Archaeothanatological Approaches to Associated Remains in European Funerary Contexts

Abstract

The material found in graves invariably raises questions for archaeologists, whatever the period. Such material is often referred to as ‘grave goods’, but the term is very imprecise. It seems too restrictive nowadays, given the diverse nature and status of the remains that can be found in graves. The term is overly interpretative, as well. Not all of the items unearthed with skeletons are ‘grave goods’. In the initial stages of analysis, it is better to employ ‘associated remains’. This term (1) encompasses all of the remains found whether deposited deliberately or not, (2) covers their diverse natures by including both artefacts and ecofacts – i.e. tangible remains whether manufactured or otherwise (ceramic, lithic or bone, adornments and faunal remains) and more fleeting remains such as mineral, ash and plant macro-remains, (3) qualifies the degree of their association with the deceased, whether worn or deposited in the grave, and (4) does not pre-judge the role they might have played in the funerary ceremony (Zemour, 2013). The notion of ‘grave goods’ has changed with the way graves are understood. The archaeological approach to burial contexts has gone through several stages. Initially, the focus was on the architecture and ‘grave goods’ before shifting to the human remains. It was not until the late 20th century that burials came to be analysed and interpreted more holistically. What is referred today as the ‘archaeology of death’, or ‘archaeothanatology’, covers all periods and all types of deposits of human remains. This approach seeks, among other things, to reconstruct and interpret mortuary actions in conjunction with all of the other archaeological data. As graves are understood as systems and no longer as juxtaposed elements, they become a diversified and multi-disciplinary field of investigation. This affects the understanding of ‘grave goods’ quite fundamentally. New questions and study protocols have emerged, which progressively provide an increasingly refined understanding of the ways in which remains are associated with the deceased. After outlining 420the changes in the approach to remains associated with the dead, this chapter illustrates specific examples and the main contributions of the current approach using cases drawn mostly from chrono-cultural contexts investigated by the authors, thereby contrasting the state of practice for prehistoric and historic periods.