Funerary practices: selective or non-selective?

In order to explore the selective character of EBA funerary practices, the first question is whether selection for burial would have followed age and sex/gender divides. In the absence of general overviews of these details for Copper Age burial in general, a diachronic comparison is made with the age and sex/gender distributions in the sample of articulated, primary burials (i.e. those bodies that were not subjected to further, secondary handling) in rock-cut tombs in Central Italy (Tables 5.6 & 5.8). Starting with age distributions of buried individuals [n=17] from the few EBA funerary contexts in Abruzzo and Lazio for which such information is available (Table 5.7), these add up to a more or less balanced ratio between subadults [41%] and adults [59%]. The ratio is matched by the late Copper Age-EBA1 sample from FOSSO CONICCHIO, but subadults are overrepresented [75%] in the Copper Age-EBA2 sample from GROTTA SANT’ANGELO and underrepresented [29%] in the EBA2 sample from PIAN SULTANO (Table 5.7). It should be appreciated that the funerary evidence from GROTTA SANT’ANGELO does not concern a fully excavated cave assemblage (contrary to PIAN SULTANO).133 For comparison, the age distribution of articulated burials in Copper Age rock-cut tombs in Central Italy as a whole (Table 5.6) shows a ratio with an underrepresentation of subadults [29%] that matches the ratio at PIAN SULTANO (Table 5.7). However, a pattern of regional differentiation is that subadults are mainly found on the Adriatic side of the peninsula [n=12] and seem to have been largely excluded [n=2] from this particular type of Copper Age burial on the Tyrrhenian side (Table 5.6). Recently published age distributions for Copper Age cemeteries from ‘northern’ southern Lazio bring the Tyrrhenian side of the peninsula more in line with the Adriatic side. At LUCREZIA ROMANA (RM) fourteen out of thirty-seven [38%] single, primary burials have been reported as infants or subadults (Anzidei et al. 2011a, 299). Similarly, twenty-three children (6-12y) have been reported in a sample of seventy-six individuals from ROMANINA (RM), with the remainder including both adolescents and adults (Anzidei et al. 2011a, 304; probably mistakingly reported as two thirds instead of one third of the sample). Children (<11y) Adolescents (<20y) Adults (>20y) Unknown Total ‘Tyrrhenian’ sphere 2 [8%] - 22 [92%] 15 39 ‘Adriatic’ sphere 6 [24%] 6 [24%] 13 [52%] 1 26 Total 8 6 35

Ratio subadults: 29% adults: 71%

16 65

Table 5.6: age distribution of articulated burials in Copper Age rock-cut tombs in Central Italy (after Dolfini 2006a, 96 [fig. 5A-B]).

Significantly, infants (<6y) are missing in the large sample at ROMANINA (RM), which seems to indicate a threshold excluding this age group from the Copper Age cemetery (Anzidei et al. 2011a, 304). As a minimum, the small sample of EBA funerary contexts shows that subadults (i.e. infants, children and adolescents) were not excluded from the select group of buried individuals in Abruzzo and Lazio (cf. Van Rossenberg 2008). On the other hand, neonates (<1y) and infants (<6y) are also underrepresented in the EBA sample (Table 5.7), especially in the light of the presumably higher levels of child mortality in prehistoric times. Given the limited sample size, a more detailed discussion of age distributions in EBA burial is by default case-by-case. Currently, the predominance of subadults in the Copper Age-EBA sample from GROTTA SANT’ANGELO cannot be substantiated as a culturally significant or regionally specific pattern, although it does recall the ‘Adriatic’ overrepresentation of subadults in Copper Age articulated burials (Table 5.6). In this respect, special treatment of children in funerary cave use had definitely been a prior, Neolithic tradition in Abruzzo (cf. Skeates 1991).

The more balanced ratio of subadults and adults at the Copper Age-EBA1 cult place of FOSSO CONICCHIO shows a contrast with the underrepresentation of subadults in Copper Age articulated burials in rock-cut tombs on the Tyrrhenian side of the peninsula (Table 5.6). It should be appreciated, however, that this concerns a comparison of a context of secondary burial with contexts of primary burial and that the age groups present at FOSSO CONICCHIO are also present in the recent samples from the Copper Age cemeteries of LUCREZIA ROMANA and ROMANINA (see above). Finally, the young adult (<25y) from GROTTA DI MONTE SALVIANO shows that this age group was not excluded from EBA

133 _{A more recent excavation at GROTTA SANT’ANGELO has yielded a large collection of disarticulated human remains [n=60],}

predominated by adults but including at least 5 subadults, unfortunately without further stratigraphical and chronological details (Appendix 2 [#2.5]).

burial. Overall, young adults are as well represented as adolescents [n=3] (Table 5.7). Finally, the underrepresentation of subadults in acts of secondary burial at PIAN SULTANO134 could indicate a diachronic or regionally specific pattern, seemingly reversed with respect to the ‘time averaged’, smaller Copper Age-EBA2 sample of disarticulated human remains from GROTTA SANT’ANGELO on the Adriatic side of the peninsula. To sum up, age does not seem to have been a dividing line in the selection of individuals for EBA burial (in so far as archaeologically visible), but appreciation of indications for regional differentiation could benefit from an extension of the diachronic comparison to include MBA burial (Van Rossenberg forthcoming). At the same time, diachronic comparison would benefit from an overview of age distributions from Copper Age cemeteries in Central Italy, or specifically ‘coastal’ Lazio, that is more up-to-date.

Site Date Subadults Adults Ratio

subadults : adults [#2] Grotta Sant’Angelo

(TE) Copper Age-EBA2 Infant (3y) Child (10y) Adolescent (15y)

Adult 75% : 25%

[n=4]

[#6] Grotta di Monte

Salviano (AQ) EBA1 - Young adult (20-25y; probably

male)

- -

[n=1]

2 Adults [#11] Fosso Conicchio

(VT) late Copper Age (final phase)-EBA1 Child (7-8y) Adolescent (14-15y) - Young adult (probably female) 40% : 60% [n=5] - [#17] Pian Sultano (RM) [crepaccio 2]

EBA2-MBA1? Child (8-10y)

Adolescent (12-16y)

1 Adult (>20y;

probably male) Young adult, (18-25y; probably female) 2 Adults (>20y; probably female Adult (30-40y; probably female) 29% : 71% [n=7]

Infant (<6y): n=1 Adults (total): n=10 (including 3 young adults) Child (<12y): n=3 Buried individuals Adolescent (<18y): n=3 (probably) male: n=2 [29%] (probably) female: n=5 [71%] 41% : 59% [n=17]

Table 5.7: age and sex/gender distributions of buried individuals from EBA funerary contexts in Abruzzo and Lazio [cf. Appendix 2 for contextual details and references].

There is no evidence for associations of buried individuals with grave goods in EBA funerary contexts, let alone ones that can be interpreted as gender specific. This means that the small sample of determinations of the sex of adults [n=7] by way of physical anthropology provides the only indication for sex/gender distributions. Female individuals [71%] are overrepresented with respect to male individuals [29%] in this sample (Table 5.7). This ratio is the reverse of the sex/gender distribution of individuals selected for articulated burial in Copper Age tombs (Table 5.8), which shows a predominance of male individuals [70%] over female individuals [30%]. The exclusion of putatively male gender-specific Copper Age objects (mainly stone and copper daggers and axes) as grave goods does not change this pattern dramatically [62% : 38%] (Table 5.8).135 _{Still, there may have been a}

pattern of regional differentiation with the same ratio [2:1] on the Adriatic side, but a slightly more balanced ratio [3:2] on the Tyrrhenian side of the peninsula. Returning to the EBA sample (Table 5.7), it shows that the overrepresentation of female individuals results from the EBA2 context of secondary burial at PIAN SULTANO. This highlights another peculiarity of this particular funerary context, in addition to the underrepresentation of subadults (see above), which again deserves further exploration in diachronic comparison with MBA burial (Van Rossenberg forthcoming). With the exception of PIAN SULTANO, sex/gender does not seem to have been a dividing line in the selection of individuals for EBA burial (in so far as archaeologically visible). Taken together, the lack of both sex/gender

134 _{The assemblage of PIAN SULTANO was not included in my overview of Bronze Age and Early Iron Age child burials in}

Abruzzo and Lazio (Van Rossenberg 2008).

135_{. Dolfini (2006a, 81) follows the general discourse on Copper Age male gender-specific classes of objects, but cf. my critique}

differentiation and age discrimination in EBA funerary evidence (Table 5.7), with the possible exception of infants (<6y), argues against the reconstruction of social differentiation along lines of individually defined status (either achieved or ascribed), contrary to common interpretations of Copper Age burial (e.g. Dolfini 2006, 2006a).

Male (sex) Male (gender) Female (sex) Unknown Total

‘Tyrrhenian’ sphere 13 [43%] 8 [27%] 9 [30%] 9 39

‘Adriatic’ sphere 8 [57%] 2 [14%] 4 [29%] 12 26

Total 21 10 13

Ratio (including

gender attributions) male (sex & gender): 70% female: 30% Ratio (excluding

gender attributions)

male: 62% female: 38%

21 65

Table 5.8: sex/gender distributions of articulated burials in Copper Age rock-cut tombs in Central Italy (after Dolfini 2006a, 96 [fig. 5C-D]).

In the lack of quantitative differentiation in terms of age and sex/gender (see above), the subsequent question is to what extent qualitative differentiation can be discerned in the selection for particular funerary practices. The funerary contexts in the EBA sample have predominantly yielded disarticulated human remains. In terms of skeletal elements selected for secondary burial, they show a generalised preference for skulls, mandibles and teeth, predominantly belonging to adults and to a lesser extent adolescents (Table 5.9). By contrast, long bones and other skeletal elements are outnumbered by skull parts and tend to belong to subadults.136 _{This pattern of differentiation as to}

which skeletal elements were selected for secondary burial, sheds a different light on the absence of age discrimination in the selection for EBA burial (see above). Whereas adults are predominantly represented by skulls, subadults are predominantly represented by mandibles (only rarely skulls) and long bones (specifically femur and humerus, i.e. the upper element of legs and arms, respectively). At the same time, there is no evidence for sex/gender discrimination, in the sense that skull elements have been attributed to both male and female adults (Table 5.9). Similarly, the scarce evidence for further secondary treatment of selected skeletal elements, in this case exposure to fire, does not indicate age or sex/gender discrimination. This secondary practice concerns both skull elements (FOSSO CONICCHIO) and an infant long bone (GROTTA SANT’ANGELO).

Given the limited sample size of EBA funerary contexts, a more detailed discussion of the selective character of secondary practices is by default case-by-case. For instance, the absence of skulls in the small Copper Age-EBA2 sample from GROTTA SANT’ANGELO aligns with the predominance of subadults, normally not represented by skull elements (see above). A revision of this observation is perhaps required, given the predominance of skull fragments in a recently excavated part of the assemblage (Table 5.8). The latter are generically dated to the Neolithic through the Bronze Age, but this larger sample from GROTTA SANT’ANGELO does underscore the preference for skulls in secondary handling of human remains (including their exposure to fire) in later prehistory. It could also indicate spatial differentiation in the deposition (and circulation) of particular skeletal elements inside distinctive spaces of the cave, but demonstrating such a pattern requires high-quality information and observations (cf. Duday 2009). At GROTTA DI MONTE SALVIANO the articulated, primary EBA1 burial contrasts with the ‘isolated’ occurrence, arguably secondary burial, of skull fragments. The sample from the late Copper Age-EBA1 context of secondary burial shows that secondary treatment (i.e. exposure to fire) was a selective practice at FOSSO CONICCHIO. In this respect, the reportedly spatially differentiated occurrence of skull elements and long bones in the semi-subterranean structure (Table 5.9) could recall the situation at GROTTA SANT’ANGELO (see above). Then, the lack of other skeletal elements than skull elements and long bones in the EBA2 sample from PIAN SULTANO recalls the earlier sample (FOSSO CONICCHIO) from the same region of northern Lazio and from GROTTA SANT’ANGELO in coastal Abruzzo (Table 5.9). Incidentally, human remains do not constitute the predominant substance in the assemblages of these three contexts of secondary burial, which will be explored in more detail in the context of EBA cave use (Chapter 6). The fact that disarticulated human remains are outnumbered by other objects and substances, highlights that secondary burial should be interpreted accordingly, as part of a wider range of substances selected for deposition at these places.

136 _{The one adult long bone reported from PIAN SULTANO has yielded a LBA-FBA radiocarbon date (Appendix 2 [#17.8]) and}

Site Date Buried individual Skull elements Long bones Other

[1] infant (3y) - partly burnt femur

fragment -

[2] child (10y) part of mandible - -

[3] adolescent (15y) part of mandible - -

Copper Age- EBA2 [4] adult (probably 1 individual) - - 7 phalanges [#2] Grotta Sant’Angelo (TE) undated [i.e. Neolithic- Bronze Age] [5] disarticulated human remains [n=60], predominantly adult; many with traces of secondary exposure to fire

55 skull fragments [many fragments of one individual; and 1 child (7-8y)]

3 femurs [2 child] 2 vertebrae [1 subadult]

probably

Copper Age [1] (probably 1 individual) skull fragments - -

[#6] Grotta di Monte Salviano

(AQ) EBA1 [2] young adult (20-25y),

probably male [articulated burial] [articulated burial] [articulated burial] [#11] Fosso

Conicchio (VT) late Copper Age (final phase)- EBA1

[1-5] child (7-8y); adolescent (14-15y); 3 adults, 2 ‘cremated’ (1 young adult, probably female)

predominantly skull fragments and teeth, both burnt and unburnt; belonging to at least 5 individuals

some long bones, originally reported from the surface of the bench (or “altar”)

-

[1] child (8-10y)

(individual G) - humerus rib

[2] adolescent (12-16y)

(individual C) skull fragments, complete mandible femur -

[3] young adult, probably female (18-25y) (individual B) skull fragments, complete mandible, 6 teeth - - [4] adult, probably female

(30-40y) (individual A): skull and jaw fragments, 2 teeth - -

[#17] Pian Sultano (RM) [crepaccio 2] EBA2- MBA1? [5-7] 3 adults (>20y) (individuals D, E, both probably female & F, probably male)

skull fragments [i.e. temporal bone]

- -

Table 5.9: evidence for selective, secondary treatment of human remains from EBA funerary contexts in Abruzzo and Lazio [cf. Appendix 2 for contextual details and references].

This closer look at the specifics of EBA funerary practices (see above) has shown that the inclusion of buried individuals in this small group was generally non-selective (or ‘random’) in terms of age and sex/gender (Table 5.7). Nonetheless, age discrimination could be found in the selection of particular skeletal elements for secondary burial. Overall, skull elements and long bones are predominant (Table 5.9), but adults are mainly represented by skulls and subadults by long bones. Although subadults were not excluded from secondary burial, their skulls were apparently not deemed appropriate substances to be incorporated in such contexts. There is a possibility that this age-based principle in the selective character of the circulation and the deposition of human remains was linked to notions of ancestorhood. The selection of fully grown or matured skulls (as the main skeletal element by which adults are represented) highlights their particular value as ancestral substances, arguably linked to notions of personhood that define the ‘adult’ life stage. In this respect, the few articulated burials also seem to have been the prerogative of adult individuals, but in this case the sample size of EBA contexts of primary burial is too small to make meaningful observations. As a selective pattern, such indications of ‘adult’ prerogatives could suggest a connection with achieved status and roles in domains of practice, such as participation in intercommunal interaction and connectivity, for which an age threshold can be suspected. What remains to be seen, however, is whether the skulls selected for secondary burial refer to ‘specific’ ancestors, linked with the social status of specific individuals, or to ancestral substances in a generic, ‘imagined’ sense. Such notions of ancestorhood will be addressed in the following section, including a diachronic comparison with Copper Age burial, as well as an attempt at incorporating archaeologically invisible forms of EBA burial in the discussion.