PREVIOUS   NEXT   CONTENTS   HOME 

Proposition 7

that it may be possible through prehistory to recognise the burial rite or rites afforded to an elite class, defined as a dominant, coercive or ruling segment.

Examination of Proposition 6 has identified inter alia the probable existence of a superior class or social stratum throughout prehistory. Since the examination was based on tests for the presence or absence of higher or lower status-bearing characteristics, it follows that the elite class as defined in Proposition 7 will probably fall within this social stratum. The hypothesis is that:

• the burial rite of an elite class is recognisable through prehistory through one or several of these characteristics: particular treatment of the corpse(s), elaboration in container, excellence of accompanying goods, apparent elaboration of ritual, or special setting in respect of locality, associated locations, and peripheral settings

The tests for this hypothesis will primarily compare the single disposal sites with the multiple varied disposal sites, since these two types appear to hold the remains of the elite class. However, the multiple similar disposal sites will also be covered to see if the differences and similarities in previous analyses continue. A more precise picture may emerge for the single disposal sites since there is in the research record a one-to-one relationship of site data to the individual disposal. This may not be the case for the multiple varied sites, which quite possibly include disposals of both the elite class and members of at least one other class or societal segment.

The tests take the combinations of visibility of site and excellence of grave goods incidence (Table 9.5-3) as the assumed highest status indicators. The combination is tested separately against cremation or inhumation (9.5-6), whole and part body deposition (9.5-7), body orientation (9.5-8), and rite indicators (9.5-9).

The overall (bold) figures for cremation only, inhumation only and both disposal methods on a site are taken from Table 176. The percentages that follow for the three site types with both high visibility and goods of excellence, however, are so small in most cases that it is impossible to make much comment on them. The multiple varied type seems to follow the broad pattern in 3500-2500bc. In 2500-14/1300bc, there seems to be a higher proportion of both cremation and inhumation on those sites than was the average. In the same period, it appears that the single disposal sites followed the general pattern, but percentage incidence in other periods is too insignificant to be evaluated. In 100bc-AD43 the sites seems to follow the general pattern.

The percentage incidence is too small for comment, except, perhaps, that the multiple varied disposal sites perform more strongly.

The percentage incidence is too small for comment, although the multiple varied disposal sites have more evidence for a preference for the orientations NW-NE and NE-SE, with a swing (alongside area trends) towards the SE-SW in the last period.

The percentage incidence is, again, too small for much secure comment, save that there is the slightest suggestion that male burials appear in higher proportions on the single and multiple varied disposal sites. These are very low percentages, however, derived from a very small numerical base (see Tables 205 and 206), and are not directly related in the case of multiple burial sites to individually analysed burials.

Unfortunately none of the sets of figures in 9.5-6/7/8/9 has been significant enough to help in rigorous testing of the proposition. It is therefore not possible to say that the burial rite of an elite class is recognisable through more than the excellence of grave goods, and through the visibility of the burial site. Cremation and inhumation do not appear to have been distinguishing indicators (that is, one method being preferred to the other for the elite), neither does orientation, whole or part body deposition, or necessarily ritual activity (although the special studies show that the single and multiple varied disposal sites have a tendency to hold more such evidence than the other type site). It is not possible to connect the sex of the disposal to any particular selective treatment in the disposal process at this high level. This supports the general view gained from the special studies and previous testing of hypotheses above, that indicators of rank and status, at least as expressed through the burial record, are confined to the more common elements of grave goods of excellence and the prominence of the burial monument in the locality. Other characteristics of the deposition ritual appear to be shared among all societal groups, and to exist in greater or lesser visible complexity.

The hypothesis would appear to have support, but as expressed did not place many demands on the evidence. It seems probable on the tests that the distinguishing characteristics in the burial rite of an elite lie largely in the goods of excellence set down with them and in the visibility of the monument, since so many of the other characteristics seem to be held in common. Proposition 7 therefore also holds, but the evidence on which it depends lies largely in that produced to test hypotheses for Proposition 6.

 PREVIOUS   NEXT   CONTENTS   HOME 

© Internet Archaeology/Author(s)
University of York legal statements | Terms and Conditions | File last updated: Wed Nov 7 2001