Cauwe 2001 Mezolit Sahranjivanje Belgija

8/10/2019 Cauwe 2001 Mezolit Sahranjivanje Belgija

1/18

Skeletons in Motion, Ancestors in Action:

Early Mesolithic Collective Tombs in Southern Belgium

discharges directly into the Meuse. The Grotte Margauxopens from the top of the ravine, not far from theplateau overlooking the Meuse valley.

The cave is 50 m long and 14 m wide (Fig. 3),increasing in height from only 0.6 m at the entranceto 5 m in the rear chamber (Fig. 4). This space repre-sents only a small part of the original volume of thecave, however, since the cavity is partially filled byaccumulated deposits. The large Holocene depositin the outer chamber has indeed blocked the en-trance, but deeper within the cave this Holocene de-

posit rapidly diminishes, and it is clear that the latestsedimentary activity in the inner chamber dates tothe beginning of the late Ice Age. This inner chamberhas a level stalagmitic floor, formed more than 70,000years ago, and it was on this that a collective tombwas built during the ninth millennium BC(Fig. 5).

Radiocarbon dates from the Grotte Margauxhave suggested that the Mesolithic tomb was used intwo distinct episodes, at the beginning and the endof the ninth millennium respectively. This two-phaseuse is not supported by any archaeological evidence,

Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11:2 (2001), 14763

147

Nicolas Cauwe

Collective tombs are a characteristic feature of Neolithic societies of Western Europe.Some recent studies have suggested that they originated from an earlier tradition ofindividual burials at the MesolithicNeolithic transition. The concept of collective burial

involving movement and manipulation of bodies and body parts is, however, entirelydifferent. The former tries to preserve the integrity of the bodies and does not acknowledgethe stages of metamorphosis of the corpse. The latter by contrast involves observation andassistance in the dissolution of the body. Recent discoveries of Early Mesolithic collectivetombs in southern Belgium have underlined the fact that collective burials are far fromrestricted to Neolithic contexts in Western Europe. They themselves, however, are notmerely a potential point of origin for Middle and Late Neolithic collective tombs but form

part of a long-standing tradition reaching back into the Upper Palaeolithic.

Two Early Mesolithic collective tombs have recentlybeen excavated in southern Belgium, inside cavesalong the Meuse river, not far from the French bor-der. The first, the Grotte Margaux, was excavated in198586 (Cauwe 1998); the second, the Abri desAutours, in 199293 (Cauwe 1994; 1995). These exca-vations established the great antiquity of a type offunerary practice previously thought to have begunonly with the first farmers of Western Europe. Oneof the main lessons of these discoveries is hence thelack of connection between collective tombs and a

particular way of life. It is now possible to exploresome of the links between the last hunter-gatherersand the first farmers.

The Grotte Margaux

The Grotte Margaux (Fig. 1) is situated within asmall ravine cut into limestone cliffs on the easternflank of the Meuse valley. The ravine is usually dry,save after exceptional storms, and the small river thatflows into it is quickly swallowed by a karst which


2/18

148

Nicolas Cauwe

Figure 1.Location of the Grotte Margaux and the Abri des Autours.


3/18

149


Figure 2.The Grotte Margaux, showing theaccumulation of Holocene sediments at theentrance. (Photo: Dominique Coup.)

Figure 3.Plan of the Grotte Margaux. (Drawing:Philippe Lacroix & Benot Vanhoebroeck.)

however, the architecture indicating that the gravewas built in a short time. Furthermore, the humanbones are spread in one homogeneous level, andthere is no spatial correlation between the samplesused for dating and the distribution of the dates. Theseparation between the dates may instead be attrib-uted to the fact that the calibration curve shows anirregularity around the period 96009500 BP.

ArchitectureThe tomb consisted of a small pit partly surroundedby a dry-stone wall and a pavement. These construc-tions were covered by a stone roof (Fig. 6). The pitcould not contain all ten bodies found in the gravesince it is only 0.20 m deep and 1 m in diameter.Furthermore, the adjacent pavement covers only2 m2, and the restricted dimensions of the tomb seemto have been specifically designed to bring the tendisarticulated bodies into close spatial association.Moreover, considering the available space withinthe cave (Fig. 3), the accumulation of human re-mains within such a limited area must be viewed asan intentional act.

Mesolithic activity at the site began with theconstruction of the pavement in the northeast cornerof the future tomb. At the same time, or perhaps alittle later, a pit was dug at the opposite side andsurrounded by small stones (Fig. 6). The greater partof the human remains was then buried inside the pitand the rest placed on the pavement (Fig. 6). Finally,when the decision was taken to stop using the grave,both pit and pavement were covered over with largestones (Fig. 6).


4/18

150

Nicolas Cauwe

Figure 4.Sections across the Grotte Margaux. (Drawing: Philippe Lacroix & Benot Vanhoebroeck.)

Figure 5.Grotte Margaux: radiocarbon dates for the collective grave. Material: human bone. Dates from Gif-sur-Yvette and Oxford each concern only one individual and were provided by the AMS method; the sample used for thelast date (Lv, conventional method) is a mixture of ribs from different individuals.


5/18

151


Figure 6.Grotte Margaux: plan of the Early Mesolithictomb. (Drawing: Benot Vanhoebroeck.)

Mortuary practicesAmong the skeletal remains in the grave, anatomicalconnections are absent save for parts of the skeletonwhere the ligaments are strongest, such as the baseof a vertebral column or an atlas (first cervical verte-bra adhering to a skull). This suggests the practice ofsecondary burial, which is supported by other evi-dence. The spatial distribution of the human remainsis chaotic (Fig. 7), and certain elements are missing;taphonomy cannot explain all these absences. Fur-thermore, none of the skeletons is entire and each isincomplete in its own particular way.

Another observation in favour of secondaryburial is the distribution of ochre in the grave. Allthe human remains are covered by ochre, as is thecase in many hunter-gatherer burials. But the floorof the Grotte Margaux grave shows no sign of ochre.If the bodies had decomposed in the tomb, the ochrewould have spread widely from the skeletal remains,and its absence suggests therefore that the bodieswere disarticulated outside the tomb.

The distribution of the skeletons between the

two parts of the grave (the pit and the pavement)seems to refer to another kind of manipulation, afterburial in the cave. All the human remains found onthe pavement belong to the incomplete skeletons

preserved in the pit. The converse, however, is notfound; only a portion of all the bodies that wereincluded in the pit were represented on the pave-ment, suggesting that perhaps the latter served as anoutlet for the funerary pit.

Age and sex of the remainsThe demography of those buried in the GrotteMargaux is interesting. The grave contains no chil-dren or adolescents. We recognize the difficulties indetermining the sex of the adult skeletons, espe-cially when there is no reference population, as isthe case for the Early Mesolithic of Europe. The skel-

etons in the Grotte Margaux do however exhibitgreat morphological uniformity and, from an an-thropometric point of view, have a characteristic slen-derness. These facts indicate the sex of the skeletons;it is most likely that the collective tomb of the GrotteMargaux contains only adult females. Moreover,many of the same anomalies (non-metrical traits) arepresent on all the skeletons (Toussaint 1998), corre-lating perhaps with genetic relationships. The womenmay hence all have belonged to the same family,although these kind of anomalies can also be theresult of specific marriage practices. For example,

the men of a certain group may have always taken awife from the same group over several generations(Masset 1997). We must be cautious in our conclu-sions at this stage as the anatomical study is not yetconcluded and we have not determined preciselythe process of transmission of the anomalies.

In conclusion, the individuals represented inthe grave have been selected, certainly according toage, probably to sex and possibly to family relation-ship. This situation is without known parallels in theEuropean Mesolithic. For example, at Ofnet, in Ba-varia, 33 human skulls were discovered in two pits(Orschiedt 1998), but this population included men,women and children, without any apparent selec-tion according to age or sex. Sometimes women,men and children were buried in the same grave, asin the cemetery of Tviec in Brittany (Pquart et al.1937). In Scandinavian cemeteries, the graves werereserved in most cases for individual women or men,but in some there were two adults or an adult withchildren (Larsson 1989; Brinch Petersen et al. 1976).

Since only adults of the same sex were placedin the grave of the Grotte Margaux, the selectioncannot represent either a normal demographic curve


6/18

152

Nicolas Cauwe

Figure 7.Grotte Margaux: distribution of human remains in the tomb. (Drawing:Benot Vanhoebroeck.)

or a tragedy, such as a war or epidemic. The criteriafor selection derive rather from the requirements ofrituals or from social and cultural obligations, orperhaps all of these factors together. Nevertheless,we do not know what funerary treatment was ac-corded to the children and men of the same commu-nity. For this reason, it is impossible to propose amore definite interpretation for the unusual demo-graphics in this grave.

The treatment of the deadBeyond the homogeneity ofthe population buried in theGrotte Margaux, we find that

not all the individuals re-ceived the same treatment.The accumulation of tenwomen and the dislocationand mixing of their skeletonsthroughout the tomb doesnot indicate that they wereall treated equally in death.For example, several skel-etons are very incomplete,probably as a consequence ofsome setting-apart of bonesbefore or after the burials.

One skeleton is less dislo-cated than the others. Thus,different categories existed inthe treatment of the dead atthe Grotte Margaux. Menand children were excludedfrom the tomb, but there arealso distinctions between thewomen who were buried inthe cave.

Moreover, cut marksare visible on one skull (Fig.

8) and they appear in differ-ent places: on the upper partof the forehead, on thezygomatic bones and on theoccipital condyles. The cutmarks on the occipitalcondyles and the zygomaticbones indicate than the skullwas intentionally separatedfrom the rest of the body, andthe mandible from the skull.The cut marks on the fore-head could have been madewhilst cutting off of the fleshin order to display the skull.

Anthropophagy is a possibility to be consid-ered when studying these cut marks. Cannibalismmay be accepted or refuted by archaeologists de-pending on their own sensitivities, but the idea can-not be rejected in principle and there are examples ofdislocated skeletons in prehistoric Europe for whichcannibalism seems to be the best explanation. In West-ern Europe the most famous case comes from theFontbrgoua cave in the south of France, in an Early


7/18

153


Figure 8.Cut marks on skull from the Grotte Margaux. a) leftzygomatic bone; b) right zygomatic bone. (Photo: MichelToussaint.)

a

b

or Middle Neolithic context (early fifth mil-lennium BC) (Villa et al. 1986). There arealso instances of cut marks on human re-mains from Mesolithic contexts. In the

Grotte des Perrats at Agris, in west-centralFrance, human and animal bones datingfrom the seventh millennium show butch-ery marks (Boulestin & Gomez de Soto1995). Humans and animals have been cutup, the flesh scraped away and burned(Boulestin 1999). A similar discovery wasmade at an open-air site at Noyen-sur-Seine(Seine-et-Marne) dating to the same pe-riod. There too, human bones were accom-panied by faunal remains, and displayedcut marks made by flint tools; some ofthem had also been burned (Auboire 1991).

Among the Epipalaeolithic artefacts ofGoughs Cave in Somerset (Leroi-Gourhan& Jacobi 1986) several human bones withcut marks were mixed with fauna.

Cut marks on human bones do not,however, meet the minimum criteria forsome form of cannibalism to be accepted,especially when in a funerary context suchas the Grotte Margaux, or in similar exam-ples from the Magdalenian (Le Mort &Gambier 1991), and possibly theMousterian (Le Mort 1986). In these cases,

we must first consider the specific treat-ment of the dead. At the Grotte Margauxthe funerary nature of the context is cer-tain, and is not complicated by the pres-ence of animal remains. Moreover, theGrotte Margaux grave contains the remains of tenbodies, but only one of them has cut marks on theskull. This seems to point to mortuary treatmentrather than cannibalism.

In summary, the Grotte Margaux contained astructured tomb within which were accumulated theremains of ten or eleven women. The skeletal re-mains of these women indicate that some elementshad been set apart, before or after inhumation in thecave, and that the practice was clearly one of second-ary burial. Cut marks appear on only one skull, indi-cating again that part of the mortuary treatmentoccurred outside the grave. The human bonesbrought into the cave were placed in a small pit, andsome were then removed and placed on a pavementnext to the pit. There were no accompanying gravegoods. Finally, when the use of the grave came to anend, a stone covering was constructed over thetomb.

The Abri des Autours

Facing towards the southwest, the Abri des Autours1

is located at the top of a limestone cliff overlookingthe Meuse valley (Fig. 9), only 800 m from the GrotteMargaux (Fig. 11). Internally it measures 20 m longand 5.5 m wide, and is today some 3 m high at thelevel of the rock overhang. During the Mesolithicperiod, the internal dimensions may have been alittle larger, but the Autours rock-shelter has neverbeen spacious. The vault slopes sharply downwardstowards the rear and this will always have limitedthe internal space, whatever the impact of sedimen-tation accumulation. The sedimentary processes ofthe Abri des Autours are simple, and take the formalmost exclusively of deposits eroding from the pla-teau above and of frost-induced exfoliation of thelimestone.This simplicity of processes leads, how-ever, to a complex stratigraphy of sloping deposits


8/18

154

Nicolas Cauwe

Figure 9.The Abri des Autours, at the top of a limestone cliff overlooking theMeuse valley. (Photo: Dominique Coup.)

Figure 10. Abri des Autours: radiocarbon dates of the Mesolithic collective grave.Samples: human bone; AMS method.

and complex alternating strata.This small cave held two human bone assem-

blages dating from the Early Mesolithic, with nostratigraphic connection between them. The older is

an individual tomb of a woman covered by ochre

and without any grave goods. The second is a collec-tive tomb that belongs, like the Margaux grave, tothe ninth millennium (Fig. 10). Four non-retouchedflint bladelets are the only grave goods to have been

found among the human bones of this collectivegrave. Above these depositsthere were also human bonesbelonging to the Middle Neo-lithic Michelsberg culture(fourth millennium BC).

The Early Mesolithic collectivetombThis tomb consisted of a smallpit and a closing wall separat-ing the tomb from the rest ofthe cavity. Despite this absence

of architecture, however, thetomb is of considerable inter-est for the study of the funerarypractices, allowing palaeo-demographic analysis (Figs.1112).

Treatment of children and adultsThe grave contained at least 5adults and 6 children (Tables13). The adult remains weredispersed throughout the tomb:

some laid inside the pit, in thesouthern corner of the rock-shelter; others next to the pit;and some bones were leftalong the cave wall in thenorthern part of the cavity. Incontrast to this widespreaddistribution, the child remainswere only found in this lastnorthern sector (Figs. 1112).

Age at death seems tohave been culturally signifi-cant. The distinctive spatialdistribution of the adult andthe child remains are welladapted to the topography ofthe cave. The northern sector,where were found all the childremains and some adult bones,is an open area without goodnatural protection. There iseasy access to this part of thegrave and the human bones arespread alongside the cave wall.


9/18

155


Table 1.Estimation of age at death of the childrenfrom the Abri des Autours. (After C. Polet, RoyalInstitute for Natural Sciences of Belgium, Laboratoryof Anthropology.)

Age (years) Category Method & authors

1 23 infant dimensions of the bones(Alduc-Le Bagousse 1988)

2 34 infant comparisons with reference tojuvenile skeletons

3 67 young child/ dimensions of the bonesjuvenile (Alduc-Le Bagousse 1988)

4 7 2 juvenile cutting and calcification of teeth(Ubelaker 1989, 71)

5 9 2 juvenile cutting and calcification of teeth(Ubelaker 1989, 71)

6 >15 subadult comparisons with reference to

juvenile skeletons

Table 3.Estimation of sex of the adults and juvenilesfrom the Abri des Autours. (Only two adult pelvisesand two juvenile ilia are sufficiently preserved to allowdetermination of sex; after C. Polet, Royal Institute for

Natural Sciences of Belgium, Laboratory ofAnthropology.)

Bone Method Authors Results

pelvis 1 morphological Ferembach et al.1 979 female(adult)

metric Gaillard 1960 female

pelvis 2 morphological Ferembach et al.1979 male(adult)

ilium 1 morphological Schutkowski 1993 male(juvenile)

ilium 2 morphological Schutkowski 1993 female(juvenile)

Table 2.Estimation of age of death of the adults from the Abri des Autours. (After C. Polet, Royal Institute forNatural Sciences of Belgium, Laboratory of Anthropology.)

Bone Method Authors Results Estimation of the agepelvis 1 auricular surface Lovejoy et al.1985 stage 7 5059pelvis 2 auricular surface Lovejoy et al.1985 stage 3 3034pelvis 3 auricular surface Lovejoy et al.1985 stage 4 or 5 3544pelvis 4 fusion of the iliac crest Brothwell 1963, 60


10/18

156

Nicolas Cauwe

indicates that legs and heads were at one time presentin the grave, but that some removal occurred afterburial. However that may be, the Mesolithic com-munity was apparently interested in retaining somebones, especially skulls and leg bones, for an activitywhich we have not ascertained, but which took placeoutside the grave.

Several cases of reduction of bodies by removalof bones are known from the Mesolithic of north-west Europe, the most spectacular being that of Petit-Marais at La Chausse-Tirancourt in the Somme

(Ducrocq & Ketterer 1995). In these instances,the bones of the limbs, the pelvis and theskull were conserved. In the Autours case, thepattern was probably the opposite: the elements

we found are those that often are missing else-where.Since the same bones were not missing

from all the bodies, there is evidence onceagain for the existence of different categoriesof burial treatment. To the dichotomy betweenchildren and adults may be added the dis-tinction between two groups of adults, ac-cording to selection of skeletal elements. Wedo not know why the Mesolithic people tookbones from some individuals and not others,but we may note that the choice did not de-pend on sex, or age at the time of death.

In addition, the distribution within thetomb of the two categories of mortuary treat-ment is not the same. The skeletons fromwhich complete bones have been removedare not found in the pit, while parts of theothers were buried in it (Fig. 12). In otherwords, the most complete adults occurredeverywhere in the tomb, the skeletons whichwere intentionally incomplete were excludedfrom the pit, and the remains of children areonly found in the northern sector.

The adult leg bones partly conserved in

the pit are fragmentary, but the arm bones,which are not inherently more likely to survivethan those of the legs, are better preserved.Moreover, both anatomical categories are dis-tributed in the same way. It is possible that longbones of the legs were intentionally broken, butthis hypothesis is not supported by any evi-dence, such as percussion marks or spiral frac-tures, on the bones themselves.Additionally,fragments around the breaks are missing: at-tempts to rejoin several fragments of the samebone were unsuccessful, and it was as if thebones had been divided into fragments in order

to remove certain specific elements.It seems as though for some adults entire bones

were removed, whereas for others the selection offragmentary pieces sufficed. The same observationapplies to the skulls. There were no skulls or skullfragments outside the pit, though the pit itself heldseveral fragments. The relics that were taken awaywere thus almost the same for all the adults, but thecircumstances in which they were removed was notthe same, some removals being made from bodies inthe funerary pit, others next to it.

Figure 11.Abri des Autours: plan of the Mesolithic collectivegrave.


11/18

157


The cremationAn adult, too incomplete for sex to be determined,had undergone a cremation in which the level ofcombustion was relatively high. The deposit is obvi-ously secondary, since not the slightest trace of firecould be seen in the rock-shelter. Thus the absenceof some bones of this cremated individual does notnecessarily indicate their removal after burial, as se-lection could have occurred before the body wasbrought to the shelter. The phalanges of the feet aremissing, together with most of the skull, which isrepresented by only three or four very small frag-ments.

Did head and feet extend beyond the fire, sothat it did not seem useful or necessary tocollect them? That is possible, especially as one tibiaand a few skull fragments show a lower level ofcombustion than the rest of the skeleton. But wemust remember that removal of skulls was not anunusual practice among these Mesolithic societies. Fur-thermore, the phalanges were deposited in a particularway. Together, these considerations lead to cautionin interpreting the incomplete presence of the cre-mated individual.

Movement of bones within the tombIn the southeastern corner of the grave,the rock wall is crossed by a crack sev-eral centimetres long. This contained

32 phalanges (Fig. 12). All the footbones come from a single individual,but the hand bones belong to a mini-mum of three individuals, includingthe one who was cremated. This par-ticular concentration of phalangesclearly indicates the intentional move-ment of bones within the tomb.

In the grave as a whole, very fewanatomical connections were observed.Only the base of a vertebral columnand the pelvic girdle of one individualwere preserved in their natural order;

the skeletons of the children and theother adults were disarticulated. It islikely that these dislocations were inpart the result of intentional acts. Ifnot, it is hard to explain why the chil-drens remains are more closelygrouped than those of the adults. Itwould also be impossible otherwise toaccount for the absence of anatomicallinks between the remains in the pitand those left immediately around it.

The treatment and manipulation

Figure 12.Abri des Autours: organization of the Mesolithic collectivegrave.

of the dead was systematic and complex. On onehand, the tomb was divided into sections allowingclassification of the dead; while on the other, themovement of bones allowed links to be made be-tween the categories of the dead. The adults, cre-mated or inhumed, underwent removal of whole orfragmentary bones and were deposited either in thefunerary pit or along its edge, but they were linkedinto one community by the bones of their hands. Thechildren were not left alone in the northern sector:with the exception of the cremated individual, theremains of the six adults overlapped with those ofthe children. Difference and assimilation worked atthe same time to ensure the unity of the grave. Catego-rizing the dead was balanced by the creation of linksbetween the individuals.

One further element indicates clearly the inten-tional removal of bones. In front of the tomb a lowwall was built (Figs. 1112), which covered an ear-lier small pit. In this pit was found the temporalbone of an adult which belonged, in all probability,to one of the adults represented in the funerary pitalready described. This temporal shows no trace ofcut marks, and we can therefore be certain that its

NORTH SECTOR SOUTH SECTOR

Children

NATURAL CREVICE

Phalanges

SURFACE

SURFACE

PIT

PIT

CLOSING-WALL OF THE TOMBTemporal bone

of one adult

Adults

Adults3 individuals minimum(entire bones removed)

3 individuals minimum(fragmentary bone removed)

Two buried

One burned


12/18

158

Nicolas Cauwe

removal to the final burying place occurred after thenatural decomposition of the flesh. This action illus-trates once more how the dead admitted to the tombwere treated individually.

Phalanges placed in a natural crevice; move-ment of bones within the tomb; introduction of a cre-mated body; selective bone removal after inhumation the dead of the Abri des Autours certainly did notrest in peace and quiet!

Primary or secondary burial?Distinguishing between primary and secondarydeposition in collective graves is never easy. Indeed,as we have seen, the bodies from the Abri des Autourshad undergone several manipulations such that theircondition at the moment they were admitted to thetomb is difficult to determine. The two adults who

were not cremated, but deposited in the pit, sharedseveral preserved anatomical connections. They mayhave been placed in the rock-shelter as primary buri-als, but subsequently certain parts of the skeletonswere intentionally removed. Secondary burial, on theother hand, is indicated for the cremated individualgiven the absence of traces of burning within therock-shelter.

This leaves the children and the three adultswhose skeletons are only represented by very smallfragments. The absence of larger elements and thedisarticulation of the remains tell a complicated story.

We can imagine entire bodies being introduced inthe tomb and afterwards relieved of their most sig-nificant bones, with the smaller or less importantfragments being pushed to one side. This wouldexplain their distribution along the edge of the shel-ter wall or around the pit. But that is only an impres-sion and not a conclusion based on solid evidence.

In conclusion, therefore, the Mesolithic collec-tive tomb of the Abri des Autours cannot be classi-fied as either primary or secondary, but is sometimesprimary, and other times secondary, according tothe individual case. Each individual was treated dif-ferently, and the final pattern is certainly not theresult of stereotyped behaviour.

Discussion

Mesolithic collective tombs in northwestern EuropeAt the time of discovery, the Mesolithic collectivetombs of the Grotte Margaux and the Abri desAutours were without parallel, and it was thereforeconsidered better to assume that these deposits wereatypical, than to propose some general hypothesisabout the mortuary behaviour of the last hunter-

gatherers. An understanding of the past cannot beconstructed by reliance only on exceptional evidence.This began to change with the discovery some yearsago of a third collective tomb, also dated to the ninth

millennium, in the Bois Laiterie cave at Profondeville(Otte & Straus 1997), some kilometres downstreamalong the Meuse from Margaux and Autours. BoisLaiterie displayed the same treatment of skeletonsas Margaux and Autours.

Today, the corpus of Mesolithic collective tombsincludes at least ten examples, divided between Bel-gium and the southwestern part of England (Cauwe199697). With the exception of the deposits alreadydescribed, however, the other discoveries are knownonly from ancient or unscientific excavations, whichgive less detail about the exact conditions of discov-ery and too little to enable a precise understanding

of the funerary context. The antiquity of these exca-vations does not allow the number of bodies de-posited in each cave, the sequence of intermentsor their possible manipulation to be established.Nevertheless, these sites indicate that placementof the dead in natural caves was a frequent prac-tice in northwest Europe during the ninth andeighth millennium.

Whatever the quality of the excavations, thesesites taken together show that the Margaux andAutours collective tombs were part of a much broaderpattern. Collective burial was not, however, the only

mortuary rite practised during the Mesolithic innorthwest Europe. There are also individual primaryinterments and fragmentary human remains withinsettlements (Newell et al. 1979). It is important none-theless to note the presence of collective tombs asearly as the Early Mesolithic.

If we enlarge the discussion to include otherregions of Mesolithic Western Europe, it shouldbe noted that manipulation of the dead, and gath-ering the remains in a selected location, are fre-quent, even if the details of those activities are notnecessarily equivalent to those seen in collectivetombs sensu stricto. Such practices are seldom notedin other regions of Europe, however, and theMesolithic collective tombs seem therefore to bepart of a distinctive West European pattern. Untilthe Late Mesolithic, scattered human remains aremore numerous than those coming from graves.Some twenty years ago, Rozoy was among thefirst to recognize the importance of the phenom-enon of disarticulated corpses in France (Rozoy1978). The same feature is prominent in the inven-tory by Newell et al.(1979) of Mesolithic burials inWestern Europe as a whole.


13/18

159


Primary burials and protected bodies in Central andEastern EuropeMesolithic funerary rites in other regions of Europeare also diverse. They include cemeteries and iso-

lated tombs, individual graves and multiple (simul-taneous) burials, inhumations and cremations.Overall, Central and Eastern Europe do not seem todiffer from Western Europe, but the frequency of thevarious practices is different. In contrast to the Por-tuguese, Scandinavian and Breton cemeteries, East-ern Europe does not have superimposed burials norgraves in which earlier burials had been pushed aside.Collective tombs filled on a single occasion werepreferred in Central and Eastern Europe, and disar-ticulated remains are virtually absent from non-funerary contexts. Normative burial treatmentinvolves primary inhumation, which respects the

natural organization of the body. The burials of theGrotta dellUzzo in Sicily (Borgognini Tarli et al. 1993)and the Danube gorges (Boroneant 1970; Srejovic@1972); the isolated graves of the Alpine regions(Leonardi & Tomasi 1968; Guerreschi & Gerhardinger1988), Corsica (Magdeleine 1991) or Germany(Grnberg 1996; Grote 1990; Grote & Schrder 1989);and the cemeteries of Karelia in Russia (Gurina 1956;Price & Jacobs 1990), all testify to the same respect forthe integrity of the bodies and the absence ofcollectiveburials. The tombs are placed side by side, and arefar removed from the accumulation of corpses in

burial chambers that are regularly seen in WesternEurope. Quite different traditions prevailed in the East-ern and Western parts of the continent. Manipulat-ing the corpses or hiding them away, knowing howthey naturally degrade, are attitudes that belong withquite different views about death, even if we cannotprecisely determine their meaning.

The diachronic perspectiveThe behaviours practised in the Grotte Margaux andthe Abri des Autours are consistent with traditionsthat are reproduced everywhere in Western Europeduring the Early Holocene. The search for proto-types for collective burial is, however, more difficultthan that for other aspects of the burial treatment.Collective burial becomes common in later periods,but the chronological hiatus between the Mesolithiccollective tombs and those of the Middle Neolithic isat least three or four millennia.

Magdalenian populations are represented bynearly 300 skeletons, mostly fragmentary. Only threeper cent of them received a burial (Gambier 1992).Most of those discovered outside formal gravespresent traces of cut marks or working (Le Mort &

Gambier 1991; Garralda 1992; Mazire 1986; Bgounet al.1937). This indicated that the bodies underwenta more elaborate treatment than simple abandon-ment in a given location. What was the status of

these dead? Outcasts, enemies offered in sacrifice,persons of low social status (or the opposite)? Thatformal graves are found during some parts of theMagdalenian certainly does not justify the rejectionof research into Magdalenian human remains foundin other contexts merely because we cannot directlyverify their funerary context.

Several types of intervention have been notedon the dispersed Magdalenian skeletons: cut marks,shaping and engraving (Le Mort & Gambier 1991;Buisson & Gambier 1991; Orschiedt 1997; Malvesin-Fabre et al. 1954). Traces of dismemberment by cut-ting and scraping are the most frequent, and almost

all of them are concentrated on the skull. The mostimportant examples come from Isturitz and Le Plac-ard (in France) and Brillenhhle (in Germany). Fi-nally, we must point out that there are human bones,dismembered and worked, to which engraved deco-ration has been added (Buisson & Gambier 1991).

Most of the Magdalenian deposits displayingevidence of the manipulation of corpses contain mul-tiple individuals. At Isturitz there were 43 individu-als (probably 31 of them adult), mostly representedby their skulls (Buisson & Gambier 1991). At Le Plac-ard, the number of dead varies between 34 and 54,

according to different estimates. Eight or eleven ofthem are children (Le Mort & Gambier 1991). AtMaszycka in Poland, the human bones belonged to aminimum of 16 individuals of whom half were adults(Kozlowski et al. 1995). At Lachaud in France, eightskeletons had been manipulated and spread acrossthe site (Cheynier 1965), while within the cave ofSaint-Germain-la-Rivire were found the partial andscattered remains of five individuals, apparentlywithout any relation to the famous burial discoveredat the same site (Blanchard et al. 1972). Three cre-mated bodies were abandoned in a pit at Brillenhhle(Orschiedt 1997).

West vs east: diversity in Upper Palaeolithic mortuarypracticesAs in the Mesolithic, so also in the Late UpperPalaeolithic the treatment of the dead varies betweenWestern and Central Europe. In the West, inhuma-tions are uncommon: disarticulation or dismember-ment and working of skeletons is normal and thedisposal of the dead only happened after these ma-nipulations. Elsewhere, for instance in Italy duringthe Epigravettian, the dead were systematically in-


14/18

160

Nicolas Cauwe

terred, and where several dead are found at the samesite they are buried in small cemeteries (Mussi et al.1989; Palma di Cesnola 1993; Grifoni Cremonesi etal. 1995). During the Italian Epigravettian, the corpse

was left unmoved in the tomb, whereas in the West-ern Magdalenian it was integrated into the activitiesof the living. The Epigravettian societies appear tohave been careful to preserve the physical integrityof individuals, whereas Magdalenian groups weremuch more interested in collection of pieces takenfrom several skeletons. We do not wish to suggestthat the manipulation of corpses during theMagdalenian period had the same meaning as thoseobserved during the Mesolithic. The dichotomy be-tween east and west observed in the funerary rites ofthe European Mesolithic seems, however, to be thecontinuation of traditions well-established during

the Late Upper Palaeolithic.

Mortuary practices: the first Western European farmersThe manipulation of corpses is a characteristic of theLate Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of WesternEurope, and the tradition appears also to includecollective tombs. The same phenomenon persistsduring the Neolithic of Western Europe, in whichmegalithic chambers, burial caves and hypogea con-tain collective interments. Occasional exceptions donot alter this general tendency (Masset 1997). Theexcavation of a collective grave cannot be under-

taken without considering the mortuary practicesand the history of the monument, and research intothe architecture and the rituals must therefore beaccompanied by an approach that goes beyond ty-pological classification. This new approach to thetreatment of the dead and the funerary architecturemust reconsider their genesis. Traditionally, this sup-poses an evolution from the individual to the collec-tive, from the simple pit to the monumental funeraryspace (Boujot 1996). In early megalithic monumentsthat often include multiple chambers, as for exampleLa Hoguette in Normandy, the dead are sometimesburied individually and at other times collectively(Caillaud & Lagnel 1972). Treatment varies from onechamber to another: some bodies are manipulated,others have preserved their physical integrity. Theheterogeneity of these different rites was alreadylong established during the Mesolithic of the Atlan-tic region: some graves were left intact, some wererevisited, while others were reused on several occa-sions.

Close association with the dead, even if in theform of disarticulated fragments, had a certain value.Throughout the Mesolithic and the Neolithic, the co-

existence of several treatments of the dead in thesame tombs or in groups of graves linked by a com-mon architecture shows that the suggested transi-tion from individual to collective burial is an illusion,

probably originating from the assumption that sim-ple things always precede more complex ones. Infact, the Neolithic collective tomb was the theatre offunerary practices that were varied and unsystematicbut, as during the Mesolithic, generally involvedmanipulation of the dead. In Western Europe, thereare significant similarities in this respect betweenthe last hunters and the first farmers. Neither wereconcerned with the conservation of the corpse; nordid they seek to maintain the individuality of mostof the dead; everywhere they practised post-inhu-mation disarticulation of the skeleton, returning tothe grave and often modifying the architecture of

the tomb while still in use (Cauwe 199697).In the Neolithic, as earlier, the West differed

from other regions of Europe. In Central Europe,Neolithic burials were in individual graves, and thedead or the living valued peace (Jeunesse 1997).The first farming societies of Central Europe wereresponsible for the introduction of the Neolithiceconomy to the western part of the continent, butneither the form of Atlantic monumental tombs, northe treatment accorded to the dead, find precedentsin the earlier European Neolithic. It seems thereforethat during the Neolithic transition in western Eu-

rope, only agriculture was adopted, without signifi-cant modification of the traditions of the formerhunter-gatherers.

But there is need for caution: continuity acrossthe Neolithic transition was associated with impor-tant changes in the treatment of the dead. Thefunerary rites of the Atlantic Neolithic were trans-formed from those of the Mesolithic period. We onlyhave to consider the rise of funerary architecture.The introduction of agriculture obviously had animportant impact, but the reaction may have beenone of the local populations to new circumstancesrather than one adopted from earlier European farm-ing groups.

Conclusion: a West European continuity ofmortuary practices

The problems in discussing the origins of the Neo-lithic collective tomb probably reside in the defini-tion of the concept. Intuitively, the collective tombis, first of all, a grave, that is to say a place speciallyorganized to receive the dead. Since the corpses aresuccessively brought to the tomb, the term collec-


15/18

161


tive is used, indicating the distinction from indi-vidual graves or from tombs in which several bodieswere buried at the same time. The discussion usu-ally focuses on when, how and why some popu-

lations switched from individual graves to the regularuse of collective graves.The collective tomb is still often considered as

an evolution of the individual tomb or of the collec-tive tomb with simultaneous burials. Indeed, it is thecase that the earliest prehistoric graves often con-tained only one corpse, or sometimes several buriedat the same time. In broad chronological terms, place-ment of several inhumations inside the same burialchamber is a relatively recent phenomenon whichonly appears on a supraregional scale during thefifth millennium BC. The documentation, includingthe earlier literature, allows us, however, to distin-

guish two important categories of treatment of thedead. Some societies sought to preserve bodies inthe best state possible; whereas others integratedtheir dead into a dynamic processes and gave themwhat could scarcely be called eternal rest. In otherwords, there were those who prevented any furthercontact with the corpses, and others by contrast whoretained material links with the dead.

These two approaches to a corpse one static,the other dynamic are quite different. Represent-ing the relationship between the living and the dead,the first tries to preserve the integrity of the bodies

and does not acknowledge the stages of metamor-phosis of the corpse, while the other manipulatesrelics and pays visits to the grave. Dismemberment,secondary inhumation and removal of bones are theopposite of immediate and definitive inhumation.Archaeology cannot explain why some societies pre-served the bodies while others observed and assistedthe dissolution of the body; anthropologists haveshown that it is impossible to posit an unequivocalrelationship between the observed events and theirinterpretation.

Primary inhumation ensures the integrity ofthe skeletons, whereas West European collectivetombs were the theatre for numerous manipulationsand hence belong to another mentality. In collectivetombs, the corpse is viewed like a jigsaw, the piecesof which may be scattered. Thus it is with the ma-nipulators of corpses that we have to search for theorigins of the Neolithic collective tomb. From theEarly Upper Palaeolithic until the end of the Neolithicperiod, West European societies engaged in the ma-nipulation of corpses, even though it must be recog-nized that the relative homogeneity of funerarypractices was accompanied by significant transfor-

mation of the sepulchral context in the architec-ture of the tomb itself. Magdalenian societies, fa-mous for their cave art, did not usually constructformal graves for their dead, but at the end of the Ice

Age, when art became more discreet, the Mesolithicdead became more conspicuous. Bones were stillabandoned on settlements but the number of gravesincreased, collective tombs appeared, and cemeter-ies were created. Following the Neolithic transitionand the establishment of a new social order the deadbecame even more important, housed in tombs ofmonumental scale, with art once again regularlypresent but now in a funerary context.

Thus, the Mesolithic graves of Margaux andAutours do not provide a potential point of originfor Middle and Late Neolithic collective tombs, butthemselves form part of a long-standing tradition.

The Early Mesolithic tombs may appear anachronis-tic if we consider them simply as the antecedents tomegalithic burial practices. The comparison, how-ever, is inappropriate, since both Mesolithic and Neo-lithic burials were characterized by innovations thatare related to traditions, the persistence of which canbe observed over a very long time. The obvious simi-larities that collective tombs of the Mesolithic havewith those of the Middle and Late Neolithic are notentirely coincidental occurrences; nor, however, dothose convergences imply a close continuity. It isshared perennial idea of the relationship between

the living and the dead which these practices imply,and not the persistence of a particular form of burialchamber, that must be the focus of a fuller under-standing.

Nicolas CauweCurator of Eurasian Prehistoric Antiquities

Muses Royaux dArt et dHistoire10 Parc du Cinquantenaire

B-1000 BrusselsBelgium

Email: [email protected]

1. An autour is a goshawk (Accipiter genitilis).

References

Alduc-Le Bagousse, A., 1988. Estimation de lge des non-adultes: maturation dentaire et croissance osseuse.Donnes comparatives pour deux ncropoles md-ivales bas-normandes, in Anthropologie et Histoireou Anthropologie historique, ed. L. Buchet. (Actes destroisimes Journes Anthropologiques de Valbonne(2831 mai 1986).) Paris: CNRS, 81103.


16/18

162

Nicolas Cauwe

Auboire, G., 1991. Les restes humains msolithiques deNoyen-sur-Seine (Seine-et-Marne, France). LAnthro-pologie 95(1), 22936.

Bgoun, H., L. Bgoun & H.V. Vallois, 1937. Unependeloque faite dun fragment de mandibule

humaine (poque magdalnienne), in CongrsPrhistorique de France. Compte rendu de la 12e session,Toulouse-Foix 1936. Paris: Socit PrhistoriqueFranaise, 55964.

Blanchard, R., D. Peyrony & H.V. Vallois, 1972. Le gisementet le squelette de Saint-Germain-la-Rivire. (Archivesde lInstitut de Palontologie Humaine, Mmoire34.) Paris: Masson.

Borgognini Tarli, S., A. Canci, M. Piperno & E. Repetto,1993. Dati archeologici e antropologici sulle sepolturemesolitiche della Grotta dellUzzo (Trapani).Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 84, 85179.

Boroneant, V., 1970. La priode pipalolithique sur larive roumaine des Portes de Fer du Danube.Praehistorische Zeitschrift 45(1), 125.

Boujot, C., 1996. Le Mgalithisme dans ses rapports avecle dveloppement des spultures collectives no-lithiques. Apport dune synthse lchelle de laFrance. Bulletin de la Socit Prhistorique Franaise93(3), 33741.

Boulestin, B., 1999. Approche taphonomique des restes humains.Le cas des Msolithiques de la grotte des Perrats et leproblme du cannibalisme en Prhistoire rcente euro-penne. (British Archaeological Reports InternationalSeries 776.) Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.

Boulestin, B. & J. Gomez de Soto, 1995. Le cannibalisme auNolithique: ralit et sens, in La mort: Pass, Prsent,

Conditionel. Actes du Colloque de La Roche-sur-Yon,1819 juin 1994. La Roche-sur-Yon: Groupe vendendtudes prhistoriques, 5968.

Brinch Petersen, E., C. Christensen, P. Vang Petersen & K.Aaris-Srensen, 1976. Vedbkprojektet. Udgravnin-gerne i Vedbkomrdet. Sllerdbogen 1976, 97122.

Brothwell, D.R., 1963. Digging up Bones: the Excavation,Treatment and Study of Human Skeletal Remains.Lon-don: Trustees of the British Museum.

Buisson, D. & D. Gambier, 1991. Faonnage et gravuressur des os humains dIsturitz (Pyrnes-Atlantiques).Bulletin de la Socit Prhistorique Franaise 88(6), 1727.

Caillaud, R. & E. Lagnel, 1972. Le cairn et le crmatoirenolithique de La Hoguette Fontenay-le-Marmion

(Calvados), vol. I: tude archologique. GalliaPrhistoire: Fouilles et Monuments archologiques enFrance mtropolitaine 15(1), 13797.

Cauwe, N., 1994. De lindividuel au collectif: les spulturesde labri des Autours Dinant (Namur). NotaePraehistoricae 13, 1017.

Cauwe, N., 1995. Chronologie des spultures de labri desAutours Anseremme-Dinant. Notae Praehistoricae15, 5160.

Cauwe, N., 199697. Curriculum Mortis: Essai sur loriginedes spultures collectives de la Prhistoire occidentale.Unpublished Ph.D thesis, Universit de Lige.

Cauwe, N., 1998. La grotte Margaux: tude dune spulture

collective du Msolithique ancien. (ERAUL 59.) Lige:Universit de Lige.

Cheynier, A. (ed.), 1965. Labri Lachaud Terrasson (Dor-dogne). (Prhistoire 16.) Paris: Presses Universitairesde France.

Davies, J.A., 192021. Avelines Hole, Burrington Combe:an Upper Palolithic station. Proceedings of theSpelological Society. The University of Bristol 1(2),6173.

Ducrocq, T. & I. Ketterer, 1995. Le gisement msolithiquedu Petit Marais, La Chausse-Tirancourt (Somme).Bulletin de la Socit Prhistorique Franaise 92(2), 24959.

Ferembach, D., I. Schwidetsky & M. Stloukal, 1979.Recommandations pour dterminer lge et le sexesur le squelette. Bulletins et Mmoires de la SocitdAnthropologie de Paris6 (series XIII), 745.

Gaillard, J., 1960. Dtermination sexuelle dun os coxalfragmentaire. Bulletins et Mmoires de la SocitdAnthropologie de Paris1 (series XI), 25567.

Gambier, D., 1992. Les populations magdalniennes enFrance, in Le peuplement magdalnien: Palogographiephysique et humaine. (Documents Prhistoriques 2.)Paris: Comit des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques,4151.

Garralda, M.D., 1992. Les Magdalniens en Espagne:Anthropologie et contexte palocologique, in Lepeuplement magdalnien: Palogographie physique ethumaine. (Documents Prhistoriques 2.) Paris: Comitdes Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques, 6370.

Grifoni Cremonesi, R., S.M. Borgognini Tarli , V. Formicola& G. Paoli, 1995. La sepoltura epigravetttiana

scoperta nel 1993 nella Grotta Continenza di Trasacco(lAquila). Rivista di Antropologia (Roma) 73, 22536.Grote, K., 1990. Das Buntsandsteinabri Bettenroder Berg

IX im Reinhuser Wald bei Gttingen. Palolithikumund Mesolithikum. Archologisches Korrespondenzblatt,20(2), 13747.

Grote, K. & E. Schrder, 1989. Grabungen und GrereGelndearbeiten der Kreisdenkmalpflege desLandkreises Gttingen im Jahre 1988. GttingerJahrbuch1989, 2016.

Grnberg, J.G., 1996. Burial goods and social structure inMesolithic Europe, in Nature et Culture: Actes duColloque International de Lige, 1317 dcembre 1993,ed. M. Otte. (ERAUL 68/2.) Lige: Universit de

Lige, 897910.Guerreschi, A. & M.E. Gerhardinger, 1988. Un sitomesolitico a Mondeval de Sora (Bl.). Archivio perlAlto Adige: Rivista di studi alpini 82, 2513.

Gurina, N.N., 1956. The Cemetery of Olenii Ostrov. Moskva:Academy of Sciences. [In Russian.]

Jeunesse, C., 1997. Pratiques funraires au Nolithique anc-ien: Spultures et ncropoles danubiennes (55004900av. J.-C.). Paris: Errance (des Hesprides).

Kozlowski, S.K., E. Sachse-Kozlowska, A. Marshack, T.Madeyska, H. Kierdorf, A. Lasota-Mokalwska, G.Jakubowski, M. Winiarska-Kabaciska, Z. Kapica &A. Wierciski, 1995. Maszycka cave, a Magdalenian


17/18

163


site in southern Poland. Jahrbuch des Rmisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 40(1) (1993),115252.

Larsson, L., 1989. Late Mesolithic settlements and cem-eteries at Skateholm, southern Sweden, in The

Mesolithic in Europe: Papers presented at the Third In-ternational Symposium, Edinburgh 1985, ed. C. Bonsall.Edinburgh: John Donald, 36778.

Le Mort, F., 1986. Le dcharnement du cadavre auPalolithique. Bulletin de la Socit dAnthropologie duSud-Ouest 21(4), 20515.

Le Mort, F. & D. Gambier, 1991. Cutmarks and breakageon the human bones from Le Placard (France): anexample of the special mortuary practice during theUpper Palaeolithic. Anthropologie (Brno) 29(3), 18994.

Leonardi, P. & G. Tomasi , 1968. Scoperte e scavi preistoriciin Italia durante il 1968. Vatte di Zambana (ValledellAdige, Prov. di Trento). Rivista di ScienzePreistoriche13(2), 395.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. & R.M. Jacobi, 1986. Analyse polliniqueet matriel archologique de Goughs Cave (Ched-dar, Somerset). Bulletin de la Socit PrhistoriqueFranaise 83(3), 8390.

Lovejoy, C.O., R.S. Meindl, T.R. Pryzbeck & R.P. Mensforth,1985. Chronological metamorphosis of the auricularsurface of the ilium: a new method for the determi-nation of adult skeletal age at death. American Jour-nal of Physical Anthropology68, 1528.

Magdeleine, J., 1991. Une deuxime spulture pr-nolithique de Corse. Bulletin de la Socit PrhistoriqueFranaise 88(3), 80.

Malvesin-Fabre, G., L-R. Nougier & R. Robert, 1954.

Loccupation magdalnienne de la grotte de B-deilhac (Arige) et dcouverte dun nouveau gise-ment dans la galerie Vidal. Bulletin de la SocitPrhistorique de lArige 8(1953), 1948.

Masset, C., 1997. Les dolmens: Socits nolithiques. Pratiquesfunraires: Les spultures collectives dEurope occidentale.Paris: Errance.

Mazire, G., 1986. Circonscription dAuvergne, Haute-Loire, Polignac: a. Le Rond-du-Barry. Gallia Pr-histoire: Fouilles et Monuments archologiques en Francemtropolitaine 29(2), 2712.

Mussi, M., D.W. Frayer & R. Macchiardelli, 1989. Lesvivants et les morts: Les spultures du Palolithiquesuprieur en Italie et leur interprtation, in People

and Culture in Change: Proceedings of the Second Sym-posium on Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and NeolithicPopulations of Europe and the Mediterranean Basin, ed.I. Hershkovitz. (British Archaeological Reports In-ternational Series 508.) Oxford & Tel Aviv: BAR &

Department of Anatomy and Anthropology of TelAviv University, 43558.

Newell, R.R., T.S. Constandse-Westermann & C. Meikle-john, 1979. The skeletal remains of Mesolithic manin Western Europe: an evaluative catalogue.Journal

of Human Evolution 8(1), 1225.Orschiedt, J., 1997. Der Nachweis einer Sekundrbestattung

aus dem Magdalnien der Brillenhhle, Alb-Donau-Kreis (Baden-Wrttemberg).Archologisches Korrespon-denzblatt 27(2), 193206.

Orschiedt, J., 1998. Ergebnise einer neuen Untersuchungder sptmesolithischen Kopfbestattungen aus Sd-deutschland, in Aktuelle Forschungen zum Meso-lithikum: Current Mesolithic Research, ed. N.J. Conard.(Urgeschichtliche Materialhefte 12.) Tbingen: MoVince Verlag, 14760.

Otte, M. & L.G. Straus, 1997. La grotte du Bois Laiterie:Recolonisation magdalnienne de la Belgique. Magdal-enian Resettlement of Belgium. (ERAUL 80.) Lige:Universit de Lige.

Palma di Cesnola, A., 1993. Il Paleolitico superiore in Italia:Introduzione allo studio. Firenze: Garlatti & Razzai.

Pquart, M., S-J. Pquart, M. Boule & H. Vallois, 1937.Tviec, station-ncropole msolithique du Morbihan. (Ar-chives de lInstitut de Palontologie Humaine,Mmoire 18.) Paris: Masson.

Price, T.D. & K. Jacobs, 1990. Olenii Ostro: first radiocar-bon dates from a major Mesolithic cemetery inKarelia, USSR. Antiquity64, 84953.

Rozoy, J-G., 1978. Les derniers chasseurs: Lpipalolithiqueen France et en Belgique. Essai de synthse. Charleville:Socit Archologique Champenoise.

Schutkowski, H., 1993. Sex determination of infant andjuvenile skeletons, part I: Morphognostic features.American Journal of Physical Anthropology90(2), 199205.

Srejovic@, D., 1972. Europes First Monumental Sculpture: NewDiscoveries at Lepenski Vir. 3rd edition. London:Thames & Hudson.

Toussaint, M., 1998. Approche anthropologique desossements humains msolithiques anciens de la grotteMargaux, Dinant, in Cauwe (ed.), 3944.

Ubelaker, D.H., 1989. Human Skeletal Remains: Excavation,Analysis, Interpretation. 2nd edition. Washington(DC): Taraxacum.

Villa, P., J. Courtin, D. Helmer, P. Shipman, C. Bouville &

E. Mahieu, 1986. Un cas de cannibalisme au No-lithique: boucherie et rejet de restes humains etanimaux dans la grotte de Fontbrgoua Salernes(Var). Gallia Prhistoire: Fouilles et Monumentsarchologiques en France mtropolitaine 29(1), 14371.


18/18