Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T02:43:50.370Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Mortuary practices, society and ideology: an ethnoarchaeological study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2010

Ian Hodder
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Get access

Summary

Recent accounts of the investigation of social organisation as reflected in mortuary practices have been based on role theory. If the notion of roles is deemed to be part of an inadequate conception of social systems, then it is necessary to reconsider existing archaeological approaches to burial data. Burial ritual is susceptible to ideological manipulation within the construction of social strategies. An analysis of mortuary practices in modern and Victorian England leads to an interpretation both in terms of the way the dead are seen by the living and in terms of the social relationships between competing groups. Since the Victorian era when burial ritual was a forum for the display of wealth and status, the dead have come to be seen more and more as unwanted matter to be disposed of quickly, without extravagance. This development, involving changes in the use of cremation and in the physical traces of the burial, is part of the increased use of hygiene, science and medicine as agencies of social control, and is related to a decrease in the use of conspicuous wealth consumption for social advertisement. Finally, a series of general propositions are advanced concerning the study and interpretation of mortuary practices.

Introduction

In the last ten years there have been many developments in the reconstruction of past social systems from the material remains of mortuary rituals. There have been several attempts to provide linking principles between the material culture associated with mortuary practices and the form of social organisation (Saxe 1970; Binford 1972; Brown 1971; Shennan 1975; Goldstein 1976; Tainter 1977; Peebles & Kus 1977).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×