Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T19:09:37.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grief and Burial in the American Southwest: The Role of Evolutionary Theory in the Interpretation of Mortuary Remains

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Douglas H. MacDonald
Douglas H. MacDonald*
Affiliation:
GAI Consultants, Inc., 570 Beatty Road, Monroeville, PA, 15146- 1300
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Evolutionary theory, in consort with Marxism and processualism, provides new insights into the interpretation of grave-good variation. Processual interpretations of burial sites in the American Southwest cite age, sex, or social rank as the main determinants of burial-good variation. Marxist theorists suggest that mortuary ritual mediates social tension between an egalitarian mindset and an existing social inequality. Evolutionary theory provides a supplementary explanatory framework. Recent studies guided by kin-selection theory suggest that humans grieve more for individuals of high reproductive value and genetic relatedness. Ethnographic examples also show that individuals mourn more intensively and, thus, place more social emphasis on burials of individuals of highest reproductive value (young adults). Analysis of grave goods from La Ciudad, a Hohokam site in the American Southwest, supports the hypothesis that labor value, reproductive value, and grief contributed to grave-good differentiation. At La Ciudad, individuals between the ages of 10 and 20 possessed more and higher-quality grave goods on average than any other age group. Grief at the loss of a young adult of high reproductive and labor value may facilitate explanation of mortuary variation at La Ciudad, as well as other sites in the greater Southwest and beyond.

Résumé

Résumé

La teoría de evolutión, en conjunto con el Marxismo y el procesualismo, proporciona nuevas luces en la interpretatión de la variabilidad las ofrendas funerarias. Las interpretaciones procesuales de sitios de entierros en el suroeste de los Estados Unidos titan edad, sexo o la categoría social como determinantes principales de la variabilidad de las ofrendas funerarias. Los teóricos marxistas sugieren que el rito mortuorio equipara la tensión social entre un estado mental igualitario y una desigualdad social existente. La teoría de evolución proporciona un marco complementario, con el cual sepuede examinar el problema. Estudios recientes guiados por la teoria de la selectión de parentesco sugieren que los humanos se afligen más por los individuos con alta capacidadpara reproducirse y con los cuales estdn geneticamente relacionados. Ejemplos de etnografía muestran también que la gente lamenta más intensamente y pone más énfasis social en losfunerales de las personas de mayor capacidadpara reproducirse (adultosjóvenes). El análisis de funerales de La Ciudad, un sitio de los Hohokam en el suroeste de los Estados Unidos, apoya la hipótesis de que el valor laboral, la capacidad reproductiva y el duelo contribuyeron a las distinciones funerarias. En La Ciudad, los individuos entre las edades de 10 y 20 años tuvieron mayor calidad de tumbas en promedio que los de cualquier otra edad. El duelo por la pérdida de un adulto joven de alto valor reproductivo y laboral puede explicar la variatión mortuaria en La Ciudad, así como en otros sitios del gran suroeste de los Estados Unidos y de más allá.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 66 , Issue 4 , October 2001 , pp. 704 - 714
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2001

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.)

References

References Cited

Alexander, R. D. 1979 Darwinism and Human Affairs. University of Washington Press, Seattle.Google Scholar
Ashton, M. C, Paunonen, S.V., Helmes, E., and Jackson, D. N. 1998 Kin Altruism, Reciprocal Altruism, and the Big Five Personality Factors. Evolution and Human Behavior 19: 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayman, J. M., Palacios-Fest, M. R., and Huckell, L.W 1997 Botanical Signatures of Water Storage Duration in a Hohokam Reservoir. American Antiquity 62: 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendann, E. 1930 Death Customs: An Analytical Study of Burial Rites. A.E. Knopf, New York.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1971 Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their Potential. In Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, edited by Brown, J., pp. 6–29. Society for American Archaeology Memoir 25, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1972 Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their Potential. In An Archaeological Perspective, edited by Binford, L. R., pp. 208–251. Seminar Press, New York.Google Scholar
Blurton Jones, N., and Sibly, R. M. 1978 Testing Adaptiveness of Culturally Determined Behavior: Do Bushmen Women Maximize Their Reproductive . Success By Spacing Births Widely and Foraging Seldom? In Human Behavior and Adaptation, edited by Blurton Jones, N. and Reynolds, V., pp. 135–157. Taylor and Francis LTD, London.Google Scholar
Braun, D. P. 1982 The Snyders Mounds and Five Other Mound Groups in Calhoun County, Illinois. Museum of Anthropology Technical Reports No. 13. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broughton, J. M., and O’Connell, J. F. 1999 On Evolutionary Ecology, Selectionist Archaeology, and Behavioral Archaeology. American Antiquity 64: 153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. 1995 On Mortuary Analysis, with Special Reference to the Saxe-Binford Research Program. In Regional Approaches to Mortuary Analysis, edited by Beck, L. A., pp. 3–28. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. M. 1997 Sex Differences in Human Mate Preferences: Evolutionary Hypotheses tested in 37 Cultures. In Human Nature, edited by Betzig, L., pp. 175–190. Oxford University Press, New York. Originally Published 1989, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12(1-14).Google Scholar
Carr, C. 1995 Mortuary Practices: Their Social, Philosophical-Religious, Circumstantial, and Physical Determinants. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2: 105–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claassen, C. and Joyce, R. A. (editors) 1997 Women in Prehistory: North America and Mesoamerica. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Crawford, C. B., Salter, B. E., and Jang, K. L. 1989 Human Grief: Is Its Intensity Related to the Reproductive Value of the Deceased? Ethology and Sociobiology 10: 297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crown, P. L. 1990 The Hohokam and the American Southwest. Journal of World Prehistory 4: 223–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crown, P. L., and Fish, S. K. 1996 Gender and Status in the Hohokam Pre-Classic to Classic Transition. American Anthropologist 98: 803–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crown, P. L., and Judge, W. J. (editors) 1991 Chaco and Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in the American Southwest. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.Google Scholar
Daly, M., and Wilson, M. 1988 Homicide. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google ScholarPubMed
Darwin, C. 1872 The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. Murray Press, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, C. 1964 [1859] On the Origin of Species, A Facsimile of the First Edition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doyel, D. E. 1984 From Foraging to Farming: An Overview of the Preclassic in the Tucson Basin. The Kiva 49: 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doyel, D. E. 1991 The Hohokam: Ancient Dwellers of the Arizona Desert. In The Hohokam: Ancient People of the Desert, edited by Noble, D. G., pp. 3–16. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.Google Scholar
Duke, P. 1991 Points in Time. University Press of Colorado, Niwot.Google Scholar
Duke, P., and Wilson, M. C. (editors) 1995 Beyond Subsistence: Plains Archaeology and the Post-processual Critique. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
Durham, W H. 1991 Coevolution: Genes, Culture, and Human Diversity. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. 1958 The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Dover Press, New York.Google Scholar
Gero, J. M., and Conkey, M. W. (editors) 1991 Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Goody, J. 1962 Death, Property, and the Ancestors: A Study of the Mortuary Customs of the Lodagaa of West Africa. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto.Google Scholar
Gould, R. A. 1982 To Have and Have Not: The Ecology of Sharing among Hunter-Gatherers. In Resource Managers: North American and Australian Hunter-Gatherers, edited by Williams, N. M. and Hunn, E.S. pp. 69–92. AAAS Selected Symposium 67. Westview Press, Boulder.Google Scholar
Gumerman, G. J. (editor) 1991 Exploring the Hohokam: Prehistoric Desert Dwellers of the Southwest. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. D. 1964 The Genetical Evolution of Social Behavior, I and II. Journal of Theoretical Biology 7: 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harcourt, A. H., and de Waal, F. B. M. (editors) 1992 Coalitions and Alliances in Humans and Other Animals. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Haury, E. 1976 The Hohokam: Desert Farmers and Craftsmen. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkes, K. 1983 Kin Selection and Culture. American Ethnologist 10: 345–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkes, K., O’Connell, J. F., and Blurton Jones, N. G. 1997 Hadza Women's Time Allocation, Offspring Provisioning, and the Evolution of Long Postmenopausal Life Spans. Current Anthropology 38: 517–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, K., and Hurtado, M. 1991 The Evolution of Reproductive Senescence and Menopause in Human Females. Human Nature 2: 315–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, K., and Hurtado, M. 1996 Ache Life History: The Ecology and Demography of a Foraging People. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1982 Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hohmann, J. W, and Kelley, L. B. 1988 Eric F. Schmidt's Investigations of Salado Sites in Central Arizona. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 56. Museum of Northern Arizona Press, Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Howell, N. 1979 Demography of the Dobe !Kung. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hrdy, S. B. 1976 The Care and Exploitation of Nonhuman Primate Infants by Conspecifics other than the Mother. Advances in the Study of Behavior 6: 101–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, R. L. 1995 The Foraging Spectrum. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Littlefield, C. H., and Rushton, J. P. 1986 When a Child Dies: The Sociobiology of Bereavement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 797–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, R. H. 1992a Death, Society, and Ideology in a Hohokam Community. Westview Press, Boulder.Google Scholar
McGuire, R. H. 1992b A Marxist Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Mitchell, D. R. 1994 The Pueblo Grande Project, Volume 7: An Analysis of Classic Period Mortuary Patterns. Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology 20(7): 1–282.Google Scholar
Morris, I. 1987 Burial and Ancient Society: the Rise of the Greek City- State. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Morris, I. 1992 Death-Ritual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Shea, J. M. 1984 Mortuary Variability: An Archaeological Investigation. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Patton, J. Q. 2000 Reciprocal Altruism and Warfare: A Case Study from the Ecuadorian Amazon. In Human Behavior and Adaptation, edited by Chagnon, N., Cronk, L., and Irons, W., pp. 417- 436. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar
Preucel, R. W., and Hodder, I. (editors) 1996 Contemporary Archaeology in Theory. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Sahlins, M. 1977 The Use and Abuse of Biology. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Saul, M. B. 1988 Mortuary Practices. In The 1982-1984 Excavations at Las Colinas, Material Culture. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 162: 413–461.Google Scholar
Saxe, A. A. 1970 Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. B. 1999 Behavioral Archaeology: Some Clarifications. American Antiquity 64: 166–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, N. L., and Bouchard, T. J., Jr. 1993 Grief Intensity Following the Loss of a Twin and Other Relatives: Test of Kinship Genetic Hypotheses. Human Biology 65: 87–105.Google ScholarPubMed
Seymour, D. J. 1988 An Alternate View of Sedentary Period Hohokam Shell- Ornament Production. American Antiquity 53: 812–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanks, M. and Tilley, C. 1982 Ideology, Symbolic Power and Ritual Communication: A Reinterpretation of Neolithic Mortuary Practices. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by Hodder, I., pp. 129–154. Cambridge University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaul, D.L., and Hill, J. H. 1998 Tepimans, Yumans and Other Hohokam. American Antiquity 63: 375–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tainter, J. A. 1978 Mortuary Practice and the Study of Prehistoric Social Systems. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 1: 106–143.Google Scholar
Trinkaus, E. 1995 Mortuary Behavior, Labor Organization, and Social Rank. In Regional Approaches to Mortuary Analysis, edited by Beck, L.A., pp. 101–124. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. 1971 The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology 46: 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Upham, S., Crown, P. L., and Plog, S. 1994 Alliance Formation and Cultural Identity in the American Southwest. In Themes in Southwest Prehistory, edited by Gumerman, G. J., pp. 183–210. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.Google Scholar
VanPool, C. S., and VanPool, T. L. 1999 The Scientific Nature of Postprocessualism. American Antiquity 64: 33–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, D. R. 1991 Hohokam Religion: An Archaeologist's Perspective. In The Hohokam: Ancient People of the Desert, edited by Noble, D.G., pp. 47–61. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.Google Scholar