8 Final reflections and questions for the future
8.2 Questions for the future
During this research I was confronted with many questions that fell outside of the current research scope, but which I feel are worth addressing in the future. A selection of relevant ones are presented here.
8.2.1 Traditional chieftains’ burials: significantly insignificant?
This research emphasized that within Early Iron Age burials practices in the Low Countries the elite burials studied were very much the exception. Even within that group there are only a select few that are ‘true’ traditional chieftain’s graves (cf. Section 2.2.1.1). It also was argued that, in terms of how the dead were treated, drivers of exceptional wagons were truly different in death and treated as such. This would mean that within the dataset studied at most about a dozen individuals were truly exceptional, at least in terms of how they were buried. This makes it debatable how much this says about the general population of the Early Iron Age Low Countries. A question that follows from this is of course how many such burials there were originally, regarding which Roymans (1991) once estimated that 10% of elite burials have been excavated. This would translate to their originally being at most 100–700 elite graves (depending on how elite graves are defined). When this is compared with the almost 40,000 urnfield burials that already have been inventoried by A.J. Louwen (in prep.), it raises the question whether the elite graves really are all that significant and how much they actually reveal of Early Iron Age society in general. While certainly an archeologically characteristic element defining of the Early Iron Age in the Low Countries, I do wonder how much influence the individuals buried in them or their elaborate funerals would truly have held for Early Iron Age communities. From an emic perspective, how significant or representative were they really, and
were they actually defining of the Early Iron Age Low Countries? Also, how frequently and in what manner would the average farmer (if there is even such a thing), have interacted with the people buried in the elite graves? At present these are questions that I cannot answer, but it is hoped that in the future, especially once this research can be combined with that of A.J. Louwen, we may achieve a better understanding of these issues.
8.2.2 Contextualizing through elite and burial
theory
I also assert that further exploration of elite and burial theory could help us contextualize the elite burials further and understand them better, in particular with regard to the significance they would have held towards the communities living and dying in the Early Iron Age Low Countries. Due to the challenging nature of the finds (the generally poor find circumstances and lack of detailed publications), the focus of the present study was very much on gathering the basic data in as much detail as possible, with one result being that the theory side of things could not be explored in as much detail. While the basic data (this research) had to be compiled first, it is hoped that it will be possible to continue this research in future, focusing in particular on how we should understand them from a more developed theoretical framework.
8.2.3 Comparison to the rest of Europe
This research focused primarily on the connections that existed between the Low Countries elite and the Hallstatt Culture of Central Europe, as this is where the majority and most striking of the grave goods found in the Dutch and Belgian elite burials originate from. This connection is certainly important and worth considering in more detail in future. In particular now that new 14C-dates
and typochronological research indicate that the elite burials of the Low Countries date earlier than previously thought (to the 8th – 7th centuries BC; see Chapter 3), which means
we have to refocus what we are comparing them to in terms of European developments. As noted in Section 2.2.1.2, there is a tendency to compare the Chieftain’s burial of Oss with graves such as Hochdorf, but in reality, if we
want to understand the connection that existed between the Hallstatt Culture and the Low Countries, we need to be looking at burial practices some 200 years earlier and the developments taking place at that time. Moreover, we need to be looking more broadly than just the western Hallstatt Culture. This research already touched upon the relationships that existed with parts of France and England, but these remain understudied. For example, did the Hallstatt Culture imports found in England make their way there through the Low Countries elites? Were the Low Countries perhaps more ‘central’ than ‘peripheral’? And crucially, were the people buried in the Dutch and Belgian burials originally from the Low Countries or were they migrants from elsewhere? And if so, from where? It is hoped that further analysis, for example strontium- and/ or DNA-analysis in future will be able to shed light on this. Connections that may have existed with the eastern Hallstatt Culture also may warrant further study. Some of the bronze vessels or textiles, for example, show strong similarities with artifacts found in eastern Hallstatt Culture contexts. Considering these connections unfortunately remains problematic due in particular to language barriers (which is also a problem when comparing the Low Countries and France). However, progess is being made, with more and more sites and research being published in English. In future it should be better possible to consider the relationships that existed between the Low Countries’ elite and other regions of Northwest and Central Europe during this fascinating time period of rapid development, change and interaction.
8.3 Conclusion
The Early Iron Age chieftains’ burials and other elite graves in the Low Countries are a fascinating element of Northwest European prehistory, and it is hoped that the current research will further our understanding of them. At the same time we should be wary of overestimating their importance from an emic perspective, at least until future research yields true understanding of the significance of the spectacularly fragmented Chieftains.
Summary
There is a cluster of Early Iron Age (800–500 BC) elite burials in the Low Countries in which bronze vessels, weaponry, horse-gear and wagons were interred as grave goods. Mostly imports from Central Europe, these objects are found brought together in varying configurations in cremation burials generally known as chieftains’ graves or princely burials. In terms of grave goods they resemble the Fürstengräber of the Central European Hallstatt Culture, with famous Dutch and Belgian examples being the Chieftain’s grave of Oss, the wagon-grave of Wijchen and the elite cemetery of Court- St-Etienne. Fragmenting the Chieftain presents the results of an in-depth and practice- based archeological analysis of the Dutch and Belgian elite graves and the burial practice through which they were created.
Studying the Dutch and Belgian elite burials, however, is not without its challenges. The quality of the available data generally is quite low as most graves were unearthed several decades to several centuries ago and context information generally is limited. This research strove to overcome this by going back to the original data, performing thick descriptions on surviving finds and studying even the most unprepossessing fragments. This revealed how much still can be learned from a comprehensive and detailed re- examination of all available documentation and artifacts from elite burials. While it is true that context information for many is extremely poor, limiting interpretation, detailed study of what remains and comparison with newer and better-excavated finds allows for the reconstruction of the elite funerary practice in surprising detail. All information regarding the individual graves gathered from literature study and object examinations was compiled in the accompanying Catalogue Fragmenting the Chieftain – Catalogue. Late Bronze and Early Iron Age elite burials in the Low Countries, which for many of these graves is the first English and/or accessible publication. This inventory forms the dataset used to analyze the elite burial practice. In order for the current volume to be readable on its own, Chapter 4 summarizes the dataset, using iconographic overviews of grave contents and the treatment of objects to visualize the burials analyzed, with more detailed descriptions regarding specific graves and burial rituals available in the Catalogue. This manner of visualization allows for the recognition of patterns in terms of grave goods composition and treatments. Where relevant individual burial rituals are described, as these form the basis for the analysis of the burial practice.
Chapter 5 discusses the elite burial practice and how it developed. It addresses the shift from depositing certain supra-regional objects like swords and ornaments, to interring them in graves during the Late Bronze–Early Iron Age transition. These changes are argued to reflect changes in attitude towards (markers of) supra-regional (elite/warrior) identities. For a short time, certain exceptional objects could end their lives in depositions as well as in graves, and it appears that eventually burial deposition became preferred. The practice of interring individuals with bronze swords arose in the 9th century BC,
and those with Hallstatt Culture imports occurring also early in the 8th century BC
and continuing into the 7th century BC. This was established in Chapter 3 using new
(calibrations of) 14C-dates and typochronologies, which revealed that the majority of
168 fragmenting the chieftain
origins of certain grave goods and the cultural context they reflect, this adjusted chronology revealed that Atlantically- oriented bronze sword-graves are actually closer together with the Hallstatt Culture-oriented ones (in terms of the origin of the objects they contain). Where before these were perceived as chronologically separated phenomena, they in fact overlapped and apparently smoothly transitioned from one into the other. Significantly, the practice of identifying deceased as elites through lavish grave goods started before there is any material evidence of contact with the Hallstatt Culture of Central Europe. This means that the rise of the elite burial practice was in fact a local development (as has been argued in the past as well; Fontijn/Fokkens 2007).
The burial practices reflected in the elite burials are visualized in chaîne opératoire-style infographics, which reveal that in most cases, the burial practice through which the dead were interred was decidedly local in nature and, with the exception the grave goods interred, apparently ‘unremarkable’. People were buried in the ‘usual (urnfield) fashion in the usual places’, primarily in high and striking locations in the landscape and generally in or by urnfields and/or barrow groups. Sometimes there is a single elite burial per site, but generally there are more. Sometimes the elite burials represent a short burst of activity, sometimes they reflect a longer period of time. The elites were laid to rest through rituals involving the cremation of the dead and the dismantling, burning, bending and breaking of grave goods, and pars pro toto depositions of both. In terms of how they were buried, owning (only) a bronze vessel, a sword or horse-gear does not appear to have warranted exceptional treatment during the burial ritual.
Analysis of the burial practice reveals that in fact with regard to how individuals were interred, it were those accompanied by wagons and wagon-related horse-gear that were laid to rest through an exceptional, exagerated burial practice that strongly incorporated the dismantling, manipulation and fragmentation of grave goods. Pars pro toto depositions of both human
remains and grave goods are emphasized in these graves and they regularly feature the use of textile as part of the burial rituals which appear grander in nature and execution. Recognizing this common denominator, the wagon, is not always easy due to the destructive and selective nature of the burial practice.
In an attempt to understand this difference in funerary treatment, that appears linked to the type of grave goods that accompanied the dead, Chapter 6 explores how the (kinds of) objects found in the elite burials were treated in life. Focusing in particular in a very practical sense on how they were used, but also considering how they were perceived and what they may have symbolized. By doing so it was established that the (types) of objects found as grave goods in the elite burials played a role in the construction and expression of a complex identity. The bronze vessels, weaponry, horse-gear and wagons, as well as the tools and ornaments were both symbolically charged items and very much a part of daily life. It were the exceptional wagons and accompanying horse-gear, however, which reflect truly new social practices in the Low Countries, and it was likely this in combination with the religious signifance that they held (cf. Pare 1992, Ch. 12), that triggered their, and their owners’, exceptional treatment in death.
In conclusion it was established that the elite burials are embedded in the local burial practices – as reflected by the use of the cremation rite, the bending and breaking of grave goods, and the pars pro toto deposition of human remains and objects, all in accordance with the dominant local urnfield burial practice (Chapter 7). It appears that those individuals interred with wagons and related items warranted a more elaborate funerary rite, most likely because these ceremonial and cosmologically charged vehicles marked their owners out at exceptional individuals. Furthermore, in a few graves the configuration of the grave goods set, the use of textiles to wrap grave goods and the dead and the reuse of burial mounds show the influence of individuals familiar with Hallstatt Culture burial customs.