Urnfield’ As a Chronological and Cultural Concept: Tales from Northern and Central Europe
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
HENRI K THRANE The impact of 19th century ideas on the construction of ‘urnfield’ as a chronological and cultural concept: tales from Northern and Central Europe MARIE LO UISE STIG SØRENSEN, KAT H ARINA CHRISTINA RebaY‑SALISBURY Cemeteries with cremations in urns were lectual tension between approaching these known from most of Europe before archaeology changes in terms of local developments and the became a distinct discipline, and various more or simulta neous presumption of the introduction less fanciful speculations about them can be found of urnfields being an almost pan‑European phe‑ in the earlier literature. By the late 18th and early nomenon is reflected in interesting terminological 19th century it had, however, become common in ambiguities, which have been furthered by the sin‑ academic circles to understand urns as a specific gular focus upon a change in burial ritual rather burial practice, and as archaeology became than more broadly based changes of society. The increasingly preoccupied with the concept of time terminological ambiguity is clearly reflected in and its divisions there was an increasing interest the concurrent reference to the Urnfield culture in placing this burial rite within chronological in singular and plural (Urnenfelderkultur as well schemes. Otto Tischler might have been the first as Urnenfelderkulturen) and in the consistent to speak of ‘urn fields of the Bronze Age’ in 1886 referencing to both an Urnfield culture and an (Probst 1996, p. 258), but by the late 19th century the Urnfield period. Further ambiguities arise from Bronze Age had become divided in various ways the reluctance of some scholars to acknowledge with the dominant schema in Central Europe being ‘urnfield’ as a ‘culture’, using terms such as phe‑ based on characteristics of burial forms. The early nomenon or complex instead (e.g. Coles, Harding Bronze Age was referred to as‘Hockergräberzeit’, the 1979, p. 335; Harding 2000). middle Bronze Age as ‘Hügelgräberzeit’ and the late In this paper we argue that these ambiguities Bronze Age as ‘Urnenfelderzeit’ (Jockenhövel 1994, are not only due to the complex character of the p. 11). In turn this resulted in urnfields becoming archaeology of the late Bronze Age, but are also a associated with specific periods/phases, and the lingering inheritance from different earlier meta‑ term urnfield became generalized and widely narratives about time and culture. We shall make used. The reasons behind this association between this point by drawing a comparison between a burial form and a particular period as well as the the arguments through which the chronological underlying perception of what the period or phase schemes of Northern and Central Europe were cre‑ represented did, however, vary considerably. ated. In particular, we shall argue that substantial The late Bronze Age is a complex cultural differences in the underlying ideological assump‑ phase, as revolutionary changes in burial prac‑ tions about time, history, and culture affected these tices suggest both long distance influences and developments, and that they in turn were strongly regional variation and deviations. The intel‑ shaped by the nationalistic ideologies of the LEHOËRFF (A.) dir. — Construire le temps. Histoire et méthodes des chronologies et calendriers des derniers millénaires avant notre ère en Europe occidentale. Actes du XXXe colloque international de Halma-Ipel, UMR 8164 (CNRS, Lille 3, MCC), 7-9 décembre 2006, Lille. Glux-en-Glenne : Bibracte, 2008, p. 57-67 (Bibracte ; 16). MARIE LO UISE STIG SØRENSEN, KAT H ARINA CHRISTINA RebaY‑SALISBURY TH E IM P ACT of 19T H CENTURY IDEAS O N T H E C O NSTRUCTI O N of ‘ URN F IE L D ’ AS A C H R O N olo GICA L AND CU L TURA L C O NCE P T 19th century as well as the emerging concern with science, suggesting that the people ‘by turning its the demarcation of distinct scientific fields. gaze inward will be able to unite the strength of In Northern Europe the means of establishing the past to the wisdom of the present and through this association was provided by the developing that educate itself to be independent and free’ ideas of typology and stratigraphy, both essen‑ (Worsaae 1843, p.116). In this emphasis, Worsaae tially linear and evolutionary principles, while in effectively and very influentially equated people Central and Eastern Europe concepts of peoples with the nation. In effect he made the concern (Volk) and cultural groups remained an influen‑ with who the people were superfluous, as they tial paradigm. These differences had long‑term became the ancestors of the present nation. The interpretative implications that still affect the study third important change was the severing of the of the late Bronze Age. The label ‘urnfield’ and how previous close link to history and the realignment it is used to refer to either a period or a culture is, of the emerging profession of archaeology with therefore, a very interesting example of core con‑ the natural sciences. This was partly in an attempt cepts being ‘filled’ with a variety of meanings and to consolidate the independence of archaeology understandings. as a discipline (Worsaae 1843; 1846; 1882, p. 2), and partly a rejection of the written sources as biased and prejudiced (e.g. Worsaae 1846, p. 2 ff; 1847, THE DIVISION OF TIME – p. 379 ff; see also Sørensen 1984). Worsaae also A tale FROM Northern EUROPE argued strongly for the use of inductive methods with hypotheses set up to be tested (as illustrated If we first try to trace the north European in the ‘Kitchen‑midden Commission’) and com‑ development, then Christian Jürgensen Thomsen parison with ethnographic examples stressed is a suitable starting point. His Three Age System of (Worsaae 1841, p. 137). 1836 inserted the expectation of a time perspective Oscar Montelius represents the last stage in into the classification and ordering of objects. In the creation of an explicit, detailed and in effect principle, this meant that any object, including the linear and evolutionary division of the past, and he urns and their various contents, could be placed continued to emphasise the similarity with natural within this order; they could, for example, be science (e.g. Montelius 1899). His subdivision of classified as being from the Bronze Age. Meanwhile, the Bronze Age into six periods in 1885 was based despite the methodological autonomy of the Three on similarities and differences between objects, Age System, the limited explanations that were being used to create typological series that were offered were directly borrowed from history and equated with development (Montelius 1885). This its preoccupation with people and invasion was made it possible to discuss objects in terms of used as the explanation for change. progress and linear evolution. During the mid 19th century, Jens Jacob In Northern Europe by the end of the 19th cen‑ Asmussen Worsaae added three important dimen‑ tury, time was thought of as linear and dividable, sions to this framework. One was the observation and concepts like peoples or cultures had largely of stratigraphy and through that a logical reasoning become subsumed both within these divisions and for the chronological relationship and the direc‑ within the all‑embracing concept of the nation. In tion of change, whereby the observation ‘over’ Northern Europe it was widely accepted that cre‑ became equated with younger. This emphasis on mation in urns and the use of urnfields constituted physical observation clearly relates to other con‑ the dominant burial practice of the late Bronze temporary arguments that were widely influential Age. This view is clearly formulated in the discus‑ in Northern Europe. In Sweden, for example, Nils sions of Danish prehistory by influential scholars Bruzelius argued already in 1854 that urns belong such as Sophus Müller (1897) or Oscar Montelius to the later Bronze Age based on the observation (1885; 1903, p. 15). Discussions like these were, how‑ that they were repeatedly found in the barrow ever, not unique to Northern Europe, and most had fill over inhumation graves, and to him it was counterparts in Central and Eastern Europe, but the obvious and unproblematic to link the urns to a discussions there resulted in other understandings, change in burial practice (Gräslund 1987, p. 40). and it is these that influenced the ways in which The second important change was that Worsaae the late Bronze Age came to be understood there. argued for archaeology as the supreme national 58 MARIE LO UISE STIG SØRENSEN, KAT H ARINA CHRISTINA RebaY‑SALISBURY TH E IM P ACT of 19T H CENTURY IDEAS O N T H E C O NSTRUCTI O N of ‘ URN F IE L D ’ AS A C H R O N olo GICA L AND CU L TURA L C O NCE P T SCEPTICISM ABOUT THE THREE AGE this cemetery were clearly Roman, so the exca‑ SYSTEM – A tale FROM CENTRAL EUROPE vators wanted to interpret the entire cemetery as ‘celtic‑germanic’ and as ending with the Roman In southern Germany and Austria, the Three occupation (Wurmbrand 1876, p. 31). During the Age System was not yet fully accepted by the late congress it was argued that not all of the burials 19th century, and there was a degree of uncertainty of a cemetery necessarily had to belong to one about the date of archaeological finds and their period of time, suggesting that until then it had contexts. It has been argued that this was because been commonly assumed that a cemetery had to the archaeology was more complex than in the belong to only one period. It is therefore interesting north (Sklenář 1983, p. 88). The data did not, for to note that Wurmbrand’s view was challenged by example, suggest a ‘pure Bronze Age’ in the same scholars from Northern Europe such as Ingvald way as it did for northern Germany and Denmark.