You are on page 1of 97

Mortuary Practices: Their Social, Philosophical-Religious, Circumstantial, and Physical

Determinants
Author(s): Christopher Carr
Source: Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Jun., 1995), pp. 105-200
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20177326 .
Accessed: 02/11/2014 12:21
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal
of Archaeological
Method and
Theory,
Vol
2,
No.
2,
1995
Mortuary
Practices: Their
Social,
Philosophical-Religious, Circumstantial,
and
Physical
Determinants
Christopher
Carr1
Recent, mainstream,
American
mortuary archaeology,
in its
paradigmatic
out
look,
middle-range theory, analytic methodology,
and case
studies,
has
empha
sized social
organization
as the
primary factor
that determines
mortuary
practices.
Broader
anthropological
and social science traditions have
recog
nized
philosophical-religious beliefs
as
additional,
important
determinants. The
historical roots
of mortuary archaeology's focus
on the
social,
and the conse
quence of
this on
theory development,
is reviewed
Then,
through
a Human
Relations Area Files
(HRAF)
cross-cultural
survey,
the kinds
of philosophical
religious,
social
organizational,
circumstantial,
and
physical factors
that
affect
specific
kinds
of mortuary practices,
and the relative
importance of
these
fac
tors,
are documented The data
are
also used to test basic
premises
that mor
tuary
archaeologists routinely
use
today
to reconstruct social
organization.
A
balanced,
more
holistic,
and
multidisciplinary approach,
which considers
many
kinds
of
causes
beyond
social
ones,
is
found necessary
to
interpret mortuary
remains and to reconstruct the
past from
them.
KEY WORDS:
mortuary archaeology; mortuary practices; ideology; archaeology
of social or
ganization.
INTRODUCTION
By
far the most common focus of recent American
archaeological
studies
of cemeteries and burials has been the reconstruction of
mortuary practices.
In
turn,
archaeologists
have used these
practices
to infer a
great diversity
of
past cultural, behavioral,
ecological,
and historical
phenomena.
These include
social
organization (Braun,
1979; Brown, 1971a;
Chapman,
et aL
1981),
his
department
of
Anthropology,
Arizona State
University, Tempe,
Arizona 85287.
105
im-S369t9S/06OMlQS$ff7J5Q? O 1995 Plenum
Publishing Corporation
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
106 Carr
torical trends in socioeconomic
competition
that involves
mortuary practices
as
expressive styles (Cannon,
1989;
Little et
al.,
1992),
trade and alliances
(Abbott
and
Howard, 1991; Carr, 1992;
Carr and
Maslowski, 1995;
Trigger,
1969;
Winters
1968), territoriality (Chapman, 1981),
warfare
(Owsley
et
al.,
1977; Ravesloot, 1988; Seeman,
1988), migrations (Brunson, 1989), ideology
(Hodder,
1982a, 1984; McGuire, 1992; Pearson,
1982,1984),
and
philosophi
cal-religious
beliefs and world views
(Emerson,
1989; Gruber, 1971; Hall,
1979, 1983; Merbs, 1989; Penney,
1983, 1985;
Sugiyama, 1992). Mortuary
practices
have also been used with
rigor
to infer
patterns
of social interaction
and cultural
affinity (e.g.,
Seeman,
1979), although
this
approach
was
applied
more
commonly
and
coarsely
earlier in this
century (e.g.,
Webb and
Snow,
1945; Willey
and
Sabloff, 1980, pp. 34-126).
Broader
bioarchaeological ap
proaches,
which combine skeletal
biological plus archaeological information,
have allowed these
subjects
as well as a
wider
range
of
biological
and eco
logical topics
to be
investigated (e.g., Blakely,
1977; Buikstra, 1977;
Chapman
and
Randsborg,
1981, pp. 19-23;
Huss-Ashmore
et
al., 1982;
Ortner and Put
schar, 1981;
Price et
al., 1985; Ubelaker,
1989).
Between the late 1960s and
1980s,
it came to be
accepted
in the
thought
and
practice
of much of American
mortuary
archaeology
that the
primary
determinant of variation in
mortuary practices
and burial form is
social
organization (e.g.,
Binford, 1971, pp.
7, 16, 23; Rothschild, 1979, p.
660; T?inter, 1978, p. 107).
Circumstantial and
physical
constraints
upon
mortuary
practices
were also used to
explain
burial variations. In
contrast,
socially
institutionalized,
philosophical-religious
beliefe and world views lost
academic relevance in the
study
of
mortuary practices during
this
period.
Beliefs were
deemphasized
in
paradigmatic
outlook,
middle-range theory,
analytic methodology,
and case studies.
Currently
in American
mortuary
archaeology, philosophical-religious
beliefs and world views are not well
understood
as to how and how much
they
affect
mortuary practices,
and
have
only begun
to
reemerge
as
worthy,
and
perhaps
feasible,
research
top
ics
(e.g.,
David, 1992; Hodder, 1982a, 1984; McGuire, 1992; Pearson, 1982,
1984;
Sugiyama, 1992).
This
paper
has two
purposes.
The first and most central is to affirm
the essential
place
of
philosophical-religious
beliefs in the
study
and inter
pretation
of
mortuary practices
and remains.
Through
a
cross-cultural eth
nographic
survey using
the Human Relations Area Files
(HRAF),
the kinds
of social
organizational, philosophical-religious,
physical,
and circumstan
tial factors
(and
to a limited extent the
ecological factors)
that affect various
kinds of
mortuary practices
are
documented. The social factors that are
considered here include the "dimensions" of social
organization
that have
typically
been studied in American
mortuary archaeology: age, gender,
ver
tical and horizontal social
positions,
and
personal
identities. The
philo
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 107
sophical-religious
factors that are
investigated
include
many categories
of
socially
institutionalized "folk" beliefs and world-view
assumptions
about
disease,
dying,
death,
the
soul,
the
afterlife,
and the cosmos.
Among
the
circumstantial and
physical
factors that
are treated are ones
previously
in
vestigated,
such as the
location, timing,
and cause of
death,
and other fac
tors
yet
to be
studied,
such as
requirements
for the health of
survivors,
body processing,
and access to the
body.
The
survey
discloses the relative
frequency
with which these kinds of causal factors
operate cross-culturally
and the variation in their balance with
sociopolitical complexity. Philosophi
cal-religious
factors are found to
explain
a
significant proportion
of intra
societal variation in
mortuary practices repeatedly
across cultures. From
the
study,
it is concluded that a
balanced,
more
holistic,
and
multidiscipli
nary
approach,
which considers
many
kinds of causes
beyond
social
ones,
is
required
to
interpret mortuary
remains and to reconstruct the
past
from
them.
The aim of this
survey
is not to
support
or refute
any
particular para
digm
on the nature of
society
or its
relationships
to beliefe and
mortuary
practices.
In
particular,
no
attempt
is made to
argue
whether social
factors,
the intents of
individuals,
philosophical-religious
ideas,
or other factors
might
be ultimate sources of
stability
or
change
in sociocultural
phenom
ena,
including mortuary practices.
Rather,
the
goal
of this
survey
is more
basic: to
inventory
and
inductively generalize
the kinds of
relationships
that
do
commonly
occur between
mortuary practices
or
forms and their more
proximate
social,
philosophical-religious,
and other causes.
The second
purpose
of this
paper
is to test with cross-cultural data
some common
working premises
that
archaeologists
have used to recon
struct social
organization
from
mortuary
remains.
Many
of these
premises
have been
developed
from
only
a
few
ethnographic
or
archaeological
cases,
or
without attention to the effects of the interactions between
philosophi
cal-religious
beliefs and social factors.
Examples
include
premises
about
the kinds of
mortuary practices
and forms that indicate vertical and hori
zontal social
positions,
and the determinants of
cemetery
and
grave
loca
tion. In almost all
instances,
the
simple relationships
that have been
posited
between
mortuary practices
and their causes are found here to be more
complex,
multivariate,
and
sobering.
A few of the
premises
have little em
pirical support.
Also tested in this article is Hertz's
(1907) premise,
which relates the
physical manipulation
of the
corpse
to beliefe about the soul and afterlife.
Although applied only ethnographically
thus far
(e.g., Huntington
and Met
calf,
1979),
Hertz's
hypothesis
is
important
to
archaeology.
It
suggests
how
philosophical-religious
beliefe can determine
mortuary practices directly
and
independently
of social
organization,
rather than
simply
as a
symbolic
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
108
Carr
framework for
expressing
social
organization.
Hertz's
hypothesis
also
pro
vides a
general
framework for
reconstructing
some
aspects
of
past
world
views and beliefs.
The cross-cultural
relationships
found here between
mortuary practices
and their causes
might
be classified
by
some as
middle-range
theoretic
(sensu Binford),
in that
they provide bridges
between the
systemic
and ar
chaeological
domains.
However,
most of the
bridges
constructed here are
statistical
generalities
rather than theoretical
propositions.
At the same
time,
the disclosed
patterns
do offer the
archaeologist guidance
in
selecting
mortuary
traits that are more
likely
to be relevant to social or
philosophi
cal-religious
research
problems.
In this functional
way,
the
patterns
resem
ble
middle-range theory.
Throughout
this
paper,
the
specific
terms
"philosophical-religious
be
liefs" and "world-view
assumptions,"
or "beliefs" for
short,
are used rather
than the more
general
term
"ideology."
This is done because
ideology
can
refer either
broadly
to
any "systematic body
of
concepts
about human life
or
culture,"
or more
narrowly
to
"integrated
assertions.
. .
that constitute
a
sociopolitical program" (Webster, 1963).
In
contemporary archaeology,
the
latter,
narrower
usage
has become common
(e.g.,
Earle, 1990; Hodder,
1982a, 1982b;
Miller and
Tilley, 1984). Philosophical-religious
beliefs and
world-view
assumptions
are
frequently
considered to be translations of so
cial structure or means
for social
organization
and
political
action.
Here,
in
contrast,
no
necessary linkage
between
philosophical-religious
ideas and
social structure or
organization
is
implied. Finally,
the term
"mortuary prac
tice" is used in short to refer to both ritual activities and the
resulting
material forms of
disposal.
This
paper begins
with a
summary
of different
archaeological
and an
thropological
views on the roles of social
organization
and beliefs in de
termining mortuary practices.
It
proceeds
to trace
historically
how recent
mainstream American
mortuary archaeology
came to focus on
social or
ganization
as the fundamental
determinant,
with restrictive
consequences
for the
subsequent development
of
middle-range theory. Finally,
the results
of the cross-cultural
study
of the causes of
mortuary practices
are
pre
sented.
CONTRASTING VIEWS ON THE DETERMINANTS
OF MORTUARY PRACTICES
Within
anthropology
and
sociology,
there are at least three distinct
approaches
that are available to
archaeologists
for
explaining mortuary
practices.
These
approaches
are offered
by (1)
mainstream
contemporary
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 109
American
archaeology,
which is based
largely
in the
materialist-ecological
paradigm, (2)
French
sociology
of the
early part
of this
century
and some
contemporary
British and American
anthropology;
and
(3)
recent British
action-focused,
symbolic,
contextual
archaeology.
These three schools differ in five
primary
ways. First,
they
contrast in
the
degree
to which
philosophical-religious
factors are
recognized
to con
tribute to
patterning
in
mortuary practices.
Second,
they
differ in whether
the
symbolic relationships
between
mortuary practices
or
forms and their
referent
philosophical-religious meanings
are
thought
to be
fully arbitrary.
Third,
the
approaches vary
in the
degree
to which social
organization
is
thought
to be mirrored
directly
in
symbolic mortuary practices
and
forms,
rather than
expressed indirectly through intervening
beliefs and world
views.
Fourth,
the schools differ in whether beliefs and world views are
thought
to sometimes affect
mortuary practices independently
of social
re
lations.
Finally,
the
approaches
vary
in whether social relations are
thought
to be
passively
mirrored in
mortuary practices
or, instead,
to be
idealized,
inverted, masked,
or otherwise
manipulated
when
symbolized by
those
practices
as
part
of social
strategies.
Mainstream American
mortuaiy archaeology
has come to
emphasize
the view that social
organization,
rather than
philosophical-religious
beliefs,
is the
primary
determinant of
mortuary practices.
For
example,
T?inter
(1978:107),
in his influential
summary
of American
mortuary archaeology,
concluded that Binford's
(1971)
cross-cultural,
ethnographic survey
of mor
tuary practices
"confirms
beyond
serious contention the
argument.
.
.that
variability
in
mortuaiy practices
must be understood in terms of
variability
in the form and
organization
of social
systems,
not in terms of normative
[i.e., ideationally based]
behavior."2 Rothschild
(1979, p.
660),
in her
study
of
prehistoric mortuary practices
in the Midwestern United
States, stated,
"It is assumed that distinctions visible in
mortuary practices
reflect status
distinctions visible
during
life. If
patterns
exist in
mortuary practices,
it is
assumed that
they
relate to structural divisions in
society."
Other determi
nants of
mortuary
practices
were
envisioned
by
Rothschild to be
secondary
exceptions: "Exceptions
to this
tendency
exist."
Similarly,
Greber
(1979, p.
38),
in her
analysis
of Ohio
Hopewell mortuary variability,
stated,
"It is
assumed
herein,
following
Binford
(1971)
and Saxe
(1970),
that
patterns
found within a
burial
population
reflect
significant
social
patterns
of the
associated
living population.
...
It is
probable
that a
closer
approximation
fainter
(1978, p.
109)
did
acknowledge
that the
interpretation
of variation in
mortuary
remains often
requires
a consideration of ritual.
However,
rituals are
behaviors,
and
mortuary
rituals are
aspects
of
mortuary practices
rather than causes of them?a
point
that Tainter
confused.
Mortuary
rituals
may
have
social,
philosophical-religious,
or other
determinants,
on which Tainter remained silent.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
110 Carr
to
[the]
total social structure will be made
by using
in a data base as
many
different
aspects
of the
physical
remains of the individual and of all burial
(funeral)
activities as
possible."
In line with these
views,
Rothschild's
(1979)
and Grebefs
(1979) mortuary analyses
do not once
consider
possible
al
ternative,
philosophical-religious
causes of
patterning. Likewise,
most other
well-cited American
archaeological
case studies since the late 1960s have
interpreted mortuary
remains in terms of social
organization, giving
little
or no attention to alternative
interpretations concerning
beliefe and world
views
(e.g.,
Binford, 1964;
Blakely,
1977; Braun, 1979;
Brown
1971b, 1981;
Goldstein
1981;
O'Shea
1981, 1984; Peebles, 1971; Tainter,
1975).3 Finally,
the thrust of
quantitative
and formal
methodological developments
for mor
tuary analysis
has been social reconstruction
(e.g.,
Braun, 1979, 1981;
Brown, 1971b, 1987; O'Shea, 1984; Peebles, 1972,1974; Saxe, 1970; Tainter,
1978, pp. 110-114,
128-136).
That social
organization
is the
primary
determinant of
mortuary prac
tices was
apparently
not the intended
message
of Binford's
(1971)
earlier
seminal
survey,
which
helped
to stir modern
archaeology's
interest in the
social causes of
mortuary practices (see below).
Nevertheless,
this tenet has
come to be assumed
commonly
in American
mortuary archaeology, appar
ently
as a result of
some
ambiguity
in Binford's article
(see below)
and
through subtly
but
significantly
different translations of Binford's conclu
sions,
such as those of
Rothschild, Greber,
and Tainter
just quoted.
French
sociological
studies
(Durkheim,
1915; Hertz, 1907;
Van Gen
nep, 1909)
and American and British
anthropological
studies
(Bloch,
1971;
Bloch and
Parry,
1982;
Douglas
1970;
Huntington
and
Metcalf, 1979;
Pen
ney, 1983; Turner,
1969)
of rituals and
symbols
are broader than
socially
focused American
mortuary archaeology.
These cited works differ from
American
mortuary archaeology
in three
significant
ways. First,
they clearly
show that institutionalized beliefs and world
views,
in addition to social
organization, fundamentally
affect a
society's mortuary
rites and forms. For
example,
Hertz
(1907)
showed that the
practice
of
secondary
burial
among
various
peoples
of Borneo reflects their belief that a
"second funeral" is
needed to
guide
the soul of the deceased to the
society
of souls in the
afterlife.
Second,
some of the above works
suggest
that the
"symbolic"
re
lationship
between
mortuary practices
and the
philosophical-religious
meanings
behind them is not
fully arbitrary.
Cross-cultural
regularities
in
basic world-view themes and
cosmology
exist,
and some of those
meanings
can be reconstructed
archaeologically
from
mortuary
remains. For
example,
3For
a
polar
assessment of the New
Archaeology's
social
approach
to
mortuary practices
and
underestimation of the effects of beliefs and world views on
mortuary practices,
see David
(1992, p. 182).
See also Emerson
(1989:46)
on American
archaeology's
attitudes toward
reconstructing cosmologies.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 111
Penny (1983)
and
Henry (1994)
have
convincingly
shown how the relative
placement
of some
cross-culturally
common
symbols
of shamanic cosmolo
gies (Eliade, 1964)
within Ohio
Hopewell
cemeteries
can
be understood as
representations
of the shamanic
three-layered
universe.
Third,
the above
works show that social
organization
is not
necessarily
mirrored
directly
in
the structure of
mortuary
rituals and forms.
Instead,
social
organization
is
usually expressed
in such
practices
within the constraints of and
through
the filters of "collective
representations," including
basic world-view as
sumptions
and
more
specific
beliefe about the nature of
reality,
time, space,
the
soul, death,
the
afterlife, disease,
and
so forth. For
example,
age, gen
der,
and
prestige
distinctions
are made in Nuba burial
practices,
but
only
because of and
through
the
expression
of beliefs about
purity
and
fertility
(Hodder,
1982a, p. 199).
The recent
British, action-focused, symbolic,
contextual
approach
to ar
chaeology (Hodder,
1982a; 1982b; 1984; Pearson,
1982)
also contrasts with
socially
focused American
mortuaiy archaeology;
it
aligns
more
closely
with
the above
sociological
and
anthropological
studies. In Hodder's
view,
cul
ture,
including
mortuary practices,
is
"meaningfully
constituted"
(Hodder,
1982b, pp. 9-10).
Behavioral
practices,
such
as
mortuary practices,
are ac
tively
chosen
by
actors in relation to
specific
beliefs and broader world-view
and
symbolic themes,
and within the constraints of
underlying psychological
structures
(e.g.,
dualism,
triadic
dualism)
and
"grammatical"
rules of asso
ciation, ordering,
and transformation. Because beliefs and their
symbols
have
some
ambiguity, they
are
open
to
reinterpretation
and
reworking through
their
expression
in behaviors such as
mortuary practices,
and can become a
part
of active social and
personal strategies (Hodder
1982a, p. 186).
The
specific
nature of the
reworking
varies with the context and the intention
of the
actor(s).
Thus, mortuary practices
need not be
passive
reflections of
social
organization; they
can be the
product
of active social and
personal
choices and
strategies,
which
comprise
the
dynamics
of social
relations/or
ganization
and which are made relative to beliefs.
In this
paradigm,
mortuary practices
are sometimes seen to idealize
the
practical, daily
social relations that
comprise
social
organization.
Or
they
are seen to invert or mask social relations
(Cannon,
1989; Hodder,
1982a, p. 200;
Little et
al., 1992; Pearson, 1982, p.
110).
Behaviors
sur
rounding
death need not mirror behaviors in
daily
life. To the extent that
such alterations of social relations
align
with
a
society's larger
world
view,
mortuary
behaviors
may
reflect the
society's
world view more than its
prac
tical
organization.
Among
the above-cited
French, British,
and American authors who do
see beliefe as
affecting mortuary practices,
there is one
additional
important
distinction. Both Hodder's school of
thought
and
Durkheim's,
in
bringing
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
112 Carr
beliefs and world views into the
study
of
mortuary practices, emphasize
the
social
functions, effects,
expressions,
and/or
manipulation
of
mortuary prac
tices. Beliefs and world views are
envisioned
as
providing
the
symbolic
framework for
expressing
or
manipulating
social relations. For Hodder's
action-focused
school, sociopolitical ideology
and
strategy,
more than
philo
sophical-religious
beliefe,
are the
paradigmatic
foci
(Hodder, 1982a, p. 186,
215-217; 1984; McGuire, 1992,
pp.
145-164; Pearson,
1982,1984), although
not
entirely (Hodder,
1982c, p.
141).
In
contrast,
other American and
French studies
(e.g.,
Hall, 1979,1983; Hertz, 1907;
Huntington
and
Metcalf,
1979; Merbs, 1989; Penney,
1983,
1985)
show that beliefe and world views
can affect
mortuary practices directly
and
independently
of social relations
and
structures,
in addition to
providing
a
framework for
expressing
them.
For
example,
Hertz
(1907)
and
Huntington
and Metcalf
(1979) clearly
dis
tinguished aspects
of
mortuary
rites in traditional Borneo that reflect social
organization (relationships
of the
deceased/corpse
to
mourners)
from as
pects
that are attributable to beliefs about death
(relationships
of the de
ceased/corpse
to the
soul, afterlife,
and souls
therein).
Thus,
the
linkages
between
mortuary practices
and
philosophical-religious
beliefs
appear
to
be fruitful for
investigation
in their own
right (see
also
Hall, 1983, p. 102).
In
sum,
different
archaeological
and
anthropological
literatures
vary
in the relative
degrees
and
ways
in which social
organization
and beliefs
are
thought
to determine
mortuary practices.
These diverse views
require
reconciliation
through empirical study.
HISTORICAL ROOTS AND
CONSEQUENCES
OF THE VIEWS TAKEN BY MAINSTREAM
AMERICAN MORTUARY ARCHAEOLOGY
Reviews of the
history
of ideas about
mortuary practices
in the social
sciences,
anthropology,
and
archaeology
have
already
been written
(Bartel,
1982; Binford, 1971; Brown, 1981; Chapman
and
Randsborg,
1981;
Hunt
ington
and
Metcalf, 1979; Whittlesey
1978, pp. 82-108)
and will not be
repeated
here.
Instead,
focus is
placed
on the
specific
reasons that
appear
to have led American
mortuary archaeology away
from the
study
of
philo
sophical-religious
beliefs,
and some of the
consequences
of
taking
this
path.
The late 1960s
through early
1980s
was a
formative
period during
which basic
insights
into the nature of death and
mortuary practices
were
gained
and
theory
was
developed
in
many disciplines.
In
archaeology,
Bin
ford
(1971),
Saxe
(1970),
Brown
(1971b),
and Peebles
(1971) published
seminal works that modeled the nature of social
organization
and estab
lished,
by example
or cross-cultural
comparison,
fundamental
relationships
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 113
between certain social dimensions and
mortuary practices. Especially
im
portant
was their introduction of role
theory (Goodenough, 1965)
and for
mal-structural
or
quantitative
methods to model and
bridge
the social and
mortuary
domains. No less
insightful
were their case studies. These illus
trated some of the
cross-culturally
most common kinds of
mortuary expres
sions of social
dimensions, upon
which
archaeology
still focuses. This
body
of
knowledge
was
subsequently expanded
and refined in
equally
critical
works
by
Braun
(1977, 1979),
who introduced
systems theory (Blau, 1970)
to model social
organization
and the
relationships
between social dimen
sions;
Tainter
(1978),
who
interpreted
the
energy
expended
on
mortuary
rituals;
Goldstein
(1976, 1981),
who
interpreted
the
spatial
structure of
cemeteries;
and O'Shea
(1981, 1984),
who evaluated the effects of archae
ological
formation
processes.
About the same
time,
other
disciplines
were
exploring
the nature of
death and
mortuary practices
from different
perspectives
more attuned to
the causal roles of beliefs and world views. In
ethnology, Huntington
and
Metcalf
(1979)
and Bloch and
Parry (1982) compared
and
interpreted
mor
tuary practices cross-culturally
from
symbolic-structural, Marxist-structural,
motivational,
and
archetypal-psychological
views.
They
also
helped
to in
tegrate previous
French
sociological
studies
(Hertz,
1907;
Van
Gennep,
1909),
which were
translated into
English only recently,
into
contemporary
anthropological thought
about death. These
studies,
following
Durkheim
(1915),
related
mortuary practices
to social
organization
and function
through
the
expression
of
society
as
"collective
representations," including
institutionalized beliefs.
In
history, Philip
Aries
(1977)
made a
comprehensive study
of the re
lationship
of
deathbed, funerary, burial,
and
grieving practices
to
religious
attitudes and beliefs about death in
Europe,
and how these behaviors and
ideas
changed
in
sync
from the
early
Middle
Ages
to the
present.
In the
social
sciences,
Habenstein and Lamers
(1960) compiled
basic
descriptions
of the
dying
arid death
practices
of over 70 societies around the world.
They
also described for each culture how these
practices
relate
systemati
cally
to
philosophical-religious,
social, economic,
and
political
factors. In
psychology,
Kubler-Ross
(1969)
characterized
contemporary
American cul
ture's view of death. She showed its
expression
not
only
in the emotional
adjustments
of the
dying
and
bereaved,
for which her work is best
known,
but also in American
mortuary practices.
During
the
period
of ferment from the late 1960s
through early
1980s,
American
archaeological theory
about
mortuary practices developed
inde
pendentfy
of these
understandings
that were
growing
in other
disciplines
and
even in
ethnology.
This situation
arose
from or was
allowed
by paradigmatic
and
philosophical
differences
among
the
disciplines,
which
apparently
inhib
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
114
Carr
ited their intercommunication. The situation also stemmed from certain
prob
lems of
logic
in the foundation of
mortuary archaeology
that was
laid
by
Binford
(1971).
The
workings
of each of these factors is now
described.
Paradigm
The
materialist-ecological paradigm
that dominated American archae
ology during
the late 1960s
through early
1980s did not consider
philosophi
cal-religious
beliefs to be essential determinants of cultural
practices
generally (Flannery,
1972, p. 400;
Trigger,
1969, pp. 289^294, 308, 327-328;
Willey
and
Sabloff, 1980,
p. 186)
and
mortuary
behaviors in
particular (Bin
ford, 1971, p. 23).
In the
materialist-ecological view,
beliefe were
classified
as
"epiphenomena," only loosely
related to more "core" cultural institutions
and
practices,
which were
thought
to be
responsible
for culture
stability
and
change (Steward, 1955).
Thus,
beliefe were seen as
less relevant to the
study
of human-land
relationships,
sociocultural
adaptation,
and social
evolution,
in
general,
and to the
study
of
mortuary practices, specifically,
which were
taken to be a reflection of social
organization.
In Binford's
(1971, p. 23)
words,
"The form and structure which characterize the
mortuary practices
of
any society
are
conditioned
by
the form and
complexity
of the
organiza
tional characteristics of the
society
itself.... In no
way
can
ideational inno
vations or communicated
knowledge
or ideas be cited as sufficient cause for
change, variability,
or
stability [of mortuary practices]."
Binford and other
American
mortuary archaeologists during
the late 1960s
through
the
early
1980s did not embrace the broader
behavioral-ecological paradigm
of the
time
(Rappaport,
1968;
\&yda
and
Rappaport, 1967),
which did
give
beliefe
and world views a clear role in the
functioning
and evolution of human
ecosystems, including mortuary practices (e.g.,
Gardner et
al.,
1963).
The
behavioral-ecological paradigm integrated
beliefs and world-view
assump
tions
(e.g.,
"ultimate sacred
propositions," Rappaport, 1979)
into the
study
of cultural
functioning
and
change through
the
concepts
of information and
information
exchange (Flannery,
1972, p. 400;
Rappaport, 1979).4
One
ap
parent consequence
of American
mortuary archaeology's predisposition
to
ward the material and
energetic aspects
of societies and
ecosystems,
over
beliefs and
information,
was a lack of communication with other
disciplines
that were
studying
how beliefs influence
mortuary practices.
To
clarify
the
paradigmatic
views of American
mortuary archaeologists
during
the late 1960s
through early
1980s,
it is
necessary
to
distinguish
two
4The
paradigmatic
choice of American
mortuary archaeologists
to focus on social
organization,
and not on
philosophical-religious
beliefs,
as means of sociocultural
adaptation
should
only
be
pointed
out in historical
retrospect,
not faulted.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 115
kinds of causes of
mortuary practices.
These are:
(1)
their "ultimate causes"
of
stability
or
change,
and
(2)
their
"proximate
causes" of 'Variation" or "dif
ferentiation" within a
society,
i.e.,
their
logical
and/or
functional
relationships
with other
components
of the cultural
system.
Binford's
(1971)
article was
concerned
primarily
with ultimate causation. He
argued
that the
ultimate,
"sufficient" cause of
stability
or
change
in the
mortuary practices
of a
society
is
stability
or
change
in its
organization (Binford,
1971, p.
25).
He debated
Kroeber's
(1927) position,
that
mortuary practices
are
inherently
unstable and
that
change ultimately
results from
creativity
or
diffusion of ideas
(Binford,
1971, p. 15).
Binford
attempted
to
support
his
position empirically by showing
a cross-cultural correlation between social
complexity
and the number of di
mensions of social
organization symbolized
in
mortuary practices.
At the same
time,
Binford
(1971, pp.
12-13)
did cite numerous exam
ples
of how variations in
mortuary practices
within
a
society symbolize
philosophical-religious
beliefs and are
proximately
caused
by
them.
Also,
Binford
apparently
did not rule out the eventual reconstruction of beliefs
from
mortuary practices:
"It is
only
after we
understand the
organizational
properties
of cultural
systems
that we can
meaningfully
make
comparisons
among
them in terms of cultural content"
(Binford,
1971, p.
25).
These two
positions
of Binford's
(1971),
on the ultimate and
proximate
causes of
mortuary practices,
were
sometimes confounded in his
essay,
which
affected its
reading
and the
development
of American
mortuary
archaeol
ogy. Specifically,
it is difficult to
determine,
in
places,
whether Binford
was
arguing
that beliefs are not the ultimate cause of
stability
or
change
in mor
tuary practices,
or that beliefs are not the
proximate
cause of intrasocietal
differentiation in
mortuary practices,
or both. For
example,
in the abstract
of the
article,
Binford
(1971, p. 6)
debated the normative
paradigm
of the
1950s
saying,
"Much of
contemporary archaeological conjecture
and inter
pretation regarding processes
of culture
change,
cultural
differentiation,
and
the
presence
of
specific
burial customs is
inadequate
as well as the ideational
propositions
and
assumptions underlying
these notions"
(emphasis added).
In other
places,
too,
the causes of
change
and
stability
in
mortuary practices
were
lumped
with the causes of their differentiation
(Binford,
1971, pp. 23,
25).
Likewise,
the
examples
that Binford
gave
of idealist-rationalist
expla
nations of
mortuary practices,
which he
debated,
include both
proximate
explanations (e.g.,
"We
study
burial to
gain
information on
religion
and be
liefs")
and ultimate
explanations (e.g.,
"The
changes
in the mode of
disposal
of the dead are
evidently
the results of
changed
views
concerning
the future
life.") (Binford, 1971, p.
7
quoting
Viollier, 1911, p.
123 and
TJrter,
1921,
p.123, respectively). Additionally,
Binford's cross-cultural
analyses
address
both the ultimate cause of
change
in
mortuary practices
over
cultural evo
lution
(Binford, 1971,
Tables
2,3)
and the
proximate
causes of various kinds
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
116 Carr
of
mortuary practices (Binford,
1971,
Table
4).
The
differing
kinds of cau
sation to which these
analyses pertain
was not clarified
by
Binford.
Finally,
whereas Binford's
(1971)
theoretical consideration
apparently gave
beliefs a
role in
proximately explaining
intrasocietal differentiation in
mortuary prac
tices
(see above),
in
practice
his earlier
analysis
of the
Galley
Pond site
(Binford, 1964)
considered
only
social
organizational
factors,
not
philosophi
cal-religious,
circumstantial,
or
physical
ones.
The
relationship
that Binford
(1971)
demonstrated between
mortuary
practices
and social
organization helped
to
spark
the interest of
many
Ameri
can
archaeologists
in the
potential
of
mortuary practices
for
reconstructing
the
past (see
references
above).
However,
the
ambiguities
in Binford's
article,
Binford's
(1964)
model
Galley
Pond
analysis,
which was
entirely
social in its
orientation,
and
perhaps simply
the excitement of
being
able to
"get
at"
pre
historic social
organization (Tainter,
1993,
personal communication),
led to
the
crystallization
of a
paradigm
that
involved,
for at least some
archaeolo
gists,
a
subtle
yet significant
shift in
thinking
from the
primary
thrust of Bin
ford's
(1971)
article.
Emphasis
was
placed,
in mainstream American
mortuary
archaeology,
on
reconstructing
social
organization
from intrasocietal variation
in
mortuary practices?i.e.,
social
organization
as a
proximate
cause of mor
tuary practices?and
secondarily
on cultural
dynamics
and social
organization
as the ultimate cause of
stability
or
change
in
mortuary practices,
which had
been Binford's main concern. This
emphasis
was
natural;
the first
step logi
cally
has to be taken before the second.
However,
in
focusing
on social or
ganization
as a
proximate
cause of
mortuary practices,
the
potential
role of
philosophical-religious
beliefs as
alternative,
proximate
causes was not carried
forward from Binford's
essay. By implication
and
explicit
statement
(see quo
tations
by
Greber, 1979, Rothschild, 1979, Tainter, 1978,
above),
social or
ganization
came to be viewed
as the
primary proximate
determinant of
mortuary practices
and
philosophical-religious
beliefs became
secondary
or
"exceptional,"
unconsidered
proximate
determinants. This view had the
op
portunity
to become
popular
because it fit
comfortably
within the material
ist-ecological paradigm
that dominated American
archaeology
at the time.
In
turn,
American
mortuary archaeology's
focus on social
organization
did
not
encourage
an
exchange
of
understandings
about
mortuary practices
with
ethnology
or
disciplines
outside of
anthropology,
which were
demonstrating
how beliefs influence
mortuary practices.
Philosophy
A second reason
why understandings
of the role of beliefs in deter
mining mortuary practices
did not filter from other social sciences into
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 117
American
archaeology during
the 1960s to the 1980s is the difference in
the
disciplines' philosophies
and the
generality
of their research
goals.
American
archaeology
was dominated
by positivist
concerns
with universal
propositions.
In
contrast,
the studies of
mortuary practices
and beliefs
by
Aries
(1977),
Haberstein and Lamers
(1960),
and Kubler-Ross
(1969) (cited
above)
were
contextual and
particularistic.
In
ethnology
and
sociology,
the
general
nature of world views and belief
systems
and their variation with
social
organizational types
had
yet
to be defined
(Kearney, 1975),
and this
remains
largely
true
today.
An
exception
was
Douglas' (1970)
work,
Natural
Symbols. However,
her social
organizational types
did not
correspond
to
the
evolutionary types (Service, 1962)
used
by
American
archaeologists
then;
the
conceptual bridge
from
mortuary practices
and social
organization
to world view was not obvious. Works that
begin
to make this
bridge by
relating
societal
types
to kinds of belief
systems
are
Goodman's
(1991)
and
Swanson's
(1960)
cross-cultural studies.
Problems of
Logic
Archaeology's understandings
of
mortuary practices developed
inde
pendently
of those
growing
in other
disciplines
also because of two
explicit,
persuasive arguments
that were made
by
Binford
(1971)
and
commonly
accepted.
These
arguments
directed
mortuary archaeology
toward the
study
of social
organization
and
away
from the
study
of
beliefs,
but
unnecessarily
so;
both
arguments
involved subtle
illogicalities.
First was Binford's
argument against
the "idealist" or
"rationalist"
ap
proach
to cultural
analysis, including mortuary analysis.
The idealist
posi
tion holds that similarities and differences in
behavior,
such as
mortuary
rituals,
result from similarities and differences in ideas. Binford
(1971, p.
7)
criticized this view in two
ways,
in favor of
a stance that
explains
dif
ferences in
mortuary
behaviors in relation to social
organization. First,
he
pointed
out that if differences in
mortuary
behaviors
are to be
explained
by
differences in
belief,
one must still seek
explanations
for the different
beliefe. This is true.
However,
the same
logic
could be
applied
to a
social
organizational approach:
If differences in
mortuary
behaviors are to be ex
plained by
variation in social relations and
organization,
one must still seek
explanations
for the different social
organizations.
Binford's criticism
per
tained to the issue of infinite
regression
in
explanation
rather than to the
relevance of beliefs or
social
organization
to
explaining mortuary
behavior.
The second
way
in which Binford
(1971,
p.
7)
criticized the idealist
view was
by claiming
that his
position against
it is
a
logical replay
of Durk
heim's
justified
criticism of the unilinear evolutionists. This
analogy
is not
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
118 Can
valid. Binford held that social
organization,
rather than
beliefs,
is the
ap
propriate
ultimate
explanation
of behaviors such
as
mortuary
rituals. In
contrast,
Durkheim
(1938, pp. 97-112) argued
that "social
facts,"
rather
than
hypothesized personal
emotions and individual
psychology,
should be
used to
explain
behaviors
ultimately. Importantly,
social facts are
patterns
that include not
only
modal behaviors and but also institutionalized beliefs.
Durkheim
saw such beliefs
as
acceptable,
ultimate
explanations
of behav
iors,
including mortuary
rituals. Durkheim did not
argue,
as Binford said
he
did,
that behaviors such as
mortuary practices
are
determined
ultimately
by
social
organization
rather than beliefs and are to be
explained
in this
way. Thus,
for
example,
Durkheim
(1951)
demonstrated how differences
in the suicide rates of Catholics and Protestants in France at the turn of
the
century
related to differences in their institutionalized beliefs.
Likewise,
Durkheim's
student,
Robert
Hertz,
argued
that
mortuary practices
reflect
both the social
relationship
of the deceased to the
living,
and beliefs such
as the nature of the soul's
journey
to the afterlife
(Hertz, 1907;
see
above).
The second
argument
of Binford's
(1971, p. 16)
that directed American
mortuaiy archaeology
toward the
study
of social
organization
and
away
from
the
study
of beliefs is that
mortuary practices
are
symbolic.
In White's
(1949)
sense,
a
symbol
is
a
thing,
the form of which is
arbitrarily
related to the
meaning
bestowed
upon
it
by
its collective
users. From this
view,
Binford
reasoned that the form of
any mortuary practice
holds an
arbitrary
relation
ship
to the beliefe or social identities it
might
reflect,
which thus remain
ar
chaeologically
unreconstructible
(see
also
Tainter, 1978, p.
121).
For
example,
whether
or not the deceased is cremated does not
inherently
reflect
any par
ticular
belief,
nor whether the deceased
was a
chief,
a
criminal,
or died
drowning.
Binford then went on to
argue
that
archaeologists
must
study
the
structure rather than the form of
mortuary remains,
and that their structured
variation within a
society
reflects the
organization
of the
society's
members.
Not considered
by
Binford
(1971)
was an
alternative: that structured
variation in
mortuary
remains
might
reflect,
analogously,
the
organization
of a
society's philosophical-religious
beliefs, i.e.,
the
philosophical-religious
themes that
may,
in
part, comprise
the
society's
world view.
Specifically,
just
as
contrasting groups
of burials within a
population
can reflect cate
gories
of
persons
that differ
socially
in life or
death,
so too can
they
reflect
categories
of
persons
that differ in their
philosophical-religious
charac
teristics in life or
death,
according
to some belief. In
turn,
the
multiple,
redundant
symbols
that define those
categories
of
persons
and that reflect
multiple, particular
beliefs could indicate the
organization
of those beliefe
into broader
philosophical-religious
themes. For
example,
burials oriented
east versus west
might
reflect
persons presumed
to
go
to two different af
terlives in different
directions,
as Merbs
(1989)
has illustrated for the Inuit.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 119
Other
mortuary
traits that correlate with burial orientation
(Merbs, per
sonal
communications,
1989-1992) may
indicate a suite of characteristics
of those two
afterlives, i.e.,
a
cosmological
theme of the Inuit world view.
It is such kinds of
contrasting
or
associated sets of
symbols, analyzed
in
the
synchronie
and historical context of each other and
supplemental
data,
that the contextual school of Hodder
(1982a;
1982b, p. 9)
has
exploited
to
reconstruct
philosophical-religious
themes. In Turner's
(1967, pp. 50-51)
terms,
it is
possible
to infer the
"positional meaning"
of a
symbol
from its
relationships
to others as a
system.
A
final,
more subtle
way
in which Binford's
(1971) essay
directed
American
mortuary archaeology away
from the
study
of beliefs was
through
an
implicit overgeneralization
of the results of his cross-cultural
survey.
Bin
ford's
survey
revealed some fundamental associations between several di
mensions of social
organization (e.g., age,
vertical social
position,
horizontal
social
position)
and certain forms of burial
practices (e.g., body preparation,
grave
furniture) (Binford,
1971,
Table
4).
Binford
(1971, pp. 23,
25)
cor
rectly
concluded that social differentiation and
complexity proximately
cause
mortuary practices.
However,
his further conclusion
(Binford,
1971,
p. 25),
that
ideas/beliefs
do not
explain
burial
practices ultimately,
and
per
haps proximately (Binford
is unclear
here),
does not follow. Binford's sur
vey
did not include
any
variables that would allow one to assess the
impact
of beliefe on
mortuary practices
within a
society
and the
degree
of mutual
change
of beliefs and
mortuary practices
over cultural evolution. The
survey
reported
here corrects for this situation.
Thus,
for several
paradigmatic, philosophical,
and
logical
reasons,
mainstream American
mortuary archaeology
became focused on the
study
of social
organization
rather than beliefs and world views from the 1960s
to the 1980s.
Findings
in other fields about how beliefs
impact mortuary
practices
were not
integrated
into
archaeology.
Consequences
for the
Development
of
Middle-Range Theory
Once focused on social
analysis,
American
mortuary archaeologists
sought
to build a
body
of
middle-range theory
for
reconstructing
social or
ganization
from
mortuary
practices
and remains.
Although
efforts were in
itially productive (see
references
above),
the rate of
theory development
soon slowed. Over the
past decade,
little
progress
has been made within
the American tradition. The works of O'Shea
(1982, 1984)
on the effects
of formation
processes upon mortuary remains,
and McGuire
(1992, pp.
126-128)
on
quantifying energy expenditure,
are
among
the last fundamen
tal,
theoretical advances.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
120 Carr
A
primary
reason for the slowdown in
theory building
is the narrow
focus
on
social
organization,
outside of the context of
beliefs,
that was
taken. This has had two effects.
First,
it deterred
acquisition
of basic knowl
edge
about the full
spectrum
of
factors,
and their
interactions,
that deter
mine
mortuary practices.
Such a broad
knowledge-base might
have been
used,
through analytic
feedback,
to continue the
development
of robust
middle-range theory
in
ways
that have not occurred.
Specifically,
the several cross-cultural
ethnographic surveys
of
mortuary
practices (Binford,
1971;
Goldstein
1976, 1981; Tainter, 1975; Vehik,
1975)
that were
undertaken
to
develop
and test
theory
coded and searched for
regularities
in
only
social
organizational
or circumstantial causes of variation
in
mortuary practices,
not beliefs or their interaction with social
organization
as causes. As a
consequence,
in some
key
case studies of
mortuary
remains
where some
incongruities
between
archaeological patterning,
contextual in
formation,
and
expectations
relative to social
explanations
occurred
(e.g.,
Braun, 1979; Brown, 1971b; Greber, 1979; Peebles, 1971; Rothschild, 1979;
Tainter,
1975),
further
exploration, modeling,
and
testing
of
possible
rela
tionships
of
mortuary practices
to
beliefs,
or to the interaction of beliefs
and social
organization,
were not
encouraged;
directive feedback was dimin
ished.5
This
problem
of diminished feedback in
theory development
is not
slight.
The cross-cultural
survey
presented
below shows that
nearly
all of
the features of the
archaeological
record that
mortuary archaeologists typi
cally analyze
to reconstruct social
organization
are often determined
by
a
balance of social and
philosophical-religious
factors.
The second
way
in which the narrow focus
on social
organization
has
ultimately
slowed the
development
of
middle-range theory
is
by fostering
the formulation of correlative rather than causal
theory. Specifically,
many
mortuary practices
that
are affected
by
social factors do not
symbolize
so
cial
organization
or social identities
directly.
Instead,
they
are
choices that
reflect social or
personal
attitudes and values about those identities in
re
lation to beliefs. For
example,
infants
may
be buried outside of the life
space
of a
community
not because of their
age, directly,
but because of
beliefs about their humanness and
having
a
soul at that
age (e.g.,
see dis
cussion of the
T?llensi,
below).
Because dimensions of social
organization
often do not
directly
cause
mortuary practices
but, instead,
correlate with them
through intervening
and variable
beliefs,
relationships
between
mortuary practices
and dimen
5In some
instances,
the effects of beliefe
upon mortuary practices
have been viewed
as
disruptions
to
patterned relationships
between social
organization
and
mortuary practices
(e.g.,
Tainter, 1978, p. 108; Ucko,
1969)
rather than as causal factors of interest in their own
right (e.g.,
Gruber, 1971; Hall, 1983, p. 10% Hodder,
1982a).
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 121
sions of social
organization,
alone,
are
quite
variable
cross-culturally
for
most
practices (see below). Stronger middle-range theory
for
relating
mor
tuary practices
to their social causes can
logically
be
developed only
when
social
organization,
beliefe,
and their interaction are
considered
together
for
their effects on
mortuary practices.
There are other reasons
why
the
development
of
theory
about mor
tuary
behavior has
slowed,
beyond
American
archaeology's
focus on the
social.
First,
as in all the sciences
(Kuhn, 1962),
bursts of
creativity
in
theory
building
are
typically
followed
by
a
slowing, during
which times the
routine,
"normal scientific" tasks of
clarifying relationships
and
setting appropriate
boundary
conditions for
propositions
occur. Goldstein's
(1976, 1981)
clari
fication of Saxe's
(1970) hypothesis
about how
corporate groups
are re
flected in
mortuary
remains
(see below)
is an
example.
Other
possible
reasons for the slowdown include the small number of
archaeologists
and
students who have focused their research on
mortuary practices
and com
prise
a
workforce;
the
larger
American cultural and educational milieux
(Kubler-Ross, 1969),
which have
downplayed
death as a
subject
matter;
and
American
archaeology's
recent,
decreasing
access to human
remains,
which
may
be
dampening
enthusiasm for
mortuary archaeology. Finally, theory
development
has
probably
been slowed
by
the
complex
structure of
many
mortuary
data
sets,
which
pose tough methodological problems
that have
discouraged
relevant and
in-depth quantitative analyses
of
mortuary pat
terning (e.g.,
Braun, 1979;
1981).
In
sum,
it would
appear
that further
development
and
strengthening
of
middle-range theory
in
mortuary archaeology requires
a
broadening
of
perspective
to include both social
organization
and
philosophical-religious
beliefs as
determinants of
mortuary practices.
Reasons for
choosing
to in
vestigate
beliefs need not be
simply
a matter of
paradigm
or
interest
(Hod
der, 1982a,
1982b).
PREVIOUS HUMAN RELATIONS AREA FELE SURVEYS
OF MORTUARY PRACTICES
Tb
date,
four cross-cultural
surveys
of
mortuary practices
have been
made
by archaeologists using
the Human Relations Area Files
(Binford,
1971;
Goldstein, 1976, 1981; Tainter, 1975; Vehik,
1975).
Each of these
surveys
has
been
very
helpful, yet
also has drawbacks as a basis for
building middle-range
theory
for
interpreting mortuary practices.
First,
none of the
surveys
consid
ered
philosophical-religious
beliefs,
or their interaction with social
factors,
as
potential
determinants of
mortuary practices.
Second,
none
of the
surveys
examined,
at
once,
a
large
number of
practices
and
large
number of
poten
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
122 Carr
tially
causal factors for
a
large sample
of societies. As
a
result of both limi
tations,
it has not been
possible
to
firmly
establish the multivariate
yet sys
tematic
relationships
that occur between
single mortuary practices
and their
sometimes several
proximate
causes within and
among
societies.
Binford
(1971) surveyed
40 nonstate
societies,
worldwide. He showed
that the dimensions of social differentiation
(age,
sex,
horizontal social
po
sition,
vertical social
position) expressed
in
a
society's mortuary practices
vary systematically
in number
and kind
among
societies
according
to their
complexity,
as
approximated by
their
type
of subsistence. His
survey
also
hints at the
particular
kinds of
mortuary
remains
(e.g., body
treatment,
grave orientation,
quantity
of
grave furniture)
that tend
cross-culturally
to
evidence certain dimensions of social differentiation and circumstances of
death
(see below).
However,
the
survey
considered
only
a
limited number
(six)
of
potential
causes of
mortuary practices,
and these were
only
social
and circumstantial in nature.
Also,
the total number of
relationships
ob
served between
mortuary practices
and
causes is small?106 for nine cate
gories
of
practices (Binford,
1971,
Table
4).
Thus,
the
stability
of the
patterns
found is
questionable.
In
addition,
Binford's
sample
of
surveyed
societies
may
be biased in unknown
ways,
not
having
been based on Mur
dochs
(1969)
world
sampling provinces.
Finally,
the
sociopolitical complex
ity by
which each
society
was
characterized,
in
preparation
for
correlating
practices
with
complexity,
was based
on its mode of
subsistence,
rather than
directly
on
sociopolitical
variables. The HRAF
survey reported
below
cor
rects for these limitations.
Goldstein
(1976,
1981, pp. 59-61) surveyed
30
societies, worldwide,
in
order to assess one
socially
focused
relationship originally posited by
Saxe
(1970, p. 119).
Saxe
proposed
that
corporate,
lineal descent
groups
that
use
and/or
control crucial and restricted
resources maintain formal areas
for the exclusive
disposal
of their
dead,
and
conversely,
that formal
disposal
areas indicate such descent
groups.
Goldstein found
only
the converse to
usually
be
true,
because such social
groups symbolize
and ritualize their
corporateness by many
means,
only
one of which
may
be the
maintaining
of formal
disposal
areas
(see below).
Tainter
(1975;
1978, pp. 121,
126-128) surveyed
103 societies world
wide,
again
in order to evaluate one
socially
focused
hypothesis:
The social
"rank" of
a
person
is
expressed
through
the amount of
energy
expended
on funeral activities and
disposition
of the
body.
Tkinter found this
propo
sition to be true in
every society
he
surveyed.
He also found that
only
cer
tain forms of
energy expenditure
consistently
indicated the social rank of
the deceased
(see below). Significantly,
the kinds and
quantities
of
grave
furniture
placed
with the deceased were seldom
among
these indicators of
social rank.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 123
Vehik
(1975) surveyed
26 societies
having specific
characteristics
thought
relevant to
modeling mortuary practices
and their determinants in
societies similar to a central
European, early
Bronze
Age society
that she
studied. The selected societies
are all
simple, subsisting by
horticulture or
agriculture
without
irrigation,
and
by large
animal
husbandry.
All have
small
communities,
averaging
100 to 200
persons,
and
practice
inhumation
of the dead. Because Vehik's
sample
of societies
was so
narrowly
focused,
it is not suited for
building middle-range theory
of the
general
kind
sought
here.
Moreover,
although
Vehik's
survey
considered 13
mortuary practices,
it included
only
six social and circumstantial causes.
HUMAN RELATIONS AREA FILE SURVEY: METHODS
To
investigate
the
relationship
of
mortuary practices
to a
wide
spec
trum of
possible
causes,
including philosophical-religious
as well as social
factors,
31 nonstate societies
were
surveyed using
the Human Relations
Area Files. In
all,
46
practices
and 29
possible
causes were
coded. The
survey
was
designed parallel
to Binford's
(1971)
cross-cultural
survey
to
the extent
possible
and when
methodologically appropriate,
so that the re
sults of both
can be
compared
and
integrated.
Societies
Sampled
Table I shows the
sample
of societies that
were
selected for
study.
Each
society
is a
member of
a different "world
sampling province"
as
designed
by
Murdock
(1969)
and, therefore,
is
approximately independent
of the
others
culture-historically.
Thus,
"Galton's
problem"?the
culture-historical
dependence
of societies in
a
sample?was
minimized
(Murdock,
1967, p.
306;
Murdock and
White, 1980, pp. 5-6).
Selection
was also limited to those
societies for which information
on
mortuary practices
and determinants
could
readily
be accessed in the
HRAF;
societies listed
by
Murdock
(1969)
but
having
all their
ethnographies
outside of the HRAF were not used.
Within these
constraints,
societies that Murdock
(1969)
listed
as
the first
members of the world
sampling provinces
were
preferred,
their
having
the
most
ethnographic
information of
any
kind. The
sample
was also chosen
so that each continent was
represented by
a similar number of societies of
diverse
sociopolitical complexity. Finally,
a
society
was chosen
only
if the
number of
pages
of
ethnographic description specifically concerning
its
mortuary practices [Table
H,
"Outline of Cultural Materials"
(OCM)
codes
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Can
.S x>
S.rt
>
O? "^
?*
8!
?8
3
1
^ o r* th
*-
?2 3.
IA P? oo
m
?
cm ?n
a
""> r*
e c
o o
CO CO
h is
cm
g
CO
?3
?c
t?
(A
"o.
*n
CM <
??o
'
cm r* i
?n ^ ,
*?0
'
r- oo
t>. t- t^
co t-? r^ i
??
?M ?. **
?il **
c c
cd a
a -o
c c
O "O
&&
3*
a
3
C
a
a a a
h* es cej <d
3 u u ?~
*2 o> o o
5
? u y
X Phi CU P* Pt
co ?
332
gee
5
g g
'S
? ?>
?>? rt
?
o? oo
fi ? ?
coo
2
c c
?C
3 3
S S 8
itt
10 (A
h
c*>CM ?o
*s -s
r** r* r- co
is ?
oo r? 1-Trf
'S ?
r^ t^ r-co
g ?
?
t?t?<!
o o a
(A (O (O
b ti U
CGC
o ?o -a
c c c
3 3 3
a -a ?a
o o o
Pi t? t?
r* *-j cm
?00 cm
cm r* oo
*>
r*
vo *-i
-r^ cM
-
00 co I
t**
v> cm
cm r*? oo
f**
rr c* ?-?
? r**? oo
op
cm r* r* oo
?r? co es
tj- r* r* co
co
** U. U V*
? p* cu
S
8 S S 8
t?
CO
?
E ix. < pu
b
3
?
HS
?
u u u
O O O
DG X X
o o o
ha S3 H5
d< Pu ?4
^^^ m ju
o
o
s
o
a
11
o
w
o
1
I
X
sS8
ooo
m
I
CO
s
es <?
m?
? &3a g
S S
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 125
j2^
?
c
o
see
o o o
?2 ?2 S ?2
1 111
00 CO CO
<r> r- oo
r^ f* r*
io cm cM">n
m r-* oo cm
f- p^ r* oo
I r-l CM
00 CM
p- 00
00 i-i
p- cm
f* oo
NO CM
r* oo
rs m \o
gp-r
2 oC co* vf r-?
00 ?O CM
r- r* oo
.5
VO
,3
to" 0>
"
r* ^p- p
2 -iS
-
a
^
-a
o\ ^
?8 P*? J* 00 00
" "
co
e
?o of
St?CC?'?SCJNCOlOr'-'
G
~
G ?! ?*
o
111
SS^SS
Jfcjss:
3 3 333
Snh?* ?t>f?^e?
O =3 S3 =2=0=2000 Cv,1^
^ ^ ^
S3
t?3?? <??!t?<!t?t?t?
D
6 g
-8-8
s-s-s
2 c g
O 3 3
g* g g
O 03 CO
PU A< P^
e 2 e
?M
h t< h
OOO
h. h* h.
OOO
?* -M ??
CGC
3 3 3
-G X! JS
g c c
OQ CQ
?
5 5
g
???2
K * ?S 3
O O 3 O
?rfi
s s
5
o
*
-S
???
?
oo
o
?
G
O
G
3
o?
SS
c
5
<S<3
^?!^^llll 141 4
??u
3 3 3 8 8 8 8
iti hs ?a
"C *c "C *c '? *c 'c
000 0000000
D* eu p\,
D
O
c?
D
O
SfcD
<?tocoU3H? EPh
co CO
?
!?
?
1
?
33t?
o o
^ O
f*
OOO
CO CO co
co
"S
?
S
?S S n
?r
?JB.8
B'S?
? si s
2
-<
5 5 5 s
???
o
3 3 3
12
'S r 'S
g?
X ?C ?E pu
?
,5
? .c
333 3
OOQ
o
CO CO CO CO
CO
o
I
'"5
*S*S
1|ilp
j-
? ? ?
00
-
-?
S js 00
o
>
~
?
o .?
t? .S
Os
NO o
G
.?
o
i?3
?>
3
8
?'g
(3
*
O
o
s*?,
cd
-
Ob (
s s
SL-i
.0
8
I
?
i
?
? G P 3
?
-?
s
?
So
o
?ei
o
?
o
1
O 3
Sfl
?
8
B
00
?8
? O CTJ
Sis
^
*
o
S O
g
O t? 3
C
O w
3
a 3
? oS
?
8
*3
G >?s
?
T3
O
"a
E
a?
S
?
-S S
f-.
l|~g-: o
>
S
*
?5
!?Hf
cS 2 .S ?
^
0
.5 ?
o *-.
o
%
s S
g
?
*
'so.5:!.!
?05isg .S
?4-1
^,
O ?a S
J2
os
S
1
S.i
g
Sa
a
'S
?
?
?
1
"^
(S di u S
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
126
Can
in
top half]
was
manageable (
750
pages) yet
sufficient
(
30
pages).
The
median number of relevant
pages
for the
sampled
societies is 303.
Given these selection
criteria,
the
sample
is well
distributed,
but not
as
representative
of worldwide cultural
diversity
as
Murdock and
White's
(1980)
standard cross-cultural
sample
of 186 societies. Of the 31 societies
chosen for
study
here and the 40 chosen
by
Binford
(1971), only eight
are
shared
(Tkble I),
because Binford's
sample
was not based on
Murdock's
sampling provinces.
Societies were characterized
by
both their "social
complexity"
and
"ag
ricultural
intensity"
as encoded
by
Murdock
(1967,
columns
32,
28),
not
simply
their mode of
subsistence,
which Binford
(1971)
had used. Five
classes of societies were defined:
(1)
band-level
hunter-gatherers; (2)
com
plex hunter-gatherers having
substantial
leadership positions,
inherited or
not;
(3)
horticultural tribe with head
men;
(4) petty hierarchy
with
a
Big
Man or
chief;
and
(5)
multilevel,
paramount
chiefdom. The
combinations
of Murdochs column codes used to define these classes are shown in Table
I. The classification of each
society using
Murdock's data was then checked
with
diagnostic
information in the
ethnographic
literature searched. A few
classifications were altered as
appropriate.
In the
end,
six band-level
hunter-gatherers,
five
complex hunter-gatherers,
nine horticultural
tribes,
seven
petty
hierarchies,
and four
paramount
chiefdoms were studied.
Coding
Variables
Table II shows the OCM traits
(Murdock
et
al.,
1982)
for which rele
vant
pages
of the
ethnographic
literature were
searched. All traits that
might reasonably
bear on the
social,
philosophical-religious, circumstantial,
physical,
or
ecological
determinants of
mortuary practices
were
considered
for search. This
procedure
contrasts with
previous surveys,
which limited
search to HRAF traits
directly pertaining
to death and funerals
(codes 76*).
Also, beyond locating ethnographers' explicit
statements of the reasons
cited
by
informants for
particular
mortuary practices,
an
attempt
was made
to understand the
logical
"fabric" of a
society's
world view
(Tbelken, 1979,
pp. 156-157)
and how this
probably
is reflected in the
society's practices.
This was achieved
by
the
following
means.
First,
all of the
pages
of the
HRAF
pertaining
to au of the OCM traits on
mortuary practices
listed in
Table II
(top half)
were read for each
society.
These
pages provided
infor
mation
on both
mortuary practices
and
reasons,
of
any kind,
for them.
Then,
for two-thirds of the
societies,
randomly
selected and as time allowed
(Table
I,
column
5),
additional literature was read within OCM trait cate
gories
that focus on beliefe
(Table
H,
bottom
half)
and
that,
by experience,
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 127
Table IL "Outline of Cultural Materials" Traits that were Chosen for Search in the
Ethnographic
Literature
Traits
pertaining
to
mortuary
rituals and behaviors
164
Morbidity, including
the distribution of diseases and accidents
165
Mortality, including
death rates and causes
211 Mnemomic
devices,
including
commemorative statuses and monuments
266 Cannibalism
428 Inheritance
523
Hobbies, including
heirlooms
533
Music,
including dirges
and laments
682 Offenses
against
life, including punishment
of
attempted
suicide
727 Aftermath of
combat,
including disposition
of war casualties
731
Disasters,
including
reactions to them
76* Death
761 Life and
death, including protective
amulets
763
Dying, including postmortem
examinations and
body manipulation
764 Funeral
765
Mourning
766 Deviant
mortuary practices
767
Mortuary specialists
768 Social
readjustments
to
death,
including
inheritance
769 Cult of the
dead, including behaviors, rituals,
purification
778 Sacred
objects
and
places
78*
Religious practices
782
Propitiation, including
human sacrifice
783 Purification and
expiation, including purification
rites
788 Ritual
796
Organized
ceremonial, including
ceremonial calendar
843
Pregnancy, including
the
disposition
of
miscarriages
and stillbirths
845 Difficult and unusual
births, including
the
disposition
of
miscarriages
and stillbirths
847 Abortion and
infanticide,
including disposition
of victums of infanticide
Traits
pertaining
to
philosophical-religious
beliefe and world view0
154
Adjustment processes, including dreaming, inspiration,
intuition
157
Personality
traits
183 Norms
208 Public
opinion, including
attitudes
374
Heat,
including
notions about hot and cold
513
Sleeping, including
ideas about
sleeping, positions
in
sleeping
562 Sex
status,
including
notions of uncleanliness of women
577
Ethics,
including
ethical
ideals,
conception
of conscience
673
Wrongs, including
violation of
legal
norms
674 Crimes
682 Offenses
against
life,
including punishment
of
attempted suicide,
homicide
689 Social offences and their actions
727 Aftermath of
combat,
including mortality
in war
732
Feeblemindedness,
handicapped
734
Invalidism, including
care of sick and
injured
737 Old
age
dependency, including
care of
aged
738
Delinquency
75*
Sickness, including theory
and treatment of diseases
751 Preventive
medicine,
including protective
amulets
752
Bodily injuries, theory
of accidental
injuries
753
Theory
of
disease,
including theory
of
death,
notions about loathsome diseases
754
Sorcery, including
beliefs in
witches,
vampires,
werewolves
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
128
Can
Table IL Continued
755
Magkal
and mental
therapy, including
counter measures to
sorcery
758 Medical
care,
including
care of the
insane,
sick and
injured
761 life and
death,
including protective
amulets,
conception
of causes of
death,
theories of
life, death,
disease
762 Suicide
763
Dying, including
beliefs,
omens of death
764
Funerals,
including mortuary sacrifices,
ideas about
corpses
769 Cult of the
dead,
including
beliefs about
ghosts,
ancestor
worship
77*
Religious
beliefs,
including
these and
magical
beliefs,
conception
of
fate,
escatol
ogy, myths
about
origin
of death
771 General character of
religion, including conception
of sacred and
profane
772
Cosmology
773
Mythology, including
the
origins
of the cosmos*
organization
774
Animism,
including
the relation of breath to
soul,
soul
concepts
775
Escatology, including
the realm of the
dead,
reincarnation
776
Spirits
and
gods, including
familiar
spirits, gods,
nature
spirits,
monsters
777 Luck and chance
778 Sacred
objects
and
places, including concepts
of
soul-stuff,
animated fetishes
779
Theological systems
78*
Religious practices
781
Religious experiences, including
emotional reactions in
religion
782
Propitiation, including
animal sacrifices
783 Purification and
expiation, including
notions of
uncleanliness, purification
784 Avoidance and
taboos, including
word taboos
787 Revelation and
divination,
including religious
trances,
interpretation
of
dreams,
spirit possession,
communication with
spirits,
revelation and
divination,
omens
and
astrology
801
numerology
805
Ordering
of time
812
Philosophy, including conception
of a moral order of the
universe,
concept
of free
will
82* Ideas about nature and
man,
including anatomy
and
physiology
821
Ethnometeorology, including
ideas about cosmic
phenomena;
ideas of
night
and
day
822
Ethnophysics, including
ideas about
form, color, sound,
interpretation
of shadows
and
reflections,
conception
of
time, ethnophysics
823
Ethnogeography, including
notions of water
824
Ethnobotany
825
Ethnozoology
826
Ethnoanatomy, including
ideas about the human
anatomy,
ideas about blood
827
Ethnophysiology, including knowledge
and beliefs
concerning
human
physiology,
ideas about
breathing
828
Ethnopsychology, including
ideas about abnormal mental
states,
conceptions
of
fatigue
and dreams
831
Sexuality
833 Sexual
intercourse, including
ideas about sexual intercourse
841
Menstruation,
including
ideas about menstrual blood
847 Infanticide and abortion
854 Infant
care,
including
attitudes
855 Child
care,
including
attitudes
856
Development
and
maturation, including
ideas about these
857 Childhood
activities, including sleeping
habits of children
881
Puberty
and
initiation, including
notions of death and rebirth in initiation
ceremonies
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 129
Table IL Continued
886
Senescence, including prescriptions
for
longevity
888 Status and treatment of the
aged, including
care of
aged
""Outline of Cultural Materials"
(OCM)
traits are described
by
Murdock et al.
(1982).
All
of the listed traits that
pertain
to
mortuary
rituals and behaviors were searched in the eth
nographic
literature for each
society
studied.
However,
not all of the traits that
pertain
to
world view and beliefs were searched for each
society.
Those that were searched are listed
in Table I.
were found to be most
productive
for
learning
about the fabric of the so
ciety's
world-view themes and their effects on
mortuary practices.
Analytic
Variables
Tvvo kinds of variables
were used to
categorize
the
ethnographic
in
formation:
"response
variables" that describe
mortuary practices
and forms
(Table III)
and
"independent
variables" that describe the
potential
social,
philosophical-religious,
circumstantial,
physical,
and
ecological
"determi
nants" of those
practices (Table IV).
The
response
variables describe
prac
tices at several
distinguishable
and
logically
nested levels: the
body,
the
grave
and
grave furniture,
and the
disposal
area. In
addition,
funeral and
bereavement
practices (variables 30-39),
many
of which do not have effects
that would be observable
archaeologically,
were documented. These vari
ables were
included, following
O'Shea's
(1981)
lead,
in order to assess
whether
any aspects
of social
organization
or kinds of beliefs
might typically
lack
archaeological
effects and not be reconstructible.
The lists of
response
and
independent
variables were
constructed
largely
a
priori,
based on those that have
previously
been studied in death
related literatures of the social sciences and in
archaeological
and ethno
logical analyses
of
mortuary practices,
as well as on
my
own
insights
from
death-related literatures
across cultures. All of the
response
variables stud
ied
by
Binford
(1971)
were included here. A few additions and refinements
to the lists
were made
early
in the
survey
to accommodate unforeseen
prac
tices and causes. The final set of selected variables
proved satisfactory
in
that
very
few instances of unclassifiable
relationships
between
mortuary
practices
and their causes occurred
through
the
survey.6
6In
hindsight
and for the benefit of future
surveys,
I would recommend seven modifications
to the las of
independent
and
dependent
variables,
in order to accommodate certain
relationships: (1) grief
for the deceased as the sole reason for
a
practice
should be
added;
(2) general
fear of the
corpse/death (Hertz, 1907)
as the sole reason for a
practice
should
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
130
Table HL
Response
Variables:
Mortuary
Practices and Forms
Variable Some
examples
of variable states
1.
Body preparation (B)
2.
Body
treatment
(B)
3a.
3b.
4.
4a.
4b.
5a.
5b.
Body position,
either 3a or
3b,
undetermined
Body position during pre
paration
and treatment
Body position
at burial
(B)
Body orientation,
either 4a
or
4b,
undetermined
Body
orientation relative to
cardinal directions
during
preparation
and treatment
Body
orientation relative
to cardinal directions at
burial
Body
orientation relative to
features of real or
mythological landscape
during preparation
and
treatment
Body
orientation relative to
features of real or
mythological landscape
at
burial
Body
orientation relative to
others in the
grave
at
burial
Form of
disposal
Body
characteristics
Washing; painting/ sprinkling
the
body
or bones with
pigment, perfume,
flowers;
(i.e.,
ornamentation of
the
body
or bones as
given) prior
to the funeral
Mutilation,
embalming, cremation,
autopsy,
disarticulation,
degree
of
disarticulation;
bundling
or other
packaging
of
bones/ashes,
cannibalism
(i.e., processing
of the
body
or
bones) prior
to or
during
funeral,
secondary
burial
See 3a
Hexing/extension
of
body; positioning
of
legs,
arms,
head;
chest
up
or
down;
on
left
side,
right
side
Same as 3a
See 4a
Direction relative to north
Same as 4a
Direction relative to a
river,
to the land of the dead
Same as 5a
Parallel;
perpendicular,
wheel
spoke pattern
Grave
only,
scaffold and
grave,
in
river,
in
tree,
scatter
ashes,
put
in urn in home
Grave characteristics
8. Number of individuals
per
grave
9. Grave and container form
(B)
10. Grave orientation
(B)
relative to cardinal
directions
11. Grave orientation relative
to feature of real or
mythological landscape
12/17. Local
grave
location
(B)
Number
Architectural traits such as total
size, volume,
shape
of
grave, coffin,
urn;
building materials;
ornamentation;
Direction relative to north
Direction relative to a
river,
to the land of the dead
Within or outside the
community life-space;
within
cemetery,
mound,
house
floor, midden,
etc.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 131
Table HL Continued
Variable Some
examples
of variable states
Grave furniture characteristics
13a. Kinds of
grave
furniture
initially placed
in or on
top
of the
grave (B)
13b. Source of
grave
furniture
14.
Quantity
of
grave
furniture
initially placed
in the
grave (B)
15.
Spatial arrangement
of
grave
furniture as
initially
placed
in the
grave
16. Overall
energy
expenditure
on
grave
architecture and
furniture relative to other
burials
Functional
types present (e.g.,
knives, ornaments,
points),
items made of local versus exotic raw
materials or
styles,
items found in the
village
as
well as or
only
in
mortuary contexts,
broken or
unbroken,
sacrifices
The
person's, person's family,
someone else's from
within
community,
someone else's from outside
the
community,
shared
community belonging
Counts and
weights
of functional
types,
local versus
exotic raw materials or
styles,
items found in the
village
as well as or
only
in
mortuary
contexts
Association of
grave goods by type
with location in
grave,
location relative to
body
Low, medium,
high;
all burials similar
Disposal
area characteristics
17. See
12,
above
18.
Regional
location of dis
posal
area relative to
topography/ecozones
19/22a.
Regional
location relative to
settlement
20a.
Cemetery formally
demarkated
20b. Graves
formally
demarked
21.
Cemetery
or
graves
within it
visible from a distance
(e.g.,
as a
warning
to
intruders to the
region)
River
terrace,
ridge top,
next to
water,
in the forest
Near, far,
visible or
not,
from settlement
22a.
22b.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Yes,
no
Yes,
no
Yes,
no
Cemetery
content and internal
organization
See
19,
above
Number of burials
Number of
types
of burials
recognized socially
Within-cemetery
location
of a
grave
relative to
some absolute bench
mark in the
cemetery
Within-cemetery
location
of a
grave
relative to
all other
graves
Within-cemetery
orientation
of all
graves
relative to
each other
Number
Number
Distance and direction from some
culturally placed
feature
(e.g.,
a
chiefs
burial),
from some
geographic
feature
(e.g.,
a
hillock),
or from the
center of the
cemetery,
with
respect
to which the
cemetery
is
organized
Isolated, average distance,
near
Alignments
of
graves
into
rows,
wheel-spoke pattern
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
132 Carr
Table BDL Continued
Variable Some
examples
of variable states
27.
Clustering
of all
graves
relative to some
cemetery
benchmark
28.
Within-cemetery grave
location of burial
types
relative to each other
29.
Clustering
of certain burial
types
relative to some
cemetery
benchmark
Yes, no;
the kind of benchmark
Family groups, groups
based on
age, sex,
or other
social
categories
cluster
together
Yes, no;
the
type,
the benchmark
Other
funerary
behaviors of the
survivors,
not reflected in the
grave, body,
or
cemetery
30. Funeral
oratory
31. Funeral
song
32. Funeral dance and
games
33. Presence/absence
and
number of funeral
attendees and their
positioning
34. Funeral
meals,
fasting
35. Funeral
time, duration;
whether a
secondary
funeral occurs
36.
Costume,
ornamentation
37.
Grief, bereavement, grave
visitation
38.
Corpse
processors, grave
diggers
39. Other funeral
activities,
funeral form in
general
Self-explanatory
Same as 30
Same as 30
Many,
few
persons;
women or men
excluded;
women stand on one side of the
corpse,
men on
the other
Self-explanatory
Immediately
after
death,
after a
specified length
of
time, during
some calendric
period; short, long
Self-explanatory
Same as 36
Male or
female, gender compared
to that of the
deceased,
relative
or nonrelative
Self-explanatory
fl(B)
means considered in Binford's
(1971)
survey.
The
philosophical-religious
variables
were
constructed to be
general
enough
that instances of each would
likely
be found
through survey
more
than
rarely, yet specific enough
to entail some of the
logic
that
peoples
attribute to
mortuary
rites.
Only
two
ecological
variables
were
coded,
be
cause such
causes are
rarely
recorded
ethnographically; usually
the mem
be included.
(3)
vertical social
position
should be
partitioned
into vertical differences in
wealth, political power,
and
religious/spiritual standing; (4) practical
reasons for a behavior
(e.g.,
shell is
placed
in ear orifices to
keep
the dirt
out)
should be
added;
(5)
each of the
dimensions of the social
personae
of the
living
funeral
participants,
not
simply
the
deceased,
should be added as
possible
causes,
since
grave goods
can reflect the
personae
of the
giver
as well as that of the
deceased;
(6)
the number of funeral attendees should be
separated
from their
positioning during
the funeral
ritual;
and
(7)
the occurrence of
secondary
or
tertiary funerary
rites,
and
secondary
or
tertiary body processing
and
reburial,
should be
separated
from funeral time and duration.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 133
Table IV.
Independent
Variables: Determinants of
Mortuary
Practices and Forms
Variable Some
examples
of variable states
51.
52a
52b.
53.
55a.
62a.
62b.
63.
64.
56.
57
58.
59.
60.
61/
65.
54.
55b.
Circumstances of death
Location of death At
home, away
from base
camp,
an area not
conducive to normal
body processing
Timing
of death The season, weather
conditions,
position
in social
calendar
Duration since death
Hours, days; years
(pertinent
to
secondary funerals)
Cause of death
physically,
Partial
body,
mutilation,
no
body
which causes
physical
constraints on
processing
the
body,
funeral,
bereavement,
etc.
Physical requirements
Body
must be anointed with oil before
cremation;
must flex the
corpse quickly
after death in
preparation
for burial
Yes,
no
Physical
health
requirements
Must
bury
before visible
signs
of
decomposition
of the
living
Physical requirements
for
subsequent processing
of
the
body
Need for access to the
body
for funeral ritual
Heed for access to the
body
Yes,
no
after funeral ritual
Need to hide or
protect
the
Yes,
no
body
from
animals,
enemies,
etc
Social
position
of the deceased
Circumstantial,
social class
ification of deceased at
time of death
Vertical social
position
in
life
Horizontal social
position
in Ufe
Age
as a
social
position
Gender as a social
position
Indicators of
only
the
personal
self
War-dead, criminal,
male
initiate,
pregnant,
newborn
twin
Chief, shaman, commoner,
other social strata
Kinship group,
residence
group, sodality
of the
deceased and relative to other
living persons
Fetus, infant,
youth,
adult,
elder
Male, female,
androgenous
Symbols
of
personality, physical deformity
Philosophical-religious
beliefs
Beliefs about cause
of
sickness and death of the
deceased
Good death" versus "bad
death";
anomalous
deaths: suicide and its
spiritual implications;
witchcraft versus natural
death;
sacrificial
victim,
cannibalism,
social
category
of the
murderer,
and
their
spiritual implications
Beliefs about
physical
health
Seeing
the
grave
will cause an
illness,
the soul will
requirements
or
safety
of seek
revenge
the
living
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
134 Can
Table IV. Continued
Variable Some
examples
of variable states
81a. Beliefs about the afterlife
81b. Beliefs about the nature of
the soul
(other
than its
journey)
and its effect on
the
living
83. Beliefs about the nature of
the
journey
of the soul to
the afterlife
86. Beliefs about a soul's
existence, maturation,
waning during
life
82. Beliefs about reincarnation
of the soul
84. Beliefs or
myths
about
universal orders and their
symbols,
the
symbolic
classification of a
person
upon
death
85.
Origin myths
87. Beliefe about
third-party
souls and
spirits,
after
death
through
after the
funeral
88. Beliefe about
responsibilities
to or
punishments
of the
soul of the deceased
89. Beliefs about the status and
change
of status of the
person
at/after
their
death,
their effect on the
living
Location of the
afterlife,
good
or bad
quality
of the
afterlife,
needs of the deceased
there,
time
spent
in the afterlife
Influence of the deceased on the
living, vengeful
soul
Supplies
are
required
to reach the
afterlife,
the soul
must be
sung
directions to the afterlife to find its
way
The
very young
do not have a soul and do not
require special
burial
treatment,
only
the
very
old
die natural deaths
Children who die are reincarnated
quickly
Male/female, dry/wet,
land/water, clean/unclean,
semen/blood,
day/night, magical numbers,
color
symbolism, qualities
of the cardinal directions
A
person
should be buried in the direction of the
homeland
The
body
as a
representative
of the soul must be
protected
from evil
spirits, spirits
will trouble the
living
unless a certain
thing
is done
Relatives must offer
grave
furniture for the soul's
well-being
The deceased
gains importance
and
power
over the
living upon
death
90. Territorial
marking
91.
Land/resource
availability
Ecology
Mounds built on bluff crests
Land too scarce for a
cemetery
bers of a
society
are unaware of the
higher-order, systemic
determinants
of their behaviors.
An observed
relationship
of a
given mortuary practice
to a
given
de
terminant in a
society
was recorded for the
society
as a whole if the rela
tionship applied uniformly
across the
society.
The
relationship
was recorded
for
a
subpopulation
if it held for
only
that
group.
For
example,
a relation
ship
of the
energy expended
on burial to vertical social
position might
hold
only
for
persons
of certain
age
classes
(e.g., socially recognized adults)
or
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants
135
gender (e.g., male).
In such
cases,
the
stratifying
variable
(e.g.,
age, gender)
as well as the determinant of focus
(e.g.,
vertical social
position)
was re
corded as a cause of the
practice (e.g.,
energy expenditure).
The selected
ethnographic
literature for each
society
was read
by
34
graduate
and honors students under
my
direction in four seminars. Students
recorded
quotations
or
paraphrases
of
reported relationships
between mor
tuary practices
and their determinants and wrote an
overview
essay
of the
themes of the
society's practices
and determinants. Most societies
were sur
veyed by
different students. A few societies
were
surveyed by
two,
when
supplemental
information within the OMC trait
categories
on beliefs
(Table
II,
bottom
half)
was
sought.
In the
records,
relationships explicitly reported
by ethnographers
were
distinguished
from those inferred from the
ethnog
raphies by
the students or me. To
promote consistency
in the
coding,
stu
dents were instructed in the
meanings
of each
variable,
and
particular
cases
of
coding
were
regularly
discussed
during
the
survey.
From the collection
of direct
quotations, paraphrases,
and
essays,
I encoded the data
presented
here.
A matrix was constructed of 46
response
variables
describing
kinds of
mortuary practices
and 29
independent
variables
describing
kinds of
po
tential causes
(Table V).
Each cell of the matrix
gives
the number of so
cieties in which a
relationship
between
an
independent
and
dependent
variable-pair
was found in the literature
(Table V).
Each instance of a re
lationship
is called here an "observation.
"
When the same
relationship
among independent
and
dependent
variables
was
reported
more than once
for a
society,
the
relationship
was tabulated
only
once. The data include
1887 observations.
Relationships
inferred
by
the students or me were
given
a count of
.5,
whereas those stated
explicitly
in the
ethnographies
were
given
a count of 1. The data include
only
51 inferred
relationships?2.68%
of all observations. These are scattered
randomly through
the matrix.
The
primary
matrix was broken into five
component
matrices or
"lay
ers"
(Tables
VT
through X).
Each contains the counts of observed relation
ships among
the
dependent
and
independent
variables for societies of
only
one
of the five classes that differ in
sociopolitical complexity.
The recorded
mortuary practices,
causes,
and
relationships among
them
are
probably
of several kinds. The
practices probably
include behav
iors
reported
to
ethnographers by
informants
as well as the actual behaviors
observed
by ethnographers.
Informant
reports probably
include ideal as
well and modal
practices.
The
range
of
practices
observed
by
an
ethnog
rapher
may
not be
modal,
given
the small numbers of deaths that
ethnog
raphers typically
witness
during
their limited
stays
in the field. This bias is
less
problematic
for most of the
sampled
societies,
which were studied
by
multiple ethnographers.
The
analytic
effect of
tabulating practices
of th?
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
136
Can
Table V. Counts of Observations of
Relationships
Between
Mortuary
Practices and
51 52a 52b 53 55a 62a 62b 63 64 56 57 58 59 60
1 21 2112139 10 3 12 3
2 22 13 243 13
9665
3 1 1
3a 1111
3b 3 8 3 2 3
4
4a
4b
1
5
5a
5b
6
7_5 1_2_2.5
13 8 2 11 3
8 13 3 2 1
9 4 1 2 3.5 4 14 3 11 3
10
11
12/17 5 2
1_1_15
3 5 11 6 11 3
13a 1 2 1 6 13 5 11 14
13b 1 4
14 1 5.5 2 4.5
15 2
16_2_111
5 22 6 12 3
18 2 1 1 1.5 25 5 4 2 4
19/22a 4 2 321 10 7392
20a 112
20b 3 1 2 3 7 3 4 3
21_1_
22b 1
23 1 1 5 11 2 12 3
24 1 1
25 3 1
26
27 1
28 1 14 6 4 1
29_
30 14 4 4 1
31 3 5 2 4 3
32 13 111
33 2 5 9 5 5
34 1 1 1.5 7 7 4 1
35 5111211 3 10 392
36 1 118 5
37 1 11 3 8 11 7 3
38 4 5 14 4 7
39 4 2 2 3 3 3 6 1
Total 39 12 4 12 10 3 12 16.5 27.5 107.5 194.5 129 160.5 79
"Matrix rows are
response
variables
describing mortuary practices.
Columns are
independent
data.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 137
Their Determinants for Societies of all Levels of
Sociopolitical
Complexity"_
61/65 54 55b 81a 81b 83 86 82 84 85 87 88 89 90 91 Total
4 8 3 7 15 8 5.5 1 12 1 2 8 2 126.5
4 8 6 4 13.5 2 11 10.5 14 8 1 120
3 1 1 7
2.5 2.5 113 14
1 1 5 23 1 1 6 3.5 1 40.5
0.5 1 1.5
2 15 1 2 7.5
2 9 1 5.5 9 35 1 32
1 1 2
1.5 1 2.5
3.5 1 1.5 1 7
0
1 12 5 1 10 7.5
2_10
1 1 2
1_101_
1112 1 16
2 5 3 4 7 6.5 2 9.5 2 2 88.5
3.5 1 15 12 10
1111 4
5936 11
3317_5
6
1_114_
20 3 7 17 17 16 1 10.5 2 7 10 2 165.5
5.5 13 2 2 1 19.5
1114 2 11 1 12 28
113 3 3 13
1 4
2_3
1
3_3_1
8
1_80_
242362 81211 156
75 5 1 115 25 1 5.5 1 7 4 1 92
1 2 111 10
312172 4 36 55
_1 1_1_05_1_53_
1
2 5 2 12 2 49
1 3
1 5
0
1
1111 1 22
_g_
131717114127 50
12 515 5246 48
1113 2 116 23
3 11 3 1.5 3 2 1 413
13 5 5 6 1 5 1 5.5 11 1 67
6.5 4 1 11 3 1 6 12 8 3 1 86.5
1 3 1 9.5 2 2 34.5
14 5 3 9 4 105 1 1 12 1 873
24121 1 12 2191 70
68468 6 773 79
563 100 71 111 165 1133 263 6 171 30 66 135 26 2 2 1887
variables
describing
factors that determine
mortuary practices.
See text for a definition of the
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
138
Can
Table VL Counts of Observations of
Relationships
Between
Mortuary
1?
52a 52b 53 55a 62a 62b 63 64 56 57 58 59
6o"
1
2
3
3a
3b
4
4a
4b
5
5a
5b
6
7 1
8
9
10
11
12/17
2 1
1 1
23
13a
13b
14
15
16
2 2
1
1
1 1
18
19/22a
20a
20b
21
1 1
22b
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Total
1 1
1
1 1
8 7 0 3 3 0 1 73 11 32
1
12 18
"Matrix rows are
response
variables
describing mortuary practices.
Columns
are
independent
data.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 139
Practices and Their Determinants for Band-Level Hunter-Gatherers"
61/65 54 55b 81a 81b 83 8(5 82 84 85 87 88 89 90 91 Total
1 2 3
33
1
2
1
1
1
1
1 1 3
23
1
2
03
23
24
21
0
2
6
0
1
3
0
1
13
0
203
1
1 1 1
1 1
1
3
193
2
1
9
3 5
1
2 1
2.5 3 2
1 1
303
4
7
1
11
3
4.5
1 1 1
13 1 2
14
14
0
5
1
1 1
1 1
18 10 15 27 43 8 1 2 393 5 17 22
17
11
5
7
10
13
5
15
9
14
321
variables
describing
factors that determine
mortuary practices.
See text for a
definition of the
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
140 Can
Table VIL Counts of Observations of
Relationships
Between
Mortuary
51 52a 52b 53 55a 62a 62b 63 64 56 57 58 59 60
1 1 1113
2 2 2 1
3
3a 1
3b 1
4
4a
4b
5
5a
5b
6
7_1_12
114
8
9 12 3 1
10
11
12/17
1_1_1_1
13a 2 2 3 4
13b
14 13 0.5
15
16_1
1
2_2
18 1111
19/22a
1 12 2
20a
20b 1 111
21_1_
22b
23
2 2 3
24
25
26
27
28
29_
30 1 1
31 1 1
32
33 1
34 1
35 1
36
2 1
37 11111
38 11
39 1 11
Total 200210306
14 21.5 10 263 10
"Matrix rows are
response
variables
describing mortuary practices.
Columns are
independent
X sum to the counts in Table V. See text for a definition of the data.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 141
Practices and Their Determinants for
Complex
Hunter-Gatherers"
61/65
54 55b 81a 81b 83 86 82 84 85 87
?"
89 90 91 Total
1.5
13
1.5 13
1
1
1 1
223
12
1
4
4
0
0
43
2
0
0
0
18
1 2
03 03
0
16
1
0
9
2 2 2 2
1
1 1
1 2 28
3
3
2
8
1 1
1 03
23
2
1
03
8.5
123
0
9
23
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
03
3
13
2
1
23
13
13 10 12 16 28 19.5 103 0 343 1 8 19
9
6
4
5.5
8
10
8
143
10
13
2693
variables
describing
factors that determine
mortuary practices.
Counts in Tables VI
through
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
142 Carr
Table VUL Counts of Observations of
Relationships
Between
Mortuary
51 52a 52b 53 55a 62a 62b 63 64 56 57 58 59 60
11
3 2 16 3
2 2 1 1113 2 12 1
3 1
3a
3b
2 11
4
4a
4b 1
5
5a
5b
6
7_2
3_3
8
12 1
9
12 3 1
10
11
12/17
1_1_112
2 3
13a
13 14 4
13b
2
14
2 12
15
1
16_:_1_18
3 5 1
18
1112
19/22a 1 1 1 13 12 2 1
20a
111
20b
1112
21
22b
1
23
2 3 1
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
1 1
31
112
32
111
33
112 2
34
1 12 2 2
35 3 1 3 4 1
36
2 2
37
2 4 3 1
38
12 4 2 2
39 1
1114 1
Total 90004 04 1723 47 39 66 24
"Matrix rows are
response
variables
describing mortuary practices.
Columns are
independent
X sum to the counts in Table V. See text for a definition of the data.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 143
Practices and Their Determinants for Horticultural Tribes with Headmen"
61/65
54 55b 81a 81b 83 86 82 84 85 87 88 89 90 91 Total
4 1 6 3 1 1 43 1 4 413
121232 14111 34
2 1 4
23 1 33
1.5 1 11 83
0
2 11 1 5
13 12 3 1 12
0
0
2 11 4
0
_4 1_2 1_3.5
1 1
1_223_
1 5
12 13 1 33 33 1 203
2 11 1 5
111 3
3 3 14 3
3_4_3 2_37_
6 1546 32141 46
111 21 8
11 11 9
1 111 5
_1_1_4_25_
1 112 23 1 133
3 2 14 2 1 1 1 28
2 1 1 1 8
112 111 12
_0_
1
1 1 15
0
1
0
0
1 1 9
_0_
1 2 12 11113 15
1 2 14 12 13 19
11 13 9
1111 10
12 2 4 2 14 24
12 4 1 3 12 1 1 28
1 2.5 1 83
1 2 3 4 13 24
2 1 3 4 1 22
1113 3 2 2 2 24
13 31 12 333 52 523 4 3 563 14 17 49 7 0 1 5693
variables
describing
factors that determine
mortuary practices.
Counts in Tables VI
through
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
144 Can
Table DL Counts of Observations of
Relationships
Between
Mortuary
Practices and
51 52a 52b 53 55a 62a 62b 63 64 56 57 58 59 60
1 1 111 2211
2 11 2 14 2 3 12
3
1
3a
1 1
3b
2 4 2 12
4
4a
4b
5
5a
5b
6
7
1_4
1_2
2
8
1111
9 1
12 4 13 1
10
11
12/17
1_2
2 4 6 2 3 2
13a
114 12 3
13b
1
14
1
15
16_1_2
6 12 1
18 1
112
19/22a
2
114 4 13 1
20a
20b 2
12 3 12 2
21_
22b
23 1
13 2 2
24
25
26
27
28
11111
29_
30
2 11
31
13 111
32
1 1
33
2 2 5 2
34
3 2 1
35 1
1 13 11
36
114 2
37 1
13 3 2 1
38
2 2 5 2
39 2
2 12
Total 12 2 0 2 1 1 3 8 5 41 66 39 32 29
"Matrix rows are
response
variables
describing
mortuary practices.
Columns are
independent
data.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 145
Their Determinants for
Petty
Hierarchies with a
Bigman
or Chief
61/65 54 55b 81a 81b 83 86 82 84 85 87 88 89 90 91 Total
1111 11 16
1 2 13 11 2 28
1
03 1 33
3 1 15
03 0.5
03 ? 13
1 3.5 1 1.5 03 1 8.5
0
03 1 1.5
03 1 1.5
0
_2 1_3 1_1_18_
1 5
1 1 1 03 2 1 1 203
1 1 2
0
2 5
1_4_1
1
1_2 3_42_
322445 2 211 38
13 1 33
2 1 15
1112 5
_1 1_1 1_1_1_19_
11 1 11 10
13 1 4 1 1 253
1 1
12 2 1 2 2 2 25
_2_
1 1 0
2 11
0
0
0
0
1 1 7
_0_
I 1 6
1 11 10
1 3
1 12
II 2 10
12 2 13
2 10
12 11 113 21
1 1 13
3 1111 1 3 2 1 21
103 233 15 233 28 20 4 1 183 43 16 24 5 1 0 435.5
variables
describing
factors that determine
mortuary practices.
See text for
a
definition of the
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
146
Can
Table X. Counts of Observations of
Relationships
Between
Mortuary
1?
52a 52b 53 55a 62a 62b 63 64 56 57 58 59
AT
1
2
3
3a
3b
4
4a
4b
5
5a
5b
6
7
1 1 1 1
03
8
9
10
11
12/17
13a
13b
14
15
16
18
19/22a
20a
20b
21
03 03
1
22b
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Total
1 1
1 1
8 3 4 5 63
03
1
2 183
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
28 29 18
1 1
1 1
2 1
"Matrix rows are
response
variables
describing mortuary practices.
Columns are
independent
X sum to the counts in Table V. See text for a definition of the data.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 147
Practices and Their Determinants for Paramount Chiefdoms"
61/65 54 55b 81a 81b 83 86 82 84 85 87 88 89 90 91 Total
2 1113 1 13 2 1 223
3 2 2 2 2 3 1 25
1 1
1
1 1 1 1.5 73
1 1
0
12 1 4
0
0
0
0
3 1 1 2 1.5
1_1_1 1_22_
1 3
111 2 12
0
0
_1
1
1_1_1 1_17_
2 113 2 2 2 1 22
1
1 4
0
_2 1_2_1 1_17_
2 2 1 1 1 10
2 2 2 1 1 12
1
1 4
_0_
0
1 1 4
1 2
1 3
0
0
4
_0_
1 3
1 1 2
2
12 8
12 1 1 03 1 1 1 1 15
23 1 11 1112 1 22.5
11 1 3
1111 1 2 1 13
1 4 112 16
1 2 12 7
2 25.5 17 11 14 133 7 0 21 53 8 21 12 0 1 2913
variables
describing
factors that determine
mortuary practices.
Counts in Tables VI
through
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
148 Carr
diversity
would be to weaken whatever cross-cultural
patterning might
exist
between
practices
and their determinants.
The beliefs that
ethnographers
cited as
determining specific mortuary
practices
and that are
tabulated here
are also
probably
of several kinds.
These
are
(1)
institutionalized
beliefs,
i.e. those embodied in social insti
tutions such as
myth
or
magic; (2)
the orthodox
opinions
of
specialists; (3)
popular
views;
and
(4)
individual
speculations (Malinowski,
1954, pp.
237
254).
It would have been
preferable
to have eliminated beliefs of the fourth
and,
perhaps,
third kinds from
study.
These do not
necessarily
bear the
selected,
enduring,
and/or
tight logical relationships
to
specific practices
that
might
be
regular cross-culturally. Unfortunately, identifying
and
screening
beliefs of the third and fourth kinds did not
prove
to be
possible.
Again,
the effect of
tabulating
beliefs of these various kinds would be to
weaken whatever cross-cultural
relationships might
exist between beliefs
and
mortuary practices.
The causes of
mortuary practices
recorded here include
largely
emic
and some etic
ones:
primarily
causes cited
by
informants,
perhaps
some
inferred
by ethnographers,
and a few
(2.68%)
that seemed
very
clear to
the student readers and me.
Data, Analytic,
and
Interpretive
Limitations
Given the nature of the HRAF and the collected
data,
certain kinds
of
descriptive
statements,
analyses,
and
interpretations
are and are not
pos
sible to make.
First,
variations in the tabulated
frequencies
of
relationships
between
mortuary practices
and their causes
may
not
always
be attributed
to their actual cross-cultural variations alone. In
addition,
the variations
may
reflect
(1) incomplete
and differential
ethnographic investigation,
ob
servation,
and
reporting
of various
categories
of
practices
and
causes,
and
(2) incomplete
survey
and
coding
of the literature. Differential ethno
graphic coverage,
in
turn, may
relate to
many
additional
biasing
factors.
These include the relative
"visibility"
of a
practice
or determinant
physically
and as a function of its
temporal frequency
and
duration,
the relative in
terest of
ethnographers
in various
practices
and
determinants,
and the de
gree
of awareness that informants have of different
practices,
causes,
and
the
workings
of their own cultural
system.
Of these factors
causing missing
or biased
data,
some are
probably
randomly
distributed
over the societies
surveyed
and have no or
little
ac
cumulated,
patterned
effect. For
example,
the kinds of
body
treatments re
corded
by
an
ethnographer
for a
society might
include
only part
of the full
range
of treatments used and some of the social
personae symbolized,
be
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 149
cause the
ethnographer
witnessed deaths
infrequently. Randomly,
in other
societies,
different
ranges
of treatments and
symbolized personae might
be
missed.
However,
other
biasing
factors are
probably systematic,
cross-cul
turally,
and affect the data in
patterned ways.
For
example,
the
organization
and
history
of
growth
of a
cemetery
is not a common focus of
ethnographic
interest and
description,
nor need it be
physically
obvious to an
ethnogra
pher
or
fully
understood
by
the
participants
of a
culture.
Likewise,
the
high
order,
ecological
reasons for traditional behaviors and ideas are
commonly
obscure to a
society's
members. The
infrequency
of observations on ceme
tery organization
and
ecology
recorded in Table V
(variables 6, 24-27, 29,
90,
91)
may
well reflect these
possible
biases.
A second limitation of the data is that
they
are not
readily
amenable
to statistical
modeling
and
testing
of
relationships among
the
variables,
changes
in variable states and
relationships
with
sociopolitical complexity,
or autocorrelation attributable to
any
possible
culture-historical
dependence.
Such
approaches
are
discouraged by missing
or
sparse
observations for some
variables,
and the
proposive
nature of the
sample.
Thus,
analysis
is restricted
here
largely
to
inventorying,
with
lists,
the kinds of
relationships
found be
tween
mortuary practices
and
potential
causes,
and the
approximate,
ordi
nal-scale
commonality
of
practices,
causes,
and their
relationships.
Third,
no
attempt
was made to
typify
the modal
practices,
causes,
and
relationships among
them within each
specific society.
To do so would have
required
extensive cultural reconstruction and
cross-checking, using
many
ethnographic
sources and domains of culture for each
society.
Instead,
pat
terning
was
sought among
societies rather than within
them,
and
only
in a
pretypological, presence-absence
fashion
through
an
exhaustive
listing
of
all
practices
and causes cited to occur in each
society.
Finally,
the nature of
causality
constituted
by
the documented relation
ships
must be clarified. A continuum of kinds of
causes,
from weak to
strong,
can be defined.
(1)
Weakest are
proximate, logical
and/or
apparently
func
tional
relationships
that are inferred
by
an
ethnographer,
student
recorder,
or me for various traits of
a
single society.
As mentioned
above,
such rela
tionships comprise
a
very
small
percentage
of all observed
relationships.
Murdock and White
(1980, pp. 3-4)
have warned that such
relationships
may
be
spurious
rather than functional.
(2)
Somewhat
stronger
are causes
explicitly
stated
by
informants of a
single society.
These can be
functionally
significant,
institutionalized,
or orthodox
reasons,
but
might
also bo
post
hoc
individual
speculations
or
post
hoc institutionalized or orthodox rationales.
Most of the individual observations in the data base are causes of this second
kind.
(3)
Yet
stronger
causes are
relationships
that demonstrate cross-cul
tural
regularity
over
historically independent
societies. The cross-cultural
quality
of the
patterning
can be taken as evidence of valid functional rela
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
150 Carr
tionships (Murdock
and
White, 1980, pp. 3-4). (4) Finally,
the
strongest
causes are
ultimate,
historical causes of
stability
and
change
within a
culture,
which can be demonstrated
through
historical research.
Almost all of the
relationships
evaluated in this
paper
are causes of the
third kind: cross-cultural
regularities evidencing
valid functional
relationships.
Their nature
corresponds
with the
goal
of the
papen
to
find,
between mor
tuary practices
and other
factors,
the
common,
functional
relationships
that
allow those factors to be reconstructed from
mortuary
remains.
RESULTS
This section first
presents
some
inductively derived,
cross-cultural
gen
eralizations of the
relationships
of
mortuary practices
to their
possible
de
terminants and the relative
frequency
with which those
relationships
are
found across cultures. The
generalizations
can serve the
archaeologist
as
low-level models that define the
probable
relevance of
particular mortuary
variables to
solving particular
research
problems.
The
generalizations
are
presented
within the framework of seven broad
questions
that
pertain
to
issues raised in the historical sections of this
paper.
The section
proceeds
to focus on the deductive
testing
of Hertz's
(1907) premise
about the
philo
sophical-religious
determinants of
mortuary
practices.
Also tested are some
common
propositions
that
archaeologists
have used to reconstruct social
organization
from
mortuary
remains. These results also bear on the issue
of
selecting
relevant
analytical
variables.
Generalizations
Question
1. Are
Mortuary
Practices and
Remains,
as
Symbolic
Behaviors and
Forms,
Arbitrarily
Related to Their
Determining
Causes/Referents Cross-Culturally
and Within Societies?
Clearly
no. Of the 1334
possible variable-pair
combinations of mortu
ary
practices
and their determinants
(the
number of cells in Table
V) only
517
(39%)
were found to occur in the
sampled
societies.
Specific
kinds of
mortuary practices (the
rows in Table
V)
are caused
by specific, different,
restricted
ranges
of factors
(the
columns in Table
V) crossculturally.
A more accurate
picture
is
gained
if focus is limited to
only
certain,
relevant variables. First are those
independent
variables that are more
likely
to involve
symbolic relationships
between
mortuary practices
and their
causes: social or
philosophical-religious
factors,
as
opposed
to
physical,
cir
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 151
cumstantial,
and
ecological
ones.
Second,
it is
appropriate
to screen re
sponse
variables that were observed
infrequently, probably
as a result of
a
lack of
ethnographic investigation
and
reporting,
as well as those that are
redundant
(variables
4, 5, 6, 22b, 26, 27,
29). Narrowing
the data in this
way, only
437.5
(62%)
of a
possible
702 relevant
variable-pair
combinations
of
mortuary practices
and their determinants were revealed. This con
strained distribution accords with the nonrandom
relationships
between
specific mortuary practices
and dimensions of social
organization
that Bin
ford
(1971,
Table
IV)
found
crossculturally.
The
patterned,
semideterminant
relationships
found here and
by
Bin
ford between
mortuary practices
and social and
philosophical-religious
fac
tors contradict Binford's
(1971,
p. 16) position
that
specific mortuary
behaviors and
forms,
being symbolic
in
nature,
hold
arbitrary relationships
to their causes and referents within societies and
cross-culturally.
Instead,
specific mortuary practices
relate to
wide, yet
still constrained
ranges
of
referent
meanings.
In
turn,
these semideterminant
relationships
show that
there is not an
empirical
basis for
concluding,
as
Binford
(1971)
did,
that
it is the
structure,
rather than the
symbolic
content,
of
mortuary
remains
that is
productive
for
reconstructing
the
past.
;
At the same
time,
it would be naive to conclude that the
specific
mean
ings
of
mortuary practices
in a
given
culture
can
usually
be inferred from
their
forms,
alone. The
relationships
inventoried in Table V
pertain only
to
general categories
of
meaning?for example,
"beliefe about an afterlife"
rather than
specific
ideas about an afterlife
(e.g.,
the afterlife is a better
place),
or "social
categorization
of the deceased at death" rather than
spe
cific social
categories
at death
(e.g.,
war-dead, criminal,
pregnant).
More
detailed cross-cultural
surveys may
reveal some
relationships
between
spe
cific
practices
and
meanings (see
Conclusions,
below).
Several factors are
probably responsible
for the constrained
range
of
relationships
found between the
practices
and
general meanings
in Table
V
First,
some limitations on which
relationships
occur are
certainly
set
by
the constraints of
worldly
forms and
processes
and their natural associa
tions. These conditions
provide
the basis for
cross-culturally repeated
"natural
symbols" (Douglas,
1970; Huntington
and
Metcalf, 1979, pp.
44
60).
Universal,
biological aspects
of death and
changes
to the
body
are
examples.
The natural environmental determinants of
language
and world
view content
(Kearney, 1984, pp. 110-114)
are well
appreciated
in anthro
pology. Second,
relationships
between
practices
and
meanings
are also
probably
limited
by
the wide but finite
range
of
logical
structures,
especially
basic world-view
themes,
by
which a culture can be
organized yet
remain
operational
in
regard
to basic
material,
biological,
and social
requirements
(Rappaport,
1968,
1979).
Third, mortuary practices
and their
meanings
re
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
152 Can
late in limited
ways
that
possibly
are
patterned by
universal
psychological
archetypes (see
Carr and
Neitzel, 1995,
for a review of
archetypes;
see
also
Jung, 1964),
some of which
explicitly
concern death or the
body (e.g.,
Eliade, 1964; Goodman, 1990;
Grof and
Grof, 1980;
Huntington
and Met
calf, 1979, pp. 44-60; Walsh,
1990). Exploring
these three
explanations
is
beyond
the
scope
of this
paper. Finally,
the constrained
relationships
found
between
practices
and
meanings probably
reflects,
to some
degree, missing
information
resulting
from
sampling problems
discussed above.
Question
2. What Are the Most Common Associations
Observed
Cross-Culturally
Between Particular
Mortuary
Practices and Particular Determinants?
Table XI lists these common
relationships,
which are
equivalent
to the
largest
cell
frequencies
in Table V
Significantly,
each of the
major
dimensions
of social
personae
and social
organization
that
archaeologists attempt
to re
construct was
frequently
reflected in
mortuary practices
and remains. Six di
mensions were
commonly
associated with several kinds of
practices.
These
dimensions
are
age, gender,
vertical social
position,
horizontal social
position,
personal identity,
and the circumstantial social classification of the deceased
at the time of death. This
finding gives empirical credibility
to the archae
ological investigation
of social
organization through mortuary practices.
At the same
time,
the six social
organizational
factors were balanced
by
six
philosophical-religious
factors that
commonly
determine
mortuary
practices
and remains. These
are beliefs about the
soul,
the
afterlife,
the
nature of the soul's
journey
to the
afterlife,
universal orders and their
sym
bols,
the cause of illness and death of the
deceased,
and
responsibilities
to
and
punishments
of the deceased.
Philosophical-religious
ideas,
as
well as
dimensions of social
organization, empirically
appear
to be valid
topics
of
investigation
for
mortuary archaeology.
Question
3. With What Relative
Frequencies
Do
Social,
Philosophical-Religious,
Circumstantial,
Physical,
and
Ecological Categories of
Variables Determine
Mortuary
Practices?
Table XII shows the
frequencies
with which variables of these different
categories
were found to affect
mortuary
practices. Frequencies
are
shown
for both
individual,
independent
variables
(top
of Table
XII)
and the in
dependent
variables
grouped by
social,
philosophical-religious,
circumstan
tial,
physical,
and
ecological categories (bottom
of Table
XH).
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants
153
a
0
83
? ?.2'3
S
? 2
m Im ?
= =
g
-a
?s
a-,?-3
g
?.1.2.3
3
g
B
3
g g
S
||
g
2
|g5
?
?
sasfiafsgg'-gflgf-ggsil?
r
3
o
o
? ?
.2
3
sil
Ml
3
SS
t?gi
?>
?
?
Jo-,
c
3 3 '3
il!
?H
m?>0
t?
o
.2
TJ
**
* * ?*
'o
*
O
a-S
?
|g*
111
?
? ??2
3.2
?
J 83
? en OQ
o
?
*p
.il
??
3 3
o "o
"
meo
?3
O
O
S>
&
*
2 ?
3 3
II
CO GO CO CO 0 CO
*
*.? ..
*-? ??
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
154
Carr
t?
o
09
O 8 5 ?3,
l jg
-n i? i
^S?aasas?aaaaa
1-H 1-H ?-4 v4 ?-H
fi
I
a.
CO
f
?
o
C
? I
CU
8
e
I*
I
I
o
C
8
cu m
X)
r*
^
1-4 o ?
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants
*r*
?
CS S
S&^cS"
SS
i
?
3
CO
S o?
3
r
o
6
Jj>" 8
2
*S 2 ? s !
5
a
.a
o
g
C* o
w
5.a
?
Ja ?
?
-S
12
sil
Uli
f
? ?a 'S S fr-S S 8
,s
is
*
S
<*
*
S
?n
.2 .2
*S
.2
?
o r-
?
O
<0
oo
S 3 * --
?
?
?
S
*>
i
sfl^li-s*?
_ 8
c? 2
g 2
S
-
8 <="x 8
?
?
o
*
I
o *
c
o
2
S
a* 3
? -
S
o
J>
?0
ii;si3fsi*
JlJjitmf *? o ti
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
156 Carr
Social and
philosophical-religious
variables were
found to affect mor
tuary practices
five to ten times more
frequently
than circumstantial and
physical
variables. And these latter determinants were
noted several times
more
frequently
than
ecological
determinants. These ordered
relationships
hold both when
comparing
the
independent
variables
individually (top
of
Table
XII)
and when
summing
all of the variables of a
category together
(bottom
of Table
XII).
The ordered
relationships
also obtain when
inequali
ties in the number of variables
among categories,
and the differential
chances for
observing
those
categories,
are taken into account. The infre
quent
observation of
ecological
determinants
can
possibly
be attributed to
biases discussed above.
Philosophical-religious
and social
organizational
factors
were
found to
determine
mortuary practices
in similar
frequencies,
or
perhaps
the former
factors are
somewhat
more common
(bottom
of Table
XII);
measures dif
fer. There is no
empirical
basis for Tainter's
(1978, p. 107) position
that
mortuary practices
and remains
are to be understood
largely
as
the
product
of social
organization.
The
great magnitude by
which social factors
outweigh
circumstantial
factors in
determining
mortuary practices
contrasts with the common con
cern of
archaeologists
that
mortuary
variation in
specific
case studies
might
reflect the season of death and other environmental variables
as
much as
social
organization (e.g., Chapman
and
Randsborg,
1981, p. 15; Ucko, 1969,
pp. 272, 274,
277).
Among
the social
factors,
vertical social
position, age (especially
the
child
versus adult
distinction),
and horizontal social
position
were
observed
several times
more often than
gender
and
personal identity
as determinants.
The two dimensions of social
organization
that most
directly
reflect
power
and
prestige
distinctions?vertical social
position
and
age?were
observed
most
frequently.
The
philosophical-religious
factor that determined
mortuary practices
most often is beliefs about universal orders and
symbols.
This result
sup
ports
Hodder's
(1982a,
p. 215) position
that fundamental themes or axes
of structural
opposition
within a culture's world
view,
such
as
clean/dirty,
male/female,
or
life/death,
are
worthy
of
archaeological investigation
and
might
be reconstructible from
mortuary
or other
archaeological
remains.
A more
specific understanding
of the various world-view themes that tend
to be
symbolized
or reflected in
particular
mortuary practices
is
necessary
to realize this
potential,
however
(see
Conclusions,
below).
Another
philo
sophical-religious
determinant found almost as
commonly
is beliefs about
the nature of the soul and its effects
on the
living.
This factor is one com
ponent
of Hertz's
(1907;
see
below)
contention that fear of the
body/soul
is an essential cause of the form of
mortuary
rituals.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 157
Question
4. Are There Certain
Mortuary
Practices that
Reflect
Social Factors More
Often
Than
Philosophical-Religious
Ones,
and Vice Versa?
Table Xni shows those
mortuary practices
that were observed more
or
less
frequently
to reflect either social or
philosophical-religious
factors.
Some variables that more often reflected
aspects
of social
organization
than
beliefe,
and that
appear
to be useful for
reconstructing
social
organization,
include
cemetery
internal
organization,
the overall
energy
expended
on
mortuary
activities and
disposition
of the
body,
the number of
socially
rec
ognized
burial
types,
the number of
persons per grave,
and the
quantity
of
grave
furniture. The first two factors are
expectable. They
are the archae
ological
correlates of
corporate group organization
and
ranking
that Gold
stein
(1976, 1981)
and Tainter
(1975), respectively,
found
through
cross
cultural
survey
(see below).
Some variables that were observed to reflect
philosophical-religious
ideas more than social
organization,
and that seem useful for
reconstructing
beliefe,
include
body position, body
orientation,
and the
spatial arrange
ment of furniture in the
grave.
The associations of
body position
and ori
entation with
philosophical-religious
themes is
expectable, give
the
essential roles of these two conditions in meditation and shamanic
jour
neying, healing,
divination,
and
psychopomp
work
cross-culturally (Good
man,
1990). (Psychopomp
tasks involve
a shaman in
guiding
the soul of
the deceased to a land of the
dead,
or in
communicating
between the
living
and the
dead.)
Moreover,
the cross-cultural association of burial orientation
specifically
with beliefe about the direction of an afterlife has been
repeat
edly
observed
(e.g.,
Binford, 1971, pp. 12-13; Gruber, 1971, p. 71; Merbs,
1989;
also see the
many
references within each of
these). Supporting
these
views,
in this
survey, body
orientation
was found most
commonly
to reflect
a
society's
beHefe about the
afterlife,
universal
orders,
and the soul's
jour
ney
to the afterlife.
Body position
was observed most
frequently
to reflect
the first two factors
(Table
Xiy
below).
In contrast to a now common
archaeological premise
derived from
Binford's
(1971, p. 22)
cross-cultural
survey, body
orientation was not found
once to associate with horizontal social
position, specifically sodality
affili
ation. Also in contradistinction to Binford's
results,
body
orientation was
never found to reflect
origin myths specific
to a
sodality. Instead, body
ori
entation was associated with
philosophical-rehgious
factors,
and these as
sociations were
society
wide rather than
sodality-specific.
The different
societies
sampled
here and
by
Binford
may explain
this
discrepancy.
The central block of Table XIII lists
a
number of
mortuary practices
that were found to have social and
philosophical-religious
causes in
ap
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
158 Carr
&\
2
cu
?
f
o
c
g
Im
*
?
O
c
3
2
g
o.
|
Oh
"8
a
a
I
E
a
o
a
u
.8
&
3
o
0)
.2?
Pi5"
JC
0*
o CO o
q t.
S
Tf
q h;
rt 8
o?vouS-^r^fomtN
qrjONN?oqvq?
^ VO VJ
*-H
(NJ on vo
3
O
'3>
o.
o
I
1
**
?A
**
*
i2
t?
oo.>
8.
S?
*
g
jc
13
o
a
S
c
?
Sx
a
=
tu
00
e
c c
2-S
swan
g g
8 8
e
?g
? 2
^
e-a
o o s
W ?-
?
g E-5
3 3 ?r
2Z?
5
^2
.t? T3
-
&B^
So
?S?
o
t?
?
?
*?*
^ 2*2
2 ?
5
g
g
?
2
<**
cet
s
c
o
oScj?oooooot^r^r^r^SvoSw-jiow^w-)
o??????????????oo
Oj <CJ
J? X)
O
?>
00 00
||
??
SB
Si
5.2
s
'
VONO\0
Tft*^o\r>?n^ON?-imoocnTHoor^i-iio?n
c4 FS r4 NHtn'H
00 on <^ <
> e? ?
^ Cl JO
?voofncNcsr^r^ov^Hu^T-^fnoo
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 159
S3
? ?
?5
? ?
?S8
? ?
3?
? ?
m m ^F ?
oooooooooooo
O 0\
OQ
o ?
CO tN c3 CM O
????????????
o o o 5
lili
g-g^-g
DDDD
no
o
1
?
S r- *o cN r> vo
*-*
es
?-i o o o o o o o o o o *h
09
^
T-* ?
os jO ed ? (d
?NOtn?noN?-ie*,>rr'^-?n?o??H?n,^,o^o^oo\t^
a
s
IS
a
o?
8
"
?3
*
S
5
ai
a ? a
a >
?
? -s
lili?
o
8
S .2
a
c
? o v
F fe ?? .S3 -c
fifll
g p
O
?- v?
J3 C
-5
p
C
Jg
CU
g
o
s.? s
?
.a
b-a
-S
-a
|
O * 8
g
P
-? ? cr
?
?S
?
g ?
il
sj
111
als?
I -IJS -8
-s
ft>
.23
M
tt
JS
m
"8
B*
?JS
S
o ?,
?fe "e
>
o
3
?
S =S
-? O
a ?5
1
S
2 i ?"8
v3 j2*"3 u*
"
5?
o ? .2 7
-c
g
5 5
*~
?S J2
2
Z
o-Sl^i
S3 S
o.
~? .2
C
?*-._
ZiJ
?as
o
>
-s ?s a _l
ai
2
?si.
3
o g
H o5
33?*U
?
.2
08
oO
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
160
Carr
proximately
similar
frequencies, depending
on the measure
of association.
The
analytic
relevance of these variables to
reconstructing
social
organiza
tion or
beliefs is debatable in
general
and should be demonstrated in
any
particular
case
study. Importantly, among
these variables with
ambiguous
meanings
are several that
archaeologists
have
commonly
used to infer social
patterning:
grave form;
the kind of
grave furniture; local,
regional,
and eco
zonal
grave location; body
treatment and
preparation;
and the form of dis
posal.
Most recorded
funerary
traits
(variables 30-39),
in contrast to those
pertaining
to the
body, grave,
and
cemetery,
associated with
philosophical
religious
factors somewhat to much more
frequently
than with social or
ganizational
factors. The
exceptions
are traits that one
would
expect
potentially
to
symbolize
or
depend
on social relations: the number
and/or
positioning
of funeral
attendants,
the
relationship
of
corpse processors
to
the
deceased,
and the dress of the attendants.
Question
5. Are There Certain Kinds
of Mortuary
Practices that
Cross-Culturally
Are Determined
by Only
One or
a
Limited
Number
of Solely Philosophical-Religious
or
Social
Organizational
Factors?
Table XIV enumerates for each kind of
mortuary practice
its most
commonly
observed determinants?those associated at least five times with
the
practice.
The tabulated numbers of observations
are
the cell
frequencies
in 'able V The cut-off value of five or more observations includes the
top
10.8% most
frequent
associations
among variable-pairs.
It is clear from Table XIV that most
mortuary practices
are
determined
cross-culturally by multiple,
common factors. These are
usually
a mix of
philosophical-religious
and social
factors,
often in
roughly equal frequencies.
It cannot be concluded from Table XIV that those
mortuary practices
determined
by
a
small number of factors
cross-culturally
are
necessarily
"purer"
indicators of them and more suitable for
reconstructing
the
past.
Figure
1 shows
that,
in this
study,
the number of factors that were docu
mented to determine a
mortuary practice depends
not so much on the na
ture of the
practice,
itself,
but on the number of times it was observed?a
sampling
effect. It is not clear that
any
of the
practices analyzed
here are
determined
by
a small set of factors across cultures.
There
appear
to be certain
qualifications
to this
pattern.
(1) Body
ori
entation relative to the cardinal directions
(variable 4b)
was found to be
determined
largely by
beliefs. A total of 31
(97%)
of the 32 observations
of variables that affected
body
orientation
are beliefs about the
afterlife,
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants
Table XTV. Most Common Determinants of
Mortuary
Practices for those
Practices Associated Five or More Times with Some Determinant
Number of
Independent
variable observations*
1:
Body preparation
81b Beliefs about the soul's nature
15
84 Beliefs about universal orders 12
59
Age
12
57 Vertical social
position
10
56 Social classification at death 9
54 Beliefs about cause of death 8
88 Beliefs about
responsibilities
to the deceased 8
83 Beliefs about the soul's
journey
8
81a Beliefe about the afterlife 7
86 Beliefs about a soul's
development
5.5
2:
Body
treatment
81b Beliefs about the afterlife
13.5
56 Social classification at death 13
84 Beliefs about universal orders
10.5
57 Vertical social
position
9
88 Beliefs about
responsibilities
to the deceased
8
54 Beliefs about cause of death
8
55b Beliefs about
health/safety
of the
living
6
58 Horizontal social
position
6
59
Age
6
60 Gender
5
3b:
Body position
at burial
57 Vertical social
position
8
84 Beliefs about universal orders 6
81a Beliefs about the afterlife
5
4b:
Body
orientation at burial
81a Beliefs about the afterlife
9
84a Beliefs about universal orders 9
83 Beliefs about the soul's
journey
55
7: Form of
disposal
56 Social classification at death 13
54 Beliefs about cause of death 12
59
Age
11
81b Beliefs about the soul's nature
10
84 Beliefe about universal orders 10
57 Vertical social
position
8
83 Beliefs about the soul's
journey
7.5
51 Location of death 5
55b Beliefs about
health/safety
of the
living
5
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Table XIV. Continued
Number of
Independent
variables observations0
9: Grave form
57 Vertical social
position
14
59 Horizontal social
position
11
84 Beliefs about universal orders
9.5
81b Beliefs about the soul's nature 7
83 Beliefs about the soul's
journey
65
84 Beliefs about cause of death 5
12/17: Local
grave
location
57 Vertical social
position
11
59
Age
11
81b Beliefs about the soul's nature
11
54 Beliefe about cause of death
9
84 Beliefs about universal orders 7
81a Beliefs about the afterlife
6
58 Horizontal social
position
6
88 Beliefs about
responsibilities
to the deceased 6
87 Beliefs about
3rd-party
souls
5
51 Location of death
5
63 Need for access to the
body
after funeral 5
56 Social classification at death
5
61 Personal
identtity
5
13a: Kind of
grave
furniture
61 Personal
identity
20
81b Beliefs about the soul's nature
17
81a Beliefs about the afterlife
17
83 Beliefs about the soul's
journey
16
60 Gender 14
57 Vertical social
position
13
59
Age
11
84 Beliefs about universal orders
10.5
88 Beliefs about
responsibilities
to the deceased 10
87 Beliefs about
3rd-party
souls 7
55b Beliefs about
health/safety
of the
Irving
7
56 Social classification at death
6
58 Horizontal social
position
5
13b: Source of
grave
furniture
61 Personal
identity
55
14:
Quantity
of
grave
furniture
57 Vertical social
position
55
16: Overall
energy expenditure
57 Vertical social
position
22
59
Age
12
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 163
_Table
XTV.
Continued_
Number of
Independent
variables observations0
88 Beliefs about
responsibilities
to the deceased 8
58 Horizontal social
position
6
56 Social classification at death
5
18:
Regional,
ecozone location of
disposal
area
84 Beliefs about universal orders 8
81b Beliefe about the afterlife 6
56 Social classification at death 5
19/22a:
Regional
location of
disposal
area relative to settlement
81b Beliefe about the soul's nature 115
56 Social classification at
death 10
59
Age
9
54 Beliefs about cause of death 15
57 Vertical social
position
7
87 Beliefe about
third-party
souls 7
84 Beliefs about universal orders 5.5
55b Beliefs about
health/safety
of the
living
5
20b: Grave
formally
demarked
57 Vertical social
position
7
81b Beliefs about the soul's nature
7
88 Beliefs about
responsibilities
to the deceased
6
23: Number of
socially recognized
burial
types
59
Age
12
57 Vertical social
position
11
56 Social classification at death 5
54 Beliefe about cause of death 5
28:
Within-cemetery grave
location of burial
types
58 Horizontal social
position
6
30: Funeral
oratory
81a Beliefe about the afterlife 7
83 Beliefe about the soul's
journey
7
88 Beliefs about
responsibilities
to the deceased 7
31: Funeral
song
88 Beliefs about
responsibilities
to the deceased 6
57 Vertical social
position
5
81a Beliefs about the afterlife 5
83 Beliefs about the soul's
journey
5
84 Beliefs about universal orders
5
32: Funeral dance and
games
88 Beliefs about
responsibilities
to the deceased 6
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Table XIV. Continued
Number of
Independent
variables observations0
33: Funeral attendance and
positioning
of the
living
58 Horizontal social
position
9
57 Vertical social
position
5
59
Age
5
60 Gender 5
34: Funeral
meals/fasting
88 Beliefe about
responsibilities
to the deceased 11
57 Vertical social
position
7
58 Horizontal social
position
7
83 Beliefs about the soul's
journey
6
87 Beliefs about
third-party
souls
5.5
81a Beliefs about the afterlife 5
81b Beliefs about the soul's nature 5
84 Beliefs about universal orders 5
35: Funeral time and
duration;
secondary
funerals
81b Beliefe about the afterlife 11
57 Vertical social
position
10
59
Age
9
88 Beliefs about
responsibilities
to the deceased 8
54 Beliefs about cause of death 6.5
84 Beliefs about universal orders 6
51 Location of death 5
36: Funeral
dress,
ornamentation
84 Beliefs about universal orders 9.5
58 Horizontal social
position
8
60 Personal
identity
5
37:
Grief, bereavement,
and
grave
visitation
88 Beliefs about
responsibilities
to the deceased 12
58 Horizontal social
position
11
84 Beliefs about universal orders 105
81b Beliefs about the soul's nature 9
57 Vertical social
position
8
59
Age
7
55b Beliefs about
health/safety
of the
living
5
38:
Corpse processors
and
grave diggers
58 Horizontal social
position
14
84 Beliefe about universal orders 12
88 Beliefe about
responsibilities
to the deceased 9
60 Gender 7
57 Vertical social
position
5
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 165
_Table
XIV.
Continued_
Number of
Independent
variables observations41
39: General
funerary practices
55b Beliefe about
health/safety
of the
living
8
83 Beliefs about the soul's
journey
8
87 Beliefe about
third-party
souls 7
88 Beliefs about
responsibilities
to the deceased 7
59
Age
6
54 Beliefs about cause of death 6
81b Beliefe about the soul's nature 6
84 Beliefe about universal orders 6
"The number of observations of association between a
given independent
variable
(determinant)
and a
given response
variable
(mortuary prac
tice),
as listed in column
3,
is the number of societies in which the
association is found. The number is
equivalent
to the cell
frequencies
in Table V.
Only
those associations observed in five or more societies
of the 31
sampled
societies are listed.
the soul's
journey
to the
afterlife,
or universal orders and structural
oppo
sitions. This
finding
is
expectable
relative to the
practices
of shamanism and
meditation,
and beliefs about the direction of an
afterlife,
as
discussed above.
(2)
The
energy
expended
overall on
mortuary
rites
(variable 16)
was
observed to reflect
predominantly
the vertical social
position
of the de
ceased,
or
age,
which affects vertical social
position.
This was the case for
34
(42%)
of the 80 observations of
energy expenditure.
This result
supports
Tkinter's
(1975)
universal
finding
that the
energy expended
on
burial
re
flects the rank of the deceased
(see below).
However,
the result also
quali
fies Tkinter's
finding considerably
in that
energy expenditure
was
found
here to also reflect other social dimensions and beliefs 58% of the time.
Although energy
expenditure usually
or
always
reflects the rank of the de
ceased,
it can reflect other dimensions as well.
(3)
Grave location within the
cemetery (variable 28)
was documented
to reflect most
frequently
the horizontal social
position
of the
deceased,
primarily
his
or her kin
group.
This was the case in 6
(27%)
of the 22
observations of
grave
location. The
pattern
is
logically compatible
with the
more
specific findings
of Goldstein
(1976;
1981, p. 61).
She documented
across cultures that a
permanent,
bounded area
for the exclusive
disposal
of
a
social
group's
dead?either a
cemetery
or a
portion
of
it?usually rep
resents a
corporate group, typically
a
lineal descent
group,
with
rights
over
the use
and/or
control of
crucial,
restricted resources
(see below).
At the
same
time,
Goldstein's results must be
qualified
in that
within-cemetery
grave
location
was found here to reflect the vertical social
position
and
age
of the deceased almost as
frequently
as
horizontal social
position.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
166 Carr
26
24
22
?js
20
o
?
a
>
18
a
3
a
c
c
1
Im
2
O
-M
?
16
14
12
10
? 8
0
o *
4
kl
2
b.
KEY:
a
mortuary practice
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
No. of observations of the
mortuary practice
in
relationship
with some determinant
160
Fig.
1. The number of factors that were observed to determine a
mortuary practice
in
this
study is,
to a
large degree,
a function of the
sample
number of observations of
the
practice
rather than its nature.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 167
(4)
The number of burial
types recognized by
a
society (variable 23)
was found to be determined
primarily by
the social factors of vertical social
position,
or
age,
which contributes to vertical social
position.
This was so
for 23
(47%)
of the 49 observations of the
variable,
"number of burial
types." Again,
the
pattern generally agrees
with Tkinter's
(1975) findings.
(5)
The
presence
of funeral
oratory
and
song
(variables
30,
31)
both
reflected
philosophical-religious
factors more
frequently
than social ones.
This was
the
pattern
for 35
(70%)
of 50 observations of funeral
oratory
and 30
(62%)
of 48 observations of funeral
song.
The
pattern
was not found
for the other studied
funerary
variables,
which instead tended to reflect a
more
equal
mix of social factors and beliefs.
(6)
Funeral
attendance,
which relates to the
energy
expended
on a
funeral,
and
positioning
of the
living
at the funeral
(variable 33),
was
found
to be affected
largely by
social factors. This was
the case for 26
(63%)
of
41.5 observations of funeral attendance and
positioning.
The
finding
cor
roborates
linkages
made
by
Binford
(1971, pp. 17,21),
Saxe
(1970),
Tkinter
(1975;
see
below),
and Webb and Snow
(1974,
p.
167)
between the social
rank of the
deceased,
the number of
persons having
duties to the
deceased,
and the
energy expended
on
funerary
ritual and burial.
(7)
Selection of
corpse processors
and
grave diggers (variable 38)
de
pended primarily
on
kinship relationship
to the
deceased,
the
gender
of
the
deceased,
and universal orders that
pertain largely
to the
male/female
structural
opposition.
These
relationships
held for 33
(47%)
of 70 obser
vations of this
mortuary practice.
The data in Table XIV
only partially
bear out the cross-cultural asso
ciations that Binford
(1971:Table 4)
found between
mortuary practices
and
their determinants. Differences between the two
surveys'
results
probably
reflect the different
samples
of societies drawn and the small number of
associations that Binford's
survey
revealed. A
comparison
of the
specifics
of the two
surveys
follows.
(1) Body
treatment was documented in both
surveys
to reflect the ver
tical
or
horizontal social
position
of the deceased.
However,
it also associ
ated here often with
age,
gender,
and various kinds of beliefs.
Body
treatment was not
found here to be determined
frequently by
the conditions
of
death,
in contrast to Binford's
(1971) report.
(2)
Form of
disposal
of the
body
was observed in both
surveys
to reflect
the
age
and vertical social
position
of the deceased. At the same
time,
it
was also found here to be determined often
by
the circumstantial social
classification of the deceased at
death,
the location of
death,
and various
beliefs. It did not associate
frequently
here with the conditions of
death,
in contrast to Binford's
(1971) findings.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
168 Can
Table XV. The Balance with Which
Social,
Philosophical
Religious,
Circumstantial, Physical,
and
Ecological
Factors
Determine
Mortuary
Practices Varies with
Sociopolitical
Complexity
Factors Number of observations*6
Band-level
hunter-gatherers
Beliefs 1913 15.9
Social
position
100. 16.7
Physical requirements
125 25
Circumstances of death 18. 45
Ecology
1. 0.5
Complex hunter-gatherers
Beliefs 1603 13.4
Social
position
95. 15.8
Physical requirements
10. 2.0
Circumstances of death 4. 1.0
Ecology
0. 0.
Horticultural tribes
Beliefs 332.5 27.6
Social
position
212. 35.3
Physical requirements
16. 3.2
Circumstances of death 11. 2.8
Ecology
1. 05
Petty
hierarchies
Beliefs 184. 15.2
Social
position
217.5 36.2
Physical requirements
18. 3.6
Circumstances of death 16. 4.0
Ecology
1. 0.5
Paramount chiefdoms
Beliefs 156.5 12.9
Social
position
102.5 17.1
Physical requirements
12.5 2.5
Circumstances of death 20. 5.0
Ecology_L_05_
aSecond column: summed number of observations of association
between all
independent
variables of the
philosophical-religious,
social,
physical,
circumstantial,
or
ecological categories, respec
tively,
and
any response
variable
(mortuary practice),
for socie
ties of
a
given
level of
sociopolitical complexity.
Numbers are
equivalent
to the sum of the column totals of all
independent
variables of a
given category
in Tables VI
through
X for societies
of different
complexity.
*Third column: same total
as in the
previous
column,
but divided
by (weighted by)
the number of
independent
variables in the
category.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 169
(3)
Grave form was often found in both
surveys
to be determined
by
the vertical social
position
of the deceased.
Yet,
it was also revealed here
to be caused almost as
frequently by
horizontal social
position
and
by many
categories
of beliefe.
(4) Body
orientation
infrequently
reflected the horizontal social
posi
tion of the deceased in this
study
and in contrast to Binford's
(1971)
find
ings. Philosophical-religious
factors associated here
overwhelmingly
with
this
mortuary practice (see above).
(5)
Local
grave
location was found here to reflect a
broad
range
of
factors,
including
vertical social
position,
horizontal social
position,
and
age,
as in Binford's
(1971)
survey,
but not the conditions of death. Local
grave
location was also revealed here to be determined
very
frequently by
a num
ber of
philosophical-religious
factors and
moderately frequently by expect
able,
circumstantial and
physical
factors.
(6)
The kind of
grave
furniture
placed
with the deceased associated
in both
surveys
often with the deceased's
gender
and vertical social
position.
However,
this
practice
was found here to reflect more
frequently
the
per
sonal identities of the decease?a dimension that Binford
(1971)
did not
study?as
well as
many
other social factors and beliefs.
(7) Quantity
of
grave
furniture
was
documented here and in Binford's
(1971) survey
to be determined most
commonly by
the deceased's vertical
social
position,
and almost
as often here
by age?a
variable
contributing
to one's vertical social
position.
These
corroborating
results should not be
taken, however,
as evidence that the
quantity
of
grave
furniture is
a
strong
indicator of vertical social
position.
The deceased's vertical social
position
was found to be indicated much less
commonly by
the
quantity
of
grave
furniture
(only
5.5
observations)
than
by
other
archaeologically
visible cor
relates such as
energy
expenditure (22 observations), grave
form
(14
ob
servations),
the kind of
grave
furniture
(13 observations),
etc. This
pattern
supports
Tkintefs
(1978)
survey finding,
that social rank is
infrequently
re
flected
by
the
quantity
of furniture in the
grave
and is
symbolized
much
more often
by
other
mortuary practices (see below).
Question
6. Does the Balance
of
Social,
Philosophical-Retigfous,
Circumstantial,
Physical,
and
Ecological
Determinants
of Mortuary
Practices
Vary
with
Sociopolitical Complexity?
Table XV shows the
frequency
with which these different kinds of fac
tors were revealed to affect
any mortuary practice
or form for societies of
differing sociopolitical complexity.
For societies at each level of
complexity,
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
170
Carr
il
S
.2-5
1*
II
?
g
*
.3
IS
18
3
3
O
?-3
*S
.a S
fis'
o?
3
os
J3
-C
O O.
12 S
8
e
?.2
2*
?
o
s
?
Htt,
O
'1
il
-
le"
?8.f
Sog
S ?S
? ?
s
es
?
s
?e
?
r-l r-1 i-t
O
H
S
Os
?]
g s
^
1
3?
a
s
t?
3
j?
s
f
to
3
o
o?
I
-
a
a
S S
si
w
3
2
8
~
X ou
'3 Si S
g
g
?I S 3 C
S
> =
S
s
s
.o 3 <a
S
Sx
SSXX
S?Ng
S
u.^
E
E ?,
? .O
g
3 S
"O
?..2 r5
? s
8
>
+s
'
c
1 i.
SU
o
g
AS.
S 3
.2 t:
M
o
CO
c
S
-a ~
e?
.o
s
3
c
f
>>8
e e
co
-
o
o
SL
-s
.S 2>
11
4) OO
O.S
a e
?
B" ?T
o
g
o co .s
oB
?10,?3
u, eo
JC
00
I
a
'
a
co .c a w
?
w
i^.
3
'
*
_r
2
g
B
?*
S
?
? -s
*
'5*3
?-S
?
-g.
S S 8*
So* O (5
??^??
PgJl
?
S.
i
? fi
?f??2?
is-s-g:
3
?
?? ?
5
C w
o jdH
81?
?
o o
.
S Le
?
?
?*||
T3
C
CO
S
'5
o
w
c .
?*&
?
-^
5*8
S?
'S c ^
?o
c -S w
c
8.-S st
.S
? SuH
CO
??g
S?
2-g
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 171
social and
philosophical-religious
variables
were found to affect
mortuary
practices
far more often than circumstantial and
physical
variables;
and
these latter two determinants were observed more often than
ecological
ones. These ordered relations did not shift with
sociopolitical complexity.
It was
expected,
a
priori,
that the
importance
of circumstantial and
physical
determinants of
mortuary practices compared
to social and
philo
sophical-religious
ones
would be
greatest
in
simpler, hunter-gatherer
and
horticultural societies.
Presumably,
their
greater mobility
would make the
location and
timing
of deaths and need for ritual access to the
body
more
critical factors in
structuring mortuary practices.
This was not found to be
the case
entirely.
Consider Table
XVI,
which summarizes information from
Table XV Table XVI
(columns
3,4,
5)
shows
a trend for circumstantial and
physical
determinants to be most
important
for band-level and hierarchical
societies
(petty
hierarchies and
paramount chiefdoms)
at the ends of the
examined cultural
evolutionary spectrum,
and
systematically
less
important
for societies of intermediate
sociopolitical complexity (complex hunter-gath
erers and
horticulturalists).
This trend is seen in both the
varying
absolute
frequencies
with which circumstantial and
physical
causes were
observed for
the societies
(Table
XVI,
column
3)
and the relative
frequencies
of circum
stantial and
physical
factors
compared
to social and
philosophical-religious
ones
(Table
XVI columns
4,
5).
Thus,
the
mobility
of a
society
is
apparently
not
among
the most fundamental determinants of its
mortuary practices.
The balance of social
organizational
factors and
philosophical-relig
ious factors in
determining mortuary practices
also shifts
systematically
with
sociopolitical complexity (Table
XVI,
columns
6,
7). Philosophical-religious
determinants were
observed
relatively
more often in
simpler
societies. So
cial factors become
relatively
more
frequent systematically
as
sociopolitical
complexity
increases from band-level
hunter-gatherers through petty
hier
archies. The trend reverses with
paramount
chiefdoms,
for which
philo
sophical-religious
beliefs
again
increase in their relative
frequency.
Two reasons
may explain
this trend.
First,
as
sociopolitical complexity
increases,
so does the size of
a
society,
the
specialization
of roles of its
members,
and the
diversity
of its
categories
of social
personae. Small-scale,
face-to-face
society gives
way
to a
larger society
of classified relations.
These
developments require
an increase in the number of channels
by
which social
personae
are
symbolized
and communicated if an effective
level of social
integration
and
functioning
is to be maintained.
Mortuary
rituals
are one
potential channel,
to the extent that
they
are
public. Thus,
one would
expect
social factors to become more
important
in
determining
mortuary practices
as
sociopolitical complexity
increases.
Second,
the reversal of this trend and the increased
importance
of be
liefs in
paramount
chiefdoms
may
reflect the evolution and institutionaliz
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
172
Carr
Table XVEL Shifts
through
Cultural Evolution in the
Commonality
of
Various Dimensions of the Social Persona that are
Symbolized by
and/or
Determine
Mortuary
Practices
Dimension of the Social Persona
Number of
observations*
Vertical social
position
Horizontal social
position
Age
Gender
Personal
identity
Complex hunter-gatherers
21
10
26.5
10
13
Vertical social
position
Horizontal social
position
Age
Gender
Personal
identity
Vertical social
position
Horizontal social
position
Age
Gender
Personal
identity
Vertical social
position
Horizontal social
position
Age
Gender
Personal
identity
Horticultural tribes
47
39
66
24
13
Petty
hierarchies
66
39
32
29
10.5
Chiefdoms
28
29
18
7
2
Percentage
of
observations
Band-level
hunter-gatherers
Vertical social
position
32
Horizontal social
position
12
Age
18
Gender 9
Personal
identity
18
36.0
13.5
20.2
10.1
20.2
26.1
12.4
32.3
12.4
16.1
24.9
20.6
34.9
117
6.8
37.5
22.1
18.1
16.4
5.9
333
34.5
21.4
8.3
2.4
aNumber of observations of association between a
given independent
variable
and
any response
variable
(mortuary practice).
The number is
equivalent
to
the column total for that
independent
variable in Table V.
ing
of beliefe in ancestor
worship
as means for
legitimizing
vertical differ
ences in social
position.
Ancestor
worship
and the
sanctity
of ancestral lines
have their roots in tribal societies
(Swanson,
1960, pp.
100-108),
but are
among
the
primary
means that evolved in chiefdoms for
maintaining
and
justifying
differences in rank and
rights
to office and land
(Service, 1962,
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 173
KEY;
Ma
vertical social position
.i.
age
-horizontal social
position
-gender
w*rMVM
personal identity
Fig.
2. The balance of dimensions that
comprise
the social
persona
and that determine
and/or
symbolize mortuary practices changes
with
sociopolitical complexity
over cultural
evolution.
p. 162). Mortuary practices
are a natural domain in which such beliefs
about
continuity
with the ancestors and their social
hierarchy
can be
sym
bolized, communicated,
and exercised.
Consequently,
one would
expect
philosophical-religious
beliefs to
regain importance
in
determining
mortu
ary
rituals at this
point
in cultural evolution.
Supporting
this second
point,
the
specific
kinds of beliefs that were
found to determine
mortuary practices
more
commonly
in
paramount
chie
fdoms than in
simpler
societies include beliefs about
(1) responsibilities
to
the
deceased,
(2)
the status and
change
of status of the
person
at death
and their effect on the
living, (3)
the causes of sickness and
death,
and
(4)
j_i_i_i_i
v \ \
\
\
\ \
\
\
\
\
\
\ \
i
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
174 Can
the
physical
health
requirements
or
safety
of the
living
in relation to the
dead. Beliefs about the soul's
development during
life also often deter
mined
mortuary practices
in
paramount
chiefdoms,
but are less relevant to
this
argument.
Question
7. Does the Balance
of
Dimensions that Constitute
a
Social Persona and That Are
Reflected
in
Mortuary
Practices
Vary
with
Sociopolitical Complexity?
Table XVII and
Fig.
2 show the
frequencies
with which different di
mensions of the deceased's social
persona
were
observed to determine
and/or
be
symbolized by any mortuary practice
for societies of
varying
so
ciopolitical complexity.
The dimensions include vertical social
position,
horizontal social
position,
age, gender,
and
personal identity.
A number of
patterns
were discovered.
First,
personal identity,
as a
determinant,
declined
systematically
in fre
quency
with
increasing sociopolitical complexity.
This trend is
expectable.
As
society
becomes
larger,
a
person increasingly
comes to be known
by
the social
categories
to which he or she
belongs,
rather than
personally
unique
characteristics.
Second,
horizontal social
position,
as a
determinant,
was found to in
crease
systematically
in
frequency
with
sociopolitical complexity.
This
pat
tern is
expectable
for two
reasons,
which
pertain
to lineal descent
groups
and sodalities.
First,
over the course of cultural evolution
through
the chief
dom-level,
the number of functions and
importance
of lineal descent
groups
generally
increases. In more mobile
societies, they may only
or
primarily
regulate marriage patterns,
the recruitment of
labor,
and material ex
change.
In more
sedentary
societies,
lineal descent
groups may,
in
addition,
control access to land and
strategic
resources,
and
provide
the framework
for
ranking
and
political power.
With these
developments,
as
lineal descent
groups
become more
important
to
community
function and
personal
des
tiny,
one would
expect
the
symbolizing
and
communicating
of descent
group membership,
and the
rights
and
obligations
it
defines,
to become
more
significant
in life and death.
The increased influence of horizontal social
position
on
mortuary prac
tices
as sociocultural
complexity
increases is also
expectable
for
a
second
reason. The evolution of tribal and more
complex
societies is marked
by
the
development
of sodalities
and an increase in their
power
and field of
action. Sodalities
may regulate community
subsistence activities and eco
nomic
relations,
maintain law and order
internally,
and
govern foreign
re
lations.
Thus,
one would
expect
the
symbolizing
and
communicating
of
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 175
sodality membership,
like descent
group membership,
to become more im
portant
in life and death
through
cultural evolution.
Third,
gender
showed no
significant
trend in its
frequency
in
affecting
mortuary practices
as
sociopolitical complexity
increases.
Moreover,
its fre
quency
was
consistently
low relative to those of other
dimensions of the
social
persona.
This
finding
is reasonable for two reasons.
First,
with inhu
mation,
gender
does not
require
any special mortuary
practices
to
symbolize
it. The
body
is an
obvious,
natural
symbol
and
clothing
is
usually
an obvious
indicator of this dimension of one's social
persona. Second,
although gender
is
commonly
one basis for
prestige
and
power,
it is
typically
not
among
the
final,
most narrow criterion that societies
use to select leaders and that be
come
important
to
symbolize
and communicate in life and death.
Strength,
hunting skills,
diplomacy, oratory
skills,
kinship
affiliation,
community
affili
ation,
and/or
other such criteria are used to narrow the field of
possible
candidates to a final few
and, thus,
are more essential to communicate.
Fourth,
at the
opposite
extreme,
vertical social
position
and/or
age,
as
a basis for vertical social
position,
were found to affect
mortuary practices
with
consistently high frequency
in societies of all
degrees
of
complexity.
This
pattern
concords with
arguments
of Saxe
(1970),
Binford
(1971, pp.
17,21),
and T?inter
(1978)
that the characteristics of funeral rites and burial
depend fundamentally
on the social rank of the deceased and the number
of
persons having
duties to the deceased.6
Tests of Some Common Premises About
Mortuary
Practices
This section shifts from the inductive search for cross-cultural deter
minants of
mortuary practices
to the deductive
testing
of certain
premises
that are
useful in
archaeology
for
reconstructing
beliefe and social
organi
zation. The section
begins
with a test of Hertz's
(1907) premise concerning
beliefs about the soul and
afterlife,
and continues with tests of
archaeologi
cally
common
propositions
about social
organization.
Hertz's Premise
Middle-range theory
for
reconstructing philosophical-religious
beliefs
and world-view
assumptions
from
mortuary practices
and remains
hardly
6It is true that the deceased's
body might
serve as a natural
symbol
of his or her
age. Age,
like
gender, might
then be
expected
to affect
mortuary practices
less
commonly.
However,
this situation is overshadowed
possibly by
the fact that
age usually
correlates with and is a
critical basis for vertical social
position
and the size of
a
person's
social
network,
which have
a
strong bearing
on
funerary expenditures.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
176 Carr
exists. The
single,
most
powerful, middle-range
framework of this kind
pres
ently
available is the model of
mortuary practices developed by
Hertz
(1907; Huntington
and
Metcalf,
1979).
Hertz
argued essentially
that mor
tuary practices
are determined in their structure and content
by
the rela
tionships
between three kinds of
personae:
the
corpse
of the
deceased,
the
soul of the
deceased,
and the
remaining society
of mourners.
The
relationship
of the mourners to the
corpse
entails the
obligations
of the
living
to the dead. This
relationship provides
a
social
organizational
explanation
of
mortuary
practices. Specifically,
the more
prestigious
a
per
son,
the
greater
the number of
persons
that are
duty-bound
to him or
her,
the
greater
the level of social
disruption
at the death of that
person,
the
greater
the fear of the
corpse,
and,
consequently,
the
greater
the elabora
tion of the funeral to balance
obligations
and alleviate fears. This chain of
Table XVffl. Test of Hertz's
Hypothesis: Independent
Variables that
Determine How the
Body
is
Handled,
Ordered
by
Their
Frequency
of
Observation
Number of
Independent
variable observations0,6
84 Beliefs about universal orders 47.5 54.5
81b Beliefs about the soul's nature 42 53
56 Social classification
at death 38 43
57 Vertical social
position
35 46
59
Age
31 42
54 Beliefs about the cause of death 31 40
81a Beliefs about the nature of the afterlife 26
.
32
83 Beliefs about the soul's
journey
24 27
88 Beliefs about
responsibilities
to the deceased 19 25
60 Gender 15 18
55b Beliefs about
health/safety
of the
living
15 18
58 Horizontal social
position
14 20
85
Origin myths
9.5 9.5
51 Location of death 9 14
61 Personal
identity
9 14
86 Beliefs about the soul's
development
8.5 11.5
64 Need to
hide/protect
the
body
8.5 115
87 Beliefs about
third-party
souls 8 13
63 Need for access to the
body
for the funeral 5 10
53 Cause of death
physically
5 5
The
remaining independent
variables have less than five observations
"Second column: summed number of observations of association between a
given independent
variables and
response
variables
(mortuary practices)
1,
2, 3b, 4b, 7,
as taken from Table V.
'Third column: summed number of observations of association between a
given independent
variables and
response
variables
(mortuary practices) 1,
2, 3b, 4b, 7, 12/17,
as taken from Table V.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 177
logic
is the basis for the
archaeological premise
that the
energy expended
on
funeraiy
activities and burial reflects the
prestige
of the
person
(Binford,
1971, pp. 17, 21; Saxe, 1970, p. 69).
The
relationship
of the soul to the
living
involves the "unfinished busi
ness" between the survivors and the deceased. This
relationship provides
a
social-psychologLcal explanation
of
mortuary practices. Specifically,
emo
tional and economic bonds between the
living
and deceased must be
gradu
ally
dismantled and
replaced by
new
bonds between the
living.
This
process
involves the two issues of inheritance and the
appropriate
social forms of
expression
of
grief,
in
part through
funeral
practices.
These issues must be
resolved in
culturally appropriate ways,
lest the soul of the deceased be
upset
and
imperil
the
living.
The
relationship
of the soul to the
corpse gives
a
philosophical-religious
explanation
of
mortuary practices.
In this
case,
the state of the
corpse
through
the death
process
is taken
by
mourners to be a
"model" of the
state of the soul
(Huntington
and
Metcalf, 1979,
p. 14).
For
example,
among
the Berawan and other
groups
of Borneo
(Huntington
and
Metcalf,
1979), during
the liminal
period,
as the
corpse
rots and becomes
formless,
so
the soul of the deceased is
thought
to be
uncomfortable,
wander home
less,
and cause mischief or illness. When the
corpse
is reduced to
hard,
dry
bones,
the soul is said to become
strong
and
worthy
of
membership
in
the
society
of souls in the afterlife and able to leave the
living
world. Im
portantly,
because the
body
stands as a
metaphor
for the
soul,
the soul
can be
appeased
and
manipulated by
the survivors'
manipulating
the
corpse.
This
equation
follows from the more
general
"laws of
similarity
and
contagion"
in
sympathetic magic (Frazier, 1929).
Thus,
the manner in
which the
body
is handled in various
mortuary practices
may
directly
reflect
a
society's
beliefe about the nature of the
soul,
the
afterlife,
the soul's
jour
ney
to the
afterlife,
and other
aspects
of world view.
Hertz's
(1907)
third
relationship
is
important
to
archaeology. First,
it
provides
a
middle-range
theoretic and heuristic framework that can
guide
archaeologists
in
reconstructing
some
past
beliefs from
physical
remains.
Second,
it
suggests
how some beliefe can determine
mortuary
practices
di
rectly
and
independently
of social
organization,
rather than
simply
serve
as a
framework for
expressing
social
organization.
Hertz's
(1907) premise relating
the
manipulation
of the
corpse
to be
liefs about the soul has been
applied ethnologically
to
interpret
the mor
tuary practices
of a
few societies
(Cuevas,
1993; Hertz, 1907;
Huntington
and
Metcalf,
1979),
but not
archaeologically.
Its cross-cultural
validity
has
yet
to be tested
thoroughly.
Table XVIII
provides
data for
making
such a test. Six
mortuary prac
tices
were
taken as measures of
"handling
and
manipulating
the
corpse":
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
178
Carr
body preparation
and
treatment,
body position
and orientation at
burial,
the form of
disposal
of the
body,
and local
grave
location. The factors found
cross-culturally
to determine these six
practices
were then ordered in the
table
by
the sum of their
frequencies
of association with the
practices.
The
frequencies
were derived from Table V
Hertz's
(1907) theory
is
largely supported by
the data. The
single
in
dependent
variable that one would
expect
from Hertz's
premise
to most
affect how the
body
is handled is beliefs about the soul's nature and its
effects
upon
the
living.
This was found to be the second most
frequent
determinant of how the
body
is handled.
Also,
as
expected,
beliefs about
the nature of the afterlife and the soul's
journey
were
commonly
observed
to affect how the
body
is handled. At the same
time,
other factors
pertain
ing
to social
organization
rather than the soul also determined
corpse
han
dling. Finally,
of the several variables taken to measure
handling
of the
corpse, only body
orientation at burial was found to be affected
primarily
by
the kinds of beliefs
predicted by
Hertz'
premise, including
ideas about
the afterlife and the soul's
journey (Table XIV).
The
support
found here for Hertz's
premise suggests
that certain kinds
of
mortuary practices
and
remains,
especially
those related to
handling
the
corpse,
have
good potential
for
reconstructing past
world views and beliefs
archaeologically.
In
particular,
the varied
mortuary
tasks of "burial
pro
grams"
and the diverse
types
and locations of remains that
they produce
seem
important
for
reconstructing
some kinds of beliefs as well as the social
prestige
of individuals and social
complexity (Brown, 1971b, 1981; Tainter,
1978, pp. 128-136).
Vertical Social Position and
Energy Expenditure
Of all the cultural characteristics that
mortuary archaeologists
have
attempted
to
reconstruct,
social
inequality
is the most common. Brown
(1981, pp. 26,
29)
and Tainter
(1978,
pp. 119-122)
have reviewed the rele
vant literature.
A
key
issue in this literature is the
degree
to which the vertical social
position
of the
deceased,
or
his/her
family,
is indicated
by
the kinds and
quantities
of furniture
placed
in the
grave
and other
expenditures
made
while
disposing
of the
body. Whittlesey (1978, p. 89,
98-100)
has reviewed
a
number of traditional
archaeological
studies that
explicitly
assumed both
the kinds and
quantities
of
grave
furniture to reflect vertical social
position.
Binford
(1971)
found both of these traits to associate
crossculturally
with
vertical social
position.
Stickel
(1968) argued
that both the kinds and
quan
tities of items
placed
in
graves distinguish
rank from
egalitarian
societies.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 179
Table XDL
Mortuary
Practices That Are the Most
Commonly
Determined
by
the Vertical
Social Position of the Deceased
Frequency
of observations0
Mortuary practice
Number
Percentage
16 Overall
energy expenditure
22 11.0
9 Grave form 14 7.2
13a Kinds of
grave
furniture 13 6.7
23 Number of
types
of burials
recognized socially
11 5.6
12/17 Local
grave
location 11 5.6
1
Body preparation
10 5.2
35 Funeral time and duration 10 5.2
2
Body
treatment 9 4.6
3b
Body position
at burial 8 4.1
7 Form of
disposal
8 4.1
37
Grief, bereavement,
and
grave
visitation 8 4.1
19/22a
Regional
location of
disposal
area relative to
settlement 7 3.6
20b Grave
formally
demarkated 7 3.6
34 Funeral meals 7 3.6
aColumn 3 lists the number of observations of vertical social
position (V57) associating
with
a
given response
variable
(mortuary practice).
The number
equals
the number of societies
in which the association is
found,
as listed in Table V. The
percentage
in column 4 is the
number of observations of vertical social
position (V57) associating
with a
given response
variable
(mortuary practice)
out of 194.5 associations of vertical social
position
with some
response
variable
(mortuary practice).
T?inter
(1975,
1978, p. 121)
reacted to Stickel's
study, arguing
that,
theo
retically, many
kinds of
mortuary practices
can reflect vertical social
posi
tion because
mortuary
behavior is
symbolic
and the
relationship
between
practices
and their
meanings
is thus
"arbitrary,"
or more
appropriately,
semideterminant. T?inter went on to
find,
through
a
cross-cultural
survey
of 103
societies,
a set of
practices
that most
consistently
associate with so
cial rank. These are
(1)
the
complexity
of
body
treatment,
(2)
construction
and
placement
of the interment
facility, (3)
the extent and duration of mor
tuary ritual,
(4)
material contributions to the
ritual,
and
(5)
human sacrifice.
All of these are forms of
"energy expenditure/'
a
polythetic
variable that
T?inter favored as the best indicator of social rank and one that
always
associated with social rank in his
survey.
T?inter did not
commonly
find
the kind and
quantity
of furniture
placed
in the
grave
to indicate the social
rank of a
person.
Grave furniture was found to mark social rank in less
than 5% of 93 societies that he
surveyed (T?inter, 1978, p.
121).
T?intefs
findings
are now well
accepted
in the
archaeological
literature.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
180
Carr
Cross-cultural data for
testing
Tkinter/s
(1975, 1978) arguments
and
corroborating
his
empirical findings
are
given
in Ikble XIX. The table
shows those
mortuary practices
that were
observed to be determined
by
vertical social
position
most
commonly.
The data document several
pat
terns.
First, many
kinds of
mortuary practices
are
approximately equally
determined
by
the vertical social
position
of the
deceased,
as
T?inter
(1975,
1978, p. 121) suggested.
The
quantity
and kind of
grave
furniture are not
the sole nor the best indicators of vertical social
position.
Second,
of the various
mortuary practices surveyed
here,
overall
energy
expenditure (considering
all of its
specific forms)
was
determined most fre
quently by
vertical social
position. Energy expenditure
reflected vertical so
cial
position
almost twice as
frequently
as the next several most
commonly
affected
practices.
Third,
each of the
specific
forms of
energy expenditure
that T?inter
(1978)
noted to associate
consistently
with social rank and that were sur
veyed
here were
commonly
found in this
study
to reflect vertical social
position.
These forms include
body
treatment
(variable 2),
the construction
of the interment
facility (variable 9),
the duration of the funeral
(variable
35),
and
feasting
as a material contribution to the funeral
(variable 34).
Fourth,
the
quantity
of furniture
placed
in the
grave
was
rarely
ob
served to reflect the vertical social
position
of the
deceased,
in accord with
Tainted
(1975, 1978)survey findings
and in contrast to Binford's.
Only
5.5
cases
(2.8%)
of this association
were found here
among
the 194.5 cases of
vertical social
position being
associated with some
dependent
variable.
Quantity
of
grave
furniture was determined
by
vertical social
position
in
only
5.5
(18%)
of 31 societies.
However, fifth,
the kind of furniture
placed
in the
grave
was observed
quite
often to be affected
by
vertical social
position, contrasting
with T?in
ter's
(1975, 1978) findings.
Kind of
grave
furniture was revealed here to
be the third most common
mortuary practice
determined
by
vertical social
position.
It associated with vertical social
position
13 times
(6.7%)
out of
all 194.5
relationships
of vertical social
position
with some determinant
and in 13
(42%)
of 31 societies. This is much more
frequent
than the
approximately
5% of 93 societies in which Tainter observed
grave
furni
ture to indicate social rank.
In
conclusion,
it
appears
that several kinds of
mortuary practices
fre
quently
indicate the vertical social
position
of the deceased and are
good
candidates for
reconstructing
this
archaeologically.
These include the over
all amount of
energy expended
on the funeral and
burial,
the five mani
festations of
energy
expenditure
cited
by
T?inter
(1975, 1978),
the kind of
offerings placed
in the
grave,
but
probably
not their
quantity.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 181
Table XX. Determinants of
Within-Cemetery
Grave Location and Formal Demarcation of
the
Cemetery
Number of
Determining
variable Observations0
28:
Within-cemetery grave
location
58 Horizontal social
position
57 Vertical social
position
59
Age
52b
Timing
of death
56 Circumstantial social classification at death
60 Gender
54 Beliefs about cause of death
81a Beliefs about the afterlife
81b Beliefs about the soul's nature
83 Beliefe about the soul's
journey
87 Beliefs about third
party
souls
20a:
Cemetery formally
demarked
58 Horizontal social
position
81b Beliefs about the soul's nature
64 Need to
hide/protect
the
body
57 Vertical social
position
61/65 Personal
identity
83 Beliefs about the soul's
journey
84 Beliefs about universal orders
88
Responsibilities
to the deceased
"The number of observations of
response
variable
(mortuary practice)
28 or 2a
associating
with a
given independent
variable. The number
equals
the number of societies in which the
association is
found,
as listed in Table V.
Vertical Social Position and Grave Location
Binford
(1971)
found
that,
cross-culturally,
the deceased's vertical so
cial
position
is often indicated
by
the local location of the
grave.
This
re
lationship
also
appears
to be borne out
by archaeological
case
studies
(Brown,
1971b; Peebles,
1971),
but is not mentioned
among
the results of
T?intefs
(1975, 1978)
cross-cultural
survey.
Here,
the vertical social
position
of the deceased
commonly
associated
with local
grave
location
(variable
12/17,
Table
XIV).
Vertical social
position
and two other factors were tied as the most
frequent
determinants of local
grave
location. Vertical social
position
was indicated
by
local
grave
location
in 11
(9.6%)
out of 114 associations of local
grave
location with some vari
able.
Also,
vertical social
position
was the second most common factor
found to determine
within-cemetery grave
location
(variable 28,
Tables
XIY
2
2
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
182 Carr
XX);
4
(18.2%)
out of 22 associations of
within-cemetery grave
location
with some variable involved vertical social
position.
At the same
time,
it is
clear that local and
within-cemetery grave
location are also determined
by
a
diversity
of other factors
(Tables
Xiy
XX).
Horizontal Social Position and Burial Location
Goldstein
(1976,
1981, p. 61), qualifying
Saxe
(1970), proposed
that
if a
permanent, specialized
bounded area for the exclusive
disposal
of the
group's
dead
exists,
then it is
likely
that this
represents
a
corporate group
that has
rights
over the use
and/or control of crucial but restricted resources. This
corporate
con
trol is most
likely
to be attained
by
means of lineal descent from the dead.... The
more structured and formal the
disposal
area,
the fewer alternative
explanations
of
social
organization apply.
Goldstein also
emphasized
that the converse of this association is not
true;
such
corporate groups may
regularly
reaffirm their
rights by any
of several
ritual means alternative to burial in a
restricted, formal,
bounded area.
The
validity
of this
premise
is
supported
here
by
two data
patterns.
The most
frequently
observed determinant of both
within-cemetery grave
location
(variable 28)
and formal demarcation of the
cemetery (variable
20a)
is the horizontal social
position
of the deceased
(Table XX).
This find
ing
is broader than Goldstein's
(1976, 1981) premise.
The
variable,
"hori
zontal social
position," pertains
to
sodalities,
?kinship groups
of
unspecified
kinds,
or
residence
groups,
whereas Goldstein's
premise
focuses
specifically
on descent
groups.
At the same
time,
data
suggest
that Goldstein's
(1976, 1981) premise
must be further
qualified.
In
particular,
many
social and
philosophical-re
ligious
factors
beyond
the affirmation of
economically corporate groups
may
be indicated
by
the
bounding
and exclusive use of a
disposal
area,
be
it a
cemetery
or a section within a
cemetery
(Table XX).
Horizontal social
group
affiliation was observed to determine
within-cemetery grave
location
and formal demarcation of the
cemetery
in
only
six
(27%)
out of 22 cases
and two
(20%)
out of 10
cases,
respectively.
T?inter
(1978, pp. 123,
136), perhaps
without
intending
to,
informally
broadened and
simplified
Saxe's
premise by relating
burial
spatial
distribu
tion
generally
to
corporate group
differentiation. There is little
support
for
this idea. Horizontal social
position
of the deceased was not
among
the
many, commonly
observed
causes of the two
spatial
variables,
regional
re
gional
location of the
disposal
area relative to the ecozone and to the set
tlement
(Table
XIV: variables
18,
19/22a).
Horizontal social
position
was
observed with moderate
frequency
to determine local
grave
location
(Table
XTV: variable
12/17).
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants
183
Determinants
of
a
Cemetery's Regional
Location
If horizontal social
position
is not a
primary
determinant of the re
gional
location of
cemeteries,
what factors are?
Chapman
and
Randsborg
(1981, p. 17), following
Renfrew
(1976)
and Hall
(1976), proposed
the im
portance
of
territoriality (specifically,
cemeteries
as
territorial
markers),
cosmology,
and other beliefs. The influence of the latter two factors is
borne out in this
survey.
Table XIV shows that the
regional,
ecozonal lo
cation of cemeteries
(variable 18)
associated most often with beliefe about
universal orders
(variable 84), including
the structure of the
cosmos,
and
with beliefs about the afterlife
(variable 81a), including
the location of the
afterlife. The
frequencies
of these two factors relative to all of the deter
minants of
cemetery
ecozonal location total to 14
(25%)
out of 55.5 ob
servations
(Table V). Philosophical-religious
beliefs,
in
general,
determined
cemetery
ecozonal location 29.5
(53%)
out of 55.5 times
(Table V).
Another
relevant
response
variable,
regional cemetery
location relative to the set
tlement,
seldom was
explained by specifically cosmological
beliefs. How
ever,
beliefs in
general
were
found to affect it in 49
(53%)
out of 92
instances of its association with
any
other
determining
factors
(Table V).
No evidence was found for the
premise
that a
cemetery's regional
lo
cation reflects its function as a territorial marker.
However,
no
conclusion
can be drawn because territorial
marking
was
rarely
observed in this
survey,
perhaps
because of data limitations described above.
Another determinant of the
regional
location of
disposal
areas that
has been
posited
is the deceased's social classification relative to the cir
cumstances of death. Vehik
(1975, p.
36),
in her
focused,
proposive sample
of societies
(see above),
found that death due to an
accident,
certain dis
eases,
or
pregnancy
complications
led to burial
away
from the main com
munity cemetery.
This
pattern
was also
found,
although
more
weakly,
among
the more diverse societies
sampled
here. Social classification at
death
was found to be the second most common
determinant of
regional
location of the
disposal
area relative to the settlement
(variable 19/22a)
and the third most common determinant of
regional,
ecozone location of
the
disposal
area
(variable 18) (Table XIV).
Social classification at death
accounted for five
(8.9%)
of 56 associations of a
disposal
area's
regional
location relative to the settlement with some
cause,
and 10
(11%)
of 92
associations of
a
disposal
area's
regional,
ecozonal location with some cause
(Table
V).8
*rhis is the
only correspondence
found between the results of Venue's
(1975) survey
and this
one,
probably
because of differences in
sampling design.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
184 Can
Table XXL Most Common Determinants of Local Grave
Location in
Egalitarian
Societies
(3
or More
Observations)0
Number of
Determining
variable Observations6
81b Beliefs about the soul's nature 7
84 Beliefs about universal orders 6
81a Beliefs about the afterlife 5
59
Age
5
57 Vertical social
position
4
54 Beliefs about cause of death 3
83 Beliefs about the soul's
journey
3
87 Beliefs about
third-party
souls 3
51 Location of death 3
61/65 Personal
identity_3_
"Egalitarian
societies include those classed here as band-level
hunter-gatherers, complex
huntergatherers,
and horticultural
tribes.
^The number of observations of
response variable,
local
grave
lo
cation,
variable
12/17,
associating
with a
given independent
vari
able. The number
equals
the number of societies in which the
association is
found,
as summed from the relevant cell
frequencies
in Tables
VI, VII,
and VIII for band-level
hunter-gatherers,
com
plex hunter-gatherers,
and horticultural tribes.
Only
those asso
ciations observed in three or more societies are listed.
Local Grave Location and
Age
Binford
(1971,
pp. 21-22)
found in his cross-cultural
survey
that
age
commonly
determined
grave
location.
Specifically,
he
reported
that in
egali
tarian societies children are
frequently
buried outside of the
public
life
space
of the
community?either
under the house in
private
familial
space,
or
beyond
the settlement. In
contrast,
adults tend to be buried within the
public life-space.
To
explain
this
pattern,
Binford
suggested
that in
egalitarian
societies
a child has few
identity relationships
outside of the immediate
family.
Con
sequently,
a
child's death does not affect the
larger society
or
require
its
ritual involvement. In
contrast,
the death of
an
adult,
who
through
life has
accrued social
relationships, rights,
and
duties,
requires
wider
community
involvement This is often
symbolized by
adults
being
buried within the
public life-space.
In this
survey,
the same
spatial pattern
of differential location of child
and adult
graves
was found often.
Also, age
was the second most
commonly
observed determinant of local
grave
location
(variable 12/17), considering
societies at all levels of
complexity (Table XTV).
In
egalitarian
societies,
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 185
age
was tied as the third most
frequently
observed determinant of local
grave
location.
At the same
time,
the reasons revealed here for child and adult
graves
being
located in different
places,
and for the local locations of
graves
in
general,
are wider than the social
explanation proposed by
Binford. Table
XXI shows that three of the four most common determinants of local
grave
location in
egalitarian
societies
are beliefs: beliefs about the soul's
nature,
universal
orders,
and the nature of the afterlife. These three factors com
prise
33% of all observations of local
grave
location
being
affected
by
some
determinant. Beliefs in
general comprise
57% of all such observations. In
contrast, age
was tied as
only
the third most common determinant of local
grave
location and was found in
only
9.2% of all
relationships
of local
grave
location with some factor. The causes of local
grave
location are more di
verse than Binford
(1971) recognized
and
apparently
are more
frequently
philosophical-religious
than social in nature.
Some
insightful examples
of beliefs that were observed to determine
local
grave
location are the
following: Among
the
Tkllensi,
an adult is bur
ied either within the settlement
or at the entrance of his/her
homestead,
depending
on whether the
person's
clan has a certain cult
specialist.
In
contrast,
an infant is buried
near but outside the settlement on a
path
so
that it can find its
way
back to its
compound
for food. A twin who dies
shortly
after birth is buried in a
special,
uninhabited
place
because it is not
considered to
yet
be human and have a soul.
Among
the Bison-horn Maria
Gong,
most
persons
are cremated and buried in funeral
grounds
outside
of the
village,
near
saja
trees,
because the God of the
Gong,
who is asso
ciated with
youth,
resides there. In
contrast,
all who die abnormal
deaths,
including
infants,
are not cremated and
are buried elsewhere. This is done
to
keep
the souls of those who die an abnormal death from
intermingling
with the souls of those who die
naturally.
Should the two classes of souls
mingle,
those who died unnatural deaths would
argue
with the
others,
take
vengeance
on the
living, bring angry ghosts
to
them,
and cause more
deaths.
Archaeological Visibility of
Horizontal Social Position
O'Shea
(1981, pp.
49-50)
concluded from his case
study
of Central
Plains Indians that rank social distinctions
are more visible in the archae
ological
remains of
mortuary practices
than are
horizontal social distinc
tions. He attributed this situation to the different
practices by
which vertical
versus
horizontal social
positions
are
symbolized
and their different inher
ent
archaeological visibility. Following
Binford
(1971),
O'Shea
argued
that
rank is communicated
through
wealth
symbols
and
energy
expenditure,
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
186
Carr
Il
s
i?
S?32
?"
CO
f!
J~
S'S
-
c
S
?
?|>
.L
g
s?
2 2
?
8
I S.
1
te
(3
S
r4
a
o
"
S
c
.2
o
?s
'
?3 *?*
il
I
1
1
O G
-si
Ci
fr.,
fr
la S
O
,Q
O
l?e
J? .S
>
MAL*
Sa g
lia
s g
g
as
>
-
2
?o
js.S
*
f
8?
????
il
>
-.2
^
0> .t?
G *3
g
? ?
8.
1
*3
_
? O
* -
w
OT
6
c
131
QUO
o
?? o
.g *c3
~
?
o-a
>
?
^
c
o .?
s
S
a
ci t:
t? en ft>
0) 1-4 >
o ?r?
?s|
lis
s
--S
l?l?
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 187
which reflect the size and
composition
of the
group
of mourners that have
duties to the deceased. More
specifically,
O'Shea held that vertical social
position
is
symbolized by
elaborate
grave
construction and the kinds and
quantities
of
grave
furniture. In
contrast,
he
suggested
that horizontal social
distinctions are
expressed through
channels of "neutral"
value,
including
low-value tokens such as
clothing,
coiffure,
and totemic
grave furniture,
most of which are
organic
and
poorly preserved.
Also mentioned are the
preparation
of the
body
and other rituals that occur
prior
to
burial,
which
may
not leave
archaeological
traces,
and
body posture
and orientation.
O'Shea's
(1981)
conclusions
point
in the
right
direction and have
a
convincing
theoretical basis.
However,
their
specifics
are
borne out
only
partially by
the data studied
here,
as revealed
by
three
perspectives
on
them.
First,
most
broadly,
vertical social
position
and horizontal social
posi
tion were found to be determined
by nearly
identical sets of
mortuary prac
tices,
of
nearly equal
numbers: 22 versus 21
archaeologically
visible
variables,
respectively (Tkble V).
At the same
time,
vertical social
position
associated with some
archaeologically
visible
mortuary
form in 144 in
stances whereas horizontal social
position
was so associated in
only
67 in
stances.
Thus,
it
appears
true that horizontal social
position
is less
frequently
visible
archaeologically
than is vertical social
position. However,
this difference reflects not the different
arrays
of
practices
that are deter
mined
by
vertical versus horizontal social
position
but, instead,
the different
frequencies
with which
archaeologically
visible traits reflect the two dimen
sions. Vertical and horizontal social
position
are
distinguished
in
mortuary
remains
quantitatively
rather than
qualitatively.
Second,
three kinds of
mortuary practices
that O'Shea
(1981)
listed as
symbolizing
the horizontal or vertical social
position
of the
deceased,
or that
are
close
analogs
to
practices
that he
lists,
were seldom observed to be so
determined
(Tables
V,
XVI). Body preparation
associated with horizontal
social
position
in
only
three
(2.4%)
out of 126.5 cases of
a
relationship
be
tween
body preparation
and some factor.
Body
treatment was determined
by
horizontal social
position
in
only
6
(5.0%)
out of 120 associations between
body
treatment and some factor. The
quantity
of
grave
furniture was
rarely
determined
by
vertical social
position (Table
XDC,
see
above).
A
third,
more
specific perspective
shows the
complexity
of the rela
tionships
into which O'Shea
(1981)
had some
insight.
Table XXII lists the
absolute and relative
frequencies
with which horizontal and vertical social
position
associated in this
survey
with each of several
mortuary practices
that O'Shea
discussed,
or close
analogs
to them. Vertical social
position
affected each
practice
more than horizontal social
position. Clearly,
the
situation is not as drawn
by O'Shea,
where vertical and horizontal social
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
188 Carr
position
affect
largely
different sets of
practices.
However,
the relative de
grees
to which vertical and horizontal social
position
affect each
practice
somewhat follow O'Shea's conclusions.
Specifically,
vertical social
position,
relative to horizontal social
position,
had its
greatest
effect on
elaboration
of
grave
construction
(variable 9)
and
energy
expenditure (variable 16),
and
least effect on
body
treatment
(variable 2)
and
body position (variable 3b).
Not
following
O'Shea's
predicted pattern, body preparation (variable 1)
was
affected
by
vertical social
position
relative to horizontal social
position
more
often than
expected,
and
body
orientation
(variable 4b)
was never
observed to be determined
by
either vertical or
horizontal social
position.
In
sum,
horizontal social
position appears
to be
archaeologically
less
frequently
visible than vertical social
position
in
mortuary
remains. Both
dimensions of social
organization
affect a similar
range
of
mortuary prac
tices,
but to
varying degrees.
CONCLUSIONS
Since the late
1960s,
American
mortuary archaeology
has focused
largely
on social
organization
as the cause of
mortuary practices
and as
the
object
of cultural reconstruction.
Middle-range theory building,
cross
cultural
surveys,
the
development
of
analytical
methods,
and
applications
have been so directed. A view that
crystallized implicitly
and
explicitly
within the American
approach
is that social
organization
is the
primary
proximate
determinant of variation in
mortuary practices
within
societies,
with modifications
by
circumstances of death.
Material-ecological paradig
matic
assumptions,
certain lines of
argument
made
by
Binford
(1971) early
in the
development
of
mortuary archaeology,
some
ambiguities
within his
essay,
and some subtle translations of it
by
other
archaeologists
are
appar
ently responsible
for the focus and direction of
contemporary
studies.
Yet,
historically
in
anthropology
and other
disciplines,
there is
precedence
for
a
broader
approach,
a
path
followed here. This
paper documents,
through
a cross-cultural
survey,
the wide
array
of factors that affect
mortuary prac
tices and remains. These factors include not
only
social
organization,
but
also
philosophical-religious
beliefs and world
views,
physical
constraints,
circumstances of
death,
and
ecological
relations.
The most fundamental and
sobering finding
of this
survey
is that most
categories
of
mortuary practices
are determined
by
a
complex
mix of fac
tors. These are
primarily
social and
philosophical-religious,
and
secondarily
physical
and circumstantial. This
complexity
was found within
single
socie
ties as well
as
cross-culturally.
As a
consequence,
the selection of relevant
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 189
archaeological
variables for
reconstructing
social
organization, beliefs,
or
any
other one
aspect
of a culture can be difficult.
One reason for this
complex,
multivariate
causality
is that social or
ganization
and social
personae,
as well as
physical
and circumstantial fac
tors,
are
often not
expressed directly
in
mortuary practices but, rather,
are
filtered
through
the framework of
philosophical-religious
beliefs,
world
views,
and their
symbolic
codes. In
addition,
beliefs and world views them
selves can affect
mortuary practices directly
and
independently
of
social,
physical,
and circumstantial factors.
The cross-cultural
survey presented
here revealed
many patterns, only
some of which
support
the
premises
of American
mortuary archaeology.
Some of the more
important patterns
are the
following:
(1) Mortuary practices
and
remains,
as
symbolic
behaviors and
forms,
are related
cross-culturally
in
a semideterminant rather than
arbitrary way
to their referent
meanings.
This
relationship
derives not
only
from the non
arbitrary
manner in which form and
meaning
are
associated within
any par
ticular cultural context
(Hodder,
1982b, p. 9),
but also
apparently
from
larger-scale processes
and constraints. Some of these broader-scale factors
may
include natural
symbolic
associations; material,
biological,
and social
requirements
that limit the
way by
which cultures and world views can be
organized
while
remaining operational;
and the
structuring
forces of
psy
chological archetypes. Consequently,
in distinction from Binford's
(1971)
view,
the contents as well as the structure of
mortuary
remains hold
po
tential for
reconstructing
the
past.
(2) Philosophical-religious
factors were documented to determine in
trasocietal variation in
mortuary practices
as
frequently,
if not more fre
quently,
than social
organizational
factors across
cultures. This
pattern
contradicts one view of mainstream American
mortuary archaeology
of the
late 1960s
through 1980s,
that social
organization
is the
primary
determinant
of
mortuary practices.
The
pattern
is
entirely expectable
when one considers
that
many
cultural
practices, including many mortuary practices,
are mean
ingfully
constituted
(Hodder 1982b); they
are chosen in relation to
personal
intentions,
social
strategies,
attitudes, beliefs,
and world-view themes. At the
same
time,
social
organizational
factors
clearly
remain
major
determinants
of intrasocietal variation in
mortuary practices, although
often
expressed
in
directly, through
beliefs. An holistic and balanced view of the causes of mor
tuary practices,
rather than a
paradigmatic approach,
is
required.
Social and
philosophical-religious
factors were found to influence mor
tuary practices
five to ten times more often than circumstantial and
physical
factors. The latter two factors were observed with similar
frequency,
and
several times more
commonly
than
ecological determinants,
on which in
formation was
only occasionally
available.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
190 Carr
(3)
Each of the
major
dimensions of social
personae
and social
organi
zation that
archaeologists routinely attempt
to
reconstruct?age, gender,
ver
tical and horizontal social
position, personal identity,
and the circumstantial
social classification of the deceased at death?were
commonly
reflected in
mortuary practices
and remains. Of these
factors,
vertical and horizontal
social
position
and
age
determined
mortuary practices
several times
more
frequently
than
gender, personal identity,
and the circumstances of death.
(4)
The
philosophical-religious
factors that
were found most often to
determine
mortuary practices
and remains include beliefe about the
soul,
the
afterlife,
the nature of the soul's
journey
to the
afterlife,
universal orders and
their
symbols,
the cause of illness and death of the
deceased,
and
responsi
bilities to and
punishments
of the deceased's soul.
Among
these
factors,
be
liefs about universal
orders,
including
structural
oppositions,
were the most
frequent
determinants. This
finding
lends
support
to Hoddens
(1982a, p. 215)
focus on structural
oppositions
when
interpreting
mortuary practices
and to
the
feasibility
of
reconstructing
structural
oppositions archaeologically.
(5)
Some
mortuary
variables that
appear
most useful for
reconstructing
social
organization,
in that
they
are determined
more often
by
social than
other kinds of factors
cross-culturally,
include the internal
organization
of
the
cemetery,
the overall
energy
expended
on
disposal,
the number of so
cially recognized
burial
types,
the number of
persons per grave,
and the
quantity
of
grave
furniture. Variables that
appear
most useful for recon
structing philosophical-religious
beliefs,
in that
they
reflect them more
commonly,
include
body
orientation,
body position,
and the
spatial arrange
ment of furniture in the
grave.
The
frequent
association of
body position
and orientation with beliefs is
expectable, given
their fundamental roles
cross-culturally
in the meditative and shamanic
arts,
including healing
and
psychopomp
work,
and the
specific
cross-cultural association of burial ori
entation with beliefs about the direction of
an afterlife.
The
strongest
association
(31
of 32
cases)
found was between
body
orientation and
philosophical-religious
factors,
including
beliefs about the
afterlife,
the soul's
journey
to the
afterlife,
and universal orders and
oppo
sitions.
Body
orientation
never associated with horizontal social
position,
or
specifically sodality
affiliation or
sodality origin myths,
in contrast to
Binford's
(1971) findings.
(6)
The balance with which
social,
philosophical-religious,
circumstan
tial,
and
physical
factors
were found to determine
mortuary practices
varies
in a
systematic
and understandable
way
with
sociopolitical complexity
and
cultural evolution.
Philosophical-religious
factors were observed more fre
quently,
but with a
declining
differential relative to social
organizational
factors,
from band-level
hunter-gatherers through complex hunter-gather
ers to horticultural tribes. Social factors
predominated
in societies with
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 191
petty
hierarchies,
but beliefs were
again
found more influential in
para
mount chiefdoms. These trends
probably
reflect the effects of
increasing
society size, greater
role
specialization, increasing complexity
of the social
persona,
and the
development
and
institutionalizing
of beliefs in ancestor
worship,
all of which correlate with
increasing sociopolitical complexity.
Cir
cumstantial and
physical
determinants,
in
comparison
to social and
philo
sophical-religious
ones,
were
unexpectedly
found to be less influential in
mobile societies than most
sedentary
societies,
generally.
(7)
The balance of dimensions that constitute
a
social
persona
and
that are reflected in
mortuary practices
varies in a
predictable
manner with
sociopolitical complexity.
With
increasing sociopolitical complexity, per
sonal
identity
was found to decline
systematically
and horizontal social
po
sition was found to increase
systematically
in
frequency
as causes of
mortuary practices.
Gender
was observed in
consistently
low
frequencies
while vertical social
position
and/or
age (an
essential determinant of vertical
social
position)
were found in
consistently high frequencies
as
determinants
in societies of all
degrees
of
sociopolitical complexity.
(8)
Solid
support
was found for Hertz's
(1907) premise
that mourners
often believe that the state of the
corpse
is a model of the state of the
soul,
and that the soul can be
manipulated by
the
way
in which the
corpse
is
handled. In this
way,
some
mortuary practices
are determined
directly by
philosophical-religious
beliefs and
express
these
independently
of social or
ganization; mortuary practices
need not be
simply
a
language
for
symbolizing
social
organization.
Moreover,
the
support
found for Hertz's
premise sug
gests
that
physical
remains and
patterns
related to the
hand?ng
of the
corpse?especially
the diverse
types
and locations of burials
comprising
a
"burial
program"?have good potential
for
reconstructing past
world views
and beliefs
archaeologically.
Burial
programs
can be used to infer more than
the social
prestige
of individuals and the
complexity
of
past
societies.
(9)
The vertical social
position
of the deceased was found to be re
flected most often in the overall amount of
energy expended
on
disposing
the
body, including body
treatment, grave construction,
funeral
duration,
and material contributions to the
funeral,
as T?inter
(1975, 1978)
showed.
Local
grave
location and the kind of furniture
placed
in the
grave
also
often reflected vertical social
position,
as Binford
(1971)
documented,
but
the
quantity
of
grave
furniture did not.
(10)
Local
grave
location and formal demarcation of the
cemetery
most
frequently
indicated the horizontal social
position
of the
deceased,
including
his/her lineal descent
group.
These associations accord with Saxe's
(1970)
and Goldstein's
(1976, 1981) premise
and
findings
that
formal,
bounded
disposal
areas for the dead
are
maintained
by
and
symbolize
the
corporateness
of social
groups
(especially lineages)
that have
rights
over
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
192
Carr
the use
and/or
control of
crucial,
restricted resources. At the same
time,
local
grave
location and formal demarcation of the
cemetery
were also de
termined
by
many
other social factors and
beliefe,
the latter
being
some
what more common.
One factor
beyond
lineal descent
group
affiliation that often deter
mined local
grave
location is
age,
as
reported by
Binford
(1971).
Whereas
adults
are often buried within the
public life-space,
children are
often bur
ied outside of
it,
beyond
the
community
or in or near the
family dwelling.
This
pattern
can
be attributed to the relative
degree
of involvement of the
adult versus the child in social
life,
as
Binford
(1971) recognized,
as well
as to various kinds of beliefs that he did not: beliefs about the soul's
nature,
universal
orders,
and the nature of the afterlife.
(11)
A
cemetery's regional
location was found to be determined com
monly by cosmology,
beliefs about the
afterlife,
and other
philosophical
religious
beliefs,
as
proposed by Chapman
and
Randsborg (1981).
Ajiother
determinant often noted was the social classification of the deceased in
relation to
his/her
circumstances of death.
(12)
The horizontal social
position
of the deceased
appears
to be ar
chaeologically
visible less
frequently
than
his/her
vertical social
position,
as
O'Shea
(1981, 1984) generalized.
However,
this circumstance does not de
rive,
as he
thought,
from the two social dimensions
determining
different
arrays
of
practices
that,
in
turn,
differ in the
visibility
of their remains.
Rather,
both social dimensions were found here to affect
very
similar and
broad
ranges
of
mortuary practices,
but to
varying degrees. Moreover,
for
each
practice
considered here and
by
O'Shea,
vertical social
position
af
fected the
practice
more often than did horizontal social
position. Finally,
body preparation
and
body
treatment,
which O'Shea
posited
to
indicate
horizontal social
distinctions,
and
quantity
of
grave furniture,
which he
thought
to reflect vertical social
distinctions,
were
seldom or never
found
to be so determined in this
survey.
The
stronger
of the cross-cultural associations between
mortuary prac
tices and various factors
reported
here can be taken to reflect
valid,
func
tional
relationships
within societies
(Murdock
and White
1980, pp.
3-4).
They
can be
used,
like
middle-range theory,
to
guide
the
archaeologist
in
selecting mortuary
traits that are relevant for
studying specific categories
of
social,
philosophical-religious,
or
other factors.
Looking
to the
future,
the
potential
of
mortuary practices
and remains
to
help
the
archaeologist
reconstruct
past
cultures still
appears great?greater,
though
more
complex,
than
originally
envisioned
by
Binford
(1971),
Saxe
(1970),
and others who
helped
to launch American
mortuary archaeology.
Beyond revealing past
social
organizations, reconstructing past philosophical
religious
beliefs is
clearly
a fruitful area into which the
study
of
mortuary
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 193
practices
can be
expanded,
and is
already developing.
There are at least five
good
reasons.
First,
philosophical-religious
beliefs determine
mortuary prac
tices at least as
frequently
as
social factors.
Second,
such beliefe determine
mortuary practices
with no more multivariate
complexity
than social factors.
Third,
philosophical-religious
beliefs
can
determine
mortuary practices
inde
pendently
of social factors.
Fourth,
some
middle-range
statistical
generaliza
tions,
as
reported
here,
are now available for
interpreting mortuary practices
in
philosophical-religious
as well
as social terms.
Finally,
there is
good sup
port
for Hertz's
(1907)
useful
middle-range theory,
that the fate of the
body
is often used as a
metaphor
for the fate of the soul.
At the same
time,
sound research on
past
beliefe
requires
that certain
preparations
be made and certain
approaches
be taken.
First,
finer-grained
cross-cultural studies
are needed of
specific
forms of beliefs and their cor
relates in
mortuary practices.
The
categories
of beliefs examined here
(e.g.,
nature of the
soul,
nature of the
journey
to an
afterlife,
universal
orders)
are too broad to be used to reconstruct the themes of
a
world view or
more
specific
beliefs. Two
examples
of the
finer-grained
work that is re
quired
are Rose's
(1922)
and Mattock's
(1990)
studies of the association
of beliefe in reincarnation
versus an eternal
afterlife,
respectively,
with "ter
restrial" versus
"celestial" orientations of the
body
and head.
Second,
it is
necessary
to move
beyond
the
middle-range
statistical
generalizations
of the kind
presented
here to
true,
middle-range theory,
which links burial forms to their
possible philosophical-religious
causes
through patterned
etic and emic
logic.
For
example,
with
ethnographic
in
sights,
Hertz's
(1907) theory might
be used to formulate some more
specific
hypotheses
about how
particular
"fates" of the soul tend
crossculturally
to
be
symbolized
in
specific
forms of
manipulation
of the
body.
Third,
when
interpreting
the cultural
meaning(s)
of a
mortuary practice
as a
symbol,
it is essential to use a
broad contextual
approach (Emerson,
1989, p. 46; Hodder, 1982a, 1982b; Taylor 1948),
which considers the
syn
chronie and historical
patterns
of association and contrast of the
practice
with other
mortuary practices
and broader circumstances.
'Ming
into con
sideration
cross-cultural,
statistical
regularities
in the
meaning(s)
of the
prac
tice can be
helpful
but need not be sufficient. This is so for three reasons.
First,
it is the
place
of a
mortuary practice
within such
synchronie
and his
torical
patterns
that the
practice may
take on and be constrained in its
sym
bolic
meaning(s),
be
they
social,
philosophical-religious,
or
other. Turner
(1967, pp. 50-51)
labeled such
meanings
of
symbols
their
"positional
mean
ings." Second,
it is
through synchronie
and historical
patterns
of association
and contrast
among mortuary
and other
practices
that cultural bundles of
meaning
are
revealed
?
what have been termed the
"logical
fabric" of a
culture
(Rosenthal,
1995; Tbelken,
1979), "configurations" (Kroeber, 1963),
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
194
Can
"patterns" (Benedict, 1934),
and "themes"
(Emerson,
1989, p.
47). Impor
tantly,
such bundles of
meaning(s)
can
comprise
basic tenets of a
society's
world view when the
meanings
are
philosophical-religious
in nature. Mul
tivariate
patterns
of cooccurrence or covariation in
mortuary
remains can
thus
represent
the
organization
of a
society's
beliefs into
broader,
world-view
themes
(e.g., Penney, 1983,
1985).9
Finally,
because
a
mortuary practice
often is determined
by
a
complex
mix of
social,
philosophical-religious,
and other
factors,
using
a
contextual
approach
in
conjunction
with cross-cultural
regularities
in the
meaning(s)
of that
practice
can
facilitate the
teasing
out of those
meaning(s).
A fourth
requirement
for sound research on
past
beliefs is careful se
lection of the
grain
of the ideas
sought.
It is not
expectable
that
very
fine
grained
beliefs can often be
validly
reconstructed from
mortuary symbolism,
unless a
direct-historical
approach
to
ethnographic analogy
is feasible
(e.g.,
McGregor, 1941).
More
likely
within the reach of
mortuary
archaeologists
are
bundles of beliefs that associate as
part
of basic world-view
assumptions
or
broader cultural themes.
Finally,
sound research on beliefs of the
past
will
require
that archae
ologists
become much more familiar with the
systematic organization,
themes,
and contents of world
views,
and their cultural and
biopsychological
causes and
constraints,
just
as in
previous
decades
archaeologists
familiar
ized themselves with the nature of human
subsistence, economy,
and so
ciopolitical organization.
It is
only
within the framework of
general
anthropological
models of belief
systems
that
middle-range archaeological
theory
for
reconstructing
them from
mortuary practices
can be
developed.
In this
vein,
the fields of structural
anthropology, language
and
culture,
comparative religion, mythology,
the
anthropology
of shamanism and heal
ing, thanatology,
the
psychology
of death and
dying,
the
symbolic
and im
age-focused aspects
of
transpersonal
and
depth psychology,
and the
anthropology
of consciousness are all relevant.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I foremost thank the
graduate
and honors students of four seminars
on
mortuary practices
that I
taught
at Arizona State
University
for their
^orld-view
themes,
structural
oppositions,
and triadic dualities that are
dimensionally
expressed
in
mortuary practices,
remains,
and data
(e.g.,
Hodder, 1982a, pp. 163-170;
Huntington
and
Metcalf, 1979, pp. 93-118; Roe, 1995) might
be modeled and revealed
through
factor-analytic
or related
quantitative
or
qualitative approaches, analogous
to the manner in
which dimensions of the social
persona
have been so modeled
(Braun,
1979;
Goodenough, 1965,
Tables
1,2)
and revealed
(O'Shea, 1981,1984; McGuire, 1992; Ravesloot,
1988)
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 195
hard work in
recording
the data
upon
which this article is based. These
students
are
Bernardo
Arriaza,
DeAnna
Adkins,
Michelle
Briseno,
Pascal
Brown,
Andrea
Buck,
Vicki
Cassman,
Maa-Iing
Cheii,
Nerine
Cherepy,
Andy
Crawford,
Peg
Davis,
Michael
Dice,
Tabor
Dyke,
lisa
Falcone,
Sarah
Greene,
Doreen
Hager, Darby Heath,
Michelle
Henry,
John
Hohman,
Tbdd
Howell,
Cathy
Johnson,
Bong
Won
Kang,
Sandra
Kimm,
Judith Lan
caster,
Sydney Langdon,
Esther
Morgan,
Catherine
Nowell,
Margaret
Plumley,
Steve
Savage, Kelly
Schroeder,
Tammy
Stone,
Steve
Street,
Saburo
Sugiyama,
Donna Van
Houten,
and Alma Zamora. I also
give
warm thanks
to
Douglas
Mitchell of Soil
Systems,
Inc., Phoenix,
for the several
years
of
our work
together
on the Pueblo Grande Hohokam Burial
Analysis Project
and all that he
helped
me to learn about
mortuary practices. Doug, along
with
Corey
Breternitz
(President,
Soil
Systems, Inc.)
and Steve
Street,
also
provided
the
encouragement
I needed to
complete
this
study.
Soil
Systems,
Inc.,
funded a
part
of
my
coding
of the data and the
drafting
of
figures.
My
thanks also
go
to Michael
Graves,
George
Gumerman,
Randy
McGuire,
Peter
Metcalf,
Michael
Schiffer,
Joe
Tainter,
Susan
Vehik,
Tbbi
Taylor,
and
several
anonymous
referees who
provided helpful
comments and
editing,
and to Michael Schiffer for
supporting
the
complete reporting
of the data.
REFERENCES CITED
Abbott,
D.
R.,
and
Howard,
J.
(1991). Pakohydraulics
and ceramic
exchange:
Structure and
interaction in Hohokam
irrigation
communities.
Paper presented
at the annual
meeting
of
the
Society
for American
Archaeology,
New
Orleans,
April.
Aries,
P.
(1977).
L'Homme devant la
Mort,
?ditions du
Seuil,
Paris.
Bartel,
B.
(1982).
A historical review of
ethnological
and
archaeological analyses
of
mortuary
practice.
Journal
of Anthropological Archaeology l(l):32-58.
Benedict,
R.
(1934).
Patterns
of Culture,
Houghton
Mifflin,
Boston.
Binford,
L. R.
(1964). Archaeological Investigations
on Wassam
Ridge, Archaeological Salvage
Report
17,
Southern Illinois
University Museum,
Carbondale.
Binford,
L. R.
(1971). Mortuary practices:
Their
study
and their
potential.
In
Brown,
J. A.
(ed.), Approaches
to the social dimensions of
mortuary practices, Society for
American
Archaeology,
Memoirs 25:6-29.
Blakely,
R. L.
(1977)
Sociocultural
adaptations
in
prehistoric
America. Southern
Anthropologi
cal
Society, Proceedings
11.
Blau,
P.
(1970).
A formal
theory
of differentiation in
organizations.
American
Sociological
Review
35(2):
201-218.
Bloch,
M.
(1971). Placing
the
Dead,
Seminar
Press,
London.
Bloch,
M. and
Parry,
J.
(eds.). (1982).
Death and the
Regeneration of Ufe, Cambridge
Uni
versity Press,
Cambridge, England.
Braun,
D. P.
(1977).
Middle
Woodland-Early
Late Woodland Social
Change
in the
Prehistoric
Central Midwestern
US, Unpublished
Ph.D.
dissertation,
Department
of
Anthropology,
University
of
Michigan,
Ann Arbor.
Braun,
D. P.
(1979).
Illinois
Hopewell
burial
practices
and social
organization:
A reexamina
tion of the Klunk-Gibson mound
group.
In
Brose,
D.
S.,
and
Greber,
N.
(eds.) Hopewell
Archaeology:
The ChUUcothe
Conference,
Kent State
University Press, Kent, OH, pp.
66-79.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
196 Carr
Braun,
D. P.
(1981).
A
critique
of some recent North American
mortuary
studies. American
Antiquity 46(2):
398-416.
Brown,
J. A.
(ed.) (1971a). Approaches
to the social dimensions of
mortuary practices, Society
for
American
Archaeology,
Memoirs 25.
Brown,
J. A.
(1971b).
The dimensions of status in the burials at
Spiro.
In
Brown,
J. A.
(ed.),
Approaches
to the social dimensions of
mortuary practices, Society for
American Archae
ology,
Memoirs 25: 92-111
Brown,
J. A.
(1981).
The search for rank in
prehistoric
burials. In
Chapman, R., Kinnes, I.,
and
Randsborg,
K.
(eds.),
The
Archaeology of
Death,
Cambridge University Press,
Cam
bridge, England, pp.
25-39.
Brown,
J. A.
(1987).
Quantitative
burial
analyses
as
interassemblage comparison.
In Alden
derfer,
M. S.
(ed.), Quantitative
Research in
Archaeology, Sage Publications,
Newbury Park,
CA,
pp.294-308.
Brunson,
J. L.
(1989).
The Social
Organization of
the Los Muertos Hohokam: A
Reanafysis of
Cushing's Hemenway Expedition
Data.
Unpublished
Ph.D.
dissertation,
Department
of An
thropology,
Arizona State
University, Tempe.
Buikstra,
J. E.
(1977).
Biocultural dimensions of
archaeological study:
A
regional perspective.
Southern
Anthropological Society, Proceedings
11.
Cannon,
A.
(1989).
The historical dimension in
mortuary expressions
of status and sentiment.
Current
Anthropology
30: 437-458.
Carr,
C.
(1992). Modeling
the evolution of alliance
strategies
as
systems regulators
in
egali
tarian societies. In
Reports for
1990 and 1991:
Fiftieth Anniversary Issue,
Wenner-Gren
Foundation
for Anthropological
Research, Inc.,
Wenner-Gren Foundation for
Anthropo
logical
Research,
New
York, p.
147.
Carr, C,
and
Maslowski,
R.
(1995). Cordage
and fabrics:
Relating
form,
technology,
and social
processes.
In
Carr, C,
and
Neitzel,
J. E.
(eds.), Style, Society,
and
Person,
Plenum
Press,
New
York, pp.
297-343.
Carr, G,
and
Neitzel,
J. E.
(1995).
Future directions for material
style
studies. In
Carr, C,
and
Neitzel,
J. E.
(eds.), Style, Society,
and
Person,
Plenum
Press,
New
York, pp.
437-459.
Chapman,
R.
(1981).
The
emergence
of formal
disposal
areas and the
'problem*
of
megalithic
tombs in
Europe.
In
Chapman,
R., Kinnes, I.,
and
Randsborg,
K.
(eds.),
The
Archaeology
of
Death,
Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, England, pp.1-25.
Chapman,
R.
Kinnes, I.,
and
Randsborg,
K.
(eds.) (1981)
The
Archaeology of Death,
Cambridge
University
Press, Cambridge, England.
Chapman,
R. and
Randsborg,
K.
(1981) Approaches
to the
archaeology
of death. In
Chapman,
R., Kinnes, I.,
and
Randsborg,
K.
(eds.),
The
Archaeology of Death,
Cambridge University
Press,
Cambridge, England, pp.1-25.
Cuevas,
B. J.
(1993).
Death and Transition: The
Dynamics of
Liminal
Space
in Tibetan Cere
monies
of
the Dead.
Unpublished
Masters'
thesis, Department
of
Religious Studies,
Uni
versity
of
Virginia,
Charlottesville.
David,
N.
(1992).
The
archaeology
of
ideology: Mortuary practices
in the central Mandara
highlands,
northern Cameroon. In
Sterner, J.,
and
David,
N.
(eds.),
An
African
Commit
ment:
Papers
in Honour
of
Peter Lewis
Shinnie, University
of
Calgary Press,
Calgary, pp.
181-210.
Douglas,
M.
(1970).
Natural
Symbols,
Pantheon
Books,
New York.
Durkheim,
E.
(1915, orig. 1912).
The
Elementary
Forms
of
the
Religious Life,
J. L. W.
Swain,
trans.,
George
Allen and
Unwin, Ltd.,
London.
Durkheim,
E.
(1938, orig. 1893).
The Rules
of Sociological
Method. S.
Solovay
and J,
Mueller,
trans^
Free
Press,
New York.
Durkheim,
E.
(1951, orig. 1897).
Suicide,
J.
Spaulding
and G.
Simpson,
trans.,
Free
Press,
New York.
Earle,
T. K.
(1990). Style
and
iconography
as
legitimation
in
complex
chiefdoms. In
Conkey,
M.,
and
Hastort;
C
(eds.),
The Uses
of Style
in
Archaeology, Cambridge University
Press,
Cambridge, England, pp.
73-81.
Eliade,
M.
(1964).
Shamanism,
Princeton
University
Press,
Princeton.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 197
Emerson,
T. E.
(1989).
Water, serpents,
and the underworld: An
exploration
into Cahokian
symbolism.
In
Galloway,
P.
(ed.),
Southern Ceremonial
Complex: Artifacts
and
Analysis:
The Cottonlandia
Conference, University
of Nebraska
Press, Lincoln, pp.
45-92.
Flannery,
K. V.
(1972).
The cultural evolution of civilizations. Annual Review
of Ecology
and
Systematic
3: 399-426.
Frazier,
Sir J.
(1929).
The Golden
Bough,
Vol.
1,
Book
League
of
America,
New York.
Gardner,
R.
Rockerfeuer,
M.
G., Lincoln, J.,
and
Chopra,
J.
(1963).
Dead Birds
(the film),
McGraw-Hill,
New
York,
in
cooperation
with the Film
Study
Center
Library, Peabody
Museum,
Harvard
University, Cambridge,
MA.
Goldstein,
L. G.
(1976). Spatial
Structure and Social
Organkation: Regional Manifestations of
Mississippian Society, Unpublished
Ph.D.
dissertation,
Department
of
Anthropology,
Northwestern
University,
Evanston.
Goldstein,
L. G.
(1981).
One-dimensional
archaeology
and multi-dimensional
people: Spatial
organization
and
mortuary analysis.
In
Chapman,
R., Kinnes, I.,
and
Randsborg,
K.
(eds.),
The
Archaeology of Death,
Cambridge University
Press,
Cambridge, England, pp.
53-70.
Goodenough,
W.
(1965). Rethinking
'status' and 'role*: Toward a
general
model of the cultural
organization
of social
relationships.
In
Gluckman, M.,
and
Eggan,
F.
(eds.),
The relevance
of models for social
anthropology,
Association
of
Social
Anthropologpts of
the Common
wealth,
Monograph,
1: 1-24.
Goodman,
F.
(1990).
Where the
Spirits
Ride the
Wind,
Indiana
University Press,
Bloomington.
Goodman,
F.
(1991). Ecstacy,
Ritual,
and Alternate
Reality: Religion
in a Pluralistic
World,
In
diana
University Press, Bloomington.
Greber,
N.
(1979).
Variations in structure of Ohio
Hopewell peoples.
Mid-Continental Journal
of Archaeology
4: 35-76.
Grof, S.,
and
Grof,
C.
(1980). Beyond
Death: The Gates
of
Consciousness. Thames and
Hudson,
London.
Gruber,
J. W.
(1971). Patterning
in death in a late
prehistoric village
in
Pennsylvania.
American
Antiquity
36: 64-76.
Habenstein,
R.
W.,
and
Lamers,
W. M.
(1960).
Funeral Customs the World
Over,
National
Funeral Directors Association and Bulfin
Printers,
Milwaukee.
Hall,
R. L.
(1976).
Ghosts,
water
barriers,
corn and sacred enclosures in the Eastern Wood
lands. American
Antiquity
41: 360-364.
Hall,
R. L.
(1979).
In search of the
ideology
of the
Adena-Hopewell
Climax. In
Brose,
D.
S.,
and
Greber,
N.
(eds.), Hopewell Archaeology:
The Chillicothe
Conference,
Kent State Uni
versity
Press, Kent, OH, pp.
258-265.
Hall,
R. L.
(1983).
A
pan-continental perspective
on Red Ochre and Glacial K?me ceremo
nialism. In
Dunnell,
R.
C,
and
Grayson,
D. K.
(eds.),
Lulu Linear Punctated:
Essays
in
Honor
of George Irving Quimby, University
of
Michigan,
Museum of
Anthropology,
An
thropological Papers
72: 74-107.
Henry,
M. M.
(1994)
An
Inventory of Hopewell Imagery,
Their
Spatial Relationships,
and Possible
Explanations from
Native American
Mythologies. Unpublished
Masters
thesis,
Department
of
Anthropology,
Arizona State
University, Tempe.
Hertz,
R.
(1907).
Contribution a une ?tude sur la
representation
collective de la mort. Ann?e
Sociologique
10: 48-137.
Hodder,
I.
(1982a). Symbols
in
Action, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, England.
Hodder,
I.
(1982b).
Theoretical
archaeology:
A
reactionary
view. In
Hodder,
I.
(ed.), Symbolic
and Structural
Archaeology, Cambridge University
Press,
Cambridge, England, pp.
1-16.
Hodder,
I.
(1982c).
The Present
Past,
B. T.
Batsford,
London.
Hodder,
I.
(1984). Burials, houses,
women and men in the
European
Neolithic. In
Miller, D.,
and
Tiiley,
C.
(eds.), Ideology,
Power,
and
Prehistory, Cambridge University Press,
Cam
bridge, England, pp.
51-68.
Huntington,
R.,
and
Metcalt
P.
(1979).
Celebrations
of Death,
Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, England.
Huss-Ashmore,
R.
Goodman, A., H.,
and
Armelagos,
G.
(1982).
Nutritional inference from
paleopathology.
Advances in
Archaeological
Method and
Theory
5: 395-473.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
198
Carr
Jung,
Carl G.
(ed.) (1964).
Man and His
Symbols, Doubleday,
Garden
City.
Kearney,
M.
(1975).
World view
theory
and
study.
Annual Review
of
Anthropology
4:
247-270.
Kearney,
M.
(1984).
World
View,
Chandler and
Sharp,
Novato,
CA.
Kroeber,
A. L
(1927). Disposal
of the dead. American
Anthropologist
29: 308-315.
Kroeber,
A. L.
(1963). Anthropology:
Cultural Patterns and
Processes,
Harcourt
Brace,
&
World,
New York.
Kubler-Ross,
E.
(1969).
On Death and
Dying, MacMillan,
New York.
Kuhn,
T. S.
(1962).
The Structure
of Scientific Revolutions, University
of
Chicago
Press,
Chi
cago.
Little,
B.
J.,
Lanphear,
K.
M.,
and
Owsley,
D. W.
(1992). Mortuary display
and status in a
Nineteenth
Century Anglo-American cemetery
in
Manassas,
Virginia.
American
Antiquity
57: 397-418.
Malinowski,
B.
(1954). Magic,
Science,
and
Religion
and Other
Essays, Doubleday,
Garden
City.
Matlock,
J. G.
(1990).
An animistic
interpretation of
the
mortuary
remains at Carter Ranch
pueblo. Unpublished manuscript
on file with the
author,
Department
of
Anthropology,
Southern Illinois
University,
Carbondale.
McGregor,
J. C.
(1941).
Burial of an
early
American
magician.
American
Philosophical Society,
Proceedings 86(2):
270-301.
McGuire,
R. H.
(1992).
Death, Society,
and
Ideology
in
a
Hohokam
Community,
Westview
Press, Boulder,
CO.
Merbs,
C. F.
(1989).
Orientation
of
Canadian Thule and
early
historic burials:
seasonality
and
choice
of
heaven.
Paper presented
at the annual
meetings
of the
Society
for Historical
Archaeology, Baltimore, January.
Miller,
D. and
Tilley,
C.
(1984). Ideology,
Power,
and
Prehistory, Cambridge University
Press,
Cambridge, England.
Murdock,
G. K
(1967). Ethnographic
atlas: A
summary. Ethnology 6(2):
109-236.
Murdock,
G. P.
(1969).
World
sampling provinces. Ethnology 7(3):
305-329.
Murdock,
G. P.
(1983).
Outline
of
World
Cultures,
6th ed. Human Relations Area
Files, Inc.,
New Haven.
Murdock,
G.
P.,
and
White,
D. R.
(1980)
Standard cross-cultural
sample.
In
Barry III, H.,
and
Schlegel,
A.
(eds.),
Cross-Cultural
Samples
and
Codes,
University
of
Pittsburgh
Press,
Pittsburgh, pp.
3-27.
Murdock,
G.
P., Ford,
G
S., Hudson,
A.
E, Kennedy,
R., Simmons,
L.
W.,
and
Whiting,
J.
W. M.
(1982).
Outline
of
Cultural
Materials,
5th
ed.,
Human Relations Area
Files, Inc.,
New Haven.
Ortner,
D.
J.,
and
Putschar,
W. G. J.
(1981).
Identification of
pathological
conditions in human
skeletal remains. Smithsonian Contributions to
Anthropology
28: 1-54.
O'Shea,
J.
(1981).
Social
configurations
and the
archaeological study
of
mortuary practices:
A case
study.
In
Chapman, R., Kinnes, I.,
and
Randsborg,
K.
(eds.),
The
Archaeology of
Death, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, pp.
39-52.
O'Shea,
J.
(1984). Mortuary Variability:
An
Archaeological Investigation.
Academic
Press,
New
York.
Owsley,
D.
W.,
Berryman,
H.
E.,
and
Bass,
W. M.
(1977). Demographic
and
osteological
evidence for warfare at the Larson
site,
South Dakota. Plains
Anthropologist,
Memoir
13,
22-78,
(part 1),
119-132
(part 2).
Pearson,
M. P.
(1982). Mortuary practices, society,
and
ideology:
An
ethnoarchaeological
study.
In
Hodder,
I.
(ed.), Symbolic
and Structural
Archaeology, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, England, pp.
99-113.
Pearson,
M. P.
(1984).
Economic and
ideological change: Cyclical growth
in the
pre-state
societies of Jutland. In
Miller, D.,
and
Tilley,
C.
(eds.), Ideology, Power,
and
Prehistory,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, pp.
69-92.
Pebbles,
C S.
(1971).
Moundville and
surrounding
sites: Some structural considerations of
mortuary practices
n. In
Brown,
J.
(ed.), Approaches
To the social dimensions of mor
tuary practices, Society for
American
Archaeology,
Memoirs 25: 68-91.
Peebles,
C. S.
(1972).
Monothetic-divisive
analysis
of the Moundville burials: An initial
report
Newsletter
of Computer Archaeology 8(2):
1-13.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mortuary
Practices and Their Determinants 199
Peebles,
C S.
(1974).
Moundville: The
Organization of
a Prehistoric
Community
and
Culture,
Unpublished
Ph.D.
dissertation, Department
of
Anthropology, University
of
California,
Santa Barbara.
Penney,
D.
(1983). Imagery of
the Middle Woodland Period: The Birth
of
a North American
Iconographie
Tradition.
Paper presented
at the
Douglas
Fraser Memorial
Symposium
on
Primitive and Precolumbian
Art,
Department
of
Anthropology,
Columbia
University,
New
York,
April
15.
Penney,
D.
(1985).
Continuities of
imagery
and
symbolism
in the art of the Woodlands. In
Brose, D., Brown,
J.
A.,
and D. W.
Penney (eds.),
Ancient Art
of
the American Woodland
Indians, Harry
Abrams,
New
York, pp.
147-198.
Price,
T. D.
Schoeninger,
M.
J.,
and
Armelagos,
G. J.
(1985).
Bone
chemistry
and
past
be
havior: An overview. Journal
of
Human Evolution 14: 419-447.
Rappaport,
R. A.
(1968). Pip for
the
Ancestors,
Yale
University
Press,
New Haven.
Rappaport,
R. A.
(1979). Ecology, Meaning
and
Religion,
North Atlantic
Books, Richmond,
CA.
Ravesloot,
J. C.
(1988). Mortuary
Practices and Social
Differentiation
at Casas
Grandes,
Chi
huahua, Mexico,
University
of
Arizona,
Anthropological Papers
No.
49,
University
of Ari
zona,
Tempe.
Renfrew,
C.
(1976). Megaliths,
territories,
and
populations.
In De
Laet,
S. J.
(ed.),
Accultura
tion and
Continuity
in Atlantic
Europe, Tempel, Brugge, Belgium, pp.
198-220.
Roe,
P.
(1995). Style, society, myth,
and structure. In
Carr,
C and
Neitzel,
J. E.
(eds.), Style,
Society,
and
Person,
Plenum
Press,
New
York, pp.
27-76.
Rose,
H. J.
(1922).
Celestial and terrestrial orientation of the dead. Journal
of
the
Royal
An
thropological
Institute
of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland 52: 127-140.
Rosenthal,
B.
(1995). Iroquois
false face masks: The
multiple
causes of
style.
In
Carr, C,
and
Neitzel,
J. E.
(eds.), Style, Society,
and
Person,
Plenum
Press,
New
York, pp.
345-367.
Rothschild,
N.
(1979). Mortuary
behavior and social
organization
at Indian Knoll and Dickson
Mounds. American
Antiquity
44: 658-675.
Sabloff;
J.
A.,
and
Willey,
G. R.
(1980).
A
History of
American
Archaeology,
W. H.
Freeman,
San Francisco.
Saxe,
A. A.
(1970).
Social Dimensions
of Mortuary
Practices in a
Mesolithic
Population from
Wadi
Haifa, Sudan,
Unpublished
Ph.D.
dissertation,
Department
of
Anthropology,
Uni
versity
of
Michigan,
Ann Arbor.
Seeman,
M. F.
(1979).
The
Hopewell
interaction
sphere:
The evidence for
interregional
trade
and structural
complexity.
Indiana Historical
Society,
Prehistoric Research Series
5(2):
235-438.
Seeman,
M. F.
(1988).
Ohio
Hopewell trophy-skull
artifacts as evidence for
competition
in
Middle Woodland
societies,
Circa 50 B.C-AJ). 350. American
Antiquity
53: 565-577.
Service,
E. R.
(1962).
Primitive Social
Organization,
Random
House,
New York.
Steward,
J. H.
(1955). Theory of
Culture
Change, University
of Illinois
Press,
Urbana.
Stickel,
E. G.
(1968).
Status differentiations at the Rinc?n site.
University of California
at Los
Angeles, Archaeological Survey,
Annual
Report
10: 209-261.
Sugiyama,
S.
(1992).
World view materialized at
Teotihuacan,
Mexico. Latin American
Antiq
uity
4: 103-129.
Swanson,
Guy
E.
(1960).
Birth
of
the
Gods, University
of
Michigan Press,
Ann Arbor.
Tainter,
J. A.
(1975).
The
Archaeological Study of
Social
Change:
Woodland
Systems
in West
Central
Illinois,
Unpublished
Ph.D.
dissertation,
Department
of
Anthropology,
Northwest
ern
University,
Evanston.
Tainter,
J. A.
(1978). Mortuary practices
and the
study
of
prehistoric
social
systems.
Advances
in
Archaeological
Method and
Theory
1: 105-141.
Taylor,
W. W.
(1948).
A
Study of Archaeology,
Southern Illinois
University Press,
Carbondale.
Toelken,
B.
(1979).
The
Dynamics of Folklore, Houghton
MifQin,
Boston.
Trigger,
B.
(1969).
The Huron Farmers
of
the
North, Holt, Rinehart,
and
Winston,
New York.
Turner,
V.
(1967).
The Forest
of Symbols,
Cornell
University
Press, Ithaca,
NY.
Turner,
V.
(1969).
The Ritual
Process, Aldine,
Chicago.
Tyler,
J. B.
(1921).
The New Stone
Age of
Northern
Europe,
Charles Scribner's
Sons,
New
York.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
200 Carr
Ubelaker,
D.
(1989).
Human Skeletal Remains:
Excavation, Analysis, Interpretation, Taraxacum,
Washington,
DC
Ucko,
P. J.
(1969). Ethnography
and
archaeological interpretation
of
funerary
remains. World
Archaeology 1(2):
262-280.
Van
Gennep,
A.
(1909).
Les Rites de
Passage,
Emile
Nourry,
Paris.
Vayda,
A.
P.,
and
Rappaport,
R. A.
(1967). Ecology,
cultural and noncultural. In
Clifton,
J.
(ed.),
Introduction to Cultural
Anthropology, Houghton-Mifflin,
Boston, pp.
477-497.
Vehik,
S. C.
(1975).
Sociocultural
Implications of
Central
European Early
Bronze
Age Mortuary
Practices.
Unpublished
Ph.D.
dissertation,
Department
of
Anthropology, University
of
Missouri,
Columbia.
Viollier,
D.
(1911).
Essai sur les Rites Fun?raires en Suisse des
Origbies
a la
Conqu?te
Romaine,
Leroux,
Paris.
Walsh,
R. N.
(1990).
The
Spirit of Shamanism, Jeremy
P.
Tarcher,
Los
Angeles.
Webb,
W.
S.,
and
Snow,
C. E.
(1945).
The Adena
People, University
of
Kentucky Reports
in
Anthropology
and
Archaeology
No.
6,
University
of
Kentucky, Lexington.
Webb,
W.
S.,
and
Snow,
C. E.
(1974).
The Adena
People, University
of Tennessee
Press,
Knoxville.
Webster,
D.
(1963).
Webster's Seventh New
Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam,
Springfield,
MA.
White,
L.
(1949).
The Science
of
Culture, Farrar, Straus,
and
Giroux,
New York.
Whittlesey,
S. M.
(1978).
Status and Death at
Grasshopper
Pueblo:
Experiments
toward an Ar
chaeological Theory of
Correlates, Unpublished
Ph.D.
dissertation,
Department
of Anthro
pology, University
of
Arizona,
Tucson.
Willey,
G.
R.,
and
Sabloff,
J. A.
(1980).
A
History of
American
Archaeology,
W. H.
Freeman,
San Francisco.
Winters,
H. D.
(1968).
Value
systems
and trade
cycles
of the Late Archaic in the midwest.
In
Binford,
S.
R.,
and
Binford,
L.
R.,
(eds.),
New
Perspectives
in
Archeology, Aldine,
Chi
cago, pp.
175-22.
This content downloaded from 143.167.30.128 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:21:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

You might also like