 or secondary treatment. At me, I still use secondary treatment. I don't know if I should even abandon that, I don't know. But my point is, in Archeotonatology, secondary is not used. In Archeotonatology, yes, and that's why... No, it's just a point. No, I emphasize, but archaeologists, they still use it so much, that's the problem. So, in Archeotonatology, yes, that's the point, but you see secondary better, in Greece, in Mycenaean Greek Archeology, all these assemblies are published basically as secondary barriers. Yeah. So, this is not as mine. It's a work of education. Yeah. But, a more important question to you. Excavation is also a toponomic process. Exactly. So, how much do you know about the excavation? Because some of the removal versus retention numbers just surprised me. And I was thinking that a lot of the non-recorded hand bones, for example, or foot bones, might be that they are just not collected and documented. Exactly. And that might show us better. So, what are your thoughts? I'll tell you exactly how I approach that. That's the main difficulty, how much excavation bias we have when we try to apply these bone frequencies. And unfortunately, this was not the site that I was present during the excavation. But it was excavated in the 90s fairly well. Not fantastic, but fairly well. So, we have a very detailed record. And I was able to use photos, as we hear as well, photos, excavation notebooks, plus the final reports, drawings, all of that. And I had an idea of the level of the quality of recovery that they had. However, recovery was pretty okay. And they were very careful because maybe not because they were so interested in the bones, but because they were interested in machine-made beads and stuff like that. They really sifted everything and so they went carefully. And I could see that I had small stuff, so when did they have? But most importantly, and this is, in the end, what I use also as the main criteria is, but that makes it more difficult to comparison with other sites. For this intra-site comparison, the same methods were applied in all the tombs. So, these differences that I observed, at least they were consistent. So, however, they were excavating, they were excavating the same all of these tombs. So, when, in some cases, I had another case, I don't have them, they didn't change the methodology of their excavation. So, that was reassuring afterwards. Thank you. The first question regarding what expressions are being used and how we are recording and that could be something that we discussed during the discussions a lot, because it's an interesting something that everyone can think about and I know that people have a lot of different opinions on. Yeah, like you brought up as well that maybe we need several... Completely new subjects. Yeah, exactly. So, that's an interesting thing to keep with us. I think we're going to move on to the next presentation. And after that one, we have a discussion. So, please welcome Rida Kerapeukana and Lee Nilsson-Stutz, representing the Lost Photos. Archeophonatology applied to photograph rotation from the 1960s and reveals new data about mesolithic burials. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everyone. We are going to present new data on mesolithic burials based on the archaeological analysis of recently discovered photographs from excavations in the 1960s and 1962. The archaeological material we are working with is from late mesolithic sites in Portugal. These are open-air shell middens and are clustered in these two river valleys, the Tagus and the Saddo valleys. What's remarkable is that most of these sites have burial grounds with several human burials. This is interesting and we're highlighting this because the development of cemeteries in open-air sites contrasts with earlier practices in the region. As you can see from this graph, with the number of mesolithic individuals in archaeological sites in Iberia, funerary burial was practiced in Iberia, in the Mesolithic, but it was not common. It was not a common treatment of the dead, except in these two river valleys. Most of this material was excavated in the 1950s and the 1960s. We are focusing on one region, the Saddo valley. From the 11 shell middens known, six of them have human burials with a minimum number of individuals of 113. As I mentioned, these are all excavations and the original documentation consists of written notes and letters as well as site plans, not for all sites but for some sites. We also have photographs and drawings in variable detail, not for all sites. And also we have the human remains. Some of this material was preserved in blocks of paraffin, which is great for burial analysis. However, most material is currently disarticulated and stored in containers. The photos on this slide were recently discovered and bring new information for the material excavated in two sites, Arapuco and Posas Sombento. This documentation is also very interesting because burial practices in these two sites were largely contemporary with radiocarbon dates on human bone ranging from 8,150 to 7,900 years ago. For this session, we want to present some selected cases that we have analyzed but also focus on two central questions. One is what is the potential for architinotology on old collections? And second question, what does architinotology bring that cannot be achieved with common sense archaeology? Architinotology is a holistic approach for the analysis of human bones in archaeological context and it was developed as an excavation method. But we argue that this is a robust approach for the analysis of archive documentation such as photographs from old excavations. Very briefly, architinotology is based on the phonomic theory and basic knowledge of processes of human composition as these processes can produce marked movements on the bones within the burial feature. This type of analysis allows us to reconstruct the Chénopératois from the human remains recovered in the archaeological context to the original funerary practice. In our analysis of the newly discovered photographs, we identified a number of common features which indicate a set of common practices. What do these burials have in common? First, their primary nature. These are primary deposits as indicated by the maintenance of labial articulations such as those on the feet here in these photographs. These are diagnostic criteria that are often highly degraded and often not very clearly visible in the documentation. However, the maintenance of the general anatomy or the anatomical integrity of the body is a strong argument supporting this observation of the primary nature of the burials. And it's consistently observed throughout the documentation. The space of the composition was filled with sediment as indicated by the maintenance of bones in original unbalanced position such as the limited collapse of the bones of the pelvic girdle or the maintenance of the patella on the distal ends of the femur and here just bringing some examples and some examples of key observations. Regarding and summarizing a bit the initial position of the body and what's common in these burials, we observe that at Arapoku, one of the sites, most individuals were placed on the back while at Sombiantu, the cadavers were typically placed on the right or on the left side. In both sites, the upper limbs were often nested on the upper body in various positions but always in flexion at the level of the elbow joints. The lower limbs were consistently flexed as well or hyper flexed at the level of the hip and knee joints rotated towards the trunk, rotated towards the right or the left with the feet always rotated towards the buttocks. The alignment of the bones also another common feature suggests that the grave pits were just large enough to contain the body as visible by various role effects. In some cases, we observe that the floor of the grave was uneven and sloping and here while the cadavers slowly slipped to the left, which can be visible by the right shoulder girdle which stayed behind and the right scapula became exposed between the humerus and the thoraxi cage here accentuating the lateral pressure on the left side of this feature as indicated by the strong alignment of the humerus and the rib cage. Thank you. And so when we establish kind of a pattern of a normative expected burial that allows us to kind of think through the non-negotiables of Monsher ritual but among the burials in this collection we also find one particular case where the body position is unusual both for the cultural context here and I think in our technological descriptions in general so it valid some publication and analysis. I won't go into all of the details here but just briefly note that the photo shows the body that was placed on the back with the limbs strongly flexed in front of the body bringing them to light on top strategically speaking of the torso. The head was flexed and rotated flex forward and rotated to the right at the time of the deposition. The thoracic cage shows no sign of rotation or even transfer of weight to one side which indicates that the body was placed on the back. All limbs are strongly flexed in front of the body and the bones of the left hand can be observed in the area of the torso. The resolution of the photo and here we get to the challenges of working with other people's excavations and I think we can talk more about that later. It doesn't allow for detailed observations here. The bones of the feet can be observed as being loosely articulated. There's no doubt that this bear is a primary deposition. The articulation of the skeleton as a whole but in particular the feet and the left hand is a clear indicator for primary deposition. The lack of movement outside of the initial volume of the kebab further indicates the composition and fill space and finally the maintenance and position of the bones in extreme fashion must have required additional elements of support. Immediate filling in combination with a restricted feature is not enough in our opinion to explain the maintenance of the position in particular of the lower limbs here. We suggest that this body was wrapped or bound at the time of burial. A case like this can in our addition shed light or additional light on other burials in the context including, sorry, in the context, in the cultural context but also more generally, also at the site obviously, more generally for these mesolithic burials in Portugal. Where more bodies than we have thought perhaps bound up, how are they bound up and with the particular precision of the body have been discernible through the wrapping or with the covering have masked the human body, dramatically changing the appearance of a living versus a dead body at the time of burial, thus playing a crucial part in how death was staged and perceived by the survivors. Here we can see an example of the projection upward and rotation of the shoulder and here we can see the articulation of the hands and feet. So what does archaeotenatology bring to the study of archives such as this? That would not be an offer by just common sense archaeology. The limitations of a collection like this are obvious. It's clear. They're still, and this is our point, benefits to working with material like this and among those we want to highlight four points. First, the important of a systematic description such as archaeotenatology allows for this systematic description of the position of the feature along with the following systematic approach for analysis and interpretation clarifies the important boundaries between observation and interpretation. Casting these burials in a clear light and creating a data set that is, in our opinion, more objective even when applied to old and fragmentary collections for other scholars to work with in this period. So this systematic approach may in fact be particularly important when the data is imperfect. So instead of saying we shouldn't do archaeotenatology on old excavation documents, we probably really should do it there because it's really where it's going to make a huge difference. We also argue that diagnostic observations can be made even in cases like this, and we've showed a couple of examples of that. We have been able to make critical observations even on partially preserved or partially documented materials and that has added crucial and detailed information about the mortar practices and showed a few examples of that. We agree that the systemic thinking that characterizes archaeotenatology brings it all together and looking at the relationships between the decomposing human body and the feature allows us to really think this through systematically in a way that common sense archaeology does not have a developed tool to do. And finally, most important point perhaps, the systemic detailed approach allows us to get a better understanding of the handling of the body and its ritualized practices. The repetitive patterns that Rita pointed out that sometimes can be traced even in fragmentary remains through the observation of diagnostic indicators bring to the fore a norm of how dead bodies were handled and deposited within a cultural context. Unusual cases like the one I presented might challenge these patterns, but also as in this case enrich our understanding by providing a pathway toward the lived experience of the burial of the body. Of course there will be more insecurity and more remaining question marks when approaching a collection like this with a methodology like archaeotenatology since it relies on careful documentation of ample information. But we hope that we have been able to demonstrate that archaeotenatology is not limited to the field and that it's worthwhile to apply the approach also to excavations and all collections of imperfect documentation that were not produced with this methodology in mind. The principles are robust enough to generate important results and insight even years after the excavation. We also hope that we have been able to show that the application of this approach leads not merely to new and more secure data but also to richer theoretical understanding of the more mature ritual in the past. Thank you very much.