Review: ‘Exploring Celtic Origins: New Ways Forward in Archaeology, Linguistics, and Genetics’ edited by Barry Cunliffe and John T. Koch. (original) (raw)
Related papers
Non-monumental burial in Neolithic Britain: a (largely) cavernous view
"While long barrows and chambered tombs have long received most of the attention of British neolithic archaeologists investigating mortuary practices, it is clear that there were a variety of different depositional contexts for the remains of the dead at this time. Other kinds of monuments, and in particular causewayed enclosures, seem to have played an important role in funerary behaviour. But other, less immediately recognisable places also feature. More flat graves are being identified through the application of AMS dating to burials lacking diagnostic grave goods. A number of human remains recovered from river contexts have also been shown in recent years to fall within the Neolithic Period, raising the possibility in some instances of river ‘burial’. But, at least quantitatively, the most important alternative burial location to monuments is without question deposition in caves. Again, it is the increasingly routine use of AMS dating that is raising awareness of the number of neolithic human remains from caves. In many cases there appear to be parallels in how the skeleton is treated in caves and monuments, such as the deposition of both articulated and disarticulated remains, and the manipulation of skeletal elements. The significance of these different burial locations remains poorly understood, but there are some clear lines of inquiry that can be explored. Foremost is the need to document the full extent of cave burial in the Neolithic through the instigation of systematic dating programmes. This can then provide the basis for a comparison of the demographic and health profiles of groups interred in caves and in monuments. Preliminary stable isotope results from South Wales suggest that the long-term diets of individuals differed significantly between these two burial contexts, intimating the existence of considerable socioeconomic differentiation in neolithic Britain. "
Between Worlds: Understanding Ritual Cave Use in Later Prehistory, 2019
Recent research has led to a resurgence of academic interest in caves, in particular the place of these enigmatic sites in the worldviews of later prehistoric communities. Many caves were used not only for daily subsistence practices, but as arenas for ritual, ceremony and performance. The recurrent use of caves as the arenas for such performances tells us much about their role in the cosmology of later prehistoric communities. Caves represent a very particular type of archaeological site and thus require specific approaches to their recording, interpretation and presentation. This is especially true when studying the ritual use of caves, during which the more intangible and experiential aspects of these environments are likely to have been fundamental to the practices taking place within them. Theoretical frameworks must include consideration of the agency of these ‘natural’ places, for example, and the interplay between environment, taphonomy and human activity. Meanwhile, the development and increasing use of innovative technologies, such as 3D laser-scanning and acoustic modelling, is providing new and exciting ways of capturing the experiential qualities of these enigmatic sites and allowing not only for more nuanced understandings of the role of caves in prehistoric ritual, but also for more effective communication of cave archaeology to academic and public audiences alike. This edited volume draws together papers presented at the 20th annual conference of the European Association of Archaeologists, and additional contributions from outside of Europe, showcasing the application of cutting-edge theoretical frameworks, methodologies and audio-visual techniques in a variety of cave environments from around the globe. The title aims to reflect caves as liminal places- places that were literally ‘between worlds’; the world of the living and the dead, of above and below, of dark and light. It also serves to recognise caves as specific kinds of archaeological site which require the combination of a broad range of theoretical and recording methods. The volume is organised into two complementary parts. The first concerns the theoretical considerations that must be borne in mind when working in dynamic subterranean environments; concepts such as agency and liminality, and the particular taphonomic phenomena which play an active role in the human use of these spaces. The second part of the volume showcases new digital methods of recording, interpreting and presenting cave archaeology. Digital capture and presentation technologies are on the rise in all aspects of archaeology, but are particularly effective and have some of the greatest potential in cave archaeology. Though traditionally seen as part of the spectrum of more scientific methods of analysis, the qualitative aspects of digital capture technologies are in fact unlocking the more experiential aspects of cave use, particularly in relation to ritual activity.
Holes in the world: the use of caves for burial in the Mesolithic
Mesolithic Burials – Rites, Symbols and Social Organisation of Early Postglacial Communities, 2016
Caves and rockshelters dominate the mortuary record for large parts of Mesolithic Europe, including southwest Britain and the Meuse Basin of Belgium. There is a striking correspondence in the ebb and flow of use of caves in these two regions, beginning in the Early Holocene (ca. 10,700/10,300 cal BP) but then declining markedly after ca. 10,000 cal BP, only to see a strong resurgence in the Neolithic. The Early Mesolithic floruit may reflect an increased concern with marking group identity and territoriality in the light of rapidly rising sea-levels, leading to a readjustment of hunter-gatherer populations as coastal communities were forced to relocate. In southwest Britain, the ‘re-discovery’ of caves for funerary deposition occurs in the early part of the Neolithic, from just after 6,000 cal BP; it commences a few centuries earlier in Belgium, which experiences a strong peak in the early to mid-fifth millennium BP. There is a clear chronological – and arguably a perceptual – link between the mortuary use of caves and chambered tombs in the British Neolithic, while in Belgium the peak in Neolithic use of caves for collective burial coincides with the construction and use of 'allées couvertes'.
Journal of Neolithic Archaeology
In Eneolithic Europe, the complexity of mortuary differentiation increased with the complexity of the society at large. Human remains from the Verteba Cave provide a unique opportunity to study the lives, deaths and cultural practices of the Cucuteni-Trypillia culture in Western Ukraine. The subterranean sanctuary of Verteba was without a doubt a rallying point of both religious and social significance. Therefore, this investigation focuses on the role and character of ritual activities, the diversity and variety of religious orientations in the Eneolithic period and the question of how and for what reason this particular cave was modified from a natural space to a sacred place. We also seek to clarify the research potential of the site in relation to highly developed and relatively widespread religion with direct implications for the Cucuteni-Trypillia social structure.
Interred in the Deep-delved Earth: An Analysis of Dated Human Remains From British Caves
Britain has a history of cave burial dating back to its earliest human occupation. Data have been collected on all dated human remains found in British caves. This dissertation focuses on two periods, the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic, both of which exhibit intense periods of use for burial. The first part of the discussion is an interpretation of a significant hiatus in the burial record during the later Mesolithic. Subsequent discussion focusses on the Neolithic. Although archaeological discussion of Neolithic burial tends to focus on monumental megalithic tombs, the argument is made that cave burial was a major type of funerary rite in this period. Several areas of British cave archaeology which are in need of further research have been highlighted.
Secondary burial practices in the Middle Neolithic. Causes and Consequences.
The article discusses the increasing evidence that burial traditions in the Neolithic are more varied than is often acknowledged, and focuses especially on the evidence of cremations as a continuous practice throughout the period. This variation should not be seen primarily as a result of competing cosmologies, but rather as different ways of expressing a main body of thought, depending on the cultural context and the need of the community members. Rituals are seen as events where structure is not only displayed, but also created and negotiated in a dialogue with the participants. Rituals thereforee have the potential to both hinder and facilitate the changes that take place internally or externally. Evidence of secondary burial practices is given special attention, in particular regarding the mortuary houses of eastern middle Sweden in the late Middle Neolithic, since rituals linked to this tradition have been shown to involve a wider community and to emphasize on group unity over individualism. They also grant the participants a feeling of control over death, and through this the structuration of society. By acknowledging mortuary variation, which has often been overlooked as exceptions and curiosities, we are given additional insights into prehistoric strategies and mentalities. Keywords: Mortuary variability, rituals, cultural change, secondary burial practices, Neolithic, Middle Neolithic B, cremations, decarnation, mortuary houses
Burial is a uniquely human behavior. Among the mortuary behaviors of extant societies, burial constitutes one of many practices concerning the treatment of the dead. Examples are curation (the carrying around of the dead either of the entire corpse or of a preserved part); diverse forms of interest in the dead body (e.g., dismembering, cannibalism, veneration of parts); "abandonment" on the landscape; funerary caching; and other practices, including variously complex forms of inhumation (formal burial) (Pettitt 2011, 8-10). The interest of archaeologists specifically in burial is a default of the archaeological record due to the higher likelihood of the preservation of physical evidence when burial has taken place. In the case of mortuary practices, the commonalities of observable behaviors in cross-cultural ethnographic studies allow anthropologists to draw analogies between the present and the past. Such inferences are evaluated through taphonomic studies and contextual analyses of the human fossils. Necessary criteria for identifying burials include completeness of skeletal remains found within horizons of human occupation, elimination of natural processes of interment, stratigraphic indications of interments (e.g., burial pits or sealed contexts of skeletal remains), and osteological evidence for treatment of the corpse (Belfer-Cohen and Hovers 1992; Gargett 1999). Typically, arguments for intentional Paleolithic burials need to be based on a consilience of several lines of evidence. As an outcome of this epistemological approach, identifications of Paleolithic burials are necessarily carried out on a case-by-case basis rather than being generated from top-down overarching theory and ensuing hypotheses.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 2021
The archaeological research carried out in caves and rockshelters provided fundamental information for our understanding of the past, especially for the periods and regions dominated by groups with a hunter-gatherer economy. In spite of its clear importance, information on the use of caves and rockshelters by anatomically modern humans has encountered the persistent problem of the representativeness of the occupations in this naturally confined locations. In this research, a cross-cultural survey of ethnographic foragers was carried out in order to understand in depth the relationship between the use of caves/rockshelters and the organization of human groups. The interrelationships between the use of these places and the environment, mobility, technology, subsistence and land use are here analyzed and compared. Ethnographic records show a great variety of uses for these kind of sites, much more than what is usually considered in literature. Likewise, it is concluded that residential use, frequently cited, only occurs at low latitudes. At high latitudes, the combination of resource distribution, mobility strategies and the existence of means of transport make residential occupation unlikely. The information obtained suggest the existence of differences in the representativeness of the archaeological record of caves in relation to the surrounding archaeological landscapes.