724

European Journal of Archaeology 17 (4) 2014

Sarah Tarlow and Liv Nilsson Stutz, eds. The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of
Death and Burial (Oxford Handbooks in Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2013, 872pp., 126 figs., hbk, ISBN 978-0-19-956906-9)
The book under review here is part of the
expanding Oxford Handbook series. Within
its 849 pages, it contains 44 papers on
very diverse aspects of mortuary archaeology. Many of the 45 authors are well
known, probably even to the nonspecialist. However, one cannot deny the
fact that scholars from Anglophone
countries (that is the United States, the
British Isles, or Australia) dominate; only
eleven authors come from elsewhere.
Thus, the volume necessarily represents
only a limited scope of the worldwide
archaeological involvement in the study of
death and burial. A general ignorance of
non-English literature is highlighted by
such a fact that the important site of
Hochdorf is falsely situated in Austria
(p. 54) and that this went unnoticed by
both editors and peer-reviewers alike,
although it is discussed at length elsewhere
(p. 46364) (and there correctly situated
in southwest Germany).
Generally, the contributions are organized in a similar fashion; nearly all of
them (except that on aDNA) contain a list
of references divided into two groups. The
first group comprises literature suggested
for further reading with useful onesentence commentaries for each entry and
the second includes the remainder of the
references.
A handbook can be expected to
present its information in as accessible a
format as possible. Indispensable tools for
that are a table of contents and an index.
While both of these do indeed exist, they
are less useful than they should be. The
index leaves one with the impression that
it was put together without the necessary
care. Many entries are doubled, but it is
difficult to discern any pattern behind the

doubling, e.g. there is an overarching entry

ancient DNA and also another one for
ancient DNA (aDNA). There is an entry
for DNA, amplified and another for
amplified DNA, but only one for chromosomal DNA; there is an entry for
hill-top settlements, and, immediately
below, another one named hilltop settlements, and both refer to the same paper.
Again, the inclusion of place names
follows no discernible pattern; while the
site of Hochdorf (mentioned above) is
referred to at least twice, it was not
included. Why some scholars were
included in the index while others were
not also remains unclear. In spite of
having been referred to, for example,
C.J. Thomsen, J.J.A. Worsaae and
G. Kossinna are missing. Some entries are
not even correct, e.g. the entry Briggs, J.
on pages 69, 115, 479, and 774 refers to
different individuals, most of whom
appear only in literature references.
There are, of course, many possibilities
for organizing a volume such as that
reviewed here. However, that order should
at least be obvious so that the reader
might easily find the most relevant papers.
In the Handbook it is difficult to discover
such an apparent ordering. Often it is
unclear what binds sequential papers
together, and, from the titles of the
papers, it is difficult to deduce their
content. The same is true for three of the
four overarching headings: only the fourth,
The ethics and politics of burial archaeology, gives a reasonably accurate idea of
the content of its chapters; the others
(Approaches to death and burial, The
nature of the evidence and The human
experience of death across cultural contexts) could contain anything (and,

Book Reviews

indeed, do). It seems as if the editors have

simply succumbed to the variety of
approaches and refrained from any
attempt at structuring them. In the following, I try to show alternative ways of
ordering and also what papers make for an
interesting contrast. Because of limited
space, not all contributions can be
mentioned.
A coherent group of papers could be
grouped under a dealing with the body
umbrella. It contains four very readable
contributions which specifically discuss
natural sciences contributions to mortuary
archaeology. C. Roberts deals with
health-issues (Ch. 6), B. Bramanti presents the possibilities and pitfalls of
aDNA analyses (Ch. 7) and G. Eriksson
deals with stable isotopes (Ch. 8). A
further paper by J.I. McKinley discusses
the excavation, analysis and interpretation
of cremations (Ch. 9), mainly from the
point of view of the natural sciences, while
T. Oestigaard (Ch. 27) views cremation
from a cultural angle. Together, these last
two papers give probably the best general
overview of cremation presently available.
What is suspiciously missing, however, is
a chapter on the basics of physical
anthropology (e.g. sexing and age determination) as well as one on what is called
thanato-archologie in French (namely,
the taphonomic processes which affect the
body after burial). Instead, M. Giles (Ch.
26) gives an overview of the different ways
in which human bodies can be preserved,
while, on the other hand, E. Weiss-Krejci
(Ch. 16) discusses the different reasons for
which specific individuals might be not
buried.
In terms of theory, processual archaeology is only present in historical
accounts. R. Chapman (Ch. 4) gives a
succinct introduction to the different
approaches concerning death and burial
taken by processual archaeologists. His
paper is an excellent introduction to this

725

tradition and is far better structured than

the paper by S. Kus (Ch. 5), which
contraposes processualism and postprocessualism. She claims that it is important to take the best of both worlds
(p. 71). As much of early processual
mortuary archaeology was developed at
cemeteries in the eastern American woodlands, the paper on this topic by J. Brown
(Ch. 19), another grand seigneur of
burial archaeology, is an excellent addition
to the one by Chapman. It also addresses
many of the critiques that were levelled
against this earlier research.
Instead, certain post-processual topics
dominate. It is certainly no coincidence
that the two papers which are the most
phenomenologicalJ. Wright (Ch. 22)
and M.S. Midgley (Ch. 23)both deal
with megaliths. Not surprisingly, identity
and gender also return in several papers
(even in the titles). Especially useful
among these is the review of gender
studies by J. Sofaer & M.L.S. Srensen
(Ch. 29). Memory as a topic is only
taken up by H. Williams (Ch. 11), who
questions the function of small objects in
cremations and mainly sees them as catalysts for memory. For him, these objects
did not necessarily signal identity, but
were rather part of ritual activities. While
his case studies are convincing to varying
degrees, his emphasis on less impressive
graves is interesting.
Following Victor Turner (1969) and his
successors, several papers approach the
problem of mortuary archaeology from the
angle of ritual studies. Despite its misleading title, the very readable paper by
F. Ekengren (Ch. 10) mainly draws from
different strands of ritual studies and successfully combines this approach with that
involving the symbolic meaning of gravegoods. In the same vein, A. Gramsch (Ch.
25) focuses on the different ways and
stages in which the body is transformed by
and during ritual. Finally, C. Fowler (Ch.

726

28) also concentrates on the transformative

force of rituals; in this, he aptly speaks of
the mortuary process (p. 522). Taken
together and despite large overlaps, these
three papers provide a very succinct introduction to mortuary archaeology viewed
from ritual studies.
Two further contributions merit special
attention: one of the most entertaining
papers of the volume is the one by J. Robb
(Ch. 24). He rightly states that we have
not had an archaeology of dying or even
an archaeology of death; we have had an
archaeology of already dead persons
(p. 442) reminiscent of Johannes Fabians
already 40 years old statement that there
cannot be an anthropological study of
death, but only of behaviour towards death
as it affects those who survive (Fabian,
1972). Drawing on body theory, Robb
tries to remedy this and shows the many
ambivalences which are connected with
death and dying and why dying must be
seen as a thoroughly social process.
The second of these is the account on
belief by one of the editors, S. Tarlow
(Ch. 34), in which she rightly states that
the question of what people believed is
archaeologically unanswerable. To her,
thinking about coexisting (but not necessarily accordant) belief discourses would be
more fruitful.
Without a doubt, the volume is strongest when it comes to the politics and
ethics involved in dealing with prehistoric
and historic human remains. Interesting
contrasting reads, for example, are provided by the papers by G. Scarre (Ch. 37)
on the one hand and E. Weiss-Krejci
(Ch. 16) on the other. Scarre insists on
the archaeologists moral obligation to the
prehistoric dead, while Weiss-Krejci
reminds us that, historically, there are
worse fates for dead bodies than ending
up on a museum shelf or in a glass vitrine
(p. 294) and further doubts that we can
ever truly understand how people of a very

European Journal of Archaeology 17 (4) 2014

distant past felt about their dead and what

they would have considered improper
(p. 294). The moral problematic is certainly an issue with which every
archaeologist has to deal with in his or her
own way. However, in many instances, he
or she is pressured by the living. The contribution by C. Fforde (Ch. 40) starts with
the history of the building of human
remains collections and the ensuing
debates about repatriation. The one by
C. Pardoe (Ch. 41) discusses the very
same issue with the same material (Australia). Its value lies in his very personal
perspective. It would have been also very
interesting to discuss such claims in contexts that are generally thought to be
ethically less problematic (e.g. most
archaeological excavations in Europe).
Finally, L. Renshaw provides two chapters
on the dead killed during armed conflicts,
concentrating first on soldiers (Ch. 42)
and then on civilian victims (Ch. 43). In
both cases, the burden of dealing with the
dead in the most sensible way with respect
to the living is obvious.
How the political climate influences the
ways in which prehistoric remains are
interpreted is already very apparent in the
contribution by N. Richard (Ch. 3), who
concentrates on the nineteenth-century
debate about the interpretation and significance of Palaeolithic burials. For that,
she compares discussions in France and
England and successfully links them to
their respective political climates. In a
similar vein, the paper by J. Watkins (Ch.
39) illustrates how easily (and often unavoidably) archaeologists become involved
in politics by means of Kennewick Man.
While the situation in North America
might be extreme, it is also an important
issue elsewhere. The different aspects which
are coming to the fore are discussed by
second editor, L. Nilsson Stutz, in the
volumes concluding chapter (Ch. 44). She
makes it impressively clear that, in many

Book Reviews

circumstances, the archaeologist becomes a

pawn. She claims that he or she needs to be
open for other opinions in the discourse.
As was already stated, the volume is
clearly heavily influenced by postprocessualist approaches to funerary
archaeology. Together, they give a very
good impression of where the strengths
and weaknesses of such an approach lie.
On the other hand, everything that could
be labelled processual mortuary archaeology is clearly avoided. So, largely missing
are
quantitative
or
cross-cultural
approaches to burial analysis. The section
by R. Chapman on Bronze Age Iberia
(Ch. 20) comes the closest in terms of
quantifying burial remains.
The problem with post-processual
interpretative approacheswhich could, in
fact, be levelled against much of burial
archaeologyis that it has to rely on rich
contexts and, therefore, deal mainly with
the upper strata of society, because they
provide the best prerequisites for detailed
interpretation (see, e.g., the case study in
the paper by Ekengren, pp. 18388).
When more mundane burials are explicitly addressedas is the case with
Williams and Gramschthen this
happens in the context of cremated
remains, probably because a set of actions
can be securely proposed in that instance.
Another problem which becomes
especially apparent in the contribution by
E. Hill (Ch. 33) on changes in the placement of Late Moche burials (which she
links to changes in the emotional arena) is
that her whole argument revolves around
only six graves. For often wide-ranging
claims, the quantitative basis of postprocessual arguments is frequently very
weak or even deemed irrelevant.
Post-processual approaches are certainly here to stay. Apart from that,
however, the volume gives only very few
clues as to where mortuary archaeology
might be heading theoretically. We can

727

most probably expect those approaches to

arise which are missing from the volume.
Thus, we might expect more processual
quantifying and comparative approaches to
return. Furthermore, what is striking when
considering all the contributions is a
nearly complete disinterest in social structure. In the same vein, age as category is
not discussed; this is remarkable as a
differential treatment of children is often
attested archaeologically. Reasons and
agents for change in mortuary customs or
their variability remain largely unaddressed; long-term developments are only
dealt with in the paper by A. Yao on
Chinese ancestors (Ch. 32) and by
Chapman on the Iberian Bronze Age (Ch.
20). Additionally, economic aspects in
burying the dead are completely missing;
the question regarding what happened
with the possessions of the dead has still
not been addressed at all. Grave goods
are very seldom discussed; the most
in-depth discussion is supplied by
C. Nser in the context of Egyptian graves
(pp. 65256). She is also the only one
who touches upon grave robbing. Certainly, the paper by M.M. Kersel and
M.S. Chesson addresses looting in the
present and the recent past in their
depressing case study of Early Bronze Age
Jordan (Ch. 38), but there can be no
doubt that grave opening was part of
many cultural practices.
Bearing in mind that the papers were
specially commissioned for this volume, it
remains difficult to understand why the
papers are so unbalanced. Some are much
longer than others, and there is a lot of
overlap. The paper on Upper Palaeolithic
burial practices (Ch. 17), for example,
contains a table of all available evidence for
Upper Palaeolithic burials which stretches
for nearly twenty pages. While this list will
undoubtedly be of great value for the
specialist, it remains unclear what place it
has in a book like that reviewed here.

728

Considering the hefty 132.95 EUR

price tag, the quality of the hardcover
edition is disappointing. The pages are
bound unsewn and the print quality is
mediocre at best (only black-and-white or
greyscale images which lack contrast).
Therefore, and in view of the many thematic overlaps and the sloppy quality
management as apparent in the index, the
price-value equation does not speak in
favour of the book.
On the jacket, the book claims to be
ideally suited for students and teachers.
Unfortunately, this claim is questionable.
To make the most of the volume, one
must already have an extant and substantial
knowledge of the field. Teachers will have
to sample the relevant papers carefully. So,
while many contributions will undoubtedly
be cited as key reference points for years to

European Journal of Archaeology 17 (4) 2014

come, in this case, the whole is not more

than the sum of its parts.

REFERENCES
Fabian, J. 1972. How Others Die: Reflections
on the Anthropology of Death. Social
Research, 39(3):54367.
Turner, V.W. 1969. The Ritual Process:
Structure and Anti-Structure. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.

NILS MLLER-SCHEESSEL
Roman-Germanic Commission of the
German Archaeological Institute (DAI),
Frankfurt/Main, Germany
DOI 10.1179/146195714X13820028180883

Thomas Meier and Petra Tillessen, eds. ber die Grenzen und zwischen den Disziplinen:
Fcherbergreifende Zusammenarbeit im Forschungsfeld historischer Mensch-UmweltBeziehungen (Budapest: Archaeolingua, 2011, 507pp., 49 figs., pbk, ISBN
978-9-639-91122-2)
How to organize interdisciplinary research
and how to realize scientific debates across
the borders of academic disciplines is a
fundamental concern of archaeological
research, which is interdisciplinary in
itself. When dealing with humanenvironment interaction this is especially true.
The present book (in English Beyond
Borders and between the Disciplines:
Interdisciplinary Cooperations within the
Field of Historic Human-Environment
Relationships) therefore meets a fundamental need for current research in
environmental archaeology: that is, a discussion of the interaction of various
academic disciplines involved in the
research of past environments.

The volume presents the results of a

workshop held in November 2006 at
Frauenchiemsee in Bavaria. It comprises
twenty-eight articles by authors coming
from fifteen various academic disciplines.
As is uncommon in German publications,
the book also includes seven comments on
selected articles by invited colleagues
mostly written by authors that otherwise
have not contributed to the volumeas
well as three short replies. Almost all of
the articles are in Germanwith the
exception of two in Englishand they do
indeed reflect the situation within the
German-speaking research community.
However, the problems addressed do not
concern German archaeologists alone, but