Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains

329 Pages·5.632 MB·English

by  Rebecca Gowland, Christopher Knüsel

i
S A
OCIAL RCHAEOLOGY OF
F R
UNERARY EMAINS
11
S A
OCIAL RCHAEOLOGY OF
F R
UNERARY EMAINS
Edited by
Rebecca Gowland and Christopher Knüsel
Oxbow Books
Published by
Oxbow Books, Oxford, UK
© Oxbow Books, Rebecca Gowland, Christopher Knüsel
and the individual authors, 2006
Reprinted 2009 and 2012
ISBN 978-1-84217-365-7
A CIP record of this book is available from the British Library
This book is available direct from
Oxbow Books, Oxford, UK
(Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone])
and
The David Brown Book Company
PO Box 511, Oakville, CT 06779, USA
(Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone])
or from our website
www.oxbowbooks.com
Cover image: X-Ray, French Vogue, Paris 1994
© The Helmut Newton Estate/TDR
Printed in Great Britain by
Short Run Press
Exeter
v
Contents
List of contributors............................................................................................................................................................... vii
Acknowledgements..............................................................................................................................................................viii
Introduction
Rebecca Gowland and Christopher J. Knüsel..............................................................................................................................ix
1. The intrinsic pattern of preservation of human skeletons and its influence on the interpretation of
funerary behaviours
Silvia Bello and Peter Andrews.........................................................................................................................................1
2. Pattern in human burial practice
Peter Andrews and Silvia Bello...................................................................................................................................... 14
3. L’archéothanatologie ou l’archéologie de la mort (Archaeoethnoanatology or the Archaeology of
Death)
Henri Duday.................................................................................................................................................................. 30
4. Neolithic burial taphonomy, ritual, and interpretation in Britain and Ireland: a review
Jessica Beckett and John Robb ....................................................................................................................................... 57
5. Cremation ... the cheap option?
Jacqueline I. McKinley.................................................................................................................................................... 81
6. Companions in death: the roles of animals in Anglo-Saxon and Viking cremation rituals in Britain
Julie M. Bond and Fay L. Worley................................................................................................................................. 89
7. La Tène dietary variation in Central Europe: a stable isotope study of human skeletal remains
from Bohemia
John D. Le Huray, Holger Schutkowski and Michael P. Richards .............................................................................. 99
8. Immigrants on the Isle of Lewis – combining traditional funerary and modern isotope evidence to
investigate social differentiation, migration and dietary change in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland
Janet Montgomery and Jane A. Evans.........................................................................................................................122
9. Ageing the past: examining age identity from funerary evidence
Rebecca Gowland..........................................................................................................................................................143
10. Gender, bioarchaeology and human ontogeny
Joanna R. Sofaer...........................................................................................................................................................155
vi Contents
11. The gendered skeleton: anthropological interpretations of the bony pelvis
Pamela K. Stone and Dana Walrath...........................................................................................................................168
12. The osteology of monasticism in Medieval England
Simon Mays..................................................................................................................................................................179
13. Text, space and the evidence of human remains in English Late Medieval and Tudor disease culture:
some problems and possibilities
Isla Fay........................................................................................................................................................................190
14. ‘Of no more use to men than in ages before?’: the Investiture Contest as a model for funerary
interpretation
Christopher J. Knüsel ...................................................................................................................................................209
15. Skeletal evidence and contexts of violence in the European Mesolithic and Neolithic
Rick Schulting ..............................................................................................................................................................224
16. Beneath the façade: A skeletal model of domestic violence
Shannon A. Novak......................................................................................................................................................238
17. Fragmentation of the body: comestibles, compost, or customary rite?
Christopher J. Knüsel and Alan K. Outram ...............................................................................................................253
18. Altering identities: body modifications and the pre-Columbian Maya
Pamela L. Geller..........................................................................................................................................................279
19. The living dead and the dead living: burials, figurines and social performance in the European
Mid Upper Palaeolithic
Paul B. Pettitt..............................................................................................................................................................292
Index .....................................................................................................................................................................................309
vii
List of Contributors
PETER ANDREWS, Department of Palaeontology, The JACQUELINE I. MCKINLEY, Wessex Archaeology, Portway
Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 House, Old Sarum Park, Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP4 6EB,
5BD, UK UK
JESSICA BECKETT, Department of Archaeology, University JANET MONTGOMERY, Department of Archaeological
of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3DZ, Sciences, University of Bradford, Bradford, West
UK Yorkshire, BD7 1DP, UK
SILVIA BELLO, Department of Palaeontology, The Natural SHANNON NOVAK, Department of Anthropology, Campus
History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, Box 8005, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho,
UK 84105, USA
JULIE BOND, Department of Archaeological Sciences, ALAN K. OUTRAM, Department of Archaeology, School
University of Bradford, Bradford, West Yorkshire, BD7 of Geography, Archaeology, and Earth Resources,
1DP, UK University of Exeter, Laver Building, North Park Road,
Exeter, EX4 4QE, UK
HENRI DUDAY, Directeur de Recherche au CNRS et
Directeur d’Etudes à l’EPHE, UMR 5199, Laboratoire PAUL. B. PETTITT, Department of Archaeology, University
d’Anthropologie des Populations du Passé, Université of Sheffield, Northgate House, West Street, Sheffield, S1
Bordeaux 1, Avenue des Facultés, 33405 – TALENCE 4ET, UK
CEDEX, France
MIKE RICHARDS, Department of Human Evolution, Max
JANE EVANS, NERC Isotope Geosciences Laboratory, Plank Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology,
BGS, Keyworth, Nottingham, United Kingdom, NG12 Deutscher Platz 604103, Leipzig, Germany
5GG, UK
JOHN ROBB, Department of Archaeology, University of
ISLA FAY, School of History, University of East Anglia, Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3DZ, UK
Norwich, Norfolk, NR4 7TJ, UK
RICK SCHULTING, School of Geography, Archaeology and
PAMELA GELLER, Department of Anthropology, American Palaeoecology, Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern
University, Battelle-Tompkins, Room T21, 4400 Ireland, BT7 1NN, UK
Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20016-8003,
HOLGER SCHUTKOWSKI, Biological Anthropology Research
USA
Centre (BARC), Department of Archaeological Sciences,
REBECCA GOWLAND, St John’s College, Cambridge, CB2 University of Bradford, Bradford, West Yorkshire, BD7
1TP, UK 1DP, UK
CHRISTOPHER J. KNÜSEL, Biological Anthropology JOANNA R. SOFAER, Department of Archaeology,
Research Centre (BARC), Department of Archaeological University of Southampton, Avenue Campus, Highfield,
Sciences, University of Bradford, Bradford, West Southampton, SO17 1BF, UK
Yorkshire, BD7 1DP, UK
PAMELA K. STONE, School of Natural Science, Hampshire
JOHATHAN D. LE HURAY, Department of Archaeological College, Amherst, MA 01002, USA
Sciences, University of Bradford, Bradford, West
DANA WALRATH, University of Vermont, Department of
Yorkshire, BD7 1DP, UK
Medicine, 371 Pearl Street, Burlington, VT 05401, USA
SIMON MAYS, Senior Scientific Officer, Ancient
FAY WORLEY, Department of Archaeological Sciences,
Monuments Laboratory, English Heritage Centre for
University of Bradford, Bradford, West Yorkshire, BD7
Archaeology, Fort Cumberland, Eastney, Portsmouth,
1DP, UK
PO4 9LD, UK
viii
Acknowledgements
We thank the following reviewers for their efforts on State University), Terry O’Connor (Department of
behalf of those contributing to this volume. Although Archaeology, University of York), Carol Palmer (Depart-
they are not responsible for the final form of the con- ment of Archaeology, University of Sheffield), Carole
tributions, each gave their time and expertise to making Rawcliffe (School of History, University of East Anglia),
this volume better. John Robb (Department of Archaeology, University of
Anthea Boylston (Biological Anthropology Research Cambridge), Rick Schulting (School of Geography,
Centre, Department of Archaeological Sciences, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen’s University,
University of Bradford), Megan Brickley (Institute of Belfast), Holger Schutkowski (Biological Anthropology
Archaeology and Antiquity, University of Birmingham), Research Centre, Department of Archaeological Sciences,
Andrew Chamberlain (Department of Archaeology, University of Bradford), James Steele (Department of
University of Sheffield), Elizabeth DeMarrais (Depart- Archaeology, University of Southampton), Robert Tague
ment of Archaeology, University of Cambridge), Clive (Department of Geography and Anthropology, Louisiana
Gamble (Department of Geography, Royal Holloway, State University), Tim Taylor (Department of Archaeo-
University of London), Roberta Gilchrist (Department logical Sciences, University of Bradford), Tim Thompson
of Archaeology, University of Reading), Dawn Hadley (Unit of Anatomy and Forensic Anthropology, School of
(Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield), Life Sciences Research Biocentre, University of Dundee),
Anthony Harding (Department of Archaeology, Univer- John W. Verano (Department of Anthropology, Tulane
sity of Exeter), Catherine Hills (Department of University), Alasdair Whittle (School of History and
Archaeology, University of Cambridge), Mary Lewis Archaeology, Cardiff University), Lori Wright (Depart-
(Department of Archaeology, University of Reading), Sam ment of Anthropology, Texas A & M University)
Lucy (Cambridge Archaeological Unit, Department of We also acknowledge the discussions during and after
Archaeology, University of Cambridge), Simon Mays a session entitled, “The Social Archaeology of Funerary
(English Heritage, Portsmouth), Andrew Millard (Depart- Remains”, co-organised by the editors and Lola Bonnabel
ment of Archaeology, Durham University), Jacqueline (Institut National de Recherches Archéologiques
McKinley (Trust for Wessex Archaeology), John Préventives (Inrap), France) and Liv Nilsson Stutz
Moreland (Department of Archaeology, University of (Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Lund
Sheffield), Janet Montgomery (Department of Archaeo- University) for the European Association of Archaeo-
logical Sciences, University of Bradford), Gundula Mülder logists meeting in Lyon, France (8–9 September 2004),
(Department of Archaeology, University of Reading), where early versions of some of the papers in this volume
Shannon Novak (Department of Anthropology, Idaho were aired.
ix
Introduction
Rebecca Gowland and Christopher J. Knüsel
Human bones are the most tangible and direct form of difficult or impossible and the data presented in formats
evidence for understanding how people lived in the past, incompatible with those from other cemeteries.
who they were, and where they came from. The human As a consequence of this, there continues to be a
skeleton is not a universal, static entity; it is a unique distinct lack of a synthetic treatment of human remains
repository for social information concerning the lifestyles and their burial context, even today, with unprecedented
and lifeways of past peoples, shedding light on, amongst numbers of trained osteologists in the field. Human
other things, craft and occupational activities, diet, living skeletal analysis is still not fully incorporated into social
conditions and health, migration and mobility, and social archaeology – the dominant theme of much of
inter-actions. As a result, human skeletal remains must archaeological research today. For example, we frequently
rank as one of the (if not the) most information-rich sources find comments such as these: “In spite of several analyses
of archaeological evidence. On a micro-level, skeletal of human osteological material from the area of the
remains can often provide intimate information concerning Danube Gorges, there has been little integration of the
individuals (e.g. they smoked a clay pipe) that simply cannot results from physical anthropology and the archaeological
be accessed by any other archaeological means, but, equally, context of the burials” (Borić and Stefanović, 2004). Later,
one can ‘zoom out’ and discover answers to population in the same treatment, these authors note that: “Although
level questions (e.g. impact of changing subsistence isotopic measurements were analysed for ten children
strategies on population health). Few forms of archaeo- from Lepenski Vir and 7 from Vlasac… it is not possible
logical evidence have this investigational versatility. to relate palaeodietary results to particular individuals as
Given their evident importance, it is surprising that, information on what skeletons were analysed was not
for many years, the potential of skeletal material for published in the… report” (p.527). This type of oversight
answering important archaeological questions was is not as uncommon as one might hope and attempting to
overlooked. Human skeletal remains only began to play a link burial cuts with individuals, burial inclusions and
part in archaeological interpretation from the 1960s; prior position within a particular site, let alone a description of
to this they were only deemed relevant for answering the burial position, perhaps accompanied with an in situ
specific questions concerning ‘race’, or when medical photograph are labours of some difficulty when dealing
curiosity was peaked by the unearthing of a particularly with many published reports.
abnormal specimen. Even during the theoretical Larsen (1997), in his introduction to Bioarchaeology, also
developments of New Archaeology and Processualism, laments the fact that many archaeologists in the United
when archaeology was given a scientific make-over, States (generally believed to be a few steps ahead of the
studies of human skeletal material remained on the UK when it comes to the integration of skeletal analysis)
periphery. Quite why this was so, when environmental are actually unaware of the potentials and limitations of
evidence, such as animal bones, carbonised plant remains osteological evidence for contributing to debates
and pollen, were at the forefront of these developments is concerning aspects of social organisation and identity.
unclear. Why should this be when these are the remains of the
Key initiators in the field of human skeletal analysis, people who inhabited the past, who farmed the animals,
Calvin Wells and Don Brothwell in the UK and Lawrence made the pots, built the houses, etc., and whose very lives
Angel in the US, continued to highlight the social we are trying to access?
relevance of the skeleton in their publications. However,
despite these efforts, studies of human remains continued
Science/theory divide
to be marginalised, usually confined to cemetery reports,
often in the appendices or microfiche (which invariably Human skeletal analysis has been conceptualised as a
went missing). Osteological data in cemetery reports still purely scientific undertaking, contributing to the arsenal
tend to be reduced to a series of summary tables of of archaeological evidence, but not fundamental to social
demographic and palaeopathological statistics. Often analysis. This perception appears to be derived from the
linking this information to individual skeletons can be insidious belief that the skeleton is a universal, fixed