Cremation Identification.

I have just read a paper concerning cremation on the Island of Teouma in Vanuatu. It is primarily about methods used for identification of cremation and I decided to read it because it seemed to fit the theme of today's class readings. Up until this point (2009) there had been no contemporary findings of cremated remains. Every other incident of human remains was a variation of inhumation. While they talked about cannibalism (my original search term), there are no mentions of it's contemporary presence in this paper. Interestingly, almost every body found in this area at this time (2850 bc) is without a skull. This, I would say, is a rather strong indication of interesting head removal.

The methods they used are too detailed and not interesting enough to put here entirely. Thus, I shall do it in a short fashion. The first set of evidence they pursued was that of macroscopic alteration. They looked for wear marks from either anthropogenic (cannibalism was their main suspect in this regard) or animal sources. In this regard, they only found evidence of animal gnawing. This they found in limited quantities on bones that were most likely to have meat remaining after burning. It was in a limited fashion, indicating that the post burning bones were only left to the animals a short time before being placed in the cemetery. They suggest that it was during the cooling period that they were gnawed upon, though without any conviction. The second piece of evidence they draw attention to is the colouration of the bones. This is more important information, as the colour of the bones is determined, in a predictable manner, by the temperature, age, and preparation of the bones. The third piece of evidence is in the same vein, that of heat relate and cracks. Both of these come to the same conclusion. The bones were burned while they still had flesh on them and, rather obviously, before they were old and dried out (I know, you must be thinking "what about mummification?" but the obvious part is that mummified flesh does not protect bones quite so well as new flesh. Mummified flesh = dry and rich in lipids and other carbon sources.).

In the end, they conclude that the burial is a unique occurrence of cremation in this area for this time. They make it seem as though there are other cremations when they are discussing reasons for there being a cremation but I am inclined to think they are just being ambiguous with the timelines. They are rather adamant about there being no contemporaneous cremations. The colours and conditions of the bones indicate that they were not butchered or burned in an accidental fire. As they were located in the cemetery for friendly people, it is likely that the person of interest (a.k.a. the bone fragments) was not a cannibalized or otherwise mistreated enemy. Where they err in their conclusion is in regard to the head of the corpse. In this case they use absence of evidence as evidence of absence. There were no remains of the skull in the burial and they attribute this to head removal. While this is likely the case, considering the friendly location and very common practices, they don't have much evidence for it being so. As some portions of the skull often survive cremation processes (supra orbital torus, etc.) they imply that the fragments should be present in the sample, even though many things can happen to a few pieces of burnt bone over 5000 years that render it invisible to the archaeological record. This is the main area in which they don't do a very good job. Otherwise, their methodology seems sound and their area of interest interesting. Future work of these authors, the ones that can spell "colour" at least, is likely worth having a bit of a read over.

Reference:
Identification of the first reported Lapita cremation in the Pacific Islands using archaeological, forensic and contemporary burning evidenceJournal of Archaeological Science , v.37 (5) , p.901 , 2010 , Scott R. et al.