Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains 9781407310756, 9781407322551

Table of contents :
Content
Chapter 1new
Chapter 2x
Chapter 3x
Chapter 3 Archaeology, Forensic Taphonomy and Anthropology
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Traditional Archaeology
3.3 Recording Iron Age Remains
3.4 Summary
3.5 New Approach and New Categories
3.6 Synergy and Integration
Chapter 4x
Chapter 5x
Chapter 5 Results
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Micheldever Wood Banjo Enclosure
5.3 Danebury
5.4 Suddern Farm EIA-MIA (c.470-270BC)
5.5 Winklebury Hillfort c. 300-100BC
5.6 Maiden Castle
Chapter 6x
Chapter 7x
Chapter 8x
Chapter 8 Conclusions
8.1 Aims of the research
8.2 Objectives
8.3 Future work
Appendix
Bibliographyx
Bibliography
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ABSTRACT
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Taphonomic Histories
Chapter 3 Archaeology, Forensic Taphonomy and Anthropology
Chapter 4 Materials and Methods
Chapter 5 Results
Chapter 6 Burial Contextual Evidence
Chapter 7 Discussion
Chapter 8 Conclusions
Appendices
Bibliography

Citation preview

BAR 576 2013 TRACEY CULTURAL BEHAVIOUR OR NATURAL PROCESSES?

B A R

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains Justine Tracey

BAR British Series 576 2013

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains Justine Tracey

BAR British Series 576 2013

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 576 Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains © J Tracey and the Publisher 2013 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781407310756 paperback ISBN 9781407322551 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407310756 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2013. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

CONTENTS Table of Contents List of Figures List of Tables Acknowledgements Abstract Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Background to the Research 1.2 Classical and Irish Literary Sources 1.3 Anthropological and Ethnographic Studies 1.4 Pits, Refuse, Ritual 1.5 Faunal Remains 1.6 Summary 1.7 Aims of the Research 1.8 Objectives 1.9 Outline Chapter 2 Taphonomic Histories 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Forensic Science 2.3 Intrinsic Factors 2.4 Extrinsic Factors 2.5 Cultural Practices 2.6 Context Taphonomic Histories 2.7 Summary Chapter 3 Archaeology, Forensic Taphonomy and Anthropology 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Traditional Archaeology 3.3 Recording Iron Age Remains 3.4 Summary 3.5 New Approach and New Categories 3.6 Synergy and Integration Chapter 4 Materials and Methods 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Materials 4.3 New Human Remains Categories 4.4 Recording Human Remains 4.5 Bone Surface Modification 4.6 Associated Find 4.7 Contextual Evidence Chapter 5 Results 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Micheldever Wood 5.3 Danebury 5.4 Suddern Farm 5.5 Winklebury 5.6 Maiden Castle Chapter 6 Burial Contextual Evidence 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Winnall Down Middle Iron Age 6.3 Danebury 6.4 Suddern Farm 6.5 Winklebury Hillfort 6.6 Maiden Castle Chapter 7 Discussion 7.1 Approach and Recording 7.2 Structured Deposits and Integration 7.3 Pit Burials 7.4 Burial Distribution 7.5 Dividing the Dead 7.6 The Burial Record 7.7 Excarnation and Excarnation Structures i

i iii iv x xi 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 4 6 6 6 9 9 17 22 28 29 29 29 29 32 33 33 34 34 34 36 38 38 38 38 42 42 60 66 117 124 129 142 142 142 146 154 155 157 163 163 164 165 165 167 167 172

7.8 Context Taphonomic Histories and Sediment Evidence 7.9 The Corpse’s Interplay within the Context 7.10 Fragmentation and Bone Displacement 7.11 Skull Veneration, Trophies or Propitiation 7.12 Fragmentation via Exposure vs. Completeness 7.13 Burials Rules Chapter 8 Conclusions 8.1 Aims of the research 8.2 Objectives 8.3 Future work Appendices Bibliography

ii

174 174 174 175 176 181 183 183 183 183 184 202

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Frilford, Oxon: Tightly contracted inhumation Figure 1.2 Broadstairs, Kent: Loosely flexed inhumation Figure 1.3 Tribal regions of Southern Britain Figure 2.1 Study of bone density survival of long bones Figure 2.2 Survivorship from West Tenter Street, Romano-British cemetery Figure 2.3 Modern Day Exposure In Rural Woodland Figure 2.4 Schematic Frequency of Recovered Skeletal Elements Remains Figure 2.5 Upper Articulated Limb Removed As One Unit Figure 2.6 Modern day scavenged victim Figure 2.7 Wolf pit teeth marks, furrows, scratches and pits Figure 2.8 Natural Trampling Marks Figure 2.9 Natural Scrape Marks On Mature Bone Specimen Figure 2.10 Natural Scrape Marks At Greater Magnification X160 Figure 2.11 Steel Knife Cut Marks Figure 2.12 Cut Marks Made With Retouched Stone Flakes Figure 2.13 Çatalhöyük, Headless Corpse Sk1466 Figure 2.14 Cut Marks On Atlas Figure 2.15 Bone surface abrasion and erosion Figure 2.16 Different Burial Circumstances Figure 2.17 Modern Day Commingled Individuals Figure 2.18 Wrapped Mesolithic burials Figure 2.19 Ban Lum Khao burial 49 Figure 2.20 Ban Lum Khao Burial 52 Figure 2.21 Noen U-Loke Burial 62 Figure 2.22 Skeletal Taphonomic Characteristics Figure 2.23 Roman Era Tombs Greece Loculus I, Tomb 13 Figure 2.24 Disturbed Burial at Zvejnieki Figure 4.1 Southern Britain - Study Sites Figure 5.1 Winnall Down: Early Iron Age Distribution Figure 5.2 Winnall Down: Early Iron Age Distribution of the New Categories Figure 5.3 Winnall Down: EIA Combined Adult Multiple Mixed Element Figure 5.4 Winnall Down: EIA Surface Modifications Figure 5.5 Winnall Down: EIA: Human distal humerus (WD 3570) - canid activity Figure 5.6 Winnall Down: EIA: Faunal remains: Two canine puncture marks Figure 5.7 Winnall Down EIA: Faunal skull found with human long bones Figure 5.8 Winnall Down: EIA: Co-mixed assemblage Figure 5.9 Winnall Down: EIA: Fragmentary Infant WD 266 Figure 5.10 Winnall Down: EIA: P5777 section shallow infant burial Figure 5.11 Winnall Down: EIA: Ditch Section 5A Figure 5.12 Winnall Down: EIA: Ulna fragments conjoined Figure 5.13 Winnall Down: MIA: Contexts Figure 5.14 Winnall Down: MIA: Distribution Figure 5.15 Winnall Down: MIA: Distribution of the New Categories Figure 5.16 Winnall Down: MIA: Human Remains Categories Figure 5.17 Winnall Down: MIA: Single Element Distribution Figure 5.18 Winnall Down: MIA: Single Element Frequency Figure 5.19 Winnall Down: MIA: Single Complete Inhumations Figure 5.20 Winnall Down: MIA: Age of Single Complete Infants Figure 5.21 Winnall Down: MIA: Multiple Complete Burials Figure 5.22 Winnall Down: MIA: Mixed Burial Types Figure 5.23 Winnall Down: MIA: Pit 8630 - Adult female and infant non-contemporaneous burials Figure 5.24 Winnall Down: MIA: Surface modifications Figure 5.25 Winnall Down: MIA: WD 3574 exhibiting canid marks Figure 5.26 Winnall Down: MIA: Canine punctures and furrow Figure 5.27 Winnall Down: MIA: Canid furrows on adult femur Figure 5.28 Winnall Down: MIA: Mechanically refitted infant long bone fragments Figure 5.29 Winnall Down: MAE Pit 2416 Figure 5.30 Winnall Down: MIA: Conjoined infant bones Figure 5.31 Micheldever Wood: Distribution Figure 5.32 Micheldever Wood: Context iii

2 2 5 8 8 11 13 13 14 15 16 16 16 17 17 18 18 21 21 23 25 25 25 25 26 27 27 34 42 42 44 45 45 45 45 45 46 46 47 47 47 48 48 49 49 50 51 52 53 54 54 55 55 56 56 57 58 59 60 60

Figure 5.33 Micheldever Wood: Distribution of new human remain categories Figure 5.34 Micheldever Wood: Age and Sex Figure 5.35 Micheldever Wood: Human Remains Categories Figure 5.36 Micheldever Wood: Multiple complete inhumations Figure 5.37 Micheldever Wood: Age Distribution Figure 5.38 Micheldever Wood: Distribution of Mixed Burial Types Figure 5.39 Micheldever Wood: Dental X-Ray of child MW 142 Figure 5.40 Micheldever Wood: Ditch Section 19B Figure 5.41 Micheldever Wood: Pit 428 Figure 5.42 Micheldever Wood: Associated finds: pot shard from P478 Figure 5.43 Micheldever Wood: Light root etching Figure 5.44 Micheldever Wood: Pit 478 Figure 5.45 Micheldever Wood: Pit 98 Figure 5.46 Danebury CP 1 Distribution Figure 5.47 Danebury CP 1 Distribution of the new categories Figure 5.48 Danebury CP 3: Distribution Figure 5.49 Danebury CP 3: Contexts Figure 5.50 Danebury CP 3: Distribution of the New Categories Figure 5.51 Danebury CP 3: Human Remain Categories Figure 5.52 Danebury CP 3: Single Element Distribution Figure 5.53 Danebury CP 3: Single Element frequency Figure 5.54 Danebury CP 3: Multiple Mixed Element Assemblages Figure 5.55 Danebury CP 3: Combined Adult Multiple Mixed Element Frequency Figure 5.56 Danebury CP 3: Non-Adult Multiple Mixed Element Frequency Figure 5.57 Danebury CP 3: Adult long bone frequency Figure 5.58 Danebury CP 3: Adult long bone survivorship zones Figure 5.59 Danebury CP 3: Non-adult long bone frequency Figure 5.60 Danebury CP 3: Single Complete Inhumations Figure 5.61 Danebury CP 3: Animal Remains Figure 5.62 Danebury CP 3: P149 DB 9, child's cranium Figure 5.63 Danebury CP 3: DB 95 from P83and DB 64 from P900 showing faunal marks Figure 5.64 Danebury CP 3: DB 47 Figure 5.65 Danebury CP 3: Burial Sediment Figure 5.66 Danebury CP 3: Pit 657 - displaced bones DB 125 and 126 Figure 5.67 Danebury CP 3: P2509 Co-mixed assemblage Figure 5.68 Danebury CP 3 P2509 Plan Figure 5.69 Danebury CP 3: P2509 Spatial relationships Figure 5.70 Danebury CP 4-5: Distribution Figure 5.71 Danebury CP 4-5: Contexts Figure 5.72 Danebury CP 4-5: Human Remains Categories Figure 5.73 Danebury CP 4-5: Distribution of the new categories Figure 5.74 Danebury CP 4-5: Single Element Distribution Figure 5.75 Danebury CP 4-5: Single Element Frequency Figure 5.76 Danebury CP 4-5: Combined Adult Multiple Mixed Element Frequency Figure 5.77 Danebury CP 4-5:Adult long bone frequency Figure 5.78 Danebury CP4-5: Single Complete Inhumations Figure 5.79 Danebury CP 4-5: Animal Remains Figure 5.80 Danebury CP 4-5: Moderate root etching Figure 5.81 Danebury CP 4- 5: Burial Sediment Figure 5.82 Danebury CP 4-5: DB 3, 6 and 168 spatial relationships Figure 5.83 Danebury CP 6: Distribution Figure 5.84 Danebury CP 6: Contexts Figure 5.85 Danebury CP 6: Distribution of the new categories of human remains Figure 5.86 Danebury CP 6: Human Remains Categories Figure 5.87 Danebury CP 6: Single Element Distribution Figure 5.88 Danebury CP 6: Single Element Frequency Figure 5.89 Danebury CP 6: Combined Adult Multiple Mixed Element Figure 5.90 Danebury CP 6: Single Complete Inhumations Figure 5.91 Danebury CP 6: Burial plan of exposed but complete inhumations DB 28, 29, 30 Figure 5.92 Danebury CP 6: Animal Remains Figure 5.93 Danebury CP 6: DB 230 Figure 5.94 Danebury CP 6: DB 304 exhibiting post-mortem damage iv

60 60 61 62 62 62 62 63 63 64 64 64 65 66 67 67 68 68 68 69 69 70 70 72 72 73 73 74 75 75 76 76 77 78 78 78 78 79 79 80 80 81 81 82 83 83 84 85 85 85 86 86 87 87 88 88 89 90 90 91 91 91

Figure 5.95 Danebury CP 6: Burial Sediment Figure 5.96 Danebury CP 6: DB 102 and DB 104 Figure 5.97 Danebury CP 7: Distribution Figure 5.98 Danebury CP 7: Contexts Figure 5.99 Danebury CP 7: Distribution of the New Categories of Human Remains Figure 5.100 Danebury CP 7: Human Remains Categories Figure 5.101 Danebury CP 7: Single Element Distribution Figure 5.102 Danebury CP 7: Single Element Frequency Figure 5.103 Danebury CP 7: DB 4 frontal bone Figure 5.104 Danebury CP 7: DB 194 skull fragment Figure 5.105 Danebury CP 7: Adult Multiple Mixed Element Frequency Figure 5.106 Danebury CP 7: Single Complete Inhumations Figure 5.107 Danebury CP 7: Multiple Complete Inhumations Figure 5.108 Danebury CP 7: Animal remains Figure 5.109 Danebury CP 7: Mild root etching Figure 5.110 Danebury CP 7: Scavenging activity, Figure 5.111 Danebury CP 7: DB 196A (P1530) Figure 5.112 Danebury CP 7: DB 196B (P1530) Figure 5.113 Danebury CP 7: Burial Sediment Figure 5.114 Danebury CP 7: Conjoined skull fragments DB 89 and DB 90 (P78) Figure 5.115 Danebury CP 8: Distribution Figure 5.116 Danebury CP 8: Contexts Figure 5.117 Danebury CP 8: Distribution of the New Categories of Human remains Figure 5.118 Danebury CP 8: Categories Figure 5.119 Danebury CP 8: Single Element Distribution Figure 5.120 Danebury CP 8: Animal remains Figure 5.121 Danebury Unphased: Distribution Figure 5.122 Danebury Unphased: Distribution Of New Categories Of Human Remains Figure 5.123 Danebury Unphased: DB 97 from P146 exhibiting mild bone erosion Figure 5.124 Danebury CP 1-5: EIA Overview Distribution Figure 5.125 Danebury CP 6-8: LIA Overview Distribution Figure 5.126 Danebury: Overview of all Contexts Figure 5.127 Danebury CP 1-5: EIA Overview: Distribution of New Human Remains Categories Figure 5.128 Danebury CP 6-8: LIA: Overview Distribution of New Human Remains Categories Figure 5.129 Danebury: Overview of All Human Remains Categories Figure 5.130 Danebury: Overview of All Single Element Deposits Figure 5.131 Danebury CP 1-5: EIA Overview of Single Complete Inhumations Figure 5.132 Danebury CP 6-8: LIA Overview Single Complete Inhumations Figure 5.133 Danebury CP 1-5: EIA Overview of Multiple Complete Inhumations Figure 5.134 Danebury CP 6-8: LIA Overview Multiple Complete Inhumations Figure 5.135 Danebury CP 1-5: EIA Overview Mixed Burial Types Figure 5.136 Danebury CP 6-8: LIA Overview Mixed Burial Types Figure 5.137 Danebury: Age of Single Inhumations Figure 5.138 Danebury: Age in Multiple/Mixed Burials Figure 5.139 Danebury: Overview Burial Sediment Comments Figure 5.140 Suddern Farm: Site plan showing excavated areas Figure 5.141 Suddern Farm: Trench 5 Distribution (Quarry) Figure 5.142 Suddern Farm: Trench 1 Distribution (Enclosure) Figure 5.143 Suddern Farm: Trench (Quarry) Figure 5.144 Suddern Farm: Trench 5, Quarry, Distribution Of The New Human Remains Categories Figure 5.145 Suddern Farm: Trench 1 (Enclosure) Distribution Of The New Human Remains Categories Figure 5.146 Suddern Farm: Human Remains Categories Figure 5.147 Suddern Farm: Trench 2 (Quarry): Single Complete Inhumations Age and Sex Figure 5.148 Suddern Farm: Quarry, Trench 2: Multiple Complete Inhumations Figure 5.149 Suddern Farm: Quarry Trench2, Mixed Burial Types Figure 5.150 Suddern Farm: F410: Mixed Burial Figure 5.151 Suddern Farm: SF C28 Figure 5.152 Suddern Farm: F456 Figure 5.153 Suddern Farm: Section of Trench 2, Quarry Figure 5.154 Suddern Farm: Plan of F437, F444 and F445 Figure 5.155 Suddern Farm: Indistinct burial boundaries Figure 5.156 Suddern Farm: Conjoined mandible fragments from F443 and F456 v

92 92 93 93 94 94 95 95 96 96 96 99 100 100 101 101 101 101 103 103 104 104 105 105 106 107 108 110 110 111 111 112 112 113 113 114 114 115 115 116 116 116 116 117 118 118 118 119 119 119 120 120 121 121 122 122 123 123 123 124

Figure 5.157 Winklebury: Site plan showing excavated area Figure 5.158 Winklebury: Distribution Figure 5.159 Winklebury: Distribution of the New Categories Figure 5.160 Winklebury: Human Remains Categories Figure 5.161 Winklebury: Single Element Frequency Figure 5.162 Winklebury: WK 2742 single cranium from Pit 2738 Figure 5.163 Winklebury: Single Complete inhumations Figure 5.164 Winklebury: WK 4028 bone erosion Figure 5.165 Winklebury: WK 2248 coarse and extensive bone Figure 5.166 Winklebury: WK 2248 and WK 2252 conjoined Figure 5.167 Winklebury: WK 3134 and WK 2805 conjoined Figure 5.168 Maiden Castle: Site Plan Figure 5.169 Maiden Castle: EIA Eastern entrance: Burial distribution Figure 5.170 Maiden Castle: EIA Central Area: Burial distribution Figure 5.171 Maiden Castle: EIA Eastern entrance: Distribution of the New Categories Figure 5.172 Maiden Castle: EIA Central Area: Distribution of the New Categories Figure 5.173 Maiden Castle: EIA Eastern Entrance: Age and Sex Figure 5.174 Maiden Castle: EIA Central areas: Age and Sex Figure 5.175 Maiden Castle: MIA Eastern Entrance: Burial distribution Figure 5.176 Maiden Castle: MIA Central Area: Burial distribution Figure 5.177 Maiden Castle: MIA: Contexts Figure 5.178 Maiden Castle: MIA: Eastern Entrance: Distribution of the New Categories Figure 5.179 Maiden Castle: MIA: Central Area: Distribution of the New Categories Figure 5.180 Maiden Castle: MIA: Human Remains Categories Figure 5.181 Maiden Castle: MIA: Eastern Entrance: Age and Sex Figure 5.182 Maiden Castle: MIA: Central areas: Age and Sex Figure 5.183 Maiden Castle: MIA: Skull of MC T24 Figure 5.184 Maiden Castle: LIA: Eastern Entrance: Distribution Figure 5.185 Maiden Castle: LIA: New Categories of human remains Figure 5.186 Maiden Castle: LIA: Age and Sex Figure 5.187 Maiden Castle LIA: MC T26 Figure 5.188 Maiden Castle LIA: MC T21 Figure 5.189 Maiden Castle: War Cemetery: Distribution Figure 5.190 Maiden Castle: War Cemetery: New Human Remains Categories Figure 5.191 Maiden Castle: War Cemetery: Age and Sex Figure 5.192 Maiden Castle: War Cemetery: Multiple Complete Inhumations and Mixed Burial Types Figure 5.193 Maiden Castle War Cemetery: Associated animal bone Figure 5.194 Maiden Castle War Cemetery: Associated pottery Figure 5.195 Maiden Castle: MIA: Eastern Entrance burials Figure 5.196 Maiden Castle: LIA: Eastern Entrance burials Figure 6.1 Winnall Down: MIA: WD 500: Stable burial conditions during and post decomposition Figure 6.2 Winnall Down: MIA:WD 35: Tightly contracted - possibly bound Figure 6.3 Winnall Down: MIA: WD 508: Tightly contracted female in a pit Figure 6.4 Winnall Down MIA: WD 629: Crouched female in a grave Figure 6.5 Winnall Down: MIA: WD 574: Scattered remains Figure 6.6 Winnall Down: MIA: WD 174: Semi-flexed and articulated adolescent Figure 6.7 Winnall Down: MIA: WD 531: Infant scattered remains Figure 6.8 Winnall Down: MIA:WD 488: Moderate bone displacement Figure 6.9 Winnall Down: MIA: WD 487: Semi-upright configuration Figure 6.10 Winnall Down: MIA: WD 567: Flexed and articulated Figure 6.11 Micheldever Wood: MW 193: Extended and articulated young adult Figure 6.12 Micheldever Wood: MW 208: Mininal bone exhibited Figure 6.13 Micheldever Wood: MW 142: Prone child burial Figure 6.14 Micheldever Wood: MW 192: Minimal displacement of Infant remains Figure 6.15 Micheldever Wood: MW 169: Minimal bone displacement Figure 6.16 Micheldever Wood: MW 207: Scattered infant remains Figure 6.17 Micheldever Wood: MW 236: Scattered infant remains Figure 6.18 Danebury CP 3: DB 24: Unusual burial configuration Figure 6.19 Danebury DB 24 burial plan Figure 6.20 Danebury CP 3:DB 12: Open pit and skeletal integrity maintained Figure 6.21 Danebury CP 3: DB 6: Possible bag burial Figure 6.22 Danebury: DB 10 Partial and exposed remains vi

124 125 125 126 126 127 127 128 128 128 128 129 130 130 130 130 131 131 132 132 132 133 133 133 134 134 135 135 136 136 136 136 138 138 139 140 141 141 141 141 142 142 143 143 143 143 144 144 144 144 145 145 145 146 146 146 146 147 147 147 148 148

Figure 6.23 Danebury CP 4-5: DB 22: Wrist bound female Figure 6.24 Danebury CP 4-5: DB 22 Burial Plan Figure 6.25 Danebury Complete and articulated DB 222 Figure 6.26 Danebury CP 6: Exposed but retained skeletal completeness and integrity Figure 6.27 Teaching skeleton: demonstrating DB 30's burial posture Figure 6.28 Danebury CP 6: DB 27 Figure 6.29 Danebury CP 6: DB 210: Possible bag burial Figure 6.30 Danebury CP 7: DB 23: Possible bag burial or wrapped burial Figure 6.31 Danebury CP 7: DB 46: Awkward burial position Figure 6.32 Danebury CP 7: P2496: Mass burial - exposed and scattered remains Figure 6.33 Danebury CP 7:P1078: Mass burial - exhibiting both articulated and disarticulated remains Figure 6.34 Danebury CP7: DB49 : Articulated individual from mass burial P1078 Figure 6.35 Danebury CP 7: P923: Mass burial - disarticulated remains Figure 6.36 Danebury CP 7: Intact cranium and vertebrae from mass grave Figure 6.37 DaneburyP935 Burial plan Figure 6.38 DaneburyDB 16: Adult male Figure 6.39 Suddern Farm SF C21: complete, flexed and articulated Figure 6.40 Suddern Farm SF C26: complete with additional loose bones Figure 6.41 Suddern Farm C27: complete, flexed, articulated Figure 6.42 Suddern Farm C30: tightly contracted Figure 6.43 Suddern Farm: SF C20: disturbed by later burial SF C19 Figure 6.44 Teaching skeleton: Prone tightly flexed Figure 6.45 Teaching skeleton: Supine tightly flexed Figure 6.46 Winklebury: WK 3910: Complete and articulated adolescent from P3834 Figure 6.47 Winklebury: Exposed and disarticulated adolescent WK 2745 Figure 6.48 Winklebury: Disarticulated adult P1614 Figure 6.49 Maiden Castle: EIA: Complete and articulated foundation burial Figure 6.50 Maiden Castle: EIA: Stratigraphic record - For adult foundation burial Figure 6.51 Maiden Castle: MIA: MC T13: Complete and mainly articulated Figure 6.52 Maiden Castle: MIA: MC T1: Intact with flexed arms and legs Figure 6.53 Maiden Castle: MIA: MC T18: Some bone displacement Figure 6.54 Maiden Castle: MIA: MC Pit Q4: Stable and supportive burial environment Figure 6.55 Maiden Castle: LIA: MC 31: Semi–seated and complete Figure 6.56 Maiden Castle: LIA: MC T20: Stable and supportive burial environment Figure 6.57 Maiden Castle: LIA: MC T12: Skeleton disappearing into bank Figure 6.58 Maiden Castle: LIA: MC T4: Skeleton disappearing into bank Figure 6.59 Maiden Castle: War Cemetery overview Figure 6.60 Maiden Castle: War Cemetery burials and post-holes of underlying Belgic huts Figure 6.61 Maiden Castle: MC P20: Bones in potential disequilibrium Figure 6.62 Maiden Castle: MC P34: Bones in potential disequilibrium Figure 6.63 Maiden Castle: MC P6: Too big for the grave? Figure 6.64 Maiden Castle: MC P30: Too long for the grave? Figure 6.65 Maiden Castle: MC P9: Slumped grave dictates bone configuration Figure 6.66 Maiden Castle: MC P22 and MC P23 - Decomposed in a filled space Figure 6.67 Maiden Castle: MC P19 and P19A - Body manipulation Figure 7.1 Yarnton, Middle Iron Age settlement and cemetery Figure 7.2 Winnall Down: EIA: Burial Record Figure 7.3 Winnall Down: MIA: Burial Record Figure 7.4 Suddern Farm: Burial Record Figure 7.5 Winklebury Hillfort: Burial Record Figure 7.6 Danebury: CP 3: Burial Record Figure 7.7 Danebury: CP 4-5 Burial Record Figure 7.8 Danebury: CP 6: Burial Record Figure 7.9 Danebury: CP 7:Burial Record Figure 7.10 Maiden Castle EIA: Burial Record Figure 7.11 Maiden Castle: MIA: Burial Record Figure 7.12 Maiden Castle LIA: Burial Record Figure 7.13 Maiden Castle ‘War Cemetery’ Burial Record Figure 7.14 Micheldever Wood Banjo Enclosure: Burial Record Figure 7.15 Unwrapped Paracas body configuration Figure 7.16 Wrapped and bound infant c.300BC from Tarim Basin Figure 7.17 Bound teaching skeleton - Side view vii

148 148 149 149 149 150 150 150 150 151 152 152 152 153 153 153 154 154 154 154 155 155 155 155 156 156 157 157 157 157 158 158 158 158 159 159 160 160 160 161 161 161 162 162 166 168 168 168 169 169 169 170 170 170 171 171 172 172 177 177 178

Figure 7.18 Bound teaching skeleton - Supine Figure 7.19 Bound teaching skeleton - Prone Figure 7.20 DB 24: Burial Plan Figure 7.21 Teaching skeleton: hands tied behind the back Figure 7.22 Bishopstone: Bound individual Figure 7.23 Danebury DB 22: Bound individual Figure 7.24 Bishopstone: Bound individual Figure 7.25 Bound Celtic figurine (c.2nd AD) Figure 7.26 Silver Denarii of Julius Caesar: Bound barbarians Figure 7.27 Lindow man Figure 7.28 Tollund Man

viii

178 178 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 181 181

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Stages of Canid Assisted Scavenging Table 2.2 Skeletal Survivorship from Scavenged Remains Table 2.3 Bone Weathering Stages Table 3.1 Wilson - Categorisation of Iron Age Human Remains Table 3.2 Walker - Categorisation of Iron Age Human Remains Table 3.3 Wait - Categorisation of Iron Age Human Remains Table 3.4 Sharples - Categorisation of Iron Age Human Remains Table 4.1 Danebury: Propitiatory burials Table 4.2 New Categories for Recording Human Remains Table 4.3 Age Terminology Table 4.4 Summary of Ante-, Peri- and Post-Mortem Characteristics Table 4.5 Modifications: Characteristics to Identify Human Activity on Bone Table 4.6 Modifications: Characteristics to Identify Non-Human Activity on Bone Table 5.1 Winnall Down: EIA: Multiple Mixed Element Assemblage Content Table 5.2 Winnall Down: EIA: Re-Assessment of Fragmentary Remains Table 5.3 Winnall Down: MIA: Multiple Mixed Element Content Table 5.4 Winnall Down: MIA: Single Complete Burials: Orientation and Position Table 5.5 Winnall Down: MIA: Multiple Complete burials: Orientation and Position Table 5.6 Winnall Down: MIA Mixed Burials: Non-contemporaneous burials Table 5.7 Winnall Down: MIA: Mixed Burial Type Orientation and body position Table 5.8 Winnall Down: MIA: Contexts with both human and faunal remains Table 5.9 Winnall Down: MIA: Re-Assessment of Fragmentary Remains Table 5.10 Micheldever Wood Multiple Complete: Orientation and Position Table 5.11 Micheldever Wood Mixed Burial Types: Orientation and Position Table 5.12 Micheldever Wood: Associated Finds Table 5.13 Micheldever Wood: Re-Assessment of Fragmentary Remains Table 5.14 Danebury: CP 1 Re-Assessment of Fragmentary Remains Table 5.15 Danebury CP 3: Multiple Mixed Element Assemblages Content Table 5.16 Danebury CP 3: Single Complete: Orientation and Body Position Table 5.17 Danebury CP 3: Multiple Complete: Orientation and Position Table 5.18 Danebury CP 3: Mixed Burial: Orientation and Body Position Table 5.19 Danebury CP 3: Re-Assessment of Fragmentary Remains Table 5.20 Danebury CP 4-5: Multiple Mixed Element Assemblage Content Table 5.21 Danebury CP 4-5: Orientation and Body Position Table 5.22 Danebury CP 4-5: Re-Assessment of Fragmentary Remains Table 5.23 Danebury CP 6: Multiple Mixed Element Assemblage Content Table 5.24 Danebury CP 6: Single Complete Orientation and Position Table 5.25 Danebury CP 6: Re-Assessment of Fragmentary Remains Table 5.26 Danebury CP 7: Type I Multiple Mixed Elements Assemblages Content Table 5.27 Danebury CP7: Type II Multiple Mixed Elements Assemblages Content Table 5.28 Danebury CP 7: Single Complete Inhumations Orientation and Position Table 5.29 Danebury CP 7: Re-Assessment of Fragmentary Remains Table 5.30 Danebury CP 8: Re-Assessment of Fragmentary Remains Table 5.31 Danebury Unphased: Multiple Mixed Element Assemblage Content Table 5.32 Suddern Farm: Single Orientation and Position Table 5.33 Suddern Farm: Multiple Complete Orientation and Body Position Table 5.34 Suddern Farm: Mixed Burial Types: Orientation and Body Position Table 5.35 Winklebury: Single Complete Orientation and Position Table 5.36 Winklebury: Re-Assessment of Fragmentary Remains Table 5.37 Maiden Castle: EIA: Single Orientation and Position Table 5.38 Maiden Castle: MIA: Single Inhumation Orientation and Position Table 5.39 Maiden Castle: Late Iron Age Single Inhumation Orientation and Position Table 5.40 Maiden Castle: War Cemetery Single Burial Orientation and Position Table 5.41 Maiden Castle: War Cemetery: Multiple Burial Orientation and Position Table 5.42 Maiden Castle: War Cemetery Mixed Burial Orientation and Body Position

ix

12 12 20 32 32 32 32 35 37 38 39 40 41 43 46 50 52 52 53 54 55 57 61 63 64 65 66 71 74 75 75 78 82 83 85 89 90 92 97 98 99 102 106 107 120 121 122 126 128 131 134 137 139 140 140

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to thank a number of individuals and institutions for their help in this study. Supervisors Professor Richard Bradley and Dr Mary Lewis and other supporting academics from the University of Reading, Professor Martin Bell, Dr Jennifer Foster and Dr Hella Eckardt. The author is also grateful to Dave Allen and Kay Ainsworth at Hampshire Museum and Archives for access to the collections and their respective archives; The Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies; University of Cambridge for access to the Maiden Castle collection, Peter Woodward for access to Maiden Castle’s archives at the Dorset County Museum, the Institute of Archaeology Oxford and Ian. R. Cartwright for access to Danebury and Suddern Farm photograph archives. A final thanks goes to my family and friends who have given me great support. Any errors or omissions are entirely mine.

x

ABSTRACT This thesis focuses on the British Iron Age and challenging the current hypotheses of exposing the dead on five Iron Age sites in Hampshire and one from Dorset, England. Current theories are based on anthropological analogies and classical texts to understand and interpret the burial record. However, this research focused on understanding the formation of the burial record employing a new science-based methodology. This new approach is both integrated and multidisciplinary, combining the osteological and context taphonomic physical or material evidence to discern cultural behaviour from natural processes. The approach utilises a wide range of forensic anthropology and taphonomy, including l’anthropologie de terrain or archaeothanatology, to identify archaeological signatures from three key and interrelated areas: the remains, the deposition context, and the relationship between the corpse and its deposition circumstance. A new system of categorising Iron Age remains was developed to differentiate funerary and depositional behaviour between sites. The results show that during the Iron Age several depositional practices can be observed: intentional exposure, propitiatory deposits and intentional practices where the body was kept whole in death which ran in parallel with each another. The research also identified the need to integrate burial data from the outset, including associated finds and stratigraphic evidence in order provide a comprehensive account of funerary and depositional practices.

xi

Introduction Chapter 1

and Stanford (1974: 220) attested that dismembered skeletons and bone fragmentation provided the evidence to support cannibalistic behaviour. Wilson (1981) argued that classical descriptions of Gaulish head-hunting practices may be supported by the archaeological evidence in Britain. Using Polybius Hist III, 67, Whimster (1981) suggested that skulls were battle trophies. Similarly, Walker (1984: 442) stated that her interpretations were within a framework of Iron Age mortuary traditions of what was then considered ‘known’ about Celtic ideology. On this basis, skulls or parts of skulls became a separate deposition category of human remains. Wait (1985: 120) stated that single adult male skulls found in pits might be reflective of the Celtic myths recorded by Roman writers. Similarly, Cunliffe (1992) argued that the presence of skulls could reflect battle trophies as mentioned in Celtic contemporary ethnographies.

Introduction

1.1 Background to the Research Cunliffe (2005: 546) summarised the overall picture of British Iron Age funerary practices and stated that from the 5th Century BC cremations were mainly superseded by inhumations, but practices varied across the country. There are two distinct regional rites that can be identified, in Yorkshire and the south-western peninsula. The Arras culture of Yorkshire (Wetwang Slack, Rudston and Burton Fleming) is characterised by large cemeteries and small barrows, and the occasional vehicle burial (Stead 1961; 1979; 1991 and Dent 1985). However, the burial record for elsewhere is more diverse, for example, inhumation cemeteries with individual graves typify south-western Britain (Mount Batten in Devon), whilst in Wales and Scotland inhumations can be found in cist burials, either singly or in cemeteries (Cerrig y Drudion or Cairnconan). For the south-east, two early excavations in 1886 and 1921 revealed two cremation cemeteries and, thus, the Aylesford-Swarling culture was created (older reports referred to this culture as the Belgae). Carr (2007) argued that the south-east is the ‘heartland’ of cremation and subsequent sites have been identified and associated with Catuvellauni, Trinovantes and Cantiaci tribes. For the Atrebates, the ‘pit burial’ tradition emerged and is generally accepted as in practice prior to the Late Iron Age Aylesford-Swarling cremation rite (Harding 1974) that many associate with excarnation (Cunliffe 1992; Carr and Knüsel 1997).

Thus, classical and Irish literary sources were employed by archaeologists to categorise deposits of human remains, as well as propose cultural behaviour and practices (Walker 1984). These sources have to be treated with some caution as some accounts may be biased or propaganda based as the British Iron Age population was largely illiterate and not writing about themselves. There is no evidence for widespread literacy in Britain until the Roman period, thus no direct evidence of people in Britain writing about their society or beliefs exists. For example, Polybius (c.200–118BCE) who wrote The Histories, Strabo who wrote Geography IV.4.4 (c.10BC) and Diodorus Siculus who wrote Histories V.31 (c.49BC), were all Greek, whereas Pliny who wrote the Natural Histories XVI, 249 (c.AD 77-79) was Roman. Furthermore, these documents were not contemporary to the Early and Middle Iron Age periods and, as such, a history.

For southern central Britain Woodward (1992), Fitzpatrick (1997), and Carr and Knüsel (1997) suggest that between the end of the Late Bronze Age (cremation rites) and later Iron Age period (cremation rites) there is a ‘break’ in the evidence for formal funerary practices. Archaeologists have found this lack of evidence problematic, and it has led to much debate on Early to Middle Iron Age funerary and deposition practices. For instance, Cunnington (1932: 31) stated that: ‘in comparison to the evidence available concerning the lives of the British Celts in the Iron Age, there was very little evidence of their death’. Later, Hodson (1964) argued that the Iron Age funerary practice was a ‘negative type fossil’ and Wait (1985) suggested that 90-95% of the Iron Age population had disappeared without a trace. This phenomenon suggests that there was a radical change in the treatment and view of the corpse from the preceding and succeeding periods, thus making it a crucial period of study.

1.3 Anthropological and Ethnographic Studies Ethnographic funerary practices are frequently cited in Iron Age literature. For example, Wilson (1981) cited Ubelaker’s (1974) study in North America and compared their excarnation and secondary burial practices to the scattered remains within British Iron Age settlements. Whimster (1981: 184) cited the Asmat of New Guinea and other social groups that had cannibalistic and headhunting cult practices as a comparison to British Iron Age dismembered and fragmented remains. Similarly, Walker (1984: 461) used the West African Asante and their burial system as a comparison for what she considered non-normal funerary rites at Danebury - pit burials. As another means to make sense of the Iron Age fragmentary remains, Walker (1984: 462) drew on groups that practiced secondary funerary rituals, for example, the Berawan of central northern Borneo (Metcalf 1977), the Ma’anyan of Indonesia (Hudson 1966), the Toradja and Balinese also of Indonesia (Wirz 1928), and the Malekula of the New Hebrides Islands (Guiart 1963: 230, 240). Walker considered that the fragmentary remains might be evidence of intentional manipulation of the corpse to guide it to from life into death (Van Gennep; 1960; Huntington and Metcalf 1979). For example, Walker

Much of our current understanding of Iron Age funerary and deposition practices is developed from a backdrop of ancient texts, anthropology and ethnographic analogies that were employed to make sense of the British burial record. These approaches have clearly influenced our interpretations as demonstrated by the following sections. 1.2 Classical and Irish Literary Sources A range of literary sources have been used to explain the appearance of British Iron Age human remains. For example, using Strabo IV 5, both Dunning (1976: 116-7)

1

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains (1984) compared Danebury’s remains to the practice in Borneo, where the corpse is processed, moved to new locations and deposited with animal remains which were the remains of a feast carried out during the funerary period.

The pit burials represented only half of the data. The other half of the burial evidence comprised burials in ditches, in or under hillfort ramparts, and in a range of earthen graves. Whimster dismissed these as extensions of the basic pit and grave burial sequence. Not all pit burials exhibit the same characteristics and variation can be observed, e.g. different body configurations. However, pit inhumations were highlighted out of a larger body of diverse burial data.

1.4 Pits, Refuse, Ritual Hawkes (1954) argued that the evidence for ritual behaviour was beyond the limits of archaeological inference. However, much of our understanding of Iron Age funerary practices has developed from discussions on pits and their function (Bersu 1940; Rawlings 1991; Bowen and Wood 1968; Reynolds 1974, 1984; Whittle 1984; Cunliffe 1992). For instance, Annable (1961:32) and Bowen (1969: 17) stated that human remains were commonly found in storage pits and that human skull and long bone fragments were frequently found amongst occupational debris. Harding (1974: 113) stated that pit burials became accepted as a tradition as no other mortuary behaviour had been recognised. The pit burial tradition was re-enforced by Whimster (1981) who argued that pit burials formed the ‘most coherent group’ of burials for central southern regions (Figures 1.1 and 1.2).

Whimster (1981) argued that due to Iron Age burials being of a relatively ‘unspectacular nature’ it was not unusual for the report to contain their summary dismissal. This general disinterest was generated from the lack of recognisable grave goods not meeting the excavator’s expectations of normal funerary behaviour or cemetery. The early antiquarians used visual field observations as a means to interpret cultural behaviour; Pitt-Rivers (1887: 11) stated that the burial of remains appeared ‘casual’ and as if they had been ‘thrown in’. These expressions and sentiments have become embedded in Iron Age literature. For instance, Richardson (1951: 131) agreed that scattered human remains were ‘not a burial in the proper sense’ but that ‘bodies were thrown into a convenient rubbish pit’. Cunliffe (1974) suggests that bodies were ‘thrown in’ the ground, and Wainwright (1979: 191) stated ‘the bodies had been disposed of casually with the domestic rubbish’. Fasham (1987) also uses the adjective ‘casual’. These comments have become interrelated so that pits are discussed in relation to refuse, ritual and pit belief systems. From the mid 1980s, excavator’s field comments have defined the Iron Age skeletal and burial record whereby four categorisations of human remains have emerged. From these, the Iron Age is characterised by relatively few complete inhumations compared to numerous fragmentary remains, both with and without the presence of faunal remains and ceramic fragments. To date, there is no standard recording system that ‘suits’ this type of burial record. These finds are not viewed as formal or recognizable grave goods (Whimster 1981: 16; Walker 1984: 443), which has been detrimental to their recording and to our understanding of their ‘role’ in the deposit. The approach splits artefacts from each other and the human remains, to be analysed by the appropriate specialists. Furthermore, human remains recording systems are more suited to a complete or near complete skeleton in a single context, rather than fragmentary remains or contexts containing multiple individuals that are influenced by any number of cultural and natural processes (Knüsel and Outram 2004).

Figure 1.1 Frilford, Oxon: Tightly Contracted inhumation in a small pit (Whimster 1981: 19)

From the early reports to date, there is a clear division between a complete skeleton and incomplete, partial or odd bone assemblages. Both types of deposits take positive and negative themes. For example, Pitt-Rivers (1887: 16; 1888: 60) stated that complete corpses found in pits at Rotherley and Woodcutts were the normal mortuary practice. Conversely, some have suggested that these individuals were denied the normal rite of excarnation and were social outcasts (e.g. Wait 1985;

Figure 1.2 Broadstairs, Kent: Loosely flexed inhumation in spacious pit (Whimster 1981: 7) 2

Introduction associations are made, we must first understand the formation of the archaeological record.

Cunliffe 1995). Similarly, over the years, scattered or fragmentary remains have spawned several hypotheses; for instance, Pitt-Rivers (1887: 16) stated that scattered skeletal material was the result of disturbed burials, whilst Dunning (1976: 116-117) stated that at Salmonsbury, Gloucestershire, their ‘sporadic occurrence and disparate nature’ may be evidence for cannibalism, and that bone fracture trauma was indicative of marrow extraction. Other theories include: secondary burial rites, skeletal selection and excarnation. Wainwright (1979) argued on the basis of just nine skull and three femoral fragments found in pits and ditches at Gussage All Saints, that there was sufficient evidence to suggest excarnation. Cunliffe (1983: 165, 1984a: 560) stated that skulls were indicative of head-hunting or head cults, and odd bone fragments or assemblages were evidence of a mortuary rite that involved excarnation and propitiatory burials. Similarly, Walker (1984: 453) considered that skull fragments found in pits reflected symbolic actions in Celtic populations.

The pit belief system appears to run parallel with both human and faunal deposits and has been associated with fertility and ritualistic activity (Bradley 1981, 1984; 1990, 2005; Cunliffe 1983) reminiscent or a revival of Neolithic mortuary rites (Cunliffe 1991, 1992; Cunliffe and Poole 1991; 1995). Cunliffe (1992) argued that some deposits of human remains might have acted as propitiatory offerings and were not buried in a funerary sense. Thus, a range of deposits were considered essentially part of a fertility cult, connected with grain storage, ritual activity to ensure land fertility, death and regeneration ceremonies (Barrett 1989; Bradley 1990; Cunliffe and Poole 1991; Parker Pearson 1996). 1.5 Faunal Remains Over the years, commingled human and animal remains have caused much debate. For instance, Hill (1995) argued that the early reports dismissed faunal remains as evidence of feasting or accidents. Wheeler (1943) suggested they represented animal burials or meat gone bad and Ross (1968) argued for sacrificial overtones. During the 1980s, the debate was ‘polarised’; for instance, some argued for ritual or special deposits (Grant 1984; 1991; Wait 1985; Cunliffe 1992) while others argued for butchery (Maltby 1981; 1985, Armour-Chelu 1991; Wilson 1992). In particular, Grant’s (1984) work on the faunal remains from Danebury was influential in developing the concept of ‘special animal deposits’. Just as influential was Hill’s (1995) study on deposition practices in Wessex, where he used Animal Bone Groups (ABG’s) to describe animal remains in order to avoid preconceived ideas that they were special or had ritualistic connotations. Hill (1995: 54) stated that human and faunal remains (or animal bone groups) were placed in the same pits, but rarely in the same layer and no universal single species or repetitive skeletal elements were identified. He (1995: 57) went on to state that the different methods of calculating ABG’s can produce different results.

Some considered other factors that could affect the burial record (Wilson 1981: 131; Walker 1984: 454-6). Wilson (1981) suggested that bone fragmentation could be due to a number of factors: natural and differential preservation or decomposition, exposure, secondary burials, disturbance and scavenging activity. Hill (1995) argued that it was generally accepted that fragmentary, partially articulated remains or assemblages were evidence for deliberate dismemberment, excarnation and exposure based on a number of key studies (Ellison and Drewett 1971; Whimster 1981; Wilson 1981; Walker 1984; Wait 1985; Cunliffe 1992; Carr and Knüsel 1997). Both Ellison and Drewett (1971) and Carr and Knüsel (1997) using ethnographic examples for comparison, went on to consider four post structures as possible excarnation platforms. Over the years, pit burials have generated two main themes; to some they represent refuse whilst others view pit burials as an expression of ritualistic behaviour. Refuse is related to the individual society’s value of refuse which is not universal (Hodder 1982a: 67; Moore 1982: 76). For example, the Asante ‘unclean’ were deposited in a similar fashion, in refuse middens (Ucko 1969: 270; McLeod 1981, 36-39). Refuse can be structured, leaving patterns that are not necessarily reflective of any ritualistic practices (Hodder 1987; Hill 1995). Our concept of ritual, rubbish and discard may not have been the same as that in prehistoric societies. Hill (1995) argued that there was no difference between sacred and profane acts of deposition, but instead there were structured deposits. Hill moved away from anthropological and ethnographic analogies and directly analysed the different categories of material recovered from pits and ditches to provide a contextual significance. Citing Schiffer’s (1972; 1976; 1983; 1987) studies on formation processes, Hill went on to argue that what little material is recovered has been affected and shaped by CTransforms (cultural agency) and N-Transforms (natural processes). Thus, before any ritual connotations or

But as Hill (1995: 15) stated, Cunliffe’s criteria to discriminate between the various deposit types is loose, but the burial depth and its completeness were common themes. There are other methods and approaches that could help to discern natural processes from cultural activity. Research into forensic taphonomy from modern crime scenes, may help us to explain differences in skeletal preservation or deposition in the past (Henderson 1987; Haglund and Sorg 1997; Duday 1978, 2006; Willis and Tayles 2009). 1.6 Summary This study was undertaken as no regional study has comprehensively combined both the osteological and depositional context’s taphonomic histories to understand deposition. Previous methods or approaches employed comparative studies that used anthropological and ethnographic analogies and classical references. On that basis, the numerous fragmentary remains and incomplete

3

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains Down, Micheldever Wood, Danebury, Suddern Farm and Winklebury were excavated from the 1970s to 2000, whilst Maiden Castle in Dorset was excavated during the late 1930s.

inhumations were associated with excarnation, secondary rites and skull curation practices. Scattered, commingled (human) and co-mixed (human and faunal) remains are commonly found on Iron Age sites. But previous recording systems were based on the recovery of complete individuals in their own burial context, which this does not suit these types of assemblages. Few studies have considered archaeological formation processes in depth or integrated them into the method as a means to understand the archaeological record, thereby separating cultural behaviour from natural processes. Instead, visual observations provided the basis for schemes that assumed that deposits of human remains were ‘dumped’ or ‘disregarded’, or ritual practices were inferred on the basis of these entirely subjective schemes and ethnographic comparisons.

1.7 Aims of the Research The aims of this research are to:  Apply a science-based approach that allows us to differentiate cultural behaviour from natural processes;  Produce a new comprehensive study of the burial practices of Iron Age humans from different site types. 1.8 Objectives The main objectives of this study are to:  Identify cultural funerary and depositional behaviour from natural processes;  Provide a standard, scientific, integrated and repeatable recording method that evaluates deposits of human remains and the context;  Develop a simple and an unambiguous system for the categorisation of Iron Age human remains that can compare the burial record for all site types.

This research re-evaluates funerary and deposition practices from six sites in central southern Britain dating to the Iron Age (8th century BC to 1st century AD) to discriminate cultural behaviour from natural processes. Based on a multidisciplinary scientific approach that integrates the taphonomic evidence from three interrelated areas; the human remains, context and the decompositional nature or behaviour, will enhance current understanding of Iron Age funerary behaviour and deposition practices. This research re-evaluates previous categories of human remains and presents a new scheme that provides a single unambiguous framework for comparing Iron Age human remains temporally. Similarly, as previous recording methods ‘split objects’ and separated burial data (Lucas 2001), this research introduces a new integrated recording system that comprehensively combines all relevant osteological and depositional data.

1.9 Outline This study continues with a detailed discussion on Taphonomic Histories exploring the complexities of the burial record (Chapter 2). This is followed by, Archaeology, Forensic Taphonomy and Anthropology, which critiques the current methods and interpretation of Iron Age remains (Chapter 3). Here, the potential and benefit of combining these disciplines is highlighted, and a new system of categorising Iron Age remains is presented. The method provides the means of how this study utilised and incorporated the wide range of new science-based studies (Chapter 4). The results have been divided into two parts: the first presents an integrated format, retaining all pertinent burial data together, which allows direct site and burial record comparison (Chapter 5). The second part presents the burial contextual evidence where the interpretation is based on an understanding of the decomposition and skeletonisation of the body (Chapter 6). All findings are brought together in the discussion (Chapter 7) and finally, the main points and further work are considered (Chapter 8).

The main focus of the study is on the burial practices of the Atrebates of Hampshire, of the six sites examined one belonged to the Durotriges of Dorset (Figure 1.3). Hampshire’s geology is made up of Eocene and Oligocene clays and gravels while chalk land is found in the north and more central areas of the county. Dorset shares a similar geology, cretaceous chalk, limestone, sandstone, gravels and clays. Hampshire has been the subject of good quality excavations, many of which have been published, coupled with good access to the archives and human remains made this region suitable for study. The research spans from the Early to Late Iron Age periods on three types of site: hillfort, settlement and banjo enclosure. The five Hampshire sites: Winnall

4

Introduction

Figure 1.3 Tribal regions of Southern Britain (after Cunliffe 2005:179)

5

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains Chapter 2

Furthermore, Roksandic (2002: 101) states that the examination of non-cultural taphonomic processes is essential to aid identification of disturbances or biases to differentiate from anthropogenic behaviour or activity. Therefore, non-human taphonomic agents must be clearly understood and identified to prevent any misinterpretation as cultural activity. Bello (2005), and Bello and Andrew (2006), demonstrated that taphonomic studies were essential when analysing archaeological remains. Considering the differing patterns of preservation, their influence on the interpretation of the human remains and the discrimination of secondary funerary rituals, provided a better understanding of the formation of skeletal assemblages.

Taphonomic Histories

2.1 Introduction Taphonomy was a term first used by Efremov (1940) and refers to the study of death assemblages, or ‘laws of burial’. Taphonomists examine the frequency of skeletal assemblages and their elements to determine their formation history and to identify bone-accumulating agents and depositional processes (Voorhies 1969; Behrensmeyer 1975; Dodson and Wexler 1979; Shipman and Walker 1980). Thus, taphonomic history has traditionally been associated with the history of bone modification. Taphonomy includes laws of ‘immutable physical and chemical reactions that occur with predictable results regardless of spatio-temporal context’ and context-specific aspects (Lyman 1994: 52). Bone survival depends on various taphonomic agents that can destroy it and transport it to or from specific locales (Lyman 2002a). Therefore, taphonomy is concerned with the processes of dispersal, disarticulation and modification. Furthermore, it includes an understanding of the chronology of taphonomic mechanisms, factors, agents and processes that can all affect bone survival (Lyman 1982, 1984, 2002b).

Consequently, taphonomy provides a multidisciplinary approach that considers biological, cultural and geological aspects in order to reconstruct the paleoenvironments, identify and discriminate between factors that cause differential destruction or attrition of bone and the transportation of human remains. It discriminates between cultural and non-human agents of bone modification (Haglund and Sorg 1997, 2002). 2.2 Forensic Science Blau and Ubelaker (2009:22) defined forensic archaeology as the application of archaeological principles and techniques with in a medico-legal and/or humanitarian context involving buried evidence. In practice, it applies traditional archaeological recording and methods to a forensic context (Cox 2009; Hanson 2004; Cheetham and Hanson 2009). Forensic anthropology has developed over the last 40 years as a subdivision of anthropology, with forensic archaeology also emerging as a discipline in its own right (Holland and Connell 2009; Stewart 1979). This is a multidisciplinary field combining physical anthropology, archaeological techniques and other field anthropology with the forensic sciences (İşcan 1981; Catteneo 2007).

Bonnichsen and Sorg (1989) argued that archaeological human skeletal remains are a consequence of anthropogenic behaviour under the influence of both cultural and natural agents. Some, for instance Boddington et al. (1987) and Duday and Masset (1987), include identifying the sequence of decomposition and cultural factors involved with the skeletal arrangement within the burial context. Carlson and Steel (1992) stated that there are at least two depositional contexts: the primary context (PC) and a secondary context (SC). The Iron Age is littered with hypotheses of excarnation, exposure, secondary burial rites and the cultural manipulation of remains. Therefore, methods or approaches that identify different depositional contexts will provide valuable evidence to support such practices.

Forensic anthropology shares common objectives with archaeology, such as the identification and discrimination of agents that cause differential destruction or attrition of bone, disarticulation, dispersal or transportation of human remains. In doing so, it focuses on the reconstruction of events peri- and postmortem discrimination of anthropogenic activity from natural processes. This includes: examining skeletal presentation, scavenging, and diagenesis in order to reconstruct pre- and post-deposition sequences (Haglund and Sorg 1997). Thus, taphonomy and forensic science are sister disciplines and, as such, complement each other (Lyman 2002b).

Carlson and Steel (1992) argue that secondary contexts will show evidence of qualitatively different modification agents. This could either be absent skeletal elements or physical changes, such as fracturing. Therefore, it is essential to identify and discriminate between the various bone modifications, such as scavenging (Haglund 1997a; Haglund et al. 1988; 1989), weathering (Behrensmeyer 1978; Lyman and Fox 1997), density and survival rates (Galloway et al. 1997), and peri- and post-mortem surface modifications (Loe and Cox 2005; Blumenschine et al. 1996; Blumenschine and Selvaggio 1998; Haglund et al. 1988; O'Sullivan 2001; Shipman and Rose 1983; Shipman 1981).

It has been demonstrated that there are several factors to consider: the human remains, space, modifications and cultural involvement or anthropogenic influence(s), both in a temporal and spatial setting, as well as any recovery biases, curation and analysis (Haglund and Sorg 1997). These factors can be considered under two main

When constructing taphonomic models it is essential to incorporate both temporal and spatial needs into the four main areas: objects, space, modification of the objects and the cultural dimension (Haglund and Sorg 1997a).

6

Taphonomic Histories likely that the skull’s shape is the cause and breaks may be mis-interpreted as perimortem trauma. Experimental work demonstrated that rates of decay were inversely proportional to bone size (Bouchud 1977; Von Endt and Ortner 1984; Lambert et al. 1983) and that small bones are less likely to survive the burial environment than larger bones.

taphonomic headings, intrinsic or extrinsic (Waldron 1987; Von Endt and Ortner 1984). Intrinsic factors are processes or conditions that are directly related to the body; such as disease, trauma, morphology, age, sex, bone density and human activity (Gordon and Buikstra 1981; Henderson 1987). Extrinsic factors are directly related to the burial environment, such as moisture, temperature, soil pH, season and burial depth (Henderson 1987; Schultz 1997).

Density Bone density also has a role in deciding the fate of bone. Those with a higher proportion of cancellous bone (vertebrae, ends of long bones) have a higher susceptibility to chemical changes and, hence, a greater decay rate than those with greater mass of cortical bone, and so are less likely to survive in the archaeological record (Lambert et al. 1983; Grupe 1988; Münzel 1988; Mays 1998).

The preservation or loss of bone can be due either to natural diagenetic processes or the result of anthropogenic activity such as funerary rituals or practices (Cox and Bell 1999). Therefore, our understanding and appreciation of intrinsic and extrinsic factors shape our interpretation of past funerary and deposition behaviour (Bello and Andrews 2006). As a consequence, all aspects should be considered before offering any interpretation of deposition and funerary behaviour. The following sections explore both intrinsic and extrinsic factors and their effects on archaeological skeletal remains, including exposure, wrapping and the understanding the decomposition and skeletonisation of the human body within its deposition context.

Thus, compact bones are less likely to exhibit diagenic change and more likely to survive into the archaeological record (Lambert et al. 1983). Mays (1998) noted that sterna, vertebrae, ribs and hyoid bones were more likely to be under-represented than the more compact femur and other long bones. More recently, Bello’s (2005) results also showed a similar survivorship trend: the scapulae, sterna, sacrum, vertebrae, patellae, hand and foot bones were poorly represented in otherwise well-preserved skeletons.

2.3 Intrinsic Factors If we consider a complete corpse as the baseline from which funerary behaviour and practices are compared, the absence of body parts (or bones when skeletonised) might be considered direct evidence for cultural manipulation and social practices (Duday and Masset 1987; Crubézy et al. 2000; Bello 2005).

Willey et al. (1997) examined the bone density of the six major long bones and their survivorship in the archaeological skeletal record (Figure 2.1). The bone mineral density of the midshaft section is higher than that of an epiphysis section, and the survivorship of the midshaft section was shown to be greater than that of the epiphyses. The epiphyses demonstrated a less than 50% survival rate compared to a midshaft section that had a 90-100% survival rate.

Trueman and Martill (2002: 372) state that most buried bone does not survive to become part of the fossil record, and we must consider what agents and processes can affect the preservation of human bone. Bone is a composite material of protein fibre (collagen), which provides flexibility and a matrix for mineral (carbonated calcium phosphate Ca10(PO4-CO3)6OH2) crystals to grow within (Trueman and Martill 2002). Once this structure is compromised, the bone weakens and is more susceptible to decay.

In the British Isles, similar results have been noted (Waldron 1987; Mays 1998; Wysocki and Whittle 1998). Figure 2.2 illustrates the bone survivorship percentages from a Romano-British cemetery (Waldron 1987). Therefore, bone density is one reason to explain the higher representation of midshaft sections in the archaeological record. However, the midshaft section has more pores and a larger area that could suffer from erosion.

Morphology There has been a growing body of research that investigates why some skeletal elements are more frequently seen in the archaeological record in comparison to others (Lyman 1982, 1994). Henderson (1987) argues that there is a relationship between bone size and shape, and its preservation or survivorship rate. For example, the skull and innominate bones are vulnerable to warping and crushing by the pressure of soil. Weidenreich (1943: 10) stated that post-mortem cranial depressions may occur naturally within the burial environment. The skull is irregular and hollow which makes it highly susceptible to soil pressure, and pseudo-depressed cranial fractures can occur whilst the bone is still fresh or ‘green’ (Perez 2006). Similarly, Boddington (1987: 44) stated that crushed or fragmented skulls are frequently observed, and it is

7

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 2.1 Study of bone density survival of long bones from Crow Creek (Willey et al. 1997: 523) Less than 20%

20-39%

40-59%

60-79%

Figure 2.2 Survivorship from West Tenter Street, Romano-British cemetery (After Waldron 1987:61/2) Recovered bone is shaded Biological Age and Sex In some cases, with increasing age comes osteoporosis which results in the thinning of the cortex and lowering the bone mineral density (BMD) and diseased bones (e.g. neoplasms) are fragile making them more susceptible to decay (Henderson 1987; Nawrocki 1995; Roberts 2009). Bone mass accumulation varies between

the sexes; even at the females’ peak, around the midthirties, the BMD is significantly lower than that of males (Stini 1990). After the menopause, females continue to lose 2 to 3% per year of cortical bone and up to 8% per year of trabecular bones (Riggs and Melton 1986). Galloway et al.’s (1997) results showed there

8

Taphonomic Histories were BMD differences between males and females and perhaps this is another factor to consider when interpreting the burial record or bone survivorship.

burial site in Suffolk where acidic soils were around pH 3.8 - 4.9 (Bethell and Carver 1987; Carver 1998). However, this is not as straightforward as one would expect. A study at Windover Pond, 8,120–6,990 years BP near the Atlantic coast of Florida, examined the causes of differential skeletal preservation and noted that the soil pH could vary in each stratified layer. The lowest peat layer was pH 5.9, the upper was pH of 6.6, whilst the highest layer was pH 6.1 (Stojanowski et al. 2002). Generally, the more neutral the soil, the better the bone preservation (Gordon and Buikstra 1981; Henderson 1987; Nawrocki 1995).

It has been argued that non-adult bones would suffer more from poor preservation than adult bones due to their low bone mineralization and porosity and, as a result, be under-represented in the archaeological record (Strandh and Norlen 1965; Angel 1969; Watts 1989). These assumptions were based on the low numbers of the very young found in cemeteries. Gordon and Buikstra’s (1981) results showed that bone loss from the juveniles was greater compared to adults, and argued that the differential pattern of bone loss was due to the relative strength of juvenile and mature bone. For infant bones, after birth there is a decrease in bone mineral density (BMD) making their bones soft and more vulnerable to decay (Guy et al. 1997; Rauch and Schoenau 2001). However, Acsádi and Nemeskéri (1970) suggested other reasons as to why the very young were poorly represented. For instance, shallow graves which would lead to greater susceptibilty to plough damage, erosion, trampling, different burial rites and grave locations in relation to adults (Acsádi and Nemeskéri 1970; Lewis 2007).

Burial Depth Corpses buried in shallow graves can be affected by several factors related to other extrinsic preservation factors such as bioturbation (earthworm action), trampling, scavenging and plough damage, as well as cultural factors (Henderson 1987). Generally, better preservation is observed in individuals who are buried more deeply. For example, in a study of buried bodies and decomposition it was noted that at a depth of 0.3m (1 ft) or less below the soil surface, cadavers attracted mammalian carnivores and carrion insects (Rodriguez and Bass 1985). The soil provided a physical barrier to faunal activity but also a barrier to solar radiation, reducing ground temperature and, in doing so, decreasing the rate of decomposition.

2.4 Extrinsic Factors It has been argued that different sites will influence the nature, extent and rate of decomposition (Rodriguez and Bass 1985; Schultz 1997; Wilson et al. 2007). The environmental conditions or extrinsic factors that influence the preservation of human remains are: soil type, microbial activity, water and temperature (Gordon and Buikstra 1981; Henderson 1987; Mays 1998; Wilson et al. 2007). The following section explores these factors and their effects on human remains focusing on human bone, and not the body as a whole.

Bello (2005: 5) stated that the deeper the grave the better skeletal elements were preserved and represented. Despite this, there was no guarantee for a universal expectation of bone representation. For example, Bello (2005) argued that at Observance in France, the burial depth was the same for all, but there was a noticeable variation in skeletal representation and preservation in non-adults. Thus, for this particular site, burial depth was a lesser factor in determining preservation, and other factors exerted a greater influence.

pH of the Burial Matrix Lindsay (1979) argued that hydroxyapatite, the mineral component of bone, is relatively insoluble at pH 7.5, but becomes more soluble as the pH decreases. This means that an acidic condition dissolves the inorganic matrix of bone, and the organic components are more susceptible to leaching by water (Henderson1987). Therefore, an acidic matrix represents a hostile environment for the survival of archaeological bone. Similarly, Gordon and Buikstra (1981) argued that the more acidic the soil, the greater the bone destruction, and Rodriquez’s (1997: 46) results showed that a neutral or slightly alkaline pH soil provided better preservation than an acidic soil. Andrews and Armour-Chelu (1998) carried out experiments to evaluate the various effects soil pH values had on bone in a temperate environment. Their results showed that bones in acidic soils were etched, whilst those in alkaline soils showed little modification.

Stojanowski et al’s. (2002) study at Windover Pond found that vertical depth was a significant predictor of preservation and burials closer to the ground surface were less well-preserved despite lying within a soil with a neutral pH. However, at Bordesley Abbey, a twelfth century Cistercian abbey in Worcestershire, deep burials suffered from poor preservation (Henderson 1987). Thus, generally, the deeper the burial the better preservation, but it is not always the case, as there may be other overriding factors. Water Water has been cited as the single most important agent that affects the survivorship of bone (Goffer 1980; White and Hannus 1983; Lambert et al. 1985). For instance, percolating ground water brings chemicals to bone and encourages the leaching of bone minerals (Rodriquez 1997; Hedges 2002). Seasonal variation and movement of groundwater provide a fluctuating geological environment that weakens bone structure (Hedges 2002). At Windover Pond, fluctuating water levels causing periods of drying and submergence were

These findings are also consistent with other sites in Britain where soils can range from pH 3.5, very acidic peats, to around pH 8.5 of chalklands (Mays 1998). Not much bone survived at Sutton Hoo, an Anglo-Saxon

9

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains considered the main factor for poor skeletal preservation (Stojanowski et al. 2002).

microbial attack on collagen could aid the survival of bone in the archaeological record.

Rentouls and Smith (1973) argued that light porous soils may accelerate decomposition, whilst dense clay soil may have the opposite effect. For example, the deep burials lying in waterlogged clay at Bordesley Abbey in Worcestershire suffered from poor preservation (Rahtz and Hirst 1976). At the early Saxon cemetery in Mucking, England, the soil was pH 6.6 - 6.8, which generally predisposes to good bone preservation. However, this was not the case, the burial sediment was free-draining sands and gravels which lacked fine particle fraction that encouraged the passage of water and leaching of bone mineral (Mays 1998).

Destructive features or bio-erosions can be observed either on thin histological sections, or on polished bone surfaces (Hackett 1981). Buried bone can be demineralised by microbes that produce these bioerosions, either by tunnelling or boring. Trueman and Martill’s (2002) results showed that 32% of all examined bones exhibited some degree of microbial attack; however, the majority were just minor bio-erosions Saprophytic fungi are also known to damage bone; for instance, during an experimental earthwork project at Overton Down near Avebury, a ‘luxurious’ growth of fungal mycelium around the bones was observed. Bell et al. (1996: 182) stated that, in this case, the shaft made of compact bone was totally destroyed but the articular surface of the condyle was unaffected. It appears that bone damage caused by fungi was discriminant and some bone surfaces are more vulnerable to fungal attack than others.

Preservation can also be affected by repeated freeze and thaw cycles which lead to bone fracturing naturally (Nawrocki 1995). Similarly, water can also mechanically damage bone; for example, Jans et al. (2002: 349) stated that the fluctuating groundwater was the likely cause of the high degree of fragmentation from a c.800 BC skeletal collection from Kits Corner, Avonmouth, UK. The bones lay in clay soil of pH 7.3-7.8 that suffered from seasonal water-logging resulting in very fragmented and poorly preserved bone.

Few human remains receive a microscopic examination, and any post-excavation work or subsequent research must consider that bone damage could have occurred during recovery, post-excavation storage and curation, as well as from the microbes in the burial environment.

Temperature Temperature can also affect the preservation of human remains. Latitude, seasons and the burial depth will have an influence on the preservation and decomposition rate of a cadaver. In warm climates, the cadaver will decompose more quickly than in a cold climate (Henderson 1987). The cold and freezing conditions delayed the 5000 year old man found on the Austrian/Italian border from decomposing (Spindler 1994), whilst hot and dry areas can also decrease decomposition and naturally mummify remains, e.g. mummies from the Taklimakan Desert, China, and preDynastic Egypt (Roberts 2009). Cremated bone tends to have a better survival potential than unburnt bone (Mays 1998; de Jong 1926). Burnt bone lacks the organic component which is attractive to micro-organism and is not as susceptible to acidic soils as unburnt bone. Burnt bone may have a better mechanical strength but others have noted that after burning, bone fragments are fragile and prone to breakage (e.g. Stiner et al. 1995).

Flora and Faunal Activity Insects and bacteria that live in the upper soils can also contribute to rapid decomposition of a corpse (Rodriguez and Bass 1985). Insect activity can remove most of the soft tissue (Anderson and Cervenka 2002). Plant activity can cause physical and chemical degradation of skeletal remains. For example, plant roots will grow towards a corpse as they are attracted to the organic nutrients produced during decomposition (Rodriquez and Bass 1985). Thus, many skeletal elements found in shallow graves will exhibit root damage or etching on the surface of the bone. This etching effect is produced by roots excreting humic acid which dissolves the mineral component of bone and carves a groove through the cortical surface (Binford 1981; Nawrocki 1995; Lyman 1994). Roots can also invade bone and exert pressure which leads to the weakening of the bone’s structure, resulting in a loss of integrity and increasing the bones susceptibility to fragmentation and dispersal (Willey and Heilman 1987).

Microbial Activity (bacteria, fungi and protozoa) Microbial attack is the main agent behind the first stages of bone degradation (Trueman and Martill 2002). Microbes produce acidic by-products that dissolve the bone mineral (Hackett 1981; Hanson and Buikstra 1987). However, very dry and very wet anoxic environments will inhibit microbial attack. After death, anaerobic gut bacteria are released into the body and rapid degradation of body tissue follows. Unless dismemberment or defleshing of the corpse takes place shortly after death, these microbes may take a part in bone survivorship too (Trueman and Martill 2002). Therefore, inhibiting

Scavenging Activity In modern cases, canid activity plays a significant role in forensic investigations to identify means of destruction or dispersal of human remains that modify or erase any evidence of cause and manner of death (Haglund et al. 1988; 1989, Rodriguez 1997 and Sorg 1985). Faunal activity can lead to bone alterations, loss and dispersal. For instance, animals both large and small can directly or indirectly affect buried and exposed human remains either by burrowing or scavenging. Even bioturbation (earthworm action) which is greater at shallow depths can affect preservation and the movement of small bones

10

Taphonomic Histories (Henderson 1987). Direct faunal activity is confirmed by the presence of gnaw and chew marks on the bone, causing breakage and destruction (Henderson 1987).

6 months after death, and only 20% from 6 months to 4 or more years post- mortem. The results showed that after 2.5 months the spine, hips and cranium survived with the mandible becoming detached. Haglund (1997) argued that this sequence was repeatable and, therefore, illustrated predictable stages of canid activity (Table 2.1).

Byers (2002: 113) stated that, where accessible, human remains can be scavenged by carnivores and occasionally rodents, especially corpses deposited on the surface or buried in shallow graves. Canids are usually presumed responsible for most of the damage done to human remains (Bass 1984; Haglund 1991; Haglund et al. 1988; 1989; Rodriguez 1997; Rossi et al. 1994). Rodriguez and Bass (1985) argued that canids are known to attack corpses during the post-mortem and skeletonisation periods. Cadavers release decomposing odours that can penetrate the soil surface from a depth of 0.3m (1ft) attracting carnivores, carrion birds and insects. Therefore, it is mainly the corpse that attracts carnivores to dig and expose the rotting flesh. Scavenging activity on the fleshed corpse resulted in soft tissue modification: consumption, disarticulation, bone modification, and scattering of human remains (Wilson et al. 2007).

Haglund (1989) argued that the patterning of skeletal damage can indicate whether the body was scavenged while intact, or at some time after other natural processes of disarticulation had begun. In the final 4th stage all recovered bones were disarticulated, extensively gnawed and scattered. Following on his earlier work, Haglund (1997) then went on to record the skeletal survivorship from 53 cases of either canid or non-canid scavenging, the latter were atypical assisted scavenged remains over a 52 month period (Table 2.2). He noted that lower limb bones were recovered more often than bones from the upper limbs, including scapula and clavicles. Bones of the axial skeleton (not including crania or mandibles) were recovered between 73-61% of the time and were usually found scattered around the original setting.

Extensive research on canid activity and exposure of the dead has been carried out by Haglund (1989) who observed the remains of thirty human corpses that were exposed in rural woodland (Figure 2.3). He noted the longer the post-mortem interval, the fewer bones were recovered (Haglund et al. 1988; 1989). Haglund estimated that, 80% of skeleton could be recovered up to

The schematic skeletons illustrated in Figure 2.4, clearly show the recovery rates. Cranial fragment recovery rate was 80-100% whilst foot and hand bones was just 2039% and the recovery rate for femora, pelvic region and ribs recovery rate at 60-79% was higher than for upper limbs (including scapulae and clavicles) and tibiae at 4059%.

Exposed for 22 days and 2.5 months

Figure 2.3 Modern Day Exposure In Rural Woodland (Haglund et al. 1989: 597-8)

11

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains Table 2.1 Stages of Canid Assisted Scavenging (Haglund 1997: 368) Stage 0 1 2 3 4

Description of Corpse Early scavenging of soft tissue with no body unit removal Destruction of ventral thorax accompanied by evisceration and removal of one or both upper extremities including scapulae and partial or complete clavicles Lower extremities fully or partially removed All skeletal elements disarticulated except for segments of the vertebral column Total disarticulation with only cranium and other assorted skeletal elements or fragments recovered

Time 4-14 days 22 days-2.5 months 2-4.5 months 2-11 months 5-52 months

Table 2.2 Skeletal Survivorship from Scavenged Remains (Haglund 1997: 376) Skeletal Elements Crania Mandible Hyoids Atlases Axes Cervical Vertebrae Thoracic Vertebrae Lumber Vertebrae Sacra Coccyges Sterna Rib Clavicles Scapulae Humeri Ulnae Radii Carpals Hands Innominates Femora Patellae Tibiae Fibulae Tali Calcanea Tarsals Foot

Stage 0 N=5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Stage 1 N=4 100 100 0 100 100 100 100 100 75.0 100 25.0 100 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 25.0 25.0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Stage 2 N=4 100 100 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 50.0 75.0 93.7 62.5 50.0 50.0 25.0 25.0 0 90.0 87.5 87.5 25.0 50.0 50.0 0 0 0 0

12

Stage 3 N=4 100 75.0 0 50.0 25.0 35.0 62.5 65.0 50.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 12.4 0 0 50.0 62.5 0 25.0 25.0 0 0 0 0

Stage 4 N=18 100 83.0 16.0 72.2 55.5 48.8 98.1 60.0 66.6 33.3 38.8 52.7 47.2 47.2 41.6 25.0 38.0 13.8 10.9 58.3 61.1 8.3 50.0 50.0 16.6 16.6 7.1 10.9

Atypical N=17 94.0 82.4 29.4 64.7 88.2 74.1 74.5 44.7 70.5 88.2 82.3 41.6 76.4 82.3 73.5 64.7 64.7 32.3 29.7 85.2 67.6 32.3 64.7 64.7 41.1 38.2 31.9 30.8

Taphonomic Histories

Figure 2.4 Schematic Frequency of Recovered Skeletal Elements Remains (Haglund 1997: 376)

Haglund (1997: 375) stated that after disarticulation, appendicular elements can be removed from the body and transported fairly easily and, as such, it was not uncommon to find upper limbs as a single unit (Figure 2.5). In one case, both upper limbs were found together because they had been handcuffed. These reasons may explain why hand and foot bones are frequently not recovered, in addition to their small size, which makes them easy to be overlooked with poor recovery techniques (e.g. lack of sieving). Conversely, cranial fragments and mandibles are the easiest to recognise and attract more interest; as a result, the recovery rate is high.

coyotes, it would have had wolves, domestic dogs and wild boar. Other relevant reports include those who have been attacked by animals. For instance, Figure 2.6 illustrates the faunal damage observed on a modern-day ‘scavenged’ victim, a 75 year old man from rural western Tennessee (Berryman 2002). He was found 50 yards from his home and near a free ranging pig pen. Scavenger activity was mainly around the anterior midline section; the missing bones included facial, mandible, cervical vertebrae, pubic bones and the left hand. In this case clothing offered little protection from scavenging activity of canids and domestic pig (human hair was found in the animal’s faeces). Observed were varied animal tooth patterns which indicate that more than one animal type was attracted to the corpse.

There are few in-depth decomposition experiments in the UK, so Haglund’s work in the Pacific North-West, where scavenging canids were primarily coyotes (C. latrans) and domestic dogs (C. familiaris) is not directly comparable; although the British Iron Age did not have

Figure 2.5 Upper Articulated Limb Removed As One Unit (Haglund 1997: 372)

13

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 2.6 Modern day scavenged victim (Berryman 2002: 490) Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994) argued that gnawing creates striations which tend to be on prominent surfaces of bones. Therefore, an assessment of bone surface modifications made by the teeth of various animals is essential to differentiate these from culturally or environmentally made marks. Brain (1981) argued that carnivore damage to long bones was consistent with traditional taphonomic studies, with articular areas suffering more damage due to their lower density. He noted that dogs produced greater gnawing damage and suggested ‘boredom’ could be the cause.

the ulnae and head of the humerus. Usually with light gnawing, the greater trochanter was damaged, but with moderate gnawing, both femoral head and neck were destroyed and condyles removed. Spiral fractures were frequently observed on the radii, ulnae and fibulae, and with heavy gnawing of the scapulae, all but the glenoid region and neck survived. Rodent activity can also be evident on human remains (Haglund et al. 1988, 1989 1997; Rossi et al. 1994; Sorg 1985). Rodriguez (1997: 464) stated that rodents such as mice, rats and rabbits will gnaw on bones for their mineral content. These gnaw marks are easily identified by their double-channelled grooving produced by rodent incisor teeth.

With canids, Haynes (1980; 1983) and Binford (1981), amongst others, have identified four types of carnivore tooth marks: punctures, pits, scoring and furrows. Canines and carnassial teeth produce punctures, whilst pits are indentations as a result of just the tips of the teeth biting down without strength, i.e. not enough strength to penetrate the surface of the bone (Figure 2.7). Scoring is produced when teeth have slipped over and dragged along the cortical surface. Furrows are channels produced by cusps - cheek teeth - that extend from the ends of long bones longitudinally into the marrow cavity (Haynes 1980; 1983).

When examining dispersal and transport of human remains, Rodriguez (1997:465) considered canids and carnivores as the main culprits for the scattering and removal of skeletal remains, with wolves scattering over a smaller area than domestic dogs. Haglund (1997: 377) suggested that scavenging animals could even move body parts uphill, but this ability is associated with the size of scavenger. Field mice are notorious for removing the small bones of hands, feet and even teeth to their burrows (Rodriguez 1997).

Haglund (1997: 374) found crania with nearly all of the canid-scavenged individuals. These were largely undamaged, although some exhibited canine punctures of the mastoid processes with/or without perforations of the orbits. Initial gnawing patterns could be observed on particular elements, for instance, the olecranon process of

During 2002 and 2004, Kjorlien et al. (2009) carried out experiments using dressed pig carcasses to monitor scavenging activities, that examined one-day scavenging events and scavenging over several days.

14

Taphonomic Histories The study by Kjorlien et al. (2009) showed similar disarticulation patterns to those identified by Haglund (1997). During the 2002 experiments, only 33% of the case studies (n=12) exhibited random skeletal scattering at variable distances from the primary context, while the rest stayed more or less near the primary context. Ribs and vertebrae were most frequently found near primary contexts.

Thus, canid scavenged remains would exhibit teeth marks such as pits, punctures and scratches. Singly found limbs separated from a body could reflect animals transporting the remains away from the body. Assemblages that comprise crania and assorted fragmentary elements may reflect the remnants of scavenging activity; however, crania may not necessarily exhibit faunal damage. However, Early Iron Age remains will not exhibit damage caused by rats. The common or brown rat Rattus norvegicus and the ship rat or black rat Rattus rattus were not present c.800-50 BC. Only the house mouse was present and the ship rat arrived during the Roman period (Harris and Yalden 2008). Thus, any rat teeth marks would reflect subsequent accessibility.

Open situations and unclothed carcasses were preferred by scavengers over clothed carcasses in woodland situations (Kjorlien et al. 2009). Thus, identifying the signatures and effects of faunal scavenging on modernday scavenged victims, and relevant experiments on bone modification, dispersal or bone loss, are useful when attempting to understand and interpret the taphonomic history of Iron Age human remains.

Figure 2.7 Wolf pit teeth marks, furrows, scratches and pits (Haines 1983: 165; 166; 168) breakage and surface modifications that mimic cultural bone activity such as butchery. Olsen and Shipman (1988) developed diagnostic criteria to identify trampling marks (number of marks per bone and their locations on the bone, their orientation, their morphology and depth, and their association with polish) to distinguish sediment abrasions caused by trampling from butchery and tool marks. They noted that both carpal and tarsal bones exhibited no surface changes, unlike the long bones. This was similar to Andrews and Cook’s (1985) earlier study, where skeletal elements exhibited different trampling modifications. They monitored the remains of a cow over seven years and recorded that trampling was one causative agent of bone dispersal. Using an electron microscope they also noted the difficulty in distinguishing natural marks from those made by stone tools. Their results showed that skeletal elements with a thin cortex were susceptible to breakage via trampling (i.e. mandible, scapula, ribs, vertebrae and pelves). Long bones such as the humeri and tibiae, have spiral orientated collagen fibres, and hence, tend to fracture spirally when trampled, even after developing weathering cracks (Hill 1976; Shipman 1981).

Trampling It is possible that some societies may have processed their dead; defleshing and disarticulating the bodies, which could leave culturally made modifications on the bone surface (Andrews and Bell 2006). Marks on bone can be the result of a funerary rite as well as natural processes. Thus, it is important to identify and discriminate between the various processes that could modify skeletal remains. Brain (1967) argued that abrasion marks could be distinguished from erosion wear on bone caused by air or water-borne particles. During the 1980s, research was directed to examine natural marks caused by sediment abrasion on bone surfaces through various processes, mainly trampling, that could mimic butchery marks (Olsen and Shipman 1988).Behrensmeyer et al. (1986) studied the effect of trampling on bone and argued that some sediments, such as sandy or gravel soils, can produce scratch marks from friction. These can appear as shallow and sub-parallel marks (Denys 2002). Behrensmeyer et al. (1986: 770) stated that in one test it took only 3 minutes of trampling on bone in soft-soled shoes to produce marks created by the burial matrix sand grains.

Like Behrensmeyer et al. (1986), Domínguez-Rodrigo et al. (2009) carried out trampling experiments using five different sediment types: fine-grained sand (0.06–0.2

Haynes (1986) noted that the trampling of large animals and humans over shallow buried remains can produce

15

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains mm), medium-grained sand (0.2–0.6 mm), coarse grained sand (0.6–2.0 mm), a combination of the previous sand types over a clay substratum, and gravel (>2.0 mm). In each sedimentary context, trampling was carried out in two experimental sets with different times, reproducing brief (10 seconds) and prolonged (2 minutes) exposure to trampling. Figure 2.8 shows typical trampling marks: broad and shallow groove shaped with internal microstriations.

At Wareham, all but one cremated piece of bone had vanished after 33 years. At Overton, although much of the bone was still well-preserved, fungal activity meant that some may not have lasted very much longer. Both human and sheep bone were buried in two different environments, chalk and the old ground surface, which are comparable to the geology of Hampshire. Prior to and post burial, the bones were examined by means of a low powered microscope and SEM. Bell et al. (1996: 180) stated that extra abrasions and scrapes had appeared on the bone. The new abrasions and scrapes were different (Figures 2.9 – 2.10) to those made with a metal tool producing ‘V’ shaped grooves (see Figure 2.11). Therefore, the abrasions and scrapes were not from a sharp metal tool, but were created through the bone interacting with the chalk and flint rubble.

Thus, sediment type and trampling are important factors to consider when attempting to differentiate between intentional culturally made marks, as opposed to those that are naturally derived.

Only the surface of the bone was affected, and this was most likely consistent with the settling, compaction and consolidation of bank material. The morphology of the marks and multiple orientations were more consistent with trampling damage (Andrew and Cook 1985). The deposition context was a chalk bank that was originally 1.5m high, but had dropped 0.15m in four years after its construction, causing internal movement of the bank’s material and contents (Jewell and Dimbleby 1966). Consequently, the burial matrix can affect the formation of the skeletal record, leaving lasting impressions on the bone’s surface that may mimic culturally generated cut marks.

Figure 2.8 Natural Trampling Marks (Domínguez-Rodrigo et al. 2009: 5) Scale = 500 microns Burial Matrix Some depositional contents can leave marks on bone that may be interpreted as evidence for funerary or mortuary treatment. Knüsel and Outram (2006: 265) stated that any trauma introduced to a skeleton that still retains substantial amounts of collagen (e.g. recently buried or good preservation conditions) may mimic perimortem breakage patterns. As seen with the trampling evidence, there are some burial matrices and micro-environmental conditions that can create marks and abrasions on the bone’s surface. These marks need to be identified as such and not attributed to cultural acts of defleshing or disarticulation. For example, Pales et al. (1952) argued that bone surface modifications could be the product of rock abrasion or an acidic burial matrix.

Figure 2.9 Natural Scrape Marks On Mature Bone Specimen (Bell et al.1996:181)

This point is well illustrated in the Experimental Earthwork Project (1960-1992). This experiment was designed to understand prehistoric earthworks on the Wessex chalkland by creating its own earthwork, plant artefacts and systematically excavate and record effects after 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 and 128 years. Two earthworks were created, one in Dorset at Wareham, and the other at Overton Down, near Avebury. In each, both animal and human bone was buried. Over the thirty-two year period the bones were periodically examined using an electron microscope (Bell et al. 1996).

Figure 2.10 Natural Scrape Marks At Greater Magnification X160 (Bell et al.1996:181)

16

Taphonomic Histories death and before any physical treatment is applied to the body. If funerary behaviour is protracted, there may be both natural and cultural ‘marks’ (Figures 2.9 and 2.10). Therefore, clear criteria are needed to distinguish between the two. For instance, at the Experimental Earthwork Project (1960-1992) sheep were disarticulated and defleshed with a steel knife before deposition (Bell et al. 1996): Figure 2.11 shows the typical V-shape of the deep cut marks, and Figure 2.12 shows further examples of cut marks made with a stone tool.

2.5 Cultural Practices Cultural traditions or practices may produce archaeological bias. For instance, the very young (perinatal) individual may not have been recognised as active members of the society and, as a result, receive differential funerary behaviour and treatment (Dedet et al. 1991; Perrin 2000; Tranoy 2000). Taphonomic signatures for cultural modification to human bone can assist in the identification of cannibalism, mortuary practices, warfare, mutilation, human sacrifice, and execution (Hurlbut 2000). Prehistoric burial practices were diverse, in which case, different funerary practices or activities may leave specific archaeological signatures (Bello and Andrews 2006). This section explores different cultural influences on human remains, and related research: culturally induced cut marks, primary and secondary burials followed, by articulation and disarticulation of human remains, exposure and wrapping.

At Çatalhöyük, Skeleton 1466 occupies a pit too small to house the whole body (Andrews and Bello 2006). Examining the skeleton’s configuration within the context clearly indicates the head must have been removed prior to deposition (Figure 2.13). The skeletal evidence shows cut marks on the atlas and the first cervical vertebrae (Figure 2.14).

Defleshing and Dismemberment Cut marks can provide unequivocal evidence for human activity, such as disarticulation and secondary burial practices (Stodder 2005). More specifically, if cut marks are found around muscle attachments areas and joints could provide evidence for immediate post-mortem dismemberment (Hurlbut 2000; Knüsel and Outram 2006). Huntingdon and Metcalf (1991: 85) provide ethnographical accounts of this practice among the Berawan of northern Borneo. The point at which bone modification occurred is all important when trying to identify mortuary behaviour; peri-mortem alteration could be related to the processing of the body whilst post-mortem effects could refer to any point after death. The problem here is that there may be an extended or protracted mortuary period following

Figure 2.11 Steel Knife Cut On Juvenile Bone Specimen (Bell et al.1996:181)

Figure 2.12 Cut Marks Made With Retouched Stone Flakes (Domínguez-Rodrigo et al. 2009) Scale = 500 microns

17

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 2.13 Çatalhöyük, Headless Corpse Sk1466 (Andrews and Bello 2006: 22)

Figure 2.14 Cut Marks On Atlas (Andrews and Bello 2006: 24) burial. Gallay (1987) argued that if the cranium was an item of ancestral veneration, the teeth will more than likely remain with the skeleton or the primary deposition context, as opposed to being removed with the skull. Therefore, numerous teeth and few skulls were considered as an indication of secondary deposition and might provide evidence for ancestral veneration.

Primary and Secondary Burials Prehistoric funerary practices may have involved a selective process where skeletal elements were chosen from an initial or primary earthen context, to be placed in the secondary or subsequent earthen context (Andrews et al. 2005). Consequently, archaeologists are not the first to excavate secondary burials. The remains that are left raise questions concerning bone preservation and cultural manipulation. How are they to be distinguished from one another?

Mays (1992) argued that primary and secondary burial contexts could be determined by comparing the actual bone assemblage to the expected assemblage. Ten years later, Roksandic (2002: 109) stated that a useful indicator of secondary depositions was the lack or under-representation of the usually well-preserved human remains. For instance, in a well-preserved situation, ribs and vertebrae are present. However, their absence can indicate a secondary deposition. On the other hand, Bello (2005: 6) stated that on four sites that contained well-preserved and well-represented bones, the scapulae, sterna, vertebrae, sacra, patellae, foot and hand bones showed the lowest frequencies. Andrews

A corpse placed in an initial and final resting place is a primary burial (Roksandic 2002). Thus, it is generally accepted that a context that contains a complete or near complete skeleton is evidence for a primary burial. However, Masset (1987) argued that the distinction between primary and secondary depositions is not always straightforward, for some use skeletal representation to discriminate between primary and secondary burials. Duday and Masset (1987) believe that cultural manipulation or social practices may be expressed through the absence of specific bones from a

18

Taphonomic Histories Similarly and on British soils, Wilson et al. (2007) carried out environmental monitoring of pig burials on pasture, moorland and woodland sites in West Yorkshire. The pits were dug by hand to a depth of 60cm; that allowed roughly 30cm of soil above each pig. In this case, scavenging activity disturbed one of two graves in the pasture site within the first month. When exhumed, the scavenged pig skeletal representation was significantly different to the unscavenged pig. This type of research is useful to identify bone modifications and the difference bone signatures created from various burial microenvironments.

and Bell (2006) argued the case for secondary burial rites at Çatalhöyük. For example, Grave 31 comprised four axial skeletons, in the absence of faunal activity and the under-representation of limb bones, indicated cultural skeletal selectivity and manipulation. For some, the over-representation of skulls (or skull fragments) and under-presentation of foot and hand bones with secondary burials are unreliable. Bello and Andrews (2006: 9) emphasized that this skeletal combination was not sufficient evidence to support secondary burial. There are other agents that can influence the representation of the skeleton and the scattering and disarticulation of skeletal material (Bello 2005; Bello and Andrews 2006). As demonstrated, the definition and identification of ‘secondary burial’ varies depending on professional perspective, and does not always refer to a set assemblage of particular skeletal elements. However, osteologically, the identification is made through understanding the taphonomic indicators (Duday 2006).

However, over time buried bodies can become unintentionally exposed. Littleton (2000) examined the effects of water and wind erosion on human remains from four burial sites in New South Wales, Australia. The inhumations had been buried for a long period but eventually had become exposed. Wind erosion was found to encourage the scattering and fragmentation of bone and, in some contexts, water was found to have moved and removed individual bones entirely. Thus, natural post-depositional processes had affected the burials and created fragmented and disarticulated assemblages.

Articulated and Disarticulated Remains Articulation is generally accepted as a place where adjacent bones make contact (White 2000). In some instance, disarticulation and articulation have been used to categorise human remains. Examples include: Wilson’s (1981) Categories 3 and 4, Walker’s (1984) category C, Wait’s (1984) category 4 and Sharple’s (2010) Category B. However, there are both natural processes and cultural practices that can influence skeletal remains to maintain anatomical correctness and/or to disarticulate. Thus, the mechanisms of postdeposition movements of human remains need to be established, either as part of the funerary practices or as the result of conditions within the deposition context.

Therefore, one agent of bone fragmentation is a natural post-depositional process, rather than of cultural practice. Whilst working on bone samples at SaintCésaire in France, Morin et al. (2005: 1091) found it easier to refit dry bone fragments rather than fresh green-bone, thus differentiating between the two bone states. If the corpse was intentionally exposed and natural fragmentation occurred, this could be considered as culturally induced as no preventative measures were carried out (e.g. wrapping or burial).

Buried Bodies and Body Parts An exposed individual may exhibit different bone modifications from another who was buried, as exposure and burial produce different environmental conditions for decomposition (Boddington 1987; Wilson et al. 2007). That being the case, different archaeological signatures could differentiate between the different practices. Rodriguez and Bass’ (1985) research on the decomposition of buried bodies provides useful information, especially in comparison to individuals considered to have been exposed. In their study, six human corpses were buried in separate unlined trenches at varying depths and were allowed to naturally decompose. The air, soil, and body temperature were monitored on a daily basis, and at set intervals the bodies were exhumed to record the degree of decomposition. Rodriguez and Bass’ study showed that the burial depth and environmental temperatures had a direct effect on the rate of decomposition. In a later study, Rodriguez (1997) estimated that the decomposition rate of a body could be eight times faster above ground than for a buried body, due to scavenging activity and carrion insects.

Excarnation and Exposure Some have argued that numerous fragmented and scattered remains may represent exposure practices (Clark 1962, Ucko 1969), whilst Boddington (1987) and Wilson (2007) suggest that exposure would leave archaeological signatures on the bone. Similarly, Villa and Courtain (1983) and Andrews and Cook (1985) have also argued that when bones are exposed on the ground surface they will exhibit weathering characteristics and will be more susceptible to breakage and cracking. Behrensmeyer (1978) studied bone weathering and created a six stage recording system based on the results of exposed faunal remains in the Amboseli Basin in southern Kenya (Table 2.3). These stages reflected the physical and chemical breakdown of bone over time regardless of subsurface and sub-aerial contexts. There are several disadvantages to using this system. Firstly, Kenya’s climate is different to the UK’s and different subsurface microenvironments will affect bone at different rates (Lyman and Fox 1997). Secondly, Stages 3 and 4 are temporally similar, and Stage 4 is temporally identical to Stage 5 (6 - 15+ years) but the description of the bone

19

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains is different. Thirdly, Behrensmeyer (1978: 152) stated that weathering was variable between elements; small compact bones such as the patellae and phalanges weathered more slowly than larger elements from the same individual. Finally, weathering also varied according to the individual’s body mass and was only observed in mammals heavier than 5kg. Therefore, exposure of the very young cannot be assessed by this method.

grasslands in Wales. The results were variable; after twelve years some bones were destroyed showing no prior evidence of weathering, whilst other bones reached Behrensmeyer’s Stage 1 after 10-12 years and Stage 2 by 19+ years. There are different environmental conditions and circumstances that can affect bone. McKinley (2004) argued that Behrensmeyer’s weathering stages were not applicable to human remains from many sites in the British Isles, and instead proposed a method for grading bone abrasion and erosion (Figure 2.15). This system used a scale of 0 to 5, where 0 was absence of bone modification, and 5 represented complete obscuring of cortical surface. McKinley’s system does not include a temporal aspect, but until there is a system that produces reliable and repeatable results, the best we can do record is the degree of erosion and its frequency.

Lyman and Fox (1997: 223) stated that: ‘many taphonomic factors were involved in the formation of an assemblage of weathered bone, some of which could not be controlled in the analyses of bone weathering data’. Moreover, bones can demonstrate different weathering rates. A bone lying on the ground could exhibit two weathering patterns; the upper part in contact with the air and the lower part that has been in contact with the ground surface. When comparing surface (aerial) and subsurface (sub-aerial) weathering, it is presumed that sub-aerial bones will weather more slowly. However, attempts to separate the data have proved fruitless (Todd et al. 1987).

Haglund (1997: 372) stated that his typical scavenging sequence (Table 2.2) could be subject to variation and likewise for Waldron’s (1987) Romano-British burials (Figure 2.4). So it follows that, when a corpse is placed in a sheltered and protected environment, wrapped in clothes, in a funerary shroud, or even partially buried, a different survival pattern could be expected (Duday 2009). Figure 2.16 illustrates the skeletal survivorship of three individuals in different circumstances (Haglund 1997). Individual A was heavily clothed and recovered after a post-mortem period of 330 days, individual B was heavily clothed but was recovered after a shorter postmortem period of 252 days, and individual C was partially buried and excavated after 960 days.

Others have also observed difficulties in recording weathering rates. For example, Andrews (1995) monitored camel bone surface changes that only reached Behrensmeyer Stages 1-2 after ten years of aerial exposure. According to the years since death, the bone should have exhibited modifications as described for Stages 3, 4 or even 5. Similarly, Armour-Chelu and Andrews (1996; 1998) observed the long-term exposure of some 150 animals in woodland, moorland and

Table 2.3 Bone Weathering Stages (Behrensmeyer 1978: 161) Stage 0 1 2

Years Since Death 0-1 0-3/4 2-6 or 7

3

4-15+

4

6-15+

5

6-15+

Definition of Weathering Stage No cracking or flaking, greasy soft tissue present Cracking parallel to fibre structure (longitudinal) in long bones Flaking of outer surface, usually associate with cracks Flakes are long and thin with one edge attached to bone Crack edge angular, exfoliation started Bone surface rough, fibrous texture Weathering only 1.0 to 1.5mm deep, crack edges rounded Bone surface coarse, rough, and fibrous Large and small splinters loosely attached Weathering penetrate to inner cavities, cracks open Bone mechanically falling apart into pieces, Very fragile

20

Taphonomic Histories

Grade 0 Surface morphology clearly visible. Fresh appearance, no modification

Grade 1 Slight and patchy surface erosion (not root in this case)

Grade 4 All bone surface affected, general profile maintained and not regular depths of modification (mainly root action)

Grade 2 More extensive surface erosion, deeper penetration (root action)

Grade 5 Heavy erosion across whole surface, masking normal surface, some modification of profile (root action)

Grade 3 Most bone surface affected by some degree of erosion (root action)

Grade + As grade 5, but extensive erosion penetration, modification of profile

Figure 2.15 Bone surface abrasion and erosion (after McKinley 2004: 16)

A

B

C

Figure 2.16 Different Burial Circumstances(after Haglund 1997: 373) Shading = present

21

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains The exposed individuals A and B that wore heavy clothing, retained their skulls and innominates, but suffered the loss of long bones, hands and foot bones. This suggests clothing provided the torso with protection from scavenging animals. However, for the partially buried individual C, a more complete skeleton was recovered despite a longer post- mortem period. These results are useful in as much as they confirm skeletal element survivorship varies between modern-day victims recovered in different circumstances. Thus, it is not unreasonable to expect variation in different prehistoric funerary practices which may have taken place in an open or sheltered location, with and without clothing.

ethnic genocide, may provide useful insight into understanding prehistoric commingled remains.

To summarise, exposed and buried individuals would exhibit different signatures. The exposed skeleton would suffer from loss of anatomical correctness and skeletal integrity, bone damage and loss, fragmentation where dry bone fragments can easily be re-fitted, possible faunal gnawing and puncture marks (if there was access).

In this case, a witness provided evidence that explained the connection between the individuals, and the reason that led to their being found together (Reinecke and Hochrein 2008:43). The stratigraphic evidence confirmed the contemporaneous interment and is useful as commingling individuals in pits are a common feature of the Iron Age. Therefore, this case provides direct evidence for multiple contemporaneous interments that can be directly compared to the Iron Age burial data. The non-human bone came from a burrowing animal that had made its nest inside the adult male’s chest cavity and subsequently died.

This point can be illustrated by a recent forensic case: the evidence from a pit that contained the remains of several contemporaneously interred commingled individuals. In this case, a man-made pit contained the remains of an adult male and female with two children aged 6 and 10 years old, and animal remains (Reinecke and Hochrein 2008). The stratigraphic evidence indicated that no soil separated the individuals and, as a result, the skeletal elements from one individual were in direct contact with another individual, either above or below (Figure 2.17).

The overall appearance of the bone would be weathered, root etched and feel rough to touch, whereas a buried individual, providing the burial depth offered the corpse protection from scavenging animals, would not suffer from the loss of anatomical connections or skeletal integrity, maintaining the original burial configuration. The bones would appear and feel smooth exhibiting minimal root etching. In some case, Iron Age bog bodies were found with items of clothing or textiles (Parker Pearson 2003; Glob 1998; Turner and Scaife 1995). Thus, it is not unreasonable to consider clothing and/or textiles covering and protecting Iron Age bodies at other sites.

Understanding commingled and disarticulated remains exhibiting post-mortem damage that may have been moved from primary or even secondary contexts, such as the mass graves in Bosnia, is even more problematic (Williams and Crews 2003). Similarly, in rural South Africa, a large grain bag contained the skeletonised remains of at least ten individuals comprising of seven adult males, one adult female and two juveniles. The individuals exhibited different skeletal taphonomic processes that suggested either that they had died at different times, or that they had undergone different decomposing circumstances (L’Abbé 2005). It was presumed that this final context was the secondary context, but it may well have been tertiary for some. A large percentage of bones was missing and less than 50% of the remains could be assigned to any one individual. Ribs and vertebrae were the main elements that could not be re-assigned.

2.6 Context Taphonomic Histories There are several ways to examine the burial context: firstly, identify the nature of the sediment in which the remains lay, cultural or natural origin, and, secondly, identify any spatial skeletal relationships and fragmentation of deposits, and, finally, examine the contextual evidence, that is, the relationship the corpse has with the burial context. The Stratigraphic Record The stratigraphic record is generally used to understand the chronology and provide an overview of phasing and development of the site (Gamble 2001; Hanson 2004). The events are observed as physical changes that can have either cultural or natural origins (Lucas 2001). The body represents a deposition event that is part of the stratified sequence (Hanson 2004). The integration of the context’s biography or stratigraphic history with the study of human remains has the potential to provide a comprehensive account of past societies’ burial and deposition practices.

L’Abbé (2005: 205) stated that the differential taphonomic patterning between the individuals indicated that they may have been collected and stored for lengthy periods before being placed in the bag and dumped in the forest. In this case, natural taphonomic processes, scavengers, accidental loss and partial removal from a primary grave were offered to explain the 80% loss of skeletal remains. In the Maya Mountains of Belize, a rock shelter excavation revealed a confusing, commingling arrangement of an adult female, a male and a 9-11 yearold child. The uppermost individual was the female in prone kneeling position, lying above the torso of the male. Across the male’s legs were the post-cranial bones of the child. The child’s skull was resting on the shoulder

Commingled archaeological remains are problematic, especially when they may be secondary deposits or part of a multiple phase funerary treatment (Ubelaker and Rife 2008). Examining modern-day commingled remains from war zones, aeroplane crashes and mass graves from

22

Taphonomic Histories of the male, beside the male’s own skull. The female’s right knee rested on the child’s skull while her left knee rested on the male’s skull. The child’s atlas and axis (C1 and C2) lay upside down under the male’s left ilium. Decapitation and dismemberment were considered.

placed in the grave as a secondary burial. When he was buried the child was removed and re-interred with the male, with careful arrangement of the child’s skull near the male’s. The female was the last to be buried in the same grave and, placed over the male and child (Saul and Saul 2002). Thus, analysing the physical evidence to reconstruct the stratigraphic sequence of events may assist in interpreting the burial record.

However, it was surmised that the child died first, after skeletonisation and disarticulation, the male died and was

Test Pit

Associated foot bones

Animal remains

Associated hand bones

Figure 2.17 Modern Day Commingled Individuals (Adapted from Reinecke and Hochrein 2008:47)

within the context will aid the identification of any likely skeletal stratigraphic relationships. A skeletal assessment should consider the refitting or conjoining of bone fragments to confirm any connection (i.e. originated from the same individual or deposit of human remains). Confirmed ‘refits’ will affect the original human remains report by decreasing the number of bone fragments or assemblages. The same approach can be applied across the site, mapping the distribution of assemblages and conjoining any likely bone fragments.

Skeletal Relationships: vertical and horizontal spatial distribution It is important to identify the processes or factors that might alter or modify bone assemblages both vertically and horizontally (Morin 2006). Fragmentary remains are a common feature of prehistoric sites (Knüsel and Outram 1997) and, as such, it is essential to establish whether there are any stratigraphic or spatial associations. Johnson (1982) refit dispersed animal bone fragments from a single horizon to identify ‘butcher articulation nets’. Similarly, Villa et al. (1986: 433) stated they were able to conjoin (mechanically and biologically) bone fragments from different vertical stratified layers to identify ‘processed and discarded’ animal bones. The difficulty increased with multiples of the same age or sex. More recently, Morin et al. (2005) examined the vertical and spatial distribution of bone refits for eight faunal assemblages at Saint-Césaire, France, and found that ‘dry’ bone fragments were easier to re-fit.

In France, during the early 1980s, ‘l’anthropologie du terrain’ was an approach that was applied to understand and interpret funerary behaviour; however today, ‘archaethanatology’ is the preferred term, where ‘thanatology’ refers to the study of the biological and social components of death. It is an approach that specifically aims to reconstruct the funerary behaviour and deposition practices of past populations (Duday 2009). Like this current research, Duday employed a multidisciplinary taphonomic approach, based on combining field observations, excavation documentation and the understanding of how the body acts in death, in order to reconstruct mortuary practices.

Andrews (2006: 461) stated that buried artefacts, including bone, are subject to re-arrangement within their contexts. Thus, a burial context may contain a number of skeletal assemblages or bone fragments recorded in the different stratified layers. Thus, mapping the assemblages according to their stratified position

Both Duday (1987; 2006) and Willis and Tayles (2009), incorporate the understanding of how the body

23

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains (i) ‘Verticalisation ‘of the clavicles, the lateral extremity of the shoulder is raised and projected forward. Medial extremity of the clavicle is pulled toward the manubrium, thus becoming parallel with the axis of the vertebral column,

decomposes, space, gravity, the presentation of the skeleton in different circumstances such as, in an open space (i.e. within a coffin) or a filled space (i.e. the earthen grave). Duday et al.’s (1990) work examines the body movement and skeletal representation relationship with the burial context and funerary treatment:

(ii) Bilateral pressure on the thoracic cage, (i) Empty space: where there is airspace between the body and surrounding sediment at the time or shortly after the burial. This space could be created architecturally or by the decomposition and disappearance of soft tissues. This space would allow limited movement of disarticulated skeletal elements.

(iii) Medial rotation of the humeri, exposing lateral or posterio-lateral aspect, (iv) Scapulae rotated outward with the glenoid cavity obliquely positioned, antero-laterally aspect (upwards and outwards),

(ii) Wall effect: where there are architectural limits that enclose the body and prevent movement that otherwise would be expected.

(v) Ossa coxae is prevented from flattening (similar to wall effect). In her study of Zvejnieki, a Mesolithic cemetery in Latvia, Nilsson Stutz (2006: 219) stated that body wrapping could be identified by indirect evidence. This involved analysing the skeleton’s presentation in the grave and the positioning of bones. Nilsson Stutz used the original 1960s and 1970s excavation documentation with the ‘l’Anthropologie de Terrain’ to establish whether individuals were wrapped in death. For comparison, Nilsson Stutz used Grave 22 in Vedæk-Bøgebakken (Albrethsen and Brinch Petersen 1976) as a positively wrapped individual as it exhibited the verticalisation of the left clavicle and the upper limbs rotated inwards. Nilsson Stutz argued that there was evidence for wrapped bodies, for example the individual in Grave 45 exhibited the verticalised clavicles and bilateral pressure of the thoracic region. Earlier work on this site by Zagorskis (2004) identified Burial 57 as a wrapped individual. This individual exhibited similar characteristics; verticalisation of the clavicles, lying almost parallel with the vertebral column and scapulae rotated outward with the glenoid cavity pointing outward and upward.

(iii) Empty space with later infilling: infilling of sediments after the body had decomposed and disarticulated. Thus, the body decomposed in a delineated empty space without sediment covering the remains. (iv) Delineated empty space: coffin, sarcophagus, planks over pit burial, skins, anything that separates contact between the individual and sediment. (v) Covered space: earthen grave where sediments are immediately in contact with body. In death, the soft tissues, ligaments and tendons decompose, bones will lose positioning and sediments will eventually replace the soft tissue. If the body is in a stable position bone connections can be maintained (Duday 1978; Roksandic 2002; Duday 2006). If the dead were wrapped before interment, and the wrapping decayed after the body had, the wrappings will limit bone movement or displacement (Murail et al. 2004). On similar lines Nilsson Stutz (2006) argued that the body may be constrained by the grave width and length as well as any wrappings. However, a body decomposing in a wide and open context, not inhibited by tight wrappings or a coffin may not demonstrate a linear alignment, but clavicles, scapulae and humeri may maintain anatomical position and the pelvis could disarticulate (Willis and Tayles 2009).

The 2007 excavations at Zvejnieki indicated further inhumations may also have been tightly wrapped. Figure 2.18 shows the bilateral pressure around the upper part of the individual on the right that may indicate that this body was wrapped at the time of burial (Nilsson Stutz et al. 2008). However, Nilsson Stutz suggested that not all individuals were wrapped, and in some cases the evidence was ambiguous. Thus, this cemetery may well illustrate differential funerary behaviour in the treatment of the dead.

Earlier, Duday (2006:43) had stated that when a contracted corpse is deposited on the bare earth, the peripheral pressure of sediments can induce progressive closure of angles between limb segments. The degree of flexion progressively increases with muscle decay. Therefore, a ‘hyper-contracted’ skeleton that exhibits long bones in contact with one another does not necessarily infer it was tightly bound or placed in a sack. Thus, examining the presentation of the skeleton and bone movement provides valuable insight on identifying evidence for various constraints on the skeleton such as a body wrapping or clothing. Duday et al. (1990) argue for these key skeletal signatures to determine if the body was wrapped or constrained in death:

24

Taphonomic Histories There was minimal disarticulation, apart from labile joints of hand and feet. Soil had not replaced the soft tissue immediately, but shortly afterwards. The feet were still anatomically correct, thus something other than the grave cut was in control of body positioning such as a tight wrapping. The wrapping has survived a longer period than the decomposing body and, in doing so, maintained the alignment and positioning. In comparison, Willis and Tayles describe Burial 52 in Figure 2.20 as loosely wrapped. This individual seems to have had more room for the left elbow to flex, medial rotation of the long bones, and for both arms to move away from the hand bones which are still anatomically correct on the flattened pelvis. Figure 2.21 shows a tightly constricted individual from Noen U-Loke, c.400BC, Iron Age, indicating either and/or a tight narrow grave or wrapping that maintained the body configuration. Willis and Tayles (2009) developed a flow chart (Figure 2.22), based on a number of works (e.g. Boddington 1987; Brothwell 1987; Duday et al. 1990; Murail et al. 2004; Nilsson Stutz 2003a, 2006, Roksandic 2002, Rodwell 1981, 1982) to relate skeletal taphonomic characteristics and configuration to burial interpretation.

Figure 2.18 Wrapped Mesolithic Burials at Zvejnieki (Nilsson Stutz et al. 2008: 5) Following Duday, Willis and Tayles (2009) employed the same concepts whilst examining burials from two sites in Southeast Asia: Bronze Age Ban Lum Khao and the nearby Iron Age site Noen U-Loke. They argued that a very narrow grave, coffin or tight body wrapping, could result in the alignment of limbs and constriction of shoulders and pelves. At Ban Lum Khao, the evidence indicated these individuals were buried in coffins or wrapped, whilst at Noen U-Loke the evidence indicated that these individuals were just wrapped. Some individuals were tightly wrapped where bones from the shoulders down to the feet were not out of alignment, clavicles were verticalised, there was no flattening of the ossa coxae, no outward rotation of the lower limbs and plantar flexed feet. Figure 2.19 shows the constricted position for a wrapped burial (49) from Ban Lum Khao.

Figure 2.19 Ban Lum Khao Constricted and Wrapped Burial 49

The approach and method illustrated here provides a valuable insight into the body’s configuration that is effectively, ‘reading the bone in context’. Therefore, understanding the various Iron Age burial configurations is another source of evidence that can be used to differentiate funerary or depositional treatment.

Figure 2.20 Ban Lum Khao Loosely Wrapped Burial 52 (all photos: Willis and Tayles 2009: 551/2)

25

Figure 2.21 Noen U-Loke Constricted and Wrapped Burial 62

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 2.22 Skeletal Taphonomic Characteristics (Willis and Tayles 2009: 550)

example, in Loculus V Tomb 13, cremated remains were found scattered amongst commingling inhumations. Cremation was commonly practiced during the Early Roman period and inhumation during the Late Roman period.

Funerary Architectural Taphonomy The vast numbers of fragmented human remains at Krapina in Croatia were originally considered to be evidence for Palaeolithic cannibalistic activity. However, subsequent investigations have demonstrated that the breakage patterns are not consistent with those caused by humans. Instead breakage and fragmentation was related to carnivore activities, rock falls, sediment pressure, excavation trauma, and the striations were due to postdepositional processes. A full range of skeletal material was present and did not suggest secondary interment (Trinkaus 1985; Orschiedt 2008). Therefore, understanding the taphonomic history of the site was important and consistent with the cause of fragmentation and trauma to the human remains.

The skeletal patterning showed that inhumations were interred head first, as cranial fragments and teeth were found at the back of the tomb. There were many commingled fragmented long bones and ribs, numerous hand and foot bones, all of which indicated primary deposits, and no soil layer that separated the bones. The evidence indicated that cremations were initially placed in the Loculi during the Early Roman period, but at some stage in the late period it was re-opened for the interring of inhumations and, in doing so, disturbed and scattered the earlier cremations.

A similar approach was taken at the Roman Era Tombs Greece; Loculus V, of Tomb 13 (Figure 2.23). The context’s taphonomic history enabled investigators to piece together the cultural movements of human remains entering the Locus that, ultimately, shed new light on the distribution and character of commingled mortuary behaviour. The combination of contextual evidence with the skeletal assessment provided an informed understanding of the movement of human remains. For

The skeletal analysis for Loculus I Tomb 13, also showed no facial bones or mandibles, but all other elements were accounted for. This suggests that skulls were removed by the mourners of the Late Roman period and demonstrated cultural selective extractions. Combining excavation evidence and osteological analysis provided new information on funerary behaviour.

26

Taphonomic Histories

Figure 2.23 Roman Era Tombs Greece Loculus I, Tomb 13 (Ubelaker and Rife 2008: 104) subsequent burials were interred in a bundled or crouching position (Talbot in Tayles et al. 2007).

Disturbance and Redevelopment Re-development and/or re-use of a site including a cemetery or subsequent human activity can disturb existing burials and/or any grave markers that may once have existed. Subsequent funeral behaviour, such as the cutting of new graves or features can disturb or displace bones and account for loss.

Preliminary taphonomic analysis indicated that two individuals at Zvejnieki, a prehistoric cemetery in Northern Latvia, were buried in the same context but at different times (Nilsson Stutz et al. 2008). The upper more recent burial (315) was orientated WSW-ENE with the legs to the ENE and had been placed across an older burial (314) orientated N-S, which resulted in damage to the lower and older burial (Figure 2.24). Later construction work then caused further bone damage, loss and dispersal to both burials.

For example, disturbance was observed at an Iron Age occupation and cemetery site at Noen U-Loke from c.400BC-500AD. The later interments and other anthropogenic activities disturbed earlier burials (Higham et al. 2007; Tayles et al. 2007). In some instances,

Figure 2.24 Disturbed Burial at Zvejnieki (Nilsson Stutz et al. 2008: 2)

27

Taphonomic Histories 2.7 Summary As Bello (2005: 2) states: taphonomy, burial practices and anatomical features are all inter-related with the state of preservation of human remains. Taphonomic processes are complex and involve the understanding of many aspects including bone alterations, transport, weathering, soil corrosion, trampling and diagenesis (Denys 2002). It has been demonstrated here that intrinsic factors can influence differential preservation patterns, with extrinsic factors compounding and enhancing these effects. Some factors are linked to others, for example, age, sex and morphology. In many cases, no single factor determines the degree of bone preservation.

Recovery, Retrieval and Curation In 1989, Keiley carried out soil-sieving experiments and demonstrated that small infant bones were missed if sieving was not routinely carried out. Later, Haglund (1997: 375) stated that subsequent studies can be affected by the recovery technique and expertise of those involved in the original retrieval of human remains. Bone loss or absence due to poor recovery techniques can be dependent on recognition. For example, the skull has a high recognition rate and, thus, may be an artefact of discovery. The skull provides invaluable information and, as a result, there is more of an incentive for recovery, whilst hands and feet are more often overlooked. Furthermore, the porosity of immature bones increases their susceptibility to colour change within the burial matrix, add this to a gravelly type of burial matrix will lead to these small immature bones being missed (Lewis 2007). Apart from small infant bones, others have argued that small bones, in particular those of the hand and feet, were usually under-represented and this was most likely a result of non-sieving recovery techniques, likewise for patellae, a case of not sieving and recognition (Mays 1998; Cox and Bell 1999; Bello 2005). Consequently, Saunders (1992) suggested that we should consider differential burial practices and poor recovery of nonadult bones instead of presuming poor bone survivorship.

Understanding and incorporating the many complex taphonomic processes into the method will increase the potential of retrieving more information from the burial record. The human remains and depositional taphonomic histories will provide a comprehensive account of the particular burial circumstances and preservation challenges of human remains within their burial context (Duday 2006; Willis and Tayles 2009). In his study, Hill (1995: 30) stated that, there was a need to ‘consider individual contexts and reconstruct their taphonomic pathways, in short life-histories of features and assemblages’. This chapter has echoed and expanded on his sentiments with many subsequent scientific studies. Bone has ‘diagenetic parameters’ which will vary according to each group’s anthropogenic deposition behaviour and the burial contexts’ specific environmental factors. As a consequence, Iron Age human remains must be scrutinised for all processes that may have been involved with their formation in order to provide a comprehensive account of funerary and depositional behaviour.

Post-excavation storage provides conditions where bone may develop cracks that could be misconstrued as the result of funerary treatment, such as exposure and weathering. For example, Bell et al. (1996: 180) stated that bones from Overton Down Experimental Earthwork project were stored in a drawer with no humidity or temperature control. Cracks that occurred when the bones were buried were exacerbated by the storage conditions.

28

Archaeology, Forensic Taphonomy and Anthropology Chapter 3 Archaeology, Forensic Taphonomy and Anthropology

combination, to erase, spatially disturb, or physically and chemically modify the archaeological record. Despite these observations, it was not until the latter part of the 20th century that archaeologists began to appreciate that the identification of, and discrimination between, cultural and natural processes was essential in understanding the archaeological record (Schiffer 1972, 1976).

3.1 Introduction This chapter examines the previous methods employed to analyse and interpret Iron Age human remains. The first section briefly explores archaeological recording methods, whilst the second critiques key studies that have defined and shaped our current understanding of Iron Age funerary behaviour.

3.3 Recording Iron Age Remains Much of the discussion on excarnation and exposure rites became associated with incomplete skeletal remains from a number of studies during the 1980s (Wilson 1981; Whimster 1981; Wait 1985; Walker 1984). Wilson (1981), Walker (1984) and Wait (1985) each created six separate but similar categories for recording Iron Age human remains. These have become the precedent for all succeeding works and, more recently, Sharples (2010) has reworked their categories creating four of his own. However, all lack the in-depth analysis of the wide-ranging skeletal assemblages, and an appreciation of the many complex influences that can affect archaeological remains.

3.2 Traditional Archaeology The recording and study of past societies have developed and transformed since the early days of the antiquarians; methods and approaches have been adopted, adapted and incorporated from a number of fields. During the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries archaeology was in its infancy and part of a wider discipline, anthropology, with the quality of field work very variable (Lucas 2001). Typically, antiquarians used topographic surveys and treated excavations as supplementary and the means to recover artefacts, not fully appreciating the potential of understanding past behaviour through stratigraphy (Lucas 2001). By the later nineteenth and early twentieth century, fieldwork developed, becoming part of the professional practice (Barker 1977; Greene 1983; Kuklick 1997; Lucas 2001). Strata were arranged into sequences to illustrate chronological time, a principle used by geologists was incorporated into archaeology (Harris 1989; 1998; Hanson 2004). Culture history and the assemblage were studied from 1920-1960 and developed into the cultural and contextual archaeologies of the 1960s (Lucas 2001).

The following section critiques these recording systems and argues the case for a new generic recording scheme with categories that have clear and simple criteria. Furthermore, if incomplete skeletons and skeletal assemblages represent the remains of excarnated individuals, it will be argued that these should be grouped in one category and treated as one body of evidence. Wilson 1981: Burials in Southern Britain during the Pre-Roman Age Wilson (1981: 128) assessed the burial record for 53 Iron Age sites (35 settlements and 18 hillforts) in Southern Britain and created six deposition categories based on the most frequently used terminology in the excavation reports. The remains were divided on an arbitrary basis, according to the degree of fragmentation (Table 3.1).

As excavation techniques and recording systems were evolving and becoming standard practice, specialisms within archaeology developed (Lucas 2001). For example, specialists who concentrated on small finds, soils, ceramics, faunal and human remains were also developing their own analytical techniques and recording systems. The result of this caused the problem of isolated reports. Hill’s (1995) study highlighted the need for a fully contextual approach and to understand transformations caused by natural processes and cultural activity. Similarly, Redfern (2008: 282) states that our knowledge of Iron Age communities was often from old or out-of-date cemetery reports with respect to osteological methods.

Wilson was aware that the ‘wholesale nature’ of the categories could also separate material which might be treated together. Thus, in this case, it was primarily the visual site observations and terminology found on excavation reports from 1886-1979 that created the categories. Wilson (1981) acknowledged that her categories may not fully address the complexity in discriminating between a complete inhumation that has become fragmentary due to decomposition or subsequent disturbance, from one that was incomplete when deposited. She noted that, in some cases, the remains could be assigned to more than one group; for example, fragmented bone (Category 2) was difficult to separate from disarticulated bones (Category 3) and articulated joints and limbs (Category 4) could be termed partial burials (Category 5). Hence, Wilson (1981) used the site type and terminology as a means to differentiate between these categories. For instance, a small number of articulated parts of bodies (Category 4)

As the artefacts become separated from their context and other finds they lose their relationship. There is an interaction between human remains and their depositional circumstance and the micro-environments in which they were found. For instance, Bordes (1975) argued that artefacts could have been altered by numerous processes acting continuously through time. Similarly, Nash and Petraglia (1987: 186) stated that artefacts could be influenced by a number of formation processes prior to, during, or after deposition. These processes could operate singly, as well as in 29

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains were associated with hillfort ‘massacre’ groups. Whereas, Category 5 (partial burials), were described as a small and unsatisfactory group which is no doubt of mixed origins. The assumption was that a substantial part of the torso was present on interment. Thus, these were grouped together by an assumption rather than understanding of taphonomic skeletal formation processes.

were evidence to support different treatment of the corpse (Walker 1984). The two main distinctions were ‘inhumation’, when the body was fleshed and articulated, and the deposition of ‘body parts’ after decomposition had commenced. For subsequent work, the approach was similar to Walker’s and each category was considered to be an archaeologically recognisable process of deposition: burial of complete bodies at the bottom of a pit, burial of neonatal infants, the deposition of partial bodies, and deposition of skulls (Cunliffe and Poole 1991; Cunliffe 1995).

Wilson (1981:130) stated that fragmented bone (Category 2) was likely to have derived from various origins during the peri-mortem period, including weathering and scavenging above ground. As a consequence, these deposits are grouped by their appearance and not defined by the processes that have shaped or created the deposits, which could have had either natural or cultural origins. For instance, Wilson’s scheme does not recognise that an individual who was buried complete but suffered from poor preservation should be categorized as a complete inhumation, and not fragmentary, as this is the consequence of formation processes and not the cultural practice or burial behaviour.

It was argued that group inhumations were seen as a deviation from single inhumations but could be placed in either Category A or C depending on their completeness. Incomplete bodies (Category B) were considered the remains left from massacres, excarnation, ritual dismemberments or scavenged bodies (Cunliffe and Poole 1991). Effectively, this is documenting the end result of bodies that had undergone a range of formation processes. Ideally, the whole funerary and depositional account is required and this can only be achieved by examining and comparing taphonomic histories.

Wilson (1981) argued that exposure, secondary burials, disturbance, differential preservation, ploughing and faunal activity were all agents that contribute to bone fragmentation. However, nothing was employed to discriminate between their archaeological signatures before assigning the assemblage a category.

Burial depth was employed to differentiate neonates from older children and adults in Category A. For instance, there were thirteen neonates, six of which were found in small ‘specially dug’ pits, and seven within storage pits; six of the infant burials were in the middle or upper fills, whilst children and adults were found on or very close to, the bottom of pits (Cunliffe 1995). However, this approach conflicts with the burial evidence as adult males and females were found in upper or middle fills, for example adult males DB 28, 29 and 30 and adult female DB 21. Thus, shallow graves may simply reflect the infants’ size (Acsádi and Nemeskéri 1970; Crawford 1993; Scull 1997; Lewis 2007).

No formal skeletal examination took place; instead, Wilson accepted that fragmentary remains were the best evidence to support exposure practices, and added a personal comment from Don Brothwell, who provided a description of how skeletal remains should appear if exposure was practiced. However, Wilson did suggest that further intensive investigation was required before evidence of exposure burial could be demonstrated. Although Wilson (1981) acknowledged there were problems with the various representations of human remains in each category, her six categories provided the initial framework that has shaped our recording and interpretation of Iron Age funerary behaviour and deposition practices.

The skull (those with and without the mandible) was singled out as a separate type of deposit. However, for c.450 years, Cunliffe (1995: 77) stated that a total of fifteen complete or nearly complete skulls and thirty separate instances of skull fragments were found and offered as evidence to support either the curation of the heads of enemies, or ancestral veneration. In fact, some deposits included in Category D clearly did not fit. A female cranium (91) was found with thoracic vertebrae and rib fragments and, deposition 245 comprised three juvenile skulls with a number of other long bones. Thus, skulls have been extracted from other depositional data.

Walker (1984) The Deposition of the Human Remains – Danebury Hillfort Danebury hillfort was excavated over a continuous period of twenty years, and the report is commonly cited in studies of other Iron Age sites and their human remains. This section reviews Walker’s (1984) work on 182 depositions of human remains found at Danebury during the first decade of excavation, and later accounts where the number of deposits had risen to 300 (Cunliffe and Poole 1991 and Cunliffe 1995). Walker (1984: 442) created six categories that were fairly similar to Wilson’s but were specific to Danebury (Table 3.2). Walker’s approach again employed classical and Irish texts, anthropological analogies and ethnography to understand the burial record. Each category reflected the different rites involved and the nature of the deposits

Originally, Category E comprised four fragmentary pelvic girdles on the grounds that they represented a different social performance. Later work considered this group too small to warrant their own category, but this category remains listed (Walker 1984; Cunliffe and Poole 1991; Cunliffe 1996). Individual and fragmentary bones (Category F) representing the majority of finds (73.7%), were not considered a discrete cultural deposit, but instead loss, discard or the result of disturbed 30

Archaeology, Forensic Taphonomy and Anthropology remains (Walker 1984). However, there was no means or approach that discriminated between these different deposits. Furthermore, a skeletal frequency table was employed to identify common themes for individual and fragmentary bones (Category F) which showed that skull fragments and long bones were the most common deposits. But this excluded singly found complete skulls and frontal bones which were placed in Category D.

varied according to the number of bones present. For instance, if the assemblage comprised two bones this could be classed as one deposit, but if the bones were from two individuals this was classed as two deposits (Sharples 2010). Sharples’ Category B (articulated deposits) is similar to both Wilson and Wait’s Category 4. It is sub-divided into four; (i) fragmentary torsos without skulls and arms, (ii) fragmentary torsos with disarticulated limbs, (iii) assemblages comprising a mixture of bones from the same individual, and (iv) small groups of articulated or potentially articulated bones. This is confusing, as (ii) disarticulated limbs, falls in the ‘articulated’ Category B. There are both cultural practices and natural processes that can influence or affect the appearance of the skeleton and bone connection, the disarticulation and bone loss, but Sharples’ approach does not seek to understand the archaeological and/or the skeletal record.

However, it would be logical to assess all singly found elements together which would allow any repetitive theme to present itself. This deposit then needs to be assessed for preservation and survivorship traits or biases in order to discriminate them from intentional cultural deposits. As a result, this study recommends that Walker’s (1984) Categories D, E and F to be amalgamated under one heading, with one simple criterion, a single element deposit. One final thought, Walker (1984) highlighted a few deposits that were found lying in chalk shatter and erosion silts, strengthening her argument for exposure. However, is this the same for all deposits, what is the percentage, can it be related to a particular deposit? Thus, this study recommends that all burial sediments should be assessed to determine their nature, cultural or natural origins.

For multiple, partially articulated burials (Danebury’s charnel pits) Sharples (2010: 260) stated that he assigned these remains to his other categories: complete bodies, partial bodies, skulls or isolated bone. The result of this increased the number of Category D (Heads) and Category B (articulated deposits) significantly. However, multiple depositions or burials should be recorded as such as they could represent a discrete social performance and taphonomic signatures should be examined to determine why some remains were not complete and intact.

Wait (1985) Ritual and Religion in Iron Age Britain In his study of 22 sites comprising 449 deposits, Wait (1985: 88) stated that his human remains categories were based on the criteria of both Wilson (1981) and Walker’s (1984) studies (Table 3.3). Thus, this approach still lacks the understanding of the formation of the burial record; for example, Wait did not consider the factors involved between a single complete and single partial inhumation. Therefore, he was still using the visual record from the point of excavation to create a category. Articulated limbs have been separated but were not numerous, and skulls have been drawn away from other singly found elements which implies their greater importance.

Unlike earlier studies, Sharples (2010: 248) stated there was a predicted sequence for a decomposing corpse and considered articulated segments, such as the spinal column, pelvic girdles, and articulated hands and feet, as the most convincing evidence for excarnation. Despite no apparent supporting evidence, Sharples presumed excarnation was carried out away from the settlement and selected bones were returned, with the bulk left behind to be consumed or destroyed by the elements. He went on to describe characteristics of excarnated bone, e.g. weathering and gnawing, with small bones and bone fragments located around exposure platforms. However, Sharples does not draw on any research on funerary taphonomy for supporting evidence.

Sharples (2010) Social Relations in Later Prehistory Wessex in the First Millennium BC Sharples’ (2010: 260) scheme was adapted from Walker’s (1984) site-specific scheme for Danebury and, as such, the same arguments would apply, e.g. not separating skulls from other single element deposits (Table 3.4). Like the previous schemes, Sharples (2010) did not incorporate or appreciate the complex processes involved with the formation of the burial record. In his study of 37 sites comprising 700 deposits from Hampshire, Wiltshire, Dorset and Somerset, the larger collections dominated the funerary and burial patterns (Sharples 2010). However, there are several problems with this scheme, for instance the number of deposits

31

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains Table 3.1 Wilson (1981: 128) Categorisation of Iron Age Human Remains Categories 1

2

3

4

5

6

Worked or utilised bone

Bone fragments

Disarticulated bones

Articulated joints and limbs

Partial burials

Complete burials

Table 3.2 Walker (1984: 442) Categorisation of Iron Age Human Remains Categories A

B

C

D

E

F

Whole bodies, single or group

Incomplete individual skeletons

Multiple, partial articulated charnel pits

Skulls and frontal bones

Pelvic girdles

Individual bones and fragments

Table 3.3 Wait (1985: 88) Categorisation of Iron Age Human Remains Categories 1

2

3

4

5

6

Single complete

Single partial

Multiple partial

Articulated limbs

Skulls

Individual bones

Table 3.4 Sharples (2010: 260) Categorisation of Iron Age Human Remains Categories A

B

Complete

Articulated deposits

C

D Heads

E

F Isolated bones i, long ii, trunk iii, extremities

one funerary or depositional practice and, as such, should be grouped and studied as one body of data.

3.4 Summary To summarise the main problems of these schemes; rather than understanding the formation of the burial record: Wilson (1981), Whimster (1981), Wait (1985) and Walker (1984) employed classical texts, ethnographic and anthropological analogies to compare the British Iron Age human remains. Visual field observations were used to create human remains categories which, in effect, documented their condition at the point of excavation.

Articulated limbs and pelves were not numerous and arguably do not warrant their own categories. Descriptive terms such as disarticulated and articulated were used to separate deposits. However, these skeletal conditions can be influenced by both cultural practices and natural processes and none of the previous schemes provided the means to discriminate between the two.

Wilson’s (1981) scheme separated incomplete skeletons according to their degree of fragmentation. However, this approach has separated assemblages that might reflect

This study recommends that an assemblage of bones found in one context and layer, should be treated as one deposit regardless of the number of individuals

32

Archaeology, Forensic Taphonomy and Anthropology represented. Further analysis should pursue examining funerary or depositional treatment, social trends and frequency. In addition to this, the burial depth should not be a method employed to differentiate burial or funerary practices for the very young.

so that all sites can be compared according to the same method. It is essential to assign a deposit category to each assemblage after considering all taphonomic evidence, thus moving away from a visual observation to understanding the formation of the deposit. The identification of physical or material evidence might suggest exposure and secondary burial practices and also explain the reason(s) why complete skeletons have remained intact.

A separate skull category implied that head-hunting or veneration practices were prevalent and in Walker’s (1984) scheme, skulls and frontal bones (Category D) were separated from other skull fragments which were recorded under individual bones and fragments (Category F). A better method of analysis would provide the opportunity for any repetitive element or patterning to present itself from the whole body of data. Consequently, recording all single element deposits in one category will provide an overall perspective, frequency and opportunity for skeletal trends to emerge. After which, trends can be challenged against preservation and survivorship traits and recovery and excavation biases. Complete skeletons, both single and group burials, were categorised together; however this study recommends that they should be separated to identify frequency and any social trends. Finally, none of the previous schemes comprehensively studied and compared the factors surrounding fragmentary remains from those of complete inhumations, or combined osteological analysis with the context taphonomic history.

3.6 Synergy and Integration The last sections reviewed how previous works have approached and characterised Iron Age funerary and deposition practices. This section introduces a new science-based direction that, in synergy with archaeology, has the potential to reveal and expand on the understanding of all Iron Age human remains. Traditionally, archaeologists excavate and compile information about past mortuary behaviour by using material and spatial evidence, whilst bioarchaeologists concentrate on the biology of the interments (Willis and Tayles 2009). Archaeological recording techniques and documentation are relevant when attempting to understand a crime scene, thus, an archaeological site can also be regarded similar in a similar way, with both investigations attempting to recreate past events (Saul and Saul 2002). To reconstruct intentional acts or behavioural patterns involved with the deposition of human remains, there are several issues to understand before any inferences can be made. Only recording the skeletal remains and their position provides limited information that may unwittingly prove misleading (Roksandic 2002). The physical remains and deposition context undergo complex taphonomic processes that can be independent of each other but must be assessed in order to produce a comprehensive account of funerary and deposition behaviour. Therefore, all information prior to, during and after deposition, must be understood combining the two taphonomic histories, those associated with the physical remains as well as the depositional environment before interpretation. This allows cultural behaviour to be discerned from natural processes. Therefore, this study will carry out a multidisciplinary science-based analysis of the osteological and deposition evidence, combining both taphonomic histories. By incorporating new research that explores deposition behaviour and sequences, exposure and burials under different circumstances will enhance our current understanding of Iron Age funerary and deposition practices (e.g. Dirkmaat and Sienicki 1995; Haglund 1997; Roksandic 2002).

3.5 New Approach and New Categories There is a wide range of terminologies found in Iron Age literature and excavation reports that describe the remains as: complete, incomplete, near complete, partial, isolated, disarticulated, scattered, odd and loose bones (Fasham 1985; Hill 1995; Redfern 2008; Carr 2007; Carr and Knüsel 1997; Cunliffe and Poole 2000; Sharples 2010; Madgwick 2008). This indicates that there is no one set of standards being used and, as such, leaves room for disparity between deposits and sites. This situation has also been hindered by recording systems that are based on the recovery of complete or nearly complete skeletons in their own contexts. This system is clearly not suited to Iron Age wide-ranging fragmentary human and animal remains (Knüsel and Outram 2004). Thus, there is the need to employ a different approach, similar to the one used at Velim Skalka, a Middle Bronze Age site in the Czech Republic (Outram et al. 2005). This site’s assemblages are similar to those found on British Iron Age sites, comprising both human and animal remains and, in this case, an integrated approach was used. However, this research extends integration further and advocates recording all burial data together, incorporating the contexts’ taphonomic history and the nature of the burial sediment. Therefore, this integrated approach includes multidisciplinary studies to expand Iron Age funerary and deposition practices. Returning to old excavations may prove problematic as they present a methodological challenge to further detailed studies (Sharples 2010). However, the way forward is to develop a standardised generic human remains system with simple categories and clear criteria, 33

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains Chapter 4

based approach to provide physical or material evidence for the understanding of Iron Age funerary and deposition practices. Both the human remains (all deposit types) and the context’s taphonomic history need to be examined before providing an interpretation of cultural practices, such as exposure of the dead and secondary burial rites.

Materials and Methods

4.1 Introduction There has been a weak integration of human osteology within Iron Age studies and frequent reuse of old human remains reports (Watts 2005). Anthropological and ethnographic analogies, classical references, and visual field observations were employed to create categories to differentiate between Iron Age funerary and deposition practices. Coupled with recording systems not suited to the wide-ranging, scattered, fragmentary remains, commingled and co-mixed deposits (comprised both human and animal remains) which did not integrate all relevant burial evidence.

4.2 Materials Five Atrebatic sites in Hampshire and one Durotrigian site in Dorset were chosen based on the accessibility to curated human remains, archival documentation and the published reports (Figure 4.1). A range of site types were chosen to compare and contrast funerary and deposition practices: three hillforts (Maiden Castle, Danebury and Winklebury), two settlements (Winnall Down and Suddern Farm) and one banjo enclosure (Micheldever Wood).

Rationale Unlike previous studies, this research employed a multidisciplinary, integrated and synergistic science-

Figure 4.1 Southern Britain - Study Sites 1 Maiden Castle, 2 Suddern Farm, 3 Danebury, 4 Winnall Down, 5 Micheldever Woods, 6 Winklebury (Adapted from Hill 1995: 10) fragmentary remains of 1 infant and 21 instances of isolated bone (Fasham 1985). The Middle Iron Age comprised 18 complete or near complete inhumations (1 male, 2 female and 2 possible females, 1 adolescent, 2 children and 10 infants), and 25 instances of ‘loose’ bones (Fasham 1985: 25-26). This study excluded WD 156, 420 and 419 as they were non-human and included five (WD 159, 160, 457, 507 and 3555) ‘unphased’ infant remains due to their close proximity to ‘phased’ infant burials and one unphased adult burial (HR 650). All finds and archive material are housed at the Hampshire Arts and Museum Service, Winchester, in Hampshire.

Winnall Down, Hampshire SU 498303 This prehistoric settlement, approximately 1.26 hectares (3.25 acres) in extent was excavated during 1976–7 as one of the projects organised by the M3 Archaeological Rescue Committee (Fasham 1985).The chronology of the site, contexts and their contents was based on dating evidence from the ceramics, and the carbon dating of charcoal, human and animal bone. Bone preservation was regarded as generally good and the human remains were divided into two categories, (i) either complete or near complete inhumations, and (ii) isolated or scattered ‘odd bones’. The Early Iron Age material comprised the

34

Materials and Methods Micheldever Wood, Hampshire SU 527370 Two thirds of this Middle Iron Age banjo enclosure was excavated by the M3 Archaeological Rescue Committee during 1975-1976 (Fasham 1987). The entranceway of 30m led into an enclosure which was approximately 0.2 hectares in extent.

As part of this study, under the ‘Associated Finds’ section, it was intended to compare the number of contexts that contained: human remains only, animal remains only, and both human and animal remains for each ceramic phase. This has proved problematic as there was a tendency to focus on the contents of the pits only (Table 4.1) and even Danebury’s Metadata only listed pits (http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/resources.html?danebury _var_2003)

Two-thirds of the interior and a large part of the entranceway was excavated with no substantial structural evidence for post-holes in the entrance or post-built houses. However, there were 19 features considered as pits, 11 of which contained human remains which comprised 13 complete inhumations, 11 of which were infants less than one year old, an 11-year-old child and one young adult, and six miscellaneous bone assemblages (Fasham 1987).

However, both human and animal remains were found in other contexts, such as layers and postholes. Animal bones found in the second decade of the excavation did not undergo the same detailed analysis as those found in the first (Poole 1995: 259). As a consequence, Hooper’s site notes have been tabulated to gain some insight into the number of animal remains with human deposits, and the terminology used to describe the assemblages (The deposition of the human remains: Microfiche Indexes 14). All finds and archive material are housed at the Hampshire Arts and Museum Service, Winchester, in Hampshire. The site’s chronology is based on a number of ceramic phases (CP), which were of different durations;

This study has also included a pit originally assigned to the Late Iron Age as it followed a similar burial trend, comprising two infants. All finds and archive material are housed at the Hampshire Arts and Museum Service, Winchester, in Hampshire. Danebury, Hampshire SU 323376 This Iron Age hillfort encloses approximately 5.3 hectares and was in use for some 450 years. The hillfort underwent a continuous excavation from 1969 that ran for nearly twenty consecutive years and the human remains were published in three of the six volumes (Cunliffe 1984, 1991, 1995).

CP 1 before 470 BC, CP 3 c.470 - 360 BC CP 4-5 c. 360 - 310 BC CP 6 c. 310 - 270 BC CP 7 c.270 - 50 BC CP 8 c.50 BC - AD50 (After Cunliffe 1995: 18)

Cunliffe (1991: 418) stated that there were 300 wideranging deposits of human remains, which represented at least 91 individuals and a further 45 deposits comprising skull fragments identified as a curation practice, for either ancestral reverence or the heads of enemies. Complete inhumations comprised 14 males, seven females, two non-sexed adults and five non-adults, whereas partial inhumations comprised 12 male, nine female, four nonsexed adults and 15 non-adults (Cunliffe 1995: 76). All of which came from 239 contexts comprising 181 pits, 14 post-holes and 41 layers which were described as nondiscreet areas of accumulation. Due to the contexts’ stratigraphic phasing, on occasion pits and their burials were assigned to one more than one phase (Cunliffe 1995). For instance, originally DB 12 was assigned to two ceramic phases CP 3 and CP 6 (Microfiche 1-4; Cunliffe 1984; Cunliffe 1995) and DB 24 was assigned to CP 3 and CP 5 (microfiche; Cunliffe 1984; 1995); this study has placed both burials in CP3. Similarly, originally, P1114 was assigned to CP 6 but later to CP 7, where it is in this study.

Ceramic Phase

1-3

Pits with human remains

39

Pits with animal burials Pits with other special burials

duration of 110 years, duration of 50 years, duration of 40 years, duration of 210 years, duration of 100 years

4-5

6

7

20

18

66

18

69

37

37

178

26

109

54

40

147

26

Table 4.1 Danebury: Propitiatory Burials (Cunliffe 1995: 95)

35

8-9

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains another two infants, P37H and P35, with the War Cemetery burials along with P15, a fragmentary assemblage comprising adult cranial and unspecified bone fragments.

Suddern Farm, Hampshire SU 276376 Suddern Farm, a roughly circular ditched enclosure (2.2 hectares), was first excavated in 1991 and again in 1996 (Cunliffe and Poole 2000). The majority were buried in a large amorphous quarry outside the ditched enclosure during the Early to Middle Iron Age (c.470-270BC), with a few deposits dating to the Late Iron Age period. Hooper (2000: 168, 169) estimated that there were 15 complete or nearly complete inhumations comprising: six males, five probable males, one female and four probable females and, after re-evaluating the odd bone assemblages, he increased this to 31 adults, nine children aged 2-16 years old, and 20 infants aged 0-2 years old.

The archive material list adult male N1 and adult female N2 as Late Iron Age, but the published report lists these as Middle Iron Age, where they remain in this study. Burials from the War Cemetery have been included as they mark the transition point between the Late Iron Age and Early Roman periods, and were not necessarily connected to the Roman Conquest (Sharples 1985: 100). The remains were held at Duckworth Laboratory, University of Cambridge. The excavation techniques used by Wheeler were advanced for the time, and employed stratigraphy for the first time to understand chronological development but were not suitable to gather burial sediment data (Sharples 1999).

During the re-examination three additional perinates were found; two with C29 (F454) and one with C22 (F444). Cunliffe and Poole (2000: 166) stated that due to the risk of theft, rapid hand excavation was carried out, whereby only the major deposits were carefully excavated, drawn and photographed. The neonates were removed without any drawing or photography.

Limitations The current study suffered from a number of limitations. Skeletal remains were completely totally unmarked, insufficiently labelled, or received a duplicate number, and individuals from multiple burials were marked with the lifting sequence number and not the deposition number (e.g. Danebury). The paper archive on associated finds was not always available and excavation documents varied in completeness. For example, Winklebury hillfort’s context sheets were incomplete and, similarly, Maiden Castle’s site notebook for ‘Q’ was missing.

Winklebury, Hampshire SU 61355290 Winklebury Hillfort approximately 7.6 hectares (19 acres) lies on Upper Chalk, despite a rescue excavation, nearly 50%, an area c.220m long by 100m wide, revealed the hillfort’s internal features and human remains (Smith 1977). There were three fairly complete inhumations and two fragmentary adolescents (one male and one female), one infant, and an unspecified number of other bone assemblages dating from the 3rd to the 1st century BC.

Wheeler’s recording system for Maiden Castle was confusing as ‘P’ or ‘p’ could refer to a page, pit or excavated area and the excavation documentation for human remains did not always correspond to the published version. Not every burial was photographed or drawn and, in particular, infant burials lacked details. Some incomplete remains could be the result of the earlier excavation carried out by Cunnington (Wheeler 1937).

Due to time constraints, contractors excavated a skeleton and skull, but did not formally record the location or contextual information. The dating of the hillfort was based on pottery finds; the early phase was assigned from the 6th to the 5th century BC (Middle Iron Age) and the late phase from the 3rd to the 1st century BC (Late Iron Age).

4.3 New Human Remains Categories For this study, all deposits of human remains were assigned a new category according to their taphonomic histories (Table 4.2).

Maiden Castle, Dorset SY 669884 This Dorset Iron Age hillfort, approximately 2.5km (1.3 miles), was excavated during the 1930s (Wheeler 1943). This study examined all available human remains where the majority remained in their original Iron Age burial grouping. To correlate with this study’s chronology, Wheeler’s (1943) Iron Age A, B and C are referred to as Early, Middle and Late Iron Age (respectively).

Category 1: Single Skeletal Element A frequency table was employed to assess all single element finds, including skulls (with maxilla and mandibles), cranium (with maxilla but no mandible), frontal bones and skull fragments to identify patterns of under and over-representation. Where there were enough samples, the long bones were assessed for siding and bone zone survivorship trends.

In total there were: 36 males, 26 females, four unsexed adults and 21 non-adults. However, some deposits received less attention and were not listed in the published report. For example, Wheeler’s footnote (1943: 337) stated that some deposits were omitted as they were considered insignificant fragments. Goodman and Morant’s (1940: 296) report assigned perinate PI to the Middle Iron Age period, and this study has included

This study developed a recording system that documented each long bone as either the complete element (C), proximal section (P), proximal and shaft

36

Materials and Methods section (P/S), shaft (S), distal section (D), and nonidentifiable fragments (F) to identify bone zone survivorship trends. This method was used to determine

whether bone density alone could explain survivorship patterns (See Appendix 4).

Table 4.2 New Categories for Recording Human Remains 1 Single Elements

2 Multiple Mixed Elements Type (i) one individual represented Type (ii) more than one individual represented

Category 3 4 Single Multiple Complete Complete Inhumations Inhumations

5 Mixed Burial Types Combinations Non-contemporaneous

their respective age groups, bones were assessed as a collection to determine overall frequency in order to identify general under or over-representation trends. The results were considered in the light of excavation biases, bone density, survivorship trends and the results obtained from Type I results.

Category 2: Multiple Mixed Elements All assemblages not considered to be a complete inhumation (single or multiple) or a single element were osteometrically sorted following Byrd (2008). These assemblages were subdivided into either: Type I: where one age group was represented (Adult, Adolescent, Child or Infant), or Type II, where more than one individual or age group was represented by repeating elements or morphology.

Category 3: Single Complete Inhumation These burials comprise most major and minor elements. This includes those previously recorded as partial or near complete inhumations, if bone loss can be explained by poor preservation, recovery method and techniques (i.e. no sieving for small bone recovery), or due to excavation constraints (Dirkmaat and Adovasio 1997; Ubelaker 2002). It also takes into consideration whether the corpse had little or no protection, such as shallow burial depths, no immediate grave or pit fill and subsequent disturbance.

With Type I assemblages, each age group was separated and assessed for deposit similarities; for example, on one recording sheet only adult assemblages were listed (see Appendix 5: Multiple Mixed Element Assemblage Content Type I). This allowed the content of assemblages to be directly compared based on the age of the individual and the type and number of elements present in order to identify any repetitive deposits. After which, if the sample size allowed and still in their respective age groups, the bones were assessed as a collection to determine overall frequency identifying any general under- or over-representation trends (See Appendix 5: Multiple Element Frequency Recording Sheet). These results were considered in the light of excavation biases, bone density and survivorship trends.

Category 4: Multiple Complete Inhumations These deposits comprise more than one individual buried at the same time and found within the same layer. The same criteria for Category 3 apply here; these deposits comprise most major and minor elements, including those previously recorded as partial or near complete inhumations, especially if bone loss can be explained by poor preservation, recovery method and whether the corpse had little or no protection. The main concern here was to identify social trends or rules that might have governed burials; for instance, males were not buried with women or children.

A similar analysis was carried out for all Type II assemblages, where more than one age group or individual was represented, either by morphology (e.g. both adult and non-adult bones present) or repeating skeletal elements (e.g. two adult mandibles). However, instead of recording the number of elements present, the age group(s) was recorded; for example, two adult mandibles would appear as A/A in the mandible column, whereas a child’s femur found with an adult’s frontal bones would appear as C and A in the appropriate skeletal element columns (see Appendix 5: Multiple Mixed Element Assemblage Content Type II). This allowed the assemblages to be directly compared identifying any repetitive deposits and age group biases. Where possible, if the sample size allowed and still in

Category 5: Mixed Burial Types This category groups all other depositions that do not fit Categories 1 - 4, such as skeletal combinations (i.e. Category 1 and 3) and non-sequential burials. This identifies any other repetitive deposit theme not addressed by earlier recording schemes and, in particular, identifying other social rules that governed burials or deposits. For instance, women and children were buried in the same context but males were not, and 37

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains other deposition behaviour or practice as evident by the use of different combinations of human remains.

Table 4.3 Age Terminology Perinate

4.4 Recording Human Remains Age and Sex Determination Methods For estimating adult age at death, the standard methods were employed: cranial suture closure (Meindl and Lovejoy 1985); pubic symphysis degeneration (Brooks and Suchey 1990); auricular surface degeneration (Lovejoy et al. 1985; Meindl and Lovejoy 1989); where possible, sternal rib ends (İşcan and Loth 1986) and dental attrition (Ubelaker 1989; Hillson 1996; Miles 2001).

Infant Child Adolescent Young adult Middle adult Middle-mature adult Mature adult

Around birth (24 weeks gestation - 7 post-natal days Birth to 1 year 1.1 - 14.5 years 14.6 - 17 years 17.1 - 25 years 26 - 35 years 36 - 45 years 46+ years

4.5 Bone Surface Modification All bones were examined using a hand held 10x magnifying lens and, where necessary, a light microscope was used to determine the nature of the bone modification or alteration. Clear guidelines to discriminate ante-, peri- and post-mortem bone damage were essential in order to evaluate time of bone damage and are summarised in Table 4.4.

Adult sex was determined using cranial characteristics: nuchal line, mastoid process, supraorbital margin, prominence of the glabella and mental eminence of the mandible and pelvic characteristics; greater schiatic notch and prearicular sulcus (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994) and the pubic portion of the os coxae: ventral arc, sub-pubic concavity and ischio-pubic ramus ridge (Phenice 1969).

A wide range of taphonomic studies were employed to evaluate both human and non-human (animal and environmental) bone surface modification agents (Tables 4.5 and 4.6). Other studies included Haglund and Sorg (1997; 2002), Ubelaker (1997), Villa and Mahieu (1991) for long bone breakage patterns and Outram (2002). McKinley’s (2004) abrasion and erosion recording system was chosen to measure the physical appearance of the bone. In this study, McKinley’s numerical score of 0-5+ was translated as: 0 = minimal, 1= mild, 2 = mild +, 3 = moderate, 4 = moderate +, 5 = extensive and + was very extensive (See Section 2.5.5).

Standard bone inventories published by Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994) and Brickley and McKinley (2004) were adapted to allow consistent recording of data (see Appendices 1, 2 and 3). The inventories were assessed to identify burial preferences and trends according to the age and sex of the individuals as well as context and distribution trends. Adult age-at-death was divided this way to be more comparable to the lifespan of an individual and adult sex was categorised as: Male, Probable Male (? Male), Indeterminate, Probable Female (? Female) or Female.

4.6 Associated Finds The original human remains reports were used to tabulate any associated finds such as animal remains. Where time and availability allowed, other archival materials (e.g. context sheets) were examined to evaluate and document other relevant burial information.

For non-adult age estimations (less than 17 years at death) a number of methods were employed: diaphyseal measurements (humeri, radii, ulnae, femora, tibiae and fibulae); degree of epiphyseal fusion (Scheuer et al. 1980; Scheuer and Black 2000); and dental development (Moorees et al. 1963a/b; and Smith 1991). There has been long standing issues with defining children in archaeology and so the terminology used in this study for non-adults provides a biological age range and not a social category (Table 4.3). Therefore, they are an osteological assessment of age, rather than a cultural one, which would vary in different populations (Lewis 2007).

4.7 Contextual Evidence The site’s geology was recorded to consider general bone preservation conditions, along with any excavator’s comments concerning the state of the skeletons or other bone deposits. The burial depth was recorded in order to consider individual preservation and condition of the remains. The original site plans were used to plot the overall distribution of human remains and their relation to the site and its features such as post-structures. Similarly, each new category of human remains was plotted to identify any particular patterning or clustering. A more detailed map of single elements was plotted to identify whether clustering of any one element type could be observed (e.g. a clustering of cranial deposits).

38

Materials and Methods Where available from archival documents the contexts’ taphonomic history was recorded, which included the nature of the burial sediment in which the remains were found. This provided physical evidence for cultural covering of the dead post-deposition or intentional exposure if found within natural or erosion material.

confirm the association and origin of dispersed bone assemblages and fragments.

In addition to this, the burial sequence for Mixed Burial Types was recorded to determine any social preferences and deposit patterns or combinations.

Photographic evidence, sections, plans and drawings of burials were also used to analyse the relationship between the corpse and its depositional surroundings. This aspect studied the skeleton’s presentation and configuration, retrieving evidence that might explain the skeletal completeness and integrity indicated by bones still making anatomical connections.

Sections and plans were used to study and map fragmentary assemblages and bone fragments both horizontally and vertically to identify any possible skeletal spatial relationships. Conjoining exercises (biological and/or mechanical) were then employed to

This provided evidence for body protection, support, or binding in the form of organic wrappings and as well as support from the immediate grave/pit fill (Nilsson Stutz 2006; Duday and Guillon 2006; Nilsson Stutz et al. 2008, Duday 2009, Willis and Tayles 2009).

Table 4.4 Summary of Ante-, Peri- and Post-Mortem Characteristics Period Ante-mortem

Bone description and characteristics of damage Bone contains maximum moisture and fat levels the result is a greenstick or spiral fracture. Evidence of bony healing.

Peri-mortem

Bone retains much of the organic component. Broken edge usually same colour as rest of bone. No evidence of healing and jagged edges.

Post-mortem

References Haglund and Sorg (1997) Galloway (1999)

Galloway (1999), Ubelaker and Adams (1995) White (2000), Loe and Cox (2005) Bone has become dry. Recent/modern breaks appear rougher Galloway (1999), Ubelaker and jagged edge. These are often parallel or at cross section s (1995) to the long axis of the bone. Broken edge is usually a lighter White (2000), Loe and Cox (2005) colour than the adjacent unbroken surfaces. Crumbling and compressing defects.

39

‘V’ shaped, shallow, wide, irregular, indistinct apex, concave walls,

Broader and shorter in plan, usually transverse to long axis, elongated groove, internal crushing,

Stone tool (cut/slice)

Metal/stone tool

40

‘V’ shaped, shallow, reduced definition, unidirectional, dense patches, transverse to long axis, straight, parallel, within or flank percussion groove, grooves and pits lack crushing

Hammerstone and anvil

(Adapted from Loe and Cox 2005)

Percussion marks

Scrape marks

‘V’ shaped, shallow, multiple fine striations, broad shallow fields, usually parallel to long axis

Metal/stone tool

Chop marks

Characteristics ‘V’ shaped, deep and steep or ‘U’ shaped, apex defined, clean internal appearance

Metal tool (cut/slice)

Location Near articulated or muscle tendon and ligament attachment areas, purposeful, repetitive, clustered, exclusion of burial environmental mimics or single elongated groove, transverse to long axis, sub-parallel groups Near articulated areas or muscle tendon and ligament attachment, purposeful, repetitive, clustered, exclusion of burial environmental mimics or single elongated groove, transverse to long axis, sub-parallel groups Near articulated or muscle tendon and ligament attachment areas, purposeful, repetitive, clustered, exclusion of burial environmental mimics or single elongated groove, transverse to long axis, sub-parallel groups Near articulated or muscle tendon and ligament attachment areas, purposeful, repetitive, clustered, exclusion of burial environmental mimics or single elongated groove, transverse to long axis, sub-parallel groups Common on large mid-shaft fragments and/or notched fragments and flakes, dense patches around marrow exposure areas, within 5mm of peri-mortem fracture margin, confined to cortex, near point of percussion impact

Table 4.5. Modifications: Characteristics to Identify Human Activity on Bone References Shipman (1981) Shipman and Rose (1983;1984) Behrensmeyer et al. (1986) Blumenschine and Selvaggio (1988) Oliver (1989) Blumenschine and Selvaggio (1991) Lyman (1994) Olsen and Shipman (1994) Blumenschine et al.(1996) Bell et al. (1996) Greenfield (1999; 2000) Hurlbut (2000) Domínguez-Rodrigo et al. (2009)

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

41

Short, flat, round bottomed grooves Follow contour of the bones, broad, usually in parallel groups and perpendicular orientation Broad rounded or ‘U’ shaped Follow contour of the bones, broad, usually in parallel groups and perpendicular orientation Bowl shaped ‘U’ shaped, internal crushing, rare association with striations but when they are present are broad, disparate and deep Roughly circular outlines, depressed, sometimes stepped, possible fragments pushed inwards

Characteristics Multi-directional, faint, ‘V’, ‘U’ or ‘W’ shaped, uneven thickness and depth, can cross, intersect and curve, isolated or clusters as a group

In association with ‘scooped’ or ‘hollowed’ out cancellous bone and splintering, high bone marrow areas Prominent areas, often on medular and cortical surfaces

Dense on areas of least soft tissue and where cancellous bone is less dense.

Location No obvious patterning and location, occurs on flat, rounded and/or convex areas of bone, has burial environmental mimic factors present.

(Adapted from Loe and Cox 2005)

***The common or brown rat Rattus norvegicus and the ship rat or black rat Rattus rattus were not present c.800-50 BC; only the house mouse was present.

Tooth - punctures

Faunal

Tooth - pits

Canid teeth Scores and furrows Faunal

Rodent teeth *** Scores and furrows Faunal

Faunal

Environmental sediments Scratch/score Erosion/abrasion root Etching, Trampling

Table 4.6. Modifications: Characteristics to Identify Non-Human Activity on Bone

Harris and Yalden (2008)

Reference Bunn (1981) Binford (1981) Shipman (1981) Haynes (1983) Shipman and Rose (1983) Behrensmeyer et al. (1986) Cook (1986) Olsen and Shipman (1988) Blumenschine and Selvaggio (1988) Oliver (1989) Blumenschine (1995) Blumenschine et al.(1996) Bell et al. 1996 McKinley 2004 Haynes (1986) Morlan (1984) Blumenschine (1988) Haglund et al. (1988; 1989) Milner and Smith (1989) Smith (2006)

Materials and Methods

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains Chapter 5

Results

Winnall Down Early Iron Age: Enclosed Settlement There were twelve contexts, the majority (n=8, 67%) of deposits were in the enclosure ditch, four (33%) in pits, where two were within the settlement, near circular structures (Figure 5.1). The favoured location for the dead was on the boundary of the settlement with deposits in the enclosure ditch. The enclosure ditch comprised four multiple mixed element assemblages (33%), three single elements (25%) and one fragmentary single inhumation (8%). Two multiple mixed element assemblages (16%) were within and another outside (8%) the settlement (Figure 5.2).

5.1 Introduction This chapter has been divided into the six study sites and their chronological phases for Winnall Down, Micheldever Wood, Suddern Farm and Winklebury. As Danebury’s ceramic phases were of different durations it seemed appropriate to retain and analyse each accordingly and, likewise, the un-phased deposits have been analysed separately. In a similar fashion, the original burial groupings for Maiden Castle have been retained. The results are presented in a format that retains and integrates all burial data.

Figure 5.1 Winnall Down: Early Iron Age Distribution (Not shown P5797)

Figure 5.2 Winnall Down: Early Iron Age Distribution of the New Categories

42

Results (I) There does not appear to be clustering of any one category type; however, pits only contained multiple mixed elements, whilst the enclosure ditch contained three different categories of human remains. The age representation is similar to that of the original report (infant to adult ratio 2:9) and the number of assemblages has been reduced.

vertebrae, radii, pelves and phalanges, were not recovered (Figure 5.3). The absence of small bones may evidence to support secondary burial rites, i.e. would not be present if it was a secondary burial. However, they may reflect the excavation technique where sieving was not used or the inability or experience of the excavator to recognise small elements.

Single Elements There were four instances of single (isolated) elements: cranial fragments, two long bone fragments and dentition (two adult incisors and one canine).

Long bone survivorship was evaluated by dividing into zones: complete element (C), proximal (P), proximal and shaft (PS), shaft (S), distal (D) or fragment (F) and assessing their respective frequencies. There were four counts of adult upper limb long bones: one complete left ulna, two left humeri fragments (one shaft and one distal fragment) and one proximal/shaft of a right humerus. In this case no bone section was more frequently observed than another.

Multiple Mixed Elements All seven multiple mixed element assemblages were Type I representing six adult and one infant assemblage (Table 5.1). There were no repetitive themes for adult assemblages that comprised two elements (P2258 and E/D 5C) or for those that comprised three elements (P7741, E/D 5A and 5FF). However, regardless of age or the number of elements, in all deposits the femur was the most frequently represented skeletal element (n= 4, 20%). For further discussion on infant WD 266, see 5.2.1.6. Small and highly cancellous bones such as complete skulls, crania, scapulae, clavicles, corpus sterni,

Similarly, there were nine instances of adult lower long bones: one complete left femur and two shafts, one right proximal femoral fragment and two shaft sections, one left proximal tibia fragment and one shaft section and, finally, one right distal fibula fragment. In this instance, shafts were more frequently observed, which suggests it has a higher rate of survivorship.

Table 5.1 Winnall Down: EIA: Multiple Mixed Element Assemblage Content

Number of Elements

Two Elements

Ref: WD

3532/3

3505/6

3500/3 3570

Age Skull Cranium Frontal Skull Frag Maxilla Mandible Teeth Scapula Clavicle Sternum Vertebra Ribs Humerus Ulna Radius Pelvis Sacrum Femur Tibia Fibula H/F bones

(A)

(A)

(A)

Three Elements 308, 316, 3560 3508 (A) (A)

Four Elements 266

3516, 3572/3

(I)

(A)

X X

X X X

X

X X X

X X X

X X

X

X

X X X X

Key: (A) Adult, (I) Infant, Frag Fragment(s) H/F Hand/Foot bones

43

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains 7

6

Number

6 5 4

3

3 2 1

2 1

2

2 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

Skeletal Element Figure 5.3 Winnall Down: EIA Combined Adult Multiple Mixed Element

Single Complete Inhumation There was only one single complete inhumation, a perinate (WD 3513/4) found in the enclosure ditch. Based on long bone diaphyseal measurements, this infant was approximately 38 to 42 ± 2 gestational weeks, therefore died at or around birth (Scheuer et al. 1980).

Faunal teeth marks were evident on both human and animal remains found within the enclosure ditch; gnawing was observed on the distal end of an adult humerus (WD 3570) and canine puncture marks were found on animal remains (Figures 5.5 and 5.6). Either the dead were buried in shallow graves where scavenging animals can detect a decomposing body at depths of up to 0.30m, or the dead were exposed.

Surface Modifications Approximately 90% of bones were scored minimal to mild (0-2) using McKinley’s (2004) abrasion and erosion method. Figure 5.4 shows three examples: an adult femoral shaft (WD 3508) exhibiting faunal gnawing and a modern scrape, whilst adult femur (WD 3570) exhibits a long deep parallel crack.

Associated Finds The original human remains report from Winnall Down did not document any associated finds. Eleven out of twelve contexts (91%) contained both human and animal remains. In the enclosure ditch, human long bones (WD 3500/3 and 3570) were found with an animal skull (Figure 5.7) and, conversely, a human skull, femoral head and shaft section (WD 308, 316 and 3508) were found with faunal remains (Figure 5.8). Therefore, it could be argued that on this site co-mixed assemblages were frequently observed, whilst contexts that only contained human remains were the exception.

Long bone fragment (WD 3516) exhibited mild (1) root etching and perimortem damage. The perimortem ‘slice’ is sharp and the same colour as the rest of the bone, which indicates that the ‘slice’ occurred at, or around, the time of death. This bone modification is important as it may reflect cultural activity of processing the dead and the intentional act of fragmenting the body.

44

Results (I) 2

3

1

5 4 Figure 5.4 Winnall Down: EIA Surface Modifications: WD 3508: (1). Faunal gnawing (2) Modern scrape, WD 3570: (3) Long deep parallel crack, WD 3516 (4) Perimortem ‘slice ’and (5) Root etching

Figure 5.5 Winnall Down: EIA Human distal humerus (WD 3570) exhibits canid gnawing

Figure 5.6 Winnall Down: EIA Faunal remains: Two canine puncture marks

Figure 5.7 Winnall Down EIA: Faunal skull found with human long bones

Figure 5.8 Winnall Down: EIA: Co-mixed assemblage The single inhumation of an infant (WD 266) was found in the uppermost stratified layer, Layer 5788, of Pit 5777, leaving it vulnerable to scavenging animals, trampling and bioturbation (Figures 5.9 and 5.10). This would explain why the remains of the infant were so poorly preserved when clearly it was intact on interment. However, under the previous recording systems this infant burial was recorded under ‘odd’ bones.

Stratigraphic Evidence No burial environmental data was provided with the human remains report. Fasham (1985: 11) stated that the enclosure ditch had mainly silted up through natural processes and contained the occasional deposit of rubbish. This suggests that the assemblages found in the ditch were the remains of individual(s) that were left exposed, unprotected by a deep covering of soil and, as a result, became fragmentary through natural decomposition, exposure, and faunal activity. 45

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 5.9 Winnall Down: EIA: Fragmentary Infant WD 266

Figure 5.10 Winnall Down: EIA: P5777 section shallow infant burial in layer 5778

were originally each given their own unique number. After reconstructing the context and mapping the location of the remains (shaded), it was possible to identify assemblages and bone fragments that could be conjoined either mechanically or biologically (Figure 5.11). Ulna fragments WD 3500 and WD 3501 were both found in Layer 534; they were originally counted as two separate fragments but form one skeletal element when fitted together mechanically (Figure 5.12).

Post-Depositional Movement and Spatial Relationships The original report listed 24 deposits of human remains; the method employed in this study has reduced this to 12 (Table 5.2). After re-examining the remains within their burial contexts, various skeletal spatial relationships and associations were revealed. Bones had become displaced from an original deposit into adjacent stratified layers. For example, bone fragments found in Ditch Section 5A

Table 5.2 Winnall Down: EIA: Re-Assessment of Fragmentary Remains

Context

HR

Layer

Human Remains

Stratified Comments

5A

3500 3501 3502 3503 3570 3571

534 534 552 552 551 751

(A) P R humerus (A) D R humerus (A) D L humerus (A) S humerus (A) S femur (A) L femur, missing greater and lesser trochanters (A) greater and lesser trochanters (A) S R femur (A) Cranial fragments (A) Cranium (A) Femoral head (A) S femur Complete Infant (I) 4 Cranial fragments (A) 2 S fragments (A) P/S femur (A) mandible fragment (A) Sacrum (A) Incisor

Natural silting Mechanical conjoined fragments Considered as one deposit

5B

5C 5FF 5M 5R P2258

3504 3505 3506 308 316 3508 3513 3514 3516 3572 3573 3532 3533

749 719 720 4759 4749 3807 1772 2065 3811 3834 3834 2297 2294

Total

Deposit

-4

Natural silting Biological conjoined fragments, thus one deposit Natural silting Considered as one deposit Natural silting ? one deposit Natural silting ? one deposit Natural silting ? one deposit ? one deposit

-1 -1 ?-2 ?-1 ?-2 ?-1 -12

Key: (A) Adult, (I) Infant, P proximal, P/S proximal and shaft, D distal, S shaft, L left, R right, ? probable

46

Results (I)

Figure 5.11 Winnall Down: EIA Ditch Section 5A, shaded areas illustrate the location of the human remains. Winnall Down Middle Iron Age Open Settlement By the Middle Iron Age the enclosure ditch had almost completely silted up and the open settlement consisted of circular houses, post structures and pits. In contrast to the Early Iron Age, there was a wider variety of deposition contexts; pit, scoop, ditch, grave, gully and postholes. Figure 5.13 shows that pits (58%) were the most common, followed by graves (23%) and then postholes (10%).

Burials or deposits do not exhibit a strong association to rectangular structures; however, a small group of burials are very close to a circular structure (possibly a house) in the south-east quarry. It appears that the Middle Iron Age period witnessed the rise of a new rite that kept the individual whole after death, whether singly or in multiples (Figure 5.15). Quantitative analysis of the burial record for this period shows that single complete inhumations (45%) were the dominant deposition type and generally grouped together, followed by single elements (26%) that were randomly scattered (Figure 5.16).

There were 31 contexts focused in two main areas, the north-west and south-east quarries (circled) with a few scattered burials (Figure 5.14: not shown: WD 650).

20

Figure 5.12 Winnall Down: EIA: Ulna fragments WD 3500/1 (a and b,) conjoined (C)

18

18 Number

16 14 12 10 8

7

6 3

4

1

2

1

1

0 Grave

Pit

Posthole Layer Gully Context

Feature E Ditch

Figure 5.13 Winnall Down: MIA: Contexts

47

Scoop

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 5.14 Winnall Down: MIA: Distribution

Figure 5.15 Winnall Down: MIA: Distribution of the New Categories

48

Results (I) 16

14

14 Number

12 10 8

8

6 3

4

2

2

3

0 Single Element

Multiple Mixed Elements

Single Complete Inhumation Category

Multiple Complete Inhumations

Mixed Burial Types

Figure 5.16 Winnall Down: MIA: Human Remains Categories comprise long bones and, in particular, the femora. All were adult bones, apart from an infant tibial fragment that may have originated from a nearby more complete infant burial. The long bones comprised mainly midshaft and proximal/shafts sections which suggests that bone density may have had a role in their survivorship.

Single Elements There were eight single skeletal elements and, in four cases, lower limb bones were within close proximity of each other (Figure 5.17). There is no evidence to indicate that any one area was used for processing the body. Figure 5.18 show that the single elements mainly

Figure 5.17 Winnall Down: MIA: Single Element Distribution

49

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

4 3

Number

3 2 1

1

1

1

1

1

0

Skeletal Element

Figure 5.18 Winnall Down: MIA: Single Element Frequency comprised both infant and adult bones (Table 5.3). Despite a small size, the assemblages contained few bones with no observable patterning or repetitive deposit trend. Similar to single element deposits, both long bones and skull fragments were represented.

Multiple Mixed Elements There were only three multiple mixed element assemblages: two were Type I, where the remains represented only one age group (one infant and one adult) and the third was Type II, where the assemblage

Table 5.3 Winnall Down: MIA: Multiple Mixed Element Content

Type I Number of Elements Context Age Skull Cranium Frontal Skull Frag Maxilla Mandible Teeth Scapula Clavicle Sternum Vertebra Ribs Humerus Ulna Radius Pelvis Sacrum Femur Tibia Fibula H/F bones

Type II

Two

Three

P3901 (A)

P1473 (I)

X

G1989A (A and I)

(A)

(I) X X X

(I) X

Key: (A) Adult, (I) Infant, Frag Fragment(s) H/F Hand/Foot bones

50

Results (I) old. Fasham (1985: 119) stated that a fragmentary child (WD 506) was less than 12 years old; however, this individual was re-aged to c.40-45 ±2 gestation weeks, and a further six infants were found to be slightly younger at c.34-44 ±2 gestation weeks.

Single Complete Inhumations There were 14 single complete inhumations; a large group comprising of six infants and one adolescent in the south-eastern quarry, and a smaller group in the northwestern quarry that comprised two infants and one young adult (Figure 5.19). Fasham (1985:120-1) stated that the young adult was probably female but exhibited both male and female pelvic characteristics. There were four isolated burials, two females and two infants (annotated), that were set apart from the two main burial groups, from the settlement area, and from each other. In this case, there were more non-adults than adults (11:3), with the majority being infants (n=10).

The remains of three other infants were incomplete and could not be measured (NM), but they were visibly similar in size and probably perinatal at time of death (Figure 5.20). In general, there was a tendency to bury the dead on their left side in a flexed position and aligned either east to west or north to south, but the variation may suggest that there was no strict burial regime (Table 5.4). Noticeably, the original study recorded adult burials in more depth than infant burials. Consequently, infant burial details were obtained by examining other archival documents (e.g. plans and photographs).

The age determination methods used in this study have revised the age-at-death for some individuals; adolescent WD 174 was 12-15 years old, child WD 505 was 8-10 years old, and infant WD 397 was around 9 ±3 months

1

4

3 2

Figure 5.19 Winnall Down: MIA: Single Complete Inhumations

51

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

4

Number

3 3 2

2

2 1

1

38‐41

40‐44

1 0 NM

34‐38

36‐41

Gestational Age in Weeks

Figure 5.20 Winnall Down: MIA: Age of Single Complete Infants Table 5.4 Winnall Down: MIA: Single Complete Burials: Orientation and Position Context

WD

P8265 GR8294 SC6280 P4475 PH8547 PH8576 GR4239 GR4264 PH142 P8594 GR2020 GR10312 P2002 P5789

508 506 397 174 487 488 159 161 3517/8 567 35 629 3531 3552

Age/ Sex ?F I I Ad I I I I I I F F I I

Orientation

Side

E-W S-N N-S NW-SE E-W ?NW-N E-W NW-SE

R

SE-NW ?SE-NW SW-NE

R L L

L L L R

Body position Tightly crouched Disturbed bones Extended Flexed Extended, Disturbed bones Crouched Crouched Disturbed bones Flexed Tightly crouched Crouched

Key: Grey = obtained from plans, P Pit, GR grave, PH posthole, F Female, ?F Probable Female I Infant, Ad Adolescent, ? Possible One contained the remains of two infants and the other contained the remains of a child aged 8-10 years old and another infant (Figure 5.21). Again, little burial information was recorded for these infants. Consequently, any specific burial practices or trends could not be identified (Table 5.5).

Multiple Complete Inhumations There were two contexts each containing the remains of two individuals found within the same layer. Both contexts were in the northern quarry, approximately 10m from the edge of the main settlement area and very close to a circular structure, probably a domestic dwelling.

Table 5.5 Winnall Down: MIA: Multiple Complete burials: Orientation and Position Context P8184 P8184 P6249 P6249

Layer 8187 8187 6252 6252

WD 505 460 507 457

Age/Sex C I I I

Orientation N-S ?W-E

Side R

Body position Flexed Disturbed bones

Key: Grey = obtained from plans, I Infant, C Child R Right

52

Results (I)

Figure 5.21 Winnall Down MIA: Multiple Complete Burials

Mixed Burial Types There were three contexts that each contained the remains of more than one individual, with stratigraphic evidence to support non-contemporanenous burials (Table 5.6). Two contexts are in close proximity to each other, but some distance from the third, which suggests this type of burial was not particular to any area or necessarily segregated (Figure 5.22).

either the lack of burial markers or social memory, or conversely, intentional re-use. Table 5.4 shows that adult male (WD 500) listed in Table 5.7, was orientated in the same way as single inhumation adolescent (WD 174), an infant (WD 161) and an adult female (WD 35). All were either crouched or flexed demonstrating no great variation according to age and sex of the individual, however, the male was the only one lying on his right side. Similarly, females WD 574, WD 35 and WD 629 were all crouched on their left sides, but only WD 574 and WD 629 had the same orientation.

In Pit 8630, an adult female (WD 574) was found in the basal Layer 8690 whilst perinate (WD 470) was found in an upper Layer 8631 (Figure 5.23). This burial situation may represent unintentional re-use of the pit suggesting

Table 5.6 Winnall Down: MIA Mixed Burials: Non-contemporaneous burials

Context Pit 8630 Pit 2416 Pit 8564

Layer 8690/8631 Several 8597/8565

53

Occupants Female Infant Infant Infant Male Infant

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 5.22 Winnall Down: MIA: Mixed Burial Types

Figure 5.23 Winnall Down: MIA Pit 8630. Adult Female and Infant Non-Contemporaneous Burials Table 5.7 Winnall Down: MIA: Mixed Burial Type Orientation and Body Position Context P8564 P8630 P2416

WD 500 3563 574 470 143 3535

Age/Sex M I F I I I

Orientation NW-SE ?SW-NE

Side R

Body position Crouched Tightly crouched disturbed bones Disturbed bones

Key: Grey = from photographic evidence, I Infant, M Male, F Female, R Right

54

Results (I) Associated Finds According to the original report, the adolescent (WD 174) was the only one found with grave goods, a shale bracelet on the left forearm and a bronze thumb ring on the left hand. However, an Iron Age ‘saucepan’ (see Cunliffe 2005 for saucepan tradition) was found in association with several inhumations, for example an adult female (WD 574) and a perinate (WD 470).

Surface Modifications Surface modifications were mild/mild+ (1-2) using McKinley’s (2004) system, with a few bones that exhibited deep cracks. For instance, an adult femoral shaft (WD 3578) found in Pit 7372 which exhibits deep cracks and a perimortem ‘slice’ as the margin is the same colour as the rest of the bone. Three long bone fragments (WD 3507) exhibited extensive root etching (Figure 5.24). There were few examples of faunal activity observed on bone surfaces (n=4, 10%). Canid marks were found on single elements deposits, in particular femora. For example, in Pit 684, Layer 1005, an adult incomplete left femur WD 3574 exhibited canid puncture marks (Figure 5.25). Microscopic analysis clearly identified canid teeth marks peppering the adult femoral head and the furrow made when teeth were dragged from the point of entry (Figure 5.26). Similar canid teeth marks were observed on another single element deposit, an adult femur (WD 3575) found in Pit 3901 (Figure 5.27). Several deep furrow marks were evident on the femoral neck.

This could suggest that there were grave goods for both women and children (in this case, identical ceramics) which were missed in the original report as the burial and ceramic information were not kept together. The animal bone report documented the species and either, the number of animal bone fragments or the density of animal bones, present in each feature. Using this source of information, out of 31 contexts that contained human remains at least 35.5% (n=11) also contained animal bones (Table 5.8).

Table 5.8 Winnall Down: MIA: Contexts with both human and faunal remains Context 5CC 1491 2778 4006 3901 4475 5548 5789 7372 8630

Context Enclosure Ditch Pit Linear Feature Pit Pit Pit Pit Pit Pit Pit

8564

Pit

WD 3507 3527 3540 3576 3575 174 3550 3552 3578 574 470 500 3563

Human Remains Adult humerus Adult mandible Adult skull # Adult femur Adult burnt skull # Adolescent Adult tooth Infant Adult femur Female Infant Male complete Infant assemblage

Fauna or Fragments Cattle Horse (3) (272) Horse, Dog, Cattle (39) (347) Pig (246) (130) (252) Dog Sheep Dog

Key: # Fragment

Figure 5.24 Winnall Down: MIA: Surface modifications WD 3578 with a perimortem ‘slice’ and deep crack and WD 3507 exhibiting mild+ root etching

Figure 5.25 Winnall Down: MIA: WD 3574 exhibiting canid marks

55

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 5.26 Winnall Down: MIA: Canine punctures and furrow (WD 3574)

Figure 5.27 Winnall Down: MIA: Canid furrows on adult femoral neck (WD 3575) Stratigraphic Evidence Not all context sheets provided enough information to understand the nature of the sediments in which the remains were found. Thus, there is no clear picture as to whether the dead were left exposed to be covered by natural erosion material, or covered directly postdeposition as part of the burial practice.

conjoining several long bone fragments, WD 3534 found in layer 2426, and WD 3536 found in layer 2627 (Figure 5.28). The pit’s taphonomic history explains the displacement of the infant’s remains. At some point, infant WD 143 was deposited in Pit 2416, which was later re-cut. During the re-cut, the remains of infant WD 143 were disturbed; the majority of the bones were collected and placed at the base of the re-cut. However, some bones remained displaced into adjacent layers and others may have become naturally displaced by falling through voids or gaps in the soil matrix. A second infant (WD 3535) was placed in a shallow grave in the uppermost layer with one bone (WD 3539) falling or dropping into the layer below. The reconstructed section of Pit 2416 illustrates the spatial relationships of infant displaced or dispersed bones (Figure 5.29). The mandible from infant WD 143 (Layer 2627) was anatomically identical to the mandible fragment from WD 3538 (Layer 2659), and WD 3537, comprising an ulna and radius (Layer 2629), was identical in size and the opposite side of those in assemblage WD 3536 (Layer 2627), and thus, a biological refit.

Post-Depostional Movement and Spatial Relationships Originally, there were 43 deposits of human remains, but this study has excluded three non-human burials (WD 156, 420 and 419) and included five ‘unphased’ infant remains (WD 159, 160, 457, 507 and 3555) due to their close proximity to ‘phased’ infant burials. It also included one unphased adult burial (WD 650). The number of fragmentary remains or ‘odd bones’ assemblages have been reduced by either conjoining bone fragments and/or interpreting natural bone displacement from an initial deposit (Table 5.9). In the original study, Fasham (1985: 26) stated that Pit 2416 contained the remains of a ‘complete infant 143 and the bones of at least two (possibly six) others, WD 35343535 and WD 3536-3539’. Fasham (1985) listed infant WD 143 in the ‘complete’ inhumations category and the six other assemblages (WD 3534-3539) in the ‘odd bones’ category. However, combining the pit’s taphonomic history and the osteological analysis, locating each assemblage’s position within the pit and to each other, the nature and origin of these fragmentary remains became clear. The infant remains had dispersed into several layers; their association was confirmed by

In the same way, fibula fragments from WD 470 (a) and WD 531 (b), both found in Pit 8630 and Layer 8631 mechanically refit (c), thus confirming there was only one infant and the remains had become displaced (Figure 5.30).

56

Results (I) Table 5.9 Winnall Down: MIA: Re-Assessment of Fragmentary Remains

Context PH142 P3901 P2416

P4475

P6249 P8630

WD 3517 3518 3543 3575 143 3534 3535 3536 3537 3538 3539 174 3544 3545 3546 3547

Layer 161 162 3934 3933 2627 2426 2649 2627 2629 2659 2651 4480 4321 4479 4480 4482

457 507 3555 574 3566 470 531

6252 6252 6252 8690 8690 8631 8631

Human Remains (I) Fragmentary remains (I) Fragmentary remains (A) skull fragments (A) femur (I) Nr complete (I) Long bone fragments (I) Infant (I) Remains (I) Remains (I) Mandible, skull frag (I) Long bone fragments (Ad) Nr complete L R patellae (Ad) unfused long bone epiphyses Foot bone and fragments few skull fragments (I) Fragmentary (I) Complete (I) 6 Fragments (A) Nr complete (A) Mandible, H bones (I) Nr complete (I) Three long bones

Comments One infant

Deposit -1

One deposit

-1

Mandible matches 3538 fibula conjoined 3536 -5 Ulna, radius match 3536 Matches 143 Second infant One individual and bones had become displaced into adjacent layers -4

Fragments displaced -1 Two individuals where bones had become displaced

Total

-14 Key: A Adult, Ad Adolescent, Infant, Nr Near, Frag Fragment, H hand, L Left, R right

Figure 5.28 Winnall Down: MIA: mechanically refitted infant long bone fragments from Pit 2416

57

-2

Figure 5.29. Winnall Down: Middle Iron Age Pit 2416 with one near complete inhumation, six ‘odd’ bones and their spatial relationships

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

58

Results (I)

Figure 5.30 Winnall Down: MIA: Conjoined infant bones WD 470 (a) WD 531 (b) and mechanically joined (c)

Summary During the Early Iron Age the majority of deposits of human remains were placed within the enclosure ditch. The deposits were mainly single elements and multiple mixed element assemblages covered by natural erosion soils and silts. The majority demonstrated low to mild (02) bone erosion and abrasion modification which could also relate to the gradual and natural covering of erosion silts.

During the Middle Iron Age there was an increase in the number of human remains being buried at Winnall Down. There was a variety of contexts used, but the pit was by far the most common. The location for depositing the dead changed; no longer did they encircle the living, instead they were found in small groups at the edges of the main settlement area. Furthermore, contexts solely containing human remains were emerging demonstrating a change from the earlier period, where nearly all contexts contained both human and animal bones.

Originally, only one single complete inhumation, infant (WD 3513/3514), found in the enclosure ditch, was recorded. However, the remains of a second infant (WD 266) lay within the uppermost surface layer of a pit 5777 (Figure 5.9) and, consequently, suffered from poor preservation. This infant was originally recorded as ‘odd bones’ but combining the remains and context’s taphonomic histories provided the evidence to support that this infant was more than likely complete when deposited. This demonstrates that it is essential to combine sources of evidence to provide a better understanding of depositional behaviour. That being the case indicates that the very young were kept whole and complete in death.

The results show that funerary and depositional practices changed from exposure and fragmentation for adults whilst the very young remained complete, to all members of society remaining whole after death. On this site, there is a high percentage of infant to adult burials and males are seemingly under-represented (only one male to a possible total of four females) but the small sample size should be taken into consideration. Both multiple complete inhumations and mixed burial types demonstrate that adults and non-adults can share the same burial context and layer. Therefore, there appear to be no obvious burial rules that separated the dead based on the age or sex of the individual.

In contrast, the ditch’s taphonomic evidence combined with the adult bones exhibiting a range of canid marks support the case for adults being intentionally exposed with natural fragmentation and dispersal taking place. In addition, both human and animal remains could be found in the same context, which suggests that either that there was no deliberate act to separate them, or conversely, that it was intended to combine them.

It has been demonstrated that associated finds and stratigraphic data must be integrated, otherwise potentially important information becomes diffuse and detached. Individuals were associated with pots, the nature of the burial sediments and preservation issues were identified. Finally, it was apparent that deposits had dispersed in their respective contexts, which this study has re-united. Consequently, this study has reduced the original 1985’s number of deposits by a total of 14, by reuniting displaced bone fragments either mechanically or biologically.

59

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains 5.2 Micheldever Wood Banjo Enclosure There were 11 burial contexts and at least 24 recorded instances of human remains. The burials were not clustered, but instead were around the periphery of the banjo enclosure (Figure 5.31). There is almost equal proportion of burials in pits and the enclosure ditch (Figure 5.32). Originally, two infants found in Section 2F of the enclosure ditch were described as being buried in a grave and the results here reflect this terminology. Fasham (1987: 53) stated there were: ‘no apparent graves in the pits; rather the remains had been dumped’.

36%) with single inhumations, single element and multiple mixed element deposits being the least with also equal representation (n=1, 9%).

Figure 5.33 Micheldever Wood: Distribution of new human remain categories

Number

Figure 5.31 Micheldever Wood: Distribution 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

6 4

1

Context Figure 5.32 Micheldever Wood: Context There was no clustering of any one category and no one category favoured any particular location, and it is almost exclusively a non-adult site, the majority of burials being infants (Figures 5.33 and 5.34). Figure 5.35 shows that multiple burials and mixed burial types were the most common deposit type with equal representation (n=4,

Figure 5.34 Micheldever Wood: Age and Sex

60

Results (I) 5

4

Number

4

4

3 2

1

1

Single Element

Multiple Mixed Elements

1 0

1

Single Multiple Complete Complete Inhumation Inhumations

Mixed Burial Types

Category

Figure 5.35 Micheldever Wood: Human Remains Categories Single Elements The enclosure ditch Section 2E contained one single element deposit comprising adult cranial fragments.

The orientation and positioning was recorded as extended with the upper limbs by its side, lying north east –south west.

Multiple Mixed Elements The enclosure ditch Section 2C contained one multiple mixed element assemblage (Type I) that comprised infant remains, the left and right tibiae. The diaphyseal measurements indicate that the bones belonged to a perinate aged around 39 ± 2 gestational weeks, thus birth age at time of death.

Multiple Complete Inhumations There were four contexts (three pits and one ditch section) that contained the remains of more than one individual, either in twos or a three (Figure 5.36). This burial group does not exhibit a typical age range of the population. Instead, there are several individuals within a very narrow age bracket that shared the same burial context. The orientation and body position were not recorded, and as a result it is difficult to identify any particular trends. But a general south-north or north-south orientation in a flexed position was favoured (Table 5.10).

Single Complete Inhumations There was only one single complete inhumation, located in ditch Section 19D, a perinate aged 39 to 43 ±2 gestational weeks, thus birth age-at-time-of-death.

Table 5.10 Micheldever Wood Multiple Complete: Orientation and Position

Context 8 2F P478 P98

MW 83 83 126(i) 126(ii) 153 208 236

Age I I I I I I I I I I

Orientation N-S ? N-S SE-NW SW-NE SW-NE

61

Side

Body position ? Scattered ? Scattered ? Crouched ? Crouched

L

Crouched Scattered Scattered Remains

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains Mixed Burial Types This category grouped combinations of human remains and non-contemporaneous burials. In this case there were four contexts, three pits and a ditch section that contained the remains of more than one individual and/or combination of human remains deposit. Figure 5.38 shows the location, age and sex of individuals represented in each context.

Figure 5.36 Micheldever Wood: Multiple complete inhumations The two perinates (MW 126i, 126ii) buried in ditch Section 2F were both aged c.37 (±2) gestational weeks; the two perinates buried in Pit 8 were both aged c.39 (±2) gestational weeks; in Pit 98 were the fragmentary remains of at least two infants, whilst the three perinates found in Pit 478 were also very young, aged c.35, 36 and 39 ±2 gestational weeks, respectively. Apart from two infants whose long bones were fragmentary but were visually comparable; in total, there were fifteen perinates that ranged from 35 to 42 (±2) gestational weeks (Figure 5.37).

Figure 5.38 Micheldever Wood: Distribution of Mixed Burial Types The analysis of the dental development (Moorrees et al. 1963) reduced the original age of adolescent (MW 142) from 12-15 year, to a child c.11 years of age (Figure 5.39).

5

Number

4 3 2 1

Figure 5.39 Micheldever Wood: Dental X-Ray of child MW 142

0 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

The young adult was originally recorded as a 18-20 year male with moderate muscle markings. On re-assessment, this individual’s cranial sex characteristics were considered female/?female and despite a fragmented pelvis, both the ischio-pubic ramus and sciatic notch also exhibited female characteristics. The young adult was found in Layer 639 of the ditch Section 19B with the remains of a perinate lying directly above in Layer 580

Gestation Age - Weeks

Figure 5.37 Micheldever Wood: Age Distribution

62

Results (I) (Figure 5.40). The original report does not state any connection between the two despite being in adjacent layers. The non-adult and adult were placed in the ditch in close succession of each other.

cranial fragments were found in the same layer as an infant cranial fragment and femora. The latter infant may have been complete like so many on this site, and the small bones were missed through lack of sieving or identification. The published report did not discuss the orientation, or body positioning which are relevant when attempting to identify burial patterning or trends. For instance, the young adult and infant, located in adjacent layers of ditch Section 19B, have opposite orientations (Table 5.11).

Conversely, in Pit 428 the burials are very clearly two separate burial events; an eleven-year-old child MW 142 in Layer 532 and infant MW 428 in Layer 438, which illustrates re-use of the pit (Figure 5.41). Pit 454 contained adult cranial fragments and the remains of a perinate in adjacent layers and, similarly, in Pit 14 adult

Figure 5.40 Micheldever Wood: Ditch Section 19B, non-contemporaneous burials MW 169 and MW 193

Figure 5.41 Micheldever Wood: Pit 428: The burial sequence for MW 142 and MW 428 Table 5.11 Micheldever Wood Mixed Burial Types: Orientation and Position

Context

Layer

MW

19B

639 580 333 548 532 438 482 455 84 84

193 169

P428 P454 P14

206 142 207 196 / 68

Sex/ Age YA I I I I C I A I A

Orientation

Side

Body position

S-N N-S

S L

Extended Crouched, arms by side

W-E SE-NW

?P

Crushed Crushed (I) complete, disturbed (A) Skull fragment (I) Skull fragment femora (A) Skull fragment

KEY: YA Young Adult, I Infant, C Child, S Supine, P Prone, L Left, ? Probable. NB. Crouched is a description used in the original report, this study prefers the term flexed to describe non-extended inhumations.

63

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains Associated Finds The site notes documented the burial context, layer, human remains description, a brief description of the matrix in which the bodies were found and any associated finds (Table 5.12). Examining the animal bone reports, it appears that nearly all contexts contained both human and animal remains. However, neither ceramic, or animal remains were discussed in the published report. It appears that both animal and human remains were frequently found in the same context (at least 75%), and those containing human remains only were the exception, similar to the Early Iron Age settlement at Winnall Down. Pots were also associated with many burials (75%) which could indicate that this was either a grave good or had a role during the act of deposition (Figure 5.42). Similarly, at Winnall Down, a ‘saucepan’ pot was associated with an adult female (MW 574) and infant (MW 470), suggesting that, at both sites, the dead were not buried without artefacts.

Figure 5.43 Micheldever Wood: Light root etching on the skull of MW 193 Stratigraphic Evidence Originally, in his site diaries, Powell (1987) noted a brief description of the sediments in which the bodies were found, but not its nature - that is, whether it was the result of cultural activity or natural processes. Some context sheets provided further environmental details; 36% (n= 4) of remains were found in a mid-brown loam with chalk fragments and similar number for those in backfill. But, it is unclear whether these sediments were the result of cultural activity covering the dead or the result of natural erosion.

Table 5.12 Micheldever Wood: Associated Finds Pit No 14 8 428 478 454 98

Pot/ sherds      

Animal remain PIG ? BOS RIB   SHEEP

Ditch Ref 19B (I) 19B (A) 19D 2C 2E 2F

Pot/ sherds  X   X X

Animal remain  ?   ?LAMB

Fasham (1985: 53) stated that it appeared the bodies had been ‘dumped’. However, the stratigraphic evidence seems to suggest otherwise; for instance, Pit 478 contained the remains of three perinates all found in the same layer, 492 (Figure 5.44). The pit section clearly shows that the pit had been intentionally re-cut or soil was scooped out for the deposit of the infants in Layer 492. These infants were also associated with a pot which suggests they were not ‘dumped’ (see Figure 5.42).

Figure 5.42 Micheldever Wood: Associated finds :pot shards from P478 Surface Modifications The collection exhibited minimal to mild (0-1) surface modification according to McKinley’s (2004) abrasion and erosion system. For example, general widespread, very light root etching was observed on the young adult skull MW 193 (Figure 5.43). No faunal damage was observed on any bones. Therefore, preservation conditions were favourable for bone survivorship.

Figure 5.44 Micheldever Wood: Pit 478, three perinates and pots in layer 492

64

Results (I) Post-Depostional Movement and Spatial Relationships Pit 98 comprised three separate counts of infant remains that were found close together (Figure 5.45). Natural post-deposition agents, such as bioturbation and the falling of bones through natural voids or cracks in the layers, could account for the movement of these small bones. Thus, these infants were probably deposited at the same time. All skeletal assemblages were re-assessed, and those individually numbered but found in the same context and layer as one another, representing the same age group (biological conjoining), were considered as a single deposit. This reduced the original report’s evaluation of 11 burials and 24 deposits by 5 (Table 5.13).

Figure 5.45 Micheldever Wood: Pit 98 and three separate deposits of infant remains MW 100, 101 and 135

Table 5.13 Micheldever Wood: Re-Assessment of Fragmentary Remains

Context

MW

Layer

Human Remains

Stratified Comments

P454 P14

207 196 68 169

(I) complete (A) skull fragments (A) skull fragments (I) remains (I) nr complete (I) fragments (I) fragments (C) nr complete (C) epiphysis, hand bones and ulna fragments Total

Adjacent layers, backfill and ? plough soil. ?one deposit Backfill One deposit

19B

482 455 84 84 580 548 333 438 439

P428

142

No duplicate elements, one individual No duplicate elements, one individual

Deposit ?-1 -1 -2 -1 -5

Key: A Adult, I Infant, C Child, nr near, ? Probable

Summary Micheldever Wood, a Middle Iron Age prehistoric earthwork, was used almost exclusively for burial of non-adults. Perinates were the most common age group (87%) and adults were in the minority (6.5%). Like Winnall Down, maintaining the body whole and intact in death was the most common rite. However, at Micheldever Wood, the infants were commonly found in multiples of twos and one three, with two instances of adult cranial fragments with an infant. The new category, mixed burial types, identified noncontemporaneous burials of adults and non-adults, and non-adults which suggest either a lack of burial markers, social memory or burial rules that separated adults from infants or children from infants.

and Chamberlain 2002; Crawford 2008). Generally, the perinates were found in a flexed position with an even number orientated north to south and south to east, with only the child not exhibiting either of these trends. The research has shown that all the burials except one were associated with a pot, suggesting that these were intentional deposits. This may be a similar practice to that at Winnall Down, where some burials were found with a saucepan pot. Animal bones were also found in the same context, which demonstrates the need to integrate data from the onset to fully understand any practices and trends. The description of the burial sediment was unclear as to whether the dead lay within culturally deposited sediments or natural erosion material. However, the bone exhibited minimal to mild bone surface modification (0-1), and there were no animal teeth marks which could indicate no or minimal exposure (see Burial Contextual Evidence for further discussion).

The number of perinates within such a narrow age bracket is remarkable and could suggest a number of possibilities that include: poor maternal health, multiple births, natural mortality, perinatal ‘dedicatory’ offerings or even infanticide practices (e.g. Mays 1993; Gowland

65

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains 5.3 Danebury The results are presented in keeping with the original study’s ceramic phase chronology with unphased deposits assessed separately. The summary section provides the overview of the early period CP1-5 (c.470-310 BC) and late periods CP 6-8 (c.310-50 BC).

Multiple Mixed Elements There was one Type I that comprised fragmentary adult left os coxae and midshaft section of the right ulna in P16. Associated Finds Only P445 contained ‘associated animal bones and fragments’, but no specific details were provided.

Danebury Ceramic Phase 1 (before 470 BC) Only four contexts and five instances of human remains were recorded from CP 1 (Figure 5.63). All deposits were found in pits, which do not cluster or show a strong association with any particular area or site feature. There were three isolated single element finds and one multiple mixed element assemblage (Figure 5.47).

Surface Modifications There was minimal to mild+ (1 – 2) erosion and root etching observed on the bones. Stratigraphic Evidence For these deposits, there was very little stratigraphic information provided in the human remains report. Despite Cunliffe and Poole (1991: 418) stating that a collection of bones found together in a single context was called a deposition, two bone fragments found in P16 were numbered individually. As these two bones were found in the same context and form one deposit, the number of original deposits (300) was reduced by one (Table 5.14).

Single Elements All three single element deposits were fragments of lower limb bones: an adult’s femoral (P14) and tibial (P186) shafts, and a child’s femoral shaft (P445).

Figure 5.46 Danebury CP 1 Distribution Table 5.14 Danebury: CP 1 Re-Assessment of Fragmentary Remains

Context

DB

P16

62 78

Layer

Human Remains

Stratified Comments

(A) Pelvis fragment (A) R Ulna fragment

Considered one deposit

Total

Deposit -1 -1

KEY: (A) Adult, R Right

66

Results (I)

Figure 5.47 Danebury CP 1 Distribution of the New Categories deposits are near rectangular structures whilst others are not. However, there is no strong evidence to suggest that one area is more heavily focussed on burial or funeral activity. Human remains were found in several different context types. However, pits by are by far the most common context (67%), followed by layers (18%) described as non-discrete areas where site debris accumulated (Figure 5.49).

Danebury Ceramic Phase 3 (c.470-360 BC) CP 3 contained more deposits than CP 1, which suggests that before the onset of CP 3 the dead were buried elsewhere. In total, there were 61 contexts that contained human remains (Figure 5.48: P13, L360, L1100, PH4737, PH5803, PH4382 are not illustrated). There are several possible groupings, but, in general, the deposits are scattered randomly across the whole of the site. Some

Figure 5.48 Danebury CP 3: Distribution

67

Number

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

On closer inspection, the clustering (three or more deposits) could comprise either of one or more different types of deposits (Figure 5.50). For example, there is a cluster in or around circular structure CS 9 comprising both single elements and single complete inhumations, whilst the cluster in the east quadrant just contained single elements.

42

11 5

Pit

Posthole

Layer Context

2

1

Gully

Feature

Quantative analyis shows that for CP 3, single skeletal elements were the most frequently found deposit (n= 37; 61%), followed by multiple mixed element assemblages (n= 15; 25%). Contexts that contained single complete inhumations (n= 7; 12%) were more frequently observed than those containing multiple complete inhumations but, even together, the complete skeleton is the least common representation of human remains (Figure 5.51).

Figure 5.49 Danebury CP 3: Contexts

Figure 5.50 Danebury CP 3: Distribution of the New Categories 40

37

35 30 Number

25 20

15

15

7

10 5

1

1

0 Single Element

Multiple Mixed Elements

Single Multiple Complete Complete Inhumation Inhumations

Mixed Burial Types

Category

Figure 5.51 Danebury CP 3: Human Remain Categories

68

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains The most common single element deposit was skull fragments (n=11; 30%), followed by the humerus (n=5; 14%) and then the femur (n=4; 11%). However, this may be due to a recovery bias as the skull and long bones have a high recognition rate (Figure 5.53). For CP 3, there were 34 adult, three children, and one infant single element deposits; thus, there is a high adult to non-adult ratio. Two of the three child deposits comprised skull fragments, the third was a humeral fragment, and one tibial fragment belonged to an infant.

Single Elements From these 60 contexts there were 37 deposits comprising single elements (Figure 5.52). There does not appear to be clustering of any one single element type and no strong association to any feature. Single elements appear to be fairly randomly scattered in the eastern and western quadrants. The one complete, but fragmentary, adult cranium was found in P448, and an adult frontal bone was found in P906, both of which are not associated with each other or any site feature (arrowed).

P448

P906

Figure 5.52 Danebury CP 3: Single Element Distribution 11

12 10

Number

8 5

6 4 2

1 1

1

2

1

1 1

4 1

0

Skeletal Element Figure 5.53 Danebury CP 3: Single Element Frequency

69

3

2 0

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains Multiple Mixed Element Assemblages There were 15 scattered multiple mixed element assemblages (Figure 5.54). Eleven (73%) were Type I, where only one age group was represented, comprising seven adult, three children and one infant assemblage. The remaining four (27%) were Type II, where more than one individual was represented in each assemblage. All assemblages were assessed for patterning by comparing the skeletal content in age groups (e.g. adult, child) and then by the number and element type present (Table 5.15). There were four adult assemblages that each comprised two elements, but these did not exhibit repetitive skeletal patterns. The majority of Type I

assemblages comprised only a few elements, mainly two. All age groups, except infants, are represented in Type II assemblages (adult, adolescent and children). Figure 5.55 shows the combined frequency of all adult multiple mixed element assemblages to assess skeletal survivorship trends. Femora and vertebrae were the most frequently observed elements, which have equal representation, followed by tibiae, pelves, ribs and clavicles. Vertebrae have a lower bone density to that of long bones and, generally, will only survive in good preservation conditions, which suggests that, in this case, whole bodies may have been present.

Number

Figure 5.54 Danebury CP 3: Multiple Mixed Element Assemblages (P13 and PH4382 are not shown) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

4 3

4

3

3

2 1

1

3 2

1

1

2

2 2

1 1

Skeletal Element Figure 5.55 Danebury CP 3: Combined Adult Multiple Mixed Element Frequency

70

71

X

X

P1 (A)

X

X

P13 (A)

X

X

X

X

Two P875 P900 (A) (?YA)

X

X

F103 (A)

X X

X

X

X X X X

X

X X

X X

Type I Four Nine P373 P266 (A) (A)

X

X

P153 (I)

X

X

Two P1035 (C)

X

X

L1748 (C)

X X

Three P149 (C) X

A/C A A

C A/C C C C

A/C C C C C

A/C

A C A C

A/C C

A/C

AD

A

C

C

Type II more than one individual present P1020 P2509 L1743 PH4382 (A/C) (C/Ad/A) (Ad/A/C) (A/C) C*/C/Ad A

KEY: H/F Hand/Foot (A) adult, (?YA) young adult, (Ad) adolescent, (C) child, (I) infant *No maxilla, Frag Fragment

Type Number of Elements Context Age Skull Cranium Frontal Skull Frag Maxilla Mandible Teeth Scapula Clavicle Sternum Vertebra Ribs Humerus Ulna Radius Pelvis Sacrum Femur Tibia Fibula H/F bones

Table 5.15. Danebury CP 3: Multiple Mixed Element Assemblages Content

Results (I)

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains A similar analysis was carried out on all non-adult multiple mixed element assemblages to determine general survivorship trends (Figure 5.56). In this instance, there is a good range of elements. The pattern is similar to that identified for adults, with vertebrae being the most frequently observed element - skulls and long bones are also well represented.

than the left (13%). Similarly, the right tibia (20%) was more frequently observed than the left (7%), whilst radii were not represented at all (Figure 5.57). After each long bone was divided into zones, the results showed that for adult lower limb bones the complete bone (50%) was more frequently observed, followed by shafts (27%), and the distal ends were the least likely zone to survive (Figure 5.58).

Femora were the most frequent adult lower limb long bones, with the right (27%) being represented more often

5 4 Number

4 3

3

3 3 2

2 1

1

1

2 2

1

2 1

2

1 1

1

1 0

Skeletal Element Figure 5.56 Danebury CP 3: Non-Adult Multiple Mixed Element Frequency 5 4 Number 

4 3 3 2 2 1

1

1

1

1

1

1 0

Skeletal Element Figure 5.57 Danebury CP 3: Adult Long Bone Frequency

According to research on density and bone survival, the shaft section was more likely to be preserved, with the epiphyseal ends rarely surviving in comparison. But in this case, the complete bone survived more often than just shaft sections. The same analysis was carried out on nonadult bones. In this instance, all non-adults bones were grouped together, independent of age.

The results showed that non-adult lower limb bones exhibited similar survivorship patterns to that of adults; the right femur (18%) was more frequently observed, followed by equal representations of right humeri (12%), ulna and tibiae, and left fibulae (Figure 5.59).

72

Results (I)

Number

3 2

2

2

2 1

1

1

1

1

1

1 0 CPP SDF CPP SDFCPP SDFCPP SDFCPP SDF CPP SDF / / / / / / S S S S S S L Femur

R Femur

L Tibia

R Tibia

L Fibula

R Fibula

Skeletal Element Zone

Figure 5.58 Danebury CP 3: Adult Long Bone Survivorship Zones 4 3 Number

3 2

2

2

2

2 1

1

1

1

1

1

1 0

Skeletal Element

Figure 5.59 Danebury CP 3: Non-Adult Long Bone Frequency

As with the adult long bones, each non-adult skeletal element was divided into zones (C, P, P/S, S, D and F) to determine whether a particular zone was more likely to be observed in the archaeological record. In this instance, the complete upper limb long bones (n = 3, 43%) were more frequently observed, followed by equal representation of the shaft and unidentifiable fragments (n= 2, 28.5%). For the lower limbs the complete bone was more frequently observed (n = 4, 40%) than the shaft (10%).

Single Complete Inhumations There were seven single complete inhumations which were not grouped in any one particular area (Figure 5.60). All adults were male; the adolescent was aged 12 to 15 years old and the three perinates were approximately birth age at-time-of-death, ranging from 35 to 42 ± 2 gestational weeks. Despite being a small sample, single adult males were buried generally in a north facing direction in a crouched/contracted configuration (Table 5.16). No burial details were recorded for the non-adults (Walker 1984: 448).

73

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 5.60 Danebury CP 3: Single Complete Inhumations Table 5.16 Danebury CP 3: Single Complete: Orientation and Body Position Context

DB

P84 P343 P587 P381 P857 G67 PH 10010

6 12 24 15 31 58 261

Sex/ Age M M M I I AD I

Orientation

Side

Body position

NE NW NNW

L S P

Crouched, contracted legs Contracted legs to left Contracted legs

Crouched

KEY: L left, S supine, P prone, I Infant, Ad Adolescent, M male. NB. Crouched is a description used in the original report, this study prefers the term flexed to describe non-extended inhumations Originally, the 3-year-old child (DB 13) was classed as an infant; however, in this study infants are individuals aged one year or under, and therefore it has been recategorised. P374 is similar to P2100 (above), where there appear to be no social rules that separate adults and children, either within the same stratified layer or sequential layers.

Multiple Complete Inhumations There was only one pit, P2100, located towards the south west gate area that comprised of two complete inhumations; a 5-year-old child and an unsexed adult (see Figure 5.50). Both individuals were flexed but did not share the same orientation (Table 5.17). In this instance, both adult and non-adult could share the same burial space, and there appear to have been no ‘social’ rules that governed burial order, where adults and children had to be buried separately.

Associated Finds The results show that in forty-one (n= 41, 67%) deposits of human remains, there was no record of animal remains (Figure 5.61). However, there was an equal number (15%) of animal remains found either in the ‘same layer’ or ‘associated’, with few detailed descriptions. No R, refers to no record of animal remains documented with the human remains and No SD, refers to the term ‘no special deposit’.

Mixed Burial Types P374 was the only context that contained the remains of three individuals buried at different times, with no obvious trends in orientation or body positioning (Table 5.18). In the case of DB 61, an unsexed adult, most of the remains were scattered but the forearm and hand remained in correct anatomically alignment.

74

Results (I) and a multiple mixed element assemblage, DB 64, from Pit P900 (Figure 5.63). Only a few bones exhibited culturally induced marks. Pit P1020 contained an adult’s left innominate bone and femoral head that both exhibited chop or cut marks and gnawing (Figure 5.64). In the same layer was a 5 year old child’s right innominate bone (not available for examination). The original report stated that this, too, exhibited similar trauma.

Surface Modifications CP 3 exhibited a range of minimal to mild+ (0-2) surface modifications. For example, a child’s cranium from Pit 149, found near to ground surface, exhibited, mild+ (grade 2) bone erosion (Figure 5.62). Canid puncture marks were evident on single element finds as well as bones from other categories of human remains; for example, single element DB 95 from Pit P83

Table 5.17 Danebury CP 3: Multiple Complete: Orientation and Position Context

DB

P2100 P2100

248 217

Sex/ Age A C

Orientation

Side

Body position

?E-NW ?SE-NW

?L

Loosely flexed Flexed

Table 5.18 Danebury CP 3: Mixed Burial: Orientation and Body Position Context

Layer

DB

Orientation

61

Sex/ Age A

P374

3

P374 P374

5 6

13 14

C M

N-E S-W

45

Side

Body position

L P

Scattered ribs, sternum, R radius, fibula, patella, and L ulna, hand bones and foot bones and skull fragment Crouched, tightly contracted legs Extended, arms folded under chest

41

40 35 Number

30 25 20 15

9

10

9

5

1

1

0 No R

Same layer

Adjacent Associated layer Animal Remains

No SD

Figure 5.61 Danebury CP 3: Animal Remains

Figure 5.62 Danebury CP 3: P149 DB 9 Child’s cranium exhibiting mild+ root etching

75

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 5.63 Danebury CP 3: DB 95 from P83and DB 64 from P900 showing faunal marks

Figure 5.64 Danebury CP 3: DB 47 (P1020) right adult innominate and femoral neck exhibiting peri-mortem chop marks Stratigraphic Evidence In some cases, the question as to why some Iron Age skeletons have remained intact whilst others have become fragmentary can be explained by examining the contexts’ taphonomic history. The nature, origin or descriptions of the burial sediments were tabulated (Figure 5.65).

erosion material through natural processes rather than cultural activity. Similarly, in her study, Walker (1984: 448, 451) stated that bodies lying in chalk shatter and erosion silts provided evidence to support the idea of exposure in pits.

Sediment information was not recorded (No R) for ten contexts, whilst for seven others the information was unclear. Only one context was described as left open and, therefore in this case, the taphonomic history of the pit was clear; the human remains were intentionally exposed. Similarly, the information for two other contexts was equally clear, the burial sediment was a deliberate deposit and, thus, the remains were intentionally covered postdeposition.

However, the majority of remains were said to lie within deposits of brown soils/silt and chalk fragments (n=20, 33%) and its nature or origin was not stated. Brown soil/silt and chalk fragments could equally be natural erosion material, which would support the idea that the dead were exposed in situ, or a cultural deposit which would support the idea that dead were intentionally covered post-deposition. If the nature of the burial sediment was more clearly defined, we may have a definitive answer as to whether Iron Age populations exposed their dead. Furthermore, differential patterns may emerge; for example, it may be that particular deposits were exposed and others were not.

Other deposits were described as lying within chalk shatter, the natural erosion of pit walls (n=4, 7%), and natural silt or erosion silts (n= 10, 16%). This result supports the hypotheses that bodies and body parts were intentionally left exposed and eventually covered by

76

Results (I) 25 20

Number

20 15 10

10

10

7 5

4

5 1

2

1

1

0

Sediment Figure 5.65 Danebury CP 3: Burial Sediment

Post-Depostional Movement and Spatial Relationships Originally, for this phase, 75 deposits were recorded; however, this has been reduced to 65, either by conjoining fragments and/or interpreting dispersal from natural post-deposition agents (Table 5.19). For example, in Pit 657 were foot bones, DB 125 from Layer 4 and DB 126 from layer 5, which were treated as two separate deposits (Figure 5.66).

P2498, both of which contained fragmentary human remains (Figures 5.68 and 5.69).

However, there were no duplicates and both sets of foot bones exhibited arthritic change and the stratified comments indicated that they could have become displaced from each other. Thus, they were, in fact, one deposit, which reduces the overall number of deposits.

These bones lay in a mix of chalk rubble and silt bands covered by natural silt erosion material. The human remains from Pit P2509, a naturally eroded shallow pit, lay in a brown chalky soil layer with lumps of daub and covered by brown silt.

The bones in Pit 657 had moved vertically down through the layers whilst others had travelled horizontally, crossing and merging into other contexts. For example, Pit P2509 contained animal bone and the fragmentary remains of two children aged 8-10 and 10-12 years old, a 15-18 year old adolescent and a few adult bones (Figure 5.67). These remains were all recorded under one reference number, DB 245.

It is possible that the cutting of P2509 by P2510 and P2498, and subsequent fill by natural erosion, enabled the bones to ‘travel’ and merge.

Pit P2498 comprised an adult frontal bone (DB 243) lying in natural silt dated to CP 4. Pit P2510 comprised an immature adult’s right femoral shaft, a left distal humeral fragment and a fragment from an adult scapula (DB 300) dated to CP 5.

Not all the remains were available for examination and so no mechanical re-fit was possible. Instead, a biological refit was considered as the remains were similar in age and, as a result, has reduced the number of deposits for this site.

The plans for Pit P2509 and the immediate area revealed that Pit P2509 was cut by two others, Pit P2510 and Pit

77

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 5.66 Danebury CP 3: Pit 657 and displaced bones DB 125 and 126

Figure 5.67 Danebury CP 3: P2509 Co-mixed assemblage (Photo: Oxford Institute of Archaeology).

Figure 5.68 Danebury CP 3 P2509 Plan (Plans: Hampshire Museum and Archives)

Figure 5.69 Danebury CP 3: P2509 Spatial relationships with nearby pits and other feature

Table 5.19 Danebury CP 3: Re-Assessment of Fragmentary Remains Context

DB

Layer

P1

65 66 67 75 76 78 62 139* 140 32* 155 156 158* 159* 135 136 106 12 125 126

/ / / / / / / 1 3/5 5 4 5 2 4 1 3 1* 2/3 4 5

P13 P16 Pit 906 P1004 P1035 P875 P343 P657

Human Remains

Stratified Comments

Not human (A) phalanx

None provided, one deposit

(A) skull fragment (B) R tibia shaft (A) R ulna shaft (A) pelvis fragment (A) skull fragment (A) frontal fragment (A) occipital fragment (A) 4 skull fragments (A) skull fragment (C) vertebra (C) R femur P/S (A) mandible fragment (A) R femur shaft (gnawed) (A)1 axis vertebra (A) complete, fragmentary vertebrae (A) 5 foot bones (A) 8 foot bones, (both arthritic)

None provided, one deposit

Deposit -1

None provided, one deposit Interleaved between probable erosion layers Within chalk shatter/silt Within primary silt Within erosion silts Within erosion silts Considerable root disturbance, within primary chalky silts With animal bone, chalk fragments and soil Within chalk shatter Within mixed layer (see Fig.5.66)

Total

-1 -1 -2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -10

*Not available for re-examination, (A) adult, (C) child, P/S proximal shaft section, R right

78

Results (I) 31%), worn hollows that attracted silt, debris and areas consolidated with tips of chalk (Figure 5.71). During these phases, the complete skeleton is the least common representation of human remains (Figure 5.72). Single elements were the most common deposit (n= 14, 54%), followed by multiple mixed element assemblages (n= 6, 23%) and then single complete inhumations (n= 4; 15%). On closer inspection, there does not appear to be clustering of any one category, and no one category is strongly associated with rectangular structures (Figure 5.73).

Danebury Ceramic Phases 4-5 (c.310-270 BC) There were 26 contexts: CP 4 comprised nine contexts and 14 deposits of human remains, whilst CP 5 comprised 17 contexts and 18 deposits of human remains (Figure 5.70: not shown L1997/203, P9 and L1686). The deposits are randomly scattered and no one area is favoured; some deposits are near rectangular structures whilst others are not. Consequently, there is no evidence to suggest any one area focussed on funeral or depositional activity. For both phases, pits were the most common context (n=18, 69%), followed by layers (n= 8,

Figure 5.70 Danebury CP 4-5: Distribution 20

CP 4

Number

15

CP 5

12

10 5

5

6

3

0 Pit

Posthole

Layer

Gully

Context Figure 5.71 Danebury CP 4-5: Contexts

79

Feature

Number

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

CP4

CP 5

9

4 5 Single Element

4

2 Multiple Mixed Elements

Single Complete Inhumation Category

1 Multiple Complete Inhumations

1 Mixed Burial Types

Figure 5.72 Danebury CP 4-5: Human Remains Categories

Figure 5.73 Danebury CP 4-5: Distribution of the New Categories

Single Elements There is no clustering of any one single element type, and they appear randomly distributed across the site (Figure 5.74). There was one adult frontal bone found in pit P2498 (arrowed); however, there were eight other scattered deposits of skull fragments. This indicates

that there was no one designated area for the curation of skulls representing either ancestral veneration or as trophies. All 14 single element deposits were adult bones, with skull fragments (n=8; 57%) being the most common element, followed by long bones in general (Figure 5.75).

80

Results (I)

P2498

Number

Figure 5.74 Danebury CP 4-5: Single Element Distribution 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

CP 4

CP 5

Skeletal Element Figure 5.75 Danebury CP 4-5: Single Element Frequency showed no repetitive trends. Type II assemblages demonstrate that there were no burial or depository rules that separated the remains of the dead according to the age of the individual. However, both the adult and child were unsexed, but could have been the same sex. If that was the case, this and other similar assemblages could indicate that this was a depository factor.

Multiple Mixed Element Assemblages There were six multiple mixed element assemblages; four were adult Type I assemblages and two were Type II, where more than one individual was represented and both contained the remains of adults and children (Table 5.20). Despite being a small sample, all four Type I assemblages comprised either two or four elements and

81

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains Table 5.20 Danebury CP 4-5: Multiple Mixed Element Assemblage Content

Type Number of Elements Context Age Skull Cranium Frontal Skull fragment Maxilla Mandible Teeth Scapula Clavicle Sternum Vertebra Ribs Humerus Ulna Radius Pelvis Sacrum Femur Tibia Fibula H/F bones

Type I 2 P12 A

4 L1369 A

P575 A

L1997 A

X

X

X X

X

Type II More than one individual present P2510 L1734 A/C* A/C*

A X

X

X

C

X C X

X

C A A A

X

KEY: (A) adult, (AD) adolescent, (C) child, (I) infant C* refers to age in original reports Figure 5.76 shows the combined frequency of adult multiple mixed element assemblages. Skull fragments were most common element followed by scapula, humerus, femur and phalanges which all have equal representation. Scapulae and vertebrae will only survive in good preservation conditions, and these results suggest that whole bodies may have been present (e.g. Bello’s 2005). 4

Of the limb bones, both left and right femora and humeri showed equal (22%) survivorship (Figure 5.77). In some instances, the original record did not state whether the long bone was complete or otherwise and not all bones were available for re-examination. Consequently, the individual long bone zone analysis was not attempted.

CP 4

CP 5

Number

3 2 1 0

Skeletal Element

Figure 5.76 Danebury CP 4-5: Combined Adult Multiple Mixed Element Frequency

82

Results (I)

Number

3

CP 4

CP 5

2 1 0

Skeletal Element Figure 5.77 Danebury CP 4-5:Adult Long Bone Frequency and only one of the burials was near a rectangular structure (Figure 5.78). The common theme is that all individuals, irrespective of age or sex, are in a flexed position; however, their orientation show variation (Table 5.21).

Single Complete Inhumations There were four single complete inhumations; two males, one female and one perinate aged 37-42 ±2 gestational weeks. There appears to be no particular area designated for the placement of the dead as there was no grouping

Table 5.21 Danebury CP 4-5: Orientation and Body Position Context

DB

P437 P497 P2218 P2462

19 22 222 240

Sex/ Age I F M M

Orientation

Side

Body position

SW NW ?EW

L S L R

Contracted Contracted legs to left Tightly crouched Crouched

Figure 5.78 Danebury CP4-5: Single Complete Inhumations

83

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains Multiple Complete Inhumations Pit P1545 was the only pit that contained the scattered remains of more than one individual mixed between several layers, adult DB 199 (probable male) and a 10-12 year old child DB 198/9 (see Figure 5.70). The pit’s taphonomic history and the skeletal material present indicate that both individuals were almost certainly complete on interment and deposited at the same time (see Stratigraphic Evidence).

Stratigraphic Evidence There were only two deposits that were said to lie within deliberate burial sediments, i.e. intentionally covered post-deposition (Figure 5.81). However, there was a total of nine deposits that were not deliberately exposed postdeposition; seven deposits lay within natural/erosion material, one context was open and another deposit lay within chalk shatter (n=9, 35%). Therefore, there is material or physical evidence that supports intentional exposure where the remains of the dead would have been vulnerable to a number of agents that affect their contextual origin, formation and presentation.

Pit P1545 suggests that there were no burial or depository rules that separated the dead based on their age-at-death. However, it is possible that the adult and child were the same sex, if that is the case, there may well have been a division based on the sex of the dead.

Post-Depositional Movement and Spatial Relationships For this phase, the original report estimated 32 deposits of human remains; however, this number has been reduced by four, either by conjoining fragments and/or interpreting dispersal from an original deposit by natural post-deposition agents (Table 5.22).

Mixed Burial Types Pit 37 contained an adult’s right femoral shaft, DB 84, in Layer 2 (near the ground surface) and three separate adolescent aged assemblages, DB 3, 85 and 168, found scattered in Layer 4. Most major skeletal elements were present: left and right complete femora, tibiae, ribs, vertebrae, foot bones, mandible with teeth, and left os coxae. Only the upper limbs and cranium were missing and, based on the pit’s taphonomic history and skeletal material present, this adolescent was more than likely complete on interment (See Stratigraphic Evidence). If the adult’s femoral shaft were a transient bone fragment, i.e. a bone that has travelled by means of water or natural soil movement and not an intentional deposit, the adolescent can be re-categorised as a single complete inhumation.

Hooper’s burial sketch shows the spatial arrangement of adolescent remains, DB 3, 8 and 168, found in pit P37 (Figure 5.82). The osteological assessment confirmed that there was only one age group and no duplicate bones. The context’s taphonomic evidence indicated an open pit where the remains were vulnerable to agents of loss and dispersal, and for these reasons, DB 3, 8 and 168 were considered to be from the same individual and therefore, just one deposit.

Associated Finds The results show that there was no record of animal remains in twenty (77%) of the deposits containing human remains. However, there was an equal number of animal remains, either found in the same layer or associated with the deposit of human remains (Figure 5.79). However, there are inconsistencies between Hooper’s documentation (Microfiche 1-4) and the metadata; for instance, the metadata lists Pit P1149 as containing both human and animal remains but Hooper’s records not:

Similarly, Pit 1545 contained the scattered and gnawed remains of more than one individual: one adult (DB 199) and a 10-12 year old child (DB 198/9) found in several layers (Layers 3, 4 and 5) of a shallow pit. Scavenging animals can detect decomposing corpses in shallow graves or a pit, which can account for bone dispersal between several layers and their physical appearance. Therefore, these two individuals were more than likely complete on interment. 25 CP 4

CP 5

20 Number

138,"1149","partial animals (not on base)","skull" 139,"1149","complete animal (not on base)","possible" 140,"1149","human bones isolated", "present" (http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/resources.html? danebury_var_2003)

15 10 5

Surface Modifications The majority of CP 4 and 5 bones exhibited minimal to mild+ (0-2) surface modifications and animal gnaw marks. Whilst a few exhibited moderate (3) abrasion and erosion, for example, DB 167 found in Pit P1149 (Figure 5.80).

0 No R

Same Adjacent Associated No SD layer layer Animal Remains

Figure 5.79 Danebury CP 4-5: Animal Remains

84

Results (I)

Number

Figure 5.80 Danebury CP 4-5: Moderate root etching for adult long bone fragment DB 167 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

CP 4

cp5

Burial Sediments Figure 5.81 Danebury CP 4- 5: Burial Sediment Table 5.22 Danebury CP 4-5: Re-Assessment of Fragmentary Remains

Context P37

P575 P12

DB 84 3 85 168 119 120 73 74

Layer 2 4 4 4 3a 4

Human Remains (A) R femoral shaft (Ad) appendicular, minus skull and arms (Ad) mandible (Ad) R tibia, 2 cervical vertebrae (A) L scapula, R humerus and radius (A) skull parietal (A) L femoral shaft (A) R femoral and L humeral shaft

Stratified Comments Scattered remains Burial depth 1m Open post-deposition No duplicates Adjacent layer One deposit One deposit

Total

Deposit -2 -1 -1 -4

KEY: (A) Adult, (Ad) Adolescent, L left, R right

Figure 5.82 Danebury CP 4-5: DB 3, 6 and 168 spatial relationships (Digital: author, Plan: Hampshire Museum and Archives)

85

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains Danebury Ceramic Phase 6 (c.310-270BC) This phase marked the middle period of occupation; there were 28 contexts that contained human remains (Figure 5.83: P306, P10, L46, L2045, L1050,L1051, L1061, PH4383 and L836 are not illustrated). The majority of deposits are scattered randomly across the site. Three contexts (P2, P829 and P430) were within circular structures (houses), but there are no strong associations to any one area or site feature.

Single skeletal elements were the most common deposit (n= 19; 68%), followed by multiple mixed element assemblages (n= 5, 19%). The complete inhumation, whether singly or in muliples, were the least common representation of human remains (Figure 5.86). Single Element Distribution was random, with no clustering of any one type (Figure 5.87). Figure 5.88 shows that skull fragments (n= 6; 32%) were the most common deposit, followed by equal representation of hand or foot bones and femora (n=3; 16%). Isolated hand or foot bones may have been transient deposits, i.e. the result of wind, soil or water movement and not intentional deposits. Single deposits, cranium (DB 26) found in Pit P639 (arrowed) and scattered skull fragments suggest there was not a designated area for the curation of skulls for either veneration or as trophies.

Deposits were found in three different contexts, but pits are by far the most common context (71%), followed by layers (25%), ‘non-discrete’ areas (Figure 5.84). There does not appear to be any clustering of any one category or strong association to any particular area; therefore, no designated area focussed on funeral activity or placement of deposits (Figure 5.85).

Figure 5.83 Danebury CP 6 Distribution 25

Number

20

20

15 10

7

5

1

0 Pit

Posthole

Layer

Gully

Context

Figure 5.84 Danebury CP 6: Contexts

86

Feature

Results (I)

Number

Figure 5.85 Danebury CP 6: Distribution of the New Categories of Human Remains 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

19

5 2 Single Element

Multiple Mixed Elements

Single Complete Inhumations

1

1

Multiple Complete Inhumations

Mixed Burial Types

Category

Figure 5.86 Danebury CP 6: Human Remains Categories

87

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 5.87 Danebury CP 6: Single Element Distribution

7

6

6 Number

5 4

3

3 2 1

3

2

2

1

1

1

0

Skeletal Element Figure 5.88 Danebury CP 6: Single Element Frequency present. All assemblages were Type I representing adults, but there was no obvious repetitive patterning (Table 5.23). Apart from P10, all assemblages contained skull or cranial fragments of some sort and only three contexts contained a long bone.

Multiple Mixed Element Assemblages Figure 5.89 shows the combined skeletal frequency of all five multiple mixed element assemblages. In this case, there was a wide range of elements, including vertebrae and scapulae, which only survive in good preservation conditions and may indicate that whole bodies were

88

Results (I)

Number

3 2

2 1

1

1

2 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

Skeletal Element

Figure 5.89 Danebury CP 6: Combined Adult Multiple Mixed Element Table 5.23 Danebury CP 6: Multiple Mixed Element Assemblage Content

Number of Elements Context Age Skull Cranium Frontal Skull Fragment Maxilla Mandible Teeth Scapula Clavicle Sternum Vertebra Ribs Humerus Ulna Radius Pelvis Sacrum Femur Tibia Fibula H/F bones

Two P10 (A)

P877 (A)

Three

Four

Six

P2504 (A)

P2030 (A) X*

P2183 (A) X

X

X X X X

X X

X X X X X X X KEY: (A) adult *P2030 see stratigraphic section

Single Complete Inhumation There were only two complete inhumations, an adult male (DB 210) found in pit P1882 and a female (DB 27) found in pit P807 (Figure 5.90).

Multiple Complete Inhumations Pit P829 was the only context that contained the remains of more than one individual buried at the same time; in this case it contained the remains of three adult males (Figure 5.91). Both DB 28 and DB 29 were flexed on their right side, whilst DB 30 was found supine and partially displaced. In this instance, adult males could share the same burial space (see Burial Contextual Evidence for further discussion).

They have no obvious association to each other or any feature, except that DB 27 was contemporary with nearby circular structures (CS) 10-20. The orientation and body positions were dissimilar (Table 5.24). 89

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 5.90 Danebury CP 6: Single Complete Inhumations Table 5.24 Danebury CP 6: Single Complete Orientation and Position

Context

DB

Sex/Age

P1882

210

F

P807

27

M

Orientation

N

Side

Body position

S

Contracted, knees to chest

P

Legs flexed to left

Key: F Female, M Male, S Supine, P Prone

Figure 5.91 Danebury CP 6: Burial plan of exposed but complete inhumations DB 28, 29, 30

90

Results (I) Mixed Burial Types In Layer 2 of pit P430 were the mixed remains of two infants and the proximal end of a gnawed left femur (not available for examination). Without the femoral fragment (a possible transient bone, carried there by the displacement of soil or water movement and not necessarily an intentional cultural deposit) the perinates c.32–36 ±2 gestational weeks would have been placed in the previous category - multiple complete inhumations. Like most infant burials, very little burial data was documented. Associated Finds Out of a total of 28 contexts, only six (21%) mention the presence of animal remains, these were either adjacent to, in the same layer, or associated with the human remains (Figure 5.92). Very little detail was provided, including the criteria that distinguished between the remains that were ‘associated’ from those that were found in the ‘same layer’. Only three CP 6 contexts were mentioned in the metadata as containing both human and animal remains, which again highlights the inconsistencies between the different reporting methods and individuals. 25

Figure 5.93 Danebury CP 6: DB 230 a fragmentary adult pelvis with both animal gnawing and generalised root etching

22

Number

20

Figure 5.94 Danebury CP 6: DB 304 exhibiting postmortem damage

15 10 5

3

1

Stratigraphic Evidence The analysis showed that not one deposit was deliberately covered post-deposition, but 12 (43%) deposits were deliberately exposed; three left open, one with chalk shatter and nine within natural erosion materials. For deposits lying within brown soil and chalk fragments (n= 6; 21%), it was unclear as to whether these soil deposits were the result of cultural activity covering the dead or erosion material (Figure 5.95).

2

0 No R

Same Layer

Adjacent Associated layer

No SD

Animal Remains

Figure 5.92 Danebury CP 6: Animal Remains

Post-Depostional Movement and Spatial Relationships The original report estimated 39 deposits of human remains for this phase; however, this number has been reduced to 32 (Table 5.25). Figure 5.96 shows one example, six skull fragments from Pit P313 that have become dispersed in the burial context. Originally, each fragment was numbered and counted as a separate deposit.

Surface Modifications The bone surface modifications for all deposition types scored minimal to mild+ (0-2 on McKinley’s 2004 abrasion scheme). For example, DB 230 from L836 exhibited both root etching and gnaw marks (Figure 5.93). Adult fibula (DB 304) found in Pit P2030 exhibited peri-mortem damage, whilst the bone was still ‘green’ or fresh; however, no other bones exhibited the same damage (Figure 5.94).

But these fragments conjoin and so must be one deposit, therefore reducing the number of deposits. In some instances, where the remains were not available for examination, ‘biological refits’ were based on age, same element, the lack of repeating elements, and the stratigraphic evidence to provide the evidence to support displacement or bone dispersal.

91

Number

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

8 6 5 3

3 2 1

Sediment Figure 5.95 Danebury CP 6: Burial Sediment

Figure 5.96 Danebury CP 6: DB 102 and DB 104: skull fragments that became separated but are just one deposit Table 5.25 Danebury CP 6: Re-Assessment of Fragmentary Remains

Context

DB

P10

70 71 72 102 103* 104 27 132 215 301 216

P313 P807* P2030*

Layer

1 3 4 6 5 5 2,3,4 3

Human Remains

Stratified Comments

(A) R femoral shaft (A) L tibia shaft (A) L femoral shaft (A) 3 burnt skull fragment (A) 1 burnt skull fragment (A) 2 burnt skull fragment (A) Nr complete male (A) 4 foot bones Cranium fragment, vertebrae Skull fragment, fibula shaft, scapula fragment Mandible fragment

?One deposit

Deposit -2

Erosion silts Silt and chalk fragments Chalk shatter Daub above silt Grey brown silt 50mm clay Natural silt Natural silt ?One deposit

Total

-2 -1 ?-2 -7

*Not all available for re-examination, (A) Adult, L Left, R right, Nr near

92

Results (I) Danebury Ceramic Phase 7 (c.270-50 BC) CP 7, Late Iron Age phase lasted around 210 years, almost twice as long as CP 3, contained 86 contexts, the highest number recorded for any phase (Figure 5.97: P1698, P1792, L1550, L1153, L716, L719, G05 and L1949 are not shown). There are at least five small burial clusters, but the majority of deposits are scattered randomly across the site, with few deposits in the central area. Some deposits are near rectangular structures, whilst others are clearly not, which suggests no strong association. Figure 5.98 shows that deposits were found in three contexts, but pits (73%) are by far the most common context, followed by layers (12%).

Figure 5.99 shows that on closer examination, there is only one cluster of the same category, single elements and three other clusters that contain various categories. However, there is no one category dominating any specific area or exhibiting a strong association to any particular site feature. Thus, there is no evidence to support funeral behaviour or depository practices behing held in one area more than another. Single skeletal elements are the most common deposit (n=46; 55%) followed by multiple mixed element assemblages (n=20; 23%), and then single complete inhumations (n=14; 16%). The complete skeleton is the least common representation of human remains (Figure 5.100).

Number

Figure 5.97 Danebury CP 7: Distribution 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

73

12 1 Pit

Posthole

Layer Context

Gully

Figure 5.98 Danebury CP 7: Contexts

93

Feature

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Number

Figure 5.99 Danebury CP 7:Distribution of the New Categories of Human Remains

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

46

20 14 4 Single Element

Multiple Mixed Elements

Single Complete Inhumations Category

Multiple Complete Inhumations

Mixed Burial Types

Figure 5.100 Danebury CP 7: Human Remains Categories frontal bones, DB 4 from pit P62 and DB 11 from pit P287 (arrowed), are some distance apart and away from other cranial deposits.

Single Elements The 46 single element deposits do not cluster but appear randomly across the whole of the site. Some are within circular and rectangular structures whilst others are not, which suggests there is no strong association to any particular feature (Figure 5.101). There were more adult single elements (n=35; 76%) than non-adult (n=11; 24%). There does not appear to be a single area designated for skulls or other cranial fragments. For instance, adult

Therefore, no separate location was designated for the curation of skulls and their fragments, whether for veneration or as trophies. Skull fragments were the most common deposits (n=9; 20%) followed by femora (n=6; 13%) and a disproportionate number of frontal bones,

94

Results (I) maxillae and mandibles (Figure 5.102). The presence of vertebrae and scapulae suggests that the burial conditions were favourable for bone preservation and that whole bodies may have been present. Frontal bone DB 4 from

pit P62 (Figure 5.103) and frontal fragment DB 194 from pit P1455 (Figure 5.104) illustrate the difference between the two categories; frontal bones are more complete.

Figure 5.101 Danebury CP 7: Single Element Distribution

Number

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

9

5 3

2

6 4

3 1

2

3

3 1

1

1

Skeletal Element Figure 5.102 Danebury CP 7: Single Element Frequency

95

1

1

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 5.103 Danebury CP 7: DB 4 Frontal bone

Figure 5.104 Danebury CP 7 DB 194 Frontal fragment

ones in another. However, there is no evidence to suggest this straightforward division; instead, there is variation and no pattern or repetitive theme. There is no evidence to suggest that this Iron Age society processed the dead following a strict or recurring skeletal element retention or deposit regime.

Multiple Mixed Element Assemblages There were 20 multiple mixed element assemblages, 14 were Type I (70%), where one age group was represented adults, (n=11; 79%) and non-adults (n=3; 21%), and six were Type II where more than one individual was represented in that particular assemblage. Both types were evaluated for skeletal content and repetitive themes (Tables 5.26 and 5.27).

Figure 5.105 shows the combined frequency of adult multiple mixed assemblages to identify general skeletal element survivorship trends. Skull fragments (n= 5, 45%) were the most common deposit, followed by tibiae (n=4, 36%) and phalanges (n=3, 27%). The presence of scapulae, clavicles, sternum, ribs and vertebrae suggest good preservation conditions and that the bodies were complete on site.

Type I assemblages did not show any repetitive trends, whilst in Type II assemblages, all members of society were represented indicating that there was no separation of the remains based on age. Skeletal content was one method used to identify secondary deposits. For example, all major bones might be in one deposit and the minor

6

5

Number

5

4

4

3

3 2 1

2 1 1

2 1 1

2 1 1

0

Skeletal Element Figure 5.105 Danebury CP 7: Adult Multiple Mixed Element Frequency

96

2

Context Skull Cranium Frontal Skull Fragment Maxilla Mandible Teeth Scapula Clavicle Sternum Vertebra Ribs Humerus Ulna Radius Pelvis Sacrum Femur Tibia Fibula H/F bones

Number of Elements Age

97

X

X

P94

X

X X

P955

P2269

X

X

X

X

P2606

X

X

X

X

P2590

X

X

X

P2578

X

X

X

P2576

Key: *Not seen, **P1543 second element not defined and not seen

P1543**

Adult

Child

L1949

Two Elements

Two Elements

P404

X

X

P1792

Table 5.26. Danebury CP 7: Type I Multiple Mixed Elements Assemblages Content

X

X

X

P925

X X

X

P78*

Adult

X X

X

P1579

Three Elements

Results (I)

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains Table 5.27 Danebury CP7: Type II Multiple Mixed Elements Assemblages Content

Context Age Skull Cranium Frontal Skull Fragments Maxilla Mandible Teeth Scapula Clavicle Sternum Vertebra Ribs Humerus Ulna Radius Pelvis Sacrum Femur Tibia Fibula H/F bones

P23 A/C C

P27 A/C

P79 A/I

P911* A/C

P2261* A/Ad

A*

P1530 A/A/?Ad A/A

A A A C A

A A I

A ?Ad Ad

I

A

A A

A C

Key: A adult, Ad adolescent, C child, I infant, * not seen

Single Complete Inhumations There were 14 single complete inhumations, but there does not appear to be any overall collective clustering or favouring any particular area (Figure 5.106). Three infant burials group together but two others spread across the site, which indicates there was no specific area designated solely for the burial of the youngest members of this society.

All non-adults ages were re-assessed measuring long bone diaphyseal and dental development and the results show that four were perinates aged c.36-41 ±2 gestational weeks (DB 218, 278, 252 and 219), and another (DB 189) was slightly younger c.30-34 ±2 gestational weeks. Despite some missing burial data, in general, adult burial posture was tightly flexed but the side and orientation could vary (Table 5.28). Infant burial characteristics were not documented as well as those of adults and, consequently, no trend could be observed.

Four burials were within circular structures (P2115, P2155, P2247 and P2605), and five were near rectangular structures (P620, P582, P1286, P2145 and P1993). However, five burials (P2223, P489, P2566, P1114 and P1015) were isolated, which suggests no strong feature association.

Multiple Complete Inhumations Four contexts contained the remains of more than one individual deposited or interred at the same time (Figure 5.107). There was no strong association to any feature, but three contexts group in the eastern quadrant, approximately 40 metres apart.

There is almost equal ratio of male to female (3:4) and an equal number of adults to non-adults (7:7) comprising a 12-15-year-old adolescent, a 5-year-old child and five infants. This indicates that inhumation was acceptable for all members of society and not exclusive to a particular age group or sex.

Adults, both male and female, were found with nonadults, which indicates that there was no differential funerary treatment or separation based on the age or sex of the deceased.

98

Results (I)

Figure 5.106 Danebury CP 7: Single Complete Inhumations Table 5.28 Danebury CP 7: Single Complete Inhumations Orientation and Position

Context

DB

Sex/Age

Orientation

Side

Body Position

P1015

46

M

WNW

S

Crushed, flexed, legs contracted to L

P2223

223

M

S

Tightly flexed

P2447

239

M

P489

21

F

S

R

Tightly contracted

P582

23

F

NNW

RF

Tightly contracted

P1993

214

F

S

Some disturbed bones

P2605

259

F

?NNE-SSW

L

Crouched

P1114

241

Ad

?EW

L

Extended, knees slightly bent

P620

25

C

SE

RF

Some displaced bones

P1285

189

I

P2115

218

I

Scattered

P2145

278

I

Dispersed

P2566

252

I

P2155

219

I

Flexed knees, displaced bones

NNE-SSW

KEY: M Male, F Female, Ad Adolescent, C Child, L Left, RF Right Front, S Supine

99

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 5.107 Danebury CP 7: Multiple Complete Inhumations Associated Finds Out of a possible 86 deposits, only 29 (34%) contained both animal and human remains (Figure 5.108). As observed in previous phases, there were inconsistencies between Hooper’s notes and the metadata (e.g. Pit 2121 and Pit 891). In this instance, the metadata did not list the human remains.

60

Surface Modifications The majority of CP 7, regardless of category, exhibited minimal to mild+ (0-2) bone abrasion and erosion. For example, single element adult mandible DB 238 from Layer L1224 exhibited mild root etching and erosion (Figure 5.109). Scavenging activity was also evident; single element adult scapula exhibits the typical canid puncture marks (Figure 5.110). For this phase, only a few bones exhibited culturally induced marks; for instance, the two frontal bones, DB 196A and DB 196B both from pit P1530 (Figures 5.111 and 5.112). These skulls clearly show peri-mortem trauma, inflicted at or around the time of death; the margins are the same colour as the bone itself.

57

Number

50 40 30 20

12 7

10

Stratigraphic Evidence The nature of the sediments in which the remains lay was collated (Figure 5.113). The majority (n=36; 42%) of deposits were said to lay in brown soil/silt and chalk fragments, but the nature or origin of this sediment was not defined.

10

0 No R

Same Layer

Adjacent Associated layer

No SD

However, 24 (30%) deposits were exposed; four contexts left open, one deposit within chalk shatter, a further 19 deposits lay in erosion sediments. In contrast, only 6 (7%) deposits were intentionally covered post deposition.

Animal Remains

Figure 5.108 Danebury CP 7: Animal remains

100

Results (I)

Figure 5.110 Danebury CP 7: Scavenging activity, canid punctures marks on DB 225 (P2254)

Figure 5.111 Danebury CP 7: DB 196A (P1530) Culturally induced trauma

Figure 5.112 Danebury CP 7: DB 196B (P1530) Culturally induced trauma

Number

Figure 5.109 Danebury CP 7: Mild root etching DB 238 (L1224)

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

36

19 11 2

4

6 1

1

5

1

Burial Sediment Figure 5.113 Danebury CP 7: Burial Sediment Post-Depostional Movement and Spatial Relationships The original report listed 125 deposits for this phase; however, after conjoining fragments and/or interpreting dispersal from the original deposit by natural postdeposition agents, this number has been reduced to 112 (Table 5.29). For example, two skull fragments DB 89 and DB 90, originally recorded as separate deposits, clearly they originate from the same individual (Figure 5.114). The phalanx DB 146 from Pit 923 (Layer 1) may be a transient bone, deposited from natural processes such as soil or water movement rather than an intentional deposit. In some cases, mechanical conjoining proved difficult; some bones (*) were marked with the ‘lifting sequence’ number and not a DB number, thus a biological refit was carried out.

Figure 5.114 Danebury CP 7:joined skull fragments DB 89 and DB 90 (P78)

101

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains Table 5.29 Danebury CP 7: Re-Assessment of Fragmentary Remains

Context P23 P26 P27 P78

P404 P923*

P935*

P1078*

DB 80

Layer 3

1 81 82 83 2

4/5 3 6 6/7 10

Human Remains (A) Maxilla, tibia and fibula fragments, 2V (C) Skull (C) 2 cervical vertebrae (C) 2 cervical, 5 lumber and 1 sacral V (C) clavicle (A)frontal bone

89 90 5 91 110 111 146 147 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 150 169 43 44 45 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

1 2 ?10 ?10 2 4 1 4 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

(A) skull fragment (A) skull fragment (A) Cranium (A) 5 vertebrae, rib fragment (A) Molar (A) manubrium fragment Phalanx (C) skull fragment (C) vertebrae, ribs, pelvis (C, 10-14Y) partial (Ad, 12-16Y) partial (Ad, 14-18Y) partial (YA, 16-20Y) near complete (M) skull, V (M) skull (F) partial (M) skull (M) skull (A) tibia fragment (A) canine and molar (M) near complete (F) near complete (C, 10-12Y) near complete (M) Cranium (no maxilla) (F) complete (M) nr complete (F) partial (M) partial (C 10-14Y) complete (C 10-12Y) partial (C 8-9Y) skull (C 6-7Y) skull (C 8-12Y) frontal bone (A) femora, pelvis, sacrum, lumbar V (C) child V

Stratified Comments ‘All bones found more or less at the same level’, one deposit Chalk fragments and silt Erosion silts, one deposit Within soil and chalk fragments, and animal bone. Chalky brown soil and animal bone Associated to cranium Associated to cranium One deposit Grey-brown soil/chalk fragments Grey-brown silt/chalk shatter Silt and chalk fragments Silt and chalk shatter

Deposit -1 -1 ?

-3 -1

Silt and chalk shatter, erosion silts Pit open prior to and postdeposition

-3

Disturbed, displaced and mixed skeletal remains Chalk shatter and silt Interleaved

-2

Pit open post-deposition Silt and chalk fragments

Silt and chalk shatter, erosion silts -2 (?-3) Pit open prior to and postdeposition Disturbed, displaced and mixed skeletal remains

Total

-13 Key: A Adult, C Child, Ad adolescent, F female, M male, Frag fragment, V vertebra(e)

102

Results (I) Danebury Ceramic Phase 8 (c.50-AD 50) There were eight contexts, five are within or near a circular or rectangular structure but two others are not, which suggests no strong association and pits were the most common deposition context (Figures 5.115 and 5.116: L432 not shown). There is no clustering of any one category to any particular area or site feature, demonstrating no evidence for a designated funerary or depository area and single elements were the most common deposit (Figures 5.117 and 5.118).

Single Elements Single element finds were the most common deposit and randomly scattered; in this case only adult remains; two skull fragments (including L432, but not shown), two phalanges and one long bone fragment (Figure 5.119).

Figure 5.115 Danebury CP 8: Distribution 8

Number

7

7

6 5 4 3 2

1

1 0 Pit

Posthole

Layer Context

Gully

Figure 5.116 Danebury CP 8: Contexts

103

Feature

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 5.117 Danebury CP 8: Distribution of the New Categories of Human remains 6

Number

5

5

4 3 2

2

1

1 0 Single Element

Multiple Mixed Elements

Single Complete Inhumation

Multiple Complete Inhumations

Mixed Burial Types

Category

Figure 5.118 Danebury CP 8: Categories

Multiple Mixed Element Assemblages There were two adult Type I assemblages; DB 128 from pit P702 comprised a skull fragment and a second unidentified bone (not available for examination), and DB 130 and 131 from pit P761- a left and right femur. No skeletal patterning was observed.

Multiple Complete Inhumations Pit P120 contained the remains of a 5-8 year old child and a 14-17 year old adolescent DB 7, 8 and 60, as with previous phases, non-adults could be buried together (See Stratigraphic Evidence).

104

Results (I)

Figure 5.119 Danebury CP 8: Single Element Distribution

Associated Finds For this phase, there were four (44%) deposits of human remains with no record of animal remains, but an equal number (22%) of animal remains either found in the ‘same layer’ or ‘associated’ with the human remains (Figure 5.120). As observed in the previous phases, no specific details were supplied.

Surface Modifications The few remains available for examination exhibited minimal to mild+ abrasion and erosion (0-2), and scavenging activity was evident by the presence of animal teeth marks on some bones. Stratigraphic Evidence The burial sediment data showed that 50% of all deposits lay in natural silt or erosion silts, a further 38% lay in brown soils/silt and chalk fragments and 12% were disturbed sediments. Therefore, this phase is similar to the previous, bodies or body parts were more than likely exposed whilst in their respective contexts.

5 4

Number

4 3 2

2

2

Post-Depostional Movement and Spatial Relationships For this phase, the original study estimated 11 deposits which this study has reduced to 9 (Table 5.30). Pit P120 contained the scattered remains of a 5-8 year old child and a 14-17 year old adolescent. With the range of skeletal material remaining, some exhibiting animal teeth marks, and the stratigraphic evidence indicating that the pit was left open post-deposition, it was likely these individuals were complete on deposition.

1 0 No R

Same layer

Adjacent Associated No SD layer Animal Remains

Figure 5.120 Danebury CP 8: Animal Remains

105

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains Table 5.30 Danebury CP 8: Re-Assessment of Fragmentary Remains Context

DB

Layer

P761*

130

2

131

4

60

3

7

4/5

5

5

P120*

Human Remains

Stratified Comments

(A) left femur, gnawed (?) right femur

Grey-brown silt and chalk fragments Interleaving chalk shatter and silts, one deposit Disturbed upper layers, within grey-brown silt Interleaved, chalk shatter and erosion silts Grey silt and chalk fragments

(C) Humerus, scapula, clavicle, fibula, left ulna (C) Cranium, vertebrae, femur (gnawed) (Ad) skull, vertebrae, ribs, right arm

Total

Deposit

-1

-1 -2

*Not all available for re-examination, (A) Adult Ad Adolescent (C) Child Danebury Unphased The 13 contexts were not grouped and did not demonstrate a strong association to any particular area; however, eleven were either within a circular or near a rectangular structure (Figure 5.121: not shown PH 6383, L35, T23, PH 5802). Postholes (61%) were the most common context (probably reflecting the lack of dating evidence) followed by pits (23%) with both gully and feature (8%), (Figure 5.122). Single elements were the most common deposit (n=6; 46%), with equal representation of multiple mixed element assemblages and single complete inhumations (n=3; 23%).

Single Elements Adult mandibles were the most common deposit (n=3, 50%), followed by an equal representation of teeth, femur and foot bones (n=1, 17%). Multiple Mixed Element Assemblages There were three Type I, multiple mixed element assemblages, which represented two infants and one adult (Table 5.31). The two infant assemblages did not contain the same skeletal material as each other or the adult assemblage. The presence of vertebrae and ribs can suggest that whole bodies were present as they will survive in good preservation conditions.

Figure 5.121 Danebury Unphased: Distribution

106

Results (I)

Figure 5.122 Danebury Unphased: Distribution of New Categories of Human Remains Table 5.31 Danebury Unphased: Multiple Mixed Element Assemblage Content Number of Elements Context Age Skull Cranium Frontal Skull Fragment Maxilla Mandible Teeth Scapula Clavicle Sternum Vertebra Ribs Humerus Ulna Radius Pelvis Sacrum Femur Tibia Fibula H/F bones

1 2 PH6756 PH5802 Infant

3 T123 Adult

X

X X X X

X X

KEY: (A) adult, (I) infant H/F hand/foot bones

107

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains Single Complete Inhumations There were three single complete inhumations. The original report stated that due to the burial position of adult male DB 16 found in P383, ‘squashed’ head first, legs bent to fit pit’, no orientation or drawings were possible. No burial data was collected for the two infants. This study has re-aged both infants: DB 204 (found in PH 6768) was c.35-40 and DB 205 (found in PH 6383) was c.37-42 ±2 gestational weeks. Thus, both were birth age at time of death. Associated Finds Only one out of the 13 deposits was reported to contain animal remains in the same layer.

Figure 5.123 Danebury Unphased: DB 97 from P146 exhibiting mild bone erosion

Surface Modifications Similarly to the phased remains, these unphased remains exhibited minimal to moderate abrasion and ersoion (02). For example, adult mandible DB 97 from pit P146 was typical (Figure 5.123).

Stratigraphic Evidence The burial sediment was documented for five contexts. Four deposits of human remains lay in sediments comprising brown soil and chalk fragments but the nature or origin was not stated, and the fifth deposit lay in disturbed sediments.

Danebury Overview This section summarises all findings but, as the ceramic phases were of different durations, any direct comparisons could potentially be misleading; for example, CP 3 was estimated to last around 110 years whilst CP 6 was around 50 years in duration. Consequently, the numbers of deposits per phase cannot be directly compared but the burial or depositional behaviour across time can. The original study estimated 300 deposits of human remains which this current study has reduced to 264 by combining taphonomic histories, re-examining fragmentary remains, and exploring the formation of the burial record.

If the dead were exposed within the hillfort on four-post structures, small bones would be lost during decomposition falling to the ground, leaving this archaeological signature. Some deposits were found near rectangular structures but equally there were areas totally void of human remains but rectangular structures were present in numbers (Figures 5.124 and 5.125). Consequently, there is no strong association between deposits of human remains and rectangular structures. Apart from the unphased deposits which were found in post-holes with no dating evidence, the pit was the most common context followed by layers and non-discrete areas of accumulation (Figure 5.126). The random depository trend was shown to be consistent throughout all phases, where the single element was the most common deposit (Figures 5.127, 5.128 and 5.129).

Only a few scattered deposits of human remains were dated to the earliest phase, c.550 BC, and these mainly comprised fragments of adult long bones and so, at this point, the hillfort was not a focal point for the deposition of human remains. However, by CP 3 c.470 this changes and the depository trend began and continued right through until the CP 8 phase, c.50 BC (Later Iron Age/ Early Roman Period), where the trend declined.

There was a considerable number of adult single element deposits (n = 114, 88%), in comparison to children (n= 13, 10%) and infant single element deposits (n = 3, 2%). Infant bones are small and light and may represent transient deposits, by means of water, soil or wind movement rather than a cultural deposit. Skull fragments were the most common single element deposit (n = 36, 28%), then femora (n= 18, 14%) and mandibles (n= 13, 10%). However, there is wide range of other elements present which suggests good preservation conditions and some of which may also be transient deposits (e.g. teeth, hand and foot bones). The likelihood for the curation of skulls (including mandibles) or cranium (without the mandible) and frontal bones is low for a span of around 450 -500 years. However, the high number of skull fragments may indicate a propitiatory practice.

Throughout the hillfort’s lifespan the majority of deposits did not cluster, favour any one area, or demonstrate that one area was more heavily focused for depository behaviour than another. However, during CP 7, a duration of some 210 years, there were five possible small burial clusters, but this may reflect the number of deposits over a longer phase rather than an intentional act to organise the deposits. In short, there was no change in location or centralising of deposits, instead, during the hillfort’s occupation, human remains were deposited in a scattered and random manner.

108

Results (I) There were 52 multiple mixed element assemblages, 40 were Type I, where one age group was represented and 12 were Type II, where more than one individual was represented. In total, there were more adult Type I assemblages than non-adult; adult (n = 31, 78%), children (n= 6, 15%) and infant, (n= 3, 7%). The 12 Type II assemblages comprised of 4 different combinations; seven adult and children, two adult and adolescent, two adult, adolescent and child, and one adult and infant remains.

burial sediment evidence would also account for the variable content of fragmentary remains. Only 10 (4%) deposits of human remains were considered deliberately covered with burial sediments and four (1.8%) lay in disturbed sediments. The evidence indicates that a total of 64 (28%) deposits were intentionally exposed; nine open contexts, seven chalk shatter and 48 natural erosion material. Exposed remains would be vulnerable to natural fragmentation and dispersal agents such as faunal activity, wind, water and soil erosion, or any subsequent cultural activity, where skeletal element extraction is possible for later propitiatory events. However, 74 (33%) deposits were lying within sediments of brown soil, silt and chalk fragments, but the nature of the sediment was not defined. For 27 (12%), no burial sediment was recorded and for 30 (13 %) where the information was unclear. The nature of the burial sediment is a valuable source of evidence that could have been used to validate exposure practices, but in this case, was largely untapped.

Neither Type I or Type II exhibited any repetitive themes. However, to find adult and non-adult remains together suggests no segregation of remains based on the age of the individual. If secondary burial rites with rigid skeletal rules or codes of practice were part of this group’s depositional behaviour, repetitive deposits would have been observed. The complete skeleton was the least common representation, appearing singly (13.5%), in multiples (3.6%) or in mixed burial types (1.4%) which were not segregated or grouped based on the age or sex of the individual (Figures 5.131 - 136).

Summary In the original study, Cunliffe (1991: 418) stated that there were 300 wide-ranging deposits of human remains in 239 contexts comprising: 181 pits, 14 post-holes and 44 layers that were described. This study has re-evaluated these figures to 226 contexts, comprising 167 pits, 14 postholes, 40 layers, 3 gullies and 2 features. In the final volume, Cunliffe (1995: 76) stated that the remains represented at least 91 individuals, complete inhumations comprised 14 males, seven females, two non-sexed adults and five non-adults, whereas, partial inhumations comprised 12 male, nine female, four non-sexed adults and 15 non-adults. However, this study has re-evaluated the remains and considered all taphonomic evidence to reduce the count to only 68 complete inhumations, comprising 36 adults (23 male, 11 female and 2 unsexed), 7 adolescent, 12 children and 13 infants.

Adults were the most common age group in both single, multiple and mixed contexts (Figures 5.137 and 5.138) and in total there were twice as many males than females; males 23, female 11 and unsexed two. Infants were more commonly found as single burials rather than in multiples, unlike children and adolescents. However, there is almost equal number of adults (n = 20) and nonadults (n = 18) found in multiple and mixed burials. Attempting to retrieve burial data that has been separated between the various specialists’ reports proved problematic. For instance, in the recording of associated finds, inconsistencies were noted between Hooper’s report on human remains and the metadata that documented both animal and human remains (e.g. Pit P1149). Consequently, any final evaluation presented here could be misleading. A longer study that solely and systematically re-evaluates all associated finds is required to ensure reliable results.

The original study stated there were 45 deposits comprising skull fragments and identified these as evidence of a curation practice, for either ancestral reverence or the heads of enemies. This study has estimated that skull fragments (n = 36) were more numerous than the total number of skulls (maxilla and mandible), crania and frontal bones together (n = 7). However, singly found mandibles (n = 13) were disproportional to singly found maxillae (n= 2). Finally, the evidence indicates that complete skulls or crania were not curated, but instead, skull fragments were the more common deposit.

The collection as a whole exhibited minimal to moderate (0-4) abrasion and erosion bone surface modifications, which indicates a range of weathering or exposure periods. This bone evidence correlated with the burial sediment evidence. In some cases, there was evidence to support intentional exposure in situ as they were found within natural erosion soils and silts (Figure 5.139). The

109

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 5.124 Danebury CP 1-5: EIA Overview Distribution

Figure 5.125 Danebury CP 6-8: LIA Overview Distribution

110

Results (I) 180

166

160 140 Number

120 100 80 60

40

40 14

20

3

2

Gully

Feature

0 Pit

Posthole

Layer Context

Figure 5.126 Danebury: Overview of all Contexts

Figure 5.127 Danebury CP 1-5: EIA Overview: Distribution of New Human Remains Categories

111

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 5.128 Danebury CP 6-8: LIA: Overview Distribution of New Human Remains Categories 140

130

120

Number

100 80 52

60

30

40 20

8

3

Multiple Complete Inhumations

Mixed Burial Types

0 Single Element

Multiple Mixed Elements

Single Complete Inhumation Category

Figure 5.129 Danebury: Overview of All Human Remains Categories

112

Results (I) 40

36

35 Number

30 25 18

20 13

15 10 5

2

5

3

5

2

1

4

8

7 3

2

4

3

6

0

Skeletal Element Figure 5.130 Danebury: Overview of All Single Element Deposits

Figure 5.131 Danebury CP 1-5: EIA Overview of Single Complete Inhumations

113

4

4

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 5.132 Danebury CP 6-8: LIA Overview Single Complete Inhumations

Figure 5.133 Danebury CP 1-5: EIA Overview of Multiple Complete Inhumations

114

Results (I)

Figure 5.134 Danebury CP 6-8: LIA Overview Multiple Complete Inhumations

Figure 5.135 Danebury CP 1-5: EIA Overview Mixed Burial Types

115

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

16 11

2

Adult

Number

Number

Figure 5.136 Danebury CP 6-8: LIA Overview Mixed Burial Types

1

Adolescent Child Age

22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

20

11 5 2 Adult

Infant

Figure 5.137 Danebury: Age of Single Inhumations

Adolescent Child Age

Infant

Figure 5.138 Danebury: Age in Multiple/Mixed Burials

80

74

70

Number

60 48

50 40 30

30

27

20 10

9

10

15 7

2

0

Burial Sediment

Figure 5.139 Danebury: Overview Burial Sediment Comments

116

4

Results (I) 5.4 Suddern Farm EIA-MIA (c.470-270BC) The majority of Early to Middle Iron Age burials were found outside the ditched enclosure with a few deposits dating to the Late Iron Age period (Figure 5.140).

the most common deposit, and in general, the complete inhumation is a more common representation of the body in death (Figure 5.146). Single Elements The four single elements comprised an infant’s distal right humerus and left femur (P150 and P190), a child’s cranial fragments (F60), and an adult’s femoral shaft (P200). These deposits probably reflect natural or unintentional movement of bone fragments rather than an intentional cultural deposit. Skulls or cranial fragments were present with most skeletons, indicating that skulls were not removed for either veneration or as a trophy. Multiple Mixed Element Assemblages There were six multiple mixed element assemblages, three adult Type I (F456, P113 and F68) and one adult and non-adult Type II (F429). Type I comprised a range of adult bones from F456, an adult’s femur, frontal bone fragments from P113 and an adult’s pelvis and four vertebrae (not available for examination) from F68. F429 comprised a large quantity and range of both adult and non-adult bones. The quarry assemblages reflect disturbance rather than an intentional deposit, and no stratigraphic data was available to reconstruct pit assemblages. The original study considered P119 a partial and incompletely cremated adult; however, both Late Iron Age deposits P78 and P119 (Trench 1) were not availabe for re-examination and, as such, have remained as multiple mixed element assemblages.

Figure 5.140 Suddern Farm: Site plan showing excavated areas (After Cunliffe and Poole 2000) Trench 5 was a section within the large amorphous quarry which revealed many burials and the likelihood that this was not the full extent of the cemetery (Figure 5.141). In contrast, a few deposits were found within the enclosure, Trench 1 (Figure 5.142). It appears that a conscious and collective decision was made to organise the dead, to group them in a designated area away from the internal area. Several deposits are not illustrated: two adult partial skeletons, SF C2 and SF C3 (F418), and infants SF C11 (F438) and SF C34 (F457). SF C29 (F454) was the remains of two infants and not one, and another infant was found with adult SF C22 (F444). In addition to these, there was a wide range of miscellaneous adult bones from F456, both adult and non-adult remains from F410, and the quarry’s upper fill and superficial layers (F429). The enclosure lacked superficial stratigraphy and typical Iron Age four- and six- post structures were absent; consequently, any association with site features was not possible for the five Middle and two Late Iron Age deposits in Trench 1, P113, P150, P200, F60, P190, P78 and P119, respectively (Figure 5.142). There were 31 contexts, seven pits and 24 were features, irregular, shallow pits or graves cut in the quarry. The primary function of this part of the site was to retrieve chalk and, later, for the placement of the dead where features comprised one or more deposits (Figure 5.143). Trenches 1 and 5 exhibit different categories of human remains, which suggests different depository behaviour or practices between the two locations (Figures 5.144 and 5.145). Single complete inhumations (n = 11, 35%) were

Single Complete Inhumations There were 11 single complete inhumations that did not exhibit segregation based on the age or sex of the individual (Figure 5.147). The majority were crouched on their left side with no obvious trend in orientation (Table 5.32). In contrast, adult burial characteristics were documented more commonly than those of infants. This aspect seems to have been a common recording theme, non-adults and, in particular, the very young, received less attention than adults. Multiple Complete Inhumations There were five multiple burials that were not segregated from other burials or grouped. There appear to be no burial rules that governed separation based on the age of the individual, both non-adults and adults could share the same burial context (Figure 5.148). The majority of burials were disturbed; therefore, no trends could be observed (Table 5.33). Mixed Burial Types There were four contexts that contained non-sequential burials and one that contained a combination of remains (Figure 5.149). The non-sequential burials disturbed the earlier ones and, as observed with multiple burials, there was no separation based on the age or sex of the individual, as adult and non-adults, male and female, could share the same burial context. F410 contained a combination of human remains: adult cranial fragments and infant remains (Figure 5.150).

117

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 5.141 Suddern Farm: Trench 5 Distribution (Quarry)

Figure 5.142 Suddern Farm: Trench 1 Distribution (Enclosure)

Figure 5.143 Suddern Farm: Trench (Quarry)

118

Results (I)

Figure 5.144 Suddern Farm: Trench 5, Quarry, Distribution of the New Human Remains Categories

Figure 5.145 Suddern Farm: Trench 1 (Enclosure) Distribution of the New Human Remains Categories

11

12

Number

10 8 6

6

5

4

5

4 2 0 Single Element

Multiple Mixed Elements

Single Multiple complete Complete Inhumation Inhumations Category

Figure 5.146 Suddern Farm: Human Remains Categories

119

Mixed Burial Types

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 5.147 Suddern Farm, Trench 2 (Quarry): Single Complete Inhumations Age and Sex (F415, C1, a 4 year old child, F438, C11, an infant, P78 and P119 are not shown) Table 5.32 Suddern Farm: Single Orientation and Position

Context F415 F434 F437 F438 F441 F443

SF C1 C7 C10 C11 C18 C21

Sex/Age C I ?M I F M

Orientation

F444

C22

?M/I

N-S

R

F446 F447 F453 F457

C26 C27 C28 C34

M F F I

NW-SE SE-NE SW-NE

L L L

N SE-NW E-W NE-SW

Side R L L

Body position Crouched Slightly flexed Disturbed

L S

Couched Disturbed, flexed legs to right, L arm across chest, R arms straight to pelvis Disturbed, flexed. *Infant found with the adult remains Crouched Crouched Crouched

KEY: A Adult, I Infant, C Child, F Female, M Male, L left, R Right, S Supine * Infant remains found on re-examination of the adult and their association was unclear – see stratigraphic section

Figure 5.148 Suddern Farm, Quarry, Trench 2: Multiple Complete Inhumations

120

Results (I) Table 5.33 Suddern Farm: Multiple Complete Orientation and Body Position

Context F418 F433 F436 F439 F445

SF C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C8 C9 C12 C13 C23 C24 C25

Sex/Age A A I I I M I I I I ?M ?M

Orientation N-S

Side L L L

Head to W

S

Body position Flexed Disturbed Slightly, flexed but disturbed Disturbed Disturbed Disturbed Disturbed Extended, disturbed Disturbed Disturbed

KEY: A Adult, I Infant, M Male, L left S Supine

Figure 5.149 Suddern Farm: Quarry Trench2, Mixed Burial Types (F410 not shown)

The majority of remains were partial and disturbed and, as a result, burial trends were difficult to identify; however, there appears to be a general orientation of north to south, in a flexed body position (Table 5.34). Associated Finds In the published report, two small finds were mentioned with burials SF C18 and SF C27 and, similarly, animal bones found with the partial remains of an adult in P78 were mentioned among the ‘special deposits’. However, the majority of burials lacked grave goods.

Figure 5.150 Suddern Farm F410: Mixed Burial adult cranial fragments and infant remains

121

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains Table 5.34 Suddern Farm: Mixed Burial Types: Orientation and Body Position

Context F454

F455 F440

F442 F410

SF C29A C29B C30 C31 C32 C33 C14 C15 C16 C17 C19 C20 /

Sex/Age I I M C ?M M I I ?M M Ad M A I

Orientation

Side

Body position Disturbed remains of two infants

NE-SW

R

NE-SW S-N

L

Tightly crouched Partial, disturbed, arms only Partial Crouched

N-S S-N N-S N-S

S L ?P

Tightly crouched Crouched Partial, disturbed Disturbed Combination, adult skull fragments with infant

KEY: A Adult, I Infant, M Male, Ad Adolescent L left S Supine, P prone Consequently, there was no observable difference in the bones’ physical appearance, which suggests that this aspect was constant for all members of society. Minimal weathering or erosion and lack of animal teeth marks indicates protection in death such as a burial depth greater than 0.3m and/or body protection which could take several forms (e.g. clothing, blankets).

Surface Modifications The collection as a whole, regardless of deposit type, exhibited minimal to mild (0-1) surface modifications. For example, single complete female C28 (skull shown only) and a loose collection of adult bones (F456) all exhibit minimal root etching and surface erosion (Figures 5.151- 5.152).

Figure 5 151 . Suddern Farm: SF C28 Complete adult skull exhibiting minimal bone surface erosion

Figure 5.152 Suddern Farm: F456 Loose collection of bone exhibiting minimal to mild bone surface erosion

Stratigraphic Information As a consequence of a rapid excavation, few burial sections were drawn and the general site formation provided a profile of the burial area. During the Iron Age, the quarry was dug and the spoil transferred to abandoned parts of the quarry. As a result, chalk rubble and silt mixed with natural eroded material and, over time, the burial pits were dug into this abandoned and partially silted area. It is unclear as to whether burials were intentionally covered with this silt mix and natural erosion material or allowed to be eventually covered with erosion silts.

Post-Depostional Movement and Spatial Relationships The quarry section illustrates the closeness and apparent lack of boundaries between features and burials: F447, with adult female SF C27; F446, with adult male SF C26; F442, with adolescent SF C19, and adult male; SF C20, and F453, with adult female SF C28 (Figure 5.153). Between F442 and F453 were two other features (not shown), F436 with adult male, SF C8, and infant SF C9, and F454 with infant SF C29, adult male SF C30 and child SF C31.

122

Results (I) On a closer examination of available plans, it was evident that subsequent burials had disturbed earlier ones. For example, F437 contained SF C10 (adult skull, cervical vertebrae, clavicle and rib) and was partially cut away by F444. F444 contained SF C22, a near complete adult, and a large collection of adult loose bones and cut F437. F444

was cut by F443, which contained SF C21 another adult male and a large collection of loose bones. Consequently, SF C10, SF C21 and SF C22 are more than likely single complete inhumations, but their remains were disturbed by subsequent activity (Figures 5.154 and 5.155).

Figure 5.153 Suddern Farm: Section of Trench 2, Quarry (Cunliffe and Poole 2000, Fig. 3.37)

Figure 5.154 Suddern Farm: Plan of F437, F444 and F445 (Hampshire Museum and Archives)

Figure 5.155 Suddern Farm: Indistinct burial boundaries (Ian.R.Cartwright: Institute of Archaeology Oxford, 2009)

Similarly, activity for three other features, F441, F445 and F439, affected the contents and presentation of each other’s deposits. The first feature, F441, contained SF C18 an adult female, which exhibited some bone disturbance, cut F445 and was cut by F439 (not illustrated). The second feature, F445 contained the remains of an infant (SF C23) and an adult male skull and vertebrae (SF C24) was disturbed by F441, and SF C25, an adult (probable male), was disturbed when C24 was deposited. The third feature, F439, contained the remains of two partial, disturbed perinates (SF C12 and SF C13), and many isolated bones from a young individual and an adult. F439 cut into the top fill of F441 that contained the remains of a nearly complete adult female (C18).

Thus, the adult bones from F439 almost certainly belong to the adult in SF C18 and originally came from F441. By unravelling the sequence of burial activity and appreciating the movement of skeletal remains, it has been possible to re-categorise these individuals as single complete inhumations rather than partial, incomplete skeletons or loose bones. To validate the movement of remains across features some skeletal elements were reunited by conjoining; for instance the mechanical re-fit of two mandible fragments from two features; F456 and F443 (Figure 5.156).

123

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 5.156 Suddern Farm: Conjoined Mandible Fragments from F443 and F456 revealed cultural disturbance and naturally eroding quarry features that blurred burial boundaries, permitting bones to merge with one another. As a consequence, this study estimated a total of only 21 adults (seven males, nine probable males, three females, one probable female and one unsexed adult) and 19 non-adults (16 infants, two children and one adolescent). All infants were perinatal, with the age-at-death ranging from 36 to 43 ±2 gestational weeks, suggesting a high natural mortality rate. As the cemetery was not fully excavated this could explain the apparent under-representation of females.

Summary There were only a few assemblages found within the enclosure itself, and these were dissimilar to those in the quarry, which may indicate a different depositional practice or event. There was a clear community decision to move, organise and bury the dead in one particular area, outside the enclosure in the disused parts of the quarry. The dead were kept whole and only suffered bone loss and displacement through cultural disturbance from subsequent burials. The original study estimated 15 complete or nearly complete inhumations comprising: six males, five probable males, one female and four probable females and, after re-evaluating the odd bone assemblages. After examining the loose bones, Hooper (2000) increased the count to 31 adults, nine children aged 2-16 years old, and 20 infants aged 0-2 years old.

The burials in the quarry followed the same social trends as noted at Danebury, both adults and non-adults, and males and females, could share the same burial context. Minimal to mild bone surface modifications (0-1) and the lack of animal teeth marks in association with the majority of individuals retaining skeletal completeness indicates that exposure was not practiced, see Burial Contextual Evidence for further discussion.

However, this study’s approach, combining the remains and their burial contexts and taphonomic histories

5.5 Winklebury Hillfort c. 300-100BC Around 40% of this hillfort was excavated (Figure 5.157). In total, there were 18 contexts that contained 22 deposits of human remains which do cluster or appear to be in one designated burial area. Deposits are not associated to rectangular post structures and only three were close to a circle structure or gully, which suggests there was no strong association to any site feature (Figure 5.158). There is only one possible cluster of any single category type, single elements but, in general, all categories are random with no strong focus in any particular area (Figure 5.159). Despite recording under two separate locations, multiple mixed elements assemblages WK 2248 and WK 2252 originated from one individual (see Post-Depositional Movement and Spatial Relationships). Pits were the most common context (n=12, 75%) followed by postholes (n=3, 19%) and one deposit found in a gully (6%). Figure 5.160 shows that single elements were the most common deposit type (n=10, 55%), followed by single complete inhumations (n=6, 33%).

Figure 5.157 Winklebury Hillfort Site plan showing excavated area (Adapted from Smith 1977: 32)

124

Results (I)

Figure 5.158 Winklebury Distribution (WK 632 and WK 4028 are not illustrated)

Figure 5.159 Winklebury:New Categories

Burial data was documented, not always in the human bone report, but rather on the context sheet; for instance, the description, skeletal content and orientation of skeleton 2745 could be found in this document. Despite a small sample size and contractors removing one adult burial without recording the details, there is a general orientation trend of north to south or south to north. As observed on the other sites in this study, infant burial details were not documented (Table 5.35).

six, single complete inhumations, but various taphonomic processes have resulted in bone damage and loss (Figure 5.163). There were two males, one probable female, two adolescents aged 12 to 15 and 15-17 years old, and one perinate c.36 to 41 ± 2 gestational weeks. Associated Finds On occasion, the human bone report documented associated finds, but the context was unclear and associations were missed. For instance, Pit 1614 in Layer 1619 contained fragments of human bone with animal bone but no details were provided. In the same pit, but lying in the layer below, were the remains of an adult female (WK 1624). The remains were not associated with each other, and the report just documented the sex, fragmentary state, estimation of height and pathology of the female. In contrast, on the context sheet, the burial depth, a brief description of the skeletal content, appearance of the remains and bones in the lower layers were documented, along with the remains of 13 rodents and a complete articulated dog found in adjacent layers. Similarly, Pit 4015 contained the remains of an adult male (WK 4010). The human bone report documented the age, stature and pathology, whilst the context sheet shows that the skeleton was excavated by contractors and was associated with a group of unspecified animal remains (3797). Pit 2893’s context sheet, documented a human cranium (WK 3134) with a horse skull and other horse bones at around the burial depth of 70-80cm. However, this information was not in the human bone report.

Single Elements In general, cranial bones were the most common singly found deposit (WK 2731 an unspecified long bone fragment, not available for examination was ommited from the frequency table, (Figure 5.161). The in situ photograph shows the single adult, probable male, cranium (WK 2742) placed upright at the bottom of Pit 2738 (Figure 5.162). Multiple Mixed Element Assemblages There was only one multiple mixed element assemblage, this comprised non-adult long bone, mandible, dentition and rib, found in two contexts, WK 2248 and WK 2252 (see Post-Depositional Movement and Spatial Relationships). Single Complete Inhumations The original report suggested there were three reasonably complete and two fragmentary skeletons, but this study has re-evaluated the remains and argues that there were

125

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains 12

10

Number

10 8

6

6 4 1

2 0 Single Element

Multiple Mixed Elements

Single Multiple Complete Complete Inhumation Inhumation

Mixed Burial Types

Category Figure 5.160 Winklebury: Human Remains Categories

5

Number

4 3

3

2

2 1

1

1

1

1

0

Skeletal Element Figure 5.161 Winklebury: Single Element Frequency Table 5.35 Winklebury: Single Complete Orientation and Position

Context

WK

Orientation

Side

Body position

2745 1624 1111

Sex/ Age Ad F/?F M

P2615 P1614 P979

NNE-SSW / NS

/ / S

P3834

3910

Ad

S-N

R

P4015 P615

4010 744

M I

/ /

/ /

Disturbed bones Fragmentary and scattered bones, depth 70-80cm Legs and pelvis folded back over abdomen, legs crossed, no left arm, skull found by base of spine Crouched, knees facing right and drawn towards middle of the chest Excavated by contractors

KEY: Ad Adolescent, F Female, M Male, I Infant, S Supine, R Right

126

Results (I) Surface Modifications The bone surface modification varied from minimal to extensive (0-5). For example, single skull WK 4028 exhibited generalised moderate+ erosion, whilst WK 2248 multiple mixed element fragmentary assemblage exhibited more extensive abrasion that was coarse to touch (Figures 5.164 and 5.165). Stratigraphic Evidence The nature of the burial sediments in which the remains were found was not documented on an individual basis. However, there was a general statement concerning all pits. Smith (1977:45) stated that the majority of pits showed evidence of weathering with surface silts filling the pits (probably natural origin). For example, naturally silted pit 2615 contained the remains of an adolescent (WK 2745) where the silt was natural into the pit which suggests that the adolescent was exposed. Post-Depostional Movement and Spatial Relationships The original report listed 18 contexts that contained 22 deposits of human remains; however, this study has reduced the number of deposits to just 17 (Table 5.36). For example, bone fragments from WK 2248 (1) and WK 2252 (2), and WK 3134 and WK 2805 were conjoined (Figures 5.166 and 5.167). This demonstrates they must have originated from the same individual and subsequent processes have dispersed the bones or bone fragments into different contexts. Both assemblages comprised dry bone fragments which were easy to re-fit, indicating they were the product of post-depositional activity rather than peri-mortem treatment of the dead.

Figure 5.162 Winklebury: WK 2742 single cranium from Pit 2738 (Hampshire Museum and Archives)

Summary Inside this hillfort was a small group of burials in which adolescents and adults were more common than infants, unlike the situation at Winnall Down and Micheldever Wood. The burials did not cluster or favour any particular area or site feature. Similar to Danebury, pits and single skeletal elements (mainly cranial fragments) were the most common context and deposits. Dry fragmentary bone fragments were re-united which had moved not only down through stratified layers of a burial context but across the site. This illustrates the need to incorporate the site, context and skeletal formation processes into the analysis. Furthermore, the human remains report contained limited information which may reflect the excavation’s time and manpower limitations. Relevant burial data was documented on other excavation documents that demonstrate the need to standardise the format of recording burial data. The dead were deposited whole and a range of taphonomic processes led them to become fragmentary, which may suggest exposure practices (see Burial Contextual Evidence).

Figure 5.163 Winklebury: Single Complete Inhumations

127

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 5.164 Winklebury: WK 4028 Moderate+ Bone Erosion (2-3)

Figure 5.165 Winklebury: WK 2248 Coarse and Extensive Bone Modification (4- 5)

Table 5.36 Winklebury: Re-Assessment of Fragmentary Remains Context P615 P979 P1614 G2247 PH2251 P2893 PH2804 Total

HR 744 626* 1111 1242 1624 1619* 2248 2252 3134 2805

Layer 1111 1242 1621 1619 3134

Human Remains (I) near complete missing right femur (I) right femur (C) near complete (A) hand/foot bones (A) fragmentary skeleton (A) not specified Non-adult assemblages (A) frontal fragment (A) skull fragment

Comments No duplications No duplications Scattered with no duplication Two separate contexts but fragments conjoined Two separate contexts with biological conjoining

Deposit -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -5

Not all available for re-examination, (A) Adult, (I) infant

Figure 5.166 Winklebury: WK 2248(1) and WK 2252 (2) Conjoined (3)

Figure 5.167 Winklebury: WK 3134 (1) and WK 2805 (2) Conjoined (3)

128

Results (I) 5.6 Maiden Castle Wheeler (1943) excavated sections of this large hillfort and encountered human remains from the Early to the Late Iron Age and Early Roman periods at several locations: Q, L, B, P, R, H and around the eastern entrance (Figure 5.168).

Single Elements There were three single deposits; two were skull fragments, representing an adult and a child, whilst the third deposit was a child’s facial bones with maxilla (MC 11). Similar to Danebury and Winklebury, the most common single element deposit were skull fragments.

Maiden Castle Early Iron Age There were nine deposits found at the eastern entrance and within the central areas (Figures 5.169 and 5.170). The perinate from Pit G8 was listed in the archival notes but not in published report and, similarly, perinate burials MC GM1 and PIII, listed by Goodman and Morant (Wheeler 1940: 296) and on the site notes, were added to this period. Single complete inhumations were the most common deposit, followed by single elements (Figures 5.171 and 5.172).

Single Complete Inhumations There were six single complete inhumations: one adult male, and five perinates that ranged from 36 to 45 ±2 gestational weeks (Figures 5.173 and 5.174). In this period, there was a high non-adult to adult ratio. In most cases, the description of the body positioning and presentation was not recorded, and only three burials were formally documented (Table 5.37).

Figure 5.168 Maiden Castle: Site Plan (Adapted from Wheeler 1943 and Sharples 1985)

129

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 5.169 Maiden Castle: EIA Eastern Entrance Burial Distribution (Not shown: GM1, Pit G8 and PIII)

Figure 5.170 Maiden Castle: EIA Central Area Burial Distribution

Figure 5.171 Maiden Castle: EIA Eastern Entrance: Distribution of the New Categories

Figure 5.172 Maiden Castle: EIA Central Area: Distribution of the New Categories

130

Results (I)

Figure 5.173 Maiden Castle: EIA Eastern Entrance: Age and Sex

Figure 5.174 Maiden Castle: EIA Central areas: Age and Sex

Table 5.37 Maiden Castle: EIA: Single Orientation and Position Context

MC

Orientation

T7

Sex/ Age I

LXIV H

8

A

N-S

PIII

I

N-S

Side

Body position Arms behind back, legs flexed

S

Flexed arms and legs Flexed knees, sealed by 2 limestone blocks

Surface Modifications and Associated Finds The few that were identified and available for examination for this period exhibited mild to moderate and moderate+ (0-5) surface modifications. No finds were mentioned with these burials.

Stratigraphic Evidence Wheeler’s excavation techniques were advanced for his era but, as Sharples (1985: 46) stated, the description and interpretation of stratigraphic information was difficult to follow. As a result, the context taphonomic history and nature of the burial sediment was limited and insufficient for analysis.

Maiden Castle Middle Iron Age There were 20 contexts, nine located at the eastern entrance and only four within the central areas suggesting both internal and extramural burials were acceptable (Figures 5.175 and 5.176). The long thin excavation trenches makes it difficult to identify patterning, but there are no obvious differences in treatment of the dead

between those buried within or outside the hillfort. The pit is the most common deposition context, but six contexts could not be included as the original record lacked sufficient burial data (Figure 5.177). By far, the single complete inhumation (n=13, 65%) was the most common burial type (Figures 5.178, 5.179, 5.180).

131

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 5.175 Maiden Castle: MIA Eastern Entrance Burial Distribution

Figure 5.176 Maiden Castle: MIA Central Area Burial Distribution

Note: Two fragmentary non-adult assemblages MSL from site L, infant PI from site P, adult female from Pit Q4, incomplete adult male O3 from site O, and fragmentary foetus H [608] from site H not shown.

8

7

7

Number

6 5 4 3

2

2

2

2

1

1 0 Grave

Pit

Posthole Layer

Gully

Feature

Ditch

Context

Figure 5.177 Maiden Castle: MIA: Contexts

132

Scoop

Trench

Results (I)

Figure 5.178 Maiden Castle: MIA Eastern Entrance Burial Distribution Distribution of the New Categories

Figure 5.179 Maiden Castle: MIA Central Area Burial Distribution Distribution of the New Categories

13

14 12 Number

10 8 6 4 4 2

1

1

1

Multiple Complete Inhumation

Mixed Burial Types

0 Single Element

Multiple Mixed Elements

Single Complete Inhumation Category

Figure 5.180 Maiden Castle: MIA: Human Remains Categories Single Element The only single deposit was described as a c.3 year old child’s cranial fragments (not available for examination).

practice. H [608] was originally considered small fragments of a foetus but, on re-examination, they were unidentifiable. There were seven separate entries with a ‘P’ reference, from Pit Y Site B, including an adult’s incomplete cranium and right femur. O3 was originally considered as an adult’s imperfect skeleton, but this was not available for re-examination.

Multiple Mixed Elements Not all four assemblages were available for reexamination but were considered to best fit in this category and do not suggest a strong depositional

133

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains However, no specific patterns were identified according to the age or sex of individuals. This variability suggests that there were no rigid or strict rules that governed the organisation of burials.

Single Complete Inhumations In total there were 13 single complete inhumations: seven adults (six females and one male), one adolescent and two infants (Figures 5.181 and 5.182). Perinates MC RI, MC T19 and MC PI were aged at c.36 to 44 ±2 gestational weeks (MC PI not shown), i.e. birth age. The dead were placed in a flexed position, with almost equal numbers on the left and right sides with a range of orientations (Table 5.38).

Also illustrated are MC T9, an adult male skull, found in the same pit as MC T14, an adult female (Mixed Burial Type), and perinates MC RII and MC RIII (see Multiple Complete Inhumations).

Figure 5.181 Maiden Castle: MIA Eastern Entrance: Age and Sex

Figure 5.182 Maiden Castle: MIA Central areas: Age and Sex

Table 5.38 Maiden Castle: MIA: Single Inhumation Orientation and Position

Context

MC

Sex/Age

Orientation

Side

Body position

XLVIII

T1

F

E-W

L

Legs flexed

XXXXIV

T13

F

NW-SE

R

Crouched with flexed knees

CII

T17

Ad

E-W

/

Legs flexed (missing cranium)

CXI

T18

F

SE-NW

L

Arms and knees tightly flexed

LIX

T19

I

E-W

/

Crouched

LXXXIII

T24

F

NE-SW

L

Legs tightly flexed

Pit Q4

?Q1

F

S-NE

L

Legs flexed, arms by sides

Pit

N1

M/?M

N-S

R

Legs tightly to body

Pit

N2

F

NE-SW

R

Crouched

Pit R2

R1

I

/

/

? Crouched

P1

I

KEY: F Female, M Male, Ad Adolescent, I Infant, R Right, L Left, ? Possibly

134

Results (I) Multiple Complete Inhumations Pit RI contained the remains of two perinates, MC RII and MC RIII, but their relation to each was unclear. Only MC RIII lacked complete long bones for measurement. However, the dental development was comparable to MC RI and MC RII, and MC RII was re-aged c.37 to 41 ± 2 gestational weeks, i.e. birth age at time of death.

Post-Depositional Movement and Spatial Relationships Two fragmentary deposits of a young child, MC MSL [4A] and [4B], were found within the same context but were recorded separately. It is more than likely that they originated from the same individual. Similarly, the remains of two adults were found in the same context ‘P’ but deposits were listed separately. These remains were probably one deposit but become displaced or dispersed through the layers

Mixed Burial Types In the lower level of Pit T10 was MC T9, an adult incomplete skull, and above in the infilling was MC T14 an adult female on her right side, flexed, lying east-northeast to west- south-west. Wheeler (1945) noted damage made by earlier excavations which may explain some missing bones (see Figure 5.181). The subsequent burial of MC T14 may have disturbed the earlier burial MC T9, which may account for bone loss, or alternatively, only the skull was deposited. Associated Finds Wheeler (1943) documented associated finds with only three (15%) burials: an adolescent T17 with a bone ‘gouge’ and a bead-rim vessel; an adult female (Pit Q4) with a shale bangle, a chalk loom-weight, 117 slingpebbles and pottery sherds; and infant R2 was also found with pottery.

Figure 5.183: Maiden Castle: MIA: Skull of MC T24 exhibiting minimal bone surface modification (Courtesy of LYCHE: digital by author)

Surface Modifications The collection itself exhibited minimal bone surface modification (0-1), and none exhibited faunal damage. This indicates that the dead were unlikely to have been exposed for any length of time and was protected from scavenging animals. A typical example is MC T24 which shows excellent preservation and minimal bone surface erosion (Figure 5.183).

Maiden Castle: LIA There were 19 contexts not associated with the War Cemetery, site P. Wheeler (1943) suggested that burials were in orderly lines, but this reflects his excavated area and not an Iron Age cultural trend (Figure 5.184). The burial position of infants MC P35 and ‘O’, two young children MC 31 and 32and adult female MC T27 are not shown. The burial location is similar to that of the earlier Middle Iron Age. The terms ‘grave’ and ‘pit’ are synonymous and interchangeable in the site records. For example, a probable adult male, MC T25, Wheeler (1943: 350) describes the burial context as ‘Grave an oval pit overlying that of skeleton no. 45’. Consequently, there was no attempt to evaluate burial contexts. On this site, retaining the body whole in death was the only funerary treatment and presentation of human remains (Figure 5.185).

Figure 5.184 Maiden Castle: LIA Eastern Entrance: Distribution

135

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains Single Complete Inhumations For this period there was a higher adult to non-adult ratio, 14 to 5, comprising eight males and six females with one adolescent, one child and three infants (the adolescent, child and one infant were not available for examination). The age at death for infants MC P35 and O was c.39 to 44 and c.38 to 42 ±2 gestational weeks, respectively. Adult male (MC T25) overlay and cut the grave of adult female (MC T26) and are considered as two single burials. There is no segregation or grouping based on the sex of the individual (Figure 5.186). Wheeler (1943: 349) stated that burial orientation was with the head towards the north-east, east or south east, which in itself suggests this was not governed by strict or rigid burial rules. A crouched but preferred term 'flexed' presentation was the usual burial configuration (Table 5.39).

Associated Finds and Surface Modifications Wheeler (1943) documented associated finds with eight (50%) burials; animal remains were noted in three for instances: an adult female (MC T26) with one half of a pig’s skull placed by her head (Figure 5.187). Another three burials contained pottery, whilst one contained two sling shots and one contained bronze spiral toe ring.

Figure 5.185 Maiden Castle: LIA New Categories of Human Remains

Figure 5.186 Maiden Castle: LIA Age and Sex

Figure 5.187 Maiden Castle LIA: MC T26 (Courtesy of LYCHE: digital by author)

Figure 5.188 Maiden Castle LIA: MC T21 (Courtesy of LYCHE: digital by author)

As a whole, like the early periods, these skeletons exhibited minimal to very mild surface modification (0-1) and no faunal teeth marks, which suggest exposure was unlikely. Like MC T24 from the previous period, MC T21 exhibits excellent preservation and minimal bone surface erosion (Figure 5.188).

136

Results (I) Table 5.39 Maiden Castle: Late Iron Age Single Inhumation Orientation and Position Context

MC

Age/Sex

Orientation

Side

Body Position

Site B

31

C

SE

R

Flexed

Site B

32

I

SE

R

Flexed

Trench LII

T3

M

E

S

Knees tightly flexed to right

Trench LVIII

T4

M

NE

R

Crouched

Trench LXI

T5

M

NE

R

Crouched, arms across body

Trench LXV

T6

F

NE

R

Crouched

Trench LXXV

T10

M

ENE

R

Crouched, arms bent over chest

Trench LXXXIII

T11

M

ENE

S

Flexed knees to right, arms bent to sides

Trench LXXXIII

T12

F

ENE

S

Trench C

T16

M

SE

S

Trench CXXVI

T20

M

SSE

R

Tightly flexed knees to right, arms folded across chest Knees flexed to right, L hand on pelvis, R arm extended to R knee Tightly crouched

Trench CXXVII

T21

F

E

P

Trench CXXVII

T22

F

NE

R

Legs bent back from knees, L arm bent at side Crouched

Trench CXXIX

T25

M

NE

L

Crouched, arms bent up to face

Trench CXXIX

T26

F

NW

L

Crouched

Trench CXXXII

T27

F

SE

/

Knees flexed

Trench CXXIX

T29

Ad

E

R

Crouched

Site P?

P35

I

SW-NE

/

/

O

I

N-S

P

/

Key: T27 trench also stated as CXXII, A adult, Ad Adolescent, C Child, I infant, F female, M male, P prone, L left, R right, S supine

P37, this would reduce the single inhumations and increase the multiple inhumations by one. There is no separation or grouping of any one particular category (Figure 5.190).

Maiden Castle: War Cemetery Late Iron Age – Early Roman The location of the burials has changed from the previous groups, and there are a larger number of burials that group within the inner horn of the eastern entrance, overlying the earlier Belgic huts (Figure 5.189: not shown: infants MC P35, MC P37H and adult female MC P37). People travelling in and out, going about their daily activities, would pass by. Not all burials are within the area encompassed by the burial arearound houses, which indicates no strong association (e.g. MC P22 and MC P23). There were 28 contexts that comprised 34 complete skeletons and four other fragmentary skeletons to which this study has included three other deposits: infants MC P37H and MC P35, and MC P15. The single complete inhumation was the most common burial type (n = 18; 64%), followed by multiple complete inhumations (n = 6; 21%), a single mixed burial type (n = 1, 4%). There were three assemblages that reflect disturbance and not intentional deposits; adult limbs (MC P21), adult cranial fragments (MC P15) and a fragmentary adult, unavailable for examination (MC P33). If the context for infant MC P37H was confirmed as the same as adult female MC

Single Complete Inhumations There was no grouping based on the sex or age of the individual (Figure 5.191). There was almost twice the number of males than females, 11 to 6. The two infants, MC P35 and MC P37H (not shown), were aged 39 to 44 and 38 to 43 ±2 gestational weeks, respectively. Thus, birth age at-time-of-death. Wheeler (1943: 351) stated that there was a general east-west orientation, with the head facing either towards the east or the south. The variation suggests that orientation may not have been a rigid aspect and, similarly, that variation can also be observed with body presentation or position. For example, four males were supine and extended, five males and one female were supine with flexed legs to one side, with two males and two females flexed on their right sides and one other female flexed on her left side (Table 5.40).

137

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains However, body configuration varied between contexts and within individuals sharing the same context suggesting that there was not a strict burial regime.

Multiple Complete Inhumations There were six contexts that contained the remains of more than one individual (Figure 5.192). In this case, multiple males, and males and females could share the same burial context. However, there are no contexts that comprised females only. Unlike the single inhumations, the orientation for multiple burials appears to be fairly organised with both individuals being orientated the same and either east-south-east or south-east (Table 5.41).

Mixed Burial Types There was only one context where two individuals (MC P29 and MC P36) were buried at different times with opposing orientations (see Figure 5.192). This may suggest that the rising sun or sunset may be a factor as to where the head was placed.

Figure 5.189 Maiden Castle: War Cemetery Distribution

Figure 5.190 Maiden Castle: War Cemetery: New Human Remains Categories

138

Results (I)

Figure 5.191 Maiden Castle: War Cemetery: Age and Sex Table 5.40 Maiden Castle: Single Burial Orientation and Position MC

Age/Sex

Orientation

Side

Body Position

P2

M

NE

S

Flexed legs to left

P5

F

NE

R

Crouched, hands crossed under chin

P6

M

SSW

S

Flexed legs to right

P8

M

ESE

S

Extended, plough damage, R arm by side

P9

M

SE

S

Extended, arms by side

P11

M

E

S

Flexed legs to left, L arm by side, R arm across body

P12

N

E

?

Knees flexed, arms by side, face down

P14

F

SE

?

Legs flexed, arms behind body? bound

P20

F

SE

S

Flexed legs to right, arms by side

P21

?M

SE

S

R arm by side, L arm across body, legs missing

P28

M

NE

S

Flexed knees to right, hand on abdomen

P30

M

E

S

Extended, R arm by side, L hand on chest

P31

F

SW

L

Crouched hands together on chest

P33

F

NNE

L

Flexed knees to left, R arm over chest

P34

M

SW

R

Crouched, arms; R by side, L across body

P37

F

S

R

P38

M

SE

S

Crouched, R arm straight with wrist between femurs, L bent towards shoulder Extended, loose open flexed legs, R arm across body, L by side

P39

M

SE

R

Loose, crouched, hands by abdomen

P40

F

?N

/

Possibly crouched R side

P35

I

SW-NE

P37H

I

No other details Found with P37 adult female

Four fragmentary skeletons, no other details provided

139

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 5.192 Maiden Castle: War Cemetery: Multiple Complete Inhumations and Mixed Burial Types

Table 5.41 Maiden Castle: War Cemetery: Multiple Burial Orientation and Position

MC P7 P7A

Age/Sex M M

Orientation ESE ESE

Side S S

P19 P19A

F M

SE SE

S R

E ESE

L P

P22 P23

M M

P24 P25 P26

M M F

SE SSE ESE

R L P

P27 P16 P17 P18

M

ESE / / SE

S

M

Body Position Extended, hands by side Extended, partially over P7, hands on chest and pelvis Extended, R arm across chest, L by side Crouched, arms bent across body Loose flexed legs, arms by side Loose flexed open legs, l arm across body, r arm upwards and outwards Slightly flexed Flexed, arms away from body and straight Legs bent back at knee, L arm under body, R arm by side Extended, arms by side Plough damage, possibly one context Legs flexed to left

S

KEY: L left, R right, S Supine, P Prone Table 5.42 Maiden Castle: War Cemetery Mixed Burial Orientation and Body Position MC

Age/s ex

Orientation

Side

Body Position

P29 P36

M F

NE SE

R S

Crouched Leg flexed to right, L arm across body, R side

140

Results (I) Associated Finds Wheeler (1943) recorded associated finds, whether animal remains, pottery or small finds on an individual basis, thus keeping the burial data together (Figure 5.193 and 5.194).

Surface Modifications As for earlier phases, the bones exhibited minimal surface modification (0-1), which suggests it was unlikely that exposure was part of the funerary practice.

Figure 5.193 Maiden Castle War Cemetery: Associated animal bone with adult female MC P20 (Courtesy of LYCHE: digital by author)

Figure 5.194 Maiden Castle War Cemetery: Associated pottery with adult male MC P22 (Courtesy of LYCHE: digital by author) assessing each group’s trends, as opposed to relocating and re-uniting evidence from a number of reports for each burial. Wheeler (1943) created separate burial groupings according to his phasing; however, using similarities in grave goods and location, the Middle and the Late Iron Age burials at the eastern entrance could be considered as one general area with long-term usage (Figures 5.195 and 5.196, see below). These burials appear superseded by others that lie within the inner horn of the eastern entrance overlying earlier dwellings. However, they may represent a different group or more likely, just an extension over time, as Sharples (1985) suggested, the excavation of the War Cemetery was incomplete.

Summary At Maiden Castle, the burial record demonstrates continuity with the single complete inhumation being the most common category found in earthen pits or graves, not disused grain pits, with the majority outside the hillfort. The bones exhibited minimal to mild (0-1) bone surface modification and no faunal teeth marks and despite the lack of stratigraphic and context information, the evidence does not support exposure practices. Consequently, these burials may be useful as a contemporary reference for burial rather than exposure practices. In contrast to the recording methods of later excavations, Wheeler (1943) retained associated finds with each burial, which was more efficient when

Figure 5.195 Maiden Castle: MIA: Eastern Entrance Burials

Figure 5.196 Maiden Castle: LIA: Eastern Entrance Burials

141

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains Chapter 6

Burial Contextual Evidence

6.1 Introduction This chapter examines the evidence observed from many unpublished in situ photographs and plans in relation to their respective contexts. The interpretation is based on an understanding of the decomposition and skeletonisation of the body in various funerary and depositional circumstances. As a result, it offers an interpretation of the original burial context or deposition practice as well as the decomposition behaviour and characteristics (Duday 2006, 2010; Willis and Tayles 2009). Figure 6.1 Winnall Down: MIA: WD 500 Stable burial conditions during and post decomposition (Hampshire Museums and Archives)

6.2 Winnall Down Middle Iron Age There were 10 burial photographs comprising adults and non-adults that show a range of body configurations and skeletal completeness. Adult male (WD 500) lay flexed on the right side. The bones were in anatomically correct alignment and the body retained its skeletal integrity in a fairly spacious pit (Figure 6.1).

Adult female (WD 35) was found in a small oval grave (Figure 6.2). She was tightly contracted on her left side, with the knees drawn up towards the chin. She exhibits some bone displacement and loss of thoracic integrity. Some researchers would interpret this body configuration as evidence for bound, wrapped or bag burial (Duday 2009). The loss of thoracic integrity may indicate progressive infilling as opposed to the immediate grave sediments that would have maintained skeletal integrity. Dry, fine-grained soil will replace the decomposing tissue, thus stabilising the bones. However, if the burial sediments were not fine-grained, this would affect the overall skeletal integrity and be evident from bone movement or displacement. As with adult male WD 500, the description of the burial sediments was not explicit. Thus, it was unclear if the body lay in culturally or naturally induced deposits.

As both upper limbs are ‘free’ from the upper body, this indicates that there was no tight upper body wrapping. The bones of the left upper limb are potentially in disequilibrium and would have fallen into the void or space once freed by the decomposing soft tissue unless they were supported in some manner. The pit did not provide physical support to help retain the skeleton’s configuration or integrity. Only the burial depth (1.3m) and soil description (midbrown loam and chalk rubble) were documented. The nature of the burial sediments was unclear and could equally be the result of cultural activity or natural erosion. Grave or pit fill introduced immediately postdeposition would provide the support and prevent the bones of the left upper limb from falling. Over time the decomposing tissues would eventually be replaced by the burial sediments, thus, locking the skeleton’s posture and retaining skeletal integrity.

Burial sediments can exert pressure and, as the muscle and ligaments decay, the pressure causes the bone intersegmental angles to close (Duday 2009). However, this effect does not occur for extended joints or individuals placed in a semi-flexed configuration. Consequently, WD 35 must have been in a tight configuration at time of deposition, which could have required initial support (binding or wrapping), as well as immediate burial sediments to lock the bones into position.

The burial depth would have provided physical protection from scavenging canids and carrion-feeders, as a cadaver releases decomposing odours that penetrate the soils surface from a depth of 0.3m (Rodriguez and Bass 1985). Alternatively, a wrapped or clothed corpse covered quickly by natural erosion sediments may exhibit the same archaeological signature. The permeability and the rate of decay of the wrapping will have an effect on bone movement. However, in the case of WD 500, skeletal completeness and integrity were probably achieved because the pit was filled immediately and the body was not exposed.

Figure 6.2 Winnall Down: MIA:WD 35 Tightly contracted - possibly bound (Hampshire Museums and Archives)

142

Burial Contextual Evidence (Results II) Similar interpretations can be made for adult females WD 508 and WD 629 (Figures 6.3 and 6.4, respectively). With WD 508, the size and shape of the pit would dictate the corpse’s posture in the first instance, with the pit edges providing support (the ‘wall effect’). In this case, the left radius, ulna and foot bones are in anatomically correct alignment but not articulated. Their displacement probably occurred during the excavation. However, female WD 508 may have been a bag burial, tightly bound or wrapped to ensure that the body fitted into the small pit. As the pit was so small, progressively infilling sediments would not take long, which could result in the same archaeological signature as a corpse decomposing in grave fill immediately post-deposition.

Figure 6.3 Winnall Down: MIA: WD 508 Tightly contracted female in a pit (Hampshire Museums and Archives)

Likewise, for WD 629, the size and shape of this small grave must have had a bearing on the corpse’s burial configuration, with the grave edges providing skeletal support. The upper limbs are loose and away from the body, indicating the absence of any tight upper body wrapping; however, the right hand bones appear to be articulated with each other, and with the ulna and the radius. We need to know the nature of the burial sediment to help interpretation, but clear information is lacking. Thus, as with WD 508, female WD 629 was deposited in a very small ‘hole’, and, if culturally induced burial sediments did not cover the body immediately postdeposition, the grave would fill relatively quickly. These natural erosion sediments would eventually replace decaying flesh and, in doing so, maintain the skeleton’s integrity and bone equilibrium. The only observable difference between the two is the movement or displacement of small bones in the latter case.

Figure 6.4 Winnall Down MIA: WD 629 Crouched female in a grave (Hampshire Museums and Archives)

Conversely, both adult female WD 574 and adolescent WD 174 were deposited in spacious pits where the walls did not provide support (Figures 6.5 and 6.6). The remains of the female (WD 574) are clearly displaced, but the adolescent (WD 174) remained in anatomically correct alignment and articulated, including foot and hand bones.

Figure 6.5 Winnall Down: MIA: WD 574 Scattered remains (Hampshire Museums and Archives)

In this case, there must have been different factors that helped maintain the adolescent’s skeletal stability and integrity. For instance, decomposition in closed space, such as a pit which was soon filled in, would provide protection from scavenging animals and prevent bone displacement and disequilibrium.

Figure 6.6 Winnall Down: MIA: WD 174 Semi-flexed and articulated adolescent (Hampshire Museums and Archives)

143

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains Infant burials WD 488, 531 and 487 (Figures 6.7 - 6.9) are similar to adult WD 574 as they too have suffered from bone displacement and loss of skeletal integrity. However, infant WD 567 is similar to adolescent WD 174 and females WD 629 and WD 508 in that it remains in anatomically correct alignment and articulated (Figure 6.10). Infant bones are small and light, easily dropping through cracks and voids in the matrix, so there must have been different factors that helped maintain this infant’s burial position. There is available space around infants WD 531 and WD 488. Therefore there was no supporting wall or edge, as observed with WD 629 (see Figure 6.4). The pit for WD 487 is small and, in this case, the infant may have been placed in a semi-upright position against the side of the pit. This could account for the bone arrangement; the skull is propped up against the side of pit wall, lying above the thoracic cavity. In contrast, infant WD 567 (Figure 6.10) is clearly lying flat with bones lying at one level and still articulated.

Figure 6.8 Winnall Down: MIA:WD 488 Moderate bone displacement (Hampshire Museums and Archives)

Infant WD 567 more than likely decomposed in a filled space and was culturally covered post-deposition. This provided support and helped maintain skeletal integrity. If infant WD 487 was exposed, the remains would be more scattered and displaced, similar to the situation exhibited with WD 531. Therefore, it is probable that the pit was loosely filled post-deposition, offering partial stability along with any clothing or body wrapping. Finally, at Winnall Down, despite the lack of information on the sediments associated with the burial, there is evidence to support intentional cultural covering of the dead rather than exposure. The corpses maintained their original configuration and skeletal integrity because their remains were supported 'during decomposition when the pit was immediately refilled. In certain cases, body wrapping of some sort was indicated.

Figure 6.9 Winnall Down: MIA: WD 487 Semi-upright configuration (Hampshire Museums and Archives)

Figure 6.7 Winnall Down: MIA: WD 531 Infant scattered remains (Hampshire Museums and Archives)

Figure 6.10 Winnall Down: MIA: WD 567 Flexed and articulated (Hampshire Museums and Archives)

144

Burial Contextual Evidence (Results II) 6.3 Micheldever Wood The only adult (young), MW 193, has retained its original configuration and articulation. The corpse was manipulated to achieve this burial posture, with the forearm across the chest and the feet crossing over at the ankles (Figure 6.11). The thoracic cavity is symmetrical, indicating minimal bone displacement, and the right clavicle is visible, but not ‘verticalised’. The pelvis has ‘opened’ slightly (flattened) with a lateral rotation of the femora and minimal loss of articulation. The left knee is retained in a medial position, slightly more so than the right. There is no displacement of any of the upper limb bones and once the thoracic cavity’s soft tissue had decomposed, the bones of the right hand fell into the ‘free’ thoracic space.

Similarly, loosely flexed infant MW 208, found in the upper layers of Pit 428, exhibited minimal bone displacement; however, the situation for child MW 142 found in the lower basal layers was less clear (Figures 6.12 and 6.13). The child was prone, as illustrated by the posterior view of right humerus and the occipital bones which are both uppermost.

The lack of clavicle verticalisation can indicate the absence of tight upper body wrappings or a narrow grave (e.g. Nilsson Stutz 2006; Duday 2009; Willis and Tayles 2009). The skeleton remains intact, indicating a support of some kind that has prevented bone displacement, such as immediate grave fill. However, the nature of the burial sediments was inconclusive. Skeletal integrity can also be maintained by a perishable wrapping or covering, followed by the progressive fill of sediments replacing the decaying organic wrapping and soft tissue. The former would exhibit greater skeletal stability, whereas progressive replacement of decaying tissue from erosion silts may allow some bone displacement.

Figure 6.12 Micheldever Wood: MW 208: Minimal bone displacement exhibited (Hampshire Museums and Archives)

Figure 6.13 Micheldever Wood: MW 142 Prone child burial (Hampshire Museums and Archives) The original report did not record burial posture or presentation for infants MW 169 and MW 192 (Figures 6.14 and 6.15). Examining the photographic evidence, they both exhibit some bone displacement with the left humeri, appearing in a posterior view, which may indicate they were placed in a prone position. However, small bones can be easily moved, for example by earthworm activity or during the excavation (Henderson 1987). This situation demonstrates that detailed osteological reports are vital when attempting to understand how prehistoric societies dealt with their youngest members in death. In this case, the nature of the burial sediment was not defined. Arguably, the burial sediment and body wrapping supported the corpse, maintaining the skeleton’s stability, whilst sediments progressively replaced their decaying soft tissue.

Figure 6.11 Micheldever Wood: MW 193 Extended and articulated young adult (Hampshire Museums and Archives)

145

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains Conversely, infants MW 207 and MW 236 clearly show bone displacement and total loss of articulation (Figures 6.16 and 6.17). This may indicate that these infants were not placed in a primary filled space, but instead were placed in a void where sediments eventually covered their bodies, allowing bone displacement. However, MW 236 was in a pit with two other infants, where one (MW 208) maintained in anatomical correct alignment, which suggests other factors may have also been involved, for instance, protection and support of some kind (e.g. wrapping and burial depth). Finally, despite the general lack of information on the excavated sediments, the evidence indicates decomposition in a filled space; these individuals were intentionally covered post-deposition and not exposed.

Figure 6.15 Micheldever Wood: MW 169 Minimal bone displacement (Hampshire Museums and Archives)

Figure 6.16 Micheldever Wood: MW 207 Scattered infant remains (Hampshire Museums and Archives)

Figure 6.14 Micheldever Wood: MW 192 Minimal displacement of Infant remains (Hampshire Museums and Archives)

Figure 6.17 Micheldever Wood: MW 236 Scattered infant remains (Hampshire Museums and Archives) intact when the rest of the body failed to do so. This study has shown that it is not unusual to find the upper or lower limbs detached and displaced as a complete unit (see Figure 2.5).

6.4 Danebury During Ceramic Phase 3, DB 61, 13 and 14 were deposited in Pit 374. DB 13 and 14 were found in the lower levels (Layers 5 and 6) and remained complete, whilst DB 61 was found in an upper level (Layer 3) and suffered from bone displacement and loss, apart from one forearm and hand which remained in anatomically correct alignment. Information on the pit revealed that it had been intentionally left open before subsequently being backfilled. Therefore DB 61 was intentionally exposed post-deposition, vulnerable to scavenging animals, wind and water erosion. This scenario correlates with Haglund’s (1997) modern-day scavenging models and explains why DB 61’s hand and upper limb could remain

Three adult males, DB 24, 12 and 6, were assessed (Figures 6.18 to 6.21). Cunliffe (1984: 448) stated that due to their burial posture these males may have been bound prior to deposition. DB 24 was found in Pit P587, described as a small pit (1.5m), and clearly there is little available space either above the head or below the knees (Figure 6.18). So, in the first instance, the pit’s size and shape can dictate to some degree the corpse’s burial configuration. However, despite this, DB 24 is still lying

146

Burial Contextual Evidence (Results II) in a very unusual or awkward burial position; prone with the face turned to the right, the lower limbs are tightly flexed behind him, and the ankles are drawn close to the pelvis, equally spaced either side. This is not the position one would expect if the body was tightly wrapped (e.g. in a shroud) where the lower limbs would be drawn together with the arms close to the body. If the male was placed on his side in a flexed position he would still fit. The original report suggested the hands were pinned under the thorax, although this is not clear from the photograph, but the burial shows that the distal radius and ulna are not directly under the lumbar vertebrae (Figure 6.19).

sediments was not defined, but, if the body had been exposed, the skeleton would be vulnerable to scavenging animals, bone loss and disarticulation. Thus, to retain this level of completeness and articulation, DB 24 decomposed in a filled spaced. Therefore, he was culturally covered with sediments post-deposition, and not exposed. However, the burial configuration or posture appears different to that of other flexed burials e.g. Maiden Castle (see Discussion for further comments on DB 24’s burial configuration and connotation). Pit P343 was a large and spacious pit with adult male DB 12 at one end (Figure 6.20). DB 12 remains in anatomically correct alignment and fully articulated, with the lower limbs uniformly, tightly flexed at the knees. The clavicles appear somewhat verticalised but the positioning of the upper limbs indicates no tight upper body wrapping. Therefore the clavicles’ position is probably the result of movement during the excavation. Like DB 24 above, DB 12 lay within sediments of primary fine light grey/brown soil and chalk fragments which locked the bones into position during decomposition. In this case, there was no osteological evidence to indicate exposure: disarticulation, scattered remains, bone damage or loss, and there were no faunal teeth marks.

Figure 6.18 Danebury CP 3: DB 24 Unusual burial configuration (Cunliffe 1984: 444)

Figure 6.20 Danebury CP 3:DB 12 Open pit and skeletal integrity maintained (Cunliffe 1984: 444) Similarly, at the end of another large pit (Pit P84), was a tightly contracted adult male (DB 6) who lay only 40cm from the ground surface (Figure 6.21). An unprotected corpse in a shallow grave is vulnerable to scavenging animals that can detect a decomposing corpse at depths of c.30cm. Like DB 24 and DB 12, DB 6 lay within similar sediments, fine light grey/brown and chalk fragments. This burial position is similar to that of WD 35 and WD 508 (Figures 6.2 and 6.3) and may be interpreted as evidence for a tightly bound, wrapped or bag burial that has the ability to lock the bones into position whilst sediments replace the decaying organic wrapping and decomposing soft tissue.

Figure 6.19 DB 24 burial plan (Hampshire Museum and Archives) If the hands were bound at the wrists, behind the back, the arms would be in a naturally flexed position. Once the thoracic cavity’s soft tissue has decayed the hand bones would drop into the space or voids left and would appear as if they were under the thorax. The nature of the burial

147

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains The nature of the burial sediments was unclear. It is more than likely that DB 22 decomposed in a filled buried space because the skeleton retained its completeness and integrity. Therefore, the corpse was not exposed. The associated organic and metal artefact was not retained and so, no further examination could take place. The evidence does indicate the wrists were restrained, which in itself is different to a body that has been tightly wrapped or bound, suggesting a particular social motive other than funerary ritual.

Figure 6.21 Danebury CP 3: DB 6 Possible bag burial (I. R. Cartwright: Institute of Archaeology Oxford, 2009) Figure 6.22 shows that, despite being exposed and missing skull, upper limbs and right fibula, some of DB 10 remained intact and articulated. The upper body was moved as one unit and is supine whilst the lower limbs are prone. The axis (C2) is visible, which would indicate that if the skull was still articulated it would be beneath the right fibula and tibia. This is not typical of canid activity where skulls were least likely to suffer damage (Haglund 1997).

Figure 6.23 Danebury CP 4-5: DB 22 Wrist bound female (Cunliffe 1984: 444)

Figure 6.22 Partial and expose remains of DB 10 from P266 (I. R. Cartwright: Institute of Archaeology Oxford, 2009) Figure 6.24 Danebury CP 4-5: DB 22 Burial Plan (Hampshire Museum and Archives)

Cunliffe (1984; 1995) argued that as organic material and a metal attachment were close to the wrists and the hands of adult female DB 22 found in P497; this individual was bound prior to deposition (Figure 6.23). DB 22 remains anatomically correct and articulated, with a ‘butterfly’ crossing of the upper limbs over the chest and the hands together. The right clavicle appears ‘verticalised’, which could indicate a tight upper body wrapping or narrow grave that pushes the shoulders forward and upwards.

Adult male DB 222 was found in a spacious but shallow pit (c.0.75m) lying against and facing the wall (Figure 6.25). No faunal damage was observed and the skeleton was anatomically correct and articulated, including the foot bones. If the corpse lay on one side, once the thoracic cavity‘s soft tissue had decayed the uppermost ribs and clavicle would move into the freed thoracic space, closing the gap between the lower ribs and clavicle. This could give the appearance of a tight wrapping. The nature of the burial sediment was unclear, but for this individual to remain this complete and intact, the decomposing body would need support and protection of some sort (e.g. clothing, shroud, blanket, immediate pit fill). Therefore, DB 222 could not have been exposed.

However, the flexed lower limb with feet spread apart does not indicate a tight lower body wrapping which would draw the ankles and feet together. The plan shows available space for bone displacement if the corpse was not supported in some manner (Figure 6.24). This was no narrow earthen grave supporting the decomposing corpse’s posture and maintaining the bones in equilibrium.

148

Burial Contextual Evidence (Results II) clothing, shroud, blanket) to help maintain skeletal completeness and equilibrium, as there was no immediate pit fill. Wrapped and/or covered corpses would be protected from scavenging animals and the bodily/skeletal support would lock the bones into place.

Figure 6.25 Complete and articulated DB 222 (Cunliffe and Poole 1991: 422, after Mike Rouillard) Adult male DB 240 was found in a small pit P2462 (no photograph). The skeleton lay within a thin layer of brown silt and protruded into the layer above, eroded chalk rubble from the pit walls. Above this layer there was natural silting. This sediment data suggests no deliberate covering of the corpse post-deposition; instead, exposure seems more likely.

Figure 6.26 Danebury CP 6: Exposed but retained completeness and integrity: DB 28, 29 and 30 (Cunliffe 1984: 445)

Therefore, for DB 240 to retain skeletal completeness and integrity, support and protection from something other than pit fill was required. Perhaps, in this case, the body was bound or wrapped to decompose above ground and then was placed in the pit. This treatment might exhibit the same skeletal completeness and integrity, and could account for its articulated state. In P829, Layer 2 were the remains of three complete adult males, DB 28, 29 and 30, lying near the top of a large spacious shallow pit (Figure 6.26). Both DB 28 and 29 are similarly flexed and many bones remain in anatomically correct alignment and articulated. Except DB 28’s left upper limb appears to be in an awkward position - between the legs, under the left femur but over the left tibia and fibula.

Figure 6.27 Teaching skeleton demonstrating DB 30’s position (Photograph by author)

For DB 30 the position is also rather unusual, he is on his back, with the femora lying directly over the upper body and still articulated with the pelvis; however, the lower limbs and upper limbs are displaced (see Figure 6.27). In this case, the stratigraphic evidence indicated that the pit was left open before and after deposition; the skeletons were found in natural erosion silts and chalk shatter. These three adult males retained skeletal completeness and integrity, despite being exposed. Their bodies were prevented from disarticulating, displacement, or suffering from damage and bone loss.

Conversely, DB 27, a young adult male found in P807 was complete and articulated, in a layer of daub, sealed by grey-brown silt and chalk fragment, but appears not to have been placed in a typical flexed burial position (Figure 6.28). DB 27 may have been placed on his right side but a force or pressure (e.g. soil) pushed his upper body to lean forward so that he eventually faced the ground. The burial posture or configuration does not suggest a tight body wrapping or exposure.

For this to happen, their decomposing bodies would require bodily support and protection of some kind (e.g.

However, the labile joints (hand and foot bones) decompose the fastest, but in this case, the feet appear

149

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains still articulated; indicating that there must have been support of kind in order to maintain skeletal completeness and integrity. In this case, it may have been the layer of daub.

and 7) of silt and erosion material, followed by occupation debris (Layer 4). The lack of bone displacement indicates a support of some kind - either immediate pit fill or wrapping. In this case, DB 23 may have been a bag burial or in a wrapping which supported the decomposing corpse, locking the bones into place whilst natural silts eventually covered the body. These sediments progressively replaced decaying organic wrappings and the decomposing soft tissue.

Figure 6.28 Danebury CP 6: DB 27: (Hampshire Museum and Archives) Mature female DB 210 was found in P1822, against the side of a spacious pit and not centrally placed. She lay on her back with her lower limbs tightly contracted so that the knees were brought up to her chest (Figure 6.29). This burial configuration is similar to that of DB 30 who suffered more bone displacement, with the loss of both tibiae and upper limbs (Figures 6.26 and 6.27). The nature of the burial sediment was unclear and subsequent disturbance caused some bone displacement. However, for the most part, DB 210 remained tightly contracted and articulated. Body support and protection would prevent the corpse from being vulnerable to scavenging animals, disarticulation, fragmentation, dispersal and bone loss if it had been placed in a void or an open space.

Figure 6.30 Danebury CP 7 DB 23: possible bag or wrapped burial (Cunliffe 1984: 444) Adult male DB 46 in P1015 was found in an awkward posture, on his back with the lower limbs in different positions, which would not suggest any tight lower body wrapping. He exhibits some thoracic and upper limb bone displacement (Figure 6.31). There must have been protection or support of some kind as the pit was left open post-deposition - evident from the nature of the sediment: erosion material.

Figure 6.29 Danebury CP 6: DB 210 Possible bag burial (Hampshire Museum and Archives) Cunliffe (1984) suggested that adult female DB 23 from pit P582 may have been bound prior to deposition due to the body’s presentation (Figure 6.30). The female was tightly contracted, articulated with no bone displacement, and in a spacious pit. She was found on primary layers (6

Figure 6.31 Danebury CP 7:DB 46: Awkward burial position (Cunliffe 1984: 444)

150

Burial Contextual Evidence (Results II) Pit P2496 contained the remains of three individals: at least two adults (one of which may be a late adolsecent or young adult as the epiphyses had not fused), and a child deposited at the same time; all are listed under DB 242 (Figure 6.32). The photograph clearly shows many scattered and disarticulated bones but, centrally, there are two whole limb ‘units’ (an articulated upper and lower limb). The wide range of skeletal material indicates that these individuals were complete on deposition.

Skeleton 1, adult female DB 49, was found a short distance from the main group and retained completeness and skeletal integrity. She exhibits an unusual body position, with the knees tightly contracted where the heels touch the pelvis and the upper limbs tightly contracted in front of the body and one hand under the chin (Figure 6.34). Stratigraphic evidence indicates that all the bodies were within one layer and so deposited either together or within a short space of time of each other. In this case, one or more factors have protected her from the fate that befell others in the same pit: disarticulation, dispersal, bone loss, and scavenging by animals. It may be that DB 49’s pre- and post-deposition treatment was different; the body was wrapped, positioned and covered by natural erosion material.

The stratigraphic information stated that the remains lay within several layers (3, 4 and 5) but in a thin lens (2040mm thick) of black carnbonised material, with a layer of erosion material directly above. This suggests that the pit was left open post-deposition, leaving the corpses vulnerable to scavenging animals and other bone dispersal, damaging agents and processes. The presence of articulated limbs amongst disarticulated, damaged and dispersed remains fits Haglund’s (1997) profile of modern-day victims of scavengers (see Figure 2.5).

Similarly, another mass burial was found in pit P923 and comprised the partial and scattered remains of four adult males, at least one adult female, one late adolescent or young adult (possibly female), and three children (Figure 6.35). The stratigraphic evidence indicates exposure as the remains lay in erosion material.

Similarly, the remains of three males, three females and three children, along with numerous sling stones were found in another spacious pit, P1078 (Figure 6.33). Despite being in the same context, they exhibit different states of preservation: complete (1), partial (2) scattered (3). The wide range of skeletal material suggests that these individuals were complete on deposition. The pit’s taphonomic evidence was unclear, as one comment stated it was open post-deposition whilst, elsewhere, no distinctive covering of the bodies was recognised.

Combining osteological and stratigraphic evidence provides a useful deposition profile. In this case, these individuals were exposed in an open space which resulted in disarticulation, fragmentation, bone loss and vulnerability from faunal activity.

Figure 6.32 Danebury CP 7: P2496 The exposed and scattered remains of three individuals (Cunliffe and Poole 1991: 422)

151

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 6.33 Danebury CP 7:P1078: Mass burial: exhibiting both articulated and disarticulated remains (I. R. Cartwright: Institute of Archaeology Oxford, 2009)

Figure 6.34 Danebury CP7: DB 49 articulated individual from mass burial P1078 (I. R. Cartwright: Institute of Archaeology Oxford, 2009)

Figure 6.35 Danebury CP 7: P923 Disarticulated individuals from mass burial (Cunliffe 1984:447, photo: Mike Rouillard)

152

Burial Contextual Evidence (Results II) Earlier studies suggested that deposition took place after decomposition had commenced, and missing bones were lost in the process or were removed prior to burial (Wilson 1984). However, the wide range of skeletal material present indicates the opposite. They were complete on interment, but their skeletal state was the result of post-depositional agents or processes. For instance, Figure 6.36 shows a cranium and vertebrae still intact, whilst the mandible has fallen to one side. However, not all multiple burials were found totally disarticulated and scattered. For instance, Figure 6.37 shows the burial plan of pit P935 which comprised the almost complete remains of a male (DB 43), a female (DB 44) and a 10-12 year old child (DB 45). Although they were left in an open pit, as evidenced by the bodies lying in chalk shatter, erosion material, some bones remained articulated. The male lay on his back, with the right upper limb stretched away from the body and the lower limbs flexed to his left. The left lower limb was tightly contracted so that the foot was drawn towards the pelvis. The head and left shoulder were not articulated and the left upper limb and some of the ribs were displaced. The female was centrally placed. She lay on her back with her lower limbs flexed to the right as were her displaced upper limbs but she faced left, towards the child. The child lay face down, with flexed upper limbs, hands under the chest, displaced lower limbs, and with a horse skull close to its head. A corpse decomposing in a void or open space with no constrictions or support will eventually disarticulate, disperse and lose skeletal integrity. This has not happened for the individuals in P935.

Figure 6.36 Danebury CP 7: Intact cranium and vertebrae from mass grave (I. R. Cartwright: Institute of Archaeology Oxford, 2009)

The original report stated that adult male DB 16 found in pit P383, was ‘squashed’ head first and his legs were bent to fit pit’. No orientation or drawings were possible. However, examining, the in situ photograph, this is clearly another unusual body configuration or body posture (Figure 6.38). Soil pressure can account for some closure of intersegmental angles between bones, but not for an extended or lightly flexed corpse.

Figure 6.37 P935: Burial plan (Hampshire Museum and Archives)

The origin of the sediments was not defined, but DB 16 has retained skeletal completeness and integrity, as evident from the foot on the edge of the hole. Therefore, this individual was in a stable burial environment that supported and protected his body maintaining his body configuration. The evidence from Danebury indicates that there was exposure as well as another practice that retained the body whole in death. Furthermore, the body configuration or posture could indicate that bodies were tightly wrapped or contained in bags. The connotations of both practices are explored in Chapter 7. Figure 6.38 Adult male DB 16 squashed head first into undercut of P383 (I. R. Cartwright: Institute of Archaeology Oxford, 2009)

153

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains 6.5 Suddern Farm Cunliffe and Poole (2000:166) stated that the excavation was rapid to avoid theft and, as a result, only the major deposits were carefully excavated, drawn and photographed before lifting, but neonates were removed without any drawing or photography. In general, the pits or graves are small and irregularly shaped, just big enough for a flexed or tightly contracted corpse and in some cases, later burials disturbed earlier ones (Figures 6.39 – 6.43). This suggests that the location and grouping of the dead away from the domestic area was the main concern, with either the lack of burial markers, social memory or intentional re-use of a burial context.

Figure 6.39 Suddern Farm SF C21 complete, flexed and articulated (Cunliffe and Poole 2000: 162)

There are two options: first, the pit was dug and the body was manipulated to fit the grave or, secondly, the body was bagged or tightly wrapped and then the pit was dug to the appropriate size. In both instances, the body presentation would be the same, whether the body was flexed or tightly contracted. Despite retaining excellent skeletal integrity and bone connections, there is some bone displacement which may have occurred during the excavation. Adult male SF C21 is flexed on his left side where the usual methods of detecting a tight upper body wrapping or a narrow grave are of little value (Figures 6.39). The upper right clavicle and ribs would move into the thoracic cavity once the soft tissue had decomposed, and the same applies to SF C26, SF C27 and SF C30 (Figures 6.40, 6.41 and 6.42). So in this case, other evidence is required to understand which factors were involved for these skeletons to retain complete and articulated.

Figure 6.40 Suddern Farm SF C26 complete with additional loose bones (Cunliffe and Poole 2000: 162)

The burial depth was not recorded, but taking measurements from the quarry section, it could not be greater than around 1m (see Figure 5.183). Scavenging animals can detect a decomposing corpse at depths of 0.3m or 1ft (Rodriguez and Bass 1985). So burial depth may have been a factor if the dead were immediately covered post-deposition. However, on this site, the nature of the burial sediment was unclear as the burials were dug into abandoned parts of the quarry which comprised chalk rubble and silt mixed with natural eroded material. Consequently, it is uncertain whether burials were intentionally covered with silt and natural erosion material or naturally covered. Such small pits would infill quickly, and the result would be the same.

Figure 6.41 Suddern Farm C27 complete, flexed, articulated (Cunliffe and Poole 2000: 161)

Figure 6.42 Suddern Farm C30 tightly contracted (Cunliffe and Poole 2000: 164)

154

Burial Contextual Evidence (Results II) Disturbed burials were evident from the loose collections of bones from features, which suggest the movement of bones where physical boundaries were either insufficient or unimportant (see Figure 5.154 and 5.155). In particlar, adult male (SF C20) was disturbed by the later burial of an adolescent (SF C19), suggesting a noncontemporaneous burial (Figure 6.43). The lower burial, SF C20, lay in an awkward position, prone with the upper body lying over the lower body, and with the arms tightly flexed beneath the chest and flexed lower limbs. The sacro-iliac joint is still articulated and the femoral heads still sit within the acetabula. The posture suggests that SF C20 was face down and tightly flexed before being disturbed by the burial of the adolescent. Figure 6.43 Suddern Farm: SF C20 disturbed by later burial SF C19 (Cunliffe and Poole 2000: 165)

Adolescent SF C19 was lying on his back, tightly flexed over the top of burial SF C20. The positions are illustrated using the laboratory skeleton (Figures 6.44 and 6.45). Retaining this position could involve a support of some kind; wrapping and/or binding to lock the bones into place and maintain equilibrium. The wrapping may conceal the body’s configuration, which might explain SF C20’s unusual postition.

Figure 6.44 showing prone tightly flexed

Figure 6.45 showing supine tightly flexed

6.6 Winklebury Hillfort There were three unpublished photographs; the first was of adolescent WK 3910, who was complete and articulated (Figure 6.46). The right clavicle appears verticalised but the left was not, which suggests movement during excavation rather than as a result of funerary treatment. The left humerus extends away from the body, whereas the right is close, which indicates no tight upper body wrapping or narrow earthen grave. The adolescent was supine, with the lower limbs to one side and the knees drawn up to the chest, indicating a tight flexed position. The burial depth c.1.5m would have provided physical protection from scavenging animals, but the nature of the burial sediment was not defined as either a cultural deposit or erosion material. Thus, it is unclear whether intentional pit fill was the source of skeletal support or not. Figure 6.46 Winklebury: WK 3910 Complete and articulated adolescent from P3834

155

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains In contrast, the original report described adolescent WD 2745 in Pit P2615 as in a very disturbed state; perhaps it had been thrown in. However, in this case, burial sediment was documented; the pit had naturally silted (Figure 6.47). Consequently, there is evidence to support exposure, leaving the adolescent vulnerable to faunal activity and other bone loss and dispersal agents.

This exposure profile compares with that of individuals exposed at Danebury. Despite the lack of sediment or stratigraphic evidence for adult WK 1624, the scattered and disarticulated remains suggest that they too underwent the same post-depositional fate as WK 2745 (Figure 6.48).

Figure 6.47 Winklebury: Exposed and disarticulated adolescent WK 2745 (Hampshire Museums and Archives)

Figure 6.48 Winklebury: Disarticulated adult P1614 in WK 1624 (Hampshire Museums and Archives)

156

Burial Contextual Evidence (Results II) 6.7 Maiden Castle This site was excavated during the 1930’s when stratigraphy was in its infancy and thus, sediment data is limited. However, analysing skeletal presentation can help understand burial practices. There were six inhumations dated to the Early Iron Age period; one adult male and five perinates, but only the adult ‘foundation burial’ was photographed and the section of the burial was drawn (Figures 6.49 and 6.50). The skeleton is complete and fully articulated, and despite the clavicles appearing verticalised, the flexed upper and lower limbs do not indicate a tight shroud wrapping the body. The plan shows that the upper body was propped up against the side of the pit wall with the head sitting directly over the neck. This might explain the position of the clavicles; alternatively, they may have been moved during excavation. The plan also shows the right knee flexed and upright, yet the photograph indicates a chalk block beneath the right femur but not the tibia or fibula (arrowed). If the pit was not filled, the chalk block would have maintained the femur’s equilibrium but not that of the tibia or fibula, which would have fallen into a space or void, becoming disarticulated. That did not happen, suggesting that the body decomposed within a filled space, thus, it was covered maintaining skeletal integrity.

Figure 6.50 Maiden Castle: EIA Stratigraphic record: Adult foundation burial (Wheeler 1943: Plate XLVI)

Figures 6.51 to 6.54 show Middle Iron Age burials, and typically they are complete, generally well articulated and exhibit minimal bone displacement. MC T13’s pit was spacious, with enough room for bone displacement if the body was not supported during decomposition (Figure 6.51). The left femur is displaced from the pelvis, and the hand and foot bones are not articulated, but this is probably a reflection of the excavation technique. A small chalk block appears to be in the mouth and may have fallen into the space left by decomposing soft tissue. MC T1 exhibits a similar position, flexed on the left side, with small bones not articulating. Again, this probably reflects the excavation technique (Figure 6.52).

Figure 6.51 Maiden Castle: MIA: MC T13 complete and mainly articulated (Wheeler 1943: Plate XLV)

Figure 6.52 Maiden Castle: MIA: MC T1 intact with flexed arms and legs (Wheeler 1943: Plate XLV) Figure 6.49 Maiden Castle: EIA: Complete and articulated foundation burial (Wheeler 1943: 39)

157

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains Similarly, the tightly contracted MC T18, with both upper and lower limbs drawn in towards the body, exhibits some bone displacement of the lower limbs and foot bones (Figure 6.83). The same reasoning applies to the appearance of MC T13. MC T1, M T18 also show loss of articulation. However, the skeleton found in Pit Q4 exhibits a different position. All the bones are on anatomically correct alignment and articulated, with no displacement (Figure 6.54). The position of the extended upper limbs, slightly away from either side of the body, the non-verticalised clavicles, and the flexed lower limbs, do not suggest a tightly wrapped body. However, if unsupported, the right sacro-iliac joint would not retain its articulation and the right ilium would fall into the void and rest on the right hand. So, again, a support of some kind would be necessary to provide a stable and supportive environment for a decomposing corpse in order for the bones to remain in equilibrium.

Figure 6.54 Maiden Castle: MIA: MC Pit Q4 Stable and supportive burial environment (Wheeler 1943: Plate XLVII)

Figure 6.55 shows the only photograph of a non-adult, child MC 31 found in a pre-Roman pit on site B, beneath the later Roman temple. Child MC 31 appears in a semisitting flexed position, which probably reflects the pit’s size and shape. The child was largely complete with minor bone displacement, and, as with the adults, the funerary ritual entailed keeping the body whole. MC T20 is complete and mainly articulated, with minimal bone displacement (Figure 6.56). The clavicles appear verticalised, which could suggest tight body wrapping, but under normal circumstances when the body decomposes whilst lying on its side, the upper clavicle’s movement and arrangement is governed by forces such as gravity and soil movement.

Figure 6.55 Maiden Castle: LIA: MC 31 Semi–seated and complete (Wheeler 1943: Plate XLVII)

Figure 6.53 Maiden Castle: MIA: MC T18 exhibits some bone displacement (Wheeler 1943: Plate XLVI)

Figure 6.56 Maiden Castle: LIA: MC T20 Stable and supportive burial environment (Wheeler 1943: Plate XLVI)

158

Burial Contextual Evidence (Results II) In some cases, the photographic angle did not fully illustrate the burial positioning. One example is MC T12, an adult female who lay on her back with tightly contracted lower limbs to the right. Seemingly only half the skeleton was excavated outside of the bank, as the lower vertebrae, pelvis and lower limbs are disappearing into the very shallow excavation hole cut into the bank (Figure 6.57). Therefore, these bones lay within and under the bank itself, whereby, requiring the excavator to be positioned at the skull end, reaching and digging into the bank in order to excavate these bones. Similar to T12 is MC T20, an adult male with even more of his skeleton disappearing into the bank (Figure 6.58). Most of MC T20’s thoracic cavity, pelvis, lower limbs and feet appear well within the bank itself, unlike the. skull and cervical

vertebrae which are outside the the trench edge. There is little excavation space either side of the skeleton and so, like MC T12, the excavator would have been positioned at the skull end, digging into the bank in order to excavate MC T20. To the right of the skeleton lay a clavicle, this is not in the expected position for a body that supposedly decomposed on its side. If that had happened, the clavicle would have fallen inside the thoracic space once the soft tissue had decomposed. In addition, there is no indication of a pit or grave, as the area beneath the skeleton is devoid of any burial evidence. However, it is possible that the skeleton was moved during excavation and replaced after the section was cleaned for photography.

Figure 6.57 Maiden Castle: LIA: MC T12: Skeleton disappearing into bank (Wheeler 1943: Plate XLVII)

Figure 6.58 Maiden Castle: LIA: MC T4 Skeleton disappearing into bank (Wheeler 1943: Plate XLVII)

Wheeler (1943) considered the War Cemetery burials to relate to the Roman Conquest but a later study by Sharples (1985) suggested that the evidence was not

convincing and suggested a transition point between the Late Iron Age and Early Roman periods (Figures 6.59 and 6.60).

Figure 6.59 Maiden Castle: War Cemetery overview (Wheeler 1943: Plate LII)

159

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 6.60 Maiden Castle: War Cemetery burials and post-holes of underlying Belgic huts (Wheeler 1943: Plate LII) Both female MC P20 and male MC P34 were placed in a semi-flexed position and exhibit a similar trait; the body is not totally level with the ground (Figures 6.61 and 6.62). Instead, the head is propped up against the wall perhaps acting like a pillow, or the pit was just not big enough. Both burials exhibit bones in potential disequilibrium; that is, they would fall into a void or empty space unless they were supported. In the case of MC P20, the humeri, clavicles and pelvis do not exhibit a posture that suggests a tight body wrapping or a narrow grave. The humeri are not raised forward or medially rotated, the clavicles are not verticalised, but the pelvis has flattened. With MC P34, the clavicle has not moved into the expected position for a body that decomposed on its side. The upper clavicle and ribs would fall into thoracic space through natural gravity and soil movement, once the thoracic cavity’s soft tissue has decomposed. However, it is possible that the clavicle may have been moved and incorrectly replaced during excavation. The evidence indicates that both MC P20 and MC P34 decomposed in a filled space; i.e. the pit or grave fill supported the body and preserved its skeletal integrity (Figures 6.61 and 6.62).

Figure 6.61 Maiden Castle: MC P20: The foot bones were in potential disequilibrium and would have fallen with loss of skeletal integrity if not supported (Wheeler 1943: Plate LII)

The graves for MC P20 and MC P34 appear small for their occupants and likewise for adult male MC P6 (Figure 6.63). Originally, Wheeler (1943) considered MC P6 to be lying on his back with his knees drawn to the north, or north-east. However, MC P6 is in a semi-flexed sitting position, with knees that lean against the side of the grave wall. Clearly, both the skull and knees (left patella anatomically correct) are above the height of the grave. It is possible that during the excavation the ground level was taken down to expose MC P6. However, the cemetery photograph clearly shows that other burials were within the height of their graves (Figure 6.60).

Figure 6.62 Maiden Castle: MC P34: The foot bones have retained some skeletal integrity and bone equilibrium, however, the left clavicle has not moved into the free thoracic cavity space (Wheeler 1943: Plate LII)

160

Burial Contextual Evidence (Results II)

Furthermore, the left femoral condyles sit above the proximal tibia, which would not normally occur. The grave is narrow around the upper body, which could explain the uniformity of the thoracic cavity, the oblique position of the clavicles, and the rise of both shoulders anteriorly and superiorly. However, the pelvis has marginally flattened (opened) and the splayed lower limbs suggest that the body was not confined by a shroud or other similar body wrapping. The body position can reflect the circumstance of the burial environment. For instance, MC P9 is extended with the head ‘propped up’, but the body lay in a slumped or slouched position due to the grave being deeper in the middle than at either end (Figure 6.65). The clavicles appear verticalised, suggesting a narrow grave or shroud. However, the left humeral head has drifted away from the scapula’s glenoid cavity and retains strong articulation with the ulna and radius. It is probable that the clavicles were displaced and replaced during the excavation.

Figure 6.63 Maiden Castle: MC P6: Too big for the grave? (Wheeler 1943: Plate LII) Both adult males MC P30 and MC P9 were extended and similar to MC P20 and MC P24, with their heads propped up against the grave wall (Figures 6.64 and 6.65). The position of MC P30’s lower limbs, flexed and splayed outwards at the knees (reduces the length of the individual),, and that of the skull sitting forward on the chest, supports the idea that the corpse’s body was manipulated to fit a too short a grave.

Figure 6.64 Maiden Castle: MC P30: Too long for the grave? (Wheeler 1943: Plate LII)

Figure 6.65 Maiden Castle: MC P9 Slumped grave dictates bone configuration (Wheeler 1943: Plate LII) MC P22 and MC P23, two adult males, were buried simultaneously and exhibit the same head ‘propping up’ trend, but in this case, their lower limbs are entwined (Figure 6.66). Again, the grave appears too short for its occupants and their positions reflect manipulation to fit

the space. MC P23’s lower limbs are flexed 'and splayed outwards from the knees, with the left foot not visible, whilst MC P22 was placed on his left side, with flexed knees and MC P23’s right lower limbs between his own. The three feet against the wall of the grave, are still

161

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains articulated and would be in potential disequilibrium, and likewise for MC P22’s right femur and tibia. Despite MC P23’s left tibia marginally dropping, these individuals decomposed in a filled space that retained their skeletal integrity. Similarly, MC P19 and MC P19A, an adult female and male, were buried together, also exhibit evidence of body manipulation to fit the grave. The main cemetery photograph, Figure 6.60, and the grave photograph, Figure 6.67, show different aspects of this double burial. For instance, the cemetery photograph, Figure 6.60 shows the extended female ‘propped up’ by the slope of the grave looking towards the male. If the grave had been enlarged, the male could have had a similar burial configuration or posture to that of the female, i.e. extended. Instead, his body was manipulated to fit the available space; the lower limbs were flexed at the knees which results in shortening the length of the body. His lower limbs were placed over the females lower limbs indicating the female was placed in the grave first, followed by the male. The individual grave

photograph of this double burial shows a pot still in situ (not present in main cemetery picture, Figure 6.60) and loses the overall contextual evidence or relationship the occupants have within their grave. The female appears to lying flat rather than semi-upright caused by the rise of soil at one end of the grave, the ‘look’ between the two is less obvious, and more importantly, understanding the male’s body configuration has been lost. These two photographs illustrate the need to carefully consider the camera’s view and whether it will transmit all the evidence; otherwise vital depositional information will be lost. Despite this disparity between the photographs, clearly both individuals retained in anatomically correct positions. The female’s pelvis has opened or flattened, indicating no tight constrictions. The male’s feet lay against the side of the grave retaining strong bone connections or articulation; however, his left patella is out of position which may have occurred during the excavation.

Figure 6.66 Maiden Castle: MC P22 and MC P23 - Decomposed in a filled space (Wheeler 1943: Plate LII)

Figure 6.67 Maiden Castle: MC P19 and P19A - Body manipulation (Wheeler 1943: Plate LII) The majority of burials were complete and articulated, retaining skeletal integrity and equilibrium. Despite the lack of information on the associated burial sediments, there is evidence to suggest that the grave or pit was filled and thus, the dead decomposed in a filled space and were

not exposed. Some graves appear too short or small for the individual(s) and the corpses’ burial configuration was manipulated to fit the available space. Therefore, burial variation was the result of a practical solution rather than a funeral trend.

162

Discussion Chapter 7

Discussion

7.1 Approach and Recording A long-term problem with Iron Age burials is the recording system. For instance, Lucas (2001) found that in a survey of published reports from 1913 to 1996, there had been changes due to specialisms emerging in archaeology and, as a result, artefacts have become disbursed to specialists. For Maiden Castle, Wheeler (1943) published all associated finds with the remains, such as animal bone, ceramic ware, and metal objects, but provided no detailed stratigraphic evidence. The latter aspect reflects that up till then, stratigraphy was not established in archaeology. Hooper’s (1984) field notes for Danebury documented associated finds: animal remains, ceramic ware and, in some instances, the nature of the burial sediment. However, in the published report, finds and burial data were divided amongst the relevant specialists with the result that in the human remains section only contained brief and generalised comments, with only a few specific examples. Similarly, for Micheldever Wood, field observations documented associated finds (e.g. animal remains and ‘associated pots’) and burial sediment data, but very little of this was transferred into the published report. Likewise for Winnall Down, the published report contained the standard and basic information: phase, location, context, age, sex, stature and any pathology with only one mention of grave goods: a shale bracelet and bronze thumb ring. However, field documents noted ‘saucepan pots’ with several burials, but this information was absent from the published report.

There are several studies from which this current thesis developed: those that advocated excarnation and secondary rites (Ellison and Drewett 1971; Wilson 1981; Walker 1984; Wait 1985; Cunliffe 1992; Carr and Knüsel 1997; Carr 2007), and those that challenged our understanding of the archaeological record. For instance, Hill (1995) argued that current approaches to recording were not suitable for Iron Age deposits and that the remains could be affected by a wide range of taphonomic processes which needed to be explored further. In addition to this was the frequent re-use of old human remains reports that weakly integrated human osteology within Iron Age studies (Watts 2005). This led to following two paths: the first to reconsider the current recording methods, drawing on Outram et al.’s (2005) integrated approach for understanding prehistoric comingled and the co-mixed deposits; and second, the incorporation of taphonomy to understand history of the deposit (Gifford 1981; Haglund and Sorg 1997, 2002). Taking a taphonomic approach, this study draws on a range of scientific research that examines the presence and nature of archaeological remains (e.g. Bonnischen 1989). For instance, Boddington et al. (1987: 5) stated that our understanding of the burial record is not without limitations; the degree of human involvement with the burial rite, survival of the remains, and our ability to recover such evidence, can all affect the interpretation of the archaeological record. Following those lines of thought, Bello and Andrews (2006) considered the preservation of remains and its influence on the interpretation of funerary behaviour using three medieval and three post-medieval collections. As the Iron Age is typified by few formal cemeteries and numerous fragmentary remains, further research was sought to expand on bone survivorship in different burial circumstances. Examples include Haglund’s (1997) modern-day exposure and scavenging models, and the different decomposing characteristics of a corpse in its unique burial environment (Duday 2006; Willis and Tayles 2009).

The root of the problem lies with our expectations of a burial and grave goods; for example Whimster (1981) argued that, in the past, the lack of ‘recognizable’ or ‘formal’ grave goods hindered the recording of pitinhumations. Few contained deliberately placed ceramics and collections of animal bones. A few years later, Walker (1984: 443) stated that inhumations were never accompanied by grave-goods in the accepted sense of the word and, similarly, Wait (1985) argued that omissions from early excavations may have reflected the presumption that animal bones represented the remains of food, and as a result were not recognised and adequately reported.

Based on scientific research, a three pronged attack was employed to understand and retrieve physical or material evidence from the Iron Age human remains, the context, and their organisation within their individual contexts. It is possible to identify and distinguish cultural activity from natural processes in all three areas as a means to interpret funerary and deposition practices. This approach is distinctly different from previous traditional descriptive archaeological field observations and anthropological analogies that are currently used to interpret Iron Age funerary practices. Instead, it presents a science and evidence-based interpretation.

Hill’s (1995) study identified the division of archaeological material, recognised their study in isolation, and attempted to re-unite the components of burials, such as pits, animal bones and ceramics, to examine their relationships to one another. He also considered the ‘C’ and ‘N’ formation processes for survival in the archaeological record. However, Lucas (2001) suggested that the style of the report did not matter; all finds were still separated into different chapters or sections. Thus, archaeological data have been separated or partitioned with our sense of ordering which has become a model for subsequent reports, developed from historical and theoretical circumstances (Lucas 2001).

163

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains deposits and sites. For example, at Danebury, a flagship site of Iron Age Britain, Poole (1995: 259) stated that the animal bone found in the second decade of the excavation did not undergo the same detailed analysis as those found in the first. Poole then went on to state that, as a result of this, Grant’s (1984) study of the faunal remains from Danebury’s first ten years of excavation, where she identified ‘special animal deposits’, had been taken as a representative sample for the whole collection.

In short, without the integration of burial data, things, including human remains, become dissociated, detached and unrelated to their original setting. More recently, Sharples (2010: 254) stated there was: ‘no possibility of providing detailed consideration of all the different issues that Hill raised, as it provides a serious methodological challenge to the way every archaeologist when working in later prehistory should interpret their data’. However, objects move and work in multicultural contexts; they are context-specific in terms of meaning or significance and have their own biographies. A pit, ditch, human or animal remains, each has its own taphonomic history that has to be analysed and then each amalgamated in order to re-construct the depositional and behavioural practices.

Thus, terminology must be universally accepted or, at the very least, the definition must be clearly stated as in this case - co-mingled remains could represent two different deposits. Therefore, in order to calculate the frequency of each entails returning to the primary evidence and in this study, ‘co-mixed’ referred to assemblages that comprised both human and animal remains. More recently, Outram et al. (2005) used an integrated approach for the study of Velim Skalka, Czech Republic. Here the value of an integrated recording method of co-mixed assemblages was illustrated.

Consequently, as this research was concerned with funerary and deposition behaviour, it was essential to develop a simple integrated recording system to collate and document all relevant burial data. Unlike previous studies, this current study has provided a framework where physical or material evidence from each site can be directly compared in a standardised manner. Trauma and pathology did not feature highly in this study but were recorded at the data collection point. This was intentional, to prevent the attention being drawn away from the main emphasis of the research - funerary and deposition behaviour.

This method allowed direct comparisons of patterns of butchery/trauma and fracture evidence that, in this instance, showed clear differences. Using this concept, the current study attempted to estimate the total number of contexts (not just pits), the number containing only human remains, and those containing both human and animal remains, to place them into an overall perspective. The remit of the thesis was not to include the animal remains’ taphonomic histories or to re-evaluate ‘special deposits’, but rather to explore the practicalities of integrating data and to offer a general numerical value for these deposits.

Despite Sharples’ (2010) somewhat negative approach to the methodological challenge, the findings of this study have provided a more comprehensive burial account of the six Iron Age sites. However, the process of reassembling all relevant burial data was problematic. The burial information was divided between various documents which were all required for each deposit of human remains. For instance, burial depth is considered a key factor for good preservation, but it was infrequently recorded and, when it was, could either be documented on the context sheet, the human remains report or, in some instances could only be estimated from section drawings. Improving the method of recording prehistoric burials does not make other recording documents superfluous (e.g. the context sheet); instead, it will reduce the research time and inconsistencies found between the various reports.

This aspect of the research was not totally satisfactory; to simply calculate the overall number of contexts, and then those with and without animal remains for perspective, proved to be a more complicated task than expected. It is obviously wholly dependent on the level of recording at the time of the excavation and requires searching through numerous documents. As one would expect, sites that were excavated under rescue circumstances suffered from lack of time and/or manpower to complete recording (e.g. Micheldever Wood). Similarly, at Winklebury, the remains of thirteen rodents were associated with skeleton 1624. This information was documented on the context sheet but not on the human remains report or ‘BONECAT’. However, the species was listed under ‘small mammals’ in the published report with no further details concerning the context.

7.2 Structured Deposits and Integration Terminology previously used to describe Iron Age mixed assemblages varied; ‘co-mingled’ could refer to the mixed remains of more than one individual or, in other cases, refer to assemblages containing both human and animal remains. To add to this dilemma, the recording system did not fully appreciate the complexity of this type of deposit. For example, Outram et al. (2005: 1700) stated that co-mingled assemblages were poorly reported as they fell outside the standard recording practices. No single ‘standardised’ method seems to have been used for the recording of animal remains (e.g. number of fragments, density and subjective ranges for skeletal completeness), which made it difficult to compare

In this study, a ‘Mixed Burial Types’ category was created to identify and place into perspective other depositional behaviour that previous systems did not consider. In this case they were either noncontemporaneous burials or combinations of deposits. It is possible that with detailed recording of context, layers and finds, a co-mixed assemblage or context could be placed in a category similar to this. For example, Pit 00302 from Flagstones, a first century BC (Late Iron Age) settlement in Dorset, contained a combination of

164

Discussion were conjoined (mechanically) confirming that they originated from the same individual.

both human and animal remains, either within the same layer or in non-contemporaneous layers (Smith et al. 1997). On the basal layer were three cattle skulls, in the layer above were both horse and cattle limbs and infant’s cranial fragments, and in the layer above this were more cattle limbs, a horse mandible, a dog skull and half a jar. Lying above this was a tightly contracted complete adult (probably female). During this period, Pit 00302 was chosen to be a continuous deposit context, whilst each deposit may mark a different social ‘event’. However, returning to the same pit suggests repetitive behaviour expressed in different forms of deposits. This type of depositional behaviour can be seen happening at some of the sites in this study and, in particular, Danebury. However, when individual specialists produce single entity reports, the whole depositional history of the pit and its contents becomes diffuse and dissociated. Therefore, we lose the complete picture of cultural participation involved with the deposit and contexts.

Consequently, there does not appear to be a strict deposit scheme for any particular context and, therefore, the concept of the pit burial tradition does not provide the whole picture of Iron Age funerary and deposition practices. This suggests that other factors may have been involved, such as the location, personal choice or other social requisites. 7.4 Burial Distribution Our concept of Iron Age burial distributions has been based on excavated areas and previous studies agree that there was a poor burial record for the period. The distribution of burials has been studied according to their location within the settlement or hillfort (e.g. periphery or ditch) where infants were considered more likely to be found within the settlement. Wait’s (1985:116) ‘intuitive’ study concluded that complete inhumations would be grouped rather than scattered was not demonstrated at Danebury, Winklebury, Micheldever Wood or, in some respects, Winnall Down which had two main groups and four outliers (n=14).

Hill (1995) argued for all quantitative information to be recorded with the basic context description. This study goes further to demonstrate that an integrated approach is essential from the onset to prevent the disaggregation of the burial record, a point acknowledged by others from various archaeological perspectives (Outram et al. 2005; Knüsel et al. 1997; Hodder 1997; Duday 2006). In doing so, this study has broken the mould of previous years where the trend was for individual specialisms that separated archaeological data. Instead, this study has demonstrated the value of retaining and integrating all burial data.

In her study of 53 sites, Wilson (1981: 141-144) argued that, in most cases, burials within settlements were away from habitation areas. Whilst Wait (1985: 116) suggested a later shift in burial distribution from the perimeter to the interior; a trait observed during the Early to Middle Iron Age settlements at Winnall Down. Unlike Wilson (1981), he suggested there was insufficient evidence to support the association between burial location and domestic areas whereas, Whimster (1981: 5) considered that Iron Age inhumations would be isolated burials located within the settlement but not as a part of a formal cemetery a view that is not supported by the evidence from Micheldever Wood. In this banjo enclosure there was no evidence of post structures or dwellings, burials were found within the enclosure ditch and around the interior periphery but not within the central areas. Furthermore, Whimster’s (1981) model does not apply to Suddern Farm where the burials were outside the settlement. It appears that on this site, the community intentionally designated a collective area for the dead, away from the living area, for all members of its society. In doing so, they created a clear division and two zones; one for the living and the other for the dead.

7.3 Pit Burials It was Whimster’s (1981) study on burial practices in Iron Age Britain where the pit burial tradition became rooted in our Iron Age literature but, in fact, they were selected from a larger body of burial data on the basis that they conformed to a funerary practice, and other contexts were an extension. The results of this study have shown that, despite pits being the most common context, there were a number of other contexts that contained a variety of human remains: ditches, layers, features, under ramparts, scoops, graves and post-holes. However, there are no differences in the type of deposit of human remains found in these contexts when compared to pits. Both adult and non-adult complete inhumations were found in ditches at Micheldever Wood (Section 19B), whereas at Danebury post-holes were found to contain a number of infant remains (e.g. DB PH10010), and adult inhumations were found under ramparts as well as in pits. Similarly, at Winnall Down, during the Early Iron Age, the remains of a complete infant were deposited within the enclosure ditch (WD 3513), along with a number of adult multiple mixed assemblages. Adult skull fragments were found in pits and under ramparts at Danebury, and similarly at Micheldever Wood, skull fragments were found in the enclosure ditch as well as in a pit. At Winklebury, skull fragments were found in a post-hole (WK 2805) and a pit (WK 3134) which, incidentally,

Wilson (1981:143) stated that the burial distribution for Middle and Late Iron Age hillforts was similar to that of settlements: that is, that the burial area changed from the perimeter (rampart) to the interior. At Danebury, Walker (1984:457-459) did not identify this change in the burial distribution but considered fragmentary remains to be distributed across the whole of the hillfort and frequently around post structures. However, this current study has shown Danebury’s deposits were both random and scattered, utilising most of the enclosed area, with no particular association with any feature, including post structures. In some cases,

165

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains revealed a large number of Early-Middle Iron Age burials, i.e. the cemetery (Cunliffe and Poole 2000). Whilst at Winnall Down’s open Middle Iron Age settlement, there appears to be two main burial areas: one burial group (n= 5) was c.5-20m from a circular structure and the second group (n=13) was c.20 m from the settlement features, with 12 outliers, where four were very near or within circular structures (Figure 5.13). In this case, the dead were not totally segregated from the settlement area.

deposits were found near post-structures but equally in areas where there were none. A similar distribution was observed at Winklebury; random and scattered burials with no strong association to post-structures. With burial distribution there is another factor to consider, when to 'label' or categorise a cemetery. In the modern sense, it is a large burial ground not in a churchyard (Oxford Dictionary). Thus, in prehistory, a large number of burials grouped together could be considered a cemetery. But, can the same be said of isolated small burial groups? Cunliffe (2005) argued that the lack of Iron Age cemeteries could simply reflect the focus being placed on excavating settlements. Collis (1994: 108) stated that the Middle Iron Age burials at Owslebury were of an ephemeral nature and located in areas rarely excavated. Similarly, at Cockey Down, near Salisbury, eight Middle Iron Age skeletons and disarticulated remains were found 30m from an Iron Age and Romano-British enclosed settlement (Lovell et al. 1999).

Winnall Down is not too dissimilar from Yarnton, another small open Middle Iron Age settlement (c.400-50 BC) in Oxfordshire, described by Hingley and Miles (1984) as typical of the Upper Thames valley region (Figure 7.1). Similar to Suddern Farm’s extramural cemetery, Hey et al. (1999) considered whether Yarnton’s cemetery was unusual, rather than cemeteries being rare. Yarnton’s cemetery comprised 35, mainly flexed, burials in two main groups (15 and 10 individuals, respectively) 100m away from the settlement area, with a further 10 outliers scattered but closer to settlement features (Hey et al. 1999). The two burial groups could have been missed if the excavation solely focussed on settlement or occupation features and not the immediate surrounding areas, adding weight to Cunliffe (2005) and Collis’ (1994) suggestions that this may have been the situation for previous excavations.

For Suddern Farm, the main research emphasis was to date the enclosure, understand its nature and characteristics of the internal occupation. Just outside the ditched enclosure, a trial area was dug to test the existence of a linear ditch beneath a quarry which

Figure 7.1 Yarnton, Middle Iron Age settlement and cemetery (Hey et al. 1999: 554) At Yarnton, the burials were fully articulated in shallow graves with no grave goods. There were 11 males, six females, two unsexed adults, six adolescents/young adults (aged between 12 and 20 years) and six children under 12 years old (Hey et al. 1999). Despite no radiocarbon dates or decisive stratigraphic evidence, all neonates found within the settlement were considered to

be of Roman date. In comparison, at Winnall Down the burials were mainly in pits rather than graves (18:7); non-adults were more common (in particular infants) than adults (11:7); males were under-represented and perinates were found within circular structures and close to settlement features. Using Yarnton as one example, it is possible that adult burials may have been set further

166

Discussion away from Winnall Down’s immediate settlement or habitation areas, and that Yarnton’s neonates may have been of Iron Age date.

7.5 Dividing the Dead Three key studies from the 1980s (Wilson 1981; Walker 1984; Wait 1985) based their categorisation and current interpretations of exposure and headhunting cults by comparing visual accounts to classical texts, anthropological and ethnographic studies. This study has demonstrated the need to develop one generic, unambiguous and simple category system that can be used for all regions, sites and individual burials. Unlike these previous studies, a scientific and evidence-based approach was used to integrate both the human remains and context’s taphonomic histories, and considered decomposition of the corpse or body parts within the context prior to categorisation. This moves away from placing the remains in a category based on a visual field observation of the degree of fragmentation. Instead, this study focused on understanding the formation of the burial record before offering an interpretation, identifying cultural activity and practices from natural processes, prior to categorisation. Therefore, this study has a wider and evidence based perspective of Iron Age burials.

Micheldever Wood, a banjo enclosure comprising nearly all non-adults and in particular perinates, is 11.7 miles from the settlement at Owslebury (3rd century BC to early post-conquest), excavated by Collis 1961-1972 (Collis 1977). This multi-phased area comprised of three separate burial areas, some of which dated to the Iron Age, and a banjo enclosure. One of the burial areas comprised infants only and the banjo also contained the remains of three infants (Collis 1968, 1970, 1977). Owslebury and Micheldever Wood may have shared similar social rules; in death the non-adults were separated from adults. This could also suggest that Micheldever Wood may have had adult burials in the surrounding areas. Bodies and body parts were found within other occupied areas, for instance, at Winklebury and Danebury hillforts. For these sites, burials may not have taken place outside as both sites exhibited a different burial trend to that of settlements (see 7.4 for further discussion). However, for both sites, excavations had focused on the interiors, unlike the situation at Maiden Castle hillfort. At this site, groups of burials were found within the central areas, immediately outside the eastern entrance, and just within the inner horn of the eastern entrance, lying stratigraphically above a settlement area of an earlier phase. Travellers entering by the eastern gates would have seen the cemetery and perhaps burial activity.

7.6 The Burial Record A new category system was developed to allow burial patterns from all sites to be directly compared. Both Cunliffe and Poole (1991) and Hill (1995) argued that no one single interpretation could account for the whole of Southern Britain’s Iron Age burial record and a reexamination of this study’s six sites has identified three main deposit themes:   

Returning to Wait’s (1985: 85 - 88) study of ‘Ritual and Religion in Iron Age Britain’, a total of 28 sites were selected, 10 hillforts and 18 settlements, based on the relatively good quality excavation and publication. A few sites from the Welsh Marches and Fenland were added to counteract just covering central southern Britain. For Wait (1985), the presence of human remains was not a criterion and six of his selected sites did not contain any deposits, which accounts for his final list of 22 sites (Wait 1984: 87). This study has shown that previous excavations concentrated on settlement or occupation areas and this could explain the current consensus that there are too few Iron Age cemeteries. As illustrated in this study, burials were found where the excavation extended to outside the immediate settlement area, e.g. Suddern Farm, Maiden Castle and Yarnton. In the light of this, it would invaluable to re-assess the six sites Wait (1985) excluded on the basis that they did not contain human remains (i.e. the area that was excavated and the site's geology to consider preservation factors) as these too, may have had burials within and/or outside the settlement.

single elements, incomplete skeletons and bone assemblages and, the complete and articulated skeleton.

These three main themes vary according to each site: settlements (Figures 7.2 to 7.4), hillforts (Figures 7.5 to 7.13), and a banjo enclosure (Figure 7.14). Winnall Down’s enclosed Early Iron Age settlement burial pattern clearly changes during the Middle Iron Age (open settlement) from fragmentation to maintaining the body whole (Figures 7.2 and 7.3). Suddern Farm’s extramural burials exhibited a similar burial pattern to that of Winnall Down’s Middle Iron Age settlement, where retaining the body whole was the dominant theme and disarticulated deposits were the result of subsequent disturbance (Figure 7.4). Despite being a smaller sample, the burial trend for Winklebury Hillfort (Figure 7.5) is similar to that of Danebury Hillfort (Figures 7.6 to 7.9), where single element deposits are more dominant, closely followed by single complete inhumations which were typical of the Middle Iron Age settlements.

167

Number

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

7

4

1

Single Element

Multiple Mixed Elements

Single Multiple Complete Complete Inhumation Inhumations

Mixed Burial Types

Category

Number

Figure 7.2 Winnall Down: EIA: Burial Record

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

14

8 3

Single Element

Multiple Mixed Elements

2

Single Multiple Complete Complete Inhumation Inhumations

3

Mixed Burial Types

Category

Number

Figure 7.3 Winnall Down: MIA: Burial Record

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

13

4

5

4

Single Element

Multiple Single Multiple Mixed complete Complete Elements Inhumation Inhumations Category

Figure 7.4 Suddern Farm: Burial Record

168

5

Mixed Burial Types

Discussion 12

10

10 Number

8

6

6 4

2

2 0 Single Element

Multiple Single Multiple Mixed Complete Complete Elements Inhumation Inhumation Category

Mixed Burial Types

Figure 7.5 Winklebury Hillfort: Burial Record

Number

Danebury shows continuity in the types of deposits throughout its phases and, despite each phase being of different duration, the same pattern of deposits was repeated over c.450 years, which suggest a very strong social memory and holding onto the past (Figures 7.67.9). Single element deposits, more commonly skull fragments (see ‘propitiation’ for further discussion), far outweighed retaining the body whole which was the trend observed on settlements. 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

However, Maiden Castle Hillfort in Dorset exhibits a different burial record to that of Danebury Hillfort in Hampshire (Figures 7.10-7.13). At Maiden Castle the burial record initially appears to vary over time; Early Iron Age has single complete inhumations (primarily perinates) as the dominant theme followed by single elements (Figure 7.10). In this respect, Maiden Castle is similar to Middle Iron Age Hampshire settlements, Winnall Down and Suddern Farm.

19

5 2 Single Element

Multiple Mixed Elements

1

Single Multiple Complete Complete Inhumation Inhumation Category

1 Mixed Burial Types

Number

Figure 7.6 Danebury: CP 3: Burial Record 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

9

4 5 Single Element CP4

CP 5

4

2 Multiple Mixed Elements

1

Single Multiple Complete Complete Inhumation Inhumations Category

Figure 7.7 Danebury: CP 4-5 Burial Record

169

1 Mixed Burial Types

Number

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

37

15 7 1 Single Element

Multiple Mixed Elements

Single Multiple Complete Complete Inhumation Inhumations Category

1 Mixed Burial Types

Number

Figure 7.8 Danebury: CP 6: Burial Record

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

46

20 14 4 Single Element

Multiple Mixed Elements

Single Multiple Complete Complete Inhumation Inhumations

Mixed Burial Types

Category Figure 7.9 Danebury: CP 7: Burial Record 7

6

Number

6 5 4

3

3 2 1 0 Single Element

Multiple Mixed Elements

Single Multiple Complete Complete Inhumation Inhumations Category

Figure 7.10 Maiden Castle EIA: Burial Record

170

Mixed Burial Types

Discussion

Number

However, Maiden Castle’s Middle and Late Iron Age burials were in the same location, and excavation trenches and both groups of burials included very few datable grave goods to establish the burial sequence. It is possible that both could be in effect be one burial group and, as such, even more comparable to Winnall Down and Suddern Farm (Figures 7.3 and 7.4). Wheeler’s (1943) ‘War Cemetery’, which Sharples (1985) argued was the transition point between the Late Iron Age and early Roman period, exhibits a similar burial trend to that of the earlier Middle Iron Age burial group, and the pattern of settlements in Hampshire (Figure 7.13). This group contained multiple burials (also present at Danebury): three male/male and two male/female double burials, and one context that probably contained the remains of three adults but suffered from plough damage. There were more males than females (11:6), which was similar to Suddern Farm's profile but the opposite of Winnall Down. The ‘War Cemetery’ contained only two single infant burials, whereas at Winnall Down and Suddern Farm there was higher infant-to-adult ratio. Consequently, infants and children may have been buried in a different location.

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

At Winnall Down, young children and infants were buried near or within settlement features. At Micheldever Wood, an unusual burial site for the period, may have been specially chosen for non-adults, as all but one were of perinatal age (Figure 7.14). Micheldever Wood’s burial record is dissimilar to both settlements and hillforts. For some, these 15 perinates ranging from 35 to 42 (±2) gestational weeks might imply infanticide (Mays 1993) or for others natural mortality rate (Gowland and Chamberlain 2002). Nevertheless, at this site, retaining the body complete in death was practiced with the perinates commonly found in multiples. The category ‘Mixed Burial Types’ identified repetitive depositional behaviour as some burial contexts were re-used or, conversely, may illustrate the lack of burial markers or social memory. So, this study’s new approach and category system has been able to show not only the burial similarities and differences between the sites, but in addition, illustrate the site’s continuity (Danebury) and change (Winnall Down).

13

4 1 Single Element

1 Multiple Mixed Elements

Single Multiple Complete Complete Inhumation Inhumation Category

1 Mixed Burial Types

Figure 7.11 Maiden Castle: MIA: Burial Record 25 20

Number

20 15 10 5 0 Single Element

Multiple Single Multiple Mixed Complete Complete Elements Inhumations Inhumations Category

Figure 7.12 Maiden Castle LIA: Burial Record

171

Mixed Burial Types

Number

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

18

6 3 1 Single Element

Multiple Mixed Elements

Single Multiple Complete Complete Inhumation Inhumation

Mixed Burial Types

Category Figure 7.13 Maiden Castle ‘War Cemetery’ Burial Record 5 4 Number

4

4

3 2 1

1

1

Single Element

Multiple Mixed Elements

1

0 Single Multiple Complete Complete Inhumation Inhumations

Mixed Burial Types

Category Figure 7.14 Micheldever Wood Banjo Enclosure: Burial Record

7.7 Excarnation and Excarnation Structures Previously, there has been a range of terms used to describe Iron Age remains: disarticulated, incomplete, partial and fragmentary. In many instances, excarnation and secondary burials have been used to interpret the same findings. Some have focused on examining the bone only (Ellison and Drewett 1971; Wilson 1981; Hill 1995).

pattern. Redfern (2008) also assessed the degree of change to the bone’s surface to validate exposure practices at Gussage All-Saints Iron Age settlement and Maiden Castle hillfort’s disarticulated remains. Smith and Brickley (2009: 45) stated that minimal weathering on bone suggests no long-term exposure as it is inhibited by deep burial.

Craig et al. (2005), Carr and Knüsel (1997) and Carr (2007) considered osteological indicators, such as gnawing, cut marks, dry bone fractures, fragmentary assemblages, weathered or splintered bones, disarticulated and incomplete skeletons which lack phalanges, a limb or other parts, as possible evidence of excarnation practices. Similarly, Madgwick (2008) argued that excarnation by exposure at Danebury was unlikely, based on the physical appearance of the bone, and the rarity of associated weathering. Madgwick’s (2008) bone weathering method was based on Behrensmeyer’s (1978) stages, despite acknowledging the results were based on animal remains in a different climate (the Amboseli Basin in southern Kenya), and presumed weathering followed a progressive linear

However, few reports state whether the bone had been exposed, either aerially or sub-aerially. This study has demonstrated that current methods cannot identify whether bone has been exposed for any given length of time, and that Behrensmeyer’s weathering Stages 4, 5 and 6 are not distinct from each other (Section 2.5.5). Furthermore, there are a number of other variables such as climate, soil type, bone size and even unintentional exposure (naturally eroded sites) to consider. Weathering has produced variable results in the UK (Armour-Chelu and Andrews 1996; Andrews and Armour-Chelu 1998) and, as yet, there are no data to support fixed-term exposure periods with their respective bone surface modifications.

172

Discussion their body parts were moved; for instance, bodies were bound and wrapped prior to excarnation, possibly on a platform, and transferred after the liminal period had passed for burial in a cemetery or settlement. On similar lines, based on the numbers of incomplete and disarticulated bodies, Carr (2007) argued that the dead were exposed for various periods of time, after which, at some ritual point, bodies or body parts were brought back to the settlement to be deposited in pits and ditches.

Instead, McKinley’s (2004) method that grades bone abrasion and root etching is more appropriate to the conditions and material from the British Isles but lacks the temporal aspect. This study found the majority of bone exhibited minimal to mild abrasion and root etching (0-2), fewer samples exhibited moderate to extensive (3+), and variability between some deposits found on the same site. In the case of excarnated or secondary burial remains, carrying out an osteological analysis uses only one source of evidence and ignores two others that can be used in conjunction. Thus, unlike previous studies, this study utilised and integrated evidence retrieved from the burial context’s taphonomic history and the body’s behaviour within the context, providing a more comprehensive understanding of Iron Age funerary and depositional practices.

However, this study has found no strong or unequivocal association of human remains with post-structures. If there were excarnation structures, small bones lost during the decomposition stage, or not collected for secondary burial, would be found scattered around the features. For instance, at Danebury, human remains could be found in pits near post-structures but, equally, there were areas with four-post structures and no deposits (Figures 5.46, 5.48, 5.70, 5.83, 5.97, 5.115 and 5.121).

Carlson and Steel (1992) argued that secondary contexts were more difficult to identify/reconstruct. Duday (2009: 89, 90) stated that the ‘identification of secondary burials is rarely made with absolute certainty’ and that bone ‘disorder’ or disarticulated remains provided insufficient evidence to support cultural secondary burials, as this can also be the result of natural processes such as fluvial, animal or microenvironmental movement.

At Winnall Down during Early Iron Age the majority of human remains were found in the enclosure ditch and not near any post structures. During the Middle Iron Age, there was only one four post-structure near the south-eastern burial group (who remained complete and whole in death) and none near the northern burial group (Figures 5.1 and 5.13). No four-post structures were observed near deposits at Winklebury (Figure 5.158), and there were no four-post structures at Micheldever Wood (Figure 5.31).

As Hill (1995) argued, each Iron Age assemblage needs to be individually assessed. Unlike previous works, the current study considered preservation or survivorship issues as well as archaeological signatures for cultural influences on each assemblage (Bello 2005; Bello and Andrews 2006). This is not as straightforward as one would hope; for instance, if an Iron Age practice entailed the burial of specific bones after a primary treatment or procedure, such as exposure, then this might be archaeologically visible as a consistent trend with the bones.

Carr’s (2007) approach ignores intrinsic factors; the context’s taphonomic history, contextual evidence, and presents no evidence to substantiate off-site excarnation. Excarnation does not necessarily need a purpose-built structure; for instance, in China the dead were exposed on rocky outcrops (Martin 1996; Wylie 1965), and the Maori expose the dead in a house but wrapped the corpse (Barley 1995). The Tibetan sky burials (Bryant 2003) and the Parsis dispose of their dead through excarnation, leaving the corpse in large towers to be eaten by carrion birds or to desiccate in the sun (Palsetia 2001). Consequently, Iron Age excarnation and exposure practices could have been context-based, i.e. taken place within the pit or ditch.

However, the results showed no evidence to support a straightforward division of elements, such as crania and long bones, from minor bones such as hand and foot bones, which might indicate a secondary burial practice (e.g. Carr and Knüsel 1997; Roksandic 2002; Redfern 2008), and there was no obvious selective preservation of more robust or high density bone (C.F. Bello 2004; Bello and Andrews 2006; Willey et al. 1997). Absence of small bones may be due to a number of agents, for instance, excavation technique (lack of sieving), misidentification and differential density (Lambert et al. 1985; Masset 2000; Bello and Andrews 2006; Beckett and Robb 2006; Duday 2006; Duday 2009). Thus, small bones may not be useful skeletal markers or criteria to use as indicators of secondary burial rites.

Prior to this research, no formal comparison to any exposed human corpse subjected to scavenging animals was even considered. By exploring this avenue of research, a useful comparator for archaeological evidence has been provided. For example, Haglund (1997) has written extensively on the effects of scavenging animals and variable exposure conditions on the corpse in terms of surface modifications and bone loss.

Several have argued, on the basis of ethnographic analogies, that post-structures could possibly be excarnation platforms (e.g. Ellison and Drewett 1971; Carr and Knüsel 1997, Carr 2007; Cunliffe 2005). Cunliffe (2005) considered a practice where the dead or

173

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains some individuals were disarticulated whilst other have remained intact. More importantly, we can now dispense with the visual observations and comments that previously described Iron Age funerary practice or their remains as, ‘slovenly character, betokening haste and anxiety’ (Wheeler 1943), ‘not a burial in the proper sense’ (Richardson 1951), ‘casual’ (Cunliffe 1974; Walker 1984; Fasham 1985) or ‘no care’, ‘discard’, ‘refuse’, ‘chucked in’ and ‘dumped’ (Walker 1984; Fasham 1985).

There were 3 ways to test the hypothesis: 1. Can the stratigraphic or sediment evidence support cultural activity of covering the body post-deposition or were the sediments in which the remains lay the result of natural erosion? In the latter case, this would support exposure of the body or body parts in situ. 2. Can the corpse’s decomposing behaviour within the context, for instance, the skeletal alignment, connections and arrangements, provide evidence of cultural practices? In short, could there be two distinct practices running in parallel. For some, it might be the case of fragmentation by exposure, in other cases, the body was kept complete and intact in death.

If a corpse is placed within a wide open context with little protection or support, such as a grave or pit fill, the corpse is vulnerable to a variety of agents including scavenging animals, and bone connections will eventually become displaced by natural processes (e.g. Duday 2006; 2009). Thus, there was no cultural influence to maintain the body whole in death but rather the opposite, letting nature take its course and allowing the body to fragment and disperse. However, if the corpse was placed within a narrow earthen ‘body shaped’ grave, and filled immediately, the skeletal structure is supported and maintains skeletal integrity (e.g. Willis and Tayles 2009).

3. Can the stratigraphic evidence help us to understand the nature of fragmentary assemblages and bone fragments? 7.8

Context Taphonomic Histories and Sediment Evidence By examining the range of excavation documents available, it was found that in some cases the contexts’ taphonomic history was recorded. For instance, some excavators interpreted the context as ‘open’ postdeposition, whilst others recorded the nature of the sediment in which the remains were found (e.g. natural erosion). This second source of evidence supports cultural exposure of the dead where the remains are vulnerable to a number of post-deposition agents, including scavenging, resulting in bone disturbance, damage and loss. Partial and disarticulated remains recorded within ‘open’ contexts, or found lying in natural erosion material, can indicate that the whole corpse could have been exposed in situ. Therefore, no other context or site was involved during the exposure period. If exposure was not inhibited or prevented by natural erosion or silts covering the corpse, it is possible that human remains could be reduced further, to become a much smaller assemblage (i.e. multiple mixed element assemblages).

Until now, the fragmentary, disarticulated remains and excarnation are usually the main themes for discussion and the different taphonomic evidence from both complete and incomplete remains are rarely compared. Both leave archaeologically distinct signatures which indicate two cultural practices running parallel during the Iron Age. The social meaning or expression behind each practice may be different according to the site type or even tribal region (see Fragmentation via exposure versus Completeness, section 7.6). 7.10 Fragmentation and Bone Displacement Fragmentary remains involve an osteological description (Henderson 1987; Micozzi 1991; Roksandic 2002; Morlan 1984; Lyman 2002; Bello 2005; Craig et al. 2005). However, this study has shown that there is a need to re-consider these descriptions as previous methods recorded fragmentary remains and bone fragments individually, without considering ‘neighbouring’ assemblages, either in the same layer or adjacent layers.

To improve on these results, the origin or nature of the sediment in which remains are found must be recorded within the human remains report (Duday and Guillon 2006). This does not imply that the master context sheet is superfluous; rather, this research supports an integrated method for recording all relevant burial data together.

For example, Danebury Pit P37 contained the remains of one adolescent that had become displaced to three areas within the same layer and each was recorded separately. Similarly, Winnall Down’s Pit 2416 also contained the remains of one infant that had been dispersed into several adjacent layers, and these were also recorded as separate assemblages. In both cases, after osteometric sorting, the assemblages were reunited, either by biological or mechanical ‘refitting’ (either matching bone by age or like pieces of a puzzle that fit together). Thus, in both cases, the original human remains reports had over-estimated the number of fragmentary assemblages by not appreciating that bone can become displaced both vertically and horizontally within the burial environment.

7.9 The Corpse’s Interplay within the Context Until now, examining the corpse’s relationship to, and behaviour within, its deposition context was a largely untapped source of information. The interpretation is based on the understanding of the decomposition and skeletonisation of the body (Willis and Tayles 2009). This involves understanding how a corpse could behave in a range of burial environments in terms of skeletal alignment, connections, and overall arrangement over time. Combining both skeletal and burial contexts’ taphonomic histories offers a means to explain why

174

Discussion At Danebury and Winklebury hillforts, the majority of single elements comprised adult cranial fragments. An over-representation of crania may just be an archaeological recognition bias (Haglund 1997) as the cranium has been considered the most significant skeletal element in different populations (Duday 1987a, 1987b; Bello and Andrews 2006). Femora had a higher frequency than any other single element finds and smaller bones may have been transient deposits - that is, the result of fluvial, wind or general site disturbance.

Furthermore, the causative agents that result in bone dispersal or fragmentation need to be identified, for instance, the result of cultural processing of the dead or natural movement within the burial context (Andrews 2006). For example, Outram (2001) argued that ‘dry bones’ were those associated to depositional history rather than peri-mortem events. Morin et al. (2005) examined the vertical and spatial distribution of bone and found that ‘dry’ bone fragments were easier to refit. However, some dry fractures could also indicate secondary burials (Valentin and Le Goff 1998, Outram 2002). In this study, many bones were easy to re-fit; for instance, the two conjoined assemblages from Winklebury, cranial fragments from Danebury and the infant from Winnall Down, which was, in effect, a secondary burial of the infant’s disturbed remains.

The frequency of skulls (cranium, maxilla and mandible), cranium (maxilla but lacking mandible), frontal bones or fragments has been explained by their special social meaning. For instance, the complete skull retains the physical attributes for an ancestor to watch over and communicate with. Therefore, the dead can still be still active members of society (Parker Pearson 2003). Conversely, the cranium or frontal bones, which lack maxillae and mandibles, may represent someone who has been made mute in death, a physical mutilation by the victor over his enemy.

Danebury’s P37, the context’s taphonomic history indicated that the pit was left open post-deposition, leaving the adolescent’s body unprotected and unsupported by immediate pit fill, susceptible to damage and bone loss from scavenging animals and fluvial movement. As for Winnall Down, Pit 2416 showed evidence of re-cutting which disturbed the infant’s remains, most of which were collected and replaced at the base of the re-cut. In addition to the above, small bones are more easily moved by bioturbation or gravity (Roksandic 2002) and can drop through natural voids in the burial micro-environment (Saul and Saul 2002). Therefore, there were two different processes that caused the bones to become displaced or dispersed, one natural and the other cultural. This study has presented evidence to support that some pits were left open post-deposition, exposing the dead in situ. Consequently, this could be viewed as culturally induced fragmentation; leaving the remains exposed and accessible, possibly for later selection and removal for other cultural/social events.

Deposits of skull fragments were not curated or focussed in one place; for instance, a skull shrine or bone house, but instead were widespread and random, in particular at Danebury (e.g. Figures 5.52, 5.74, 5.87 and 5.101). This suggests that a specific location was not the key issue, and none exhibited evidence for being suspended. Thus, the act of depositing skull fragments was the primary aspect, which more than likely relates to social beliefs, such as an offering or propitiation. Fowler (2004) argued that archaeologists were able to use ethnographic constructs analytically, but we cannot ignore the way they colour our view of the past. However, there are no classical documents that directly refer to the deposition of human remains (Madgwick 2008). Nevertheless, references are made to the symbolic importance of skulls to the Celts. For example, Cunliffe (1983: 164) stated that on the basis of Classical texts and contemporary ethnologies that complete skulls were evidence for ‘Celtic’ headhunting and were considered trophies.

7.11 Skull Veneration, Trophies or Propitiation This study preferred not to superimpose ancient texts, anthropological and ethnographic studies onto the British Iron Age burial record. Unlike previous methods (Wilson 1981; Walker 1984; Wait 1985; Sharples 2010), this study did not have a ‘skull’ category from the onset but, instead, employed an objective method that would allow the evidence to present itself. Therefore, the frequency of all single element finds was assessed and placed into perspective with other single element finds.

This study has demonstrated that skulls and their fragments were an intentional deposit and not just the remains of poorly preserved individuals. Now, this depositional practice can be compared to other similar funerary and depositional practices. For example, some tribes of the Northern Plains practiced platform burials; the Mandan placed their dead on scaffolds to decay and allowed the remains to fall to the ground where the nearest relations took the skull but buried the rest (Catlin 1973). If a member of the Hidatsa died away from the settlement, after a year, only the skull was brought back (Bowers 1965). The British Iron Age people may have had a similar practice, but the only observable evidence is ‘on-site’ deposits of cranial skull fragments and, in some instances, where the context contained multiple mixed element assemblages and sediment evidence of exposure.

In his study, Wait (1985: 94) stated that there was a predominance of single bones on both Early Iron Age settlements and hillforts. This current study found that this is not the case for Winnall Down or Suddern Farm and that Hampshire’s hillforts were more likely than settlements to have single elements as the dominant deposit type. However, at Maiden Castle, single complete inhumations were the dominant deposit type. In her study, Wilson (1981: 143) stated that single elements may have been replaced by single inhumations, this trend was observed at Winnall Down.

175

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains seeds do not die, but survive and once planted, regenerate and their life cycle continues. In this case, humans have replaced the grain, perhaps with the belief was that they too would be regenerated or reborn. Bradley (2005: 170) suggested there was a connection between the dead and agricultural seasons; pits could be associated with death and regeneration, death and fertility. This offering or placement of the dead may have been part of a reciprocal belief system in exchange for continuing fertility of the land. If a prehistoric population relied on the land to feed it, then it is not unreasonable to consider that they would make offerings, ritualistic deposits and conduct ceremonies to maintain this relationship (Bradley 1981; Parker Pearson 1999; Cunliffe 1992). In this instance, the pit became a receptacle where the worlds of the living and the dead merged; the deceased’s soul was released through fragmentation, allowing it to be reborn into society. This can be considered as a positive separation and re-integration of members back into society.

A deposit containing human remains may not necessarily have a funerary connotation (Thomas 1980). There could be other acts or beliefs such as sacrifice or offerings that involve depositing the whole body or body parts. Cunliffe (1992) suggested that burials or cranial fragments in spent grain silo pits may be evidence for a belief practice of ‘propitiation’, with the remains acting as a special deposit. The presence of adult skull fragments with perinatal remains may indicate that both were part of a propitiatory deposit. For example, at Micheldever Wood, an unusual site in as much as it contained the remains of fifteen perinates, often in multiples, one complete young adult and child inhumation, does not exhibit the usual mortality age range. Here, there were two contexts that contained adult cranial fragments associated with infant remains. Similarly, at Suddern Farm there was one instance of adult cranial fragments with an infant. It is possible that these infants were propitiatory offerings where the association could be the regeneration of life and fertility of the land (Parker Pearson 1996), or the re-use of pits provided the ideal context for death and regeneration ceremonies (Bradley 2005; Bloch and Parry). This leads on to a discussion of social motives behind culturally induced fragmentation and maintaining the body complete and intact.

If excarnation was the normative burial rite (Wilson 1981; Wait 1985; Cunliffe 1995; Carr and Knüsel 1997), then the few inhumations were non-normative. Preventing the body from fragmenting, keeping it complete and whole may represent an individual who has been denied rebirth into society or prevented from entering the afterlife. It could also mark the introduction of a new funerary rite or less accepted belief system. For instance, in our time we have multiple belief systems running in parallel, e.g. Christianity, Buddhism.

7.12 Fragmentation via Exposure vs. Completeness The results have provided evidence for two opposing deposition trends running parallel with one another: fragmentation of the body via exposure, and maintaining the body whole and intact after death. Their frequency and social motive may differ according to particular site and the concept behind each mode of treating or dealing with the dead could not be more different. For example, in Melanesian society, complete fragmentation is induced for dispersal into the social and material world (Fowler 2004). Similarly, in the Iron Age, bodies were deconstructed by exposure practices that allowed the body to naturally fragment and disperse, transforming from one state into another.

Whimster (1981:16) stated that due to a lack of brooches or other clothing fastening items, it was likely that the majority were either buried naked, wrapped in cloaks or a shroud. At the Bronze Age site of Ban Lum Khao (c.1275-c.500BC) and the nearby Iron Age site of Noen U-Loke (c.400BC-500AD) in northeast Thailand, the dead were either placed in earthen graves or wrapped, where wrapping superseded the coffin burials (Willis and Tayles 2009). Closer to home, Parker Pearson et al. (2002) argued that they had found evidence of a corpse that had been wrapped in a tight shroud within the roof space of a house in Cladh Hallan on South Uist, dated to the Late Bronze Age–Early Iron Age period. Therefore, there is no reason why the British Iron Age people could not wrap or cover the deceased without fastenings (e.g. clothing, woven blankets, animal hides) prior to deposition.

The transfer of life into death draws on the society’s beliefs systems and their sense of order of the world they lived in. Some mortuary rites deconstitute the person to allow the reconstituting of social relations (Fowler 2004). For instance, fragmenting the body may have been viewed as a means to regenerate new life (Brück 1995). During the Middle to Late Bronze Age, the normative mortuary rite for the majority is archaeologically invisible and may have involved exposure practices with fragments of the dead seen as a source of new life (Fitzpatrick 1997; Hingley 1997; Williams 2004; Brück 2006). It is possible that in earlier periods fragmenting the dead did not just symbolise death but represented a source of fertility, an idea that could have continued into the Iron Age.

Many Iron Age pits are not like a purposely dug bodyshaped grave that maintains the corpse neatly in alignment, with earthen walls and immediate fill to provide support and protection. Pits are generally amorphous, varying in size and depth and, in some cases, the records show that they were left open postdeposition, and/or the remains lay within a deposit of erosion material. For the body/skeleton to retain its completeness and integrity there must be some means of protection from scavenging animals, and a support such as a perishable ‘object’, clothing, wrappings or shroud that does not entail inorganic fastenings (Duday et al.

The majority of Iron Age human remains were commonly found in pits whose primary function was the storage of grain. Williams (2003:242) considered that, even when buried in storage pits through the winter, the

176

Discussion 1990; Duday 2006; Nilsson Stutz 2006; Zagorskis 2004; Willis and Tayles 2009). Complete inhumations were more frequently observed during the Middle Iron Age on or around settlements, but this was less common at Danebury and Winklebury, two Hampshire hillforts where the evidence contrasts with Maiden Castle in Dorset. Inhumations included all members of society, but non-adults and, in particular, infants were more common on settlement sites. By studying their appearance and their configuration or posture, we may see a different social motive which could vary from site to site. There appear to be four main configurations or postures:    

loosely flexed position, either totally on one side or on back and legs to one side pivoting from the hips; extended individuals, supine and prone; tightly flexed and awkwardly positioned bodies and; bound individuals.

Figure 7.15 Unwrapped Paracas body configuration (After Bahn 1996:79)

The loosely flexed or extended body was the most common posture, followed by an individual either tightly flexed or lying in awkward positions. Bound individuals were the least common position. The most common position probably reflects a simple burial in the funeral sense, such as those observed at Maiden Castle. Other body positions or configurations might suggest something other than just a simple burial. For instance, being buried in the ground, face down and head towards the south, was a mark of disrespect for murdered victims of the Sisseton Sioux tribe (Bushnell 1927) and, in more recent times, the AD 1942 mass grave of Serniki, Ukraine, the victims, comprising mainly women and children, were made to lie face down before being shot (Hunter and Cox 2005). Therefore, tightly flexed, awkwardly positioned and bound bodies might imply other behaviour, practices or motives.

Figure 7.16 Wrapped and bound infant c.300BC from Tarim Basin Central Asia (After Bahn 1996: 153)

For some, a tightly flexed burial could represent a ‘bag’, bundled or wrapped individual. The Paracas culture, South America (800BCE -100BCE) bound the body with cord to maintain a seated position prior to wrapping in textiles (DeLeonardis 2000; Bahn 1996). Regardless of the different preservation factors, the body position of an unwrapped Paracas individual is comparable to that of some Iron Age skeletons (Figure 7.15). Furthermore, binding and wrapping was practiced by other cultures c.300BC, equivalent to the British Middle Iron Age period, for example, the infant from Tarim Basin has been wrapped and bound with external cords (Figure 7.16).

Even with contemporary remains closer to home, Parker Pearson et al. (2005) argued that the tight body configuration and burial circumstances could indicate wrapping and protection at Cladh Hallan, South Uist. Furthermore, Iron Age bog bodies have been found clothed or wrapped in animal skins, or blankets (Turner and Scaife 1995; Glob 1998). Thus, despite the obvious differential preservation quality between bogs and chalk land, wrapping the dead would not be an implausible practice for Hampshire’s Iron Age people. The wrapping may have been a practical solution for transportation of the dead or simply a choice of funerary treatment. This study has shown that there are many wide-ranging factors to consider before interpreting funerary or depositional practices that incorporates the understanding of decomposition and skeletonisation of the body (Willis and Tayles 2009). For instance, a skeleton that has retained integrity and bone equilibrium in a large spacious pit indicates a body support of some kind and

177

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains protection from scavenging animals (e.g. burial sediments, shroud, blankets, animal hide). The durability of the wrapping will also affect any bone movement, for example, if it decays slower than the decomposing tissue, only minor movements of small elements or labile joints are observable (Murail et al. 2004; Valetin et al. 2000). A constricted corpse can also reveal characteristic bone alignment and arrangement which is opposite for that of a corpse decomposing in loose wrapping or an open wide space. Wilson (1981) described the Iron Age Frilford child as in an ‘unnatural constriction’ that could only be obtained through binding the corpse (see Figure 1.1). At Suddern Farm, Cunliffe and Poole (2000) considered some individuals to be bound prior to deposition as they too were tightly contracted or flexed (see Figure 6.41). Similarly, in a large and spacious pit at Danebury lay DB 6 tightly flexed and only 40cm from the ground surface (Figure 6.21). The skeletal characteristics might indicate a wrapping, sack or bag burial (see unwrapped Paracas Figure 7.15).

Figure 7.17 Bound teaching skeleton - Side view

Including the origin of the pit fill (e.g. natural erosion material) could strengthen the argument. For instance, large and spacious pit, P1078, contained the remains of several disarticulated and scattered individuals, and one complete intact skeleton (Figures 6.32 and 6.33). This pit was open as the bodies lay within erosion material. Unless the complete individual (DB 49) was wrapped and protected in some manner, it would have suffered the same fate as the others. In some cases, bodies were found in awkward flexed positions, for example, Suddern Farm’s SF C20 and Danebury’s P829 DB 30 (See Figures 6.42 and 6.25). For Danebury’s pit P829, the report stated there was no immediate pit fill which would have supported the decomposing bodies prevent bone displacement, damage and loss. Thus, body wrapping of some sort must have been employed in order for these to remain complete and articulated which may have masked the body’s orientation which could explain the awkward burial positions.

Figure 7.18 Bound teaching skeleton - Supine

By manipulating a teaching skeleton to simulate archaeological case studies helped to understand the locking and movement of bones when disturbed or when the burial environment is, or becomes unstable. The teaching skeleton illustrates the position of a tightly contracted burial when placed on its side, supine and prone (Figures 7.17 to 7.19), which are comparable to DB 29, DB 30 and SF C20, respectively (Figures 6.25 and 6.42). Despite using a teaching skeleton and not a fleshed subject, it became apparent where the rope should be placed in order to obtain secure ‘archaeological positions’. Figure 7.17 illustrates where the rope was best placed to lock the bones into a stable position. When centrally placed, there was considerable bone movement above and below the rope (Figure 7.18). Figure 7.19 Bound teaching skeleton - Prone

178

Discussion relate to a slave trade in Hampshire. Figure 7.26 also shows bound figures on the silver denarii of Julius Caesar c.49 BC (left) and c.46 BC (right). However, the coins depict individuals with hands tied behind their back and ‘loose’ ankles, and Thompson (1994) argued that wrist and ankle fetters were for temporary captivity and neck-shackles were for those on route to the market.

Danebury’s adult male DB 24 lay prone at the bottom of small pit P587, c.1.3m depth. His tightly contracted burial configuration exhibits minimal bone displacement which indicates a stable, supportive burial environment whilst he decomposed. The excavator considered the hands to have been placed in front of the thoracic cavity. However, if the hands were bound behind him, as the body decomposed, gravity and sediment movement would aid the freed hands bones to move downwards into the voids left by the decomposing thoracic soft tissue (Figures 7.20 and 7.21). Archaeologically, these two scenarios will appear very similar and a detailed osteological analysis and appreciation of the body’s interplay within its context is required. If DB 24 had been bound with his hands behind his back, then it is unlikely that this was not a burial in the ‘funeral’ sense, and other social motives need to be considered, as well as the likelihood of other individuals receiving the same treatment.

Drawing on such evidence may contextualise these burials, for instance, examining social change. Hillforts were considered as central places where the elite controlled and re-distributed resources (Cunliffe 1988). However, Creighton (2000) argued that at Danebury the archaeological evidence of an ‘elite’ is absent, andelsewhere during the Middle to Late Iron Ages transition the nature of occupation at many sites changed; the Roman world’s demand for slaves was evident and ‘warrior bands’ may have actively engaged in procuring slaves. Creighton (2000: 21) doubted whether the archaeological evidence could verify the situation, but in this instance bound bodies may support slave trade and social unrest.

Bound individuals by the hands and sometimes feet are not exclusive to Danebury, for instance two others were observed at Bishopstone (Figures 7.22 – 7.24). Organic material and a metal attachment were found close to the wrists of DB 22 (Pit P497), which indicates the hands were tied together; however, no finds were retained (Cunliffe 1984, 1995).

Alternatively, drawing on another contemporary example, bog bodies, these Hampshire individuals may have been similar social victims, sacrifices or ‘offerings’. For example, Lindow Man II, the upper half of an adult male wearing a fur armband around his left arm was found in Lindow Moss, Cheshire (Figure 7.27). He had been bludgeoned with an axe, strangled and garrotted (Glob 1998). Similarly, Figure 7.28 shows Tollund Man, a more complete bog body, who was naked apart from a leather cap, belt and noose around his neck from which he was hung, lying in a flexed position on his side (Parker Pearson 1999; Williams 2003).

All these individuals have a similar burial configuration that may reflect a different depositional connotation: incarceration, sacrifice or ‘offering’, or a victim of slavery. The contemporary evidence includes a Celtic bronze figurine with strong implications of slavery, and iconographic coin evidence where the hands are bound behind the back (Figures 7.25-7.26). These sources may help to explore other social motives behind these depositions.

It is the ‘nature’ or the ‘circumstance’ of their deaths that suggests sacrifice or social victims; they were naked with shaven heads with neck nooses. Some were even pegged down or ‘trussed up’; in other words, tightly contracted, their hands touch the shoulders, the thighs were parallel with the body, and the feet were on the same level as the hip and wrapped in two layers of cloth (Glob 1998: 83). The presence of rope and ligatures indicate they were social victims or sacrifices as part of the Early Iron Age belief practices (Glob 1970; Parker Pearson 2003). Despite the obvious differences in preservation between the bogs and Hampshire’s chalk land, there is no reason to suggest that this type of practice was exclusive to bogs.

In 2003, the bronze figurine of a classical stylised ‘Celtic’ slave with hands and feet bound together dating to c. 2nd or 3rd century AD was found in Hampshire (Figure 7.25). The rope arrangement around the neck, binding his wrists and ankles dictates the body position. A further sixteen are known, ten of which were found in the UK. The figurines are sub-divided into the three types based on the angle of the flexed lower limbs; in Type I it is 90°-110°, in Type II it is more acute 65°75°, and in Type III the lower limbs are at a more obtuse angle 110°-130° (Jackson 2005). The Hampshire figurine is of Type II and, like the others, is a ‘casual’ find from metal detectorists, so few details are recorded. Jackson (2005:149) argued that the function of the figurines is ‘enigmatic’ and the purpose of the perforations ‘elusive’. The bound and manacled prisoner represents ‘enslavement’ and could possibly

179

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Figure 7.20 Burial Plan DB 24 (Hampshire Museum and Archives)

Figure 7.21 Teaching skeleton illustrating hands behind the back, once the soft tissue has decayed, the hand bones are free to fall into the abdominal space

Figure 7.22 Bishopstone Bound hands ( Bell 1977)

Figure 7.23 Danebury DB 22 Bound hands (Hampshire Museum and Archives)

Figure 7.25 Bound Celtic figurine (c.2nd AD) (Portable Antiquities Scheme)

Figure 7.24 Bishopstone Bound hands (Wilson 1981)

Figure 7.26 Silver Denarii of Julius Caesar: and bound barbarians (© The British Museum)

180

Discussion

Figure 7.27 Lindow man (Stead et al. 1984)

Figure 7.28 Tollund Man (Photo: C. Muñoz-Yagüe in Lobell and Patel 2010) offerings. Alternatively, the banjo enclosure may have just been designated for non-adults and adults were buried in other enclosures or in surrounding areas (e.g. Owslebury, Yarnton).

7.13 Burials Rules The results from this study demonstrate there were no rigid rules that dictated a division based on age or sex of the individual; inhumation could apply to all members of society. Furthermore, with multiple or noncontemporaneous burials (re-use of the same burial context), there appear to be no rules that separated nonadults from adults or non-adults from either adult male or female. Thus, the results showed that both male and females could be buried with non-adults. However, nonadult sex determination is not possible from the skeleton alone, consequently, there is the possibility of same sex burial rules.

According to their excavation reference, two perinates (P35 and P37H) should have been located in the War Cemetery but were omitted from the published report. Taking this into consideration, Maiden Castle is dominated by adult only burials and the reverse of Micheldever Wood, Suddern Farm and Winnall Down where there were a high ratio of non-adults to adults. It is possible that the Durotriges of Maiden Castle had burial rules where non-adults were segregated from the adults. This burial trend or rule was not observed at the Atrebatic Hampshire sites.

Other circumstances can dictate the form of burial; disease where traditional funerary forms might not be carried out, for example, smallpox and the tribes on the Northern Plains (Abel 1932). Multiple burials were relatively low in numbers and emerge during the Middle to Late Iron Age periods, the transitional point (Creighton 2000). There would be social change, unrest and possibly an influx of newcomers from the continent. Thus, multiple burials may mark a different event or social situation such as assaults on health (disease) in ‘first contact’ with newcomers or violence (conflict). The multiple burials at Danebury contained a high number of juveniles which may suggest compromised health and immunity rather than conflict and massacres.

At Winnall Down, during the Middle Iron Age period, there were only two multiple burials (an infant with a child, and two infants together) and at Suddern Farm there were five multiple burials (infants and adults only, and a combination of both infant and adults). Whilst at Danebury, one multiple burial comprised adults only, CP 6 P829 (three males), but the other contexts contained a combination of children, adolescents and adults (both male and female). These burials may reflect a variety of social actions or events with different connotations. The Celtic bound figurine clearly shows the same posture as DB 29 (Figure 6.25) but reading motive from burial posture is not without pitfalls as there may only be very subtle differences. For instance, DB 222 exhibits a similar burial configuration but the hands are not drawn together (see Figure 6.24).

The social meaning could vary according to the nature of the site as well as burial context. For instance, at Micheldever Wood, almost exclusively a non-adult burial site, there were four multiple burials; three comprising of two perinates, whilst the fourth contained three perinates, all within 35-42 ±2 gestational weeks. Multiple perinatal burials may reflect the problems that come with multiple pregnancies and birth, stillbirths, poor maternal health and social stress. For example, twins may be seen as a split or fragmented soul, sacrificial victims or propitiatory

Slingstones were found in Wheeler’s (1943) ‘War Cemetery’, two in one grave and numerous sling shots in a pit near the burials which has helped create our concept of hillforts being associated with massacres and warfare

181

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains (Wilson 1981). Based on the presence of 34-50 slingstones, the excavator suggested four children, one adolescent, four males and one female, were stoned whilst in Danebury’s P923. Associated were animal deposits: a possible young pig burial, horse skull and articulated lower limb, a large quantity of sheep and pig skulls, and evidence for exposure post-deposition. P1078 was identical and comprised the exposed remains of at least three males, two females, four children with numerous slingstones, with young pig, horse skull, and a large quantity of sheep and cattle skull bones.

Multiple burials can mark different social events such as victims of a catastrophe, warfare, genocide, or disease (Walker 1984; Duday 2009). There are subtle differences between burial configurations and every site has the potential to provide evidence for more than one type depositional behaviour, practice or event. Therefore, understanding the contextual evidence will divide the dead. 7.14 Normative, Non-normative and Taphonomy “Normative” and “non-normative” were terms used in the early reports to describe Iron Age burials, where normative was considered the complete inhumation as it conformed to expectations of a funerary practice rather than an assemblage of various skeletal elements (e.g. PittRivers 1888: 60). Later, Whimster (1977: 317-27) stated that in his study the flexed inhumation was the predominant theme for three of the southern groups. However, later studies considered excarnation as the normative rite as the majority of the population could not be accounted for in burial terms (Ellison and Drewett 1971: Wilson 1981; Walker 1984; Wait 1985; Carr and Knüsel 1997, Cunliffe 1988, 1992, 1995).

However, there were multiple burials without slingstones: pit P2509 contained the remains of three children and adult long bones with cattle skull and evidence of erosion material; pit P935 contained the remains of a male, a female and a child with evidence of exposure; pit P2496 contained the remains of a male, a female and a child, cow bones and probable evidence for exposure; and pit P1545 contained the scattered remains of more than one individual mixed between several layers, an adult (probable male) and a child. Similarly, pit P2100 contained the remains of a young child and an adult (unsexed).

The main focus of this research was to highlight that all previous interpretations were made from a visual inspection of the remains. Few took into consideration, or at that point in time, realised the extent to which both cultural and natural taphonomic processes can influence and affect the archaeological and burial record. This research has demonstrated that there are many factors to consider and three interrelated areas from which to retrieve the evidence. Thus, before inferring funerary practices, cultural activity or behaviour must be differentiated from natural processes (Bello and Andrew 2006; Duday 2006).

Maiden Castle’s ‘War Cemetery’ comprised 34 complete and four fragmentary skeletons where six contexts contained multiple burials; three contexts comprised two males, another two comprised of a male and a female and one context contained the remains of three adults (one male and two unsexed). However, at Winklebury hillfort, there were no multiple burials, slingstones or evidence to support massacre or warfare.

182

Conclusions Chapter 8

Conclusions

four-post structures may have acted as excarnation platforms is not supported by any physical evidence. Indeed, there is evidence for four-post structures frequently found in areas devoid of any deposits of human remains.

This study had two aims and three objectives and proposed to address these through a multidisciplinary science-based approach. It investigated three key and interrelated areas: the remains, their contexts, and the ways in which a decomposing body behaved under specific conditions of deposition. The approach utilised a wide range of methods developed in forensic taphonomy and anthropology, including l’anthropologie de terrain or archaeothanatology, to differentiate cultural behaviour from natural processes (Chapter 2).

8.2 Objectives The main objective was to distinguish cultural behaviour from natural processes. By exploring taphonomic histories this study was able to construct depositional profiles which significantly add to current knowledge of Iron Age funerary practices. Cultural behaviour was supported by physical or material evidence obtained from the osteological analysis, the context’s taphonomic history, and the nature of the burial sediments. The second objective was to provide a standard, scientific, integrated and repeatable recording method that evaluates deposits of human remains and their context. This study has created such a method; however, in certain cases the integration of data proved problematic as it was wholly reliant on the original records. Sometimes, the records were incomplete and/or showed inconsistencies between different specialists with their own methods of recording. Furthermore, the stratigraphic information was not always reported, and the nature of the burial sediment was not defined as being of either cultural or natural origin. The final objective was to develop a simple and an unambiguous system for the categorisation of Iron Age human remains that would compare the burial record for all the site types in the study area. Five new categories were created drawing on the taphonomic histories of Iron Age remains. This categorisation can replace previous methods based on a visual inspection, placing more emphasis on the degree of fragmentation. The study sites showed some similarities; for example, the settlements at Winnall Down and Suddern Farm, and the hillforts of Danebury and Winklebury. On the other hand, the banjo enclosure at Micheldever Wood was different from both the settlements and hillforts. Again, the burial record from Maiden Castle in Dorset was different from that of the Hampshire hillforts providing evidence similar to that from settlements.

The thesis recognised deficiencies in the source material’s terminology and it readily became apparent that it was to standardize terms and set clear criteria to describe funerary contexts and positions. For instance, a wide range of non-formal adjectives were used to describe pit burials or deposits and various terms were employed to describe burial positions, e.g. crouched, contracted and flexed. For instance, Maiden Castle’s burials MC 31 and MC 32 were described as lying on their right side and flexed, whilst MC T4 and MC T6 were also lying on their right side but crouched (Table 5.39). There was no system or criteria that differentiated between these burial postures. The findings of this research recommend clearly defined terms that can be universally accepted to aid comparative burial studies. 8.1 Aims of the research The primary aim was to apply a science-based approach that investigated the many complex formation processes involved in the Iron Age burial record in order to differentiate between cultural behaviour and natural processes. The results showed that exposure practices in situ ran parallel with a practice that kept the body whole after death and propitiation deposits. The second aim was to produce a new comprehensive study of the Iron Age burial practices from different types of site. An integrated approach was employed that re-united burial data demonstrating that the current understanding of Iron Age mortuary practices does not provide the whole picture. For instance, at Micheldever Wood, a high number of child burials was noted almost to the exclusion of adults which were presumed cremated or buried elsewhere. The original interpretation concluded that due to the apparent lack of graves in the pits, the remains had been dumped. This study has expanded on the original study to identify a new burial rite for very young babies. This is similar to the burial profile at Winnall Down where an adult and perinate were also found with “saucepans”. Furthermore, there is stratigraphic evidence to support deliberate burial rather than dumping of the remains. Both Danebury and Winklebury hillforts provided evidence of more than one burial practice running parallel: fragmentation through exposure, maintaining the body whole, and the deposition of skull fragments. In contrast, the settlements at Suddern Farm and Winnall Down, and Maiden Castle hillfort only provided evidence for maintaining the body whole in death. Furthermore, the long-established ethnographic based hypothesis that

8.3 Future work There are several areas of research that could follow on from this study. Firstly, it is necessary to continue to reunite burial data from different site types in other regions in order to provide a wider perspective, observing continuity or change. Secondly, there needs to be a focus on bringing Iron Age animal remains together with the human remains in order to explore comixed assemblages. Finally, it is essential to include photographic and in situ evidence in order to construct comprehensive profiles of different funerary and depositional practices employing the principles of l’anthropologie du terrain, or archaeothanatology.

183

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Appendix 1 Recording Forms Adult Skeletal Recording Form Date: Skeleton ID:

Skeleton Comments: Condition: Pathology: Trauma: Dentition Comments:

184

Appendices

(From BABAO Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains 2005)

Adult Age Determination Cranial sutures (Meindl and Lovejoy, 1985): Dental wear (Brothwell, 1989): Pubic symphyses (Brooks and Suchey, 1990): Auricular surface (Lovejoy et al., 1985): Young adult 17-25 years Middle adult 26-35 years Middle-mature adult 36-45 years Mature adult 46+ years

185

Cultural Behaviour or Natural Processes? A Review of Southern Britain Iron Age Skeletal Remains

Sex Estimation: SKULL MALE ? MALE I ? FEMALE FEMALE Frontal and parietal bossing Nuchal Line Superciliatory Ridges Nasion Mastoid process Posterior zygomatic arch Frontal Shape Orbital shape Orbital rim Chin shape of mandible Gonial angle Mandibular ramus angle Mandibular ramus breadth Maxillary palate Sex of the individual based on the skull: _________________________ PELVIS: MALE ? MALE I ? FEMALE FEMALE Pelvic inlet Sub-pubic angle Sub-pubic concavity Ventral arc Medial ischio-pubic ramus Pubic bone length and breadth Sciatic notch Preauricular sulcus Obturator foramen Sacrum (curved/flat) Sacral alae width Sex of the individual based on the pelvis: _________________________

Comments:

186

Appendices

METRICAL DATA FOR SEX DETERMINATION: Humerus Vertical Diameter Head: M F I

>47 mm 43 mm 44-46 mm

Humerus Length Max: Caucasian M >290-360 mm F 240-350 mm Scapula Glenoid Cavity Length: M F I

>37 mm 140 mm 47.5 mm 46.5 - 47.5 mm