The Social Significance of Cattle in
Bronze Age Northwestern Europe
A multi-disciplinary approach to
human-animal relationships
in prehistory
Nathalie Østerled Brusgaard
Image cover page: Farmer Flemming Nielsen gives his bull some much-wanted attention (Photo by author, 2014).
Contact details of author:
Nathalie Ø. Brusgaard
[email protected]
leidenuniv.academia.edu/NathalieØsterledBrusgaard
The
social significance of cattle in
northwestern
Europe
Bronze Age
A multi-disciplinary approach to human-animal relationships in prehistory
Nathalie Østerled Brusgaard
0924709
RMA thesis (1046WTY)
Supervisor: Prof. dr. H. Fokkens
Specialisation: Prehistoric Farming Communities
Leiden University, Faculty of Archaeology
Leiden, the 16th of June 2014
Final version.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 | Introduction7
1.1 Human-animal relationships7
1.2 Context 9
1.3 Theoretical background10
Chapter 2 | West Frisia and its cattle
13
2.1 Introduction13
2.2 West Frisia13
2.3 The sites
15
2.4 Synthesis17
Chapter 3 | Sharing space - the byre house phenomenon
20
3.1 Introduction20
3.2 What is a byre house?20
3.3 Chronology and distribution23
3.4 The purpose of the byre house
24
3.5 Ethnographic examples of byres25
3.6 Discussion26
Chapter 4 | A cattle ideology30
4.1 Introduction30
4.2 Human funerary contexts30
4.3 Settlement contexts32
4.4 Bog deposits35
4.5 (Non)-symbolic representations 36
4.6 Ethnographic parallels38
4.7 Discussion40
Chapter 5 | The mobility and exchange of cattle
46
5.1 Introduction46
5.2 Evidence for the movement of cattle in prehistory
46
5.3 Exchange47
5.4 Raiding51
5.5 Transhumance53
5.6 Discussion54
Chapter 6 | Strontium isotope analysis of West Frisian herd animals
58
6.1 Introduction58
6.2 Strontium isotope analysis58
6.3 Materials and method59
6.4 Results61
6.5 Discussion62
6.6 Conclusion 64
Chapter 7 | Discussion - Changing perceptions and diverging perspectives 65
7.1 The role of cattle in Bronze Age society
65
7.2 Liminality66
7.3 Understanding the Bronze Age perception of cattle
67
7.4 Understanding our modern, western perception of cattle
68
7.5 Instrumental versus intrinsic71
7.6 Concluding remarks: the social significance of cattle in the Bronze Age
73
Abstract75
Bibliography76
List of figures
83
List of tables85
Appendix 186
Acknowledgements
This thesis is the result of many brain-storming sessions, theoretical and empirical research, inspiration from hugely varying areas of life, and many, many discussions. For
this reason, there are a number of people I would like to thank, without whom this
thesis would not be what it is. Firstly, I would like to thank my thesis supervisor, Harry
Fokkens, for his guidance and feedback and because without his support, this project
would not have existed. I would like to thank Wouter Roessingh, Yvonne van Amerongen, and Patrick Valentijn, of the Farmers of the Coast project, for always being
happy to answer my questions and exchange ideas. My other thesis supervisor, Lisette
Kootker, also deserves my thanks for her guidance and insight into isotope research.
I also want to thank Joyce van Dijk for helping me with collecting the material for the
isotope analysis and zooarchaeological data from West Frisia. Thank you also to my
grandfather Niels Nielsen and my uncle Flemming Nielsen for providing much inspiration for this thesis and providing insights in the farmer-animal relationship that the
archaeological record never could have. Last, but certainly not least, I want to thank
my partner Rik Semeijn for always being happy to hear my latest ideas and supporting
me through the rollercoaster ride that is writing a master thesis.
The strontium isotope analysis carried out for this thesis was made possible by funding
from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).
Chapter 1 | Introduction
1.1 Human-animal relationships
When I was young, I spent many summers at my grandfather’s farm in northern Jutland, Denmark. Here my grandfather and uncle have a small herd of cattle, once kept
for dairy farming, but now only for hobby breeding. A farm is a child’s paradise and
my older sister and I dreamt up an endless number of games there. One of our favourites was swinging on ropes from the rafters in the barn. One day when I was about
seven, we were swinging on these ropes when suddenly we came face to face with my
grandfather’s big, red bull. The cattle at the farm can wander between the meadows
and the cowshed adjacent to the barn, but this particular bull often roamed free on
the farm. My grandfather had a bond with the red bull, a mutual trust that allowed my
grandfather to handle the bull with ease and allowed the bull to walk where he pleased.
Sometime after my encounter with the animal, I found out from my mother that my
grandfather had sold the bull. My grandmother was frightened of the animal and
constantly worried about running into the bull when she walked around the farmyard.
When I look back on the barn incident, I cannot remember that my sister or I felt
any fear when we came face to face with the bull. All I can remember is the feeling of
inexplicability that my grandfather could sell an animal that he was so fond of. What
I could not understand then was the practicality of the situation. A bull that cannot
be penned up and wants to roam freely is not practical when it frightens the farmer’s
wife, no matter his fondness for the animal. However, my grandfather’s relationship
with his animals has not changed. The bull on the farm now is ten-years old and has
been there since he was a calf. Both my grandfather and uncle swear by talking to and
petting the bull everyday, which keeps him easy to handle. “When I look him in the
eyes, I can tell what he is thinking. Whether he wants attention or is in a bad mood and
I need to give him a wide berth”, my grandfather always says of his bull. The sight of
the 1000 kilo bull closing his eyes and salivating in relaxation when my uncle scratches
him between the shoulders certainly attests to this fascinating relationship between
farmer and animal.
The complexities and intricacies of a farmer’s bond with his animals, and indeed that of all humans with animals, has continued to intrigue me. This is no less
fascinating for prehistory, when we may be looking at a very different relationship
between humans and animals than that of today. Exploring this human-animal relationship forms the core theme of this thesis. The setting is Bronze Age continental
northwestern Europe and the subject matter cattle. These animals form a fascinating
focus for this type of research, as they are an undisputed dominant part of the subsistence economy from the Middle Neolithic onwards in northwestern Europe. They
were used for not only meat, but also milk, traction, manure, and hides. This is reflected by the increase of cattle remains in faunal assemblages during the Bronze Age
(Fokkens 2009; Vretemark 2010). However, there is also evidence to suggest that cattle
may have meant more to people than just an economic resource, that they played a
socio-ideological role. This issue forms the overarching topic of this thesis, formulated
in the main research question:
|7
What was the social significance of cattle in the Bronze Age of continental northwestern Europe?
To investigate this question, I will explore three lines of evidence that appear to suggest a social significance for cattle during the Bronze Age. These are:
1. The appearance of three-aisled longhouses with a stable section for cattle
(Chapter 3).
2. The occurrence of cattle remains in possibly ritual contexts, such as burials and
depositions (Chapter 4).
3. The mobility and exchange of cattle (Chapters 5 and 6).
For the examination of these three lines of evidence, continental northwestern Europe forms the research area and the region of West Frisia in the Netherlands the case
study. Chapter 2 provides the context for this case study, discussing the background
information of West Frisia and the role of cattle in its subsistence economy. I will give
a description of the five sites from where the majority of the archaeological examples
come from and where the strontium isotope samples to be analysed in chapter 6 come
from. I will focus on the sites’ zooarchaeological records and what they can tell us
about the role of cattle at the settlements.
In chapter 3, I will discuss the first line of evidence, the appearance of Wohnstallhäuser, the three-aisled longhouses of which some have been shown to include a stable
section (Ethelberg 2000; Fokkens 2002; Sørensen 2010). Their appearance has inspired
research on how the economic importance of cattle might reflect a social importance
of cattle in Bronze Age communities, a changing human-cattle relationship (e.g. Fokkens 2002; Rasmussen 1999; Roymans 1999). In this chapter, I will discuss the evidence for Bronze Age Wohnstallhäuser and the theories concerning their purpose with
regards to animal stalling. Additionally, I will explore what it means to include animals
in the house and the implications of this for the social status of cattle.
Chapter 4 explores the occurrence of cattle remains in contexts that suggest
more than merely economic waste. Animal deposition in bogs, cattle remains in burials, and possible ritual depositions of cattle in settlements are well documented from
the Neolithic onwards in several areas of northwestern Europe (Russell 2012). In this
chapter, I will discuss such finds and other ambiguous depositions of cattle remains
from the Bronze Age. Consequently, I will examine what these practices tell us about
the role of cattle in this period.
The final point, the mobility and exchange of cattle, is the most recent of the
three in research terms. It is accepted by most scholars that Bronze Age Europe consisted of a large network of trade and contact (e.g. Brück 2006; Fokkens et al. 2013;
Vandkilde 2007). If cattle played an important economic, and possibly social, role
during this period, it is viable that they were exchanged in this widespread network.
Isotopic studies have shown that there was movement of cattle in different areas of
northwestern Europe during the Neolithic and Bronze Age (e.g. Sjögren and Price
2013; Viner et al. 2010). This is seen as an indication that cattle were involved in the
exchange networks in this period. This is the topic of chapters 5 and 6. In this sense,
8|
these two chapters deal with a hypothesis more than a line of evidence, namely that
there was mobility and exchange of cattle in Bronze Age northwestern Europe. Chapter 5 discusses the background of this hypothesis based on isotopic studies such as the
aforementioned ones. Additionally, it examines the forms that exchange and mobility
of cattle might have taken in this period, looking at among others gift exchange and
transhumance.
In chapter 6, I will test the hypothesis with a strontium isotope analysis carried out on a sample of Middle and Late Bronze Age cattle and sheep or goats from
West-Frisia, the Netherlands. The analysis was carried out by Lisette Kootker of VU
University Amsterdam. Chapter 6 comprises the documentation of the methodology,
original results, and discussion of this analysis. By determining the origin of these animals, I aim to further our understanding of whether there was movement of cattle in
this period. If non-local animals are present in the assemblage, I will discuss the nature
of that movement in relation to the results from chapter 5.
Through this tripartite analysis, this thesis aims to understand what the social
significance was of cattle in the Bronze Age and, in a wider scope, to understand the
human-animal relationship in this period.
1.2 Context
Before I embark on this research quest, a few remarks must be made on the context
of the research period and area, along with the choices I made herein with respect to
empirical data. This thesis started out as sub-project of Harry Fokkens’ Farmers of
the Coast project.1 Alongside the research being carried out by four PhD candidates,
Harry Fokkens wanted to investigate the possibility of cattle exchange taking place in
the West Frisian communities. Lisette Kootker was to carry out the strontium isotope
analysis and my thesis was to provide the archaeological story in which the analysis
was embedded. From this, my aim expanded to a study of the wider social context
of cattle in the Bronze Age. This background to the start of this thesis meant that
the case study period and area was already determined: West-Frisia in the Middle and
Late Bronze Age. Beyond this simple explanation, however, lie a number of choices
made in the forming of the wider mainframe of this research: Bronze Age continental
northwestern Europe.
Chronological context
The focus on the Middle and Late Bronze Age was chosen for a number of reasons.
As mentioned above, cattle are a vital part of the subsistence economy in this period.
They perform several roles like no other domesticated animal in this period, being utilised for milk, traction, hides, manure, meat, and possibly dairy. A study of their social
role in society is ideally situated in a period in which they are economically important.
Furthermore, the Middle Bronze sees the appearance of the Wohnstallhäuser and an
increase in the number of cattle remains in atypical contexts. A note on chronological
division: whenever periods such as ‘Middle Bronze Age’ are mentioned in this thesis,
they refer to the chronological division of Dutch late prehistory (fig. 1.1).
1
For further information on this project, see http://www.westfrisia.com/
|9
Figure 1.1 Chronological division of the late prehistory in the Netherlands (after Van den
Broeke et al. 2005, 28).
Regional context
The Netherlands forms the primary focus in this thesis with West-Frisia as the case
study. However, as mentioned above, the Bronze Age is recognised as a period of extensive trade networks stretching across Europe. Therefore, any study on Bronze Age
Netherlands, and especially one containing a research on mobility, must include a wider
regional perspective. Furthermore, the abovementioned manifestation of a substantial
economic role for cattle, the appearance of Wohnstallhäuser, and the presence in cattle remains in ritual contexts has also been documented for southern Scandinavia and
northern Germany. The Netherlands, southern Scandinavia, and northern Germany
will therefore form the core research area for this thesis, henceforth referred to as
continental northwestern Europe.
Studies from other European countries will occasionally be used for inspiration. A lot of research has been done on mobility and the ritual role of cattle in
Neolithic and Bronze Age Britain. I will therefore sometimes turn to these studies.
However, Britain will not be included in the core research area for two reasons: firstly,
for logistical reasons the data set must be limited, and secondly, there were no Wohnstallhäuser in Britain. These limitations on the data set serve to keep it manageable and
provide the best framework for research.
1.3 Theoretical background
Definitions
By posing the question ‘what was the social significance of cattle in the Bronze Age’,
it may appear that I have already assigned a role to cattle that is socio-ideological and
perhaps even anthropomorphic, and am now only asking what this role meant for the
community. This is, however, in contrast to my aim. To clarify the possible ambiguity,
it is necessary to first give a definition of the word social. ‘Social’ is defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary (Merriam-Webster 2014) in six ways:
1. Involving allies or confederates <the Social War between the Athenians and
their allies>
a. marked by or passed in pleasant companionship with friends or associates <an
active social life>
10 |
b. sociable
c. of, relating to, or designed for sociability <a social club>
2. Of or relating to human society, the interaction of the individual and the group,
or the welfare of human beings as members of society <social institutions>
3. a. tending to form cooperative and interdependent relationships with others
b. living and breeding in more or less organized communities <social insects>
c. of a plant : tending to grow in groups or masses so as to form a pure stand
4. a. of, relating to, or based on rank or status in a particular society <a member
of our social set>
b. of, relating to, or characteristic of the upper classes
c. formal
5. being such in social situations <a social drinker>
The first, second, and sixth definitions are not relevant to this research. The third,
fourth, and fifth definitions are and can be applied to the main research question as
following:
Did cattle have a position in human society and interact with humans?
Did cattle have a cooperative and interdependent relationship with humans?
Did cattle have a rank or status in society?
The three lines of evidence suggest that the answer to all of these questions is ‘yes’.
Is this in fact the case? This thesis will investigate whether it is, and, most importantly,
what then the significance of this position, relationship, and status was. I will evaluate
the significance of these possible roles for cattle in both senses of the word ‘significance’, i.e. meaning and importance.
Perceptions
In investigating the significance of cattle in the Bronze Age, I am in essence trying
to grasp the human-cattle relationship that existed during this period. As mentioned
above, this forms the underlying theme of this thesis. However, it is very likely that this
relationship was different from the one we have with animals in the modern western
world. For example, there are certain social conventions and preferences today that
mean that my grandfather would not share his house with his bull, no matter how fond
he is of him. Although he will also sell off some of his animals for slaughter, he will
not deposit the bones around the graves of his deceased family members. Therefore,
although cattle to some extent perform the same tasks for us today as they did 4000
years ago, there is obviously a considerable difference in our interaction with them. It
can be argued that in western society, we make a distinction between pets and livestock.
Our moral consideration of all animals is growing to a certain extent, but most animals
are still treated as commodities, morally and intellectually unequal to humans (Rowlands 2002). Furthermore, and very much in relation to this, we are quite removed
from the way of life of the Bronze Age farmer and the production of basic goods.
At the core of these differences is perception. It can be argued that in modern
western society a clear distinction is made between humans and animals, despite our
biological fundaments. The bias caused by this is often recognised in zooarchaeological and paleoanthropological studies, which has led to the increasingly widespread
| 11
use of the term ‘non-human animals’ (e.g. Corbey 2005; Russell 2012). The distancing
of ourselves from other animals has been traced back to the Enlightenment (Corbey
2005; Gray 2002; Rowlands 2002), whereas others have placed the start of humans’
domination over animals at the time of domestication (Ingold 2002). However, all
would agree that cultural changes have shaped the way humans perceive animals and
therefore how they relate to and interact with them.
To achieve an understanding of the human-cattle relationship in Bronze Age
society it is therefore paramount to achieve an understanding of this society’s perception of animals. To do so, it is vital to acknowledge my society’s perception of animals.
The discussion of these two perceptions of animals will feature in the final chapter,
chapter 7. By examining this in relation to cattle’s role in Bronze Age society, I intend
to gain an understanding of the human-cattle relationship in this period. Consequently, I aim to comprehend the social significance of cattle in the Bronze Age.
12 |
Chapter 2 | West Frisia and its cattle
2.1 Introduction
As the focal point of a large, ongoing research project, West Frisia lends itself ideally
as a case study for the social significance of cattle in the Bronze Age. Moreover, the
great emphasis on cattle husbandry in this area also makes it representative for the research area, as both the southern Scandinavian and northern German zooarchaeological records are dominated by cattle remains in this period (IJzereef 1981; Vretemark
2010). As mentioned in the introduction, West Frisia is currently being researched as
part of Leiden University’s Farmers of the Coast project. This project focuses on the
Bronze Age farming communities of West Frisia, a coastal area in the northwestern
Netherlands (fig. 2.1). The project comprises four PhD projects researching the landscape, settlements, subsistence economy, and social networks of the communities between 2000 and 800 BC. The area has been extensively excavated since the 1940s, but
many of the older excavations are poorly published. The project aims to integrate the
old and new excavation data to bring together new perspectives on an area that is both
archaeologically rich and well preserved.
In this chapter, I will introduce the case study area and the five sites which provided both the isotope samples discussed in chapter 6 and various examples of cattle
use discussed throughout this thesis. I will first give a short introduction to the West
Frisian region and its general subsistence economy in the Bronze Age. Subsequently,
I will discuss the five case study sites, Bovenkarspel Het Valkje, Enkhuizen-Kadijken,
Enkhuizen-Haling, Zwaagdijk-Oost, and Opmeer Hoogwoud-Oost .
2.2 West Frisia
West Frisia is a region in the northwestern Netherlands in the province of North-Holland. In the original habitation model, West Frisia was colonised by people after the
Late Neolithic (IJzereef and Van Regeteren Altena 1991). It was a marine landscape
until the closing of the Zeegat van Bergen around 1400 BC after which the area became more habitable and thus grew in number of settlements (Van Zijverden 2011).
The landscape was bare and open and consisted of low clay basins and high sandy
ridges. The settlements were located on the ridges (IJzereef and Van Regteren Altena 1991). In the Late Bronze Age, the region became rapidly wetter and covered in
peat bog, eventually leading to the abandonment of the region around 800 BC (Van
Zijverden 2011). However, the last decade has seen a large increase in excavations in
West Frisia, the results of which are questioning the validity of this model. Many no
longer agree with the colonist theory, with sites like Enkhuizen-Kadijken revealing that
people settled in the area long before the closing of the Zeegat van Bergen and that
they not only settled on the high ridges, but in the low areas too (Van Zijverden 2011).
There are indications that the landscape became wetter later in the Bronze Age, resulting in a decrease in habitation intensity of West Frisia (Van Zijverden 2011). However,
Iron Age sites such as Hoogkarspel demonstrate that at least some parts of West Frisia
remained inhabited in later prehistory (Van Zijverden 2011).
However, the image of cattle dominated herds has not changed since IJzereef
(1981) documented the impressive amount of cattle bones at Bovenkarspel Het Valkje.
| 13
Figure 2.1 Geological map of the Netherlands at 1500 BC. The modern coastline is traced in black. West
Frisia is traced with a thick black line. Brown represents peat and green represents tidal areas and floodplains (Holocene landscape). Light yellow represents cover sand and dark yellow represents push moraines
(Pleistocene landscape) (after Vos and Bazelmans 2011, 55).
The zooarchaeological record continuously illustrates that cattle husbandry was the
main focus of the West Frisian subsistence economy (fig. 2.2) (Van Amerongen in
prep.; Roessingh and Lohof 2011; Ufkes and Veldhuis 2003). In the colonist model,
several scholars have argued that the incoming people were attracted to the area by the
endless pastures to raise livestock on (IJzereef 1981, 177). Even if the old model is no
longer valid, it is undeniable that the West Frisian landscape lends itself well to cattle
husbandry. The subsistence economy was however not limited to this. Recent research
shows that settlements supplemented their diet with hunting and fishing (Van Amerongen in prep.).
There are several indicators for contact between West Frisia and other Bronze
Age communities. The pottery (known as Hoogkarspel pottery) appears to have influences from the south and central Netherlands (Fokkens 2001; Fokkens 2005). The
house plans found in West Frisia belong to the Zijderveld type, which are also found in
the central riverine area (Fokkens 2001). Additionally, there are several indications for
14 |
contact with the northern world. Circular ditches and circle pits occur in West Frisia
and in several locations along the North Sea coast, including the Dutch island Texel,
a settlement in Germany, and several sites in Denmark (Bech 1997; Roessingh and
Lohof 2011; Woltering 2001). The flint sickles found in West Frisia occur across the
northern Netherlands, of which the flint originally originates from Helgoland (Beuker
1991/1992).
Figure 2.2 Comparison of the percentages of livestock at West Frisian sites (data from Ufke and
Veldhuis 2003, Van Dijk and Beerenhout 2005, Zeiler and Brinkhuizen 2011, Van der Jagt 2010).
2.3 The sites
Bovenkarspel Het Valkje
Between 1974 and 1978, a large-scale excavation was carried out by the Cultural Heritage Agency (then the Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek) between the present-day towns of Bovenkarspel and Het Valkje (fig. 2.3). A Middle and
Late Bronze Age settlement lay here, situated on a large gully bank (IJzereef en Van
Regteren Altena 1991). The settlement comprised pits, ring ditches, agrarian structures, 58 house plans, and a burial mound (IJzereef 1981, IJzereef and Van Regteren
Altena1991). Cattle bones dominate in the zooarchaeological record of Bovenkarspel,
with sheep or goat as the second most exploited domestic animal, and pig the third
(IJzereef 1981). In the Late Bronze Age, the percentage of cattle decreases slightly
while the percentage of both sheep or goats and pigs increase. The dominance of bulls
and steers in the early phase (1500 – 1000 cal BC) of the settlement indicates that meat
and traction were important (IJzereef 1981, 53). A few bones show signs of arthritis,
also an indication that some cattle were used for traction (IJzereef 1981, 76). This
situation reverses in the late phase of the settlement (1000 – 800 cal BC), suggesting
that there may have been a shift to milk production. The change in the cattle mortality
profile supports this, with more young calves slaughtered in the late phase (IJzereef
1981). For the whole period, the bones exhibit butchery marks that indicate that the
cattle were slaughtered and processed at the site (IJzereef 1981). However, few lower
| 15
leg bones were found at the site, suggesting that the hides may have been exported.
Figure 2.3 Zoom-in on the area West Frisia at 1500 BC. The five sites sampled for the strontium isotope analysis in this thesis are marked with red dots (after Vos and Bazelmans 2011,
55).
Enkhuizen-Kadijken
North of the present-day town of Enkhuizen, excavations were carried out in 2007
and 2009 by ADC Archeoprojecten prior to the housing development of Kadijken. A
settlement from the Middle and Late Bronze Age was discovered, comprising threeaisled house plans, ring ditches, fences, and boundary ditches (Roessingh and Lohof
2011). The zooarchaeological finds show that cattle husbandry was the most dominant
resource at the settlement, supplemented by sheep, goat, and pig husbandry (Zeiler
and Brinkhuizen 2011). The livestock were slaughtered, skinned, and processed at the
site. The lack of lower leg bones of cattle and sheep or goats suggests that many of
their hides were exported (Zeiler and Brinkhuizen 2011, 194). More than half of the
cattle were slaughtered after the age of four, which is the optimal age for meat (Zeiler
and Brinkhuizen 2011). This indicates that manure and traction were of equal importance as the keeping of cattle for meat. They were probably not kept for dairy (Zeiler
and Brinkhuizen 2011). Extra bone growth in the lower legs and arthritis in the femur
of many cattle support the possibility that they were used for traction (Zeiler and
Brinkhuizen 2011, 199). The sheep or goats and pigs were slaughtered at a young age,
indicating that they were kept for meat (Zeiler and Brinkhuizen 2011). The zooarchaeological picture is fairly similar for both the Middle and Late Bronze Age phases of the
settlement. Only the ratio of sheep or goat to cattle changes slightly, with the amount
of sheep or goat bones increasing in weight with 5% and cattle decreasing with 5%
(Zeiler and Brinkhuizen 2011).
Enkhuizen-Haling
This site, excavated in 2013 by Archol, is situated alongside Enkhuizen-Kadijken and
also dates to the Middle and Late Bronze Age (Van der Linde and Hamburg 2014).
Enkhuizen-Haling is also dominated by cattle remains, indicating that cattle was the
most important source of meat for the inhabitants (Van der Jagt 2014). Sheep or goats
and pigs contributed to the subsistence economy probably an equal amount and to a
16 |
far lesser degree than cattle. Approximately two thirds of the cattle population lived
to the age of four, even more than at Kadijken, suggesting that the cattle were kept
mostly for traction and manure (Van der Jagt 2014). Four cattle bones show pathologies consistent with arthritis in the hip joints, indicating that they were used for traction
(Van der Jagt 2014). Few calves were found in the zooarchaeological record, indicating
that dairy cows played a minimal role.
Zwaagdijk-Oost
The settlement at Zwaagdijk-Oost was excavated in 2003 by ARC prior to the construction of a large business park. Archaeological features were found from the Bronze
Age, Middle Ages, and the Modern Period (Ufkes and Veldhuis 2003). Of the Bronze
Age zooarchaeological material, cattle remains are the most dominant, with sheep or
goat following in second place and pig in third (Halılı and Buitenhuis 2003). The mortality profiles of the cattle and sheep or goat indicate that these animals were kept
predominantly for meat, although the possibility of dairy cows cannot be excluded
(Halılı and Buitenhuis 2003, 183). There is no evidence to suggest that wool played
an important role (Halılı and Buitenhuis 2003, 183). The Middle Bronze Age phase
of the settlement yielded few lower leg bones of cattle, suggesting that the hides may
have been transported to elsewhere. In the Late Bronze Age phase of the settlement,
cattle gained an even larger role, as the species diversity and number of wild mammals
decrease in the zooarchaeological material (Halılı and Buitenhuis 2003, 188).
Opmeer – Hoogwoud-Oost
In 2004, ADC Archeoprojecten excavated a Middle-Late Bronze Age settlement further to the west than the contemporary West Frisian sites. Opmeer Hoogwoud-Oost
dates from 1300 to 1000 BC and comprises a farmstead with adjoining agrarian structures (Lohof and Vaars 2005). The site differs from those described above in that the
number of cattle and sheep or goat bones are near equal. However, the total weight of
the cattle bones is significantly higher, which Van Dijk (2005, 9) interprets as an indication that cattle played a large role in the subsistence economy than sheep or goats.
However, cattle bones do weigh more so we must consider the possibility that cattle
and sheep or goats played an equal role at this settlement. Most of the cattle keletal
elements are well represented (Van Dijk 2005), indicating that all parts of the animal
were processed and consumed at the settlement. Comparative to the other Bronze Age
sites, pigs are the third most common animal at Hoogwoud-Oost (Van Dijk 2005). The
lack of cranial elements means it was impossible to create mortality profiles for the
cattle or sheep or goat herds at this site (Van Dijk 2005). The cattle for which the age
could be determined were mostly young, indicating that they were kept for meat, while
a few older animals may have been kept for milk and traction (Van Dijk 2005, 9). The
sheep or goats show a diversity of ages, suggesting they may have been used for meat
and wool, while the pigs were kept for meat solely (Van Dijk 2005, 9-10).
2.4 Synthesis
There is a clear pattern of cattle dominance in the abovementioned sites, which is
consistent with other West Frisian sites (fig. 2.3). At all five sites except Opmeer Hoog| 17
woud-Oost, cattle make up more than 70% of the domestic animal remains. At Opmeer Hoogwoud-Oost, sheep or goats may have been equally important as cattle in
the subsistence economy. At Bovenkarspel and Enkhuizen-Kadijken, the number of
cattle decreases slightly in the Late Bronze Age with an increase in sheep or goats and
pigs. This is in contrast to Zwaagdijk-Oost where the number of cattle increases in
the later period. However, the latter is probably more a result of the decrease in wild
animals in the zooarchaeological record than an increase in cattle. For the other two
sites, we do not have the data to draw conclusions about the change from the earlier
to the later period.
Figure 2.4 Differential representation of cattle in the live herd and the zooarchaeological record according to
ontogenetic age (hypothetical example) (Johannsen 2006, 41).
The cattle use was mixed, with clear indications for traction and manure playing a larger role than meat at the Enkhuizen sites. At Zwaagdijk-Oost and Opmeer
Hoogwoud-Oost, cattle may have been kept predominantly for meat while a few older
animals provided traction and manure. Most sites show little indication for the exploitation of dairy cows, although it may have become more common in the Late
Bronze Age at Bovenkarspel. It is probable that hides were also an important by-product of cattle husbandry, with all five sites, excepting Enkhuizen-Haling from which the
data is not available, showing slaughter patterns that indicate that the cattle were fully
processed on site. At Enkhuizen-Kadijken, Zwaagdijk-Oost, and possibly Bovenkarspel, many of the hides were probably exported. It is possible that some cattle were
kept for the purpose of hide exportation, which would also explain the presence of
many older animals. It is also important to keep in mind that the older animals used for
traction and manure production at all of the settlements may be underrepresented in
the zooarchaeological assemblages due to what Johannsen (2006) calls the ‘age effect’.
This is an effect caused by the faster turnover of young animals in a herd. If, hypothetically, the ratio of young to old cattle in the live herd is 1:1, the resulting zooarchaeological assemblage will yield a young to old ratio of 2:1 (fig. 2.4) (Johannsen 2006, 41).
The older animals, i.e. the ones kept for breeding, manure production, and traction,
will therefore be underrepresented in the archaeological record (Johannsen 2006, 41).
For this reason, it is important to keep in mind that there may have been more draught
cattle at the Bronze Age West Frisian settlements than the record shows.
The general dominance of cattle in the subsistence economy matches other
Dutch and European sites from the same period (IJzereef 1981). For example, at the
Middle Bronze Age site of Kratzeburg, Germany, cattle make up 75.2% of the domestic animal bones, while sheep or goats make up 16.8% and pigs 5.9% (IJzereef 1981,
27). In Denmark, cattle are also the dominant species in the period that corresponds
with the Dutch Middle and Late Bronze Age (fig. 2.5) (Vretemark 2010, 156-7). At the
18 |
Danish sites, the majority of cattle were adults and of these, about 30% were male
(Vretemark 2010, 157). This suggests that dairy production, traction, and manure were
more important than meat. The meat supply came increasingly from sheep and pigs
(Vretemark 2010, 157). Similar data on slaughter patterns and mortality profiles was
not readily available from northern Germany so it is not possible to compare in what
way cattle were used at these sites. However, it is highly likely that the German sites
follow the same pattern as southern Scandinavia and the Netherlands.
Figure 2.5 Comparison of the percentages of livestock at Danish sites. Period I-II = 1700 - 1300 BC,
period V = 900 - 800 BC, period VI = 700 - 500 BC (Vretemark 2010, 157).
| 19
Chapter 3 | Sharing space - the byre house phenomenon
‘The phenomenon of the Wohnstallhäuser stands out as absolutely central in the understanding of the social development during the Middle and the Late Bronze Age’
(Olausson 1999, 327).
3.1 Introduction
In 1999, a session was held at the Settlement and Landscape conference in Aarhus,
Denmark addressing the issue of Bronze Age longhouses with byres, or Wohnstallhäuser. The series of papers that this session culminated in discussed the theories,
ideas, and contradictions surrounding the longhouse phenomenon in northwestern
Europe. Since this publication, however, few studies have systematically re-addressed
the issues surrounding the byre house. Those that have (Armstrong Oma 2013; Fokkens 2002) have done so in light of new information and interesting new vantage
points that warrant attention. The few recent detailed discussions on byre houses is
surprising considering the amount of importance that is attached to this house type as
representing a new phase in the human-cattle relationship. This chapter will therefore
reconsider the knowledge and theories on the Wohnstalhaus in order to examine what
meaning can be gleaned from the appearance of byre houses in the Middle Bronze
Age. This involves firstly a description of what a Wohnstalhaus is. Secondly, I will discuss the chronological and geographical distribution of these houses, taking advantage
of information we have gleaned from excavations since 1999. The third part addresses
the purpose of the Wohnstalhaus, summarising the debate on practical versus social.
Lastly, I will take a brief look at an ethnographic example of byre houses, in order
to gain new insights into cattle stalling. Through examining these points, this chapter
aims to understand what the byre house can tell us about the social significance of
cattle in the Bronze Age
3.2 What is a byre house?
20 |
First and foremost a note on terminology must be made, as many different terms
are used in the literature on byre houses, such byre-dwelling, house-byre, byre-house,
Wohnstalhaus, etc. This creates a confusing mass of sources as each term has its own
connotation and the variety of languages in which the topic is written confuses this
even more. In this thesis, I will use the terms according to Volmer and Zimmermann
(2012), namely byre house (English) and Wohnstalhaus (German). The German term
Wohnstalhaus or Dutch term woonstalhuis literally mean living-stable-house. In my
opinion, these two names capture the nature of this type of house more accurately
than the English byre house because they encompass the notion of humans and animals living together. However, in this thesis I will use byre house and Wohnstalhaus
interchangeably.
So what is a byre house or Wohnstalhaus? According to Volmer and Zimmermann (2012, 48) it is a ‘building which accommodates people and cattle under a single
roof. Many of those buildings provide additional storage room for the harvest.’ The
difficulty in recognising such a building archaeologically lies in the architectural manifestation of the byre in a house. The three-aisled houses were the first house plans to
show visible signs of a stable area (Ethelberg 2000; Fokkens and Arnoldussen 2008).
The three-aisled house appears in the research area after the Middle Bronze Age A
and provides the conditions (space and internal division) needed for stalling livestock.
The tripartite division and the position of the posts indicate a need for a different interior arrangement. In the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, houses have one row
of posts down the middle. This middle row is absent in the succeeding three-aisled
houses, which have two rows of posts, one to each side (fig. 3.1) (Tesch 1993, 151).
Accordingly, cattle could be driven in and out and manure could be removed easily due
to the open central aisle. Furthermore, the rows of posts to each side could be used to
create stall partitions (Tesch 1993, 152).
Figure 3.1 Reconstruction of a three-aisled house with stall partitions found at Spjald,
Denmark. Top left: The house plan. Top right: Reconstruction of the front section of
the house with the three aisles clearly visible (Den Store Danske 2014).
This does not imply that we can interpret all three-aisled houses as byre houses based on these architectural characteristics, only the presence of stall partitions
provides direct evidence for a byre. They are recognisable as small, oblong trenches
situated perpendicular to the walls of the house (Bech and Olsen 2013, 18). However,
these are archaeologically rare. This may be due to that byre houses did not always have
stall partitions or perhaps their construction method does not always allow for survival
in particular soil types (Fokkens 2002, 129-130). Furthermore, deep ploughing in later
millennia may have destroyed the shallow trenches (Bech and Olsen 2013, 19).
According to Olausson (1999, 323) there are also a number of indirect means
by which we can infer a stable construction: the position of construction details (such
as the lack of a hearth), the distribution of finds, distribution of burned clay, distribution of and composition of macro-fossils (such as natural leaf fodder), and the
distribution of fossils. Barker (1999, 274) adds to this the presence of dung gutters,
hoofprints on the floor, the accumulation of dung and straw, and microfauna and
insect remains, such as the puparia of the common housefly. The presence and sometimes combination of the abovementioned aspects allow for an indirect recognition of
a byre in a house. For example, byre houses are known from Denmark where the stable
quarters consist of a sunken floor with manure gutters as opposed to a clay floor for
the living quarters (Streiffert 2005, 135). However, indirect evidence can only indicate
the possible presence of a byre, not prove it. A method that could provide more sound
| 21
indirect evidence is phosphate analysis. This has been carried out on a few Danish byre
houses. At the Højgård house XXXI, the eastern section of the house showed a visibly
higher phosphate level than the other sections, supporting the idea that it was used as a
stable (Ethelberg 2000, 193-4). This method can complement other indirect evidence
for the presence of a byre. However, Bech and Olsen (2013, 19) warn against placing
too much confidence in this method. Uncertain results from other Danish three-aisled
houses show that positive results can help to prove the presence of a byre, but negative
results cannot be used to dismiss it (Bech and Olsen 2013, 19). Likewise, Arnoldussen
and Fokkens (2008, 31) point out that the results of phosphate analyses have been
inconclusive for the Dutch house plans.
Figure 3.2 Above: Emmerhout type house from the Netherlands, dating to the
Middle Bronze Age B. Stall partitions are visible in the central part of the house (after
Fokkens 2002).
The organisation of byre houses appears to vary regionally and chronologically. Rasmussen (1999) conducted an analysis of 37 Bronze Age Danish house plans,
which led her to conclude that there was a great variety in construction. However, five
significant groups of house plans could be established. In this categorisation, house
plans that are long, narrow, and have two partition walls are considered the characteristic layout of the byre house (Rasmussen 1999, 284). Rasmussen (1999, 285) suggests
that the group with house plans that are very similar to the abovementioned, but with
one partition wall may have included byres as well. In the Danish byre houses, the
stalls are positioned in the eastern or central section (Bech and Olsen 2013; Rasmussen 1999; Weinmann 1994). In the Netherlands, it varies between the two house types
known to have had stalls: the Emmerhout type and the Elp type. In the Emmerhout
type, the stalls are positioned in the central section of the house and in the Elp type,
they are positioned in the eastern section (fig. 3.2) (Fokkens 2001). The Dutch types
appear to show a degree of compartmentalisation as well. At the transition from the
living space to the stable area, a larger spacing or ridge-post separates the two sections
(Arnoldussen 2007, 210). ‘It illustrates that compartmentalised thinking – and discrete
counting – were part of the rule-sets that guided the construction of these Bronze Age
22 |
farmhouses.’ (Arnoldussen 2007, 210).
3.3 Chronology and distribution
When the byre house came into existence is a controversial topic. What one considers
the earliest known date is dependent on whether one sees the three-aisled house as
synonymous to the byre house. The three-aisled house first appears between 1800 and
1500 BC in continental northwestern Europe (Bech and Olsen 2013; Fokkens 2002;
Streiffert 2005). In Denmark and Sweden, several examples of longhouses from this
period indicate a transition from the two-aisled house to the three-aisled around 1700
BC (Arnoldussen 2007; Bech and Olsen 2013). In the Netherlands, recent re-investigations of radiocarbon dates have shown that no house plans can be dated to this period,
but that around 1500 BC the three-aisled house appears everywhere and in a developed
form (Fokkens and Arnoldussen 2008). Northern Germany also shows little evidence
for house plans for the period 1800 – 1500 BC (Arnoldussen 2007, 181). It appears
that the three-aisled house became well established in the research area as the common
house type around 1500 BC (Fokkens 2002; Fokkens and Arnoldussen 2008; Olausson 1999). The byre house, on the other hand, makes its first definite appearance later.
The oldest house with possible stalls in the Netherlands was found in Loon op Zand
and has been dated to 1516 – 1404 BC, though an older date is plausible (Fokkens
2002, 128). The earliest certain Dutch byre houses, however, date to around 1400 BC
(Arnoldussen 2007, 212). Correspondingly, the earliest known byre houses from Denmark dates to Period II (1500 – 1300 BC) (Rasmussen 1999, 283). In contrast, there
is no concrete evidence for the presence of byre houses in Sweden until after 1000
BC (Olausson 1999, 324). Once introduced in continental northwestern Europe, the
Wohnstalhaus is a persistent phenomenon, continuing in use well into the Iron Age
and in some areas until the Middle Ages (Arnoldussen and Fontijn 2006; Bech and
Olsen 2013; Ethelberg 2000).
Figure 3.3 Distribution of several Middle to Late Bronze Age houses with indications of stalls. Clockwise
from top right: Bjerre house 2, Stora Köpinga R102-B26 house 1, Emmerhout house 13, Dalen house 2,
Brdr. Gram house 1, Spjald, and Legård house 3 (Arnoldussen 2007).
| 23
Byre houses are not distributed evenly throughout the research area, nor are
they plenty (fig. 3.3). In the Netherlands eight houses with stall partitions and two
houses with possible traces of stall partitions are known (Arnoldussen 2007). They
are known only from the northeastern part of the country, in the coversand and boulder-clay areas (Arnoldussen 2007; Arnoldussen and Fokkens 2008, 31). No house
plans with clear stall partitions have been found in West Frisia or the riverine area,
despite the excellent feature preservation in these regions (Arnoldussen and Fokkens
2008, 31). The house plans found in these areas belong to the Zijderveld type (Fokkens 2005). They are characterised by entrances on the short sides and a wall made up
of a row of narrow posts and wattle (fig. 3.4) (Fokkens 2005, 75). No direct evidence
are found in these houses for a byre. However, stalls could have been constructed by
placing a horizontal post between the vertical posts; this would not leave an archaeological trace. According to IJzereef and Van Regteren Altena (1991, 70), the houses at
Bovenkarspel were wide enough to allow the stalling of cattle on each side of the middle aisle. If animals were stalled in the Zijderveld houses, placing entrances on either
short side may have had the purpose to create an internal division in who enters the
house where, for example for humans and animals (Fokkens 2005, 75). This internal
division would be comparable to the division between living and stable space in the
known Dutch byre houses discussed above. Figure 3.4 A house plan of the Zijderveld type. The two pairs of posts at each end indicate the
entrances (Fokkens 2005, 75).
In Denmark, 14 houses with byres are known, all of which were found in Jutland (Bech and Olsen 2013). The distribution emphasises the presence of Wohnstallhäuser in the southern, western, and northwestern parts of the country. This might
indicate a greater importance of cattle husbandry in the North Sea areas (Bech and
Olsen 2013, 22). No data was available on the number of known byre houses in northern Germany.
3.4 The purpose of the byre house
The possible reasons for sharing living space with cattle have been discussed widely
in other studies (e.g. Rasmussen 1999; Zimmermann 1999). I therefore do not wish to
make a repetition here of every argument. This section aims instead to give a concise
24 |
description of the debate.
The purpose of the byre house has been discussed in terms of functional
aspects, in terms of social aspects, and a combination of both. Zimmermann (1999)
has made a detailed examination of the functional advantages and disadvantages of
the byre. In summary, Zimmermann (1999, 315-6) lists the advantages as being: more
livestock can be kept; manure can easily be collected; the cattle are protected from a
cold and wet climate; less fodder is needed to feed warm cattle; it prevents damage to
forest and grasslands; security from predators and theft; the attitude of man towards
domestic animals; and it is practical to have animals close at hand. The disadvantages
Zimmermann (1999, 314) lists as being: more winter fodder needs to be gathered and
a scarcity of fodder might cause animals to die during the winter; less social contacts
for the cattle; and an increase in vermin bothering both the cattle and the people.
However, all advantages besides, to a certain extent, the security of the cattle, can also
be achieved through stabling the cattle in a separate byre near the house. Therefore,
there appears to be no solid functional reason for the byre house. Practical purposes
suggested in the past such as ‘cattle keep the house warm’ have been refuted through
experiments that showed that cattle instead create a lot of unwanted humidity indoors
(Zimmermann 1999, 314-5). Zimmermann (1999, 313) also summarises the pros and
cons of keeping cattle outside during the winter and concludes that the advantages
outweigh the disadvantages.
This begs the question of whether the purpose may be less functional than
social. Indeed, the second-to-last advantage that Zimmermann lists, the attitude of
man towards domestic animals is less an advantage than it is a social explanation.
‘The strongest argument against outwintering has to be seen in the farmer’s attitude
to his cattle, i.e. the aspect of not being under one roof with cattle is a psychological
problem, not a real one’ (Zimmermann 1999, 312). Most scholars agree with this,
arguing that the appearance of the byre house must be seen in terms of a change
in social attitude towards animal husbandry (Fokkens 1999; Fokkens 2002; Olausson
1999; Rasmussen 1999). As Olausson (1999, 321) succinctly puts it, bringing cattle
into the house meant considerable mental and emotional changes, ‘which fall back on
and express norms, value systems and cosmologies in which the role of cattle goes far
beyond the economic one.’ This social reasoning behind keeping cattle in the house
is often attributed to a desire in people to make their cattle part of their household.
Rasmussen (1999, 287) argues that the animals are not meant to be humans, which is
why there is a divide in the house, but that they are meant to be part of the household.
The animals belong and relate to somebody and that ownership is defined by the byre
house (Rasmussen 1999, 287). The byre house’s architecture suggests that this notion
of the household would have been established before construction (Armstrong Oma
2013, 170). According to Armstrong Oma (2013, 172), the idea of a shared life-space
may even entail that the category ‘human’ extended to include domestic animals.
3.5 Ethnographic examples of byres
A survey of ethnographic sources revealed that the stalling of cattle in the house is
no longer a common practice. However, one example did become apparent. Among
the Southern Bantu cultures of southern Africa, cattle play a large role in profane and
| 25
sacred affairs. They form the epicentre of the Southern Bantu livelihood and social
sphere (Kuper 1982). Here cattle are not stalled in the house, but their byre stands
next to the house and is considered to be part of the homestead. The Southern Bantu
is a language group consisting of the main sub-groups Nguni, Sotho-Tswana, Venda, and Tsonga (Kuper 1982, 5). These cultures are distributed across South Africa,
Zimbabwe, Botswana, and Mozambique. The Southern Bantu homestead has a highly
ordered nature, in which the position of the wives’ quarters, the men’s quarters, and
the cattle byre conform to specific rules (Kuper 1982). The homestead layout varies
between the cultures, as do the rules, but the inclusion of a byre in the homestead is
a common factor. Interestingly, cattle are exchanged for wives in all Southern Bantu
groups (Kuper 1982, 157) (see chapter 5).
Among the Swazi, there are three key structures in the homestead: the sibaya
(cattle-byre), indlunkulu (great hut), and lilawu (bachelor’s quarters) (Kuper 1982, 144).
The indlunkulu and sibaya are associated with the ancestors and kin of the headsmen
(Kuper 1982, 144-5). Dead headsmen are buried in the byre and cattle are sacrificed to
them. The great hut is often decorated with skulls of cattle sacrificed to the headmen’s
ancestors (Kuper 1982, 144-5). Wives are excluded from both the sibaya and the indlunkulu. Married sisters of the headmen are symbolically represented by the cattle in
the byre, which were received as bridewealth for them (Kuper 1982, 145). Additionally,
wives are associated with cattle that have left the byre as bridewealth (Kuper 1982, 145)
(see chapter 5).
The homestead structure varies slightly from sub-group to sub-group. In the Nguni
homestead, the model includes the wives, whose quarters face the entrance to the cattle byre (Kuper 1982, 140). For many Sotho-Tswana, the homestead is focussed not on
the cattle-byre, but on the male arena, which may include a cattle-byre (Kuper 1982,
150). The Zulu relate their homestead to cattle directly, saying that the homestead
presents itself structurally as a cow (Kuper 1982, 151-2). However, despite variations,
the inclusion of cattle in the homestead is known in all the Southern Bantu cultures.
Among other East African societies, cattle are sometimes also kept in the homestead.
The Wasiba keep their cattle indoors to protect them against the cold, damp nights,
being said to be very fond of them (Herskovits 1926, 264-5). Among the Bantu Kavirondo, cattle are also much loved. Cattle are kept in a small kraal in the village, but
valuable ones may live in the owner’s home (Herskovits 1926, 265).
3.6 Discussion
Sharing space
In the Middle Bronze Age, a change occurs in the structure of the house and this
means, at least in some households, a shared life space for humans and animals. The
question relevant for this thesis is what can be concluded from this shared life space,
the Wohnstalhaus, on the relationship between humans and cattle. The thorough studies by Zimmermann (1999) show that the practical advantages of keeping cattle in the
house can also be accomplished by stalling the cattle in a separate byre and, furthermore, that outwintering cattle is advantageous to stalling them indoors. It is therefore
sound to say, as agreed upon by most scholars, that keeping cattle in the house had a
social rather than practical reasoning behind it.
26 |
Both Rasmussen (1999) and Armstrong Oma (2013) have suggested the social
reasoning might have been that cattle were considered part of the household. Whereas
Rasmussen has argued this from an ownership perspective, Armstrong Oma sees the
cattle as having had a ‘human’ status. The physical evidence of the byre houses demonstrates there was a divide between the living space and the stable space, a strong sense
of compartmentalisation (Arnoldussen 2007, 210). This is evident in the Dutch byre
houses and possibility also represented in the Zijderveld type by separate entrances.
This suggests that there was a convention of which space was for the animals and
which for the humans, and thus a convention of who was an animal and who was
human. However, the Wohnstallhäuser indicate that the distinction between human
and animal was probably more blurred than in modern Western societies where only
pets are allowed to share living space with humans. The domestication of animals
instigated a shift in the perception of animals towards seeing animals as individuals
(Russell 2012, 212). The individualised and personal nature of the human-animal relationship, much stronger than that which we today have with farm animals, may have
allowed for the social conditions that led to the inclusion of animals in the house. On
the other hand, domestication may also signal a shift in humans’ perception of animals
as individual property rather than a communal resource (Russell 2012, 219). Domestic
animals have owners and belong to one, or possibly more, households. The stabling
of specific animals in specific houses, with the responsibility of the intense care that
animal husbandry requires, was marked out by the byre house in the way that a shared
pasture would not have. The sense of ownership would thus be a socially embedded
convention, expressed in the use of byre houses.
An ethnographic analogy can be drawn from the Southern Bantu cultures.
Here the individual and personal nature of the human-cattle relationship is direct: the
cattle in the byre symbolically represent sisters who have been married and left the
homestead. Kuper (1982, 167) argues that cattle in the Southern Bantu cultures are
used as bridewealth because of their value as a production resource. Seen from this
perspective, the inclusion of cattle in the homestead can be interpreted as the direct
expression of property and economic value. In contrast, Herskovits (1926) and Lincoln (1981) have argued that cattle were used as bridewealth payments because of their
special ritual and emotional value in society, rather than their direct representation of a
woman’s value. This indicates that cattle were kept in the homestead as more than just
an expression of ownership, but as an integrated part of the socio-ideological views
of the Southern Bantu people. The burial of dead headsmen in the cattle byre and
the decoration of the indlunkulu with sacrificed cattle support this more social theory. Both Kuper’s and Herskovits’ theories serve to illustrate that the Wohnstallhäuser
cannot be understood by studying one aspect of the human-cattle relationship, for
example ownership or individualism.
The development of the household
However, it was perhaps not with domestication, but with the Secondary Products
Revolution that the social preconditions were set for the bringing of animals into the
home. With the onset of an intensive use of cattle in daily life for traction, manure,
and milk, the human-animal relationship transformed. With this development, animals
| 27
become increasingly seen as wealth (Russell 2012, 351). The sense of ownership would
thus have been stronger. However, plough agriculture is increasingly adopted from the
mid-fourth millennium and already at the end of the third millennium, animal husbandry forms the main resource (Armoldussen and Fontijn 2006; Johannsen 2006).
The zooarchaeological record demonstrates that the cattle-dominated subsistence
economy of the Middle Bronze Age was already in place from the Late Neolithic in
the Netherlands, with only a slight increase in cattle remains in the MBA (Arnoldussen
and Fontijn 2006, 301). This explanation does not account for the long gap between
the Secondary Products Revolution and the development of byre houses.
So why did the byre house not develop until after 1500 BC? It may have had
a functional foundation. Manure became increasingly important in the Middle Bronze
Age (Fokkens 2005) and the byre houses would have made it more practical to collect
manure. The importance of manure may also have given the cattle an increased importance. There may also have been a social element to this change. In the MBA-B an
ordering of the house site develops that is not visible in the Late Neolithic or Early
Bronze Age (Arnoldussen and Fontijn 2006, 301). The appearance of the longhouse
was not related to a new social and economic importance of cattle, but ‘the novelty of
the longhouse in the first place is in its heralding the beginning of an architectural tradition in which elaboration, monumentality, and regularity of dwellings became highly
important’ (Arnoldussen and Fontijn 2006, 306). A new emphasis on the house, with a
new emphasis on households as a significant social category (Arnoldussen and Fontijn
2006, 306) changed the domestic sphere whereby the household and its members became important. A sense of belongingness developed, which included not only the human family, but also the animals, which had already been established as economically
and socio-ideologically important members of the household. The preconditions had
been set with the process of domestication and the Secondary Products Revolution,
whereby humans began to see animals in terms of value, ownership, and individual
beings. However, it was not until the development of an emphasis on the household
and the structuring thereof, that animals became physically included in the domestic
sphere.
Criticisms
However, we must be cautious in putting too much weight on the interpretation of
byre houses on two accounts. Firstly, it is not certain that all Bronze Age households
stabled their animals in the house. Few byre houses have been found in relation to the
number of Middle and Late Bronze Age houses known. Even if we take into account
that byre houses are a northern tradition that only occurred in specific areas of Europe,
they do not outnumber regular longhouses. There could a number of reasons why few
byre houses are known. The issue could be one of archaeological representation; the
stall partitions might not survive in particular soil types or might have been destroyed
by later ploughing. In this case, the Wohnstalhaus might have been much more common than it appears archaeologically (Bech and Olsen 2013, 19). On the other hand,
it is also possible that it was not common, that not every house had a byre. Earle and
Kristiansen (2010b, 226) argue that the byre house indicates the monopolisation of
cattle husbandry among the larger households and higher levels of Bronze Age soci28 |
ety. Bech and Olsen (2013, 19) disagree with this theory, as byres not only occur in the
large longhouses. They were ‘integrated into standard longhouses with space for one
or two habitation units’ (Bech and Olsen 2013, 19). There is indeed no indication that
Wohnstallhäuser were reserved for households at particular levels of society. When we
view them in terms of a new emphasis on the household in the Middle Bronze Age,
it is more likely that this ideology applied to all strata of society. It is possible that the
selective positioning of byres was a consequence of the size of communities. Considering that some of the byre houses could stall up to 12 – 16 animals, they may have
housed the animals of more than one household. This would indicate an emphasis
on households, rather than the individual household, which is not unlikely in small
communities. This would fit to some extent with the theory of Holst and Rasmussen
(2013) that the Bronze Age communities were herder communities with a great degree
of transhumance. In their model, the ‘longhouses were the point of origin and terminus of the herding, but they were not necessarily the permanent dwelling and scene of
everyday activities of all its members.’ (Holst and Rasmussen 2013, 107). In this way,
not only the human inhabitants of the house but also the animal inhabitants could
vary. Even if this explanation holds true though, it is important to keep in mind the
limited number of known byre houses. We therefore cannot assume that the same beliefs surrounding animals in the house applied to all communities in the research area.
The other reason for caution is the lack of evidence to suggest that only cattle
were kept in byre houses. The Wohnstallhäuser have a quite standardised construction
with regular spacing between the stall partitions, usually around 1.0 – 1.1m in width
(Arnoldussen 2007, Bech and Olsen 2013). The standardised spacing may just as soon
be a consequence of the aforementioned importance of standardised longhouse construction rather than the results of stall construction for one species of animal. At the
Iron Age site of Ginnerup, Denmark, a burned down house was excavated in which
the remains of cattle, sheep, and pigs were found in the stall section (Olausson 1999,
323). This suggests that the byre houses need not have been reserved for only cattle.
Considering that more cattle were kept and used on the Bronze Age farm than other
animals, and if they held a more significant economic and socio-ideological value, I
would argue that it is likely that predominantly cattle were kept in the byre houses.
In conclusion, we cannot see the Wohnstallhäuser phenomenon as proof of
the social significance of cattle.However, it can be understood as a reflection that the
changing attitude in communities towards household level encompassed animals as
well as humans. This indicates that animals were perceived as individual members of
the household, possibly even as kin, not unlike the status of pets today. The difference
with pets today is that the farm animals of the Bronze Age held household membership based not only on mutual affection, but also on their economic and socio-ideological value in society.
| 29
Chapter 4 | A cattle ideology
‘Songs are composed to the cattle, and conversation dwells more on the animals than
anything else. They are decorated, paraded, and lovingly cared for, and the Dinka, who
term themselves “lords of men,” gladly admit that they are “slaves of cattle”.’ (Lincoln
1981, 16).
4.1 Introduction
Archaeologists are often reproved for labelling anything they cannot explain as ‘ritual’.
However, when it comes to the zooarchaeological record, many tend to be cautious of
or unwilling to interpret animal remains in a ritual framework. This is in large part due
to the difficulty of distinguishing ritual killing from quotidian slaughtering for consumption. For this reason, the study of ritual animal remains has often been limited to
obvious special deposits, preventing a more holistic view that perceives ritual practises
as part of daily life (Pluskowski 2012; Russell 2012). In this chapter, I will retain this
latter viewpoint while examining the occurrences of ritual killings and burials of cattle.
It can be inferred that if ‘ritual informs and shapes daily practises’ (Russell 2012, 53),
and cattle are a large part of daily life as important economic resources, then the ritual
killing of them shapes people’s everyday handling of them. By the same token, I would
argue that communities’ daily use of cattle shapes their ritual practises. Therefore,
understanding the ritual practises surrounding cattle is crucial to elucidating cattle’s
significance in Bronze Age society.
The focus of this chapter thus lies on the discussion of examples of ritual
killing and burial of cattle and their implications. For this reason, I will not debate in
detail the issue of interpreting ritual in the zooarchaeological record. In this, I rely on
the interpretations of others who have negotiated this topic expertly (see for example
Pluskowski and co-authors 2012). However, I will touch upon the debate in various
sections when discussing the meaning of the practises. This chapter first examines
cattle remains in human funerary contexts, settlement contexts, and as bog deposits.
It then discusses possible symbolic representations of cattle, such as rock art and figurines. Where possible in these sections, I will discuss examples from West Frisia. In
section 4.6, I turn for inspiration to ethnographic examples of the ritual use of cattle.
Finally, I will discuss the results of this chapter in order to understand the significance
of these ideological practises and what this says about Bronze Age society’s perception
of cattle.
4.2 Human funerary contexts
30 |
The inclusion of cattle remains in human grave contexts is a well-known phenomenon
from the research area. In the Middle Bronze Age, they often occur in or around burial
mounds. In West Frisia, cattle remains are frequently found in the ring ditches surrounding barrows. Ring ditches are a common phenomenon in West Frisia, occurring
in settlements, outside of settlements, and surrounding burial mounds. The ring ditches associated with burial mounds in West Frisia have yielded many cattle bones. Most
of these were excavated more than 40 years ago so there is little information available
on the bones, their associations, and date. However, they are presumed to date to be
contemporaneous with the ring ditch and burial mound. At least nine of the excavated
mounds in West Frisia have cattle bones in the ring ditches surrounding them: four
mounds at Hoogkarpsel (Bakker 1959; Bakker and Brandt 1966; Modderman 1974),
two at Zwaagdijk (Van Giffen 1944; Van der Waals 1961), one at Enkhuizen-Kadijken
(Roessingh and Lohof 2011), one at Andijk (Van Mensch and IJzereef 1975), and one
at Bovenkarspel (IJzereef 1981). At Hoogkarspel Watertoren I and Zwaagdijk de Ark,
the cattle bones in the ring ditches had butchery marks and were found in association
with human remains (Bakker 1959; Van der Waals 1961). At Andijk they were also
found in association with human remains (Van Mensch and IJzereef 1975).
In most of the ring ditches, other animal remains were found as well, but cattle bones appear to dominate all assemblages. Andijk and Bovenkarspel, the only two
burial mounds for which the ratio of species is recorded, show a similar distribution as
the settlements. In the ring ditch of the Andijk barrow, 99 bones were found in total of
which 89.8% of the bones are from cattle and 10.2% from sheep or goat, pig and dog
(Van Mensch and IJzereef 1975). At Bovenkarpsel, the same pattern is visible: of the
22 bones, 17 belong to cattle, four to sheep or goat, and one to a dog (IJzereef 1981).
This burial mound stands out among the other examples as it was not only the ring
ditch surrounding the mound that contained cattle remains. No grave was found in the
barrow, but in the centre, a pit was found which contained a small pot with a cattle rib
in it (IJzereef 1981, 158). This burial mound has been dated to 1631 – 1455 cal BC and
is thus older than the oldest house plan at the settlement (IJzereef 1981, 157).
Figure 4.1 The contents of the oak log coffin of the Egtved girl (Den Store Danske 2014).
In Denmark, the inclusion of cattle remains in burial mounds takes on a different form. In some graves, a drinking horn made from a cattle horn has been found
as part of the grave good set (Hvass 2000). In the famous Bronze Age oak log coffins,
cattle hides are often buried along the deceased (Jeppesen 1992; Rasmussen 1999).
In a burial mound dating to 1250 – 1000 BC, situated approximately 10 km north of
Aarhus in Jutland, two layers of hides were found surrounding the coffin (Jeppesen
1992). These are most likely cattle hides (Jeppesen 1992). According to the excavator,
the hides had been laid down in the central area of the mound, on top of which the
coffin was placed and then covered with hides (Jeppesen 1992, 10). This is contrast to
other known instances of hides in oak log coffin burials. For example, the Egtved girl
was wrapped in a cow hide before being placed in the coffin (fig. 4.1) (Hvass 2000).
The same practice may have taken place in Neolithic Britain. Cattle heads and hooves
| 31
are found associated with human burials in barrows, considered to represent the deposition of hides of sacrificed animals (Russell 2012, 106).
The inclusion of cattle remains in funerary contexts is not a new phenomenon
for the Bronze Age. Already in the Neolithic, cattle were a common feature in burial
monuments all over Europe. The first known instances in the Netherlands are from
hunebedden, megalithic graves, of the Funnel Beaker culture (TRB) (3400 – 2900 BC)
(Bakker 2010). In eastern Denmark, they appear in TRB causewayed enclosures, also
from 3400 cal BC onwards (Andersen 2010). In northwestern Denmark, the TRB cultures built the fascinating stone heap graves. Dating to 3100 – 2800 cal BC, the stone
heap graves are generally characterised by two parallel, oblong ‘graves’ and at the end
of these, a quadrangular feature with two deeper, parallel ditches in it, all of which is
covered by a stone heap (Johannsen and Laursen 2010). The finding of cattle teeth
at the end of the oblong ditches and the taphonomy of these graves suggests that a
pair of cattle was buried in this feature. Additionally, the quadrangular feature can be
interpreted as a wagon burial, the parallel ditches holding the wheels (Johannsen and
Laursen 2010). These finds coincide with the earliest evidence for wheeled transport
in northern Europe, which is often associated with the northern group of the Funnel
Beaker culture (Johannsen and Laursen 2010). They also coincide with the start of the
use of the plough from c. 3500 in Southern Scandinavia (Johannsen 2006) and c. 3200
in the Netherlands (Arnoldussen and Fontijn 2006).
The same concurrence is observable in central Europe. Here the earliest known
cattle depositions appear in various periods and cultures between 3600 and 2200 BC
(Horváth 2012). Most are associated with the Funnel Beaker, Baden, and Globular
Amphora cultures (Horváth 2012). In many cases, the burials also consist of a pair of
cattle, often in association with human remains (Johannsen and Laursen 2010). There
thus appears to be a change in the second half of the fourth millennium BC across
central and northern Europe, when cattle both become working animals and enter the
realm of funerary rituals. Johannsen and Laursen (2010, 50) have interpreted this phenomenon as indications that the notion of transport was central in funerary ritual and
that the idea of death might constitute a transportation from the world of the living to
the dead.
4.3 Settlement contexts
Animals remains found in settlements are arguably the most difficult to interpret as
ritual depositions as it is difficult to distinguish them from ordinary household waste.
To identify ritual depositions in settlements certain factors can be sought, such as associated finds with the animal, the arrangement of the bones, the occurrence of wild
animals, and completeness and quantity of the remains (Groot 2012). Furthermore,
ritual usually follows specific rules and formalities; we can therefore often recognise
significant deposits through recurring aspects, associations, and patterns (Groot 2012;
Horváth 2012). Considering these criteria, a few sites from West Frisia stand out as
possibly having ritual depositions. In Enkhuizen-Kadijken, a well (WA27) dating to
the Middle Bronze Age was found containing the remains of at least one dog, one
sheep or goat, one pig, six cattle, and the femur of a brown bear (fig. 4.2) (Roessingh
and Lohof 2011). The bones of the livestock are both slaughter and consumption
32 |
remains (Zeiler and Brinkhuizen 2011). The cattle bones belong to one juvenile and
five adult animals. They show evidence of the partition of the carcass, the stripping
of the flesh, and the extraction of marrow. The brown bear femur was stripped of
flesh and had gnaw marks from dogs, indicating that it was not immediately deposited
in the well (Zeiler and Brinkhuizen 2011). It is possible that WA27’s contents are the
result of rubbish disposal, but it is also possible that the animals were slaughtered and
consumed at a large, ritual feast where after they were deposited in the well (Zeiler and
Brinkhuizen 2011, 212). A number of aspects strengthen this argument. The association with a brown bear, of which no other remains have been found at the site, suggests that the meal that resulted in these bones was not an ordinary one. Additionally,
a fragment of a tephrite quernstone and a pottery fragment were found in the well.
These finds in addition to the quantity of animal bones makes it stand out among the
other 86 wells found in Enkhuizen-Kadijken, which all yielded surprisingly few finds.
WA27, a well containing a fish trap, and four wells containing carved wooden planks
unrelated to the lining were the only exceptions (Roessingh and Lohof 2011). There
are thus no indications that the wells on the site were used as rubbish disposals. This
strengthens the argument that the animal remains were a ritual deposit or result of a
ritual event rather than household waste.
Figure 4.2 Fragment of a cattle femur found in well 27. It has shine
on it from polishing or use and was possibly used as an axe (Zeiler and
Brinkhuizen 2011, 213).
At the neighbour site of Enkhuizen-Haling, possible ritual depositional practices take on another form. Here depositions of skulls, partial skeletons, and specific
elements are found (Van der Jagt 2014). All three types comprise the remains of domestic animals, with cattle the dominant species. The skulls were found mostly in two
contexts: ditches that run across the whole excavation area and shaft-shaped pits often
under or around the ditches (Van der Jagt 2014). It is unclear what the purpose of this
ditch system was other than that it is connected to the deposition of partial skulls (Van
der Jagt 2014). In total, ten cattle skulls, three dog skulls, one pig skull, one goat skull,
and two sheep skulls were found. The majority of the cattle skulls are broken off at the
same point, just above the eye sockets and most include the horn cores (Van der Jagt
2014). Additionally, five depositions of partial skeletons were found at this site: two
partial cattle skeletons in separate house ditches, one in a pit, and two depositions of
cattle with a sheep or goat. In another house ditch, a cluster of thirteen astragals and
| 33
five molars, all belonging to cattle, were found (Van der Jagt 2014). A second cluster
of the same elements was found in a shaft-shaped pit under a ditch; here four astragals
and nine molars from cattle, one molar from a horse, and one astragal from a pig were
deposited.
A few kilometres to the west at Bovenkarspel Het Valkje, the deposition of
partial skulls may also have had a ritual significance. Here the only complete skull belonged to the complete skeleton of a cow, which I will discuss below. However, many
partial cattle skulls with horn cores were found. IJzereef (1981, 67) does not go into
detail about where the skulls were broken off, but the description suggests that it was
the same pattern of breakage as in Enkhuizen-Haling. The skulls and horn cores from
the early phase of the settlement belong mostly to bulls and steers. IJzereef (1981, 144)
posits that these may be ritual burials. The context of these skulls is not mentioned so
it is not possible to deduce a pattern of deposition as is the case in Enkhuizen-Haling.
However, the similarity between the skull depositions of the two sites suggests that
we may be dealing with the same pattern of (ritual) burial. The complete skeleton belonged to a cow that was buried in a pit dug exactly to the contours of the body (fig.
4.3). The cow was six or seven years old (IJzereef 1981, 67), suggesting that she was
either a breeding, draught, or dairy cow. The skeleton has been dated to approximately
1000 cal BC (IJzereef 1981, 64). There is no description of pathologies or cut marks
on the bones, so it is not possible to determine whether the cow died of natural causes
or was slaughtered. The latter would suggest a sacrifice whereas the former a burial of
emotion (as for a pet) or to prevent the spread of diseases.
Figure 4.3 The complete skeleton of a cow found at Bovenkarspel Het Valkje (IJzereef 1981, 65).
At Zwaagdijk-Oost, the evidence for special deposits is possible, yet more debateable. Here several Bronze Age features yielded interesting bone associations. In
a house ditch, the partial skeleton of cow or bull was found (Halici and Buitenhuis
2003). In the western part of the settlement, two lower legs of cattle were found in
a pit. However, if these are ritual deposits, they are not limited to cattle. In a pit, a
partial skeleton of a six-month year old pig was found and a well yielded the partial
skeleton of a young dog (Halici and Buitenhuis 2003). It can thus be speculated that
some depositions of animals at this site were the result of ritual activity, but it is not
34 |
conclusive.
In scrutinising the literature on Bronze Age animal remains in the research
area, I could find no examples of ritual remains in settlements from southern Scandinavia or Germany. This may be evidence for absence, but it is more likely the result of
two factors. First of all, Dutch excavation reports are more readily available, making
the finding of such examples easier. However, I must add to this that these examples
are only discussed in the original excavation reports, not in synthetic works on Bronze
Age ritual. That no examples could be found from southern Scandinavia and Germany indicates that, though ritual settlement depositions may be recognised in the
excavation reports, they are thereafter not discussed in broader research articles and
projects. This is probably the result of the second factor, the bias towards researching
the functionality of zooarchaeological remains in settlements. As mentioned in the introduction, most archaeologists are hesitant to describe animal remains in settlements
in a ritual framework. Although it is justifiable to be critical, the result is that possible
ritual remains do not make it beyond original excavation reports, skewing Bronze Age
research on ritual. The examples from the Netherlands show that it is not a result of
the excavators or zooarchaeologists not recognising the remains as such, but that further research has not yet considered these recognitions.
Ritual remains in settlements are better documented for the Neolithic, especially in central Europe, possibly because they are more obvious in this period and
region. Settlements from the Boleraz/Baden culture in fourth millennium Hungary
have yielded many burials of partial or whole cattle skeletons, sometimes in pairs or
multiples (Horváth 2012). The position of the skeletons indicate that the cattle were
usually killed or maimed next to the pit where after they fell into it (Horváth 2012).
Ritual cattle deposits in settlements are also known from Iron Age Sweden (Magnell
2012) and Britain (Wilson 2002) and the Roman Period in the Netherlands (Groot
2012). There thus appears be a continuity of cattle depositions in settlements in Europe from the Neolithic on. Only the Bronze Age is underrepresented in these studies,
begging the question whether this is due to research bias or a change in depositional
practices during this period.
4.4 Bog deposits
There is clear evidence for cattle deposits in bogs in Neolithic southern Scandinavia.
Domestic cattle are found as bog deposits from after 4000 cal BC, whereas aurochs
were already being deposited in these locations for a few millennia at this time (Johannsen 2006; Noe-Nygaard 2005). According to Russell (2012, 108), bog deposits
continue in later prehistory. Indeed, there are many famous examples of human ‘bog
bodies’ from the Bronze Age and Iron Age. In the Netherlands, the first bog bodies
appear in the Middle Bronze Age, but most date to around year 0 (Van der Sanden
2009). However, there are no indications of cattle deposits in bogs from the Bronze
Age. The pattern is surprisingly similar to settlement depositions with a hiatus of evidence for the Bronze Age. The question is thus, again, what the cause of this hiatus is.
| 35
4.5 (Non)-symbolic representations
Rock art
Depictions of cattle and ploughing scenes are known from the Scandinavian Bronze
Age rock art (fig. 4.4). In the Swedish material, they are mostly found in northern Bohuslän. Here the rock art is more realistic with depictions of warriors, cattle, herders,
etc., in contrast to the stylistic images in southern Bohuslän where few animal motifs
are found (Skoglund 2009, 204). It is difficult to gage whether cattle are featured more
often or more expressly in rock art than other animals. Horses are a highly common
motif and some panels also show images of sheep and dogs (Ling 2008; Swedish Rock
Art Research Archives 2014). It is therefore not possible to grasp to what extent depictions of cattle and ploughing illustrate a ritual or social significance of cattle, especially
in comparison to other animals.
Figure 4.4 Tanum 12:1. Depiction of cattle and a ploughing scene alongside other animals, ships,
and archers. From Aspeberget Tanum in Bohuslän, western Sweden. Dates to the Swedish Late
Bronze Age (1100 - 600 BC) (Swedish Rock Art Research Archives 2008).
36 |
Zoomorphic figures
Approximately two kilometres west of Bovenkarspel lies the town of Grootebroek,
where several burial mounds have been excavated and Bronze Age settlement material
has been found. Among the latter was a complex of Bronze Age artefacts found in the
fill of a ditch by an amateur archaeologist in 1975 (Van Regteren Altena et al. 1977).
The complex consisted of pottery, flint, stone, bone, and, most interestingly, twenty
clay zoomorphic figures. Van Regteren Altena et al. (1977) recognised in these figurines two cattle, three cattle horns, belonging to three separate figurines, one pig, and a
pig’s snout (fig. 4.5). The remainder of the figurines are a variety of smaller and larger
fragments that can be identified as fairly complete and incomplete animal body parts,
such as legs and a rump, but the type of animal is not recognisable. The figurines are
made from clay tempered with grog, fine sand, and, rarely, fine stone grit (Van Regteren
Altena et al. 1977). The oxidisation of some of the breaks suggests that the figurines
were broken before or during firing. Van Regteren Altena et al. (1977, 245) offer two
explanations for this: either the finds are waste or the figurines were not normally fired
and may have accidentally fallen into a fire. A third possibility is that the figurines were
broken and fired intentionally. Both the pottery found with the figurines and radiocar-
bon dates of the site point to a date in the Middle Bronze Age for the clay figurines.
Figure 4.5 The Bovenkarspel animal figurines. 1. One of the bulls: a) back view, b) side view, c) front view,
d) top view. 2. The pig (after Van Regteren Altena et al. 1977).
As the title of this section suggests, it is difficult to deduce when a representation can be deemed symbolic. Van Regteren Altena et al. (1977, 248) point out that
these clay figurines may have served as toys or they may have had a religious or symbolic meaning. There are no Bronze Age parallels from the Netherlands or the rest
of the research area to offer clarity. However, there are many examples of figurative
representations of horns in the Bronze Age. From Denmark we have, among others, bronze figurines wearing horned helmets, the Viksø horned helmet, a gold-plated
horned headpiece, and rock art depicting men with horned helmets (Kristiansen and
Larsson 2005). Additionally, there are the golden lurs from the Middle Bronze Age.
Kristiansen and Larsson (2005, 245) trace this symbolism and the aforementioned cattle hides in burials to the Mycenaean ox sacrifice ritual, arguing that Nordic
Bronze Age religion must have been familiar with the Mycenaean ritual. However,
the Neolithic cattle depositions and finds of cattle symbolism in central and northern
Europe suggest that a cattle ideology developed in this area long before the rise of the
Mycenaean culture. In the Neolithic, cattle are found all across Europe as figurines,
decorative features on pottery, and in various other forms. From the Netherlands, we
have a pot handle shaped like a cattle’s head, found at the Linear Bandkeramik site of
Sittard, which dates to the fifth millennium BC (Modderman 1955). It is surprisingly
similar to the cattle heads that adorn the pottery of the Neolithic Vinča culture in
southeastern Europe (5500 – 4500 BC) (Spasić 2012). Cattle are used vastly in symbolic representations in this culture; aside from the ceramic vessels they include clay
figurines, bucrania (cattle skulls plastered with clay), and amulets (Spasić 2012). At the
slightly younger Varna cemetery in Bulgaria (4600 – 4500 cal BC), the first metal animal
figurines were found in the form of a gold cattle pair in grave 36 (Hansen 2013). Interestingly, in the same grave, a gold astragal was found (Hansen 2013) and in the Vinča
culture, astragals were used as loom weights (Spasić 2012). This gives further weight
to the argument that the Bronze Age depositions of astragals at Enkhuizen-Haling
had special connotations. From the Corded Ware and Funnel Beaker cultures, various
forms of symbolic representations of cattle are also known. Cattle decorative features
on pottery are a common occurrence and there are several fascinating finds of clay
| 37
wagon models and copper cattle models from both cultures (Hansen 2013; Pollex
1999).
What is striking about the Neolithic cattle figurines is that in nearly in all instances, they accompany a hoard or grave deposition of metalwork. For example, the
Varna burial included, among others, the cattle figurines, the gold astragal, a sceptre,
and a diadem (Hansen 2013). The team of copper cattle found in a fourth millennium
hoard from Bytyń, Poland accompanied four copper flat axes (fig. 4.6) (Hansen 2013).
However, similar, contemporary hoards known from northern Europe contain the
same types of metal objects, but without the cattle figurines. Although much emphasis
has been placed on the similarity between metal hoards from northern and central Europe in this period (e.g. Vandkilde 2007), it is noteworthy that representations of cattle
are lacking in the northern European contexts.
Figure 4.6 The pair of copper cattle and four copper flat axes from
a hoard in Bytyń, Poland (Hanen 2013, 157).
4.6 Ethnographic parallels
There are countless examples of ritual use of animals in the ethnographic record,
ranging from the use of wild animals to domesticated ones, from the Americas to Asia.
For this reason, I must limit my discussion, mentioning here examples from only a few
cultures that might provide the most inspiration and closest parallels to the Bronze
Age. Those I discuss here fulfil two criteria: cattle are an important part of the subsistence economy and cattle are used more than other animals in ritual activities.
38 |
East Africa
Much has been written about the East African pastoralist societies and their ‘cattle
complex’, as first coined by Herskovits (1926). Among these people, which include
the Southern Bantu discussed in chapter 3, cattle are an important part of everyday
life. The extent of their economic significance varies per society. In some, all members
own cattle and agriculture is looked down upon, whereas in others, agriculture is a respected supplement to cattle herding (Herskovits 1926). In other societies, such as in
Uganda, only the wealthy people own cattle and the poorer people own sheep. Among
some groups, both sheep and cattle are kept in equal measure with no distinction of
value (Herskovits 1926). In those societies where sheep are kept by certain members
or by all, these animals are often also used in ritual activities. In many of the societies,
it is impossible for people kill their cattle unless it is a ceremonial occasion (Herskovits 1926; Russell 2012). In some of the cultures, the slaughtering of cattle for meat is
common though (Herskovits 1926). However, all of the societies have in common that
cattle play an important role in both the domestic sphere and the ritual sphere (Lincoln
1981). These two aspects are strongly linked, with cattle being used in the rites of passage that punctuate daily life, such as birth, marriage, and death. Among the Kafirs and
Zulu when a woman gets married, she receives a special cow from her father, one that
is sacred and valuable to her. The cow can only be killed in times of great trouble, such
as when the woman is barren (Herskovits 1926, 494). Then the cow is sacrificed to the
ancestral spirits to ask for help to remove the infertility. When a woman gives birth in
these societies, the father often sacrifices an ox (Herskovits 1926, 494-5). In the majority of the East African societies, there are many taboos and customs surrounding
pregnancy and birth that involve the milk and blood of cattle (Herskovits 1926).
Cattle play a significant role in marriage rites, as bridewealth (see chapter 5) and
during the wedding ceremony. In the majority of the East African societies, cattle are
killed for the wedding feast. However, in some, they are featured in almost all of the
activities surrounding the marriage, as among, for example, the Masai and Nandi (Herskovits 1926, 376). When a Banyankole couple marry, the woman sits on a cow hide
and is carried to the groom’s house, while the Banyoro bride often has a veil made of
cow hide (Herskovits 1926, 375). Cow hides also play an important role in the funeral
rituals of the Banyoro people. Upon death, the king’s body is wrapped in cow hide and
then sewn into another hide, where after his grave is lined with cow hides (Herskovits
1926, 502). This is reminiscent of the oak log coffins from Bronze Age Denmark. At
many of the East African societies’ funeral rituals, one or more cattle are sacrificed
and eaten. In general, every man who owns a herd marks several special oxen to be
slaughtered at his own funeral (Herskovits 1926, 269). Among the Ba-Ila, friends and
relatives bring oxen for the feast and take away a cow or ox in return (Herskovits 1926,
501-2). Cattle are also used in other special ceremonies, such as the consecration of a
new village, for which the blood of cattle is used (Herskovits 1926, 269). The previously discussed Southern Bantu groups also have rituals surrounding the house. For
example, the Swazi’s indlunkulu (great hut) and sibaya (cattle byre) are associated with
the ancestors and kind of the headsman and the indlunkulu is decorated with the skulls
of cattle sacrificed to the headman’s ancestors (Kuper 1982, 144-5). Furthermore, the
dead headsman are buried in the sibaya and cattle are also sacrificed to them. Among
the Zulu, threshed grain as well as the dead are buried underneath the cattle byre (Kuper 1982, 144-5).
Northeastern Thailand
Similar rituals and taboos are known from the villages of northeastern Thailand. Here
people practise agriculture based on rice and keep buffalo, pigs, ducks, and chickens
(Tambiah 1969). The Thai villages do not actually fulfil the aforementioned criteria in
| 39
that buffalo rather than cattle play the most important role in daily life, being used to
plough the fields, draw carts, and in ceremonial activities. Cattle are kept, but rarely
(Tambiah 1969, 436). However, it is nonetheless a noteworthy parallel as buffalo play
the same role in the northeastern Thai subsistence economy that cattle did in the
Bronze Age. Furthermore, the Thai villagers express the same social beliefs towards
both buffaloes and cattle (Tambiah 1969, 436). The buffalo is looked after with great
care; when it grazes a man, young boy or young girl accompanies it to ensure it is fed
properly, does not stray, and is not stolen. Tambiah (1969, 437) terms this the buffalo’s
protector, but suggests that the person can also be seen as its companion. The buffalo
is the only animal that is included in the ritual held to ensure good crop yields, attesting
to its economic importance (Tambiah 1969, 437). Before the ploughing starts, the villagers hold a ritual to ask the spirits for good health for themselves and their buffaloes
and for good crops; after the harvest there is a thanks-giving ritual (Tambiah 1969).
The buffalo is also considered the most appropriate food for feasts, such as
village festivities, and is essentially a ceremonial food (Tambiah 1969, 437). It is also
killed for household rites, such as house blessing, marriage, and funerals. Tambiah
(1969, 437) does not see this as a classical case of sacrifice, but rather that the buffalo is
simply the most appropriate food for these rites. Additionally, there are certain taboos
and customs surrounding these rites. If it is a village ritual, the buffalo that is killed
must come from another village, if it is a household village, the animal must come
from another household in the village (Tambiah 1969, 437-8). The same words and
concepts are used to describe the consequences of breaking these taboos as the consequences of breaking marriage and sex taboos (Tambiah 1969, 438). The buffalo is
thus closely associated with humans. This is attested by the fact that of all the animals,
only the buffalo is believed to have khwan (spiritual essence), which is an otherwise human possession (Tambiah 1969, 437). To an extent, religious beliefs also extend to the
buffalo. It is sinful to make the buffalo work on the Buddhist day of rest, thus making
it part of the human ethical code (Tambiah 1969, 437). The close association with humans is also expressed in the spatial organisation of the house. The Thai village house
stands on pillars or stilts, creating a space under the house. Here the animals, except
for the dog and cat, are kept and property is stored. Rules govern which animal is kept
where according to what room is above (Tambiah 1969). The space under the sleeping
quarters is blocked off by posts and divided into three sections for the weaving loom,
storage, and the buffaloes. The spaces under the entrance platform and wash place are
considered dirty and wet. It is inauspicious if a buffalo or ox sleeps there and a ceremony must be conducted to remove the bad luck if an animal sleeps there by accident
(Tambiah 1969, 435).
4.7 Discussion
Patterns and divergences
In this section, I will not go into detail on the interpretation of ritual remains. There
are numerous meanings that can be inferred from ritual animal use, such as sacrifices
for the supernatural spirits or ancestors, ceremonial feasts or food offerings for the
deceased, foundation or termination deposits, to name but a few (Russell 2012). The
ethnographic examples elucidate on how many occasions and in how many ways cattle
40 |
may be used in a ritual context. The purpose of this chapter is not to analyse each case
described above and interpret its ritual connotation. Instead, the aim of this chapter is
to review these cases and see what they can tell us about the use and position of cattle
in Bronze Age society. For this reason, I will suffice with making a number of observations about the cases and subsequently discuss the patterns in the ritual archaeological
record.
Reviewing the examples described in this chapter, there is a strong case for
arguing that the majority are instances of ritual use of cattle. As discussed in section
4.3, ritual is formalised and follows certain rules. Therefore, recurring patterns or clear
divergences from the pattern can point us towards ritual practices. This is clearly recognisable in the cases discussed above. The inclusion of animal remains in funerary
contexts in the Bronze Age appears to have been a standard practice. In West Frisia,
the reoccurrence of animal remains in the ring ditches around barrows suggests that
the slaughter of animals was a common part of the funerary ritual. The cattle rib in
a pot in the Bovenkarspel barrow diverges from this pattern, indicating that it was
deposited with different connotations than the ring ditch remains. In Denmark, some
burials in mounds took on a different form, interring the dead in an oak log coffin.
Here the norm was to include cattle hides. There were thus varying expressions of
funerary ideology in the research area. However, both the Netherlands and Denmark
have in common that cattle play a role in the ritual, indicating that this ideology was a
wider spread phenomenon. It is harder to draw this conclusion for the ritual deposition of cattle remains in settlement contexts as the only examples available come from
West Frisia. However, the similarities between this region and the rest of the research
area, in funerary ritual, house architecture, and subsistence economy, probably extend
to the ritual use of animals. I would argue that it is highly likely that if one delves into
excavation reports from southern Scandinavia and northern Germany, one will find
examples of cattle depositions in settlements.
It cannot be said with certainty that the West Frisian examples are ritual depositions and not ordinary household waste, but a number of aspects point to the former
explanation. For example, the well WA27, with the many animal bones, deviates from
the general mode of waste disposal on the site and is likely the result of either a sacrifice or ceremonial feast. The deposition of broken skulls at both Enkhuizen-Haling
and Bovenkarspel Het Valkje suggests there these may have been special depositions.
Equally, the pattern of deposition at Enkhuizen-Haling in particular find contexts may
allude to a special deposition or at the very least a structured deposition (cf. Morris
2011). That the skeletons found here are incomplete suggests that the remainder of
the animal was consumed. It is therefore unlikely that they were buried out of emotion
as pets. However, the find contexts of house ditches might indicate that these remains
were meant as a foundation deposits. The same could be the case for the Zwaagdijk-Oost partial skeletons, but at this site there is too little evidence to suggest ritual
settlement depositions. The Bovenkarspel cow was, on the other hand, buried complete. However, the fact that the animal was not consumed does not imply that this
was done out of sentimentality. Ethnographic research shows that animals that die of
natural causes are rarely eaten, but instead buried whole (Broderick 2012). Aside from
the Zwaagdijk-Oost remains, the clay figurines from Bovenkarspel are the other case
| 41
for which it cannot be ascertained that they were ritual. The many Neolithic examples
suggest that the importance of cattle was expressed through symbolic representations.
The Bovenkarspel figurines may have been expressions of the same ideals. However,
without support from context or other instances, it cannot be excluded that they were
simply toys.
The examples discussed in this chapter reveal a number of patterns in the archaeological record. Firstly, cattle are predominant in the ritual depositions. Other animals were also used in various rites, but to a much lesser extent than cattle. The ritual
depositions mirror the Bronze Age settlement economy with a dominance of cattle,
supplemented by sheep or goats and pigs. Additionally, the dog, which may or may not
have been considered a pet, is found in both domestic and ritual contexts. This pattern
is visible in human funerary contexts, settlements contexts, and the rock art. A similar
pattern is visible in the ethnographic record. In societies where cattle (or in one case,
buffalo) play an important economic role, they also feature centrally in ritual practices.
Secondly, some anatomical elements appear to be used more often and perhaps be
more suitable for ritual practises. The astragals found at Enkhuizen-Haling were deposited with only teeth for a purpose. It is unlikely that this association is the result
of waste disposal. Astragals appear to have been important in southeastern Europe
as well, as attested by their use in the Vinča culture and in a Varna burial. Astragals
are known from historical and ethnographic accounts to be used as game pieces, for
divination, as exchange items, and as ornaments (Russell 2012). Archaeologically, they
are known from the Neolithic onwards (Russell 2012). However, as they preserve well,
taphonomy as well as ritual use can explain their presence in the zooarchaeological
record. Therefore, an analysis of microwear and context is important; for example, a
ritual context may imply that they were used for divination (Russell 2012).
Skulls and horns appear to have played a special role in Bronze Age ritual as
well. As argued above, the skulls deposited at Enkhuizen-Haling and Bovenkarspel
can be seen as ritual depositions. The majority of the skulls at both sites still had
their horns intact, a curious fact considering that horns have functional properties. If
the depositions were mere waste disposal, we would expect the horns to have been
removed for further use before the skulls were thrown out. The inclusion of drinking horns in Danish burials suggests that horns may indeed have been both valuable
and ritually significant. This is further supported by the Bronze Age cult place found
at Bargeroosterveld in the Netherlands. Here excavators found wooden cattle horns
that, according to them, adorned the building (Van Regteren Altena et al. 1977). This
building is roughly contemporaneous with the Bovenkarspel figurines. Van Regteren
Altena et al. (1977, 249) point out the emphasis of the horns on the building as well
as on the figurines. The ethnographic parallels illustrate that cattle skulls and horns are
often used in ceremonial rituals and are displayed prominently in houses. Lastly, hides
also featured in ritual events, at least in Danish funerary contexts. Jeppesen (1992, 12)
argues that cattle hides were probably an exchange good in Bronze Age Europe and
therefore a sign of wealth and prestige. Surrounding the coffin with cattle hides or
wrapping the deceased in hides would thus have been a demonstration of the status
of the deceased (Jeppesen 1992, 12). This is similar to the funeral ritual for a Banyoro
king, whose cattle and thus also their hides are symbols of value (Herskovits 1926).
42 |
A third visible pattern is that all of the Bronze Age ritual phenomena described in this chapter were already established practices in the Neolithic. We can trace
the ritual use of cattle from southeastern Europe (Vinča culture) to central Europe
(Globular Amphora, Funnel Beaker and Corded Ware) to northern Europe (Funnel
Beaker, Corded Ware and then in the Bronze Age). Much has been written about the
movement of metalworking and use through these areas into northern Europe (e.g.
Vandkilde 2007), and the question is whether ritual use and representations of cattle
also moved this way into northern Europe, as did the secondary products revolution.
The dates for central Europe and northern Europe are roughly contemporaneous so
there is nothing to suggest that the cattle ideology spread from south-eastern Europe
northwards. Instead, I would argue that the secondary products revolution, which did
spread throughout Europe in this way, was followed in Europe by a development of a
cattle ideology. This may have occurred independently in each region or have been part
of larger scale worldview. Either way it is clear that the initiation of cattle into every
aspect of daily life as working animals was ensued by their inclusion in the ritual life of
societies throughout Eurasia.
Lastly, the archaeological record shows several hiatuses of examples for the
Bronze Age. This is in part due to the availability of information, with Dutch excavation reports being more accessible than Scandinavian or German. However, research
articles from all of these regions widely discuss the ritual use of cattle in the Neolithic
and other animals from the Iron Age on. A similar pattern is visible in England, where
the number of reported animal depositions is lower for the Bronze Age than the
Neolithic and Iron Age (Morris 2011). The question is thus whether Bronze Age ritual
finds do not make it from excavation reports to research articles or whether there are
fewer finds from the Bronze Age. Additionally, it may be a result of find frequency; if
fewer Bronze Age finds and excavations have been done, fewer ritual contexts will be
found. However, I am inclined to say it is the first explanation. There has been much
research on Bronze Age ritual, but the focus has mostly been on metalwork. The research on animals in ritual that has been carried out has centred on ideology surrounding horses, the chariot, and the wheel (e.g. Kristiansen and Larsson 2005).
Why cattle? Valorisation versus identification
The intensification of the economic use of cattle came paired with a development of
a cattle ideology. This is apparent for the Neolithic as it is apparent in the ethnographic record. The reflection of daily life in ritual practises continued in the Bronze Age
(albeit in different forms), as attested by the dominance of cattle in funerary contexts,
settlement depositions, and symbolic representations. Why were cattle used in this way
in the Bronze Age? Did their economic importance make them valuable and prestigious animals, making them ideal for displaying wealth and status in ritual ceremonies?
Or did their intensive cooperation with humans mean that people identified with them,
making them the appropriate animal for ceremonies? In this section, I will explore
these two theories.
The idea that cattle represented value in the Bronze Age is in part inspired by
the East African societies and medieval Ireland. In East Africa, cattle form the centre
of subsistence, a crucial part of the economy. For this reason, they are greatly valuable
| 43
animals and they are a measure of a man’s wealth as well as being the basic currency
and means of exchange (Lincoln 1981, 14-5). Therefore, cattle are a measure of prestige and a large herd enhances the status of a man (Lincoln 1981, 15). The Nuer judge
wealth entirely by the number of cattle and sheep a man owns (Herskovits 1926, 257).
In one village, a huge mound stood containing the bones of many oxen, demonstrating that a very important big man lived there. The cattle that had been slaughtered gave
the mound its great value because cattle are the most valuable possession the tribes
have (Herskovits 1926, 257). In medieval Ireland, cattle were also used as currency. In
combination with horses, they were used to pay tributes, wergeld, fines, and ransoms
(Roymans 1999, 294). Furthermore, the Old English word feoh meant ‘cattle, herd,
movable goods, property, money, riches, treasure’ (Roymans 1999, 303). Back to the
archaeological record, is there evidence that a similar status was attributed to Bronze
Age cattle? I would argue that the important role of cattle in the subsistence economy
would have made them valuable animals. Their use in ritual practices may then reflect
two things. On the one hand, sacrificing valuable cattle for a feast, ritual, or funeral
would display the wealth and prestige of the sacrificer or the deceased. In this case,
the demonstration of status is mostly for the living. ‘Ceremonies and rituals involving
animals or food, particularly feasts, often serve to reinforce the power and position of
those in control, to create group unity, or to create social distinctions between different groups of people.’ (deFrance 2009, 134). On the other hand, value may have been
a crucial attribute in communication with the spirits or ancestors through ritual. The
sacrifice of a valuable animal would demonstrate the people’s willingness and desire
for help, fortune, etc. The demonstration of status is then mostly for the supernatural.
The two possibilities are of course not mutually exclusive.
However, if we perceive ritual cattle use in terms of value and prestige we
encounter the same theoretical problem that Fontijn (2002) has criticised in the interpretation of Bronze Age metalwork hoards. Prior to the 1970s, these practices were
explained in rational terms (e.g. deposited for safekeeping), the deposition of valuable
items seeming irrational to our market economy eyes. Since then, scholars have sought
to understand hoards in more ritual terms. This has led to the economic consumption theory that the sacrifice of objects created scarcity, and thus more value, and the
competitive consumption theory based on the Native American potlatch ceremony
(Fontijn 2002, 18). However, ‘explanations of bronze deposition as practices that enhance prestige or create scarcity, transform the economically “irrational” act into an
economically rational activity’ (Fontijn 2008, 88). By perceiving cattle depositions in
terms of value and prestige, we ultimately attach a purely economical significance to
cattle. Indeed, both Lincoln (1981) stresses that the ritual involvement of and affection
for cattle in the East African societies are not a result of their economic worth, it is
rather vice versa.
Can we apply the latter statement to Bronze Age society, and, if so, where did
this perception of cattle stem from? From the East African societies, we know that
cattle were valuable also in emotional terms. ‘The Masai love their cattle very much,
and consider nothing in the word is of equal value. As with people, each cow is known
by name’ (Hollis, in Lincoln 1981, 15). The quote at the beginning of this chapter
concerning the Dinka demonstrates the same emotional regard for cattle. Similar sen44 |
timents are present among the Thai villagers for their buffalo. The latter attribute a
spiritual essence to buffalo that otherwise only humans possess. It is thus apparent
that both the East African and northeastern Thai societies see their cattle/buffaloes as
individuals and identify themselves with them. The same may very well have been the
case for Bronze Age people. The root of this emotional value of cattle is the same root
as their economic value: their intensive use in daily life. A close working relationship
between an animal and its owner often leads to a mutual sentimental attachment. The
cattle would thereby be recognised as individuals and people would identify with them,
leading to a position for cattle in society that was not far from humans.
Such a position would have consequences for a community’s ritual practices.
On the one hand, the individual status of cattle may have meant that there was a taboo
on consuming them except for ceremonial occasions, as in the ethnographic parallels
mentioned. Valeri (in Russell 2012, 89) argues that sacrifice is a way of legitimising
killing and consumption of animals. On the other hand, the identification of humans
with cattle may have made them the appropriate animals for rites. The global archaeological record illustrates that mostly domestic animals are sacrificed (Russell 2012).
There are indications that domestic animals are sacrificed not because it is a loss due
to their value, but rather that they are ‘sufficiently identified with the sacrificer to serve
as a substitute in communications with the divine’ (Russell 2012, 125). In the Bronze
Age, the animals that were intensively used in the economic sphere and thus developed
personal relationships with humans were the most appropriate animals for use in the
ritual sphere.
In the introduction, I argued that daily life shapes ritual practises. In the case
of cattle, we can perceive this in terms of value and prestige. However, by doing so we
are economically rationalising ritual practices, trying to ‘make sense’ of the irrational.
The archaeological and ethnographic record instead shows us that the use of animals
in ritual is more an effect of their emotional value than their economic value. It is not
possible to prove that Bronze Age people felt affection for their cattle. It may also not
have been true in the terms that we consider affection for an animal today. Instead,
their emotional value can be considered as the personal identification of humans with
cattle. This resulted from the close partnership between humans and cattle to work
the land, transport items, etc. Humans depended on cattle as much as cattle depended
on humans. This relationship shaped Bronze Age ritual practices. However, there is a
social dimension to this relationship, which will be the subject of the next chapter.
| 45
Chapter 5 | The mobility and exchange of cattle
5.1 Introduction
The discovery of foreign objects at a site tells us that there was interaction with other
regions, either directly or indirectly. Danish flint in the Netherlands, Tyrolean copper
ore in Sweden, German jewellery in Denmark, they are all evidence of the movement
of materials in the Bronze Age. However, it is rarely straightforward to determine how
these materials arrived in other regions. The presence of southern European copper
ores in Scandinavia and Baltic amber in southern Europe (Ling et al. 2013) may for example have been a transaction pur sang; we want what you have and you want what we
have. However, since the studies of Malinowski and Mauss on exchange in non-capitalist societies, archaeologists have come to realise that prehistoric societies might not
have engaged in trade in the modern sense. For this reason, theories on gift exchange
have dominated the interpretation of trade in archaeology in the last decades. Additionally, other factors have been considered to explain the movement of materials and
ideas, such as warfare and the movement of people.
The increase in zoological isotope analyses has also provided increasing evidence for the movement of animals in prehistory. It is therefore becoming ever more
pertinent to take on similar discussions for the presence of non-local animals at a site
as the presence of non-local objects. This chapter explores this discussion in relation
to cattle, looking first at the evidence for the movement of cattle in prehistory. It then
examines the various ways whereby cattle could be moved, discussing exchange, transhumance, and raiding. Where possible, I will refer to evidence for these elements, but
in general the archaeological record is sparse for interpreting the reasons behind movement. Therefore, most theories I will discuss originate from anthropological research,
most notably from the societies already described in this thesis. Similar studies on the
movement of metals, jewellery, dress, pottery styles, etc. have given us insight into the
position of these things in Bronze Age society and how people interacted with them.
Therefore, such a study on the movement of cattle should also provide new insights
into the role of cattle in Bronze Age society.
5.2 Evidence for the movement of cattle in prehistory
46 |
With the rise of the use of isotopic analyses on animals, more and more evidence
is coming to light on the movement of animals in the past. Most of these analyses
involve strontium, oxygen, and occasionally sulphur isotopes. Carbon and nitrogen
isotopes can provide additional information on husbandry techniques. Additionally,
in some regions, carbon isotopes can be used to track seasonal mobility (e.g. Balasse
et al. 2002). As of yet, most studies on the movement of cattle in European prehistory have been conducted on Neolithic sites. Bronze Age sites have infrequently been
examined for non-local animals. The only known example has been carried out on an
Early Bronze Age site in Britain, which I will discuss below. Currently an isotopic study
is being carried out by, among others, Corina Knipper on cattle from both Neolithic
and Bronze Age layers from one site in Hungary (Volker Heyd pers. comm. 2014). The
results of this study have not yet been published.
A strontium isotope analysis carried out on cattle and pigs from a Linearband-
keramik settlement in Vaihingen, Germany yielded some interesting results concerning
cattle mobility. Bentley and Knipper (2005) found that the pigs were raised locally at
the site, all showing a similar strontium isotope signature. However, an analysis of the
signatures of the first two years of the cattle’s lives showed that they were pastured in
different locations during this period (Bentley and Knipper 2005). They therefore conclude that the early Neolithic inhabitants of Vaihingen practised transhumance with
their cattle (Bentley and Knipper 2005). At a slightly younger site from the Neolithic
in Sweden, not only the cattle showed evidence of mobility. A combined strontium,
oxygen, and carbon isotope analysis carried out on the livestock from two Funnel Beaker settlements in Falbygden, western Sweden revealed that almost half of the cattle
sampled were non-local, two sheep were non-local, and one pig possibly originated
from elsewhere (Sjögren and Price 2013). This indicates a high mobility of domestic
animals, although the animals did not necessarily come far (Sjögren and Price 2013,
702). Based on these results, Sjögren and Price (2013, 702) argue that Falbygden ‘was
not a locally based self-sustaining economy during the middle Neolithic but rather was
integrated in a much larger economic and social system... where not only prestige items
and humans were circulating but also basic components of subsistence.’ Interestingly,
the strontium isotope signatures of the non-local humans from Falbygden suggest entirely different places of origin than the cattle. The non-local animals were not brought
to the area by migrating or moving people (Sjögren and Price 2013, 702).
A number of cattle found at a Late Neolithic henge enclosure in England
appear to have travelled significantly longer distances (Viner et al. 2010). At this monument, known as Durrington Walls, 11 out of the 13 cattle analysed proved to be
non-local, originating from several different areas in Britain. A number of individuals
came from more than 100 km away, indicating a great investment in time and energy
(Viner et al. 2010, 2818). The bone assemblage of cattle and pig suggest they were the
remains of a combination of domestic and ceremonial activities (Viner et al. 2010,
2813). The variety of origins, the long distances, and the context suggest that the origin
of the animals may have been important for the ritual ceremony (Viner et al. 2010,
2819). Towers et al. (2010) carried out a strontium isotope analysis on the remains of
cattle and aurochs found at the Early Bronze Age round barrows at Irthlingborough
and Gayhurst, England. The results showed that there was one non-local cow or bull at
each site (Towers et al. 2010). Towers et al. (2010, 514) argue that because the animals
were brought to the area at a young age, some years before their slaughter, they were
not long-distance funerary gifts. Instead, they indicate the presence of long-distance
exchange networks, suggesting that Early Bronze Age people knew the importance of
new input for livestock bloodlines (Towers et al. 2010, 514).
5.3 Exchange
The value of exchange objects
There is an ongoing debate in archaeology whether prehistoric societies practised only
gift exchange or also commodity exchange. In general, gift exchange is typical for
non-capitalist societies, whereas commodity exchange is typical for capitalist societies
(fig. 5.1) (Bazelmans 1999). However, it is questionable whether this divide is a strongly
pronounced one. Additionally, it is not possible to characterise all non-western econo| 47
mies in the same way (Bazelmans 1999, 16). Equally, in modern, western societies not
all interactions between people and objects can be labelled as commodity exchange (cf.
Brück 2006). However, the consensus is that gift exchange was the primary form of
exchange in Bronze Age society (Brück 2006). Within this consensus, there are opposing views on the nature of exchange, which has consequences for how we understand
the aim of the participants and the relationship between person and object. According
to some scholars, the Bronze Age was a period of competitive individualism, wherein
chiefs and warriors endeavoured to gain power through the exchange and acquisition
of wealth (e.g. Earle and Kristiansen 2010a; Kristiansen and Larsson 2005). ‘It is widely accepted that the exchange of “prestige goods” was one of the primary means of
acquiring and maintaining social status during the period’ (Brück 2006, 73). From this
perspective, the objects of exchange are a means to an end. The objects themselves
therefore have no intrinsic value, but a value only in what the participants can gain
from exchanging them.
Figure 5.1 Schematic representation of the difference between gift exchange and commodity exchange (Bazelmans 1999, 15).
Precisely for this reason, other scholars have criticised this characterisation of
Bronze Age gift exchange. For example, Brück (2006, 75) argues that there is a contradiction in the competitive individualism view; gift exchange is recognised as the main
system for object circulation, but the objects are interpreted similarly to how they are
characterised in the modern western world. We should not see the Bronze Age agent as
a ‘bounded, historical entity set apart from and above the world of inanimate objects’
but as ‘fluid, composite, and materially embedded.’ (Brück 2006, 84). This viewpoint
builds on Mauss’ work on the commensurability of the person and the gift. In gift
exchange, subject and object are not separated, but interrelated (Bazelmans 1999, 20).
Furthermore, the idea of competitive individualism leaves little room for a holistic
view of social phenomena. According to Bazelmans (1999, 31), exchange between
people should not be seen as separate from exchange between people, ancestors, spir48 |
its, and gods (fig 5.2).
These opposing views on the nature of gift exchange have consequences for
the role of the object in exchange. If cattle were moved around in the Bronze Age as
part of exchange networks, they would have taken on this role as well. Were cattle then
perceived as prestige goods or as inseparable entities from the participants themselves?
We must also consider the possibility that this role may not have been the same for
every exchange. ‘The value of the object of exchange is dependent upon the exchange
in which it is involved. It is thus possible for the same goods to carry different values in
different contexts’ (Bazelmans 1999, 19). For example, an ox given as bridewealth (see
below) may be imbued with different meaning than one exchanged for a ritual practice.
Furthermore, both the place of origin, distance travelled, and general life history of
the cattle may have been further sources of value and meaning. This is a theoretical
concept explored in detail in studies on the cultural biography of objects (e.g. Fontijn
2002; Vandkilde 2005).
Figures 5.2 Model of the two dimensions of Bronze Age cosmology: A) the spatial dimension. B) the ideological dimension (Fokkens
1999, 41).
| 49
Bridewealth
Bridewealth is a payment made by the groom to the bride’s family to compensate
them for their loss of labour. Using animals as bridewealth is common in pastoralist
and mixed farming societies (Kuper 1982; Russell 2012). It is especially frequent in
such societies where the organisation of labour is based on female cultivation and
male herding (Russell 2012, 319). In this case, the main factor limiting production is
labour. In economies where land is the main limiting factor, dowry, a payment given by
the bride’s family to the newlyweds, is more common (Russell 2012, 318). The ethnographic record shows us that in many societies where cattle form an important part of
the subsistence economy, they are used as bridewealth (Herskovits 1926; Kuper 1982;
Lincoln 1981; Russell 2012). In all Southern Bantu communities, cattle are exchanged
for wives (Kuper 1982). ‘The fundamental bridewealth rule was that marital rights
in a woman were transferred against the payment of cattle.’ (Kuper 1982, 26). If the
woman dies or leaves her husband before having children, the bridewealth cattle has
to be returned or the family has to replace her with another wife (Kuper 1982, 26).
As mentioned in chapter 3, the cattle in the homestead byre therefore symbolically
represent the married sisters and daughters of the headsman, whereas the wives are
associated with cattle that have left the byre (Kuper 1980, 12). In most other East
African societies, cattle also make up the bridewealth payments, except among those
people who are too poor to afford cattle (Herskovits 1926, 361). For example, among
the Beri, most people use sheep as bridewealth as the chiefs own most of the cattle
(Herskovits 1926, 362). However, in the majority of East African societies, cattle are
used by most people. Often the more cattle paid for a woman, the prouder the woman
is, as it enhances her social status (Herskovits 1926, 362). How the bridewealth system
is organised and how it affects the society can differ per community. For example,
the Nuer and Dinka, who live on neighbouring land to one another, have different
systems of bridewealth. The Nuer’s system is based on the exchange of bulls (Russell
2012, 316). They are expensive to keep because they contribute less to the herd than
cows. Therefore, the Nuer system is less productive (Russell 2012). For this reason
the Nuer are more expansive, which leads to many Nuer raiding the Dinka for both
cattle and women. The Dinka’s system is based on cows, making it more productive
and therefore less expansive (Russell 2012, 316). Interestingly, other aspects of the two
bridewealth systems make the Nuer more egalitarian and the Dinka more hierarchical
(Russell 2012, 316). In all societies where bridewealth is used, if it is a fully established
system, having livestock becomes necessary for the survival of the family (Russell
2012, 320). Without livestock, the men of the family cannot marry.
The bridewealth system of giving and receiving cattle can lead to a large network of exchanging cattle. Among the Southern Bantu communities, the father is
responsible for providing the bridewealth cattle for the first wives of his sons or eldest
son. The father can then claim the bridewealth cattle paid for his son’s first daughter
(Kuper 1982, 26). However, even the wealthiest herders often need help from kin to
pay bridewealth (Russell 2012, 313). Therefore, once a man receives bridewealth for his
sisters or daughters, he often needs to distribute this again among those he borrowed
from (Russell 2012, 313). This leads to a system of receiving, giving, and distributing
50 |
cattle among many herders, even more so when women marry outside of their community. The larger the bridewealth payment, the more widely the cattle are spread
through different herds and the wider the area from which they will be drawn (Russell
2012, 314). When the exchange of objects forms part of a marriage transaction, ‘[t]
he flow of objects back and forth between kin groups facilitates the movement of
marriage partners... the constant movement of substances back and forth between kin
groups maintains the cyclical flow of life’ (Brück 2006, 86). This is not only the case
for the people involved in the marriage transactions, but also for the objects used in
exchange. The use of cattle as bridewealth would thus facilitate a system of exchange,
circulation, and distribution of cattle throughout as wide an area as the marriage transactions.
What evidence is there for a bridewealth system in the Bronze Age? When
cattle represent wealth in a society, and are therefore often used as bridewealth, this
shapes herding strategies. Firstly, many, smaller cattle is more important than fewer, larger animals. The latter is more important when meat production is the driving
factor behind breeding (Russell 2012, 307). Secondly, the cattle will not be killed or
sold at the optimum time for meat or milk production, they will be kept until they
reach full maturity and until they can be used in an exchange (Russell 2012, 307). The
zooarchaeological record provides some evidence for both factors in the Bronze Age.
In the Netherlands from the Neolithic on, the size of cattle gradually decreases, not
increasing again until in the Roman Period (Van Dijk and Groot 2013; Fokkens 1999;
Roymans 1999). Additionally, in the Netherlands and southern Scandinavia, a large
percentage of cattle reached adulthood and few were slaughtered at the optimum time
for meat production (see chapter 2). This is often interpreted as evidence for the use
of cattle for traction and manure. However, it may equally indicate the use of cattle in
exchange systems. Both Roymans (1999) and Van Dijk and Groot (2013) have argued
that these two zooarchaeological trends might imply the use of cattle as bridewealth
in late prehistory. Furthermore, considering the many similarities between Bronze Age
society and the East African societies in terms of cattle use, it is possible that bridewealth was common in the Bronze Age as it is in East Africa.
5.4 Raiding
In societies where cattle are valuable and necessary assets in securing marriages, raiding is a common occurrence and, as a result, glorification of the warrior is prevalent
(Russell 2012, 326). It is a trend found in, for example, nearly all East African societies
(fig 5.3) (Herskovits 1926; Lincoln 1981). Raiding is a quick way to acquire many cattle
and warriors become important for raiding and for defending against raids (Russell
2012, 326). In the majority of East African societies, it is also the source of prestige
and respect for warriors, with songs composed about individual warriors, raiding parties as a whole, and dedicated to the cattle (Lincoln 1981, 28-9). Furthermore, it is
generally deeply engrained in communities’ myths and rituals. Each raid re-enacts creation myths and there are taboos and rites surrounding warriors eating meat, especially
before and after a raid (Lincoln 1981). In this way, raiding is set apart from thieving,
which is considered a heinous act. ‘[T]heft occurs by stealth, on an individual basis,
and without proper sanctions...Raiding...is fully sanctioned by the myths of creation...
| 51
conducted only on enemies who are themselves perceived as thieves’ (Lincoln 1981,
27-8). For these reasons, Lincoln (1981) views raiding as part of the ‘cattle cycle’, the
cycle by which cattle move around in the cosmological sphere (fig. 5.4).
Figure 5.3 A man from a Dinka tribe holds his AK 47 rifle in front of cows in a Dinka
cattle herders camp near Rumbek, South Sudan. Raids still occur between the Nuer and
Dinka, but today they are more often paired with violent clashes between people than with
martial cattle raids (www.rt.com 2013).
There is much evidence for the emergence of more organised warfare and
an emphasis on warriorhood in the Late Neolithic (Fokkens 1999; Kristiansen 1999;
Vandkilde 2007). The Bronze Age can be seen as a continuity of this, with the addition
of new elements such as the sword and symbolic representations of warriors in rock
art. This thesis has already shown the importance of cattle in both the economic and
ritual sphere. Additionally, there is strong circumstantial evidence for the use of cattle
in (marriage) exchanges. Thus considering the value of cattle in society, it can be deduced that the tasks of warriors included raiding for cattle, a trend possibly already established in Late Neolithic society. It has been suggested that increased warfare in the
Bronze Age was a reaction to settlement and population expansion, making raiding for
booty, or warfare to control production and trade a good way to increase political power (Kristiansen 1999). However, ethnographic examples of societies with a strong martial nature show us that raiding is not a means to acquire political power. Instead, it is
a necessity to maintain the social system of exchange and bridewealth. Furthermore, it
is deeply embedded in mythology and ideology. Therefore, if cattle raiding took place
in Bronze Age society, its goal was not to acquire wealth and political power through
cattle, but rather to support the exchange system, re-enact myths and rites, and gain
prestige as a warrior. Similar arguments have been made for other martial elements in
Bronze Age society. For example, burials with weapons need not represent a warrior
elite that was part of a complex network of power structures. Instead, weapons can be
seen as the constituents of a man, symbolisms of his manhood and his obligation to
defend his community and take part in raids; a complex interrelation of personhood
and material culture (Fokkens 1999).
Within this framework, it can be argued that it is likely that cattle raids did take
place in Bronze Age society. However, the question in this case is whether raiding can
account for the presence of non-local cattle at a site. This depends on whether raids
52 |
regularly took place at settlements far enough away to produce a non-local isotope
signal in the animal. In the East African societies, cattle raids are usually carried out
on neighbouring communities, as in the case of the Nuer and Dinka. However, it is
unlikely that raids occurred between neighbouring settlements in Bronze Age society
considering the structure of the community in this period (fig. 5.2). In this model,
neighbouring settlements were most likely part of the local community. Instead, raids
were probably carried out on enemy groups further away. However, this probably did
not occur at a far enough distance to account to result in cattle with non-local isotope
signatures. In most of continental northwestern Europe, for a non-local signal to show
up the animal would have to have come from relatively far away. The further away from
home the raid takes place, the higher the chance is that it will not be successful. Therefore, it is not likely that non-local cattle present at a settlement arrived there through
raids. Simultaneously, raids likely did take place in Bronze Age society and should be
considered as a form of exchange in this period.
Figures 5.4 The East African cattle cycle (Lincoln 1981).
5.5 Transhumance
The movement of cattle between communities may have also been a result of the
frequent movement of people. Holst and Rasmussen (2013) argue for a transhumant
nature of Bronze Age society whereby long distance herding was common. As mentioned in chapter 3, their model incorporates the longhouse as a begin and end point
of herding rather than a fixed family farmstead (Holst and Rasmussen 2013, 107).
Transhumance would have been supported by both social and economic incentives. It
would have ensured efficient stock management through the movement of the herd to
the best grazing pastures and possibly allowed interbreeding between different herds in
the grazing areas (Holst and Rasmussen 2013, 107). This model views barrows as possible indicators of good grazing pastures and markers of the rights to these pastures
(fig. 5.5) (Holst and Rasmussen 2013, 107). However, transhumance raises the same
problems for explaining the movement of cattle as raiding does; it does not explain
the presence of non-local animals at a site. Instead, the seasonal movement of herds
around pastures would show up in the isotope signals in a wholly different way (e.g.
Bentley and Knipper 2005). Furthermore, there is no evidence that the concept of
household and permanence was as ‘loose’ as suggested by Holst and Rasmussen. It is
likely that herds were moved between pasture areas, but not in the large-scale, regional
| 53
way depicted in figure 5.5. Instead, it is more likely that cattle were moved among these
regional networks in a system of exchange and that the movement between pastures
occurred on a local scale.
Figure 5.5 Hypothetical model of cattle herding movement in southern and western Jutland. Barrows (green symbols) feature as markers in
the landscape (Holst and Rasmussen 2013, 108).
5.6 Discussion
The movement of cattle
The isotope studies outlined in section 5.2 demonstrate two things. Firstly, all isotope
studies known to the author conducted on cattle yielded at least one non-local animal.
Therefore, although few analyses have been conducted on the mobility of cattle in
late prehistory so far, there is good evidence to suggest that cattle were being moved
around in northwestern Europe from at least the Middle Neolithic on. Secondly, the
interpretation of how and why cattle were moved around varies greatly from study to
study. Sjögren and Price (2013) interpret the west Swedish non-local animals as having
been part of a regional exchange network. Viner et al. (2010) conclude that the origin
of the non-local animals might have had significance in the feasting ceremonies. On
the other hand, the non-local cattle found at the Early Bronze Age barrows are interpreted as having been imported as new input for the bloodlines (Towers et al. 2010).
Context and archaeological evidence could to some extent account for this difference
in interpretations. However, it appears for a large part to be dependent on the view of
the author. There is clearly no consensus for how and why cattle were moved around
54 |
in late prehistory. For the Bronze Age, a number of inferences can be made based on
the results of this chapter.
Considering the value of cattle, their possible use as bridewealth, and the emphasis on warriorhood in Bronze Age society, it is highly likely that cattle raiding took
place. It would have ensured the movement of cattle between ‘enemy’ communities.
It may have been a frequent or occasional occurrence, but would have resulted in a
form of exchange that was deeply embedded in mythology and ideology. However,
raids are unlikely to have been the source of non-local cattle, as they probably would
not have been carried out on communities far enough away to give a non-local isotope
signature. Similarly, transhumance can also not explain the presence of foreign cattle
at settlements. The frequent movement of cattle between pastures would have led to a
mixing of isotope signatures from these areas or a seasonal difference. Furthermore, it
is unlikely that Bronze Age herders travelled long distances with their cattle for pasture
when the movement between grazing grounds in a local area would suffice. However,
this is not to say that cattle did not move around in the way suggested by Holst and
Rasmussen (2013). A regional exchange network of cattle is highly plausible considering the high degree of circulation of artefacts in the Bronze Age. We know that
artefacts were exchanged far in this period. Communities most likely exchanged cattle
in the same or similar networks.
The reason behind the exchange of cattle can have several sources. Bridewealth is a plausible contender. The ethnographic examples and zooarchaeological
record suggest that cattle could have been used in marriage exchanges as bridewealth.
There is evidence for interregional marriages in the Bronze Age. For example, in both
Zealand and southern Jutland, Denmark, burials have been found of non-local women
wearing outfits of the German Lüneberg type (Kristiansen and Larsson 2005, 2345). If such interregional marriages included payments of cattle as bridewealth, cattle
would be moved over large distances. Furthermore, if the bridewealth system was
fully functioning, there would not only be the movement of cattle from one region to
another, but the distribution and circulation of cattle throughout the region.
Other, more functional reasons have also been suggested. Holst and Rasmussen (2013, 107) suggest that the movement of cattle would have ensured fresh input
into the herd’s bloodlines. Similarly, Towers et al. (2010, 514) argue that the exchange
of cattle in Early Bronze Age Britain is evidence for the knowledge of livestock bloodline management. It is indeed likely that Bronze Age farmers were aware of this. In
domesticated herds, 15-20 cattle of breeding potential are needed to avoid inbreeding
and ensure a healthy herd (Van Amerongen in prep.). Cattle with breeding potential
includes cows with reproductive ability and excludes calves and bulls. The zooarchaeological record suggests that on an average Bronze Age settlement, there would not
be a large enough number of cattle with breeding potential (Van Amerongen in prep.),
meaning exchange with other communities was necessary. However, is we consider the
number of contemporaneous house plans at Bronze Age settlements and the number
of cattle that each household could have had, the herd would have been large enough.
Moreover, many byre houses could stall up 12 – 16 animals (see chapter 3). The dominance of cattle in the Bronze Age zooarchaeological record suggests that at least
three-quarters of the animals in the byre would have cattle, i.e. nine in the most careful
| 55
estimate. Three houses with nine cattle each would be enough to provide a viable herd.
Furthermore, if more cattle were needed to keep the herd healthy, exchange with the
neighbouring settlement or within the local community would suffice. For example,
Bovenkarspel and Enkhuizen are only 2 km apart and could easily have exchanged
cattle; this would not produce a non-local isotope signature in the animals.
Furthermore, it is highly likely that the motivation to trade to get fresh input
in the bloodlines of a herd was paired with a multitude of socio-ideological notions.
The desire to acquire new cattle for a herd was probably submissive to other desires
in an exchange, such as the forging of social relations, political or religious aspirations,
the following of long-standing traditions, etc. This is apparent in the ethnographic
record, where herd management is never mentioned among cattle communities as a
motivation for exchange (Herskovits 1926; Kuper 1982; Lincoln 1981). Additionally,
as mentioned in section 5.3, there is no evidence that exchange in the Bronze Age was
a practical, commodity-based exchange system. Additionally, we should not see exchange as separate from exchange in the ritual sphere. The widespread use of cattle in
ritual practices makes it unlikely that cattle exchange between people took on a purely
functional role.
Objectification or identification
This begs the question, how should we understand the nature of Bronze Age cattle
exchange? Moreover, what does this tell us about the status of cattle in Bronze Age
society? As discussed in section 5.3, there are opposing views on how to understand
the nature of exchange. The exterior purposes of the exchange (bridewealth, artefact
circulation, etc.) are irrelevant to this theoretical quandary. What is important here is
the perspective on the nature of exchange, as this influences our perception of the relationship between the participants and object of exchange, and thus the status of the
object. In this quandary, cattle are the object of exchange and the aim is to understand
their status. To do so, I will discuss below two opposing views and the consequences
for the status of the object of exchange: objectification of the object or identification
with the object.
In the theory of competitive individualism, participants engage in exchange
to acquire wealth and prestige. ‘[C]ompetition for access to exchange networks also
implied access to prestige, metal and social and religious information that could be
transformed into social and religious institutions’ (Kristiansen 1999, 184). Interregional marriages were also initiated with the intent to secure alliances and trade networks
(Kristiansen 1999, 184). Seen from this perspective, the objects represent wealth and
prestige. If cattle were exchanged in this framework, we can interpret them as having
been objects of value. Through acquiring cattle, objects of value are acquired and ultimately the participants acquire wealth and prestige. The cattle are a means to an end.
This implies a separation of the participants and the object of exchange, of subject
and object.
However, this theory has been criticised by those who view exchange from the
Maussian perspective whereby subject and object are commensurable. The separation
of subject and object is considered an imposition of our modern, western viewpoints
on Bronze Age society. Today ‘man is conceived of as an invisible, independent and
56 |
self-conscious entity. The knowable non-human world has at the same time been objectified and thereby transformed into a natural environment ripe for exploitation.’
(Bazelmans 1999, 18). This objectification of the object of exchange stands opposed
to the viewpoint that it is precisely the interrelatedness between subject and object
that is important in gift exchange; the identification of the participant with the object.
According the Strathern (1988), in western society, we possess things, whereas in tribal
societies, the person is composite and divisible. This dividuality and inter-composition
does not restrict itself to humans, but includes animals and material culture. Brück
(2006) shows that in the British Bronze Age, people and objects are often treated the
same way in mortuary contexts; there is a metaphorical link between people and objects. The same can be argued for people and cattle in the Dutch Bronze Age. In the
burial mound at Bovenkarspel, a cattle rib instead of a human was interned in a pot in
the grave. At Zwaagdijk and Hoogkarspel, human remains as well as animal remains
were found in the ring ditches. The funeral record demonstrates that there was no
separation of person and object in the Bronze Age. From this perspective, bridewealth
can be interpreted as the transformation of people into objects and objects into people (Brück 2006, 87). The use of cattle would then illustrate the close link between
people and cattle. A similar sentiment is expressed by the East African societies about
their cattle. Cattle are used as bridewealth and wergild because ‘cattle are also seen as
equal to people, forming one half of a balanced social equation. No number of sheep
or goats could suffice for bridewealth, for only cattle can really restore to a person or
group what has been lost in the value of a human member’ (Lincoln 1981, 15).
Final remarks
There is secondary evidence to suggest that cattle were used in gift exchanges, including bridewealth, in the Bronze Age. Assuming this was the case, there are opposing
ways to interpret what this implies for the status of cattle in society. Following the
competitive individualism theory, cattle symbolised value; they were a means to an end,
that end being wealth and prestige. However, this view imposes a modern, western
viewpoint of commoditisation and objectification of material culture and animals.
Furthermore, it promotes an interpretation of Bronze Age society in terms of power
and prestige that need not be the only explanation for these phenomena (cf. Fokkens
1999). Ethnographic examples show us that in gift exchange societies, there is often
a high degree of interrelatedness between subject and object. Objects are seen as an
extension of the self (Brück 2006, 76). Furthermore, they show us that in societies
where cattle are primarily used in these gift exchanges, they are used because they are
perceived as the only objects that are equal to humans in status and thus can symbolically replace a human. The use of cattle in gift exchanges in the Bronze Age therefore
demonstrates the close identification between people and cattle in this period and the
perception of cattle as an extension of the self.
| 57
Chapter 6 | Strontium isotope analysis of West Frisian
herd animals
6.1 Introduction
The examples presented in the previous chapter demonstrate that there was movement
of cattle in Neolithic Europe. Considering the many continuities in the role of cattle
between this period and the Bronze Age, it is plausible that there was movement of
cattle in the Bronze Age too. Moreover, it is likely that this occurred as part of the
extensive Bronze Age exchange networks. To test this hypothesis, a strontium isotope
analysis was carried out on cattle from West Frisia. Additionally, sheep or goats were
sampled to determine whether there was movement of cattle or a general movement
of herd animals. In this chapter, I present the results of this analysis. The decisions
concerning the analysis were made by myself, Harry Fokkens, head of the Farmers
of the Coast project, and Lisette Kootker, isotope archaeologist at the VU University
Amsterdam, who carried out the analysis. Initially we had planned to sample 60 animals in total, 20 cattle and 10 sheep or goats each from two sites in West Frisia: Bovenkarspel and Enkhuizen. However, it proved impossible to obtain this sample size from
either of the two sites. We therefore expanded the analysis to include three other West
Frisian settlements (see chapter 2). In this chapter, I will first give a short introduction
to strontium isotope analysis. Subsequently, I will describe the methodology and materials used and then present the results. Lastly, I will discuss the results, especially in
context of the discussions on mobility and exchange made in chapter 5.
6.2 Strontium isotope analysis
58 |
Although strontium isotope analysis has been popular for some time now in archaeology, its application to the study of prehistoric animal exchange and mobility is fairly
recent (e.g. Balter 2008; Bentley and Knipper 2005). It has since provided interesting results for the movement of animals in prehistory, as exemplified by the studies
discussed in the previous chapter. The movement of animals can be traced through
strontium isotope analysis as a result of the variation of strontium between geological
regions. The strontium isotope 87Sr is the product of the radioactive decay of 87Rb
(rubidium) and its ratio is expressed in relation to the stable strontium isotope 86Sr,
written as 87Sr/86Sr (Bentley 2006). As a product of 87Rb, the amount of 87Sr in
the bedrock is dependent on how much Rb has been in the bedrock and for how
long (Bentley 2006). Very old rocks (>100mya) with high original Rb/Sr content have
87Sr/86Sr ratios that are generally above 0.710, whereas young rocks (<1–10 mya)
with low original Rb/Sr have low 87Sr/86Sr ratios, generally less than 0.704 (Bentley
2006, 139). West Frisia lies on Holocene sea clay and riverine deposits. Its geology is
roughly identical to the rest of the Dutch coastal area. The local strontium signature
has been determined conform the method proposed by Price et al. (2002) (average ± 2
σ) using 49 rodents from the coastal area (Kootkers et al. in prep.). The local signature
has a range of 0.7088 – 0.7093 (average ± 2 σ) (Kootkers et al. in prep.).
Plants absorb strontium through water and soil from the bedrock; the
87Sr/86Sr ratio they show is thus dependent on the age of the bedrock (Malainey
2011). In turn, strontium isotopes are absorbed from the plants that an animal eats,
into its body, where strontium replaces calcium in the minerals of the skeleton (Bentley
2006). The strontium isotope signature in an animal’s body can be analysed from tooth
enamel, tooth dentine, and the bone. However, tooth enamel is usually the evident
choice because, in comparison to dentine and bone, it is more resistant to degradation
and diagenetic strontium contamination (Bentley 2006; Hoppe et al. 2003). Furthermore, bone regenerates itself continuously throughout an animal’s life, whereas teeth
mineralise permanently at particular stages in an animal’s life (tab. 6.1) (Bentley 2006,
161). Therefore, the strontium ratios of bone only provide information on the region
where the animal lived in the last years of its life; tooth enamel provides a snapshot of
the early years of an animal’s life. In strontium isotope analyses, molars are generally
sampled. Depending on the molar sampled, the strontium isotope signature gives a
clue into which region the animal was raised at the age of mineralisation of that tooth.
In this way, sampling strontium isotopes in an animal’s teeth can determine if there is
a difference between where the animal died (based on local values from the site) and
where the animal was raised (based on the animal’s tooth enamel) (Feulner et al. 2012).
Furthermore, analysing the strontium isotope signature of several molars of a non-local animal can reveal at which age the animal was moved.
Table 6.1 The age at which the tooth enamel of cattle and sheep molars mineralises (data from Brown et al.
1960, Zazzo et al. 2010). Similar information for goats was not available. However, the similarity between tooth
morphology in sheep and goats makes it likely that these ages can be applied to goats as well.
Tooth
Fourth premolar (P4)
First molar (M1)
Age of mineralisation
Cattle
11 - 30 months
0 -3 months
Second molar (M2)
Third molar (M3)
2 - 12 months
9 - 24 months
Sheep
2 months prior to birth - 6
months
1 - 12 months
10 - 22 months
6.3 Materials and method
In total the molars of 35 animals were sampled, 29 cattle and 6 sheep or goats. To ensure the highest possibility for tracing movement in the animal’s lifetime, the M1 was
sampled in this study. The M1 was sampled in 31 of the animals, in three it was unclear
whether it was the M1 or M2, and in one the P4 was sampled. The teeth were mechanically cleaned by removing the surface of the enamel using a diamond drill. Samples of
ca. 1 – 3 mg of enamel were taken and sealed in acid pre-cleaned 2 ml polyethylene Eppendorf centrifuge tubes. The samples were then leached with 0.1N acetic acid, rinsed
with Milli-Q water rinse (Millipore), and finally dissolved in 3.0N HNO3. The strontium was isolated with ion exchange chromatography using Sr-Resin (ElChrom). The
samples were all nitrated twice with 3N HNO3 and then loaded on single annealed
rhenium filaments with TaCl5. The strontium isotope compositions were measured on
a MAT-Finnigan 262 multicollector mass spectrometer and on a ThermoFinnigan Triton at the VU University Amsterdam. The ratios were determined using a static routine
and were corrected for mass-fractionation correction. The NBS987 gave a mean of
87Sr/86Sr = 0.710251 (N=8). The measurements were all normalised to 0.710240 for
NBS987. The blank values had an average of 27.7 pg, a negligible amount.
| 59
Figure 6.1 87Sr/86Sr ratios in the M1 of West Frisian cattle and sheep/goats. 33 individuals have 87Sr/86Sr ratios that are compatible with the local range. For two of the three non-local individuals, the M2 and M3
87Sr/86Sr ratios are also plotted.
60 |
6.4 Results
The results from each tooth have been plotted in figure 6.1 and are listen in appendix
1. Three of the animals have a signature that is not congruent with the West Frisian
87Sr/86Sr values. The signatures of the two non-local cattle indicate that they were
raised in areas characterised by higher 87Sr/86Sr values, compatible with the Dutch
Pleistocene coversand signatures (fig. 2.1) (Kootker et al. in prep.). These are found
in the modern provinces of Drenthe, Overijssel, Gelderland, North-Brabant, and the
northernmost part of Limburg. The shortest distance to any of these regions from
West Frisia is approximately 50 km. However, we cannot conclude that the cattle came
from this area. There are regions further away that also match the non-local animals’
signatures, such as southern Germany (Bentley and Knipper 2005) and southern Sweden (Frei et al. 2009). It is therefore possible that the animals travelled an even longer
distance, from across the modern border of the Netherlands.
The non-local sheep or goat has an even higher 87Sr/86Sr ratio of 0.7134. The
Dutch strontium isotope data that is currently available indicates that the province of
Drenthe, where coversand and boulder clay is present, has similar signatures (Kootker
et al in prep). However, we cannot exclude the possibility that the sheep or goat came
from one of the other coversand and boulderclay areas in the Netherlands, found in
Overijssel and Gelderland. For all three animals, we can exclude the possibility that
they came from areas with Holocene deposits (mostly western Netherlands) and the
southern loess region.
Interestingly, the results indicate that not only cattle were moved around in
Bronze Age West Frisia, but sheep or goats as well. Furthermore, the sheep or goat
and one of the cattle have been dated to the Late Bronze Age whereas the other
non-local cattle dates to the Middle Bronze Age B. There is thus evidence to suggest
a general mobility of herd animals in the period of 1500 – 800 BC in the Bronze Age.
However, the sample size is too small to draw the conclusion that there was more mobility in the Late Bronze Age or that sheep or goats were first brought to the area from
elsewhere in the Late Bronze Age.
It is noteworthy that the non-local animals come from three different sites:
cattle from Bovenkarspel and Enkhuizen-Kadijken, and a sheep or goat from Zwaagdijk-Oost. This suggests that the movement of animals into West Frisia was a regional
phenomenon. The latter two sites provided small sample sizes, with only four cattle
sampled from Enkhuizen-Kadijken and four sheep or goat from Zwaagdijk. Despite
the few samples though, both sites yielded a non-local animal. We can speculate whether this means that non-local animals were common in West Frisia, but only a larger
sample size would be able to support this. That the other 31 animals have a 87Sr/86Sr
ratio that is compatible with the local signature does not mean that they are local. It
is possible that they were raised in another area with the same signature, which would
not show up in the isotope analysis. The strontium isotope signatures would also not
reveal if the animals were moved within West Frisia, for example from Bovenkarspel
to Zwaagdijk-Oost.
A number of other observations can be made about the non-local animals.
Both cattle were adults when they died, suggesting they were not kept for consumption. Most likely, these animals were kept for the production of manure, for use in
| 61
ploughing and transport, for breeding, or a combination of these aspects. This fits into
the general use pattern of cattle in Bronze Age West Frisia (see chapter 2), but also
indicates that non-local cattle were regarded as important to retain for other reasons
than consumption. The non-local cow or bull from Enkhuizen-Kadijken came from
one of the wells wherein carved wooden planks were found. The evidence on this site
suggests that these wells were ritual in nature (see section 4.3). The non-local status of
the animal may have been significant for the ritual practice. The age of the non-local
sheep or goat is not known and its find context does not reveal anything about the
animal.
To investigate at which age the animals were brought to West Frisia, we conducted a multi-elemental sampling of the M2 and M3 of these animals. This was only
possible for the Bovenkarspel cow or bull and the Zwaagdijk sheep or goat. The results
of this analysis are also listed in appendix 1 and plotted in figure 6.1. The Bovenkarspel cow or bull has a similar 87Sr/86Sr ratio in all three molars, indicating that it was
raised in the same region for the first two years of its life and subsequently brought to
West Frisia. The 87Sr/86Sr ratios of the sheep or goat’s M1 and M2 differ from the
M3. There are two possible explanations for this. The sheep or goat could have been
raised in an area with a strontium isotope ratio of approximately 0.7134 and stayed
there until the mineralisation of the M2, i.e. until the age of one. Subsequently, it was
moved to an area characterised by a signature of 0.7113, staying there until it was almost two years old, the age at which the M3 has mineralised. Finally, the sheep or goat
was brought to West Frisia. The other possibility is that the animal was raised in an area
with a 87Sr/86Sr ratio of approximately 0.7134 and then moved to West Frisia during
the time of the mineralisation of the M3, resulting in a mixed 87Sr/86Sr ratio for the
M3 of 0.7113.
6.5 Discussion
Assuming the non-local animals came from the closest regions matching their signatures, they would have come from the (south or north) eastern sandy soil provinces
of the Netherlands. In light of the geographical and archaeological context, it is most
likely that the animals came from the eastern provinces of Gelderland or Overijssel.
Geographically, these areas are the closest to West Frisia and could be reached in just
over 50 km by travelling across land between the lakes or over the waterways (fig. 2.1).
Archaeologically, there is evidence for contact between these areas and West Frisia.
The same house type, the Zijderveld type, is found in both regions and is characteristics for these wetland areas (Fokkens 2005). It is therefore not unlikely that there was
a large network of contact and exchange stretching across these regions in the Middle
and Late Bronze Age. In this network, artefacts and herd animals were circulated, distributed, and traded.
This begs the question, why were the animals moved from this region to West
Frisia? Both transhumance and raiding are unlikely candidates because of the distance.
Furthermore, transhumance suggests continuous or seasonal movement; these patterns would either not show in the isotope ratios or be revealed in a pattern unlike our
results (cf. Balasse et al. 2002; Bentley and Knipper 2005). It is more likely that the cattle and sheep or goat were involved in an exchange network. However, the strontium
62 |
isotope studies discussed in the previous chapter illustrate the vastly different ways in
which exchange of animals can be interpreted. One possibility is the need for fresh
input into the West Frisian bloodlines, as is also suggested by Towers et al. (2010) for
the Early Bronze Age British cattle. However, it is questionable whether settlements in
West Frisia were too small to sustain a healthy herd (see 5.6 – The movement of cattle).
Even if they were, new animals need not have come from far away. Trading between
the West Frisian communities would have been sufficient to avoid inbreeding in local
herds. This explanation can therefore not account for the non-local animals.
Another possibility is that the cattle and sheep or goats were involved in gift
exchanges between communities. It is then conceivable that the exchange of animals
entailed different social notions than the exchange of artefacts, considering the considerable amount of time and effort that would have gone into moving animals. It
is impossible to infer whether this occurred as part of a marriage transaction, social
negotiation, or other type of gift exchange. Animals may have been involved in a multitude of types of gift exchanges. Additionally, different significances may have been
attached to the cattle than the sheep or goats. The accounts from the East African
cattle herding societies suggest that smaller stock such sheep or goats may have been
used in exchanges of a less valuable nature. According to Russell (2012, 302), smaller
stock did not have the same value and were second best to cattle. They are often regarded in a more utilitarian manner that more closely resembles western, market-driven attitudes (Russell 2012, 302). It is unlikely that the sheep or goats in Bronze Age
Netherlands were traded in a western, market economy way, as there is little evidence
for commodity exchange in this period. However, it is conceivable that sheep or goats
were traded in less socially significant exchanges, in the same way that many objects
were exchanged in the Bronze Age. It is therefore possible that the movement of the
Zwaagdijk sheep or goat from one region to another before ending in West Frisia is a
representation of the frequent trade of sheep or goats in exchange systems. However,
we cannot disregard the other possibility, that the sheep or goat was moved only once,
during the mineralisation of the M3.
The exchange of cattle may then have occurred in the context of more socially significant occasions, such as marriage. If this were the case, we might expect
the non-local cattle to show evidence of more mobility than the sheep or goats as the
bridewealth system entails an infinite circulation of cattle between owners (see section
5.3). However, to show up in the multi-elemental strontium isotope analysis, the cow
or bull would need to have been circulated within the first two years of its life. This
seems less likely in a bridewealth system. That the cattle were only moved once in their
early years therefore does not dismiss the possibility that they were bridewealth. It
could also indicate a gift exchange whereby the gifts, the cattle, were considered ‘permanent’ and therefore could not be endlessly transferred.
The exchanges may also have had a ritual nature, as is suggested by Viner et
al. (2010) for the cattle at Durrington Walls. Cattle and, to a lesser extent, sheep or
goats were used regularly in ritual practices in the Bronze Age. Towers et al. (2010,
514) argued that the Early Bronze Age British cattle were not long-distance funerary
gifts because they were brought to the area at a young age. If we apply this argument
to our results, it would suggest that the West Frisian non-local animals may have been
| 63
long-distance funerary gifts. None of the three animals were young when they were
brought to West Frisia. Indeed, the ritual context of the non-local Enkhuizen-Kadijken cow or bull suggests that its ‘foreignness’ may have been ritually significant. One
element speaks against the theory that the cattle were purposely brought to West Frisia as ritual gifts. Both cattle achieved an old age, suggesting that they were used for
breeding, traction, manure production, or a combination of all, before possibly being
ritually sacrificed. The first intent of the exchange may therefore not have been ritual.
However, the foreignness of the animal may have been important when its life was
ultimately ended in a ritual practice.
6.6 Conclusion
The presence of non-local cattle and sheep or goat in West Frisia can be interpreted
in many ways and numerous uncertainties remain. However, based on the currently
available data, a number of conclusions can be drawn. The movement of these animals most likely occurred in the context of gift exchange. Both cattle and sheep or
goats were involved in these transactions, spanning both the Middle and Late Bronze
Age. The three animals probably came from the eastern provinces and were all at
least young adults before they were brought to West Frisia. Lastly, the import of foreign animals was a regional phenomenon and it is conceivable than the analysis of
more animals from West Frisian sites would lead to the discovery of more non-local
animals. New strontium isotope analyses on more animals and at other sites in West
Frisia could provide more information. Additionally, the combination of these analyses with other isotope studies, such as oxygen and sulphur, could provide more clues
into the animals’ origins. In the future, more information will become available about
the non-local West Frisian animals. Currently, a project is underway to carry out DNA
analyses on the two non-local cattle to deduce whether they were cows or bulls. The
gender of these animals will be able to tell us more about the nature of cattle exchange
in the Bronze Age.
64 |
Chapter 7 | Discussion - Changing perceptions and
diverging perspectives
‘If humanists are to be believed, the Earth...had no value until humans came onto the
scene. Value is only a shadow cast by humans desiring or choosing. Only persons have
any kind of intrinsic worth.’ (Gray 2002, 58).
7.1 The role of cattle in Bronze Age society
In chapter 1, I termed the three sub-topics discussed in this thesis ‘lines of evidence’
because they can provide evidence for whether cattle were socially significant in the
Bronze Age and what then this significance was. The three lines of evidence provide
strong indications that cattle were socially significant. Economically, the importance of
cattle in the Bronze Age has long since been demonstrated through the archaeological
record. The results from this thesis show that the ritual and domestic importance was
equally great in this period. Cattle were used in all aspects of ritual practices, from
funerary to settlement rites. Moreover, their remains dominate over other species in
these rites in a manner mirroring the settlement record. It is therefore safe to say that
cattle played an important role in the ideology of Bronze Age communities. It is highly
likely that they were equally important in the societal sphere. The strontium isotope
study of West Frisian herd animals demonstrates that there was movement of cattle
in Bronze Age Netherlands. Although we cannot extrapolate these results to the entire
research area, the other studies on cattle movement in the Late Neolithic and Bronze
Age suggest that it was a widespread phenomenon in later prehistory. The results
from chapter 5 indicate that the movement of cattle cannot be seen in purely practical
terms. It is more plausible that it was part of a network of forging and maintaining
social relationships and bonds, including marriage. The movement of sheep or goats
demonstrates the role of these animals in the network too; they were possibly used in
different societal transactions than cattle.
There is thus evidence for the use of cattle in the ritual sphere and indications
that they played a role in the societal sphere. I use the term societal sphere here to denote actions relating to society (gift exchange, marriage, alliances, etc) rather than the
term social sphere so as not to confuse with the definition of social significance given
in chapter 1. The threefold role of cattle (economic, ritual, societal) is not a Bronze
Age novelty. The Neolithic already provides us with evidence for a cattle socio-ideology that appears to follow in development after the Secondary Products Revolution
and the establishment of cattle as the main resource in all aspects of domestic life. The
Bronze Age cattle socio-ideology is a continuation of this, expressed in different and
new ways. One of these is the manifestation of the human-cattle relationship in, at
least in certain communities, the byre house. This new type of house does not appear
to be the result of this relationship, but rather the result of a development in house,
household, and architecture in the Middle Bronze Age. This development heralded the
conception of household as an entity, a concept that included both people and animals. In the Bronze Age, the primary members sharing space in the house would have
been humans and cattle. Yet, the architecture of the byre house suggests that these
two species were not considered as one; of the same kin, but not the same kind. This
| 65
delicate relationship can be witnessed in many societies where cattle play an important
role. In the East African societies, the cattle in the byre symbolically represent women
that have left the household, but they are not stalled in the homestead. A man gives
cattle as bridewealth because they alone can make up for the loss of a female member
of the household, but a man will not marry his cattle. Buffalo occupy a similar position in the northwestern Thai villages. They alone have the same spiritual essence as
humans and are stalled under the humans’ sleeping quarters. Yet, the Thai people do
not afford them exactly the same status as humans. In societies where cattle (or buffalo) play an important role in the economic, ritual, and societal sphere, these animals
occupy a position on the boundary between human and animal. The evidence suggests
that cattle occupied such a liminal position in Bronze Age society.
7.2 Liminality
In chapter 1, I posed three sub-questions about the social significance of cattle in the
Bronze Age:
Did cattle have a position in human society and interact with humans?
Did cattle have a cooperative and interdependent relationship with humans?
Did cattle have a rank or status in society?
The use of cattle for traction, manure, dairy, meat, and hides meant that people interacted with them intensively on a daily basis. If the cattle were stalled in the house, this
interaction would have been even more intensive, with people coming into contact
with them every time they entered their house. Moreover, as any animal, cattle require
a large amount of care. The use of cattle in ritual practices entailed a different type of
interaction, loaded with other notions and beliefs. This would again have been different from the way people interacted with the animals in the societal sphere of exchange.
These various aspects of the interaction between humans and cattle influenced the
position of cattle in Bronze Age society, which was, as argued above, a liminal one. The
importance of cattle in the domestic, ritual, and societal spheres meant that cattle were
necessary elements in all aspects of human life. Humans were dependent on cattle
as much as cattle were dependent on humans. The relationship between humans and
cattle was therefore a cooperative rather than exploitive one.
The third question I posed to understand the social significance of cattle in
the Bronze Age is arguably the most difficult, the most abstract. However, to a large
extent, the preceding chapters have already answered it. Rank and status of human
members of society is usually interpreted from graves and it is the ritual record that
can also tell us the most about the rank and status of cattle in society. This is because
ritual is for a great part a reflection of daily life. We have seen that in Bronze Age society, there is a metaphorical link between subject and object. This was also present in
the ritual sphere, demonstrated by examples of people and objects being treated the
same way in the mortuary context. I argue that this holds true for when cattle are the
‘object ’as well. The cattle rib in a burial mound and human remains in ring ditches in
the Netherlands exemplify this. Furthermore, the ethnographic and archaeological record illustrates that in pastoralist and mixed farming societies, the animals used in ritual
practices are usually those with which people identify the most; they are considered the
most appropriate. This indicates that the large-scale use of cattle in ritual practices was
66 |
due, at least for a large part, to the close identification of humans with cattle. Furthermore, it reflects the interrelatedness and possibly interchangeability between humans
and cattle. The use of cattle in gift exchanges, including marriage transactions, would
also reflect this notion of interrelatedness and there is a lot of circumstantial evidence
that indicates that they were. The rank and status of cattle thus appears to have been
based on people’s perception of them as closely related to themselves. As such, cattle
occupied a liminal position in Bronze Age society.
7.3 Understanding the Bronze Age perception of cattle
Reviewing the answers to the three sub-questions, it is apparent that cattle did have a
social significance in Bronze Age society. This begs the question, what was this significance? Where did it stem from, what lay at the heart of it? To understand this, we need
to return to the concept of perception. I argue that there are two different perceptions
of cattle in the Bronze Age from which their social significance can be understood.
Underlying these two views are opposing theoretical perspectives on value. Both have
been discussed to an extent in the preceding chapters and I will review them again
here:
1. Cattle are valuable due to their economic importance. Therefore, they represent
wealth and prestige, making them ideal for use in ritual practices and gift exchange.
2. Cattle are valuable due to their emotional importance. Peoples’ identification
and interrelationship with them makes them appropriate for ritual practices and
gift exchange.
In the first view, the social significance of cattle is derived from their being a means
to acquire, maintain, alter, exchange, use, and lose wealth and prestige. Underlying this
perception of cattle is the theoretical perspective of instrumental, or extrinsic, value.
From the instrumental value perspective, cattle are valuable as a means to an end.
They have no value in themselves, but have value for the sake of something else, for
example what they can be used to acquire, alter, etc. It is an attractive perspective from
which to understand the significance of cattle in the Bronze Age because it can explain
past actions. Why were cattle used in ritual practices? Because they were economically
valuable and therefore convey wealth and prestige to both the supernatural entities and
earthly community. Why did they convey wealth and prestige? Because they were economically valuable. Why were they economically valuable? Because they were the most
important element of the subsistence economy as sources of primary and secondary
products. The same chain of questions and answers can be made for other aspects of
cattle use, such as gift exchange. For this reason, it is an attractive option. Furthermore,
it fits well into the theories of competitive individualism and the dominance of power
and prestige in Bronze Age society.
In the second view, the social significance of cattle is derived from their emotional value to people. Underlying this perception of cattle is the theoretical perspective of intrinsic value. From the intrinsic value perspective, cattle are valuable in themselves. Their value is not derivative from something else and cannot be traced back
to something else. Instead, cattle are valuable for their own sake, in their own right.
The reasoning for this perspective follows a different track. Why were cattle used in
| 67
ritual practices? Because people identified with them and experienced an interrelatedness with them. Why did people do so? Because cattle were emotionally valuable and
important to them. Why were they emotionally valuable and important? Because they
were. This is to some extent the same series of questions and answers that would follow if one asked a dog lover why his or her dog is important. The intrinsic viewpoint is
more abstract and therefore more complicated as an explanation. However, it fits well
into theories on commensurability, dividuality, and personhood in Bronze Age society.
Interestingly, the same opposed views are present in anthropological research on cattle-based societies. Like in archaeological research, the underlying theoretical perspectives are not outspoken, but present nonetheless. In his study of the Southern Bantu
groups, Kuper (1982, 167) argues that cattle are used as bridewealth, and thus become
ideologically important, because of their value as a production resource. Russell (2012)
has a similar view on the value of animals, based on ethnographic accounts and used
to understand the archaeological record. According to Russell (2012, 317), it is not the
intrinsic value of livestock that leads them to be used as bridewealth, but their use as
bridewealth that gives them their value. Their use as bridewealth often occurs in societies where they function as wealth (Russell 2012, 311). She applies this perspective to
the Sub-Saharan people of Africa, stating that they behaved in a way that European
colonial settlers found irrational, among others emotionally bonding with their cattle.
‘One of the major contributions of anthropology has been to explain how this behaviour is in fact completely rational given the valorisation of cattle in these societies’
(Russell 2012, 301). This argument bears many similarities to those made about the
deposition of metalwork in the Bronze Age (see section 4.7 – Valorisation versus
identification).
On the opposite end of the scale is the study by Lincoln (1981) on cattle-based
societies in Africa and Bronze Age Iran. He argues that for the Nilotic people of East
Africa, emotional affection for cattle does not lie in their economic value; it is the
other way around (Lincoln 1981, 16). ‘Underlying this economic and social value of
cattle is the tremendous sentimental attachment of the Nilotic peoples to their herds.
Cattle are constant companions from birth onward, and as such they are much beloved.’ (Lincoln 1981, 15). In his study, Lincoln also outlines the elements of raiding
and warriorhood and desires for power and prestige in these societies. These aspects
of cattle ownership are present in society according to him, but underlying the cattle’s
importance is ultimately their emotional value. Herskovits’ (1926) perspective is difficult to grasp. He mentions both the intense affection of the East African societies
for their cattle and the cattle’s importance as wealth. According to Kuper (1982, 167),
Herskovits’ view of the bridewealth system sees it as a reflection of the ritual value of
cattle rather than a direct equivalent of the value of a wife’s services. In Kuper’s (1982,
167) this is an idealist explanation. However, this statement probably says more about
Kuper’s stance than Herskovits’.
7.4 Understanding our modern, western perception of cattle
The above-outlined viewpoints demonstrate that the intrinsic versus instrumental opposition is clearly present in anthropological and archaeological research, albeit subliminal. Both viewpoints are highly subjective to the bias of the scholar. This can
68 |
never be removed entirely, but we can often further our understanding of the past by
revealing the influences on our perception. In the modern, western world, our current
interaction with animals influences our perception greatly, but this is in a large part the
result of a long process of thought development in western culture.
The way we think today about humans, other animals, and nature can be traced
back to, on the one hand, Judaeo-Christian religion and on the other, Greek philosophy. In animistic, pre-Christian worldviews, nature was perceived as sacred and full of
personal beings (Corbey 2005, 22). Non-modern, pre-state foraging and tribal societies
still have a more egalitarian conception of animals than western people. As in Europe
before the spread of Christianity, these peoples have reciprocal relationships with the
spirits and ancestors of the forests and landscapes (Corbey 2005, 31). Judaeo-Christian
religion removed this subjectivity through the belief that humans are the only beings
created in the image of God. Therefore, humans reign over the rest of nature and can
put animals to their use (Corbey 2005, 21). Greek philosophy is the other main source
of the conviction that humans are unique, and soon merged with Judaeo-Christian
views in medieval Europe (Corbey 2005, 21). According medieval scholars, all living
beings have souls, but only humans have rational souls, which makes them essentially
different from other animals (Corbey 2005, 21). Furthermore, they believed in the
concept of scala naturae or ladder of nature, on top of which stood humankind. This
persisted in post-medieval Europe and lasted well into the nineteenth and to some
extent even the twentieth century (Corbey 2005, 22).
The subsequent development of rationalism by, among others, Descartes and
Kant in the 17th and 18th centuries reinforced the divide between humans and other
animals. In Cartesian thought, reason separates humans from animals (Corbey 2005).
Descartes’ cogito ergo sum drew the line between those beings that can think and
those that cannot think. This philosophy had consequences for the actions and perceptions of Cartesian science. For example, Cartesian scientists nailed animals to vivisection boards and cut them open without anaesthesia because they did not believe
that animals could think or feel (Rowlands 2002, 3). Most people today accept that animals can feel pain, but the underlying principles of Cartesian philosophy and rational
thinking are still present in current thinking. Modern Cartesian philosophy continues
to express the human-animal divide (Corbey 2005, 22).
In the Victorian era, people’s beliefs about humans, nature, and animals were
greatly disturbed by the announcement of the theory of evolution. However, the divide between them remained ever present, only with another coating. Human beings
may have descended from apes, but western civilisation had since made the long, heroic ascent to civilization and rationality (Corbey 2005, 23). This conviction reinforced
the believed differences between humans and animals as well as between ‘civilisation’
in the West and ‘primitive’ societies elsewhere. During this period, there was also the
general opinion in Europe that animals represented the undesirable side of human
nature as did peasants, non-westerners, etc.; people therefore constantly set themselves apart from animals (Corbey 2005, 23-4). The Victorian ideas continued to have
their influence in science and among the public well into the early twentieth century.
Archaeology was no exception from this. However, the consequences of this racial
thinking for ethnic groups was recognised deeply post-World War II. In the 1950s,
| 69
human rights and anti-racial laws became important, stressing that there was only one
human race, descended from a common ancestor. However, uniting humankind was
made possible by the exclusion of non-human species (Corbey 2005, 172). ‘Humans
were not to be treated like beasts. The racist, Eurocentric double standards for races –
one for whites, another for non-whites – was torn down with the help of a persisting
specieist, Homo-centric standard for all other species as the foundation of society’s
moral order.’ (Corbey 2005, 172). Now uniformity instead of uniqueness was the mark
of humankind, but it equally provided the moral conditions for the domination over
other animals.
Today we tend to look back on our forebears and relish in how far we have
come in knowledge and beliefs. The Age of Enlightenment, development of evolutionary theory, and improvement of moral philosophy makes us privileged in knowledge
that medieval scholars could not have dreamed of. However, ultimately, most people
in the modern western world hold the same belief as Greek philosophers and early
Christians that we, human beings, are unique in this world and stand above nature and
its constituents. In this we have developed little in the last 1500 plus years. Interestingly,
current scientific research is continuously breaking down the human-animal divide on
a genetic level, each new research showing how similar we are in essence. Yet, the close
scientific correlation between humans and animals does not translate to a close moral
correlation in most people’s opinions. This is as apparent in many academic fields as
it is in the public opinion. In both, the belief in humanism prevails. Conceived already
in the early nineteenth century, humanism has formed the base of twentieth thinking
and modern humanism is prevalent in scientific and public thought (Gray 2002). It is
‘a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centred on human interests or values; especially : a
philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual’s dignity and
worth and capacity for self-realization through reason’ (Merriam-Webster 2014). It is
put forward as a way of life that promotes compassion towards others, equality, and
science and reason rather than religion as the basis for understanding the world (cf.
the British Humanist Association 2014, the American Humanist Association 2014).
However, when we review humanism from the standpoint of the human-animal relationship, it is apparent that it holds the importance of human dignity and worth at
the expense of the importance of the rest of nature (Gray 2002). A similar vein of
thought persists in postmodernism. According to postmodernists, nature does not
exist outside of our beliefs about it, therefore ‘effectively claiming that nothing exists
unless it appears in human consciousness’ (Gray 2002, 54-5). Gray (2002, 55) argues
that in this viewpoint that humans decide what is real and what is not, postmodernism
is not new, but simply ‘the latest fad in anthropocentrism’.
It is a bleak view and most humanists and postmodernists would probably not
agree that their philosophies are advocating this type of human-animal relationship.
However, by championing human rights, dignity, and uniformity, other species are
forgotten. The inclusion of some always comes at the expense of the exclusion of
others. In this case, it is animals that are excluded from the rights and dignity that are
afforded to humans. The belief that humans have more value and rights than animals
is prevalent in modern, western society and consequently, animals are exploited to
the extreme (Rowlands 2002). The latter is rationalised and accepted because of the
70 |
underlying belief that animals have only instrumental value. Mice are valuable because
they can be used to test new heart medicine, cattle are good because they provide tasty
steak, etc. I state that this is the prevalent, not comprehensive view, because it is clear
that not all people in the western world believe this, just as there are also many in the
non-western world who do. For example, many farmers hold their animals in high esteem. Pets also form an exception to this and in general, it may be more accurate to say
that livestock are considered to have only an instrumental value. To some extent, there
is also a growing awareness of the way that we treat animals and ethical problems with
it. In moral philosophy, the intrinsic value of animals and the environment is increasingly being debated and advocated (cf. Baird Collicot 1999; Heeger and Brom 2001;
McGinn 1992). However, the underlying idea that humans are the only species to have
intrinsic value remains the dominant social belief today.
7.5 Instrumental versus intrinsic
It is apparent that today cattle have a vastly different position in society than they had
in the Bronze Age. However, was the Bronze Age perception of cattle also different?
Above I discussed two perspectives from which we can understand the people’s perception of cattle in the Bronze Age, the status of cattle in society, and ultimately, their
social significance. I argue that in the Bronze Age, cattle were valuable ultimately due
to their emotional rather than economic importance, that their worth was intrinsic
rather than instrumental. This argument is based on four components.
Firstly, our modern, western perception of animals, especially livestock, is
clearly one of instrumental rather than intrinsic value. This is founded upon centuries
of scholarly and public development of thought that humans are a unique species that
stand above the rest of nature. This leads to an exploitive relationship between humans
and animals. As a result, some academics assume that in the prehistoric human-animal
relationship, animals were also perceived as commodities rather than individuals. For
example, Ingold (2002) has argued that the domestication of animals saw a change
in the human-animal relationship from one of trust to one of domination. However,
section 7.4 makes apparent that the real change in this relationship came about with
the influences of Greek philosophy, Christianity, and especially, the merger of the two
in medieval Europe. Countless studies have shown us that in pre-Christian societies,
just like in present-day pre-state and tribal societies, people have a vastly different
attitude to animals and nature. Domestication did change the human-animal relationship, but to one of reciprocal dependency. Humans and other animals became part of
each other’s lives such that animals are domesticated by humans, but humans are also
domesticated by animals (Armstrong-Oma 2013, 164). Furthermore, in hunter-gatherer societies, people depended on animals, but animals did not depend on people. In
pastoralist and agricultural societies, animals become dependent on humans and vice
versa. This reciprocal dependency creates a mutual bond between the species, whereby
animals become individualised beings to humans. It is highly likely that such a bond
existed between humans and cattle in the Bronze Age, considering the intense working
relationship that would have existed between them and the multitude of roles that
cattle played in society. Interpreting the importance of cattle as instrumental, significant because of their symbolism of wealth and prestige, is an imposition of modern,
| 71
western perceptions.
Secondly, studies on other aspects of Bronze Age society, such as metalwork
deposition, exchange of objects, and mortuary contexts, demonstrate that there were
many blurred lines between subjects and objects. Both people and things occupied
liminal positions in society and there was a great deal of interrelatedness between
them. Why should we suppose that this was any different for animals? I would argue
that it was not and, if anything, cattle as living beings were more likely to tread the
boundary between subject and object. They occupied a liminal position in society and
people identified with them, which made them ideal for use in ritual practices and gift
exchange. Seeing cattle as significant because of their representation of wealth and
prestige infers a human-animal relationship of owner and commodity. This implies a
divide between subject and object that rarely seems to have been present in Bronze
Age society and certainly was not present between humans and cattle.
Thirdly, the instrumental value perspective rests on the premise of the competitive individualism theory. Cattle were sources of wealth and prestige; therefore,
individuals competed with one another to gain more cattle through exchange, herd
management, marriage alliances, and raiding. Those individuals who gained more
wealth and prestige through acquiring more cattle (but also more metal, better alliances, etc.), gained more power and status. As argued above, this perspective denies an
intrinsic value of cattle. However, the intrinsic value perspective does not deny that
the acquisition of wealth and prestige through cattle was an element of Bronze Age
cattle ownership. The ultimate source of cattle’s significance may have been their intrinsic worth, but that does not mean that cattle did not symbolise wealth and prestige
and were not used to gain power and status. Instead, it implies that these were not
the underlying reasons behind their use in the ritual and societal spheres. They were
merely elements of the multi-facetted use of cattle in the Bronze Age. This dynamic
is observable in the cattle-based societies of East Africa. Here cattle are considered a
measure of wealth and prestige and all men desire to have more cattle, which is why
raiding is common (Herskovits 1926; Lincoln 1981). However, the underlying value
of the cattle does not lie in their representation of wealth and value, but in their emotional value (Lincoln 1981). The intrinsic value theory thus does not deny theories of
prestige, raiding, warriorhood, etc. attached to the use of cattle in the Bronze Age.
The anthropological research on cattle-based societies is the final factor to
consider. In the various studies on them, the people’s emotional attachment to their
cattle is evident. Herskovits (1926) and Lincoln (1981) describe it many times, for
many different East African groups. Kuper (1982) does not mention this factor. However, it is important to note that his is a structuralist study, as claimed so by himself
(Kuper 1982) and so it seeks to uncover the hidden rules governing the actions of
people. Emotional value and intrinsic worth would therefore not be considered in this
structuralist study. Russell (2012) argues that economic value is the reason for the use
of animals as wealth and bridewealth in prehistory. However, this is contradictory to
her viewpoint in her chapter on ritual where Russell argues that emotional attachment
and identification with the animal is a more important factor than economic value (cf.
Russell 2012, 52-143). In fact, numerous examples can be found throughout Russell’s
(2012) book of the emotional importance of livestock in many societies. They all point
72 |
to the same conclusion, that people perceive livestock as individualised beings, which
they form sentimental attachments to and identify themselves with. This appears to
be linked to domestication as these bonds generally form with domesticated animals.
The Koyukon of Alaska are an interesting example of this. Domestic animals were introduced to this hunter-gatherer society and were raised successfully by them (Russell
2012, 310). However, families found it difficult to kill and eat animals they had become
so intimate with. ‘Beautifully expressing domestication as a process of bringing animals into the household, the Koyukon said that it would be like eating their children;
they preferred the anonymity of the hunt...domestic farm animals uncomfortably blur
the boundary between pets and prey.’ (Russell 2012, 310).
Additionally, aside from the special case of pets, emotional attachments usually
occur with livestock that play a substantial role in the subsistence economy of that society. This is exemplified by cattle in East Africa, buffalo in Thailand, and pigs in East
Asia (Russell 2012). Ethnographic accounts thus demonstrate that there is a close link
between an animal’s importance in the domestic, ritual, and societal spheres, and that
this can often be traced back to a perceived intrinsic value. It is not possible to extrapolate these results directly to Bronze Age society. However, the ethnographic record
serves to show that there are certain elements in the human-animal relationship that
are cross-cultural in pre-Christian and non-Christian societies. Furthermore, the many
similarities between the East African societies and Bronze Age society indicate that
they are valid examples to use to understand the Bronze Age perception of cattle. If
we assume that the social significance of cattle was derived from merely an economic
importance, then this says more about our modern, western perception of animals
than about that of the Bronze Age people.
7.6 Concluding remarks: the social significance of cattle in the Bronze
Age
The results of this thesis indicate that the importance of cattle in the Bronze Age was
three-fold: economic, ritual, and most likely societal. In all three spheres, they played
valuable roles that they alone could fulfil. Economically, cattle were important as sources of meat, manure, traction, and hides. The zooarchaeological record for West Frisia
and Denmark demonstrate that traction and manure were more vital resources than
meat. It may even have been taboo to kill cattle for consumption when not sanctioned
for ritual purposes. The archaeological record cannot prove this; however, it is clear
that cattle were used extensively in ritual practices. Their remains are dominant in the
ritual record, suggesting that cattle were used more than other domestic animals, and
that they were used in numerous kinds of rites. Additionally, there is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that cattle played a role in the Bronze Age gift exchange
system. The strontium isotope study of West Frisian herd animals illustrates that there
was movement of both cattle and sheep or goats to this region in the Middle and Late
Bronze Age. Both animals might have been used in gift exchanges, possibly in different
types of social transactions. The zooarchaeological record of cattle remains suggests
that cattle may have functioned as bridewealth.
This three-fold importance of cattle was probably to a great extent already
shaped in the Neolithic, as illustrated by the many continuities between this period and
| 73
the Bronze Age in the use of cattle. It appears that a cattle ideology developed in northwestern, central, and southeastern Europe following the introduction of the Secondary Products
Revolution. Cattle may already have had great social significance in this period. However, the
contextual information on society focussed in this thesis on the Bronze Age rather than the
Neolithic so I cannot ascertain this. What is clear based on the findings of this thesis, is that
in the Bronze Age, the cattle ideology formed part of a larger social significance of cattle in
continental northwestern Europe.
So what was the social significance of cattle in the Bronze Age? Above, I argued that
the Bronze Age perception of cattle was one of intrinsic value. Examining the role of cattle
from this perspective instead of from our modern, western perspective of instrumental value,
we can grasp why cattle played this role. By understanding this, we can understand the social
significance of cattle. In the Bronze Age, cattle had intrinsic worth. People formed emotional
attachments to them, individualised them, and identified with them. Therefore, cattle occupied
a liminal position in society, treading the human-animal boundary. In many areas, the byre
house is an expression of this. This position meant that cattle were the appropriate, the ideologically and socially sanctioned, animals to use in exchanges such as that of prestige items and
marriage partners. Similarly, they were the appropriate animals to use in ritual practices such as
exchanges with the supernatural. Using cattle in these social and ritual transactions reinforced
their liminal position in society, thereby continuously maintaining cattle’s social significance.
It is highly likely that this ‘cattle cycle’ was imbued with mythological and cosmological ideas.
However, daily life shapes religion and it is here that we should seek the beginning of cattle’s
intrinsic value. From the Neolithic on, cattle played an increasingly important role in the subsistence economy and because of this, people developed an increasingly intensive working
relationship with cattle that was emotionally valuable and co-dependent. This is not to say that
the intrinsic value of cattle is derived from their economic importance, intrinsic value is not
derivative. Instead, this reciprocal dependency on one another set the conditions for the formation of an intrinsically valuable human-cattle relationship. Through the use of cattle in the
different spheres of society, their value was continuously reinforced. Their social significance
thus lay in a complex cycle of, on the one hand, people’s subconscious perception of cattle’s
value, and on the other, people’s conscious use of cattle in Bronze Age society.
74 |
Abstract
In Bronze Age northwestern Europe, cattle play an important role in the subsistence economy,
being used for traction, manure production, hides, meat, and dairy. However, there are indications that they also play a socio-ideological role in the cosmology of Bronze Age communities.
This thesis investigates this issue, posing the question: What was the social significance of
cattle in the Bronze Age? To answer this question, this thesis examines three lines of evidence
suggesting a socio-ideological role for cattle. Firstly, the appearance of longhouses with stable
sections, the so-called Wohnstallhäuser. Secondly, the occurrence of cattle remains in possible
ritual contexts. Thirdly, the hypothesis that cattle were moved around and exchanged in the
Bronze Age. The context for this study is Bronze Age continental northwestern Europe and
the case study is West Frisia, the Netherlands
The analysis of the Wohnstallhäuser reveals that their appearance cannot be seen as
proof for the social significance of cattle. Instead, their appearance signals a new development
in architecture and concept of the household. However, they do reflect that the changing attitude towards household encompassed animals as well as humans. This indicates that animals
were perceived as individual members of the household, possibly even as kin. Considering the
dominance of cattle in the settlements, it is likely that mostly cattle undertook this role in the
household. The ritual contexts of cattle remains demonstrate that predominantly cattle were
used in ritual practices in the Bronze Age and that they were used in various kinds of rites. The
evidence indicates that cattle were used in this manner because they had emotional value and
people identified with them, and therefore they were the appropriate animals to use.
To test the hypothesis of movement and exchange, a strontium isotope analysis was
carried out on cattle and sheep or goats from West Frisia. it revealed two non-local cattle and
one non-local sheep or goat from three different West Frisian sites. This indicates that there
was movement of both herd animals in the Bronze Age. The evidence indicates that this was
not the result of transhumance, raiding, or trading for fresh input in the herd bloodlines. Instead, it is most likely that the animals were moved as part of gift exchange networks, possibly
ritual in nature. The cattle were possibly exchanged on more socially meaningful occasions,
such as marriages. If cattle were used in gift exchanges, this was because of the close interrelatedness between humans and cattle in the Bronze Age. Cattle were perceived as an extension
of the self and thus only they had the symbolical value for certain gift exchanges.
The three lines of evidence indicate that cattle had a social significance in the Bronze
Age. To understand what this was, it is important to understand the Bronze Age perception
of cattle. This can be understood in one of two ways: cattle had instrumental value or cattle
had intrinsic value. A study of the development of attitudes towards animals in the western
world reveals that the instrumental value perspective is an imposition of our modern, western
perception of animals. Contextual information on Bronze Age society and ethnographic examples support the intrinsic value perspective as the only valid theoretical perspective. Viewing
the role of cattle from this perception reveals what their social significance was. The intensive
use of cattle in everyday life created a human-cattle relationship of reciprocal dependency.
This set the conditions for the formation of a mutual, emotional bond between people and
cattle, one of intrinsic value. Because of this, cattle occupied a liminal position in society.
Therefore, they were the appropriate animal to use in the ritual and societal spheres. By doing
so, their liminal position was continuously reinforced. The social significance of cattle is thus
multi-facetted, originating in and reinforced by people’s subconscious perception of them and
conscious use of them in Bronze Age society.
| 75
Bibliography
American Humanist Association, 2014. http://americanhumanist.org/, accessed on the 13th
of June 2014.
van Amerongen, Y., in prep. Subsistence economy in coastal wetlands (PhD thesis Leiden University).
Andersen, N.H., 2010. Causewayed enclosures and megalithic monuments as media for shaping Neolithic identities. In: M. Furholt, F. Lüth, J. Müller and C. Scarre (eds), Megaliths and
identities (Papers delivered at the third European Megalithic Studies Group Meeting 13th - 15th of
May 2010 at Kiel University, Germany). JunsteinSite online Journal of Neolithic Archaeology,
1-16.
Armstrong-Oma, K., 2013. Human-Animal Meeting Points: Use of Space in the Household
Arena in Past Societies. Society & Animals 21, 162-77.
Arnoldussen, S., 2007. Living Landscape: Bronze Age settlement sites in the Dutch river area (c. 2000800 BC). Leiden: Sidestone Press.
Arnoldussen, S. and H. Fokkens, 2008. Bronze Age settlements in the Low Countries: an
overview. In: S. Arnoldussen and H Fokkens (eds), Bronze Age settlements in the Low Countries. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 17-40.
Arnoldussen, S. and D. Fontijn, 2006. Towards Familiar Landscapes? On the Nature and
Origin of Middle Bronze Age Landscapes in the Netherlands. Proceedings of the Prehistoric
Society 72, 289-317.
Baird Callicott, J., 1999. Beyond the Land Ethic: More Essays in Environmental Philosophy. New
York: SUNY Press.
Bakker, J.A., 1959. Opgravingen te Hoogkarspel I. Het onderzoek van tumulus I en naaste
omgeving. West Friese Oudheden II, 159-81.
Bakker, J.A., 2010. Megalithic research in the Netherlands, 1547-1911: from ‘Giant’s Beds’ to ‘Pillars of
Hercules’ to accurate investigations. Leiden: Sidestone Press.
Bakker, J.A. and R.W. Brandt, 1966. Opgravingen te Hoogkarspel III. Grafheuvels en een
terp uit de Late Bronstijd ten ZW van het Medemblikker Tolhuis (voorlopige mededeling). West Frieslands Oud en Nieuw 1966, 176-224.
Balasse, M., S.H. Ambrose, A.B. Smith and T.D. Price, 2002. The seasonal mobility model for
prehistoric herders in the south-western cape of South Africa assessed by isotopic analysis of sheep tooth enamel. Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 917-32.
Balter, M., 2008. Early Stonehenge pilgrims came from afar, with cattle in tow. Science 320,
1704-5.
Barker, G., 1999. Cattle-keeping in ancient Europe: to live together or apart? In: C. Fabech
and J. Ringtved (eds), Settlement and Landscape: proceedings of a conference in Århus, Denmark,
May 4-7 1998. Højbjerg: Jutland Archaeological Society, 273-80.
Bazelmans, J., 1999. By weapons made worthy: lords, retainers and their relationship in Beowulf. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press (= Amsterdam Archaeological Studies 5).
Bech, J. and A.H. Olsen, 2013. Early Bronze Age houses from Thy, Northwest Denmark.
Studien zur nordeuropäischen Bronzezeit 1, 9–32.
Bentley, R.A., 2006. Strontium Isotopes from the Earth to the Archaeological Skeleton: A
Review. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 13, 135-87.
Bentley, R.A. and C. Knipper, 2005. Transhumance at the early Neolithic settlement at Vaihingen (Germany). Antiquity 79 (306), http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/bentley306/.
British Humanist Association, 2014. https://humanism.org.uk/, accessed on the 13th of June
2014.
Broderick, L.G., 2012. Ritualisation (or the four fully articulated ungulates of the apocalypse.
In: A. Pluskowski (ed), The ritual killing and Burial of Animals: European perspectives. Oxford:
Oxbow Books, 22-32.
Brown, W.A.B., P.V. Christofferson, P.V. Massler and M.B. Weiss, 1960. Postnatal tooth development in cattle. American Journal of Veterinary Research 21, 7-34.
Brück, J., 2006. Death, exchange and reproduction in the British Bronze Age. European Journal of Archaeology 9 (1), 73-101.
Corbey, R., 2005. The metaphysics of apes: negotiating the animal-human boundary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Den Store Danske 2014. http://www.denstoredanske.dk/Danmarks_Oldtid, last accessed on
the 16th of June 2014.
van Dijk, J., 2005. Botmateriaal. In: E. Lohof and J. Vaars (eds), Een nederzetting uit de
Bronstijd te Hoogwoud, gemeente Opmeer. ADC Archeoprojecten Rapport 401. ADC Archeoprojecten, Amersfoort, 36-43.
van Dijk. J. and M. Groot, 2013. The Late Iron Age-Roman transformation from subsistence
to surplus production in animal husbandry in the Central and Western parts of the Netherlands. In: M. Groot, D. Lentjes and J. Zeiler (eds), Barely surviving or more than enough? The
environmental archaeology of subsistence, specialisation and surplus food production. Leiden: Sidestone Press, 175-200.
Earle, T. and K. Kristiansen, 2010a. Introduction: theory and practice in the late prehistory
of Europe. In: T. Earle and K. Kristian (eds), Organizing Bronze Age Societies: The Mediterranean, Central Europe, and Scandanavia Compared. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1-33.
Earle, T. and K. Kristiansen, 2010b. Organising Bronze Age societies: concluding thoughts.
In: T. Earle and K. Kristian (eds), Organizing Bronze Age Societies: The Mediterranean, Central
Europe, and Scandanavia Compared. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 218-56.
Ethelberg, P., 2000. Bronzealderen. In: P. Ethelberg, E.Jørgensen, D. Meier and D. Robinson
(eds), Det Sønderjyske Landbrugs Historie: Sten- og Bronzealder. Haderslev: Haderslev Museum
(= Skrifter af Historisk Samfund for Sønderjylland 81), 135–280.
Feulner, F., L.M. Kootker, H. Hollund, G.R. Davies and O.E. Craig, 2012. Combined isotope
analysis indicate restricted mobility of cattle at the Neolithic causewayed enclosure of
Champ-Durand, Vendée (France). In: R. Joussaume (ed), l’Enciente néolithique de Champ-Durand à Nieul-sur-l´Autise (Vendée). Chauvigny: Association des Publications Chauvinoises,
549-61.
Fokkens, H., 1999. Cattle and martiality. Changing relations between man and landscape in
the Late Neolithic and the Bronze Age. In: C. Fabech and J. Ringtved (eds), Settlement and
Landscape: proceedings of a conference in Århus, Denmark, May 4-7 1998. Højbjerg: Jutland Archaeological Society, 31-38.
Fokkens, H., 2001. The periodisation of the Dutch Bronze Age: a critical review. In: W. H.
Metz, B. L. van Beek and H. Steegstra (eds), Patina. Essays presented to Jay Jordan Butler on the
occasion of his 80th birthday. Groningen: Metz, Van Beek and Steegstra, 241-62.
Fokkens, H., 2002. Vee en voorouders: centrale elementen uit het dagelijks leven in de Bronstijd. In: H. Fokkens and R. Jansen (eds), 2000 jaar bewoningsdynamiek. Brons- en ijzertijdbewoning in het Maas-Demer-Scheldegebied. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden, 125-48.
Fokkens, H., 2005. De positie van West-Friesland in de Nederlandse Bronstijd. In: M.H. van
den Dries and W.J.H. Willems (eds), Innovatie in de Nederlandse archeologie. Liber amicorum voor
Roel W. Brandt. Gouda: Stichting Infrastructuur Kwaliteitsborging Bodembeheer, 71-83.
Fokkens, H., 2009. Woon-stalhuizen op zwervende erven. Nederzettingen in bekertijd en
bronstijd. In: L.P. Louwe Kooijmans, P.W. van den Broeke, H. Fokkens and A. van Gijn
(eds), Nederland in de Prehistorie. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Bert Bakker, 407-28.
Fokkens, H. and S. Arnoldussen, 2008. Towards new models. In: S. Arnoldussen and H Fokkens (eds), Bronze Age settlements in the Low Countries. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1-16.
Fokkens, H., P. Valentijn and D. Fontijn, 2013. Archaeology from the Dutch Twilight Zone.
In: S. Bergerbrant and S. Sabatini (eds), Counterpoint: Essays in Archaeology and Heritage Studies in Honour of Professor Kristian Kristiansen. Oxford: Archaeopress (= BAR International
Series 2508), 531-40.
Fontijn, D.R., 2002. Sacrificial landscapes. Cultural biographies of persons, objects and ‘natural’ places
in the Bronze Age of the southern Netherlands, c. 2300-600 BC. Leiden: Leiden University (=
Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 33/34).
Fontijn, D.R., 2008. Everything in its Right Place? On Selective Deposition, Landscape and
the construction of Identity in Later Prehistory. In: A. Jones (ed), Prehistoric Europe: Theory
and Practice. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 86-106.
deFrance, S.D., 2009. Zooarchaeology in Complex Societies: Political Economy, Status, and
Ideology. Journal of Archaeological Research 17 (2), 105-68.
Frei, K.M., R. Frei, U. Mannering, M. Gleba, M.L. Nosch and H. Lyngstrøm, 2009. Provenance of ancient textiles – a pilot study evaluating the strontium isotope system in wool.
Archaeometry 51, 252-76.
van Giffen, A.E., 1944. Grafheuvels te Zwaagdijk, gem. Wervershoof (N.H.). Westfrieslands
Oud en Nieuw 17, 121-231.
Gray, J., 2002. Straw Dogs: thoughts on humans and other animals. London: Granta Books.
Groot, M., 2012. Dealing with deposits in the Dutch River Area: animals in settlement rituals
in the Roman period. In: A. Pluskowski (ed), The ritual killing and Burial of Animals: European perspectives. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 137-51.
Halılı, H., and H. Buitenhuis, 2003. Faunaresten. In: A. Ufkes and J.R. Veldhuis (eds), Nederzettingssporen uit de Bronstijd bij Zwaagdijk-Oost. Een definitief archeologisch onderzoek in het plangebied Zwaagdijk-Oost, gemeente Wervershoof (N.-H.). ARC-Publicaties
113. ARC, Groningen, 155-88.
Hansen, S., 2013. Innovative Metals: Copper, Gold and Silver in the Black Sea Region and
the Carpathian Basin During the 5th and 4th Millennium BC. In: S. Burmeister, S. Hansen, M. Kunst and N. Müller-Scheeßel (eds), Metal Matters.Innovative Technologies and Social
Change in Prehistory and Antiquity Rahden/Westf.: Verlag Marie Leidorf (Menschen - Kulturen – Traditionen: Studien aus den Forschungsclustern des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts 12), 137-67.
Heeger, R. and F.W.A. Brom, 2001. Intrinsic value and direct duties: from animal ethics towards environmental ethics? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14, 241-52.
Herskovits, M.J., 1926. The cattle complex in East Africa. American Anthropologist 28 (1-4),
230-664.
Holst, M.K. and M. Rasmussen, 2013. Herder communities: longhouses, cattle and landscape
organization in the Nordic Early and Middle Bronze Age. In: S. Bergerbrant and S. Sabatini (eds), Counterpoint: Essays in Archaeology and Heritage Studies in Honour of Professor Kristian
Kristiansen. Oxford: Archaeopress (= BAR International Series 2508), 99-110.
Hoppe, K.A., P.L. Koch and T.T. Furutani, 2003. Assessing the preservation of biogenic
strontium in fossil bones and tooth enamel. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 13 (1-2),
20-8.
Horváth, T., 2012. Animal deposits in the Late Copper Age Settlement of Balatonőszöd-Temetői dűlő, Hungary. In: A. Pluskowski (ed), The ritual killing and Burial of Animals: European perspectives. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 115-136.
Hvass, L., 2000. Egtvedpigen. Copenhagen: Sesam.
IJzereef, G.F., 1981. Bronze Age animal bones from Bovenkarspel: the excavation at Het Valkje.
Amersfoort: ROB (= Nederlandse Oudheden 10).
IJzereef, G.F. and J.F. van Regteren Altena, 1991. Nederzettingen uit de midden- en late bronstijd bij
Andijk and Bovenkarspel. Amersfoort: ROB (= Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 13).
Ingold, T., 2002. From trust to domination: an alternative history of human-animal relations.
In: A. Manning and J. Serpell (eds), Animals and human society: changing perspectives. Oxford:
London.
van der Jagt, I.M.M., 2014. Archeozoölogie. In: C.M. van der Linde and T. Hamburg (eds),
Bronstijdbewoning in Gommerwijk West – West. Archeologisch onderzoek in Enkhuizen-Haling 13.
Leiden: Archol, 55-64.
Jeppesen, J., 1992. Overraskelsernes høj. Skalk 6, 8-12.
Johannsen, N.N., 2006. Draught cattle and the South Scandinavian economies of the 4th
millennium BC. Environmental Archaeology 11 (1), 35-48.
Johannsen, N.N. and S. Laursen, 2010. Routes and Wheeled Transport in Late 4th–Early 3rd
Millennium Funerary Customs of the Jutland Peninsula: Regional Evidence and European Context. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 85 (1), 15-58.
Kootker, L.M., G.R. Davies and H. Kars, in prep. Isoscapes in The Netherlands. The use of
spatial patterns of isotopic variation as a proxy for palaeomobility.
Kristiansen, K., 1999. The Emergence of Warrior Aristocracies in later European Prehistory.
In: J. Carman and A. Harding (eds), Ancient Warfare. Archaeological perspectives. Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 175-89.
Kristiansen, K. and T. Larsson, 2005. The rise of Bronze Age society: travels, transmissions and transformations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kuper, A., 1982. Wives for cattle: bridewealth and marriage in Southern Africa. London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
Lincoln, B., 1981. Priests, warriors, and cattle: a study in the ecology of religions. Berkeley: University
of California Press (= Hermeneutics: Studies in the History of Religions 10).
Linde, C.M. and T. Hamburg, 2014. Bronstijdbewoning in Gommerwijk West – West. Archeologisch
onderzoek in Enkhuizen-Haling 13. Leiden: Archol.
Ling, J., 2008. Elevated rock art: towards a maritime understanding of Bronze Age rock art in northern
Bohuslän, Sweden. Gothenburg: Gothenburg University (= Gothenburg Archaeological
Theses 49).
Ling, J., E. Hjärthner-Holdar, L. Grandin, K. Billström and P. Persson, 2013. Moving metals
or indigenous mining? Provenancing Scandinavian Bronze Ageartefacts by lead isotopes
and trace elements. Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (1), 291-304.
Lohof, E. and J. Vaars, 2005. Een nederzetting uit de Bronstijd te Hoogwoud, gemeente Opmeer. ADC Archeoprojecten Rapport 401. ADC Archeoprojecten, Amersfoort.
Magnell, O., 2012. Sacred Cows or Old Beasts? A Taphonomic Approach to Studying Ritual
Killing with an Example from Iron Age Uppåkra, Sweden. In: A. Pluskowski (ed), The
ritual killing and Burial of Animals: European perspectives. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 195-207.
Malainey, M.E., 2011. A Consumer’s Guide to Archaeological Science: Analytical Techniques. New
York: Springer.
McGinn, C., 1992. Moral Literacy, Or, How to Do the Right Thing. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
van Mensch, P.J.A. and G.F. IJzereef, 1975. Animal remains from a Bronze Age settlement
near Andijk, province of North-Holland. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig
Bodemonderzoek 25. Amersfoort: ROB, 55-68.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2014. http://www.merriam-webster.com/, accessed on the 13th
of June 2014.
Modderman, P.J.R., 1955. Een bandkeramische nederzetting te Sittard, Limburg. Berichten voor
het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 6, 13-21.
Modderman, P.J.R., 1974. Een drieperiodenheuvel uit de Midden Bronstijd op het Bullenland
te Hoogkarspel. West Frieslands Oud en Nieuw 41, 251-63.
Morris, J., 2011. Investigating Animal Burials: Ritual, mundane and beyond. Oxford: Archaeopress
(= BAR British Series 535).
Noe-Nygaard, N., T.D. Price and S.U. Hede, 2005. Diet of aurochs and early cattle in southern Scandinavia: evidence from 15N and 13C stable isotopes. Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 855-71.
Olausson, M., 1999. Herding and stalling in Bronze Age Sweden. In: C. Fabech and J. Ringtved (eds), Settlement and Landscape: proceedings of a conference in Århus, Denmark, May 4-7 1998.
Højbjerg: Jutland Archaeological Society, 319-28.
Pluskowski, A., 2012. The ritual killing and Burial of Animals: European perspectives. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Pollex, A., 1999. Comments on the interpretation of the so-called cattle burials of Neolithic
Central Europe. Antiquity 73, 542-50.
Price, T.D., J.H. Burton and R.A. Bentley, 2002. The characterization of biologically available
strontium isotope ratios for the study of prehistoric migration, Archaeometry 44, 117-135.
Rasmussen, M., 1999. Livestock without bones. The long-house as contributor to the interpretation of livestock management in Southern Scandinavian Early Bronze Age. In: C.
Fabech and J. Ringtved (eds), Settlement and Landscape: proceedings of a conference in Århus,
Denmark, May 4-7 1998. Højbjerg: Jutland Archaeological Society, 281-90.
van Regteren Altena, J.F., P.J.A. van Mensch and G.F. IJzereef, 1977. Bronze Age clay animals
from Grootebroek. Ex Horreo 108, 241-54.
Roessingh, W. and E. Lohof, 2011. Bronstijdboeren op de kwelders: Archeologisch onderzoek in Enkhuizen – Kadijken. ADC Monografie 11. ADC ArcheoProjecten, Amersfoort.
Roymans, N., 1999. Man, cattle and the supernatural in the Northwest European plain. In:
C. Fabech and J. Ringtved (eds), Settlement and Landscape: proceedings of a conference in Århus,
Denmark, May 4-7 1998. Højbjerg: Jutland Archaeological Society, 291-300.
Rowlands, M., 2002. Animals like us. London: Verso (Practical Ethics Series).
RT 2013. http://rt.com/news/un-south-sudan-peacekeepers-751/, last accessed on 16th of
June 2014.
Russell, N., 2012. Social Zooarchaeology: Humans and animals in prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
van der Sanden, W., 2009. Veenlijken. Menselijke lichmen uit Noord-Nederland. In: L.P. Louwe Kooijmans, P.W. van den Broeke, H. Fokkens and A. van Gijn (eds), Nederland in de
Prehistorie. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Bert Bakker, 679-81.
Sjögren, K.G. and T.D. Price, 2013. A complex Neolithic economy: isotope evidence for the
circulation of cattle and sheep in the TRB of western Sweden. Journal of Archaeological
Science 40, 690-704.
Skoglund, P., 2009. Beyond chiefs and networks. Corporate strategies in Bronze Age Scandinavia. Journal of Social Archaeology 9 (2), 200-19.
Spasić, M., 2012. Cattle to settle – bull to rule: on bovine iconography among Late Neolithic
Vinča culture communities. Documenta Praehistorica XXXIX, 295-308.
Strathern, M., 1988. The Gender of the Gift: Problems with Women and Problems with Society in Melanesia. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Streiffert, J., 2005. Gårdsstrukturer i Halland under bronsålder och äldre järnålder. Gothenburg:
Gothenburg University (= Riksantikvarieämbetet Arkeologiska Undersökningar Skrifter
66/GOTARC. series B. Gothenburg Archaeological Theses 39).
Swedish Rock Art Archives, 2014. http://www.shfa.se/?lang=en-GB, accessed on 13th of
June 2014.
Sørensen, M.L.S., 2010. In: T. Earle and K. Kristiansen (eds), Organizing Bronze Age Societies:
The Mediterranean, Central Europe, and Scandanavia Compared. New York: Cambridge University Press, 122-54.
Tambiah, S.J., 1969. Animals are good to think and good to prohibit. Ethnology 8 (4), 423-59.
Tesch, S., 1993. Houses, farmsteads, and long-term change: a regional study of prehistoric settlements in
the Köpinge Area, in Scania, Southern Sweden. Uppsala: Uppsala University.
Towers, J., J. Montgomery, J. Evans, M. Jay and M. Parker Pearson, 2010. An investigation of
the origins of cattle and aurochs deposited in the Early Bronze Age barrows at Gayhurst
and Irthlingborough. Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 508-15.
Ufkes, A., and J.R. Veldhuis, 2003. Nederzettingssporen uit de Bronstijd bij Zwaagdijk-Oost.
Een definitief archeologisch onderzoek in het plangebied Zwaagdijk-Oost, gemeente
Wervershoof (N.-H.). ARC-Publicaties 113. ARC, Groningen.
Vandkilde, H., 2005. A Biographical Perspective on Ösenringe from the Early Bronze Age.
In: T. Kienlin (ed), Die Dinge als Zeichen: Kulturelles Wissen und materielle Kultur. Bonn: Habelt, 263-81.
Vandkilde, H., 2007. Culture and change in Central European prehistory: 6th to 1st millennium BC.
Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Viner, S., J. Evans, U. Albarella and M. Parker Pearson, 2010. Cattle mobility in prehistoric
Britain: strontium isotope analysis of cattle teeth from Durrington Walls (Wiltshire, Britain). Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 2812-20.
Volmer, L. and W.H. Zimmerman, 2012. Glossary of prehistoric and historic timber buildings. Rahden: Marie Leidorf (= Studien zur Landschafts- und Siedlungsgeschichte im südlichen
Nordseegebiet 3). Vretemark, 2010. In: T. Earle and K. Kristiansen (eds), Organizing Bronze Age Societies: The
Mediterranean, Central Europe, and Scandanavia Compared. New York: Cambridge University
Press, 155-84.
van der Waals, J.D., 1961. De Zool van Tumulus XIII bij ‘de Ark’, Gemeente Wervershoof.
Westfrieslands Oud en Nieuw 28, 52-96.
Weinmann, C., 1994. Der Hausbau in Skandinavien vom Neolithikum bis zum Mittelalter: mit einem
Beitrag zur interdisziplinären Sachkulturforschung für das mittelalterliche Island. Berlin: de Gruyter
(= Quellen und Forschungen zur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte der germanischen Völker
106).
Wilson, B., 1999. Displayed or concealed? Cross cultural evidence for symbolic and ritual
activity depositing Iron Age animal bones. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18 (3), 297-305.
Zazzo, A., M. Balasse, B.H. Passey, A.P. Moloney, F.J. Monahan and O. Schmidt, 2010. The
isotope record of short- and long-term dietary changes in sheep tooth enamel: Implications for quantitative reconstruction of paleodiets. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 74,
3571-86.
Zeiler, J.T. and D.C. Brinkhuizen, 2011. Archeozöologisch onderzoek. In: W. Roessingh and
E. Lohof (eds), Bronstijdboeren op de kwelders: Archeologisch onderzoek in Enkhuizen
– Kadijken. ADC Monografie 11. ADC ArcheoProjecten, Amersfoort, 191-218.
Zijverden, W.K., 2011. De ontwikkeling van het landschap. In: W. Roessingh and E. Lohof
(eds), Bronstijdboeren op de kwelders: Archeologisch onderzoek in Enkhuizen – Kadijken. ADC Monografie 11. ADC ArcheoProjecten, Amersfoort, 35-49.
Zimmermann, W.H., 1999. Why was cattle-stalling introduced in prehistory? The significance
of byre and stable and of outwintering. In: C. Fabech and J. Ringtved (eds), Settlement and
Landscape: proceedings of a conference in Århus, Denmark, May 4-7 1998. Højbjerg: Jutland Archaeological Society, 301-18.
List of figures
Figure
Page number
Figure 1.1
Chronological division of the late prehistory in the Netherlands (after Van den
Broeke et al. 2005, 28).
Figure 2.1
Geological map of the Netherlands at 1500 BC. The modern coastline is traced
in black. West Frisia is traced with a thick black line. Brown represents peat and
green represents tidal areas and floodplains (Holocene landscape). Light yellow
represents coversand and dark yellow represents push moraines of boulder clay
(Pleistocene landscape) (after Vos and Bazelmans 2011, 55).
Figure 2.2
Comparison of the percentages of livestock at West Frisian sites, based on
number of bone fragments (data from Ufke and Veldhuis 2003, Van Dijk and
Beerenhout 2005, Zeiler and Brinkhuizen 2011, Van der Jagt in press)
Figure 2.3
Zoom-in on the area West Frisia at 1500 BC. The five sites sampled for the
strontium isotope analysis in this thesis are marked with red dots (after Vos and
Bazelmans 2011, 55).
16
Figure 2.4
Differential representation of cattle in the live herd and the zooarchaeological
record according to ontogenetic age (hypothetical example) (Johannsen 2006,
41).
18
Figure 2.5
Comparison of the percentages of livestock at Danish sites. Period I-II = 1700
- 1300 BC, period V = 900 - 800 BC, period VI = 700 - 500 BC (Vretemark
2010, 157)
19
Figure 3.1
Reconstruction of a three-aisled house with stall partitions found at Spjald,
Denmark. Top left: The house plan. Top right: Reconstruction of the front
section of the house with the three aisles clearly visible (Den Store Danske 2014
http://www.denstoredanske.dk/Danmarks_Oldtid/Bronzealder/H%C3%B8jfolkets_land_1500-1100_f.Kr/Langhuse_og_haller?highlight=huse).
Figure 3.2
Above: Emmerhout type house from the Netherlands, dating to the Middle
Bronze Age B. Stall partitions are visible in the central part of the house (after
Fokkens 2002). Below: Landlyst house I from Denmark, dating to Period III
(1300 - 1100) or the transition to Period IV (1100 - 900 BC). Stall partitions are
visible in the eastern part of the house (after Bech and Olsen 2013).
Figure 3.3
Distribution of several Middle to Late Bronze Age houses with indications of
stalls. Clockwise from top right: Bjerre house 2, Stora Köpinga R102-B26 house
1, Emmerhout house 13, Dalen house 2, Brdr. Gram house 1, Spjald, and
Legård house 3 (Arnoldussen 2007).
23
Figure 3.4
A house plan of the Zijderveld type. The two pairs of posts at each end indicate
the entrances (Fokkens 2005, 75).
24
Figure 4.1
The contents of the oak log coffin of the Egtved girl (Den Store Danske 2014
http://www.denstoredanske.dk/Danmarks_Oldtid/Bronzealder/Landskabets_
erindring_1500-1100_f.Kr/De_forunderlige_egekister?highlight=egtved).
Figure 4.2
Fragment of a cattle femur found in well 27. It has shine on it from polishing or
use and was possibly used as an axe (Zeiler and Brinkhuizen 2011, 213).
Figure 4.3
The complete skeleton of a cow found at Bovenkarspel Het Valkje (IJzereef
1981, 65).
34
Figure 4.4
Tanum 12:1. Depiction of cattle and a ploughing scene alongside other animals,
ships, and archers. From Aspeberget Tanum in Bohuslän, western Sweden.
Dates to the Swedish Late Bronze Age (1100 - 600 BC) (Swedish Rock Art
Research Archives 2008)
36
The Bovenkarspel animal figurines. 1. One of the bulls: a) back view, b) side
view, c) front view, d) top view. 2. The pig (after Van Regteren Altena et al.
1977)
37
The pair of copper cattle and four copper flat axes from a hoard in Bytyń,
Poland (Hanen 2013, 157).
38
10
14
15
21
22
31
Figure 4.5
Figure 4.6
33
Figure
Page number
Figure 5.1
Schematic representation of the difference between gift exchange and
commodity exchange (Bazelmans 1999, 15)
48
Figure 5.2
Model of the two dimensions of Bronze Age cosmology: A) the spatial
dimension. B) the ideological dimension (Fokkens 1999, 41).
49
Figure 5.3
A man from a Dinka tribe holds his AK 47 rifle in front of cows in a
Dinka cattle herders camp near Rumbek, South Sudan. Raids still occur
between the Nuer and Dinka, but today they are more often paired with
violent clashes between people than with martial cattle raids (RT 2013
http://rt.com/news/un-south-sudan-peacekeepers-751/).
Figure 5.4
The East African cattle cycle (Lincoln 1981).
53
Figure 5.5
Hypothetical model of cattle herding movement in southern and western
Jutland. Barrows (green symbols) feature as markers in the landscape
(Holst and Rasmussen 2013, 108).
54
52
List of tables
Table
Table 6.1
Page number
The age at which the tooth enamel of cattle and sheep molars mineralises (data
from Brown et al. 1960, Zazzo et al. 2010). Similar information for goats for
not available.
59
1426
156
1426
1426
1426
156
156
1426
156
1427
156
156
156
156
182
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
203
1426
6
22
156
5
203
U737 150/3/1-DEJ
156
4
21
U426 150/3/1
1425
3
U893 150/3/1
U894 150/3/1
U421 97/2/28B
U435 97/2/28A
U428 102/2/14
U569 102/2/31
U431 97/2/4
U429 97/1/12
U422 102/2/34
U436 40/1/49/12
U446 118/1/13
U440 117/1/10
U448 122/2/12
U427 40/1/49
U433 117/2/24
U449 15-1-1
U425 126/1/1
U420 92/3/2
U438 125/1/2
U442 105/2/5
1426
2
U447 117/2/11
1426
Archive nr Lab nr Animal ID
1
Sample nr
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Animal
Site
Bovenkarspel
Bovenkarspel
Bovenkarspel
Bovenkarspel
Bovenkarspel
Bovenkarspel
Bovenkarspel
Bovenkarspel
Bovenkarspel
Bovenkarspel
Bovenkarspel
Bovenkarspel
Bovenkarspel
Bovenkarspel
Bovenkarspel
Bovenkarspel
Bovenkarspel
Bovenkarspel
Bovenkarspel
Bovenkarspel
Bovenkarspel
Bovenkarspel
Bovenkarspel
Taxon
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
LBA
LBA
LBA
LBA
MBA-B - LBA
MBA-B - LBA
LBA
MBA-B - LBA
LBA
MBA-B - LBA
MBA-B - LBA
LBA
MBA-B
MBA-B
MBA-B
MBA-B
MBA-B
MBA-B
MBA-B
MBA-B
MBA-B
Period
Well
Well
Ditch
House plan
Find context
Old adult
Old adult
Old adult
Old adult
Young adult?
8 - 18 months
18 - 30 months
1 - 8 months
Old adult
Adult
30 - 36 months
Senior
1 - 8 months
8 - 18 months
Adult
1 - 8 months
1 - 8 months
1 - 8 months
Senior
Age of animal
M3-R
M2-R
M1-R
M1-R
M1-R
M1-R
M1-R
M1-R
M1-R
M1-R
M1-R
M1-R
M1-R
M1-R
M1-R
M1-R
M1-R
M1-R
M1-R
M1-R
M1-R
M1-R
M1-R
Tooth
0,711
0,711
0,711
0,711
0,709
0,709
0,709
0,709
0,709
0,709
0,709
0,709
0,709
0,709
0,709
0,709
0,709
0,709
0,709
0,709
0,709
0,709
0,709
87Sr/86Sr
The results from the strontium isotope analysis of West Frisian cattle and sheep or goats. Where possible the period, find context, and age of the animal is noted. Period: MBA = Middle Bronze Age.
MBA-B = Middle Bronze Age B. LBA = Late Bronze Age. Tooth: M1 = 1st molar. M2 = 2nd molar. M3 = 3rd molar. P4 = 4th premolar. R = right. L = left.
Appendix 1
U430 58/1/863A
U738 58/1/865-DEJ
156
182
25
Enkhuizen-Kadijken
Enkhuizen-Kadijken
Enkhuizen-Kadijken
Enkhuizen-Kadijken
Enkhuizen-Kadijken
Enkhuizen-Haling
Enkhuizen-Haling
Enkhuizen-Haling
Zwaagdijk-Oost
Zwaagdijk-Oost
Zwaagdijk-Oost
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Sheep/goat Ovies aries/Capra hircus
Opmeer Hoogwoud-Oost MBA-B - LBA
Sheep/goat Ovies aries/Capra hircus
1427
39
Opmeer Hoogwoud-Oost MBA-B - LBA
Sheep/goat Ovies aries/Capra hircus
156
38
Zwaagdijk-Oost
Sheep/goat Ovies aries/Capra hircus
203
37
Zwaagdijk-Oost
Sheep/goat Ovies aries/Capra hircus
203
182
36
Zwaagdijk-Oost
Sheep/goat Ovies aries/Capra hircus
1426
33
203
156
32
35
Zwaagdijk-Oost
Sheep/goat Ovies aries/Capra hircus
156
31
203
Zwaagdijk-Oost
U739 50/1/146B-DEJ Sheep/goat Ovies aries/Capra hircus
156
30
34
Zwaagdijk-Oost
Sheep/goat Ovies aries/Capra hircus
U441 50/1/146B
1386
29
U444 4/1/274
U432 4/1/387
U897 50/1/145
U892 15/1/67
U895 50/1/146B
U896 50/1/146B
U423 109/1/1167
U424 110/1/1189
U437 50/1/146
T820 V434
T821 V517
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
LBA
BA
LBA
LBA
LBA
LBA
MBA
MBA
LBA
MBA-B - LBA
MBA-B - LBA
MBA-B - LBA
1386
Cattle
28
T819 V368
1386
MBA
MBA
MBA
MBA
27
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
MBA
Period
1427
U445 58/1/865
Site
Taxon
Animal
Cattle
26
U434 58/1/863B
1425
24
U443 58/1/839
1427
23
Sample nr Archive nr Lab nr Animal ID
Ditch
Ditch
Ditch
Ditch
Ditch
Ditch
Posthole
Yard ditch
Ditch
Well
Well
Ditch
Ditch
Pit circle
Find context
Old
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Age of animal
M1-L
M1-L
M1-R
M1-R
M3-R
M2-R
M1-R
M1-R
M1-R
M1-L
M1-L
M1/2
M1/2
M1/2
M1-R
M1-R
M1-R
P4-R
M1-R
Tooth
0,709
0,709
0,709
0,709
0,711
0,713
0,714
0,713
0,709
0,709
0,709
0,709
0,709
0,709
0,711
0,711
0,709
0,709
0,709
87Sr/86Sr
The results from the strontium isotope analysis of West Frisian cattle and sheep or goats. Where possible the period, find context, and age of the animal is noted. Period: MBA = Middle Bronze Age.
MBA-B = Middle Bronze Age B. LBA = Late Bronze Age. Tooth: M1 = 1st molar. M2 = 2nd molar. M3 = 3rd molar. P4 = 4th premolar. R = right. L = left.
Appendix 1 (continued)