FROM THE TUMULUS OF LAREVIVE
Physical Setting
The tumulus of La Revive is located at the summit of a low hill (328 m asl), in the commune of Uxeau, canton of Gueugnon (see Figure 1.1). The hill on which the tumulus sits — the so-called Tureau de l’Abime (the “Mound of the Abyss”or “Mound of Ruin”) — is one of a series of similar rises along the right bank of the Arroux River. Together, these hills form a drape between the river valley and the upland areas around the hillfort of Mont Dardon.
La Revive lies roughly 3.5 aerial km from the summit of Dardon. Now somewhat hidden by a dense oak-hornbeam forest (including trees that grow out of the mound itself), earlier pictures of the tumulus suggest that it must have stood out against the surrounding landscape when forest cover was lower (Horiot 1959: Figures 1, 2, and 3). Under a lower vegetative cover, the tumulus would have been visible from the hillfort and vice versa. Given that many of the tumuli in the area exhibit a similar visual
relationship to Mont Dardon, it seems likely that this intervisibility was intentionally built into the landscape.
94
History of Research and Analyses
Lucien D., working with the amateur/avocational archaeologist1 René Horiot, undertook a formal (though cursory) investigation of the mound in 1959. This work resulted in the production of a brief site report (Horiot 1959). During their investigation, these excavators cleaned a pre-existing trench (see Chapter 1) and deepened it slightly. They recovered three small pieces of pottery. Though these artifacts have been lost in the intervening years, the excavators’ illustrations confirm their similarity to ceramics
recovered from the summit of Mont Dardon during French Project excavations in the late 1970s (see Green, et al. 1987). The Dardon ceramics date to the late Bronze through early Iron Ages, roughly between 1200 and 450 BCE. The lost ceramic fragments from La Revive would seem to indicate a similar date. With the exception of a heat-altered piece of granite collected by French Project members in the summer of 1977, these sherds are the only artifacts known to have come from the tumulus.
In 1994, French Project members investigated the tumulus in greater detail as part of a larger landscape survey. With its open trench, the mound offered a rare opportunity to examine the feature’s internal structure while, at the same time, limiting further damage. The team cleaned a section of the trench wall to expose the undisturbed sediment profile beneath. This cleaning revealed an internal stratigraphy that suggested several stages of construction, punctuated by the emplacement of rock layers and burning events (Figure 3.1). As at other tumulus sites in Burgundy (Baray 2000; Jacquet and Maerten 1984), the bottom of the mound appeared to rest on a pavement of rock that might cover a central burial chamber. A thick stratum of charcoal and oxidized sediment capped the lower third
95
of the column, suggesting a substantial fire. The 1994 team collected charcoal and soil from this burned layer for radiocarbon testing and pollen analysis.
Figure 3.1. Internal stratigraphy of the tumulus of La Revive, Uxeau (71), France. Apparent differences in depth between the two profiles result from methodological differences. In 1994, French Project members cleaned and mapped the existing trench wall. These measurements, therefore, include an horizontal component. In 2004, the author cut a vertical profile into the wall of the trench.
96
Conventional radiocarbon testing of the charcoal yielded a 14C date of 2630 ± 120 yr BP (Figure 3.2, Beta–75704). With a very broad two-sigma error, the radiocarbon date corresponded to a range of calendar dates from 1015 to 405 BCE, encompassing the end of the Bronze Age in eastern France, the entire early Iron Age, and the beginning of the late Iron Age. Given that significant cultural shifts are known to have occurred in this 600-year time frame, the 1994 radiocarbon date was both enlightening and frustrating.
The results of radiocarbon testing were particularly puzzling in light of the pollen analysis. The soil sample obtained from the tumulus was sent to a North American analyst, Dr. Linda Scott Cummings, for testing. Cummings described the pollen profile that she observed as “extreme” (Cummings and Albert 1995). While it contained individual Quercus (i.e., oak) and indeterminate pollen grains, nearly the entire sample (99%) was composed of a single pollen type that Cummings initially found difficult to Figure 3.2. Radiocarbon dates of samples collected from the tumulus of La Revive, Uxeau (71), France.
97
identify (Figure 3.3). Eventually, she became confident that this was mistletoe (Viscum sp.) pollen (Cummings, personal communication 2005).
The identification of mistletoe, if indeed that is what the 1994 team had found, would be significant. In his Naturalis Historia (Book XVI, chapter XCV), written in the mid-first century CE, Pliny the Elder (1856) suggested the importance of this plant to Iron Age (specifically Celtic) ritual life. Pliny fueled the popular imagination with his description of its harvesting by white-robed druids using golden sickles. While some scholars have drawn attention to mistletoe-like motifs in the art of the period (see, for example, Frey 1996; Green 1996, 1997; Herrmann 1997), much of the archaeological community remains skeptical about Pliny’s account. This skepticism derives, in part, from the prominent role that Pliny’s description of druids played in the “Celtomania” (Reinach 1898) of the 18th and 19th centuries. Only the Lindow Moss site (western
Figure 3.3. Counts of pollen identified in samples collected from the tumulus of La Revive, Uxeau (71), France. Note the concentration of mistletoe (Viscum) pollen in Stratum H (1994) and in Strata 8 and 9 (2004), and the lack of such pollen in samples collected from the surrounding forest floor and Stratum 4, which originally “capped” the mound (image adapted from Cummings and Puseman 2005: Figure 4).
98
England) offers an archaeological indication of anything close to Pliny’s story, but here the gut contents of the “Lindow Man” included only four grains of mistletoe pollen (Scaife 1986; Turner 1995). This small concentration has left room for debate about its presence. Thus, archaeologists have yet to reliably and unequivocally demonstrate the importance of mistletoe to Iron Age ritual life.
Cummings counted more than 240 grains of mistletoe pollen in the small 1994 sample from La Revive. This represented a concentration some 60 times that found at Lindow. The overwhelming dominance of mistletoe pollen indicated that this sample did not represent natural pollen rain, but rather an artificial concentration of mistletoe in this specific location within the tumulus. Further, much of the 1994 mistletoe pollen was discolored, suggesting fire damage. Pollen does not survive exposure to open flame. It seemed likely, therefore, that mistletoe had been intentionally placed on the cooling remains of a fire as part of some practice associated with the construction and use of the tumulus. The 1994 evidence from the tumulus of La Revive seemed to indicate an intentional — perhaps ritual — use of mistletoe by early Gallic2 populations nearly a millennium before the events that Pliny allegedly witnessed. Unfortunately, the sudden death of the archaeologist heading up this investigation (Tom Hargrove) delayed the publication of these results and interpretations.
Research Methods and Objectives
In August 2004, the author returned to the tumulus of La Revive. The method of investigation chosen was similar to that employed by Hargrove and the 1994 team: a 50- cm-wide column was cut into the western trench wall (near the area cleaned in 1994) to expose a plumb surface. As in 1994, the vertical cross-section exposed in this cut
99
facilitated the exploration of the relationships between strata inside the tumulus while containing disturbance to a relatively small area.
The primary goal of renewed (albeit limited) excavation at La Revive was the collection of new charcoal samples for dating and new soil samples to confirm the presence of mistletoe pollen deeper in the undisturbed portion of the mound, to rule out the small possibility that the pollen had arrived in the trench through some natural process. Additional objectives included: (1) to elucidate sedimentary relationships noted during the 1959 and 1994 investigations of the tumulus, and (2) to assess the impact of erosion on the open mound since 1994.
All samples collected were analyzed, once again, by L.S. Cummings. These
analyses, including radiocarbon dating, took place in the laboratories of PaleoResearch, Inc. (Golden, Colorado). Unlike 1994 charcoal sample, radiocarbon dating of the 2004 samples was accomplished by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS), which provides more-precise dates with only small amounts of organic material.
Results
The exposed stratigraphic column revealed 10 strata atop a rock pavement (Figure 3.1, right). Two layers, Strata 6 and 8, had basin-shaped profiles capped with stones. All of the internal layers were very compact and composed of fine sediments. Charcoal and soil samples were collected from Strata 8 and 9 (in the general vicinity of the 1994 samples), as was soil from the dark, humic Stratum 4 (thought to represent the original top of the mound).
Carbon extracted from the Stratum 4 soil sample yielded an AMS date of 155 ± 15 yr BP, which calibrated to a one-sigma calendar date range of 1670 to 1940 CE (Figure 3.2,
100
PRI–05–30–4)(Cummings and Puseman 2005). AMS dates of charcoal taken from Strata 8 and 9 were relatively close to one another. Stratum 8 yielded an AMS date of 2515 ± 15 yr BP, which calibrated to three date clusters within the range 770 to 590 BCE (Figure 3.2, PRI–05–30–8). Stratum 9 produced an AMS date of 2535 ± 15 yr BP, calibrated to three date clusters within the range 790 to 600 BCE (Figure 3.2, PRI–05–30–9). It is statistically impossible to isolate which clusters within these broader ranges are most precise due to a plateau in the radiocarbon curve for this period. Nonetheless, these dates are far more precise than the 1994 radiocarbon date (2630 ± 120 yr BP) and even fit neatly within the original date’s one-sigma calibrated range (890 to 600 BCE). Further, the dates provided by the Strata 8 and 9 samples isolate the construction of these parts of the tumulus to the very end of the Bronze Age (850-775 BCE) or, more likely, the early Iron Age (ca. 850-775 to 500-450 BCE).
Pollen testing of the soil samples from both Strata 8 and 9 confirmed the presence of mistletoe pollen within the undisturbed areas of the tumulus (Figure 3.3). Sample 8 was dominated by oak and other arboreal pollens. Mistletoe pollen accounted for 15% of the Stratum 8 sample. Sample 9 included oak and other arboreal pollens, as well as the pollens of some low ground-covering plants (e.g., Plantago sp.). More than 50% of this sample, however, was composed of the pollen identified as mistletoe.
Discussion
Once leaf litter and other debris were removed from the wall of the trench, the underlying sediments — particularly those near the base of the sequence — were relatively compact. The compact nature of these layers likely accounts for the minimal
101
impact of erosion on the site since 1994. Only the upper sediments show visible signs of erosion damage, in places quite severe, likely owing to bioturbation.
The basin-shaped profiles and stone “caps” of Strata 6 and 8 suggest these layers represent backfilled holes cut into the pre-existing mound. Such holes were perhaps dug to accommodate ancillary interments (a common practice throughout the 1st millennium BCE), or as part of some votive practice.
The AMS date of Stratum 4 indicates that this was the top of the mound when its 19th-century excavators dug into it. Thus, Strata 1 through 3 are likely backfill taken from the middle of the mound during the many phases of its excavation (both clandestine and more formal).
The AMS dates from Strata 8 and 9 are essentially the same date. Small variations among the dates, however, open up the possibility that the tumulus was constructed or reused at different moments during the early Iron Age, over a few years or even
generations. As noted above, the reuse of pre-existing mounds was quite common during the principal period of tumulus construction, into the late Iron Age (i.e., after 450 BCE), and sometimes much later (see Déchelette 1927a:128).
The dominance of Viscum pollen in the 1994 (i.e., Stratum H) sample and the Stratum 9 sample from 2004, together with the recovery of a significant amount of Viscum pollen from Stratum 8, suggest one or more intentional placement event(s). If Samples H and 9 were collected from the same stratum, as seems likely, it is possible that Sample H represents an area that was more thoroughly burned, while Sample 9 represents an area farther out on the edges of the fire. The fire would have destroyed all of the ambient pollen in the location of Sample H (accounting for the extremity of the first
102
pollen profile) and much of the ambient pollen in Sample 9. As the fire died down and the heat became less intense, mistletoe might have been laid on the tumulus (much as incense is placed on charcoal briquettes to smolder in contemporary temples and
churches). Because the Viscum pollen observed in Sample H was discolored by heat and that in Sample 9 was not, it seems that the heat was most intense in the area of Sample H.
Stratum 8 appears to represent a different event than Stratum 9, but perhaps
separated by only a short period of time. Once again, most of the organic content appears to have been burned away. Some of the pollen record did survive, however, and what remains gives the impression that the Stratum 8 sample comes from the very edge of an area where mistletoe was laid after a fire. Further, since mistletoe blooms from late- winter through early spring (Becker 2000; Ramm, et al. 2000) and the smoldered plant had to be in bloom in order to leave pollen behind, it is fairly certain that the fire event or events occurred during this blooming period. Given that these materials were recovered from within a funerary context, it is likely that the burning events that they evidence were related to funerary and/or votive practices (perhaps including memorial rituals).
Conclusions
These last interpretations depend, of course, on the reliability of the pollen
identification. Clearly some plant was particularly important in the construction and use of the tumulus of La Revive, but has the correct plant been identified? Or has Pliny’s account once again, though inadvertently, been afforded too much credit? Future work at the tumulus of La Revive will include the cutting of a third narrow sediment column and the collection of new samples in an attempt to resolve these questions. All future analyses will be conducted in French laboratories, by French palynologists more familiar with the
103
local flora. Only after such analyses have been conducted can it be said with certainty that mistletoe use was an integral component of the practices involved in building and/or using this tumulus, practices that one might label “ritual.” Further, provided future analyses of materials derived from La Revive yield results similar to those reported here, a stronger case for the broader importance of mistletoe to Bronze and Iron Age ritual practice might be made if future excavations of tumuli were to incorporate palynology into their research methods.
104