Land of the Cremated Dead: On Cremation Practices in Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Scandinavia

As contract archaeology has emerged and larger connected areas have been excavated since the 1990s, focus has naturally changed from single finds of graves right below plough soil or in connection to mounds, towards the study of the surrounding cultural landscapes. In the Late Bronze Age and the Pre- Roman Iron Age settlements seldom overlap grave sites. This implies that the ‘land of the dead’ was considered separate from the ‘land of the living’. Although regionally differentiated, we further gain a better understanding of many of these accumulated grave sites and their gradual change during the transition period. In many cases we see a change from a personalized commemoration of the cremated dead in the Late Bronze Age, towards a focus on the act of cremation (rather than the post-cremation human body) around the beginning of the Iron Age. The increasing commemoration of pyre remains instead of human remains and deliberate ‘cremation’ of personal belongings in the Early Iron Age indicates a shift in funeral tempi from the post-cremation deliberate burial in the Bronze Age towards the actual cremation process as the primary locus of transformation in the earliest Iron Age. Throughout time, societies have grasped death, the dead, and the duration of death in very different manners. The process of death and relating to different stages of death may be more or less ritualized, that is, subject to specific repeated rules or laws within a society. Whether used to speed up or slow down the process of transformation—for example, keeping, embalming, dismembering, or exhuming the body in various stages—these rituals help the living create death through their acts. In interpretive archaeology we analyse these meaningful acts in the past and their continuation or discontinuation. Decoding single sequences within these acts therefore helps us designate non-negotiable repetitive actions in the archaeological record, as the material evidence of shared ‘embodied knowledge’ in a given prehistoric society (Nilsson Stutz 2003, 2010). Decoding and separating past actions and post depositional disturbances—the degree of intentionality—are crucial for plausible reconstructions of post-cremation treatment of cremated human remains.

The Emergence of Cremations in Eastern Fennoscandia: Changing Uses of Fire in Ritual Contexts

Since the 1980s, a rapid increase in the number of Mesolithic and Neolithic cremation burials discovered has prompted a substantial re-evaluation of the position of cremation as a prehistoric mortuary ritual in northern Eurasia. Sporadic but persistent appearances of cremation in a wide variety of cultural contexts from early Mesolithic to late Neolithic have undermined the traditional models seeing cremation and inhumation as two radically different ways to treat the deceased. In studies of north-western Europe, from British Isles to southern Scandinavia, it is now widely recognized that inhumation and cremation co-existed in many Mesolithic and Neolithic cultures traditionally treated as textbook cases of mortuary practices emphasizing the corporeal integrity of the deceased. Importantly, the unexpected appearances of cremation are only one part of a wider challenge to the traditional assumption of dominance of primary burial in Mesolithic and non-megalithic Neolithic cultures of northern Europe. One important aspect of this challenge are finds of scattered burnt and unburned human bones in Mesolithic and Neolithic cultural layers, suggesting that articulated pit inhumations may actually represent exceptional cases (e.g. Hallgren 2008; Larsson 2009). North-eastern Europe still remains a white area in regional studies of pre- Bronze Age appearances of cremation in northern Europe. This border generally coincides with the language barrier between Germanic languages and various ‘eastern’ languages in terms of local archaeological research traditions. On the other hand, the border also roughly coincides with many genuine differences in archaeological record. Therefore, there is an obvious danger that differences in archaeological research histories and differences in archaeological phenomena become intermingled, creating ill-founded generalizations and assumptions. This chapter examines the earliest known cases of cremation in Eastern Fennoscandia, the area consisting of Finland, the Kola Peninsula, and Russian Karelia (Fig. 11.1). It is currently the easternmost part of northern Europe where confirmed cases of Mesolithic and Neolithic cremation have appeared so far. Such cases are currently few and little studied but they have a potential to redefine the whole study of prehistoric mortuary rituals in the area. In most of Eastern Fennoscandia acidic soil usually does not preserve any unburned bone material older than about a thousand years.

Cremation and the Use of Fire in Mesolithic Mortuary Practices in North-West Europe

Cremation is not widely recognized as a form of mortuary treatment amongst the hunter-gatherer communities of Mesolithic north-west Europe (broadly defined as c.9300 cal. BC to c.4000 cal. BC). Instead, the period is perhaps most well known for some of the earliest inhumation cemeteries in northern Europe, the most familiar being the Scandinavian sites of Skateholm I and II (Scania, Sweden) (Larsson 1988a) and Vedbæk-Bøgebakken (Zealand, Denmark) (Albrethsen and Brinch Petersen 1977) and those on the coast of northern France, Teviéc and Hoëdic (Morbihan, France) (Péquart et al. 1937; Péquart and Péquart 1954). As concentrations of well-furnished burials they have long provided the focus for discussions of Mesolithic mortuary practice as well as social status and group organization (e.g. Clark and Neeley 1987) and, more recently, cosmology (e.g. Zvelebil 2003), personhood (e.g. Fowler 2004), sexuality (e.g. Schmidt 2000) and the ritual practice of handling the body (e.g. Nilsson Stutz 2003). However, discoveries within the last two decades have increased the evidence for the practice of cremation (as well as other forms of treatment, such as secondary burial) amongst the huntergatherers of the Mesolithic, both in terms of the geographic distribution of the practice and its temporal spread throughout the period. Although rare in comparison to inhumation, cremation can now be seen to have been practiced throughout both the early and late Mesolithic and, whilst evidence is currently sparse within the modern areas of Germany and the British Isles, examples are known across Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Belgium, northern France, and the Republic of Ireland (totalling at least thirteen sites with cremated remains amongst over 100 sites with human bone in this area, see Fig. 2.1 and Table 2.1). Additionally, whilst preparing this chapter, a new discovery of cremated remains deposited in a large pit was made at Langford (Essex, England) and directly dated to the late Mesolithic, representing the first example from England (Gilmour and Loe 2015). It is worth noting here that there are also several more sites with human remains (usually disarticulated or ‘loose’ human bones) which are described as ‘charred’ or ‘burnt’ but for the purposes of this chapter I consider ‘cremated remains’ to refer to bone or a body that has undergone the mortuary rite of cremation (transformation of a corpse by burning) and burnt bone as the incidental or deliberate burning of dry and/or disarticulated bone (after McKinley 2013: 150).

Building for the Cremated Dead: Ephemeral and Cumulative Constructions

Given its inherent nature as fiery transformation, the archaeological traces of past cremation practices are always partial and fragmentary. However, recent advances in archaeological excavation and osteological analyses, and novel theoretical investigations of cremation’s variability, character, and context, have enriched and developed the archaeology of cremation in prehistoric and early historic societies (for a review, see Chapter 1, this volume; see also; Williams 2008, 2015b; Wessman 2010; Cerezo-Román and Williams 2014). For the later first millennium AD, archaeologists persist in underestimating the potential for investigating cremation practices, and this is particularly true of the study of mortuary structures and monuments associated with cremation burials (see also Chapter 4, this volume; Chapter 13, this volume; Williams 2013, 2014a). To some extent, the impoverished archaeological investigation of the architectural dimensions of cremation in particular is understandable. Archaeologists are well acquainted with the fact that burial monuments can be multiphased and become subject to uses and reuses over millennia, and indeed, many early medieval cemeteries focus on, reuse, and adapt, far older monuments (Williams 1997;Wessman 2010). There are also examples of large monumental barrows built over cremation burials, as in the late sixth and early seventh centuries at Sutton Hoo, Suffolk, showing that cremation ceremonies could be utilized to make enduring, prominent monuments to commemorate the dead and project remembrance down the generations (Carver 2005). However, the more ephemeral mortuary architectures of the late first millennium AD which characterize the majority of cemeteries in most regions—mounds, ring-ditches, stone-settings, post-holes, and the like—are often damaged or destroyed by postdepositional processes. When burial monuments are identified they often appear to have been inherently modest structures that defy familiar explanations as status-markers and landmarks to project the commemoration of the dead across the landscape and through time. It is often all too tempting for archaeologists to dismiss these structures and refer to cemeteries in which cremation burials occur as ‘flat cemeteries’ or else to kaleidoscope these monuments into a single chronological phase and portray them as ‘collective’ structures. Hence, many archaeological accounts, emphasizing the spectacle and fragmentation of open-air cremation in the human past, wrongly imply, or explicitly stipulate, that cremation is counter-architectural.

Pathways for the Dead in the Middle and Late Bronze Age in Ireland

Because of its diversity and visibility the mortuary record of the Early Bronze Age (2400–1500 cal. BC) has long dominated interpretation of that period in Ireland (e.g. Cooney and Grogan 1994; Waddell 1998; Brindley 2007) and burials from Bronze Age cemeteries represent over 70 per cent of the burial record from Irish prehistory (Murphy et al. 2010). The explosion of development-funded excavation in the period from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s provided a settlement balance to that picture and also evidence for additional cemeteries (e.g. Grogan et al. 2007; McQuade et al. 2009). This suggests that Early Bronze Age cemeteries served as local foci for communities. From the evidence of the numbers interred over a number of generations the dead buried in the cemeteries represent what Mary Helms (1998) has usefully called the ‘distinguished dead’ from communities, not the entire population. Treatment of the dead within the cemeteries is complex and there are clear indications of change over time. Interpretative models had associated inhumation with males and a broader shift over time from inhumation to cremation relying on a view of cremation and inhumation as opposed, separate mortuary rites (e.g. Mount 1997). However, the evidence indicates a much more complex set of pathways in the postmortem treatment of the dead in which cremation and inhumation were employed as complementary mortuary rites with an increasing focus on cremation over time (e.g. Cahill and Sikora 2011). This new picture has important implications for the increasing significance of the the pyre and the transformation of the dead (Mizoguchi 1993: 232). In looking at the period after 1500 cal. BC we see continuity in aspects of mortuary practice and use of sites, but in other ways mortuary practice changed dramatically. Cremation is now the dominant mortuary rite. Burial in the Middle and Late Bronze Age (down to 600 cal. BC) has been widely discussed as less visible, and hence much less important as an aspect of social behaviour (e.g. Cooney and Grogan 1994: 144). But it is more useful to think in terms of shifting emphases in mortuary practice. In a recent discussion Lynch and O’Donnell (2007: 107) have described this period as being characterized by ‘an incredibly intricate and variable physical treatment of the dead’.

Interpretation of Burned Remains: Lessons from Modern Forensic Cases

Experimentation regarding thermal effects on human bone provides valuable information that is needed to interpret ancient remains as well as modern forensic cases. Applications of this information in the forensic arena often clarify key issues in case interpretation. The forensic experience also contributes to the knowledge available on thermal effects on bone, by using information gleaned from the cases. Thus, forensic casework involves a two-way academic street of information flow. General knowledge of thermal effects is needed to interpret particular problems presented by the cases. Resolution of cases, with disclosure of the circumstances leading to the thermal effects, yields valuable information that enhances methodology and diagnoses of future applications. Problems presented by forensic casework can also stimulate new research and subsequently enhance methodology. Although forensic analysis has traditionally been applied to individual cases brought to the laboratory, increasingly forensic anthropologists are involved in recovery and analysis issues of complex cases, including those involving mass fatalities (Sledzik and Rodriguez 2002; Sledzik 2009). These can include aeroplane crashes, military incidents, civil strife, terrorist activities, natural disasters, and other events, which produce fatalities with associated thermal alterations. Forensic anthropologists provide a vital service in the recovery and interpretation of evidence in the aftermath of such events. These unique experiences yield valuable information on the thermal effects on human remains. One lesson learned from such experience is that advanced thermal conditions can lead to extensive fragmentation of bones and teeth (McKinley 1989; Ubelaker 2009). A classic well-known product of thermal exposure on a human body is the pugilistic pose involving contraction of the muscles of the arms producing those limbs positioned as if in the boxer’s position (Saukko and Knight 2004). This position, involving the legs as well as the arms, is commonly encountered when most soft tissue is preserved and the heat is of low duration and intensity. In such cases, the bones may escape alteration via protection by the soft tissue. If the heat is prolonged and extensive, the soft tissue will probably be burned away, exposing the underlying bone. This process may produce varying bone exposure, depending on the position of the individual and other factors (Fairgrieve 2008).

‘Fiery Technology’ and Transformative Placemaking: A Contextual Examination of a ‘Crematory’ at the Aztalan Site in Wisconsin

In their Introduction to this volume, the editors note that the contextual analysis of cremation requires an understanding that is broader and more complex than we generally assume. This chapter examines what has been termed a crematory at one site, and tries to determine the accuracy of this label and its cultural implications. The research included in this chapter is not European in focus, but instead looks at the North American site of Aztalan in southern Wisconsin. Aztalan has been excavated, studied, and interpreted over a period of more than 150 years, and serves as a useful contrast to some of the European sites in this volume because research at Aztalan has drawn on different kinds of analogies, modern allusions, and different histories of development of archaeological method and theory. However, because Aztalan is also a site that represents a widespread, structured, complex, agriculturally based society, it should provide a useful comparison with similar European groups, and expand the range of understanding and examples of cremation and fiery technologies. Of course, there is not a formal link between this site and those in Europe, but many of the same kinds of processes, and especially modern allusions and interpretations, apply to both. A discussion of cremation, copper working, and fiery displays is presented first, followed by details of the Aztalan example and the feature originally labelled a crematory (Rowe 1958). Following this, an outline of the range of Aztalan mortuary practices and pertinent ethnographic and ethnohistoric data highlights the importance of both copper and fire in the Mississippian context. Rather than simply looking at the Aztalan structure as an alternative mortuary location, this chapter tries to place the feature contextually in a much broader social, physical, landscape, and behavioural frame. Since 2000, archaeological approaches to the analysis of mortuary sites have become more sophisticated, both theoretically and analytically. In this process, scholars have begun to focus on the fact that cremation practices have often been presented and interpreted as nothing more than an alternative mortuary practice, and the presence of both cremation and inhumation in a single site is often seen as representing no more than choice or a reflection of changing practices over time.

Introduction: Archaeologies of Cremation

Four dramatic funerals punctuate the tenth- or eleventh-century Anglo-Saxon poem Beowulf; two involve the burning of the dead. While a Christian work to its core, the poem draws upon far older stories and at its very conclusion the poet provides a striking vision of an early medieval open-air cremation ceremony. Having died by the fire and poisonous bite of a dragon dwelling in a stone mound, the king of the Geats is cremated with treasures: helmets, swords, and coats of mail (Owen-Crocker 2000: 89). Before the raising of a burial mound upon a headland overlooking the sea, Beowulf ’s cremation is a focus of more than personal loss by mourners. Burning his body and then raising a mound containing the dragon-guarded treasure marks the end of the king’s protection for his people and foreshadows their own doom. As such, the cremation constitutes the scorching and fragmentation of body and things with fire. Cremation is a memorable spectacle created at a prominent location between land and sea, between earth and Heaven. The burning is also an emotional outpouring: grief and fire are intermingled (Owen-Crocker 2000: 91). Furthermore, as the culmination of the hero’s life and the poem, the burning is the lynchpin between the poetic past and the poet’s present and manifest in an ancient landscape populated with prominent earthen and stone monuments (Williams 2015a). The hero’s cremation in Beowulf is thus heroic, performative, emotive, and apocalyptic: linked to the changing of the world, times past, mourning, and the creation of memory. This description might seem diametrically opposed to the experience of cremation in Europe, North America, and elsewhere in the world today. Cremation as a widespread modern means of disposing of the dead is a process of technological transformation which is usually concealed from mourners. Moreover, the dual process of cremation means that burning the body is followed by the machine-grinding of the bones in a ‘cremulator’, reducing the ashes still further to grains of comparable size and shape (McKinley 1994a). In the poem, we find cremation as public, spectacular, and ritualized; today, it might be caricatured as secular and secretive. However, this contrast between early medieval poetry and modern practice is a false one.

The Contemporary Archaeology of Urban Cremation

Modern cremation is often portrayed by archaeologists as a distracting antithesis of the open-air cremation practices encountered in the archaeological record from the prehistoric and early historic past. In some key ways, the process of burning cadavers within gas-fired ovens, followed by the grinding of bones to uniformly sized granules, offers a stark contrast to the varied multi-staged open-air cremation practices known from recent ethnographic studies, and from the increasingly rich data provided by the archaeological record. The cremation process is hidden, indoors and hence distanced from the survivors in modern cremation. However, there are also numerous connecting themes between modern and ancient cremation and this chapter hopes to shed light on how mortuary archaeologists can explore cremation today to better understand cremation’s memorials, spaces and materials in both the distant and recent past, including both shared themes and distinctive dimensions in relation to other disposal methods, like inhumation. For while the burning of the body itself is hidden from view in modern cremation, the deployment of space, architecture, and memorialization before, during, and after the transformation of the body by fire choreographs comparable, if varied, emotive and mnemonic engagements between the living and the dead. This argument certainly holds for the post-cremation disposal of the ‘ashes’ or ‘cremains’ (the burned, distorted, shrunken, dried, and fragmented vestiges of the body and the materials and fuels involved in the cremation process: although in modern cremation, all artefacts and artificial body parts are removed prior to the grinding of bones). Both ancient and modern cremation practices share in providing a wide range of options regarding the destinations and treatments of ashes. They might be left at the site of cremation (in the modern sense, dispersed by crematorium staff in the garden of remembrance), yet they are readily retrievable, transportable and partible, and can be dispersed and integrated into a range of spaces and materials unavailable to the treatment of the unburned dead (see Williams 2008). Some of the spectrum of opportunities for ash disposal are comparable to those available for the inhumed dead and involve a specific plot and memorial, yet others can take on other material and spatial dimensions far different from the traditional grave plot.

Rediscovering the Body: Cremation and Inhumation in Early Iron Age Central Europe

The Late Bronze Age Urnfield Period in Central Europe (BA D, Ha A/B, c.1300 to 800 BC) is characterized by the dominance of cremation as a burial rite. The simple appearance of urn burials give an impression of simplicity, but they are the endpoint of a chain of actions and practices that constitute the funerary ritual, many of which may not be simple at all, but include a large number of people and resources. The washing, dressing, and furnishing of the body as it is laid out prior to cremation leave no traces. The funerary pyre, as spectacular as it may have looked, smelled, and felt during the cremation, preserves only under exceptional circumstances. The rituals and feasts associated with selecting the cremated remains from the funerary pyre and placing them in a suitable organic container or a ceramic urn prior to their deposition do not leave much evidence. The large-scale spread of cremation during the Late Bronze Age has traditionally been explained by the movements of peoples (e.g. Kraft 1926; Childe 1950), or a change in religious beliefs (e.g. Alexander 1979). More recently, a change in how the human body is ontologically understood and how it has to be transformed after death is seen as the more likely underlying cause (Harris et al. 2013; Robb and Harris 2013; Sørensen and Rebay-Salisbury in prep.), although a simple and single reason is rarely the driver of such pan-European developments. This chapter will be concerned with another transition, the change from cremation back to inhumation, several hundred years later during the Early Iron Age, and investigates its background and causes. In Central Europe, cremation is given up as the solitary funerary rite, and a range of different options, including inhumations in burial mounds, bi-ritual cemeteries, and new forms of cremation graves emerge. This change happens at a different pace in the various areas of the Hallstatt Culture and adjacent areas, which will be surveyed here. Despite doubts about the validity of the term ‘Hallstatt Culture’ as a cultural entity (e.g. Müller-Scheeßel 2000), it remains a convenient shorthand to the Early Iron Age in Central Europe, c.800–450 BC, in eastern France, southern Germany, Switzerland, Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, and parts of northern Italy.