by Chris Fowler
Wengrow, D. 2006. The archaeology of early Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Whittle, A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic. The creation of new worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Whittle, A. 2003. The archaeology of people. Dimensions of Neolithic life. London: Routledge.
Zeeb-Lanz, A. (ed.) 2009. Krisen—Kulturwandel—Kontinuitäten. Zum Ende der Bandkeramik in Mitteleuropa. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.
Zeeb-Lanz, A. 2013. Tausend Tote, aber keine Gräber—der rätselhafte Ritualort von Herxheim. In H. Meller (ed.), 3300 BC. Mysteriöse Steinzeittote und ihre Welt, 202–206. Mainz: Nünnerich-Asmus.
Zeeb-Lanz, A., Arbogast, R.-M., Haack, F., Haidle, M., Jeunesse, C., Orschiedt, J., Schimmelpfennig, D., and van Willigen, S. 2009. The LBK settlement with pit enclosure at Herxheim near Landau (Palatinate). First results. In D. Hofmann and P. Bickle (eds), Creating communities. New advances in central European Neolithic research, 202–219. Oxford: Oxbow.
CHAPTER 52
MORTUARY PRACTICES, BODIES, AND PERSONS IN NORTHERN EUROPE
KARL-GÖRAN SJÖGREN
INTRODUCTION
THIS chapter provides a brief overview of practices involving human remains during the period c. 4000–2200 BC in northern Europe, with an emphasis on southern Scandinavia, that is, Denmark and southern Sweden. There are two main reasons for this limited focus. First, most of northern Europe is made up of primary, crystalline rocks, such as granites or gneisses, where preservation of unburnt human bone is generally poor. Only in limited regions do sedimentary rocks like limestone, chalk, and slate occur. The most important of these areas are the Baltic islands of Öland and Gotland, parts of Skåne in southern Sweden, and the inland area of Falbygden in western Sweden. In these areas, preservation is generally good. The recognition in recent years of cremation as a common form of burial opens up new possibilities, however. Second, archaeological activity has been uneven, so that knowledge about the treatment of human remains is mostly concentrated in Denmark, where preservation is variable but generally less favourable than the limestone regions, and the southern parts of the Scandinavian Peninsula.
Finds of human bones come from a number of different contexts, such as monumental and earthen graves, mortuary houses, bog finds, causewayed camps, and settlements. Some of these remains may be the product of specific stages in extended mortuary processes, whilst others probably result from different kinds of practices. The interpretation of megalithic tombs as ossuaries is reviewed critically, and an alternative interpretation, primary burial with subsequent handling of selected bones, is preferred. Recent evidence from eastern Sweden, indicating more complex mortuary practices than usually envisaged for the middle Neolithic in this area, is discussed briefly. This includes the practice of cremation, indications of secondary burial, and the discovery of probable mortuary houses.
In comparison to some other European regions, representations of the human body are a rare occurrence in the Neolithic of southern Scandinavia. Most of the pottery decoration is abstract, geometric, and non-representational. For the Funnel Beaker cultural complex (TRB), only some pots from megalithic tombs showing human faces in a rather sketchy form can be mentioned. Figurines of clay, bone, or stone occur mainly on Pitted Ware culture (PWC) settlements, often showing animals such as bears, seals, etc., but in a few cases showing simple human forms (Wyszomirska 1984). Rock art from the area is mainly from the Bronze Age, although some of the cup marks often found on the roof blocks of megaliths may be Neolithic. Rock art from the Stone Age does indeed often show humans, but has so far only been found in more northerly parts of Scandinavia, and in a very different cultural and economic context. Since these sources are rather uninformative, representative art is not discussed further here.
The Neolithic of Scandinavia is divided into the early (4000–3300 BC), middle (3300–2200 BC) and late Neolithic (2200–1800 BC) periods. The early Neolithic is further divided into the EN I (4000–3500) and EN II (3500–3300) periods, and the middle Neolithic into MN A (3300–2800) and MN B (2800–2200). The beginning of the Neolithic is defined by the introduction of domesticated species and of the Funnel Beaker (TRB) cultural complex. At the same time, or possibly a little bit later, we find the first indications of monument construction in the form of long barrows. Towards the end of the EN, the first megalithic chambers were built, in the form of small dolmens, but the majority of dolmens and passage graves were erected in a short period in the beginning of the MN A. At more or less the same time, a new cultural complex started to evolve in eastern Sweden, the PWC. In contrast to the TRB, people belonging to this complex seem mainly to have subsisted on hunting and fishing, at least in this eastern area. During the MN, the PWC gradually spread over Scandinavia and replaced the TRB in Sweden, and is even found in parts of Denmark. The MN B is marked by the end of the TRB in Denmark and south Sweden, and the occurrence of the Single Grave culture in Denmark and the Battle Axe culture (BAC) in Sweden. These were contemporary with the PWC in many regions, leading to a complicated situation which is not very well understood. The interpretations of these complexes have varied widely. Common suggestions view them as different ethnic groups with differing economic specializations, or as immigrant populations. Explanations where they are seen as expressing different aspects of one and the same society have also been proposed. The issues are further complicated by dating problems and by regionally varying developments.
CONTEXTS FOR HUMAN BONES
It is important to realize that human remains are found in a number of different contexts, some of which may be characterized as ‘mortuary’, whilst others are perhaps of a different character. It is at present a matter of debate to what extent these contexts represent different stages in a sequence of mortuary rituals or different practices altogether. Briefly, we may distinguish between monumental tombs (longbarrows and megalithic tombs), flat earth graves, mortuary houses, Sarup-type enclosures, wetland depositions, and settlement finds.
Barrows
Longbarrows, elongated monuments constructed of earth and timber but without a primary stone chamber, are now recognized as the earliest form of monumental construction in a wide area from western Poland to northern France and England, and are also found in southern Scandinavia. More than 70 longbarrows are known from Denmark and between five and seven from southern Sweden (Rudebeck 2002). This is certainly only a small fraction of the original number of monuments. Dating of these monuments ranges over most of the early Neolithic, c. 4000–3300 cal BC. In a number of cases, longbarrows display complex series of alterations and embellishments, often ending with the addition of one or more stone chambers, thus converting them to long dolmens. In a few cases, EN burials have also been found under round barrows (Ebbesen 1994).
Human remains are not very well preserved in longbarrows, but in a few cases something may be said about the treatment of dead people. Commonly, one or two graves are found along the axis of the barrow, usually containing single graves but in some cases with up to four individuals. This was the case with the famous barrow at Bygholm Nørremark on Jutland, where a primary burial was found within a small oval house, interpreted as mortuary building. Only dental enamel was preserved, but this proved to be from a teenager, between 16 and 18 years old. Later, the barrow was enlarged and another grave, containing four individuals, was placed further west (Jensen 2001).
Another situation is found at Skipshøj, where a timber chamber at the eastern end, with the remains of five skeletons, was found (Jørgensen 1977). The bodies were laid out side by side on their backs in an orderly fashion, most likely buried within a very short time, after which the construction had been burned. The bodies were those of an adult, between 20 and 30 years old, and four children of various ages. On the chest of the adult, a single jaw from a sixth individual had been placed.
Megalithic tombs
Three main types are usually distinguished: dolmens, passage graves, and gallery graves. Dolmens and passage graves were
built in a rather short period c. 3300–3000 BC—that is, the transition between the early and the middle Neolithic periods, in the cultural setting of the Funnel Beaker culture (Persson and Sjögren 1996, 2001; Sjögren 2003). The gallery graves, on the other hand, were built mainly in the late Neolithic.
Denmark, particularly the eastern parts, constitutes the main centre of megalith building in northern Europe. Today, about 7,000 tombs are known, but estimates of the original number range from 25,000 to 40,000 tombs, based on intensive surveys of limited areas (Andersen 2000; Jensen 2001). In Sweden, about 525 dolmens and passage graves are known, but in the south especially, a large number of tombs have been destroyed (Tilley 1996; Midgley 2008). The Swedish tombs occur in two distinct types of landscape. In Scania, Halland, and Bohuslän, they are found close to the coast (Tilley 1996; Sjögren 2003, 2004a, 2004b). Another group of tombs is found in the inland area of Falbygden in Västergötland. Here, a spectacular concentration of at least 255 tombs coincides with one of the very few regions where bedrock consists of limestone and slate instead of primary rocks.
Numbers of humans interred in these tombs vary widely. In small dolmen chambers, usually regarded as early in the sequence, only one or a few persons seem to have been buried, although the number of sites with preserved bones is small. Andersen (2000) notes ten cases with more or less preserved skeletons from Denmark, the best known of which are the Kellerød, Frellesvig, and Ølstykke dolmens. In these cases, the burial practice seems to have been that of primary burial of complete bodies, placed on their back in extended position. The burials were accompanied by only a few artefacts, such as a pot or a flint axe.
In the somewhat larger Klokkehøj dolmen, a more complex situation was found (Thorsen 1981). In the bottom of the partly destroyed chamber, large parts of an intact primary burial were found, laid out on its back. The skeleton was from a 20–35 year-old male, and was dated to the early MN. Although the skeleton was largely intact, the cranium was missing along with the four upper neck vertebrae, suggesting intentional removal at an early stage of decomposition (Thorsen 1981; Kaul 1994). Beside the male skeleton, parts of another adult and the skull of a child of around five were found, also suggested as primary depositions. On top of the primary burial was a layer containing c. 500 bones forming three distinct concentrations. At least one of these concentrations was shown to have been formed at a recent disturbance of the chamber. The bones were from at least 19 to 20 individuals: 11 to 12 adults and eight children. No anatomical order was noted. Three radiocarbon datings of these bones suggest they were between 200 and 400 years later than the primary burial and belong to the final TRB. Based on the fragmented and disarticulated bones in the secondary layer, plus the low number of small hand and foot bones, Thorsen suggested that the burial practices had changed during the early MN. In the EN and the early MN, small numbers of people were buried and their bodies were placed intact in the chambers. Later, larger numbers of people were interred, but now in the form of already defleshed bones, as a form of secondary burial as has been proposed for Scandinavian passage graves.
For the partly disturbed Trekroner dolmen, a different practice has been suggested. Bones from about ten people were found: five adults and five children. The bones showed no anatomical order, and the different individuals were only represented by a few bones each (Kaul 1994). Since long bones and crania were under-represented, whilst small bones from hands and feet were largely present, Kaul suggested that complete bodies had originally been buried and selected bones later removed from the chamber for ceremonial use elsewhere.
In contrast to these rather small chambers, the minimum number of individuals in the passage graves is generally much higher, from a normal range of between 20 and 50 individuals up to 131 individuals in the Rössberga passage grave in Falbygden (Ahlström 2001, 2009).
Since the nineteenth century, the dominant view of burial practices in Scandinavian passage graves, as well as the larger dolmens, has been that of secondary burial and deposition of defleshed bones, using the chamber tombs as a kind of ossuary. Only a few scholars expressed other views, notably Märta Strömberg (1971), whilst the ossuary hypothesis was given new life by Christopher Tilley and Michael Shanks (1982). Shanks and Tilley saw burial practices as ideological, whereby social relations were not simply mirrored in mortuary activities, but social contradictions could be denied or masked equally as well as they could be demonstrated or emphasized. In the context of burials in megalithic tombs, they suggested that the mortuary practice was one of secondary burial resulting in the dissolution of individuality through practices of dismemberment and redeposition of human bones, and the creation of an anonymous collective of ancestors.
In later research, several authors have expressed similar ideas. For instance, Sarup type enclosures have been suggested to have been localities for primary deposition and defleshing of human bodies (Andersen 1997, 2000), and fragmentation has been viewed as a widespread ideological practice involving not only human bodies but also artefacts such as pots or axes (Holten 2000). However, much of the evidence supports an alternative perspective, in which Neolithic bodies were rarely fragmented immediately following death (Ahlström 2001, 2004, 2009; Bennike 1985, 1990).
Shanks and Tilley based their arguments on the material from two Scanian passage graves, Carlshögen and Ramshög, excavated by Märta Strömberg (1971). Their arguments largely parallel those of Thorsen, suggesting that under-representation of small hand and foot bones is not due to taphonomical loss within the chambers but to selective processes resulting from handling of bodies outside megalith chambers. However, the human bone material from southern Scandinavia must be characterized as poorly preserved and/or poorly studied. As an example, the bone material from Carlshögen studied by Shanks and Tilley only comprises c. 400 identified bone fragments, yet supposedly represents more than fifty individuals (Lepiksaar 1971). Only one tomb, the Hulbjerg passage grave on Langeland, has well-preserved and well-studied bone material (Bennike 1985). Yet the radiocarbon dates taken after Bennike’s study indicate a late Neolithic date for this material. From older excavations, only a small proportion of the bones recovered remain today in the museum collections.
A different situation is noted in Falbygden in Sweden, where recent excavations at the sites of Landbogården and Frälsegården have given new information about burial practices. At both sites, a situation similar to the one at Klokkehøj was found; intact skeletons, presumably from primary burials, in the bottom layer, covered by a layer with largely disarticulated and fragmented bones. At Landbogården, a rectangular passage grave only 2.7m long was excavated in 1987 (Bägerfeldt 1987; Persson and Sjögren 2001). The bones have been analysed by Ahlström (2009). In the bottom of the chamber, three individuals were found, lying on their sides in contracted positions. Two of these, an adult man and an adult woman, have been dated to the MN A, whilst the date of the lowermost skeleton, a woman of between 40 and 50 years of age, has been controversial. The first dates put this woman in the early Neolithic, but it has now been redated and the new dating is similar to that of the other two individuals (Sjögren 2011). A tight concentration of disarticulated bones from two persons, an adult male and a child, was found in the passage. These were dated to the same period as the skeletons in the chamber.
FIG. 52.1. Skeleton of a 40–50-year-old woman from Frälsegården.
(From Sjögren 2008).
At Frälsegården, only 2km from Landbogården, a ploughed-over passage grave was excavated in 2001 (Ahlström 2004, 2009; Sjögren 2008). The partly damaged bone layer contained some 9,800 bone fragments, but also some almost intact skeletons, as well as partial skeletons in various stages of decomposition (Fig. 52.1). In several cases, intact hands and feet could be observed, and the presence of many small, fragile, and easily detached bones was notable. The preserved bodies were mostly in contracted positions, and the presence of numerous pig phalanges suggests they were wrapped in the skins of these animals. As suggested by Ahlströ
m, the bodies may originally have been placed in sitting positions. In the northern part of the chamber, three skulls were found close together, and in the passage a shallow pit contained numerous smaller bones without anatomical connections.
The special arrangements of bones, like the skull group and pit at Frälsegården and the bone package in the passage at Landbogården, merit further discussion. Several older excavations have recorded bones arranged in heaps; often a group of disarticulated bones including a skull, for instance at Liepen 1 in Mecklenburg (Schuldt 1972, 73–75) or at Carlshögen (Strömberg 1971, 247). In other tombs, such as Rævehøj and Kyndeløse, skulls and long bones were sorted out and placed in particular areas; that is, practices similar to those at Landbogården and Frälsegården (Fig. 52.2; Kaul 1994). The special treatment of skulls is evident in many cases, also in the lack of skulls in sites such as Trekroner or the missing skull in the primary grave at Klokkehøj. It is difficult to determine when these rearrangements were made; did they follow the original deposition of a body or bone collection, or were they practices from a much later period in time? In the first case, they could be seen as part of an extended burial ritual involving displacements within the chamber, but in the second case, it would rather be the case of ancestral rites or simply of rearrangements to make room for new burials.
In other cases disarticulated bones have been found in pits below the chamber floor, or sealed within the wall constructions. Kaul (1994) has listed several examples, such as a tripartite pit below the chamber floor at Carlshögen. One of the branches of the pit contained a skull, another one a collection of vertebrae, and the third one a group of mixed bones. This and similar deposits have been suggested to represent foundation deposits of bones from ancestors. In the case of Carlshögen, however, the radiocarbon date from these bones suggests they were deposited well after the construction of the tomb, at the end of the TRB sequence in the region. Unfortunately, this is the only case where such a deposit has been dated, and the argument mainly rests on the find contexts.
