Middle Neolithic Economies in Denmark and Southern England

Abstract

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC ECONOMIES IN DENMARK AND SOUTHERN ENGLAND

The faunal evidence from Fannerup, East Jutland

This article will firstly present the osteological evidence from Fannerup, and then go on to compare the evidence now available for the Danish earlier Middle Neolithic (the cause­wayed camp period) with that of the same period in Britain. The site of Fannerup is in eastern Jutland, on the north shore of the former fiord of Kolindsund (Eriksen, this volume). The excavations yielded a total of 1.321 identified bones. Most of these were divided between four main units: from Fannerup I, the lower layer (4/5) and the shell layer (3) each produced sizeable samples. The upper layer (2) contained only a few bones, and a few more could not be ascribed to any particular layer within Fannerup I. The shell layer (3) in Fannerup II produced almost all the bones from that excavation. The fourth unit comes from Fannerup III. The bones are listed in table I. (See Eriksen pp. 71 for a discussion of the stratigraphy and finds). (I).

HUNTING OR FARMING?

Skaarup (2) recognised that the many coastal sites of neolithic date which contained a predominantly wild fauna should be regarded as hunting stations of the farming culture, and not as some kind of survival of indigenous groups alongside immigrant farmers. The first question regarding Fannerup is thus whether the site is one of these hunting stations, or a site with a more conventional neolithic economy. The coastal location might lead one to expect the former; but this turns out not to be the case, as the bones of domestic animals are overwhelmingly predominant.

Pigs and cattle of neolithic date may come from either domestic or wild animals. Some bones of each are listed as wild and domestic in table 1, and some explanation is necessary as to the procedure involved in arriving at these determinations. For cattle, use was made of the excellent work of Degerbøl and Fredskild (3), which gives many measurements of wild and neolithic domestic cattle from Denmark. Wild cattle are often so much larger than the domestic ones that a distinction can be made on the basis of size. A bone from in animal of unknown status can thus be measured and given wild or domestic status depending on which of Degerbøl's groups it falls into. Figure 5 may be used as an example: wild and domestic measurements are plotted from Degerbøl, and (apart from one anomalously small wild cow) show clear separation. The Fannerup specimens on the same figure are all within the domestic range except for one very large individual which must derive from a wild bull. In some cases the wild and domestic size ranges overlap. Bones from Fannerup falling into this overlap zone are listed in table 1. Measurements of cattle bones are listed in appendix 1.

The same method is used for pigs. No published body of measurements exists comparable to that for cattle. Individual bones were therefore compared with ranges of measurements taken by the author from neolithic domestic pigs from Troldebjerg, and late mesolithic wild pigs from Ringkloster. Again, measurable bones could be ascribed to the wild, domestic or overlap categories. Pig bone measurements are listed in appendix 2.

The majority of pig and cattle bones could not be measured and classified in this way. Few of these appeared to be large enough to have come from wild animals, however, the impression being that most were domestic. This parallels the division within the measurable bones. In an effort to provide rough quantification of this, the bones of uncertain status were divided up in the same proportions as those suggested by the comparative material for the measurable bones. The domestic categories could then be added to the other domestic animals from the site (the sheep) and the wild category to the deer and seals, to produce an overall picture of wild and domestic species in the economy (see table 2). The resulting figures should not of course be taken too literally, and the variations between the four major units are probably due to chance. It is worth adding that the proportion of wild animals may be exaggerated. Degerbøl had only a small sample of neolithic domestic cattle available, and it may well be that this does not reflect the full range of domestic cattle sizes. If the upper size limit of the domestic cattle range were to be raised, then fewer of the Fannerup specimens might be classifiable as definitely wild. More might in fact be in the overlap zone than the limited sample of domestic neolithic cattle at present suggests. At all events, it seems beyond doubt that wild animals played only a subsidiary role. Fannerup is clearly not a hunting station of the kind described by Skaarup (4).

The horse bones have not been included in table 2 as their status is uncertain. It is only recently that horses have been recognised as present in the Danish middle neolithic. Sporadic finds in late mesolithic and neolithic contexts were usually regarded as intrusive, but some of the horse bones themselves have now been radiocarbon dated and have proved to be contemporary to the cultural contexts in which they were found. A phalanx from the late mesolithic site of Brabrand was dated to 3550±75, b.c., and a metatarsal from middle neolithic Lindskov to 2570±65 b.c. (5). The seven fragments from Fannerup (4 phalanges, a carpal and 2 teeth) all came from the shell levels (level 3 in each case) of Fannerup I and II, and there seems no particular reason to regard them as intrusive. Davidsen regards the radiocarbon dated bones as most likely to have belonged to wild animals, because of the derivation of some from late mesolithic contexts (6).

STRATEGIES OF EXPLOITATION

Recent work on the strategies of animal exploitation adopted by prehistoric farmers has made considerable progress. These studies depend in the main on large samples of prehistoric bones, in particular on sufficiently large samples of ageable jaw fragments and certain measurable bones. The Fannerup samples do not provide adequate numbers of these, and this should be remembered in the following. An attempt can be made, however, to see where Fannerup stands in relation to other sites which have provided larger samples.

1. a) the pigs

The usual strategy adopted by prehistoric economies was to exploit the pig's high reproductive capacity in order to obtain meat. This involves keeping some of the females alive into adulthood to act as breeding sows, and also one or two boars. It is advantageous to kill the rest while they are still growing, as there is little point in maintaining adults surplus to breeding requirements. The archaeologically visible result of this strategy is a high juvenile kill. This is precisely the picture obtained from the Fannerup pig bones. Table 3 gives the data obtained from bone fusion. The evidence from bone fusion does not permit the precise ageing of the bone; the most that can usually be said is that a bone comes from an animal either younger than the age of epiphyseal fusion (if the epiphysis is unfused), or older than this age (if it is fused).

The Fannerup samples are all combined in table 3, and suggest that only about one fifth of the pigs were killed in their first year. Nearly three quarters of the admittedly small sample of later fusing bones came from animals that had been killed at under 3½ years. Pig is the only animal to yield a significant sample of ageable jaws. These were aged according to the system put forward by Higham (7). 10 jaws belonged to definitely mature animals of about 2¼ years and above, while 26 came from animals below this age. The jaw and bone fusion evidence all suggests, therefore, that the Fannerup pig slaughter curves conform to those usually encountered, for example at other Danish middle neolithic sites such as Troldebjerg (8).

1. b) the sheep

All the fragments that could positively be identified to either sheep or goat came from sheep. For present purposes, all caprine bones are therefore assumed to be sheep.

Little information could be gained from the few jaw fragments. Table 4 presents the available fusion data. The limited number of bones means that only the most tentative conclusions can be drawn. It would appear that relatively few sheep lived on into adult­hood. If this is correct, then Fannerup resembles Troldebjerg in this respect. On the basis of the much larger sample from Troldebjerg, Higham (9) concluded that some four fifths of all the sheep were killed before or during their second winter. This, he suggested, indicated sheep rearing for hides and meat rather than for wool. Ryder notes that in the British neolithic there is evidence of skin working but not of textile manufacture (10).

1. c) the cattle

Few ageable jaw fragments were recovered from Fannerup. However, some aspects of the sample can be examined in the light of recent work on prehistoric cattle herding. The best starting point for this discussion is Legge's work on the cattle bones from Grimes Graves and other sites in Britain (11). This will then be compared with Higham's work in Denmark and Switzerland.

The British Neolithic and Bronze Age. The cattle bones from Grimes Graves derive from a bronze age settlement, and are not connected with the neolithic flint mines on the same site. They date from around 1000 b.c., and Legge notes that they form the earliest recently studied major sample of cattle bones from a definitely domestic context in Britain -neolithic samples all derive from causewayed camps or henges, both apparently non­domestic in nature (12).

Cattle metapodials are usually regarded as falling into two size groups, corresponding to male and female animals. Legge's measurements of the Grimes Graves bones did indeed produce two size groups. Of particular interest is the fact that the smaller size group (interpreted as the cows) was much more common than the larger size group (the bulls). The metatarsal measurements suggested that 14 bones came from cows, and only 3 from bulls; the metacarpals, that 17 came from cows and 4 from bulls (13) (see figure 1). What might have caused this numerical disparity? Male and female cattle are after all born in roughly equal proportions, so the marked inequality at Grimes graves must be explained. Legge argues as follows. The distal epiphyses of the metapodials fuse onto the shaft at about 2-3 years of age (14), and only at this time do the bones become adequately measurable. This means that the Grimes Graves bones measured by Legge all come from animals killed at or above 2-3 years of age. One possible reason for the rarity of bulls is therefore that most males could have been killed below 2-3 years, so that their bones would not be found among the fused, measurable metapodials.

The Grimes Graves cattle jaws suggest that this was in fact the case. Among the jaws that could be aged by tooth eruption, a large proportion came from animals killed at only a few weeks or months of age. Jaws cannot be sexed; but the rarity of males aged 2-3 years or more argues that most of the very young jaws do come from males. Legge argued that this pattern represented a dairy economy: because most male calves were killed very young, the cows' milk would be available for human use. The adult herd would thus consist mainly of breeding and lactating females, with a few breeding bulls and perhaps some draught oxen representing the only adult males.

Legge's work has been described at some length because it has important implications for the neolithic of both Britain and Denmark. It was noted above that the only large samples of bones from neolithic Britain come from sites such as causewayed camps. Whatever these sites may represent, it is now widely accepted that they are not settlements (15). The rarity of ageable jaws from these sites means that the age at death of the cattle cannot be established. From a study of the bone measurements, however, Legge argues that dairying was also important in the neolithic (16). The causewayed camps of Hambledon Hill and Windmill Hill yielded sufficient metacarpals to show that almost all the animals killed on those sites were females (see figure 1). Legge concludes as follows:

"My argument, therefore, is that the majority of cattle killed at the causewayed camps were female, and that these animals represent the surplus available from economies based at lowland (and undiscovered) Neolithic sites. Grimes Graves has a female bias in the adult herd, due to a dairy emphasis in the economy. I would argue that the same female bias at the ceremonial sites can be taken to predict a dairy basis to cattle husbandry in the Neolithic of Britain ... " (17).

The Danish Neolithic. The large samples used to reach the conclusions described above contrast with Fannerup, where neither jaws nor metapodials were common enough to yield evidence of such quality. One bone was however present in measurable quantities, and some tentative conclusions may be drawn.

A total of 35 proximal first phalanges could be measured. This is not a large total when it is born in mind that each animal has eight of these bones. The measurements used were maximum proximal width, and the width of the proximal articulation. These correspond to Degerbøl's measurements 5 and 6 (18). The results are plotted in figure 2. The Fannerup bones appear to fall into two groups, with a single much larger outlier.

A word of caution is necessary before this figure is interpreted. The same measurement was used in his study of Swiss cattle bones by Higham (19). In his study, only the phalanges of the forelimb were used. For Fannerup, fore and hind phalanges were not distinguished during analysis. Fore and hind phalanges are somewhat differently proportioned, and it might be that the two Fannerup groups are no more than a reflection of this. However, the same measurements from wild and neolithic domestic cattle are given in figure 3, taken from Degerbøl and Fredskild (20). Fore and hind phalanges are distinguished. Inclusion of both the fore and hind phalanges does not obscure the fact that the Bos primigenius bones clearly divide up according to sex. The small sample of domestic cattle do not divide up quite so clearly, but the point of overlap between males and females falls in the area between the Fannerup groups. It therefore seems unlikely that the Fannerup groups represent separation between fore and hind limb.

One interpretation of the Fannerup groups is thus that they represent male and female domestic cattle. One other possibility must also be examined, however. At the site of Egolzwil 2 in the Swiss Alpine Foreland, Higham (21) found that proximal first phalanges from the forelimb produced not two but three groups (figure 4). Many individuals of both wild and domestic cattle were known to be present, and it seemed possible that the middle size group represented both wild females and domestic males; the large group would then be wild males, and the small group domestic females. This was not in fact the case. Higham was able to demonstrate by statistical means that the large and medium groups were wild males and females respectively, and suggested that the smallest group were domestic females. Domestic males were thus hardly represented.

Proximal phalanges of cattle fuse at about I½ years of age (22), so as at Grimes Graves it could be that most of the Egolzwil 2 domestic males were killed younger than this age. On the basis of the jaws, Higham documents a peak of killing among very young animals, and interprets these as the "missing" males. Legge has since suggested that the domestic cattle economy at Egolzwil 2 was based on dairying, as the age and sex data are so similar to Grimes Graves (23).

One definite wild male was present in the Fannerup phalanges (figure 2), and the wild female and domestic male size ranges do overlap (figure 3). Some or all of the Fannerup large size group could therefore be wild females, and not domestic males.

If the Fannerup large group is to represent mainly wild females, then most of the domestic males would have been killed very young, as at Grimes Graves and Egolzwil 2. The absence of a large sample of jaws means that this cannot be examined in the way used by Higham and Legge. There are two ways round this problem.

The first is by examining bone fusion. Cattle bone fusion data are presented in table 5. It can be seen that there was a low kill rate below about 1½ years. Only about one quarter of the bones fusing at 2-3 years came from animals killed at or below this age. Nearly 60 % of those fusing at 3-4 years were unfused. Bone fusion thus offers no support to the possibility of a high kill of very young males. The major kill period appears to be between the 2-3 and 3-4 year groups. The larger group of Fannerup phalanges is thus likely to be largely made up of domestic males, not wild females.

The second method is to examine other dimensions of the phalanges. This is done in figure 5, where maximum length of complete first phalanges is plotted against the width of the proximal articulation. Wild cattle are all (apart from one anomalously small female) out­side the range of either of the two Fannerup groups. These are much more similar to the domestic males and females listed by Degerbøl and Fredskild (24).

It seems most probable, therefore, that the Fannerup groups represent domestic male and female cattle. This is an important conclusion, because it suggests that the Fannerup cattle economy was not similar to that of the British neolithic sites mentioned above, because of the lack of evidence of a high kill of very young males.

Fannerup thus appears to be similar to Troldebjerg, which yielded a much larger sample of cattle bones (25). There was no evidence of a major kill of very young males. Equal proportions of large and small metacarpals, which fuse at 2-2½ years, indicate that equal numbers of males and females survived until at least this age. The distal radius fuses later, at 3½-4 years; of 22 fused examples from Troldebjerg, 18 were apparently female and only 4 male (26). This killing of many males between 2-2½ and 3½-4 years corresponds to a peak in deaths suggested by jaws (ibid.).

The much smaller Fannerup sample cannot provide the same level of detail, and in particular cannot demonstrate that the increase of killing shown by bone fusion between the 2-3 year and 3½-4 year groups was differentially directed towards males -this could be demonstrated at Troldebjerg, by the unequal proportions of distal radii. However, it seems most likely that the picture would have been similar. For what it is worth, the seven distal metacarpals from Fannerup do not conflict with the Troldebjerg model, in that three fall in the domestic female and three in the domestic male range; the seventh is clearly wild (fig. 1). Higham states that Bundsø resembles Troldebjerg (27). The first phalanges from Sarup fall into two groups similar to those at Fannerup (fig. 6). It may thus be that further analysis will suggest that this site is similar to Troldebjerg, Bundsø and Fannerup.

DISCUSSION

Britain and Denmark compared

It was argued in the previous section that Fannerup most probably resembles Troldebjerg in the kill patterns of cattle. It must be reiterated that Fannerup does not yield enough data for a Troldebjerg/Bundsø type kill pattern to be demonstrated independently. Circumstantial evidence would suggest, however, that all three Danish sites (and perhaps Sarup) are more similar to each other than any of them are to the British sites described by Legge. It will be noted that the Fannerup first phalanges (fig. 2) do not divide up completely equally. The smaller (female) group is rather more common. This difference is not comparable to the very considerable overrepresentation of females in the British metapodials or the Troldebjerg radii; nevertheless, it could be suggested that Fannerup was somewhere between Troldebjerg and the British sites, in that a proportion of males was being killed before 1½ years (when the first phalanx fuses and becomes measurable). The admittedly imprecise bone fusion data offers little support for this, and as each animal yields 8 first phalanges (as opposed to 2 radii) a sample of 35 first phalanges is not very large. In the absence of any good evidence to the contrary, it will be assumed that the unequal number of Fannerup first phalanges is due to chance.

It has long been recognised that a Troldebjerg-type slaughter pattern results from exploitation for meat (28). Males are kept alive until they stop putting on weight (around 3-4 years) and are then slaughtered to make way for younger animals. That as many as four Danish middle neolithic sites may show this pattern suggests a widespread economic practice. This differs from southern England, where dairying appears to be more important (29). This will now be discussed.

The first question is the type of site Fannerup represents. The possibility that it may be a causewayed camp (but see Eriksen this volume) should be taken together with the nature of the other sites in Denmark. Troldebjerg has long been regarded as a classic settlement; recent re-examination suggests the alternative that it may be a possible causewayed camp (30). The original excavation was not carried out according to moderne standards, and it is possible that the bones do not derive from the primary period of construction of the site. The size of the cattle bones (cf. fig. 1) does suggest, however, that they are likely to be of neolithic date, and they are therefore discussed here. Recent re-excavations at Bundsø also suggest a possible causewayed camp, although the bones studied by Higham may derive from a later phase of the middle neolithic, postdating the construction of the causewayed camp (P.-0. Nielsen pers. comm.). Sarup is a very well documented causewayed camp -the bones, however, postdate the construction of the causewayed camp and derive from middle neolithic phases believed to represent a settlement, although some ceremonial functions apparently continued to take place (31). All the four Danish samples of bones discussed above are thus of uncertain provenance.

The animal bones from Fannerup shed no direct light on the problem. If a settlement rearing cattle for meat and generating a Troldebjerg-type kill pattern were to slaughter animals at a causewayed camp, the camp and the settlement could display similar kill patterns. We could not expect as clear a distinction between camp and settlement as a dairying economy would produce (cf. Legge's British example). A few human bone fragments were found at Fannerup, but this could be by chance. No complete articulated limbs of animals were found at Fannerup -but nor were they at the definite causewayed camp at Sarup. Seasonality provides no definite clue. Jaws of pigs and other animals were aged according to Higham's scheme (32). Slaughter appears to concentrate in winter, but other seasons may also be represented (fig. 7). Such a picture could be characteristic of a seasonal or briefly used ceremonial site. Equally, a seasonal grazing station would also provide such a picture.

It should be stressed that dissimilar economic evidence from Denmark and Britain in no way rules out the possibility that the Danish samples might be in some way connected with causewayed camps. We have no right to expect a uniform "causewayed camp economy". There are both cultural and locational differences between the British and Danish sites. Recent excavations in Britain have taken place at Hambledon Hill (33), Crickley Hill (34), Orsett (35), Bury Hill (36) and Offham Hill (37) and these highlight some cultural differences. The earliest British examples are considerably older than the Danish sites. The profusion of human bones at British sites suggests that corpse exposure before reburial in communal chambered tombs might have been one function (38). As Madsen points out, however, primary use of the Danish chambered tombs takes the form of a few articulated skeletons (39). Later re-use for mass burial of many disarticulated bones postdates the causewayed camps, which are therefore less likely to have seen corpse exposure of the sort suggested for Britain. The rarity of pits on some (but not all) British causewayed camps has on occasion been used as evidence of their non-domestic function (40). Sarup has many pits (41).

The economic differences between the British and Danish sites (whatever the precise contexts of the Danish bone samples) may mirror a difference in their characteristic locations. In Britain, aerial photography has revealed many more causewayed camps than hitherto suspected, scattered throughout the interior of southern England (42). In Denmark, however, the sites are usually on the coast. Of the definite sites, Sarup is 3 km inland ( 43), Toftum only 1 km (44). Lønt is on the sea (45), as was Voldbæk at the time of its use (46) and Bundsø (47). Bjerggårde was 2 km inland (48) and the example underlying the Viking fortress of Trelleborg some 3 km (49). Büdelsdorf, just south of the German border in Holstein, was also on the coast (50). Of the possible examples, Troldebjerg was 3 km inland, and Årupgård some 5 km (51). Fannerup's location on an interior fiord is thus typical of presently known and suspected causewayed camps in Denmark -although this does not of course necessarily mean that it was one (cf. Eriksen this volume).

Higham and Message (52) emphasise the value of coastal grazing at Troldebjerg, and it might be that this was also important at the other Danish sites, whether or not they were causewayed camps. It is possible that coastal grazing permitted the maintainance of more beef cattle than was the case in the interior of southern Britain. It may be noted that a beef regime (resulting in a Troldebjerg type kill pattern) need not entirely preclude the exploitation of dairy products. Many modem African pastoralists are able to use some of the cows' milk for themselves, while at the same time keeping the males alive for several years for beef (53). A feature of these African economies is the slaughtering of stock for their meat at times of seasonal or interannual scarcity of milk and/or grazing. If such a picture is applicable to northwestern Europe, then it would clearly be advantageous to have a reserve of beef animals available for such periods of scarcity if the animals could be maintained. If adult females had to be killed at such a time, the long term future of the herd might be threatened. One important factor in the difference between inland Britain and coastal Denmark may therefore have been the availability of superior coastal grazing in Denmark. Other aspects not discussed here would include a consideration of the potential importance of cereal stubble and straw in the two areas, the extent of forest clearance, and the possibility of fodder collection. Speculations of this nature will be put into perspective by future research. More information is needed from Denmark -at present, the sites with good economic evidence (Troldebjerg and Bundsø) are of uncertain functional status; and the definite causewayed camps (Sarup, Toftum and others) have only provided faunal samples of limited size and doubtful context.

If the doubtful sites are causewayed camps, then the corresponding settlements must be found -an assumption made in the foregoing is that settlement distribution mirrors causewayed camp distribution. Study of sites from the interior of Denmark would be welcome. Discussion has been made of a number of questions raised by the Fannerup bones because it is felt that even relatively small finds may add to our knowledge when discussed in parallel with larger finds. A small sample of bones is not an excuse merely to provide a list of fragments.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Niels Andersen, Palle Eriksen, Paul Halstead, Tony Legge and Dale Serjeantson for reading the manuscript and offering me the benefits of their comments. Any errors remain the responsibility of the author. I should also like to thank Poul Otto Nielsen for permission to mention unpublished work.

Peter Rowley-Conwy