In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

103 summary Formation processes are the natural and cultural processes that make up the archaeological record. Whereas natural formation processes are the environmental factors that influence the survival of the archaeological evidence, cultural formation processes include the accidental or deliberate human activities that can affect the archaeological record in a positive or negative way. In this chapter, we identify and discuss the cultural processes influencing the burial features and the later interpretation of burial patterns in a prehistoric Brazilian shell mound, named Jabuticabeira II, dated between 2890 ± 55 and 2186 ± 60 BP. This work argues in favor of true multidisciplinary research, where specialists such as bioarchaeologists participate in the decision processes of the exact location and strategy of excavation, coordinate sample collection of burials and the associated documentation, and, as usual, carry out their specialized work in the laboratory. The ideas put forth here represent an updated version of a previous work on formation processes (Okumura and Eggers 2008), where now a greater emphasis has been put on the cultural aspects of the formation processes of this particular site. introduction What Are the Formation Processes of Archaeological Sites? Formation processes are the natural and cultural processes that make up the archaeological record. Natural formation processes are the environmental processes that influence the survival of the archaeological record, while cultural formation processes include the accidental or deliberate human activities that can help preserve or aid in the destruction of the (bio-)archaeological record (Schiffer 1987). “By closely defining site formation processes, one can frame and test hypotheses concerning areas of knowledge which at present remain hazy” (Gifford 1980, 105). The archaeological contexts associated with human skeletal remains deserve special attention, since they might be the only source of information about the way of life of past populations. Here we focus on the cultural formation processes and how they impact the preservation and interpretation of skeletal remains, using the Jabuticabeira II shell mound as an example. Bioarchaeology Is Paramount to Reconstructing Mortuary Ritual Burial grounds provide the basis from which past funerary behaviors are inferred. The social position (inferred through the burial structure, the features of grave goods, and the position of the deceased, among others) and the ritual (what happens before, during, and after burial according to tradition) make up the funerary customs of a human group. These customs, together with bioarchaeological data (sex, age, health, and so forth) are the basis for estimating sociodemographic parameters of the past. Ethnographic accounts can be used to suggest what might have happened, but taphonomy (the study of processes through which organic remains pass from biosphere to lithosphere) must always be considered, especially because its effects can be confounded with cultural formation processes . Based on ethnographic studies, some authors claim that burial practices were part of the intangible domain of religious belief (Piggott 1973). Nonetheless, there has been a shift “from a referential focus to a focus on the practices” CHAPTER EIGHT Cultural Formation Processes of the Bioarchaeological Record of a Brazilian Shell Mound Mercedes Okumura and Sabine Eggers 104 Mercedes Okumura and Sabine Eggers to “what people did with their dead” (Nilsson Stutz 2003, 320). Mortuary practices involve elements that leave no material trace (speech, song, dancing, crying, and so forth), but some material remains, and the body itself, are available, so archaeologists can reconstruct a significant part of the mortuary ritual (Nilsson Stutz 2003, 231). Also based on ethnography, Peter J. Ucko (1969) believed there is no correlation between social structure and burial rites, but for Vere Gordon Childe (1945), burial pattern and social functioning were associated: the greater the material progress, the less social energy is invested in the burial rituals . In contrast, the Archaeology of Death of the 1970s postulated that mortuary practices express social reality, where social identity is equivalent to social status (Goodenough 1965; but see Gilman 1983 for a different view). For Lewis R. Binford (1971), counterbalancing Childe, form and structure of mortuary practices were conditioned by the society’s form and complexity, so the more complex the social structure, the more complex the burial ritual. Despite these opposing views, for Diane P. Gifford (1980), ethnoarchaeological studies provide an actualistic arena for framing, testing, and refitting general models of human behavior and its material effects, allowing researchers to go beyond the limits of strict analogy as an explanatory tool. Marxist approaches interpret burial sites as deposits of social labor. Since funerary rituals indirectly reflect the society...

Share