A hierarchy based on ascribed status,however, has been claimed for several sites - Teviec and Hoedic, Moitado Sebastiao in Portugal, and Oleneostrovski mogilnik in the formerSoviet Union (Clark & Neeley 1987: 124-5; O'Shea & Zvelebil1984). At these sites, sharp inequities in wealth (grave goods) andlabour expenditure (size of grave, nature of ritual), together withconsiderable attention shown infants and young children, are said to'call into question the assumption of egalitarianism' (Clark& Neeley 1987: 124). The inclusion at Franchthi of an infant burialin the cluster of graves near the cave mouth, and the effort expendedespecially on the cremations, might be similarly interpreted as evidencefor social hierarchy, but we should be cautious in assuming anunproblematical link between personal status and mortuary treatment.The cremations identified at Franchthi, while not whollyunparalleled, appear to be among the earliest known in Europe and theNear East. Cremation has been attested in Upper Palaeolithic contexts,but often the skeletons are only superficially burned or associated withash deposits (Binant 1991: 145-6). At Vlasac, Srejovic & Letica(1978: 149) excavated 10 cremations (all adults) dating to the earlierMesolithic phase at that site (Vlasac I, c. 8250-7950 b.p.). As of 1979,Newell and his colleagues (1979: 78) could document only one Mesolithiccremation in western Europe, at the site of Vedbaek-Boldbaner in Denmark(6510[+ or -]110 b.p., K-1303). Two cremations (one identified as a40-50 year old male) have since been reported from Skateholm I in Sweden(6290[+ or -]95 b.p., Lu-1835), and a third (a male at least 60 yearsold) from Skateholm II (Persson & Persson 1984: 18-19, 28; 1988:97-8). Another possible example is mentioned from a Mesolithic sitealong the Bug River in Poland (Hoffmann 1973: 91-2), but details are notgiven. Burned human bones were found in Mesolithic levels of Kebara Cavein the Levant (Bar-Yosef 1987: 229) and Beldibi, Turkey (Bostanci 1959:147), but cremation has not been clearly demonstrated (see also Gallis1982: 13858 for a discussion focusing on Neolithic cremation, but withmention of earlier purported cremations in central and eastern Europe The term "Central and Eastern Europe" came into wide spread use, replacing "Eastern bloc", to describe former Communist countries in Europe, after the collapse of the Iron Curtain in 1989/90. ).Turning to distant sites for formal parallels does not illuminate themeaning or motivation behind the practices observed at Franchthi, butthe consistency of those practices from one area to the nextnevertheless offers reassurance, particularly given our meagre mea��geralso mea��gre ?adj.1. Deficient in quantity, fullness, or extent; scanty.2. Deficient in richness, fertility, or vigor; feeble: the meager soil of an eroded plain.3. samplesize. The deep cultural deposits at Franchthi Cave have understandablyencouraged a diachronic di��a��chron��icadj.Of or concerned with phenomena as they change through time. approach to interpretation, precluding the widehorizontal exposure necessary to articulate the funerary practices ofany one period. The small number of Mesolithic burials and theirapparent concentration at the present cave mouth may be artefacts ofexcavation strategy rather than an accurate reflection of Mesolithicpractice. Undiscovered burials may well lie in the unexcavated portionsof the cave - consider the distribution of bone scatter - or possiblysomewhere outside. The difficulty of identifying modest graves in theabsence of road cuts or eroding scarps should not be underestimated.Alternatively, perhaps only a small portion of the community receivedformal burial. Exposure, far from implying disrespect on the part of thesurvivors, is one of several ways of treating the dead commonly chosenby hunter-gatherers (Ucko 1969: 270; Woodburn 1982), and may well havebeen the fate of many of the Franchthi dead.Burial as collective ritualIn Western society, the term cemetery carries with it the weight ofmodern practice, in which a specially delimited area is set aside forthe graves of the dead, usually at some distance from a town or city or,if in its midst, carefully fenced or walled off. Entrances and exits areclearly marked as are routes of circulation within. The wideningdistance between the living and the dead in the 20th century, as doctorsand undertakers assume roles once filled by family and community, hasbeen elegantly detailed by Philippe Aries (1981; see also Huntington& Metcalf 1979: 184-211).By contrast, no great distance separates the deceased from theirdescendants in Mesolithic Europe and the Near East. Burials are commonlyfound within settlements, in open sites, caves and rock shelters, belowhouse floors or in associated shell middens. Although these deposits arecommonly referred to as cemeteries (e.g. Garrod & Bate 1937: 104;Saxe 1971; Zvelebil & Rowley-Conwy 1986: 87-8; Clark 1980: 92-4),that term may better suit areas exclusively reserved for the disposal ofthe dead, clearly separated from the space of the living. Otherwise, animportant attribute of intra-mural burial is blurred, namely, theretained link of physical proximity between the living and the dead, andthe essence of a cemetery, the circumscription cir��cum��scrip��tion?n.1. The act of circumscribing or the state of being circumscribed.2. Something, such as a limit or restriction, that circumscribes.3. A circumscribed space or area.4. of the dead's ownspace apart from that of the living, is lost. While discrete cemeteriesare known from Mesolithic Europe (e.g. Vedbaek-Bogebakken), collectiveburials within settlements are far more common. At Franchthi, severalLower Mesolithic burials appear to have been grouped near the cavemouth, but there is no indication that that area was reserved only forburial. On the contrary, the burial pits have been dug into depositsreplete with the debris of everyday activity. The contiguity contiguity/con��ti��gu��i��ty/ (kon?ti-gu��i-te) contact or close proximity. con��ti��gu��i��tyn.The state of being contiguous. of spaceused by the living and occupied by the dead may well have been of moreimportance than the notion of a delimited burial plot.Chapman (1981) has linked the emergence of formal disposal areas orcemeteries in Mesolithic Europe with increasing population, change insubsistence patterns and the reduced mobility of hunter-gatherers.Following Saxe (1970) and Goldstein (1981), he goes on to associatecircumscribed areas of burial with corporate groups claiming control ofcrucial but restricted resources, bolstering and legitimising theirclaim by reference to ancestral authority or inheritance. At Franchthi,the concern to preserve the bones of the deceased within the livingspace may signal an emphasis on the continuity and definition of thesocial group, a possibility supported by the coinciding appearance ofpersonal ornaments and ochre. Placing the dead near the entrance to thecave in the Lower Mesolithic may have served to underline one (or more)group's claim or attachment to the site and its surroundingterritory. We have no evidence that the graves at Franchthi were evenmarked, however, much less distinctly visible to outsiders approachingthe cave. Archaeologists' emphasis on formal burial as territorialflag may indeed reflect 20th-century preoccupations with propertyownership and transmission more than Mesolithic motivation (cf.Humphreys 1983: 173). The successive burials excavated in Trench G1 areperhaps more likely to have embodied a collective memory of the past andto have reaffirmed the bonds of community in the face of death than tohave served as unambiguous symbols of ancestral power for the living.In characterizing attitudes toward the dead in the early Middle Ages,Aries speaks of the tame death, an inevitable, familiar, and orderlypart of life, sometimes feared but never denied, and he postulates thatthis attitude may have extended back into prehistory (1981: 5-28). Thetrauma accompanying the death of a group or family member was surelyeased by rituals of intra-mural burial, just as those rituals couldassume ideological functions, perpetuating and legitimating the existingsocial order (Shanks & Tilley 1982). The apparent emphasis on groupidentity and solidarity implied by the multiple burials at Franchthi, aswell as the dissolution of the individual entailed by the bone scatter,may actively have misrepresented relationships of domination andinequality within the group, but it is difficult to do any more thanspeculate in this regard.In the end, we return to two central aspects of mortuary practice atFranchthi: the proximity of the graves of the dead to the space of theliving (and, indeed, the overlapping of spaces) and the repeated use ofa given area for burial, surely essential clues to the Mesolithicattitude towards death. By their very location, the deceased areincluded as members of the community; perhaps their presence was thoughtto ensure the productivity of their descendants, a counterbalance to thethreat of individual extinction. We always risk imposing our own valueson the cultures we study at the same time as we implicitly define themas foreign and wholly different from ourselves. Mortuary ritual atFranchthi, reconstructed from a fragmentary sample fraught withproblems, is nevertheless replete with symbol and emotion and politicalpower, and offers us a path into the social landscape of MesolithicGreece.Acknowledgements. I am very grateful to several friends andcolleagues for reading a preliminary draft of this article and offeringboth criticism and encouragement: John Bennet, Jack Davis, MihalisFotiadis, Julie Hansen, T.W. Jacobsen, Curtis Runnels, Jeremy Rutter,Laurie Talalay, K.D. Vitelli, and especially Don Keller. An anonymousreviewer for ANTIQUITY also provided helpful comments. Financial supportfor the research was provided by the Institute for Aegean Prehistory,the American Council of Learned Societies, the American PhilosophicalSociety, and the Institute for Advanced Study at Indiana University.1 Considerable debate surrounds use of the term Mesolithic (see e.g.Zvelebil 1986b: 5-7). Researchers in southern and southeastern Europesometimes prefer the term Epipalaeolithic. reserving Mesolithic forpostglacial post��gla��cial?adj.Relating to or occurring during the time following a glacial period.postglacial?Relating to or occurring during the time following a glacial period.Adj. 1. adaptations in northern Europe, where climatic changes weremore dramatic. The term Mesolithic has traditionally been employed todescribe early Holocene cultures in Greece, however, and I retain ithere.2 It is possible that the brow of the cave originally extended as faras the BE area, now a terrace in front of the cave [ILLUSTRATION FORFIGURE 2 OMITTED], or even further (Wilkinson & Duhon 1990: 14). Atleast one episode of breakdown has been dated to the early part of theNeolithic period (Vitelli 1993: 65-6).3 Subsequent seasons of geophysical soundings and offshore coringtook place in 1981 and 1985 in the Bay of Koiladha, in front of thecave, concerned with defining the limits of the site and reconstructingthe Pleistocene and Holocene shorelines (van Andel et al. 1980; vanAndel & Shackleton 1982; Gifford 1983; 1990). Several preliminaryreports (Jacobsen 1969; 1973a; 1973b; 1979; 1984) and general syntheses(Jacobsen 1976; 1981) have been published, and nine of a projected 20specialist fascicles have appeared (Jacobsen & Farrand 1987; vanAndel & Sutton 1987; Perles 1987; 1990; Shackleton 1988; Wilkinson& Duhon 1990; Hansen 1991; Talalay 1993; Vitelli 1993).4 I am indebted to Cook for her expert and cautious identificationsof the Franchthi bones, clearly an essential base on which to build anyinterpretive structure. For a detailed presentation of the humanskeletal sample, see Cook's contribution to Cullen & Cookforthcoming.5 The sedimentary and weathering history of the cave is extremelycomplex, with human activity only one of many contributing factors. Thewetter climate of the Mesolithic may have led to increased rockfall rock��fall?n.A fall of rocks, as from a cliff. fromthe ceiling and walls. The coarse rock fraction is consistently highthroughout the Mesolithic period, and the decrease in sedimentation ratein the Upper Mesolithic thus appears to be correlated with a decline inmaterials brought in by humans, especially land-snails (Farrand 1988:315; pers. comm.).6 The bulk of the mortuary sample derives from Neolithic levels.Despite water-sieving and careful search, only seven human fragments,including two shed milk teeth, were discovered in Palaeolithic levels.The presence of children, indicated by the shed milk teeth and a singleinfant rib fragment, suggests that the cave was used at least sometimesas a base camp during the Palaeolithic rather than strictly as aseasonal hunters' camp. The virtual absence of evidence formortuary ritual during this long period of sporadic occupation isstriking.7 T.W. Jacobsen (pers. comm.) cautions, however, that the relativelyfew stones shown in FIGURE 3 may be misleading. He remembers that manyrocks were removed from the trench just before Fr 1 was discovered, andthinks it likely that some of those rocks may originally have beenplaced over the body.ReferencesANGEL, J.L. 1969. Human skeletal material from Franchthi Cave.Appendix II, in Jacobsen (1969): 380-81.1973. Neolithic human remains, in Jacobsen (1973b): 277-82.ANGEL, J.L. & S.C. BISEL. 1986. The human skeletal material fromFranchthi Cave. Unpublished manuscript.ARIES, P. 1981. The hour of our death. New York New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of (NY): Alfred A.Knopf.BABY, R.S. 1954. Hopewell cremation practices, Ohio HistoricalSociety The Ohio Historical Society is a non-profit organization incorporated in 1885 "...to promote a knowledge of archaeology and history, especially in Ohio." The society exists to interpret, preserve, collect, and make available evidence of the past, and to provide leadership on , Papers in Archaeology 1: 1-7.BAR-YOSEF, O. 1987. Late Pleistocene adaptations in the Levant, in O.Soffer (ed.), The Pleistocene Old World: regional perspectives: 219-36.New York (NY): Plenum.BAR-YOSEF, O. & F.R. VALLA (ed.). 1991. The Natufian culture inthe Levant. Ann Arbor (MI): International Monographs in Prehistory.Archaeological series 1.BELFER-COHEN, A. 1991. Art items from Layer B, Hayonim Cave: a casestudy of art in a Natufian context, in Bar-Yosef & Valla (1991):569-88.BENDANN, E. 1930. Death customs: an analytical study of burial rites.New York (NY): Alfred A. Knopf. BIETTI, A. 1990. The late UpperPalaeolithic in Italy: an overview, Journal of World Prehistory 4:95-155.BINANT, P. 1991. La prehistoire de la mort: les premieres sepulturesen Europe. Paris: Editions Errance. Collection des Hesperides.BINFORD, L.R. (ed.). 1972a. An archaeological perspective. New York(NY): Seminar Press.1972b. An analysis of cremations from three Michigan sites, inBinford (1972a): 373-82.1972c. Analysis of a cremated burial from the Riverside Cemetery,Menominee County, Michigan, in Binford (1972a): 383-9.BORGOGNINI TARLI, S.M. & E. REPETTO. 1986. Skeletal indicationsof subsistence patterns and activity regime in the Mesolithic samplefrom Grotta dell'Uzzo (Trapani, Sicily): a case study, HumanEvolution 1: 331-52.BOSTANCI, E.Y. 1959. A new Palaeolithic site at Beldibi near Antalya,Anatolia 4: 129-78.BROTHWELL, D.R. 1961. Cannibalism in early Britain, Antiquity 35:304-7.CHAPMAN, R. 1981. The emergence of formal disposal areas and the'problem' of megalithic meg��a��lith?n.A very large stone used in various prehistoric architectures or monumental styles, notably in western Europe during the second millennium b.c. tombs in prehistoric Europe, inChapman et al. (1981): 71-81.CHAPMAN, R., I. KINNES & K. RANDSBORG (ed.). 1981. Thearchaeology of death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press (known colloquially as CUP) is a publisher given a Royal Charter by Henry VIII in 1534, and one of the two privileged presses (the other being Oxford University Press). .CHERRY, J.F. 1979. Four problems in Cycladic prehistory, in J. Davis& J.F. Cherry (ed.), Papers in Cycladic prehistory: 22-47. LosAngeles (CA): Institute of Archaeology The Institute of Archaeology is an academic department of University College London (UCL), in the United Kingdom. The Institute is located in a separate building at the north end of Gordon Square, Bloomsbury. , University of California The University of California has a combined student body of more than 191,000 students, over 1,340,000 living alumni, and a combined systemwide and campus endowment of just over $7.3 billion (8th largest in the United States). .Monograph 14.1990. The first colonization of the Mediterranean islands: a reviewof recent research, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 3: 145-221.CLARK, G.A. & M. NEELEY. 1987. Social differentiation in EuropeanMesolithic burial data, in P. Rowley-Conwy, M. Zvelebil & H.P.Blankholm (ed.), Mesolithic Northwest Europe: recent trends 2: 121-7.Sheffield: University of Sheffield The University of Sheffield is a research university, located in Sheffield in South Yorkshire, England. ReputationSheffield was the Sunday Times University of the Year in 2001 and has consistently appeared as their top 20 institutions. , Department of Archaeology andPrehistory.CLARK, J.G.D. 1980. Mesolithic prelude: the Palaeolithic-Neolithictransition in Old World prehistory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UniversityPress Edinburgh University Press is a university publisher that is part of the University of Edinburgh in Edinburgh, Scotland. External linksEdinburgh University Press .COLEMAN, J.E. 1992. Greece, the Aegean, and Cyprus, in R.W. Ehrich(ed.), Chronologies in Old World archaeology 1: 247-88. 3rd edition.Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press The University of Chicago Press is the largest university press in the United States. It is operated by the University of Chicago and publishes a wide variety of academic titles, including The Chicago Manual of Style, dozens of academic journals, including .CORRAIN, C., G. GRAZIATI & P. LEONARDI. 1976. La sepolturaepipaleolitica nel riparo di Vatte di Zambana (Trento), PreistoriaAlpina 12: 175-212.COURAUD, C. 1985. L'art azilien: origine-survivance. Paris:Editions du CNRS CNRS Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (National Center for Scientific Research, France)CNRS Centro Nacional de Referencia Para El Sida (Argentinean National Reference Center for Aids). Gallia prehistoire, supplement 20.CULLEN, T. & D.C. COOK. Forthcoming. Mortuary ritual and humanbiology at Franchthi Cave, Greece. Bloomington (IN): Indiana UniversityPress Indiana University Press, also known as IU Press, is a publishing house at Indiana University that engages in academic publishing, specializing in the humanities and social sciences. It was founded in 1950. Its headquarters are located in Bloomington, Indiana. . Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece 12.DEITH, M.R. & N.J. SHACKLETON. 1988. Oxygen isotope analyses ofmarine molluscs from Franchthi Cave, in Shackleton (1988): 133-56.DIAMANT, S.R. 1979. A short history of archaeological sieving atFranchthi Cave, Greece, Journal of Field Archaeology 6: 203-17.Forthcoming. The ground stone objects from Franchthi Cave, Greece.Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press. Excavations at FranchthiCave, Greece 10.FARRAND. W.F. 1988. Integration of Late Quaternary quaternary/qua��ter��nary/ (kwah��ter-nar?e)1. fourth in order.2. containing four elements or groups.qua��ter��nar��yadj.1. Consisting of four; in fours. climatic recordsfrom France and Greece: cave sediments, pollen, and marine events, inH.L. Dibble & A. Montet-White (ed.), Upper Pleistocene prehistory ofwestern Eurasia: 305-19. Philadelphia (PA): University Museum,University of Pennsylvania (body, education) University of Pennsylvania - The home of ENIAC and Machiavelli.http://upenn.edu/.Address: Philadelphia, PA, USA. . Monograph 54.1993. Discontinuity in the stratigraphic record: snapshots fromFranchthi Cave, in P. Goldberg, D.T. Nash, & M.D. Petragila (ed.),Formation processes in archaeological context: 85-96. Madison (WI):Prehistory Press. Monographs in World Archaeology 17.GALLIS, K.I. 1982. Kauseis nekron apo ti Neolithiki epochi stinThessalia. Athens: Tameio archaiologikon poron kai apallotrioseon.GARROD, D.A.E. & D.M.A. BATE. 1937. The Stone Age of MountCarmel: excavations at the Wady wa��dy?n.Variant of wadi. el-Mughara I. Oxford: Clarendon Press.GIFFORD, J.A. 1983. Core sampling of a Holocene marine sedimentarysequence and underlying Neolithic cultural material off Franchthi Cave,Greece, in P.M. Masters & N.C. Flemming (ed.), Quaternary coastlinesand marine archaeology: 269-81. New York (NY): Academic Press.1990. Analysis of submarine sediments off Franchthi Cave, inWilkinson & Duhon (1990): 85-116.GOLDSTEIN, L. 1981. One-dimensional archaeology and multi-dimensionalpeople: spatial organization and mortuary analysis, in Chapman et al.(1981): 53-69.HAGLUND, W.D., D.T. REAY & D.R. SWINDLER SWINDLER, criminal law. A cheat; one guilty of defrauding divers persons. 1 Term Rep. 748; 2 H. Blackst. 531; Stark. on Sland. 135. 2. Swindling is usually applied to a transaction, where the guilty party procures the delivery to him, under a pretended . 1989. Canidscavenging/disarticulation sequence of human remains in the PacificNorthwest, Journal of Forensic Sciences 34: 587-606.HANSEN, J.M. 1991. The palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave.Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press. Excavations at FranchthiCave, Greece 7.HOFFMANN, E. 1973. Zur Problematik der bandkeramischenBrandbestattungen in Mitteleuropa. Jahresschrift fur MitteldeutscheVorgeschichte 57: 71-103.HOGBIN, I. 1970. The island of menstruating men: religion in Wogeo,New Guinea. London: Chandler.HOLCK, P. 1986. Cremated bones: a medical-anthropological study of anarchaeological material on cremation burials. Oslo: AnatomicalInstitute, University of Oslo The University of Oslo (Norwegian: Universitetet i Oslo, Latin: Universitas Osloensis) was founded in 1811 as Universitas Regia Fredericiana (the Royal Frederick University . Antropologiske Skrifter 1.HONEA, K. 1975. Prehistoric remains on the island of Kythnos,American Journal of Archaeology 79: 277-9.HUMPHREYS, S.C. 1983. Comparative perspectives on death, in S.C.Humphreys (ed.). The family, women and death: 165-76. London: Routledge& Kegan Paul.HUNTINGTON, R. & P. METCALF. 1979. Celebrations of death: theanthropology of mortuary ritual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.JACOBSEN, T.W. 1969. Excavations at Porto Cheli and vicinity,preliminary report II: the Franchthi Cave, 1967-1968, Hesperia 38:343-81.1973a. Excavation in the Franchthi Cave, 1969-1971, part I, Hesperia42: 45-88.1973b. Excavations in the Franchthi Cave, 1969-1971, part II,Hesperia 42: 253-83.1976. 17,000 years of Greek prehistory, Scientific American 234 (6):76-87.1979. Excavations at Franchthi Cave, 1973-1974, ArchaiologikonDeltion (Chronika) 29: 268-82.1981. Franchthi Cave and the beginning of settled village life inGreece, Hesperia 50: 303-19.1984. Investigations at Franchthi Cave, Archaiologikon Deltion(Chronika) 31: 75-8.JACOBSEN, T.W. & T. CULLEN. 1981. A consideration of mortuarypractices in Neolithic Greece: burials from Franchthi Cave, in S.C.Humphreys & H. King (ed.), Mortality and immortality: theanthropology and archaeology of death: 79-101. London: Academic Press.JACOBSEN, T.W. & W.R. FARRAND. 1987. Franchthi Cave and Paralia:maps, plans, and sections. Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press.Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece 1.JAMESON, M.H., C.N. RUNNELS & T.H. VAN ANDEL. 1994. A Greekcountryside: the southern Argolid from prehistory to the present day.Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press.KELLEY, L.H. 1980. Experimental determination of stone tool uses.Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.LANDTMAN, G. 1927. The Kiwai Papuans of British New Guinea. London:Macmillan.LETICA, Z. 1969. Vlasac - nouvel hahitat de la culture de LepenskiVir a Djerdap, Archaeologia Iugoslovia 10: 7-11.MACLEOD, W.C. 1925. Certain mortuary aspects of Northwest Coastculture, American Anthropologist 27: 122-48.MARKOVITS, A. 1928. Peri ton mechri sireeton ereunon epi tis lithikisperiodou tis Ellados, Praktika tis Ellinikis Anthropologikis Etaireias1928: 114-34.1932-33. Die Zairnis-Hohle (Kaki-Skala, Megaris, Griechenland),Spelaologisches Jahrbuch 13-14: 133-46.MEIKLEJOHN, C. & B. DENSTON. 1987. The human skeletal material:inventory and initial interpretation, in P. Mellars (ed.), Excavationson Oransay: 290-300. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.MILNER, G.R. & V.G. SMITH. 1989. Carnivore alteration of humanbone from a late prehistoric site in Illinois, American Journal ofPhysical Anthropology 79: 43-9.MINELLONO, F., E. PARDINI & G. FORNACIARI. 1980. Le sepoltureepigravettiane di Vado all'Arancio (Grosseta), Rivista di scienzepreistoriche 35: 3-44.MUSSI, M. 1986. Italian Palaeolithic and Mesolithic burials, HumanEvolution 1: 545-56.NEWELL, R.R., et al. 1979. The skeletal remains of Mesolithic man inwestern Europe: an evaluative catalogue, Journal of Human Evolution 8(1): 1-228.O'SHEA, J. & M. ZVELEBIL. 1984. Oleneostrovski mogilnik:reconstructing the social and economic organization of prehistoricforagers in northern Russia, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3:1-40.OZBEK, M. 1988. Culte des crane humains a Cayonu Tepesi, Anatolica15: 127-37.PASVEER, J.M. & H.T. UYTTERSCHAUT. 1992. Two Late Neolithic humanskeletons: a recent discovery in the Netherlands, International Journalof Osteoarchaeology 2: 1-14.PEQUART, M., et al. 1937. Teviec, station-necropole mesolithique duMorbihan. Paris: Masson. Archives de l'Institut de paleontologiehumaine. Memoire 18.PERLES, C. 1987. Les industries lithiques taillees de Franchthi(Argolide, Grece) I: presentation generale et industries paleolithiques.Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press. Excavations at FranchthiCave, Greece 3.1990. Les industries lithiques taillees de Franchthi (Argolide,Grece) II: les industries du mesolithique et du neolithique initial.Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press. Excavations at FranchthiCave, Greece 5.1993. Reflexions sabre l'origen del Neolitic a Grecia, Cota Zero9: 9-16.PERROT, J. 1966. Le gisement Natoufien de Mallaha (Eynan), Israel,L'Anthropologie 70: 437-83.PERSSON, O. & E. PERSSON. 1984. Anthropological report on theMesolithic graves from Skateholm, southern Sweden I. Lund: University ofLund. Report 21.1988. Anthropological report concerning the interred Mesolithicpopulations from Skateholm, southern Sweden: excavation seasons1983-1984, in L. Larsson (ed.), The Skateholm Project I: man andenvironment: 89-105. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell.PIGGOTT, S. 1962. The West Kennet Long Barrow The West Kennet Long Barrow is a Neolithic tomb or barrow, situated on a prominent chalk ridge, near Silbury Hill, one-and-a-half miles south of Avebury in Wiltshire. The site was recorded by John Aubrey in the 17th century and by William Stukeley in the 18th century. : excavations 1955-56.London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.PIPERNO, M. 1985. Some 14C dates for the palaeoeconomic evidence fromthe Holocene levels of Uzzo Cave, Sicily, in C. Malone & S. Stoddart(ed.), Papers in Italian archaeology IV: the Cambridge Conference 2:prehistory: 83-6. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Internationalseries 244.PIPERNO, M., S. SCALI SCALI Scalable Linux Systems (Scali Inc.)SCALI South Carolina Association of Legal Investigators, Inc. & A. TAGLICOZZO. 1980. Mesolitico eneolitico alia Grotta dell'Uzzo (Trapani). Primi dati perun'interpretazione paleoeconomica, Quaternaria 22: 275-300.PIPERNO, M. & S. TUSA. 1976. Relazione preliminare sulla secondacampagna di scavi alia Grotta dell'Uzzo (Trapani), SiciliaArcheologica 31: 39-42.RADCLIFFE-BROWN, A.R. 1922. The Andaman islanders. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.REESE, D.S. 1990. Review of Shackleton 1988, American Journal ofArchaeology 94: 682-3.1991. Marine shells in the Levant: Upper Palaeolithic, Epipaleolithicand Neolithic, in Bar-Yosef & Valla (1991): 613-28.RODDEN, R.J. 1962. Excavations at the Early Neolithic site at NeaNikomedeia, Greek Macedonia (1961 season), Proceedings of thePrehistoric Society 28: 267-88.ROLLEFSON, G.O., A.H. SIMMONS & Z. KAFAKI. 1992. Neolithiccultures at 'Ain Ghazal Ghaz´aln. 1. A kind of Oriental lyric, and usually erotic, poetry, written in recurring rhymes. , Jordan, Journal of Field Archaeology 19:443-70.ROSE, M. 1987. Prehistoric fishing in the Aegean. Unpublished paper,ICAZ ICAZ International Council for Archaeozoology Fish Remains Working Group Fourth Meeting, University of York This article is about the British university. For the Canadian university, see York University. The University of York is a campus university in York, England. .RUNNELS, C.N. 1981. A diachronic study and economic analysis ofmillstones from the Argolid, Greece. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation,Indiana University, Bloomington (IN).1988. A prehistoric survey of Thessaly: new light on the Greek MiddlePaleolithic, Journal of Field Archaeology 15: 277-90.1994. Pleistocene and early Holocene archaeological sites in southernEpirus, Greece (abstract), American Journal of Archaeology 98: 315-16.SAXE, A.A. 1970. Social dimensions of mortuary practices. UnpublishedPh.D dissertation, University of Michigan (body, education) University of Michigan - A large cosmopolitan university in the Midwest USA. Over 50000 students are enrolled at the University of Michigan's three campuses. The students come from 50 states and over 100 foreign countries. , Ann Arbor (MI).1971. Social dimensions of mortuary practices in a Mesolithicpopulation from Wadi Halfa, Sudan, in J.A. Brown (ed.), Approaches tothe social dimensions of mortuary practices: 39-57. Washington (DC):Society for American Archaeology The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) is the largest organization of professional archaeologists of the Americas in the world. The Society was founded in 1934 and today has over 7000 members. , Memoir 25.SCHAEFFER, M.C. 1977. An attribute analysis and formal typology typology/ty��pol��o��gy/ (ti-pol��ah-je) the study of types; the science of classifying, as bacteria according to type. typologythe study of types; the science of classifying, as bacteria according to type. ofthe ornaments from Franchthi Cave, Greece. Unpublished MA thesis,Indiana University, Bloomington (IN).SEGRE, E. & M. Piperno. 1975. Scavi alla Grotta dell'Uzzo.Relazione preliminare, Sicilia Archeologica 27: 11-16.SHACKLETON, J.C. 1988. Marine molluscan mol��lus��canalso mol��lus��kan ?adj.Of or relating to the mollusks.n.A mollusk. remains from Franchthi Cave.Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press. Excavations at FranchthiCave, Greece 4.SHACKLETON, N.J. 1969. Preliminary observations on the marine shells.Appendix I, in Jacobsen (1969): 379-80.SHANKS, M. & C. TILLEY. 1982. Ideology, symbolic power and ritualcommunication: a reinterpretation re��in��ter��pret?tr.v. re��in��ter��pret��ed, re��in��ter��pret��ing, re��in��ter��pretsTo interpret again or anew.re of Neolithic mortuary practices, in I.Hodder (ed.), Symbolic and structural archaeology: 129-54. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.SORDINAS, A. 1970. Stone implements from northwestern Corfu, Greece.Memphis (TN): Memphis State University. Anthropological Research Center.Occasional papers 4.SREJOVIC, D. 1972. Europe's first monumental sculpture: newdiscoveries at Lepenski Vir. London: Thames & Hudson.SREJOVIC, D. & Z. LETICA. 1978. Vlasac, a Mesolithic settlementin the Iron Gates I: Archaeology. Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Sciencesand Arts The Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (Serbian: Српска академија наука и уметности / . Monograph 512.STRAUS, L.G. 1990. Underground archaeology: perspectives on caves androck shelters, in Archaeological method and theory 2: 255-304.STRAVOPODI, H., S. MANOLIS & N. KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA. 1994.Paleoanthropological findings from Theopetra Cave. Unpublished paper,First International Conference on the Palaeolithic of Greece andAdjacent Areas, Ioannina.STROUHAL, E. 1973. Five plastered skulls from Pre-pottery Neolithic BJericho: anthropological study, Paleorient 1 (2): 231-47.TALALAY, L.E. 1993. Deities, dolls, and devices: Neolithic figurinesfrom Franchthi Cave, Greece. Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press.Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece 9.UCKO, P.J. 1969. Ethnography and archaeological interpretation offunerary remains, World Archaeology 1: 262-80.VAN ANDEL, T.H. & J.M. HANSEN. 1987. Evolution of the Franchthilandscape, in van Andel & Sutton (1987): 55-62.VAN ANDEL, T.H., T.W. JACOBSEN, J.B. JOLLY & N. LIANOS. 1980.Late Quaternary history of the coastal zone near Franchthi Cave,southern Argolid, Greece, Journal of Field Archaeology 7: 389-402.VAN ANDEL, T.H. & J.C. SHACKLETON. 1982. Late Paleolithic andMesolithic coastlines of Greece and the Aegean, Journal of FieldArchaeology 9: 445-54.VAN ANDEL, T.H. & S.B. SUTTON. 1987. Landscape and people of theFranchthi region. Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press.Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece 2.VAN ZEIST, W. & S. BOTTEMA. 1982. Vegetational history of theeastern Mediterranean and the Near East during the last 20,000 years, inJ.L. Bintliff & W. van Zeist (ed.), Palaeoclimates,palaeo-environments and human communities in the eastern Mediterraneanregion in later prehistory: 277-321. Oxford: British ArchaeologicalReports. International series 133.VILLA, P., D. HELMER & J. COURTIN. 1985. Restes osseux etstructures d'habitat en grotte: l'apport des remotages dans laBaume Fontbregoua, Bulletin de correspondence hellenique 82: 389-421.VITELLI, K.D. 1993. Franchthi Neolithic pottery. Bloomington (IN):Indiana University Press. Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece 8.WACE, A.J.B. & M.S. THOMPSON. 1914. The nomads of the Balkans.London: Methuen.WALDRON, T. 1987. The relative survival of the human skeleton:implications for palaeopathology, in A. Beddington et al. (ed.), Death,decay and reconstruction: 55-64. Manchester: Manchester UniversityPress.WELLS, B., C.N. RUNNELS & E. ZANGGER. 1993. In the shadow ofMycenae, Archaeology 46(1): 54-8, 63.WHITE, T.D. 1992. Prehistoric cannibalism at Mancos 5MTUMR-2346,Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.WILKINSON, T.J. & S.T. DUHON. 1990. Franchthi Paralia: thesediments, stratigraphy stratigraphy,branch of geology specifically concerned with the arrangement of layered rocks (see stratification). Stratigraphy is based on the law of superposition, which states that in a normal sequence of rock layers the youngest is on top and the oldest on the , and offshore investigations. Bloomington (IN):Indiana University Press. Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece 6.WOLLASTON, A.F.R. 1912. Pygmies & Papuans: the Stone Age to-dayin Dutch New Guinea Dutch New Guinea:see Papua, Indonesia. . New York (NY): Sturgis & Walton.WOODBURN, J. 1982. Social dimensions of death in four African huntingand gathering societies, in M. Bloch & J. Parry (ed.), Death and theregeneration of life: 187-210. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.WRIGHT, G.A. 1978. Social differentiation in the early Natufian, inC.L. Redman et al. (ed.), Social archaeology: 201-23. New York (NY):Academic Press.ZIVANOVIC, S. 1975. A note on the anthropological characteristics ofthe Padina population, Zeitschrift fur Morphologie und Anthropologie 66:161-75.ZVELEBIL, M. (ed.). 1986a. Hunters in transition: Mesolithicsocieties of temperate Eurasia and their transition to farming.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1986b. Mesolithic prelude and Neolithic revolution, in Zvelebil(1986a): 5-15.ZVELEBIL, M. & P. ROWLEY-CONWY. 1986. Foragers and farmers inAtlantic Europe, in Zvelebil (1986a): 67-93.TRACEY CULLEN, American Journal of Archaeology, 656 Beacon Street,Boston MA 02215-2010, USA.