In the article by Overton and Hamilakis 2013 a number of proof corrections were not included in the final published article. These corrections are listed below.
On page 111 in the final sentence of the abstract
Instead of:
These ideas are illustrated with two case studies focusing on human–whooper swan interactions in the Danish Later Mesolithic, based on the faunal assemblage from the site of Aggersund in North Jutland, and the whooper swan remains found associated with the Grave 8 at Vedbæk.
It should read:
These ideas are illustrated with two case studies focusing on human–whooper swan interactions in the Danish Later Mesolithic, based on the faunal assemblage from the site of Aggersund in North Jutland, and the whooper swan remains found associated with Grave 8 at Vedbæk.
On page 117, line 9
Instead of:
(cf. Hamilakis 2002; 2008; 2014; 2011; Hamilakis and Harris 2011; Hamilakis and Konsolaki 2004)
It should read:
(cf. Hamilakis 2002; 2008; 2011; 2014; Hamilakis and Harris 2011; Hamilakis and Konsolaki 2004)
Page 121, table 3
Number of identified specimens (NISP) and minimum number of elements (MNE) of whooper swan.
The total for NISP is published as 223, however this should be 218. The total for MNE is published as 61, however this should be 62. The figure for Cervical Vertebra was placed under the ‘Left’ column, however it should be at the centre. Table 3 is reproduced here.
Page 123, line 9
Instead of:
. . . whooper swans simultaneously as similar to . . .
It should read:
. . . whooper swans as simultaneously similar to . . .
Page 138, reference for Hamilakis 2010
Instead of:
Hamilakis, Y., 2010: Recollecting the fragments. Archaeology as mnemonic practice, in K. Lilios and V. Tsamis (eds), Material mnemonics and everyday memory in European prehistory, Oxford, 188–99.
It should read:
Hamilakis, Y., 2010: Recollecting the fragments. Archaeology as mnemonic practice, in K. Lillios and V. Tsamis (eds), Material mnemonics and everyday memory in European prehistory, Oxford, 188–99.
Cambridge University Press apologises to the authors and readers of this article, and also the editors of Archaeological Dialogues.
