Neolitni pogrebalni obredi. Intramuralni grobove ot Bulgarskite zemi
v konteksta na Jugoiztochna Evropa i Anatolia (Neolithic Mortuary Practices.
Intramural burials in Bulgaria in their southeast European and Anatolian
context) by KRUM BUCHVAROV
Bard, Sofie. 2003. 303 pages, 110 text figures/illustrations,
13 maps, 24 tables, 5 photographs. ISBN 954-585-453-7. (€5)
For anyone tempted to study Balkan prehistory, its
fascinating and diverse material culture poses the difficult task of
integrating and explaining the abundance of the available archaeological
evidence. Neolithic burial practices, as an indicative part of past
social relations, are no exception, presenting various patterns in the
relationships between the living and the dead. It is a surprise, then,
that, after more than a century of archaeological investigations in
Bulgaria, there was no target-oriented study of the oldest mortuary
practices known so far on the territory of present-day Bulgaria. The
new book by Dr. Krum Buchvarov fills this research gap and provides
important empirical information for the overall development of burial
practices in the Balkans.
The core of the study area is the present-day Bulgarian
territory to which the territories of Greece, Macedonia, former Yugoslavia,
Hungary, Romania, western and central Turkey were subsequently compared.
According to Bulgarian Neolithic chronology, the temporal range of the
study covers 6300 cal BC to 4850 cal BC (Boyadziev 1995) – the
‘long’ 6th millennium BC.
The study does not present an original body of theory
but rather synthesises Russian theoretical approaches (eg Alekshin,
Olhovski) with some Western concepts in burial archaeology (eg Chapman,
Veit). Buchvarov’s aims are “… to collect …
and systemise … the grave complexes”, which after detailed
analyses serve as a basis for the “reconstruction of burial rites”.
The latter “… aims to build up a system for reconstruction
applicable to the concrete archaeological monuments, and in considerations
with their cultural specifics.” Buchvarov uses historical, ethnographic
and linguistic evidence in order to create a classification of Neolithic
mortuary practices in Bulgaria. Putting them in the broader spatial
context, he hopes to identify the distribution, diachronic development
and possible origin of the different groups of burial practices (p.13).
The study methodology was built on structural, correlative and comparative
analyses. The data set consists of all known published and unpublished
evidence for Neolithic burials (excluding Hamangia monuments, since
they present a specific cultural phenomenon of the use of extramural
cemeteries).
The general presentation is good and, for the benefit
of non-slavonic readers, there is a ten-page English summary. The book
starts with a review of the short history of previous investigations,
formally divided into three periods. The first chapter also includes
a terminological clarification, which seeks to unit and unify Slavic
and English words widely used in discussions of burial practices. The
terms are divided into four groups. The first one concerns the grave
feature for which the terms ‘grave’ and ‘grave complex’
were accepted. The second group that discusses the complex act and concept
of burying is summarised by the term ‘mortuary practices’.
Grave goods are the topic of the third terminological discussion, where
Buchvarov accepts the term ‘grave inventory’ as the most
appropriate. The last group of terminological arguments specifies the
meaning of ‘inhumation’, ‘secondary burial’
and ‘cremation’.
The second chapter consists of a short description
of each site within which Neolithic burials were found so far, as well
as a summary of the mortuary evidence. A detailed catalogue of all 108
graves from 17 settlements completes the empirical part of the study.
The next chapter is the innovative contribution of
Buchvarov’s book, which presents the results of the structural
and correlative analyses. The former explores the data set in respect
of the three main components of the grave complex – grave feature,
skeletal remains and grave goods. Eight pairs of interrelation patterns
were discussed: grave location within the site/territorial distribution;
grave location within the site/chronological distribution; age/territorial
distribution; age/chronological distribution; position (skeletal remains)/territorial
distribution; position (skeletal remains)/chronological distribution;
orientation (skeletal remains)/territorial distribution; four types
of grave goods (artefacts, animal bones/shells, un-worked stones, red
ochre)/chronological distribution. The first interrelation type showed
a dominance of graves placed between dwellings in North East Bulgaria
and was interpreted as a result of uneven investigations, while the
second interrelation revealed a complex tendency of shifting grave location
from settlement periphery and dwelling space to inter-dwelling space
throughout the Neolithic. The commonest grave feature was the ordinary
pit but there were three cases of burials in vessels and two in stone-lined
pits. The pattern of dominance of young individuals (infants, children,
teenagers) in Thrace and South East Bulgaria contrasted strongly with
their complete absence in the Sofia Basin and the equal distribution
of young and mature individuals in the remaining areas was seen as a
bias in the context of the available data set. However, young individuals
were the prevailing age group in both the Early and the Late Neolithic.
A trend of decreasing numbers of graves from the Early to the Late Neolithic
was also observed. Age differentiation was successful with 92% of the
data set. The sex of only 33 individuals could be distinguished, among
which there were 18 females and 15 males. In more than 70% of the cases
with known body position, the deceased were crouched on one side (28
on left, 23 on right, 13 unknown). This type of body position, together
with crouched on back (8) and on the stomach (2), was distributed over
the whole study area. The other two types of body positions –
sitting (2) and extended (2) – are distributed only in Thrace
and South West Bulgaria. The last and very interesting is the group
of disarticulated skeletal remains. It consists of the bones of at least
30 individuals from eight sites. Only six of them were accepted as intentional
secondary burials of human body parts. Despite the reduced number of
Neolithic graves, a tendency towards extended inhumation can be observed.
All types of body orientation were relatively evenly distributed in
the whole study area during the Early and Late Neolithic. The commonest
type of grave goods is pottery, represented in nine cases, followed
by five cases of ornament deposition. Flint and polished stone tools
are found in four cases each, while there are single cases of the deposition
of a bone tool and a fired clay pintadera. Bones from aurochs, cattle,
goat/sheep, wild and domestic pig are each found only in one grave.
In two other cases, single cattle bones were deposited. Shells are found
in five graves, four of which belong to young individuals. There are
three cases with un-worked stone deposition, which is also the number
of graves with red ochre. The four types of grave goods are found as
a single deposition, as well as different combination of all four. More
often there are combinations of different groups of artefacts rather
than a combination of artifacts on one hand, and un-worked stones, animal
bones and red ochre on the other hand. There is a significant decrease
of grave goods during the Late Neolithic, when artefact deposition was
found in only five cases and animal bone deposition only in one case.
The total percent of graves with grave goods during the Early Neolithic
was 32%, while during the Late Neolithic only 14%. In 57% of the infant
burials, there were grave goods, which is in contrast with the other
groups - 33% adult males, 27% children, 21% adult females and 12.5%
teenagers.
The correlative analysis consists of six types of
interrelation: sex-age/grave location; sex-age/type of grave goods;
body position/presence or absence of grave goods; body position/ sex-age;
orientation of contracted/extended skeletons/sex-age; body position/orientation
of contracted/extended skeletons. The results show a clear pattern of
young individuals buried in the dwelling and inter-dwelling space, mature
males buried on the periphery of the site and mature females buried
in the inter-dwelling space. However, there were some regional particularities
in this pattern. Most of the graves in the data set have no inventory
and only the children’s group has all types of grave goods. The
infants group lacks animal bones, while this is the only type represented
in the teenagers’ group. Both groups of adult males and females
have artifacts in their graves. In addition, there is animal bone deposition
in the former group and un-worked stone deposition in the latter group.
As a general trend, the percentage of graves with grave goods in the
large groups of young individuals and adult individuals is one and the
same – 29%. The prevailing number of graves without inventory
correlates with the dominant position of contracted inhumation to form
the largest group of graves without grave goods. Three other body positions,
however, are equally present in both groups of graves with and without
grave goods – contracted on back (4), sitting (1) and extended
(1). The only burial with the body contracted on the stomach has no
inventory, while, there is grave goods deposition in three cases of
disarticulated bones. The majority of disarticulated bones belong to
children and adult males, while babies and mature females are not represented
at all. Disarticulated deposition is the dominant pattern in the children’s
group and especially the adult males’ group. In children’s
group contracted burials on the left side closely follow the dominant
position.
The different geographical units show different patterns
of change and stability in body position. The orientation varies among
the different age-sex groups and the only clear tendency is the general
direction from South to West in the children’s group and from
North to West in the teenagers’ group. There is some correlation
between the choice of North and South-West orientation and contracted
burials lying on the left side and, again, between an Eastward orientation
and contracted burials lying on the right side.
The reconstruction of the act of burying and its possible
symbolic meaning is presented in Chapter 4. The major symbolic pattern
proposed is a biographical movement:- Earth-Fertility-Birth-Death. Buchvarov
cites numerous examples and different kinds of evidence within the study
area to support such a hypothesis. The process of burying was divided
into two major groups of actions – preliminary ritual acts, consisting
of body preparation, preparation of grave goods, grave feature preparation;
and concluding ritual acts – the actual laying-out of the body
or bones. Both groups of actions are discussed for three major categories
of skeletal remains which Buchvarov defines on the basis of the structural
analysis – articulated skeletons, disarticulated skeletons (or/and
single bones) and cremated skeletons. Positioning the body was the most
important part of the preparation of the articulated skeleton and this
is widely discussed with respect to the variety of body positions (see
Chapter 3) and their respective symbolic interpretation. From the activities
connected with the preparation of grave goods – the deposition
of ornaments, food and drink and lithics - special attention was paid
to the semantic link between the shells and the bone tools and their
symbolic meaning, which was called ‘Charon’s obol’
in later periods. The preparation of the grave feature is discussed
in the context of the debate concerning the social meaning of pits –
for rubbish dumps or as places of deliberate deposition. Here, the author
infers a semantic link between pits and the womb of mother Earth. The
same meaning was claimed for burials in vessels. So far, there is no
convincing evidence for intentional purification of the graves though
fire. The completion of the ritual acts consists of the orientation
of the body, the spreading of red ochre and the ritual breakage of objects.
The only post-burial activity was the scattering of shells, most probably
as a result of a feast.
The body preparation of disarticulated skeletal remains
is discussed in the context of practices of excarnation and corpse dismemberment.
Using comparative evidence from Çatalhöyük in Central
Anatolia, Buchvarov argues that the most probable practice in Bulgarian
Neolithic was excarnation, rather than decarnation or dismembering.
There is no evidence for the creation of a grave feature for the disarticulated
remains. The concluding ritual act is called “secondary burial”,
since it concludes a two-stage process of post-mortem body treatment.
Buried skulls, mandibles, long bones and a combination of them are put
in a wider context, which leads Buchvarov to suggest that the secondary
burials are based on some kind of rite of initiation. So far, there
is only one registered case of cremation in the Bulgarian Neolithic,
so relevant burial actions were discussed in general, summarising evidence
and concepts for the practice of cremation.
Chapter 5 introduces a classification of the Neolithic
mortuary practices, in which the leading component is the definition
of classes of burial – formal inhumation, secondary inhumation
and cremation. The next classification level is the group level
- defining the number of the deceased. The group is divided to kinds,
according to the grave location. The final classification level, or
variant, concerns the position of the body.
Chapter 6 summarises the evidence for Neolithic burials
in the extended study area consisting of a minimum of 1,096 graves from
75 settlements (the vast majority from Catalhöyük). In Chapter
7, they are classified according to the scheme given in Chapter 5. The
main task of the final chapter is to explore the spatial and chronological
distribution of the classified graves. It would be only to Buchvarov’s
benefit if the observed temporal/territorial patterns of burial were
discussed in a wider social context, and not only in consideration of
their possible origin and development. Thus, for example, the meaning
of body deposition on such strongly ancestral places as tells could
be discussed in terms of both social identity and emerging social competition.
Another possible direction of social interpretation is the shift in
the location of the graves, which, when correlated to age/gender distributions,
show a very clear pattern of increasing gender tension. Last but not
least, the exhaustive collection of all known Neolithic graves in the
study area could be integrated into a consistent model of social practices,
which, despite some regional differences, shows similar patterns underlying
the nature of social practices and social relations at the intra-regional
level.
This study by a young Bulgarian archaeologist is an
important breakthrough in both Neolithic studies and burial archaeology
in Bulgaria. For the former, the book is a long-missing element in the
social reconstruction of the mortuary domain. For the latter, it introduces
a consistent alternative to the current high-profile yet largely speculative
interpretations of burial evidence from later sites such as the Varna
cemetery or later complexes such as the Pit Grave culture. The meticulous
presentation of data and its admittedly cautious interpretation provides
a new basis for an appreciation of Neolithic mortuary practices in Bulgaria
– for which we must thank the author.
Bisserka Gaydarska
Sofia
Review Submitted: March 2004
The views expressed in this review are not
necessarily those of the Society or the Reviews Editor.
|