Society for American Archaeology

A Suggested Terminology and Classification for Burial Description

Author(s): Roderick Sprague
Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 33, No. 4 (Oct., 1968), pp. 479-485
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/278597 .
Accessed: 21/06/2014 05:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 05:17:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A SUGGESTED TERMINOLOGY AND CLASSIFICATION
FOR BURIAL DESCRIPTION
RODERICKSPRAGUE
ABSTRACT
A review of previous systems for describing the disposal
of the dead reveals basic inconsistencies in terminology
and logic. A new classification is proposed that not only
utilizes concepts and terminology wherever possible but
also attempts to eliminate non-mutually exclusive cate-
gories and ambiguous terminology. The system is sum-
marized in outline form to facilitate the use of the scheme
as a field checklist during the excavation of burials.
ABASIC requirementfor any discussionof
a cultural complex or a comparative study
pertaining to such a complex is a meaningful
and applicable classificatorysystem and a precise
nomenclature. Anyone who has attempted com-
parative studies utilizing burial traits is immedi-
ately aware that neither of these basic criteria
has been met in the past. Therefore, the task
here is to define and outline that broad cultural
complex commonly known as disposal of the
dead and to define the various terms used in
describing the archaeological manifestations of
this trait.
"Disposal of the dead" is defined as a cultural
process or a series of processes by which a group
abandons the physical remains of one of their
deceased members to the elements. Fortuitous
interments or remains resulting from accidental
death without benefit of additional human agen-
cies will not be considered in this discussion of
burial patterns. Thus, distinction is made be-
tween bone material as defined by Brothwell
(1963: 1) and intentional disposal.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Four previous schemes have been devised for
the study of disposal of the dead. The firstof these
(Barber 1877: 197) suggested four methods of
burialwhich were: inhumation (subterrene), cre-
mation (subterrene), embalmment (subterenne
[sic]), and aerial sepulture (superterrene). The
pioneering works of Yarrow (1880, 1881) still
stand as classics in the field of burial terminol-
ogy. In fact they were mentioned as late as 1942
(Griffin and Neumann) as an adequate outline
for this type of study. Yarrow (1881: 92-3)
listed seven forms of burial: "Inhumation, em-
balmment, deposition of remains in urns, surface
burial, cremation or partial burning, aerial sepul-
ture, and aquatic burial." Yarrow then subdi-
479
This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 05:17:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
vided these into various types, but even he was
aware that many of these classificationswere not
mutually exclusive. For example, he noted that
embalmed bodies could be found in several of
the places, such as pits or caves, suggested for
inhumation (Yarrow 1881: 130). By the year
1919, little had been done to this basic scheme,
as evidenced by the work of Orr (1919: 56) who
listed: "Cremation, embalming or mummifying,
grave burials, surface burials, tree and scaffold
burial, consigning the body to the water, urn
burial frequently associated with cremation, and
ossuarial burial-feast of the dead."
The first modem attempt at setting up a
useful classification and nomenclature comes
from the work of the subcommittee on burial
terminology consisting of James B. Griffin and
Georg K. Neumann in 1942 (1942: 70). It
would appear from the literature that this work
has been fairly influential in the area of nomen-
clature; but its classificatorysystem had little to
recommend it over some of the early works, and
it was inadequate for some of the same reasons,
largely its lack of mutually exclusive categories.
THE CLASSIFICATION
Form of Disposal
The basic fault in these and other classifica-
tory schemes describing the disposal of the dead
is the assumption of a duality between inhuma-
tion and cremation, plus all other forms of dis-
posal. The basic assumption in itself is faulty;
inhumation and cremation are not mutually
exclusive terms. The archaeological literature
is replete with examples of cremation and sub-
sequent collection of the remains to be buried;
burial with burning of the body; or exposure
followed by burning of the exposed bones, which
is followed by burial. The problem is that cre-
mation is not a method of disposal of the dead,
but rather it is a means of reducing the remains
that must then be disposed of. I would suggest
that any scheme for the disposal of the dead
utilize two contrasting terms: simple disposal,
those methods utilizing only one basic method at
one specific point in time; and compound dis-
posal (in preference to complex because of the
possible confusion with "a burial complex"),
which implies two or more distinct stages of
480 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [ VOL.33, No. 4, 1968

disposal such as burial and reburial, exposure under houses, trash areas, or caves. Distinctions
and burial, exposure and cremation and burial, such as those made by Griffin and Neumann
or cremation and dropping the ashes from an (1942: 71-2) distinguishing between cemeteries,
airplane. Regardless of the form of disposal of burial mounds, village sites, and ossuaries are
which we are speaking, there must be a psycho- essentially meaningless. By definition a ceme-
logical abandonment of the remains by those tery is a special area devoted to inhumations.
still living. For example, in the case of simple The fact that this area was at one time a trash
primary interment the remains are still in a con- midden or has been artifically built up and a
dition in which they could be disinterred and temple built upon it does not affect the fact that
treated in some additional manner. However, it is still a cemetery, a special place for burial of
if the culturally determined method of disposal the dead. Any complete classificationof physical
requires only the simple interment, then psycho- locations for the disposal of the dead would
logically the remains have been abandoned by have to include a complete survey of such places
the living. It would be difficult, but not impos- utilized by man, both past and present. The
sible, to recognize in an archaeological context best we can do is simply to note that the cul-
a situation of relic holding or other forms in turally preferred place of disposal should be
which the bones of relatives are kept preserved recorded for a specific site or group.
in the household and hence not abandoned.
Simple disposal consists of three possibilities: Body Preparation
(1) inhumation, (2) aquatic disposal, and (3)
surface disposal. Inhumation, interment, or bur- This criterion excludes techniques of special
ial is defined as the practice of concealing the treatment to the body which are included under
body in the ground or in any mound above the reduction processes such as defleshing. The divi-
general level of the ground (Royal Anthropo- sion between body preparation and the vehicle
logical Institute 1951: 126). Aquatic disposal of disposal, also, may possibly be obscured (as,
includes both the sinking of the remains in a for example, in the case of multiple body wrap-
body of water or placing the remains on some pings). Examples of body preparation that are
type of craft and setting it afloat to the extent observable in an archaeological context include
that it will drift far enough away to satisfy the embalmment, removal or drying of the viscera,
criteria for psychological abandonment. Surface anointment, painting (especially with ocher-
disposal may include the simple abandonment hematite burials), dressing in clothing, and the
of the body on the surface or under a pile of wrapping of an undressed body.
brush; placement on a platform or in a tree
wherein the eventual decay and collapse of the Vehicle of Disposal
support are of no concern to the disposing group; The next criterion of analysis concerns the
or exposure to birds, animals of prey, or insects.
container or vehicle used to hold the remains in
A compound disposal involves at least two either a primaryor final disposal and also during
processes: (1) the reduction process or processesthe reduction process, if one is utilized. Griffin
and (2) the secondary or final disposal. The and Neumann (1942: 74) list the following as
reduction process may include: (1) burial and examples of containers: urns, blankets, bark
subsequent disinterment or exhumation, (2) wrapping, hollow logs, huts, hides of animals,
exposure to the air, (3) exposure to animals, wooden coffins, stone boxes, stone cists, crema-
(4) mechanical defleshing, (5) cremation, and tory basins, boats, and baskets. As with other
(6) artificial decomposition with chemicals. categories, there can be several levels concerned
This, in turn, is followed by the secondary dis- with one disposal; for example, an individual
posal which includes the three forms listed could easily be wrapped in a blanket, placed in
under simple disposal above, or it may involve a wooden coffin, and then placed in a stone cist.
a secondary reduction process with a final dis-
As with physical location, the variability in con-
posal process. (This classificatory scheme is tainers is too great for any exhaustive listing in
summarized in outline form below.)
this theoretical scheme. Also it should be noted
Location of Disposal Area that certain forms of containers have been given
The next criterion in any classificatorysystem undue emphasis in the literature (see McCann
should be the physical location of the disposal 1947: 4, where an um burial has been defined
(Griffin 1953: 44), such as between houses, as a specific and special type of burial).

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 05:17:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SPRAGUE ] BURIAL CLASSIFICATION
The term "coffin" should be applied to a
rough box made in imitation of the Euro-Amer-
ican type of container, including both the rec-
tangular and the "traditional wedgeshaped form
of burial receptacle" (Habenstein and Lamers
1962: vii), while the term "casket" is restricted
to the more modem commercially constructed
burial container.
Demography
The next level, the demographic, does not
involve culturally determined factors but rather
is concerned with the physical properties of the
individual being disposed of. The most common
data are age and sex, which can be treated as a
unit, since below the adult level a determination
of sex from skeletal remains is normally impos-
sible. The physical anthropologist may also want
to take any number of anthropometric measure-
ments as well as noting all pathologies and
anomalies observable on the buried human
material.
Individuality
The next classificatorycriterion, individuality,
is concerned with how many individuals are
involved in a specific container. Self-explanatory
terms that have been used to imply varying
degrees of this criterion include fragmentary
(bits and pieces), partial (coherent part), single,
double, multiple, mass, group, and collective.
The latter two are included in the "unaccept-
able terms" according to Griffin and Neumann
(1942).
Articulation
Another criterion concerned with the study
of burial patterns is the degree to which an
individual is articulated. Only a primary inter-
ment or a moderate reduction process applied
to an interment can leave evidence of an articu-
lated skeleton. "Semiarticulosis" refers to the
condition in which a fragment of a body is in
anatomical order (Bass 1962: 43). A rearticu-
lated skeleton is one in which an attempt has
been made to rearticulate the skeletal parts in
normal anatomical order (Griffin and Neumann
1942: 76). The term "disarticulatedmass" (Pap-
worth and Binford 1962: 10), while incorporat-
ing aspects of both individuality and articula-
tion, appears to be a useful term for distinguish-
ing between a single disarticulated or bundle
burial and a jumbled mass of bones.
This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 05:17:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
481
Position
The remainder of the classificatory criteria
presented are limited to primary inhumations.
The first of these is position, which is defined as
the relationship of the segments of the body to
each other (Anderson 1962: 159). Position con-
cerns only the body and is not described in refer-
ence to the grave, the axis of the earth, cardinal
directions, or any other natural features; rather,
it should be thought of as if the body were sus-
pended in space.
The first aspect of position is the degree of
flexure (not flection or flextion, which properly
applies only to a muscular movement), which
is concerned only with the legs and trunk of the
body and does not include the arms. The ex-
tended position needs no further definition. The
First Archaeological Conference on the Wood-
land Pattern (Anonymous 1943: 398-9) sug-
gested that "semiflexed" be limited to the con-
dition in which the legs are at a right angle,
or greater, to the trunk and that "flexed" be
used when they are at less than a right angle
to the trunk. I would concur with this sugges-
tion, but I would add that the term "tightly
flexed" is useful if carefully defined when used.
Terms referring to flexure which were frowned
upon by those replying to the subcommittee on
burial terminology include: contracted, squat-
ting, hunched, frog, bunched, and folded (Grif-
fin and Neumann 1942: 74-5). I would add to
this list as ambiguous terms: closely flexed
(Ritchie 1958: 83), jitterbug (Caldwell and
McCann 1941, PI. 15), crouched (Mukherjee
1955: 109), and seated or sitting as a definition
of position rather than deposition - a distinc-
tion also suggested by Krieger (1945: 50). Early
in this century, Wilder (1905: 299) suggested
the German term Hockerstellung for the flexed
position. This (Wilder 1905) and another arti-
cle (Wilder and Whipple 1917: 376-80) pre-
sent probably the best survey of various postu-
lated reasons for the use of the flexed position
in burials.
It is assumed that in the flexed and semiflexed
-ositions the knees will be together and at a
right angle to the plane of the body. Any varia-
tions from this normal position are best explained
in terms such as knees collapsed to the left, knees
collapsed to the right, or knees spread apart
180?. Other minor variations, such as the legs
being crossed, are also better explained since
they occur relatively infrequently. The term
482 AMERICANANTIQUITY [ VOL.33, No. 4, 1968

"contorted" has been applied to various gro- son for this nonacceptance. When a burial is
tesque forms (Brothwell 1963: 2). described as being in the dorsal position, there is
As indicated above, the position of the arms confusion among many workers as to whether
should be treated separately from the terms the back of the body is that portion which is
applied to the legs and torso. Four basic positions visible or whether the body is placed on the
or combinations of these four include virtually back. For this reason I suggest retention of the
all possibilities for the arms. They include: (1) terms "back" and "face."
straight along the sides, (2) crossedon the pelvis,
(3) folded on the chest, and (4) hands to the Orientation
face. Probably no aspect of burial terminology is
The third subcategory for position is con- more confused and yet is more easily explained
cerned with the rotation of the head. Rotation than orientation. Practically any definition of
is defined as the movement of the head in a orientation can be found in the literature: "Ori-
lateral plane around the central axis. I prefer entation of the body is generally apparent, and
to use the term "looking" when speaking of the whatever the direction, the feet usually point to
the ultimate goal" (Polson, Brittain, and Mar-
rotational position of the head, since it is not in
terms of cardinal directions but rather in terms shall 1953: 9); "By orientation we mean the
of the deceased body itself. Examples might in. direction in which a priest faced" (Frothing-
ham 1917: 55); and "by ... orientation I mean
clude looking left, looking right, looking straight
ahead, chin compressed to the chest, or head facing, i.e., lying so that the face of the corpse
extended backward. While I can quote no is turned in a given direction" (Rose 1922: 127).
In the archaeologicalliterature, ambiguousterms
precedent for this terminology, I believe it is not
only useful and applicable, but it prevents some such as "head toward" or "skull facing" often
of the complications that occur with the term are used to indicate orientation.
"facing." "Facing" does not infer a living body Two or possibly three types of orientation may
as with "looking," but it has a long and unfor- be given, including the orientation of the grave,
tunate history of misuse and confusion with the container (coffin), and the body. The grave
orientation. Swartz (1965: 37, 39) has suggested and the container orientation are determined by
that the horizontal and vertical plane of the the long axis of the excavation or of the box.
head be described in terms of the body. This The orientation of the body when placed hori-
can be confusing when comparing horizontal zontally "refers to the direction in which the
burials (face, back, and side deposition) with head lies in relation to a line between the skull
and the center of the pelvis" (Heizer 1958: 65).
vertical burials (sitting and standing deposition).
The orientation of a seated burial refers to the
Deposition direction in which the body is facing. Orienta-
Once the position of the body has been deter- tion can be given in terms of degrees (12?E of
mined, the next consideration is the deposition N), in terms of cardinal points and various sub-
of the body, or the manner in which it has been divisions (NE), or in terms of some natural
deposited in the earth. Four self-explanatory feature (upstream). The presentation of burial
terms include virtually all primary inhumations. orientation in terms of two cardinal directions
These are: back, face, side (left or right), and (NE-SW) without indicating which direction
sitting or seated. No standing burials were noted the head lies is an unforgivable omission of
in North American archaeological literature, but important data.
they are occasionally found in the Old World.
Terms lisited as "universally frowned upon" Grave Goods
include: prone, supine, and reclining; however, The final criterionin this classificatoryscheme
the terminology committee endorses such terms involves grave goods. Various other terms such
as dorsal, ventral, and lateral (Griffin and Neu- as grave furniture, grave offerings, Beigaben, or
mann 1942: 74-5). A review of the literature mortuary furniture seem to me to be less precise,
since the publication of the recommendations of somewhat archaic, or implying function; hence,
the committee indicates that this latter termi- they are less acceptable than the generally
nology has not been widely accepted. A brief understood and brief terms "grave goods or
discussion with any group of anthropologists or inclusions." Griffin (1953: 44) suggests that in
zoologists will immediately make clear the rea- the study of a burial complex both the types

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 05:17:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SPRAGUE] BURIAL CLASSIFICATION 483

of materials recovered and their relative abun- C. Rearticulated

dance should be noted. To this I would add D. Disarticulated (bundle)
the criterion of placement, that is, where grave E. Disturbed
goods are found in relation to the body and VIII. Position
grave. Ornaments attached to the body and A. Degree of Flexure
clothing are properly part of body preparation, 1. Extended
but this distinction may not be determined in
2. Semiflexed
an archaeological context. Grave goods can be
3. Flexed
within, under, beside, or on top of the vehicle
of disposal, as well as in the grave fill. Grave B. Position of Arms
markers can also be considered as a special class 1. Along the sides
of grave goods. 2. Crossed on the pelvis
3. Folded on the chest
SUMMARY 4. Hands to the face
The classificatory scheme presented above C. Rotation of Head
may be summarized in outline form as follows:
IX. Deposition
I. Form of Disposal
A. Back
A. Simple Disposal
B. Face
1. Primary inhumation
C. Side
2. Aquatic disposal
1. Right
3. Surface disposal
2. Left
B. Compound Disposal D. Sitting
1. Reduction process E. Standing
a) burial and subsequent X. Orientation
disinterment
A. Grave
b) exposure to air
B. Container
c) exposure to animals
C. Body
d) mechanical defleshing
e) cremation XI. Grave Goods or Inclusions
f) chemical decomposition A. Frequency
2. Secondary disposal B. Types
a) inhumation C. Placement
b) aquatic
c) surface In the compilation of a burial excavation form
II. Location of Disposal Area or checklist utilizing this outline, certain addi-
tional data are required; these include site num-
III. Body Preparation ber and location, burial number and location,
IV. Vehicle of Disposal dimensions of grave and container, degree of
V. Demography preservation, stratification,associations, name of
A. Sex and Age excavator, date, photograph numbers, and cata-
B. Anthropometry log numbers of associated artifacts. A checklist
C. Pathologies based upon this scheme has the advantage of
D. Anomalies being all inclusive in scope but still limited to
one standard-sizedpage.
VI. Individuality
Specialized descriptive terms are useful in
A. Fragmentary or Partial
B. Single specialized cases and need not necessarilybe part
of any organizedclassificatoryscheme. Examples
C. Double
of these include: hut graves, catacomb graves,
D. Multiple - implying articulation
E. Mass - implying disarticulation timber graves, trench graves (Gimbutas 1956:
71-3), scaffold, platform, desiccated, stone box,
VII. Articulation stone slab, stone vault, stone cist, stone mound
A. Articulated (Griffin and Neumann 1942: 75), cairn burial,
B. Semiarticulosis subsurface-cairnburial, cedar-cist burial, cedar-

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 05:17:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
484 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
slab burial, and cedar-pole burial (Sprague 1967:
82).
The widespread use of a burial checklist
would do much for the universal applicability
of published material concerned with burial
practices. Furthermore, a reaffirmedacceptance
of the terminological suggestions, of the 1942
committee with the suggested amendments
would aid in the more precise communication
of these recorded cultural patterns.
Acknowledgments. This material is a revised version
of Chapter II of my doctoral dissertation from the Uni-
versity of Arizona (Sprague 1967). I express appreciation
to my committee, Raymond H. Thompson, Harry T.
Getty, and T. Patrick Culbert, for their critical evaluation
of the original manuscript. Much of the original formu-
lation was based on discussions with John D. Combes,
Richard D. Daugherty, and especially B. K. Swartz, Jr.
The final manuscript was read and critical suggestions
were made by William M. Bass, Walter H. Birkby, L. S.
Cressman, B. K. Swartz, Jr., Raymond H. Thompson, and
Deward E. Walker, Jr. I extend sincere appreciation to
all of these people for their contributions.
ANDERSON, T. E.
1962 The Human Skeleton, A Manual for Archae-
ologists. National Museum of Canada. Ottawa.
ANONYMOUS
1943 First Archaeological Conference on the Wood-
land Pattern. American Antiquity, Vol. 8, No. 4,
pp. 393-400. Menasha.
BARBER,EDWIN A.
1877 Aboriginal Funereal Customs in the United
States. American Naturalist, Vol. 11, pp. 197-
204. Cambridge.
BASS,WILLIAM M.
1962 The Excavation of Human Skeletal Remains.
In Field Handbook on the Human Skeleton, by
R. F. G. Spier, pp. 39-51. Missouri Archaeo-
logical Society, Columbia.
BROTHWELL, D. R.
1963 Digging Up Bones. British Museum (Natural
History), London.
CALDWELL, JOSEPH AND CATHERINE J. MCCANN
*1941Irene Mound Site. University of Georgia Series
in Anthropology, No. 1. Savannah.
A. L.
FROTHINGHAM,
1917 Ancient Orientation Unveiled, I. American
Journal of Archaeology, n.s. Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.
55-76. Concord.
GIMBUTAS,MARIJA
1956 The Prehistory of Eastern Europe. Part I, Meso-
lithic, Neolithic, and Copper Age Cultures in
Russia and the Baltic Area. American School of
Prehistoric Research, Peabody Museum, Harvard
University Bulletin, No. 20. Cambridge.
GRIFFIN, JAMESB.
1953 United States and Canada. Program of the His-
tory of America, Period I, No. 3. Mexico.
This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 05:17:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[ VOL.33, No. 4, 1968
GRIFFIN, JAMES B. AND GEORG K. NEUMANN
1942 A Suggested Classification and Nomenclature
for Burial Location, Position, and Description.
Society for American Archaeology Notebook,
Vol. 2, pp. 70-9. Ann Arbor.
HABENSTEIN, ROBERT W. AND WILLIAM N. LAMERS
1962 The History of American Funeral Directing,
revised edition. Bulfin Printers, Milwaukee.
HEIZER,R. F.
1958 A Guide to Archaeological Field Methods. The
National Press, Palo Alto.
KRIEGER,ALEX D.
1945 Some Suggestions on Archaeological Terms.
Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological Society,
Vol. 16, pp. 41-51. Austin.
MCCANN, CATHERINE J.
1947 Aboriginal Ur Burial in the Southeastern
United States. Doctoral dissertation, University
of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. (University Mi-
crofilms, Ann Arbor.)
MUKHERJEE,RAMKRISHNA
1955 A Quantitative Analysis of Some Cultural
Traits of the Jebel Moyans. In "The Ancient
Inhabitants of Jebel Moya (Sudan)," by R. Muk-
herjee, C. Radhakrishne Roa, and J. C. Trevor,
pp. 107-11. Occasional Publications of the Cam.
bridge University Museum of Archaeology and
Ethnology, No. 3. Cambridge.
ORR, ROWLANDB. (EDITOR)
1919 Mortuary Customs of Our Indian Tribes. In
"Annual Archaeological Report." Report of the
Minister of Education. Toronto.
PAPWORTH, MARK L. AND LEWIS R. BINFORD
1962 A Guide to Archaeological Excavations. South-
western Lore, Vol. 28, No. 1. Boulder.
POLSON, C. J., R. P. BRITTAIN, AND T. K. MARSHALL
1953 The Disposal of the Dead. English Universities
Press, London.
RITCHIE,WILLIAMA.
1958 An Introduction to Hudson Valley Prehistory.
New York State Museum Bulletin 367. Albany.
ROSE,H. J.
1922 Celestrial and Terrestrial Orientation of the
Dead. Journal (Royal) Anthropological Insti-
tute, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 127-40. London.
INSTITUTE
ROYALANTHROPOLOGICAL
1951 Notes and Queries on Anthropology, sixth edi-
tion. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
SPRAGUE,RODERICK
1967 Aboriginal Burial Practices in the Plateau Region
of North America. Doctoral dissertation, The
University of Arizona, Tucson. (University
Microfilms, Ann Arbor.)
SWARTZ,B. K. JR.
1965 Archaeological Field Manual. Ball State Uni-
versity, Muncie.
WILDER, HARRISH.
1905 Excavation of Indian Graves in Western Massa-
chusetts. American Anthropologist, Vol. 7, No.
2, pp. 295-300. Lancaster.
SPRAGUE ] BURIAL CLASSIFICATION 485

WILDER, HARRIS H. AND RALPH W. WHIPPLE 1881 A Further Contribution to the Study of the
1917 The Position of the Body in Aboriginal Inter- Mortuary Customs of North American Indians.
ments in Western Massachusetts. American First Annual Report of the Bureau of (Ameri-
Anthropologist, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 372-87. can) Ethnology for 1880-81, pp. 87-203. Wash-
Lancaster.
ington.
YARROW,H. C.
1880 Introduction to the Study of Mortuary Customs UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO
among the North American Indians. Smithson-
ian Institution, Bureau of Ethnology, Introduc. Moscow, Idaho
tion Series. Washington. March, 1968

PUBLICATIONSOF THE SOCIETYFOR

AMERICANARCHAEOLOGY
A limited number of items which were believed to be out of print are now
available from the Washington office. Send all orders for publications to the Society
for American Archaeology, Suite 112, 3700 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Wash-
ington, D.C. 20016. Remittance should accompany your order.
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Single issues, $4.00; complete volumes, when available, $15.00. All numbers
not listed are out of print.
Volume 1 Numbers 1, 3, 4
Volume 2 Numbers 3, 4
Volume 7 Number 3
Volume 8 Number 4
Volume 9 Numbers 2, 3, 4
Volume 10 Number 3
Volume 13 Number 4
Volume 29 Number 2
Volume 31 Numbers all
Volume 32 Numbers 1, 3, 4
Volume 33 (1968) As published

MEMOIRS
Memoir 5, The George C. Davis Site, by H. P. NEWELLAND A. D. KRIEGER
(1949) ................................................. $3.50
Memoir 6 and 7 (combined) Archaeology of the Columbia FraserRegion, by
MARIONW. SMITH (1950) and Cattle Point, by ARDEN R. KING
(1950) .. ... .... ................................ $3.50
Memoir 11, Seminars in Archaeology: 1955, ROBERTWAUCHOPE, Editor
(1956) ................................................ $4.00

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 05:17:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions