2015 Taphonomy of cremation burials: excavation and deposition bias in bone preservation

Fines TransireJahrgang 23 ● 2014

Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH • Rahden/Westf. 2014

Archäologische Arbeitsgemeinschaft Ostbayern / West- und Südböhmen / Oberösterreich

Archeologická pracovní skupina východní Bavorsko / západní a jižní Čechy / Horní Rakousko

23. Treffen / setkání

19. bis 22. Juni 2013

in Kostenz

Herausgeber: Ondřej Chvojka, Miloslav Chytráček, Heinz Gruber, Ludwig Husty, Jan Michálek, Ruth Sandner, Karl Schmotz, Stefan Traxler

Redaktion: Ludwig Husty, Jan Michálek, Ruth Sandner, Karl SchmotzMitarbeit Daniela Hofmann

Übersetzungen/překlad: Ondřej Chvojka, Jan Michálek

PC-Satz: Thomas Link & Ulrike Lorenz-Link GbR, Margetshöchheim

Druck: Ebner, Deggendorf

http://www.archaeologie-bay-cz-ooe.de© 2014 Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH, Geschäftsführer: Dr. Bert Wiegel, Stellerloh 65,

D-32369 Rahden/Westf. – Tel.: +49/(0)5771/9510-74; Fax: +49(0)5771/9510-75 E-Mail: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.vml.de Alle Rechte vorbehalten

ISBN 978-3-89646-218-3ISSN 1868-2308

Auflage: 170

Gefördert durch

Ernst-Pietsch-Stiftung Deggendorf

Inhalt

Vorwort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Grußworte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Einführung. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Gisela Grupe – Michaela HarbeckIsotopen- und DNA-Analysen aus Skelettfunden – Erkenntnisgewinn oder Modeerscheinung? . . . . . . . . . 21

Miloslav Chytráček – Ondřej Chvojka – Markus Egg – Jan John – Roman Křivánek –Jan Michálek René Kyselý – Petra Stránská – Radka Kozáková – Marek FikrleDie Untersuchung eines späthallstattzeitlichen Fürstengrabhügels bei Rovná (Kr. Strakonice) im Lichte naturwissenschaftlicher Analysen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Stephan RitterDie Restaurierung der Bronzegefäße eines hallstattzeitlichen Grabes aus Rovná in Südböhmen – Aktueller Stand der Bearbeitung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Tereza Šálková – Ondřej Chvojka – Petr ZavřelArchäobotanische Untersuchungen in vorgeschichtlichen Siedlungen Südböhmens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Jan Cemper-Kiesslich – Fabian Kanz – Christiane Maria Bauer – Eva-Maria Wild – Walther Parson Franz Neuhuber – Ludwig Husty – Mark R. Mc CoyTatort Riedling? Archäometrische Befunderhebung an einer ungewöhnlichen Dreifachbestattung aus einem Grabenwerk der Münchshöfener Kultur in Riedling, Landkreis Straubing-Bogen . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Elisabeth SchneppArchäomagnetische Datierung: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer naturwissenschaftlichen Methode zur Altersbestimmung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Ladislav Čapek – Lukáš Holata – Petr Menšík – Petr Baierl – Jan Hrdlička – Milan Procházka Jan Říha – Jarmila SavkováInterdisciplinary research on artefacts: archaeometric study of pottery and phosphate soil analysis in deserted medieval villages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Robert GrafKongruenz und Diskrepanz zwischen Theorie und Praxis der Feuersteinbearbeitung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Pavel ŠebestaHolz als Datierungsmittel für Baubefunde in Eger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Franz HerzigDendroarchäologie Ostbayerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Michael Grabner – Hans Reschreiter – Kerstin Kowarik – Georg WinnerNeue Aussagen über altes Holz aus Oberösterreich – Hallstatt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Kerstin Kowarik – Hans ReschreiterInterdisziplinäre Forschungen in und um das Salzbergwerk von Hallstatt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Nadja PöllathKnochentrocken – Zahlen zur archäozoologischen Forschung in Ostbayern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Karl SchmotzDreißig Jahre Zusammenarbeit von Archäologie und Naturwissenschaften im Landkreis Deggendorf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Michal Preusz – Jaromír Beneš – Lenka KovačikováDer Bürger und das Tier – Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der frühen Neuzeit in Český Krumlov/Böhmisch Krummau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

Anna Pankowská – Erika Průchová – Martin Moník – Martina NovákováTaphonomy of cremation burials: excavation and deposition bias in bone preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

Martin Pták – Eva Stehlíková – Eva Koppová – Jiří Fröhlich – Tereza Šálková – Jaroslav JiříkAttempt at dendrochronological dating of the medieval gold-ore processing mill found in Stará Pazderna near Písek, South Bohemia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

Ladislav ŠmejdaHradiště u Plzně: a preliminary report on an interdisciplinary research of a hillfort in Pilsen, West Bohemia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

Bibliographie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

Teilnehmer und Autoren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

223Fines Transire 23, 2014

Taphonomy of cremation burials: excavation and deposition bias in bone preservation*

Anna Pankowská – Erika Průchová – Martin Moník – Martina Nováková

Spálené lidské kosti jsou v žárových hrobech obvykle podhodnocené, fragmentární a málo odolné vůči manipulaci výzkumníkem. Na souboru osmi žárových pohřbů, z lokality Jevíčko-Předměstí (2. st. n. l.), jsme zkoumali vliv uložení pohřbu (urna/jamka) a vliv laboratorních technik (mikro-exkavace, aplikace výpočetní tomografie CT) na konečný stav zachovalosti kostí. Zjistili jsme, že pohřby, které byly preparovány metodou mikro-exkavace, byly signifikantně lépe zachovalé než kosti, které byly prosívány a proplavovány. Kromě toho metoda mikro-exkavace dovoluje zkoumat prosto-rové vztahy jednotlivých kostí. Aplikace CT umožnila objevit u dvou pohřbů nové struktury v podobě původní schránky a dále jsme mohli díky CT sledovat dislokaci fragmentů kostí a zlomků kovových artefaktů za hranici samotného hrobu. Na základě získaných výsledků doporučujeme standardizovat postup při analýze žárových pohřbů, využívat mikro-exka-vaci pohřbů vyzdvihnutých en block a pokud je to možné, tak hroby skenovat. Spálené kosterní pozůstatky jsou na rozdíl od nespálených málo odolné vůči mechanické manipulaci. Šetrnou analýzou žárových pohřbů se vyhneme paradoxní situaci, že rekonstruujeme důsledek vlastní činnosti, nikoliv minulé populace.

Verbrannte Knochen aus prähistorischen Feuerbestattungen sind gewöhnlich unterrepräsentiert, nur fragmentarisch vorhanden und werden oft von Ausgräbern falsch behandelt. Bei einer Probe von acht Feuerbestattungen des 2. Jahr-hunderts n. Chr. (Römische Periode) aus der Grabung von Jevíčko-Předměstí wendeten wir besondere Labortechniken (CT Scans, Präparation, Reinigung) an und prüften den Einfluss der Bestattungsweise (Urne, Grube) auf die Erhaltung verbrannter Knochen. Wir fanden heraus, dass Bestattungen, die durch eine Micro-Ausgrabung aufbereitet wurden, erheblich aussagekräftiger erhalten waren als jene, die nur gesiebt wurden. Die Bestattungsweise hatte keinen Einfluss auf den Erhaltungszustand. CT Scans zeigten Verlagerungen von Knochen weit über den Gräberbereich hinaus ebenso wie auch neue Strukturen in Form nicht erhaltener „organischer” Urnen.

Wir empfehlen, neue Standards bei Labortechniken festzusetzen, die en block-Bergungen nutzen, um raumbezogene Untersuchungen zu verbessern. Da Feuerbestattungen in vielen prähistorischen Perioden dominieren, ist es notwendig, ihrer Analyse und Rekonstruktion mehr Aufmerksamkeit zu schenken.

Introduction

Cremation symbolizes the highest degree of body destruction (McKinley 1989; Ubelaker 2009). Diffe-rences between inhumations and cremations re present respectively the urge to preserve the body as long as possible and the desire to destroy it through trans-formation (Rebay-Salisbury 2010). The destructive capabilities of fire change the chemical and physical qualities of bones, leaving them extremely fragile, fragmentary and under-represented (Williams 2008). The metamorphosis of skeletal tissue during the bur-ning process and secondary manipulation of bones after cremation make them less resistant to specific post-depositional processes. Modification of burials

in the archaeological record can be substantial. It is therefore absolutely essential to use detailed micro-excavation, gentle handling and strict documentation during analysis. The bone must be preserved as far as possible in the state in which it was recovered.

One of the main aims of contextual taphonomy is to distinguish cultural, post-depositional, excava-tion and post-excavation factors. All of these factors leave similar traces on the finds and the investigator who reconstructs the funeral riteshould take equifi-nality into account. Filtering out taphonomic factors is ambitious but not unrealistic. One way to achieve this is to proceed in partial steps and find suitable variables. Among the basic variables in a crema-tion context are: cremains representation, volume, weight, bone dimension and degree of fragmenta-tion (McKinley 1989; McKinley 1993). However, it is not customary to observe the spatial distribution *Posterpresentation

224 Fines Transire 23, 2014

and deposition of each burnt bone fragment in the recovered context, i.e. in the urn, in the pit under the pyre or in any other context (Duday et al. 2009; Duffy/MacGregor 2008; Herrmann et al. 2014). However, the analysis of spatial distribution allows us to study new datasets and look at the subject from a different point of view. Cremation burials appear in various forms and contexts in the archaeological record (Herrmann et al. 2014; Le Goff 2002). At a basic level, we can distinguish two main forms of cremation burials: pit burials and urn burials. Other kinds of deposition, such as dispersal on the ground surface (Knosa 2013) or primary deposition of burnt bones on the pyre (Duffy/MacGregor 2008), are very rare. Type of deposition, presence of an urn, kind of urn and possible destruction of the urn can influence preservation, as well as change the amount and qua-lity of bones. Detailed recording of burnt bone depo-sits enables us to assess the taphonomic processes and to reconstruct how they may have affected the bones. This information is essential for accurate ana-lysis of cremation processes.

We investigate two groups of cremation burials from the single-culture archaeological site of Jevíčko-Předměstí. One of them represents cremation buri-als lifted en block from the site which were micro-excavated in detail under laboratory conditions. The other group represents sieved burials stored in plastic bags. We focused on the reconstruction of taphono-mic processes, especially on filtering out the effects of excavation and of the presence of an urn. The que-stion is how laboratory handling and type of deposit may affect cremains. The purpose of this article is to show how to avoid incorrect interpretations based on distorted data.

Material

The cremation burials were excavated at the site of Jevíčko-Předměstí (Fig. 1) under the direction of Eduard Droberjar from the Palacký University in Olomouc (Droberjar 2014). From the total of 28 burials recovered on the site (in the seasons 2010 and 2014) eight are investigated in this study (we

Fig. 1: Location of the site and cremation burials.


excluded burials disturbed in the field and non-adult burials). From the total of eight burials, four were excavated en block, the others were sieved. Three of them had been deposited in ceramic urns, two pre-sumably in pits and three contained pieces of cera-mic urn-sherds. We created three categories: a) pit burials; b) urn-sherd burials; c) urn burials. In this paper, we present the four burials excavated en bloc and compare them with the foursieved burials. The cremation burials were archaeologically dated to the Late Roman period (1st half of the 2nd century A.D.).

Method

Use of Computer Tomography and volume calcula-tionComputed Tomography with a multi-slice Light Speed VCT XT (General Electric, Milwaukee, USA) was used for visual assessment of en block burials. Detection of previously not visible urns, as well as association with grave goods and dislocation of frag-ments, was thus accomplished. The CT scan also served as an analytical tool for bone volume calcu-lation (using Advantage Windows 4.4 workstation software (General Electric, Milwaukee, USA)).The volume was measured on the basis of predetermined thresholds based on material density (Hounsfield units: HU). The analysis was carried out by Prof. M. Heřman at the University Hospital in Olomouc. In sieved burials, the volume was measured using a graduated cylinder.

Use of micro-excavation for assessment of cremains representation, weight, size and fragmentationDetailed micro-excavation was used for assessing the representation of anatomical parts. Every fragment was drawn, labelled with a unique ID and removed. All en bloc burials were divided into several layers to enable the detection of possible sequences of ana-tomical parts. We did not use water for cleaning. We re moved the worst of the dirt with a sharp stick. Each anatomical part was weighed and compared with an equivalent part from a recent cremation (skull, upper and lower limbs, trunk and unidentifiable elements). The fragmentation index (FI) was calculated as FI = m/V (Harvig and Lynnerup 2013). An FI below 1 is classified as representing limited fragmentation, whereas an FI above 1 represents substantial frag-mentation, potentially an indicator of taphonomic processes and prehistoric and modern manipulation of the cremated remains. The dimensions of each bone fragment were measured with a Mytutoyo digi-tal calliper (0.01 mm).

StatisticsWe used TwoStep Cluster Analysis (Bacher et al. 2004; Zhang et al. 1996) to reveal natural clusters in our dataset. TwoStep Cluster Analysis is an untra-ditional technique handling categorical and conti-nuous variables. The procedure can automatically determine the number of clusters and construct a cluster feature tree that summarizes the records. The distance for continuous data is measured by Euclidean distance and categorical variables are

Archaeological site ID En block1 Type of deposit2

Jevíčko Předměstí H9 Yes Urn Burial

Jevíčko Předměstí H7 Yes Pit Burial

Jevíčko Předměstí H4 Yes Pit Burial

Jevíčko Předměstí H2 No Urn-sherds Burial

Jevíčko Předměstí H3 No Urn-sherds Burial

Jevíčko Předměstí H6 No Urn Burial

Jevíčko Předměstí H8 No Urn Burial

Jevíčko Předměstí H13 Yes Urn-sherds Burial

1 En block burials were detailedly investigated by micro-excavation2 Archaeologically in/visible urn

Table 1: List of studied cremation burials.


Fig. 2: 3D record of en block burials.

clustered based on their similarity (Kent et al. 2014). We fixed the number of clusters in the solution. In the first analysis, we expected two groups defined by number, weight, fragment dimension, volume and FI (since the volume and weight correlate, we used just one of them). Our prediction was that all vari-ables would differ between burials which had been

sieved and those which had been micro-excavated. In the second analysis, using the same variables, we observed the influence of deposit type on the preser-vation of burials. This result is important for accu-rate assessment of cremations due to analytical tech-niques which are based on bone dimension, weight and fragmentation.


Results

Utility of Computer Tomography Besides 3D recording (Fig. 2) and volume calcula-tion, CT also revealed new facts. First, the former pre-sence of urns in H 4 and H 7 was discovered during scanning (Fig. 3a). These urns could have been made of organic matter, not preserved until today. Second, the dislocation of bone fragments beyond the grave is well visible with CT technique (Fig. 3b). The method is thus very useful for the reconstruction of funeral rite and especially for assessing the influence of deposit type on bone preservation. We expected lower bone preservation in pit burials due to the absence of urns; this expectation, however, was not confirmed. The reason is probably their original deposition in some kind of urn. Recording bone and artefact dislocation with CT also makes it possible to reconstruct post-depositional processes which took

place during the bones’ position in situ. The degree of post-depositional processes which affected the final archaeological record can be estimated along with the degree of under-representation of bones.

The volume of H4 was 81 cm3 (1350-2500 HU), the volume of metal artefacts was 9.8 cm3 (over 2500 HU). In the upper layers (1 and 2) 74.7 cm3 of the total bone volume was recorded. The volume of H7 was 183.9 cm3 (1350-2500 HU), the volume of metal artefacts was 20.5 cm3 (over 2500 HU). In the upper layers (1 and 4) 176.3 cm3 of the total bone volume was recorded. The volume of H9 was 765.0 cm3 (1350-2500 HU), the volume of metal artefacts was not recorded.

A 3D reconstruction of three burials (H9, H7, H4) shows the associations of bones and artefacts. In burial H9 two spears (one of them intentionally bent) were recorded along with a shield fragment and frag-

Fig. 3: Detection of initial urns (a) and dislocation of bone fragments (b).

a) Slices of burials H4 and H7 reveal a thin line separating the accumulation of bones and artefacts. This line is repre-sented by different value of HU and probably implies an urn made of organic material; b) in burials excavated en block,

the dislocation of fragments and metal pieces of artefacts are observable far beyond the main bone accumulation.


Fig. 4: Cluster comparison in micro-excavated burials and sieved burials.

ments of fibulae. In burial H7 a knife, a buckle and metal fragments were recorded. Visualization of a bone comb was not possible with CT. In burial H7 fibulae were recorded.

How important is detailed micro-excavation?Using TwoStep Cluster Analysis we confirmed that laboratory techniques are one of the most important factors that affect the final state of cremains and may negatively affect all research. Indelicate handling can destroy a significant part of the data. Parado-xically, this may result in the interpretation of our own actions, not of past human behaviour. Figure

4 shows the variables which correspond with deli-cate micro-excavation. The most important (0.94) is bone weight (Mann Whitney U = 16; p<0.05). Mean weight of bones from micro-excavation is 621.5 g (SD 283.8), versus 37.3 g (SD 46.7) from sieved material. Second important (0.74) variable is bone dimension (Mann Whitney U = 16; p<0.05). The mean dimension of bones from micro-excavation is 22.5 mm (SD 7.5), whereas it is 8 mm in the case of sieved material (SD 4.7). The third key discrimi-nant between groups is, as expected, volume. This is not surprising as volume correlates well with weight. FI is higher in sieved burials (3.25 vs. 2.35), but the result is not significant (its importance in TwoStep

Fig. 5: Cluster comparison in pit burials, urn-sherds burials and urn burials.


Kind of deposit Mean weight (g) SD Mean No. of

bones SD Mean FI SDMean dimension (mm)

SD Mean volume (ml) SD

Pit Burials 391 171 77 58 3 0.4 24 10 133 73

Urn-sherds Burial 336 461 403 329 3,5 3,5 10,5 5 175 203

Urn Burial 282 480 126 191 2 0.7 14 11 256 440

Table 2: Summary of analysis.

Fig. 6: Box plots of types of deposits.

Cluster is only 0.10). The number of fragments does not discriminate two groups. However, the number of fragments is a highly inaccurate variable as the presence of crushed and dusty fragments in strongly fragmented burials limited their counting.

The above-mentioned detection of urns by CT made the category of a „pit burials“ untenable. However, the presence of a ceramic urn or indirect indicators of a ceramic urn (fragmented ceramic urns, i.e. urn-sherd

burials) partially influences the variation in bone pre-servation (Fig. 5). The most important factor which characterized three categories of burials, was the number of fragments (but the importance of clustering was only 0.22). Surprisingly, the largest bones were in pit burials. We explained that as a result of micro-exca-vation. Fragmentation (FI) was unsurprisingly smallest in ceramic urns. A summary of the data used in the analys is presented in Table 2.


Figure 6 shows a broad range of values in each group of burials. The values were transformed into a Z-score for better visibility in box plots. The lowest variation (narrower range) is recorded within pit burials, higher variation is visible in the other two groups. Both pit burials were micro-excavated, the-refore no reduction of bone dimension or higher fragmentation is apparent. On the other hand, the low number of fragments and small volume are probably due to losses during post-depositional processes.

Conclusion

Laboratory techniques and handling of bones affect the state of extremely fragile cremains. Computer tomography can identify new structures which are invisible to the naked eye, measure the volume, observe post-depositional processes frozen in situ, and preserve the record for a long time in 3D. By app-lying CT, we identified former urns which have not survived until today. These could have been made of organic material such as textile, wood, bones, leather etc. (Tankó/Tankó 2012). “Pit burial” is no longer an appropriate term, “organic urn burial” seems more suitable. An important possibility of CT is to observe dislocations of bones and pieces of metal artefacts beyond burial boundaries. This means that in every excavation one should explore the area beyond archaeological features and grave pits (Duday et al. 2009).

There are differences in preservation between the two groups of burials according to method of exca-

vation and type of deposit. First, the groups of burials differ in the amount (weight, volume), bone dimensi-ons and in fragmentation. The type of deposit has an influence on the number of bones, but little impact on bone dimension, fragmentation and weight. Cera-mic urns obviously keep and protect burnt frag-ments. On the other hand, pit burials or burials in “organic“ urns preserved large fragments, but in lower numbers. This might have been caused by the presence of an open space that allowed bone move-ment. In sum, there are minor differences between different groups of deposits. The reason is probably the fact that all of them had been primarily deposited in urns and were micro-excavated. Post-depositional processes affected dislocation and bone loss, but did not affect bone dimension and fragmentation. These variables were affected by the excavators.

After recovering and lifting burials at the site, their environment changes and this potentially damages the bones. Our task is to preserve all parts of a skele-ton in the same state they were found in the ground or, better, in a more stable state. The main rule is not to make their state worse.

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by the city of Plzeň (grant: “Plzeň – univerzitní město”) and project „Partnerství pro archeologii“ – OPVK (CZ.1.07/2.4.00/17.0056).We wish to extend our thanks to Eduard Droberjar from the Palacky Univerzity in Olomouc for provi-ding the cremation burials.

Literature:Bacher, J./Wenzig, K./Vogler, M. 2004: SPSS TwoStep Cluster– A First Evaluation. Work and discussion paper Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany. Department of Sociology, Social Science Institute, Friedrich-Alexander-University 1–30.

Droberjar, E. 2014: Germáni v Jevíčku a na Malé Hané v době římské Historica Olomucensia 48, 53–73.

Duday, H./Cipriani A. M./Pearce, J. 2009: The Archae-ology of the Dead: Lectures in Archaeothanatology (Studies in Funerary Archaeology) (Oxford).

Duffy, P. R. J./MacGregor, G. 2008: Cremations, Con-jecture and Contextual Taphonomies: Material Strate-

gies During the 4th to 2nd Millennia BC in Scotland. In: Fahlander, F./Oestigaard, T. (eds.), The Materiality of Death: Bodies, Burials, Beliefs Oxford. British Archaeo-logical Reports, International Series 1768, 71–77.

Harvig, L./Lynnerup, N. 2013: On the volume of cremated remains – a comparative study of archaeolo-gically recovered cremated bone volume as measured manually and assessed by Computed Tomography and by Stereology. Journal of Archaeological Science 40(6), 2713–2722.

Herrmann, N./Devlin, J./Stanton, J. 2014: Bioarchaeo-logical Spatial Analysis of the Walker-Noe Crematory (15GD56). In: Osterholtz, A. J./Baustian, K. M./Martin,


D. L. (eds.), Commingled and Disarticulated Human Remains (New York) 51–66.

Kent, P./Jensen, R./Kongsted, A. 2014: A comparison of three clustering methods for finding subgroups in MRI, SMS or clinical data: SPSS TwoStep Cluster analysis, Latent Gold and SNOB. BMC Medical Research Metho-dology 14(1), 113.

Knosa, M. 2013: Intrasite spatial analysis of the cemeteries with dispersed cremations. In: Graeme Eea, editor. Archae-ology in the Digital Era: 40th Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Southampton, 26–30 March 2012 (Amsterdam) 570–574.

Le Goff, I. 2002: Les vestiges de la crémation: témoins privilégiés des protocoles funéraires. Archéopages 6, 10–17.

McKinley, J. 1989: Cremations: expectations, metho-dologies and realities In: Roberts, C. A./Lee, F./Bintliff, J.(eds.), Burial Archaeology Current Research Methods and Developments. BAR S 211 (Oxford) 65–76.

McKinley, J. 1993: Bone fragment size and weights of bone from modern British cremations and the implica-tions for the interpretation of archaeological cremations. International journal of Osteoarchaeology 3, 283–287.

Rebay-Salisbury, K. 2010: Cremations: fragmented bodies in the Bronze and Iron Ages. In: Sørensen M. L. S./Hughes, J./Rebay-Salisbury, K.(eds.), Body Parts and Bodies Whole: Changing Relations and Meanings (Oxford) 64–71.

Tankó, É./Tankó, K. 2012: Cremation and Deposition in the Late Iron Age Cemetery at Ludas. Iron Age Rites and Rituals in the Carpathian Basin Bibliotheca Mvsei Mari-siensis (5). Editura Mega (Marosvásárhely) 249–258.

Ubelaker, D. H. 2009: The forensic evaluation of burned skeletal remains: A synthesis. Forensic Science Internati-onal 183, 1–5.

Williams, H. 2008: 15-Towards an Archaeology of Cremation. In: Schmidt, C. W./Symes, S. A. (eds.), The Analysis of Burned Human Remains (San Diego) 239–269.

Zhang, T./Ramakrishnon, R./Livny, M. 1996: BIRCH: An efficient data clustering method for very large databases, Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD Conference on Management of Data (Montreal).


Teilnehmer und Autoren

Mgr. Petr Baierl*Západočeská univerzita v PlzniFakulta filozofickáKatedra archeologieSedláčkova 15CZ-30614 Plzeň[email protected]

Mag. Christiane-Maria Bauer, PhDMedizinische Universität InnsbruckUniklinik für Interne Medizin IVNephropolgie & HypertensiologieMüllerstraße 44A-6020 [email protected]

Doc. PhDr. Jaromír Beneš, Ph.D.*Jihočeská univerzita v Českých BudějovícichPřírodovědecká fakultaLaboratoř archeobotaniky a paleoekologieBranišovská 31CZ-37005 České Budě[email protected].

Ass. Prof. Mag. Dr. rer. nat. Jan Cemper-KiesslichUniversität SalzburgInterfakultärer Fachbereich GerichtsmedizinIgnaz Harrer-Straße 79A-5020 [email protected]

Doc. Mgr. Ondřej Chvojka, Ph.D.Jihočeské museumarcheologické odděleníDukelská 1CZ-370 51 České Budě[email protected]

Jihočeská univerzita v Českých BudějovícichFilozofické fakultyArcheologický ústavBranišovská 31aCZ-37005 České Budějovice

PhDr. Miloslav Chytráček, Ph.D.Archeologický ústav AV ČR, Praha, v.v.i.Letenská 4CZ-11801 Praha [email protected]

Dr. Silvia Codreanu-WindauerBayerisches Landesamt für DenkmalpflegeAdolf-Schmetzer-Str. 1D-93055 [email protected]

Mgr. Ladislav Čapek Ph.D.*Západočeská univerzita v PlzniFakulta filozofickáKatedra archeologieSedláčkova 15CZ-30614 Plzeň[email protected].

Dr. Wolfgang David kelten römer museum Im Erlet 2 D-85077 Manching [email protected]

Prof. Dr. Markus Egg*Römisch-Germanisches ZentralmuseumErnst-Ludwig-Platz 2D-55116 [email protected]

Dr. des. Florian EiblHemauerstr. 21D-93047 [email protected]

Dr. Bernd EngelhardtRobert-Stolz-Weg 18D-84032 [email protected]

Ing. Marek Fikrle, Ph.D.*Ústav jaderné fyziky AV ČR, v.v.i.CZ-25068 Husinec-Řež[email protected]


Jiří Fröhlich*Erbenova 1546CZ-397 01 Pí[email protected]

Dipl. Ing., Dr. nat. tech. Michael Grabner Universität für Bodenkultur WienUniversitäts- und Forschungszentrum TullnInstitut für Holztechnologie und Nachwachsende RohstoffeKonrad Lorenz Str. 24A-3430 [email protected]

Dr. Robert Graf M.A.Archäologie und ArchäotechnikSonnenstr. 36D-84543 Winhö[email protected]

Mag. Heinz GruberBundesdenkmalamtAbt. für BodendenkmaleLandeskonservatorat für OberösterreichRainerstr. 11A-4020 [email protected]

Prof. Dr. Gisela GrupeStaatssammlung für Anthropologie und Paläo-anatomieKarolinenplatz 2a80333 Mü[email protected]

Dr. Michaela Harbeck*Staatssammlung für Anthropologie und Paläo-anatomieKarolinenplatz 2aD-80333 Mü[email protected]

Franz HerzigBayerisches Landesamt für DenkmalpflegeReferat B V – Archäologische Restaurierung und DendrolaborKlosterberg 8D-86672 [email protected]

Mgr. Lukáš Holata, Ph.D.*Západočeská univerzita v PlzniFakulta filozofickáKatedra archeologieSedláčkova 15CZ-30614 Plzeň[email protected]

Ing. Jan Hrdlička, Ph.D.*Západočeská univerzita v PlzniFakulta pedagogickáKatedra chemieVeleslavínova 42CZ-30614 Plzeň[email protected]

Dr. Ludwig Husty M.A.Kreisarchäologie Straubing-BogenKlosterhof 1D-94327 [email protected]

Doc. PhDr. Luboš Jiráň, CSc.Archeologický ústav AV ČR v Praze, v.v.i.Letenská 4CZ-1180 1 Praha [email protected]

Mgr. Jaroslav Jiřík, Ph.D.*Prácheňské muzeumVelké náměstí 113-114CZ-39724 Pí[email protected]

PhDr. Jan John, Ph.D.Jihočeská univerzita v Českých BudějovícichFilozofická fakultaArcheologický ústavBranišovská 31CZ-37005 České Budě[email protected]

Ass. Prof. Ing. Mag. Dr. Fabian KanzMedizinische Universität WienDepartment für GerichtsmedizinAbteilung für Forensische AnthropologieSensengasse 2A-1090 [email protected]


Mgr. Eva Koppová*Třída Přátelství 1960CZ-39701 Písek

Mag. Kerstin KowarikNaturhistorisches Museum WienPrähistorische AbteilungHall-Impact (ÖAW)Burgring 7A-1014 [email protected]

Mgr. Lenka Kovačiková, PhD.*Jihočeská univerzita v Českých BudějovícichPřírodovědecká fakultaLaboratoř archeobotaniky a paleoekologieBranišovská 31CZ-37005 České Budě[email protected]

Mgr. Radka Kozáková, Ph.D.*Archeologický ústav AV ČR v Praze, v.v.i.Letenská 4CZ-1180 1 Praha [email protected]

Dr. Ludwig KreinerKreisarchäologie Dingolfing-LandauObere Stadt 13D-84130 [email protected]

RNDr. Roman Křivánek, Ph.D.*Archeologický ústav AV ČR v Praze, v.v.i.Letenská 4CZ-1180 1 Praha [email protected]

Mgr. René Kyselý Ph.D.Archeologický ústav AV ČR, Praha, v.v.i.Letenská 4CZ-118 01 Praha 1kysely@ arup.cas.cz

Dr. Felix LangUniversität SalzburgFachbereich AltertumswissenschaftenKlassische und Frühägäische ArchäologieResidenzplatz 1A-5010 [email protected]

Mag.a Dr. PhD Jutta LeskovarOberösterreichisches LandesmuseumSammlungsleitung Ur- und FrühgeschichteWelserstr. 20A-4060 [email protected]

Mgr. Libor PetrZápadočeská univerzita v PlzniFakulta filozofickáKatedra archeologieSedláčkova 15CZ-30614 Plzeň[email protected]

Dr. med. Mark R. Mc CoyParacelsus Medizinische PrivatuniversitätInstitut für RadiologieDivision für NeuroradiologieIgnaz Harrer-Straße 79A-5020 [email protected]

Mag. Jakob MaurerSpiegelgasse 4A-2500 Baden bei [email protected]

PhDr. Petr Menšík, Ph.D.Západočeská univerzita v PlzniFakulta filozofickáKatedra archeologieSedláčkova 15CZ-30614 Plzeň [email protected]

PhDr. Jan MichálekNádražní 120CZ-39701 Pí[email protected]

Martin Moník*Univerzita Palackého OlomouciPřírodovědecká fakultaKatedra geologie17. Listopadu 12CZ-77900 [email protected]


Ao. Prof. Mag. Dr. Franz NeuhuberUniversität SalzburgInterfakultärer Fachbereich GerichtsmedizinIgnaz Harrer-Straße 79A-5020 [email protected]

Martina Nováková*Západočeská univerzita v PlzniFakulta filozofickáKatedra antropologieSedláčkova 15CZ-30614 Plzeň

Mgr. Alena NovotnáZápadočeské muzeumoddělení PrehistorieZborovská 40CZ-30100 Plzeň [email protected]

Mgr. Klára PaclíkováJihočeská univerzita v Českých BudějovícichPřírodovědecká fakultaLaboratoř archeobotaniky a paleoekologieBranišovská 31CZ-370 05 České Budě[email protected]

Prof. Dr. Bernd PäffgenLudwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenInstitut für Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologieund Provinzialrömische ArchäologieGeschwister-Scholl-Platz 1D-80539 Mü[email protected]

Mgr. Anna Pankowská Ph.D.Západočeská univerzita v PlzniFakulta filozofickáKatedra antropologieSedláčkova 15CZ-306 14 Plzeň[email protected]

Ao. Prof. Dr. Walther ParsonMedizinische Universität InnsbruckInstitut für Gerichtliche MedizinMüllerstraße 44A-6020 [email protected]

Dr. Joachim Pechtl M.A.kelten römer museum Im Erlet 2 D-85077 Manching [email protected]

Dr. Nadja PöllathStaatssammlung für Anthropologie und Paläoanato-mieAbt. PaläoanatomieKaulbachstr. 37D-80539 Mü[email protected]

Mgr. Michal PreuszZápadočeská univerzita v PlzniFakulta filozofickáKatedra archeologieSedláčkova 15CZ-30614 Plzeň[email protected]

Mgr. Erika Průchová*Univerzita KarlovaPřírodovědecká fakultaKatedra antropologie a genetiky člověkaViničná 7CZ-12800 Praha [email protected]

Bc. Milan ProcházkaZápadočeská univerzita v PlzniFakulta filozofickáKatedra archeologieSedláčkova 15CZ-30614 Plzeň[email protected]

Mgr. Martin PtákJihočeská univerzita v Českých BudějovícichFilozofická fakultaArcheologický ústavBranišovská 31aCZ-37005 České Budějovice [email protected].

Dr. Gabriele RaßhoferBayerisches Landesamt für DenkmalpflegeAdolf-Schmetzer-Str.1D-93055 [email protected]


Mag. Hans Reschreiter*Naturhistorisches Museum WienBurgring 7A-1010 [email protected]

Ing. Jan Říha, Ph.D.*Západočeská univerzita v PlzniNové technologie - výzkumné centrumTeslova 9ACZ-30614 Plzeň[email protected]

Stephan RitterRömisch-Germanisches ZentralmuseumErnst-Ludwig-Platz 2D-55116 [email protected]

Prof. Dr. Thomes SaileUniversität RegensburgFakultät für Philosophie, Kunst-, Geschichts- und GesellschaftswissenschaftenInstitut für GeschichteLehrstuhl für Vor- und FrühgeschichteUniversitätsstraße 31D-93053 [email protected]

Dr. Ruth SandnerBayerisches Landesamt für DenkmalpflegeKlosterberg 8D-86672 [email protected]

Ing. Jarmila Savková, Ph.D.*Západočeská univerzita v PlzniNové technologie – výzkumné centrumTeslova 9ACZ-30614 PlzeňTeslova 9ACZ-30614 Plzeň[email protected]

Mgr. Tereza Šalková*Jihočeská univerzita v Českých BudějovícichPřírodovědecká fakultaLaboratoř archeobotaniky a paleoekologieBranišovská 3137005 České Budějovice

Filosofické fakultyArcheologický ústavBranišovská 31a37005 České Budě[email protected]

Dr. Andreas ScharfAMS-Labor ErlangenPhysikalisches Institut Ab. IVErwin-Rommel-Str. 1D-91058 [email protected]

PhDr. Pavel ŠebestaMájová 55CZ-35002 [email protected]

PhDr. Ladislav Šmejda, Ph.DZápadočeská univerzita v PlzniFakulta filozofickáKatedra archeologieSedláčkova 15CZ-30614 Plzeň[email protected]

Dr. Karl SchmotzOberdorf 21D-94253 [email protected]

Dr. Elisabeth SchneppUniversität LeobenPaleomagnetic Laboratory GamsChair of GeophysicsGams 45A-8130 [email protected]

Dr. Robert Schumann M.A.Universität HamburgArchäologisches InstitutVor- und frühgeschichtliche ArchäologieEdmund-Siemers-Allee 1, Flügel WestD-20146 [email protected]

Dr. Heiner Schwarzberg M.A.Archäologische StaatssammlungLerchenfeldstraße 2D-80538 Mü[email protected]


Prof. Dr. C. Sebastian SommerBayerisches Landesamt für DenkmalpflegeHofgraben 4D-80539 Mü[email protected]

Mgr. Eva StehlíkováJihočeská univerzita v Českých BudějovícichPřírodovědecká fakultaLaboratoř archeobotaniky a paleoekologieBranišovská 31CZ-37005 České Budějovice; [email protected]

Dr. Christoph SteinmannBayerisches Landesamt für DenkmalpflegeAdolf-Schmetzer-Str. 1D-93055 [email protected]

RNDr. Petra Stránská*Archeologický ústav AV ČR v Praze, v.v.i.Letenská 4CZ-11801 Praha [email protected]

Dr. Stefan TraxlerOberösterreichisches LandesmuseumSammlungsleitung Römerzeit, Mittelalter und Neu-zeitarchäologieWelser Str. 20A-4060 [email protected]

Mag. Dr. Christian UhlirUniversität SalzburgFachbereich AltertumswissenschaftenKlassische und Frühägäische ArchäologieResidenzplatz 1A-5010 [email protected]

Wilhelm WagnerAdolf-Kolping-Str. 23D-85435 Erding

Ao.Prof. Dr. Eva-Maria WildUniversität WienFakultät für Physik, IsotopenforschungVERA-LaboratoriumWähringerstraße 17 (Kavalierstrakt)A-1090 [email protected]

Rupert WimmerRömerstraße 47 aD-84079 [email protected]

Georg Winner*Naturhistorisches Museum WienBurgring 7A-1010 [email protected]

PhDr. Petr ZavřelJihočeské museumarcheologické odděleníDukelská 1CZ-37051 České Budě[email protected]

Mgr. Antonín ZelenkaZápadočeské muzeumZborovská 40CZ-30100 Plzeň[email protected]

Bernhard Zirngibl M.A.Universität RegensburgFakultät für Philosophie, Kunst-, Geschichts- undGesellschaftswissenschaftenInstitut für GeschichteLehrstuhl für Vor- und FrühgeschichteUniversitätsstraße 31D-93053 [email protected]

Dr. Joachim ZuberKreisarchäologie KelheimHemauer Str. 2D-93339 [email protected]

*Auf der Veranstaltung nicht anwesender Autor/Autorin

Documents

2015 Taphonomy of cremation burials: excavation and deposition bias in bone preservation