The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe

by Chris Fowler

  Corrain, C. 1963. I resti scheletrici umani della stazione eneolitica di Remedello (Brescia). Atti dell’Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti 121, 165–208.

  Criado Boado, F. and Fabregás Valcarce, R. 1989. The megalithic phenomenon of northwest Spain: main trends. Antiquity 63, 682–696.

  Del Rincón, M.A. 1998. El Calcolítico y la Edad del Bronce. In I. Barandiarán, B. Martí, M.A. del Rincón, and J.L. Maya (eds), Prehistoria de la Península Ibérica, 219–343. Madrid: Ariel.

  Dolfini, A. 2004. La necropoli di Rinaldone (Montefiascone, Viterbo): rituale funerario e dinamiche sociali di una comunità eneolitica in Italia centrale. Bollettino di Paletnologia Italiana 95, 127–278.

  Evans, J. 1971. Prehistoric antiquities of the Maltese Islands. London: Athlone.

  Fedele, F. 2004. Monoliths and human skeletal remains: ritual manipulation at the Anvòia ceremonial site, Ossimo (Val Camonica, Italy). In S. Casini and A. Fossati (eds), Le Pietre degli Dei: Statue-Stele dell’Età del Rame in Europa—lo Stato della Ricerca, Notizie Archeologiche Bergomensi, 12, 49–66. Bergamo: Civico Museo Archeologico.

  Fugazzola Delpino, M.A. and Tinè, V. 2003. Le statuine fittili femminili del Neolitico italiano: iconografia e contesto culturale. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 93–95, 19–51.

  García Sanjuán, L. 1999. Expressions of inequality: settlement patterns, economy and social organization in the southwest Iberian Bronze Age (c. 1700–1100 BC). Antiquity 73, 337–351.

  García Sanjuán, L., Wheatley, D.W., Fábrega Álvarez, P., Hernández Arnedo, M.J., and Polvorinos del Río, A. 2006. Las estelas de guerrero de Almadén de la Plata (Sevilla): Morfología, tecnología y contexto. Trabajos de Prehistoria 63, 135–152.

  Giannitrapani, M. 2002. Coroplastica Neolitica Antropomorfa d’Italia: Simboli ed Iconografie dell’Arte Mobiliare Quaternaria Post-Glaciale. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 1020.

  Guilaine, J. and Zammit, J. 2005. The origins of war: violence in prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell.

  Graziosi, P. 1962. Levanzo: pitture e incisioni. Firenze: Sansoni.

  Graziosi, P. 1974. L’arte preistorica in Italia. Firenze: Sansoni.

  Graziosi, P. 1980. Le pitture preistoriche di Porto Badisco. Firenze: Martelli.

  Grifoni Cremonesi, R. and Mallegni, F. 1978. Testimonianze di un culto ad incinerazione nel livello a ceramica impressa della Grotta Riparo Continenza di Trasacco (l’Acquila) e studi dei resti umani cremati. Atti, Società Toscana di Scienze Naturali 85, 253–279.

  Hernando Gonzalo, A. 1997. The funerary world and the dynamics of change in southeast Spain (fourth-second millennia BC). In S. Keay and M. Díaz-Andreu (eds), The archaeology of Iberia: the dynamics of change, 85–97. London: Routledge.

  Holmes, K. and Whitehouse, R. 1998. Anthropomorphic figurines and the construction of gender in Neolithic Italy. In R. Whitehouse (ed.), Gender and Italian archaeology: challenging the stereotypes. London: Accordia Research Center.

  Höpfel, F., Platzer, W., and Spindler, K. 1992. Der Mann in Eis: Bericht über das Internationale Symposium 1992 in Innsbruck, 1. Innsbruck: Eigenverlag der Universität Innsbruck.

  Ingravallo, E. 2001. Il sito neolitico di Serra Cicora (Nardò, LE): note preliminari. Origini 26, 87–118.

  Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria. 1992. L’Arte Preistorica in Italia: Atti della XVIII Riunione Scientifica dell’I.I.P.P. Firenze: Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria.

  Lewthwaite, J. 1983. The Neolithic of Corsica. In C. Scarre (ed.), Ancient France: Neolithic societies and their landscapes, 6000–2000 BC, 146–183. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

  Lillios, K. 2008. Heraldry for the dead: memory, identity, and the engraved stone plaques of Neolithic Iberia. Austin: University of Texas Press.

  Lillios, K., Waterman, A., Artz, J., and Josephs, R. 2010. The Neolithic-Early Bronze Age mortuary rockshelter of Bolóres, Torres Vedras, Portugal: results from the 2007 and 2008 excavations. Journal of Field Archaeology 35, 19–39.

  Lilliu, G. 1988. La civiltà dei Sardi dal paleolitico all’età dei nuraghi. Torino: Nuova ERI.

  Lilliu, G. 1999. Arte e religione della Sardegna prenuragica. Sassari: Carlo Delfino editore.

  Malone, C., Stoddart, S., Bonanno, A., Gouder, T., and Trump, D. 1995. Mortuary ritual of the 4th millennium BC Malta: the Zebbug period chambered tomb from the Brochtorff Circle at Xaghra (Gozo). Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61, 303–345.

  Malone, C., Stoddart, S., Trump, D., Bonanno, A. and Pace, A. (eds) 2013. Mortuary ritual in prehistoric Malta: the Brochtorff Circle at Xaghra excavations (1987–1994). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

  Manzi, G., Salvadei, L., Tafuri, M., Malvone, M., and Passarello, P. 1997. Gli eneolitici di Remedello: nuove indagini contestuali e comparative. Antropologia Contemporanea 20, 159–160.

  Martí Oliver, B. 1998. El Neolítico. In I. Barandiarán, B. Martí, M. A. del Rincón, and J. L. Maya (eds), Prehistoria de la Península Ibérica, 121–195. Madrid: Ariel.

  Oliviera Jorge, S. and Oliviera Jorge, V. 1997. The Neolithic-Chalcolithic transition in Portugal. In S. Keay and M. Díaz-Andreu (eds), The archaeology of Iberia: the dynamics of change, 128–142. London: Routledge.

  Pessina, A. and Tinè, V. 2008. Archeologia del Neolitico: l’Italia tra Vi e IV millennio a.C. Rome: Carocci.

  Renaut, L. 2004. Les tatouages d’Ötzi et la petite chirurgie traditionnelle. L’anthropologie 108, 69–105.

  Ribé, G., Cruells, W., and Molist, M. 1997. The Neolithic of the Iberian peninsula. In S. Keay and M. Díaz-Andreu (eds), The archaeology of Iberia: the dynamics of change, 65–84. London: Routledge.

  Robb, J.E. 1994a. Burial and social reproduction in the peninsular Italian Neolithic. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 7, 27–71.

  Robb, J.E. 1994b. Gender contradictions: moral coalitions and inequality in prehistoric Italy. Journal of European Archaeology 2, 20–49.

  Robb, J.E. 2002. Time and biography. In Y. Hamilakis, M. Pluciennik, and S. Tarlow (eds), Thinking through the body: archaeologies of corporeality, 153–171. London: Kluwer Academic.

  Robb, J.E. 2007. The early Mediterranean village: agency, material culture and social change in Neolithic Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  Robb, J.E. 2008. Tradition and agency: human body representations in later prehistoric Europe. World Archaeology 40, 332–353.

  Robb, J.E. 2009. People of stone: stelae, personhood, and society in prehistoric Europe. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 16(3), 162–183.

  Sanchidrián, J.L. 2005. Manual de arte prehistórico. Barcelona: Ariel.

  Santoni, V. 2000. Alle origini dell’ipogeismo in Sardegan: Cabras—Cuccuru S’Arriu, la necropoli del neolitico-medio. In G. Tanda, M.G. Melis, and P. Melis (eds), L’ipogeismo nel Mediterraneo: origini, sviluppo, quadri culturali, 1, 369–397. Sassari: Università degli Studi di Sassari.

  Shee Twohig, E. 1981. The megalithic art of Western Europe. Oxford: Clarendon.

  Spindler, K. (ed.) 1995. Der Mann im Eis: Neue Funde un Ergebnisse, 2. Vienna: Springer.

  Spindler, K. and Osers, E. 2001. The man in the ice: the preserved body of a Neolithic man reveals the secrets of the Stone Age. London: Phoenix.

  Tanda, G. 2000. L’ipogeismo in Sardegna: arte, simbologia, religione. In G. Tanda, M.G. Melis, and P. Melis (eds), L’ipogeismo nel Mediterraneo: origini, sviluppo, quadri culturali, 1, 399–425. Sassari: Università degli Studi di Sassari.

  Tozzi, C. and Zamagni, B. 2001. Una statuetta fittile dal villaggio neolitico di Catignano (Pescara): nota preliminare. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 51, 465–469.

  Trump, D. 1966. Skorba: excavations carried out on behalf of the National Museum of Malta, 1961–1963. London: Society of Antiquaries.

  Vegas, J.I. (ed.) 2007. San Juan ante Portam Latinam: Una inhumación colectiva prehistórica en el Valle Medio del Ebro (Memoria de las excavaciones arqueológicas 1985, 1990 y 1991. Vitoria: Fundación
José Miguel de Barandiarán.

  Vella Gregory, I. and Cilia, D. 2005. The human form in Neolithic Malta. Valletta: Midsea Books.

  Weiss, M.-C. 1990. La statuaire mégalithique de Corse et de Sardaigne. Ajaccio: Université de Corse.

  Whitehouse, R. 1992. Tools the manmaker: the cultural construction of gender in Italian prehistory. Accordia Research Papers 3, 41–53.

  Zilhão, J. 2000. From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic in the Iberian Peninsula. In T.D. Price (ed.), Europe’s first farmers, 144–182. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  CHAPTER 51

  MORTUARY PRACTICES, BODIES, AND PERSONS IN CENTRAL EUROPE

  DANIELA HOFMANN AND JÖRG ORSCHIEDT

  PERSONS, BODIES, AND MORTUARY ARCHAEOLOGY1

  THE discussion over personhood is now well established in Anglophone archaeology. It originates from the critique of the modern Western notion of the ‘individual’ as an indivisible and essential entity free to enter into relationships (Fowler 2004; Thomas 2004). In contrast, ethnographic evidence indicates that, although there are single, self-aware human persons the world over, they see themselves as variously constituted by their social relationships, which can involve other living humans, animals, objects, ancestors, or spirit beings (Fowler 2004; Jones 2005). Archaeologists are far from reaching a consensus on the direction this debate should take, or on terminology (see Knapp and van Dommelen 2008). Here, ‘individual’ denotes single human beings, for instance skeletons in graves, whilst ‘person’ refers to how people believed themselves to be constituted, i.e. to their model of personhood.

  Archaeological discussion has often drawn on ethnographic studies for inspiration. Perhaps most famous is Strathern’s (1988) work on Melanesia and the ‘dividual’, a person whose every aspect is the product of relationships with others (cf. Fowler 2004). However, we should avoid simply creating over-generalized concepts of either ‘Western’ or ‘non-Western’ personhood if we want to grapple with the existing variety and complexities (Fisher and Di Paolo Loren 2003; Morris 1991; Jones 2005). Thus, LiPuma (1998) argues for a continuum between individualizing and relational conceptions of the self. Dominant modes of personhood are variously positioned between these two poles, but to some degree aspects of both co-exist. Many ethnographic and archaeological case studies now illustrate this (cf. Brück 2006; Busby 1997; Chapman 2000; Fowler 2004; Viveiros de Castro 1998).

  An emerging key point is the role of daily practice in constituting people’s selves (Barrett 2001; Ingold 2000, 18–21; Knapp and van Dommelen 2008; Whittle 2003). It is coupled with a renewed archaeological interest in the body and embodiment, following a similar trend in anthropology (Csordas 1990, 1999; Featherstone et al. 1991; Lambek and Strathern 1998). ‘The body’ as a theoretical concern combines the investigation of unreflected routines and daily practice; dress, posture, and gesture; gender, age, and other aspects of identity; human representations such as figures; osteoarchaeology and palaeopathology; and mortuary studies, to name the most salient (e.g. Borić and Robb 2008; Hamilakis et al. 2002; Meskell and Joyce 2003; Sofaer 2006). Personhood, too, is included in studying how embodied persons experience and act within the world (Fowler 2004).

  Evidently, then, a full discussion of personhood and the body cannot rely solely on burials, and several authors have attempted to combine multiple strands of evidence (e.g. Hofmann and Whittle 2008; Jones 2005; Meskell and Joyce 2003; Wengrow 2006). In the context of this volume, we do focus on the contribution of burial practices to an investigation of bodies and persons, but we strongly recommend referring to other chapters for broader insight into a particular case study.

  Although discussions of personhood and the body have become increasingly nuanced, it often remains unclear how notions of personhood impact on the treatment of the deceased. Burying a whole body does not necessarily imply a greater focus on Western-style individuals than collective burial, cremation, or fragmentation, and the latter may co-exist with individualizing conceptions of personhood (see Fowler 2004, 83–92). In the Neolithic, burial practices are often diverse, involving the inhumation of single individuals alongside the fragmentation of bodies. At other times, only some of these strands are elaborated, and indeed the amount of known burials varies from hundreds to just a handful. Funerary rites hence differed not only in nature, but also in the degree to which they formed a focus for social expression.

  This paper discusses the funerary practices of the Linearbandkeramik culture (LBK, c. 5500–4950 BC) in the central and western European areas of its distribution, and some of its middle Neolithic successor groupings, especially in Germany (c. 5000–4200 BC). We conclude with mortuary rites in the Michelsberg culture and contemporary groups (c. 4200–3500 BC) and an outlook on late Neolithic practices in the Mittelelbe–Saale region.

  IMAGE AND PROCESS: LBK AND POST-LBK FUNERARY RITES

  Whole bodies

  Early Neolithic burial practices are varied, including burial in cemeteries and settlements, partial, and secondary burial. From the Mesolithic onwards, single, double, and multiple burials in isolated graves or cemeteries, with variable body positions and grave good assemblages, exist alongside secondary burial and cremation (Grünberg 2000; Meiklejohn 2009). Isolated human remains from occupation sites may also be traces of burial rites. Occasionally, human bones show traces of manipulation, such as cut marks, a certain perimortal breakage pattern, and signs of burning, variously interpreted as evidence for cannibalism or special burial rituals (Orschiedt 1999; Boulestin 1999; Andrews and Fernandez-Jalvo 2003). Therefore, the diversity in LBK mortuary rites may have a long ancestry, although given the continuing debate on the LBK’s origins, in spite of new genetic data (cf. Gronenborn 2007; Gronenborn and Dolukhanov, this volume; Brandt et al. 2013), the precise trajectory of different treatments needs detailed investigation. Indeed, the currency of different practices varies over time.

  For instance, despite intensive earliest LBK (c. 5500–5300 BC) settlement activity, few cemeteries of this ceramic phase are known, and where dated, they seem to fall near its end (see e.g. Vedrovice, Pettitt, and Hedges 2008; Kleinhadersdorf, Neugebauer-Maresch, and Lenneis 2013, 306; and perhaps Wallmersbach and Nadler 2011). Generally, people are interred as isolated settlement burials, sometimes with grave goods, buried in specially dug grave pits or other settlement features (Orschiedt 1998; Gronenborn 2003; Veit 1993). More cemeteries appear in the Flomborn period (from about 5300 BC), but most sites begin in the later or latest LBK (from c. 5200 BC) and, with few exceptions (e.g. Aiterhofen, Lower Bavaria; Wittmar, Lower Saxony), go out of use before its end (Nieszery 1995, 32–34; Rötting 1983; Whittle 1996). Also, cemetery sites cluster in only some regions and can contain anything from barely over ten to over two hundred interments (cf. Jeunesse 1997). Hence, the dead of one or several family or even settlement groupings could be buried on such sites, but given the overall numerical discrepancy between burials and settlements, this was only a selection of any community’s dead (van de Velde 1979). Although the majority of LBK individuals excavated are indeed from cemeteries, they form a partial record.

  The reason for the dominance of cemeteries in social models for the LBK is perhaps due to their familiarity for modern observers (Frirdich 2003). Cemetery burials, to our eyes, provide an intuitively understandable picture of a neatly laid-out individual body, often surrounded by grave goods. This makes it easy to ascribe static and normative identities and create an impression of orderliness and familiarity, including the implicit assumption that LBK persons thought of themselves as ‘individuals’, much like we do today. Indeed, cemetery burials tend to conform to a number of rules, although the consistency with which these are applied differs considerably between sites.

  Generally, the dead were buried in a crouched position on their left side, head pointing east, although all sites yield an often substantial number of exceptions. For grave goods, much has been made of sex- and, to a lesser extent, age-related differences, especially of the fact that male graves te
nd to contain more, and more varied, items (cf. Jeunesse 1997). Goods include flint and polished stone tools (mostly for men), pottery, and bone or antler objects, generally placed around the upper body. Personal adornments include Spondylus buckles, armrings, and beads (see Chapman and Gaydarska, this volume), Atlantic or riverine shells, bone combs, and animal teeth, again mostly decorating the upper body and head. Preferred ornaments vary regionally, with Atlantic shells, for instance, most common in the Paris Basin and Alsace, and bone combs restricted to Bavaria and Austria.

  The creation and maintenance of LBK identities can hence be discussed at different scales, from individual, age, or gender to regional or culture-wide markers (e.g. also Hedges et al. 2013). For instance, Spondylus artefacts in certain styles, worn at clearly defined locations on the body, helped to create a standardized, ideal picture of a beautifully adorned body recognizable and appreciated throughout the LBK (Fig. 51.1). How Spondylus was treated at the grave side, whether left whole, as in most cases, or broken and scattered within the grave, as on some eastern French sites (Jeunesse 2003, 29), evidences the integration of this LBK-wide ornament into regional practices. Spondylus can also be seen as marking a particular social group. In the case of armrings, these are generally males of various ages, sometimes buried with standardized assemblages (as at Aiterhofen). At least at some sites, women are more likely to receive Spondylus goods when older and frequently combine them more idiosyncratically with ornaments in other materials (Hofmann 2009).

  FIG. 51.1. Grave 41 (12-year-old child) at Aiterhofen, Lower Bavaria. Note the Spondylus armring and beads and the collection of stone tools. Reproduced with kind permission of the Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege, Regensburg.