This is a ‘Lit’ Review

Matthew Engelke, The Anthropology of Death Revisited
Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 48, p. 29-44

I know not a single name in the reference list. Now, this is not a failure of Engelke as if he cannot do good, robust research. It is a failure of myself for not having done more expansive reading.

Despite my research being much related to the dead, it cares very little about their death. It cares about what was left after, and why, and that question pertains much more to the choices of the living and their society as opposed to death itself. So, this is a good piece to delve into to flesh out (no pun intended) an overarching understanding of death and all it has to offer.

From what I know of death, Engelke covers the vast majority of fundamental considerations: how disease can impact mortuary practices, rituals and rites, a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ death, commemorative practices, collective identities and communities in contrast to individualism, movement from death being in the home to becoming more removed in medicine and politics, death as sacrifice (an exchange, a gift), and that the dead are very much there as heavy symbols and their absence can often be more impactful than their presence. Woo, a lot to cover in ten meagre pages.

Overall, Engelke’s revisiting of the anthropology of death seems robust, well cited and researched, and well understood. He writes confidently, making smooth connections between topics and drawing attention to the aforementioned key points. Never do you doubt his assertions. Bold titles have been given to each section that immediately let the reader know what’s coming (a section called ‘The Corpse’ could truly only be about one thing). His style is clear, to his points, and grounded, yet unafraid to cover vast swaths of educational territory.

He also makes sure to bring in dozens of – albeit brief – examples from across the world, looking at places such as Sierra Leone, Ghana, Madagascar, America, Britain, and even the Siberian North. Of course, no article will ever be able to encompass every group, culture, nation, or town. It would have been simple for him to cherry-pick that which he found most interesting, or take a Westernized point of view, but he truly does an anthropology of death as opposed to death in these few spaces I deemed worthy! Engelke takes into consideration the ways of many peoples and cultures, giving fair treatment on a larger scale.

My one qualm is the occasional choice of words. It is especially noticeable given the way the article is structured – simply, easy to digest even for those inexperienced in the realm. And though not detrimental to the reading experience overall, stumbling across “it behooves us to recognize these findings and lacunae” can jolt a reader out of the immersion of the text – triggering fight or flight, sending us right off to Google what ‘lacunae’ means (lacuna, a void). It suddenly seems a bit holier-than-thou, a bit too highbrow, especially when it comes in closing giving that the majority of the article is in perfect common language. Deviation into more fanciful linguistics can be fun, but in Engelke’s writing these just turn into diversions – thankfully, there are few of them.

Further, the article hones in purely on the sociocultural approaches to death, which leaves out interests of those who which to understand (and later compare) death practices and ideals from the past. Everything written of is very firmly situated in the present, or at least very recent past, with little mentions made to traditions of death practices even in those that are continued from the past into modern day. The Orthodox rites of exhumation and the crisis caused by Ebola in Sierra Leone are mentioned and briefly described, but there is no mention of where the exhumation or cleaning and wrapping practices come from, or really why they matter except for the fact it contributes to a ‘good death,’ but no mention of what the repercussions are for a ‘bad death.’ This is intended to be a sociocultural article, and for this, it serves its job well, but those who hoped for a little more depth into the history of it all will be left hungry for more.

Being honest, I am not the person to review this article. I am a girl with one class in the Anthropology of Death under her belt. In my eyes, the article was enlightening, easy to read, and provided a lot of places for further research and increased interest. I cannot claim Engelke misses anything intrinsically important because I’ve no idea what is intrinsically important. Frankly, even if this was a ‘review of historical cemetery studies’ I would not be able to say what is missing down to a finite level. I know the basic topics, some key writers. It is guaranteed I would miss tons of people, simply due to the limited time I have to compile it and read writings, but also due to the fact it is impossible for anyone to read everything from their field. To the inexperienced eye, Engelke hits all the points I expected, and added even more juicy detail. Maybe this is my failure as a reviewer, to not offer up much of disagreement or question, but I can fail – just this once – and be okay with it.

Given that the article was published in 2019, its compilation is still fairly up to date. At its conclusion, Engelke asserts that there seems to be no signs of slowing in the disciplines growth, especially as one assesses the spaces that still need to be filled. The truth is, people will never stop dying, and so there is never a need to stop researching any and all questions related to death. But, if the archaeologist wishes to be satisfied by this reading, they will be left starving for more. That is the benefit of the hereby unknown reading list – it provides much food for thought.

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102218-011420