Beyond the Grave: Human Remains from Domestic Contexts in Iron Age Atlantic Scotland

2007 ◽  
Vol 73 ◽  
pp. 113-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Armit ◽  
Victoria Ginn

The occurrence of human remains in Iron Age domestic contexts in southern England is well-attested and has been the subject of considerable recent debate. Less well known are the human remains from settlement contexts in other parts of Iron Age Britain. In Atlantic Scotland, human bodies and body parts are found consistently, if in small numbers, in Atlantic roundhouses, wheelhouses, and other settlement forms. Yet these have remained unsynthesised and individual assemblages have tended to be interpreted on a site-specific basis, if at all. Examination of the material as a corpus suggests a complex and evolving set of attitudes to the human body, its display, curation, and disposal, and it is improbable that any single interpretation (such as excarnation, retention of wa r trophies, or display of ancestral relics) will be sufficient. Although the specific practices remain diverse and essentially local, certain concerns appear common to wider areas, and some, for instance the special treatment accorded to the head, have resonances far beyond Iron Age Britain.

Author(s):  
Ian Armit

This chapter examines the disparate scales of ritual deposition in Iron Age Europe, from the individual/household to the wider region. It explores commonalities underlying different practices, including the pervasive interest in human remains, the deployment of ritualized violence, the formalization of religious practice, and the roles of natural, domestic, and monumental spaces. The Iron Age is notable for the ritualization of domestic life, with certain objects, including human body parts, deposited in houses. Watery places provided another focus; bodies showing heavily ritualized treatments have been found in bogs from Scandinavia to Ireland. From the middle La Tène period, more formal cult centres appear, some as foci for deposition on an enormous scale. Elsewhere, as in Ireland, ritual activity focused on ‘ancestral’ landscapes. Motivations behind acts of deposition are difficult to ascertain, but the material residues suggest a widespread concern with sacrifice as a means of securing benefits for the community.


Author(s):  
Cristóbal Pera

ABSTRACTIf the human body is really a fabric, should surgeons be considered architects, as some surgeons describe themselves today? The author raises and analyzes this question, and he concludes that vsurgeons cannot be considered as such: the architect is the creator of his work —fabric or building—, but the surgeon is not the creator of this complex biological fabric —vulnerable and subject to deterioration and with an expiration date— which is the human body. This body is the object upon which his hands and instruments operate. The surgeon cures and heals wounds, immobilizes and aligns fractured bones in order to facilitate their good and timely repair, and cuts open the body’s surface in order to reach its internal organs. He also explores the body with his hands or instruments, destroys and reconstructs its ailing parts, substitutes vital organs taken from a donor’s foreign body, designs devices or prostheses, and replaces body parts, such as arteries and joints, that are damaged or worn out. In today’s culture, dominated by the desire to perfect the body, other surgeons keep retouching its aging façade, looking for an iconic and timeless beauty. This longing can drive, sometimes, to surgical madness. The surgeon is not capable of putting into motion, from scratch, a biological fabric such as the human body. Thus, he can’t create the subject of his work in the way that an architect can create a building. In contrast, the surgeon restores the body’s deteriorated or damaged parts and modifies the appearance of the body’s façade.RESUMEN¿Si el cuerpo humano fuera realmente una fábrica, podría el cirujano ser considerado su arquitecto, como algunos se pregonan en estos tiempos? Esta es la cuestión planteada por el autor y, a tenor de lo discurrido, su respuesta es negativa: porque así como el arquitecto es el artífice de su obra —fábrica o edificio— el cirujano no es el artífice de la complejísima fábrica biológica —vulnerable, deteriorable y caducable— que es el cuerpo humano, la cual le es dada como objeto de las acciones de sus manos y de sus instrumentos. El cirujano cura y restaña sus heridas, alinea e inmoviliza sus huesos fracturados para que su reparación llegue a buen término, penetra por sus orificios naturales o dibuja sobre la superficie corporal incisiones que le permitan llegar a sus entrañas, las explora con sus manos o mediante instrumentos, destruye y reconstruye sus partes enfermas, sustituye órganos vitales que no le ayudan a vivir por los extraídos de cuerpos donantes, y concibe, diseña y hace fabricar artefactos o prótesis, como recambio fragmentos corporales deteriorados o desgastados, como arterias o articulaciones. Otros cirujanos, en la predominante cultura de la modificación del cuerpo, retocan una y otra vez su fachada envejecida ineludiblemente por el paso del tiempo, empeñados en la búsqueda incesante de una belleza icónica y mediática e intemporal, una pretensión que puede conducir, y a veces conduce, al desvarío quirúrgico. En definitiva, el cirujano es incapaz de poner de pie, ex novo, una fábrica biológica como la del cuerpo humano y, por lo tanto, no puede ser su artífice, como lo es el arquitecto de su edificio. A lo sumo, es el restaurador de sus entrañas deterioradas y el modificador de su fachada, de su apariencia.


Author(s):  
Dennis Harding

Archaeological investigation is sometimes likened to opening a window on to the past. The problem is that, except in cases of unexpected and sudden disaster, for example where a shipwreck has been preserved untouched or a town was engulfed by volcanic ash, the archaeologist never examines a site as it was in its living heyday, only as it was after it had been abandoned, leaving only what survives of what its occupants chose to leave behind. Burials likewise represent only what communities chose to deposit for whatever reason, modified by taphonomic factors that determine the state of surviving evidence. Other ephemeral forms of disposal, and any elaborate or protracted rituals that preceded the final act of deposition that did not involve substantive structures, will pass unremarked in the archaeological record. It has been suggested in Chapter 1 that human remains may have been buried either in a dedicated cemetery where the dead were segregated or confined, perhaps in the equivalent of consecrated ground, or integrated within the environs of settlements, whether as complete or near-complete bodies or as fragmented parts or individual bones. A third option, of course, and one which would certainly contribute to the difficulty of tracing a regular burial rite archaeologically, would be segregated burial on an individual basis rather than in a community group, however small or selective. The concept of a cemetery assumes a degree of social cohesion in Iron Age practice which may not have been universal. An obvious question must be why should there have been these alternatives, and what might have governed the decision as to which alternative should be adopted? Ethnographic analogies suggest that the spirits of the dead could have been regarded as malevolent, more especially during the interim phase between death and completion of decomposition. So it might make sense to consign the dead directly to a dedicated cemetery that was detached from the settlement, or to confine them initially within a secure location, such as a hillfort, for excarnation or interim burial, before final disposal.


Author(s):  
Niall Sharples

During the 1985 excavation at Maiden Castle (Sharples 1991a), a large grain storage pit cut into the back of the rampart of the Early Iron Age hillfort was excavated. About half way down the fill of that pit the left femur of a mature adult was exposed. This bone was lying in a relatively sterile soil layer and it was not marked by any special finds or careful constructions; in many respects it could easily be dismissed as a discovery with little significance. Fifty years ago such bones would have been regarded as accidental losses, simply rubbish conveniently disposed of in a handy receptacle. It could be an indication that excarnation was the general means of disposal and that this occurred close to or actually inside settlements, but it might also indicate the accidental disturbance of human remains in graves located at the hillfort. In recent years we have come to understand that these deposits are much more significant. A number of archaeologists (Whimster 1981; C. Wilson 1981; Cunliffe 1992) came to realize that the presence of human remains on Iron Age settlements was a distinct cultural tradition characteristic of central southern England. The work of J. D. Hill (1995b) has enhanced our understanding of this phenomenon by emphasizing that the deposition of human remains is part of a complex suite of actions which involves the arrangement of different categories of material in carefully placed deposits. The process of deposition was clearly intimately involved in the definition of social relationships in the Iron Age of central southern England. It is difficult to imagine that if we, as archaeologists, could immediately recognize a human bone, our ancient pit diggers could not. The placement of this bone was a deliberate act, and the location of this deposit was carefully chosen. Hill (1995b) has shown that these pit deposits were carefully structured. Human remains are normally found in layers that are largely sterile, but a pit chosen for the deposition of human bone will normally have fills containing other carefully selected deposits. These mark the pit as a bank of socially constructed material.


2007 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 371-382 ◽  
Author(s):  
Radhika Rao

The legal status of the human body is hotly contested, yet the law of the body remains in a state of confusion and chaos. Sometimes the body is treated as an object of property, sometimes it is dealt with under the rubric of contract, and sometimes it is not conceived as property at all, but rather as the subject of privacy rights. Which body of law should become the law of the body? This question is even more pressing in the context of current biomedical research, which permits commodification and commercialization of the body by everyone except the person who provides the “raw materials.” The lack of property protection for tangible parts of the human body is in stark contrast to the extensive protection granted to intellectual property in the body in the form of patents upon human genes and cell lines. Moreover, even courts that reject ownership claims on the part of those who supply body parts appear willing to grant property rights to scientists, universities, and others who use those body parts to conduct research and create products.


2011 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 275-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Maclean

AbstractThis article studies the advances made in the logic of Renaissance physiognomy from the state of the subject in antiquity and the Middle Ages. The properties and accidents of the human body are investigated in the context of the signs selected by physiognomers, whether univocal or in syndromes, strong or weak in character, negative or positive, consistent with each other or contradictory. When these signs are translated into propositions, the construction of argument which flows from them is shown to ut plurimum reasoning, in which an element of quasi-mathematical proto-probability and hermeneutical thinking (in the treatment of ambiguity and obscurity) may be detected. These allow the question "is x more likely to be the case than y or z?" to be answered through a variety of procedures. Renaissance physiognomy is shown to be a discipline in which a novel combination of rational procedures come together, and a site of conceptual change in respect of property and accidence.


2021 ◽  
pp. 248-256
Author(s):  
Dominic Perring

Many disturbed burials, including the river-rolled crania known to archaeology as the Walbrook skulls, are dated to the period following the rebuilding of London after the Hadrianic fire. This rebuilding involved the construction of a new road on the north side of the city which may have connected London with a ford over the river Fleet near King’s Cross. The road was built over partly articulated human body parts, and subsequently attracted a cemetery that included instances of execution and corpse abuse. Hundreds of reworked human crania have been found in waterlogged contexts where this road bridged the Walbrook and at other locations in the Hadrianic city. Various ideas accounting for this evidence are reviewed. Drawing on ancient sources and ethnographic parallels it is suggested that some of the remains were war dead and the victims of retributive violence, subjected to post-mortem corpse abuse, denial of burial leading to body fragmentation, and dedication to watery places on liminal locations in necrophobic ritual. The intensification of such practices in Hadrianic London may have been occasioned by a war that destroyed the city c. AD 125/126. Some of the partially articulated human remains might even mark the site of a battlefield or execution ground.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. LW&D.CM1-LW&D.CM17
Author(s):  
Jane Wildgoose

This article discusses my practice as an artist and researcher examining the situation and significance of graves. First, in a site-specific installation at West Norwood Cemetery in South London, talking with visitors about whether it matters where human remains are deposited; secondly, in exhibitions at the Crypt Gallery St. Pancras and Lumen Crypt Gallery in Bethnal Green, presenting evidence of the historical circumstances in which human remains were appropriated from graves in the colonies, for the purposes of research into racial ‘science’ in museums during the late nineteenth century.


Author(s):  
Dennis Harding

The discovery of human remains in both hillforts and settlements has a long archaeological history, whether whole or partial skeletons or simply individual bones and fragments, though the former were often dismissed as the atypical disposal of social outcasts or malefactors, and the latter were never satisfactorily explained as casual discards. The fact that complete or near-complete skeletons were found in pits that evidently had been designed for another purpose, together with the absence of grave-goods, militated against their interpretation as formal burials, and set these apart from those grouped burials in pits that we have treated as small cemeteries. As regards fragmentary remains, the idea that the dead were exposed for excarnation, possibly over a protracted period of time, is now well established in Iron Age studies. What happened after excarnation is less clear, whether the skeleton was reassembled and buried, either in a formal cemetery or in a settlement context, or distributed as body parts or individual bones in pits, ditches, entrances, or other locations around settlements. Alternatively, in ethnographic contexts it is not unknown for the dead to be interred in a temporary burial ground for a period of months or even years, whilst the process of decomposition took place, before exhumation and re-burial following a final funerary feast. That final stage of re-interment in the British Iron Age likewise could have involved complete or near-complete re-burial, or separation of body parts and their distribution into liminal locations, as a means of incorporating the benign dead into the living community. And hillforts might well have served as the location, not only for excarnation platforms, but for temporary burial as well. We should not, however, exclude other possible interpretations. As Duday (2006: 30) warned, ‘one must not presuppose a funerary context of all such deposits because certain intentional deposits of human remains have nothing to do with burial’. Necessarily, of course, researchers are dependent upon the quantity as well as the quality of the excavated data-base, particularly in terms of statistical assessments, and for this reason Danebury has tended to dominate recent studies.


Author(s):  
Seda Ozen Tanyildizi

Today, one of the crucial issues for discussions on site-specific art is scale. The journey of site-specific art, starting with a quite minimal insertion into an empty gallery space is now institutionalised according to utterly different aims, sometimes involving enormous dimensions. However, to discuss the subject of ‘site-specific art’ only with regard to high-budget projects of major institutions would mean ignoring the large group of artists who work outside these controversial circumstances, employ physical features of a site as a tool to convey their artistic approaches, and do not make compromises in the face of institutional pressure. This study analyses new alternatives regarding site-specific art today and reviews these examples through the recent popular issue of scale, considering the necessity for artists to make compromises in line with the demands of institutions or viewers. The data were collected via questionnaires and interviews, with artists who live and work in Berlin. Keywords: Site-specific art, scale, public art.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document