- Austrian Centre for Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage
Sonnenfelsgasse 19
1010 Vienna
Austria
- Archaeology, Early Medieval Archaeology, Digital Archaeology, Mortuary archaeology, Semantic Web, CIDOC CRM, and 20 moreDatabases, Forensic Taphonomy, Archaeology and Anthropology, Archaeological Method & Theory, Deviant burial (Archaeology), Archaeothanatology, Digital Humanities, Forensic Anthropology, Funerary Archaeology, Social and Cultural Anthropology, Mortuary Practices, Anthropology, Decomposition, Taphonomy, Bronze Age Europe (Archaeology), Anglo Saxon Burial Studies (Archaeology), Roman Britain, Death and Burial (Archaeology), Early Medieval Europe (Archaeology), and Osteoarchaeologyedit
- I am a researcher at the Austrian Centre for Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage & affiliate of the Austrian Arc... moreI am a researcher at the Austrian Centre for Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage & affiliate of the Austrian Archaeological Institute (both Austrian Academy of Sciences). My interests are the early medieval period, digital archaeology (data Integration, semantic technologies) and mortuary archaeology (taphonomy, grave reopening, deviant burial and variability of mortuary behaviour).edit
In this article we introduce our semantic modeling approach for data from over 50 years of excavations at Tell el-Daba in Egypt. The CIDOC CRM with some of its extensions is used as an ontological framework to provide the semantics for... more
In this article we introduce our semantic modeling approach for data from over 50 years of excavations at Tell el-Daba in Egypt. The CIDOC CRM with some of its extensions is used as an ontological framework to provide the semantics for creating a knowledge graph containing material remains, excavated areas, and documentation resources. An objective of the project A Puzzle in 4D is to digitize the documentation and create metadata for analog and digital resources in order to provide the data to the research community and facilitate future work for this important archaeological site. Using an example of 3D reconstruction of a tomb, we show how the knowledge graph linked to digital resources can be exploited for a specific task to encounter available information that is essential for a virtual reconstruction. Moreover, we show an approach of modeling to represent the interpretations supporting reconstructions as well as relate them to the sources used, thus providing transparency for t...
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The archaeology of post-depositional interactions with the dead. An introduction Edeltraud Aspöck, Alison Klevnäs and Nils Müller-Scheeßel During excavations we often encounter mortuary deposits which show evidence of disturbance.... more
The archaeology of post-depositional interactions with the dead.
An introduction
Edeltraud Aspöck, Alison Klevnäs and Nils Müller-Scheeßel
During excavations we often encounter mortuary deposits which show evidence of disturbance. Graves, especially inhumation burials as opposed to cremations, readily show signs of disorder. Human bones may be displaced and intermingled with grave goods, or traces of pits or damage to coffins or other containers may show that others have been digging before the archaeologists arrived. This book explores past human interactions with mortuary deposits, delving into the different ways graves and human remains were approached by people in the past and the reasons that led to such encounters. The primary focus of the volume is on cases of unexpected interference with individual graves soon after burial, that is, re-encounters with human remains which do not seem to have been anticipated by those who performed the funerary rituals and constructed the tombs. But in addition, re-use of graves at later stages is also discussed in some of the case studies, as well as practices concerning double or collective graves in which reopening and manipulation of previous deposits is required when the “new” dead are added. Multiple types of post-depositional practices may frequently be seen in the same period and region and sometimes at the same burial site or even in a single grave.
The observation that graves were often deliberately disturbed in the past is long-standing, but the phenomenon has not been a popular subject for research, until recently remaining on the margins of archaeological discourse. Undisturbed mortuary deposits show how bodies were deposited, which grave goods and furniture were there originally and – subject to natural taphonomic alterations – frequently offer collections of valuable artefacts for study and display. As “closed contexts”, undisturbed graves have long been valued as important methodological tools for establishing typologies and chronologies. For social analysis of cemeteries, complete sets of grave goods and skeletal evidence that is as exhaustive as possible are basic requirements. In “disturbed” graves we cannot say for certain the number or types of grave goods that were once deposited and, if an interment has been heavily interfered with, we may not know how the body was placed, and in some cases not even how many individuals were initially present. Accordingly, for most of their history, disturbed graves were generally deemed interesting and worth analysis only according to the degree that they still showed evidence of the original deposition. However, paradigms in mortuary archaeology have changed: recent research has moved away from researching the normative and the typical, and with this move interest in post-depositional practices has been rising (e.g. Aspöck 2008; Murphy 2008).
One consequence of the perception of all deliberate re-entries into burials in the past as essentially damage to the archaeological record was limited interest in the reasons for post-depositional interferences in graves. The go-to explanation was that ancient “grave robbers” in search of valuables would be accountable for the traces of disturbance seen by modern excavators in most if not all cases (Fig. 1.1; Fig. 1.2). Indeed, as this book shows, this interpretation was invoked whether it was Early Medieval cemeteries in Europe or the tombs of the Maya that were found disturbed. Thus for a long time an understanding prevailed that in the past, graves were seen – at least by the robbers and their affiliates – principally as hoards of objects valuable and useful to the living for materialistic reasons. And since motives for “grave robbing” seemed plain and self-explanatory, the behaviour as such never aroused much interest in scholarly discourse. This paradigm remained a vigorous part of archaeological narratives for a long time, indeed perhaps still remains so. It has been influential in particular in periods with large-scale occurrence of grave reopening and object removal, notably the Early Bronze Age of central Europe and the Early Middle Ages of western and central Europe, and was only occasionally challenged by those looking into the evidence more closely.
In the last decade or so, in-depth research has begun into what is now preferably described under more neutral categories such as “post-burial interventions”, “grave reopening” or “post-depositional practices”. Both the new interest and new terminology are based on awareness that the reopening of a grave is in many cases by no means a criminal act, nor laden with the negative sentiment implied by the term “robbery”. For these reasons, we avoid the term “grave robbery” when presenting a range of recent approaches to the topic in this volume, even though it is sometimes intended as simply a technical term for past interference with mortuary deposits. We contend that “grave robbery”, used equally for the description of archaeological evidence and its interpretation, mixes different stages of the research process and is therefore misleading. It also depletes interpretative power in those contexts in which reopening does in fact appear to have been motivated by illicit acquisition, which themselves provide opportunities to interrogate ideas about the dead and their kin as property-holders. Instead, we prefer more neutrally descriptive terms such as “reopening”, “deliberate disturbance” or “manipulation”. These sometimes come across as awkward neologisms, especially when the individuals who reopened graves are denoted as “reopeners” or “manipulators”, but these alternative terms help to avoid preconceptions about the nature and motives of reopening across contexts. Use of such alternative terms has become more and more commonplace in studies critical of previous models of interpretation.
The papers gathered here give new insights into the forms and motivations for past re-entries into graves in archaeological contexts across the world. They demonstrate that the reopening of burials in the past is an important source for past cultural practices, embedded in social notions of what is proper, what is necessary and what is possible. In the remainder of this introduction we will first introduce previous research and outline how the study of post-depositional practices emerged as a new subfield in funerary archaeology. Then comes discussion of methodological developments in the excavation, analysis and interpretation of reopened graves. Finally we give an overview of different types of practices for which graves were reopened, discussed in relation to the case studies in this volume. We will focus on recent developments – and the challenges which they entail – which make this area of research a fascinating and rewarding topic.
An introduction
Edeltraud Aspöck, Alison Klevnäs and Nils Müller-Scheeßel
During excavations we often encounter mortuary deposits which show evidence of disturbance. Graves, especially inhumation burials as opposed to cremations, readily show signs of disorder. Human bones may be displaced and intermingled with grave goods, or traces of pits or damage to coffins or other containers may show that others have been digging before the archaeologists arrived. This book explores past human interactions with mortuary deposits, delving into the different ways graves and human remains were approached by people in the past and the reasons that led to such encounters. The primary focus of the volume is on cases of unexpected interference with individual graves soon after burial, that is, re-encounters with human remains which do not seem to have been anticipated by those who performed the funerary rituals and constructed the tombs. But in addition, re-use of graves at later stages is also discussed in some of the case studies, as well as practices concerning double or collective graves in which reopening and manipulation of previous deposits is required when the “new” dead are added. Multiple types of post-depositional practices may frequently be seen in the same period and region and sometimes at the same burial site or even in a single grave.
The observation that graves were often deliberately disturbed in the past is long-standing, but the phenomenon has not been a popular subject for research, until recently remaining on the margins of archaeological discourse. Undisturbed mortuary deposits show how bodies were deposited, which grave goods and furniture were there originally and – subject to natural taphonomic alterations – frequently offer collections of valuable artefacts for study and display. As “closed contexts”, undisturbed graves have long been valued as important methodological tools for establishing typologies and chronologies. For social analysis of cemeteries, complete sets of grave goods and skeletal evidence that is as exhaustive as possible are basic requirements. In “disturbed” graves we cannot say for certain the number or types of grave goods that were once deposited and, if an interment has been heavily interfered with, we may not know how the body was placed, and in some cases not even how many individuals were initially present. Accordingly, for most of their history, disturbed graves were generally deemed interesting and worth analysis only according to the degree that they still showed evidence of the original deposition. However, paradigms in mortuary archaeology have changed: recent research has moved away from researching the normative and the typical, and with this move interest in post-depositional practices has been rising (e.g. Aspöck 2008; Murphy 2008).
One consequence of the perception of all deliberate re-entries into burials in the past as essentially damage to the archaeological record was limited interest in the reasons for post-depositional interferences in graves. The go-to explanation was that ancient “grave robbers” in search of valuables would be accountable for the traces of disturbance seen by modern excavators in most if not all cases (Fig. 1.1; Fig. 1.2). Indeed, as this book shows, this interpretation was invoked whether it was Early Medieval cemeteries in Europe or the tombs of the Maya that were found disturbed. Thus for a long time an understanding prevailed that in the past, graves were seen – at least by the robbers and their affiliates – principally as hoards of objects valuable and useful to the living for materialistic reasons. And since motives for “grave robbing” seemed plain and self-explanatory, the behaviour as such never aroused much interest in scholarly discourse. This paradigm remained a vigorous part of archaeological narratives for a long time, indeed perhaps still remains so. It has been influential in particular in periods with large-scale occurrence of grave reopening and object removal, notably the Early Bronze Age of central Europe and the Early Middle Ages of western and central Europe, and was only occasionally challenged by those looking into the evidence more closely.
In the last decade or so, in-depth research has begun into what is now preferably described under more neutral categories such as “post-burial interventions”, “grave reopening” or “post-depositional practices”. Both the new interest and new terminology are based on awareness that the reopening of a grave is in many cases by no means a criminal act, nor laden with the negative sentiment implied by the term “robbery”. For these reasons, we avoid the term “grave robbery” when presenting a range of recent approaches to the topic in this volume, even though it is sometimes intended as simply a technical term for past interference with mortuary deposits. We contend that “grave robbery”, used equally for the description of archaeological evidence and its interpretation, mixes different stages of the research process and is therefore misleading. It also depletes interpretative power in those contexts in which reopening does in fact appear to have been motivated by illicit acquisition, which themselves provide opportunities to interrogate ideas about the dead and their kin as property-holders. Instead, we prefer more neutrally descriptive terms such as “reopening”, “deliberate disturbance” or “manipulation”. These sometimes come across as awkward neologisms, especially when the individuals who reopened graves are denoted as “reopeners” or “manipulators”, but these alternative terms help to avoid preconceptions about the nature and motives of reopening across contexts. Use of such alternative terms has become more and more commonplace in studies critical of previous models of interpretation.
The papers gathered here give new insights into the forms and motivations for past re-entries into graves in archaeological contexts across the world. They demonstrate that the reopening of burials in the past is an important source for past cultural practices, embedded in social notions of what is proper, what is necessary and what is possible. In the remainder of this introduction we will first introduce previous research and outline how the study of post-depositional practices emerged as a new subfield in funerary archaeology. Then comes discussion of methodological developments in the excavation, analysis and interpretation of reopened graves. Finally we give an overview of different types of practices for which graves were reopened, discussed in relation to the case studies in this volume. We will focus on recent developments – and the challenges which they entail – which make this area of research a fascinating and rewarding topic.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Summary: This paper addresses the common classification of mortuary deposits into ‘normal’ and ‘deviant’ burials (or ‘regular’ and ‘irregular’, ‘typical’ and ‘untypical’, ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ burials). These categories are often... more
Summary: This paper addresses the common classification of mortuary deposits into ‘normal’ and ‘deviant’ burials (or ‘regular’ and ‘irregular’, ‘typical’ and ‘untypical’, ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ burials). These categories are often understood as dichotomies, i. e. complementary and exclusive. Thus, a burial has to be either ‘normal’ or ‘deviant’. Using case studies from archaeology and cultural anthropology, I demonstrate
that such a classification of mortuary evidence is flawed. Archaeological and cultural anthropological evidence shows that a community usually practices a range of different mortuary practices, associated with as many different meanings. Mortuary practices can be part of the funerary cycle but also be non-funerary (e. g. sacrifices, post-funerary practices). A new approach which focuses on analysing the variety of mortuary
behaviour in the archaeological evidence is introduced. The results of a contextual analysis of late Iron Age funerary practices around Winchester (southern England) highlight the importance of taphonomic factors for the interpretation of archaeological human remains.
that such a classification of mortuary evidence is flawed. Archaeological and cultural anthropological evidence shows that a community usually practices a range of different mortuary practices, associated with as many different meanings. Mortuary practices can be part of the funerary cycle but also be non-funerary (e. g. sacrifices, post-funerary practices). A new approach which focuses on analysing the variety of mortuary
behaviour in the archaeological evidence is introduced. The results of a contextual analysis of late Iron Age funerary practices around Winchester (southern England) highlight the importance of taphonomic factors for the interpretation of archaeological human remains.
Research Interests:
In order to overcome the different knowledge schemas of research on Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites of Greece and Anatolia, an open access Django-based database called DEFC App (Digitizing Early Farming Cultures Application) has been... more
In order to overcome the different knowledge schemas of research on Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites of Greece and Anatolia, an open access Django-based database called DEFC App (Digitizing Early Farming Cultures Application) has been developed. The 3D models of the Schachermeyr sherd collection are one of the many resources that will be integrated into the database. The present contribution focuses on these 3D models and their metadata and on how they are contextualized within the DEFC App database and beyond. Additionally, we discuss the 3D model provenance metadata that should accompany the 3D models in order to assure their transparency.
Research Interests:
Early Bronze Age and early medieval inhumation graves in (central) Europe had often been reopened a short time after burial and, in most cases, grave goods were removed. To improve the understanding of the archaeological evidence of these... more
Early Bronze Age and early medieval inhumation graves in (central) Europe had often been reopened a short time after burial and, in most cases, grave goods were removed. To improve the understanding of the archaeological evidence of these graves, one reopened grave from a large early Bronze Age (Wieselburg/Gáta culture) cemetery in Weiden am See, eastern Austria, was excavated using a microstratigraphic protocol to maximize data collection for the reconstruction of the context formation process and, consequently, the interpretation of the reopening process. In this article the results of the soil thin section analyses are presented and discussed.
Research Interests:
Early medieval graves that were reopened in the past are usually considered ‘disturbed’ and hence an unreliable source for traditional cemetery analysis. This paper aims to highlight how the analysis of these ‘disturbances’ can contribute... more
Early medieval graves that were reopened in the past are usually considered ‘disturbed’ and hence an unreliable source for traditional cemetery analysis. This paper aims to highlight how the analysis of these ‘disturbances’ can contribute to our understanding of early medieval mortuary rites and attitudes towards the buried human body. Two case studies of cemeteries with high proportions of reopened graves are presented. Thorough archaeological analysis, with careful consideration of the taphonomy of reopened graves, is the key to an understanding of the reopening practices. At Brunn am Gebirge (Austria) most graves were reopened for ‘grave-robbery’ – to remove grave goods – at a time when the bodies were already fully disarticulated. The graves at Winnall II (England) were reopened very soon after burial to manipulate the still largely intact corpses.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The Merovingian-period cemetery found in Brunn am Gebirge, Lower Austria, a site just south of Vienna, was fully excavated. The 42 graves were oriented west-east and date to the second half of 6th century AD. There was one double burial,... more
The Merovingian-period cemetery found in Brunn am Gebirge, Lower Austria, a site just south of Vienna, was fully excavated. The 42 graves were oriented west-east and date to the second half of 6th century AD. There was one double burial, all other were single graves. The skeletal evidence shows that there was a balance of the sexes among those buried. All graves were reopened in the decades after burial. The paper presents the archaeological evidence and the finds.
In 1963 a Merovingian-period cemetery was discovered in a quarry next to the river Alm (district Wels) in Upper Austria. Only ten graves were rescued. The graves were oriented west-east and seven graves contained grave goods. Based on... more
In 1963 a Merovingian-period cemetery was discovered in a quarry next to the river Alm (district Wels) in Upper Austria. Only ten graves were rescued. The graves were oriented west-east and seven graves contained grave goods. Based on chronologies of close-by southern-German cemeteries (Schretzheim und Fridingen) the graves can be dated to the 6th to mid 7th century AD: graves 2 and 3 contained each a seax and belts with metal fittings - probably from the end of the sixth century; male grave 4 contained rich furnishing including a belt with multiple metal fittings and a sword belt type 'Civezzano' - a type appearing in many cemeteries from AD 620 onwards; the beads in graves 9 and 10 date to the first half of 1st century AD.
In diesem Artikel präsentieren wir eine Anwendung von 3D-Modellierungen archäologischer Grabungen für die Beantwortung archäologischer Fragestellungen. Als Fallbeispiel dienen Ausgrabungsdaten eines frühbronzezeitlichen wiedergeöffneten... more
In diesem Artikel präsentieren wir eine Anwendung von 3D-Modellierungen archäologischer Grabungen für die Beantwortung archäologischer Fragestellungen. Als Fallbeispiel dienen Ausgrabungsdaten eines frühbronzezeitlichen wiedergeöffneten Körpergrabes aus Weiden am See im Burgenland. Für die durch zwei Bestattungen und eine Wiederöffnung komplexen Formationsprozesse des Grabes wurde ein Weg gesucht, der eine integrierte Darstellung und interaktive Analyse ermöglicht. Mittels bildbasierten Modellierungsverfahren wurde eine Sequenz von 3D-Oberflächen hergestellt, welche die Abfolge von Befundsituationen wiedergibt. Die Integration und Analyse der 3D-Modelle im Zusammenspiel mit weiteren archäologischen Daten wurde in einem GIS (QGIS, Esri ArcScene) vorgenommen. Eine solche Verwendung von 3D-Modellen geht über deren bisher häufigste Nutzungen als (zusätzliche) Visualisierungen oder im Bereich von Rekonstruktionen hinaus und stellt einen ersten Schritt zur Nutzung des vollen Potenzials der Daten dar.
3D-Models, GIS, Archaeothanatology, Taphonomy
3D-Models, GIS, Archaeothanatology, Taphonomy
Research Interests:
Sharing archaeological data across national borders and between previously unconnected systems is a topic of increasing importance. Infrastructures such as ARIADNE aim to provide services that support sharing of archaeological research... more
Sharing archaeological data across national borders and between previously unconnected
systems is a topic of increasing importance. Infrastructures such as ARIADNE aim to provide services that
support sharing of archaeological research data. Ontologies such as the CIDOC CRM are an appropriate
instrument to harmonize different data structures and thereby support data exchange.
Before integrating data by mapping to ontologies it is crucial to establish where the shared meaning of the
data lies and to understand the methodology used to record the data. As the largest proportion of
archaeological data are derived from excavations or field investigations the initial focus falls on the
documentation of these “raw data”. But documentation often varies depending on country-specific guidelines,
different excavation methods and technologies, project management requirements, budget, etc. Therefore
an analysis of the different recording forms should prove helpful to identify the common meanings of
concepts and terms used in archaeological fieldwork.
This paper will show first results of research based on the collection of excavation report forms and manuals
from different countries which cover a range of fieldwork methodologies (e.g. single context recording,
palaeolithic excavations, etc.). The aim is to analyse and compare the different methodologies, the
archaeological concepts involved and the data records, perhaps for the first time on an international level.
We want to discuss the challenges of integrating different concepts, terms and vocabularies, often in
different languages, and whether problems with integrating such archaeological data could be addressed by
additional archaeological extensions to the CIDOC CRM.
systems is a topic of increasing importance. Infrastructures such as ARIADNE aim to provide services that
support sharing of archaeological research data. Ontologies such as the CIDOC CRM are an appropriate
instrument to harmonize different data structures and thereby support data exchange.
Before integrating data by mapping to ontologies it is crucial to establish where the shared meaning of the
data lies and to understand the methodology used to record the data. As the largest proportion of
archaeological data are derived from excavations or field investigations the initial focus falls on the
documentation of these “raw data”. But documentation often varies depending on country-specific guidelines,
different excavation methods and technologies, project management requirements, budget, etc. Therefore
an analysis of the different recording forms should prove helpful to identify the common meanings of
concepts and terms used in archaeological fieldwork.
This paper will show first results of research based on the collection of excavation report forms and manuals
from different countries which cover a range of fieldwork methodologies (e.g. single context recording,
palaeolithic excavations, etc.). The aim is to analyse and compare the different methodologies, the
archaeological concepts involved and the data records, perhaps for the first time on an international level.
We want to discuss the challenges of integrating different concepts, terms and vocabularies, often in
different languages, and whether problems with integrating such archaeological data could be addressed by
additional archaeological extensions to the CIDOC CRM.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This paper will introduce a new project starting at Stockholm University in autumn 2018, building on the work of members of the Grave Reopening Research network (reopenedgraves.eu). The project will study customs of revisiting, reworking,... more
This paper will introduce a new project starting at Stockholm University in autumn 2018, building on the work of members of the Grave Reopening Research network (reopenedgraves.eu). The project will study customs of revisiting, reworking, and retrieving human and material remains which have newly been recognised in burial grounds across early medieval Europe, using them as an innovative route into understanding beliefs and community life in this formative period of social and religious change. Once into the Christian Middle Ages, burial sites became places of worship and pilgrimage, with human body parts revered as relics. But the traditional view of the earlier pagan societies is that the dead were kept separate from the living, lying undisturbed in rows of graves in quiet fields, surrounded by their treasured possessions and grave gifts. This research will show that far from decomposing in peace, the pre-Christian dead were regularly and frequently unearthed. Over 3 years, it will bring together the first Europe-wide survey of grave reopening practices, showing that a set of related customs can be seen at hundreds of excavated sites over a geographic range from Transylvania to central Spain to southern England. Applying forensic and archaeothanatological techniques to the excavated evidence, the researchers will reconstruct the reopening practices in detail, exploring their methods and motives as a source for past understandings of such fundamental concepts as death, the body, and ownership. Tracing the spatial and chronological development of the customs, the project will ask how their recognition changes our picture of the societies of the period.
It is frequently the case that human remains which have been buried in graves are not left to ‘rest in peace’ eternally. There are a wide range of documented historical and ethnographical reasons and circumstances for the reopening of... more
It is frequently the case that human remains which have been buried in graves are not left to ‘rest in peace’ eternally. There are a wide range of documented historical and ethnographical reasons and circumstances for the reopening of graves. For example, graves have been reopened as part of funerary rituals, for the removal of grave goods or body parts for symbolic reasons, as part of ancestral rites, or simply in order to be ‘robbed’ for materialistic reasons.
Understanding the reasons behind the reopening is often limited by a lack of understanding of the archaeological record. The methodological object of my post-doc project is to develop a new taphonomy-based method for the archaeological analysis of reopened graves. In this paper I will present preliminary results of the project, focusing on the results of my fieldwork on a reopened early Bronze Age inhumation grave in Austria. A bundle of methods has been applied, including archaeothanathology, single finds recording, soil analysis (micromorphology). The suitability of the applied methods for understanding the formation and the reopening of the grave will be discussed.
Understanding the reasons behind the reopening is often limited by a lack of understanding of the archaeological record. The methodological object of my post-doc project is to develop a new taphonomy-based method for the archaeological analysis of reopened graves. In this paper I will present preliminary results of the project, focusing on the results of my fieldwork on a reopened early Bronze Age inhumation grave in Austria. A bundle of methods has been applied, including archaeothanathology, single finds recording, soil analysis (micromorphology). The suitability of the applied methods for understanding the formation and the reopening of the grave will be discussed.
The annual report of the Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology (OREA) includes short descriptions of the research groups' work during the year 2017. These scientific activities cover a wide range from Paleolithic to Late Bronze... more
The annual report of the Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology (OREA) includes short descriptions of the research groups' work during the year 2017. These scientific activities cover a wide range from Paleolithic to Late Bronze Age and early historical periods from the Middle East and Mediterranean to the Balkans and central Europe. The results from various field works and scientific analyses are summarized, a list of all publications at the end are providing the reader with further literature. The main research activities and initiatives of the OREA institute are presented including an overview map with all projects and a more detail description of the OREA research activities in Austria. The newly founded raw material lab is described as well as the various archives and their sources. The institutes’ journals and publication series appeared in 2017 are presented as well.
Research Interests:
Rezension zu: J. Rasmus Brandt / Marina Prusac / Håkon Roland (Hrsg.), Death and Changing Rituals. Function and Meaning in Ancient Funerary Practices. Studies in Funerary Archaeology Band 7. Oxbow Books, Oxford 2015. ISBN... more
Rezension zu: J. Rasmus Brandt / Marina Prusac / Håkon Roland (Hrsg.), Death and Changing Rituals. Function and Meaning in Ancient Funerary Practices. Studies in Funerary Archaeology Band 7. Oxbow Books, Oxford 2015. ISBN 978-1-78297-639-4. 320 Seiten, s/w- und Farbabbildungen
http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:16-ger-659643
http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:16-ger-659643
Research Interests:
Depuis l'Angleterre jusqu'à la Transylvannie, de nombreuses sépultures alto-médiévales ont fait l'objet d'une perturbation anthropique, conduisant au prélèvement et à la fragmentation des objets et des ossements. Le phénomène,... more
Depuis l'Angleterre jusqu'à la Transylvannie, de nombreuses sépultures alto-médiévales ont fait l'objet d'une perturbation anthropique, conduisant au prélèvement et à la fragmentation des objets et des ossements. Le phénomène, habituellement désigné sous le terme de « pillage », a longtemps été considéré comme un obstacle à la recherche. De récents projets, conduits par les membres du GRR et s'appuyant sur de nouvelles méthodologies d'études, ont montré que la réouverture des sépultures constitue en réalité une véritable source d'informations sur la société du haut Moyen Âge. Des études régionales ont été menées en Angleterre (Klevnäs), aux Pays-Bas (van Haperen), en Allemagne (Zintl), en Autriche (Aspöck) et en France (Noterman). Aujourd'hui, les chercheurs s'appliquent à réunir leurs travaux pour créer une base de données qui permettrait d'étudier, à l'échelle européenne, l'étendue, la chronologie et la nature de ce phénomène.