Regulation, separation and deviation
Examining variety in funerary rites and burial customs
in the Netherlands between c. 600 and 100 BC
Karla de Roest
Student number 0956848
Research Master Art History and Archaeology at Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Specialization track Pre-and protohistory of Northwestern Europe
2 I won’t always be stuck here
in-between, will I?
I’m wiggling my toes flexing my fingers stretching my mind digging my way
into the crawl spaces of liminality all for the hope that where I’ve come from will lead me into the place where I’m going
with only a few more questions as bumps in the road ….
Kevin Hodgson
Cover: Birch Forest Burial
3
Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction ... 5
1.1 Problem orientation ... 6
1.2 The aim of this study ... 13
1.3 Research questions ... 14
1.4 Temporal and geographical demarcation ... 15
1.5 Layout of this thesis ... 17
Chapter 2. Theory and method ... 18
2.1 Theory on the study of mortuary practices ... 18
2.1.1 No rest for the dead? Disturbance and disappearance ... 18
2.1.2 Separated or close-by: locations of the dead ... 20
2.1.3 Grave goods: signifiers… of paradigm shifts ... 22
2.1.4 Bioarchaeology: examining human remains ... 26
2.1.5 Anthropology: the liminal process of dying ... 30
2.1.6 Emotions and memory: dealing with death ... 34
2.2 Methodology ... 36
2.2.1 The data: striving for uniformity ... 37
2.2.2 Fields of columns 6-10: the context of the burial ... 40
2.2.3 Fields of columns 11-17: the grave ... 40
2.2.4 Fields of columns 18-22: biological and cognitive aspects ... 41
2.2.5 Fields of the columns 23-27: pathology, trauma and modification of bones43
2.2.6 Employing the concept of liminality ... 45
Chapter 3. Data ... 48
3.1 Presentation of the human remains ... 48
3.1.1 Cremations ... 50
3.1.2 Inhumations ... 54
3.1.3 Bog bodies ... 55
3.1.4 Disarticulated and other remains ... 56
3.2 Results of comparing the remains with the other variables. ... 57
3.2.1 The graves ... 57
4
3.2.3 Pathology and trauma ... 60
Chapter 4. Conclusions ... 61
4.1 Regulation, separation and deviation: liminal deaths? ... 61
4.2 Problems... 64
References ... 66
Websites ... 75
Appendici ... 76
Appendix I. All raw data ... 76
5
Chapter 1. Introduction
"ARCHAEOLOGY, AS A HUMANIST SCIENCE STUDYING THE ESSENCE OF HUMANITY THROUGH HISTORY, IS OFTEN FACED WITH THE ULTIMATE EXPRESSIONS OF HUMANS' PERCEPTIONS OF THEMSELVES IN SOCIETY AND COSMOS: DEATH."
(Fahlander and Oestigaard 2008, 1).
The systematic study of graves and burial customs has been a central theme in archaeology since the start of the profession in the nineteenth century.1 It was realised early on that the ways in which people were placed in graves mattered. The body was often laid out to stress its gender2, as were grave goods laid next to the body. Graves and grave goods were used to establish cultural groups and to explain diffusionist ideas of their spread by archaeologists working within the culture-historical paradigm (Trigger 2006, 211-313). As a reaction to this descriptive way of research, scholars turned to more processual way of examining in the data. They approached the graves as tools to get insights into society, for instance to ascribe the (desired) status of the deceased by ranking the 'wealth' of these graves or (Binford 1971; Metcalf 1981; Hodder 1982; Lohof 1993; 1994; Trigger 2006, 387-444; Johnson 2010, 12-34; Moore and Armada 2011, 48, 50; Stout 2013).3
Since the introduction of post-processual or interpretative archaeology in the last decades of the twentieth century, the study of mortuary practices has broadened (Parker Pearson 1992; 1999; Trigger 2006, 444-483; Johnson 2010, 102-121). In recent years it was shown, the ways a society handles their dead is informative on many more levels than status and gender.4 Funerary rituals provide, for instance, insights in the perception past societies had of life and death and the real and imagined world around them, as stated above by Fahlander and Oestigaard. The consequence is that we need to question our methods if these ’ultimate expressions’ cannot be found. How can we understand the choices of past societies if graves do not contain material culture, or if the rites led to an archaeological invisible disposal (Parker Pearson 1999, 49-54; Bello and Andrews 2006, 17; Weiss-Krejci 2013)?
We also need to examine the hurdles in our research if the ‘ultimate expressions’ were multiple. Which circumstance led to what type of disposal of the dead? Normally, variation is less considered during analysis, because (archaeological) research is concerned with seeking patterns that explain the behaviour of the majority of the population (Waldron 1994).5 The problem is how to recognize patterns if the dataset is varied. Variation in funerary practices within a community is not uncommon, as illustrated by the many societal
1 Long before that graves gathered a lot of attention by various people digging in barrows, many of them looking for treasures (Trigger 2006, 81).
2 In this study ‘gender’ is used for non-biological male/female differentiation, based on material culture. The term ‘sex’ is used when male/female labels are appointed by physical anthropological research.
3 Well-known examples of the cultural-historical type of archaeological research are e.g. works of Childe (e.g. 1945) and Kroeber (1927). See the dissertation of Saxe (1970), works of Binford (1962; 1983), Clarke (1973; 1978), Tainter (1978), or the volume edited by Chapman, Kinnes and Randsborg (1981) for the processual approach.
4 For a good introduction see contributions in Fahlander and Oestigaard (2008) and in Tarlow and Nilsson Stutz (2013).
6 excepted options of disposal offered within our current society. These variations occur following normative rules, prescribed by, for example, religious regulations (Krabben 1997; 2001; Kellaher, Prendergast and Hockey 2005; Cappers 2012, 328-333, 415-462; Krabben and De Beunje 2012, 13-16; Stengs 2012; McMagnus 2013; Sumiala 2013).
Next to this, ethnographic studies demonstrate that selective exclusion from a normative burial is often practiced, or even exclusion from burial at all (Aspöck 2008, 17, 22, 27; Weiss-Krejci 2011; 2013).6 This selection can be both on positive grounds. An example is the extraordinary treatment of a kings’ dead body (e.g. Huntington and Metcalf 1979, 121-152; Kaliff and Oestigaard 2008)7 or on negative grounds, as the refusal to bury non-baptised infants in consecrated grounds (Cappers 2012, 561, 636, 672-673; Krabben and De Beunje 2012, 14). The challenge in the archaeological study of mortuary customs is thus finding the reason(s) behind the (regulated) variations.
1.1 Problem orientation
During the last centuries before the start of our calendar the (normative) funerary rites in North-western Europe became on the one hand more varied, and on the other hand less visible in the archaeological record (Arnold 2002, 130-131; Hessing and Kooi 2005, 649-652). This European phenomenon is of interest because The Netherlands can be considered a crossing point of cultural influences during the later prehistory. Partly the different development in funerary rites above and below the central river area in the Netherlands can be explained by this fact. However, interestingly, different studies show different (cultural) borders, evidencing these borders and influences were fluid (see figs. 1a and 1b). The similarity in the development of funerary customs does not mean that there was a general ‘European culture’. There have been ‘diffunsionist’ inter-regional influences, as well as local developments in the cultural customs of a society. Moreover, foreign influences had not just one provenance and not just one direction. Different aspects of the (material) culture of a group came from different sources, both ‘imported’ and locally developed (Collis 1984, 9-25, Vandkilde 2007, 11-23; Henderson 2007, 1-26; Thurston 2009, 347; Moore and Armada 2011, 49).
During the Late Bronze Age (c. 1050-800 BC) cremation had become the norm in the larger Dutch region, leading to the creation of the so-called urnfields (Kooi 1979; Hessing and Kooi 2005). As everyone received a similar burial ritual, urnfields suggest an egalitarian society. It appears that these burial grounds held long traditions. They were often used for many
6 Paradoxically, deviant burials tend to get a lot of attention, because they tell a (unique) story, which is interesting to tell (sell) to the general public. Note, however, that it is only possible to tell the story of exceptional findings, if the norm has been established at forehand.
7 centuries, by many generations, resulting in large landscapes of the dead (De Wit 1997/1998, 366; Hessing and Kooi 2005, 631-632).8
Figures 1a and 1b. Systems of cultural contact in (Western) Europe. That the contacts were fluid (see text), is
illustrated by the differences in spheres of influence depicted. Fig. 1a shows the regions as defined by Henderson (2007). On fig. 1b the Atlantic System is displayed with the borders Moore and Armada (2011) suggest (sources: fig. 1a (left): Henderson 2007, 23, fig. 1.8; fig. 1b (right): Moore and Armada 2011, 6, fig. 1.1).
It is clear that a couple of changes took place after the 7th century BC. The most striking of these being that cremated remains were less likely to be buried in ceramic urns. Next to that, these remains were collected in a less meticulous way than before.9 Exemplary are burial fields in the northern part of Westphalia, where the funerary customs are similar to Dutch observations10: cremated burials placed in urns from the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age are replaced by non-structured cremation graves.11
8
Here, the debate on the location choice of the urnfields themselves is not covered (but see: Van Beek and Louwen 2012).
9 Completeness does not seem to have been an issue; most of these cremations do not contain a complete burned skeleton. On the other hand the pattern is more complex than just a pars-pro-toto approach per urn: the evidence of there being more than one individual deposited in one grave or urn is increasing, as will be discussed below. 10 As can be illustrated with the find of a so-called langbed type Someren in the burial field Borken-Hoxfeld (Gaffrey, Cichy and Zeiler 2015, 174). See for a similar long bed: below, fig. 19 (grave number 29).
8 After c. 500 BC, the remains were placed in shallow pits, mostly without a container. Eventually the pyres themselves were 'simply' heaped over, in cinerary barrows (Kooi 1979, 133-134). The cremations were often packed in organic material before being placed in a pit. As can be seen on figs. 2a and 2b, the shape of the monuments changed as well: round ditches became square. In the Late Iron Age sometimes posts were placed in the corners (Hessing and Kooi 2005, 651). Finally, features (e.g. a small barrow or a ditch) became less elaborate or even absent (see figs. 2a and 2b). In general, and probably as a result of this, fewer burial fields are found from this period, although the population did not diminish. Apparently the majority of the population received an end that is invisible in the current archaeological record, since settlements increased at the same time the burials decreased (Harsema 2005, 553-554; Hessing and Kooi 2005, 649-652; Arnoldussen and Jansen 2010, 387).
Figures 2a and 2b. Development of grave types (monuments, remains and burial rites) in the northern (left)
and southern (right) Netherlands (source: Hessing and Kooi 2005, 634-365, figs. 28.3a and 28.3b).
9 found at, for instance, Geldermalsen and Lent (Cuijpers 1994; Hulst, 1999; Hessing and Kooi, 2005, 651; Van den Broeke and Hessing 2005, 655-65812; Van den Broeke 2008). Next to that, all over the Netherlands, unburned, disarticulated, human remains have been found in water, ditches (often in settlement context) and in artificial dwelling mounds (Hessing 1993; Ter Schegget 1999; Arnoldussen and Van Zijverden 2004; Nieuwhof 2015).13
The habitation along the Wadden-coast started around 600 BC (Lanting and Van der Plicht 2003, 168; Nieuwhof 2006, 11; Gerrets 2010, 49-76).14 It is not known how the majority of the people was disposed of in this area (see chapter 3 and 4). Because of the lack of wood cremation is unlikely.15 Were all dead buried, than many more burials would have been found, since the clay provides good preservation conditions. Remains that are found, are often unburned disarticulated long bones or skulls (Hessing 1993; Nieuwhof 2007; 201516). In sharp contrast with the egalitarian lifestyle expressed by the urnfields, are the warrior graves. They are found on the coversand soils of the eastern part of the Netherlands, for instance in Drenthe, Gelderland and Brabant, including the famous 'Vorstengraf van Oss’ (see a.o.: Kooi 1983; Bloemers 1986; Kooi, Delger and Klaassens 1987; De Wit 1997/1998, 335-342; Heirbaut 2011, 93-95; Fokkens et al. 2012; Fontijn, Van der Vaart and Jansen 2013; Van der Vaart and Amkreuz 2013). In these graves the apparently outstanding individual is stressed, in all his glory. This way of dealing with exemplary dead spread through large parts of Europe. In fact, the Netherlands were at the edges of the spread of Hallstatt influences (Hessing and Kooi 2005, 643-645). Roymans (1991, 9-10) stated the societies of the Late Bronze and the Iron Age (c. 900-475 BC) were so called ‘tribal societies’, and these graves represent the leaders. Graves as found in Oss show the existence of a warrior elite, based on the sets of grave goods, i.e. placing chariot (items) and swords in the graves of presumably male graves. Roymans (1991, 10) interpreted the graves as "[c]lear signs of Hallstatt influences [...] which bear witness to intensive contacts with Central Europe". For the Northern parts of the Netherlands (Drenthe) the existence of a tribal society lead by a warrior chief is more problematic. Harsema (2005, 533-554) did not see a reflection of this type of society in these regions, when examining the house plans found there of the Middle Iron Age. The similarity in house plans would be exemplary of an egalitarian society, although De Wit (1997/1998, 366) showed there is evidence for an elite class in the burial rite, probably based on 'economic' grounds and not on hereditary position.17
The same observations hold for Western and Central Europe in general (Arnold 2002, 129-134).18 Late Iron Age peoples (after 400 BC) re-used mortuary landscapes that were created by societies between 600-400 BC. These groups constructed their places for the dead
12 The title of this contribution is 'De brandstapel gemeden', thus stating the vision that cremation was considered the normal option.
13
Hereafter referred to with the Dutch word ‘terp’ (plural: ‘terpen’).
14 Perhaps after a phase of transhumance (cf. Van Gijn and Waterbolk 1984; Waterbolk 1988), and following local dynamics of the coastline (see Gerrets 2010).
15 Or, at least very expensive in terms of effort of obtaining it and the labour involved. However, there is some evidence for the use of cremation in this region, be it possibly from a younger period than is studied here. A cremation grave was for instance found in Dronrijp (Nieuwhof 2008a, 127-131).
16 The study of terp Englum by Nieuwhof (2008b; 2015) shows that the most of these disarticulated bones date from (after) the 1st century AD. Therefore most of them were not incorporated in the present study.
17
The debate on the ‘tribal’ nature of societies in the Iron Age was a heavenly discussed in the later decennia of the twentieth century by a.o. Collis (1984, 19), Hill (1996, 104-107), and Kristiansen and Rowlands (1998, 70-105).
10 deliberately near earlier monuments. Especially barrows -with high visibility- were chosen as places to bury the deceased. The graves themselves became less elaborate during the early La Tène period, leading to archaeological invisible graves during the Middle La Tène period19, something also evidenced in Great Britain, were only c. 6% of the individuals received an archaeologically visible burial rite (Arnold 2002, 131; Madgwick 2008; Thurston 2009, 371; Tracey 2012, 368).
Disarticulated human bones are found in a range of options, and again spread over Europe20: isolated and disarticulated bones and skulls; inhumations that are either complete or partially complete; inhumations associated with (partially) articulated animal bones, and bones associated with artefacts. Identified locations21 where these bones are regularly found are pits. These are interpreted as both burial or ritual pits, and pits for waste. Furthermore remains are discovered in ditches, ramparts and enclosures.
Murray (1995, 128-129) has examined ritual practices at these enclosures in Central Europe. It appears that scattered human remains in, for instance, Southwest Germany, are more commonly found in settlement context. There is, however, also a spatial link between enclosures and older burials in the region examined (Murray; 1995, 137-140, see also Arnold 2002, 129, 132-133). Murray concluded that the enclosures were used for feasting22 and re-establishing power claims. These claims were strengthened by the place the enclosure was built: near tumuli-graves of real, or imagined, ancestors. Large rectangular enclosures, the so-called Viereckschanzen, formed a new phenomenon in the later Iron Age of Central and West-central Europe (Groenewoudt 2011, 9).23 Here ritual activities were practiced, including the burial or the handling or display of human bones (Murray 1995, 126; Collis 1996, 89; Hill 1996, 102-103; Arnold 2002, 129, 132-133, fig. 8.2).24 It is shown by infamous examples like Ribemont in France that human (and animal) bones played an important part in ritual (Fercoq du Leslay et al. 2011). Although none of these large enclosures has been found in the Netherlands, it is demonstrated by the dissertations of Therkorn (2004), Kok (2008) and Nieuwhof (2015) that handling human remains, perhaps as ‘bones of desire’ (Tarlow and Sørensen 2013) was common in this region.
A final category of noteworthy cases are formed by the so-called bog bodies. All over North-western Europe articulated human remains were, and are still being, discovered in peat bogs, dating from (before) the bronze age, to (sub-)recent times (see, a.o.: Van der Sanden 1990; 1996; 2013; Aldhouse Green 2001; Both and Fansa 2011). High-peat bogs provide good
19 For the European chronology; see fig. 5a and 5b below.
20 The fact mostly the same types or combinations of remains are found- and have been found at specific locations, means there must have been a selection procedure, i.e. a normative rule. Contra Madgwick (2008, 99-100), who wonders whether the term ‘norm' should be used at all, because of the lack of evidence of formal burials.
21 Excluding isolated finds seemingly without context.
22 The pottery found in enclosures could be remains of what Murray (1995, 131-134 and esp. 135) calls “Celtic feasting ceremonies”.
23 Note that some evidence suggests Viereckschanzen could be predating the Iron Age (Randsborg 1995, 137-139; Fontijn and Cuijpers 1998/1999, 59; Groenewoudt 2011, 9). Since they do not form part of the data set, this discussion is ignored here.
24
11 conditions for preservation (Van der Plicht et al. 2004, 471). Complete bodies, many including soft tissue, have been found (see fig. 3).
Figure 3. This photo of the body of c. three-year-old Girl from Röst, destroyed
during the Second World War, illustrates the preserving qualities of the bog (Van der Sanden 1996; RemainsID 11425).
Although some of these are the result of an accidental drowning, most of the bodies dating to the Iron and Roman Age show signs of lethal violence. There are enough similar, evidently purposeful deposited, bog bodies to rule out coincidence: they form a regularly considered choice from the set of possible ways of disposal. The main exception is that this option is executed actively. The bog bodies were victims26 of, arguably, ritual killings, most of them having died multiple deaths.27 Their way of disposal was not only decided before death occurred– but death was brought on as well.
This, combined with the fact that the bodies themselves are preserved in relatively good conditions, makes them a rewarding object for study.28 The Dutch examples date generally somewhat later than those found in surrounding countries,29 therefore examples from Germany and Denmark are included in the present study (Van der Sanden 1990; 1996; 2013; Giles 2009; Both and Fansa 2011).
To summarize, the ways of disposal are thus manifold. The Iron Age remains were buried in articulated condition, inside and outside cemeteries, or (partly) destructed by fire. Next to that, some bones were instead disarticulated, perhaps dehumanized or objectified. These were kept in circulation, or were deposited inside or outside the settlement. Since all these variations do occur, what we need to examine is whether a "special" burial or a "deposition" is always "deviant" - or whether it is 'just' following another set of normative rules and practices? As stated above, it is not the variation in burial itself that is problematic, but the lack of knowledge to properly understand and correctly analyse the wider options of disposal. Why were certain practices used, and in which circumstances were certain rites
25 All figures of human remains that form part of the data set are referred to as RemainID ##). These can be found in the first column of Appendix I. Note that Appendix I is attached in alphabetical order of toponym. 26 ‘Victims’ has an emotional loaded connotation in our language. Of course we do not know whether the stabbed and strangled people felt themselves ‘victim’ or perhaps ‘chosen’, assuming they were the object of a ritual killing. This is further discussed in chapter 4.
27 Showing more than one injuries, that could all in turn have been fatal (e.g. being stabbed and strangled, as was Yde Girl, see chapter 3).
28
As the many studies on the subject of bog bodies proof. The last decade has seen a lot of scientific based research on the bodies and their clothing, researching for example provenance and the time of deposition (e.g. Van der Plicht et al. 2004; Mannering et al. 2010; Van der Sanden 2013).
12 considered the right option? We need to question the deviant nature of non-cremation burials of the later prehistory, since earlier studies concerned with the Bronze and Iron Age in the Dutch region have demonstrated that there is variation and differentiation between individuals (see for instance the contributions in Louwe Kooijmans et al. 2005).
That rites between different regions show variations is self-evident, but the variation extends beyond the (culture-historical) explanation that this is a direct result of diffusion of culture. There must have been local regulation as well. It was, for example, not uncommon for children to receive a different burial.30 Besides that, male and female graves are often distinguishable within one burial ground (e.g. Lohof 1991, 33, 257-258; Fontijn and Cuijpers 1998/1999, 54). Furthermore, there are both elite graves and burials from 'commoners' found. Moreover, even within one urnfield different rites were practiced, leading to different ‘monuments’, for example in the Early Iron Age cemetery Olthof-Noord/Epse-Noord (Deventer). Perhaps, for some dead a pit in the ground filled with their ashes was not the suitable option, because of the way they died, their status or their provenance.
The differentiations related to sex and age - and arguably status and wealth31 influenced the burial, are relatively easy recognized. They follow certain sets of rules, that we can recognize and explain (at least to some extent). These factors (age, sex, status) do not explain a further differentiation, probably practiced following more subtle rules, that we do not yet fully understand. Why for instance practice both inhumation and cremation at seemingly the same time in Geldermalsen? 'Differences in status' is a tempting answer. However, the fact that some inhumations did nót receive grave goods, and a cremated individual díd, shows decisions were not as straightforward. Here perhaps provenance of the individuals mattered, because the found items refer to the French Marne-Aisle group (see fig. 4. for the geographic region; Hulst,1999; Cuijper 1994), as does one of the cremated objects from the urnfield Woezik-Noord (Charpy and Roualet 1991; Heirbaut 2011; see chapter 3 and 4 below).
Figure 4. See the Marne-Aisne
region in the southern part of the map. Geldermalsen is located upper north on this map (source: Leman-Delerive 2007, fig 1. by M. Bocquet).
30 Or, apparently, none at all.
13
1.2 The aim of this study
The aim of the present study is to provide more insight in the reasons or normative rules behind funerary rituals of the Iron Age in the Netherlands. The main focus is on the Dutch Middle Iron Age, where on the one hand the majority of the population apparently received an end that is invisible in the current archaeological record. On the other hand, the graves that are found show a variety of possible options to dispose of the dead, as explained above. We may assume that disposal rites were not mainly or purely practical, but meaningful. For instance, gender and age-at-death did (and still do) determine or influence the rites. Perhaps the different rituals do not reflect different cultural groups, but instead show variation within one group, based on apparent social norms. The problem is, that we have an ill understanding of the reasons behind the variable choices in the past. For that, we need to construct a framework.
This framework is built upon the fundaments left by previous paradigms in archaeology and structured by some directions of the current interpretative approach.32 Older paradigms should not be discarded off, just because other (new) ideas have emerged. If justified critiques are taken into account, the older approaches can still contribute to new research. Firstly, because migration and interpretation of the material culture are key contributors to our understanding of the forming of the archaeological record, as rightly understood by earlier scholars. Secondly, processual approaches, like employing ethnographic examples, still proof to be useful, since most of the remains of the Iron Age population are not available for research (Parker Pearson 1999, 21-44). Thirdly, the idea of status and ranking as an important normative factor in burial rites is not proven wrong, but to be too rigid. ‘Status’ should therefore be explored as one of the normative factors. Next to this other, perhaps more subtle regulations, need to be examined. The combination of factors should be used to obtain insights in the structure of the society under study
One of the major concepts in social anthropology33 is liminality (Van Gennep 190834). Although formulated over a hundred years ago, and already the topic of many studies, the concept still has much to offer for the current research (see chapter 2). By using liminality as rule defining for rituals, including funerary or mortuary practices, all cases (burials and other remains) can be studied from the same context. Based on this a hypothesis is formed: Group decisions and societal norms were shaped by rites that regulated frequently occurring liminal situations, or events, and, that helped to channel reactions to liminal places or persons.
It is possible to use the basic assumption that decision making was influenced by liminality, since the studies by, amongst others, Hertz (1907), Van Gennep (1908), Turner (1969), and Metcalf and Huntington (1979), show the highly universal nature of the concept, as is explained in the next chapter.Not only people could be in a (temporarily) liminal state, but parts of the landscape as well, for instance wet places (Aldhouse Green 2001; Fontijn 2003). By approaching the archaeological record of formal burial grounds, as well as human remains found outside of these, this study analyses the variation in funerary rites in a broad range. The goal is to demonstrate that not only cremation was normative, but that the other
32
See chapter 2 for details.
33 The umbrella term of the field of study ethnography can be attributed to.
14 options were dictated by a set of rules35 as well. In doing so, we gain a better understanding of the funerary rites of the period and perhaps also of the way people perceived their world, between c. 500-250 BC, in the region that is now the Netherlands.
1.3 Research questions
To create a dataset that can be used to test the hypothesis, the central research questions are as follows:
- In what normative ways were the people of the (Middle) Iron Age in the Netherlands treated after death?
- After we have established the rite or rites: do we see a relation between the type of disposal and (1) age category, (2) sex, (3) status, (4) pathology, (5)trauma, (6) provenance or (7) soil type, within the context of one social group?
To be able to answer this question, the following sub-questions are formulated:
1. What age categories can we distinguish?
2. How is sex or gender differentiated in the graves, and can we establish this for children’s graves as well?
3. Can we assign status differences (poor / rich; commoner / elite) in the graves?
4. Can we find evidence for pathology (sustained or congenital) or trauma (accidental or as a result of violence)?
5. Is it possible to recognize remains of foreign provenance? Does this influence the burial custom?
6. Do we observe variations between regions, or between soil types?
7. Could the way, or the location, that a person died, have influenced his disposal?36 8. Did the liminal phase someone was in, at the moment of death, determine the
funerary rites (assuming this liminal state could be established)? 9. Can we maintain our egalitarian view of the period after this research?
10. What is the role of 'the' Iron Age worldview- and can we make statements on these elusive aspects of life and death?
35 Or: sets of rules.
15
1.4 Temporal and geographical demarcation
The period central to this study is essentially, but arbitrary, the Dutch Middle Iron Age (500-250 BC, see fig. 4a and 4b; see also Lanting and Van der Plicht 2003, 117-261; 2006, 241-427; Arnoldussen and Janssen 2010, 379-380). As the title of the study indicates, this period is stretched in time, both to an older and to a younger period. When discussing the case studies it becomes clear that not all graves can be dated precisely, this stretching of the period provides a better overview of what happened during the ‘core-period’ (see Appendix II).
Figure 5a and 5b. Chronology of the later Dutch prehistory placed in its European context. Mind that on the left
the oldest period is on top, on the right the youngest. On the right side the region differences in the Netherlands are taken into consideration, noting (former) culture groups (sources: 3a (left): Moore and Armada 2011, fig. 1.7. 3b (right): Arnoldussen and Jansen 2010, 380, fig. 1).
The case studies are distributed over the Netherlands neighbouring regions (figs. 6a and 6b), so that regional differences (cultural) and differences in soil type (environmental) can be compared. This is insightful in order to be able to determine whether the norms were established locally or supra-regional. An added factor is the fact that all regions are studied before, and thus yield a solid dataset.
16 stretching to Denmark. The third region is the central-eastern and south-eastern part, including the central rivers.
Figure 6a. Palaeoreconstruction of the Netherlands, around 500 BC,
divided in three regions (After: Vos, Deltares).
Figure 6b. Overview of all 34 find
locations of this study, on modern map (source: Google earth).
17
1.5 Layout of this thesis
After this introduction in the second chapter the theoretical and methodological framework is explored, that is needed for a study on human remains and funerary customs. In section 2.1.1 the moments of disturbance of graves and remains is listed, to gain insight in the forming of the archaeological record. In 2.1.2 and. 2.1.3 the context of the grave and its material content are examined, to the background of the development of the archaeological paradigms. In 2.1.4 the process of dying is discussed, from an ethnographic angle, focussing on the concept of liminality, as outlined above in section 1.2. Section 2.1.5 is concerned with a more elusive part of death and dying: the emotion surrounding the loss, with a focus of fear for death and of the dead.
In the second half of chapter 2 (section 2.2) the methods used in analysing the case studies are discussed. In 2.2.1 aspects of research of human remains are presented. In the next section (2.2.2) the way the concept of liminality is explored in this study is clarified. For the research a spreadsheet was developed, in which the variables that were discussed in chapter 1 (see 1.2 and 1.3) were to be filled in, as further explained in sections 2.2.3 – 2.2.4.
18
Chapter 2. Theory and method
In an ideal world, archaeologists know both the location of the settlement of the living and the adjoining resting place of the dead of an entire population. However, the world is seldom ideal, as the very topic of this study serves to show. Therefore, we need secure handles to lift the most of the information provided by the incomplete dataset. Generally mortuary studies are conducted in five steps, gradually studying the dead in more detail37: (1) The settlement and cemetery are studied within the landscape; (2) the relation between settlement and cemetery is explored; (3) the grave's layout within the cemetery is looked at, and (4) the content of the grave is scrutinized, focussing on (a) the material artefacts and (b) the human remains. The possible fifth step is based on the four previously taken and seeks to find the intentions behind the (not) found archaeological record. This step however is rather abstract and will only be dealt with in the concluding chapters 4 and 5.
2.1 Theory on the study of mortuary practices
In this section not all ins and outs of mortuary studies are presented. It would not be possible to oversee all directions the field of study has taken. The volume of contributions is enormous and every day new ones are added. Instead, individual topics are discussed here, that were deliberately chosen because of their usefulness in the analyses in chapter 4. The final two topics (2.1.4 and 2.1.5) are taken up, because the elusive aspects of the research may prove a promising way forward in our understanding of past peoples (see also section 5.2).
2.1.1 No rest for the dead? Disturbance and disappearance
A number of factors influence the archaeological record, and thus our possibility to study a complete (material) archive. There are different moments and different ways in which disturbance can occur, resulting in de loss of remains or burials entirely (Andrews and Bello 2006, 14; 18-19).
Firstly, we need to reckon with natural disturbance of the original record. Taphonomic process, are defined by Efremov in 194038, as the study of decay of human remains by natural and organic causes, distort the cultural choices even further. This of course makes visibility even more challenging. Taphonomic processes are possibly the most important factors an archaeologist has to reckon with (Chapman and Randsborg 1981, 12; Dupras et al. 2006, 30-38; Duday 2009, 7-12; Gowland & Knüsel 2006, x-xi). A number of factors contribute to the taphonomic processes.39 The first factor is weathering: the influence of rain, sun, and
37
Which is according to common practice, but see Therkorn (2004, 3), who turns the scales around, starting at the individual house and ending in the landscape.
19 (freezing) temperatures direct on the body or, indirect through soil processes, reacting on the weather conditions. The second factor is carnivore activity. Both larger animals, as well as birds, and small animals like rodents, leave their mark on decaying bodies. It is important to note that remains can be dragged away and dispersed over long distances. This could possibly extend the research area considerably.40 In addition to this, insects and, at the microscopic level, bacteria, play an important role in the defleshing of the body and the breaking off of the collagen in the bones. The last factor are botanical activities: bones can turn green or brown after long disposal to decaying plants or plant roots (not to be confused by stains left by e.g. bronze). The rooting of trees and plants itself can of course cause disturbance of the bones. They can grow into the bones, breaking up the cortex formed by bone minerals, causing breakage of the bones.41
Secondly, the fact that the Netherlands have a long history in agricultural use of land, also leading to reclamations, levelling and redistribution of land42, is another important factor of disturbance. The same goes for (recent) construction and building activities. Next to that, the amount of information that might have been lost during (archaeological) excavations influences our current knowledge. For instance, barrows have suffered from ‘prikkers’, looking for objects. Besides that, during official excavations bones were usually thrown away or re-buried, with possibly the exception of the long bones and the skull..43
Finally, next to unforeseen disturbances, cultural choices influence the archaeological record. A burial is not necessarily the end stage of funerary rituals, as ethnographical studies inform us.44 A list of by Andrews and Bello (2006, 18-19) contains the following intentional options of processes and moments of possible loss of human remains: primary burial [in acid soil45], secondary burial, cremation, cannibalism, and defleshing and cleaning of bone. Excarnation has on the one hand been a popular explanation for the entire lack of burials, based upon ethnographic examples (Flippo 2001, 161-166; Van der Rijt 2001, 166-171), and on the other hand for disarticulated bones, as found in settlement or sanctuary context (Hessing 1993; Murray 1995; Fercoq du Leslay et al. 2011; Nieuwhof 2015).
In a number of (ethnographic) cases complete absence of burial is noticed. This absence can either be intended or accidental, and it can either be individual or be a group exclusion, as is listed in table 1. Not being able to find a body, is not the same as not finding a grave. On the contrary, sometimes empty graves (cenotaphs) are found. Of course, multiple reasons can be opted for, of which taphonomy is the first. However, it could well be that people employed rituals for members of society who died (far) from home, or went missing. Some of the cenotaphs could thus have functioned as a memorial (Jones 2007, 27-46). Although it would not make much sense, at first glance, to dispose of most bodies in an archaeological invisible
40
Which is demonstrated by forensic research of modern remains (often after crimes; Fairgrieve 2008, 87-90). 41 It is not always easy to distinguish between roots splitting bone and the result of cannibalistic practices (i.e. breaking the bone to be able to access the marrow. The same goes for foramen, and blood vessel impressions. They are sometimes misinterpreted as cut marks or puncture wounds (Saul and Saul 2002,79, 82-84). 42
For at least 2000 years, culminating in the twentieth century.
43 It is not our place to frown upon this, ideas on preservation of heritage change through time. Interestingly, in these cases, they did collect the same bones that were treated in a special way in prehistoric times.
44 Numerous studies on this topic have surfaced. Good introductions are provided by the volumes by Cederroth, Corlin and Lindström (1988) and Fahrlander and Oestigaard (2008). For examples of the Dutch (former) colonial regions, see the contributions in the theme number of OSO on death rituals in Suriname (1998); Van de
Klashorst (1990).
20 way, whilst at the same time creating cenotaphs for others. Still, it is something to look into, since it may hint that some deaths matters more than others. There are cases of animal bone or artefacts found in 'empty' graves. Again, ruling out taphonomy, they can possibly be seen as substitutes for human remains. Maybe their owner was missing, and the in-alienable nature of the objects46 stated they should be buried (Fahlander and Oestigaard 2008, 2-3).
I Societal normative funerary rites leading to non-preservation of human remains
non-buried or ill-buried cremation remains
secondary treatment of human remains, after exhumation or excarnation water grave (lake; river; sea)
tree- or skyburial47
II Group exclusion - leading to no preservation of a specific group
based on age (e.g. no infants) based on sex
based on social status
III Individual exclusion - leading to no preservation of a person
economic reasons (e.g. postponed)
dead body on display (for positive or negative reasons) social position (low or high)
punishment
weakening the soul of a person by denying burial
corpse was 'inaccessible' e.g. as the result of accidental death bad or suspected supernatural intervention
Table 1. Listing reasons for the absence of burial (based on: Hertz 1907; Ucko 1969: 267-270; Bloch and Parry
1982: 15; Weiss-Krejci, 2013: 281-283).
2.1.2 Separated or close-by: locations of the dead
The first important component in the research of the dead is the place where they were disposed of. Undoubtedly, the landscape played an important role in location place. Where inhumation is concerned, the positioning of the body within the specific layout of the grave is informative (e.g. gender based). Often the worlds of the living and the dead are separated (e.g. cemeteries round churches tend to have walls or fences, thus, a physical boundary; Cappers 2012). Although this has foremost hygienic reasons in the modern Western world
21 (but: see Beit-Hallami 2012), fear for (spirits of) the dead lies beneath this practice (see section 2.1.5). Next to separation, the opposite is observed as well: sometimes (parts of) the dead are held close to the world of the living. These remains were either buried or kept in circulation amongst the living, at least for some time.
In the Dutch Iron Age both formal burial grounds and seemingly unconventional locations were used for disposal. The cemeteries commonly held cremations (see fig. 7). It is important to remember that cremation is not the 'cheap option', in many cases the contrary (Cerezo-Román and Williams 2014, 248). The ideas behind cremation can be multiple. One of these reasons is the avoidance of decomposing of the body, by means of rapid destruction (or fragmentation; Parker Pearson 1999, 41-42; Cerezo-Román and Williams 2014, 241). Closeness to older graves was a criteria for the location choice of urnfields, since the Late Bronze Age, as stated in chapter 1. Unfortunately, not many of these burial grounds can directly be linked to a settlement nearby (Van Beek and Louwen 2012). Therefore it is difficult to establish for instance zones for the living and for the dead, as are known from ethnographic examples (Turner 1969, 30; Binford 1980; 6, fig. 148).
Figure. 7. An example of a cremation grave at Wijchen, Woezik –Noord; grave number one, an unknown adult
of between 20-40 years old at time of death. The lack of monumentality clearly shows how easily a grave could be missed (source: Heirbaut 2011, 34, fig. 9.3; RemainsID 116).
Seemingly unconventional places of disposal are also recorded from the Iron Age period. Human remains found in water (rivers, lakes etc.) ended up in an environment that is not suited for human bodies. They are therefore foreign bodies, subject to biochemical and biological processes 'unnatural' to them (Haglund and Sorg 2002, 202). The bodies can either sink or stay afloat, or end up in a state somewhere in between the two. Body fat, eventual clothing, but also the nature of the water itself (chemical processes and temperature, fresh / silt, for instance) play a role. Sometimes bodies can be recovered close to where they got into
22 the water (regardless of how that happened), sometimes they drifted long distances. Finding many similar bones or skulls together points to a pattern (cf. Ter Schegget 1999). It means these bones were already selected and separated from the rest of the body, before thrown in the water. They are thus likely also the result of an excarnation or exhumation process. Being all the more remarkable, taking Hertz’ (1907, 31) wet/dry scheme into consideration (see 2.1.4). Were these individuals for some reason destined to remain in a wet state, or return to it?
Taking this further: the bog bodies are found in very specific environmental surroundings. They too are found in a forever wet state. Here we definitely can state the location mattered; it was the prerogative of the ritual. We can hypothesis the unique preservation qualities of the peat were the basis for the location choice. It is hard to imagine the Iron Age people, and their predecessors, did not know the preservation qualities of a peat environment.49 As stated: many of the individuals found in bogs show signs of a violent death (Van der Sanden 1996; Aldhouse Green 2001; Both and Fansa 2011). They were to some extent destructed, but not fully, as in cremation graves. Where they deliberately kept in a kind of double liminal state, of lingering in a wet and being only partly destructed? In any sense, bog bodies are a special case of burial, not at least because of their find circumstances, as described by Giles (2009, 76): "[...] the problems faced by archaeologists and forensic scientists when dealing with human remains from bogs. First, they are found in circumstances which frequently lead the public and the police to believe they are dealing with a modern – or at least historically recent – murder. Second, they are often discovered as part of mass peat extraction, which has removed all trace of the original landscape in which the bodies were interred." They are thus found in context, but not truly so.
The second category of remains that did not end up in a formal cemetery were the disarticulated unburned bones, often long bones and skulls, found ‘on land’. Many of those are found in ditches, or in the terp-region in pits or layers (Hessing 1993; Nieuwhof 2015). We do not know whether these remains were actively defleshed, or were handled long time. Some do however show signs of wear or being worked (e.g. rondelles from the terps), showing that they were not directly deposited after the flesh (and with that the joints holding bones articulated) was removed, or fermented.
Physical separation should not be confused with no interaction. Re-visits to and re-opening of graves is (still) a common practice in many places, e.g. in contemporain Greece (pers. comm. S. Voutsaki april 2014) and amongst the Merina in Madagascar (Huntington and Metcalf 1979, 94-98; Rozeboom 2001, 178-181). The importance is that everyone is in his right place in the right state, to keep the social order (see below, sections 2.1.4 and 2.2.2). It is not established whether the Iron Age cremations, inhumation or bog bodies were re-visited for ritual purposes, but that they held some of the remains close-by, is certain.
2.1.3 Grave goods: signifiers… of paradigm shifts
In this paragraph different approaches to the study of grave goods are explored, and placed within the research history of archaeology. This is done to, firstly, understand the way these
23 objects were used in previous studies that are underlying the present research. Secondly, this is done to create a better understanding of the possibilities of, and the problems involved in, using grave gifts or grave goods in the search for meaning of burial customs.
In the cultural-historic approach until the middle of the twentieth century, objects found in graves were firstly used as a tool to date the site. Secondly, as a way to reconstruct routes of migration or diffusion of cultures in Europe. Graves were also sexed based on the material finds. The processual approach since the sixties of the twentieth century added the factor of status or rank, and hierarchy of society, again mostly based on artefacts50 found in context with the body. The goods directly reflected (ascribed) status (Hodder 1982; Ekengren 2013). Two important contributions were by Saxe (1970) and Tainter (1978).
Saxe and Tainter placed the material culture in a broader perspective, researching the act of giving (and receiving) grave goods. With methods like the tree-structure shown in both the studies of Saxe (1970: 43, 46) and Tainter (1978, 111-112) grave goods can be studied in a deductive way (see fig. 8). For the present study the explanation given by Saxe (1970, 69) on his hypothesis # 3 is useful: for instance a child would receive a less conspicuous burial than a chief, because its death affected mostly the parents. Whereas in the case of a chief a local village or social group is affected. This difference should be visible in the ritual and material culture playing a part in the ritual.
Figure 8. Key diagram of a perfect tree (Tainter
1978, 111 fig. 4.1).51
As Saxe (1970, 1) stated, the aim of his study was to research mortuary practices as a process, assuming there could be regularities to be observed.52 When we think of grave goods as a set,
50
Including gear and clothing.
24 formed according to rules, we might get insights into the society applying those regulations.53 Tainter (1978) argued that the energy spent on monuments and/or arranging of graves reflects the status of the person buried (energy expenditure). Grave goods, or the absence thereof, can serve as a tool to rank the person to a scale. This however, can only be done within a society, and not between societies. This is shown by the ethnographical research Saxe performed: the different groups differed indeed too much to be comparable. At closer examination we stumble upon some problems, both in the methods used, and with the aims of the research itself. This type of approach leads to statements based on assumptions. If for instance a correlation is found between number of pots and status of the deceased, the idea is that more pots mean more wealth - to take an (over)simplistic example. A relation is perhaps also be found in placement of the pots: pots on the left means 'male'; pots on the right 'female'. There are a number of assumptions beforehand. Firstly, it is assumed that there is such a relation (but: do more pots mean more wealth?). Perhaps extra pots were placed to create an ascribed or desired status in death. Or they were simply put there because the deceased had three daughters, who all needed to place their favourite pot in their father's grave.54 Other critiques of the processual approach was the seemingly lack of interest in actual human behaviour, being substituted by processes and the lack of a descent theory of the profession. These critiques, since the last part of the twentieth century, lead to the so called post-processual or interpretive archaeology.
Perhaps it is better to speak of interpretive archaeologies, since from the critique a multitude of approaches emerged.55 In general we can state that examining grave goods is informative on both the function of the object itself, reflected in its shape (e.g. 'drinking-cup' is a functional description) and the meaning of that object (e.g. needed for a drink on the road to the afterlife). The second point already adds something: it informs us about the possibilities of an idea of afterlife in the society under study - reflected in the grave. Interestingly, the components of the clay may be formative on the function (as funerary pottery) as well, as exemplified by some of the (former) customs of the Kalihna (Suriname). Before wooden coffins were in use (due to Christianization), the deceased was placed in a sama’ku, a large dolium-shaped pot. This pot symbolized the return to Creation (orino) and was baked from special clay, used only for this purpose. In the pot both personal items as well as food was packed. The pot was buried in the house of the deceased (Malajuwara 1998, 65).
After Appadurai (1986) edited his very successful Social Life of Things, the concept of 'biography of objects' became an important way to look at material culture within archaeology. The life an object led, before ending up in the ground, was examined. Although there are many examples of this type of research in Dutch archaeology, they tend to focus on e.g. hoards (Fontijn 2003, 2007), and not so much on grave(good)s. Where grave goods are examined, this is mostly done to look into the provenance of the object and in extent (the contacts of ) its 'owner' (see figs. 9a and 9b). For instance to prove the importance of foreign brides in a network (Lohof 1991; Roymans et al. 2014). Less attention is paid in attempting to 52
Saxe approaches burials as static and does not pay (much) attention to secondary rites. One could wonder whether the societies he studied have no rites to perform after burial. Is it really a one stage affair? (cf. Goldstein 2002, 202).
53 For the Dutch situation the dissertation of Lohof (1991) is a good example of how the Dutch mortuary record from the Bronze Age can be approached in a processual way.
54 Not likely, but not unthinkable either.
25 understand more about the meaning of the object for the deceased, or his descendants. Although life histories of objects are added, still, provenance and processes are the main focus, as they were in the cultural-historical approach. Most of the attention goes to the questions concerning 'what' and 'from where'. Moreover, the sexing (of graves) based on goods found continues, even after the wave of feminist archaeology, warning against applying our own norms (Moore and Scott 1997; Trigger 2006, 458-460).56
Figure 9a and 9b. On the left Grave 1 of the combined cremation / inhumation field of Geldermalsen is
depicted; RemainsID 79). The objects found in this grave have parallels in the Marne-Aisle culture (see also fig.5). An example of this is shown on the right, found in the valley of the Seine (sources: Fig. 8a (left): Van den Broeke and Hessing 2005, 655, fig. R1. Fig. 8b (right): Leman-Delerive 2007, fig. 3).
The objects:
Left: Right:
1-3 pottery 1 fibula
4 iron knife 2 torque
5 bronze torque 3 torque
6-7 bronze bracelets 4 fragment of a torque
The next step can be found in the type of research Baker (2012) advocates. She looks at both the assemblage of goods and the meaning of those goods. Instead of using the difference in amounts of goods as a way to identify differences in status in a cemetery, she looks at the goods everyone received, in order to say something on the mind set of society. Not stating "two drinking cups means this is a rich man", but arguing, "everyone has at least one drinking-cup: this must be an item that has significance for everyone in this society. What
26 could that significance be?". Baker tries to incorporate the belief systems in her research and thus looks at the 'why' of grave goods.
Grave goods can generally be divided in (1) gifts; (2) objects needed for an afterlife journey; and (3) personal belongings. The latter are sometimes hard to distinguish, when not attached to the body, like jewellery. Some personal belongings were (are?) too personal to be inherited and must be buried or cremated with their owner. One ethnographic example shows [in this case] women were buried with their jewellery, because it was inalienable (Saxe 1970, 204). There are suggestions on this topic concerning Hallstatt glass arm rings from the Iron age (Roymans et al. 2014). However, the fact that Saxe's (1970, 204) ethnographic research shows objects are only buried with their owner when he/she has no offspring, means we need to look at lifecycles of objects in a different way. Perhaps this handling shows not directly the status of the deceased, but his 'failing' to becoming a parent.57 This could in turn of course have had significant meaning for his/her status in society. The life cycle of ancestors ends, and so the life of objects (that are to be inherited) must end as well.
Authors like Stig Sørensen and Rebay (2008; with Hughes 2010); Nilsson Stutz and Tarlow (2013) and Robb (2013) stress the layout of the entire grave and its context. Their approach leans closely to the field of social bioarchaeology, where not just the bones, or just the material culture is examined, but every aspect taken together (Agarwal and Glencross 2011, esp. the contribution of Weiss-Krejci). All of those aspects can be seen as agents of a message the grave has to tell us.58 Goods can be of great importance here, especially for the Dutch situation, where bones have often disappeared due to the soil conditions. The whole arrangement of a grave can be informative on the choices that were made by the mourners. The dynamics of a grave-ritual can be reconstructed when this arrangement is carefully studied (Ekengren 2013).
This brings us to a final problem: in the Iron age cremation practices were widespread. We know goods tended to end up on the pyre in the Netherlands (e.g. Heirbaut 2011; Hermsen and Van der Wal 2012). This - in combination with the soil conditions - means we hardly find organic gifts or perhaps given food, although some animal bone could be interpreted in this way. Our picture will remain incomplete; not knowing what we are missing, or even whether we are missing something. The fact that goods were burned, however, can be informative. They were thus in this regard at least, treated in the same way as the body - both needed to be destructed for some reason (Rebay-Salisbury, Sørensen and Hughes 2010). The more reason to look at the possibilities of an intermingled research of goods and remains in future research.
2.1.4 Bioarchaeology: examining human remains
Because in this study the relation between ‘individual’ people and the way they were buried is researched, here the main (scientific) methods used to sex and age human remains are introduced. Next to that examining the body for evidence of trauma or pathology is of
57 The objects are apparently seen as contaminated in some way.
27 interest, as are methods to determine the provenance of the body.59 The methods are not practiced for this study, but were used in previous research of the data (see, for an example figs. 10a-d). It is important to understand how previous researchers came to their conclusions, to be able to judge the validity of those conclusions.
Figures 10a, 10b, 10c and 10d. The skeletal remains of the girl found in the Uchter Moore (‘Moora’) were found
in 2000 RemainsID 151). Her right hand was found in the bog, five years later. The right hand was mummified, whereas the rest of her body was skeletonised. The pressure of the layers of pea on top of the body, caused the cranium to ‘explode’. In the middle we see the remains were examined, so that a reconstruction of her features, including a facial reconstruction could be made. For this, the bones of the skull were digitally re-assembled. Next to this, DNA was taken, to confirm her sex and to be able to approach her facial appearance as much as possible. One of the suggested appearances can be seen on the right. ‘Moora’ was between 17 and 19 years old, at time of death (dental records; closure of sutures). She showed signs of malnutrition and a spine malformation, caused by a benign tumour. Additional 14C-dating revealed a calibrated time of death between c. 764 – 515 BC) (Jopp et al. 2011; http://www.uke.de/institute/medizinische-informatik/index_ENG_31477.php). (Sources figures: left: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_of_the_Uchter_Moor; top right:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?25306-Facial-Reconstruction-of-Moora-Girl-of-the-Uchter-Moor; middle right: http://www.uke.de/institute/medizinische-informatik/index_ENG_31477.php;
lower right: http://anthropologistintheattic.blogspot.nl/2011/02/pictures-ancient-bog-girls-face.html; illustration by Wittwer-Backofen, University of Freiburg).
28 When no grave goods or monumental structures are found, interpreting the culture to which the human remains in a grave belonged to, is not an easy task. The research needs to concentrate on the context of that grave, for instance a nearby settlement or landmark and on the human remains themselves.60 The remains, bone material as well as soft tissue, can be studied at different levels, both in the field by the naked eye and in laboratories on a microscopic level. Bioarchaeological research on human remains completes the contextual story (Gowland and Knüsel 2006, ix).
The fact that the rise of bioarchaeology lies within the interpretative paradigm directs the questions asked in this field of study. Archaeology has not always been interested in detailed research of bone material, meaning older paradigms did not pay as much attention to the biological aspects as nowadays.61 The study of tanathology, and the recognition of its importance for our view on funerary customs, is a relatively recent development (Duday 2009). The importance of taking physical anthropology into account can be illustrated by the fact that new techniques like DNA tests prove that ideas on family groups barrows are not always correct (Thurston 2009, 371), or that the biological sex is not confirmed by grave goods found.62 Isotope analysis can add to this by informing on the provenance of an individual. Although many of these techniques are difficult to perform when the remains are creamted, it is not impossible, as for example the research on the unrfield of Epse-Noord shows (see chapter 3; see Appendix I). It is in many cases possible to determine the sex and age of cremated remains, as wel as the number of individuals placed within one grave.63 The finding of pathology is more problematic: since some bones are less likeley to be destroyed by fire, there is a bias towards pathology in theses. For example in Epse-Noord three graves contained vertebrae with Schmorl’s nodes (grave 11, 30 and 38; resp. RemainsID 38; 60 and 69, see fig. 11).
Figure. 11. Schmorl’s nodes, pathology found in
grave 38, Epse-Noord. Multiple reasons could have caused these, under which hard endured physical labour (source: Hermsen and Van der Wal 2012 84, fig. 5.12; Roberts and Manchster 2010, 140-141).
The aim of studying samples from populations is to make statements about the whole of the population, rather than discussing the individual. This is necessary to be able to make general statements and to deduct general norms. However, all individuals must have had the same chance of being represented at the site (table 1 above). Any bias that may affect the
60 But see section 2.1.2.
61 It is possible that lack of human remains found in early excavations can be partly explained by the fact they were not (systematically) collected.
29 data must be detectable and taken into account. In doing so, one has to question of course what is meant by 'the whole' population. The buried sample is always the result of cultural choices and, as described above, due to taphonomic processes and choices during excavation (Waldron 1994, 11-13 especially fig. 2.1, 22-25; see also Bocquet-Appel 1996).
It is never certain whether the excavated burial represents the entire living population, since we do not know, for instance, how many people were excluded from the dominant grave rite. We can only come close by establishing whether certain categories of people (e.g. infants64) are missing. Moreover, research shows that not all ways of dealing with the deceased have an equal chance of ending up in the archaeological record. Decisions like excarnation reduce the change of remains being found drastically, as does for instance non-packed burial of cremated remains (Fairgrieve 2008; Andrews and Bello 2006; Madgewick 2008).
As a result of this, it is not possible to have truly random samples from a buried population, it is biased by the pure chance of remains being preserved. And, in such condition that they can be studied and compared.65 Moreover, dead population differ from living ones, for a start in age structure. Especially in pre-modern societies the risk of dying at certain specific ages is higher, creating a non-balanced age figure in the cemetery (Waldron 1994, 16).66 Aside from these factors influencing our knowledge of the living population through study of the dead population, the examination itself often suffers a bias: when skeletal material is studied, the tendency is to focus not on the healthy 'normal' individuals, but instead on the deviant. Much of research is done on individuals that were unhealthy or had a recognizable trauma (Waldron 1994, 4). As Waldron (1994, 22) states: "Thus we are dealing with a population [...] which is a social or cultural sample and not a biological sample; which is an unknown proportion of the total dead population; and which has suffered a number of depredations in the time between burial and recovery."
Sexing and aging individuals is part of building up the demographic profile of a population. Preferably sex is determined by DNA-research, as shown in the examples mentioned earlier. This is in fact the only method giving a definite answer. The problem is that DNA is built up out of proteins and therefore susceptible to decay. Determining sex by non-metric methods can only be performed on adults, because children are not yet fully developed and may show telling results. However, even in adults the determination of sex based on non-metric methods is never fully conclusive. Although the human species shows dimorphism, one has to keep in mind that most skeletons have both male and female morphological features (Roberts 2009, 121-123).67 All features taken together provide an overall score,
64 Infant and juvenile skeletal remains are (still) often overlooked because they are small and brittle and can easily be mistaken for animal remains, pebbles or even tree-twigs (Dupras et al. 2006: 127-128). Perhaps this can partly account for the severe underrepresentation of these remains in prehistoric burial sites - and not only cultural choices as is often assumed.
65 Compared within the population and with other populations. However, when comparing a (palaeo-)population with another population, it is important to establish whether the reference collection or population is
representative of your own population. Characteristics differ between populations, which could lead to mistakes when comparing (Waldron 1994, 20; Roberts 2009, 123).
66 The fact random samples cannot be taken, because the population is not normally distributed, makes it hard to test correlation. Therefore the research question may not be answered in a scientific solid way, other than by simply counting.
