Matthew J. Walsh, Marianne Moen, S. O'Neill, Svein H. Gullbekk, R. Willerslev
{"title":"谁害怕脏话?离经叛道者的葬礼和活人祭祀","authors":"Matthew J. Walsh, Marianne Moen, S. O'Neill, Svein H. Gullbekk, R. Willerslev","doi":"10.1080/00293652.2020.1850853","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the last couple of decades, archaeologists interested in studies of ritualized violence have continued to debate the possibility, extent, and possible evidence for human sacrifice in much of the archaeological record. There is no doubt ample evidence for such activities from many parts of the world and from many time periods. However, for the archaeology of Northern European prehistory, this debate remains surprisingly unresolved. In many ways the field remains divided along deeply-held lines: some see widespread evidence for human sacrifice across the record, whilst others see spatial and temporal pockets where macabre sets of evidence rear their head and beg more questions than they answer; still others argue that solid evidence is scant or nonexistent. As part of this debate, the term ‘deviant’ burial has become a catchword for some scholars, used to designate graves and burials which do not fit a normative explanatory framework given their cultural and temporal contexts. Some such burials may provide evidence for sacrifice while others reflect various likely causes of death, such as illness, warfare, or even natural disasters and accidents. The term ‘deviant’ in this context is not only normative but confusingly ambivalent. It is used to describe those graves (or other archaeological assemblages/features) which are otherwise ‘atypical’ whether in their exhibition of evidence for ritualized violence or evidence (whether suggestive or clear) for the apparent mistreatment of the dead. But ‘deviant’ is also used, rightly, in descriptions of non-normative burial contexts outside of necessarily violent or errant ends. Confusion is compounded by the use of the term in also referring to ‘deviant’ individuals themselves, whose deaths and maltreatment upon deposition may be interpreted as judicial killings, e.g. as punishment for miscreant behaviours or activities. A distinction should clearly be made. But, we submit here that distinguishing between some deviants’ executions and sacrificial killings may not actually be necessary. This is because the act of execution itself may have","PeriodicalId":45030,"journal":{"name":"Norwegian Archaeological Review","volume":"53 1","pages":"154 - 162"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00293652.2020.1850853","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who’s Afraid of the S-word? Deviants’ Burials and Human Sacrifice\",\"authors\":\"Matthew J. Walsh, Marianne Moen, S. O'Neill, Svein H. Gullbekk, R. Willerslev\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00293652.2020.1850853\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Over the last couple of decades, archaeologists interested in studies of ritualized violence have continued to debate the possibility, extent, and possible evidence for human sacrifice in much of the archaeological record. There is no doubt ample evidence for such activities from many parts of the world and from many time periods. However, for the archaeology of Northern European prehistory, this debate remains surprisingly unresolved. In many ways the field remains divided along deeply-held lines: some see widespread evidence for human sacrifice across the record, whilst others see spatial and temporal pockets where macabre sets of evidence rear their head and beg more questions than they answer; still others argue that solid evidence is scant or nonexistent. As part of this debate, the term ‘deviant’ burial has become a catchword for some scholars, used to designate graves and burials which do not fit a normative explanatory framework given their cultural and temporal contexts. Some such burials may provide evidence for sacrifice while others reflect various likely causes of death, such as illness, warfare, or even natural disasters and accidents. The term ‘deviant’ in this context is not only normative but confusingly ambivalent. It is used to describe those graves (or other archaeological assemblages/features) which are otherwise ‘atypical’ whether in their exhibition of evidence for ritualized violence or evidence (whether suggestive or clear) for the apparent mistreatment of the dead. But ‘deviant’ is also used, rightly, in descriptions of non-normative burial contexts outside of necessarily violent or errant ends. Confusion is compounded by the use of the term in also referring to ‘deviant’ individuals themselves, whose deaths and maltreatment upon deposition may be interpreted as judicial killings, e.g. as punishment for miscreant behaviours or activities. A distinction should clearly be made. But, we submit here that distinguishing between some deviants’ executions and sacrificial killings may not actually be necessary. This is because the act of execution itself may have\",\"PeriodicalId\":45030,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Norwegian Archaeological Review\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"154 - 162\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00293652.2020.1850853\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Norwegian Archaeological Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2020.1850853\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHAEOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Norwegian Archaeological Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2020.1850853","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHAEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Who’s Afraid of the S-word? Deviants’ Burials and Human Sacrifice
Over the last couple of decades, archaeologists interested in studies of ritualized violence have continued to debate the possibility, extent, and possible evidence for human sacrifice in much of the archaeological record. There is no doubt ample evidence for such activities from many parts of the world and from many time periods. However, for the archaeology of Northern European prehistory, this debate remains surprisingly unresolved. In many ways the field remains divided along deeply-held lines: some see widespread evidence for human sacrifice across the record, whilst others see spatial and temporal pockets where macabre sets of evidence rear their head and beg more questions than they answer; still others argue that solid evidence is scant or nonexistent. As part of this debate, the term ‘deviant’ burial has become a catchword for some scholars, used to designate graves and burials which do not fit a normative explanatory framework given their cultural and temporal contexts. Some such burials may provide evidence for sacrifice while others reflect various likely causes of death, such as illness, warfare, or even natural disasters and accidents. The term ‘deviant’ in this context is not only normative but confusingly ambivalent. It is used to describe those graves (or other archaeological assemblages/features) which are otherwise ‘atypical’ whether in their exhibition of evidence for ritualized violence or evidence (whether suggestive or clear) for the apparent mistreatment of the dead. But ‘deviant’ is also used, rightly, in descriptions of non-normative burial contexts outside of necessarily violent or errant ends. Confusion is compounded by the use of the term in also referring to ‘deviant’ individuals themselves, whose deaths and maltreatment upon deposition may be interpreted as judicial killings, e.g. as punishment for miscreant behaviours or activities. A distinction should clearly be made. But, we submit here that distinguishing between some deviants’ executions and sacrificial killings may not actually be necessary. This is because the act of execution itself may have
期刊介绍:
Norwegian Archaeological Review published since 1968, aims to be an interface between archaeological research in the Nordic countries and global archaeological trends, a meeting ground for current discussion of theoretical and methodical problems on an international scientific level. The main focus is on the European area, but discussions based upon results from other parts of the world are also welcomed. The comments of specialists, along with the author"s reply, are given as an addendum to selected articles. The Journal is also receptive to uninvited opinions and comments on a wider scope of archaeological themes, e.g. articles in Norwegian Archaeological Review or other journals, monographies, conferences.