On Brück's Article on Identity in Early Bronze Age Burials

Brück's article on identity in Early Bronze Age burials focused on suggesting an alternative way to reconstruct identity. She begins by taking a critical look at the current trend of identity reconstruction in bronze age burials. These are usually focused at understanding the individual's identity as represented by grave goods. Specifically, these grave goods are thought to represent something individual about the person. Brück suggests that this is a point of view which is heavily influenced by the modern idea of an individual.

Instead, Brück focuses on ways in which the material goods found in a burial could be seen as representations of the communicatory links between peoples and groups. In other words, grave goods are not a representation of an individual's attributes, but rather a representation of how an individual interacted with other people and groups, or a relationship network.

In order to make this argument, Brück looks at several aspects of grave goods and talks about specific examples where the grave goods were not likely belonging to the individual, or where they could just as easily have belonged to others. One example was that of a child which was buried with bronze rings which would have been too large for the individual to have worn while alive. Another is in a particular grave where there was evidence of beads which were burned when the individual was wearing during their cremation. In addition, there were jet and amber beads which were not burned, and were placed in such a way that they were most likely part of two different assemblages. These beads would have been added to the burial after the individual was cremated. While these could have been the individuals items previous to burial, they were certainly not part of the individual's identity when they were cremated. This addition of material during the burial rite at a later time suggests that others were adding items. These items could then be interpreted as being indicators of the relational network which the deceased held, as opposed to indications of the individual's attributes.

Another process which Brück talks about is leaving items in the grave which are related to the burial process. For example, instead of leather working tools being related to the individual, they may have instead been the tools that were used in the final preparation of the leather for the deceased. In this way, the tools would then be representative of the processes of burial instead of the individual's attributes. Her prime example of this is an individual with stone tools which all came from the same core, suggesting that they were purposefully made for the burial.

While I don't agree with all of Brück's examples and interpretations, I feel that she has brought a new voice into the idea of identity. An individual's identity will be unique, but it is important to remember that the said identity