205 61 10MB
English Pages 143 [156] Year 2015
Cannibalism in the Linear Pottery Culture: The Human Remains from Herxheim
Bruno Boulestin and Anne-Sophie Coupey
Cannibalism in the Linear Pottery Culture: The Human Remains from Herxheim Bruno Boulestin and Anne-Sophie Coupey
Archaeopress Archaeology
Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED
www.archaeopress.com
ISBN 978 1 78491 213 0 ISBN 978 1 78491 214 7 (e-Pdf)
© Archaeopress, B. Boulestin and A-S Coupey 2015 Cover image: orthoimage of deposit F and skull cup from the same deposit
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners.
Printed in England by Oxuniprint, Oxford
This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com
Contents
Foreword����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� vii Introduction: recalling Herxheim’s general context���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 General aspects of methods and material������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 3 Preparation of the remains and general approach to their study .................................................................................... 3 Preparation of the remains ........................................................................................................................................ 3 General study procedure of the human remains ....................................................................................................... 3 The human remains from the 2005–2010 excavations: general structure....................................................................... 6 Modalities of deposition and burial of the human remains���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 9 Data and methods ........................................................................................................................................................... 9 The excavation: organisation and methodology........................................................................................................ 9 Spatial information.................................................................................................................................................. 11 The limitations of observations in the field and their consequences ...................................................................... 11 Incompleteness of spatial information............................................................................................................... 11 Problems related to stratigraphic units............................................................................................................... 12 Results .......................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Frequency of relationships....................................................................................................................................... 13 Deposits and their spatial relations ......................................................................................................................... 15 The problem of initial identification of concentrations .................................................................................... 15 Redefinition of the deposits............................................................................................................................... 17 Spatial relationships........................................................................................................................................... 22 Modalities of deposition and burial......................................................................................................................... 25 The unfragmented individuals................................................................................................................................. 27 Quantitative analysis of the human remains������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 29 Quantification of elements............................................................................................................................................ 29 Methods................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Number of specimens.............................................................................................................................................. 32 Mass......................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Percentage of representation.................................................................................................................................... 36 Synthesis.................................................................................................................................................................. 38 Representation of parts of elements.............................................................................................................................. 41 Methods................................................................................................................................................................... 41 Large long bones and clavicle................................................................................................................................. 41 Metacarpals, metatarsals and phalanges.................................................................................................................. 43 Carpals, tarsals and patella...................................................................................................................................... 44 Vertebrae and ribs.................................................................................................................................................... 45 Results of the quantitative analysis............................................................................................................................... 48 General study of bone modifications����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 51 Fracturing ..................................................................................................................................................................... 51 General methodology.............................................................................................................................................. 51 Large long bones..................................................................................................................................................... 51 Length of shaft fragments ................................................................................................................................. 51 Shaft fragmentation............................................................................................................................................ 51 Attributes of fractures........................................................................................................................................ 54 Impact points...................................................................................................................................................... 56 Cranial vault............................................................................................................................................................ 57 Other parts of the skeleton....................................................................................................................................... 58 Cutting up...................................................................................................................................................................... 59 General methodology.............................................................................................................................................. 59 Cutmarks.................................................................................................................................................................. 60 Scrape marks............................................................................................................................................................ 62 i
Polish............................................................................................................................................................................. 63 Heat-related modifications ........................................................................................................................................... 65 General methodology.............................................................................................................................................. 65 Results for the whole assemblage............................................................................................................................ 65 Results for the facial skeleton.................................................................................................................................. 66 Chewing marks.............................................................................................................................................................. 70 General methodology.............................................................................................................................................. 70 Results..................................................................................................................................................................... 74 Results of the general study of bone modifications...................................................................................................... 77 Anatomical study���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 79 Preamble........................................................................................................................................................................ 79 Skull.............................................................................................................................................................................. 79 Cranium................................................................................................................................................................... 79 Exposure to fire.................................................................................................................................................. 79 Cutting up.......................................................................................................................................................... 79 Fracturing........................................................................................................................................................... 83 Mandible.................................................................................................................................................................. 85 Exposure to fire.................................................................................................................................................. 85 Cutting up.......................................................................................................................................................... 85 Fracturing........................................................................................................................................................... 87 Trunk and girdles........................................................................................................................................................... 88 Vertebrae.................................................................................................................................................................. 88 Cutting up ......................................................................................................................................................... 88 Fracturing........................................................................................................................................................... 88 Ribs.......................................................................................................................................................................... 89 Cutting up.......................................................................................................................................................... 89 Fracturing........................................................................................................................................................... 89 Clavicles.................................................................................................................................................................. 90 Cutting up.......................................................................................................................................................... 90 Fracturing........................................................................................................................................................... 91 Scapulae................................................................................................................................................................... 91 Cutting up.......................................................................................................................................................... 91 Fracturing........................................................................................................................................................... 93 Coxal bones............................................................................................................................................................. 96 Cutting up.......................................................................................................................................................... 96 Fracturing........................................................................................................................................................... 96 Large long bones........................................................................................................................................................... 96 Cutting up................................................................................................................................................................ 96 Fracturing................................................................................................................................................................ 98 Other modifications................................................................................................................................................. 98 Hands and feet............................................................................................................................................................... 99 Cutting up................................................................................................................................................................ 99 Fracturing.............................................................................................................................................................. 100 Other modifications............................................................................................................................................... 100 Other elements............................................................................................................................................................ 100 Number of individuals, biology and demography��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 101 Number of individuals................................................................................................................................................. 101 Preamble................................................................................................................................................................ 101 Results................................................................................................................................................................... 101 Sex and age at death.................................................................................................................................................... 102 General methodology............................................................................................................................................ 102 Sex......................................................................................................................................................................... 104 Age at death of immature individuals.................................................................................................................... 104 Palaeodemographic analysis....................................................................................................................................... 106 Principles and methods ......................................................................................................................................... 106 Mortality table derived from raw data................................................................................................................... 108 Demographic anomalies........................................................................................................................................ 109 Interpretations.........................................................................................................................................................111
ii
Synthesis and general discussion��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 115 Interpretation, counter-interpretation ......................................................................................................................... 115 Summary of the facts............................................................................................................................................. 115 The funerary question............................................................................................................................................ 116 How to classify cannibalism at Herxheim?................................................................................................................. 119 Classifying cannibalism in general........................................................................................................................ 119 The question of ‘war’ in prehistoric societies........................................................................................................ 121 The nature of cannibalism at Herxheim................................................................................................................ 122 Conclusion: putting flesh on the bones...��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 125 The human beings....................................................................................................................................................... 125 The site........................................................................................................................................................................ 126 The general context at the end of the Linear Pottery period....................................................................................... 127 The Herxheim events in the context of the end of the Linear Pottery Culture........................................................... 129 Why?........................................................................................................................................................................... 131 Bibliography���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 135
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Geographic location of the Herxheim site.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������1 Figure 2. General plan of the excavation.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������2 Figure 3. Identifying and sorting the human remains.�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������4 Figure 4. Database entry form.�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������5 Figure 5. Various techniques of excavation.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������10 Figure 6. 3D representation of the human remains and their relationships using ArcScene®.��������������������������������������������������������������11 Figure 7. Examples of relationships between concentrations and stratigraphical units identified during the excavation.��������������������13 Figure 8. Distribution of refits, by elements or type of elements����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������14 Figure 9. Almost complete refitted cranium from concentration 9.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������15 Figure 10. Examples of vertebral connections.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������15 Figure 11. Relationships between conjoined human specimens coordinated in a section of the internal ditch (side projection).�������16 Figure 12. Relationship between concentrations 2 and 4 (side projection).������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������17 Figure 13. List of the concentrations identified during the excavation and their related redefined deposits.��������������������������������������18 Figure 14. List of the redefined deposits and their related original concentrations.�����������������������������������������������������������������������������19 Figure 15. Plan of the 2005-2010 excavation area pinpointing the concentrations identified during the excavation (top) and the redefined deposits (bottom).������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������20 Figure 16. Maps of the human remains from deposit F, indicating the bone relationships.������������������������������������������������������������������21 Figure 17. List of links between deposits.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������22 Figure 18. Side projection of the northern end of the internal ditch.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������23 Figure 19. Collection of skull caps in deposit K (concentration 16).�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������25 Figure 20. Examples of temporoparietal connections on skull cups.�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������26 Figure 21. Close-up of deposit F showing the presence of fragments pressed against the sides of the pit.������������������������������������������26 Figure 22. Deposit P, articulated one or two-week old neonate.�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������27 Figure 23. Deposit B, details of the articulated left leg and foot of the adolescent.������������������������������������������������������������������������������27 Figure 24. Values of the quantification units for the human assemblage from the 2005-2010 excavations.����������������������������������������30 Figure 25. Values of the quantification units for deposit K.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������31 Figure 26. Comparison of the representation of the skeleton elements in %NISP for the adults.���������������������������������������������������������32 Figure 27. Comparison of the representation of the skeleton elements in %NISP for the juveniles (except perinates and neonates).33 Figure 28. Comparison of the representation of the skeleton elements for all the determined remains between Herxheim, les Perrats and the Anasazi sites from the Southwest of the United States.�����������������������������������������������������������������������������34 Figure 29. Comparison of the representation of the skeleton elements in mass for the adults.�����������������������������������������������������������35 Figure 30. Comparison of the representation of the skeleton elements in mass for the juveniles (except perinates and neonates).��35 Figure 31. Comparison of the representation of the skeleton elements in PR for the adults, between deposit K and some funerary ensembles.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������36 Figure 32. Comparison of the representation of the skeleton elements in PR for the adults, between deposit K and some scavenged assemblages.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������37 Figure 33. Comparison of the representation of the skeleton elements in PR for the adults and the juveniles (except perinates and neonates), between deposit K, some cannibalised assemblages and West Tenter Street.��������������������������������������������������38 Figure 34. Representation of the different morphotypes of adult large long bones and clavicle.���������������������������������������������������������42 Figure 35. Representation of the different portions of adult large long bones.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������42 Figure 36. Proximal ends of ulnae from deposit F.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������43 Figure 37. Representation of the different morphotypes of adult metacarpals, metatarsals and phalanges.���������������������������������������44 Figure 38. Deposit F: subassemblages of metacarpals and hand phalanges (top) and metatarsals and foot phalanges (bottom).������45 Figure 39. Representation of the different morphotypes of adult carpal and tarsal bones and patella.�����������������������������������������������46 Figure 40: Deposit F: subassemblage of the calcanei.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������46 Figure 41. Representation of the different morphotypes of adult free vertebrae.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������47 Figure 42. Deposit F: subassemblage of the free vertebrae.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������47 Figure 43. Representation of the different morphotypes of adult ribs.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������48 Figure 44. Deposit F: subassemblage of the adult ribs.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������49 Figure 45. Dorsal view of the rib cage and plan view of the costovertebral joints, with an indication of the course of the cutting up during the removal of the spine.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������49 Figure 46. Compared length of determinate shaft fragments of adult large long bones (deposits C and F).����������������������������������������52 Figure 47. Distribution of the determinate fragments of adult large long bones according to the length (SL) and the circumference (SC) of the shaft (deposits C and F).��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������52 Figure 48. Compared distribution of the determined fragments of the adult large long bones according to the shaft length (SL) and circumference (SC) (deposits C and F).��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������52 Figure 49. Distribution of the determinate fragments of adult large long bones by elements, according to the length (SL) and the circumference (SC) of the shaft (deposits C and F).��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������53 Figure 50. Deposit F: subassemblage of the humeri (left) and radii (right).�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������54 Figure 51. Comparison of the attributes of the fractures of extremities for shaft fragments from adult large long bones between Herxheim (deposit F), Fontbrégoua, Bezouce and Sarrians.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������54 Figure 52. Comparison of the shapes of the fractures of the edges for shaft fragments from adult large long bones between Herxheim (deposit F), les Perrats and Saint-Martial.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������55
iv
Figure 53. Comparison of the angle and texture of the fractures of the edges for shaft fragments from adult large long bones between Herxheim (deposit F), Les Perrats and Saint-Martial.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������55 Figure 54. Modifications at the impact points.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������56 Figure 55. Modifications at the impact points on the fragments of the determinate adult large long bones (deposits C and F).���������57 Figure 56. Modifications at the impact points on the fragments of cranial vault (deposits C and F).����������������������������������������������������58 Figure 57. Examples of impact points on the cranial vault.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������58 Figure 58. Peeling on a scapula (A) and a coxal bone (B).����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������59 Figure 59. Distribution of peelings and crushings, by elements (deposits C and F).������������������������������������������������������������������������������60 Figure 60. Examples of cutmarks.�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������61 Figure 61. Comparisons of the frequency of specimens displaying cutmarks in various human assemblage.��������������������������������������62 Figure 62. Frequency of cutmarks and scrape marks by element for deposits C and F (adults and juveniles except perinates).����������63 Figure 63. Examples of scrape marks.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������64 Figure 64. Tool made from a section of human femur’s shaft.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������65 Figure 65. Fragments of severed metatarsal(s).�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������65 Figure 66. Comparisons of the frequency of specimens with thermal damage in various human assemblages.����������������������������������66 Figure 67. Comparison of the frequency of specimens with thermal damage, by deposit.�������������������������������������������������������������������67 Figure 68. First and secondary stages of burning on the mandible.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������67 Figure 69. Examples of maxillae with grilled teeth (anterior view).�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������68 Figure 70. Example of maxilla with grilled teeth (ventral view).������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������68 Figure 71. Frequency curves of grilled teeth for the permanent dentition.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������69 Figure 72. Dogs’ hemimandibles with grilled teeth.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������69 Figure 73. Distribution of chewing marks by element in deposit F.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������75 Figure 74. Details of chewing marks on the proximal end of an ulna from deposit F.����������������������������������������������������������������������������76 Figure 75. Gathering of four uncut and unfashioned craniums in deposit H.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������80 Figure 76. Cumulative pattern of butchery marks on craniums from deposits C and F.�������������������������������������������������������������������������81 Figure 77. Examples of skinning marks on the cranial vault.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������82 Figure 78. Examples of butchery marks on the face.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������82 Figure 79. Map of the outlines of the skull cup edges in deposit C and F.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������83 Figure 80. Variability of the skull cups.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������84 Figure 81. Examples of skull cups displaying the ‘soft-boiled egg’ technique.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������84 Figure 82. Upper face showing the fashioning technique for the skull cups.�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������85 Figure 83. Opening at the cranial base and removal of the face.�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������85 Figure 84. Cumulative pattern of butchery marks on the mandibles from deposits C and F. ���������������������������������������������������������������86 Figure 85. Examples of butchery marks on the mandible.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������86 Figure 86. Scrape marks made after the fracture of the mandible.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������87 Figure 87. Examples of fractures of the mandible.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������88 Figure 88. Cutmarks on the ventral surface of the body of a seventh cervical vertebra.�����������������������������������������������������������������������88 Figure 89. Examples of butchery marks on the ribs.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������89 Figure 90. Examples of rib segments.�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������90 Figure 91. Cumulative pattern of cutmarks on the clavicles from deposits C and F. �����������������������������������������������������������������������������90 Figure 92. Cumulative pattern of peelings on the clavicles from deposits C and F. �������������������������������������������������������������������������������90 Figure 93. Fractures of the acromial end of the clavicles.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������91 Figure 94. Cumulative pattern of butchery marks on the scapulae from deposits C and F. ������������������������������������������������������������������91 Figure 95. Examples of butchery marks on the scapulae.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������92 Figure 96. Cumulative pattern of the modifications due to the fracture of the scapulae from deposits C and F.���������������������������������92 Figure 97. Aspects of scapulae fracturing.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������93 Figure 98. Indication of the destroyed portions of clavicles and scapulae in anatomical situation.������������������������������������������������������93 Figure 99. Subassemblage of the coxal bones from deposit F.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������94 Figure 100. Cumulative pattern of the butchery marks on the large long bones from deposits C and F.����������������������������������������������95 Figure 101. Examples of cutmarks attributed to disarticulation.�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������96 Figure 102. Cutmarks on ulna shaft.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������96 Figure 103. Examples of ladder-rung series.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������97 Figure 104. Scrape marks on the dorsal surface of a femoral neck.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������97 Figure 105. Topography of the impact points on the large long bones from deposits C and F.��������������������������������������������������������������98 Figure 106. Examples of disarticulation marks on the talus.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������99 Figure 107. Examples of cutmarks on the metacarpals.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������99 Figure 108. Examples of cutmarks on the metatarsals.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������99 Figure 109. Total count, and count by major age categories, based on skull.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������102 Figure 110. Frontal bone discovered in a pit from the Late Linear Band pottery period, south-west of the enclosure.����������������������103 Figure 111. Sex determination based on the coxal bone.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������104 Figure 112. Age at death for immatures under one year.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������104 Figure 113. Age at death of the immatures over one year, represented by the maxillae and mandibles.�������������������������������������������105 Figure 114. Initial distribution of the ages at death for the subjects found during the second excavation campaign, represented by the facial skeleton.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������106 Figure 115. Values of the mortality rates and of the ratios of deceased individuals for the adopted model life tables and entries.��108 Figure 116. More accurate distributions of the ages at death for the subjects found during the second excavation campaign, represented by the facial skeleton, and values of the mortality rates and of the ratios of deceased individuals. ������������109 Figure 117. Curves of mortality rates of the non-adult subjects for the best two distributions of age at death, compared with reference tables.�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������110 Figure 118. Distribution of the ages at death in a theoretical population undergoing natural mortality using the 20q0 = 0,458 parameter, with 39 adults and 33 non-adults.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������111
v
Figure 119. Examples of curves of mortality rates for non-adults in plague epidemics cemeteries, compared with reference tables. ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������112 Figure 120. Curves of mortality rates for non-adults: comparison between Herxheim, Talheim and data simulated from the age pyramid.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������112 Figure 121. Curves of mortality rates for non-adults in Aiterhofen-Ödmühle Recent/Late Linear Pottery Culture cemetery, compared with reference tables.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������113 Figure 122. Distribution of values for the strontium 87Sr/86Sr isotopic ratio of the first permanent molars or the second deciduous molar, for 74 individuals.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������122 Figure 123. Possible circulation patterns of non-local individuals.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������126 Figure 124. Deposit of small carnivores’ mandibles from the internal ditch����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������127 Figure 125. Regions of origin of the exogenous ceramic styles present at Herxheim.�������������������������������������������������������������������������127 Figure 126. Examples of rare ceramics found with the human remains.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������128 Figure 127. Map of the sites mentioned in the text and which yielded unusually treated human remains.���������������������������������������129
vi
Foreword
Research on the site of Herxheim began nearly 20 years ago: in 1996 indeed the first excavations were launched under the direction of Annemarie Haüßer. On the eve of this twentieth anniversary and seven years after the second and final excavation campaign which ended in 2008, arose the question of the publication of the results of this longlasting research period. The particular issue was the choice of the support that would allow to both provide a maximum data and make the synthesis. Even if some intermediate results had already been published in a few papers, they were of limited length and contained only few raw data. It was initially intended to gather all the specialized studies and publish them in a single monograph along with a global interpretation of the site and of its functioning. A site like Herxheim though cannot be managed like any other site, owing on the one hand to its extremely complex nature and the quantity of bone remains and artefacts to analyse, and on the other hand to the number of specialists participating in this project, which makes it difficult for the different works to progress at the same pace: according to the time and money allowed to each specialist, some research works are obviously progressing quicker than others. Some are just beginning whereas others have been completed since a long time. This is the case for the work on the human remains, presented here, the writing of which was completed in December 2013. It thus seemed right to us not to wait any longer to hand our study over to the scientific community, rather than having to wait for a monograph of undetermined release date. We therefore took the decision to publish Herxheim’s anthropological study on its own, relying on the fact that its importance for the archaeology of death, the discussion of prehistoric cannibalism and the understanding of the end of the Linear Pottery Culture period justify that its publication be no longer indefinitely postponed. Dividing the works has a disadvantage though, in a sense that it prevents a global vision of all the data. In order to make up for it, our
vii
conclusion will present the results already available for the other subjects, and suggest an interpretation, at least temporary, of the events which unfolded in Herxheim at the end of the VIth millennium BC and of the context in which they took place. This study presents only the results concerning the human remains recovered during the research excavation from 2005 to 2008 and those from a small additional section of the inner ditch excavated in 2010. The amount of human remains from the 1996-1999 excavation was so huge that it was impossible to take them into account in this work and it will probably take several years to complete their detailed analysis. Moreover, very few field data are available for this first campaign; hence the interpretations we could make are much more limited. Nevertheless, a partial examination of these remains shows that, but for a few exceptions, the patterns for the treatment of the bodies are strictly identical with those of the other sector. It could hardly have been otherwise. We can thus assume that the results given here can be totally extrapolated to the whole site, or at least to its excavated portion. This research work greatly benefited from the support of all the members of the Herxheim research team involved in the recovery, the restoration and the study of the archaeological and anthropological record, and from the field work of all the volunteer and professional diggers. Our thanks go to all of them. It was sponsored by the municipality of Herxheim (excavations) and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Additional support was granted to Bruno Boulestin by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (French State Research Agency) through the project Guerre et violence dans les premières sociétés d’Europe : approche intégrée (War and violence in the first European societies: an integrated approach). We are also grateful to Emmanuelle Boulestin for the many hours she spent revising and correcting the first translation of the original French manuscript.
Introduction: recalling Herxheim’s general context
The site of Herxheim is situated in the south of the German Federal State of Rhineland-Palatinate (Figure 1), on a small spur above a loess plateau containing many prehistoric sites and at the confluence of two small rivers. It was discovered in the 1980s by surface prospection. The GDKE Rheinland-Pfalz, Direktion Landesarchäologie– Speyer (Rhineland-Palatinate State Office for the Preservation of Historical Monuments) then carried out two excavation campaigns (1996-1999 and 2005-2008). The first, directed by Annemarie Häußer, was a rescue excavation required by the construction of an industrial and commercial estate. The second was conceived as a planned excavation intended to complement the earlier data and provide further details. It was conducted within the framework of a research project financed by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation): Siedlung und Grubenanlage des linearbandkeramischen Fundplatzes Herxheim (Settlement and pit deposits of the Linear Pottery Culture site at Herxheim). Established in 2004, this project involved a multidisciplinary, international team directed by Andrea Zeeb-Lanz, which grouped together specialists in physical anthropology, archaeozoology, ceramics, bone and stone tools,
archaeobotany and palynology, isotopic and collagen analyses and palaeogenetics. Finally, a small additional section of the inner ditch was excavated in 2010, on the occasion of the production of a documentary film by the National Geographic Channel. The structures excavated indicate a village inhabited between 5300 and 4950 BC (from the Flomborn phase to the last phase of the Linear Pottery Culture). The main structure is a trapezoidal enclosure of 5ha measuring some 250 x 230 metres (Figure 2). It seems at first sight to be composed of two parallel trapezoidal ditches, but in fact these ditches never existed: they are merely the product of the overlapping of a large number of oblong pits of varying length, form and depth (the deepest extended up to four meters beneath the Neolithic ground level), which were dug over several centuries according to a pre-determined layout. New pits would intersect others which were already partially filled, so that the internal area was never completely surrounded by continuous ditches. For this reason we can speak of ‘pseudo-ditches’ for this type of enclosure, also referred to as Rosheim type on the basis of the excavations at the eponymous Linear Pottery Culture
Baltic Sea North Sea
r
Ah
Netherlands
Poland e
ell
os
M
Mainz he
Na
Belg.
Rhin
Czech Republic
e
RhinelandPalatinate
Lux.
Landau
France
HERXHEIM
Austria Switzerland
0
100 km
0
50 km
Figure 1. Geographic location of the Herxheim site. 1
Cannibalism in the Linear Pottery Culture: The Human Remains from Herxheim
1
N
2 3
B
A
0
50 m
Figure 2. General plan of the excavation.
1. Ditch system as seen by geophysical prospection; 2. Ditch system as revealed through test trenches; 3. Reconstruction of the ditch system; A. Excavation area 1996-1999; B. excavation area 2005-2008; original CAD by F. Haack.
enclosure in France (Jeunesse and Lefranc 1999).1 The two chains of pits forming the enclosure certainly never served as a protection, but rather as a symbolic boundary for a settlement area which was probably also used for ceremonies. The interior of the enclosure, which has been widely destroyed by erosion, has for its part yielded only a small number of settlement pits and a few graves (Figure 2).
The application of the Rosheim pattern to Herxheim’s ditches was recently questioned by Fabian Haack. Since we know nothing of the arguments on which he has relied, and since all our observations are strengthening this pattern, we stick to this interpretation.
1
2
The function of the enclosure seems to have changed during the Final Linear Pottery period. Some already existing pits and others specially excavated for the event received spectacular deposits composed mainly of human remains, but also of fauna, ceramics, stone and bone tools in various proportions, as well as rare decorative artefacts. Around 80 such deposits have been discovered. The results from the detailed analysis of the human remains found in the pits excavated between 2005 and 2010 are presented in the following pages.
General aspects of methods and material
Preparation of the remains and general approach to their study Preparation of the remains Just like all other bone material and artefacts, the human bones were washed, marked, and –if broken during recovery– glued by Ludger Schulte, restorer of the Rhineland-Palatinate Archaeological Service at Speyer, immediately after excavation. Although they are mostly in an excellent state of preservation, a considerable number were encrusted with more or less extensive concretions of calcium carbonate. These concretions are due to pedological developments within the loess, whereby upper layers were decalcified by percolating water. The calcium carbonate having been washed downwards, it precipitated again upon contact with osseous material or formed lime concretions, the so-called ‘loess dolls’. These calcareous crusts can obviously considerably impede the study of the remains, not only because it becomes impossible to observe the bone modifications, but also because they inhibit the determination and refitting of fragments. They therefore had to be eliminated. To achieve this, we devised a chemical treatment on the basis of acetic acid. The effects of this acid on bone have been positively evaluated by T. Bromage (1984: 163ff., 168), showing that careful treatment allows the removal of superficial mineral matter while retaining microscopic anatomy. In addition, one of the authors had previously used this method with excellent results on the skeletal remains of the Grotte des Perrats near Agris (Charente, France) (Boulestin 1999: 16ff.). Twenty years later, it can be attested that the bones that underwent such a treatment are perfectly stable. Other researchers have also made use of this method, for instance K.D. Schick et al. (1989: 125) on Miocene fossils. Finally, acetic acid is easy to use and can be bought in any store as a ready-to-use solution in the form of 8° white wine vinegar. In practice, the bones were immersed in acid, always under the supervision of Ludgar Schulte, until the calcium carbonate was completely dissolved, then rinsed thoroughly with water. In a second stage, the treatment was completed by neutralising possible residual acid. To this end, the remains were immersed in a saturated solution of bicarbonate of soda, then rinsed a second time –a treatment that had also been employed for the remains from the Grotte des Perrats (Boulestin 1999: 16ff.). General study procedure of the human remains
included the additional section excavated in 2010) –and indeed of all the human bone assemblage from Herxheim– relates to the intense fragmentation of the bones, to the numerous modifications due to the treatment of the bodies, and to its size (over 15,000 specimens).2 From the start, this raised the problem of choosing the methods and procedures for investigating it. Indeed, this assemblage has no equivalent, whatever the area or the chronological context. The only comparisons are with archaeozoology, where assemblages of animal butchering waste can also comprise several tens of thousands of pieces. Therefore, it was out of the question to study each specimen in detail, such as had for example been possible for the Mesolithic material from the Grotte des Perrats which, while comparable in terms of the treatment of the remains, consists of only a few hundred pieces. It would have taken several months, if not years, to achieve this. In addition, the interest of such an exhaustive study would have been limited by the fact that the treatment of the remains is very similar from one deposit to the next, a fact which seemed apparent at first sight and was confirmed in detail in the course of further examination. This being clear, four study objectives were set, which followed from the general problem of determining the nature and characteristics, both intrinsic and contextual, of the practices related to death that took place in Herxheim at the end of the Linear Pottery Culture: 1. Analysis of the modalities of deposition and burial of the human remains (as well as of the associated animal remains and artefacts), in particular on the basis of the bone relationships. 2. Global quantification of the human bone assemblage, by anatomical element, by age group and by deposit. We will see later that part of this aim, the quantification by deposit, could not be achieved for reasons discussed below. 3. Reconstruction of the precise ways in which the bodies were treated, beginning with a detailed piece-by-piece study of bone modifications for a qualitatively and quantitatively representative subassemblage and followed by a more synthetic study by anatomical part for the whole assemblage. 4. On the basis of the quantification parameters, establishing the number of individuals present and determining their biological characteristics (sex, age at death) in order to study the demographic A specimen is ‘an archaeological/paleontological part of a skeleton that can consist of a complete bone or fragment thereof, a complete tooth or fragment thereof, or a bone (such as the mandible) with teeth in it’ (Lyman 1994: 514). In this study, we also use the term ‘piece’ in the same way.
2
The unique character of the human bone assemblage which came to light during the 2005-2010 excavations (we have 3
Cannibalism in the Linear Pottery Culture: The Human Remains from Herxheim
composition and recruitment of the population represented in the ditches, both all together and by deposit (this last aspect could in the end not be carried out for reasons similar to those which prevented quantification by deposit). These objectives were practically carried out through a series of successive steps: for all the pieces, sorting and identifying, searching for refits, quantitative analysis and record in a database; in addition, the pieces selected for a more comprehensive study were examined in detail and the bone modifications recorded. The methods of quantitative analysis, determination of biological characteristics and study of modifications are described under the corresponding headings, so at this stage only a few comments on the general procedure will be made. The sorting and identification of the specimens (Figure 3) were conducted by concentration as identified during excavation,3 or, for the remains which did not belong to individualized concentrations, either by ditch segment for those coming from the feature or as a whole for those from the interior of the enclosure. This was carried out for all the remains, both human and animal –no pre-sorting had been done prior to this step. There was no particular problem in distinguishing human from animal remains, the latter being easily determined. The main difficulty in the identification of human remains in assemblages of this kind, compared to those from multiple or collective burials, relates to the degree of fragmentation and also to the peculiarities of the fragmentation of bone broken when fresh, which is not usually encountered. Therefore, the anatomical sorting was organised in several stages. First of all, the bones were classed by element or anatomical unit (such as vertebral column, ribs, carpals, tarsals, metacarpals or metatarsals); at this stage skeletal maturity was not taken into account and fragments of large long bones were grouped without further differentiating them. In a second step, each of these categories was sorted again by element or sub-units of elements (for example C1, C2, C7 and unit C3-6 for the cervical vertebrae), and the elements were sided and classified by degree of skeletal maturity. For the latter point, we separated specimens belonging to adults or individuals of adult size from those of immature individuals and those which could not be assigned to either of the two categories. Fragments of large long bone shaft were either directly attributed to a particular element or were sorted by cortico-diaphyseal module, which later allowed us to identify a few additional pieces thanks to refits. Regarding the refits, conjoining fragments were systematically searched for each element or within each group of anatomical elements, taking into account all potentially related, but imprecisely identified fragments: The term ‘concentration’ usually refers to gatherings of bones and artefacts identified as such during the excavation, whereas the word ‘deposit’ applies to the original layouts or their restitution based on bone relationships. As we will see, the two notions are sometimes equivalent, yet not in all cases.
3
4
Figure 3. Identifying and sorting the human remains.
At this point the faunal remains have already been sorted. The skull caps are placed on the left; in the middle, the boxes contain the bones classified by element or anatomical region; on the right, the fragments of the large long bones have been spread out on trays and are being sorted by elements and refitted.
for example, those belonging to either a metacarpal or metatarsal were checked for both categories. The procedure was identical for fragments of large long bones: for each element, the search for refits took into account both the definitely related fragments and the undetermined ones belonging to the same cortico-diaphyseal module. We first searched for refits for all skeletal elements within each concentration. However, on the one hand the objectives of the study also demanded an investigation of links between concentrations, and on the other hand the limits of some concentrations were not clearly established during excavation. Therefore, in a second step we searched for conjoining fragments between adjacent concentrations, but only for cranial remains and large long bones, as the skeletal elements from the trunk, pelvic and shoulder girdles, feet and hands gave few refits. Finally, refits over longer distances, covering the entire area excavated between 2005 and 2010, were only investigated for cranial specimens. Given the number of individuals represented and the degree of fragmentation, searching for matches among the fragments of large long bones in the whole assemblage would have been an enormous challenge, and the time investment/expected benefits ratio was deemed unfavourable. The identified refits were not glued, but
General aspects of methods and material
Figure 4. Database entry form. reversibly attached using adhesive tape. All associated pieces which could be refitted and belong to the same bone are termed a ‘set’ (ensemble in French) (Boulestin 1999: 20ff.). Alongside the refits, other kinds of relationships were investigated within each concentration, notably the pairing of symmetrical bones and, where possible, a shared degree of skeletal maturity or bones belonging to the same pathological unit. All skeletal elements related to the same individual by means other than refits constitute a ‘group’ (groupe in French) (Boulestin 1999: 20ff.). In terms of the detailed study of bone modifications, a first concentration, number 9, had already been the subject of a preliminary publication (Boulestin et al. 2009).4 In order to render the sub-assemblage studied more representative, a second concentration, number 4, was also analysed. Overall, 3362 specimens weighing 12,828g have been studied in detail, which is about a fifth of the total assemblage (21.6% by number of specimens and 17.0% by mass) from the 2005–2010 excavations. The publication was actually not limited to concentration 9, but also included a part of concentration 18, as it had retrospectively become apparent that the two were associated (together, they represent about 94% of deposit F, defined below on the basis of bone relationships). By the same token, the second detailed analysis of modifications comprised the entirety of concentration 4 and pieces from concentration 2 which belong to it, alongside several others which were not assigned to a specific concentration during excavation (together, these pieces form deposit C as defined in this study).
4
5
With the exception of those belonging to six particular individuals (cf. infra), all remains were recorded into an Access® database to facilitate quantitative analysis and to permit data processing in a geographical information system application for the specimens which had been spatially referenced. The database was designed after the one established for the Grotte des Perrats, which principle, structure and operation have been extensively described elsewhere (Boulestin 1999: 84 ff.) and will not be repeated here. It comprises four groups of parameters common to all pieces and six supplementary groups which were filled in only for all or part of the pieces selected for detailed study (Figure 4). The first four groups are the specimens’ references (number, associated concentration –as established during excavation– and deposit –after redefinition–, corresponding stratigraphic unit and number within the unit, group and conjoining set to which they were possibly assigned and spatial coordinates), their identification (part of skeleton, determination, possible subdetermination, certainty of identification, side, age group), morphotype (on this parameter, see Boulestin 1999: 102 ff.) and other information (mass and other observations). The six groups of additional parameters collect information on the preservation/degradation (degree of erosion, presence of polish, burning or calcification) and on the different bone modifications (presence or absence), complementary information on any traces of burning and, only for large long bones, data on the presence of modifications related to the fracturing (pits or striations due to percussion, inner
Cannibalism in the Linear Pottery Culture: The Human Remains from Herxheim
conchoidal scars), on the characteristics of fragmentation (shaft splinter length in mm, length and circumference of the shaft fragments) and on the attributes of the fractures (shape, angle and texture of the extremities and edges of fragments). The six individuals which were not recorded into the database are more or less complete skeletons discovered partially or fully articulated, whose bones were not broken and did not bear traces of butchering. The decision to separate them from the rest of the assemblage is thus based on the fact that they were obviously not subjected to the same treatment as the other bodies, or that this treatment was not brought to completion. These individuals are one adult (concentration 2), two adolescents (concentrations 2 and 28), an infant (not part of any concentration), a neonate (concentration 26) and a perinate (concentration 4). The human remains from the 2005–2010 excavations: general structure The human remains from the 2005–2010 excavations can be divided into two groups. The first consists of the six individuals mentioned above. The second, from now on referred to by the term assemblage, consists of 15,552 pieces (total number of taxonomically identified specimen=TNS). Most are fragmented and part of them bear butchering marks, but all illustrate one and the same way of treating the body. The mass of this assemblage amounts to 75,328.5g, which gives an average mass of 4.84g per piece. However, this number alone does not reliably reflect the actual fragmentation, as it will be discussed in the dedicated section. Of course, not all of these 15,552 specimens could be determined anatomically. By anatomical determination, we mean that a given fragment has to be attributed either to a precise anatomical element (humerus, radius, patella, and so on) or to a group of elements belonging to the same anatomical part and differing only by a level, rank or ray: teeth, vertebrae, ribs, metacarpals, metatarsals, phalanges of the feet and hands, sesamoids. Thus, a fragment belonging to a thoracic or lumbar vertebra, or a fragment of metacarpal of undetermined number, are considered as anatomically determined. In contrast, a splinter which could belong to a humerus or a tibia is not, even though the two are large long bones. In addition, the cranium is considered as a single element, even if it consists of several bones: a fragment of cranial vault is considered anatomically determined as belonging to the cranium, even if it is not clear whether it is part of either of the two parietals or of the frontal bone.5 Overall, 10,727 pieces weighing 71,046.7g were anatomically determined. This corresponds to 69.0% of the assemblage by number of specimens and 94.3% by mass. These 10,727 pieces thus correspond to the NISP Throughout this study, we use the term cranium to refer to the skull without mandible. In French, the term ‘bloc craniofacial’ must be used as its equivalent (Boulestin 2015).
(here understood as the number of taxonomically and anatomically identified specimens), and 69.0% is hence the proportion of the NISP in relation to the TNS. As this value is influenced by many parameters, such as the size of the assemblage, the degree of fragmentation, the presence or one or more taxons, the experience of the analyst, what is considered anatomically determined, and so on, it is difficult to compare between assemblages. Nevertheless, it is of course systematically higher than that for the faunal assemblages mentioned by T. White (1992: tab. 12.3). For human bone assemblages, it is similar to the values obtained by C.G. Turner at Leroux Wash, Monument Valley, Sambrito Village or Ash Creek, but the classes of determination employed by that author make the comparison difficult (Turner 1983: tab. 2). In contrast, the value is lower than that calculated for les Perrats (98.8%) or at Mancos on the basis of White’s TW NISP (88.8%) (Boulestin 1999: 132).6 At 94.3%, the mass proportion is slightly lower than for les Perrats (98.1%). The specimens which could not be anatomically determined all belong to the postcranial skeleton and can be divided into three categories: completely undetermined fragments, those belonging to an undetermined large long bone, and those belonging to a metacarpal or metatarsal. The first category includes 2016 fragments (13.0% of the assemblage) weighing 870.9g (1.2%), resulting in an average mass of 0.43g per piece. A total of 2694 pieces (17.3%) weighing 3363.6 g (4.5%) belong to the second category; they weigh 1.25g on average. The third category numbers 115 pieces (0.7%) weighing 47.3g (