Table Of Content

Spatial Analysis of Funerary Areas 1 University of West Bohemia, Department of Archaeology Spatial Analysis of Funerary Areas edited by Ladislav Šmejda & Jan Turek Plzeň 2004 2 3 KATALOGIZACE V KNIZE - NÁRODNÍ KNIHOVNA ČR Spatial analysis of funerary areas / University of West Bohemia, Department of Archaeology; edited by Ladislav Šmejda & Jan Turek. – Plzeň: Vydavatelství a nakladatelství Aleš Čeněk, 2004. – 159 s. ISBN 80-86898-07-5 903.5 * 902.2 * 903.2 * (4) • pohřebiště – Evropa – pravěk • archeologické výzkumy – Evropa • archeologické nálezy – Evropa • Evropa – pravěk • sborníky konferencí 902 - Archeologie Spatial analysis of funerary areas Edited by Ladislav Šmejda & Jan Turek Publication of the Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Humanities, University of West Bohemia, Sedláčkova 31, Plzeň, Czech Republic. This volume has been published as part of methodological discussion within the framework of the grant project IAA8002204, supported by the Grant Agency of the Czech Academy of Sciences. Language revision: Patrick J. Foster, William Johnston and Michael Moritz. Cover image: Plan of the prehistoric barrow cemetery of Šťáhlavy-Hájek, West Bohemia, excavated and recorded 1878-1882 by František Xaver Franc, gardener of the nearby hunting-lodge Waldschloss (today Kozel). Source: Franc, F. X.: Šťáhlauer Ausgrabungen 1890. Přehled nalezišť v oblasti Mže, Radbuzy, Úhlavy a Klabavy 1906. Ed. V. Šaldová. Praha: Archeologický ústav ČSAV, 1988. © 2004 Ladislav Šmejda, Jan Turek and individual authors Publisher: Vydavatelství a nakladatelství Aleš Čeněk, s.r.o., Kardinála Berana 1157/32, 301 00 Plzeň, www.alescenek.cz Print: Jaroslav Samek, Dolnokubínská 1451, 393 01 Pelhřimov ISBN 80-86898-07-5 4 5 Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 1. First evidence of the archaeological context of burials from Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Greece . . . .9 Lilian Karali & Maria Gkioni 2. Was sind die Gefäßvolumina in der Kultur mit Schnurkeramik in Böhmen? Ein Ausschnitt aus den Untersuchungen zu den metrischen Eigenschaften der schnurkeramischen Gefäße in Mitteleuropa .15 Aleksander Dzbynski 3. The spatial distribution of artefacts in Corded Ware graves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Tereza Kovářová 4. Early Bronze Age burial practices and skeletal populations: a case study from West Macedonia . . . .38 Christina Ziota & Sevasti Triantaphyllou 5. Some spatial aspects of the ritual behavioural at the beginning of Bronze Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 Magdalena Kruťová & Jan Turek 6. Potential of GIS for analysis of funerary areas: prehistoric cemetery at Holešov, distr. Kroměříž, Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 Ladislav Šmejda 7. The spatial analysis of the early Bronze Age Únětice culture cemetery at Polepy (Bohemia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 Martin Bartelheim 8. The archaeology of time-space: hoarding and burial in Late Neolithic Scandinavia . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81 Peter Skoglund 9. Bronze Age tumuli in Denmark and the Skelhøj project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88 Henrik Thrane 10. Evolution of burial places in western Flanders in the Bronze and Iron Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 Jean Bourgeois & Bart Cherretté 11. Stone-cist graves, landscape and people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103 Gurly Vedru 12. Funeral plant offerings from Greek historical sites: a preliminary study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109 Fragkiska Megaloudi 13. Tumuli in the Hallstatt landscape: continuity and transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115 Hrvoje Potrebica 14. Wechselseitige Beziehungen im Nekropolen- und Bestattungskonzept im Laufe der mehrmaligen Belegung des zentralen Funeralareals in Murska Sobota/Nova tabla (Slowenien) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129 Georg Tiefengraber 15. The use of space in the Etruscan cemeteries of Pontecagnano (Salerno - Italy) in the Orientalising period (8th–7th century BC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142 Mariassunta Cuozzo, Andrea D’Andrea & Carmine Pellegrino 16. Early Iron Age mortuary ritual in southwest Germany: the Heuneburg and the “Landscape of ancestors” project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .148 Bettina Arnold List of contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159 4 5 6 7 Preface Funerary areas and burial monuments represent an important source for archaeological chronology as well as for reconstructing social relations and cultural norms of past societies, and their variability in time and space. In the last few decades archaeologists have gradually become aware of the spatial significance of their data, including those originating from cemeteries and burial contexts. Funerary data is currently analysed in its spatial circumstances and in its relationship to other components of the prehistoric community areas, residential and ritual areas for example. Spatial relationships within funerary areas also illuminate continuity and change in the perception of sacred space and provide valuable insight into the question of monuments’ re-use. The growing interest in the spatial studies is also reflected in the wide range of papers presented during the session “Spatial Analysis of Funerary Areas” at the 8th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists in Thessaloniki 2002. Most of them are included in this volume as well as several other papers which could not be given in the Thessaloniki session. Sixteen contributions written by scholars from thirteen different countries approached the spatial structure of funerary areas from the level of landscape down to the spatial relations within particular cemeteries and even within individual burial contexts. The book covers a wide range of theoretical and methodological issues, such as: locating cemeteries in the landscape; age; gender and social relations derived from mortuary evidence, and also the chronological and spatial development of sites and the question of their continuity. We regard as very important that spatial distribution of both artefactual and biological variables are treated in the current debate. Future projects will of necessity have to interconnect all these aspects of burial more closely. The chronological span of topics is wide: from the Palaeolithic to Iron Age and the geographical scope includes vast regions of Europe from Belgium to Estonia and from Italy to Scandinavia. A further aspect which should be stressed here is application of new analytical methods. The introduction into archaeology of ancient DNA analysis, advanced databases and Geographic Information Systems created a new dimension in the analysis of past human activities. New methods and approaches are progressively being implemented into the inter and intra-site investigations and their impact will be dramatically felt in the near future. That so many scholars with very different geographical and scientific backgrounds joined in the discussion of methods and approaches to spatial studies of funerary areas is extremely satisfying. This lively discussion promises to establish a forum for continued future co-operation and comment concerning new trends and topics in this field of archaeological research. We hope that this inspiring volume will be soon joined by further spatial studies of human mortuary behaviour. Ladislav Šmejda & Jan Turek Plzeň, February 2004 6 7 8 9 First evidence of the archaeological context of burials from Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Greece Lilian Karali & Maria Gkioni Abstract of Chalkidike in Macedonia (North Greece). This skull is classified as human between Homo erectus The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods of and Homo sapiens neandertalensis. According to Greek prehistory have received little attention, Y. Liritzis (1982:294) the skull “could have been although there is a body of data, which can be existing for at least 270.000 years”. Unfortunately, compared with those of neighbouring countries. the way of recovery, as well as the lack of analysis Burials and burial assemblages, which have been of the soil surrounding does not allow drawing any uncovered to date, are especially important, not conclusions concerning its origin or its environ- only for the study of the prehistory of Greece, but ment (Cavanagh & Mee 1998:5). Therefore many also because they are among the oldest in Europe. important details about this find remain uncertain: This paper attempts to make a first approach with the assemblage from which the skull was recovered; the available data towards an understanding of whether the skull was part of a deliberate burial or these burial assemblages. Information from more ritual and if there were any associated offerings to recent excavations will, in the future, lead to the deceased. further research of these burial practices and the Burials of a later date have been found at three prehistoric societies involved themselves. spots in the Apidima cave in Mani (Peloponnesus, South Greece). They have all been attributed to the Introduction Palaeolithic period. The excavator Dr. Th. Pitsios In Greece, archaeological excavations have believes that they belong to the type Homo sapiens frequently revealed burial assemblages and sapiens. The ESR preliminary age of bones ranged cemeteries belonging mostly to the Classical and between 25–45 kyrs and 20–30 kyrs (Liritzis & Ma- Hellenistic periods. The excavations of Bronze Age niatis 1995:76). The excavator discovered a female cemeteries have also been the focus of some attention skeleton at the entrance of the cave in a small cavity since they tend to be more familiar because their (G). The skull was not as well preserved as the rest study can sometimes be supported by documentation of the skeleton and the bone assemblage was also from written sources. However information from scattered. Apparently, the body was placed at the prehistoric times is minimal and no matter how much entrance of the cave and was then covered by stones. Homer has been of assistance in the identification The skeleton was aligned with the cave’s midline, and recovery of well known burials, such as those of lying on the left side of the cave’s floor. The bones the Mycenae, our knowledge can only be confirmed of the upper limbs were apparently articulated when verified by archaeological excavation and and were possibly undisturbed. The difficulty of prospection. Archaeologists inevitably confront defining the long bones, which were folded on the fragmented data, which not only have to be chest, coupled with the small space of the cave’s interpreted, but which have to be identified either as entrance where the body was inserted, lead to the belonging to a certain burial practice or the simple interpretation that the body was laid in a contracted abandonment of the dead. position and in an E-W orientation. The head was The Palaeolithic period of Greece ends when the turned facing the East towards the cave entrance Upper Pleistocene passes into the Holocene about and it was also placed as if resting on a pillow-like 10,000 years ago and is followed by the Mesolithic stone. Inside the cave, other scattered human bones period which lasts for about 2,000 years. The were found. investigation of these two chronological periods is A number of artefacts were also found, of special interest because they are archaeologically including a Levallois flint tool dated to the Middle the least well studied. Palaeolithic; an item of rock crystal; a disc-shaped stone; bone tools and 41 perforated sea shells. The Palaeolithic period This assemblage was accompanied by bones of The oldest human remains from Greece, herbivorous mammals. There was also evidence of a fragment of skull, came from the Petralona cave fire however the human bones were not burned. 8 9 There are several important questions concern- the same bone. Unfortunately, no more finds were ing the age of this skeleton. The dating was based associated to it. on the artefactual evidence found in apparent association rather than on the skeletal material itself. Conclusions on the Palaeolithic burial However, modern human remains were also found, assemblages found in Greece which implies a possible disturbance (Karali-Gian- According to up-to-date information coming nakopoulou 1995). The stone tools found on the from excavations of the Palaeolithic in Greece, it is ground close to the female burial seem to belong impossible to reach any conclusions concerning the to the Aurignacian technique (Darlas 1995; the culture and burial habits. Available data suggest that author draws attention to their fragmentation, which there is no single recognisable burial practice being renders the evidence open to question). According performed in the region. to Dr. Pitsios (Mompherratou & Pitsios 1995:48) the shells were used as decorative items, but accord- Choosing the place for burial ing to the specialist who examinated the material, Dr. Karali, it is more likely they had been consumed Since all the locations that have yielded (Karali-Giannakopoulou 1995). They could have material are caves it might appear that caves were been used for decoration; however, since they all a preferred burial site. However, none of these finds had holes made in a similar manner in the same has provided reliable evidence to support a claim of place and, thus, could have been part of a necklace deliberate in situ burial of the dead. (Mompherratou & Pitsios 1995:37). It should be taken into consideration that in Two other human skulls were also found close to Greece the systematically excavated Palaeolithic the entrance of the cave (A), which according to the sites are very few and represent mainly caves rather excavator are older than the female skeleton. The study than open-air areas. This suggests that a broader- of one of these skulls led to its characterization as an based approach to investigating sites of this period ancestor of Homo sapiens sapiens. This skull with its could lead to quite different conclusions. However base facing upwards and its face facing north-east the limited available evidence seems to confirm was deliberately placed upwards. The base has been the general situation in the Balkans and the rest of removed and replaced by a fragment of limestone. Europe. In all the excavated sites there is no special The skulls had been surrounded by pebbles consid- pattern in the selection of specific burial locations. ered to have been introduced since the sediments in It is impossible to conclude if caves containing which the skulls were enclosed do not include pebbles human bones were chosen as burial places by the (Kormasopoulou-Kagalou et al. 1995). Palaeolithic people or not. The frequent discovery of human bones in caves is more likely the result of A third location with human skeletal remains preservation factors depending on the microclimatic of the Upper Palaeolithic is the Theopetra cave and soil conditions of the interior. The preservation in Thessaly (Central Greece). This burial most of bones and biological remains is more difficult at likely represents a young male adult. The bones open air sites. were relatively scattered in a deposit recently disturbed. The radiocarbon dating of the bones gave The position of the dead dates of 14,620–14,380 BP (Upper Palaeolithic). Two stone tools found close to the bones were also It is not easy to describe Palaeolithic burial dated to the Upper Palaeolithic. As the deposit was practices from such small sample. The available disturbed it is not clear if the burial was primary or information comes mainly from burials in other secondary. However, there are indications that it is parts of Europe. a deliberate primary burial, as a hearth was found Humans began burying their dead about 100,000 one meter away from the skeleton, and two stone years ago during the Middle Palaeolithic. Until tools in association with the deceased (Stravopodi then there is no evidence for deliberate funerary et al. 1999; Στραβοπόδη & Σωτήρης 2000). practices. Possibly the dead were simply abandoned The last known skeletal remains are human to wild animals. Once the Attapuerca site in Spain is bones possibly belonging to the Upper Palaeolithic fully studied, specific burial practices will be better found in front of the cave of Kitsos in Attica (Cen- understood (Otte 1996:186). tral Greece) (Lambert, 1981:102). Two fragments Middle and Upper Palaeolithic burials are of a tibia were recognized, belonging possibly to known from the Near and Middle East, and from 10 11 Europe, especially from France and Belgium. There - though in small quantities – have been found is apparently no common burial practice other than near the bones uncovered at both Apidima and the protection of the body in a purposefully created Theopetra. Bone tools have not been discovered in pit, in a contracted position, with a covering of Greek burial sites, while they are frequently found earth or stones. These particular practices appear to at Palaeolithic sites elsewhere. Often, apart from have been followed at Apidima in Greece. Although bone tools, the remains of unworked animal bones individual burials have commonly been identified have been found in burial contexts. An example of in caves, there are examples of multiple burials, this is the burial in Qafzeh cave in Israel, where such as the sites of La Ferrassie in Dordogne and a deer horn was present and at the Shul site, also in Zaskalnaya in the Crimean. In western Europe the Israel, a pig’s mandible was found associated with orientation preferred is E-W while in all other areas the human body. the preferred orientation is N-S. Apidima follows Hearths apparently related to burials from the west European tradition. Another practice the Middle Palaeolithic have been frequently known from more recent periods is skull adoration discovered in Europe, for instance at La Ferrassie in (Kebara, Israel) which is sometimes mistakenly France. This is also confirmed in Greece in Apidima associated with finds from Greece. and Theopetra. On the contrary, decorative items Signs of special processing of human bones seem not to have been used as offerings to the dead are frequently found particularly during the during the Palaeolithic. Traces of mineral colour Lower and the Middle Palaeolithic. This practice appear for the first time in the Upper Palaeolithic consists primarily of purposeful cutting of bones. in the Qafzeh cave site in Israel. No similar finds A characteristic example is the case of the multiple have been reported from Greek sites apart from the burial at the Krapina site in Croatia, where bones shells found at Apidima (Karali-Giannakopoulou from fifty (50) individuals were found. They were 1995). The earliest burial of modern humans yet cut and mixed with animal bones and stone tools. found is the group burial at the Cro-Magnon site in It is possible that they are leftovers of cannibalism, France, containing two male skeletons, one female a phenomenon likely for these periods. Similar and a newborn child and the oldest offerings of examples do not exist in Greece. The choice of shells (Djindjian, Koslowski & Otte 1999:137). In parts of human body for burial, and especially that burial assemblage about 300 perforated sea the skull, is interpreted as an effort to preserve shells were identified. This group is considered the most important part of the skeleton, linked to to be a deliberate burial accompanied by personal the personality of each individual or as a trophy. decorative items, possibly suggesting a group iden- Such cases are known from Tautavel in France and tity. The Soungir site of Central Russia is another Attapuerca in Spain where the skulls are mixed characteristic example, where the burial of a man with other remains from the habitation site. This is was covered by 3500 pearls from elephant bone and neither the case of Petralona nor Apidima. fox teeth. This case is very unusual and perhaps im- Group burials, which occur frequently in Upper plies the beginning of social stratification reflected Palaeolithic sites, should not be considered as the in the burial practice (Djindjian, Koslowski & Otte dominant practice. Other group burials have been 1999). found in the rockshelter Abri Pataud in France, in The Mesolithic Period the caves Grotte des Enfants and at Barma Grande in Italy. The first was the burial of a woman and The transitional phase from the Upper a child; the second was the burial of an elderly Palaeolithic to the Mesolithic is associated with woman and young man; and the third was the burial seven pieces of human bones and two milk teeth of an adult couple and of a child. In Greece no such found at the Franchthi cave (Peloponnesus). burials have been discovered yet. Mesolithic finds were also found in a pit carefully dug at the entrance. There are bones belonging The offerings to 15–34 individuals and twenty-two milk teeth. Burials were in some cases accompanied by According to the researchers two kinds of burial stone tools. There is no evidence if they served as were identified, inhumation and cremation (Cullen grave goods. Stone tools have also been found in 1995:275, 277). The primary burial of a young adult a child’s burial at La Ferrassie in Dordogne. Greece (25–29 years old) was found in a shallow pit near seems to confirm this tradition since stone tools the entrance of the cave in a contracted position with 10 11