Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T19:23:56.456Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Death and society: a Marxist approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Vicente Lull
Vicente Lull*
Affiliation:
Departamento Antropología Social i Prehistoria, Facultat de Lletres, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain. montgat@arrakis.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

mortuary practicesburialMarxist archaeology
Type
Papers
Information
Antiquity , Volume 74 , Issue 285 , September 2000 , pp. 576 - 580
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2000

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

Alekshin, V.A. 1983. Burial customs as an archaeological source, Current Anthropology 24: 137–50.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R. 1971. Mortuary practices: their study and potential, in Brown, J.A. (ed.), Approaches to the social dimensions of mortuary practices, Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 25: 6–29.Google Scholar
Castro, P., Lull, V. Mico, R. & Rihuete, C.. 1995. La prehistoria reciente en el sudeste de la península Ibérica. Dimensión socio-económica de las prácticas funerarias, in Fábregas, R. Pérez Losada, F. & Fernández Ibánez, C. (ed.), Arqueoloxia da Morte en Península Ibérica desde as Orixes ata o Medievo: 127–67. Limia: Biblioteca Arqueohistórica Limia 3.Google Scholar
Childe, V.G. 1944. Progress and archaeology. London: Watts. 1946. What happened in history. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Goodenough, W.H. 1965. Rethinking ‘status’ and ‘role’. Toward a general model of the cultural organisation of social relationships, in Banton, M. (ed.), The relevance of models for social anthropology: 1–24. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1982. The identification and interpretation of ranking in prehistory: a contextual perspective, in Renfrew, C. & Shennan, S. (ed.), Ranking, resource and exchange: 150–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1986. Reading the past. Current approaches to interpretation in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lull, V. & Estevez, J.. 1986. Propuesta metodológica para el estudio de las necrópolis argáricas, in Homenaje a Luis Siret: 441–452. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía.Google Scholar
Lull, V. & Picazo, M.. 1988. Arqueología de la muerte y estructura social, Archivo Español de Arqueología 62: 5–20.Google Scholar
Lull, V. & Risch, R.. 1995. El Estado Argárico, Verdolay 7: 97–109.Google Scholar
O’shea, J. 1984. Mortuary variability. An archaeological investigation. New York (NY): Academic Press.Google Scholar
Piggott, S. 1973. Problems in the interpretation of chambered tombs, in Daniel, G. & Kjaerum, P. (ed.), Megalithic graves and ritual. Ill Atlantic Colloquium: 9–15. Moesgard: Jutland Archaeological Society.Google Scholar
Saxe, A. 1970. Social dimensions of mortuary practices. Ann Arbor (MI): University Microfilms.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. & Tilley, C.. 1987. Re-consfrucfing archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tainter, J. A. 1973. The social correlates of mortuary patterning at Kaloko, North Kona, Hawaii, Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 8: 1–11.Google Scholar
Tainter, J. A. 1977. Modeling change in prehistoric social systems, in Binford, L.R. (ed.) For theory building in archaeology: 327–52. New York (NY): Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ucko, P. 1969. Ethnography and archaeological interpretation of funerary remains, World Archaeology 1: 262–80.Google Scholar