From Funeral Monuments to Household Pottery: Current advances in Funnel Beaker Culture (TRB/TBK) research: Proceedings of the Borger Meetings 2009, The Netherlands 9781407310855, 9781407340562

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
Introduction
CHAPTER 1: ANCESTORS AND DESCENDANTS FROM MEGALITHIC PAST TO MEGALITHIC FUTURE
CHAPTER 2: THE TRB CULTURE IN THE NETHERLANDS
CHAPTER 3: THE RITUALISATION OF FLINT IN TRB SOCIETY: EVIDENCE FROM THE WEST GROUP
CHAPTER 4: RIDERS ON THE STORM. AMBER ORNAMENTS AS PIECES OF PLACES IN THE DUTCH FUNNEL BEAKER CULTURE
CHAPTER 5: NEIGHBOURS IN WESTPHALIA? THE HESSIAN-WESTPHALIAN GALLERY GRAVES AND THEIR CONNECTIONS TO THE FUNNEL BEAKER CULTURE
CHAPTER 6: LANDSCAPES AS SOCIAL SPACES AND RITUAL MEANING: SOME NEW RESULTS ON TRB IN NORTHERN GERMANY
CHAPTER 7: ROUND, OVAL OR RECTANGULAR? THE SHAPE OF TUMULI COVERING FUNNEL BEAKER BURIALS - SOME OLD IDEAS REVISED
CHAPTER 8: ‘OPEN DOLMENS’ – A MATTER OF DECAY?
CHAPTER 9: THE CAUSEWAYED ENCLOSURES AND THEIR SETTLEMENT LANDSCAPE AT SARUP, DENMARK
CHAPTER 10: DÖSERYGG AND THE SKEGRIE DOLMENS
CHAPTER 11: STONES FOR THE ANCESTORS - RED LIMESTONE AND CLEFT ROCKS
CHAPTER 12: THE USE OF AMBER IN THE SCANDINAVIAN STONE AGE
CHAPTER 13: TRANSFORMATION BY FIRE: A LOCALITY FOR ASSEMBLIES DURING THE EARLY NEOLITHIC FUNNEL BEAKER CULTURE IN CENTRAL SWEDEN
CHAPTER 14: NORTH OF THE ‘NORTH-GROUP’? THE TRB OF MÄLARDALEN AND BERGSLAGEN, EASTERN CENTRAL SWEDEN
CHAPTER 15: ON ‘WESTERN CIRCUMSTANCES’ IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITIES OF THE RADZIEJÓW GROUP OF THE FUNNEL BEAKER CULTURE
CHAPTER 16: COMMUNITIES OF THE FUNNEL BEAKER CULTURE DURING THE ERA OF ERECTING MONUMENTAL TOMBS IN THE TERRITORY OF POLAND: RITUALS, VESSELS AND SOCIAL DIVISIONS

Citation preview

BAR S2474 2013 BAKKER, BLOO & DÜTTING (Eds) FROM FUNERAL MONUMENTS TO HOUSEHOLD POTTERY

B A R

From Funeral Monuments to Household Pottery Current advances in Funnel Beaker Culture (TRB/TBK) research Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009, The Netherlands

Edited by

J. A. Bakker S. B. C. Bloo M. K. Dütting

BAR International Series 2474 2013

From Funeral Monuments to Household Pottery Current advances in Funnel Beaker Culture (TRB/TBK) research Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009, The Netherlands

Edited by

J. A. Bakker S. B.C. Bloo M. K. Dütting

BAR International Series 2474 2013

ISBN 9781407310855 paperback ISBN 9781407340562 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407310855 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Table of Contents Introduction Chapter 1 Ancestors and Descendants from Megalithic Past to Megalithic Future Magdalena Midgley

iii 1

The TRB-West Group Chapter 2 The TRB Culture in The Netherlands Jan Albert Bakker: The TRB culture in The Netherlands Chapter 3 The Ritualisation of Flint in TRB Society: Evidence from the West Group Annelou van Gijn Chapter 4 Riders on the Storm. Amber Ornaments as Pieces of Places in the Dutch Funnel Beaker Culture Wouter Verschoof Chapter 5 Neighbours in Westphalia? The Hessian-Westphalian Gallery Graves and their Connections to the Funnel Beaker Culture Kerstin Schierhold

11

25

33

41

The TRB-North Group Chapter 6 Landscapes as Social Spaces and Ritual Meaning: Some New Results on TRB in Northern Germany Johannes Müller, Hans Rudolf Bork, Jan Piet Brozio, Denis Demnick, Sarah Diers, Hauke Dibbern, Walter Dörfler, Ingo Feeser, Barbara Fritsch, Martin Furholt, Franziska Hage, Martin Hinz, Wiebke Kirleis, Stefanie Klooß, Helmut Kroll, Matthias Lindemann, Luise Lorenz, Doris Mischka, Christoph Rinne Chapter 7 Round, Oval or Rectangular? The Shape of Tumuli Covering Funnel Beaker Burials - Some Old Ideas Revised Doris Mischka Chapter 8 ‘Open dolmens’ – a Matter of Decay? Torben Dehn Chapter 9 The Causewayed Enclosures and Their Settlement Landscape at Sarup, Denmark Niels H. Andersen Chapter 10 Döserygg and the Skegrie Dolmens New Light on the Megalithic Graves in South-west Scania, Southern Sweden Magnus Andersson and Björn Wallebom Chapter 11 Stones for the Ancestors - Red Limestone and Cleft Rocks Tony Axelsson and Peter Jankavs

i

51

81

95

111

121

135

Chapter 12 The Use of Amber in the Scandinavian Stone Age Tony Axelsson and Anders Strinnholm Chapter 13 Transformation by fire A locality for assemblies during the Early Neolithic Funnel Beaker Culture in Central Sweden Lars Larsson Chapter 14 North of the ‘North-group’? The TRB of Mälardalen and Bergslagen, Eastern Central Sweden Fredrik Hallgren

143

151

159

The TRB-East Group/South-East Group Chapter 15 On ‘Western Circumstances’ in the Development of Communities of the Radziejów Group of the Funnel Beaker Culture Agnieszka Przybył Chapter 16 Communities of the Funnel Beaker Culture During the Era of Erecting Monumental Tombs in the Territory of Poland: Rituals, Vessels and Social Divisions Kamil Adamczak

171

177

Introduction In November 2009 an international conference on the Trichterbecher Kultur (Funnel Beaker culture; TRB) was held in Borger, the Netherlands. The conference was titled: From funeral monuments to household pottery – current advances in TRB research. The aim of this conference was to bring together TRB specialists from all over the world. In principle the entire TRB culture and all of its aspects were covered in the conference: from megalithic tombs, burials, ritual deposits and pottery, to settlements and recent megalithic excavations. The organization of the conference, Hazenberg Archeologie, Dr J.A. Bakker and the Megalith Museum ‘Hunebedcentrum Borger’, aimed for the meeting to serve as a follow-up of the influential TRB conference ‘1. Internationales Trichterbechersymposium in Schleswig’, organized in 1985. The BorgerMeetings had eighteen scholars from six countries presenting the latest results of their research and three more researchers presenting their topic through posters. The researchers have rewritten their presentations into the articles found in these proceedings. The conference itself lasted four days including a field trip to nearby megalithic monuments, and counted nearly 90 participants from Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Scotland, and Sweden. The participants were both researchers and students of the TRB culture. This mix ensured an interesting conference where the regional differences and similarities of the TRB cultural groups were shown and discussed. In the final session directions for future research were pointed out. This conference was held with financial and organizational support of Hazenberg Archeologie, the Megalith Museum ‘Hunebedcentrum Borger’ and financial support of the Province of Drenthe. The organizing committee would like to express their gratitude to all the volunteers and employees of both organizations for their hard work and for turning this Borgermeeting into a smooth operation. Special thanks are due to Michiel van Poelgeest, Nadine Lemmers, Jacqui Bolt and Geeske Langejans. Our sincerest gratitude to both speakers and contributors to the conference and these proceedings, for their enthusiasm and commitment to make both possible. The proceedings are financially supported by Hazenberg Archeologie and BAR. The editors would also like to thank Monica K. Dütting for her help with the final stage of this publication.

Leiden, November 2012 Jan Albert Bakker, Simone Bloo, Tom Hazenberg (eds.)

iii

Chapter 1

Ancestors and Descendants from Megalithic Past to Megalithic Future Magdalena Midgley Abstract: The study of megaliths in north-west Europe, like all fields of archaeological enquiry, has been subject to fluctuating intellectual traditions and different dimensions of methodology and practice. Within a long-term research perspective, as Andrew Sherratt once aptly observed, these do not necessarily reflect academic fashions, but rather changing social circumstances bringing about contrasting intellectual attitudes.

With several centuries of research into the north-west European megalithic tombs - antiquarian as well as modern behind us, and against the background of an increasingly self-reflective and critical approach to our fields of enquiry, this contribution explores some of the exciting challenges which lie ahead for those who continue to engage with the mystery, power and attraction of megalithic monuments. Keywords: megaliths, antiquarians, changing paradigmss

Geoffrey Bibby, in a popular archaeology book called “The Testimony of the Spade” published in 1957, wrote about the megaliths: “These varied monuments of gigantic stones were never “discovered” – they had, in fact, never been unknown.” (Bibby 1957, 241). This circumstance puts us in a very privileged position because we have inherited a long tradition of awareness and exploration of megaliths which, ultimately, must go beyond our written records. Moreover, it puts a tremendous responsibility onto our shoulders to extend further that awareness and knowledge.

on special occasions. This folklore and ethnography are significant topics since popular views about the megaliths – the ancient lore and superstitions associated with them – have in large measure been responsible for their survival and thus are part of the overall biography of these sites. Early scholars and antiquarians were perplexed by many of the same questions which continue to exercise us today. Mediaeval scholars, such as Geoffrey of Monmouth (c. AD 1100-1155), Saxo Grammaticus (c. AD 1150-c.1220) and those that followed them over the centuries, wanted to know who was responsible for erecting these gigantic structures and who was laid to rest within them. Just as we do today, they offered interesting if conflicting answers: some opted for giants, others preferred the supernatural strength of wizards and magicians.

There is little doubt that this passage from the Anglo-Saxon poem Beowulf, composed between the mid-seventh and tenth centuries AD and describing events in Scandinavia, refers to a Danish passage grave: “… a dragon on the prowl from the steep vaults of a stone-roofed barrow where he guarded a hoard; there was a hidden passage, unknown to men, but someone managed to enter by it and interfere with the heathen trove. He had handled and removed a gem-studded goblet;” Beowulf, 2210 - 2217 Translated by Seamus Heaney (1999) Faber and Faber Limited

The antiquarian interests, investigations, images and accompanying speculations remain a rich fount of knowledge which we must continue to explore. Indeed, as we trace it over the centuries, antiquarian scholarship demonstrates in exemplary fashion the cyclical nature of paradigms in the study of megaliths, and the most evocative – if geographically slightly remote – example illustrating this process derives from the British antiquarian tradition. Over the past decade the study of the Neolithic landscapes in Britain, and this by definition includes the megalithic monuments, has been dominated by the theoretical framework of phenomenology. This approach relies upon the assumption that prehistoric peoples visualised landscapes in similar ways to us – experiencing them through the body and all its senses – and it attempts to interpret the nature of human experience in relation to the material world. Thus phenomenologists are field workers

The combination of barrows, treasures, dragons as well as giants and superhuman mythological heroes – so dramatically captured in early epics – is part of the historiography of megaliths which, sadly, still remains in its infancy and needs to be encouraged as a scholarly field in its own right. The megaliths were variously seen as resting places for kings, heroes, brides, warriors fallen in battle, or as abodes in which mischievous or evil spirits gathered

1

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

of a sort: walking the land and investing past landscapes – especially megalithic ones – with hidden meanings, experiences and values (Hamilton and Whitehouse 2006; Tilley 1994, 1996, 2004).

ourselves today: are monuments located so as to be seen from the surroundings or are they positioned in such a way as to offer a vision of the landscape that surrounds them? It is self-evident that Stukeley’s attitude, and his response to the prehistoric landscapes he studied, derived directly from his intimate experience of these sites. That interest, so passionately pursued, was inevitably replaced by a new approach.

It is not my intention to offer a critique of the phenomenological approach; its advantages and its drawbacks have been critiqued many times (Brück 2005; Fleming 1999, 2005). Instead, following Andrew Sherratt’s idea of the oscillation within the cultural and intellectual history of European thought – between what he called the comparative and scientific “Enlightenment” and the contextual and relativist “Romantic” modes of thought (Sherratt 1989, 1996) – we may note the fact that some of the British eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century antiquarian studies are justifiably recognised as precursors of modern phenomenological approaches. I explored this topic elsewhere (Midgley, forthcoming) but a brief comment may serve as an important reminder that our antiquarian predecessors have visited similar themes of enquiry long before us.

His successor at Stonehenge was Sir Richard Colt Hoare, a “Romantic” par excellence in the tradition of his age, aristocratic upbringing, classical education and travels on the continent. Colt Hoare, a sponsor of the investigation of over 400 barrows in Wiltshire, was in fact responsible for a dramatic paradigm shift – a shift succinctly expressed in his famous opening dictum in The Ancient History of South Wiltshire : “We speak from facts, not theory” (Colt Hoare 1812, 1). It was the moment when, in Britain at any rate, megalithic studies emerged from antiquarianism and entered archaeology. This diversion has taken us a considerable distance from the north European megaliths but it does demonstrate that, in megalithic scholarship, we are rarely justified in our claims to novel ideas and fresh methodologies. During the nineteenth century other scholars quickly followed in Colt Hoare’s footsteps and, when archaeology was making vast strides on the international scene, megalithic studies moved into a higher gear. The new paradigm combined the results of archaeological excavations with the then current ethnographic analogies. This is admirably illustrated by the painting of a megalith interior, from the collection of images “on the life of savages” commissioned by Sir John Lubbock (later Lord Avebury) and executed by the talented French naturalist painter Ernest Griset1. Lubbock visited southern Scandinavia on two occasions – in 1861 he went to Denmark and in 1863 he travelled in Denmark, Sweden and Norway – and doubtless, among other things, had ample opportunities to discuss current investigations of megalithic tombs and burial customs (Patton 2007). Indeed, as Murray recently observed (2009, 491), this is one of the images from this series of pictures that is of archaeological rather than ethnographic inspiration, and it may well reflect Lubbock’s experiences from these Scandinavian trips which, passed on to Griset, inspired this pictorial vision of the interior of a megalithic chamber.

The antiquary who comfortably fits within this intellectual tradition is the celebrated British scholar Dr William Stukeley (1687-1765), best known for his fieldwork, recording, description and interpretation of the Wiltshire henge monuments at Avebury and Stonehenge (Haycock 2002; Piggott 1950, 1985). Like a true antiquary, Stukeley brought his learning and experience from one discipline to bear upon another and was thus an exemplary interdisciplinary scholar. Trained as a medical doctor and thus experienced in dissection (a suitable if somewhat morbid aptitude), a keen traveler and naturalist with a thorough understanding of geology, he was also an accomplished draftsman and, appropriately to his rank as a member of the eighteenth-century middle class, he pursued a keen interest in the newly emerging fashion of landscape gardening. The summers between 1718 and 1724 were devoted largely to fieldwork at Avebury and Stonehenge, during which Stukeley produced countless drawings, kept written notes and described the monuments in various manuscripts. He had a powerful sense of the landscape in its threedimensional quality, and was acutely aware that sites were located to make use of natural features and to create certain effects between the landscape and its monuments. To illustrate this he developed a very specific tool which he called “a prospect” – a view of the monument in its landscape with specific prospects drawn towards and from it.

In the course of our own working careers, many of us have experienced quite dramatic changes in the intellectual frameworks within which we structure our researches – the paradigm shifts of culture-historical, processual and post-processual approaches. While the prime mover in these developments was the Anglo-Saxon world, these intellectual shifts have nevertheless made a profound impact outside that sphere.

Throughout his accounts of Avebury and Stonehenge, Stukeley uses techniques with which he is able to evoke the feeling of presence; the reader accompanies the writer and, in effect, is taken on a tour (Stukeley 1740, 1743). Approaching Stonehenge together with Stukeley we can feel the softness of the grass, kept short by the grazing flocks, and we can smell its fragrant aroma. Indeed, Stukeley was acutely aware of the question we keep asking

The culture-historical approaches of the late nineteenth and This painting of a megalith interior, as well as other images from Lubbock’s collection are in the Bromley Museum, London. 1

2

Magdalena Midgley: Ancestors and Descendants

early twentieth centuries were dominated by morphology, typology and diffusion, and megalithic scholars sought to compare structural forms in the belief that they originated in one place and then spread to other regions. Sequences of typological development have a certain attractive logic behind them, but ultimately they ignore regional diversity in favour of a unilinear evolutionary model (Beltz 1910, Montelius 1905, Nordman 1935, Sprockhoff 1938).

In the context of this short contribution, it is not possible to explore all the challenges which lie ahead of megalithic scholarship, but perhaps I can at least signpost some of them. One of the continuing challenges of megalithic research is the creation of finer chronologies. I am not concerned here with a broad chronological framework (although that could be improved still further) but rather with finer regional and individual site chronologies which would permit us to think in terms of human involvement – at the level of generations and even individuals.

The subsequent dramatic impact of radiocarbon dating, fortuitously accompanied by another paradigm shift, led some archaeologists to question the validity of a singlesource theory and to emphasise the role of economic and social factors (Renfrew 1973, 1976, 1980; Chapman et al. 1981). While this freed us from the typo-chronological straitjacket, the images of megaliths gave way to dots on the maps which, herded within their Thiessen polygons, identified areas apparently under demographic pressure (Renfrew 1973, Figs. 29-30). No longer a pan-European phenomenon, megaliths became a form of independent regional release of the tensions arising from competition for land, and also devices for coping with increasing demographic pressure – mere pawns in the grander scheme of general laws of cultural change. No wonder Thiessen polygons looked so unhappy this side of the North Sea! (Bakker and Groenman-van Waateringe 1988, Figs. 10.2, 10.5).

A recent attempt in Britain, applying the Bayesian model using calibrated simulated radiocarbon ages for several wellknown Neolithic burial mounds, produced very interesting sequences and, in some instances, rather unexpected durations of events permitting probabilistic estimates of when different things happened at individual sites (Bayliss et al. 2007). I am not advocating this particular approach per se, as there are other statistical methods, but I am suggesting that we badly need a more robust methodology to deal with the challenges of dating events at megaliths. Are we, after two radiocarbon revolutions, still satisfied with a general statement that north European passage graves were built sometime between 3300 and 3100 BC? Indeed, it has recently become clear that this relatively short period, of between two and three hundred years, witnessed some very energetic (not to say frantic) activities in terms of megaliths construction in northern Europe, and that the majority of passage graves appear to have been built during that period (Perrson and Sjögren 1996, 2001). So far we have not yet addressed this adequately in terms of the social conditions that led to such frenetic building activity: was this a time of dramatic social re-alignment among the north European communities, channelling communal energy into a massive building programme that resulted in some of the architecturally most innovative and demanding structures? It was also the time of the most intensive ritual activities, both at megaliths and in the wider ceremonial landscape. This historical process, which may have involved significant socio-political development, is still awaiting fuller interpretation.

Once again dissatisfaction set in, primarily because such overarching schemes failed to recognise the different historical conditions – the local contexts – within the regions where megaliths were built: among them the enormous diversity of monuments, the diachronic rhythm of development and the range of accompanying ritual practices. Emphasis shifted to smaller-scale enterprises – exploring local concentrations of sites which clearly must have been built by groups with an awareness of common ancestry and descent, and sharing a particular view of the world which may display itself in attitude to the surrounding landscape, through forms of architecture, shared images, metaphors and experiences which passed from one generation to the next (Bakker 1992; Bradley 1998; Cummings and Whittle 2004; Hoika 1990; Hårdh 1982;Tilley 1996, 1999). In its extreme however this paradigm, especially as applied within the Anglo-Saxon intellectual sphere, allows megaliths to float free of chronology and development, and restricts interpretation to individual monuments rather than the wider phenomenon.

There are other general but equally important archaeological questions to ask: what went on before a megalith was built? How long did it take to gather all the building materials? When was it built? Some were built quickly while others took more time – how much more? How long was it before the mound finally enveloped a chamber? What is the relationship between individual burial deposits within a chamber: were they all placed at once or at intervals? And how long did they remain there? When did the interest in collective burials begin? What is the chronological difference between articulated and disarticulated burials within chambers? How long did it take for a body to disintegrate or become mummified? These are complex problems and they require imaginative methodologies to

So where are megalithic studies today? Are we at another crossroads, where things we worked so hard for are going to disappear from the agenda with yet another paradigm shift? I trust not. One of the hard lessons which I hope we have learned is that different approaches are in fact complementary, with each contributing something fresh to the debate.

3

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

enable us to write biographies of individual monuments, and to extrapolate from them regional and pan-European scenarios. But this is more than just a matter of radiocarbon dates.

now have become entrenched in our thinking, with the need for other forms of discussion on aspects that may have been meaningful to those who actually built and used them. In my recent study of the megaliths I tried to emphasise how important it is that, as observers, we try to look at the megaliths from the point of view of their creators (Midgley 2008). We acknowledge that our own cultural sentiments are not the only way of interpreting the world – especially the past world – and that our modern western logic may not be best suited to such an exercise. For example, meanings of colour, texture and form can be expressed without recourse to language – indeed, megaliths convey this quite convincingly. We consider here the colour, texture and shape of the various raw materials which make up the architecture but, equally importantly, the artefacts which were deposited within or in the vicinity of the chambers – the variously coloured amber beads, the beautifully decorated vessels and the broken or burnt flint tools, to name but the most obvious. What is lacking is our engagement with that meaning through seeing, feeling and imagining. Better understanding of the provenance of all these materials – from huge quartz capstones to small amber beads – may also tell us more about where the people could have come from and what relationships they might have forged with kin and with strangers.

One of the strengths of the culture-historical approach was the typo-chronological method, but this area continues to be under-theorised and remains beset with problems. The principal typological terms we use in our study of megaliths in northern Europe – the dolmen and the passage grave – go back to classifications which developed in the nineteenth century and which subsequently were refined through subtler typo-chronologies of accompanying artefacts such as pottery or stone tools. With the arrival of interpretative archaeologies, some scholars have abandoned a typological method but it continues to be an important complimentary tool. Our megalithic typologies are based on the visible architectural elements – often worked out at the ground plan level of what so clearly are three-dimensional monuments – the principal typological distinctions being those between a closed and an open dolmen and a passage grave. Some researchers feel this is inappropriate and that all dolmens with passages allowing access to the interior should be considered as passage graves.

Indeed, we are now more willing to accept that Neolithic communities were ethnically and socially mixed. Recent scientific programs of stable isotope analyses tell us that the Danubian world, for instance, must have been quite a melting pot, with people coming and going in all directions and at all times (Bentley 2007, Bentley et al. 2003, Price et al. 2001). While pottery and lithics, distribution maps of exotic and non-local materials never carried the same conviction as do the strontium isotopes analyses, the latter merely confirm what we have already known for nearly a century – that we should trust the archaeological record!

There are two different issues here: one concerns our typology while the other is related to our interpretation of the use and function of chambers. My personal view is that, while tomb typology helps us to navigate around and harness the vast body of archaeological evidence, and provides convenient shorthand in our narratives, it is also constraining in terms of wider, more imaginative interpretations. Looking at this from the functional point of view we may distinguish between open and closed chambers. We assume that closed chambers were intended for a single act of burial and not to be used after that. Provision of access to the chamber interior must therefore have been a very significant moment of change in the way people regarded the burial of their dead. We need not, of course, remind ourselves that many of the “open” dolmen chambers do not in fact have “passages” but rather simpler means of access.

It is here, in the area of the TRB culture distribution, that we need more analyses of this kind. This will dramatically enhance our understanding of the movement of people as well as of the ethnic and cultural complexity of local communities. The work currently being undertaken on the Falbygden plateau in Sweden (Ahlström 2001, 2003) is precisely the sort of program we need to extend to all areas from Holland in the west to Poland in the east.

Thus there is a continuous tension between the typology and functional interpretation of megaliths. If the provision of access to the chamber’s interior was a significant development which can shed light on changing burial customs and their social and religious significance then, by typologically “lumping” open dolmens and passage graves together, this important moment would be totally lost (Figure 1 and 2).

There is little doubt that our interpretations of human remains recovered from megalithic chambers, patchy though they continue to be, are poised at a moment of revolutionary change. The meticulous forensic studies, for example of the individuals buried in the passage graves on the Falbygden plateau, highlight the complexity of the taphonomic processes within and between the chambers, as well as the demography of the Funnel Beaker populations, with movements from one area to the next, forms of kinship or Neolithic diet (Sjögren et al. 2009). It is imperative that we expand these forms of analyses to other regions in

We have always been faced with this dilemma – not only in northern Europe but in all areas where megaliths were built – of reconciling the typological schemes, which by

4

Magdalena Midgley: Ancestors and Descendants

Figure 1. Dolmens and passage graves: an accessible dolmen at Poppostein, Schleswig.

Figure 2. Dolmens and passage graves: passage grave of Knudshoved, Zealand.

5

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

northern Europe where human remains survive; our presentday discussions will then soon become obsolete and, over the next decade, we will think and write about the life of northern Neolithic communities in a more imaginative way.

The question of preservation versus restoration of monuments is an important practical, and not merely an intellectual, concept although the latter was most vociferously expounded in mid-nineteenth-century Britain by John Ruskin, who considered all ancient stonework sacred and “restoration” a form of blasphemy (Ruskin 1849). While in most cases, restoration of “national monuments” relates to laws of protection and preservation, there is not, nor ever was, an agreed agenda.

Therein lies the key not just to the movement of the Neolithic people and their lifestyle but also to the arrival of new ideas. Megaliths are monuments which were meant to function and be understood on a group level – even if the individuals who built them incorporated personal embellishments. They were constructed to a communal agreement on meaning and they served to unite individuals into communities. For this reason it is important that we do not see megaliths as abstract, individual creations but rather that we relate them to the communal world views arising from the merging of many ideas.

Returning briefly to that icon of British prehistoric monuments, Stonehenge, it might be of interest to note that the penultimate private owner, Sir Edmund Antrobus, was set firmly against any restoration at Stonehenge, a position he maintained until his death in 1898 (the monument was finally compulsorily scheduled under the Ancient Monuments Act in 1913, while in the ownership of his son). However, against the background of the damage to the site inflicted by the regular public visitors, Sir Edmund did take steps to preserve the site in a manner which mirrors the radical views of today: he propped up the leaning stones in a way which clearly showed his intervention but, otherwise, decided to leave Stonehenge well alone (Hill 2008). The sequence of excavations, reconstructions and alterations throughout the twentieth century, together with the constantly increasing public interest in the site (exemplified by the numerous “claimant” groups), have all taken their toll. We have yet to arrive at a solution which this site truly deserves.

While it is difficult to substantiate the relationship of prehistoric peoples to their monuments, Richard Bradley has recently made a reasonable case for a conscious attachment to the past, through a sense of behaviours which may have included participation in rituals and ceremonies, or through the construction of monuments which were intended to perpetuate certain views of the past, thus inscribing social memory onto a broader landscape (Bradley 2002). Indeed, the earlier allusion to folk tales and traditions which associate megaliths with the haunts of kings, gods or spirits, may well have roots deeper than is immediately obvious, with the megalithic architecture emphasising, among other things, the communities’ past, their beliefs and religions for future generations.

Preservation as well as restoration of megalithic tombs continue to be a matter of debate in all areas to this day. During my recent travels I have visited preserved megaliths which were safe to enter and where any necessary modern intervention was clearly marked, and distinct from the original construction. Equally, I have seen restorations of individual sites which are sober and informative, but nevertheless are by and large modern reconstructions. I may illustrate this by the reconstruction of the Munkwolstrup barrow in Schleswig (Figure 3 and 4): it shows the chamber which might have remained visible while the megalith was first in use, seen by those who lived and worked nearby, although we can assume that the interior would have been closed off from the gaze of the living; indeed they may have averted their eyes as they passed the site in the course of their various daily activities. But would the Neolithic inhabitants be aware of the inner structure of the mound? Was the surface of the mound tended by a caretaker to maintain the original appearance, or was it allowed to become overgrown?

Our final consideration must relate to the enjoyment, appreciation and relation to megaliths by the contemporary public. The modern public’s explicit interest in “monuments” goes at least as far back as the eighteenthcentury idea of the “Picturesque”, embracing visual delight in scenes of great vistas composed with ruins, decay and artful dereliction (Gilpin 1789, 1792; see also Burke 1757). For what it is worth we probably agree on the very obvious point that preservation, restoration and presentation of megaliths to the public – like all other scholarly activity – reflects the spirit of the age, and that attitudes change with time. An interesting past example of such a reflection is that delightful memorial park near the Royal Palace at Jægerspris Slot, north Zealand – a bequest to posterity of what Randsborg described as “a careful, bourgeoisinfluenced picture of the future” (Randsborg 1993, 218). In the “restoration” process the floor of the passage grave was dug out to provide a convenient bench and the exterior of the barrow was developed according to a classical design – with lime avenue, terraces, staircases and monuments to mythological and real kings. I suspect that, putting aside the Danish royal connotations of this particular restoration (in the late 1770s) and the specific historical conditions of the time, we might not approve of such a restoration today.

Should we declare the Munkwolstrup long mound (and many similar mounds right across northern Europe) an “over-restored” megalith? There is little doubt that Ruskin would have shuddered with indignation, but the problem lies in the fact that most visitors to megalithic sites want to experience something which approaches their idea of a megalithic mound with an accessible chamber; when it does not survive as such, it becomes rather unsatisfactory. In that

6

Magdalena Midgley: Ancestors and Descendants

Figure 3. Reconstructed dolmen at Munkwolstrup, Schleswig: general view.

Figure 4. Reconstructed dolmen at Munkwolstrup, Schleswig: dolmen chamber.

7

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

sense the Munkwolstrup long mound’s reconstruction does fulfil its purpose.

from the skeletons. In: A. Whittle and V. Cummings (eds.) Going Over: The Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in North-West Europe, Proceedings of the British Academy 144, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 117140. Bentley, A., Chikhi, L. and Price, D.T. 2003. The Neolithic transition in Europe: comparing broad scale genetic and local scale isotopic evidence, Antiquity 77, 63-66. Beowulf, Seamus Heaney 1999 translation, London: Faber and Faber. Bibby, G. 1957. The Testimony of the Spade, London: Collins. Bradley, R. 1998. The Significance of Monuments. On the Shaping of Human Experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe, London: Routledge. Bradley, R. 2002. The Past in Prehistoric Societies, London: Routledge. Brück, J. 2005. Experiencing the past? The development of a phenomenological archaeology in British prehistory, Archaeological Dialogues 12, 45-72. Burke, E. 1757. A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful [1998 edition], Oxford: Oxford World’s Classics. Chapman, R., Kinnes, I. and Randsborg, K. (eds) 1981. The archaeology of death, New Directions in Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Colt Hoare, Sir R. 1812. The Ancient History of South Wiltshire, Volume I, London: William Miller. Cummings, V. and Whittle, A. 2004. Places of Special Virtue. Megaliths in the Neolithic Landscape of Wales, Oxford: Oxbow Books. Fleming, A. 1999. Phenomenology and the megaliths of Wales: a dreaming too far? Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18, 119-125. Fleming, A. 2005. Megaliths and post-modernism: the case of Wales, Antiquity 79, 921-932. Gilpin, W. 1789. Observations, relative chiefly to picturesque beauty, made in the year 1776, London: R. Blamire; [republished in 1973 under title: Observations on the Highlands of Scotland, Richmond Publishing Co.: Richmond]. Gilpin, W. 1792. Three Essays: on Picturesque Beauty; on Picturesque Travel; and on Sketching Landscape: to which is added a poem, on Landscape Painting, London: R. Blamire. Hamilton, S. and Whitehouse, R. 2006. Phenomenology in Practice: Towards a Methodology for a “Subjective” Approach, European Journal of Archaeology 9, 31-71. Haycock, D. 2002. William Stukeley: Science, Religion and Archaeology in Eighteenth-Century England, Woodbridge: Boydell Press. Hill, R. 2008. Stonehenge, London: Profile Books. Hoika, J. 1990. Megalithic Graves in the Funnel Beaker Culture of Schleswig-Holstein, Przegląd Archeologiczny 37, 53-119. Hårdh, B. 1982. The Megalithic Grave Area around the Lödde-Kävlinge River, Meddelanden från Lunds universitets historiska museum 1987-1988, New Series 4, 29-47.

Nor can we easily escape the fact that some restorations which take place today are part of a wider programme of public leisure parks – what could be termed the “modern picturesque” – with forest walkways, cycle paths, information plaques and bus parking areas. I must confess that, given a choice, I prefer the megaliths in a preserved and thus fairly ruinous state, where the visitors can exercise their creativity and imagination. But then, as archaeologists, we are not the paying public. And it is that public who, directly and indirectly, pay us to ensure that our work continues to provide them with the right mixture of Enlightenment-style knowledge and Romantic-style mystery. Address Magdalena S. Midgley School of History, Classics and Archaeology University of Edinburgh William Robertson Wing Old Medical School Teviot Place Edinburgh EH8 9AG [email protected] Bibliography Ahlström, T. 2001. Det döda kollektivet Skelettmaterialet från Rössbergagånggriften. In P. Persson and K.G. Sjögren (2001) Falbygdens gånggrifter, Del 1. Undersökningar 1985-1998, 301-357, Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet. Ahlström, T. 2003. Grave or ossuary? Osteological finds from a recently excavated passage tomb in Falbygden, Sweden. In G. Burenhult (ed.), Stones and Bones, Formal disposal of the dead in Atlantic Europe during the Mesolithic-Neolithic interface 6000-3000 BC, 25369, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1201. Bakker, J. A. 1992. The Dutch Hunebedden, Megalithic Tombs of the Funnel Beaker Culture, International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 2, Michigan: Ann Arbor. Bakker, J. A. and Groenman-van Waateringe, W. 1988. Megaliths, soils and vegetation of the Drenthe Plateau. In: W. Groenman-van Waateringe and M. Robinson (eds.) Man-made Soils, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series 140, 143-181. Bayliss, A., Bronk Ramsey, C., van der Plicht, J. and Whittle, A. 2007. Bradshaw and Bayes: Towards a Timetable for the Neolithic, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17:1 (suppl.), 1-28. Beltz, R. 1910. Die vorgeschichtlichen Altertümer des Großherzogtums Mecklenburg, Schwerin. Bentley, A. 2007. Mobility, specialisation and community: diversity in the Linearbandkeramik: isotopic evidence

8

Magdalena Midgley: Ancestors and Descendants

Midgley, M. S. 2008. The Megaliths of Northern Europe, London: Routledge. Midgley, M.S. 2010. “From Antiquarianism to Phenomenology: the Study of Landscape in Later 18th and Early 19th Century Britain” In: Kiel Graduate School “Human Development on Landscapes” (eds.) Landscapes and Human Development: The Contribution of European Archaeology (Proceedings of the International Workshop “Socio-Environmental Dynamics over the Last 12,000 Years: The Creation of Landscapes (1st-4th April 2009), Habelt Verlag (Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie, Band 191), Bonn, 91-99. Montelius, O. 1905. Orienten och Europa, Antikvarisk Tidskrift för Sverige 13, 1-252. Murray, T. 2009. Illustrating ‘savagery’: Sir John Lubbock and Ernest Griset, Antiquity 83, 488-499. Nordman, C. A. 1935. The Megalithic Culture of Northern Europe (The Rhind Lectures 1932), Finska Fornminnesföreningens Tidskrift 39:3, 1-137. Patton, M. 2007. Science, Politics and Business in the Work of Sir John Lubbock: A Man of Universal Mind, Aldershot: Asgate. Persson, P. and Sjögren, K.-G. 1996. Radiocarbon and the chronology of Scandinavian megalithic graves, Journal of European Archaeology 3:2 (1995), 59-87. Persson, P. and Sjögren, K.-G. 2001. Falbygdens gånggrifter, Del 1. Undersökningar 1985-1998, Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet. Piggott, S. 1950. William Stukeley: An Eighteenth-Century Antiquary, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Piggott, S. 1985. William Stukeley: An Eighteenth-Century Antiquary (revised and enlarged edition), London: Thames and Hudson. Price, D. T., R., Bentley, A., Lüning, J., Gronenborn, D. and Wahl, J. 2001. Prehistoric human migration in the Linearbandkeramik of Central Europe, Antiquity 75, 593-603. Randsborg, K. 1993. Antiquity and Archaeology in “Bourgeois” Scandinavia 1750-1800, Acta Archaeologica 63, 209-233.

Renfrew, C. 1973. Before Civilisation: The radiocarbon revolution and European Prehistory, London: Jonathan Cape. Renfrew, C. 1976. Megaliths, territories and populations. In S. J. de Laet (ed.) Acculturation and Continuity in Atlantic Europe, Brugge: De Tempel, 198-220. Renfrew, C. 1980. Toward a Definition of Context: the North German Megaliths, Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte 49, 3-20. Ruskin, J. 1849. The Seven Lamps of Architecture, 1910 reprint, London: Dent. Sherratt, A. 1989. V. Gordon Childe: Archaeology and Intellectual History, Past and Present 125, 151-185. Sherratt, A. 1996. ‘Settlement patterns’ or ‘landscape studies’? Reconciling Reason and Romance, Archaeological Dialogues 3, 140-159. Sjögren, K.-G., Price, D. T. and Ahlström, T. 2009. Megaliths and mobility in south-western Sweden. Investigating relationships between a local society and its neighbours using strontium isotopes, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28, 85-101. Sprockhoff, E. 1938. Die nordische Megalithkultur, Berlin & Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter & Co. Stukeley, W. 1740. Stonehenge: a Temple Restor’d to the British Druids, [printed for the author in London by W. Innys, R. Manby, B. Dodd et al. ]. Stukeley, W. 1743. Abury, A Temple of the British Druids, [printed for the author in London by W. Innys, R. Manby, B. Dodd et al.]. Tilley, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments, Oxford: Berg. Tilley, C. 1996. The power of rocks. Topography and monument construction on Bodmin Moor, World Archaeology 28, 161-176. Tilley, C. 1999. The Dolmens and Passage Graves of Sweden. An Introduction and Guide, Institute of Archaeology, London: University College London. Tilley, C. 2004. The Materiality of Stone. Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology, Oxford: Berg.

9

Chapter 2 The TRB Culture in The Netherlands Jan Albert Bakker: The TRB culture in The Netherlands Abstract: Only a small part of the vast distribution area of the Funnel Beaker or TRB culture is part of The Netherlands (Figure 1), but most of its aspects have been well studied here, since 1547. The village of Borger in the Province of Drenthe, where the Borger Meetings were held in the Hunebed Centre, in 2009, lies just in the middle of the concentration of passage graves on the Hondsrug ridge in Drenthe. The following study presents an overview of the different aspects of the TRB culture in The Netherlands, their past research and, more amply, a few recent discoveries (which are up-dated till 2011). Keywords: Funnel Beaker Culture, TRB West Group, 1734 protection law, vandalism, hunebeds, megalithic tombs, typochronology, earth graves, flint and stone tools, ritual deposits

In The Netherlands, relics of the TRB West Group are found north of the Rhine, generally on the drier sandy soils, but exceptionally also in parts of the wetter Holocene half of the country. It appears now that the TRB pottery developed here in the more amphibious parts of the country out of that of the Swifterbant culture (c. 4500-3800 cal BC, Ten Anscher 2012), as Schwabedissen (1979a, b) indicated more than thirty years ago.

in Lage Vuursche, 12 km NE of Utrecht, which could have been the westernmost TRB megalithic grave. Several others may have disappeared unnoticed between this one, the Ruhr and Bentheim in Germany, and the Dutch northeastern provinces. The Dutch hunebeds have a long history of research (Bakker 2010, 36-40). The medieval generic name hun(n)ne(n) bed means giant’s bed or giants’ grave like Hünengrab in German. In 1547, a curious passage written by Schonhovius (Anton van Schoonhove) in Brugge (Belgium) argued that the Columnae Herculis mentioned by Tacitus in his Germania could be seen at Rolde, where they were known as Cunnus Daemonis or Duuelskutte, viz. Devil’s Cunt. He added a myth about human sacrifices once made at these hunebeds (Bakker 2002; 2010, 36-40).

Its oldest recognisable relics are probably a few undecorated pots from Schokkerhaven-E170 and sherds of undecorated collared flasks and cord-impressed TRB forms were excavated in Lot P14, both in the Noordoostpolder (Ten Anscher et al. 1993), which are assigned to a ‘Pre-Drouwen’ phase of the Early Neolithic (in Danish terms). The P14 site was a sand dune along the lower course of the river Vecht(e), where a long succession of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age pottery and other refuse was found during our extensive excavations between 1984 and 1992. See further T.J. ten Anscher’s extensive publication (2012).

Relatively many of our extant hunebeds and many sites of demolished hunebeds were systematically investigated between 1912 and 1985 and in 1996, by Holwerda, Van Giffen, myself, and Lanting. The Dutch segment of the West Group is thus relatively better known than the much larger German part (Figure 1; cf. Müller et al., this volume, fig. 2).

The only known TRB find south of the Rhine is a 22.5cm high Pre-Drouwen funnel beaker found just north of the River Waal in a river dune at ‘t Klumke in OosterhoutNijmegen (Ball and Van den Broeke 2007; Raemaekers 2007; Louwe Kooijmans 2010, 203-5; Ten Anscher 2012). The pot was probably buried complete, as an offering, at some distance from Hazendonk pottery on the same dune.

The building frame of the hunebeds is made of large erratic granite boulders dating from the Saalian glaciation. Two standing stones usually supported one huge capstone (but very large capstones often rested on more orthostats). A row of these ‘yokes’ or ‘trilithons’ form the hunebed chamber; endstones close it at both ends. They were usually directed E-W, with deviants between NE and SSW. There was an entrance in the middle of the southern or eastern long side. Larger tombs had a kerb of standing stones and the entrance existed then of one or two yokes.

We know much more of the Dutch Middle Neolithic A (in Danish terms, c. 3350-2800 cal BC). 1) In the North-East of The Netherlands, 53 hunebeds are still extant and the sites of 24 demolished megalithic tombs were verified by excavations (figure 2): 20 passage graves, one dolmen, one passage grave or cist and two cists. Moreover, the possible sites of three other demolished hunebeds have not yet been excavated (Bakker 2010, 199227). There were once perhaps about one hundred hunebeds in The Netherlands. A possible hunebed remnant is extant

The oldest architectural type in The Netherlands is the grand dolmen G5-Heveskesklooster (Figure 3) near Delfzijl in the north-east of the country almost opposite the German town of Emden (Figure 2), but the pottery dates only from

11

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Figure 1. The regional groups of the TRB culture. W = West Group, N = North Group, E = East Group, S = South Group, SE = South-east Group, Ah = Altheim Group, Pf = Pfyn Group, A = Altmark Group, vertically hatched = Walternienburg-Bernburg Group. The broken line indicates the occurrence of Luboń decoration of three-strand cord impressions. Diagonal hatching indicates the related Michelberg Culture. SOM = Seine-Oise-Marne culture. (Bakker 1979, fig. 1)

horizon 2. The other hunebeds are passage graves existing of two or more pairs of sidestones. The larger hunebeds usually have kerbs (Figures 3-4). The largest Dutch tomb, D27-Borger, has an interior chamber length of 20m, ten pairs of sidestones and nine capstones. But passage grave 830-Werlte, in Germany, c. 60km to the east, has an interior chamber length of 27.5m, 14 capstones and 36 sidestones. And the German passage grave 980-Damme, 100km to the SE, even has an interior chamber length of 32-34m (Sprockhoff 1975). Hunebed D27-Borger has no kerb at present and Van Giffen found no traces of it, because the soil had been deeply dug. But the extraction holes of a kerb were recorded in 1835 (Bakker 1992, 111). Such long chambers are a specialty of the TRB West Group in

Germany and The Netherlands – they are absent from the other TRB Groups. 2) Seven ritual deposits of TRB pots in the northern Netherlands – in contrast to north-western Germany, where no such deposits have been discovered yet. Six single pots and one site with several pots from subsequent periods were described from wet places on the Drenthe Plateau (Bakker and Van der Sanden 1995; Bakker et al. 1999; Bakker 2004, 192-3). The pot from ‘t Klumke is nr. 8. What victuals these pots contained is unknown. 3) About twenty hoards of large TRB flint axes, which were directly imported from North Germany and South Denmark

12

Jan Albert Bakker: The TRB Culture in The Netherlands

Figure 2. Map of Dutch extant hunebeds (dot) and sites of demolished hunebeds (cross) in the provinces F = Friesland, G = Groningen, D = Drenthe, O = Overijssel and across the German border. Ge = Gelderland, Fl = Flevoland. The lobe above ‘Fl’ is Noordoostpolder. (Bakker 1992, fig. 1).

(Wentink 2006, 2008; Wentink et al. 2011; Van Gijn, this volume). Isolated complete axes on the sands and in bogs were primarily ritually deposited (Rech 1979). Wentink (2006) estimates that about sixty large TRB flint axes were found in The Netherlands. Several are much too long for practical use and he argues that these were sacred objects from the moment they were mined from Danish chalks. The same holds for flint nodules in the hoards. Other such axes were found in settlement sites and hunebeds with traces of practical use. Small chips were recycled as flint tools.

southern flint cigar chisels, that seem to have been absent in the TRB Culture (Bakker 2006). The Netherlands were a transitional zone at the perimeters the exported Nordic and Western flint axes (Åberg 1916, 1918). 4) Battle-axes were made of various, glacially deposited rocks. Less than 60 are known of each form in the West Group (Bakker 1979, 87-108). Han(n)over battle-axes are a typical West Group phenomenon (Bakker 1979, fig. 51), and knob-butted battle-axes were a typical ‘Dutch’ TRB type, which did not occur east of the German river Hunte (Bakker 1979, fig. 54). These ‘Dutch’ knob-butted battle-axes are well associated with Middle-Neolithic TRB pottery, and Zápotocký’s (1992) verdict that they are Early Neolithic is wrong. Knob-butted battle-axes were also handed down along the Meuse to an area near Weert at the Dutch-Belgian border and one piece even to the Semois valley in Belgian Luxemburg at the French border. The

Heavy West-European flint axes with oval cross-sections (Giligny et al. 2011) reached the Dutch TRB culture from the South (Bakker 1979, 84-86). The point-butted type was a regular occurrence. Rarely used was a thin-butted type which was first named Vlaardingen type, but is now called Buren type (Bakker 1982). Buren axes were more used by the contemporaneous Vlaardingen Culture, which also used

13

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Figure 3. Plans of passage graves D40-Emmen, D30-Exloo and dolmen G5-Heveskesklooster (Bakker 1992, fig. 5).

Teredo, actually a worm-like mollusc with two tiny shells, ate itself immediately into all the wooden dike fences – which became spongy and broke off like match sticks. The breakers thus eroded the seaweed dikes directly and the lower Holocene parts of The Netherlands, the North Sea coast of present Germany and along the Danish coasts ran the risk of being flooded.

traffic reflected by this distribution crossed the river zone in the central Netherlands probably by Rhine fords near Wageningen, Waal fords near Wychen or Nijmegen and Meuse fords near Cuijk (maps by P. C. Vos in Bazelmans et al. 2011, 47, 51). They were probably exchanged for heavy Buren type flint axes (Bakker 2006). The Teredo catastrophe of 1730-33 and the 1734 law protecting the Drenthe hunebeds.

The General States at the Hague prescribed penitential prayers in all the churches and synagogues. They also offered a prize for the best remedy. This was won in 1733 by Pieter Straat and Pieter van der Deure, who invented the modern type of stone-covered sloping dike front, which is still in use. They also indicated where stone boulders were available, along the North Sea in Scandinavia, North- and Northwest Germany and also in Drenthe. Erratic boulders, which had little value and were a nuisance to the ploughman, could now be sold at good prizes! A general chase for erratic blocks started immediately and a lot hunebeds were demolished in the countries along the North Sea and the Zuider Sea! But then something unexpected happened. In 1734, the Drenthe government was obliged to forbid the removal of boundary stones, but it simultaneously forbade the demolishing of ‘the time-honoured hunebeds, which ought to be preserved everywhere’. In 1735, the Drenthe government reconfirmed this ordre or resolution. This is

In 1730-33, an genuine catastrophe threatened the Dutch sea dikes. Along the salty water of Zuider Sea and the North Sea from Flanders to the Kattegat, and along the Danish and Scanian waters, the earthen dikes were protected at the water front by thick layers of compacted seaweed (Zostera maritima) which was packed in a 1-1,5m broad and 1.5-7m high continuous band. Salty seaweed was locally available and it did not rot. At places a fence of standing beams of oak or fir protected it against the breakers of the sea. These dikes functioned quite well until that fatal year, when the shipworm (Teredo navalis) riddled the wood with its tunnels. Shipworms occurred since long along the North Sea coast in The Netherlands, but they could intrude the interior waters much further, because these had become brackish due to lacking precipitation in 1730-33 (Bakker in press).

14

Jan Albert Bakker: The TRB Culture in The Netherlands

Figure 4. Plans of passage graves D15Loon, D45-Emmerdennen and D19Drouwen (Bakker 1992, fig. 7).

Germany or Scandinavia proclaimed such a law may seem paradoxical. But it may be explained by Picardt’s book (1660) on the antiquities, history and geography of Drenthe, which is well known for its pictures of giants building hunebeds. Picardt had pointed out that the hunebeds were among poor Drenthe’s most important assets. His book, although first published in 125 copies only, still had great impact on the Drenthe government 75 years later. It was considered a classical work in Drenthe, and it was

one of the earliest laws for the protection of prehistoric monuments in the world. The penalty for infringement was a heavy fine (one year’s income of a stone-seeker and confiscation of his gear). This law was officially upheld in different forms, until about 1870, when all extant hunebeds minus one were acquired by State or Province. That the Land of Drenthe, the poorest part of The Netherlands, and not the relevant coastal parts of

15

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

certainly no accident that it was reprinted in 1731 and 1745 (same spelling, no illustrations). Unfortunately, only the large boulders were protected from removal by this law and digging for smaller stones in and directly outside the hunebed chambers was condoned (and in some parts of Drenthe even complete hunebed destruction continued, as everywhere abroad).

with showers. For hunebed research, sieving brought great numbers of transversal arrow-heads, scores of amber beads and much more complete pottery reconstructions, since 1970. Further hunebed protection. The present communis opinio among Dutch prehistorians is that no intact hunebed should be excavated anymore within this and a few subsequent generations, because excavation techniques have little developed since 1912 (except for the routines of sieving and documenting the location of the artefacts individually) – only revolutionary new techniques may improve our understanding of hunebeds in the distant future. To prevent further illegal digging, the not excavated chamberfills were sealed by a pavement of perforated concrete blocks, 10cm below surface, in the 1980s (Bakker 1992, fig. 3). Unfortunately, illegal digging outside the chambers cannot be prevented in this way.

Research history of hunebeds. Several chambers were investigated by Brongersma (1685), Hofstede and Kymmell (1706), Van Lier (1760), Camper (1769-81), Hofstede (1809), Westendorp (1815, 1822) and Janssen (1848). Their publications deserve all attention, but written in Dutch, they remained unknown abroad (cf. now Bakker 2010; 2009b). Subsequently, the Britons H. L. Dryden and W.C. Lukis (1879) drew the exact plans and prospects of 40 hunebeds in 1878 at the instigation of A. W. Franks (1872). These excellent plans remained unpublished. In several copies they are kept in London (Society of Antiquaries), Oxford (Ashmolean Museum), Guernsey (Guernsey Museum), and Assen (Drenthe Archives), Lukis’s descriptions are in London and Guernsey. Moreover, Lukis drew and described a first systematic corpus of the pottery and other finds from the Dutch hunebeds in 1878 (London).

Nor is pure vandalism. When king Louis Napoleon visited Drenthe in 1809, he positioned himself on horseback, like an equestrian statue, on top of the largest capstone of the spectacular hunebed D45-Emmerdennen. This flat oval granite plate measures 3 x 4m, but is less than 50cm thick and it provided extra space for the chamber, which is widened here (Figure 3). Van Giffen restored the tomb in 1957 and 1968. On July 4th, 2011, it was intentionally broken in two pieces by fires lit upon and under it. The tomb was a meeting point of teen-age boys on the outskirts of Emmen. The broken capstone will be repaired with inserted metal staves and epoxy. Earlier in 2011, a fire lit in hunebed D8-Kniphorstbos tore a slice from a sidestone, but this is occurring each summer in Drenthe, at least for decades (Bakker and Waterbolk 1980).

Their impressive example brought A. E. van Giffen to publish his atlas and descriptions of the extant hunebeds at the best possible level (1925), to which he added reports of hunebed excavations undertaken between 1685 and 1925 (1927a). In his atlas (1925-7) he published hunebed plans on scale 1: 50, and not half that size, as Lukis and Dryden had planned. And he added Dryden’s prospects. In Germany, E. Sprockhoff was also influenced. His megalith atlases (from 1966-75) have the same size as Van Giffen’s, but are on scale 1: 100.

Pottery typochronology

Between 1912 and 1985, and in 1996, 30 hunebeds and sites of former hunebeds were excavated by Van Giffen and others; this is 37-39 %, an exceptionally high percentage, but before 1970 it was done hastily without sieving, so that many flints and potsherds remained unnoticed.

Van Giffen (1927a) subdivided the hundreds of finely decorated pottery from the chambers in the Drouwen, the Early Havelte and the Late Havelte Style periods. Heinz Knöll (1959) and I (1979) subdivided them further in nine stages. Anna Brindley (1986b) re-arranged them in seven horizons (Figure 5). Her system is now generally used (e.g. Bakker 1992), but she presently agrees that horizon 4 could be split into two successive periods, 4a and 4b. Brindley publishes inventories of former hunebed excavations (Brindley 1983; 1986a; 2003; in preparation; Brindley and Lanting 1992; Brindley et al. 2002; Lanting and Brindley 2004; Brindley in prep).

Sieving was practised by Lukis and Dryden for the soil from their test pits, with very good results. On the other hand, it was only reintroduced 90 years later, in 1968-70, when we excavated hunebed D26-Douwenerveld. Hand-held sieves were too awkward, even when hung like a cradle, but the farmer of the adjoining field suggested to use his false cam potato sorter covered by a metal 4 x 4mm meshed screen. All excavated soil was sieved. The hand driven grinding wheel was soon replaced by a noisy motor (e.g. Lanting 1975; 1995; 1997). On the peat- and clay-covered site of hunebed G5-Heveskesklooster in 1983, water spouting fire-hoses were mounted on gallows above the sieves. In 2000, at the excavation of the wet TRB settlement site J97Noordoostpolder, sieves were mounted in the bottom of special wheelbarrows, that were shifted into ‘dog kennels’

In the chamber of hunebed D26-Drouwenerveld we excavated 150 pots from horizons 2 to early 4 from the chamber in 1968 and 1970 (Bakker in prep). We invested much time in precisely locating the thousands of sherds and other grave goods. But it turned out that most sherds were all mixed through the whole find layer on the quite uneven granite grid-covered cobble floor (10 x 2.5m) without any stratigraphical order – by some prehistoric ‘Brownian

16

Jan Albert Bakker: The TRB Culture in The Netherlands

Figure 5. Brindley’s seven typochronological ‘horizons’. All are [Danish] Middle Neolithic A (except the small dolmen flask in horizon 1, which is Early Neolithic C (Van Gijn and Bakker 2005, fig. 13.a).

17

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

motion’, the how and why of which is not understood. The sorting of these sherds and the reconstruction of all these pots was a hell of a job, but it was rewarded by a fine, well restored collection of pottery, the greater part of which is displayed in the Borger Hunebed Centre.

on his left side (the arms were bent down as in the Heek grave). A C14-date of 4500 ± 50, UTC-1947, would place it about 3225 BC. This earth grave was cut by an EGK pit and a fire pit (Ten Anscher 2012). That the change from inhumation to cremation was more diverse, however, is shown by hunebed D26Drouwenerveld. The chamber contained numerous chips of burnt human bone from men and a few women and children (identified by E. Smits). If they are remnants of regular cremations, they contradict the long standing ‘rule’ that cremation began only with horizon 7, perhaps even 6, because no TRB pottery from later horizons than early 4 came from the chamber. Or was anthropophagy concerned (suggestion W. Arentzen, 2010)?

I have seldom seen such elegant pottery with such a variety of forms and decorations types as that in the hunebeds. In settlements, the same types were used, though usually more robust and with additional container vessels and clay discs which are usually absent from the graves. The earliest pottery types (horizon 1) are found in the shortest Dutch hunebeds with two till four pairs of sidestones and an interior length of 3 to 6m (Bakker 1992, 62ff.). This statistical relation looks convincing for The Netherlands, but passage grave 817-Tannenhausen in Germany contains horizon 1 pottery as well, and it had 6 pairs of sidestones and an interior chamber-length of 11m. Neither were there distinct relationships between horizons 2 and 3 and the length of the chambers either. Horizon 3 pottery is the earliest known pottery from Dutch hunebeds with chamber-lengths ranging from 3 to 17m in Drenthe, but in Germany it occurred in an at least 20m long passage grave 820-Börger, in the Hümmling nearly 50km East of Borger in Drenthe. Apparently passage graves of almost all sizes were built during pottery horizons 1-3.

Other grave goods in our hunebeds are a few flint and stone axes, rarely a battle-axe, and scores of trapezoidal arrowheads. Hunebed D26-Drouwenerveld contained three half battle-axes, one stone and two flint axelets, and, thanks to the sieving of all soil from the chamber, no less than 80 trapezoidal arrowheads, numerous other small flint tools and chips and 48 amber beads. Comparable numbers of small objects were derived from the sites of the destroyed hunebeds G2-Glimmen and G3-Glimmen in the province of Groningen (Brindley 1986a and 1983). See further Verschoof (this volume) about TRB amber beads and flints in hunebeds. Less than five jet beads were found in other hunebeds. A pendant of a pierced piece of a fossil ammonite with some red ochre on its tip was found in hunebed D19. Extremely rare are six copper strips from hunebed D19-Drouwen, 3km NNW from Borger. Schlicht (1973) described the copper finds in Dutch and German hunebeds. Two cocoon-shaped beads made of spiralled copper strips were found in hunebed D28-Buinen. The analyses by Junghans, Sangmeister and Schröder (1960) show that the copper of these is of the arsenical type, but otherwise the composition of both their samples is of a relatively rare type (Bakker 1979, 124-131, group II).

During ceramic horizons 4-7, no hunebeds were built anymore, but the existing hunebeds remained in use for burying the dead. The unburnt human remains of horizons 1-5 are rarely preserved in the hunebeds on our non-calciferous and (later) podsolized sands. But, as demonstrated by the flat earth graves, burial rites changed during horizons 6 and 7 into cremation. The earth graves of horizon 7 are cremation graves, which are often buried next to a ceramic bowl once with provisions. Horizon 6 burials are hardly known. An exception was an earth grave at Denekamp-Klokkenberg, 60km SSE from Borger, in the province of Overijssel. A horizon 7 bowl was found here in a pit measuring 1 x 1.5m, together with two undecorated collared flasks, a splendid unused Buren flint axe and three 3.6cm long flint blades, but no cremated bones (Bakker and Van der Waals 1972; Bakker 2006; Bakker 2010, 12).

After the end of the TRB culture, some later artefacts were deposited in the hunebed chambers. In hunebed D26Drouwenerveld, there were three Single Grave amphorae and the mentioned two or three stone battle-axes of the Corded Ware Culture from between 2800 and 2500 cal BC and one Harpstedt pot from about 800 cal BC. Other hunebeds may contain the odd Bell Beaker or barbed-wiredecorated pot.

All earth graves from earlier periods contained unburnt flexed bodies. Grave F4 at Heek-Averbeck, Landkreis Borken in Germany, with a wooden lining, contained a flexed body on its left side and three pots from horizon 5 (Bakker 1992, fig. 32; Finke 1983). In a flat grave at Geeste, on a bank of the River Ems, also in Germany, a flexed body lay in an oval wooden coffin and was accompanied by a horizon 5 bowl (Kaltofen 2008). A silhouette of a child on its right side was found in the entrance passage of hunebed G1-Noordlaren in the Dutch province of Groningen. This grave (or sacrifice?) contained no artefacts, but occasional sherds from the pit are from horizons 3-4 (Bakker 1983). In Lot P14 in the Noordoostpolder, province Flevoland, on the sandy ridge along the River Vecht, a 25-35 year old TRB man was buried without grave goods in a flexed position

General remarks I’ll end with a few more general remarks. Female potters. We could prove that a decorated bowl of high artistic quality from horizon 3 was made by a woman, not a man (Bakker and Luijten 1990). Only the sherds of this pot from D26 displayed nail impressions. Clay from the bowl was

18

Jan Albert Bakker: The TRB Culture in The Netherlands

pinched out to attach the foot ring and the sherds split just there. Even while taking account of the shrinking of clay during the firing process, the elegant pinch marks could only point to a child or woman.

surrounded by a palisade, but no house plans were found, although several refuse pits were present. No house plans were found either in connection with a circular TRB palisade, with a probable diameter of 10m at Hattemerbroek-Hanzelijn, part of which was excavated in Blok 7, in 2006-7 (Lohof et al. 2011).1 Several rows of stakes and a few pits from the same period were also found, but no earth graves. The site lies on coversand close to the west bank of a then active meander of the River IJssel (Van Zijverden 2011), 500m ENE from the centre of the Hattemerbroek road junction (Lohof et al. 2011, fig. 1.1). Erik Drenth (2011, 286-301) described the TRB sherds. Verbaas et al. 2011, 377-85 discussed the flint artefacts from Blok 7 that would for the greater part have been made by the TRB culture.2 Yet, one transverse arrow-head (fig. 7.14, v.11177.1) ‘is the only implement that can be assigned with certainty to the TRB culture’ (p. 384).

We may therefore generalise that all fine TRB ware – and probably also the more robust pots – in the West and North Groups was made by housewives in ‘Household production’ or ‘the Domestic mode’. There are no signs of standardisation typical for ‘Household industries’ by middle-aged and older women as described by Balfet (1965, 165-166; Bakker and Luijten 1990, 183). This observation confirms since long existing ideas. But Heinz Knöll (1952), for instance, renowned expert in TRB pottery, still speculated about production centres of male potters. It is curious, however, that the evident products of one household are distributed throughout regions of a 25km radius. Decoration patterns gave me the impression that the Drenthe Plateau formed one circle of intercommunication during horizons 2-4, but that Veluwe, Overijssel, Achterhoek and Bentheim constituted another in the Central Netherlands and adjoining Germany to the west of the River Ems.

The first known settlement site of the Middle Havelte phase F, horizon 6, in the West Group was found at Hattemerbroek-Bedrijventerrein Zuid. This site is situated on coversand directly south of the Hattemerbroek road junction, 1-1.5km SW of Blok 7 (p. 527); it will soon be published.

Architects Leading the risky handling of the boulders for the construction of hunebeds required very special skills. Probably a small number of expert architects assisted in large regions. The hauling and positioning of the boulders was done by a great number of people (more than the minimum number needed) from the district, who were hosted by the principal and his family during a building festival (Bakker 1992, 33-7; 2009a, 29-31). A sufficient number of erratic boulders was usually available within 350-450m and distances never exceeded 5km in Drenthe. Schierhold (2009, 42-3) found that 20 Hessian-Westphalian Gallery Graves were built from stones available within 0-1km, that 13 incorporated stones from less than 3km away and that only seven tombs had stones from larger distances, two of these even from 11 and 16km away by passable routes. These tombs were partly built by the TRB culture, partly by the Wartberg Culture.

Two seasonal TRB settlement sites lay at Slootdorp, 50km north of Amsterdam in the Wieringermeerpolder, on sedimentary Holocene ridges next to streams in a landscape of salt marshes (Van Heeringen and Theunissen 2001; Lenselink 2001). Slootdorp-Bouwlust, site 26, originally measured 750-1000m2. It was completely excavated in 1990. The cultural layer was destroyed by ploughing, but artefacts were recovered from the recent plough layer and drain ditches. A shed of 11 x 3.8m is indicated by stake holes (cf. Hogestijn and Drenth 2001). About 6500 sherds from horizons 4-5 and more than 10,140 artefacts of flint and quartzite were found (Peeters 2001). Unburnt organic remains were well preserved on this wetland site. Bones of thousands of ducks suggest that they were especially hunted here (Lauwerier 2001, 178-179; table of animal bones, volume 2, 262-63). The flesh of red deer and domestic animals was probably taken to more permanent settlements on the coversand mantles of 6-8km distant Pleistocene outcrops of Wieringerwerf and Wieringen, which are now eroded (Hogestijn, pers. com.). Seeds of

Settlement sites Dutch settlement sites are not very well known – there is no comparison with such sites as Jens Winther has excavated on the Danish island of Langeland, for instance. Most settlements were here located on the fine coversands from Weichselian period (Bakker 1982). On these rather infertile sands were also the fields where grain and vegetables were cultivated (Bakker and Groenman-van Waateringe 1988). They had to be cut out of the primeval oak and lime forest, which started to degenerate because cattle herds roamed through it. The horizon 5 settlements of Anloo-Strubben, 14km NW of Borger (Waterbolk 1960), and Uddelermeer, 60km SE of Amsterdam (Bakker 1979, 194-6) were

This substantial 677 p. book on the excavation results at Hattemerbroek-Hanzelijn (Lohof et al. 2011) has several passages about mobile finds and a palisade from the TRB-period: fig. 4.28, p. 157; 163-8 (soil traces); a detailed analysis of the TRB ware by Drenth (in Drenth and Meurskens, esp. p. 286-301); a plan of the TRB palisade with a possible entrance and related postholes (p. 607); a thin-slide and chemical analysis of 4 TRB sherds and 1 possible Vlaardingen sherd [quod non] by Brorsson, p. 609-614); a diatoms and Testacea analysis of 4 TRB sherds and 1 possible Vlaardingen sherd (which was made from a freshwater clay) by Demiddele (p. 615-621); summary (esp. p. 524-527). Lines 10-11 from below on p. 527 should be altered in ‘Deze dateren in de Vroeg Havelte periode (Fase E volgens Bakker, horizon 5 volgens Brindley, globaal 30002900 v.Chr. Het aardewerk van de opgraving Hanzelijn …’. 2 These flints cannot derive from the earth graves of the Single Grave (EGK) and Bell Beaker cultures in Blok 7; theoretically a lesser part could have been used in the period of Barbed Wire-decorated pottery (Early Bronze Age). 1

19

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

and Tiefstich Pottery. University of Amsterdam. Photographic reprint 2009, with an added ‘In Retrospect’. Leiden, Sidestone Press. Bakker, J. A. 1982. TRB settlement patterns on the Dutch sandy soils, Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 15, 87124. Bakker, J. A. 1983. Het hunebed G1 te Noordlaren, Groningse Volksalmanak 1982-1983, 113-200. Bakker, J. A. 1992. The Dutch hunebedden, megalithic tombs of the Funnel Beaker Culture. Michigan, Ann Arbor (International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 2). Bakker, J. A. 2002. Hunebed de Duvelskut bij Rolde – een literatuurstudie, Nieuwe Drentse Volksalmanak 2002, 62-94. Bakker, J. A. 2004. TRB-aardewerk uit venen: aanvullingen. In J.A. Bakker 2004 Kanttekeningen bij mijn publicaties en enige andere zaken, 192-194. Baarn, J. A. Bakker. Bakker, J. A. 2005. Funerary buildings from erratic boulders. The construction and function of the hunebedden. In L. P. Louwe Kooijmans, Van den Broeke, P.W., Fokkens, H. and Van Gijn, A.L. (eds) 2005. The Prehistory of the Netherlands, 2 vols. vol. 1, 307-310, Amsterdam University Press. Bakker, J. A. 2006. The Buren Axe and the Cigar Chisel: striking export products from the West European flint mines – associations and distribution along their northern fringe, Proceedings of the VIII International Flint Symposium, Bochum 1999, Stone Age – Mining Age, 247-275. (Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 19, 2006). Bakker, J.A. 2009a. Hunebedden and Hünengräber: the construction of megalithic tombs west of the River Elbe, British Archaeological Reports International Series 1923, 27-34. Bakker, J.A. 2009b. Chronicle of megalith research in the Netherlands, 1547-1900: from giants and a Devil’s Cunt to accurate recording, British Archaeological Reports International Series 1956, 7-22. Bakker, J. A. 2010. Megalithic Research in the Netherlands, 1547-1911. From ‘Giant’s Beds’ and ‘Pillars of Hercules’ to accurate investigations. Leiden, Sidestone Press. Bakker, J. A. in prep. Paalwormen, dijken, hunebedden en onze eerste monumentenwet. Bakker, J.A. in prep. Hunebed D26 in het Drouwenerveld, verslag van de onderzoekingen. Bakker, J. A. and Groenman-van Waateringe, W. 1988. Megaliths, soils and vegetation on the Drenthe Plateau. In W. Groenman-van Waateringe and M. Robinson (eds) Man-made Soils, British Archaeological Reports International Series 410), 143-181. Bakker, J. A., Groenman-van Waateringe, W. and Van der Kamp, M. J. 1999. Palynological and archaeological investigations of a small bog with TRB pottery on the Eexterveld, province of Drenthe, The Netherlands, Probleme der Küstenforschung im südlichen Nordseegebiet 26, 1999, 77-96. Bakker, J. A. and Luijten, H. A. 1990. ‘Service sets’ and other ‘similarity groups’ in Western TRB pottery. In J. L’Helgouach (ed) La Bretagne et L’Europe préhistoriques. Mémoire en hommage à Pierre-Roland

which are now eroded (Hogestijn, pers. com.). Seeds of emmer, bones of cattle, sheep/goat, pig, dog, red deer, roe, otter, marten, porpoise, whale, eel, sturgeon, cod, flat-fish, cockles and saltwater mussels are indicative of the menu of the temporary occupants. The red deer were very large, indicating that they fared well and had sufficient cover. Two incisors of an adult person and a permanent molar of a 10-13 year old, were found among the refuse – are they indicative of man-eating? At Slootdorp-Kreukelhof, site 27, 1km distant from site 26 and measuring 300 square metres, a test pit of 2 square metres was dug through the black, almost 90cm thick cultural layer. The site is in theory preserved for later research. An undecorated funnel beaker may be from horizon 4-5 (volume 2, fig. 4, p. 270). Seeds of wild apple, weeds from arable fields and salt marshes were identified. Bones of young cattle, mice, wild duck, teal, buzzard, goshawk and flatfish were identified. The facture of the pottery from both sites is strikingly different from that in the Pleistocene mainland. Forms and decoration are no different, but the sherds have a porous surface, because a local silty clay was used. A wooden TRB canoe A wooden TRB canoe was found in 2007 at Dijkgatsweide, 12km to the east of Slootdorp. This dugout is still almost 8m long and 80cm wide. It lay in a tidal creek in a similar salt marsh landscape as sites 26-27 and was C14dated to c. 3340-3100 cal BC (Bakker 2010, 21). The palaeogeographical map of The Netherlands c. 3850 cal BC gives an idea of the this salt marsh landscape, which was later covered by peat (Bazelmans et al. 2011, 47 and 50). Address Jan Albert Bakker Bothalaan 1, 3743 CS Baarn, The Netherlands [email protected] Bibliography Åberg, N. 1916. Die Steinzeit in den Niederlanden. Uppsala, Akademische Buchdruckerei. Åberg, N. 1918. Das nordische Kulturgebiet in Mitteleuropa während der jüngeren Steinzeit, 2 vols. Uppsala, Alqvist & Wiksells. Ten Anscher, T. J. 2012. Leven met de Vecht.. Schokland-P14 en de Noordoostpolder in het Neolithicum en de Bronstijd. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam. Ten Anscher, T. J., Gehasse, E. F. and Bakker, J. A. 1993. A pre-megalithic TRB and late Swifterbant complex at P14Schokland, gemeente Noordoostpolder, the Netherlands. In J. Pavúk (ed) Actes du XIIe Congrès International des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques, Bratislava, 1-7 Septembre 1991, vol. 2, 460-466. Bratislava, Institut Archéologique de l’Académie Slovaque des Sciences. Bakker, J. A. 1979. The TRB West Group. Studies in the Chronology and Geography of the Makers of Hunebeds 20

Jan Albert Bakker: The TRB Culture in The Netherlands

Giot, Revue Archéologique de l’Ouest, Supplément no. 2, 1990, 173-87. Bakker, J. A. and Van der Sanden, W. A. B. 1995. Trechterbekeraardewerk uit natte context, de situatie in Drenthe [, Friesland en Overijssel], Nieuwe Drentse Volksalmanak 112, 132-48. Bakker, J. A. and Van der Waals, J. D. 1973. DenekampAngelslo, cremations, collared flasks and a corded Ware sherd in Dutch final TRB contexts. In G. E. Daniel and P. Kjaerum (eds) Megalithic Graves and Ritual. Papers presented at the III Atlantic Colloquium, Moesgård 1969, Jutland Archaeological Society Publications 11, 17-50. Copenhagen. Bakker, J. A. and Waterbolk, H. T. 1980. De Nederlandse hunebedden. Rapport aan de Minister van Cultuur, Recreatie en Maatschappelijk Werk, en het Provinciaal Bestuur van Drenthe. Amsterdam and Groningen (typescript). Balfet, H. 1965. Ethnographical observations in North Africa and archaeological interpretation: the pottery of the Magreb. In F. R. Matson (ed) Ceramics and Man, 161-77. Chicago, Aldine. Ball, E. A. G. and Van den Broeke, P. W. (eds) 2007. Opgravingen op ’t Klumke te Nijmegen-Oosterhout. Archeologische Berichten Nijmegen 6, Nijmegen. Bazelmans, J., H. Weerts, H. and Van der Meulen, M. (eds) 2011. Atlas van Nederland in het Holoceen. Landschap en bewoning vanaf de laatste IJstijd tot nu. Amsterdam, Bert Bakker, 94 p. incl. 9 palaeogeographic maps by P.C. Vos. Brindley, A. L. 1983. The finds from hunebed G3 on the Glimmer Es, mun. of Haren, prov. of Groningen, the Netherlands, Helinium 23, 209-36. Brindley, A. L. 1986a. Hunebed G2: excavation and finds, Palaeohistoria 28, 27-92. Brindley, A. L. 1986b. The typochronology of TRB West Group pottery, Palaeohistoria 28, 93-132. [Comments in Bakker 1992, 42-3, 142-3, 170-88]. Brindley, A. L. 2003. The use of pottery in Dutch hunebedden. In A. Gibson (ed) Prehistoric pottery, people, patter and purpose. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1156, 43-51. Oxford, BAR Publishing. Brindley, A.L. in prep. [Inventory of hunebed D14Eexterhalte] Brindley, A. L. and Lanting, J. L. 1992. A re-assessment of the hunebedden O1, D30 en D40: structures and finds. Palaeohistoria 33-34, 1991-1992, 97-140. Brindley, A. L., Lanting, J. N. and Neves Espinha, A. D. 2002. Hunebed D6a near Tinaarlo. Palaeohistoria 43/44, 43-86. Brorsson, T. 2011. Slijpplaat- en ICP-analyse van aardewerk uit TRB-context te Hattemerbroek. In E. Lohof, Hamburg, T. and Flamman, J. (eds) 2011. Steentijd opgespoord. Archeologisch onderzoek in het tracé van de Hanzelijn-Oude Land. Leiden, Archol bv and Amersfoort, ADC ArcheoProjecten,, 609-14. Demiddele, H. 2011. Diatomeeën- en Testacea-analyse van Trechterbeker- en “Vlaardingen”-aardewerk. In E. Lohof, Hamburg, T. and Flamman, J. (eds) 2011.

Steentijd opgespoord. Archeologisch onderzoek in het tracé van de Hanzelijn-Oude Land. Leiden, Archol bv and Amersfoort, ADC ArcheoProjecten, 615-21. Drenth, E. and Meurskens, L. 2011. Prehistorisch aardewerk. In E. Lohof, Hamburg, T. and Flamman, J. (eds) 2011. Steentijd opgespoord. Archeologisch onderzoek in het tracé van de Hanzelijn-Oude Land. Leiden, Archol bv and Amersfoort, ADC ArcheoProjecten, , 281-334. (TRB-pottery: p. 286-301, cf. Demiddele 2011). Finke, W. 1983. Ein Flachgräberfeld der Trichterbecherkultur bei Heek, Kreis Borken. Vorbericht über die Ausgrabungen 1978-1981, Ausgrabungen und Funde in Westfalen-Lippe 1, 27-32. Franks, A. W. 1872. The megalithic monuments of the Netherlands and the means taken by the government of that country for their preservation, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London, 2nd. ser. V, 1870-1873, 258-67. Van Giffen, A. E. 1925-1927a De hunebedden in Nederland, 2 vols and atlas. Utrecht, A. Oosthoek. [cf. Van Giffen 1927b] Van Giffen, A. E. 1927b. The hunebeds in The Netherlands (English translation of Van Giffen 1925, vol. 1, and the atlas). Utrecht, A. Oosthoek. Van Gijn, A. L. and Bakker, J. A. 2005. Megalith builders and sturgeon fishers. Middle Neolithic B: Funnel Beaker culture and Vlaardingen group, 3400-2900 BC. In L. P. Louwe Kooijmans, Van den Broeke, P.W. Fokkens, H. and Van Gijn, A.L. (eds) 2005. The Prehistory of the Netherlands, 2 vols. Amsterdam University Press, 281306. Giligny, F., Bostyn, F., Couderc, J., Lethrosne, H., Le Maux, N., Lo Carmine, A. and Riquier, C. 2011. Products and diffusion of axes in the Seine valley. In V. Davids and M. Edmonds (eds) Stone Axe Studies III, 149-166. Oxford, Oxbow books. Van Heeringen, R. M, and Theunissen, E. M. 2001. Kwaliteitsbepalend onderzoek ten behoeve van duurzaam behoud van neolithische terreinen in West-Friesland en de Kop van Noord-Holland. Amersfoort (Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 21), 3 vols.3 Hogestijn, J. W. H. and Drenth, E. 2001. In Slootdorp stond een Trechterbekerhuis? Over Midden- en Laat-Neolithische huisplattegronden uit Nederland, Archeologie 10, 2000-2001, 42-79. Janssen, L.J.F. 1848. Drenthsche Oudheden. Utrecht, Kemink and Zoon. Junghans, S., Sangmeister, E. and Schröder, M. 1960. Metallanalysen kupferzeitlicher und frühbronzezeitlicher Bodenfunde aus Europa. Studien zu den Anfängen der Metallurgie, vol. 1. Berlin, Gebr. Mann.. Kaltofen, A. 2008. Flachgrab der Trichterbecherkultur in Geeste, Archäologie in Deutschland 3, 45. Knöll, H. 1952. Wanderungen, Handel, Ideenausbreitung und Töpferwerkstätten bei der nordwestdeutschen Tiefstichkeramik, Archaeologia Geographica 2, 35-40. The TRB sites 26 (Bouwlust) and 27 (Kreukelhof) near Slootdorp are dealt with in vol. 1, p. 40, 50, 131, 137, 162; in Lauwerier 2001: 17879, 199, 202, 205; further in vol. 2, p. 257-64 (26), 265-74 (27); vol. 3: Lenselink 2001: 97-110; Peeters 2001, 661-712. 3

21

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Knöll, H. 1959. Die nordwestdeutsche Tiefstichkeramik und ihre Stellung im Nord- und mitteleuropäischen Neolithikum. Münster Wf., Asschendorfsche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Lanting, J. N. 1975. De hunebedden op de Glimmer Es (gem. Haren), Groningse Volksalmanak 1974-1975, 167-180. Lanting, J. N. 1995. Het na-onderzoek van het vernielde hunebed D31a bij Exlo (Dr.), Paleo-Aktueel 5, 39-42. Lanting, J. N. 1997. Het zogenaamde hunebed van Rijs (Fr.), Paleo-Aktueel 8, 47-50. Lanting, J. N. and Brindley, A. L. 2004. The destroyed hunebed O2 and the adjacent TRB flat cemetery at Mander (Gem. Tubbergen, Province Overijssel), Palaeohistoria 45-46, 2003-2004, 59-94. Lauwerier, R.C.G.M. 2001. Archeozoölogie. In R. M. Van Heeringen and Theunissen, E. M. 2001. Kwaliteitsbepalend onderzoek ten behoeve van duurzaam behoud van neolithische terreinen in West-Friesland en de Kop van Noord-Holland. Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 21, 3 vols, 174-219. Amersfoort. Lenselink, G. 2001. Verkenning trechterbekervindplaats [Slootdorp-] Bouwlust (kavel B36), Wieringermeer: luchtfoto-interpretatie en booronderzoek. In R. M. Van Heeringen and Theunissen, E. M. 2001. Kwaliteitsbepalend onderzoek ten behoeve van duurzaam behoud van neolithische terreinen in WestFriesland en de Kop van Noord-Holland. Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 21, 3 vols, vol. 3, 97-110. [TRB-site 26]. Amersfoort. Lier, J. van 1760. Oudheidkundige Brieven, bevattende eene verhandeling over de manier van Begraven, en over de Lykbusschen, Wapenen, Veld- en Eertekens, der Oude Germanen, in het byzonder de beschryving van eenen alouden Steenen Grafkelder, met de daarin gevonden Lykbusschen, Donderkeilen en Donderbylen, enz. bij het Boerschap Eext, in het Landschap Drenthe, ontdekt… Uitgegeeven en met Voorreden en Aantekeningen vermeerderd door A. Vosmaer. The Hague, Pieter van Thol. Lohof, E., Hamburg, T. and Flamman, J. (eds) 2011. Steentijd opgespoord. Archeologisch onderzoek in het tracé van de Hanzelijn-Oude Land. Leiden, Archol bv and Amersfoort, ADC ArcheoProjecten. Louwe Kooijmans, L.P. 2010. De VL-pot van Kootwijk en enkele andere potdeposities uit de tweede helft van het vierde millennium v. Chr, Westerheem special nr. 2, april 2010, 194-207. Louwe Kooijmans, L. P., Van den Broeke, P.W. Fokkens, H. and Van Gijn, A.L. (eds) 2005. The Prehistory of the Netherlands, 2 vols. Amsterdam University Press. Lukis, W.C. 1879. Report on the hunebedden of Drenthe, Netherlands, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London, 2nd. ser. VIII, 1879-1881, 47-55. Müller, J. et al. 2012. Landscapes as social spaces and ritual meaning: some new results on TRB in North Germany. In this volume. Peeters, J. H. M. 2001. Het vuursteenmateriaal van de trechterbekervindplaats Bouwlust bij Slootdorp

(Gem. Wieringermeerpolder, prov. N.-H). In R. M. Van Heeringen and Theunissen, E. M. 2001. Kwaliteitsbepalend onderzoek ten behoeve van duurzaam behoud van neolithische terreinen in WestFriesland en de Kop van Noord-Holland. Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 21,vol. 3, 661-712. [TRB site 26]. Picardt, J. 1660. Korte beschryvinge van eenige vergetene en verborgene Antiquiteten der Provintien en Landen gelegen tusschen de Noord-Zee, de Yssel, Emse en Lippe. Waer by gevoeght zijn Annales Drenthiae…Mitsgaders een korte Beschrijvinge der Stadt, des Casteels, en der Heerlickheyt Covorden. Amsterdam, Gerrit van Goedesbergh; 2nd ed. 1731 Groningen, Wed. Joannes Cost; 3rd ed. 1745 Groningen, W. Febens. Facsimiles of 1st ed.: 1971 Meppel, Krips Repro N.V. and 2008 Leiden, Sidestone Press (introduction W. Arentzen). Raemaekers, D. 2007. Het midden-neolithische aardewerk. Ball, E. A. G. and Van den Broeke, P. W. (eds) 2007. Opgravingen op ’t Klumke te Nijmegen-Oosterhout. Archeologische Berichten Nijmegen 6, Nijmegen, 39-48. Rech, M. 1979. Studien zu Depotfunde der Trichterbecherund Einzelgrabkultur des Nordens. Neumünster, Wacholtz (Offa-Buch 39). Schierhold, K. 2009. The gallery graves of Hesse and Westphalia, Germany: extracting and working the stones, British Archaeological Reports International series 1923, 35-43. Schlicht, E. 1973. Kupferschmuck in Megalithgräbern Nordwestdeutschlands [und der Niederlande], Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte 42, 1352. Schwabedissen, H. 1979a. Zum Alter der Großsteingräber in Norddeutschland. In H. Schirnig (ed) Groβsteingräber in Niedersachsen, 143-159. Hildesheim, August Lax. Schwabedissen, H. 1979b. Der Beginn des Neolithikums im nordwestlichen Deutschland. In H. Schirnig (ed) Groβsteingräber in Niedersachsen, 203-222. Hildesheim, August Lax. Sprockhoff, E. 1975. Atlas der Megalithgräber Deutschlands, vol. 3, Niedersachsen, Westfalen, aus dem Nachlass herausgegeben von G. Körner [und F. Laux], text-volume and atlas. Bonn, Rudolph Habelt. Verbaas, A., Niekus, M. J. L. T., Van Gijn, A. L., Knippenberg, S., Lammers-Keijsers, Y. L., and Van Woerdekom, P. C. 2011. Vuursteen. In E. Lohof, Hamburg, T. and Flamman, J. (eds) 2011. Steentijd opgespoord. Archeologisch onderzoek in het tracé van de Hanzelijn-Oude Land. Leiden, Archol bv and Amersfoort, ADC ArcheoProjecten, 335-393. Verschoof, W.B. 2012. Riders on the storm. Amber ornaments as pieces of places in the Dutch Funnel Beaker culture. In this volume. Waterbolk, H. T. 1960. Preliminary report on the excavations at Anlo in 1957 and 1958, Palaeohistoria 8, 59-90. Wentink, K. 2006. Ceci n’est pas une hache. Neolithic depositions in the Northern Netherlands. Leiden, Sidestone Press.

22

Jan Albert Bakker: The TRB Culture in The Netherlands

Westendorp, N. 1822. Verhandeling ter beantwoording der vrage Welke Volkeren hebben de zoogenoemde hunebedden gesticht? In welke tijden kan men onderstellen, dat zij deze oorden hebben bewoond? xvi + 328 + 51 p. Groningen, J. Oomkens [revised and enlarged ed. of Westendorp 1815]. Zapotocký, M. 1992. Streitäxte des mitteleuropäischen Äneolithikums. Weinheim, VCH Verlagsgesellschaft. Van Zijverden, W.K. 2011. Landschap. In E. Lohof, Hamburg, T. and Flamman, J. (eds) 2011. Steentijd opgespoord. Archeologisch onderzoek in het tracé van de Hanzelijn-Oude Land. Leiden, Archol bv and Amersfoort, ADC ArcheoProjecten, 37-78.

Wentink, K. 2008. Crafting axes, producing meaning, Neolithic axe depositions in the northern Netherlands, Archaeological Dialogues 15, 151-173. Wentink, K., Van Gijn, A.L. and Fontijn, D. 2011. Changing contexts, changing meanings: Flint axes in Middle and Late Neolithic communities in the northern Netherlands. In V. Davids and M. Edmonds (eds) Stone Axe Studies III, 399-408. Oxford, Oxbow books. Westendorp, N. 1815. Verhandeling ter beantwoording der vrage Welke Volkeren hebben de zoogenoemde hunebedden gesticht? In welke tijden kan men onderstellen, dat zij deze oorden hebben bewoond? Letter- en Oudheidkundige Verhandelingen van de Hollandsche Maatschappij der Wetenschappen te Haarlem 1, 233-377.

23

Chapter 3 The Ritualisation of Flint in TRB Society: Evidence from the West Group Annelou van Gijn Abstract: Comparative technological and functional analysis of flint implements from special depositions, megaliths and settlements dating to the Funnelbeaker culture (c. 3400-2900 cal BC) within the territory of the Netherlands, has revealed remarkable differences in their life history. Both settlement and burial flint assemblages are characterised by ad hoc reduction strategies of locally available flint but their typological composition differs substantially. Whereas retouched flakes and scrapers dominate the formal flint tool assemblage from settlements, the find material from the megalithic burial tombs is characterized by a large number of, often unused, transverse arrowheads and picks. Additionally, a selection of domestic items, formerly involved in agricultural activities, are included in the burials as well. In contrast, the skilfully made, oversized axes found in the special depositions are imported from southern Scandinavia and display a special cultural biography. It is argued that flint played a pivotal role in the representation and structuration of the cosmological order of TRB society. It is suggested that this was characterised by a tripartite division of TRB cosmology into the land of the living (represented by the settlement flint), that of the local ancestral spirits (represented by the flint objects in the megaliths) and the world of the mythical ancestors or deities meaningful to a much larger social entity. Keywords: Funnelbeaker; flint; use wear study; axes; ritual; Neolithic; material culture; cultural biography; burial; megaliths

Introduction

the hunebedden, megalithic tombs generally assumed to be collective burial places (Bakker 2005; Van Ginkel et al. 1988), shows yet another picture. The typological composition of these funerary flint assemblages is notably different from those of the settlements, although the production strategies are the same.

Flint artefacts are by definition transformations of a natural substance: creating a beautifully crafted axe from a lump of stone is, certainly to an outside observer, like a magical act. Flint is also a strange material: it creates sparks and is thus associated with fire, a very important component of both daily life and rituals. Last, flint objects, because they are so portable, can be like ‘pieces of places’: their distinctive texture, colour and shininess makes it possible for knowledgeable actors to know where they originated. Flint objects can thus ‘travel’ and link communities far apart. Yet, despite these special features of this versatile raw material, flint objects are usually seen as ordinary, associated with domestic tasks, and rarely receive the detailed study they deserve. The flint from the Funnelbeaker sites in the Netherlands is no exception.

In the past years, the flint industry of several TRB sites within the area of the present-day Netherlands has been studied in detail in an attempt to reconstruct the biography of the various implements deriving from different contexts (Lohof, Hamburg and Quadflieg in prep.; Van Gijn 2010; Verbaas et al. 2011; Van Woerdekom 2011; Wentink 2006. Such a biographical perspective on objects enabled us to reconstruct the life history of the flint artefacts: from their conception (the selection of the raw material), to their birth (the production), their life (the use or treatment of the implement) and, finally their death (the deposition, discard or loss of the objects).

Archaeological remains of the Funnelbeaker culture in the present-day Netherlands, dating c. 3400-2900 cal BC, are limited to the area north of the rivers Rhine and Meuse. Settlements are found on the Veluwe, in the northern part of North Holland and in the north-eastern parts of the country (Van Gijn and Bakker 2005). The large, highly crafted axes with rectangular cross-section are the most conspicuous flint objects from this period. They are encountered in hoards, located away from the settled area (Bakker 1979; Harsema, 1979; Ter Wal 1996; Wentink 2006; Wentink and Van Gijn 2008). Their production requires a great level of skill, which can only be acquired after a long apprenticeship. In contrast, the flint encountered in settlements is characterized by an ad hoc reduction strategy of locally available raw material and a relatively small number and limited range of formal tools. The flint encountered in burial context, notably

In this paper I want to compare the cultural biographies of the flint objects from three different depositional contexts that we know from the Dutch TRB: settlements, burials and hoards in an attempt to understand the role flint played in different aspects of life. It will be argued that flint is instrumental in the representation and structuration of TRB society. Sample and methods of study TRB settlements are not encountered very often in the present-day Netherlands, although flint scatters probably dating to this period abound in various areas. For the most part these flint scatters, which are often situated on the

25

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

sandy Pleistocene uplands, constitute palimpsest situations. Some TRB settlement sites have been excavated in the central parts of the Netherlands like Laren (Bakker 1966) and Harderwijk-Beekhuizerzand (Modderman, Bakker and Heidinga 1976), but the flint from both of these sites was too abraded for use wear study. The TRB settlements excavated more recently on the fringes of the plateaus proved to be more suitable for microscopic analysis. Samples from four TRB settlements were examined for traces of wear: Groningen-Oostersingel, Slootdorp-Bouwlust (Peeters 2001), Hattemerbroek-Hanzelijn (Lohof et al. 2011) and Hattemerbroek-Bedrijventerrein Zuid (Lohof et al. in prep.). As to the burial context, samples from five megaliths were examined microscopically: Drouwen-D19, Drouwen-D26 (Bakker in prep.), Glimmen-G2 (Brindley 1986), Glimmen-G3 (Brindley 1983) and Mander-O2 (Lanting and Brindley 2003/2004). One axe from Zeijen-D5 was included too. The material from the stone cist of Diever was also studied as was the material from one of the flatgraves at Mander (Van Gijn 2010, Appendix I). With respect to the hoards, the axes and other flint objects from 12 special depositions attributed to the TRB period were subjected to study (Wentink 2006; Wentink 2008; Wentink and Van Gijn 2008; Wentink, Van Gijn and Fontijn, 2011).

hammer percussion predominates, but a bipolar technique was used as well (Peeters 2001; Van Gijn 2010). Many cores were reduced from multiple platforms. Like in most late Neolithic settlements the knappers seemed to have been preoccupied with creating usable edges rather than standardized tools. The largest sample for use-wear analysis was taken from a relatively homogeneous concentration of TRB material, encompassing pottery, flint and hard stone tools, within the confines of the site of Hattemerbroek-Bedrijventerrein-zuid (Lohof et al. in prep.). Here it turns out that traces from hide scraping and wood working predominated (Knippenberg et al. in prep.). Wood was worked by different tools for a range of activities, like boring, cutting and scraping, indicating that this material was modified into various objects. A few blades or blade like tools were used to scrape siliceous plants, suggesting that plant-based craft activities were carried out (Knippenberg et al. in prep). Transverse arrowheads with traces from impact were rare. The same picture emerges from the microscopic use wear studies of samples from other TRB settlements sites, like Groningen-Oostersingel. In all four settlement sites studied hide and wood working implements predominated. Again, sickle blades were absent for the most part, whereas used strike-a-lights and transverse arrowheads were encountered occasionally.

The methodological approach taken departed from the central objective to reconstruct the life history of objects. This entails an assessment of the type of flint and its provenience, a study of the technological features of the flint implements (including a typological classification), a use wear study and, last, the recording of the place of deposition, discard or loss (Van Gijn 2010). The use wear study was carried out by means of a Wild stereomicroscope (magnifications up to 160x), allowing the detection of residue like ochre and the assessment of the macroscopic wear traces like those from a use as strike-a-light. Subsequently a Nikon Optiphot incident light microscope with polarized light and DIC Nomarski (magnifications up to 500x) was employed to study use wear polish and striations in detail, allowing the interpretation of contact material and motion (Van Gijn 1990).

The flint from burial context The most conspicuous remains of the Funnelbeaker culture in the Netherlands are the hunebedden, megalithic constructions with collective burials containing large amounts of pottery, flint, ornaments, and some stone implements. The dead are also buried in flatgraves but the latter contain very few flint objects and will thus be largely left out of the discussion here. The largest component of the flint assemblages from the megaliths is formed by waste and unretouched flakes (Figure 1). The raw material used for the production of tools is local moraine flint of rather poor quality. The knapping style can be characterized as opportunistic, as was also the case with the settlement flint. In terms of typological composition, however, the flint assemblages from the megaliths differ substantially from those of the settlements: transverse arrowheads (points) are by far the predominant formal tool type. Other implements include axes, which are especially numerous in D19, picks (bikkels) or strike-a-lights, scrapers and the occasional sickle blade (Van Gijn 2010, figs. 6.7, 6.9, 6.10 and 6.11).

The flint from settlement context TRB settlement flint from the area of the present-day Netherlands is characterized by a large number of unretouched flakes, flakes with some minor retouch and waste. Scrapers are the most frequently occurring formal tool type, borers also occur. Remarkably few transverse arrowheads are found in settlement context whereas strikea-lights and picks are also only found incidentally. Use was made of locally available flint of poor or mediocre quality, including terrace flint, material originating from moraines and, incidentally, bryozoan flint (Peeters 2001; Verbaas et al. 2011). Many of the cores and nodules display internal natural fractures. The knapping technique can be characterized as opportunistic, involving very little planning and usually without much dorsal face or platform preparation (Knippenberg et al. in prep). Evidence for hard

The large amount of waste and unretouched flakes in combination with presence of hammerstones and cores and core fragments, suggests that flint knapping may have taken place on the spot. As no refitting has been attempted and only D26 was sieved, this cannot be corroborated, but the conclusion seems to be justified that flint knapping waste was deposited in the burial chamber. Another interesting observation is that microscopic

26

Annelou van Gijn: The Ritualisation of Flint in TRB Society

Figure 1. Typomorphological composition of the flint assemblage from four megaliths (after Van Woerdekom 2011).

The fact that they were re-sharpened suggests that they still had a life or ‘purpose’ ahead of them, becoming part of the ‘life’ of the ancestors. It should also be stressed that axes, strike-a-lights and sickles were domestic tools that played a crucial role in the agricultural process: the axes and strikea-lights to clean and burn down the forest and the sickles to reap the harvest. As agricultural tools used intensively during part of their biography by the TRB people, they moved to a different realm at the end of their life history, to accompany the dead in the world of the ancestors (or to die along with the people).

examination of the transverse arrowheads did not produce many instances of impact traces or indications for hafting, evidence that could be associated with their use as a projectile. Although used points are present, most of these arrowheads seem to have been unused. Sometimes they even had such an awkward shape that their aerodynamic qualities could be questioned. A similar situation seems to pertain to the picks. They were roughly hewn, with sharp ridges, and did not display traces of a use as strike-a-light or pounder. They too seem to have been made in a rather haphazard fashion. Like the points, they are also present in substantial numbers, which is strange as they do not seem to have been put to a specific use.

Apart from the special selection of domestic items to be deposited in the collective tombs, there are several indications that flint played an active role in the burial ceremonies. First of all, considering the large amount of unmodified flakes and the high number of unused (and often unusable) transverse arrowheads and picks, it can be argued that much of the flint deposited in the tombs was knapped specifically for the occasion, to be deposited in the tomb. This is of course difficult to substantiate as none of the megaliths have been properly excavated, so that we do not know anything about the presence or absence of microdebitage, and refitting has not been attempted. Still, the evidence is highly suggestive of such special knapping events at or near the tomb. It may be postulated that because knapping flint gives a characteristic rhythmic sound, this activity contributed to the overall sensual experience, being part of the sounds surrounding the burial ceremony.

Other types of tools, however, do display traces of wear. Several of the scrapers were used for hide working but they occurred in smaller quantities than in the settlements. Also the axes, sickle blades and strike-a-lights were used, showing heavily developed wear traces. These three types of tools were almost exclusively deposited in burial context. The axes, which are usually made of local flint, all display traces from contact with wood (visible in the small use scars), as well as evidence for hafting. These axes must have been instrumental in clearing the forest and undergrowth, a procedure that was central in the slash-and-burn type of agriculture, which was most probably practised in TRB times (Bakels and Zeiler 2005). The strike-a-lights, used to create sparks, can also be associated with this type of agriculture, namely with the burning of the undergrowth. Both the axes and the strike-a-lights ended up in the megaliths in heavily used state, indicated by the severe rounding of the latter and the small size of the axes, some of which could be considered exhausted. Interestingly, upon deposition in the megaliths the axes were re-sharpened (Wentink 2006, figs. 5.4 and 5.5; Van Gijn 2010, fig. 6.8).

Another indication that flint had a special role in burial rituals comes from the microscopic analysis. Many unretouched flakes, transverse arrowheads and other flint artefact display scratches that were initially considered to have a post-depositional origin. Under the stereomicroscope

27

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Figure 2. Cross-hatched scratching seen on a flint tool from megalith G2 (taken with a stereomicroscope, 10x magnification) (Photo Laboratory for Artefact Studies, Leiden University).

these scratches appear as sets of parallel lines covering the surface of the tool. Sometimes more directions can be discerned, in one occasion even a cross-hatched pattern (Figure 2). The scratches are always very regular and parallel making it highly unlikely that they were the result of trampling. As all sites were excavated in different ways, post-excavation treatment can also be ruled out. They occur frequently and on all types of artefacts provided they are larger than a centimetre; small flint objects were apparently excluded from this treatment, as were axes (Van Woerdekom 2011, p.46). Experiments show that these scratches can be made by a pointed flint flake that was strongly pushed against the surface of the flint surface. It may well be that many of the picks that are so abundantly present in the megaliths and which frequently do not display traces of use, were involved in this ritual activity. Further experiments combined with detailed examination of the archaeological picks, should shed further light on this. Obviously there is no utilitarian reason for scratching a flint surface with a flint tool. However, this practice suggests that flint implements were treated in curious ways in TRB burial ceremonies.

of hoards, containing large axes was encountered, mainly in the province of Drenthe (a.o. Achterop 1960; Harsema 1979; Ter Wal 1996). These oversized axes were all made in workshops in southern Scandinavia and were brought to the area of the northern Netherlands as finished items. The skills invested in these axes must have been considerable and here and there subtle indications are left which are only perceived and acknowledged by knowledgeable observers. The small patch of cortex on the butt end of the axe, indicating the proficiency of the makers is such a ‘marker’ (Rüdebeck 1998; Wentink 2006). Use wear and residue analysis shows these oversized axes to have had a special biography. The axes did they not display ‘regular’ traces of use that would suggest a functional use-life. In fact many of them actually were too big to be used, that is more than 22 cm in length. They are substantially larger than the axes from the megaliths (Van Gijn 2010, table 7.1; Wentink 2006). Many of the edges also have traces of ochre. Moreover, the ridges and edges show wear from having been recurrently wrapped and unwrapped in an, as yet, unidentified material. Last, they were not just deposited in waterlogged places, but along streams, at the edge of habitable, sandy areas and bog lands (Wentink 2006; Wentink and Van Gijn 2008).

The flint from hoards During peat cutting activities in the 19th century a number

28

Annelou van Gijn: The Ritualisation of Flint in TRB Society

In addition, flint nodules sometimes formed part of the multiple object depositions. The deposition of Een 1940 is a good example: it consists of flint nodules, prefabs and finished axes (Harsema 1979; Van Gijn 2010, fig. 7.6). It should be emphasized that it is highly likely that flint nodules were a much more common occurrence and in fact they were mentioned in several of the original find reports. However, because they did not display traces of manufacture, they were not collected, but instead left behind in the find spot. Why were such nodules included in these special depositions? Just like the axes, the nodules had their origin in southern Scandinavia or northern Germany and were transported over large distances. Yet, their shape made them utterly unsuitable for axe manufacturing. Microscopic examination of the nodules from the Een 1940 deposition showed the presence of ochre on three of the four nodules. On a few spots, where the cortex was removed, it was possible to discern evidence for the same wrapping traces as seen on the finished axes (Van Gijn 2010; Wentink 2008). Another remarkable observation was that all of the nodules displayed ancient, heavily patinated scars alongside flake removals of more recent origin, presumably from TRB times (Figure 3). It can be suggested that these nodules were a visual reminder of the mythical origin of the axes: only the ancestral spirits could make such beautiful axes. The knowledge to produce them is a gift from them and without such magical knowledge these axes are impossible to make. The ancient, patinated flake scars may represent the ancestral spirits, the more recent ones may refer to the skilful knappers who received their gift from these very spirits. The fact that the nodules were also treated with ochre, either during deposition or during the course of their life, indicates that they were very much part of the same narrative as the axes (Wentink 2008). Wentink (2006) interprets the axes as inalienable objects that represent a larger TRB cosmology that encompasses both the TRB North group in southern Scandinavia and the TRB West group. The biography of the axes is special from the moment of their production. They were made specifically as ceremonial objects to be deposited eventually in waterlogged places: their life-history was pre-determined ‘at birth’. Their prohibitively large size would make it impossible to employ them like a ‘real axe’. Instead they were intended as sacred objects of ritual exchange, from the start and kept apart from daily domestic life. The highly skilled makers of these axes knew exactly what cultural rules these objects were surrounded with, and what powers and knowledge these objects embodied. By wrapping the axes these powers were kept secret, not to be seen by the uninitiated. Experiments by Wentink (2006) show that the axes must have been wrapped and unwrapped numerous times, suggesting they played a role in many ceremonies that took place either during their transport or in the region of their final destination.

Figure 3. Nodule from the hoard of Een 1940 with a patinated and a more recent flake scar (photograph Karsten Wentink).

Netherlands, according to a strictly defined set of rules known both to the producers and to the recipients of these objects. By doing so, these axes, probably agents in their own right and embodying ancestral powers and knowledge pertinent to TRB cosmology, united the various local groups that shared the TRB identity. The location of these depositions, in streams separating different territories and on the edges of uninhabitable bog areas, indicates that these axes were not owned by particular local groups. Being inalienable objects, their significance transcended that of the local group. Three cultural biographies, three realms of interaction The flint from the three different types of context, settlement, burials and depositions, displays considerable differences in the raw material selected, the technological features, the way the objects were put to use (or not) and, lastly, in the way they were discarded or deposited. Such

Eventually these large axes, along with unusable flint nodules, were deposited in streams in the northern

29

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

different cultural biographies imply that the flint from settlements, burials and depositions must each have had a very different meaning for the people in the past.

Flint was not only deposited in the tombs but may also have played a role in the actual burial rituals. Obviously we will never know what these burial rituals were like, as bones have not preserved in the soils of the Drenthe. There is evidence for the deposition of complete pots in front of the hunebedden (Bakker and Luijten 1989). The presence of knapping waste inside the tombs, the ad hoc character thereof and the fact that many artefacts lack traces of use or were even unusable was seen as an indication that maybe flint was knapped on the spot, flint knapping thus being part of the ritual practices surrounding the burial ceremony. Obviously, this can only be corroborated by a detailed search for microdebitage around and inside the tombs. The strange, probably intentional, scratching of the flint artefacts may be interpreted as a ritual act as well. It has been suggested above that both the flintknapping and the scratching may thus have contributed to the soundscape, and thus to the general sensual experience, of the burial event (Figure 4). Although this may seem a little farfetched, it should be noted that funerals around the world tend to be a noisy affair (Huntington and Metcalf, 1979) and sounds, especially drums, often play a role when attempting to contact ‘the world beyond’ (Needham, 1965).

The domestic flint technology can be characterized as highly opportunistic. Little effort was spent on the tools necessary to carry out the daily tasks in the settlements. The flint selected was generally not of very high quality and did not allow a standardized reduction strategy. Instead, an opportunistic production was the norm, resulting in flakes of irregular shape. The flint tools were hardly modified into standardized tool types. Flakes were selected on the basis of a suitable edge, the retouch largely developing as a result of use, resulting in a many ‘retouched flakes’. These simple tools were employed in various domestic tasks like carpentry, hide processing and carrying out plantbased crafts. Upon completion of the task, the tools were discarded as none showed evidence of curation. Their role clearly was with the living communities in the settlements. Some of the tools involved in domestic tasks, however, had a different cultural biography because they were selected to be deposited in the burial tombs. Apart from some scrapers, involved in craft activities, it concerns the flint tools that could be associated with agricultural tasks: axes, strike-alights and sickle blades. It was argued above that these three types of tools may have played a role in the slash-and-burn type of agriculture practised in the TRB period: the axes for chopping down the trees, the strike-a-lights for burning down the undergrowth and the sickles to harvest the crops. All three of these tool types were used intensively. The axes from the megaliths were very short, having been resharpened recurrently and, in fact, they were deposited in re-sharpened state.

The oversized, skilfully made axes in the depositions have yet another story to tell. They were meant to be special ‘from birth onwards’: they were not really axes in a functional sense, although it is obviously meaningful that they were shaped as such (see for instance Hampton 1999 for examples of the symbolic connotations of the axe). These axes were brought from southern Scandinavia and the knowledge as to how to treat these axes was shared by all the communities on the way. Even though these large flint axes constituted a beautiful raw material and a perfect core to strike usable flakes and blades from, this was ‘not done’ because these axes must have embodied notions meaningful to the inhabitants across a vast area. Eventually they were deposited in riverbeds, forming the boundaries between individual communities in the north-eastern part of the present-day Netherlands. These axes, it was argued, referred to yet another realm of interaction, transcending that of the local community and its ancestors. They brought together communities far apart, who shared cosmological notions relevant to both the TRB North and West-group.

The deposition of agricultural tools in the hunebedden may not only relate to the special importance attributed to agricultural activities, but also reflect the ambiguity of these tasks in terms of the nature-culture dichotomy. Both axes and strike-a-lights may have been seen as ambiguous, associated with both death and life: on the one hand instrumental in destroying the ancestral forest that used to be life-giving, on the other, providing new life in enabling the crops to grow. It can well be imagined that the slash-and-burn type of agriculture, involving the destruction of the life-giving woods, as practised by TRB farmers, was circumscribed with rules and regulations that were supported and reinforced by various communal rituals. In this context it can be noted that the preparation and maintenance of agricultural fields and the harvest of the crops generally is a communal affair in which everybody partakes. Axes, sickle blades and strike-a-lights are thus related to a central communal activity. Their deposition in the ancestral burial grounds of the hunebedden may therefore be reflective of values and beliefs that are shared by the community: these objects symbolized activities relevant to the local community and brought the living and the dead together.

Flint thus played an important role in symbolizing, structuring and reinforcing the tripartite division of TRB cosmological order into the world of the living (represented by the settlement material), that of the local group and its ancestors (represented by the megaliths) and that of the mythical ancestors or deities meaningful to a much larger social entity, represented by the depositions. These three contexts, settlements, graves and depositions, constitute distinct cosmological categories: that of the living, the dead and the mythical ancestors deities. Flint clearly was a focal material (Boivin and Owoc 2004; Cooney 2008) with which to express this cosmological order.

30

Annelou van Gijn: The Ritualisation of Flint in TRB Society

Figure 4. Reconstruction of the possible rituals involving flint that may have formed part of a burial event: flint knapping and scratching (drawing Medy Oberendorff, from Van Gijn 2010, fig. 7.4).

Acknowledgements

Van den Broeke, H. Fokkens and A. L. Van Gijn (eds.), The prehistory of the Netherlands, 311-336. Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press. Bakker, J. A. 1966. Een nederzetting van de trechterbekercultuur te Laren (N.H.), in W. Glasbergen, W. Groenman-van Waateringe and M.D. de Weerd (eds), In het voetspoor van A.E. van Giffen, 170-171. Groningen, Wolters. Bakker, J. A. 1979. The TRB West Group. Studies in the chronology and geography of the makers of the hunebeds and Tiefstich pottery. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam. Bakker, J. A. 2005. Funerary buildings from erratic boulder. The construction and function of the hunebedden, in L. P. Louwe Kooijmans, P. W. Van den Broeke, H. Fokkens and A. L. Van Gijn (eds.), The Prehistory of the Netherlands, 307-311. Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press. Bakker, J. A. in prep. Hunebed D26 in het Drouwenerveld, verslag van de onderzoekingen. Bakker, J. A., and H. Luijten 1989. Services and other “similarity groups” in Western TRB pottery. Palaeohistoria, 15-16, 177-181. Boivin, N. and M. A. Owoc (eds) 2004. Soils, stones and symbols. Cultural perceptions of the mineral world. London, UCL Press. Brindley, A. L. 1983. The finds from hunebed G3 on the

I am very grateful to Karsten Wentink, Corné van Woerdekom, Annemieke Verbaas and Wouter Verschoor for joining me in my attempts to study the stone and flint component of the TRB West-group, and for allowing me to use the results of their theses and data. Address Prof. dr. Annelou van Gijn Professor Material Culture Studies Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Director Laboratory for Artefact Studies Faculty of Archaeology Leiden University PB 9515, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands email: [email protected] or [email protected] telephone: + 31 71 527 2389/2633 www.artefactstudies.com Bibliography Achterop, S. H. 1960. Een depot van vuurstenen bijlen bij de Reest. Nieuwe Drentse Volksalmanak, 78. Bakels, C. C. and J. Zeiler 2005. The fruits of the land. Neolithic subsistence, in L. P. Louwe Kooijmans, P. W.

31

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

ten behoeve van duurzaam behoud van neolithische terreinen in West-Friesland en de Kop van NoordHolland, 661-713. Amersfoort, ROB. Rüdebeck, E. 1998. Flint extraction, axe offering, and the value of cortex, in M. Edmonds and C. Richards (eds), Understanding the Neolithic of north-western Europe. 312-327. Glasgow, Cruithne Press. Ter Wal, A. 1996. Een onderzoek naar de depositie van vuurstenen bijlen. Palaeohistoria 37/38, 127-159. Van Gijn, A. L. 1990. The wear and tear of flint. Principles of functional analysis applied to Dutch Neolithic assemblages. Unpublished PhD thesis, Leiden University, Leiden. Van Gijn, A. L. 2010. Flint in focus. Lithic biographies in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Leiden, Sidestone Press. Van Gijn, A. L. and Bakker, J. A. 2005. Megalith builders and sturgeon fishers. Middle Neolithic B: Funnel Beaker culture and Vlaardingen group, in L. P. Louwe Kooijmans, P. W. Van den Broeke, H. Fokkens and A. L. Van Gijn (eds), The Prehistory of the Netherlands, 281-306. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Van Ginkel, E., Jager, S and Van der Sanden, W. 1988. Hunebedden. Gids en geschiedenis van Nederlands oudste monumenten. Assen. Van Woerdekom, P. C. 2011. Scratching the Surface, flint assemblages of the Dutch hunnebedden. Unpublished MA, Leiden University, Leiden. Verbaas, A., Niekus, M. J. L. T., Van Gijn, A. L., Knippenberg, S. and Van Woerdekom, P. C. 2011. Vuursteen, in E. Lohof, T. Hamburg and J. Flamman (eds.), Steentijd opgespoord, Archeologisch onderzoek in het tracé van de Hanzeljjn-Oude Land, 335 - 393. Leiden, Amersfoort: Archol bv, ADC ArcheoProjecten. Wentink, K. 2006. Ceci n’est pas une hache. Neolithic depositions in the Northern Netherlands. Unpublished RMA thesis, Leiden University, Leiden. Wentink, K. 2008. Crafting axes, producing meaning. Neolithic axe deposition in the northern Netherlands. Archaeological Dialogues 15(2), 151-173. Wentink, K. and Van Gijn, A.L. 2008. Neolithic depositions in the Northern Netherlands, in C. Hamon and B. Quilliec (eds.), Hoards from the Neolithic to the Metal Ages. Technical and codified practices. Session of the XIth annual meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists, 29-43. Oxford, BAR Publishing. Wentink, K., Van Gijn, A. L. and Fontijn, D.R. 2011. Changing contexts, changing meanings: flint axes in Middle and Late Neolithic communities in the northern Netherlands, in V. Davis and M. Edmonds (eds.), Stone axe studies III, 399-408. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Glimmer Es, mun. of Haren, Prov. of Groningen, the Netherlands. Helinium, 23, 209-236. Brindley, A. L. 1986. Hunebed G2. Excavation and finds. Palaeohistoria, 28, 27-92. Cooney, G. 2008. Engaging with stone. Making the Neolithic in Ireland and Western Britain, in H. Fokkens, B. Coles, A. L. Van Gijn, J. Kleijne, H. Ponjee and C. Slappendel (eds), Between foraging and farming. An extended broad spectrum of papers presented to Leendert Louwe Kooijmans, 203-214. Leiden, Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 40. Hampton, O. W. 1999. Culture of stone. Sacred and profane uses of stone among the Dani. College Station, Texas A and M University. Harsema, O. H. 1979. Het neolithisch vuursteendepot gevonden in 1940 bij Een, gem. Norg. Nieuwe Drentse Volksalmanak, 96, 117-128. Huntington, R. and P. Metcalf 1979. Celebrations of death. The anthropology of mortuary ritual. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Knippenberg, S., A. L. van Gijn, A. Verbaas and C. van Woerdekom in prep. Vuursteen, in E. Lohof, T.D. Hamburg, and B. I. Quadflieg (eds). Archeologisch onderzoek op het toekomstig bedrijventerrein Hattemerbroek zuid (gemeente Oldebroek). Lanting, J. N. and A. L Brindley 2003/2004. The destroyed hunebed O2 and the adjacent TRB flat cemetery at Mander (gem. Tubbergen, province Overijssel). Palaeohistoria 45/46, 59-94. Lohof, E., T. Hamburg and J. Flamman 2011. Steentijd opgespoord, archeologisch onderzoek in het tracé van de Hanzelijn - Oude land. Leiden, Amersfoort, Archol BV, ADC Archeoprojecten. Lohof, E., T. D. Hamburg and B. I. Quadflieg, (eds) (in prep.). Archeologisch onderzoek op het toekomstig bedrijventerrein Hattemerbroek zuid (gemeente Oldebroek). Modderman, P. J. R., Bakker, J. A. and Heidinga, H. A. 1976. Nederzettingssporen uit midden-neolithicum (TRB), late bronstijd en middeleeuwen in het Beekhuizer Zand onder Harderwijk, prov. Gelderland. Analecta Praehistoria Leidensia 9, 39-73. Needham, R. 1965. Percussion and transition, in W. A. Lessa and E. Vogt (eds), Reader in comparative Religion. An anthropological approach, 391-398. New York, Harper and Row, Publishers. Peeters, J. H. M. 2001. Het vuursteenmateriaal van de trechterbekervindplaats Bouwlust bij Slootdorp (gem. Wieringermeer, prov. N-H.), in R. M. Van Heeringen and E. M. Theunissen (eds.), Kwaliteitsbepalend onderzoek

32

Chapter 4 Riders on the Storm. Amber Ornaments as Pieces of Places in the Dutch Funnel Beaker Culture Wouter Verschoof Abstract: Amber ornaments are occasionally found in Dutch megaliths, the hunebedden. The only likely local source of amber during the TRB was the coastal area. This area was exploited from catching sites, which were occupied on a seasonal basis. These sites formed a counterpart to the resident sites further inland. This dispersed site-system resulted in the regular movement of parts of the community and made travelling an essential everyday activity. However, it also scattered the social group. Therefore occasional gatherings at fixed places in the landscape, such as the hunebedden, were important. During these gatherings burials and rituals were performed, which emphasized and reinforced the collective identity of the social group. Objects were deposited, which are interpreted as commemorating communal values, beliefs and activities. Considering this, a comparable interpretation is suggested for the amber ornaments - a communal activity that is signified by these particular objects. It is assumed that the specific provenance of amber would have created an association between this material and the coastal area, an important area in its own right. It is therefore argued that the amber ornaments deposited in hunebedden referred to the everyday activity of travelling to and from and exploiting the coastal area. Keywords: Amber, ornaments, site-system, hunebedden, travel

Introduction

making these ornaments, the lack of standardization in size, the rough workmanship and the occasional mistakes (Figure 1). All ornaments were used to some degree. Interestingly, about half of all ornaments appear to have been reground after use, but prior to deposition (Verschoof and Van Gijn in prep).

The Dutch Funnel Beaker Culture (or TRB) is best known for its exceptional megalithic graves, the socalled ‘hunebedden’. Excavations of several hunebedden, especially in the first half of the 20th century, yielded thousands of pieces of pottery, flint and stone, as well as more than 200 ornaments made of various materials such as amber, jet, stone, and possibly even copper (Figure 1). Until recently, research focused on the construction of the megaliths and the pottery found in them. Ornaments were viewed as jewellery imported from the Baltic region, and as such were only superficially documented and reported. In my master’s thesis I tried to correct this shortcoming. The manner in which ornaments were treated and the meanings ascribed to them were explored by examining recurring patterns in production, use and deposition (Verschoof 2011). A microscopical analysis was carried out at the Laboratory for Artefact Studies at the Faculty of Archaeology of Leiden University, under the guidance of Professor Dr A. L. van Gijn. This article presents some of these results.

In the following it will be argued that ornaments, like other objects found in hunebedden, represented an everyday activity in TRB society. It will be shown that amber was intricately associated with its source, the coastal area. The (seasonal) exploitation of this area formed an important part of TRB existence. It is suggested that amber ornaments represent the travelling to and from this area, and its (seasonal) exploitation. In this manner amber ornaments served as ‘pieces of places’. Before further exploring this concept the properties of amber and its possible sources in the Netherlands are discussed. Amber Amber is an amorphous mix of resin with pollutants, such as insects and plant parts, and has no internal structure. It therefore shares some physical properties with flint, as both materials fracture conchoidally. The colour of amber varies from light yellow to dark red brown. The translucency also shows a wide variety, from translucent to opaque. The degree of translucency depends on the quantity, quality and density of microscopic pockets of air distributed throughout the amber, the so-called vesicles. These factors determine the hardness and brittleness of the amber and therefore the

Though some ornaments of jet, stone, and copper have been found, this article focuses on amber ornaments as they make up the majority (216 out of 237; 91%) of the assemblage. The provenance of this material in particular plays a central role in this article. The production process will therefore not be extensively discussed. For this article it suffices to point out that amber ornaments appear to have been made locally on a household level, by men, women and possibly even children. This is evidenced by the little skill involved in

33

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Figure 1. Three ornaments found in hunebed D6a at Tynaarlo (after Brindley, Lanting and Neves Espinha 2001/2002, 69). Note the rough workmanship of all three ornaments and the mistake made in aligning the two-sided perforation in the centre ornament.

workability. Generally speaking, the hardness increases as the amount of vesicles decreases (Mazurowski 1985). However, the hardness of amber (2-2.5 on Mohs’ scale) is still low compared to other materials and it can therefore easily be worked with flint (Piena and Drenth 2001, 436). The density of amber varies from 1.05 to 1.1; therefore it floats in cold seawater (Perk 2010, 154).

nodules are continuously washed out of these soils in the North Sea basin and deposited along the Dutch Wadden islands and northern beaches (Van Gijn 2006, 106). Van der Valk (2007) recently argued that amber could also have been washed out of brown coal deposits in central Germany and transported by the Rhine and Meuse to the western part of the Netherlands. This amber, contrary to the other sources, is of younger age and opaque. This could be a source for the amber found on the southwestern coast of the Netherlands.

Amber has traditionally been ascribed various magical and medical properties. Sailors sought to minimise the risk of drowning by wearing an amber amulet (Ploug 2000, 96), and even today amber is said to protect the wearer against gout and rheumatism (Van Gijn 2008). The electrostatic properties as well as the slight thermal conductivity of amber might lie at the root of these ascribed magical properties.

The above shows that the (northern) coast of the Netherlands was the most likely, and possibly the only, source of amber during the Dutch TRB. Several fragments of amber found at the TRB extraction camp Slootdorp-Bouwlust on the northwestern coast demonstrate the local procurement of amber (Theunissen 2001, 261).

Prehistoric sources of amber in the Netherlands

Having established that the coastal area was the source of amber, the paper discusses the importance of this area in the following section. In order to understand the exploitation of the coastal area the entire Dutch site-system is also examined.

The amber found in the Netherlands derives from an extinct pine species, Pinus succiniferia. It is also known as Succinite or Baltic amber. This Succinite amber was formed during the Eocene (53 to 33.7 million years ago) in an extensive subtropical forest covering most of Scandinavia. Already during part of the Eocene (45-33.7 million years ago) and particularly during the Oligocene (33.7-23.8 million year ago) this area was eroded by the river Eridanos, which transported the amber and deposited it in a delta that covered the present southern Baltic Sea (Perk 2010). These deposits were then eroded by marine transgression in the Baltic area. The amber was transported and deposited along the coast of Jutland and SchleswigHolstein, the eastern coast of England and along the northwestern coast of the Netherlands. Nodules of amber are also present in the Saalian boulder clay deposits. These

The importance of the coastal area in the TRB The Dutch coastal area was certainly not devoid of people during the TRB. It was an important zone in the landscape, not only on an economic but also on a social and even cosmological level. The various extraction camps or catching sites along the coast show the economic significance of this region (also see below). Fish was undoubtedly an invaluable source of food and there are indications that shellfish was collected during the TRB (Midgley 1992, 376). Furthermore, the economic

34

Wouter Verschoof: Riders on the Storm

importance of this area for the exploitation of sea- and migratory birds, as well as other wild animals, is shown by the large amount of bird bones found at SlootdorpBouwlust.

2000/2001, 44). Bone material found at these extraction camps suggests the exploitation of wild resources, mainly duck and deer, and the grazing of livestock during the winter months (Hogestijn and Drenth 2000/2001, 45-51).

Socially, as well as economically, the coastline must have been an important means for travel, transport of goods, as well as for communication between societies near and far. Travelling by water, along rivers and the coastline, is not only evidenced by many finds of dug-out canoes and other sailing paraphernalia but also by the presence of TRB sites on islands such as Helgoland in the North Sea and Bornholm in the Baltic Sea (Midgley 2008, 10). The latter island is separated from the Swedish mainland by a 37km wide strait, known for its very strong currents and changing winds, and crossing this stretch of water would have been a hazardous enterprise. This not only shows the level of navigational skills TRB people possessed, but also that (sea) travel constituted an important Neolithic craft (Midgley 2008, 10).

A second type of site is the resident site. These are generally located on flat ground close to a watercourse. While more permanently occupied than catching sites, resident sites still appear to have been used only for a couple of years (Madsen 1982, 206). Dozens of resident sites are known from the dry sandy soils in eastern and northern Netherlands. However, most of these sites concern surface find scatters of pottery and flint, which are generally believed to represent settlements. The distribution of these sites coincides, according to Bakker (1982), almost exactly with the area once covered by the glaciers of the Saalian ice age. In the province of Drenthe, habitation is mostly confined to the Drenthe plateau. Also Pleistocene outcrops in the northern Netherlands and sandy soils in southern central Netherlands were inhabited. The choice of settling on these relatively poor sandy soils required on one hand the regular relocation of settlements and fields. On the other hand, TRB people had a steady source of granites, flints and other erratic rocks for making tools. In certain areas there were even enough large boulders for the construction of megalithic tombs. Although some hunting and gathering can be expected to have taken place at resident sites, it can be assumed that these sites were primarily connected with agricultural activities. The short-lived occupation and gradual shifting of these sites may have been related to the periodic movement required for slash-and-burn agriculture (Bakels and Zeiler 2005, 322).

The cosmological importance of the sea and the seashore, as a liminal location, has been observed in many (pre)historic cultures (Bradley 2000, 132-146). It is here that the land and the sea meet, making it the edge of the settled land and therefore a clear boundary between inside and outside (Helms 1988, 28). Interestingly, in Arctic tradition the sea is also connected to the dead and this association may go as far back as the Ertebølle phase (Bradley 2000, 133). This is shown by several examples of burials in actual boats as well as graves containing canoes and completely intact burials that were found underwater (Skaarup 1995). The Dutch TRB site-system

The last type of site recognized by Madsen is the so-called centre. These large, central places had distinct and prominent topographic placement, such as small strips of land between swamps or rivers. One of the differences between the former two types of sites and these centres is that the latter were generally used for longer periods of time. Centres also include the so-called causewayed enclosures (Madsen 1982, 209). A causewayed enclosure consists of multiple interrupted ditches, sometimes accompanied by palisades on the inside of the ditches (Wentink 2006, 47). In the Netherlands two sites are interpreted as possible enclosures, one on the Drenths Plateau near Anloo (Waterbolk 1960) and another on the shore of the Uddelermeer (Bruijn 1960). However, the nature of both sites is still debated. While it is assumed that the megalithic tombs were in use by one social group, such as a family or clan, it can be assumed that several of these social groups together were involved in the activities taking place at the enclosures.

The above shows the importance of the coastal area in the TRB. The catching sites mentioned above were however part of a larger site-system. Madsen (1982) suggested a tripartite site model for the TRB, consisting of three different types of sites: catching sites, resident sites and centres. Although this model was established for the Northern group of the TRB (specifically Denmark), it can also be applied to the Dutch situation (Figure 2). Catching sites (or extraction camps) are small sites located directly on the sea or lake coast. The bone material found at these sites indicates the hunting of wild animals, birds, and fish and the collecting of shellfish. Some sites have also yielded bones of domestic animals, suggesting the breeding of livestock at these sites (Madsen 1982, 203-205). Feiken (2001) suggests that extraction camps could also have been established in order to extract specific raw materials, such as flint. Recent research in the northern and western parts of the Netherlands shows that this area was occupied during the TRB. Sites have been found that suggest seasonal and possibly even permanent occupation (Schreurs 2008, 105-106). Although at present only a few sites have been excavated, it is assumed that there were numerous TRB sites in the coastal area (Feiken 2001; Hogestijn and Drenth

It is my opinion that we can add a fourth group to this site-system, the hunebedden themselves. It is assumed that these tombs were in use during the entire TRB, and even thereafter. Megaliths were built in relation to particular features in the landscape, such as elevations, proximity to water or even (disused) agricultural fields (Midgley 2008, 32-42). A landscape reconstruction based on pollen spectra

35

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Figure 2. The distribution of TRB sites in the Netherlands. Note that the coastline lay further inland and was notably different from the present day coastline as depicted.

Travelling and the scattering of TRB society

from underneath Dutch hunebedden shows that these tombs were constructed in small open areas in a mixed oak forest. These areas were former arable fields that were sometimes still under cultivation or used as grazing grounds, but more often were abandoned. Some show forest regeneration, but in other cases heath expansion took place (Casparie et al. 1980). Megaliths were, therefore, presumably situated within close proximity of settlements.

The dispersed site-system described above resulted in the regular movement of parts of the community between resident sites, centres, hunebedden and catching sites, making travelling an essential everyday activity. During these travels TRB people could also establish and maintain social contacts, while simultaneously gathering raw materials (Van Gijn 2010, 22). It is hard to determine whether only small groups of people (task groups) or whole families travelled around, although teeth of adults, adolescents as well as children were found at SlootdorpBouwlust suggesting the presence of entire families (Hogestijn and Drenth 2000/2001, 48).

As already mentioned above, Madsen’s model was originally established for the Northern group of the TRB. However, the above examples show that this model can also be employed in the Netherlands. The same is assumed by Gehasse (1995, 217) and Feiken (2001, 75). Fokkens (1991, 101) concluded that the few excavated settlements suggest that the Dutch TRB settlement pattern is similar to the Danish one. We can therefore envision the Dutch TRB as consisting of seasonally occupied catching sites along the coast, where people fished, hunted, collected shellfish and bred livestock. Along with these other tasks, amber, suitable for making ornaments, could have been collected and worked as well. Further inland lay the semi-permanent resident sites, where agriculture was practiced, as well as the more permanent centres and megaliths.

It is impossible to ascertain in what manner prehistoric people covered the distance between resident sites and the coastal catching sites, which can be as far as 120km apart as the crow flies, but we can imagine groups of people moving on foot as well as by dugout canoes or carts. Boat travel, along rivers and the coastline, might even have been a fast form of transport and therefore preferred over movement on land. However, at times of rough weather and in areas where boat travel was impractical, overland routes would have been used (Midgley 2008, 38). Wheel tracks preserved

36

Wouter Verschoof: Riders on the Storm

90). Such objects might therefore have been considered ‘pieces of places’, representing (remote) places of special importance or even have signified far away exchange partners (Van Gijn 2010, 113). As Van Gijn (2010, 170) puts it: ‘Stones can thus make reference to places near and far.’

under a megalith at Flintbek indicate the use of ox-pulled carts. There are also several iconographic representations of carts, such as the one found on a pot from Bronocice, Poland (Bakker et al. 1999; Midgley 1992, 378-379). This travelling was not without danger. While there are no obstacles such as mountains in the Netherlands, fastflowing and flood-prone rivers had to be crossed, marshy and boggy terrain avoided and navigated around, and safe routes identified in order to transport people, goods and animals safely through the landscape.

In my opinion the concept of ‘pieces of places’ can also be applied to the raw material used to make ornaments. The origin of amber found along the Dutch coast linked them with this specific part of the landscape. The fact that pieces of amber are found along the shoreline or floating in the breakers forms the basis for their association with the sea and the coast. While their origins may add to the value of these materials, the setting in which amber was found is also important. As shown by Waterbolk and Waterbolk (1991, 207-208), the most favourable conditions for finding amber are after several days of strong easterly storms. Midgley (1992, 292) suggests a connection between amber battle-axes found in southern Scandinavia and a male deity associated with rain, water, and thunder, as it is during precisely these weather conditions that amber is washed up on the shore. While not implying that the same holds true for the amber ornaments found in the Netherlands, in my opinion the above weather conditions would have added to the intrinsic value of this material and their association with the coast. Stormy weather could also have added a certain hazard and difficulty to the procurement of amber, which might have made it even more valuable.

The movement of people and the seasonal exploitation of the coastal area would have scattered the social group during certain periods of the year, such as the summer or winter. Also the non-permanent character of extraction camps and resident sites resulted in the relocation or shifting of sites on a regular basis, and would have further broken up the social group. The only stable man-made elements in the landscape would therefore be the hunebedden. Because of their permanent nature they could function as anchors for the social group and social memory (Wentink 2006, 85). Through time these monuments came to stand for the history and lineage of particular social groups (Wentink 2006, 99). At this point the importance of social gatherings at the hunebedden becomes apparent. Social relations between dispersed communities, like the Dutch TRB, which are engaged in (economic) pursuits that involve a certain degree of mobility, demand social arrangements different from entirely sedentary or fully mobile communities. It would mean that social relations in the Dutch TRB society could not have been regulated on a daily basis. Instead they had to be regulated on occasions when there was the widest and most intensive social contact, such as during the (burial) ritual carried out at the hunebedden, which required the presence of not just the nearest but also the furthest of kin (Midgley 1992, 497). The megaliths were thus not only used as burial places, but also as central places of gathering. During these gatherings the collective identity of the social group was emphasized and reinforced. Therefore the activities performed during these gatherings as well as the objects deposited in the megaliths played a role in this collective identity. It is within this social setting that the amber ornaments must be interpreted.

Communal activities and everyday life Amber ornaments are mainly found among the depositions in hunebedden. These depositions show a strict selection of artefacts made from locally available materials, such as pottery, flint and stone. The assortment of objects points to an elaborate burial ritual involving the preparing, consuming and offering of food and beverages (Brindley 2003) along with various other ‘domestic’ activities, such as flint knapping, the making of fire, and possibly the resharpening of axes and regrinding of ornaments. The flint objects have recently been studied microscopically (Van Woerdekom in prep; Van Gijn 2010). This analysis showed that on the one hand there are flint objects with a long use-life behind them, such as axes and sickle blades, while on the other hand there are implements that seem to have been specially made and used for or during the burial ritual, such as picks, strike-a-lights and transverse arrowheads. The large amounts of flint waste and unretouched flakes and blades may actually be the result of flintknapping during the (burial) ritual (Van Gijn 2010, 183). Also the scrapers might have been used in hide processing during these ceremonies (Van Gijn 2010, 134).

Amber ornaments as pieces of places Bradley (2000), in his discussion of the provenance of Neolithic stone axes, suggested that implements can carry associations with the places where they were made. Especially materials that originate from unusual locations or circumstances, for instance a mountaintop, can have a link with their source, and the people who acquired these materials obviously knew of these associations. Therefore the source of the raw material, and the knowledge of where to acquire it, may have been as important as its mechanical performance. The difficulty of extracting the material and the possible journeys that were necessary to procure it may also have added to the value of the axes (Bradley 2000,

These tools are thus related to activities that must have been communal affairs; the axes, sickle blades, strikea-lights and querns could all have been used in clearing and maintaining the land and in harvesting and processing cereals (Wentink 2006, 101; Van Gijn 2010, 175). The axes

37

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Bibliography

are also important in the building of houses as well as other carpentry tasks. Other artefacts, such as hammer stones, flint waste and unretouched flakes and blades, suggest the importance of flintknapping. Furthermore, the transverse arrowheads point to the significance of hunting (Wentink 2006, 101).

Bakels, C. C. and Zeiler, J. 2005. The fruits of the land. Neolithic subsistence. In L. P. Louwe Kooijmans, P. W. Van den Broeke, H. Fokkens and A. L. Van Gijn (eds), The Prehistory of the Netherlands, 311-336. Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press. Bakker, J. A. 1982. TRB settlement patterns on the Dutch sandy soils. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 15, 87124. Bakker, J. A., Kruk, J., Lanting, A. E., and Van Milisauskas, S. 1999. The earliest evidence of wheeled vehicles in Europe and the Near East. Antiquity 73, 778-790. Bradley, R. 2000. The Archaeology of Natural Places. London, Routledge. Brindley, A. L. 2003. The use of pottery in Dutch Hunebedden. In A. Gibson (ed), Prehistoric pottery: people, pattern and purpose, 43-51. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1156 (Occasional publication Prehistoric Research Group 4). Oxford, BAR Publishing. Brindley, A. L., Lanting, J. N. and Neves Espinha, A. D. 2000/2001. Hunebed D6a near Tinaarlo. Palaeohistoria 43/44, 43-85. Bruijn, A. 1960. Archeologisch nieuws, Mededelingen van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, Uddelermeer. Nieuws-bulletin Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 13(5), 108. Casparie, W. A. and Groenman-van Waateringe, W. 1980. Palynological analyses of Dutch barrows. Palaeohistoria 22, 7-65. Feiken, H. 2001. Bedekte Bewoning. Midden-Groningen in het Neolithicum en de Bronstijd. Unpublished Master thesis, University of Groningen. Fokkens, H. 1991. Verdrinkend landschap: archeologisch onderzoek van het westelijk Fries-Drents Plateau 4400 BC tot 500 AD. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Groningen. Gehasse, E. F. 1995. Ecologisch-archeologisch onderzoek van het Neolithicum en de Vroege Bronstijd in de Noordoostpolder met de nadruk op vindplaats P14. Gevolgd door een overzicht van de bewoningsgeschiedenis en bestaanseconomie binnen de Holocene Delta. Unpublished Master thesis, University of Amsterdam. Helms, M. 1988. Ulysses’ Sail. An Ethnographic Odyssey of Power, Knowledge, and Geographical Distance. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Hogestijn, J. W. H. and Drenth, E. 2000/2001. In Slootdorp stond een Trechterbeker-huis? Over midden- en laat-neolithische huisplattegronden uit Nederland. Archeologie 10, 42-79. Madsen, T. 1982. Settlement Systems of Early Agricultural Societies in East Jutland, Denmark: A Regional Study of Change. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1, 197-236. Mazurowski, R. F. 1985. Amber treatment workshops of the

The objects found in hunebedden are thus interpreted as commemorating communal values, beliefs and activities. As Wentink (2006, 101) puts it: ‘These all were activities people were employed in on a day-to-day basis; they were all elements of everyday life.’ Considering this, the interpretation of the amber ornaments has, in my opinion to be searched for in the same sphere, a communal activity that is signified by these particular objects. Because of the assumed association of amber with the sea and coast, I propose that the amber ornaments symbolize the travelling to and from, and the exploitation of the coastal area. The wearing of these ornaments could therefore have signified that someone had travelled to this area or was actively involved in the social interactions with this region. Conclusion Amber ornaments are occasionally found in Dutch hunebedden. The only likely local source of amber during the TRB was the coastal area. This area was exploited from extraction camps or catching sites, which were occupied on a seasonal basis. These sites formed a counterpart to the more permanent resident sites further inland. This dispersed site-system resulted in the regular movement of parts of the community and made travelling an essential everyday activity. However, it also scattered the social group. Therefore occasional gatherings at fixed places in the landscape, such as the hunebedden, were important. During these social gatherings burials and rituals were performed, which emphasized and reinforced the collective identity of the social group. Various objects were deposited, which are interpreted as commemorating communal values, beliefs and activities. Considering this, a comparable interpretation is suggested for the amber ornaments - a communal activity that is signified by these particular objects. It is assumed that the specific provenance of amber would have created an association between this material and the coastal area, an important area in its own right. It is therefore argued that the amber ornaments deposited in hunebedden referred to the everyday activity of travelling to and from the coastal area and the exploiting of it. Address Wouter B. Verschoof MA (Leiden University) Titus Brandsmalaan 160 2321 CL Leiden The Netherlands +31653592911 [email protected]

38

Wouter Verschoof: Riders on the Storm

Rzucewo culture in Zuławy. Przegląd Archeologiczny 32, 5-60. Midgley, M. S. 1992. TRB-culture. The First Farmers of the North European Plain. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. Midgley, M. S. 2008. The Megaliths of Northern Europe. Oxon, Routledge. Perk, F. 2010. Barnsteen: fossiele hars of industrieel product? Het Zeepaard 70(5/6), 149-178. Piena, H. and Drenth, E. 2001. Doorboorde sieraden van de laat-neolithische site Aartswoud, gem. Opmeer. In R. M. van Heeringen and E. M. Theunissen (eds), Kwaliteitsbepalend onderzoek ten behoeve van duurzaam behoud van neolithische terreinen in WestFriesland en de Kop van Noord-Holland. Deel 3, Archeologische onderzoeksverslagen, Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 21, 433-463. Amersfoort, Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek Ploug, M. (ed.) 2000. Amber. Copenhagen, Ravmuseet. Schreurs, J. (ed.) 2008. Vindplaats(en) van de trechterbekercultuur te Oostrum (gemeente Dongeradeel, Friesland). De resultaten van het waarderend archeologisch onderzoek te Oostrum-Terplaene en Oostrum-Mellemawei in 2006 en 2007. Rapportage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 164, Amersfoort, Rijksdienst voor Archeologie, Cultuurlandschap en Monumenten. Skaarup, J. 1995. Stone Age burials in boats. In O. Crumlin-Pedersen and B. Thye (eds), The Ship as Symbol in Prehistoric and Medieval Scandinavia, 51-58. Copenhagen, National Museum of Denmark. Theunissen, E.M. 2001. Bouwlust (vindplaats 26). In R. M. van Heeringen and E. M. Theunissen (eds), Kwaliteitsbepalend onderzoek ten behoeve van duurzaam behoud van neolithische terreinen in West-Friesland en de Kop van Noord-Holland. Deel 2, Site-dossiers, 433-463. Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 21, Amersfoort, Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek.

Van der Valk, B. 2007. Waar spoelen barnsteen en git aan? Archeobrief 3, 31-36. Van Gijn, A. L. 2006. Ornaments of jet, amber and bone. In L. P. Louwe Kooijmans and P. F. B. Jongste (eds), Schipluiden: A Neolithic settlement on the Dutch North Sea coast c. 3500 cal. BC, 195-205. Analecta Praehistoria Leidensia 37/38, Leiden, Faculty of Archaeology. Van Gijn, A. L. 2008. De ornamenten van Ypenburg. In H. Koot, L. Bruning and R. A. Houkes (eds), Ypenburglocatie 4: Een nederzetting met grafveld uit het MiddenNeolithicum in het West-Nederlandse kustgebied, 277289. Leiden, Station Drukwerk. Van Gijn, A. L. 2010. Flint in Focus: Lithic Biographies in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Leiden, Sidestone Press. Van Woerdekom, P.C. 2011. Scratching the Surface: flint assemblages of the Dutch hunebedden. (Master thesis, University of Leiden). Verschoof, W. B. 2011. Beads for the Dead. The production and use of ornaments in the Dutch Funnel Beaker culture (3350-2750 Cal BC). Unpublished Master thesis, University of Leiden. Verschoof, W. B. and Van Gijn, A. L. (in prep) The production and use of ornaments in the Dutch Funnel Beaker culture. Waterbolk, H. T. 1960. Preliminary report on the excavations at Anlo in 1957 and 1958. Palaeohistoria 8, 59-90. Waterbolk, H. J. and Waterbolk, H.T. 1991. Amber on the coast of the Netherlands. In H. Thoen, J. Bourgeois, F. Vermeulen, Ph. Crombé and K. Verlaeckt (eds), Studia Archaeologica: Liber Amicorum Jacques A. E. Nenquin, 201-209. Gent, Universiteit van Gent, Seminarie voor Archeologie. Wentink, K. 2006. Ceci n’est pas une hache. Neolithic Depositions in the Northern Netherlands. Leiden, Sidestone Press.

39

Chapter 5 Neighbours in Westphalia? The Hessian-Westphalian Gallery Graves and their Connections to the Funnel Beaker Culture Kerstin Schierhold Abstract: Since 3500-3400 cal BC, monumental megalithic collective tombs were erected in Hesse and Westphalia by the people of the Wartberg Culture. The architecture of these tombs shows many different features in comparison to the contemporaneous monuments of neighbouring cultures like the Funnel Beaker Culture. On the other hand, some elements of the tombs’ architecture, especially in Westphalia, are influenced by Funnel Beaker Culture components; namely the entrance construction. Ceramics, arrowheads and other typical finds connected with the Funnel Beaker Culture are also known, but used in the ‘Wartberg style’, which means very sparsely. From this point of view, Westphalia seems to be a transition zone between Funnel Beaker and Wartberg behaviour. New investigations in the ‘Soester Börde’ in Westphalia are in progress to enlighten the connections between both societies of megalith builders. Here, two gallery graves are being excavated, and preliminary results give new information about these relations. Considering this, a comparable interpretation is suggested for the amber ornaments - a communal activity that is signified by these particular objects. It is assumed that the specific provenance of amber would have created an association between this material and the coastal area, an important area in its own right. It is therefore argued that the amber ornaments deposited in hunebedden referred to the everyday activity of travelling to and from and exploiting the coastal area. Keywords: Tombs, Wartburg Culture, Funnel Beaker Culture, Westphalia, gallery grave, amber, axe

Introduction

regions of Hesse and Westphalia. A schematic overview of collective tombs of Southern Lower Saxony, Western Thuringia, the northernmost top of Bavaria and of the Neuwied Basin, a part of Rhineland-Palatinate, reveals typical elements of construction deriving from gallery graves from Hesse and Westphalia (Figure 1). In Western Thuringia, the tradition of sinking the tombs into the ground is known; in parts of Lower Saxony, portholes are built in, and, in many cases, the axial entrance, sometimes with vestibule, are used.

The Hessian and Westphalian gallery graves (Schierhold in prep) are mainly located in Eastern Westphalia and Northern Hesse. The tombs are situated along the northern border of the Central German uplands. The tombs of the Funnel Beaker Culture, especially the TRB West Group, are located in close vicinity, only a few kilometres away. The gallery graves were built between 3500-3400 and 3000 BC and used until 2800 BC, sometimes even later. Today, about 40 tombs of this special type and related forms are known in Hesse, Westphalia and neighbouring areas. They can be divided into several regional groups, which lie about 30km apart from each other. Within the groups, there are places with only one tomb, but usually we know of two, even three or five tombs at one place. The gallery graves are, as one of the most characteristic elements of construction, sunk into the ground, and covered with a mound. They measure 10 to 35m in length and 2 to 3m in width. The building material consists (in the majority of the cases) of slabs of limestone or sandstone; sometimes, boulders are used. The chamber can often be reached via a porthole. There are two main types. The so-called Züschen type is characterized by an access on the smaller, axial side and an antechamber or vestibule. The so-called Rimbeck type has an access on the longer, lateral side like a Funnel Beaker passage grave.

But there are also influences from the North: the Rimbeck type, respectively its lateral entrance with a passage, is an element of construction very often seen in North Western Lower Saxony and in the Netherlands. In Westphalia, it is mixed with the porthole tradition. This kind of entrance is only seen in Westphalia, but not in Hesse. On the other hand, the Züschen type is very often built in Westphalia: it is striking that both types are often used at the same place in a distance of only few metres, for example in Warburg, Atteln and Kirchborchen. Chronological reasons (one type is older than the other), as Klaus Günther (1979, 161) argued, are not given, as now verified at Warburg, where AMS-datings revealed the same early dates, so that both types were in use at the same time. So there seem to be other reasons, e.g. different ritual rites of the burying communities, or perhaps even a different provenance of the builders?

Construction of the tombs

A topic also discussed for years (Knöll 1961, 29; Bakker 1981; Bakker 1992, 64-69; Günther 1992, 40-42; Günther 1997, 188-89) is the extreme length of some tombs of the

Some details of construction of the tombs and their distribution show close contacts to the neighbouring

41

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Figure 1. Schematic map of collective tombs 3500-2700 cal BC in Westphalia, Northern Hesse and neighboured regions: Form, size, orientation, building materials in schematic geographical settings (after Raetzel Fabian 2000, completed).

Rimbeck type. It is only this kind of tomb which shows extraordinarily long chambers with more than 24m. The connecting finds leading to the ‘Emsländische Kammern’ of Lower Saxony are the well-known tombs of the Wechte type near Lengerich in the north of Westphalia, with a length of c. 35m (Schlüter 1985; Bakker 1992, 11).

graves (Schierhold in press). Animal teeth worn as pendants, sometimes amber beads and little copper rolls are found. As a part of the hunting equipment, triangular and transverse arrowheads made of flint is known, furthermore there are some arrowheads made of bone. Working tools like axes and adzes or bone tools like chisels or awls are not found very often. Concerning the pottery, only few vessels were found mainly near or at the entrances. Therefore, pottery, respectively its contents, can be seen rather as a gift for the community, used in ritual ceremonies, than as special grave goods for special persons. Some of the grave goods in Hessian-Westphalian gallery graves show connections to the Funnel Beaker Culture, or are imported from there. They are listed as follows.

On the other hand, it must be underlined that one tomb of the Züschen type, Warburg I, measures about 27m, and so is as long as a Rimbeck type tomb (Günther 1997, 185). The Rimbeck type tomb Warburg III reached its length of more than 35m in a surprising manner: the sandstone slabs were laid down on their longest side, an element of construction only seen in this special case (Günther 1997, 70-71).

TRB pottery

Finally, it should be mentioned that the passages of some tombs of the Rimbeck type are not placed in the middle, but a few metres to the side, e. g. Rimbeck, Warburg III, and Hohenwepel. This is a detail of construction often found at passage graves of the Funnel Beaker Culture.

Considering the pottery, even due to the generally small numbers in tombs, TRB ceramics are very rare. Only six tombs with few Funnel Beaker pottery sherds are known: Beckum II in the Eastern Münsterland (Knöll 1970); three tombs in the Eastern Westphalian Altenau valley near Paderborn: Atteln II, Henglarn I, and Etteln (Günther 1979, 159, 1992, 66-69; Schierhold in press) and only two other tombs in Northern Hesse: Calden II (Raetzel-Fabian 2000, 118-20) and Züschen I (Boehlau and Gilsa 1898; Schierhold

Grave goods in Hessian-Westphalian Gallery Graves: Links to TRB Before discussing the grave goods, it must be underlined that they are, in general, not very common in the gallery

42

Kerstin Schierhold: Neighbours in Westphalia?

in prep). The TRB pottery known until today consists of few decorated bowls, one amphora and one biberon as well as a terrine and several funnel beakers, dating from Brindley Horizon 2 to 3 to Brindley horizon 4 to 5. The little sherd with three impressions from Etteln is not specific enough to date.

German uplands, were several tombs of the so-called Soest Group are located. History of research In close vicinity to a little village named Schmerlecke near Erwitte, Kr. Soest, we were able to undertake geophysical surveys in 2006 and 2007 (Schierhold, Baales and Cichy 2010; Schierhold in press). At this place, two tombs were already known since the 1880s (‘Schmerlecke I’) and the 1950s (‘Schmerlecke II’) from little sondages, but there was no information passed on about their exact location. Hence, the re-location was one of the aims of the survey; furthermore, we hoped to find out more about today’s preservation of the tombs, their type of construction and their dimensions.

Arrowheads Trapezoidal or transverse arrowheads are a common feature of the Funnel Beaker Culture (Bakker 1979, 77, 1992, 57; van Gijn and Bakker 2005, 286), whereas the people of the Wartberg Culture used triangular ones (e.g. RaetzelFabian 2000, 205). Klaus Günther (1986, 93-95) argued that this artefact group could be a marker for a cultural border between Funnel Beaker and Wartberg Culture. He located it at the so-called ‘Eggegebirgskamm’, a ridge near Warburg, at the north-eastern border of the Central German uplands. West of the ridge, in the Westphalian Basin, transverse arrowheads were found in the tombs, whereas triangular arrowheads occur in the Warburg Group, east of the Egge ridge, and further southeast.

The geomagnetic map (Figure 2) shows several structures. The westernmost and the northernmost ones could be identified as the long-known tombs ‘Schmerlecke I’ and ‘Schmerlecke II’. They measure 17m and 20m in length and 2 to 3m in width. Unfortunately, the entrance constructions of both tombs are not clearly visible. The tomb ‘Schmerlecke I’ opened in the 1880s seems to be heavily destroyed because of the rounded and unclear contours in the map. The tomb ‘Schmerlecke II’ appears to be slightly bent in the middle.

An actualized distribution map of transverse arrowheads shows, on the other hand, that they occur also in the Leine valley in South-Eastern Lower Saxony, and in the North Hessian Calden group, few of them even in Western Thuringia and in Northern Bavaria (Raetzel-Fabian 2000, 206). Based on this map, Dirk Raetzel-Fabian neglected the possibility of such a border between Funnel Beaker and Wartberg Culture. But it is also clear that this type of arrowhead becomes more and more common, the closer the sites are located to the Funnel Beaker Culture.

A further structure in the southeast of ‘Schmerlecke II’ at first looked like a tomb, too, but excavations in 2008 revealed that it is a ditch-like construction of 4.5m depth. Its function is yet unknown, but the structure could be AMSdated to the Middle Ages, and therefore has nothing to do with the megalithic tombs.

Amber beads

On the other hand, the southernmost structure detected in 2007 revealed typical finds not only in a test trench in 2008, but already during the survey: human skeletal remains and perforated animal teeth used as pendants were found on the surface (Schierhold, Baales and Cichy 2010). Here, we undoubtedly found a hitherto unknown gallery grave.

A third artefact group, probably linked with the Funnel Beaker Culture, are amber beads (for Funnel Beaker Culture contexts see Knöll 1959, 35; Bakker 1979, 95, 110; Bakker 1992, 57; Kars and Boon 1993; for the gallery graves see Schierhold in prep). Amber beads occur in nine gallery graves. Sometimes only one bead was found; in Niedertiefenbach in Hesse we know of 21 beads. Most of them show a discoid form and a diameter of c. 1cm. This form is also very common in the West Group of the Funnel Beaker Culture and does not occur very often in the North Group, where double axe forms are widespread (e.g. Ebbesen 1995). Therefore it seems probable that the form of the beads was influenced by contacts to the West Group, perhaps they were even imported from there.

Furthermore, there are some round ditches which could belong to younger mounds of end Neolithic times or the Bronze Age. Concerning this point, further investigations will be conducted in the future. Excavations in 2009: preliminary results Based on the results of the geophysical survey and the investigations in 2008, a research project, funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), is being realized from 2009 onwards. It is part of the priority programme 1400 ‘Frühe Monumentalität und soziale Differenzierung’ which examines the relationships between the earliest constructions of monuments, above all megaliths, in Northern Germany and the social differentiation processes behind this behaviour.

New data: Investigations in Schmerlecke, Eastern Westphalia New perspectives on the relations between the Funnel Beaker Culture and the Wartberg Culture can be expected from recent excavations in the ‘Soester Börde’, a part of the Westphalian Basin near the northern border of the Central

43

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Figure 2. Geomagnetic map of the gallery graves of Schmerlecke, Westphalia.

In Schmerlecke, two tombs, namely the southernmost and the easternmost, are being excavated at the moment. Until now, it seems that they do not seem to have much in common concerning their details of construction. This must be called extraordinary: We know from other places that many details of construction were copied at tombs built in close vicinity to each other, like at Warburg (Günther 1997, 184-85); at Calden (Raetzel-Fabian 2000, 125-26); and among the gallery graves of the Altenau valley near Paderborn (Günther 1992, 33-34).

element of construction found exactly the same way in Völlinghausen, a collective tomb up to 3km away. Here, the dry stone walls were also constructed as if they imitate the forms of boulders. This is very strange, because boulders are not common in the ‘Soester Börde’, and all the other tombs are built with megalithic slabs of limestone. So the builders could easily have used this building material, but they rather imitated a building material mainly used in Funnel Beaker passage graves. The reason for this is not yet clear: here, new possibilities of thinking about social differences between the burying communities of one group, perhaps even different provenances of the builders, possibly influenced by the Funnel Beaker Culture, are opened.

The northernmost tomb ‘Schmerlecke II’ is more or less conventionally built of slabs of limestone. As we can say at the moment, it is about 2m wide and 20m long. The entrance situation is not yet clear. Without detailed geological analysis, but with a first look on the slabs, they seem to derive from outcrops not more than one or two kilometres away, like many other examples (e.g. Schierhold 2009).

But not only the details of construction revealed close contacts to the Funnel Beaker Culture. Some finds from the tombs show close connections to the north western neighbours. The most impressive object is a partly destroyed so-called “Rundnackenaxt”, or double axe, which has been unearthed at ‘Schmerlecke III’ (Figure 3). The ornaments and the form show that the axe belongs to the Hanover type, which is common in North-Western Germany, especially between Ems and Elbe rivers (Brandt 1967; Bakker 1979, 92-94, ‘Hanover battle axe’). A very interesting aspect is that the

The southernmost tomb ‘Schmerlecke III’ is, in its excavated parts, built out of dry stone walls and therefore not a megalithic tomb: bigger slabs could not be found yet. It is also about 4.5m wide and was probably not covered with capstones, but rather with a wooden roof. One striking aspect is that parts of the dry stone walls seem to be rounded as if they imitate boulders. This is an

44

Kerstin Schierhold: Neighbours in Westphalia?

Warburg Group to Northern Hesse, also in tombs of the Southern Leine Valley in Southern Lower Saxony, and some pieces in Western Thuringia. Furthermore, ceramics of the neighbouring Bernburg Culture in the east, or adzes made of so-called ‘Wiedaer Schiefer’ (schist), a raw material from the Northern Harz hills, are more or less common in the gallery graves of the Warburg Group and Northern Hesse (for further details see Schierhold in press). Considering the tombs and the grave goods together, Westphalia up to the Egge ridge seems to be strongly connected to the Funnel Beaker Culture. Very few TRB artefacts crossed the border of the Egge ridge, whereas the Warburg Group and Northern Hesse have much in common with their eastern neighbours. On the other hand, three tombs of the Rimbeck type occur in the Warburg Group, and some TRB ceramics are known from Calden and Züschen, so links to the west are also given here.

Figure 3. Fragment of a Hanover battle axe from ‘Schmerlecke III’, Westphalia (Photo H. Menne, LWL).

axe is made of a too soft stone to be of actual use, and so seems to be made for being used in ritual ceremonies.

To complete this picture of connections concerning the TRB, it is useful to take a look on further TRB finds in Westphalia (Figure 4). Looking at the distribution of finds (flat graves, settlements/traces of settlements, stray finds), especially the west of the Westphalian Basin shows many activities; whereas a remarkable decrease of TRB finds occurs towards its eastern part. Neither flat graves nor a settlement is yet known in this area. East of the ‘Beckumer Berge’, some low hills in the eastern Münsterland, seems to be a veritable gap of TRB finds from north to south. Only few artefacts of the TRB crossed this gap, and there is a corridor of a width of approximately 20km between finds of the Funnel Beaker Culture and the beginning of the region of the gallery graves. Topographical reasons for this gap are not given, as there is no river, valley, or hill line. On the other hand, we have to keep in mind that the gap could also be caused by a lack of research.

Secondly, several transverse arrowheads found both, in tombs and the surrounding areas, show close connections to north western regions. Finally, we excavated three amber beads which show exactly the same characteristics as all the other known amber beads from gallery graves in Westphalia and Hesse. With these, close connections to the beads of the Funnel Beaker Culture can be drawn. Westphalia: Transition zone or cultural border between TRB and Wartberg? Many gallery graves, especially of the Westphalian Basin, show similarities in their details of construction to the Funnel Beaker passage graves, namely the entrance construction with the lateral entrances; the length of the chambers; as well as possibly the imitating of building material from the north at Völlinghausen and at ‘Schmerlecke III’. Furthermore, several artefact groups (pottery, arrowheads, amber beads, Hanover battle axe) can be connected to influences from or direct connections with the TRB West Group.

The gallery graves of the Soest Group being examined in the DFG-project cited above are situated in closest vicinity to the areas devoid of finds. Further research in this region will hopefully help enlighten the connections (or borders?) between Funnel Beaker Culture and Wartberg Culture in Westphalia. English text corrected by Alistair Bright.

Nevertheless, certain characteristics of the Wartberg Culture behaviour, like sinking the chambers into the ground, axial entrances, portholes and the rareness of grave goods, also are typical elements of the Westphalian tombs.

Address Kerstin Schierhold Westfälische Wilhelms - Universität Historisches Seminar, Abteilung Ur- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie Robert-Koch Str. 29 D-49149 Münster Germany

Additionally, considering Wartberg finds in Westphalian tombs, a little sherd from Hiddingsen in the Soest Group must be named. Furthermore, there are known triangular arrowheads from the tombs Schmerlecke III, Uelde, and Völlinghausen (Soest Group), Henglarn I and Wewelsburg I (Paderborn Group), and east of the Egge ridge: Hohenwepel, Rimbeck, Warburg I, II, and IV (Warburg Group). In general, typical Wartberg artefacts, especially pottery, are found in gallery graves from the

45

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Figure 4. TRB finds and gallery graves in Westphalia. TRB Passage tombs(), flat graves (), settlement traces and stray finds (); Gallery graves (▼).

Bibliography

und Landeskunde, Neue Folge Supplement 12. Kassel, Döll. Brandt, K.-H. 1967. Studien über steinerne Äxte und Beile der Jüngeren Steinzeit und der Stein-Kupferzeit Nordwestdeutschlands. Münstersche Beiträge zur Vorgeschichtsforschung 2. Hildesheim, Lax. Ebbesen, K. 1995. Die nordischen Bernsteinhorte der Trichterbecherkultur. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 70,1, 32-89. Günther, K. 1979. Die neolithischen Steinkammergräber von Atteln, Kr. Paderborn (Westfalen). Germania 57, 153-161. Günther, K. 1986. Ein Großsteingrab in der Warburger Börde bei Hohenwepel, Stadt Warburg, Kreis Höxter. Ausgrabungen und Funde in Westfalen-Lippe 4, 65-104. Günther, K. 1992. Das Megalithgrab Henglarn I,

Bakker, J. A. 1979. The TRB West Group. Studies in the Chronology and Geography of the Makers of Hunebeds and Tiefstich Pottery. Cingula V. Amsterdam, De Bussey Ellerman Harms. Bakker, J. A. 1980. Ein früher Krug der Westgruppe der TBK, die Kammerverlängerung und der Beginn der Megalithgräber westlich der Weser. Fundberichte aus Hessen 19-20, 119-129. Bakker, J. A. 1992. The Dutch hunebedden. Megalithic Tombs of the Funnel Beaker Culture. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Boehlau. J. / Gilsa, F. 1898, Neolithische Denkmäler aus Hessen. Zeitschrift des Vereins für Hessische Geschichte

46

Kerstin Schierhold: Neighbours in Westphalia?

Stadt Lichtenau, Kreis Paderborn. Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 28. Münster, Aschendorff. Günther, K. 1997. Die Kollektivgräbernekropole Warburg I-V. Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 34. Mainz, Zabern. Kars, H. / Boon, J. J. 1993. Amber research in the Netherlands. In C. W. Beck / J. Bouzek (eds), Amber in Archaeology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Amber in Archaeology, Liblice 1990, 7687. Prague, Institute of Archaeology. Kossian, R. 2005. Nichtmegalithische Grabanlagen der Trichterbecherkultur in Deutschland und den Niederlanden. Veröffentlichungen des Landesamts für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt, Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte 58. Halle/Saale, Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie SachsenAnhalt. Knöll, H. 1959. Die nordwestdeutsche Tiefstichkeramik und ihre Stellung im nord- und mitteleuropäischen Neolithikum. Veröffentlichungen der Altertumskommission des Provinzialinstituts der Westfälischen Landes- und Volkskunde 3. Münster, Aschendorff. Knöll, H. 1961. Westfälisch-hessische Steinkisten und nordwestdeutsche Megalithgräber. Fundberichte Hessen 1, 20–34. Knöll, H. 1970. Zur Keramik aus dem westfälischen Steinkistengrab von Dalmer, Kr. Beckum. Germania 48, 112−115. Raetzel-Fabian, D. 2000. Calden. Erdwerk und Bestattungsplätze des Jungneolithikums. Architektur, Ritual, Chronologie. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 70. Bonn, Habelt. Schierhold, K. 2009. Gallery Graves in Hesse and Westphalia, Germany: extracting and working the stones. In Chr. Scarre (ed.), Megalithic quarrying: sourcing, extracting and manipulating the stones. 15th UISPP Conference in Lisboa, September 2006. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1923, 35–44. Oxford, BAR Publishing. Schierhold, K. in press. Studien zur hessisch-westfälischen Megalithik: Forschungsstand und -perspektiven unter Berücksichtigung des europäischen Kontexts. Münstersche Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie (in press). Rahden/Westf., Leidorf. Schierhold, K., Baales, M. and Cichy, E. 2010. Spätneolithischen Großsteingräbern auf der Spur, Geomagnetik in Erwitte-Schmerlecke. In T. Otten et al., Fundgeschichten. Archäologie in Nordrhein-Westfalen, 74-77. Mainz, Zabern. Schlüter 1985 Das Großsteingrab von Hilter a. T. W., Landkreis Osnabrück. In K. Wilhelmi (ed.), Ausgrabungen in Niedersachsen. Archäologische Denkmalpflege 1979– 1984. Berichte zur Denkmalpflege Niedersachsens, Beiheft 1, 122–130. Stuttgart, Theiss. Van Gijn, A. and Bakker, J. A. 2005. Megalith builders and sturgeon fishers. In L. P. Louwe Kooijmans et al. (eds), The Prehistory of the Netherlands, 281–306. Amsterdam, University Press.

Lists (see Figure 4): TRB passage tombs in Westphalia () (Schierhold in press) Kr. Borken Ahaus-Alstätte (?) Heiden (?) Heiden-Nordick Reken-Groß Reken Kr. Coesfeld Coesfeld-Goxel (?) Nottuln Nottuln-Buxtrup Kr. Minden-Lübbecke Petershagen-Eldagsen (?) Petershagen-Maaslingen Rahden-Varl (2x) Rahden-Kleinendorf Werste Kr. Steinfurt Ibbenbüren-Laggenbeck (3x) Ladbergen-Overbeck Lienen-Meckelwege (?) Lotte-Halen Lotte-Wersen Ochtrup-Weinerbauernschaft (?) Recke-Espel I Recke-Espel II Recke-Obersteinbeck Rheine-Altenrheine Rheine-Gellendorf (?) Rheine-Elte (?) Tecklenburg-Leeden Tecklenburg-Ledde (?) Westerkappeln-Gabelin Westerkappeln-Niederseeste Kr. Unna Lünen-Alstedde TRB flat graves in Westphalia () (Kossian 2005; unpublished) Kr. Borken Heek-Ammert (2x)

47

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Heek-Averbeck Schöppingen-Ebbinghoff Schöppingen-Gemen Schöppingen-Ramsberg (3x)

Nottuln-Nottulner Berg Senden-Ottmarsbocholt

Kr. Coesfeld

Herford-Diebrock

Coesfeld Coesfeld-Lette

Kr. Lippe

Kr. Herford

Münster-Gittrup

Bad Salzuflen Blomberg-Mossenberg-Wöhren Lemgo-Lemgo Lügde-Rischenau

Kr. Recklinghausen

Kr. Minden-Lübbecke

Haltern am See-Lavesum Haltern am See-Westrup

Petershagen-Neuenknick

Kr. Münster

Kr. Münster

Kr. Steinfurt

Münster-Uppenberg Münster-Hiltrup Münster-Innenstadt

Ibbenbüren-Laggenbeck Neuenkirchen-Landersum Rheine Rheine-Mesum (2x) Rheine-Hauenhorst Saerbeck

Kr. Recklinghausen Gladbeck-Ellinghorst Gladbeck-Butendorf Haltern am See-Uphuser Mark

TRB settlement traces and stray finds in Westphalia () (see Fundchroniken Ausgrabungen und Funde in Westfalen-Lippe; unpublished)

Kr. Soest Ense-Gerlingen Lippetal-Lippborg Möhnesee-Körbecke Rüthen-Menzel Soest-Paradiese

Kr. Borken Ahaus-Alstätte Heek Heek-Averbeck Heek-Ammerter Mark Heek-Wichum Legden  Reken-Hülstener Heide Schöppingen-Ramsberg (5x) Velen Vreden-Gaxel Vreden-Ammeloe (2x)

Kr. Steinfurt Emsdetten Emsdetten-Isendorf Greven (2x) Greven-Wentrup (2x) Greven-Gimbte Hörstel-Bevergern Hörstel-Riesenbeck Horstmar-Leer Ibbenbüren Ladbergen-Overbeck Lengerich-Antrup Lengerich-Wechte Lienen-Höste Lienen-Holperdorp Neuenkirchen Neuenkirchen-Landersum (5x) Rheine (2x) Rheine-Bentlage (3x) Rheine-Schotthock

Kr. Bottrop Bottrop-Kirchhellen Kr. Coesfeld Ascheberg Ascheberg-Herbern Coesfeld-Lette Lüdinghausen Lüdinghausen-Seppenrade  Nottuln-Uphoven

48

Kerstin Schierhold: Neighbours in Westphalia?

Rheine-Mesum (2x) Saerbeck (5x) Saerbeck ‚Emsaue’ Saerbeck-Westladbergen Steinfurt Tecklenburg-Brochterbeck Tecklenburg-Leeden Westerkappeln Westerkappeln-Westerbeck (2x) Westerkappeln-Schachsel Wettringen Wettringen-Brechte (3x) Wettringen-Haddorf

Brenken Etteln Henglarn I Henglarn II Kirchborchen I Kirchborchen II Neuhaus Paderborn-Dahl (?) Paderborn Neuenbeken (?) Paderborn Benhausen (?) Wewelsburg I Wewelsburg II Kr. Warendorf

Kr. Unna

Beckum I Beckum II Lippborg Ostbevern-Schirl (?)

Fröndenberg-Ostbüren Lünen-Lippholdhausen Schwerte-Schwerte Schwerte-Westhofen

Kr. Warburg

Kr. Warendorf

Borgentreich-Großeneder Hohenwepel Rimbeck Warburg I-V

Drensteinfurt Everswinkel-Mehringen/Averberg Everswinkel-Wieningen Oelde Oelde  Ostbevern-Brock Ostbevern-Lohburg (2x) Ostbevern- Schirl Ostbevern- Twersbreede Sassenberg Sassenberg-Gröblingen Sendenhorst-Albersloh (2x) Telgte Telgte-Vadrup Warendorf Warendorf-Einen (3x) Warendorf-Milte (2x) Warendorf-Freckenhorst 

Kr. Soest Hiddingsen Ostönnen Schmerlecke I Schmerlecke II Schmerlecke III Uelde Völlinghausen Schwalm-Eder-Kreis Züschen I-IV Gleichen Kr. Kassel

Gallery Graves in Westphalia and Northern Hesse (not included in this map: Central Hesse and the Limburg Basin) (▼) (Schierhold in press)

Altendorf Calden I Calden II Kr. Marburg-Biedenkopf

Kr. Paderborn

Lohra

Atteln I Atteln II

49

Chapter 6 Landscapes as Social Spaces and Ritual Meaning: Some New Results on TRB in Northern Germany Johannes Müller, Hans Rudolf Bork, Jan Piet Brozio, Denis Demnick, Sarah Diers, Hauke Dibbern, Walter Dörfler, Ingo Feeser, Barbara Fritsch, Martin Furholt, Franziska Hage, Martin Hinz, Wiebke Kirleis, Stefanie Klooß, Helmut Kroll, Matthias Lindemann, Luise Lorenz, Doris Mischka, Christoph Rinne (Kiel) Abstract: Since 2009, a Priority Program of the German Research Foundation (DFG) deals with the Funnel Beaker Period in Northern Germany, focussing, in a holistic approach, on the conjunction of social structures and the erection of monuments. To this end, evidence for subsistence patterns, social organisation, communication and networks are considered in a diachronic perspective. Spatial structures and chronologies are re-evaluated and adjusted in the light of new excavation results, scientific data and statistical analysis, environmental and economic data are presented and discussed. Several new fieldwork projects are introduced, and their results are combined into the frame of an overall picture of Funnel Beaker societies which are to be described as a complex mosaic of regionally diverse patterns, different sequences of temporal change and distinct spheres of social interaction. Finally, a discussion of the role of monuments in social reproduction together with considerations towards demographic trends leads to a model of social change reaching from cooperative actions to collective dictions of individual social roles and a rise of social inequalities. Keywords: Neolithic in Northern Germany, Funnel Beaker Period, Subsistence, Social Organisation, Monuments

Introduction

and the construction of megaliths. What promoted the construction of monuments? What were the driving forces of the obvious changes and why did they happen? Do these monuments and the observable changes in material culture reflect social developments?

During the last decades of research on TRB, the intensity of research in different countries has varied. This is due to differences in the selection of research topics at universities and other research institutions, as well as to the conditions of rescue excavations and heritage organizations. In consequence, a deficit of knowledge about megaliths and funnel beakers in Northern Germany became obvious, contrasting with many new efforts on the Early and Middle Neolithic in the Netherlands and especially in Scania and on Fyn (e.g. Andersen 2008; Louwe Kooijmans 1998; Sjögren 2006; Rudebeck 2009). As a consequence, one and a half year ago a Priority Program of the German Research Foundation began to gain new information on the North German development of early monuments and the social differentiation primarily within TRB communities (Müller 2009).

To answer such questions, research in many fields with respect to Funnel Beakers had to be intensified: • The subsistence background and the development of domestic structures are still a matter of discussion: What kind of economy are we dealing with between 4300 and 3600 cal BC? How did the immense opening of the landscape around 3600 cal BC correlate with new land use patterns? Is there a diverse economic development in the time period after 3200 cal BC? Is there a typical TRB household with a specific archaeological structure? How can we interpret the agglomeration and the dispersion of domestic structures in the landscape? Which role did the monuments play in the spatial ordering of the environment? • How did the individuals and small groups reflect the obvious development? What were causewayed enclosures used for and how did the different groups assess the value of their megaliths within their surroundings? Do differences in the character of and the efforts needed for burials reflect social and ritual roles? Are we dealing with some kind of ritual competition, which made ritual activities a productive force in the overall economy with a longing for increasingly more monuments and increasingly more ritual activities?

The on-going work is a combination of smaller projects placed in selected regions to further data acquisition by surveys and excavations, and general projects about spatial patterning, scientific dating, palynology, archaeobotany, soil analyses, and anthropology/aDNA. In the following, parts of some preliminary results from different projects of the Institute of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Archaeology in Kiel are discussed. The holistic goal of the on-going work focuses on the detection of the inter-link between changes within the Early and Middle Neolithic societies of Northern Germany

51

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Neolithic societies. In this respect, some other suggestions should be taken into account:

Reproduction of Social Relations

Monumentality

• Driving forces of non-literate, pre-industrial economies are not necessarily just technological innovations, and changes in resources, but also demographic development, kinship organization and ritual activities (Earle and Kristiansen 2011; Hansen and Müller 2011). • In contemporary sociological theory, the contrast between societies with cooperative and such with competitive elements is emphasized (cf. Blanton et al. 1996). In this sense, competition could lead to competition for prestige goods etc., ending in some kind of activity spiral. Monuments might be aims to assure and consolidate cooperation in a community, and might at the same time be symbols for competition with neighbouring groups.

Ideology Produktivity

Social Organisation Economy

Climate

Demography

Ecology

Figure 1. General scheme about the relation of economic, political and social aspects. In many TRB communities the reproduction of social relations includes the use of “monumentality” for the bundling of identities. Source: Holger Dieterich.

With these remarks in mind we would like to focus on some results of the research during the first year and a half of the Kiel projects (Figure 2).

• Did networks exist within and between TRB groups? How did supra-regional and foreign influences reach the TRB-world and how were they integrated into the local and regional context? • Is it possible to write an overall history for TRB or are we dealing with a mosaic of different patterns of local and regional groups with diverse behaviours and varying reactions to internal and external influences?

Spatial differentiation and chronologies The basic fundaments for a solution to most of the questions, which are asked within our research project, continue to be a good chronological resolution and an idea about possible spatial differentiations within the entire area of Northern Central Europe and Southern Scandinavia (Müller et al. 2010). From a methodological point of view, a clear typological identification of similarity groups within the material culture, the scientific dating of these similarity groups, and an identification of long term trends in material culture (of which the chronological character is also identified with the help of scientific dates or vertical stratigraphies) are necessary. With respect to chronology, both spatial groupings in the form of restricted distribution areas as well as non-territorial patterns are possible. While a spatial restriction of similarity groups stems from traditional approaches, the non-territorial distribution of similar object groups could be the outcome of network-relations and network-like identities in TRB communities.

Before coming up with preliminary results of the ongoing research, the particular background concerning the relationship between ecology, economy and society should be explained, as every individual researcher could have quite different ideas about the inter-linkage of societal elements. Figure 1 displays a simple, but in our opinion useful idea about the conceptual background of societies. Basic fields of influence for the reproduction of social relations are economy and demography, being the elements, which frame the possibilities that can be gained in the social organisation of a society. Economy is understood here in a very simple way: as subsistence economy. Subsistence (as the primary, non-industrial sector) depends on the environmental conditions of both ecology and climate. Economy influences population sizes and is influenced by demographic factors: Group sizes, reproduction rates, endogamic and exogamic marriage practices constitute the possibilities of subsistence activities. Here we already reach the domain of the reproduction of social relations: In TRB one ideological expression of social institutions uses monumentality to create traditional stabilities. In our scheme, the possibility of building monuments is surely dependent on the productivity of the economy: some kind of surplus is necessary to construct these “unnecessary”, not primarily functional items.

Regarding terminology, a clear differentiation between periods (for example “Early Neolithic”) or sub-phases (e.g. “Early Neolithic Ia”) and stylistic groups (e.g. “Fuchsberg”) is applicable. While periods and phases indicate the absolute scale, stylistic groups identify similarity groups, which also could be longer or shorter than one period/phase. Intensive research during the last decades confirmed chronological periods, phases and stylistic groups in many regions of Scandinavia and Northern Central Europe (Figure 3). Thus, our research concentrates on an evaluation of regions, in which these factors are still fuzzy. For basic spatial patterning we use the general spatial differentiation of J. A. Bakker and T. Wislanski, which they developed in 1969 for the TRB (Bakker et al. 1969;

However, such a simple view of the dynamic and manifold processes has to be specified for the character of non-literate

52

Johannes Müller et al.: Landscapes as Social Spaces and Ritual Meaning

Figure 2. The distribution of megaliths in Northern Central Europe and Southern Scandinavia (after Fritsch et al. 2010). Important sites mentioned in the article are marked. Cursive written sites are sites of main interest within the Kiel projects. 1 Vroue Heide, 2 Sarup, 3 Büdelsdorf-Borgstedt, 4 Rastorf, 5 Flintbek, 6 Albersdorf-Dieksknöll, 7 Albersdorf-Brutkamp, 8 Oldenburg, 9 Wangels, 10 Bad Oldesloe-Wolkenwehe, 11 Triwalk, 12 Ostorf, 13 Parchim-Löddigsee, 14 Flögeln, 15 Lüdelsen, 16 Hundisburg-Olbetal. Copyrights: Ines Reese.

53

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Southern Scandinavia / Northern Plain Chronology

cal B.C. Period

Northern Jutland

Northern Lower Mountain Range Chronology

Southern Jutland /MeckSeeland / Scania lenburg

Lower Countries / NW Germany

Altmark

Middle-ElbeSaale

Westfalia / Hessia

Period

cal B.C. 2600

2600 YN 1

Early Single Grave groups

2700

ESG / Schönfeld

Early Corded Ware

Haldensleben 4

TRB-MES V Bernburg / Globular Amphorae

Late Wartberg

TRB-MES IV Salzmünde

Early Wartberg

Endneolithic 2700 2800

2800 MN V

Store Valby

GA

Brindley 7

MN III–IV

Bundsø / Lindø

Bostholm

Brindley 6

MN II

Blandebjerg

Oldenburg

Brindley 5

MN Ib

Klintebakke

Wolkenwehe 2

Brindley 4

MN Ia

Troldebjerg

EN II

Fuchsberg

2900 Haldensleben 3

3000 3100

Late Neolithic

3000 3100

Haldensleben 2

3200

Haldensleben 1

Brindley 3

2900

3200 3300

3300 3400

Fuchsberg/ Virum

Wolkenwehe 1

3500 EN Ib 3600

Oxie / Volling

Oxie / Svenstorp

Satrup / SiggenebenSüd

Brindley 1/2

Düsedau 2

Late Swifterbant / Hazendonk 3

Düsedau 1

TRB-MES III Baalberge

3400 3500

Lüdelsen

TRB-MES II Baalberge

MK V

Younger Neolithic

3600 3700

3700 MK IV

3800

3800 EN Ia

Volling

Svaleklint

3900

TRB-MES I Spätlengyel Middle Swifterbant

4000 4100

Wangels / Flintbek

Final Mesolithic

3900 MK III 4000

Final Ertebølle

MK II 4100 Gatersleben

MK I 4200

4200

Figure 3. The chronological periodization of Funnel Beaker societies (source: Müller et al. 2010, fig. 1; graphic: Ines Reese/Martin Hinz).

verifications, the general pattern within the TRB world supports the spatial divisions indicated by J. A. Bakker 1979. A network analysis by M. Furholt, which takes the general pattern of each region into account for the entire FB-time-span, indicates the clear separation of the Northern from the Western Group, while the Altmark-Group is strongly linked to the West (Furholt in prep). Furthermore, the uniformity of the Northern Group is clearly subdivided into a Jutland and a Scania/Zealand focus of typological similarities (Figure 4).

see also Bakker 1979). In our areas of interest the division between the West-, North-, East-, and Altmark-groups is still essential, but examples showing the relevance of the “boundaries” in between these groups are of importance for the interpretation of our data: Do these spatial divisions reflect technical aspects arising mainly when ordering material culture, which then would result in an overestimation of these boundaries? Alternatively, the boundaries of these groups may not necessarily be strictly estimated according to material dissimilarities. In result, not an abrupt change in styles, but a slow shift of stylistic similarities could be an appropriate scenario, as given in the Lower Elbe area, where a lot of TRB-groups merge/ dismerge.

While we are dealing here with large-scale analyses, on a regional scale an example taking the correspondence analysis of D. Demnick into account indicates the smooth gradual change of decoration patterns between the Altmark and the Eastern West Group (Demnick in prep). The first eigenvector of a correspondence analysis could be identified as an even change of decoration patterns from the Altmark “Tiefstich” assemblages to the Eastern West Group assemblages (Figure 5). In this case it could be attested that no real boundary existed between the Altmark and the Western TRB. The gradual change of decoration patterns describes the gradual change of decoration customs between neighbouring hamlets.

Another example is the manifold identification of regional TRB-groups in Southern Scandinavia and Northern Central Europe. The situation is often a result of diverging research histories between countries and schools, obvious e.g. in Balkan archaeology. In respect to TRB, the typological differences and similarities between Northern Germany and Southern Scandinavia have to be evaluated to justify the terminological division of stylistic zones. Some results can be highlighted here. Network similarities and regional styles

A further analysis also maintains that the labelling of assemblages in Southern Scandinavia and Northern Germany is due to research history rather than to typological differences within the ceramic decoration. Martin Furholt

Using ceramic shapes and decorations as an indicator of relations between regions, according to smooth

54

Johannes Müller et al.: Landscapes as Social Spaces and Ritual Meaning

Figure 4. A network analysis between TRB regions using ceramic decoration and shape variables confirms linkages and distances for the time period ca. 3500-3000 cal BC (Furholt in prep).

55

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Figure 5. The first eigenvector of the Correspondence Analysis on Tiefstich decorations highlights an only gradual shift between the Altmark Tiefstich Group and the Western TRB (after Demnick in prep).

56

Johannes Müller et al.: Landscapes as Social Spaces and Ritual Meaning

2

Objects and Variables

2

1,5

Variables Oxie Svaleklint-Virum Virum-Fuchsberg Volling 1 Volling 2 Volling 3

Tol2

Sten1 Sten2 Olsbj Moesg Voe FINGDR PLASTI Mogar Stili StVal Rustr CORD Wangels Varby Lin2 Gilhoj YssB Lin1 Havne Sval Gug Tofta6 KANTENSTI STAB Ostg Tol3 Virum Tofta1 Slots VerM Taar OBLONG STABBING Siggeneben

1 0,5 0 -0,5 FURSTI Bonn

-1

ToftA31 WHIPPED CORD Dieksknöll KnaG Mulbj ToftA46

Wolkenwehe

Ryu

Triwalk I

Len

-1,5

brFURSTI

-2

1

GROOVES

-2,5

Bisto

-3 -3

-2,5

-2

-1,5

-1

-0,5

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

Figure 6. A Correspondence Analysis of rim decoration technics of Danish and North German Early Neolithic assemblages identifies the similarity of sites, independent of their Northern or Southern geographical position. On the Y-axes the 2. eigenvector is identified with “time”, on the x-axes the 1. eigenvector with “space”. The graph indicates the differentiation between Eastern and Western groups. Abbreviations: Plasti - moulding, Fingdr - finger impressions, Kantensti - edge grooving, Fursti - ordinary stab-and-drag, brFursti - broad stab-and-drag, Stab - stabbing. Source: Martin Furholt.

Chronologies

and Johannes Müller used the analyses of Early Neolithic assemblages, which Madsen and Vang Petersen had collected (Madsen and Petersen 1984; Madsen 1994), to add some assemblages of Northern Germany. In result, the typological similarities, visible in the correspondence analyses (Figure 6) do not support the differentiation of typological groups between north and south, as some literature proposes. Instead, stylistic groups link the entire Western Baltic and cutting differences are not due to locations in the southern or northern part of the region. In consequence, stylistic similarities link the whole area of at least the Danish and North German Northern Group of the TRB.

The chronological development of the TRB-sphere was primarily discussed in the last decades of the last millennium (Figure 3). Based on regional investigations and radiometric datings - again mainly dealing with ceramics - an elongation of H. Knölls chronological scheme for the TRB-West group (Knöll 1959) was reached by J. A. Bakker and A. L. Brindley, while for Denmark T. Madsen and J.E. Brinch Petersen revised Beckers system for the Early Neolithic. Beckers Middle Neolithic-periodisation was confirmed (Bakker 1979; Brindley 1986; Lanting and Van der Plicht 2000; Madsen and Petersen 1984; Madsen 1994). Further analyses underlined these observations (Koch 1998). In Northern Germany the discussion did not end up with results as clear as one would wish. The Schleswig conference in 1985 described the absolute chronological advance of the Early Neolithic from the south to the north (, but in general H. Schwabedissens chronological labels could not be verified in further analyses (Hoika 1987; MeurersBalke and Weninger 1985; Hartz and Lübke 2004). Beside such difficulties, which are also due to reduced excavation activities, chronologies for neighbouring southern regions

In summary, spatial differences of e.g. ceramic assemblages are less pronounced in the TRB world, as the group labels, which were constructed during regional research, would imply. An interpretation would therefore suggest the passing on of knowledge and customs from hamlet to hamlet. No indications of mobile groups of some size are given. However, this does not exclude the mobility of individuals, via necessary exogamic marriage practices or individual “traders”, but this has to be proved.

57

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

)LJXUH$&RUUHVSRQGHQFH$QDO\VLVRIFHUDPLFW\SHVRIWKHGRPHVWLFVLWH7ULZDONZHVWHUQ0HFNOHQEXUJ LGHQWL¿HVWKH typochronological development between 3500 – 2800 cal BC (after Staude in prep).

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

ZHUHYHUL¿HG%RWK0LFKHOVEHUJFKURQRORJLHV+|KQ  DVZHOODV0LGGOH(OEH6DDOHFKURQRORJLHVZHUHSURQRXQFHG 0OOHU  $VDPDLQWDVNWKHYHUL¿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¿QGVEXWUDWKHURQO\ UHODWLYHO\PL[HGDVVHPEODJHVIURPPHJDOLWKLFEXULDOVRU GRPHVWLFVLWHVH[LVW1HYHUWKHOHVVFRUUHVSRQGHQFHDQDO\VHV RI7LHIVWLFK SRWV GHVFULEH D FOHDU W\SRORJLFDO VLPLODULW\ VHTXHQFH ZKLFK FRXOG EH LGHQWL¿HG DV FKURQRORJLFDOO\ UHOHYDQWE\&GDWHVRIOLQNHGIHDWXUHV'HPQLFNLQSUHS  ,QUHVXOWDFRQWLQXRXVGHYHORSPHQWRI7LHIVWLFKSRWWHU\LV SDUDOOHOHGWRWKH:HVW*URXSFKURQRORJLHV)LJXUH 

$VDUHVXOWZHDUHQRZDEOHWR¿[WKHW\SRFKURQRORJLFDO GHYHORSPHQWIRU1RUWKHUQ&HQWUDO(XURSHDQG6RXWKHUQ 6FDQGLQDYLD  DOVR LQ VRPH DUHDV RI 1RUWKHUQ &HQWUDO (XURSH$VDUHVXOWWKHGDWLQJDQGGXUDWLRQRIPRQXPHQWV LVHDVLHUWRGHWHFWDQGWKHDUFKDHRORJLFDOHYLGHQFHFDQEH OLQNHGZLWKSDODHRHFRORJLFDOGDWDLQDEHWWHUFKURQRORJLFDO VROXWLRQ

)RU0HFNOHQEXUJWKHDQDO\VHVRIWKHGRPHVWLFVLWH7ULZDON QHDU:LVPDUFRQ¿UPHGVL[SKDVHVEHWZHHQDQG FDO %& 6WDXGH LQ SUHS  %RWK YHUWLFDO VWUDWLJUDSKLHV ZKLFKZHUHREVHUYHGLQSLWVDVZHOODVUDGLRFDUERQGDWLQJ LGHQWL¿HG WKH W\SRORJLFDO VHTXHQFH RI SRW VKDSHV DQG

58

Archaeological periods

er e Ri al-ty bw p or e ( t p re M la d) (p ic nt ar ro ai tic -c n le h (g s a cm rc re -3 o en ) a li ) nf lu x

Phase

C

Other landplants

Shrubs

Trees

Johannes Müller et al.: Landscapes as Social Spaces and Ritual Meaning

Figure 8. The opening of the landscape UHÀHFWHGLQWKHUHFRUGRI/DNH%HODX$IWHU a period in which charcoal played an important role, around 3500 BC, the imprints of a new agricultural system on vegetation are visible. Copyright: Ingo Feeser.

2000 LN 1 Early Dagger groups

YN 3 Late Single Grave groups

2500

YN 2 Middle Single Grave groups

5

YN 1 Early Single Grave groups

MN V Store Valby MN III-IV Bostholm

3000 years cal BC

4 3.3

MN II Oldenburg MN Ib Wolkenwehe 2

MN Ia

3.2

EN II Wolkenwehe 1

3500

3.1

EN Ib Satrup

Siggeneben Süd

EN Ia Wangels/ Flintbek

analysis: J. Wiethold

4000

2

Elm decline

Elm

100

1

Late Mesol.

5000

Environment and Economy

GDWLQJE\'|UÀHUDQG)HHVHULQ.LUOHLVet al :LHWKROG'|UÀHUDQG)HHVHULQSUHS )LJXUH :LWK WKHQHZGDWLQJLQPLQGZHFDQGLVWLQJXLVKVHYHUDOSKDVHV DQGVXESKDVHVZKLFKDUHDOVRUHÀHFWHGLQRWKHUSROOHQ SUR¿OHVRIWKH6RXWKHUQ&LPEULF3HQLQVXOD

:LWKLQ WKH 3ULRULW\ 3URJUDP SDO\QRORJLFDO DQG DUFKDHRERWDQLFDOUHVHDUFKVWDUWHGWRJDLQFORVHULQIRUPDWLRQ ERWKDERXWWKHHQYLURQPHQWDODVZHOODVDERXWWKHHFRQRPLF GHYHORSPHQWRI75%VRFLHWLHV

Phase 1 Mesolithic Environs and land use %HIRUH  FDO %& 7KH SROOHQ UHFRUG RI /DNH %HODX VXJJHVWV D FORVHG FDQRS\ ZLWK PL[HG RDN IRUHVW &OHDU HYLGHQFHIRUKXPDQLQWHUIHUHQFHZLWKWKHQDWXUDOZRRGODQGV LV PLVVLQJ 2QJRLQJ LQYHVWLJDWLRQV RI DQRWKHU SUR¿OH

2QHRIWKHPDMRUVRXUFHVRIUHVHDUFKFRQWLQXHVWREHWKH ODPLQDWHGSROOHQSUR¿OHIURP/DNH%HODXSXEOLVKHGDOUHDG\ LQE\:LHWKROGEXWZLWKDFRUUHFWLRQRIWKHDEVROXWH

59

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

)LJXUH7KHPRGHOOLQJRIWKHUHDOYHJHWDWLRQSDWWHUQZLWKWKH5(9($/PRGHOLQGLFDWHVWKHRSHQQHVVRIWKH%HODX/DNH surroundings. Copyright: Ingo Feeser.

RI 3RJJHQVHH D VPDOO VL]HG ODNH NP QRUWKHDVW RI WKH DUFKDHRORJLFDO VLWH :RONHQZHKH KRZHYHU UHYHDO ¿UVW HYLGHQFHIRUZRRGODQGFOHDUDQFHDOWKRXJKYHU\ORFDOL]HG IURPDURXQGFDO%&RQZDUGV*HQHUDOO\KRZHYHU KXPDQLPSDFWVHHPVWRKDYHEHHQORZEHWZHHQ FDO%&

ULEZRUWSODQWDLQPlantago lanceolata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

Phase 2 Small scale agriculture and woodland pasture: FDO%&7KHEHJLQQLQJGHFOLQHRIHOPUlmus VSS DURXQGFDO%&FRLQFLGHVZLWKDQLQFUHDVHRI PLFURFKDUFRDO LQÀX[ DQG SURYLGHV ¿UVW FOHDU HYLGHQFH IRUKXPDQLPSDFWLQWKHSUR¿OHRI/DNH%HODX$OWKRXJK QDWXUDO ¿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¿UH PDQDJHPHQW LQ FRQQHFWLRQ ZLWK ZRRGSDVWXUHDQGLQFOXGHGSROODUGLQJ6FKQHLWHOZLUWVFKDIW  7KLVPLJKWDOVRH[SODLQWKHLQFUHDVHGLPSRUWDQFHRIKD]HO Corylus avellana DOLJKWGHPDQGLQJVSHFLHVJURZLQJLQ WKHXQGHUVWRU\RIWKHZRRGODQGV$JULFXOWXUDODFWLYLWLHV ±RFFDVLRQDO¿QGVRI&HUHDOW\SHSROOHQDUHNQRZQIURP VHYHUDORWKHUSROOHQGLDJUDPVEXWWKHSRVVLELOLW\RIWKHLU RULJLQIURPQRQFXOWLYDWHGJUDVVHVKDVWREHFRQVLGHUHGFI %HKUH ±ZHUHSUREDEO\UDWKHUVPDOOVFDOH

6XE3KDVH   FDO %&$URXQG  %& D VKDUSLQFUHDVHLQPlantago lanceolataDQG3RDFHDHH[FO FHUHDOV LVYLVLEOHLQ/DNH%HODX&RPSDUHGZLWKRWKHU SROOHQGDWDIURPWKHUHJLRQWKLVIHDWXUHVHHPVWREHRI PRUHORFDOLPSRUWDQFH7KXVLWLVUHJDUGHGWRUHÀHFWWKH HVWDEOLVKPHQWRIDJULFXOWXUDO¿HOGVLQWKHYLFLQLW\RI/DNH %HODXZKLFKLVLQDJUHHPHQWZLWKUHJXODURFFXUUHQFHVRI FHUHDOW\SHSROOHQLQWKHUHFRUG5HVXOWVRIDQDSSURDFKWR PRGHODQGTXDQWLI\WKHUHJLRQDOYHJHWDWLRQFRPSRVLWLRQ XVHGZDVWKH5(9($/6PRGHOFI6XJLWD LQGLFDWH DQRSHQLQJRIWKHODQGVFDSHRIXSWRRIWKHWRWDOODQG FRYHU)LJXUH  6XESKDVHFDO%&7KHGHFUHDVHRIOLPH SROOHQLQWKHUGFHQWXU\FDO%&LQGLFDWHVWKHFOHDUDQFH RISULPDU\ZRRGODQGVRQPRUHIHUWLOHEXWDOVRKHDYLHU VRLOV$WWKHVDPHWLPHKRZHYHUFODVVLFDOLQGLFDWRUVIRU IDUPLQJDFWLYLWLHVVXFKDVPlantago lanceolata3RDFHDH H[FO FHUHDOV  DQG &HUHDOW\SH GHFUHDVH VOLJKWO\ 7KLV DUJXHVDJDLQVWDVLPSOHLQWHQVL¿FDWLRQRIODQGXVHEXWFRXOG LQGLFDWHDVKLIWLQODQGXVHVWUDWHJLHV,QWKHVWFHQWXU\ WKHFODVVLFDOLQGLFDWRUVRIKXPDQDFWLYLW\UHFRYHUZKLFK FRXOGUHÀHFWDVKLIWEDFNWRROGODQGXVHVWUDWHJLHVDQGRU DQLQWHQVL¿FDWLRQRIKXPDQLPSDFW

Phase 3 Agricultural expansion phase 6XESKDVHFDO%&,QFUHDVLQJLPSRUWDQFHRI



Johannes Müller et al.: Landscapes as Social Spaces and Ritual Meaning

Phase 4: (Agri-)Cultural collapse and overregional woodland regeneration

ZKHDW Triticum aestivum / durum  LV VSDUVH 2QO\ LQ 5DVWRUI/$QDNHGZKHDWLVSUHVHQWWRDVRPHZKDWKLJKHU DPRXQWDQGLWGRPLQDWHGWKH/DWH1HROLWKLFVWRUDJH¿QG IURP%RVDX.UROO 6HHGVRIRSLXPSRSS\Papaver somniferum ZHUHIRXQGLQUHODWLYHKLJKQXPEHUVLQWKHZHW OD\HUVRI:DQJHOV/$.UROO 

FDO%&7KLVSKDVHLVFKDUDFWHUL]HGE\UHGXFHG KXPDQDFWLYLW\DQGWKHUHFRYHU\RIZRRGODQGZKLFKLV LQDJUHHPHQWZLWKWKHUHVXOWVIURPRWKHUSROOHQGLDJUDPV IURP6FKOHVZLJ+ROVWHLQDQG0HFNOHQEXUJ9RUSRPPHUQ DQGVXJJHVWVIXQGDPHQWDOFKDQJHVLQWKH1HROLWKLFVRFLHWLHV DQGRUVHWWOHPHQWV\VWHPV

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|JHOQDOPRVWDOOIRRGSODQWUHPDLQVWR VWHP IURPFHUHDOV7KHVLWXDWLRQDW:DQJHOV/$LVVOLJKWO\ GLIIHUHQWEHFDXVHWKHSODQWUHPDLQVDUHSDUWO\FKDUUHGDQG SDUWO\ZDWHUORJJHG,IWKHZDWHUORJJHGPDWHULDOLVH[FOXGHG JDWKHUHGSODQWVKDUGO\RFFXUDERXW 

Phase 5: Renewed human activity FDO%&,Q/DNH%HODXWKHUHLVHYLGHQFHIRU VHYHUDOPLQRUSKDVHVRILQFUHDVHGKXPDQLPSDFWGXULQJ WKLVSHULRGDURXQGFDO%& %DVHG RQWKHUHSUHVHQWDWLRQRIODQGXVHLQGLFDWRUVKXPDQLPSDFW GLG QRW UHFRYHU\ WR SUHYLRXVO\ UHDFKHG LQWHQVLW\ 7KH FRPSDULVRQZLWKRWKHUGLDJUDPVIURPQRUWKHUQ*HUPDQ\ KRZHYHULQGLFDWHVWKDWVHWWOHPHQWDFWLYLWLHVDUHJHQHUDOO\ PRUHGLYHUVHWKDQLQWKHSUHYLRXVSKDVHV ,QJHQHUDOWKUHHPDLQSKDVHVRIODQGXVHDFWLYLWLHVOLQNHG WR75%DFWLYLWLHVDFWLYLWLHVFDQEHLQWHUSUHWHGDVIROORZV 3KDVHZLWKVPDOOZRRGODQGPDQDJHPHQWLQÀXHQFHVRQ WKHHQYLURQPHQW3KDVHZLWKDQLQWHQVHKXPDQLPSDFWDQG 3KDVHFKDUDFWHUL]HGE\UHQHZHGKXPDQDFWLYLW\DIWHUD SHULRGRIFD\HDUVFKDUDFWHULVHGE\GUDVWLFDOO\UHGXFHG KXPDQLPSDFW3KDVH 

$W\SLFDOVLWHRIWKHODWH(DUO\DQG0LGGOH1HROLWKLFRI WKH75%1RUWK *URXS LV 2OGHQEXUJ LQ +ROVDWLD ZKHUH H[FDYDWLRQV VWLOO FRQWLQXH 7KH SUHOLPLQDU\ DQDO\VHV XQGHUOLQH WKDW FXOWLYDWHG SODQWV GRPLQDWH WKH SODQW DVVHPEODJH¿JXUH RIWKHFKDUUHGUHPDLQVVWHP IURP FHUHDOV   EHORQJ WR ZHHG VSHFLHV DQG   DUHWKHUHPDLQVRIJDWKHUHGSODQWV7KHPDLQFRPSRQHQW RIFHUHDOVLVQDNHGEDUOH\,WLVIROORZHGE\HPPHUE\D ODUJH PDUJLQ 6LQJOH JUDLQV RI HLQNRUQ SUHVHQW D WKLUG GRPHVWLFSODQW0DLQO\WKHIUXLWVRIFHUHDOVDUHGRFXPHQWHG 7KUHVKLQJUHPDLQVOLNHUDFKLVIUDJPHQWVDQGJOXPHEDVHV RFFXUWRDOHVVHUH[WHQW:HHGVDUHVFDUFH3RDFHDHUHSUHVHQW WKHPDMRULW\RI¿QGV,QDGGLWLRQGalium spuriumVicia VSDQG&\SHUDFHDHDUHSUHVHQW7KHVSHFWUXPRIJDWKHUHG SODQWVFRQVLVWVRIWKUHHVSHFLHVCorylus avellanaRubus fruticosusDQGChenopodium album

Subsistence economy $UFKDHRERWDQLFDO UHVHDUFK XQGHUOLQHV WKH REVHUYDWLRQV ZKLFKZHUHPDGHRQWKHEDVLVRIWKHSROOHQUHFRUG7KH HYLGHQFHRIFHUHDOVRUFHUHDOUHODWHGZHHGVSDLQWVDVLPLODU SLFWXUH .LUOHLVet al.LQSUHS.LUOHLVet al. 5HJQHOO DQG6M|JUHQ 5HPDLQVRIGRPHVWLFDWHVIURP1HROLWKLF VLWHVEHWZHHQFDO%&DUHYHU\VSDUVH%HWZHHQ DQG%&ZHGRQRWKDYHDVLQJOHFHUHDO¿QG IURPDVHWWOHPHQWH[FHSWFHUHDOLPSUHVVLRQVRQSRWWHU\ ,WLVQRWTXLWHFOHDUEXWPRVWSRVVLEO\WKHLPSULQWVVWHP IURPLPSRUWHGFHUHDOV1RWXQWLOWKH(DUO\1HROLWKLF,% DIWHU%&DUHFHUHDO¿QGVIURPGLIIHUHQWVLWHVSUHVHQW ZKHQDWWKHVDPHWLPHULEZRUWSODQWDLQRFFXUVUHJXODUO\LQ WKHSROOHQUHFRUGVERWKWRJHWKHULQGLFDWLQJDQDJULFXOWXUDO H[SDQVLRQ

2IFRQVLGHUDEOHLQWHUHVWLVWKHLPSRUWDQFHRIDSSOHZLWKLQ WKHUHFRUG¿JXUH ,QFRPSDULVRQZLWKRWKHUSUHKLVWRULF DQGKLVWRULFSHULRGVHYLGHQFHRIDSSOHVGXULQJWKH1HROLWKLF LVDVKLJKRUHYHQKLJKHUDVGXULQJWKH0LGGOH$JHV,W VHHPVWREHFOHDUWKDWVRPHNLQGRIFDUHIXOPDQDJHPHQW ZDV FDUULHG RXW LQ 1HROLWKLF ³DSSOH JURYHV´ -DQW] DQG .LUOHLV   ZKLFK DOVR ZRXOG LPSO\ WKH SUHVHQFH RI KHGJHVLQ1HROLWKLFWLPHV.UHX].UHX] ,I ZHLQWHUSUHWWKHVHKHGJHVDVERUGHUVWKH\SHUKDSVLPSO\ SULYDWHSURSHUW\ZLWKLQWKHODQGVFDSHHJIHQFHGDSSOH JURYHV

7KHPDLQLQSXWRIDUFKDHRERWDQLFDOHYLGHQFHIRUFXOWLYDWLRQ EHORQJVWRWKHODWH(DUO\1HROLWKLFDQGWKH0LGGOH1HROLWKLF ,PSRUWDQW 1RUWK *HUPDQ VLWHV ZLWK DUFKDHRERWDQLFDO HYLGHQFHDQGDOUHDG\NQRZQHYLGHQFHEHORQJWRWKHODWH (DUO\1HROLWKLF,,LQ5DVWRUI/$.UROO6WHIIHQV  WKH0LGGOH1HROLWKLFWRWKHHQGRI75%0LGGOH 1HROLWKLF9 LQ2OGHQEXUJ'DQQDX/$.UROO  DQG )O|JHOQ %HKUH DQG .XþDQ   DQG RI 019 LQ :DQJHOV/$.UROO.UROO 7KHPDLQFURS SODQWVLQWKH75%ZHUHQDNHGEDUOH\Hordeum v. nudum  DQGHPPHUTriticum dicoccum ,Q)O|JHOQKXOOHGEDUOH\ Hordeum v. vulgare LVPRUHLPSRUWDQWWKDQQDNHGEDUOH\ (YLGHQFHIRUHLQNRUQTriticum monococcum DQGQDNHG

,Q FRQWUDVW WR GRPHVWLF VLWHV DOUHDG\ JDWKHUHG DUFKDHRERWDQLFDOHYLGHQFHIRUGLIIHUHQWULWXDOVLWHVKLJKOLJKW WKHUROHRIQRQFXOWLYDWHVIRUWKHVRFLHW\¿JXUH $V DQH[DPSOHWKHVLWHRIWKHPHJDOLWKLFWRPERI$OEHUVGRUI %UXWNDPSLVPDLQO\FKDUDFWHUL]HGE\FKDUUHGUHPDLQVRI QRQFXOWLYDWHGSODQWVWKDWPD\HLWKHUVWHPIURP¿UHFOHDULQJ



Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Albersdorf-Brutkamp LA 5 Hordeum v. vulgare tomb n=96 Arrhenatherum elatius bulbosum,

Hordeum Cereals

bulbs

Corylus avellana shell fragments

weeds Rubus idaeus Rubus

Prunus spinosa Corylus avellana, immature

Oldenburg LA 77: settlement n=1009

weeds

Rubus fruticosus Corylus avellana, shell fragments

Hordeum vulgare var. nudum

Cereals

Figure 10. The differences in plant deposition between megaliths (Brutkamp), and domestic sites (Oldenburg) (after .LUOHLVDQG.ORR‰LQSUHS¿JJUDSKLF Wiebke Kirleis).

Triticum indet. Triticum dicoccum, glume bases Hordeum vulgare

Triticum dicoccum

Triticum monococcum

1 cm

0,5 cm

0,5 cm

Figure 11 An apple. Copyright: Sara Jagiolla/Ines Reese.



Johannes Müller et al.: Landscapes as Social Spaces and Ritual Meaning

ZLWK WKH H[FHSWLRQ RI VSHFLDOL]HG VHWWOHPHQWV VXFK DV %DG2OGHVORH:RONHQZHKH6RZHKDYHWRFRQFHGHWKDW WKHDGRSWLRQRID1HROLWKLFOLIHVW\OHWRRNSODFHJUDGXDOO\ EHJLQQLQJLQWKH(DUO\1HROLWKLFDQGHQGLQJDIHZFHQWXULHV ODWHU7KLVWUDQVIRUPDWLRQLVUHÀHFWHGLQWKHSHUFHQWDJHRI GRPHVWLFDQLPDOV1HZKRXVHPDPPDOVSHFLHVZHUHPDLQO\ FDWWOHEXWDOVRSLJVDQGVPDOOUXPLQDQWVD'1$DQDO\VHV RIIRUH[DPSOHFDWWOHERQHVUHYHDOWKDWWKHDQLPDOVEUHG GLGQRWVWHPIURPORFDOVSHFLHVOLNHHJDXURFKVEXWIURP $QDWROLDQUDFHV%ROORQJLQR 

DVULWXDODFWLYLW\WRSUHSDUHWKHJURXQGIRUWKHHUHFWLRQRI WKH PHJDOLWKV RU KLQW WRZDUGV IUXLW JDWKHULQJ UHODWHG WR WKHEXULDOULWXDO$PRQJRWKHUVKD]HOLVZHOOUHSUHVHQWHG .LUOHLV DQG .ORRSS LQ SUHS  7KH VDPH DSSOLHV WR WKH FDXVHZD\HGHQFORVXUHRI$OEHUVGRUI'LHNVNQ|OOZKHUHWKH SHUFHQWDJHRIFHUHDOVSHUOLWHUUHPDLQVHYHQORZHUDQGWKH SODQWVSHFWUDDUHGRPLQDWHGE\FKDUUHG¿QGVIURPDQHDUE\ ULYHULQHIRUHVW,WFDQQRWEHVDLGIRUVXUHLIVKUXEVVXFKDV KD]HORUVSHFLHVRIIUXLWWUHHVZHUHSURPRWHGE\DVSHFLDO NLQGRIIRUHVWPDQDJHPHQW,QFRQVHTXHQFHWKURXJKRXWWKH GLIIHUHQWVRFLHWDOVSKHUHVKHUEDOSURGXFWVZHUHXVHGDQG GHSRVLWHGLQYDULRXVVRPHWLPHVPDUNHGO\GLIIHUHQWZD\V ZKLFKDUHUHÀHFWHGLQWKHYDULHW\RI¿QGVFHQDULRV

7HPSRUDU\ 75% VHWWOHPHQWV RU FDPSV ZHUH EXLOW IRU GLIIHUHQWSXUSRVHVEXWVRPHRIWKHPZHUHFOHDUO\HQJDJHG LQ KXQWLQJ DFWLYLWLHV DV ZH KDYH DOUHDG\ VWDWHG IRU %DG 2OGHVORH:RONHQZHKHZLWKDKLJKSHUFHQWDJHRIJDPHLQ WKH(DUO\DVZHOODVWKH0LGGOH1HROLWKLF$VWUDLJKWIRUZDUG H[DPSOH RI D KXQWLQJ FDPS LV WKH WHPSRUDU\ VWDWLRQ LQ 3DUFKLP/|GGLJVHHIURPZKLFKQRGRPHVWLFDQLPDOUHPDLQV DUHNQRZQ%HFNHUDQG%HQHFNH 7KHUHLVHYLGHQFH WKDW WKH VHWWOHPHQW ZDV XVHG WR FDUU\ RXW D VSHFLDOL]HG KXQWLQJRIZLOGKRUVHVDWWKHHQGRIWKH0LGGOH1HROLWKLF 6RPH VWUXFWXUHV IHDWXUH D VWURQJ KXQWLQJ FRPSRQHQW SUREDEO\GXHWRVRFLDOUHDVRQVIRUH[DPSOHWKHJUDYH¿HOG RI2VWRUI/ENHet al. HYHQWKRXJKWKHVXEVLVWHQFH HFRQRP\ZDVPDLQO\EDVHGRQDJULFXOWXUDOSURGXFWVGXULQJ WKHODWH(DUO\1HROLWKLFDQG0LGGOH1HROLWKLF

7KH GHYHORSPHQW RI DJULFXOWXUDO WHFKQLTXHV KDV WR EH FRQVLGHUHGDVZHOO7KHRSHQLQJRIWKHODQGVFDSHDQGWKH VXGGHQLQFUHDVHLQHYLGHQFHRIFXOWLYDWHGFURSVVKRXOGEH FRQQHFWHGWRWKHLQWURGXFWLRQRIWKHFURRNHGSORXJKPDUNV RIZKLFKFDQEHIRXQGXQGHUDQGQHDUPHJDOLWKLFJUDYHVDQG KRXVHVVLQFHWKH(DUO\1HROLWKLF,,LQ1RUWK&HQWUDO(XURSH DQG6RXWKHUQ6FDQGLQDYLD7KHSORXJKPDUNVRI$SWUXS $PW9LERUJ DQG)OLQWEHN0LVFKNDLQSUHS GDWHWR %&DQGWKRVHRIWKH)XFKVEHUJKRXVHRI5DVWRUIPD\ DOVREHPHQWLRQHG+EQHU6WHIIHQV  7KHWHFKQRORJLFDOLPSURYHPHQWRIWKHSORXJKVWUHQJWKHQV WKHUROHRIFHUHDOVDVDQXWULWLRQDOIRXQGDWLRQDIDFWWKDWLV XQGHUOLQHGE\WKHIUHTXHQWRFFXUUHQFHRIFHUHDOVDPSOHV RQGRPHVWLFVLWHVGDWLQJWRWKH(DUO\1HROLWKLF,,DQGWKH 0LGGOH1HROLWKLFSKDVH

$VIRUDQLPDOVLQWKLVFRQWH[WWKHFDUWWUDFNVRI)OLQWEHN FDQEHPHQWLRQHG7KH\FRXOGUHFHQWO\EHGDWHGSUHFLVHO\WR %&DQGFRQ¿UPWKHXVHRIFDWWOHDVZRUNLQJDQLPDOV 0LVFKND0LVFKND 7KHDSSHDUDQFHRIGRXEOH EXULDOVRIDQLPDOVHVSHFLDOO\RIFDWWOHLQZLGHDUHDVRI (XURSH LV D YHU\ SRZHUIXO LQGLFDWRU IRU WKH LQFUHDVLQJ VLJQL¿FDQFHRIDQLPDOV:H¿QGDQWLSRGLFGRXEOHEXULDOV RIFDWWOHZKLFKZHUHDVLVWKHFDVHIRU&HQWUDO*HUPDQ\ SODFHGDQDORJRXVWRKXPDQEXULDOVLQDFURXFKHGSRVLWLRQ DORQJVLGHFRPPRQJUDYHJRRGV$UHFHQWVWXG\UHYHDOHG WKDWWKHVROHUHPDLQVIRXQGLQGRXEOHEXULDOVZKLFKZHUH DOLJQHGLQIURQWRIWKHPHJDOLWKLFWRPERI9URXH+HLGH ZHUH FDWWOH WHHWK -RKDQQVHQ DQG /DXUVHQ   7KH SRVLWLRQRIWKH¿QGVVXJJHVWVWKDWWKHEXULDOVFRXOGKDYH ZHOOEHHQGRXEOHEXULDOVRIFDWWOHZKLFKKDGPD\EHEHHQ EXULHGWRJHWKHUZLWKDFDUWRUFDUWV7KLVLVDQRWKHUVWURQJ LQGLFDWLRQIRUWKHLPSRUWDQFHRIDQLPDOV

:KHDWDQGEDUOH\DUHVHFRQGHGE\UHODWHGZHHGVWKDWVKRZ VPDOOVFDOHDJULFXOWXUHHJ%RJDDUG IXUWKHUPRUH SRSS\DSSHDUV7KHFXOWLYDWLRQLQVPDOOSORWVDXJPHQWV WKHRSHQLQJRIWKHODQGVFDSHDQGWKHLQFUHDVHRIVKUXEV LQ SROOHQ SUR¿OHV DFFRXQWV IRU WKH H[LVWHQFH RI KHGJHV *ULQGLQJVWRQHVDQGVLFNOHVEHFRPHFRPPRQ¿QGVZLWKLQ PRVWVHWWOHPHQWW\SHVDIWHUFDO%&7KHDSSHDUDQFHRI VLFNOHJODQFHVHUYHVDVDQRWKHULQGLFDWRUIRUDFKURQRORJLFDO RIIVHWIURPVRXWKWRQRUWKWKHSHUFHQWDJHVRIVLFNOHJODQFH DUHKLJKHULQVRXWKHUQVHWWOHPHQWV,Q6DUXSGHIRUHVWDWLRQ LV HYLGHQFHG DV ODWH DV  %& DFFRPSDQLHG E\ D VLPXOWDQHRXVULVHRIVLFNOHHYLGHQFHZLWKLQWKHVHWWOHPHQW -HQVHQ 

:HKDYHDV\HWQRWPHQWLRQHG¿VKLQJDQGWKHH[SORLWDWLRQ RI PDULWLPH UHVRXUFHV ZKLFK UHPDLQHG FRPPRQ GXULQJ WKHZKROHWLPHVSDQDVPDQ\¿QGVRIVHDODQG¿VKERQHV ¿VKKRRNV DQG ZHLJKWV IURP ¿VKQHWV FRQ¿UP ,Q %DG 2OGHVORH:RONHQZHKHVHDOERQHVZHUHIRXQGDQGLQGLFDWH WKDWWKHVHDQLPDOVZHUHDQLPSRUWDQWUHVRXUFHHYHQLQODQG

7KHFKDQJHIURPSULPDU\JDWKHULQJDQGJDUGHQLQJDFWLYLWLHV WRWKH³1HZ(FRQRP\´ZLWKODUJHUVFDOHODQGRSHQLQJLV DOVRYLVLEOHLQFKDQJLQJ¿JXUHVIRUGRPHVWLFDWHGDQLPDOV Ä+DUG³HYLGHQFHRID1HROLWKLFOLIHVW\OHLVRQO\UHSUHVHQWHG E\ORZSURSRUWLRQVRIGRPHVWLFDQLPDOVDWWKHEHJLQQLQJ RIWKH(DUO\1HROLWKLF6WHIIHQV %HWZHHQDQG %&WKHVKDUHRIGRPHVWLFERQHVZLWKLQ]RRORJLFDO LQYHQWRULHV UDQJH IURP   LQ 'DQLVK 6YDOHNOLQW   LQ %DVHGRZ0HFNOHQEXUJ RQO\   LQ 6FDQLF /|GHOVERUJ DQG   LQ %HEHQVHH ZKHUHDV:DQJHOV GLVSOD\VDVKDUHRI7KHIROORZLQJ(DUO\1HROLWKLF,E LVFKDUDFWHUL]HGE\YDOXHVRIPRUHWKDQIRUH[DPSOH 6LJJHQHEHQ6GIHDWXUHV:LWKWKH(DUO\1HROLWKLF ,,DQG0LGGOH1HROLWKLFWKHYDOXHVOHYHORIIDWRYHU

,Q FRQVHTXHQFH VWDEOH DJULFXOWXUH VXUHO\ H[LVWHG DIWHU %&%XWKRZFDQSODQWFXOWLYDWLRQEHIRUH FDO %& EH FKDUDFWHUL]HG" 7KH GHVFULEHG SDO\QRORJLFDO HYLGHQFHIURP/DNH%HODXUHSRUWVDQLQFUHDVHRIFKDUFRDO EHWZHHQDQG%&¿JXUH 7KH¿UVWKDOIRI WKHWKPLOOHQQLXPLVFKDUDFWHUL]HGE\DGLVWLQFWLQFUHDVH RIFROOXYLDOGHSRVLWLRQVLQ6FKOHVZLJ+ROVWHLQIROORZHG



Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

E\DGHFUHDVH'UHLEURGWet al.  %RWKGLVFRYHULHV PD\EHVHHQDVLQGLFDWRUVIRUWKHRIWHQGLVFXVVHGVPDOO VFDOHZRRGODQGRSHQLQJE\¿UHÄ%UDQGIHOGEDX³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

Rastorf 2QHH[DPSOHIRUVXFKDVLQJOHIDUPVWHDGLVWKH'DJVWRUS W\SHKRXVHIURP5DVWRUI(DVW+ROVWHLQ)LJXUHDQG  2QDVPDOOSURPRQWRU\WKH[PVL]HGWZRDLOHGKRXVH ZDV FRQVWUXFWHG ZLWK GLIIHUHQW VL]HG SRVWV$ GLYHUVLW\ RI VLOH[ DUWHIDFWV TXHUQV GRPHVWLF FHUDPLFV DQG FURSV LQGLFDWHWKHDFWLYLWLHVRIDIDUPVWHDGLQH[LVWHQFHDURXQG FDFDO%&)XFKVEHUJ ,QIURQWRIWKHP KRXVHOD\UHIXVHSLWV¿UHSODFHVDVLQJOHEXULDODQGSORXJK PDUNVDFODVVLFDOH[DPSOHRIDFRPELQDWLRQRIDGRPHVWLF VWUXFWXUHVPDOO¿HOGVQHDUEXULDOSODFHVUXEELVKDUHDV DQGLQVWDOODWLRQVIRURXWGRRUDFWLYLWLHV6WHIIHQV 7KH KRPHVWHDGZDVRFFXSLHGRQO\IRUDVKRUWSHULRGRIWLPH JHQHUDWLRQV" DVQRLQGLFDWLRQVRIDKRXVHKROGFRQWLQXLW\ ZHUHUHFRYHUHG,QVWHDGD³FXOWXUDOOD\HU´LQGLFDWHVWKH GHSRVLWLRQRIUHIXVHDERYHWKHKRXVHDIWHULWVGHVWUXFWLRQ ZKLOHODWHURQDPHJDOLWKLFPRQXPHQWZDVHUHFWHG0LGGOH 1HROLWKLF,D 

Regional mosaics ,IZHSUHVHQWSKDVHVRI75%GHYHORSPHQWKHUHZHKDYHWR WDNHWKHPDQLIROGUHJLRQDOGLIIHUHQFHVLQWRFRQVLGHUDWLRQ &RQFHUQLQJWKHVWDUWRI1HROLWKLFHFRQRPLHVWKHFRPSDULVRQ RI SROOHQ GLDJUDPV IURP WKH 75% UHJLRQ LQGLFDWHV VLJQL¿FDQWGLIIHUHQFHVLQWKHEHJLQQLQJRIH[WHQVLYHRSHQLQJ RIWKHODQGVFDSHIRUDJULFXOWXUDOSXUSRVHV:KHUHDVLQWKH VRXWKHUQ75%1RUWKJURXSDQDJULFXOWXUDOH[SDQVLRQVWDUWV DURXQGFDO%&FRUUHVSRQGLQJIHDWXUHVJHQHUDOO\ RFFXUVLJQL¿FDQWO\ODWHULQWKHSROOHQUHFRUGVRIWKHPRUH VRXWKHUQ75%DUHDV. 7KHVHGLIIHUHQFHVLQWKHVWDUWLQJSRLQW RIODQGRSHQLQJVWDQGVQRWRQO\IRUWKHGLIIHUHQFHVEXWDOVR IRUWKHLQGHSHQGHQFHRIHDFKUHJLRQ

7KH GHVFULEHG KRXVH ZDV ORFDWHG RQ D VPDOO HOHYDWLRQ ZLWKLQ D JURXS RI GLIIHUHQW QDWXUDO PRXQGV 1HDUE\ D FRQWHPSRUDU\ PHJDOLWK DQG D PHJDOLWKLF ORQJ PRXQG (DUO\1HROLWKLF,, ZHUHVLWXDWHGSUREDEO\DOVRIXUWKHU IDUPVWHDGVRIZKLFKRQO\KRUL]RQWDOUHIXVHOD\HUVUHPDLQ

$WWKHHQGRIWKH75%GHYHORSPHQWZHDJDLQPD\LGHQWLI\ YDULRXV UHJLRQDOO\ GLIIHULQJ VWUXFWXUDO RUJDQL]DWLRQV RI VRFLHWLHV6RPHDUHDVDUHUHIRUHVWHGDIWHUFDO%&LQ RWKHUDUHDVZHREVHUYHDQLQFUHDVHRISDVWXUHODQG7KH WUDQVLWLRQ WR DQ (DUO\ 1HROLWKLF HFRQRP\ ZLWK D VWURQJ ELDVWRZDUGVDQLPDOKXVEDQGU\DOVRFKDUDFWHUL]HVWKHHQG RIWKH75%GHYHORSPHQWZKLFKDSSHDUVMXVWDVGLYHUVHDV WKHEHJLQQLQJ Settlements and spatial patterns ,QDGGLWLRQWRHFRQRPLFDQDO\VHVWKHRQJRLQJDFWLYLWLHVRI WKH3ULRULW\3URJUDPLQ.LHOIRFXVRQVHWWOHPHQWVWUXFWXUHV DV D EDVLF SUHUHTXLVLWH IRU GHYHORSLQJ LGHDV DERXW WKH SROLWLFDORUJDQL]DWLRQRIWKHVRFLHW\ZKLFKLQWXUQGHSHQG HJRQSRSXODWLRQVL]HVDQGWKHVL]HRIEDVLFVRFLHWDOXQLWV 6RIDUVPDOO¿HOGVXUYH\VDQGH[FDYDWLRQVZKLFKDUHVWLOO XQGHUSURJUHVVVXSSRUWWKHLGHDRIVLQJOHKRXVHKROGVDV WKHEDVLFXQLWRI75%VRFLHWLHVDQREVHUYDWLRQDOUHDG\ YHUL¿HGLQRWKHU75%UHJLRQV0DLQO\UHFWDQJXODUKRXVHV DUHWREHFRQVLGHUHG7KH\DSSHDUDVVLQJOHKRPHVWHDGVDQG VPDOOKDPOHWVQHYHUFOXVWHUHGWRELJJHUYLOODJHVDWOHDVWLQ RXUDUHDRIUHVHDUFK7KHVLWHVVHHPWRQHYHUKDYHH[LVWHG ORQJHUWKDQWKUHHKXQGUHG\HDUV+RZHYHUGHSRVLWLRQDO SURFHVVHVRQWKHVLWHVDUHTXLWHGLI¿FXOWWRGLVHQWDQJOH 5HPDLQVZKLFKZHODEHO³VXQNHQÀRRUV´³FXOWXUDOOD\HUV´ DQG³SLWV´DUHVWLOOZLWKRXWDQ\FOHDUH[SODQDWLRQ

causewayed enclosure megalithic tomb house structure long barrow

0

500

m 1.000

Figure 12. The spatial distribution of the Rastorf Early Neolithic II enclosure, house and megaliths. Copyright: Jan Piet Brozio.



Johannes Müller et al.: Landscapes as Social Spaces and Ritual Meaning

N

0

5m

post holes

grave

pits

house interior

fire places

plough marks

)LJXUH7KH(DUO\1HROLWKLF,,KRXVHRI5DVWRUIDIWHU6WHIIHQV%UR]LR %RWKWKHDUDEOHODQGDVZHOODVWKHKRXVHZLWK a burial are visible. Copyright: Jan Piet Brozio.

DIWHUFDO%&DUHQHZDORIDFWLYLWLHVDWWKHVLWHWRRN SODFH)LJXUHDQG ,QJHQHUDOphase 1UHSUHVHQWV WKHGLJJLQJRIWKHGLWFKZKLFKZDVOHIWRSHQIRUDZKLOH OHDGLQJ WR WKH VHGLPHQWDWLRQ RI EORZQ LQ VDQG DW WKH ERWWRP Phase 2FRPSULVHVWKUHHVXESKDVHVRILQ¿OOLQJV DQGUHFXWWLQJV¿QDOL]HGE\WKHGHSRVLWLRQRIDFKDUFRDO OD\HUZKLFKHPERGLHVWKHUHPDLQVRIDQLQQHUQRZEXUQW ZRRGHQSDOLVDGH$VWKHSDOLVDGHZDVSUREDEO\HUHFWHG FRQWHPSRUDQHRXVO\WRWKHGLWFKV\VWHPLWVEXUQLQJDURXQG FDO%&UHSUHVHQWVWKH¿UVW³FOHDUFXW´LQWKHELRJUDSK\ RIWKHVLWH

,QJHQHUDODW5DVWRUIWKHDVVRFLDWLRQ³PHJDOLWKLFFROOHFWLYH WRPE±IDUPVWHDG´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

8QWLO WKLV PRPHQW WKH HQFORVXUH ZDV FRPSRVHG RI D GLWFKV\VWHPRIHORQJDWHGSLWVLQZKLFKFUXVKHGSRWVDQG RWKHULWHPVZHUHGHSRVLWHGDWUDQVYHUVDOSLWLQRQHRILWV JDWHZD\V DOVR ZLWK UHFXWWLQJV DQG LQ¿OOLQJV  DQG WKH PHQWLRQHGLQQHUSDOLVDGH7KHHQFORVHGDUHDZDV³HPSW\´ DQHPSWLQHVVZKLFKIURPDSHGRORJLFDOSRLQWRIYLHZFRXOG QRWEHGXHWRWKHUHVXOWVRI3RVW1HROLWKLFHURVLRQ

Albersdorf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|OOGHPRQVWUDWHGWKDWERWK PRQXPHQWVDQGSUREDEO\DOVRWKHRWKHUPHJDOLWKV ZHUH FRQVWUXFWHG FRQWHPSRUDQHRXVO\ LQ WKH WK RU WKH WK FHQWXU\FDO%&

,Qphase 3RIWKHVLWHDJDLQIRXUVXESKDVHVRILQ¿OOLQJV DQGUHFXWWLQJVWRRNSODFHZKLOHDURXQGFDO%&WKHVH DFWLYLWLHVFHDVHGSDUWO\DJDLQOLQNHGZLWK¿UH$ERXW \HDUVODWHUphase 40LGGOH1HROLWKLF9 WKHGLWFKHVDQG WKH WUDQVYHUVDO SLW ZHUH DJDLQ XVHG IRU WZR VXESKDVHV ZLWKUHFXWWLQJVDQGLQ¿OOLQJVEXWWKLVWLPHSHUKDSVZLWK D GLIIHUHQW EDFNJURXQG WKH LQ¿OOHG OD\HUV DUH QRW DV KRPRJHQRXVDVWKHSUHYLRXVRQHV 2QWKHZKROHZHWKLQNWKDWWKHVLWHZDVDPHHWLQJSRLQW RI GLIIHUHQW ORFDO KDPOHWV ZKLFK JDWKHUHG WRJHWKHU WR UHVHFXUHWKHLUUHODWLRQVWKURXJKWKH³VWUDQJH´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

7KHH[FDYDWLRQDWWKHHQFORVXUHUHYHDOHGDSDWWHUQZKLFK ZDVDOUHDG\NQRZQIURPLQYHVWLJDWLRQVLQ6DUXSDQGRWKHU 6RXWKHUQ6FDQGLQDYLDQHQFORVXUHV$QGHUVHQ.ODWW  7KHGLWFKV\VWHPDQGWKH¿OOLQJRIWKHGLWFKHVLV DSURGXFWRIVHYHUDOSKDVHVRIDFWLYLWLHVUHÀHFWHGLQ GLIIHUHQWOD\HUV5DGLRPHWULFHYLGHQFHGLVSOD\HGWKHFRUH RIPDLQDFWLYLWLHVEHWZHHQDQGFDO%&ZKLOH



Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Brutkamp

Albersdorf

lau Giese

Dieksknöll

burial mound megaltihic tomb 250m

Figure 14. Albersdorf land pattern. The causewayed enclosure is situated at a distance from the megaliths. Copyright: Doris Mischka. ditch segment lateral pit

ditch segment

palisade ditch

deposited sherds of a deliberately broken pot

0

1

2 Meter

N

Figure 15. The deliberate breaking and deposition of one pot in the segmented ditches of the causewayed enclosure AlbersdorfDieksknöll. Copyright: Hauke Dibbern.



Johannes Müller et al.: Landscapes as Social Spaces and Ritual Meaning

Subphase 1

Phase 1

Subphase 6

Phase 3

Subphase 2

Subphase 7

Subphase 3

Phase 2

Phase 4

Subphase 4

Subphase 8

Subphase 5

Figure 16. Albersdorf-Dieksknöll profile of the ditch. Indicated are several phases and subphases of infillings and recuttings. Copyright: Hauke Dibbern.

short time occasions at the site is indicated by the very low number of finds in comparison to domestic or other sites (Figure 17).

obviously contemporary to the first activities at Dieksknöll. At Brutkamp the sequence of depositions confirmed that the chamber was used at least until 3000 cal BC, both verified by radiocarbon dating as well as by typo-chronological indications. Yet unknown reasons which were responsible for the end of activities at the Dieksknöll enclosure did not interrupt Brutkamp burial undertakings.

In detail, these celebrations were associated with the demolition of vessels (perhaps libation) and their placement in pits. One such vessel, for example, is broken and deposited in both parts of the northern and southern head ends of the ditch, whereby the 2m deep pit was omitted (Figure 17). Due to its heavy wood posts it was obviously covered up in a tent-like fashion and was reserved for other special purposes, still connected to re-cuttings and in-fillings. The activities which we attribute to the ditch system correspond surely to temporary gatherings. The quantity of archeological finds is absolutely meager and cannot be compared to that what we know from domestic sites. The deposition of clay dishes and Funnel Beakers verify from our point of view that only temporal activities (e.g. feastings) took place here. The archaeobotanical results show that cultivated plants did not play any role in these rituals. Furthermore, it is interesting that the pits were repeatedly dug out perhaps until a point in time around 3300 BC. However, afterwards a phase began in which the ritual was no longer maintained. The renewed pit diggings around 2800 BC verify however, that knowledge of the assumed activities was still present over the centuries and here at the end of the TRB societies and the beginning of the development of Single Grave societies it was shortly practiced once again.

In spite of the missing proof of domestic structures, in our model Albersdorf farmsteads were spatially linked to megaliths as in Rastorf. If such a model is likely, a continuation of settlement activities would be indicated, while the “central” enclosure ceased. Evidence of the pollen profile also indicates such a pattern (Dörfler 2005). Oldenburger Graben East Holstein features favorable climatic circumstances with low rainfall/precipitation values (500/600mm/a) and was therefore one of the best settlement regions on the Cimbric Peninsula near the west Baltic Sea. The agglomeration of megalithic tombs and settlements bears evidence that this region must have been one of the most densely populated areas of the TRB development. In contrast to Ditmarschen, TRB domestic sites are both known from the so-called “Oldenburger Graben” as well as the Trave Valley. From the Oldenburger Graben we are informed about different sites of the Late Mesolithic located near the original shoreline and islands of the former fjord (Hartz 2005). This settlement pattern did not change during the Early and Middle Neolithic, while in the Younger and

As already mentioned, the excavations in the cairn of the polygonal dolmen Albersdorf-Brutkamp displayed a starting point for the monument also in the 37th century cal BC,

67

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Brunn Rastorf pit single grave ditch cultural layer

volume (m3)

Dieksknöll

ceramics (n) Figure 17. Comparison of ceramics per cubic meter. The difference between causewayed enclosures and other type sites is visible (data for Brunn after VOGT 2009; for Rastorf after Steffens 2009).

Late Neolithic domestic activities also took place in the hinterland of the fjord.

Our main East Holstein TRB site under excavation is Oldenburg, situated on a former island with both waterlogged and mineral conditions. The settlement was inhabited sometime between 3400 and 2900/2800 BC according to radiometric dating, mainly dating to the Middle Neolithic II (Brozio 2011).

Additionally, during the TRB a clear spatial patterning of domestic and ritual sites is observable (Figure 18). Domestic sites are distributed as described, while megaliths and other burial monuments are known primarily from the hinterland. This land use configuration contrasts with the spatial patterning of Rastorf sites, but is similar to the situation of the Middle Trave Valley, where again domestic sites are distributed in lowland areas, while burials are placed on and behind the terraces of the hinterland. The lack of enclosures in Ostholstein might be due to research deficits, but might also be due to a difference in Neolithic spatial organization. Possibly, the Ostholstein settlement pattern is similar to what is known from some other TRB regions (for example Falbygden; cf. Sjögren 2003).

Until now three clusters of features were observed in the main area, which could be associated with households (Figure 19): both pits and postholes indicate two-ailed houses, of which until now only the main parts have been excavated. On the whole, the archaeological features are comprised of an occupation horizon, houses (including sunken floors), different pits, a wooden lake-site fortification, the rubbish area in a former low-water area, a single burial within the site, and human bones found in the former low-water areal. Evidence of tool production,

68

Johannes Müller et al.: Landscapes as Social Spaces and Ritual Meaning

settlement megalithic tomb long barrow

Figure 18. The organization of space in the Oldenburger Graben (after Brozio 2011). The spatial division between domestic sites in the lower land and on the islands and the megaliths in the hinterland is observable. The original watershed is reconstructed by palaeoecological data.

JULQGLQJVWRQHVWKHFHUDPLFLQYHQWRULHVDQGERQHWRROV DFFRXQWIRUWKHYDULRXVHYHU\GD\DFWLYLWLHVGRPLQDWLQJWKH OLIHRIWKHIHZIDPLOLHVWKDWPXVWKDYHOLYHGWKHUH

OHIWIHPXUZKHUHDVWUDFHVRIDQRWKHUSLWZHUHSUHVHQWDQG WKXVLQGLFDWHGDVHFRQGDU\LQWHQWLRQDOPDQLSXODWLRQRIWKH EXULDO7DNLQJWKHERQHRUPD\EHWU\LQJWRJHWWRWKHREMHFW SODFHGRQWKHXSSHUOLPE RXWRIWKHMRLQWFDSVXOHUHVXOWHG LQDVOLJKWHOHYDWLRQRIWKHVNHOHWRQ/DWHUWKHUHPDLQLQJ GLVWXUEDQFHZDV¿OOHGZLWKVRLODJDLQPDZD\DZHOO PGHHSDQGPZLGHFRQ¿UPVWKDWWKHEUDFNLVKZDWHU ZDVQRWGULQNDEOH)LJXUH 7KHLQ¿OOLQJRIWKHZHOO UHYHDOHGVHYHUDOIXQQHOEHDNHUVGHSRVLWLRQVRIJULQGLQJ DQGZKHWVWRQHVDVZHOODVDORWRIVHWWOHPHQWZDVWHDQGODVW EXWQRWOHDVWWKHPLVVLQJIHPXURIWKHQHDUE\EXULDO7KH ODWWHUPD\HLWKHUEHVHHQDVDQLQWHQWLRQDOVRPHZKDWULWXDO GHSRVLWLRQRUDVDSURIDQHGLVSRVDO

7KH SDUW RI WKH VHWWOHPHQW VLWXDWHG DW WKH HGJH RI WKH IMRUGEDQNDQGZKLFKWRGD\PDUNVWKHEHJLQQLQJRIERJ ODQG PXVW KDYH RQFH GHPDUFDWHG WKH ]RQH RI EUDFNLVK ZDWHU9DULRXVZRRGHQSRVWVEHORQJHGWRWKHPHQWLRQHG IRUWL¿FDWLRQRIWKHHPEDQNPHQWEHKLQGZKLFKDORWRIZDVWH DQGGHSRVLWLRQVZHUHIRXQGXQGHUZDWHUORJJHGFRQGLWLRQV 7KH LQWUDVLWH EXULDO SLW KHOG VNHOHWDO UHPDLQV RI DQ approximately  \HDUROG IHPDOH ZKR KDG EHHQ DUUDQJHGLQDVWUDLJKWSRVLWLRQRQKHUEDFNZLWKWKHQHFN DQGXSSHUERG\SDUWVOLJKWO\IROORZLQJWKHFXUYHRIWKH SLWVXSSHUSUR¿OH)LJXUH 7KHVNHOHWRQODFNHGWKH

,Q FRQWUDVW WR WKH EXULDO IURP WKH LQQHU SDUW RI WKH VHWWOHPHQWWKHDUHDRIWKHIMRUGEDQNKHOGGLVDUWLFXODWHG



Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Figure 19. Oldenburg. The ground plan of houses and other features (including the well and single burial). Copyright: Jan Piet Brozio.



Johannes Müller et al.: Landscapes as Social Spaces and Ritual Meaning

Figure 20. A burial from the domestic site Oldenburg. The 40 year old woman was placed in a pit, later - during a secondary manipulation - the femur was taken away. Copyright: Jan Piet Brozio.

Figure 21. The well from the domestic site Oldenburg (after Brozio 2011). Beside many archaeological objects the femur of the QHDUE\EXULDO¿J ZDVDOVRIRXQG



Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

KXPDQUHPDLQVVHYHUDOERQHVDQGDFUDQLXPZKLFKZHUH GHSRVLWHGWRJHWKHUZLWKVRPHEURNHQREMHFWVRQWKHERUGHU EHWZHHQGU\DQGZHWODQG$W¿UVWJODQFHWKHUHVHHPVWREH QRGLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQWKHWUHDWPHQWRIWKHVHERQHVDQGWKH WUHDWPHQWRIDQLPDOERQHV

REYLRXVPHJDOLWKVDUHVSDWLDOO\OLQNHGWRIDUPVWHDGVDQG QRWVHSDUDWHG,QFRQVHTXHQFHYDU\LQJSDWWHUQVRIVSDWLDO SODQQLQJ H[LVWHG ZLWKLQ WKH 75% FRPPXQLWLHV DQG IRU DOOGHVFULEHGVSDWLDOSDWWHUQVIXUWKHUH[DPSOHVKDYHEHHQ UHSRUWHGRQIURPRWKHU75%UHJLRQVGHFDGHVHDUOLHUHJ $QGHUVHQ/DUVVRQ0DGVHQ6WU|PEHUJ  7KHFRQWHPSRUDQHLW\RIWKHVHGLYHUJHQWODQGXVH DQGODQGPHDQLQJSDWWHUQVLVTXLWHFOHDU+RZHYHULQRXU SURMHFWVDVSHFLDOGLIIHUHQWLDWLRQLVQRW\HWSRVVLEOHDQG FRQVWLWXWHVDIXWXUHUHVHDUFKJRDO)XUWKHUPRUHWKHUROH RIFDXVHZD\HGHQFORVXUHVKDVWREHLQYHVWLJDWHGDJDLQLQ GHWDLO7KHGHVFULEHGGLYLVLRQDQGVHSDUDWLRQRIFDXVHZD\HG HQFORVXUHVLQ$OEHUGRUI'LHNVNQ|OODQG5DVWRUIPLJKWDOVR EHREVHUYHGIRUWKHVLWHDW%GHOVGRUIEXWGLIIHULQJSDWWHUQV RIVSDWLDOUHODWLRQVPLJKWEHWUXHIRURWKHUUHJLRQV

3DUWLFXODUO\WKHVHWWOHPHQWRQWKHLVODQGLQWKH2OGHQEXUJ )MRUGPXVWKDYHKDGIDUPODQGLQWKHGU\DUHDVFXOWLYDWHGE\ WKHIDPLOLHVEHORQJLQJWRWKHVLWH6XFKLQVXODUVLWHVDOUHDG\ H[LVWHGGXULQJWKHHDUOLHVW75%SKDVHWKHVLWHRI:DQJHOV UHSUHVHQWVVXFKDQHDUO\VHWWOHPHQW*URKPDQQ ZLWK 2OGHQEXUJFRPLQJODWHU :KLOH IURP 2OGHQEXUJ RXU SURMHFW JDLQV LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXWDW\SLFDOSHUPDQHQWGRPHVWLFVLWH%DG2OGHVORH :RONHQZHKHUHSUHVHQWVDWHPSRUDU\75%VLWH0LVFKND et al. :KLOHLWVFHQWUDODUHDZDVDOUHDG\H[FDYDWHG E\+6FKZDEHGLVVHQ+DUW]et al. QHZWUHQFKHV FRQ¿UPHG D GXUDWLRQ IURP (DUO\ 1HROLWKLF WR /DWH 1HROLWKLF7KHFRPELQDWLRQRIUHVXOWVIURPWKHROGDQGWKH QHZH[FDYDWLRQVUHVXOWHGLQDPRGHORIVPDOOKRXVHVZKLFK SDUWO\RYHUODSLQWKHSODQDQGREYLRXVO\UHSUHVHQWWKUHH RUIRXUFRQWHPSRUDU\KXWV%UR]LR0OOHU  0LVVLQJWRROVIRUDJULFXOWXUDODFWLYLWLHVDQGHYLGHQFHRI F\FOLFDO À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³PLGGOH RIQRZKHUH´KDVVRPHSODXVLELOW\EHFDXVHWKHUHDUHRWKHU H[DPSOHVRIWKHVHLUUHJXODUGLWFKV\VWHPVOLQNHGWRVDOW SURGXFWLRQ-RGáRZVNL6DLOH 

1HYHUWKHOHVVWKHVHVSDWLDOSDWWHUQVDUHREYLRXVO\QRWVR PXFKGHSHQGHQWRQHFRORJLFDOFRQGLWLRQVRUFOLPDWHDQG YHJHWDWLRQFKDQJHV2EYLRXVO\WKH\DUHDUHVXOWRIGULYLQJ LGHRORJLFDOIRUFHVZKLFKIXUWKHUWKHQHFHVVLWLHVRIDULWXDO HFRQRP\+HUHWKHDQFHVWRUVSOD\DQLPSRUWDQWSDUWIRU WKHOLYLQJVRFLHW\ Monuments, ancestors, bones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OOHU  &RQFHUQLQJ RXU SURMHFWV WKH UHVXOWV RI WKH H[FDYDWLRQV IURPWKHHORQJDWHGGROPHQRIWKH:HVWHUQ$OWPDUNKDYH DOUHDG\EHHQSXEOLVKHGLQDSUHOLPLQDU\UHSRUW'HPQLFN et al. 7KLVGROPHQZLWK7LHIVWLFKSRWWHU\EHORQJV WR D JURXS RI PHJDOLWKV ZKLFK ZDV VHSDUDWHG IURP GRPHVWLFDUHDV,QFRQWUDVWWRWKHQXPEHURIDFWLYLWLHVDQG PDQLSXODWLRQVZKLFKWRRNSODFHDWWKHPHJDOLWKEHWZHHQ WKHWKDQGWKHWKFHQWXU\FDO%&WKHIRUHVWHGDUHD ZDVQRWXVHGIRUDQ\NLQGRIHFRQRPLFSXUSRVH1RIRUHVW KHUGLQJDQGQRFOHDUDQFHVDFFHSWIRUWUHHFXWWLQJVDWWKH EXLOGLQJVLWHZKLFKZHUHIROORZHGE\UHIRUHVWDWLRQRIWKH VLWHDIWHUWKHEXLOGLQJRIWKHPRQXPHQWKDYHEHHQREVHUYHG

Mosaic of spatial meaning ,QVXPPDU\WKHGHVFULSWLRQRIWKHVSDWLDOSDWWHUQVLQWKUHH GLIIHUHQWUHJLRQVFXPXODWHGWRWKHJHQHUDOREVHUYDWLRQWKDW WKHVSDWLDORUJDQL]DWLRQRIVRFLDOVSDFHDQGHQYLURQPHQW ZDVTXLWHGLIIHUHQWZLWKLQWKH75%³ZRUOG´HYHQLQLWV VPDOO DUHD RI WKH 6RXWKHUQ 75% 1RUWK JURXS 7KHVH GLIIHUHQFHV DUH QRW RQO\ GXH WR GLIIHUHQW HQYLURQPHQWDO FRQGLWLRQVLQFOXGLQJGLIIHUHQWWRSRJUDSKLHVZDWHUOHYHOV VRLOIHUWLOLWLHV EXWWKH\DUHDOVRGHSHQGHQWRQDFRQVFLRXV GLIIHUHQWLDWLRQRIWKHODQGVFDSH([DPSOHVDUHWKHGLYLVLRQ LQWRDQHORQJDWHGGRPHVWLFDUHDDORQJFRDVWOLQHVDQGULYHUV DQGWKHXVHRIWKHKLQWHUODQGIRUPHJDOLWKLFPRQXPHQWV 7KHZRUOGRIWKHDQFHVWRUVLVGLYLGHGIURPWKHZRUOGRI WKHOLYLQJLQDUHDVRIVSHFLDOHFRQRPLFSXUSRVHVHJ KHUGLQJ RULQGHOLEHUDWH³FDOP´DUHDV7KLVLVWKHFDVH LQWKH2OGHQEXUJHU*UDEHQLQWKH0LGGOH7UDYH9DOOH\ EXWDOVRLQWKH:HVWHUQ$OWPDUN'HPQLFNet al.  ,Q RWKHU DUHDV DV DW 5DVWRUI  D FRQWUDVWLQJ SDWWHUQ LV

7KLV SDWWHUQ VWDQGV LQ FOHDU FRQWUDVW WR RWKHU VLWHV $W )OLQWEHNDVZHOODVLQ%GHOVGRUI%RUJVWHGWSORXJKPDUNV LQ WKH GLUHFW YLFLQLW\ RI WKH PHJDOLWKV LQGLFDWH WKDW WKH PRQXPHQWVZHUHORFDWHGLQWKHDJULFXOWXUDO¿HOGV\VWHPV %RWKWKHORQJGHYHORSPHQWRIWKHPRQXPHQWVDVZHOODV WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH PRXQGV GHVFULEH WKH RQJRLQJ LPSRUWDQFHRIWKHGHPDUFDWLRQRIWKHODQGVFDSH 7KLVGHPDUFDWLRQWRRNSODFHLQFOXVWHUVRIPHJDOLWKVLQ



Johannes Müller et al.: Landscapes as Social Spaces and Ritual Meaning

GLVSHUVHGLVWULEXWLRQVDVZHOODVLQOLQHDUVWUXFWXUHV7KH GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH GHJUHH RI ³PHJDOLWKLF FRQFHQWUDWLRQV´ PLJKW LQGLFDWH DQ RQJRLQJ SURFHVV RI D GLIIHUHQWLDWLRQ EHWZHHQ UHJLRQV RI UHOHYDQFH PDLQO\ IRU VXEVLVWHQFH HFRQRP\ DQG VXFK RI UHOHYDQFH IRU D ULWXDO HFRQRP\ 0OOHU 

EDVLFWHQGHQFLHVSHUFHSWLEOHLQJHQHUDOGDWDFROOHFWLRQV :H FRXOG XVH SDO\QRORJLFDO HYLGHQFH RIhuman impact DVDSUR[\IRUDJHQHUDOHYDOXDWLRQRIWKHGHPRJUDSKLF GHYHORSPHQW7KHDPRXQWRI&GDWHVUHÀHFWVWKHDPRXQW RI DUFKDHRORJLFDO IHDWXUHV OHIW EHKLQG DQG E\ FDUHIXOO\ GLVFXVVLQJDQGHYDOXDWLQJWKHFLUFXPVWDQFHVXQGHUZKLFK DGHSRVLWLRQWRRNSODFHZHPLJKWHYHQEHDEOHWRDGGWR RXUNQRZOHGJHRIWKHGHPRJUDSKLFGHYHORSPHQW0OOHU  )LJXUH 

2QHLPSUHVVLYHH[DPSOHRIWKHXVHDQGVSDWLDORUGHULQJ RI PHJDOLWKV LV JLYHQ E\ WKH VLWH RI %RUJVWHGW QHDU WKH HQFORVXUH%GHOVGRUI)LJXUH $VDWRWKHUVLWHVLQWKLV SDUWRI6RXWKHUQ6FKOHVZLJPHJDOLWKLFPRQXPHQWVDUHOLQHG XSEHWZHHQWZRORFDOVHWWOHPHQWDUHDV7KH\PDUN DWUDFN ZKLFKFRQQHFWHGERWKDUHDV7KHUDGLDORULHQWDWLRQRIWKH PRQXPHQWVDW%RUJVWHGWWRZDUGVWKHFDXVHZD\HGHQFORVXUH RI%GHOVGRUIDWRQHHQGRIWKLVWUDFNXQGHUOLQHVWKHLGHD WKDWWKLVPRQXPHQWDOFHPHWHU\ZDVGLUHFWO\OLQNHGWRWKH HQFORVXUH

+HUHERWKPHWKRGVUHVXOWLQWKHGLVFRYHU\WKDWWKHUHZDV DPDUNHGLQFUHDVHRISRSXODWLRQLQWKHVRXWKHUQ75%DUHD PDLQO\LQWKH(DUO\1HROLWKLF,,DQGDWWKHEHJLQQLQJRIWKH 0LGGOH1HROLWKLF7KHODWH75%GHYHORSPHQWZRXOGPRVW OLNHO\EHFKDUDFWHUL]HGE\DGHFUHDVHLQSRSXODWLRQ 7RJHWDPRUHDFFXUDWHSLFWXUHRIWKHVHWHQGHQFLHVDWHVW UHJLRQZDVGH¿QHGLQZKLFKZHWULHGWRVXPXSDOOUHOHYDQW DUFKDHRORJLFDOGDWDLQRUGHUWRJDLQDPRUHVROLGRYHUYLHZ DERXWZKDWWKHGHPRJUDSKLFDQGVRFLDOGHYHORSPHQWPLJKW KDYHORRNHGOLNH0OOHU 

%RUJVWHGWLVFRPSRVHGRIHLJKWPHJDOLWKLFORQJEDUURZV WKUHH PHJDOLWKLF URXQG EDUURZV ¿YH ÀDW JUDYH EXULDOV DOWRJHWKHUEXULDOFKDPEHUVDQGWZREXULDOFLVWV7KH DQDO\VHVRIWKHFHUDPLFVLQGLFDWHDFKURQRORJLFDO GHYHORSPHQWRIWKHVLWHZKLFKLQFOXGHGWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQ RIPRQXPHQWVIURPWKH(DUO\1HROLWKLF,,XQWLOWKH0LGGOH 1HROLWKLF9)LJXUH ,QFRQVHTXHQFHWKHPDQLSXODWLRQV ZKLFKDUHFRQFHQWUDWHGHJDW/GHOVHQRQRQHVLQJOH PRQXPHQWWRRNSODFHLQ%RUJVWHGWRQWKHZKROHFHPHWHU\ ,IVXFKDQHORQJDWHGSDWWHUQRIPRQXPHQWDOFRQVWUXFWLRQVLV DOVRGXHWRHFRQRPLFDFWLYLWLHVWKLVPLJKWEHMXGJHGDIWHU WKHQHDUE\SROOHQVDPSOHVDUHDQDO\]HG

7KHQHDUO\FRPSOHWHVXUYH\RIPHJDOLWKLFWRPEVDQGRWKHU DUFKDHRORJLFDO¿QGVDQGIHDWXUHVRQWKH1RUWK)ULHVLDQ ,VODQGVSURYLGHGXVZLWKWKHLGHDOVDPSOHUHJLRQDQGFRXOG EH XVHG DV D EDVLV IRU IXUWKHU REVHUYDWLRQV +LQULFKVHQ  7KHUHDUHLQGLFDWLRQVRIPHJDOLWKLFWRPEVGHQVHO\ SDFNHGZLWKLQDVPDOODUHDDWOHDVWLQFRPSDULVRQWRRWKHU DUHDV 7KHUHFRQVWUXFWLRQRIWKHPLQLPXPSRSXODWLRQVL]HGUDZV XSRQVLPSOHFDOFXODWLRQV7KHDYHUDJHDUHDRID75%VLQJOH JUDYHRIDURXQGP UHSUHVHQWVRQHLQGLYLGXDO6XPPLQJ XSDOODUHDVRIWKHUHFRUGHGJUDYHVLWHVPHJDOLWKLFWRPEV ÀDWJUDYHVDQGRWKHUJUDYHW\SHV WKDWDUHNQRZQWRKDYH EHHQLQXVHDWWKHVDPHWLPHRQWKHLVODQGVZRXOGUHVXOWLQ DPLQLPXPLQGLYLGXDOFRXQWJLYHQWKDWDOOWKHFKDPEHUV ZHUHIXOORIEXULDOV7KHFDOFXODWLRQLVPRUHGLI¿FXOWWKDQ LWVHHPVDW¿UVWEHFDXVHVRPHFRUUHFWLRQVKDYHWREHPDGH IRUH[DPSOHWKHORVVUDWHRIPHJDOLWKLFWRPEV,WKDVWREH WDNHQIURPVLPLODUFDOFXODWLRQVIRURWKHUUHJLRQVZKHUHROG PDSVDQGRUWKRURXJKH[FDYDWLRQDQGVXUYH\WHFKQLTXHVLQ VPDOODUHDV6RXWKZHVW)XQHDQG$OWPDUN JDYHXVDIDLUO\ JRRGLGHDRIKRZPDQ\PHJDOLWKVPXVWKDYHGLVDSSHDUHG RYHUWKHFHQWXULHV

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opulation sizes and social organization: a model

2QÀDWJUDYHFHPHWHULHVWKHSURSRUWLRQEHWZHHQEXULDOV ZLWK DQG ZLWKRXW EXULDO LWHPV VKRXOG JLYH XV DQRWKHU FRUUHFWLRQYDOXHDVÀDWJUDYHVZLWKRXWDQ\VXFKLWHPVPD\ QHYHUEHGHWHFWHG:HDOVRKDYHWRFRQVLGHUKRZORQJWKH JUDYHVWUXFWXUHVZHUHXVHGDOWKRXJKLQWKHFDVHRIWKH1RUWK )ULHVLDQ,VODQGVZHPD\RQO\GUDZXSRQW\SRFKURQRORJLFDO FRQVLGHUDWLRQVWRUHFRQVWUXFWSUREDEOHSHULRGVRIXWLOLVDWLRQ

$WWKHRXWVHWVRFLDOUHFRQVWUXFWLRQVUHTXLUHNQRZOHGJH DERXWWKHVL]HRIVRFLDOJURXSV'HPRJUDSK\LVDOLPLWLQJ IDFWRURQWKHVL]HRIDVRFLDOJURXSDVLVWKHHFRQRPLF DELOLW\ $ VLPSOH PRGHO DQDO\VLV WKHUHIRUH KHOSV WR HPSKDVL]HWKDWGHPRJUDSK\DQGHFRQRP\DUHLPSHUDWLYH IRUWKHUHFRQVWUXFWLRQRIVRFLDOIRUPDWLRQVDQGVRFLDOUH RUJDQL]DWLRQ

,IZHWDNHDOORIWKHDERYHIDFWRUVLQWRDFFRXQWWKH1RUWK )ULVLDQ,VODQGVLQPRGHUQWLPHVHQFRPSDVVLQJFDNP ZHUHLQKDELWHGE\SHRSOHDWWKHEHJLQQLQJRIWKH (DUO\1HROLWKLF,,GXULQJWKH0LGGOH1HROLWKLF ,DQGSHRSOHLQWKH0LGGOH1HROLWKLF,9

Demography 7KHGHPRJUDSKLFSUREOHPPLJKWEHVROYHGE\GUDZLQJRQ



Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

N

0

500m megaltihic tomb settlement long barrow

Figure 22. Southern Schleswig: In the area of Borgstedt and Büdelsdorf a line of megaliths combines two settlement areas. Copyright: Franziska Hage.



Johannes Müller et al.: Landscapes as Social Spaces and Ritual Meaning

Figure 23. Borgstedt. The burial monuments of the megalithic cemetery were constructed and used continuously from Middle Neolithic I until Middle Neolithic IV. Copyright: Franziska Hage.

,ID75%IDUPVWHDGZDVLQKDELWHGE\WKHDYHUDJHRI SHRSOH EHWZHHQ  DQG  IDUPV ZRXOG KDYH H[LVWHG VLPXOWDQHRXVO\GXULQJDQ\RIWKHDERYHPHQWLRQHGVWDJHV 0RUHRUOHVVPHJDOLWKLFWRPEVDUHNQRZQWRXVWRGD\ DQGWKHDVVXPSWLRQWKDWWKHUHLVDSURSRUWLRQEHWZHHQ IDUPVWHDGDQGPHJDOLWKLFWRPEPLJKWZHOOEHFRUUHFW

GHQVLW\DQGRIWKHQXPEHURISHRSOHKDYLQJEHHQEXULHGLQ WKHDUFKDHRORJLFDOO\FRQ¿UPHGJUDYHVRIDWOHDVWWKH75% 1RUWKJURXS 7KH6LQJOH*UDYHFXOWXUHLVNQRZQIRULWVPDVVRISRVVLEO\ 6RXWKHUQ6FDQGLQDYLDQJUDYHPRXQGV1HYHUWKHOHVV RQO\DSSUR[LPDWHO\EXULDOV\HDUFRXOGKDYHEHHQSODFHG LQVLGHWKHPVXPPDU\LQ+EQHU ,QFRQWUDVW PHJDOLWKLF WRPEV ZRXOG KDYH KDG D FDSDFLW\ WR KRXVH EXULDOV\HDUZLWKLQWKHVDPHDUHD,IZHFRQVLGHU WKHDYHUDJHOLIHH[SHFWDQF\DQGGHDWKUDWHRI1HROLWKLF WLPHVWKHDUHDRIVWXG\FRXOGKDYHEHHQWKHKRPHRIDURXQG 75%SHRSOH

:HFRXOGWKHQFRQFOXGHWKDWWKHSRSXODWLRQGHQVLW\PXVW KDYHDPRXQWHGIURPWRSHUVRQV NPZKLFKUHÀHFWV D FRQVLGHUDEOH LQFUHDVH RI WKH LVODQG SRSXODWLRQ GXULQJ WKH(DUO\1HROLWKLF,,&DOFXODWLRQVEDVHGRQRWKHUTXLWH GLIIHUHQW GDWD VHWV LQ VRXWKZHVW )XQH UHQGHUHG VLPLODU QXPEHUV 2XU PRGHO FDOFXODWLRQ DOVR LQGLFDWHG D GHFUHDVH RI SRSXODWLRQGXULQJWKH/DWH1HROLWKLFEXWWKLVFRXOGDOVREH GXHWRDPLVFDOFXODWLRQEDVHGRQXQUHOLDEOHGDWD6WLOOWKH SROOHQDQDO\VHVRI6RXWKHUQ-XWODQGDQGWKHFRPSLODWLRQ RIWKHUHOHYDQW&GDWHVLQGHHGVKRZDVLPLODUGURSRII

Cooperation, collectives and individuals $OO LQ DOO WKH (DUO\ DQG WKH 0LGGOH 1HROLWKLF ZHUH FKDUDFWHUL]HGE\VLQJOHIDUPVWHDGVDQGKDPOHWVIRUFLQJWKH LQKDELWDQWVWRDGRSWH[RJDPLFSURFUHDWLRQVWUDWHJLHVZKLFK LQWXUQPDGHWKHPUHOLDQWRQDFRRSHUDWLYHZD\RIOLIH

%XW DSDUW IURP DOO SRVVLEOH LPPDQHQW PLVWDNHV VXFK PRGHOV JLYH XV LQ DQ\ FDVH DQ LGHD RI WKH SRSXODWLRQ

$IWHU%&WKLVVRFLHWDOPRWLRQEHFDPHPRUHQRWLFHDEOH



Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

demography

2,5

1,5 1,0

population per km2

2,0

0,5

3500

3000

5000 4000

megalithic tombs

4000

2500

0 2000 B.C.

single graves

3500

3000

2500

3000 2000 1000 0

count per 100m2

4000

2000 B.C.

cultivation flint manufacture copper metallurgy pig farming increased opening of the landscape Figure 24. The quantity of radiometric dating in Southern Scandinavia and North Germany might indicate population densities as well as the construction of burial mounds. The differences are used to create a model of the demographic development and burial FRQVWUXFWLRQGDWDEDVH3HUVVRQ3HUVVRQ5$'21 &RS\ULJKW+ROJHU'LHWHULFK

WKHODQGVFDSHZDVRSHQHGDQGQHZSURGXFWLRQWHFKQRORJLHV ZHUH LQWURGXFHG )XUWKHUPRUH WKHUH ZHUH EXULDOV RI REYLRXVO\ YHU\ VSHFLDO LQGLYLGXDOV LQ QRQPHJDOLWKLF VWUXFWXUHVDQGLQGROPHQDQGODVWEXWQRWOHDVWZHZLWQHVV WKHFRQVWUXFWLRQVRIODUJHFRRSHUDWLYHPRQXPHQWVWKH FDXVHZD\HGHQFORVXUHV

LQSRSXODWLRQZKLFKDIWHUVHYHUDOJHQHUDWLRQVOHDGVWR DQLQFUHDVHRILQWHUQDOFRQÀLFWV$IWHU%&H[LVWLQJ HQFORVXUHVUHPDLQLQXVHEXWWKHUHLVQRHYLGHQFHWKDWWKH FRQVWUXFWLRQRIQHZRQHVKDGEHHQFDUULHGRXW %XULDOVLQSDVVDJHJUDYHVWKHQSUHGRPLQDWHGDQGERXQG DKLJKDPRXQWRIHQHUJ\7KHLGHDRIFROOHFWLYHEXULDOV SUHYDLOVLQPRVWDUHDVRI1RUWK&HQWUDO(XURSHDQG6RXWKHUQ 6FDQGLQDYLD %XW WKH WHUP ³FROOHFWLYLW\´ FRQWUDGLFWV DOO RWKHUYLVLEOHVRFLDOWHQGHQFLHV7KHSURSRUWLRQRILWHPVWKDW PLJKWKDYHEHHQXVHGDV³ZHDSRQ´ULVHVDWHQGHQF\DOVR REVHUYDEOHLQRWKHUDUHDVIRUH[DPSOHLQ&HQWUDO*HUPDQ\ 0OOHU 3RWWHU\RUQDPHQWDWLRQOHVVHQVDQGWKHUHLVD UHQHZHGUHJLRQDOL]DWLRQRIRUQDPHQWDWLRQDQGYHVVHOIRUPV

7KHVHRQO\WHPSRUDULO\XVHGDQGYLVLWHG³DUHDVRIIHVWLYLWLHV GLVWULEXWLRQDQGSDUWLDOO\DOVRRISURGXFWLRQ´UHSUHVHQWWKH KHDUW RI D FRRSHUDWLRQ 7KH FRQVWUXFWLRQ RI HQFORVXUHV DQGWKHDFWRIGHSRVLWLQJDQGWKHUHE\GHVWUR\LQJJRRGVLQ LVRODWHGSDUWVRIWKHODQGVFDSHGRPLQDWHVWKHFRRSHUDWLYH LGHRORJ\RIWKHODWH(DUO\DQGEHJLQQLQJ0LGGOH1HROLWKLF 7KHFRQIRUPLW\RIWKH)XFKVEHUJVW\OHSRWWHU\ZKLFKLV VSUHDGDFURVVDZLGHDUHDFRXOGDOVRV\PEROL]HWKHFRQFHSW RIDFRRSHUDWLYHOLIHVW\OH

,W LV LPSRVVLEOH WR JUDVS WKH UHDVRQV IRU WKLV VRFLDO GLYHUVL¿FDWLRQZLWKLQWKH75%JURXSVEXWZHDUHDEOHWR LGHQWLI\VSHFLDOVRFLDOO\UHOHYDQWFRPSRQHQWV

7KHVH JHQHUDO FKDQJHV DUH UHODWHG WR D PDUNHG JURZWK



Johannes Müller et al.: Landscapes as Social Spaces and Ritual Meaning

Animals, especially cattle, are associated with wealth, and the significance of the male individual is emphasized in single grave burials. Social separation evolves and new symbols predominate material culture, pointing to privileged positions within the social network.

Andersen, N. H. 2008. Die Region um Sarup im Südwesten der Insel Fünen (Dänemark) im 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr. In: W. Dörfler and J. Müller (eds), Umwelt - Wirtschaft - Siedlungen im dritten vorchristlichen Jahrtausend Mitteleuropas und Südskandinaviens. Offa-Beihefte 84, 35-48. Bakker, J. A., Vogel, J. C. and Wislanski, T. 1969. TRB and other C14 Dates from Poland (Part B). Helinium 9, 3, 209-38. Bakker, J. A. 1979. The TRB West Group: studies in the chronology and geography of the makers of Hunebeds and Tiefstich pottery. Cingula 5. Becker, D. and Benecke, N. B., 2002. Die neolithische Inselsiedlung am Löddigsee bei Parchim. Archäologische und archäozoologische Untersuchungen. Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns 40. Behre, K. -E. 2007. Evidence for Mesolithic agriculture in and around Central Europe? Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 16, 2007, 203-219. Behre, K.-E. and Kučan, D. 1994. Die Geschichte der Kulturlandschaft und des Ackerbaus in der Siedlungskammer Flögeln, Niedersachsen, seit der Jungsteinzeit. Probleme der Küstenforschung im südlichen Nordseegebiet 21. Blanton, R. E., Feinman, G. F., Kowalewski, S. and Peregrine, P. F. 1996. A dual processual theory for the evolution of Mesoamerican Civilization. Current Anthropology 37, 1996, 1-14. Bogaard, A. 2004. Neolithic Farming in Central Europe. Abingdon, Routledge. Bollongino, R. 2006. Die Herkunft der Hausrinder in Europa. Eine aDNA-Studie an neolithischen Knochenfunden. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 130. Brindley, A. L. 1986. The typochronology of TRB West Group pottery. Palaeohistoria 28, 93-132. Brozio, J. P. 2011. Von Siedlungen und Grabenwerken der Trichterbecher-Gemeinschaften. Archäologie in Deutschland 2, 24-5. Demnick, D. in prep. Westliche Altmark und die Tiefstich-Gruppe. Frühe Monumentalität und soziale Differnzierung. Demnick, D., Diers, S., Bork, H.-R., Fritsch, B. and Müller, J. 2008. Der Großdolmen Lüdelsen 3 in der westlichen Altmark (Sachsen-Anhalt) – Baugeschichte, Rituale und Landschaftsrekonstruktion. Mit Beiträgen von Arno Beyer, Jan-Piet Brozio, Ercan Erkul, Helmut Kroll und Edeltraud Tafel. In: www.jungsteinsite.de-Artikel vom 15. Dezember 2008, 1-56. Dibbern, H. and Hage, F. 2010. Erdwerk und Megalithgräber in der Region Albersdorf – Vorbericht zu den Grabungskampagnen am Dieksknöll und Brutkamp. Archäologischen Nachrichten aus Schleswig-Holstein, 34-7. Dörfler, W. 2005. Eine Pollenanalyse aus dem Horstenmoor bei Albersdorf. In R. KELM (Hrsg.), Frühe Kulturlandschaften in Europa. Forschung, Erhaltung und Nutzung. Albersdorfer Forschungen zur Archäologie und Umweltgeschichte 3, 86-103.

Concepts and consequences In summary, this article attempts to indicate some preliminary information about Kiel projects within a larger TRB research program about ‘Early monumentality and social differentiation’. While the reconstruction of environmental conditions, subsistence economies and land use patterns opens the perspective of a generalized chronological pattern of change, the construction of monuments, including both megaliths and causewayed enclosures, and the distribution of domestic sites reflects a mosaic of different solutions: The TRB individual and the TRB communal group developed different spatial patterns and meanings in respect to the division of social space and rituals. However, the diversity, which is obvious in the patterning of the different regions, ends up in general observations regarding the TRB groups. While this “Northern Neolithic” is quite different from the rest of Central Europe, internal divisions are more fuzzy than pronounced. In this sense, in nearly all TRB regions monumentality might be described as a result of demographic and economic growth, enhanced by new technologies in agriculture and transportation, but furthered to a great extent by the change from cooperative to collective dictions of individual social roles. In this sense, a competitive approach to ritual behaviour terminated in rituals as the focus, which stimulated the economies of these plant growing societies and which were responsible for the rise of social inequality: The change from cooperative prestige to individual power. Acknowledgment We would like to express our warmest thanks to Eileen Kücükkaraca, who corrected the English, and to Ines Reese, who prepared the figures. Address Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der ChristianAlbrechts-Universität zu Kiel Johanna-Mestorf-Str. 2-6 D-24118 Kiel Germany Bibliography Andersen, N. H. 1997. The Sarup Enclosures. The Funnel Beaker Culture of the Sarup site including two causewayed camps compared to the contemporary settlements in the area and other European enclosures. Jutland Archaeological Society Publications XXXIII, 1.

77

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Grone bei Göttingen. Archäologie in Niedersachsen 13, 99-102. Jensen, H. J. 1994. Flint tools and plant working: hidden traces of Stone Age technology; a use wear study of some Danish Mesolithic and TRB implements. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press. Jodłowski, A. 1977. Die Salzgewinnung auf polnischem Boden in vorgeschichtlicher Zeit und im frühen Mittelalter. Jahreschrift für mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 61, 85-103. Johannsen, N. and Laursen, S. 2010. Routes and Wheeled Transport in Late 4th–Early 3rd Millennium Funerary Customs of the Jutland Peninsula: Regional Evidence and European Context. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 85, 15-58. Kirleis, W. and Klooß, S. in prep. Food production and beyond: Social context of plant use in the northern German Neolithic. In: Chevalier, A., Marinova, E. and Peña-Chocarro, L. (eds.): Plants and people. Choices and diversity through time. Oxford, Oxbow Books, Kirleis, W., Feeser, I. and Klooß, S. 2011. Umwelt und Ökonomie. Archäologie in Deutschland 2, 34-7. Kirleis, W., Klooß, S., Kroll, H. and Müller, J. in prep. Crop growing and gathering in the northern German Neolithic: a review supplemented by first new results. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, Proceedings, IWGP, Wilhelmshaven, 2010. Klatt, S. 2009. Die neolithischen Einhegungen im westlichen Ostseeraum. Forschungsstand und Forschungsperspektiven. In: T. Terberger (ed.), Neue Forschungen zum Neolithikum im Ostseeraum, 7-134. Rahden/Westf., Leidorf. Knöll, H. 1959. Die nordwestdeutsche Tiefstichkeramik und ihre Stellung im nord- und mitteleuropäischen Neolithikum. Veröffentlichungen der Altertumskommission im Provinzialinstitut für westfälische Landes- und Volkskunde. Koch, E. 1998. Neolithic Bog Pots from Zealand, Møn, Lolland and Falster. Nordiske Fortidsminder B16. Kreuz, A. 1988. Holzkohle-Funde der ältestbandkeramischen Siedlung Friedberg-Buchenbrücken: Anzeiger für Brennholz-Auswahl und lebende Hecken? In H. Küster (ed.), Der prähistorische Mensch und seine Umwelt. Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor-und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 31, 39–153. Kreuz, A. 1992. Charcoal from ten early Neolithic settlements in Central Europe and its interpretation in terms of woodland management and wildwood resources. In: J.-L. Vernet (ed.), Les charbons de bois, les anciens ecosystems et le rôle de l’homme. Charcoal, ancient ecosystems and human impact. Bulletin Société Botanique de France 139, 383–394. Kroll, H. 1980. Einige vorgeschichtliche Vorratsfunde von Kulturpflanzen aus Norddeutschland. Offa 37, 372-383. Kroll, H. 1981. Mittelneolitisches Getreide aus Dannau. Offa 81, 85-90. Kroll, H. 2001. Der Mohn, die Trichterbecherkultur und das südwestliche Ostseegebiet. Zu den Pflanzenfunden aus der mittelneolithischen Fundschicht von Wangels

Dörfler, W. and Feeser, I. in prep. New dating of the pollen profile from Lake Belau. Holocene. Dreibrodt, S., Lubos, C., Terhorts, B., Damm, B. and Bork, H.-R. 2010. Historical soil erosion by water in Germany: Scales and archives, chronology, research perspectives. Quaternary International 222, 80–95. Earle, T. and Kristiansen, K. 2011 (eds), Organizing Bronze Age Societies. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Fritsch, B., Furholt, M., Hinz, M., Lorenz, L., Nelson, H., Schafferer, G., Schiesberg, S. and Sjögren, K.-G. 2010. Dichtezentren und lokale Gruppierungen - Eine Karte zu den Großsteingräbern Mittel- und Nordeuropas. In: www.jungsteinsite.de-Artikel vom 20. Oktober 2010, 1-6. Furholt, M. in prep. Netzwerke des nordmitteleuropäischsüdskandinavischen Neolithikums. In: J. Müller (ed.), Siedlungen, Monumente, Netzwerke. Frühe Monumentalität und soziale Differenzierung. Grohmann, I. M. 2010. Die Ertebölle- und frühtrichterbecherzeitliche Keramik aus Wangels, Kr. Ostholstein. In D. Gronenborn and J. Petrasch (eds), Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas, 407-22. Mainz, Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums. Hansen, S. and Müller, J. (eds) 2011. Sozialarchäologische Perspektiven: Gesellschaftlicher Wandel 5000-1500 v. Chr. zwischen Atlantik und Kaukasus (Tagung Kiel 2007). Archäologie in Eurasien 24. Hartz, S. 2005. Aktuelle Forschungen zur Chronologie und Siedlungsweise der Ertebølle- und frühesten Trichterbecherkultur in Schleswig-Holstein. In: Bodendenkmalpflege Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Jahrbuch 52, 61-81. [Neue Forschungen zur Steinzeit im südlichen Ostseegebiet - 46. Jahrestagung Hugo Obermaier-Gesellschaft, Greifswald 2004]. Hartz, S. and Lübke, H. 2004. Zur chronostratigraphischen Gliederung der Ertebølle-Kultur und frühesten Trichterbecherkultur in der südlichen Mecklenburger Bucht. Bodendenkmalpflege in MecklenburgVorpommern. Jahrbuch 52, 119-43. Hartz, S., Mischka, D. and J. Müller, 2007. Die neolithische Feuchtbodensiedlung Bad Oldesloe-Wolkenwehe: Resultate der Untersuchungen 1950-1952. Offa 61/62, 2004/2005, 7-25. Hinrichsen, C. 2006. Das Neolithikum auf den Nordfriesischen Inseln. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 133. Höhn, B. 2002. Die Michelsberger Kultur in der Wetterau. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 87. Hoika, J. 1987. Das Mittelneolithikum zur Zeit der Trichterbecherkultur in Nordostholstein. Offa-Bücher 61. Neumünster, Karl Wachholtz Verlag. Hübner, E. 2005. Jungneolithische Gräber auf der Jütischen Halbinsel. Typologische und chronologische Studien zur Einzelgrabkultur. Nordiske Fortidsminder B24. Jantz, N. and Kirleis, W. 2010. Von Gruben, Äpfeln und wildem Gemüse. Archäobotanische Untersuchungen an Bodenproben aus der linienbandkeramischen Siedlung

78

Johannes Müller et al.: Landscapes as Social Spaces and Ritual Meaning

LA 505, Kr. Ostholstein. In: R. Kelm (ed.) Zurück zur Steinzeitlandschaft, Archäologische und ökologische Forschung zur jungsteinzeitlichen Kulturlandschaft und ihrer Nutzung in Nordwestdeutschland. Albersdorfer Forschungen zur Archäologie und Umweltgeschichte 2, 70-76. Kroll, H. 2007. The plant remains from the Neolithic Funnel Beaker site of Wangels in Holsatia, northern Germany. In S. Colledge and J. Conolly (eds.) The Origins and Spread of Domestic Plants in Southwest Asia and Europe, 349-357. Walnut Creek CA, Left Coast Press. Lanting, J. N. and Van der Plicht, J. 2000. De 14C-Chronologie van de Nederlandse Pre- en Protohistorie III: Neolithicum. Palaeohistoria 41/42, 1-110. Larsson, M. 1984. Tidigneolitikum i Sydvästskane. Acta Archaeologica Ludensia. Lorenz, L. in prep. Zur Chronologie der mecklenburgischen Megalithgräber. In: J. Müller (ed.), Siedlungen, Monumente, Netzwerke. Frühe Monumentalität und soziale Differenzierung (Bonn in prep.). Louwe Kooijmans, L. P. 1998. Understanding the Mesolithic / Neolithic Frontier in the Lower Rhine Basin, 5300-4300 BC cal. In M. R. Edmonds and C. Richards (eds.), Understanding the Neolithic of northwestern Europe, 408-26. Glasgow, Chruithne Press. Lübke, H., Lüth, F. and Terberger, T. 2009. Fishers or farmers? The archaeology of the Ostorf cemetery and related Neolithic finds in the light of new data. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 88 (2007), 307-38. Madsen, T. 1982. Settlement Systems of Early Agricultural Societies in East Jutland, Denmark: A Regional Study of Change. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1, 197-236. Madsen, T. 1994. Die Gruppenbildung im frühesten Neolithikum Dänemarks und ihre Bedeutung. In J. Hoika and J. Meurers-Balke (eds.), Beiträge zur frühneolithischen Trichterbecherkultur im westlichen Ostseegebiet (Symposium Schleswig 1985), 227-38. Neumünster, Wachholtz. Madsen, T. and Brinch Petersen, J. E. 1984. Tidligneolitiske anlæg ved Mosegården. Regionale og kronologiske forskelle i tidligneolitikum. Kuml - Årbog for Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab1982-83, 61-120. Meurers-Balke, J. and Weninger, B. 1994. 14C-Chronologie der frühen Trichterbecherkultur im norddeutschen Tiefland und in Südskandinavien. In J. Hoika and J. Meurers-Balke (eds.), Beiträge zur frühneolithischen Trichterbecherkultur im westlichen Ostseegebiet (Symposium Schleswig 1985), 251-87. Neumünster, Wachholtz Midgley, M. 1992. TRB culture : the first farmers of the North European plain Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. Mischka, D. 2010. Flintbek LA 3, biography of a monument. In: www.jungsteinsite.de-Artikel vom 20. Dezember 2010.

Mischka, D. in prep. Flintbek und die nordmitteleuropäischen neolithischen Gesellschaften (Schwerpunkt Trichterbecher). Mischka, D. 2011. Early Evidence of a Wheeled Wagon in Northern Europe and a Statistical Model of the Building Sequence of the Neolithic Long Barrow at Flintbek LA 3, northern Germany. Antiquity 85, 2011, 1-17. Mischka, D., Dörfler W., Grootes, P., Heinrich, D., Müller, J. and Nelle, O. 2007. Die neolithische Feuchtbodensiedlung Bad Oldesloe-Wolkenwehe: Vorbericht zu den Untersuchungen 2006. Offa 59/60, 2003/2004, 25-64. Müller, J. 2001. Soziochronologische Studien zum JungSpätneolithikum im Mittelelbe-Saale-Gebiet (41002700 v. Chr.). Eine sozialhistorische Interpretation prähistorischer Quellen. Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen 21. Müller, J. 2009. Monumente und Gesellschaft. Archäologische Nachrichten aus Schleswig-Holstein, 30-3. Müller, J. 2010. Ritual Cooperation and Ritual Collectivity: The Social Structure of the Middle and Younger Funnel Beaker North Group (3500 - 2800 BC). In: www. jungsteinsite.de-Artikel vom 29.Oktober 2010 Müller, J. 2011. Megaliths and Funnel Beakers: Societies in Change 4100-2700 BC. Kroon-Voordracht 33. Amsterdam, Stichting Nederlands Museum voor Anthropologie en Praehistorie. Müller, J., Brozio, J. P., Demnick, D., Dibbern, H., Fritsch, B., Furholt, M., Hage, F., Hinz, M., Lorenz, L., Mischka, D. and Rinne, C. 2010. Periodisierung der Trichterbecher-Gesellschaften. Ein Arbeitsentwurf. In: www.jungsteinsite.de-Artikel vom 29. Oktober 2010, 1-6. Peglar, S.M. and Birks, H. J. B. 1993. The mid-Holocene Ulmus fall at Diss Mere, south-east England – disease and human impact? Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 2, 61-68. Persson, P. 1995. Radiocarbon and the chronology of Scandinavian megalithic graves. Journal of European Association of Archaeologists 3.2, 59-88. Persson, P. 1999. Neolitikums början. Undersökningar kring jordbrukets introduktion i Nordeuropa. Göteborg, University of Göteborg. Regnell, M. and K.-G. Sjögrens, 2006. Introduction and development of agriculture. In Sjögren K-G (ed.), Ecology and Economy in Stone Age and Bronze Age Scania, 106-169. Lund, Riksantikvarieämbetet. Rudebeck, E. 2009. I trästodernas skugga - monumentala möten i neolitiseringens tid. In B. Nilsson/E. Rudebeck (eds.), Arkeologiska och förhistoriska världar, 83-252. Malmö, Malmö museer. Saile, T. 2000. Salz im ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Mitteleuropa-Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 81, 129-234. Schier, W. 2009. Extensiver Brandfeldbau und die Ausbreitung der neolithischen Wirtschaftsweise in Mitteleuropa und Südskandinavien am Ende des 5.

79

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Jahrtausends v. Chr. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 84, 2009, 15-43. Sjögren, K.-G. 2003. Mêangfalldige uhrminnes grafvar : megalitgravar och samhèalle i Vèastsverige. GOTARC. Series B, Gothenburg archaeological theses 27. Sjögren K-G (ed.), Ecology and Economy in Stone Age and Bronze Age Scania. Lund, Riksantikvarieämbetet. Staude, K. in prep. Triwalk. Zur Entwicklung der Trichterbecherkultur in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Steffens, J. 2005. Die Bedeutung der Jagd in der Trichterbecherkultur. In www.jungsteinsite.de-Artikel vom 15. Februar 2005. Steffens, J. 2009. Die neolithischen Fundplätze von Rastorf, Kreis Plön. Eine Fallstudie zur Trichterbecherkultur im nördlichen Mitteleuropa am Beispiel eines Siedlungsraumes. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 170.

Strömberg, M. 1971. Die Megalithgräber von Hagestad. Acta Archaeologica Ludensia 8. Sugita, S. 2007. Theory of quantitative reconstruction of vegetation I: pollen from large sites REVEALS regional vegetation composition. The Holocene 17, 229–-241. Vogt, T. 2009. Der Fundplatz Brunn 17 im Landkreis Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Ergebnisse einer Grabung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der trichterbecherzeitlichen Funde und Befunde. In: T. Terberger (ed.), Neue Forschungen zum Neolithikum im Ostseeraum 135-236. Rahden/Westf., Leidorf. Wiethold, J. 1998. Studien zur jüngeren postglazialen Vegetations- und Siedlungsgeschichte im östlichen Schleswig-Holstein. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 42.

80

Chapter 7 Round, Oval or Rectangular? The Shape of Tumuli Covering Funnel Beaker Burials - Some Old Ideas Revised Doris Mischka Abstract: Since the beginning of Northern European archaeological research, burials have been the main area of research interest and most efforts have been spent on this topic. In this article I will relate three aspects taken from some of the old discussions and confront them with some new data from Northern Germany. In particular, long mounds as imitations of long houses, the neolithisation process connected to monumentality, and the role of polygonal dolmen or circular mounds within later long barrows for Scandinavian megalithic development are of interest here. In conclusion, an evaluation of the old ideas in relation to the new data is presented for a further discussion. Keywords: Megalithic, Funnel Beaker, Chronology, ‘House of the Dead’ Theory, Southern Scandinavia

The ‘house of the dead’ model

the linear band pottery or the Middle Neolithic cultures like Rössen or Lengyel. We can state, that Hodder recognizes the presence of round barrows as well, but that he does not integrate this fact into his further argumentation.

The first point to be made concerns the resemblance of the long houses of Danubian culture successors and the (non-megalithic) long barrows of North-Western, Northern and Eastern Europe. We have to go back until the time of Oscar Montelius to find interpretations of this phenomenon. Montelius viewed dolmen and passage graves as stone versions of (wooden) dwelling structures (Montelius 1899, 46; Daniel 1965, 86). Even more famous are the notions of Childe who declared that the long barrows seemed to be an attempt to make houses of the dead similar to those of the living (Childe 1949, 135), or Piggot (1966) who described these similarities for the English unchambered long barrows. Sprockhoff (1938), Glob (1949) and other famous researchers of later times came to the same conclusions, among them Midgley (1985; 2005) and Hodder (1984; 1990). The main problem of this ‘house as model for the tomb’ interpretation lies in the absolute chronology which is of course recognized by researchers of our times.

1. The entrance is located mostly at the narrow end. I have to add here, that the word ‘entrance’ implicates that the long barrows could have been entered – this is of course for most cases not proven, instead it seems that we are manipulated by the old interpretation of long barrows as quasi reconstructed long houses for the dead. 2. The east-west or southeast-northwestern orientation of houses and graves. 3. The entrances at the east or southeast. 4. The emphasis of the entrance. 5. The inner division of the houses and long barrows by posts. 6. The clustering of the long barrows resembling the clustering of the Early and Middle Neolithic settlements of the loess belt. 7. The erection of long barrows on formerly settled land. For this last point I would like to comment, that the sparse settlement traces consist – with very few exceptions – of settlement pits, mostly isolated postholes and on finds of settlement debris underneath the barrows and in the filling, only. But, if an entire tumulus is excavated and if observation conditions are optimal, remains of wooden buildings can be recognized, as in Bygholm Nørremark (Madsen 1979; Rønne 1979) or in Rastorf (Steffens 2009). It is perhaps this often observed spatial congruence which is more important than the construction parallels of dwelling structures and burial barrows.

Since Hodder wrote his well-known book on the domestication of Europe, our knowledge of the time frame has become much more elaborate and it seems today, that in most of the regions from Germany to Poland, and from Denmark and Great Britain to the Czech Republic in which earthen long barrows occur, there is a time gap between the latest long houses of the Danubian culture tradition and the first monumental mortuary structures of perhaps at least 200 years. Only in western areas in France can direct contact be proven (Midgley 2005, 36-37). Therefore, it was necessary to work out some other arguments to keep the meaningful link between the long houses and the long tumuli. Hodder for example proposed eight similarities for the structures under discussion (Hodder 1990, 149-152):

The connection between neolithisation processes and monuments

The shape of the long houses and the long barrows are more or less the same. Regional traditions become visible by the rectangular or trapezoidal barrow shapes leading back to

One of Holder’s intentions in writing his book ‘Domestication of Europe’ (1990) was to understand

81

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Figure 1. Map of Northern Europe showing the interaction between central European groups and indigenous population in Southern Scandinavia under special consideration of early monuments (Sherratt 1990, 160 fig. 5).

neolithisation processes. The general concept can be seen in the idea of increasing sizes of controllable social units. The former house unit became too small and an increase could not be reached by only adding more house units to a settlement without changing the structure itself. The increasing numbers and sizes of labour, intensive enclosures and the focus on monumental graves indicates an augmenting of the controlled number of people until the process probably came to a collapse ending up with a diverse social order within the Corded Ware culture groups.

According to Sherratt, the role of the monuments is decisive for the spread of farming in the northern regions. For the western regions of France this idea seems plausible until today because of the direct temporal and spatial connection of the monumental structures and farming communities. For Northern and North-Eastern Germany and for Polish regions the actual time frame forces us to rethink his models (see below). For Sherratt, the role of the indigenous hunting and fishing population confronted with the different economic and social order of the farming communities is essential for the transformation to agricultural societies. But except for a few key sites, for example Téviec or Hoëdic in France or some better researched Ertebølle sites along the Baltic Sea coast, our knowledge about these populations

An article by Sherratt (1990) also connects the long barrow phenomenon with the neolithisation process of the transloess-zones of the Northern European plain (Figure 1).

82

Doris Mischka: Round, Oval or Rectangular?

is rather limited. For the time of the monumental tombs it is even characteristic that the settlements are lacking. For the new requirements of cereal cultivation, a proper organisational framework was needed to create larger labour teams which could clear the forests and supervise harvesting. Comparable to the ideas of Hodder, Sherratt sees the creation of stable lineages through durable and highly symbolic burial barrows (instead of long houses elsewhere) as a means of society to reach the described kinds of greater social units.

Ertebølle shell middens without clear house constructions only a few features can be taken into account with often more long rectangular plans for the Late Mesolithic and earliest Neolithic phases (e.g. Sørensen 1992-1993 (sunken floors of Ertebølle); Larsson 1984). The earliest buildings with a distinguishable floor plan are known from the Late Early Neolithic (Fuchsberg phase). And these are by no means circular in shape. Instead, the Late Early Neolithic houses of about 8-20m length show complete rectangular floor plans and those which look more oval have apsidal endings (most recently: Steffens 2009, 43-46; Andersson 2004; Artursson et al. 2003). Some early round or oval shaped features are known, but, according to the authors, they are connected to special (seasonal ?) functions or with ambiguous 14C-dates related to a time scale between the Late Mesolithic and the Middle Neolithic (Artursson et al. 2003, 101-119; Andersson 2004).

For further argumentation, a passage of Sherratt’s paper is very important, demonstrating his wide understanding of the phenomenon and the complexity of the processes of neolithisation as well as monumentalisation of the landscape: ‘In many parts of northern and western Europe, a general sequence of structural [burial] types may by observed (sometimes even within the same monument); and since it occurs in widely separated areas at different times, it seems to be a general trend rather than evidence of direct contact to early farming [communities]. The earliest forms of burial monuments are frequently long mounds of earth and timber, often trapezoidal in shape. Stone then replaces timber for revetments and internal structures still often in long mounds; round forms then become more frequent, and the chambers increase in size. These phases may overlap, or occur in spatially discrete areas, and there is no simple succession: types may continue to co-exist and be consciously elaborated in opposition to each other, older forms may be revived or accommodated to new ones; so that individual cases must therefore be explained in their context’ (Sherratt 1990, 150).

Therefore, if it is not possible to verify Sherratt’s idea because of the missing or sparse archaeological dwelling features, it can only be attempted to check the general burial architecture development within the actual high resolute temporal frame. Megalithic tombs in Southern Scandinavia as ‘imitations/influences’ of burial structures of the Atlantic Facade During research on megaliths in Northern Europe, controversies emerged whether dolmen chambers covered by round mounds or within long barrows are older (pro e.g. Kælas 1956, 10-11 and contra e.g. Aner 1963, 31). The background of these disputes is important for our purpose here. It leads us back again to the beginning of research on prehistoric megaliths and to the question about the genesis of Southern Scandinavian megaliths and their possible origins. Among different proposed scenarios, two seem to be the most important here:

In the article Sherratt elucidates his thoughts by comparing the evolution in France, Northern Germany/Southern Scandinavia and Poland. The first unchambered long barrows occur in the old moraine areas avoiding territories with dense Mesolithic concentrations, while the round mounds and chambered tombs coincide with them. The lastmentioned are interpreted as a local reaction of the indigenous populations. So for Sherratt (quoting Montelius 1899, 41-46), the megalithic chambers and the round shape of the burial mounds are implications of the natives adopting the idea of imitating dwelling structures for graves. To emphasise this in different terms, circular mounds are seen as reflections of native house types. To quote Sherratt (1990, 151) once more: ‘If the chambers and circular forms reflect native house types or concepts of space, the proliferation of such types would mark the widespread adoption of monumentality and its associated social structures by indigenous communities; and various degrees of fusion or incorporation of one group by the other might then occur’.

1. The idea of linear development from small primeval dolmen to the passage graves. Primeval dolmen are often interpreted as inhumations for single individuals. The stone architecture replaced, according to this idea, the former wooden constructions. Accordingly, enlarged dolmen should have been erected first parallel to the main axes of long barrows, later transverse according to the proposed typological ordering. In the next phase, the bigger polygonal dolmen and later the grand dolmen of all types leads towards the final stage characterised by the Southern Scandinavian passage graves. Important influences for this development are associated with the big river systems of Elbe and Oder (e.g. Becker 1947, 246ff.). This first hypothesis is only built upon typological considerations. The determination of the ages of the monuments was only possible using badly dated burial gifts and is therefore today of restricted value, in particular for successively renewed collective burials. 2. This second idea relies on the influence from the

Late Mesolithic/Early Neolithic houses The problem for the Northern German/Southern Scandinavian region is the lack of Late Mesolithic and earliest Neolithic dwelling constructions. Apart from

83

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Atlantic Facade, mainly from Western France (e.g. Daniel 1941; Aner 1963, 16). There, early so-called ‘Dolmens à couloir’ (translated normally as passage graves) with roundish burial chambers ‒ built up rarely by megaliths but most often by dry walling with corbel vaults and mostly with long passages leading towards the interior chamber ‒ show great similarities to the polygonal dolmen chambers. The dolmen à couloir tombs are usually covered by quite voluminous round or oval shaped cairns.

constructions and the building of circular tumuli instead of long barrows bit by bit (Aner 1963, 35-36). Chronology (and typology) of the burial monuments in Northern Germany/Southern Scandinavia The typology of the burial architecture in the research area is not well defined. For some of the authors, it is the shape of the burial chamber which is the most important criterion (e.g. Sprockhoff 1938). For others it is the shape of the barrow. In Denmark for example, the monuments are classified as ‘runddysse’ or ‘langdysse’ according to the shape of the tumulus (Worsaee 1843 quoted after Ebbesen 2007, 33). This classification can be used, even if the barrow is destroyed or not yet touched by excavations and therefore still keeping the chamber invisible to observers. Last but not least, the typological denomination can be a combination of the form of the burial chamber and the shape of the barrow (as it can be recognized partly by Aner 1963).

The distribution maps of the different dolmen types pose problems for this last hypothesis because of the main concentration of polygonal dolmen on the Djursland peninsula in Northern Jutland and the North-Western part of Zealand. Furthermore, this dolmen type is the only one recorded in Bohuslän in Western Sweden and together with the rectangular types observed in Skane in Southern Sweden (Kælas 1956). So, there is no direct regional link between the Western/Northern France dolmen à couloir and the polygonal dolmen in Northern Denmark and Western Sweden. According to Aner, the distribution and connections took place along the coast and the few German polygonal dolmen in between are interpreted as younger influences of this region via the Danish Isles through the Eckernförde fjord to Dithmarschen in the southwest (Aner 1963, 16).

Furthermore, modern excavations clearly indicate the gradual dismounting of the tombs within short episodes or with breaks of several hundred years (e.g. Mischka 2010; Saville 1990; Bayliss, Ramsey, Van der Plicht and Whittle 2007). As previously listed, it could be important in the discussion of the genesis of monumentality and within the neolithisation process to raise the question about the dating of the circular barrows (especially within long barrows).

Again, the interpretations rely very much on the chronological timeframe. For Kælas, the polygonal dolmens within their covering round mounds at most are older than the rectangular chambers and long barrows. For her argumentation, she takes into account that in Bohuslän no rectangular dolmen is known which, in Denmark, is of the same Late Early Neolithic date like the polygonal dolmen, according to the grave goods. Therefore, she concludes an early distribution of the polygonal dolmen and an interruption of the contacts before the younger rectangular forms could spread (Kælas 1956, 10-11). The long barrows were erected to elongate the round tumuli and to integrate further burials (Kælas 1956, 12). (None of the authors discussed eastern contacts).

I cannot give a definite answer to all these questions so far, but a few new sites can be named starting with a construction sequence of a long barrow with a dolmen covered by a small round barrow. Some of these are classified as polygonal dolmen and have the oldest AMS dates of Northern German megalithic monuments, so far. Small Dolmen with circular mounds, expanded to long barrows 1. Waabs-Karlsminde LA 119 During an excavation in 1976 H. Paulsen and M. Stöcken discovered the building sequence of the long barrow of Karlsminde (Paulsen 1990). The barrow is situated only 1.5 km away from today’s coast of the Baltic Sea on a hilly spot in the landscape (Figure 2 site number 5). The barrow was 56m in length, 5.5m wide and still 1.5m high and orientated in an east-west direction (Figure 3). At both ends of the monument two enlarged dolmen chambers (A and C) had been known since the publication of the atlas of megalithic tombs by Sprockhoff (1966, 22). On the excavation one more dolmen (B) in between was revealed. This extended dolmen B consisted of five larger orthostates and a smaller one at the entrance. The chamber measured 2.2m x 1.15m x 1.2m. The capstones had been destroyed after World War II. A fragment of an amber knob with two perforations and one unfinished drilling of 4.0cm x 3.0cm x 1.2cm remained from the burial furniture. During the excavation, it was recognized that dolmen B had first been erected and then

Aner points out, that it must be proven, if a circular row of stones around a megalithic tomb really marks the limits of a burial mound or if it is only some kind of boundary zone, e.g. a ‘Bannkreis’. For him, the round mounds are a younger phenomenon (Aner 1963, 31-33). So, the polygonal dolmen mustn’t be the youngest kind of dolmen in an evolutionary line to the passage graves but they can be contemporaneous or even older than the rectangular types at least in the main distribution area of the polygonal dolmen. While spreading towards the southeastern and the western Baltic sea area with closed primeval dolmen, it was the construction of the polygonal dolmen which gave an impulse for changes, such as the incorporation of an entrance to the chamber, the transverse orientation of rectangular dolmen within the long barrows, short passage

84

Doris Mischka: Round, Oval or Rectangular?

Figure 2. Distribution of polygonal dolmen in Southern Scandinavia after Aner (1963, 17 fig. 6) and Kaelas (1956, 6 fig. 1), changed. Sites mentioned in the text with polygonal dolmen with circular kerbstones integrated in longbarrows: 1 Albersdorf “Brutkamp” LA 5; 2 Flintbek LA 4; 3 Rastorf LA 6a/c; 4 Schwedeneck Birkenmoor; 5 Waabs Karlsminde LA 119; 6 Redsø; 7 Skildrup; 8 Knebel; 9 Kirkerup; 10 Plejerup; 11 Kirke Hyllinge; 12 Tokkekjøb Hegn; 13 Hagadössen, Orus; 14 Kvistofta; 15 Hofterup.

85

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Figure 3. Waabs Karlsminde LA 119. Plan of the gradually extended longbarrow with a rectangular dolmen covered originally by a circular mound in the center of the monument (Paulsen 1990, 23 fig. 4).

was covered by a round mound of 14m in diameter. Parts of the kerbstones survived later activities. Unfortunately, no absolute dating could be obtained so far by measuring some of the charcoal remains. While the younger dolmen C didn’t contain finds, dolmen A brought forth a simple Funnel Beaker with groups of vertical striations of the Late Early Neolithic/Early Middle Neolithic type, five transverse arrow heads and a flint blade. 2. Rastorf LA 6 a/c Between 1999-2002 gravel quarrying forced the archaeological state department to conduct multiple rescue excavations on several Neolithic sites north of the municipality of Rastorf (Figure 2 site number 3). Among the sites an enclosure as well as several heavily damaged megalithic and non-megalithic Funnel Beaker tombs covered by long barrows or round mounds could be partly researched. In his PhD-thesis Steffens (2009) published the sites. For our purposes, the long barrow Rastorf LA 6 a/c is of particular interest (Figure 4). Steffens (1990, 15-36) reconstructed seven extension phases of the burial monument but before the use of the site for interring the dead, it served as a settlement location. Lots of finds of the Late Early Neolithic Fuchsberg phase indicate the occupation as well as the ground plan of a rectangular building construction of about 17.4m x 7.9m preserved underneath the later tumulus. Steffens argues for a secondary use of the abandoned dwelling site as a field, still visible in the plough marks cutting through the house and beyond. The first tomb was then built on this ploughed surface. Although the grave had been almost completely destroyed, it was possible to reconstruct an extended dolmen chamber covered by a small round mound with a diameter of approximately 10m. The kerb stones of this tumulus were removed during modern times, leaving behind only debris and one kerb in a disturbed position, northwest of the chamber. After this first building phase, the six successive extensions of the monument only contain non-megalithic graves mostly of simple construction and dimensions dug into the existing tumulus which for each new grave was partly aggrandised. Probably with the non-megalithic burial D, a long barrow had transformed the shape of the former circular mound radically. A line of kerb stones delimited this new monument. The dating of the megalithic chamber is only indirect because of missing finds of an in situ context. The sherds from the older settlement are Late Early Neolithic (Fuchsberg phase) and some sherds from the filling of the grave are from Early Middle Neolithic (MN I). So it seems likely that the chamber was erected within the time frame of the Late Early/ Early Middle Neolithic. Unfortunately, the parallel lying long barrow with two megalithic chambers of Rastorf LA 6 b was too highly damaged, so that it is no longer possible to determine if the oldest mounds were circular as well.

86

Figure 4. Rastorf LA 6a/c. Plan of the longbarrow with a dolmen originally covered by a round tumulus (dotted line) and several non-megalithic graves. Underneath the longbarrow remains of an early Neolithic house plan remained as well as a thick settlement layer and plough marks (Steffens 2009, 244 plate 3, changed).

Doris Mischka: Round, Oval or Rectangular?

87

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Figure 5. Flintbek LA 4. Plan of the longbarrow with plough marks, three dolmen with dolmen I built first surrounded by a circular mound and three non-megalithic graves. The colors indicate the different construction sequences of the longbarrow, green = initial phase, red = following phase and blue = last phase. The non-megalithic burials are most probably enterred after or during the initial phase.

3. Flintbek LA 4

For the second megalithic dolmen chamber II, to the east of chamber I, all the graves existing to date were covered by a long barrow which is limited by kerb stones.

My third example is taken from the burial field of Flintbek (Figure 2 site number 2). From 1976 until 1996 a settlement region was almost entirely excavated. Within a dating project of the Neolithic tombs more than 150 AMS measurements of mainly charcoal samples were carried out after the determination of the wood and a selection of short lived material (Mischka, in prep). For the first time on continental Europe, it was possible to work out the construction sequences of multiple Funnel Beaker monuments within a small micro region. The dates, modelled with the help of Bayes’ probability-mathematics and their interpretation within the building sequence of the most famous site and with the best dating results so far, labelled Flintbek LA 3, was published first (Mischka 2010; Mischka 2011). As a by-product an absolute date of 34203385 cal BC for the cart tracks preserved underneath the youngest tumulus extension was determined, integrating this site into research discussions concerning the oldest evidence of wheeled vehicules in the world.

As a last construction proven by stratigraphy, a third megalithic enlarged dolmen was connected to the west of the initial dolmen I. For this extension, another rectangular enclosure of kerbs borders the prolongation of the tumulus to 33.30m x 8.40m in total. Underneath the burials, perhaps contemporaneous to the first burial mound, plough marks were observed, most likely indicating an old field. Small parts of the floor of dolmen I were disturbed, but mostly an intact floor pavement made of burnt lithic debitage was excavated. An up to 27cm thick burial layer remained. It contained some charred wood particles and two slightly damaged pots lying close to each other. From other pots only sherds survived. Among the lithics a transverse arrow head, a scraper and four unmodified flakes could be registered (Figure 6). A lot of material was taken from the disturbed parts of the burial – sherds, two more arrowheads, another scraper, cores and flakes, and the fragment of a grinding or polishing stone. A piece of bronze and glass indicate younger and recent disturbances.

In the present article I would like to focus on the neighbouring site of Flintbek LA 4. This gradually extended long barrow was poorly preserved. The upper parts of the tumulus have been degraded by modern ploughing and the megalithic features were denuded by stone dealers, therefore it is hardly possible to understand the construction sequence perfectly. All the same, it appears that the initial phase of the monument consists of a (probable) polygonal dolmen of 2.4m x 1.95m internal dimension, covered by a round mound (Figure 5). The mound was limited by kerb stones with a cross section of approximately 6m. Three of them survived in situ. Three non-megalithic simple graves (A, B and C) were most probably entrenched into the tumulus directly or next to it.

The other dolmen of this long barrow contained rich burial material as well which is published elsewhere (Mischka, in prep). Altogether, twelve AMS-dates could be measured from charred wood remains from seven different features (Figure 7). Some of the results couldn’t be integrated in the Bayes data model because of high discrepancies. The very old date of the earthen filling of grave C seems to

88

Doris Mischka: Round, Oval or Rectangular?

Figure 6. Flintbek LA 4. Finds from Dolmen I.

In situ position: 1-2 lugged Funnelbeakers with Fuchsberg style ornamentation and without decoration; 3 Pottery sherd with cardium impressions and twisted cord (‘Wickelschnur’); 10 transversal arrowhead. Disturbed position: 4-8 Pottery sherds; 9 fragmented grinding stone; 11-12 transversal arrowheads. Scale 1:2, except transversal arrowheads: scale 2:3. (1-2 laserscans made by L. Hermannsen Archäologisches Landesamt Schleswig-Holstein; 3-9 and 11-12 drawings D. Mischka; photos A. Heitmann; 10 B. Gehlen).

be residual. The very old date of dolmen chamber III, measured on oak (Quercus) is most likely affected by an old wood effect. According to the archaeological a priori information from stratigraphy, the erection of this chamber must be later than the building of the earlier long barrow stone kerb.

seems to be older than that of Dolmen II as is portrayed in the model.

For the data-model the following sequence was used:

Dolmen I was built between 3610-3565 cal BC. Grave A was probably built shortly thereafter between 3585-3550 cal BC. For Grave B no AMS-samples were available but Grave C was most probably built between 3565-3530 cal BC. Dolmen II and III were added to the new formatted long barrow between 3540-3520 cal BC and between 35003465 cal BC, respectively. The two use phases can be dated to 3460-3368 cal BC and 3330-3255 cal BC.

The modelled calibrated ages of the different features of long barrow Flintbek LA 4 can be summarized as follows (Figures 8-10):

Dolmen I > Grave A > Grave C > Dolmen II > Dolmen III > use of Dolmen III > use of Dolmen II (with ‘>’ meaning ‘is older than’) For Dolmen II and III secondary burial layers are plausible, mainly because of the pottery typology. Therefore, two ‘use phases’ were added to the model. The use of Dolmen III

Together with an absolute date for the construction of the polygonal dolmen ‘Brutkamp’, Albersdorf LA 5, of

89

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 32 29 50 22 24 28 28 27 26 32 28 23 2 2 4 4 6 6 8 9 9 11 12 12

Two of them, Waabs-Karlsminde LA 119 and Rastorf LA 6 a/c are dated only roughly by typology but the polygonal dolmen Flintbek LA 4 delivers the first 14C-dates for circular borderd dolmen as nuklei within long barrows for Northern Germany. These are temporally connected to the ‘freestanding’ polygonal dolmen of Albersdorf Brutkamp LA 5. Actually, the Northern German long barrows seem younger than Danish, Swedisch, and perhaps English evidence for the erection of similar kinds of monuments (Mischka in prep). But perhaps a source critical look on the dates of these monuments – some of them seem to be dated without concerning the old wood effect or dates of older settlement finds – can change this impression in future times. According to Sherratt quoted above, ‘The earliest forms of burial monuments are frequently long mounds of earth and timber, often trapezoidal in shape’, one could think that the oldest long mounds in the micro region of Flintbek should be the non-megalithic long barrows. But, the well dated, non-megalithic phases of Flintbek LA 3 (3500-3460 cal BC, Mischka 2010; Mischka 2011) are clearly younger than some of the megalithic chambers e.g. LA 4 and LA 167 within long barrows of neighbouring monuments, which are older than 3600 cal BC. So, if we accept that all burial monuments of the region have been found and excavated and no older non-megalithic barrow has been built in this area, Sherratt’s hypothesis can be refuted at least for the micro region of Flintbek. Sherratt’s next phrase, ‘Stone then replaces timber for revetments and internal structures, still often in long mounds’, is correct for the monument of Flintbek LA 3, for example, with its four megalithic dolmen chambers added to the former non-megalithic long barrow. But it is obsolete in terms of absolute chronology because of the older age of the megalithic long barrow Flintbek LA 4 just next to LA 3.

KIA36193 KIA40125 KIA36194 KIA40126 KIA36195 KIA40264 KIA36196 KIA36197 KIA40127 KIA36198 KIA36199 KIA40265 09.12.2008 02.03.2010 09.04.2009 02.03.2010 09.04.2009 02.03.2010 09.04.2009 09.04.2009 02.03.2010 09.04.2009 09.04.2009 02.03.2010

101 101 201 201 301 301 401 402 402 501 502 502

Dolmen I, Filling Dolmen I, Filling Grab A, Filling Grab A, Filling Grab C, Filling Grab C, Filling Dolmen II, Filling + Estrich Dolmen II, Estrich Dolmen II, Estrich Dolmen III, Filling Dolmen III, Estrich Dolmen III, Estrich

4760 4756 4796 4777 4569 4770 4448 4744 4762 4661 4811 4641

± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±

-24,15 -24,64 -28,31 -24,76 -22,4 -24,03 -23,98 -23,11 -25,35 -25,93 -23,31 -26,15

δ13C Measurement [BP] ID Feature Sample Date

Feature

Figure 7. Flintbek LA 4. List of AMS-dated samples of charred wood from different features of the longbarrow.

3634 3633 3643 3635 3367 3634 3314 3631 3633 3510 3644 3497 Pomoideae Alnus Pomoideae Alnus cf. Prunus Tilia Corylus Quercus Alnus Quercus Quercus Quercus

It is very difficult to understand the complex processes of neolithisation and monumentalisation of the landscape. With this article, four sites from Northern Germany with rather modern excavations were integrated into a wider discussion.

charred wood charred wood charred wood charred wood charred wood charred wood charred wood charred wood charred wood charred wood charred wood charred wood

Conclusion

0,35 0,2 0,38 0,43 0,13 0,02 0,33 0,13 0,21 0,27 0,13 0,15

Material

Determination

cal 1ς

3522 3521 3525 3530 3141 3526 3024 3390 3524 3370 3536 3367

3650/3630-3600 cal BC (Dibbern and Hage 2011) which is surrounded by a ring of kerbstones, the AMS dates of Flintbek LA 167 and LA 4 belong to the oldest absolute dates of megalithic features in Southern Jutland/Northern Germany to date.

Sherratt’s summary, ‘round forms then become more frequent, and the chambers increase in size’, may be true if he meant with `chambers´ the passage graves of the Middle Neolithic, but not for the Early Neolithic. As the Flintbek cases demonstrate, the round chambers within the Early Neolithic long barrows must be seen as the oldest structures within these kinds of monuments at least in this

90

Doris Mischka: Round, Oval or Rectangular?

Unmodelled (BC/AD)

Modelled (BC/AD)

Indices Amodel 125.1 Aoverall 122.4”

from Sequence Boundary Start la004 Phase Dolmen I KIA36193 La004-0101-002 KIA40125 La004-0101-002 Boundary Dolmen I to Grave A Phase Grave A KIA36194 La004-0201-004 KIA40126 La004-0201-004 Boundary Grave A to Grave C Phase Grave C KIA40264 La004-0301-006 Boundary Grave C to Dolmen II Phase Dolmen II KIA36197 La004-0402-009 KIA40127 La004-0402-009 Boundary Dolmen II to Dolmen III Phase GK III KIA40265 La004-0502-012 Boundary Dolmen III to Dolmen III use Phase Dolmen III, use KIA36198 La004-0501-011 Boundary Dolmen III use to Dolmen II use Phase Dolmen II, use KIA36196 La004-0401-008 Boundary End la004

-3634 -3633

-3643 -3634

-3634

-3632 -3633

-3497

-3510

-3316

to

-3522 -3522

-3525 -3530

-3526

-3519 -3524

-3368

-3370

-3024

%

68.2 68.2

68.2 68.2

68.2

68.2 68.3

68.2

68.2

68.2

from

to

%

-3636

-3576

68.2

-3609 -3609

-3565 -3565

68.2 68.2

-3597

-3557

68.2

-3586 -3586

-3549 -3551

68.2 68.2

-3576

-3539

68.2

-3563

-3531

68.2

-3553

-3524

68.2

-3538 -3539

-3517 -3519

68.2 68.2

-3532

-3497

68.2

-3500

-3463

68.2

-3491

-3426

68.2

-3459

-3368

68.2

-3409

-3298

68.2

-3331 -3324

-3256 -3236

68.2 68.2

Acomb

A

L

P

C 96.3

115.6 116.3

98.8 98.8 99.3

127.2 109.6

99.6 99.5 99.6

113.1

99.6 99.7

102.7 100.4

99.9 99.9 99.8

106.6

99.9 99.8

98

99.8 99.6

83

99.1 96.4

Figure 8. Flintbek LA 4. Result of the calibrated AMS dates using Bayesian statistics.

micro region. At any rate, in the three examples of modern excavated long barrows presented here, the dolmen with circular mounds are the initial nuclei of the later long barrows. According to the finds and stratigraphic reflexions, these chambers belong to the developed or Late Early Neolithic.

displaced by Neolithic invaders with their earthen long barrows. We cannot reduce the economy of these social units to a Mesolithic one, because of the clear evidence of active agricultural activities, proven by the Early Neolithic plough marks under some of the long barrows, the use of Funnel Beaker Pottery found partly in settlement pits or in the fillings of the tumuli. The transformation of round mounds and stone architecture proposed by Sherratt (and earlier before by Montelius) into barrows must have taken place somewhere else, perhaps closer to the Danish Isles or more probably in Northern Jutland/Northwestern Zealand and proliferated from there southward to (Southern) Jutland/Northern Germany and other regions. The discussed Flintbek observations can be seen in this way as part of the ‘backdraft’ which can therefore be dated at least to the very late 37th or first half of the 36th century BC. The sites of Waabs-Karlsminde LA 119 and Rastorf LA 6 a/c could

Sherratt weakens his convincible hypothesis with his next sentence, which makes it even impossible to reject it like I did above: ‘These phases may overlap, or occur in spatially discrete areas, and there is no simple succession: types may continue to co-exist and be consciously elaborated in opposition to each other, older forms may be revived or accommodated to new ones; so that individual cases must therefore be explained in their context’. So to keep up the model and to attempt an explanation of the context, one can argue, that the Flintbek region was inhabited by a native indigenous population perhaps confronted but not

91

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Figure 9. Flintbek LA 4. Curveplot of the calibrated AMS dates using Bayesian statistics.

Address:

belong to the same events, even if the dating is not that accurate there.

Dr Doris Mischka Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität zu Kiel Johanna-Mestorf Str. 2-6 24098 Kiel [email protected]

Only further research with accurate datings of several sepulchral monuments from different micro regions can help to bring some more light into this part of history. Acknowledgements I would like to express my gratitude to E. Kücükkaraca for improving the English and the German Research Foundation for providing funding for the radiocarbon dates and anthracological analysis.

92

Doris Mischka: Round, Oval or Rectangular?

Figure 10. Flintbek LA 4. Multiplot of the calibrated AMS dates using Bayesian statistics.

Bibliography

Bayliss, A., Ramsey, C. B., Plicht, J. van der and Whittle, A. 2007. Bradshaw and Bayes: Towards a Timetable for the Neolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17, 1-28. Becker, C. J. 1947. Mosefunde Lerkar fra yngre Stenalder. Studier over Tragtbægerkulturen i Danmark. Aarbøger, 1-318. Childe, G. V. 1949. The origins of Neolithic culture in northern Europe. Antiquity 32, 129-15. Daniel, G. 1941. The Dual Nature of the Megalithic Colonisation of Prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of Prehistoric Society 7, 1-49. Daniel, G. 1965. Editorial. Antiquity 39, 81-86. Dibbern, H. and Hage, F. 2011. Erdwerk und Megalithgräber in der Region Albersdorf. Archäologische Nachrichten aus Schleswig-Holstein 2010, 34-37.

Andersson, M. 2004. Making place in the landscape: Early and Middle Neolithic societies in two west Scanian valleys. In M. Svensson (ed.) 2004. Skånska spår. Lund, Riksantikvarieämbetet. Aner, E. 1963. Die Stellung der Dolmen SchleswigHolsteins in der nordischen Megalithkultur. Offa 20, 9-38. Artursson, M., Linderoth, T., Nilsson, M.-L. and Svensson, M. 2003. Byggnadskultur i södra & mellersta Skandinavien. In M. Svensson (ed.) 2003. I det Neolitiska rummet. Skånska spår, 40-171. Lund, Riksantikvarieämbetet.

93

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Ebbesen, K. 2007. Danske dysser - Danish Dolmens. Kopenhagen, ATTIKA. Eriksen, P. and Madsen, T. 1984. Hanstedgård. A Settlement Site from the Funnel Beaker Culture. Jounal of Danish Archaeology 3, 63-82. Glob, H. 1949. Barkær. Danmarks ældste landsby. Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark, 5-16. Hodder, I. 1984. Burials, houses, women and men in the European Neolithic. In Miller, D. and Tilley, C. (eds) 1984. Ideology, Power and Prehistory, 51-68. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Hodder, I. 1990. The domestication of Europe. Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell. Kælas, L. 1956. Dolmen und Ganggräber in Schweden. Offa 15, 5-24. Larsson, L. 1984. The Skateholm Project. Meddelanden fran Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum 5, 5-38. Madsen, T. 1979. Earthern long barrows and timber structures: aspects of the Early mortuary in Denmark. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 45, 301-20. Midgley, M. S. 1985. The Origin and Function of the Earthern Long Barrows of Northern Europe. British Archaeological Reports. International Series 259. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports. Midgley, M. S. 2005. The Monumental Cemeteries of prehistoric Europe. Stroud, Tempus. Mischka, D. 2010. Flintbek LA 3, biography of a monument. In: www.jungsteinsite.de-Artikel vom 20. December 2010. Mischka, D. 2011. The Neolithic burial sequence at Flintbek LA 3, north Germany, and its cart tracks: a precise chronology. Antiquity 85, 1-17 Mischka, D. in prep. Flintbek und die nordmitteleuropäischen neolithischen Gesellschaften (Schwerpunkt Trichterbecher). Habilitation thesis, Universtiy of Kiel.

Montelius, O. 1899. Der Orient und Europa. Stockholm, Königl. Hofboktryckeriet. Iduns Tryckeri Aktiebolag. Paulsen, H. 1990. Untersuchung und Restaurierung des Langbettes von Karlsminde, Gemeinde Waabs, Kreis Rendsburg-Eckernförde. Archäologische Nachrichten Schleswig-Holstein 1, 18-60. Piggot, S. 1966. ‘Unchambered’ long barrows in Neolithic Britain. Palaeohistoria 12, 381-394. Rønne, P. 1979. Høj over høj. Skalk 5, 3-8. Saville, A. 1990. Hazleton North, Gloucestershire, 1979-82: The excavation of a Neolithic long cairn of the Cotswold-Severn group. Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England. Archaelogical Report 13. London, English Heritage. Sherratt, A. 1990. The Genesis of Megaliths: Monumentality, Ethnicity and Social Complexity in Neolithic North-West Europe. World Archaeology 22/2, 147-167. Sprockhoff, E. 1938. Die nordische Megalithkultur. Handbuch der Urgeschichte Deutschlands 3. Berlin and Leipzig, De Gruyter. Sprockhoff, E. 1966. Atlas der Megalithgräber Deutschlands 1: Schleswig-Holstein. Bonn, Habelt. Steffens, J. 2009. Die neolithischen Fundplätze von Rastorf, Kreis Plön - Eine Fallstudie zur Trichterbecherkultur im nördlichen Mitteleuropa am Beispiel eines Siedlungsraumes. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 170. Bonn, Habelt. Sørensen, S.A. 1992-1993. Lollikhuse - a Dwelling Site under a Kitchen Midden. Journal of Danish Archaeology 11, 19-29. Worsaae, J. J. A. 1843. Danmarks Oldtid oplyst ved Oldsager og Gravhøje. Kopenhagen, Selskabet for Trykkefrihedens rette Brug.

94

Chapter 8 ‘Open dolmens’ – a Matter of Decay? Torben Dehn Abstract: In Danish Neolithic archaeology it is discussed if some dolmens were never covered by an earthern mound. It is described that both kerbstones and chambers can rise directly from a flat field. Among the examples of this type of dolmens are the long dolmen Gunderslevholm and the round dolmen Tustrup 359c. From their state of preservation at the time of investigation it might seem that the chambers have never been covered. However, on the basis of a stratigraphy in the two monuments and on experiences from restoring megalithic structures it is concluded that all the evidence suggest that these two dolmens have had intact drywallings and consequently have had and earthern mound around the chambers. It is argued that interventions and decay over a course of 5000 years can be apparent in an incredible variety of ways. Therefore, we have to show more interest in the survived building elements and less interest in those which may or may not have been present originally. Keywords: Decay, dolmen, dry walling, earthern mound, Gunderslevholm, megalithic graves, open dolmen, Tustrup.

Throughout the history of Danish archaeology there have been repeated discussions of how dolmens were used and the nature of their appearance at the time of their use by the people who built them. The last two decades are no exception in this respect. It has been argued in several publications that some dolmen chambers were never completely covered or even partially covered by an earthen mound, but that they stood open without any form of covering from the outset (Andersen and Eriksen 1996; Andersen 2000; Andersen et al. in press; Eriksen 1999, 72; Midgley 2008; Nielsen 2000). These dolmens “are without an earthen fill, but both the kerbstones and the chamber rise directly from a flat field” (Andersen and Eriksen 1996, 6). This view is also referred to in the latest major synthetic work on Danish prehistory (Jensen 2001, 362).

the task of founding a national museum and of trying to save some of the ancient monuments which were so rapidly disappearing at that time. The Gunderslevholm dolmen was the first ever ancient monument to enjoy a tangible reference from the commission and it was scheduled, i.e. protected, in 1809 (Jakobsen 2007, 61). This prominent role was afforded the long dolmen due to its impressive appearance, which it has retained to this day. Apparently, no major or crucial changes have taken place in the more than two centuries which have elapsed since that time. When N. F. S. Grundtvig visited the dolmen in 1808 he was accompanied by literary historian C. Molbech (1783-1857) who, at the request of the Commission, wrote a description of the monument, figure 1. If C. Molbech’s description is compared with later records and the situation today, no significant changes appear to have taken place in the status of the monument in the intervening period (Molbech 1811, 335-338).

The author has had the opportunity of working on two of the dolmens identified as obvious examples of open dolmens in Jensen (2001). These are a long dolmen, the Gunderslevholm dolmen (also known as Grundtvig’s dolmen) in Zealand, and one of the two round dolmens in the Tustrup complex, Tustrup 359c, in north-eastern Jutland. It is the author’s view, on the basis of both earlier and more recent investigations of these monuments, that the two were originally constructed in exactly the same way as so many other dolmens, i.e. with a mound enclosing the chamber.

J. J. A.Worsaae visited the dolmen in 1857, together with the artist/illustrator J. Kornerup who produced a ground plan and a drawing of the monument in the forest with J. J. A. Worsaae standing by the chamber, figures 2-3. If this drawing is compared with the situation today there are no apparent changes in its status, figure 4. The idea that this dolmen has never appeared differently from the way it does today is not new. N. F. S. Grundtvig and C. Molbech were in agreement that the stone dolmen was completely untouched and that perhaps not even a single stone had been removed from it. The thick layer of moss which covered almost all the stones supported this perception (Molbech 1811, 337).

The Gunderslevholm dolmen (Grundtvig’s dolmen/ Sandbæk dolmen in Knurre Vang) This monument is one of the most renowned long dolmens in Denmark. On a visit in 1808, this ‘Aesir’s altar’ inspired the poet and theologian N. F. S. Grundtvig (1783-1872) to write a poem in praise of the Nordic gods. The previous year, ‘The Royal Commission for the Preservation of Antiquities’ had held its first meeting. The Commission had

The view that the Gunderslevholm dolmen has never had a mound enclosing the chamber within the kerbstones makes

95

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Figure 1. Drawing of the Gunderslevholm dolmen from Grundtvig and Molbech’s visit in 1808. The view is from the south.

Figure 2. Ground plan of the Gunderslevholm dolmen from 1857. North is towards the foot of page. Drawing: J. Kornerup.

96

Torben Dehn: ‘Open dolmens’ – a Matter of Decay?

Figure 3. J. Kornerup’s drawing from 1857 of the Gunderslevholm dolmen in dense woodland. The figure by the chamber is J. J. A. Worsaae.

Figure 4. The Gunderslevholm dolmen in 2008. The photograph was taken from the same position as J. Kornerup produced his drawing figure 3. The person standing by the chamber is one of J. J. A. Worsaae’s successors. Photo: T. Dehn.

97

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

it of great interest with respect to the question of ‘open dolmens’ (Andersen and Eriksen 1996, 6). Accordingly, the National Museum of Denmark obtained permission to carry out a minor archaeological evaluation in the form of two small trenches cut across the monument – one of them by the chamber. The participants in this investigation, which took place in the spring of 2008, were Lars B. Christensen, Palle Eriksen, Svend Illum Hansen, Jørgen Westphal and the author (Hansen 2009).

1.1m high vertical sandstone flag set on edge, which stood in the hole dug for the ortholiths, figure 7. This was supplemented with pieces of flint and smaller and thinner sandstone flags that had been hammered in from the rear of the chamber. This fill was visible from inside the chamber where several supplementary sandstone flags could also just be perceived. This means that after the ortholiths of the chamber had been erected, stones were placed up against the rear of the chamber and supplemented with crushed flint. This presumably took place in the same process, or immediately afterwards, as the packing between the two ortholiths would be unable to stand unprotected for any length of time. In dolmen chambers, gaps between the ortholiths are often sealed with a flagstone set on edge, in contrast to passage graves where actual dry walling, formed of horizontal flagstones, is the norm due to the greater width of the gaps.

The Gunderslevholm dolmen is about 58m long and 7.5m wide. Along its sides, some of the c. 1.7m high kerbstones remain in situ whereas others have toppled over completely. The kerbstones at each end are about 2m high; only one of them remains standing erect while the others lie on the ground. At the eastern end of the dolmen is the monument’s only chamber. This has a rectangular ground plan and is aligned longitudinally with the dolmen. Its long sides consist of one long stone set on edge at each side, in between which two gable stones have been placed Almost all of the area enclosed within the kerbstones is covered by a relatively even layer of large stones. Only towards the ends, which are more open and where the kerbstones are either absent or lying on the ground, is this stone layer incomplete.

The stones located behind the chamber lay in contact with one another and also with the larger stones found towards the base. At the base, the stones lay close to the rear surface of the ortholiths whereas further up the gap widened. Accordingly, there was a funnel-shaped gap between the stones and the ortholiths, filled out with compacted crushed flint. The same kind of packing – forming a wedge-shaped zone of flint around the chamber – has also been observed in long dolmen 040505-8A at Strids Mølle, about 2.5km distant, figure 8.

Between the chamber and the east gable there is a large gap between the kerbstones where one or two stones appear to be missing at both sides. Running between these two breaks in the stone rows is a narrow track from which stones are absent. This is a footpath/bridleway which runs across the dolmen and along the slope down towards a stream. The eastern end of the dolmen extends all the way out to the edge of this steep slope. This path is mentioned in Molbech’s description from 1808 (Molbech, 337) and can be seen on figure 1.

In the present-day surface around the chamber there is a circle of smaller stones running at a distance of 30-70cm from the ortholiths – closest at the corners. No stones are apparent on the surface within this circle, figure 9. Outside it there is a garland of larger closely-spaced stones which, when seen in the trench section, proved to be standing on edge. Due to the limited size of the trench it was not possible to establish further either the character or the course followed by this outer stone circle. There was also a dense deposit of crushed flint around the chamber. Circles of stones such as this have also been observed within mound structures enclosing chamber tombs. Within the same mound they can occur at different distances from the chamber at different levels and clearly give the impression of markers intended to keep a check on the form of a mound during construction.

Three narrow trenches were cut during the course of the investigation in 2008. It should be noted that this article does not constitute a full presentation of this investigation and its results; only observations relevant to the present subject are referred to here. One of the narrow trenches was cut through between two kerbstones in the north side of the monument and extended to the middle of the outer face of the chamber’s west gable. At both the chamber and the kerbstones the trench was continued all the way down to the subsoil, figures 5-6. Two observations here are worthy of note:

It is not possible to demonstrate whether this is also the case with the Gunderslevholm dolmen, but together with the fact that the stones of the structure lie in direct contact with one another, this contributes to an impression that the stones around the chamber do indeed represent a cohesive structure directly associated with the chamber. It seems likely that the stones served as a support for the large side stone which apparently stands on a relatively narrow base. After all four ortholiths had been erected, some form of solid support would have been necessary during the laying on of the large capstone.

1. Between the kerbstones and the chamber, on the topsoil immediately above the subsoil, lay a c. 1m high accumulation of large stones within an earthen fill. These stones were in contact with one another and appeared to increase in size towards the base. Close to the chamber, the fill was found to contain significant quantities of crushed flint. 2. The gap between the chamber’s c. 1.5m high ortholiths – side stones and gable stones – was filled with an

98

Torben Dehn: ‘Open dolmens’ – a Matter of Decay?

Figure 5. Cross-section of the Gunderslevholm dolmen. In the area between the kerbstone and the chamber, over the topsoil into which the ortholiths of the chamber have been dug, there is a c.1 m high fill layer of stones which also contains crushed flint close to the chamber. The section runs along the edge of the kerbstone which actually stands deeper than is apparent from the drawing. Drawing: L. B. Christensen.

Figure 6. Drawing of all four sections in the trench by the chamber. The gaps between the ortholiths of the chamber are filled out with a sandstone flag set on edge, supplemented by thinner flagstones and crushed flint. The sandstone flag is visible from inside the chamber. Drawing: L. B. Christensen.

Trenches were cut through the gaps between the kerbstones in three places – two in the north side and one at the south. The trenches were located such that it would be possible to observe situations where a kerbstone stood in situ, where one had toppled inwards and where one had toppled outwards. This had several objectives, but only observations relating to the possible closure of the gaps between the c. 1.7m high kerbstones will be commented upon here.

The trench running between the chamber and the kerbstones of the north side ran between two kerbstones standing in a vertical position. The stones of the mound fill formed roughly five layers extending up to the rear of the kerbstones. In the gap itself was a mixture of smaller stones; in between this were one or two sandstone flags. Outside the gap were similar stones and flat stones of up to a thickness of about 20cm. In the outer part of the gap

99

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

part of the dry walling, whereas the kerbstone on the right toppled at a later stage, after stones from the structure behind it had fallen out. The trench ran on the southern side of the dolmen where one kerbstone stood in a vertical position and another had toppled over. At the base of the gap between them lay numerous worked sandstone flags which were of an appropriate size for this location. Several lay close together but not as an intact wall. Outside the kerbstones, in conjunction with crushed flint, lay sandstone flags and large flat stones, which had clearly collapsed outwards, figure 13. The investigations in the Gunderslevholm dolmen revealed that the ortholiths of the chamber had been erected in slight depressions in the topsoil. Over the same topsoil there is the c.1m high structure located between the chamber and the kerbstones and comprising about five layers of stone. This seems to have some form of structure within it, as some of the stones appear to have been laid in circles running around chamber. Furthermore, the stones at the base are the largest and up against the rear side of the ortholiths this stone structure is combined with a packing of crushed flint such that the lower half of the chamber is covered. In a group of kerbstones a corresponding stone structure was seen located immediately behind the kerbstones. The lower two thirds of a gap between the chamber ortholiths had been carefully sealed from the rear using sandstone flags and crushed flint in such a way that this could not have remained in place without the application of a compact supplementary packing or fill. The gaps between the kerbstones had to some extent been closed with dry walling.

Figure 7. Photograph of the packing between the gable stones and side stones of the chamber. A robust sandstone flag set on edge is supplemented with crushed flint and two thin smaller flagstones hammered in from the rear of the chamber. Photo: T. Dehn.

These constructional elements are basic and quite normal in megalith construction and show that the Gunderslevholm dolmen was fundamentally constructed in the same way as all other megalithic tombs: with a sealed dry chamber, solid packing around the chamber and apparently also dry walling between the kerbstones to hold a mound structure in place (Dehn et al. in press). The reason that it has had its present appearance for the last 200 years is down to factors to which all building works can be exposed: alteration, wear, destruction and decay.

in particular there were sandstone flags, of which several stood obliquely, and the fill contained a good portion of crushed flint. This combination of crushed flint, sandstone flags and large flat stones gives the impression that a drywalling construction had once stood here. The reason none of the flagstones lay in situ could be that the base of the easternmost kerbstone had been dislodged slightly at a very early stage and this had prompted the deterioration of the dry walling. A supporting stone which perhaps also acted as a sill stone, lay very awkwardly, tending to suggest that the latter was indeed the case, figure 10-11.

Tustrup 359c Another example of an open dolmen is one of the two round dolmens in the megalith complex in Tustrup (Jensen 2001, 362; Nielsen 2003, 142). Together with a further dolmen, a passage grave and a cult house, this monument was investigated in the 1950s by Poul Kjærum (Kjærum 1955; 1958, 17). The author undertook a restoration of the dolmen with the intention of showing, at a single location in Denmark, a dolmen which appeared as it had done in the Stone Age. The restoration work was carried out on the basis of the reconstruction outlined in P. Kjærum’s publication, figure 14. The restoration work took place in 1994 and was conducted by Svend Illum Hansen and the author. As part of the preparations, the project was

A second trench was laid between two other kerbstones at the same (north) side, one of which had partly toppled and the other had fallen completely. The latter lay deep in the ground and had probably fallen over at a relatively early stage. In front of the kerbstones were several layers of stone, in between were a number of sandstone flags and thicker flat stones. There were also flat stones in the gap between the kerbstones. A possible interpretation of the situation shown in figure 12 could be that the kerbstone on the left toppled at an early stage together with the upper

100

Torben Dehn: ‘Open dolmens’ – a Matter of Decay?

Figure 8. Partially-ruined chamber in the long dolmen at Strids Mølle. The earth-filled chamber, which is lacking a side stone, can be seen to the left, whereas the mound structure of stone can be seen to the right. Between these stones and the chamber’s gable stone a wedge-shaped packing of crushed flint is apparent. Photo: T. Dehn.

Figure 9. The chamber of the Gunderslevholm dolmen showing the stone-free area immediately around the chamber. To the right of the chamber part of the innermost circle of stones can just be perceived. Photo: T. Dehn.

101

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Figure 10. Gunderslevholm dolmen. Photo of the c. 1m high stone structure located between the chamber and the kerbstones, seen through a gap between the kerbstones. Photo: T. Dehn.

Figure 11. Gunderslevholm dolmen. At the base of two kerbstones lies a supporting stone and/or a sill stone, suggesting that the kerbstone on the left has become slightly dislodged. In the background, the stone structure between the kerbstone and the chamber can be seen lying over the topsoil layer. Photo: T. Dehn.

discussed with P. Kjærum who showed us survey data and plan drawings from his investigation. We were in agreement that the restoration should be carried out in accordance with the model presented in 1958, figure 14. A crucial element with respect to this decision was a detailed plan drawing showing all the kerbstones, on which all the flagstones of the dry walling lay in a fan-shape extending out from each gap.

stood in situ, eight had toppled over and two appeared to be missing. The dolmen was about 8m in diameter and the kerbstones about 2m in height. In this article, reference is only made to the part of the documentation (archive) relevant to the present subject, i.e. the dry-walling flagstones and the interpretation of the sections, figures 15-16. It is apparent from the documentation that dry-walling flagstones lay between and in front of some of the gaps between the kerbstones, both those still standing and those that had toppled. In some places, the dry-walling flagstones stood in situ in up to eight courses. The drywalling flagstones formed fan shapes, spilling out in front of the gaps – in some places like ‘toppled stacks of coins’. P. Kjærum considers that the extent and distribution of these flagstones demonstrates that the intervals between the kerbstones were closed with dry walling almost to the top. There are no grounds to doubt his conclusion, figure 17-18.

It recently became possible to examine the recorded archive from the 1957 investigation in detail as P. Kjærum has handed this over to Niels H. Andersen and Palle Eriksen for the purposes of publication before his death in 2010. The author has received the greatest assistance from these two colleagues and has had the opportunity to make use of these data in connection with the present article. P. Kjærum’s investigation of the Tustrup complex was thorough and well-documented, and this also applies to dolmen 359c. At the beginning of the investigation, the ortholiths of the polygonal chamber still stood in situ, but the capstone was absent apart from two fragments, one inside and the other outside the chamber. Five kerbstones

In dolmen Tustrup 359c dry-walling flagstones were found in such a way and to such an extent to suggest that they filled out the gaps between the kerbstones almost completely to

102

Torben Dehn: ‘Open dolmens’ – a Matter of Decay?

Figure 12. Gunderslevholm dolmen. Trench section where one kerbstone has toppled completely and the other only partially. In front of the façade lies an accumulation of stones which could have originated from collapsed dry walling. Photo: T. Dehn.

the top. The stratigraphy recorded during the investigation in 1957 does not provide unequivocal evidence refuting the existence of a mound fill between the chamber and the kerbstones. If it is assumed that the stones which lay outside the kerbstones together with those which still lay on the base of the dolmen comprise most of the original mound fill, it seems plausible, judging from figure 19, that material of this quantity would have covered most of the chamber’s ortholiths, figure 19. In the 1957 investigation, two transverse trenches were cut at right angles to one another. These extended all the way through the dolmen and into the layers outside the kerbstones. A subsequent interpretation of these profiles reached the conclusion that the dolmen had always been open (Nielsen 2003, p. 143). After studying the sections and the descriptions the author is, however, of the opinion that another interpretation is likely, figure 20. According to P. Kjærum’s report and associated section drawings, between the kerbstones and the ortholiths of the chamber, there were large stones lying on top of the Figure 13. Gunderslevholm dolmen. Dislodged dry walling at the base of the gap between two kerbstones, seen from the rear. To the right, the stone structure behind the kerbstones can just be perceived. Photo: T. Dehn.

103

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Figure 14. P. Kjærum’s reconstruction of the dolmen Tustrup 359c (Kjærum 1958, fig. 8). On the basis of observations during excavation, the dolmen is shown with dry walling between the kerbstones and a completely exposed capstone on the chamber.

Figure 15. The round dolmen Tustrup 359c prior to the investigation in 1957. The fallen stone in the foreground is smaller and lies differently from the others. J. Westphal has suggested that this stone is not a kerbstone, but a door slab from the chamber which has been moved to one side in modern times. Photo: P. Kjærum.

104

Torben Dehn: ‘Open dolmens’ – a Matter of Decay?

Figure 16. P. Kjærum’s ground plan from his investigation of the dolmen Tustrup 359c in 1957. The dolmen is 8m in diameter. Only the outer parts of the stone layers located outside the kerbstones are included on this plan.

these monuments, the following sequence of events is suggested:

prehistoric topsoil, i.e. the old land surface, combined with packing material extending up to both the kerbstones and the ortholiths. The stones were covered by a layer of shifting sand. Outside the kerbstones were large stones of the same character located over the above-mentioned fans of dry-walling flagstones extending out in front of the gaps. Outside the kerbstones, under the dry-walling flagstones – although unevenly distributed – were also potsherds from 29 Middle Neolithic pots. Just as was the case within the kerbstones, the large stones here were also covered by a layer of shifting sand. Directly under this sand, and over the layer of large stones, were potsherds from the Iron Age.

• in connection with or immediately after construction was completed, vessels were deposited on the ground in front of the kerbstones. P. Kjærum was of the opinion that the pots appear to have been placed on top of the dry walling (Kjærum 1958, 18). In this case, the potsherds would presumably have had a less concentrated distribution, but both locations are a possibility. • At some point in time after the offerings commenced, decay set in such that the dry-walling flags began to fall out – presumably starting at the top. • The now incomplete dry walling provided the opportunity for the mound fill to begin to erode out

On the assumption that the dolmen originally had a mound structure made up of large stones, as is commonplace in

105

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Figure 17. and 18. On P. Kjærum’s photos taken during the investigation in 1957 examples can be seen both of dry walling in situ between two standing kerbstones and of collapsed dry walling where one of the kerbstones has toppled over.

106

Torben Dehn: ‘Open dolmens’ – a Matter of Decay?

Figure 19. P. Kjærum’s photo of Tustrup 359c. In the foreground and behind the dolmen the stone heaps resulting from the excavation of half of the basal layer in the area in front of the façade can be seen.

Figure 20. P. Kjærum’s section drawings from his investigation of the dolmen Tustrup 359c in 1957. The upper one is the section running NE-SW and the lower is the section running NW-SE. The latter is displaced in two planes. The location of the sections is shown in figure 16.

107

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

through the gaps and become deposited on the terrain in front of the façade. • When this decay was well advanced, some Iron Age potsherds were deposited over the stones which had slid or eroded out. • As a consequence of the decay, and perhaps as a constituent part of it, some of the kerbstones toppled over and ended up on top of the eroded-out stones. Some of the kerbstones could have been removed at this stage and the capstone intentionally broken into pieces; some of the remaining stones in the monument shows signs of having been worked with iron tools. • The monument subsequently became covered by a layer of shifting sand.

necessary to secure the flagstones with stones and/or earth at the rear before construction can continue. Otherwise the flagstones are too unstable for it to be possible to continue building. If a packing of crushed flint is placed behind the dry walling, an associated fill or mound structure is even more necessary in order to hold the flint in place. A staged approach to the construction of the dry walling of this nature, with associated packing at the rear, has been observed in association with chambers of passage graves. It is inconceivable that dry walling would be able to stand for a longer period of time without some form of packing at its rear. In the investigation of the dolmen Tustrup 359c, the dry-walling flagstones were also found outside the kerbstone circle. If they had stood without any form of supporting mound fill, most of them would have been found between the kerbstones and behind them.

There can be various explanations for why decay of this kind sets in, just as there are various factors which influence its subsequent course: animals, people, vegetation and a combination of all three of these. A pattern of decline such as that described above with respect to the dry walling is no different from that which can be observed at many other megalithic monuments, for example by the façade of the passage grave Kong Svend’s Høj (Dehn et al. 1995, 76).

The dry walling is only one of the factors involved in the state of preservation of megalithic monuments. Restoration and investigations of megalithic monuments have shown the author that interventions and the consequent decay can be apparent in an incredible variety of ways. Interventions could have changed the state and appearance of the monument already in antiquity, as seen for example in the twin-passage grave of Ormshøj, where the capstone was removed already in the Bronze Age (Dehn et al. 2000, 154) or the Bigum passage grave, which was altered during both the Late Neolithic and the Bronze Age (Dehn et al. 2000, 235). The hunt for stones of all sizes during the past has led to passage graves virtually devoid of ortholiths or capstones or to almost intact earth-filled chambers of passage graves devoid of a mound. Chance circumstances may lead to the intact preservation of one passage grave, whereas another intact monument located only 200m away has disappeared completely after having stood as a ruin for 40-50 years (for example Jordehøj and Sognehøj (Dehn et al. 2000, 62)). Similarly, an examination of the 155 megalithic monuments considered in 1809-11 to be worthy of scheduling or protection illustrates that a once intact monumental structure can still be monumental today (Gunderslevholm), whereas all that remains of a complete passage grave may be two ortholiths (Dehn and Nielsen 1987, 86).

All the evidence suggests that dolmen Tustrup 359c had a dry-walling construction closing the gaps between the kerbstones. It is theoretically possible that the dry walling was a later addition, but this seems unlikely as the topsoil was removed before the large kerbstones were erected and the “depth to which they were dug down into the topsoil was minimal” (P. Kjærum in his report). Accordingly, an immediate support for the large stones was required – both to the sides and to the rear. The lower part of the drywalling construction, with its associated mound fill, was therefore necessary in order to replace temporary supports, for example of timber. With respect to the dry walling and the suggested interpretation of the stratigraphy, the author does not consider it likely that the dolmen in Tustrup was an open dolmen. The significance of decay for the state of megalithic graves today The dry walling is the key to the preservation of megalithic monuments – if the dry walling of chambers and kerbstones is not intact, this opens up for the possibility of accelerated decay. The mound fill then erodes out and the ortholiths or kerbstones become unstable. It could be claimed that the presence of the dry walling does not necessarily mean that there also was a mound fill structure of stone or earth, or a combination of these. Anyone who has investigated original dry walling in megalithic monuments, and restored it, has experienced the fact that it cannot be built and remain standing without some form of support from the rear. The author has restored many examples of dry walling and views this process as a form of experimental archaeology. The flagstones in optimal dry walling are wedged in from the rear with a slight fall in that direction. When a certain number of courses have been laid, it is

Alteration, demolition, wear and decay over the course of 5000 years, from prehistory to the previous century, have left their clear and obvious mark on megalithic monuments. It is therefore important that we look at the building elements that have survived and show less interest in those which may or may not have been present originally. It is therefore the author’s view that there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that the Gunderslevholm dolmen and dolmen Tustrup 359c have ever been so-called open dolmens. The extent to which this also applies to the c. 15 other examples mentioned in the literature has not been examined in this respect. It is becoming increasingly clear that Danish megalithic monuments are also multi-period structures and that, in the course of the building process,

108

Torben Dehn: ‘Open dolmens’ – a Matter of Decay?

Dehn, T., Hansen, S. and Kaul, F. 1995. Kong Svends Høj. Restaureringer og undersøgelser på Lolland 1991. Stenaldergrave i Danmark, vol. 1. Dehn, T., Hansen, S. I. and Kaul, F. 2000. Klekkendehøj og Jordehøj. Restaureringer og undersøgelser 1985-90. Stenaldergrave i Danmark, vol. 2. Dehn, T. and Nielsen, I., 1987. Kancellifredningerne. In Nielsen, I. (ed.), Bevar din arv. Danmarks fortidsminder 1937-1987, 86-92. Dehn, T., Hansen, S. I. and Westphal, J. in press. Restoration of megalithic tombs in Denmark. Eriksen, P. 1999. Poskær Stenhus. Myter og virkelighed. Moesgård Museum. Hansen, S. I. 2009. Dyssen i Gunderslevholm Skov. Årsskrift, Fuglebjergegnens Lokalhistoriske Forening – Borupris’ Venner, 5-9. Jakobsen, T. B. 2007. Birth of a World Museum. Acta Archaeologica Vol. 78:1, 2007, Acta Archaeologica Supplementa VIII. Centre of World Archaeology (CWA) – Publications 4. Oxford. Jensen, J. 2001. Danmarks Oldtid, Stenalder 13.000-2.000 f.Kr. Copenhagen. Kjærum, P., 1955. Tempelhus fra stenalder. KUML 1955, 7-35. Kjærum, P., 1958. Storstensgrave ved Tustrup. KUML 1957, 9-23. Midgley, M. S., 2008. The Megaliths of Northern Europe. London, Routledge. Molbech, Christian, 1811. Ungdomsvandringer i mit Fødeland, 332-338. Nielsen, N., 2003. Ormslev-dyssen – en dysse uden høj? KUML 2003, 125-156.

ritual events or activities took place which have left traces in the structure such as pots and burnt material. The structure itself contains architectonic elements which are not necessary for the preservation or survival of the building work, but which represent an expression of the thoughts and ideas which lay behind the monument. Translation from Danish: David Earle Robinson and Anne Bloch Jørgensen Address: Torben Dehn Specialkonsulent, mag.art. Center for Kulturarv og Arkitektur Kulturstyrelsen Danish Agency for Culture H.C. Andersens Boulevard 2 DK 1553 København V T. +45 3373 3373/ +45 3374 5218 M. +45 2173 2782 [email protected] www.kulturstyrelsen.dk Bibliography Andersen, N. H. 2000. Kult og ritualer i den ældre bondestenalder. Kuml 2000, 13-57. Andersen, N. H. and Eriksen, P. 1996. Dysser uden høje. Skalk 1996, 2, 5-9. Andersen, N. H., Eriksen, P., Kjærum, P. and Scarre, C. in press. Dysser uden høje – vor ældste arkitektur.

109

Chapter 9 The Causewayed Enclosures and Their Settlement Landscape at Sarup, Denmark Niels H. Andersen Moesgaard Museum Abstract: The introduction of the ard around 3500 cal BC was followed, until about 3200 cal BC, by a period with a very ritualised society. This period saw the construction of large enclosures and numerous megalithic monuments and the performance of many complicated activities in association with them. Building of the monuments was an enterprise which involved many people, perhaps hundreds from a large area. Together, within a short period of time, they erected the monuments, a process which would have demanded great planning and organization. Through a chain of activities they prepared a carefully chosen selection of materials: human and animal bones, ceramics, axes, grinding stones, querns and grain. These were fragmented and placed in special locations. Pollen analyses from the same time reveal a time of marked changes in the landscape. This followed an early Neolithic period, in the first part of 4th millennium BC, when it seems it was almost impossible to accept the Neolithic way of life. The extensive activities involved in building monuments, and the many complicated rituals associated with them, must have been the “happenings” necessary for acceptance of the new farming economy. Keywords: neolithisation, Sarup, enclosures, megaliths, the ard, houses, fragmentation, ceramics, axes, grain.

During the second part of the 4th millennium BC the Danish archaeological record reveals a period which must have been exceptionally ritualised. This period came just after a phase which saw the introduction of the ard as a working implement in arable fields and a Landnam phase with opening up of the landscape, indicated in pollen diagrams by traces of ribwort plantain and cereals. The ritualised period is characterised by the building of many causewayed enclosures, megalithic monuments and cult houses (the latter only in some parts of Denmark). The finds include very finely ornamented ceramics, beautiful flint axes and stone battle axes, and offerings of people, ceramics and axes took place in bogs. Many of these fine materials were subjected to fragmentation and destruction, radically changing their appearance.

The existence of causewayed enclosures has been known in Western Europe since the 1880s. These were characteristic features of various cultures from the 4th millennium, for example, Windmill Hill, Michelsberg, Wartberg, Chasséen, Peu Richardien etc. (Andersen 1997). The first enclosures from the North European Funnel Beaker culture were recognised in 1968, by way of the excavations of the Büdelsdorf site near Rendsburg (Hingst 1971), and in 1971, at the Sarup site on Funen (Figures 1 and 2) (Andersen 1997). Since then about 40 sites have been located within the northern group of the Funnel Beaker Culture and this monument type must be seen as being very important for an understanding of the culture. Excavations began in the Sarup area in 1971. At first, 6ha of a sandy promontory was investigated, producing finds representing 11 prehistoric periods, among them two causewayed enclosures, referred to here as Sarup I, from the Fuchsberg phase about 3400 cal BC, and Sarup II from the Klintebakke phase about 3250 cal BC (Andersen 1997, 27-100). After the 1984 excavations at the Sarup site had finished, investigations were continued in an area of 12km2 around the site, with the aim of studying the settlement landscape of the people who constructed the enclosures. During the course of this work, about 40 settlement sites from the same phases and about 120 destroyed megalithic tombs were located. Prior to this, the existence of only four megalithic tombs was known, two destroyed and two scheduled, i.e. protected by law. Three settlements and 32 megalithic tombs have now been examined by way of 15 excavations. A 14m sediment core was recovered from the lake, Sarup Sø, for analysis of pollen, diatoms, charcoal dust etc.. Five of these metres represent the periods of the Neolithic and have now provided a great deal of information

Already around 4000 cal BC, perhaps a couple of hundred years prior to the above, Denmark saw the appearance of the first traces of a Neolithic way of life. In the Mesolithic Ertebølle culture which, it must be remembered, had ceramics, there was a specialised way of life. It continued into the Funnel Beaker culture of the first part of the 4th millennium BC. This saw the introduction of ceramics belonging to the Funnel Beaker Culture and the first polished flint axes, but only slight indications of arable cultivation and animal husbandry (Andersen, 2008, 72; Petersen and Egeberg 2007). During the early part of the 4th millennium, the first monuments were built. These were long barrows without chambers, sometimes containing collective burials, but single graves are also found. Together with a few finds of imported axes of jadeite and copper, there are, perhaps, some signs of a burgeoning elite. However, in the middle of the millennium, the finds change radically and we see the building of new types of monuments.

111

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Figure 1. Location of the Sarup project on SW Funen, Denmark.

which will be interpreted relative to the archaeological finds (Rasmussen et al. 2002).

were recovered. Most of the pots were only represented by a single sherd, often ornamented; no whole pots were found. There were also the remains of burnt bones which had been crushed into small pieces. Only one of the pieces could be identified; a finger bone of a young adult human. It appears that the palisade lost its significance within a very short period of time, with the posts left standing, but leaning in many directions. Construction of the palisade involved the use of 1290 posts measuring 0.4 x 4m, equivalent to 334t of oak being brought to the site. In creating the trench for the palisade, 350m3, or 595t, of earth was removed.

The Sarup I enclosure The Sarup I site enclosed within its oval form almost 9ha of the sandy promontory (Figure 2). An impressive feature of this site was a 600m-long palisade trench, within which posts, 0.4m wide and at least 3m high, were erected. Numerous fenced enclosures were built on the outside of the palisade. Here, the posts were about 1.5m high. A row of fences running parallel to the northern part of the palisade and also connecting the palisade with the outer system of ditches are thought also to have been of the same height. There was one opening in the palisade, forming an entrance. In front of this was a passageway leading from the outer area into the site. There were two rows of segmented ditches outside the palisade. The whole construction must have been erected according to a well organised plan by which the area was cleared in advance of vegetation and perhaps also of top soil!

A series of fenced enclosures, closed constructions, were built onto the outer side of the palisade. We do not know their purpose, but they were also found on the other sites. Other fences were erected parallel to the northern part of the palisade and yet another connected the palisade with the outer row of ditches. About 900m of additional fences were erected on the site, involving the removal of about 120m3, or 205t, of earth. In all, 2100 posts, or about 200t of oak, were placed in the trenches. Two parallel rows of segmented ditches were located in front of the palisade. The inner row formed a zigzag course which respected the fenced enclosures; the outer row lay

Nearly all features were uncovered, but only parts of them were excavated. In all, 14% of the palisade was excavated and sherds from around 300 ceramic vessels

112

Niels H. Andersen, Moesgaard Museum: The Causewayed Enclosures

Figure 2. The Sarup I and Sarup II enclosures located on a sandy promontory between two watercourses.

like oblong beads on a string. On average the ditches were 15m long, 4m wide and had a depth varying between 0.2 and 2m. Only 20% of the ditches have been excavated, the remainders are still preserved on the sandy promontory at Sarup. The site is now protected by the heritage law.

The ditches were back-filled very soon after being cut. Subsequently, some of the ditches saw repeated re-cutting and back-filling, often occurring hundreds of years after they first were cut. Originally, 1500m3, or 2550t, of earth was dug out from the ditches. For a short period of time the earth was placed alongside the ditches, before being thrown back into them.

Only a few finds had been placed at the base of the ditches. Here, there were a few bones from human skulls, animal bones, fragments from 688 ceramic vessels, of which 62% were represented by only a single sherd. Fragments of three flint axes and of stone querns were also recovered. In some places, close to the base, there were discrete layers with charcoal from fires which had burned there.

Creation of the segmented ditches and ditches for the fences involved the removal of nearly 2000m3, or 3350t, of earth and almost 3400 posts, or 540t of oak, being brought to the site. The building of the enclosure must have required a great deal of energy and organisation. It has been calculated

113

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

that the work must at least have taken 100,000 hours, equivalent to 170 men for three months (Andersen 1988, 27).

rows of ditches, but the palisade was now replaced by rows of small stakes. Fenced enclosures were also built on the outside of the palisade, but these now enclosed the inner row of ditches. There was a close connection between the ditches and the fenced enclosures. The fenced enclosures consisted of large posts which stood 1m apart. The height of the stakes in the palisade and the posts in the fences must have been modest, perhaps about 1.5m.

The palisade enclosed an area of almost 6ha, of which about 4ha has been uncovered. Only 92 features were found here. Most of these were small, less than 30cm wide containing a few sherds or flint debris. However, 10 of them contained special materials, leading to them being termed ritual pits. Two of the pits were found to contain a flint axe and a stone axe; in the rest were ceramics. Two pits lay within half a metre of each other. One of these contained a complete, large funnel vessel, 42cm in diameter and 42cm high, in which there was another complete funnel beaker, a fragment of a finely ornamented lugged beaker, 19 sherds from four other vessels and 0.5l of carbonised emmer grain (Andersen 1997, 56-8). The other pit contained a finely ornamented lugged beaker, of which a sherd was found in the abovementioned funnel vessel. There were also sherds from five other pots and a large quantity of carbonised emmer wheat here, too. It is of interest here that there were two complete vessels, the only ones found at Sarup I, together with deliberately fragmented vessels and carbonised emmer wheat. From the settlement in the area there is often 50% emmer and 50% barley, but here there is 98% emmer. For the purposes of the activities taking place here, they must deliberately have selected this kind of wheat and carbonised it. The wheat was coming from two different fields (Westphal 2005). Abundant ceramics were found in the ritual pits. Of the 78 vessels which were found, only two were complete (as mentioned above), but it was possible to reconstruct the form of a further 23 vessels. A single sherd was the only trace found of 43 vessels (55 %). This represents the same phenomenon as seen by the palisade and at the base of the ditches, with deposition of only a single sherd from a vessel.

The inner row of ditches was almost square, measuring 4 by 4m, perhaps dictated by the enclosures, but the outer row was at least double as long as it was wide. Some of the ditches had been subject to further re-cutting and re-filling and this work must have taken place within the lay-out of the fenced enclosures. These activities must have taken place within the lifetime of the posts making up the fences. At least three times within a short period, a maximum of 20 years, the ditch was re-cut and back-filled. The ditches, and the activities which took place by and in them, must have been of great importance to the people. It must also have been important to carry out the activities specifically in the ditches, because it would have been just as easy, given the sandy soil, to excavate another large pit anywhere in the area. Just as was the case in the features associated with the Sarup I enclosure, fragmented artefacts were also found here. These deliberate activities are exemplified by a finely ornamented vessel, sherds of which were placed in three ditches and in four pits located 10m inside the palisade (Andersen 1999a, 285, Figure 6.8). The building of the site has been calculated to have taken about 18,000 hours or 30 men for three months (Andersen 1988, 42). Relative to the number of people working on the Sarup I enclosure, only a small workforce was required here.

The Sarup I enclosure would have represented a very impressive monument for the Neolithic people of the area, and a great deal of energy and organisation must have been expended in its construction (Figure 3). Hundreds of people must have participated in the building of the site. Through these activities they must have had a network which bound them close together. The activities which took place at the site seems to have been very modest and only lasted for a short period of time, perhaps for only one big happening. As a consequence of this happening, deliberately fragmented artefacts were discarded in a structural manner. Later they returned and re-cut a number of the ditches. Some of this recutting took place hundreds of years after the construction of the site.

The interior of the enclosure was uncovered in full and 144 features were located, of which 26 were categorised as ritual pits (Andersen 1999a, 284-7). Three complete vessels and a very elegant battle-axe (Figure 4) were found, and again there were many fragmented artefacts. The ritual pits were found to contain 298 vessels. Only three were complete, but for a further 55 it was possible to reconstruct their form. From the total number of vessels, 167 (56 %) were only represented by a single sherd. On the southern part of the site, two crescent-shaped trenches were found; inside the easternmost of these were four large postholes forming a square (Andersen 1997, 83 Figures 116 and117). Two of the postholes were found to contain burnt bones from a young woman, perhaps the same person. She had possibly been burnt in a defleshed state and only a very small part of her was buried here. Again there is evidence of a process by which human bones were subjected to some activities whereby the body must have been skeletonised, burnt, fragmented and placed at various different locations.

The Sarup II enclosure About 3250 cal BC, or 150 to 200 years after the construction of the first Sarup enclosure, a new enclosure was erected on the sandy promontory. This covered only 2.5ha of its southern part and has been uncovered in full (Figure 2). It resembles the first enclosure in having two

114

Niels H. Andersen, Moesgaard Museum: The Causewayed Enclosures

Figure 3. Graphic reconstruction of the entrance area at Sarup I. Drawing: Louise Hilmar, Moesgaard Museum.

Figure 4. Battle axe found in a ritual pit within the enclosed area of Sarup II. Photo: Moesgaard Museum.

115

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

The enclosure at Sarup Gamle Skole

from the Neolithic (Figure 5). By way of 16 excavations, 32 megalithic features and three settlements have been uncovered and there are now a further 161,000 artefacts in the database!

Another enclosure with ditches has been located at Sarup Gamle Skole, half a kilometre south of Sarup. Only five ditches have been uncovered and at the base of one was an unusually small dolmen chamber. Its external dimensions were 1.09 x 0.68m. On the western side of the chamber, 134 sherds had been placed, representing a third of a funnel beaker. All the sherds have a size of about 3 x 4cm and must have been deliberately broken into pieces in situ and placed by the miniature dolmen at the base of the ditch, in a structural deposition (Andersen 2009, 32 Figures 9 and10).

Megalithic features The many new finds of destroyed megalithic tombs show us that the original number of these monuments in Denmark must have been very great. In Denmark today there are about 2400 megalithic tombs – 1800 dolmens and 600 passage graves - under the protection of the Heritage Law, but the original number could have been about 30,000.

All three enclosures in the Sarup area show evidence of special activities involving the building of great monuments of earth and wood, carrying out activities in and by them, comprising the fragmentation, burning and curious placement of artefacts and bones, abandoning the sites very quickly, returning to parts of the them and often re-using part of the ditches hundred of years after they originally were cut. The sites, especially Sarup I, must have been constructed by a network comprising hundreds of people from a great area around the site.

The survey work has revealed megalithic tombs located in clusters. Four of these clusters have so far been investigated by excavation and there appears to be a pattern comprised of different types of monuments. The sequence begins with a long barrow, with or without a dolmen chamber, then one or more single dolmens, then a dolmen with a small passage and, finally, a passage grave. The monuments may be surrounded by a kerb of rectangular or circular form. From these clusters of megaliths it appears as if people returned to same site at intervals of about a generation in order to build a new monument. The enclosures also revealed evidence of repeated return and re-use and the carrying out of new activities. Perhaps the population had to confirm their collective memory or network by way of these meetings and building activities.

The settlement landscape around the Sarup enclosures In order to obtain a better understanding of these strange enclosures we can and must excavate many more of them; this will cost a lot of money and hard work. After the excavation of the Sarup site it was decided not to excavate another site and recover a further quarter of a million artefacts, but I thought it would be useful to look at the settlement landscape around the site. The excavation and analysis of the material recovered from the Sarup site has indicated the existence of a great network of people participating in its construction and use. It could be of interest if this large number of people had also left behind numerous settlements and megalithic tombs.

Within an area of 170 x 80m at Damsbo Mark, about 2.5km southeast of Sarup, nine megalithic features were excavated between 2002 and 2007 (Figure 6). All of them were destroyed and had been under cultivation for more than 200 years. Two clusters of monuments were found. Under three of the monuments were the remains of two-aisled Neolithic houses, erected during the Fuchsberg period, contemporary with the Sarup I enclosure. The houses were burnt and within and by them we only found a small collection of finds, for the most part ceramics. All the house sites had been ploughed over with an ard before megalithic tombs had been built on top of them. Two houses were covered by long barrows with dolmen chambers (Andersen 2009, 33-5); the third by a passage grave. It was difficult to find these houses because the fill of the postholes was only very slightly darker than the surrounding soil. The postholes were located by their content of small pieces of carbonised wood and by their ability to retain moisture. Perhaps some constructions under barrows had previously gone undetected, because it takes time to locate them and often the postholes have to be looked for under a variety of conditions.

Within an area of 3 by 4km around the Sarup site there was prior knowledge of the existence of only four megalithic monuments; two protected by the heritage law and two others which had been destroyed by agricultural activities. There were also records of a few flint axes. In 1984, a three-man team began a detailed survey of the area. Visits were made to see the private collections of amateur archaeologists and most of the farmers who also had collections, Old maps from about 1800 AD were digitalized and aerial photographs were examined, including some taken specifically by the team. In 2000, funding was granted from the Danish Foundation for the Human Sciences to enable a sediment core to be taken from the lake, Sarup Sø, for the purposes of pollen and other microfossil analysis. Here, 5m of sediments were obtained corresponding to the Neolithic (Rasmussen et al. 2002). Hundreds of sites have now been recorded from the area, but of special interest are about 110 megalithic features, all on land currently under cultivation. There are 88 settlements from the Funnel Beaker Culture and numerous stray finds

Human bones and artefacts were found in most of the megalithic chambers. However, these finds can, for the most part, be dated to a later part of the Neolithic, often about a millennium later than the building of the tombs. A possible original deposition of human bones has been found in the Sarup area, in the passage grave at Sarup Gamle Skole II

116

Niels H. Andersen, Moesgaard Museum: The Causewayed Enclosures

Figure 5. The project area around Sarup with the location of megalithic monuments (circles) and settlements (black spots). Important places mentioned in text are also shown.

represents a clear shift from the complete inhumations of the first part of the Neolithic, prior to the building of megalithic tombs, from the period with un-chambered long barrows. It seems that human bones were brought to the dolmens in a de-fleshed state or were manipulated in the chambers (Andersen 1997, 343, note 290). With the exception of the find from Sarup Gamle Skole II, which contained a few bones from a young woman, we have yet to find an original deposition of human bones in a passage grave. The great mass of human bones in passage grave chambers must be dated to later periods and cannot help us in an interpretation of the original use of chambers.

where there were two floor layers. The second of these must be dated to about 3100 cal BC, but 10cm below it was another floor where there were a few human bones from the right upper jaw of a young person – probably female, a flint knife and a transverse arrowhead (Andersen 1997, 97). Of interest, in this respect, is a contemporary find from the inner area of the Sarup II enclosure, where the cremated bones of a young woman were also found. If not the same person, then these two may well have known each other! Both have undergone the same system of fragmentation or manipulation. It is very seldom to find human bones in megalithic graves which could be from the original use of the grave. We cannot even be sure these monuments were originally used as graves, or even as depositories for selected human bones. Human bones have been located in about ten dolmens, and it appears as if the bones have been manipulated. This

From the periods during which megalithic graves were erected and enclosures were built, we until now only found material arising from the manipulation and fragmentation of human bones. The breaking up of the bones could have had the purpose of removing their personality. The placing

117

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Figure 6. Megalithic monuments on the site at Damsbo Mark: long dolmen (A6, A2 and A121), single dolmen (A5, A38, A3 and A 32) and passage grave (A4 and A1). The remains of three two-aisled houses were found covered by three megalithic structures (A2, A1 and A121).

118

Niels H. Andersen, Moesgaard Museum: The Causewayed Enclosures

of fragments of bones in different locations could have enlisted the “lost” person in a greater homogenous group. These actions could have maintained the society in a more uniform state and would have preserved it without any formal leadership (Kuijt 1996).

similar sites have been excavated in Scania (Larsson 1989). These sites must represent places with a special purpose, including fragmentation of axes by exposing them to high temperatures. Summary

Besides the fragmentation of human bones, other materials were also found broken up. Both in association with megalithic tombs, and at the Sarup enclosures, it is very rare to find intact pots; often they have been deliberately broken into small pieces. And often only single fragments were placed by the tombs, by the palisade, in the ditches and in some pits. The same was found to be the case for flint axes, grain, querns, grinding stones and some animal bones. Such great quantities of deliberately fragmented materials have been found that it is of particular interest to know why some pots were deposited in a complete state?

The introduction of the ard around 3500 cal BC was, until about 3200 cal BC, followed by a period with a very ritualised society. The latter seems to have provided the tools that made it possible to accept the Neolithic way of life. From about 4000 cal BC, and during the subsequent 500 years, there are only slight indications of a Neolithic lifestyle in a world still dominated by the ways of the Mesolithic. There were, however, new types of ceramics (the funnel beaker), polished flint axes and the first monumental tombs – the unchambered long barrows. The use of an ard must require an open area without many trees and big stones. These must have demanded great efforts and led, I believe, to a greater consciousness of the value of arable fields. Many people would have contributed to the clearing of the fields and there must have been a period of rigorous planning and solid collaboration. This period could, potentially, have been a time of great conflict which would have hindered acceptance of the Neolithic way of life. Instead, there was a period of about two hundred years which was dominated by a very ritualised life. This was the time of the building of great enclosures of the type seen at Sarup I and II and, in Denmark, it saw the construction of perhaps 30,000 megalithic monuments. Construction of the enclosures would have required the combined efforts of hundreds of people working together. For example, at Sarup I, the palisades and fences entailed the shaping and transportation of 3400 posts and the removal of 470m3 of soil. Digging of the segmented ditches involved the moving of a further 1500m3 of sandy soil. It even seems that the area was cleared in advance of top soil, in which case at least another 750m3 had to be carried away. Both enclosures at Sarup were constructed within a very short period of time and special materials were treated there in processes which often included burning and fragmentation. Most of the activities took place in front of the palisade – at Sarup I - and in the ditches. After a short while, perhaps after only one single large gathering, the sites were abandoned and left to decay. Perhaps the aim of these activities was not the actual physical result, in the form of the building, but the fact that hundreds of people from many settlements over a large area worked together and built up a very strong network, providing the conditions for calm acceptance of the Neolithic way of life. After the first building and decay of the enclosures, their ditches were revisited on several further occasions, sometimes hundreds of years after their construction – the Neolithic people must have had a very strong memory of the sites, a memory of the purpose behind them and herby perhaps confirming the network for hundred of years.

Settlements About 43 settlements have been located from the same periods as the building of enclosures and megalithic tombs within the Sarup area of 12km2. All are modest in area, about 50 by 100m. Most of the settlements are sited in association with the wetlands areas at Hårby Å, always on small promontories or slight elevations. However, a few were found on higher ground but were, even so, within 200m of a watercourse. So far, only small excavations have been carried out at two of the sites. Here, there were varied assemblages of ceramics, flint, animal bones and charred grains of emmer wheat and barley (Andersen 2009, 42-3). At the site at Damsbo Mark, where nine megalithic tombs were uncovered and excavated, the remains of three houses were found. These subsequently became covered by the megalithic tombs; two long barrows with a dolmen and a passage grave and the long barrows were placed directly on the longitudinal axes of the houses. The houses were two-aisled and between 11.4 and 18.1m in length and 4.5 to 5.7m in width, i.e. they covered an area of at least 53m2 (Andersen 2009, 41-2). Only a limited number of finds were recovered from the areas of the houses and perhaps activities took place here which did not leave behind many artefacts. Maybe activities involved in the production of artefacts took place some distance away from the houses; perhaps there where raw materials such as flint, clay for ceramics, wood for carving etc. were to be found (Andersen 2009, 43). During this period, a settlement was maybe more an area rather than a single delimited site. This subject has to be looked at more closely. On an 80 x 60m dry islet in the wetland area, field walking revealed special finds comprising 152 fragments of thin-butted flint axes, chisels and halberds, of which 134 were fire-shattered. A large quantity of fine pottery from the Troldebjerg phase was also recovered. The site has been destroyed by ploughing and small excavations have so far yielded no information about structures. The material from this site is very distinctive, especially the large quantity of fragmented and fire-shattered axes. A few

Contemporary with the construction of the enclosures, many megalithic monuments were built. In the Sarup area,

119

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Bibliography

these megalithic structures are often found in clusters. In those which have been uncovered and investigated, a development is apparent from simple types of monuments to more elaborate types: passage graves. Here it seems that people returned every generation to build a new monument. Material arising from an original burial of a complete corpse in a megalithic monuments is yet to be found, but numerous later burials have been located, often taking place as much as a thousand years after the construction of the megalithic tombs. In this first period, the time when the megalithic tombs and enclosures were constructed, it looks as if the corpses were treated in a special way by fragmentation, burning and placement in different locations, such as in ditches, by the palisades, in pits and, perhaps, in megalithic monuments. At the same time, evidence is seen of the special treatment of other materials, such as the ceramics, in front of the megalithic features and by the enclosures.

Andersen, N. H. 1988. Sarup. Befæstede kultpladser fra bondestenalderen. Århus. Andersen, N. H. 1997. The Sarup Enclosures. The Funnel Beaker culture of the Sarup site including two causewayed camps compared to the contemporary settlements in the area and other European enclosures. Jutland Archaeological Publications XXXIII: 1. Århus. Andersen, N. H. 1999. Sarup vol. 2 og 3, Saruppladsen. Jutland Archaeological Publications XXXIII: 2 and 3. Århus. Andersen, S.H. 2008. The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Western Denmark seen from a kitchen midden perspective: a survey. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 40, 67-74. Leiden. Hingst, H. 1971. Eine befestigte jungsteinzeitliche Siedlung in Büdelsdorf, Kr. Rendsburg-Eckernförde. Offa 28, 903. Neumünster. Kuijt, I. 1996. Negotiating Equality through Ritual: A Consideration of Late Natufian and Prepottery Neolithic A Period Mortuary Practices. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15 (4), 313-36. Larsson, L. 1989. Brandopfer. Der frühneolithischen Fundplatz Svartskylle im südlichen Schonen, Schweden. Acta Archaeologica 59, 143-53. København. Petersen, E. B. and Egeberg T. 2007. Between Dragsholm I and II. Bericht der RGK 88, 557-77. Mainz. Rasmussen, P., Bradshaw, E. and Andersen, N. H. 2002. Et nyt forskningsprojekt og et overraskende fund af laminerede søsedimenter. Geologi - Nyt fra GEUS 2 (August 2002), 2-6. København. Westphal, J. 2005. Organisering af Tragtbægerkulturens landskab i det danske område mellem 3500 og 2900 f.Kr., belyst ud fra arkæobotaniske data fra samlingspladser, beboelsespladser og megalitgrave. Unpublished thesis at University of Aarhus.

After a further two to three hundred years, by 3100 cal BC, everything changed. There now came a calmer period with no construction of enclosures and megalithic features, but with much re-use of the existing monuments. The ceramics are less richly ornamented which means they perhaps did not have to communicate such a strong message with their designs. The many activities involving the fragmentation of the material also seem to have ceased. Data from pollen analysis give the impression of a stable period in the landscape; perhaps there was now a period of greater harmony with nature. In the Sarup area at this time there is evidence for everyone living in one large settlement, on the Sarup site itself (Andersen 1997, 101-18). The settlement covered an area of 4ha, in contrast to the “ritualised” period when people lived in many small settlements. The many building activities and rituals which took place in the period between 3500 and 3200 cal BC must have been the medium by which people at last managed to accept a Neolithic way of life, a way of life which then continued, with only minor changes, until the middle of the 19th century AD. Address: Niels H. Andersen overinspektør, professor adj, dr.phil. Moesgård Museum DK-8270 Højbjerg Denmark [email protected] telf. +45 89424513 (mobil +45 28992127)

120

Chapter 10 Döserygg and the Skegrie Dolmens New Light on the Megalithic Graves in South-west Scania, Southern Sweden Magnus Andersson and Björn Wallebom Abstract: Two impressive megalithic complexes, dated to the Early and Middle Neolithic periods, have been discovered on the archaeological sites of Döserygg and Skegrie in south-western Scania. At least 20 megalithic monuments (dolmens) have been found at Döserygg as well as a palisade and other complex structures. The site has yielded a rich find of material consisting of grave goods, ritual deposits and votive offerings. A few kilometres south of Döserygg, a dolmen not far from the still standing Skegriedösen (Skegrie dolmen) was also discovered. These sites contribute to an entirely new understanding of the way society was organized during that era. This article gives a brief presentation of the two sites and their contexts. The analysis of the material from the excavations is still in its infancy. Several years of analysis remains and more detailed studies will be presented further on. Keywords: Neolithic, Döserygg, Skegrie, Megalithic monuments, Dolmen, Palisade.

Monuments of stone Megalithic tombs were erected in southern Sweden at the start of the Neolithic, between 5600 and 5300 years ago (e.g. Tilley 1999, 3). They were built of large, unworked stone slabs, and they are usually divided into dolmens and passage graves. A dolmen consists of several slabs making up a burial chamber. The chamber is enclosed in a rectangular or round mound of earth and stone – long dolmens and round dolmens respectively – edged by lying or standing stones. The passage grave is a development of the dolmen with the addition of a covered passage leading into the burial chamber. Dolmens are chiefly assumed to have been tombs for a single person, but they may sometimes have been used for several burials. Passage graves, on the other hand, were always intended for several people, perhaps the inhabitants of a farm or a kin group. Megalithic graves in Söderslätt, south-west Scania In Scania, in southern Sweden, megalithic graves can be found above all in the coastal regions, where they occur in a number of concentrations (e.g. Strömberg 1980; Burenhult 1999, 288 ff.; Tilley 1999, 4; Andersson 2004). These coincide with areas of settlement density and sacrificial sites from the same time (Karsten 1994) and probably correspond to the settlement regions at the start of the Neolithic. A concentration of megalithic graves can be found in south-west Scania. Dolmens are particularly numerous in this part. Of the roughly 45 surviving dolmens in Scania, almost half are in the south-west plains also known as Söderslätt (Sköld 1968, 33). Moreover, studies of the degree of preservation of megalithic tombs, partly Figure 1. South-west Scania, with Döserygg and Skegrie marked.

121

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

through analyses of old field-names and maps, show that there used to be even more. It is calculated that just two or three hundred years ago there were nearly a 150 megalithic tombs in south-west Scania (Larsson 2007; Sandén 1995). Despite this density of megaliths, not one of them has been excavated in modern times.

In the dolmens we unearthed a great many interesting finds (Figure 3). The most common finds were flint objects, chiefly axes, scrapers, and blades. A considerable proportion of the flint objects displayed damage that suggested deliberate destruction. Moreover, a large share of them were burnt. We also found a lot of pottery of varying type and quality. Most of the finds occurred around the burial chambers and beside the kerbstones. No traces of human remains were found, however, which can be easily explained by the generally poor preservation conditions for organic material on the site.

Now, however, when the National Road Administration is planning to rebuild the very busy E6 highway between Vellinge and Trelleborg in south-west Scania to motorway standard, we archaeologists have an opportunity to gain new insight into this megalith-rich setting. In 2006–2008 The Swedish National Heritage Board, Southern Excavations Department conducted excavations along the planned course of the road. At two sites, Döserygg and Skegrie, there were significant remains from the Neolithic, including traces of a large number of megalithic tombs (Figure 1).

Altogether, the finds and radiocarbon dates (figure 13) indicate activities above all connected to the construction of the dolmens on the site at the start of the Neolithic, and also show that the burial monuments were highly significant later in the Neolithic.

Döserygg

The way through the dolmen landscape

Under the soil, a dolmen landscape

Apart from all the dolmens, perhaps the most spectacular find was two parallel trenches filled with stones, running in a north-south direction the whole length of the excavated area (Figure 4). As we gradually exposed them by machine, their course became increasingly clear. The width between the trenches varied between 3 and 8m. We were able to follow them for almost 640m and could see where they disappeared outside the excavated area in both directions, without revealing either a start or a finish.

The most striking thing we found was at the small village of Södra Håslöv. In the preliminary studies preceding the excavation a map from 1770 was found to show a dark, oblong patch with four dots in the middle, drawn in the middle of a field. The place was called “Döserygg” on the map. It seems obvious that this indicates a ploughed-out megalithic tomb, and the name meaning “Dolmen Ridge” suggests a dolmen. Yet even if there is nothing left above ground, we know that there are almost always traces surviving under ground.

The excavation showed that there had been closely spaced posts and standing stones at places in the trenches. The posts had been buried to depths varying between 0.3 and 0.8m and were stabilized with large amounts of stone (Figure 5). The diameter of the posts varied between 0.15 and 0.25m. The variation in the depth of the trenches and the thickness of the posts may mean that the palisade varied in height and thickness at different stages of its length, although the effects of ploughing may have affected the degree of preservation to some extent. An estimate of the number of posts required to build the palisade can be based on a section of 3–5 posts per metre, which gives roughly 5000 posts for the length of the trenches within the excavated area alone.

We thus expected to find traces of a dolmen. This is how they occur today, above all in Scania: separately, scattered like solitary islands in the arable landscape. But the mark on the map revealed not just one dolmen but a whole dolmen landscape. Under the topsoil cover was the remains of no less than 20 dolmens. The dolmens had suffered varying degrees of damage but were still surprisingly well preserved. Virtually all the wall slabs and roof slabs in the chambers were missing, as were the kerbstones. The majority of the dolmens were nevertheless surrounded by a rim of small stones places in a rectangular form around the tomb (Figure 2). Most of these were completely intact, clearly revealing where the dolmens had once stood. Gaps in the rims and dark impressions in the earth showed where the kerbstones had been placed. In most of the dolmens there were also remains of the mound that had originally covered the burial chamber. The chambers themselves were indicated by impressions of the wall slabs. In one of the larger long dolmens the impressions revealed a structure that had been divided into two burial chambers. Dolmens with more than one chamber are unusual in Sweden. Only one was known previously. It too has two chambers and is located in Söderslätt, in Skegrie Parish.

Cutting though the trenches there were also three distinct openings which we interpret as entrances (or exits), that is to say, breaks in the otherwise fairly regular and continuous line of posts in trenches. Two of the openings had a width of about 2m and were marked in both cases with retracted posts or standing stones and other adjacent structural devices. The openings appear to have been monumental in character and placed in strategic locations. The third opening had a width of about 1m and only broke the eastern palisade trench. In the trenches we found copious flakes from axe manufacture, axe fragments, scrapers, and a lot of burnt flint. In addition we found several broken whetstones for sharpening axes. The finds and the datings (figure 13) suggest that they are contemporary with the dolmens. The

122

Magnus Andersson and Björn Wallebom: Döserygg and the Skegrie Dolmens

Figure 2. Ground plan of one of the dolmens at Döserygg. Illustration: Henrik Pihl.

trenches with the closely spaced posts probably belong to the first phase of construction at Döserygg and were perhaps also the first manifestation on the site together with the first dolmens. Between the trenches there were only a few features along the entire course: some foundations for standing stones, occasional stone packings and a few hearths. As regards the latter, it should be noted that they all contained large amounts of burnt flint pieces, a feature often associated with ritual activities (e.g. Larsson 2000).

a floor, which was an integral part of the palisade. Gaps along the edges of the stone packing revealed places where there were probably originally standing or laying stones. A larger area without stones in the middle of the feature may have been the site of a larger block. The stone packing forms an open but nevertheless defined space in the palisade. However, the function of the structure is not known. It is perfectly obvious that the dolmens and the trenches were constructed in relation to each other. The dolmens were clearly oriented along and on either side of the trenches (Figure. 6 and 7). The trenches are thus not a

Moreover, also worth mentioning, in the central part of the excavated area, where the palisade curved slightly over a small rise, there was a hard-packed area of stone, resembling

123

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

limit in the sense of an enclosure. Based on this, our initial interpretation was that the structure could be part of a palisade-lined road that passes through the burial area (Andersson and Nilsson 2009; Andersson and Wallebom 2011a). Perhaps a processional road or a way to distinguish the living passers-by from the dead in the graves. The link between more or less magnificent graves, often from several different periods, and particularly important pieces of road is well substantiated today in archaeology (cf. e.g. Rudebeck 2002). The palisade follow the course of the old highway between Trelleborg and Malmö that goes back at least to the seventeenth century. It is striking that there are several dolmens right beside this highway. The highway is possibly an ancient transport route linking the megalithic tombs in the area. According to our initial idea, the palisade at Döserygg, in this perspective, could be a part of this route which was given this monumental design where it passed the tombs. It is worth noting, moreover, that the site is at the location of a fork in the road. Junctions and crossroads have been natural meeting places and have often been symbolically charged sites (cf. Rudebeck 2002). However, after the two seasons of contract archaeology in 2007 and 2008, two smaller complementary research excavations have been conducted in the vicinity to the Döserygg site. The site was excavated during two days in the late summer of 2009 (Andersson and Wallebom 2011b) and for a period of five days in the autumn of 2011 (Andersson and Wallebom in press). The aim of the excavations were primarily to investigate the direction of the two palisade trenches to the south, outside the already excavated area, on the other side of the old motorway. In this respect, the excavation in 2009 was not successful, although the remains of yet another dolmen were discovered. In 2011 we finally rediscovered the palisade

Figure 3. Examples of finds from one of the dolmens: thinbladed axe, scraper, two flake axes (the small one is made from a fragmented polished flint axe) and pottery. Photo: Staffan Hyll.

Figure 4. The palisade viewed from the north after the removal of the topsoil. Photo: Conleth Hanlon

124

Magnus Andersson and Björn Wallebom: Döserygg and the Skegrie Dolmens

made use of at many enclosed structures in the European Neolithic in the second half of the 5th millennium and throughout the 4th millennium BC (cf. Andersen 1997, 284 ff.). However, in most parts the ditches within the excavated area at Döserygg, showed few similarities with the character of system-ditches as seen at Sarup and other enclosed sites. The ditches proved to have very few finds, almost none, but they did contain foundations for and impressions left by large stones which had been raised upright along the palisade. The impressions were of exactly the same character, with packing stones and homogenous filling, as the impressions of the kerbstones and chamberstones in the dolmens. The impressions of stones in the ditches tended to be distributed in groups of two and four, but they also occurred in continuous longer series of seven to ten. The size varied from 0.5m up to over 1m in diameter. The number amounted to at least 300 within the excavated area alone. The phenomenon of standing stones in long rows like this was not previously known in Scandinavia. The closest parallels can be found in the British Isles and in France, with sites like Avebury (e.g. Smith 1965; Harding 2003; Gillings et al. 2008) and Carnac (e.g. Burl 1993; Roughley et al. 2002). Foundations for and impressions left by standing stones are now known not just along the palisade but at several places in the excavated area (Figure 7). They were found both as solitaries and in groups, for instance at and around the burial monuments. In some places the fallen stones were even lying where they once stood. Perhaps they served as dividers or boundary markers between the dolmens, as some kind of plot borders for the graves of different farms or families (Figure 8).

Figure 5. Part of the western trench after excavation. In the trench there are clear impressions of posts which were stabilized with large amounts of stone. Photo: Björn Wallebom.

A boundary between land and water

trenches and were also able to follow them for another 95 meters in an eastward direction. However, we did not have the opportunity to continue the excavation at this time. Although it is still open for discussion whether the palisade trenches will turn to the south (as it turn to the north in the northern part of the excavation area, see fig. 7), in a course to other megaliths situated in the southern region, the most reasonable interpretation is that it cross the ridge and in fact form an unusual type of early Neolithic enclosure, similar to those unearthed for example in Sarup, Denmark (cf. e.g. Andersen 1997; 1999a; 1999b). To find out the answer, the intent is now to continue the research in autumn of 2012, and follow the palisade trenches both to the south and north of the site.

Döserygg is located on a former ridge that once had wetlands on either side . Today we cannot see any traces of the wetland since it has been drained. On the former shoreline we found several interesting things. These included a long, narrow stone packing of varying density, well-laid in places in recurrent square formations, constituting a boundary between land and water. The stone packing seemed to be adjusted to the topography, and it is possible that it continued all along the headland. We were able to follow it everywhere the former wetland was included in the excavated area, corresponding to a stretch of almost 500m. Beside the stone packing there were some places with small stone foundations sticking out into the former wetland. It is possible that there were jetties here.

Stones in lines and other stone structures

Wet and dry deposits

Clearly oriented along the palisade there were also several rectangular and continuous ditch-like dark features which followed the palisade along the whole edge of the western palisade trench. Looking at the plan of the site, these ditches are very similar to the so called system-ditches. These were

In the wetland we discovered several finds that can be dated to the Neolithic. They were above all objects of flint, including several flint axes and large numbers of scrapers, some of which had been subjected to destruction or had

125

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Figure 6. Part of the excavated area viewed from the west. In the foreground and beside the palisade, two dolmens are being excavated. The palisade trenches can be discerned between them. Photo: Conleth Hanlon.

been burnt to pieces. In the central part of the excavated area, where one of the dolmens was adjacent to the edge of the wetland, we found, right beside the dolmen, out in the wetland, a deposit of two pots containing burnt animal bones. The pottery is of early Funnel Beaker type with simple impressions under the rim and bulges, and it can be dated to the start of the Neolithic. Beside the pot there were numerous flint objects, including several concentrations of scrapers. We interpret the finds from the wetland as deliberate depositions or sacrifices.

Ritual destruction of objects is a phenomenon that is attested with varying frequency throughout the Stone Age (Karsten 1994). Above all, fire seems to have been important, perhaps because of its transforming role and its symbolic significance in both sacred and profane contexts. The burning of flint gives an immediate audiovisual experience. During the burning the flint undergoes a series of changes. For example, it breaks with a dull crack while simultaneously changing colour to white (cf. Nilsson and Hanlon 2006, 172). There is a striking similarity to the cremation of a human body (cf. Larsson 2000, 101), so one can understand why the burning of flint could have been part of some kind of passage rite (van Gennep 1960).

It was not just in the wetland that we were able to detect different kinds of sacrificial acts. These also took place on dry land. In a couple of pits beside the openings in the palisade we found deposits of pots together with large quantities of flint flakes and parts of axes. In a pit just beside one of the dolmens we found almost forty deposited flint scrapers in a dense concentration. Several of the scrapers were stacked on each other as if they had originally been in a basket or a leather pouch when they were deposited in the pit. The same pit also contained large quantities of flakes and fragments of polished flint axes and some pottery.

The Skegrie dolmens A few kilometres south of Döserygg stands the well-known Skegrie dolmen. This is one of the best-preserved in Scania today, an excellent example of a long dolmen (Figure 9). The dolmen is not directly affected by the motorway plans, but an area about 50m to the west of it is affected, which gave us the opportunity to investigate it. The excavation showed that the Skegrie monument was not the only dolmen on the site (Figure 10). A few dozen metres northwest of the surviving dolmen, a little way down a gentle slope towards a former wetland, traces of yet another

Just as in the wetland, there were several places close to the dolmens with concentrations of deliberately broken or burnt flint objects, above all fragments of axes and chisels.

126

Magnus Andersson and Björn Wallebom: Döserygg and the Skegrie Dolmens

Figure 7. Schematic plan of the excavated area, marking the dolmens, the palisade, and other features. Illustration: Henrik Pihl.

dolmen were discovered. Although the dolmen was largely destroyed, it was possible to discern several interesting details. The burial chamber had been constructed of three wall slabs. These had stood in such a way as to form a rectangular chamber. Inside the chamber was a paved floor of just over a square metre. Towards the south-east, as an entrance and threshold to the burial chamber, there were four flat stones. Leading into the chamber was a narrow, well-laid path of crushed flint and pebbles. Unfortunately, no skeletal remains were found in the chamber, but we may assume that the limited space in the chamber was intended for just one person, who was probably placed in seated position with his or her back towards one of the wall slabs. The chamber was surrounded by a stone packing and a stone rim in which several impressions and foundations of kerbstones were found. It seems as if in the first phase this was a round dolmen which may have been expanded into a long dolmen (Figure 11). The finds in the dolmen were

sparse, consisting above all of flint flakes and pottery, a sea urchin, and a flint axe. Apart from the dolmen, foundations for single and double standing stones were uncovered in places. These may also very well have belonged to megalithic structures. A little way south of the dolmen were two foundation ditches similar to those along the palisade at Döserygg. In this connection it may also be worth mentioning the western kerb of the existing dolmen. This is distinguished by four large blocks of stone, partly separated from the other stones in the kerb. The similarities to the foundation ditches at Döserygg as regards the dimensions and the number of the stones is striking. It may also be worth noting the direction of the kerbstones, which corresponds in many ways to that of the two foundation ditches in the excavated area. It cannot be ruled out that they belonged to a continuous megalithic structure similar to the one along the palisade at Döserygg. 127

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Figure 8. Perhaps this was what Döserygg looked like one day 5500 years ago. Illustration: Staffan Hyll.

Figure 9. The Skegrie dolmen viewed from the north-west. Today it stands in solitary majesty, but it used to have the company of at least one other dolmen. Photo: Thomas Hansson.

128

Magnus Andersson and Björn Wallebom: Döserygg and the Skegrie Dolmens

Figure 10. From the Skegrie dolmen it was just a very short distance to the newly discovered dolmen. Photo: Cecilia Cronberg.

Figure 11. Schematic ground plan of the first phase of the newly discovered round dolmen. Illustration: Thomas Hansson.

Paved floor

Threshold Path of crushed flint and pebbles

3m

Stone Stone impression Impression of chamber stone

129

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

The Neolithic remains at Skegrie also include a number of pits (Figure 12) in which objects were placed, interpreted as ritual depositions or sacrifices. Many of the pits contained large quantities of finds. For example, a single pit measuring about one metre in diameter and with a depth of 0.3m had over seven kilos of knapped flint, copious potsherds, and a small amount of burnt bones. To sum up, we may note that the excavation at Skegrie, just like the one at Döserygg, shows that the dolmens were not solitaries. Several occur together, moreover in complex settings and with other types of structures. The two sites differ in size, of course, and also partly in the nature of the activities. At Döserygg, for example, there were many ritual deposits in the wetland. At Skegrie we could not find any such deposits; instead they were on the top of the plateau. It should be added that only limited areas were excavated, as dictated by the extent of the development for the motorway. Perhaps future research efforts outside this limited area will increase and qualify our knowledge. In addition, the excavations at Skegrie corroborate the assumption that there were further groups of megalithic tombs along the course of the old road. Among Iron Age farmers Judging by the archaeological remains, Döserygg and Skegrie were actively used for just over a 1000 years in the Neolithic. There is a great deal to suggest that the sites then lost their significance as ritual centres, but that they continued to be respected and were left undisturbed for several subsequent millennia. At Döserygg there is no trace of any later activities to speak of, no settlement site remains, no graves or other clear ritual remains of later periods. It is not until the Late Iron Age (c. 500–1000 AD) that we see the first signs of settlement, with a small sunken-floor hut on the eastern edge of the excavated area. The situation seems to be similar at Skegrie. It was not until the Iron Age that the site was claimed for settlement. Here, however, the traces of settlement are more noticeable and more intensive. The people appear to have lived in the midst of the Neolithic monuments. It seems as if Iron Age people respected the monuments to a large extent and adapted the location of their houses to suit them. In one case a standing stone had even been incorporated as part of the wall in a sunken-floor hut (Söderberg in press). Figure 12. Schematic plan of the excavated area at Skegrie, showing the relationship between the existing dolmen and the newly discovered dolmen and other features. Illustration: Kenneth Stark.

Moreover, there are signs suggesting that Iron Age people deposited objects at the dolmens, perhaps as some kind of votive act. A cutting of an Arabian coin and a gilded pendant close to the chamber of the newly discovered dolmen could be examples of this. It is not particularly rare to find objects and traces of later activities when excavating megalithic tombs. A case in point is the Trollasten dolmen in south-east Scania. The excavation of the burial chamber uncovered large quantities of Viking Age pottery and some other artefacts from the Viking Age (Strömberg 1968).

130

Magnus Andersson and Björn Wallebom: Döserygg and the Skegrie Dolmens

Lab. No.

Context

Dated Material

Date BP

Ua-28702

Dolmen 1

Charcoal

4305+50

Ua-28698

Dolmen 2

Charcoal

4205+45

Ua-28697

Dolmen 5

Charcoal

4840+45

Ua-29127

Dolmen 9

Charcoal

4101+36

Ua-29122

Dolmen 10

Charcoal

4153+38

Ua-29126

Dolmen 12

Charcoal

1312+34

Ua-29121

Dolmen 13

Charcoal

4953+52

Ua-28695

Palisaded road

Charcoal

5080+50

Ua-28699

Palisaded road

Charcoal

4585+40

Ua-28701

Palisaded road

Charcoal

4490+40

Ua-28694

Palisaded road (Hearth)

Charcoal

5195+50

Cal. 1 sig. 68,2 %

Cal. 2 sig. 95,4 %

3010-2970 BC (16,6) 2960-2880 BC (51,6) 2900-2850 BC (20,5) 2820-2740 BC (35,9) 2730-2690 BC (11,8) 3700-3680 BC (5,8) 3670-3630 BC (34,4) 3580-3530 BC (28,0) 2850-2810 BC (15,7) 2740-2720 BC (3,8) 2700-2570 BC (48,7) 2880-2830 BC (15,0) 2820-2670 BC (53,2) 660-710 AD (50,0) 740-770 AD (18,2)

3090-2860 BC (93,4) 2810-2760 BC (2,0) 2910-2830 BC (28,7) 2820-2660 BC (64,6) 2650-2630 BC (2,1)

3780-3660 BC (68,2) 3960-3900 BC (24,5) 3880-3800 BC (43,7) 3500-3460 BC (16,4) 3380-3330 BC (33,0) 3220-3180 BC (10,2) 3160-3130 BC (8,5) 3340-3210 BC (41,5) 3190-3150 BC (13,6) 3140-3090 BC (13,1) 4045-3955 BC (68,2)

3710-3620 BC (54,7) 3610-3520 BC (40,7) 2870-2800 BC (21,8) 2780-2560 BC (71,4) 2520-2490 BC (2,3) 2880-2610 BC (95,4) 650-780 AD (95,4) 3940-3870 BC (9,8) 3810-3640 BC (85,6) 3980-3760 BC (95,4) 3500-3420 BC (24,0) 3380-3260 BC (39,4) 3240-3100 BC (32,0) 3350-3080 BC (90,4) 3070-3020 BC (5,0) 4230-4190 BC (3,8) 4170-3930 BC (87,6) 3860-3810 BC (4,0)

Figure 13. Radiocarbon dates from Döserygg

There may be many explanations for why people chose to respect megaliths and even integrate them in the settlement structure at Skegrie. Perhaps they found the old monuments attractive or viewed them as assets ascribed to the ancestors, which gave the owner or the kindred of the farm the right to the land. There is a great deal of source material to corroborate this. For instance, both Old Norwegian and Old Swedish laws state that burial mounds could serve as “title deeds” for a family’s land holdings (e.g. Anglert 2003, 121; Skre 1998). Also, it is not unusual to find that the mounds constructed during the Bronze Age, sometimes covering megalithic graves (e.g. Hansen 1931; Jacobsson 1986), were used for new burials in the Iron Age (e.g. Anglert 2003, 118; Strömberg 1961, 60). This might suggest the persistence of a tradition. Yet another category of sources revealing the significance of barrows in the context of settlement is placenames. The ending ie, as in Skegrie, is a worn-down form of hög meaning “mound”. Place-name scholars think that this element, which is particularly widespread in Söderslätt, may go back to the Iron Age (Skansjö 1983, 64, 95). The Skegrie dolmen has an eye-catching location beside the church, adjacent to a farm that is probably contemporary with the creation of the place-name. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that it was the Skegrie dolmen that gave its name to the village, although little survives today

of the mound to which the name refers, which once covered the dolmen. The destruction of the monuments There is thus a great deal to suggest that the stone monuments were allowed to stand undisturbed until the Iron Age. So when did the destruction of the monuments begin? There is reason to believe that the first demolition came with the introduction of Christianity and that in some places the new religion in its missionary zeal wanted to eradicate old cultic sites like Döserygg and Skegrie. A good deal of stone was no doubt used to build the many churches that manifested the new religion in the 12th and 13th centuries. The use of slabs from the megalithic graves to build churches may also have symbolized continuity with older traditions. In addition, a great deal of stone was used to build the town of Malmö, above all in the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries, and especially the castle of Malmöhus. It is surely not a coincidence that the number of megalithic tombs is small in the Malmö area, and that none of the megalithic tombs documented in the vicinity of the town survive. Large amounts of material of different kinds were transported to Malmö from a large area in connection with the fortification

131

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

of the town (Rosborn 1977). It therefore cannot be ruled out that the development of the town may have affected the stock of megalithic tombs in a wider area. Also other towns in the region needed large amounts of stone, requiring longdistance transports.

at present in a class of its own by virtue of its composition, size and complexity. But what does it actually look like around the existing solitary dolmens in the landscape? Are there elements at other sites to suggest that similar complex settings like Döserygg may have existed elsewhere in the region?

The best-documented destruction of megalithic tombs took place in the 18th century and from the early to the mid 19th century (Sandén 1995, 68). Above all, a lot of stone was needed for the construction of new farms as a result of the enclosures. At the same time, several megalithic tombs were cleared because they were regarded as an obstacle to agriculture when new arable fields were broken and the district became fully tilled (Skansjö 1983, 104). This was also a time when new harbours were built in many nearby towns, such as Trelleborg and Ystad.

It is clear that our image of megalithic tombs as solitary monuments must be completely reappraised. There were in fact groups of megalithic tombs and composite megalithic cemeteries. Both Döserygg and Skegrie, moreover, indicate that the destruction of monuments was much more extensive and effective than we previously imagined. The estimated number of megalithic tombs that originally existed in Söderslätt must presumably be raised considerably, perhaps to several hundreds. If we assume that similar sites have also existed elsewhere in Scania, for the province as a whole the number may be over a 1000, perhaps even several thousands.

Besides this, we know that some churchmen were still active, going more or less berserk among the antiquities in their parishes. There are several recorded descriptions of this. We have an account, for instance, of how Per Hindström, vicar of Dalköpinge and Gislöv at the end of the eighteenth century, deliberately destroyed megalithic tombs as a way to eradicate superstition among his parishioners:

At the moment we have only started analysing the material from the excavations. Several years of analysis remain. Some of our current ideas will probably be modified, and new discoveries will expand the picture. One thing is certain, however: we are on the way to a new outlook on the Neolithic and megalithic tradition, as regards both Söderslätt and Scandinavia and Western Europe as a whole.

‘P.H. has acquired a Herostratic reputation for his vandalism as regards the antiquities of the parish. “Whether out of affected heroism or a wish to drive superstition out of his congregation, he was not deterred by the legends [that the village was seen burning when they tried to blast away the dolmens] or the fate of his predecessors; no, with a dreadful lack of shame he simply had them blown up”, in particular the most remarkable monument in the district, the legendary dolmen of Jelle, located west of Gislöv in homestead no. 27 near the priest’s road from Dalköpinge to Gislöv, but in addition four other dolmens, including the so-called Mode’s dolmen in Simmarödsmarken, the stones of which were placed in the church tower in Gislöv, and one that was called the Torberg dolmen’ (authors translation, Lunds stifts herdaminne 1951, 315f).

English text corrected by Alistair Bright. Address Magnus Andersson and Björn Wallebom Swedish National Heritage Board, Southern Excavations Department Odlarevägen 5 226 60 Lund Sweden [email protected] +46 10-480 82 33 [email protected] +46 10-480 82 62

Towards a new outlook After the excavations at Döserygg and Skegrie, we certainly see the phenomenon of megalithic tombs with new eyes. Nothing like Döserygg has ever been found before in Scandinavia. Although there are sites with similarities, for example in the Sarup area in southwestern Funen, such as Damsbo and Sarup Gamle Skole, with numerous of megalithic tombs and other complex structures (Andersen 2008; 2009), the complexity at Döserygg is of a kind that requires us to a more wider European perspective to find counterparts. We still know very little about what sites of this kind looked like, why they were built, and what role they played in their society.

Bibliography Andersen, Niels H. 1997. The Sarup Enclosures. The Funnel Beaker Culture of the Sarup site including two causewaysed camps compared to the contemporary settlements in the area and other European enclosures. Sarup vol. 1. Jutland Archaeological Society Publications XXXIII:1, 1997. Højbjerg, Jutland Archaeological Society. Andersen, Niels H. 1999a. Saruppladsen. Sarup vol. 2. Jysk Arkæologisk Selskabs Skrifter XXXIII:2, 1999. Højbjerg, Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab. Andersen, Niels H. 1999b. Saruppladsen. Sarup vol. 3. Jysk Arkæologisk Selskabs Skrifter XXXIII:3, 1999. Højbjerg, Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab.

With Döserygg we are able, for the first time, to study how a large-scale megalithic burial place and assembly site from the earliest part of the Neolithic was organized. Döserygg is

132

Magnus Andersson and Björn Wallebom: Döserygg and the Skegrie Dolmens

Andersen, Niels H. 2008. Rapport over utgravninger på Damsbo’s jorder på Sydvestfyn. Femårigt projekt til udgravning af storstensgrave og bopladser fra den yngre stenalder i Sarupområdet. Højbjerg, Moesgård Museum. Andersen, Niels H. 2009. Sarupområdet på Sydvestfyn i slutningen af 4. årtusinde f. Kr., in A. Schülke (ed), Plads og rum i tragtbægerkulturen. Bidrag fra Arbejdsmødet på Nationalmuseet, 22. september 2005. Nordiske Fortidsminder. Series C, Bind 6. København, Det konglige nordiske oldskriftselskab. Andersson, M. 2004. Domestication and the First Neolithic Concept, in M. Andersson, P. Karsten, B. Knarrström, and M. Svensson, (eds), Stone Age Scania: Significant Places Dug and Read by Contract Archaeology. Riksantikvarieämbetet Skrifter 52, 143–190. Stockholm, Riksantikvarieämbetet. Andersson, M. and Nilsson, B. 2009. Döserygg och Skegriedösarna – Megalitgravar på Söderslätt i ny belysning. Ale 1/2009, 1–15. Andersson, M. and Wallebom, B. 2011a. Döserygg. Grav- och samlingsplats från början av yngre stenålder. Skåne, Håslöv socken, Håslöv 10:1 och 13:1, RAÄ 47. Väg E6, Trelleborg–Vellinge. UV Syd Rapport 2010:30. Arkeologisk undersökning 2007–2008. Lund, Riksantikvarieämbetet. Andersson, M. and Wallebom, B. 2011b. Håslöv 19:19 och 19:3. Skåne, Vellinge kommun, Håslöv socken, RAÄ 47 och RAÄ 51. Arkeologisk forskningsundersökning 2009. Lund, Riksantikvarieämbetet. Andersson, M. and Wallebom, B. In press. Håslöv 19:1 och 19:3. Skåne, Vellinge kommun, Håslöv socken, RAÄ 47 och RAÄ 51. Arkeologisk forskningsundersökning 2011. UV Syd Rapport. Lund, Riksantikvarieämbetet. Anglert, M. 2003. Uppåkra: Bland högar, ortnamn och kyrkor, Landskapsarkeologi och tidig medeltid 1, in M. Anglert and J. Thomasson(eds), Uppåkrastudier 8. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia Series in 8° 41, 115–144. Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell. Burl, A. 1993. From Carnac to Callanish: The Prehistoric Stone Rows of Britain, Ireland, and Brittany. London, Yale University Press. Burenhult, G. 1999. Arkeologi i Norden 1. Stockholm, Natur och kultur. Gennep van, A. 1960. The Rites of Passage. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Gillings, M., Pollard, J., Wheatley, D. and Peterson, R. 2008. Landscape of the Megaliths. Excavation and Fieldwork on the Avebury Monuments, 1997-2003. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Hansen, F. 1931. En nyfunnen dös i Skåne. Meddelanden från Lunds universitets historiska museum 1930–1931, 227–239. Lund. Harding, J. 2003. Henge Monuments of the British Isles. Mount Pleasant. Stroud, Tempus. Jacobsson, B. 1986. The Skogsdala Dolmen: A Long Dolmen beneath a Bronze Age Burial Mound at Skogsdal, South Scania, Sweden. Meddelanden från Lunds universitets historiska museum 1985–1986, 84–114. Lund.

Karsten, P. 1994. Att kasta yxan i sjön: En studie över rituell tradition och förändring utifrån skånska neolitiska offerfynd. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia Series in 8° 23. Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell International. Larsson, L. 2000. Axes and Fire – Contacts with the Gods, in D. Olausson and H. Vandkilde (eds), Form, Function and Context: Material Culture Studies in Scandinavian Archaeology, 93–103. Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell International. Larsson, L. 2007. Ett långt liv i trakten av Trelleborg: Konstruktion och destruktion av långhögar och storstensgravar, in S. Larsson and C. Arcini (eds), En arkeolog i Trelleborg, 132–147. Stockholm, Riksantikvarieämbetet. Lunds stifts herdaminne: från reformationen till nyaste tid. Ser. 2, Biografier, 3, Skytts och Vemmenhögs kontrakt. 1951. Lund, Gleerup. Nilsson, B. and Hanlon, C. 2006. Life and work during 5,000 years, in P. Karsten and B. Nilsson (eds), In the Wake of a Woman: Stone Age Pioneering of Northeastern Scania, Sweden, 10,000–5000 BC, The Årup Settlements. Arkeologiska Undersökningar Skrifter 63, 57–178. Stockholm, Riksantikvarieämbetet. Rosborn, S. 1977. Malmöhus: Från 1400-talets kastell till 1900-talets museum. Malmö, Malmö museer. Roughley, C., Sherratt, A. and Shell, C. 2002. Past Records, New Views: Carnac 1830–2000. Antiquity 76 (2002), 218–223. Rudebeck, E. 2002. Vägen som rituell arena, in K. Jennbert, A. Andrén, and C. Raudvere (eds), Plats och praxis: Studier av nordisk förkristen ritual, 167–200. Lund, Nordic Academic Press. Sandén, U. 1995. Bevare oss väl: En studie av megalitgravarnas bevaringsgrad på Söderslätt. Photocopy. Arkeologiska institutionen, Lunds universitet. Skansjö, S. 1983. Söderslätt genom 600 år: Bebyggelse och odling under äldre historisk tid. Skånsk senmedeltid och renässans 11. Skriftserie utgiven av Vetenskapssocieteten i Lund. Lund, Liber/Gleerup. Sköld, P. E. 1968. Söderslätts förhistoria. Lund, Gleerup. Skre, D. 1998. Herredømmet: Bosetning og besittelse på Romerike 200–1350 e.Kr. Acta Humaniora. Oslo, Scandinavian University Press. Smith, I. F. 1965. Windmill Hill and Avebury. Oxford, Clarendon. Strömberg, M. 1961. Untersuchungen zur Jungeren Eisenzeit in Schonen II. Katalog und Tafeln. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia. Series in 4° 4. Bonn/Lund, Habelt/Gleerup. Strömberg, M. 1968. Der Dolmen Trollasten in St. Köpinge, Schonen. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia. Series in 8° 7. Bonn/Lund. Strömberg, M. 1980. Siedlungssysteme in südschwedischen Megalithgräbergebieten. Fundberichte aus Hessen. Jahrg. 19./20, Ulrich Fischer zum 65. Geburtstag am 3. Juli 1980 gewidmet. Festschrift U. Fischer. Wiesbaden, Landesamt für Denkmalpflege Hessen. Söderberg, B. In press. Väg E6 Trelleborg - Vellinge

133

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Tilley, C. 1999. The Dolmens and Passage Graves of Sweden: An Introduction and Guide. London, Institute of Archaeology, University College.

delområde 6:1. Järnåldersgårdar och andra lämningar i en dösmiljö. Skåne, Trelleborgs kommun, Skegrie socken, fastighet 39:1, RAÄ 39. Arkeologisk slutundersökning 2007. UV Syd, Dokumentation av fältarbetsfasen. Lund, Riksantikvarieämbetet.

134

Chapter 11 Stones for the Ancestors - Red Limestone and Cleft Rocks Tony Axelsson and Peter Jankavs Abstract: On Falbygden in central Västergötland one of northern Europe’s largest concentrations of megalithic graves is found. They are situated in a complex natural and cultural landscape often located in groups, oriented along the landscape’s characteristic projections in rows or small clusters. In this article are some of the results from the latest excavations carried out on Falbygden discussed. The excavations has revealed construction details in the mounds, the fact that some of the stones have been cleft and there are also a indication of elaborate ways of placing the red and grey limestone slabs. In the article it is argued that the stones were not used at random, they were chosen, handled, shaped and arranged following logics and principles. Keywords:Falbygden, passage graves, red limestone packing, local logic

Introduction

million years ago. Above the gneiss the bedrock consists of sandstone, alum shale, limestone and clay shales. The characteristic table mountains were formed by a hard volcanic mass, the diabase, being deposited like a protective cover over the older and softer rocks 280 million years ago. The biggest plateaus –those of Mösseberg, Ålleberg, Varvsberget and Billingen – are central features of the countryside of Falbygden. Between the mountains lies the fertile, rolling high plain called Falan, which has given its name to the entire district. The north-south oriented Åsle valley divides the area into two parts.

Falbygden in central Västergötland is home to one of northern Europe’s largest concentrations of megalithic graves dating to the Neolithic period (Figure 1). It is the roughly 250 passage graves that date to about 5,300-5,000 years ago, associated with the Funnel Beaker Culture, that are especially visible as monumental constructions in the landscape. These passage graves are often found in groups, and are oriented along the landscape’s characteristic elevations in rows or small clusters. They are distributed over more or less the entirety of the Falbygden limestone plateaus, but with concentrations in e.g. Karleby, Falköping, and Gökhem. Often, they are on low ridges or near boundary zones in the landscape where several types of rock meet. In southern Falbygden several passage graves are located near large marshy areas. These areas were shallow lakes or more or less open water when the passage graves were built, some of which would actually have been surrounded by water.

Research into the passage graves The passage graves of Falbygden have attracted a good deal of archaeological research over the years. A large number of inventories and excavations were carried out during the period 1860-1910. Many of the leading archaeologists of the time were active here. Questions centred on basic issues such as dating and source of livelihood, but studies of cultural context and race were also important. Skull measurements featured prominently in discussions. The number of excavations declined considerably during the remainder of the 1900s. This period largely saw inventories and restoration work being carried out (Axelsson 2010, Chapter 3, with references). There has been a resurgence of archaeological interest in the district’s passage graves since the mid-1980s, with several dissertations, studies and excavations dealing with different aspects of the Neolithic landscape, society and material culture (Ahlström 2004, 2009; Axelsson 2010a, 2010b; Axelsson and Jankavs 2006; Axelsson et al. 2003; Axelsson et al. in prep; Blomqvist 1989; Persson and Sjögren 1995, 2001; Sjögren 1998, 2003, 2010; Sjögren et al. 2009; Tilley 1993, 1996, 1999).

The Landscape of Falbygden Falbygden harbours a complex natural and cultural landscape that has many properties unique to Sweden. These have been described by numerous authors with varying starting points (see for example Fries 1958; Moberg 1950). Here, we will merely summarise and try to describe the main landscape elements as a background to an understanding of the landscape of the passage graves. The area forms a north-south aligned triangle, about 50 x 30km, whose longest side is in the south, although the exact delimitation can vary somewhat depending on one’s starting point. From a physical-geographical perspective, the bedrock often constitutes the delimitation. Falbygden is one of Västergötland’s three Cambro-Silurian regions where the primary rock is overlain by several horizontal layers deposited on the bottom of an ancient sea during the Cambrian, Ordovician and Silurian periods, 400-600

The general construction The construction of the passage graves can be divided into chamber, passage and mound. The chambers are between 2.4 and 17m long, of which the majority is between 7 and

135

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Figure 1. Southern Sweden with passage graves (Sjögren et al 2009).

13m. The chamber usually has a N-S orientation. The width of the chamber varies between 1.5 and 2m. Within the chamber, there are often traces of room formations in the shape of niche slabs: small flat slabs that are placed vertically.

(Axelsson and Jankavs 2006, in prep). The passage graves Karleby 105, Karleby 82 and Falköping Östra 1 are all situated within the municipality of Falköping, close to the city of Falköping. The overall aim has been to restore, in so far as it is possible, the external appearance of the monument, including the surrounding mound. In general, this means removing secondary depositions like clearance stones (400 tons in the case of the first passage grave) and waste or rubbish and also to take down trees and clear undergrowth. The goal is to make the graves more accessible, physically and cognitively, to the public.

The passage, which often leads from the central area of the chamber in an easterly or south-easterly direction, is generally built lower and with smaller stone slabs than the chamber. Beyond the passage entrance one often finds facing stones that sometimes encircle the mound in kerblike fashion. The passage is usually 4-8m in length.

The other aspect of this project involves investigating special areas or components of the graves and their construction.

Chambers are surrounded by mounds or stone circles of varying sizes, made from an unsorted earth-stone mixture. The secondary graves of later periods have sometimes added further stone or earth material to the mound. Excavations in recent years have shown that the mounds can feature a number of design details, such as central mounds, shelves, inner kerbs or special stone surfacing.

Red limestone packing In all our excavations we removed the topsoil of the mound, down to the first layer of stone packing nearest to the chamber and passage. This was primarily done at Karleby 105 to find sections of the chamber walls that were not visible. We discovered that the area nearest to both the chamber and the passage consisted of stone packing made up of of flat pieces of red limestone (Figure 2). Around the

Excavation and restoration During the last years excavations have been carried out on three separate passage graves in the Falbygden area

136

Tony Axelsson and Peter Jankavs: Stones for the Ancestors

Figure 2. Red limestone at Karleby 105.

red stones the packing comprised a more or less uneven mixture of grey limestone and other kinds of rocks. When we came to investigate the second and third passage grave we deliberately looked out for this phenomenon and found it in both cases. The difference in colour – red/grey – creates a very distinctive impression and makes the red lining stand out.

The overlapping structure of the stones can be interpreted as a way to allow water to drain off. This feature is well known from Denmark, where it is interpreted in the same way. But still the question remains: why was the gap between the walls of the chamber and the mound filled up with exclusively red limestone? The two colours of the limestone highlight a different geochemical composition (red = ferrous oxide) and consequently different qualities and characteristics. The red stone is softer and we noticed that the surface dissolved more easily than the surface of the grey stone. This, in turn, meant that red stones stuck together easily, turning into a homogeneous mass. Maybe these were the qualities the megalith builders were looking for: the ability to seal the chamber and keep it dry. The colour was irrelevant. Or was it? Symbolic connotations can certainly not be ruled out.

At all three passage graves a trench was dug through the mound, from the midsection of the west wall of the chamber out to the perimeter of the mound. This was done to obtain a cross-section of the mound in order to study how it was constructed and what materials were used. In short, this approach revealed that in all three cases the mound was mainly built of boulders/rounded stones of granite, all more or less the same size. An exception was the inner part, nearest to the chamber, where the superficial red limestone had been discovered. The section showed that the red stones were arranged in the form of a wedge. This triangular form was widest at the surface and tapered off the further down it went (Figure 3). Moreover, the stones were laid flat and in overlapping fashion like roof tiles.

Cleft rocks and red/grey limestone The passage graves on Falbygden differ from most others in terms of raw material. The unique geological history of the region is reflected in the choice of stone. Sedimentary rocks were commonly used, especially for the walls of both chambers and passages. The roof material usually consists of igneous rock.

The trench was excavated down to and below the Neolithic ground level. The differences in stone packing combined with the various strata of the earth filling were interpreted as traces of consecutive steps in the construction of the grave. This pattern was present at all three passage graves that were investigated.

The excavations carried out at the three passage graves have emphasized some interesting facts. At Karleby 105

137

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Figure 3. A section drawing from the trench on the west side of the chamber at Karleby 105.

mound that covers the whole construction. Most of the graves have mounds that reach up to about the top of the uprights in the chamber. If all the graves were once covered in a similar way as in for example Denmark, some sort of decay/erosion must have led to the appearance they have today. We know from Danish examples that the mounds could consist of several layers of clay and flint debris that effectively sealed the chamber. In Falbygden clay and flint are rare, so possibly other materials were used to keep the chambers sealed. The hypothesis is that as long as the graves were in use and tended to, the mounds remained intact, but once they were no longer looked after the mounds began to erode away. Falköping Östra 1 provides an indication that this might be a valid hypothesis. In the chamber we found a layer of small pieces of limestone on top of the burials. This could be the material that was used to seal the gaps between the capstones.

we noted that the limestone slabs that made up the chamber walls were mostly red limestone with the exception of two grey stones that were placed in the south and the north of the eastern chamber wall respectively. There has not yet been a thorough study of how colours differ or of potential symmetrical patterns in Falbygden. We did note that there was another symmetrical pattern at Falköping Östra 1; here the most southern and northern stone in the west wall of the chamber were red limestone whilst the others were grey. We also noted that all the uprights in the passage were split in two and the twin halves positioned throughout the passage to mirror each other at Falköping Östra 1 (Figure 5). These symmetrical patterns and practises deserve a more thorough study but we can already conclude from these preliminary results that the construction is more complex than we had previously anticipated.

Stones for the ancestors - conclusions The three latest excavations have raised a number of interesting questions that require further research and have also pointed at some preliminary results that affect the way we should regard these monuments and their construction. Axelsson (2010a) has discussed the local differences and variation in construction and introduced the term local logic. The passage graves are built all over Western Europe and in different parts of Sweden as well. On different levels

The lastest osteological studies carried out by Torbjörn Ahlström (2004, 2009; Sjögren 2008) indicate a slow decomposition of the burials and that the decay may have taken place within the chamber. There are numerous examples from Denmark of intricate ways of keeping the chamber sealed (see for example Dehn et al. 2000). The situation in Falbygden today is very different from Denmark. Only a handful of the passage graves have a

138

Tony Axelsson and Peter Jankavs: Stones for the Ancestors

Figure 4. The chamber of passage grave Karleby 105. Note the grey limestone south and north of the passage.

Figure 5. The passage grave Falköping Östra 1. The uprights in the passage were split in two and the twin halves positioned in the passage so as to mirror each other.

139

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Figure 6. A section of the north end of the chamber at Falköping Östra 1.

Authors:

there are similarities and differences in construction. The passage graves in Falbygden seem to have a number of individual or local, functional as well as non-functional features that are lost sight of or are not acknowledged when the graves are studied on a more general or regional level. We can touch upon the relations between man(kind) and stone. The stones were not used at random, they were chosen, handled, shaped and arranged following logic and principles. The combination of their being markers in the landscape as well as important construction elements in the building of the passage graves makes it probable that stones were not looked upon as merely pieces of rock. Rather, they were a part of people’s daily lives and they were a part of how the living handled and cared for their dead.

Tony Axelsson, PhD, is a researcher at the Department of Historical Studies, Gothenburg University and an archaeologist at Västergötlands museum in Skara. His research interests are landscape, material culture, heritage and communication. Peter Jankavs, fil.lic, is Director of Falbygdens Museum. His research interests are the usage of stone as building material and the role of stone as a crucial component of the Megalithic landscape. Together the authors have directed a restoration and excavation project of three passage graves. They have previously worked on ways of communicating heritage, especially that of the passage graves in Falbygden. The results of the excavation project will be published in early 2012.

Everything so far points to the fact that caring for the (dead) ancestors was important. Consequently it must have been a bonus to live in a part of the world that provided access to an environment that aided in these matters. The lime in the earth of Falbygden makes for extremely good conditions for the preservation of skeletal remains. The ancestors therefore had a much longer “life” in Falbygden than in other parts of Sweden. This could have been a strong motive for constructing more monuments in this region than in other areas. The results presented here point at an urgent need for a systematic survey of the variation in construction. This would contribute to the discussion of local groups that constructed the passage graves in different ways depending on various social relations, and also allow the local logic underpinning the appearance and construction of the megaliths to be discussed in greater detail.

Peter Jankavs Museichef / director Falköpings kommun Falbygdens museum 521 81 Falköping St. Olofsgatan 23 Sweden phonenr: +46 705 147 707 or +46 515 850 67 [email protected] www.falkoping.se

140

Tony Axelsson and Peter Jankavs: Stones for the Ancestors

Tony Axelsson Department of Historical Studies Gothenburg University Box 200 40530 Gothenburg Sweden [email protected]

i Varnhemstrakten. En pollenanalytisk undersökning i Västergötland. Acta Phytogeographica Suecica, 39. Moberg, I. 1950. Västergötlands geografi. En orienterande översikt. I. Naturlandskapet. Exkurs: Några västgötska naturnamn av Erik Neuman. Lund. Montelius, O. 1883. Hvad vi veta om Vestergötland under hednatiden. Svenska Fornminnesföreningens Tidskrift, V. Montelius, O. 1885-87. Den förhistoriska forskningen i Sverige under åren 1882-1884. Svenska Fornminnesföreningens Tidskrift, VI. Montelius, O. 1910. Falbygdens fornminnen. Falköping förr och nu. Falköping. Persson, P. 1992. Lillegården. Rapport, undersökning av neolitisk boplats. Karleby, Raä, 10, Västergötland. GOTARC Ser D, 21. Göteborg, institutionen för arkeologi, Göteborgs universitet. Persson, P. and Sjögren, K.-G. 1995. Radiocarbon and the chronology of Scandinavian megalithic graves. Journal of European Archaeology, 3(2). Persson, P. and Sjögren, K.-G. 2001. Falbygdens gånggrifter. Del 1. Undersökningar 1985-1998, GOTARC. Serie C, Arkeologiska skrifter, 34. Sjögren, K.-G. 2003. ”Mångfalldige uhrminnes grafvar- ”: megalitgravar och samhälle i Västsverige. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Göteborg. Sjögren K-G. 2008. Fragment av ordning: undersökning av överplöjda megalitgravar vid Frälsegården, Gökhems socken, Västergötland, 1999-2001. Göteborg, institutionen för arkeologi, Göteborgs universitet. Sjögren K-G. 2010. Anonymous ancestors? The Tilley/ Shanks hypothesis revisted, in D. Calado, M. Baldia and M. Boulanger (ed.), Monumental Questions: Prehistoric Megaliths, Mounds, and Enclosures. BAR International Series 2122, 2010. Sjögren, K.-G., Douglas Price, T. andAhlström T. 2009. Megaliths and mobility in south-western Sweden. Investigating relations between a local society and its neighbours using strontium isotopes. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 28, 85-101. Tilley C. 1992. Art, Architecture, Landscape [Neolithic Sweden]. In B. Bender (ed.)Landscape, Politics and Perspective (Explorations in Anthropology), 49-84. Oxford, Berg. Tilley C. 1996. An Ethnography of the Neolithic: early prehistoric societies in southern Scandinavia. New Studies in Archaeology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Tilley C. 1999. The Dolmens and Passage graves of Sweden. An introduction and guide. London, Institute of Archaeology, University college of London.

Bibliography Ahlström, T. 2004. Grave or Ossuary? Osteological Finds from a Recently Excavated Passage Tomb in Falbygden. In H. Knutsson (ed.), Coast to coast - Arrival. Results and Reflections. Proceedings of the Final Coast to Coast Conference 1-5 October 2002 in Falköping Sweden, 233258. Uppsala. Ahlström, T. 2009. Underjordiska dödsriken: humanosteologiska studier av neolitiska kollektivgravar. Kust till kust böcker 18. Göteborg, institutionen för arkeologi, Göteborgs universitet. Axelsson, T. 2010a. Landskap - visuella & rumsliga relationer i Falbygdens neolitikum. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Göteborg. Available at: http://hdl. handle.net/2077/22563. Axelsson, T. 2010b. Fynd och visibilitetsberäkningar från Falbygdens gånggrifter. Sammanställningar framtagna i arbetet med avhandlingen: Landskap - visuella & rumsliga relationer i Falbygdens neolitikum. Availabe at: . Axelsson, T., Heimann, C. and Sjögren, K.-G. 2003. Falbygdens gånggrifter - bevarande och kunskapsförmedling. Skadeinventering av gånggrifter i centrala Västergötland 1996 och 1998. Länsstyrelsen i Västra Götaland, 2003:17. Axelsson, T. and Jankavs, P. 2006. Gånggriftsrestaurering i Karleby. Västergötlands fornminnesförenings tidskrift, 2005/2006, 227-231. Axelsson, T. & Jankavs, P. in prep. Röd ´kalksten och kluvna stenar. Delundersökning och restaurering av tre gånggrifter. Axelsson, T., Strinnholm, A. and Ramstad M, in press. Neolithic amber in south Scandinavia, The Oxford handbook of the Neolithic. Blomqvist, L. 1989. Megalitgravarna i Sverige. Typ, tid, rum och social miljö. Theses and Papers in Archaeology, 1. Stockholm. Dehn, T., Hansen, S. I. and Kaul, F. 2000. Klekkendehøj og Jordehøj: restaureringer og undersøgelser 1985-90. København, Nationalmuseet. Fries, M. 1958. Vegetationsutveckling och odlingshistoria

141

Chapter 12 The Use of Amber in the Scandinavian Stone Age Tony Axelsson and Anders Strinnholm Abstract: The use of amber, like all other forms of material culture, undergoes changes over time. These changes and amber’s shifting role during the Stone Age in Scandinavia are the main focus of this paper. It is argued that the changing role of amber during the Neolithic and early Bronze Age cannot be attributed to a particular change in aesthetics or fashion. The transition from a votive deposit in wetlands and megaliths to a commodity equates to a changed view of amber’s importance. The barter and sale of amber beads had become possible and, as objects, the beads no longer had the same significance; the symbolism had changed. Interest in amber seems to decrease at the end of the Neolithic and there is an observable decline not only in quantity, but also in the rich variety of forms. It is tempting to interpret this change as a result of a process by which amber went from being an inalienable object to a commodity that could be circulated throughout and exchanged over vast areas. Consequently, amber’s symbolic properties decreased and the personal connection to the objects lessened. Amber changed from a symbol and token of relations to an exchange commodity Keywords: Amber, beads, typology, use, southern Scandinavia, Neolithic

Introduction

couple of examples of amber objects used as grave goods (Larsson 1988, 2001). The height of this working was the drilling of holes to make the amber easier to suspend or to attach to clothing. In cases where working/decoration was more advanced and a more complex shape had been the goal, the object was always based on an animal motif (Larsson 2001, 68).

The use of amber, like all other forms of material culture, undergoes changes over time. These changes and the shifting role of amber during the Stone Age in Scandinavia are our main focus in this paper. When discussing Neolithic amber beads from hoards or megaliths it is important to remember that the use of amber beads is not a Neolithic innovation and that the practice differs from region to region.

Four of the eight findings of zoomorphic figurines from the Mesolithic in Denmark depict bears (Larsson 2000; Mathiassen 1960; Vang Petersen 1998). In addition to these figurines, there is also another feature of the Mesolithic use of amber, namely carved decoration, not only on the figurines, but also on simpler pendants (Andersen 1981). The decoration usually takes the form of tiny hollows or lines in geometric patterns or “fringes” (Mathiassen 1960). Even though little is known about the use of amber for personal adornment during the Mesolithic, amber operates within a tradition that is known from burials both in the Baltic area and South Scandinavia. A great variety of body adornments made from animal teeth and perforated shells and other materials features in this tradition. These adornments were used as individual pendants, necklaces, body garments and so on (Kannegaard and Brinch Petersen 1993; Larsson 2001; Zagorska 2004; Zagorskis 2004). At the most general level, personal adornments during the Mesolithic seem to have made systematic reference to the natural world, where personhood, material objects and the surrounding world could be negotiated and expressed. Despite the variation in the number, types and positions of the grave goods, neither age, gender nor status differentiation seems to be very well marked or standardised (Blankholm 2008;124 and 126).

Amber, as is well known, cannot be dated. Consequently, it is only possible to roughly classify the different objects/ shapes chronologically based on the various contexts of finds,. This means that, as sketched out here, our endeavours to analyse changes in importance and use are, of necessity, relatively coarse and simplified. Amber was, and still is, naturally available only in limited areas along the shorelines of southern Scandinavia and the eastern Baltic region. This means that large parts of the region did not have direct access to the sources and that the amber must therefore have been obtained by means of trade and/or barter. That was the case for Falbygden with its large concentration of megaliths and Neolithic settlements. Amber in the Scandinavian Stone Age In southern Scandinavia, amber was in use throughout the Mesolithic, but it was never a common or widespread item among the population. On the contrary, it can be considered relatively rare and exotic, and the distribution was generally limited to regions close to the natural deposits. According to Lars Larson, Mesolithic amber was predominantly used in its natural form. Pieces of amber found on the shoreline were generally only minimally worked, entailing minor alterations of shape and surface. From Skateholm in Scania, southern Sweden, there are a

Upon the transition to the Neolithic, a large number of changes in both the working of amber and associated use and traditions took place.

143

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

During the first part of the Early Neolithic, amber is used as complex ornamentation with large numbers of beads being strung together to form elaborate necklaces, often consisting of several parallel rows. The beads themselves are mainly comprise relatively simple geometric shapes interspersed with flat pieces (plates) that act as spacers (Becker 1953; Ebbesen 1995).

and the complexity of forms diminishes. The miniatures disappear almost completely, and it seems that amber is shaped into simple elements of clothing such as buttons or ornamentation. Miniatures still occur in megalithic burials. However, the frequency is considerably lower. With the increasingly widespread use of bronze over the following centuries, there is finally a marked change in which the use of amber for ornamentation seems to cease entirely and in which amber is no longer used for personal or common objects with a symbolic meaning. Amber finds from this period in southern Scandinavia mainly take the form of unworked nodules that were probably collected for use as exchange material with contacts outside the region.

One interpretation of the above may be that a large number of beads was accumulated and then used as votive deposits, the number rather than the specific shapes of the beads being the principal criterion. Whether such accumulation was a joint endeavour or in the hands of a few people in a central position cannot be easily determined. However, it is likely that the handling and the votive offering of amber was governed by rules that, regardless of how the work was organised, called for an exceedingly great amount of collective effort.

Megalithic amber from Västergötland and Scania Amber beads are among the most frequent finds from megalithic burials in Sweden and Scandinavia. However, research traditionally focused on the pottery found outside the entrances of passage graves, to the neglect of other find categories. There are a few studies on the Swedish material from megaliths and hoards (Anderbjörk 1932; Axelsson and Strinnholm 1999, 2000, 2003, 2005; Cederschiöld 1953; Ebbesen 1995, 2002; Taffinder 1999, 2001).

One clear phenomenon is the incorporation of amber into the same types of acts: the making of votive offerings of flint axes for instance and, in certain cases, ceramics (Becker 1948; Karsten 1994). These types of offerings are mainly known from Denmark. There have only been a few such finds in Sweden.

In Sweden, passage graves occur in the regions of Skåne, Halland, Bohuslän, and Västergötland. Of the c. 400 known passage graves, around 260 are in central Västergötland (Figure 1). Quantitatively, Middle Neolithic amber is dominated by the finds form passage graves. This is probably due to the archaeological methods employed and the good preservation conditions in the chambers of passage graves. However, the material varies in composition, scope, and degree of preservation, mostly due to the circumstances of excavation. Most passage graves in Västergötland for example were investigated in the 19th century, when the focus was on skeletal material rather than amber and other finds. This, as well as the choice of excavation methods, means that the material’s representativity can be questioned.

A second Neolithic phase in the use of amber is heralded by the burials in megalithic graves starting in the late Early and Middle Neolithic. In this phase and context, there is very large variation in shapes, even if a few dominate the repertoire. Principally, the shapes may be interpreted as miniature representations of clubs and double-edged battle axes. However, there are also shapes for which there is no comparison. In these cases, it seems that the beads may represent unique objects associated with individuals, because they seem to be placed one by one beside the buried bodies (Sjögren 2008). Coevally with this use, the votive offering of amber in wetlands still occurred, but the earlier large quantities and “strung together” objects now gave way to smaller offerings of individual beads or small collections that could hardly have been brought together into a unit of any description for another phase of use (Cederschiöld 1953; Axelsson and Strinnholm 1999).

Figure 1. South Sweden with the locations of passage graves marked (Sjögren et al. 2009). Axelsson and Strinnholm (2003, 2005) catalogued all the amber from Swedish megalithic graves and constructed a classification system dividing the amber beads into ten groups (with subgroups) based on their shape. An overview is provided in Figure 2 and Figure 3. Using this system as an analytical tool, differences can be noted at both regional and local levels (Axelsson and Strinnholm 2003). Regionally, the incidence of beads in the shape of double-edged battle axes and clubs varies. Together, these two categories represent about half the total material in Sweden. At the Skåne megaliths, 13% of the beads are shaped as double-edged battle axes and 46% as clubs. The figures for Västergötland are 22% and 21% respectively. Otherwise, the bead percentages are broadly similar in both areas (Figure 3).

This second phase as outlined above could be described as one of “common forms of individualised use”. Said shapes exhibit a considerably greater variety of form than before, but the amber takes the form of individual objects with their own history. Nevertheless, it is significant that the beads mainly occur (in a relatively uniform pattern) as personal objects in a burial context. This is true not only in the context of the megaliths, but also for the flat (earth) graves of the period (Runcis 2002). In the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age new patterns appear once again. This phase can be broadly described as a period in which the quantity of amber decreases sharply

144

Tony Axelsson and Anders Strinnholm: The Use of Amber

Figure 1. South Sweden, locations of passage graves marked (from Sjögren et al 2009). 1. a – d 2. a – d 3. a – c 4. a – b 5. a – e 6. a – d 7. a – f 8. a – d 9. a – l 10.

Local differences are also observable between passage graves. As the number of burials varies, it is not surprising that there are differences in the number of amber objects. However, as knowledge of the burials is often poor, the differences in the number of various bead types cannot be discussed in detail. Broadly speaking, it can be stated that there is variation. However, differences are evident for some of the larger assemblages. Skåne’s two largest amber finds come from the passage graves of Kvistofta 12 (322 beads) and Barsebäck 3 (353 beads). Club-shaped beads formed an exceptionally high proportion (65%) of the Kvistofta finds. The proportion of beads shaped like double-edged battle axes (18%) was also above the average for Skåne. The Barsebäck assemblage broadly corresponds to the average in Skåne – double-edged battle axes 10%

Beads shaped like double-edged axes Beads shaped like clubs Shaped like flint axes Beads shaped like bobbins Rounded beads Other geometric shapes Pendants Plates Other shapes Fragmented, impossible to classify

Figure 2. The ten different groups/categories of amber beads.

145

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Figure 3. Examples of beads from the various categories.

146

Tony Axelsson and Anders Strinnholm: The Use of Amber

Figure 4. The distribution types of amber beads from passage graves in Scania and Västergötland.

and clubs 37%. However, at 10%, the Barsebäck grave has yielded more than the average proportion of beads shaped like flint axes. In Västergötland, two of the largest finds come from the passage graves Hjelmars Rör 3 (113 beads) and Karleby 59 (117 beads), even though excavation at Karleby 59 is still ongoing. With only 9% battle axe-shaped beads, the assemblage at Hjelmars Rör differs from that of other passage graves in Västergötland. In contrast, for Karleby 59, the proportion of beads shaped as double-edged battle axes (32%) is much higher than for other passage graves. Conversely, the proportion of club-shaped beads (10%) is well below average.

though it should once again be stressed that the assemblages are small and that in most cases there is no information on how the beads can be linked to the burials. Perhaps this is a reflection of what can be termed local logics (Axelsson 2010). Amber – Social practice and the Funnel Beaker Culture The occurrence of amber beads in passage graves raises issues as to the role of such graves in Neolithic society. It also once again turns the spotlight on concepts such as culture and Funnel Beaker Culture. The material from the passage graves shows that there are similarities and differences at both the regional and local levels.

There are also some differences on a regional level that are worth noting. Category 1, double-edged battle axes, consists of four subgroups, which are determined by the characteristics of the waist of the bead. Types 1a and 1b have a long and short “waist” respectively with 90 degree angle. Types 1c and 1d have a long and short waist respectively but with a leaning angle. 13% of the material from Scania and 22% from Västergötland fall in these categories. There are differences in the subgroups found in Scania and Västergötland (Figure 4).

Local groups probably did not have access to different trade/barter networks with contacts in amber producing regions. Rather, differences probably resulted from small variations in traditions (perhaps connected to identity and/ or lineage groups) regarding the social use of symbols. It is interesting to bear in mind that the amber and flint used in Västergötland most likely originated in Scania or Denmark. While both products probably circulated within the same social and economic networks, some shapes or symbols may have been in greater demand or may not have been allowed to circulate in the same quantities as others (Axelsson and Strinnholm 2003).

In figure 5 it can be noted that types 1a and1c are more common within category 1 in Scania in comparison with the material from Västergötland. In Västergötland the sub groups 1b and 1d are more common in comparison with Scania. The subgroup 1d is the largest in both regions and the differences within this group are not as significant as in the case of subgroups a-c.

An interesting connection exists between amber and early copper working. Beads shaped like miniature copper axes are found throughout southern Scandinavia during the Early Neolithic. These were previously interpreted as thin-butted flint axes (Ebbesen 1995, 40), but it has since been argued

When we look at these figures it seems as if there are local differences underlying the more general patterns even

147

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Figure 5. The distribution of beads over subgroups a-d in category 1.

that they actually represent early copper axes (Taffinder 2001, 104). Such copper axes are well documented in the Early Neolithic (Klassen 2000; Magnusson Staaf 1996). Even as miniatures, their form is easily recognisable. A further possible connection between Neolithic amber and early copper working is the club-shaped beads, which are amongst the most common types in megaliths. Their closest equivalents are the ‘stone tools with shafting grooves’ (‘Steingeräte mit Rille’) found throughout southern Scandinavia and connected with early metalworking (Indreko 1956; Janzon 1984). A similar relationship (clubs, bead miniatures, and megaliths) exists in Ireland, where the connection with early metalworking is certain (Herity 1974). It is particularly interesting to note the regional differences between Scania and Västergötland, with clubs considerably more common in the Scania megaliths. Neolithic copper finds are almost non-existent in Västergötland.

personal items following their carriers into the grave or given to them at burial. There is also now a clear increase in the variety of forms, although bead miniatures dominate. We can also imagine that these beads, their sharing and combination related to personal biographies. It is furthermore important to think of beads and other types of ornaments as objects connected to memory and tradition. Research in south-east Italy suggests that body ornaments might have been involved in the process of constructing and transforming memories. That body ornaments can be seen as “mnemonic devices”, a theory that seems to fit the Neolithic amber beads very well (Skeates 2010). Many of the amber beads from passage graves (and a few votive deposits) show secondary holes. These holes have traditionally been interpreted as attempts to mend broken pieces (cf. Cederschiöld 1953). From the Falbygden area, two finds of votive deposits are known, originating from the parishes of Dimbo and Kälvene. These finds were originally interpreted as one hoard with a partly misattributed location (Cederschiöld 1953). The reason for this interpretation was that one amber bead was found broken in two halves, with one half in each deposit. However, this is not the sole possible interpretation. Amber beads may have been deliberately split into two. This is supported by the fact that holes do not occur equally frequently on all easily broken bead shapes (i.e. types 1, 3, and 6), as would be expected if holes were attempts to mend broken objects. If, on the other hand, amber beads were deliberately broken and perhaps shared between individuals or groups, other interpretations are possible. Drilled holes could then have been used to suspend ‘broken’ beads or to attempt temporary ‘reunions’ (Axelsson and Strinnholm 1999). These beads could have functioned as symbols of relations and belonging, while the meaning associated with some shapes made it ‘impossible’ to split them in half. If symbolic value and use were more important than durability, it is not surprising that the frequency of drilled holes differs between different bead types.

The changes relating to amber also reflect a number of other transitions. It is tempting to assume that amber followed the patterns and changes we can discern in this period. Amber initially served as a social collective resource handled via centralised structures and combined into large, complex ornaments. These can be assumed to ‘represent’ a large group of people who jointly contributed to ornament creation, either inspired by a central organizing force or, perhaps less plausibly, by spontaneous joint commitments. To a certain extent, this phenomenon follows the pattern that Per Karsten (1994) noted for votive offerings during the first part of the early Neolithic, i.e. offerings were mostly not ‘accumulated and collective’, but individual items deposited by individuals. The collective element here is not in the offering, but occurs at an earlier stage, in the handling of the amber. The role of amber changes in the second Neolithic phase, at the time of the erection of megaliths. Here, amber is principally found in connection with burials, as individual

148

Tony Axelsson and Anders Strinnholm: The Use of Amber

Address

The differences in the number of finds of the different types of amber beads, together with the possibility of a tradition of “separation” and “rejoining”, indicate a complex use of amber in the Neolithic. This might also point to amber beads being used as symbols and tokens of relations even in areas where the raw material was not naturally available and its origin possibly unknown. The frequent finds of miniature double-edged battle axes at megaliths in Falbygden is interesting for many reasons. Such axes occur in stone as well as in amber miniatures, in both funnel beaker and pitted ware contexts (Burenhult 1997; Janzon 1974; Malmer 2002). The Pitted Ware Culture is not traditionally associated with megaliths, although there are other megalithic finds of both ceramics and lithics that can be classified as belonging to the pitted ware tradition (Strinnholm 2001, 92-94). This situation does once again indicate that the traditionally defined Neolithic cultures are not homogeneous, but fluid and diffuse.

Tony Axelsson Department of Historical Studies Gothenburg University Box 200 40530 Gothenburg Sweden [email protected] Anders Strinnholm Arkeologisk Museum/Museum of Archaeology Universitetet i Stavanger/University of Stavanger Peder Klows gate 10 A 4010 Stavanger. Norway [email protected] Bibliography

It is also worth noting, that the changing role of amber during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age cannot be attributed to a particular change in aesthetics or fashion. The transition from a votive deposit in wetlands and megaliths to a commodity equates to a changed view of amber’s importance. The barter and sale of amber beads had become possible and, as objects, the beads no longer held the same significance – the symbolism had changed.

Anderbjörk, J.E. 1932. Västergötlands megalitgravar. Västergötlands fornminnesförenings tidskrift, 1932, 4-6. Andersen, S.H. 1981. Ertebøllekunst. Nye østjyske fund af mønstrede Ertebølleoldsager. Kuml Årbog for Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab, 1980, 7-62. Axelsson, T. 2010. Landskap - visuella & rumsliga relationer i Falbygdens neolitikum . Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Göteborg. In: . Axelsson, T. and Strinnholm, A. 1999. Att hela eller dela. Några reflexioner över ett par bärnstensfynd från Västergötland, in A. Gustafsson and H. Karlsson (eds), Glyfer och arkeologiska rum – en vänbok till Jarl Nordbladh. GOTARC. Series A, 11-19. Göteborg, Göteborg University, Department of Archaeology. Axelsson, T. and Strinnholm, A. 2000. Pärlor för svinen Bärnstenspärlor från Falbygdens neolitikum. Falbygden, 54, 57-72. Axelsson, T. and Strinnholm, A. 2003. Beads of belonging and tokens of trust – Neolithic amber beads from megaliths in Sweden, in C.W. Beck, I. Loze and J.M. Todd (eds), Amber in archaeology. Proceedings of the fourth international conference on amber in archaeology, Talsi, 2001, 116-125. Riga, Institute of the History of Latvia Publishers. Axelsson, T. and Strinnholm, A. 2005. Den neolitiska bärnstenen från centrala Västergötlands megalitgravar. In Situ Västsvensk Arkeologisk Tidskrift, 2003, 93-104. Becker, C.J. 1948. Mosefunde Lerkar fra Yngre Stenalder. Aarbøger for nordisk oldkyndighed og historie 1947. Copenhagen, 1947, 32-88. Becker, C.J. 1953. Tretten tusinde ravperler. Skattefundet fra Mollerup i Salling. Fra Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark, 1953. Blankholm, H.P. 2008. Southern Scandinavia, in G. Bailey and P. Spinkins (eds), Mesolithic Europe, 107-31. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Bloch, M. 1989. The symbolism of money in Imerina, in M. Bloch and J. Parry (eds), Money and the morality of

It thus becomes interesting to connect amber’s changing role in prehistoric society to the discussion surrounding concepts such as inalienability and commodity (Bloch 1989; Godelier 1999; Weiner 1992). Interest in amber seems to decrease at the end of the Neolithic and there is an observable decline not only in quantity, but also in the rich variety of forms. It is tempting to interpret this change as a result of a process by which amber went from being an inalienable object to a commodity that could be circulated throughout and exchanged over vast areas. Consequently, amber’s symbolic properties decreased and the personal connection to the objects lessened. Amber changed from a symbol and token of relations to an exchange commodity. Authors: Tony Axelsson, PhD, is a researcher at the Department of Historical Studies, Gothenburg University and an archaeologist working for Västergötlands museum in Skara. His research interests are landscape, material culture, heritage and communication. Anders Strinnholm Fil Lic, is a project manager at the Department for Heritage Resources at the Swedish National Heritage board in Visby, Gotland. His main research interest are material culture, Neolithic society and the social dimensions of technology. Together the authors have worked on Neolithic amber within the project ‘Neolithic amber – symbolic and chronological features’.

149

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

exchange, 165-90. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Burenhult, G. 1997. Ajvide och den moderna arkeologin. Stockholm, Natur och kultur. Cederschiöld, L. 1953. Om bärnstensfynden från Vartofta härad i Västergötland. Fornvännen, 1953, 4, 211-215. Ebbesen, K. 1995. Die nordischen Bernsteinhorte der Trichterbecherkultur. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 70, 32-89. Ebbesen, K. 2002. Neolitiske ravperler I Västergötland. Situ Västsvensk Arkeologisk Tidskrift 2002, 85-126. Godelier, M. 1999. The enigma of the gift. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Herity, M. 1974. Irish passage graves. Neolithic tomb builders in Ireland and Britain 2500 B.C. Dublin, Irish University Press. Indreko, R. 1956. Steingeräte mit Rille. Stockholm, Almqvist and Wiksell. Janzon, G. 1974. Gotlands mellanneolitiska gravar. Stockholm, Almqvist and Wiksell. Janzon, G. 1984. Stenredskap med skaftränna - indikation på tidig metallurgi? Jernkontorets bergshistoriska utskott H32. Stockholm. Kannegard Nielsen, E. and Brinch Petersen, E. 1993. Burials, peoples and dogs, in S. Hvass and B. Storgaard (eds), Digging into the past. 25 years of Archaeology in Denmark, 76-81. Copenhagen, Royal Society of Northern Antiquaries. Karsten, P. 1994. Att kasta yxan i sjön. En studie över rituell tradition och förändring utifrån skånska neolitiska offerfynd. Stockholm, Almqvist and Wiksell. Klassen, L. 2000. Frühes Kupfer im Norden. Untersuchungen zu Chronologie, Herkunft, und Bedeutung der Kupferfunde der Nordgruppe der Trichterbecherkultur. Højbjerg , Moesgård Museum. Larsson, L. 1988. The Skateholm project. Man and environment: interdisciplinary studies. Stockholm, Almqvist and Wiksell. Larsson, L. 2000. Expression of art in the Mesolithic societies of Scandinavia. In A. Butrimas (ed.), Prehistoric art in the Baltic region. Vilnius, Vilnius Academy of Fine Arts. Larsson, L. 2001. The sun from the sea – amber in the Mesolithic and Neolithic of southern Scandinavia. In A. Butrimas (ed.), Baltic amber. Baltic amber in natural sciences, archaeology and applied arts, 65-75. Vilnius, Vilnius Academy of Fine Arts.

Magnusson Staaf, B. 1996. An essay on copper flat axes. Stockholm, Almqvist and Wiksell. Malmer, M.P. 2002. The Neolithic of south Sweden: TRB, GRK, and STR. Stockholm, The Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities. Mathiassen, T. 1960. Ravsmukker fra ældre stenalder. Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighet og Historie 1959, 184-200. Runcis, J. 2002. Bärnstensbarnen. Stockholm, Riksantikvarieämbetet Förlag. Sjögren, K.-G. 2008. Fragment av ordning – Undersökning av överplöjda megalitgravar vid Frälsegården, Gökhems socken, Västergötland 1999-2001. Göteborg, Göteborgs Universitet. Sjögren, K.-G, Price, D. and Ahlström, T. 2009. Megaliths and mobility in south-western Sweden. Investigating relations between a local society and its neighbours using strontium isotopes. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28, 85-101. Skeates, R. 2010. The art of memory: Personal ornaments in Copper Age South-East Italy, in K. T. Lillios and V. Tsamis (eds), Material Mnemonics: Everyday Memory in Prehistoric Europé. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Strinnholm, A. 2001. Bland säljägare och fårfarmare struktur och förändring i Västsveriges mellanneolitikum. Coast to coast books 4. Uppsala, Uppsala Universitet. Taffinder, J. 1998. The allure of the exotic - the social use of non-local raw materials during the Stone Age in Sweden. Uppsala, Uppsala Universitet. Taffinder, J. 2001. Stone Age gold. In A. Butrimas (ed.), Baltic amber. Baltic amber in natural sciences, archaeology and applied arts, 99-107. Vilnius, Vilnius Academy of Fine Arts. Vang Petersen, P. 1998. Rav, Hjortetak og mesolitisk magi. Danefæ fra jægerstenaldern. Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark 1998, 87-98. Weiner, A.B. 1992. Inalienable possessions: the paradox of keeping while giving. Berkeley, University of California Press. Zagorska, I. 2004. The ‘Gold Coast’ of the Gulf of Riga, in C.W. Beck, I.B. Loze and J.M. Todd (eds), Amber in archaeology. Proceedings of the fourth international conference on amber in archaeology Talsi, 2001, 34-47. Riga, Institute of the History of Latvia Publishers. Zagorskis, F. 2004. Zvejnieki (Northern Latvia) Stone Age cemetery. British Archaeological Reports International series 1292, Oxford, BAR Publishing.

150

Chapter 13

Transformation by fire A locality for assemblies during the Early Neolithic Funnel Beaker Culture in Central Sweden Lars Larsson Abstract: The former island of Södertörn, just south of Stockholm, has a number of Early Neolithic sites. For more than twenty years a field at Stensborg was surveyed by an amateur archaeologist. Most numerous among the various artefact categories were fragments of stone axes of different shapes. Fragments of pointed-butted and thin-butted flint axes were also found, all of them destroyed by fire, as is the case with some of the stone axes. Just as the flint axes indicate contact with Southern Scandinavia, the slate objects demonstrate the existence of networks extending to northern Sweden. During the Early Neolithic the surveyed field was situated in the innermost part of a bay, delimited by the shoreline on one side and a ridge on the other. Two small but pronounced ravines of streams also form part of the natural boundary of the site. During excavation of the field several small pits were found that were filled with fragments of axes, pottery vessels and other objects, along with a considerable amount of carbonised seed. Most of the finds have indications of destruction, either directly or by the use of fire. The field seems to have been used as a place for assemblies, where rituals were an important part of the activities. The Stensborg site seems to represent yet another kind of natural enclosure involving ritual activities during the Early Neolithic. Keywords: Early Neolithic, Central Sweden, ritual deposition, fire, axes

Introduction

a palisade, was erected in c. 3100 BC and used in various sequences during a period of 42 years. The platform, which was divided into small cells with a centrally placed fireplace, produced a large number of finds that had been destroyed, most of them by fire.

During the last decades a number of causewayed enclosures have been identified in Denmark, dating to the late Early Neolithic and the early part of the Middle Neolithic Funnel Beaker Culture (3400–3200 BC) (Andersen 1997). They have been named Sarup enclosures after the location where such a structure was first recognised. More than twenty-five have been identified in Denmark (Jensen 2001, 563). So far, just one has been found in Southern Sweden (Larsson 1982; 2000). Because of the palisades and rows of pits, this kind of structure is easy to identify. Like most of the continental examples, enclosures of this kind have been interpreted as places for assemblies, where the finds and features include evidence of ritual practices that involved intentional damage by fire and deposition of special parts of the material culture (Andersen 1997).

Finds at Stensborg For twenty years Sven-Gunnar Broström, then an amateur archaeologist, walked the fields on the northern slope of a pronounced valley at Stensborg, located about 30km south of Stockholm (Figure 1). In 1970 he found the first tools on a field measuring 100 x 100m, sloping from about 45m down to 37m above sea level. The field was delimited by the pronounced edge of a much steeper slope extending down to the valley bottom at about 27m (Figure 1). Artefacts were also found in a field above and to the east of the sloping field. Despite the density of finds, unusual for Central Sweden, the position of all 3400 objects was recorded, using the field demarcation lines (Broström 1996).

There is evidence of similar activities, although usually less intensive, in connection to megalithic tombs (Larsson 2004). Sarup enclosures are rather easy to identify by their artificial features, even though most of them take advantage of natural borders, like hills and waterways. The question is whether there might exist locations including remains of similar ritual activities, but with less artificial delimitation or none at all. One indication of structures connected with somewhat less imposing monumental features and setting is the timber platform of Alvastra peat dwelling in the central part of Southern Sweden (Brovall 1986; Malmer 2003). Here a platform of 450 square metres, delimited by

A special trend in the find material is its fragmentary condition. The majority of finds are small pieces of polished stone axes. However, a considerable number of fragments are of a size that makes it possible to determine the axe type. Based on necks and edges, about fifty axes belong to the thin-butted neck axe type (Nielsen 1978, 72ff.) (Figure 2: 1 and6). Even more common is the type of axe with an oval or pointed-oval cross-section.

151

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Figure 1. Plan of the site with 2 metre contours. At the centre is the field with the large number of surface finds. The sea level at the time of the late Early Neolithic was about 35m above present sea level. To the left and right are the outlets of two small brooks forming deep ravines. Small map: Southern Scandinavia with sites mentioned in the text.

fragmentation as that observed for a small number of thinbutted axes made from a hard material. A number of edges show minor evidence of use or none at all. By contrast, a number of edges have deliberately been destroyed by hitting them against a hard material. A small number of fragments show traces of intense heat, although such traces can be difficult to identify among stone objects.

The thin-butted necks correspond to the most common type made in flint in Southern Scandinavia. The other type has a strong resemblance to the different types of more or less point-butted flint axes from the same area (Nielsen 1978, 65ff.). There are just a small number of fragments proving that thin-bladed stone axes were also in circulation. More common is the hollow-edged stone axe with a rather thick neck (Figure 2: 5). The majority of these are made of a much harder mineral than most of the other axes, probably porphyrite. Just a few of these axe types appear intact. All the rest are in an especially fragmentary state, which makes it most problematic to calculate the original number of intact axes.

The collection also includes a small number of fragments of battle-axes that had a markedly curved shape with ridges, imitating copper axes from Continental Europe (Figure 2: 7) (Hallgren 2008, 215ff.). More than five hundred pieces of flint show obvious traces of contact with fire, indicated by their white colour and by a fragmentation pattern typical of contact with heat. The axes have been destroyed by fire, but not by placing them directly in a hearth. They have initially been heat-treated and later placed on a bed of charcoal in a fire (Larsson 2004). By this procedure the axe changed colour, but if

In most cases the axe body has been divided in two or more parts, most commonly with a breakage transverse to the longitude axis. However, the hollow-edged axes have cracked into a larger number of more or less quadratic pieces, due to the harder material used, which has fragmented in a different way. This is the same kind of

152

Lars Larsson: Transformation by fire

Figure 2. Stone axes from the settlement site of Stensborg. 1: edge fragment of a thin-butted stone axe, 2: fragment of a point-butted flint axe, 3: edge fragment of a thin-butted flint axe, 4: fragments of a point-butted flint axe, 5: fragments of a stone axe with hollowed edge, 6: fragments of a thin-butted stone axe, 7: fragment of a stone battle axe and 8: stone chisel. , 2-3: fragments of thin-butted stone axes and 4: preform of a stone axe. All stone axes are intentionally damaged and the flint axes damaged by fire. Drawing by Krister Kim Tayanin.

153

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

handled well continue to keep its form intact. However, the multiple cracks that appeared made them difficult to handle and easy to break into pieces. Among the fragments, both thin-butted and point-butted axes can be identified (Figure 2: 2–4), with the former in the majority. The number of axes is difficult to estimate because of their fragmentary state. Considering the size of some fragments, they must originate from very large axes. Some well-preserved edge fragments indicate that the axes might have been unused before they were fragmented.

Before the excavation a geophysical survey measuring the magnetic susceptibility, as well as phosphate testing, were carried out. However, no obvious anomalies were registered. The field research in 2008 was mainly intended as a test excavation. As expected, very few finds were made, due to the collection of finds during the previous field-walking. The surface collection included just a small number of quartz and stone waste, in contrast to an ordinary settlement, where one normally finds it in higher quantities. Only a small number of features were documented below the plough zone.

Some blade fragments and flake scrapers of flint have been treated the same way as the axes. The surface finds also include a number of knapping stones and several hundred fragments of polishing stones as well as grinding querns of the saddle type.

The ridge above the field included a number of stones and boulders. But an area in the southern part turned out to be almost free of stones. The excavation of a few square metres proved that this was due to intentional clearing. A large number of quartz waste as well as stone flakes, together with pottery, showed that there was a settlement in this area, of the same age as the finds in the field, where intensive manufacture of stone axes had been carried out.

Almost all of the finds can be related to the Early Neolithic Funnel Beaker Culture, which is proved by finds of pottery sherds (Figure 3: 3–7) (Hallgren 2008). The number was exceptional, considering that pottery easily dissolves on the surface, especially because of the weather conditions, with harsh winters. The pottery must have been found immediately after it had been brought to the surface by ploughing. A considerable proportion of the sherds are decorated with cord and whipped cord imprints, and stamps.

In 2009 the excavation started with the removal of the plough zone within an area of 700 square metres. Just a small number of features could be easily identified, including a small stone pavement and a couple of fireplaces. The pavement provided no clue to the date or function and the fireplaces were of recent age. The Early Neolithic features turned out to be more difficult to identify. They were found within an area of clay surrounded by sand. Small pits, generally less than 0.5m in size and less than 0.15m in depth, had been cut into the clay. The pits had been filled with broken and burned artefacts. In some cases a cover of ordinary clay still existed. This meant that areas with clay had to be tested in order to recognize the features. However, in certain areas ploughing has subsequently removed the clay cover. Another form of deposition was to dig a shallow pit in the sand and fill it with clay, in which objects were included. These features were of a somewhat larger size, measuring as much as 3 m across.

The composition and state of the surface finds make the site exceptional. The use of fire and the fragmentation indicate a similarity to sites such as the Sarup enclosures. A small number of sites not correlated to enclosures, but including a considerable number of axes and other flint artefacts, have been identified in Southern Sweden. Two such sites, Svartskylle in the southeastern part of Scania (Larsson 1989), southernmost Sweden, and Strandby (Andersen 2000, 34), on the island of Funen in the south, date from the latest part of the early Neolithic and/or the earliest part of the Middle Neolithic, at c. 3300 BC. Svartskylle is located in a hilly landscape about 10 km from the Baltic Sea. Finds of fragmented flint tools were found on the highest part of one of the highest hills, surrounded by wetlands. The site of Strandby is a somewhat level area close to the seashore and within a former wetland. This means that the natural setting encloses both sites.

The finds were the same as in the surface collection: fragmentary stone axes, fragments of flint axes destroyed by heat, sherds of pottery and lumps of burnt clay. A small number of burnt bones were also present. Among the special finds was a small stone shaped like a phallus, with red ochre on its tip (Figure 3: 2). A piece of volcanic tuff, of a kind found at least some 300km to the north, was also recovered. This piece is an indicator of a wide network that not only included regions about 600km to the south, represented by the flint axes, but also regions to the north. The surface finds also included a fragmented slate knife and slate arrowheads from northern Sweden (Taffinder 1998,99 ff.) (Figure 3: 1 and 8).

Excavation at Stensborg The survey conducted at Stensborg is an excellent example of what plough-zone archaeology might contribute. The very important finds assemblage, combined with intensive documentation, in itself provided information of major importance. The find situation and composition of finds made the Stensborg site a location well worth excavating in order to find out if special features might be preserved below the plough zone.

According to the interpretation of the excavated features, the objects were intentionally destroyed in rituals on the slope and then deposited in shallow pits, mixed with clay. This might be the reason why the plough zone contained so many finds. Most of the shallow pits have been destroyed

In the early 1990s the eastern part of the site was included in a golf course and therefore was not available for excavation.

154

Lars Larsson: Transformation by fire

Figure 3. Finds from Stensborg. 1; fragment of a slate knife, 2: stone shaped like a phallus, 3–7: fragments of funnel beakers and 8: tanged slate arrowhead. Drawing by Krister Kim Tayanin.

or partly damaged during the use of the slope as an arable field. We do not know about the situation in prehistory, but the area has been ploughed at least since the seventeenth century. Judging from the shallow pits, the intention was not to bury the remains deep in the soil, just to cover them by a thin layer below the surface. It was not possible to identify any obvious pattern in the distribution of features.

The excavated area on the ridge was extended, and showed a high quantity of refuse from stone axe production. As most of the ridge is included in a golf course, it is not possible to estimate the size of the settlement. Burnt seeds An important factor that aided the identification of most pits was the presence of numerous small black dots within the fill. These were identified as burnt seeds. Small samples from three pits provided as many as about 7000 microfossils (Figure 4). This is the largest sample in Central Sweden and probably the largest ever found in Scandinavia from

Small chisels, mostly made from flakes with a polished edge (Figure 2: 8), represent the only stone tool type not destroyed. These would have been most useful for working wood. Perhaps they were used for special carvings on poles positioned on the slope.

155

Proceedings of the BorgerMeetings 2009

Stensborg Pit 1

Cultivated plants Emmer (Triticum dicoccum ) Emmer glume base Emmer spiklet forks Emmer raches internodes Emmer/Spelt wheat (Triticum dicoccum/spelta ) cf. Spelt wheat (Triticum cf. spelta ) Bread wheat (Triticum aestivum ) Naked barley (Hordeum vulgare var. nudum ) cf. Naked barley indefinite cerealia indefinite cerealia straw fragment Total cerealia Other plants Hazel (Corylus avellana ) [shellfragment] Total

Number 699 16 33 1 109 17 100 66 36 1077 4 2158 7 7

Pit 2

% 32,3 0,7 1,5