Student no: 42779006

Callum Craigie

Major Anthropology Essay:

5. Mortuary rituals are a focus of anthropology because they tell us about the

social relationships of the living. Discuss this statement using ethnographic

examples.

Mortuary rituals depict the social relationships of the living in a culture, being a

primary focus of anthropology. Ritual is defined as behaviour that is "religion in

action", but personal and social (Wallace, 1966; 102). Death and the surrounding

practices and norms are of significance to anthropologists in the understanding

of the living societies and communities. The Mortuary ritual is the transitioning

of deceased and the living community or society into different social spheres.

“Death has attacked the attention of generations of anthropologists because in

many cultures funerals are the most important events in socio-religious life”

(Janson, 2001; 100, cited Robben, 2004).

Van Gennep defines the Mortuary ritual as an immediate focus of anthropological

study because it is a rite of passage similar to a birth, puberty, parenthood or

marriage. Van Gennep argued that deaths, birth, puberty, parenthood and

marriage in society are of primary significance to anthropologists as they are

rituals that are rites of passage. These rites of passage are of significance as all

human societies use ceremonial practices to mark these transitions (Van Gennep,

1

1960; 11). Van Gennep conceptualised that the rituals used in the transitions of

death are a stage in human status of the deceased, but the change of social

conditions for individual within the community of living. It is argued that a death

is a rite of passage not just for the deceased, but also for the living community

(Van Gennep, 1960; 145-147). The Mortuary ritual is defined by Van Gennep to

illustrate the transition and incorporation of the individual or the deceased

within the community of living. Laneri interprets in agreement with Van

Gennep’s hypothesis, analysing the social relationships of the living as a

transitioning of the deceased and the living into different social spheres (Laneri,

2008; 3-5). In agreement with Van Gennep Laneri interprets the Mortuary ritual

as “necessary to separate the world of the living from the realm of the dead,

while reinforcing the memory of the departed individuals as a fundamental part

of the social relations of the living” (Laneri, 2008; 5). Both Laneri and Van

Gennep interpret the Mortuary ritual to be a rite of passage similar to birth or

marriage, a transition of deceased but also the living community into different

social conditions.

However Van Gennep in contemplating rituals of Births, Deaths and Marriages

fails to differentiate the three rites of passage. Van Gennep identifies other rites

of passage birth, puberty, parenthood or marriage as other methods of

interpretive study, but identities Mortuary ritual as the most significant for

anthropological interpretation of the living community with limited explanation.

Van Gennep by excessively using the Mortuary ritual in anthropological study,

interprets of the ritual as crucial, but fails to precisely illustrate why. Pearson

critical of Van Gennep interprets Van Gennep to be narrow-minded, by

2

predetermining the Mortuary ritual as a crucial focus of Anthropological study,

but with limited explanation (Pearson, 1999; 21-23). However Pearson although

a scholar of death and burial ritual is a limited anthropological source for

anthropological study, as Pearson’s observations are of archaeological

interpretation (Person, 1999). Pearson neither disagreeing or agreeing with Van

Gennep conceives that his Hypothesis as deterministic.

Indeed Laneri through a comparative analysis of Van Gennep’s hypothesis and

other scholars develops three interpretations of Mortuary rituals in the focus

social relationships of the living, unlike Van Gennep (Laneri, 2008; 3-5). Laneri

unlike Van Gennep conceives other interpretation, seeking unlike Van Gennep

comparative material for other scholars. Laneri acknowledging Van Gennep

argues two other counter theories that were not observed by Van Gennep. Laneri

conceived a second argument that Mortuary rituals also “allow social, cultural,

and religious identities to be constructed, negotiated, and contested through

symbols and metaphors that are part of the materiality of the performance”

(Laneri, 2008; 5). Laneri thirdly argues that it is a “fundamental moment in

which the entire community strengthens its social structure and/or dominant

ideologies through the manifestation of common beliefs” (Laneri, 2008; 5).

Accordingly Pearson’s critical interpretations of Van Gennep are justifiable. Van

Gennep is illustrated by Laneri to have provided a hypothesis crucial to the

understanding of social relationships of the living, but Van Gennep is conceived

as inconsiderate of other theories, thus narrow minded.

From the late 19th century to the early 20th century anthropology emerged a

3

distinguished form of social science examination (Hylland, 2004; 79). Hertz is

one of the earliest anthropological scholars and is a viable source

anthropological interpretation (Hylland, 2004). Hertz who predates Van Gennep,

demonstrates his hypothesis unintentionally in his ethnological studies. Hertz

illustrates in his writings ‘Death and the Right hand’ that the Mortuary ritual is a

process of transition for the dead, but also the living.

It is illustrated by Hertz in his studies of Dayak people of Borneo that the body of

the deceased is prepared with one initial period of burial and then a second. All

possessions or anything of relevant to the deceased life are destroyed. The

families of the deceased prepare a meal for the deceased every day and visit the

grave of the deceased, as if the dead are the living (Hertz, 1960; 29-35). The

Dayak people conduct this form of Mortuary ritual with purpose of a rite of

passage for not only the deceased but also the community, to protect themselves

from the dead. It is believed that the dead between the 1st and 2nd burial are in

limbo between the land of the living and the dead. By the destruction of the

deceased’s possessions there is little the dead can recognise or to preserve the

spirit. The Dayak people believe that the dead in this status of limbo could

become vengeful of the living by not following their will and become harmful

(Hertz, 1960; 36).

By the Dayak conducting their Mortuary ritual they have gone through a rite of

passage to protect the living from the dead. Hertz conceives that community or

society use the Mortuary rituals as a deterrent of the dead. Hertz in using the

mortuary ritual in this anthropological study has accordingly illustrated the

4

social relationships of the living and the death, but also provided an example of

Van Gennep’s hypothesis. Hertz unconsciously in his anthropological studies

interpreted the Mortuary ritual of the Dayak people as a rite of passage for the

living community or society. Hertz identifies the Mortuary ritual as a

transitioning of deceased and the living community or society into different

social spheres.

Van Gennep’s hypothesis can be conceived to be the best source to use in

interpretation of the social relationships of the living in Mortuary rituals. Hertz

one of the earliest and established anthropologists (Hylland, 2004; 79) who

illustrates Van Gennep’s hypothesis of the Mortuary ritual significant to

anthropological study as a ritual of the transition of the deceased and the living

into different social spheres. Although considerably more anthropologists coined

different theories of interpretations such as Laneri, who sited a series of

established anthropologists such as Durkheim (Laneri, 2008; 7) Van Gennep’s

hypothesis is more justifiable. By using Hertz’s writings as an example of

interpretation Van Gennep’s hypothesis dominates other scholars’, because

Hertz is the Holy Grail of anthropology (Hylland, 2004; 79). Laneri’s

summarisations of other anthropologists theories are void. Laneri summarised

other scholars arguments without providing evidence of scholars acknowledging

each others theories or consciously producing theories unlike Van Gennep

(Laneri, 2008; 5). Furthermore Laneri summarised anthropologists to have the

same hypothesises (Laneri, 2008; 1-8), however Laneri fail to acknowledge that

neither scholars consciously agreed with each others writings.

5

In conclusion Van Gennep’s hypothesis of the Mortuary ritual as the transitioning

of the deceased and the living community or society into different social spheres

is accurate in the depiction of the social relationships of the living. Van Gennep is

arguably deterministic in his hypothesis as illustrated by Pearson and Laneri.

However Van Gennep’s hypothesis is the most valid as Pearson is an

archaeological in his interpretation of Mortuary ritual and not anthropological.

Laneri acknowledges and agrees with Van Gennep’s hypothesis, but coins two

other hypothesises that are void. Laneri summarised anthropological

hypothesises with no acknowledgement of the referenced scholars consciously

coining their own hypothesises and neither consciously producing hypothesises.

Van Gennep consciously developed his hypothesis and is excised in

anthropological study by one of the earliest scholars of anthropological study,

being Hertz. Thus the Mortuary ritual is the focus of anthropological studies in

the social relationships of the living, because it is the transitioning of the

deceased and the living community or society into different social spheres.

6

Bibliography:

Hertz. R, 1960, Death and the Right Hand, Translated by R. Needham and C.

Needham, London, Cohen and West.

Hylland. E. T, 2004, What is Anthropology, London: Pluto.

Janson. M, 2011, Living Islam through death: demarcating Muslim identity in a

rural Serahuli community in the Gambia, Journal of the Royal Anthropological

Institute, Vol. 17, no. 1; 100-115.

Pearson. M. P, 1999, The Archaeology of Death and Burial, Texas A and M

University Press.

Van Gennep. A, 1960, The Rites of Passage. Translated, University of Chicago

Press.

Wallace. A. F. C, 1966, Religion: An Anthropological View; New York: Random

House.

7