Ceci N'est Pas Une Hache; Neolithic Depositions in the Northern Netherlands Wentink, K
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Ceci n'est pas une hache; Neolithic Depositions in the Northern Netherlands Wentink, K. Citation Wentink, K. (2006). Ceci n'est pas une hache; Neolithic Depositions in the Northern Netherlands. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1887/16123 Version: Not Applicable (or Unknown) License: Leiden University Non-exclusive license Downloaded from: https://hdl.handle.net/1887/16123 Note: To cite this publication please use the final published version (if applicable). Ceci n’est pas une hache Sidestone Press RESEARCH MASTER THESIS - EARLY FArmING COmmUNITIES IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE FACULTY OF ARCHAEOLOGY, LEIDEN UNIVERSITY Ceci n’est pas une hache Neolithic Depositions in the Northern Netherlands Karsten Wentink Supervisors: prof. dr. Harry Fokkens dr. Annelou van Gijn prof. dr. Raymond Corbey Copyright 2006 by Karsten Wentink Published by Sidestone Press www.sidestone.nl Sidestone registration number: HKW13560001 ISBN: 978-90-8890-001-3 Cover illustration: Design: Karsten Wentink (title & design based on works of René Magritte) Photography: Jenne G. Boering (Lochem), Haaksbergerveen at dawn Drawing: H.R. Roelink (B.A.I.), axe of Zuidbarge (DMA 1962-II-143) scale 1:1,8 Layout: Karsten Wentink Mart Rietbroek (Microweb) Corné van Woerdekom Contents Preface Part I: Research Questions, Data and Patterns 1 Introduction 15 1.1 Introduction 15 1.2 Spatial and chronological framework 15 1.3 Past research 16 1.4 Research questions 17 1.5 Methodology 18 1.5.1 Database 18 1.5.2 Functional analysis 18 1.5.3 Spatial analysis 18 2 Theory and Interpretational Framework 21 2.1 The distinction detween ritual and profane 21 2.2 Reconstructing structures 23 2.3 Isolating patterns 24 2.3.1 Pattern disturbing processes 24 2.3.2 Minimizing pattern disturbance 25 2.4 Interpreting patterns 25 3 The Funnelbeaker Culture 27 3.1 Introduction 27 3.2 The early Neolithic of the north-west European plain 27 3.2.1 Neolithisation 27 3.2.2 The rise of the Funnelbeaker Culture 27 3.2.3 Colonization or acculturation; the Dutch Funnelbeaker Culture 29 3.3 Settlement patterns and ecology 29 3.3.1 Crop-cultivation as a technology 29 3.3.2 Settlement location and farming strategy 29 3.4 TRB funerary traditions 31 3.4.1 Introduction 31 3.4.2 Megalithic tombs 31 3.4.3 Non-megalithic graves 36 3.5 Routes of exchange 37 3.5.1 Axes 37 3.5.2 Other links between the north- and west-group 39 3.5.3 TRB roads 39 3.6 TRB rituals 42 3.6.1 Introduction 42 3.6.2 Depositions 42 3.6.3 Causewayed enclosures 47 3.6.4 Tombs, enclosures and natural places 48 4 On the Physical Attributes of Flint Axes 49 4.1 Typology and chronology 49 4.2 General metrical observations 51 4.3 TRB axes 52 4.3.1 Grave contexts 52 4.3.2 Wet context finds 53 4.4 Craftsmanship 55 5 Functional Analysis 59 5.1 Introduction 59 5.2 General patterns 60 5.3 Grave contexts 60 5.4 Depositions 62 5.4.1 Unused axes 62 5.5 The exception to the rule 63 6 Spatial Analysis 65 6.1 Introduction 65 6.2 Natural landscape of depositions 65 6.3 Cultural landscape of depositions 67 7 Concluding Remarks: The Character of Depositions 71 7.1 Introduction 71 7.2 Physical properties of deposited axes 71 7.3 Functional analysis 71 7.4 Spatial analysis 72 7.5 Conclusion 72 Part II: Interpreting Patterns: The Meaning and Significance of Neolithic Depositions 8 Knowledge, Gifts and Sacred Possessions 75 8.1 Introduction 75 8.2 Craftsmanship 75 8.2.1 Knowledge and know-how 75 8.2.2 Cosmological knowledge 76 8.2.3 Cosmological knowledge and craftsmanship 76 8.3 Gift exchange 78 8.3.1 Introduction 78 8.3.2 Commensurability and reciprocity 79 8.3.3 Inalienable possessions 81 8.3.4 Knowledge as an inalienable possession 82 8.4 Sacred objects and gifts to the gods 82 8.4.1 Introduction 82 8.4.2 What makes sacred objects sacred? 83 8.4.3 What kind of objects are sacred objects? 83 8.4.4 The fourth obligation 84 8.5 The significance of landscapes 85 8.5.1 The inalienability of landscapes 85 8.5.2 Monuments as inalienable places 85 8.5.3 The significance of boundaries 85 9 Not-an-Axe Biography 87 9.1 Introduction 87 9.2 Composition of depositions 87 9.3 Deposition 88 9.3.1 Introduction 88 9.3.2 When did deposition take place? 88 9.3.3 Where did deposition take place? 88 9.4 Ochre and the significance of wrapping 89 9.4.1 Ethnographic examples of wrapping 90 9.4.2 The significance of wrapping 90 9.5 A life of exchange 91 9.5.1 Production; the start of a life of exchange 91 9.5.2 Exchange between knowledgeable agents 92 9.6 Production 93 9.6.1 Production sites 93 9.6.2 The nature and origin of meaning 94 9.7 Why were flint nodules deposited? 96 10 Axe Deposition in its Cultural Context 99 10.1 Introduction 99 10.2 Wetland depositions and megalithic tombs 99 10.3 The significance of axes 100 10.3.1 The symbolic value of axes 100 10.3.2 Farming and TRB identity 101 10.3.3 Agriculture as part of a cosmological system 101 10.4 Conclusion 103 11 Depositions Through Time; TRB and SGC Depositions 105 11.1 Introduction 105 11.2 SGC depositional practices 105 11.2.1 Introduction 105 11.2.2 SGC & TRB axe depositions 105 11.2.3 SGC & TRB graves 106 11.3 Changing categories 108 12 Concluding Remarks: The Meaning of Depositions 109 12.1 Introduction 109 12.2 The authentication of meaning 109 12.3 The production of meaning 110 12.4 TRB cosmology and knowledgeable exchange partners 110 12.5 Deposition in natural places 111 12.6 Depositions as a widespread phenomenon 111 References 113 Appendices: 1: The Database 123 2: Axe Typology 125 3: Residue Analysis (by Joris Dik) 127 4: Microscope Photographs 129 Acknowledgements 133 Preface Depositions have amazed people since they were first re- David Fontijn’s thesis provided the methodological back- cognized as such in the late 19th century. Why did people bone for the present thesis. Through looking at what people place such finely crafted objects of flint, copper, bronze and actually did and did not do, and putting these actions in even gold in bogs, rivers and swamps? This is a question that their cultural context, I tried to find out how deposition was generations of researchers have struggled with. These deposi- structured and how this should be interpreted. I started my tions present us with some problems. How to make sense of research by reading sociological and anthropological theory a practice that from our perspective is completely irrational about sacrifice, gift exchange and ritual. These studies all and a pure waste of nice objects? It was David Fontijn who, indicated the importance of the cultural context in which in his study of Bronze Age depositions, successfully addressed exchanges and rituals are performed. For this reason I started this problem. He examined depositions by looking at what it to compile a database with all sorts of information about was that people actually did and how such practices and their sites and finds that could help interpret potential patterns. performance may have been meaningful to them. His thesis The most important source of information however, was provides us with a comprehensive book revealing how depo- without doubt, the flint axes themselves. After performing sition was structured and how it may have been meaningful. an extensive survey of published finds, I turned to the actual There were however some questions that remained; where objects. Various museum collections were inspected and flint did this practice of placing objects in bogs come from? The axes were transported to the Leiden University Laboratory Bronze Age was neither the first nor the last period in which for Artefact Studies. Here the axes were subjected to metrical objects were deposited. There are numerous depositional and functional analysis using high-power microscopy. practices recorded for the Neolithic, however none of these In the context of her research project on the social had ever been investigated and interpreted on a scale similar significance of flint for Neolithic and Bronze Age societies, to bronze depositions. At a symposium on bog finds organ- Annelou van Gijn (in prep.) had already examined some ized by the Drents Museum, prof. Louwe Kooijmans gave of the flint axes found in multiple object depositions. She a lecture on Neolithic depositions. He gave an overview however supported my interest in depositions and let me join of several depositional practices and presented numerous that part of her research project. Beside objects in museum examples of finely crafted flint objects that had been delib- collections, some objects subjected to functional analysis erately placed in bogs and swamps. However, such practices were kept in private ownership and could not be taken to the have so far not been subjected to systematic examination and laboratory. In order to study these objects Annelou van Gijn interpretation. and myself went on a road-trip to Drenthe taking along our The subject was also touched upon during Annelou van microscope to perform functional analysis on location. By Gijn’s seminar on the meaning of flint in prehistoric socie- so doing objects in private ownership, or some objects that ties. During this seminar it became clear that these objects had been part of museum collections for over a century were and the practice of deposition must have been highly impor- inspected in search of new information.