You are on page 1of 11


Patterns of Mortuary Practice Associated
with Genocide
Implications for Archaeological Research
Debra Komar
Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico,
MSC01 1040, Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001, U.S.A. ( 10 IX 07

Forensic investigations of genocide address many of the same
research questions raised by bioarchaeologists, but the express
application of mortuary study theory to international warcrimes investigations has not been reported, nor have modern
examples served as the basis for reexamining mass death in
the archaeological record. Data drawn from single, multiple,
and mass graves in Bosnia and Iraq illustrate the behavioral
processes associated with mass death resulting from genocide.
Strong associations are evident between burial agent and differential mortuary practices. Considerate interments are seen
exclusively in burials executed by friendly forces (“self ”),
while erratic commingling and mass interments result solely
from the agency of enemy forces (“other”). Patterns of mortuary practice are sufficiently distinct as to identify agent of
burial when the details of grave creation are unknown. These
findings allow the reinterpretation of two mass interments in
the archaeological record with evidence of interpersonal violence—the Towton battlefield grave and the Crow Creek
massacre site.
There is no inherent reason to believe that the archaeological evidence of mortuary practices is telling us only
about the activities surrounding death.
—D. K. Charles

The participation of anthropologists and archaeologists in
large-scale international human rights violation investigations
has increased dramatically over the past decade (Komar 2003;
Steadman and Haglund 2005). Although these investigations
are driven by the legal requirements inherent in all forensic
casework, the reexamination of these events in light of specific
research questions offers significant potential. Comparisons
of mass death events in different geographic regions and time
periods also provide unique insights into the disturbing practice of genocide. Of greater anthropological significance is that
such studies serve as a model for interpreting evidence of
interpersonal violence in the archaeological record.
All genocides in recent history have occurred in the midst
䉷 2008 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research.
All rights reserved. 0011-3204/2008/4901-0006$10.00. DOI: 10.1086/

of war, not as its cause or consequence but because war suspends the rule of law (Hatzfeld 2005). Both legal and archaeological investigations of conflict must differentiate genocide from other forms of violence. Distinguishing genocide
from conflicts such as civil war requires that three elements
be demonstrated: (l) the physical element, acts of genocide,
(2) the victim identity element, in which victims constitute
an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group, and (3) the
mental element, indicating the intent of the perpetrators to
destroy the targeted group wholly or in part (Williams et al.
While the legal definition of genocide may be recent
(United Nations 1948), the practice is not. Distinguishing
genocide in the archaeological record from warfare, witchcraft, sacrifice, cannibalism, and ritual killing requires evidence of the assailants’ intent. Demonstrating intent in court
relies on action, patterns of action, and implied intent (written
or spoken communication revealing the perpetrator’s state of
mind). Archaeological interpretation requires similar evidence. Further confounding interpretation is the level of social
organization at which such conflicts arise. Whereas aggression
between nations or racial groups may be discernible in the
archaeological record through measures of biological distance
and spatial analyses (Kuwait National Committee 2004; Saller
1962; Willey 1982, 1990), identifying conflict based on religious ideology or ethnicity proves more difficult.
One promising avenue of inquiry may be mortuary practices associated with genocide. Differential treatment or deposition of remains reflects the beliefs and attitudes of the
agents involved. The concepts of veneration and violation and
the systems of space, time, and inhumation analysis currently
employed by mortuary archaeologists provide a valuable
framework for interpreting modern examples of mass death.
Although forensic anthropologists and bioarchaeologists address many of the same research questions, the express application of mortuary-study principles to current investigations of genocide has not been previously attempted. Lovis
(1992) argued for the acceptance of forensic archaeology as
mortuary anthropology but offered no specific examples to
illustrate the point.
The merging of forensic anthropology and mortuary studies provides clear benefits to both disciplines. On the one
hand, the application of bioarchaeological principles to forensic investigations provides systems of analysis that go beyond simple evidence description and allow for interpretation
of the social meaning reflected in conflict-associated mortuary
practices. On the other hand, examples drawn from recent
genocide investigations illustrate patterns of mortuary behavior associated with ethnic conflict that may inform studies
of interpersonal violence in the more distant past.
This study addresses the following questions: Are patterns
of conflict-related mortuary practice associated with the agent
of burial? and If so, can the agent of burial be identified in
the archaeological record? To answer these questions, it ex-

My job responsibilities included excavation and documentation of graves. the MNI was calculated using duplication of skeletal elements and should be considered a conservative estimate. Materials and Methods Information was gathered from reports and field notes associated with my work as a forensic anthropologist with Physicians for Human Rights in Bosnia in 1999. Both examples represent conflict among ethnic groups within a single nation and legally defined acts of genocide. and the Regime Crimes Liaison Office (a joint venture of the Iraqi Special Tribunal and the U. blindfolds. (b) grave depth and MNI (p ! 0. These interviews were conducted with the assistance of highly trained interpreters. (2) other or enemy (different ethnic group or opposing armed forces).001). and (c) body position and MNI (p ! 0. Only other agents used natural or preexisting features as depositional sites. and Van Arsdale (2005). excluding surface deposits. Agent of burial was determined from statements by those who performed or witnessed the burial. grave location (urban. relative. Results The total number of individuals included in the study was 1. All references to witness statements in this study describe interviews conducted with eyewitnesses or participants. Agents of burial included 83 self. with significance determined by p values ! 0. Ousley. skeletal analysis. presence/absence of evidence of burning.g. witness statements not corroborated by physical evidence or other witnesses were considered unreliable and excluded. evidence collection. presence/absence of binding. Categories of burial agents were defined as (1) self or friend (same ethnic group..S. Only graves with known agents of burial were included. Data were included only from those graves in which I participated in the exhumation. Grave depths varied from ! 10 cm to 1 4 m. minimum number of individuals (MNI) recovered from the grave.4%). sex and age distributions of the decedents. February 2008 amines the treatment of the dead resulting from the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia (1992–95) and the Anfal campaign targeting Kurdish civilians in Iraq in 1987. or associated army). grave depth. Two graves in Iraq were not fully excavated because of safety concerns. use of natural or preexisting feature). method of grave construction (manual. The results for the 119 graves examined are summarized in table 2. cremations. and (3) neutral (third party foreign organization or agency such as the Red Cross). military investigation resulted in the disturbance of a number of individuals who were not included in the study. presence/absence of a coffin. and other forms of body deposition.189. Only 17 of the 119 graves were marked. Tests for associations among variables (table 3) revealed statistical significance in the relationships between (a) grave depth and mode of construction (p ! 0. This number reflects not the total number of individuals associated with each grave but only those recovered. and mass graves. The largest of these graves had an MNI of 460 individuals. for 340 individuals in 9 graves. Analysis of the recovered remains occurred at separate times and locations and. Single and multiple/mass graves contained individuals deposited in nontraditional postures (e. . the International Commission on Missing Persons in Bosnia in 2001. prone or with erratic placement of limbs). and 3 neutral. multiple. agent of burial. All variables were coded and entered into an Excel database. Department of Justice) in Iraq in 2004. or gags.124 Current Anthropology Volume 49. was conducted by other anthropologists. and the interviewing of witnesses. Significant associations were also found between agent of Table 1. including members of both the victim and perpetrator groups. consistent with purposeful burning but not cremation. Demographic information on the decedents is included where available.001). Pit-testing of one Iraqi grave (NWA2) prior to excavation by a U. Number 1. cemetery). including 15 single graves and 6 multiple graves. presence/absence of a grave marker. Tests for association were conducted using chi-square analyses. mechanical. 33 other. was noted in 10 individuals (8.001). Coffins were present in 21 graves. In cases involving large secondary graves from Bosnia. body position in the grave. This study focuses on single. rural. Summary of Decedent Demographics by Country and Grave Type Site/Grave Type Bosnia Single (n p 69) Multiple (n p 45) Mass (n p 5) Iraqa NWA2 NWA9 a MNI Males Females Sex Unknown Adults Subadults Age Unknown 69 193 667 57 141 568 12 36 12 0 16 87 61 177 580 0 4 10 8 12 76 164 96 0 63 27 0 137 33 27 64 96 0 41 32 Final MNI reported in Chomko.S.05. The largest number of individuals with coffins in a single interment was 9. and primary versus secondary deposition. A breakdown of decedent demographics for each grave type is provided in table l. presence/absence of clothing or body covering. Evidence of perimortem thermal change. The database was then analyzed using the SAS computing program. Information on the following variables was collected: site identification. Further.

Secondary graves containing surface remains collected by returning refugees. with only minimal. unintentional commingling of elements. of a national. employ euphemisms to mask deeds. undergo moral restructuring.6 74 8 0 10 20 3 3 0 0 ! 0.85 61 22 26 7 3 0 0. b 10⫹ individuals. or religious group (United Nations 1948). This describes motive rather than intent. blindfolds Present Absent Evidence of burning Present Absent Agent of burial Self/friend Other/foe Neutral party Percentage 119 69 45 5 58 38 4 90 29 76 24 15 84 20 12. social status. the Nazi targeting of Jews was legally genocide. MNI. anthropological notions of genocide focus on motivation and behavior.001 19 64 0 33 2 1 ! 0. Summary of Results Number of Graves Total number of graves Single Multiplea Massb Grave type Primary Secondary Spatial distribution Urban Rural Cemetery Grave construction Manual Mechanical Natural feature Undetermined Grave marking Marked Unmarked Body position (single) Supine Prone Side/erratic Body position (multiple/mass) Orderly placement Erratic commingling Erratic deposition of parts Body covering Clothing Nude Blanket. In the anthropological literature. plastic Coffins Present Absent Binding. Discussion Legal and anthropological definitions of genocide differ.001 0 83 17 16 0 3 ! 0. Lewin (1993) describes generalized genocidal behavior Table 3. grave construction. presence of grave marking. and deny responsibility for action.5 70. gags. rug. “Motive” is the personal justification for an act. evidence of burning. and body position.001 n p 118 (construction of one grave undetermined). presence of clothing/body cover. ethnic. racial. in whole or in part. gender.125 Table 2. burial and presence of coffin.001 0 83 10 23 0 3 ! 0.001 14 69 0 33 3 0 ! 0. Hinton (1996. To fully appreciate the distinction between legal and anthropological concepts of genocide. Violence motivated by differences in ideology. enabling the assailant to dehumanize victims.5 17 102 14 86 61 6 2 88 9 3 19 17 14 38 34 28 68 8 43 57 7 36 21 98 18 82 17 102 14 86 10 109 8 92 83 33 3 70 28 2 a 2 to 9 individuals. Associations between Grave Variables and Agents of Burial (119 Graves) Variable Grave location Rural Urban Cemetery Grave type Primary Secondary Constructiona Manual Mechanical Existing feature Grave marking Present Absent Coffins Present Absent MNI 1 2–9 10 ⫹ Body position Orderly Erratic Clothing/covers Clothing Naked Covering Bindings Present Absent Burning Present Absent a Self Other Neutral Party p 61 9 13 23 5 5 0 1 2 0. presence of binding.5 3 0.5 17 87 28 3 1 73 23. while the simultaneous campaign against homosexuals was not. Legally.001 80 3b 0 33 3 0 ! 0. political party. genocide is defined as the destruction. or age does not constitute genocide. In contrast. while “intent” is the mental resolve to commit the act (Garner 2001).001 42 0 41 25 8 0 1 2 0 ! 0.01 59 24 0 10 18 5 0 3 0 ! 0. 824) describes a “genocidal self ” that emerges during times of conflict. No significant associations were seen between agent of burial and primary and secondary graves or grave location. become acclimatized to killing. b . an understanding of the legal definitions of “motive” and “intent” is vital. For example.

other. investigators were directed to the graves by informants who claimed responsibility for creating them or witnessed their creation. the definition of “agent of burial” includes the specific recognition of the role of ethnicity in effecting such change. but. Silber and Little 1997). in the wake of the NATO bombing campaign of 1999. For example. 699). whose motivation may be inferred but whose intent cannot be known. Lightfoot. a stance not easily understood by outside observers (Boskovic 2005. For example. transport. The term “clandestine” is used to describe unmarked interments whose purpose was to destroy or obscure evidence. and cultural practices makes the distinction one of ethnicity rather than religion. e. was necessary because it was associated with distinctive mortuary practices. Therefore. the number of individuals in a grave ranged from 1 to 9 and from 28 to 460. In addition to the categories of self and other. e. While concepts of identity traditionally associated with conflict (such as friend and foe or victim and assailant) can be employed in these circumstances. Choice of grave location appeared to be a by-product of where the deaths occurred. Anthropologists have even attributed “genocidal” behavior to chimpanzees (Lund 1995). “self ” and “other” follow Talbot (1995). it would be inaccurate to describe any of them as religiously uniform. 296) argues that genocide “necessitates a continual conceptualization of self and other. MNI. Other-created secondary graves also included the burial of surface-deposited remains for aesthetic or hygienic reasons in areas slated to be repopulated by the perpetrators. Determination of the burial agent was made on the basis of witness statements from direct participants.. the ethnic basis of the conflict also requires notions of “self ” and “other. Depending on the circumstances. Intergroup variation in language. Othercreated secondary graves were a means of evading detection by international investigators. A study defining grave types in terms of taphonomic variables found statistically significant differences in decay rates and grave dynamics among single. 41). or construction. Despite the disarticulated or decomposed nature of the remains. Widespread agreement on what constitutes a mass grave has not been reached. Other researchers recognize only the distinction between single and multiple graves (Vanezis 1999). As defined here. Agency has been defined as the “socioculturally mediated but individually motivated capacity to act purposefully in such a way as to create archaeologically discernible change in prevailing modes of mortuary practice” (Cannon 2005. the Catholic Croats. and the Serbian Orthodox Serbs. Hinton (1996. Number 1. the conflict in the Balkans involved three distinct ethnicities: the Bosniak Muslims. 360). it remains vital to forensic investigators. belief systems. Similarly. Malcolm 1996. The Balkans and Iraqi conflicts described in this paper took place between ethnic groups within nations. While each group features a predominant religion. and mass (6 or more individuals) graves (Komar 2001). The exhumation. Secondary graves represented the subsequent interment of surface-deposited remains following decomposition. and therefore the categories were single. This resulted in extensive disarticulation and the erratic commingling of body parts in the secondary grave. based on exclusion from membership in any of the ethnic groups identified.126 rather than specific acts. a third category. the term is inappropriate for this study. For the purposes of this study. and mass (10⫹ individuals).8). but chi-square analysis of grave type and location proved me wrong about this (p p 0. but clearly identifying opposing forces in the conflict has been problematic. This was done by self. While the distinction may appear inconsequential to anthropologists or archaeologists. neutral party.g. Rohde 1998. Harris (1989. Lewin (1993. February 2008 action among groups includes recognition of self (those of similar ethnicity) and other (those of differing ethnicity). the Serbs have been vilified as the perpetrators of atrocities. a large secondary grave in Bosnia resulted from the mass transfer of bodies from another location by Serbian forces.” However. grave depth. Harris 1989). . and Martin 2000) indicates graves without markings or coffins that were intended to inter rather than to hide the decedents. any individual’s definition of “foe” might include either or both opposing ethnic groups. because “kind” does not differentiate opposing forces or those divided by aggression or conflict. multiple (2 to 9 individuals). Croats have been perceived as both victims of Serb aggression in 1991 and assailants in the Bosnian conflict in 1993 (Boskovic 2005). and Boskovic (2005) in incorporating notions of ethnic-group boundaries formed by the exclusion of others and the development of internal criteria for solidarity (Talbot 1995. Observation had led me to hypothesize that clandestine mass graves would be located predominantly in rural areas.g. and reinterment of the decedents were carried out with heavy machinery such as backhoes and dump trucks. 604) suggests that the terms “kind” or “social kind” can be used to describe groups established by ethnic divisions or “those summative social identities by means of which members of the society group together and label clusters of social properties. while “nonformal” (after Kuckelman. No statistically significant associations existed between grave location and agent of burial. motive becomes immaterial (Garner 2001. Self-created secondary graves involved the burial of surface remains or reburial of next-of-kin originally interred in other locations. The complex relationship among the ethnic groups in the former Yugoslavia has been examined elsewhere (see. and neutral agents as individuals returned to repopulate previously abandoned areas and sought to dispose of the dead who had been left where they had fallen. 821). the level of distinction that best reflects the inter- Current Anthropology Volume 49.” For example. 9). In this study. many Serbs also identify themselves as victims. When criminal intent exists.. This distinction was incorporated into the definition of “agent of burial” in this study. multiple (2 to 5 individuals).” This differentiates the use of “self ” and “other” in genocidal contexts from their traditional anthropological use (see. they involved purposeful arrangement of remains or attempts to maintain the integrity of individuals.

deep graves with a minimal expenditure of human energy. the formation of large mass graves by the other was both labor-intensive and time-consuming. Postmortem acts of violation are typically reserved for those who die a “bad death. and to the sides of the individual being interred. Without exception. as all graves included from that region were other-created. Implications for Archaeology Stylistic Variation and Access to Resources One important consideration for archaeologists raised by these results concerns the interpretation of contemporaneous graves. However. clothing. Witness statements indicated that the motive for such exercises was evidence destruction or concern for the safety and aesthetic well-being of the living. In the 21 graves there with coffins present. below. Acts of violation in this study were identified as clandestine burial. such as the traditional Muslim head and foot grave markers commonly used in Bosnia. presence of binding. my interviews revealed that the inclusion of pig carcasses in mass graves containing Muslim decedents in Bosnia was considered an act of disrespect by the surviving next-of-kin and intended as an act of disrespect by the perpetrators. Despite their clandestine nature. While acts of veneration may be limited by access to resources. Mechanical construction is associated with the use of heavy earth-moving equipment. 2) was seen only in other-created burials. the coffins consisted of boards placed above. “We did the best we could with what we had—no wood. in Bosnia wood to fabricate coffins and the tools needed to construct them were scarce. Kuckelman. bodies were placed supine with purposeful arrangement of the extremities. Large mass graves often encompassed numerous isolated killings and sometimes represented events occurring over a period of time. burning of remains. In contrast. The allusion to “bodies as refuse” is appropriate. all are contemporaneous within their respective geographic regions. or body covering. no shovels. and orderly position of the body within the grave. acts of veneration include presence of a grave marker. Despite the lack of available resources. no electricity. bodies were treated with care and afforded the best burial the circumstances allowed. The graves described here range from single marked graves with coffins to mass clandestine inhumations. use of natural or preexisting features such as fissures. acts of veneration reflected the time. other-produced graves were best described as body disposal. and erratic commingling of individuals in the grave. Mechanical modes of construction result in larger graves capable of containing larger numbers of individuals. all acts of veneration were associated with self. as erratic commingling is strong evidence of disrespect and violation. manpower. such that all individuals were afforded sufficient space. Veneration honors the memory of the deceased. Despite evidence of mechanical construction indicating the availability of resources and manpower. Increased grave depth is strongly tied to mechanical modes of construction. One of the challenges facing archaeologists working in historic or prehistoric contexts is the ability to recognize varying grave types as contemporaneous and associated with a specific . number of individuals. including continuing warfare and concerns for the safety of those performing the interments. and all heads were oriented in a single direction. Orderly placement of single or multiple bodies within a grave (fig. Given the circumstances surrounding the burials. and resources available. body position in a grave reflects the attitudes and intent of those performing the interment.or neutral-created burials. Anthropologists must take note of local standards when analyzing.127 The relationship of grave depth. However. No acts of veneration were observed in Iraq. while violation denies the dead a resting place (Duncan 2005). Acts of veneration performed by neutral parties lacked indicators of religious significance. erratic commingling (fig. While any grave may represent a single attack. acts of veneration and violation are culturally and contextually specific and this study in no way adopts a uniformitarian approach. Orderly placement was found only in self-created burials. Without exception. represented respect and reverence for the deceased. interpreting. all acts of violation occurred in other-created burials. Despite the variety of grave types and styles. Lightfoot. absence of coffins. they are all associated with a series of events that collectively constitute an act of genocide. and Martin (2000) use the term “considerate treatment” to describe such respectful acts. or trenches as sites of body deposition. in which bodies were thrown into the grave or deposited en masse from dump trucks. In this study. For example. or labeling conduct or actions (see Harris 1989). in other temporal or regional circumstances. such as backhoes or excavators. caves. The acts described as veneration (respect) or violation (disrespect) here reflect the understanding of the communities in which they occurred. the absence of any indicator of veneration (such as a grave marker) reflected a limitation of resources or time rather than indifference to the decedents or their social status. and mode of construction is easily understood. gags or blindfolds. According to statements by those who performed the burials. the inclusion of animals in the grave may be honorific. For example. That such graves were often constructed near or within urban centers using heavy equipment suggests that the perpetrators had little fear of discovery or punishment from opposing ethnic groups. capable of creating large. presence of a coffin or additional body covering. The postmortem burning of remains reflected not an attempt at cremation but the purposeful destruction of evidence and was typically associated with the burning of houses and villages following the killing of the occupants. Duncan 2005).” according to one Bosniak survivor who had hastily buried three of his family members. the enemy was always on us.” including violence or death in battle (Bloch and Parry 1982. 1).

dates on money or newspapers. reliance on artifacts and material culture to establish temporal horizons is a well-established practice in archaeology. three highranking soldiers and a local civilian. According to witness statements by the man responsible for the burial. Many researchers use variation in grave type. grave fashion and construction are tied to access to resources (specifically materials. they date to approximately AD 950–1300 (Darling 1999). more than 30 mass inhumations have been reported in the American Southwest. Hatzfeld 2005). and (e) the forcible transfer of children (United Nations 1948). the site of Detlak in Bosnia (described in Komar 1999) contained the remains of four individuals. In Rwanda. Archaeologists should not rely on the presence of any one feature—large-scale inhumations. rather. and material culture such as clothing or jewelry styles to date the creation of the grave. In periods of warfare. Theoretically. trauma. It is also important to note the full range of acts that constitute genocide: (a) killing. Miller 1982. Evidence of interpersonal vi- . following which the power had been turned off and the remaining bodies were interred in makeshift containers made of wood scraps. Scale Another consideration for archaeologists is scale. manpower. predominantly with machetes (Gourevitch 1998. A grave containing seven Bosniak Muslims excavated in Foca in 1999.g. which was carried out by self (fellow Bosniaks). investigators rely on artifacts such as expiration dates on medicine or food packaging.128 Current Anthropology Volume 49. who had intended to treat all four the same. Mass graves occur throughout the archaeological record in a variety of geographic locations. Number 1. typically classified as Anasazi. (d) preventing births.) event. This study demonstrates that varying expressions of fashion or construction in contemporaneous graves is reflective of more than differences in social status. it reflected the variable nature of the resources available to the individual burying the four individuals. (b) causing serious bodily harm. fashion. or social unrest. or clandestine burials—to identify genocide but rather focus on evidence of the intent producing such features. The scale of recent atrocities is neither temporally bound nor reflective of modern advances in weaponry and technology. The issue was not one of scale or weapons capability but intent. showing the orderly placement of the individuals within the burial. In the legal definition of genocide. it is not the number of individuals killed that defines genocide but the intent of those committing the act. e. Once identified. Bosnia. While the application of some of these methods to archaeological contexts is limited. For example. the first body (a soldier) was interred in a full coffin. or construction as evidence of social stratification or cultural distance (see. For example. potential interpretations of such events must include genocide. The seemingly preferential treatment of the one soldier was not reflective of his rank. each act is recognizable in the archaeological record. Cannon 2005. February 2008 Figure 1. conflict.000 Tutsis by Hutu extremists known as the Interahamwe was conducted in 100 days during the spring of 1994. Sproles 1985). time-since-death estimates. the ethnically motivated genocide of approximately 800.. (Photo used by permission of the Office of the High Representative. witness statements. and time) and agent of burial rather than the social status of the deceased. (c) deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about destruction. In forensic contexts.

Turner and Turner 1999). Traumatic injury and the presence of ligatures or binding have been cited as evidence of cannibalism (Billman. Lambert. An example of erratic commingling.129 Figure 2. the Yorkist army emerged victorious (Fiorato 2000). 818). 1461. (Photo used by permission of the Office of the High Representative. social control (Baker 1994. It contained either 37 or 38 individuals (Boylston.) olence is also common in prehistory.25 m # 2 m with a maximum depth of 0. The grave was created by Serbian forces at the base of a cliff. and Coughlan 2000. In this decisive engagement between the houses of York and Lancaster. nongenocidal contexts” (Hinton 1996.000 combatants and 28. Bosnia. the battle is said to have involved 76. yet “anthropology has been remarkably silent on the topic of large-scale genocide. Described as one of the largest and bloodiest of the War of the Roses. Holst. Two sites—the Towton battlefield in England and the Crow Creek massacre site in South Dakota—will serve to illustrate this. Bosnia. A total of 28 individuals were removed from this clandestine grave in Petrovicka Krivina. Witness statements indicate that bodies were thrown from the top of the cliff and then covered with soil. Fiorato 2000). Identifying the Agent of Burial The discovery that patterns of mortuary practice in these cases are strongly associated with agent of burial allows the deter- mination of agency where the details of grave creation are unknown. England. Towton is a village in North Yorkshire. To date. and witchcraft (Darling 1999). in 1999. The remains were erratically commingled. an omission that is particularly striking because anthropologists have demonstrated the ability to productively explain the roots of violence in other. LeBlanc 1999). an express interpretation of genocide has yet to be advanced. mutilation associated with warfare (Bullock 1991).000 casualties (Knusel and Boylston 2006). with individuals deposited prone and .65 m. in which a battle occurred on March 29. In July 1996 a mass grave was discovered on the reported battlefield. Verano 2001). and Leonard 2000. The rectangular grave measured 3. ritual sacrifice (Cordy-Collins 2001.

east-west. Willey believed that returning villagers or “otherwise affiliated people” (1982. The bodies had been deposited in an open fortification ditch and covered with a layer of clay and village midden. exposing the surface-deposited remains to weather and scavengers. and the disfigurement of the corpses and the absence of consistent east-west body orientation deviate from the symbolic religious and social norms of the period. “one might assume even less respect” (p. A layer of scattered bones was discovered above the principal bone bed. despite the presence of a nearby chapel. Evidence to support this interpretation includes erratic commingling of individuals.000 individuals at the Ntarama Church contain collections of osteological remains representing hundreds or thousands of decedents. This contradicts Willey’s (1990) contention that sys- . were made without any advanced knowledge of anatomy. Holst. had the bodies been buried by the enemy. 1981). standards of medico-legal death classification would identify the sharpor blunt-force trauma sustained by each individual as the cause and homicide as a consequence of warfare as the manner of death. Although prior studies have judged these burials self-created (Sutherland 2000) or of undetermined agency (Knusel and Boylston 2000). dating to approximately AD 1325. While a secondary burial with an MNI of 460 is included in the sample. and in these three cases attempts were made by the burial agent to separate the individuals: two graves involved multiple individuals placed in separate plastic shopping bags. The use (and possible repeated use) of an existing feature and the erratic commingling of the remains are consistent with the seven burials carried out by the other in Bosnia. The grave was not located on sacred ground. 1981). Prolonged delays in burial. and north-south (Sutherland 2000). That “morphologically alien” or “craniometrically aberrant” skulls were recovered from the grave was interpreted as either absence of the perpetrators’ remains at the site or their being morphologically indistinguishable from the victims’. Few artifacts were recovered. Preserved sites such as Nyamata and the massacre of over 5. the pattern is consistent with that of the other-produced graves of the present study. Zimmerman et al. only 3 involved any commingling of elements among multiple individuals. The assertion that there was “a single cause of death for all: warfare” (Larsen 1984) highlights another important distinction between anthropological and forensic interpretation. All were males between 15 and 60 years of age (Boylston. raising the possibility of raiders’ having taken young women captive (Willey 1990. Once the bones were deposited. Survivors returning to their villages collected the skeletonized remains of their kin and neighbors and deposited them in mass graves and ossuaries. Number 1. Although no ligatures were recovered. 1990). the deposits are organized by skeletal element with purposeful placement of long bones and the orderly arrangement of skulls. calculated to be 60% of the village population. Disarticulated remains were piled in the fortification ditch with no systematic effort to align elements. decapitation.) The use of the modern Bosnian sample as an analogy for Crow Creek. possibly a secondary deposit of bones found after the initial burial or the remnants of disturbance of the primary burial by scavengers (Willey 1990). Young adult females and old adult males were underrepresented among the victims. and the bodies appeared to have been stripped of clothing and armor prior to burial (Burgess 2000). All secondary deposits that were self-created contained fewer than 10 individuals. Willey 1982. 41) for the decedents. A more appropriate recent example may be the mortuary practices seen in Rwanda following the genocide in 1994. were excavated in 1978 (Willey 1990). 1990. and absence of coffins. indications of binding. 1981). Sutherland considers the erratic body positions as an attempt to reduce labor on the part of the burial detail and argues that. the fact that the bodies had their arms behind their backs has been interpreted as evidence of restraints (Sutherland 2000). Zimmerman et al. All these features argue strongly for other-creation of the burial. as well as bluntforce trauma to the head. clothing. is problematic. Extensive evidence of canid scavenging led Willey to speculate that the bodies had remained unburied for several weeks. Despite the number of individuals. Although subsequent osteological analysis indicated that skeletal elements were incorrectly assigned to several individuals.and blunt-force injuries. however. contained structures that had been burned and additional human remains (Zimmerman et al.and other-generated burials in Bosnia. Current Anthropology Volume 49. Scalping. 1990). The remains of at least 486 individuals. though sincere. were seen in both self. Knusel and Boylston (2000) contend that the significance of the burial treatment at Towton extends beyond body placement. Bones were accumulated against the north wall of the ditch. it represents an other-created burial. and Coughlan 2000) with evidence of multiple sharp. The associated village. while the third grave contained the skeletal elements of each individual bundled in clothing. Excavations at the Crow Creek Sioux Reservation in South Dakota revealed the remains of nearly 500 adult and subadult individuals. interviews with the burial agents revealed that these misallocated elements had been separated from the remains by scavengers and attempts to reassociate the remains. Zimmerman et al. (No secondary deposits were included in the sample from Iraq. 160) were responsible for the burial. and personal effects. Of the 22 secondary self-created graves in Bosnia. February 2008 was noted in 90% of the skulls in all age-cohorts and both sexes (Willey 1982. and no kin distinctions were made in the placement of the skulls (Willey 1982. grave markings. 1981). they were covered with a thin layer of clay. The possibility of other burial locations in the village has been raised (Kivett and Jensen 1979. Craniometric and discrete-trait analysis showed that the decedents were most closely related to Arikara (Willey 1982. and dismemberment. Comparison with the patterns observed in this study challenges this interpretation. 1990. Trauma and mutilations were evident in virtually all individuals.130 supine and with heads oriented west-east.

Distinguishing “self ” and “other”: Anthropology and national identity in former Yugoslavia. 50) argues that the use of the word “genocide” is a moral act: to employ the term is to condemn the murderer. begins with attributing acts to self or other. Bullock. B. 157).. the subsequent occupation of Crow Creek is relevant. in a court of law or in the archaeological record. Billman. Boylston. and C. where. In Blood red roses: The archaeology of a mass grave from the battle of Towton AD 1461. indications of social inequality among groups. Genocide is not a modern phenomenon. 2005. Introduction: Death and the regeneration of life. 1–44. 2000. Semujanga (2003. and the elderly among the victims. While Willey’s interpretation of the agent of burial cannot be refuted. Coughlan.. extensive evidence of perimortem violence and trauma. A. Even genocide is not universally taboo. we must first recognize when. The patterns revealed by these studies. A. R. conflict. Boylston. Conclusion Archaeological and forensic excavation strategies differ (Hoshower 1998). raiding. racial or religious identity. M. warfare. Bloch and J. References Cited Baker. he was merely the catalyst for its legal definition. Parry. but much common ground remains. Parry. S. on balance. capital punishment. suggesting that neither the victims nor the perpetrators occupied the village immediately after the raid. A reappraisal of Anasazi cannibalism.” Some of the most profound insights into human nature are revealed in our darkest deeds. been interpreted as genocide. American Antiquity 65: 146–78. self-defense) versus killing that violates social standards (such as murder) remain culturally and temporally specific. and mass death in the archaeological record has not. sociopolitical or religious stresses.131 tematic deposition within the Crow Creek grave was impossible because of the skeletal condition of the remains. Physical anthropology. A. Blue Mountain Shadows 13: 30–41. M. P. Oxford: Oxbow Books. to date. Cannibalism. Leonard. ed. While they do not suggest an interpretation of genocide. Studies of mortuary practices associated with modern conflict can illuminate the practices of the past. The accurate interpretation of violence requires differentiating acts of genocide from warfare and other forms of conflict. while failure to use it implies “killing done in legitimate defense. a fortress and a home ended” (Willey 1990. To understand why genocide occurs. friend or foe. 1991. to issues of ethnic. Boskovic. or witchcraft and building on hypotheses of conflict for the purposes of intimidation and social control. the patterns seen in this study suggest. 1982. Following the massacre. in which the decedent is named. In Death and the regeneration of life. Holst. Notions of socially acceptable forms of killing (e. they present evidence of an escalation of violence that had many of the hallmarks of modern genocide: geographic concentration of previously dispersed populations. linked to the agent of burial by the witness statements and photographic documentation available for contemporary examples. Lightfoot. Evidence of violence. including the eradication of villages. and to the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia for permitting publication of the photographs.D. as do legal and anthropological concepts of genocide and cause of death. traditional warfare. Lambert. Finally. and the inclusion of women. 1990]) or thereafter (Kivett and Jensen 1976).” Challenging prior interpretations of the violence as evidence of cannibalism. A. sacrifice. Human remains were left in some of the village lodges (Willey 1990. M. in their survey of changing patterns of violence in the Northern San Juan region between AD 900 and 1300. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. can help support the inferences about intent that are essential to interpreting evidence of violence in the archaeological record. and J. and drought in the Mesa Verde region during the twelfth century A. The question remains whether this reflects a true absence of genocide in prehistory or merely our inability to recognize it.. 160). L. and Martin (2000. the evidence argues for its inclusion as a potential explanation for the patterns of violence described. Bloch. large-scale attacks. 1994. 45–59. national. Utah. have argued that “the trends were probably the result of factors common across the region—such as environmental.. whose insightful comments greatly improved this paper. and B. This extends beyond forensic notions of personal or positive identification. the burial cannot be reasonably attributed to either group on this evidence alone. and how it occurs. Y. M. ed. “the functions of the village as a social unit. Kuckelman. As neither group appears to have inhabited the site during the period between massacre and burial (estimated from scavenger activity to be from weeks to months [Willey 1982. 160). Fiorato. Acknowledgments I am grateful to the anonymous reviewers of an early draft of this manuscript. 2000. and J. mass inhumations. . Hitler did not invent it. Knusel. V. children. that the Crow Creek burial was other-generated. Both anthropological and legal inquiries seek to understand violence and human behavior in the cultural context in which it occurs. because the secondary burials in this study were often created by returning inhabitants. Kiva 57:5–16. Anthropology Today 21:8–13.g. The question of cannibalism and violence in the Anasazi culture: A case study from San Juan Country. Burials in contemporary conflict regions are typically informal and often diverge from culturally prescribed practices because of a lack of resources or because the interments were performed by people with different cultures. P. Establishing evidence of genocide.

A. Komar. Cordy-Collins. Embassy. Comparative Studies in Society and History 37:692–722. M. B. and W. B. R. and C. Forensic archeology as mortuary anthropology. Sutherland. Rohde. Turner. Boylston. Book review: The Crow Creek Site (39BF11) massacre: A preliminary report. L. N. LeBlanc. Jense. Fiorato. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 207–27. Endgame: The betrayal and fall of Srebrenica. and S. Malcolm. Amherst. Prehistoric warfare in the American Southwest. Recording the grave. Human Evolution 10: 225–31. Oxford: Oxbow Books. L. 41–65. J. and R. G. In Blood red roses: The archaeology of a mass grave from the battle of Towton AD 1461. Boylston.1999. 2005. K. Ethos 21:295–318. L. Inscribing the Other. Cannon. M. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. 1–14. ed. Gender and agency in mortuary fashion. St. Mass inhumation and the execution of witches in the American Southwest. Larsen. J. Nebraska State Historical Society Publications in Anthropology 7. and J. Rakita. A. 1993. Silber. ed. Changing patterns of violence in the Northern San Juan region. S.O. Sproles.Y. Beck. Beck. Lund. Hinton. F. Hoshower. M. Steadman. C. Forensic investigations at two mass graves. M. D. W. ed. V. 2000. Harris. In Blood red roses: The archaeology of a mass grave from the battle of Towton AD 1461. 200. V. D. D. A. Knusel. A. Chomko. 1962. 2000. and C. Duncan.. 55–70. 29–35. inscribing the Self: Hindu-Muslim identities in pre-colonial India. ed. Boulder: Westview Press. 1999. ed. and A. Kiva 66:147–65. Kuwait City. 1998. F. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Garner. 2005. E. Lessons from Srebrenica: The contributions and limitations of physical anthropology in identifying victims of war crimes. Boylston. Solomon. vol. 1998. Saller. P. J. J. A. The excavation and finds. Buikstra. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.. Boylston. I. Negotiated selves in the Holocaust. N. Forensic archeology and the need for flexible excavation strategies: A case study. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 64:456–57. Semujanga. 2004. February 2008 eration Commission on Missing Persons—Bosniak Side. L. New York: Penguin Books. ed. D. 1976. L. New York: Farrar. R. V. 169–88. ———. Gourevitch.132 Burgess. A. P. Structures and strategies: An aspect of the relationship between social hierarchy and cultural change. 36–44. ed. 2003. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boston: Physicians for Human Rights. Paul: West Group. M. Fed- Current Anthropology Volume 49. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting. G. Differential decay rates in single. 242–43. Consultant report 1999–026. Knusel.. E. Knusel. D. Journal of Forensic Sciences 48:713–16. 2003. A. Die Ofnet-Funde in neuer Zusammensetzung. 1999. Prehuman genocide. The context of the discovery. 1998. and mass graves in Bosnia. Journal of Forensic Sciences 50:23–30. American Anthropologist 98:818–31. T. Martin. A. Behavioral sciences theories of fashion. 1989. Lexington: Lexington Books. Iraq. G. 1984. Cook. C. L. W. 1995. 2000. Concepts of individual. 1999. A. Understanding veneration and violation in the archaeological record. A. Boylston.W. Machete season: The killers in Rwanda speak. ed. 1997. ed. Doboj I. Agents of death: Explaining the Cambodian genocide in terms of psychosocial dissonance.. 2000. Rakita. Lovis. How has the Towton project contributed to our knowledge of medieval and later warfare? In Blood red roses: The archaeology of a mass grave from the battle of Towton AD 1461. Hodder. C. Miller. and S. Fiorato. 89–98. R. Knusel. S. K. J. In Interacting with the dead: Perspectives on mortuary archaeology for the new millennium. Darling. D. C. 1992. 2005. & P. Origins of Rwandan genocide.. E. Number 1. Fiorato. Williams. 2001. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 2001. 2005.S. and person in description and analysis. Journal of Forensic Sciences 43:531–58. In Symbolic structural archaeology. A. Fiorato. Yugoslavia: Death of a nation. Man Corn: Cannibalism .: Humanity Books. 1996. Social Science and Medicine 34:113–17. Williams. V. Fiorato. 1 996. New York: New York University Press. Decapitation in Cupisnique and early Moche societies. Lightfoot. G. 2001. R. 21–34. and C. M. 10–12 June 1999. Kuckelman. E. self. and C. C. Hatzfeld. Regime Crimes Liaison Office. R. Bosnia: A short history. A. Kuwait National Committee for M. G. U. S. Archeological investigations at the Crow Creek Site (39BF11). Oxford: Oxbow Books. A. G. Little. Benson and A.’s Affairs. Baghdad: Department of Justice. Turner. 1985. 1982. A. 7.. Haglund. A. H. M. Straus and Giroux. Ousley. The scope of anthropological contributions to human rights investigations. Europe’s worst massacre since World War II.. Black’s law dictionary. ———. and A. G. by V. In The psychology of fashion. A. Knusel. American Anthropologist 91: 599–612. New York: Picador. American Anthropologist 100:732–52. We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families: Stories from Rwanda. N.. Talbot. Buikstra. G. multiple. Van Arsdale. Zeitschrift fu¨r Morphologie und Anthropologie 52:1–51. Kivett. and D. 1995. In Blood red roses: The archaeology of a mass grave from the battle of Towton AD 1461. 2005. W. and C. In Ritual sacrifice in ancient Peru. Austin: University of Texas Press. A. In Interacting with the dead: Perspectives on mortuary archaeology for the new millennium. Lewin. F. Ninawa Province. Kuwait’s prisoners of war in Iraq: A humanitarian tragedy. 2d edition.

133 and violence in the prehistoric American Southwest. J. Jafari. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. New York: Garland. 2006. E. White. 2001. J. Emerson. Gregg. Bumstead. 1990. Austin: University of Texas Press. . October 2. Investigation of clandestine graves resulting from human rights abuses.S. B..public internationallaw. 1981. 165–84. United Nations. Smith. Army Corps of Engineers Planning Division. http://www. P. P. Benson and A. The physical evidence of human sacrifice in ancient Peru. Williams. ———. T. Willey. Knoxville. In Ritual sacrifice in ancient Peru. 1982. 1948. W. Verano. R. University of Tennessee. Resolution 260(III)A of the United Nations General Assembly. P. The Crow Creek site (39BF11) massacre: A preliminary report. Ph. P. J. Omaha: U. J. C. diss. Scharf. P. T. Willey. 1999. Prehistoric warfare on the Great Plains: Skeletal analysis of the Crow Creek massacre victims. P. Vanezis. M. and M. M. Swegle. Convention on the prevention and punishment of genocide. Haberman. Zimmerman. Articles II and III. Osteology of the Crow Creek massacre. E. Genocide in Darfur: A legal analysis. Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine 6:238–42. ed. Cook.. Gregg.D.. et al.