Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:47:13.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Identification and Assessment of Mortuary Features

Three Case Studies from Ontario

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2017

Michael W. Spence
Michael W. Spence*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The decision as to whether or not to excavate ancient Native mortuary features will require information on their extent and nature. This raises the question of how reliably these aspects can be assessed from the initial exposure of the feature, at its uppermost undisturbed level. In three Ontario cases in which the negotiators decided on full excavation of the features, it is possible to compare the initial assessments to the excavation results. In general, the information obtained in the initial assessments was accurate enough to allow the negotiating parties to make an informed decision, and to assist the archaeologists in their interpretation of the site. However, a major problem with initial assessments is that they sometimes fail to identify features containing only disarticulated minor skeletal elements, leading to an underestimation of the scope of the situation. The solution recommended here is to have a bioarchaeologist on the excavation team to promptly identify and assess any mortuary features and, when necessary, to excavate them.

La décision de fouiller ou non d'anciens vestiges mortuaires autochtones nécessitera de plus amples renseignements sur leur étendue et leur nature. Ceci soulève une question de fiabilité d’évaluation de ces éléments, de l'exposition initiale de ces vestiges à celle du niveau le plus profond et non perturbé. Dans trois cas ontariens dans lesquels les négociateurs ont choisi la fouille complète des vestiges, il est possible de comparer les évaluations initiales aux résultats des fouilles. En général, les informations obtenues lors des évaluations initiales étaient suffisamment précises pour permettre aux équipes de négociation de prendre une décision éclairée et ainsi aider les archéologues dans leur interprétation du site. Par contre, un problème majeur des évaluations initiales est qu'elles négligent parfois d'identifier les vestiges contenant uniquement des éléments squelettiques mineurs désarticulés, ce qui sous-estime la portée de la situation. La solution recommandée est d'avoir un bioarchéologue au sein de l’équipe de fouille pour que ce dernier puisse identifier et évaluer rapidement n'importe quels vestiges mortuaires et, le cas échéant, les fouiller.

Type
Articles
Information
Advances in Archaeological Practice , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , November 2017 , pp. 340 - 350
Copyright
Copyright 2017 © Society for American Archaeology 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES CITED

Buikstra, Jane, and Ubelaker, Douglas (eds.) 1994 Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series 44, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Conolly, James, Dillane, Jeffrey, Dougherty, Kate, Elaschuk, Kathleen, Csenkey, Kristen, Wagner, Teresa, and Williams, Jocelyn 2014 Early Collective Burial Practices in a Complex Wetland Setting: An Interim Report on Mortuary Patterning, Paleodietary Analysis, Zooarchaeology, Material Culture and Radiocarbon Dates from Jacob Island (BcGo-17), Kawartha Lakes, Ontario. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 38:106–133.Google Scholar
Fontaine, Adriana 2004a Burials from the Dorchester Villages East and West (AfHg-23). Report to Timmins Martelle Heritage Consultants, London, Ontario.Google Scholar
Fontaine, Adriana 2004b Scattered Bone: Fragmentary Human Remains from the Lawson Site (AgHh-1). Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Western Ontario, London.Google Scholar
Grant, Adria 2016 The Roffelsen Site: A Late Woodland Place of Transition between Life and Death. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Western Ontario.Google Scholar
Greenman, Emerson 1937 The Younge Site: An Archaeological Record from Michigan. University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology Occasional Contributions 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapches, Mima 1976 The Interment of Infants of the Ontario Iroquois. Ontario Archaeology 27:29–39.Google Scholar
Ministry of Consumer Services 1998 The Discovery of Human Remains – Best Practices. Ministry of Consumer Services, Government of Ontario, Toronto.Google Scholar
Molto, J. Eldon, Spence, Michael W., and Fox, William 1986 The Van Oordt Site: A Case Study in Salvage Osteology. Canadian Review of Physical Anthropology 5 (2):49–61.Google Scholar
Ortner, Donald, and Putschar, Walter 1985 Identification of Pathological Conditions in Human Skeletal Remains. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Rainey, Dori 2002 Challenging Assumptions: An Analysis of the Scattered Human Remains at the Keffer Site (AkGv-14). Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Western Ontario, London.Google Scholar
Ross-Stallings, Nancy 2007 Trophy Taking in the Central and Lower Mississippi Valley. In The Taking and Displaying of Human Body Parts as Trophies by Amerindians, edited by Chacon, Richard and Dye, David, pp. 339–370. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Spence, Michael W. 1994 Mortuary Programmes of the Early Ontario Iroquoians. Ontario Archaeology 58:6–20.Google Scholar
Spence, Michael W. 2011a The Mortuary Features of the Tillsonburg Village Site. Ontario Archaeology 91:3–20.Google Scholar
Spence, Michael W. 2011b The Bingo Pit Mortuary Features. Report to Brandy E. George Cultural Research. Brandy E. George Cultural Research, Kettle and Stony Point, Ontario.Google Scholar
Spence, Michael W., Williams, Lana J. and Wheeler, Sandra M. 2014 Death and Disability in a Younge Phase Community. American Antiquity 79:108–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmins, Peter 2009 Don't Fence Me In: New Insights into Middle Iroquoian Village Organization from the Tillsonburg Village. In Iroquoian Archaeology and Analytical Scale, edited by Miroff, Laurie and Knapp, Timothy, pp. 51–67. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Ubelaker, Douglas 1974 Reconstruction of Demographic Profiles from Ossuary Skeletal Samples: A Case Study from the Tidewater Potomac. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 18. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Ubelaker, Douglas 1978 Human Skeletal Remains: Excavation, Analysis, Interpretation. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
Waldron, Tony 2009 Palaeopathology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Williamson, Ronald F. 2007 “Otinontsiskiaj ondaon” (“The House of Cut-Off Heads”): The History and Archaeology of Northern Iroquoian Trophy Taking. In The Taking and Displaying of Human Body Parts as Trophies by Amerindians, edited by Chacon, Richard and Dye, David, pp. 190–221. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Williamson, Ronald F., and Steiss, Debbie A. 2003 A History of Iroquoian Burial Practice. In Bones of the Ancestors: The Archaeology and Osteobiography of the Moatfield Ossuary, edited by Williamson, Ronald F. and Pfeiffer, Susan, pp. 89–132. Canadian Museum of Civilization Mercury Series Archaeology Paper 163, Hull.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, Alison 2015 A Plurality of Pluralisms: Collaborative Practice in Archaeology. In Objectivity in Science: New Perspectives from Science and Technology Studies, edited by Padovani, Flavia, Richardson, Alan, and Tsou, Jonathan Y., pp. 189–210. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science Vol. 310. Springer International Publishing, Basel.Google Scholar