cunaent antitnorozocy Vol. 24 No. 2, April 1983 .@ 1083 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Sathropoliat Resear, l gh ceverved 01 204/85 2402.000%525 Burial Customs as an Archaeological Source! by V. A. Alekshin Rewiat crstaus are one of the most important archaeological sources, and for 2 number of regions (for example, the Eurasian steppes) they are the only one. In many cases, waly the excava- tion of ancient burial grounds ean give us information on the spiritual and material culture of ancient peoples. This is espe- cially true for archaeologists in the Soviet Cnion, where the vast steppes irom the Black Sea to the Teansbaikal region contain burial grounds of ancient pastoralists but almost no ancient settlements, Soviet archaeologists have accumulated vast experience in the methodology of excavating ancient burial grounds and the scientific analysis of the burials unearthed. ‘The point of depar- ture for the analysis of ancient burials is the reconstruction of burial rites. Classic examples of such reconstruction are the researches of Gryaznov (1956). As early as the 1930s, Soviet archaeologists had concluded that burial customs reflect the basic features of the social structure of primitive tribes ‘(Ravdonikas 1932). Their studies of this prablem have taken two principal directions. The first involves the interpretation of the doubte burials of the Bronze \ge in connection with the reconstruction of the social structure of Eastern European primitive tribes. One of the first attempts at sociological ‘analysis of these double burials was the work of Artamonoy (1933), who proposed that what we are dealing with here is the violent killing of wives or concubines characteristic of the period of establishment of patriarchal relations. Subsequent excavations cast doubt upon this proposition when it was ES iti senion of this paper, eel "The, ara ite asa ArchaceloycalSware,” has Feenty appeared in ruthie Soobshcheniva Institvta Arkheoloyii AN SISK tor Y¥. A. Auzxsuts is Research Assistant at the Institute of Archae- log, Departmentof Central siaand Caueass ofthe Leningrad Grandh of the USSR. Academy of Scenets. (Dvortsocaya naberersava 18, 102041 keningrad, USS): Hora in 194, he feeeived his Ph'D. in 1977 and fas lectured on the archaeal ff Centeal Asia ai the University of Leningrad. His dissertation ‘dealt with the social structure of early agricultural societies as evidenced in hurials in Contra} Asia and the Near East. He has pablished “Burial Custom of the Aacient Agricultueal Com: munities of Southern Turkmenia and the Problem. of Their Sociological Interpretation” (Sorelskaya Urkheologiyn, 1976, no. 2p. 5-13), “The Development and Succession of Bronze Age Cultures in Southern Turkinenia’’ (Kathie Sovbschenixa Fst alrSheologit LN SSSR (GL: 2-31), and “Traditions and Tnnova: {ons in Burial Customs,” in Traditions and Innovations tw the Ecolution of cient Cultures, edited by VM Masson and V. S. Borjaz, pp. 8-22 (Leningrad, 1981), he present paper was submitted in final foras 19 «v 82 Vol. 24 + No.2 + april 1985 found that the joint burials of persons of opposite sexes had often occurred at diferent times, the woman not infrequently having been buried first (Itina 190L, Sorokin 1962). In the current Soviet archaeological fiterature it is widely held that doable burials attest to the inyportance vf the nuclear family, which had become the most significant social unit, asserting its ‘economic and ideological independence (Masson 1976: 136-37), “The second direction is represented by studies in the social differentiation of primitive collectives where this differentiation vas reflected in mortuary practices, ‘The fist steps ia this dietion were also undertaken in the prewar years. Especially noteworthy is the monograph by Kruglov and Podgaetski (1933), in which burial grounds of the Pit Grave and Catacomb caltures of the Black Sea steppes were subjected to sociological analysis and, for the first tlme in Soviet archaeology, criteria for assessing burials in terms of gaverty and wealth were proposed. Problems in the study of the social structure of ancient societies were also posed in works by lessen (1950) and Piotrovskii (1949). Development of this problem proceeded on the widest scale in the 1960s and 1970s. In this connection one should mention fist of all che synthesis of Masson (1976) and a series of articles by him analyzing the social structure of carly agricultural societies in terms of data on burial customs (Masson 1967, 1973, 1974). Bronze Age burial grounds of the Gausasus have bee® analvzed by Kushnareva (1973), those Of southern Siberia by Khlobystina (1972, 1973), burials of the Catacomb culture by Klein (1968), and Iron’ Age burial grounds in the Urals by Smirnov (1970). In 1972 an All. Trion Symposiam devoted to problems of reconstruction of the social structace of ancient tribes based on data on bucal cistoms was held in Umningrad (see Cspetls sredueaziatshot urhlcologt! 1972:48). Among the topies discussed at this sym Posium were problems of methodology in sociological research land criteria for evaluating the wealth of butists The symposium gave new impetus to studies of this problem (Masson 1976, Alekshin 1977) “The burial rite belongs to that category of ites by means of which society sanctions the passage of a person from one qualitative state to another, among them rituals connected childbirth, initiation, and marriage. From the time of their appearance in the Mousterian, burial customs indicate that they served to transmit the deceased member of the munity to another sate, another world. Different communities conceived of that world in various ways, hence the great variety of burial customs recorded by archaeologists in excava- tions of ancient burial grounds. Funerary practices have two interrelated components, The 137first of these is ritual—the activities sanctioned by tradition that occur before, during, and after the burial and are con- sidered essential (o the transfer to the other world of deceased embers of the community, both those forming ts nucleus land others related by blood. ‘The second characterizes the social position of the departed. It consists of the collection of material elements—the burial structure, the assemblage of grave goods, and the position of the deccased—required for a person of a particaar age and sex to be transported to the ther world. The combination of these two components of the burial rite makes up the standard (traditional) funerary customs of any archaeological calture, These two fundamental components must not be considered in isolation one from the other. Jn order to extract any information, itis necessary’ 10 analyze in detail the burial rite us a whole ‘A great variety of information is potentially incorporated in burial customs as an archaeological source. Hasler {1975:83- 94) considers it possible by investigating burial customs 12 establish the age-sex and social differentiation of the society and to illuminate certain points connected with, the recon struction of the forms of marriage and the family in primitive times. In my opinion he somewhat underestimates the amount of information that can be gleaned from the study of burial ceestoms, The current procedure for investigating a source such as a burial complex requires preliminary reconstruction of the burial rite, Only through such reconstruction can burials be used as a source of cultural, sociological, and demographic, information. Of course, the archaeologist cannot fully recon- struct all the details of burial customs. Beyond his fiekl of vision lie, for example, the extremely varied ritual activities, performed before the moment of burial. Hosever, to the extent possible, the most complete reconstruction of the burial rite should be carried out, special attention being paid to the method of burial (inhumation or cremation}, the type of burial (olitary, double, or edlective), the form of the burial struc- ture, rial activities at the time of buria! and later, the assem- blage of grave goods, and the position of the deceased, In reconstructive syntheses, burial customs can be broken down into six informational units. Each casts ight upon a particular aspect of the life of ancient sovieties. In the case of the first three of these informational units. both components of the Doral rite the ritual and the material, are of decisive impor. tance CONCEPTIONS OF DEATH AND THE OTHER WORLD ‘The first informational unit reflects the ideas of people about the means of passage of the deceased into the other world and about life in the land of the dead. By studying burial customs temporally and spatially. itis possible to trace the evolution of ‘conceptions of the other world and to arrive st an idea of the altitudes of peoples of remote historical epochs towards death and the dead. In studving this range of questions, one should, make use of written sources if they are available. ‘THE DEVELOPMENT AND SUCCESSION OF CULTURES ‘The second informational unit covers problems of cultural genesis. By Investigating burial customs, one can trace the formation and development of an archaeological culture and the succession of archacological cultures. When one archaco- logical culture is succeeded by another, there may be a com- plete or & partial replacement of funerary practices. A com= plete replacement of one standard burial rite by another attests {o the total disappearance of the bearers of a concrete archaco- logical culture, which may be due to migration, military 138 catastrophe, or epidemics, Partial replacement of a standard burial rite by another, ie, a basic change in the majority of the components of the previously standard burial rite and its transformation into a new standard rite, attests to the pene- tration of bearers of an alien archaeological culture into the milieu of the bearers of the archaeological culture in question. ‘This frequently leads to the formation of & third archaeological culture distinct from the first two. In this situation any of the traditional elements of the previously standard burial rite may bbe subject to influence. Changes may occur in the type of burial, the ritval activities, the composition of the assemblage of grave goods, and sometimes the form of the burial structore ‘The relation between the previously traditional features sur- vviving in the new standard burial rite and the new elements. resulting from outside influence addresses the question of which cultural component (local or outside) is dominant in the formation of the new archaeological culture. For example, in the early and developed Aeneolithic (Namaz- ga 1-11) of southern Turkmenia, the dead were buried in solitary graves within their settlements. The deceased lay’ on his side in a crouched position, with his head to the south Buriah accessories consisted of one or two pottery vessels and beads. In the late Aeneolithic (Namazga 111), there are col lective burials in tholoi (Sarianidi 1961: 284-99; 1965: 102-5), which probably served as family tombs (Sarianidi 1972: 22-26), In addition to the tole’, single burials are also known. Both types of burial are found caly within settlements, The south ward orientation of the deceased is maintained, although & northward orientation has been recorded in a number of cases ‘The first indications of property. inequalities appear here isolated graves contain bronze ornaments (blades, pins) in addition to pottery and beads. ‘The traditions of collective and individual burials formed in the Aencolithic continue into the Early and Middle Bronze Age (Namazga IV’ and V). All the changes in burial rites from the preceding period are related to a deepening of the process of socal diferentiation of the population. Burials appear with bronze rings, blades. and pins with 2oomorphic heads and gold and silver rings and pins. Rich burials include seals, female statuettes, religious objects, and weapons, In meager raves either there are no grave goods a all or they are limited to one or two pottery vessels and beads (fig. 1). In general, reference to the character of burial customs—the location of burial grounds, the position of the skeletons, and the com position of the assemblages of grave goods—we can speak of an indigenous development in the submontane belt of southern Turkmenia in the eneolithic and the Early and Middle Bronze Age. In buria's of the Late Bronze Age (Namazge V1). the burial rite undergoes substantial change (fg. 1). Collective burials disappear, Female Agurines, weapons, ornaments in precious metals. seals with geometric patterns, and depictions of animals and birds are no longer present in the tombs. Along with these faets, which may point to a certain social regression ‘of the society, there is innovation ix. the composition of assem- blages of grave goods. Bronze blades ané ornaments of precious metals disappear and are replaced by ornaments of a new kind! bronze bracelets, rings, earrings, temporal pendants, diadems, and hairpins, None of these innovations can be derived from the Namazga V' complex. They indicate that groups of people ‘of another culture had penetrated into the Kopet Dag sub- montane belt “The custom of placing bronze bracelets, earrings, temporal pendants, hairpins, rings, ete, in graves is to be sought among those tribes of Central Asia whose material culture is similar to thet of the Namazga VI period in Turkmenia. There is only fone culture in Central Asia that fits this description: the Sapalli culture, remains of which have been discovered in southern Uabekistan (Askarov 1973). In addition to ornaments, graves of the Sapalli culture yield various assortments of pot- CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY‘Standard Surat rile for Namazge V Collective burials (tholoi) Individual burials (pits) Female figurines Bronze ornaments (blades, pins) Beads. Gold and silver armaments Seals depicting birds and animals Religious objects {ae or two potery vessels —— Standard buriah rte of the Sopalti culture Individual burials (catacombs) Bronze ornaments (bracelets, rings, pendants, eatrings) Seals depicting snakes ‘Three pottery vessels, Animal hones Ritual features common fo the foo exltures Burial grounds in settlements Northward ecientation of deceased | ‘Standard buriah rte for Numarys VE (subnonane Belt) Burial grounds in settlements Northward orientation of deceased Individual buriais (pits) One or two pottery vessels Bronze ornaments (beacelets, rings, pendants, earsings) Beads Fro, 1, Burial eustoms ia the submontane belt of Turkmenia, tery, sealamulets bearing representations of snakes, and animal bores. Some bearers of the Sapalli culture evidently: penetrated westward into the submontane belt, where mixing ‘with the local population led to the formation of new burial customs substantially diferent from those prevailing in the time of Namazga V. The correlation between traditions and innovations in the standard burial rite of the ancient agricultur- ists of southern Turkmenia during the Namazga VI period attests to the fact that a local cultural component formed the of the culture of the Late Bronze Age in the submontane belt. Extremely promising also is the comparison of burial customs of ancient tribes known to us from written sources with stan- ard burial customs reconstructed on the basis of archaeological data for the purpose of establishing identity between ethnic ‘communities and archaeological cultures. AGE AND SEX DIFFERENCES ‘The third informational unit makes it possible to characterize the social position of various graups in ancient societies by age and sex. Ethnography suggests that butfal customs reflect age- sex differences among the deceased (Bendan 1930:262-12; Binford 1971: 13-15), and similar regularities have been wraced in excavations of ancient burial grounds (Puvak 1972:70-T1; ‘Mandel’shtam 1968; 118, 122, 123, 127-28) ‘Since there are regular patterns of distribution of goods in sgraves which correlate with the sex and age of the deceased, it is desirable to reconstruct the age and sex structure of the collective which left the burial ground. Solving this problem by purely anthropological methods is aot always possible owing to the poor preservation of skeletal material. Several westigators have proposed combined methods for recan- structing the original picture. Fischer (1956:14, 15) and Riickdeschel (1968:19-23), after establishing on the basis of anthropological evidence ‘the rules for the distribution of ‘goods as a function of the sex and age of the deceased, extended them to other burial grounds of the same archaeological culture, there performing age and sex determinations based on assem- blages of grave goods. ‘The error of this procedure is demon- strated by Gallay (1972), who points out that it is effective only when the study is confined to a single burial ground (see Sorokin 1962:49; Buchsraldek and Koutesky 1972:150-69) Obviously it is possible to determine the sex and age of the ‘dead in. a single burial ground by other than anthropological Vol, 24 + No.2» April 1983 methods, but it would be a mistake to apply the results ob- tained 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 chikézen, Where possible, each of these should be broken down into subgroaps. For each subgroup distinguished according to age and sex, the standard burial rite (rituals, form of burial structure, assem blage of grave goods) has to be determined. Tt 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 diferent age and sex categacies, it should be acknowledged that sex and age differences are not relected ia 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 agrieulturists revord dif- ferences in productive activities between men and women. Men engaged in agricultural work (sidsles in burials at Gatal Huyak). Traditional female occupations were sewing (needles in graves at Catal Huyuk and Deharkutan), basket making (corresponding tools in graves at Catal Hyuk), weaving (spi cloth in burials at Karatepe, Altitepe, Hissar, and Sapal- 'itepa 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-6eh millennium .c, reflects remeants 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 Hyuk). Weapons appear in burials fof men in the Jd-2d millennium B.c. (Hissar, Sapallitepa, Deharkutan). It is this distinctive feature that’ is character- istic of male burials in early class societies (Burial Site A at Kish) 2. Burial customs make t possible to trace the development of patriarchal relations in early agdcultural societies. Assem- blages of grave goods in burials {rom the 7th to the beginning of the 3d millennium ac. attest to the full and equal positions ‘of men and women in society (Ali Kosh, Catal Hyuk, Kara tepe, Hissar 1). From then on there is a gradual impoverish- rant of female burials and an increase in the wealth of the graves of men (Hissar TT). In the second half of the 3d and the beginning of the 2d millennium 3.c. this process takes on 139especialy vivid forms (Hissar IIL, Alisar). With the emergence of early class society the property and social ascendancy of men is indisputable (Burial Site A at Kish). These changes in burial customs are a consequence of the development of patriarchal relations among early agriculturists. The formation of these relations, stimulated by the intensive development of a manufacturing economs and the broadening of contacts, between communities and countries (barter, trade, military expansion), ultimately leads to the dominance of men in the economic and social organization of ancient agricultural soci ties, though not everywhere with the same degree of intensity. Burial customs also attest to unequal rates of development of patriarchal relations in early agricultural societies. Thus, burials of men and women at Sapallitepa dated to the first half of the 24 millennium 2. reveal regular patterns of dis- tribution of goods that are characteristic of the beginning of the 3d millennium 5.c,, when men and women still enjoyed equal social status '3. Burial customs reflect the hierarchy of age and sex classes in early agricultural societies. From the 7th to the beginning of the 3d millennium .c., adult men and women {older than 20 years) were full and equal members of society Standard assemblages of grave goods have becn found graves of men and women aged 20-50, who are the most able- bodied members of the communities (Karatepe. Sapaliitepa, Hissar 3). Burials of women appear ticher than those of aren owing to the large quantity of ornaments placed in theit graves. It is probable thar these age and sex categories played a leading part in the economic and social life of the collectives. Burials of elderly men and women ($0-60 years of age) contain an impoverished burial inventory (Karatepe, Hissar 1). E dently this is due to their esser participation in the productive activity of their communities. ‘The special respect enjoved by persons of very advanced age in primitive societies is also reflected in burial customs. Burials of women over 60 are characterized by a wealth of grave goods Sapaliitepa, H sar D Jn the second half of the 34 and beginning of the 2d millen- 1m ».¢,, rich collections of grave goods are found in graves, of men 20-30 years of age. Burials of men 50-0) appear some- ‘what poorer than these but nevertheless richer than before (Hissar H-111). In women’s graves the assemblage of goods is much poorer oF entirely absent (Hissar H-If1, Alisar). The very poorest are the graves of oicer women (40-50). The leading role in the life of society was clearly played by men aged 20-50. In 2; out of 32 cases (84%), the graves of young men and ‘women (16-20) contain grave goods. In 23 of these cases, repre: senting both sexes, “adult” assemblages of grave goods were foand (at Gawra, Mtintepe, Hissar, Sapalliepa) Obviously these age and sex categories enjoved the status of adults or were considered fall and equal members of thelr communities. At the same time, however, some burials in this age-zroup exhibited either deviations from the carefully developed burial ritual characteristic of adult burials (Sapallitepa) oF “children’s” as- semblages of grave goods, These facts are direct testimony to the unequal status of the group of persons indicated. It is scarcely possible to establish fully the reason for this phenome non, but it cannot be exchided that these ate burials of persons ‘who were unmarried at the time of their deaths. By and large the social position of young toen and young women remains unchanged over several millennia. ‘The community members most lacking in rights were children under the age of one year. Their burials are practically devoid of grave goods, Of 383 such graves examined, grave goods were found in only 18 (5%), Frequently infants were Duried sepa rately not only from adults, but even from older children Such infant burial sites have been recorded at Altintepe, Gawra, and Tell esSewwan. Obviously, the lives of these Infants came to an end before they had reached the age at 140 which she community was obliged to manifest even the mini- ‘mum of concern about them. OF the 53 graves of children aged 1-6, grave goods were found in 20 (87%). As a rule, the goods consist of « small number of ornaments or pottery vessels, often. miniatures especially prepared for children’s burials. Judging by. the assemblages of grave goods, this age-group also had less than full and equal status. The burials at Altintepe show that grave goods appear in the burials of young children no earlier than the age of 2-3, It is pos '5" grave-goods le that a “children's assemblage appears only in graves of children who had been weaned before the time of their death Much more frequently, a “children's” assortment of grave goods is represented in burials of children aged 7-19. Of 18 such graves examined, 14 (77%) were found to contain goods In 3 QF) graves there were “adult” goods: 3 of these were the graves of girls (at Karatepe), and in the other 2 cases (Altintepe, Hissar) the sex of the deceased was not established. The graves of boys of this age (Karatepe, Sapal- litepa) have “children's” assemblages of grave goods. These {acts show that some, if not al, gitlson reaching the age of 7-10 advanced to the group of adult wonten. Evideotlr they had already reached marriageable age, as determined by the marriage and fami) aorms of ancient agricultural commni- ties, which suggest eariy marriage of females. In the graves of juveniles (I1-15), grave goods are repre- sented in 33 (62%) of 83 burials examined. In 15 (28°) of these, “adult” burial inventories were found. The majority of skeletons found in these graves have not been subjected to anthropological analysis (Vell es-Sawwan, Amug, Carchemish, Hissar). Where anthropological determinations have been made, it has been established that the “adult” grave goods were aii in the graves of girls (Sapallitepa). In percentage terms, the number of burials with “adult” grave goods has not increased compared with the preceding age-group. ‘This in cates that boys did not acquire the status of adults at this age ‘The frequency of occurrence of “adult” grave goods in. creases very substantially in the graves of young men and young women, reaching “Men's” assemblages of grave goorls appear in the graves of young men (16-20) (Hissar). The quantitative increase in the number of burials having adult” grave goods in the young adult age-group compared 10 juveniles can only be explained by assuming that the age of 15-16 was considered the boundary separating boys from adult men SOCIAL STRATIFICATION ‘The foueth informational unit characterizes the degree of social stratification of ancient societies, inasmuch as ethno- graphic data suggest that the socal position of the deceased is as a rule reflected in burial customs (Bendann 1930: 208-72). In the Soviet archaeological literature, this formulation of the problem has never been disputed. The thesis that grave goods reflect the s0cia!puaition of the deceased has been most con: cisely 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 ot social factors upon burial customs, assuming explicitly or im plicitly that different burial rites in the primitive epoch reflect not only chronological, loceh, or ethnic differences, but also social features (Puvak’ 1972:73; Mellaact. 1967;207-9; Otto 1954:115-14; von Brunn 1953: 13-28; Fischer 1956:213-45; Herrmann 1968:114-19; Preuss 1962:40). According to Kroeber (1927:308-15), however, burial cus- toms, being ritual activities, are unstable and do not reflect the social structure of the society. \ very similar position bes CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGYbeen taken by Ucko (1969). Pointing out that ethnographically there is often ro correlation between burial rites and social structure, he denies the possibility of developing a reliable methodology for reconstructing social processes ia the primitive epoch icom burial complexes. According to Ucko, burial cus- toms have misled archaeologists attempting the ceconstruction of the social stcueture of ancient tribes (pp. 266-72). While it is true that prematuce near sociological reconstructions have from time to time apoeared in the archaeological literature, Ucko's scepticism is unjustified. (This caution with regard to the possibility that social strat fication in the primitive epoch i reflected in burial customs ray’ be due to the influence of Childe, Io one of his works he came to the conclusion that there are no differences in assem. blazes of grave goods that would allow one to assess the wealth ‘of the deceased (Childe 1945:16), Royal tombs, characterized by vast dimensions and wealth of busfal inventory, were for him an exception: in Childe's opinion, these tombs retiect the slevelopment of royal power in early class societies. ‘The bulk. cof the burials of the primitive enoch remained for Childe amorphous and undifferentiated. Apparently many investi- ators, following Childe, have either been sceptical of the possibility of reconstructing the social structure of preclass society on the basis of materials from burial sites or have denied. the existence of social differentiation in the primitive epoch hhecause, as Childe asserted, it is not reflected in grave goods The results of ethnographic studies refute this view; it has been found that as a rule the burial customs af preclass societies do select their social structure (Binford 1971 13-28). Unfortunately, the ethnographic work on these problems has rarely been applied to archaeologieal studies because it sloes not take into account the character of archaeological material. The ethnographer studies living social organisms, basing his opinions thereon upon personal observations oF analysis of data obtained from informants. He focuses on Phenomena that do not find retlection in the material culture of the population, In describing the burials of individuals of different social strata, he tends to concentrate on the burial rituals, giving less attention to burial steuctures and almost none to the assemblage of grave goods, The picture in archae- ology is entirely different, as archaeology deals with extinct social organisms whose structuee can be detoded through investigation of the components of their material culture Archaeologists obtain the greatest amount of information from the assemblage of geave goods and tke form of the burial structure. ‘The character of the burial rituals remains to a considerable degree unknown and can be reconstructed only with great difficulty. These circumstances demand specific, purely archaeological methods of investigation of burial cus: toms in their sociological aspect, The development of such procedures has led to a series of synthesizing works on the Social structure of the ancient societies of the Aegean world, northern and eastern Europe, and the Caucasus (Blavatskaya 1975:12-21; Kushnareva 1973:11-12; Masson 1973: 102-12; Klein 1968:210-34; Randsborg 1974:39-37; and Renirew 1972: 362-408) While the assemblage of grave goods, the burial steucture, andl the position of the deceased are of primary importance for these studies, as far as possible the place of the buciat within the structure of the burial site and the ritual activities accom- panying burial should also be taken into consideration. Diver sity of burial customs at a burial site where all the burials fall within a comparatively short time span is to be explained in terms of social factors if it ean be shown that the burial ground was left by a population of uniform cultuee in whose burial customs there is no reliable trace of infiltration by imported ‘ethnic elements and if all differences relating to the age and sex ‘of the deceased have fiest been identified. The most important sign of possible social stratification of am ancient society is the Vol 24 + No.2» April 1983 Alekshins aorast. custoMs presence of several groups of burials chzracterized by assem- blages of grave goods that are far from equivalent as property. or sociological reconstructions it is necessary to draw upon, all excavated burials at a site. The validity of this position is confirmed by the unsuccessful attempt at sociological inter- pretation of the Hallstatt burial site of Kroemer (1958:39-38). Working with 44 burials of adults and 52 burals 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 (1968:3-28) For each age and sex category of deceased, the standard assemblage of grave goods which constitutes the norm for the given group of burials should be established. If onty standard assemblages of grave goods are found at a burial site, then her there was no social differentiation in the society or it was not rellected in burial customs. It should be pointed out that within each age and sex category there may turn out to be several trpes of standard burial inventory. ‘The presence of burials lacking grave goods alongside burials having standard grave-goods assembiages does not attest to social ditferentiation: 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 does the existence of wealthy burials necessarily indicate the presence of social differen ation, Wealthy burials of children may’ occur for special rel ‘gious reasons not directly’ related to social, stratification (Hiiusler 1966:38-42), aac wealthy burials of women may attest to the presence of sex and age classes. Social stratification of & society is revlected first and foremost in the wealth of burials of men, Therefore, burials of men that are richer in grave goods than the standard maybe indicative of social difierentiation, The presence of such burials in which the form of the burial structure ditfers from the customary one indisputably attests to such differentiation. tis not always possible to detect a standard assemblage of grave goods in burials. It is possible that in the early stages of evelopment of the tribal system, burial customs were less standardized, apparently because of the greater influence of ideology on the burial rite in comparison with purely social factors. The criteria for wealth of grave-goods assemblages depend fon 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 shoukl 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 diferent standard grave-goods assemblages (e.g,, with weapons and with tools) There are several method's for assessing the wealth of grave- ‘goods assemblages. ‘The frst of these considers the number of ubjects found in a grave: the more objects found in a burial, the richer it is (Krugiov and Podgaetskii 1935:40-41, 157-38) -\ second method considers the number of types of objects in a burial: the more types of objects are represented in a grave, the richer it is (Renirew 1972:371). A thid method con- siders the frequency of the objects in assemblages of grave goods: the more rarely: an assemblage of grave goods is en- countered, the richer it is (Kurochkin 1970:18-20). All of these methods have one significant shorteoming: they do not take into account the materials of which the objects are made. Jn practice this can lead to 2 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 atlatter exceeds that of the former (first method), a burial with a golden vessel will be considered poorer than a burial con- taining a pottery vessel and a bronze bracelet (second method), of a svooden plate found in a single case will be more valuable than bronze ware encountered more frequently (thied method) The first two methods can only be used to compare the quali- tatively similar assemblages of grave goods which in the main are characteristic of the Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neo- lithic. They are not applicable ts later archaeological epochs in which grave-goods assemblages become considerably more diverse. The rare occurrence of certain articles made of cheap ‘materials (pinheads, figurines, rods, and seals) does not imply their great value, but serves as an indicator of the deceased's special status. ‘Another method of evaluating the wealth of grave-goods assemblages considers the degeee of saturation with metal les in terms of their numbers (Otto 1955-61-63) or their weight (Randsborg 1974:45-47). ‘Thus, only part of an assern- blage is evaluated as to quantity and quality. This method can hardly be applicable on a broad scale. For example, in the Aeneolthie women’s butials contain more metal than men’s because of their ornaments. This does not mean, however, that burials of women are richer than those of men; instead it reflects sex distinctions. For the Bronze and Iron Ages, the wealth of grave-goods assemblages can be assessed in terms ‘of the number of metal articles in a grave provided that to refinements are made, First, as Klein (1968: 217-18) has pointed ‘out, the whole assemblage of grave goods has to be considered Second, it is neeessary to consider whether the metal i copper, silver, or gold and the particular type of metal object com: pared, whether it be weapons, tools, seals, or utensils. Burials containing unique objects of gold, silver, electrum, aad bronze (ceremonial wespons or utensils, symbols of power) will be judged richer than burials in which metal articles take the form of common, ordinary produets, and the latter burials in turn will be judged richer than graves in which metal objects are lacking. With this method it is possible to compare quali tatively dissimilar assemblages of grave goods from the Bronze and Iron Ages. Comparison of burials i terms of wealth should be carried out the framework of & common ‘chronological horizon. Identified poor, standard, and wealthy burials constitute a source for sociological reconsiructions Investigations of the social differentiation of ancient societies should be accompanied by functional analysis of the composi- tion of grave-goods assemblages. Through this analysis it is possible to identify. burials of warriors, craftsmen, traders, priests, nobles, chiefs, or kings, provided that the distinctive features of their activities are reflected in their grave goods. More complicated is the matter of the burial of slaves, for the absence of goods in a grave by no means alwars indicates & lack of {ull and equal status for the deceased. It is passible that slaves were buried in special cemeteries ‘When reconstructing the social structure of ancient societies, it is necessary to employ the terminology developed by ethnog- raphers, although where possible (in early class societies) one should use the terminology of written sources, whieh more accurately reflects the social hierarchy of the first state forma- tons. The application of this procedure to the investigation of burials of ancient farmers has mace it possible to identify the process of development of social differentiation in early agri- cultural societies, Analysis of burials of the 8th to 6th millennia p.c. has shown that evidence of property inequality (poor and rich raves) is available only for Asia Minor (Catal Huviik)? It is _.i Because of the limited length of this article, eferances to pub- lished eatalogs of oudals have been omitted A detailed bliographs fn the majority of the burials mentioned herein can, be foune Hrouda (97s). Readers interested in the buiale found. in. the USSR, may write me for references. 142 social inequality, as there has been no complete publication of data from the site. Only one thing is certain: the presence of poor and rich families in the community at Catal Huyuk is 2 natural consequence of the Neolithic revolution, which ‘opened up opportunities for the acquisition of a surplus product. From the Sth to the beginning of the 3d millennium 3.c., property stratifiation of the population is characteristic of all ancient agricultural regions, but differences in the wealth of grave-goods assemblages are still not large: in poor burials there are none, while in rich ones there are three or in rare cases four or five types of objects. In places where the level of development of productive forces and the level of material welfare of the ancient agricultural communities are high, burials with standard grave-goods assemblages predominate (lesopotamia). In places where the leve of development of agriculture is not high and the amount of surplus product obtained is insignificant (Central Asia, Iran, Asia Minor), many poor (lacking in grave goods) burials are found in addi- tion to standard graves. ‘The insigniticant member of rich burials attests to the preservation in ancient agricultural com~ munities at the given stage of development of @ productive economy of traditions of equalizing the distribution of the surplus product, which retard the process of property strat: fication of their members. ‘The burial customs of this period contain information on the social structure of ancient agricultural societies. The bulk of graves are those of rank-and-file community menibers. In these burials are found pottery, beads, stone bracclets, copper ‘omaments, and tools. In several cases graves have been found Which may tentatively be considered to belong to priests (Teil es-Sawwan, Karatepe) and to chieis or elders (Can Hasan, Yarim Tepe II, Samarra). Female figurines evidently depicting «fertility god have been found in the priests’ graves. Symbols of ower—stone or capper maccheads—are represented in burials of chiefs, Although all of these tombs contain rich grave-goods, assemblages, they differ from burials of rank-and-file com- munity members not so much in the wealth of their grave goods as in the presence of special categories of objects (female figurines, maceheeds). ‘Commencing at the end of the 4th millennium ».c. in Mesopo- tamia and in the second half of the 34 millennium 3.¢. in Central Asia, Iran, and Asia Minor, the process of property ‘and social stratification of the population proceeds at a more rapid rate, The number of rich burials and the number of types of objects represented in thems increase, The number of poor burials depends upon the level of development of the productive forces of ancient agricultural societies, Thus, in Central Asia, situated on the periphery of the ancient agri- cultural world, poor burials predominate, white in Mesopo- tamia, as before, graves with standard assemblages of grave goods predominate, The social structure of ancient agricultural communities becomes considerably: more comptes, a8 is every: where indicated by burials containing seals, symbols of power, religious objects, and s0 on. Analysis of Bronze Age burials in southern Turkmenia (Namazga IV-V) indicates the presence of three groups in the population of the agricultural communities of this period, One of them is made up of persons with less than full and equal status in the community, apparently attesting to the develop- ment of patriarchal slavery, ‘This group includes isolated burials without grave-goods assemblages characterized by & high degeee of contraction in the posture of the deceased. A second group is made up of ordinary community members, Variations in the grave-goods assemblages in their graves, which indicate property stratification of this group, make it pos sible to identify burials of the poor (single or collective graves without accessories in which the deceased lie in the position of a sleeping person) and the more prosperous (burials with vessels or with vessels and ormaments). A third group consists CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGYofa small aristocracy, including chiefs, priests of various ranks, ‘und, possibly, warriors (burials containing seals, weapons, rods, female figurines, gold ornaments, and religious objects). The burials of this group (Alintepe, Clugtepe), which have func- tionally variegated grave-goods assemblages, indicate a hier archy of social ranks within the aristocracy. “The same groups are also characteristic of Iran, but here the process of property and social stratification of the population is manifested more vividly (Hissar II-III, Sialk III-IV,, Hurab, Treng Tepe) in rich graves of chiefs and priests (Hissar LIL, flarab) with seals, religious objects, symbols of power, end olden ornaments, {in Asia Minor the richest burials are those in stone cists, “shich apparently contain the remains of persons of high social ink (Ablatlibel, Alisar, Kosumbeli, Karavaysan, Tilmen ITivtk, Gedikli)’ Poor burials in pits and vessels obviously telong to ordinary members. Especially: wealthy tombs (Korucutepe, Karatas-Semayk) probably contain the semains of chiefs Graves containing seals, weapons, and symbols of power (maceheads) are also Known in Mesopotamia (Gewra, Ur) in the Late Ubaidian and Early Uruk. Burials with battle weapons merit special attention. Ia the period under consideration they are encountered in all regions ‘i ancient agricultural societies. However. their number is so small (of 1,40) burials of this period examined, 48 graves have weapons; graves of western Anatolia and the mountainous, Luristan region have not been counted here, as detailed publi- cation of sites excavated there is lacking) that we cannot speak the formation of a stratum of professional waeriors in ancient agricultural societies in the pre-state period. Two things could have prevented the emergence of warriors among early agri- ccalturists of the Near East in the pre-state period. First, the capture of the principal means of production—tand—was aught with difficulty and would have required large con- tingents of warriors, which society did not yet possess, to secure it, Second, the high degree of social stratification of catly agcicultural’ communities indicated by the data from burials, even in the pre-state period, facilitated substantial exploitation of community: members by the aristocracy, whieh provided it with the opportunity to obtain a substantial surplus Product without resorting to predatory wats Tn the epoch of early class society in Mesopotamia (Early Dynastic I-1IT) we can identify. seven groups of burials: (1) devoid of grave goods; (2) containing vessels: (3) containing oraments: (4) containing seals; (5) containing weapons, () containing seals and weapons: and (7) containing tools The richest burial compleses contain weapons and seals. Next in terms of wealth are graves containing weapons, falloved by graves containing seals. These three groups of burials, judging, by the composition of the grave-goods assemblage and its wealth, belonged to the elite. Graves with seals and weapons probably: belonged to representatives of the military-bureau- apparatus (military commanders, officials) and possibly ako the upper stratum of merchants. Burials containing seals apparently belonged to lesser officals and heads of large-family communities managed as family property. Tombs containing vessels, ornaments, or tools are poor. Evidently these are burials of city dwellers of different levels of prosperity and those of craftsmen, The process of property stratification of the population of ancient Sumer is characterized by a sharp reduction in the number of tombs containing standaed grave- sgoods assemblages and an increase in the number frst of poor and next of rich graves. In this epoch the number of burials including weapons in- creases sharply; roughly every third burial contains them, ‘Thus, for this period it is possible to speak of the presence of ‘8 group of professional warriors. Their appearance was di tated primarily by the antagonistic contradictions of early class society. The ruling class needed warriors to maintain Vol. 24» No.2 + April 1983 Alokshin: svnast. eusroxes 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 Dutials. Particularly cich 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 a.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, $00, 1050, 1084, and 380) 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’ irom sepulchre No, 777 chat of a man and a woman, Most 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 theie owners. It is possible that the persons buried in them were not of royal rank. Either these sepulchres contain representatives of laterai branches of the ruling family or they represent burials of the urban aristocracy of Ur. In northern Syria a rich tomb Aas been excavated at Til Barsib; here, judging by the grave,goods assemblage (eight axes, nine daggers, and six spears), a militacy leader or tribal chief was buried {In Asia Minor, rich burials of aristocrats have been excavated {in Central Anatolia (Alaca Fliyitk, Horoatepe), In theic tombs were gold! ant 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 hhuman sacrifices suggests that they are not royal sepulchres. They probably contain burials of leader-priests. Burials of aristocrats have not been discovered in Tran and Central Asia. There, collective burials of members of particu larly wealthy families have been found (intepe, 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 con- tinwing for a long period of time. Thus the burials of members ‘of wealthy families here ate distinguished not by a special form of burial structure or by wealth of grave-goods assem bilages (although to some extent this latter play's a part), but by elaboration of the burial ceremony, the religious ritual ‘The use 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 MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY The fifth informational unit enables us to trace the evolution of forms of marriage and the family in primitive societies. A number of special studies have recently been devoted to this complex problem (Itina 1977:211-29; Mandel’shtam 1968: 119- 22; Sorokin 1962;89-123). For the study of the history of the family it is essential to subject double, triple, and collective burials to special analysis. It is especially importast here to establish the horizontal and vertical stratigraphy in a burial complex as elaborate as the mound (turgau) and the sequence or simultaneity of burials in cases of double, triple, and collec- burial. Their evolution over time provides the potential for tracing the main trends of development of forms of the 143family in the primitive epoch, From my point of view, kinship within a family cannot be fully reconstructed on the basis of data on burial customs; it is also necessary to reconstruct the ‘horizontal stratigraphy of buriat grounds in which the dead were apparently: buried in accordance with family or tribal characteristics. (0 investigate the problem of forms of marriage in ‘e epoch it is necessary 10 establish the presence in, the Durlal site of “outsiders,” whose appearance can most ‘often be explained in terms of marital contacts with neigh- ‘Doring communities. In the study of this problem, the ritual ‘component of the standard burial rite is of decisive importance ‘Deviations {rom the traditional ritual are readily detected in archaeological data and can be considered indications of the burial in a single site of members of different tribes, members fof the nucleus of the community being buried in accordance ‘with their own traditional ritual and outsiders (both men and women) in accordance with the norms prevailing in their homeland, sometimes, however, very significantly affected by the local norms. The burial of outsiders in a community ceme- tery is possible only when there are steady: contacts between different comnwunities. This is determined first and foremost by the need to regulcrize norms of marriage and family rela tions in primitive collectives. The absence of such burials indicates that we are dealing with @ tribal burial ground. Analysis of gradations of age and sex in burials of outsiders in community burial sites can throw light on the forms of mar- riage existing in the primitive epoch. (On the basis of the foregoing, we can establish relationshi bby marriage for persons buried in double, triple, and collective Durials. 1f study of these burials reveals a mixture of ritual features of two standard burial rites characteristic of two dif- ferent burial grounds, then most often these graves contain persons of two different tribes who are probably related by marriage, If such a misture of ritual features is absent, it is more reasonable to assume that the burial is of members of the same tribe. possibly close blood relatives whose degree of con- sanguinity is most often impossible to determine. For example, the Mesolithic burial ground at ‘Téviec, France, there is a series of burials characterized by significant deviations from the standard burial rite. To begin with, such deviations are found in burials containing deer antlers, A and D (table 1). In the opinion of the excavators, the deceased were buried in these graves in a sitting position beneath a frame made of deer antlers which, interlocked, formed a hut over the body, the presence of deer antlers—the symbol of the tribal totem cating the high social rank of the deceased (Péquart et al 1937:28-32, 36-39, 62-5). Detailed analysis of the burials shows that deer antlers are also found in Burial K, bvt by and large the placing of deer antlers in graves is not characteristic of Téviee. The conjecture that the deceased in Burials \ and D were buried beneath a deer antler “hut” arose not in the field, but in the study, as a result of analysis of photographs and sketches (Péquart and Péquart 1954:79). However, the photographs do not substantiate this conjecture; judging fom them, some antlers had been placed under the head of the deceased and some around his head. Thus, even for the exe vvators, “huts” of deer antler erected over the deceased were not a fact established indisputably during the course of the excavations. When similar burials were unearthed at Hoidic, 30 km {rom ‘Téviee, they: were interpreted as burials in which deer antlers were placed near the deceased. Tor Hotdic, this custom was the norm (table 1). Deer antlers found in graves were con- sidered to be either offerings or tools. Originally the investi gators indicated that at Téviee the deer antlers were offerings (Pequart et al. 1937:62-65), but later they were compelled to recognize that some finds of antlers in Téviec graves could be regarded as tools (Péquart and Péquart 1954:70-72); in Burial K at Téviec (Skeleten No, 6) ovo small tools of deer antler were found. Offerings and tools of deer antler positioned in the same manner as in the graves at Hoédic can be identified in Burials A and D at Téviec T suggest, therefore, that Burials A and D at ‘Téviec are burials of persons from the community which left its burial ground at Hoedic. In the burial customs of these two graves, characteristic featues of the standard burial customs. of “Téviee and Hoddie are mixed (table 1). If this hypothesis is correet, three corollaries follow therefrom: (1) Other features of the standard burial rite at Hoédic should appear in Burials A and D at Téviec. Q2) In the Téviee burial ground, other raves containing former inhabitants of Hoedic may be dis: covered, (3) At Hoédie there should be burials of former inhabitants of Téviec exhibiting features of the standard buriat customs characteristic of Téviec First, » number of additional characteristic Hoédic features, can indeed be traced in the burial customs of Téviec Buria ‘A and D. These include lining of the edges of the burial pit TABLE t Bersats at Tevtzc axo Hogoie $104 Rite oF Eacn rs 7 xo Davcarioxs rou mie Sraxpako Buaiat Dygcriox oF nie Ome D 20-25, Frarcees or tie Sraxpaxo Busrat Rie “Liet) ‘Teviee Covering of grave with stone slab Ritual hearth over grave fering of mandible of wild boar oF deer Offering of deer antlers over grave in ritual hearth Fire over grave after burial Ochre in grave. Hoedic Covering of grave with several stone slabs. Lining of edge of pit sith stones Offering of doer antlers in arave Offering of mandible of wild boat or deer Tools of deer antler in grave braved FEEEI Teviee & BAI AM oar 20-25) 20-20) 26-30) lint) ‘i 29-35) fat ol 30-40) 20-80) 20-25) bivaed y z a bering Henna eet bee Lt eras elbHs eibit rrr bern venue brite beens Sovxces: Péquart etal. (1937), Pequar and Péquart 1993), 1 Here we are concerned only with the secondary burial of 8 man, the distur 144 ed previous burial of 2 woman displaying no Hoedic features. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGYsmall stones laid flat, the absence of a surface structure over the grave, and the placement of offerings in the grave. Second, Hoidie features are indeed found ia Burial K at ‘revise, [kis a collective burial; for each new burial the tomb was uneavered, the ritual hearth cleaned out, ritual offerings placed in the tomb, the new body buried, the tomb closed, the ritual hearth constructed anew, and the whole construction covered with a structure, During excavations of this tomb, ritual offerings—deer antlers (a Hoddie feature)—were found in the ritual hearth (a Téviec feature). ‘This offering belonged to Skeleton No. 1 (a man), tho had been buried last. Beside him in the grave lay one more piece of deer antler (a Hoédic feature), Evidently an outsider irom Hoéilie was also buried in Burial K. Finally, the Hoédie burial ground does cvatain burials with ‘réviee featuces, The grave of a woman, Burial B, lacks the Uloddie offerings of deer antlers, instead! containing tie mandible cof a wild boar (a Téviee feature). After burial a ritual hearth, Soon extinguished, had been built over the grave (a Téviec feature), The excavators concluded from this that Burial B is of a woman from Téviec (Péquart and Péquart 1954). Burial K, which contains the body of a man aged 20-23, deviates from the standard burial rite of Hovdie in that the tomb is covered by it single stone slab ou which a fire hadl burned for a short time and offerings of deer antler had been placed in a ritual hearth, all features characteristic of the standard burial rite of Téviec. Therefore all three corollaries of my hypothesis are con- ‘iemed by the data, thereby substantiating the hypothesis itself. Thus, there were continual contacts between the col- lectives of persons living at Téviec and Hoédie. At Téviec three natives of Hoédic have beon discovered: a woman of 26-25 (Burial D), and two men, 20-25 and 20-30 years of age (Burials A and K). At Hoalic, two natives of Téviec have been found: a woman of 20-25 (Burial B) and a man of 20-25 (Burial K). It is probable that each collective consisted of a basic nucleus of members (apparently blood relatives) and. some outsiders. When an outsider died, features of the local burial ritual mingled with those teaditional in his home com- munity in the rites accompanying his burial “This suggests that other outsiders from the collective 10 which he once belonged were present within the given collec- fe, In ethnography, a production collective of persons con- ting of a basic nucleus of related people and a certain number of outsiders is called a commune. Consequently, archaeological «lata support the position that in the Stone Age the fundamental Production unit was the commune (Grigor'ev 1972:2; Kabo 1972:59; Butinov 1968: 110-11) Yet another aspect of this informational unit should be pointed out. When studying the burial customs of any archae- ological culture, it is possible, on the basis of variations therein (e.g, rituals, methods of placement of accessories in graves), to identity collectives of people (tribes or communes) which have similar burial customs, possibly suggesting identity of origin, shared history, and to some degree ethnic identity DEMOGRAPHIC FEATURES ‘The sixth informational unit pertains to certain demographic Aspects of the life of people it ancient times: life expectancy, causes of death, diseases, injuries, and changes in statuee. It should not be overlooked that the causes and cizcumstances 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 Schwidetsky in regarding the reconstruction of ancient population figures as impossible, at least in terms of the present-day capabilities of our science. Vol. 24 + No.2 + atpril 1983 Alekshin: auanne cvstons 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 attribu- tion an 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 30 as to obtain whatever information has been preserved therein, Comments by Bra Barret, Department of Andhropatogs, Sux Diogo State Cnisersity, San Diego, Calif 92182, CS. WN 82 ekshin's article is nothing more than a faiely simplistic but commonsense approach to the xechacological study of burial. ‘There have been moze detailed and illustrative treatments of the subject prior to this (eg., Binford 1971, Saxe 1970, Ucko 1969). The history of the use of ethnological theory by archae- ologists (Bartel 1982) clearly shows that they have long been fully aivace of these conceens and of Mekshin's “informational units.” Some of my major disagreements with Alekshin are 4s follows: 1. T see great danger in making behavioral interpretations solely on the basis of information from cemeteries ot isolated graves, without information derived irom a settlement of the same archaeological culture. The structural symbolism of life/ death expressed in artifacts and the spatial location and orien- tation ofthe cemetery versus the settlement are critical to the confirmation of the behaviors dliscussed by Alekshin (eg., LéviStrauss 1963: 88, De Coppet 1970) 2. Alekshin makes only minimal comments about the utili of osteological analysis. Recent studies (Bartel 1981, Lane and Sublett 1972) have shown how the skeletal material may be Analyzed to help confirm hypotheses about ethnicity, enlog- amy, and residence patterns. “. Alekshin's strong reliance upon a Macxist model of culture change, especially in his understanding of early agricultural societies, and his use of such terms as “social regression,” “stages of development,” and “survival of archaic stages” have 4 stilling effect on whatever legitimate understanding he fas ‘bout the situation for western Asia, For example, his logic of correlating folate! burials without grave goods in a con- tracted position with slavery totally escapes me. 4, To be complete, Alekshin’s “‘second informational unit” needs a discussion of the conservative nature of corpse disposal ancl the relationship between acculturation and the likelihood of culture change. 5. The site of Catal Hii, which he uses for much of his discussion of status and stratification, can be employed for this purpose only with considerable ‘caution. No sampling strategy was employed by the excavator, and the total ex- cavated area represents probably less than 1% of the total mound accumulation. {9 fact, almost all the archaeological sites mentioned by Alekshin were excavated betireen the 1930s and 1960s without systematic sampling strategies and differ- ential recovery techniques. To use these sites as illustrative examples for concrete interpretations of social behaviors is dangerous. 6. His postulated change to higher male status during the 1sEarly Bronze Age of western Asia is not supported everywhere in the region. The Early Bronze Age 1-2 periods of western Turkey do not exhibit strong male versus female divisions, although there do seem to be overall changes toward a greater egree of social strtiication when compared with Neol ‘Turkey (Bartel nd). ty Aupxanper B, Doutrsky Department of Anthropology RE 02012, USA. 2X82 Boral sites are among the significant archaeological sites for the analysis of social networks and the chronological recon- struction of human societies. Generally, burials have been morphologically typed as pyramids, maxsolewns, burial wuts, sarcophagi, unis, above-ground huvials (Tor example. platform), Stat (surface) wndergrowid burials, earth or stone mounds (ku sans), ete. The last two types, on which Alekshin probably focused his paper, are the best-known and most extensively studied in Eurasia, Kurgans may be easily found by archae- logists, since they are topographically visible within a steppe ecezone. Unfortunately, most kurgens (especially the large ones) have been disturbed by natural physical processes or warfare or simply robbed by the local population. These factors should always be taken into account in the analysis of archaeological data derived from the burial sites, Flat underground burials are almost always well preserved, but they are extremely dif- ficult to find; usually, finding them is a matter of archaco- logical luck. Alekshin’s article addresses the interesting problem of the reconstruction of social systems on the basis of an anatvsis of Durial practices. The author proposes to consider six infarma- tional units for reconstructing the social structure of a given society in the historico-particular context. would like to con- centrate attention on two of these ‘The second informational unit considers problems of so- called cultural genesis. This term appears verv often in the Soviet archaeological literature, and. methodologically it is, relevant to what in the Western social sciences is called long: term human adaptation or evolution, It seems to me that Western readers may be confused in reading this section, since some terms (such a8 cultural genesis, succession, archacological calture, genetic liste) are not yet well defined in Soviet archae- ‘logical science. Also in this section, the author makes some ambiguous philosophical statements concerning social or cul- tural change. Alekshin states that the formation of a “new” archaeological culture is the result of social and economic contacts between neighboring cultural traditions. I would sug- gest that social and economic contacts between two or more cultural traditions may stimulate cultura] change rather than create ¢ “new” culture, For exampie, the centuries-long rela- tions between the Seythians and the Greek city-states on the Black Sea coast were so close that special Greek goldsmith shops on the Fosporus and in Olhia worked just for Scythian customers. However, this social and economic contact did not produce « new culture; both were replaced by militarily superior nomadic tribes from Eurasia (Leskov 1972; V. Lapin, personal communication, 1972). ‘The fourth informational unit examines social stratification within ancient societies. Alekshin argues that burial rites may reflect social stratification in pre-class societies as well as state societies and that archaeologically this information is to be ‘obtained from functional analysis of grave-goods assemblages in order to identify the social status and occupation of the deceased (warriors, craftsmen, traders, chieis, et.). This ap- proach suggests an informal revision by Alekshin of some traditional concepts of historical materialist philosophy. Pre- class or pre-state society entirely lacked social hierarchy other than the biological ones of age and sex, and these ancient people were primitive communists of necessity rather than by 46 Brown University, Providence, choice. In order to improve the method of analysis proposed for this informational unit, more specific archaeological and ethnographic data should be investigated Summarizing this article as an archaeologist with field and laboratory experience in the Soviet Union (Ukraine and Soviet Central Asia), T suggest that some aspects of the social net- work and general chronology may be derived from burial fs, but it ig still unclear what such analysis can tell us specifically about prehistoric demography. the evolution of the ‘extended family, and even social stratification within complex societies. How, for instance, can Alekshin's models be applied to the analysis of the above-ground burials found in the taiga cecozone of Siberia, the Far East, and North America (Gurvich 1981}? Also, it would be interesting to see the outcome of this approach if ethnographic and historic sources were used in more detail. 1 am surprised that Alekshin has ignored the con- tributions to the methodology of burial excavations and data interpretation of Uvarov, in the 1th century, and, more recently, Gorostsov (1905, 1907), Leskov (1968, 1972), Merpert (1968), Chernenko (1981), Mozolevs'kiy (1979), and others. ‘While Alekshin’s article has some unconvincing aspects and is t00 circumscribed to put into practice, one positive feature is the extensive interest in the methodology and philosophy of, archaeology, a characteristic of the contemporary Soviet archaeological literature that may be a result of Soviet-Amer can scientific cooperation in the past ten years by ANTosro Gitstas Deperiment of Anthropology, California State. University, Novthridge, Calif. 91330, CSA, 211% 82 Alekshin gives examples of “informational units” on six aspects, of extinct social systems—religious beliefs, cultural origin and afiliation, age and sex distinctions, class and occupational dis- tinctions, forms of marriage and group composition, and demog- raphy—which can be obtained from analysis of prehistoric burials. These interpretive dimensions are unquestionable, but the author should emphasize more strongly that, as sources of information, burial practices are ambiguous if they are not situated in & broader context of archacological interpretation. ‘The question is not whether mortuars- patterns are determined by the factors Alekshin mentions, but how one can judge that a panicular variable in mortuary practice is determined by a particular factor, Because burial patterns are symbolic (not representative) of the social and ritual order, one can only interpret them by considering their range of variability and contrast against other information concerning the extinet soei- tties under study Alekshin's concrete examples are persuasive to the degree that his interpretations are confirmed by other, nonmortuary evidence. The change in relative wealth between burials of men and women from the 7th to the 3d millennium u.¢. in the Near East is interpreted as reflecting the development of patriarchal relations.” ‘This seems plausible, not because of the change noted in the burials themselves (a change which might have other explanations), but because the shift is astocated (as we knox from other evidence) with the development of social and politica) institutions i which mea (but not women) played dominant roles. The shift in mortuary: patterns in Turkmenia from Namazga V to 11 is explained as the result of an immi- aration from Uzbekistan. This is less persuasive, not because ethnic migrations do not occur or would not produce changes in burial practices, but because independent evidence is not brought to bear to rule out alternative explanations, such as a change in religious belief ("Informational Unit 1”). The Hotdic- “Téviee discussion is also somewhat unconvincing, This is partly because the number of burials at each site is too small for con- vincing norms tobe established for each, but partly also because ‘other explanations ofthe contrasts cannot be excluded. Mekshin interprets the limited overlap in the detail of burial practices CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGYbetween the to sites as the result of an exchange of a few individuals between two separate communities. But if one site swore slightly earlier or later than the other, that burial norms coxhibit only partial overlap could be explained as a result of a ‘change in ritual over time. Even dlitferences in burial rites as, casily interpreted as wealth differences (by the who-flauntscit- hasit principle) require an external contest to be meaning. fully assessed. fy Pasar Le Kou Wellesley College, Wellesley, Muss. 02181, U.S.A. 9 x 82 Mokshin has written an interesting and informative paper sum jrizing ways in which past burial practices can shed light on we nature of the societies that leit them. His paper can be preciated on at least two levels: a summary: presentation of the results of his extensive analy'is of burial evidence through- cout the greater Middle East from Neolithic through Bronze ge Times, and a demonstration of the concerns and theoretical approaches of Soviet archaeologists engaged in the interpreta- tion of mortuary data, This response first will examine cri cally some of the basie assumptions which pervade Alekshin's (and, by extension, most other Soviet archaeologists’) analysis snl then discuss some of the substantive cesults of his study To Western reeders unfamiliar with the Soviet archacological Figerature, Mekshin must seem a curious amalgam of the tra- Hliional archaeological pessimist and the new optimist. On the ‘one hand, he is skeptical of accurately estimating past popu lations; on the other hand, he seems to minimize the dificulties ‘of reconstructing the extent of stratification within a society through the exclusive analysis of mortuary data. He categ lly cejects Ueko's demonstration of an imperfect correlation between burial rites and social structures, yet notes later: “If only standard (ie., relatively homogereous) assemblages of sxrave goods are found at a burial site, then either there was no social ditferentiation in the society or if sus not reflected fin Ihuriat customs” (emphasis added). ‘The point is how one decides which alternative is operative in the absence of any other archaeological evidence (domestic architecture, settle ment patterns, etc.), I share lekshin’s skepticism about popu- lation estimates except in the most exceptional ciceumstances ani am willing also to accept the consensus view of most archaeologists (cf. Gilman’s perceptive rebuttal 1981:17-18) for some rowgl correlation between burial data and social struc- ture, but T do not believe one should minimize the difficulties, of interpreting mortuary evidence A\ perhaps more serious problem surrounds Alekshin's con- stant references to the identification of “archaeological cul- tures.” While most Western archaeologists now question the validity of, at least, emphasize the problems associated with this concept (see Shennan 1978), Soviet scholars still recon- struct their sequences on the basis of relatively straightforward determinations of distinct “archacoiogical cultures.” This ob- servation 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 tenies the importance of past cultural distinctions and/or refuses to consider other variables than the seemingly ha and secure techno-demo-environmental features used to explain cultural development (Kohl 1981). Some balance is required, ‘out certainly Alekshin's opposite and somewhat facile assump- tion that archaeological cultures ean 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 gecurs in the southern Turkmenistan sequence between Namazge Vand Namazga VI, a new culture has arrived on the scene, But, as every archaeologist knows, most sequences Vol. 24 + No.2 » April 1983 < Alekshins suaIaL custoxs exhibit features of both continuity and change, and it is rarely clear that che most eflicient explanation of the latter is the arrival of @ new group. Thus, just to cite relevant materials from southern Turkmenistan, differences in mortuary practices between the collective vaults of the Early Bronze cemetery at Parhai If and the individual Late Bronze burials at Parkhai I and Sumbar F-IT are profound, but the excavator, Khlopin (1981), reasonably stresses aspects of continuity (e.g. the con- Linued use of grey wares and placement of steppe-tortoise shells in the burials) and interprets the differences as due to internal changes within the late prehistoric society ofthe Middle Sumbar Valley. Interpretations rarely are as certain as lekshin seems to indicate: most Western archacolosists, T believe, would reverse Alekshin's explicitly stated procedure of first attempting to explain diversity within a single burial site as the product of separate archaeological cultures and subsequently interpreting difeences as due to social factors. ‘A second major dilticulty concerns the article’s implicit evo- lutionary assumptions. Only differences in male burials are important, since all agree that pateiarchal relations emerge with the development of class society. Sequences that fail to ft the expected pactern, such as the graves from Sapalli (where, it should be note. female burials actually are richer than their male counterparts |Askarov 1973:136, 189), are simply ex plained away by the principle of “unequal rates of develop- ment.” A much more satisfactory explanation would attempt to relate the distinctive burial cites at Sapalli and other sites, in Bactria and Margiana to peculiar structural features of these Bronze Age societies; itis simplistic and unproductive to regurd them as retarded examples of the Mesopotamian pattern, of social stratification It is unfortunate that ia this short article written in a Western language Alekshin did not provide more complete tables summarizing his exhaustive analysis of Middle Eastern burial practices. Many of his conclusions, grounded in a thorough reexamination of the literature, are provocative and novel. His demonstration that burials of girls were accom- panied by “adult” grave gots at ages generally younger than those of boys is significant; assuming that “adult” goods can always be positively identified and that their presence floes not reflect specitic inheritance patterns, Alekshin's inter~ pretation thae this difference reflects the social fact that giels passed over into aculthoot! at an earlier age than boys is con Vineing. Similarly, his emphasis on the scarcity of buvials, ‘containing weapons in pre-state times and their sudden emer- fence as 2 significant type of burial good during the Early Dynastic period is important and clearly relates to the growing, internal and e:ternal conflicts which beset Sumerian society uring its golden age. Readers unfamiliar with the Central Asian, prehistoric sequence are not likely to appreciate the novel and, Peliewe langely correct interpretation of the transition from what has travltionally. been termed the Middle Bronze (Namazga V) to the Late Bronze (Namazga V1) period. Southern ‘Turkmenistan has been seen as the fous et origo of development throughout southern Central Asia, and the Late Bronze period has been interpreted as a period of decay oF collapse from the urban or protorstate society of Middle Bronze fies. Recent excavations ia Margiana and Bactria conclu- sively have demonstrated that an even mote complex society jn most material culture features emerged and continued to exist on these lowland plains after the decline of the Middle Bronze cities along the Kopet Dagh piedmont strip of southern “Turkmenistan. Meksbia's analysis of Burial remains electively reverses the causal arrow and argues that-mach of what bas been called Namazga VI actually originated in Bactria and Matgiana and moved east to west during the early 24 miller nium, This view has been developed independently even further by Francfort (1981), who argues persuasively for considerable “wToverlap between the earliest materials from Bactria and Margiana and the so-called urban phase (Namazga V) of southern Turkmenistan. The absence of “burials of aristocracy” in Central Asia, the continued presence of collective burial vaults, particularly at Altyn-depe in southern Turkmenistan, and the elaboration of the burial ceremony at the apparent ‘expense of the inclusion of greater numbers of goods are all ‘extremely valuable observations and should lead Alekshin and his Soviet colleagues to consider the distinctive features of the societies that clustered around separate small oases in Central ‘Asia in the 3d and early 2d millennia n.c. ‘Alekshin has written a thoughtful and important study which should help stimulate cooperation across the political boundaries which artificially divide the ancient Near East. His references to the major Soviet studies of burial remains are most useful T do not share his optimism about the potential value of mor- tuary data in the total absence of other types of archaeological information. We are all forced, however, to interpret the data that are available, and open-minded Western scholars should likewise ponder the limitations of their often exclusive reliance ‘on a single source of archaeological information, such as that Gerived from extensive and equally’ problematic settlement pattern studies. by D. Liversace National Museu, Copenhagen, Desmmark. 21 1x $2 Knovcledge of the sorts the archaeologist secks is provided by a combination of sources, among which settlement archaeology and environmental studies are the most important. It can be Useful, however, to sit down and consider, as Alekshin does, what the graves alone can tell us-—especially as they sometimes are the only source available. ‘There is one point on which one must absolutely disagree swith him. He writes, "A complete replacement of one standard burial rite by another attests to the total disappearance of the bearers ... which may be due to migration, military catastro- phe, or epidemics.” It is thus quite clear that Alekshin js think- ing in terms of ethnic change. However, we knov from historical evidence that the change in northwestern Europe in the late Ist millennium a.o. from pagan burial (involving grave gods. often cremation, sometimes sacrifice of a slave, ete.) to the Christian rite was purely ideological and not a change of popu: Jation. This may be @ very obvious instance, but it is certainly not unique. At many other times in the prehistory of this area there were sudden changes in burial customs, only’ one of whieh —that coinciding with the arrival of the Single Grave Corded Ware culture—is thought to have an ethnic explanation. Buriai customs are an ideological area that cannot be connected with population movements without the support of other evidence. ‘More interesting are the author's examples from western Asia of the gradually increasing variety of the graves, which undoubtedly in a broad sense reflected the growth of civiliza tion. It isa fact that societies at alow level of development have only rather simple graves, and not very’ many of them either. Development of the society is reflected in an increasing number af graves and in theie greater diversity. The evidence can be looked at from the point of view of matriarchy, patriarchy the growth of occupational specialisation, etc., but itis dificult to make an independent check of the explanations proposed. {It is easiest to agree that rich (or “princeiy") graves show @ real concentration of power and surplus production in a few hands. Unfortunately, the equation of grave richness and de- ree of power is not @ simple one, The most amazing graves of all were those of relatively minor kinglets in the lower Nile Valley, and where are the graves of the mighty caesars of imperial Rome? In this case we have nonarchaeological evi- dence to fall back on (in the written word) and can offer an explanation with some confidence of heing correct, but without written evidence there is too much scope for guesswork. What 148 the grave record reflects is primarily ideology, and this is a planet inaccessible to the archacologist of which he has only the vaguest notion unless the spacecraft of written evidence can bring him nearer. One wonders sometimes why archaeolo- gts ask so many unanswerable questions while so many answerable ones are left unasked by Chavo Masser LA, 275 du C.N.RS, “Ethnologic préhistorique,” College de France, place Marcalin Berthelot, F-73231 Paris Cedex 05, France. 281% 82 Alekshin is more cautious than might have been expected from his rather dogmatic style. His findings are well supported and give us an inkling of a lost sociological reality that is usually inaccessible to archaeologists. One wonders, however, whether he does not somewhat exceed his premisses in saying that some girls aged 7 to 10 were “evidently” considered marriageable. It is not true that the “family. norms of ancient agricultural communities suggest early marriage of females”: instances of late marriage are equally well attested not only in Western Europe, where three centuries ago country girls married at 25 on the average, but algo elsewhere. Besides, Alekshin wants us to assume for his Sapallitepa girls a prenubile marriage, which is far from com- mon in ethnographic records. The appearance of “adul’ grave goods in some little girls’ graves shows nothing more than their owners’ ability to share the work of adults, On the other hand, the probable existence of an initiation for boys but not for girls strikes me as fairly well-founded, a nice result in itself, 1 much appreciate his remarkable investigations of Téviec and Hoédie burial goounds, In this connection, I consider it necessary to specify that the ages at death estimated by Vallois for the deceased from these sites were obtained by reference to the observations of Todd and Lyon in 1924, a method which gives entirely false results (McKern and Stewart 1957, Bocquet- Appel and Masset 1982)."In my opinion, their true ages are much older. IV. A. Alekshin's reply had not arrived by press time and will there Tote appear in the next issue,—EDIT0R] References Cited ALEKS, V. A. 1977, The social stevetuce of early agricultural societies had on burial monuments of eltures of Central Asia and the Near East in Rsseian). Abstract of sertat Cancdate of Historical Sciences 3 Sat AkzasioNev ME, 1984. Common buriasin mounds with contracted ‘and painted skeletons Gin Kuesan). Prolows Tatrl Dokapls liehclibh Obskehets (Leningtad) 7-8 Aswanot, AA I9TS, Sopatitea: Tasbken ante nao, 19M, Clee burial an soil organisations 9 Thuliearigte avalssis of human population from early Bronze Age Nesters, Torkes. Jourvul a! Afoditrrancen Unlirapelgs” od Hrchactogs 13-20. TB : 98H, historical review of ethnological and archacologica analyses uf mortuary practice. Journal of snthropeogiel Arehae logy 132-38. [BB SE hal The development of socal stratifeation in early Bronze “Yue ‘western Turkey Evidence from esologieal and. mortuary sarah lo Mattortnen innpbgs ond dado Japrese (BB) esvass, E, 1980, Doth customs: onalyical study of burial ries. New Vark: Knopf bisronp, Lewis R: 197," Moreuary practices: Their study and their [potential in approaches to the wool dimensions of moriuary practice ated by James A, Brown, pp. 629. Atemetts of the Sockets for American Archacology 25. Bravarseavay TV. 1973. "Features of rolitary” demoeracs in Hellaaic societies (id-24 millennia 1.2)" (in usin). Summaries Jram the Conference “The: Emergence of arly Class See, ‘Mosca. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGYs-Prenay, and Cracpe Masser. 1982, Farewell Sonrnal of ttamman Esobution ¥1:321-33, ocquer APteL, Je is palsenlemography eal piginnses, XG, and D. Koureses, 1972. tptepetnion dex Schwurusramiseen Graberel von Vietice. Fomky vce: eeu). etisov, N78, 1968, The primitive communal srster: Principal Stanes and ioe! watems" in agian in Pony Tarif de ituchestblobtclet, vol. | Slosegw henson, Be We OS” Staplchise Lach Dumka. [ABD] coe, V, Goraos. 1945. Dicectional changes in funerary practies Mig 30.600 seas. ay {8 181 pe Confer, Davies 170, “Cycles de mets et ese funders aquise de eux sractres changer" in Echonges ef commie tte Mager nets Conde Let Sionsa Ete by.) Boulon and P. Miranda, pp. 759-81. The Hague: Mouton. [BB] rrscten, 1986 De Gndber der Se ‘ster Feasceont, HP. 981, The ealy periods af Shortughai(Harapyan) de este Bacirlan eulture of Deshi Taper deere at IRs oth Incetnaciont Conernce of South Asie Archaea Cintmges England ie PLL GStoFd Detesben der Feutroncet Suddeutschlandes for Verelng auf Munnet-and rasta, Home 25.502 its Ac nthe deslopment of socal srt eaten Ae ripe, coamest aythnoroiogy 23:13) PLR] Gionouraany CA Toba, Resa ay helt ledocon stun ide Riurttbe.baberneniy 18 Arkhaele dhetinge Seed, tt Mose Lab Tor Reta untheliches th taioany » Rakim Sow seade Bhatrnosaboyubeeus, Teudy 13 Nikhacolgic eedep Seeaas vols oseot. fat oatenkes, GaP T9i2. ennatraton of the social apstem of raeatithle hunters and. gatherers" Russian), tn Ona, Sobivateliryrirs Leming cogent ALP L536 Histor ofthe ancien tes ofthe Cope ‘Oh beued on xcanons near he sage af Boas Rech Gn’ Russian): Mutoh? fedaon ya fe rstenas 898i I Coenen 8. SIR topray a paralesga trade alta horgeanykh narev Severaye Ast Seveenoy Ame ta Traditconsve Rally Socom Sit 6 Scermay Ameri Bosco Nauk tshesten, 41586 Zam Veriais von Manner Frauen snd Rindern In Griberm des Stent steel: am fovsensierele Sr Sheltie Bodondenbmeipitce Ce1S:35-73, eh ‘Rettache Beberbungen tm Versuch woiigiacher Deatungenut- und rubgechiehe cher Crabetele. Blinc hoolagche Zetacirf 910, aegis Problematic er Gribersorsiog,” in Waderne Prtiome der Lrchoyie Bethe Hioguas, J 65. Arehaologche Kultuten und solatitonontsche Gebice! Eumnoidcretrctaooasene Cesc 91125, aovoas i, Ft ordensten 1 Munchen: Deck trsons A130, Tomato cones the age uri mounds on the Kuban (in Russian), Socetskaye :Urkiealogiya 12. tries, Wes ot the Braise ge ural se St Koch 3° Gn Taina) in Woleriett Aloreansttobeplit a. TOT" Iaory ofthe eppe tet of the soem nat Su aren Ln Raa. St . son took Biers of printiesscety and ethnography On the problem of reconstructing the past using ethnogt aphic Sats” Rassan), in Olle irae rye. henna. iouvsrica, Mb. 1972. Palaoeoisloeal piblems ofthe South berlan Achnithie (in Russian). Setup drei, oo. 2 ISi3. certain features of the Andean eultre‘OF the Minto seyret sen), Sect tr Shao oo Kigoriy; 1. NGOs, “The Early rons ceoctry of Dacca I “Thefts tc sensing of ceeavations, BEET Phe Bons dye isa of Counal toes Recon Soci deoetn Baked PL Roh ppc Seb Atmonks Ss AEE: Sharpen (PRR) Keres 8 Bae Reche Rackombcagiaber Bland tetas slattie eteen 9-23. Kony Pi 0a Stateitet approaches fii of ngs ia} csenra [198 Disptal of the de. stmericon smtp 29: 308-15 pas Kicritoy © 1958 Gelanken dhe dn goiten Avfigu der Bev ‘rung al ie Sisvurg et Haat, Dirac cheeses Titeiace 2 Kavatov, A. Pant G. V, Poncagrskit, 1935, The tribul society of tte seppesof Ease avape en Rassian), Mosca, Leiner. Kenocntts, GS. 1070. "Phe wealth of the dead lin Rosson), Pamtaonbi Eurnenita mire, Re 908 On che problem of she soit interpret tion of ecfain als of the sltneesCauessne Gn Re) rake Sobsolonise Toate svtleeg 19 898M 18k Kiev: Naukova & prchistory. stmt Vol. 24 + No.2» April 1993 Alekskin: suwiaL. cestos Laxe, REBECCA.\., and AcoREY J. ScnLErT. 1972, Osteology of social ganvation Residence patter. merical 1: 18620 I LesKoV, |. M, 1968, “Kerchenskava ekspeditsiva v 1967 godu,” in Arkheologicheskive isstedosaniva na Ukraine 1967 god, Vypusk 2. ixpoy A "1972. Pressures rom the Chroénian burrows: Latest discoveries. Leningrad: Aurora, (ABD! Levisra sess, C. 1963, Siructural anthropolosy Books. (BEI MeKexs, T, W., and TD, Stewant. 1957, Skeletal age changes in snng American males. Natick, Mass.: Headquarters, Quarter: aster Research and Development Command, (CM) Masoer situs, A. ME. 1965, Bronze ge monuments i, southern Tadiikistan (in Russian). Wfateray f Issletoromta po srtielogth SSSR UBS Maseox, YM. L967, The formation of early class society in the “ancient Esst fin Russian), Topyasy fstort 5, NTF}. Ancient toms of chiefsin the Caucasus" tin Russian), in Phe Concosus and Basiomn Europe in antiquity, Mosca 1974 Excavations of the burial complex at Aliniepe Gn Rossin}, Socetskaye olettcnlo sty, 0. 1 1976, Tie economics und social siructure of ancient societies fin Russian). Leningrad. Metuaant, J. 1967. Gauul Masak, o Neolitiic won Condon: ‘Thame: and Hdson Mexrent, N-1, 1968. Drcrnuystaya istoriva naseleniva stepnor polosy Vostocimay Esropy (Seuachulo 2 tysvuceletivs do we}. Mosk New York: Basie in Anutoix 91D, Tore Magsla, Kiew: Naukova Dumka, Xb) O17) KHL 1984, Bemerkangen aur gsellechallchen Bedestang ‘de fruhironronithienen et stengeiine” in Mstelteasebse Tvuenlichncon des Pastis far Dente lao 1055: Diesonalohonomischen Yerhatenie eden Stren der Leuhinger Kuiturin Mvteldestschisnd Atblsacsrhonk soc Forchungen 8.112 péquaen, Sand S.J. Pagearr, 1988, Hoidi: Dewsieme tation: corp di Mzlidign ste armartonin, Anwers: De Ske Pgcatr, Mf, S.J. Peqvart, Mf, Boves, and H, Vataors, 198. “ecie! Staton nieropote meslitigne dig Morb, Archives Ge ‘nate de Pakeontologe Humaine: Moire 18 Prorwowsks, Dy By 1949, Tie archaenlgy of Transcaasi (in Rus Sian) Leningrad Paves, J 1962 Die Balberger Grappe Miccldevtachiande und ihre ‘Selig tn miteleuropichen Neosehikum, Elkmaoguct Arche Inktucke detnchie 510-81 Pewa J. 1952, Nevlischer Grabereld im Nite, Sloensk Arche a 200, RASobHORG, K. 1974 Social steaifeation in Karly Bronze Age Denmark Prucistriese else W 38-6 avpnsikas, V. E1932, The cave cites of the Crimen and the problem st the’ Goths tn connection with. the stage.by stare fevsigpmenc of the northern Black Sen estat conn Gn Rasa) siiya Coadaraionnelkedonttldsttafne Ruflary C3), Resruaw, ©1972, The emergence of cicaion, London. Methuen Reckoraciet, J. 1968, Gestlechesierensere Destatangsstten Sn rahbronkéetiehenGrabern Sudbaverns. Bayerische Voge niche Save, Aisin 1970. Social bailisel Ph.D. casertation, Mich. [BB] Sweraston, V, L196, The sementie stent ot Gear ( ‘Ressian). Vushnowutkmenistonskara, Akheoigicheskaya Kom Diekanaya Beepauitsies 10 "22, Collective nurals andthe sty of the social system of arly agricultural tbes in" Raseian) Uspebht Sredverstobt “iBhelt | Sesperser f 1965. Sonderbestattungen und thee palodemngss- phisehe Bedewtsng ifomo 313). Sussex, 5. 19TE, The socal organization at Brant, itgnty 49: 88 Eos, “Acchaeologicl ‘cultures: An_empirical invests Won in Tle spel oration of enfure,Pated by To pp. i18"40. Londons Duckarts PUR] Sutaxov, A, P. 1970. The arigin of slavery: Lenin's ideas on the study of tutors of prinite aces slavery ad ondlinn (in RUSS Stoseo Sonous VS, 1962. Tasty Butak 1 Brow “Retr Kezobltom (in asst). Mate Aikheolost Sos 120 Lick, Perea J. 1960, Exhnography and archseoogica interpretation taney tain. Pond Aechowiogy U 262-84 mensions of moreuay practices. Une Spivey of Mnigam, nn rbot lye burial ground in Ip f Kesledovanivs po 9Calendar 1983 May 15-20. Council of Biology Editors, International Confer- fence of Scientific Editors, and Society of Scholarly Pub- lishing, joint conference, Philadeiphia, Pa., U.S.A. Theme: Seta Communion around the World, Write: Bliza- beth M. Zipf, BioSciences Information Service, 2000 Arch Sty Philacelphin, Ps. 19103, US. May 26-28. International Society for the Comparative Study of Civilizations, 12th annual meeting, Buffalo, N.Y., U.S.A. Write: Burkart Holaner, Center for International Studies, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15260, US.A. June 13-15. Society for Economic Botany, 24th annual meeting, (Oxiord, Ohio, U.S.A. Theme: Ethnobotany in the Neo: tropics. Write: Charles Heimsch. Botany, Miami Cni Oxford, Ohio 45056, ar Haray Eshbaugh, Systematic Biology Program, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. 20350, U'S.A., for general information, oF Gregory Anderson, logical Sciences Group, University of Connerticut, Storrs, Conn. 06268, U.S.A., to contribute & paper. June 15-18, Cheiton (International Society for the History of the Behavioral and Social Sciences), 13th annual meeting, Toronto, Ont., Canada, Write: H. M, B. Hurwitz, Depart ment of Psychology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ont, Canada N1G 2W1, for information on the program, Kurt Danziger, Department of, Psychology, York University Downsview, Ont., Canada M3J 13, for local arrangements, and John Popplestone, Archives of the History of Psychology, University of Akron,” Akron, Ohio 44328, C.S.A., for infor: ration about membership, 4-9, Association of Social Anthropologists of the Com- monwealth, 3d decennial conference, Cambridge. England. ‘Themes: Current and Future Contributions to the Discipline. Social Anthropology and Policy; Family, Economy, and Society. Write: M. Ruel (local organizer), Clare Collese, Cambridge CB21TL, England, or R. F. Ellen (honorary secretary of the Association), Eliot College, The University, Canterbury, Kent C12 7NS, England August &16, International Council for ‘Traditional Music, 27th conference, New York, N.Y., US.A. Write: Adelaide R. Schramm, Department’ of Music, Jersey City State College, Jersey City, N.J.07305, U.S.A, August 14-23, 13th International Congress of Anthropotogical and Ethnological Sciences, Quebec City Que., and Vancou- ver, B.C., Canada. Write: Bjorn Simonsen, Executive Secre- tary, 11th ICAES, Department of Anthropology and Sociol- ogy, 6303 NAV. Marine Drive, University of British Calum. bis Campus, Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6I 282 August 17-20. instiate for Ultimate Reality and Meaning, bi ennial meeting, Toronto, Ont., Canada, Write: Institute for Ultimate Reality and Meaning, Regis College, 15 St. Mary Su, Toronto, Ont, Canada NAY 285. Aust 21-27, '17th World Congress of Philosophy, Montreal, ‘Que, Canada. Theme: Philosophy and Culture. Write: Se: crétariat du XVII Congrés mondial de philosophic, Univer ké de Montréal, C-P. 6128, Suecusile A, Montréal, Que, Canada HBC 377 August S/-Seplonber 7. Bist Intemational Congress of Hus ‘man Sciences in Asia and North Africa (formerly Interna- tional Congress of Orientalists), Tokyo, Japan, Write: 31 CISHAAN Oice, TohO Gakkai, 4-1 Nishi Kanda 2 home, Chiyodasku, Tokyo 101, Japan. Scplomter'I-f. Canadian Rock Art Rescarch Associates, Gh national conference, Peterborough, Ont, Canada. ‘The Continuities and Relationships—The Context of Canadian Rock Art. Write: Ron Vastokae, Department of Anthro- poles, Trane Univers, Peter, On, Canada 89) (cielo 6-5. 8th European Stadies Conference, Omaha, Nebr. US.A. Write: Julie Curtis, Department of Dramatic Arts or Karen Soukup, Department of Foreign Languages, Un erst of Nebraska at Onna, Omaha, Nebr. 68182, U.S.A Getsber 2-0. Ametiean Folslore Society, annual mecting Nash, Tenn. USA. Program chair to be announced Noventer 21-25. Tateroational Astociation of Historans of Asia, Uth conference, Manila, Philippines. Weite: Leslie E. Buuson, Department of History, Cllog of Arts and Sciences, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City 3004, Metro Manila, Philippines. Decent 11-21. 15th International Congress of Genetics, ‘New Delhi, India. Theme: Genetie Conservation—Microbes to Man, Write: The Seetetare, XV International Congress of Genetics, 2.0. Hox 2841, New Delhi 110060, India To be announced. 5th International Congress of African Studies, Nigeria. Theme. Aircan Identity and Education 1985 To be announced. Sth Pacific Science Inter-Congress, Baguio City, Philippines. Theme: Transportation and Communi- cation in the Pacific. Write: Paulo C. Campos, National Research Couneil of the Philippines, General Santos Ave., Bicutan, Tagig, Metro Manila, Pailippines.