- Archaeopress
Transcription
- Archaeopress
The distortion of archaeological realities through objects A case study Cătălin Lazăr and Mădălina Voicu Archaeopress Archaeology Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED www.archaeopress.com This paper was originally published in Homines, Funera, Astra 2: Life Beyond Death in Ancient Times (Romanian Case Studies) (ed. Kogălniceanu et al.) ISBN 978 1 78491 206 2 ISBN 978 1 78491 207 9 (e-Pdf) © Archaeopress and the individual authors 2015 Cover image: Grave 6 and the pot placed near skull, Sultana – Malu Roşu cemetery. This work was supported by two grants from the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research, CNCS–UEFISCDI: project number PN-II-RU-TE-2012-3-0461 (From Inhumation to Cremation in Romanian Neolithic and Eneolithic. New Archaeological Evidence, Burial Practices, and Osteological Approach) and project number PN-II-ID-PCE-2012-4-0490 (‘The Other’ in Action. The Barbarization of Rome and the Romanization of the World). All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners. www.archaeopress.com Homines, Funera, Astra 2 edited by Raluca Kogălniceanu et al., page 67-77 The distortion of archaeological realities through objects: a case study Cătălin Lazăr Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a României, Bucureşti, România Mădălina Voicu Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a României, Bucureşti, România Abstract ce ss Most archaeologists agree that funerary practices are directly connected with beliefs in the existence of an afterlife, and that objects placed in graves are sometimes extremely helpful in reconstructing past social systems or other types of identities (economic, cultural, ethnic, racial, etc.). However, this assertion is only partially valid, because the archaeological context offers only a slice of past realities. The aim of this paper is to explore the significance of the grave goods associated with human skeletons from Sultana – Malu Roşu cemetery, in relation to the archaeological contexts and various post-depositional processes that affected them over time. Ac Key words Introduction pe n Romania, Eneolithic, cemetery, grave goods, identity The Site op re ss O Funerary discoveries have always been an attraction for archaeologists, and the study of the funeral inventory took a special place within this framework. Over time, in the scientific literature, various approaches and analyses of the funeral inventory have been developed by representatives of different theoretical and methodological movements. Ar ch ae Thus, beginning with the traditional cultural historical interpretations, through New Archaeology and continuing with post-processual approaches, along with Marxist and evolutionary theories to which we can add some specific trends developed by the German and French schools of archaeology, funerary items benefited from various interpretations and reinterpretations (Saxe 1970; Binford 1972; Tainter 1975; 1978; Shanks and Tilley 1987; 1988; Hodder 1995; Fox 1996; Lull 2000; MacDonald 2001; Parker Pearson 1999). The purpose of this article is to analyze the inventory objects discovered within the Sultana – Malu Roşu Eneolithic cemetery (Romania) and, based on them, to discuss various types of identity (social, economic, cultural, ethnic, etc.). Grave goods will be explored in terms of typology, functionality and statistics. The diverse meanings of this category of materials will also be addressed. We will also take into consideration the degree of preservation of the graves, and the taphonomic and post depositional processes. Figure 1. The location of Sultana – Malu Roşu cemetery. 67 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2015 Homines, Funera, Astra 2 edited by Raluca Kogălniceanu et al., page 67-77 Homines, Funera, Astra 2: Life beyond Death in Ancient Times The Sultana – Malu Roşu cemetery is located in the northern area of the Balkan region, in the southeast of Romania, on the right bank of the old Mostiştea River, at about 7 km from the Danube River, near the border with Bulgaria (Figure 1). Administratively, the site is located in the Sultana village, Călărași County (Lazăr et al. 2008; 2009). archaeological materials discovered within the graves (artefacts, fragments of artefacts, faunal remains, ochre, etc.) for the correct understanding of their context and meaning. Starting with these premises and addressing various specialized studies (Sempowski 1986; McHugh 1999; Parker Pearson 1999; Sprague 2005, etc.), we have divided the archaeological materials discovered within the graves from Sultana – Malu Roșu cemetery into three categories: Regarding the cultural framework, the cemetery was used by two communities belonging to the Eneolithic period, more precisely to the Boian and Gumelnița cultures. The general chronology of these two cultures covers the period from the end of the 6th millennium BC up to the beginning of the 4th millennium BC (Lazăr, Voicu and Vasile 2012). ce ss Ac The artefacts will be typologically and quantitatively analyzed, taking notice of the particular place within the grave where the object was found and its relationship with the body. Also, the artefacts will be grouped according to the raw materials they were made of, keeping in mind some other elements, such as: broken versus complete, local versus exotic materials, etc. O The Sultana – Malu Roșu cemetery is a typical Eneolithic extramural cemetery similar to other cases from southeastern Europe (e.g., Durankulak, Goljamo Delčevo, Vărăști-Grădiștea Ulmilor, Vinica, etc.) (Todorova et al. 1975; Radunčeva 1976; Comșa 1995; Todorova 2002). For the first category, grave goods, we took into consideration the distinctions made by Mike Parker Pearson (1999) concerning the contextual meaning of the archaeological materials discovered in graves,1 but in our case it is difficult to make a valid difference. pe n The cemetery’s period of use can be estimated to the chronological interval 5071 - 4450 cal BC with a 95.4% probability, based on the AMS radiocarbon data obtained so far (n = 5). From a cultural-historical perspective this indicates that the graves can be attributed to the Vidra and Spanţov phases of the Boian culture, respectively the A1-A2 phases of the Gumelniţa culture (Lazăr, Voicu and Vasile 2012). •• grave goods = all artefacts that were intentionally deposited in association with the dead body; •• funerary offerings = all faunal and/or plant remains that were intentionally deposited in the grave; •• grave inclusions = all archaeological materials (artefact fragments, animal bones, rocks, etc.) that were present in the grave, without a clear connection with the dead body. op re ss A total of 67 graves have been excavated between 2006 and 2012 (Figure 2). Most of them are single primary inhumations with simple, irregular oval shaped pits, without other traces of funerary constructions, with the deceased laid out in the foetal position on the left side, E-W oriented. Secondary burials and graves with deliberate removal of some skeletal materials (especially skulls) were also documented (Lazăr et al. 2008; 2009; Lazăr, Voicu and Vasile 2012). ch ae The second category, funerary offerings, refers to the materials that may be considered food offerings (plants or animals), including the symbolic meaning of these elements. In our analysis we will take into consideration the species represented, the quantity of bones, wild versus domestic species, and the exact place where they were discovered within the grave in relation to the body of the deceased. Methodological aspects One of the most disputable issues raised by the study of artefacts discovered within graves regards the terminology. Over time, various terms as grave furniture, burial goods, burial offerings, burials gifts, funeral goods, mortuary offerings, mortuary furniture, grave goods have been used by archaeologists to describe different artefacts or materials discovered within graves (Sprague 2005, 115). Ar We included in the last category, grave inclusions, the archaeological materials present in the grave, especially those found into the filling of the funeral pit that do not present a direct relationship with the deceased body. They will be presented typologically and according to the raw material of which they were made. Each of these terms was defined by different authors, indirectly reflecting the archaeological research stage or the interpretative vision derived from various theoretical approaches. All three categories will be related to sex groups and age categories of the deceased individuals. It is clear that the question of objects found within graves is not so simple. This involves some theoretical and contextual aspects with regard to the archaeological excavation and the correct registering of the data in the field. It is necessary to distinguish clearly between the Unfortunately, the Sultana – Malu Roșu cemetery is not very spectacular in terms of funerary inventory. Only 18 The graves goods Material culture items found: on the body = clothes; of the body = deposition; off the body = burial goods (Parker Pearson 1999, 9). 1 68 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2015 Homines, Funera, Astra 2 edited by Raluca Kogălniceanu et al., page 67-77 Ac ce ss Cătălin Lazăr and Mădălina Voicu: The distortion of archaeological realities through objects graves contained grave goods (Figure 2), and in most of the cases they were quite modest. O The categories of grave goods identified in the cemetery consist of lithic, ceramic, and clay artefacts and adornments. pe n Figure 2. The general plan of the Sultana – Malu Roşu cemetery (2006-2012). blade ● 11 12 34 45 60 ● length (cm) 3.7 14.5 15.5 4.8 5.7 4.4 5.9 9.1 1.4 4.1 2.6 1.5 1.2 2.0 2.4 2.7 0.3 1.7 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.5 1.4 ch ae 1 axe maximal thickness (cm) Grave no. Dimensions maximal width (cm) Type op re ss Lithic artefacts are present in six graves (Table 1) and consist of a total of eight pieces. ● ● ● ● ● ● Ar Table 1. The lithic artefacts from Sultana – Malu Roşu cemetery. Grave no. 1 11 12 34 45 60 Figure 3. The flat polished stone axe from grave 1. Location of the artefacts Type blade axe blade blade blade blade blade axe legs area hands area ● ● ● Typologically, the artefacts from this category are represented by flint blades (graves 1, 11, 12, 34 and 45) and two polished stone axes made of limestone (graves 1 and 60) (Figures 3 and 4). head area ● ● The position of the lithic artefacts in relation to the body of the dead is presented in Table 2. ● ● ● The raw materials used for making the lithic artefacts cannot be considered exotic. They are local, most probably from the Pre-Balkan Platform or Dobrudgea Plateau. Table 2. The location of the lithic artefacts in relation to the body of the dead. 69 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2015 Homines, Funera, Astra 2 edited by Raluca Kogălniceanu et al., page 67-77 Homines, Funera, Astra 2: Life beyond Death in Ancient Times The raw materials used to make the two pots (clay and water) can be considered local, not exotic. The pot from grave 6 was placed near the head of the deceased (Figure 5), upside down, while that from grave 64 was found in the hip area, in normal position. From a functional perspective, the two vessels cannot be considered containers mainly due to their manufacturing technique. This fact can only lead us to think that they had a symbolic function. Figure 4. The long flint blade found in grave 11. Ac ce ss Clay artefacts represent the third category of grave goods. A complete clay weight was discovered near the human bones only in grave 27.2 The dimensions are: length = 8.9 cm; maximum width = 4.9 cm; height = 0.38 cm and hole diameter = 0.7 cm. This artefact was made using a local raw material. From a functional point of view this object can be interpreted as a loom weight (frequently found in Eneolithic settlements). Typologically, they consist of beads, pendants and rings made of various raw materials (Table 5). Some of the raw materials, such as marble, malachite or shells (Spondylus and Dentalium) can be considered exotic (Figures 6 and 7), due to the fact that they cannot be found in neighboring areas, and come from long distance sources. The ornaments made of bones come from local sources. O Figure 5. The grave 6 and the pot placed near skull. pe n The last category of grave goods is represented by adornments. They were found in nine graves (1, 13, 14, 36, 43, 46, 48, 62 and 67)3 (Beldiman, Lazăr and Sztancs 2008; Lazăr et al. 2008; 2009). op re ss The flint blades are typical for the Eneolithic period, with bilateral or semi-abrupt retouches. Most of the blades are fragmented. Only the long blade from grave 11 (Figure 4) was complete (Lazăr et al. 2008). Regardless of the raw material of which they are made, the shape of the beads is cylindrical and tubular, followed by prismatic, biconvex and bitruncated with various sizes (Table 3). The pendants have a bi-lobed or circular shape, and the ring has a circular shape. ch ae The two polished stone axes are unperforated and have a flat and slightly trapezoidal shape with a rectangular crosssection and an oblique arched cutting edge. Both axes are complete and present accidental flaking negatives on the surfaces, re-polish attempt traces, and use-wear marks (Figure 3). Beads’ type From a functional perspective, the lithic artefacts can be both tools and weapons. cylindrical tubular prismatic biconvex bitruncated Ar The second category of grave goods consists of ceramic pots. Only two graves (nos. 6 and 64) contained this type of goods. They have a truncated form and are of small dimensions. The clay from which they are made is not of very good quality. The firing does not appear to be complete, which is why the pots are brittle. Their shape seem to indicate a resemblance with the pots found within the settlement, but their manufacture is less careful. Apparently, they were made with the sole purpose of being deposited in graves. item height (cm) 0.1-0.3 0.6-2.9 0.1-2.9 0.5-0.9 2.0-2.7 Dimensions item perforation diameter diameter (cm) (cm) 0.2-0.6 0.2-0.3 0.4-0.6 0.2-0.3 0.2-0.6 0.2-0.3 0.5-0.7 0.2 0.5-0.6 0.2-0.3 Table 3. The typology and dimensions of beads from Sultana – Malu Roșu cemetery. Grave number 27 is a secondary burial, which contained only a few bones. They were lodged in the pit, and a loom weight was discovered among the displaced bones. 3 In a previous article (Lazar, Voicu and Vasile 2012), we have presented a smaller number of graves containing adornments (only four). Meanwhile the sediment from other graves has been sieved, this action leading to the identification of new adornments. To them, we can add the ones discovered in 2012 (in graves 59 and 67). 2 The vessels are complete, although they show cracks and are highly fragmentary. This is due to post-depositional processes and the manner in which they were made. 70 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2015 Homines, Funera, Astra 2 edited by Raluca Kogălniceanu et al., page 67-77 Cătălin Lazăr and Mădălina Voicu: The distortion of archaeological realities through objects Figure 6. The Spondylus beads found in grave 13. 1 13 14 36 43 46 48 62 67 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● neck/chest area head area ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Ac hip area hands area ce ss Location of the artefacts Figure 7. The malachite beads found in grave 1. ● ● pieces, and the amount and pattern of their association. The beads found near the hip area (graves 1, 13, 14 and 48) were probably sewed/attached as decorative items on clothes or formed a belt. O Table 4. The location of the adornments in relation to the body of the dead. pe n Grave no. The beads and the ring made of bone found in the skull area were probably elements of hair decoration. It should be noted that some pieces were discovered in a secondary position, perhaps a result of some post depositional processes (Beldiman, Lazăr and Sztancs 2008; Lazăr et al. 2008; 2009). op re ss From a quantitative point of view most of the graves contain only a few adornments (Table 5). Graves 1 (with 131 pieces), 13 (with 19 pieces) and 48 (with 16 pieces) are the only exceptions (Table 5). The position of the adornments in relation to the body of the dead is presented in Table 4. Regarding the degree of preservation, 83% of the pieces of adornment are complete and 17% are fragmentary. In the latter case the fragmentation is in part due to post- depositional events, however, some pieces were fragmented during their use-life, which demonstrates their reuse. Ar ch ae From a functional perspective, the assembling of beads and pendants on strings, to form necklaces (graves 1, 48 and 62) or bracelets worn at the wrist and/or the forearm (graves 1, 13 and 48) is suggested by the location of the Grave no. Type Quantity 1 13 14 36 beads beads beads beads beads pendant beads beads pendant beads ring pendant 131 19 2 3 3 2 2 15 1 7 1 1 43 46 48 62 67 Raw materials Spondylus shell ● ● ● ● Dentalium shell Bone ● Malachite Marble ● ● ● ● Other rocks Indet. ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Table 5. The adornments from Sultana – Malu Roşu cemetery: showing type, quantity and raw material. 71 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2015 ● ● Homines, Funera, Astra 2 edited by Raluca Kogălniceanu et al., page 67-77 Homines, Funera, Astra 2: Life beyond Death in Ancient Times Quantitatively, the archaeological materials identified within the graves are not very numerous. Thus, in the case of flint tools, Spondylus beads, river clams, snails and rock we are dealing with a single piece. There are no more than two-three potsherds, pieces of burnt adobe, and animal bones in each grave, all of them fragmentary. The funerary offerings This category was identified in five graves (nos. 2, 19, 26, 28 and 65)4 and consists of animal bones. Generally, they are not numerous; the situation in terms of quantity and of anatomical elements per species is presented in Table 6. All the species present in the graves belong to the Mammalia class, with both domestic and wild individuals. The latter belong to the wildlife native to the surrounding area. From the perspective of the anatomical elements represented it is noticeable that they are from areas low in meat, which raises questions regarding their interpretation as funerary offerings. It is likely that their role in the funerary context was purely symbolic. The same observation is valid for the other categories of archaeological materials. The only exceptions are the shells in graves 12 and 19, as well as the snails in graves 15, 17, 21, 22 and 24, which were complete. ce ss In these circumstances, we can accept the assertion of Chapman, that the ‘the incorporation of incomplete objects in culturally significant contexts is a widespread social practice’ (Chapman 2000, 53). The animal bones from most of the graves are fragmentary. The complete horn in grave 28 is an exception. 19 26 28 65 Species 1 1 Ovis aries Ovis aries Indet. large mammal Bos taurus Bos taurus Bos taurus Bos taurus 1 1 1 1 1 Ac R. horncore L. metatarsus Long bone diaphysis R. radius R. phalanx III L. horncore Mandible Quantity According to some opinions in the literature, objects discovered within the fill of funerary pits represent the result of certain ritual practices related to the participants at the ceremonial burial (King 2004). However, we should not ignore other explanations. For example, the presence of these parts may be due to various post-depositional occurrences. This interpretive hypothesis may include the snail shells belonging to Helix pomatia (graves 15 and 24) and Cepaea vindobonensis (graves 17, 21, 22 and 49), their presence in graves being accidental, unrelated to the funerary context. pe n 2 Anatomical element O Grave no. Regarding the interpretive perspective, these archaeological materials must be sharply differentiated during their analysis. op re ss Table 6. The funerary offerings from Sultana – Malu Roşu cemetery. Concerning the positioning of the animal bones in relation with the human body we mention that in grave 26 they were found near the hip area and in grave 65 they were found in the upper limbs area. In the case of grave no. 2, because of the precarious preservation of the child skeleton, we cannot make any judgments in this regard. In the case of graves 19 and 28, which contained redeposited human bones without anatomical connection, we also cannot come to any conclusion. ch ae On the other hand, the shells of freshwater mussels (Unio sp.), rocks, ceramic fragments, pieces of flint, etc., based on the data recorded in the field,5 could not accidentally get into the graves. In these circumstances, we can accept, at least hypothetically, the theory that these archaeological materials reflect some symbolic gestures of the participants at the burial ceremony. Discussion The grave inclusions Most of the graves in the Sultana – Malu Roşu cemetery are devoid of grave goods. Only 18 graves contain grave goods and another five graves contain funerary offerings (Figure 8). Ar In 30 of the graves from Sultana – Malu Roșu cemetery, various archaeological materials were discovered that could not be related to the body of the deceased. In terms of context, these were discovered within the fill of the funerary pits, rarely at the edge or at their bottoms. We did not include in this category the archaeological materials found in animal burrows. We can add the 30 graves containing grave inclusions (Figure 9), but they cannot be safely considered to have a connection with the respective funerary contexts, which is why we will not consider them in the interpretive discussions. The types of materials included in the category of archaeological inclusions are presented in Table 7. This situation seems to indicate that, in quantitative terms, the cemetery is not very rich in inventory objects. It seems 4 In some of the previous articles dedicated to the Sultana – Malu Roșu cemetery (Lazar et al. 2008; Lazăr, Voicu and Vasile 2012), we mentioned animal bones in some other graves (no. 12, 31, 33 and 34). In these cases the animal bones represent grave inclusions and not funerary offerings. 5 We highlight again that the archaeological materials found in animal burrows were not included in our analysis. All the discussed materials were found in the pits of the graves, particularly in their fill, but without a direct link with the bodies. 72 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2015 Homines, Funera, Astra 2 edited by Raluca Kogălniceanu et al., page 67-77 Cătălin Lazăr and Mădălina Voicu: The distortion of archaeological realities through objects Grave no. Potsherd Spondylus shell bead Flint Animal bone Indet. burnt bone Fresh water shell ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ce ss ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● pe n ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Ac ● Rocks ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Burnt adobe ● ● ● Snail ● ● ● O 4 10 12 13 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 36 37 40 44 46 47 50 52 54 56 Grave intrusion type Ar ch ae op re ss Table 7. The grave intrusion types from Sultana – Malu Roşu cemetery. Figure 8. Sultana – Malu Roşu cemetery – grave goods and funerary offerings distribution (n = 67). Figure 9. Sultana – Malu Roşu cemetery – grave inclusions distribution (n = 67). to fit into the class of typical cemeteries for the Eneolithic sequence in the Balkan area (e.g., Vărăști – Grădiștea Ulmilor, Vinica, etc.), but without being comparable to some cemeteries which are considered to be very rich (e.g. Varna I, Durankulak, Devnja) (Todorova-Simeonova 1971; Ivanov 1978; 1988; 1989; 1991; Todorova 2002; Slavchev 2010). In our opinion this observation is not valid because most of these extremely rich cemeteries have not been fully investigated (Lazăr 2011). This situation creates a first false criterion for discrimination between various Eneolithic cemeteries, which actually distorts the past reality. The fact that none of the Balkan Eneolithic cemeteries have been fully excavated means that we cannot be certain that they do not also contain very rich graves, as is the case at, for example, Varna I, Durankulak, and Devnja cemeteries. On the other hand, even in the cases of these very rich cemeteries (at least for Varna I and Durankulak), the proportion of very rich graves is not very high in terms of the total number of investigated graves. 73 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2015 Homines, Funera, Astra 2 edited by Raluca Kogălniceanu et al., page 67-77 Homines, Funera, Astra 2: Life beyond Death in Ancient Times the economic potential of the deceased and/or of his/her family (O’Shea 1981; King 2004), but also the existence of some exchange networks linking the Balkans to the Western Pontic area and the Aegean zone (Slavchev 2010; Chapman 2013). ce ss This economic perspective may be false in large measure, because, generally speaking, archaeologists tend to refer only to preserved funeral goods, made from imperishable raw materials. However, we should not forget that the graves with apparently no inventory could have once held objects made of perishable raw materials (e.g., wood, leather, coat, vegetal fiber, etc.), which radically changes the interpretation. Figure 10. Sultana – Malu Roşu cemetery – grave good type distribution (n = 18). op re ss O pe n Ac On the other hand, aspects of social, collective or individual identities are expressed in funeral contexts with the help of sets of symbols whose complete understanding is not possible, as for most of the time their significance is only presumed (Chicideanu 2003, 75). The relationship between grave goods, the treatment of the body, and the social status of an individual was taken as axiomatic by many archaeologists. Archaeological artefacts are always abundant in meanings, and that is why, when associated with a skeleton, they become an important provider of data related to the individual with whom they were buried. Therefore, the quantity and quality of preserved grave goods may be proportional to the social status of the individual within the community. Unfortunately, in our case, considering the current stage of the excavation and the number of graves researched so far, we are not able to answer the provocative question about the existence of a social ranking within the communities who used the cemetery at Sultana – Malu Roşu. Figure 11. Sultana – Malu Roşu cemetery – grave goods distribution from quantitative perspective (n = 18). Also, cemeteries often appear to offer a great chance for the exploration of gender issues, either if it is perceived as connected to the sex of the individuals or not (Hodder and Hutson 2003, 106-124). So far, in the Sultana – Malu Roșu cemetery this distinction can be identified only in a few cases. Thus, lithic artefacts are present exclusively in graves of male individuals, while ceramic vessels are found only in graves of female individuals and children. This situation may indicate the status of individuals based on the perspective of gender differences. Another category of artefacts, adornments, but also funerary offerings, seem to be common for male, female and child graves, a fact which does not support distinctions based on gender. This observation supports the questions formulated about those theories that postulate an exclusive association of ornaments and jewelry with female individuals (Ucko 1969, 265; Shanks and Tilley 1987, 103-106; Chapman 2003, 146-187). ch ae Returning to the grave goods from Sultana – Malu Roșu cemetery, typologically the objects are not particularly varied. (Figure 10). Their distribution within the graves is also not spectacular, as no grave contains a large quantity of grave goods (Figure 11). Ar A possible interpretation of this small number of goods found in a few graves may be, as Lewis Binford suggested, that if we consider that a small group size and a general lack of interaction with nearby groups is the normal pattern, than the abundance of status symbols should be low and, as the group enlarges or the interactions spread, than the use of prestigious objects is needed more (Binford 1962, 222). Instead, in terms of the quality of funeral goods, the situation differs. Grave goods made of exotic raw materials were often discovered (Spondylus and Dentalium shells, marble, malachite, etc.), a fact which changes the interpretive perspective. In terms of the relationship between age categories and grave goods, there are some elements that argue for a differentiation between adults and sub-adults. Thus, both from quantitative and qualitative perspectives, grave goods were frequently found in adult graves and rarely in subadults graves. This may indicate the existence of some Thus, from an economic perspective, this situation leads to the assumption that the quality of grave goods can indicate 74 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2015 Homines, Funera, Astra 2 edited by Raluca Kogălniceanu et al., page 67-77 Cătălin Lazăr and Mădălina Voicu: The distortion of archaeological realities through objects horizontal differentiation within the communities that used the Sultana – Malu Roșu cemetery. Conclusion In this paper, starting from the case of the Sultana – Malu Roșu cemetery, we tried to show that the objects placed in the graves are extremely helpful in reconstructing past social systems or other types of identities (economical, cultural, ethnic, racial, etc.). According to this algorithm, the adult individuals received greater attention from those who were alive compared to children. The sub-adult individuals probably occupied a less significant position within the society (Binford 1972, 232). This situation may be a result of the fact that adult individuals were productive members within the group, and their death represents a loss for the community (Brown 1981, 28). Children did not take part in the economic activities of the society, being more connected to the family and less to the entire community. Perhaps that is why the reaction triggered by their death was of low-intensity, affecting probably only the family and not the community as a whole (Saxe 1970; Brown 1981; Fox 1996). ce ss pe n Ac Generally, the interpretation of prehistoric archaeological discoveries must be done carefully because complementary sources of information are missing and, on the other hand, the archaeological excavation most often offers only fragments of data, like the pieces of a puzzle. In these circumstances, not infrequently the archaeologist’s imagination is becoming a very precious tool, which leads sometimes to errors, speculations and exaggerated theories. Therefore, we must have in mind that excavation gives us only fragments of the realities of the past and they most often are incomplete. The data presented in this paper are particularly valuable in this regard. O Beyond these discussions, the meaning of the grave goods from Sultana – Malu Roșu cemetery must not be reduced to simple possessions of the deceased, which reflect the wealth, social status and/or the position within the community. No doubt, some of them reflect these aspects, but they can also have other meanings. The grave goods may have some specific connotations (economic, social, spiritual, religious, symbolic, emotional-affective) determined by those left alive (relatives, participants at the funeral ceremony, religious leaders, etc.) (Lazăr 2008). They play a leading role in the determination, selection and assignment of objects designed to accompany the deceased (Gamble, Walker and Russell 2001, 198). The full understanding of these connotations is not always possible, most of the time their significance being only supposed. We also tried to show that not all the objects found within the graves are connected to the funerary context. In addition to this observation, we tried to underline the emergence of a false discrimination criterion created by archaeologists in terms of inventory objects and funerary significance. op re ss Beyond these discussions, the problem of the grave goods is a delicate topic as shown by Mike Parker Pearson: ‘the study of variations in grave good provision is thus a difficult jigsaw puzzle with many pieces missing’ (Parker Pearson 1999, 11). Identifying all these aspects and issues is very difficult in the current stage of research of the Sultana – Malu Roșu cemetery, but we hope that in the future, based on the data offered by new discoveries, to solve more of this riddle represented by grave goods. At the same time, the process of choosing the objects placed near the deceased includes multiple determinants (Lazăr 2008): •• community traditions, religious beliefs, funeral customs, eschatological concepts, superstitions, social rules; •• certain events/circumstances - death due to accidents, natural disasters, conflicts, epidemics; •• the deceased person: biological characteristics (gender, age, disease or disabilities), social position (wealth, status, rank), personal (civil status, descent) and professional attributes (occupation, skills); •• those left alive: respect, regret, fear, grief, the degree of kinship between them and the deceased, the interaction of the deceased with other members of the community during lifetime, various ‘legacies’ left for relatives or other individuals within the group. ch ae Acknowledgements We thank Ciprian Astaloș (University College London) for improving the English translation of this paper. Ar This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research, CNCS – UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-ID-PCE-2011-3-1015. References Beldiman, C., Lazăr, C. and Sztancs, D.M. 2008. Necropola eneolitică de la Sultana – Malu-Roşu, com. Mânăstirea, jud. Călăraşi. Piese de podoabă din inventarul M1. Buletinul Muzeului Teohari Antonescu 11, 59-72. Binford, L.R. 1962. Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28(2), 217-225. Binford, L.R. 1972. An Archaeological Perspective. New York and London, Seminar Press. Brown, J.A. 1981. The search for rank in prehistoric burials. In R. Chapman, I. Kinnes and K. Randsborg All these elements can affect to a greater or lesser degree the choice of funerary goods, and an awareness of them is necessary when we analyze the significance of funerary objects. 75 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2015 Homines, Funera, Astra 2 edited by Raluca Kogălniceanu et al., page 67-77 Homines, Funera, Astra 2: Life beyond Death in Ancient Times pe n Ac ce ss Lazăr, C. 2011. Some Observations about Spatial Relation and Location of the Kodjadermen-Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI Extra Muros Necropolis. In S. Mills and P. Mirea (eds.), The Lower Danube in Prehistory: Landscape Changes and Human Environment Interactions Proceedings of the International Conference, Alexandria 3-5 November 2010, 95-115. Bucureşti, Renaissance. Lazăr, C., Andreescu, R., Ignat, T., Florea, M. and Astaloş, C. 2008. The Eneolithic Cemetery from Sultana-Malu Roşu (Călăraşi County, Romania). Studii de Preistorie 5, 131-152. Lazăr, C., Andreescu, R., Ignat, T., Mărgărit, M., Florea, M. and Bălăşescu, A. 2009. New data about the Eneolithic Cemetery from Sultana-Malu Roşu (Călăraşi County, Romania). Studii de Preistorie 6, 165-199. Lazăr, C., Voicu, M. and Vasile, G. 2012. Traditions, Rules and Exceptions in the Eneolithic Cemetery from Sultana-Malu Roşu (Southeast Romania). In R. Kogălniceanu, R. Curcă, M. Gligor and S. Stratton (eds.), Homines, Funera, Astra. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Funerary Anthropology, 5-8 June 2011, 1 Decembrie 1918 University (Alba Iulia, Romania), 107-118. Oxford, Archaeopress, BAR International Series 2410. Lull, V. 2000. Death and Society: A Marxist Approach. Antiquity 74(285), 576-580. MacDonald, D.H. 2001. Grief and burial in the American Southwest: The role of evolutionary theory in the interpretation of mortuary remains. American Antiquity 66(4), 704-714. McHugh, F. 1999. Theoretical and Quantitative Approaches to the Study of Mortuary Practices. Oxford, Archaeopress, BAR International Series 785. O’Shea, J. 1981. Social Configuration and the Archaeological Study of Mortuary Practices: A Case Study. In R. Chapman, I. Kinnes and K. Randsborg (eds.), The Archaeology of Death, 39-52. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Parker Pearson, M. 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Stroud, Sutton Publishing Ltd. Radunčeva, A. 1976. Vinica - Eneolitno seliste I nekropol. Sofia, Bulgarskata Akademiya na Naukite, Razkopki i Prouchvania, VI. Saxe, A.A. 1970. Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Michigan, University of Michigan. Sempowski, M.L. 1986. Differential Mortuary Treatment of Seneca Women: Some Inferences. Archaeology of Eastern North America 14, 35-44. Shanks, M. and Tilley, C. 1987. Re-Constructing Archaeology. Theory and Practice. London and New York, Routledge. Shanks, M. and Tilley, C. 1988. Social Theory and Archaeology. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press. Slavchev, V. 2010. The Varna Eneolithic cemetery in context of the Late Cooper Age in the East Balkans. In D.W. Anthony and J.Y. Chi (eds.), The Lost Worls of Ar ch ae op re ss O (eds.), The Archaeology of Death, 25-38. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Chapman, J. 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology. People, Places and Broken Objects in the Prehistory of South Eastern Europe. London, Routledge. Chapman, J. 2013. From Varna to Brittany via Csőszhalom — Was There a ‘Varna Effect’?. In A. Anders and G. Kulcsár with G. Kalla, V. Kiss and G. V. Szabó (eds.), Moments in Time. Papers Presented to Pal Raczky on His 60th Birthday, 323-335. Budapest, L’Harmattan. Chapman, R. 2003. Archaeologies of Complexity. London, Routledge. Chicideanu, I.M. 2003. Câteva remarci asupra studiului descoperirilor mortuare. In D.M. Istrate, A. Istrate and C. Gaiu (eds.), In memoriam Radu Popa. Temeiuri ale civilizaţiei româneşti în contextul european, 65-76. Cluj-Napoca, Accent. Comşa, E. 1995. Necropola gumelniţeană de la Vărăşti. Analele Banatului. Serie Nouă 4(1), 55-193. Fox, S.J. 1996. Mortuary Practices on Children. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Department of Anthropology. Las Vegas, University of Nevada. Gamble, L.H., Walker, P.L. and Russell, G.S. 2001. An Integrative Approach to Mortuary Analysis: Social and Symbolic Dimensions of Chumash Burial Practices. American Antiquity 66(2), 185-212. Hodder, I. 1995. Theory and Practice in Archaeology. London, Routledge. Hodder, I. and Hutson, S. 2003. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. King, J.M. 2004. Grave-goods as gifts in Early Saxon burials (ca. AD 450–600). Journal of Social Archaeology 4(2), 214-238. Ivanov, I. 1978. Les fouilles archéologiques de la nécropole chalcolithique à Varna (1972-1975). Studia Praehistorica 1-2, 13-26. Ivanov, I. 1988. Die Aus des Gräberfelds von Varna (1972-1986). In A. Fol and J. Lichardus (eds.), Macht, Herrschaft und Gold. Das Gräberfeld von Varna (Bulgarien) und Die Anfänge einer neuen europäischen Zivilisation, 49-66. Saarbrücken, Moderne Galerie des Saarland Museums. Ivanov, I. 1989. La nécropole chalcolithique de Varna et les cités lacustres voisines. In Le Premier Or de l’Humanité en Bulgarie. 5e Millenaire, 49-56. Paris, Ministere de la Culture. Ivanov, I. 1991. Der Bestattungsritus in der chalkolithischen Nekropole von Varna (mit einem Katalog der wichtigsten Gräber). In J. Lichardus (ed.), Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche. Symposium Saarbrücken und Otzenhausen 6-13.11.1988, Teil 1, 125-151. Bonn, Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH. King, J.M. 2004. Grave-goods as gifts in Early Saxon burials (ca. AD 450-600). Journal of Social Archaeology 4(2), 214-238. Lazăr, C. 2008. Inventarul funerar din mormintele culturii Starčevo-Criş. Studiu de caz. Satu Mare. Studii și Comunicări 23-23(I), 26-72. 76 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2015 Homines, Funera, Astra 2 edited by Raluca Kogălniceanu et al., page 67-77 Ac pe n Ar ch ae op re ss O Old Europe. The Danube Valley, 5000-3500 BC, 192210. New York, Princeton University Press. Sprague, R. 2005. Burial Terminology. A Guide for Researchers. Lanham, AltaMira Press. Tainter, J.A. 1975. Social Inference and Mortuary Practices: An Experiment in Numerical Classification. World Archaeology 7(1), 1-15. Tainter, J.A. 1978. Mortuary Practices and the Study of Prehistoric Social System. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 1, 105-141. Todorova, H. (ed.) 2002. Durankulak, Band II. Die prähistorischen Gräberfelder von Durankulak (Teil 1-2). Berlin-Sofia, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Anubis Ltd. Todorova, H., Ivanov, S., Vasilev, V., Hopf, M., Quitta, H. and Kohl, G. 1975. Selishtnata Mogila pri Goljamo Delcevo. Sofia, Bulgarskata Akademiya na Naukite, Razkopki i Prouchvania, V. Todorova-Simeonova, H. 1971. Kusneoeneolitnijat nekropol krai gr. Devnja. Izvestija na Narodnija Muzej Varna 7, 3-40. Ucko, P.J. 1969. Ethnography and Archaeological Interpretation of Funerary Remains. World Archaeology 1(2), 262-280. ce ss Cătălin Lazăr and Mădălina Voicu: The distortion of archaeological realities through objects 77 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2015