In essence this thesis has endeavoured to pull together the evidence for experienced moments of mortuary practice, synthesizing archaeological, historical and philosophical methods and data in to an analysis of three research questions:
1. How did Medieval Byzantine people in Anatolia treat their dead?
2. How can archaeologies of mortuary practice contribute to wider debates on regionalisation? 3. Using a combination of relational approaches to the past, is it possible to approach the mortuary practice of historic periods at the level of individual experience?
My first research question; ‘how did Medieval Byzantine people treat their dead?’ was addressed using both the archaeological data sources and through drawing on wider scholarship in Byzantine Studies and Philosophy. Medieval Byzantine mortuary practices have the same basic rubric, with some elements of regional and temporal variation set out in chapter 4. The dead person was laid out, robed in garments appropriate for the grave and/ or wrapped in a shroud. The corpse was processed to the grave where a funeral service was held, deposited in the grave, very occasionally with items of material culture including dress accessories, shoes, coins, lamps and a single hen’s egg and finally the face of the dead person covered with a cerecloth and the grave sealed.
In section 3.2 I aimed to address some of the theological reasoning behind elements of mortuary practice. The major conclusion of this section was that the Medieval Byzantine concept of the relationship between body and soul was psychologically present after death, although never explicitly set out in theology which allowed room for significant variation within orthodoxy. The implications of this conception of the person were that the body and soul remained in some ways connected after death. In the exceptional cases of the saints, their bodily relics could be used to contact their souls, who in turn, could contact God on behalf of the intercessor in a system that was mirrored by the Byzantine court structure.
The nature of the body-soul divide played out in two different ways within the mortuary assemblages discussed in this thesis; in rural contexts where the single inhumations show
preoccupation with the bodily integrity of the corpse, such as at Barcιn and Ilipinar where individuals were interred singly, and protected by a tent-like structure of tiles, the care taken over preservation
of the corpse perhaps implies a more literal reading of the Pauline narratives of bodily resurrection of the dead than that shown by multiple burial contexts. In urban contexts the bodies of the dead were often placed in graves which already contained people causing disarticulation of bodies and mixing as earlier corpses were pushed to one side to create room for new primary inhumations. In terms of experience, this may have created a situation where people were monitoring for saintly activity, sweet smelling copses or visions of the saintly dead. Bodily integrity after death seems to have been less important in multiple grave contexts, but proximity of the corpse to the altar and location within a church were important, perhaps because of an implied analogous proximity of the soul to God.
My second research question, on regionalisation, was approached primarily through the
archaeological data. My major conclusion on the contribution of archaeological data to a discussion of regionalisation and regional identities in the Byzantine world was that as an archaeological community we need to continue drawing together disparate excavation records from the historic levels above excavations of prehistoric sites, as well as continuing to work on solving the ‘dark age’ problem of poor chronological resolution in order to draw out the potential nuances of
regionalisation that are only glimpsed in this thesis. The Medieval Byzantine hinterland is in many ways a proto-historic time and place which makes archaeological data invaluable to discussions of Byzantine identity and regionalisation. To be able to look for distinction within a type however, we must first have a firm idea of what the general type looks like, and although this thesis, and Ivison’s before it have made inroads into that project the categorisation and typology of sites and graves is by no means firmly established. Some trends which might conceivably be regional became visible throughout the process of this analysis; the tile graves at Ilipinar and Barcιn are distinct, as is the larger proportion of dress accessories in graves from the sites however without further broad scale analysis (such as that conducted within the Requiem project (Gilchrist and Sloane 2005)), it is difficult to tell whether we are witnessing regional practice, or a practice which was sporadically present throughout the Medieval Byzantine Empire. With continued focus on Medieval cemetery sites, the archaeology could conceivably yield considerable insight in terms of regional identity.
The categorisation of sites into types, rather than by regions yielded more successful results. Four traditions of site were identified, three types of church cemetery and field cemeteries. The three church cemetery types were interior church burial, where individuals were interred within churches, usually during the use phase of the church, exterior church burials where individuals were interred outside the church, or above a disused church building, and chapel burials where individuals were interred in small chapel contexts, which were arguably built for that purpose as at Alahan and Kilise
Tepe, and in the cave churches of Cappadocia (Ousterhout 2010). The field cemeteries were
seemingly quite separate from this tradition, as they are not visibly associated with an urban context and do not have churches on site (although this may be an issue of excavation sampling, it is
possible, perhaps even likely, that there were churches associated with these sites that we do not know about).
The categorization of the Çatalhöyük burials into phases and publication of the cemetery in the forthcoming site report which was a product of this thesis and the collation of a catalogue of sites and graves from both published and unpublished sources into a coherent dataset was the basic work required to discuss Medival Byzantine mortuary practices from the archaeological sources and independently constitutes an original contribution of this thesis.
A number of trends were identified as differing between types of site. As I have already mentioned, multiple burial contexts were common in both interior and exterior church cemeteries, but not in chapel contexts or field cemeteries, where single primary inhumations were the norm. Unlike in Greek contexts, there is no current archaeological evidence for ossuary use from Anatolia. There was some visible diversity in the type and quantity of small finds from grave contexts. Dress accessories were more common at all sites after the end of the eleventh century, which is possibly related to socio-political change and the tendency for the Empire to begin to look west in this period and differentiate itself from the unfurnished graves of Islam. Two sites go against this diachronic trend; small finds were present at Barcιn and Ilipinar from the first phase of use of the sites as cemeteries in the sixth century. The very early presence of significant quantities of small finds at Barcιn and Ilipinar suggest a potentially slightly different regional identity in the area. A distinct trend from the Constantinopolitan cemeteries of Saraçhane and Kalenderhane is the number of coins found in grave contexts, while it is by no means unheard of in the rest of the Empire, the prevalence of the practice in the capital is notable.
There is only sparse evidence for two further trends within mortuary assemblages, shrouding and the inclusion of shoes in grave assemblages, but because of the nature and providence of the evidence I suggest that both practices occurred much more frequently than their presence in the archaeological record suggests. Shrouds are described in text and common in art but are
unsurprisingly poorly preserved in grave contexts. Although there is even less supporting evidence for the presence of shoes outside of the archaeological record than there is for shrouds, the evidence for shoes that we do have is present is located at both field cemeteries and in church contexts. I have taken the broad scatter of incidences of shoes and the textual and artistic evidence
for shrouds, along with the ephemeral and easily destroyed nature of the archaeological evidence as indications that both practices may well have been common.
The culmination of my thesis has been my third research question: ‘using a combination of relational approaches to the past, is it possible to approach the mortuary practice of historic periods at the level of individual experience?’ to which the answer is essentially, and perhaps inevitably, no. We can never access the experience of individuals, but the experiences of individuals are not the same as individual experiences. What I found in the application of relational approaches to the past however, was that I could extend the extent to which we can think about how past experiences, moments, might have worked. This was discussed in terms of the distinction between belief and faith or knowledge for a Byzantine world in section 2.3, and in more concrete terms dealing with moments of mortuary practice in chapter 4. The original conclusions which emerged out of this approach are applicable to both the future study of Byzantium and to approaches to the past more generally.
I concluded that the assemblages which were moments of mortuary practice enabled and constrained emotional responses in the mourners. This is perhaps particularly true of the act of shrouding as a technology of mourning, in that through a small group of people taking time in the presence of the corpse, emotional responses could potentially have been moderated and stabilized prior to the very public procession to the graveside.
The other major conclusion which I reached through the application of a relational approach was a reappraisal of the usefulness of metaphor for thinking about objects and the concept that in Byzantium at least, objects may have cited allegorical meaning. By discussing allegory, and the allegorical tradition of narrative within Orthodox theology it is possible to take the ontology of people in the past seriously (Alberti et al 2011) while acknowledging the importance of non-literal truth to understanding (cf. Lakoff and Johnson 1980).
The relational approaches applied here allowed me the space to think through assemblages as moments in time, and to consider the actions evidenced by the archaeology as lived experiences. Although this work has grown out of a post-humanist tradition, it is humans and the human past which students of archaeology and related disciplines are interested in. There is no contradiction here, post-humanism and relational ontologies simply emphasise that we are not separate from the world, and nor were the people we study. In the relational approach I have developed, dealing with the enmeshed nature of the world has thrown the experienced qualities of assemblages, particularly mortuary assemblages into high relief. I hope that this thesis has gone some way towards
developing a more nuanced approach to experience, emotion and action and has therefore provided something useful to the study of Byzantium.
Appendix: Catalogue of Sites and Graves
Alahan, eleventh to thirteenth century burials
The site of Alahan is a collection of buildings including two masonry churches, a rock cut chapel and a baptistery located half way up a mountain in Cilicia overlooking the Goksu valley. Excavations under the direction of Michael Gough at Alahan took place during the 1960s and 70s. Although Gough died before the final publication of the site, his notes were compiled and edited for publication by his wife, Mary Gough resulting in a detailed record of the east church (also known as Koja Kilise), The east church (or Church of the Evangelists) and the Baptistery, which is referred to in early notes as the two aisled chapel (Gough 1985). The excavation and write up of the site, and the majority of the discussion to date has focused on the primary phases of each building, with suggested chronology ranging from the construction of the Church of the Evangelists at some point from the fourth to the seventh century to the construction within a generation of the east church (The first chronology was suggested by Gough in 1962 and although other date ranges have been suggested for occupation at the site there is no suggestion of the construction phase of the site continuing after the seventh century (Harrison 1985:22, Gough 1962).
ALA001 – identified in the archive as α, or colloquially in the excavators notebook as Anne Boyleyn.
MNI 1. Extended supine burial facing east (head at the west end of the grave). Stone lined tomb with three large capstones. No small finds present (Gough archive 45: MREG 1962: 19, locus b and d 1962:14).
ALA002 – identified in the archive as β, or colloquially in the excavators notebook as Piltdown man.
MNI1. Extended supine burial facing east (head at the west end of the grave). Stone lined tomb containing poorly preserved individual. No small finds present (Gough archive 45: MREG 1962:20).
ALA003 – identified in the archive as γ, or colloquially in the excavators notebook as Richard. MNI 2.
One individual is heavily disturbed with the remains of a second interment extended supine above. It is clear the second individual was extended supine facing east (head at the west end of the grave). Stone lined tomb capped with spolia including a cornice with a carved cross facing the inside of the grave (Gough archive 45: locus b and d:12).
ALA004 – identified in the archive as δ, or colloquially in the excavators notebook as Old Ninan. The
MNI of this grave is 1. No further information is present in the archive, although Gough’s comment that all of the burials face east can be taken to indicate that the individual was laid out in an extended supine position with their head at the west end.
ALA005 – identified in the archive as ‘the fifth tomb’ or colloquially in the excavators notebook as
Bluebeard. This grave was empty apart from a small turquoise cross, this cross appears not to be included in the finds report for the excavation (Coulston and Gough 1985:62-74).
Amorium, tenth and eleventh century burials
The Roman and Byzantine city at Amorium encompasses about 75 hectares in total, comprising an upper city located on a tell site, and the lower city, located on the plain to the south and east of the tell (Lightfoot 2009:139). Excavation was started in 1987 by Martin Harrison, who retired in 1992, at which point the excavations were taken over by Christopher Lightfoot and Eric Ivison. Within the lower city there have been two main areas of excavation, the enclosure area and the lower city church, which was excavated between 1990 and 2009. The burials contained in the catalogue below are likely to correspond to the post-destruction phase of the church and therefore date to the tenth and eleventh centuries (Lightfoot 2011:37).
Amorium Grave Catalogue
The tombs listed below are given the same catalogue number here as their internal number from Amorium with the addition of a prefix indicating that they come from Amorium: AMR. Tombs AMR001-AMR009 run consecutively south to north in the narthex of the lower city church. Detailed information on these nine tombs has been published by Ivison (2005). These tombs were excavated in 2002, with the exception of AMR005 which was excavated in 1998. Tombs AMR001-AMR009 were published by Ivison (2005), Tombs AMR0018, 19 and 20 were written up by Lightfoot, Koçyiğit and Yaman (2008), the remaining minimum of 110 tombs are not yet fully published and although access to the grey literature was requested for the completion of this thesis it was denied (Lightfoot pers. com. 2012). Images are provided of Tombs AMR043, AMR057, AMR062, AMR063, AMR096, AMR098, AMR103 and AMR122 on the Amorium website (http://www.amoriumexcavations.org/). The data contained in the descriptive catalogue below, collated from the above sources, has also been entered (where possible) into the access database, in order to facilitate quantitative assessment of the data.
AMR001
“Tomb structure (context 82): Rectangular compartment, tapering from west to east, walls built of 1- 2 courses of large limestone blocks capped by narrower courses of stone and tile fragments. Floor of beaten earth, rising toward the western end. Lid (Context 81) composed of four large, roughly hewn slabs of limestone, interstices sealed with fragments of stone and tile.
Burials (context 83): Minimum of four individuals. The uppermost individual was aligned with head to west. Scattered skeletal material from earlier burials found at east and west ends of tomb. A minimum of twenty fragments of iron nails and small iron strips, many of which preserve traces of oxidised wood, indicated the existence of a bier or coffin.” (Ivison 2005:244)
The osteological report on the narthex burials by Julie Roberts confirms the excavators’ MNI of 4 individuals. Roberts determines the age and sex of the individuals as follows: individual 1 was male, aged between 40 and 50; individual 2 was female, aged between 40 and 50; individual 3 was a probable male aged between 30 and 40; individual four was female aged between 40 and 60 (Roberts 2005:254).
AMR002
“Tomb structure (context 85): Rectangular compartment, tapering from west to east. Walls built of two courses of reused limestone blocks. Floor paved with square tiles laid on earth, inclined upward to form a pillow at the western, head end of the tomb. Lid (context 84) composed of three large, rough-hewn limestone slabs, interstices sealed with fragments of stone and tile.
Burial (context 86): Minimum of 6 individuals. Two articulated skeletons, supine with heads to west, arms crossed on pelvis. Scattered skeletal material of at least four more individuals at east and west ends of tomb.” (Ivison 2005:244).
The osteological report on this tomb finds an MNI of 6 individuals. Individual 1 is male, aged 35-45. Individual 2 is male, aged 40 to 60. Individual 3 is male, of unknown age. Individual 4 is a possible male, and a generic adult. Individual 5 is a probable male aged 35 to 45. Individual six is of indeterminate sex, aged between 17 and 23 (Roberts 2005:255).
AMR003
“Tomb structure (context 64): Rectangular compartment, tapering from west to east. Walls built of two courses of reused limestone blocks, with a fragment of closure slab lining the western end. The courses were heavily rendered with lime mortar. Floor paved with square tiles and tile fragments on earth, inclined upward to form pillow at western end of tomb. Lid (context 61) composed of three large, reused limestone slabs, with interstices sealed with fragments of stone and tile” (Ivison 2005:245).
Burials (context 65): MNI of 5. Three articulated individuals. Individual 1is male, 50+, laid partially over individual 2, a male aged between 22 and 26. The cranium of individual 2 was supported by a tile pillow. Individual 3 is male between 25 to 35. The disarticulated burials consisted of two left and right fibulae and several tarsal bones which Roberts takes to imply that the disarticulated remains were earlier burials which were cleared for the three articulated burials. Individual 4 was an adult male, individual 5 was a probable adult male. (Ivison 2005:245, Roberts 2005:255).
“Tomb structure (context 71): Trapezoidal, coffin-shaped in plan, with walls constructed of spolia. The south wall made up of two Ionic impost capitals of breccia marble and a templon post fragment, with smaller stone fragments in the interstices. The capitals stood on their sides, with their imposts facing inward. The north wall was built with a single course of limestone blocks, capped with a broken marble railing from the middle Byzantine ambo. The west and east walls were lined with