Early Neolithic structures of Mosegården, eastern Jutland. Regional and chronological differences in the Danish Early Neolithic

Abstract

Early Neolithic Structures at Mosegården, Eastern Jutland. Regional and Chronological Differences in the Danish Early Neolithic

THE EXCAVATIONS AT MOSEGÅRDEN

The long-barrow and settlement site of Mosegården is situated approximately 10 kilometres east of the town of Horsens, not far from the causewayed enclosure of Toftum (3). Excavations revealed two megalithic tombs in a long-barrow surrounded by a palisade (fig. 1). Beneath the long barrow an Early Neolithic settlement site was found.

The westernmost tomb, Dolmen I, was evident as a horseshoeshaped stone foundation that had held five large uprights (fig. 4b, 2). Two entrance stones may have been present to the south. The floor of the chamber consisted at the top of a layer of white burned flint mixed with greyish-black sand. Beneath this was a paving of vertically placed stone flags in rows. The flags had completely crumbled from heavy burning. The point of a flint dagger (fig. 14b) and 13 amber beads were found in connection with the tomb.

The other tomb, Dolmen II, also showed up as a horseshoe-shaped stone foundation, but it had held only four large uprights and no entrance stones (fig. 3). The floor was heavily disturbed, but its construction seems to be similar to that of Dolmen I. A flint dagger of type Ib (fig. 14a) (4) and four amber beads were found in connection with the tomb.

The long-barrow was manifest as two parallel post-foundation trenches running WNW­WSE at a distance of 16 m (fig. 1). The trenches terminated very much staggered to the east while their termination to the west could not be established. The total length of the barrow must have been at least 102 m. The width of the post-foundation trenches varied between 0.4 and 1.0 m with a subsoil depth of 0.2 to 0.5 m. They had held split trunks with an average cross-section of 0.80 by 0.25 m. Particularly large trunks were seen at a widening of the northern trench, and at the eastern termination of the southern trench.

Barrow fill between the two palisades was seen in only two areas. One was at the two dolmens, the other was close to the eastern end. It is not likely that barrow fill has ever been present between the two areas.

The Early Neolithic settlement site was uncovered beneath the barrow that surrounded the two megalithic tombs. Its demarcation was established in three main sections (fig. 7a, 8 and 9) as well as on the surface. Only to the south and southwest is the demarcation somewhat ambiguous. The distribution of artifacts puts the length of the site at 40-50 m and the width at 10-15 m towards the east and 15-20 m towards the west.

Centrally situated on the site was a stone-built fireplace (fig. 10b). West of this the culturel deposit was coloured by charcoal and contained numerous small red-burned clay lumps and particles. In the same area 28 possible post holes were noted, without evident organization, however, except that they tended to cluster in two or three groups.

The culturel deposit east of the fireplace was completely black due to staining from decomposed organic material. In the same area a nine meter long sigmoid very narrow and shallow trench was found. This had very probably been the foundation of a fence.

The dating of the structures

The relative sequence of the structures is fairly well established. The two dolmens are the youngest. They are stratigraphically younger than the settlement site. The same applies to the palisade enclosure, which is older than or contemporaneous with the barrow, but younger than the settlement site. The most likely sequence of the structures is: settlement site, palisade enclosure, barrows inside the enclosure and dolmens. It is suspected that the dolmens are a great deal younger than the barrow in which they are placed, and further that some primary burials have been destroyed at some point in time.

Two C-14 dates are available from the palisade. One sample was taken immediately south of Dolmen I and gave a date of 3130±90 B.C. the other sample was taken from the northern palisade and gave a date of 2940±90 B.C.

Activity patterns on the settlement site

The well preserved culturel deposit is ideal for the observation of activity patterns. We find the fireplace centrally situated on the site. To the west of it we have the living area, where post holes reveal the presence of two or three huts. East of the fireplace is a dump area. The distribution of waste flint and pottery (fig. 11-13) shows same remarkable patterns in connection with the fireplace and the dump area. For a detailed discussion of these in English, cf. Madsen and Jensen (in print).

The flints from the settlement site

The number of flints found in situ at the excavation was 852 pieces of waste, 83 tools and 6 cores. The waste flint is neolithic in character, but there are examples of good blade technique. The average length/width index is 85, and 31 % of waste has cortex on the upper side.

Among the tools we find 27 scrapers, 18 denticulates with very fine notching, 25 knives and 7 drills. In addition there is one transverse arrow, one flake axe, three pieces with various retouching and one edge end of a chisel. A few flakes with traces of grinding reveal the existence of thin-butted axes. All six cores are irregular pieces.

The pottery from the settlement site

Funnel-necked beakers, lugged beakers, lugged jars, clay disks and probably also a collared flask were present at the site. At least 105 pots and 19 clay disks can be isolated by means of the rim sherds.

The funnel-necked beakers constitute a little over three-quarters of all the pots. They have relatively high necks and mostly a marked transition from neck to body. Both round and flat bottoms are present. Two types of funnel-necked beakers can be separated. A small type -with an average diameter of 15 cm and a large type with an average rim diameter of 38 cm (fig. 22) (16).

The pottery is generally without decoration. A little less than two-thirds of all pots have no rim decoration and even more have an undecorated neck and body.

The decoration of the rim is dominated by continuous horizontal lines made with two strained cord. Short horizontal lines in stacks often made in a stab and drag technique are also characteristic. They are sometimes arranged in two or three rows, forming a chequer pattern. Horizontal rows of various types of impressions are also common, and the horizontal rows may themselves consists of short vertical rows of impressions. An overview of the rim ornamentation is given in fig. 23.

When shoulder ornamentation is present, it normally appears as an exact replica of the rim ornamentation (fig. 25).

The neck and body ornamentation when present normally covers most of the surface. Very often it appears as vertical lines in cord or stab and drag technique, but also vertical rows of various types of impressions are seen. The lines and rows emanate from the rim and shoulder ornamentation and may either cover the surface completely or be placed in groups with blank fields in between (fig. 24 and 26).

Most clay disks are decorated with finger impressions on the edge.

REGIONAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES IN THE DANISH EARLY NEOLITHIC

The pottery from the settlement site of Mosegården is closely related to pottery found at a series of others sites in the eastern part of Mid-Jutland. The greatest similarity is found to pottery from Moesgård Skovmølle (No. 23 in the site list), Rustrup (No. 24) and Norsminde (20), where the rim decoration is dominated by two strained cord. Slightly less similar is the pottery from Østergårds Mark (No. 21) and Bønnerup (No. 22). The rim decoration is here less dominated by two strained cord and more by stab and drag and various impressions. On all sites we find the same neck and belly decoration and it is also characteristic for all of the sites that rim decorations do not include horizontal ribs and finger impressions. Neither do impressions in the rim edge itself occur, or incised vertical lines in the body decoration.

A series of minor finds in the area attach themselves to these larger finds by way of great homogeneity in style of decoration.

The homogeneity of pottery on Early Neolithic mid-Jutish sites raises the question of whether Becker's A, B, C scheme is applicable as a general chronological scheme to the Danish Early Neolithic. To examine this more closely we have chosen 34 sites from the Southern Scandinavian area for an analysis (the site list). We have counted the occurrence of 10 technical elements in the rim decoration and analysed the resultant data matrix using a correspondence analysis (for this multivariate analysis see Bølviken et.al. 1982). The outcome of the analysis has then been compared with a traditional classification of the same sites using Becker's system. The result of the analysis are shown in fig. 27-30. We find (fig. 29) that Becker's divisions are to an amazing degree reproduced by the analysis, even though technical elements in rim decoration are to only a very limited degree part of his definitions.

The five sites that are classified as A are all found closely together in the plot. The same is true of the 10 sites that are classified as Jutish non-megalithic C and with one exception of the 12 sites classified as of megalithic style. Only the B sites and the Zealand non­megalithic C sites are not separated from each other, but are with one exception together separated from all the other sites. A closer inspection of the sites classified as B (all from the eastern part of Denmark) underline their resemblance to the Zealand non-megalithic C sites, and we have reached the conclusion that the two groups of sites should not be separated.

Even if Becker's division of the Early Neolithic pottery can thus be shown to be still relevant, the use of Becker's A, B, C, megalithic and non-megalithic terminology can no longer be accepted, because a specific chronological division that no longer holds good is attached to it. We therefore endorse Ebbesen and Mahler's (1980) suggestions that new names should be employed. With reference to our analysis of the technical elements in rim decoration, we find that a survey of the available data today suggests the following groupings.

Oxie group. This group is identical with Becker's A. It is clearly concentrated on Zealand and in Scania, but there are also a few sites in Jutland. Chronologically it has not provided the oldest Neolithic C-14 dates, but it belongs nevertheless to the older group of sites before 2800. It is our conjecture that it goes back to the very beginning of the Neolithic in the area (ca. 3200).

Volling group. This group is identical with Becker's Jutish non-megalithic C. It is known from Northern Jutland down to a line between Vejle and Ringkøbing. A series of C-14 dates for sites belonging to the group to around 3200 is certified. On the other hand there is also definite proof that it continues until the beginning of the Middle Neolithic approximately 2600 B.C. In spite of the long life of the group, there are only weak indications of a chronological differentiation of its pottery.

Svaleklint group. This group comprises both the Zealand non-megalithic C and what was classified as B on the Danish islands. Although there are differences to be seen between the two groups of sites we find them to be few, and it is uncertain to what degree they may be chronological in nature. The Svaleklint group also belongs to the older part of the Early Neolithic period. We have C-14 dates that make it contemporaneous with the Volling and Oxie groups.

Virum group. Fuchsberg group and MN la. Becker's megalithic style belong to the late part of the Early Neolithic. Within it we find regional differences. The Fuchsberg group covers South and mid-Jutland as well as Fyn and the surrounding isles about 2650 B.C. (51), whereas the Virum group is found east of The Great Belt at the same time and perhaps also a little earlier (52). In Southern Jutland and probably also on Fyn and surrounding islands a group resembling the Virum group probably preceeds the Fuchsberg group. Its existence, however, is still more or less conjectural. The MN Ia is the first group with a "megalithic style" that covers Denmark completely. It arises about 2600, and the back­ground of the group is clearly to be found within the Fuchsberg group.

Among the older sites, there is such a marked difference between the Oxie group and the Volling group that there must be two entirely different traditions present from the outset of the Early Neolithic period in Denmark, and they cannot be of related origin. The Svaleklint group, which is related to the Volling group, represents in some aspects a contact between the two traditions.

THE ORIGIN OF THE SOUTHERN SCANDINAVIAN TBK

During the last 25 years a series of settlement sites have been excavated in Slesvig and Holsten (57). The results of these excavations suggest that the development in Slesvig and Holsten has constantly been in advance of that in Denmark. Agriculture for instance arrives earlier and so does the use of vertical incised lines in body decoration on pots.

The areas south of Slesvig-Holsten have recently been treated by J. Lichardus (59). One of his viewpoints is that Becker's B group should not be included in the TBK, but instead be compared with the Rössen influences in Dümmer and Boberg. Rössen influence in Danish Early Neolithic has earlier been suggested (60-70), but in all instances it has been the Volling and the Svaleklint group, that have been mentioned.

A Rössen influence does not seem out of the question, but from a chronological point of view it must have been an influence that has reached the late Ertebølle culture in Jutland, and here played a part in the transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic. Neither is it likely that it was a direct Rössen influence, but rather an indirect one via Dümmer/Boberg.

The dating of the first phase of the TBK south of the Baltic Sea also creates a series of problems in relation to the South-Eastern Scandinavian material. Lichardus places the phase just after 3500-3400 B.C. using a dating from Sarnowo in Poland (75). A shift backwards in time of the Baalberge and Jordanow cultures (76) also supports this early dating. However, the earliest TBK in Scandinavia cannot be older than 3200, and for the Oxie group where the similarities are found, perhaps not even that old. It is then difficult to accept an oldest common phase in the area. There is a certain similarity between the Oxie group on the one hand and the early TBK south of the Baltic on the other, but there is no synchronism, at most a slight contact between beginning and end of the earliest phases in the two areas.

To conclude, the idea of a commonbase for the Early Neolithic in Southern Scandinavia is difficult to maintain. We do have two regionally differentiated traditions at the beginning of the Neolithic, and they seem to have very little in common. When looked upon in a broader European context the Volling and Svaleklint groups have their parallels in the Rössen-influenced Dümmer pottery, while the Oxie group has its parallels in the Sarnowo­Berlin-Britz material.

Torsten Madsen og Jens Erik Petersen