Placing the Hunebedden

Transcription

1 How Dutch megaliths are situated in their landscape Roelien Rap Introduction In our surroundings today, human presence is visible everywhere. We see human statements in the shape of extravagant architecture and the construction of large monuments. This was no different in prehistory. From the Neolithic, megalithic and none-megalithic monuments were built throughout Atlantic Europe (Cunliffe, 2008:159; Oswald et al., 2001: x). The Netherlands was part of this Atlantic network of monuments as well. Around 3400 B.C. the people of the Funnelbeaker culture (FBC) started to build megalithic monuments in the northern Netherlands, where stones were available. This culture used them as grave monuments until 2850 B.C. (Bakker, 1992: 144; Brindley, 1986: 105). The FBC spread all the way across northern Europe, between the Ukraine and Sweden, this culture is divided into several groups based on the ornamentation on pottery (figure 1). The Netherlands and western Germany, belong to the West-Group of the FBC. In the Netherlands it is known that the settlements of the FBC are mostly situated on higher dry sandy soils with a low degree of loam. This was a fertile surface and therefore suitable for farming (Spek, 2004: 129). Depositions, for instance of stone axes, were made in the lower wet areas (Wiersma & Raemaekers, 2011: 34). These areas were peaty and thus not easily accessible. Therefore they presumably had a mysterious and sacred character (Wiersma & Raemaekers, 2011: 33). How did the megalithic grave monuments fit in this landscape? Answers to this question may be found on several spatial scales. First, most Dutch megaliths are found on the Dutch Hondsrug. This is a glacial ridge in the north east of the Netherlands, running from the north to the south (Spek, 2004: 129; figure 2). Secondly, it is known that most Dutch megaliths are situated no further than 350 m from stonefields Fig. 1. Map of FBC groups (from: Midgley, 1992: figure 10). 1

2 Roelien Rap Fig. 2. locations of the Dutch megaliths. 1): megaliths still visible today, 2) megaliths no longer visible, 3) sandy soil around ca B.C., 4) peat and sea deposits, Dotted lines: province borders. In the east megaliths lie along the Hondsrug (from: Van Ginkel et al.,2005: 88). (Bakker & Groenman van Waateringe, 1988: 153). These are areas where the fine boulder clay has eroded away, leaving the large boulders behind. Even after the boulders were covered again by sand, they were probably still visible and available for the construction of megalithic grave monuments. This article is focussed on an even smaller spatial scale, where every Dutch megalith has been looked at individually. The Dutch megaliths were plotted on elevation maps of their surrounding area. This will, of course, provide the information of how the megaliths are situated on an elevation map. When this is established, patterns may occur. After this, the megaliths can be viewed in relation to other activities from the FBC and we can learn more about the purpose and meaning of the Dutch megaliths. Looking abroad The Netherlands is just one part of Europe where prehistoric monuments were constructed. The Early Neolithic partly defines itself in Europe by the construction of (megalithic) monuments (Whittle, 1996: 151). Trigger (1990: 119) states that a principal defining feature of a monument is that its scale and elaboration exceed the requirements of any practical functions that a building is intended to perform. His 2 example is of a palace, which may have to be large because of the need of many storerooms and accounting offices to serve the needs of the king. Yet archaeologists have no problem defining it as a palace because of its size and quality of construction, which greatly exceed practical need (Trigger, 1990: 120). The same is true for the Dutch megaliths. Large boulders under a great earthen mound are certainly not necessary to bury your dead, still the effort was put in to do so. Concerning the location and architecture of monuments, the Dutch megaliths share certain characteristics with other megalithic structures in Europe. Firstly, the visibility of certain parts of the landscape from the monumental structure. Oswald et al. (2001) performed a study on the relation between causewayed enclosures on the British Isles and surrounding water. A division is made between the location of causewayed enclosures on slight rises in the valley floor and the location on valley sides (Oswald et al., 2001: 91). The latter can be further divided on the basis of their orientation, with one group from which the lower ground is visible, and the other from which the higher ground is visible (Oswald et al., 2001: 91). These locations and orientations were deliberately chosen by the humans who built them. Visibility seems to be a central topic, either low or high places

3 were visible and in this way the monuments were linked to specific sectors in the landscape (Oswald et al., 2001: 106). Secondly, monuments change the surroundings of the location in which they are built and add a layer of symbolism to it. Bradley (2000: 104) askes the question what do monuments do to the places where they are built? The first is that the construction of a monument on a place already significant, changes the entire experience of a location (Bradley, 2000: 104). A construction creates restriction and boundaries and thus creates zones for activities (Bradley, 2000: 105). A second way in which monuments change places is the scale on which they were built (Bradley, 2000: 106). Many people were drawn in the construction monuments and therefore they gained a close relationship with these locations. Not only were monuments dominating through their location, but while under construction, they also dominated daily life (Bradley, 2000: 106). A third characteristic of monuments, is that they add additional layers of symbolism to the natural landscape (Bradley, 2000: 107). A natural place already loaded with symbolism, for example a peak sanctuary, is made even more special by, for instance, a building with ornamentation (Bradley, 2000: 107). These three characteristics show that monuments can be used to order the natural landscape and the lives of the people building and using the monuments. Thirdly, the landscape is ordered by the presence of monuments. Richards (1996a; 1996b) discusses henge monuments and the relation with their surrounding 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 nature (Richards, 1996b: 205, 193). And finally, monuments serve as means of transformation. This is discussed by Fowler and Cummings (2003) in their study on Neolithic megaliths in the Irish Sea area and their relation to stone and water. They suggest that there was a metaphorical association between water and stone in the Neolithic of the Irish Sea area. This association was centred on practices of transformation (Fowler & Cummings, 2003: 2). Most megalithic sites in the eastern Irish Sea area have views on the sea. They argue that the megalithic 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, megalithic monuments throughout Europe were involved in rites transforming the human body after death (Fowler & Cummings, 2003: 8). An indication for these rites is the presence of partial human remains, which are found in the Dutch megaliths as well. The landscape setting of Dutch megaliths Methods Each of the Dutch megaliths was plotted on an elevation map of the Netherlands: the AHN1. The AHN1 was chosen, instead of the AHN2 which is more precise, because it gives a more general overview of the relief in the landscape. Each megalith was plotted on its own elevation map of approximately 3300x2000 metres, with a scale of 5 metres above and 5 metres below the height of the location of the megalith. Thus, each map has a different minimum and maximum height, but maintain the same vertical scale. This was done to enhance height differences and improve recognisability of differences in elevation. Megaliths are marked with a spot in the middle of each map and an arrow to indicate the direction in which the entrance of the megalith is facing. These directions were duplicated from an overview of megalith orientation made by Bom (1978: 10). Groups of megaliths are plotted on the same map, and megaliths which are not the subject of the map, but still lie within the map borders, are shown as well. Fig. 3. Examples of megaliths located on north, east, south and west flank. 3

4 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 axe is in the lowest part of the landscape, on the bottom of the ridge (Wiersma & Raemaekers, 2011). The grey megalith is on the flank. Fig. 5. Percentage of Dutch megaliths, per compass direction of flanks. The megaliths were then classified. After it became apparent that all megaliths are situated on flanks, four groups were made: north, east, south and west flank (figure 3). After allocating a megalith in one of these four groups, a further distinction was made: whether the entrance is facing an elevation ( high ) or a depression ( low ). Because some of the entrances are facing parallel to the ridge, another category was added called parallel. If the megaliths were not intentionally placed with the entrance facing a certain way, every direction would take up 25% (figure 4). This means the category parallel would take up 50%, because the entrance can face two ways parallel to the ridge. Results When all Dutch megaliths were plotted on elevation maps, 38 maps were produced (appendix 1). Their location and orientation are presented in table 1. The difference between the compass directions of the flanks is not striking (figure 5). A χ 2 test was executed to calculate if the observed values differ significantly from the expected values. The outcome, 2.547, indicates there is no statistical evidence for a preferred orientation in relation to the landscape setting 1. The differences in entrance direction seem more outspoken (figure 6). 1 The χ2 was calculated using Yates correction (Yates, 1934) on account of the small number of observations (less than 30 per cell): This calculation resulted in a χ2 of At 3 degrees of freedom (n rows - 1: 4-1=2), the value of the χ2 had to be at least to pass the α of Instead, the α lies between 0.1 and 0.9, which means there is a significant chance that the location of the megaliths is random Fig. 6. Percentage of Dutch megalith entrances facing different elevations. For these results a χ 2 test was executed as well. The outcome of means that there is a chance of less than 0.5% that the placement of the entrance of the megaliths is due to chance 2. In other words, there is a preference for certain parts of the landscape. Referring back to figure 4, almost half of the Dutch megaliths are facing the lower areas, the landscape part associated with deposition. Still, the percentage of Dutch megaliths facing the higher parts, associated with settlements, is considerable as well. Discussion It was researched whether the scale and size of the map influenced the classification. When more of the 2 Again using Yates correction (Yates, 1934), this calculation resulted in a χ2 of At 2 degrees of freedom (n rows - 1: 3-1=2), the value of the χ2 had to be at least to pass the α of

5 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. Megaliths % Scale 100* * * *2000 Flank North East South West Entrance High Parallel Low surroundings are visible on the map, classification is based on the landscape visible on the map. To determine how much of an influence the map size was, overlays were made with different sizes: 100x100 metres, 300x300 metres and 1000x1000 metres. Every megalith was placed in the centre of the smaller frame and classified again (table 2). With a scale of 1000x1000 results do not differ much from the results of this research. If anything, the differences are more extreme. In the smaller map sizes the class Parallel is much higher than in the larger sizes. This is mainly because with a small map it is difficult to assess the course of a ridge. Despite the small differences in results with the other map sizes, a larger map size gives a more reliable result. This way it is possible to see the general flow of the landscape and to see extremes in the 5

6 Roelien Rap Fig. 7. Schematic representation of an FBC landscape. The green house represents the settlements in the higher dry areas. The megaliths in grey are located on the flanks of ridges. The lower areas contain depositions, like axes (in red). landscapes that are further away, but would have been noticeable for FBC people as well. Conclusion The Dutch megalithic monuments were part of a landscape created by nature and humans. The natural environment was a significant influence on the choices people made in the organisation of the landscape. They are built on a place in the landscape, which is already special: the flanks of ridges. By building a megalithic grave monument on this location, an additional layer of symbolism was added and the experience of the location changed. With the construction of the megaliths on flanks of ridges, a border between high and low, dry and wet, living and divine was created and the landscape was ordered. In figure 7 the ordering of the FBC landscape is depicted. In the high and dry area, settlements are located. The settlements are either restricted or connected from the lower deposition area by the megalithic monument. But the Dutch megaliths seem to have fulfilled a more specific purpose. It has been established that half of all Dutch megaliths have an entrance facing a low area. This means that these megaliths are facing the higher parts of the landscape with their closed back. From the settlement area, people would have to go around an enormous earthen monument to reach the divine landscape. This monument does not only have the role to impress, but also to commemorate the dead (Scarre, 2011: 9). With its size and meaning the megalithic monument orders the landscape and could have a role of transformation between the place of the living (the settlement area) and the place of the divine (the deposition area). References Bakker, J.A., The Dutch Hunebedden. Megalithic tombs of the Funnel Beaker Culture. Michigan: International Monographs in Prehistory. Bakker, J.A. & W. Groenman-van Wateringe, Megaliths, soils and vegetation on the Drenthe Plateau. In: Groenman-van Wateringe, W. & M. Robinson (eds.). Man-made soils, pp Oxford: B.A.R. Bom, F., Het mysterie van de hunebedden. Buitenaardse hulp? Deventer: Uitgeverij Ankh- Hermes BV. Bradley, R., An Archaeology of Natural Places. London: Routledge. Brindley, A.L., Hunebed G2: Excavation and finds. Palaeohistoria 28, pp Fowler, C. & V. Cummings, Places of Transformation: Building Monuments from Water and Stone in the Neolithic of the Irish Sea. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 9:1, pp Ginkel, L., van, S. Jager & W. van der Sanden, Hunebedden, Monumenten van een Steentijdcultuur. Abcoude: Uitgeverij Uniepers. Midgley, M., TRB Culture. The First Farmers of the North European Plain. Edinburg: University Press. Oswald, A., C. Dyer & M. Barber, The Creation of Monuments. Neolithic Causewayed enclosures in the British Isles. Swindon: English Heritage. Raemaekers, D.C.M. & J.J. Wiersma, Over de plaats van leven en dood in het neolithicum. Een landschapsbenadering van de trechterbekercultuur in Drenthe. In: M.J.L.Th. Niekus (ed.): Gevormd en ongevormd landschap. Van prehistorie tot Middeleeuwen, pp Drents Prehistorische Vereniging. Richards, C., 1996a. Henges and Water: Towards an Elemental Understanding of Monumentality and Landscape in Late Neolithic Britain. Journal of Material Culture 1:3, pp Richards, C., 1996b. Monuments as Landscape: Creating a Centre of the World in Late Neolithic Orkney. World Archaeology 28:2, pp Scarre, C., Monumentality. In: T. Insoll (ed.) Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion, pp Oxford: Oxford University Press. Spek, T., Het Drentse esdorpenlandschap. Een historisch-geografische studie. Utrecht: Uitgeverij Matrijs. Trigger, B.G., Monumental Architecture: A thermodynamic Explanation of Symbolic Behaviour. World Archaeology 22:2, pp Whittle, A.W.R., Europe in the Neolithic: The Creation of New Worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yates, F., Contingency Tables Involving Small Numbers and the χ 2 Test. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 1, pp AHN viewer. Available at: [Accessed 17 May 2015]. Author Roelien Rap roelienrap@gmail.com 6

7 Appendix 1 Megalith D1 Map D2 D3 -D4 (left to right) 7

8 Roelien Rap D5 D6 D7 8

9 D8 D9 D10 9

10 Roelien Rap D11 D12-D13 (left to right) D14 10

11 D15 D16 D17 (top) - D18 (bottom) 11

12 Roelien Rap D19 D20 (left to right) D21-D25 (left to right) D26 12

13 D27 (left) D28 (middle) D29 (right) D28 (middle) D29 (right) D27 (left) D30 13

14 Roelien Rap D31 D32 D34 14

15 D35 D36 - D37 (left to right) D38 D40 (top to bottom) 15

16 Roelien Rap D41 (top) D42 (middle D43 (bottom) D42 (middle) D41 (top) D43 (bottom) D43 (bottom) D41 (top) D42 (middle) 16

17 D44 (bottom) D42 (top) D43 (middle) D45 (bottom) D41 (top) D43 (middle) D46 D47 (top to bottom) 17

18 Roelien Rap D49 D50-D51 (top to bottom) D52 18

19 D53 D54 (left to right) G1 19