Placing the Hunebedden How Dutch are situated in their landscape

Roelien Rap

Introduction and western , belong to the West-Group of In our surroundings today, human presence is visible the FBC. In the it is known that the set- everywhere. We see human statements in the shape tlements of the FBC are mostly situated on higher of extravagant architecture and the construction of dry sandy soils with a low degree of loam. This was large monuments. This was no different in . a fertile surface and therefore suitable for farming From the , megalithic and none-megalithic (Spek, 2004: 129). Depositions, for instance of stone monuments were built throughout Atlantic , were made in the lower wet areas (Wiersma & (Cunliffe, 2008:159; Oswald et al., 2001: x). Raemaekers, 2011: 34). These areas were peaty and The Netherlands was part of this Atlantic network thus not easily accessible. Therefore they presumably of monuments as . Around 3400 B.C. the people had a mysterious and sacred character (Wiersma & of the Funnelbeaker culture (FBC) started to build Raemaekers, 2011: 33). megalithic monuments in the northern Netherlands, where stones were available. This culture used them landscape? Answers to this question may be found as grave monuments until 2850 B.C. (Bakker, 1992: on Howseveral did spatial the megalithic scales. First, grave most monuments Dutch megaliths fit in this 144; Brindley, 1986: 105). are found on the Dutch Hondsrug. This is a glacial The FBC spread all the way across northern ridge in the north east of the Netherlands, running Europe, between the Ukraine and , this cul- ture is divided into several groups based on the or- 2). Secondly, it is known that most Dutch megaliths from the north to the south (Spek, 2004: 129; figure namentation on (figure 1). The Netherlands are situated no further than 350 m from ‘stonefields’

Fig. 1. Map of FBC groups (from: Midgley, 1992: figure 10).

1 Roelien Rap

Fig. 2. locations of the Dutch mega- liths. 1): megaliths still visible today, 2) megaliths no longer visible, 3) sandy soil around ca. 3000 B.C., 4) peat and sea deposits, Dotted lines: province borders. In the east mega- liths lie along the Hondsrug (from: Van Ginkel et al.,2005: 88).

(Bakker & Groenman van Waateringe, 1988: 153). example is of a palace, which may have to be large be- - cause of the need of many storerooms and accounting ed away, leaving the large boulders behind. Even after - theThese boulders are areas were where covered the fine again boulder by sand, clay they has erodwere probably still visible and available for the construc- ofoffices its size to serveand quality the needs of construction, of the king. Yetwhich archaeolo greatly tion of megalithic grave monuments. exceedgists have practical no problem need (Trigger, defining 1990:it as a 120).palace The because same This article is focussed on an even smaller spatial is true for the Dutch megaliths. Large boulders under scale, where every Dutch has been looked at a great earthen mound are certainly not necessary to individually. The Dutch megaliths were plotted on el- bury your dead, still the effort was put in to do so. evation maps of their surrounding area. This will, of Concerning the location and architecture of mon- course, provide the information of how the megaliths uments, the Dutch megaliths share certain charac- are situated on an elevation map. When this is estab- teristics with other megalithic structures in Europe. lished, patterns may occur. After this, the megaliths Firstly, the visibility of certain parts of the landscape can be viewed in relation to other activities from the from the monumental structure. Oswald et al. (2001) FBC and we can learn more about the purpose and performed a study on the relation between cause- meaning of the Dutch megaliths. wayed enclosures on the British Isles and surround- ing water. A division is made between the location Looking abroad of causewayed enclosures on slight rises in the valley The Netherlands is just one part of Europe where prehistoric monuments were constructed. The Early 2001: 91). The latter can be further divided on the - basisfloor andof their the orientation,location on withvalley one sides group (Oswald from whichet al., struction of (megalithic) monuments (Whittle, 1996: the lower ground is visible, and the other from which 151).Neolithic Trigger partly (1990: defines 119) itself states in Europethat a principal by the con de- the higher ground is visible (Oswald et al., 2001: 91). These locations and orientations were deliberate- elaboration exceed the requirements of any practical ly chosen by the humans who built them. Visibility fining of a monument is ‘that its scale and seems to be a central topic, either low or high places functions that a building is intended to perform’. His

2 Placing the Hunebedden

were visible and in this way the monuments were (Fowler & Cummings, 2003: 8). An indication for these rites is the presence of partial human remains, al., 2001: 106). which are found in the Dutch megaliths as well. linkedSecondly, to specific monuments sectors changein the landscape the surroundings (Oswald ofet the location in which they are built and add a layer of The landscape setting of Dutch megaliths symbolism to it. Bradley (2000: 104) askes the question ‘what do monuments do to the places where they are Methods built?’ Each of the Dutch megaliths was plotted on an ele- - vation map of the Netherlands: the AHN1. The AHN1 ence of The a location first is that(Bradley, the construction 2000: 104). ofA aconstruction monument was chosen, instead of the AHN2 which is more pre- createson a place restriction already significant, and boundaries changes and the entirethus createsexperi cise, because it gives a more general overview of the zones for activities (Bradley, 2000: 105). A second way relief in the landscape. in which monuments change places is the scale on which Each megalith was plotted on its own elevation map they were built (Bradley, 2000: 106). Many people were of approximately 3300x2000 metres, with a scale of 5 drawn in the construction monuments and therefore metres above and 5 metres below the height of the they gained a close relationship with these locations. location of the megalith. Thus, each map has a differ- Not only were monuments dominating through their lo- ent minimum and maximum height, but maintain the cation, but while under construction, they also dominat- same vertical scale. This was done to enhance height ed daily life (Bradley, 2000: 106). A third characteristic differences and improve recognisability of differenc- of monuments, is that they add additional layers of sym- es in elevation. Megaliths are marked with a spot in bolism to the natural landscape (Bradley, 2000: 107). A the middle of each map and an to indicate the natural place already loaded with symbolism, for exam- direction in which the entrance of the megalith is fac- ple a peak sanctuary, is made even more special by, for ing. These directions were duplicated from an over- instance, a building with ornamentation (Bradley, 2000: view of megalith orientation made by Bom (1978: 107). These three characteristics show that monuments 10). Groups of megaliths are plotted on the same map, can be used to order the natural landscape and the lives and megaliths which are not the subject of the map, of the people building and using the monuments. but still lie within the map borders, are shown as well. Thirdly, the landscape is ordered by the presence of monuments. Richards (1996a; 1996b) discusses monuments and the relation with their sur- rounding landscape. He explains that humans have the tendency to order their world (Richards, 1996a: 315). Because the natural landscape is part of that world, it takes part in the ordering system. The Stones of Stenness and the Ring of Brodgar are used as examples of monuments that order the landscape (Richards, 1996b: 205). Both monuments represent their surrounding topography and are therefore a method to order (Richards, 1996b: 205, 193). - formation. This is discussed by Fowler and Cummings (2003)And finally,in their monuments study on Neolithic serve as megalithsmeans of intrans the Irish Sea area and their relation to stone and water. They suggest that there was a metaphorical associa- tion between water and stone in the Neolithic of the Irish Sea area. This association was centred on prac- tices of transformation (Fowler & Cummings, 2003: 2). Most megalithic sites in the eastern Irish Sea area have views on the sea. They argue that the megalith- ic chambers created a connection between the sea and stone structures, like the mountains (Fowler & Cummings, 2003: 2-3). They also state that apart from the megaliths along the Irish Sea area, mega- lithic monuments throughout Europe were involved Fig. 3. Examples of megaliths located on north, east, south in rites transforming the human body after death and west flank.

3 Roelien Rap

Fig. 4. Schematic representation of a flank from a cover-sand ridge. The green house is on the highest part of the ridge. The red is in the lowest part of the landscape, on the bottom of Fig. 5. Percentage of Dutch megaliths, per compass direction the ridge (Wiersma & Raemaekers, 2011). The grey megalith of flanks. is on the flank.

fourThe megalithsgroups were were made: then north, classified. east, Aftersouth itand became west apparent that all megaliths are situated on flanks, these four groups, a further distinction was made: flank (figure 3). After allocating a megalith in one of arewhether facing the parallel entrance to the is facing ridge, an another elevation category (‘high’) was or a depression (‘low’). Because some of the entrances If the megaliths were not intentionally placed with theadded entrance called ‘parallel’. facing a certain way, every direction - canwould face take two up ways 25% parallel (figure to 4). the This ridge. means the catego ry ‘parallel’ would take up 50%, because the entrance Results Fig. 6. Percentage of Dutch megalith entrances facing dif- When all Dutch megaliths were plotted on elevation ferent elevations. maps, 38 maps were produced (appendix 1). Their lo- cation and orientation are presented in table 1. The dif- For these results a 2 – test was executed as well. The outcome of 27.028 means that there is a chance of less 2 – test was executed to calcu- than 0.5% that theχ placement of the entrance of the ference between the compass directions of the flanks is megaliths is due to chance2. In other words, there is a expectednot striking values. (figure The 5). outcome,A χ 2.547, indicates there preference for certain parts of the landscape. Referring islate no if statistical the observed evidence values for differ a preferred significantly orientation from the in relation to the landscape setting1. The differences in facing the lower areas, the landscape part associated withback todeposition. figure 4, almost Still, the half percentage of the Dutch of megalithsDutch mega are- liths facing the higher parts, associated with settle- entrance direction seem more outspoken (figure 6). ments, is considerable as well. 1 The on account of the small number of observations (less than 30 per cell):χ2 was calculated using Yates’ correction (Yates, 1934) Discussion It was researched whether the scale and size of the

This calculation resulted in a 2 of 2.547. At 3 degrees of free- map influenced the classification. When more of the dom (n rows - 1: 4-1=2), the value of the 2 had to be at least 7.815 to pass the of 0.05. Instead,χ the resulted in a 2 of 27.028. At 2 degrees of freedom (n rows - 1: 0.9, which means there is a significant chanceχ that the location 3-1=2),2 Again the using value Yates’ of the correction 2 had to (Yates,be at least 1934), 10.597 this calculationto pass the of the megaliths isα random α lies between 0.1 and of 0.005. χ χ α

4 Placing the Hunebedden

Table 1. Dutch megaliths and their location on a ridge and in which direction the entrance is facing.

Flank Direction Entrance Direc. Flank Direction Entrance Direc. Megalith North East South West High Parallel Low Megalith North East South West High Parallel Low D1 x x D28 x x D2 x x D29 x x D3 x x D30 x x D4 x x D31 x x D5 x x D32 x x D6 x x D34 x x D7 x x D35 x x D8 x x D36 x x D9 x x D37 x x D10 x x D38 x x D11 x x D39 x x D12 x x D40 x x D13 x x D41 x x D14 x x D42 x x D15 x x D43 x x D16 x x D44 x x D17 x x D45 x x D18 x x D46 x x D19 x x D47 x x D20 x x D49 x x

D21 x x D50 x x

D22 x x D51 x x D23 x x D52 x x D24 x x D53 x x D25 x x D54 x x D26 x x G1 x x D27 x x

Table 2. percentage of megaliths per classification. In the columns different map sizes are shown in metres. is based on the landscape visible on the map. To de- surroundings are visible on the map, classification Megaliths % overlays were made with different sizes: 100x100 Scale 100*100 300*300 1000*1000 3300*2000 metres,termine how300x300 much metresof an influence and 1000x1000 the map size metres. was, Flank North 24 25 21 19 Every megalith was placed in the centre of the small- East 36 32 34 28 South 17 19 19 21 of 1000x1000 results do not differ much from the resultser frame of and this classified research. again If anything, (table 2).the With differences a scale West 23 24 26 32 are more extreme. In the smaller map sizes the class

Entrance High 34 30 32 36 Paral- assess‘Parallel’ the is course much higherof a ridge. than in the larger sizes. This 25 21 15 15 lel is mainlyDespite because the small with differences a small map in results it is difficult with the to Low 42 49 53 49 other map sizes, a larger map size gives a more re- liable result. This way it is possible to see the gener-

al flow of the landscape and to see extremes in the

5 Roelien Rap

Bom, F., 1978. Het mysterie van de hunebedden. Buitenaardse hulp? Deventer: Uitgeverij Ankh- Hermes BV. Bradley, R., 2000. An Archaeology of Natural Places. London: Routledge. Brindley, A.L., 1986. Hunebed G2: Excavation and Fig. 7. Schematic representation of an FBC landscape. The Palaeohistoria 28, pp. 27-93. green house represents the settlements in the higher dry Fowler, C. & V. Cummings, 2003. Places of Transformation: areas. The megaliths in grey are located on the flanks of Buildingfinds. Monuments from Water and Stone in the ridges. The lower areas contain depositions, like axes (in red). Neolithic of the Irish Sea. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 9:1, pp. 1-20. landscapes that are further away, but would have Ginkel, L., van, S. Jager & W. van der Sanden, 2005. been noticeable for FBC people as well. Hunebedden, Monumenten van een Steentijdcultuur. Abcoude: Uitgeverij Uniepers. Conclusion Midgley, M., 1992. TRB Culture. The First Farmers of The Dutch megalithic monuments were part of a the North European Plain. Edinburg: University landscape created by nature and humans. The natural Press. - Oswald, A., C. Dyer & M. Barber, 2001. The Creation of es people made in the organisation of the landscape. Monuments. Neolithic Causewayed enclosures in the Theyenvironment are built was on a a place significant in the influencelandscape, on which the choic is al- British Isles. Swindon: English Heritage. - Raemaekers, D.C.M. & J.J. Wiersma, 2011. Over de lithic grave monument on this location, an additional plaats van leven en dood in het neolithicum. Een layerready of special: symbolism the flanks was ofadded ridges. and By the building experience a mega of landschapsbenadering van de trechterbekercultu- the location changed. With the construction of the ur in Drenthe. In: M.J.L.Th. Niekus (ed.): Gevormd en ongevormd landschap. Van prehistorie tot and low, dry and wet, living and divine was created Middeleeuwen, pp. 32-43. Drents Prehistorische megaliths on flanks of ridges, a border between high- Vereniging. ing of the FBC landscape is depicted. In the high and Richards, C., 1996a. and Water: Towards an dryand area,the landscape settlements was are ordered. located. In The figure settlements 7 the order are Elemental Understanding of Monumentality and either restricted or connected from the lower deposi- Landscape in Late Neolithic Britain. Journal of tion area by the megalithic monument. Material Culture 1:3, pp. 313-336. Richards, C., 1996b. Monuments as Landscape: Creating a Centre of the World in Late Neolithic halfBut of theall Dutch Dutch megaliths megaliths have seem an to entrance have fulfilled facing a Orkney. World Archaeology 28:2, pp. 190-208. lowmore area. specific This purpose.means that It hasthese been megaliths established are facing that Scarre, C., 2011. Monumentality. In: T. Insoll (ed.) the higher parts of the landscape with their closed Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and “back”. From the settlement area, people would Religion, pp. 9-23. Oxford: Oxford University Press. have to go around an enormous earthen monument Spek, T., 2004. Het Drentse esdorpenlandschap. Een to reach the divine landscape. This monument does historisch-geografische studie. Utrecht: Uitgeverij not only have the role to impress, but also to com- Matrijs. memorate the dead (Scarre, 2011: 9). With its size Trigger, B.G., 1990. Monumental Architecture: A ther- and meaning the megalithic monument orders the modynamic Explanation of Symbolic Behaviour. landscape and could have a role of transformation be- World Archaeology 22:2, pp. 119-132. tween the place of the living (the settlement area) and Whittle, A.W.R., 1996. Europe in the Neolithic: The the place of the divine (the deposition area). Creation of New Worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. References Bakker, J.A., 1992. The Dutch Hunebedden. Megalithic Numbers and the 2 Test. Journal of the Royal tombs of the Funnel Beaker Culture. Michigan: Yates,Statistical F., 1934. Society Contingency 1, pp. 217-235. Tables Involving Small International Monographs in Prehistory. AHN viewer. Available χat: http://ahn.geodan.nl/ahn/ Bakker, J.A. & W. Groenman-van Wateringe, 1988. [Accessed 17 May 2015]. Megaliths, soils and vegetation on the Drenthe Plateau. In: Groenman-van Wateringe, W. & M. Author Robinson (eds.). Man-made soils, pp. 143-181. Roelien Rap Oxford: B.A.R. E-mail: [email protected]

6 Placing the Hunebedden

Appendix 1

Megalith Map D1

D2

D3 -D4 (left to right)

7

Roelien Rap

D5

D6

D7

8

Placing the Hunebedden

D8

D9

D10

9

Roelien Rap

D11

D12-D13 (left to right)

D14

10

Placing the Hunebedden

D15

D16

D17 (top) - D18 (bottom)

11

Roelien Rap

D19 – D20 (left to right)

D21-D25 (left to right)

D26

12

Placing the Hunebedden

D27 (left) D28 (middle) D29 (right)

D28 (middle) D29 (right) D27 (left)

D30

13

Roelien Rap

D31

D32

D34

14

Placing the Hunebedden

D35

D36 - D37 (left to right)

D38 – D40 (top to bottom)

15

Roelien Rap

D41 (top) D42 (middle D43 (bottom)

D42 (middle) D41 (top) D43 (bottom)

D43 (bottom) D41 (top) D42 (middle)

16

Placing the Hunebedden

D44 (bottom) D42 (top) D43 (middle)

D45 (bottom) D41 (top) D43 (middle)

D46 – D47 (top to bottom)

17

Roelien Rap

D49

D50-D51 (top to bottom)

D52

18

Placing the Hunebedden

D53 – D54 (left to right)

G1

19