Call for papers
“Mortuary TRADITIONS Memory, protocols, monuments”
Interdisciplinary conference organised by the Maison Archéologie &
Ethnologie, René-Ginouvès, 18-20 June 2014
Organised by Grégory Delaplace and Frédérique Valentin
In many respects, the question of mortuary traditions is a commonplace of
archaeology, history and anthropology. Actually, the study of the practices,
ideas and artefacts mobilised by a given society to the death of one of its
members is a classic topic –a topos– of these disciplines. Sometimes, the
sepulchres that past societies gave to their deceased are the only traces
left today to study them. Because they reflected an index of social
organisation and what economic activities and daily life were like, funerary
traditions have de facto been the chief topic of archaeological research
from the very start.
Historians and anthropologists took advantage of simultaneous access to the
remains and testimonies to study in a comparative perspective “the funerary
ideology” (Vernant 1989) of past and present societies; the form of the
sepulchre and the discourses about death and the afterlife then translate
the importance conferred to death in a given society.
In fact, in another sense, the subject of funerary traditions is also an
actual “common place” of these disciplines in that it is simultaneously
considered in different theoretical and methodological perspectives by
archaeology, history and anthropology. Although each of these disciplines
benefits from the results obtained by the others for its own research, this
“common place” has seldom resulted in actual common discussions. When they
did take place, these discussions generally turned out to be more dialogues
bringing disciplines together in pairs: archaeologists and historians (Gnoli
and Vernant 1982), historians and anthropologists (Gordon and Marshall 2000)
or archaeologists and anthropologists (Humphreys 1981; Thévenet, Rivoal,
Sellier, Valentin, in print).
At its annual conference, the Maison Archéologie & Ethnologie offers to
take up the challenge of discussing the issues of funerary traditions
between archaeologists, historians and anthropologists throughout human
societies. This conference will provide a new overview of the research on
this issue by crossing the different approaches of the disciplines
represented in our institution while serving as a starting point for further
comparative perspectives between them. Three lines of inquiry are proposed:
Memory and regime of visibility of the sepulchre
Several anthropological works suggested that human sepulchres were not
always intended to be used to support the memory of the deceased. As a
matter of fact, many societies in Amazonia (Taylor 1993) as in Mongolia
(Delaplace 2011) use sepulchres as a way to forget, as it allows erasing all
traces of the deceased and helps to wipe out his memory. The idea that the
monumentality of a sepulchre isn't necessarily related to the prestige of
its occupant and that a rapid fade of memory could be intentional (without
the deceased being
banned) provides an opportunity for a general reassessment of the
relationship between death, remains and memory. If we admit that the grave
is not necessarily the best place to celebrate the memory of the deceased,
or even that remembering isn't a categorical imperative of funerary
practices, then it is necessary to consider how memory and forgetting
combine with the different regime of visibility of sepulchres and monuments
– the less visible not necessarily being the least prestigious. To what
extent can these contemporary examples "talk" to historians or
archaeologists, whose research depends on traces (written or constructed)
left by past societies?
Rituals, protocols, practice
Even though some societies forget about the remains of their deceased, or
even erase them totally like various populations of Bali (Sebesteny 2013),
upstream nevertheless, what will become of the body and soul is still a key
preoccupation (Hertz 1907; Thomas 1985). Care and treatment of the deceased
in all its aspects mobilise and engage to varying extents relatives and the
community around a set of gestures, rituals and protocols that have a
variable duration. What relationships can be established between biological
transformation of the corpse (thanatomorphose), human manipulation of the
body (preparation, storage, destruction) and rite of passage?
Under what conditions can we infer ways of doing and protocols, from what
the archaeologist find after an excavation as a result of these
transformations and/or manipulations? Under what conditions can the
testimonies of historians and anthropologists inform about the ways of doing
of societies of the distant past? In the comparative perspective of a
dynamic analysis of the traces left by the sepulchres, we will particularly
question the interpretations of sepulchral staging and the reconstructions
of sequences of gestures and their meanings.
Spaces of death: (dis) placing human remains
The treatment of the deceased body and the form given to the sepulchre
confers to the remains of the deceased a place, a space, more or less
sustainable and localized, before its total oblivion or its inscription in
other systems. Beyond the classic question of the "place of the dead"
throughout human societies, which is bound to be discussed anew by crossing
archaeological, historical and anthropological perspectives, attention will
focus on the problems of displaced or ill-placed deceased bodies, and
generally to situations where the place of the dead is not obvious anymore.
From the denial of burial (Polynices to Mohamed Merah) to moving the remains
of fallen or rehabilitated characters (Verdery 1999, Zempleni 2011) or even
the interventions of the state to legislate on the dignity or indignity of
certain treatments of the dead (Esquerre 2011), the idea is to bring a new
light on the question of spatialization of death.
Contributions developing interdisciplinary approaches and collaborations
between researchers will be preferred. Abstracts (200 words) should be sent
before December 20, 2013 to Grégory Delaplace (g.delaplace@yahoo.fr) or
Frederique Valentin (frederique.valentin@mae.u-paris10.fr).
References cited:
Delaplace, Grégory. 2011. «Enterrer, submerger, oublier. Invention et
subversion du souvenir des morts en Mongolie». Raisons Politiques 41:
87-103.
Esquerre, Arnaud. 2011. Les os, les cendres et l’Etat. Paris : Fayard
(Histoire de la Pensée).
Gnoli G. et J.-P. Vernant (eds.). 1982. La mort, les morts dans les sociétés
antiques. Cambridge et Paris : Cambridge University Press et Maison des
Sciences de l'Homme.
Gordon B. et P. Marshall (eds.). 2000. The Place of the Dead. Death and
Remembrance in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hertz, Robert. 1907 [1928]. «Contribution à une étude sur la représentation
collective de la mort», in R. Hertz, Mélanges de Sociologie Religieuse et
Folklore: 1-98. Paris : Librairie Félix Alcan.
Humphreys, S. C. & H. King. 1981. Mortality and immortality : The
anthropology and archaeology of death. Londres : Academic Press.
Sebesteny, Aniko. 2013. «Création collective d’une entité immatérielle :
la crémation à Bali», in Thévenet C., I. Rivoal, P. Sellier, et F. Valentin
(eds.)., op. cit. : 40-41.
Taylor, Anne-Christine. 1993. «Remembering to Forget. Identity, Mourning and
Memory Among the Jivaro», Man 28/4: 661-662.
Thévenet C., I. Rivoal, P. Sellier, et F. Valentin (eds.). 2013 à paraître.
La chaîne opératoire funéraire. Ethnologie et archéologie de la mort. Paris
: De Boccard.
Verdery, Katherine. 1999. The Political Lives of Dead Bodies. Reburial and
Postsocialist Change. New York : Columbia University Press.
Vernant, Jean-Pierre. 1989. L’individu, la mort, l’amour : Soi-même et
l’autre en Grèce Ancienne. Paris : Gallimard (Folio Histoire).
Zempleni, András. 2011. «Le reliquaire de Batthyány : du culte des reliques
aux réenterrements politiques en Hongrie contemporaine», in G. Vargyas
(éd.), Passageways : From Hungarian ethnography to European ethnology and
sociocultural anthropology. Budapest : L’Harmattan: 23-89
--
“Mortuary TRADITIONS Memory, protocols, monuments”
Interdisciplinary conference organised by the Maison Archéologie &
Ethnologie, René-Ginouvès, 18-20 June 2014
Organised by Grégory Delaplace and Frédérique Valentin
In many respects, the question of mortuary traditions is a commonplace of
archaeology, history and anthropology. Actually, the study of the practices,
ideas and artefacts mobilised by a given society to the death of one of its
members is a classic topic –a topos– of these disciplines. Sometimes, the
sepulchres that past societies gave to their deceased are the only traces
left today to study them. Because they reflected an index of social
organisation and what economic activities and daily life were like, funerary
traditions have de facto been the chief topic of archaeological research
from the very start.
Historians and anthropologists took advantage of simultaneous access to the
remains and testimonies to study in a comparative perspective “the funerary
ideology” (Vernant 1989) of past and present societies; the form of the
sepulchre and the discourses about death and the afterlife then translate
the importance conferred to death in a given society.
In fact, in another sense, the subject of funerary traditions is also an
actual “common place” of these disciplines in that it is simultaneously
considered in different theoretical and methodological perspectives by
archaeology, history and anthropology. Although each of these disciplines
benefits from the results obtained by the others for its own research, this
“common place” has seldom resulted in actual common discussions. When they
did take place, these discussions generally turned out to be more dialogues
bringing disciplines together in pairs: archaeologists and historians (Gnoli
and Vernant 1982), historians and anthropologists (Gordon and Marshall 2000)
or archaeologists and anthropologists (Humphreys 1981; Thévenet, Rivoal,
Sellier, Valentin, in print).
At its annual conference, the Maison Archéologie & Ethnologie offers to
take up the challenge of discussing the issues of funerary traditions
between archaeologists, historians and anthropologists throughout human
societies. This conference will provide a new overview of the research on
this issue by crossing the different approaches of the disciplines
represented in our institution while serving as a starting point for further
comparative perspectives between them. Three lines of inquiry are proposed:
Memory and regime of visibility of the sepulchre
Several anthropological works suggested that human sepulchres were not
always intended to be used to support the memory of the deceased. As a
matter of fact, many societies in Amazonia (Taylor 1993) as in Mongolia
(Delaplace 2011) use sepulchres as a way to forget, as it allows erasing all
traces of the deceased and helps to wipe out his memory. The idea that the
monumentality of a sepulchre isn't necessarily related to the prestige of
its occupant and that a rapid fade of memory could be intentional (without
the deceased being
banned) provides an opportunity for a general reassessment of the
relationship between death, remains and memory. If we admit that the grave
is not necessarily the best place to celebrate the memory of the deceased,
or even that remembering isn't a categorical imperative of funerary
practices, then it is necessary to consider how memory and forgetting
combine with the different regime of visibility of sepulchres and monuments
– the less visible not necessarily being the least prestigious. To what
extent can these contemporary examples "talk" to historians or
archaeologists, whose research depends on traces (written or constructed)
left by past societies?
Rituals, protocols, practice
Even though some societies forget about the remains of their deceased, or
even erase them totally like various populations of Bali (Sebesteny 2013),
upstream nevertheless, what will become of the body and soul is still a key
preoccupation (Hertz 1907; Thomas 1985). Care and treatment of the deceased
in all its aspects mobilise and engage to varying extents relatives and the
community around a set of gestures, rituals and protocols that have a
variable duration. What relationships can be established between biological
transformation of the corpse (thanatomorphose), human manipulation of the
body (preparation, storage, destruction) and rite of passage?
Under what conditions can we infer ways of doing and protocols, from what
the archaeologist find after an excavation as a result of these
transformations and/or manipulations? Under what conditions can the
testimonies of historians and anthropologists inform about the ways of doing
of societies of the distant past? In the comparative perspective of a
dynamic analysis of the traces left by the sepulchres, we will particularly
question the interpretations of sepulchral staging and the reconstructions
of sequences of gestures and their meanings.
Spaces of death: (dis) placing human remains
The treatment of the deceased body and the form given to the sepulchre
confers to the remains of the deceased a place, a space, more or less
sustainable and localized, before its total oblivion or its inscription in
other systems. Beyond the classic question of the "place of the dead"
throughout human societies, which is bound to be discussed anew by crossing
archaeological, historical and anthropological perspectives, attention will
focus on the problems of displaced or ill-placed deceased bodies, and
generally to situations where the place of the dead is not obvious anymore.
From the denial of burial (Polynices to Mohamed Merah) to moving the remains
of fallen or rehabilitated characters (Verdery 1999, Zempleni 2011) or even
the interventions of the state to legislate on the dignity or indignity of
certain treatments of the dead (Esquerre 2011), the idea is to bring a new
light on the question of spatialization of death.
Contributions developing interdisciplinary approaches and collaborations
between researchers will be preferred. Abstracts (200 words) should be sent
before December 20, 2013 to Grégory Delaplace (g.delaplace@yahoo.fr) or
Frederique Valentin (frederique.valentin@mae.u-paris10.fr).
References cited:
Delaplace, Grégory. 2011. «Enterrer, submerger, oublier. Invention et
subversion du souvenir des morts en Mongolie». Raisons Politiques 41:
87-103.
Esquerre, Arnaud. 2011. Les os, les cendres et l’Etat. Paris : Fayard
(Histoire de la Pensée).
Gnoli G. et J.-P. Vernant (eds.). 1982. La mort, les morts dans les sociétés
antiques. Cambridge et Paris : Cambridge University Press et Maison des
Sciences de l'Homme.
Gordon B. et P. Marshall (eds.). 2000. The Place of the Dead. Death and
Remembrance in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hertz, Robert. 1907 [1928]. «Contribution à une étude sur la représentation
collective de la mort», in R. Hertz, Mélanges de Sociologie Religieuse et
Folklore: 1-98. Paris : Librairie Félix Alcan.
Humphreys, S. C. & H. King. 1981. Mortality and immortality : The
anthropology and archaeology of death. Londres : Academic Press.
Sebesteny, Aniko. 2013. «Création collective d’une entité immatérielle :
la crémation à Bali», in Thévenet C., I. Rivoal, P. Sellier, et F. Valentin
(eds.)., op. cit. : 40-41.
Taylor, Anne-Christine. 1993. «Remembering to Forget. Identity, Mourning and
Memory Among the Jivaro», Man 28/4: 661-662.
Thévenet C., I. Rivoal, P. Sellier, et F. Valentin (eds.). 2013 à paraître.
La chaîne opératoire funéraire. Ethnologie et archéologie de la mort. Paris
: De Boccard.
Verdery, Katherine. 1999. The Political Lives of Dead Bodies. Reburial and
Postsocialist Change. New York : Columbia University Press.
Vernant, Jean-Pierre. 1989. L’individu, la mort, l’amour : Soi-même et
l’autre en Grèce Ancienne. Paris : Gallimard (Folio Histoire).
Zempleni, András. 2011. «Le reliquaire de Batthyány : du culte des reliques
aux réenterrements politiques en Hongrie contemporaine», in G. Vargyas
(éd.), Passageways : From Hungarian ethnography to European ethnology and
sociocultural anthropology. Budapest : L’Harmattan: 23-89
--
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου