Learning from the Dead

1
Learning from the Dead

• Human Burials

2
Whats so Special About the Dead?

• They tell you about the individual
• Most archaeological information relates to groups
  or societies rare to have information that
  relates to a specific person (especially for
  non-literate societies)
• They tell you about ideology and ritual
• Burials are material remains from prehistoric
  ritual practices it is difficult (but not
  impossible) to clearly identify ritual practices
  archaeologically in non-burial contexts
• The tell you about social organization
• How a person is dealt with after death has some
  relation to how they were viewed in life, and to
  role(s) in society

3
The Dead do Not Bury Themselves

• Human remains are universally accorded some type
  of special treatment by human societies
• As early as Neandertals, 150,000 BP
• Treatment of dead determined by cultural rules
  and norms
• Many different, socially-prescribed ways, to
  dispose of the dead
• Treatment of the dead leaves material remains
• Body treatment and associated artifacts
• Interpreting material remains can allow us to
  interpret the rules and norms that governed their
  creation

4
Dealing with the Dead

• Burial general term for disposal of human
  remains
• Tomb remains placed in some type of structure
• Inhumation grave burial disposed of intact
• Extended vs. Flexed Coffin, Shroud
• Cremation remains burned, then disposed of
• Loose or Contained, grave or scattered
• Bundle remains dismembered, defleshed, wrapped
• May represent secondary treatment
• Ossuary mass burial
• numerous cremated or dismembered remains buried
  together
• Cemetery collection of individual burials of any
  type
• Exposure remains left in open (sky-burial)
• Grave Offerings any artifacts or other objects
  intentionally buried with human remains (burial
  furniture, grave goods, etc.)

5
Early Approaches

• 19th century antiquarians, early archaeologists
• Focus on burials of elite individuals from
  complex societies
• Often associated with rare, valuable artifacts
• Interest due to the artifacts, not their
  implications for prehistoric society
• Most elaborate burials discovered by Europeans
  were looted (theft of cultural patrimony)

6
Early to Mid 20th Century

• First use of burial contexts to interpret
  prehistoric society (prior to 1980s)
• Underlying assumption how people were buried,
  and what they were buried with, reflect their
  status in a society
• Amount of resources expended on treatment of a
  dead individual proportional to that persons
  social status
• Amount of artifacts
• Type of artifacts (e.g., exotic vs. local rare
  vs. common)
• Size of tomb
• Amount of time/energy expended in burial

7
Case Study Hochdorf

• Iron Age (Hallstatt D Period, 6th cent. BC)
• Pre-Roman Celtic culture
• Probable Chiefdom Type of social organization
• Hierarchical, kin-based society (ranked lineages)
• Large tumulus (burial mound)
• Central Log tomb
• Single adult male inhumation
• Numerous grave offerings
• Weapons, Gold, Silver, Cauldron, Wagon, Couch

8
Hochdorf, Germany
9
Hochdorf Construction
10
Hochdorf Tomb
11
Hochdorf Tomb Interior
12
Hochdorf Artifacts
13
(No Transcript)
14
Hochdorf Interpretation

• Most of Late Neolithic/Bronze Age/Iron Age
  societies in Pre-Roman Europe modeled as
  chiefdoms
• Hereditary chiefdom (elite lineage) extracting
  and redistributing tribute from farming
  population of commoners
• Kin-based social organization (e.g., clan)
• Burial at Hochdorf interpreted as that of elite
  lineage, probably a chief
• Massive architecture, wealthy grave assemblage,
  exotic artifacts
• Most Hallstatt burials individual graves with a
  few artifacts (weapons for men, jewelry for
  women)
• Wealth of burial directly reflects status of
  individual

15
Late 20th century-present

• Period of reassessment and critical evaluation in
  archaeology
• Many basic assumptions made about culture seen as
  naïve or overly-simplistic
• For example assumption that elaborate graves
  always indicate high status, and that high-status
  people always get elaborate graves, is now seen
  by many to be simplistic
• Graves dont reflect status, they communicate
  ideology
• Dont show how society is, but communicate how we
  want to think of ourselves collectively, and how
  we want others to view our society
• This may reflect social status, as is the case at
  Hochdorf, but in other circumstances, it might
  not, even in equally hierarchical cultures

16
Case Study West Kennet Long Barrow

• Neolithic Southern Britain (ca. 3,600-3,000 BC)
• Long Linear Barrow mound dug out of local chalk
  deposits
• Over 300 feet long and 100 feet wide, oriented
  east to west
• Numerous burial chambers in eastern end of mound
  (facing rising sun)
• Burial chambers contain disarticulated bones of
  numerous individuals
• Appears as if skeletalized remains were taken
  from another location and redeposit in the barrow
• Not all skeletal elements equally represented
  (not enough skulls)
• Very few artifacts

17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
West Kennet Interpretation

• Equally as monumental as Hochdorf
• Created by a society with a similar social
  organization (chiefdom)
• But
• Not associated with one individual, but many
• Not possible to isolate individuals buried in
  masses of bones
• No obvious artifacts despite numerous exotic
  artifacts at other contemporary sites
• Burials in this society dont reflect social
  status, they deny it
• Present an ideological statement of the
  importance of the collective over the individual
• The barrow itself is an active social message to
  all who viewed it

21
Summary

• Studying ancient burial practices can provide
  vast amounts of information about ancient
  societies
• Social organization
• Artistry
• Religion
• But, there is no simple rule to interpreting
  burials
• Burials dont simply reflect society they are
  tools used by society to transmit messages among
  the living