From centralised to redistributed ancestorhood

Despite the low archaeological visibility of EBA funerary contexts, the network changes that took place in relation to burial can be substantiated on the basis of the spatial and contextual overview (§5.1) and the analysis of funerary practices (§5.2.1; §5.2.2). It was argued that diachronic differentiation in archaeological visibility is indicative of culturally specific ways of dealing with the dead. Both the places of the dead in EBA cultural landscapes and their role in EBA social networks changed with respect to Copper Age burial. Distinctive notions of place, related to the position of burial in Copper Age and EBA networks, can be linked to distinctive notions of ancestorhood. Copper Age burial is characterised by subsurface contexts of primary burial, which more often than not were ancestral places in themselves, or made a connection with prior places, both cemeteries and settlements (§5.1.4; §5.2.2).

141 _{Alternatively, one could argue that the selected human remains that ended up at nodes in (supra)regional networks are a small}

sample of human remains that circulated in the context of (micro)regional networks, closer to the original EBA contexts of primary burial.

142 _{Here I interpret the copper needle and silver ring from the FOSSO CONICCHIO assemblage (Appendix 2 [#11]) in terms of the}

overall role of the subsurface structure as a depositional context (rather than primarily a funerary context), adopt a non-funerary interpretation for the halberd from POPOLI (Appendix 1 [#9]; Appendix 2 [#4]) and exclude the TERAMO-LA CONA burial (Appendix 2 [#3]) from the discussion because of its typochronological ambiguity.

143 _{For comparison, burials found in connection with settlements destroyed (and archaeologically preserved) by the EBA2}

‘Plinian’ eruption of the Vesuvius volcano in Campania (§3.4) represent a specific age group (i.e. neonates and infants). These include two burials of neonates (4.5 and 6 months) in (larger parts of) ceramic vessels in the courtyard connected with one of the houses at NOLA (Albore Livadie & Vecchio 2005a, 27-29 [fig. 31a-b]) and further neonate and infant burials from a contemporary settlement assemblage in the same micro-region (Albore Livadie & Vecchio 2005a, 28; Pellegrini 2007, 950).

These characteristics can be linked to a place-based notion of ‘centralised’ ancestorhood (Table 5.11), in the sense that designated places existed in cultural landscapes to which by far the majority of the dead were allotted, perhaps with the exception of the youngest (<6y) age group (§5.2.1). In these places the dead were subsequently processed from persons to ‘collective’ ancestors, by way of funerary practices that frequently included secondary treatment after primary burial and only exceptionally secondary burial of selected human remains in other places (§5.2.2).

funerary sequence primary burial disarticulation secondary burial

subjected to practices of disarticulation in subsurface contexts of primary burial (from persons to collective ancestors) inside (exceptionally redeposition of skulls

and long bones outside?) contexts of primary burial Copper Age in subsurface funerary contexts (persons buried in ancestral places) exceptionally not subjected to practices of disarticulation - exceptionally in subsurface funerary contexts (persons buried in ancestral places) not subjected to practices of disarticulation - “centralised” ancestorhood (place-based)

exposure, i.e. ‘natural’ disarticulation EBA1

predominantly above

ground? circulation of human remains

selective redeposition of skulls and long bones in subsurface

contexts exposure, i.e. ‘natural’

disarticulation

EBA2 above ground? _{circulation of human}

remains

selective redeposition of skulls and long bones in subsurface contexts “distributed” ancestorhood (‘non-place’ or omnipresent) & “redistributed” ancestorhood (in secondary burial) notions of ancestorhood dead persons or ‘specific’ ancestors (genealogical) ‘collective’ ancestors (mythical) ancestral substances in place-making (deposition at ancestral or new places)

Table 5.11: a comparison of Copper Age and EBA funerary contexts from Abruzzo and Lazio in terms of funerary sequences and notions of ancestorhood.

By contrast, the low archaeological visibility of EBA funerary contexts suggests that the dead were not buried in circumscribed places, let alone brought together in core (or central) areas of burial with numerous cemeteries. This is substantiated by a change in funerary practices, from a few contexts of primary burial in the EBA1 archaeological record to none in EBA2 (§5.2.1; §5.2.2). Because of this diachronic trend it is likely that the majority of EBA contexts of primary burial should be interpreted as distributed across cultural and physical landscapes, presumably exposed on the surface, but perhaps also placed in subsurface contexts. Rather than ‘centralised’ ancestorhood, EBA burial can be linked to a notion of ‘distributed’ ancestorhood (Table 5.11). This conveys a sense of engagement with ‘collective’ ancestors in their connection with the land (as a form of place-making), not so much with specific places. Although characterised by a relatively high archaeological visibility, EBA funerary contexts that are connected to specific (often prior, ancestral) places would have been a minority. The diachronic trend is that such places constituted depositional contexts in a more general sense (or cult places), in which selected human remains ended up together with other objects and substances (rather than contexts of primary burial, or primarily contexts of burial). In themselves, contexts of secondary burial highlight that human remains circulated as ancestral substances, thereby referring to a notion of ‘redistributed’ ancestorhood (Table 5.11). It was argued that these places occupied a position in social networks that was different from contexts of primary burial (§5.2.2). They refer to place-making in the form of connectivity by human remains over longer distances, collected at nodes in (supra)regional networks (§5.1), outside and thereby connecting local communities.

5.3

A summary and multi-sited questions

The low archaeological visibility of EBA burial in Abruzzo and Lazio makes it difficult to recognise patterns, but the diachronic trend away from the overrepresentation of funerary evidence in Copper Age archaeological records is a significant pattern in itself. Here I will provide a summary of the basic

patterns that emerged from the preceding analyses and the main interpretations that were based on these patterns. Along the line, further questions were highlighted that are ‘multi-sited’ in character and can therefore only be addressed in comparison with other constituent elements of cultural landscapes and social networks. These ‘multi-sited’ questions will be listed here as a conclusion to this chapter, to be addressed in the data-rich synthesis (Chapter 8).

 First and foremost, EBA funerary contexts in Abruzzo and Lazio are characterised by an extremely low archaeological visibility, with respect to the high archaeological visibility (and variability) of Copper Age burial (§5.1). Because of the diachronic trend of decreasing archaeological visibility it is unlikely that the larger part (or a representative sample) of EBA populations will ever be located or that this ‘gap’ in archaeological records can be bridged completely. Therefore, it was argued that diachronic differentiation in archaeological visibility should not be interpreted as a research bias, but as a cultural bias, i.e. culturally specific ways of dealing with the dead (§5.2).

 Although generally low, the archaeological visibility of EBA burial is relatively high in connection with prior, ancestral places (§5.1.4), partly following the tradition of Copper Age burial (§5.2). This suggests that there is a strong possibility that comprehensive dating programme on human remains from Copper Age funerary contexts will reveal more EBA funerary contexts (§3.3). A similar dating programme concerned with (predominantly disarticulated) human remains from MBA funerary contexts (Chapter 9) could also help in locating further buried EBA individuals. However, it should not be presumed that the additional numbers of buried individuals will fill all ‘gaps’ in archaeological records. In this respect, funerary practices and notions of ancestorhood related to Copper Age and EBA places with a funerary dimension are different because they constituted nodes in distinctive networks (§5.2).

 Different from Copper Age burial, characterised by primary burial (in subsurface structures) as a common denominator, EBA funerary evidence is predominated by contexts of secondary burial (§5.2). It was argued that the diachronic trend of increasingly low archaeological visibility of contexts of primary burial indicates that exposure (and practices of disarticulation outside funerary structures) would have been the predominant EBA funerary practice. Only a small sample of the resulting disarticulated human remains, mainly skull elements and long bones (Table 5.9), is archaeologically visible, as only one of the elements selected for deposition (or secondary burial) at particular places. There is no clear-cut evidence for age and sex/gender discrimination in the selection for EBA burial (Table 5.7).

 Finally, on the basis of the spatial and contextual overview of EBA burial (§5.1) and the respective funerary practices (§5.2), two distinctive notions of ancestorhood are reconstructed (Table 5.11). Copper Age burial is linked to a place-based notion of ‘centralised’ ancestorhood, starting from primary burial in subsurface funerary contexts with an ancestral connotation, often in cemeteries that constituted nodes in supra- to micro-regional networks. By contrast, EBA burial is linked to a notion of ‘distributed’ ancestorhood in (sub)regional networks, with selected human remains ‘redistributed’ as ancestral substances to nodes in (supra)regional networks through circulation and subsequent deposition at cult places.

This summary shows that, despite the low archaeological visibility of EBA burial, its characteristics can be (tentatively) reconstructed in terms of funerary practices and notions of ancestorhood, by making a broad, diachronic comparison with Copper Age burial. Still, these reconstructions should be put to the test in comparison with other elements in cultural landscapes and in the context of social networks as a whole (Chapter 8).

 The main, ‘multi-sited’ question is whether the distributedness implicit in the diachronic trend of the increasingly low archaeological visibility of EBA burial can be related to changes in settlement patterns between Copper Age and EBA2 cultural landscapes and social networks (Chapter 7). Such network changes are highlighted by the general pattern of discontinuity in the trajectories of open-air sites between EBA1 and EBA2 (§3.2). Moreover, the reconstructed position of EBA funerary contexts at nodes in (supra)regional networks has to be corroborated in a multi-sited analysis (Chapter 8).

 In addition, a comparison should be made with other depositional contexts with a ritual connotation, especially caves as contexts of secondary burial (Chapter 6). Similarly, the parallel

trajectory towards a more widespread occurrence in EBA2 of burial and metalwork deposition (Chapter 4) still has to be explored in the multi-sited context of cultural landscapes and social networks as a whole (Chapter 8). One ‘multi-sited’ pattern can already be highlighted, however. Given the dissociation of metalwork from human remains (§4.2) and the secondary character of funerary cave use (§5.2), both EBA cave use and metalwork deposition would largely (or more often than not) have been ‘non-funerary’ in character.

 A final question is how the reconstructed notions of ancestorhood (§5.2.3; Table 5.11) relate to place-making in general and Copper Age and EBA cosmologies in particular (Chapter 8). For instance, the ‘distributed’ placement of the dead across cultural and physical landscapes seems to indicate a notion of collective ancestorhood intimately (but generically) connected to the land, rather than to the specific man-made (subsurface) places of Copper Age tradition (§5.1; §5.2).

Chapter 6