Death and society: a Marxist approach.

Death and society: a Marxist approach. All the major approaches to archaeology have focused on death, withthe intention of giving meaning to the social dimensions of its ritualpractices. The aim of this article is to outline briefly the most widelyknown of these approaches and then to present a perspective to the studyof death and society which is based on Marxism. In a sequel to thispaper, I will use this perspective to present recent results of researchon Argaric Bronze Age Bronze Age,period in the development of technology when metals were first used regularly in the manufacture of tools and weapons. Pure copper and bronze, an alloy of copper and tin, were used indiscriminately at first; this early period is sometimes called the society in southeast Spain. Traditional archaeology's approach Burial sites have always been a star attraction star attractionn → atracci��n f principalstar attractionn → grande attractionstar attractionstar n → in archaeology.However it must be remembered that traditional archaeology consideredburial and all its trappings as part of the intangible domain ofreligious belief (Piggott 1973), and had misgivings as to whether anydirect relationship could be established between the burial rites andthe world of the living (Ucko 1969). Adherents of this positionemphasized the difficulty of evaluating social aspects on the basis ofburial sites and preferred to use these data to make inferences onrelative chronology and to put forward interpretations in terms ofideology based on historical or anthropological analogies. Finds werealso employed to define cultural idiosyncrasies and, in extreme cases,ethnic boundaries. To sum up, traditional archaeology's approach can becharacterized as follows: 1 Burial remains are an expression of the intangible world ofreligious belief. 2 There was widespread scepticism with regard to the possibility offinding any criteria for reconstruction of the living society fromburial remains. 3 The variability of items found and their patterns of associationwere usually interpreted through ideological metaphors. 4 Simple and accessible interpretations were made by means offormal analogy drawn from historical and anthropological sources andfrom the experience of everyday life. 5 Extensive corpora corporaplural form of corpus.corpora albicantiasee corpus albicans.corpora arenaceasandy or gritty bodies, found in the pineal body; appear to be of glial or stromal origin; have the structure of of objects from burial sites were assembled andused for the description and chronology of `cultures', since theywere often from closed contexts and generally well preserved. 6 There was an emphasis on formal description and a lack ofquantitative analysis Quantitative AnalysisA security analysis that uses financial information derived from company annual reports and income statements to evaluate an investment decision.Notes: . In contrast, other researchers already felt there was a clear linkbetween burial practices and the world of the living. V. Gordon Childe,for example, considered ritual and its religious references as simplemechanisms that ensured the conditions allowing reproduction of socialsystems. Thus, in the forties (1944; 1946) he put forward the view thatthe most stable and progressive societies in terms of social wealth,consumed few goods or artefacts in their death-related rituals due tothe institutionalization InstitutionalizationThe gradual domination of financial markets by institutional investors, as opposed to individual investors. This process has occurred throughout the industrialized world. of private property and inheritance which hadby then taken place. His idea was that the more material progress madeby a culture, the less social energy it invested in burial; in otherwords Adv. 1. in other words - otherwise stated; "in other words, we are broke"put differently , public investment in the cemetery was inversely related to socialand technological development. This first link in the chain ofsociological implications from the study of death and burial had beenexplored 10 years earlier by Soviet archaeology (Alekshin 1983) andChilde knew of this work. Processualism and the archaeology of death No significant new developments in the archaeological analysis ofdeath and burial emerged until the early 1970s (Saxe 1970; Binford 1971;Tainter 1973; 1977), when archaeologists once again began to payattention to theoretical premises concerning the study of mortuarypractices. The theoretical-methodological approach known as the Archaeology ofDeath arose from an epistemological debate in the context of the NewArchaeology. The new sub-discipline was based on the argument thatmortuary practices are an expression of social reality in all itscomplexity. Saxe, for example, concluded that the variability of burialsite forms can be linked to a series of consciously selecteddistinctions which are in keeping with the social identity held by thedeceased throughout his or her life. Since the social persona wasdetermined by the characteristics of each social system, it could bededuced that analysis of a group of social personae (the study of acemetery) would yield insights into the organization of that particularsociety. The concepts employed here generally proceed from role theory(Goodenough 1965). Thus `social identity' is equivalent to socialstatus and refers to the socially sanctioned roles of every individual,while `social persona' refers to the set of social identitiesselected for each person. The concept of `social persona' iscrucial for archaeological inference, given that it assumes that the setof identities that make it up can be determined by the organization ofthe social system. Burial deposits are not for mere individuals but for`personalities' linked to modes of social behaviour. Therefore thematerial attributes of burial practices provide us with information onthe status of each individual and, in consequence, the socialorganization in which this status took on meaning. Binford proposed that `the form and structure that characterise themortuary practices of any society are conditioned by the form andcomplexity of the organisational characteristics of that society'(1971: 235). Counterbalancing the view of Childe, he argues that themore complex the organization of social structure, the more complex theforms and structures of mortuary practice. In Binford's view, through ritual the society gives symbolicrecognition to matters concerning the individual's communityidentification (sex, age and kinship). His or her social position isdefined in terms of recognition of the roles performed by the individualin life. Thus, he argued, there will be a high level of isomorphism isomorphism(ī'səmôr`fĭzəm), of minerals, similarity of crystal structure between two or more distinct substances. Sodium nitrate and calcium sulfate are isomorphous, as are the sulfates of barium, strontium, and lead. between the complexity of status structure in a socio-cultural systemand the complexity of the disposal of the dead, in the sense ofdifferent procedures for persons occupying different status positions. Although others took up the theoretical perspective initiated byBinford and Saxe (e.g. Tainter 1973; 1977; O'Shea 1984), for thepurposes of this paper, the theoretical premises of the Archaeology ofDeath can be summarized as follows: 1 Mortuary practices reflect social reality in all its complexity. 2 The form and structure of mortuary practices are conditioned bythe form and complexity of social organization. The more complex thesocial organization, the more complex the funerary fu��ner��ar��y?adj.Of or suitable for a funeral or burial.[Latin fner treatment. 3 The burial ritual is a criterion for social identification of theindividual: it is a "faithful epitaph epitaph,strictly, an inscription on a tomb; by extension, a statement, usually in verse, commemorating the dead. The earliest such inscriptions are those found on Egyptian sarcophagi. " testifying who he orshe was. Burial deposits are a material synthesis of the most importantfeatures of the deceased as a social person. 4 Processualism depended on various liberal trends in epistemology(role theories, information theories, GST GSTabbr.Greenwich sidereal timeGST(in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada) Goods and Services Tax , and so on) and thevindication of the individual as the `key factor' of society. 5 One of the aims is to achieve a Law of Complexity on the basis ofthe typologies elaborated by neo-evolutionary anthropology (Service,Fried, etc.) or in accordance with levels of entropy. 6 There is a demand for a quantitative methodology which will allowcomparison between individual cases. The return of symbolic historicism his��tor��i��cism?n.1. A theory that events are determined or influenced by conditions and inherent processes beyond the control of humans.2. A theory that stresses the significant influence of history as a criterion of value. Post-modern archaeologists took the view that archaeologicalstudies should attempt to understand the changing symbolic schemes thatunderlie material elements, since the essential structure of the socialsystem lies in the symbolic principles which link its various partstogether (e.g. Hodder 1982; Shanks & Tilley 1987). Given thatmaterial culture is understood as a `text' (Hodder 1986; Shanks& Tilley 1987), the meaning of which is always contextuallydependent, burial remains should not be considered as reliableindicators of the organizational norms of a social system. Objects in agiven funerary assemblage should be interpreted as `symbols inaction', the meaning of which could only be hinted at byrecognizing significant dimensions of variation (spatial organization ofskeletal remains; nature and location of grave goods In archaeology and anthropology grave goods are the items buried along with the body.They are usually personal possessions, supplies to smooth the deceased's journey into the afterlife or offerings to the gods. Grave goods are a type of votive deposit. ). This approach takes the view that funerary remains are not a directreflection of social system norms or recognized individual status.Burial contexts act as `arenas' in which power struggles oragreements among individuals or groups are `negotiated'symbolically. All this subtle theoretical apparatus led to the abandonment ofcomparative cross-cultural studies Cross-cultural comparisons take several forms. One is comparison of case studies, another is controlled comparison among variants of a common derivation, and a third is comparison within a sample of cases. , in favour of particularistic par��tic��u��lar��ism?n.1. Exclusive adherence to, dedication to, or interest in one's own group, party, sect, or nation.2. idiosyncrasies. Given that individual particularities could not becompared on the basis of general criteria, a hermeneutic her��me��neu��tic? also her��me��neu��ti��caladj.Interpretive; explanatory.[Greek herm approach wastaken to interpretation, based on the conflict that is present in allsocial contexts. The conflict takes place in the realm of ideology bymeans of symbolic games, that archaeologists could try to `read'according to according toprep.1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.2. In keeping with: according to instructions.3. his or her own personal capabilities or politicalpreferences. In practice, this constitutes, firstly, a bow totraditional approaches by making use of the example or analogy as ahermeneutic instrument and, secondly, a cynical grimace in the directionof processualism in that it demands the use of instrumentalmethodologies and quantification. Post-modern approaches can be summarized as follows: 1 Funerary remains are not a direct reflection of social systemnorms. 2 Funerary variability does not reflect individual status. 3 Particular funerary patterns cannot be classified into universallevels of social complexity. 4 Burial contexts are particular and historical scenarios in whichpower struggles are settled symbolically. 5 Individual funerary practices must be analysed in their ownterms. 6 Conflict (of gender, class, and ethnic groups) was emphasized asthe basis of social dynamics Social dynamics is the study of the ability of a society to react to inner and outer changes and deal with its regulation mechanisms. Social dynamics is a mathematically inspired approach to analyse societies, building upon systems theory and sociology. . 7 Continuation of instrumental and data processing data processingor information processing,operations (e.g., handling, merging, sorting, and computing) performed upon data in accordance with strictly defined procedures, such as recording and summarizing the financial transactions of a methodologiesbegun by processual archaeology Processual archaeology is a form of archaeological theory which arguably had its genesis in 1958 with Willey and Phillips' work, Method and Theory in American Archeology (formalization for��mal��ize?tr.v. for��mal��ized, for��mal��iz��ing, for��mal��iz��es1. To give a definite form or shape to.2. a. To make formal.b. , quantification). 8 Use of the traditional procedure based on analogy, but now fromthe hermeneutic/ post-structuralist points of view. The three approaches outlined so far share a subjective idealism,since they emphasize the individual or the symbolic principles in whichhe/she finds himself immersed. For traditional archaeology, religionestablishes world order as a metaphor of supernatural domain or divinerevelation Noun 1. divine revelation - communication of knowledge to man by a divine or supernatural agencyrevelationmaking known, informing - a speech act that conveys information . For processualism burial variations are determined byindividual differences in status, which in turn depends on thesubjective acknowledgement of other people. Finally, forpost-structuralism it is the individual, as the great manipulator, whoplays the social game in accordance with his/her own ideologicalinterests. Death from a Marxist perspective Although Marxist archaeology in the West has not come up with atheoretical framework for research into burial remains since Childe, Ihope that the points presented here will serve to reopen debate inhistorical materialism historical materialism:see dialectical materialism. and also, marshal arguments in response to otherapproaches which discard the Marxist perspective.(1) Burials sites are deposits of social labour. Both when the societyuses death as a mechanism for achieving integration, and when the ritualis intended to express the collective mentality, what is certain is thatthe decisive factor is the social labour as opposed to the individual. The dead take no part the ritual productive processes that includethem, although they consume the fruits of the production. All products,no matter what their symbolical connotations, are the product of labourand take on their meaning in the sphere of economics and their value inthe sphere of society. The fact that their connotations enter theideological sphere, since they act as metaphorically or metonymically me��ton��y��my?n. pl. me��ton��y��miesA figure of speech in which one word or phrase is substituted for another with which it is closely associated, as in the use of Washington for the United States government or of expressed symbols, should not distort what the products of workdeposited in burial sites actually denote (Lull & Picazo 1988: 19). The investment made by society in the treatment of death should notbe seen as a mere accessory which recognizes only the status that thedeceased had when alive. Funerary practices, offerings and rituals,denote the material conditions of the society and provide information onthe forms taken by it, whether in the form of homage, payment oftributes or a covering up of inequalities between individuals or groupsof individuals, which can only be made explicit by means of parallelarchaeological study of settlements. For this reason, the firstmaterialist premise warns that the study of death cannot be conceived asindependent from the study of living contexts. It is only through studyof the dialectic between both domains that we can establish the degreeof accuracy of the social hypotheses put forward on the basis of burialremains. If we consider tombs as deposits of social labour, the valuesassigned in burial to different people or groups will be directlyproportional to the community's economic capacity, expressed interms of the development of the productive processes and the socialrelations of production Relations of production (German: Produktionsverhaltnisse) is a concept frequently used by Karl Marx in his theory of historical materialism and in Das Kapital. Beyond examining specific cases, Marx never defined the general concept exactly. (that is, private or collective propertystructure). To see death as exclusively pertaining to the ideology isequivalent to presupposing that the work invested in it by society iswith the sole aim of recording ethical and moral values of individualidentification which, while possible, ignores the material conditions onwhich all ideologies are founded. For this reason, the opposition of Binford and Childe ismeaningless, since in the same set of objective material conditions aclass-based community could invest various amounts of surplus dependingon self-imposed obligations of the ritual (Binford's premise ofcomplexity/ ritual development) or, on the other hand, it could avoidthis investment if ruling class(es) can maintain the desired socialorder with the help of other ideological mechanisms (Childe'spremise). On the other hand, a society that does not have a productionsurplus will resort to mutual support to build its tombs and the gravegoods will be easily replaceable ones. From this perspective, Hodder's Islamic (counter-)example canbe seen to be opportunistic, given that in that case burial isomorphismbecomes a highly coercive ideological norm if we take also into accountthe archaeology of the settlements. This once again leads us to the factthat it is impossible to approach the archaeology of the dead withouthaving an archaeology of the living. I believe that if we cannot carry out evaluative calculation of thework reflected in the tombs and, at the same time, we are not able todevelop instrumental methods for establishing the relative social valueof the deposited products, we will continue to navigate metaphysicallyas opposed to realistically. The value of burial products cannot be calculated without study ofthe work processes involved in their manufacture, and this heightens thecomplexity of the task. Nevertheless, if we do not have sufficientpaleoeconomic data, we could put forward estimations that can accountfor that value (Lull & Estevez 1986). Therefore, I believe that three points must be considered inapproaching the study of funerary practices. The first is that researchshould be aimed at evaluating the `container norm' taking intoaccount the dimensions and constructive characteristics of the burialcontainers, the source of raw materials and the technology by which theywere produced. Second, a systematic study of human remains is needed,since we can obtain a large body of crucial data of the livingconditions (diet, pathologies, demography, etc.). Third, archaeologicalresearch should establish the relative social value of the grave goods.The combined results will enable us to formulate a hypothesis withregard to the social structure, that can then be tested in the light ofthe archaeology of the settlements, which is the only means capable ofdefining economic and political conditions (who produces what and whobenefits from it?). Given that a corpse cannot organize its own burial, the burial is ameans of evaluating the state of society: it is society's interestgroups that manifest themselves through the ritual and not the deceased.Therefore, burial remains associated with individuals do not constitutea synthesis of its most important social dimensions, but rather they area expression of the material possibilities that prevailed. Differencesin burial treatments, far from differentiating among individuals asethical or political subjects, are an expression of socio-economic orsocio-ideological groups, which we have termed social categorieselsewhere (Lull & Estevez 1986). These categories can only betranslated in terms of class through study of the social structure ofthe settlements. A Marxist approach to the study of mortuary practices can besummarized as follows: 1 Burials are deposits of social labour. The dead consumes what isproduced by society. 2 There is no necessary isomorphism between the individual'scondition in life and the social recognition afforded post mortem [Latin, After death.] Pertaining to matters occurring after death. A term generally applied to an autopsy or examination of a corpse in order to ascertain the cause of death or to the inquisition for that purpose by the Coroner . . Acorpse cannot carry out its own burial. 3 Burial remains are an indirect expression of the existence orabsence of interest groups. 4 Asymmetries between burial sites denote asymmetries in socialconsumption. Differences in burial treatment are not a reflection ofdifferences between individuals but rather of socio-economic andsocio-ideological groups. 5 Every social product supposes a unit of value between what issocially produced and individual access to its consumption. 6 The social value of burial products should be calculated on thebasis of the socially necessary work established by the social relationsof production. 7 A balance of production and consumption must be drawn up todetect social asymmetries. This is why an `Archaeology of Death'will always remain incomplete without a clear commitment to an`Archaeology of Life'. All the points which we have expressed in this article lead us toconsider that the materiality of death in all social contexts bearslittle relation to the pain, appreciation and relief which are alwayspart of its presence. The materiality of death is as far from suchsentiments as the desires that we feel from the reality that we live. Acknowledgements. R. Chapman, R. Mico, R. Risch, C. Rihuete, T.Escoriza and Ma.E. Sanahuja offered valuable comments on this paper,although the responsibility for its content is mine alone. R. Chapmanalso revised the English translation. P. Castro, S. Gili and R. Sanchezprepared the illustrations. I am indebted to all of these people. (1) The proposals presented here include ideas shared by othercolleagues (Castro et al. 1995; Lull & Risch 1995). References ALEKSHIN, V.A. 1983. Burial customs as an archaeological source,Current Anthropology 24: 137-50. BINFORD, L.R. 1971. Mortuary practices: their study and potential,in J.A. Brown (ed.), Approaches to the social dimensions of mortuarypractices, Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) is the largest organization of professional archaeologists of the Americas in the world. The Society was founded in 1934 and today has over 7000 members. 25: 6-29. CASTRO, P., V. LULL, R. MICO & C. RIHUETE. 1995. La prehistoriareciente en el sudeste de la peninsula Iberica. Dimensionsocio-economica de las practicas funerarias, in R. Fabregas, F. PerezLosada & C. Fernandez Ibanez (ed.), Arqueoloxia da Morte enPeninsula Iberica desde as Orixes ata o Medievo: 127-67. Limia:Biblioteca Arqueohistorica Limia 3. CHILDE, V.G. 1944. Progress and archaeology. London: Watts. 1946.What happened in history. Harmondsworth: Penguin. GOODENOUGH, W.H. 1965. Rethinking `status' and `role'.Toward a general model of the cultural organisation of socialrelationships, in M.Banton (ed.), The relevance of models for socialanthropology: 1-24. London: Tavistock. HODDER, I. 1982. The identification and interpretation of rankingin prehistory prehistory,period of human evolution before writing was invented and records kept. The term was coined by Daniel Wilson in 1851. It is followed by protohistory, the period for which we have some records but must still rely largely on archaeological evidence to : a contextual perspective, in C. Renfrew & S. Shennan(ed.), Ranking, resource and exchange: 150-54. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press Cambridge University Press (known colloquially as CUP) is a publisher given a Royal Charter by Henry VIII in 1534, and one of the two privileged presses (the other being Oxford University Press). . 1986. Reading the past. Current approaches to interpretation inarchaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. LULL, V. & J. ESTEVEZ. 1986. Propuesta metodologica para elestudio de las necropolis necropolis:see cemetery. necropolis(Greek: “city of the dead”) Extensive and elaborate burial place serving an ancient city. The locations of these cemeteries varied. argaricas, in Homenaje a Luis Siret: 441-452.Sevilla: Junta de Andalucia. LULL, V. & M. PICAZO. 1988. Arqueologia de la muerte yestructura social, Archivo Espanol de Arqueologia 62: 5-20. LULL, V. & R. RISCH. 1995. El Estado Argarico, Verdolay 7:97-109. O'SHEA, J. 1984. Mortuary variability. An archaeologicalinvestigation. New York New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of (NY): Academic Press. PIGGOTT, S. 1973. Problems in the interpretation of chamberedtombs, in G. Daniel & P. Kjaerum (ed.), Megalithic meg��a��lith?n.A very large stone used in various prehistoric architectures or monumental styles, notably in western Europe during the second millennium b.c. graves andritual. III Atlantic Colloquium col��lo��qui��um?n. pl. col��lo��qui��ums or col��lo��qui��a1. An informal meeting for the exchange of views.2. An academic seminar on a broad field of study, usually led by a different lecturer at each meeting. : 9-15. Moesgard: Jutland ArchaeologicalSociety. SAXE, A. 1970. Social dimensions of mortuary practices. Ann Arbor(MI): University Microfilms. SHANKS, M. & C. TILLEY. 1987. Re-constructing archaeology.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. TAINTER, J.A. 1973. The social correlates of mortuary patterning atKaloko, North Kona, Hawaii, Archaeology and Physical Anthropology inOceania 8: 1-11. 1977. Modeling change in prehistoric social systems, in L.R.Binford (ed.) For theory building in archaeology: 327-52. New York (NY):Academic Press. UCKO, P. 1969. Ethnography and archaeological interpretation offunerary remains, World Archaeology 1: 262-80. VICENTE LULL, Departamento Antropologia Social i Prehistoria,Facultat de Lletres, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra(Barcelona), Spain. montgat@arrakis.es Received 22 September 1999, accepted 10 December 1999, revised 21February 2000.