Liv Nilsson Stutz

From spectator to critic and participant A new role for archaeology in ritual studies

In order to understand ritual in the past, archaeology has long relied on theories developed in other disciplines. While these theories, which often rely on written or oral information, have added many important dimensions to our interpretation of the archaeological record, they have often proven difficult to successfully articulate with the archaeological sources. Moreover, archaeology has tended to remain on the receiving end of the formulation of social theory, and has only rarely participated in the theoretical development and critique. In this article we argue that we see a central role for archaeology to contribute to the development of ritual theory. Through two case studies from Scandinavian prehistory we illustrate how the application of a practice-based ritual theory allows us to more firmly connect the theoretical framework to our archaeological sources. This connection not only leads us toward a synchronization of materials, methods and theories, but it also allows us to engage in the broader interdisciplinary theoretical discussion about ritual. The specific challenges posed by the archaeological sources and the archaeological process of interpretation point to new questions relating to the application of theoretical frameworks, and may even suggest some solutions.

The persistent presence of the dead: recent excavations at the hunter-gatherer cemetery at Zvejnieki (Latvia)

The well-known Mesolithic cemeteries of Northern Europe have long been viewed as evidence of developing social complexity in those regions in the centuries immediately before the Neolithic transition. These sites also had important symbolic connotations. This study uses new and more detailed analysis of the burial practices in one of these cemeteries to argue that much more is involved than social differentiation. Repeated burial in the densely packed site of Zvejnieki entailed large-scale disturbance of earlier graves, and would have involved recurrent encounters with the remains of the ancestral dead. The intentional use of older settlement material in the grave fills may also have signified a symbolic link with the past. The specific identity of the dead is highlighted by the evidence for clay face masks and tight body wrappings in some cases.

Can an archaeologist be a public intellectual

In the contributions that follow seven archaeologists, of different backgrounds and working in different ways and places, attempt to answer the question ‘Can an archaeologist be a public intellectual?’ This discussion follows a special forum, sponsored by this journal, held at the European Archaeologists’ Association annual conference in Helsinki in 2012. The participants in that forum were Asa Larsson, Layla Renshaw, Ghattas Sajey, Audrey Horning and Thomas Meier, who was unfortunately unable to offer his contribution for publication. The published discussion is supplemented by contributions from Cornelius Holtorf, Fredrik Svanberg, Nathan Schlanger and Jaime Almansa Sanchez. We hope that this special section captures some of the spirit of lively debate that characterized the forum.

Claims to the Past. A Critical View of the Arguments Driving Repatriation of Cultural Heritage and Their Role in Contemporary Identity Politics

This article explores the role that the worldwide movement of repatriation of human remains and cultural heritage—from museums and other institutions to minorities and indigenous populations—plays ...Abstract This article explores the role that the worldwide movement of repatriation of human remains and cultural heritage—from museums and other institutions to minorities and indigenous populations—plays in contemporary identity politics. Beyond the obvious positive outcomes of this process, including a significant democratization of the field of archaeology, the repatriation movement poses challenges, mainly because it relies on concepts such as past–present continuity that are sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly, problematic for legitimizing group identities and group claims to cultural heritage and human remains. It is argued that while archaeologists and anthropologists must continue to support the idea of increasing democratization of interpreting the past, they must also maintain the right to remain critical to all claims of the past by any particular group.

Is archaeology still the project of nation states? An editorial comment

The European Association of Archaeologists has long fostered critical analysis of the relationship between archaeology and politics, particularly the politics of national, regional and supra-region ...

The Noah Complex and Archaeology in the Holy Land The Case of the Mamilla Cemetery and the Museum of Tolerance and Human Dignity

Abstract The partial development of the Old Muslim Mamilla cemetery in Jerusalem for the planned construction of a Museum of Tolerance and Human Dignity has spurred protests from the Muslim descending communities and from around the world. Archaeology played a central role in the process since the development only could go ahead after a large number of burials had been removed from the site by excavation. In the process the place transitioned from having been a neglected marginalized space in the urban landscape to become a contested place filled with new significance and symbolism. This process of transformation is accompanied by a shift in cultural heritage production. Through this case, this article critically explores the role and responsibility of archaeology drawing on debates that view cultural heritage production as both problematic and essential. Rather than taking sides, the piece aims at highlighting the complexities of the debates and the challenged facing archaeology.

Berit J. Sellevold (ed.): Old Bones: Osteoarchaeology in Norway: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

Old Bones: Osteoarchaeology in Norway: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow is an edited conference publication, and it privileges the inclusion of a range of voices and perspectives over offering a clearly focused approach to a narrower set of questions. The benefit of this broader approach is to include a number of valuable case studies and interesting points of view and experiences. The drawback is that the book is perhaps too broad, and as a reader you end up finding the most interesting questions buried in the chapters rather than explicitly stated. The book offers fascinating perspectives on how a scientific discipline develops within a nation-state (especially as the practice of the discipline is tied into ideologies and responsibilities of cultural heritage management and preservation), not just conceptually, but practically, and on how laws, values, history, legislation and recommendations affect the course of its development. It also addresses, with almost painful honesty, how mistakes in the past can affect future policy and debates. These questions, whether implicitly or explicitly discussed in the broad offerings of chapters, make Old Bones both original and highly interesting. The book consists of five parts and includes a total of 17 chapters (not counting the introduction by the editor). The first part provides historical perspectives on the broader field of osteoarchaeology in Norway, including both surveys of the discipline as a whole (Sellevold) and animal osteology in particular (Hufthammer), and an analysis by Jan Brendalsmo of committee work during the period 1984–1986, a critical and interesting chapter I will return to in more detail below. Part 2, entitled ‘Osteological Investigations: Establishing an Archaeological Source Material’, is a collection of three papers addressing specific methodologies with regard to juvenile remains (Bergum) and co-mingled remains (Denham), and more general survey points of the value of studying human remains (Lorvik). The two latter chapters explicitly address the history of specific collections and the current challenges facing the discipline in Norway today. The third section, ‘Osteoarchaeology: Skeletons as Archaeological Source Material’, consists of case studies of medieval and post-medieval human remains. Ann Kathrin Jantsch and Mona Odegarden’s chapter on 17th century burials from Trondheim includes an explicit discussion of the ethics of displaying historical human remains, thus tying into the fifth and last part of the book. Part 4, ‘New Methods, New Possibilities: The Future of Osteoarchaeology in Norway’, includes three chapters presenting arguments for the benefits of digital radiography (Heuck Henriksen et al.), molecular genetics (Persson) and archaeological geophysics (Gustavsen). The fifth and last part is devoted to the increasingly central issue of ethics. Here the editor appears to have wanted to explicitly include different voices and the result is rather mixed. The chairperson of the National Committee for Research Ethics on Human Remains (Sormoen) delivers a passionate and important statement about human remains from archaeological contexts, but it is unclear who the intended audience is (it is probably superfluous to educate archaeologists about the importance of provenance). Some statements would need further elaboration to be evaluated, e.g. ‘The question of ethnicity is often more important today than when the discovery was made’ (p. 283), and other claims seem factually questionable (‘In the Nordic climate, human remains normally decompose easily’, p. 238). Unn Yilmaz contrasts and compares the situation in Norway with that in the UK. It is interesting to see the discussion of the degradation of information for material that has been reburied (p. 316), which suggests entertaining the idea that reburied remains would, at some point, potentially be objects for scientific investigation. In the contextReview of Berit J. Sellevold (ed.): Old Bones: Osetoarchaeology in Norway: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow : Novus Forlag, Oslo, 2014. 356 pp. ISBN: 978-82-7099-783-1

The Importance of “Getting It Right:” Tracing Anxiety in Mesolithic Burial Rituals

This chapter explores the connections between mortuary ritual and anxiety as a psychological response to death. Focus is placed on understanding the ritual response itself, both as practice and as an outlet for anxiety generated by the ambiguous threat of the unknown and uncontrollable, i.e., death. The chapter examines to what extent we are able to trace the presence of anxiety in the archaeological remains of mortuary rituals among the Mesolithic hunters and gatherers around the Baltic Sea. The work builds on an archaeothanatologically based reconstruction of the ritual practices of the treatment of the dead human bodies, combined with an explicit consideration of psychological theories of anxiety. By drawing on theories from ritual studies, which view these practices as central social and cultural phenomena, and from psychology, where ritual behaviors are commonly associated with anxiety, the study identifies ways to access the emotional state of anxiety through archaeological sources.

The Archaeology of the Dead: Lectures in Archaeothanatology , by Henri Duday, 2009. Translated by Anna Maria Cipriani and John Pearce. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-1-84217-356-5 paperback £30 & US

[Review of] The Archaeology of the Dead: Lectures in Archaeothanatology, by Henri Duday, 2009. Translated by Anna Maria Cipriani and John Pearce. : Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-1-84217-356-5 paperback £30 & US

60; x+158 pp., 143 figs.

60; x+158 pp., 143 figs.