(PDF) Mortuary Representations of the Noble House: A Cross-Cultural Comparison Between Collective Tombs of the Ancient Maya and

(PDF) Mortuary Representations of the Noble House: A Cross-Cultural Comparison Between Collective Tombs of the Ancient Maya and Dynastic Europe
Mortuary Representations of the Noble House: A Cross-Cultural Comparison Between Collective Tombs of the Ancient Maya and Dynastic Europe
05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:00 pm Page 368

Journal of Social Archaeology ARTICLE

Copyright © 2004 SAGE Publications (www.sagepublications.com)
ISSN 1469-6053 Vol 4(3): 368–404 DOI: 10.1177/1469605304046422

Mortuary representations of the noble house
A cross-cultural comparison between collective tombs of the
ancient Maya and dynastic Europe
ESTELLA WEISS-KREJCI
Departamento de Ciências e Técnicas do Património, Faculdade de Letras da
Universidade do Porto, Portugal

ABSTRACT
Seventy years of archaeological research in the Maya area have
brought to light a series of tombs and crypts that hold more than one
individual. The patterns regarding age, completeness and articulation
of skeletons and sequence of deposition in some of these tombs
suggest different burial traditions. These traditions include the
placing of sacrificial victims with a deceased tomb principal, sequen-
tial burial of family members, or reburial of curated or exhumed
ancestral remains. In medieval and post-medieval Europe, collective
tomb burial was also very common. The investigation of tomb
formation in the Habsburg dynasty shows that similar patterns can
result from mortality, mobility and territorial shifts in a noble house.
Maya multiple tombs and crypts simply may have been the final
resting-places for the deceased members of noble houses who were
deposited and redeposited in both simultaneous and sequential
fashion.

368

05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:00 pm Page 369

Weiss-Krejci Mortuary representations of the noble house 369

KEYWORDS
collective burial ● cross-cultural research ● European history ●
Habsburg ● kinship ● Maya archaeology ● mortuary behaviour ●
multiple tombs ● noble houses ● social anthropology

■ INTRODUCTION

Proper treatment and placing of the dead has always been of great concern
to people around the world. While choice of burial location and treatment
of the corpse usually depend on beliefs and ritual standards within a specific
cultural context, they are as well of a strategic nature. Burial decisions are
affected by cultural norms regarding the deceased’s age, gender, vertical or
horizontal status and by the relationship of people to places and other
people. Ideas concerning proper burial also apply to those who have been
defunct for quite some time. Dead bodies have been exhumed, reburied
and desecrated in order to redefine – elevate or degrade – the status of their
owners, construct new affiliations, rewrite history and to retrieve or
construct social memory (Verdery, 1999: 1–3).
This article discusses strategic burial decisions and processes that might
be responsible for the presence and state of dead bodies in ancient Maya
collective tombs and crypts. These élite mortuary chambers, which have
been discovered at various sites in the Maya highlands and lowlands within
the last 70 years, lack uniform patterns regarding age, gender, complete-
ness and articulation of skeletons (Table 1). A few tombs appear to be the
result of a one time multiple deposition, others were used for sequential
deposition for one or two centuries or even display sporadic reuse over
much longer time periods (Weiss-Krejci, 2003). Some researchers have
suggested familia relations among occupants in sequentially used tombs
(Hammond et al., 1975; Healy et al., 1998), but the general lack of stan-
dardized patterns throughout the Maya area as well as other parts of
Mesoamerica has resulted in the notion of different mortuary rites: depo-
sition of a tomb principal accompanied by sacrificial victims, simultaneous
deposition of temporarily stored family members, sequential deposition of
family or lineage members, body processing, two-stage burials and second-
ary burial rites, tomb re-entry and the extraction of bones during commem-
orative rites and the caching of tomb contents as part of ancestral rituals
(Becquelin and Baudez, 1979; Chase and Chase, 1996, 2003; Coe, 1990;
Fitzsimmons, 1998; Houston et al., 1998; Kidder et al., 1946; McAnany,
1998; Middleton et al., 1998; Ruz, 1955; Smith and Kidder, 1943; Stuart,
1998; Tiesler et al., 2002; Welsh, 1988).
In this article, I propose that Maya collective tombs hold members of

05 weiss (ds)
370
Table 1 Multiple burials in elaborate crypts and tombs in the Maya area.

6/9/04
Site and burial number Typea Periodb Age (years)c No. of people Reference

<1–4 5–14 15–19 >19

2:00 pm
Journal of Social Archaeology 4(3)
Caledonia
Structure A-1 Tomb elaborate crypt E. Cl. – L. Cl. – 1 – 8 9+ Healy et al., 1998
Caracol

Page 370
Structure A-34 Lower Tomb stone-lined tomb L. Cl. – – – 4 4+ Chase and
Structure A-38 Tomb stone-lined tomb L. Cl. – – – 3 3 Chase, 1996
Chiapa de Corzo
Mound 5b Burial 120 elaborate crypt L. Cl. – – – 1+? 7 Agrinier,
Burial 121 elaborate crypt L. Cl. – – – 4 4 1964
Burial 122 elaborate crypt L. Cl. – – – 3? 3? –"–
Copan
Structure 10L-26 Chorcha stone-lined tomb L. Cl. – 1 – 1 2 Fash et al.,
Tomb 1992
Guaytan
Mound 24 Tomb II stone-lined tomb L. Cl. – – – 11 11 Smith and
Tomb III stone-lined tomb L. Cl. – E. Postcl. – – – 37 37 Kidder, 1943
Kaminaljuyu
Mound E-III-3 Tomb II tomb cut into L. Precl. – 2 – 2 4 Shook and
adobe structure Kidder, 1952
Mound A Tomb I sand-cut tomb E. Cl. – 2 2 5 9 Kidder et al.,
Tomb II sand-cut tomb E. Cl. – 1 1 2 4 1946
Tomb III sand-cut tomb E. Cl. – 3 – 1 4 –"–
Tomb IV sand-cut tomb E. Cl. – – 2 1 3 – "–-

05 weiss (ds)
6/9/04
Table 1 continued
Site and burial number Typea Periodb Age (years)c No. of people Reference

2:00 pm
<1–4 5–14 15–19 >19

Tomb V sand-cut tomb E. Cl. – 1 – 3 4 –"–
Tomb VI sand-cut tomb E. Cl. – – 1 1 2 –"–

Page 371
Weiss-Krejci
Mound B Tomb I sand-cut tomb E. Cl. – 3 – 1 4 –"–
Tomb II sand-cut tomb E. Cl. – 1 2 1 4 –"–
Tomb III+IV sand-cut tomb E. Cl. – 1 – 5 6 –"–
Tomb V sand-cut tomb E. Cl. – 1 – 1 2 –"–
Lubaantun

Mortuary representations of the noble house
Structure 146 Tomb elaborate crypt L. Cl. – – – 18 18 Hammond et
al., 1975
Nebaj
Mound 1 Tomb I stone-lined tomb E. Cl. – L. Cl. 2 5 1 4 12 Smith and
Mound 2 Tomb I stone–lined tomb E. Cl. – 7 – 3 10 Kidder, 1951
Tomb II elaborate crypt E. Cl. – 1 – 1 2 –"–
Tomb IIA elaborate crypt E. Cl. – L. Cl. – 3 – 1 4 –"–
Tomb IV elaborate crypt L. Cl. – 3 – 4 7 –"–
Tomb VIII elaborate crypt E. Postcl. – 1 – 2 3 –"–
Palenque
Temple XVIII-A Tomb III stone-lined tomb L. Cl. – – – 2 2 Ruz, 1962
Temple XIII Tomb stone-lined tomb L. Cl. – 1 – 2 3 Tiesler et al.,
2002
Piedras Negras
Acropolis Burial 5 stone-lined tomb L. Cl. – 2 – 1 3 Coe, 1959

371

05 weiss (ds)
372
Table 1 continued

6/9/04
Site and burial number Typea Periodb Age (years)c No. of people Reference

<1–4 5–14 15–19 >19

2:00 pm
Journal of Social Archaeology 4(3)
Tikal
North Acropolis Burial 166 stone-lined tomb L. Precl. – – – 2 2 Coe, 1990
Burial 167 stone-lined tomb L. Precl. 1 – – 2 3 –"–
Burial 10 rock-cut tomb E. Cl. – 7 2 1 10 –"–

Page 372
Burial 48 rock-cut tomb E. Cl. – – 2 1 3 –"–
Structure 7F-30 Burial 160 rock-cut tomb E. Cl. – – 2 1 3 Coe, 1965
Mundo Perdido PNT-019 stone-lined tomb E. Cl. – – – 2 2 Laporte and
Fialko, 1987
Tonina
Str. E 5-10 Sep. IV-2 elaborate crypt L. Cl. – E. Postcl. 1 – – 5 6 Becquelin and
South of Str. E 15 Sep. IV-3 elaborate crypt L. Cl. – E. Postcl. – – – 2 2 Baudez,1979
Str. E 5-13, sub.1 Sep. IV-6 elaborate crypt L. Cl. – – – 4 4 –"–
Tzicuay
Mound 7 Tomb stone-lined tomb E. Cl. – E. Postcl. – 1 – 10 11 Smith, 1955
Uaxactun
Mound B-VIII Burial 1 stone-lined tomb E. Cl. 2 1 – 2 5 Smith, 1950
Zaculeu
Structure 1 Tomb rock-cut tomb E. Cl. – L. Cl. 1 3 – 3? 7 Woodbury and
Grave 4 elaborate crypt E. Cl. 1 – – 1 2 Trik, 1953
Grave 14 elaborate crypt E. Postcl. – – – 10 10+ –"–
Structure 4 Grave 1 elaborate crypt E. Postcl. – 1 1 9 11 –"–
Structure 11 Grave 1 stone-lined tomb E. – L. Postcl. – 1 – 12 13+ –"–
Structure 13 Grave 22 elaborate crypt E. – L. Postcl. – 1 – 3 4 –"–
Structure 15 Grave 1 elaborate crypt E. Postcl. – 1 – 4 5 –"–

05 weiss (ds)
6/9/04
2:00 pm
Page 373
Weiss-Krejci
Table 1 continued
Site and burial number Typea Periodb Age (years)c No. of people Reference

<1–4 5–14 15–19 >19

Mortuary representations of the noble house
Structure 16 Grave 2 elaborate crypt E. Postcl. – – – 2 2 –"–
Structure 37 Grave 3 elaborate crypt L. Postcl. – – – 2 2 –"–

a Classification follows Welsh (1988: 18).
b L. Precl., LatePreclassic (300 BC–AD 250), E.Cl., Early Classic (AD 250–600), L.Cl., Late Classic (AD 600–900), E. Postcl., Early Postclassic (AD 900–1200), L.
Postcl., Late Postclassic (AD 1200–1500).
c Individuals up to age 19 are classified as sub-adults (<1–4 = infants, 5–14 = children, 15–19 = adolescents).

373

05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:00 pm Page 374

374 Journal of Social Archaeology 4(3)

ancient Maya noble houses. There now exist several lines of evidence that
ancient Maya nobility was organized into houses (Gillespie, 2000a,b,c,
2001; Joyce, 2000) and probably displayed all the characteristics of these
types of corporate groups: the passing down of material and immaterial
wealth, the substitution of affinity for blood ties or the use of fictive
kinship, the combination of agnatic and uterine principles of succession,
and close and distant marriage (Carsten and Hugh-Jones, 1995: 7; Chance,
2000; Gillespie, 2000b,c; Lévi-Strauss, 1982: 174–87; Schmid, 1957;
Waterson, 1995a: 49–50). Variability in Maya collective tombs may not
result from random, site-specific, contingent factors, but from strategic
decisions that are determined by the relationship of persons to one another
and persons to locations through membership in or affiliation with noble
houses.
The argument is supported by a cross-cultural comparison with houses
of medieval and post-medieval Europe, where burial into collective tombs
was one common form of disposing of the dead. Patterns regarding age
distribution, number of people buried, completeness, articulation of skele-
tons, sequence of deposition, and reburial and reuse are just as variable as
in the Maya area. The cross-cultural comparison of élite Maya tombs with
European collective chambers may help identify different processes and
strategies that shape variability in Maya burial patterns. The use of analogy
is based on similarity of cultural form and a common determining structure
that links the properties that are compared to those that are inferred
(Wylie, 1988, 2002: 136–53). Since Classic Maya aristocracy was likely
organized into social units structurally equivalent to European royal
houses, practices of burial may have followed the same strategizing
decisions. The analogy also serves as a step towards bringing history and
anthropology together to bridge the study of Us and the Other (Lévi-
Strauss, 1983).
In the following sections, I will first strengthen the validity for analogy
by comparing major common traits among European and Maya houses. I
will then use one specific house, the House of Habsburg, for a more
detailed investigation. After displaying the political motivations for rapid
shifts of burial locations in this house, I will present the results of an
investigation of mortuary behaviour of 389 individuals. The analysis shows
how political circumstances, residence at the time of death, vertical and
horizontal status of the deceased, and mortality have influenced differen-
tial funerary treatment and created distinct mortuary patterns. I will also
show how changing political circumstances and shifts in burial location
have motivated exhumation and reburial and thus additionally added to
variability in the composition of collective crypts (Weiss-Krejci, 2001:
775–8). The analogy with the House of Habsburg serves as a basis to
reassess patterns in collective Maya tombs and stands as a model for
processes in multiple tomb formation.

05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:00 pm Page 375

Weiss-Krejci Mortuary representations of the noble house 375

■ NOBLE HOUSES

The house as an institution has been recognized in many types of societies
at both commoner and aristocratic level (Waterson, 1995a: 62). Although
some principles, like tracing of descent through male and female lines or a
separate name to designate the group and its members operate on both
levels, I herein will exclusively focus on processes in aristocratic houses. In
Europe, noble house names either refer to individuals, usually the ancestor
of the house (e.g. Welf), to ancient landholdings and castles (e.g. Habsburg,
Wittelsbach), or to geographical regions (e.g. Savoy, Lorraine). Genealo-
gies and the emphasis on bloodlines in noble houses played an essential
role for claiming and securing rights, property and legitimizing status.
Ancestry was not necessarily based on real biological or affinal relations,
but could be constructed (Becker, 2000: 109). Joint residence was also not
a precondition for sharing membership in a house. Members of the same
house, but of different branches, were often geographically separated:
sometimes by hundreds or thousands of kilometres, although visits were
frequent and temporary cohabitation was also common.
The politics of medieval and post-medieval Europe can only be under-
stood through the struggle for continuation of bloodlines, reproductive
success, and the role of women in royal houses. Marriage between royal
houses and reproduction were both principles of alliance as well as antagon-
ism between closely related kin. The lack of a male heir has frequently
caused wars of inheritance between different houses that claimed their
rights through female connections (Bonney, 1991: 524). Inheritance
through the female line explains why houses could bring distant territories
under their influence (e.g. Staufens in Sicily, Habsburgs in Spain), why
houses were merged (e.g. Habsburg-Lorraine) or why new houses were
founded. The incoming husband assumed the woman’s titles upon ‘coming
into the house’ (Lévi-Strauss, 1982: 178). As infant and childhood mortal-
ity was high (Ulrich-Bochsler, 1997: 9), male succession was secured by
producing as many male children as possible. But if too many males
survived, territorial splits, rivalry, and wars between collateral relatives
often arose.
The advances in deciphering the Maya script allow recognition of charac-
teristics described for European noble houses (Gillespie, 2000a: 470–1,
2001: 94–8). At the site of Tamarindito, Guatemala, the mother and the
father of a ruler are said to come from different ‘houses’, naah (Houston,
1998: 521), and the reference to Copan kings as ‘nth of the house’ (Stuart,
2000: 493) could also refer to the ‘house’ as social unit. Marriage patterns,
alliances and wars (Fox and Justeson, 1986; Martin and Grube, 1995; Schele
and Mathews, 1991), the repeated reference to emblem glyphs from other
sites (Palka, 1996) and the recurrence of taking brides from defeated foes
(Martin and Grube, 2000: 77) mirror the struggle for power in European

05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:00 pm Page 376

376 Journal of Social Archaeology 4(3)

houses. Cycles of decentralization and centralization in ancient Maya
political history and the tensions between kinship and kingship (Iannone,
2002; McAnany, 1995: 125–56) can be understood through the changing
dynamics of succeeding houses. The so-called Entrada of AD 378, during
which ‘strangers’ probably arrived from distant Teotihuacan in the Maya
lowlands (Stuart, 2000), the accession of Yax Nuun Ayiin I to the throne of
Tikal one year later and the subsequent spurt of dynastic foundation and
accessions within 50 years throughout the Maya lowlands could be seen as
actions of members of one new house. Stela 31 of Tikal traces the descent
and legitimacy of the ruler Siyaj Chan K’awiil II to the throne of Tikal
through Lady Une’ B’alam of Tikal, who shows some connection to Siyaj
Chan K’awiil II’s grandfather Spearthrower Owl, who probably was from
Teotihuacan. The ‘strangers’ may not have been so strange to Tikal after
all (Martin, 1999). A sculpture called ‘Hombre de Tikal’ mentions events
between AD 403 and 406 performed by Yax Nuun Ayiin I of Tikal and
K’uk’ Mo’, the latter possibly identical to K’inich Yax K’uk’ Mo’, the
ancestor of the Copan dynasty. Siyak K’ak’, the protagonist of the Entrada,
is mentioned on the ‘Xukpi’ stone at Copan and in a seventh-century
inscription from the Palenque Palace (Martin and Grube, 2000: 33, 156, 196;
Sharer et al., 1999: 20). Such networks of interrelated dynastic lines that
crosscut ethnic and national identities are well known from Europe
(Iglesias, 2003: 194). As in Europe, establishment of burial places and
mortuary practices may have been affected by these political conditions.

■ REGIONAL DYNAMICS OF BURIAL PLACES IN EUROPE

The House of Habsburg
In Europe, the deposition of dead bodies in specific territories firmly linked
noble houses to their land. Houses of lesser rank usually held house burial
places within a confined region. Possession of more distant and separate
territories by royal houses such as the House of Habsburg contributed to
considerable dispersion in burial locations (Figure 1). I will briefly outline
the dynamics of this change. The House of Habsburg entered world history
in AD 1273, when Count Rudolph from Switzerland was elected German
Roman king and given Austria and Styria. When Rudolph (Figure 2, ID 1)
received his call to the German Roman throne his family resided at
Habsburg castle or Habichtsburg (hawk’s castle) in present-day Switzer-
land, while Muri monastery served as a burial place. After Rudolph’s acces-
sion as German Roman king, the royal family adapted to their new status
and burial at Muri and residence at the Habsburg were given up (Gut, 1999:
96–7). Nevertheless, the name ‘Habsburg’ remained to designate the family
and its origin.

05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:00 pm Page 377

Weiss-Krejci Mortuary representations of the noble house 377

Figure 1 Part of Europe showing burial and residential sites of members of
the Habsburg dynasty

Although Rudolph and his family were often present in the new terri-
tory of Austria, adults from generation 1 or 2 were not buried there.
Rudolph’s first wife, for example, although she had died in Vienna, was
transported back to Basel in 1281. Another Swiss burial place, the
monastery of Königsfelden, founded by Rudolph’s daughter-in-law (ID 10),
was only given up for burial as the influence of the Habsburgs faded in their
homeland. Habsburg burial shifted to Austria only slowly. First, it was
children (Figure 2, ID 49, 57–65) and foreign wives (ID 34, † 1305; ID 37,
† 1330) that were buried there, but eventually adult males followed. Three
brothers from generation 3 (ID 36, † 1330, ID 45, † 1358 and ID 54, † 1339)
founded three monasteries between 1316 and 1330 (Figure 2 and Figure
3A,B) to house their own and their families’ bodies. When in 1379 the
Habsburg holdings were divided into Austria and Styria by two brothers,
and in 1406 a further split between Styria and the Tyrol occurred, burial
more or less followed the new political partition. The oldest brother from
generation 4, the duke of Austria (ID 78, † 1365), founded a multiple burial
vault in Austria at St Stephen’s cathedral in Vienna (Figure 2; Table 2). His
nephew, the Styrian duke (ID 117, † 1424), chose the Styrian monastery of

05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:00 pm Page 378

378 Journal of Social Archaeology 4(3)

Figure 2 Genealogy of the Habsburg dynasty (Generations 1–9). Women
from the house that died as members of other dynasties and were not buried
with the House of Habsburg have been omitted. Collective tombs are
highlighted

05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:00 pm Page 379

Weiss-Krejci Mortuary representations of the noble house 379

Figure 3 Medieval Habsburg subterranean crypts. (A) Gaming monastery
holds the crypt founder (1), his wife (2) and adolescent daughter-in-law (3)
(Gerbert et al., 1772/4, 2: Plate XIV); (B) Neuberg monastery holds the founder
(1), two young wives (2 and 3) and two adolescent sons (4 and 5) (Gerbert et
al., 1772/4, 2: Plate XIII); (C) Five infants share a crypt at Wiener Neustadt
cathedral (Gerbert et al., 1772/4, 2: Plate XII)

Rein, though his prematurely deceased children (ID 136–140) from the
second marriage were buried without adults in residential Wiener Neustadt
(Figure 3C). The Tyrolean branch took residence at Innsbruck in the Tyrol
and chose nearby Stams for burial (Figure 4), the burial place of the former

05 weiss (ds)
380
Table 2 Subterranean burial crypts of the House of Habsburg

6/9/04
Burial vaults Deposition dates Death dates Generations Deposition time Age (years) No. of peoplea
span (years)
<1–4 5–14 15–19 >19

2:01 pm
Journal of Social Archaeology 4(3)
El Escorial, Royal Pantheon 1654–1700 1539–1700 9,10,11, 46 – – – 10 10
(Martínez Cuesta, 1992) 12,13
El Escorial, total 1573–1740 1530–1740 9,10,11, 167 15 4 3 21 43
(Martínez Cuesta, 1992) 12,13

Page 380
Gaming monastery 1352–1373 1351/52– 3,4 21 – – 1 2 3
(Gerbert et al., 1772) 1373
Granada, Royal Chapel 1521–1555? 1500–1555 7,8,9 34? 1 – – 4 5
(Anonymous, n.d.)
Hall, Damenstift 1573–1621 1567–1621 10,11 48 – – – 5 5
(Gerbert et al., 1772)
Innsbruck, Jesuit church 1636–1705 1629–1705 11,12 69 6 1 – 5 12
(Gerbert et al., 1772) 13,14
Innsbruck, Servite Sisters 1621–1649 1621, 1649 10,11 28 – – – 2 2
(Gerbert et al., 1772)
Königsfelden monastery 1316–1386 1313–1386 2,3,4 70 – 1 – 10 11
(Gerbert et al., 1772)
Neuberg monastery 1330?–1344 1330–1344 3,4 14? – – 3 2 5
(Gerbert et al., 1772)
Prague cathedral, crypt 1590, 1612 ca. 1351– ?–7, 11, 214 1 1 1 9+ 12+
(Gerbert et al., 1772) 1612
Rein monastery 1407–1424 1407, 1424 5 17 – – – 2 2
(Gerbert et al., 1772)
Seckau monastery 1587–1616 1572–1616 10,11,12 29 4 1 2 2 9
(Gerbert et al., 1772)

05 weiss (ds)
6/9/04
Table 2 Continued
Burial vaults Deposition dates Death dates Generations Deposition time Age (years) No. of peoplea

2:01 pm
span (years)
<1–4 5–14 15–19 >19

St Paul 1936 1276–1386 1,2,3,4 <1 1 1 1 11 14
(Gut, 1999)

Page 381
Weiss-Krejci
Stams, Frederick's crypt 1408–1439 1408–1439 5,6 31 4 – – 3 7
(Gerbert et al., 1772)
Stams, Sigismund's crypt 1672 1480–1543 6,7, <1 4 – – 3 7
(Gerbert et al., 1772) 10,11
Vienna cathedral, old crypt 1363?–1566 1362–1566 4,5,6, 203 3 1 2? 9? 15?

Mortuary representations of the noble house
(Gerbert et al., 1772) 7,11
Vienna cathedral, new crypt 1754–1783 1330–1655 3,4,5, 29 3 1 2 10 16
(Timmermann, 1996) 6,7,11
Vienna, Capuchins, total 1633–1780 1617–1780 11,12,13, 147 15 2 3 21 41
(Wolfsgruber, 1887) 14,15
Vienna, Dominican church 1676 1676 12,13 <1 – – – 2 2
(Gerbert et al., 1772)
Wiener Neustadt cathedral 1421–1432 1421–1432 6 11 3 2 – – 5
(Gerbert et al., 1772)
Wiener Neustadt, Neukloster 1456–1467 1456–1467 6,7 11 3 – – 1 4
(Gerbert et al., 1772)

a Numbers refer to the entire crypt population including non-house members. Exceptions are El Escorial and Capuchin Vault, Vienna, where only
members of the House of Habsburgs up to generation 15 have been counted. Number of individuals reflects the state in the eighteenth century with
the exception of St Paul (twentieth century). Several crypts in this list do not exist any more or have been considerably altered.

381

05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:01 pm Page 382

382 Journal of Social Archaeology 4(3)

lords of the Tyrol (Gut, 1999; Hamann, 1988; Jahn, 2001; Jäschke, 1997;
Lein, 1978; Vocelka and Heller, 1997: 306–8).
For over one century, the Habsburgs only ruled as dukes of Austria, Styria
and the Tyrol, but through intermarriage with the House of Luxembourg
(which died out in the male line in 1437), the House of Habsburg became an
Imperial house again. Intermarriage with more distant houses and inheri-
tance from thereon determined the political development and shift in burial
locations. After the House of Habsburg had inherited Spain in 1516, and
Bohemia and Hungary in 1526, two separate family branches developed in
two distant areas. The descendants of Charles V (ID 183, † 1558), ‘Casa de
Austria’, were buried in Spain until the line died out in 1700 (Martínez
Cuesta, 1992: 101; Weiss-Krejci, 2001: 776). Members of different branches
of the Austrian line, the descendants of Ferdinand I (ID 187, † 1564), were
buried in a variety of places of the Habsburg Empire such as Bohemia, the
Tyrol, Styria and present-day Belgium (Jahn, 2001). Under Emperor Ferdi-
nand III (generation 12, † 1657), burial shifted back to Vienna. The Capuchin
Crypt was used as collective burial place for the majority of the Austrian line.
After 15 generations of patrilineal descent, the Habsburg dynasty died out
(in the male line) in 1740 and descent was passed on through Maria Theresa
of Habsburg and Francis of Lorraine. The Capuchin Crypt in Vienna
remained the primary burial place though members of the younger lines who
ruled as lords of Tuscany, Modena and Hungary founded their own burial
crypts in their respective territories (Hawlik-van de Water, 1993).

■ THE FORMATION OF COLLECTIVE HOUSE BURIAL
PLACES

Collective house burials are historically and ethnographically known from
many world regions. The contexts for deposition of house members can
vary considerably and range from collective interment in one tomb or
connected chambers, to burial in a structure or a confined compound
(Bloch, 1971: 115–17; Metcalf and Huntington, 1991: 120–2; Ucko, 1969:
269; Waterson, 1995a: 55–6, 1995b). Tomb burial in European ceremonial
structures such as cathedrals, churches, monasteries, convents or castle
churches was a privilege of noble houses, though not necessarily of ruling
families. The dead members of European noble houses were deposited into
stone or metal monuments in front of the altar, in chapels, or brought in
subterranean crypts and encased in wooden or metal coffins (Binski, 1996;
Störmer, 1980). While church monuments often hold only one or a few indi-
viduals, subterranean chambers usually hold a higher number. Tomb
inscriptions frequently name only the more important members of the
house and tomb lids often display the founders’ image, but many tombs

05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:01 pm Page 383

Weiss-Krejci Mortuary representations of the noble house 383

hold corpses of subadults or other individuals whose status within the house
was too low to give them their own tomb or inscription. However, not every
assembly of collective bones in a church in Europe is evidence for a house
burial place. It was also a frequent custom to exhume bodies from over-
crowded churchyards after corpses had decomposed and to store the bones
in charnel houses or underneath churches (Binski, 1996: 55; Daniell, 1997:
123). These collective bone chambers look very different from house burial
places, usually comprising a high number of very fragmentary remains.

The choice of burial place
The strategic aspects of burial and reburial have been well documented for
societies with houses. Individuals usually have a choice of burial places.
Where the corpse is buried depends on a variety of factors such as place of
residence, place of death, burial place of the spouse, or a person’s last wish.
Deposition of a corpse in a specific house burial place links a person to that
house and thus stakes claims for the descendants. As a result, decisions
about where and how to bury a corpse can cause disputes among groups
and, sometimes, burial decisions are revised years after and corpses are
subsequently exhumed and reburied (Fox, 1987; Waterson, 1995a,b).
Similar strategies are visible in burial place selection of the House of
Habsburg. For the present investigation, I have chosen the first 15 gener-
ations, the patriline descending from Rudolph I. The sample is entirely pre-
industrial spanning both Middle Ages and modern times. It contains 389
individuals that died between AD 1256 and 1780 and were connected to
the House of Habsburg through birth or marriage at some point in their
lives. The sample is divided into five sub-samples to distinguish between
patrilineal blood relatives, affinal relatives, non-house members and house-
members at point of death (Table 3). The group of patrilineal blood
relatives includes eight illegitimate sons and two daughters from extra-
marital affairs and morganatic marriages. This group is only a small fraction
of a much larger group of illegitimate offspring.

Adults >age 19 Of 60 adult male house members in sub-sample E, 53 were
buried with relatives and only seven were buried without relatives (Table
4). Of the men buried away from the house, two were emperors (ID 160,
† 1519 and ID 183, † 1558) who had both survived their wives. One was an
older high-ranking master of the Teutonic order, the other had murdered
his uncle (John the Parricide, ID 66) and three were natural sons and
clerics. Of the remaining 53 men, 28 married men were buried with their
wives, 13 married men were not buried with their wives, but with other
house members (parents, children, etc.) and 12 unmarried adult men were
also buried with the house (Table 4). Of the 28 men buried with wives, four
men were buried with their first, not with their last wife.

05 weiss (ds)
384

6/9/04
Table 3 Age and gender distribution in the House of Habsburg by sub-samples

2:01 pm
Age (Years) <1 1–4 5–9 10–14 15–19 20–24 25–34 35–54 ≥55 ≥20 Total

Journal of Social Archaeology 4(3)
Sexa M F ? M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F

Sub-sample Ab

Page 384
Sub-sample B 23 20 14 9 10 4 4 3 4 8 6 4 4 12 23 24 19 19 27 237
Sub-sample C 3 3 9 21 1 15 52
Sub-sample D 6 4 5 1 8 3 23 6 22 4 10 8 100
Total 23 20 14 9 10 4 4 3 4 14 13 9 8 20 35 47 46 42 46 10 8 389

Sub-sample E 23 20 14 9 10 4 4 3 4 8 8 4 5 12 15 24 23 20 21 231
a M, male; F, female;?, sex unknown.
b Sub-sample A (n = 289) combines sub-samples B and C and consists of all individuals that were members of the House of Habsburg at some point in
their lives. Sub-sample B are 237 patrilineal blood relatives that were born between 1218 and 1724 and died between 1276 and 1780. Sub-sample C is
a group of 51 female affinal house members plus the male ancestor of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine. Sub-sample D contains 100 individuals, who
were never members of the House of Habsburg (74 men who were married to blood or affinal house members, 26 of their spouses from other
houses). Sub-sample E includes 231 individuals that were house members only at point of death.These are 104 male and female patrilineal sub-adult
blood relatives (one female married to another house member), 27 male and female unmarried adult patrilineal blood relatives, 53 male and female
married adult blood relatives, 46 female sub-adult and adult affinal relatives and one male affine (Francis of Lorraine). Not included in Sub-sample E
are 53 female patrilineal blood relatives who married out of the dynasty and 5 of the female affinal relatives, who also remarried again.

05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:01 pm Page 385

Weiss-Krejci Mortuary representations of the noble house 385

Of 54 adult married women from sub-sample E, 31 were buried with the
last husband, one with an earlier husband and two with parents and
husbands (Table 4). Fifteen married women were buried without the
husband but with other related persons and five women were buried
without other house members. These five older affinal relatives (between
38 and 75 years old) survived their spouses by 14 to 31 years. Like men
buried without relatives, they shared a special status. Three were queens,
two had numerous offspring and eventually became direct ancestors of the
dynasty. Of 10 adult unmarried women, six were buried in convents with
other female relatives (two with their mother). Two were buried in tombs
with both parents; the burial place for the other two is uncertain.
Although collective burial crypts rarely hold only a conjugal couple, the
analysis indicates that choice of being buried with a spouse was of some
relevance in the selection of the place for both married men and women
(Table 4). While men were usually not buried in a tomb which belonged to
the house of their wives – exceptions are the ‘incoming males’, Philip of
Habsburg (ID 168) and Francis of Lorraine – women were more flexible in
the choice of their burial place. Whether a woman was buried with the
house of origin or the house she had married into often depended on her
success and status within the affinal house (especially whether she had
produced an heir), affection for her husband, whether she died as a widow,
how long she survived her husband and, finally, the status of her house of
origin. As Imperial House, the House of Habsburg attracted married or
widowed female patrilineal blood relatives that had died as members of
other dynasties. Of 53 female Habsburg patrilineal blood relatives that had
married out, nine were nevertheless buried with their house of origin (e.g.
ID 30, 38, 50, 73). From the remaining 46 women who had married into the
House of Habsburg, only three women were buried at places associated
with their original house. All three, Mary of Burgundy (ID 161), Joanna
the Mad (ID 169) and Mary Tudor, second wife of Philip II, were heirs of
their fathers’ lands and titles.
Regarding kings, the decisions for burial place followed yet other prin-
ciples. A dead king’s body was an ideal means to stake a claim and has been
used to such ends more than once. When Albert II (ID 125), who had been
crowned king of Bohemia and Hungary and elected king of the Holy Roman
Empire in 1438, fell mortally ill in Hungary, he expressed his wish to be
buried in the Habsburg vault at St Stephen’s, Vienna. But his wife, Eliza-
beth, overruled this decision and redirected the funeral procession towards
Székesféhervár cathedral, the burial place of the Hungarian kings. Eliza-
beth’s decision was undoubtedly influenced by her fear of losing Hungary.
She was pregnant, but without a living male heir (Meyer, 2000: 161).

Sub-adults <1–19 Within a group of 107 sub-adult house members (Table
4) at death (104 patrilineal blood relatives and three adolescent affinal

05 weiss (ds)
386

6/9/04
Table 4 Choice of burial place for individuals who died as members of the House of Habsburg (n = 231). For this chart
the unit of examination is not the individual crypt, but the entire building.Though burial in the same building hardly
merits the designation ‘collective’ it was also important and very rarely were members buried away from other relatives

2:01 pm
Journal of Social Archaeology 4(3)
Buried with <1–14 14–19 >19 years old

Unmarried Married Unmarried Married

Page 386
M F F M F M F

Spouse(s) – – – 3 (75%) – – 19 (44%) 32 (59%)
Spouse(s) and
parent(s) – – – – – – 9 (21%) 2 (4%)
Parent(s) 52 (57%) 5 (63%) 4 (100%) – 9 (53%) 4 (40%) 4 (9%) 3 (6%)
Grandparent, affinal
or collateral relative 5 (6%) 1 (12%) – 1 (25%) 2 (12%) 4 (40%) 6 (14%) 4 (7%)
Son(s) or daughter(s) – – – – – – 3 (7%) 6 (11%)
Sub-adult brothers
and sisters 15 (16%) – – – – – – –
Distant relatives 6 (7%) 2 (25%) – – 1 (6%) – – 2 (4%)
Without relatives 2 (2%) – – – 5 (29%) – 2 (5%) 5 (9%)
Unknown 11 (12%) – – – – 2 (20%) – –
Total 91 (100%) 8 (100%) 4 (100%) 4 (100%) 17 (100%) 10 (100%) 43 (100%) 54 (100%)

05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:01 pm Page 387

Weiss-Krejci Mortuary representations of the noble house 387

relatives) the majority was buried with one or both parents (often includ-
ing brothers and sisters). Three married sub-adult women were buried with
their husbands, one with her parents-in-law. Seventeen infants were buried
without adults (two alone, others with baby brothers and sisters). Fourteen
sub-adults were buried without parents, but with grandparents, uncles,
aunts, or adult brothers (e.g. ID 68), or with distant relatives.
Both different choice mechanisms and different status as a result of age
can explain the differences between adult and sub-adult burial places. For
sub-adults, especially younger ones, survivors made the decision for burial
place – whereas adults usually decided for themselves. Due to travels
through the vast empire, children often died long distances from home.
Whereas adults were either transported immediately or temporarily stored
and transported later, a deceased sub-adult was usually interred in the next
available crypt. For this purpose, older crypts, sometimes out of use for
some time, were reopened. The crypt at St Stephen’s cathedral for example,
in disuse since 1463, was reopened in 1552, 1564 and 1566 to receive the
corpses of the three infants of Emperor Maximilian II who had died while
the royal family stayed in Vienna (Weiss-Krejci, 2001: Fig. 4).
Of 81 sub-adults in the overall sample for whom age, place of death and
first burial place are known 45 (56 percent) were buried in the city they
died in. An additional 23 (28 percent) were transported between 20 and 40
km. Only 13 individuals (16 percent) were transported more than 40 km
and no sub-adult was transported more than 300 km. In contrast to sub-
adults, 25 percent of 224 adults were transported over 40 km and 12 percent
over 180 km. The largest transport distance for an adult corpse is 640 km.
If no patrilineal contemporary tomb was available, a sub-adult could be
buried with matrilineal relatives. While this did not happen with any sub-
adult Habsburg patrilineal blood relative, it explains why several non-
Habsburg sub-adults – and young adult unmarried males – were buried in
Habsburg tombs. Although members of another house, they were children
of Habsburg-born women and through this connection of blood the permis-
sion for burial was granted.

Regulations
In many areas where collective mortuary rites are performed, the mixing of
unrelated people (or people of unequal rank) is regarded as polluting
(Hutchinson and Aragon, 2002: 32; Waterson, 1995b: 210). Similar concepts
can be found in the House of Habsburg. Within the first 15 generations under
investigation, no adult individual from sub-sample D (Table 3) was ever
buried in a Habsburg tomb. Nevertheless, after the House of Habsburg
became the House of Habsburg-Lorraine, a few exceptions were made. The
husband of Maria Theresa’s favourite daughter Maria Christine, the duke of
Saxony-Teschen, was buried in the Capuchin crypt. Maria Theresa also

05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:01 pm Page 388

388 Journal of Social Archaeology 4(3)

Figure 4 Stams monastery: members of three houses are buried in four
separate burial crypts. Crypts (A) and (B) belong to the Habsburg dynasty and
hold three adults and four sub-adults each.The two smaller crypts hold
approximately 14 members from the preceding Houses of Tyrol and Gorizia.
All three houses are related to each other through women (Gerbert et al.,
1772/4, 2: Plate XVIII)

insisted that countess Fuchs-Mollard, her children’s governess, be buried in
the Capuchin crypt. Maria Theresa’s reasoning – ‘she was united with us in
life, she shall also be with us in death’ [author’s translation] (Hawlik-van de
Water, 1993: 76) – recalls tomb selection among the Merina where ‘those who
live in one house should be buried in one tomb’ (Bloch, 1971: 165).
Rules that applied to deposition of a recently deceased were less rigid
during reburial of corpses. At St Vitus’ cathedral in Prague, Emperor
Rudolph II from the House of Habsburg commissioned the construction of

05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:01 pm Page 389

Weiss-Krejci Mortuary representations of the noble house 389

a subterranean burial vault in the sixteenth century and reburied earlier
members of the House of Habsburg – as well as former kings and queens
of Bohemia from other houses (Meyer, 2000: 111–13). Such collective burial
of members from different houses would have been quite unthinkable at
the time of death, but by the sixteenth century these houses had long died
out and burial in one narrow space could be legitimated through the prin-
ciple of rulership and very distant affinal relationship.

Composition of multiple tombs
Death was a frequent event in any family in medieval and early-modern
Europe (Lockyer, 1974: 2; Ulrich-Bochsler, 1997) and the House of
Habsburg was no exception. Within the 500 years under investigations,
death of a relative occurred almost every other year (not counting many
uterine relatives). Of the 237 patrilineal blood relatives (sub-sample B,
Table 3) 57 (24 percent) died in the first year of life, another 19 (8 percent)
perished between age one and four. Of all patrilineal blood relatives 113
(48 percent) were dead before the age of 25. Only eight people (3 percent)
died over 70 years old. If one looks at the age distribution in sub-sample E
very similar rates appear (33 percent up to age 4; 6 percent between 5 and
14; 7 percent between ages 15 and 19). While mortality rates in general
explain the presence of sub-adults in tombs, there exists no direct corre-
lation between mortality and age patterns in individual tombs (Table 2).
Some tombs hold a majority of infants, children and adolescents, while
others hold only adults. Correlation with mortality (combined from sub-
samples B and E: 32–33 percent for ages <5, 6 percent for age groups 5–14,
6–7 percent for ages 15–19 and 54–56 percent for individual >19 years) is
only met if one adds all individuals buried in separate chambers in large
house vaults. Age distribution for infants, children, adolescents and adults
at El Escorial is 35 percent – 9 percent – 7 percent – 49 percent (43 patri-
lineal blood relatives), at the Capuchin vault it is 37 percent – 5 percent –
7 percent – 51 percent (41 patrilineal blood relatives). These two tombs
were used over longer time periods and were located close to permanent
residences.
While no correlation between mortality and individual tomb composition
exists, there is a certain correlation between number of individuals and
number of generations buried. If used by one or two generations, between
two and seven people were typically buried in subterranean crypts or church
monuments. The combinations include two adults (husband and wife), one
adult and children (mother or father and offspring, one daughter-in-law), two
or three adults and children (parents, second wife and offspring), only
children (baby brothers and sisters or related infants), or only adults (women
in convents). Time spans for deposition in one- or two-generation crypts
range from a few months (Vienna, Dominican Church) to half a century

05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:01 pm Page 390

390 Journal of Social Archaeology 4(3)

(Hall, Damenstift). Since the number of buried individuals was low, the
deceased were usually buried beside each other (Figure 3). In some of these
smaller tombs individuals had been stored before burial (Table 2).
In multigenerational crypts, corpses were often stacked or buried in rows
behind or beside each other or around the wall. Multigenerational tombs
are complex and combine several different traits such as reburial of
temporarily stored corpses, reburial of exhumed individuals (post-funeral
relocation), sequential interment of individuals, and disturbance or removal
of bodies from the crypt. The smallest multigenerational tomb is the tomb
at the Royal Chapel in Granada (sixteenth century) containing five related
individuals from three houses (Table 2). The three-generation crypt at
Seckau holds nine individuals from the House of Habsburg. At the old crypt
at St Stephen’s cathedral in Vienna, 10 to 12 individuals spanning four
generations had been buried within a century (one died before crypt
construction), but three infants from generation 11 were added a hundred
years later and deposited close to the entrance (Weiss-Krejci, 2001: Fig. 4).
All corpses were reburied in a new crypt in 1754 (Weiss-Krejci, 2001: Fig.
6), into which four additional bodies in three coffins (exhumed from other
places) were added between 1782 and 1783. At Stams monastery, four
crypts hold approximately 28 members from three houses that were buried
in the monastery over 279 years (Figure 4). Death dates of some individuals
from the Houses of Tyrol and Gorizia precede the deposition by three
decades. From generation 11 to generation 15, 41 Habsburg house members
were buried at the Capuchin Crypt in Vienna within 147 years. The
founders were deposited in the crypt only one and a half decades after
death. Through further use by the House of Habsburg-Lorraine, the use
span of the entire crypt, which now consists of 10 connected chambers and
holds 143 corpses, is 356 years. The maximum number of house members
related in a patriline was buried at El Escorial where 43 people from five
generations were deposited within 167 years. The first ten individuals that
were deposited in the crypt had been exhumed from other places.

Reburial and tomb re-entry
The state of the skeletons in European collective tombs is also rather
variable for corpses were often moved as part of various ritual and non-
ritual processes. Some were temporarily stored and placed into the tomb a
considerable time after death, others were buried directly after death, but
then disturbed through the entry of new burials. Some tombs were not only
sequentially used within a limited time period but also opened and reused
at a much later point in time. Some tombs were entirely emptied out and
the remains deposited into a new tomb, sometimes hundreds of kilometres
away, and post-dating the death by centuries.
As I have shown for the Habsburgs, not only sequential use, but also the

05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:01 pm Page 391

Weiss-Krejci Mortuary representations of the noble house 391

presence of reburied bodies is a hallmark of collective tombs. In all multi-
generational sequential crypts at least one body had been exhumed and
reburied, although even in a historical context it is not always easy to
determine whether exhumation was originally intended or the decision to
exhume and rebury was made later by a descendant. Relocations from one
site to another in the majority involved bones of adults. Of 43 individuals
in the sample that were exhumed and transported from one city to another
a considerable time after death, only 11 were sub-adults (five infants, two
children, four adolescents). Almost all were exhumed and reburied
together with adult house members. Such external relocations were often
correlated with political and social events throughout Europe (Weiss-
Krejci, 2001: 775–8). After Rudolph I’s son German Roman king Albert I
(Figure 2, ID 9) had been assassinated in 1308 by his nephew John (ID 66),
Albert was buried at Wettingen. But soon the family sought permission
from the new German Roman king Henry VII from the House of Luxem-
bourg to rebury the corpse at Speyer cathedral where Albert’s father
Rudolph I and the Holy Roman Emperors from the Salian and Staufen
dynasties were buried. Since Albert had ordered the murder of the preced-
ing German Roman king Adolph of Nassau in the battle of Göllheim in
1298, Henry VII considered it a propitiating gesture to have the mortal
remains of both kings transferred. There was no empty sarcophagus left, so
Adolph was buried with Emperor Frederick Barbarossa’s little daughter
and Albert with Barbarossa’s wife (Gut, 1999: 103–4; Klimm, 1953: 52–9;
Meyer, 2000: 19–52).
Habsburg King Philip II (generation 10, † 1598) after moving his court to
Madrid created a burial place at El Escorial and reburied his parents, aunts,
baby brothers, former wives and children in 1573 and 1574. In 1770, 14 Habs-
burgs who had been buried in Switzerland between 1276 and 1386 were
exhumed and reburied in the Black Forest and later in Carinthia. During
wars and riots tombs were often desecrated, but remains usually later
reburied (Weiss-Krejci, 2001: 775–8). Coffins also have been opened to create
links with a past dynasty. Charlemagne’s grave was disturbed by Emperor
Otto III in AD 1000 and by Frederick Barbarossa in AD 1165. Otto removed
grave goods and took fingernails and a tooth (Ohler, 1990: 142).

■ MAYA TOMBS

The ancient Maya were buried predominantly – in the flesh – in or around
commoner or elite residences, in ceremonial structures such as household
shrines, ceremonial platforms and temples, under plazas, or in caves.
Collective burial deposits have been found in all of these contexts (Brady,
1995; Robin and Hammond, 1991; Ruz, 1968; Welsh, 1988: 93–4), but as in

05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:01 pm Page 392

392 Journal of Social Archaeology 4(3)

Europe, not every collective assembly of bones is necessarily a sign for
house burial. Individuals buried under domestic structures could have been
members of houses too, but herein I will refer only to Maya burial chambers
with multiple individuals in non-residential structures such as temples and
shrines (Table 1). The large number and quality of grave goods, size, and
inscriptions on ceramics, jades, bones, stingray spines or tomb walls which
often name known Maya rulers indicate the noble status of the tomb occu-
pants (Martin and Grube, 2000; Welsh, 1988: 157). Though the individual
identities of the skeletal remains are sometimes unclear (Gillespie, 2001;
Joyce, 2000), multiple elaborate crypts and tombs in ceremonial contexts
are the appropriate category for this cross-cultural comparison.

Mortality and tomb composition
Similar to Habsburg tombs, there exists no direct correlation between age
patterns in Maya tombs and expected mortality. However, like in Europe,
sub-adult mortality is most likely responsible for burial of children and
adolescents in multiple Maya tombs. At Preclassic Cuello (n = 166) 22
percent of the site’s burial sample are younger than 20 years (7 percent
< 5 years, 13 percent 5–14, and 2 percent 15–19) (Saul and Saul, 1997: Table
3.1). At Altar de Sacrificios (n = 90) sub-adult mortality is 30 percent (18
percent < 5 years, 10 percent 5–14, 2 percent 15–19 years; Saul, 1972: Table
1). At Dzibilchaltun (Andrews and Andrews, 1980: 318–20) 38 percent of
95 sexed individuals died before age 20 (7 percent <1 year, 25 percent 1–12,
6 percent 12–20). Of 264 individuals recovered from the late Classic
compound 9N-8 at Copan, 46 percent had died before age 15, the majority
(40 percent) younger than 5 years old (Storey, 1992: 164). The age break-
down for 492 individuals at the colonial site of Tipu (Jacobi, 2000: Table
6.3) shows that 50 percent of the burial population had died by age 20 (24
percent < age 6, 18 percent age 6–15, 8 percent 16–20 years).
One striking characteristic of Maya collective elaborate crypts and tombs
is the low number of infants. This may indicate that this age group was treated
differently. The separate (and often collective) burial of infants was practised
by the medieval Habsburgs (Figure 3C). This practice is recorded from other
European medieval and post-medieval contexts (Ulrich-Bochsler, 1997:
88–9) as well as other parts of the world (Antonaccio, 1995: 23). At some
Maya sites ‘caches’ with infants have been discovered at the centre base of
ceremonial structures such as simple crypt Cache IV-1 at Tonina (Becquelin
and Baudez, 1979), but these caches may be burials (Becker, 1992).

Formation processes of Maya tombs
Archaeological research confirms that the depositional history for Maya
tombs is complicated and combines multiple entries with placement of new

05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:01 pm Page 393

Weiss-Krejci Mortuary representations of the noble house 393

articulated bodies, movement of tomb occupants within the chamber during
rites of re-entry, extraction of tomb contents, or reburial of exhumed bones
(Chase, 1994: 125; Chase and Chase, 1996, 2003). Clearly some mortuary
structures in the Maya region served for burials over an extended time, a
fact underlined by the presence of tomb corridors and stairways. Stone-
lined tombs at Nebaj, Guaytan, and the rock cut tomb at Zaculeu (Table
1) display such characteristics. But continuous sequential use or sporadic
reuse can also take place without stairways or passages (Chase, 1994: 126).
Tombs could have been left open to receive burials, covered by temporary
structures or a roof or been sealed and reopened.
It is possible that sequential use (not sacrifice) is responsible for the
disarticulated female corpse in Tomb III in Temple XVIII-A at Palenque
(Figure 5A). Sequential use (not reburial from another place) probably also
contributed to the layout in Chiapa de Corzo Burial 121 (Figure 5B), where
the adult male in the centre was buried last, and long bones, skulls and small
bones of three adults were grouped around his body (Agrinier, 1964: 57–8).
In the large Kaminaljuyu Tomb A-I (Figure 5C) it is obvious that earlier
interments had been disturbed through later ones. But in this tomb, a
combination of reburial from elsewhere and disturbance of other corpses
through sequential burial should also be taken into account. The two
isolated skulls of two children in Kaminaljuyu Tomb A-I could have been
reburied. Another example of possible sequential burial is the Chorcha
Tomb at Copan. Smoke Imix of Copan was buried two days after death,
which is seen as ‘a sure sign that his tomb lay ready to receive him’ (Martin
and Grube, 2000: 203). This also opens the possibility that the 12-year-old
child that was found at the north end of the tomb (Fash et al., 1992: 111)
had been deposited earlier. Given that the ruler was over 79 years old when
he died, it could have been his grandchild and possibly child of Waxakla-
juun Ub’aah K’awil. The events that surrounded the death of the latter king
and the fact that his son did not succeed him do indeed point to some repro-
ductive problem. At the re-entered Preclassic Tikal Burial 166, age patterns
could point to sequential burial of two queens – based on the paintings in
the tomb – who might have been sisters and foreigners, since both displayed
a rare pseudo-circular head shaping (Coe, 1990: 238–41).
Some tombs at Nebaj, Zaculeu, Guaytan and Tonina display evidence for
reuse at some later point in time. The large rock cut tomb at Zaculeu was
successively used in the Early Classic probably to receive the corpses of a
noble family (one adult, one infant, one child, one unidentified), which were
carried down the stairway into the tomb chamber. At the tomb entrance,
the isolated mandible of a young adult and complete skeletons of two
children were found. A polychrome seventh-century vase, ‘one of the finest
pieces of pottery in the tomb’ (Trik, 1953: 83), was deposited with one of
the children. This vase is later in style than the rest of the ceramics in the
tombs and the only ceramic vase at Zaculeu with an inscription. Since

05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:01 pm Page 394

394 Journal of Social Archaeology 4(3)

Figure 5 Sequential deposition in multiple Maya crypts and tombs. (A)
Palenque Tomb III, Temple XVIII-A (Ruz, 1962: Fig. 5); (B) Chiapa de Corzo
Burial 121 (Agrinier, 1964: Fig. 125); (C) Kaminaljuyu Tomb A-I (Kidder et al.,
1946: Fig. 17)

Zaculeu, like the other highland sites, went out of use in the Late Classic –
what could explain the deposition of individuals who could not have been
children of the adults in the tomb? Using an analogy from Europe, the tomb
at St Stephen’s where infants were deposited a century later at the entrance
(Weiss-Krejci, 2001: Fig. 4), the children may have been of high status, had
died at or close to Zaculeu, and were interred in the tomb of their

05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:01 pm Page 395

Weiss-Krejci Mortuary representations of the noble house 395

ancestors. At Nebaj the Tomb in Mound 1 was used in the Early Classic to
deposit two infants, five children, one adolescent and three adults, but the
tomb passage leading away from the tomb held Late Classic ceramics and
one young adult (Smith, 1951: 22) who may also have been a distant relative.
Classic tombs were also sometimes reused by new groups, especially in the
Postclassic, not only in the Maya area but also in other parts of Mesoamer-
ica (Middleton et al., 1998: 299–301). This could imply either some distant
relation or some other kind of claim to that specific burial location.
Sequential use and sporadic reuse are not the only processes that can
explain collective burial assemblages. The simultaneous deposition of
wrapped and possibly embalmed corpses after temporary storage best
explains the state of bones at Kaminaljuyu Tomb B-II and Tonina (Figure
6A,B). As a bundle, the corpse becomes more portable and can be
temporarily stored and later moved to the tomb (McAnany, 1998: 276). The
way artefacts and bones spread on the tomb floor in Kaminaljuyu Tomb
B-II (Figure 6A) suggests that the bodies had additionally been placed in
wooden containers (Kidder et al., 1946: 89). Simultaneous re-deposition of
untied corpses in different states of decomposition, some probably
exhumed from elsewhere, is the more likely scenario for the Zaculeu Grave
4–1 (Figure 6C). The skull of an adolescent rested on a stone (A), a
complete though disarticulated female adult (B) and partially articulated
adult male (C) had been deposited together with longbones and scattered
fragments of seven adults and one child (Trik, 1953: 96).
Finally, not every bone in a grave has to be necessarily a house member
or ancestor. Especially with respect to isolated skulls, mandibles, teeth, or
long bones, alternative interpretations have to be considered (Becker, 1996:
706). Skulls in graves could be trophies and some other bones may have
been amulets. The deposition of relic bones (exhumed from distant holy
places) and bone amulets in graves was also a characteristic of medieval
Europe (Armendariz et al., 2000: 394).

■ CONCLUSION

Corpse storage, corpse transport, the deposition of sub-adults in tombs
of distant relatives, exhumation, and collective reburial of house
members (as well as related non-house members) centuries after death
in different areas, and the reburial of looted or desecrated remains, could
all have characterized Maya mortuary behaviour. Like tombs in Europe,
élite Maya collective chambers show large variation and thus tomb
formation may have been the result of similar strategies. Both monu-
ments and archaeological evidence suggest that the ancient Maya, like
the nobles of Europe, not only fulfilled ritual obligations but used dead

05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:01 pm Page 396

396 Journal of Social Archaeology 4(3)

Figure 6 Simultaneous deposition into multiple Maya crypts and tombs. (A)
Kaminaljuyu Tomb B-II (Kidder et al., 1946: Fig. 32); (B) Tonina Burial IV-6
(Becquelin and Baudez, 1979: Fig. 59); (C) Zaculeu Grave 4–1 (Woodbury and
Trik, 1953: Fig. 47)

05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:01 pm Page 397

Weiss-Krejci Mortuary representations of the noble house 397

bodies to redefine or create relations and to legitimize status and rights
(Fitzsimmons, 2002; McAnany, 1995). It is their concrete and complex
quality that makes dead bodies highly effective political symbols. Bones,
corpses, coffins and urns can be moved around, displayed, strategically
located in specific places to localize a claim and their life stories – as indi-
viduals or as a group – can be used by different people to very different
ends (Verdery, 1999: 27–9). Piedras Negras Stela 40 depicts Ruler 4, who
was not Ruler 3’s son, performing a ceremony at his mother’s tomb
exactly 83 Tzolk’in after Ruler 2’s death. Tikal Altar 5 shows Jasaw Chan
K’awiil I (Ruler A) of Tikal and a lord from Maasal, one of Tikal’s
enemies in the Early Classic, exhuming the bones of a noble lady in AD
711 (Martin and Grube, 2000: 37, 46, 149). A Late Classic Tikal ruler,
most likely Nuun Ujol Chaak, used Temple 33 for burial, a structure that
for more than 200 years only housed the tomb of Siyaj Chan K’awiil
(Fitzsimmons, 2002: 399).
Unfortunately, at present, a firmer link between burials and Maya
politics and therefore a more satisfying interpretation of Maya tombs
(especially for those excavated long ago) is often not possible. In the future,
physical anthropologists will hopefully play a more important role during
excavation of human remains (Saul and Saul, 2002) and be able to clarify
the question of reburial versus disturbance of bones in situ. Additionally,
it might be desirable to date reburied bones since reburials often bring
together bones from different places and time periods after hundreds of
years. Not only are tomb composition and patterns of reburial material
witnesses to social conditions and political events, but artefacts and archi-
tecture can also serve as a means to track group identity through time and
space. When European high-ranking women got married and had to move
to distant areas they were often responsible for the rapid spread of new art
styles and cultural traditions (Duggan, 1997). Intermarriage with foreign
women, for example, may explain the rare appearance of Pre-classic
pentagonal tombs at Tikal and Nakbe, a tomb type that is common in
Oaxaca (Hansen, 1998: 93). The presence of almost identical ceramics in
Maya tombs that are hundreds of kilometres apart may not just reflect
trade, but could also indicate that these items were brought by new house
members or deposited by related inhabitants of distant regions when
attending the funeral.
To examine collective élite tombs and crypts from the perspective of the
house opens exciting new paths for interpretation and leads far beyond
broad generalizations of burial deposits. Clearly the understanding of
burials and ‘dead-body politics’ (Verdery, 1999: 3) must rest on a specific
understanding of the society that produced them, understanding of political
symbolism, of death rituals and beliefs, and a society’s ideas about what
constitutes a proper burial. It must also be taken into account that unique
historical circumstances have contributed to shape each deposit. In this

05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:01 pm Page 398

398 Journal of Social Archaeology 4(3)

process, analogy (Wylie, 2002: 152–3), if justified on the basis of parallel
structural features, can be a powerful tool to tackle questions for which no
empirical answers exist.

Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Austrian Science Foundation (FWF-Project H140-
SPR). I also wish to acknowledge the Portuguese Science Foundation, without
whose support (FCT project SFRH/BPD/8608/2002) I would not have been able to
finish this article. I would like to thank Susan Gillespie, Rosemary Joyce, Roxana
Waterson and Alison Wylie for providing literature and Steven Weiss for reading
earlier versions of the manuscript. My special thanks go to Lynn Meskell, Lyn
Taylor and Jeremy Toynbee for seeing this article through the publication process
and to all anonymous reviewers for their extensive and extremely helpful comments
and suggestions.

References
Agrinier, P. (1964) ‘The Archaeological Burials at Chiapa de Corzo and their Furni-
ture’, Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation No. 16, Publication
12. Provo: Brigham Young University.
Andrews, E.W., IV and E.W. Andrews, V (1980) Excavations at Dzibilchaltun,
Yucatan, Mexico. Middle American Research Institute, Publication 48. New
Orleans: Tulane University.
Anonymous (n.d.) The Royal Chapel and Cathedral of Granada. Barcelona:
Editorial Escudo.
Antonaccio, C.M. (1995) An Archaeology of Ancestors: Tomb Cult and Hero Cult
in Early Greece. London: Rowman and Littlefield.
Armendariz, A., F. Etxeberria and L. Herrasti (2000) ‘Los Restos Humanos de San
Juan de Ortega’, in V.O. Jorge (ed.) Contributos das Ciências e das Tecnologias
para a Arqueologia da Península Ibérica, Actas do 3. Congreso de Arqueologia
Peninsular Vol. IX, pp. 391–98. Oporto: Adecap.
Becker, M.J. (1992) ‘Burials as Caches, Caches as Burials: A New Interpretation of
the Meaning of Ritual Deposits among the Classic Period Lowland Maya’, in
E.C. Danien and R.J. Sharer (eds) New Theories on the Ancient Maya, pp.
185–96. University Museum Monograph 77. Philadelphia, PA: The University
Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
Becker, M.J. (1996) ‘Medieval Mortuary Customs in Italy: Skull Relocations and
other Unusual Burial Procedures’, Archeologia Medievale XXIII: 699–714.
Becker, U. (2000) ‘Genealogie Karls V., väterliche Linie’, in W. Seipl (ed.) Kaiser
Karl V (1500–1558): Macht und Ohnmacht Europas, p. 109. Vienna: Kunst-
historisches Museum.
Becquelin, P. and C.F. Baudez (1979) Toniná, Une Cité Maya du Chiapas (Mexique).
Etudes Mesoamericaines, Vol. 6, Tome 1. Mexico: Mission Archeologique et
Ethnologique Française au Mexique.
Binski, P. (1996) Medieval Death: Ritual and Representation. London: British
Museum Press.

05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:01 pm Page 399

Weiss-Krejci Mortuary representations of the noble house 399

Bloch, M. (1971) Placing the Dead: Tombs, Ancestral Villages, and Kinship Organiz-
ation in Madagascar. London: Seminar Press.
Bonney, R. (1991) The European Dynastic States 1494–1660. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Brady, J. (1995) ‘A Reassessment of the Chronology and Function of Gordon’s Cave
#3, Copan, Honduras’, Ancient Mesoamerica 6: 29–38.
Carsten, J. and S. Hugh-Jones (1995) ‘Introduction’, in J. Carsten and S. Hugh-Jones
(eds) About the House: Lévi-Strauss and Beyond, pp. 1–46. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Chance, J.K. (2000) ‘The Noble House in Colonial Puebla, Mexico: Descent, Inher-
itance, and the Nahua Tradition’, American Anthropologist 102: 485–502.
Chase, D.Z. (1994) ‘Human Osteology, Pathology, and Demography as
Represented in the Burials of Caracol, Belize’, in D.Z. Chase and A.Z. Chase
(eds) Studies in the Archaeology of Caracol, Belize, pp. 123–38, Monograph 7.
San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute.
Chase, D.Z. and A.F. Chase (1996) ‘Maya Multiples: Individuals, Entries, and
Tombs in Structure A34 of Caracol, Belize’, Latin American Antiquity 7: 61–79.
Chase, D.Z. and A.F. Chase (2003) ‘Secular, Sagrado y “Revisitado”: La
Profanación, Alteración y Reconsagración de los Antiguos Entierros Mayas’, in
A. Ciudad Ruiz, M.H. Ruz Sosa and M.J. Iglesias Ponce de León (eds)
Antropología de la Eternidad: La Muerte en la Cultura Maya, pp. 255–77. Madrid:
Sociedad Española de Estudios Mayas y Centro de Estudios Mayas.
Coe, W.R. (1959) Piedras Negras Archaeology. Artifacts, Caches, and Burials.
University Museum Monographs, 4. Philadelphia: The University Museum,
University of Pennsylvania.
Coe, W.R. (1965) ‘Tikal. Ten Years of Study of a Maya Ruin in the Lowlands of
Guatemala’, Expedition 8: 5–56.
Coe, W.R. (1990) Excavations in the Great Plaza, North Terrace and North
Acropolis of Tikal. University Museum Monograph, 61. Tikal Report, 14.
Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
Daniell, C. (1997) Death and Burial in Medieval England: 1066–1550. London:
Routledge.
Duggan, A.J. (1997) ‘Introduction’, in A. Duggan (ed.) Queens and Queenship in
Medieval Europe, pp. xv–xxii. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press.
Fash, W., R. Williamson, C. Larios and J. Palka (1992) ‘The Hieroglyphic Stairway
and its Ancestors: Investigations of Copan Structure 10L-26’, Ancient Meso-
america 3: 105–15.
Fitzsimmons, J.L. (1998) ‘Classic Maya Mortuary Anniversaries at Piedras Negras,
Guatemala’, Ancient Mesoamerica 9: 271–78.
Fitzsimmons, J.L. (2002) ‘Death and the Maya: Language and Archaeology in
Classic Maya Mortuary Ceremonialism’, PhD dissertation, Dept. of Anthro-
pology, Harvard University.
Fox, J.A. and J.S. Justeson (1986) ‘Classic Maya Dynastic Alliance and Succession’,
in R. Spores (ed.) Ethnohistory. Supplement to the Handbook of Middle
American Indians, Vol. 4, pp. 7–34. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Fox, J.J. (1987) ‘The House as a Type of Social Organization on the Island of Roti,
Indonesia’, in C. Macdonald (ed.) De la Hutte au Palais: Sociétés ‘à Maison’ en
Asie du Sud-Est Insulaire, pp. 171–8. Paris: Editions du CNRS.

05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:01 pm Page 400

400 Journal of Social Archaeology 4(3)

Gerbert, M., M. Herrgott and R. Heer (1772) Monumenta Augustae Domus Austri-
acae Vol. 4: Taphographia Principium Austriae, Monumenta Augustae Domus.
St Blasien: Austriae.
Gillespie, S.D. (2000a) ‘Rethinking Ancient Maya Social Organization: Replacing
“Lineage” with “House” ’ , American Anthropologist 102: 467–84.
Gillespie, S.D. (2000b) ‘Beyond Kinship: An Introduction’, in R.A. Joyce and S.D.
Gillespie (eds) Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House
Societies, pp. 1–21. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Gillespie, S.D. (2000c) ‘Lévi-Strauss: Maison and Société a Maisons’, in R.A.
Joyce and S.D. Gillespie (eds) Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Repro-
duction in House Societies, pp. 22–52. Philadelphia, PA: University of Penn-
sylvania Press.
Gillespie, S.D. (2001) ‘Personhood, Agency, and Mortuary Ritual: A Case Study
from the Ancient Maya’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20: 73–112.
Gut, J. (1999) ‘Memorialorte der Habsburger im Südwesten des Alten Reiches: Poli-
tische Hintergründe und Aspekte’, in Württembergisches Landesmuseum
Stuttgart (ed.) Vorderösterreich nur die Schwanzfeder des Kaiseradlers? Die
Habsburger im deutschen Südwesten, pp. 94–113. Ulm: Süddeutsche Verlagsge-
sellschaft.
Hamann, B. (1988) ‘Die Herrscherdynastie Habsburg’, in B. Hamann (ed.) Die
Habsburger, pp. 11–25. Vienna: Ueberreuter.
Hammond, N., K. Pretty and F. Saul (1975) ‘A Classic Maya Family Tomb’, World
Archaeology 7: 57–78.
Hansen, R.D. (1998) ‘Continuity and Disjunction: The Pre-Classic Antecedents of
Classic Maya Architecture’, in S.D. Houston (ed.) Function and Meaning in
Classic Maya Architecture, pp. 49–122. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and Collection.
Hawlik-van de Water, M. (1993) Die Kapuzinergruft. Vienna: Herder.
Healy, P., J. Awe and H. Helmuth (1998) ‘An Ancient Maya Multiple Burial at Cale-
donia, Cayo District, Belize’, Journal of Field Archaeology 25: 261–74.
Houston, S.D. (1998) ‘Finding Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture’,
in S.D. Houston (ed.) Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture, pp.
519–38. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
Houston, S.D., H. Escobedo, D. Forsyth, P. Hardin, D. Webster and L. Wright
(1998) ‘On the River of Ruins: Explorations at Piedras Negras, Guatemala,
1997’, Mexicon 20: 16–22.
Hutchinson, D.L. and L.V. Aragon (2002) ‘Collective Burials and Community
Memories: Interpreting the Placement of the Dead in the Southeastern and Mid-
Atlantic United States with Reference to Ethnographic Cases from Indonesia’,
in H. Silverman and D.B. Small (eds) The Space and Place of Death, pp. 27–54.
Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 11. Arling-
ton: American Anthropological Association.
Iannone, G. (2002) ‘Annales History and the Ancient Maya State: Some Obser-
vations on the “Dynamic Model” ’ , American Anthropologist 104: 68–78.
Iglesias Ponce de León, M.J. (2003) ‘Problematical Deposits and the Problem of
Interaction: The Material Culture of Tikal during the Early Classic Period’, in
G.E. Braswell (ed.) The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting Early Classic
Interaction, pp. 167–98. Austin: University of Texas Press.

05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:01 pm Page 401

Weiss-Krejci Mortuary representations of the noble house 401

Jacobi, K.P. (2000) Last Rites for the Tipu Maya. Genetic Structuring in a Colonial
Cemetery. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press.
Jahn, A. (2001) Das Haus Habsburg Vol. 2/2: Die Grabstätten der Habsburger und
der mit ihnen verwandten Häuser in Österreichs Kirchen. Vienna: Alois Jahn.
Jäschke, K.-U. (1997) ‘From Famous Empresses to Unspectacular Queens: The
Romano-German Empire to Margaret of Brabant, Countess of Luxemburg and
Queen of the Romans (d. 1311)’, in A. Duggan (ed.) Queens and Queenship in
Medieval Europe, pp. 75–108. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press.
Joyce, R.A. (2000) ‘Heirlooms and Houses: Materiality and Social Memory’, in R.A.
Joyce and S.D. Gillespie (eds) Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduc-
tion in House Societies, pp. 189–212. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylva-
nia Press.
Kidder, A.V., J.D. Jennings and E.M. Shook (1946) Excavations at Kaminaljuyu,
Guatemala. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 561. Washington DC:
Carnegie Institution of Washington.
Klimm, F. (1953) Der Kaiserdom zu Speyer. Speyer: Jaeger.
Laporte, J.P. and V. Fialko (1987) ‘La Ceramica del Clásico Temprano Desde
Mundo Perdido, Tikal. Una Reevaluación’, in P.M. Rice and R.J. Sharer (eds)
Maya Ceramics, papers from the 1985 Maya Ceramic Conference, pp. 123–81.
BAR International Series 345 Part 1. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Lein, E. (1978) Begräbnisstätten der Alt-Habsburger in Österreich. Rudolf I. – Karl
VI. Vienna: Lein-Neubacher.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1982) The Way of the Masks. Sylvia Modelski [trans]. Seattle:
University of Washington Press.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1983) ‘Histoire et ethnologie’, Annales 38: 1217–31.
Lockyer, R. (1974) Habsburg and Bourbon Europe 1470–1720. London: Longman.
Martin, S. (1999) ‘The Baby Jaguar: Dynastic Legitimation and Matrilineal Descent
at Early Classic Tikal’, paper presented at the Palenque Round Table.
Martin, S. and N. Grube (1995) ‘Maya Superstates’, Archaeology 48(6): 41–6.
Martin, S. and N. Grube (2000) Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens. London:
Thames and Hudson.
Martínez Cuesta, J. (1992) Guide to the Monastery of San Lorenzo El Real. Madrid:
Editorial Patrimonio Nacional.
McAnany, P. (1995) Living with the Ancestors: Kinship and Kingship in Ancient
Maya Society. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.
McAnany, P. (1998) ‘Ancestors and the Classic Maya Built Environment’, in S.D.
Houston (ed.) Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture, pp. 271–98.
Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
Metcalf, P. and R. Huntington (1991) Celebrations of Death: The Anthropology of
Mortuary Ritual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meyer, R.J. (2000) ‘Königs- und Kaiserbegräbnisse im Spätmittelalter. Beihefte zu
J.F. Böhmer’, Regesta Imperii 19. Cologne: Böhlau.
Middleton, W.D., G.M. Feinmann and G. Molina Villegas (1998) ‘Tomb Use and
Reuse in Oaxaca, Mexico’, Ancient Mesoamerica 9: 297–307.
Ohler, N. (1990) Sterben und Tod im Mittelalter. Munich: Artemis.
Palka, J.W. (1996) ‘Sociopolitical Implications of a New Emblem Glyph and Place
Name in Classic Maya Inscriptions’, Latin American Antiquity 7: 211–27.
Robin, C. and N. Hammond (1991) ‘Burial Practices’, in N. Hammond (ed.) Cuello:

05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:01 pm Page 402

402 Journal of Social Archaeology 4(3)

An Early Maya Community in Belize, pp. 204–25. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ruz Lhuillier, A. (1955) ‘Exploraciones en Palenque: 1952’, Anales del Instituto
Nacional de Antropología e Historia 6(34): 79–112.
Ruz Lhuillier, A. (1962) ‘Exploraciones arqueológicas en Palenque: 1957’, Anales
del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia 14(43): 35–90.
Ruz Lhuillier, A. (1968) Costumbres Funerarias de los Antiguos Mayas. Mexico:
Unam.
Saul, F.P. (1972) ‘The Human Skeletal Remains of Altar de Sacrificios. An Osteo-
biographic Analysis’, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnol-
ogy 63, No. 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Saul, J.M. and F.P. Saul (1997) ‘The Preclassic Skeletons from Cuello’, in S.L. Whit-
tington and D.M. Reed (eds) Bones of the Maya: Studies of Ancient Skeletons,
pp. 28–50. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
Saul, J.M. and F.P. Saul (2002) ‘Forensics, Archaeology, and Taphonomy: The
Symbolic Relationship’, in W.D. Haglund and M.H. Sorg (eds) Advances in
Forensic Taphonomy: Method, Theory, and Archaeological Perspectives, pp.
71–97. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Schele, L. and P. Mathews (1991) ‘Royal Visits and other Intersite Relationships
among the Classic Maya’, in T.P. Culbert (ed.) Classic Maya Political History,
pp. 226–52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmid, K. (1957) ‘Zur Problematik von Familie, Sippe und Geschlecht, Haus und
Dynastie beim mittelalterlichen Adel’, Zeitschrift für Geschichte des Oberrheins
105: 1–62.
Sharer, R.J., L.P. Traxler, D. Sedat, E. Bell, M. Canuto and C. Powell (1999) ‘Early
Classic Architecture beneath the Copan Acropolis: A Research Update’,
Ancient Mesoamerica 10: 3–23.
Shook, E.M. and A.V. Kidder (1952) ‘Mound E-III-3, Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala’,
Contributions to American Anthropology and History, 53. Carnegie Institution
of Washington Publication 596. Washington DC: Carnegie Institution of
Washington.
Smith, A.L. (1950) Uaxactun, Guatemala: Excavations of 1931–1937, Publication
588. Washington DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington.
Smith, A.L. (1951) ‘Field Work’ Excavations at Nebaj, Guatemala. Carnegie Insti-
tution of Washington Publication 594, pp. 10–31. Washington DC: Carnegie Insti-
tution of Washington.
Smith, A.L. (1955) Archaeological Reconnaissance in Central Guatemala. Carnegie
Institution of Washington Publication 608. Washington DC: Carnegie Institution
of Washington.
Smith, A.L. and A.V. Kidder (1943) Explorations in the Motagua Valley, Guatemala.
Contributions to American Anthropology and History, 41. Carnegie Institution
of Washington Publication 546. Washington DC: Carnegie Institution of
Washington.
Smith, A.L. and A.V. Kidder (1951) Excavations at Nebaj, Guatemala. Carnegie
Institution of Washington Publication 594. Washington DC: Carnegie Institution
of Washington.
Storey, R. (1992) ‘The Children of Copan’, Ancient Mesoamerica 3: 161–7.
Störmer, W. (1980) ‘Die Hausklöster der Wittelsbacher’, in H. Glaser (ed.) Die Zeit

05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:01 pm Page 403

Weiss-Krejci Mortuary representations of the noble house 403

der frühen Herzöge: Von Otto I. zu Ludwig dem Bayern, pp. 139–50. Munich:
Hirmer.
Stuart, D. (1998) ‘ “ The Fire Enters His House”: Architecture and Ritual in Classic
Maya Texts’, in S.D. Houston (ed.) Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Archi-
tecture, pp. 373–425. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Collection.
Stuart, D. (2000) ‘ “ The Arrival of Strangers”: Teotihuacan and Tollan in Classic
Maya History’, in D. Carrasco, L. Jones and S. Sessions (eds) Mesoamerica’s
Classic Heritage: From Teotihuacan to the Aztecs, pp. 465–513. Boulder, CO:
University Press of Colorado.
Tiesler Blos, V., A. Cucina and A. Romano Pacheco (2002) ‘Vida y Muerte del
Personaje en el Templo XIII-sub, Palenque: I. Culto Funerario y Sacrificio
Humano’, Mexicon 24: 75–8.
Timmermann, B. (1996) Die Begräbnisstätten der Habsburger in Wien. Vienna:
Modulverlag.
Trik, A.S. (1953) ‘Architecture, Graves’, in R.B. Woodbury and A.S. Trik (eds) The
Ruins of Zaculeu, Guatemala Vol. 1, pp. 24–111. Richmond: The William Byrd
Press.
Ucko, P.J. (1969) ‘Ethnography and Archaeological Interpretation of Funerary
Remains’, World Archaeology 1: 262–80.
Ulrich-Bochsler, S. (1997) Anthropologische Befunde zur Stellung von Frau und
Kind in Mittelalter und Neuzeit. Bern: Berner Lehrmittel und Medienverlag.
Verdery, K. (1999) The Political Lives of Dead Bodies: Reburial and Postsocialist
Change. New York: Columbia University Press.
Vocelka, K. and L. Heller (1997) Die Lebenswelt der Habsburger: Kultur- und
Mentalitätsgeschichte einer Familie. Graz: Styria.
Waterson, R. (1995a) ‘Houses and Hierarchies in Island Southeast Asia’, in J.
Carsten and S. Hugh-Jones (eds) About the House: Lévi-Strauss and Beyond,
pp. 47–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Waterson, R. (1995b) ‘Houses, Graves and the Limits of Kinship Groupings
among the Sa’dan Toraja’, Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 151:
194–217.
Weiss-Krejci, E. (2001) ‘Restless Corpses. “Secondary Burial” in the Babenberg and
Habsburg Dynasties’, Antiquity 75: 769–80.
Weiss-Krejci, E. (2003) ‘Victims of Human Sacrifice in Multiple Tombs of the
Ancient Maya: A Critical Review’, in A. Ciudad Ruiz, M.H. Ruz Sosa and M.J.
Iglesias Ponce de León (eds) Antropología de la Eternidad: La Muerte en la
Cultura Maya, pp. 355–81. Madrid: Sociedad Española de Estudios Mayas y
Centro de Estudios Mayas.
Welsh, W.B.M. (1988) An Analysis of Classic Lowland Maya Burials, BAR Inter-
national Series, 409. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Wolfsgruber, C. (1887) Die Kaisergruft bei den Kapuzinern in Wien. Vienna: Alfred
Hölder.
Woodbury, R.B. and A.S. Trik (1953) The Ruins of Zaculeu, Guatemala. Richmond:
The William Byrd Press.
Wylie, A. (1988) ‘ “ Simple” Analogy and the Role of Relevance Assumptions:
Implications of Archaeological Practice’, International Studies in the Philosophy
of Science 2: 134–50.

05 weiss (ds) 6/9/04 2:01 pm Page 404

404 Journal of Social Archaeology 4(3)

Wylie, A. (2002) Thinking from Things: Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology.
Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

ESTELLA WEISS-KREJCI holds a PhD from the University of Vienna,
Austria and is currently conducting research at the University of Oporto,
Portugal. Her work includes cross-cultural investigations of mortuary
behaviour with emphasis on the ancient Maya, medieval and post-
medieval Europe and Neolithic and Chalcolithic Iberia. Her other field of
research is ancient Maya water storage facilities, which she has investi-
gated during several field seasons in Belize.
[email:
[email protected]