Les
pratiques funéraires néolithiques avant 3500 av. J.-C.
en France et dans les régions limitrophes. Table ronde SPF, Saint-Germain-en-Laye
15-17 juin 2001, edited by PHILIPPE CHAMBON & JEAN LECLERC
Mémoire XXXIII de la Société
Préhistorique Française Société. Préhistorique
Française, Paris, 2003. 333 pages. ISBN 2-913745-14-8. (€40)
Recent years have witnessed an upsurge in studies
of Neolithic burial practices in France. The inspiration for these derives
in some measure from the innovative work of Claude Masset at Paris and
Henri Duday at Bordeaux, both of whom have demonstrated the enormous
potential offered by a close reading of the human skeletal remains,
in an approach that has come to be termed ‘anthropologie de terrain’.
The present volume is the product of a conference held by our sister
organisation, the Société Préhistorique Française,
in June 2001. One of the editors (Philippe Chambon) has recently published
a detailed re-examination of Neolithic collective burials in northern
France (Chambon 2003); the other (Jean Leclerc) is well-known for his
excavation and study of Late Neolithic allées couvertes
in the Paris basin, tombs which from their quantity of remains constitute
the classic ‘sépultures collectives’.
The greater part of the present volume is devoted
to presentation and discussion of individual sites or groups of sites
from the Early and Middle Neolithic periods. Few of the papers move
beyond this to a more general level of analysis, though most do contain
observations that are of wider relevance. The very diversity within
these papers may deter British readers, and indeed while the richness
of the evidence and the interest of individual examples is very clear,
the thematic organisation of the volume is sometimes a little difficult
to follow. Nonetheless, there is here a considerable body of fascinating
new information, and this is an invaluable collection of papers for
anyone wishing to follow current French research on Neolithic funerary
practices.
The book is divided into five sections. The first,
devoted to the ‘premières pratiques funéraires néolithiques
en France’, focuses on Bandkeramik graves and cemeteries in Alsace
and the Paris basin. Jeunesse opens the proceedings by discussing the
special features of burials on the western margins of the LBK, and in
particular the ‘micro-nécropoles’ located within
Bandkeramik settlements in this region. These contrast both with the
larger extra-mural cemeteries of the kind known from central areas of
the Bandkeramik, and with the individual graves in pits or alongside
longhouses. Jeunesse suggests that these ‘micro-nécropoles’
are the product of Mesolithic acculturation along the Bandkeramik margins;
but he also observes that the Paris basin Bandkeramik shares certain
features with the formative Alföld Linear (notably in the absence
of V-perforated Spondylus shells or polished stone adzes from the graves).
The following papers bring to the fore one of the
primary themes of recent French work on burial practices: the so-called
‘anthropologie de terrain’ approach, in which detailed investigation
of the position of the skeletal elements within the grave, preferably
by a physical anthropologist, is used to deduce the exact circumstances
of the burial: whether wrapped in a shroud or placed in a coffin; whether
earth was backfilled around the body or whether it lay beneath some
kind of cover or within a container that allowed for movement during
decomposition; whether (in the case of multiple interments) the bodies
were deposited simultaneously or in sequence. This approach, particularly
associated with the name of Henri Duday and his Bordeaux school, figures
prominently in a majority of the papers in this volume.
In the second paper of this section, Boës applies
the ‘anthropologie de terrain’ approach to the development
of funerary practices in Alsace during the 6th and 5th millennium BC,
from Bandkeramik to Grossgartach. This reveals a sequence, from bodies
buried in backfilled graves in the Middle Bandkeramik, through the occasional
provision of some kind of container or covering in the Late and Final
Bandkeramik, to coffin burials in at least four of 109 cases at the
Grossgartach cemetery of Rosheim. These changes are linked to changing
social practices over this period, but the social implications are not
fully explored by reference to other categories of material, such as
settlement or house plans. There is clearly scope for a more probing
analysis of these transformations. The presence of a timber roof or
cover over Late Bandkeramik graves is explored in more detail in Bonnabel
et al.’s study of the Late or Final Bandkeramik ‘micro-nécropole’
at Écriennes in the Marne Valley. The residual earth from digging
the grave pit may have been heaped to form a small tumulus, on which
offerings may have been placed in pottery vessels; when the timber cover
collapsed the tumulus subsided, taking with it the pottery vessels which
became incorporated in the fill of the grave.
The final paper in this first section explores one
of the key issues in the study of prehistoric burials. Drawing on the
detailed results from 30 years of excavation in the Aisne Valley, Constantin
and co-authors provide a series of statistics which demonstrate that
the number of known Bandkeramik graves is improbably small when compared
with the number of Bandkeramik houses. At the largest settlement, Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes,
there are only five graves for 33 houses; at the next largest, Bucy-le-Long
‘La Héronière’, there is only 1 grave for
11 houses. It is possible that large extra-mural cemeteries are yet
to be discovered, but the extent of gravel quarrying in the valley argues
against this. The striking dearth of burial evidence is not peculiar
to the Aisne Valley Bandkeramik but is a feature of most prehistoric
periods in western Europe, for which systematic cemetery burial goes
back little more than 2000 years.
The second section ‘Les conditions de dépôt’
moves on in time to focus on the Middle Neolithic. A pair of related
papers discuss burials in storage pits at Chasséen sites in south-west
France, and raise two salient questions. First, had these pits truly
been used for grain storage before they were re-used as graves, or were
the grave pits intentionally dug to resemble silos? The possibility
that burial in grain stores was a metaphor for rebirth and new life
has recently been discussed elsewhere (Laporte & Marchand 2004).
The second question concerns the relationship of these pits to settlement
activity. At Les Plots, the majority of the 104 pits were dated to the
Middle Neolithic and six of them contained burials; but, as Beeching
remarks later, the scarcity of house evidence in the south French Chasséen
and the intentional backfilling of most of the pits (some of those in
the Rhône valley containing a remarkable wealth of artefactual
material) suggests that these pits were not necessarily domestic in
character.
Three following papers consider grave offerings, and
especially personal ornaments placed with or on the dead. Sidéra
charts the increasing importance of ornaments and artefacts derived
from hunted animals in graves from Late Bandkeramik to Michelsberg and
Chasséen in the Seine and Rhine basins. She suggests that they
are evidence of a new ideology and expression of masculinity, though
they are not restricted to the graves of adult males. Bonnardin shows
from study of use-wear that Bandkeramik and post-Bandkeramik shell necklaces
were assembled from individual elements of different age and origin,
perhaps donated by different members of the community to the dead person.
Moinat describes the spectacular boars’ tusk pectorals placed
in the Chamblandes graves of western Switzerland, which again had sometimes
been assembled from pieces of diverse earlier origin. Stepping across
the frontier, Wünsch & Gibaja Bao attempt to relate use-wear
to sex and status differences (not altogether convincingly) in the Sant
Pau del Camp cemetery near Barcelona. The final paper in this section,
Augereau et al.’s study of the Chasséen cemetery
of Monéteau in the Yonne, returns to the theme of individual
sites: two clusters totalling 20 graves within a large palisaded enclosure,
but here again without convincing evidence of domestic occupation.
The third section ‘Les conditions de décomposition’
repeats earlier themes; and indeed the division between this and the
previous section is somewhat ill-defined. Once again, ‘anthropologie
de terrain’ approaches are highlighted, notably in the Chamblandes
cists of Switzerland with their multiple burials (Moinat), and in the
Cerny (Middle Neolithic) cemetery of Vignely in the Marne valley (Chambon
& Lanchon). Here a surprising diversity of grave types is present
among a group of only 30 or so tombs: extended burials in coffins within
deep pits; extended burials in shrouds, or in grave pits edged with
timber shuttering; crouched burials within timber cists, within shrouds,
or simply covered in earth; and one corpse buried in sitting position,
held in place within a small but rigid container. Other papers in this
section discuss the development of funerary structures in the Ebro estuary
from Epicardial to Middle Neolithic (Bosch & Faura), and describe
a newly discovered pair of Chasséen burials at Limoux in the
Aude (Tcheremissinoff).
The final two sections move away from the analysis
of individual graves to the consideration of funerary structures. The
three papers of section IV ‘L’espace sépulcral dans
l’ensemble funéraire’ consider the grouping of graves
and the structures or structuring principles that may have been involved:
at Orville in Loiret (Arbogast et al.), where a series of 20
graves are grouped around a ‘sépulture sous dalle’,
a proto-megalithic structure in which a large sandstone slab is laid
across the top of the grave pit (see Scarre 2002); at Barmaz in Switzerland
(Honegger & Desideri) where burials in two adjacent cemeteries of
Chamblandes cists could not be distinguished as drawn from separate
populations and may have been related though possibly successive in
time; and at Le Gournier in the Rhône valley (Beeching), where
a central group of Chasséen burials is enclosed within irregular
circles of pits containing special deposits that were probably involved
in the funerary practices: the entire complex may indeed have been covered
by a low circular mound.
The fifth section ‘Types fonctionnels’
comprises three articles on chambered tombs in northern and western
France, followed by analysis of a cave burial in the Pyrenees and finally
by some shorter closing remarks. The section opens with an account of
the excavation of a ruined passage grave within the Prissé-la-Charrière
long mound in Poitou-Charentes, a paper of which the present reviewer
is a co-author (Soler, Joussaume, Laporte & Scarre). The analysis
considers two hypotheses: that the 8 individuals represented among the
human skeletal remains were brought in as intact bodies but elements
were later removed; or that only parts of the bodies were deposited
in the chamber. The fact that the chamber was only large enough to hold
3 or 4 complete bodies (leaving aside the possibility of timber shelving)
and that the 8 individuals were represented by a total of only 137 bones
(as compared with the standard human complement of 208) gives added
point to the analysis but no firm conclusions can be drawn.
The next pair of papers turn to northern France. In
the first, Dron and colleagues provide a systematic review of recent
work on burial practices in the passage graves of Normandy. Several
of these are remarkable for the manner in which bodies were laid out
on the floor of the tomb chamber, each within its own space, and not
subjected to subsequent disturbance or manipulation. In a later paper
in this section, Leclerc argues that such burials cannot properly be
termed ‘collective’ since the bodies are not jumbled together
in the classic manner of, for example, the Late Neolithic allées
couvertes of the Paris basin. The distinction may perhaps be considered
an issue merely of terminology, but it does highlight the contrast between
the ‘individual’ nature of multiple burials in the Normandy
passage graves as compared with the disarticulated and incomplete skeletal
remains found in Middle Neolithic western France (eg at Prissé-la-Charrière).
Even within Normandy, however, mixing and sorting of bones is also found
at this period: indeed, the multiple-chambered mound of La Hoguette
shows that skeletal integrity and disarticulation could be practised
within adjacent chambers of the same monument. Piera builds on these
results by studying the distribution of non-metric dental abnormalities
within the multi-chambered mounds of La Hogue and La Hoguette. His results
suggest that several of the chambers held groups of related individuals,
perhaps families or affines.
Valentin et al.’s analysis of the Grotte
de Montou presents a final case-study of collective burial, this time
within a narrow cleft opening off an occupied cave. The structured nature
of the deposit (children placed at the back in decreasing order of age,
then several adults added in various postures) suggests that this deposit
was planned from the outset. It is clear, however, that some of the
bodies were in an advanced stage of decay when new corpses were introduced,
indicating that this cannot have been a single simultaneous deposit.
As these remarks have indicated, much of the volume
is concerned with the presentation and discussion of individual cases,
but broader issues are touched upon in a number of papers. One which
is left for the end, however, is whether all the deposits discussed
in these pages may correctly be interpreted as ‘burials’.
As Cauwe observes, some sites appear to have been places for the processing
of corpses, rather than for the disposal of the dead as we would understand
it today. Finally, Leclerc and Chambon return to the distinction between
Middle Neolithic practices and the Late Neolithic tombs in which remains
of several hundred individual are found mixed together. The latter,
Chambon argues, reveal a fundamental change in ‘mentalités’.
What emerges from this volume, however, is not a pattern of widespread
regularities so much as the diversity of practices that are represented.
Readers from this side of the Channel, within and beyond the detail
of the individual examples will find much to ponder.
Chris Scarre
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge
References
Chambon, P., 2003. Les morts dans les sépultures collectives
néolithiques en France. Du cadavre aux restes ultimes. (XXXV
Supplément à Gallia Préhistoire) Paris, CNRS.
Laporte, L., & Marchand, G., 2004. Une structure d’habitat
circulaire dans le Néolithique ancien du Centre-Ouest de la France.
Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française
101, 55-73.
Scarre, C., 2002. Contexts of monumentalism: regional diversity at the
Neolithic transition in north-west France. Oxford Journal of Archaeology
21, 23-61.
Review Submitted: April 2004
The views expressed in this review are not
necessarily those of the Society or the Reviews Editor.
|