The first part of this chapter attempts to arrive at an adequate notion and definition of ideology. An alternative to the viewpoint of Althusser concerning the nature of ideology is discussed, and the close relationship between ideological and symbolic form emphasised. Material symbols, especially those involved in ritual such as burial of the dead, may play an active part in the misrepresentation or concealment of real social relations. The treatment and arrangement of the human skeleton at burial can be used to provide a number of particularly powerful symbolic contrasts. An analysis of the skeletal remains in Neolithic barrows from Wessex and the Cotswolds in southern England and from southern Sweden is carried out. It is suggested that the preservation biasses can be accounted for in the analyses, and it is shown that non-random selection of bones between and within the tombs can be identified, and that contrasts occur between articulated and disarticulated skeletons, adult and immature remains, left and right parts of the body, male and female. Possible interpretations of the patterning are discussed in relation to ethnographic data, and it is suggested that the burial symbolism was involved ideologically within the context of symmetric kin organisation and asymmetric social control by lineage heads.

Introduction

This paper is an attempt to reinterpret Neolithic mortuary practices in two distinct areas of north western Europe: Wessex and the Cotswolds in southern England and Scania in southern Sweden. The main focus of our attention is the human osteological deposits within earthen and chambered long barrows.

In this chapter Tilley outlines aspects of a general social theory which has implications for all archaeological processes – the use and deposition of material culture and its analysis and interpretation. The concern is to situate archaeology securely within the social sciences to which it can contribute positively as a discipline defined by a distinctive body of information.

According to the theory presented, societies have a dual nature. They consist of individual people, but also of social structures. Individual acts are orientated according to principles or rules which in turn are reproduced by the actions. Man makes himself within a particular spatial and historical context in which he ‘knows how’ to act, even if he is unaware of all the structuring principles employed. Action has consequences (intended and unintended) which form the social structure.

Material culture has a central role in the relationship between the individual and the social structure. Material items are structured according to principles or rules, but they also structure further individual actions as part of a particular ideological framework. Finally, the nature and causes of social change are considered and emphasis is placed on contradictions between the interests and orientations of individuals and groups within society.

Introduction

The position put forward here for an understanding of the nature of social formations and of changes within them is defined as dialectical structuralism.

Moore argues, in the introduction to this paper, that the analogies suggested by ethnoarchaeology should be structural rather than formal. The category ‘rubbish’ in settlement studies must be located and understood within cultural contexts, including the archaeologist's own society. The notion of curation is shown to be culturally variable and to have varying significance. The organisation and categorisation of refuse must be linked to data on burial, settlement, decoration, formalised ritual and so on within a cultural context. Such relationships are identified by reference to an initial survey of the Marakwet of Kenya. This study demonstrates ways in which the archaeologist could link refuse organisation to other types of data within a cultural context.

Ethnoarchaeology is one of the fastest growing areas within archaeology, and its general development reflects some of the current problems in archaeological theory. The term ethnoarchaeology covers a broad range of interests but I would like to restrict my discussion here to those studies which are concerned with the interpretation of intra-site spatial patterning in material remains and with the cultural factors which affect the formation of the archaeological record.

Ethnographic analogy

One of the main problems in archaeological explanation with which ethnoarchaeology has been most closely associated is the use of analogy. Under the influence of the New Archaeology, analogy became a ‘dirty word’; it became associated with culture historians and with attempts to provide an ‘historical’ rendering of the past. While it was grudgingly admitted that analogy could not be avoided, most New Archaeologists felt that its role in archaeological explanation should and could be reduced to a minimum.

Anyone can use a book against itself, but since I am an interested advocate of the work in these chapters, I want to use some of the apparent discrepancies within the book to show, not its weakness, but its interior strengths. This book began as a conference on structuralism and symbolism in archaeology and appeared to owe its life to Lévi-Strauss and Edmund Leach: to Lévi-Strauss because of structuralism and to Leach (1973, pp. 761–71) because of his prediction that archaeology's next move would be to structuralism. The first discrepancy is that this book is not only not the advent of structuralism in archaeology, it may be the effective antidote needed to prevent that tired method long superceded even among its own practitioners. This book's archaeology supercedes, while simultaneously integrating, structuralism and does so at a time of great importance to archaeology. These archaeologists are not concerned with abstract principles of mind, as they would be if literal structuralists. But they are concerned with context, meaning and particular historical circumstances, as well as with the generative principles which unify particular cultures. They are interested in particular structures but within their historical, i.e. material, context.

The second apparent discrepancy occurs when we are invited to understand the archaeology presented here against the New Archaeology, particularly as defined by Lewis Binford. Systems theory, cross-cultural behavioural generalisations and Hempelian positivism, key aspects of the New Archaeology, are seen in the book as methodological errors to be avoided.

Shennan examines economic, political and ideological change in the development of a bronze industry and in the appearance of particularly rich graves at the end of the Neolithic and beginning of the Bronze Age in Europe. In Wessex, southeast Spain and Brittany there is evidence for the development first of a hierarchy legitimated by communal ritual, and later by the naturalisation of hierarchy in the material symbols associated with individuals, for example at burial. There was thus a change in the representation of social hierarchy. In central Europe, on the other hand, the growth of a hierarchy is associated directly with individual burial differentiation. The adoption of the latter mode of representation in western Europe was associated with the spread of Bell Beakers and the overall structure, which is characterised by continual change and search for material items of prestige, plays a part in the development of the Early Bronze Age metal industry. It is emphasised that both the local and interregional contexts need to be examined in the explanation of change.

The end of the Neolithic and the beginning of the Bronze Age (c. 2500–1500 BC) have long been seen as a period of significant change in European prehistory. This inference has been based on the marked changes visible in certain aspects of the archaeological record in many parts of Europe at this time, and also on the assumption implicit in the Three Age system that the transition from one age to another must be of considerable importance. Two aspects of the archaeological record have elicited particular attention, the appearance of bronze artefacts and that of burials containing relatively spectacular grave goods.

Insofar as the material residues of interest to archaeologists are cultural and, as such, have specifically symbolic significance, it is argued that archaeology must employ some form of structuralist analysis (i.e. as specifically concerned with this aspect of the material). Wylie examines the prevalent notion that such analysis is inevitably ‘unscientific’ because it deals with a dimension of material culture which is inaccessible of any direct, empirical investigation, and argues that this rests on an entrenched misconception of science; it assumes that scientific enquiry must be restricted to observables. It is clear, as realist critics of this view have argued, that scientific (explanatory) understanding depends fundamentally on theoretical extensions beyond observables; extensions which bring into view underlying and inaccessible causal structures or mechanisms responsible for the manifest phenomena through a procedure of analogical model construction. In consideration of realist models of these procedures and of the potential of linguistic modes of analysis for archaeology, it is proposed that archaeologists might (and, in fact, often do) effectively grasp the symbolic, structural order of surviving material culture through analysis governed by a rigorous and controlled use of ethnographic analogy. It is claimed, moreover, that the archaeological record can provide empirical bases for evaluating these theoretical constructs if a procedure of recursive and systematic testing is adopted in research, but the standard hypothetico-deductive model is seriously flawed as an account of an ideal for this procedure. Glassie's analysis of Middle Virginian folk housing is an example of research along these lines which illustrates the potential for a rigorous structuralist alternative.

The idea for this volume grew out of a series of graduate seminars in Cambridge in the academic year 1979–80. Preliminary drafts of a majority of the papers were presented at a conference entitled Symbolism and Structuralism in Archaeology in Cambridge in April 1980, organised by members of the seminar group. There has been considerable discussion within the group concerning the papers in this volume, which should be regarded as a joint editorial venture although, as will be noted in chapter 1, a wide range of often contrasting views is represented.

During the early period of exploration and development of ideas, premature conference presentations and individual seminars were given by various members of the Cambridge group in other archaeology departments in England and abroad. Individual scholars who were invited to talk to us in Cambridge in that period often felt, understandably, obliged to maintain a distinct opposition. While it is certainly the case that these presentations had occurred before our views had even begun to settle down, and that they were excessively aggressive, they played an important role in the process of enquiry and reformulation. In particular, the contrasts which were set up by us and by outside scholars allowed the views of the seminar group, and the differences of viewpoint within the group, to be clarified. The opposition highlighted our own opinions but also threw the spotlight on the blind alleys down which there was a danger of straying. Our aggression resulted from the conviction that we were doing something new. This, too, was important.

Conkey examines social boundaries and their relation to the structure of style and design, with particular reference to Palaeolithic art. The style or structure of Palaeolithic art is shown to be characterised by a number of structural features such as non-differentiation of levels, and lack of design-field. Iconic representations of the type found in the Upper Palaeolithic are suggested as having an evolutionary primacy over more complex symbolic organisation, and the development of this ability in the Upper Palaeolithic is linked to the explosion in the richness and variety of material culture at this time. There is evidence for an emphasis on continuity between the background and the picture, between the natural and the cultural worlds, and a lack of directionality in the organisation of the art. Questions are asked concerning how structural congruences and the structural organisation of differences emerged during the Palaeolithic.

This paper is an attempt to weave together some emerging ideas on how to approach prehistoric artforms or a prehistoric art style from a structuralist perspective. It is written with firm conviction that such a perspective is not just useful; we must make our inferences about past human life from the structure of archaeological data. I do not intend to consider what has been wrong or off-the-track in archaeology, particularly with regard to the three topics I have chosen to pursue here: social boundaries, style and design analysis. Most archaeologists know well how these three topics tend to coincide in archaeological research. Instead, I will briefly present the notion of social boundaries as just one level and manifestation of discontinuity in human life.

In this chapter the evidence of pottery decoration and shape, axe decoration, burial, settlement and economy is linked in comparable sequences of change which can be identified on both the North European plain and on the adjacent loess soils. In the first phase, found only on the loess, individual units within social groups can remain in close proximity, the social groups gradually expanding outwards. Pottery, burial and settlement show little concern with contrasts and oppositions. In the second phase, seen in the later LBK and Rossen and early TRB, there is outwards expansion, the spatial coherence of local groups is complicated by shorter term, more dispersed settlement and there is perhaps evidence of new forms of social dominance. There is a concern with oppositions in the pot decoration, a large number of vessel forms and large amounts of decoration, complex burial ritual in the TRB, and nucleated ditched villages in the Rossen. The material culture helps to form and legitimate the social categories in a period of increasing contradictions. In the third phase, the PFB, there is less emphasis on oppositions and categorisation in material culture and the various classes of evidence suggest a transformation of earlier tensions. The historical nature of the enquiry is stressed and the appropriate use of symbols such as shapes of burial mounds is outlined.

The setting

The physical environment of the Netherlands and adjacent areas can be divided into three major zones (fig. 1). The first area is the coastal sedimentation of the Rhine–Maas (Meuse) delta. Up to about 3000 BC the coastline retreated inwards, while after this date it began moving out again.

Miller describes a model of emulation, in which material items associated with elites are copied by lower levels within society, so necessitating further symbolic elaboration by the elite in order to maintain structural and categorical contrasts. In the modern western world, the structure of society is reproduced in the strategies of individuals seeking reputation and status and one of the mechanisms used to achieve this is association with the language traits and material items of the elite. Material items are implicated in the emulation of higher castes within a village in India and an analysis of the pottery made and used in the village demonstrates that the organisation of pottery categories (in terms of colour and form) relates to the structure of the social hierarchy. This association is related to the emphasis on purity in the Hindu context, which, as in Braithwaite's study, is expressed in food and drink transactions. The proliferation of pottery types is not tied directly to utilitarian functions and may in fact decrease the efficiency of certain activities. Hierarchy may generate strategies of emulation, or the prevention of copying new forms, but only if a given set of material items is used to express and form status relationships. In a particular archaeological context, Miller shows how the process of emulation has structured the expression of rules of purity and pollution in material forms over two millennia.

Archaeologists have always been concerned with the processes that underlie cultural change: to identify patterns in dynamic processes and to postulate mechanisms that might give rise to these patterns.

Relationships between the use of decoration and particular dimensions of social action are examined in Braithwaite's paper. A suggestion is made that covert forms of discourse, such as decoration, may express messages that are inconsistent with the legitimation of relationships of power. Through a study of the Azande of Sudan, it is shown that decoration occurs on objects that through their use involve encounters between opposed categories. Amongst the Azande the male/female dichotomy is particularly marked and the maintenance of this opposition, and of the dominant position of men, is problematical. The position of women is subordinate, but extremely powerful and certain ideological and ritual strategies are required to maintain the separation of the sexes and the dominant position of men. Items that through their use involve, either directly or indirectly, encounters between male and female are marked out with decoration, and it is suggested that decoration both covertly expresses and authorises the encounter between these opposed categories. Yet not all dichotomies between groups of people in Azande society require this form of ritual strategy. The study also shows that decoration may not be used on items involving opposed categories where other ideological strategies are employed to maintain the relationship of power. Through different kinds of ideological and ritual mechanisms the social order may be maintained, and also transformed.

This paper presents the results of an investigation into the contexts of decoration within the material culture and the social and cultural forms of some of the Azande people of southern Sudan.

Functionalism is defined as the use of an organic analogy in the explanation of societies, with particular reference to system, equilibrium and adaptation. The New Archaeology is found to be functionalist and a critique of functionalism is put forward, centring on the dichotomies between culture and function, individual and society, statics and dynamics, and on the links to positivism. Criticisms of an alternative approach, structuralism, include the lack of a theory of practice, the dichotomies between individual and society, statics and dynamics, and the paucity of rigour in the methods employed. A contextual or cultural archaeology is described which is based on the notion of ‘structuration’, and which attempts to resolve many of the difficulties associated with functionalism and ‘high’ structuralism. The main concern is with the role of material culture in the reflexive relationship between the structure of ideas and social strategies. Similarities are identified with the historical and humanistic aims of an older generation of British prehistorians such as Daniel, Piggott, Clark and Childe. Today, however, the earlier aims can be followed more successfully because of developments in social theory and ethnographic studies.

Functionalism and the New Archaeology

In defining functionalism, a simplified version of Radcliffe-Brown's (1952) account will be used since his approach can be shown to be close to that followed by many New Archaeologists (those who in the 1960s and 1970s were concerned with explanations and approaches of the types outlined by Binford and his associates).

Recent accounts of the investigation of social organisation as reflected in mortuary practices have been based on role theory. If the notion of roles is deemed to be part of an inadequate conception of social systems, then it is necessary to reconsider existing archaeological approaches to burial data. Burial ritual is susceptible to ideological manipulation within the construction of social strategies. An analysis of mortuary practices in modern and Victorian England leads to an interpretation both in terms of the way the dead are seen by the living and in terms of the social relationships between competing groups. Since the Victorian era when burial ritual was a forum for the display of wealth and status, the dead have come to be seen more and more as unwanted matter to be disposed of quickly, without extravagance. This development, involving changes in the use of cremation and in the physical traces of the burial, is part of the increased use of hygiene, science and medicine as agencies of social control, and is related to a decrease in the use of conspicuous wealth consumption for social advertisement. Finally, a series of general propositions are advanced concerning the study and interpretation of mortuary practices.

Introduction

In the last ten years there have been many developments in the reconstruction of past social systems from the material remains of mortuary rituals. There have been several attempts to provide linking principles between the material culture associated with mortuary practices and the form of social organisation (Saxe 1970; Binford 1972; Brown 1971; Shennan 1975; Goldstein 1976; Tainter 1977; Peebles & Kus 1977).