Bereavement and commemoration: an archaeology of mortality.

Bereavement and commemoration: an archaeology of mortality. S. TARLOW. Bereavement BereavementDefinitionBereavement refers to the period of mourning and grief following the death of a beloved person or animal. The English word bereavement and commemoration: an archaeology ofmortality. xiv+208 pages, 25 figures. 1999. Oxford: Blackwell;0-6312-0613-2 hardback 55 [pounds sterling] & $66.95, 0-6312-0614-0paperback 15.99 [pounds sterling] & $33.95. Since the publication of The archaeology of death (Chapman et al.1981), in which the archaeology of death was studied in all itsimplications and from many points of view, other works have appearedwhich, however, deal only with certain aspects of the subject. Death inAncient Egypt Editing of this page by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled due to vandalism. (Spencer 1985) obviously focuses on Egypt; Mortuaryvariability: an archaeological investigation (O'Shea 1984) on someNorth American North Americannamed after North America.North American blastomycosissee North American blastomycosis.North American cattle ticksee boophilusannulatus. tribes; and Burial in ancient society (Morris 1988) onclassical interments. Specialized papers have also been published onmortuary practices or on the different rituals accompanying the disposalof the deceased, integrating more general themes from the archaeologicalliterature. Among these publications is The ancient mind (Renfrew &Zubrow 1994), in which Chris Scarre Chris Scarre is a leading writer in the fields of archeology and ancient history. He took his MA and PhD degrees at Cambridge University. From 1984 to 1988 he was editor of the acclaimed Past Worlds: The Times Atlas and Archeology calls our attention to the symbolismand rituals of death but warns us of the many aspects of death thatescape us as well (Scarre 1994: 75-81). Carr's (1995)cross-cultural study of non-state societies is also important. It wasthus with anticipation that I read the two works. They were written withthe aim of discussing and further exploring the significance of thefunerary fu¡¤ner¡¤ar¡¤y?adj.Of or suitable for a funeral or burial.[Latin fner practices to the societies that practised them. The interest ofboth works is increased by the assembling and interpretation of new datacollected in recent years. Mike Parker Pearson starts his book with a detailed description --by Ibn Fadlan, a member of the embassy of the Caliph caliphArabic khalifah (“deputy” or “successor”)Title given to those who succeeded the Prophet Muhammad as real or nominal ruler of the Muslim world, ostensibly with all his powers except that of prophecy. of Baghdad to themiddle Volga, in 921 or 922 -- of the funeral of a very importantScandinavian merchant of the Rus family. The funeral took 10 days ofpreparations, ceremonies and orgies, and finally they brought themerchant's longship longshipor Viking shipSail-and-oar vessel widely used in northern Europe for more than 1,500 years. It was a 45–75-ft (14–23-m) galley with up to 10 oars on a side, a square sail, and a 50–60-man capacity. ashore. A canopy was brought into the boat, andprepared and covered with beautiful fabrics. The dead man was thenre-dressed in rich garments, seated on a mattress and surrounded bycushions and grave goods. A slave girl had agreed to accompany him onhis last voyage, and she and some animals were sacrified and put intothe ship with him. Finally the ship was set on fire. Ibn Fadlan recordsthat in less than an hour everything had turned to ashes. The Rus mencovered the place with stones and put a great post of birch in themiddle of it, wrote the name of the merchant and the name of their king,and left the place. This burial has never been found but, if it hadbeen, very little would have been left to tell the archaeologistanything of this ceremony and its rituals, which have only reached usthrough Ibn Fadlan's report. Sarah Tarlow, writing from the point of view of a historicalarchaeologist, also begins her book with a story, about the restingplace of William Mainland, who died in 1894 on the island of Rousay inthe Orkneys. She describes his wife's thoughts and tells us whatshe asked the mason to write on his gravestone. From this we learn a lotabout what Mrs Mainland thought it was appropriate to say and whatsentiments should be expressed. She acted according to what societyexpected of her. This story emphasizes the meaning and the symbolismunderlying many of our actions and tells us how social behaviour andconstraints determine those very actions. Through these stories, bothauthors aim to show us their positions from the outset. Parker Pearsonwants to present us with a message: that archaeologists must be carefulwhen building up interest ing and plausible theories that might notcorrespond to reality or for which there may not be sufficient evidencein the available data. Tarlow is pointing out that the meaning of ouracts is often missing from our theories, or that what we think mighthave occurred does not correspond to what actually happened. Both ofthem are saying that what we see in the funerary remains is very often are-representation of the dead person or an image constructed by hispeople or relatives of what they wanted people to believe. Parker Pearson has been studying mortuary practices since he was astudent in Cambridge. Here he returns to his subject, emphasizing theimportance of context in any approach to the archaeology of death. Hisdata are exhaustive, discussing all the most recent theories in thisfield. Starting with the description of the funeral of the Rus merchant,Parker Pearson compares it with the natural deposition we find in caseslike that of the `ice-man' in the Austrian Tyrol. The dea th of thisman was natural but unexpected, so he died as he had lived without anyspecial preparation for death. However, in his death, he shows us howpeople lived, how they dressed and were equipped to cross the Alps. Hisis not a case of deposition. Parker Pearson goes on with his argumentputting forward a large number of questions and largely discussing them.Tarlow follows a similar schema. She starts by explaining how historicalarchaeology has evolved in recent years to become more human andchallenging. She urges archaeologists to be aware of the importance ofmeaning and emotion which are certainly important during the act ofdeposition of a corpse and in the appearance of imposing monuments orlarge cemeteries which emphasize the tragedy of humanity or the grief ofthe mourners. Both authors criticize different positions of archaeologicalthought prevalent in the last few decades. Parker Pearson values GordonChilde's position in (1945), which was later largely accepted bypost -processual approaches. He then considers archaeological thinkingsince the 1960s, social anthropology and New Archaeology, cross-culturalgeneralizations and middle-range theory, their contributions andconstraints; post-processual and cognitive archaeology; ethnoarchaeology Ethnoarchaeology is the ethnographic study of peoples for archaeological reasons, usually focusing on the material remains of a society, rather than its culture. Ethnoarchaeology aids archaeologists in reconstructing ancient lifeways by studying the material and non-material and structuralism structuralism,theory that uses culturally interconnected signs to reconstruct systems of relationships rather than studying isolated, material things in themselves. This method found wide use from the early 20th cent. ; mortuary variability and social organization; genderand kinship. He adds a note on new technologies and advances in thescientific field, such as research through DNA DNA:see nucleic acid. DNAor deoxyri bonucleic acidOne of two types of nucleic acid (the other is RNA); a complex organic compound found in all living cells and many viruses. It is the chemical substance of genes. . He concludes on thenecessity of making a contextual study rather than assuming regularitiesbetween the observed and the imagined and thus positing past attitudesand meanings which may not correspond to the actual ones. Sarah Tarlowtakes a similar line but centres her attention on emotional andmeaningful behaviours and points out the heterogeneity of cultures andsocieties. Thus they both attempt to call the reader's attention toother possible interpretations of the archaeological record and to thefact that what we see is not, or was not, the way the deceased sawhimself or might have wanted to show himself in death, but rather areinterpretation re¡¤in¡¤ter¡¤pret?tr.v. re¡¤in¡¤ter¡¤pret¡¤ed, re¡¤in¡¤ter¡¤pret¡¤ing, re¡¤in¡¤ter¡¤pretsTo interpret again or anew.re of him by his fellow citizens or relativ es. Tounderstand mortuary practices, archaeologists have to allow that suchevents are representations of perceived social relations such asconflict or negotiation, and even a misrepresentation misrepresentationIn law, any false or misleading expression of fact, usually with the intent to deceive or defraud. It most commonly occurs in insurance and real-estate contracts. False advertising may also constitute misrepresentation. of reality, tosuggest a different one than that which actually existed. Since the publications of the 1970s and 1980s, archaeologicalthought seems to have come a long way and this is reflected in thearchaeological literature. Burials have so far provided archaeology withmost of the information, sometimes all, that we have about pastsocieties. Studying past remains and especially interments, thearchaeologist is tempted to consider the possibility of reaching themeaning and the symbolism which lay behind those acts of deposition.Hence the importance of a more complete analysis of the setting ofcemeteries and necropolises within a given region and the relationbetween the monuments of the dead and the territories of the living. Thesupport of written documents can help, but sometimes it is not enough,as we saw in the Rus funeral. Both books provide us with material forreflection, up-to-date theoretical points of view, and usefulrecommendations, but Parker Pearson's certainly gives us a moreconsistent and substantial approach. References CARR, C. 1995, Mortuary practices: their social,philosophical-religious, circumstantial and physical determinants,Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2: 105-200. CHAPMAN, R.W., I. KINNES & K. RANDSBORG (ed.). 1981. Thearchaeology of death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press (known colloquially as CUP) is a publisher given a Royal Charter by Henry VIII in 1534, and one of the two privileged presses (the other being Oxford University Press). CHILDE, G. 1945. Directional changes in funerary practises during50,000 years, Man 4: 13-19. MORRIS, I. 1988. Burial in ancient society. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. O'SHEA, J. 1984. Mortuary variability: anarchaeological investigation. New York New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of (NY): Academic Press. RENFREW, C. & E.B.W. ZUBROW (ed.). 1994. The ancient mind.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press SCARRE, C. 1994. Funerary beliefs and the prehistorian, in Renfrew& Zubrow (ed.), The ancient mind: 75-82. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. SPENCER, A. 1985. Death in ancient Egypt. Harmondsworth: Penguin. T. JUDICE GAMITO, Historia & Arqueologia, Universidade doAlgarve, Campus de Gambelas, 8000 Faro, Portugal.