Memory and the Construction of Chacoan Society

While the study and interpretation of mortuary practices have long been important parts of archaeological analyses, rarely has residential burial -the practice of burying the deceased in and around houses -been a specific focus of investigation. Here, we examine some of the global contexts in which residential burial has occurred and discuss the different ways that archaeologists have interpreted residential burial. Though practices vary in time, place, and context, the presence of burials in residential settings compels archaeologists to carefully consider the relationship between the living and the dead and to explore the importance of social memory, social reproduction, relations of power, mortuary ritual, and social landscapes. [burial, ancestors, social reproduction, memory, landscapes]

Section: Landscapes and Mortuary Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

1 Residential Burial in Global Perspective

Adams

King

2010

“…that limit the range and significance of any historical narrative," and have dual importance to both enable and silence particular historical accounts and claims (Trouillot 1995, 29). Unsurprisingly, archaeologists have called attention to how architectural forms and materials were deliberately fashioned in a range of cultural and historical contexts as part of political projects, such as to strategically influence the perception of the geographical breadth or antiquity of particular empires or communities (e.g., Sinopoli 2003, Smith 2003Van Dyke 2003). In the case of the South Indian Iron Age, there appear to have been significant differences in the abilities of inhabitants to produce and manipulate historical relationships to megalithic places and herding resources.…”

Section: Soils Stones and Social Landscapes During The South Indianmentioning

confidence: 99%

9 Questioning a Posthumanist Political Ecology: Ontologies, Environmental Materialities, and the Political in Iron Age South India

Bauer

2018

This paper examines the political ecology of an 80 km2 region of central Karnataka, detailing how social relationships of inequality were linked with the production of a variety of meaningful places and environmental resources in Iron Age (1200–300 BCE) South India. Such analysis is then intersected with modern framings of inselberg landforms as spaces of “Nature,” demonstrating how such framings potentially silence humans in their environmental history and reproduce a nature–society binary that has substantial implications for the politics of land use and conservation today. In doing so, the paper critically considers the implications and limitations of a posthumanist political ecology that advocates nonhumans as “actors” that contribute to socio‐political histories for understanding the politics of environmental production, both past and present.

“…Much of the perceived problem with the archaeological analysis of religion lies with archaeologists themselves and what appears to be their unrealistic expectations about what theoretical constructs of religion should look like. Discussion tends to devolve into comparisons of broad constructs like cognitive processualism (Renfrew 1994), practice (Aldenderfer 2008), memory (Van Dyke 2003), power (Schachner 2001), or structure (Insoll 2004). While each of these has value in the study of religion, no single theoretical perspective can nor should hope to capture what religion and its material representation “mean,” precisely because religion sits at the nexus of multiple social, cognitive, and behavioral domains.…”

Section: Philosophical Pragmatism and The Study Of Religion In The Pastmentioning

confidence: 99%

3  Envisioning a Pragmatic Approach to the Archaeology of Religion

Aldenderfer

2011

Over the past decade, many archaeologists have lamented over the parlous state of what is often labeled the "archaeology of religion." Although much of the problem with the development of a satisfying approach to the study of religion in the past lies with religion itself, a notoriously difficult concept with a plethora of definitions, archaeologists themselves must acknowledge that they too bear responsibility for this unsatisfactory situation. Archaeologists have turned to the analysis of ritual in the past because it is easier to see ritual in the archaeological record than religion. But the result has been the creation of a corpus of disembodied ritual that may not fully capture the essential role that religion played in the past as a force for conservatism, transformation, or both. In this essay I argue that religion be reintroduced into the field by reminding archaeologists of what religion does. I illustrate how this can be accomplished within a program of philosophical pragmatism and an examination of contexts, contrasts, and combinations of archaeological data using two case studies. [religion, ritual, pragmatism, Classic Maya, pre-Buddhist Tibet]