Review of "S. Tarlow/L. Nilsson Stutz (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Death and Burial. Oxford Handbooks in Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013"

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. 463–64) (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 science’s 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-archéologie’ 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 phenomenological—J. 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. Sørensen (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 Fabian’s 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 archaeologist’s 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 volume’s 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 approaches—which could, in fact, be levelled against much of burial archaeology—is 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. 183–88). When more ‘mundane’ burials are explicitly addressed—as is the case with Williams and Gramsch—then 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. Näser in the context of Egyptian graves (pp. 652–56). 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):543–67. Turner, V.W. 1969. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. NILS MÜLLER-SCHEESSEL Roman-Germanic Commission of the German Archaeological Institute (DAI), Frankfurt/Main, Germany DOI 10.1179/146195714X13820028180883 Thomas Meier and Petra Tillessen, eds. Über die Grenzen und zwischen den Disziplinen: Fächerübergreifende 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 human–environment 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 volume—as well as three short replies. Almost all of the articles are in German—with the exception of two in English—and they do indeed reflect the situation within the German-speaking research community. However, the problems addressed do not concern German archaeologists alone, but