image/svg+xml
219
VII/2/2016
InterdIscIplInarIa archaeologIca
natural scIences In archaeology
homepage: http://www.iansa.eu
Book reviews
Volume VII ● Issue 2/2016 ● Pages 219–220
Transformation by fre. The Archaeology
of Cremation in Cultural Context.
Ian Kuijt, Colin P. Quinn, Gabriel Cooney
(Eds.)
The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
2014. Amerind studies in Anthropology.
ISBN 978-0-8165-3114-1. $54.41
(hardcover).
particular chapters focus on concepts of the
self and identity, individual pathways from
death to the fnal deposition, and movement
and re-collection of burnt fragments.
The publication difers from other
publications aimed at cremation through
its emphasis on the sequences of the
burning process, symbolism of the fre,
total destruction of the body, and its
transformation into the ash refecting
the materialism of the human being. In
this publication, readers will not fnd
issues dealing with methodology: such
as technology reconstruction, isotope
and DNA extraction, bone identifcation,
methods of laboratory treatments and
case studies. By contrast, most of the
contributions are holistically conceived
studies of a broader spectrum – from
diferent time periods and geographic areas
– focusing on the meanings of cremation.
This focus, in my opinion, makes the book
innovative and rewarding.
In the book’s introduction the editors
express their concern regarding the
contextualization of cremation in global
and temporal perspectives (pp. 4–22).
They discuss the ambiguous defnition
of “cremation” and conclude that it is
impossible to defne it: since cremation is
not just an archaeological record, but is a
particular social phenomenon associated
with emotions (pp. 4–5). Furthermore,
cremation is not just a discrete event in time,
but is a continual process beginning with
the death of an individual and subsequently
the pathways of the remains into to their
fnal deposition. Thus ritual activities taking
place before and after cremation are often
poorly understood and may be of more
signifcance than the burning act itself.
The editors ask the question: who were the
ones planning, organizing and practising
the cremation and collecting the bone after
burning from the pyre. Cremation is not
only a complicated technological process;
it is also an organizationally- and socially-
challenging event.
Other parts of the book consider
particular regions and periods from North
America and Europe. Asa M. Larsson
and Liv Nilson Stutz (p. 47, chap. 3)
investigate the relation between secondary
inhumation and cremation in Mesolithic
and Neolithic Sweden. The authors criticize
the dichotomous concept of a funeral rite
separated into cremation and inhumation,
and they decline the term “bi-ritual”, and
suppose that these ways of burial are not
in contradiction – being purely arbitrary
constructs of our minds. Rather, they
assume that both ways of burial are part
of the same coherent mortuary program
and therefore they have the same aim,
i.e.
to defesh human body as fast as possible.
This opinion is discussed and criticized by
H. Williams in another chapter (chap. 5).
Williams denies that the categorization
of burials is arbitrary. His argument
follows from the technological difculty
of cremation. In his opinion, cremation is
a community event: it cannot be practised
in isolation and therefore requires complex
organization, planning and the involvement
of a wide spectrum of the community. All
ways of burial have a particular reason. His
claims are supported by the excavation and
research conducted at Spong Hill in Early
Anglo-Saxon England.
Personally, I was the most impressed
by two other contributions. The frst of
them is written by J. Brück (p. 119, chap.
6) and the second by J. Cerezo Román
(p. 148, chap. 8). J. Brück deals with
gender diferences, the treatment of the
human body, and concepts of the self in
British Early Bronze Age. She deplores the
“androcentric tone of much research on the
European Bronze Age” (p. 120). This “tone”
is characterised by the assumption that –
“poor” cremation burials only represent
females,
a priori
people with low status.
The “poorness” of cremations means the
absence of grave goods and a low amount
of bone fragments. J. Brück interprets the
“poorness” of these female burials in the
archaeological record completely the other
way round. In her opinion, they could
refect a loss over generations of bone
curations and circulation away from the
mortuary site. If so, the deposits of limited
numbers of bones may represent people of
Transformation by fre: The Archaeology
of Cremation in Cultural Context is a
welcome publication that ofers some
new perspectives on cremation practice in
Europe and North America. The publication
was based on a session that took place at the
SAA’s (Society for American Archaeology)
annual conference in 2011. The book was
published in 2014 by the University of
Arizona Press edited by Ian Kuijt from
the University of Notre Dame, Illinois
(USA), Colin P. Quinn from the University
of Michigan (USA) and Gabriel Cooney
from University College Dublin (Ireland).
The book is composed of four main
parts that comprise 13 chapters focusing on
temporal and cultural contexts of cremation
and emphasizes the new perspective on
cremation as a social context refecting
the social impacts of individuals or the
gender of individuals. Furthermore, some
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2016 ● VII/2 ● 219–220
Book Reviews
220
particular signifcance (p. 129). The other
author, J. Cerezo Román, presents her
research from Hohokam in Arizona (USA).
She uses the term “personhood” to explore
the complex relationships between the
dead and the living. The term personhood
has been suggested for use in the study
of mortuary practice. “Personhood”
derives from the social relationships and
connections between individuals within
society (p. 149). Based on analyses of
burnt burials, bone fragmentation and bone
circulation, she constructs the concept
of personhood through the strategies of
remembering and oblivion (p. 250). Human
identity is a derivation of the community
and is detectable even after the death
of an individual. In her research, she
focuses on processes that follow after the
cremation and deposition. She supposes
the re-excavation of fragments and their
curation by survivors.
Cremation is a complex process; it is
the transformation of the body into ash,
its destruction, fragmentation and fnally
integration into a form of custody or fnal
deposition onto the place of discovery.
Body fragmentation allows survivors to
divide the dead among the members of the
community in the form of amulets. The
parting and sharing of bones are refections
of personal identity, social roles and
relationships between the living and the
dead.
Other chapters are focused on the
variability of cremation practice in
particular regions (Cooney, chap. 10,
p. 189 and Sørensen, chap. 9, p. 168) and
on an alternative view and explanation
of cremation (Goldstein and Meyers,
chap. 11., p. 207).
At the publication’s conclusion, Cerezo-
Román and Howard Williams propose six
avenues for future research – integrating
science and theory in: cremation research;
cremation in theory and history; cremation
as rites
de passage
; cremation as
technology; cremation variability; and the
archaeology of modern cremation. In my
opinion, the main core of this publication
is in its emphasis on the symbolism and
social meanings of fre as a tool for the
transformation of a human being. In
addition, this book brings innovative views
on the post-cremation pathways of bones,
a new view on the dichotomy of cremation
and inhumation, and the interpretation
of social status from empty burials. This
approach is unique among the many
methodological-orientated articles and
books available. I highly recommended
this book for everyone who is interested in
funeral archaeology.
Anna Pankowská