Abstract
This chapter explains the underlying theoretical assumptions and methodological approach of this study. It develops a model of graves as composite objects that first treats the different elements of grave, body, and objects separately and then connects them again in time and space. The model proposes a mortuary chaîne opératoire that is used in Part II to analyze the material from the Liangshan Region. Examples from ethnographic and textual records are provided to highlight the relationship between mortuary customs and material culture.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
Processual archaeologists defined culture as man’s extrasomatic means of adaptation (White 1949), which made discussions about individual or group identity in the sense of self-perception and perception by others superfluous.
- 2.
The term, chaîne opératoire , was coined by Leroi-Gourhan (1964) in the 1950s but the approach gained wide popularity in archaeological research only at a later point in time .
- 3.
Originally developed in cognitive anthropology to describe mechanisms of transmission and learning within a group sharing a craft (Lave and Wenger 1991; Cox 2005), the concept of communities of practice in archaeology is most commonly associated with processes of ceramic production (e.g., Stark 2006).
- 4.
Another aspect of research similarly limited by the nature of the material record is gender identity . Given that the skeletal material in the area is poorly preserved , the available data does not allow for research on questions of sex vs. gender in prehistoric groups of the Liangshan Region.
- 5.
For a detailed review on the related literature, consult O’Shea (1984: 23–49).
- 6.
For a treatment of the problem of nonintentional and intentional data , see Härke (1993).
- 7.
- 8.
Friedel (1993), for example, lists a number of factors that can influence the choice of a certain kind of material for making particular objects. These are function, availability, economy , style, tradition, all of which are subject to change as circumstances (i.e., geography , technology , science, fashion , competition) change.
- 9.
In the general archaeological sense of discarded material as established by Schiffer (1972: 129): “Refuse labels the post-discard condition of an element-the condition of no longer participating in a behavioral system.”
- 10.
- 11.
In the case of China, the Late Imperial period has usually been defined as the time from the early Ming to the declining years of the Qing Dynasty, i.e., 1400–1850, and Early Modern China is term usually applied to the period between 1840 and 1911 (Clausen 2000: 3–5). The appropriateness of either of these terms is heatedly discussed. This discussion has been summarized by Clausen (2000) and I will therefore not repeat the conflicting arguments here. In the study of Naquin (1990) that I am basing myself on, the term “Late Imperial and Early Modern China” is used to refer mostly to the late Qing (1644–1911) and early Republican periods (1912–1949). The material the study is based on stems from Chinese gazetteer accounts from 1870 to 1940 but describes customs with considerably older roots.
References
Appadurai, A. (Ed.). (1986). The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ascher, R. (1961). Analogy in archaeological interpretation. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 17(4), 317–325.
Ascher, R. (1962). Ethnography for archaeology—A case from the Seri Indians. Ethnology, 1(3), 360–369.
Barth, F. (Ed.). (1969). Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of culture difference (The Little, Brown Series in Anthropology). Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Binford, L. R. (1971). Mortuary practices: Their study and their potential. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, 25, 6–29.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Childe, V. G. (1929). The Danube in prehistory. Oxford, England/New York: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press.
Childe, V. G. (1956). Piecing together the past: The interpretation of archaeological data. New York: Frederick A. Praeger.
Clarke, D. L. (1968). Analytical archaeology. London: Methuen.
Clausen, S. (2000). Early modern China: A preliminary postmortem. Århus: Center for Kulturforskning, Århus Universitet.
Cox, A. (2005). What are communities of practice? A comparative review of four seminal works. Journal of Information Science, 31(6), 527–540.
Cusick, J. G. (Ed.). (1998). Studies in culture contact: Interaction, culture change, and archaeology. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University.
Danforth, L. M., & Tsiaras, A. (1982). The death rituals of rural Greece. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
David-Néel, A. (1952). Land der Is: In Chinas wildem Westen [Land of the Is: In China’s wild west]. Wien: Ullstein.
Douglas, M. (1970). Natural symbols: Explorations in cosmology. New York: Pantheon Books.
Emberling, G. (1997). Ethnicity in complex societies: Archaeological perspectives. Journal of Archaeological Research, 5(4), 295–344.
Eriksen, T. H. (1991). The cultural context of ethnic differences. Man, 26, 127–144.
Falkenhausen, L. v. (2006). Chinese society in the age of Confucius (1000-250 BC): The archaeological evidence (Ideas, debates, and perspectives, Vol. 2). Los Angeles, CA: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California.
Fischer, U. (1990). Analogie und Urgeschichte [Analogy and prehistory]. Saeculum, 41(3/4), 318–325.
Friedel, R. (1993). Some matters of substance. In S. D. Lubar & W. D. Kingery (Eds.), History from things: Essays on material culture (pp. 41–50). Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Gamble, S. D. (1954). Ting Hsien, a North China rural community. New York: International Secretariat, Institute of Pacific Relations.
Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and nationalism (New perspectives on the past). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Goody, J. (1959). Death and social control among the LoDagaa. Man, 59(7), 134–138.
Goody, J. (1962). Death, property and the ancestors; A study of the mortuary customs of the LoDagaa of West Africa. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Goullart, P. (1957). Forgotten Kingdom. London: Readers Union, J. Murray.
Hachmann, R., & Penner, S. (1999). Kamid el-Loz 3: Der Eisenzeitliche Friedhof und seine Kulturelle Umwelt [Kamid el-Loz 3: The Iron Age cemetery and its cultural environment]. Bonn: R. Habelt.
Härke, H. (1993). Intentionale und funktionale Daten: ein Beitrag zur Theorie und Methodik der Gräberarchäologie [Intentional and functional data: A contribution to theories and methods in grave archaeology]. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, 23, 141–146.
Hein, A. (2014a). Interregional contacts and geographic preconditions in the prehistoric Liangshan Region, Southwest China. Quaternary International, 348, 194–213.
Hein, A. (2014b). Metal, salt, and horse skulls: Elite-level exchange and long-distance human movement in prehistoric Southwest China. In A. Hein (Ed.), Reconsidering the crescent-shaped exchange belt—Methodological, theoretical and material concerns of long-distance interactions in East Asia thirty years after Tong Enzheng (pp. 89–108). Oxford: Archaeopress.
Hodder, I. (1978). Simple correlation between material culture and society: A review. In I. Hodder (Ed.), The spatial organisation of culture (pp. 3–24). London: Duckworth.
Hodder, I. (1982). Symbols in action: Ethnoarchaeological studies of material culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoskins, J. (1998). Biographical objects: How things tell the stories of people’s lives. New York: Routledge.
Huntingford, G. W. B. (1953). The northern Nilo-Hamites. London: International African Institute.
Jones, S. (1997). The archaeology of ethnicity: Constructing identities in the past and present. New York: Routledge.
Jones, A. (2002). Archaeological theory and scientific practice (Topics in contemporary archaeology). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kingery, W. D. (1996). Learning from things: Method and theory of material culture studies. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Kopytoff, I. (1986). The cultural biography of things: Commoditization as process. In A. Appadurai (Ed.), The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective (pp. 64–91). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kramer, C. (1979). Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of ethnography for archaeology. New York: Columbia University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1964). Le geste et la parole [Gestures and speech]. Paris: A. Michel.
Naquin, S. (1990). Funerals in North China: Uniformity and variation. In J. L. Watson & E. S. Rawski (Eds.), Death ritual in late imperial and modern China (pp. 37–70). Berkeley: University of California Press.
O’Shea, J. M. (1984). Mortuary variability: An archaeological investigation (Studies in archaeology). Orlando: Academic.
Parker Pearson, M. (1999). The archaeology of death and burial (Texas A & M University anthropology series no. 3). College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
Read, D. W. (2007). Artifact classification: A conceptual and methodological approach. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Rowlands, M. (1980). Kinship, alliance and exchange in the European Bronze Age. In J. Barrett & R. Bradley (Eds.), Settlement and society in the British Late Bronze Age (British series, Vol. 38, pp. 15–55). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Sackett, J. R. (1977). The meaning of style in archaeology: A general model. American Antiquity, 42(3), 369–380.
Saxe, A. A. (1970). Social dimensions of mortuary practices. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Schiffer, M. B. (1972). Archaeological context and systemic context. American Antiquity, 37(2), 156–165.
Sellet, R. (1993). Châine opératoire: The concept and its applications. Lithic Technology, 18, 106–112.
Smith, A. D. (1987). The ethnic origins of nations. Oxford, UK: B. Blackwell.
Stanislawski, M. B. (1978). If pots were mortal. In R. A. Gould (Ed.), Explorations in ethnoarchaeology (pp. 201–228). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Stark, M. T. (2006). Glaze ware technology, the social lives of pots, and communities of practice in the late prehistoric Southwest. In J. A. Habicht-Mauche, S. L. Eckert, & D. L. Huntley (Eds.), The social life of pots: Glaze wares and cultural dynamics in the Southwest, AD 1250–1680 (pp. 17–33). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Thomas, J. (1991). Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ucko, P. J. (1969). Ethnography and archaeological interpretation of funerary remains. World Archaeology, 1(2), 262–280.
White, L. A. (1949). The science of culture a study of man and civilization. New York: Grove.
Wobst, H. M. (1977). Stylistic behavior and information exchange. In C. E. Cleland (Ed.), For the director: Research essays in honour of the late James B. Griffin (pp. 317–342). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Wylie, A. (1985). The reaction against analogy. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 8, 63–111.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hein, A. (2017). Introducing the Tools: Theory, Method, and Model. In: The Burial Record of Prehistoric Liangshan in Southwest China. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42384-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42384-5_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-42383-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-42384-5
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)