Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T13:21:50.130Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Status, Wealth and the Chronological Ordering of Cemeteries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2022

Richard Bradley
Richard Bradley*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, The University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, Berkshire RG6 2AA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The study of grave goods plays a central role in two very different kinds of archaeology. As groups of artefacts that were deposited together, grave finds occupy a key position in chronological studies. At the same time, it is commonly supposed that the selection of artefacts for deposition with the dead may be some reflection of the social position that they had enjoyed in life; the contents of different graves may be studied for evidence of wealth and status. Although chronological studies have the longer history, these two types of analysis ought to be most informative where social variation can be traced over a lengthy sequence. As we shall see, this raises special problems.

Type
Other
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , 1988 , pp. 327 - 329
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brainerd, G. W., 1951. The place of chronological ordering in archaeological analyses. American Antiquity 16, 301–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, D. L., 1978. Analytical Archaeology. London: Methuen (2nd edn).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doran, J. E. and Hodson, F. R., 1975. Mathematics and Computers in Archaeology. Edinburgh: University Press.Google Scholar
Fulford, M., in press. Britain and the Roman Empire: the evidence for regional and long distance trade. In Jones, R. F. (ed.), Britain in the Roman Period. Sheffield: Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Graslund, B., 1987. The Birth of Prehistoric Chronology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. and Lane, P., 1982. A contextual examination of Neolithic axe distribution in Britain. In Earle, T. and Ericson, J. (eds), Contexts for Prehistoric Exchange, 213–35. London: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodson, F. R., 1977. Quantifying Hallstatt: some initial results. American Antiquity 42, 394–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodson, F. R., 1985. Hallstatt: dry bones and flesh. Proceedings of the British Academy 71, 187–201.Google Scholar
Miller, D., 1985. Artefacts as Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
O'Shea, J., 1984. Mortuary Variability: An Archaeological Investigation. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1984. The anatomy of innovation. In Renfrew, C. (ed.), Approaches to Social Archaeology, 390–418. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, E. M., 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Sahlins, M., 1972. Exchange value and the diplomacy of primitive trade. In Sahlins, M (ed.), Stone Age Economics, 277–314. London: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar
Shennan, S., 1975. The social organisation at Branc. Antiquity 49, 279–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, M. W., 1967. Novgorod the Great. London: Evelyn, Adams and Mackay.Google Scholar