Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T18:33:49.496Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Anna J. Osterholtz, Kathryn M. Baustian and Debra L. Martin eds. Commingled and Disarticulated Human Remains: Working Toward Improved Theory, Method, and Data (New York, Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London: Springer, 2014, xvi+285pp., 60 figs., 46 tables, hbk, ISBN 978-1-4614-7559-6)

Review products

Anna J. Osterholtz, Kathryn M. Baustian and Debra L. Martin eds. Commingled and Disarticulated Human Remains: Working Toward Improved Theory, Method, and Data (New York, Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London: Springer, 2014, xvi+285pp., 60 figs., 46 tables, hbk, ISBN 978-1-4614-7559-6)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Vera Tiesler*
Affiliation:
Autonomous University of Yucatan, Mérida, Mexico

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Reviews
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 the European Association of Archaeologists 

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

Adams, B. & Byrd, J.E. eds. 2008. Recovery, Analysis, and Identification of Commingled Human Remains. Totowa, NY: Humana Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, L.A. ed. 1995. Regional Approaches to Mortuary Analysis. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boddington, A., Garland, A.N. & Janaway, R.C. 1987. Death, Decay and Reconstruction: Approaches to Archaeology and Forensic Science. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Carr, C. 1995. Mortuary Practices: Their Social, Philosophical–Religious, Circumstantial, and Physical Determinants. Journal of Anthropological Method and Theory, 2 (2): 105200.Google Scholar
Duday, H. 2009. The Archaeology of the Dead: Lectures in Archaeothanatology. Oxford: Oxbow.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, W.N. 2005. Understanding Veneration and Violation of the Archaeological Record. In: Rakita, G.F.M., Buikstra, J.E., Beck, L.A. & Williams, S.R., eds. Interacting with the Dead: Perspectives on Mortuary Archaeology for the New Millennium. Gainesville: University of Florida, pp. 207–27.Google Scholar
Gowland, R. & Knüsel, C. eds. 2006. Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Haglund, W.D. & Sorg, M.H. eds. 1997. Forensic Taphonomy: The Postmortem Fate of Human Remains. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Haglund, W.D. & Sorg, M.H. eds. 2002. Advances in Forensic Taphonomy: Method, Theory, and Archaeological Perspective. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Micozzi, M.S. 1991. Postmortem Change in Human and Animal Remains: A Systematic Approach. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
Murphy, E.M. ed. 2008. Deviant Burial in the Archaeological Record. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Parker Pearson, M. 2000. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. College Station: Texas A&M University.Google Scholar
Tiesler, V. 2007. Funerary or Nonfunerary? New References in Identifying Ancient Maya Sacrificial and Postsacrificial Behaviors from Human Assemblages. In: Tiesler, V. & Cucina, A., eds. New Perspectives on Human Sacrifice and Ritual Body Treatments in Ancient Maya Society. New York: Springer, pp. 1445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss-Krejci, E. 2001. Restless Corpses: ‘Secondary Burial' in the Babenberg and Habsburg Dynasties. Antiquity, 75: 769–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar