by Chris Fowler
In contrast, the 64 individuals in the monumental, plank-built collective grave at Schönstedt with its 9m by 4m chamber, were arranged in small groups with few, but group-specific, grave goods. More pottery was smashed in the entrance of the structure. Often in graves of this type, skeletons witness a greater degree of disarticulation and mixing, and the wooden elements of the chamber were sometimes intentionally set on fire, charring or cremating the remains within. At the Bernburg cemetery of Pevestorf 19, there was still a much greater focus on elaborating individual graves through goods and above-ground marking by posts. Nevertheless, there were also areas with smashed pottery and traces of burning, interpreted as rituals for the buried collectivity as a whole (Müller 2001, 384).
As for the LBK, there are hence several recurrent elements, in this case including the destruction of wealth at the grave side; grave goods for an individual; architectural elaboration; single, multiple, and/or partial interments; the use of fire; and the grouping of related graves—but these are selectively recombined at each site (Müller 2001, 385). Whilst the specific character of these elements and practices creates a recognizable ‘late Neolithic’ style, some concerns, such as the fragmentation of bodies and the co-existence of several rites, are by now a feature of great antiquity.
CONCLUSION
This chapter has shown that throughout the central European Neolithic, varied burial practices existed concurrently. These cannot be adequately subsumed by models privileging one kind of evidence, for instance cemetery burial, as ‘normative’ and marginalizing others. The fragmentation, even destruction, of bodies, which seems counterintuitive to us today, often played a central part in Neolithic mortuary rites. In this context, thinking through personhood and the body is fruitful, as it ultimately leads to combining multiple strands of evidence. For instance, both in the early and in the late Neolithic, the burial of whole bodies and the fragmentation of individuals co-existed at certain times and places. These rites took place against a background of radical differences in domestic architecture (longhouses versus small, single-family dwellings), body representations (clay figurines present/absent), changes in technology and social networks (partly related to the introduction of copper: see Roberts and Friedman, this volume), and so on. Thus, whilst long-term trends in preferred rites can be suggested, the challenge is to examine whether any similarities are the result of essentially similar conceptions of personhood and the body or whether more contextual interpretations are also possible.
It is unlikely that superficially similar rites, such as ‘fragmentation’ or ‘settlement burial’, retained the same meaning and importance over several millennia and in the face of changes in other domains of life. In addition, the archaeological visibility of and social emphasis on mortuary rites fluctuate. The wider implications of these patterns can only be appreciated by linking mortuary rites with other evidence. How does the archaeological visibility of individual bodies, for instance, relate to the monumentalization of domestic architecture or public spaces? Can changes in daily routines be correlated with preferences in body treatment, or the prominence of animals and objects in various mortuary rites? And what were the emotional and political implications of choosing between available alternatives?
We are still far from realizing the full potential of body and personhood studies, and an overview of this kind perhaps raises more questions than it answers. What is evident, however, is that these themes offer the opportunity to reinvigorate the study of burial practices, to make creative use of the full range of evidence, and to take it beyond the narrow concepts of status and prestige which often dominate it.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Chris Fowler for his perceptive comments on the text. Ian Dennis kindly created Fig. 51.3, whilst Joachim Wahl, Ute Seidel, and Jutta Ronke helped in obtaining Fig. 51.4. Thanks also to Sylvia Codreanu-Windauer for her assistance with Fig. 51.1, and Andrea Zeeb-Lanz for providing Fig. 51.2a.
NOTE
1.This text was written in June 2009; later literature has been quoted where relevant, but could not be fully integrated into the argument.
REFERENCES
Andrews, P. and Fernandez-Jalvo, Y. 2003. Cannibalism in Britain: taphonomy of the Creswellian (Pleistocene) faunal and human remains from Gough’s Cave. Bulletin of the Natural History Museum. Geology Series 58, 59–81.
Barrett, J. 2001. A thesis on agency. In A. Dobres and J. Robb (eds), Agency in archaeology, 61–68. London: Routledge.
Becker, V. 2011. Anthropomorphe Plastik der westlichen Linearbandkeramik. Bonn: Habelt.
Behrends, R.H. 1998. Anmerkungen zur Mehrfachbestattung der Michelsberger Kultur von Heidelberg-Handschuhsheim. Fundberichte aus Baden-Württemberg 22(1), 173–183.
Bentley, R.A., Wahl, J., Price, T.D., and Atkinson, T.C. 2008. Isotopic signatures and hereditary traits: snapshot of a Neolithic community in Germany. Antiquity 82, 290–304.
Borić, D. and Robb, J. (eds) 2008. Past bodies. Body-centred research in archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow.
Boulestin, B. 1999. Approche taphonomique des restes humains. Le cas Mésolithique de la grotte de Perrats et le problème du cannibalisme en préhistoire récente européenne. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Boulestin, B., Zeeb-Lanz, A., Jeunesse, C., Haack, F., Arbogast, R.-M., and Denaire, A. 2009. Mass cannibalism in the Linear Pottery Culture at Herxheim (Palatinate, Germany). Antiquity 83, 968–982.
Brandt, G., Haak, W., Adler, C.J., Roth C., Szécsényi-Nagy, A., Karimnia, S., Möller-Rieker, S., Meller, H., Ganslmeier, R., Friederich, S., Dresely, V., Nicklisch, N., Pickrell, J.K., Sirocko, F., Reich, D., Cooper, A., Alt, K.W., and The Genotypic Consortium 2013. Ancient DNA reveals key stages in the formation of central European mitochondrial genetic diversity. Science 342, 257–261.
Brück, J. 2006. Death, exchange and reproduction in the British Bronze Age. European Journal of Archaeology 9, 73–101.
Busby, C. 1997. Permeable and partible persons: a comparative analysis of gender and body in South India and Melanesia. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 3, 261–278.
Chapman, J. 2000. Fragmentation in archaeology. People, places and broken objects in the prehistory of south eastern Europe. London: Routledge.
Csordas, T. 1990. Embodiment as a paradigm for anthropology. Ethos 18, 5–47.
Csordas, T. 1999. The body’s career in anthropology. In H. Moore (ed.), Anthropological theory today, 172–205. Cambridge: Polity.
Dehn, R. 1975. Ein Gräberfeld der Rössener Kultur von Jechtingen am Kaiserstuhl. Denkmalpflege in Baden-Württemberg 4, 25–27.
Dornheim, S. 2011. Jechtingen « Humbergäcker » : Ein mittelneolithisches Gräberfeld am Kaiserstuhl. In A. Denaire, C. Jeunesse, and P. Lefranc (eds), Nécropoles et enceintes danubiennes du Ve millénaire dans le nord-est de la France et le sud-ouest de l’Allemagne, 127–142. Strasbourg: Université de Strasbourg.
Featherstone, M., Hepworth, M., and Turner, B. (eds) 1991. The body. Social process and cultural theory. London: Sage.
Fisher, G. and Di Paulo Loren, D. 2003. Embodying identity in archaeology: introduction. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13, 225–230.
Fowler, C. 2004. The archaeology of personhood. An anthropological approach. London: Routledge.
Frirdich, C. 2003. Strukturen im Wandel. Ein bandkeramisches Gräberfeld entsteht. In J. Eckert, U. Eisenhauer, and A. Zimmermann (eds), Archäologische Perspektiven. Analysen und Interpretationen im Wandel. Festschrift für Jens Lüning zum 65. Geburtstag, 545–559. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.
Gronenborn, D. 2003. Der ‘Jäger/Krieger’ aus Schwanfeld. Einige Aspekte der politisch-sozialen Geschichte des mitteleuropäischen Altneolithikums. In J. Eckert, U. Eisenhauer, and A. Zimmermann (eds), Archäologische Perspektiven. Analysen und Interpretationen im Wandel. Festschrift für Jens Lüning zum 65. Geburtstag, 35–38. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.
Gronenborn, D. 2007. Beyond the models: ‘Neolithisation’ in central Europe. In A. Whittle and V. Cummings (eds), G
oing over. The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in north-west Europe, 73–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British Academy.
Grünberg, J. 2000. Mesolithische Bestattungen in Europa. Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Gräberkunde. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.
Hamilakis, Y., Pluciennik, M., and Tarlow, S. (eds) 2002. Thinking through the body: archaeologies of corporeality. New York: Plenum.
Hansen, S. 2001. Fruchtbarkeit? Zur Interpretation neolithischer und chalkolithischer Figuralplastik. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 131, 93–106.
Hansen, S. 2005. Körperschmuck und Praktiken des Körpers in der neolithischen Figuralplastik. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 135, 29–53.
Hedges, R., Bentley, R.A., Bickle, P., Cullen, P., Dale, C., Fibiger, L., Hamilton, J., Hofmann, D., Nowell, G., and Whittle, A. 2013. The supra-regional perspective. In P. Bickle and A. Whittle (eds), The first farmers of central Europe. Diversity in LBK lifeways, 343–384. Oxford: Oxbow.
Höckmann, O. 2001. Bandkeramische Menschenbilder: Göttinnen—oder?? Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 131, 77–92.
Hofmann, D. 2005. Fragments of power: LBK figurines and the mortuary record. In D. Hofmann, J. Mills, and A. Cochrane (eds), Elements of being: mentalities, identities and movement, 58–70. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Hofmann, D. 2007. The conceptual animal. Technologies of body representation in the Lower Bavarian Neolithic. Journal of Iberian Archaeology 9/10, 169–185.
Hofmann, D. 2009. Cemetery and settlement burials in the Lower Bavarian LBK. In D. Hofmann and P. Bickle (eds), Creating communities. New advances in central European Neolithic research, 220–234. Oxford: Oxbow.
Hofmann, D. and Whittle, A. 2008. Neolithic bodies. In A. Jones (ed.), Prehistoric Europe. Theory and practice, 287–311. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ingold, T. 2000. The perception of the environment. Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge.
Jeunesse, C. 1997. Pratiques funéraires au Néolithique ancien. Sépultures et nécropoles danubiennes 5500–4900 av. J.-C. Paris: Errance.
Jeunesse, C. 2003. Les pratiques funéraires du Néolithique ancien danubien et l’identité rubanée: découvertes récentes, nouvelles tendances de la recherche. In P. Chambon and J. Leclerc (eds), Les pratiques funéraires néolithiques avant 3500 av. J.-C. en France et dans les régions limitrophes, 19–32. Paris: Société Préhistorique Française.
Jones, A. 2005. Lives in fragments? Personhood and the European Neolithic. Journal of Social Archaeology 5, 193–224.
Knapp, B. and van Dommelen, P. 2008. Rethinking individuals and agents in archaeology. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 18, 15–34.
Koehl, C. 1903. Die Bandkeramik der steinzeitlichen Gräberfelder und Wohnplätze in der Umgebung von Worms. Worms: Deutsche Anthropologische Gesellschaft.
Lambek, M. and Strathern, A. (eds) 1998. Bodies and persons: comparative perspectives from Africa and Melanesia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lichardus-Itten, M. 1980. Die Gräberfelder der Großgartacher Gruppe im Elsaß. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.
LiPuma, E. 1998. Modernity and forms of personhood in Melanesia. In M. Lambek and A. Strathern (eds), Bodies and persons: comparative views from Africa and Melanesia, 53–79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Manolakakis, M., Colas, C., and Thevenet, C. 2007. Le monument funéraire Michelsberg ancien de Beaurieux ‘la Plaine’ (Aisne). Cahiers d’Archéologie Romande 108, 329–334.
Meiklejohn, C. 2009. From single graves to cemeteries: an initial look at chronology in Mesolithic burial practice. In S. McCartan, R. Schulting, G. Warren, and P. Woodman (eds), Mesolithic horizons, 639–645. Oxford: Oxbow.
Meixner, D. 2009. Ausnahme oder Regel—Zum Phänomen der Münchshöfener Bestattungen. In K. Schmotz (ed.), Vorträge des 27. Niederbayerischen Archäologentages, 91–144. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.
Meskell, L. and Joyce, R. 2003. Embodied lives: figuring ancient Maya and Egyptian experience. London: Routledge.
Meyer, C., Kürbis, O., and Alt, K. 2004. Das Massengrab von Wiederstedt, Ldkr. Mansfelder Land. Auswertung und Gedanken zur Deutung im Kontext der Linearbandkeramik. Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 88, 31–66.
Moinat, P. and Chambon, P. (eds) 2007. Les cistes de Chamblandes et la place des coffres dans les pratiques funéraires du Néolithique moyen occidental. Lausanne: Cahiers d’Archéologie romande.
Morris, B. 1991. Western conceptions of the individual. New York: Berg.
Müller, J. 2001. Soziochronologische Studien zum Jung- und Spätneolithikum im Mittelelbe–Saale-Gebiet (4100–2700 v. Chr.). Rahden: Marie Leidorf.
Müller, J. 2002. Zur Belegungsabfolge des Gräberfeldes von Trebur. Argumente der typologieunabhängigen Datierungen. www.jungsteinsite.de; accessed November 2008.
Nadler, M. 2011. Der älteste Friedhof Nordbayerns – Eine Gräbergruppe der Ältesten Bandkeramik bei Wallmersbach. Das Archäologische Jahr in Bayern 2010, 14–16.
Neugebauer-Maresch, C. and Lenneis, E. 2013. Origin and contacts of people buried at the LBK graveyard at Kleinhadersdorf, Austria. Documenta Praehistorica LX, 305–311.
Nickel, C. 1997. Menschliche Skelettreste aus Michelsberger Fundzusammenhängen. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 78, 29–195.
Nieszery, N. 1995. Linearbandkeramische Gräberfelder in Bayern. Espelkamp: Marie Leidorf.
Niquet, F. 1938. Das Gräberfeld von Rössen, Kreis Merseburg. Halle: Gebauer-Schwetschke.
Orschiedt, J. 1998. Bandkeramische Siedlungsbestattungen in Südwestdeutschland. Archäologische und anthropologische Untersuchungen. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.
Orschiedt, J. 1999. Manipulationen an menschlichen Skelettresten. Taphonomische Prozesse, Sekundärbestattungen oder Anthropophagie. Tübingen: MoVince.
Orschiedt, J. and Haidle, M.N. 2007. The LBK enclosure of Herxheim. Theatre of war or ritual centre? References from osteoarchaeological investigations. In T. Pollard and I. Banks (eds), War and sacrifice. Studies in the archaeology of conflict, 153–167. Leiden: Brill.
Orschiedt, J. and Haidle, M.N. 2009. Die menschlichen Skelettreste von Herxheim. In A. Zeeb-Lanz (ed.), Krisen—Kulturwandel—Kontinuitäten. Zum Ende der Bandkeramik in Mitteleuropa, 41–52. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.
Orschiedt, J. and Haidle, M.N. 2012. Violence on the living, violence on the dead? Evidence of a crisis and mass cannibalism on the human remains from Herxheim, Germany. In R. Schulting and L. Fibiger (eds), Sticks, stones, and broken bones. Neolithic violence in a European perspective, 121–138. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pettitt, P. and Hedges, R.E.M. 2008. The age of the Vedrovice cemetery: the AMS radiocarbon dating programme. Anthropologie 46, 125–134.
Rötting, H. 1983. Das alt- und mittelneolithische Gräberfeld von Wittmar, Ldkr. Wolfenbüttel. Eine Übersicht zu den Grabungsergebnissen. In Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde und Vorgeschichte Oldenburg (ed.), Frühe Bauernkulturen in Niedersachsen. Linienbandkeramik, Stichbandkeramik, Rössener Kultur, 135–157. Oldenburg: Isensee.
Schlenker, B. and Stecher, M. 2013. Bestattungsitten der Salzmünder Kultur. In H. Meller (ed.), 3300 BC. Mysteriöse Steinzeittote und ihre Welt, 267–269. Mainz: Nünnerich-Asmus.
Seregély, T. 2012. Neolithische Siedlungen und vergessene Funde. Neues zur Jungfernhöhle bei Tiefenellern. In F. Falkenstein (ed.), Hohler Stein, Rothensteine und Jungfernhöhle. Archäologische Forschungen zur prähistorischen Nutzung naturheiliger Plätze auf der nördlichen Frankenalb, 64–73. Würzburg: Universität Würzburg.
Sofaer, J. 2006. The body as material culture. A theoretical osteoarchaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spatz, H. 1999. Das mittelneolithische Gräberfeld von Trebur, Kreis Groß-Gerau. Wiesbaden: Landesamt für Denkmalpflege Hessen.
Spatz, H. and von den Driesch, A. 2001. Zu den tierischen Beigaben aus dem Hinkelsteiner und Grossgartacher Gräberfeld von Trebur, Kreis Gross-Gerau. In R.-M. Arbogast, C. Jeunesse, a
nd J. Schibler (eds), Rôle et statut de la chasse dans le Néolithique ancien danubien (5500–4900 av. J.-C.), 113–128. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.
Strathern, M. 1988. The gender of the gift. Problems with women and problems with society in Melanesia. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Teschler-Nicola, M., Gerold Kranz, F., Lindenhauer, K., and Spannagl, M. 1996. Anthropologische Spurensicherung—Die traumatischen und postmortalen Veränderungen an den linearbandkeramischen Skelettresten von Asparn/Schletz. In H. Windl, J. Steiner, and N. Weigl (eds), Rätsel um Gewalt und Tod vor 7.000 Jahren. Eine Spurensicherung, 47–64. Asparn a.d. Zaya: NÖ Landesmuseum.
Thomas, J. 2004. Archaeology and modernity. London: Routledge.
Trautmann, I. 2007. The significance of cremations in early Neolithic communities in central Europe. PhD thesis, Tübingen University. http://tobias-lib.uni-tuebingen.de/volltexte/2007/3005
Van de Velde, P. 1979. On Bandkeramik social structure. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 12, 1–242.
Veit, U. 1993. Burials within settlements of the Linearbandkeramik and Stichbandkeramik cultures of central Europe. On the social construction of death in early-Neolithic society. Journal of European Archaeology 1, 107–140.
Veit, U. 1996. Studien zum Problem der Siedlungsbestattung im europäischen Neolithikum. Münster: Waxmann.
Viveiros de Castro, E. 1998. Cosmological deixis and Amerindian perspectivism. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 4, 469–488.
Wahl, J. 2007. Karies, Kampf und Schädelkult. 150 Jahre anthropologischer Forschung in Südwestdeutschland. Stuttgart: Theiss.
Wahl, J. and Höhn, B. 1988. Eine Mehrfachbestattung der Michelsberger Kultur aus Heidelberg-Handschuhsheim. Fundberichte aus Baden-Württemberg 13, 123–198.
Wahl, J. and König, H. 1987. Traumatologische Untersuchung der menschlichen Skelettreste aus dem bandkeramischen Massengrab bei Talheim, Kreis Heilbronn. Fundberichte aus Baden-Württemberg 12, 67–193.
