Comments on: In Which The Grave Goods Are Buried

By: Henrik

Henrik — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:10:18 +0000

The decision whether to furnish richly or not is, ultimately, made by the mourners, and thus tells us more about them than about the deceased.

While I can’t disagree completely with that I think we should be careful not to simly split the entire society in two, talking about rich or poor mourners/graves/people.
That might be reducing the complexity of the society a bit too much!

By: Martin R

Martin R — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:01:09 +0000

About rich vs. poor graves:

All rich graves represent rich groups of mourners.

Not all poor graves represent poor groups of mourners.

The decision whether to furnish richly or not is, ultimately, made by the mourners, and thus tells us more about them than about the deceased.

By: Henrik

Henrik — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:59:03 +0000

It’s good to have you back, martin!

By: Martin R

Martin R — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:52:45 +0000

Dammit Henrik, the feed I had subscribed to for your blog has been silent for months, and now I discover a clutch of new entries and a new feed!

By: 4 Stone Hearth | moneduloides

4 Stone Hearth | moneduloides — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 03:10:57 +0000

[...] I have to admit, Danish archaeology is not my forté. The good news is, the very sleek archaeoblog Henrikkarll.dk has us covered. Apparently there is a bit of contention as to the reason for the existence of [...]

By: Henrik

Henrik — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:23:35 +0000

Ah, your’e getting it now, I see

By: Jonathan Jarrett

Jonathan Jarrett — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:07:20 +0000

Does a multifocal site have to be competitive though? If you have apparently multiple groups sharing the same space without, you know, destroying each other’s graves, doesn’t that weaken that case? (If they’re contemporary, at least—but how could we hope to prove that unless the site was all laid out in one go?) Or at least, does it not fit those groups within a larger identity? (At which point, I suddenly see why you’re finding parallels in my work…)

I’m right with you about the crisis theory though, that makes a lot of sense given how many ‘quiet’ periods we seem to have. Of course, it rather wrecks quite a lot of the archaeology of pre-Christian religion in th area, but, you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs, right?

By: Henrik

Henrik — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:11:49 +0000

Thanks, Jonathan. It is very strange how quite a few archaeologists do actually know [when you ask them] that the dead won’t bury themselves - and still they carry on about their business as if it were the case.

Regarding graveyard development over time:

I think I remember Scottish parallels where the graveyards were (interpreted as being) plurifocal, so small groups of big graves (square cairns etc.) and people buried round them, groups that grow and slowly meet at the edges.

There are of course more exceptions to the rule than there is ‘regular’ cases - this is after all archaeology!
I have ignored the ‘multifocal’ sites on purpose for the sake of simplicity in the argument. I don’t think, however, that they would change my argument a great deal: The point would still be one of competition through consumtion of valuable goods, foodstuffs, people etc.
Also, you would have to allow for a continuation of the ‘crisis situation’, probably resulting in more lavish grave furnishing. You could even have some of the players break away and found their own ‘family’ burial ground - one example of this might be the sites Stengade 1 & 2 on the Island of Langeland.
It might be a little more complex than that, I admit, but the basic argument [and critique] will stand.

By: Jonathan Jarrett

Jonathan Jarrett — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:50:29 +0000

This is all looking pretty good to me, Henrik. The “Who is Burying the Dead?” question is one I’ve been alarmed to find archaeologists ignoring, if only because when I started trying to learn about burial archaeology it was a point I found made in the literature, so how people inside the discipline can ignore it I don’t understand. I like the diachronic arguments a great deal too, but here I think I remember Scottish parallels where the graveyards were (interpreted as being) plurifocal, so small groups of big graves (square cairns etc.) and people buried round them, groups that grow and slowly meet at the edges. You could have several separate chronologies in such a cemetery, that needn’t even overlap. For references I guess I would hazard I get this from:

E. Southworth (ed.), Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries: a reappraisal. Proceedings of a Conference held at Liverpool Museum 1986 (Stroud 1990)
and
J. G. P. Friell & W. G. Watson (edd.), Pictish Studies: settlement, burial and art in Dark Age Northern Britain, British Archaeological Reports (British Series) 125.1 (Oxford 1984)

Hardly up-to-date, I admit…