Search

This article presents outcomes from a Workshop entitled “Bioarchaeology: Taking Stock and Moving Forward, ” which was held at Arizona State University (ASU) on March 6–8, 2020. Funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the School of Human Evolution and Social Change (ASU), and the Center for Bioarchaeological Research (CBR, ASU), the Workshop's overall goal was to explore reasons why research proposals submitted by bioarchaeologists, both graduate students and established scholars, fared disproportionately poorly within recent NSF Anthropology Program competitions and to offer advice for increasing success. Therefore, this Workshop comprised 43 international scholars and four advanced graduate students with a history of successful grant acquisition, primarily from the United States. Ultimately, we focused on two related aims: (1) best practices for improving research designs and training and (2) evaluating topics of contemporary significance that reverberate through history and beyond as promising trajectories for bioarchaeological research. Among the former were contextual grounding, research question/hypothesis generation, statistical procedures appropriate for small samples and mixed qualitative/quantitative data, the salience of Bayesian methods, and training program content. Topical foci included ethics, social inequality, identity (including intersectionality), climate change, migration, violence, epidemic disease, adaptability/plasticity, the osteological paradox, and the developmental origins of health and disease. Given the profound changes required globally to address decolonization in the 21st century, this concern also entered many formal and informal discussions.

Objectives: Since the late 1970s, when the first human skeletal remains from a pit (V1141) located within the Late Bronze Age hillfort at Stillfried an der March, Austria, were discovered, their deviation from the predominant burial rite of cremation became the subject-matter of a variety of archaeological and bioanthropological studies. Through continuous archaeological excavations, further settlement pits with unusual human inhumation burials or depositions of isolated skeletal remains became apparent and posed the question of their possible non-local origin. The human samples in this study come from the Pits V841 and V1133, furthermore we re-investigate two individuals from V1141. The aim is to get a better understanding of Stillfried’s population structure and to enrich the debate about the mortuary practices of the Urnfield culture. Material and Methods: Here we present and discuss the radiogenic Sr isotope ratios determined in the enamel of eleven individuals from three settlement pits: eight individuals from Pit V841 and one individual, represented by a skull without mandible (calvarium) of a 12–13-year-old child from Pit V1133; two individuals were taken from Pit V1141 and re-investigated for comparative reasons. We compared all data to signals of the local environment derived from modern environmental samples and to the autochthonous signal of the Late Bronze Age derived from archaeological faunal remains (incl. mussels) and archaeological plants. Further, we investigated and discussed the potential of a mathematical approach to access biogenic Sr isotopic information from diagenetically altered dentine. Results: It has been shown that both supposedly autochthonous and allochthonous (non-local) individuals are buried within the settlement pits of Stillfried, which shows that burial practices do not relate to the individual’s origins. In particular, the n(87Sr)/n(86Sr) isotopic values of six individuals match the supposedly autochthonous Sr signature, while the other five individuals represent allochthonous individuals. Three of the latter showed n(87Sr)/n(86Sr) values that were higher and two that were lower compared to the autochthonous Sr range, thereby indicating at least two different homelands. Despite the small sample size which constrains the validity of the data, the diversity of the inhabitants’ provenance reflects a high mobility. This may support the interpretation of Stillfried as a ‘central site’ – a finding which is also important in the wider context of the European Late Bronze Age.

Non richiesto per questa tipologia di articolo

The Avar period cemetery in Frohsdorf is located in eastern Austria in the area of the former western periphery of the Avar Khaganate. In a non-literate culture like that of the Avars, it is only possible to reconstruct everyday culture, including funerary rituals, through archaeological sources. Through archaeological field seasons from 2001 to 2011, we have been able to document numerous coffins and grave fixtures made of wood in inhumation graves. Burials in coffins seemed to be common practice. The coffins are preserved in different states, including wood residues and charred wood residues. In Frohsdorf, in contrast to many other investigated Avar cemeteries, we subjected these coffins and their wooden remains to a detailed analysis. Wood species analyses show a preference for a certain type of wood, namely oak. Based on the preservation status of the wooden remains the authors have developed a hypothesis concerning part of the funeral ritual at this cemetery.