Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Burial Society and Context in The Provi

    Uploaded by

    Floor Roeterdink
    8 views12 pages

    Original Title

    Burial Society and Context in the Provi

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views12 pages

    Burial Society and Context in The Provi

    Uploaded by

    Floor Roeterdink

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 12
    1. Burial, society and context in the provincial Roman World John Pearce Introduction ‘The archaeological evidence for burial practice as always been central tothe reconstruction ofboth prehistoric and ‘easly medieval societies, butas remained less integral 0 the study ofthe Roman world, Wider developments in the archacological interpretation of mortuary practice have also had relatively litle influence. In syntheses of the archaeology of Roman Britain and other provinces, burial has often been exclude from the main political oF military narratives, and considered primarily within descriptive accounts of ‘day-to-day’ provincial life (Millet this volume). Only at certain points, usually ‘wanstion’ periods, i burial evidence more central to such narratives, for example as marker of the movement of peoples inthe immediate pre-Roman period in north western Europe and forthe arrival of Germanic incomers in the late Roman period. The identification of popular conversion to Christianity has also been debated on the basis of late Roman burial practices. The emphasis on specific historical questions has however been a distrac tion from exploring the relationship between burial and society over the longer term. ‘Recent perspectives onthe archacology ofthe Roman provinces provide a context for rejuvenating the study of burial and demand that we examine some ofthe concepts used in the analysis of burial practice. A number of abjections have been raisedto the studies which displaced from centre stage political and military narratives in favour of social and economic processes, especially that of Romanisation eg. Blagg and Mill 1990; Brandt and Slofstra 1983: Millet 1990), Both theterm ‘Romanisation” {and the emphasis on mapping the spread of "Romania" have been argued 1o produce a one-diretional historical narrative Bartett 1997). more diverse range of response to the terial manifestations of Roman power havebeen envisaged, not precludingemulationbutalsoallowing for resistance (lingley 1997; Webster 1996) and selective appropriation related to loca social formations (ee Terrenato 1998). In short «process of “Romanisaton cannot be taken for granted as given or normative. Instead fur aim is to understand how “Roman” material forms were adopted in different contexts, including burial ‘Economicand social changes didnottake placeina vacuum. but developed with and through change in ritual, Belief and ideology (eg. Metzler etal, 1995; Roymans 1996, ‘Woolf 1998). Emphasis onthe ideological component of "Romanisation’ his stimulated a revival i intrest inthe spheres traditionally soon as pertaining o ideology, such as religion and burial (eg, Freeman 1993), Its thus a fevitfl time to re-evaluate the use of burial evidence for Roman societies. Just as the size of the Roman werld defies feasible synthesis of all the various aspects of burial practice (Moris 1992: 206), soit also resists any ertique which attempts to cover all relevant source materials and possible topics of discussion. The influence of the “intellectuals approach is clear inthe atempts to identify through burial evidence ether Roman and native belt systems or, inthe later imperial period, adherence to Christan afterlife beliefs. Ian Moms (1987; 1992) has criticised this approach to burial in the Greco-Roman ‘world for examining burial practice only as evidence for afterlife beliefs and for a one-dimensional interpretation of funerary symbolism as such evidence. Given Moris ‘extended criticism this approach is not examined further here. Also excepted from consideration here are three broad sources of evidence. Literary evidence for atitudes towards death and the dead from the Roman world is rematkably diverse but has been used to reconstruct a ‘composite picture of Roman funerary rituals and atitudes to the dead ignoring spatial and ehronological diversity (e.g. Toynbee 1971). More closely focused studies ofthe literary evidence will inevitably produce a fragmented account which is biased to Rome and Italy, although patchy evidence does exist from elsewhere for example pre-Roman and Roman Gaul (Buisson 1993; Le Bohec 1991) and Spain (Curchin 1997: 9) The study of funerary architecture, sculpture and epigraphy, in particular from ly represents an exception tothe generalisation made above and has become acental source fr Roman society ‘The analysis of human remains is also not discussed here; its significance has been emphasised elsewhere although a the number of cemetery publications to integrate dis cussion of skeletal data with other archaeological informa: tion remains small (Reece 1982; this volume). The emphasis of discussion in this paper lies primarily on current approaches tothe burial practices ofthe northern provinces, especially ofthe erly Roman period although tis impossible to do equal justice to different national traditions of the study of Roman burial practice and its hoped that generalisations willbe forgiven." The study of burials from Roman Britain should certainly not be ‘considered as typical for the northern provinces: the reatrprovty given io burial evidence elsewhere is well demonstrated by the lage numberof cemetery related projects within the ‘Romanisaton project’ sponsored by ‘the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Haffner and von ‘Schnurbein 1996). Nevertheless despite these unavoidable restictions of focus, the discussion considers some widely held assumptions in the study of burial in the Roman word ‘Over the last two decades several studies have e008: ised the potential of burial evidence as a source for provincial Roman society and brought a diversity of perspectives to bear (eg. Ferdite (ed.) 1993; Galliou 1989, Jones 1983; Philpot 1991; Reece (ed) 1977; Stuck (cd. 1993; Fasold eral. (ed. 1998). A growing database {salso atthe disposal of students of burial evidence. Figure 1.1 for example records the increase in the number of sites in Britain on which Roman period burials have been excavated since the early pat ofthis century, an increase ‘which matches that of other types of Roman period site (for which see Wilkes 1989: 247-9), However as others have pointed out (Jones 1993a; Reece 1982; Rife 1997), only amminority of analyses have critically considered the premises by which Roman society is reconstructed from 1958-60 [— 1961-65 [] el 1931-5 ——, 1936-40 —— 1941-45 1946-50 1951-55 Fig. LI References o excavation of burials and cemeteries as (5 year blocks), 1920-1995. Join Pearce burial evidence. In particular he “post processua”eriique ofthe interpretation of mortuary practice has received litle atention. This paper reviews current approaches (0 burial data inthe light of general developments in two areas of debate the archaeological study of mortuary ritual ‘and debate on the nature of cultural change in the Roman ‘world. The use of burial as evidence for cultural identity and social staus is given particular attention. Drawing broadly on post-processual approaches, some methods are offered to develop and broaden analysis of Roman period burials, in particular though the study of burial evidence in tandem wit that from other archaeological Burial and cultural identity If any one area of interest dominates the study of the burials of the Roman period (excluding the “intellectualist’ perspective), itis the relationship between burial and cultural identity. In the north-western provinces {wo examples of this approach are probably most familie Scholars have tried to differentiate between the burial practices of indigenous populations an those of incomers and to trace changes in local burial practices as manifesta tions of ‘Romanisation’. nthe study of the late Roman period the identification of setlers from beyond the boundaries of the empire through modes of burial furnishing has generated continuing discussion (Baldwin 1985; Clarke 1979; Cooke 1998; Halsall 1992; ills 1979, James 1988), with study of skeletal evidence now making ‘an important if so far limited contribution (Piet 1995; Reece 1982; ths volume). Given the comparative intensity ‘of study ofthe late Roman period inthis espect, attention is devoted hereto the early Roman period 1981-85 8 reconded in archaeological sunmaries in JRS and Britannia ‘Burial, society and context inthe provincial Roman World 3 Distinctions between the burial practices of indigenous and intrusive groups in the early Roman period have been ‘anon the basis of two eiteria, grave goods and burial ‘ype. Forexamplea suite of grave goods hes been classed ‘Roman’, nparticular the presence of lamps, coins and unguent bots (Philpott 1991: 218; Fasold 1993: 382-4, Fasold and Witteyer 1998). Metal dress accessories in burial assemblages have been used 10 attach ethnic affiliation tothe occupanis of graves, based onthe regional ‘costume types identified from relief sculpture and general disributions of dress accessories (Martin-Kilcher 1993 Wild 1985). erterion almost wholly ignored in Britain but given equal if not greater importance im std of the German provinces in particular and to lesser extent in Gaul is the type of cremation burial. The manner of

    You might also like