Excavating the Elite?
Social stratification based on cremated remains in the Dutch hunebedden
D14 near Eext – www.hunebeddenwijzer.nl
Table of contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Methodology 5 2.1 Models 7 3 Results 12 3.1 Results 12
3.1.1 Total weight of cremated remains 12
3.1.2 Minimum number of individuals 13
3.1.3 Sex 14
3.1.4 Age 15
3.1.5 Animal bone 16
3.1.6 Green spots and copper –XRF-research 18
3.1.7 14C-dating 20
3.2 Research history into the Dutch megaliths 22
4. Discussion: cremation during TRB times 28
4.1 TRB –spread and period 28
4.2 TRB in the Netherlands 29
4.3 Wartberg – spread and period 30
4.4 Cremated remains from megaliths from the TRB across the border 31
4.5 Comparison of results 34
4.6 Copper in the TRB 35
4.7 Special features from the Netherlands 35
5 Discussion: Post-TRB use of megaliths 37
1. Introduction
In 2012 the Groningen Institute of Archaeology and Liesbeth Smits (University of Amsterdam) conducted a pilot study on cremated remains recovered from megalith D53 in Havelte. The remains had been kept in the depot of the University of Groningen since excavation in 1918, and have not been studied before. The results were very surprising. Not only contained this one megalith a significant amount of cremated remains, the study generated 5 individuals from the remains
recovered (Smits, 2012), and the results of the 14C-dating of the individuals seemed to attribute the individuals to the Funnel Beaker period. This was cause to expand this line of research to all
cremated remains recovered from the Dutch megaliths and try to find out more about the people buried in this manner.
Because of the bad conservation circumstances hardly any organic material has been preserved in the Netherlands in megaliths and thus no inhumated human remains. As a result in comparison to finds in Germany, Denmark and Sweden the Netherlands are fairly poor. In especially Sweden complete population studies have been done on inhumated human remains recovered from megaliths (Tilley, 1999b, 29), while there is nothing known about the people occupying the most western regions of the TRB culture. Cremated remains do stay preserved in the Netherlands in the sandy soils and are the only human remains from this period which can tell us something about the composition of the group of people buried in this manner in this type of grave monument in the Netherlands.
Goal is to research all cremated remains that are left. The cremated remains give an opportunity to understand death and burial practices and get insight in rituals in TRB society. This leads to the following main question:
- What can be said about the population and about social stratification of the TRB in the Netherlands based on cremated remains?
To research this question, the following sub questions are necessary: - How much cremated remains are left?
- How many individuals are present in the find material? - Is there animal bone present?
- What was the role of the animals in the cremated remains? - How old are the remains?
- How do these results compare to the results in an international framework of the TRB and Wartberg culture?
This also happened in the Netherlands. With the large amounts of pottery surfacing from the megaliths, cremated remains were put aside and have not been researched until now.
2. Methodology
All cremated remains discussed here have been researched by the author, except those of D26 and D53. Those have been researched by Liesbeth Smits (UvA). The cremated remains have been researched under supervision of Liesbeth Smits. She checked all results to be certain of the
determinations. For the determination of combustion rate and degree of fragmentation the method of Wahl has been used. The references for combustion rate and fragmentation size are displayed in figures 2.1 and 2.2. Combustion rate gives insight on how effective the cremation was performed. A wood fire can burn as hot as 1027 degrees Celsius (Dehaan, 2008, 4, table 1.3). A person on a pyre is usually placed on or near the top of the pyre, where most oxygen is available and since heat rises, the greatest heat could be achieved (McKinley, 2008, 165). Variables that have influence on fire exposure among others are; size of the fire, exposure of the body, duration of exposure and the condition of the bone (Dehaan, 2008, 8). The exposure to fire changes the compounds of the bone and because of this, and dehydration, the bone turns into a brittle material (Devlin et al, 2008, 111).
Phase Description Fragmentation size (cm)
1 Very small < 1.5
2 Small 1.6-2.5
3 Medium 2.5-3.5
4 Large 3.6-4.5
5 Very large >4.6
Figure 2.1. Degree of fragmentation (After: Wahl, 1982)
Colour Combustion rate Temperature ºC
Light brown 0=unburned -
Dark brown 1=very badly burned <275
Black 2=badly burned 275-450
Grey 3=averagely burned 450-650
Chalk white 4=well burned 650-800
Old white 5=very well burned >800
Figure 2.2 Combustion rates (After: Wahl, 1982).
distinguish individuals. The presence of double elements, meaning the same bone occurring more than once, is also a clue for multiple individuals. How robust or gracile the bones are also gives a clue as to the sex of a person. This has also been noted during the research.
Establishing age and sex proved to be difficult. These aspects are mostly determined on the skull and pelvis of an individual. Sex markers are for example the mastoid process or the sub pubic angle (Phenice, 1969; White and Folkens, 2005, 363-85). Age can be determined based on the fusion of the epiphysis or the fusion of the sutures on the skull (o.a. Meidl and Lovejoy, 1985; Baker et al, 2005) Determination of age can also be done based on molar wear (Mays, 2002). However, no teeth were recovered, except in the D26 assemblage. The question marks after a determination of sex show the uncertainty of a determination. One question mark would indicate probably male or female, two question marks show a greater uncertainty. The Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) has been based on the degree of weathering, double anatomical elements and robusticity of the skull. The thickness of the parts of the skulls provides an indication of different individuals. A very thin piece of skull will most likely not come from the same skull as a very thick piece and therefore indicate multiple individuals.
In most cases it is not possible to determine age. There are very few epiphyses found, and when they are found, most of the times it is not possible to determine age from it. For some individuals a more specific age is available. These age determinations are in most cases based on the closing of the skull sutures. In some cases the age determination of adult is based on fully fused epiphyses. Adult in these cases means older than 25 years of age when all epiphyses have fused. Since the determination of age based on skull sutures usually gives a wide range of ages, the determinations should not be considered exact. But it does give a range between which the age must have been. And in some cases the closing suture which determines age, is not linked to a specific individual. In most cases age will come to a label of ‘adult’, or ‘young’, or ‘undetermined’.
To summarize, it was very hard to determine sex and age, and this results in a very varied range of estimated sex determinations, and only very few age determinations. In some cases it is not possible to be more precise than determine that an individual is an adult or robust. In many cases this even is not possible. A large group of undetermined individuals therefor exists.
Figure 2.3. Overview of experimental research on cremated human bone in different states. (From: Whyte, 2001, 439).
Also a lot of research has also been done on identifying animal bone from human bone. Conclusions from this are among others that burned animal bone in the flesh are very difficult to distinguish from human bone that is burned in the flesh (Whyte, 2001, 440; Baby, 1954). The warping and shrinking of the bone is almost identical. When the bones are dry, there is a difference in colour of the bone and cracking (Buikstra and Swegle, 1989).
2.1 Models
To simply explain all the factors that contribute to the sample of cremated remains that is left today a model is proposed. Given that archaeology is “the discipline with the theory and practice for the recovery of unobservable hominid behaviour patterns from indirect traces in bad samples” (Clarke, 1973, 17; 1978, 10; Carver, 2007, 1), we must theorize which steps have been taken between the behaviour that resulted in deposition and the incomplete sample recovered through excavation. Cremation is often an indicator for a secondary burial, since the place of cremation often is not the same place as the deposition of the remains for a burial (Duday, 2009, 90). A megalith is of course an open context with people and animals visiting for centuries. Also (undocumented) excavations since historic times have influenced the sample size. Every step that is in between the moment of death and examination of the sample today decreases the sample. Basic rules for this process have been expressed by Clarke (1973, 16; Carver 2007, 1):
1) The range of hominid activity patterns and social and environmental processes which once existed, over a specified range of time and area.
All these steps are of influence of what is left to research today. For this research this has led to the following models.
Figure. 2.4. Overview of possible choices for TRB burial rites for the whole TRB area.
The first step is the death of a person. The family then selects a method of burial (fig. 2.4). For the Netherlands this includes inhumation and deposition in a flat grave, probably inhumation and deposition in a megalith, and cremation and deposition in a megalith and flat graves. In the case of this research, the method chosen is cremation and the burial method is deposition in a megalith (fig. 2.5). Then the funeral pyre is build. The person is cremated.
Afterwards bone fragments are recovered from the burned pyre for deposition. This is the first stage of bone loss. It is very probable that not all bone fragments are recovered from the funeral pyre and moreover the cremated bones are brittle, which means that pieces break when they are picked up. Experimental research shows that the fraction < 2 mm is not collected from a funeral pyre (McKinley, 1997, 132). For a better understanding of why not all bones are collected from the funeral pyre it would be useful to research the pyre remains. However, when these remains are not deposited separately, or covered by for example a barrow, it is highly unlikely that any of these pyre remains are found in the archaeological record. Marshall (1998, 173) states that the crust of remains that is left after a cremation occurs, is easily disturbed by trampling, weather conditions or recovering of cremated remains for deposition. McKinley (1997, 132-34) states that the pyre remains sometimes are deposited with the cremated remains, or deposited separately, in which case the pyre remains can be studied. She also states that a significant percentage of cremated remains are not collected from the funeral pyre and that therefore the study of pyre remains can give useful insight in the cremation and deposition ritual.
Then deposition in the megalith takes place. Because the megalith is visited by people for new funeral rites, clearing activities, rituals to remember the dead, bones are exposed to bioturbation and erosion. This is the second stage of bone loss.
In historic times people begin to excavate the megaliths to see what treasures lay buried within. These excavations may be undocumented in earlier times, and later professional excavations take place. The selection of finds takes place, and excavation methods are of big influence on the detection of fragments of bone. For example sieving over a fine mesh leads to more finds which otherwise would have gone undetected. This is the third stage of bone loss.
The finds then are stored in either private collections, in universities, or regional depots. Here the fourth stage of bone loss occurs. Very old private collections might never have been reported to the authorities, and simply have gotten lost over time. The same thing could occur to finds stored in universities and depots. Over time bags might have been displaced and gotten lost. All this leads to the sample that is available for research today. An extra difficulty is because the megaliths have been used for deposition of the dead up until at least the Bronze Age, it is uncertain if all the cremated remains are indeed from Funnel Beaker times.
Researcher Adult weight (gram)
Men weight (gram )(n= number of individuals) Women weight (gram)(n=number of individuals) Reference population Wahl 2500 No weight mentioned
(n=88)
Weight not mentioned (n=69)
Not given
McKinley - 2284 (n=9) 1616 (n=6) Modern
Hermann - 1843 (n=167) 1711 (n=226) Modern
Holck/Snyder - 2700 (n not given) 1840 (n not given) Modern
Kunter - 1850 (n not given) 1600 (n not given) Not given
Figure 2.6. Overview of results of experimental research into weights of cremated remains. (After: Smits, 2006, table 1-2).
Figure 2.7.Flowchart route of bones at Tara, (Kuijt and Quin, 2013, fig. 3).
the body, and that the parts not deposited in the megalith, may have kept on playing a role in the living society. The material from the Netherlands has not been researched on crushing of the bones and selection of specific parts. When regarding the open context of the megaliths and the poor excavation methods, it is questionable if this type of research will produce any reliable results at all. The model in figure 2.5 introduces events that influence the sample. The influence of the events is to be kept in mind when studying the results of the research and used as a stepping stone in
3. Results
Due to the degree of fragmentation parts that could show a decent clue on age or sex were just too small, or the wrong part of the bone was preserved. There are no open epiphyses found and thus age was mostly based on the closing of the sutures of the skull. Some closed epiphyses are found, which in combination with the sutures could contribute to a more precise age. But in most cases where it was possible to determine age, the range is very wide. In some cases it was also not possible to link an age to a specific individual. Evidence from Bell Beaker times suggests that cremated remains were deposited in pots. This would protect the remains from erosion and bioturbation. There is however no evidence of this in Funnel Beaker times (Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 73). The find of ritual houses for the dead in Sweden and Denmark, suggest that defleshing might have occurred in TRB times (Larsson, 2003, 161-62). This phenomenon has yet to be discovered in the Netherlands.
3.1 Results researched cremated remains 3.1.1 Total weight of the cremated remains.
To get an impression of the amount of the cremated remains, the remains have been weighed in grams on one decimal precision if possible (fig. 3.1).
Megalith Weight in gram
D2 10,7 D6e 19,4 D14 472 D15 752,9 D16 42,1 D17 91,4 D18 19,4 D20 3,2 D21 82,1 D22 191,1 D26 332 D27 223 D31a 173,9 D32a 72,8 D42 2,3 D43a 37,7 D45 28,2 D49 3,6 D50 7,9 D51 151,9 D52 58,7 D52a 989,4 D53 1105 D54a 406 D54b/c 1350,1 G2 1164,8 Total 7791,5
International literature mostly mentions that in the Netherlands there is no or very little bone available from the megaliths. This table alone shows the opposite. Considering the poor excavation methods and clandestine excavating it is quite a collection. But considering the number of Dutch megaliths researched in total the amount is quite small. Most ashes and bones shall be lost during the excavations in historic times (Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 72). Most remains consist of diaphysis and cranial parts (fig. 3.2). Regarding the compact structure of the bones, it makes sense that these are best represented. The cancellous bone of ribs, pelvis and vertebra is more easily crushed.
Figure 3.2. Overview of weight per skeletal part.
3.1.2 Minimum number of individuals
The material is stored per occurrence, say an excavation, and often not as different find numbers linked to a location in the megalith. This means that the only context information linked to a find number often is just the megalith from which the material came from. Some exceptions exist. The material is often not discovered as a concentration or in a vessel, and thus all cremated remains are put together in the same bag, with no regard for specific location in the megalith. A few exceptions exist, D26 and G2. But to study the material properly and to be able to link pieces from different find numbers to the same individual, all material from the same megalith has been laid out and studied as a whole. This method makes it possible to determine MNI with greater certainty. However, if a megalith only contained one piece of cremated remains, the determination of MNI will be one individual, but if a megalith contains one hundred pieces of cremated remains and the MNI is one individual, this determination will carry more weight than the determination based on only one piece of cremated remains. With such a small amount of material available it is impossible to determine if more individuals would have been buried in this manner in this megalith. The Minimum Number of Individuals is shown in figure 3.3.
1459,1 103,4 381,7 4451,9 120,2 959,1 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Megalith Number of individuals D2 1 D6e 2 D14 1 D15 3 D16 2 D17 2 D18 1 D20 1 D21 2 D22 1 D26 5 D27 2 D31a 1 D32a 1 D42 1 D43a 1 D45 1 D49 1 D50 1 D51 2 D52 1 D52a 3 D53 5 D54a 1 D54b/c 3 G2 3 Total 48
Figure 3.3. Overview of Minimum Number of Individuals per megalith.
3.1.3 Sex
Figure 3.4. Overview of sexes.
It seems that there is a slight preference for males in cremated remains buried in Dutch megaliths (fig. 3.4), but the uncertain determinations make for an almost even spread in the male-female ratio. Children and juveniles seem to be lacking. This is only emphasized in figure 3.5. In this figure the undetermined individuals have been omitted so that the distribution of the other sex determination is highlighted.
Figure 3.5. Overview of sex without undetermined individuals.
3.1.4 Age
In figure 3.6 an overview of age determinations is shown. In most cases it is not possible to determine age, due to too little material or lack of parts with age markers preserved.
Figure 3.6. Overview of age.
Figure 3.7. Distribution of age, without undetermined ages.
In figure 3.7 age distribution is displayed without undetermined ages. Adults make up the biggest part of the age distribution. This is not unexpected. The groups of young individuals seems quite small. This falls in line with the small number of children and juveniles among the sexes.
3.1.5 Animal bone
In most of the studied megaliths, animal bone has been discovered as well. In the research on the cremated remains from the megaliths, the animal bones often had a different bone structure, and sometimes the cracks on the surface are distinguishably different from those on the human bones. The animal bones are often a lot denser than the human bones of the same size.
Animal bones
Megalith Present Weight in gram Tools Species, if possible
D2 X 6 Possibly worked? D6e X 1,5 D14 X 4,5 D15 X 80 Chisel D16 X 0,9 D17 X 2 D18 D20 D21 X 2 Possibly sheep D22 X 4
D26 X 17 Pig, canine, undetermined
D27 X 51 Recent sheep, unburned, cow
D31a
D32a X 4
D42
D43a X 3
D45 X 20 Chisel? Unburned cow
D49 X 0.9
D50
D51 X 2
D52
D52a X 41 Piercer Sheep/goat, pig
D53 X 20 Bear and pig
D54a X 5
D54b/c X 11 Sheep and unburned sheep
G2 X 70 Chisel? Medium mammal, red deer
Total 345,8
Figure. 3.8. Overview of animal bones and tools found in the megaliths.
In figure 3.8 an overview of all animal bone recovered is displayed. Most of the animal bone that has been found is undetermined. The pieces are too small or too weathered to determine species. The bear found in D53 consists out of claws. It is possible that the cremated person was wrapped in a bear skin before being burned. This would make sense, since no other bones of bear are recovered (Smit, 2012, 6). Smit (2012, 6) also mentions that the piece of pig found in the remains could have been part of a food offering burned on the pyre.
The tools that have been discovered may indicate that the dead were burned with personal ornaments, or with tools they might need in the afterlife. Some of the bones display a green discolouration. XRF research has been performed on these bones to see if the marks are made by copper. This topic will be discussed in the next chapter.
Find number Tom Hakbijl Wietske Prummel Canan Çakirlar
D15-5 Big mammal, tool. Horse, tool? Horse
D15-6 Pig. Rib Bos Taurus? Undetermined
D52a-5 Undetermined, piercer. Distal diaphysis pig, not
worked.
Not worked, ulna.
D52a-6 Undetermined. Left proximal metatarsus
red deer
Bovine
G2-5 Undetermined. Very small, sheep/goat, roe
deer?
Undetermined
G2-6 Red deer. Big mammal, possible tibia
bos sp.
Big mammal Figure 3.9. 14-C dated animal bones, viewed by several experts.
Some of the bone fragments are worked and seem to be used as tools. Most likely the tools are used as chisels or piercers. The tools are recognized as pieces of animal bone that are rounded or
flattened, and have a regular surface. Not all the pieces of animal bone are shown to all experts. Only the pieces that have been sent off for 14C-dating have been displayed in the table above. This to be sure of what animal is being dated.
3.1.6 Green spots and copper – XRF research
During the research some green spots were noticed on some of the bones. The first thing that came to mind is that the spots were caused by being in contact with a copper alloy. It is known that in a few megaliths small pieces of copper have been found. In the Netherlands copper has been found in D15, D19 and D28 (Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 94). On the cremated remains from D15 green spots have been seen. It seemed a fair conclusion that it was possible that these spots were caused by being in contact with the copper that had been excavated from this megalith.
Realizing that copper objects had been found in megaliths which also had bone fragments with green marks on them it was a small leap to assume that the green marks had been caused by being in contact with copper. The spots appear on human bone as well as on animal bone. Following this line of thought, XRF-research was performed by Bertil van Os and Hans Huisman, both working at the Rijksdienst voor Cultureel Erfgoed in Amersfoort. The measurements have been done using a handheld XRF device. The results are shown in appendix 2.
Unfortunately it showed very quickly that the green spots are not caused by being in contact with copper. The metal read outs are too low. This caused the specialists to think that the spots have been caused by a biological agent. Using a microscope, it was clear that the spots are positioned on the surface of the bone as some kind of layer.
3.1.7 14C-dating
All the 14C-dating has been performed by the Groningen Institute for Isotopic research. There have been sixteen samples send for 14C-dating. All samples have been taken from the four bigger assemblages. The results are shown in figure 3.10. It became clear that not all the chosen samples were heavy enough (two grams or more) to be 14C-dated. If possible, another bone from the same individual was chosen. Otherwise the sample was not send out. The samples are added to the short list of previously available 14C-dates from megaliths. Not all the individuals from all the megaliths have been 14C-dated for financial reasons and the small amounts of material available for some megaliths. The bigger complexes were chosen because there is material available in general and per individual and multiple individuals are present. This makes it easier to determine if a single date is an outliner or the norm.
For the megaliths that do not have the individuals 14C-dated, it is assumed that these individuals all stem from TRB times. Since the remains are all originating from the megaliths is this a reasonable assumption. This is used as a working hypothesis for the moment.
14C-dates from the Dutch megaliths
Location nr GrA Result (years
BP) 2σ range (cal. BC) 1 D53-Havelte I 56684 4170 ± 35 2890 – 2630 2 D53-Havelte II 56685 4330 ± 35 3080 – 2890 3 D53-Havelte III 56686 4160 ± 35 2880 – 2620 4 D53-Havelte IV 56687 4320 ± 35 3030 – 2880 5 D53-Havelte V 56688 4210 ± 35 2910 – 2670 6 D53-Havelte Bear 56689 4355 ± 35 3090 – 2890 7 D53-Havelte Pig 56757 4340 ± 40 3090 – 2890 8 D54b/c-Hooghalen 1 61001 3585 ± 40 2113-2101, 2036-1872, 1845-1813, 1802-1777 9 G2-Glimmen 1 61002 3950 ± 40 2572-2512, 2505-2336, 2323-2307 10 G2-Glimmen 2 61003 3820 ± 40 2457-2417, 2409-2191, 2181-2142 11 G2-Glimmen 3 61004 3890 ± 40 2474-2278, 2251-2229, 2221-2211 12 G2-Glimmen 4 62288 4055 ± 45 2830 - 2820, 2660 – 2490 13 G2-Glimmen 6 62287 3935 ± 35 2480 -2350 14 D15-Loon 1 15641 4480 ± 60 3370-2930 15 D15-Loon 1 61005 4070 ± 40 2859-2809, 2752-2722, 2701-2486 16 D15-Loon 2 61006 3925 ± 40 2565-2532, 2495-2291 17 D15-Loon 3 61015 3975 ± 40 2581-2391, 2386-2346 18 D15-Loon 4 62283 3715 ± 35 2195 – 2035 19 D15-Loon 5 62285 3835 ± 35 2345 – 2035 20 D15-Loon 6 62286 3670 ± 35 2130 -1980 21 D15-Loon 7 61007 4060 ± 40 2853-2812, 2744-2726, 2696-2476 22 D52a-Diever 1 61008 3850 ± 40 2461-2204 23 D52a-Diever 2 61010 3970 ± 40 2579-2346 24 D52a-Diever 6 62284 3710 ± 35 2190 – 2035
25 D27-Borger 1 Late Bronze age (Koops, 2008, 45); ca.
Some of the 14C-dates have been produced at an earlier date, like the date from D15-Loon, GrA 15641. This date has never been published unfortunately. It is also not clear which individual exactly has been dated – it is not one of the individuals established in this research. The piece could be the only piece from an individual in the bag of material. The 14C-date from D27 is also a few years old. The exact data of the 14C-date has not been published (Koops, 2008). The 14C-dates from D53 were part of a pilot study, to see what the potential of older find material of this category was. All these dates seem fit nicely in the TRB times.
The additional 14C-dates of D15 come from the same find complex, and some samples even from the same bag of finds as the first date. These dates are all from a younger date than the first one.
3.2 Research history into Dutch megaliths
The megaliths in the Netherlands have a long standing research history. In this part the focus will be on the excavation methods used to excavate the megaliths in which cremated remains have been discovered. The megaliths have been excavated over a long period of time and in a lot of different manners. Excavations begin as early as the early 1600’s (Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 71). Many reports from the 1800’s mention the find of ashes and bone in megaliths, even when in later excavations hardly any bones are found (Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 72). The known excavation methods are discussed per megalith below. Of course this only entails the known excavations. With excavations that have been published one would expect that excavation methods were written down. The same goes for scientific excavations or excavations done by archaeologists. It will show that this was not the case in many excavations. Grave robbery or clandestine digging is in a general rule not
documented but the archaeologists or the early 20th century and even up to the 60s don’t do much
better. Below only the research is mentioned of which is known that it has affected the sample of cremated remains left for research today. The methodology is an important factor that in this case very much limits the available sample. All the megaliths that were known in 1918 have been
measured and drawn by Van Giffen in 1918. This is all reported in his publication of 1925-1927 (Van Giffen, 1925-1927). Unless something other than drawing and measuring was done, this research of 1918 is not mentioned any further. Also, in the times of Van Giffen, restoration meant something else than it does today. In many cases it entailed a small excavation in which profiles were drawn and finds were collected. The drawings are in currently in the collection of the Groningen Institute of Archaeology. In many cases there is not much more information available than the drawings, a list of find material in the depot of the Groningen Institute of Archaeology and sometimes a few day reports.
D2
In March 1952 a restoration has been performed on megalith D2. In this project the stones have been exposed and the cover stones and standing stones have been replaced in what is thought to be the original position. The terrain has been levelled after the restoration (day reports, Ten Anscher, 1988, 71). Other restorations have taken place in 1928 and 1965 (Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 165). There is no mentioning of any finds. These have possibly been found during measuring the megalith in 1918 or during the sealing of the cellar in 1983 (Ten Anscher, 1988, 71).
D6e
methods. It is unknown how the finds have been collected, if for example soil was sieved or not, or if finds have been collected in squares. From the publication it seems like the find have been collected while cleaning the profiles and slowly excavating the trenches.
D14
In 1955 a field walk was performed mainly by an amateur archaeologist, G. Diemer (Waterbolk, day report, 1955). Since 1871 reports have been filed on collections of pottery and flint and sometimes bones that have been discovered in or nearby the megalith. It seems like many collectors have handed in their material to archaeologists and that the material ended up in the Drents Museum, Noordelijk Archeologisch Depot Nuis, or at the Groningen Institute for Archaeology. In 1927 there has been an excavation of the cellar floor (Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 171). Documentation seems to be missing. How the excavation was performed is not clear. Further restorations have taken place in 1960, 1965 and 1996 (Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 171).
D15
In 1952 a restoration was performed on megalith D15 (Praamsma, 1952, 1). During this restoration a test trench of 1 meter wide through the gate form the megalith to the circle stones around the megalith. The trench showed two cellar floors and a remainder of the original cover mound. A lot of sherds have surfaced from this trench. In the documentation of the GIA it shows that the finds of excavation and some clandestine excavations by third parties have been put together. It is not clear which finds stem from which research. A 14C-date is available from the cremated remains. In 1974 some school boys excavated in the cellar of the megalith (Lanting, 1974, 1). During this activity they found two bell beaker pots with cremated remains. They handed over the finds to the university. The GIA then performed some research additional research. In 1983 the cellar was sealed off to protect the contents of the cellar from future clandestine excavating.
D16
The megalith has been restored in 1952 (Lanting, 1952, 1). The stones have been put back in what is probably their original position. In 1979 there has been dug inside the cellar of the megalith (Ten Anscher, 1988, 95). The cellar was supplemented and levelled after these activities. There are pictures from 1983 which are probably taken when the cellar was sealed. There is mentioning of a test trench in 1918 by Van Giffen (Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 172). Van Giffen (1925-1927, 48) says about this trench, that no cellar floor is present north of stones Z1 and Z2. There is no mentioning of excavation methods.
D17
D18
The megalith has been excavated in 1936 (excavation drawing). Mostly the surroundings of the megalith have been researched, but there are also some profiles that reach in to the megalith. There is mentioning of restorations in 1873, 1931 and 1936 (Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 173). During this last restoration, the excavation took place. The excavation was mainly focussed on finding the circle stones surrounding the megalith, but those were never recovered. A second try in 1964 also yielded no results on this account. The chamber has been sealed in 1983 (find documentation GIA).
D20
This megalith was restored in 1962 and 1998. In 1962 there was a big excavation where modern excavation methods were used. During the research of the surrounding area, the circle stones were discovered as well as a pit with three funnel beaker pots that were places inside one another. Also standing pits were discovered as well as some stones that were pulled over (Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 174). Ten Anscher (1988) mentions drawings made by Holwerda in 1912 of an excavation of the megalith. The drawings however, are missing. The excavations are mentioned by Bakker and Waterbolk (1980, 14-19), no they say nothing about the excavation methods used.
D21
The megalith was excavated in 1918 by Van Giffen (drawings GIA), and the cellar has been sealed in 1983. The excavation from 1918 revealed many pots, some of which have been described by Lanting (1983) and one of them is said to originate from the Funnel Beaker North Group. In 1960-1961 the megalith was restored (Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 174).
D22
The megalith has been excavated in 1918. Drawing of different levels and profiles are present in the GIA. The finds are stored in the depot of the GIA. No day reports are available and no mentioning of excavation methods is available. The megalith was restored in 1960 (Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 176).
D26
The megalith has been completely excavated by Bakker in 1968 and 1970 (Van Ginkel, 1999, 178). This excavation has yet to be published. The megalith has been restored in 1970 (Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 178). In 1972 Van Giffen performed a small excavated where after he finished the restoration of the megalith.
D27
the mentioning of the stones in 1835. In 1937 and 1992 restorations took place (Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 178).
D31a
In 1993 some research has been done by Lanting to see what remained of the destroyed megalith (Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 195). Several boxes of finds are present in the depot of the GIA today. Somewhere between 1855 and 1875 the megalith was destroyed (Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 195). The location of the megalith has only been discovered again by J.E. Musch in 1968. After the research in 1993 by Lanting, the monument has been restored.
D32a
The destroyed megalith has been excavated in 1983 (Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 196). 3 trenches have been dug of about 3 to 4 meters wide. The contents have been sieved over an 8 mm mesh. After this, a long, narrow trench and two cross trenches have been excavated over the centre of the location of the megalith. The megalith was marked by a large concentration of gravel, which used to be the chamber of the megalith. A few boxes with flint and sherds have been collected. After the trenches were completed, the rest of the pit was excavated in m2 squares in layers of 10 cm over an 8 mm sieve. A remainder of the floor of the megalith was found. After sieving the complete pit was
cleaned, and the ground plan of the megalith was visible, as well as the cover mound. (Day reports, J. Lanting, 21-3-1983 – 21-4-1983). The site has been disturbed badly through ground work in the 1930’s (Taayke, 1985, 33).
D42
In 1960 a restoration took place after a little research was done, but the contents of the cellar have never been researched scientifically. In 1965 Van Giffen uncovered the entrance of the megalith, so far the only one in the Netherlands to have one like it (Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 186).
D43a
The megalith was rediscovered in 1968 by J.E. Musch (Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 197). The megalith has been researched in 1985. An excavation took place. There was dug in trenches, using square meter squares and sieving all of the soil in layers of 10 cm (Lanting, 1985, day reports). During the drying process, the finds of 20 different find numbers got mixed up. The excavation had as a result a nice plan of the megalith and a lot of finds (Lanting, 1985). The megalith was probably destroyed between 1869 and 1871 (Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 197).
D45
D49
This megalith consists nowadays almost exclusively from stones that have been brought to the site from other places or other megaliths. The megalith has completely been reconstructed. It is called “De Papeloze Kerk”. The megalith was restored in 1958 and 1959 (Van Giffen, 1969, 4). In the
excavation, the location of the original standing stones was recovered. The megalith has been rebuilt as an educational object after that (Van Giffen, 1961, 6). There is no mentioning of excavation methods.
D50
This megalith has been researched in 1962 and 1985. In 1985 the cellar was sealed and some find material was collected during this process. During this process, the cremated remains were salvaged. The megalith was restored in 1962 and 1998 (Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 190).
D51
In 1952 some research has been done in this megalith. This resulted in some find material. In 1955, although the date is unsure, some clandestine finds were reported. Those are labelled as “de
Spreeuwenpot”. In this find material cremated remains are present. A note in the box by J.A. Bakker, says that the cremated remains are probably dating from after the TRB period. There are no clues as to why this should be true. In 1962 the megalith was restored. It was stated that the cellar had been strongly disturbed (Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 190). In 1985 the cellar was sealed with concrete tiles. The ground was sieved and the finds collected.
D52
The megalith was researched and measured in 1932 (Praamsma, 1953). This resulted is some boxes of finds. In 1953 and 1954 the megalith was thoroughly restored. In 1971 the megalith was
researched again by J.A. Bakker, resulting in a small bag of finds.
D52a
D53
The megalith was restored in 1949. It had to go into hiding during the Second World War, and after the war, the stones were lifted from their hiding place, and the megalith was restored (Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 191). During the measuring in 1918 some finds were collected, among others also some bone. In 1948 an excavation took place, in which the standing pits were discovered. The cellar floor was also badly damaged. The megalith has yielded many sherds, which in total resulted to about 660 pots. It seems like the megalith has never been plundered, and that only a small amount of material has disappeared over the centuries (Klok, 1979, 129). There is no mentioning of excavation methods.
D54a
The megalith was researched in 1921 and 1949 (Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 198; Lanting et al, 1949). In 1949 the megalith was excavated in planes, all of which have been drawn. The excavations have resulted in many finds, all currently staying that the GIA. In the day reports it is only mentioned that the excavation has been done in quadrants and planes. Not how thick those layers were, or if there was any sieving done.
D54b/c
These two megaliths will be discussed together, because the find material ended up in a single bag, without any indication what came from where. The two megaliths have been excavated together, and in documentation they are called megalith one and megalith two, with some discussion as to which is which (Bouman, 1985, 1). From the first megalith, a lot of sherds, and some bones are recovered. From the day reports it seems like the megaliths have been excavated in planes, but it is uncertain. NAP depts are mentioned extensively.
G2
The megalith has been researched in 1969 and 1970. Many finds were recovered (Brindley, 1986). The finds were collected in square meter squares from a pit measuring 14 x 5 meter. The entire filling was sieved through a 6 x 6 mm mesh (Brindley, 1986, 29). The soil was sieved in layers. Because the finds were collected in this manner, it is possible to reconstruct from which part of the tomb the cremated remains stem. Brindley (1986, 37), says that because of the small amount of bone, it is likely that that means that there never was a large amount of cremated bone present in the tomb. As shown in very little cases methodology has been noted in the past. This means that in most cases probably no sieving was done, and therefore a lot of finds could have gone unnoticed. Only in more recent excavations, documentation is stricter, and the reliability of the origin and quantity of the finds is greater. In most cases it is fairly certain the sample retrieved from the megalith is only a small portion of what could have been retrieved if better excavation methods had been used.
4. Discussion: cremation during TRB times 4.1 TRB – spread and period
The Funnel Beaker Culture (TRB) is famous for its megalithic graves and funnel necked, highly decorated pottery found all over northern Europe. The culture is divided in different groups, but the general face of the culture is the same everywhere (figure 4.1). For the west group, dating is based on the division made by Brindley (1986). Her work has continued the efforts of Bakker (1979) and Van Giffen (1927) and is generally used as the baseline for dating the various horizons in the West group.
Figure 4.1, Spread of the different TRB Groups (Bakker, 2010, fig. 1).
Figure 4.2. Overview of TRB dating per group, (Müller et al, 2010, fig. 1).
Variation exists in the TRB culture in regard to the mortuary practices other than solely the
megalithic graves. In most regions flat graves, stone cists, inhumation and cremation exist next to the use of megalithic graves as a burial option. The first dolmens seem to have started being built around 3500 BC in Denmark, Schleswich-Holstein and Meckelenburg, and were mostly for one person only (Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 54; Midgley, 1992, 445-46; Ebbeson, 2006, 43). These dolmens were built in such a manner that it would be very hard to open them again to put in more deceased after they had been closed. From there on more types of stone, burial monuments were erected and the
transformation from a single grave monument to a collective one was initiated (van Ginkel et al, 1999, 54). From megaliths in Denmark, Sweden and Germany, it is known that in most cases many people were buried in the same grave. When the grave filled up after a period of time, the old bones were put aside, stacked in a corner of the grave or cleaned out to make room for new burials. Due to conservation circumstances these practices have not been demonstrated for the Netherlands.
4.2 TRB in the Netherlands
excavation yielded pottery and burned bones. Since then it is widely accepted that the megaliths are grave monuments. The finds from that day have been lost. A lot of research has been done to gain a better understanding of the history, formation and use of the megaliths, some of which will be discussed below. Most of the information gathered in the Netherlands is originating from grave contexts. However, the information gathered from this mostly consists out of pottery studies or megalithic construction. There is little information available on the people inhabiting the region. The flat graves of Angelslo-Emmerhout near Emmen in the Netherlands show that cremation was practiced in the Netherlands during the TRB period. The 14C-dates from the cremated remains fall into the Single Grave period, but the pottery seems to be all TRB (Bakker & Van der Waals, 1973, 17-24). Possibly the pottery was handed down through generations and eventually deposited in the flat graves. Deposition of cremated or charred remains in flat graves was fairly common in TRB times all over Northern Europe (Migdley, 1992, 409-18). Midgley (1992, 417) suggest that burning the burial structure was common practice amongst TRB people.
4.3 Wartberg culture – spread and period.
The Wartberg group and the TRB culture are very similar. Both have collective graves and the show some of the same forms of pottery. The cultures exist next to each other in time as well as space (figure 4.3). The groups should be considered neighbors and in the Wartberg pottery the influence of the northern TRB group is visible in tiefstich decoration on the pottery (Raetzel-Fabian, 2000, 119). Besides influence from the TRB groups, there is also influence noticeable from other neighboring groups.
Figure 4.3. Overview of the chronology of the Wartberg group, compared to the TRB West group, (Hinz, 2008, fig. 2).
The conservation in area of the Wartberg group is a lot better than that of the TRB in the
remains and the population is therefore possible, even when Schierhold (2010, 4) says, that only a minimum number of individuals is available. The Wartberg group seems to have buried all individuals from the population in the long graves (Schierhold, 2010, 2012). A study of age, sex, pathologies and body length has been carried out (Schierhold, 2012, 123-43). This made clear that people from all age classes are represented (Schierhold, 2010, 4). In some cases there are as many as 250 individuals buried in a long grave (Raetzel-Faben, 2000, 116). In other cases there are only as little as 27
individuals found (Raetzel-Faben, 2000, 116). Raetzel-Faben states that it should be taken in account that the graves have been cleared out when there was a need for space. However, Löwen (1997) says that the skeletons were not completely cleared, but only the parts moved that were in the way for the new burial.
4.4 Cremated remains from megaliths from the TRB across the border
To research whether or not 14C-dated cremated remains are found in these megaliths in Denmark, Germany and Sweden the Radon 14C-dating database of the University of Kiel was consulted (last updated 2-6-2015). It is reasonable to assume that most of the 14C-dates available are located in the database. Literature study soon showed that in most cases when bone is 14C-dated, it concerns inhumated bone and not cremated bone. In some cases where was stated that collagen was the material dated, in the notes it stated that apatite was used to generate a 14C-date. The 14C-dates that do concern cremated bone, mostly concerns results from flat graves or settlements. When cremated bone from megaliths is dated, it usually concerns animal bone. Based on the data generated by Radon, it seems like there are no human cremated remains from megaliths dated. Effort has been made to find reports of cremated remains retrieved from megaliths in Denmark, Germany and Sweden. Results are mentioned here.
Denmark
In Denmark there have probably been around 20,000 dolmens. While research in Denmark recorded 3216 dolmen chambers and 148 large dolmens (Ebbesen, 2006, 32), in only 30 of these dolmens skeletal remains have been found (Ebbeson, 2006, 42). The majority of these finds is poorly reported. There are no more than a few finds that show the position of the bodies in the tomb. These concern 3 individuals in Udlejve (man, woman and child), 3 individuals in Raklev, 2 individuals in Grofte (a man and woman, both about 35-55 years of age, buried stretched out), and 6 individuals in Vig, 4 adults, 1 juvenile, 1 child (Ebbeson, 2006). No cremated remains have been reported.
Germany
Schlicht (1968, 21) mentions that the burned remains found in megalithgrab 2 in Emmeln, could be burned inhumations or secondary deposition from periods later than the TRB. Because of this, the remains are not further researched. There are no further cremated remains mentioned in megaliths.
Sweden
concentrations are almost always found outside the monument, just outside the entrance. In Hindby, Mosse, 71 concentrations cremated remains have been found just outside the kerbstones (Tilley, 1999b, 29). 94% of the bones consisted from parts of the skulls of 10 individuals (Gejvall, 1973, 45). In the Trollasten dolmen, two concentrations of cremated bone were discovered as well as a further eleven concentrations outside the entrance of the chamber in an offering cairn (Tilley, 1999b, 29). However, there are stratigrafically dated to the first phase of use, and no further dating is performed. Tilley (1999a, 224) has made a very nice figure in which he shows monuments, location or buried remains and notes on the state of the remains i.e. cremated or inhumated (fig. 4.4). This figure also shows that many of the cremated remains are found outside the tomb itself.
Figure 4.4. Figure displaying bone fragments from different dolmens and megalith graves in Sweden, (Tilley, 1999a, table 5.1).
sexes (Tilley, 1999a, 226). It seems that there is no differentiation between individuals. Besides the few concentrations of cremated remains mentioned above, there is no further mentioning of cremated remains in megalithic constructions in Sweden. Many of the deposits did also contain burned animal bone (Tilley, 1999a, 221-5).
Larssson (2009, 275) mentions a few pits containing cremated remains in a settlement in Fågelbacken. All pits contain remains of at least 2 individuals and some animal bone. All but 1 individual are adults and both sexes are represented. Hallgren (2008, 100-105) has a very nice overview of all cremated remains recovered from Fågelbacken (fig. 4.5). The remains are well researched and could be used for a comparison study because the results are documented partly in the same manner as the results in the research into the Dutch cremated remains However, the context of a settlement could mean that a vastly different burial ritual is in place and no information on sex, age or MNI is given, and therefore the results are not compatible with this research. It does show however that effort is being made to research this group of materials and shows promise for future comparisons.
Figure 4.5. Results cremated remains research Fågelbacken settlement (Hallgren, 2008, table 3).
Cremated remains in the Wartberg group
remains have not been thoroughly researched and the number of individuals is only an estimate made by Uenze (1954). Uenze also does not mention anything else about the cremated remains except the estimate of number of individuals. The publication from 1954 is mostly about the find material, especially the pottery, and not about the cremated remains. In three other instances cremated remains are mentioned, however, no further details are given about them (Schierhold, 2012, 140).
Given the large number of inhumated people the number of cremated people is only very small. It concerns 1340 individuals vs. an estimated minimum of 24 individuals. This would mean that only 2% of the population was cremated and buried in a long barrow.
4.5 Comparison of results
The results from the Wartberg group and the TRB across the border are relatively poor, that they are not really comparable with the Dutch results. The Wartberg group has generated a few cremations, but those have not been researched properly. In the TRB regions there has also been no extensive research on cremated remains. The little research that has been performed generated no numbers to properly work with, only vague, general statements. These statements usually don’t go any further than estimates of MNI, or mentioning of concentrations of cremated remains. In the one case in Hindby Tilley (1999b, 29) mentions that there are pieces of skull present of 10 individuals, but mentions nothing about sex or age.
From the 79 megaliths known to be once present in the Netherlands, 26 contain cremated remains. This means that at least 32,9% of megaliths contains cremated remains. However, this could have been a higher percentage but because of the excavation methods and research interests from the past it is impossible to check. Disturbing by curious people in historic times also contributed to (documented) loss of material. Many reports show that ashes were found in a megalith, but review shows that these finds are almost all lost (Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 164-199).
When making arbitrary groups of just male, female, and juvenile and younger, it becomes clear that the preference for males is only very small (fig. 4.7):
Figure 4.7. Regrouped sexes and percentages.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Male, possibly male Female, possibly female, female??, gracile
Female/juvenile, child, juvenile, young/gracile %
groups
The distribution between sexes and ages is fairly in line with what is known from inhumated remains found in megaliths in the rest of the TRB area (Tilley, 1999b, 28-31; Ebbeson, 2006, 42; Midgley, 1992, 443-56).
4.6 Copper in the TRB
Schlicht (1973) has made an overview of all available copper pieces discovered in megalithic tombs. She states that since sieving has been a part of the excavation methods a lot more copper pieces have been found and that it could be possible that copper was present in all megalithic tombs, but due to conservation circumstances - and by proxy, excavation methods – the copper pieces have not been found in all tombs (Schlicht, 1973, 16). In the Netherlands, she mentions copper pieces
discovered in D19, D28 and D52a (Schlicht, 1973, 14-15). She also made a subdivision of the shape of the copper pieces, and if available, she has provided drawings of the pieces. The pieces have
probably been worn as beads in combination with bone, amber and teeth around the neck, in ears or around fingers (Schlicht, 1973, 16). The wearing of jewelry is also stated by Van Ginkel et al (1999, 94). Beads of amber, git and copper have been found in the Dutch megaliths to support this claim. Of course unburned bone material is not preserved.
Schlichts overview was updated by Klassen (2000). He made an overview of all copper objects found in the north group of the TRB: northern Germany, Denmark and south Sweden. The objects are organized by object type and context (Klassen, 2000, 15), and are all attributed to the TRB North Group. Grave finds, mostly derived from megaliths, dolmen or earth graves (Klassen, 2000, 354-358). Finds exist of objects like copper discs, tube-like objects, copper spirals, beads, rings, and wooden objects with copper pieces attached to it (Klassen, 2000, 354-358).
Copper has also been found in the Wartberg group and in other TRB groups. In the Wartberg group, copper artifacts are as rare as in the TRB graves (Schierhold, 2012, 109). Schierhold (2012, 109), describes flat and rolled copper pieces and spirals and rounded pieces with pierced ends. Similar to the copper pieces from the TRB (Raetzel-Fabian, 2000, 123; Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 94). The objects seem to be in the same shape and function as in the Dutch TRB contexts. Small strips or bead-like objects have been recovered from both contexts.
When reviewing the copper pieces in both cultural groups, it seems like both groups were in the same copper exchange network. It seems like the similar objects were in use in the whole area of the TRB and Wartberg group.
4.7 Special features
There are a few remarkable things that came up during the research. In the prehistoric remains collected from D15 there are two pieces of skull of a young person that fit together. The fragments are from the frontal bone, and on the inside there is a groove. This groove is a genetic marker (pers. comm. L. Smits). What this marker exactly is, is not clear.
happens fairly regularly. In figure 4.9 a deposited, recent cremation is depicted. The bones were crunched and the ashes were spread there and photographed on 25-5-2014 at megalith D21.
Figure 4.9. Recent cremated remains deposited in D21, (picture: Peter Lunshof, 2014).
5. Discussion: Post-TRB use of megaliths
When the 14C-dates are taken into account, it shows that hardly any of the new 14C-dates fall into the TRB period by Van den Broeke et al (2005, 28); Müller et al (2010, 2; fig. 5.1).
Figure 5.1, Overview culture groups and adjoining 14C-dates, (After: Van der Broeke et al, 2005, 28).
Depending on which table used, results can vary a little. The table below shows the different culture groups and dates depending on the table used (fig. 5.2).
Müller Van den Broeke Van den Broeke
Culture Years BC C14 years Years BC Period
TRB 3400-2800 4700-4300 3400-2900 1
Single Grave 2800-2200 4300-3950 2900-2500 2
Bell Beaker 2200- … 3950-3650 2500-2000 3
“Barbed wire” stamp pottery 3650-3450 2000-1800 4
Figure 5.2, Reference table for the group numbers.
are studied closely, it shows that most the 14C-dates from the cremated remains do not fall in the TRB times, but just after.
Megalith nr C14-years Period
1 D53-Havelte I 4170 ± 35 2 2 D53-Havelte II 4330 ± 35 1 or 2 3 D53-Havelte III 4160 ± 35 2 4 D53-Havelte IV 4320 ± 35 1 or 2 5 D53-Havelte V 4210 ± 35 2 6 D53-Havelte Bear 4355 ± 35 1 7 D53-Havelte Pig 4340 ± 40 1 8 D54b/c-Hooghalen 1 3585 ± 40 3 9 G2-Glimmen 1 3950 ± 40 2 or 3 10 G2-Glimmen 2 3820 ± 40 3 11 G2-Glimmen 3 3890 ± 40 3 12 G2-Glimmen 4 4055 ± 45 2 13 G2-Glimmen 6 3935 ± 35 2 14 D15-Loon 1 4480 ± 60 1 15 D15-Loon 1 4070 ± 40 2 16 D15-Loon 2 3925 ± 40 2 or 3 17 D15-Loon 3 3975 ± 40 2 or 3 18 D15-Loon 4 3715 ± 35 3 19 D15-Loon 5 3835 ± 35 3 20 D15-Loon 6 3670 ± 35 3 or 4 21 D15-Loon 7 4060 ± 40 2 22 D52a-Diever 1 3850 ± 40 3 23 D52a-Diever 2 3970 ± 40 2 or 3 24 D52a-Diever 6 3710 ± 35 3
25 D27-Borger 1 late bronze age
Figure 5.3, table with associated 14C-dates and culture groups.
period n=0,5 n=1 Total
1 2 3 4
2 6 7 10
3 5 7 9,5
4 1 0 0,5
Figure 5.4, table with amount of 14C-dates per period. N=0,5 display the 14C-dates that fall into two groups.
Rap (2015, in prep), it shows that in 30% of megaliths pottery is found from periods after the TRB period. It is possible that the cremations are linked to the post-TRB pottery. When comparing the megaliths that contain cremated remains with the pottery study done by Rap (2015, in prep), it shows that in 16 of the megaliths there is post-TRB pottery present. From the megaliths from which there are dates available, 4 of 6 also contain post-TRB pottery. The periods displayed by the 14C-dates match the pottery from these periods (fig. 5.5).
Megalith Post-TRB pottery n sherds Post-TRB 14C-dates
D15 SGC 1 3 BB 2 3 D53 LN 7 0 SGC-PB? 8 3 D54b/c SGC-PFB 2 0 BB a few 1 BWSP 3 0 G2 SGC 7 2,5 BB 12 2,5
Figure. 5.5. Overview of post-TRB pottery compared to 14C-dating results.
From these results it could be speculated that the cremated remains that are not 14C-dated are not from TRB times – as assumed earlier- but could in fact coincide with the post-TRB pottery. This would mean that the cremated remains would mostly date to single grave or bell beaker times, as is seen in Rap (2015, in prep). It shows that most post-TRB pottery consists of Single Grave pottery and the number decreases towards Bell Beaker and Bronze Age pottery.
The situation with the pottery is as following: there is a group of megaliths with post-TRB pottery, a group of megaliths with cremated remains, and a group of megaliths with cremated remains that are 14C-dated. The groups with post-TRB pottery and cremated remains overlap. In there, there is a small group of cremated remains that is also 14C-dated. However, there are also a few megaliths with 14C-dates, but without post-TRB pottery. Within the group with cremated remains and pottery there is a possibility to gain more information by 14C-dating the individuals in this group. It could give more information on if the relation between the post-TRB pottery and the cremated remains is in fact a real relation or just a coincidence.
6. Syntheses use history of megaliths
It is concluded that the megaliths have a long use history as a grave monument. Evidence from Germany, Denmark and Sweden suggests that many different practices were in use. When considering cremation the role of the megalith is less clear. This is mainly caused by a dismissal of cremated remains recovered from megaliths because of the a-priori dismissal of these remains on being Neolithic. This results in unreported finds. Also 14C-dating has not been performed as extensively as desired. The research from Sweden regarding cremated remains from settlements, suggest that cremated remains in TRB times might have had a very different function and may have circulated in the community for a longer period of time.
The 14C-dates of the cremated remains from the megaliths suggest that cremations were not deposited in the megaliths. Possibly after the transition of the TRB culture to Single Grave Culture, the strict rules regarding what remains could be deposited in a megalith, were forgotten or
7. Conclusion
The cremated remains from the Dutch megaliths have always been a hidden source of information. There is a lot more than suggested by researchers (Midgley, 1992, 406-475; Van Ginkel et al, 1999, 71-73). In total there is almost 8 kilos of material available from 26 of the 79 megaliths known from the Netherlands. In 20 of those there are also cremated animal remains available. These remains seem to be either tools or are gifts put on the funeral pyre. The characterization of the animal bone does not suggest that it concerns personal ornaments, apart from the tools discovered.
When disregarding the 14C-dates, it seems like juveniles and children are underrepresented. There is a small preference for males among the adults. Hardly any seniles are recovered as well. This all may very well be caused by the methods used in excavations. Comparison with inhumated remains from megaliths and the Wartberg group and TRB in Sweden and Denmark, shows that usually all members of society – from very young to very old- are represented in megaliths and long barrows. However, the lack of research on cremated remains in both cultural groups makes it impossible to compare the results from these groups and the results from this research in regard of minimum number of
individuals and demographic factors.
When taking into account the 14C-dates, it shows that all dates that assigned to the TRB period, are questionable at best. One of these concerns an older date, from which it is not sure which individual is dated, and two pieces of animal bone, which could have ended up in a megalith through other rituals. Then there are the two dates that fall into the category TRB/SGC. Because they fall in two categories, there is no certainty as to which cultural group they belong. It follows that there are no human cremations that can surely be contributed to the TRB period in the Netherlands. The 14C-dates are similar to the post-TRB pottery found in the megalithic monuments. This gives opportunity to speculate on the link between the cremated remains and the pottery. It is possible that most cremated remains are linked to the post-TRB pottery and not to the TRB pottery.
8. Literature
Anscher, Th. J. Ten, 1988, RAAP Rapport 16, Een inventarisatie van de documentatie betreffende de Nederlandse hunebedden, Amsterdam.
Argáez, C., Batta, E., Mansilla, J., Pijoan, C., & Bosch, P., 2011, The origin of black pigmentation in a sample of Mexican prehispanic human bones. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38 (11), 2979-2988. Arroyo, A.B., Landete Ruiz, M.D., Vidal Bernabeu, G., Seva Román, R., González Morales, M.R., Straus, L.G., 2008, Archaeological implications of human-derived manganese coatings: a study of blackened bones in El Mirón Cave, Cantabrian Spain. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 801 – 813.
Baby, R. S., 1954, Hopewell Cremation Practices. Ohio Historical Society Papers. Archaeology 1. Columbus: Ohio Historical Society.
Bagge, A. I., Kaelas, I., 1950, Die Funde aus Dolmen und Ganggräbern in Schonen, Schweden. 1: das Härad Villand. Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien, Stockholm.
Baker, B.J., Dupras, T.L., Tocheri, M.W., 2005, The Osteology of Infants and Children, Texax A&M University Arthropology Series.
Bakker, J.A., Waterbolk, H.T., 1980, De Nederlandse Hunebedden, Rapport uitgebracht op verzoek van de Minister van Cultuur, Recreatie en Maatschappelijk Werk en van het Provinciaal Bestuur van Drenthe, Amsterdam/Groningen.
Bakker, J.A., 1984, De opgraving in the Grote Hunebed te Borger door Titia Brongersma op 11 juni 1865, Nieuwe Drentsche Volksalmanak 101, 103-116.
Bakker, J.A., 2010, Is a social differentiation detectable in the TRB culture? www.jungsteinsite.de article from 19-10-2010.
Bern, 1938, Hunebed bij Borger, Plaat D XXVII, restauratie, Biologisch Archeologisch Instituut. Breunig, P., Willkomm, H., 1987, 14C-Chronologie des vorderasiatischen, südost- und
mitteleuropäischen Neolithikums. Fundamenta Reihe A Band 13, Köln. Bouman, H., 1985, Twee vernielde hunebedden te Hooghalen. Scriptie BAI. Brindley, A.L., 1986, Hunebed G2, Excavation and finds, Palaeohistoria 28, 27-92.
Brindley, AL, Neves Espinha, AD, 1998, Vroeg TRB-aardewerk uit hunebed D6a bij Tinaarlo (DR.) Palaeo Aktueel 10, 21-24.
Brindley, A.L., 1996, Geheim van de hunebedden na eeuwen ontsluierd, Press release by Groninger Instituut voor Archeologie, 9-12-1996.
Brindley, AL., 1999, Meer aardewerk uit D6a/Tinaarlo (DR.). Palaeo Aktueel 11, 19-22.
Buikstra, J. E., Swegle, M., 1989, Bone Modification Due to Burning: Experimental Evi-dence. Bonnichsen, R., Sorg, M. H., eds., Bone Modification. Orono, ME: Center for the Study of the First Americans, 247-258.
Carver, G., 2007, Modeling post-depositional transformations to the archaeological assemblage, SUNY Buffalo.
Clarke, D.L., 1973, Archaeology: the loss of innocence, in: Antiquity 47, 6-18. Clarke, D.L., 1978, Analytical Archaeology, 2nd edition. Methuen & Co, London.
DeHaan, J.D., 2008, Fire and Bodies. Schmidt, C.W., Symes, S.A., (eds), 2008, The Analysis of Burned Human Remains, Academic Press, Elsevier, 1-13.
Devlin, J.B., Herrman, N.P., 2008, Bone color as an interpretive tool of the depositional history of archaeological cremains. Schmidt, C.W., Symes, S.A., (eds), 2008, The Analysis of Burned Human Remains, Academic Press, Elsevier, 109-128.
Duday, H., Cipriani, A.M., Pearce, J., 2009, The archaeology of the dead, Lectures in Archeothanatology, Oxbow books, Oxford and Oakville.
Ebbeson, K., 2006, Danske Dolmens, National Musel, Forfattexforlagel Attika.
Fischer, A., Olsen, J., Richards, M., Heinemeier, J., Sveinbjörnsdóttir, Á. E., Bennike, P., 2007, Coast– inland mobility and diet in the Danish Mesolithic and Neolithic: evidence from stable isotope values of humans and dogs. Journal of archaeological science 34 / 12, 2125-2150.
Gejvall, N-G., 1973, Den osteologiska undersökingen, Appendix. Burenholy, G., En Långdös vid Hindby Mosse, Malmö. Malmöfynd 2, Malmö Museum, Malmö
Giffen, van, A.E., 1925-1927, Hunebedden in Nederland, A Oosterhoek, Utrecht.
Giffen, van, A E, 1944, Oudheidkundige aanteekeningen over Drentsche Vondsten (XI), Nieuwe Drentsche Volksalmanak 62, 93-112.
Giffen, van, A.E., 1946, Oudheidkundige aanteekeningen over Drentsche Vondsten (XIII), Een vernield hunebed, D LIIa, Het zoogenaamde Pottiesbargien, in het (vroegere) Wapserveld bij Diever, gem. Diever. Nieuwe Drentsche Volksalmanak 64, 61-71.
Giffen, van, A.E., 1961, Een gereconstrueerd hunebed, Nieuwe Drentse Volksalmanak 79, 189-198. Ginkel. E. Van, Jager, S., Sanden, W. Van der, 1999, Hunebedden, Monumenten van een
Steentijdcultuur, Uitgeverij Uniepers Abcoude.
Günther, K., Löwen, H., 1997, Die Kollektivgräber-Nekropole Warburg I-V, Bodenaltertümers Westfahlens 34, Mainz am Rhein, P. Von Zabern.
Heege, E., Heege, A., 1989, Die Häuser der Toten : jungsteinzeitliche Kollektivgräber im Landkreis Northeim. Wegweiser zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte Niedersachsens 16 , Hildesheim.
Hedges, R. E. M.; Housley, R. A. ; Bronk, C. R. and Klinken, van G. J., 1992, Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry Datelist 14. Archeometry 34/1., 141-159.
Hinz, M., 2008, Territoriale und soziale Strukturen. Modelle zur Kollektivgrabsitte der Wartberg-Gruppe. www.jungsteinsite.de, article from 18-12-2008.
Hopkinson, K.A., Yeats, S.M., Scott, G.R., 2008, For Whom the Coin Tolls: Green Stained Teeth and Jaws In Medieval and Post-Medieval Spanish Burials. Dental Anthropology, 21 (1), 12-17.
Klassen, L., 2000, Frühes Kupfer im Norden, Untersuchungen zu Chronologie, Herkumft und Bedeutung der Kupferfunde der Nordgruppe der Trichterbecherkultur, Jysk Arkaeologisk Selskab. Klok, R.H.J., 1979, Hunebedden in Nederland. Zorgen voor morgen, Uniebroek bv Bussum. Klompmaker, H., 2011, Een interdisciplinaire opgraving,
http://hunebedcentrum.tumblr.com/post/7531386825/een-interdisciplinaire-opgraving, viewed at 29-8-2015.
Koops, L., 2008. Het geheim van het grootste hunebed. Discussies over archeologie. Bedum: Profiel Uitgeverij.
Kuijt, I., Quin, C.P., 2013, Biography of the Neolithic body: tracing pathways to cist II, Mound of the Hostages, Tara. O’Sullivan, M., Scarre, C., Doyle, M., (eds), Tara - from past to future. Towards a new research agenda. Wordwell, 153 – 170.
Lanting, A.E., 1983, Van heinde of ver?: Een opmerkelijke pot uit hunebed D21 te Bronneger, gem. Borger, Nieuwe Drentsche Volksalmanak 100, 139-146.
Lanting, J., 1952, weekrapport opgraving 7 juli – 2 augustus, 8 september – 13 september D16, 15-9-1952, Biologisch Archeologisch Instituut.
Lanting, J., 1983, day reports considering the excavation of D32a. Lanting, J., 1985, day reports considering the excavation of D43a. Lanting, J. 1988, day reports on the excavation of D52a
Lanting, J., Praamsma, H., Van Puijn, C., 1949, weekrapport opgraving D54a, Biologisch Archeologisch Instituut.
Raetzel-Fabian, D., 2000, Die ersten Bauernkulturen, Jungsteinzeit in Nordhessen. Vor- und Frühgeschichte im Hessischen Landesmueum in Kassel. Heft 2.
Lanting, J.N., 1974, Loon, gemeente Assen. Klokbeker vondst in hunebed D XV, raport 22-8-1974, Biologisch Archeologisch Instituut.
