Settlement and Landscape
o
Proceedings of a conference in Arhus, Denmark,
May 4-7 1998
Edited by Charlotte Fabech &^ Jytte Ringtved
Settlement and Landscape
Proceeding ot ,1 i n n l e r e i K e in Arlius, Denmark, \\.\\ \-l I W 8
1 dited In t ' h a r l n t t e 1 , i l x - ( li & J \ t t e KingUed
1 I lie a u t h o r s 1999 I S B N 87-7288-595-5 ISSN 0 1 0 7 - 2 8 5 4
I nglish revision b} Peter ( r.ibb
I.,i\oiit and prepress In Louise I l i l i n a r 'Ivpeset in Adobe PageMaker
Printed in Denman 1>\ Narayaiu Press, Gylling
'Ispe: L a p i d a r s 5 U I', I l',i|)i i : An t i t V o l u m e Published b\
J u l l . m d An lueolojni ,il Soi i e l \ MoesgSrd
Dk-8270 I l i t j b j e t a
I Hstributed In
A,u bus l l u i v e i s i t \ Press I angelandsgade 177 Dk-8200 Varlms N \ \ \ \ \ \ .iii.dk, uuipress 7 Î I inie \\.ilk l l e a d i n n t o i i , O x t o n l ( ) \ < 7 V I ) I K ) , box S I I
Oakville, C'onuei tii lit 06779
Published u i t h the l i n . i n i i.il support ol
I he Danish Researi h ( oiiiu il lor the I l u m a n i t i e s
Contents
Preface l l Lharlotte l\ihcch, Stccn / / i < ; u , Ulf V/wm;;; ti^Jutc Jüngtwd
'Setdement and Landscape'—a presentation öl a research programme and a c o n f e r e n c e l 3
Landscape and settlement transformations
Mut* H';i/c/;v;!Reflections on landscape and settlement transformations ... 5 1
Him lvkkcn\
Cattle and martialitv: c hanging relations between man and landscape
in tin- Late Neolithic and tin- Bron/.c Age ... 55 l:llcn Anne Peilenen
Transformations to sedentar) lanning in eastern Norway AD 100 or 1000BC? ... 45
Hemming KMI!
Vestervig- an Iron Age village mound in Thy, NW Jutland ... 5 5
Jens-Henrik Rah ^Miinin Mikkelsen
Landsc apes, settlement and subsistence in Bron/e Age Thy, NW Denmark ... 6')
tierOkRindel
Development ot ' t h e village communitv 500 BC- 100 AD in \\est Jutland, Denmark ... 79 .Srciic/ .l(/i/i' Kmulwn
(îr0ntott and the cultural landscape ... 100 /c'/is KcrtlwIJ
Aspei Is ol 'medieval settlement archaeology in the lignite-mining region
ot the Rhine-land, (Jermany ... 104 Peter Kth/ui.ki
Neolithic settlement and landscape at Oslonki, Poland ... 108 Rural settlements in southern C'entral 1 urope Iroin 6000 BC to AD 1000 ... 1 1 1 Barbro I. iihltihl Jetten ^. \1iits Re^nell
Ordinarx settlements in a sac red landscape ... 1 14 /V/;u \lthinincn
l andscape developmc-nl from the Stone Age to the Middle Ages in Perniö,
Southern 1 i n l a n d ... 116 .l/.m/(m'f<; ()/sso;i. /./ssc- IK;///;) it Per I iii/cnls
Together or apart — the problem ofnucleation and dispersal of settlement
Bj0rn Mvhreloge t her or apart — the prohk'in o t nue Ic-ation and dispersai öl settlements 125
ArnviJ I.illehurnmer
I arm and village, the problem of nudeation and dispersal ot settlement
— seen from a Norwegian perspective- I } 1
I'okkc (ierritsen
The cultural biography of Iron Age houses and the long-term transformation
of settlement patterns in tin- southern Netherlands l W
PlHll OttO \iclscil
LimensgSrd and (jr0dl>ygard. Settlements with house re-mains
from the l-.arly, Middle and Late Neolithic on Bornholm 149
Mats Ridderspont
Village and single farm. Settlement structure- or landscape organi/ation 167
Dorthe KuLLiI Mikkelsen
Single farm or village? Reflections on the- settle-incut structure
of the Iron Age- and the Viking Period 177
Stefjen Stummann I lansen
Iron Ape- settlements in northern /.e-aland .. 194
o b Svend Age Tornhjen/
Iron Age settlements near K0ge, easte-rn Zealand 197
John Simonsen
Bron/c Age settlements in Glattrup anel around I ake lastum, NW-Jutland 200
Settlement and non-agrarian production
Michael Miller-WilleSettlement and non-agrarian production trom the- high mountain region to the-
shore-line-An introduction 205
Christopher PtOCOtl
Long-term patterns of non-agrarian e-xploitation in southern Norwegian highlands 2 1 5
Stephen Rippon
Landse ape-s in eonte-xt: the- e-\|)loitation and manage-me-nt of coastal resource's
in southern and eastern Britain eiuring the 1 st millennium AD 225
I.urs Christian N0rbach
Organising iron production and settlement in Northwestern l.urope- during the- Iron Age- 2 M
Hauke Jons
Iron production in Northe-rn (Je-rmanv during the Iron Age 249
Id'hliir Rertclsen
Settlement on the divide- hetvve-en land and oe e-an.
I;rom Iron Age- to Medieval Perioel along the- coast of Northern Norway 26 1 Irene Schrüfer-Kolh
1 nvironmental use' and landscape Roman iron production in
Human-animal relationship
Kurkcr
Cattle-keeping in anc lent I m ope: to li\e together or apart? ... 27 3
Marianne Rasmussen
I i\ estoc k w i t h o u t bones. Tin- long-house as contributor to the interpretation
ol l i v e s t o c k management in tlie Southern Scandinavian 1 arl\ Bron/e Age ... 2
\'/io /{<>umim
Man, i a l t l e and the supernatural in the Northwest 1 uropean plain ... 29 1
II. //((/o Zimmennann
Why was cattle-stalling introduced in prehistory? The significance ot'lnre
and stähle and ot outwintering ...
Michael Olm^oii
I lerding and stallin« in Bron/e Age Sweden ...
The landscape seen as a social and mental construct
( )rdering landsc apes ... >31 / / K M / U N
Changing settlement patterns, burial grounds and the symbolic c o n s t r u c t i o n ot ancestors and communities in the late Merovingian southern Netherlands ... /o/i Dcrks
Between daiK existence and dixine order: the landscapes ot Roman Ciaul .. . 351
] \ t i c Riin/tYcil
Settlement organisation in a time ol war and conflict ... 3n 1o /Inc/crs .\iulrcn
l andscape and settlement as Utopian space-...
Abbetoip - settlement, c u l t site and burial ground. A preliminary presentation ..
Marie /.ou/si- St h/ V/v/isi'/i, /. /). / / / / / it.Si/m / i / u
The Aïs Project: long-term history on a Danish island ..
Transformations in the landscapes of power
Anthonic
Transformations in the landscapes of power some preliminar) reflections..
Skrc
Aristocratic dominion and land.mnership in Norway 2
/c//) Krink ^
Social order in the early Scandinavian landscape .. fiV Rihkcr &. Mhhticl Ilocpcr
1 irst aspects of social hierarchy ol' settlements in Meroyingian southwest German) ..
( / / V ( ) / ( C ' l\ll\\ll
i i i
fêter Attenta, Ester ran Joolai, l/<jmy/i u;n l einen, (.icrt-Jtin ßim/crs, Benoît Mater Si^Froukje Veenwtin
Régional pathways to complexity; landscape and settlement dynamics in early Italy 475
Ann-Lili Nielsen S^Karin Lindelihul
The king's manor at Borg. Changea in span- and time 700- 1 500 AI) 478
Methods in the study of settlement and land
Bagae Nielsen S^Qatu /)<//»
Cultural landscape i n tor in, it ion systems ... 484 Michael MeyerJ
The reconstruction ot prehistoric relief - an example ... 487
Peter Steen Nielsen
An a n a l y s i s ot the- relation between settlement and landscape
I -1000 AD in southern Jutland and Kmen ... 489
Linda Royc &ĥ.'///<; Fonnesbech- Sandberg
I louse typology in the- c o u n t y ot Copenhagen, I ) e n m a r k ,
during the I. ate- Bron/e Age- and Iron Age ... 495
Kiiren K. Milek
Sc'ttlc'mc'iit in t h i n sex t i o n . I he' application of sediment micromorphology
to the interpretation of Norse- (armsteada in I c c ' l a n d ... 197
Cattle and martiality: changing relations
between man and landscape in the Late
Neolithic and the Bronze Age
Harry h'okkcns
The t nuisit ion from Sterne Ayr to Bron/e Age has always been seen as one of tin- major changes in prehistory. Metal tools uvre considérée! lar more e f f i c i e n t than their stone equivalents ami bron/c created many more possibilities for the production of tools, ornaments and prestige items. U n t i l the l%0s siuh a technologically oriented point of vie\v was the logical consequence of the main scientific interests: establishing chronology and identifyingt> ou 'cultural i d e n t i t y ' .
These topics ha\e long since ceased to domi-nate our analyses. Now we try to formulate social models of Stone and Bron/c Age societies - mod-els that integrate- the data from graycs and hoards with tin- data from settlements, models that try to create an image of local communities in interac-tion with each other, w i t h the ancestors, and w i t h the supernatural. looking at the data from such a perspective, the technological division between Stone and Bron/c Age becomes less meaningful. Instead, an overall picture of continuity emerges. Ol course there are changes, but not at the very beginning ol the Bron/e Age-, and not only because of the intro-duction ofbron/e.
When I discuss the transition from Stone to Bron/c- Age, I will locus on the development ot settlement and landscape in the lowlands border-ing the North Sea. I use the- concept 'settlement' in •' broad sense, for the moment I prêter to leave-tin- spatial aspect of dwelling outside the- concept, '"•cause-1 believe this causes us to t h i n k about settle-m e n t s in a n a c h r o n i s t i c (i.e. t w e n t i e t h century. Western) terms. Then-lore, I will a\oid labels like
'hamlet' or 'village'. Instead I use the concept 'lo-cal community'. A lo'lo-cal community is defined as a group of people which inhabits and exploits the- same area, shares tools, co-operates in b u i l d i n g houses, buries its de-ad in the- same burial grounds, shares r i t u a l places, history, myths, etc. Analysing settle-ments and landscapes from this perspective com-prises not e>nlv spatial and economic, but also ideo-logical aspects of 'duelling and farming. Moreover, it concerns not only the living, but also their relations w i t h their ancestors and with the supernatural.
The chronological framework
Although I declared the- chronological perspective of minor importance as an analytical approach, a few re-marks about the absolute chronology of tin-period in question are necessary, because in Den-mark the Bron/c Age begins WO years later t h a n in the Netherlands (fig. 1). According to the Dutch definition, the Bron/.e Age starts around 2000 BC, as soon as the first (imported) bron/es appear. In Denmark, not the first use of bron/.e, but the last use ol stone, has determined the periodization (I om-borg 1975). There the 1 arlv Bron/e- Age- starts af-ter the- Dagger ]x-riod, around 1700 BC, when bron/c has already been in use for a considerable time-.
This difference neatly illustrates the problems that arise- when technological criteria are used as a major means of partitioning prehistory. In tact, in both countries developments probably run more or less parallel. The D u t c h 1-arly Bron/e Age is to a
The Netherlands Denmark Early Iron Age
Late Bronze Age Middle Bronze Age Early Bronze Age Late Neolithic 800 BC 1100 BC 1800BC 2000 BC 2400 BC 500 BC 1000BC 1700BC 2400 BC
!-ia. / . Pcriodi/anon i>f the Rron/c Aye in Denmark and the Netherlands /)<m-s in calibrated I4C dates
large extent a continuation e>f the Late Neolithic as well (cf. Lanting 197 3). Only in the Middle Bron/e Age, after I 800 BC', do transformations begin to bee ome archaeologically visible. Therefore I will in this paper consider the developments between 2000 and I 500 BC, w i t h an emphasis on the later part of that period.
The origin and ideology of the
long-house
One of the most fundamental changes during the first half of the second m i l l e n n i u m BC' o c c u r s , in my opinion, in the organi/ation of the farmstead and its ec onomy Most prominent in this respect is tin- development of the long-house, (ienerally, this is considered to be arc Ideologically visible in the transformation from the two-aisled houses of the Late Neolithic into the three-aisled houses of the Bron/e Age. This development is supposed to mark the introduction of the- stalling of cattle- w i t h i n the farmhouse (IJ/ereef ' & Van Regieren Aliéna 199 l, 70; Roymans & lokkens 1991; Rasmussen & Adam-sen 1993, l 38).
I his view, however, is not w i t h o u t problems. I here arc-, in fact, only very few examples of houses with stall partitions. Notably they are present in house's of the- Dutch Lmmerhout type (with stalls in the middle- of the house) and of the Lip type (with stalls at the eastern end) (fig. 2). Outside the Dutch province of Drenthe, very few indications of stalls h a v e been encountered. Within the Neth-erlands there is one clear e x a m p l e , south of the River Meuse, at Loon op Zand (fig. 2, Roymans & I l i d d i n k 1991). In Denmark a (disputed) example-has been found at Spjald (Rasmussen & Adamsen
1993, 138).
The problem is that the houses that display stalls, e.g. examples of the Lmmerhemt type (fig. 2), are date-el late: a l t e r 1400 BC (Huyts 1992; Harsema 1993). The three-aisled house as a type,
however, is m u c h older.1 The earliest elates reach
back te> the 18th and 17th century BC" (Ben-enkarspel, /.ijelerveld, Deulewaarel: Lanting & Me>e>k 1977).
The e>lele-st date's arc- tremi Doele-vvaarel: 1782- 1676 BC (3430 + 35 BP). The- house from loon op /and, w i t h stalls, is elateel to 1 520-1418 BC (Roy-mans & Hieldink 1991, 1 1 4 ) . This seems te> indi-cate that the three-aisled house-, which we assume is s y n o n y m o u s w i t h the le>ng-he>use, originates se>me-time- afte-r 1800 BC' at the beginning of
the-Middle Bron/e Age. The same is probably true for
Denmark, althenigh — based on his e x c a v a t i o n s in Djursland — Boas elates this development in Den-mark to the 16th century BC (Boas 1997).
It can, e>f course, ne>t be rule-el out that, alse> in the Lite Neolithic, cattle were- already house-el with-in the farmhouse-. It t h a t was the- ease-, however, it eloe-s not she>w in the structure e>f the house and may have been more occasional than s t r u c t u r a l .
So far, several functional arguments have- been advanced te> explain the p r a c t i c e - of c a t t l e stalling. To name a few:
Stalling e>f milch cows is necessary fe>r climatic reasons (Behre 1998,94)
Stalling is a means e>t protecting cattle- against raiels (Harsema 1993, 106)
Stalling enables the collection ol manure' ( I ) / -e-re-ef 1981; lokke-ns 1991, 1998b; Karlenby
1994, 3 1 )
Althe>ugh the-se- are arguments tor stalling, none of them explains why cattle should be kept under the same roof as people. In fact, the le>ng-he>use is a quite extraordinary phenomenon that is restricted to eiur part of continental Northwestern Europe.9
Lor the above-mentioned reasons, separate- byres
next to the house would be- just as efficient. This implies that the byre-house is more a social than an economic phenomenon.
Te> me- it is e|iiite- clear that the basis fe>r the e>ri-gin of the le>ng-he>use has te> be found in the social importance e>f cattle. I TO m an economic perspec-tive-, livestock was a source of food (milk, meat), clothing (hides), fertility (manure) and draft pow-er (trained oxen for pulling carts anel ploughs).' These qualities may have given cattle important
? » » » * • • •
'-••••%+. . L l » • •...•....•
o o
l ' *
/•i</. 2. BW« Age house pkn, f™ the Netherlands. To the lef, hvuesßon ,hc north (A EmmeiAout, B EIP). to the rw/u
howjhm the s,'.»»/) (CLooa ,r Zand, D Oa). After Romans «.Atóou 1991, jig. >
cial value as objects of exchange. Here we enter a complex theoretical realm that I will not try to an-alyse in detail. Suffice to say that, to me, exchange means first of all gift-exchange. Exchange is about the creation of relations. Thus, to possess and to exchange c a t t l e means to he able to acquire and maintain social relations, to enter into strategic and n u p t i a l alliances, l-'rom this perspective the long-house is the symbol of what Roymans calls a 'p-isloral ideology' (Roymans 1996, 54).
'Iwo aspects of c - a t t i c and of the house may take on different weight if we follow this view through. In the first place, the small si/c of the cows attracts attention. Bron/c Age cattle have been shown to be substantially smaller than their Neolithic ancestors and their present-day equivalents. This does not make sense from an economic point ot view. As-suming that height and build were consciously se-lected and bred, one mav also assume that hides, meat, m i l k and draft power were not the- only qualities that were sought in cattle. One might hy-pothesi/c t h a t , if numbers were more important than pure economic qualities, smaller cows could have been preferred over large ones. The small si/e »f the cattle could be used as an additional indica-tion of value in exchange relaindica-tions.
Another aspect t h a t mav be interpreted differ-ently if we accept the importance of cattle as a cru-cial element in Bron/.c Age society is the si/.e ot the farmhouses. Bron/.c Age farmhouses are often over 25 m long, h-om an economic point of view, such
large houses were probably quite unnecessary. The amount of cattle that can be stalled in such a farm (30-40) would allow even extended families to sup-port themselves to a large extent through animal husbandry. IJzereef (1981) indeed follows that line of thought. In contrast, if cattle had a large social value, their meat and milk quality may have been rather irrelevant. Cattle may have been slaughtered predominantly on the occasion of (exchange-) ceremo-nies. This means that we have to be cautious with the interpretation of bone assemblages from Bron/.c Agi- sites in strictly economic terms.
On the other hand, one could argue that if that was so important, the possession of a large number of cattle would mean more prestige than the pos-session of only a few. Thus, large f a r m s indicate wcalthv pc-ople. But this line of reasoning is too simple for me. Exchange is not a synonym for trade, so to possess large numbers of cattle is not the same as being rich. Large byres could also be a consequence of having to sustain large families. It is not the numbers that are important, but the ability to use these numbers in creating and main-taining relations. Relations cannot be bought, they have to be acquired. Personal skills in social con-tact, reliability in exchange relations, etc., are per-haps even more important than the- exchanged ob-jects themselves (cf. Weiner 1988). At the same t i m e we should reali/.e, as also Roymans points out, that if cattle became a valued object of ex-change they probably also became a source of
disputes, raids ,ind w a r f a r e (Roymans 1996, 54). That could account lor tin- emphasis on martiality that can hi- inferred trom grave »ills, hoards and
rock carvings. I w i l l return to this point a little later.
Although i attic definitely were a significant ele-ment in Hl-on/e Age society, so probably, v\as land. Through the use ot the- plough and ot manure, in-vestment in the soil increased and strengthened the bond between the t a n n e r and his land (I-okkens 1986, 19981); Barrett 1994, 145, 147). C o n s i d -e r i n g th-e r-elativ-ely larg-e- h-erds, gra/ing grounds most likely we-re just as important. We should not take t h i s too literally, ot course. I do not intend to sa\ that in the Bron/c Age i n d i v i d u a l larmcrs had permanent and exclusive rights to exploit particu-lar plots. But I do think that, even more than in the Lite Neolithic, there was a sense ot having the tradi-tional rights to use the land, ot 'belonging' to a cer-tain area.
The ideology of the burial ritual.
'... Land owns people
1there- are some i n d i c a t i o n s to support the- latter suggestion. The most important ones are d e r i v e d trom the analysis ot burial customs. A c r u c i a l as-sumption in that context is that the de,id are seen as ancestors who protect the- community. In tact, as de C'oppet demonstrates in his seminal a r t i c le e n t i -tled '„. Land o w n s people', not the people- but tin-ancestors own the land (de C'oppet 1985).
Therefore care- and respect tor the a n c e s t o r s is
necessary to saleguard the' land and the c o m m u n i -ty. Admitte-dlv, he' use-s only one- particular ethno-graphic e x a m p l e , but the- general p r i n c i p l e ' is in one- f o r m or another pre-sent in most tribal soc ie--tie-s. This means that the- places where the dead are
buried are important tor the- c o m m u n i t y because
they represent claims — ancestral rights — to t i n -use- o l ' t l u - land.
It we- follow that argument, a l o c a t i o n ot a bar-row in the- vicinity ot the- farmstead, on arable land, might signify s u c h a 'claim'. In the- Holoce-nc re-gion of West-Friesland, the barrows are- indeed le>-cated next to the- farmstead. Moreover, they sce-m to have- be-e'ii crecte-d only tor the- tirst sc'ttle-rs in that environment (IJ/e-rccf & Van Regieren Aliéna
1991). Also at Lip, Emmerhout and I lijken in tin-north ot the country, the barrows seem to h a v e ' been located in the vicinity ot the- farmsteads. In the- south ot the Netherlands, however, more tre-c | u tre-c ' i i t l v groups ol barrows have- be-tre-c'ii (bund. The l a t t e - r constellation may symbolize the- a f f i n i t y ol the local community with a c e r t a i n region r a t l i n than that ot one- family.
It is i n t e r e s t i n g to note that the use- ot t l u - s c ' barrow groups c an have a considerable' time- depth, otte-n trom the- Lite Ne-olithie u n t i l t h e - I ark IronJ Age- In the' Middle' Bron/c Age- we also see- contin-ued use ot the same- barrow develop, c u l m i n a t i n g in the 'family barrow' ot the- second hall ot the' M i d d l e ' Bron/e Age'. Se-condary burial was not cus-t o m a r y in cus-the- Lacus-te- Neolicus-thic or in cus-the Larly Bron/e Age- ( l o h o t 1994). This again suggests considera-tion and continued interacconsidera-tion w i t h the ancestors.
Martiality
Irom the weapons in grave-s and hoards, the' con-e lusion is oftcon-en con-elrawn that martiality is an impor-tant in-w ideological aspe-ct ol Bron/e Age- society.
Generally this is used to support the- idea of
in-c r e a s i n g se>in-c ial in-complexity. Some- s in-c h o l a r s e-ve-n have- visions of warlords w i t h retinues ol w a r r i o r s roaming around l u rope' (Kristianse-n 1994). There arc- two comments that I w a n t to make- on this.
1 irstlv, I t h i n k t h a t m a r t i a l i t y is already present in the- Be-akcr asse-mblage-. Battle- axes, Hint daggers and archers' pear, like- beautifully worked arrow-o J he-ads, wrist guards, and arrow-shaft polishers, a re-present — in s h i t t i n g combinations and numbers in many graves. This suggests that endemic w a r f a r e and raiding had already become an important elc-i n e - n l ot Late- Neolelc-ithelc-ic' socelc-iety. Martelc-ialelc-ity seems to h a v e - developed when the- large-scale1 Middle'
Neo-lithic1 tribal communities, w i t h the- c o m m u n a l tomb
as t l i e - i r symbol, dissolved into smaller social u n i t s (lokkens 1986, 1998b; Barrett 1994, 147). What changes in t h e ' Bron/c Age are' the arsenal and ( h e -way of fighting. In the- Late1 Neolithic and the- 1 ark
com-mon way of'outmanoeuvring' tin- e-ne-mv A l t e r 1800 BC', swords (first onl\ short, dagger-like), shields ,nul spears are introduced. This iiu-ans that gradually nian-to-iiiaii fighting-on toot -becomes customary. The adversary is not stalked from the hushes, hut engaged in the open. Lighting seems to have become a significant aspect ot demonstrating viril it v.
An interesting observation is t h a t , in the Bion/c-Age, weapons are often associated w i t h ra/.ors. Re-cently Paul Treherue therefore suggested that mar-l i a mar-l i t v and body treatment, especiamar-lmar-ly shaving, were closely rclateel to each other (Treherue 1995). This suggests t h a t warriors prepared specially lor battle and t h a t dress and appearance were very much part of tin- r i t u a l and ideology of fighting.
The constitution of a person
A second comment that I want to make on the is-sue of martialitv is that we have to be very careful about labelling people buried w i t h weapons as a warrior elite. Sim e the number of barrows is small, we assume t h a t u n t i l the I,ate Bron/e Age only a selection of the p o p u l a t i o n , probably not more t h a n 10 to 1 5%, was e n t i t l e d to a barrow burial (I-ohof 1994). Because of the cxclusivcucss ot the barrow burial and even more of broiv/e grave gills, the social-evolutionist approach of the 1970s and the 1980s considered the people who were buried underneath barrows to represent (male) elites with liigh status, following 'World System' and associ-ated theories, it seems to have become widely ac-cepted that especially from 2000 BC' onwards tin-whole of I'.ui-ope was related in one large network of elites who exchanged bron/es and created com-plex power s t r u c t u r e s everywhere, or in Kns-tiansen's words: distance = cxclusiveness = value.
With a food metaphor, one might call this a 'tasteless' view of the Luropean Bron/.e Age: an ex-tremely strong sauce labelled 'power and prestige' dominates all more delicate local and regional fla-vours. It is a typical t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y Western model of culture.
I want to contest t h i s \ i e \ \ . Of course, there were developments and innovations with extensive spheres of influence. But these Luropcan trends, <md t h e ' artefacts assoc iated w i t h them, did not
have i n t r i n s i c values. Whenever they entered a re-gional c u l t u r a l context, they were re-interpreted and their meaning and significance was adapted to the local ideology and tradition. This means that, for instance, bell beakers or swords do not repre-sent the same values and ideas everywhere,
Returning to the Bron/e Age burial evidence, one can say that ves, indeed, graves of males do dominate the burial record. But females are cer-t a i n l y nocer-t absencer-t. Neicer-ther are children, alcer-though u n t i l the I.ate Bron/e Age they are scarce in the burial record. Therefore, l.ohot ( 1994) and Theu-nissen (199Î), who have studied the' Dutch burial record in detail, think that in the Low Countries barrow burials were not exclusively tor elites, but that they represent an entity like a corporate group or kinship group. This principle originates in the Late Neolithic and does not change- between 2000 and 1500 BC (Lokkens 1986, 1997; Lohof 1994). Instead ot interpreting everything in terms of prestige and power, there is an alternative way to explain grave gifts, but so tar it has received very l i t t l e attention. In this respect I follow Ba/elmans ( 1 9 9 6 ) , who uses ideas ot Mauss and Dumont. These authors stress that a person is 'constituted' of elements obtained through exchange. Lxchangc means exchange w i t h people, ancestors, ghosts and gods (Ba/elmans 1996, 8 1 ) . These relations are articulated d u r i n g several stages ot lite. The birth, life and death ot a person are often seen .is processes ot merging and loosening of his or her 'constituents' (Ba/elmans 1996, 79). The objects of exchange gain meaning and importance in rela-tion to the context of the- exchange. This meaning may be entirely different from their actual form and function.
Applied to the- Bron/e Age, this interpretation stresses the- role eit material c u l t u r e in relation to the c o n s t i t u t i o n of a person. The right te> c a r r y weapons, for instance, may well have been an im-portant part ot becoming and being a man, even it these weapons were use-d only occasionally. It is quite imaginable that at least part of the arsenal of the- Late Neolithic and Bron/.e Age 'warrior' was
presented to boys during the 'rites de- passage' e>t
In-coming a man.
1 he-re- are- many ethnographic examples e>t such prat tic c-. Lor example, Thesiger shows that among the Danakil in Lthiopia, it was customary te> present
/•/<ƒ. 3. Rock cnyruvirifi of u Bmn/e Aye warrior (Vitlycke,
Bohuslän, Sweden).
boys with a dagger at the beginning of their man-hood. That dagger becomes part of their virility, es-pecially since l>oys only become men when they have killed another man. As proof of their prowess, they ( . i s t r a t e the v i c t i m s and display the trophy. The
number of kills is signified in t h e i r body
adorn-ments (Thesiger 1998).
Presenting weapons to a boy entering manhood may have been rone rived as a g i f t of the ancestors or the gods, obliging the boy to defend the propcr-tv of either of them. To a certain extent, this would
explain the high degree of standardization of
grave-gifts in, for instance, the Beaker and the Sögel graves. Iron") such a perspective, weapons are constitu-ents of a man, tokens that he is no longer a boy, that he is obliged to defend his c o m m u n i t y and take p a i l in raids. Comversely, taking part in raids and warfare was probably an important means of proving man-hood. In this i ontext it is noticeable that, in Scandi-navian rock art, swords, shields, axes and halberds
are o f t e n shown in combination w i t h another clear sign of virility: the erect penis (fig. ] ) .
One could take this line of t h i n k i n g even one-step further by supposing that, a f t e r having reached a ( ertain age, a man abandoned his weapons. Sub-sequently, he would no longer participate in raids, but serve the community, for example as an elder and a counsellor. The 'ritual of abandonment' could involve the presentations of his weapons and the adherent obligations to his heir. 1 he weapons might also be 'given back' to the gods through deposition in a marsh or river, from t h a t view, deposition a c -tually is an <u t of exchange w i t h the supernatural.
Naturally, w h e n thev died these elders w o u l d not be buried w i t h their weapons. But it would, I tear, be one step too tar to use t h a t .is an explana-t i o n for explana-the many grave's w i explana-t h o u explana-t weapons. Or would it not?
I his is but an idea of processes t h a t c o u l d have happened. It certainly cannot be used as a new gener-al explanation for the interpretation of grave gitts, since cosmologies and related ceremonies varied in every region and period. I have merely tried to
demonstrate t h a t power and prestige1 are not the
only possible explanations for the presence of bron/-es in some gravbron/-es and their absence in others.
As a footnote, I must add t h a t I h a v e - spoken only about men, but the- same- type of reasoning is applicable to women (e.g. S0rensen 1997). They, too, are 'constituted' through exchanges with people, an-cestors anel gods. Their role may have been just as significant tor the reproduction of the community as that of the men, but possibly was — in any case ar-( h.ieologically- less visible ar-( c f . Weiner 1988).
In the foregoing, I briefly mentioned hoarding, t h i s is another n u n h discussed aspect of the' Bron/e Age. Yet, as Vandkilde has demonstrated in her the-sis, he-re too elements of continuity with the Neo-l i t h i c ' exist (VandkiNeo-lde 1996). One of them is t h a t in the harly Bron/e Age, it was predominantly axes that were- deposited. This seems to be a continua-tion of the- Neolithic practice of stone-axe hoard-ing, which does not imply that its meanhoard-ing, or the rituals assoc i.ited w i t h it, remained the1 same1,
hs-pccially the Late Bron/e Age- shows a spectacular increase in the1 practice of hoarding, suggesting an
increased exchange with the supernatural. Para-doxically, this may mean that the- arc-as that eco-nomically are considered marginal and peripheral
\\astelanels — tin- bogs, marslu-s and riu-rs — formed the- core elements ot t IHM r cosmological spaiv.
Conclusion
' l < > eoncluek-, I think that the lanelscape- of thr Bron/e Age was UHR h more- a cultural landscape than that of the Ni-olithic. L\rgc- parts oi the forest had heen
•
%•/!•
*•
_ . ••«•J* ^»* # *<?3?*%H
J*« «l* * A*
::
*•* -rr-f "" -S^ !? forest • barrows '* marshes '- cattle i" farmsteads 3\. arabler*y
THE OTHERS: ENEMIESofferings § hoards
\
THE LOCAL COMMUNITY
§
offerings respect CO "*" O fertility success in battle ^ ownership < of the land gift exc (bronzes, ca •M NEIGHBOURS t assistence sharing\
HOUSEHOLD hange ttle. spouses) ices fertility success in battle O offerings hoardsI
THE OTHERS: ALLIES'','/ •/. Model o/ mo (/imi-m/oMs o/ the Rnm/e .\i/e' i'ovm
l- j/ie
, ß. the Ideological ifimenston.
transformed into arahle Hekls and settled areas.
Within this spatial setting, the people, their rattle, arahle land, the antestors and the supernatural were elosely linked in a complex cosmology. In the fol-lowing 'pictorial narrative' I have tried to indicate a numher of the elements ot that ideological constel-lation and their reconstel-lations. 1 have separated two di-mensions, the spatial anil the ideational (fig. 4).
The farmstead with the long-house and the sur-rounding vard is at the heart ot the spatial dimen-sion of the cosmology. Close-by are the farmsteads of relatives and neighbours that cxmstitute the local community. Probably such a community consists of not more than two or three large farmsteads with some 40 people keeping about 40-80 cattle. They share the same ancestors. They help one an-other in tasks around the house and in agricultural practice. Cattle gra/e in the fields and along the brooks around the farmstead, watched by the chil-dren of the community. Their manure fertili/es the fields, increasing the yield, enabling offerings to the ancestors and the gods.
In the direct vicinity of the farmsteads, the bar-rows are situated, symbolizing the ancestral rights to the land. Offerings to ancestors and respect for their rcsting-place ensure the continued use ofthat land. In the forests, marshes and rivers beyond, dwell the gods. Offerings to them of products of the fields and of valuables ensure fertility ot the herds and the fields, and success in raiding and warfare.
The whole spatial setting ot the farmstead and the landscape around the settlement is thus charged w i t h meanings that are essential tor the existence and reproduction ot the local community. Also contacts with the outside world serve that pur-pose, either through exchange or through raiding and warfare,
From this perspective, the transition from t In-Stone to the Bron/.e Age is not an economic revo-lution. It is a transformation ot the complex ideo-logical relations between people, animals, the ances-tors and the supernatural, which is manifested in the exploitation and signification ot the landscape.
Notes
I . H.irsi'in.i ( ll' 9 7 ) thinks tli.it prior to 1400 BC tlirc-o-.lislnl houses \ \ i t h .1 separate- livre- rxistcil. I Io\\e-ve-r, in
Ills examples of these byres, no ex idem e l'or st.ills is v i s i ble either. 'I'liev c o u l d j u s t as w e l l be assoe iated d w e l l -ings or sheds.
.'. 1 1 »1 threeaisled Bron/e Age longhouse has a \ \ i d e d i s t r i -b u t i o n in Northwestern Europe. Il appears in Central Sweden ( K a r l e n b v 1994), in Denmark (Rasmussen & A d a m s e n 1 9 9 5 ) , i n N o r t h e r n B e l g i u m (Crombe'-1 9 9 5 ) , i n the Netherlands and Northwestern Germany (Roymans & FokkeiU 1991), and in 1 rain e. K o v m a n s \ I o k k e n s ( 1991 ) thought t h a t the type was r e s t r i c t e d to the area n o r t h ot the loess, but new d i s c o v e r i e s in t h e I o r r a i n e (Blouet et al. 1996) and Burgundy ( I ) a r t e -v e l l e 1996) d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t along t h e R h i n e a n d t h e Moselle, the Hauslandschaß ol the long-house certain!) e x t e n d s in a s o u t h e r l y d i r e - e tion.
5. In t h i s r e s p e c t , I disagree w i t h Be h re ( 1998, 96), who states that the a n i m a l - d r a w n plough was an i n n o v a t i o n ol t h e ' Bron/e Age. There are m a i n ploughed l i c l d s k n o w n f r o m t h e ' N e o l i t h i c and also graves ol ( p a i r s ol) oxen.
4. At a c o n f e r e n c e in l i s b o n , in Ortober 1995, K r i s t i a n Kristianse-n, s u n i m a r i / i n g t h e - session on 'hierarc In and
power', mowed an overhead sheet v\ith the- mentioned
equation.
Bibliography
B a r r e t t , J o h n C. I 994: fragment! from limn/tun \n atdtaeolog)
„j wie;,;/ life in Rrihnn. 2 WO-1200 /}( Oxford.
Ba/c'lnians, Jos 1996: I en \oor iillen, alien \ooreen.
Disserta-tion. Leiden
Helm-, Karl-1 rust 1998: Linckvirsc haltliche |-.nt\\kklungslinic-n und die Veränderung der Knlturlandsc h a l t in der Brcm/e/eil I uropa.s. In: I länsel, B. (ed.). U-nv/i unj llumeh to dtr Bronzezelt /:imy>,M Kiel, 9 I - I (19.
Behre, K a r l - l T i i s t S< I). K u c a n 1994: Die GaehidlU der Rul Ir/rAme/M'/iri/l und de-. ,\ii-erh,iu\ in der SitdlungskattUntr riiifjeln.
Niedersachjen, \en der Jungsteinzeit Probleme der K i i s t e n
-lorsc h u n g im südlie hen Nordseegebiet 2 I . H i l d e s h e i m . B l o u c - t , V i n c e n t , M.irie-l'ierre KoemV <St Ian Vanmoerkerke
A O '
1996: l'Age du Bron/c- A n c i e n e-ii Lorraine-. In: Mordant, Claude Si O l i v i e r ( i a i f l e (eds.). ( iilture\ el v H / r f ó Je Kron/e
.\iineii i'ii l:ur«i«'. Paris, 405-57.
Boas, N i c - l s A\c-l 1997: Settlements and f i e l d s c o v e - r e d In sand d r i f t in t h e - Bron/e- Age-, Djursland, I ast J u t l a n d . In: Asse-ndorp, Jan Joost ( e d . ) . Forxbuog zur bronzezeitliche
/!.-liedlung in \ord- und Mitteleuropa Internationales .Sim/iowi/m
ion (> 11 MÜI l'i'Hi in llii/iifkcr. Internationale A r c h ä o
-logie 58. I s p e - l k a m p , 16-28.
Bronge-rs, Avolt 1976: Air photograph) <ind (elin fiel,l r<-M',m/>
m the Netherlands Nederl.iiidse ( )udhe-de-n, 6. ( i r o n i n g e - n . de Coppet, Daniel 1985: ... Land owns people. In: Barne-s,
R. I I . , I). de- Coppe-t Si R. J. |>arkin ( e c l s . ) . ( » m . ' v i Oltdltt <'A laütropoiogkal cu(;n on hier<inh\. Jaso oc c asional papers
l . Oxford, 78-90.
Crombé, Philippe 1 9 9 5 : De nederzetting uit de
midden-bronstijd te- Maldege-m "Burkel" (O.-VI.). liinnln l, 5-6. l)artc-ve-llc-, I le'-le-ne- 1996: I/ier-(ienlis (Côte-d'or): ne>ve-lle-s
donnc-e-s sur l'habitat c-n plaine- au de-but clé l'Age- du Bron/e-. In: M o r d a n t , Claude- & < ) l i v i e - r ( i a i l l e - (eds.) C I / / / H / V V c; MI
nele\ de Kron/e \mien en I i / n y i . - . Paris, 467-82.
1 okke-ns, I l a r r v 1986: I rom s h i l l i n g e ultivation to short lal-lov\ c u l t i v a t i o n . I ate- N e - o l i t h i e c h a n g e in the Netherlands
reconsidered. In: I okke-ns, 1 1 , u i v, Pieteke M. Banga &
Mette Bierma (c-cls.). ()ƒ! /nek niiiir men', en niiilcricle uiltiinr.
Groningen, 5-2 1 .
I okkens, H a r r y 1991: Ne-clc-r/e-ttingssporc-n uit de- b r o n s t i j d c-n de- vroe-gc- ijzertijd in Oss-llssen, w i j k M i k k e l d o n k . In: I okke-ns, I l a r r y Si Nico R e i y n i a n s ( c - d s . ) . Nederzettingen
uit de broratijd en de YToeoe ijzertijd in dt Lagt Landen. N A R , l 5.
Amersfoort, 9 5 - 1 0 9 .
I okkens, I l a r r v 1997: I he- ge-nc-sis ol urnlk-lds: c-eonomie c risis or ideologic al c hange-, .tm^imi 7 1, 560-7 5. 1 o k k e n s , H a r r v 1998a: Drowned landscape [rchaeological
re-M'ijre/1 o/ r/ir »extern j\irl o/ lite IriM,in Drcntiiin Pliiteiin I / ( ' ( ' ß( until •>()() Ml. Assen.
I okkens, I l a r r v I998b: I rom the- e o l l e - c l i v e - to the- individu-al Some- thoughts about sociindividu-al and economic e hange- around 5000 BC. In: I clmonds, Mark Si Colin R i c h a r d s ( c - d s . ) .
Understanding the \<W;//m ofnorth-tvesttm / . i m y v . Cruithne
Pres», Glasgow, 481-91.
l o n t i j n , David 1996: Soe i a l i / i n g landse ape-. Second thoughts about the- e ullural biography ol' urnlic-lels. Archaeohtaiuil l\i-Aii/iii-s 5, 77-87.
Harse-ma, Otto I I . 1995: He-t nic-uvvc- Drentse bouwbe-sluit v a n I 400 v.Chr. \\e\terhecm 4 2 . 5 , 101-09.
l l a r s c ' i n a , O t t e i I I . 1997: Ncvv r c s u l t s i n lieId research, i n -t e r p r e -t a -t i o n and s -t r u c -t u r a l rc-e o n s -t r u e -t i o n ol Bion/e Age-b u i l d i n g s in the- p r o v i n c e - ol D r e n t h e ' ( t h e - Netherlands). In: Assendorp, Jan Joost (e-d.). Forschung zur brooztzeltliche
Besiedlung In Nurd- und Mitteleuropa Internationales Sim^ow um ui/i '^ / / \l,it l<)')(} in Hitzûcker. Internationale
Arehäo-logic- 58. l spe-lkamp, 87-95.
l l u v t s , Carlo S. T. J. 1992: /)i- ionr / i / M o r i M /ie buerderijhouu in
Drenthe Keconstructiemodellen van l i00 KÏoV tut 1300 na Chr.
Arnhem.
IJ/eree-f, (ic-rard 1981: Rnm/e 4geanimalbonaßon Bovaikarspel
i/ie entnimmt in Ilei \alkje {menjôort. Nederlandse Oudheden
10.
IJzereef, Gerard 1 Si Jan I lan^ois van Regieren Aliéna 1 9 9 l : Nederzettingen uit de- midden- e-n de- late- bronstijd bij
A n d i j k e-n B o v e n k a i spel. In: l o k k e n s , l l a r r v Si N i e e i Roy-mans (eels.). Nederzettingen nu de kramtijden de \ntt\/e
ij/er-üjd in dt Laat Landen, N A R , l J. Amersfoort, 61-82.
Karlenbv, I < - i f 1994: I he- Bron/e Age- house- in central Sweden. An evaluation of two ree ent e-xe avalions. I OR 26, 5 - 5 5. Kristianse-n, K r i s t i a n l 994: The c-mc-rge-nc e- of the- l urope-an
w o r l d system in the Bron/e- Age-: divergence, convergence and social evolution during the lirsl and t h e second m i l -l e n n i a BC in -l u r o p e . In: Kris-lianse-n, K. Si J. Jensen ( c - d s . ) . I nrtijv in the /ml millennium /i( . S h e f f i e l d Archaeo-logical Monographs 6. SheTlïeld, 7 - 5 0 .
Lanting, Jan N. 1975: Lnat-Neolithie urn e-n V'roc-ge- Brons-t i j d in Nederland c-n N.W-Duhsland: c onBrons-tinueonBrons-twikkeling- ontinueontwikkeling-en. /i/A/c-o/iisior/i) 1 5 , 2 1 5 - 5 1 7 .
I , a n t ing, Jan N. & Wim (i. Mook 1977: I he pre- tin J /irolo/m ion »l i/ie Netherlands in ierm\ oj radiocarbon i/c/ic*. ( i r o n i n
l »hol, l l i k , 1991: ' I r a d i t i o n and i hange. Burial prat'tiers in tlu- Late Ncolithk .ind Bron/c Age in the n o r t h - e a s t e r n Netherlands. Irchatological Dialogue! l , ''S-1 1 8 .
I oinhc.ro, l bbc 197 V /V llmtdolehe /V/m'/iM/'K Snuiten li/vr
Chronolofiie mi,/ kiilwrhe/iehnnfien ,/^ viJsAvm/m./nM/k-n .S/V/J-neohthikuau. Nordiskc l o r t i d s m i n d c r I . Kobcnhavn.
Rasmussen, M a r i a n n e & Christian Adainscn l1»1» ^ : Settle-ment In: I h . i s s , Steen and Kirgrr StonM.ird («Is.). Du/-,,/n,, into Cfcepotl 2S/MI3 ,./ lld^ofc» i» /Vmn,//*. Arluis,
l ï ( , - 4 1 .
KoMii.ins, N u-o l')'Xi: 'Hu- -»<>rd or tin- plough. Regional « K i u m K s i n t l i c K o i i u m s . u i o i i o l l V l g k (J.nil .ind the Rhinc-l.ind area. In: Kovin.ins, Nico (cd.), hom the smm/ K' '/"• /'/,..,,,/,. / / m r vr,„/io ,.ii r/u- a/r/u'« R.mi.mi.wrio" of northern
(mul Anislcrdain, ''- 126.
Rovm.in.s, Nico iv l l a r r x l okkens | W I : l'on .nnviclit v a n \ c c r t i g jaar lu-dcr/cttinasondcr/ock in de l.age Landen. In: I-o'kkens, l I.UTN & Nico Rovmans (eds.). NedtrMÜngiD
uit Je hromnjJ en Je '. mefjc ij/crtijd in Je l ,/>/.' / "nJen. N A R , l
*-Aniersloort, 1-19.
Koviii.ins, Nic'o & I lenk l l i d d i n k 1'*" l : Ncdcr/cttiimssporcnO l
uit de bronstijd en de \roege ijzertijd op de Kraamen.sche l leide te loon op /.and. In: l okkens, l l a r r v & Nico Rov-mans (eds.). Nederzettingen uit tie bronstijd en de \n\\jc
ijzer-tijd in de /.iJi/i' l.tindcn. NAR, l ?. Aniersloort, l l 1-27.
Sorensen, Marie-Louise S. 101)7: Reading dress: the ircoii-struction ot social identities in Hron/e Age I urope.
/our-nalofEuropean .\reh<.ieoh\i\ 5 . 1 , 'M-l 14.
Thesiger, \ \ i l l r e d I ' > ' ) S : I h e /Xi/iiit;/ lliiin. /oi/nii'i\ through I/MM.»!/,/. I 910-34. London.
Theunissen, Liesheth M. 1995: Once again Totcrlont-l l a l \ e M i j l . .liiiJ/ivM Pi\iehi^<<rk\i l.eiden*i*.i 2(i, 29-44.
'Lreherne, Paul 1995: The \\.irrior's beauty: the m a s i u l i n e hod\ and self-identity in Bron/c Age Lurope. jonrntil <>/
European Archaeology Î . 1 , 105-55.
\ a n d k i l d e , I lelle 1996: 1-roni Stone to Kron/e. The inetal\\ork of
the 1 tile \eolilhie <inJ etirlieit Kron/e U/i' in l\nmtirk. Arluis.
