follow up
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Follow Up:Rites and Religion in Mesolithic Europe
• Why do we need rituals to structure our lives and our world?
• How does ritual help us deal with the dual aspect of the crisis of death –– the loss of a social being – and the emergence of a body?
• What does it mean for us to deal with the decomposing remains of our dead?
• How do the experiences and memories of these rituals contribute to shape our notions of body, self, life and death?
Franchthi Cave, Greece • preservation of the bones of the deceased within the
living space may signal an emphasis on the continuity and definition of the social group, a possibility supported by the coinciding appearance of personal ornaments and ochre.
• Placing the dead near the entrance to the cave in the Lower Mesolithic may underline a group's claim or attachment to the site and its surrounding territory.
• The human remains comprise a continuum, from an articulated burial carefully laid out in a shallow pit to isolated fragments incorporated into habitation debris
Franchthi cave
30 000BC-5 000 BC
Burial Practices in Mesolithic
• Turning to distant sites for formal parallels does not illuminate the meaning or motivation behind the practices observed at Franchthi, but the consistency of those practices from one area to the next nevertheless offers reassurance, particularly given our meagre sample size. The deep cultural deposits at Franchthi Cave have understandably encouraged a diachronic approach to interpretation, precluding the wide horizontal exposure necessary to articulate the funerary practices of any one period. The small number of Mesolithic burials and their apparent concentration at the present cave mouth may be artefacts of excavation strategy rather than an accurate reflection of Mesolithic practice. Undiscovered burials may well lie in the unexcavated portions of the cave - consider the distribution of bone scatter - or possibly somewhere outside. The difficulty of identifying modest graves in the absence of road cuts or eroding scarps should not be underestimated. Alternatively, perhaps only a small portion of the community received formal burial. Exposure, far from implying disrespect on the part of the survivors, is one of several ways of treating the dead commonly chosen by hunter-gatherers (Ucko 1969: 270; Woodburn 1982), and may well have been the fate of many of the Franchthi dead.
• Burial as collective ritual
Recap • By the mid-6th millennium BC, southern Scandinavia was
occupied by complex hunter-gatherers of the Ertebølle-Ellerbek culture, inhabiting large, permanently occupied coastal settlements like Ertebølle, and smaller, seasonal camps for hunting specific species.
• Sedentism led to cemeteries, such as Skateholm and Vedbaek, which display social ranking. Contact with farmers is seen in the use of ceramics.
• Evidence supports continuity of population from Mesolithic to Neolithic, but significant change is seen in diet, from marine to a mixed terrestrial-marine, recoverable through floral and faunal remains, plus analysis of skeletal carbon isotopes.
• the presence of cremations and inhumations in a single excavation unit need not be attributed to the practices of different groups. The decision to cremate some individuals and bury others may well have been governed by the different roles or status they held within their community, or by varying circumstances of death, as amply documented in the ethnographic record. MacLeod, for instance, reports that, although cremation was the usual practice among the Alaskan Kutchin and the Siberian Gilyak hunter - gatherers, 'a man was put on the stage [scaffold] if he was well liked', and 'anyone slain by a bear is not cremated; his soul goes in the forest and becomes a bear' (MacLeod 1925: 133, quoting S. Jones and M.A. Czaplicka, respectively; see also Bendann 1930: 55-6; Huntington & Metcalf 1979: 130-2).
• Related Results• Changing pictures; rock art traditions and visions in Northern Europe• Albert J. Ammerman & Paolo Biagi . The widening harvest, the Neolithic...• Antlers, bone pins and flint blades: the mesolithic cemeteries of Teviec and...• The configuration of mortuary ritual is also likely to have been shaped by religious beliefs, another area
notoriously difficult to approach archaeologically. Most human societies have believed in a human essence in some sense separate from the physical body, be that the Egyptian ba, the Christian soul, or the Jewish nefash; equally common is the conception of an afterlife. Cremation has been variously seen as a means of purification, a way to release the soul from the body, and, in more recent contexts at least, as a hygienic and economical method of disposing of a corpse. The extent to which any of these views are relevant to Mesolithic Greek eschatology remains uncertain. Although we cannot know what lay behind the decision to cremate or bury a corpse (or to attend to the body in ways that have left no trace, e.g., burial at sea), the diversity of treatment seen within even the very small sample from Franchthi is surely significant.
• Nevertheless, their finding that a substantial number of sites contained only human bone scatter, with no formal burials, opens the possibility that the scattering of bone itself was a function of mortuary ritual rather than a sign of disturbance. Moreover, considerable variation can be seen in the parts of the body present in the scatter samples, leading the authors to propose specific funerary practices - scaffolding and selective reburial - to account for the patterning (Meiklejohn & Denston 1987: 298-9, table 16.3).
• To evaluate the possibility that the bone scatter excavated at Franchthi resulted from deliberate mortuary ritual or even cannibalism, we looked carefully for evidence of tooth-marks left by scavengers, discolouration or weathering patterns likely to occur on the bones if the deceased were not buried, or cut-marks like those observed on the dismembered skeletons from Fontbregoua Cave in southern France (Villa et al. 1985) or Mancos in the New World (White 1992). No such marks or indications of unusual weathering could be found on the Franchthi bones, making it seem unlikely they were selectively culled from exposed corpses and deliberately scattered within the cave. Scavengers attack a carcass in a systematic way, discoverable in an archaeological context by tooth-marks and the disarticulation sequence (e.g. Pasveer & Uytterschaut 1992: 7-9; Haglund et al. 1989). The absence of such evidence in the Franchthi sample, with its apparently random make-up in terms of body parts represented, is consistent with the bone scatter having derived from disturbed burials in the cave.
• Disturbance and redeposition of sediments occur commonly in caves, resulting from millennia of successive habitation by humans and other animals, trampling and digging, and a range of natural processes such as percolation and solifluction (Straus 1990). Unintentional cross-cutting by excavators can add to the chaos. Few living floors were securely isolated at Franchthi, and considerable movement of bone fragments and Neolithic potsherds has been documented (Vitelli 1993: 249-53). At this time, it therefore seems reasonable to view the Mesolithic scatter as an index of potential disturbance in the Franchthi sequence rather than as remnants of specific rituals.
• Material markings of difference: mortuary ritual and personal ornamentation• Primary inhumation is securely attested at Franchthi in the Lower Mesolithic (Fr 1), and the rite of cremation can also be inferred (Fr 7-
8); the common practice by which a corpse is first exposed to the air or temporarily buried, with some or all of the disarticulated bones later reburied, cannot be documented. While we cannot rule out secondary burial for Fr 2-6, Fr 401, or indeed any of the scattered remains, nor can we point to any specific signs of that practice. Moreover, the articulation still visible in the joints of Fr 2-5 makes primary inhumation more probable. Although no indication exists that Fr 7 and 8 were cremated after initial exposure or burial, a lapse in time between cremation and final burial of the remains is plausible, particularly if the two adults were cremated at different times and subsequently buried in the same area. That cremation and burial were carried out in different places can also be inferred from the absence of burned sediments or thick ash deposits in Trench G1.
• The Mesolithic remains represent between 15 and 34 individuals, and probably at least 28, on the basis of context. Twenty-two shed milk teeth were also found in Mesolithic levels. By the lithic phasing established by Perles (1990: 21, table 15), most of the funerary remains date to the Lower Mesolithic; one sample is from a transitional Upper Palaeolithic/Lower Mesolithic unit, and seven Frs come from Upper and Final Mesolithic levels. In contrast to the scatter, Fr 1-8 and Fr 401 are relatively complete. The sample is small, particularly when one considers that some 1500 years of habitation are represented by the Mesolithic deposits. In part, this may be attributed to the relatively limited horizontal exposure afforded by the very deep trenches. All of the sediment from Mesolithic levels was either water-sieved or passed through a horizontal shaker-sieve. Although more scattered bone was recovered from water-sieved sequences than dry-sieved ones, the differences are not dramatic and the most salient feature of the sample remains its small size.
• Almost all the burials at Carrowmore were cremations with inhumations being only found at Listoghil. It is apparent that the dead underwent a complex sequence of treatments, including excarnation and reburial. Grave goods include antler pins with mushroom-shaped heads and stone or clay balls, a fairly typical assemblage of the Irish element of the passage tomb tradition. Some of the tombs and pits nearby contained shells from shellfish, echoing the finds of shell middens along the coast of Cuil Irra. The Carrowmore megaliths were sometimes re-used and re-shaped by the people of Bronze Age and Iron Age times. They remained focal points on the landscape for long after they were built. The role of megaliths as monuments and foci of ceremony and celebration, as well as markers on the landscape is emphasised by archaeologists such as Richard Bradley. Earlier commentators - who called the monuments 'tombs' - saw them simply as a repository for the dead, or as markers erected over fallen warriors.
Ertebolle
• The Ertebølle is characterized• by both flaked and ground stone assemblages.• An elaborate blade technology, projectile points, and• flake and core axes are typical, and ground stone
artifacts• include axes, celts, and other tools. A wide range of
fishing• gear, including nets, weirs, leisters, hooks, and
harpoons,• is known from this period.
• primary focus of settlement in the Ertebølle was• along the coast, where hunter-gatherers used boats and• paddles, erected large fishing weirs, and successfully exploited• the rich resources of both the sea and the land.• Fish, fowl, mollusks, crustaceans, and sea mammals• were all prey for them, and a wide range of fish from• both marine and freshwater habitats was taken with a• variety of equipment (see, e.g., Enghoff 1994). Large shell• middens along some coasts document the incorporation• of shellfish into Mesolithic diets. Terrestrial resources• were also varied and abundant. Red deer, wild pig, and• roe deer were the primary terrestrial animals of economic• importance. Other animals were also hunted and• trapped, including a variety of small fur-bearing species:• marten, otter, wolf, wildcat, and squirrel. Plant
• House structures are rare (cf. Sørensen• 1995), but cemeteries are an important hallmark
of later• Mesolithic settlements (e.g., Albrethsen and
Pedersen• 1977; Larsson 1984, 1989). Numerous examples of• trauma and violent death among Mesolithic
burials suggest• conflict, perhaps a result of intergroup raiding
• Ertebølle and Lepenski Vir (and, for that matter, the Mesolithic cultures of Portugal, France and Britain) are not Mesolithic cultures in isolation. They are forager cultures on the edge of a Neolithic farming world. In fact there’s evidence that goods were moving between these two worlds.
Agency
• Power OVER• Power TO
Playing by the Rules?
• While certain aspects of the• inhumation are unique, the style of the burial, an extended inhumation in an• area used as a cemetery for similar burials, the grave goods buried with the• woman, and the double inhumation of a woman and a young child are all• things which would have been known and considered normal. It is very likely• that the people concerned were acting according to how they perceived a• ‘proper’ burial to be. This ‘norm’ is a practical expression of the structure. By• following the pattern of what was right and proper, the norm was reinforced• and recreated, joining a body of memories of proper burials which would have• been subconsciously referred to again and again24.
His body was laid on antlers, which are only included in the burial of oldpeople, male and female, in the cemetery36. He was buried with tools,
whichwas typical for adult male burials37. In the way of the burials at both
Vedbækand at other cemeteries, he was laid on his back, and there was red ochrepresent in the grave. Unusually, his legs were weighed down by large stones,which is a practice not found in any other graves at the cemetery38. It isinteresting to wonder what an onlooker at the burial might think of thearchaeological analysis of the grave today. The onlooker’s experience wouldhave been infused by memories of other burials, and of the life of the manbeing buried. Many things picked up on by archaeologists today might seem
fartoo obvious to even mention, they would have, to use Bloch’s term, ‘gone
• There is more that we can take from this evidence, however, than just these• bare facts. We know that he was buried, which was not the case for the entire• population, so the decision to bury this individual was not the only option• available40. We can tell that the place of the burial was significant; it was within• a cemetery, suggesting that memory and tradition played a role in the placing of• the grave41. This style of burial is found throughout the known Ertebolle• cemeteries, with some variations, such as multiple instead of single inhumation,• and different positions for the body42. This practice was, it seems, generally• accepted; what we can call the norm. The inclusion of antlers and weapons also• fit within a pattern, reflecting his age and his gender, suggesting that this was• also a structured practice. The stones, which are unique, may have a particular• significance to the individual buried, or may have been a practical solution to a• problem; perhaps the body was in rigor mortis43.
• When the man died decisions were made as to how to treat the body. The result is what remains today, although we may not know how the decisions were
• made. The burial followed certain norms, in the style of the inhumation, the
• choice of grave goods and the inclusion of ochre. The burial may have been
• accompanied by some kind of ceremony which would also have followed a set
• pattern. The antlers, which are unusual, may have represented his position in
• the community, or had some kind of religious significance.
• Some of the most intriguing finds at both the two excavated
• Ertebolle cemeteries, Vedbak Bogebbakken and Skateholm are the graves
• without bodies. These follow the pattern for burial of a pit dug and quickly
• filled in again containing items normally associated with burial, like antlers,
• grave goods, and ochre, but without the presence of a body46. There
• One of the interpretations of these is that they are cenotaphs. If this• is the case then there must have been a situation where a person died without• leaving the community a body, perhaps lost at sea. The individuals in the• community would have been faced with a dilemma; how to have a funeral• without a body. Perhaps a decision was made to do everything the same, but• without a body. The structural norms demanded a burial, but the individuals• were forced to work out how to do this in unusual circumstances themselves. A• related phenomenon may be the canine burials found at Skateholm. There is no• evidence that dogs were particularly revered by the Ertebolle, with canine• remains found at many domestic sites, often just dumped with other rubbish47.• However at Skateholm II, the older of the two cemeteries, a dog has the most• richly furnished grave; indeed the grave goods would have lead the excavators• to think him the chief or certainly an important figure, had he not been a dog.• It is possible that the dog plays some kind of role as substituting for a human48.• Actions in response to unusual, even crisis situations, may have played a role in• recreating the structure.
• funerals are moments when a community reflects on itself, the• actions surrounding a burial become statements of their culture, reinforcing the• structure in the process49. The mortuary practices of the Ertebolle demonstrate• both the role of individual agency in the decisions surrounding a burial,• including the potential for creativity and change, while at the same time• showing that most decisions fit into a norm, providing evidence of the role of• structure and ideology in the decisions that were made. Almost all the burials• shared features in common, and were placed within an area which was set aside• for burial. It is easy to assume that people in the past were controlled by• ideological rules, which instructed them on how to go about their lives. But if• we are to accept that individuals had agency, and were conscious and self-• aware, then we cannot simply believe that their decisions were forced by• subconscious structuring principles. It is clear that the role of agents should not• be discounted from archaeological study. If agency is fundamentally connected• with the ability to act then the decisions that lead to action are very important.• Decision making is an internal balance of agency and structure. The structure, a• resource of memory, knowledge and awareness of ‘how to go on’, provides a set• of possibilities for the agent which can be chosen between. The agent brings• their own conscious awareness to the decision, as well as their creativity and• the advice of those around them. Our consideration of the past should not• merely have an ‘add actors and stir’ approach50, but should consider agency as a• vital part of the ability of individuals to interact with their world.
• Territoriality may have had an important connotation in semi sedentary Ertebølle communities. At Skateholm, two larger cemeteries from the middle to late Ertebølle period both located on an island contained about 85 graves. An arrowhead was lodged in the pelvic bone of an adult male and a bone point was found with another male At the Ertebølle Vedbæk cemetery on Zealand, one adult, probably male in a grave with three bodies had a bone point through the throat. Bone points that probably caused lethal damage have also been found in the chests of burials of adults at Bäckaskog and Stora Bjers in Sweden. Other Mesolithic victims of fatal injuries are known from France (Téviec in Brittany) to the Ukraine (Vasylivka III cemetery) in the East.
• This thesis explores the ritual dimensions of the mortuary practices in the late Mesolithic cemeteries at Skateholm in Southern Sweden and Vedbæk-Bøgebakken in Eastern Denmark. With a combination of methods and theories that all focus on the ritual practices as action, a new approach to burials in archaeology is proposed. Special attention is given to the treatment of the body after death, which is regarded to hold a central role in the mortuary practices. The focus on the body and on practices as actions is a central part of the method of analysis applied to the material. The French taphonomic approach anthropologie de terrain, which ultimately aims to reconstruct the acts that constituted the mortuary rituals, allows for a firm connection between the archaeological material and the theoretical framework. Through the engagement with practice theory and ritual theory, this thesis also touches upon the fundamental questions of why we need rituals to structure our lives and our world. More specifically, it discusses different dimensions of the need for rites of passage at death. How does ritual help us deal with the dual aspect of the crisis of death – the loss of a social being and the emergence of a cadaver? What does it mean for us to deal with the inevitably decomposing remains of our dead? How do the experiences and memories of these rituals contribute to shape our notions of body, self, life and death? Ultimately, this thesis is an attempt to make a connection, on the level of the processes of structuration of human life, between then and now, them and us.
Anthropologia du terraine
Ritual, Community and Identity• Work of anthropologist Nillson Stutz• We need to focus on the routine, not the
exceptional• Focus on practice, not meaning• Mortuary rituals REINFORCE community• Interested in WHAT happens to the body• Rituals follow RULES• Do Mesolithic burials exhibit a core set of
rules that governed society
Complexity and Variety..Essential Core?
Core set of practices
Ritual C
Ritual ARitual B
Rules...
• Location of burials was known and understood• Respect for the Integrity of the body• Decomposition is HIDDEN, after burial• Burial Pit immediately filled• Bodies were “LIFE LIKE”, seated or lying out• Laid on platforms• Buried with goods• Earlier graves rarely disturbed
...Exceptions to Rules• Cremations• Re-opening of graves• Removal of selected bones from graves
