“I beseech you by your life and knees…give me in death my due rite of burning” (Iliad 22:306-344)

In one of this week’s reading assignments an argument was put forth about the agency of the dead (Williams 2004). To put it simply, Williams (2004) was arguing that the view of corpses purely as objects acted upon through the agency of the living such as through manipulation for socio-political display and legitimization of power, lineage, etc. overlooks the corpse as a ‘focus of personhood and reminiscence.’ While I agree with Williams that the dead do seem to exert a certain psychological agency over us, for example through fear or awe of the corpse, in the practical sense the dead cannot act. We can write wills, we can create belief systems surrounding the power of the dead, and we can establish our desired final resting place before our death by building a tomb or buying a grave plot but I would argue that once you are deceased you lose the power of action.

Williams presents his case by examining the cremation process in early Anglo-Saxon Britain. He argues that the processes of cremation and destruction of the body, such as the moaning and twitching of the body produced by the cremation process, could have been interpreted as the deceased’s agency in their transformation process (Williams 2004). Perhaps my mind is too entrenched in modern ideologies about the dead but I did not find his argument convinced me of the agency of the dead. He makes an interesting point about the processes of memory-making and the complex relationship we have with the dead but reading the article brought to mind a multitude of historical instances when bodies were purposely mutilated or not given proper burial rights(according to their belief system).

I admit the first thing that popped into my head as Williams talked about agency the dead and memory-making was the description of the death of Hector in the Iliad. After being killed by Achilles Hector’s corpse was dragged around behind Achille’s chariot while his (Hector’s) family and countrymen looked on helplessly:

So he spoke, and then he put glorious Hektor to shameful treatment. He cut through behind the tendons of both feet from heel to ankle, and pulled straps of ox-hide through them which he tied fast to his chariot, so the head would be left to drag. Then he mounted the chariot and lifted the famous armour into it, and whipped the horses on, and they flew eagerly on their way. As Hetkor was dragged behind, a cloud of dust arose from him, his dark hair streamed out round him, and all that once handsome head was sunk in dust: but Zeus had given him to his enemies to defile him in his own native land (Iliad 22:384-423).

That to me is a pretty bold statement in memory-making; it left quite an impression on me just reading about it in spite of being far removed from the situation. Although Hector was eventually allowed burial rights, the humiliation and dishonour of the treatment of his corpse seems to me to be a specific statement of the power and agency of the living over the dead. There are many cultures and situations in which corpses were denied the burial rights they required as a punishment for crimes, suicides, or defeats in war (Lindenlauf 2001). For example, in Ancient Greece temple-robbers who were executed were dishonoured by throwing their corpses into the sea rather than being given a proper burial according to the customs of the time (Lindenlauf 2001). Similarly in the Roman Empire individuals accused of treason would often be denied proper burial rights. Their bodies would be mutilated and then exposed so they would not be recognizable to their kin in this world or even in the Underworld (Kyle 1998). Even the recent identification of Richard the III’s skeleton brought up similar thoughts for me. He was vanquished in battle and as such had many  ‘humiliation’ wounds inflicted on his body as well as having the humiliation of having his naked body exposed to the people of Leicester symbolizing his defeat (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/04/us-britain-richard-idUSBRE9130BW20130204).

I would argue that all of these practices are designed to deny the corpse any agency. They seek to humiliate and dishonour the deceased to highlight the corpses’ lack of control over their fate and to emphasize the agency of the living over them. The examples I have given seem to me to be clear statements of who ultimately has the power and control over memory-making. To me they say, ‘I can do whatever I want to you including denying you access to the afterlife because I hold all the power.” Perhaps I am too entrenched in my own culture’s ideologies about death and the human body but to me a corpse lacks the ability to think or act which ultimately leaves agency in the thoughts and actions of the living.

References:

Holden M. 2013. After 500 years, Richard III’s bones yield their secret. Reuters, Feb. 4 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/04/us-britain-richard-idUSBRE9130BW20130204).

Homer. Iliad. Ed. M Hammond. 1987. London: Penguin 22: 306-423

Kyle DG. 1998. Death, disposal and damnation of humans: Some methods and messages. In Spectacles of death in ancient Rome, 4: 128-133. London: Routledge

Lindenlauf A. 2001. Thrown away like rubbish: Disposal of the dead in ancient Greece. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 12: 86-99

Williams, H. 2004.Death warmed up: the agency of bodies and bones in early Anglo-Saxon cremation rites, Journal of Material Culture 9(3): 263-91