Prehistory: death an burial in Iron Age - Essay Example

? Prehistory: Death and Burial in the Iron Age Schools Number and of (e.g., February 12, 2012) Prehistory: Death and Burial in the Iron Age The study of graves and burial rituals has emerged as an integral part of archaeology. This is because graves and burials hold the key to innumerable details about the culture, beliefs, traditions, and perceptions of the people they belong to. The concept of death is varied among various cultures and so is the ritual of burial. A study of grave customs therefore offers a window into the people’s differing perceptions of death, apart from providing an insight into their actual lives and traditions. The present paper studies the concept of death, agency and burial during the various periods of the Iron Age. For this purpose, four relevant articles pertaining to the subject under consideration have been analyzed and reviewed. This paper not only attempts at highlighting and comparing the factual information presented in the selected articles, but also aims to offer an insight into the various concepts of death and agency among various cultures of the Iron Age. Death, Agency, and Burial in the Iron Age The Concept of Death – Its Agency, Reproduction and Relocation Death is a commonly discussed and debated theme among archaeologists. Gansum (2008) states that there is no particular consensus as to what ‘death’ actually is. He further goes on to state that archaeologists often explore “what death represents for the living”, rather than “what the living humans represent for the dead ones” (p. 141). It is this question that Gansum attempts to explore in his article, “Reproduction and Relocation of Death in Iron Age Scandinavia”. He believes that this perspective, i.e., how the dead interacts with the living, when into account, will alter how the archaeological record is interpreted. Written data from sources of the 12th and 13th centuries reveals that people were largely concerned about what the dead may do to them (Gansum 2008). They believed that the dead had an agency through which they could act according to their own will. According to Gansum, such a belief indicates that people in the Iron Age considered that death does not mean the “end of life” (p. 142). Therefore, as Gansum states, the significance of this belief to archaeologists is that if people in the Iron Age acted according to such beliefs, then they may have probably organized their material world based on this framework. Thus, studying these beliefs will enable a proper understanding of their material world. A study of the Icelandic literature from the Iron Age indicates that people believed that dead creatures were able to do things on their own and that they had to be killed again to restore social order. Moreover, the living worshipped their dead ancestors. This reinforces the fact that people believed that the dead were able to manifest in the lives of the living and had an active role in society (Gansum 2008). A study of the literature from an archaeologist’s point of view suggests that people in the Iron Age paid little attention to burials and more to the agency of death. Their stories and sagas indicate that graves were opened several times and so, graves were more of a “dynamic ritual place” (Gansum, 2008, p. 143). According to their perspectives, the dead were always in opposition to the living and worked in order to gain their territory over the living. There was thus a constant fight between the dead and the living. Several instances, wherein, the living had to enter graves in order to “fight dead men” and kill them have been recorded in their literature. Archaeological literature has documented several bodies that appear to have been exposed to violence several times. Skeletal remains of cremated bones in the Iron Age show visible cut-marks, making it apparent that they were “ritually killed” more than once (Gansum, 2008, p. 143). Another common practice among the people of the Iron Age was the relocation or displacement of bones from inhumations. Gansum (2008) argues that most archaeologists have documented and interpreted this as the disturbance of the grave, or robbery; however, on the contrary, many other interpretations can be argued for this documentation. According to Gansum, the people of the Iron Age may have believed that the grave is merely a place where the journey to the underworld occurred, and that these places could be changed, opened, or relocated, and the remains of the dead could be used for various other purposes. Innumerable archaeological records have documented that bones were used in transformation processes. Several excavations also reveal a close link between graves and smelting, and graves have also been found inside furnaces. Data suggests that ironsmiths had a liminal position in society and that they used bones while creating swords and other artifacts. This ritual is considered as a transformative process where, the dead to whom the bones belong, is transferred to the sword. Most often, the production of iron was done on cemeteries. The objects thus created through this process were considered to have their own souls or an agency of their own. Thus, it can be surmised that the people of the Iron Age in Scandinavia believed in the agency of death, and that the dead could be relocated, reproduced and even re-killed. Archaeological studies may be successful in the identification of patterns in the material expressions of burial rituals of past cultures. However, Arnold (2001) in his paper, “The limits of agency in the analysis of Iron Age Celtic burials”, argues that we cannot be certain that our interpretations of those patterns “would have been concerned significant or were even intended” by the past cultures that are being studied (p. 211). Arnold identifies four characteristics dominant in the Celtic beliefs of death prominent in the Iron Age. These are based on the archaeological records and literature on Europe and British Isles. The first characteristic is that the people believed in some form of existence even after death, and this form of existence includes drinking, feasting, and various social relationships analogous to those in the living world. Secondly, the people believed that a physical boundary existed between the dead and the living world, and occasionally, special rituals were performed to break down or maintain this boundary. Arnold cites the example of ritual killing of people or things when this boundary became permeable on certain days of the year. Thirdly, the people believed in the return of the deceased individuals in the form of spirits. They also believed that special treatments such as post-mortem mutilation, manipulation of body parts, etc. were required during burial to prevent the return of the deceased. Lastly, the people also believed that at least two forms of people existed. The treatment of the dead body depended on which category the person belonged to. ‘Full’ persons were given a “formal disposal” and ‘non-persons’, such as senile persons or infants before tooth eruption, were given an “informal disposal” (p. 214). These are the beliefs of the Celtic people of the Iron Age about the concept of death. The Association of Bodies and Identities with Death Danielsson (2008), in her article, “Bodies and Identities in the Scandinavian Late Iron Age”, states that the body is an important part of identity, as identity is manifested in the form of body or bodily actions. How a particular community treats a dead body demonstrates how that community regards a body, identity or person. Danielsson goes on to describe aspects of the cremation rites and burial procedures of the Iron Age in Scandinavia. She elaborately describes how the people perceived a body and how the body, identity and community are interwoven. The burials during the Early Iron Age in most parts of Sweden are usually equipped with animal bones and artefacts. Archeological findings suggest that burnt human bones were cleansed and crushed before depositing them in burials. This practice may have been the people’s way of dealing with transformation or death. It may serve as a means through which the deceased became a part of the collective ancestors (Danielsson, 2008). Archaeologists have unearthed several details of the burials of the Late Iron Age. A significant feature of most of these burials is that they have missing bones, as the quantity of the burnt bones was found to be lesser than those from a complete body. A similar observation has been made in case of cremated animals. Danielsson therefore suggests that it must have been a common practice to take parts of the burnt bones from pyres and deposit them elsewhere. She further cites that the most probable reason for removing burnt bones after cremation could be that they were used for other purposes rather than just burial. For instance, burnt bones may have been used for the production of white glass beads and for tempering of clay. As the Early Iron Age transitioned into the Late Iron Age, many changes emerged in the people’s way of living, which translated into changes in their burial procedures. Danielsson points out that a major characteristic feature of this change is that the people began to intermingle bodies with other things and animals in their burial procedures. The emergence of such new relationships among human beings, animals, and things not only manifest in their burials but also in other contexts. Danielsson rightly states that these “relationships in the specific contexts are not only constitutive of persons, but also demonstrate how the same relationships may tell a great deal about a community and its cosmos” (p. 318). Materiality of Death Fahlander and Oestigaard (2008), in their article, “The Materiality of Death: Bodies, Burials, Beliefs”, describe the materiality of death in terms of the “materiality of the body”, “materiality of practice”, “materiality of interments”, “materiality of memory”, etc. They suggest that by studying these aspects, the analysis of burials from the archeological point of view would be much easier. They further state that by analyzing burials, it would be possible to “reconstruct or interpret past social structures, hierarchies, traditions, social identities, or sex/gender relations” (p. 1). According to Fahlander and Oestigaard (2008), the beliefs as to what occurs after death could be the same for everyone in a particular culture or community, but the way these ideas are manifested and expressed are of a material nature and differ even among groups who “believe in the same eschatological premises, consequences and Otherworldly realms” (p. 3). Fahlander and Oestigaard define “materiality” as things that “influence social development” (p. 4). They further state that death is material by nature and it is this materiality of death, which results in human responses and ritualistic practices that seek to “solve the problem of the decaying corpse” (p. 5). This manifests as the materiality of the body, wherein, the dead body requires special treatment by its descendents. The special treatment may include washing and anointing with oils and perfumes, as part of purification rites, followed by disposing the corpse. The purification rites may be difficult to detect in burial remains. However, some evidences may be found such as some form of mutilation of the body prior to burial. While it is a common practice to create distinctions between a living and a dead body, some communities continue to believe that the dead may continue to be individuals (agents) in spite of being dead. The “materiality of practice”, as described by Fahlander and Oestigaard, refers to the ritualistic practices concerned with death and burial. Whatever beliefs people have with regards to death materialize in the form of rituals. The “materiality of interments” refers to the personal belongings and gifts layed in graves. The “materiality of memory” concerns monuments which “materialize and monumentalize eschatological beliefs” (p. 9). The significance of the construction of monuments after death is that monumentality transcends death and becomes eternal. Discussion While each of the four articles discussed above concerns the concept of death, agency and ritualistic practices, a common line of thought connects them all. All these articles describe the importance of the study of graves, burial rituals and concepts of death among people in order to better understand their history and way of life. Gansum (2008) takes a unique approach towards the study of the prevalent concept of death among the communities of the Iron Age. He states that as an archeologist, he would view the concept of the dead in a different perspective, i.e. rather than studying a dead body as a corpse, he would study it as another entity capable of agency. He also challenges the traditional concept of grave, stating that a grave need not necessarily be a burial place for a body as a whole. For instance, archaeologists have unearthed many graves that contain incomplete bone deposits. Similarly, Fahlander and Oestigaard (2008) also state that certain graves, cenotaphs, have been found that do not contain any body at all. Therefore, the traditional concept of grave has been challenged by the study of graves of the Iron Age. Another common feature of the graves of the Iron Age is that there are evidences of inhumations and displacement of bones from the graves. While this phenomenon may be interpreted as caused due to disturbance or grave robbery, Gansum (2008) argues for alternatives to these interpretations. He suggests that the grave may be considered as a place where the journey to the underworld begins or which serves as a route for communication between the dead and the living worlds. Graves were thus dynamic places, which were loaded, reopened etc, and the bones and remains of the dead were used for other ritualistic purposes. Similarly, Danielsson (2008) contends that cremated body parts were re-used in other material contexts for the production of artefacts and objects. For instance, based on archaeological evidence, it is suggested that bone coal from bone remains was used to carbonize iron and strengthen it into steel. Bone coal consists of poorly burnt bones. While the carbonization of iron using bone coal to strengthen it into steel has a scientific explanation, the people in the Iron Age describe the same procedure with deep symbolic meanings (Danielsson, 2008). Accordingly, it was believed that by “mingling” soft iron with bones from dead ancestors, a new being such as an iron sword was forged, which had the characteristics of the parents. The resultant object, such as the sword in this case, was believed to possess social qualities that mirrored those of the parents or ancestors. Literature suggests that these swords were given names and that “some could even speak, sing, and guide the hand and shanks of their awestruck wielders” (Danielsson, 2008, p. 320). Apart from the production of iron, bones have been used in several other contexts, such as tempering ceramic vessels. A large majority of the pottery recovered from burials includes funerary urns (Danielsson, 2008). Danielsson adds that there appears to be a close connection between the urn with the bones and the soul of the deceased. The urn was considered a spiritual signifier that physically and spiritually embodied the deceased. Fahlander and Oestigaard (2008) argues that although burial rituals correspond to certain beliefs which transcend social and earthly categories, the archaeological study of death most often tends to interpret the burial remains in terms of sex, age or status. He further contends that the important concerns regarding the significance of burials cannot be justified merely based on religious or social basis. Moreover, it would be insufficient to correlate the elements or interments of graves with the deceased without actually considering diversity among cultures. It is evident from literature and archaeological and evidences that sometimes the dead had to be ritually killed (Gansum, 2008). Similarly, Arnold (2001) contends that the living could manipulate the dead purposefully and intentionally, and in this sense, “mortuary ritual is an arena for the negotiation of social relationships”; however, there is an intersection between the living and the dead in the context of the mortuary (p. 214). In conclusion, it can be stated that the concept of death in the Iron Age differs greatly from that of the present day. The people in the Iron Age believed that it was possible for an individual to exist even after death. The dead were able to manifest socially and physically in the lives of the living. The dead could feast, drink and even involve in social practices like the living. The people in the Iron Age believed that a boundary existed between the living and the dead worlds, and the dead sometimes had to be re-killed in order to restore social balance. Mutilation of body parts and inhumation and relocation of bones was also practiced. Bones were often used for the production of iron and artefacts such as swords. While the use of bones for strengthening iron and creating strong swords is scientific, the people in the Iron Age attached strong symbolic associations with these practices. They believed that the unison of the bone, symbolic of the ancestor, and the iron, gave a new person, i.e. the object, which had qualities representative of the ancestor. Thus, the objects were personified. The study of graves and burials is rather significant and essential for archaeologists as they enable a glimpse into the actual lives of the people and their culture, as collective norms and beliefs are often translated into ritualistic practices such as those involving burial. The articles discussed in this paper thus provide an insight into the beliefs of the people of the Iron Age, as to their perceptions of death and the agency of death. References Arnold, B. (2001). The limits of agency in the analysis of the elite Iron Age Celtic Burials. Journal of Social Archaeology, 1(2), 210-224. Danielsson, I. B. (2008). Bodies and identities in the Scandinavian Late Iron Age. In A. Jones (Ed.), Prehistoric Europe, Theory and Practice. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. Fahlander, F., & Oestigaard, T. (2008). The Materiality of Death. Bodies, burials, beliefs. Oxford: Bar International Series. Gansum, T. (2008). Reproduction and relocation of death in Iron Age Scandinavia. In F. Falhander & T. Oestigaard (Eds.), The Materiality of Death. Bodies, burials, beliefs (pp. 141–146). Oxford: Bar International Series. Read More