The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe

by Chris Fowler

  Human bones in megalithic tombs fall basically into four categories: whole or partial skeletons, disarticulated bones, bones arranged in special deposits, and burnt bones, often deposited in front of the entrance. As seen above, opposing interpretations have been suggested for the burial practices in these tombs. On the one hand we have the ossuary hypothesis, involving extended secondary burial and practices carried out at more than one location. On the other, we have the hypothesis that complete bodies were interred. Later, these would have been rearranged or bones taken out of the chambers to be used in some form of ancestral ceremony, or perhaps to be placed in foundation deposits at other tombs. To complicate matters, it is possible that burial practices changed over time, that they vary between sites, or that both practices could occur together.

  As a result of recent excavations and analyses, there can be little doubt that at least some of the bodies, both in dolmens and passage graves, were primary burials, and that part of the chaotic appearance of the chamber contents must be due to extended periods of use and later disturbance. The main argument for secondary burial has often been the under-representation of certain categories of bones, for instance small hand and foot bones, supposed to result from loss outside the chambers when the defleshed bones were handled and transported. However, as Bennike (1985, 1990) and Ahlström (2009) have argued, such patterns may also indicate taphonomic loss within the chambers. Indeed, almost identical patterns can be seen in the bone frequencies in cemeteries from historic periods (Ahlström 2009).

  Until better reference material regarding taphonomic loss and differential breakdown of bones is available, it is not easy to evaluate the two main proposals, but it would seem at present that the ossuary hypothesis does not have very strong arguments in its favour. If this is the case, we may well have very different practices going on from those commonly envisaged. Instead of fragmented individuals and anonymous collectivities of ancestors, bodies would have been put in the chambers in a complete state, perhaps wrapped in skins. Instead of rapid breakdown, conditions in the chambers could well have favoured mummification or the development of adipocere (Ahlström 2001). In other words, the bodies could have remained intact for long periods, perhaps generations, and their specific individuality, as well as their place within the chamber, retained and recorded by the living community. Social identity would then rather be expressed by reference to specific genealogical links than by general reference to an ancestral community. The ideological importance of genealogical knowledge, and the central position of those persons possessing it, is evident in such a system.

  The selective use of certain body parts suggested by the special treatment afforded to skulls and long bones could in such cases be viewed as an instrument of legitimation, perhaps emphasizing specific ancestral links when creating new monuments or performing certain kinds of ritual, for instance at enclosed, Sarup-type sites (see below). However, until detailed comparative studies of bones from different kinds of sites have been made, this remains a hypothesis.

  Flat graves

  Flat graves occur alongside monumental tombs throughout the TRB (Ebbesen 1994; Kossian 2005). Burial in flat earth graves is also characteristic for the late MN PWC and BAC in Sweden, whilst the Danish Single Grave culture is characterized by inhumation burials under low round mounds (Janzon 1974; Malmer 1962, 2002; Hübner 2005). Occasionally, burials from these groups are also found in megaliths, gallery graves or in small stone cists.

  In TRB graves, usually one or two persons have been laid down in extended or contracted position, accompanied by only a few artefacts such as a flint axe or a pot. There is not much to distinguish the artefacts in these graves from those found in longbarrows or megalithic tombs. Tilley (1996) has noted the preference for combinations containing axes in flat graves and pots in dolmen chambers, although one type of grave cannot be said to be ‘richer’ than the other. The reasons for this difference may be a combination of chronological difference and different regional traditions. The anthropological evidence from flat graves is scant. Only in a few cases, such as Dragsholm and Lohals in Denmark and the large grave field at Ostorf in Germany, is anything more than tooth enamel preserved. In the light of the currently available evidence, most of the cases are compatible with the practice of primary burial. In some cases, however, there are indications of secondary burial or manipulation of bones. At Fakkemose on Langeland (Skaarup 1985, 206), a flat grave was found underneath a dolmen, with the skeletons of two adults in apparently anatomical position. However, one of the femurs was found lying in the wrong direction, suggesting some rearrangement of bones, perhaps to simulate an intact skeleton. Indications of secondary manipulations also come from German graves, such as at Ostorf (Kossian 2005).

  The relation of flat graves to the contemporary monumental tombs is an intriguing question, but difficult to answer. Flat graves are found in all regions, even where megaliths were never built, and could perhaps be seen as the ‘normal’ form of burial for TRB populations. Their spatial contexts vary widely, however. Earth graves may be found isolated, scattered at settlements, as groups or small grave fields, or adjacent to longbarows or megalithic tombs. Both adults and children have been buried in this way, with no apparent distinction in the form of burial or accompanying grave goods. In a few cases, such as at Borgeby in Scania (Runcis 2002) and Lindebjerg on Själland (Liversage 1981), only children seem to be present, suggesting spatial segregation of age categories. In other cases, such as Ostorf, all age categories are present (Kossian 2005).

  The Swedish PWC and BAC graves are broadly similar, but have complementary distributions. BAC graves are found over most of the south Swedish mainland, whilst PWC graves are mostly found on the Baltic islands Öland and Gotland and in the adjacent coastal areas of eastern Sweden (Malmer 1962, 2002; Janzon 1974). Both are inhumations, usually single graves but on occasion with two or more people (Fig. 52.3). Most likely, they are primary burials, although bone is rarely preserved in the mainland graves. The BAC graves exhibit a rather strict patterning, probably emphasizing distinctions between sexes through body position and grave goods. This is also the case for the related Single Grave culture in Denmark. They are usually viewed as some form of elite burial, whereby further social distinctions are introduced. In contrast, the PWC burials are less strictly controlled, and probably contained larger proportions of the population. Even here, however, age and sex distinctions are expressed though variations in the grave goods. For instance, bone points and shafthole axes are primarily found in male graves. Bone and shell cylinders are usually found in the graves of younger persons (15–25 years) of both sexes, whilst pottery is mostly found with adults (Janzon 1974). At the same time, many types of artefacts, such as flint axes and animal tooth beads, cross-cut age and sex classes, and sometimes principles vary between different grave fields. In the grave field at Ajvide on Gotland, 82 graves have been excavated (Österholm 2008). Primary burial in extended position is the preferred practice, although some were also in contracted position. Also, a small building was found among the graves, probably used in connection with mortuary rites. Notably, some of the graves had been cut off in the head end by later graves, most probably intentionally, and the crania taken away. Some form of ritual involving ancestral skulls is perhaps indicated by such practices, making the PWC mortuary customs more complex than would appear at first sight.

  FIG. 52.2. Collection of crania in the passage grave Rævehöj.

  (From Nordman 1918).

  FIG. 52.3. Graves 1 (bottom) and 2 (top) at the PWC gravefield at Ajvide, Gotland.

  (From Österholm 2008. Photograph: Göran Burenhult).

  Cremations have only recently become recognized as more than a marginal feature in Neolithic mortuary practices. A series of excavations mainly in eastern Sweden have revealed the systematic occurrence of cremation burials from both early and middle Neolithic periods (Larsson 2003; Hallgren 2008). Cremated human bones are found both in small pits and stone settings, often without
much accompanying grave goods, and were virtually impossible to distinguish from metal age burials before the possibility to date cremated bone. In addition, cremated human bone is also found in small buildings, that is, ‘mortuary houses’ (see below). Culturally, cremations occur in all complexes; TRB, PWC, and BAC. In southern Scandinavia, cremated bones are also known, from both megalithic tombs and from Sarup enclosures, but have received little attention until recently.

  Cremation may in itself be seen as a form of extended, ‘secondary’ burial practice. Based on studies of fracture patterns in the bones from Bollbacken (see below), Larsson (2003) has argued that the bones were already dry when burnt—that is, the burning had been preceded by a period long enough for the flesh to rot away. In this way, perhaps we return to the notion of secondary burial in the context where we least expect it, in the non-megalithic and non-monumental burial tradition of the largely hunting and fishing PWC culture of eastern Sweden.

  Mortuary houses

  These small buildings, often adjacent to megalithic tombs and containing large amounts of richly decorated pottery, were first identified in Jutland (Fabricius and Becker 1996). Since no bones were preserved, their function was unclear. Recently, however, excavations in eastern Sweden have uncovered a series of probable mortuary houses, at sites like Fågelbacken (TRB), Bollbacken (PWC), and Turinge (BAC) (Hallgren 2008; Arthursson 1996; Lindström 2000, 2006). Unlike in Denmark, these sites are not limited to TRB contexts, and cremated bones have been commonly discovered during excavation. For instance, at Bollbacken cremations were found in pits both within and just outside the house (Fig. 52.4). The complex was fenced off from the nearby settlement by a semicircular row of posts. In the Turinge house, remains of at least seven cremated people were found, distributed in small pits along the walls. Men, women, and children were identified.

  FIG. 52.4. The mortuary house at Bollbacken under excavation.

  (From Artursson 1996).

  Enclosures

  The occurrence of human remains in the ditches of causewayed enclosures (in Scandinavia called Sarup enclosures) is often commented upon. Although preservation is far from ideal, some of the Danish sites have yielded human remains (Andersen 1997, 2000; Nielsen 2004): Sarup, Hygind, Åsum Enggård, and Bundsø. In all cases, the bones consist of skulls, jaws, or long bones. A connection to megaliths is also suggested by the find of a miniature dolmen in one of the system ditches at Sarup Gamle Skole, close to the classic Sarup site. The Sarup-type sites have been suggested by Andersen to be parts of a funerary cycle, involving temporary burial and/or primary defleshing of bodies at these sites and later transfer to megalithic tombs (Andersen 1997, 2000). As suggested above, an alternative scenario may be more likely: the use of selected bones taken from the tombs in order to emphasize ancestral links.

  In this context, the remarkable site at Alvastra in eastern Sweden must be mentioned. This is a wooden platform on wet ground, thought to have fulfilled a similar function as the Sarup enclosures. On the platform were numerous hearths, finds of cereals and other vegetables, animal bones, pottery, etc. (Browall 1986, 2003; Malmer 2002). The use of the platform seems to span most of the MN A, although the actual construction is confined to a short period. In cultural terms, most of the finds have a PWC or general MN character, but TRB pottery has also been found. Also, a substantial number of human bones from some 45 individuals, mostly men and boys, were found (Browall 2003, 2011). Unfortunately, the analysis of the bones has yet to be published, and the relation to the nearby dolmen is unclear.

  Wetlands

  In recent years, the practice of depositing human bodies in bogs or springs has been clarified as a result of radiocarbon dating programmes. Bog deposition of complete bodies occurs mainly in the EN and early MN throughout Denmark and southern Sweden, so far only connected to TRB contexts (Karsten 1994; Koch 1998; Bennike 1999). Bennike’s studies indicate that a very particular segment of the population was treated in this way. Most of these persons were quite young, between 16 and 20 years old, and some of them show signs of trauma, disease, or malformations. In a few cases the remains of a cord were found around the neck. The suggestion is that these people suffered violent deaths, perhaps most likely in sacrificial ceremonies, although other explanations cannot be ruled out.

  Another category of wetland finds comprises disarticulated human bones, often in connection with other finds such as animal bones, pottery, or flint axes. Such finds have been made for instance at Gammellung, close to the classic Troldebjerg site, and at Myrebjerg mose, also on Langeland. These finds have not been studied in detail, but skulls and long bones seem to figure prominently, and the age distribution seems not to be as restricted as for the complete skeletons (Skaarup 1985).

  Settlements

  Scattered human remains are commonly found in settlement contexts, where there are suitable conditions for bone preservation. As yet these finds have not been studied in detail, though Kossian (2005, 145ff) has produced a survey of human bones from TRB settlements. Human bones are also found at PWC sites, whilst BAC settlements have not produced many bones so far. In some cases, such as at the TRB settlements at Koustrup and Bistoft, these bones show signs of intentional breakage and/or reworking into tools. Some of these bones also exhibit signs of traumatic violence, something which is rare in contemporary graves (Ahlström, pers. comm.).

  The interpretation of such finds is unclear. Disturbed earth graves, killed enemies, cannibalism, bones from ancestors, or remnants from primary burials of individuals transferred to other forms of burial have been suggested. Until more detailed studies have been made, it is difficult to say which hypothesis is the more likely, but it would seem that there are some differences in treatment between these finds and those from megalithic tombs and earth graves. I would therefore view them as part of a different series of practices.

  Special treatment

  Finally, there have been a series of finds where human remains, particularly skulls, have been subject to very special kinds of treatment: trepanations, scalping, and transformation into artefacts. Prehistoric trepanation has long been claimed for the Scandinavian Neolithic as well as later periods (Bennike 1985). Recently, these finds have been re-evaluated, and it now seems that most if not all of the cases may be attributed to diseases or healed wounds rather than surgical procedures (Bennike 2003). In these cases, then, special treatment may be dismissed, but there are other skulls which do show signs of unusual activity. Cut marks, probably indicating scalping, have been noted in a few cases, for instance from Bundsø and Alvastra (Kossian 2005; Browall 2003). An extreme example of ‘special treatment’ is the find from Ringsjön-Sjöholmen in Scania, where two human skulls had been reworked into a bowl and a spoon. This was probably also the case with another skull fragment from Bundsø (Kossian 2005).

  CONCLUDING REMARKS

  As evident from the overview given here, it is hard to generalize about Neolithic burial practices, partly due to problems of preservation and uneven archaeological study, but also because of the complexity of the practices involving human remains. We have little evidence regarding the variability of burial practices within a given period, although as more sites are being studied one would expect the variability to rise considerably, and appear less monolithic than present models suggest. However, a few comments can be made.

  For the TRB period, present knowledge indicates a complex set of rituals, probably not all funerary, involving human remains at different kinds of sites. At present, most evidence seems to support a practice of primary burial in monumental tombs or flat graves, followed by secondary removal of selected bones, some of which were then handled at other places, such as Sarup enclosures or perhaps settlements, or possibly when founding a new tomb. There does not seem to be much support for the various ideas suggesting the use of megaliths as ossuaries, or the intentional fragmentation and de-individualization of humans through mortuary practices. Rather, preservation of individual identity within the tombs may well have laste
d for generations. The use or re-use of bones from these persons would have emphasized specific genealogic linkages, certainly a forceful legitimation tool. The social distinctions behind the different forms of burial are little understood, but burial in megalithic chambers seems to be restricted to a selected segment of the population, perhaps in the form of higher ranking clans or kinship groups.

  For the MN period, the PWC, BAC, and Single Grave cultures have always been thought of as rather straightforward, mainly making primary burials in flat graves or small barrows, representing the breakthrough of individualism as opposed to the communal society proposed for the TRB. Recent investigations suggest a much more complex situation, however, and we may certainly expect further surprises in the future.

  One issue that so far has received too little attention regards the co-existence of different practices. It now seems probable that burial in megalithic chambers and in flat graves, as well as some form of rituals involving human bones at settlements and enclosed sites were at least partially contemporary. Likewise, during the later MN, inhumation in PWC, BAC, and Single Grave culture burials were only a part of a spectrum involving also re-use of megaliths, cremations, deposition in mortuary houses, and possibly ceremonies at a second generation of enclosed sites. The interpretation of these different practices is far from clear, and a lot more detailed comparative studies on these questions are needed. Interestingly, many of these practices seem to cross-cut the traditional culture-historical divisions we use to try and make sense of the material. In my view, we would perhaps be better off putting these distinctions aside and looking instead in more in depth at the details of the material and the practices we may infer from them.