La corte señorial Los oficiales de don Juan Manuel

The mortuary context and its variability are directly linked to a society’s socio-cultural complex (i.e. ideology, hierarchy, economy, etc.) (Barrett 1990; Carr 1995; Chapman 1981; Chesson 2001; Goldstein 1981; Huntington and Metcalf 1979; Kuijt 2001; Pader 1982; O’Shea 1984; Parker Pearson 1993, 2003; Saxe 1970). Tombs and mortuary sites are sites of

124 |

symbolism, ideology and politics (Ashmore and Geller 2005; Bloch and Parry 1982; Chapman and Randsborg 1981; Kuijt 2001; Parker Pearson 1993, 2003). Ideology often manifests in the placement of burials in relation to settlement areas and other socially meaningful places (Chapman and Randsborg 1981; Kuijt 2001; Pader 1982; Parker Pearson 1993).

The appearance of cemeteries and communal burial sites has been associated with the establishment of communities comprised of multiple kin-groups with access to surplus goods (Chapman 1981; Meskell 1999). Often it is modifications to the form of human disposal that are early indicators of socio-political and economic shifts (Chapman 1981). Cemeteries and burial structures occasionally act as territorial markers, which might contribute to a site’s location on a hill or prominence and on the periphery of settlements, or the construction of monuments (O’Shea 1984:287). The location of burial sites on the periphery of settlements could also suggest a societal need to separate the dead from the living. Hence, it is necessary to consider mortuary sites in relation to the entire social context (Chapman and Randsborg 1981; Kuijt 2001; Pader 1982; Parker Pearson 1993). There is also social meaning encoded within mortuary space (see Ashmore and Geller 2005 for example). Single interments tend to inform on the identity and perception of the deceased, while communal sites are more indicative of group identity and status. The communal crypt as a symbol of group solidarity and status can only be maintained if individual identities are de-emphasized in burial (Bloch and Parry 1982).

Changes within a society are often reflected in modifications to mortuary practices (Cannon 1989; Chapman 1981; Meskell 1999). Burial practices and variations within or between interment types vary due to changes in views related to hierarchical social development or changing ideology about kinship ties (Meskell 1999). Specific mortuary practices are meaningful through their comparison with contemporaneous and past practices (Cannon 1989:446). Social and ideological change is most apparent in variation in burial types and/or structures over time and space. The challenge of interpreting mortuary contexts in the archaeological record is that what remains represents a fraction of the associated mortuary

125 |

ritual (O’Shea 1984). Change from family tombs or crypts towards community cemeteries or burial grounds could suggest a shift in ideology from kinship toward other relationships (e.g. Byrd and Monahan 1995). Rank differentiation is more apparent in the comparative context once affiliated burial systems are identified (Brown 1981:37). Factors impacting on burial types over time and space include status, kinship, economics, and ideology (Carr 1995; Meskell 1999; O’Shea 1984; Pader 1982; Saxe 1970).

“Tombs are not simply symbolic markers but are real components of political actuality, forming a principal means of acquiring and demonstrating power” (Parker Pearson 2003:193). Morris (1991:152) suggests that mortuary customs often develop directly following

subsistence intensification, which is regularly linked to the development of socio-political complexity. Often mortuary rituals and architecture are used to legitimize the socio-political system and status reflected in social hierarchy (Barrett 1990; Carr 1995; Foster 1995; Kuijt 2001; Parker Pearson 1993, 2003). Identity, both individual and group, is intertwined in mortuary practices and ritual partly due to the link between burial practice and memory (Chesson 2001; Foster 1995; Kuijt 2001; Van Dyke and Alcock 2003). Identities associated with burial sites tend to be modified and reworked over time based on the significance of the site or individuals affiliated with the site (Barrett 1990; Parker Pearson 1993, 2003). Memories associated with mortuary sites are often linked to individual or kin-group status, and survivors enact their own status and kin affiliations by their participation in mortuary rites (Barrett 1990; Foster 1995; Parker Pearson 1993). Mortuary architecture on a monumental scale constitutes social markers in the landscape, which are indicative of group identity throughout time (Earle 2000).

Ritual feasting and mortuary offerings tend to be linked to memory (Chesson 2001; Foster 1995; Van Dyke and Alcock 2003). Mortuary events act as a stage to express group solidarity and status, alongside individual status (Barrett 1990; Chesson 2001; Kuijt 2001; Mandelbaum 1965). Mortuary archaeology is particularly situated to address social change and development over time as it addresses economic, ideological, and political issues (Meskell

126 |

1999; Parker Pearson 1993; Saxe 1970; Tainter 1977). This change may include

decentralization, not just increasing complexity (O’Shea 1984). Often mortuary practices also “present situations where the lack of solidarity is dramatically highlighted” (Mandelbaum 1965:357).

The death of a socio-political leader raises additional considerations in relation to mortuary practices. In the case of the deaths of high-ranking leaders it is necessary for the mortuary ritual to reaffirm the legitimacy of the socio-political structure and demonstrate that the death has not destabilized society (Hertz 1960; Saxe 1970). The mortuary rituals

associated with high-status burials reflect the position of the deceased in form and offering (Huntington and Metcalf 1979; Saxe 1970), and act to legitimize social hierarchy. In many chiefly societies the death of a leader was kept secret until a new leader was chosen, at which time the funeral would be held (Hertz 1960). According to Hertz (1960:72) in complex

societies mortuary practices operate as attempts for the society to reconstitute itself, and often social structure is reflected in burial practice.

The development of socio-political hierarchies and heterarchies with ties beyond the kinship-level often manifest with increased investment in practices (Brown 1981; Carr 1995; Chesson 2001). Change in society is typically reflected in changing perspectives on burial rites and other practices (Barrett 1990; Carr 1995; Chesson 2001; O’Shea 1984; Parker Pearson 1993, 2003; Tainter 1977). By addressing as many components of a society’s mortuary complex as possible over time and geographic space, interpretations of social structure and change can be developed (Chesson 2001; Goldstein 1981; Pader 1982). The location of burial sites in a settlement is often indicative of a society’s perception of death and the ancestors (Binford 1971; Parker Pearson 2003). There is also some differentiation between individuals buried in a specific fashion or place and individuals located in other areas. There is typically a small cross-section of society that is treated differently in death based on status or behavior (Brown 1981; Goldstein 1981; O’Shea 1984; Parker Pearson 2003; Saxe 1970). High status is often indicated by an elaboration of mortuary practices typically used by a society at a given

127 |

time, but there are individuals that may be treated so differently in death as to be invisible within a society (Brown 1981; Chesson 2001; O’Shea 1984; Parker Pearson 2003). In some societies social distinctions may be underplayed by levelling mechanisms, which indicates a non-linear relationship between status and burial treatment (Barrett 1990; Carr 1995; Chapman and Randsborg 1981). Mortuary ritual also allows for the redefinition of status for the living as well (Barrett 1990). The loss of an individual opens a gap in the social hierarchy and funeral participants often compete for social advancement through ritual participation. Another challenge to archaeological interpretation of social distinctions in mortuary sites is variation between contexts based on personal and social choices relating to each mortuary site (Carr 1995; Pader 1982). Identifying regularly occurring attributes (e.g. specific types of artifacts, architectural components, and burial orientations) is integral to discussion of status distinctions or anomalous occurrences (O’Shea 1984).

Some mortuary behaviors (e.g. secondary burial, ritual bone breaking, etc.) also provide challenges to the interpretation of depositional processes (O’Shea 1984). In particular, secondary burial shows continued mortuary activity within burial sites connecting individuals with their ancestors, which indicates a complex of ritual activities which may not be recovered archaeologically. Non-human taphonomic processes must also be accounted for in burial contexts. Differential preservation is an issue for artifact types and skeletal material (O’Shea 1984; Roksandic 2002). Consideration of possible human or natural impacts on mortuary sites will aid in the interpretation of these sites (e.g. Chapman 1981; Haglund and Sorg 2002; Ubelaker 1999; Valentin et al. 2010).

As outlined here, existing archaeological remains may represent only part of a society’s mortuary practices. It is valuable to examine ethnographic, ethnohistoric, and traditional history as a means of understanding the social context of burial practices within a society. Even though these lines of evidence may not provide a glimpse into the distant past, they do provide information on how a culture approached death. The next section reviews mortuary practices on Pohnpei.

128 |