Around 5500 to 5400 BC, Neolithic people at Masseria Candelaro in southeastern Italy buried parts of about 15 skulls within a structure in the center of the village. They all probably came from mature men. The archaeologists who found them naturally wondered what this was about.
They first asked who these people had been, since the ethnographic literature describes several modes of head keeping. In particular, sometimes the heads are those of revered ancestors, while in other cases they are those of slain enemies. But none of these skulls showed evidence of trauma caused at or just after death, so "revered ancestors" seemed more likely.
Why were the skulls fragmentary? The archaeologists searched for patterns, but none emerged. The discarding of various bones did not seem to be deliberate. As best they could tell, the skulls had gradually decayed because they were repeatedly buried and dug up again over a period of about two centuries.
Imagine: the people face a crisis, possibly a natural disaster like a drought of a plague of locusts, or perhaps attack by a powerful enemy. The shaman and the headman go into the ancestors' hut and carefully exhume the skulls from their burial pit. They are placed on some kind of table or altar. The people gather by star- or firelight in search of guidance. Perhaps they are chanting, or perhaps they are completely silent. By some means, the question is put to the ancestors, and the answer divined: a sacrifice must be made, or a fast observed, or perhaps the village must be moved. The skulls are carefully reburied until the next time they are needed. It's a wonderful picture.
Abstract of the article:
When archaeologists discuss ‘ancestor cults’ or ‘ancestor veneration’, what this might entail in practice usually remains vague, leading to charges that the concept of ‘ancestors’ is often applied generically. In this article, the authors combine bioarchaeological, taphonomic, radiocarbon, and isotopic studies to explore the ritual practice of the selective retention, curation, and deposition of a group of human crania and mandibles. Between 5500–5400 bc, Neolithic people at Masseria Candelaro (Puglia, Italy) deposited broken crania and mandibles from about fifteen individuals in a heap in the centre of the village. These individuals were mostly probable males, collected over the course of two centuries and actively used, with their deposition marking the final disposal of a ritual collection. The motivations for the curation of cranial bone are investigated through comparison with archaeological and ethnographic examples, advancing an interpretation of ritual practice directed towards ancestors.
Key passages:
Moreover, ancestors do not just happen; they are made. Rituals directed toward the ancestors are not the same as standard funerary rites. While their presence amongst the living references the past, ancestral rituals are forward-looking: they project the ancestors into current socio-political concerns, legitimizing tradition through continuity, and demanding action. The ontological transformation of a dead person into an ancestor is almost always accomplished by transforming their physical remains. Extended post-mortem treatment, such as secondary burial or curating selected bones, provides material through which the memory of dead persons can be prolonged. Curated bones may be circulated among the living, transformed into items which can be carried, worn, used, or eventually reburied. Bodies of specific individuals or ancestors may be preserved to allow for their display or procession amongst the living. Once ancestors are made, they act socially. Their remains are therefore likely to have an ongoing biography, encompassing use, modification, exchange, and disposal. Because these are material processes, they may be documented archaeologically. . . .
It seems most likely that these crania and mandibles were retrieved from burials post-mortem and actively used over a century or more. Their circulation and handling caused further breakage, perhaps explaining why some crania are represented by multiple, morphologically similar but non-refitting, fragments.
No comments:
Post a Comment