4. Directional Changes in Funerary Practices During 50,000 Years V. Gordon Childe Man, Vol. 45 (Jan. - Feb., 1945), 13-19, Stable URL htp:/flinks.jstor-org/sicisici=( 125-1496% 28194501 %2F02%291%3A45%3C13%3A4DCIFP%3E2.0.COW3B2-T ‘Man is currently published by Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at hup:/www,jstororglabout/terms.hml. ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at hupulwww.jstor.org/journals/rai. html ch copy of any part of'a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sereen or printed page of such transmission, ISTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support @ jstor.org. hupulwww jstor.org/ Mon Jul 25 16:25:02 2005‘Sanuary-February, 1945.) 8, Dronan, 3, 288, | An Austell al om the I.E. Anth. Int, 89, pp. A17-421 4, Drennan, i Re 109%, “Tho arcletology of the Oakhurst " Shelter, Geos "The Children of the Cave-Dwllors” rans. Hoy. Soc. 8. Afr 38, pp. 281-293, 5, Galloway, A. 1038,"" The nature and status of the as revealed by its non-metrical features, nh 23, pp, TAG, "J, H, 1989, "Tho Middlo Stone Age in The * Stns ge Cer of South Aion by Ac 8s Godt tnd ©, van Riot Lowe. Arn. S. Afr. Mua 17, pp. 05-146. ‘TeKeithy A 1951, New Dieoverza Relating ta the Antiquity ‘@f Man. “London : William and Nor 8° MeCown, J. Dy and Keith, A., 1089, The Stone Age of "Mount Carmel, Vol. It, Oxford: Clarension Drow. MAN: (Nos. 3-4 8, Malan, 1. D., 1939, The Middle Stone Age of the Cape “Peninsula: the Hedy Collection.” veh Sor, IIT, Bur of Arch, Govt. Printer, Prove. 10, Mela BD. 142, Tho Acted Fase and Cultare ‘s! Soe Safe 30, 11, Oakley, I. P., and Leakey, Mu 1997, * Report on exces “tions at Jaywick Sends, Bsesx,” Pros. Prehi. Soe pp. 217-260, 12) Schepers, @. W. Hy 1941, “The mandible of tho Trans. ‘waal fossl human skoloton from Springbok Flats,” din. Trans, Mus 20, pp. 255-271. 18, Well, L,"., 1031, "Growth changes in the Bushmen * Mandible? J. "ana, 66, pp. 50-83. ‘of the. Viakécraal"‘Theral DIRECTIONAL CHANGES IN FUNERARY PRACTICES DURING 50,000 YEARS. By Professor V. Gordon Childe, D.Litt, DSc., F.B.A., PSA. ; ef. Summary, Max, 1943—91. Toe aim of tne present study is to so whether the archeologist can observe any cumulative tendencies, any trends in one direction in the man festations of man’s spiritaal culture, comparable to those thet are clearly manifest in his material culture over the long period comprised within the archawo- Jogieal record. Of course all the archeologist can study is Man's behaviour, the material expressions of hin spiritual life. Que archeologist, he cannot recapture Neandertal man’s ideas about a futuro life nor the theory of Cro-Magnon magic. Indeed ft may bbe questioned ‘whether palwolithio “mon” had any articulate spoken language suitable for expressing in snalytical words, “ideas” or ‘theories’ at all. Their language may stil have been“ kinetio’—gestores and srunts, eapablo of atousing in ther fellows emotions ‘nd stimlating thom to action, but not of formulating fan idea as abstract as even ‘bear.’ Wo must not imagine early hominids elaborating an eschatology ‘and then acting omit. ‘The deep emotions aroused by the recurrent crises of lif and death found expression in no abstract judgements, but in passionate acts. "Tho acts wore the ideas, not expressions of them. Certain types of act eame to bo recognized by sociation fs appropriate to certain situations, just as certain types of fool won approval as standard forms. Such pattems of behaviour became rites, but the rite did hot necessarily express a theory, more probably it camo to constitute one, Burial ites ave been selected for study because the record of such, going beck to ‘middle palwolithie times, is poculialy long and fll I Disposal of the corpse Palmolithic corpses were buried either extended (Cro-Magnon, Grimaldi) or contracted ! (La Ferassie, etc., Mt. Carmel). Both positions are attested also in mesolithie times. In nei 1s extended burial was practised by the food-gathering Forest tribes of Siberia (till the Glazkovo stage), northern Europe and the Baltic, and in the ‘ transitional ’ collective burial place at Mariupol. Among food-producers it was normal among the northern farmers of the ‘ Mega- ‘lithic’ group and in the Ground and Uppor Graves of the Danish battlo-axo folk (in the earlier Bottom Graves the bodies were usually contracted ®), in the Danubian cemetery of Hinkelstein and some ‘ late “Réssen graves,"? and in some Western graves in western Germany ® (at Michelsberg and Altenburg), and France (Fort Harrouard ). In southern climes this attitude is rarer, but there are plenty of examples in the al'Ubaid culture. Tn all other early or neo- lithic cemeteries and cultures in Europe, North Afriea ‘and Hither Asia the bodies were buried flexed or ‘contracted, and this was far the commonest practice in the Early Bronze Age too, ‘During tho Bronzo Age contracted gradually gave placo to extended burial. In Egypt nobles were ‘oxtonded already in protodynastic times ; by Dynasty LV 60 per cont. of the bodies in the Qau cemetery ® wore extended, and hy Dynasty TX, 96 per cent., only the very poorest being contracted. Tn Cyprus con- tracted and extended bodies are alike found in Early Cypriote graves. In Mesopotamia, where contracted ‘burial came in by Jemdet Nasr times, extended burial ‘was adopted much more slowly, at Kish7 not till Neo- Babylonian times, though it was practised quite early in Elam, apparently even in tombs contemporary with Early Dynastic I. In Greeoe contracted burial remained normal till the Middle Helladie period, but during the latter extended burial gradually became fashionable ; at Asine, Persson considers a gently flexed posture to be an intermediate stage in a slow process of change, Similarly in Sieily ® the bodies in Sioulan II tombs are loss strictly contracted than in Sioulan I while those in Sioulan III aro extended. In all these cases the change of position is not associated ‘with concomitant changes in grave-goods that would denote the infiltration of a new ‘ culture ’ or people. In Contral Europe while contracted burial was the rule in the Early Bronze Age Aunjetitz culture, ‘chieftains’ were already buried extended, as at Leubingen, and this was the regular practice in the tyNo. 4] Middle Bronze Age Tunvulus culture as in contempo- rary Danish and Swodish barrows. Henoo by the Early Tron Ago among inbumationists extended Durial was aimost universal save for some curious ‘exceptions. In Britain contracted burial was still tho rule as lat as La Tone T-TIT in the Arras culture and ocurs sporadically in Scotland ? even in the Roman period ; it survived also in the Picono enclave in north-castern Italy,3° in Hungary and Transylvania, in Transcaucasia and in both cemeteries at Sialk in western Tran. But the general tendency to replace contraction by extension is unmistakable ; it sooms quite unconnected with ethnic changes but may perhaps be correlated with increasing wealth, a ising standard of living, and warmer bedding. During late neolithio times cremation began to compete with inhumation—allegedly in Palestine (Gezer), Syria (Byblos)! and the Peloponnese (Argive Horeum),!® more certainly in late Danubian graves Jn the Wotterau, Contral Germany, and Bohemia, lator in graves with Corded Ware and Globular Amphore in the same regions and with Bell Beakers in Moravia and Hungary, in megalithio tombs in Brittany and tho British Isles (especially Ulster) as allegedly in the comparable tombs of Los Millar and somo of the Mame grottoos. In Brittany and the British Isles, as in Contral Europe, the tradition seems to persist into the Bronzo Age sinoo cremation was practised in tho early-Middle Bronze Ago barrows of Armorica, Wessex, Ireland, Alsace and south-western Gormany, and in fairly early graves in Hungary. By the Late’ Bronze Age it was the commonest site throughout Western, Contral, and also Northern Europe, and was practised also in Upper Tealy and after 1400 .c.'at ‘Troy in wostorn Asia Minor and in North Syria!” But the new rite never caught on in Russia cast of the Dniopr, in Iran, nor, of course, in Egypt. In the Tron Ago, ie. after 1000 n.c., the relations between the two rites become extremely complicated, but nowhore did cromation entirely supersede inhuma: tion save for a time in Britain, and North and Bast- Central Europe. In most Greek cemeteries both rites occur side by side, with inhumations usually in the majority save for notable exceptions curiously enough on Thera and in Crote.\4 The same holds good of Magna Grocia 19 and Rome itaelf and appa- rently Carthage and the Punio colonies in Sardinia and at Villaricos in Spain. Tt is very signtioant that the early cemetery at Motya 38 consisted entirely of cromation graves. Since this must belong to Semitic Phoenicians or Carthaginians, it proves that isnot o distinctively “ Aryan "ite, Con- ramation was the rule among the La Tene Colts of Europe. Under tho early Empire cremation spread in Italy MAN [anuary-February, 1945 and the western provinoes, even among the Colts of Gaul, prosumably because it happened to be the family rite of the Caesars. But it made no headway in Asia, and precisely at this time inhumation come- teries began to become increasingly common among the Tentonio tribes who had boen most consistently cremationist in the last centuries n.c.!¥ ‘Then from 200 4.0. inhumation, now nearly always in the ‘extended position, began to replace cremation rapidly throughout the Empire and beyond its frontiors in the North. Nock ® has argued convincingly that the reversal was prior to, and unconnected with, the spread of Christianity. The latter subsoquently merely accelerated a tendency already operative at the con- ‘version of some barbarian nations ‘Hence the vogue of eremation interrupted, but did not nogate, the general tendeney to adopt burial in the ‘extended posture. Incidentally note: (1) Robinson's statement “The fumiture of cremation graves is not “inferior in quality or leas abundant than in any type “ of inbumation burial is applicable to the whole area ‘and period here surveyed ; the furniture accompany: ing somo cremations is in fact outstandingly rieh, for instance in the early Middle Bronze Ago of Armorica and Wessex, at Hallstatt, and in the Roman Iron Ago of Silesia. ‘Such woalth is contrary to what, would Ihave been expected had the rite been inspired by new conceptions of the soul's fate such as are outlined in Rohdo's Psyche. (2) Tt seems impossible to derive all cremations from any single contre. (8) It is not permissible to correlate cremations with Indo- uropoans though the Bronzo Age cremations in Syria might plausibly be connected with the Aryans attested there epigraphically about that time. Though India seoms the only’ Asiatic provinoo where cremation ‘ever became firmly established, the rite there may be ppre-Aryan, if the cremations reported by Stein ®! be ‘correctly dated to the Ted millennium. I Place of Burial Sinco the caves in which Moustierian burials ocour were also used for habitation, the middle palmolithie ppractico may be described az burial in or among the wollings. So may mesolithie burials in caves in Palestino and the Crimea and in middens in Brittany, Portugal and North Africa, Among Inter sedentary societies burial of adults (the special case of infant burial is not considered here) in or between the Awellings was the practice of neolithic Westerners at Michelsberg and Fort Harrouard, at Ripoli and ‘Molfetta in South Italy, at Merimde in Lower Egypt, perhaps in neolithic Cyprus,2? certainly at Sialk in Iran, and apparently in the ‘ Chaloolithic ’ settlement at Alashar in central Anatolia, Nearly all other neolithic and chaleolithic villagers who have left us any graves at all, including apparently ® the Halafian CayJanuary-February, 1945] and al’Ubaid populations of Arpachiya in Assyria, buried their dead in cometeries or collective tombs out- side the settled area. In the Bronze Age wo find house-burial in the El Argar culture of south-east Spain, in the Middle, but not the Early, Helladic period in Greoce, and throughout the period in central, but not western, Anatolia, in North Syria, and Iran. Even in the cities of Mesopotamia house-burial was the practice from Early Dynastic times in Akkad (if not in Sumer),* from 2000 .0. at:Assur?® and almost as carly at Ugarit and other genuine cities in North Syria. The unhygionio practice continued at al ‘Aina #6 on the Orontes into the fifth oentury ».c., in Babylonia till Hellenistic times, and at Assur oven down to the Parthian period. But the general tendeney, sometimes accelerated by legislation as at Rome, has undoubtedly been to separate graves from built-up dwelling areas. Note that burials in settle- ‘ments are often (as at Merimde) much less richly furnished than burials in cemeteries ; on the other hand, the evidence for periodical offerings at tho tomb is particularly clear in the case of house-burial, as at Assur, TI Grave-goods Food (joints of moat), unspecialized tools or weapons (hand-axes, ‘ scrapers’), toilet articles (lumps of ochre) and ornaments were deposited in palaolithie graves, Articles of the same general classes may be expected in graves of later periods. ‘But with progress in material culture the number and variety of things used by men and capable of being buried with them were constantly increasing. This increase is very imperfectly reflected in the funerary record. In post-palolithio graves we do indeed quite often find (a) food and drink or receptacles therefor (pots) ; (b) general-purpose tools like knives ; (¢) weapons of war or of tho chaso ; (2) toilet-artioles, including cosmetics with the appropriate parapher- nalis, razors, tweezers, shears, scissors, ear-seoops, combs, mirrors, strigils, and the like ; (¢) omaments (including beads, pendants, ear-, neck-, arm-, and leg-rings) and articles of ‘apparel including pins, brooches, girdle-clasps, and buttons; (f) super- natural equipment such as amulets, figurines, seals ; @) games-men, knuckle-bones and dice ; (b) lamps. ‘Nevertheless the additions made to human equipment after the Old Stone Age and the consequent multipli- cation of possessions are very imperfectly represented in the sopulehral record, (A) While the cultivation of plants was tho basis of the neolithic revolution, the instruments connected therewith aro very seldom found in graves. (i) Hoe-bladesWhilo the shoe-laat celta that do ‘occur in Danubian graves (though not very regularly) may have been so used, I know no other really likely MAN [No.4 instances ; for the Mesopotamian ‘transverse axe’ was almost certainly » weapon. (ii) Sickles —Save perhaps for the erescentic flint knives of the Stone Cist period in Northern Europe, T know no probable examples of sickles in neolithic graves. Flint knives with sorrated edges do occur in Badarian cemeteries ® but only with-male interments and they are not described as lustred by use as sickles. Bronze sickles are conspicuously absent from Danish ‘and British barrows, from the cemeteries of Ur and Kish in Mesopotamia, of Hissar in Iran, of Greece, Sicily and south-east Spain. In fact I have been able to discover in the whole Bronze Age only half dozen siokles in the tumulus culture of Wurtemberg, smaller number in contemporary Bavarian barrows, a few in Lousitz umnfields and one in a Late Copper Age barrow in South Russia,* though in nearly all these areas they are common in hoards or astray, In the Iron Age sickles are almost equally rare. I have, for instance, come across none in the published con- tents of the very rich cometeries of Italy, Bosnia, south-western Germany and Alsace, and Koban, but thero are examples from the urnfield cultures of Bast- Central Europe,® from Santa Lucia and from both the iron age cemeteries at Sialk.® In fact itis only in the ‘Roman and Migration periods of northern Europe that siokles and even soythes begin to be at all common in graves. (ii) Querna—1 know some saddle-querns from neolithic Danubian 38 and Cypriote % graves. In Alsace and at: Khirokitia in Cyprus they were laid upon the skeletons as if to keep them down. Other- ‘wise I know no examples of querns of any kind being deposited in the grave as a possession to be used by the defunct, though quems were undoubtedly valuable. It is, of course, no exception that model querns with model figures working them were buried in Egyptian tombs, nor that a rotary quern with real serving ‘woman to work it and tho rest of the kitchen equip- ment was buried with Queen Aase in the Oseberg Ship. (B) Textile appliances are much less common than might have been expected. Of those that might survive, whorls cannot always be distinguished from ‘omamental beads nor Ioomweights from net-sinkers ‘Weaving combs and bobbins, s0 common in domestic sites in Great Britain, are unknown from graves. At Olynthus loomweights were found in two graves only and whorls in three graves out of 600. Ido not think this proportion was seriously exceeded in any earlier barbarian or civilized cemetery, but it was in the igeation period of northern Europe.*# MMHG) raf tots are very rarely ound in tombs. i) Carpenters’ equipment—Stone axos and adzes that do of course turn up in neolithic graves might also tbo classified as weapons. Tho only unmistakably 15No. 4] specialized wood-working tool of the Stone Age—th gouge—is found frequently in Boat-axo graves in ‘Sweden % and in some tombs at Los Millares in south eastern Spain, The moro spocialized and varied ‘woodworking tools of eopper and bronze are just aa rare in graves. Says come from a couple of tombs at Los Millares and one at Alcali, but they are not ‘mncommon in Early Dynastic’ Sumerian graves, notably at Shuruppak (Fara) and Ur, and occur again in Early Dynastic Egyptian tombs. Chisels and ‘adzos from the samo periods must also be reckoned as, carpenters’ tools. Later such implements become very rare in civilized bur the large Qau cemetery, for instance, there is only one chisel to be claseed here, assigned to Dynasties VIL-VIII. Model ‘nd miniature earpenters' tools and pictures of such in Egyptian nobles’ tombs, including those of ladies» from the Vith Dynasty on obviously come into the same category as the quer models mentioned under ‘A ili. and do not represent the implements personally used by the deceased. ‘The carpenters’ tools from “royal tombs at Abydos and Ur (perhaps therefore also at Fara)’ and the gouge or dril-bit from the princely tomb of Novosvodobnaya on the Kuban may fall into a similar category. In the Late Bronzo Ago jin many hoards but hardly ovor recur in graves ; some ‘winged adzes from barrows in south-western Ger- many®® are the most notablo exceptions. Tho still ‘more varied and efficient carpenters’ kit of the Iron ‘Age sooms virtually unrepresented in graves though ‘tho implomonts are faithfully depicted on oraftemon’s| tombstones in the Roman period as later. (ii) The smith must have been a specialized crafts. man from the dawn of the metal age and must. have had from the start appropriate eraft implements. But auch were never normally buried with him. ‘The best excoptions to this generalization I ean cite are the mould for a West European dagger from a Beaker grave in Moravia,‘ a mould for @ shaftholo axo from ‘8 South Russian’ kurgan of the Late Copper Ago, and a couple of unspecified moulds from Lausitz urn- fields, A grave in cemetery A at Sialk ® contained a complete bronze-smith’s outfit, but the anvils, ham- ‘mers, and gravers so well known from Late Bronzo Age hoards in Central, Northern and Western Europe nover sem to he found in graves, nor yet the tongs, hammers, anvils, files, and other appliances used by civilized smiths in the Mediterranean Iron Age and the ‘La Tone period this side of the Alps (though they are depicted on smiths’ tombstones in the Roman Empire). But in tho Roman and Migration period a smith’s full outfit, sometimos accompanied by his ‘weapons, is not soldom found in barbarian Teutonic cometeries.«2 (it) Generalized wealth, money, whether in the MAN [January-February, 1945 form of spits or of coins, was represented in tombs (mostly after 400 2.0.) only symbolically by one or two ‘bols or small coins that evidently bore no relation to the dofunct's actual wealth. ‘Tho only possible exoop- tions are certain late ‘royal tombs’ to be mentioned below. In brief, of the now sorts of possessions and woalth, created hy technological progress, only a few classes, and mostly those approved by tradition from the pleistooene, wore generally regarded as suitable grave furniture (D) Even within the approved clasios of possessions while the number and variety owned end used by a prosperous individual must have grown with the advance of material culture, there is no corresponding increase in the richness of grave furniture. On the contrary in many regions, or more exactly among most societies, the graves grow progressively poore: as ‘material wealth, the number and varisty of available articles of use or enjoyment, increased. This is conspicuously true of Bronze Ago Britain where, in contrast to the comparative wealth of Boaker and still more of Wessex graves, burial of the Lato Bronzo Age are disappointingly poor, though the hoards are larger and more numerous than before. Kruglov and Podgayetsky ‘* have demonstrated a similar impoverishment in the Copper Age graves of South Russia with elaborate statistios and offered an explanation for it in terms of Marxist sooiology. In Sicily early Siculan IT graves aro richer than those of Siculan T, but in lator graves of poriod TT miniatures hogin to replace real bronze weapons while various metal types such as bronze girdles and lance-heads, common in contemporary hoards, are never found in graves of Siculan “IIL! In Denmark the same phenomenon is observable though less conspicuously. In contrast to the extravagant wealth of the Middle Bronze Age inhumations and the earlier cremations, ‘Late Bronze Age graves look rather poor, and minia. ture weapons tako tho place of usable ones. ‘Thon after a poriod of rich burials about tho boginning of our era when Roman trade enriched native society— but disturbed its economy—after 4.0. 200 in general “ apart from magnates’ graves, ono observes that the “ graves are ever more poorly fumished.*® Again in Anglo-Saxon Britain fall-sizo toilot-artielos eame to be replaced by miniatures, "The same tondeney was even more marked in civilized States. In Egypt even in prodynastio times the Amratian figures of oxen may be regarded as substitutes for real oxen belonging to the deceased, and later we find models of fine Imives and similar valuables. Under the Pharaohs almost any sort of real wealth from bread to slaves, bodyguards, houses, and boats might be represented in the tomb by models or pictures. In Sumer and Akkad Barly Dynastic [6]No. 4] sgravos woro well furnished with arms, imploments, and omaments of metal, seals, and other valuables. But at Ur by the timo of the IIird Dynasty and thero fore of the city’s greatest prosperity the graves soom to have contained (no full report has been published aftr twonty years ) only vases, figurines, and modela ‘of clay and some modost personal omaments.#¢ And at Kish by the timo of Hammurabi the burial farni- ture had boon reduced to a fow pots and strings of Deads unaccompanied by any metal objects or even seals, Tn Assyria the procoss, and the formation of a stable State, began later. Tho house-geaves at Assur about 2000 2.0, were well furnished with eoppor ‘weapons, oylinder seals, and ostrich-oggs ; lator ‘graves, of procisely the same type, were almost as poor 18 those of Kish. In Bronze Age Greooo auch impoverishment is lesa noticeable for reasons to be adduced below. Never. tholoss in Minoan Crote Soagor contrasts the rarity of omaments and similar non-caramic roles in the MAM. TIELM. I cometory of Pachyammos with the ‘wealth of auch objects from the Karly Minoan tombs of Mochlos. In the Iron Age, however, it is well establishod that ‘there was a tondency to place loss “furniture in the gravot as time went on." At Athons gravos from tho golden ago of Poricles contain actually les furniture than those from the poor Dark ‘Age when Geometrio and Dipylon wares were current. So too in Magna Grecia; the poorest graves at Syracuse, for instance, are those of the fifth and fourth centuries, the ora of the city’s greatest pros- perity. ‘To the rule of the progressive reduction of grave- goods there aro of course many apparent exceptions. ‘Hallstatt graves are generally richer than Bronze Age ones in tho samo area. Pione, Atestine, and other Jon Ago graves in Italy are often extravagantly farnished and so aro many barbarian cometeries ofthe Migration period on both sides of tho Alps. No impoverishment can be asserted as betwoen Early, Middle, and Late Halladie burials, nor yet between the burials of Hissar I, If, and IIL. These and similar“ oxooptions ’ are really very instructive. The rich Hallstatt cometeries of barbarian Europe do not belong to the samo archsological culture and so not to the same people or society as had ocoupiod the area in the Bronze Age, but to newcomers who had ousted or at least absorbed the older population. ‘The same remark applies to the barbarian cemeteries of the Migration Poriod, or again to such equally rich come. teries as thove of Sialk’ A and B. At Hissar, though the several settlements sucoged one another continu ously on the same site, radical changes in pottery and- other roles show that each represents a distinct eul- ture. We are not dealing with one society but with three distinct societies. So in Mainland Greece the ta MAN (January-February, 1945 Middlo Holladie poriod bogins with tho violont destruction of many Early Helladie townships and tho ‘establishment of a new culture, phenomena generally ‘admitted to indicate conquest by new people. And then the new barbarie society was exposed to the intonse radiation of the high civilization of Minoan Grete, Anthropologists know well enough the solvent effect on social organization of such contact between, civilization and barbarism. In Grooco it sooms to have produced @ new social order, that of the Heroic ‘Ago as deseribed by Chadwick. Tn the samo way tho ‘Northern barbarians had been exposed to penetration by Roman civilization just at the timo when gravo- goods bocame richer again aftor a period of povorty. ‘We can thus formulato a goneral rule as follows in a stable society tho grave-goods tend to grow rola. tively and even absolutely fower and poorer as time goes on. In other words, loss and less of the docoased’s real wealth, fewer and fower of the goods that he or she had used, worn, or habitually consumed in life wore deposited in the tomb or eonsumed on the pyre. ‘The stability of a society may be upset by invasion or immigration on a scale that requires a radical x0- ‘organization or by contact between barbarian and civilized societies 50 that, for instance, trade introduces new sorts of wealth, new opportunities for acquiring ‘wealth and new classes (traders) who do not fit in at ‘once into the kinship organization of a tribe. IV_Sepuchrat Monuments ‘The variety of grave forms is too great to warrant any comprehensive generalizations. But in respect of certain forms, and the socioties that favoured these, it is easy to seo that with the advanco of material culture and consequent increase of wealth and control over nature, a diminishing proportion of social labour and energy and of individual wealth has been ex- pended upon the construction of tombs. ‘The erve- tion of megalithic tombs and long barrows by small groups, equipped only with stone tools and lacking block-and-tackle, the excavation of spacious family: vaults with sculptured doorways and fagades, like those of the Early Cypriote phase in Cyprus, Siculan I and Anghelu Ruju, with stone implements supple. ‘mented by rare and costly copper chisels and even the piling of the larger barrows of Bronze Age Britain or ‘Denmark, quite obviously absorbed a larger propor- tion of society's still exiguous resources than the con- struction of the finest Greck or Etrusoan painted tombs or the excavation of catacombs at Rome with the aid of a large variety of cheap and efficient iron tools and the mechanical devices developed from the ‘fth contury. Megalithic tombs, rock-cut chambers, and round barrows are larger, solider, and more spacious than the flimsy one-roomed huts inhabited by neolithie and ]January-February, 1945] ‘Bronze Age Britons, or Siculans, Among the civilized peoples of the Iron Age, as to-day, the dwellings of the living were more spacious and more sumptuous than the houses of the dead. Henoe, in every domain accessible to the archwologist, with progress in civiliza on a dwindling proportion of society's growin ‘wealth has been devoted to the preparation of tombs and their furnishing. Of course, the lying-in-state, the cortége, the wake, and other accessories of funerals have left no mark on the archeological record, V Royal Tombs Certain poculiar tombs that may occur at any archeological period since the beginning of the Bronze ‘Age seem to constitute exceptions to the foregoing rule inasmuch as in them a quite substantial propor- tion of their oocupant’s wealth seems to have been deposited in them or expended on their construction ‘and embellishment. ‘To such T confine the term “Royal Tombs ' and I class here the Rgyptian tombs of the first four dynasties, the “ Royal Tombs of Urs and the comparable tombs at Mari ® and in the Y cemetery at Kish 5; the Shang tombs at Anyang; the Shaft Graves and lilo’ of Mycensan Greoce ® ; chieftains’ barrows of the barbarian Bronzo Age like Leubingen,* Msikop, Seddin,*, Bush Barrow ; and the great barrows of Kerma in Nubia‘; the archaic Scythian barrows on the Kuban ; south-west German * chieftains’ barzows of Hallstatt D and La Téne T like Klein Aspergl#, and perhaps all Celtio chariot burials; Sutton Hoo * and Viking ship-burials lke Osoberg ; many other barbarian burials like Pazurik in the Altai, AIl such are sharply contrasted to con- temporary commoners! graves by the magnitude and magnificence of the tomb, the extravagant wealth of the furniture, and the presence (when the tomb was found complete and intact) of human victims. ‘By no means all tombs of royaltios exhibit theso peculiarities. On the contrary, even in Egypt, if wo fake into sccount the immenso increas in wealth resulting not only from tho advance of civilization, but also from the tributo of a flourishing Asiatic empire, the tombs of New Kingdom Pharaohs like ‘Thothmes IIT and Tutankhamen must be regarded as small in size and movlestly furnished when compared with those of Hor-Aha, Hotephores, and Mycerinus, ‘The graves of the Assyrian kings at’ Assur 8 wore of the same Ind as those of private citizens, only naturally larger and presumably more richly far- hished but insignificant in comparison with their palaces. The same remarks will apply to the royal hecropolis of Sidon, the mausolea of Angustus and Hadrian, the tombs of Darius and most other Iron ‘Age monarch Tn fact “royal tombs’ of the peculiar typo distin. MAN. [No.4 guished above, whatever their ago, will be found to Delong to a single transitional stage in the develop- ‘ment of the societies conoerned—to the period when the kinship organization appropriate to barbarism was breaking down to make room for a territorial Stato, either as in Egypt, Mesopotamia and China as a result of mainly internal economic forees (including in each case notably the expansion of regular foreign trade), or by contact with higher civilizations. The coinei- dence of the tombs here styled ‘ royal ” with the first close contacts of the Helladie Greeks, the Seythians, the Colts, and the Teutons with the Minoans, Greek, Massiliote-Etruscan, and Frankish-Byzantine civiliza- tions respectively is obvious enough. The Kerma culture illustrates the same sort of contact botween ‘Nubian barbarism and Exyptian civilization. Even in the Bronze Age barrows of Central Germany, Wessex, and the Kuban the situation of the tombs in rogions rich in raw materials and commanding natural trade routes and the prominence of imported luxury articles in their furniture attest the solvent influence of foreign commereo. Sometimes tho States wore stillborn, and royal tombs appear, an isolated phenomenon confined to a brief epoch. When a stable State did emerge and the tombs of its sovereigns have been found, we find them less imposing and less rich when the increase of prosperity due to a regular government be taken into account.5® So ‘ royal tombs’ merely confirm rather than refuto the generalization enunciated at the end of para, IV. Norms References to gonerally farnilia sites and text-book have aa ru boon omitted. "Unfortunately the reports aro often too inacourato to allow af tho importantdistinetion between strictly contencted Segal dso postions bing maintain conistenty igh compraieatve mrvy uf have mtg hr. Sits tea fold "pp. 218, 328, 1 Binley Bie Gonaindiohe” Bd welche Kulturen, pp, 20 and 60 * Childe, Dawn of European Civilisation, p. 288, 4 Branton, Qaw and Buttri yp. 0. DP. 7, 62, 74,9 pp. 49-82. # Langton ona Watolin, Kieh, ie, # Bhor’s Ruallertbon (= Rea), wip. 141. # Childe, Prehistoric Seolland, pp. 251-2 Danlresou, ZB dal Ferre nel Piino, 1029, p. 10. 1 Banand, Bio pp. 4361. 48 Carehomishy Lady vis p. 96; Hama, Tugholt in Xl Dans. Videnobab. Arch:kune, Mddelotor, Lily ty 19403 Atahana, Ant. J vil. e Full auramary of Greek evidence by Robinson, Neco. Ignthigs 1942, pp. 140 1 °Mon. Aik i, 7705 xv, 242 xxi, 423, pers Ez. Brondsted, Danmarks Old, i, pp. 126, 148. 2 Creation an Dil tho Rona Expt arora , Review, xxv, 1982. of which wore almost corainlysiso dwellings, Irag, vil pe 72, Cy‘January-February, 1945) 1 Becouse so many excavators have missed house-founda- tions of pst ‘So st Kish, Langdon, and Wetalin, Kioh, ivy 1, 105 Khafaje, 0.10, Gommaniations, No, 20,1896, p17. ‘Das wiedererstandene assur, pp. 79, HTH Wily pe lSe 2 Brunton, ete Badarion Civilization, p. 1. 2% Keufl, Bronesait Suddeutsellande ;fChilde, Danube in Probst pp. 804, 307. Ta @ATAEK, 119, p. 171. Big’ PZ 340. Gehman, Foils de Silt, "Danmarke Oldtd, ily p. 231; ete. PP dren, P10. ‘Brondsted, ‘Buttlor, Die donaudandische rag, ws p72. Brondte, op. ci, p, 281,280 Ht Formander, Sehedloche Beotaatiultr, p. 17 2 Begaton, Gow and Baar p58. & Tidy & Bg Oise, Dante, 347 ase Homans, Dato Norden walrend der auesay Bronce 105 Gasp Ve phi mas Olomouc i, 1020, po WES A i p72. 11 Eg, Bronsted, Donmarks Oldtid, i, pp. 148, 359 ; 90 in elmoet every comotery af tho Migration period and even Of the Viking age, eg. Ven‘el. MAN (Nos. 4-8 18 *Rodovoo Obshchestvo na stopal vostochna! Evrope, (lag, GAIA 119), 10? faa 108, 7h {2 Beenasted” Danmarks O10 ip. 2185 i p. 282, (6 Ante Jnr B- 1B © iLangion sani Watalin, Kish, i, p. 40 & Koran, Das wiedorerstand. avn pp 126-8. © Robinsba in Neorolynhia, pe 1743" ho. has hore. sum. marized the evidence T hed collesed from other sites in Old Groooe and Magne Grecia. WP om consolous thet. Sidney Smith, JRA. 1028, 1p. 808 and oto Ausrilogints deny thatthe te “Rayal PRtombs’ is correctly “a the "Gold Graver of ‘to tats bere adduced seem to tedaco tho fores of his {ont from the contrast betwoon tow graves and those of ‘Asean king aU Syria, any p. 0, ‘1 Langton and Watalin, Kish, iv, pp. 16 f—tombs ¥ 287, 350, 530. Gf. expecially Persson, The Royal Tomb at Dendra, po, Beal, fe 472, By [Note the part of coins in this eenotaph. Anda, Das wisdererdand. Aocur, p37 ‘This is true even of Seythia by tho fourth contury at east. ROYAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL INSTITUTE: PROCEEDINGS THE INDIANS OF THE ANDES. Summary of a Com. ‘munication made by Lieutenant Bernard Mishkin, UiSN-R. + 16 May, 1944. ‘The paper summarized the author's researches on ‘ovo field-trips in Mexioo and Peru in special connexion ‘with a litaraey campaign among the Indians. THE CASE FOR APPLIED ANTHROPOLOGY IN ‘THE RECONSTRUCTION OF BURMA. 1 Com munication by H. N. ©. Stevenson, O.B.E.: 10 October, 1844. ‘Thia communication is printed in full, Maw, 1945, 2. ‘Before presenting it, Mr. Stevenson mado it elodr that he ‘was spealking for hitoelf, and not aa a representative of the Government of Burma. ‘His proposals swore referred to the Offcary of the Institute, with a view to a memorandum to the Burma Office “recommending that members of the Burma ‘orvi ‘should havo, some training. in. anthropology: “that in view of the destruction of offical records there ‘ should be immnodiate investigation by trained anthropo- “Togists of the tribes and peoples of Burma ; that there ‘ should he a Department of ethnography in the Univer: ‘sity of Rangoon, and a Survey of Burma, including ‘the whole of Burma—not only the Hill ‘Tribes—and ‘that the inhabitants of Burma should be enlisted “widely in this worl" SOME ARCHAOLOGICAL NOTES FROM NORTH- ERN NIGERIA. Summary of a Communication by B.E.B. Fagg *" $1 October, 1944. ‘An administrative officer in Northern Nigeria, with. ‘archeological “experienes in. excavation at. ilvedon, Suffolk, for the Cambridge Muscum of Archeology and Ethnology. (1988) summarizos tho present stato. of ‘archivologioal knowledge of Northom Nigeria, desoribes excavations undertaken by himself and his wife at stone tage sites in tho Bauchi Plateau, and makes suggestions ‘5 to the future development of prehistoric and proto. historic studies in the Northern Provinose THE HUXLEY MEMORIAL LECTURE. ARCHEO- LOGICAL AGES AS TECHNOLOGICAL STAGES. By Professor V. Gordon Childe, DLitt, DiSeP.BoAn, FSA. ‘Tho Huxley Memorial Lecture was delivered in the rooms of the Royal Society, Burlington Houso, W.1., on ‘Tuesday, 28 November, 1044, at 1.30, proooded by buffet lunch at 12.30. "The lecture examined the effect on man's control over ‘extemal nature of the adoption of copper or bronze and ‘then iron a8 a material for tools since this has boon used fas tho basis of archeological classification for over century. In practice, the oarliest_ metal, copper or Dbronzé, was employed in three different modes. Firstly, fas in Egypt bofore 3000 3.0, and in barbarian Europe ‘before 1600, metal was used simost exclusively for arm ments and ‘oraments. Secondly, in Bgypt after 3000 ».0.and all round the Mediterranean after 2000, metal was ‘employed for the manufacture of fino tools for eraftsmen like carpenters, jewellers, and metal-workers. ‘Thirdly, only after 1500 .c. in Kaypt and Gresoe and after 1200 im barbarian Europe but as early as 2500 in Mesopotamia ‘ras metal used alzo in agriculture and some rough work. ‘The first mode meant no material advance in produc. tivity over the Stone Stago, but the second inereasod Doth the output and tho quality of craftamanship and Docame the condition for the invention of the wheel and the wind fm alo ofthe long an the sailing ont ory signifloant steps in technological progress. ‘Yet at no time in the Bronae Stage did the builders of ‘the Pyramids or of Stonehenge nor any other society command such ‘commonplace but. indispensable" ovices as shears, hinged tongs, the crane, and block fand-tackle, or shoe the plough with a metal share, while in'Asia Minor and barbarian Europe branze never ousted ‘even the stone axe it was too expensive. - Motal frst became cheap in the Tron Stage so that it could be used ‘reoly in agriculture and for heavy work. Subsequently ‘among the vastly augmented army of workers now ‘accustomed to uso metal some wero intalligent enough to invent now spocios of tools beginning with tongs and {)