Annotated Bibliography

1

Residential Burial in Global Perspective

Ron L. Adams Simon Fraser University

and Stacie M. King

Indiana University

ABSTRACT While the study and interpretation of mortuary practices have long been important parts of archaeological anal-

yses, rarely has residential burial – the practice of burying the deceased in and around houses – been a specific focus of investigation. Here, we examine some of the global contexts in which residential burial has occurred and discuss the different ways that archaeologists have interpreted residential burial. Though practices vary in time, place, and context, the presence of burials in residential settings compels archaeologists to carefully consider the relationship between the living and the dead and to explore the importance of social memory, social reproduction, relations of power, mortuary ritual, and social landscapes. [burial, ancestors, social reproduction, memory, landscapes]

Archaeologists have long considered burials and buriallocation pivotal to the examination of prehistoric so- cial practices. Since early work that considered burials as reflections of prehistoric social orders (e.g., Binford 1971; Renfrew 1973, 1976; Saxe 1970) and as important to the analyses of the social practices of the living (e.g., Flemming 1973), mortuary analyses in archaeology have expanded in scope to explore topics related to social reproduction, social memory, social cohesion, and landscapes (e.g., Kuijt 2001, 2008; Parker Pearson 1999; Van Dyke 2003). Many studies of prehistoric mortuary practices have put specific emphasis on issues concerning burial placement when considering the relevance of burials to the social and symbolic worlds of the living (e.g., Ashmore and Geller 2005; McAnany 1995). The presence of human remains within residential areas forces a particular consideration of the role of the deceased in the lives of the living. Here termed “residential burial,” this practice is spatially and temporally widespread and can en- tail entirely different meanings than cases of burials placed in locations far away from living quarters. The close prox- imity of the living and dead in residential contexts prompts a

reexamination of the relationships between prehistoric peo- ples and their deceased forebears and the impact burials had on social relations in residential contexts.

What has been lacking up to this point is a compre- hensive discussion of this important and growing topic of archaeological and anthropological inquiry. A desire to ad- vance the discussion of residential burial and bring the topic to the forefront of anthropological discussions of funerary practices prompted the creation of this volume. Most of the essays in this volume were first presented in a symposium on the same topic at the 2007 Society for American Ar- chaeology Annual Meeting in Austin, Texas. The primary goal of the symposium was to assemble a group of papers with a wide range of geographic and theoretical perspec- tives on the subject of residential burial. The chapters in this volume reflect this diversity. The themes discussed range from macro-level analyses looking at regional patterning and changes through time in burial practices to those exam- ining the more localized meanings of residential burial in particular cases, ranging from Southeast Asia to Mesoamer- ica. Social memory, identity, power, and social reproduction

ARCHEOLOGICAL PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, Vol. 20, Issue 1, pp. 1–16, ISSN 1551-823X, online ISSN 1551-8248. C© 2011 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-8248.2011.01024.x.

2 Ron L. Adams and Stacie M. King

are among the topics discussed in these chapters. Despite the diversity of contexts and perspectives represented, all of the chapters are united by a focus on the various realms of meaning associated with burials in domestic contexts. Collectively, the contributions address how the practice of residential burial entails particular forms of sociality and has diverse social implications, yet also show which facets of residential burial seem to be unique and particular to particular peoples at particular times.

The chapters in this volume address themes that build on a long line of mortuary studies in archaeology and anthro- pology. Mortuary analyses in the first half of the twentieth century were influenced by the work of Kroeber (1927), who argued that mortuary behavior had little to do with other as- pects of social life and, thus, could not provide clues to the nature of past societies. This view continued to have a ma- jor influence on mortuary archaeology as late as the 1960s (Ucko 1969). The advent of the “New Archaeology” led to a paradigm shift in relation to mortuary archaeology. The works of Saxe (1970) and Binford (1971) took a system- atic and cross-cultural approach to the study of burials that sought to link burial and mortuary treatment to the social position of the deceased and the degree of complexity within a society. Burials and mortuary ritual were thus viewed as material manifestations of prehistoric social orders. Many researchers (e.g., Chapman 1981; Goldstein 1980; Peebles and Kus 1977; Morris 1991) have revised and expanded the general principles of the “Saxe-Binford approach” and the paradigm continues to influence current analyses of mortu- ary practices.

The Saxe-Binford approach has also drawn substantial criticism. Most critics caution against the universal applica- tion of this perspective on the social importance of burial patterning. Many of these criticisms have been considered to represent the overall outlook of a post-processual approach and have called attention to the historically contingent, con- textual variability associated with burial and mortuary be- havior (Hodder 1982; Parker Pearson 1982). The backlash against the Saxe-Binford perspective has also criticized the embedded assumption that mortuary treatment embodies the deceased’s social position in life. Instead of being a static reflection of the social role of the deceased, many have ar- gued, mortuary remains can be the result of funerary tradi- tions in which social distinctions are idealized or masked (Carr 1995; Chesson 1999; Hodder 1990, 1994; McGuire 1983; Metcalf and Huntington 1991; Morris 1987; Schiller 1997). Examining cycles of mortuary behavior in different societies, Cannon (1989) has also shown how social dis- tinctions are not always linked to mortuary elaboration and how the expression of social distinction in mortuary prac- tice can change over time. Still others have observed that

mortuary treatment has just as much, if not more, to do with the living and those who are participating in the mortuary rituals as it does with the deceased individual (e.g., Gillespie 2001).

Indeed, the importance of the living context of mor- tuary behavior is an issue that has come to the forefront of archaeological mortuary analysis (Laneri 2007). Such discussions of mortuary ritual highlight funerary practices and have shown that death and mortuary ritual are not only concerned with mourning and reverence but also can be occasions for the enhancement of group solidarity, the ad- vancement of power, and the expression of a “symbolic dis- course on life” (Humphreys 1981:9; Raharijaona and Kus 2001:64). Archaeologists and anthropologists have begun to explore the dynamics of identity and solidarity associ- ated with mortuary ritual and how the rituals can reaffirm contexts of meaning within social groups. In many cases, mortuary rituals have been shown to possess integrative mechanisms by highlighting real or perceived links between individuals and groups (Berreman 1981; Flanagan 1989; Flanagan and Rayner 1988; Gerlach and Gerlach 1988; Kuijt 2001; McKinnon 1991, 1995; Paynter 1989; Rayner 1988).

Archaeologists have also begun to address the impor- tance of funerals as venues for sociopolitical action among the living (Morris 2007; Pollock 1999, 2007; Schwartz 2007). Pollock (1999:216–217) has argued that death can be a “contested realm” in which the living competed for control of the dead in the same way they competed for the control of resources and labor. In the context of the third millen- nium C.E. in Mesopotamia, Pollock (1999:217) asserts that differences in burial treatment reflected political and socioe- conomic differentiation and were part of strategies in estab- lishing relations of dependency. Many archaeologists have addressed such social issues in relation to funerary feasts in South American contexts as well (Gummerman 2004; Hastorf 2003; Lau 2002; Shimada et al. 2004:383, 386). Ethnographic studies in Southeast Asia, Africa, Polynesia, and northwestern North America have illustrated how fu- nerary rituals can be events at which individuals and groups are able to promote their interests and success through host- ing lavish feasts and establishing important relationships of sociopolitical support (Adams 2004; Bond 1987; Clarke 2001; Hayden 2009; Hayden and Villeneuve n.d.; Perodie 2001).

While many chapters in this volume deal with similar issues related to the living context of funerary traditions and attempt to connect burial patterning to social patterning, the emphasis here is not on cross-cultural generalizations in the sense of the Saxe-Binford perspective. Instead, a more recent trend in mortuary archaeology that considers the spatial and

Residential Burial in Global Perspective 3

social significance of burial placement influences the chap- ters of this volume. In particular, the overall discussion of this volume resonates well with previous works that have examined the placement of the dead and their relation to the living (e.g., Ashmore and Geller 2005; McAnany 1995; essays in Silverman and Small 2002). The in-depth look at residential burial from geographically diverse locales is what sets this volume apart. As is demonstrated in the following chapters, residential burial practices can take many forms, ranging from subfloor burials within houses to burials in front of or behind houses. The purpose of this volume is to explore the many ways in which residential burial and burial ritual are linked to the social and symbolic realms of the living. More specifically, it addresses how the placement of the dead in places so intimately connected to everyday life impacts the living and is reflective of an array of concerns for individuals and groups. This perspective on mortuary behavior is thus similar to previous discussions in which the dead and their treatment in burial have been viewed as the key to understanding past societies. The goal of this vol- ume, however, is not to generate a grand theory that explains the phenomenon of residential burial in all cases, but rather to explore the complexities of the practice in a variety of contexts.

What Is Residential Burial?

As a topic currently lacking a major synthetic discus- sion, just what constitutes residential burial is a theme that is addressed throughout this volume (most intensively in the chapters by Gillespie and by Adams and Kusumawati). Residential burials can take on a variety of forms. Classic examples include the Great House burial rooms in pueb- los of the U.S. Southwest (Akins 2003; Van Dyke 2004) and the subfloor burials of the ancient Near East (Kenyon 1981; Rollefson 1983, 1986). In past analyses of residential burial, “residential burial” or “intramural burial” has often been used to denote subfloor or other types of burials within residential structures, such as those within structure walls (e.g., Düring 2005; Kuijt 2000, 2008; Laneri 1999; Lull 2000). Burials designated as “residential” in this volume do not always adhere to the strict classification of burials that occur within the walls of a residential building. In this volume, burials within houses as well as burials in outdoor living areas, where everyday domestic activities occur and where a clear spatial relationship between the living area and the domestic structure exists, are considered residential. Although the issue has not been discussed comprehensively in the past, others have alluded to a similar designation of residential or intramural burial for interments located within

domestic contexts, but outside of residential structures (e.g., Schwartz 2007). These kinds of burials can include tombs in the center of settlements (Schwartz 2007), graves in front of and beside houses (in this volume, Adams and Kusumawati, chapter 2; Sullivan and Rodning, chapter 6; White and Eyre, chapter 5), burials in platform mounds (Gillespie, chap- ter 7, this volume), and burials in patios (Gillespie, chap- ter 7, this volume). These residential contexts are clearly distinguishable from cemeteries and other types of burials, such as long barrows and other types of megalithic buri- als of the European Neolithic, that are spatially set apart from a domestic setting and therefore clearly represent “ex- tramural burials.” Chapters by Adams and Kusumawati, Gillespie, Sullivan and Rodning, and White and Eyre all deal with burials that are not necessarily found within res- idential structures but are nonetheless residential in their association with domestic structures and the meanings they convey.

Gillespie’s (chapter 7, this volume) examination of buri- als both within and immediately adjacent to residential struc- tures in Formative period Chalcatzingo, Mexico, provides an important discussion of the differences and similarities be- tween within-house and other types of “residential” burial. Gillespie reworks her own earlier analysis of residential burial at Chalcatzingo from a synchronic perspective of shared practices and interrogates the ways in which resi- dential burial is sequential, repeated, and changed through time. In examining the pattern of mortuary behavior at Chal- catzingo, Gillespie concludes that subfloor burial was not the only “normative” burial pattern in the area. Burials in patios and platform mounds outside of houses were also within the spatial domains of social houses and these more “public” burials were found to have many similarities with and to reference the same “citational network” as subfloor burials, challenging the notion that burials within residential structures represent the only burial practice that should be considered residential. Gillespie shows how both the burials within residential structures and those outside the structures were important for social reproduction and memory and how employing a practice-oriented approach focusing on the vertical connections between successive interments over time as well as the horizontal connections between inter- ments across spatial scales can be useful heuristic tools in mortuary analysis.

Connecting the Living and the Dead

A major framework for the chapters in this volume is that the living and the dead are linked to one another through residential burial. Archaeologists have traditionally viewed

4 Ron L. Adams and Stacie M. King

the living and the dead in opposition to one another, entail- ing separate interpretations. Such a perspective is enhanced by the placement of the dead in cemeteries, away from the domestic contexts of the living. On the contrary, chapters in this volume view living societies in terms of their connection to deceased forebears in line with a paradigm that has been referred to as an “ancestral-descendant” perspective to mor- tuary analysis (Rakita and Buikstra 2005:8). According to this perspective, the social, material, and symbolic worlds of the living are shaped by their connection to and interaction with ancestors. Such a connection can be expressed through inherited claims to property and other material wealth (Ashmore and Geller 2005:84; Gillespie 2002; McAnany 1995). In this way, the spatial locale of burials creates a “genealogy of place that links descendants to that land” (McAnany 1995:65).

In many cases, the connections between the living and the dead can be extended to indicate an actual presence of the dead within the lives of the living. This perspective views the deceased as active agents in the lives of the living. In the context of Anglo-Saxon burial practices, Williams (2004:264) has argued that the dead can affect the actions and thoughts of the living. Ethnographically, beliefs that ancestors are essential to the well-being of the living are widespread (Raharijaona and Kus 2001:58). In some soci- eties, this connection can be manifested in beliefs that the dead could haunt or cause misfortune to the living if certain rituals were not performed, as was the belief in Mesopotamia and second-millennium Syria (Lewis 1989:31). Similar be- liefs are prevalent among groups in eastern Indonesia. In West Sumba, Indonesia, Kuipers (1990) has noted that per- forming large feasts is considered to be, in part, an obligation to ancestors to continue long-standing practices. Hardships are believed to result when such obligations are not ful- filled. By the same token, performance of certain rituals and proper care of the deceased can be considered benefi- cial for individuals and groups (Lewis 1989:31; Richardson 1999–2001:194). Thus, the real or perceived “agency” of the deceased can be viewed as altering or steering the behavior of the living.

Living groups’ connections to deceased ancestors have also been examined in terms of the importance burial tra- ditions and associated funerary practices have in creating an identity and social memory for individuals and groups (Chesson 2001; Hodder and Cessford 2004; Kuijt 2000, 2008). This perspective has been heavily influenced by the work of Connerton (1989) and moves beyond the mate- rial importance of rights and inheritance to address is- sues of social cohesion and reproduction. Connections to the past and to past ancestors exemplified in such things as burials, landscape, and architecture are what bring the

discussion of social memory into archaeology (Van Dyke and Alcock 2003). Such material manifestations of collec- tive memory are what Connerton (1989:75–79) referred to as “inscribed” memories. Situated within the space of ev- eryday domestic activities, residential burials can serve as important mnemonic devices for collective and individual memories.

Rituals associated with the dead and the material re- mains they leave behind are aspects of commemoration that also become part of the archaeological record. In this sense, as ancient practices, the rituals associated with the deceased invoke the memory of past ancestors through their contin- ued practice. This type of commemoration in relation to ritual practice was outlined by Connerton (1989:44–45) in his comprehensive discussion of social memory and is dis- cussed in relation to the continuation of ancient mortuary practices in the context of eastern Indonesia in this volume (see Adams and Kusumawati, chapter 2). Archaeologically, the remnants of this kind of behavior can range from ce- ramic pot fragments and food refuse found in front of tombs of the European Neolithic (Hayden 2003:232, 233; Sherratt 1991:56) to large menhir stones traditionally erected on the occasion of large funerals in the Torajan highlands of eastern Indonesia (Crystal 1974).

In contemporary North America, the issues associated with NAGPRA further illustrate the continued importance of ancestors and social memory to descendant communities. Aside from the complexities, difficulties, and conflicts that have arisen and are perhaps best illustrated in the controversy surrounding the handling of the remains of Kennewick man (Watkins 2004), the NAGPRA legislation underscores the continued importance of the deceased in the lives of the living. NAGPRA has forced a reconsideration of the dead in the United States by addressing the obligations the liv- ing have to the deceased and their descendant communities (Colquhoun 2000). By facilitating the repatriation and re- burial of Native American human remains, NAGPRA is a contemporary example of the importance of social mem- ory for the collective meanings and identities of groups. The respectful reburial of archaeological skeletal remains in contemporary North America has not been limited to Native American communities. Although not an example of resi- dential burial, the African Burial Ground investigations and reburial in New York resulted in the reclaiming of a nearly lost aspect of African American history with the potential to enhance the collective social memory and identity of the descendant communities involved (Perry et al. 2006). Impor- tantly, not all descendant communities approve of mortuary analyses involving their deceased ancestors, an issue the au- thors in this volume are mindful of when approaching and presenting mortuary data.

Residential Burial in Global Perspective 5

Residential burials in archaeological contexts, partic- ularly those under house floors, have been considered to give clear indications of the importance of social mem- ory and identity in a variety of contexts (e.g., Hodder and Cessford 2004; Joyce 1999; Kuijt 2001, 2008). The place- ment of burials in residential contexts can provide the living with a direct, ongoing connection to ancestors and a con- stant reminder of their place in what can be a long line of descendants originating from the founding ancestor of a household or larger group. Several chapters in this vol- ume explore such issues related to social memory and how it is manifested in residential burial practices (particularly Adams and Kusumawati, chapter 2, and King, chapter 4). In prehistoric coastal Oaxaca, Mexico, King (chapter 4, this volume) explores the role of residential burial in the con- struction of social memory during the Early Postclassic pe- riod (C.E. 975–1220) and presents a case in which she argues that residential subfloor burials both reinforced the collec- tive identity of social groups and memorialized individual ancestors. From an ethnoarchaeological perspective, Adams and Kusumawati (chapter 2, this volume) illustrate how the memorial aspects of residential burial can be entwined with practical sociopolitical concerns of individuals and groups in the context of the megalithic residential burial tradition in West Sumba, Indonesia.

Other forms of monumental burial, although not resi- dential, also exemplify the link between the living and de- ceased forebears. Large Mississippian burial mounds of the U.S. Southeast considered to contain the remains of pow- erful lineages are a cornerstone for North American inter- pretations of chiefdom societies as markers of the location of dominant settlements and symbols of their power (Beck 2003; Blitz 1993, 1999; Steponaitis 1978, 1991). Similarly, many archaeologists over the years have interpreted me- galithic tombs in western Europe to be particularly symbolic of descent groups (Powell 2005; Sjögren 1986) and mark- ers of territories or resources (Chapman 1981, 1995; Lidén 1995; Madsen 1982; Renfrew 1976). Whittle et al. (2007) examined long barrow and long cairn burials of southern Britain in the fourth millennium B.C.E. considering both their commemorative significance in connecting the living with deceased ancestors and the specific meanings that mon- ument form may have had in referencing a deeper past when long houses were first constructed. This connection is also addressed by Hodder (1984, 1990). Adams and Kusumawati (chapter 2, this volume) present a case in which residential burials in West Sumba, Indonesia, reach monumental pro- portions and elucidate the similarities in the social meanings conveyed between these more elaborate forms of residential burial and simpler forms of residential burial, such as sub- floor interments.

Continuity and Integration of Social Groups

As an extension to social memory, burial and mortuary practice can foster the integration of individuals and re- lated households that form social groups and the continuity of these groups through time. Geertz (1980:32) has argued that one of the important ways in which relations of kin are expressed is through “rights and obligations” associated with mortuary practices. Archaeologically, intramural burial placement has been interpreted as a defining characteristic of practices linked to rights of inheritance and membership in social groups (Gillespie 2002; McAnany 1995). Kuijt (2001) considered subfloor burial practices and patterns of architectural renovation, which included design standardiza- tion, as exemplifying the social continuity and integration of communities in an analysis of southern Levantine Pre- Pottery Neolithic mortuary practices. In reference to this mortuary tradition, Kuijt noted that “architecture was contin- ually linked to mortuary practices through the placement of burials inside of residential structures, highlighting elements of continuity and standardization in the design of residen- tial and nonresidential structures over multiple generations, and anchoring the architecture to the social landscape as a geographical focus of ritual action” (Kuijt 2001:93).

Hodder and Cessford (2004) examined residential burial within a larger discussion of daily practices, social memory, and the generation of a habitus (Bourdieu 1977) at Çatalhöyük. Drawing upon Connerton’s (1989) theories con- cerning social memory, Hodder and Cessford (2004) sug- gested that the presence of subfloor burials and repetitive practices that referenced the past, such as the standardized rebuilding of houses over time, contributed to the gener- ation of social memory. According to Hodder and Cess- ford (2004), subfloor burials at particular houses, repetitive practices concerned with social memory, and standardized rebuilding of houses through time are suggestive of the pres- ence of house societies (Lévi-Strauss 1983). As such, each symbolically elaborated residential structure at Çatalhöyük was linked to a particular social group whose connections to others were created and strengthened through shared prac- tices in architectural spaces. The link between residential burial and house societies at Çatalhöyük was further dis- cussed by Düring (2007), who argued that the high concen- trations of subfloor burials in the more elaborate houses at Çatalhöyük were indicative of the presence of struc- tures that served as the focal ritual locales of house society groups.

Beyond Çatalhöyük, the house society model has been widely applied in analyses of prehistoric social organiza- tion (see Beck 2007; Joyce and Gillespie 2000). The house society, as an analytical category for classifying social

6 Ron L. Adams and Stacie M. King

structures, was developed by Claude Lévi-Strauss. Lévi- Strauss developed the category of house society as an alter- native to more traditional categories of social groups, such as lineages and clans. In simple terms, house societies are social groups associated with “an estate made up of both material and immaterial wealth” that is perpetuated by the “transmission of its name, its goods, and its titles down a real or imaginary line” (Lévi-Strauss 1982:151). Unlike lin- eages and clans, house societies do not necessarily follow strict rules of descent and inheritance. Instead, a house soci- ety can have more flexible membership rules and entail both exogamy and endogamy as well as variability in postmarital residence (Gillespie 2000a:7; Helms 1998:15). Importantly, members are linked to a specific named house or physical ar- chitectural space that defines their relationship not only with others in their group but with other house society groups as well (Beck 2007:7).

The utility of the house society concept in archaeology derives, in part, from its emphasis on material culture (e.g., residential architecture, property and material goods, and burial) and repeated practices, both of which are evident in archaeological contexts. The model allows for flexibility in the composition of social groups, since house members need not be defined through kinship alone. Most importantly, the house society model explicitly connects material practices to forms of social organization. Residential burial is thus a common way that ideas about house origins, collective memory, and the temporal and spatial continuity of the house are communicated. Gillespie’s (2000b, 2000c) examination of prehistoric house societies among the Maya illustrates how residential burial and associated rituals can enhance the connections between the living and the dead and inte- grate individuals tied to houses and house compounds. Borić (2007) suggested that residential burial served to shape col- lective identity and spatial continuity of house societies in the Mesolithic and early Neolithic of the Upper Gorge of the Danube (Borić and Stefanović 2004). In the U.S. South- west, Heitman (2007) explored the applicability of the house society model to Pueblo Bonito by examining various archi- tectural elements, such as the cyclical replastering of kiva murals and episodes of reflooring in the Great House, and burials housed in the oldest portion of the pueblo. Heitman suggested that these practices fostered an anchoring of place, ancestor reverence, and a concern for the collective mem- ory of the pueblo. In a reinterpretation of large burials in Mississippian Etowah Mound C in Alabama, Brown (2007) used the house society model as a heuristic tool to show how the burial evidence points to the presence of multiple rival decent groups at the society’s top level as opposed to the traditional interpretation that there was a single paramount chiefly lineage.

The majority of contributors in this volume expand the discussion of residential burial within house societies (see Adams and Kusumawati, chapter 2; Gillespie, chap- ter 7; Joyce, chapter 3; King, chapter 4; Sullivan and Rodning, chapter 6). King (chapter 4) puts particular em- phasis on house society dynamics and their relation to res- idential burial in her discussion of the role of residential burial in the construction of social “house” histories dur- ing the Early Postclassic (C.E. 975–1220) of Oaxaca. King argues that subfloor burials reinforced a collective identity and memory of house-based groups. Among these burials is variability in treatment of the deceased, whereby only adults were buried beneath house floors. The lack of chil- dren in subfloor burials, according to King, is indicative of a scenario in which full-fledged membership in certain houses was potentially age-dependent and only adults were able to serve as house ancestors and have access to rights and property of the house. The standardization associated with subfloor burials in terms of both placement and grave goods is also highly suggestive of a concern for maintaining the collective identity of houses, while individual ancestors were celebrated by giving them exclusive burial locations undisturbed by later interments. King argues that in this way residential burial commemorated specific and general- ized ancestors at the same time and marked the house as the appropriate medium for individual and collective social practice.

Landscapes and Mortuary Practice

Apart from the obvious connection between the living and the dead manifested in residential burial, the practice is unique in terms of the cultural landscape that it creates. Analyses of prehistoric landscapes in relation to burial have for many years aided the development of theories related to the dynamics of complex Mississippian societies of the U.S. Southeast (Brown et al. 1978; Scarry 1996; Stepon- aitis 1978, 1991) and Neolithic Europe (Chapman 1981, 1995; Madsen 1982; Renfrew 1976). Regional analyses of broad patterns of sociopolitical development have contin- ued to shape many archaeological studies of landscape (e.g., Martindale and Supernant 2009; Mizoguchi 2009; Mun- son and Macri 2009; Peterson and Drennan 2005; see also Rodning 2010). Archaeological studies utilizing a land- scape approach have also begun to emphasize the way in which prehistoric people experienced and shaped their sur- roundings from a more symbolic perspective (Ashmore and Knapp 1999; Rodning 2010; Thomas 1999; Van Dyke 2003). This approach to cultural landscapes has highlighted the many ways that values, beliefs, and social entanglements

Residential Burial in Global Perspective 7

can shape the way in which people perceive landscape (Bender 1998; Bender et al. 1997; Fowles 2009; Thomas 1999; Wesson 1998). In relation to the placement of the dead, such methods of analysis have led to a focus on the importance of the connections between the past and the present in terms of social reproduction as well as the materialization of kinship rights to property (Buikstra and Charles 1999; Parker Pearson 1999:124; Philip 2003:119, 122). A landscape approach to burial patterning has also been shown to illuminate the gender roles within prehis- toric societies (Rodning 2001; Sullivan 2001). In some con- texts, burials have been interpreted as creating a landscape of the dead symbolically distinct from the landscape of the living (Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina 1998). Residen- tial burial connects the domains of the living and the dead in a unique landscape that forces archaeologists to con- sider the entanglements of the living and their deceased forebears.

The volume authors set out to make sense of this unique landscape and thereby expand the discussion of residential burial by looking at residential mortuary practices in ge- ographically dispersed locales, while exploring new the- oretical perspectives and broadening the scope of exist- ing interpretations. Above all, the authors in this volume expose the varying reasons for and implications of resi- dential burial in diverse settings and connect these prac- tices to distinct historically specific traditions and chang- ing sociopolitical structures in everyday social landscapes. Sullivan and Rodning (chapter 6, this volume) offer a spe- cific examination of burial in relation to the larger cul- tural landscape in the context of the southern Appalachian region of North America during the mid-second millen- nium C.E. During this time, male burials tended to be situated in the public settings of platform mounds, while burials of women were more commonly placed within resi- dences. Sullivan and Rodning demonstrate how this pattern of burial placement is indicative of women’s leadership roles within house-based clan structures and men’s roles as war- riors and brokers of intercommunity relations and trade, while challenging the traditional view that only male roles were associated with social dominance and power in this context.

Likewise, White and Eyre (chapter 5, this volume) take a renewed look at the spatial patterning of burials in Metal Age Thailand (ca. 2000 B.C.E. to C.E. 500) and chal- lenge previously held notions of burial and social struc- ture. Contrary to traditional archaeological interpretations of Metal Age Thailand that have been grounded in the no- tion that the dead were buried in cemeteries, White and Eyre present evidence indicating that residential burial was also a common practice during this time. According to

White and Eyre, this evidence forces not only a reinter- pretation of Metal Age burial practices, but also a reevalu- ation of the social dynamics that are thought to have been in place during the Metal Age. White and Eyre argue for the existence of a social order characterized by heterar- chy and group-oriented, corporate political dynamics that contrasts with the traditional view of the Metal Age as a time of hierarchical forms of sociopolitical organization in Thailand.

Diachronic Considerations

It has become an old adage that one of the benefits of archaeology as a subfield of anthropology is in its poten- tial to analyze societal change over long periods of time. This diachronic orientation is at the heart of the field and is reflected in the organization of innumerable textbooks and works dealing with regional overviews. Archaeologists have frequently looked to burial in the analysis of macro- level changes in prehistoric societal organization, such as the emergence of particularly elaborate monumental burial practices as an indication of the emergence of new social orders (e.g., Bradley 1998; Hodder 1990; Mizoguchi 2002; Nelson 1999; Sherratt 1990, 1995; Steponaitis 1978). In res- idential burial contexts, significant changes in social struc- tures have also been considered to accompany a shift in burial practices. For instance, the Argaric period (2250/200– 1500 cal B.C.E) in southeastern Spain is marked by a shift from nonresidential, monumental communal burials of the earlier Copper Age to burials beneath the floors and within the walls of individual houses. This change in funerary cus- toms is considered to have accompanied a change from a society in which social identity and power were associated with competing lineage groups to a more hierarchical so- ciety in which power was consolidated in a politically and economically dominant elite class, reflected in clear indica- tions of wealth disparities between houses, and identity was based on membership in nuclear families (Chapman 1990, 2005, 2007; Lull 2000).

In this volume, essays by Joyce (chapter 3) and Laneri (chapter 8) also examine the emergence of residential forms of burial from other, earlier types of burial. Joyce explores the origins of residential burial in prehispanic Honduras. According to Joyce, the importance of residential burial in shaping identities and naturalizing claims to differential so- cial status does not necessarily implicate these factors as be- ing present in the minds of those who made the conscious de- cision to inter the deceased within their residences. To more closely examine the origins of residential burial, Joyce of- fers a long-term historical perspective on funerary practices

8 Ron L. Adams and Stacie M. King

at the site of Puerto Escondido in Honduras, where there is evidence for occupation extending from before 1600 B.C.E. to after C.E. 450. She shows that pre-residential burial prac- tices at Puerto Escondido contain similar elements to those that were present when residential burial was adopted, in- cluding incorporation, disjunction, and commemoration. In- corporation refers to activities such as the caching of body ornamentation beneath house floors, which brings materials into constructed spaces. Disjunction refers to the separation of items from their surroundings and their placement in dif- ferent locations (e.g., the placement of body ornaments in subfloor caches). Activities associated with commemoration are those that are consciously undertaken to evoke memo- ries, such as rebuilding structures in the same locations. The long-term acceptance of practices of incorporation, disjunc- tion, and commemoration at Puerto Escondido, according to Joyce, allowed for the ease with which these practices became associated with and incorporated into residential burial.

Nicola Laneri takes the discussion of residential burial to Mesopotamia in the third millennium B.C.E. with data from the site of Titriş Höyük in southeastern Turkey. It is during this time that very significant changes occurred in the socioeconomic landscape of the region that coincided with a shift from funerary customs associated with extramural cemeteries and mausolea to intramural tombs within private dwellings, palaces, and temples. According to Laneri, this change in burial practices was vital to the power consolida- tion of emerging elites during the mid-late third and early second millennia B.C.E. of Mesopotamia. Laneri offers a sociohistorical perspective on the subject and references the broader patterns throughout the region in which funerary practices and economic subsistence are viewed as being the result of long-term transformations in production and consumption.

Dealing with much smaller time scales, Adams and Kusumawati (chapter 2, this volume) explore the nuanced changes in the meanings that burials have over time to liv- ing people in their ethnoarchaeological study of residential tombs in West Sumba, Indonesia. Employing a biographical perspective, Adams and Kusumawati reveal a complexity attached to the emblemic significance of residential tombs that can undergo shifts in meaning from the time the tombs are erected to the time when they become long-lasting mon- uments, depending on the perspective of the agents involved in their creation. While initially tombs are primarily symbols of the power of individuals and clan groups, the monuments’ significance in terms of the social memory of clan groups grows through time as they become not only symbols of power but also testimonials to prominent ancestors and the long-term continuity of groups.

Volume Organization and Goals

Within this overall framework of exploring the links between the living and the dead in residential burial, the chapters of this volume cover a great deal of contextual and theoretical variability. The goal of the volume is to advance the discussion of residential burial and give it de- served consideration as a central topic in current discussions of mortuary archaeology and anthropology. The case studies open with a discussion of the living residential burial tra- dition in West Sumba, Indonesia (Adams and Kusumawati, chapter 2), followed by an analysis of the origins of residen- tial burial practices in prehispanic Honduras (Joyce, chap- ter 3). From these chapters dealing with the persistence of the practice in one context and its origin in another, the discussions shift to prehistoric settings in Postclassic Oax- aca, Mexico (King, chapter 4), Metal Age Thailand (White and Eyre, chapter 5), late prehistoric and early Cherokee cultures of the Southern Appalachians (Sullivan and Rod- ning, chapter 6), Formative period Chalcatzingo, Mexico (Gillespie, chapter 7), and ancient Mesopotamia (Laneri, chapter 8). Patricia McAnany (chapter 9) concludes the vol- ume with a discussion of theoretical approaches to resi- dential burial and the different kinds of residential burial presented in this volume. McAnany summarizes the themes that are addressed in this volume that cross-cut the varia- tions in residential burial in case studies from across the globe and through time. She also provides a commentary on the successes and failures of these approaches, and helps to evaluate the contribution of this volume within mortuary archaeology.

In spite of the diversity of regions, years, and perspec- tives represented by the volume authors, all have a common belief that residential burial practices offer unique insights into how people in the past and in the contemporary world perceived and continue to perceive their relationships with their deceased ancestors and with one another. The authors are also united by the belief that a synthesis of the sub- ject of residential burial is overdue and particularly rele- vant to many of the current discussions within archaeol- ogy and anthropology. It is hoped that this volume will inspire new ideas and further research into this important topic.

References

Adams, Ron L. 2004 An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Feasting in

Sulawesi, Indonesia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23:56–78.

Residential Burial in Global Perspective 9

Akins, Nancy 2003 The Burials of Pueblo Bonito. In Pueblo Bonito:

Center of the Chacoan World. Jill E. Neitzel, ed. Pp. 94–106. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Ashmore, Wendy, and Pamela L. Geller 2005 Social Dimensions of Mortuary Space. In

Interacting with the Dead: Perspectives on Mortuary Archaeology for the New Millen- nium. Gordon F. M. Rakita, Jane E. Buikstra, Lane A. Beck, and Sloan R. Williams, eds. Pp. 81–92. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Ashmore, Wendy, and A. Bernard Knapp, eds. 1999 Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary

Perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell.

Beck, Robin A., Jr. 2003 Consolidation and Hierarchy: Chiefdom Vari-

ability in the Mississippian Southeast. American Antiquity 68:641–661.

2007 The Durable House: Material, Metaphor, and Structure. In The Durable House: House Society Models in Archaeology. Robin A. Beck Jr., ed. Pp. 3–24. Occasional Paper 35. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University.

Bender, Barbara, with Paul Aitken 1998 Stonehenge: Making Space. Oxford: Berg.

Bender, Barbara, Sue Hamilton, and Christopher Tilley 1997 Leskernick: Stone Worlds; Alternative Nar-

ratives; Nested Landscapes. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63:147–178.

Berreman, Gerald D. 1981 Social Inequality: A Cross-Cultural Analysis.

In Social Inequality: Comparative and Develop- mental Approaches. Gerald D. Berreman, ed. Pp. 3–40. New York: Academic.

Binford, Lewis R. 1971 Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their

Potential. In Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices. James A. Brown, ed. Pp. 6–29. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, 25. Washington, DC.

Blitz, John H. 1993 Ancient Chiefdoms of the Tombigbee. Uni-

versity of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 1999 Mississippian Chiefdoms and the Fission-Fusion

Process. American Antiquity 64:577–592.

Bond, George 1987 Ancestors and Protestants: Religious Coexis-

tence in the Social Field of a Zambian Community. American Ethnologist 14:55–72.

Borić, Dušan 2007 The House Between Grand Narrative and

Microhistory: A House Society in the Balkans. In The Durable House: House Society Models in Archaeology. Robin A. Beck Jr., ed. Pp. 97–129. Occasional Paper 35. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University.

Borić, Dušan, and Sofija Stefanović 2004 Birth and Death: Infant Burials from Vlasac

and Lepenski Vir. Antiquity 78:526–546.

Bourdieu, Pierre 1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Bradley, Richard 1998 The Significance of Monuments: On the Shaping

of Human Experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe. London: Routledge.

Brown, James A. 2007 The Social House in Southeastern Archaeol-

ogy. In The Durable House: House Society Models in Archaeology. Robin A. Beck Jr., ed. Pp. 227– 247. Occasional Paper 35. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University.

Brown, James A., Robert E. Bell, and Don E. Wyckoff 1978 Caddoan Settlement Patterns in the Arkansas

River Drainage. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns. Bruce D. Smith, ed. Pp. 169–200. New York: Academic.

Buikstra, Jane E., and Douglas K. Charles 1999 Centering the Ancestors: Cemeteries, Mounds and

Sacred Landscapes of the Ancient North American

10 Ron L. Adams and Stacie M. King

Midcontinent. In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives. Wendy Ashmore and A. Bernard Knapp, eds. Pp. 201–228. Oxford: Blackwell.

Cannon, Aubrey 1989 The Historical Dimension in Mortuary Ex-

pressions of Status and Sentiment. Current Anthropology 30:437–458.

Carr, C. 1995 Mortuary Practices: Their Social, Philosophical-

Religious, Circumstantial, and Physical Deter- minants. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2:105–200.

Chapman, Robert 1981 Archaeological Theory and Communal Burial

in Prehistoric Europe. In Patterns of the Past: Studies in Honor of David Clarke. Ian Hodder, Glynn Isaac, and Norman Hammond, eds. Pp. 387–411. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1990 Emerging Complexity: The Later Prehistory of South-east Spain, Iberia and the West Mediter- ranean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1995 Ten Years After—Megaliths, Mortuary Prac- tices, and the Territorial Model. In Regional Approaches to Mortuary Analysis. Lane An- derson Beck, ed. Pp. 29–51. New York: Plenum.

2005 Mortuary Analysis: A Matter of Time? In Interacting with the Dead: Perspectives on Mortu- ary Archaeology for the New Millennium. Gordon F. M. Rakita, Jane E. Buikstra, Lane A. Beck, and Sloan R. Williams, eds. Pp. 25–40. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

2007 Mortuary Rituals, Social Relations, and Identity in Southeast Spain in the Late Third to Early Second Millennia B.C. In Performing Death: Social Analyses of Funerary Traditions in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean. Nicola Laneri, ed. Pp. 69–79. Oriental Institute Seminars 3. Chicago: Oriental Institute.

Chesson, Meredith S. 1999 Libraries of the Dead: Early Bronze Age

Charnel Houses and Social Identity at Urban Bab edh-Dhra’, Jordan. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18:137–164.

Chesson, Meredith S., ed. 2001 Social Memory, Identity, and Death: Anthro-

pological Perspectives on Mortuary Rituals. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropo- logical Association, 10. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.

Clarke, Michael J. 2001 Akha Feasting: An Ethnoarchaeological Perspec-

tive. In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power. Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden, eds. Pp. 144–167. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Colquhoun, Justin 2000 Reburying the Dead: The Effects of NAG-

PRA on Our Relationships and Obligations to the Deceased. Anthropology of Consciousness 11(1–2):64–69.

Connerton, Paul 1989 How Societies Remember. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Crystal, Eric 1974 Man and the Menhir: Contemporary Me-

galithic Practice of the Sa’dan Toraja of Sulawesi, Indonesia. In Ethnoarchaeology. Christopher B. Donnan and C. William Clewlow Jr., eds. Pp. 117–128. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California.

Düring, Bleda S. 2005 Building Continuity in the Central Anatolian

Neolithic: Exploring the Meaning of Buildings at Aşikli Höyük and Çatalhöyük. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 18(1):3–29.

2007 The Articulation of Houses at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Turkey. In The Durable House: House Society Models in Archaeology. Robin A. Beck Jr., ed. Pp. 130–153. Occasional Paper 35. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University.

Flanagan, James G. 1989 Hierarchy in Simple “Egalitarian” Societies.

Annual Review of Anthropology 18:245–266.

Flanagan, James G., and Steve Rayner, eds. 1988 Rules, Decisions, and Inequality in Egalitar-

ian Societies. London: Gower.

Residential Burial in Global Perspective 11

Flemming, Andrew 1973 Tombs for the Living. Man 8(2):178–193.

Fowles, Severin M. 2009 The Enshrined Pueblo: Villagescape and Cosmos

in the Northern Rio Grande. American Antiquity 74:448–466.

Geertz, Clifford 1980 Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth-

Century Bali. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Gerlach, Luther P., and Ursula M. Gerlach 1988 Egalitarianism, Collectivism, and Individual-

ism: The Digo of Kenya. In Rules, Decisions, and Inequality in Egalitarian Societies. James G. Flanagan and Steve Rayner, eds. Pp. 113–144. London: Gower.

Gillespie, Susan D. 2000a Beyond Kinship: An Introduction. In Be-

yond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies. Rosemary A. Joyce and Susan D. Gillespie, eds. Pp. 1–21. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

2000b Maya “Nested Houses”: The Ritual Construction of Place. In Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies. Rosemary A. Joyce and Susan D. Gillespie, eds. Pp. 135– 160. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

2000c Rethinking Ancient Maya Social Organization: Replacing “Lineage” with “House.” American Anthropologist 102:467–484.

2001 Personhood, Agency, and Mortuary Ritual: A Case Study from the Ancient Maya. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20:73–112.

2002 Body and Soul among the Maya: Keeping the Spirits in Place. In The Space and Place of Death. Helaine Silverman and David B. Small, eds. Pp. 67–78. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 11. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.

Goldstein, Lynne G. 1980 Mississippian Mortuary Practices: A Case

Study of Two Cemeteries in the Lower Illi- nois Valley. Scientific Papers 4. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Archaeological Program.

Gummerman, George, IV 2004 Big Hearths and Big Pots: Moche Feasting

on the North Coast of Peru. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Montreal, March 31–April 4.

Hastorf, Christine 2003 Andean Luxury Foods: Special Food for the

Ancestors, Deities and the Elite. Antiquity 77:545–554.

Hayden, Brian 2003 Shamans, Sorcerers and Saints: A Prehistory

of Religion. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books.

2009 Funeral Feasts: Why Are They so Important. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19(1):29– 52.

Hayden, Brian, and Suzanne Villeneuve. N.d. Preliminary Report on Feasting in Futuna. http://

www.sfu.ca/archaeology/dept/fac_bio/hayden/ reports/futuna.pdf, accessed August 17, 2008.

Heitman, Carrie C. 2007 Houses Great and Small: Reevaluating the

“House” in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. In The Durable House: House Society Models in Archaeology. Robin A. Beck Jr., ed. Pp. 248–272. Occasional Paper 35. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University.

Helms, Mary 1998 Access to Origins: Affines, Ancestors and

Aristocrats. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Hodder, Ian 1982 Symbols in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press. 1984 Burials, Houses, Women and Men in the European

Neolithic. In Ideology, Power and Prehistory. Daniel Miller and Christopher Tilley, eds. Pp. 51–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1990 The Domestication of Europe: Structure and Contingency in Neolithic Societies. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

1994 Architecture and Meaning: The Example of Neolithic Houses and Tombs. In Architecture and Order: Approaches to Social Space. Michael

12 Ron L. Adams and Stacie M. King

Parker Pearson and Colin Richards, eds. Pp. 73–86. London: Routledge.

Hodder, Ian, and Craig Cessford 2004 Daily Practice and Social Memory at Çatalhöyük.

American Antiquity 69:17–40.

Humphreys, S. C. 1981 Introduction: Comparative Perspectives on Death.

In Mortality and Immortality: The Anthropology and Archaeology of Death. S. C. Humphreys and Helen King, eds. Pp. 1–13. London: Academic.

Joyce, Rosemary A. 1999 Social Dimensions of Pre-Classic Burials. In

Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica. David C. Grove and Rosemary A. Joyce, eds. Pp. 15–47. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.

Joyce, Rosemary A., and Susan D. Gillespie, eds. 2000 Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Repro-

duction in House Societies. Philadelphia: Uni- versity of Pennsylvania Press.

Kenyon, Kathleen M. 1981 The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the

Tell, vol. 3: Excavations at Jericho. T. Holland, ed. London: British School of Archaeology.

Kroeber, Alfred L. 1927 Disposal of the Dead. American Anthropolo-

gist 29:308–315.

Kuijt, Ian 2000 Keeping the Peace: Ritual, Skull Caching,

and Community Integration in the Levantine Ne- olithic. In Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation. Ian Kuijt, ed. Pp. 137–164. New York: Kluwer Academic.

2001 Place, Death, and the Transmission of Social Memory in Early Agricultural Communities of the Near Eastern Pre-Pottery Neolithic. In Social Memory, Identity, and Death: Anthropological Perspectives on Mortuary Rituals. Meredith S. Chesson, ed. Pp. 80–99. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 10. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.

2008 The Regeneration of Life: Neolithic Struc- tures of Symbolic Remembering and Forgetting. Current Anthropology 49:171–197.

Kuipers, Joel 1990 Power in Performance: The Creation of Textual

Authority in Weyewa Ritual Speech. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Laneri, Nicola 1999 Intramural Tombs: A Funerary Tradition in

the Middle Euphrates Valley during the IIIrd Millennium B.C. Anatolica 25:221–241.

Laneri, Nicola, ed. 2007 Performing Death: Social Analyses of Funer-

ary Traditions in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean. Oriental Institute Seminars 3. Chicago: Oriental Institute.

Lau, George 2002 Feasting and Ancestor Veneration at Chinchawas,

North Highlands of Ancash, Peru. Latin American Antiquity 13:279–304.

Lévi-Strauss, Claude 1982 The Way of the Masks. Sylvia Modelski,

trans. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 1983 The Way of the Masks. London: Jonathan

Cape.

Lewis, Theodore J. 1989 Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit.

Harvard Semitic Monographs 39. Atlanta: Scho- lars Press.

Lidén, Kerstin 1995 Megaliths, Agriculture, and Social Complex-

ity: A Diet Study of Two Swedish Megalith Populations. Journal of Anthropological Archae- ology 14:404–417.

Lull, Vicente 2000 Argaric Society: Death at Home. Antiquity

74:581–590.

McAnany, Patricia A. 1995 Living with the Ancestors: Kinship and Kingship

in Ancient Maya Society. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Residential Burial in Global Perspective 13

McGuire, Randall H. 1983 Breaking Down Cultural Complexity: Inequality

and Heterogeneity. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 6:91–142.

McKinnon, Susan 1991 From a Shattered Sun: Hierarchy, Gender,

and Alliance in the Tanimbar Islands. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

1995 Houses and Hierarchy: The View from a South Moluccan Society. In About the House: Lévi-Strauss and Beyond. Janet Carsten and Stephen Hugh-Jones, eds. Pp. 170–188. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Madsen, Torsten 1982 Settlement Systems of Early Agricultural

Societies of East Jutland, Denmark: A Regional Study of Change. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:197–236.

Martindale, Andrew, and Kisha Supernant 2009 Quantifying the Defensiveness of Defended

Sites on the Northwestern Coast of North Amer- ica. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28:191–204.

Metcalf, Peter, and Richard Huntington 1991 Celebrations of Death: The Anthropology of

Mortuary Ritual. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press.

Mizoguchi, Koji 2002 An Archaeological History of Japan: 30,000

B.C. to A.D. 700. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

2009 Nodes and Edges: A Network Approach to Hierarchisation and State Formation in Japan. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28:14– 26.

Morris, Ellen F. 2007 Sacrifice for the State: First Dynasty Royal

Funerals and the Rites at Macramallah’s Rect- angle. In Performing Death: Social Analyses of Funerary Traditions in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean. Nicola Laneri, ed. Pp. 15–37. Oriental Institute Seminars 3. Chicago: Oriental Institute.

Morris, Ian 1987 Burial and Ancient Society: The Rise of the

Greek City-State. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.

1991 The Archaeology of Ancestors: The Saxe/ Goldstein Hypothesis Revisited. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1:147–169.

Munson, Jessica L., and Martha J. Macri 2009 Sociopolitical Network Interactions: A Case

Study of the Classic Maya. Journal of Anthropo- logical Archaeology 28:424–438.

Nelson, Sarah Milledge 1999 Megalithic Monuments and the Introduction

of Rice into Korea. In The Prehistory of Food: Appetites for Change. Chris Gosden and Jon Hather, eds. Pp. 147–165. New York: Routledge.

Parker Pearson, Mike 1982 Mortuary Practices, Society, and Ideology:

An Ethnoarchaeological Study. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Ian Hodder, ed. Pp. 99–113. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

1999 The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Col- lege Station: Texas A&M University Press.

Parker Pearson, Mike, and Ramilisonina 1998 Stonehenge for the Ancestors: The Stones

Pass on the Message. Antiquity 72:308–326.

Paynter, Robert 1989 The Archaeology of Equality and Inequality.

Annual Review of Anthropology 18:369–399.

Peebles, Christopher S., and Susan M. Kus 1977 Some Archaeological Correlates of Ranked

Societies. American Antiquity 42:421–448.

Perodie, James R. 2001 Feasting for Prosperity: A Study of Southern

Northwest Coast Feasting. In Feasts: Archaeo- logical and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power. Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden, eds. Pp. 185–214. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Perry, Warren R., Jean Howson, and Barbara A. Bianco, eds. 2006 New York African Burial Ground Archaeol-

ogy Final Report, vol. 1. Prepared for the United

14 Ron L. Adams and Stacie M. King

States General Services Administration North- eastern and Caribbean Region. Washington, DC: Howard University.

Peterson, Christian E., and Robert D. Drennan 2005 Communities, Settlements, Sites, and Sur-

vey: Regional-Scale Analysis of Prehistoric Human Interaction. American Antiquity 70:5– 30.

Philip, Graham 2003 The Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant: A

Landscape Approach. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 16(1):103–132.

Pollock, Susan 1999 Ancient Mesopotamia: The Eden That Never

Was. Case Studies in Early Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2007 Death of a Household. In Performing Death: Social Analyses of Funerary Traditions in the An- cient Near East and Mediterranean. Nicola Laneri, ed. Pp. 209–222. Oriental Institute Seminars 3. Chicago: Oriental Institute.

Powell, Andrew B. 2005 The Language of Lineage: Reading Irish Court

Tomb Design. European Journal of Archaeology 8(1):9–28.

Raharijaona, Victor, and Susan Kus 2001 Matters of Life and Death: Mortuary Rituals

as Part of a Larger Whole among the Betsileo of Madagascar. In Social Memory, Identity, and Death: Anthropological Perspectives on Mortuary Rituals. Meredith S. Chesson, ed. Pp. 56–68. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropo- logical Association, 10. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.

Rakita, Gordon F. M., and Jane E. Buikstra 2005 Introduction. In Interacting with the Dead:

Perspectives on Mortuary Archaeology for the New Millennium. Gordon F. M. Rakita, Jane E. Buikstra, Lane A. Beck, and Sloan R. Williams, eds. Pp. 1–11. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Rayner, Steve 1988 The Rules That Keep Us Equal: Complexity

and Costs of Egalitarian Organization. In Rules,

Decisions, and Inequality in Egalitarian Societies. James G. Flanagan and Steve Rayner, eds. Pp. 20–42. London: Gower.

Renfrew, Colin 1973 Monuments, Mobilization and Social Orga-

nization in Neolithic Wessex. In The Explanation of Culture Change. Models in Prehistory. Colin Renfrew, ed. Pp. 539–558. London: Duckworth.

1976 Megaliths, Territories and Populations. In Acculturation and Continuity in Atlantic Europe. Dissertationes Archaeologicae Gandenses 16:198– 220.

Richardson, Seth. 1999– 2001 An Assyrian Garden of Ancestors: Room

1, Northwest Palace, Kalhu. State Archives of Assyrian Bulletin 13:145–216.

Rodning, Christopher 2001 Mortuary Ritual and Gender Ideology in

Protohistoric Southwestern North Carolina. In Ar- chaeological Studies of Gender in the Southeastern United States. Jane M. Eastman and Christopher B. Rodning, eds. Pp. 77–100. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

2010 Place, Landscape, and Environment: Anthro- pological Archaeology in 2009. American Anthropologist 112:180–190.

Rollefson, Gary O. 1983 Ritual Ceremony at Neolithic Ain Ghazal

(Jordan). Paléorient 9(2):29–37. 1986 Neolithic Ain Ghazal (Jordan): Ritual and

Ceremony, II. Paléorient 12(1):45–52.

Saxe, Arthur A. 1970 Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices.

Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan.

Scarry, John F. 1996 Stability and Change in the Apalachee Chiefdom:

Centralization, Decentralization, and Social Reproduction. In Political Structure and Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States. John F. Scarry, ed. Pp. 192–227. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Residential Burial in Global Perspective 15

Schiller, Anne 1997 Small Sacrifices: Religious Change and Cul-

tural Identity among the Ngaju of Indonesia. New York: Oxford University Press.

Schwartz, Glenn M. 2007 Status, Ideology, and Memory in Third-

Millennium Syria: “Royal” Tombs at Umm El-Marra. In Performing Death: Social Analyses of Funerary Traditions in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean. Nicola Laneri, ed. Pp. 39–68. Oriental Institute Seminars 3. Chicago: Oriental Institute.

Sherratt, Andrew 1990 The Genesis of Megaliths: Monumentality,

Ethnicity and Social Complexity in Neolithic North-west Europe. World Archaeology 22:147– 167.

1991 Sacred and Profane Substances: The Ritual Use of Narcotics in Later Neolithic Europe. In Sacred and Profane. Paul Garwood, David Jennings, R. G. Skeates, and Judith Toms, eds. Pp. 50–64. Oxford: Institute of Archaeology.

1995 Instruments of Conversion? The Role of Megaliths in the Mesolithic/Neolithic Transition in North- west Europe. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 14:245–260.

Shimada, Izumi, Ken-ichi Shinoda, Julie Farnum, Robert Corruccini, and Hirokatsu Watanabe

2004 An Integrated Analysis of Pre-Hispanic Mortuary Practices. Current Anthropology 45:369–395.

Silverman, Helaine, and David B. Small, eds. 2002 The Space and Place of Death. Archeologi-

cal Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 11. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.

Sjögren, Karl-Göran 1986 Kinship, Labour and Land in Neolithic Southwest

Sweden: Social Aspects of Megalith Graves. Jour- nal of Anthropological Archaeology 5:229–265.

Steponaitis, Vincas P. 1978 Location Theory and Complex Chiefdoms:

A Mississippian Example. In Mississippian Settle- ment Patterns. Bruce D. Smith, ed. Pp. 417–453. New York: Academic.

1991 Contrasting Patterns of Mississippian Devel- opment. In Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology. Timothy K. Earle, ed. Pp. 417–454. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sullivan, Lynne P. 2001 Those Men in the Mounds: Gender, Politics,

and Mortuary Practices in Late Prehistoric Eastern Tennessee. In Archaeological Studies of Gender in the Southeastern United States. Jane M. Eastman and Christopher B. Rodning, eds. Pp. 101–126. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Thomas, Julian 1999 Understanding the Neolithic. Rev. 2nd edi-

tion of Rethinking the Neolithic. London: Routledge.

Ucko, Peter J. 1969 Ethnography and Archaeological Interpreta-

tions of Funerary Remains. World Archaeology 1:262–280.

Van Dyke, Ruth M. 2003 Memory and the Construction of Chacoan

Society. In Archaeologies of Memory. Ruth M. Van Dyke and Susan E. Alcock, eds. Pp. 180–200. Oxford: Blackwell.

2004 Memory, Meaning, and Masonry: The Late Bonito Chacoan Landscape. American Antiquity 69:413–431.

Van Dyke, Ruth M. and Susan E. Alcock 2003 Archaeologies of Memory: An Introduction.

In Archaeologies of Memory. Ruth M. Van Dyke and Susan E. Alcock, eds. Pp. 1–13. Oxford: Blackwell.

Watkins, Joe 2004 Becoming American or Becoming Indian?

NAGPRA, Kennewick, and Cultural Affiliation. Journal of Social Archaeology 4(1):60–80.

Wesson, Cameron B. 1998 Mississippian Sacred Landscapes: The View

from Alabama. In Mississippian Towns and Sacred Spaces: Searching for an Architectural Grammar. R. Barry Lewis and Charles Stout, eds. Pp. 93–122. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

16 Ron L. Adams and Stacie M. King

Whittle, Alasdair, Alistair Barclay, Alex Bayliss, Les- ley McFadyen, Rick Schulting, and Michael Wysocki

2007 Building for the Dead: Events, Processes and Changing Worldviews from the Thirty-eighth to the Thirty-fourth Centuries cal. BC in South-

ern Britain. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17(1):123–147.

Williams, Howard 2004 Death Warmed Up: The Agency of Bodies

and Bones in Early Anglo Saxon Cremation Rites. Journal of Material Culture 9:263–291.