The way we bury our dead. Reflections on mortuary ritual, community and identity at the time of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition

Abstract

This paper discusses how archaeologists can approach ways in which the ritual treatment of the dead body was a means of reproducing a sense of identity and community in the past. The approach combines a theoretical framework grounded in practice and body theory with a methodological approach based on taphonomic analysis. This framework is introduced to analyze the mortuary practices at the Mesolithic cemeteries of Skateholm I and II, Vedbæk, Bøgebakken and Zvejnieki. Beyond the immediate context, the study seeks to reflect on how similarities and differences noticeable over time and space may provide an insight into changing identity processes.

Memory, Landscape & Mortuary Practice

“…Even though these examples derive from diff erent regions of Europe, they nevertheless suggest that a particular state of mind regarding the reuse of ancient sites and objects was also present during the Stone Age. Indeed, as has been suggested previously (Borić 1999;Nilsson Stutz 2004Peyroteo Stjerna 2015;Brinch Petersen 2015), many of the repeatedly used Late Mesolithic hunter-gatherer cemeteries can be considered communal places to which people repeatedly returned to bury their dead. In the lives of non-sedentary hunter-gatherers, these sites would also have served as navel points within the landscape (Tõrv 2016), i.e.…”

“…Second, I will analyse the Jönsas cemetery as a whole with its diff erent phases of use and suggest that, at the same time, memories and myths attached to the site played a signifi cant role in the mortuary practices conducted at the site. Diff ering from recent publications concerning Stone Age hunter-gatherer mortuary practices (Nilsson Stutz 2003;Peyrotero Stjerna 2016;Tõrv 2016), I will not dwell upon the remains of the deceased; this is an impossible task in the case of Jönsas, where no human skeletal material has been preserved, but rather consider the site itself as a social agent revealing the behavioural elements related to the mortuary practices. Because the Jönsas burials have never been published collectively in a single study, I will also provide a necessary summary of the grave structures.…”

“…Archaeological evidence has shown that people were inhumed, cremated, used as relics and buried under water, just to mention some of the practices (e.g. Grøn & Skaarup 1991;Nilsson Stutz 2003;Brinch Petersen & Meiklejohn 2003;Pettitt 2011;Tõrv 2016). Towards the end of the Palaeolithic era, some of the deceased were also buried in cemeteries (e.g.…”

“…Towards the end of the Palaeolithic era, some of the deceased were also buried in cemeteries (e.g. Pettitt 2011;Nilsson Stutz 2014), formally defi ned, recognisable and visible places of the dead (Pettitt 2011, 251). This preference appears to intensify at the end of the Mesolithic in Europe (Nilsson Stutz 2014, 720-721).…”

“…Perceptions of the people interred at the cemetery sites have varied (e.g. Gurina 1956;Edgren 1966;Strassburg 2000;Nilsson Stutz 2003;Tõrv 2016). However, the tradition of continuous burials at a designated place indicates that the cemeteries were not only disposal areas for the dead, but also important places for the Stone Age communities (Borić 1999;Nilsson Stutz 2014;Brinch Petersen 2015;Peyroteo Stjerna 2015;Tõrv 2016).…”