Journal of Archaeology in the Low Countries 1-2 (November 2009)Quentin Bourgeois; Luc Amkreutz; Raphaël Panhuysen: The Niersen Beaker burial: A renewed study of a century-old excavation

3 Human remains

The results of the examination of the human remains that are visible on the cleaned surface of the plaster block are presented below. It is important to keep in mind that we only see the inferior surface of the burial, viz. the lower part of the burial. Regarding the horizontal position of the bones references in the text will be made to the situation depicted in figure 5. Remarks on the vertical position of the human remains refer to the original stratigraphic context of the bones in the field. The description below is based on close observation of the present surface of the burial and the radiographs mentioned above (fig. 4).

3.1 Observations in the field: 1907

next section

The first physical anthropological observations in the field by local practitioner Dr Hanedoes van Almkerk were included in Holwerda’s 1907 publication. When Dr Hanedoes studied the grave, the skeleton was not fully cleaned and several bones on the surface were strongly decomposed into a grey mass that had the consistency of soap. His observations are especially important since he described the original superior surface of the buried remains, which today is covered in plaster and of which only a few not very informative photographs exist. The remains were clearly identifiable as human. According to Dr Hanedoes, the skeleton was lying on the back. On the exposed surface he observed the skull, which he describes as a section after removal or more likely complete decomposition of the superior right lateral part of the skull. He further mentions that the vertebral column and the right arm were visible as soil discolourations. Solid bone was preserved from the proximal part of the humerus and a section of the left pelvic bone. He also observed a large part of what he calls the left femur. He mentions that the proximal part was relatively well preserved, whereas bone decomposition in the area of the popliteal fossa had resulted in considerable bone loss. Parallel to the femur a longitudinal stretch of grey soaplike mass was visible and its original shape could not be determined. Dr Hanedoes recognised the presence of the skeleton of a second individual by the presence of a skull, other parts of this skeleton were not visible at the time he inspected the burial.

3.2 Observations in the laboratory: 1907

Prof A.W. Nieuwenhuis (1864-1953) published his observations in 1907, shortly after the examination of the burial in the laboratory and the analysis of the human remains. In this article, Nieuwenhuis (1907) provides a detailed overview of the bones and discolourations in the soil and how they were cleaned from the soil. He clearly mentions that certain bones and parts of bones were in such an advanced state of decomposition that it was difficult to determine what was bone and what was soil. He divides the bones in two groups. The bones at the left (= southern) side are considered to be more interesting since these represent a fairly complete crouched inhumation. In his view the skull was long headed (dolichocephalic) with a sloping forehead and strongly developed supraorbital ridges. He describes this crouched inhumation in some detail. Some of his interpretations differ from our views, which will be described below. In describing the position of the body in the grave, Nieuwenhuis seems to temporarily forget that he is observing the underside of the burial. He mentions that the body was buried with bent and flexed knees turning its back side to us, which factually should read front side. He identified the posture of the body in the grave as similar to a Hockergrab or crouched burial. Comparing the skeleton in the left part of the burial with the bones in the right part, Nieuwenhuis noticed a difference in robusticity. This lead him to the assumption that the in situ burial was a female and the disarticulated, more robust bones were possibly male.

The second part of the burial was considered to represent disarticulated human remains of one individual consisting of a skull, a mandible, femora, a tibia, a humerus and three long bones probably of the lower arm. Nieuwenhuis assumed that these bones were of one individual because of their similarities and robustness.

3.3 Description of the human remains: 2009

The work of Holwerda and Nieuwenhuis has resulted in the rare preservation of a Beaker inhumation grave, which allows us to study it with modern techniques and put it in a new perspective. In general, Nieuwenhuis’ division of the human remains in two sections is still valid today, but it is evident that besides the human remains a third concentration of bones contains animal skeletal remains (fig. 3). Nieuwenhuis’ identification of these bones as being the remains of the foot of the crouched inhumation are no longer tenable. Two bones are visible in this section of the grave, one is easily recognisable as the dorsal surface of a metapodal of a large mammal, probably of a cow or horse (pers. comm. Mrs Inge van der Jagt, Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden). The second bone has a flat surface and is larger (±13 by 10 cm) than the remains of the human pelvis nearby. It lacks morphological features that would help to identify it by species, but attribution to the human skeleton can be ruled out by its large size and shape.

3.4 The crouched burial: taphonomy

What was described by Nieuwenhuis as a complete skeleton is is in fact a partial skeleton with most of its bones intact and in position. This deposition will be referred to as the crouched inhumation. This skeleton is found in the southern part of the recovered burial. The human remains are represented by dark brown soil discolourations and smaller and larger bone fragments. Combining the visible parts with the information from the radiographs and the field observations recorded in photographs and the description by Hanedoes van Almkerk, it is evident that we see the skeleton of a person who was buried on its left side with semiflexed legs in relation to the trunk. The left arm extends out of the trunk and is flexed at the elbow joint. The right arm was described by Hanedoes van Almkerk but he does not mention its position. The position of the pelvic bones on top of each other, the parallel position of the femora, and the way they articulate in the hip joint provide evidence for a burial on the left side. Similarly the skull was found to be lying on its left side. Since several spinous processes of the vertebrae were found to represent the lowest part of the vertebral column we may assume that the upper half of the body was slightly rotated towards a dorsal position. Hanedoes van Almkerk’s interpretation that the person was lying on its back was made on the basis of a not fully uncovered skeleton in the field and has to be revised. Holwerda’s assumption that the body was deposited in the grave in a sitting position has also been refuted.

The soil discolouration which surrounds the bones is difficult to interpret. First of all it is not known whether the present margins of the discolouration mark the original distribution of the darker coloured soil. Some isolated spots of dark coloured soil above the femora may indicate that some of the soil was lost during the cleaning of the burial in the laboratory. Furthermore the discolouration of the soil extends around and between all three bone concentrations.

The loss of the lower part of the legs shows that the burial was not completely recovered. The left femur was damaged in the process of recovery and originally extended outside the margins of the recovered block. No trace is visible of the tibiae and feet. In one of the field photographs (providing a view from above) a linear mass is, however, visible probably representing the right tibia. This mass suggests that the knee joint was lying in a semiflexed position, with an angle between the femur and the supposed tibia of circa 90 degrees. During the recovery some bone was also lost in the area of the skull. The top of the skull is in contact with the gypsum.

Bone loss also occurred as a consequence of intense bone decomposition. Smaller bones, like those in the hand, and bones with lower bone densities, like vertebral bones or the proximal and distal ends of long bones, have completely dissolved in the soil.

The loss of complete bones and sections of bones shows that the conditions in the grave and soil were not ideal for bone preservation. If we compare the situation documented in the field and in the laboratory it is notable that the lower lying parts of the skeleton are better preserved than the higher parts. In particular, the skull and the pelvis and lower extremities are better preserved. However small fractures are also visible in preserved bone sections.

An important indicator for the conditions in the burial context at the time of deposition and changes in the time after deposition, is the analysis of joint articulation and the position of individual parts of the skeleton. It is important to note that the original deposition surface of the burial can no longer be determined, which makes it difficult to determine the exact position of the body and skeleton in relation to this deposition surface. What can be described is the position of the parts of the skeleton relative to each other. The skull is lying on its left side, facing south. The occipital bone and the atlas were observed articulated. Further, the mandibular condyle was found articulated with the mandibular fossa at the skull base. The lower jaw was found in an open position and had thus moved outside the volume of the body. As a whole the skull, mandible and atlas were found in a position circa 25 cm from where we assume the shoulder girdle and the first thoracic vertebrae would have been. A series of actions may have resulted in this position. First, the skull may have been separated from the body before the moment of deposition and placed at this location in the grave. Second, the skull may have been separated from the rest of the body during the decomposition process and displaced due to natural decomposition processes of the body and underlying organic material. A third possibility is that the skull was displaced due to intervention in the grave after the initial decomposition process had dissolved the connective tissue between the first and maybe the second cervical vertebrae (atlas and axis) and the rest of the cervical vertebrae.

Remains of the left arm can be seen to the left of the body, with the radius and ulna in an acute angle of circa 45 degrees with the humerus. These bones seem to articulate with each other and the humerus may have articulated in the shoulder joint. Due to the poor state of preservation this cannot be determined with more certitude. The bones of the pelvic girdle are distributed in a manner which suggests that the left part of the pelvis rested on the bottom of the grave and the right half of the pelvis was displaced into the volume of the body during decomposition and is now lying on top of the left half. The pelvis was also found in close association with the disarticulated bone deposition. It seems that the right pelvis may have leaned against the disarticulated bones. The left femoral head was found articulated with the hip joint.

In conclusion, the taphonomical data show us that the skull was displaced. If we consider this displacement the result of natural decomposition processes then both the distance of displacement and the position of the mandible could be interpreted as indications that the body was lying in an open space in the grave (Duday 1990). This is no longer true if we assume that the skull was displaced due to later human intervention in the grave. In that case the jaw may have opened at the time of intervention. Therefore, evidence for the presence of an open space depends on the interpretation of the displacement of the skull.

3.5 Physical anthropological examination

Although the pelvis and the skull are only partially preserved and partially fixed in the matrix, sufficient features can be assessed to determine sexualisation degrees. Sexualisation degrees were determined using the methods recommended by the Workshop of European Anthropologists (WEA 1980). Both the values for the pelvis and the skull indicate that the crouched inhumation was of female sex (Table 1).

Table 1: Sex determination of the pelvis and the skull (WEA, 1980) All features are scored between -2 and +2, ranging from hyperfeminine to hypermasculine.
Feature Pelvis	Weight	Score	Weight*score
Greater sciatic notch	3	-1	-3
Pubic angle/arch	2	-1	-2
Ischial body	2	-1	-2
Iliac fossa	1	-1	-1
Sum	8		-8
Sexualisation degree pelvis	-1.00	Percentage: 42%
Glabella	3	-1	-3
Superciliary arch	2	1	2
Mastoid process	3	-1	-3
Supramastoid crest	2	-1	-2
Sum	10		-6
Sexualisation degree cranium	-0.60	Percentage: 31%

In its current state it is difficult to estimate the age at death of this female individual. All indicators show that it is an adult individual. All observable epiphyses have fused and a few dental elements show marked attrition. In addition a part of the surface of the pubic symphysis can be observed. This feature can be used to estimate age in adults (Acsádi & Nemeskeri 1970; WEA 1980). The presence of pitting or other supposed parturition changes (White & Folkens 2005, 380) would be a reason not to use this part of the skeleton for age determination. However, no such parturition changes are visible. Because of the formation of a continuous rim along the dorsal margin and the disappearance of the original structure on the surface of the pubic symphysis it would be categorised in phase 3 or higher. This is indicative of an age at death of 40 years or more. Stature cannot be calculated precisely since none of the long bones can be measured in full. For the left femur the total length can be reconstructed. Preserved in the grave is 44 centimetres of this bone, the missing part can be estimated at measuring circa 4 centimetres. If we assume that the total length of this femur originally was c. 48 cm the stature of this female would be 172.7 centimetres (using the regression formulas of Trotter & Gleser 1958). No evident pathological changes were observed during visual inspection of the bones at the surface of the grave. Nieuwenhuis notes the robust characteristics of the skull and his conclusion that this differed considerably from modern Dutch skulls is not supported by the re-investigation of the human remains. It is possible that Nieuwenhuis was more accustomed to the study of more gracile Asian human remains, which led him to this conclusion.

3.6 Disarticulated human remains

In the northern part of the burial the remains of a deposition of disarticulated bones were preserved. These bones will be henceforth referred to as ‘disarticulated deposition’. As far as can be seen in the present situation this deposition consists of a skull, a fragment of a pelvis, a mandible and – on top of this mandible – large diaphyseal sections of at least nine long bones. The mandible is lying with the superior surface facing downward.

Determination of the long bones was impeded by the fact that the bones were often lacking the proximal and distal ends and were partially still embedded in the soil. Some long bones seem to have extended outside the plaster encasing the burial. Some bones from the disarticulated deposition may have been lost during excavation and recovery of the burial. Among the nine long bones in the disarticulated deposition were two femora (right and left), probably three tibiae, two humeri and one fibula. One bone could not be identified due to the fact that it was fragmented. Most bones may well have been paired bones from one individual. The presence of what is assumed to be a third tibiae indicates that two (or more) individuals may be represented in the disarticulated deposition.

The long bones in the disarticulated deposition are roughly lying parallel to each other, the proximal and distal ends are not all on the same side, suggesting the bones were rather casually deposited together. The soil was also darkly coloured around the disarticulated deposition. In general these bones are much better preserved than those of the crouched inhumation. This may result from the fact that these bones were deposited in the grave without adhering soft tissue. The absence of soft tissue may have slowed down the decomposition of the bone (Mant 1987).

Sex determination for the main individual in the disarticulated deposition can only be based on a general impression of the robustness of the long bones and the mandible, which indicates this was possibly a male individual. Stature can be estimated based on the length of the left femur (49.3 cm). When calculated according to the regression tables for European males by Breitinger (1937), the stature of the individual would be around 175.4 centimetres. No evident pathology was observed on the exposed bone surfaces.

• Created by the Amsterdam University Press i.c.w. Digitaal Productiecentrum