The Origin and Function of the Earthen Long Barrows of Northern Europe 9780860543312, 9781407341972

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Copyright
Acknowledgments
Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF PLATES
LIST OF TABLES
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2 THE TRB CULTURE: A BRIEF OUTLINE
CHAPTER 3 CURRENT THEORY OF BURIAL STUDIES: ITS RELEVANCE TO THE STUDY OF THE NORTH EUROPEAN EARTHEN LONG BARROWS
CHAPTER 4 A SHORT HISTORY OF RESEARCH INTO EARTHEN LONG BARROWS
CHAPTER 5 EARTHEN LONG BARROWS: DISTRIBUTION AND GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
CHAPTER 6 THE CONSTRUCTION AND INTERIOR STRUCTURES OF THE NORTH EUROPEAN EARTHEN LONG BARROWS
CHAPTER 7 THE GRAVES AND BURIAL RITUAL OF THE NORTH EUROPEAN EARTHEN LONG BARROWS
CHAPTER 8 EARTHEN LONG BARROWS IN THEIR EUROPEAN CONTEXT
APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX 2
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Citation preview

The Origin and Function of the Earthen Long Barrows of Northern Europe

Magdalena S. Midgley

BAR International Series 259 1985

B.A.R.

5, Centremead, Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 0ES, England.

GENERAL EDITORS A.R Hands, B.Sc., M.A., D.Phil. D.R Walker, M.A.

B.A.R.-S259, 1985: 'The Origin and Function of the Earthen Long Barrows of Northern Europe'

© Magdalena s. Midgley, 1985.

The author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. ISBN 9780860543312 paperback ISBN 9781407341972 e-book DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9780860543312 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library This book is available at www.barpublishing.com

i ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work would not have b een possible without the h elp o f many people a nd I wish to thank everyone who h as g iven me a ssistance during the s tudy f or and preparation o f this volume. Warm thanks go to a ll my c olleagues and f riends i n c ountries which I have visited i n c onnection with this s tudy. S tarting with Poland I wish to o ffer my particular t hanks to the f ollowing: P rofessor K . J aZdiewski f iczne w Lodzi) f or h is t o the museum a t Lod ;

( Muzeum Archeologiczne i E tnograhelp and k indness during my visit

Professor Tadeusz Wiglahski ( ZakIad Archeologii Wielkopolski, I HKM PAN, Poznah) f or h is i nvaluable help, h is unreserved enthusiasm f or my work, h is most generous o ffer o f f ree a ccess to a ll the i nformation f rom h is excavations o f the Dolice, Karsko and Krqpcewo barrows, and f or permission to u tilise a s yet unpublished i nformation, p lans and photographs f rom the f ormer two s ites. Warm thanks are a lso extended to t he other members o f Professor Wiglahski's f amily, h is wife Krystyna and daughter Anna, f or l ooking a fter me i n every possible way, o ffering me accommodation and companionship during my visits to Poznah; D r. Dobrochna Jankowska ( Wydzial Archeologii, Universytet im. Adama Mickiewicza, Poznah) f or i nformation and many d iscussions on her excavations o f the Lupawa l ong barrow c omplex; D r. B . Burchard ( ZakIad Archeologii Malopolski, I HKM PAN, Krakow) f or additional i nformation about the Niediwiedi ' long house' excavation and f or her k indness and h elp during my visit to Krakow; D r. Henryk Wiklak ( Muzeum Archeologiczne i Etnograficzne w Lodzi) who o ffered me additional i nformation about the S arnowo complex; S . Jastrzqbski ( Katedra Archeologii Polski, Uniwersytet Marii Curie-SkIodowskiej, Lublin) who provided i nteresting i nformation about barrows i n L ittle Poland and who k indly a llowed me to i nclude an i nterim p lan o f the MilocinKolonia barrow; Turning to the German Democratic Republic, I thank P rofessor E . S chuldt ( Museum f ür Ur- und F rühgeschichte, S chwerin) f or h is help and exceptional hospitality during my v isit to S chwerin, and Dr. A . Häusler ( Landesmuseum f ür

iv

Vorgeschichte Halle ( Saale)), f or h is a ttention and hospit ality during my v isit to Halle. I a lso wish to o ffer my warmest thanks to D r. Hans Quitta ( Akademie der Wissens chaften der DDR, Z entralinstitut f ür Alte Geschichte und Archäologie, Berlin), who helped me to overcome a ll d iff iculties and to make my s tudy i n t he GDR a ll the more i nteresting and worthwhile. I n the German Federal Republic, I thank D r. Jürgen Hoika ( Schleswig Holsteinisches Landesmuseum f ür Vor- und F rühgeschichte, S chleswig) f or a ll h is help, f or his hospitality and f or h is e lucidation o f the complexity o f t he early TRB material f rom north-western Germany. I thank Torsten Madsen ( Institut f or f orhistorisk arkaeologi, Arhus Universitet, Moesgärd, Denmark) f or h is c ontribution to my better understanding o f the Danish e arthen l ong barrow material. I n the Netherlands, Dr. Jan Albert B akker ( Albert Egges v an Giffen I nstituut voor Prae- en Protohistorie, Universit eit van Amsterdam) helped me enormously during my visit to the University o f Amsterdam. I a lso thank h im and h is wife f or their hospitality. I n Great Britain, I thank Dr. I . K innes ( Department o f Prehistoric and Romano-British Antiquities, British Museum, London) and P . Ashbee ( Centre o f East Anglian S tudies, University o f East Anglia, Norwich) f or our s timul ating d iscussions on many a spects o f the e arthen l ong barrows; Dr. Martin Munro ( Palaeoecology Centre, Queen's University, Belfast) f or h is help i n translating Danish t exts; and Gordon Thomas ( Edinburgh) f or h is help i n drawi ng the maps and f or h is beautiful r e-drawing f rom a t attered copy o f the p lan o f S arnowo. There are many more colleagues and p ersonal f riends who have contributed to this s tudy with s timulating d isc ussion, with i nformation and not l east o f a ll by making my l ong visits to s o many s trange environments both profitable and enjoyable. On a personal note, I wish to extend my most k ind thanks and l ove to my f amily i n Poland who, i n t imes which were economically and s ocially harsh, d id their utmost to l ook a fter me i n many ways, providing everyday necessities and comforts, and who, even i n t imes o f great economic s tringency, d id not grudge their petrol coupons to t ake me on yet another t rip to S arnowo.

Finally I must thank two men without whose c ontinuous s upport this work would n ever have r eached completion. I extend my most warm and grateful thanks to Roger Mercer ( Department o f Archaeology, University o f Edinburgh) who i nspired my i nterest i n North European p rehistory while I was an undergraduate s tudent. While h is c riticisms have s eemed hard on o ccasion, they h ave i nvariably turned out to b e most valuable a nd have greatly contributed to my better understanding o f many a spects o f the s ubject, both general and specific. I t hank h im most k indly f or h is confidence i n me and f or a ll t he t ime and attention which he h as devoted to me and my work. My f inal thanks go to my husband, S tephen, without whose continuous h elp and s upport I c ould n ever h ave comp leted the task o f writing this work. He deserves much c redit f or helping me to transform my personal version o f English i nto s omething r esembling a l anguage others will understand, and h e has s upported me constantly through the good and bad moments o f my r esearch. The f inancial s upport f or the r esearch presented i n this work c ame f rom the S cottish Education Department under the Scottish S tudentship S cheme and the necessary f ield s tudies abroad were f inanced by grants f rom the s ame Department. I n addition, the Abercromby Trust enabled me to visit museums, l ibraries and s ites in this country.

vi

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

i ii

Contents

v i

List

of

Figures

v iii

List

of

Plates

x i

List

of

Tables

x ii

Chapter

1

I ntroduction

Chapter

2

The

Chapter

3

Current theory of b urial s tudies: i ts relevance to the s tudy o f the North European earthen long barrows

1 3

A short history o f r esearch earthen long barrows

2 3

Chapter Chapter

4

a b rief

outline

5 .1

I ntroduction

5 .2

Distribution o f the North earthen long barrows

5 .5

4

into

Earthen l ong barrows: distribution and general characteristics

5 .4

Chapter

culture:

5

5 .3

Chapter

TRB

1

2 9

D imensions o f the North earthen long barrows Orientation of the North earthen long barrows Form of the North long barrows

E uropean 3 2

European 4 9 European

European

6 3 earthen 7 5

6

The construction and i nterior s tructures of the North European earthen long barrows

6 .1

I ntroduction

6 .2

Stone

6 .3

Entrances

6 .4

Interior

s tructures

1 27

6 .4/1

I nternal

partitions

1 28

6 .4/2

Timber

7

The graves and North European

7 .1

I ntroduction

and

8 5

timber

enclosures

8 5 1 13

buildings

1 48

burial r itual of the earthen long barrows 1 62

vii

Chapter

7 .2

D escription o f

graves

7 .3

Location o f

7 .4

Human

7 .5

Burial

8

Earthen l ong barrows European context

1 64

graves

s keletal

1 86

r emains

r itual

Appendix

1

L ist

Appendix

2

Catalogue o f earthen l ong

o f

1 93 i n

Western

their

r adiocarbon dates the North European barrows

Kujavia

1 99 2 20 2 24 2 25

Pomerania

2 47

Mecklenburg-Brandenburg

2 66

Lower

2 77

S axony

Denmark Little S axony B ibliography

1 90

2 87 Poland

3 03 3 07 3 09

viii

L IST OF

1 .

Distribution

2 .

Chronological

3 .

Von Plön's

4 .

Distribution

of

ELBs

i n

5 .

Distribution

of

ELBs

i n Kujavia

6 .

Distribution

of

ELBs

in Western

7 .

Distribution of

ELBs

in

the

8 .

Distribution

of

ELBs

i n

North

9 .

Distribution

o f

ELBs

i n

the

1 0.

Distribution

of

ELBs

in

Denmark

1 1.

Eupawa

1 2.

Diagram of

length

1 3.

Comparison

of

1 4.

Superimposition

1 5.

Comparison of l ength trapezoidal barrows

1 6.

of

the TRB

FIGURES

table

of

s urvey of

culture the

ELBs

TRB i n

the

5 culture

the

7

Pyrzyce

North

district

European

P lain

length of

3 3 3 5

Pomerania

area

of

3 6

Pyrzyce

3 9

Germany

4 2

Sachsenwald

4 4 4 6

barrow complex of

2 4

4 8 ELBs

5 0

and width

o f

ELBs

5 8

l ength/width between

6 0

rectangular

and 6 1

Comparison o f width trapezoidal barrows

between

rectangular

1 7.

Orientation

of

ELBs

in Kujavia

1 8.

Orientation

of

ELBs

i n Western

1 9.

Orientation of ELBs Saxony and Denmark

and 6 2 6 5

Pomerania

in Mecklenburg,

6 6

Lower 6 8

2 0.

Orientation

of

rectangular

ELBs

6 9

2 1.

Orientation

of

trapezoidal

ELBs

6 9

2 2.

Orientation cemeteries

of

barrows

2 3.

Location

Kujavian

2 4.

P lan

2 5.

Sarnowo

long

barrows

1 -6

7 7

2 6.

Sarnowo

l ong

barrows

8 -9

7 8

2 7.

Legniczöwka

long

barrows

7 9

2 8.

Obalki

barrows

2 9.

Wietrzychowice

of

o f the

long

at

f our

Kujavian 7 1

Sarnowo

long

s ites

7 3

cemetery

f acing

7 6

8 0 barrows

1 and

4

f acing

8 1

i x

3 0.

Wietrzychowice

l ong barrows

2 ,

3 1.

Z berzyn and Gaj

3 2.

S tralendorf

3 3.

I llustration o f hypothetical arrangement a t S arnowo

3 and

5

f acing

l ong barrows

8 1 8 3

l ong b arrow

9 0 vertical 9 4

3 4.

Dolice

3 5.

Krqpcewo

3 6.

Barrows

3 8.

Wartin

3 9.

Milocin-Kolonia

4 0.

Mosegärden

4 1.

Danish barrows with t imber-built

4 2.

P lan o f

the

S tengade

4 3.

P lan o f

the

' long house'

4 4.

S achsenwald

l ong barrows

4 5.

Location

f eatures

4 6.

Lindebjerg

- f eature C

1 19

4 7.

Lindebjerg

- f eature D

1 20

4 8.

Rustrup

4 9.

Rude

5 0.

Karsko

5 1.

Eastern end o f

5 2.

l ong barrow

9 6

l ong barrow

9 7

f rom the Jupawa

complex

9 9

l ong barrow

1 01

l ong barrow

1 02

l ong barrow

o f

f açade

f açade

1 04 enclosures

s tructures

1 08

at Niediwiedi

1 11 1 16

C and D at

L indebjerg

1 18

b edding trench

and a small

1 24

enclosure

1 25

l ong barrows

wierczynek

1 06

f acing

Dolice

l ong barrow

1 28 1 33

l ong barrow

1 38

5 3.

' low°

l ong b arrow

1 39

5 4.

Rustrup

5 5.

Ostergärd

5 6.

Long

5 7.

P lan o f

t imber

building

at Gaj

1 50

5 8.

P lan o f

t imber

building

at

1 51

5 9.

P lan o f easternmost and at Bygholm Norremark

central

6 0.

P lan

at

6 1.

Kujavian

6 2.

Graves

6 3.

Barrows

l ong barrow

1 42

l ong barrows

1 43

barrow e nclosures at Barkaer

o f

t imber building l ong

o f

1 45

Z berzyn s tructures

1 52 S arnowo

3 2/9

b arrow graves

l ong barrows

at Gnewitz

at

Karsko and

and Rothenmoor

1 54 1 69

S arnowo

1 71 1 73

6 4.

Sarnowo

3 2/2

grave

no.

6 5.

Graves

6 6.

Wietrzychowice 4 5/3 s howing the enclosures of graves 1 and 2

f rom S arnowo

6 7.

Grave

f rom

6 8.

P lans

of

6 9.

P lan

o f

long

BrzegC

1 75

3 2/8

barrow

trapezoidal

1

1 76

3 2/9

long

Kujawski

at

rectangular 1 77 Sarnowo

houses

f rom Kujavia

settlement

1 82 2 11 2 14

xi

L IST OF

I a. Ib. I c. I Ia. I Ib. I Ic. I IIa. I IIb. I IIc. IVa. IVb. I Vc.

PLATES

Karsko ( WPOM-15) location

i llustrating

Karsko barrow

view of

typical

barrow 4 1

( WPOM-15)

Pyrzyce

valley

f rom 4 1

Karsko ( WPOM-15) built enclosure

example

of

typical

s tone4 1

Krqpcewo enclosure ( WPOM-20) showing arrangement of boulders with f lat s ides towards exterior

8 6

Wietrzychowice at broader end

8 6

( KUJ-45/3) of barrow

position

Wietrzychowice ( KUJ-45/5) at broader end of barrow

position

Karsko of two

( WPOM-15/1) barrows

Karsko ( WPOM-15/1) seen f rom West

showing

parallel

o f of

entrance entrance

arrangement 1 31

transverse

stone

partition 1 31

Karsko ( WPOM-15/1) c lose-up of l inear at Western end of 2 nd compartment

f eature 1 31

Stralendorf ( MBG-25) showing location o f transverse s tone wall from South

1 35

Karsko wall

1 35

( WPOM-15/1)

Wietrzychowice in i nterior

c lose-up of

( KUJ-45/3)

2 nd

location

transverse o f

two

graves 1 35

xii

L IST OF TABLES

1 .

Numbers

2 a.

Dimensions

2 b.

Dimensions. orientation in Western Pomerania

and

Dimensions, orientation in Mecklenburg

and

Dimensions, orientation in Lower Saxony

and

Dimensions, in Denmark

and

2 c. 2 d. 2 e. 3 . 4 .

of

investigated/excavated and

orientation

o f

shape

of

s hape

I llustration enclosures with

5 1

ELBs

of

ELBs 5 5

shape

o f

shape

ELBs

of

barrows

ELBs

at

contour of

survey of

possible

wide

and 7 6

S arnowo

heights

of

9 3 t imber 1 12

7 .

ELBs

record of

8 .

Graves

9 .

Details of grave construction r itual i n Kujavia

known

f our 7 0

Relationship between the l ength o f narrow component of Kujavian ELBs of

Kujavia

5 2-54

Orientation of individual Kujavian cemeteries

6 .

in

each

burial

1 63

area

1 63 and

burial 1 65

Details of grave construction and burial ritual in Western Pomerania, Mecklenburg and Lower Saxony

1 66

Details o f grave r ital in Denmark

1 67

1 2.

I ndividual

1 3.

Comparison of their graves

1 4.

i n

5 7

Details

1 1.

ELBs

3 0

5 6

orientation

5 .

1 0.

barrows

Length

construction

orientation

of

orientation

and width

and

burial

ELB graves of

ELBs

1 88

and 1 89

of

Post

LBK

houses

in Kujavia

2 09

CHAPTER

1

INTRODUCTION

This work i s a s tudy o f the North European e arthen l ong barrows, which represent a d istinct e lement within a t radition o f l arge monuments o f f unerary a ssociation and which were constructed i n many a reas o f Europe during the 4 th and 3 rd millennia bc. I n the context o f this s tudy, e arthen l ong barrows are l ong e arthen mounds which were o riginally accompanied by a variety o f external s tructural c omponents, and which contain burials and burial-associat ed s tructures. O f the two E nglish-language names which are commonly u sed to describe this type o f monument, the earthen l ong b arrow and the unchambered l ong barrow, the f ormer i s u sed t hroughout and h as been c hosen f or s everal r easons. F irstly, i t distinguishes t he monuments under consideration f rom a wide range o f burial-associated s tructures which a re c overed by the nebulous t erm ' megalithic graves'. Although l arge s tones have been u sed i n the c onstruction o f the North European e arthen l ong barrows, these correspond n either i n s ize, nor i n t he way they have been used to the massive s tone b locks which form an essential e lement i n s ome o f the western European megalithic graves. This d ist inction, moreover, s eems to go beyond the u se o f s pecific b uilding materials and i s i nherent i n the way i n which diff erent f orms o f f unerary monument f unctioned i n their r esp ective a reas. S econdly, ' earthen l ong b arrow' i s not a c lassificatory t erm, i n the s ense that the name does not specify the nature o f the s tructures f ound within the interior - neither their s ize, s hape, form, nor the materials used i n c onstruction a nd i ts u se i n the s tudy o f monuments which r eveal a n umber o f d ifferent, a lbeit r elated, s tructural components theref ore s eems entirely appropriate. Moreover, the u se o f the t erm ' unchambered l ong b arrow', or i ndeed o f i ts continent al counterparts s uch a s Hünenbett* ohne Kammer ( Beltz 1 910, S chuldt 1 972), k ammerlose Hünenbett ( Sprockhoff 1 954), bezk omorowy grobowiec ( Chmielewski 1 952, Ja dZewski 1 970a) or l anghoj med j ordgrav ( Thorvildsen 1 941), i s no l onger

* S ee Bakker ( 1979, o f the meaning o f

Appendix A 2e) this word.

for

a detailed d iscussion

2

j ustified. I t will b e s hown i n the l atter part o f t his work that, apart f rom the v ariety o f other s tructures, t he e arthe n l ong barrows do contain primary b urial c hambers ( chapter 7 ) which, unlike many f orms o f monument h iding under t he t erm ' megalithic', were not built o f l arge s tones. I t i s a lso f elt that the term ' non-megalithic l ong b arrow' ( Kinnes 1 975, 1 979) i s i nappropriate a s i t immediat ely s uggests a concept opposite to that o f the ' megalithic l ong b arrow', whereas e arthen l ong b arrows s hould i n f act b e considered a s a parallel and complementary development and not as directly opposed to other f orms o f l arge f uner ary architecture. I t i s a lso f elt that the ' earthen l ong b arrow' i s a well-established term i n English-language l iterature ( Piggott 1 935) and i t i s not necessary t o s ubs titute i t with a different o r new f orm purely out o f p ersonal preference. This s hould be done only when there a re good reasons f or a f resh c lassification o f monuments. Future research may i ndeed j ustify the i ntroduction o f a new concept but, f or the t ime being, the u se o f a t raditional name i s preferred to yet another misnomer. The work presented i n this volume i s a n edited and considerably s hortened version o f the writer's Ph.D. t hesis s ubmitted at the University o f Edinburgh i n April 1 984. The original text i ncluded an extensive d iscussion o f t he cult ural developments i n the North European P lain which p rec eeded the emergence o f the Trichterbecher ( TRB) culture complex, a s well a s a detailed s tudy o f that complex i tself. This part has been excluded f rom the current volume and will appear shortly a s a s eparate monograph ( Midgley, f orthcoming). Only a very brief outline o f the TRB complex i s therefore o ffered here ( chapter 2 ), providing a c ultural context within which the d iscussion o f the North European e arthen l ong barrow phenomenon may be understood. This i s f ollowed by a r eview o f the c urrent theoretical developments i n the s tudy o f burial ( chapter 3 ), which d isc usses the relevance o f a s elected number o f hypotheses on the f unction and use o f l arge f unerary monuments i n the s pecific context o f the North European earthen l ong barrows. I t a lso o ffers s ome comments o f a g eneral nature and s tress es the need f or a broader theoretical approach to t he s tudy o f prehistoric burial-associated s tructures. The greater part o f this volume ( chapters 4 -8) i s conc erned with the North European earthen l ong barrows thems elves. Chapter 4 describes briefly the h istory o f r esearch i nto this type o f monument i n d ifferent areas o f Northern Europe. Chapter 5 discusses general a spects o f e arthen l ong barrows s uch a s their l ocation i n t he natural and c ultural

3

l andscapes, and c haracteristics o f s ize and orientation; the variety o f f orms encountered among the monuments i s a lso d iscussed. I nvestigation o f the construction and i nterior s tructures o f the e arthen l ong b arrows f orms the c ontent o f chapter 6 . External and i nterior s tructural components, and their arrangement a round and within the monuments, are d iscussed i n s ome detail and i nterpretations o f their possible f unctions are o ffered. Chapter 7 i s c oncerned with t he s tudy o f burial i n earthen l ong barrows. Very s pecial attention i s paid to the s tudy and i nterpretat ion o f a n eglected f eature, namely the g rave s tructures. B urial a nd o ther a ssociated r ituals a re a lso discussed. I n the concluding chapter ( 8) the North European e arthen l ong b arrows a re s et within the wider, European c ontext o f l arge-scale f unerary monuments and a b rief comp arison with the B ritish earthen l ong barrows i s o ffered. This i s f ollowed by a return to the North European earthen l ong b arrows, and a d iscussion o f possible l ocal s ources o f o rigins and the multiple f unction o f the monuments among the North European TRB c ommunities c oncludes this work. Throughout the volume, f igures have been i ncluded c lose to the r elevant t ext a s possible. A c atalogue o f North European e arthen l ong barrows will be f ound i n Appendix 2 .

a s the

4

CHAPTER 2 THE TRB CULTURE:

A BRIEF OUTLINE

The communities r esponsible f or the construction o f the earthen l ong barrows arose through the i nteraction o f the Late Mesolithic groups which, during the 5 th and the beginning o f the 4 th millennia b c, o ccupied the northern and north-western parts o f the North European P lain, a nd the early f arming communities - the L inearbandkeramik ( LBK) and Post LBK ( Stichbandkeramik, Rösser, Lengyel*) - which at that t ime were e stablishing themselves a long the r egion's s outhern l imits. During the early 4 th millennium b c, s timul ated by mutual i nfluences and a l ong period o f c ontact between the two l ife-styles, a new c omplex - that o f the Funnel-necked b eaker c ulture ( Trichterbecherkultur - TRB, Tragtbaegerkultur, Kultura pucharöw l ejkowatych, Kultura nälevkowit ' ych pohärü) - appeared ( Bakker 1 979; Becker 1 947, 1 954a; Behrens 1 959, 1 960, 1 973; JaZdZewski 1 936a, 1 961, 1 965a; Mildenberger 1 953; Preuss 1 966, 1 980; Wiglanski 1 973, 1 979, Z apotock 1 958 a nd many others). The TRB c omplex was o f particular importance i n the cultural s haping o f the North European P lain and this i s s een from i ts duration, widespread d istribution and cons iderable i nfluence within i ts own a rea and beyond. The duration o f the TRB c ulture varied f rom a s much a s one and and a half millennia to a f ew hundred years, and i n i ts distribution i t covered most o f the area f rom the Netherl ands i n the west to c entral and s outhern Poland i n the

* Because o f the development o f these complexes i n Northern Europe a long l ines d ifferent f rom that i n Central Europe i t i s preferred here to r efer to these various groupings a s Post LBK; e specially i n v iew o f the multiple i nfluences observed i n certain r egions o f Northern Europe. This may i n the future obviate the need f or s ynchronisation and c lass ification o f the North European material on the b asis o f t ypo-chronologies worked out e lsewhere. Along the s outhern f ringes o f the North European P lain the transformation f rom LBK to Post LBK i s p laced a t around 3 900/3800 b c, w ith s ome groups - f or example the BrzegC Kujawski - c ontinuing until the end o f the 4 th millennium bc ( see C zerniak 1 980; Ko ko 1 982; Midgley, f orthcoming, for detailed d iscussion).

c r )

e--

m o d i f i e d )

6

east, and f rom s outhern S candinavia and Moravia i n the s outh ( Fig. 1 ).

i n

the

north

to Bohemia

Within this vast and geographically varied a rea t he TRB culture was not uniform but, f rom i ts v ery b eginning, was a widespread and d ifferentiated phenomenon. The d ivers ity i s mainly apparent i n c eramic s tyles but we a lso begin to recognise i t i n other e lements o f material c ulture ( for example l ithic i ndustries) as well a s i n e conomic a daptat ions or s ettlement s trategies. This d iversity o f the material c ulture o f t he TRB has been the main s ource o f many conflicting theories o f o rigin. These were generally b ased upon v arious trends i dentifiable i n d ifferent r egions; s outhern ( Behrens 1 959, 1 960; S chwabed issen 1 958b, 1 967), western ( Behrens 1 959, S chwabedissen 1 967) and northern t rends ( Ja M ewski 1 936a, 1 961, 1 965a, 1 970b) have g iven r ise to theories o f e ither one or another area providing the i nitial s timuli f or the development o f the entire complex. Yet i t i s precisely this d iversity o f cultural material that makes i t d ifficult to t race the TRB to any one cultural s ource or any s pecific geographical r egion, and current r esearch tends towards the v iew that broadly parallel - a lthough not necessarily s ynchronous processes were t aking p lace over the whole o f the European l owland. At l east f ive potential genetic c entres which c orrespond to the regional groups o f the TRB ( Fig. 1 ) may be d istinguished ( WiSlar iski 1 973, 1 979). The western c entre i ncludes the Netherlands and the area around Hannover, which was the s ource o f Tiefstich pottery and i s thus c ons iderably l ater than o ther groups ( Bakker 1 979). The northe rn centre i ncludes s outhern S candinavia, S chleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg. I t arose through the mixing o f western and eastern e lements a lthough the developments h ere would appear not to be s ynchronous throughout the whole area; i n S chleswigHolstein we perceive the emergence o f the TRB e arlier than i n Denmark. The eastern c entre c onsists o f the a reas o f Kujavia, l ower Odra and l ower S ilesia. The s outh-eastern c entre ( Little Poland) h ad c lose t ies with the eastern g roup. The s outhern c entre i ncludes areas around the middle and upper E lbe. The developments around the upper Odra and i n Moravia a re the l east c lear - these h ave been variously c onnected w ith the e astern, s outh-eastern and s outhern groups - but may a lso h ave had their own l ocal s ources. I t i s only within the l ast decade that C -14 determinat ions f rom TRB c ultural contexts have become s ufficiently numerous to s uggest that the i ndependent c hronological ordering o f events i n d ifferent r egions may s oon b e possible.

L I "

R O S E N H O F

F U C H S B E R G

7

r a Z

C 1

A

C

r e i

8

For a l ong t ime, however, s cholars h ave r elied upon typol ogical comparisons b etween ceramic a ssemblages f rom the d ifferent TRB groups and have tried t o order the developments apparent i n their own areas a ccording to s equences worked out e lsewhere. I ronic though i t may s eem, t he main problems i n the c hronological ordering o f the TRB s tem f rom the f act that Danish archaeologists have f or years b een ahead i n their s tudy o f this culture ( Becker 1 947, 1 954a, 1 954b, 1 967; Ebbesen 1 975; Mathiassen 1 940; S kaarup 1 973, 1 975; Troels-Smith 1 942, 1 953, 1 967). Consequently, a ll other s cholars have tried to assess evidence i n their regions i n terms o f typo-chronologies worked out i n D enmark, and general overall chronological s chemes were produced i n which materials f rom widely distant r egions were p laced i n the s ame c hronological horizons - f or example the p an-European A/B horizon ( Behrens 1 959, 1 960, 1 961; Ja MZewski 1 961, 1 965a, 1 970b; Wiglahski 1 973, 1 979). Detailed d iscussion o f regional chronologies o f the TRB culture will be o ffered e lsewhere ( Midgley, f orthcoming). A s implified chronological table o f TRB development i n different regions i s presented i n Fig. 2 ; i t i s b ased upon a comb ination o f relative and absolute c hronologies c urrently available i n e ach a rea. The comments which f ollow o ffer only the briefest s equence o f TRB development in a reas which are o f particular relevance i n the context o f this work. The typo-chronological s equence o f the TRB c ulture i n Kujavia ( and to s ome extent a lso i n Western Pomerania) i s based predominantly on the s tudy od c eramic a ssemblages. This i nvolves not only the s tudy o f the TRB pottery i tself but a comparison, i n terms o f s tylistic and technological development, with the pottery o f o ther l ocal Neolithic complexes s uch a s the LBK and Post LBK ( Czerniak 1 980; Czerniak and Ko ko 1 980a, 1 980b; Ko ko 1 980, 1 981). While i t i s not possible to d iscuss i n the p resent context a ll the implications o f this comparable method, i t i s important to note that the r esults o f this r esearch s uggest that the TRB and Post LBK cultures were i n c lose contact, a t l east a s f ar a s certain c eramic developments are concerned, and were undergoing technological and s tylistic changes contemporaneously. This f ully s upports e arlier views o f stylistic s imilarity between the l ocal TRB and other Neol ithic complexes and, more importantly, s uggests a contempor aneity o f the TRB and Post LBK groups i n Kujavia, which has not a lways been f ully appreciated.

the

The typological Vistula and Odra

s equence o f the TRB i n the valleys o f comprises f our phases: S arnowo, P ikut-

9

kowo, Wiörek and Luboh ( Wiglahski 1 979, 1 75-197; or I , I I, I II and I V phases i n Kogko's s cheme, Ko ko 1 981, F ig. 9 ). Material b elonging to the S arnowo phase i s known f rom a f ew s ettlement s ites ( Gabalöwna 1 969a, 1 969b; Ko ko 1 982), f rom s urface f inds and ' votive' bog deposits ( JaZdZewski 1 936a). D iagnostic pottery f orms i nclude f unnel-necked b eakers, two and f our-handled amphorae, f lasks, bowls and b aking p lates. Ornament i s s carce, i n the main l imited to s tamp impressions, and occasionally s trokes c over l arger s urfaces. Ceramic a ssemblages o f the P ikutkowo phase are known f rom s ettlement s ites ( for example S ierakowo, Ko ko and P rinke 1 977; P ikutkowo, N iesiolowska 1 967) and i t a lso s eems that the majority o f the e arthen l ong barrows were built at that t ime ( Gabalöwna 1 970a, 1 971; Kogxo 1 982). Pottery f orms continue earlier development but s how s harper p rofiles. Ornamentation i s more varied - ' ladder' motifs, chevrons and grooves appear, handles a re added to beakers and amphorae. A new c eramic f orm i s r epresented i n the appearance o f the collared f lask ( Chmielewski 1 952, GabaIöwna 1 971). The Wiörek phase represents a f loruit o f t he TRB culture i n this area, with a wide r ange o f materials known f rom s ettlements and barrows. Pottery f orms are more devel oped, r ichly ornamented i n a variety o f techniques - s tamps, s trokes and grooves, covering a s ubstantial part o f the vessels. Z ig-zag l ines f requently underline rows o f s tamps, there are triangular hatchings and complex ' ladder' motifs. The transition f rom the Wiörek to the Luboh phase ( the l atter b elonging to the f inal s tages o f the TRB) r epresents a s ubstantial b reak f rom earlier c eramic development and a lready reveals the i nfluence o f s ubsequent cultural groups. Although the chronology o f the eastern group o f the TRB culture i s d ifficult to e stablish b ecause o f the l ack o f C-14 dates f rom the early contexts i t does nevertheless appear that the TRB culture i s well e stablished by c . 3 600 bc ( Ko ko 1 981).The c ontroversial C-14 date f rom beneath one o f the barrows at S arnowo ( KUJ-32/8 - GrN-5035 : 5 570±60 bp or 3 620±60 bc, Bakker et a l. 1 969, 7 ) i s now believed to be i ndicative o f the f inal s tages o f the S arnowo phase r ather than i ts beginning ( GabaIöwna 1 970a, 7 7), h eralding the t ransition f rom the S arnowo to the P ikutkowo phase. The Wiörek phase i s dated to c . 3 100-2700 b c ( the l atter end well documented by a s eries o f C -14 dates, B akker

e t

a l.

1 969).

During the e arly Wiörek phase, or perhaps even towards the end o f the P ikutkowo phase, we note the expansion o f the TRB f rom Kujavia to the s outh-east ( Wiglahski 1 979, 1 80). The s tylistic c haracter o f c eramic assemblages f rom L ittle

1 0

Poland i s c losely a ffiliated, i n t erms o f f orm and d ecorat ion, to pottery f rom Kujavia and the beginnings o f the TRB i n the s outh-east date to around or s hortly before 3 100 bc. Three typological phases have b een s uggested f or the e arly TRB i n north-western Germany: the Rosenhof ( 35003 050 bc), S atrup ( 3100-2770 bc) and Fuchsberg ( 2790-2605 b c) phases. These h ave been d istinguished o n the b asis o f s tylistic pottery development with s ome confirmation through s tratigraphy and s upport i n C-14 dates. The material o f the earliest, Rosenhof phase ( which i s f urther divided i nto Rosenhof a and b ) i s known f rom s ettlements at Rosenhof, east Holstein ( Schwabedissen 1 979a), f rom Hüde o n the Dümmer l ake ( Deichmüller 1 963, 1 965, 1 969), Boberg ( Schindl er 1 961) and f rom a number o f s tray f inds f rom t he north German moors ( Schwabedissen 1 958b). Pottery i ncludes f ourhandled amphorae, b eakers with f lat or r ound b ases; ornament i s i n the f orm of s tamp impressions. As i n Kujavia, the ceramic material here reveals s trong a ssociations with other l ocal complexes ( especially Ertebolle/Ellerbek and Rössen) and a s imilar r elationship - o f a t l east p artly contemporary co-existence - may be envisaged. The f ollowing S atrup phase i s known f rom Rosenhof ( above the earliest TRB l evels), S atrupholm Moor, Pöttmoor and Südensee-Damm ( Schwabedissen 1 958b, 1 979a). Characteri stic pottery f orms i nclude beakers with f lat or wobble bases ( Wackelboden) decorated with vertical grooves ( Bauchfransen) on the l ower part o f the vessels. The f oll owing Fuchsberg phase ( previously known a s the H aassel s tyle, Dehnke 1 940) r epresents a d irect continuation o f the Satrup s tyle. The d iagnostic f orms i nclude l ugged beakers, collared f lasks and bowls. The ornamentation covers most o f the s urface, arranged i n l arge chevron bands, with g rooves and z ig-zag l ines under r ims. This type o f pottery i s known f rom s ettlement s ites ( Fuchsberg, O ldesloe Wolkenwehe; S chwabedissen 1 967) and f rom long barrows ( Tosterglope LSAX-9, Dehnke 1 940). I t does s eem however that s ome o f the pottery f rom the S achsenwald barrows ( LSAX-8) attributed to the Fuchsberg phase ( Hoika 1 973, 4 03) may be typologically earlier than the f ully developed F uchsberg, r epresenting a transitional f orm between S atrup and Fuchsberg. I n s pite o f a l arge number o f C -14 dates f rom D enmark, the i nternal chronology o f the D anish e arly TRB ( EN) i s s till problematic. The main difficulty l ies i n the i ncompatibility o f Becker's typological s cheme o f A-, B - and Cphases and the consistently overlapping C-14 dates which do not bear out this s equence ( Bakker 1 979, Tauber 1 972). For the purpose o f the p resent work the s ignificant f eatures o f the early TRB i n Denmark a re a s f ollows: the TRB c ulture

1 1

appears here at about 3 200/3100 bc. Another f ixed point within the chronological f ramework i s the t ransition f rom e arly to middle phases ( EN/MN) t aking p lace around 2 650 b c ( Madsen 1 982, a lso pers. comm.). The Fuchsebrg s tyle i n Denmark ( 2750-2630 bc; Andersen, N . H . e t a l. 1 978) overl aps with the EN and MN-I. The i dentification of the e arly TRB horizon i n the area o f middle Germany ( Elbe/Saale) and i n Bohemia and Moravia p resents u s with d ifficulties, again owing to the l ack o f convincing s tratigraphy and chronological i ndicators. The f irst i dentifiable group in these a reas, g enerally known f rom burials r ather than s ettlements, i s t hat o f Baalberge ( Behrens 1 959, 1 960, 1 973; Preuss 1 966, 1 980). Typical c eramic f orms i nclude beakers with f lat b ases, amphorae, j ugs and cups with very s carce ornament. According to Preuss, the Baalberge would have i ts beginnings s ometime between 3 400 and 3 350 b c ( Preuss 1 980, 2 7) and may h ave l asted about 5 00 years. I n the s outh the Baalberge i s f ollowed by the S alzmünde group while i n the north i t may have been s ucc eeded by the Altmark ( Altmark T iefstich) group ( Preuss 1 973, 1 980). To the north o f the Baalberge, i n the areas o f Mecklenburg and Brandenburg, there i s very l ittle early TRB material available and s cholars differ i n their opinion a s to the s ource o f the TRB here. Only one C -14 date i s known f or the e arly TRB - that from S chönermark - o f 3 155±70 b c ( KN-?; Lanting and Mook 1 977, 7 3); i t i s a ssociated with typologically e arly material. S ubsequent developments i n Mecklenburg may s uggest a horizon s imilar to that o f Fuchsberg ( for e xample, the pottery f rom the Stralendorf l ong barrow, MBG-25), but the best documented development o f the TRB r elates to the Tiefstich horizon, which i s outwith the period o f this work ( Schuldt 1 972). I n conclusion o f this brief outline o f TRB c hronology we may note that evidence available at p resent does not s upport the original c laim o f Becker f or a uniform A/B horizon ( Becker 1 947, X III) over the whole o f the North European l owland. On the contrary, the evidence s uggests that, a lthough developments within the e arly s tages o f the TRB followed a general, s imilar t rend, they were not s ynchronous and moreover were a direct r esponse to l ocal needs and i nfluences. The areas o f Kujavia and north-western Germany o ffer the earliest evidence f or the development o f the TRB i n the earlier p art o f the 4 th millennium b c, s uggesting a contemporaneity o f the TRB with the Post LBK c omplexes and a considerable i nfluence o f the l atter i n the overall character

1 2

o f

the TRB complex.

The evidence pertaining to the f lint and s tone tools o f the TRB culture i s presently l imited i n v iew o f the c urrent n eglect o f l ithic s tudies i n f avour o f c eramic a ssemblages. What does, however, appear s triking i n the early TRB f lint i nventories i s the multiplicity and variety o f i nfluences, both o f Mesolithic and LBK derivation, and i t i s this combination which to a g reat extent must be responsible f or the development o f the TRB f lint i ndustry ( Balcer 1 980, 1 981a, 1 981b; Ja M ewski 1 970b; Lech and MIynarczyk 1 981; Mlynarczyk 1 976; N iesiolowska-Sredniowska 1 981, 1 982; S chwabedissen 1 967). I ndeed this pattern i s entirely i n keeping with the developments outlined i n the f ield o f c eramics and yet again underlines the mixed character o f the TRB culture. The economy o f the TRB culture, a lthough u ltimately b ased upon preceding developments, r epresents the extension o f a constrained economy i nto a much wider and more varied environment. While the types o f cereal cultivated and the main domesticates are the s ame a s i n the LBK and Post LBK cultures, the Mesolithic tradition o f occupation o f a specific environment, with preference f or a l ighter, easily c leared l andscape, i s c learly evidenced i n the TRB s ettlement patterns; and i n areas where evidence exists, f or example i n Denmark ( Madsen 1 982), s ettlement v isibly cont inues the Mesolithic pattern o f c oastal l ocation o f s ites. I n c oncluding this brief outline o f the TRB we must s tress again t hat i ts emergence i n the North European P lain i s a result o f the f usion o f multiple f actors and i nfluences. D ifferentiating f actors are most p robably r elated to the geographical c onditions o f the European l owland, the posit ion o f r iver s ystems and the s heer vastness o f the area. Moreover, the L ate Mesolithic occupants o f d ifferent r egions d id not provide a uniform background and n either d id the various Post LBK groups a long the s outhern edge o f the North European P lain.Although the development o f the TRB proceeded a long a b road f ront, this process n eed not have been uniform, nor necessarily s ynchronous, i n a ll the areas concerned. At the s ame t ime the unifying p rocesses were s trong enough to a llow u s to consider a ll the manifestations a s belonging to one c ultural complex. Undoubtedly one o f the major unifying f actors must have b een the p rolonged contact, and the r esultant s low merging o f t he boundaries, between two diametrically opposed social and economic systems - that o f the generally mobile hunter-gatherer and that o f the s ettled

f armer.

1 3

CHAPTER 3 CURRENT THEORY OF BURIAL STUDIES: ITS RELEVANCE TO THE STUDY OF THE NORTH EUROPEAN EARTHEN LONG BARROWS

Theoretical developments a re today evident i n a ll f ields o f archaeology. The s tudy o f burial i n particular i nvites many s timulating, i f controversial, i nterpretations; f resh concepts have been i ntroduced f rom other d isciplines s uch a s anthropology, e thnography and s ocial s ciences. Numerous discussions and reviews o f current theories have appeared ( Bartel 1 982; B inford 1 971; Chapman 1 977, 1 980, 1 981a, 1 981b; Chapman et a l., 1 981; Pader 1 982; Renfrew 1 973, 1 976a; S axe 1 970; Tainter 1 975, 1 978 to name only a f ew) and therefore the f ollowing discussion will be confined to those a spects which are o f immediate concern to the present s tudy. The traditional approach to the s tudy o f the megal ithic graves was based on typo-chronological description and s et within a f ramework o f cultural i nterpretation through h istorically known processes such a s diffusion, i nvasion or migration ( Daniel 1 963, 1 970; P iggott 1 965). This approach f urther i ncorporated the concept of the g raves a s an expression o f r eligious i deology. With the development and s ubsequent application o f r adiocarbon d ating the megalithic d iffusion theory, a lready s uspect on archaeological grounds ( the ' megalithic' province showed no cultural unity), had to be modified i n f avour o f one a llowing at l east s ome i ndependent development ( Renfrew 1 976a, chapter 7 ). And yet the concept o f the i ntroduction o f the megaliths i n Northern Europe f rom outside s till holds s trong i n s ome quarters ( Ja dZewski 1 970a, S chwabedissen 1 979b). A lthough the i dea o f the ' megalithic culture' ( Sprockhoff 1 938) has been abandoned, i ts s ubstitution by the i dea o f a ' megalithic i deology' - Megalithgedanken ( Schwabedissen 1 979b, 1 43) has done l ittle to change the general approach to the i nterpretation o f the megalithic phenomenon i n Northern Europe i n terms o f e ither origins or f unction ( JaZd ewski 1 970a, Nilius 1 971, S chuldt 1 972, Wiglahski 1 979 and others).

o f

The normative, culture-oriented approach to the s tudy megaliths, and o f burial practices i n g eneral, has under-

1 4

gone considerable criticism, mainly a s a r esult o f e thnographic research i nto burial s uch a s that o f B inford ( 1971), S axe ( 1970) and Ucko ( 1969). The main criticism h as c entered around the f act that the normative approach considers burial to have been a s olely r eligious phenomenon ( Daniel 1 963, P iggott 1 965) a lthough the ethnographic evidence s uggests that this i s not necessarily j ustified. Important d ifferences i n these c riticisms may however be observed. While B inford and h is f ollowers totally r eject the i dea o f any r eligious s ignificance i n burial Ucko, a lthough doubting a d irect r elationship between burial and belief i n a fter-life, does not exclude a s piritual belief o f s ome k ind ( Ucko 1 969, 2 64-265). The acceptance o f a r eligious s i , Jnificance i n b urial to the exclusion o f o ther f actors i nvites c riticism o n the grounds that i t i s to a l arge extent a r esult o f a Christi an i deology and as s uch wholly i nappropriate i n a p reh istoric c cntext. Nevertheless, a s Hodder's r esearch h as s hown, the s tudy o f burial practice must b e concerned with a s ociety's attitudes to l ife and death, with their b eliefs about themselves and the world outside ( Hodder 1 980, 1 68). Such a r elationship between burial practices and b eliefs has no p lace i n B inford's approach, but there i s s ufficient evidence f or i t not only i n ethnographic s ources b ut through archaeology a s well, where c ertain phenomena may be explained i n neither economic, nor s ocial, nor t echnol ogical terms but only through r eference to the non-material concepts o f the s ociety under discussion. A current a ssumption i n the s tudy o f prehistoric burial i s that mortuary practices were related to the s ocial organisation o f a g iven s ociety. This approach i s derived f rom two s ources. One s ource i s r epresented by a l ong tradition o f anthropological r esearch i nto burial within a s ocial context, and i s most explicitly s een i n the work o f s uch anthropologists a s Radcliff-Brown ( 1922), F irth ( 1967), Gluckmann ( 1962), Bendann ( 1969), Goody ( 1962), Douglas ( 1969) and B loch ( 1971). These variously attempt t o c orr elate burial practice with observable s ocial patterns i n terms o f s ocial cohesion, a combination o f s ocial, e conomic and p sychological e ffects o f death upon the s ociety, preservation o f authority, i nheritance and s o on. The other s ource o f the s ocio-organisational theme i n burial r esearch derives directly f rom the application o f this concept within the New Archaeology approach ( Binford 1 971, S axe 1 970, Tainter 1 975). Before s ome general comments are o ffered on the s ignificance o f the s ocial organisation approach t o t he s tudy o f burial practices, we s hould perhaps consider the

1 5

main a ssumptions behind this model. The main premise o f the s ocial organisation approach i s that o f a d irect r elations hip between the mortuary practice and the s ocial o rganisat ion o f a g iven s ociety ( Binford 1 971, 2 3-24; S axe 1 970, hypotheses 5 -8) a lthough the r easons f or a sserting a s pecific c onnection between the two h ave never been s uffici ently explained. The key i ssue i n the i dentification o f a s ocial o rganisation i s the r ecognition o f a ' social persona' which i s a ssumed to be expressed i n the age, s ex, s ocial position, s ocial a ffiliation, conditions and l ocation o f death o f an i ndividual ( Saxe 1 970, 7 , 1 7). I dentification o f these f actors i n archaeological evidence, and with specific r eference to the earthen long b arrows i n Northern Europe, i s d ifficult. The age and s ex o f the buried i ndividuals may be a ssessed only when s uffici ent s keletal r emains have s urvived, but these are notori ously l acking i n the earthen l ong b arrows ( chapter 7 ). Moreover, even when some s keletal material i s available, the degree o f preservation may make determination o f age and sex very d ifficult. Evidence o f l ocation and condition o f death i s virtually i naccessible to the archaeologist and this i s p articularly s o i n the earthen l ong barrows. S imil arly the i nterpretation o f s ocial position and a ffiliation o f the deceased may be available i n an anthropological context but again i s difficult to i nfer f rom archaeological evidence. A common method o f j udging s ocial differences has been through the s tudy o f grave goods. The p itfalls i n this approach and the danger o f misinterpretation have o ften been commented upon and were most explicitly s tated by Ucko ( 1969, 2 65). I n the c ase o f the earthen l ong barrows - with a f ew exceptions - the grave goods are either totally l acki ng or s o i nsignificant i n number and quality a s to make any assertions about s ocial d ifferences unjustified. And f urther to a ssume that the i ndividuals buried within the e arthen l ong b arrows were s ocially d ifferent f rom those who were buried i n f lat graves and then to s uggest that this division i s evidence of a s ocial s tratification within that s ociety ( as i s c ommonly assumed, zi. JaidZewski 1 970a, Wiglahski 1 979) s urely results i n a c ircular argument. I t i s not s uggested here that s uch a s tratification d id not exist but merely that there i s no d irect evidence f rom which to i nfer i t.

i s

Another that

a ssumption o f

the

s ocio-organisational

.. variability i n mortuary p ractices must be s tood i n t erms o f variability i n the f orm and

approach

under-

1 6

organisation o f normative modes

s ocial s ystems, not i n o f behaviour" ( Tainter

terms

o f

1 978,

1 07).

Ethnographic evidence does i ndeed s how that s ome s ocieties use more than one mode o f burial ( for example the Australian aborigines, Haglund 1 976) and s ome anthropological research i ndicates that there i s a relationship between s ocial o rganisation and b urial c ustoms ( Bendann 1 969, Goodenough 1 955, Goody 1 962). But i t must be s tressed that i n many c ases i t was precisely this r elationship ( i.e., between burial practices and s ocial organisation) that was the subject o f s tudy i n the f irst p lace. This i n i tself does not s uggest that there i s no c onnection between b urial and other variables. Moreover, burial practices, apart f rom being related to various e lements o f a g iven s ociety's composition, will a lso to a c ertain degree be dependent upon f actors which are outwith the c ontrol o f a human g roup - s uch a s c limate, where the t ime o f death ( winter/summer) may influence c ertain a spects o f a burial practice ( chapter 7 ). Equally a death may occur at a t ime when a whole community i s engaged i n a vital activity, s uch a s harvesting, and normal procedure may not be f ully observed owing to the l ack o f t ime. I t i s f urther important to remember that i n B inford's s tudy o f f orty r andomly s elected, non-state s ocieties, subsistence e conomy was u sed as a c riterion for an assessment o f the complexity o f social o rganisation. But j ust a s Binford, s imilarly to Ucko ( 1969) c laimed that burial i s not synonymous with a fter-life beliefs, s o s ubsistence economy i s not synonymous with s ocial organisation. Moreover, a r eview o f ethnographic evidence s hows c learly that within e ach basic s ubsistence economy - b e i t hunting and gathering, pastoralism or agriculture - s ocial organisation, f ar f rom being an abstract phenomenon, i s c losely related to f actors s uch a s environment, availability o f r esources, h istory, cultural t radition and political organisation. Correspondingly, burial practices a re i nextricably connected with a ll these variables and the r elationship between burial a nd s ocial organisation i s merely o ne o f many. Hodder has r ecently argued that the s ocial organisation approach to burial s tudy s earches f or s traightforward l inks i n a complex c ombination o f i nter-relating f actors ( such a s was outlined above) and that s uch a s implistic approach obscures c ausal processes and real r elationships ( Hodder 1 982, 1 45-146). He points to examples o f s ocieties - the British Gypsies or the Merina o f Madagascar - where burial

1 7

r itual, f ar f rom r eflecting s ocial r eality, emphasises t he s ocial i deal. He s uggests f urther that an explanation o f burial practice must take i nto consideration evidence o f b eliefs and attitudes to death, and the i ntegration o f these attitudes with the practical a spects o f l ife. What i s then the s ignificance o f the social organisation approach to the s tudy o f burial i n a prehistoric context? As a theoretical model this approach developed i n r esponse to d issatisfaction with the culture-oriented approach ( Binford 1 971; Chapman 1 977, 1 979). The c ultural f ramework o f burial s tudy was c riticised f or i ts i nability to explain the s ocial order o f s ocieties and the cultural discontinuities apparent i n archaeological evidence as well a s i n the i nterpretation o f burial practice i n terms o f religious beliefs. I n the context o f h is discussion Chapman wrote i n 1 977 that

o f megalithic

graves

. .. we are no l onger dealing with a s ingle problem: the communal tomb i s now to be s tudied as an artefact which embodies s ocial, religious, economic and technol ogical behaviour within a l ocal cultural c ontext" ( Chapman 1 977, 2 5-26). This approach h as implications pertaining to the s tudy not only of the megaliths, but o f burial i n general. And yet a r eview o f current l iterature on the s ubject reveals a very different s ituation. With a f ew exceptions, the s ocioorganisational approach s eems to be a ssuming a dominant role; this i s c learly evident in the works o f s uch r esearchers as Goldstein ( 1980, 1 981), O 'Shea ( 1978), Shennan ( 1975), Shephard ( 1979) and Tainter ( 1976) and has been expressed s uccinctly i n the words o f Shanks and Tilley who wrote that .. the i nterpretation o f mortuary r itual i s a particular case o f the wider problem o f the i deol ogical l egitimation o f the s ocial order" ( Shanks and Tilly 1 982, 1 29) We must r eally ask ourselves whether, a s archaeolog ists, we s tudy burial practices i n order to i nterpret the s ocial order o f past s ocieties, or whether we s tudy them a s one of many e lements o f prehistoric reality? I f we are i nterested i n the l atter we m ust s urely be aware o f the danger o f merely s ubstituting the normative approach by that o f s ocial organisation. As Hodder r ightly argued we have assumed a d irect, s implistic relationship b etween burial r itual and s ocial organisation ( Hodder 1 982) and s uch an attitude will eventually l ead to the s ame s talemate which results f rom the culture-oriented approach. I t i s

1 8

desirable to expand f rom the constraints o f any one i nterpretative f ramework but, a s has been observed earlier, burial practices are r elated to many a spects o f the society which performs them. I t i s thus only by understanding the r elationship between many variables - environment, economy, h istory, cultural tradition and contacts, the beliefs and attitudes o f that s ociety - that we may hope to i nterpret any phenomenon which i s the result o f a c umulative i nteraction o f a ll the above e lements. Abstracting j ust one o f them, i rrespective o f i ts presumed importance, will result i n o ften misleading conclusions and at l east i n a f ragmentary understanding o f the problem. With regard to the megalithic graves there are, however, other theoretical concepts which are o f particular r elevance i n the context o f the present work. I n c ontrast to the religion-oriented approach, which v iewed a megalithic grave as a f ormal expression o f the cult o f the dead ( Childe 1 925, 1 936; Daniel 1 963, 1 970; P iggott 1 965, 1 973) the more r ecent concept o f the multi-functional nature o f these s tructures i s currently more central to their i nterpretation ( Fleming 1 972, 1 973; Kinnes 1 975, 1 981; Renfrew 1 973, 1 976a, 1 980). I t i s s uggested that megalithic graves were not merely burial places but that they a lso p layed a s ignificant role within the s ystem o f s ymbolic expression o f a s ociety. K innes i n particular argues f or distinguishing between the f unerary and the monumental nature o f the megal ithic graves s uggesting that, s ince not a ll burial i s o f a monumental character, the l atter may have developed i ndependently ( Kinnes 1 975, 1 7). The Oxford English Dictionary defines a monument as " a s epulchre" and a s " anything that by i ts s urvival commemorates a person, action, period, or event" ( The Compact Edition o f the Oxford English Dictionary 1 971, 1 844). Thus, the term ' monumental' i n the context o f the present work embodies two s eparate but nevertheless related concepts: f irstly, the s epulchral character o f the megalithic grave, and s econdly, i ts f unction as a means o f communicating an i dea which was o f importance to a g iven group of p eople. I n the North European P lain there i s ample evidence to s upport the contention that not all burial was o f a monumental nature. Some o f the burial s tructures are s imple f lat graves f ound e ither i ndividually or i n l arger complexes i n the vicinity o f s ettlement s ites ( chapter 7 ). Such a pattern, which i s c learly i n evidence f rom the very beginning o f the TRB, s eems to continue throughout the whole duration o f this culture ( cf. the s tone-packing graves o f the Danish MN; Becker 1 967) and even s ome o f the northern s tone-built chambers are l ittle more than s imple receptacles f or the

1 9

dead

( Fischer

1 956,

Häusler

1 975).

Kinnes has a rgued that the s uccession o f i nterior s tructures within s ome monuments, f or example at Nutbane ( Morgan 1 959) and K ilham ( Manby 1 976), s hould be i nterp reted i n terms o f f unerary s equences a ssociated with the burial area r ather than with the whole monument ( Kinnes 1 975, 1 9; 1 081, 8 5). This i s to a c ertain extent borne out by the i nterior arrangements within the North European l ong b arrows ( graves, i nternal partitions - c hapter 6 ) but the f unction o f other architectural e lements ( stone and/or t imber enclosures, f açades, t imber buildings - chapter 6 ) may have a more c omplex association - possibly f ulfilling a r ole within a f unerary r itual and s imultaneously bearing upon the s ymbolic nature o f the monuments. With r egard to the actual mounds i t i s generally a ssumed that their c onstruction followed upon the cessation o f f unerary activities. Hitherto l ittle attention has been p aid to the possible s equence i n the construction o f the e arthen mounds, but there i s evidence s uggesting that i n s ome i nstances there may have been s everal s tages i nvolving extension, e laboration and/or i ncorporation o f earlier s tructures, even though this i s by no means the c ase at a ll s ites ( chapter 6 ). Evidence o f multi-period construction i s now f orthcoming i n the areas o f Denmark and northern Germany, but the relationship between the i nterior arrangements and the c overing mound i s s till r ather ambivalent. Multi-phase construction does not i n a ll c ases s uggest an e laboration but s ometimes rather a change i n architectural and/or r itual concepts. Consideration of the monumental character o f the megal ithic graves h as a lso included the s ize and s hape o f the mounds. F leming has analysed the megalithic graves i n terms o f their s ize and considered e specially the relationship between the s ize ( length) o f the mound and that o f the burial area ( Fleming 1 973). A comparison o f the ratio o f these two e lements l ed him to s uggest a s cale o f tomb cons truction i n which monuments e fficient i n t erms o f burial s pace are not impressive in monumental character and v ice versa ( Ibid. 1 82-184). The problem o f the s ize o f the monuments i s however much more complex. F irst o f a ll, a lthough s ome barrows are i ndeed impressive i n their s ize ( reaching over 1 00m i n l ength), the actual dimensions must be considered i n the context o f the overall s ize o f the monuments i n any particular r egion. What appears a l arge barrow i n one area may be o f average s ize i n another and thus the s ize may be i ndicative o f importance only i n l ocal r ather than general

2 0

t erms. S econdly, there i s no reason to a ssume a d irect relationship between the s ize o f t he b urial area and that o f the whole monument. I ndeed, i f f unerary and monumental f unctions are to b e i nterpreted a s d iscrete e lements s uch an a ssumption i s wholly unwarranted. Moreover, i n the context o f earthen l ong barrows the s ize o f the b urial a rea or areas was not permanently f ixed ( as i t may have been i n the case o f a s tone-built chamber) a nd t he number o f graves as well a s their d istribution within the c onfines o f the enclosure vary s ubstantially. I t i s h ighly unlikely that a s pecific number o f burials within e ach b arrow would have been predicted i n advance, j ust a s i t i s u nlikely that these s hould have been confined to an area o f a particular s ize. There i s ample evidence to s uggest that s uch rules s imply d id not apply. There are s ome very l ong barrows which contain only one or two burials but t here are a lso equally l ong b arrows with many graves ( chapter 7 ). The s ame applies to s hort examples. Furthermore, t he f act that a small area was u sed for actual burial does not s uggest that other s egments o f the earthen l ong b arrow enclosures were without burial-related purpose. Again evidence f rom the North European earthen l ong barrows i ndicates that activit ies o f various k inds took place a t d ifferent points within the enclosure ( chapter 6 ). One o f the most important f eatures o f a monument i s i ts v isibility. I n this context, b oth s hape and l ocation must be considered. The external appearance o f the barrow, particularly i ts s hape, may have p layed an important role. I t s eems that i n many North European examples the f inal appearance o f the barrow must have b een c lear in the minds o f the builders f rom the moment construction begun. This i s p articularly evident i n trapezoidal and triangular examples where, a lthough i t i s possible to detect s equential cons truction, the i nterior arrangements a s well as the general p lan s uggest a c lear overall design ( chapter 6 ). There i s f urther a degree o f s tandardisation o f s hape throughout the whole o f the e arthen l ong barrow province. The choice o f s hape ( rectangular, trapezoidal or triangular) a s well a s a degree o f f ormality i n the architectural e lements ( stone or t imber-built enclosures, f açades e tc.) must have been i ntentional. A l ong, artificial mound, e specially when s een i n profile, provides an immediate f ocus within a n atural l andscape and may f requently appear even l arger than i t really i s. An i llusion o f gigantic s ize i s e specially evident i n the very l ong and very narrow barrows i n northern Germany and reaches u ltimate expression i n the triangular barrows o f Kujavia ( chapter 5 ). Location within the a spect o f the monumental

l andscape i s a lso an important character o f the megalithic graves,

2 1

and must i nclude b oth the natural and c ultural l andscapes. Visibility i n the natural l andscape, f ormality a nd p rominence o f l ocation are i nvariably i nterpreted a s i ndicating the monumental f unction o f a s tructure. I t may therefore b e important to consider how f ar the prominence observable today r eflects the original s ituation. Many o f the North European l ong b arrows are viewed today i n a l andscape f undamentally a ltered by s everal millennia o f man's economic activity within the environment and, a lthough s ome l ong b arrows were undoubtedly visible f rom the moment o f their c onstruction, many need not have been. Moreover, environmental evidence does s uggest that l and c learance was o f a l ocal nature and, prior to the middle o f the third millenn ium bc, d id not i nvolve s tripping l arge a reas o f vegeta tional c over. Thus the prominence o f l ocation o f many b arrows today may be a r elatively recently acquired c haracteristic, a ccentuated by p loughing at the f oot o f the b arrow and by the present-day openness o f an originally f orested l andscape. As f ar as the cultural l andscape i s c oncerned the r elationship between earthen l ong barrows and c ontemporary s ettlement pattern r emains ambivalent, mainly owing to the p aucity o f evidence. There i s however s ome evidence to s uggest that this relationship was o f a complex n ature, d ependent on many f actors. The differences b etween c lustered a nd dispersed d istribution must to a certain extent r eflect t he contemporary pattern and the exploitation o f a natural e nvironment, but cultural and s ocial f actors may a lso have p layed an important role. Renfrew has argued that the appearance o f the megal ithic graves was r elated to growing territorial d ivisions ( Renfrew 1 973, 5 44). The main c riticism o f this approach must centre around the a ssumption that a ll b arrows f unct ioned s imultaneously. There i s, however, an i nteresting d ichotomy i n this a ssumption. I n terms o f the f unerary f unction o f the e arthen l ong barrows, only a f ew would have b een i n u se at any one t ime. On the other hand, c onsidered i n terms o f their monumentality, they may i ndeed h ave f unct ioned s imultaneously. Once a barrow was c onstructed i t would become a p ermanent f eature within the l andscape and, a lthough the overall d istribution pattern must be i nterp reted i n terms o f p assive r ather than active occupation o f a g iven l andscape, i t does not exclude a l ong-term, monumental f unction. Within the c ontext o f discussion o f the monumental f unction o f f unerary monuments a brief r eturn to the theme o f interpretation within the s ocial context i s necessary. I nvoking an earlier definition o f a monument a s a means o f

2 2

c ommunicating an i dea, i t may be f urther argued t hat s uch an i dea i s expressed f or the benefit o f the l iving and/or s ubsequent generations. I n this c ontext arguments p ertaining to the s ocial position o f the buried i ndividuals may e ffect ively be turned around. I rrespective o f h is l ife-time position, a fter death an i ndividual no l onger r equires the enhancement, or i ndeed recognition, o f h is s ocial i mportance. The l iving community, on the other hand, may need to c reate a tradition which i n an e asily recognisable form will provide a constant visual, s ymbolic r eminder o f p articular concepts and values which are important f or the s ocial, economic and cultural i ntegration o f a g roup. The s hifting o f emphasis f rom mainly f unerary to mainly monumental may have been a l ogical process and i ndeed there i s a t l east s ome evidence i n s upport o f this premise which will be discussed l ater on. F leming argues that the monumental nature o f the f unerary monuments was f undamental to the enhancement o f the position o f the l iving l eaders, and to their c laim to power and control based upon a r elationship with the s elect dead ( Fleming 1 973, 1 89). However i t s eems more appropriate to s uggest, with the above contention i n mind, that i t was not the power o f the i ndividual l eaders but the p ermanence and cohesion o f a community that was symbolically expressed and s trengthened i n the l arge-scale f unerary s tructure.

2 3

CHAPTER 4 A SHORT HISTORY OF RESEARCH INTO EARTHEN LONG BARROWS

A review o f the l iterature pertaining to the s tudy o f the North European megaliths makes i t quite c lear t hat the e arthen l ong b arrows d id not e scape early antiquarian i nterest, yet the h istory o f their i nvestigation a s an i ndividual and d iscrete form i s difficult to trace. The i nterest f ound i n the writings o f Johan P icardt ( 1660), Johann Heinrich Cohausen ( 1714), Nicolaus Marschalk ( c. 1 510), Thomas Kantzow ( died 1 542) and Nicolaus Westendorp ( 1822) was o f a very general nature, c oncerned primarily with s peculation about the purpose o f the megal iths, their builders and ways i n which s uch s tructures were erected ( Bakker 1 979, chapter 2 and r elevant notes; S chirnig 1 979a). Towards the end o f the 1 8th and the b eginning o f the 1 9th c enturies, a chievements i n the f ield o f s ocial and natural s ciences c reated, particularly i n Germany and S candinavia, an i ntellectual c limate o f i nterest i n l ocal developments - f olklore, h istorical past and antiquities which among others generated i nvestigations i nto megalithic r emains. From the b eginning o f the 1 9th century we know o f i nvestigations i nto e arthen l ong barrows f rom Mecklenburg and Western Pomerania. I n Mecklenburg Captain F .W.Zinck an o fficial i n the employment o f Duke Friedrich Franz I i nvestigated, during the f irst decade o f the c entury, about f orty megalithic mounds i n the districts o f S chwerin, Hagenow, Parchim and Lübz, among which were the e arthen l ong barrows o f S iggelkow and Rothenmoor. Unfortunately most o f h is drawings have been l ost and only brief notes may be f ound i n Friderico Francisceum, published i n 1 837 ( Schuldt 1 972, 9 ). I n Western Pomerania, f rom 1 825, particularly i ntens ive and f ruitful archaeological i nvestigations were a ssociated with the activities o f the S zczecin l ocal s ociety, Gesellschaft f ür pommersche Geschichte und Altertumskunde ( Siuchnihski 1 972, 1 1), I t was on behalf o f this s ociety that von P lön conducted a s urvey o f barrows i n the d istrict o f Pyrzyce, a lthough the r esults were not published

r e )

2 5

until nearly a c entury l ater ( Holsten and Z ahnow 1 920). This s urvey, i n a ddition to an i nventory o f barrows, i ncluded details o f their l ocation a s well a s descriptions o f their external f orm; moreover von P lön drew p lans o f d istribution i n d ifferent l ocalities, noting orientation and distances ( Fig. 3 ). H is s urvey i s o f particular value s ince nearly a ll the monuments have by now been d estroyed s tones u sed for the construction o f roads or buildings and mounds p loughed up. I n 1 835 a s imilar s ociety - Verein f ür mecklenburgische Geschichte und Altertumskunde - was e stablished i n Mecklenb urg. I ts founder, archivist F .Lisch, and pastor R itter were among the more active members; Ritter i n particular, i n the years 1 839-1843, i nvestigated many earthen l ong b arrows i n the d istricts o f Helm and Wittenburg noting many i nteresting details as well as commenting upon their destruction. By mid-19th century a s imilar concern about the destruction o f megalithic monuments was expressed i n Lower S axony, where G .G.Carl von E storff was engaged not only in the i nvestigation, drawing and mapping o f b arrows i n the Lüneburg area but also i n the preservation o f s ites by purchasing them f or the s tate ( Schirnig 1 979a). I nterest i n the l ong barrows was a lso evident i n Kujavia, where during the s econd half o f the 1 9th century amateur excavators i nvestigated a considerable number o f s ites ( Chmielewski 1 952, 9 -11). Most active among them was a retired German general, von Erckert, who was the f irst to u se the term ' Kujavian' grave and who excavated, a lbeit i n a haphazard and totally unsystematic manner, very many l ong barrows i n the d istrict o f Wloclawek. H is i nvestigations were s adly very l imited, concerned mainly with the s peedy recovery o f f inds ( he i s s aid to have ' excavated' over thirty l ong barrows i n one s ummer s eason) and therefore of l ittle value. At the turn o f the 2 0th century and during the f irst two decades the trend o f general i nvestigations g ave way to more detailed s tudies which, based on a broader s pectrum o f s ources, attempted r egional c lassifications. I n Mecklenburg R .Beltz c atalogued about 1 20 b arrows ( Beltz 1 899) and s ubs equently, i n another work, considered them i n a wider context, dividing them i nto those with s tone c hambers, those without s tone chambers ( Hünenbetten ohne S teinkammer) and s tone c ists, at the s ame t ime expressing r egret that i nsufficient evidence prevented h im f rom determining whether or not the l ack o f a s tone chamber was an original f eature ( Beltz 1 910).

2 6

I n this context notable c ontributions were a lso made by 0 . Montelius ( 1903) who produced an outline o f the S candinavian Neolithic b ased on typo-chronology o f grave f orms ( dolmens/passage graves/stone c ists). This s cheme was s ubsequently f ollowed by Kossinna, who c lassified t he megal ithic graves i n Northern Germany, i ncluding the Kujavian earthen l ong barrows which he believed were developed f rom the North German r ectangular f orms, thus r eflecting a s econdary s tage o f the colonisation o f central Europe f rom the North ( Kossinna 1 909/1910). The f irst s ubstantial work on the earthen l ong b arrows was L .KozIowski's publication o f Groby megalityczne na Wschöd od Odry ( Megalithic Graves East o f the Odra, 1 921). I t f ollowed c losely the i deas expressed by Kossinna b ut s uggested that the groups which were responsible f or the Kujavian l ong barrows were a mixture o f TRB and G lobular Amphora cultures. A new phase o f research i nto the earthen l ong barrows b egins with the appearance o f two major works, Kultura pucharöw l ejkowatych w Polsce Z achodniej i rodkowed by J aidZewski ( 1936a) and D ie nordische Megalithkultur by Sprockhoff ( 1938). Sprockhoff, d iscussing the northern l ong b arrows - die nordische Riesensteingräber - distinguished the earthen long barrow f orm - d ie Hünenbetten ohne Kammer ( Sprockhoff 1 938, 4 2) but considered them " ...noch wenig geklärt" and, while noting their g eneral d istribution f rom Lauenburg to Western Pomerania, d id not d iscuss them i n detail. JaZdZewski's work, on the other hand, was o f f undamental importance f or the s tudy o f the TRB culture and o f the earthen l ong barrows i n particular. On the b asis o f h is own research and excavations a t L egniczöwka ( KUJ-17) a nd Rybno ( KUJ-29), JaZdZewski was able to p lace the e arthen l ong b arrows i n their proper c ultural and chronological context. He refuted c ategorically their a ssociation with t he Globular Amphora culture and s howed that the p rimary burials i n these monuments belong to the o lder phase o f t he TRB - this being f urther confirmed by the d istribution o f both barrows and other e lements c haracteristic o f the eastern TRB group ( JaidZewski 1 936a, 2 97). He a lso e stabl ished the dual nature o f the TRB b urial by recognising the c ultural and chronological unity o f the e arthen l ong b arrows and f lat grave cemeteries. On the s ubject o f the o rigins o f the Kujavian l ong barrows he expressed an opinion that they developed f rom the northern, r ectangular f orms, probably s omewhere t o the west o f t he Odra r egion - an opinion which, with g reater or l esser c onvicti on, he a lways held.

2 7

I n the early 1 950's Sprockhoff excavated f our e arthen l ong barrows i n the Sachsenwald ( Sprockhoff 1 952, 1 954) and to this day these f our r emain the only s ites o f this type i nvestigated i n north-western Germany. He was a lso engaged f or over twenty-five years i n c ataloguing a ll the North German megalithic and r elated monuments - a mammoth task which resulted i n three volumes o f the Atlas der Megalithgräber Deutschlands ( Sprockhoff 1 966, 1 967, 1 975), e ach volume consisting o f s eparate text and f igures. Unhappily h is death prevented the appearance o f the f inal part, a discussion o f a ll the material. Nevertheless, this extensive catalogue o f the monuments i s an extremely valuable s ource o f i nformation on the North German material. I n Kujavia, Chmielewski continued JaidZewski's i nvestigations i nto earthen l ong barrows, excavating i n the early 1 950's one b arrow at Gaj and s ix barrows at S arnowo. H is up-to-date a ssessment of the Kujavian barrows - Z agadn ienie grobowcöw k ujawskich w gwietle o statnich badah ( Chmielewski 1 952) i s a s yet the only work dealing with the problem o f the e arthen l ong barrows on a l arge s cale. The work f ully endorsed JaZdiewski's i deas about earthen l ong barrows, and i ts i mportant contribution was the r ecognition o f the early ( now called Sarnowo) TRB phase f rom the s ettlement remains underneath one of the Sarnowo barrows. Much credit f or the wealth o f i nformation about the Kujavian l ong barrows must however go to Gabalöwna, who meticulously excavated the three remaining barrows at S arnowo ( GabaIöwna 1 968b, 1 968c, 1 969a, 1 969b, 1 970a, 1 970b, 1 971). The i nterim reports f rom these excavations i ndicate the quantity o f material which has been r ecovered there. I t i s very s ad that Gabalöwna's premature death has prevented the f inal publication o f the S arnowo research, s ince i t i s c lear that her personal i nvolvement i n and acute perception o f the problems o f the development o f the TRB culture i n Kujavia are unsurpassed. I nteresting and l ong overdue r esearch i s c urrently taking p lace i n Western Pomerania, where a number o f individual s ites are being excavated around the Pyrzyce basin ( Wiglahski 1 977 and pers. comm.) and at a s ettlement and barrow complex a t Lupawa ( Jankowska 1 980, 1 981). I n Mecklenburg, a s p art o f a massive project, over one hundred s tone-chambered g raves were excavated between 1 964 and 1 970 ( Schuldt 1 972), b ut only three were o f the earthen l ong barrow type. The r ather general nature o f the d iscussions by Nilius ( 1971) and S chuldt ( 1972) o f the Mecklenburg earthen long barrows, together with the s carcity o f data f rom the barrows themselves, c learly i ndicates the need not only for more excavations but f or a r estructured r esearch

2 8

s trategy. I n Denmark the i nvestigation o f the earthen l ong b arrows a s s uch i s difficult to t race. S imple earth g raves ( jordgrav) were identified by Johansen ( 1917) and Thorv ildsen f urther noted that about h alf o f them were under e arthen mounds ( Thorvildsen 1 941, 6 7). But i t i s o nly f rom the mid-1960's that new r esearch p rojects, a s well a s a r eappraisal o f o lder excavation r eports, h ave r evealed a c onsiderable number o f s ites which c ompare c losely with e arthen l ong barrows to the s outh o f Denmark and w ith those i n the British I sles ( Madsen 1 979). I t must be r egretted that the data f rom many o f these new projects are p resently known only i n a general f orm f rom i nterim r eports. I nteresting i nformation, a lthough a s yet difficult to a ssess, i s a lso emerging f rom the s outhern area o f the TRB c ulture - Little Poland ( Gajewski 1 953, Jaid2ewski 1 970a), the S aale region ( Behrens and Schröter 1 980) and Bohemia ( Hougtovä 1 958, P leinerovä 1 980) - where monuments comparable to those f rom the north were not known until r ecently. F inally i t s hould be noted that the s tudy o f the e arthen long barrows within the TRB culture has generally b een conducted on a regional basis, with l ittle attention b eing paid to evidence f rom neighbouring r egions. The only s erious attempt to bring the evidence together has been made by JaZdZewski i n a comparative e ssay presented to the 3 rd Atlantic Colloquium at Moesgärd i n 1 969 ( JaZdZewski 1 970a).

2 9

CHAPTER 5 EARTHEN LONG BARROWS: D ISTRIBUTION AND GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

5 .1

I NTRODUCTION

The phenomenon o f the earthen l ong b arrows i n Northern Europe i s a ssociated exclusively with the TRB culture. The monuments a re f ound i n s everal c oncentrations which, i n general, c orrespond to the r egional g roups o f this cultural c omplex ( Fig. 4 ). The main body o f evidence d iscussed i n this work c omes f rom f ive r egions: Kujavia ( KUJ), Western Pomerania ( WPOM), Mecklenburg ( MBG), north-west Germany ( here r eferred to a s LSAX) and Denmark ( DNK). E arthen l ong b arrows f rom other r egions, f or example middle Germany ( SAX), Bohemia, Moravia o r Little Poland ( LPOL) a re r eferred to only i n g eneral d iscussion s ince the continuing paucity o f evidence f rom these areas precludes detailed examination. I n contrast t o previous r egionally-oriented r esearch i nto earthen l ong b arrows ( Chmielewski 1 952; Madsen 1 979; S chuldt 1 972; Sprockhoff 1 966, 1 967, 1 975) the present s tudy cuts across r egional boundaries and d iscusses c ertain a spects which a re f elt to demonstrate both the underlying unity o f the earthen l ong barrow phenomenon and the i ndependent, r egional developments within this t radition. For this r eason a b alance has been attempted b etween detailed description o f evidence and a more general a ssessment o f a rchitectural a nd r itual development within the earthen l ong barrow province. For a detailed d iscussion o f i ndividual barrows t he r eader i s r eferred to the regional c atalogue o f barrows which are known f rom l iterature and f rom r ecent excavations and s urveys ( Appendix 2 ). I t i s necessary here to comment b riefly upon the n ature o f the evidence available f or this s tudy. Table 1 s hows the r elationship between the total n umber o f b arrows known i n e ach o f the main r egions and the number o f barrows which have actually been i nvestigated, e ither i n the 1 9th or early 2 0th c enturies or i n more r ecent t imes. I n v iew o f the number o f monuments known i n Kujavia and Western Pomer ania i t i s d ifficult to accept that a c onsiderably smaller number o f barrows f rom other r egions c an b e a r epresenta tive s ample. Considering the many r ecent d iscoveries i n Denmark ( for example DNK-4, 6 , 8 , 1 0 o r 1 6) a s well a s

% O F

C D

C D

N r n

O D

N-

I n

. . -

0 c l,

• z e C V

, ( N J

t . f l

0

T O A L

r n

0

0

h

0 0 . -

N C V

h

( . 0 N

O D , — ‘ -

0

I n

0

O D

h

H , -

h h

e n , -

L . ,

C D C1 4 / 1

N I -

O D

N

L C '

/ 4 1 . S D C V

O D , -

( , )

c \ I

C D

0

4 / 1 1 " ).

r1 4 / 1

e .

c r

0 . 0 1 N

O D

N

¼ 0

V D

l '

.g

4. / 1

C

E X C A V .

N E W

T O A L

E X C A V .

A L

% O F

3 0

O D

E X C A V .

O L D

r = 4 4 0 < E +

V

D

T O A L 0 r d

. e

.

r

e,

0

N

N i n

N , -

0 1 , -

B A R O W S

P O S . F t l

n

C

e n C , -

e, r , -


, : • » •4 " , › . , N e s , , . „ , , t N N . . : . , _,1 .„ , _ , , , . , . , , , U , • 1

4 0

Plate

I :

a )

Karsko

( WPOM-15),

i llustrating

b )

Karsko

( WPOM-15),

view of

Pyrzyce

c )

Karsko

( WPOM-15),

example

of

enclosure

typical

barrow

valley

typical

f rom

location barrow

stone-built

41

a

M e c k l e n b u r g ,

. . ... .

c o

t y l " i r 4

t h e

S a c h s e n w a l d

4 3

o f up to ten barrows are l ocated upon boulder c lays and s andy c lays, f orming i ndividual c lusters b etween 2 and 4 km apart, a long the h igher t erraces o f the r ivers B ille and Aue. Sprockhoff i nterpreted this pattern a s i ndicative o f s everal contemporary communities occupying t he r egion ( Sprockhoff 1 954, 1 0), but s ince only one g roup - the Alter Hau - has been i nvestigated the chronological r elationship between the c lusters i s unknown and more i nformation i s necessary to e ither s upport or refute this s uggestion. The d istribution o f earthen l ong barrows i n Mecklenburg, with the exception o f a f ew monuments i n the north and north-east, i s a lso confined to a r elatively small area ( Fig. 8 a). The majority o f barrows are f ound on the s andy/ c layey s oils o f s outh-western Mecklenburg, e specially b etween the r ivers S chaale and Süde, and a number are a lso f ound around the S chweriner See. I n contrast to the p reviously described r egions, the Mecklenburg barrows do not f orm numerically l arge c lusters ( cemeteries) but are f ound s cattered s ingly ( for example MBG-12, 1 5, 1 7, 2 5), i n pairs ( MBG-4, 1 8, 2 3) or at a maximum o f three ( MBG-9) i n one l ocality. I n this r espect the d istribution corr esponds to a s imilar dispersal o f barrows on the Lüneburger Heide ( Fig. 8 c). I n view o f the generally s parse evidence o f the TRB culture i n these areas i t i s difficult to determine whether the dispersed d istribution reflects a l ess dense and poss ibly l ater s ettling o f s outh-western Mecklenburg and the Lüneburger Heide, or a different s ettlement s trategy f rom that which resulted i n a c lustered b arrow d istribution ( for example o f about thirty barrows i n the S achsenwald). I t i s i nteresting to note that the barrows o f s outh-western Mecklenburg and o f the Lüneburger Heide are a t a s imilar d istance f rom the S achsenwald concentration and may i ndeed r epresent an extension o f the TRB s ettlement f rom around the E lbe estuary. Until more data pertaining to c hronology and s ettlement a re available, however, the e arthen l ong barrow distribution patterns i n northern Germany c annot be f ully a ssessed. A lthough the Danish earthen l ong barrows presently known are l ikely to r epresent only a f raction o f t he original number, their d istribution i s f airly distinctive ( Fig. 1 0). As i n Mecklenburg, the barrows t end to be d ispersed i n the l andscape, f ound e ither s ingly ( for example DNK-3, 4 , 1 0) or i n pairs ( DNK-2, 1 2, 1 8) and no c lustering o f monuments i s observed. I nland s ites are f ew i n number ( DNK-14, 1 5, 1 6, 1 7); the l ocation i s predominantly c oastal.

d i s c r e t b a r o w g r o u p i n g s

S p r o c k h o f 1 9 5 4 )

4 4

4 5

A r ecent s urvey o f the TRB s ettlement o f e astern Jutland ( Madsen 1 982) s uggests that, during the e arly phase o f the TRB culture, the s ettlement p attern continued the principles o f Late Mesolithic l and u se o f c lose a ssociation with the coast, r ivers and l akes ( Ibid. 2 04-205). Grave d istribution r eveals a c lose dependence upon the coast ( the majority were f ound to be l ocated within 4 km d istance f rom the s hore; Ibid. 2 15, F ig. 1 2) and on water s ources ( up to 1 ,5km distance on average; Ibid. 2 15, Fig. 1 3). Moreover the s ites were a lso l ocated predominantly i n areas which o ffered greater opportunities f or the exploitation o f a variety o f environments, f urther underlining the continuity f rom Late Mesolithic to Early Neolithic. I t would b e i ncorrect to r egard the f indings o f the above-mentioned s urvey a s f ully r epresentative o f the earthen l ong barrow distribution pattern o f the whole o f Denmark, s ince varying l ocal conditions would undoubtedly i nfluence the s pecific l ocation o f s ites. The r elationship o f earthen long barrows with the coast i s, however, very c lear; s ome s ites which today appear to be more i nland were once much c loser to the s hore ( for example the B arkaer barrows are s ituated on a h ill which u sed to be an i sland i n an i nlet o f the Kolin Sund but i s now completely drained and cultivated; Glob 1 949, 1 ) i ndicating that e arly TRB s ettlement here was dependent not only on f arming but on coastal and e stuarine exploitation a s well. Comparison o f the e arthen l ong barrow d istribution i n the f ive main r egions r eveals i nteresting d ifferences a s well a s s imilarities. I t i s very difficult to i nterpret the s ignificance o f c lustered a s opposed to d ispersed d istribution s ince i n all regions there i s s till a c cnsiderable l ack o f evidence o f contemporary s ettlement s ites which c ould help to explain s uch d ifferences. I t may however be observed that the c lustering o f barrows i nto c emeteries i s typical o f areas where TRB communities co-existed with the Post LBK groups ( g. Kujavia and Western Pomerania) or possibly Rössen ( north-western Germany) and i t i s possible that this phenomenon i s the r esult o f a r elationship b etween these two cultural complexes r ather than o f d ifferences within the TRB c ulture i tself ( see a lso c omments i n chapter 8 ). A c ommon denominator o f the earthen l ong b arrow distribution i s their predominant association with the s andy/clayey morainic s oils, which i s entirely consistent with the economic exploitation o f a mixed f orest environment. Another l ong b arrows contemporary

important a spect o f the l ocation o f e arthen i s the relationship between the b arrows and s ettlement s ites. I t i s very difficult to

F ig.

1 0

D istribution o f

ELBs

i n

D enmark

4 7

relate s pecific monuments to c ontemporary s ettlement s ites s ince i n most i nstances material evidence a ssociated with s ettlements and b arrows i s not s uitable f or detailed c omparisons. Recent i nvestigations o f the Lupawa s ettlement complex ( WPOM-25; Jankowska 1 980, Weber 1 983) do, however, o ffer s ome i nformation. The Lupawa c omplex consists o f one permanent s ettlement ( Poganice 4 ) and three c emeteries ( WPOM-25, s ites 3 , 4 and 5 ; F ig. 1 1). The s ame principles o f l ocation apply to the s ettlement a nd c emeteries, with a ll s ites l ocated on the h ighest terrace o f the Lupawa r iver ( Jankowska 1 980, 7 7; Weber 1 983, Map 2 ). The s ettlement s ite was about 2 00m e ast o f the r iver and the cemeteries were l ocated about 1 00m to the east and s outh-east o f the s ettlement. Traces o f p loughi ng preserved underneath one o f the barrows suggest that the area may originally have been c ultivated and when the f ield was no l onger s uitable f or cultivation the c leared l and was u sed f or the construction o f a c emetery ( Jankowska 1 980, 9 4). Although the ceramic material a ssociated with the barrows i s much poorer than that r ecovered f rom the s ettlement, i t h as been s uggested, on the basis o f the s tylistic development o f the c eramic forms, that the l arger s tructures ( i.e. barrows) were erected during the earlier phases o f the s ettlement while i n the l ater period the s paces between the barrows were ' filled-in' with the s oc alled ' mini-megaliths' ( Jankowska 1 980, 1 01; Weber 1 983, Table 2 ). Thus the Lupawa s ettlement complex s hows the contemporaneous existence o f a s ettlement and i ts n ecropolis a lthough i t i s not possible a s yet to determine whether a ll three c emeteries are contemporary or whether they represent a s equential expansion around the s ettlement a s c leared l and became vacant o f agricultural activities. I t must however be borne i n mind that the Lupawa complex dates to l ate within the TRB ( Appendix 1 ) and a lso r epresents a r elatively i solated s ettlement, f ar f rom the developing c entres o f Kujavia and the Pyrzyce basin. Although i t r emains to be s een how f ar the observations made a t Lupawa may apply to o ther regions, i t i s nevertheless c lear that only a c omplete i nvestigation o f the s ettlement o f a s pecific region will provide i nformation s ufficient to a llow the i nterpretation o f a s ettlement p attern i n both chronol ogical and spatial terms. Such a contemporaneous relationship between s ettlement s ites and earthen l ong barrows i s not currently documented i n other areas, but another p attern o f r elationship a lso emerges with r emarkable regularity. Throughout the e arthen l ong barrow province there i s evidence o f barrows being

4 8

A .

A .

A .

A .A _

a

&

I (, i

m

A . A . a

n . A _

.A . a A .

4 )

k

n . A . W

A .

a

V

I

L

k .

A .

r l

A .

i .

k A .

A . , \ . : ‘

A .

A .

A .

A . k

A .

_— A _

A .

A .

. 6 0 ) . . 4 W

k .

a=

Ik :

k • A

L

,

n _

k

Ia.

f t . A . == ===== ==. . A .

( 1 .

( L )

A .

A .

0

, k

1 21 . 1 .•. A . 1 1L u l

A . k

A _

A H I a Ik

.. .... =

I t A .

a .

k

A .

1 A . I

: T .I.

c l i \ . . .k k \.

s e t l e m e n t

A .

4

4 0 L ( I

.

k

. 1 k

A .

A .

: i I

A .

-k

5

A _

t h e p o s i t o n

A .

r e l a t i o n t o

A .

1

b

Q

( W P O M 2 5 ) ,

N

4 9

l ocated d irectly upon e arlier s ettlement s ites. Examples o f s uch l ocations a re documented i n K ujavia ( for example K UJ7 , 2 2, 3 2), Western Pomerania ( WPOM-50), Mecklenburg ( MBG2 8), Lower S axony ( LSAX-9) a nd D enmark ( DNK-2, 1 2, 1 8). P ossible i nterpretations o f s uch l ocations i n t erms o f the r itual a ssociated with e arthen l ong b arrows a nd o f t he r elationship b etween d ifferent c ommunities w ithin a p articular r egion a re o ffered l ater ( chapters 6 and 8 ). F or t he t ime b eing i t will s uffice t o note that s uch a w idely a ttested l ocation o f b arrows upon s ettlements c an h ardly b e a ccidental, b ut must r eflect c onsistencies w ithin t he TRB l ocational s trategy t hat a re o nly n ow b ecoming apparent.

5 .3

D IMENSIONS OF THE NORTH E UROPEAN EARTHEN LONG BARROWS

S ince nearly a ll e arthen l ong b arrows h ave s uffered s everely f rom e rosion, d estruction o r amateur i nvestigations i t i s d ifficult t o e stimate h ow f ar their l ength a nd w idth r eflect t he o riginal d imensions. Many o f t he d ata p resented i n this s ection h ave b een e xtracted f rom o ld r eports ( for e xample i n Mecklenburg a nd Western P omerania), and e ven modern e xcavation t echniques c annot a lways e stablish t he o riginal d imensions with a ccuracy ( Gabalöwna 1 969a, Gorczyca 1 981, Wiglahski 1 977). Analysis o f t he d ata ( Fig. 1 2a-e, T able 2 a-e) s hows t hat b arrows i n K ujavia d iffer c onsiderably f rom t hose i n o ther r egions both i n the r ange o f t heir l ength a nd i n t he d istribution w ithin t hat r ange. T he overall r ange i s f rom c . 3 0 to 1 70m i n l ength ( Fig. 1 2a, T able 2 a; one o r two b arrows a t e ither end b eing s omewhat d ubious) a nd t hus t he l argest o f t hem a re among t he l ongest e arthen l ong b arrows i n Northern E urope. About 4 0% o f b arrows a re b etween 6 0 a nd 8 0m l ong, a nd o nly 1 8,4% a re s horter t han 3 5m. S ome e xtremel y l ong monuments a re known i n K ujavia, a nd a lthough t hey c onstitute 1 8,4% o f t he total n umber, t heir actual l ength ( of b etween 1 15 a nd 1 70m) a re h ardly equalled e lsewhere. Among the Western Pomeranian l ong b arrows ( Fig. 1 2b, T able 2 h) t he most c ommon r ange o f l ength i s b etween 2 5 a nd 4 5m and t his i ncludes j ust u nder h alf o f t hose b arrows f or which d imensions a re known ( 48,7%). Only 1 2,2% r each l engths o f over 5 0m and 5 8,5% do n ot e xceed 3 5m. Thus very c learly t he g eneral t rend i s f or b arrows h ere to b e s horter t han i n K ujavia. A c omparison b etween Mecklenburg a nd Lower S axony g ives r esults s imilar t o t he above. O f the M ecklenburg b arrows ( Fig. 1 2c, T able 2 c) 6 0% r each only up to 3 5m i n

N U M B E R O F B A R O W S

c o

S31 : 1 1. 1 .3 1

N I

H . L ON3 1

r i 4

0

5 1

Table

2 a

BARROW

D imensions and orientation o f broader end) of ELBs i n LENGTH WIDTH

ORIENTATION S

KUJ-4 KUJ-6 KUJ-7/1 7 /2 KUJ-8/1 KUJ-9/1 KUJ-10 KUJ-11 KUJ-13 KUJ-14 KUJ-17/1 1 7/2 1 7/3 1 7/4 KUJ-19 KUJ-21/1 2 1/2 KUJ-22/1 2 2/2 2 2/3 2 2/4 KUJ-28 KUJ-29 KUJ-30/1 3 0/2 KUJ-32/1 3 2/2 3 2/3 3 2/4 3 2/5 3 2/6 3 2/7 3 2/8 3 2/9 KUJ-34 KUJ-40/1 4 0/2 KUJ-41 KUJ-44 KUJ-45/1 4 5/2 4 5/3 4 5/4 4 5/5 KUJ-47 KUJ-48/1 KUJ-49

( indicating d irection Kujavia ( in metres)

S SE

SE

ESE

E

ENE

NE

NNE

N

W

x 2 5 1 25 1 8+ 1 15

x 1 0,5 8 8

x x x x x x

8 0 4 0? 7 1,5 7 0 7 0 2 7,5 6 0 6 8 6 3+ 6 5 6 5

1 0? 8 ,5 9 9 8 ,5 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 0

x x x x x x x x x x

3 8+ 5 0 1 70? 4 5 7 7 8 3 3 8,5 8 0 7 6 6 0 7 5 7 1 3 0?

x

1 4 9

x x x x x x x x x

1 2 1 2 9 ,5 1 9 ,5 1 1,5 1 0 1 2 8

x x x x

1 7 2 7

1 0 1 5

x x x x

7 6 9 3 1 15 3 0? 4 7? 5 7 7 0 1 60?

1 0 9 1 0 6 ,5 7 ,5 1 1 6

x x x x x x x x

5 2

Table

2 b

D imensions, orientation and s hape o f Western Pomerania ( dim. i n metres)

ELBs

i n ,

BARROW

LENGTH

WIDTH

ORIENTATION N-S

WPOM-3/1 3 /2 WPOM-4

3 1 2 9

1 1 9

E -W

SHAPE

NE-SW SE-NW

x x x x x x x x x x x

WPOM-8/1 WPOM-10(3) 1 0(4) WPOM-11/2 WPOM-12/1 1 2/2 WPOM-13 WPOM-14/1 1 4/2 WPOM-15/1 1 5/2 WPOM-16/1 1 6/2 1 6/3 1 6/4 WPOM-17/1 WPOM-18/1 1 8/2 1 8/3 WPOM-19

3 6 5 3 5 0+ 1 7 c .25 c .25 2 6 2 4 4 0 4 3 4 5 1 5 4 5 3 5 1 8 3 1

9 7 ,5 7 6 -4

9 6 ,5 6 ,5 8 -3 5 + 7 4 5 7 7 ,5

x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x

WPOM-20 WPOM-21/1 2 1/2 WPOM-22/9

WPOM-23

WPOM-24

6 0 1 50? 3 0

2 3

9 3 ,5 3 ,5

6

x

x x x x x x x x x x

Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. Triang. Triang. Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. ? ? Triang. ? Triang. Trapez. Rectang. Rectang. Triang. Triang. Triang. Triang. Triang. Trapez. Trapez. Trapez. Trapez. Triang. Triang? Triang? Triang. Triang. Triang. Triang. Triang. Triang. Triang. Triang. Triang. Triang. ? ? Triang. Triang. Triang. Triang.

5 3

BARROW

LENGTH

ORIENTATION

WIDTH N-S

WPOM-24

E -W

SHAPE

NE-SW SE-NW

x x x x x x x

WPOM-25/2 2 5/3 2 5/4 2 5/5 2 5/6 2 5/7 2 5/8 2 5/9 2 5/14 2 5/15 2 5/16 2 5/17 2 5/18 2 5/19 2 5/20 2 5/21 2 5/28 2 5/29 2 5/30 WPOM-28

3 2,5 3 3 2 4,5 2 4,5 2 4,5 2 3,5

7 -4 5 ,5-4,5 7 ,0-5,5 6 ,5-3,0 7 -5 6 ,5-4,0

3 0

8 ,5-3,5

x x x x x x x x x x x x x

1 5 1 3 7 2 0 2 ,4 2 ,4 2 ,8 6 5 4 5 3 9

6 -4 4 -3 4 -3 3 3 -2,4 1 ,6 1 ,2-1 1-5 7 -3,5 7 -3

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Triang. Triang. Triang. Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. ? Triang. Rectang. ? ? Trapez. Trapez. Trapez. Trapez. Trapez. Trapez. Trapez. Trapez. Trapez. Trapez. Trapez. Trapez. Trapez. Trapez. Rectang. Trapez. Trapez. Trapez. Trapez. Triang. Triang. Trapez. Triang. Triang. Triang. Triang. Rectang. Triang. Trapez. Trapez. Triang. Triang. Triang. Triang. Rectang. Triang. Triang. Triang. Triang.

5 4

BARROW

LENGTH

WIDTH

ORIENTATION N-S

E-W

WPOM-28

NE-SW x x

SHAPE SE-NW

x x x WPOM-30

WPOM-33/1 3 3/2 WPOM-34

x x x

WPOM-48 WPOM-49

WPOM-50

x x x

Rectang. Rectang. Rectang.

8 x x x x x x x x x

WPOM-39

WPOM-47

x x x

Rectang. Rectang. Trapez. Triang. Triang. Triang. Triang. Triang. Triang. Triang. Triang. Triang. Triang. Triang. Triang. Rectang. Rectang.

1 5

WPOM-37

4 0 8

3 5

1 2

x x x

? Triang? Rectang. Rectang.

x x

Rectang. Triang.

3

6

? Triang. Triang. Triang. Triang.

5 5

Table

2 c

Dimensions, orientation and shape Mecklenburg ( dim. i n metres)

BARROW

LENGTH

MBG-1 MBG-2 MBG-4/1 MBG-5 MBG-7 MBG-8 MBG-9/1 9 /2 9 /3 MBG-12/1 1 2/2 MBG-14 MBG-15 MBG-16 MBG-18/1 1 8/2 MBG-19 MBG-20 MBG-22 MBG-23/1 MBG-24 MBG-25 MBG-26/1 2 6/2 MBG-27 MBG-28 MBG-29

c .80 2 6 3 2,5 3 1 1 3,5 2 2 2 4 2 3 3 3 1 5 1 5 1 6 5 0 2 2,5 1 6,5 2 9 4 7 ( 162) 3 3 1 5 1 00? 2 0-30 1 25 4 4 7 5 8 ,5 2 3 1 8

WIDTH

ELBs

ORIENTATION N-S

6 3 ,25 4 ,8 5 4 5 ,5 6 5 ,5 1 ,5 1 ,5 7 8 6 ,5 4 ,8 4 5 5 ,5 7 6 3 3 ,5-1,5 6 -4 5 -4 6 7 -4 5 ,2

o f

E-W

SHAPE

NE-SW SE-NW x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

i n

Rectang. ? Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. Trapez. Rectang. Rectang. ? Rectang. ? Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. Trapez? Trapez. Trapez. Rectang. Trapez. Rectang.

5 6

Table

2 d

BARROW

D imensions, orientation and s hape o f Lower S axony ( dim. i n metres) LENGTH

WIDTH

3 7 4 0 2 7 3 0 3 2 1 4+ 3 6 1 12 5 0 4 3 8 0 4 0 1 54 7 5 5 0 3 0 4 0 2 5 3 5 2 8 4 5,5 3 7 1 9 4 2 1 9 4 1 1 2 5 2 2 4,5 2 2 4 3 3 6 4 2 5 2 6 1 4 5 2 5 1 7 5 5 1 8 1 3 2 5 5 7 8 0

4 -3 4 3 5 5 4 ,7 5 3 ,5-4 2 ,5 7

ORIENTATION N-S

L SAX-1/1 1 /2 L SAX-2 L SAX-3/1 3 /2 LSAX-4 LSAX-5/1 5 /2 5 /3 LSAX-6/1 6 /2 LSAX-7 LSAX-8/1 8 /2 8 /3 8 /4 8 /5 8 /6 8 /7 8 /8 8 /9 8 /10 8 /11 8 /12 8 /13 8 /14 8 /15 8 /16 8 /17 8 /18 8 /19 8 /20 8 /21 8 /22 8 /23 8 /24 8 /25 8 /26 8 /27 8 /28 8 /29 8 /30 8 /31 LSAX-9

5 8 ,5 4 3 ,5 4 4 ,5 3 5 5 1 2-11,5 1 0,5-7 1 0-7,5 1 3,5-9 8 8 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 4 3 4 ,5 5 5 3 ,5 3 ,5 3 5 4 .5 4 -2

E -W

x x x x

x x x x x x x

x x

x x x x x x x x x

ELBs

i n

SHAPE

NE-SW SE-NW x Trapez. x Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. x Rectang. x Rectang. x Rectang. x Rectang. x Rectang. x Rectang. x Rectang. Rectang. x Rectang. Rectang. x Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. x Trapez. Trapez. Trapez. x Rectang. x Rectang. x Rectang. Rectang. x Rectang. Rectang. x Rectang. x x Rectang. Rectang. x Rectang. x Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. Trapez. x

5 7

Table

2 e

BARROW

Dimensions, orientation and Denmark ( dim. i n metres) LENGTH

WIDTH N-S

DNK-1 DNK-2/1 2 /2 DNK-3 DNK-4 DNK-5 DNK-6 DNK-7 DNK-8 DNK-9 DNK-10 DNK-11 DNK-12/1 1 2/2 DNK-13 DNK-14 DNK-15 DNK-16 DNK-17 DNK-18/1 1 8/2 DNK-19 DNk-20 DNK-21 DNK-22 DNK-23

1 4 8 5 8 5 ? 6 0 1 7 1 8,5 ? 3 6+ 2 4 9 0+ 4 5 3 0+ 3 0+ 5 8 2 5+ 2 0 4 5 7 0 3 6 3 3 2 7 1 4 2 0+ 5 1 0+

1 0 1 0 ? 1 3-4 ? 3 -1 ? 6 ,5 1 0 1 5 1 1 9 9 9 7 4 -2 1 3 1 0-5 5 3 5 -3,75 4 -2 6 7

shape

of

ORIENTATION E-W NE-SW

ELBs

SHAPE SE-NW

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

i n

Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. ? Trapez. ? Trapez. ? Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. Rectang. • Trapez. Rectang. Trapez. Rectang. Rectang. Trapez. Trapez. Rectang. Rectang. Rectang.

5 8 E

C O

HIONal

E 0

0

U ,

0

0

5 9

l ength but only 1 5% exceed 6 0m. Most barrows i n Lower S axony ( Fig. 1 2d, Table 2 d) a re between 1 0 and 5 0m i n l ength ( 77,3%) - roughly corresponding to the s ituation i n Western Pomerania - and only 1 3,6% a re l onger. The earthen l ong barrows o f D enmark ( Fig. 1 2e, T able 2 e) vary i n l ength f rom 1 4 to 8 5m a lthough the majority are below 6 0m i n l ength. A comparison o f the l ength and width o f barrows ( Fig. 1 3a-e) s uggests t hat a lthough these two dimensions are not d irectly related to e ach other ( see f or example Chmielewski's e stimates o f the l ength based on the width o f s ome b arrows i n Kujavia) general t endencies can be observed i n each area o f barrow distribution. The widest ranges o f width c ome f rom K ujavia ( 6-12m, F ig. 1 3a) and Western Pomerania ( 3-11 m, F ig. 1 3b). Although a ll widths are a ssociated with barrows o f the most common l engths ( 60-80m in Kujavia and 2 5-45m i n W estern Pomerania) there i s a tendency, particularly noticeable i n Western Pomerania, f or s horter barrows to be narrower. Thus, f or example, no b arrow between 3 and 6m i n width i s l onger t han 4 5m. I n Kujavia the r ange o f widths i s more f reely s pread out but the r eally wide over 5 0m i n l ength.

barrows

( 11-12m)

tend to be

I n Mecklenburg ( Fig. 1 3c) the main width range f alls b etween 3 and 7m - a very wide example o f 1 8m i s r ather exceptional. With one exception ( Stralendorf, MBG-25) barrows 3 -4m wide are s horter than those 5 -8m wide, but s ome very s hort and wide b arrows are known as well. I rrespective o f their l ength, the average width o f barrows i n Lower Saxony f alls between 3 a nd 5m ( 72,7%). Only a f ew examples are wider, and the exceptionally wide barrows ( 12-13m) are thought to r eflect s ubsequent destruction of the mound through s hifting o f s oil r ather than a width by design. I t i s more d ifficult to assess the relationship between t he l ength and width o f barrows i n Jutland ( Fig. 1 3e); both l ong and s hort b arrows are o f variable width and the two d imensions do not s eem to be c losely related. I t i s i nteresti ng, however, to s uperimpose the relationship between the width and l ength o f barrows i n a ll areas. The graph ( Fig. 1 4) s hows c learly that there i s a c lose correspondence between the areas o f Mecklenburg and Lower Saxony, and a l ess c lear but nevertheless apparent relationship between Western Pomerania and Denmark. Kujavia s eems to retain a p attern o f i ts own. The general tendency, however, i s f or barrows f urther west f rom Kujavia to become narrower. Let us now e xamine the r elationship b etween the s ize a nd the s hape o f the mounds in each area. Rectangular and t rapezoidal forms are presently known i n a ll r egions except Kujavia ( but s ee Kozlowski 1 921). A comparison o f their

6 0

.— • — •—

KUJ

----. .

WP°M

1 50

MBG

/

\

/

LSAX

\

DNK

1 00

L E N G T H I N M E T R E S

5 0

1 WIDTH

Fig.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

1 2

IN METRES

1 4

Superimposition of the l ength/width relationship in different areas

1 3

6 1

5 0

a

0

1

5 0

a

0

F ig.

1 5

2

Comparison o f the l ength between r ectangular and t rapezoidal ( 2) b arrows: a )WPOM, b ) MBG, c )LSAX, d )DNK

( 1)

6 2 1 0

8

4 a 2

1

8

a 21

Fig.

1 6

2

Comparison o f the width between r ectangular and t rapezoidal ( 2) barrows: a ) WPOM, b )MBG c )LSAX, d )DNK

( 1)

6 3

r espective l engths emphasises the differences between Denmark and Lower Saxony on the one hand, and Western Pomerania and Mecklenburg on the other ( Fig. 1 5). From the D anish and Lower S axon examples i t appears that the l ength o f the barrow i s not related to i ts shape ( Fig. 1 5.1c and d , 1 5.2c and d ). Both f orms are roughly comparable in l ength, with r ectangular b arrows f rom 1 4 to 9 0m ( DNK) and f rom 1 2 to 8 0m ( LSAX), and t rapezoidal mounds f rom 1 4 to 7 0m ( DNK) and f rom 1 9 to 8 0m ( LSAX). The two very l ong barrows f rom Lower S axony ( LSAX-5/2 and LSAX-8/1) do not a ffect this pattern. The d ifferences i n s hape s eem to be r eflected i n the width o f the b arrows, with the r ectangular f orms generally wider in Denmark ( Fig. 1 6.1d), while the reverse appears to be true i n Lower S axony ( Fig. 1 6 2 d) By contrast, i n Western Pomerania and Mecklenburg diff erences in shape are reflected i n s ize ( Fig. 1 5). The l engths recorded f or r ectangular forms i n both areas do not exceed 3 1m ( 1 0-31 m i n WPOM, F ig. 1 5.1a; 1 5-31 m i n MBG, F ig. 1 5.1b). Thus their r ange i s considerably shorter than that o f the trapezoidal barrows which vary between 1 3 and 6 5m i n Western Pomerania ( Fig. 1 5.2a) and between 1 3 and 5 0m in Mecklenburg ( Fig. 1 5.2b). This correspondence i n s hape and l ength between the two areas i s however r eversed when width i s considered ( Fig. 1 6). Thus i n Mecklenburg the trapezoidal mounds are wider ( 5-18m, F ig. 1 6.2b) than the rectangular ( 3-6m, F ig. 1 6.1b), while the reverse s eems to be t rue i n Western Pomerania. Here trapezoidal mounds vary i n width between 4 and 7m ( Fig. 1 6.2a), while the rectangular r each 1 1m i n width ( 3-11m, F ig. 1 6.1a; ' mini-megaliths' excluded). I n conclusion we may note that generally the barrows are s horter and narrower the f urther west we l ook within the distribution area. I n each region however there are examples which, be i t through their l ength or width or both, s tand out s harply f rom the main body o f the monuments.

5 .4

ORIENTATION OF THE NORTH EUROPEAN EARTHEN LONG BARROWS

I n this s ection i t i s proposed f irst o f a ll to d iscuss the general problems associated with interpreting the orientation o f the earthen l ong barrows; then to consider the orientation trends apparent i n the various r egions; and, f inally, to discuss in more detail a f ew groups o f l ong b arrows f or which s ufficient data exist to a llow comments o f a more specific nature.

6 4

I n considering the orientation o f the earthen l ong barrow two problems arise. F irstly, taking i nto a ccount the monument a s a whole, we need to a sk which d irection i n a particular orientation i s o f greater importance; f or e xample, i n an E -W oriented l ong b arrow i s i t the eastern, o r western, or i ndeed both? I n the case o f the Kujavian or trapezoidal l ong barrows the s hape o f the mound i s s uggestive o f a predominant direction and there i s a g eneral tendency to r egard the wider end a s i ts i ndicator ( Chmielewski 1 952, J aZdZewski 1 970a). The f act that many activities ( burning o f f ires, r aising o f s tructures, deposition o f votive material, i nterments etc.) generally occur i n the wider part o f the mound l ends s upport to s uch an i nterpretation. On the other hand, a phenomenon which c an be observed i n Kujavia and to a c ertain extent i n Western Pomerania that o f a f an-like l ayout o f a group o f barrows ( with the narrower ends c loser together than the wider ends) - c ould p lausibly be i nterpreted a s ' pointing to s omewhere', i n this c ase i n the direction o f the narrower ends. Hitherto there has been a tendency to regard one d irection o f a g iven orientation as more important than the other. Yet we s hould consider the possibility that i t i s the complete, e .g. E-W or N-S ( the l ine o f the main axis) that i s o f importance. This problem could f or example be considered i n the c ontext o f rectangular barrows, i n which the shape o f the mound does not s uggest a priority o f one direction over the o ther. The s econd problem i s that of distinguishing b etween the orientation o f the barrow and that o f the i nterment and/ or i nterior s trutures. We s hall devote more space to this problem i n the s ection on burial ( chapter 7 .3); here i t i s s ufficient to note that the majority o f burials are l aid out i n s uch a way that e ither 1 ) the head o f the deceased points towards the narrower end, or 2 ) the grave i s p laced a long or parallel to the main axis o f the barrow. We s hould f urther consider the possibility that the burial and t he barrow may represent s eparate chronological and/or f unctional a spects and that their respective orientations may be r elated to d ifferent f actors. I nformation concerning the orientation o f the e arthen l ong barrows i s available f or a s ufficient number o f s ites i n all r egions ( Table 2 a-e, F igs. 1 7-19) to enable u s to r ecognise the emerging patterns as r epresentative o f e ach area. Unfortunately, more o ften than not i t i s only possible to i dentify the f our main orientations: N-S, E -W, NE-SW and SE-NW. Thus, with one exception only, orientation f or diff erent r egions i s presented according to this d ivision ( Tables 2b-e). For the area o f Kujavia i t has been possible to present a more detailed analysis ( Table 2 a, F ig. 1 7).

( i n d i c a t i n g t h e p o s i t o n o f

6 5

O r i e n t a i o n o f E L B s i n W e s t e r n P o m e r a n i a

6 6

C O

6 7

A ll data h ere combine to i ndicate an exact r ange o f orienta tion i n the d irection o f t he wider end. However t his d ifferent presentation does not i n any way d istort the g eneral pattern f or the purpose o f comparison with other a reas. General distribution f igures f or each area ( Figs. 1 71 9) s how c learly that, with the exception o f Lower S axony ( Fig. 1 9b), the principal o rientation i s e ast-west. Such a p attern i s borne out particularly by the d ata f rom the two g eographically most s eparated r egions - Kujavia a nd Denmark ( Figs. 1 7 and 1 9c). The e arthen l ong barrows i n Kujavia s how a very consistent orientation; 7 0% o f the barrows a re o riented within a narrow arc o f 4 5° ( between ENE-WSW and E SE-WNW). The d irection o f the broader end i n a ll b ut one o f these barrows i s to the east; only a f ew monuments dev iate f rom this pattern. I n D enmark, a lthough f ewer s ites are known, the s itua tion i s s imilar with 6 9% o f barrows oriented f rom east t o west ( Fig. 1 9c). Western Pomerania s hows the most d iversified p icture. Although barrows o riented f rom east to west account f or 4 1% o f the total, many barrows are oriented north e asts outh west ( 23%) and s outh e ast-north west ( 22%); s lightly f ewer are oriented f rom north to s outh ( Fig. 1 8). Groupings i n Mecklenburg f all between the above - with the majority o f barrows east-west ( Fig. 1 9a) - but other orientations a re more common than i n e ither Kujavia or Denmark. Among the b arrows o f Lower S axony the predominant orientations are n orth-south ( 38,6%) and s outh east- north west ( 31,8%), with e ast-west orientation being l east common ( 11,4%, F ig. 1 9b). The general o rientation t rend f or each area i s f urther emphasised when we compare the orientation o f barrows i n r elation to different s hapes ( Figs. 2 0 and 2 1). I n the c ase o f both r ectangular and trapezoidal mounds, the g eneral t endency o f east to west orientation i s very c lear i n D enmark ( Figs. 2 0d and 2 1d) and Mecklenburg ( Figs. 2 0c and 2 1c), a s i s the south e ast-north west orientation i n Lower S axony ( Figs. 2 0c and 2 1c). I n Western Pomerania on the other h and t he d ivergence o f orientation i s even more conspicuous when t hese d ivisions a re t aken i nto a ccount ( Figs. 2 0a and 2 1a). A comparison o f the orientation o f the Kujavian l ong b arrows c an be drawn only with Western Pomerania. As a lready i ndic ated, orientation i n Kujavia i s very consistent. Although i n Western Pomerania many t riangular barrows are o riented f rom e ast to west, this orientation i s not exclusive and a d ivergence i s evident f or this f orm o f monument a s well.

a f ew

For a detailed analysis o f orientation l et u s consider s ites i n Kujavia. Here, s ufficient data are available

6 8

• • ••• • • aaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaa •5 1. • m u •

6 9

• •

• •• *B.

31 1 13RM A II I II IM

•■• l

a )

.

•

•• 1 1.1 1 1. ..1 1 1BMO M

a+

b )

• • • 1 11 1 1 . . . . A d )

Fig.

20

•

c ) M BIE R

I

•

Orientation of c ) LSAX, d ) DNK

rectangular

ELBs

in

1 BARROW

a ) WPOM,

b ) MBG,

••• b )

•• c )

•

•

1 BARROW d )

Fig.

2 1

Orientation c ) LSAX,

of

d ) DNK

trapezoidal

ELBs

in

a ) WPOM,

U.

•

b ) MBG,

7 0

Table

3

Orientation of individual f our Kujavian cemeteries

barrows

at

LE NICZÖWKA KUJ-17 1 7/1 1 7/2 1 7/3 1 7/4

OBALKI 2 2/1 2 2/2 2 2/3

-

6 0 6 0 7 0 4 0

of of of of

N N N N

50 S of 2 3 ° S of 3 6 ° S of

E E E

° ° 0 °

E E E E

Range of

orientation

3 0

°

3 1

°

ENE-WSW

KUJ-22 -

Range o f

orientation

ESE-WNW

SARNOWO KUJ-32 3 2/1 3 2/2 3 2/3 3 2/4 3 2/5 3 2/6 3 2/7 3 2/8 3 2/9

-

6 0° 6 3' 5 6° 5 70 6 3° 7 50 1 1 ° 5 2° 5 2°

E E E E E E E E E

of of o f o f o f of of of of

N N N N N N N N N

WIETRZYCHOWICE

KUJ-45

4 5/1 4 5/2 4 5/3 4 5/4

o f of o f of

-

5 2 5 6 4 5 5 6

0 ° 0 °

S S S S

E E E E

Range of orientation 6 4 or 2 3 ° excluding 3 2/7

°

ENE-WSW

Range of

orientation SE-NW

2 1

°

7 1

KUJ-32

KUJ-17

" me

KUJ -22

F ig.

2 2

Orientation

of

KUJ -45

i ndividual

barrows

at

f our

Kujavian

cemeteries: Sarnowo ( KUJ-32), Legniczöwka ( KUJ-17), ObaIki ( KUJ-22) and Wietrzychowice ( KUJ-45)

7 2

a t f our s ites, e ach with more than three b arrows ( Table 3 , F ig. 2 2), and a c ertain r egularity i n the a rrangements c an be s een. E ach s ite h as i ts own main orientation: L egniczöwka ( KUJ-17) - ENE-WSW; ObaIki ( KUJ-22) - E SE-WNW; S arnowo ( KUJ3 2) - ENE-WSW; Wietrzychowice ( KUJ-45) - SE-NW. The r ange o f orientation at Legniczöwka, ObaIki and S arnowo f its very well with the predominant r ange f or the area ( Fig. 2 2a-c). The Wietrzychowice c emetery a s a group deviates s lightly f rom the main Kujavian o rientation ( Fig. 2 2d), but on the other hand the orientation o f i ndividual b arrows i s more consistent here than on any other s ite ( all within t he r ange o f 2 1'). At the s ame t ime, at e ach s ite there i s a t l east one barrow which d istinctly deviates f rom the rest ( KUJ-17/4, 22/4, 32/7,-45/6 and-45/7). A comparison o f the o rientation o f barrows and their s patial l ayout within e ach s ite i s a lso i nformative. At e ach s ite there i s one group ( Figs. 2 3 and 2 4) which s eems to f orm a small, i ndividual unit; at S arnowo there a re two s uch groups. Their orientation r ange i s e ither equal to or smaller than that o f the whole s ite - Legniczöwka 3 0 °, S arnowo 7° and 1 8° ( 23 ° f or the whole s ite, excluding n o. 7 ), ObaIki 3 1'. At Wietrzychowice the l ayout i s more d ifficult to i nterpret s ince two b arrows ( KUJ-45/6 and 7 ) c annot b e d irectly r elated to the main group. I f these are e xcluded and barrows KUJ-45/3, 4 and 5 considered a s more r elated to each other than the rest, their orientation r ange i s equal to that o f the whole s ite, i .e. 2 1 °. How do we i nterpret s uch orientation patterns? A c omparison with contemporary TRB s ettlements i s not possible ( see s ection 5 .2) and we must r ely therefore upon i nformation contained within the s ites themselves. That t he g roups o f barrows within c emeteries f orm meaningful entities i s s upported not only by their related orientation but a lso by t heir d iscrete positioning and, i n the case o f S arnowo, a lso by t heir r egularity o f design ( section 5 .5). The possible origins o f s uch a group arrangement will b e discussed l ater ( chapter 8 ). Whether the groups r epresent chronological, s ocial or other d ifferences cannot be a scertained, a s we do not have s ufficiently detailed evidence. Some chronological d istinction i s possible, however, between t he f our c emeter ies, a lthough i t i s very tentative s ince the d iagnostic material r emains are s carce ( chapter 7 .5). Nevertheless, on the basis o f f inds one could c autiously s uggest a r elative chronological s equence o f S arnowo, L egniczöwka, Obalki a nd Wietrzychowice ( without s pecifying the temporal d ifferences or overlaps among them). On this basis we c ould then a sk whether the d ifferent o rientation o f each s ite i s not r elated, i n s ome way at

7 3

0•

•

xe

g ; , 0 0

a .

e

. e

L o c a t i o n o f K u j a v i a n s i t e s :

47 y,

( 1 5

7 4

l east, to i ts c hronological position, and s uggest t he possi bility, over a l ong p eriod o f t ime, o f an ' orientation swing' - i n this c ase f rom NE-SW towards S E-NW. The writer i s only too aware o f the conjectural n ature o f this s uggesti on, e specially i n v iew o f the i nsufficient data f or the s ubstantiation o f s uch an argument. On the o ther hand i t i s f elt that, s hould more detailed evidence be available i n f uture, s uch an approach could be a pplied to s ites with many barrows o f d iffering orientation and l ong p eriods o f u se. S ince t here s eems to be s uch a r egular predominance o f an e ast-west orientation throughout the earthen l ong barrow province, i t i s p lausible that this p articular orientation was i nherent i n the requirements o f the barrow b uilding t rad ition. These may have been a ssociated with a concept o f t he natural world, s ymbolic meanings ( need for d ifferentiation chapter 8 ) or practical a spects o f c onstruction, b ut we a re not i n a position to d etermine the e xtent to which these p layed a c rucial role i n the choice o f a s pecific orientation. I t i s particularly i nteresting to note that the l east deviant patterns i n the earthen l ong barrow orientation a re a ssociated with chronologically the e arliest and l atest c oncentrations, i n Kujavia and Denmark ( chapter 2 ). I n both areas the phenomenon o f earthen l ong b arrows was s horter i n duration than that o f the TRB culture i tself, and i t may b e that i n these areas, f or whatever r eason, s tricter rules o f l ayout applied. On the other hand i n areas s uch a s Western Pomerania, Mecklenburg and Lower S axony, multiple i nfluences f rom many d irections could have been contributory f actors i n orientation variability. I n Western P omerania s ites are known which may originally have had up to a hundred l ong b arrows ( WPOM-37). These no l onger r emain today but 1 9th century s ketches ( Fig. 3 ) s uggest t hat orientation may a lso have been i nfluenced by a need to u se space economically. I ndeed, evidence f rom the recently excavated c emeteries a t Lupawa ( WPOM-25) s uggests that the a rrangements o f barrows were a ssociated with economy o f l and and l abour ( Jankowska 1 980).

7 5

5 .5

FORM OF

THE NORTH

EUROPEAN

EARTHEN

LONG

BARROWS

With r egard to their external appearance three basic f orms may be distinguished among the North European earthen l ong barrows: trapezoidal, rectangular and triangular. The two f ormer types have a wide distribution and are commonly f ound f rom the Jutland Peninsula to Western Pomerania ( Madsen 1 979; Schuldt 1 972; Siuchninski 1 969, 1 972; Sprockhoff 1 952, 1 954, 1 967, 1 975). The l atter, s ave for i solated examples ( e.g. MBG-25), appear i n Kujavia and Western Pomer ania ( Chmielewski 1 952; JaZdZewski 1 970a; S iuchninski 1 969, 1 972). The c lassic triangular f orm ( see below) i s f urthermore restricted to Kujavia. All three types are o f composite construction, built of s tone, earth and occasionally timber. The outward shape i s i n each c ase determined by an enclosure o f s tone ( more rarely timber) within which, a fter a c ertain i nterval o f time, a mound o f earth ( or s tone and earth) has been s et up. The r ectangular and trapezoidal l ong barrows represent in each c ase a relatively s traightforward design, and s uch d ifferences as exist between them will become apparent i n s ection concerned with details o f construction and content ( chapter 6 ). The c lassic t riangular l ong barrows - i n l iterature f requently referred to a s Kujavian - represent the most e ccentric form i n the North European l ong barrow tradition and, owing to their complexity o f design, merit special consideration. I n a general comment r egarding their s hape Chmielewski notes that, although variety o f form i s an obvious f eature, c ommon elements i nclude a triangular s tone kerb and a mound d iminishing i n height f rom the broad to the narrow end ( 1952, 1 5). A more detailed description o f the classic form i s o ffered by JaZdZewski. According to h im the barrows are: . .. in plan c losely reminiscent o f an e longated i sosceles t riangle, with s ides s lightly concave; with the ' base part' wider and h igher and with the ' tail end' gradually becoming narrower and l ower; towards the end having parallel s ides and bluntly f inished" ( Jaidiewski 1 970a, 1 5-16) Evidence f or the detailed s tudy o f this c lassic form i s afforded by only a f ew excavated s ites. These include S arnowo ( KUJ-32; Chmielewski 1 952; GabaIOwna 1 968b, 1 969a, 1 969b; Wiklak 1 975a, 1 982), Legniczöwka ( KUJ-17; Chmielews ki 1 952, JaidZewski 1 936a), Gaj ( KUJ-7) and Obalki ( KUJ-22; Chmielewski 1 952), Wietrzychowice ( KUJ-45; Jadczykowa 1 970, 1 971; JaZdZewski 1 936b) and Zberzyn ( KUJ-47; Gorczyca 1 981). Older excavations, for example those o f Kozlowski ( 1921), do not unfortunately provide enough detail f or comparison with

7 6

Table

4

BARROW KUJ-7/1

Relationship between the l ength o f wide and narrow components o f Kujavian l ong barrows

OVERALL LENGTH 1 25m

WIDE PART

NARROW PART

RATIO OF WIDE/NARROW

2 7m

9 8m

1 :3,6

KUJ-17/1 1 7/2 1 7/3

7 1,5m 7 0m 7 0m

2 5m 3 7m 2 5m

4 6,5m 3 3m 4 5m

1 :1,9 1 :0.9 1 :1,8

KUJ-22/1 2 2/2

6 3m 6 5m

2 7m 4 0m

3 6m 2 5m

1 :1,3 1 :1,6

KUJ-32/1 3 2/2 3 2/3 3 2/4 3 2/5 3 2/6 3 2/8 3 2/9

7 7m 8 3m 3 8,5m 8 0m 7 6m 6 0m 7 1m 3 0m

2 3m 2 9m 1 3m 3 5m 3 0m 3 6m 2 5m 1 5m

5 4m 5 4m 2 2,5m 4 5m 4 6m 2 9m 4 6m 1 5m

1 :2,3 1 :1,9 1 :1,7 1 :1,3 1 :1,5 1 :0,8 1 :1,8 1 :1

7 6m 9 3m 1 15m

2 5m ? 4 6m

5 1m ? 6 9m

1 :2 1 :1,5

5 7m

1 7m

3 0m

1 :1,8

KUJ-45/1 4 5/2 4 5/3 KUJ-47

/

/

SARNOWO KUJ-32

Fig. 2 4

Plan of the Sarnowo cemetery

7 7

0

1 0 3 2/1

3 2/4

3 2/6

F ig.

2 5

Sarnowo ( KUJ-32) barrows, Chmielewski 1 952)

general

plan

( after

c u l t u r a l

p l o u g h m a r k s ,

C . )

r d

3

-o

0

b a r o w 3 2 / 9

7 9

• 00 D

4 •

'-* N .

.'14•. P t `

.

0

•

-'

2•

1 4

C T )

• CD

( a f t e r J a M Z e w s k i

•• Q

C2( : ) , c (l eN t ) 2 G3 i : 9 $

•

•

' C

L

O

6

0

•

L e n i c z ö w k a

.. ' °0 • • 1 4 . 6 e 0 . 91 q ds b p • o v 0 9

•

P l a n o f

, 6

• fe%

r -

c • 0

• • • •

• * 1 •

0

•

.e

CD

o • . t

. c . ,

. « .

N

• N H

•

••

e'

• •

• .

•

1•.

•

•

•

•

' . .••

•

0 0

0

•

•

.•

•

•• •

c 2; . 00 3

•

•• • •.. 0 a .

.

• •

•

OP*

O h •

•0

•

• • •

t o *.

•O'

• •

0

t

: V

•

• 00 •

.12 .4.

.

• •

• ••

II

°

I f •• P it i, SI

I S V t ab

▪

•

•• • • • • •• • ' 1 6• • • • • • 4

4 3

•

•. • : • •••• • • • • • •• •• . • 4 . • • • • • •

O

•

•

•

• •

• ••

• . . .s • ." * . ' •0 . •0 • •

:

• •0 • • ' "

• •: A P . -• % '• '7 • ' + •• • e :15.

•

•

0

•. • . C t •

.

.

. • •

o .• '• Z Z . • •

•

0 •.

.

.

•

; •• •• •• .• . •

•

•

••

•

4.

0

•

0.

V T 1 _ ' 3 •

0

le,

00

•

i f )

I .

2V . ;

#•

I .

•4 • •

•• 0

e

% • •

0

t o

l e

8 1

b etter

excavated examples.

Although the general impression o f the p lan o f the l ong barrows, a s noted by most researchers, i s that o f a t riangle, these b arrows c an a lso be described a s composed o f two s eparate e lements, s o perfectly matched that their overall appearance i s that o f a unified whole. These two c omponents are: 1 ) a trapezoid and 2 ) e ither a very l ong a nd narrow rectangle or a gradually d iminishing, e longated t rapezoid ( Figs. 2 5-31). Thus the wider part o f the barrow, which i n most c ases was a lso the s horter, was l aid out on the p lan o f a trapezoid. I t varied i n l ength f rom 1 5 to 4 0/ 4 5m, a lthough most commonly i t f ell b etween 2 3 and 3 7m ( Table 4 ). The width was equally variable f rom 6 to 1 2m a t t he wider end and f rom 3 to 5m at the narrower end o f this s ection. The s econd design e lement, e ither a l ong and narrow r ectangle ( for example at Wietrzychowice, KUJ-45/3; F ig. 3 0) o r an extremely gradually diminishing trapezoid ( Sarnowo, KUJ-32/1, 2 , 3 ; F ig. 2 5), i s usually very narrow, generally b etween 3 and 1 m f or most o f i ts l ength. There s eems to b e no particular r elationship between the proportions o f these s egments, a lthough i n most c ases ( 12 out o f 1 7) the n arrower part i s a t l east one and a half t imes a s l ong a s the wider part ( Table 4 ). The f luidity o f this design springs f rom combining the two s egments by means o f a marked but g entle c urve - or a change o f angle - i n o ne o r two o f the l ong s ides o f the barrow giving the appearance o f a delicate t ransformation. Two c omments are necessary a t this s tage. F irstly, i t must b e s tressed that this division s eems to be visual r ather than constructional. There i s not a s ingle l ong barrow i n Kujavia where s uch a d istinction c an presently be c onfirmed i n the c onstruction e ither o f the kerb or o f the mound. I t i s perfectly possible that traces o f s uch a d ivisi on did not s urvive, were removed a t s ome l ater s tage o f cons truction or were unobserved during excavation. On the other hand a d ivision o f this k ind need not manifest i tself s tructurally but may be c lear i n the actual l ayout o f the enclosure, and i ndeed the f unctional d ifferentiation o f the i nterior ( chapter 6 ) would j ustify the d istinction o f t hese two s egments. We s hall return to this problem l ater on i n the discussion ( chapter 8 ), but meanwhile we must concern ourselves with another a spect o f the design - that o f the l ayout ( and s ubsequently construction) o f the barrows, which i s not a s r egular a s the above description would s uggest. I n the c ase o f monuments f or which r elatively detailed p lans exist, i t i s possible to observe that nearly a ll were s et up s lightly o ff the main axis and that at l east three

8 2

variations o f the b asic design c an b e s een. Particularly i nformative i n this matter i s the c emetery at S arnowo ( KUJ3 2, F igs. 2 4-26). Within this concentration there a re two d istinct groups, e ach with i ts own i diosyncracies o f design. A particularly prominent change o f angle i n only one o f the l ong walls ( south-eastern wall) i s a characteristic f eature o f the northernmost group ( KUJ-32/1, 2 and 3 ; F ig. 2 5). The s econd group o f barrows ( KUJ-32/4, 5 and 6 ; F ig. 2 5) d iffers f rom the f irst i n the f act t hat i n e ach barrow both o f t he l ong walls r eveal a pronounced change i n their direction. I n the case o f the r emaining barrows ( KUJ-32/8 and 9 ; F ig. 2 6) these s eem to be r elated i n their d esign to the s econd group - with both walls converging; the exaggeration i n the p lan o f barrow 9 i s however so s trong that i t s eems more l ikely to be an i nterpretative error t han a r eflection o f i ts shape. Barrow 3 2/7, f or which i nformation i s present l y available only f rom an i nterim r eport ( GabaIöwna 1 969a), was apparently t he only one built o n the p lan o f a regular triangle and d id not s how the change i n wall angle characteri stic o f the other monuments on this s ite. I nvestigation o f other barrow p lans s uggests t hat variation f rom the s tandard design must have been p ractised at other s ites. At Legniczöwka ( KUJ-17) b arrows 1 7/1 and 1 7/2 s how a s light change i n the d irection o f one o f the l ong walls ( in both c ases the northern, F ig. 2 8). This c an f urther be documented a t ObaIki ( KUJ-22/1 and 4 , s outhern wall; F ig. 2 8) and Wietrzychowice ( KUJ-45/3; F ig. 3 0). Changes i n the angles o f both walls are noted at Gaj ( KUJ-7/1, F ig. 3 1), Obalki ( KUJ-22/2, F ig. 3 0) and Wietrzychowice ( KUJ-45/1, F ig. 2 9). I t i s not possible to comment upon s imilar designs i n the case o f o ther Kujavian l ong b arrows s ince these were e ither too badly preserved or i nadequately r ecorded. The s tudy o f the external appearance o f the Kujavian l ong barrows presents u s with many p roblems. The question o f derivation o f this unique, i diosyncratic design will b e discussed i n detail at a l ater s tage ( chapter 8 ), b ut we s hould note that chronologically and s patially p lausible prototypes are f ound l ocally i n the f orm o f the l ong houses o f the Post LBK c ulture. That there were no absolute r ules o f l ayout o f a b arrow within a broadly defined p lan i s c learl y s een i n the variation o f f orm among the i ndividual barrows, particularly w ithin a s ingle s ite ( e.g. S arnowo). S ome d ifferences were undoubtedly the r esult o f problems o f p lanning and construction a s well a s o f the s kill o f builders. That s uch d ifferences within a s ingle barrow c omplex are noted on more than one occasion s uggests, however, t hat this variability i s not entirely haphazard.

r

,

E I A

I

0

L _

J

8 c , 9 ), a l

* r 4

o

D

W i e t r z y c h o w i c e

8

; 0

L n

0

0

8

1 1

8 3

•

, t

, 7 „, ,

1 0

•, ;/ , ,.

i f b4Il i

*

• 4,

.

/

• ‹ , 4‚ 4v ,

a )

•

.

•e • t i •

• •

. •• •••

• . •. .. .•. . • 4, z 6 t et . 2 &o

. oc i t

..

G '2 4 34 ) . ° 4P «A g o . , •• 6 •.- • • • • • • •

. .

••.••"•"• • • •"• •••"•

". • .•. . • ••.. -. • ••••••••••••. . .•.•. . .. • •• ••• z e t 2 .. .

• • e•

N •ec i t 2 2 0 • c ia .

• • .. .

• •

e

•

0

‘.

•

• •••• • •. •. ••••• -••" ac ,• . • • % I9P

•

. ; 24 3

,

•

40 2d b 4 1 Y Ze g g) g sp

om

b )

Fig.

3 1

General plan of Zberzyn ( a, ( b, KUJ-7/1; after Gorczyca 1 952)

KUJ-47) and Gaj 1 981 and Chmielewski

er z

eze i

8 4

The S arnowo s ite ( KUJ-32), thanks to i ts s ize and detailed excavation, i s particularly i nformative i n this context. The s patial l ayout o f the b arrows on this s ite ( Fig. 2 4), f orming d iscrete groups, coupled with the consistency o f group orientation ( section 5 .4) and architectural detail, s uggests that this arrangement i s f ar f rom accidental. I nterpretation o f this pattern i s difficult but two immediate possibilities c an be s uggested: e ither the groups of barrows are chronologically different, or this s ite was s hared f or c eremonial purposes among two o r more TRB l ocal communities - e ach with i ts own ' architects' and builders ( see a lso comments in chapter 8 ). Although i t i s reasonable to accept that barrows here were built i ndividually over a period o f t ime rather than s imultaneously, we are unfortunately i n no position to determine e ither the t ime span of the whole complex or that o f i ndividual groups. S ave f or one o r two e lements, pottery assemblages associated with the constructional period l ack diagnostic f eatures and a ll s eem to belong to the s ame P ikutkowo - horizon ( chapters 2 and 7 ). I t i s i nteresting however to observe that, a s the evidence o f barrows o f a s lightly l ater period ( Gaj, KUJ-7; Wietrzychowice, KUJ-45 and Z berzyn, KUJ-47) makes c lear, t his phenomenon o f constructional variability continues i n Kujavia throughout the p eriod o f earthen l ong barrow c onstruction.

8 5

CHAPTER 6 THE CONSTRUCTION AND INTERIOR STRUCTURES OF THE NORTH EUROPEAN EARTHEN LONG BARROWS

6 .1

I NTRODUCTION

Discussion o f the construction and i nterior s tructures o f e arthen l ong b arrows, which f orms the main theme o f this c hapter, c an be p roperly conducted only i f we remind ours elves once again that the evidence upon which comparisons between various groups - or i ndeed i ndividual monuments are made, rests with a relatively small and unevenly d istributed number o f excavations. Taking i nto considera tion the whole o f the e arthen l ong barrow p rovince, the n umber o f thoroughly excavated s ites i s d isproportionately s mall ( Table 1 ). As we have a lready s een, the areas o f Mecklenburg, Lower S axony and Western Pomerania are very much under-represented. Kujavia and the Jutland Peninsula c laim a better r ecord, but even there the quality o f the available evidence varies f rom s ite to s ite. Older reports may occasionally b e consulted i n s upport o f c ertain characteristics, but they are not s ufficiently detailed to b e relied upon. D iffering r esources, academic objectives, s cholarly attitudes and the personal i nterests o f r esearche rs i n various a reas underline this disparity even f urther. S ince the earthen l ong barrows o f Northern Europe e xhibit a number o f s tructural components which c learly cut across regional boundaries, the ensuing d iscussion will r est upon e lements c haracteristic o f the whole tradition r ather than o f l ocal groupings. Thus we s hall d ispense with the otherwise i nevitable r epetitions, and r ather emphasise i ndividual variations where s uch occur.

6 .2

STONE AND T IMBER ENCLOSURES

Among the f eatures r ecurrent throughout the whole o f t he earthen l ong b arrow province the most c ommon e lement i s t he s tone enclosure ( often r eferred to a s a kerb; Chmiel ewski 1 952; Gabalöwna 1 968b, 1 968c, 1 969a, 1 969b; Ja2diews ki 1 936a, 1 970a; Laux 1 979; Madsen 1 979; S chuldt 1 965, 1 966a, 1 966c, 1 972; Sprockhoff 1 952, 1 954, 1 966, 1 967, 1 975; Wiglaf iski 1 977, 1 979). This s tructure ( Plate I c), o r evidence

8 6

P late

I I:

a )

Krqpcewo enclosure boulders with f lat Wiglanski)

( WPOM-20), s howing arrangement s ides towards e xterior ( photo

b )

Wietrzychowice ( KUJ-45/3), broader end o f barrow

p osition o f e ntrance at

c )

Wietrzychowice broader end o f

position o f

( KUJ-45/5), barrow

entrance

a t

o f

8 7

a

b

C

8 8

thereof, i s f ound i n nearly a ll b arrows, and normally consists o f a c lose s etting o f l arge b oulders delimiting an area e ither trapezoidal, r ectangular o r triangular i n s hape. Occasionally the s tones are s ubstituted by a t imber f rame, a lthough p resently this f orm i s known mainly i n the Jutland Peninsula ( Faber 1 976, Madsen 1 979, R ieck 1 982, S terum 1 983) with only i solated examples known o utside t his concentrat ion ( Bakker et a l. 1 969, JaZdZewski 1 970a). I t i s i nteresting to note that s ome continental s chol ars concerned with the s tudy o f the e arthen l ong b arrows r egard this s tone s etting a s nothing more than a r etainer f or the earthen mound ( JaZdZewski 1 970a, 1 6). And y et a review o f the s tructures contained within t he enclosures ( see below), the evidence o f activiti s which a t various s tages took p lace i nside the enclosed area, a s well as their absence beyond i t, a ll s uggest that t his s tructure h ad many more f unctions than that o f merely r etaining the mound. Comparison between these s tone enclosures a nd s imilar t imber constructions beneath the British e arthen l ong b arrows i s i ndeed s triking, even i f we allow f or the argument over whether the l atter r emained visible or were covered by t he s ubsequent mounds ( Ashbee 1 970, 3 7). Evidence f or the enclosures having been f ree-standing will become apparent f urther on i n t he discussion. I t a lso s eems that the enclosures remained v isible and not covered over upon the construction o f the mounds. There i s g enerally l ittle evidence o f mound material o n the outside o f the barrows which s till retain their kerb. During the excavation o f Krqpcewo l ong b arrow ( WPOM-20) Wiglahski was able to s how positively that the mound had been p iled up o nly i nside the s tone enclosure, and did not obscure the outside o f the kerb. Here the s oil ( yellow c lay) f rom the outside o f the enclosure had been s tripped throughout i ts l ength and u sed f or the construction o f the mound. This was c learly noted t hrough changes i n the s tructural content o f the s oil a long various s ectors o f the mound, which corresponded to s imilar changes i n the natural l ayers i n the v icinity o f the b arrow. Moreover, many i ndividual s tones ( particularly a long the s outhe rn wall) h ave f allen outwards and s ome were additionally covered with small f ield s tones f rom t he i nterior s tone mantle which must have s lipped down on top o f the f allen boulders

( Wiglahski

1 977,

9 6).

The phenomenon o f l arge s tones f alling o utwards r ecurs with a r egularity which l eads u s to a ssume that there was no mound to the outside o f them. Sprockhoff observed i t i n the Sachsenwald b arrows ( LSAX-8; Sprockhoff 1 952, 1 954); i t has been c ommented on by JaZdZewski a t Wietrzychowice ( KUJ4 5/3; JaZdZewski 1 936b) and noted a t K arsko ( WPOM-15),

8 9

Dolice ( WPOM-10, Wiglar iski pers. 2 5, Schuldt 1 965) and many other

comm.), s ites.

S tralendorf

( MBG-

The f act that the s tone enclosure was visible can be f urther confirmed i n s ome 1 9th-century r eports. Pastor J . Ritter, who excavated many barrows in western Mecklenburg, a lways mentions that the Riesenbetten or Hünenbetten were s urrounded by l arge s tones. Such was the case at Goldenbow ( MBG-9, Ritter 1 840d), Granzin ( MBG-12, Ritter 1 839), Helm ( MBG-14, Ritter 1 840a), Karft ( MBG-15, Ritter 1 842) and Perdöhl ( MBG-18/1, Ritter 1 840c). According to Ritter's observations, only at Perdöhl ( MBG-18/2) was the earth s o heaped-up that the tops o f the s tones did not s how ( Ritter 1 841 b). The attention to the smoothness and f latness o f the outside o f the kerb ( occasionally even smoothed with c lay Krqpcewo, WPOM-20; Wiglar iski 1 977, 8 9), f urther s upports the thesis that the kerbs were meant to remain visible. Construction o f the kerb presumably began with the collection of s uitable building material, which i n the case of nearly all the areas under consideration was abundantly available i n the f orm o f g lacially deposited erratic boulders. I t i s evident f rom numerous excavation r eports ( Jankowska 1 975, 1 981; JaZdZewski 1 936a; Liversage 1 980; Schuldt 1 965; Sprockhoff 1 052, 1 954; Wiglar iski 1 977) that the builders took s ome trouble to produce a smooth and regular outer s urface f or the enclosure walls not only o f large barrows b ut equally of smaller ones. This was achieved e ither by a careful s election of s tones prior to constructi on - for example Sprockhoff comments upon the regular ' pillar-like' character o f s tones used f or the l ong barrows in the Sachsenwald ( Sprockhoff 1 952, 2 4; 1 954, 1 ) - or by the initial dressing o f t he boulders to the required shape and arranging them i n s uch a way that the f latter s ides f aced outwards. This i s s een among the Kujavian examples where the kerb has not s uffered destruction ( Wietrzychowice KUJ-45/3, JaZdZewski 1 936b), and in Western Pomerania at Krqpcewo ( WPOM-20, P late I Ia), Karsko ( WPOM-15, Wiglar iski 1 977 and pers. comm.) and Lupawa ( WPOM-25, Jankowska 1 975, 1 981) The preparation o f t he s tones i s s till problematic because apart f rom the kerb s tones themselves there i s no evidence o f where and how the s tones were dressed. I n the vicinity of a f ew s ites, f or example at Lupawa and Krqpcewo, piles of building material ( destroyed monuments?) have occasionally been f ound. Otherwise there i s no evidence, be i t in the form o f rubble or tools, associated with this activity. Unfortunately, i n the majority o f i nstances, excavations are l imited to the mound i tself, without proper i nvestigation o f the s urroundings where s tones might have

a f t e r S c h u l d t

•

Lf l

C o

Ä

0

e i b

9 1

been prepared ( for example S chuldt 1 965). On the o ther hand the tool a ssemblages generally encountered i n the e arlier s tages o f the TRB ( equally f rom the s ettlements and b arrows) do not c ontain implements s uitable f or this purpose . P recisely what s teps were taken to l ay out the i ntended p lan o f the enclosure i s impossible to determine, a lthough the evidence f or the f inal f orm being known f rom the very beginning o f c onstruction i s c lear. At Stralendorf ( MBG-25) the very g radual and r egular narrowing o f the enclosure, f rom 3 ,5m a t the s outhern end to 1 ,5m at the northern end over a d istance o f 1 25m ( Schuldt 1 965, 1 1; 3 2), could hardly have been achieved without prior p lanning. S imilarly, the r egularity o f width o f r ectangular barrows s uch as i n the S achsenwald ( LSAX-8; Sprockhoff 1 952, 1 954; F ig. 4 4) and at Barskamp ( LSAX-2; Sprockhoff 1 975) - or i ndeed, the overall e ffect o f the design at Wietrzychowice ( KUJ-45/3; F ig. 3 0), with a perfectly r egular ' tail' o f 6 9m i n l ength and only 2 ,5m i n width - a rgue f or a c larity o f i ntention i n design r ight a t the outset. Moreover, planning evident at S arnowo ( KUJ-32; F igs. 2 5 and 2 6) with the i ndividual quirks and characteristics o f e ach monument combined within groups, equally s uggests an original i ntention r ather than a constructional a fterthought. There i s very l ittle evidence o f the bedding t rench having b een dug to r eceive the s tones. The very s hallow t renches f ound under the mounds, where boulders have been removed or have f allen out, do not generally f orm continuous l ines but s how the actual p laces where s tones must have s tood. We c annot, however, exclude the possibility o f the l ayout o riginally h aving been marked by a trench o f s ome k ind. S chuldt, f or example, noted a s hallow trench at S tral endorf ( Schuldt 1 965, 1 0). S uch a trench need not have been deep, and the original traces i n most i nstances would probably have b een l ost under the combined weight o f s tones and mound. This might a lso have been the c ase at S arnowo ( KUJ-32/8; F ig. 2 6), where small i ndentations apparently f ormed an i rregular but continuous s hallow trench ( Wiklak 1 982, 3 7). On the other hand i t may s imply i ndicate that there were no gaps between the c losely s et boulders and that these were s imply manoeuvered i nto position and then f irmly wedged with small s tones. The evidence f rom the b arrows i n the S achsenwald s uggests that this l atter method was u sed, and that t he s tones there s imply ' sank' 2 0-30cm i nto the ground. No bedding t rench o f any k ind was noted ( Sprockhoff

1 954,

1 ).

Turning to the vertical arrangement o f the s tones, two types o f construction may be noted: that where the s tones are roughly the s ame height a long the entire l ength o f the

9 2

enclosure, and that where the s tones h ave been arranged according to s ize s tarting with the l argest and gradually becoming smaller a long the l ength o f the monument. The f ormer type ( for example Barskamp, L SAX-1; B avendorf, LSAX2 ; Sachsenwald, LSAX-8; L indebjerg, DNK-8) t ends to be f ound more commonly i n the western a rea o f the e arthen l ong barrow's d istribution, while the l atter appears more f requently i n the e astern regions. General principles behind the c onstruction o f the ' sloping' enclosures are the s ame a s outlined above. The main d ifference i s the varying s ize o f the boulders. I n the l iterature these monuments are a lways described a s mounds which are " tall at the b road end and becoming l ower towards the tail end" ( Chmielewski 1 952, 1 5; J aZdZewski 1 970a, 1 6; Wiglahski 1 979, 2 56). The broad end wall was u sually built o f the l argest boulders; between three and e ight were u sed. Their i ndividual s ize varied; at Gaj ( KUJ-7/1, F ig. 3 1) one o f the boulders was 2m l ong, at Wietrzychowice ( KUJ-45/3, F ig. 3 0) the s tones were 1 ,5m h igh and at Krqpcewo the l argest boulder weighed 7 tonnes and was 1 ,8m h igh and 1 ,5m wide. The l ong walls i n the immediate vicinity o f the broad end were a lso built o f l arge s tones which g radually became smaller towards the narrow end. I n Kujavia many barrows may have terminated with a l arge boulder a t the very end o f the ' tail' ( KUJ-54/3, F ig. 3 0). When Chmielewski excavated the S arnowo e arthen l ong barrow complex ( KUJ-32) he commented t hat e ach g roup o f three barrows was built on two small s ummits and that the ' tails' o f barrows 3 2/1, 2 and 5 were h igher than their broad ends ( Chmielewski 1 952, 5 3-57). He f urther wrote that the middle o f the mounds was l ower than e ither end and c laimed this was because the mounds were built on two e levations ( broad end on one, ' tail' end on the other). Although he did not s ay s o s pecifically, various comments i n his description s eem to s uggest that he h ad a ttributed s uch a s tate o f a ffairs to the extreme denudation o f the mounds. I t i s i nteresting therefore to compare h is c omments with the contour s urvey o f the S arnowo area ( Fig. 2 4). F irst o f a ll the p lan makes i t c lear that e ach o f the two groups o f barrows was built not on two s eparate e levations but upon a continuous r ise ( this i s c onfirmed by f ield observation at S arnowo), and that t he s addle i n the middle o f the mounds 3 2/1, 2 and 5 was therefore not a r esult o f the underlying topography but must b e attributed to other f actors ( possibly damage i n earlier, antiquarian pursuits). S econdly, a ll the barrows ( except f or 3 2/7 and possibly 3 2/9) were built across the contours i n s uch a way that

9 3

the ground ably lower

l evel a t than the

Table

Details o f contour s urvey o f Sarnowo ( all measurements i n metres in relation to l ocal datum l evel at Om * )

5

the broad end was i n each case considerground l evel at the ' tail' end ( Table 5 ).

GROUND LEVEL

BARROW

BROAD 3 2/1 3 2/2 3 2/3 3 2/4 3 2/5 3 2/6 3 2/7 3 2/8 3 2/9

END TAIL

0 ,70 1 ,20 0 ,50 2 ,90 3 ,08 2 ,30 3 ,00 5 ,43 5 ,50

TOP

END

2 ,56 2 ,60 2 ,48 3 ,48 3 ,85 3 ,30 2 ,00 6 ,00 6 ,00

BROAD

LEVEL

END TAIL

2 ,75 2 ,50 4 ,65 4 ,63 4 ,63 4 ,50 6 ,50 6 ,00

END

3 ,09 3 ,42 3 ,16 4 ,10 4 ,53 3 ,98 2 ,17 6 ,28 6 ,44

Some change in the ground l evel s ince the time o f their construction until the present day i s naturally expected, but the consistency with which this phenomenon i s observed at Sarnowo s uggests that the relative changes do not s eriously alter the original topography. This arrangement of t he mounds ( together with the meagre evidence on their height) suggests therefore that the stone enclosures were built i n such a way that the top o f each enclosure may i n reality have been almost horizontal. Unfortunately, i t i s very difficult to estimate the original height of the mounds - the s tones have mostly been removed i n the past and the earthen mounds themselves s everely denuded. However, i f we accept that the ' tail' end was betwen 0 ,5 and 1 m i n height and the broad end originally between 2 and 3m i n height ( Chmielewski 1 852, 1 7) the r esulting profile would, i n absolute terms, present a more or less horizontal upper s urface ( Fig. 3 3). Thus the Sarno wo barrows would give the f alse impression o f a r ise, while i n actual f act being horizontal, and the use o f the l arge

* I wish

to

thank

Etnograficzne

at

Dr. LOd ,

H .

Wiklak,

f or

this

Muzeum Archaeologiczne i nformation.

i

3 2/1

3 2/2 2m 0

2 0m •

RM IN

3 2/3 2

3 2/4

•

MI M IN

M

3 2/5

3 2/6

••• •••••

3 2/7

3 2/8

F ig.

3 3

I llustration o f hypothetical vertical arrangement at S arnowo ( KUJ-32), 1 ) - hypothetical upper l evel, 2 ) - r ecorded upper l evel o f barrow

3 2/8

9 5

s tones i n the l ower l ying area s trengthen this e ffect.

o f

the

l andscape would

I t i s i nteresting to note that the s lope between the ' tail' and broad ends o f barrows 3 2/4 and 3 2/8 i s noticeably smaller than i n the other examples ( Table 5 ). The f act that traces o f e arlier s ettlement - and possibly cultivation ( Fig. 2 6) - were f ound underneath these b arrows s uggests that the ground l evel may a lready have been s ubstantially f lattened by e arlier occupation. The c hanges o f l evel noted at the other Sarnowo barrows are not evident here. I t i s particularly unfortunate that, owing to the l ack o f contour s urveys, a s imilar analysis c annot be c onducted i n relation to o ther s ites where concentrations o f barrows are f ound ( for example at Wietrzychowice, KUJ-45; Obalki, KUJ-22 or Legniczöwka, KUJ-17). Evidence f rom recent excavations i n Western Pomerania does however i ndicate that a t l east some other b arrows may have been c onstructed i n a manner s imilar t o that j ust described. A c ontour s urvey o f s ite 3 at Lupawa ( WPOM-25) shows that s ome barrows were built with their b roader ends l ower down the s lope ( Jankows ka 1 975, F ig. 2 ). On the other hand the e conomy o f space at this s ite - f itting a s many barrows i nto a s small a space a s possible - may have been r esponsible f or others being l ocated d ifferently. Two more s ites i n Western Pomerania s how a s imilar arrangement. An i nterim plan o f the l ong barrow a t Dolice ( WPOM-10, s ite 4 ; Wiglahski pers. comm.; F ig. 3 4) s hows the contours c learly d ropping down i n the direction o f the broader end; the mound profile i s nearly horizontal. At Krqpcewo ( WPOM-20) the contour s urvey did not extend f ar enough beyond the mound ( Wiglahski 1 977, F ig. 2 ) and i t i s d ifficult to r elate this to the topography o f the immediate s urroundings. However, a s ection a long the northern wall o f the s tone enclosure ( less d isturbed than the s outhern wall) s hows that the difference i n l evel o f the tops o f the s tones between the two ends o f the barrow i s minimal, and s ome o f the s tones c learly s how a f lattened top ( Fig. 3 5). Moreover, the b igger s tones at the wider e nd have b een dug deeper into the g round than those at the n arrower end, and the resulting arrangement gives the impression o f a wall with a f lat r ather than a s loping top. The above i nterpretation i s, naturally, open to d iscussion; more evidence i s needed f rom s ites with comparable topography and barrow l ocation. Possible r easons f or s uch an arrangement o f monuments i n the l andscape will be considered l ater ( chapter 8 ), but the examples described above make i t very c lear that consideration s hould be given

9 6

a 1 .

J . j•

E Q U O glO C C e •

u n p u b l i s h e d p l a n )

• • •

r n

I

1

, 1

r • r • c s , -

K r q p c e w o l o n g b a r o w

-

i n m . t r H r T 4

4 (

9 8

2

I4 .

• •

•

•

: re •

5

0

Fig.

3 6

_ __ _ _

_ 3

Orn

omplex ( WPOM-25: 1 ) 2 5/29 Barrows f rom the Lupawa c s howing traces of s tone ' bench' a long the outside, 6, 4 ) 2 5/17, 5 ) 2 5/19 and 2 0; 2 ) 2 5/30, 3 ) 2 5/ 2 a fter Jankowska 1 981)

9 9

d „

em. 8

•

8Q f l

• • i ite ; ; . Y M i e d h n re .

QV : tel l" "r ef' ,

e l ,

0 VD

Aei nv h 0m

C ü8

9 z J

1 00

not only to the i nvestigation o f the mound but equally t o the s urrounding topography, s ince only then c an the r elationship between them be understood. An i nteresting f eature o f s tone enclosures has come to l ight during the excavation o f a cemetery c omplex a t Lupawa ( WPOM-25). Among the monuments of t his complex were s everal enclosures which had an additional c onstruction a ttached to the outside - a s ort o f ' bench' o f small s tones, up to 2 m wide and 0 ,3m h igh ( Jankowska 1 980, 9 9; Weber 1 983, 1; F ig. 3 6). According to the excavators the f unction o f this s tructure was to buttress the kerb against the pressure o f the mound; unfortunately i t i s not c lear whether this ' buttressing' i s contemporary with the c onstruction o f the kerb or with the r aising o f the mound. A s imilar kerb arrangement with an outer s pread o f s tones a long the whole l ength o f the enclosure was f ound at Lindebjerg l ong barrow ( DNK-10, Liversage 1 980; F ig. 3 7). Here the enclosure was built as a f ree-standing and s table construction o f l arge b locks o f granite and gneiss, s upported on and f irmly wedged with smaller s tones. The outward pressure of the mound was s eemingly appreciated f rom the very beginning o f construction s ince the l arge b locks and ' filling-in' s tones f ormed a f ramework whose tendency would have been to f all i nwards r ather than outwards - a tendency i n due course c ounter-acted by the e arthen mound ( Ibid. 9 1, F ig. 5 ). The s tone spread to the outside ( called ' cobbling' by the excavator) was f ound a long most o f the enclosure's l ength, a lthough i t was badly damaged i n many p laces. I t was up to 2m wide i n the middle of the barrow, narrowing towards the eastern and western ends. I t s loped gently upwards towards the k erb, b eing p laced on a l ayer o f s and whose thickness i ncreased towards the barrow. The character o f this ' cobbling' s uggests that i t d id not have a s tructural f unction but apparently s erved to enhance the external appearance o f the monument, covering the f oot o f the s tone enclosure and disguising the gaps a t the b ase o f the boulders. I n view o f the evidence f rom L indebjerg i t i s arguable whether the s tone s pread at Eupawa was i ndeed meant to buttress the kerb. There i s evidence t hat s ome o f the boulders were t ipped i nwards ( Weber 1 983, 2 3) and the s tone s catter i tself does not s eem to be s ubstantial enough f or s uch a purpose. The n ature o f this f eature s uggests a visual r ather than a s tructural purpose.

! . . }L . . . ) D 0 r >

_ .Z . . X .2 • , : › ( 3 t e

D o

c )

c ) t i

W a r t i n

8

l o n g b a r o w

a f t e r S i u c h n i s k i

•

cg .

I ` r " '7. 5 e i l •

• • • = ,,e

0 0

0

c o ,

0 . 0

( 3. 4 . , .9 • .. ee r, ,

z e . • D • -e a 1 ;

4.

• . ;1

4 * .

M i l o c i n K o l o n i a l o n g b a r o w

0•

1 03

S ome b arrows a t Eupawa ( WPOM-25/19, 2 0 and 2 1) d iffer f rom those described s o f ar i n having their k erbs built o f small s tones rather than boulders. The enclosures define a r ectangular or trapezoidal area between 2 ,4 and 2 ,8m i n l ength. The s tones u sed i n their construction are on average 4 0cm i n d iameter ( Jankowska 1 980, 1 01). This t ype o f cons truction i s not very common. The only examples which may b e r elated to this mode o f building a re r epresented by an enclosure at Wartin ( WPOM-63, S iuchnihski 1 956, 1 969; Fig. 3 8) where smallish f ield s tones have been u sed, and by those i n Little Poland ( for example M i locin-Kolonia, LPOL-3; Jast rzqbski pers. comm.; F ig. 3 9) where building material i n the form o f l arge b locks o f s tone i s not l ocally available. I t may well be that at Eupawa this r epresents a purely l ocal development, perhaps i n response to the s hortage o f building material, or that i t i s a r eflection o f d ifferent architectural i ntent. The d iscovery ( or c onfirmation?) o f this s tyle o f enclosure i s important f or two reasons. F irstly, we may perhaps d ispense with the concept o f a ' degenerate f orm' and accept that, i n s ome areas at l east, the u se o f small s tones f or enclosure construction was normal practice and does not reflect a deterioration i n b uilding s tandards ( cf. comments o f JaZdZewski 1 970a, 3 4-35) but may imply d ifferent f unction. S econdly, i t may help u s to i nterpret the monuments which s eemingly had neither barrow nor s tone kerb. Some s ites o n the Jutland Peninsula f all i nto this c ategory ( for example Rustrup, DNK-14). Thus i n areas which h ave been under h eavy agricultural u se, or where monuments h ave s uffered f rom destruction, the possibility o f smalls tone enclosures, today destroyed beyond a ll r ecognition, s hould not be i gnored. While s tone enclosures are relatively well documented throughout the North European P lain, t imber-built enclosures a re only now being recognised, mainly owing to research being carried out i n Denmark, a s an a lternative f orm o f construction. A f ew t imber-framed e arthen l ong barrows have b een known f or s ome t ime ( for example at Lublin-Slawinek; JaZdZewski 1 970a, 3 5) but only now are we b eginning to c onsider them a s i ntrinsic e lements o f the North European earthen l ong barrow tradition. Currently there are s ix definite examples o f t imberbuilt enclosures known f rom Denmark: Bygholm Norremark ( DNK ( DNK-4, Ronne 1 979), Harreby ( DNK-6, R ieck 1 982), Mosegärden ( DNK-10, Madsen 1 979), Surlokke ( DNK-19, S terum 1 983), Teglevaerksgärden ( DNK-20, Faber 1 976) and Troelstrup ( DNK( DNK-22, K jaerum 1 977). There are a lso known s tructures which may h ave been constructed using both s tone and t imber

0 ' 1

M o s e g ä r d e n l o n g b a r o w

f r o m a p r e p u b l i c a t i o n d r a w i n g b y M a d s e n )

1 05

( for example S tengade, DNK-18) a s well a s a number o f monuments i n which only s canty t races o f an outer t imber f ramework have s urvived ( for example O stergärd, DNK-12). S ince nearly a ll these s ites are o f r ecent d iscovery their comprehensive i nterpretation will not b e possible until the evidence i s published i n f ull. I n the meantime a number o f characteristic f eatures may be noted. The main f eature a ssociated with these s ites i s an outer f ramework o f t imber posts s et vertically i n a c ontinuous f oundation trench ( Figs. 4 0 and 4 1). Such a trench s urrounded e ither a rectangular ( DNK-10 and 2 2) or t rapezoidal area ( DNK-4, 6 , 1 9 and 2 0) which v aried i n l ength between 1 4 and 9 0m, and i n width between 1 ,6-2 and 1 5m. The evidence o f a t imber f ramework may e ither be i nferred f rom the nature o f the f ill i n the f oundation trench ( e.g. Troelstrup, K jaerum 1 977, 2 1 and Surlokke, S terum 1 983, 3 4) o r s een d irectly i n traces o f t imber p osts which decayed i n s itu ( e.g. Teglevaerksgärden, F aber 1 976, 7 ) o r s uffered destruction by f ire ( e.g. Harreby, Rieck 1 983, 9 8). Although there i s no direct evidence o f the aboveground construction o f t imber enclosures, d ifferences in the s ize o f f oundation trenches and posts, a s well a s in the distribution o f posts within the t rench, s uggest that the enclosures a lso d iffered i n external appearance. On occasions the t imber posts formed a s olid wall. This may be s een at Mosegärden ( DNK-10; F ig. 4 0). Here t imber posts u sed in the construction were obtained f rom tree t runks ( 0,85m i n d iameter) which had been s plit i nto three parts, the i nner being i n the s hape o f a p lank ( Madsen pers. comm.) Only the outer s egments were used and these were p laced i n the trench one beside the other with the curved edges to the outside, possibly g iving a ' corrugated' appearance. At Teglevaerksgärden ( DNK-20; F ig. 4 1) smaller posts, o f between 0 ,2 and 0 ,3m i n diameter, were p laced a t 0 ,10 ,2m i ntervals to a regular depth o f 0 ,6m ( Faber 1 976, 7 ). At the e astern e nd however the f oundation t rench was both deeper ( up to 1 ,2m) and wider ( up to 1 ,6m), r evealing traces o f s ubstantial posts within a heavy s tone packing ( Ibid. F ig. 3 ). An exceptionally wide trench o f unspecified depth, with evidence o f heavy s tone p acking, was a lso noted at the e astern e nd at S urlokke ( DNK-19; F ig. 4 1) and an equally wide ( up to 1 ,6m) but s tone-free t rench terminated what the excavator thought was the o riginal e nd o f the enclosure ( Sterum 1 983, 3 4). These deep f oundation trenches with evidence o f h eavy t imber construction are comparable to s imilar f eatures f ound at other D anish e arthen l ong barrows ( for example Barkaer, DNK-2; O stergärd, DNK-12 and Rude, DNK-13; s ee s ection 6 .4).

c ) D N K 2 0 , a ) D N K 2 ,

Lf l

• • i n ( 1 )

0

C

•

c

• •

c ,

E

H

r

H

c n 3 0

c c

• H

• n

1 07

On the other h and no h eavy t imber construction was observed at Harreby ( DNK-6; F ig. 4 1), where the t rench was only 0 ,2-0,3m deep at the e astern end but up to 0 ,95m i n depth along the s ide ( Rieck 1 982, 9 8). The i ndividual posts o f 0 ,25-0,35m i n d iameter were i rregularly spaced between 0 ,5 and l m apart. S tronger e astern end constructions were a lso not observed at Troelstrup ( DNK-22; F ig. 4 1) o r Bygholm Nerremark ( DNK-4; F ig. 4 1) a lthough i n the l atter example a s eparate eastern end s tructure was f ound ( section 6 .4). The S tengade s tructures ( DNK-18/1 and 1 8/2; F ig. 4 2) o ffer evidence o f enclosure construction u sing both s tone and t imber materials. Originally thought to r epresent habitation s tructures ( Skaarup 1 975), they a re now c onsidered to represent the remains o f burial s tructures preserved beneath p loughed-up l ong barrows ( Glob 1 975, Madsen 1 979). Although the possibility o f the S tengade monuments i ncorpor ating e lements o f e arlier domestic s tructures must not be r uled out, the f act that s ettlement debris were f reely mixed below and between the s tone f oundations ( Skaarup 1 975, 1 5) s hows c learly that the f oundations post-date the occupat ion o f the s ite. The character o f the s tructures, the s imilarity o f their construction and i nterior arrangements to other e arthen l ong barrow monuments, a s well a s the extreme narrowness o f S tengade 1 8/2, f ully s upport their i nterpretation i n terms o f a non-domestic f unction. The above-ground appearance o f the two enclosures i s d ifficult to interpret owing to a total decay o f o rganic c omponents, but the l ayout o f the s tone f oundations, a s well as traces o f post-holes ( especially i n 1 8/2, I bid. p lan 4 ), s uggests a combination wall o f horizontally-placed t imber p lanks i n j uxtaposition with upright t imber members, the whole very probably g iving the appearance o f a vast chest p laced within a s tone s etting. The ruler-straight s tone edges, particularly c learly s een i n S tengade 1 8/2, o ffer good evidence f or horizontally-placed t imbers. The s ame f eatures were observed on a smaller s cale i n c onnection with i nterior s tructures a t L indebjerg ( DNK-8, s ee s ection 6 .4). A f urther parallel i n construction may be drawn f rom the s tone s pread s urrounding both o f the S tengade s tructures, which resembles i n many details the ' cobbling' a ssociated with Lindebjerg ( see above). The heavy construction o f the e astern end at S tengade 1 8/1 corresponds to the s imilar a rrangements a lready noted at other s ites, and the b ipartite nature o f the i nterior ( each s egment with i ts own grave?, G lob 1 975, 1 3) c orresponds c losely to the arrangements a t Troelstrup ( DNK-22; F ig. 4 1). The evidence f or p lanks s et within a s tone f ramework a lso s uggests an i nteresting

0

s t r u c t u r e s

108

, u d9c a .

9a 3 . 4

0 • J

.

C o

s o

c e 7 •

• e

•

• 3 . t r • a

;

o ca o

• •

1 2

a

a

0 0"

.

. t

I 8 6 '

, 2 . , .

•

d 20 0 0 o . 08 .0 s o

' b886c o o . % •o • t o

• ; •

. 1 3 .

es . o '

•

0 0 •

--

1 09

possible i nterpretation o f s ome s tone enclosures with double s tone walls f rom Mecklenburg and Western Pomerania ( for example Pöglitz, MBG-19 or Karsko, WPOM-15/1), namely that t imber planks may have been s et between the two parallel r ows o f s tones to provide additional ( higher?) walling. Few o ther s ites o ffer evidence o f a s urrounding t imber f ramework. I ndividual post-holes have been i dentified at Ostergärd ( DNK-12, Madsen 1 979, 3 05; F ig. 5 5) and these could represent the traces o f s ome s ort o f r etaining s tructure, possibly i nvolving t imber uprights and wattlework. On the other hand, i n view o f the s ubstantial conc entration o f domestic debris a ssociated with the g raves, i t i s equally possible that the post-holes r epresent no more than traces o f e arlier domestic s tructures. Unfortunately, the destruction which a ffected these two monuments had progessed too f ar to a llow a positive i dentification. S imilarly at Barkaer ( DNK-2, Glob 1 949, 1 975; Fig. 5 6) s ome s ort o f revetment would be expected to have r etained e ither a l ow mound or possibly a wind-blown deposit. No d etails o f construction o f the s ide walls a re presently available a lthough Glob does mention s tone s upports a long the edges o f the s tructures ( Glob 1 949, 4 ) and these may s uggest an a rrangement o f p lanks s imilar to that at Stengade. Very l ittle i nformation about t imber enclosures o f mortuary a ssociation i s available f rom other r egions o f the TRB culture. A t imber enclosure apparently a ssociated with the earthen l ong b arrow at Lublin-SIawinek ( LPOL-2) i s o ften quoted but no data f rom here have yet been published ( Bakker et a l. 1 969, 2 23; JaZdiewski 1 970a, 3 5); until s uch t ime, no i nterpretation i s possible. The partial excavation o f a barrow at S trad6w(LPOL-6, Gromnicki 1 961) d id r eveal s tretches o f a t imber-filled t rench, but these a re more appropriately i nterpreted a s traces o f a timber s tructure i n c lose a ssociation with the grave ( see s ection 6 .4). Total excavation o f this s ite i s necessary. However, the d iscovery i n the l ate 1 960's and e arly 1 970's o f two mortuary enclosures at JAezno, i n northwestern Bohemia ( Pleinerovä 1 980), s uggests that t his f orm need not have been o f s uch a l imited d istribution a s present evidence might s uggest. Here e ast-west oriented f oundation trenches, with traces o f vertically p laced t imber posts, delimited a smaller trapezoidal enclosure, 2 4x 2 ,5-3,2m i n s ize, and a l arger r ectangular s tructure which originally must h ave b een i n excess o f 1 43m i n l ength and only 4m i n width t hroughout ( Ibid. F igs. 4 and 1 3).

1 10

The i nterior o f the smaller enclosure was divided by a transverse t imber wall i nto two unequal parts, and contained two i ndividual graves i n i ts e astern s egment. The l ong e nc losure was undivided; i t contained three r egularly s paced graves and at the eastern end a r ectangular f ore-building, whose f oundation trench was twice a s deep a s that o f the r est o f the enclosure. The meagre f inds point to a g eneral TRB c ulture horizon ( Ibid. F ig. 2 2) a lthough o f the two C-14 dates, 3 140±45 bc ( GrN-8803) and 2 215±45 b c ( GrN-8802), only the f ormer i s compatible with TRB c ulture chronology. However, a s the excavator r ightly observed, more data a re necessary. I n s pite o f the s trong i ndividuality o f these two s tructures, f eatures s uch as the f oundation trenches with t imber posts, the i ndividual i nhumations - a lbeit c rouched i n the s outhern manner - and the possible existence o f l ow mounds s uggest that we a re here c learly dealing with a phenomenon complementary to that observed i n Northern Europe. I n this context i t i s i nteresting to mention one more s ite f rom L ittle Poland: that a t Niediwiedi ( LPOL-5, Burchard 1 973; F ig. 4 3). The s tructure here was a lso r evealed i n a f oundation t rench, with t races o f vertical posts, which delimited a trapezoidal a rea j ust under 5 0m i n l ength, a nd between 3 ,2 and 9 ,5m i n width. The t rench was continuous, s ave f or a 2m gap i n the middle o f the eastern end, and traces o f t imber posts, decayed i n s itu, were c learly v isible e specially a long the northern s ide. The average depth o f the trench was b etween 0 ,7 and 0 ,8m, while the eastern s ide was at l east 1 m i n depth. No f inds were associated with the trench or the i nterior, with the exception o f a Corded Ware culture c rouched i nhumation at about 5m f rom the e astern end. This s tructure has been i nterpreted a s a Post LBK house ( Burchard 1 973, 4 7) but, apart f rom the f amiliar shape, there are many f actors which point against s uch an i nterpretation. There are no f eatures a ssociated with the i nterior which c ould i ndicate a domestic f unction, a lthough a p it beyond the s tructure c ontained a Post LBK pottery sherd. The s tructure i s oriented east-west, which i s atypical o f Post LBK houses. Moreover, i t i s not only l ocated 5 0m north-west o f an extens ive TRB s ettlement but a lso s ituated on the extremely e xposed edge o f an upland - a ll f actors typical o f e arthen l ong barrow location ( see c hapter 5 ). The existence o f a Corded Ware culture grave, s hould i t r epresent a s econdary f eature, may i ndeed echo a tradition o f f unerary/ritual r ather than o f domestic a ssociation f or this s o-called l ong house.

a f t e r B u r c h a r d

^

4

C D

1 12

A comparison o f evidence o f s tone and t imber e nclosures reveals, i n spite o f different materials u sed i n c onstruction a number o f s imilarities. They are c omparable i n s ize a s well a s i n s hape. Unless the s tone-built enclosures h ad additional s uperstructures o f t imber, their height would have b een determined by the s ize o f the s tones u sed i n their construction. Detailed e stimates are not possible s ince many kerbs h ave been robbed o f their s tones, but where evidence does exist i t s uggests that s tones up to 1 ,5m i n h eight may have b een u sed ( for example at Wietrzychowice, KUJ-45/3; Karsko, W POM-15 or S tralendorf, MBG-25); on average, however, the enclosures would have been l ower t han that, and this i s e specially t rue o f the Lower Saxon and D anish enclosures.

but the

The actual height o f the t imber enclosures i s unknown i t i s possible to e stimate the h eight o f the walls on basis o f evidence r ecovered f rom the f oundation t renches.

Table

6

I llustration o f possible h eights o f t imber enclosures ( all measurements i n metres*)

DEPTH OF TRENCH

LENGTH OF T IMBER

HEIGHT OF ENCLOSURE

BARROW AVERAGE DNK-4 DNK-6 DNK-19 DNK-20 DNK-22

0 ,10-0,70 0 ,70-0,80 0 ,40-0,70 0 ,60 0 ,50

E END

0 ,20-0,30 1 ,20

AVERAGE 0 ,35-2,45 2 ,45-2,80 1 ,40-2,45 2 ,10 1 ,75

E END

0 ,70-1,05 4 ,20

AVERAGE 0 ,25-1,75 1 ,75-2,00 1 ,00-1,75 1 ,50 1 ,25

E END

0 ,50-0,75 3 ,00

I n a recent discussion o f the earthwork enclosure a t Balfarg, Fife, which contained upright t imbers s et i n a c ircle, Mercer expanded upon the generally accepted concept o f a r elations hip between the depth o f a post-hole and the l ength o f a t imber post s et within i t ( Mercer 1 981, e specially s ection 9 ). U sing h is optimal r atio o f 3 ,5:1 between the l ength o f a t imber and the depth o f a post-hole, the depth o f f oundation trenches has been u sed to s uggest the possible h eight o f t imber enclosures ( Table 6 ). These values may o f c ourse be accepted only a s approximate and the s ample o f data available

* These e stimates o ffer minimum value s ince f actor at d ifferent s ites i s not known.

the

e rosion

1 13

i s very small, but the f igures do appear to s uggest that the t imber enclosures may have been s lightly t aller t han t heir s tone counterparts, being on average between 1 and 1 ,7m i n height. This d ifference would have been particularly noticeable i n Denmark where s tone-built enclosures, to j udge by s uch examples a s L indebjerg ( DNK-8), tend to b e smaller a f act which appears to be f urther s upported by the very l ow earthen mounds. I t i s difficult to determine the r easons f or s uch a difference but, taking i nto account the f act that enclosure walls may h ave been s olid r ather than i n the f orm o f a c olonnade, i t might be suggested t hat s uch a design was i ntended to ensure the s ecrecy o f certain a ctivities within the enclosure and possibly to r einforce a division between participants and mere observers. The d ifferences are not s o profound, however, i f we t ake i nto consideration general trends i n construction r ather than absolute values. Both f orms o f enclosure r eveal a tendency to g ive one end an appearance o f grandeur, be i t by the u se o f e specially l arge boulders or by t all t imber e difices. Moreover, a s will become apparent i n the c ourse o f s ubsequent d iscussion, s imilarities between the two types o f enclosure extend f urther i nto f unerary and r itual a ssociation and - apart f rom c ircumstance o f s hortage o f s tone and t imber - the choice i n construction between a t imber and a s tone enclosure may have depended upon s ubtlet ies o f r itual requirement which c annot be deduced f rom the evidence h itherto available.

6 .3

ENTRANCES

Closely a ssociated with the construction and s ubsequent u se o f the enclosures i s the problem o f access to the i nteri or. There i s evidence s uggesting that certain enclosures may have acquired their f inal s hape by a process o f s equent ial construction ( section 6 .4) and, i n the c ase o f these, access to the whole o f the i nterior may not have b een r equired continuously. But i n the majority o f examples i t s eems r easonable to accept that the building o f the whole e nclosure represents an e arly s tage i n the monument's cons truction and therefore s ome f orm o f entrance would have been necessary t o a llow access to the i nterior. Difficulties i n e stablishing the l ocation o f s uch e ntrances are however s ubstantial. I n the c ase o f a s everely d amaged b arrow, f or example where most o f the kerb s tones h ave been r emoved, i t may prove impossible to determine t he

1 14

position o f an entrance. This problem becomes f urther aggravated by the f act that many excavations are i ncomplete, l imited e ither to the immediate v icinity o f the grave or c arried out s trictly within the c onfines o f the e nclosure, thus s ubstantially r educing the chances o f f inding the e ntrance. There i s an additional problem o f d istinction between a temporary means o f access ( for example a gap within a wall which at a c ertain s tage becomes c losed o ff i n the s ame manner as the rest o f the enclosure) and a permanent entrance, s erviceable f or a s l ong a s the monument r emains i n u se. As will become apparent i n the d iscussion b elow, no uniform solution to this problem s eems to have b een applied. D irect evidence f or entrances to enclosures i s available only f rom a small number o f b arrows i n Kujavia, Western Pomerania and Denmark. Neither the monuments i n Mecklenburg nor those i n Lower S axony h ave been i nvestigated w ith s uff icient attention to these details and s o comment o n t he question o f entrances i n these s tructures must b e r estricted to the evidence f rom the o ther three r egions. Among the l ong b arrows i n Kujavia f ormal entrances t end to be located at the broader end o f the enclosure. S uch, without doubt, i s the c ase a t Wietrzychowice ( KUJ-45/3, F ig 3 0, P late I Ib). The broad end o f the enclosure c onsists o f eight l arge boulders and i n i ts c entre there i s a 1 m g ap. During the excavation the ground i n f ront o f this g ap, a s well a s within i t, was f ound to h ave been paved with s mall f ield s tones ( Jadczykowa 1 971, 9 8; J a2d2ewski 1 936b, 1 22). No b locking o f any k ind s eems to have been a ssociated with this space, a lthough the u se o f perishable material s uch a s wood or h ide must not be excluded. Two more barrows at this s ite - KUJ-45/1 ( Fig. 2 9) and KUJ-45/5 ( Fig. 3 0 and P late I Ic) - r eveal s imilar g aps i n the middle o f the broad end. No f eatures were a ssociated with the entrance o f b arrow 4 5/1. The purpose o f a s emic ircular s catter o f s tones to the o utside i s unknown - i t may have resulted f rom attempts to r emove the s tones o r, i ndeed, may have f ormed the base o f s ome s ort o f s tructure around the entrance; there i s no evidence to confirm e ither. S catter o f small s tones were a lso noted i n f ront o f b arrow 4 5/5. Their i nterpretation a s unused building material l eft l ying i n f ront o f the barrow ( Jadczykowa 1 970, 1 34) i s not convincing. Their positioning, i n three d iscrete g roups a ligned i n f ront o f the enclosure, s uggests that t hey may h ave f ormed a part o f s ome more e laborate entrance a rrangement. This s eems very p lausible, p articularly i n c onnection with traces o f a wooden s tructure ( not marked i n any o f the available p lans) apparently f orming an interior corridor

1 15

d irrectly opposite the

entrance

( Ibid.

1 35).

Gaps within the broad end o f the enclosure are known f rom two more s ites i n Kujavia - Gaj ( KUJ-7/1) and ObaIki ( KUJ-22/2) - but their i nterpretation a s entrances a llowing access to the whole o f the i nterior i s made d ifficult by t he existence o f i nternal wooden buildings d irectly opposite these gaps ( see s ection 6 .4). I n the c ase o f ObaIki e nclos ure the building s tands about 5 m i nwards f rom the e astern e nd ( Fig. 2 8). I ts preservation d id not extend beyond f oundations, i ts f orm c annot b e e stablished and therefore one c annot s ay whether i t was possible to walk through i t or necessary to go round i t. At Gaj however the boulderf ree s pace s eems t o be a ssociated d irectly with the wooden b uilding ( Chmielewski 1 952, 8 8; F igs. 3 1 and 5 7). I t i s c lear that the northern, s outhern and western walls were s olid and s o i t i s unlikely that entry to enclosure was possible through i t. I t i s particularly unfortunate that the relative s equence o f s tructures within Gaj and ObaIki c annot be determined with any a ccuracy, except that the graves and the buildings a ll p recede the mound. Should i t b e accepted that the wooden buildings represent relatively l ate e lements within the i nterior then the entrances would h ave provided access to the whole o f the enclosure. I f, however, the buildings were e ither contemporary with or earlier than the graves, access would e ffectively have been c ut o ff. However, evidence f rom other s ites may o ffer possible a lternatives. One interpretation, c learly s upported at L indebjerg ( DNK-8) and to be i nferred at Z berzyn ( KUJ-47), i s that, at some e nclosures a t l east, one e nd remained open until entry was no l onger necessary, and only then was i t b locked o ff permanently - or i n s ome c ases temporarily with l arge boulders or s ome other c losing device. Such i ndeed may h ave been the c ase at Z berzyn, where a wooden s tructure analogous both i n construction and l ocation to that at Gaj i s known ( Gorczyca 1 981; s ee s ection 6 .4). The wooden building has s olid walls on the northern, s outhe rn and western s ides, but there i s no evidence to s uggest that the e astern end was c losed; access to the building was apparently f rom this s ide ( Figs. 3 1 and 5 8). S imilarly, a s a t Gaj and ObaIki, i t i s not possible to s uggest a relative s equence o f construction o f d ifferent interior f eatures. The s tone enclosure had been r obbed o f nearly a ll the boulders and i ts course could b e determined only on the b asis o f ' filling-in' s tones and bands o f i ron-panning which had f ormed underneath the boulders ( Ibid. 2 ). This phenomenon could be observed a ll a long the broad e nd o f the barrow and i t i s therefore r easonable to assume that

Z ri

e .c .r. • • ••••• 1 1.e .. ._

a f t e r S p r o c k h o f

c s.)

l o n a b a r o w s

0

S a c h s e n w a l d

r -

• r z t •

• G r -

1 17

the s tone kerb f ormed the whole o f the e astern end. Thus i t s eems that the i nterior o f the enclosure, and i ndeed that o f the wooden building, would have been accessible f rom the e ast only prior to the construction o f the e astern wall and that the boulders were p laced j ust before or during the c onstruction o f the mound, i .e. when access was no l onger needed. This argument i s f urther s upported by the f act that t he d irection o f the e astern enclosure wall i s not p erpend icular to the main axis o f the enclosure but follows that o f the eastern wall o f the building ( Fig. 3 1). A s imilar f eature has been recorded at other s ites. At Gaj ( KUJ-7/1; F ig. 3 1) the broad end f ollows the l ine o f the eastern wall o f the i nterior building. S arnowo ( KUJ3 2/6; Fig. 2 5) provides more evidence o f s uch a construction The eastern end r uns at an angle o f 7 5 ° to the main axis o f the enclosure, resulting i n the s outhern wall being s horter than the northern wall by about 2m ( Chmielewski 1 952, 7 2). Chmielewski attributed this a lignment to the s hortage o f b uilding material, but i t i s equally possible that the d irection o f the e astern end was d ictated by the position o f an i nternal s tructure which e ither did not s urvive, was unobserved during the excavation, or had been entirely d ismantled before the construction o f the e astern end ( cf. evidence f rom Sarnowo, KUJ-32/9, o f d ismantling o f s tructures prior to the construction o f the mound, s ee s ection 6 .4). I t i s important to note i n this context that at Lupawa ( WPOM-25; F ig. 3 6) a number o f barrows showed a c onstruction o f the broader end which d iffered f rom the r est o f the enclosure. Jankowska mentions that the broad end was o ften l ess carefully built, with l arge boulders not f itting a ccurately and f requently resulting i n a convex r ather than s traight end ( Jankowska 1 980, 9 9; 1 981, 1 32). For this s ite the explanation o f this f eature centres upon d ifficulties i n c onstruction with the u se o f l arge s tones, but i t may also b e i nterpreted a s resulting f rom a l ate erection o f the e astern wall, with l ittle room to manoeuvre the s tones i nto p lace. One may a lso take i nto account the possibility o f an i nterior a rrangement o f s tructures which have decayed beyond recognition, or which again were deliberately removed. Apart f rom the monuments mentioned above, f or which the f inal process o f c losing o ff the enclosures may reasonably be i nferred f rom the evidence preserved at these s ites, a number o f barrows may be noted where one end o f the enclosure appears to be open. At S tralendorf ( MBG-25, S chuldt 1 965; F ig. 3 2) the s outhern end o f the barrow does not s eem to have been edged with boulders a lthough the kerb

1 18 was otherwise well preserved. S everal l ong b arrows i n t he S achsenwald ( LSAX-8; F ig. 4 4) a lso s how no evidence o f a kerb at e ither one or both o f the n arrow ends. Whether t hese enclosures were deliberately l eft open or whether the k erbs have been robbed o f s tones i s d ifficult to determine today, e specially s ince the monuments concerned were not e xcavated i n s ufficient detail.

t . e a

0 F ig.

4 5

5 m

Location o f f eatures C and D i n r elation another ( Lindebjerg b arrow, DNK-8; a fter L iversage 1 980)

t o o ne

Thus i t i s p articularly i nformative to e xamine i n this context the evidence f rom a totally excavated monument a t Lindebjerg ( DNK-8, Liversage 1 980; F ig. 3 7), which r eveals the complexity o f entrance a rrangements and the d ifficulti es i nherent i n their i nterpretation a s well a s a ffording s uggestions for a possible s olution a t s ites where t he p res ervation or the quality o f excavation do not a llow i ndependent a ssessment. The s tone enclosure, which was d escribed i n detail earlier ( section 6 .2), was not b locked w ith a s tone kerb at the eastern end. I n s pite o f s ome doubt a s to t he f orm and construction o f i ts western counterpart, i t i s reasonable to a ssume that access to the i nterior was g ained f rom this s ide.

1 19

During the excavation two s eparate s tructures, f eature C ( Figs. 4 5 and 4 6) a nd D ( Figs. 4 5 a nd 4 7), were e ncounte red at t his end, each s eemingly c orresponding to a different episode i n the u se o f the monument. The s tratigraphic s equence u ncovered here s howed c learly that s tructure C was t he e arlier o f the two and may b e c onsidered archaeologically c ontemporary with the f irst grave ( feature A ), a lthough the absolute r elationship between t hem c annot b e e stablished more precisely ( Liversage 1 980, 9 8).

5 /3

+

0 F ig.

4 6

L indebjerg ( DNK-8) L iversage 1 980)

3 m - f eature C ( after

L iversage

This s tructure i s r epresented b y a 4m l ong, 1 ,3m wide a nd 0 ,9m deep t ransverse t rench, l ocated a t or near the e astern e nd o f t he enclosure. Originally this trench held two s ubstantial, vertically p laced t imbers, one at the n orthern and one a t the s outhern e nd, wedged heavily with s tone p acking ( Fig. 4 6). Low down i n the t rench, h alf way b etween t he posts, the charred r emains o f a vertically p ositioned oak p lank were a lso f ound ( Ibid. 9 7). I nterpretation o f this f eature a s well as i ts f unction i s d ifficult. To r egard i t a s the r emains o f a burnt t imber f açade ( Madsen 1 979, 3 08) does not appear s atisfactory. F irst o f a ll there i s no evidence pointing to the whole s tructure h aving been burnt. I ndeed, L iversage s uggests

1 20 that the two wooden posts e ither r otted i n s itu o r, more probably, were s imply c ut o ff when t he s tructure b ecame obsolete. The wooden p lank was probably b urnt l ater, perhaps accidentally. S econdly, the o riginal external appearance o f this s tructure i s d ifficult to determine a lthough i t i s f airly c ertain that i t was f ree-standing. I t i s possible that s ome s ort o f s creen waA e rected ( of

( v )D 3

9

( a ),

D 2 N W c j' a w e s o e f . . eal t i ze . d . , .*e t

ev w . 1 • "a p e r ,

0c _ e ) 0 1-( t )

D 1 3 m

F ig.

4 7

L indebjerg ( DNK-8) L iversage 1 980)

- f eature

D ( after

wooden p lanks?) b etween the posts, e ffectively c utting o ff the i nterior o f t he enclosure f rom the outside. I t s eems l ess l ikely, however, t hat this s tructure r epresents s ome sort o f f ormalised entrance. I ts t emporary c haracter i s c learly s hown by i ts h aving been dismantled p rior t o t he construction o f the s econd grave ( Liversage 1 980, 9 6) and o ffers important evidence f or f requent c hanges o f t he i nterior arrangements, which s uggests a multiplicity o f activities t aking p lace within the c onfines o f the e nclosures. I ncidentally, i t i s i nteresting to compare the r emains o f this s tructure with that at the open end o f the S tralendorf long barrow ( MBG-25; F ig. 3 2). Although no mention o f the l inear s tone a rrangement within the e astern e nd a t

1 21

Stralendorf can b e f ound i n the original r eport ( Schuldt 1 965) i t appears i n the p lan and bears r esemblance to the ground-plan o f f eature C at Lindebjerg ( Fig. 4 6). The s ituation at S tralendorf s eems to be a nalogous to t hat at Lindebjerg ( no s tone kerb) and this s catter o f small s tones may well r epresent a c losing-off s tructure not unlike the one discussed above. The s econd s tructure at the eastern end o f L indebjerg ( feature D , F ig. 4 7) i s even more d ifficult to i nterpret. I t consists o f two ditches, not quite i n l ine, f illed with s tones but with no traces o f e ither wooden posts or p lanks ( Liversage 1 980, 9 8-100). A ttached to and f orming a part o f this s tructure i s a small U -shaped chamber whose purpose remains unknown. The excavator s uggested i t may have s erved a s a possible f oundation f or turves s tacked against the eastern e nd o f an earthen mound, but i n v iew o f i ts apparent uniqueness i t i s not possible, f or the t ime being, to o ffer an a lternative s uggestion. Evidence f rom s everal monuments implies that entry to the i nterior may a lso have been through one o f the l ong s ides o f the enclosure and the f act that s uch entrances are f ound throughout the e arthen l ong b arrow province may i ndicate that they r epresent an a lternative, or i ndeed additional, means o f access. At Rybno ( KUJ-29) there i s no evidence o f any s ubstantial opening at the broader e nd, but a long the southern wall a s ection o f the kerb i s c onstructed diff erently f rom the rest - not o f the customary l arge boulders but o f small s tones which make up a wall o f s everal courses ( Ja M ewski 1 936a, 1 90). I t may well be that a temporary entrance was l ocated a t this point and eventually b locked o ff with s tones. An i dentical f eature has been f ound a t Gaj ( KUJ-7/1, Chmielewski 1 952, 8 8; Fig. 3 1). Here, i n addition to the entrance a t the e astern end ( see above), a s ection o f the s outhern wall, between 8 and 1 5m f rom the e astern end, was constructed i n a s imilar f ashion - f rom small s tones. Chmiel ewski thought that at this point the mound must h ave reached i ts maximum height and i nterpreted this wall a s additional s upport f or the boulders o f the kerb. However, the f act that this s ection o f the wall i s exactly opposite the central grave ( chapter 7 ) s uggests that this a rrangement was deliberate. Moreover, i t could a lso i ndicate that i t was not possible to reach this p art o f the enclosure f rom the e ast and therefore that the building at the e astern end o f the barrow may a lready have been i n p lace. The possibility o f s ide entrances a lso presents i tself in connection with s ome barrows i n Western Pomerania. I t i s

1 22

not certain whether a t Krqpcewo ( WPOM-20, Wiglahski 1 977; F ig. 3 5) there was a n entrance a t t he broader end. A fter r econstruction, when the boulders were r eplaced i n their original positions, a gap l m wide appeared i n the middle o f the e astern end. But the excavator mentioned that a boulder s uitable f or this s pace was p resent a f ew paces away ( Ibid. 8 7). There i s a lso a definite g ap i n the s outhern wall o f the enclosure at about 1 5m f rom t he e astern end. I ts position i s o f i nterest on two accounts. F irstly, i t occurs at the point where the i nterior s tone f ill i s d ivided i nto two s eparate c airns. S econdly, t here i s a s catter o f s tones a t e ither end o f the gap, immediately to the outside o f the kerb. An i nspection o f the photograph o f this s ection ( Plate I Ia) r eveals that the s tones are at the bottom l evel o f the k erb and therefore s hould not be r egarded a s s tones which have f allen f rom the outer wall. S ince no s ections through these s tone f eatures are available their f unction cannot be a ssessed, a lthough i n p lan the e astern c oncentration does l ook very much l ike s tone packing. There i s another concentration o f s tones to the outside o f the kerb, at the western point o f t ermination o f the i nner s tone f ill ( Fig. 3 5). These arrangements o f s tones and their l ocation may o f course b e accidental, p erhaps r epresenting unused c airn material. On the other hand the position o f the gap within t he s outhern wall and, i ndeed, the f act that this i s the only g ap f or 3 5m o f this wall - together with the two outside s tone s catters - may s uggest that s ome s ort o f entrance a rrangement existed a t this point. A s imilar g ap, this t ime without external s tone s catter, may be observed a t Karsko ( WPOM-15/1; F ig. 5 0). Here the break i n the s outhern wall o f the e nclosure ( 25m f rom the e astern end) i s emphasized by a corresponding gap i n the i nner wall and very probably represents an entry point f rom the outside to compartment no. 3 ( see d iscussion i n s ection 6 .4). This outside access does not preclude a connection between s egments 2 and 3 by a n i nternal c orridor, a s s uggested below. Entrance to c ompartment no. 1 ( and a t the early s tage possibly to the whole o f the e nclosure) i s at the eastern end, s lightly north o f the main axis. The gap between t he l arge boulders has been paved with small s tones ( Wiglahski pers. comm.) and the arrangement o f s tones within the f irst c ompartment, d irectly opposite the entrance, s uggests that s ome cons truction o f s tone, o r t imber and s tone, may originally h ave existed h ere. Among the D anish earthen l ong b arrows evidence o f ent rances f rom the s ide i s h itherto k nown f rom two l ocations. At Barkaer ( DNK-2; F ig. 5 6) G lob noted the existence o f

1 23

quern-stones a t various points within the l ong walls o f the s tructures and i nterpreted these a s thresholds ( Glob 1 949, 6 ; s ee discussion i n s ection 6 .4). Unfortunately a conc lusive i nterpretation i s not possible a t this s tage a lthough entrances to i ndividual s egments f rom outside s hould not be excluded. Both o f the S tengade enclosures ( DNK-18/1 and 2 ; F ig. 4 2) s eem a lso to h ave b een entered f rom the l ong s ides r ather than f rom e ither o f the ends. One definite entrance was noted a long the northern s ide o f S tengade 1 8/1. I t was 1 m wide and at a d istance o f 5 m f rom the e astern end ( Skaarup 1 975, 1 7). Additional heavy s tone f oundations s urr ounded the entrance to the north and west, delimiting an a rea o f 2 x2,5m. This could r epresent he r emains e ither o f an open-plan porch or even a small f ore-building through which access to the i nterior was gained. S ince the western h alf o f this enclosure was poorly preserved i t i s not poss ible to determine whether additional entry c ould b e gained f rom anywhere e lse, but the b i -partite nature o f the i nt erior s uggests that another entrance was l ikely. Three gaps within the s outhern wall o f the other enc losure f rom S tengade ( 18/2) were noted; o ne ( 1,3m wide) was l ocated 4 m f rom the e astern end, another 2 ,5m f urther west and a third about 8 ,5m f rom the western e nd ( Ibid. 9 4). No exterior f eatures were noted i n connection with any o f these gaps within the f oundation wall, and the poor pres ervation o f the s outhern wall makes entrance a rrangements h ere impossible to determine. I n the discussion o f access to the i nterior o f enc losures, consideration must a lso be g iven to other Danish l ong barrows where t imber f açades and related s tructures h ave r ecently come to l ight. I n h is s urvey o f Danish l ong b arrows Madsen d istinguished a number o f monuments f or which he c laims the existence o f s olid t imber f açades termin ating the mound u sually, but not i nvariably, at the eastern end ( Madsen 1 979, 3 11). This i nterpretation, which r ests p redominantly upon the evidence o f a t ransverse t rench, i s no doubt s trongly i nfluenced by the f act that s uch t imber s tructures have f or a l ong t ime been a ssociated with s imilar monuments i n B ritain ( Ashbee 1 970). As a lready noted ( sect ion 6 .2) the Danish evidence comes i n most c ases f rom r ecently excavated monuments, known mainly f rom i nterim r eports, and therefore many details are s till i nsufficiently known. Furthermore, a s completed r eports on Lindebjerg ( DNK-8, L iversage 1 980) and Stengade ( DNK-18, Skaarup 1 975) h ave s hcwn ( see above), f eatures s uch a s s tone-filled trenc hes need not a lways r epresent the remains o f s olid t imber f açades. There are, however, s ome barrows f or which the

1 24 available evidence does s uggest the existence o f a t imber f ac ade and i t i s these t hat we s hall s tudy i n more d etail. Definite t races o f s olid t imber f açades c an s o f ar b e associated with two s ites - Rustrup ( DNK-14, F ischer 1 976) and Rude ( DNK-13, Madsen 1 980). Rustrup, which r emains a rather i ll-understood monument, r eveals t races o f a t imber f açade beneath the e astern end o f a l ater s tone covering ( Fischer 1 976, 6 6; F ig. 4 8). A c oncave t rench, 4 ,9m l ong, b etween 1 ,05 and 0 ,8m wide and v arying i n depth f rom 1 ,08 to 1 ,2m, c ontained c lear t races o f c harred posts. These posts, about 2 0cm i n d iameter, were c losely s paced w ithin the t rench and packed with small s tones. Other l ess well defined post holes ( also with a quantity o f c harcoal) were

4 0

•

•

•

> z n

ö t,

‘ , 95 .

•

F ig.

4 8

Rustrup ( DNK-14) s howing f açade b edding a t the e astern end ( after F ischer 1 976)

t rench

f ound to the west o f the f açade i n the area covered by the s tone mantle ( Ibid. 6 6). Whether these f ormed, together with the f açade, a part o f one l arger s tructure could not be determined a s, i ndeed, the whole s equence o f events p rior to the construction o f t he s tone c overing i s u nc ertain ( Ibid. 6 7; s ee a lso comments i n s ection 6 .2).

1 25 The other example o f a s ubstantial t imber f açade i s that f rom the Rude l ong barrow ( DNK-13, Madsen 1 980; F ig. 4 9). At this s ite there i s evidence o f a t l east two p hases o f construction a t the eastern end, a nd the burnt f açade r epresents the l ater phase ( Ibid. 8 9). The e arlier s tructure i s r ecognised i n t he r emains o f a small, s ub-rectangular enclosure 3 ,7x4,4-5,8m i n s ize, s et a t a s light angle to t he main axis o f the b arrow ( Fig. 4 9). I t was c onstructed on a f rame o f small posts which were p laced 0 ,1 to 0 ,2m apart, at t he edge o f a l arge p it which constituted t he i nterior o f the enclosure. I ts temporary character i s witnessed both by t he s light construction ( wattling) a nd again by the f act

. . ....

F ig.

4 9

......

Rude ( DNK-13) s howing f açade a nd a small enclosure at the e astern end o f the b arrow ( charcoal s tains marked i n b lack; a fter M adsen 1 980)

that i t was dismantled ( or had decayed) p rior to the b uildi ng o f the f açade. The p recise r elationship b etween t his s tructure and the b arrow enclosure p roper c annot be e stabl ished with certainty, a lthough the y ellow-brown mottled f ill of the small enclosure ( Ibid. F ig. 5 - l ayer 3 ) c an a lso be s een i n t he s outhern s ection o f the i nterior o f the b arrow enclosure a s

f ar

a s

the

c ist.

This would

s uggest

the

1 26

contemporaneity o f the two s tructures being f illed with the s ame material.

a s

they were obviously

The f açade, f or which the trench c ut through the y ell ow-brown f ill, must have been quite a s ubstantial s tructure; s even s plit t runks o f 0 ,7-0,8m i n d iameter were s et one n ext to the other i n a 5m l ong trench, heavily packed with s tones i n its eastern s ection ( Ibid. 8 8; F ig. 4 9). The s tratigraphy within the f oundation trench s eems to i ndicate that t his trench was dug i nto an earlier one ( replacement or d ismantli ng?) which had previously been f illed with the s ame mottled f ill as the small enclosure ( Ibid. F ig. 1 0). Madsen's i nterpretation o f these f eatures i nvolves an early p hase - c ons isting o f the small enclosure and a n earlier f açade - and a l ater f açade ( which had been burnt) p laced i n exactly t he s ame spot a s the e arlier one ( Ibid. 8 9). That the s econd f açade was not contemporary with the small enclosure i s evident f rom the f act that the l atter s howed no evidence o f burning. The r elationship with the hypothetical f irst f açade i s however much more d ifficult to envisage. At the b ottom o f the foundation trench, i n the l ayers preceding the burnt f açade, there i s a lso evidence o f burning, and one may reasonably expect that this f irst s tructure was a lso a ffected by f ire - a lthough perhaps not a s s evere a s i n the s econd s tructure. Again no evidence i s associated with the c ontempor ary small enclosure. On the other h and i t i s possible that the older l ayers represent not an e arly f açade but s ome s ort o f s tructure s imilar to that known a t L indebjerg ( DNK-8, s ee above). There, traces o f burning were l imited and d id not extend beyond the middle o f the trench. I t may well be that the l imited nature o f the burning evidenced i n both s tructures ( Rude phase I and Lindebjerg f eature C ) was r elated to the f orm o f the s tructure rather than to a l ack o f i ntensity o f the f ire. The evidence for this e arly episode a t Rude i s really not s ufficient to a llow better i nterpretation. I t must however be borne i n mind that t renches a s s uch n eed not i nvariably s uggest a f açade, and s o the question o f the early s tructure at Rude s hould be l eft open rather than i nfluenced by the existence o f a s ubsequent s tructure ( i.e. the burnt f açade

o f

phase

I I).

Evidence f or s olid t imber f açades o f the k ind e ncountered at Rustrup ( DNK-14) and Rude ( DNK-13), r eferred to by Madsen on other s ites, i s l ess c onclusive. At Ostergärd ( DNK1 2; Fig. 5 5) and Bygholm Norremark ( DNK-4; F ig. 4 1) t races o f individual, s eparate posts have b een f ound. At the l atter s ite there was an even more complex a rrangement, i ncluding other posts, which was i nterpreted by the excavator a s the r emains o f a small building ( Ronne 1 979). Although t he r emains o f t imber posts are a lso known f rom terminal d itches at the Barkaer s tructures ( DNK-2, G lob 1 975) their p recise

1 27

a rrangement will not be known until the publication o f the excavation report. I n other c ases, at S jorup P lantage ( DNK1 6, Jorgensen 1 977) and Teglevaerksgärden ( DNK-20, F aber 1 976; F ig. 4 1), the existence o f the t imber f açade was i nf erred f rom the t ransverse s tone-packed trenches noted at the eastern end o f these barrows ( see above). Although i t i s very tempting to r egard these f eatures a s the r emains o f t imber f açades, s uch i nterpretations s hould not be made prematurely. The purpose o f this argument i s not to question the existence o f the f açades i n p rinciple - f or where evidence i s convincing these may be a ccepted - but to s tress once again that a ll the d etails must be considered i n any i nterpretation. Evidence f rom L indebjerg ( DNK-8, Liversage 1 980) c learly s erves a s a warning against hasty conclusions. Neither o f the two easte rn s tructures could be s aid to r epresent a t imber f açade proper, yet f eature C has been i nterpreted a s s uch ( Madsen 1 979, 3 08) prior to the f inal publication. I t i s very important to acknowledge the i ndividuality o f f eatures under d iscussion and to r ecognise that they are l ikely to r epres ent a variety o f s tructures, presumably r elated i n f unction but different i n f orm.

6 .4

I NTERIOR STRUCTURES

Until comparatively r ecently i t has been possible to do no more than point to general r esemblances among the i nterior s tructures, s uch a s s imple i nhumation graves or t races o f buildings, f ound i n the North European earthen l ong barrows ( JaZdiewski 1 970a). However, the results o f r ecent excavations o f long barrows i n Western Pomerania and D enmark not only a ffect our approach to the s tudy o f the monuments, but make i t c lear that their i nterior arrangements are more complex than has been h itherto understood. Moreover, they g ive c redence to o ld excavation r eports and a llow us to r e-interpret i n a new l ight the observations made by excavators o f the 1 9th and early 2 0th c enturies. Two particular f eatures - the s egmentation o f the i nterior and the c ombined u se o f s tone and t imber i n the building o f graves and other s tructures - have emerged a s important and widespread e lements. The division o f the i nterior i nto s eparate compartments i s not an entirely new phenomenon s ince evidence o f t ransverse s tone rows f eatured r egularly i n the 1 9th-century reports on the Mecklenburg earthen l ong barrows ( Ritter 1 841b, 1 842; L isch 1 848; Beltz 1 899, 1 910). But these have been l argely i gnored by l ater s cholars and i t i s only through r ecent discoveries o f

1 28

comparable material - i n s tone and/or t imber - that t his f eature may now be r e-examined. S imilarly, occasional f inds o f charred wood have f or l ong i ndicated that t imber was used f or i nterior s tructures. Wherever recovered, s uch traces have generally been associated with the r emains o f burnt buildings or otherwise i nterpreted a s evidence f or r itual f ires and f easts ( Chmielewski 1 952; Ja2d ewski 1 936a, 1 936b, 1 970a). Today, however, there i s both d irect a nd i nd irect evidence for the r egular u se o f t imber, e ither on i ts own or i n combination with s tone e lements. The r esults o f Danish excavations i n particular enable u s to postulate the use o f t imber e lements ( logs or p lanks) even where no wooden traces actually s urvive.

6 .4/1

I NTERNAL PARTITIONS

As noted above, the e arliest evidence o f i nternal divisions within e arthen l ong barrows i s f ound i n t he 1 9thcentury reports o f Ritter, Lisch and Beltz. Although i nsuff icient i n detail, these observations are e ntirely c onsistent with, and f ully borne out by, the results o f modern excavations i n Western Pomerania. Transverse s tone walls have been noted at Brüsewitz ( MBG-5; Lisch 1 839, 2 2), Karft ( MBG-15; R itter 1 842, 1 8), Perdöhl ( MBG-18/2; Ritter 1 841b, 3 0-31), Pöglitz ( MBG-19, Sprockhoff 1 967, 7 6) and Z arnewanz ( MBG-29; Beltz 1 899, 1 5-116). They vary i n number f rom one ( Karft) to t hree or possibly more ( Pöglitz and Z arnewanz) and were generally built of l arge s tones, s imilar to those f orming the o utside walls of the enclosures ( Karft, Perdöhl and Pöglitz). Occasionally, a s at Z arnewanz, smaller s tones ( up to 0 ,2m i n diameter) were a lso u sed. The height o f these walls i s not recorded, but various comments a s to their appearance j ust below the mound s urface s uggest that t hey were p robably not much l ower than the outer walls themselves. The enclosure at Perdöhl ( MBG-18/2) contained two transverse walls dividing the i nterior i nto three compartments about 4m, 1 7m and 8m i n l ength ( Ritter 1 841b, 3 0-31). The f irst dividing wall ( 4m f rom the eastern end) was entirely within the bounds o f the s urrounding kerb but the s econd one apparently protruded 3m to the north and s outh. The l ong barrow at Pöglitz was divided by at l east three i nner walls ( a s ubstantial part o f this barrow was a lready s eriously damaged i n the mid-19th c entury), which f ormed compartments 7 ,5m, 6 ,6m and 2 ,2m long respectively ( Sprockhoff 1 967, 7 6). The eastern o f a double

end was terminated by a double kerb, and t races course were noted a long s ome s tretches o f the

1 0

o"

»li t > %A- P4 J le ' 1 .4 14 . ' 41 . . 2 1% 1 1 9P .ef t ' qf i . •. le .V • • • ••\ ' ' . .\ f re1‘ sag - 4 4 s l i b e e z ee l e • -we *. . .I • j et , s I r. 4 1 0A

4 . 4 .

1 :

'

l i "e • .e z. ,O'f 4

a e r e e -: '. . , . •

4

.

4

:: 04 1 ' . 2 •: re. -• 4 1 ),1 1, -

i e4 'e fee• efey e a r t h e e v e b 1 , 4 4 " ; 4

s '

„ , . „ . . . : . • , : „ : ., : i

A r i

0 . , -e . ---z i l b ,ee l• . r . i r ivkvA '

g d it i eI A

0 0

i b e 4

o

tab e

r°

C S

deu g e e . d i e

9 ° G 4 3 ,R o. E e :

01

V

e

et

a f t e r W i l a h s k i u n p u b l i s h e d )

2

I n

0 C L 4

0

O W 0 0

I .f ir4

• 11/.

c . o . 0r eW

•

P l a n o f K a r s k o b a r o w s

op

0 e

1 29

s ide walls. I n many i nstances the s econd compartment d iff ered both i n construction and i n content f rom the r est o f the barrow. At P erdöhl i t was completely f illed with medium-sized s tones. At Pöglitz and Z arnewanz s mall r ectangular s tone-built enclosures were f ound and a t Karft a s keleton, l aid d irectly on the o ld l and s urface, was f ound b eyond the s ingle d ividing wall. The most convincing parallels f or s uch i nterior arrangements, virtually i dentical to those j ust described, come f rom the r ecently excavated barrows o f Karsko ( WPOM-15) and Dolice ( WPOM-10; Wiglahski pers. comm.). This i s not entirel y s urprising g iven the r elative proximity o f the Mecklenb urg and Western P omeranian groups, a nd a lso s uggests that the apparent l ack o f these f eatures may s ometimes be attributed to poor excavations. At Karsko ( WPOM-15) two earthen l ong barrows h ave r ecently been excavated. They were originally thought to have shared one o f the l ong walls ( Chmielewski 1 852, 4 2). but were proved to be s eparate monuments, r unning parallel about 5m apart ( Plate I IIa; Wiglahski pers. comm.). The northern barrow ( 15/2) was r ather badly damaged i n i ts easte rn half, which makes the i nterpretation o f i nterior s tructu res difficult. Immediately to the west o f the eastern end there are r emains o f a s tone cairn about 5m i n l ength and h eaped in a dome-like f ashion ( Fig. 5 0). S tretches o f what are undoubtedly the remains o f a r ather l ow, two-course i nternal walling i nside the main enclosure may be observed a long the s outhern and s outh-western part o f the s tone c airn. Unfortunately, f ragmentary preservation a llows neither i ts s hape nor i ts s ize to be determined. Whether or not i nternal partition walls were built within this barrow c an no l onger b e a scertained. At various points a long the enclosure s tretches o f s tone constructions may be noted but they are neither c lear nor s ufficiently s ubstantial to be i nterpreted as s uch. The s outhern barrow at Karsko ( WPOM-15/1) i s by f ar the b etter preserved o f the two and i ts i nterior s tructures bear a r esemblance to t hose known f rom Mecklenburg. The e astern h alf of the barrow i s d ivided i nto s everal c ompartments, this division being h ighlighted by i nternal s ide walls paral lel to the outside kerb ( Fig. 5 0). The f irst compartment, immediately beyond the e astern end, i s about 4m l ong and terminates in the west with a transverse two-course wall o f medium-sized s tones. B eyond this wall ( i.e. i n the s econd compartment) a dome-shaped c airn o f f ield s tones was s et up, beneath which a s mall, s tone-built r ectangular enclosure could be d istinguished by virtue o f the l arger s ize o f s tones ( Fig. 6 2 a nd P late I IIb; Wiglahski pers. c omm.). The

1 30

P late

I II:

a )

Karsko ( WPOM-15/1), s howing parallel two barrows ( photo Wiglahski)

b )

Karsko ( WPOM-15/1), f rom West

c )

Karsko ( WPOM-15/1), c lose-up o f l inear f eature at Western end o f 2 nd compartment ( photo Wiglahski)

transverse

a rrangement o f

s tone partition

s een

a

b

C

1 32

s tone cairn and the small enclosure, a s i ndeed their l ocation i n the s econd c ompartment, c orrespond c losely to f eatures noted a t Perdöhl ( MBG-18/2), Pöglitz ( MBG-19) and Z arnewanz ( MBG-29). The s econd and t hird transverse r ows f orm a part o f yet another s eparate compartment, c learly d istinguished f rom the outside walls by additional i nterior walling a long the northern and s outhern s ides. These two t ransverse rows are more s ubstantial than the f irst, b eing built o f f lattish s tones equalling i n s ize those o f t he outer k erb ( Plate IVb). At the s outh-eastern c orner o f this s ection there i s an add itional, l inear arrangement o f s tones ( Fig. 5 0). An i nterpretation s uggested by the excavator i s that o f a U -shaped s tructure c losed o ff a t i ts western end ( Wiglahski pers. comm.). However, a fter c lose examination o f the original p lan and o f numerous photographs o f t his f eature i t i s more r easonable to s uggest that this s tructure r epresents the remains o f a passage or a corridor b etween the s econd and third compartments. P late I IIc s hows c learly that the s tones at the western end are i n a s econdary position - moved by the pressure o f the mound or by s ome o ther d isturbance. The f ourth and f inal transverse row ( Fig. 5 0), again o f l ess impressive s ize than the s econd and third, may be noted about two metres beyond. The s ize and l ocation o f this compartment corresponds to that at Pöglitz ( MBG-19). One f urther monument, the most r ecently excavated barrow at Dolice ( WPOM-10; Wiglahski pers. comm.) s hows evidence o f i nternal partitioning. O nly one t ransverse wall, built o f l arge boulders, has been noted, about 7m f rom the eastern end ( Fig. 5 1). As at Karsko, the remains o f a stone c airn have been f ound to the west o f the partition. I n the context o f i nternal partitions f ound within the West Pomeranian l ong b arrows another i nteresting f eature the abrupt termination o f the i nner s tone c airns - may a lso be discussed here. This phenomenon i s particularly s triking at Kr pcewo ( WPOM-20; Wiglahski 1 977) where i nternal s tone walls have not b een r ecorded, but i t may a lso be observed at Karsko ( WPOM-15) and Dolice ( WPOM-10). I n the eastern half o f the Krqpcewo l ong barrow two s tone cairns have been f ound ( Wiglahski 1 977, 8 9; F ig. 3 5). Particularly c lear i s the abrupt termination o f the s econd, western c airn, which f orms, at about 2 4m f rom the e astern end, a virtually s traight l ine across the whole width of the barrow. Although the axial s ection o f the barrow ( Fig. 3 5, X-Y) s hows only the basal l ayer o f the c airn material, the transverse s ection ( G-H) makes i t c lear that originally the cairn was more s ubstantial. Termination o f the f irst,

13 3

r-N

1 34

P late

IV:

a )

S tralendorf ( MBG-25), s howing l ocation s tone wall ( modern?) f rom South

b )

Karsko ( WPOM-15/1), ( photo Wiglahski)

c )

Wietrzychowice ( KUJ-45/3), l ocation o f two graves in i nterior ( photo Muzeum Archeologiczne i Etnograficzne w Lodzi)

c lose-up o f

2 nd

of

transverse

transverse

wall

1 35

a

1 36

eastern c airn i s even more puzzling. The axial cross-section ( X-Y) s hows that the s tones come to an end vertically, f rom the bottom to the top l ayers a like. According to t he excavat ion report there was a d istinct gap between the two c airns and a shallow depression i n the earthen mound corresponded with this gap. An equally abrupt, s traight-line termination may be noted at K arsko ( WPOM15/1; F ig. 5 0) where the cairn material i s s een to s top s hort o f the s econd t ransverse wall. Although at this point the depth o f the c airn i s not s ubstantial, mainly a s a result o f the 1 933 excavation by Sprockhoff, the b asal l ayer o f s tones s till does not r each the partition b ut f orms a s traight l ine 1 ,5m to the e ast o f i t. At Dolice ( WPOM-10; Wiglar iski pers. c omm.; F ig. 5 1) a s tone cairn f ills the area to the s outh-west o f the transverse boulder wall. I t i s j ust over 6 m i n l ength a nd , again, e nds with a s traight l ine o f s tones. Moreover, the northwestern wall o f t he enclosure deviates precisely at this point, turning more to the s outh-east. Although the corresponding s tretch o f wall on the other s ide o f the enclosure i s completely destroyed, the evidence i s s ufficient to s uggest that there was i n f act a s econd c ompartment within the interior, marked i n this case not with a t ransverse s tone wall but with a partition constructed o f perishable material. The phenomenon o f a lmost r uler-straight edges i s not an i solated f eature i n the context o f e arthen l ong barrows. I t may r egularly be observed i n a ssociation with grave s tructures ( see c hapter 7 ), where i t i s u sually i nterpreted as an i ndicator o f decayed t imber e lements, a nd i t i s a lso present at Stengade ( DNK-18, s ee s ection 6 .3). I t s eems r easonable to s uggest that, i n the e xamples described above, the abrupt termination o f the i nner c airn r eflects the u se o f additional revetment i n the f orm o f e ither turf walls o r t imber edging. Moreover, i n v iew o f evidence f rom K arsko ( WPOM-15/1), i t s eems l ikely that t he purpose o f s uch a r evetment would h ave been s tructural - and t hat this r evetment s erved as a l ateral and vertical guideline f or the c ons truction o f the i nner c airns. I n the context o f c onfirmation o f the 1 9th-century observations by modern excavations i t i s necessary to l ook a t other monuments, i n t hese areas a nd e lsewhere, where this f eature has not been r ecognised h itherto but where a s imilar i nterpretation could b e o ffered o f a rrangements evidenced i n the i nterior. Apart f rom the s ites mentioned above, direct evidence o f transverse partitions c an only b e quoted for o ne l ong barrow f rom the Lupawa complex ( WPOM-25; F ig. 3 6)

1 37

a lthough i t was not mentioned i n any o f the r eports ( Jankows ka 1 975, 1 980, 1 981; Jankowska and Ko ko 1 973; Ko ko 1 972). Modern excavations o f l ong barrows i n Mecklenburg, a t Gnewitz ( MBG-8, S chuldt 1 966c), Rothenmoor ( MBG-22, S chuldt 1 967) and Stralendorf ( MBG-25, S chuldt 1 965) have not r evealed any evidence o f i nternal divisions. At S tralendorf a row o f l arge s tones a cross the barrow has been encountered ( Plate IVa), but these apparently r ested on top o f the mound and beneath them a humous s ubstratum s uggests that their p lacement was relatively recent ( Schuldt 1 965, 1 1). The only other s ource o f i nformation for Western Pomer ania i s the 1 825 s urvey o f the Pyrzyce district conducted by von P lön ( Holsten and Z ahnow 1 920) whose accounts may a lso be f ound i n the s ubsequent publications by Dorka ( 1939) and S iuchnihski ( 1969, 1 972). F igure 3 s hows s ome o f the d istribution maps prepared by von P lön, and although i t i s impossible to a ssess the amount o f detail, s ome barrows i n the vicinity o f Letnin ( Lettnin) and Mygliborki ( Mützelburg) are drawn s howing s tones traversing the mounds. Today, unf ortunately, i t i s no l onger possible to determine whether these should be i nterpreted a s evidence o f i nternal parti tioning or merely a s i ndications o f damaged kerbs and dragged s tones. Transverse s tone rows, or i ndeed any other f orm o f partitioning, have never yet been mentioned i n connection with the earthen l ong barrows i n Kujavia. There are, however, s ome monuments containing f eatures which, i n the l ight o f the above, could p lausibly be i nterpreted as evidence o f s egmentation o f the i nterior. The l ong b arrows f rom I lowo ( KUJ-8) and Swierczynek ( KUJ-40, Kozlowski 1 920) are a good c ase i n point. Kozlowski, while paying attention to s ome o f the s tone arrangements discovered i n the excavation s uch as graves or l ongitudinally p laced s tone-alleys, i gnored others, considering them entirely a ccidental . At 8wierczynek ( Fig. 5 2) a l inear arrangement o f medium-sized s tones can be s een traversing the north-eastern half o f the enclosure at about 1 0m f rom the eastern end, and the double kerb r ecalls s imilar arrangements f rom Mecklenburg and Western Pomerania. At n owo ( Fig. 5 3), at a distance o f about 3 m f rom the s outhern end, very l arge boulders were f ound l ying across the enclosure. Chmielewski i nterpreted these a s a s urroundi ng f or a r itually important area s ince b lack s oil, pottery s herds and animal bones were f ound i n the vicinity ( Chmiel ewski 1 952, 4 6). No other information i s available f rom the excavation report i n relation to these f eatures, but parti tioning o f the i nterior o ffers i tself as a plausible

138

e • •

p d

a

O

V

4

e

M

z 1=1

P e

c :e l e l, -

e x

•

0

a a

A w i e r c z y n e k l o n g b a r o w

a

I l o w o l o n g b a r o w

a f t e r C h m i e l w s k i

1 39

1 40

a lternative

explanation.

Only a f ew more monuments contain f eatures t o which a s imilar i nterpretation c ould be applied. At Wietrzychowice ( KUJ-45/3) an i ncomplete l ine o f s tones ( large enough to b e i ncluded i n a p lan o f 1 :200 s cale) c an be noted c utting o ff the s ection o f the barrow containing evidence o f activities f rom the rest o f the enclosure ( Fig. 3 0). At Rybno ( KUJ-29) there were l arge boulders lying a cross the b arrow a t v arious points ( JaZdZewski 1 936a, F ig. 1 086), but J a2diewski does not mention them s pecifically as h e p resumably i nterprets them a s k erb s tones moved away f rom t heir o riginal p ositions. I t i s particularly d isappointing that t he poor s tate o f preservation at S arnowo ( KUJ-32), c oupled with a r ather hasty excavation o f s ix o f the l ong b arrows i n the e arly 1 950's ( Chmielewski 1 952), have meant that we do not h ave s ufficiently detailed i nformation about the arrangements o f the interior. I ndeed, evidence r ecovered by Gabalöwna during the excavation o f the remaining monuments a t this s ite i s a painful r eminder a s to how much i nformation might h ave been l ost earlier ( Gabalöwna 1 968b, 1 968c, 1 969a, 1 969b; Wiklak 1 975, 1 982). However, there are c ertain i ndications that the p rinciples o f s egmentation may have b een applied h ere a s well. As s uggested e arlier, i n the d iscussion o f the f orm o f the typical Kujavian b arrow ( see c hapter 5 ), the d ivision o f the enclosure i nto f unctionally d ifferentiated s egments may have been s ufficiently evident i n t he change o f the angle o f the long walls, and i f there were a ny partitions a t this point they may have b een only temporary. However, evidence recovered f rom t he l ast monument t o h ave b een excavated here ( KUJ-32/8) i s c ertainly worthy o f c onsideration. S ince, l ike a ll the other monuments a t S arnowo, b arrow 3 2/8 ( Fig. 2 6) was entirely r obbed o f the enclosure s tones, the course o f the outer walls could only b e a ssessed on the evidence o f s hallow t renches i n which the kerb s tones originally s tood. At a d istance o f about 4m north-east o f the c entral grave a s hallow trench was i nterpreted a s the eastern t ermination o f the barrow ( GabaIöwna 1 068b, 1 36; Wiklak 1 982, 3 7). Later during the excavation i t was obs erved that one o f the l ong wall t renches c ontinued u ninterrupted beyond t he end o f the barrow, and a nother e nd trench was f ound a t about 9 m to the east o f the f irst one ( Wiklak 1 982, 4 1). GabaIöwna's i nterpretation, which i s a lso upheld i n the f inal r eport published a fter h er death ( Ibid. 4 1), was that an extension ( or annexe) w as added to an a lready completed l ong b arrow.

1 41

However, r e-examination o f the evidence s uggests that a d ifferent i nterpretation may b e applied. F irst o f a ll, i t i s c lear that the s ide-wall trenches continue uninterrupted, a nd without any deviation o f d irection, r ight up to the s upposed s econd end o f the barrow. Moreover, the t rench which i s s upposed to r epresent the original eastern end i s s ubstantially narrower than e ither o f the l ong walls and, i ndeed, only half o f the width o f that at the e astern end o f the hypoyhetical annexe. I t i s not, o f course, d isputed that the e astern end o f the barrow may have been built i n s tages. What i s s uggested, however, i s that the ' original e astern end' r epresents nothing other than an i nternal p artition and that the t rue termination o f the enclosure was at the s upposed end o f the annexe. I ncidentally, s hould t his i nterpretation be accepted, the c entral grave ( see chapter 7 ) would then be l ocated one compartment away f rom the eastern end, a phenomenon entirely i n keeping with observations f rom Mecklenburg, Western Pomerania a nd i ndeed Denmark ( see below). A number o f D anish earthen l ong barrows a lso provide evidence o f the i nternal partitioning o f enclosures, a lthough here, with one possible exception, these d ivisions a re i n the f orm not o f s tone walls but o f t ransverse wooden f ences. They generally appear through and under the mounds a s rows o f s take-holes and may vary i n number f rom one ( Rustrup, DNK-14) to a s many a s thirty ( Barkaer, DNK-2). At f irst g lance the wooden partitions s eem to be quite different f rom those encountered i n Mecklenburg and Western Pomer anian l ong barrows, but c loser examination r eveals that t hese s tructures, a lthough d ifferent i n f orm and c onstructi on, nevertheless s hare c ertain characteristics, notably p re-mound construction and c lose a ssociation with the graves. Taking i nto consideration the evidence f rom Danish monuments a lone, the principles o f s egmentation imply a d ivision i nto two groups o f s ites: those s uch a s Rustrup ( DNK-14) o r Bygholm Norremark ( DNK-4) with only a f ew comp artments, and others s uch as Ostergärd ( DNK-12) and B arkaer ( DNK-2) with a great n umber o f s egments. However, much more evidence i s s till n eeded before i t will b ecome possible to determine whether s uch a d ivision i s r ealistic o r whether i t results merely f rom the i nadequacy o f the available data. At Rustrup ( DNK-14; F ig. 5 4) one s taggered r ow o f s take-holes was f ound, s eemingly dividing two graves ( Fischer 1 976, 6 6), and a t Bygholm Norremark ( DNK-4; F igs. 4 1 and 5 9) remains o f three wooden f ences were r ecovered ( Ronne 1 979, 5 ). Two o f them enclosed a central g rave ( one a t the eastern and one at the western end) and the third

142

5

••• ••" •••• •• ••• ••• • • • • " • • • • • •••• ••••••. .... •••

•••• •••• ••• • ... •••

1 43

1 44

was f ound s tanding b etween another g rave and a house-like s tructure. The c entral grave may originally have b een l aid i n a small house and i f s o t he wooden f ences would s eem t o have been put up only a fter this was d ismantled ( Madsen 1 979, 3 07), thus s eparating the area o f t he grave f rom t he r est o f the enclosure. The f ences were permanent, s till s tanding during the c onstruction o f the mound, and c ould b e traced c learly through the s ections. The s econd group o f s ites r eveals arrangements which are much more complex and difficult to i nterpret. The i nteriors o f two r ather i ll-defined e nclosures at O stergärd ( DNK-12/1 and 1 2/2; F ig. 5 5) revealed s everal compartments, a lthough the p recise number could not be determined because o f the s erious damage to the mounds ( Madsen 1 979, 3 05-306). I n the eastern s tructure ( 12/1) the r emains o f n ine f ences were i dentified while the western s tructure ( 12/2) h ad a t l east three s uch partitions. Here the a ssociation between f ences and graves ( or r ather c ompartments and graves) i s very explicit a s e ach grave was c learly constructed i n a s eparate s egment and the whole arrangement s eems to have been deliberate. But the u ltimate i n the principle o f s egmentation i s undoubtedly r evealed i n the two s tructures, nearly 9 0m l ong, at Barkaer ( DNK-2; F ig. 5 6). Although both o f the e nclosures were originally s horter and a cquired their f inal l ength i n two or three s tages o f construction ( Glob 1 975, 1 2) i t i s c lear that the s ame process o f construction o f compartments was applied f rom the beginning. I n b oth enclosures the transverse wooden walls divide the whole o f the i nterior i nto compartments roughly 3 m i n l ength ( thirty o f which are f ound i n the s outhern and twenty-nine i n the northern s tructure). The s takes, a dozen or s o to e ach row, were p laced 2 0-25cm apart a cross the whole width o f the s tructure. The f act that i n many i nstances the rows o f s take-holes are s een curving round the r oof-bearing ( ?) posts ( Glob 1 949,5) s uggests that they were put up a fter the main body o f the enclosure was i n p lace. That they were p laced there permanently i s equally evident. The f ill o f each compartment i s different i n colour, apparently owing to d ifferent quantit ies o f charcoal ( Ibid. 5 ), and the p artition walls c ould be followed f or up to 5 0cm through t he deposit. I t has been variously s uggested that d ifferential f ill i n s tructures o f this kind may b e a r esult o f gang-work ( Ashbee e t a l. 1 979) or o f s equential i nfilling ( Madsen 1 979, 3 15). The l atter s uggestion s eems more appropriate i n v iew o f the hypothetic al f unction o f Barkaer and would p robably mean e ach c ompartment ( starting f rom the west?) was s erviceable f or a certain period o f t ime and then s ealed o ff with a wooden f ence and f illed with s oil, with r itual activities t aking

1 45

I1 ‘ . . . . .. ,r • ". . .

•

• . _ , . .„ . • • . . _ __ . • -• 1 . 2 _ , .. . . . .1 • W

—

• • ..

I I ?

_ . . . . • . . . . . •

•

I

1 . . 1 . "%

'

i

• -• •1

• -

'

.

; • • ! .•. . .. . . . . . .

•— • . •, . . . . C‘ , 1

t •

•

. , . .. ..., ,_ e .

i •

.

I

• •

I t . _ . . .

—

! 1

1 46

place

i n the

next

s egment.

I t i s not possible f or the moment to s ay whether the compartments were u sed one at a t ime, or whether s everal were used s imultaneously. Glob does mention that a t a f ew points within the l ong s ides quern-stones were f ound ( Glob 1 949, 6 ). Their original i nterpretation a s thresholds may imply that some access to the c ompartments may have b een gained f rom the outside ( see s ection 6 .3). However, none o f these s uggestions c an really be v erified until c omplete excavation results are f inally published and evidence c an be properly considered. The a ssociation between graves a nd compartments i s a lso c lear, but i t d iffers f rom that at Ostergärd ( DNK-12). Only two graves were f ound i n e ach s tructure at what originally must have been the eastern ends but the s egmentation c learly p roceeded i n the s ame manner during the s ubsequent extensions ( Glob 1 975, F ig. on page 1 2). Having discussed the material evidence f or s egmentation o f the i nterior o f l ong barrow enclosures we must now consider the wider s ignificance o f this phenomenon and the implications i t holds f or our better understanding o f the s ocio-ritual f ramework manifested i n the North European earthen l ong barrow tradition. The f irst common e lement, a lready mentioned i n passing, i s the obvious correlation between s egmentation and graves. I n the monuments d iscussed above, t he transverse partitions, whether constructed i n s tone or i n wood, s eparate t he immediate s urroundings o f the grave f rom the rest o f the enclos ure. This relationship between s egmentation and l ocation o f the grave i s, upon detailed examination, even c loser. I n many barrows the grave s eems to have been l ocated i n the s econd compartment counting f rom the eastern end. This i s c learly evidenced a t Karft ( MBG-15), Pöglitz ( MBG-19) and Z arnewanz ( MBG-29) and may reasonably be i nferred a t Karsko ( WPOM-15/1), Dolice ( WPOM-10) and Bygholm Norremark ( DNK-4). S imilarly, at Ostergärd ( DNK-12), i n both enclosures the graves nearest to the eastern end are l ocated i n the s econd compartment ( Fig. 5 5). The s ituation a t this s ite i s more complex i n s o f ar a s the enclosures i ncluded s everal o ther graves but, interestingly, there i s a lso a gap o f one compartment between e ach grave ( or group o f graves). Furthermore, the s ame characteristic r itual may b e demonstrated i n two s eparate phases at Barkaer ( DNK-2; F ig. 5 6). I n the f irst phase both enclosures were s horter and the graves ( one i n the s outhern and two i n the northern enc losure) were p laced i n what was originally a s econd c ompartment f rom the end ( Glob 1 975, F ig. on p age 1 2). I n the

1 47

s econd phase ( in the s outhern enclosure) exactly t he s ame principle i s followed: two compartments are added and the grave i s a gain l ocated i n the s econd compartment f rom the eastern end. Whatever the reason behind this practice i t s eems s carcely possible that s uch a regularity o f grave l ocation, i n s tructures which are not only geographically wide apart but a lso display a considerable variety o f f orm, s hould be c onsidered purely accidental. Considered i n conjunction with other evidence, the transverse partitions a lso imply a f unctional d ifferentiation between various s egments within the enclosure. I t i s c lear that many a ctivities, e ither a ssociated with or i ndependent o f burial r itual, took p lace i n different compartments. These a re evidenced i n f inds throughout the entire area c f the e nclosure. The l ack o f s uch evidence i n c ertain s egments, a s well as the d ifferential f ill o f the compartments ( with soil or s tones) may be equally important with regard to c ertain r ituals. F inds o f pottery, animal and human bones, amber beads, charcoal and a shes have a ll been noted at different parts o f the Mecklenburg l ong barrows. Pottery s catters and deposits i n p its have come to l ight i n Western Pomerania. I ndeed, i n Kujavia r ich deposits o f this k ind ( see chapter 7 ) are not i nvariably a ssociated with graves but appear a lso i n other parts o f enclosures. I n Denmark, cultural debris were f ound to have been deliberately i ncorporated i n r ituals and are amply i n evidence at Ostergärd ( DNK-12), S tengade ( DNK-18) and, o f course, at Barkaer ( DNK-2). At the l atter s ite both s tructures y ielded evidence o f pits with deposits o f amber and copper beads, complete pots or s emi-finished f lint implements. Deposits o f burnt animal bones and l ayers o f oyster-, mussel- and cockle-shells have also been f ound throughout ( Glob 1 949, 8 -9). We are not a s yet i n a position to g ive a meaningful i nterpretation to these phenomena and must b e aware o f the possibility that s uch f ascinating examples a s O stergärd or Barkaer may c onstitute an exception r ather than a rule. The nature o f activities which r esulted i n the s egmentation o f the enclosures i s, for the most part, outwith the r ealm accessible to an a rchaeologist. But the evidence outlined above does imply t hat the u se o f enclosures was i n a ccordance with a certain s et o f principles which, a lthough doubtless f reely i nterpreted and i ndividually applied, n evertheless resulted i n a recognisable pattern o f i nterior arrangements o f which s egmentation i s but one. This phenomenon will demand more attention during excavations and i n their s ubsequent i nterpretation, but i t c an now be r ecognised a s a common e lement throughout the e arthen l ong barrow province.

1 48

I n concluding our d iscussion o f t imber f açades and related s tructures t he problems o f t heir f unction a nd relat ive position within the construction o f the monument must be considered. Here the r e-interpretation o f the B arkaer houses ( DNK-2, Glob 1 975) a s r itual, b urial s tructures r ather than habitation p laces i s o f c onsiderable importance. I t i s very c lear t hat the construction o f t he Barkaer enclos ures proceeded i n s everal s tages ( at l east two phases f or the northern and three f or the s outhern enclosure). I n each case the e astern end was the l ast to b e built. However we i nterpret the terminal d itches, i t i s evident that t hese belong to the f inal phases o f construction, possibly when there was no l onger any need f or p lacing the burials and performing r ituals within the i nterior and t he enclosures were f ormally c losed o ff. Whether constructions at the e astern e nd o f the enclos ures preceded or were contemporary w ith the r aising o f the mounds c annot a lways be determined. I n s everal c ases these s eem no l onger to h ave been s tanding ( Ostergärd, DNK-12 or Bygholm Norremark, DNK-4) but what i s important i s t he f act that they were part o f the f ormal c losing-off o f the i nterior. Such an i nterpretation c an well apply to Rude ( DNK1 3), where the t imber f açade s eems t o have been the l ast s tructure built, and to Lindebjerg ( DNK-8), where t emporary and permanent c losing-off s tages are s uggested. The above d iscussion o f entrance a rrangements i nto the l ong barrow enclosures makes i t very c lear that there was no uniform s olution to the problem o f a ccess to t he i nterior. Although the evidence o utlined above does s uggest a c ertain preference f or the l ocation o f an e ntrance i n one o f the ends, this was by no means a general r ule. I n s everal ins tances there i s c lear evidence that a ccess c ould b e gained f rom one o f the l ong s ides, s ometimes through more than one entrance. Although a c ertain amount o f r egional conformity does exist, the variety o f arrangements outlined above s uggests that f actors s uch a s duration o f u se o f the b arrow, the type o f activities performed and the i ndividual preferences o f the u sers were l ikely to g overn the f orm a nd locat ion o f an entrance to any particular l ong barrow.

6 .4/2

T IMBER BUILDINGS

Apart f rom the f eatures described above ( see s ection 6 .4/1) and i n addition to a variety o f grave s tructures ( see chapter 7 ) quite a number o f e arthen l ong barrows r eveal t races o f t imber buildings which are not regarded a s burial chambers per s e, but which u ndeniably f orm a n e lement

1 49

i n the architectural and r itual content o f the b arrows. Such s tructures h ave b een positively i dentified i n Kujavia and Jutland and may a lso be i nferred at a f ew monuments i n other regions. Although s everal types o f building may be d ist inguished, the f ollowing d iscussion i s based not upon a comparison o f architectural detail but r ather on their l oc ation within the e arthen l ong barrow e nclosures a nd, particularly, on their r elationship with the g raves. S ome explanation o f this approach i s therefore necessary. I t has a lready been s tressed that exact c omparability o f form must not be expected i n monuments which, a lthough they b elong to the s ame t radition, are nevertheless s eparated by distance and t ime. Across the whole North European P lain there i s a wide variety o f architectural and r itual f orms ( witnessed among others i n the domestic s phere) but only s ome o f these e lements will be apparent i n any particular monument. Thus differences i n f orm may b e r elat ed to regional a rchitectural and s tylistic p atterns and need not r eflect d ifferences o f f unction ( cf. the great variety o f graves, c hapter 7 ). I nterpretation o f the f unction o f i ndividual phenomena will therefore depend upon contextual a ssociations, and s uch differences are more l ikely to i ndicate possible f unctional variation. Observing the above c riteria, two k inds o f t imber s tructure may therefore be i dentified: those a ssociated d irectly with graves, and those which are not. A c ommon denominator which a llows u s to c onsider the t imber s tructures a s a s ingle phenomenon i s their l ocation within the earthen long barrow enclosures. Remains o f t imber buildings which are not a ssociated with graves are presently known f rom three Kujavian l ong barrows and one monument i n Jutl and. The l atter b arrow i s o f particular importance i n that i t a lso contains an example o f at imber building within which a Konens Hoj grave has b een l ocated. The wooden buildings f rom Gaj ( KUJ-7/1; F ig. 5 7) and Obalki ( KUJ-22/2; Fig. 2 8) are relatively well known ( Chmiel ewski 1 952, passim) and the r ecent d iscovery at Z berzyn ( KUJ-47, Gorczyca 1 981; F ig. 5 8) adds i nteresting details o f construction to an o therwise f amiliar f orm. At ObaIki the s tructure was preserved only i n i ts f oundations but at the other monuments, due to their destruction by f ire, details o f above-ground c onstruction could be noted. For the purpose o f the present d iscussion i t i s necess ary only to r emind ourselves that a ll three buildings were f ound within the wider, e astern end o f their r espective enclosures, and that i n e ach c ase access to the i nterior s eems to have been gained through a gap i n the eastern end

1 50 o f the k erb ( section 6 .3). The ground p lans o f t he buildings ( from s quare to t rapezoidal) a s well a s their s ize ( 3-4,4x5m at Gaj, 4 x4m at Z berzyn and 4 ,8x4,8 a t Obalki), a re r oughly comparable. I n e ach c ase a c lay f loor was l aid upon a c leared s urface and t imber uprights were s et i n corners and around t he edges providing a f ramework f or construction o f the walls. At Z berzyn and Obalki the f loor c onsisted o f two

F ig.

5 7

P lan o f t imber building a t the e astern Gaj ( KUJ-7/1; a fter Chmielewski 1 952)

e nd

o f

l ayers s eparated by a thin b and o f s oil. The evidence f rom Z berzyn h as been i nterpreted a s r epresenting two s tages o f one phase o f construction ( Gorczyca 1 981, 1 6-17), b ut a t ObaIki there i s not enough evidence to determine whether there was only one building or possibly two, constructed a t d ifferent t imes i n exactly t he s ame l ocation. The construction o f t he r oof has been deduced i n e ach case f rom the position o f the f oundation posts, and t entl ike roofs at Z berzyn and a t Gaj have been postulated. Assuming that these s tructures were i ndeed r oofed, t he s uggestion o f a tent-like r oof a t Z berzyn r ests on r easonable evidence o f the d istribution o f posts ( Fig. 5 8) a nd t he choice o f wood ( see Appendix 2 ). The s ituation a t Gaj i s,

1 51 however, l ess c lear. F rom the horizontal p lan o f t he s tructure ( Fig. 5 7) o ne gains the impression . of a post i n the middle o f the e astern end. B ut t here i s no c ertainty that this f eature, which Chmielewski p resumably i nterpreted a s evidence o f a r oof-bearing post, does i ndeed r epres ent a post-hole. I t i s considerably l arger i n d iameter than any o f the other post-holes ( which are r oughly comparable one with a nother) and s ince t his f eature was not s ectioned during t he excavation i ts i dentification a s a post-hole c annot b e c ertain. I t must f urther b e borne i n mind that the s aid post-hole may not i n f act be a ssociated with the r est o f t he b uilding but c ould f easibly r epresent a d ifferent ( earlier?) phase o f c onstruction, b elonging t o

L .

F ig.

5 8

another s upport

P lan o f t imber b uilding a t the e astern Z berzyn ( KUJ-47; a fter Gorczyca 1 981) s tructure. There i s u nfortunately no o f any o f t hese possibilities.

e nd

evidence

o f

i n

Neither c an t he a ctual e ntrance to the building be determined f rom the p lan. The l ocation o f t he s tructure immediately within t he eastern e nd o f the e nclosure, a s well a s the f ree s pace i n the s tone kerb i n f ro nt o f i t, do i ndirectly s uggest the position o f the entrance i n the e aste rn wall ( section 6 .3). Were we, however, t o accept the hypothesis o f the t ent-like r oof w ith one o f the b earing posts i n the middle o f the e astern wall, the entrance would h ave to h ave b een t o one s ide o f i t and not i n the middle. At Z berzyn the s outh-eastern p art o f the building h as b een obscured by a l ater d isturbance, but i t was r elatively

1 52 s hallow and s topped above t he l evel o f the bottom o f t he posts. As no evidence o f post-holes a nywhere . along t he e astern wall o f t he building h as b een r ecovered, i t i s possible that t his s ide was open a nd p rovided access t o the i nterior ( Gorczyca 1 981, 1 7). At Bygholm Nerremark ( DNK-4, Renne 1 979; F ig. 5 9) the e asternmost s tructure h as b een t entatively i nterpreted by the excavator a s t he r emains o f a t ransversely p laced h ouse ( Ibid. F ig. 9 ). The s tructure was about 8 m l ong a nd 4 m w ide,

F ig.

5 9

P lan o f e asternmost and c entral s tructures a t Bygholm Norremark ( DNK-4, a fter Madsen 1 979)

with f our posts p laced i n the c entral b edding trench a nd a s ub-rectangular a rrangement o f s omewhat smaller posts s et a round the outside, the g ap to t he west p resumably i ndicating an entrance. Madsen i nterpreted this f eature a s a f our-post f açade with " ... a more e laborate t imber c ons truction o f s ome k ind" ( Madsen 1 979, 3 07). There i s i ndeed s ome doubt a s to whether this s tructure s hould b e i nterpreted a s an enclosed b uilding. I n c ontrast to t he c entral s tructure i n the b arrow ( see b elow) t he o utside posts are widely s paced ( up to 2 m apart) and t he whole arrangement r esembles i n c ertain a spects t he f ree-standing colonnade w ithin the e astern end o f t he Nutbane l ong barrow ( Morgan 1 959, F ig. 3 ).

1 53

The westernmost building a t Bygholm Nerremark ( Fig. 4 1) i s the smallest o f a ll, being j ust 4 x2m i n s ize, built on a rectangular f ramework o f posts with no v isible s upports i n the middle. The s uggested reconstruction o f a f lat-roofed building i s very d ifferent f rom the o ther two s tructures ( Renne 1 979, F ig. 9 ). According to the i nterim report the easternmost and westernmost s tructures appear to be l ater than the c entral grave-containing building ( Ibid. 7 ) and contextual d ifference between them may i ndeed r eflect not only chronological and l ocational, but f unctional d iff erences a s well. Unfortunately, the question o f the r elationship between these three s tructures may not be s olved until the c omplete publication o f the Bygholm Norremark excavation. This s ame l ong barrow does, however, c ontain one o f the f ew examples o f a house-like s tructure whose r elations hip with the grave i s i ndisputable ( Fig. 5 9). The uncovered remains show the oval p lan o f a building about 1 2m i n l ength and 6m i n width, constructed on a f ramework o f i ndividual posts. The f our c entral post-holes have b een i nterpreted as the r emains o f roof-bearing posts, with the i nner two a lso s erving a s gable ends o f the grave ( Madsen 1 979, 3 07). The p recise s equence o f construction i s not yet c ertain but the l ocation o f the grave ( between the c entral posts) does imply that the building was a lready i n p lace. S imilarly, i t i s hoped that the f inal r eport will c larify the more detailed a spects o f this s tructure. Apart f rom Bygholm Nerremark, s everal e arthen l ong barrows o ffer examples o f t imber s tructures i n a ssociation with graves but nowhere i s the evidence s ufficient to e stablish the relationship with reasonable c ertainty. Traces o f t imber s tructure which may have s urrounded a grave have been r ecovered a t Rustrup ( DNK- 1 4, F ischer 1 976; F ig. 4 8). As noted e arlier, traces o f post-holes were f ound t o the west o f the f açade ( see s ections 6 .2 and 6 .3) and mainly to the north o f the area o f the grave. These may have been associated with the f açade, f ormed p art o f the outer enclosure o r, i ndeed, have been part o f an i ndependent s tructure i n which a b urial was p laced. Another example o f a building i n a ssociation with a grave has come to l ight f rom one o f the S arnowo barrows ( KUJ-32/9, Wiklak 1 975a; F ig. 6 0). Here the s ituation diff ers, however, i n that the building i s s tratigraphically l ater than the g rave a lthough i ts l ocation d irectly above the grave ( cf. F ig. 2 6) s uggests that p lacement was f ar f rom accidental.

1 54 The outline o f the s tructure could be s een i n b ands o f grey s and ( 10-20cm wide and 5 -20cm d eep), c learly c ontrasti ng with the yellow s urroundings. This s tructure was r ectangular, 2 ,4x3m i n area, with a smaller unit i nside ( 1,6x2m) and another, s emi-rectangular s egment adjacent to t he e astern wall. Whether this s hould b e i nterpreted a s one multiroomed building, or whether i t r eflects more t han o ne phase

F ig.

6 0

P lan o f t imber b uilding a t s howing i ts l ocation above Wiklak 1 975a).

S arnowo ( KUJ-32/9) t he grave ( after

o f construction, c an no l onger b e a scertained. Nothing c an be deduced about i ts above-ground appearance, b ut t he overl ap o f the walls at the north-eastern and s outh-western corners may imply a dove-tailing construction ( Ibid. 4 9). The content o f the i nterior i s e qually obscure. C harcoal p ieces f ound w ithin the a rea o f t he b uilding a s well as around i t were apparently very s mall and there i s no evidence s uggesting that the s tructure i tself was d estroyed by f ire. I t i s possible that s ome burning d id t ake p lace i n the i nterior and that the charcoal may have b ecome s pread out over a wide area, possibly while the building was b eing demolished. That this building was t aken down prior t o t he construction o f the mound may b e c learly s een f rom t he position o f the s hell-containing l ayer deposited h alf-way up the mound

( Fig.

2 6).

1 55

Traces o f yet another wooden s tructure probably a ssociat ed with a grave a re a lso known f rom the trial excavation o f a mound a t S tradöw ( LPOL-6, Gromnicki 1 961). H ere the grave a p it l ined and c overed with l imestone s labs - was f ound to have been s urrounded on the northern, s outhern and western s ides by a f oundation t rench dug 0 ,3-0,5m d eep i nto the g round, with s tone p acking and t races o f posts placed one b eside the other ( Ibid. 1 3). L arge quantities o f charcoal and daub were a lso f ound i n the v icinity o f the grave. All these f inds s uggest a t imber-built ( and possibly c layl ined) s tructure but unfortunately neither the s tratigraphy nor the exact positioning o f the f eatures i s known and, without a total excavation o f the s ite, i t i s d ifficult to gauge whether the evidence r epresents two s eparate events o r whether i t i ndicates s ome s ort o f t imber b uilding s urroundi ng the grave. Notwithstanding the ambiguity o f the r elationship between s ome t imber s tructures a nd graves, there i s enough evidence to j ustify re-consideration o f a f ew other s ites where comparable f eatures have b een noted. The old Mecklenburg reports have a lready been mentioned during discussion o f other s tructures ( section 6 .4/1) and their c redibility h as been e stablished. I t i s more d ifficult, however, to i nfer the existence o f t imber buildings f rom the descript ions by J .Ritter and h is contemporaries a s these do not c ontain the necessary details. Nonetheless, i t s hould be noted that at s everal o f the Mecklenburg l ong barrows s ubs tantial amounts o f charcoal, a shes, burnt and unburnt bones, animal bone and pottery s herds, o ften mixed together, h ave been encountered. These a re known particularly f rom Lübow ( MBG-17) but have a lso been f ound at Helm ( MBG-14), Karft ( MBG-15) and Perdöhl ( MBG-18/2); at the l atter s ite the charcoal was even i dentified a s o riginating f rom f ir wood ( Ritter 1 841b, 3 1). S imilar descriptions a re available f rom s ome o lder excavations i n other areas. At R zeszynek ( KUJ-30), S Iabos zewo ( KUJ-34) and KIeby ( WPOM-16) l ayers o f charcoal deposits h ave b een i nterpreted a s ' hearth-middens' ( Chmiel ewski 1 952, passim). But a lthough we are not i n a position to prove or disprove that s uch f eatures do a ctually repres ent the r emains o f destroyed t imber buildings, the r egulari ty with which s uch r eports occur and the c onsistency o f their description throughout the e arthen l ong barrow province a re quite remarkable. Very s canty t races o f what may have been a t imber s tructure s urrounding the grave were noted at Wietrzychowice ( KUJ-45/5, Jadczykowa 1 970). At a distance o f 1 ,2m f rom the e astern end o f the barrow were f ound two post-

1 56

holes, each 0 ,4m i n diameter. These were l ocated 1 m apart, on e ither s ide o f the main axis. Two more s uch post-holes appeared to the north o f the grave p it. These f eatures a re not marked on the p lan o f the b arrow ( Jadczykowa 1 970; F ig. 3 0) and i t i s therefore not possible t o o ffer any i nterpretation. I t i s however possible that they r epresent a ll t hat i s l eft o f some k ind o f t imber construction, possibly beginning with a narrow c orridor which l ed to a wooden building s urrounding the grave. Unfortunately the s oil cond itions o f many K ujavian barrows are not conducive t o t he preservation o f organic materials, and unless the s tructures have been very s ubstantial or e lse destroyed by f ire ( as at Gaj, KUJ-7/1 or Z berzyn, K UJ-47) the c hances o f r ecovering anything other than the most f ragmentary r emains a re very s lim indeed. Very l ittle evidence o f t imber buildings i s available f rom the area o f Lower S axony. The r emains o f i nterior s tructures recovered at the S achsenwald l ong b arrows a re very ambiguous and only at one o f them have any comparable traces been observed ( LSAX-8/3, Sprockhoff 1 952; F ig. 4 4). Colourings o f earth, r oughly c ircular i n outline, h ave been noted s urrounding the grave p it and these may possibly r epresent the l owest l evels o f a t imber f ramework. There i s no evidence however to i ndicate whether these s hould b e i nterpreted as a f ree-standing arrangement o f posts, o r i ndeed a s the f ramework o f a s olid building. Some other Kujavian l ong b arrows, especially those excavated i n the 1 930's by Ja diewski, do however o ffer evidence worthy o f particular consideration i n the c ontext o f t imber s tructures. At c ertain barrows f rom Legniczöwka ( KUJ-17), Obalki ( KUJ-22) and Wietrzychowice ( KUJ-45) Ja c i ewski d iscovered what he termed ' hearth-middens' thick l ayers o f deposits containing l arge quantities o f charcoal, a shes, broken pottery, f lint implements, burnt and unburnt animal bones and o ccasionally human bones ( Ja M2ewski 1 936a, passim). Such depositis a re generally considered to r epresent evidence o f r itual f ires and f unerary f east which were conducted directly within the confines o f the e arthen l ong barrow enclosures ( Chmielewski 1 952, passim; Ja diewski 1 936a, passim, 1 970a, 1 8; A shbee 1 970) and this i nterpretation has never been questioned. Some o f these deposits may i ndeed represent the r emains o f f ires or f easting a ctivities but a number o f them r eveal f eatures totally i nconsistent with their i nterpretation a s evidence o f open f ires. This i s p articularly c lear i n the case o f deposits f rom the Lesniczöwka complex ( KUJ-17). Here l ayers varying between 1 5 and 3 0cm i n thickness h ave been recovered at three b arrows ( JaZd ewski 1 936a, 1 72-182;

1 57

F ig. 2 7). All three rested upon the o ld l and s urface and two ( KUJ-17/2 and 1 7/3) were l ocated directly above the graves. The ' hearth-midden' o f barrow 1 7/2 was r oughly r ectangular i n outline and measured 4 ,5m a t i ts maximum l ength and width. I t contained s herds o f pottery, f lint implements, bone n eedles, animal bones ( some o f them burnt), s hells, a copper r ing, burnt c lay and charcoal. The ' hearth-midden' o f another barrow ( 17/3), again completely overlying the grave near the eastern end o f the enclosure, i ncluded i n i ts contents a child's s keleton, a f ew pottery s herds and animal bones, but i t appeared mainly as the i ntensely b lack, greasy deposit o f a vast quantity o f charcoal, s pread i n a t rapezoidal area o f about 5 x3-4,2m ( Ibid. 1 79). At one point, over the north-eastern end o f the grave, there was a p it c . 0,7m deep, f illed with the s ame material as the r est o f the ' hearth-midden'. At Obalki ( KUJ-22/1; F ig. 2 8) a ' hearth-midden' l ayer was a lso noted. I t began at about 1 3m f rom the eastern end and was s een a s a b and 1 ,6m wide and 7m l ong, running to the south o f grave 1 and apparently being cut through by grave 4 ( Chmielewski 1 952, 8 3). To the north o f grave 1 , below the o ld l and s urface, a ' hearth' was a lso f ound which Chmielewski attributed to an e arlier, pre-barrow phase. S ince there a re no s ections o f these f eatures, their s tratigraphic position r elative to one another i s unknown. There are therefore s everal possible i nterpretations. The f eatures to the north and s outh o f grave 1 may r epresent i ndependent episodes o f a ctivity at this s ite and thus not be i n any way related to one another. Equally, they may be part o f the same s tructure, which was damaged during the construction o f graves 1 and 4 . Furthermore, were we to accept that these two f eatures r epresent one s tructure ( for example the f loor o f a b uilding) then the question would arise a s to whether they r eflect pre-barrow activity ( traces o f an earlier occupation o f the s ite) or possibly they are the remains o f a t imber building which was c ons tructed i n the c ourse o f r itual activities associated with the barrow enclosure. I n v iew o f their regularity o f outl ine ( Fig. 2 8) i t s eems more r easonable to accept that these two f eatures represent the s tructural r emains o f one cons truction r ather than a' hearth-midden' l ayer and a s eparate h earth. I ts chronological position i n r elation to the cons truction o f the e arthen l ong barrow enclosure r emains unknown, except that the s tructural remains must be o lder than grave

4 and

probably grave

1 .

• Several f eatures o f these deposits are importance i n the present context. Firstly,

o f particular i n the case o f

1 58

Legniczöwka ( KUJ-17), they are exceptionally thick and r emarkably r egular i n their outline, with c lear and o ften s traight edges ( Fig. 2 7). I t i s however difficult t o a ccept that a f reely and, to j udge f rom the quantity o f c harcoal, enthusiastically burning f ire would r esult i n s uch a r egular outline unless i t were contained within some edging. No evidence o f a s tone f rame has been noted around any o f these l ayers but three p its, about 0 ,3m i n d iameter and dug 0 ,1 m deep i nto the o ld l and s urface, were f ound a long the s outhern edge o f one o f the ' hearth-middens' ( KUJ-17/2). Secondly, the s ize and exact l ocation o f these f eatures must be a lso considered. Their s ize i s quite considerable ( note dimensions above) and the heat f rom s uch a l arge f ire would have rendered any activity, notably f easting, anywhere i n the vicinity o f the eastern end quite impossible. That the f ires must have burned f iercely i s c lear f rom J a dZewsk i's observation that s ome o f the k erb boulders were i n a f riable s tate, s uch a s i s u sual with granite rock a fter exposure to very high temperature. As to the l ocation o f these deposits, above and around the graves, i t i s consistent with the evidence o f wooden s tructures s urrounding graves attested elsewhere ( see above). That the burning o f these s tructures cannot have b een accidental i s s hown c learly i n the regularity with which this phenomenon occurs i n the earthen l ong barrows, not only i n the North European P lain but a lso i n the British I sles ( Ashbee 1 970, passim). On the basis o f the above a rguments and i n v iew o f comparable evidence f rom o ther monuments, i t s eems p lausible therefore to o ffer an alternative i nterpret ation f or these ' hearth-middens' and to s uggest that i n f act they represent the r emains o f t imber s tructures ass ociated, i n one way or another, with the graves. Having outlined the evidence f or the existence o f t imber buildings within the e arthen l ong barrows we must now consider their f unction within these monuments a s well a s d iscuss the wider s ignificance o f this phenomenon i n the l ight o f our knowledge o f the c ultural complex under cons ideration. The occurrence o f t imber buildings not only i n the North European P lain but a lso i n other areas ( Ashbee 1 970) does s uggest that, i rrespective o f i ndividual traits, these s tructures f orm an important e lement i n the r itual f unction o f the earthen l ong barrows. This i s f urther demonstrated i n the deliberate destruction o f t imber buildi ngs by e ither f ire or demolition. On the other hand only relatively f ew s uch b uildings are known and, although this number i s l ikely to i ncrease, e ither through excavation or through re-interpretation o f

1 59

the a lready known material, i t i s not possible to determine at present whether they r epresent the more unusual c eremonial events or a re a common occurrence which until now has not been r ecognised. The f unction o f these buildings i n the c ontext o f r itual performances within the e arthen l ong b arrows i s difficult to a ssess. Attention has a lready been drawn to the f act that two types may be d istinguished - those which have no apparent a ssociation with the graves, and those which, through their l ocation, are c losely c onnected. This d istinction may reflect f unctional d ifferences but i t may also represent different f acets o f the s ame phenomenon, possibly r eflecting the evolution o f the earthen l ong barrow r itual over a period o f t ime. The wooden buildings a ssociated with the graves appear to belong, i n general, to the earlier phase o f the e arthen l ong barrow tradition. This s eems to be the case i n Kujavia, where s ites s uch a s Legniczöwka ( KUJ-17), ObaIki ( KUJ-22) and S arnowo ( KUJ-32) are thought to h ave been constructed during the Pikutkowo phase ( see chapter 2 and 7 ) while Gaj ( KUJ-7) and Z berzyn ( KUJ-47) r eveal chronologically l ater a ssociations. Although chronological d istinctions between d ifferent e arthen l ong barrows must be considered t entative, there i s evidence to i ndicate a p lausible explanation f or the existence o f d ifferent types o f building. I t has previously been observed that many earthen l ong barrows had been built upon earlier s ettlement s ites ( f or example S arnowo, KUJ-32; Gaj, KUJ-7; Wollschow, MBG-28; Tosterglope, L SAX-9; Barkaer, DNK-2 o r Stengade, DNK-18). I t i s therefore necessary to c onsider the question whether s ome o f the timber building remains do represent e arlier s tructures f rom the s ettlements or were i n f act e rected during the construction o f the b arrows. I n the case o f another S arnowo building ( KUJ-32/8), the s tratigraphy noted during excavation revealed that the c entral grave ( no. 1 ) was dug i nto the f loor ( ?) o f a building ( Wiklak 1 982, 6 2; Niesiolowska-Sredniowska 1 982, 1 12). There i s no evidence however to i ndicate whether, at the t ime o f the g rave cons truction, the building was s till c omplete or a lready dest royed. No traces o f any s ubstantial f ire have been observed a round the grave and therefore the burning o f the b uilding s ubsequent to the burial may r easonably be excluded. Wiklak i s o f the opinion that these r emains must r epresent a r itual s tructure, which he compares to Gaj ( KUJ-7) and Obalki ( KUJ2 2), constructed above the grave, but he disregards t he poss ibility that the s tructure was a lready i n existence when the grave was dug. On the other hand i t has been s uggested that those remains s hould be considered a s belonging to a

1 60

pre-barrow phase ( NiesioIowska- redniowska 1 982, 1 2) a ssociated with the earlier s ettlement. NiesioIowska-Sredn iowska moreover a rgues that the s o-called p lough-marks are i n f act d isturbances a ssociated with the construction o f the house and that quantities o f charcoal a nd a shes r ecovered i n the analysis o f the p lough-marks' content ( Dqbrowski 1 971) resulted f rom the destruction o f this house by f ire. There i s i nsufficient evidence to s olve t he problem o f the p lough-marks, but what i s c lear i s that the grave was p laced i n an a lready existing s tructure. I rrespective o f whether a t the t ime o f the grave's c onstruction the house was s till s tanding or a lready i n ruins, the builders o f the grave must have b een aware o f i ts e xistence. I t i s t heref ore very l ikely that this choice o f l ocation was made deliberately. By analogy a s imilar explanation may be s uggested f or the construction o f graves nos. 1 and 4 at Obalki ( KUJ-22/1). Although the evidence here i s not a s c lear a s at S arnowo i t s eems plausible to s uggest that the t races o f e arlier s ettlement were s till v isible and that this l ocation was deliberate. A s imilar s ituation may be s uggested f or a f ew s ites i n Jutland. We s till do not know precisely what r elationships existed at Barkaer ( DNK-2), but the l ocation o f the two l ong b arrows on an earlier s ettlement i s c lear ( Glob 1 949) and f uture publication o f these s ites may i ndeed provide s ome additional i nformation. From Bygholm Norremark ( DNK-4) there i s no i nformation at present as to the r elative s equence o f c entral house and grave. I t i s i nteresting however to note that this s tructure must have been destroyed prior to construction o f the mound, and possibly before the o ther two buildings were constructed ( Ronne 1 979, F ig. 1 ). S imilarly at Rustrup ( DNK-14) evidence s uggests the destruction by f ire o f the grave-surrounding s tructure prior to the construction o f the s tone mantle ( Fischer 1 976). The r e-interpretation o f the ' hearth-middens' f rom Le niczöwka ( KUJ-17) does however present s ome problems. No traces o f earlier s ettlement were noted i n excavation and i t may be that the buildings were erected e specially f or purposes a ssociated with the burial. S imilarly a t Gaj ( KUJ( KUJ-7) the s ituation i s f ar f rom c lear. Traces o f e arlier s ettlement ( of the P ikutkowo phase) h ave b een observed underneath the mound and i t i s possible that t he building belonged to that phase. On the other h and, evidence f rom the i nterior o f the building ( a p it w ith f our pottery s herds) does not i ndicate that this s tructure had been l ived i n. I t i s however possible that i t represents a s econd s tructure

1 61

constructed directly above the e arlier one ( difficulties i n accepting the c entral post-hole o f the e astern wall, s ee above). S imilarly a t Z berzyn ( KUJ-47) and ObaIki ( KUJ-22) the double l ayer o f the f loor could p lausibly be explained a s r epresenting two i ndividual buildings, one overlying the other, and not necessarily a s the construction o f an impervious f loor. I n conclusion i t may be s uggested that the evidence available at present i s s till not s ufficient to a llow more than a tentative hypothesis on the f unction o f the s tructu res. I t i s s uggested that s ome o f the t imber building r emains do represent e arlier s ettlement s tructures and that the barrows were p laced i n their l ocations precisely with a v iew to i ncorporating earlier house s tructures i nto the overall r itual. This would not only c arry i mportant implic ations f or the understanding o f barrow d istribution, but would a lso throw n ew l ight on the s ocio-economic c haracter o f the TRB communities, particularly on the question o f a p artially mobile e conomy. Moreover, once the principle o f the i ncorporation o f e arlier house s tructures i n burial r itual i s e stablished, this may - i n c ircumstances where l ocation on an e arlier s ettlement was f or s ome reason not possible - h ave been expressed s ymbolically by the e rection o f a building, e ither prior to o r a fter the burial, and by i ts s ubsequent destruction. Examples o f this may be i ndicated at Legnic zöwka ( KUJ-17), S arnowo ( KUJ-32) and Bygholm Norremark ( DNK-4; note a lso Madsen's comments on the deliberate deposition o f the domestic rubbish around the graves at Ostergärd, DNK-12, Madsen 1 979, 3 08). With the passing o f t ime this practice may have acquired additional d imensions, and the f unction o f s uch a building may have evolved f rom a s imple burial p lace ( as at Sarnowo 3 2/8) to a multi-purpose s anctuary ( as at Gaj, KUJ-7, or Z berzyn, KUJ-47) which on occasions may have been constructed outside the enclosures ( possibly at Rude, DNK-13). At s ites where only c ertain s tages o f the s uggested evolution process are observable, t he evidence to s upport this h ypothesis i s necessarily l imited. But i t i s i nteresting to note that both types, i .e. the grave-house and the s anctuary, s eem to be p resent at Bygholm Norremark l ong barrow ( DNK-4) and at Obalki c emetery ( KUJ-22), i ndicating possible connections within an o therwise i ll-understood p rocess and providing a s tarti ng point i n f uture research f or a f uller i nterpretation o f

this

phenomenon.

1 62

CHAPTER 7 THE GRAVES AND BURIAL RITUAL OF THE NORTH EUROPEAN EARTHEN LONG BARROWS

7 .1

I NTRODUCTION

With the exception o f recent s tudies i n Denmark ( Kjaerum 1 977; Madsen 1 972, 1 979) the graves within t he e arthen l ong barrow enclosures have n ever received a dequate attention. There are s everal r easons f or this s tate o f a ffairs. Firstly, i n many areas the e nvironmental f actors i n the barrows' l ocation, particularly i n r elation t o s oil, h ave s eriously a ffected the preservation o f h uman r emains a s well a s that o f possible organic c omponents o f t he grave s tructures. I n exceptional c ircumstances evidence c oncerni ng details o f grave construction s uggests that organic materials may have been u sed more f requently than h as h itherto been appreciated ( chapter 6 ). S econdly, where g raves have been d iscovered, the i nformation about their f orm and construction i s i nsuffic ient and more o ften than not the graves are described and r ecorded i n a perfunctory manner, without detailed p lans and s ections ( for example Chmielewski 1 952; S chuldt 1 965, 1 966c, 1 967; Sprockhoff 1 952, 1 954). I n s uch c ircumstances r ecognition o f the original f orm i s very difficult a nd must r est upon c ircumstantial evidence. A third f actor which has had a f undamental influence upon the s tudy o f the graves i s the l ack o f understanding o f the r elationship between the graves and the barrows themselves. This r esults f rom the persistent b elief i n the s ingularity o f f unction o f the b arrows ( i.e. f or burial) and a f ailure to d istinguish between the s hort-term ( burial) and l ong-term ( monumental) character o f the monuments i n question ( see comments i n Kinnes 1 975, Midgley 1 983). S uch an approach has r esulted i n attention b eing f ocused on the f orm o f the barrows at the expense o f the graves. The purpose o f the f ollowing discussion i s t o r edress, at l east i n part, the balance between these two e lements. C lassification of a ll primary TRB graves, based upon characteristic f eatures r ecovered i n e xcavations, i s c ontained i n Tables 9 -11 a lthough many r eservations must b e expressed. F irstly, i t s hould be observed that information

1 63

Table

7

ELBs with record known, by area

o f

TOTAL OF BARROWS

AREA

KUJ WPOM MBG LSAX DNK

1 03 1 74 4 0 4 4 2 6

TOTAL

3 87

8

Graves

No.

r elation

1 03

i n

each

area

No.

total

%

3 5,0 1 0,3 5 0,0 1 3,6 8 8,5

2 9 1 2 9 6 2 3

2 8,2 6 ,9 2 2,5 1 3,6 8 8,5

2 6,6

7 9

2 0,4

as

proportion

AREA

TOTAL OF GRAVES

% OF TOTAL

KUJ WPOM MBG LSAX DNK

6 3 1 8 1 7 8 4 3

4 2,3 1 2,0 1 1,4 5 ,4 2 8,9

TOTAL

to

EVIDENCE OF BURIAL

%

3 6 1 8 2 0 6 2 3

known

i n

RECORD OF BURIAL

DEFINITE

Table

burial

o f

total

1 00,0

1 49

about graves cannot be considered as f ully representative. Considering the f ive major concentrations of barrows together, only i n 1 03 examples ( 26,6%) out o f the minimum definite number o f 3 87 could any mention o f burial be traced and only 7 9 examples ( 20,4%) offered any i nformation about the grave s tructures ( Table 7 ). On a regional s cale the evidence i s even more unbalanced; 8 8,5% of Danish long barrows o ffer evidence o f burial s tructures, i n contrast to only 6 ,9% i n Western Pomerania. On the other hand, although 2 2,5% of the Mecklenburg barrows contain evidence o f burial only a f ew offer any details o f construction. With regard to the actual number of graves ( Table 8 ) Kujavia and Denmark account f or 4 2,3% and 2 8,9% o f known examples respectively, while other areas are very under-represented with only 5 ,4% of graves in Lower Saxony. I n view of these f igures and o f the

uneven

availability

o f

evidence

i t

cannot

be

overempha-

1 64

s ised that the ensuing d iscussion f ragmentary evidence.

i s

o f

n ecessity based o n

Secondly, quite a number o f g raves, e specially i n Denmark and Western Pomerania, are s o f ar known only f rom i nterim r eports and r elevant i nformation i s not a lways available i n s ufficient detail. Therefore a f ew a ttribut ions may be s omewhat arbitrary. Because o f the total number o f g raves i nvolved, t he examples chosen f or d iscussion here i nclude only those which were f elt to contribute s ubstantially towards a better understanding o f grave f orms. D etailed description o f all others will be f ound i n the c atalogue ( Appendix 2 ). I t a lso s eems j ustified to d iscuss i n more detail the examples which are l ess commonly known and not available to English-speaking readers ( i.e. f rom Kujavia, Western Pomer ania, Mecklenburg and Lower Saxony) and then to compare them with grave f orms which are known f rom the D anish l ong barrows, the l atter having been s tudied i n detail recently ( Madsen 1 972, 1 979).

7 .2

DESCRIPTION OF GRAVES

One criterion f or d istinction b etween the graves i s their vertical position within the e arthen l ong barrow. Thus i t i s possible to distinguish b etween the graves cons tructed directly upon the o ld l and s urface ( surface graves) and those p laced i n dug-out p its ( pit g raves). This d ifference o f l ocation may be observed i n a ll r egions o f the earthen l ong b arrow province ( Tables 9 -11). I n the c ase o f s ome graves the i nformation available, however, was not s ufficient to a llow positive i dentification. Nevertheless a d ivision i nto s urface graves and p it g raves s eems acceptable. On the basis o f the data currently available the s urf ace graves s eem to be s lightly l ess c ommon than the p it graves, accounting f or 4 2,3% and 4 6,3% o f the total number o f graves r espectively. Whether this d ifference i s r eal or merely r eflects the current s tate o f k nowledge c annot b e determined. I t s eems r easonable to a ccept that a p it grave has a better chance o f s urvival, i f not r ecognition, than the s urface grave ( especially i n the c ase o f s imple deposit ions which s eemingly d id not i nvolve any f orm o f protect ion around the body o f the deceased) and, i f this i s the c ase, the numerical d ifference between the s urface and p it graves may s imply reflect d ifferent p reservation f actors i n various monuments. On the other hand, f uture excavations o f a f ew well-preserved monuments may e asily a lter t his.

Table 9 .

D etails o f g rave c onstruction a nd b urial r itual i n K ujavia

D IST.

I NDIV.

o

FROM E END

GRAVE

TOTAL OF GRAVES

L OCATION

o

C ONSTRUCTION

m

' . ' 3 2

m

n

m

3

H

M

m

2 1

m

m

0 m

n

( OLS - o ld l and s urface)

o i g 8, 1 A . m• z 2 e> I m 9

Z W q M

U Z M

M

m

i

n

m

m z

T i m z

m

c > r m m o

,

7 G ( 1 ) M M q

. H

W

,

t s .

KuJ-6 KUJ-7/1

2

K UJ-8

3

1 2 1 2 3

15 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 3 x 4 0 x 7 x 8 x

KUJ - 9 /1 K UJ-17/1

1

1

9 x 7 x

1

1

5

x

1 7/2

2

1 2

3

x x

1 7/3

3

1 2

7 1 0

3

5

1

1

5

KUJ-22/1

6

1 2

5 6

4 0

1

2 2/3

1

1

2

1 2

K UJ-29 K UJ-30

3

1 2 3

x x

2 8 1 8

1

x

1 5

4

2 2/2

? 1 0 6 7 1 0

x x x

9

x

x

S E-NW

1

E -W

x

x

x

x

x

x x

1 2

N -S E -W E -W

1 8

x

x

E -W

3 4

2 0 4 0

x

x

x

x

E -W E -W

3

x

x

7 1 2

x

1 1 3 4 5

x

1 5

x

2 5 4 7

x

1

1

6 x

3 2/6 3 2/7

1 5

1 1

6

2 3

5

5

4 5 1 2 3 1 1 2 3

x

1

x

1

x

1

1 4 7 7

E -W

x

x x x x

x x

x x

F

1 6

M

2 5

1

x

1 8 x 4 0? x

N -S E -W

F

A A

1 5

E -W

A

x

E -W

x

A -C

x ?

4

1 1

x

x

1

N -S

A

5

x x

x

1

N E-SW

A

1

6 S E

x xx

2

1 0

4 5/2

1

1

4 5/3

2

1 2

1 1 2 6

x 1 x x

x x

4 5/4

1

1

4 5/5

1

1

1 2

xx

KUJ-47/1

1 2

1

1 1

x

x

1

x

1 1 2

x

S E-NW S E-NW S E-NW S E-NW N E-SW E -W

x

x

2

x

x

M

x

x x x

5 0 A

S E-NW

x

1

x

S E-NW E -W

x ?

x

x

x

x

2

x

F M

x

KUJ-45/1

x

N E-SW 1

7 x 8 x

4

x

N E-SW E -W

E -W

1 1 1

x

x

6 5

E -W E -W

x

x

x

M

x

x x

6 5 A

A

E -W

x? x

M M

M

x

x x

x x

E -W E -W

x x

E -W

x

x

3 2/5

x

N -S N -S

2

2

KuJ-48

1

x

x

?

th -S E -W

4

x

5

N E-SW

x x

5

KUJ-40/2

1

x

x x

5

1

1

N E-SW N E-SW

X x

1

3 2/9

N E-SW N E-SW

E -W N -S E -W

1

3

1 .1

E -W

x

x

N E-SW N E-SW

x x

4

3 2/8

C

E -W

1

5

E -W

x

3 2/2

1

A A

x x x

6 5 3 5

E-W

x

x x

1 2

E -W

x

K uJ-32/1

3 2/3 3 2/4

1 x x x

x

M M

,

4

1 7/4

3

x

E -w E -w

?

x

A M M

3 0 3 5

N

5 0

x

1 66

Table 1 0

D etails o f g rave c onstruction a nd b urial r itual i n W . P omerania, M ecklenburg a nd L ower S axony ( OLS - o ld l and s urface )

x

5

x

1

1

1

x F

6

2 0

x

x

x x

x

x

x

1 ? E

x

x

x

x

E -W?

x

E -W

x

x

1

x ? x

H

x x

x

N -S

A

H

x

H

x

x

S E-NW

H

H

x

r i

H

N

x x x

x ?

N

x x

c v

( N

x

E -W

x

E -W IE -W S E-NW

.

• 1 . r " )

x x

r U )

x x

x ?

e I N

x

L SAX-2

1

1

x

L SAX-6/2

1

1

x

L SA 3 C-8/3

3

1 2 3

3

x

3

S E-NW S E-NW

1 ?

?

1 ?

N- S N -S

x x

1 ?

x

N -S N -S E -W

8 /5

1

1

3 4

x

1

1

1 3

x

1

1

x

x

C

x

x x

F ?

x

E -W 1

x x

i •

x

1 6 1 7

8 /6

x x

E -W ? x

x x

x

E -W

x

x

L SAX-9

E -W N -S

x

x

H

H

M 8G-28

x

E -W

x

H

H

m BG-25

H

M BG-19 M BG-22 M BG-24

HC ' )H

M BG-18/2

H

M BG-17

RITUAL DEPOSITS

7 ?

3 4

1

POTTERY

2

1

AGE

x x

1

SEX

2 1

2 5/29 W P0m-50

OF SKELET.

5

x x x

1

x

x

x

1

2

x x

2

2 5/20 2 5/28

2

C n

3 M M m m : m m

x

x x

1

• 1

E -W

x

2 1

1

M BG-15

?

x x

x x

2 5/18

OR GRAVE

2 5/17

ORIENT.

2 5/16

OF SKELETONS

1 1

NO.

1

1 2

CIST

1

1 6/2

HOUSE

w P0M-16/1

PAVEMENT

1 1

M BG-8

, v

' STONE CONSTR.

1 1

W POM-25/15

0

FROM E END

W POM-15/1

C ONSTRUCTION

L OCATION

COFFIN

DI N T.

GRAVE

W POM-3

INDIV.

TOTAL OF GRAVES

E

0

x ?

x

1 67

Table 1 1

D etails o f g rave c onstruction and burial r itual i n Denmark

( OLS - o ld l and s urface)

• e

DNK 1

1

DNK 2/1 2 /2

1 2 4

E-W

2

2 4

E-W

1 2

DNK 3

1

DNK 4 DNK-5 DNK-6

E-W

1

E-W 1 6

E-W

1

E-W

1

1 4

2

29

x

E-W

1 1

DNK-7 DNK-8 DNK 9

M?

1 3

E-W E-W

1 1

10

x

N-S

2

1 8

x

N-S

1

20

x

E-W

2

7

x

E-W

x

NE-SW

1

DNK 11

1 2

DNK 12/1

1 2/2

DNK-13 DNK-14

1

5

2 2

1 3

3

2 4

1

2

2

8

DNK-15

1

NE-SW NE-SW NE-SW x

NE-SW

3

1 1

NE-SW

4

1 7

NE-SW

5

2 0

NE-SW

1

1 0

E-W

2

1 6

E-W

1 2

DNK 16

6

2

7

E-W

1 8

N-S

1

5

E-W

1

5

E-W

2

1 2

3

1 9

E-W E-W

DNK 17

1

1

10

5

NE-SW

DNK 18/1

1

1

1 3 '

1

E-W

DNK-20

1

1

DNK 21

4

1

N-S

2 3

S E-NW

4 DNK-22

1 2

DNK-23

1

9 2 8

N-S N-S E-W

A/C M ?

6

x ?

1 68

The s ignificance o f the d ivision between the s urface and pit graves i s however not yet u nderstood. There i s no detectable chronological difference between the two types; both appear i n e arly and l ate monuments and both o ccur commonly i n concentrations o f b arrows ( for example a t S arno wo, KUJ-32; Wietrzychowice, KUJ-45; Lupawa, WPOM-25). Moreover, both types may a lso be f ound within the confines o f a s ingle barrow ( for example at Sarnowo, KUJ-32/2,32/4; O baIki KUJ-22/1; Lupawa,WPOM-25/17 or Bygholm Norremark, DNK-4), and both types are r epresented i n s imple a s well a s i n c omp lex grave constructions ( Tables 9 -11). I n v iew o f this evidence i t i s difficult to explain this d ichotomy s ave by s uggesting that i t may possibly r eflect s easonal activities: p it graves i n the s ummer and s urface graves i n the w inter months. From the point o f view o f t he , use o f the e arthen l ong barrow enclosures ( various activities s tretching over a considerable, a lthough unspecified, period o f t ime) this i nterpretation i s acceptable, but no evidence i n s upport o f i t exists at present. Let us now consider the s tructural arrangement o f the graves a s a criterion f or d istinction different f rom that d iscussed above. The s implest f orm o f grave i s represented by a deposition o f a body, e ither on the s urface o r i n a p it, apparently without any protection s ave f or that o f the mound which f inally covered the whole barrow. These a re most commonly f ound i n Kujavia, a lthough a f ew examples are a lso known from other r egions ( Tables 9 -11). I dentification o f this k ind o f g rave i s only possible e ither when s keletal r emains have s urvived, or when a p it c an definitely be recognised. I n the case o f s urface graves w ith skeletons, examples are known f rom Mecklenburg ( Karft, MBG-15) and Kujavia ( Gaj, KUJ-7/1, grave 1 and 2 , F ig. 6 1; Legniczöwka, KUJ-17/4, grave 1 and Wietrzychowice, KUJ-45/2, grave 1 ). Where no s keletal r emains have s urvived i t i s occasionally possible to infer the existence o f a g rave f rom a concentration o f f inds i nterpreted a s grave goods ( for i nstance a t Wartin, WPOM-50, grave 1 or Rustrup, DNK-14, grave 1 ). Records o f s imple p it graves with s keletal r emains h ave so f ar been noted only i n Kujavia ( for example a t Legn iczöwka, KUJ-17/1, grave 1 ; ObaIki, KUJ-22/3, grave 1 or S arnowo, KUJ-32/6, grave 1 , where the s tone pavement was apparently beyond the p it, Chmielewski 1 952, 7 2), while p its found in l ong b arrows i n o ther areas are considered to represent graves on the basis o f a combination o f f actors s uch as l ocation ( i.e. within the b arrow), s hape and s ize and grave goods deposition ( for example at Lupawa, WPOM2 5/18, grave 1 or Teglevaerksgärden, DNK-20).

169

1- • - •

Q

_ Q

( 2 0 3 bc o c ia O b0 29C 2 0 . 0e c2S ° 0