Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1983 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, all rights reserved 0011-3204/83/2402-0004$2.25
V. A. ALEKSHIN is Research Assistant at the Institute of Archaeology, Department of Central Asia and Caucasus, of the Leningrad
Branch of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences (Dvortsovaya
nabereznaya 18, 192041 Leningrad, U.S.S.R.). Born in 1944 he
received his Ph.D. in 1977 and has lectured on the archaeology
of Central Asia at the University of Leningrad. His dissertation
dealt with the social structure of early agricultural societies as
evidenced in burials in Central Asia and the Near East. He has
published "Burial Customs of the Ancient Agricultural Communities of Southern Turkmenia and the Problem of Their
Sociological Interpretation" (Sovetskaya Ark/ieologiya 1976 no.
2, pp. 5-15), "The Development and Succession of Bronze' Age
Cultures in Southern Turkmenia" (KraJkie Soobsclteniya Instituta
Arklieologii AN SSSR 16!: 24-31), and "Traditions and Innovations in Burial Customs," in Traditions and Innovations in the
Evolution of Ancient Cultures, edited by V. M. Masson and V. N.
138
ANTHROPOLOGY
138
ANTHROPOLOGY
Beads
FIG. I. Burial customs in the submontane belt of Turkmenia.
methods, but it would be a mistake to apply the results obtained to another burial ground of the same culture.
After reconstructing the age-sex composition of a population
buried in a burial ground, one should consider separately three
major groups of burials: men, women, and children. Where
possible, each of these should be broken down into subgroups.
For each subgroup distinguished according to age and sex, the
standard burial rite (rituals, form of burial structure, assemblage of grave goods) has to be determined. It is specifically
these characteristics which must be employed to determine the
social position of a given age or sex category of the population
over the course of time. When a single standard burial rite
characterizes different age and sex categories, it should be
acknowledged ::.at sex and age differences are not reflected in
the burial customs of the particular burial site.
The application of this procedure to the study of burials
among the ancient agricultural populations of the Near East
and Central Asia has yielded the following results:
1. The burial customs of ancient agriculturists record differences in productive activities between men and women. Men
engaged in agricultural work (sickles in burials at Catal
Hiiyiik). Traditional female occupations were sewing (needles
in graves at Catal Hiiyiik and Dzharkutan), basket making
(corresponding tools in graves at Catal Hiiyiik), weaving (spun
cloth in burials at Karatepe, Altintepe, Hissar, and Sapallitepa and a spindle in a burial at Hissar), knitting (needles in
graves at Dzharkutan), and food preparation (pestles and
querns in burials at Tepe Sabz). The burial inventory of
graves of the 7th-6th millennium B.c. reflects remnants of
archaic stages of economic activity in which hunting played an
important part in securing meat for the population (sling
cradles in male burials at Ali Kosh, flint arrow- and spearheads
in graves of men at Catal Hiiyiik). Weapons appear in burials
of men in the 3d-2d millennium B.c. (Hissar, Sapallitepa,
Dzharkutan). It is this distinctive feature that is characteristic of male burials in early class societies (Burial Site A at
Kish).
2. Burial customs make it possible to tr<!ce the development
of patriarchal relations in early agricultural societies. Assemblages of grave goods in burials from the 7th to-the beginning
of the 3d millennium B.C. attest to the full and equal positions
of men and women in society (Ali Kosh, Catal Hiiyiik, Karatepe, Hissar I). From then on there is a gradual impoverishment of female burials and an increase in the wealth of the
graves of men (Hissar II). In the second half of the 3d and the
beginning of the 2d millennium B.C. this process takes on
139
SOCIAL STRATIFICATION
The fourth informational unit characterizes the degree of
social stratification of ancient societies, inasmuch as ethnographic data suggest that the social position of the deceased is
as a rule reflected in burial customs (Bendann 1930:268-72).
In the Soviet archaeological literature, this formulation of the
problem has never been disputed. The thesis that grave goods
reflect the social position of the deceased has been most concisely expounded by Masson (1976: 149-76). In the Western
archaeological literature the same point of view has been taken
by Binford (1971: 13-15) and Shennan (1974: 279-88).
Archaeologists generally take into account the influence of
social factors upon burial customs, assuming explicitly or implicitly that different burial rites in the primitive epoch reflect
not only chronological, local, or ethnic differences, but also
social features (Puvak 1972:73; Mellaart 1967:207-9; Otto
1954: 113-14; von Brunn 1953: 13-28; Fischer 1956: 243-45;
Herrmann 1965:114-19; Preuss 1962:40).
According to Kroeber (1927: 308-15), however, burial customs, being ritual activities, are unstable and do not reflect
the social structure of the society. A very similar position has
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
A/ekshin:
BURIAL CUSTOMS
presence of several groups of burials characterized by assemblages of grave goods that are far from equivalent as property.
For sociological reconstruc.tions it is necessary to draw upon
ali excavated burials at a site. The validity oi this P<>sition is
confirmed-bY the unsuccessful attempt at sociological interpretation of the Hallstatt burial site of Kroemer (1958:39-58).
Working with 44 burials of adults and 52 burials of children,
Kroemer reconstructed the social structure of Hallstatt society.
His conclusions, which were not supported by analysis of all
the data available (about 2,000 burials have been excavated at
the Hallstatt site), were subjected to sharp and justified
criticism by Hausler (1968:3-25).
For each__a~e anc:l_ sex_ category of deceased, the standard
assemblage of grave goods which constitutes the norm for the
given group of burials should be e~tablished. If only standard
<lSScmblages_<>f grave _goods are foun~ at
burial site, then
either there was no social differentiation in the society or
it was not reflected in burial customs. It should be pointed out
that within each age and sex category there may turn out to
be several types of standard burial inventory.
The presence of burials lacking grave goods alongside
burials having standard grave-goods assemblages does not
attest to social differentiation; the same goes for the presence
of burials in which grave-goods assemblages are poorer than
the standard, which may be due to poor preservation of goods
or to the cause of death. Nor docs the existence of wealthy
burials necessarily indicate the presence of social differentiation. Wealthy burials of children may occur for special religious reasons not directly related to social stratification
(Hausler 1966:38-42), and wealthy burials of women may
attest to the presence of sex and age classes. Social stratification
of a society is reflected first and foremost-in-tile -,~calth of
burialS- ofmcn~ 'therefore, burialS o( men that are richer in
grave goods than the standard may be indicative of social
differentiation. The presence of such burials in which the
form of the burial structure differs from the customary one
indisputably attests to such differentiation.
It is not always possible to detect a standard assemblage of
_grave goods in--burials. It "is i-lossible that in the early stages of
_development of the tribal system, burial customs were less
standardized, apparently because of the greater influence of
ideology on the burial rite in co-mparison with purely social
factors.
The criteria for wealth of grave-goods assemblages depend
on the particular historical situation; there are no universal
criteria applicable to all archaeological epochs. Methods of
assessing the wealth of grave-goods assemblages, however, can
and should be unified and universal. Burials with identical
standard grave-goods assemblages (e.g., with vessels) should
be compared in wealth first and then burials with different
standard grave-goods assemblages (e.g., with weapons and
with tools).
There are several methods for assessing the wealth of gravegoods assemblages. The first of these considers the number of
objects found in a grave: the more objects found in a burial,
the richer it is (Kruglov and Podgaetskii 1935:40--41, 157-58).
A second method considers the number of types of ~jects in a
burial: the more types of objects are represented in a grave,
the richer it is (Renfrew 1972:371). A third method considers the frequency of the objects in assemblages of grave
goods: the more rarely an assemblage of grave goods is encountered, the richer it is (Kurochkin 1970: 18-20). All of
these methods have one significant shortcoming: they do not
take into account the materials of which the objects are made.
In practice this can lead to a situation in which burials with a
large number of flint and bone weapons will be regarded as
richer than burials with metal articles if the number of the
141
ANTHROPOLOGY
Vol. 24 No .. 2 Apri/1983
Alekshin:
BURIAL CUSTOMS
power to exploit the rank and file. At the same time, there
were predatory wars between city-states and repeated attacks
on Mesopotamia by hostile mountain tribes.
Burials of the epoch of early class society in Asia Minor
(Karum Kanesh) are characterized by both poor and rich
burials. Particularly rich are cist burials which contain weights
and seals and are apparently those of merchants.
The process of emergence of an upper military-bureaucratic
layer of society was accompanied by a setting apart of an
aristocratic elite. The appearance of tombs of aristocrats in the
Near East dates to the 3d millennium B.c. The richest of these
are the pit tombs of Ur, which can be divided into three
groups. In tombs of the first type (Nos. 800, 1050, 1054, and
580) the main burial is always that of a woman, apparently a
supreme priestess or the wife of a king. In tombs of the second
type (Nos. 777, 779, and 1236), the main burial is always
double, judging from sepulchre No. 777 that of a man and a
woman. !Host likely these are burials of the kings of Ur and
their wives or concubines. Tombs of the third type (Nos.
1618, 1631, and 1648) are poorer and lack seals bearing the
names of their owners. It is possible that the persons buried in
them were not of royal rank. Either these sepulchres contain
representatives of lateral branches of the ruling family or they
represent burials of the urban aristocracy of Ur.
In northern Svria a rich tomb has been excavated at Til
Barsib; here, judging by the grave-goods assemblage (eight
axes, nine daggers, and six spears), a military leader or tribal
chief was buried.
In Asia Minor, rich burials of aristocrats have been excavated
in Central Anatolia (Alaca Hiiyiik, Horoztepe). In their tombs
were gold and silver utensils, weapons, ornaments, religious
objects (figurines of oxen or deer), and symbols of power
(standards with zoomorphic or geometric patterns). The
absence in these graves of seals with inscriptions, chariots, and
human sacrifices suggests that they are not royal sepulchres.
They probably contain burials of leader-priests.
Burials of aristocrats have not been discovered in Iran and
Central Asia. There, collective burials of members of particularly wealthy families have been found (Altintepe, the "burned
building" at Hissar). The rite of burial was characterized by
successive transfers of the deceased through a series of rooms,
accompanied by corresponding ceremonies, the ritual continuing for a long period of time. Thus the burials of members
of wealthy families here are distinguished not by a special
form of burial structure or by wealth of grave-goods assemblages (although to some extent this latter plays a part), but
by elaboration of the burial ceremony, the religious ritual.
The usc of complex burial ceremonies to mark the special
status of the deceased is an avenue open to a society in which
the level of development of productive forces is low and the
possibility of accumulating wealth in the hands of individual
families is limited.
TABLE I
BuRIALS AT TEVIEC AND HoitDIC SHOWING DEVIATIONS FROM THE STANDARD BURIAL
RITE OF EACH IN THE DIRECTION OF THE OTHER
BURIALS
Hocdic
TCviec
D
(F, 20--25,
FEATURES OF THE STANDARD BUIUAL RITE
+ inf.)
A
(M,
20--25)
B
(M,
20--30)
Kl
(M,
20--30)
B
(F,
20-25)
(F,
30-40)
(M,
20--30)
(M,
20--25)
(inf.)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
TCviec
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
DEMOGRAPHIC FEATURES
The sixth informational unit pertains to certain demographic
aspects of the life of people in ancient times: life expectancy,
causes of death, diseases, injuries, and changes in stature. It
should not be overlooked that the causes and circumstances of
death were of great importance in ancient times, frequently
determining even the nature of the burial rite (Schwidetzky
1965: 230-47). I concur with Schwidetzky in regarding the
reconstruction of ancient population figures as impossible, at
least in terms of the present-day capabilities of our science.
Alekshin:
BURIAL CUSTOMS.
CONCLUSION
Such is the extent of the information potentially contained in
burial customs. In order to extract this information, burials
have to be excavated in accordance with contemporary field
methodology, with careful recording of all the nuances of
funerary ceremonial. The chronological and cultural attribution and the vertical and horizontal stratigraphy should be
established for all excavated burial grounds. Skeletal material
should be analyzed by an anthropologist. Destroyed and
plundered burials should not be ignored. All such data must
be carefully analyzed so as to obtain whatever information has
been preserved therein.
Comments
by BRAD BARTEL
ALEXANDER
B.
DOLITSKY
146
ANTONIO GILMAN
ANTHROPOLOGY
Alekshin has written an interesting and informative paper summarizing ways in which past burial practices can shed light on
the nature of the societies that left them. His paper can be
appreciated on at least two levels: a summary presentation of
the results of his extensive analysis of burial evidence throughout the greater Middle East from Neolithic through Bronze Age
times, and a demonstration of the concerns and theoretical
approaches of Soviet archaeologists engaged in the interpretation of mortuary data. This response first will examine critically some of the basic assumptions which pervade Alekshin's
(and, by extension, most other Soviet archaeologists') analysis
and then discuss some of the substantive results of his study.
To Western readers unfamiliar with the Soviet archaeological
literature, Alekshin must seem a curious amalgam of the traditional archaeological pessimist and the new optimist. On the
one hand, he is skeptical of accurately estimating past populations; on the other hand, he seems to minimize the difficulties
of reconstructing the extent of stratification within a society
through the exclusive analysis of mortuary data. He categorically rejects Ucko's demonstration of an imperfect correlation
between burial rites and social structures, yet notes later: "If
only standard (i.e., relatively homogeneous) assemblages of
grave goods are found at a burial site, then either there was no
social differentiation in the society or it was uot reflected in
burial customs" (emphasis added). The point is how one
decides which alternative is operative in the absence nf am
other archaeological evidence (domestic architecture, settl~
ment patterns, etc.). I share Alekshin's skepticism about population estimates except in the most exceptional circumstances
and am willing also to accept the consensus view of most
archaeologists (cf. Gilman's perceptive rebuttal 19Rl: 17-lR)
for some roug!t correlation between burial data and social structure, but I do not believe one should minimize the difliculties
of interpreting mortuary evidence.
A perhaps more serious problem surrounds Alekshin's constant references to the identification of "archaeological cultures." While most Western archaeologists now question the
validity or, at least, emphasize the problems associated with
this concept (see Shennan 1978), Soviet scholars still reconstruct their sequences on the basis of relatively straightforward
determinations of distinct "archaeological cultures." This observation does not imply that the Soviet approach is simply
anachronistic, for it can be reasonably argued that too great an
emphasis on the diversity of cultural expressions may lead to a
form of conceptual paralysis or historical particularism which
denies the importance of past cultural distinctions and/or
refuses to consider other variables than the seemingly hard
and secure techno-demo-environmental features used to explain
cultural development (Kohl 1981). Some balance is required,
but certainly Alekshin's opposite and somewhat facile assumption that archaeological cultures can be easily recognized must
be rejected. Associated with the archaeological-culture concept
is the belief that the material record frequently changes through
the replacement of one ethnic group by another. We are told
that when there is a sharp break in the mortuary evidence, as
occurs in the southern Turkmenistan sequence between
Namazga V and Namazga VI, a new culture has arrived on
the scene. But, as every archaeologist knows, most sequences
Alekshin:
BURIAL CUSTOMS
LIVERSAGE
CLAUDE MASSET
References Cited
ALEKSHIN, V. A. 1977. The social structure of early agricultural
societies based on burial monuments of cultures of Central Asia and
ANTHROPOLOGY
d
Bt::CHWAI.DEK, M., and D. KoUTESKY .. 19?2. InterpretatiOn es
Schnurkeramischen Graberfeld von VIkletce. Pamalky A rcheologicke 63(1).
. .
. .
BUTINOV N. A. 1968. "The pr1m1tive communal system: PnnClpal
stages 'and local variants" (in Russian), in Problemy istorii dokapit<Jlisticheskikh obshchestv, vol. I. Moscow.
CHERNENKO, E. V. 1981. Skip/Iskiye Luchniki. Kiev: Naukova
Dumka.
[ABD]
.
CHII.DE, V. GoRDON. 1945. Directional changes in funerary practices
during 50,000 years . .Man 45:13-19.
.
DE COPPET DANIEL. 1970. "Cycles de meurtes et cycles funera1res
esquisse de deux structures d'l-change," in Eclta~ges e/ conmutf!ications: Melanges o.fferls a Claude l..fl.f-Strauss. Edited by J. Pomllon
and P. Miranda, pp. 759-81. The Hague: Mouton.
[BB] .
FISCHER, U. 1956. Die Griibcr der Steinzeit im Saalegebiel. Berlin: de
Gruyter.
KuSHNAREVA, K. KH. 1973. On the problem of the social interpretation of certain burials of the southern Caucasus (in Russian).
Kraikie Soobs!tc!teniya Instituta Ark!teologii AN SSSR 134.
- - - . 1978. "Archaeological 'cultures': An e!"pmca mvestigation," in Tlte spatial organization of culture. Edited by T. Hodder,
pp. 113-40. London: Duckworth. [PLK]
.
.
SMIRl'iOV, A. P. 1970. Tlte origin of slavery: Lentn's ideas _on the ~tudy
of tlte history of primitive society, slmery, and feudalwn (m Russian).
~foscow.
.
SoROKIN, V. S. 1962. Tasty-Butak 1: Bronze Ag_e burial gro:md tn
ueslern Kazakhstan (in Russian}. Materialy 1 Jssledovamya po
Arkheologii SSSR 120.
UcKo, PETER J. 1969. Ethnography and archaeological interpretation
of funerary remains. World Archaeology 1:262-81.
149