Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) 9781407358345, 9781407358352

Neolithic Britain is characterised by its wide diversity in funerary and mortuary rites. However, a shift c.3500BC led t

201 65 47MB

English Pages [344] Year 2021

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

The Neolithic of Mainland Scotland 9780748685745

Archaeologists show us how the Neolithic human lived in mainland Scotland GBS_insertPreviewButtonPopup(['ISBN: 978

177 20 17MB Read more

From Stonehenge to the Baltic: Living with cultural diversity in the third millennium BC 9781407301303, 9781407331713

A volume representing collaborative research between the Swedish universities of Kalmar and Stockholm and the University

179 82 38MB Read more

Inhumation Rites in Late Roman Britain: The Treatment of the Engendered Body 9781841713052, 9781407319711

194 52 136MB Read more

Neolithic Britain 2018935372, 9780198823896, 9780192559432

428 41 44MB Read more

Built Chamber Tombs of Middle and Late Bronze Age Date in Mainland Greece and the Islands 9781841711706, 9781407352718

271 53 223MB Read more

Animals in the Neolithic of Britain and Europe (Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers) [Illustrated] 184217214X, 9781842172148

The twelve papers in this edited volume originated from the Neolithic Studies Group seminar held at the British Museum o

567 121 14MB Read more

The Neolithic of Mainland Scotland [1 ed.] 9780748685745, 9780748685721

Archaeologists show us how the Neolithic human lived in mainland Scotland What was life like in Scotland between 4000 an

159 71 18MB Read more

Stonehenge

Un día indeterminado hace cuatro mil años, fue comenzada la construcción de un templo nunca antes realizado. Hoy, Stoneh

444 99 5MB Read more

Neolithic and Bronze Age Funerary and Ritual Practices in Wales, 3600–1200 BC 9781407316499, 9781407323299

This book brings together, for the first time, all of the burials and funerary practices from the Middle Neolithic to th

344 52 30MB Read more

Making a Mark : Image and Process in Neolithic Britain and Ireland [1 ed.] 9781789251913, 9781789251883

The visual imagery of Neolithic Britain and Ireland is spectacular. While the imagery of passage tombs, such as Knowth a

163 23 7MB Read more

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC)
9781407358345, 9781407358352

Author / Uploaded
Christina Willis

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title
Copyright
Of Related Interest
Acknowledgements
Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Abstract
1. Introduction
1.1. Research context and constraints
1.2. Recent advances in cremation studies
1.3. Brief overview of the cremation process in archaeology
1.4. Brief overview of radiocarbon dating cremated human remains
1.5. Brief overview of analysing strontium isotopes in cremated bone
1.6. Terminology
2. The Spread of Cremation Rites from Mainland Europe to Britain
2.1. The European Mesolithic (c.8000–4000 cal BC)
2.1.1. Mesolithic cremation burial in Iberia, France and Belgium
2.1.2. Mesolithic cremation burial in Ireland
2.1.3. Mesolithic cremation burial in Britain
2.1.4. Mesolithic cremation burial elsewhere in Europe: a brief review
2.2. The European Neolithic (c.5600–3000 cal BC)
2.2.1. Neolithic cremation burial in Iberia, France and Belgium
2.2.2. Neolithic cremation burial in Ireland
2.3. Summary of the spread of cremation rites
3. Neolithic Mortuary Rites Associated with Monuments in Britain (c.4000–2500 BC)
3.1. The Early Neolithic (c.4000–3500 BC)
3.1.1. Early Neolithic inhumations and monument construction
3.1.2. Early Neolithic cremations and associated monuments
3.2. The Middle Neolithic (c.3500–3000 BC)
3.2.1. Middle Neolithic inhumations and associated monuments
3.2.2. Middle Neolithic cremation cemeteries and associated monuments
3.3. The Late Neolithic (c.3000–2500 BC)
3.3.1. Late Neolithic inhumations and associated monuments
3.3.2. Late Neolithic cremation cemeteries and associated monuments
3.4. The ‘lost’ cremation cemeteries
3.4.1. Duggleby Howe
3.4.2. Cairnpapple
3.5. The arrival of Beaker inhumation rites (c.2500 BC)
3.6. Summary of Neolithic mortuary rites associated with monuments in Britain
4. ‘Other’ Neolithic Burial Deposits
4.1. The Early Neolithic (c.4000–3500 BC)
4.1.1. Non-monumental Early Neolithic inhumations
4.1.2. Non-monumental Early Neolithic cremations
4.2. The Middle Neolithic (c.3500–3000 BC)
4.2.1. Non-monumental Middle Neolithic inhumations
4.2.2. Non-monumental Middle Neolithic cremations
4.3. The Late Neolithic (c.3000–2500 BC)
4.3.1. Non-monumental Late Neolithic inhumations
4.3.2. Non-monumental Late Neolithic cremations
4.3.3. Other forms of deposition
4.4. Summary of ‘other’ Neolithic burial deposits
5. Methods
5.1. Recording and pyre technology
5.1.1. Cleaning
5.1.2. Total weight
5.1.3. Preservation and completeness
5.1.4. Dehydration: shrinkage, warping and fissuring
5.1.5. Bone fragmentation
5.1.6. Bone colouration
5.1.7. Identification of skeletal elements
5.1.8. Pyre goods and pyre debris
5.2. Recording demographic data
5.2.1. Minimum number of individuals (MNI)
5.2.2. Age at death
5.2.3. Biological sex
5.2.4. Pathological data
5.2.5. Radiocarbon dating
6. Stonehenge
6.1. Introduction to Stonehenge
6.1.1. Brief summary of the previous excavations at Stonehenge
6.2. The Aubrey Holes of Stonehenge
6.3. Excavation of Aubrey Hole 7
6.4. Osteological analysis
6.4.1. Weight
6.4.2. Fragment size
6.4.3. Colour and efficiency
6.4.4. Completeness and preservation
6.4.5. Pyre technology
6.4.6. Minimum number of individuals (MNI)
6.4.7. Age at death
6.4.8 Biological sex
6.4.9. Pathological lesions
6.4.10. Radiocarbon dating and strontium isotope results
7. Mortuary Remains: Selected Case Studies
7.1. The selection of case study sites
7.2. Middle Neolithic archaeological sites (c.3500–3000 BC)
7.2.1. Case study #1: Imperial College Sports Ground
7.2.2. Case study #2: Dorchester-on-Thames
7.2.3. Case study #3: Bryn Celli Ddu
7.2.4. Case study #4: Llandegai Henge A
7.2.5. Case study #5: West Stow
7.3. Late Neolithic archaeological sites (c. 3000–2500BC)
7.3.1. Case study #6: Forteviot
7.3.2. Case study #7: Ferrybridge
7.3.3. Cast study #8: Balbirnie
8. Analysis and Synthesis of Middle and Late Neolithic Cremated Human Remains
8.1. Methodological approaches
8.1.1. The database
8.1.2. The analysis
8.1.3. The osteological samples
8.1.4. Problems and limitations
8.2. Analysis of the demographic data from Neolithic cremated remains
8.2.1. Minimum number of individuals (MNI) and spatial organisation
8.2.2. Age at death
8.2.3. Biological sex
8.3. Analysis of the cremation process and pyre technology
8.3.1. Fragment size and fragmentation
8.3.2. Dehydration, fissuring, warping and other heat-induced bone modifications
8.3.3 Pyre temperature and preservation
8.3.4. Pyre debris
8.3.5. Grave goods and inclusions
8.3.6. Deposit weight
8.4. The radiocarbon dates
8.4.1. Radiocarbon dates for all Middle Neolithic cremated remains
8.4.2. Radiocarbon dates for all Late Neolithic cremated remains
9. Discussion
9.1. The ‘missing’ dead
9.2. The identities of those selected for cremation burial
9.3. The nature of deposition and the importance of ‘token deposits’
9.4. Cremations associated with circular monuments
9.5. The destructive and transforming properties of fire
10. Future Directions and Closing Remarks
10.1. Future directions
10.1.1. Systematic review
10.1.2. Population dynamics
10.1.3. Radiocarbon dating
10.1.4. Strontium stable isotopes
10.1.5. Location of cremation deposits and the purposes of isolated pits
10.1.6. Grave goods and inclusions
10.2. Closing remarks
References
Appendix 1: Cremated Human Remains Recording Form
Appendix 2: Dataset Summary
Back Cover

Citation preview

BAR BRITISH SERIES 668

2021

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) CHRISTINA WILLIS

BAR BRITISH SERIES 668

2021

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) CHRISTINA WILLIS

Published in 2021 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 668 Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) ISBN 978 1 4073 5834 5 ISBN 978 1 4073 5835 2

paperback e-format

doi https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407358345 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library © Christina Willis 2021 cover image A reconstruction of the bluestone circle at Stonehenge (Phase 1). Artwork by Will MacNeil. 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. Links to third party websites are provided by BAR Publishing in good faith and for information only. BAR Publishing disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third-party website referenced in this work.

BAR titles are available from: Email Phone Fax

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, ox2 7bp, uk [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Of Related Interest Neolithic and Bronze Age Funerary and Ritual Practices in Wales, 3600–1200 BC Geneviève Tellier BAR British Series 642

Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2018 A Taphonomic Approach to the Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Rebecca Crozier

BAR British Series 635

Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2018 Irish Portal Tombs: A Ritual Perspective Phyllis Mercer

BAR British Series 616

Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2015 Female Burial Traditions of the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age A pilot study based on modern excavations Alice Rogers

BAR British Series 581

Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2013 The Sounds of Stonehenge Stephen Banfield

BAR British Series 504

Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2010

For more information, or to purchase these titles, please visit www.barpublishing.com iii

Acknowledgements First, and foremost, my sincere gratitude goes to Professor Mike Parker Pearson for his guidance and support over the years. His advice and extensive knowledge have greatly improved this work and broadened my arguments, and his unfailing encouragement has seen me through some tough times for which I am grateful. This study would have been that much harder without access to curated assemblages: a special thanks goes to Laura Parker from West Suffolk Council, and to Jody Deacon from the National Museum of Wales. I am also grateful to the Oxford Radiocarbon Acceleration Unit for granting me a NERC/AHRC grant to radiocarbon date 16 cremated bone samples, and to this, I must also thank the National Museum of Wales and West Suffolk Council for permission to sample cremated bones. For access to unpublished reports, I would like to thank Archaeological Services WYAS for the complete Ferrybridge and Milton Bridge osteological databases, Dr. Malin Holst for her unpublished osteological reports, Dr. Stephany Leach for the North End Pots report, Professor Andy Bevan for generously providing me part of his data, Andy Chapman for all the reports sent to me over the years, Dr. Kenny Brophy for allowing me access to unpublished Forteviot material, Dr. Paul Rainbird for the (then) unpublished excavation report of Newton Poppleford, Ben Neil of Cambridge Archaeological Unit for the Manor Farm Quarry reports, Dr. Francis Lynch for her help with the Llandegai cremation deposits, and to Janet Bailey and Hawys Jones for the Trostrey reports. I would also like to thank everyone who granted kind permission to reprint their figures in this book; you are too numerous to list but know that I am indeed very thankful. And finally, my biggest ever thank-you to my family who has always offered unfailing love, support and encouragement: my husband Robert, my kids Owen, Olivia and Eli, and my mom Joyce. You have all put up with my irrational demands for coffee and chocolate, and me staring blankly at walls while muttering to myself about cremated bones (this happened a lot apparently!). You are all wonderful!

‘Sometimes our obsession with conservation is merely conserving our state of ignorance’ (Pryor, 2001: 218). v

Contents List of Figures�� xi List of Tables�� xix Abstract�� xxiii 1. Introduction�� 1 1.1. Research context and constraints�� 1 1.2. Recent advances in cremation studies�� 2 1.3. Brief overview of the cremation process in archaeology �� 3 1.4. Brief overview of radiocarbon dating cremated human remains �� 4 1.5. Brief overview of analysing strontium isotopes in cremated bone �� 5 1.6. Terminology�� 5 2. The Spread of Cremation Rites from Mainland Europe to Britain��11 2.1. The European Mesolithic (c.8000–4000 cal BC) �� 11 2.1.1. Mesolithic cremation burial in Iberia, France and Belgium �� 11 2.1.2. Mesolithic cremation burial in Ireland�� 13 2.1.3. Mesolithic cremation burial in Britain�� 14 2.1.4. Mesolithic cremation burial elsewhere in Europe: a brief review�� 15 2.2. The European Neolithic (c.5600–3000 cal BC)�� 16 2.2.1. Neolithic cremation burial in Iberia, France and Belgium �� 16 2.2.2. Neolithic cremation burial in Ireland�� 20 2.3. Summary of the spread of cremation rites�� 21 3. Neolithic Mortuary Rites Associated with Monuments in Britain (c.4000–2500 BC)�� 23 3.1. The Early Neolithic (c.4000–3500 BC)�� 24 3.1.1. Early Neolithic inhumations and monument construction �� 24 3.1.2. Early Neolithic cremations and associated monuments �� 28 3.2. The Middle Neolithic (c.3500–3000 BC)�� 33 3.2.1. Middle Neolithic inhumations and associated monuments�� 33 3.2.2. Middle Neolithic cremation cemeteries and associated monuments�� 35 3.3. The Late Neolithic (c.3000–2500 BC) �� 40 3.3.1. Late Neolithic inhumations and associated monuments�� 41 3.3.2. Late Neolithic cremation cemeteries and associated monuments�� 43 3.4. The ‘lost’ cremation cemeteries �� 51 3.4.1. Duggleby Howe�� 51 3.4.2. Cairnpapple�� 54 3.5. The arrival of Beaker inhumation rites (c.2500 BC)�� 55 3.6. Summary of Neolithic mortuary rites associated with monuments in Britain�� 57 4. ‘Other’ Neolithic Burial Deposits�� 61 4.1. The Early Neolithic (c.4000–3500 BC)�� 61 4.1.1. Non-monumental Early Neolithic inhumations �� 61 4.1.2. Non-monumental Early Neolithic cremations �� 63 4.2. The Middle Neolithic (c.3500–3000 BC)�� 66 4.2.1. Non-monumental Middle Neolithic inhumations�� 66 4.2.2. Non-monumental Middle Neolithic cremations �� 70 4.3. The Late Neolithic (c.3000–2500 BC)�� 72 4.3.1. Non-monumental Late Neolithic inhumations�� 73 4.3.2. Non-monumental Late Neolithic cremations�� 74 4.3.3. Other forms of deposition�� 77 4.4. Summary of ‘other’ Neolithic burial deposits �� 77 5. Methods�� 79 5.1. Recording and pyre technology�� 79 5.1.1. Cleaning�� 79 5.1.2. Total weight �� 80 vii

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) 5.1.3. Preservation and completeness �� 81 5.1.4. Dehydration: shrinkage, warping and fissuring�� 81 5.1.5. Bone fragmentation�� 82 5.1.6. Bone colouration�� 83 5.1.7. Identification of skeletal elements�� 83 5.1.8. Pyre goods and pyre debris �� 84 5.2. Recording demographic data�� 84 5.2.1. Minimum number of individuals (MNI)�� 85 5.2.2. Age at death�� 85 5.2.3. Biological sex�� 86 5.2.4. Pathological data�� 88 5.2.5. Radiocarbon dating�� 89 6. Stonehenge�� 93 6.1. Introduction to Stonehenge�� 93 6.1.1. Brief summary of the previous excavations at Stonehenge�� 94 6.2. The Aubrey Holes of Stonehenge�� 96 6.3. Excavation of Aubrey Hole 7�� 100 6.4. Osteological analysis �� 103 6.4.1. Weight�� 103 6.4.2. Fragment size�� 103 6.4.3. Colour and efficiency�� 103 6.4.4. Completeness and preservation �� 104 6.4.5. Pyre technology�� 104 6.4.6. Minimum number of individuals (MNI)�� 105 6.4.7. Age at death �� 105 6.4.8. Biological sex�� 105 6.4.9. Pathological lesions�� 105 6.4.10. Radiocarbon dating and strontium isotope results�� 107 7. Mortuary Remains: Selected Case Studies��113 7.1. The selection of case study sites�� 113 7.2. Middle Neolithic archaeological sites (c. 3500–3000 BC) �� 113 7.2.1. Case study #1: Imperial College Sports Ground �� 113 7.2.2. Case study #2: Dorchester-on-Thames �� 117 7.2.3. Case study #3: Bryn Celli Ddu �� 130 7.2.4. Case study #4: Llandegai Henge A�� 133 7.2.5. Case study #5: West Stow �� 138 7.3. Late Neolithic archaeological sites (c. 3000–2500 BC)�� 144 7.3.1. Case study #6: Forteviot �� 144 7.3.2. Case study #7: Ferrybridge�� 148 7.3.3. Cast study #8: Balbirnie �� 152 8. Analysis and Synthesis of Middle and Late Neolithic Cremated Human Remains �� 155 8.1. Methodological approaches�� 155 8.1.1. The database�� 155 8.1.2. The analysis�� 155 8.1.3. The osteological samples�� 155 8.1.4. Problems and limitations�� 156 8.2. Analysis of the demographic data from Neolithic cremated remains�� 158 8.2.1. Minimum number of individuals (MNI) and spatial organisation�� 159 8.2.2. Age at death�� 172 8.2.3. Biological sex�� 189 8.3. Analysis of the cremation process and pyre technology �� 201 8.3.1. Fragment size and fragmentation �� 201 8.3.2. Dehydration, fissuring, warping and other heat-induced bone modifications�� 205 8.3.3. Pyre temperature and preservation �� 205 8.3.4. Pyre debris �� 206 8.3.5. Grave goods and inclusions�� 208 8.3.6. Deposit weight�� 214 viii

Contents 8.4. The radiocarbon dates�� 226 8.4.1. Radiocarbon dates for all Middle Neolithic cremated remains�� 226 8.4.2. Radiocarbon dates for all Late Neolithic cremated remains�� 227 9. Discussion�� 239 9.1. The ‘missing’ dead�� 239 9.2. The identities of those selected for cremation burial�� 240 9.3. The nature of deposition and the importance of ‘token deposits’�� 242 9.4. Cremations associated with circular monuments�� 243 9.5. The destructive and transforming properties of fire�� 244 10. Future Directions and Closing Remarks�� 245 10.1. Future directions�� 245 10.1.1. Systematic review�� 245 10.1.2. Population dynamics�� 245 10.1.3. Radiocarbon dating �� 246 10.1.4. Strontium stable isotopes�� 246 10.1.5. Location of cremation deposits and the purposes of isolated pits�� 247 10.1.6. Grave goods and inclusions�� 247 10.2. Closing remarks�� 248 References�� 249 Appendix 1: Cremated Human Remains Recording Form�� 277 Appendix 2: Dataset Summary�� 285

ix

List of Figures Figure 1.1. Reconstruction of a cremation pyre �� 3 Figure 1.2. The 87Sr/86Sr biosphere map of Britain�� 6 Figure 1.3. Chaîne opératoire for inhumations�� 7 Figure 1.4. Chaîne opératoire for cremations�� 7 Figure 1.5. Different types of cemeteries�� 8 Figure 2.1. The distribution of Mesolithic cremation sites in western Europe�� 12 Figure 2.2. Hermitage cremation Pit A�� 14 Figure 2.3. Mesolithic cremation, Langford�� 14 Figure 2.4. The distribution of Neolithic cremation sites in Iberia�� 17 Figure 2.5. The distribution of Neolithic cremation sites in Britany, France and Belgium�� 18 Figure 2.6. Photo of Grotte du Gardon excavation�� 19 Figure 2.7. Map of the megalithic expansion of Europe in three phases�� 19 Figure 2.8. The distribution of Neolithic cremation sites in Ireland (as mentioned in this chapter)�� 20 Figure 3.1. Map of Early Neolithic inhumation sites�� 25 Figure 3.2. West Kennet Long Barrow�� 26 Figure 3.3. Examples of causewayed enclosures�� 27 Figure 3.4. Alfriston oval mound�� 28 Figure 3.5. Map of the Early Neolithic cremation sites�� 29 Figure 3.6. Lochhill mortuary structure�� 31 Figure 3.7. Distribution of cremated bones, Pencraig Hill�� 32 Figure 3.8. Callis Wold barrow 275, Yorkshire�� 32 Figure 3.9. Map of Middle Neolithic inhumation sites�� 34 Figure 3.10. Plan of Aldro 175�� 35 Figure 3.11. Map of Middle Neolithic cremation sites�� 36 Figure 3.12. Ring ditch at Newton Poppleford�� 37 Figure 3.13. New Wintle’s Farm segmented ring ditch�� 37 Figure 3.14. Manor Farm cursus complex�� 38

xi

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) Figure 3.15. Location of cremation deposits at Yarnton�� 38 Figure 3.16. Cremation deposits from house at Yarnton�� 39 Figure 3.17. Arc-shaped ditch at Holly Road, Levan�� 39 Figure 3.18. Timber circle, Meusydd I, Powys�� 40 Figure 3.19. Portal dolmen at Carreg Coetan Arthur�� 41 Figure 3.20. Map of Late Neolithic inhumation sites�� 42 Figure 3.21. Map of Late Neolithic cremation sites�� 44 Figure 3.22. The palisaded enclosure at Lower Luggy�� 45 Figure 3.23. Entrance to palisaded enclosure at Forteviot�� 45 Figure 3.24. Bone distribution at Woodhenge�� 46 Figure 3.25. Penannular ditch near Winterbourne long barrow�� 46 Figure 3.26. The cremation cemetery of Whitton Hill 1�� 47 Figure 3.27. Penannular ring ditch of Sarn-y-bryn-caled 2�� 47 Figure 3.28. The plan of Beckton Farm, Lockerbie�� 48 Figure 3.29. The stone circle at Bryn Gwyn, Anglesey�� 49 Figure 3.30. Cremation deposits at Stoneyfield, Raigmore�� 50 Figure 3.31. The first phase of Stonehenge�� 51 Figure 3.32. The location of Duggleby Howe�� 52 Figure 3.33. Section drawing of Duggleby Howe�� 52 Figure 3.34. The plan of the cremations from Duggleby Howe�� 53 Figure 3.35. The plan of Cairnpapple, West Lothian�� 54 Figure 3.36. Plan of Vaynor Farm, Carmarthenshire�� 56 Figure 3.37. Site 222 near Vaynor Farm henge�� 57 Figure 3.38. Hindlow round cairn�� 58 Figure 4.1. Map of the Early Neolithic inhumation and cremation sites�� 62 Figure 4.2. Plan of Yabsley Street, London�� 63 Figure 4.3. The male skeleton, Cissbury, Sussex�� 63 Figure 4.4. Mortuary site at Trostrey, Monmouthshire�� 64 Figure 4.5. Cremated bones from Parkbury, St. Albans�� 65 Figure 4.6. Partially cremated skull from Bessingby Hill�� 66

xii

List of Figures Figure 4.7. The cremations from Barnsdale Bar Quarry�� 66 Figure 4.8. Map of the Middle Neolithic inhumation and cremation sites�� 67 Figure 4.9. Inhumation from Wormington Farm, Worcestershire�� 68 Figure 4.10. Burials at Monkton-up-Wimborne, Dorset�� 68 Figure 4.11. Excarnation platform, Point Hope, Alaska�� 69 Figure 4.12. Human remains at Ifton Quarry, Monmouthshire�� 70 Figure 4.13. The plan of Garton Slack 80, East Yorkshire�� 70 Figure 4.14. The plan of Garton Slack 81, East Yorkshire�� 71 Figure 4.15. Cremation burials from Milton Halm, Northamptonshire�� 72 Figure 4.16. Pits from Pen-y-banc, Carmarthenshire�� 73 Figure 4.17. Map of the Late Neolithic inhumation and cremation sites�� 74 Figure 4.18. Cremation deposits, Lanton Quarry�� 75 Figure 4.19. Isolated cremation deposit, Durrington�� 76 Figure 4.20. Standing stones at Orwell Farm, Kinross-shire�� 76 Figure 4.21. Isolated pit cremation, Flixton, Suffolk�� 77 Figure 5.1. 3D image of an internal auditory meatus (IAM)�� 87 Figure 5.2. Setting the angles for measuring the IAM�� 88 Figure 5.3. Lateral angle of a petrous bone�� 89 Figure 6.1. Map of the Stonehenge area�� 93 Figure 6.2. Merlin and a giant building Stonehenge, Roman de Brut manuscript 14th century�� 94 Figure 6.3. Watercolour drawing of Stonehenge, Lucas de Heere c.1574�� 95 Figure 6.4. The first phase of construction at Stonehenge�� 97 Figure 6.5. Plan of Stonehenge and the distribution of human bones�� 98 Figure 6.6. Plaque from on top of the redeposited cremated bones in AH7�� 100 Figure 6.7. Excavating the cremated human bones from AH7�� 101 Figure 6.8. The excavated pit of AH7�� 101 Figure 6.9. Plan of AH7 and the primary cremation deposit (008)�� 102 Figure 6.10. Cross-section of pit 008 adjacent to AH7�� 102 Figure 6.11. Different femoral colour ranges from grid 254, AH7�� 104 Figure 6.12. Heavily weathered cremated bone fragment�� 104

xiii

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) Figure 6.13. Compressed thoracic vertebra�� 106 Figure 6.14. Schmorl’s Nodes on a lumbar vertebra�� 106 Figure 6.15. MSM stress marker on humerus�� 106 Figure 6.16. Periostitis on a clavicular fragment�� 106 Figure 6.17. Popliteal aneurysm from a left distal femur�� 106 Figure 6.18. Degenerative joint disease on cervical vertebra�� 107 Figure 6.19. Lateral view of the dens (C2)�� 107 Figure 6.20. Probable abscess in the maxilla of (007)�� 107 Figure 6.21. Bayesian model of the radiocarbon dates from AH7�� 108 Figure 6.22. Trapezoid model of the radiocarbon dates from AH7�� 109 Figure 6.23. Demographic distribution of age and sex based on isotope results��112 Figure 7.1. Map of the Middle Neolithic case sites��114 Figure 7.2. Site plan of the western area of ICSG��115 Figure 7.3. The double ring ditch G2007 ��115 Figure 7.4. The penannular ditched monument G2008��116 Figure 7.5. Chronological modelling of the radiocarbon dates from ICSG��117 Figure 7.6. Map of the Dorchester-on-Thames monument complex��118 Figure 7.7. Plan of Monument I, Dorchester-on-Thames��119 Figure 7.8. Plan of Monument II, Dorchester-on-Thames�� 120 Figure 7.9. Plan of Monument IV, Dorchester-on-Thames�� 121 Figure 7.10. Plan of Monument V, Dorchester-on-Thames�� 122 Figure 7.11. Plan of Monument VI, Dorchester-on-Thames�� 124 Figure 7.12. Plan of Monument XI, Dorchester-on-Thames�� 126 Figure 7.13. Plan of Monument 2, Dorchester-on-Thames�� 127 Figure 7.14. Plan of Monument 3, Dorchester-on-Thames�� 129 Figure 7.15. Locations of the cremated remains at Bryn Celli Ddu�� 131 Figure 7.16. Bayesian model of the radiocarbon dates from Bryn Celli Ddu�� 133 Figure 7.17. Location of the monuments at Llandegai�� 134 Figure 7.18. Plan of Henge A and the cremation pit circle, Llandegai�� 135 Figure 7.19. Cremation circle and radiocarbon dates from Llandegai�� 135

xiv

List of Figures Figure 7.20. The radiocarbon dates from the charcoal planks, Llandegai�� 136 Figure 7.21. The radiocarbon dates for the cremated remains at Llandegai�� 138 Figure 7.22. Plan of West stow and the location of the cremation deposits�� 139 Figure 7.23. Silhouette inhumation burial�� 140 Figure 7.24. The radiocarbon dates for the cremated remains at West Stow�� 144 Figure 7.25. Map of the Late Neolithic case study sites�� 145 Figure 7.26. The Forteviot complex, highlighting the henge�� 146 Figure 7.27. Plan of the cremation deposits in the henge, Forteviot�� 146 Figure 7.28. The radiocarbon dates for the cremated remains at Forteviot�� 148 Figure 7.29. Overview of the eastern half of the Ferrybridge complex�� 148 Figure 7.30. Timber Circle 140, Ferrybridge�� 149 Figure 7.31. Timber Circle 165, Ferrybridge�� 150 Figure 7.32. Hengiform 162, Ferrybridge�� 151 Figure 7.33. The radiocarbon dates for the cremated remains at Ferrybridge�� 151 Figure 7.34. Barrow 154, Ferrybridge�� 152 Figure 7.35. Map of the Balfarg and Balbirnie complex�� 153 Figure 7.36. The stone circle of Balbirnie, Fife�� 153 Figure 7.37. The radiocarbon dates for the cremated remains at Balbirnie�� 154 Figure 8.1. The location of the cremated bones at Bryn Celli Ddu�� 161 Figure 8.2 . The location of the cremated bones at Llandegai pit circle�� 161 Figure 8.3. The location of the burials at Dorchester-on-Thames V�� 162 Figure 8.4. The location of the burials at Dorchester-on-Thames VI�� 162 Figure 8.5. The location of the burials at Dorchester-on-Thames Monument 2�� 163 Figure 8.6. The location of the burials at Imperial College Sports Ground G2008�� 163 Figure 8.7. The penannular enclosure of Dorchester-on-Thames Monument IV�� 163 Figure 8.8. The location of the burials at Dorchester-on-Thames Monument 1�� 164 Figure 8.9. The location of the burials at Imperial College Sports Ground G2007�� 164 Figure 8.10. The location of the burials at West Stow�� 165 Figure 8.11. The location of the burials at Dorchester-on-Thames Monument XI�� 166 Figure 8.12. The location of the burials at Dorchester-on-Thames Monument 3�� 166

xv

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) Figure 8.13. The location of the burials at Dorchester-on-Thames Monument II�� 167 Figure 8.14. MNI of cremated individuals from 19 other Middle Neolithic monuments�� 167 Figure 8.15. MNI of cremated individuals from Middle Neolithic isolated deposits�� 168 Figure 8.16. The MNI of individuals buried at monuments compared to those deposited in isolation during the Middle Neolithic�� 168 Figure 8.17. Plan of Stonehenge and the spatial organisation of the burials�� 170 Figure 8.18. Plan of Forteviot and the spatial organisation of the burials�� 171 Figure 8.19. Plan of Timber Circle 165, Ferrybridge�� 171 Figure 8.20. Spatial patterning of burials at Timber Circle 140, Ferrybridge�� 172 Figure 8.21. Spatial patterning of burials at Hengiform 162, Ferrybridge�� 172 Figure 8.22. Plan of Balbirnie stone circle�� 173 Figure 8.23. The MNI of individuals from other Late Neolithic monuments�� 173 Figure 8.24. The MNI of individuals from Late Neolithic isolated deposits�� 174 Figure 8.25. The MNI of individuals burial at monuments compared to those deposited in isolation during the Late Neolithic�� 174 Figure 8.26. The MNI of all individuals from the Middle and Late Neolithic sites�� 174 Figure 8.27. The precise age distributions from the Middle Neolithic case-study sites�� 176 Figure 8.28. Age distributions of the cremated remains from the Middle Neolithic case-study sites�� 177 Figure 8.29. The combined age distributions from all Middle Neolithic case-study sites�� 178 Figure 8.30. Age distribution at West Stow�� 179 Figure 8.31. Age distribution at G2007 and G2008, Imperial College Sports Ground�� 180 Figure 8.32. Age distribution at Monument 2, Dorchester-on-Thames�� 180 Figure 8.33. Age distribution at Monument I, Dorchester-on-Thames�� 180 Figure 8.34. Age distribution at Monument II, Dorchester-on-Thames�� 181 Figure 8.35. Age distribution at Monument VI, Dorchester-on-Thames�� 181 Figure 8.36. Age distribution at Monument 3, Dorchester-on-Thames�� 182 Figure 8.37. Age distribution at Bryn Celli Ddu�� 182 Figure 8.38. Age distribution at Llandegai pit circle�� 183 Figure 8.39. Age distribution from cremations at other Middle Neolithic monuments�� 183 Figure 8.40. Age distribution between the Middle Neolithic isolated deposits�� 184 Figure 8.41. Distribution of age categories between Middle Neolithic monuments and isolated sites�� 184

xvi

List of Figures Figure 8.42. The precise age distribution of the Late Neolithic case-study sites�� 185 Figure 8.43. Age distribution of the Late Neolithic case-study sites�� 186 Figure 8.44. Age distribution at Forteviot�� 187 Figure 8.45. Age distribution at Stonehenge�� 188 Figure 8.46. Age distribution at Hengiform 162, Ferrybridge�� 188 Figure 8.47. Age distribution at Timber Circle 140, Ferrybridge�� 188 Figure 8.48. Age distribution at Balbirnie�� 189 Figure 8.49. Age distribution of other Late Neolithic cremations in other monuments�� 189 Figure 8.50. Age distribution of the Late Neolithic isolated deposits�� 190 Figure 8.51. Age distribution between all Late Neolithic monuments and isolated deposits�� 190 Figure 8.52. Combined age distribution for both Middle and Late Neolithic cremations�� 190 Figure 8.53. The combined age distribution between Middle and Late Neolithic monuments and isolated deposits �� 191 Figure 8.54. Distribution of sex among the adult individuals from the Middle Neolithic case-study sites�� 192 Figure 8.55. Sex distribution of the cremated remains at Bryn Celli Ddu�� 194 Figure 8.56. Sex distribution of the cremated remains at Llandegai pit circle�� 194 Figure 8.57. Sex distribution of the cremated remains at Monument 2, Dorchester-on-Thames�� 195 Figure 8.58. Sex distribution of the cremated remains at Monument II, Dorchester-on-Thames�� 195 Figure 8.59. Sex distribution of the cremated remains at G2007 and G2008, Imperial College Sports Ground�� 196 Figure 8.60. Sex distribution of the cremated remains at West Stow�� 196 Figure 8.61. Sex distribution from other Middle Neolithic monuments�� 197 Figure 8.62. Sex distribution from the Middle Neolithic isolated deposits�� 197 Figure 8.63. Sex distribution of the cremated remains from the Late Neolithic case-study sites�� 198 Figure 8.64. Sex distribution of all the adults from the Late Neolithic case-study sites�� 198 Figure 8.65. Sex distribution at Stonehenge�� 199 Figure 8.66. Sex distribution at Balbirnie�� 199 Figure 8.67. Sex distribution of the Late Neolithic cremations from other monuments�� 200 Figure 8.68. Sex distribution of the individuals from isolated deposits�� 200 Figure 8.69. Sex distribution of all individuals between monuments and isolated deposits�� 201 Figure 8.70. Comparison of sexes between Middle and Late Neolithic sites�� 201 Figure 8.71. Cross-sectional profile of AH7 illustrating large fragment sizes�� 204 xvii

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) Figure 8.72. Differentiation of colours and pyre efficiency from one deposit�� 207 Figure 8.73. Different colours of cremated bone from one deposit�� 207 Figure 8.74. Severe erosion to a cremated bone fragment�� 208 Figure 8.75. Age and sex distribution of grave goods from Middle Neolithic sites��211 Figure 8.76. Age and sex distribution of grave goods from Late Neolithic sites�� 212 Figure 8.77. Age distribution between Middle and Late Neolithic cremations and associated artefacts�� 213 Figure 8.78. Sex distribution between Middle and Late Neolithic cremations and associated artefacts�� 213 Figure 8.79. Average weights from each Middle Neolithic case-study site�� 214 Figure 8.80. Distribution of the average deposit weight for other Middle Neolithic sites�� 216 Figure 8.81. Weight distribution in 25g increments in all Middle Neolithic single deposits�� 218 Figure 8.82. Weight distribution in 100g increments in all Middle Neolithic single deposits�� 219 Figure 8.83. Average weight for each Late Neolithic case-study site�� 220 Figure 8.84. Average weight for each of the other Late Neolithic sites�� 221 Figure 8.85. Weight distribution in 25g increments in all Late Neolithic single deposits�� 223 Figure 8.86. Weight distribution in 100g increments in all Late Neolithic single deposits�� 224 Figure 8.87. Weight distribution in 25g increments of all Middle and Late Neolithic deposits�� 225 Figure 8.88. Weight distribution in 100g increments of all Middle and Late Neolithic deposits�� 225 Figure 8.89. Middle Neolithic radiocarbon dates from cremated human bones (figure 1 of 3)�� 228 Figure 8.90. Middle Neolithic radiocarbon dates from cremated human bones (figure 2 of 3)�� 229 Figure 8.91. Middle Neolithic radiocarbon dates from cremated human bones (figure 3 of 3)�� 229 Figure 8.92. Radiocarbon dates from Middle Neolithic artefacts associated with cremated human remains�� 230 Figure 8.93. Late Neolithic radiocarbon dates from cremated human bones (figure 1 of 5)�� 232 Figure 8.94. Late Neolithic radiocarbon dates from cremated human bones (figure 2 of 5)�� 233 Figure 8.95. Late Neolithic radiocarbon dates from cremated human bones (figure 3 of 5)�� 234 Figure 8.96. Late Neolithic radiocarbon dates from cremated human bones (figure 4 of 5)�� 235 Figure 8.97. Late Neolithic radiocarbon dates from cremated human bones (figure 5 of 5)�� 236 Figure 8.98. Radiocarbon dates from Late Neolithic artefacts associated with cremated human remains�� 236

xviii

List of Tables Table 1. Early Neolithic sites recording ‘scorched’ or ‘charred’ bones�� 30 Table 2. Early Neolithic cremation sites with cremated bones�� 30 Table 3. Radiocarbon dates of unburnt bone, Duggleby Howe�� 53 Table 4. Radiocarbon dates at Duns Law Farm�� 65 Table 5. Cremations from Lanton Quarry, Northumberland�� 75 Table 6. Average weight of bones from modern cremations�� 80 Table 7. Average weight of cremations based on sex�� 80 Table 8. Grade system for abrasions and erosions�� 81 Table 9. Main skeletal elements for fragmentation determination�� 81 Table 10. Fracture patterns between dry and green bones�� 82 Table 11. Percentage of shrinkage affecting cremated bone�� 82 Table 12. Variations in colours and pyre temperatures�� 83 Table 13. Combustion grades based on colour�� 84 Table 14. Definitions of age categories�� 85 Table 15. Bone samples from Stonehenge sent for radiocarbon dating�� 90 Table 16. Bone samples from West Stow sent for radiocarbon dating�� 90 Table 17. Bone samples from Llandegai sent for radiocarbon dating�� 91 Table 18. The structural sequence at Stonehenge�� 96 Table 19. Finds from the fills of the excavated Aubrey Holes�� 99 Table 20. Maximum bone fragment size from AH7�� 103 Table 21. Tabulation of the individuals from AH7 by age category�� 105 Table 22. The isotopic analysis and radiocarbon dating results from AH7��110 Table 23. Summary of the cremated remains from ICSG��116 Table 24. Summary of the cremated remains, Dorchester-on-Thames��118 Table 25. Demographic information from Monument I, Dorchester-on-Thames��119 Table 26. Demographic information from Monument II, Dorchester-on-Thames�� 121 Table 27. Demographic information for Monument IV, Dorchester-on-Thames�� 122 Table 28. Demographic information for Monument V, Dorchester-on-Thames�� 123 xix

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) Table 29. Demographic information for Monument VI, Dorchester-on-Thames�� 124 Table 30. Demographic information for Monument 2, Dorchester-on-Thames�� 127 Table 31. Demographic information for Monument 3, Dorchester-on-Thames�� 129 Table 32. Summary of the demographic information from Dorchester-on-Thames�� 130 Table 33. Summary of the cremated human remains from Bryn Celli Ddu�� 132 Table 34. Demographic summary, Llandegai pit circle and Henge A�� 137 Table 35. Distribution of cremation deposits�� 140 Table 36. Summary of the demographic information from West Stow�� 141 Table 37. Summary of the demographic information from Forteviot�� 147 Table 38. Summary of the demographic information from Ferrybridge�� 151 Table 39. Summary of the demographic information from Balbirnie �� 154 Table 40. The number of cremation deposits and MNI from each case site�� 156 Table 41. The number of cremation deposits and MNI from other monuments�� 157 Table 42. The number of cremation deposits and MNI from isolated sites�� 158 Table 43. The MNI from the five Middle Neolithic case-study sites�� 159 Table 44. The co-mingled deposits from the Middle Neolithic case-study sites�� 160 Table 45. The MNI from the four Late Neolithic case-study sites�� 169 Table 46. Late Neolithic age at death in the deposits containing multiple individuals�� 169 Table 47. The precise age distribution of the Middle Neolithic case sites�� 175 Table 48. Age distributions from the Middle Neolithic case-study sites�� 177 Table 49. Age at death in deposits containing multiple individuals from the Middle Neolithic case study-sites�� 178 Table 50. Precise age distribution of the age distribution of the Late Neolithic case-study sites�� 185 Table 51. Combined age at death for the Late Neolithic case-study sites �� 186 Table 52. Age at death in the Late Neolithic case-study deposits containing multiple individuals�� 186 Table 53. Distribution for biological sex in the Middle Neolithic case-study sites�� 191 Table 54. Biological sex of sub-adult individuals from the Middle Neolithic case-study sites�� 191 Table 55. Age at death and sex in the co-mingled deposits from the Middle Neolithic case-study sites�� 193 Table 56. Distribution of sex from the Late Neolithic case-study sites�� 197 Table 57. Age at death and sex in the co-mingled deposits from the Late Neolithic case-study sites�� 198 Table 58. Distribution of sex from other Late Neolithic sites with monuments�� 200 Table 59. Distribution of sex from Late Neolithic isolated deposits�� 200 xx

List of Tables Table 60. Maximum bone fragment sizes from Middle Neolithic sites�� 202 Table 61. Fragmentation levels from Middle Neolithic sites�� 203 Table 62. Maximum bone fragment sizes from Late Neolithic sites�� 204 Table 63. Fragmentation levels from Late Neolithic sites�� 205 Table 64. Average colour ranges for each Middle and Late Neolithic site�� 206 Table 65. Neolithic sites which contain charcoal�� 209 Table 66. Neolithic sites which contain grave goods�� 210 Table 67. Deposit weights from each Middle Neolithic case-study site�� 214 Table 68. Average weight of single and co-mingled deposits from Middle Neolithic case-study sites�� 215 Table 69. Average weight from single deposits by age category from the Middle Neolithic case-study sites�� 215 Table 70. Distribution of adult cremation weights for male and female deposits from Middle Neolithic case-study sites�� 216 Table 71. Deposit weights from other Middle Neolithic sites�� 216 Table 72. Average weight of single and co-mingled deposits from other Middle Neolithic sites�� 217 Table 73. Average weights for adults and children from other Middle Neolithic sites�� 217 Table 74. Deposit weights from each Late Neolithic case-study site�� 219 Table 75. Average weight of single and co-mingled deposits from Late Neolithic case-study sites�� 220 Table 76. Average weight from single deposits by age category from the Late Neolithic case-study sites�� 220 Table 77. Average weight for male and female deposits from Late Neolithic case-study sites�� 220 Table 78. Deposit weights from other Late Neolithic sites�� 221 Table 79. Average weights of single and co-mingled deposits from other Late Neolithic sites�� 222 Table 80. Average deposit weights of adults and children from other Late Neolithic sites�� 222 Table 81. Average weight for male and female deposits from other Late Neolithic sites�� 223 Table 82. Combined Middle and Late Neolithic weight distribution based on the number of individuals recovered from each deposit�� 224 Table 83. Age and sex distribution for deposit weight from both Middle and Late Neolithic sites�� 224 Table 84. Pilot study of results from a handful of cremated bones from an adult and from a child�� 226 Table 85. Radiocarbon dates from Middle Neolithic cremated human remains�� 227 Table 86. Radiocarbon dates from Middle Neolithic artefacts directly associated with cremated bones�� 230 Table 87. Radiocarbon dates from Late Neolithic cremated human remains�� 230 Table 88. Radiocarbon dates from artefacts associated with Late Neolithic cremation deposits�� 237

xxi

Abstract This book is the first to investigate the role of cremation during the British Neolithic. Through the analysis of 646 cremated individuals, a modern synthesis regarding demographic attributes and monumental forms was produced using osteological, archaeological, and chronological data. Research reveals that incoming migrant farmers brought the rite of cremation into Britain during the Mesolithic/Early Neolithic transition (c.4000–3500 BC); however, communal inhumation burials within long barrows and flat graves remained the preferred funerary rite. During the Middle Neolithic (c.3500–3000 BC) a subsistence shift, possibly related to population decline and economic downturn, coincided with a change from communal to individual burial and an increase in cremated remains deposited within monuments progressing towards circular forms (e.g., oval barrows, cursuses, round mounds). By the Late Neolithic (c.3000–2500 BC), cremation was the dominant funerary rite, with 94% of known cremations buried within circular monuments (e.g., henges, ring ditches, stone circles). Stonehenge, the largest cremation cemetery, was constructed c.3000 BC when cremation rites were at their peak. This research also focused on who was selected for cremation since population dynamics are crucial for understanding social change and cultural organisation within prehistoric societies. Despite cremation being the dominant funerary rite during the Middle-Late Neolithic, they have traditionally been interpreted as representing individuals of low status. I argue that monument construction and the subsequent cremation processes were labour-intensive and would have been reserved for those considered worthy in their community. By examining the demographic information there appears to be a higher prevalence of adult female cremations over adult males during the Middle to Late Neolithic, contrasting with more maledominated ratios of the Early Neolithic when inhumation burials prevailed. The majority of cremated individuals were adults, but children of all ages were also represented especially in co-mingled deposits. The rite of cremation was predominantly reserved for adult women of status (whether ascribed or achieved) who were deposited within highly visible circular monuments within the landscape.

xxiii

1 Introduction form the basis for a new understanding the burial practices within cremation cemeteries.

There was considerable variation in mortuary practices during the Neolithic in mainland Britain (c.4000–2500 BC) which included inhumation burial in flat graves, round and long mounds, cairns, caves and cists, the disposal of partial skeletons, fleshed body parts or excarnated bones, the disposal of deceased individuals in rivers, bogs and other watery contexts, and the burial of cremated human remains in isolated pits, non-monumental cemeteries and within circular monuments. Some of these funerary and mortuary traditions overlap chronologically and geographically while others may be restricted to a specific region or to a short (or long!) burial phase (Cooney, 2014: 191). Even at Stonehenge, the burial traditions consisted of cremation deposits from the very first stage of its construction c.3000 cal BC, and then repeated short episodes of inhumation and excarnation rites which spanned millennia. It is clear that irrespective of the type of funerary or mortuary practice, specific individuals were deliberately selected for specific rites at specific locations. The selected dead, whether their status was ascribed or achieved, were chosen by their communities for particular mortuary and funerary rites yet they only represent a small proportion of the total number of deceased individuals from Neolithic Britain.

1.1. Research context and constraints Cremated human remains have consistently been recovered in the archaeological record of Neolithic Britain. Yet, surprisingly there is very little recognition of cremation as a separate rite within the academic literature despite considerable amount of archaeological data. This is partly due to the unfounded belief that cremated remains represent low status/deviant burials in which little information can be gained by their study, but also due to the lack of systematic osteological analysis and the lack of standardised methodologies and terminologies within reports and publications. While there is no legal requirement in England to make commercial archaeology reports accessible to the public, they all convey varying degrees of information such as the nature of the deposition, its association with other features and artefacts, soil conditions, pyre technology and demographic attributes. These ‘grey literature’ reports often only provide basic information rather than in-depth studies or analyses, which may call into question the experience and qualifications of the specialist(s). In fact, osteology is often presented as a ‘secondary’ component in reports (even in cemetery excavations!) in that monuments, pottery, lithics, or other archaeological features (such as pits, post holes and houses) are the primary focus. As a consequence, many archaeological reports had to be discounted throughout my research due to lack of information or availability, but it has also meant that comparing cremation deposits between sites at local and regional levels was problematic as potential similarities could not be discerned.

The aim of this research, which formed the majority of my PhD thesis, is to explore cremation as a deliberate and distinct funerary rite, consistently associated with circular monuments (or, at least, monuments with a progressive evolution towards a circular design) which took hold in the Middle Neolithic (c.3500–3000 BC) and became more widespread during the Late Neolithic (c.3000–2500 BC). Studies of stratigraphic sequences will show that cremation deposits were added at different times within the sequences of each monument, thus this study will also determine how this form of burial practice evolved, and what other mortuary practices were employed alongside it during the late 4th and early 3rd millennia BC. Demographic attributes will also be examined, along with the type of deposition and the burial organisation of cremation cemeteries in order to examine the nature of mortuary rites, social organisation, and population demography. The processes behind the selection of certain individuals for cremation (e.g., only females or only adults) and the frequent deposition of token burials will also be investigated to discern differences in demographic profiles between a variety of circular enclosures (i.e., henges, stone circles and timber circles) and between monumental and non-monumental contexts. Differences in the cremation process such as efficiency of the cremation, pyre technology, bone selection for burial, containment of the bones, and methods of burying the remains will also be examined since they varied throughout the Middle to Late Neolithic period. The data gathered will

The geographical focus of this research is on archaeological sites from mainland Britain, including the Isle of Anglesey, as it conforms to natural oceanic borders. Cremation sites from the other British Isles are not featured, mostly due to a lack of radiocarbon dating, but they are identified as an area for future research. Other sites, such as those found within Europe and Ireland, are briefly considered in regard to the spread of cremation from the Mesolithic to the Early Neolithic as it arrived into Britain. It is acknowledged that by focusing on cremation trends across a wide geographical context, this book will apply broad statements despite significant variations within traditions of mortuary practice. Inevitably, this will gloss over any local and/or regional differences which may be present in the archaeological record, but it is hoped that this study will provide the foundation on

1

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) 1.2. Recent advances in cremation studies

which further cremation trends can be perused within smaller geographical constraints, and to also examine the contemporaneity of practicing both cremation and inhumation at differing monuments.

In the past few years, five large volumes of work have been published dedicated to cremations studies: Transformation by Fire: the archaeology of cremation in cultural context (Kuijt et al., 2014); The Archaeology of Cremation (Thompson, 2015); The Analysis of Burned Human Remains (Schmidt and Symes, 2015); Cremation, Corpses and Cannibalism (Kaliff and Oestigaard, 2017); and Cremation and the Archaeology of Death (CerezoRomán et al., 2017). In addition, two recent research projects, CRUMBEL (Cremations, Urns and Mobility: ancient population dynamics in Belgium) and LUMIERE (Landscape Use and Mobility In Europe) have accelerated advances in cremation studies. Both projects are refining geochemical analyses on cremated bones (e.g., infrared and x-ray fluorescence, carbon, oxygen and strontium stable isotopes) as well as revisiting osteological methodologies (e.g., Veselka et al., 2021). These academic advances in cremation studies, particularly in the analysis of stable isotopes and in microstructural heat-induced changes, have made it possible to consider alternative avenues for scientific and archaeological study. The brief discussion in this section is aimed at highlighting some of these advances and how their application can augment not only this study, but also any re-analysis of cremated human remains from archaeological sites.

There are other limitations to this research which will be discussed further throughout this book; however it is important to introduce some of the constraints here. The process of cremation eradicates many of the features needed to make osteological assessments. Indeed, as Roberts and Cox stated in their book on the history of health and disease in Britain, ‘cremated material was not considered, not because it is not worth studying but because the amount of data on disease potentially retrievable from this type of funerary context is much less than from inhumed material…’ (2003; 27). The study of cremated remains, therefore, is often passed over if comparable unburnt skeletal assemblages are available. This has meant that a large portion of the cremated Neolithic population has not featured in any comparative studies or discussions regarding, for example, prehistoric health and disease. Additionally, this has also meant that due to the lack of research in cremation studies, methodologies deriving from unburnt skeletons are used when analysing cremated bones. These techniques do not consider the changes to bones during the cremation process (e.g., shrinkage, warping, eradication of features) which in turn affects measurements and comparative observations. As Jackie McKinley recently said “…analysing cremated bones is not something that can be taught; you must get a feel for the bones which only comes with practice” (pers. comm). Therefore, analyses of cremated bones are largely subjective and directly corresponds to the competency of the osteologist.

When bone is exposed to high temperatures, chemical and structural changes result in evaporation, organic degradation, and transformation of bone minerals within the matrix (e.g., Symes et al., 2015). Other significant changes to the bones result in discolouration, shrinkage, warping, fracturing and fragmentation. While studies have not been able to specify exact temperatures or exposure times for causing these mechanical and chemical changes, temperature ranges based on colouration have been developed as an indicator of the maximum temperature ranges reached during cremation (Shipman et al., 1984; Thompson, 2004). However, differential burning is common, with variable colouring, shrinkage, warping and fracturing all exhibited on a single element or across a body. This variability is what is known as burn patterning and, while it has long been a subject of debate, recent advances from the study of homicide cases have led to the systemic mapping of burn trauma and to the identification of typical signatures distinguishing perimortem and postmortem fire damage (Symes et al., 2015). Here, the timing of the defects (e.g., trauma or thermal fractures) in relation to the moment of death relies on whether the bone was fresh, dry, or degraded prior to cremation. Interpretation of a burnt body thus relies on an understanding of the biomechanics of burnt bone, as well as on an understanding of body position and tissue-shielding in bone, and of colour changes (ibid.). The adoption of these three forms of classification is particularly important for future studies because re-examination of archaeological bone would enable a broader understanding of funerary rites. Tissue shielding can enable the recreation of limb placement and body position (supine, prone, flexed, crouched) on

Another limitation is that only a tiny proportion of the Neolithic population has been excavated leading many scholars to ask, ‘where is the dead?’. While cremation and inhumation appear to be the preferred rites, it nevertheless only accounts for about 1% of the expected population. Thus, the majority of the dead were disposed of in some archaeologically invisible manor, such as disposal in waterways or through excarnation or cremation scattering. This means that when discussing inhumation or cremation as being the “dominant funerary rite”, it is in reference to the archaeologically visible rites and not those rites which clearly account for 99% of the missing Neolithic population. Differential preservation within certain geographical areas with acidic soil has also meant that unburnt bone has disappeared, and this may help explain some of the ‘missing dead’ as soil conditions in Scotland and Wales favour the survival of cremated bone over unburnt bone (Jay and Scarre, 2017). In many instances, it is difficult to even ascertain if unburnt bone was present in a seemingly ‘empty’ pit or grave. It is therefore important to consider soil acidity when examining preferential deposition of cremated bone since potential inhumation burials may not have survived thus creating a potential bias in terms of the geographical distribution of funerary rites. 2

Introduction the pyre, while the process signatures of bone fracturing during perimortem or post-mortem intervals can indicate previously missed evidence of perimortem trauma.

microscopic biomolecular approaches to osteological analysis. Secondly, these advancements require specialist equipment and money to administer and utilise these new methods, thus the probability of these advances entering soon into mainstream archaeology may be rather limited.

Furthering our understanding of heat-induced changes to cremated bones are studies examining changes in crystallinity (e.g., Thompson, 2015). The composition of a bone is a combination of nanocrystalline apatite minerals and fibrous proteins. During cremation the hydroxyapatite crystals increase in size while simultaneously reducing porosity by dehydrating the lattice carbonate and water from the bone (McKinley, 2000b; Thompson, 2015). Crystal growth increases linearly, though it suddenly doubles in size at 400°C and plateaus around 800°C (Etok et al., 2007). While crystallinity studies are on-going to refine its techniques and applications, using a crystallinity index has the potential to provide information regarding the context in which a bone/skeleton has been deposited, to measure the different temperatures (rather than relying on colour changes) and burning conditions of cremated bones, to distinguish between archaeological and modern bone material, and to use as a means of determining species. All of these, used in combination, should have positive implications for the interpretation (or re-interpretation) of funerary and mortuary rites of cremated human remains in the archaeological record.

1.3. Brief overview of the cremation process in archaeology Cremation, as a method for the disposing the dead, is a poorly understood mortuary rite in prehistory, including during the British Middle to Late Neolithic, despite frequent recovery of burnt bones from archaeological sites. Inference on pyre construction, temperature, length of burning time and pyre collapse in prehistory often draws upon documentary sources, pictorial representations of historic cremations, scientific experiments, and anthropological observations of living cultures (for examples, see Dubois and Beauchamp, 1943; Wahl and Wahl, 1983; Pautreau, 1994; Downes, 1999; Toynbee, 1996; Holck 1986; McKinley, 1994). According to academic research, the basic structure of a pyre appears to have remained relatively constant throughout history: a rectangular structure formed from criss-crossing layers of timbers interfiled with dry brush (McKinley, 1994; 2000a; McKinley and Bond, 2001) (Figure 1.1). Its construction would have normally taken place either on a flat surface or over a 5–7cm shallow depression/pit in order to provide an under-pyre draught for air circulation (Hiatt, 1969; McKinley and Bond, 2001).

Computed Tomography (CT) scanning has proved useful in recent years for different types of archaeological and osteological analyses (Lynnerup et al., 1997; Lynnerup, 2010; Harvig et al., 2011, Willis et al., 2016). It has been used to measure the angle of the canal in the internal auditory meatus of the petrous bone which can determine the biological sex of that individual (see Chapter 5 for further discussion). CT scanning has also been applied to intact cremation urns to examine the quantity and organisation of burnt bones in situ. This is especially useful if the integrity of the urn would not survive having its contents removed or if destructive analysis of the urn’s contents were not permitted. The new generation of CT scanning is called multi-detector computerized tomography (MDCT) and provides very clear scans which can be manipulated and orientated to see the contents contained within the urn, slice by slice (Cavalli et al., 2015). MDCT also has the potential to reveal information regarding pyre temperatures as preliminary results have shown a correlation between the temperature and the X-ray density of the cremated bone (Fernandez Castillo et al., 2013; Gonçalves, 2011). This correlation could also be potentially expanded to reveal information in instances where, for example, defleshing of the corpse was conducted prior to its cremation (Cavalli et al., 2015; McKinley, 2015a).

There is no direct evidence of how pyres were constructed in the Neolithic, as former pyre sites rarely survive in the archaeological record. The efficiency of cremation, and indeed its burning duration, would be affected by the quantity of wood used to build the pyre. The minimum

While the study of cremations has entered into mainstream academic research, there are limitations. The first is that both the forensic and archaeological fields seem to be playing catch-up with each other: forensic scientists firmly state that anthropologists should employ traditional archaeological methods of excavation and partexcavation while archaeologists are expected to employ

Figure 1.1. Reconstruction of a cremation pyre (after McKinley, 1994: 80, fig. 19, reproduced with permission from Norfolk County Council).

3

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) energy used in a pyre is roughly equivalent to 146kg of wood, but up to 500kg of fuel would often be necessary to efficiently cremate a deceased individual (Holck, 1986; McKinley, 1994; Toynbee, 1996). Data from ancient and modern cremations indicate that the quantity of wood may vary as it was often used as an indicator of the deceased’s wealth or status (ibid.). During the Neolithic, forests were being cleared for agricultural purposes, and an array of wood would have been readily available for pyre construction. Archaeologically recovered charred wood from pyre debris generally contains more than one type of wood, meaning that multiple taxa were often used for pyre construction (Gale, 1997; Campbell, 2007).

heat of the pyre would affect only the first few millimetres of the soil underneath and, over time, this soil will have eroded away unless the site was buried immediately after it was used. Time, temperature, weather and the amount of oxygen required for the cremation are key variables which affect the efficiency of the cremation process and, in turn, the efficiency of cremating a corpse. If any of those variables are negatively affected, then this would result in the bones being charred or inefficiently cremated rather than fully cremated.

The corpse would probably have been placed on top of the pyre, and any additional wood, grave goods, food or drinks could be added to the fire at any time throughout the cremation process. In the archaeological record, burnt and charred animal remains are frequently found intermixed with Neolithic cremated bones, and are interpreted as representing sacrifices, offerings or leftovers of a feast thrown into the burning pyre. Unburnt animal bones have also been recovered intermixed with cremated bones, again signalling deliberate offerings or accidental inclusions. Burnt and charred plant remains such as tubers, roots and rhizomes have also been noted in a few cremation deposits (Jones, 1978; Robinson, 1988; Campbell, 2007). Again, these are interpreted as the remains of offerings or as kindling used in the pyre. However, grave goods and pyre goods (e.g., arrowheads, flint weapons, pottery and beads) which could potentially have accompanied cremated remains are uncommon in the Neolithic.

Within the last decade, successful radiocarbon dating of cremated human bones from archaeological contexts has been achieved (e.g., De Mulder et al., 2007; 2009; Lanting et al., 2001; Olsen et al., 2011; 2013; Snoeck et al., 2014) proving consistent in repeated laboratory intercomparison tests (Naysmith et al., 2007). This has meant that the dating of prehistoric burnt bones no longer relies on associated artefacts. Instead, dating cremated bones from old archaeological sites has allowed a significant percentage to be shifted out of the Bronze Age (where they were placed by inference or by association) and into the Neolithic.

1.4. Brief overview of radiocarbon dating cremated human remains

Reliable radiocarbon dates from cremated bones are achieved when human remains are exposed to pyre temperatures over 600°C (Lanting et al., 2001) allowing for recrystallization of their bone apatite crystals. This recrystallization produces larger and more densely packed hydroxyapatite crystals and protects the burnt bones from external influences such as fluctuating weather temperatures and soil conditions after final deposition. Indeed, cremated bone is generally well-preserved in archaeological contexts and, in many instances, recovered in areas where unburnt bone does not survive within the buried environment. Cremated bone can thus be recovered and dated from a wider range of subsoils than unburnt human bone.

As the pyre continued to burn down, it would have slowly collapsed in on itself with little outward spread. Hot bones are very brittle, and it has been recorded that some cultures deliberately fragment the cremated bones while hot so as to fit them into urns (McKinley, 2000b); however, if left to cool naturally, the bones will generally retain the same position they were in when initially placed on the pyre. The temperature of the pyre would require tending over several hours to stay above 600°C in order to sufficiently cremate the body (McKinley, 2004). Modern cremation pyres take as little as three hours to complete; however, Pointek (1976) has documented 7–8 hours in experimental pyres, while Wahl (1982) has recorded 7–10 hours. If a corpse has retained any soft tissue after its initial firing, then the remains could be raked into a pile and re-fired until only cremated bones are left (McKinley, 1994).

However, during cremation these morphological and mineralogical changes also result in the loss of structural carbon. Laboratory studies have suggested that radiocarbon dating results from cremated bones actually reflect the atmosphere of the cremation fire rather than the bone itself (e.g., Hüls et al., 2010; Van Strydonck et al., 2011; Olsen et al., 2013). The ‘old wood effect’, as it is commonly known, is created by the exchange of carbon between the cremating bones and old heart-wood being used during the cremation process. It is expected that radiocarbon dating cremated bone is the equivalent of dating the wood used in the pyre; however, cremated bone may also potentially result in returned dates which are too high/older (Hüls et al., 2010; Olsen et al., 2013; Snoeck et al., 2014). In some situations, large age offsets could also be affected if peat or coal was added as a fuel source, or if marine plants or animals (and hence marine carbon

After the cremated bones have cooled, they are almost always collected from the pyre debris for deposition elsewhere. This could also include pyre-sweeping in which all the bones and debris are swept up together for later deposition. While crematoria supposedly existed underneath some long barrows in Yorkshire (though now interpreted as burnt mortuary structures [Vyner, 1984; 1986]), it is rare to find pyre sites in Neolithic Britain and even rarer to find evidence for pyre re-use. The intense

4

Introduction reservoir effects) were burned within the pyre (O’Donnell, 2016). However, charcoal from British Neolithic cremation deposits indicate that the most common woods used in pyres was primarily oak, followed by hazel/alder (see Chapter 8). A method to determine if there is a large age offset can be achieved by assessing the carbon isotope values (δ13C) in cremated bone (Snoeck et al., 2014). Since δ13C values decrease during carbon exchange, the most depleted δ13C values indicate the highest degree of carbon exchange and thus the most likely to be affected by older wood. It was outside the scope of my initial research to determine if there are any large age offsets from the radiocarbon dates of cremated bones. There are also difficulties in obtaining the δ13C values associated with returned dates as they are rarely published. Thus, I have treated all radiocarbon dates as termini post quos (the earliest time the event may have happened) rather than the actual date of the event.

Strontium isotopes (87Sr/86Sr) within the landscape vary according to bedrock and composition of minerals and are absorbed into plants and thence into animals. Upon consuming plants and animals, strontium isotopes are absorbed into people’s teeth as they formed during childhood, and into their bones as they continuously remodel throughout their lives. These isotope values can be analysed to broadly infer the geographical location of the food sources (Figure 1.2) and hence, the scale of mobility during the formation of the analysed tissues. I was involved in one of the first research projects to successfully analyse strontium isotopes in cremations in order to investigate mobility using the cremated remains from Stonehenge (Snoeck et al., 2018; the results are also discussed in Chapter 6). Strontium isotope analysis is not yet commercially available in the UK and, consequently, the majority of cremated remains discussed throughout this book have not been analysed for strontium isotopes. However, I discuss analysing cremated bones for strontium isotopes as an area for future investigation in Chapter 10.

All radiocarbon dates used within this volume have been calculated with IntCal 13 calibration curve of Reimer et al., (2009; 2013) using OxCal v4.3 programme (Bronk Ramsey, 2009). Details of the algorithms used in OxCal are available from the online manual (http://c14.arch. ox.ac.uk/). The correlation between the OxCal model and data is determined by the Amodel with values higher than 60 indicative of good agreement (Bronk Ramsey, 1995). The resulting model provides ‘posterior density estimates’ which are expressed in calendar years and presented in italics as probability ranges (format recommended by Mook, 1986). The modelled posterior density estimates are not absolute and may change if further data becomes available. The calibrated date ranges cited throughout the book are those for 95% confidence (two sigma). For the few instances where sites have not been radiocarbon dated, then a date by artefact association is tentatively used but clearly noted.

1.6. Terminology The terminology for describing burial spaces, mortuary practices, cemeteries and cremation is interchangeably used within the literature despite some notable differences between terms. There is no single standardized vocabulary which can be used to label and describe the social processes and archaeological manifestations resulting from these terms. And perhaps there should not be: the descriptions for complex terminologies are continuously evolving with new scientific contributions, re-interpretations, and continued dialogues between specialists and their multiple fields. To adopt a widespread standardization would limit and constrain this evolutionary process and hinder our development of archaeological understanding of past societies. However, for the purposes of this book, it is considered important to establish a few definitions for the commonly used terminology. It is not meant as a strict typology, but rather as a method with which to describe the range of mortuary practices found not only across Neolithic Britain, but also the range of mortuary practices found at each site.

1.5. Brief overview of analysing strontium isotopes in cremated bone Our understanding of early prehistory is being revolutionised by other recent advances in archaeological sciences, primarily in genetic (e.g., Brace et al., 2019) and isotopic research (e.g., Snoeck et al., 2015; 2016a; 2016b; 2017). While it is not yet possible to conduct aDNA analysis on cremated human bones, there are now three reliable methods to measure strontium isotope levels from: a) cremated tooth roots (Hoppe et al., 2003) which form during different stages of childhood but rarely survive in cremation deposits; b) cremated petrous bones (Veselka et al., 2020) from the inner portion of the ear which form during gestation and infancy; and c) cremated long bones (Snoeck et al., 2015) which, through continuous bone remodelling, provide isotopic values relating to the last 10–15 years of an individual’s life. These new advances mean that for the first time, cremated individuals can feature in research regarding mobility, residence and/or migration using strontium isotope analysis.

The terminology for ‘mortuary’ and ‘funerary’ must first be addressed: mortuary relates to the processing and preparation space (e.g., excarnation platform, cremation pyre) or as a storage place where dead bodies are kept (e.g., long barrow or portal dolmen). Funerary is the actual event of burying or burning the dead and may also reflect the location where bodies are buried, deposited, disposed of, and/or commemorated. Both ‘mortuary’ and ‘funerary’ have their own rites and rituals which would have been observed from the moment of death (and sometimes even before death) until eventual burial and remembrance. This ‘chaîne opératoire’, as it is known, consists of a variety of different chronological and geographical sequences that dead bodies went through (Appleby, 2013; Mauss, 5

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC)

Figure 1.2. The 87Sr/86Sr biosphere map of Britain (after Evans et al., 2010: 2, fig. 1b; reproduced under Open Government Licence; contains British Geological Survey materials ©UKRI 2021 and contains OS data ©Crown copyright 2021).

1950; Turner, 1969). The chaîne opératoire is also used to discuss variations in cultural ideals regarding a society’s interaction with corpses, thus revealing wide variations in the different treatments of the dead within Neolithic society (Figures 1.3 and 1.4).

Broadly speaking, there are three main mortuary events that a Neolithic non-burned corpse could be put through. The first event is the pre-burial treatment in which the deceased body is either buried immediately, is deliberately manipulated, or is allowed to decompose prior to further 6

Introduction

Figure 1.3. The Neolithic chaîne opératoire for mortuary practices where the body has not been cremated (adapted after Appleby, 2013: 87, fig.1). This chart illustrates the different possibilities for treating the dead and reveals just how common handling corpses was, and how interactive people would have been in order to appropriately inter/dispose of their dead.

Figure 1.4. The chaîne opératoire for cremated bones (adapted after Appleby, 2013: 89, fig. 2). Some of the processes are similar to those associated with the mortuary events of unburnt bones; however, there was a vast array of variations to choose from for their final mortuary event.

handling (Appleby, 2013). These pre-burial treatments include mummification, excarnation, consumption, and dismemberment. The second mortuary event is the actual burial of either the whole corpse, parts of the corpse, some skeletal bones, or the entire skeleton. Another option could be to display the remains (fleshed, defleshed or skeletonized) prior to formal burial. A complete Neolithic body is usually buried in a flexed or contracted position, while the burial of wholly or partially disarticulated skeletal parts after excarnation is also a common occurrence in the Neolithic. The third event is the post-burial treatment, including body manipulation after burial. Graves and tombs might be re-opened at a later stage after burial to either inter one or more additional individuals, re-arrange

the decomposed skeleton, or take parts of the skeleton away before closing the grave again. This final mortuary event could have re-occurred many times throughout the death cycle of that deceased individual until the remains were finally laid to rest or the tomb permanently sealed. Cremation is the actual act of transforming a corpse by burning it on a pyre, while cremated bones derive from the end process of a cremation. This is a tricky term to use as often the literature uses terms such as ‘cremation cemeteries’ or areas with ‘cremation deposits’. In fact, this could not be case or else there would still be archaeologically excavated cemeteries full of actively burning pyres (McKinley, 1997a)! As there is currently 7

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) no other useful alternative, ‘cremation cemetery’ and ‘cremation deposit’ will be employed throughout for the purposes of this book despite the obvious terminological errors.

quantity of cremated bones and to define their symbolic representation. Usually, the primary function of Neolithic cemeteries was to provide exclusive multiple and/or collective burial spaces for the dead regardless of their location within the landscape, mode of burial or associated monument. These were sacred spaces where funerary rites and rituals could be performed and the spaces where physical boundaries (e.g., wooden posts or earthen banks) separated the dead from the living. Many Neolithic burial places, especially cemeteries within monuments, were reused over a period of time through the constant addition, removal and/or rearrangement of human remains. This reuse of mortuary space and its associated passage of time would not only have changed the nature and meaning of these sites, but it might also have led to a loss of sacredness as grief, remembrance and kinship links faded (Dunk and Rugg, 1994; Rugg, 2000). Cemeteries were spaces for multiple burials/deposits whether through numerous interments within a single event or as successive burials over a period of time. Each cemetery contained many variations including the number of graves, the different types of depositions, and the number of bodies; however, there must be at least two graves (or at least two individuals) to constitute a cemetery (Figure 1.5). A single burial/ deposit, also referred to as an isolated burial/deposit, is a single grave containing one individual. It is considered here to be an isolated funerary event and falls outside the parameters which define a cemetery. Single burials often seem randomly placed within the environment, with very little evidence connecting them to a specific event, community, feature, or monument.

As with inhumed bones, cremated remains also have a chaîne opératoire for the rites and rituals of mortuary and funerary practices (Figure 1.4). It is a useful visual description of the different Neolithic variations to which burnt bones were subjected and, being smaller fragments than inhumed bones, could be moved easily throughout the landscape. Cremation was conducted through three main mortuary events: the first was the pre-cremation phase, which was exactly the same as the pre-burial treatment for unburnt bodies. However, there can be some difficulty in assessing the interval between the moment of death and when the cremation took place. While it is possible to distinguish between ‘dry/old’ and ‘fresh/green’ bones used in the cremation process, traces of excarnation or mummification are not as visible on cremated bones as they would be on unburnt bones (Appleby, 2013). Any evidence for micro-bacterial attacks to the bone collagen during the stages of decomposition would be mostly eradicated during cremation. The second phase of the mortuary event was the act of cremation. This process varied as it was dependant on the deliberate choices made by that particular Neolithic community, meaning that the number of individuals placed on the pyre could vary, the entire body or separate body parts were burnt, and/or the length of burning time and the temperature of the pyre could fluctuate. The rites which followed during this secondary phase affect the quantity and quality of cremated bones after the cremation process was finished. The third mortuary phase was the post-cremation process when decisions were made about the collection of some or all of the burnt bones, the inclusion or exclusion of pyre debris (that is, the remnants of the burnt pyre), and how or where the cremated bones were deposited or used afterwards. This phase varies significantly in that remains from a single individual could be used in numerous different ways. Some of these include in situ cremation whereby the cremated bones are left on the pyre and not formally deposited elsewhere. Complete in situ cremation burials have not yet been recovered from the British Neolithic; however, fragments of burnt bones (deliberately or accidently) left at pyre sites are known. Cremated bones could also be exchanged or gifted to help strengthen kinship ties, to prove lineage, bolster leadership claims and rights, or to circulate throughout the landscape. Token deposits are another common Neolithic rite in which a small proportion of the cremated bones is deposited in a specific location. The remaining bones could be deposited elsewhere, curated/stored, or used in other rites. This term is used loosely in the archaeological literature to define a deposit containing less than c.200–250g of cremated bones. However, it is not appropriate to use this term to compare/contrast deposits containing, for example, 5g of cremated bone versus deposits containing 230g of bone. Thus, I present two sub-definitions for ‘token deposition’ (see Chapter 9) which take into consideration the

Other terms relating to cemetery activity include primary burials/deposits which refers to the initial deposition of human remains left in perpetuity within a grave, pit, or monument. Secondary burials/deposits refer to when previously deposited cremated/inhumed bones were exhumed and reused, re-organised, or reburied elsewhere. Insertion burials/deposits (also known as satellite deposits) are deposits of burnt and/or unburnt bones which were inserted into pre-existing monuments/grave. These burials often encircle the original occupant(s) and are often, but not always, associated with a later funerary phase of

Figure 1.5. Examples of different types of cemeteries: a) single event burials; b) successive burials; c) mixed deposition burials; and d) cremation burials (Figure by C. Willis).

8

Introduction the site. An example of this is the insertion of Early Bronze Age cremations into Neolithic round mounds. Commemoration within both monumental and nonmonumental cemeteries are understood here as communal events which drew on ‘collective engagements’ with the past (Casey, 1987: 216–18, 235–6). It is a way to ‘overcome the effects of anonymity and spatio-temporal distance’ (ibid.: 218) by bringing the past into the present through re-use of sites even if the original events or deceased being commemorated have long been forgotten. Many Neolithic sites were extensively and repeatedly reworked implying that commemoration was tied to a specific location (e.g., henges) and that links to the past were important despite the use of these sites changing through time. There is also a distinction between memory and commemoration. As it will be highlighted further in this book, it is clear that at some Neolithic sites the exact place of burial and the individuals buried there were remembered despite long periods of time passing since initial deposition. This implies a continued connection with the past and a robust oral re-telling of histories handed down through generations of people.

9

2 The Spread of Cremation Rites from Mainland Europe to Britain The Early Neolithic has been described as ‘the transition to agriculture’ from a hunter-gatherer subsistence base, resulting in socioeconomic and cultural changes (Childe, 1952). The process in which this transition occurred in mainland Britain has long been debated especially since the ‘Neolithic’ shift occurred approximately 1,000 years after it appeared in continental Europe (e.g., Collard et al., 2010; Sheridan, 2010b; Thomas, 2013; Brace et al., 2019). It was generally thought that early European migrants brought farming technology with them as they moved into Britain c.4000 BC. The local indigenous hunter-gatherer populations would have abandoned their traditional way of life to take up farming thereby kick-starting the Neolithic revolution. However, new research on ancient DNA from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic British individuals have indicated a different scenario: that local huntergatherers did not adopt farming technology. Rather, it was the descendants of these migrant farmers who quickly populated and expanded into all areas of Britain, and genetically, the indigenous foraging populations gradually disappeared (Brace et al., 2019). The ancient DNA results indicate that these new farmers were genetically descended from earlier Iberian populations whose ancestors migrated to Britain during the Mesolithic/Early Neolithic transition.

rather than a description of their incomplete oxidization [colours of black, browns, blues and reddish yellows]. Clearly further research is required in this area; however, the general lack of experimental/accidental evidence and the lack of inexperienced methodology supports that the rite of cremation, and the cremation process, was brought into Britain during the Mesolithic/Early Neolithic transition by experienced migrant farmers. This European expansion not only brought changes to funerary and mortuary practices, but also changes in subsistence strategies as well as socio-economic and cultural changes which thrived in Britain for 1,500 years. The start of the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age is marked by a new surge of migrants from continental Europe who introduced new ideas and technology which again altered established funerary and mortuary traditions, although cremation rites persisted alongside inhumation burials. 2.1. The European Mesolithic (c.8000–4000 cal BC) Europe is well-known for having some of the earliest inhumation cemeteries, but cremation is generally not associated as a common funerary rite amongst Mesolithic hunter-gatherers (Meiklejohn et al., 2009; Gray Jones, 2017: 27). An increase in archaeological evidence and radiocarbon dating now provides insight into its geographical distribution of Early Mesolithic sites in the Iberian peninsula, France, Brittany and Ireland, and its temporal spread from migrant farmers as they moved across the European continent and into Britain (Figure 2.1).

In order to understand cremation as its own funerary rite during the Neolithic, it is important to consider the origins of cremation in Britain. An overview of cremated remains in different parts of Europe clearly shows that it was being carried out thousands of years before it began in Neolithic Britain and this wide geographical spread of cremation raises two possible scenarios: a) that cremation was adopted independently in different places and at different times, or b) that cremation was spread in a process of diffusion and/or migration from continental Europe. It is unlikely that the first scenario occurred as there are currently only three Mesolithic cremations currently identified in southern Britain. While this may suggest that cremation did arise independently during the Mesolithic, there is no evidence to indicate that it was practiced in a wider geographical area. Nor is there enough osteological evidence to support that Mesolithic/Early Neolithic people were experimenting with cremation pyres in attempting to cremate their dead. The vast majority of bone fragments within the archaeological record are completely oxidized [pale grey and white in colour with no black organic material remaining in the bone matric] signifying proficiency in ensuring the pyres were kept at high temperatures for long periods of time. The few bone deposits from the Early Neolithic which are labelled as ‘burnt’, ‘charred’ or ‘scorched’ in archaeological reports (see Chapter 3) have not been analysed to modern standards nor have they been radiocarbon dated. Furthermore, their labelling could reflect the terminology used upon excavation (pre-1950s)

Mesolithic cremations varied from site to site with osteoarchaeological evidence revealing differing types of treatment to the body prior to cremation, during cremation and upon disposal of the cremated bones (Gray Jones, 2017: 37). There does not appear to be any preference in cremated individuals of a particular age or sex, but the majority of cremations were deposited in small pits. In all but one case, cremation deposits containing children were accompanied by at least one adult, a practice common within inhumation cemeteries (ibid.: 38). 2.1.1. Mesolithic cremation burial in Iberia, France and Belgium The mortuary and funerary rites of hunter-gatherers from the Iberian peninsula mainly focused on the post-mortem manipulation of human remains. Of the c.198 Mesolithic sites in the Iberian peninsula (Araújo, 2012; Gallego Lletjós, 2013), 37 contained human remains. Burials from these sites included the deposition of fragmented and disarticulated skeletal elements, and bone scatterings with no apparent association or patterning (Peyroteo Stjerna, 11

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC)

Figure 2.1. The distribution of the Mesolithic cremation sites mentioned in this chapter: 1- Rueil-Malmaison ‘Les Closeaux’; 2- Concevreux; 3- Abris des Autours; 4- Petit Marais; 5- La Vergne; 6- Noyen-sur-Seine; 7- Ruffey-sur-Seille; 8- Rochereil; 9- Hermitage; 10- Langford; 11- Ashford; 12- Oirschot V; 13- Dalfsen; 14- Vedbaek; 15- Melsted; 16- Skateholm I and II; 17- Gøngehusvej 7; 18- Vlasac; 19- Collombey-Vionnaz; 20- Châble-Croix; 21- Coswig; 22- Wieliszew; 23- Francthi Cave; and 24- Abri du Loschbour (adapted after Gray Jones, 2017; Meiklejohn et al., 2010).

sites) during the Early Mesolithic to a minimum of 397 individuals (n=24 sites) during the Late Mesolithic (ibid.).

2016: 631). Formal burial is relatively rare with only c.5 sites containing evidence of complete/mostly complete and partially articulated skeletons. Interestingly, there appears to be a shift in mortuary choice as 77% (n=10) of sites containing Early Mesolithic human remains were recovered in caves/rock shelters while 23% (n=3) were found in open-air sites. Yet during the Late Mesolithic, 67% (n=16) were recovered from open-air sites and 33% (n=8) were recovered in caves/rock shelters (ibid.: 637). There is also an intensification regarding the number of individuals buried: a minimum of 32 individuals (from 13

The three main regions of the Iberian peninsula (Gibaja et al., 2015) which contain a high number of Mesolithic funerary sites are: 1. The coast of Portugal: Here, c.376 unburnt individuals have been recovered in shell-middens along the banks of the Rivers Tagus and Sado, as well as on the southwest cost of Portugal. The individuals date to between 12

The Spread of Cremation Rites from Mainland Europe to Britain 8500 to 7110 cal BP (Arnaud, 1989; Bicho, 2009; Bicho et al., 2013; Carvalho, 2009; Meiklejohn, 2009), 2. The north of the Iberian peninsula (also known as the Cantabrian coast) where burials occurred in small caves and rock-shelters. Individual graves and cemeteries are rarely found in this region; however, the largest Mesolithic cemetery is the El Collado site which contained 15 burials in individual graves (Gibaja et al., 2015), 3. Eastern Spain: burials have been recovered in rockshelters and in necropolis.

flint tools, ochre, perforated shells and both burnt and unburnt animal bone. An associated hazelnut shell is dated to 7597–7415 cal BC (Gif-9329; 8460±70 BP), while an associated animal bone dates to 7580–7179 cal BC (GifA95471; 8360±90 BP) (Little et al., 2017). At La Vergne, Charente-Maritime, at least ten individuals were buried in three pits; however, Pit 7 contained the partial skeletal remains of two adult inhumations who were deposited with an adult cremation scattered overtop an unburnt infant (Courtaud and Duday, 1995; Duday and Courtaud, 1998. The cremation has not been radiocarbon dated but one of the unburnt adult skeletons has returned a date of 8535–7993 cal BC (Lyon-369/OxA-6699; 9070±70 BP) (Meiklejohn et al., 2010). The cremated remains of a single adult were recovered from Ruffeysur-Seill, À Daupharde, Jura, close to a hearth and in association with an ochre ball and a flint flake. Again, the cremation has not been radiocarbon dated but the hearth (from which a cremated fragment of vertebra was recovered) dates to 8196–7590 cal BC (Ly-238; 8735±85 BP) (Séara et al., 2002; Valdeyron, 2008; Meiklejohn et al., 2010). At Reuil-Malmaison, Les Closeaux, a cremation was spread over several square metres. Again, the cremation has not been dated, but an associated adult female inhumation was dated to 8282–7615 cal BC (OxA-7109/Lyon-612; 8870±130 BP) (Verjux, 2000; Valentin et al., 2008).

Mesolithic cremation deposits from Iberian peninsula are rare, but this may in part be due to a lack of radiocarbon dating on recovered deposits. At the Rochereil cave, Dordogne, the cranium and mandible of a 2–4 year old child was dated to 11282–11088 cal BC (OxA-16932; 11255±50BP) was deposited along two further burials from the same Late Palaeolithic context: an older male in a hyper-flexed position with red ochre near his head, and a deposit of cremated human bones intermixed with charcoal (May, 1986: 121). Unfortunately, no further details regarding the cremation are available; however, later human activity at this site is known and could very well be attributed to this deposit. To the north of Iberia, most cremations were buried in pits either in single or co-mingled deposits (Gray Jones, 2017: 37), some were placed on occupation surfaces such as at ‘Les Closeaux’ Rueil-Malmaison, France (Valentin et al., 2008). There is some evidence of cremated remains buried in organic containers such as at Concevreux, Aisne, for storage or display (Robert et al., 2007; Robert, 2008), while other cremated individuals were scattered over inhumation burials (e.g., La Vergne [Duday and Courtaud, 1998 and Abri des Autours, Belgium [Polet and Cauwe, 2007]). Pyre sites are not known from the Mesolithic and there is no evidence to suggest that they were located near the site of burial. Charcoal recovered in association with cremation deposits mostly derived from oak, but alder and pine have also been identified and were probably used to construct the funeral pyres (Gray Jones, 2017).

At Concevreux, Aisne, a cremation consisting of two individuals was deposited in a small pit along with some burnt lithics and tooth ornaments (Durcrocq and Ketterer, 1995; Le Goff, 2000; Meiklejohn et al., 2010). One of the individuals dates to 5627–5520 cal BC (GrA-37623; 6640±30 BP) (Little et al., 2017). Cremated remains have also been recovered from other Mesolithic sites such as at Neuvy-en-Dunois (Masset, 1968; 1995), and at one site in the south of France (Vaquer, 1998). However, cremation did not become the dominant rite in France until c.3500 BC (Gatto, 2002), some 500 years before it became the dominant rite in Britain. 2.1.2. Mesolithic cremation burial in Ireland

Other early dates for Mesolithic cremated remains come from Belgium and France. An adult cremation, from a collective grave of at least five adults and six children (all unburnt) in a cave site at Abri des Autours, Namur, Belgium, returned a radiocarbon date of 9151–8629 cal BC (OxA-4917; 9500±75 BP) (Cauwe, 2001). Unusually, the cremated adult and most of the bones from the hands and feet from two of the unburnt adults were inserted into a small crevice in the cave wall (Polet and Cauwe, 2007).

Mesolithic burials in Ireland (8000–4000 BC) are rare with a few examples of unburnt human bone recovered from shell middens at both Rockmarshall, Co. Louth and Ferriter’s Cove, Co. Kerry, and from Killuragh Cave, Co. Limerick where they date to c.7000–6500 cal BC and c.4600–4200 cal BC (Meiklejohn and Woodman, 2012), and Sramore Cave, Co. Leitrim (Dowd, 2008; Kador, 2010). No formal burial has yet been identified (Collins and Coyne, 2003), but rites such as post-mortem manipulation, deposition of disarticulated bones, and the significance of natural burial places (such as rivers, mountains and caves) is evident (Dowd, 2015: 81).

At Le Petit Marais, La Chaussée-Tirancourt, Somme, the cremated remains of two adults and one young child were recorded in a pit while the partially disarticulated remains of another individual were found in a second shallower feature (Ducrocq and Ketterer, 1995; Le Goff, 2000; Meiklejohn et al., 2010). The first pit also contained

The recovery of three pits containing cremated bones at Hermitage, south of the village Castleconnell, County Limerick, is the first definitive evidence for cremation 13

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) bones. The cremation (1,979g in weight) was a possible male adult dated to 7530–7320 cal BC (Beta-214236; 8350±40 BP) (Little et al., 2017). This individual had been efficiently cremated, indicating a familiarity with the cremation process, and represents an entire individual’s remains which had been collected from the pyre site and deposited in the pit. In addition, the post may have been a grave marker for the site and commemorated by the living. The second cremation was located 100m away in a pit (Pit B) with burnt clay and heat-shattered rock. This was of an adult of indeterminate sex, dated to 7090– 7030 cal BC (Beta-214237; 8700±40 BP). Only 179g of cremated bones were recovered and the skull fragments were inefficiently cremated suggesting a lack of oxygen within one part of the pyre during the cremation process (ibid.). The low weight reveals that token deposition was being practiced during the Mesolithic; however, it may also represent pyre debris due to the presence of charcoal, heat-shattered rocks and burnt clay. The third individual was found in another pit but with too few fragments to assess demographic attributes; however, it was dated slightly later to 6610–6370 cal BC (Beta-177377; 7610±40 BP) (ibid.). Around the site, 11 other stone axes were recovered, indicating their important association with funerary activity. 2.1.3. Mesolithic cremation burial in Britain

Figure 2.2. The plan of the Hermitage Pit A burial features consisting of a sub-circular pit (A), the posthole (B), axehead (C) and (D) cremated bones within in the pit (Tracy Collins ©Aegis Archaeology Ltd).

At present, there are only three known Mesolithic cremation deposits from mainland Britain, one from Essex and two from a site in Kent. The deposit from Langford, Essex, is interpreted as redeposited pyre debris consisting of 118g of cremated adult bones which had been placed in a pit along with charcoal and burnt flint (Figure 2.3) (Gilmour and Loe, 2015). Radiocarbon dates of 5645– 5544 cal BC (GU-35121; 6680±28 BP) and 5666–5556 cal BC (GU-367546; 6695±31 BP) were obtained on two

and pre-dates all unburnt bone assemblages in Mesolithic Ireland. The first cremation was found in a pit (Pit A) containing a posthole and was arranged in a crescent shape at the bottom (Figure 2.2). Resting against what would have been the wooden post was a polished adzehead while two microlithics were found within the cremated

Figure 2.3. The half-sectioned Mesolithic cremation deposit from Langford, Essex (after Gilmour and Loe, 2015: 55, fig. 1; 56, fig. 2 ©Oxford Archaeology Ltd).

14

The Spread of Cremation Rites from Mainland Europe to Britain suggest dismemberment or defleshing prior to cremation. In the second pit (Pit Æ), the cremated remains of an adult had been separated from the pyre debris (as no charcoal was recovered) and placed in an organic container along with a single burnt piece of a flint blade (ibid.). The bundle of cremated bones was placed on a wooden plate (or some sort of wooden structure) at the base of the pit, along with an unburnt flint blade. An unburnt roe deer fawn was then placed on top of the cremated bones.

separate bones but provide a combined date of 5657–5561 cal BC (6692±21 BP). Strontium isotope analysis of two cremated bones reveal an average result of 0.70944±6.01–5 which is indicative of this individual being local to the Langford area (Schulting et al., 2016: 19–20). Two other Late Mesolithic unurned cremation deposits were recovered from a site with extensive flint assemblages at Cheeseman’s Green, Ashford, Kent (Pitts, 2017: 7; Gittins et al., forthcoming). The first deposit contained 371.8g of cremated bone of a young to mature adult (21–40 years old), while 356m away another pit contained 206.8g of cremated bone and pyre debris from a 18–40 year old adult (McKinley, forthcoming). Both cremations have been firmly radiocarbon dated to the Mesolithic (c.5700–5500 BC) (Pitts, 2017: 7), but by the time this book goes to print the full dates have not yet been published.

Archaeological excavations of the Mesolithic cemetery (c.7000–6000 BC) at Vlasac, Serbia, show a complex intertwining of the two funerary rites. A total of 56 cremation deposits were found in three types of contexts: a) oval pits with in situ burning directly associated with inhumations that were located either above or below the cremated remains, or were partly damaged by the cremation pit; b) oval pits with in situ burning of human bones which were not associated with an inhumation but were still in close proximity; and c) isolated fragments of cremated human bones found within the burial fill of inhumations (Borić et al., 2009). At least 180 inhumations were recovered at Vlasac, with many disarticulated bones not counted in the MNI. The high number of cremations suggests that this practice was prominent in this region throughout the 7th millennium BC (Borić et al., 2008).

2.1.4. Mesolithic cremation burial elsewhere in Europe: a brief review In the Netherlands, Mesolithic cremation burials have been recovered from Oirschot V, North Brabant (Arts and Hoogland, 1987) and from Dalfsen, Overijssel (Toussaint et al., 2009). At Oirschot, a pit containing the cremated remains of an older child also included several worked and burnt flints in its fill. The charcoal associated with the cremation deposit was dated to 7039–6439 cal BC (GrN-14506; 7790±130 BP) (Toussaint et al., 2009). At Dalfsen, Overijssel, the cremated remains of two individuals (a female adult and an infant) were recovered from the fill of a domestic pit. The charcoal associated with the cremation dates to 7036–6416 cal BC (GrN7283B; 7760±130 BP) (ibid.).

In Switzerland, Mesolithic cremations have been recovered within a rock shelter at Collombey-Vionnaz (Crotti, 1993) and from another at Châble-Croix (Pignat, 2002). In Germany, Mesolithic cremations have been found in a circular pit at Coswig, Sachsen-Anhalt, dating to 7030– 6657 cal BC (OxA-13472; 7920±45 BP) (Küßner and Schunke, 2016). At a Mesolithic-Neolithic settlement in Wieliszew, Poland, cremated remains have been recovered from a small shallow pit, and fragments of cremated bones were also found scattered throughout the entire surface of the excavated area (Grünberg, 2000).

In Scandinavia, three cremation deposits from two different sites have been found. At Vedbaek, Zealand, two adults and an older child were buried with a variety of grave goods (Brinch Petersen and Meiklejohn, 2003). The site of Melsted, Denmark, also contained Mesolithic cremated bones (Kozlowski, 2004; Kośko, 2001). At the cemetery of Skateholm 1, Tagerup, Sweden, two of the 62 deceased individuals had been cremated (Larsson, 1989; Larsson and Stutz, 2014), while another cremation was located in a stone-lined pit feature at Skateholm II, a cemetery containing 20 inhumations (Larsson and Stutz, 2014). Mesolithic cremations have also been recovered from western Sweden and from the island of Gotland (Lindquist and Possnert, 1999).

In Greece, Mesolithic cremated bones have been recovered from the Francthi Cave (Cullen, 1995) in which two cremated individuals (an adult man and an adult woman) were deposited along with the unburnt remains of four other adults and a child. One of the cremated individuals dates to 6456–5912 cal BC (no lab number; 7314±144 BP) (Grünberg, 2000). At Abri du Loschbour, Reuland, in Luxemburg, a burial consisting of an unburnt adult male skeleton and a cremation of an adult possible female were excavated in a rock shelter during the 1930s (Toussaint et al., 2009). Interestingly, cut-marks were observed on several fragments of the skull and on a long bone and indicate a pre-cremation body treatment of defleshing and/ or dismemberment though the condition of the bones suggests the corpse was fleshed at the time of cremation (ibid.). Fragments of cremated bone from the mandible, ulna and tibia are missing suggesting these bones were either deliberately removed prior to cremation or were not collected from the pyre for burial. The pit also contained

Two small pits contained cremated remains at the late Mesolithic site of Gøngehusvej 7, Denmark (Brinch Petersen and Meiklejohn, 2003). Pit N contained the cremated remains of two adults, two children and an infant who were buried with traces of red ochre which had fused to some of the cremated bones, burnt artefacts such as tooth pendants, amber, flint blades and animal bones, and pyre debris. Comparable to the cremation at Loschbour, Luxemburg, cut-marks on the interior surface of the mandibular condyles were observed which may again 15

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) a small quantity of cremated animal bone and a perforated burnt shell. The cremation dates to 7041–6700 cal BC (Beta-132067; 7960±40 BP) (ibid.).

• in natural caves at La Represa, Caravaca (García Toro, 1980; San Nicolás del Toro, 1981) and Abric de l’Escurrupenia, Alicante (Pascual, 2002), • in artificial caves at Blanquizares de Lébor, Totana (Cuadrado, 1930) and, • in stone structures such as at Murviedro, Lorca (Idáñez Sánchez, 1986).

2.2. The European Neolithic (c.5600–3000 cal BC) Cremated human remains have been recovered from diverse locations across Neolithic Europe, from natural caves and rock shelters, to dolmen, tholos, stone structures, tumuli, and isolated burial pits. Some of these sites have long histories of deposition stretching into the Early Bronze Age, while others are restricted to short burial activities or to specific regions. While it is clear there is a variety of funerary practices occurring simultaneously at some sites (and indeed, these traditions may also overlap geographically and chronologically), cremation became more widespread during the Middle and Late Neolithic periods (c.4500–3000 BC), probably as a result of experienced migrant farmers moving through the European landscape.

In Neolithic France (Figure 2.5), cremation burials have been recovered from within multiple collective burials such as at la Grotte du Gardon, Ambérie-en-Bugey, Ain (Gatto and Buquet, 2000; Voruz et al., 2004) where dozens or even hundreds of burnt individuals were deposited (Figure 2.6). Single deposits are known from other sites such as at Reichstett-Mundelsheim-Souffelweyersheim, Bas-Rhin (Blaizot, 2001). Cremations have also been recovered in a variety of contexts: • in dolmens (Bérard, 1954; Courtin, 1974; Roudil and Bérard, 1981; Sauzade, 1983; 1987; 1988; Sauzade et al., 1975; 1988), • in between layers of unburnt bones such as at HauteLoire (Morel and Perrot, 1976) and at La Truie Pendue, Passy (de Becdelievre et al., 2016), • in pits, caves and rock shelters, • inside ditches (Valera, 2012), and • in re-used monuments such as passage tombs (Allard, 1984).

2.2.1. Neolithic cremation burial in Iberia, France and Belgium Cremation burials of the Middle and Late Neolithic (c.5000–4000 BC) of Portugal have all been recovered from collective contexts rather than as individual deposits (Figure 2.4). Fully and partially cremated bones have been recovered:

A 32m-diametre round stone tumulus of La Hoguette, Fortenay-le-Marmion, (3800–2550 BC) contained seven passage graves in which an MNI of 14 inhumations were deposited (Schulz Paulsson, 2017). At the northeast end of the monument, a rectangular structure contained the cremated remains of c.16 individuals (Chambon, 2003). This 12m × 1.3m × 3.2m deep allée sepulcrale (gallery grave) was made out of wood with burnt limestone slabs as a base (Caillaud and Lagnel, 1972).

• in six or more caves such as at Gruta de Cadaval, Tomar, dating to 4341–4057 cal BC (ICEN-803; 5390±50 BP) (Oosterbeek, 1995; Cruz, 1997) and from Beira Litoral, Alto Ribatejo, Estremadura (WeissKrejci, 2005), • in rock shelters such as Covão d’Almeida, Eira Pedrinha, where approximately 200 disarticulated unburnt individuals were co-mingled with cremated bones (Corrêa and Teixeira, 1949) and, • in dolmen graves such as the tholos of Olival da Pega 2 (Gonçalves, 1999), Anta de Cebolino (Leisner and Leisner, 1951), and Perdigões where an estimated 150 individuals were deposited (Silva et al., 2015; Valera et al., 2014).

At least two pyre sites have been identified at Cabasse, Var (Bérard, 1954; Roudil and Bérard, 1981) and at Carnas, Gard (Louis and Peyrolle, 1934) but, like pyre sites from elsewhere in Europe, they continue to remain elusive in the archaeological record.

The majority of Neolithic (c.5600–3200 BC) burials in Spain have been found in caves, domestic structures, stone cists and circular stone tombs of the megalithic tradition (Chapman, 2013) (see Figure 2.4). Charred bones have been recovered from dolmens in regions such of western Murcia, Almería, and Granada (García Sánchez and Spahni, 1959; Gonzalo, 1997). Partial cremation was also fairly common and is recorded in:

Burials in Brittany are vulnerable to the acidic soil conditions which have destroyed most of the bone assemblages (Schulz Paulsson, 2017). However, cremated bone fragments have been recovered from three dolmen in St. Germain, Barnenez, and St. Thois (Cassen, 2000). The chambered passage monument of St. Michel, Carnac, was first covered by a circular stone cairn (Schulz Paulsson, 2017). An elongated tumulus was then constructed before the entire structure was covered by a 125m × 60m mound. Cremated bones were recovered from the chambers and stone cists along with bones from domesticated animals (ibid.). Two radiocarbon dates from the same cremated bone fragment date to 4726–4504 cal BC (GrA-20197; 5780±45 BP) and 4800–4596 cal BC (UB-6869; 5845±38 BP) (Schulting

• round stone tombs (tholoi) such as at Almizaraque, Almerí (Gonzalo, 1997); Los Millares, near Almería (ibid.) and El Barranquete, Valencia (ibid.), • in dolmens such as those found at Bagil, Moratalla, Murcia (San Nicolás del Toro and Martínez Andreu, 1979), 16

The Spread of Cremation Rites from Mainland Europe to Britain

Figure 2.4. The Neolithic and Early Bronze Age cremation sites in Iberia (adapted after Weiss-Krejci, 2005: 71, fig. 1): 1-Pico Ramos; 2-Goikolau; 3-Jentiletxeta; 4-Abauntz; 5-Aldeacueva; 6-Gobaederra; 7-Aitzkomendi; 8-Los Llanos; 9-San Martín; 10-Los Husos; 11-Collado del Mallo; 12-Portillo de los Ladrenes; 13- Villayerno-Morquillas; 14-Los Morcales; 15-Tres Montes; 16-Colomera; 17-Cau Conillers; 18-Cova 120; 19-Encantades des Martis; 20-Avellaner; 21-Cementiri dels Moros; 22-Cova Bona; 23-Lladres; 24-Solanes; 25-Guia; 26-Covacho de Segarulls; 27-Can Sadurni; 28-El Túmulo de la Sima; 29-La Peña de la Abuela; 30-El Miradero; 31-Castelo Velho; 32-Arquinha da Moura; 33; Aldeagordillo; 34-Covão d’Almerida; 35-Gruta de Cadaval; 36-Dolmen de Azután; 37-Juan Barbero; 38-Gruta da Furninha;; 39-Gruta do Furadouro; 40-Moinho da Moura; 41-Lapa do Fumo; 42-Herdade do Freixo de Cima; 43-Olival da Pega 2; 44-Jazigo da Herdade da Alcarapinha; 45-El Dorado; 46-Cueva Maturras; 47-Bagil; 48-Amador; 49-Lechusas; 50-Peliciego; 51-Sarsa; 52-Recambra; 53-Rambla de la Alqueria; 54-Serreta Vella; 55-Eseurrupenia; 56-Barcella; 57-El Milano; 58-Roca; 59-Blanquizares de Lébor; 60-Sagrada; 61-Murviedro; 62-Cabezo del Plomo; 63-Almizaraque; 64-La Sabina; 65-Llano de la Lámpara; 66-Loma del Almanzora; 67-Cabecico de Aquilar; 68-Los Rubialillos; 69-Los Millares; 70-El Barranquete; 71-Monte Velho; 72-Cañada Real; 73-Dehesilla, 74-Anta de Cebolino, 75-La Represa, and 76-Abric de l’Escurrupenia. Please note, not all these sites are mentioned in the text nor is this an exhaustive list, rather the map is used to illustrate the widespread distribution of cremated bone across Iberia during the Neolithic and into the Early Bronze Age.

exchanges along the Atlantic coast (ibid.). This is of particular relevance as cremation was part of the mortuary practices in Neolithic Brittany and northwest France but combines radiocarbon dates (predominantly from charcoal samples) from the megaliths to demonstrate their originating in Brittany c.4700 BC before spreading across western Europe and into Britain. Similarly, the earliest known megalithic grave was recovered from Coldrum, England, and dates to 3970–3805 cal BC (95% probability) while the earliest megaliths (with an entrance) date to the first half of the fourth millennium cal BC (ibid.; Bayliss et al., 2011).

et al., 2009). Elaborate grave goods by way of 12 jadeite axes, 36 fibrolite axes and 111 beads and pendants were mostly recovered from the main chamber; however, 11 of the jadeite axes and 26 of the fibrolite axes were found deposited on top cremated bones (Herbaut, 2000; Schulting et al., 2009; Schulz Paulsson, 2017). Schulz Paulsson (2019) has recently argued that the expansion of megaliths in the second half of the fifth millennium cal BC from France and Iberia spread along a sea route in three main phases (Figure 2.7). Her research supports a maritime diffusion model with intercultural 17

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC)

Figure 2.5. Neolithic cremation sites in France and in Brittany (after Gatto, 2002: 28, figs. 1 & 2): 1-Grotte du Gardon; 2-Ribemont; 3-Le Coulet du Stramousse; 4-Les Cascades 1; 5-Peyrolebade; 6-Rosier 1; 7-Rosier 3; 8-Les Treilles; 9-Les Truels; 10-Reichstett-Mundelsheim-Souffelweyersheim; 11-Les Abeilles; 12-La Bastide Blanche; 13-Baume d’Onze Heures; 14-Enco-de-Bote; 15-La Marane; 16-Le Pilon du Roy; 17-Pitchoun-Ome; 18-La Plaine; 19-Pomeiret; 20-Le Rove; 21-Terrevaine; 22-Tholos 1 de Sainte-Anne; 23-Tholos 4 de Sainte-Anne; 24-La Hoguette; 25-Les Barbilloux; 26-Perpétairi; 27-La Clauze; 28-Macassargue; 29-Rossi; 30-La Coste; 31-Mont-Jonnet; 32-Le Rond-du-Lévrier; 33-La Roquette; 34Les Marais de Pouline; 35-Les Canas; 36-Mainson-Rouge; 37-Barthes 1; 38-Barthes 2; 39-Bout de la Combe; 40-Causse de Montvalent; 41-Les Garroustes; 42-Hauteurs de Lugagnac; 43-Pech Curet; 44-Pourquayré; 45-Dignas; 46-Mont Saint Michel; 47-Le Chemin des Breton; 48-Chiozé; 49-Les Mardelles; 50-Les Murnouards 3; 51-Oyes; 52-La Pierre-Michelot; 53-Les Ronces; 54-Vert la Gravelle; 55-Mané Lud; 56-Belleville; 57-Hérouval; 58-Layon-Beurrefrais; 59-Ecuelles; 60-Les boutards; 61-Dampont; 62-Pech 1; 63-Pech 5; 64, Pech 9; 65-Parmain 2; 66-Villeneuve Saint Georges; 67-La Bouissière; 68-La Briande; 69-Les Cèdres; 70-Gonfaron; 71-Gottaubry; 72-La Haute-Suane; 73-La Lauve; 74-L’Olivier; 75-Roqued’Aille; 76-Saint-Jeaume; 77-San Sébastien 1; 78-San Sébastien 2; 79-La Verrerie-Vieille Saint-Paul-les-Fayence; 80-Les Echaffins; 81-Cheny; 82-Monéteau; 83-Villeneuve-sur-Yonne; 84-Vinneuf; 85-Haute-Loire; 86-La Truie Pendue; 87-Cabasse; 88-Carnas; 89-St Germain; 90-Barnenez; 91-St. Thois; and 92-St. Michel. Please note, not all these sites are mentioned in this book nor is it intended to be an exhaustive list, rather the map is used to illustrate the widespread distribution of cremated bone throughout France and Brittany.

18

The Spread of Cremation Rites from Mainland Europe to Britain

Figure 2.6. The continuous cremation of bodies, one on top of another, at la Grotte du Gardon, Ambérie-en-Bugey, Ain, in which at least 50 individuals were cremated over several centuries (Voruz et al., 2004: 856, fig. 26, photographed by E. Gatto).

Figure 2.7. Map of Europe showing the hypothetical route of the megalithic expansion in three main phases (red, green, yellow) based on radiocarbon dates with a 95% probability (68% probability in brackets). The brown colouration is a period of megalithic stasis and the orange signifies a Mediterranean revival during the second millennium cal BC (Schulz Paulsson, 2019: 3464, fig. 5).

19

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC)

Figure 2.8. Map of Ireland showing the locations of the sites mentioned in the text: 1-Mound of Hostages, Tara; 2-Carrowkeel; 3-Poulnabrone; 4-Tully; 5-Jerpoint West; and 6-Kilgreany (map drawn by C. Willis). Please note, there are over 1500 monuments recorded throughout Ireland with approximately 63% identified as having contained cremated human bones; these have not been listed here.

2.2.2. Neolithic cremation burial in Ireland

individuals all of whom exhibited varying post-mortem treatments and mortuary rites (O’Sullivan, 2005; Brindley et al., 2005). At the Carrowkeel passage tomb complex, Co. Sligo, a total of 5.7kg of cremated bone fragments were recovered consisting of 22 cremated individuals, and 9.7kg of unburnt bone representing 18 individuals (Kador et al., 2018). Radiocarbon dates from 38 samples included four cremation samples occurred broadly between 3508 to 2887 cal BC (at 95% probability) (ibid.).

The Neolithic chronology of Irish funerary and mortuary rites is well-documented with cremation becoming dominant c.3500 BC when early farming communities were being established (Cooney, 2014: 189). Megalithic tombs are the most prominent and extant evidence for Early Neolithic (c.4000–3200 cal BC) funerary activity with over 1,500 recorded in Ireland including approximately 230 passage tombs, 394 court tombs and 174 portal tombs (Harbison, 1988; Waddell, 2010; Schulting et al., 2012) (Figure 2.8). This monumentalization coincided with megalithic construction across western Europe from c.4000 cal BC (Joussaume, 1988; Scarre, 2007).

Portal tombs (also known as dolmen) are single-chamber tombs with two or more vertical megaliths supporting a capstone. They are sometimes covered with earth to form a tumulus and are seen across Britain and northwest Europe. The site at Poulnabrone, Co. Clare, contained a minimum of 35 unburnt individuals dated between 4270–3715 cal BC and 3290–2530 cal BC (Lynch, 1988; Lynch and Ó Donnabháin, 1994; Cooney, 2014). However, evidence of scorching and burning on some of the bone fragments appeared to have occurred when the bones were dry.

Passage tombs date between 3495–3285 cal BC to 2860– 2795 cal BC (Cooney, 2014). Arguably the best-known Irish passage tomb is the Mound of the Hostages, Tara, which had a main phase of mortuary activity between 3345 to 3095 cal BC. It contained c.237 cremated and c.60 inhumed 20

The Spread of Cremation Rites from Mainland Europe to Britain social organisation by investing heavily into monument building, but also introduced communal burials and rites of cremation against a backdrop of new agricultural strategies and changing political dynamics (Cassidy et al., 2020). As it will be shown in the following two chapters, there are hundreds of Neolithic cremation deposits on mainland Britain. Most of these are associated with a circular monument (or at least, a progression towards a circular design), while the remaining deposits were buried in isolated pits within the landscape.

Court tombs date to c.3700–3570 cal BC (Schulting et al., 2012) and like passage tombs also incorporated both inhumations and cremations (Herity, 1987). At the site at Tully, Co. Fermanagh, the court tomb contained a horse-shoe shaped court leading to a two-chambered gallery (Waterman, 1978; Cooney, 2014). Deposited on the floor in the front chamber was burnt soil, charcoal, carinated bow sherds and the cremated remains of two children dated to 3961–3718 cal BC (UBA-13546; 5058±40 BP) (Cooney, 2016; Murphy et al., 2010). In the back chamber, the cremated remains of a young male adult dated to 3650–3532 cal BC (UBA-13547; 4816±22 BP) and were recovered in a deposit of clay. Additionally, the cremated bones of a sub-adult, dated to 3627–3374 cal BC (UBA-13545; 4698±24 BP), were recovered in a small cist which had been constructed against the outer side of the gallery and sealed by stone slabs. By c.3800–2500 cal BC, over 63% of burials were identified as cremation deposits (Murphy et al., 2010; Cooney, 2014; Bradley, 2007a; 2007b). This figure is probably biased as the acidic soils in northern and western Ireland likely destroyed inhumed bone at some of these sites; however, it is clear that monuments were repeatedly re-used for selected members of their community over long periods of time. Cremated remains have also been recovered in non-monumental locations such as from isolated pits in cists (e.g., Jerpoint West; Ryan, 1973), and in only one cave which contained two discreet deposits at Kilgreany cave (Dowd, 2008). 2.3. Summary of the spread of cremation rites Cremated human remains have been recovered from across western Europe dating to both the Mesolithic and Neolithic. However, archaeological evidence reveals that cremation rites began in Iberia but became more prominent throughout the Neolithic as a consequence of population movement. Initially, demic diffusion linked inward population migration with the displacement of local inhabitants as the cause for the cultural changes (Hakenbeck, 2008); but, it is now argued that change occurred through indigenous processes (Cassidy, 2019). Recent aDNA results (on unburnt bones) have revealed genetic affinities for a south-north migration from continental Europe (specifically Iberia) into Britain and Ireland during the 4th millennium BC (Cassidy et al., 2016; Cassidy, 2019; Brace et al., 2019). Intriguingly, aDNA results from the Carrowkeel passage tomb reveal genetic affinities from the adult female recovered at Ballynahatty, Co. Down and dated to 3343–3020 (UB-7059; 4465±38 BP) (Cassidy et al., 2016; Kador et al., 2018). Here, preliminary results indicate the Early Neolithic ancestry of Carrowkeel derive from the Anatolians and allele (gene) sharing with Iberians and central Europeans (Kador et al., 2018: 22). This indicates that the newly arrived farmers were genetically descended from older Iberian populations, and quickly populated Britain while the indigenous huntergatherer communities gradually disappeared (Brace et al., 2019). These new farmers showed an increase in 21

3 Neolithic Mortuary Rites Associated with Monuments in Britain (c.4000–2500 BC) The dead played a central role during the Neolithic (c.4000–2500 BC), and the mortuary record reflects not only the great diversity in the ways the dead were treated and manipulated but also the wide variation of burial locations within the landscape. Bodily disposal included exposure to the elements and scavengers (excarnation), defleshing, cremation and inhumation. Placement of the dead occurred in caves, cairns, mounds and barrows, henges, stone and timber circles, post-holes, mine pits and ring ditches, or within watery locales such as rivers, estuaries and bogs. Bodies were buried individually or communally in groups of two or more, and often bones were moved from their primary mortuary structure and deposited elsewhere in a secondary deposition (Fowler, 2010). Though these differing mortuary rites overlapped in place and time, it becomes clear that they represent alternative approaches for treating the dead rather than representing a single faith or cultural identity (Thomas, 1999). Death was, therefore, more than a single event and could imply a slow transition from one state to another (cf. Metcalf and Huntington, 1991). The complex treatment of Neolithic human remains suggests a constant engagement with the deceased which may have started before death and extended long after initial deposition. For example, archaeological evidence indicates that graves and tombs were re-opened and the remains inside manipulated in a continuation of rites and rituals that probably spanned decades (Appleby, 2013). Post-burial treatment could include re-opening the grave to bury a second (or more) individual, the re-organisation of existing bones to either display or to deliberately create a complete skeleton from disarticulated remains, or the removal of certain bones before closing the grave again. This repetitive interaction with deceased individuals reveals a link between the living and the dead, one that cements, renews, and renegotiates that society’s relations. However, the growing popularity of cremation during the Neolithic suggests long-term changes in people’s interaction with the dead. The majority of cremated human remains have been excavated from primary deposits, may indicate that the funerary rite was mostly a single episodic event; however, the inclusion of additional cremated and/or unburnt individuals to the main cremation in small token amounts suggest a continued interaction with cremated bone prior to final deposition. This signifies that while interaction with the cremated deceased ended with burial, the cremated bones may have been stored, curated, or circulated between communities after the cremation process. In a few instances (e.g., West Stow), weathering on the cortical surface of some cremated bone fragments (due to soil acidity) differs from the main cremation deposit despite recovery from the same context. This implies that a cremated individual (or,

at least a few bones from that individual) was exhumed from its original primary deposit and added into the main cremation deposit years later. Such evidence indicates a deliberate linking between these individuals despite what may have been decades (or longer) between their deaths, and remembrance of where older deposits were located within the landscape. The Neolithic is the earliest period in which any substantial quantity of human remains survives from Britain’s past (Smith and Brickley, 2009). Unfortunately, this constitutes only a very small percentage of individuals recovered out of estimated millions of people who inhabited Britain during this time (Brothwell, 1972; McEvedy and Jones, 1978; Pryor, 2003; see also Chapter 9). This means that the majority of people who died during the Neolithic period were not disposed of in contexts that have survived through time (Cummings, 2017). The skeletal assemblages that have survived are often small and highly fragmented, their archaeological recovery mostly following modern construction and housing developments rather than academic research. Moreover, varying geologies and soil composition (e.g., alkaline vs. acidic soils) have determined the size and distribution of the samples recovered. The largest surviving inhumed collections of Neolithic skeletal remains derive from the limestone uplands of the Cotswolds and the chalk downs of southern England and east Yorkshire (Smith and Brickley, 2009; Jay and Scarre, 2017) which provide favourable conditions for bone preservation. Cremated human bones, on the other hand, have a better chance of surviving hostile soil conditions due to the chemical changes in bone composition during the cremation process. Unfortunately, very few cremated bone assemblages from early archaeological excavations have been curated in museum collections due to the widespread belief (until well into the 20th century) that nothing of scientific value could be gained from their study. The rite of cremation is not commonly associated with the British Neolithic despite the frequent recovery of cremated human bones in the archaeological record (Pryor, 2003; Smith and Brickley, 2006). Yet most circular monuments were, first and foremost, cremation cemeteries: labour intensive, purposefully built memorials for certain members of society. Archaeological excavations and radiocarbon dating have shown that the majority of the smaller cremation cemeteries were not used for prolonged, collective burial practices but, rather, were short-lived for only a few selected individuals (a community’s local cemetery). Larger cemeteries (e.g., Stonehenge, Dorchester-on-Thames) were probably considered to be 23

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) centres of regional or island-wide importance in which small and token deposits of cremated bone were deposited by a few people coming from a wider area (potentially supra-local cemeteries for the elite).

Neolithic. Very few fully built barrows, enclosures or tombs date to the first two centuries of the Early Neolithic and it is not until c.3800 BC onwards that long barrows and long cairns became more widespread (Russell, 2002; Whittle et al., 2007; Thomas, 2013).

From the limited archaeological evidence that is known, human remains were subjected to a wide range of funerary practices. This chapter concerns the mortuary rites of the Neolithic by tracing the progression of (above-ground) monumental form towards geometrically circular shapes and the rise of cremation deposition coinciding with decreased inhumation burials. Diverse mortuary rites at sites in mainland Britain will be discussed and they are intended as a representative rather than a comprehensive synthesis of the main trends in Neolithic mortuary practices.

Mortuary chambers, commonly found in southern and eastern Britain, are features of the Early Neolithic. They are characterised by a simple chamber involving linear flanking banks of clay or stone which are often divided by wooden uprights (such as a set of large split-tree trunks) creating a narrow burial area (Kinnes, 1975; Ashmore, 2006). The chamber would eventually be covered by a mound, effectively sealing the burials beneath, and rendering them inaccessible (Smith and Brickley, 2009; Thomas, 1999; Evans and Hodder, 2006). Some mortuary chambers were allowed to decay naturally while others were deliberately burnt down (with the bodies inside) before being replaced by another timber-framed structure (Fowler, 2010; Noble, 2006). The treatment of the dead within these mortuary structures varied but most contained disarticulated human remains. In some instances, it appears that human bodies were brought into these structures intact (fleshed) but were later disturbed, dismembered, and pushed further into the chamber as new bodies were added (Lucas, 1996). At other sites, such as at Haddenham, the freshly dead were taken to the mortuary chamber and allowed to partially decompose before being defleshed and then deposited at the back of the chamber (Evans and Hodder, 2006; Thomas, 2013). These reflect complex burial rites in which frequent handling of human remains was deemed necessary so that bones could be removed, redistributed, or reintroduced elsewhere (Thomas, 2000). Examples of mortuary chambered sites include Dalladies (Piggott, 1973) where very few bones were left inside the chamber suggesting that they had been removed for use elsewhere. At Giant’s Hills II and Fussell’s Lodge, it appears that bones were either re-deposited from elsewhere or moved from one part of the chamber to another, due to the general lack of ribs, small bones of the hands and feet, patellae, and scapulae (Ashbee, 1966). These small bones would either have been consciously selected out from the rest of the remains or gradually lost through re-location. At Nutbane, all the skeletons appeared to be articulated, but there were vast differences in the stages of bone preservation, suggesting a long, continuous procession of corpses being added into the chamber (Morgan, 1959). At Wayland’s Smithy, the wooden mortuary house of the tomb’s first phase exhibited a paved sarsen stone floor with two large posts at each end. A single crouched burial was recovered at the northern end, while the southern end remained empty. In addition, a minimum of 14 individuals was identified from disarticulated piles of bones of which there were two females, eleven males and one child. Some of the remains had been subjected to differing degrees of exposure prior to burial. Modelling of radiocarbon results date the first burial to 3660–3520 cal BC and the last burial to 3640–3370 cal BC (Whittle et al., 2007), suggesting that they all died within one generation of each other (Fowler, 2010).

3.1. The Early Neolithic (c.4000–3500 BC) Early Neolithic monuments represent a significant escalation in the physical presence of the dead in prehistoric Britain (Figures 3.1 and 3.5). Though there is no evidence for formal inhumation cemeteries, there is a large amount of evidence regarding the treatment of human remains within these monuments (Cummings, 2017) such as repeated handling and organisation of skeletal bones. With emphasis on physically handling the deceased, decomposition had to be effective so that bones could be re-incorporated into collective repositories or circulated within the landscape. Decomposition may have been manually accelerated by defleshing, exposing, or temporarily burying corpses in certain soils (e.g., high clay content [Wei et al., 2014]). It is these shared practices of deposition, decomposition and the circulation of human bones that characterise many Neolithic monuments as a group regardless of their typology, regional variations, or construction materials. Undeniably, many monuments were not only bone storage facilities, but also centres of political, cultural, and social importance, where the revered dead could be continuously deposited, exchanged, or retrieved until the structure was permanently sealed. The development of ownership for distinctive material goods in the Early Neolithic extended to human remains which could be passed down through generations claiming descent from specific individuals, circulated between communities cementing alliances, or creating bonds of kinship through the creation of social memories (Thomas 2013; Mauss, 1950). Human bones were among these ‘distinctive material goods’: circulated, revered, reaffirmed, remembered. Their burial in monuments was not only of social value to the community, but also a highly visible political statement regarding territorial ownership and kinship affinity. 3.1.1. Early Neolithic inhumations and monument construction The appearance of large-scale monuments as visible statements in the landscape is a characteristic of the Early 24

Neolithic Mortuary Rites Associated with Monuments in Britain (c.4000–2500 BC)

Figure 3.1. Locations of the Early Neolithic inhumations associated with monuments as discussed in this section. This map is not intended as an exhaustive list but merely illustrates some of the diversity (map by C. Willis).

Another Early Neolithic monument type is the long mound or long barrow. Generally constructed between 3800 and 3500 BC, they demonstrate regional variations in building materials and styles, but most were broadly trapezoidal in shape (Russell, 2002; Smith and Brickley, 2009). While impressive in both size and mass, a relatively small number of articulated burials were placed inside, with some mounds

containing only one individual such as Barrow 6 at West Cotton (Harding and Healy, 2011). In several instances, the deposits are absent or very fragmentary, indicating that the bones were eventually removed from the chamber for use in other rites or other forms of deposition (Thomas, 1999). Indeed, pits containing human bones located underneath long barrows may represent temporary places for corpses 25

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) to decay (Thorpe, 1984), while exposure platforms at other sites are not unusual (Thomas, 1999). This suggests that some of these monuments were considered places of transition, whereby the deceased were transformed from decaying flesh into clean bones fit for purpose elsewhere. At other sites, disarticulated human bones were piled into particular areas, such as West Kennet where at least 46 individuals were deposited within the four main chambers

over a short time span of between 10 to 30 years (Bayliss et al., 2007). In addition, a deposit of cremated bones consisting of 2 individuals was also recovered lying on top an older female (Skeleton III) in the north-east chamber (Figure 3.2). Long cairns, another Early Neolithic monument type, contained orthostatic chambers which enabled continuous

Figure 3.2. Detailed plan of West Kennet long barrow in which up to 46 individuals were deposited within four of its chambers over a 10–30 year period. Note the cremation deposit in the north-east chamber lying over Skeleton III (adapted after Piggott, 1962: 22, fig.8).

26

Neolithic Mortuary Rites Associated with Monuments in Britain (c.4000–2500 BC) suggesting that the older remains had been brought in from elsewhere.

access to the bones over a long period of time despite a cairn being built up around them (Thomas, 2013). At Ascott-under-Wychwood, Oxfordshire, human remains were continuously re-organized in cist-type chambers for around 75–110 years (Bayliss et al., 2007; Thomas, 2013). A similar pattern at Hazleton North was noted where there was a low proportion of long bones recovered from the south chamber whilst skulls tended to be placed along the edges of the chamber walls (Saville, 1990). Other examples of megalithic tombs from the Early Neolithic are portal dolmens, passage tombs and rotunda graves in which disarticulated human remains were commonly deposited within the chambers; however, in some instances (e.g., Poulnabrone, Ireland [Lynch, 2014]) older bones were placed on top of more recent bones,

Another monument-type whose function continues to be debated is the causewayed enclosure (Figure 3.3). Their suggested purpose has varied from centres for gathering and exchange, to places for domestic activity, to defence, or a combination of all of these (Mercer, 1990; Mercer and Healy, 2008; Whittle et al., 2011). However, one probable explanation suggests that they also represented a stage in a multi-phase burial process (Bradley, 1984; Thomas, 1991) as most excavated causewayed enclosures have produced human bones (Thorpe, 1984). Fragments of human bones and teeth have been found in pits and post-holes at Hambledon Hill (Mercer, 1980; Mercer and Healy,

Figure 3.3. Examples of causewayed enclosures in southern England (Oswald et al., 2001: 58, fig. 4.6; contains OS data ©Crown copyright and database right 2021).

27

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) 2008), while varying quantities of skeletal material have been recovered from other sites such as at Maiden Castle (Sharples, 1991), Hill Croft Field (Bapty, 2007), Windmill Hill (Whittle et al., 1999), Abingdon (Avery, 1982; Miles, 1986), Etton (Pryor, 1998, 2013), Great Wilbraham (Evans et al., 2006), Haddenham (Evans and Hodder, 2006), Larkhill (Leivers, 2017), and Whitehawk (Barber, 2001). In addition, 33g of cremated bone of a possible female adult was recovered with a crouched burial of an adult female from the interior of the Staines causewayed enclosure (Bradley, 2004). While both individuals are still undated, they are possibly Neolithic though it should be remembered that they come from a multi-period site (Lamdin-Whymark, 2008). Edmonds (1993) argues that these enclosures were not purely burial places, but areas deemed appropriate for various rites to be performed upon the dead. It appears that different mortuary practices were represented at causewayed enclosures from formal burials (e.g., Windmill Hill, Maiden Castle), formal bone deposits (such as at Haddenham and Etton) and deliberate burial of fleshed body parts (e.g., the recovery of an adult skull with the first three vertebrae suggest deposition of a fleshed head at Staines) to bone accumulation. In addition, the proportions of males, females, and children represented by the human remains clearly indicate that these groups were treated equally in the mortuary practices within causewayed enclosures (Thomas, 1991), and while there are more adult males that adult women, both women and are represented in chambered tombs (e.g., Adlestrop, Fussell’s Lodge, Hazleton North, Notgrove, West Kennet [see also Smith and Brickley, 2009: 88]), as well as within flat graves (e.g., Sutton Courtenay and Yabsley Street).

Figure 3.4. An example of a Middle Neolithic oval mound at Alfriston with a) a human burial (a probable later insertion), b) a pit, c) postholes at southern edge, d) postholes at northern edge, and e) an unrecorded antiquarian disturbance (after Drewett, 1975: 122, fig. 3; redrawn by Russell, 2002: 28, fig. 6, reproduced with kind permission).

At Hambledon Hill (Mercer and Healy, 2008), the recovery of 35 children and approximately 40 adults indicated various mortuary practices including formal and informal burials, defleshing, canid gnawing, deliberate organisation of skulls, and a preference for long-bone shafts. Two single child burials were covered with chalk rubble and overlain by flint cairns (ibid.). The first child, dated to 3660–3540 cal BC (OxA-7768; 4810±45 BP and OxA-7769; 4795±50 BP), was accompanied by three bone beads near the head and a flint flake behind the back, while the other child, dated to 3380–3320 cal BC (OxA-7039; 4550±60 BP and OxA-7040; 4565±60 BP), had two carved chalk nodules placed near the head. Both children were noted to have premature fusing of the cranial sutures, of which one would have caused a significant disability (Mercer and Healey, 2008). The children were buried approximately 170 years apart, yet they were buried in the same way, in the same grave, and shared the same pathological condition. This suggests retention of a long oral history and a continuation of a burial practice which spanned both the Early and the Middle Neolithic (Fowler, 2010). At Windmill Hill, deliberate manipulation of human bones can be seen in an infant skull which was placed within a cattle frontlet, and its femur inserted in the humerus of an ox (Whittle et al., 1999).

Mainly confined to south-eastern Britain, oval barrows, also known as short-long barrows, began to appear in the Early Neolithic and continued into the Middle Neolithic (McOmish et al., 2002; Darvill, 2005) (Figure 3.4). Typically containing one or more articulated burials, oval barrows were long with curved side-ditches (Darvill, 2005). The oval barrow on Whiteleaf Hill, Buckinghamshire, contained the single burial of an adult male dating to 3760– 3640 cal BC (OxA-13567; 4900±33BP) (Hey et al., 2007), while at Hambledon Hill, the oval barrow was constructed in 3680–3640 BC and contained no trace of any burial (Mercer and Healy, 2008). At Wayland’s Smithy, an oval barrow was constructed at the turn of the Middle Neolithic period over the decayed remains of a timber mortuary chamber in 3520–3470 BC (Whittle et al., 2007). 3.1.2. Early Neolithic cremations and associated monuments Atkinson, during his excavation of Dorchester-on-Thames in the 1940s (see Chapter 7), was the first to recognise the significance of cremation cemeteries during the Neolithic. Stuart Piggott (1954) defined the ‘Dorchester Culture’ as 28

Neolithic Mortuary Rites Associated with Monuments in Britain (c.4000–2500 BC) a key cultural group in which one of their traits was to cremate their dead. From the 1960s onwards, the notion of ‘culture’ was abandoned but the topic and importance of cremation cemeteries was periodically revisited. In his typological synthesis of round barrows and ring ditch in the British Neolithic, Kinnes (1979) classified these cremation

cemeteries as a distinct group. However, new findings from modern archaeological fieldwork, osteological analysis and radiocarbon dating reveal that cremation was not only a distinct rite during the Neolithic, but that it is found throughout Britain and most often in association with circular monuments (Figure 3.5).

Figure 3.5. Locations of the Early Neolithic cremation sites associated with monuments as discussed in this section. This is not intended as an exhaustive list but merely illustrates the range of diversity; the Mesolithic sites are intended as a point of geographical reference in comparison to the Early Neolithic sites (map by C. Willis).

29

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) Table 1. List of Early Neolithic sites in which ‘burnt’, ‘scorched’, or ‘charred’ human bone was recorded, as opposed to ‘cremated’ human bone

Site

Table 2. List of Early Neolithic British sites in which cremated human bones have been recovered Site

Reference

Site type

Reference

Adlestrop

Chambered barrow Smith, 2005

Davidson and Henshall, 1991

Ascott-underWychwood

Excarnation platform

Chesterman, 1977

Randwick

Witts, 1886

Brightlingsea

Ring ditch

Mays, 2004

Ty Isaf

Grimes, 1939

Blackpatch

Mine

Nympsfield

Clifford, 1938

Pull, 1932; Barber et al, 1999

Ffostyll North

Vulliamy, 1922

Bryn yr Hen Bobl

Chambered cairn

Hemp, 1936

Rodmarton

Lysons, 1863

Caithness

Chambered tomb

Davidson and Henshall, 1991

Belas Knap

Winterbotham, 1866

Chestnuts

Chambered tomb

Mays, 2004

Din Dryfol

Chambered tomb

Smith and Lynch, 1986

Dyffryn Ardudwy

Burial Chamber

Powell, 1973

Haddenham

Round barrow

Evans and Hodder, 2006

Hazleton North

Long cairn

Saville, 1990

Lochhill

Long cairn

Masters, 1973

Luckington

Long barrow

Corcoran, 1970

Maxey Quarry

Pit

Gibson, 2013

Notgrove

Long barrow

Clifford, 1936

Parc le Breos Cwm

Long cairn/ chambered tomb

Wysocki and Whittle, 1998

Pitglassie

Round cairn

Sheridan, 2007

Pitnacree

Round barrow

Coles and Simpson 1965

Sales Lot

Long barrow

O’Neill, 1966

Sproxton

Round barrow

Jordon et al., 1994

Ty Isaf

Chambered cairn

Wysocki and Whittle, 2000

Yarnton Floodplain

Settlement

Whittle et al., 2011

Hambledon Hill

McKinley, 2008

Tulloch of Assery A

In addition, osteological re-assessments of cremated bone fragments recovered from some Early Neolithic sites have revealed cremated material that was unrecognised during the initial excavation, such as at Parc le Breos Cwm (Whittle and Wysocki, 1998), Ty Isaf (Wysocki and Whittle, 2000) and Adlestrop Barrow (Smith, 2005) and re-examination of other Neolithic assemblages may also produce further cases of missed cremated bones. Before the 1950s, archaeological excavation reports and journal publications often made reference to ‘burnt’, ‘scorched’ or ‘charred’ human bones recovered or noted during excavations (Table 1), but they neglected to provide any other information such as quantity, weight, or determination of any demographic data. In rarer examples, excavation records failed to record the location of the cremation deposits (e.g., Hawley’s excavation diaries for Stonehenge). Unfortunately, many of these bones recovered from archaeological sites were thrown away prior to the 1960s as they were considered to yield insufficient information to be of any scientific value (McKinley, 1998). Because of this commonly held misconception, many of these older archaeological assemblages cannot be re-examined (Smith and Brickley, 2006). As the Chief Inspector of Antiquities in Stockholm, Professor C.M. Fürst, wrote in 1930:

The process of cremating a dead body rarely leaves any archaeological evidence from prehistory. Occasionally, a pyre site is recovered but only if it was protected underneath later deposits such as under a cairn or barrow (Parker Pearson, 1999). If left exposed, the pyre area is virtually erased from the ground surface within a short period of time after the cremated bones had been collected for deposition or scattering elsewhere. The round mound at Boghead, Moray, overlies a patch of heavily burnt sand, interpreted as the location of a pyre (Burl, 1984; Sheridan, 2010a). The ring mound of Pitglassie, Aberdeenshire, also effectively sealed the cremated remains of an adult male, an adult probable female, and a child which were covered by a turf mound (Shepherd, 1996; Sheridan, 2010a). The ‘Pow Sod’ cairn at Atherb also appears to contain a pyre in situ and cremated human bones mixed in with wood ash, stones, and soil which were used as the fabric for the construction of the cairn (Milne, 1892; Sheridan, 2010a).

‘I would straight away place on record my considered opinion, based on experience, that cremated remains of human bones in burial urns are almost always devoid of any anthropological interest… from an anthropological point of view, therefore, these bones are of no scientific value, and I consider that nothing is lost if they are neither submitted to nor preserved in the Museum.’ (in Gejvall, 1963: 468). Cremated human bones have been recovered in a wide variety of Early Neolithic contexts ranging from a wooden mortuary chamber at Haddenham (Evans and Hodder, 2006; Fowler, 2010), from layers underneath stone structures at Lochhill (Masters, 1973) and Pitnacree (Coles and Simpson, 1965), and from underneath other chambered tombs and long barrows (Table 2). 30

Neolithic Mortuary Rites Associated with Monuments in Britain (c.4000–2500 BC) At several sites, mortuary structures were also deliberately burnt, along with the human remains. At Lochhill, Dumfries and Galloway, the planks of the chamber floor dating to 4221–3644 cal BC (I-6409; 5070±105 BP), and the timber façade were burnt, along with the human bones (Figure 3.6) (Masters, 1973; Noble, 2006). A long cairn was then built over the burnt bones, with a walled chamber space that mirrored the position of the former timber chamber.

The surrounding palisade at Pencraig Hill was then burnt down prior to the construction of a long mound over the entire site. Both mortuary structures at Haddenham and at Nutbane were also burnt down prior to long barrows being constructed over the remains (Thomas, 1999). The burning occurred when the majority of the bones were dry, with the exception of the body recovered from the entrance at Haddenham (Evans and Hodder, 2006; Lee 2006). Similarly, at Callis Wold 275 in Yorkshire, the partial excavations of a round barrow revealed a rectangular platform of flat stones 3.7m wide × 0.91m long, on which ten contracted inhumations were placed, in addition to a ‘scattering’ of burnt bones (Figure 3.8). The bodies were closely packed together, and their bones crushed so that only approximate positions of the bodies on the slab could be established. At the western edge of the pavement was a pit containing cremated human bones and various disarticulated human and animal bones, while a pit at the eastern end contained human long bones, a skull, and parts of a skeleton of an infant. Both of these pits have been interpreted as representing a split-post mortuary structure (Coombs, 1976), and they echo the long barrows at Wayland’s Smithy (Atkinson, 1965; Whittle et al., 2007) and Giant’s Hills 1 and 2 (Phillips, 1936; Evans and Simpson, 1991). A radiocarbon date for burial 7 produced a date of 3770–3640 cal BC (OxA-V-2199-17; 4906±32 BP)

At Eweford West, two timber and stone mortuary structures were constructed then burnt in situ (Lelong and MacGregor, 2007; Thomas, 2013). The first structure contained the charred remains of one adult and one juvenile, both of whose remains may have been subjected to bone removal, as revealed by their incomplete nature. The second structure contained the scorched remains of two adults and a neonate. Charcoal produced a radiocarbon date of 3795– 3652 cal BC (SUERC-5286; 4950±35 BP) (Sheridan, 2007). Similarly, at Pencraig Hill, East Lothian, a small structure was destroyed by fire and the charred remains of two individuals were recovered, dating to 3910–3630 cal BC (SUERC-7910; 4940±50 BP) and 3660–3380 cal BC (SUERC-7911; 4800±50 BP) respectively (Lelong and MacGregor, 2007; Sheridan, 2007; Whittle et al., 2011). The analysis of the cremated remains revealed a random and disorganised pattern for bodily placement on the pyre despite the organised structure of the wood timbers suggesting that individual body parts were being cremated rather than a complete body (Figure 3.7) (Duffy and MacGregor, 2008).

Under a long barrow at Seamer Moor, Yorkshire, a burnt stone and timber mortuary structure contained a crouched

Figure 3.6. The mortuary structure at Lochhill, illustrating the areas where burnt human remains were recovered (adapted after Masters, 1973: 98, fig. 1).

31

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC)

Figure 3.7. The distribution of cremated skeletal elements from the pyre site at Pencraig Hill, East Lothian (Duffy and MacGregor, 2008: 74, fig. 4, reproduced with permission of BAR Publishing, www.barpublishing.com).

Figure 3.8. Barrow 275, in the Callis Wold round barrow group, North Yorkshire. The body positions are approximate with cremated bone scattered throughout the inhumations and deposited in the western pit (adapted after Coombs, 1976: 131, fig. 1).

adult, another adult and charred bones on a paved area (Clark, 1961). Parallel walls had been constructed on the north and south ends of the mound to store the deceased individuals and a walled forecourt was constructed at the

east end. The structure was then burnt down (in which the inhumed bones were then cremated), the forecourt was enclosed by a wall of stone and posts across the front, and a mound was built on top of it all. A secondary 32

Neolithic Mortuary Rites Associated with Monuments in Britain (c.4000–2500 BC) inhumation was interred within the mound at a later date (ibid.).

The constructing of some linear-shaped monuments persisted into the beginning of the Middle Neolithic such as the long barrow of Amesbury 42, dated to 3520– 3350 cal BC (SUERC-24308; 4645±30 BP), and the Winterbourne Stoke long barrow dating to 3630–3360 cal BC (SUERC-42530; 4680±29 BP) (Parker Pearson et al., 2015). However, a shift in the design of monumental form saw linear and rectangular-shaped monuments replaced by cursuses and more circular forms of mortuary architecture such as henges, stone and timber circles, and round barrows after 3800 and before 3000 BC. This transition of monumental shape coincided with a change from depositing multiple individuals in communal monuments to an emphasis only on depositing single individuals.

In western Scotland, a deposit of cremated bones from Cladh Aindreis was recovered from a small natural hollow upon which a c.16m-diameter circular monument was constructed containing a rectangular chambered tomb with tightly packed bundles of unburnt bones. A ditch was constructed around the front of the monument (pottery in the fill suggests a date in the mid-fourth millennium BC) and a hearth was found between the ditch and the tomb. Radiocarbon dates from the cremated remains produced a date of 3783–3656 cal BC (SUERC-49033; 4947±30 BP) and reveal that they probably pre-date the chambered tomb by around 150 years. The primary deposits of the tomb’s bone bundles date to 3639–3514 cal BC (SUERC-49039; 4759±30 BP) and 3637–3507 cal BC (SUERC-49038; 4750±32 BP) (Harris et al., 2014).

3.2.1. Middle Neolithic inhumations and associated monuments

Portal dolmens, also known as quoits, cromlechs, or portal tombs, are an Early Neolithic single-chamber type monument usually made from two or more upright stones supporting a large flat horizontal capstone found in Wales, western and south-western England, and some parts of Ireland. While the burial of human remains was a component of many of these monuments, some were apparently not designed for repeated mortuary events. Rather, the massive capstone was carefully balanced on the vertical uprights to create a strong visual effect in the landscape (Cummings and Richards, 2014). Inhumations may have been frequently deposited within portal dolmens. However, the acidic soil in the regions where they are mostly found have destroyed any such unburnt bones. The largest deposit of unburnt human remains in a portal dolmen is that of Poulnabrone, Ireland, where a minimum of 35 individuals were crammed within a chamber on the limestone paving, starting between 3885 and 3710 cal BC (Lynch, 2014). Archaeological evidence suggests that the site was used for deposition over a 600year period, with successive interments and the removal of skeletal elements (Cummings, 2017). However, this site is a rarity in terms of the quantity of human remains. Typically, dolmens only contain small quantities of burnt (and occasionally unburnt) bone, suggesting either token deposition or preferential preservation (or lack of) due to acidic soil conditions.

Cursus monuments were massive linear ditched and banked enclosures with rounded or squared terminal ends, mainly dating between 3600 and 3000 BC (Barclay and Bayliss, 1999; Thomas, 2006; Thomas et al., 2009). Over 100 Neolithic cursus monuments have been found throughout Britain and they vary in size from 700m to over 6 miles in length. Smaller examples of up to 150m in length are considered to be long enclosures. The sheer scale of cursus monuments means that they cut through a variety of landscapes, taking in valleys, hills and streams. The function of cursus monuments is uncertain, although the majority are located near waterways (Brophy, 1999; 2016). A tentative link may also be considered between other funerary monuments close to the cursus monuments and could tie them into rituals associated with death and processions for the dead along or beside the cursus avenue. Excavations within the interior of Springfield Cursus have revealed, at its east end, a circle of postholes and an arc of pits containing charcoal, burnt flint, pottery and cremated bone (Hedges and Buckley, 1981). At the south-east end of the Dorchester-on-Thames cursus (see Figure 7.6 in Chapter 7), a pit contained mostly human cranial bones dating to 3940–3196 cal BC (OxA-119; 4800±130 BP) (Thomas, 1999). Unlike many other Neolithic structures, archaeological evidence for the deposition of cultural material (including human bone) within cursus monuments is very limited. This may reflect the small percentage of cursus monuments that have been thus far excavated but may also indicate that activity of any kind within the cursuses was sporadic (Russell, 2002).

3.2. The Middle Neolithic (c.3500–3000 BC) Generally speaking, the Middle Neolithic began not with a single event but rather as a period of transition in which gradual shifts or changes in society started to take place around 3500 BC (Cummings, 2017) (Figure 3.9). The use of some Early Neolithic monuments persevered during the Middle Neolithic through various additions, alterations, decommissions and destructions of the monuments. The Early Neolithic chambered tomb at Parc le Breos Cwm, for example, was reused during the Middle Neolithic period to inter a further individual dating to 3339–2926 cal BC (OxA-6489; 4445±60 BP) (Whittle and Wysocki, 1998).

Timber cursuses, often described as pit and post cursuses, are concentrated mainly in the lowlands of Scotland and date between 4000 and 3600 BC (Thomas et al., 2009; Brophy, 2016; Cummings, 2017). Fire seems to have played an important role in the timber cursuses as at some sites, such as at Douglasmuir and at Stirling, where both were deliberately burnt down. The timber monument at Hollywood North, Dumfries and Galloway, was constructed and then destroyed by fire in four separate 33

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC)

Figure 3.9. Locations of the Middle Neolithic inhumations associated with monuments as discussed in this section. This is not intended as an exhaustive list but merely illustrates some of the diversity (map C. Willis).

phases between 3778 and 3698 cal BC (Thomas, 2007; Cummings, 2017).

deposits. One of the most spectacular burials was found beneath the round mound of Liffs Low, Derbyshire: this adult inhumation was accompanied by a plethora of grave goods including a small drinking cup, two boar’s tusks, two arrowheads, two polished flint axes, two spearheads, two polished flint knives, three pieces of red ochre, and many worked pieces of flint (Loveday and Barclay, 2010).

Another type of Neolithic monument are round barrows which originated in the Early Neolithic; however, round barrows of the Middle Neolithic differ in that they contain one to three individuals rather than larger collective 34

Neolithic Mortuary Rites Associated with Monuments in Britain (c.4000–2500 BC) cal BC (OxA-V-2197-53; 4367±36 BP) (Pellegrini et al., 2016), while one inhumation from the Bee Low cairn (n=23 inhumations and n=5 cremations, though some, if not the majority of these, date to the Beaker Period and Early Bronze Age) is dated to 3340–3010 cal BC (SUERC-26175; 4455±30 BP) (Marsden, 1970; Pellegrini et al., 2016).

A radiocarbon sample from the skeleton provided a date of 3360–3090 cal BC (SUERC-26173; 4510±30 BP) (Jay et al., 2010; Pellegrini et al., 2016). At Linch Hill, Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire, a round mound contained the skeleton of an adult female, dated to the very end of the Early Neolithic period at 3640–3520 cal BC (SUERC-26192; 4760±30 BP) (Pellegrini et al., 2016). Grave goods included a flint arrowhead, a knife, and a jet belt slider (similar to those from the oval mound at Barrow Hills) (Grimes, 1960; Barclay et al., 1995; Gibson, 2014).

3.2.2. Middle Neolithic cremation cemeteries and associated monuments Deposits of cremated human remains have been recovered from a variety of contexts and monuments throughout Britain. What seems to have been sporadic during the Early Neolithic period grew in popularity and in refinement during the Middle and Late Neolithic periods. The Middle Neolithic period sees a rise in the deposition of cremated remains at monuments (containing inhumations), but also the construction of monuments solely devoted to the deposition of cremated bones (Figure 3.11).

Multiple burials in round barrows continued, containing both disarticulated and articulated skeletons. A large pit containing three contracted skeletons was recovered underneath the round barrow of Four Crosses, Powys, associated with an Ebbsfleet bowl, a pear-shaped stone and animal bones (Gibson, 2014). One skeleton lay in the middle of the pit and is dated to 3341–2921 cal BC (CAR-670; 4440±70 BP), while the other two were placed within smaller oval pits cut into the floor of the central burial. They are radiocarbon dated to c.3300–2900 cal BC (Warrilow et al., 1986; Gibson, 2014). Other burials within round barrows include the two crouched inhumations within Aldro 175, North Yorkshire, which also contained a pile of cremated bones c.3m to the northeast (Figure 3.10) (Kinnes, 1979). Unburnt bone from the second burial produced a date of 3330–2920 cal BC (OxA-V-2199-32; 4422±30 BP) (Pellegrini et al., 2016). The Whitegrounds Barrow, Yorkshire, contained the decapitated skeletons of a male, a female and a child, with their skulls buried separately, dating to 3510–2920 cal BC (HAR-5587; 4520±90 BP) (Brewster, 1984). The round barrow at Garton Slack 79 produced a date of 3100–2900

The term ring ditch (sometimes referred to as a ditched enclosure), is used to describe a ditched circular feature which may variably be the remains of a henge, a circular enclosure or a former round barrow. At West Cotton, Northamptonshire, a complex Neolithic and Bronze Age site comprising multiple barrows, mounds, ring-ditches, an avenue and an enclosure were excavated. Some features from the Neolithic period include a triple-ditched round barrow covering a pit containing the disarticulated and incomplete human remains of two Late Neolithic individuals. An isolated cremation deposit (F47087) lay between the inner and outer ring ditches of Barrow 5, dating to 3770–2910 cal BC (OxA-3054; 4460±70 BP) (Harding and Healy, 2007; 132). While many of the human remains (both burnt and unburnt) from across this site have been radiocarbon dated, a few require further research: two other pits (F1741 and F4948) in the Long Mound contained ‘burnt bone’ but remain undated. An adult male cremation deposit from a pit within the Segmented Ditch Circle may relate to the earlier Neolithic phase of the monument, and a child’s burnt skull and cremated bone from the inner ditch of Barrow 7 may also be of Neolithic date. (SF9293) of an infant was placed near the Long Mound (c.3500 BC), and a further cremation deposit. At Newton Poppleford, Devon, recent excavations have revealed a ring ditch and pits (Rainbird and Lichtenstein, 2018: 31). The ring ditch (F1004), with an internal diameter of approximately 8m, contained two pits (F1034 and F1041) which were cut into its inner lip after the ring ditch had filled (Figure 3.12). F1041, the earliest of the two pits, had been disturbed by the digging of F1034 and contained 272g of cremated bones of a young adult with a radiocarbon date of 3341–3030 cal BC (SUERC-77622; 4480±30 BP) (ibid.: 34). This pit also contained a sherd of Peterborough ware pottery and a worked flint, both from the same context as the cremated bones. Pit F1034 contained 525g of cremated bones of a mature adult, along with a piece of fired clay and three worked flints (ibid.).

Figure 3.10. Plan of Aldro 175 whereby ‘A’ is the location of cremated bones within the barrow (adapted after Mortimer 1905: 74, fig. 156).

35

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC)

Figure 3.11. Locations of the Middle Neolithic cremation sites associated with monuments as discussed in this section. This is not intended as an exhaustive list but merely illustrates the increasing diversity (map by C. Willis).

associated with a monument or form groups of pits, though instances of isolated, un-associated pit burials have also been recorded. At New Wintle’s Farm, Eynsham, Oxfordshire, a small double-ditched enclosure contained a possible timber mortuary structure made from five pits (Figure 3.13) (Case and Whittle, 1982). Pit 1 is described as oval-shaped with small flecks of charcoal and a tiny amount of cremated bones from a child. Pit 2 is another

Beneath the cremated bones, a piece of worked flint and three conjoining sherds of Middle Neolithic pottery sherds were recovered. The sherds are from the same vessel as the sherd in grave F1041. Pit burials are a form of burial whereby the human remains (either burnt or unburnt) are deposited in pits (rather than purposely dug graves). These pits are often 36

Neolithic Mortuary Rites Associated with Monuments in Britain (c.4000–2500 BC) cranial fragment of a child was recovered from the central surface of the eastern segment of the inner ditch. Kenward (1982) interpreted Pits 1, 2, and 3 as having been refilled immediately after being dug, due to their homogeneous filling and steep sides, with Pit 4 similarly refilled quickly. The darker deposits within the pit’s fills were interpreted as redeposited pyre debris (ibid.). The Manor Farm Quarry cursus complex at Old Wolverton, Milton Keynes, is another multi-period site and runs parallel with the River Great Ouse (Hogan, 2013a). It consists of at least four Middle Neolithic cursus monuments, a possible mortuary enclosure, multiple pits and a pit alignment, and a Late Neolithic henge inside Cursus 3 (Figure 3.14). This segmented henge comprises nine oblong pits (containing a large assemblage of Late Neolithic Grooved Ware pottery), an entrance to the northeast, and a posthole in the centre. Three small deposits of cremated human bones (F.232, F. 233 and F.234) were recovered from postholes within the henge, while 1g of cremated bones (F.246) were found in one of the oblong pits of the henge suggesting either deposition of the same individual or token deposits of four individuals (Hogan, 2013b). A further six pits containing cremated bones ranging between 1g to 628g in weight were also recovered in and near to Cursus 2. Currently, there is no dating evidence for this site although the four cremation deposits in the henge are associated with Grooved Ware. The other six pits are either Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age and are of importance due to their potential association with the cursus.

Figure 3.12. The Middle Neolithic ring ditch at Newton Poppleford, Devon, with the two pits containing cremated human remains (Rainbird and Lichtenstein, 2018: 32, fig. 3 with kind permission from Devon Archaeological Society).

Cremation deposits in pits and postholes have also been found at Yarnton, a domestic site in Oxfordshire, located north of the River Thames (Hey et al., 2016) (Figure 3.15). An Early Neolithic 20.5m × 10.5m rectangular house was constructed c.3800 cal BC (Site 7) in an eastwest orientation (ibid.). The foundation deposits of the rectangular house were made from the cremated human and animal bones recovered in four postholes (3964, 4580, 4701, and 4702), while two other postholes (3912 and 3919) also contained some cremated bone fragments but of unidentifiable species (Figure 3.16). Of the 14 unique deposits of cremated human bones recovered from the four postholes of the house, 11 derive from Posthole 4850 with a combined weight of 127g (plus an additional 9g from an unburnt skull bone). It is unclear whether these 11 deposits, weighing between 3g and 35g, represent 11 unique individuals or whether it was the same individual scattered in multiple places throughout the posthole (Hey et al., 2016). A pit (3815) placed just outside this building contained 620g of cremated human bone from an adult female dating to 3655–3535 cal BC (OxA-14479; 4821±25 BP) (ibid.: 475). Near the south-east corner of Site 7, two pits (3207 and 3700) containing cremated human bones were recovered, dating to 3350–2910 cal BC (OxA-11512; 4440±45 BP) (Hey et al., 2016). They contained 2g and 4g of cremated human bones, in addition to the burnt remains of pig and cattle. Twenty-five metres north-east of the rectangular house, two pits (4756 and

Figure 3.13. The segmented ditch enclosing a possible timber mortuary structure at New Wintle’s Farm, Oxfordshire. Each of the five pits contain cremated human bones in addition to a cremated bone fragment recovered from the eastern segment of the inner ditch (not shown) (after Case and Whittle, 1982: 52 fig. 25, with kind permission from the Council for British Archaeology).

long oval pit and contained a small quantity of cremated bones of a child in the filling. Two Middle Neolithic sherds and an un-retouched flint flake were also recovered. Pit 3 is also an oval pit, containing small fragments of charcoal and cremated bones. Two Neolithic sherds and burnt clay were recovered. Pit 4 contained small pieces of charcoal, a small quantity of cremated bones and a Middle Neolithic rim sherd. Pit 5 contained small fragments of charcoal, cremated bones, and a Neolithic sherd. A cremated 37

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC)

Figure 3.14. The Manor Farm cursus complex, positioned along the River Great Ouse, in Milton Keynes, and the pit circle in Cursus 3 (adapted after Hogan, 2013b; 108, figs. 5 and 8).

Figure 3.15. Location of the Early to Late Neolithic cremation pits and postholes, and one inhumation (9469) at Yarnton (adapted after Hey et al., 2016: 89 fig. 3.16).

4758) contained a large assemblage of Grooved Ware, flint and animal bone, along with the 3g of cremated human bones. On Site 5, a flat grave (9469) contained a crouched 33–45 year-old male inhumation was excavated inside a

rectangular enclosure. Just to the south of this enclosure, a further deposit containing 2g of cremated bones was recovered from a pit (9002) dating to 3500–3100 cal BC (OxA-11454; 4577±36 BP) (Hey et al., 2016). On Site 38

Neolithic Mortuary Rites Associated with Monuments in Britain (c.4000–2500 BC)

Figure 3.16. The location of the deposits of Middle Neolithic cremated human remains from the foundations of an Early Neolithic house at Yarnton. Unidentifiable fragments of cremated bone were recovered from 3919 and 3912 (adapted after Hey et al., 2016: 462 fig. 12.5).

3, 620g of cremated bones from an adult was recovered in Pit 5029, along with sherds of Grooved Ware and six broken sheep bones in the fill surrounding the cremation deposit (ibid.).

cal BC (GrA-21729; 4480±60 BP) (McSweeney, 2004). The second deposit comprised 38g of cremated bone fragments from a probable adult scattered within the fill of an Early Bronze Age cist (Cist C). It has been interpreted as residual material from a disturbed Middle Neolithic deposit since these cremated bones are dated to 3710–3350 cal BC (GrA-21728; 4760±90 BP) (Lewis and Terry, 2004).

Two cremation deposits recovered from a segmented arcshaped ditch at Holly Road, Leven, Fife, also followed similar patterns of pit deposition (Brophy and Sheridan, 2012) (Figure 3.17). The first consisted of 705g of cremated bones from a young adult that was inserted into a pit cut into the ditch and is dated to 3360–2920

The timber circle at Meusydd I, Powys, consisted of six pits forming a 7.2m diameter circle (Jones, 2009) (Figure 3.18). A complete cremation deposit, weighing 1,254g, of a young to mature adult probable male had been placed against the north-east side of Posthole 19. It is contemporary with the construction of the timber circle and dates to 3017–2762 cal BC (Beta-249072; 4280±40 BP). Fragments of cremated bone were also recovered from the surface of Posthole 21, but it was not excavated (ibid.) thus suggesting further cremation deposits within the postholes of the timber circle. Middle Neolithic large passage tombs are found on the Isle of Anglesey, on the western coast of Britain and Orkney. Their form is a megalithic passageway which leads towards a stone chamber, similar to Early Neolithic chambered tombs (Cummings, 2017). Due to the acidity of the burial environment within western Britain, inhumed bone is rarely recovered; however, cremated bones do survive at sites like Bryn Celli Ddu and Barclodiad y Gawres (Powell and Daniel, 1956). The portal dolmen of Carreg Coetan Arthur, on the acidic soils of north Pembrokeshire, is part of the Nevern valley group of tombs (Lynch, 1972; Rees, 2012). Four main areas of cremated remains were identified during excavations, though cremated bone was found in other

Figure 3.17. The map of Holly Road, Leven, showing the locations of the cremation deposit and the scatter of cremated bones in Cist C (adapted after Lewis and Terry, 2004: 26 fig. 3).

39

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC)

Figure 3.18. The timber circle at Meusydd, Powys, which shows the excavation strip and the cremation deposit from Posthole 19. Posthole 21 had cremated bone fragments on its surface, but the pit was not excavated (after Jones, 2009: 49 fig. 6, with kind permission from the Cambrian Archaeological Association).

contexts throughout the site (Rees, 2012) (Figure 3.19). The densest deposit was outside the chamber to the south-east, on the old ground surface. Another deposit was recovered beneath an inverted pot, suggesting that it was originally held within (or was accompanied by) the pot, and was associated with a large amount of charcoal dating to 3620–3020 cal BC (CAR-391) (ibid.). A scatter of cremated bone was found on the ground surface to the south-west of the chamber and was radiocarbon dated to 3090–2900 cal BC (UB-6751). Cremated bone was recovered from a pit dug against a boulder, probably pre-dating the kerb, and contained fragments of jaw and tooth (ibid.). The fourth main area was the interior of the chamber which produced a large amount of cremated bone, though heavily disturbed. Two other small concentrations of burnt bones were recovered outside the stone ring (which surrounded the dolmen), while other areas of cremated bones included the south-east chamber, around pot P17, from the stone-hole of an orthostat, on the old ground surface east of the chamber, and a small, scattered deposit to the south-west of the chamber (ibid.). In total, 17 cremation deposits were identified; the heaviest deposit weighed just 19.1g, suggesting that these are all token deposits.

Cummings and Whittle, 2004), and Bedd yr Afanc (Cummings and Whittle, 2004), no cremated or inhumed bone has been recovered (Barker, 1992); had cremated bone been deposited at these sites, it is probable that it would have survived in those acidic soils. 3.3. The Late Neolithic (c.3000–2500 BC) Many types of monument of the Early and Middle Neolithic were built to house and honour the dead; however, one of the defining features of the Late Neolithic was the largescale construction of multiple monuments and complexes for the living. There is very little evidence for inhumation burials during the Late Neolithic, and those that have been recovered are almost always of children (Healy, 2012) suggesting that inhumation was being used for very specific members of society (Cummings, 2017). This is a sharp change from the widespread burial of unburnt human remains during the Early Neolithic which then began to decline during the Middle Neolithic with the adoption of single inhumations over collective deposition within monuments. Cremation was also being practiced alongside inhumation during the Middle Neolithic, which coincided with such deposits being associated with circular forms of architecture. The Late Neolithic, therefore, sees cremation as the preferred (archaeologically visible) funerary rite with cremated remains firmly associated with circular monuments. It is also clear that only a small portion of the population was being cremated (or inhumed) during this period (Cummings, 2017), indicating that the remainder of the population was disposed of in other, mostly invisible, ways.

Small quantities of cremated human bone have been recovered from the portal dolmens of Carreg Samson (Lynch, 1975), Twlc-y-Filiast, Carmarthenshire (Savory, 1956; Cummings and Whittle, 2004), and Pentre Ifan (Rees, 2012; Lynch, 1972; Grimes, 1949; Tilley, 1994; Cummings and Whittle, 2004). At other excavated sites such as Morfa Bychan (Nash, 2008; Lloyd et al., 2006; 40

Neolithic Mortuary Rites Associated with Monuments in Britain (c.4000–2500 BC)

Figure 3.19. The distribution of cremated human bone fragments from the portal dolmen at Carreg Coetan Arthur (after Rees, 2012: 89 fig. 27, with kind permission from the Cambrian Archaeological Association).

3.3.1. Late Neolithic inhumations and associated monuments

At the multi-period, complex site of Barrow Hills, Oxfordshire, an oval barrow was excavated and contained a human skull fragment from the ditch with a Middle Neolithic date of 3370–3030 cal BC (BM-2392; 4500±60 BP) (Bradley, 1992). However, in the central grave of the barrow there were two adult skeletons. The female (SK2128) was approximately 30–35 years old and was buried with a polished knife near her head. She was overlaid by the legs of the 30–35 year old male (SK2127). He was buried with a jet belt slider on top of his hip, and a leaf-shaped arrowhead was recovered in the fill of the disturbance presumed to originate from near his skull. The radiocarbon samples from the two skeletons provide conflicting dates: the female was dated to 2490–2190 cal

Late Neolithic inhumations are found as additions to preexisting monuments (of Early or Middle Neolithic date) such as at West Kennet long barrow (Bayliss et al., 2007) and at Duggleby Howe, Yorkshire (Gibson, 2014) (Figure 3.20). There are only rare examples of single inhumation graves as cremation became the preferred method for disposal. However, monumental construction continued during the Late Neolithic period with the development of more circular forms of architecture such as palisade enclosures, henges, penannular enclosures/ring ditches, and stone circles. 41

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC)

Figure 3.20. Locations of the Late Neolithic inhumation sites associated with monuments as discussed in this section. This is not intended as an exhaustive list but serves to illustrate the noticeable lack of inhumation burials (map by C. Willis).

BC (BM-2708; 3860±50 BP) while the male was dated to 2890–2570 cal BC (BM-2707; 4120±60 BP) (ibid.). These dates show that the inhumations do not overlap, nor do they agree with the other radiocarbon dates from the ditch, but due to the symmetrical layout of the bodies, the associated

Neolithic grave goods, and the sealed burial context, it is suggested that they were probably contemporaneous. Bradley (1992) indicates that the shallow burial of the corpses and their poor preservation probably resulted in the contradictory radiocarbon dates. 42

Neolithic Mortuary Rites Associated with Monuments in Britain (c.4000–2500 BC) The deposition of unburnt bone fragments into circular monuments also infrequently occurred during the Late Neolithic. The segmented pit henge at Wyke Down 1, Cranborne Chase, consists of an internal ring of 26 closely spaced pits approximately 20m in diameter (Green and Lewis, 2007; Barrett et al., 1991). The oval pits varied in depth and showed no evidence of having held posts or stones, and the soil from the pits created an external bank, which no longer survives. The first phase of deposition into the pits included red deer antlers, animal bones, flint tools, and carved chalk. One of the red deer antlers from the primary silt of Pit I was dated to 2877–2346 cal BC (BM-2395; 4040±90 BP) (Barrett et al., 1991). In a second phase of activity a shallow recut was made in the upper fill of each pit. One pit was filled with Grooved Ware sherds, flints, two flint implements and unburnt human skull fragments. Interestingly, two other pits near the entrance contained undated cremated bones, while a third pit (Pit S) held a mass of ‘ashy soil’ that included small amounts of cremated bones (Barrett et al., 1991). A mixed charcoal sample from the recut in the fill of Pit K is dated to 2881– 2581 cal BC (BM-2397; 4150±50 BP) (ibid.).

200m in diameter and dates to c.2530–2310 cal BC (Hale et al., 2009). In between the inner (F41) and outer (F542) palisades, a few fragments of cremated bone were recovered in the fill of a small pit (F648) and are considered to constitute a token deposit.

3.3.2. Late Neolithic cremation cemeteries and associated monuments

The Late Neolithic palisaded enclosure at Meldon Bridge, in the Borders, was erected to enclose a series of stakeholes and pits constructed between 3800–3050 cal BC (GU-1057) to 2900–2300 cal BC (SRR-645) (Speak and Burgess, 1999). The wooden posts were joined by planking estimated to be approximately 4m high and extended 600m to the Lyne Water and Meldon Burn (Speak and Burgess, 1999). A short timber avenue led into the enclosure on the north-west side and seven cremations were inserted within its interior. Two of these pits (K21 and K26) contained deposits of cremated bones and were surround by stake-holes. A radiocarbon date from a piece of charcoal from cremation K21 returned a date of 2900– 2100 cal BC (GU-1059; 3970±85 BP) (Speak and Burgess, 1999). However, a cremated bone fragment from K21 was recently dated by the National Museum of Scotland and produced a tighter determination of 2877–2631 cal BC (SUERC-73285; 4153±29 BP) (Sheridan, pers. comm). This feature, therefore, is probably contemporary with K26 given its close proximation. Neolithic pits (G07, N01, P07, B12, and B15) from other areas within the site also contained deposits of cremated material but they are currently undated. The site was reused during the Early Bronze Age for a linear cremation cemetery and then again in the Middle Bronze Age for the deposition of Cordoned Urns 25m to the south of the linear cemetery.

A pit (5090) containing 1,249g of cremated bones from a middle to older adult female was recovered within a circular ditched enclosure at Lower Luggy, Powys (Figure 3.22) (Gibson, 2006). The pit also contained seven pieces of flint (of which six were burnt) and one piece of quartzite. The cremation dates to 3022–2706 cal BC (GrA29332; 4280±45 BP) and is several centuries later than the enclosure which was probably built between 3650– 3370 cal BC (Beta-177037; 4760±50 and Beta-206282; 4690±40 BP: Gibson, 2006). Interestingly, most of the cremated bones are solid and firm, but a few fragments are soft and chalky which is indicative of a different, more acidic burial environment. This suggests that there is a small token deposit of another individual added to the main cremation at the time of deposition and has therefore increased MNI to two individuals.

As discussed, Late Neolithic formal graves and disarticulated inhumations are rare in the archaeological record, but cremation deposits are noticeably more frequent (Figure 3.21). Most cremation deposits are associated with a circular form of monument and the number of isolated deposits seems to decrease when compared to their frequency during in the Middle Neolithic. Palisaded enclosures mostly contained both internal and external features and structures, with some being associated with deposits of cremated bones such as at Forteviot (Noble and Brophy 2011a; Brophy and Noble, 2012b; Noble and Brophy, 2017), and Leadketty (Brophy and Wright, 2013). They were developed in locations that had already been frequented in the earlier Neolithic (Noble 2006) and were typically surrounded by walls made from wooden posts that could be closely spaced together or, like Forteviot, widely spaced apart. The enclosures appear to have been used for a limited period of time before being left to naturally degrade or were burnt in situ, although some (e.g., Durrington Walls) may have been dismantled and the posts reused elsewhere (Parker Pearson et al., 2016; Bartos, 2016). Most enclosures were constructed near, or over, waterways indicating a close link between the monument and water e.g., Forteviot (Noble and Brophy, 2011b), Durrington Walls (Bartos, 2016), West Kennet (Whittle, 1997), Greyhound Yard (Woodward et al, 1993), Leadketty (Brophy and Wright, 2013), and Hindwell (Gibson, 2012) though not all these enclosures had cremations associated with them some did contain disarticulated unburnt bones.

At Forteviot, Perth and Kinross, a 265m-diameter palisaded enclosure with an entrance avenue, represented by two parallel lines of 18 postholes running north to south, was excavated in 2007 (Figure 3.23) (Noble and Brophy, 2008). Cremated human remains were recovered from four of these postholes: three on the east side of the entrance avenue (139, 125, and 043) and one from the most northerly posthole on the west side (041) (ibid.). Posthole 139 contained a ‘substantial amount’ of cremated bone within the main fill, while small quantities of cremated

A palisaded enclosure at Marne Barracks, Catterick, consisted of a double circuit of posts up to 175m and 43

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC)

Figure 3.21. Locations of the Late Neolithic cremation sites as discussed throughout this chapter. This is not intended as an exhaustive list but illustrates not only the diversity for cremated remains but also the preference over inhumation burials (map by C. Willis).

bone were recovered in the upper fills of the other three postholes. The demographic and taphonomic information have not yet been published for the palisaded enclosure; however, the associated oak charcoal from the postholes is dated to between 2926–2679 cal BC (SUERC-21565; 4250±40 BP) and 2577–2344 cal BC (SUERC-21570; 3965±40 BP) (Noble and Brophy, 2011). The palisade enclosure at Forteviot also enclosed a timber circle and a henge which contained nine discrete deposits of cremated

human remains within its interior (Noble and Brophy, 2017; see also Chapter 7). Another example comes from the c.17-acre post-built palisaded enclosure at Dunragit, Galloway, where a deposit of cremated human bones was recovered within a large post-hole (215) forming the second inner palisade ring (Thomas, 2015). The remains were from a female individual more than 16 years of age and consisted 44

Neolithic Mortuary Rites Associated with Monuments in Britain (c.4000–2500 BC) construction and primary use of the monument, and disarticulated bones were also found in C13 and in E6 (ibid.). A crouched inhumation of a young adult male was found in a shallow grave cut into the base of the eastern ditch (Cunnington, 1929). Other Late Neolithic henges with cremation deposits, such as Stonehenge (Willis et al, 2016; Parker Pearson et al., 2009), Forteviot (Noble and Brophy, 2017), Balfarg (Mercer, 1981) and Ferrybridge (Roberts, 2005) will be discussed in Chapter 7 as they form some of my casestudy sites. Penannular enclosures, also known as ring-ditches, continued into the Late Neolithic with the deposition

Figure 3.22. The excavated area of the palisaded enclosure at Lower Luggy, Powys, with the cremation deposit inside a pit (5090) (adapted after Gibson, 2006: 170, fig. 6).

of 300.1g of bone dating to 2867–2581 cal BC (SUERC-36378; 4125±30 BP) (Thomas, 2015; McKinley, 2015c). Henges are circular earthen banks with their ditches inside (although this is not the case for earlier ‘formative’ henges such as Stonehenge where the ditch lies outside the banks (Burrow, 2010). They vary considerably in size, with the larger ones attaining nearly 500m in diameter. The smaller henges usually had one entrance while the larger generally had two or even four (Whittle, 1999; Cummings, 2017). From the evidence of the Stonehenge Riverside Project, henges appear to have been constructed around or on top of earlier features, thereby marking off these spaces as separate from other spheres of activity. They continued to be built well beyond the Late Neolithic into the Early Bronze Age (Bradley, 2011; Pollard et al., 2012; Cummings, 2017). At Woodhenge, Wiltshire, a monument consisted of six concentric rings of timber postholes (each ring labelled A to F) inside a henge (Figure 3.24). A 523.7g deposit of cremated bones from a middle aged adult was inserted into the posthole of C14 (Pollard, 1995) and dates to 2580–2460 cal BC (OxA-19047; 3997±30 BP) (pers. comm. M. Parker Pearson). Disarticulated human bones were recovered throughout the ditch fills relating to the

Figure 3.23. The avenue entrance to the palisaded enclosure, Forteviot, in which four of the postholes contained cremated bones (circled) (adapted after Noble and Brophy, 2008a: 6, fig. 2 with kind permission).

45

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC)

Figure 3.24. The bone distribution at Woodhenge (adapted after Pollard, 1995: 140 fig. 2 and fig. 9).

of cremated human remains. A 5m-wide penannular ring-ditch, recovered 1.5 miles west of Stonehenge and adjacent to Winterbourne Stoke Crossroads long barrow, contained two cremation deposits consisting of three individuals (Figure 3.25). The first deposit (524) pre-dates one of the ditch’s terminals and is an adult containing 453.6g of bone dating to 2930–2870 cal BC (SUERC-70557, 4280±33BP). This individual was noted to have antemortem tooth loss. The second deposit (508) contained 1599.8g of cremated bones from a 30+ year old female and an 8–13 year old child dating to 2890–2620 cal BC (SUERC-70556, 4167±33BP). This deposit was located just behind the terminal and the adult was noted to have osteophytes on a finger and enthesophytes on an occipital bone (Arup Atkins, 2017: 33). Small amounts of redeposited cremated bone fragments were also recovered from the ditch terminal and from the larger pit; however, these have been interpreted as deriving from the two main cremation deposits (ibid.). A cremation cemetery was found at Whitton Hill 1, Mirfield, Northumberland (Miket, 1985) (Figure 3.26). It contained what was originally thought to be a Late Neolithic timber circle enclosed by a segmented ring ditch. However, three recent radiocarbon dates indicate it was the opposite: a Late Neolithic segmented ring-ditch

Figure 3.25. Cremation deposits of the penannular ditch near Winterbourne Stoke long barrow (adapted after Arup Atkins, 2017; fig 9.12).

46

Neolithic Mortuary Rites Associated with Monuments in Britain (c.4000–2500 BC)

Figure 3.26. The cremation cemetery of Whitton Hill 1 which shows the location of the cremation deposits 1–7 from the inner circle, and some of the cremation deposits 8–16 from the ditch areas (in black) (adapted after Miket, 1985: 138 fig. 2).

(in which cremation deposits nos. 8–16 were recovered) which later enclosed an Early Bronze Age timber circle (cremations nos. 1–7). Sherds of Grooved Ware were recovered from the early fills of the henge ditch and the cremation deposits were arranged in rough circle (ibid.). The radiocarbon dates from the timber circle consist of Cremation 1 (in Pit 28) dating to 1889–1693 cal BC (OxA-25793; 3475±34 BP) and was placed inside an inverted urn, and Cremation 2, adjacent to Pit 24, was dated to 1426–1270 cal BC (OxA-25794; 3084±31 BP) (Fowler, 2013). In pit 15 of the segmented ring-ditch, a token deposit of 85g of cremated bones is dated to 3361– 3103 cal BC (OxA-26259; 4351±29 BP) (ibid.). All the cremated remains from the Neolithic segmented ring ditch are token deposits. The penannular ring ditch at Sarn-y-bryn-caled 2, Powys, measured c.8×7m in diameter, with the entrance flanked by two substantial post-holes at the entrance of the enclosure (Miket, 1985; Gibson, 1994: 159) (Figure 3.27). Four deposits of cremated human remains were recovered from the ditch, with the primary deposit (Cremation 1) located on the ditch floor and undercut into the terminal. This primary cremation is of a possible female young

Figure 3.27. The location of the four cremated remains from the penannular ring ditch at Sarn-y-bryn-caled 2 (adapted after Gibson, 1994: 160, fig. 13).

47

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) adult and dates to 3007–2886 cal BC (SUERC-24176, 4315±30BP). Cremation 2 is that of a 3-year old child dating to 2915–2864 cal BC (SUERC-24172, 4255±30BP) while Cremation 3 is another young adult, possible female dating to 2885–2671 cal BC (SUERC-24171, 4145±30BP) (Gibson, 2010a). Cremation 4 was that of an adult recovered from the northern terminal and was not radiocarbon dated.

pyre debris residue from a cremation rather than a burial or token deposit. The other pit (F033) also contained a small number of unidentifiable cremated bones, material similar to the dump of pyre debris in pit F080 (ibid.). Interestingly, the 30 abraded sherds of Grooved Ware (recovered from pit F080) come from the same vessels as the sherds recovered from the fill of the ring-ditch (F109). A piece of hazel charcoal from the central fill of pit F080 was dated to 2924–2620 cal BC (GU-3534; 4220±60 BP) (ibid.). The Grooved Ware from the pit in the fill of the ring-ditch (F109) was associated with a radiocarbon date of 2911–2478 cal BC (AA-12587; 4150±95 BP) on from hazel charcoal (ibid.).

The cremation deposits found beside a penannular ring ditch at Beckton Farm, Lockerbie, are a little unusual. Rather than being deposited inside the ring ditch, they were put in the fills of two pits (F080 and F033) located c. 20m to the south and west respectively (Pollard, 1997) (Figure 3.28). Pit F080 revealed a deposit of Grooved Ware sherds and cremated human and animal bones (ibid.). The 7.4g of cremated bones were from one unidentifiable human and one or more juvenile animals from the upper fill. Another immature animal bone was identified in the lowest fill together with other unidentified bone fragments (ibid.). McKinley’s analysis of the cremated bones (1997b) concluded that the small quantity of cremated bones, pottery sherds, and charcoal which were all homogeneously mixed together in the pit, represent

An Early Neolithic pit (00221) at Flagstones, Dorset, was filled with charcoal, ash, burnt chalk and burnt bone. A charcoal fragment from the basal layer was dated to 3951–3638 cal BC (HAR-9161; 4960±80BP) (Healy, 1997). During the Middle Neolithic, a 100m-diameter interrupted ditch enclosure was constructed in which both unburnt and burnt human remains were deposited. Segmented Pit 19 contained the disarticulated unburnt bones of a 2–3 year old child, 300mm beneath a large slab of calcareous sandstone, dating to 3360–2931 cal BC

Figure 3.28. The plan of Beckton Farm, Lockerbie, showing the two pits (in red) where cremated bones were recovered and their location in relation to the ring ditch (adapted after Pollard, 1997: 73 fig.2 with kind permission).

48

Neolithic Mortuary Rites Associated with Monuments in Britain (c.4000–2500 BC) (HAR-9158; 4490±70BP) (Healy, 1997). The crushed but contracted unburnt skeleton of a 6–12 month old infant was recovered against the side and base of segmented Pit 30. A left disarticulated femur of a 3–5 year old child was also recovered with the infant. The cremated remains of a 35+ year old adult was found at the base of segmented Pit 16, 200mm below a large sarsen slab. Three further pits (50258, 50260, and 50256) were recovered in an area defined by a penannular enclosure (00200) (Healey, 1997). Each pit contained a cremated adult individual and some small, weathered fragments of chalk. There are no radiocarbon dates for this feature; however, it is probably Neolithic (ibid.). Stone circles were a new form of monument appearing from c.3000 BC and continued into the Early Bronze Age. They consist of an oval or circular arrangement of standing stones, and occasionally had other features such as a pair of entrance stones, a ditch or a central hearth. Though similar in form to timber circles, they differed in terms of building material and also in terms of meaning. Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina (1998) have argued that wood represented the space for the living (e.g., the timber circle at the settlement site of Durrington Walls) and stone represented the space for the ancestors (e.g., the cremation cemetery at Stonehenge) thereby suggesting a similarity in form but not in building materials which separated the two spaces. While they are difficult to date due to the general lack of archaeological evidence for activity, a few cremation deposits have been recovered from a small number of stone circles. This lack of evidence may suggest that these monuments were not primarily constructed as burial places but were used as gathering places which could accommodate large numbers of people from geographically different communities (Barrett, 1994; Richards, 2013; Cummings, 2017). Subsequent activity at some stone circles, such as alterations or additions, took place over a substantial period of time, and would often change the original stone circles into different types of monuments (e.g., henges) (Cummings, 2017).

Figure 3.29. The cremated bone deposit (pit 138) of a minimum of four individuals and the cremation spread (111) from the stone circle at Bryn Gwyn, Anglesey, Wales (after Smith, 2013: 23, fig. 7, with permission from Gwynedd Archaeological Trust).

(Tellier, 2013). The small quantity of cremated bone and the small number of charcoal fragments suggest that this was not a pyre site but deposition of token burials (Smith, 2013). Another stone circle was excavated at Stoneyfield, Raigmore, Inverness, between 1972–3 (Simpson, 1996) (Figure 3.30). Situated close to the shores of the Moray Firth on a sand and gravel terrace, and surrounded by the Clava type passage tombs and ring cairns, the site consisted of a circular setting of stones approximately 18m in diameter. Some 51 pits at Stoneyfield were excavated of which 18 contained cremated bones but most remain undated. Charcoal from Pit 41 was dated to 3777–3638 cal BC (SRR-426; 4890±60 BP) and was associated with 2g of cremated bone, while charcoal from Pit 49 was dated to 2873–2509 cal BC (SRR-425; 4100±70 BP), associated with 42g of cremated bone from an adult probable male (ibid.). Three other pits and the fills of two cists (IV and III) were dated to the Early Bronze Age. Brophy and Sheridan (2012) consider Pit 50 to be Late Neolithic due to its sherds of Grooved Ware and its petit tranchet arrowhead. This pit contained 662g of cremated bones from a mature adult male (Simpson, 1996). Cremated bones were also recovered at four locations within the cairn material, within three post-holes, in the central hearth, at 12 locations on the old ground surface, and within three baulks (ibid.). Interestingly, all cremated bone deposits were less than

The stone circle at Bryn Gwyn, Anglesey, measured c.16m in diameter and consisted of eight standing stones (Smith, 2013). A spread of cremated bones and a deposit of cremated human bones were recovered from the west side of the circle (Figure 3.29). Pit 138, presumed to be a post-hole (0.50m diameter and 0.75m deep), contained a deposit of four individuals forming a dense layer near its bottom (Smith, 2013). The cremated bones weighed a total of 1,042.9g and derive from a neonate, an infant, a juvenile, and an adult (Tellier, 2013). A date of 3020–2886 cal BC (SUERC-39677; 4315±35 BP) was obtained from a cremated lower limb of the adult individual (ibid.; Smith, 2013). The cremation deposit is associated with the circular setting of pits/post-holes which pre-dates the construction of the stone circle. A layer of thin dark charcoal-rich soil (111) partially overlaid pit 159 and contained a spread of cremated human bones (weighing 33.4g) of an unknown individual, two burnt flint flakes, and hazel charcoal

49

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC)

Figure 3.30. Map showing the location of the cremation deposits at Stoneyfield, Raigmore (after Simpson, 1996: 55 fig. 2, with permission from the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland).

The kerbed stone cairn at Trelystan, Powys, measured approximately 8m across and almost 1m high (Britnell et al., 1982). An overly large pit containing shale slabs positioned to line the lower half of the pit and 1,210g of cremated bones from an 18–20 year-old male were recovered. A low mound of rock fragments and soil was then laid on top of the pit before the cairn was completely covered with stones. Once complete, the cairn was capped with turf and encircled by a ring-ditch. The cremation was dated by associated charcoal to 3331–2875 cal BC (CAR282; 4350±70 BP) (ibid.) and contained a single-edge flint knife and two pieces of worked flint. Interestingly, the entire deposit was found under the probable remains of an inhumation burial within a wooden coffin (Britnell et al., 1982). Complete cremation burials continued at Trelystan when a large barrow was built overtop the cairn and seven

10g (n=40) except Pit 25 (1,488g), Pit 50 (662g), Pit 44 (18g), and one deposit of 150g on the old ground surface. In total, there were 44 deposits of cremated bone at Stoneyfield associated with a mix of Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age dates. The first phase of Stonehenge (3015–2935 cal BC) involved the construction of the ditch, the interior and exterior banks, timber posts, a circle of 56 bluestones, and initial deposits of a cremation cemetery (Parker Pearson et al., 2007, 2009, 2012; Willis et al., 2016; see also Chapter 6) (Figure 3.31). While it is unknown how many individuals were deposited within this cemetery, a conservative estimate of 150 individuals were buried within the monument during the 3rd millennium cal BC (Parker Pearson et al., 2009). 50

Neolithic Mortuary Rites Associated with Monuments in Britain (c.4000–2500 BC)

Figure 3.31. The first phase of Stonehenge (Art by Doug Stern/Smithsonian Magazine 2005, with kind permission).

cremation deposits deriving from nine individuals were buried during the Early Bronze Age.

the Gypsey Race stream, North Yorkshire (Mortimer, 1905) (Figure 3.32). Originally excavated by Mortimer in 1890, a 350m-diameter interrupted causewayed ditch was found to encircle the barrow in 1971 but was not excavated until 2004. The ditch is dated to 2470– 2200 cal BC (SUERC-30982; 3880±35 BP and OXA23149; 3849±28 BP) (Gibson et al., 2011). A total of 14 articulated inhumations and 53 cremation deposits were recorded by Mortimer, in addition to various disarticulated unburnt bones recovered throughout the site (Figures 3.33 and 3.34). The majority of the cremated remains were recovered from a 1.4m-thick layer of small chalky grit (X) directly below a 0.3m-thick layer of blue Kimmeridge clay (Y), effectively sealing the primary burial activity within the mound (Gibson et al., 2009). Nine or ten cremation deposits were also located in the earth/clay mound (W) directly below layer X.

At Fordhouse Barrow, near Montrose, Angus, an Early Bronze Age barrow with inserted cremation deposits was constructed over a Neolithic oval pit which also contained cremated bones (Pit 24). A cremated bone fragment was dated to 3082–2893 cal BC (SUERC-2726; 4340±35 BP) and may be residual material within this Early Bronze Age cremation cemetery and monument (Proudfoot, 2004; Brophy and Sheridan, 2012). 3.4. The ‘lost’ cremation cemeteries Cairnpapple, West Lothian (Piggott, 1949; 1950) and Duggleby Howe, Yorkshire (Mortimer, 1905) are two excellent examples of Middle to Late Neolithic cremation cemeteries. Unfortunately, the cremated remains from Cairnpapple have been lost, while the cremated bones from Duggleby Howe were mixed in, unlabelled, with other prehistoric cremations from Yorkshire. The absence of any osteological analysis of the cremated bones has meant a complete loss of information on demographic attributes, cemetery organisation, and direct radiocarbon dating. However, a skewer pin recovered from one of the cremated bone deposits from Cairnpapple has been radiocarbon dated, whilst ten samples from inhumation burials (all pre-dating the cremation burials) have been dated from Duggleby Howe. Though only indirectly associated with the cremated remains, these radiocarbon determinations provide the only dates for these two ‘lost’ cremation cemeteries.

The radiocarbon dates (Table 3) reveal three periods of burial activity at Duggleby Howe. The first began with the construction of the pit and insertion of bodies into Grave B from the 36th to the 33rd century cal BC (Figure 3.35). There was then a gap of several hundred years when no activity seems to have occurred until the second phase of activity which started with the construction of the primary mound (W) and its associated inhumation burials, including those from Grave A, between the 30th and the 29th century cal BC. In the third period the mound was reused to insert a discrete inhumation, Burial M, located south-east of Grave B (and thus not on any of Mortimer’s schematic drawings), dating to the beginning of the Early Bronze Age (Gibson et al., 2009). Dating the cremated human remains from Duggleby Howe is problematic as they have been mixed in with cremations from other prehistoric collections from Yorkshire. Currently, there is no method by which to separate these bones so radiocarbon dating cannot be conducted.

3.4.1. Duggleby Howe Duggleby Howe, also known as Howe Hill, is considered to be one of the largest round barrows in Britain at 31m in diameter and is situated on a north slope overlooking 51

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC)

Figure 3.32. The location of Duggleby Howe, showing the surrounding ditch as well as the four ring ditches to the east (Kinnes et al., 1983: 102, fig. 7 with kind permission from the Royal Archaeological Institute).

Figure 3.33. The section drawing of Mortimer’s 1905 excavation of cremated (in red) and inhumed skeletal remains from Duggleby Howe. The ‘Y’ layer is the Kimmeridge clay, which caps the primary activity, while ‘X’ is the small chalky grit layer from which most of the cremated remains were recovered (adapted after Mortimer, 1905: 24, fig. 45).

52

Neolithic Mortuary Rites Associated with Monuments in Britain (c.4000–2500 BC)

Figure 3.34. Plan of the cremation deposits from Duggleby Howe, illustrating their location around the two main burial shafts (B and A) and within the mound (D). The excavated area of the mound is C (adapted after Mortimer, 1905: 27, fig. 44).

Table 3. Results of the radiocarbon dating of the unburnt human remains from Duggleby Howe (after Gibson et al., 2009: 64–5) Context

Age

Sex

Lab No.

cal BC (95% confidence)

Date BP

Burial A

Inf

–

–

–

–

Burial B

YC-OC

–

–

–

–

Burial C

MA

M

GrA-33102

4280±35

2930–2870 cal BC

Burial D

OA

M

OxA-16747

4344±33

3090–2890 cal BC

Burial E

10–11 yrs

–

OxA-16748

4211±31

2900–2690 cal BC

Burial F

9–10 yrs

–

GrA-33103

4140±35

2880–2570 cal BC

Burial G

OA

M

OxA-17243 GrA-33104 SUERC-13939

4485±31 4470±35 4460±35 4473±19 (mean)

– – – 3335–3025 cal BC (mean)

Burial H

2–4 yrs

–

OxA-16749

4679±34

3630–3360 cal BC

Burial I

OA

M

OxA-16750

4679±34

3630–3360 cal BC

Burial J

Ad

–

GrA-33107

4660±35

3630–3360 cal BC

Burial K

MA-OA

M

OxA-16751 SUERC-13938

4701±32 4675±35 4689±24 (mean)

– – 3630–3370 cal BC (mean)

Burial M

YA

M

GrA-33108

3750±35

2290–2030 cal BC

*Inf=infant; YC=young child (1–5 yrs.); OC=older child (6–12 yrs.); YA=young adult (18–35 yrs.); MA=mature adult (35–45 yrs.); OA=older adult (45+ yrs.); Ad=adult (18+ yrs.); M=male.

However, their associated artefacts may provide some indication as to their date of deposition: cremation no. 4 was recovered with a fragment of a side-looped pin of Grooved Ware affiliation, while cremations 20 and 30 were both associated with bone pins of Late Neolithic

character (Kinnes et al., 1983). Another, and perhaps more convincing theory, is that the cremations were deposited during the construction of the earthen/clay core (W) and its covering layer of chalk (X) as this would take into account the varying depths of the cremation deposits 53

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC)

Figure 3.35. The 13 cremation deposits associated with the arc of stone holes and an outer ring of stoneholes (in grey) at Cairnpapple (adapted after Piggott, 1950: 82, fig. 5 with permission from the Society of the Antiquaries of Scotland).

hearths, fragments of axeheads, and sherds of plain pottery recovered throughout the site. During the second phase, an ‘arc’ of stone-holes (Holes A to G) and a circle of 24 post-holes (1 to 24) were constructed. Within and around this arc, 13 cremation deposits were buried (Figure 3.35).

(Loveday, 2002; Gibson et al., 2009). Since all burial activity is recorded as being below the Kimmeridge clay (W), it is therefore assumed that the lowest cremations are contemporary with or later than Skeletons A, B, E, and F (due to their proximity to these later burials) but also predate the construction of the upper mound above the clay layer (Loveday, 2002; Gibson et al., 2009).

A fragment of a skewer pin, associated with a cremation deposit from Hole C, has been dated to 3341–3024 cal BC (SUERC-25561; 4470±35 BP) (Sheridan et al., 2009). While Piggott originally interpreted the circle of 24 pits as stone-holes, similar Neolithic henge sites in Scotland (e.g., North Mains [Gibson 1998; Barclay, 2005] and Forteviot I [Noble and Brophy, 2011]) held timber posts (Barclay and Bayliss, 1999). The shallow depths of the Cairnpapple pits varied from 0.2m to 0.9m and were on average 0.9m × 0.8m wide (Piggott, 1950), indicating that they held stones rather than posts. The next phase of construction, probably

3.4.2. Cairnpapple The site of Cairnpapple, West Lothian, is situated on a hilltop overlooking the Firth of Forth and surrounding hills. Excavated by Stuart Piggott in 1947 and 1948, it was the first modern excavation of a henge-type monument in Scotland (Barclay, 1999). Within the current interpretation of its phases (Noble and Brophy, 2011), Cairnpapple began as a zone of deposition during the Early Neolithic, with 54

Neolithic Mortuary Rites Associated with Monuments in Britain (c.4000–2500 BC) during the Beaker period/Early Bronze Age consisted of a henge, a bank, and a ditch when Cairnpapple again became the focus for additional burials and deposition.

His grave goods included five pots, multiple barbed-andtanged arrowheads, three copper daggers, two bracers, a pair of gold basket ornaments, four boar’s tusks, two sandstone wrist guards and a ‘cushion’ stone for metalworking (Fitzpatrick, 2011). In addition, his unusual oxygen isotope value reveals that he grew up outside of Britain, possibly in the Alps (ibid.). However, this is not typical of the vast majority of isotope-sampled Beaker burials from Britain which reveal only relatively shortdistance lifetime mobility (Parker Pearson et al., 2016).

The cremation deposits were recovered from either the fills of the arc’s holes or in separate scoops nearby. Piggott noted that the cremated bones were very fragmented and that most were deposited in small quantities although he did note that cremation nos. 2 and 5 had greater quantities of bones and could potentially be complete deposits (Piggott 1950). Cremation nos. 1 and 2 were partly scattered, while the cremated bones from Hole F were found scattered throughout the filling, and cremation no. 5 lay on a stone slab. A report on the cremated remains noted only one individual in each deposit, which comprised ‘…a few cranial fragments and bits of limb bones…’ (Osman Hill, 1950).

The second phase of Beaker burials, known as the ‘fission horizon’ (Needham, 2005), occurs approximately 200 years after the first phase, and is characterised by the adoption of a wide variety of new Beaker pot styles incorporated into the burials (c.2300/2250 cal BC). The third phase sees the widespread use of bronze artefacts (which largely replaced copper c.2200/2150 BC) at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age (Parker Pearson et al., 2015). Both second and third burial phases transpired during the Beaker floruit, that is, the peak of the Beaker phenomenon in Britain in which most of the burials can be attributed (Jay et al., 2019). Burials in these phases are ‘typically’ recognised as single inhumations with an assortment of grave goods such as weapons, tools and personal ornamentation all made from flint, copper, bronze, gold, bones, shells, or antlers. Organic materials may have also been included (e.g., fur skins, woven baskets, leather bags, wooden objects) but they rarely survive the burial environment (Jones, 2017). However, other types of funerary activities have been radiocarbon dated to the Beaker period indicating that single inhumation was not the only rite being practiced (e.g., Parker Pearson et al., 2019; Bloxam, 2020). Such rites, typically associated with the Neolithic, included excarnation, co-mingled burials, disarticulation and cremation (with or without a pot). The inclusion of alternative forms of funerary rites during the Beaker period indicate that pre-existing Neolithic practices were not immediately abandoned when Beaker people first arrived in Britain. Rather, these funerary traditions, in particular cremation, continued alongside Beaker burials (Gibson, 2014; Bloxam, 2020). While it is clear from the genetic evidence that both the incoming Beaker people and the local inhabitants interbred to some extent (Olalde et al., 2018), it is possible that separate insular groups persisted in the ‘old ways’ of cremating their dead, thus allowing for the funerary transition to continue for a few centuries until the Early Bronze Age, rather than ending after a few decades (cf Booth, 2019: 4–5). In Chapters 3, 4 and 7, I discuss several Neolithic cremation sites which were reused for Beaker/Early Bronze Age funerary activities, and these may be a seen as a way to reinforce connection with the ancestors. A site at Vaynor Farm, Carmarthenshire, reveals a Late Neolithic henge measuring 8m wide × 3.4m deep with segmented ditches constructed 2720–2470 cal BC (Barber and Hart, 2015) (Figure 3.36). Positioned on high ground with two opposing entrances, a circular arrangement of post/stoneholes were placed around the inner edges of the ditches about 2640–2350 cal BC (ibid.).

3.5. The arrival of Beaker inhumation rites (c.2500 BC) The Beaker period (c.2500/2450–1850 BC) sits between the end of the Late Neolithic and the beginning of the Early Bronze Age, with its early part concurrent with a brief Chalcolithic period (c.2500–2200 BC) (Fitzpatrick, 2011). The name ‘Beaker’ derives from a form of pottery, originally thought to resemble a drinking vessel, which were included in the inhumation burials (Colt Hoare, 1812; Thurnam, 1871; Abercromby, 1912). Other pottery forms were also used as grave goods, but the term ‘Beaker’ has persisted in being used to name this form of funerary rite. Recent research has revealed that ‘Beaker people’ were the key factor in the spread of people, ideas, and technology to indigenous populations as they migrated across continental Europe and into Britain during the third millennium BC (Parker Pearson et al., 2015; Olalde et al., 2018). Analysis of unburnt skeletal remains indicate that Beaker people have genetic links with Eurasian steppe ancestry and their arrival into Britain is associated with a 90±2% genomic population replacement c.300 years after their arrival (Olalde et al., 2018). It is therefore unsurprising that Beaker ideology (and indeed, a new funerary rite) spread rapidly (but not immediately) through Britain in what is referred to as the Beaker phenomenon. The Beaker period has three main phases of burial activity based on radiocarbon dating and pottery development (Needham, 2005; Parker Pearson et al., 2015). The first phase is the Chalcolithic in which Beaker-type burials first appeared in southern regions (Wiltshire, Hampshire, Oxfordshire) c.2475–2360 cal BC and in Aberdeenshire at roughly the same time (Jay et al., 2019). These burials are defined by the inclusion of Low-Carinated Bell Beakers, non-perishable grave goods, and crouched inhumations (Needham, 2005; Bradley, 2007a; Waddell, 2010). A wellknown skeleton from this first stage is the ‘Amesbury Archer’, a 35–45 year old male buried in a flat grave 5km from Stonehenge, and radiocarbon dated to 2380–2290 cal BC (OxA-13541; 3895±32 BP) (Fitzpatrick, 2011). 55

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC)

Figure 3.36. The Vaynor Farm Henge, Carmarthenshire (after Barber and Hart, 2015: 82, fig. 2, ©Cotswold Archaeology). The post/stone holes surrounding the inner ditch segments are statistically consistent and are all the same age. The calibrated weighted mean for these measurements suggests construction of the circular holes between 2470–2310 cal BC (95% confidence).

dating to 2335–2057 cal BC (OxA-25384; 3783±32 BP) followed by Burial 1 dated to 2193–1963 cal BC (OxA25380; 3682±32 BP), Burial 8 dated to 2119–1890 cal BC (OxA-25383; 3617±32 BP), Burial 2 dated to 2022– 1777 cal BC (OxA-25382; 3565±31 BP) and Cremation 2 dated to 2022–1776 cal BC (OxA-25386; 3564±33 BP). The second phase of activity saw Burials 5 and 4 dated to 1936–1753 cal BC (OxA-25387; 3523±32 BP) and 1681– 1518 cal BC (OxA-25381; 3312±30 BP) consecutively (ibid.).

Shortly afterwards, Vaynor henge was deliberately decommissioned during the Beaker period, around 2490– 2290 cal BC, and 27 pits (of which 12 contained cremated bones) were dug 130m east of the henge around 2570– 2340 cal BC. It is worth noting that 350m north of this site, 78 un-urned and urned cremation burials were also recovered within pits dating to 2200–1500 cal BC (ibid.), suggesting that this was an important area for funerary activity (Figure 3.37). The re-use of monuments or of a particular site within the landscape during the Beaker period/Early Bronze Age was a way of forging a link to that space for a specific cultural or social reason, or to reinforce connections with ancestors. Hindlow round cairn in Derbyshire was first excavated by Thomas Bateman in 1845 and then again in the 1950s by Ashbee and Ashbee (1981) who recovered c.21 burials and 3 cremations (Figure 3.38). A central primary burial was not identified within the cairn; however, Bateman revealed pre-cairn activity by way of a cremation deposit near its centre. This Late Neolithic cremation is dated to 2915– 2703 cal BC (OxA-25385; 4244±32 BP) (Walsh, 2014). After the cairn was constructed radiocarbon dating results reveal at least two phases of activity: cremation scatter

Another example is the rare collective (but mostly comingled) burial of the Boscombe Bowmen. It is a flat grave but probably contained an attached timber chamber so it could be re-opened for successive burials. The grave contained a minimum of 12 individuals, including two juveniles, one adult male, and two children (Fitzpatrick, 2011), as well as seven pots, an antler pendant, a boar’s tusk, flint scrapers and barbed-and-tanged arrowheads. The grave was reused on several occasions when disarticulated and redeposited bones of six other individuals including two juveniles (of which one is a probable male), two young adult males, and two adult (of which one is a probable male), and the cremated remains 56

Neolithic Mortuary Rites Associated with Monuments in Britain (c.4000–2500 BC)

Figure 3.37. The pits of the EBA cremation cemetery (site 222) located 130m east of the Vaynor Farm Henge, Carmarthenshire (after Hart and Leonard, 2013: 20, fig. 4, ©Cotswold Archaeology).

noted. The re-use and disturbance of the earlier burials at Hindlow and other similar sites across Britain emphases the need to join the freshly dead with the older dead as they may have been identified as belonging to a particular group. Alternatively, the repetitive disturbances can be viewed as purposeful destruction of old bones which were then replaced by fresh corpses as a way of asserting a different political/social identity.

of a juvenile (McKinley, 2011). The cremated remains, associated with a Late Neolithic pit/post alignment, are dated to 2560–2310 cal BC (NZA-32510; 3934±30 BP) (Barclay and Marshall, 2011). However, modelling of the radiocarbon dates indicate that the grave was no longer used between 2120–1970 cal BC (95% probability) suggesting that the grave was continuously reused for deposition over a 400-year period. Isotopic studies have determined that the adults grew up together in the same locations.

3.6. Summary of Neolithic mortuary rites associated with monuments in Britain

Beaker-type burials ended towards 1905–1810 cal BC in England and around 2130–2045 cal BC in Scotland with the adoption of Food Vessels (Needham, 2012; Jay et al., 2019), while the Beaker phenomenon ended 1805–1650 cal BC (Jay et al., 2019: 78) when it was gradually replaced by Early Bronze Age material culture (Wilkin, 2013: 7–8). New artefact styles such as Food Vessel Urns and Collared Urns were used with increasing frequency to hold cremated remains and were deposited alongside inhumation burials. Gradually, inhumation practices declined so that by the Middle Bronze Age cremation became the dominant form of funerary rite (Caswell and Roberts, 2018).

Significant social and cultural changes are often used to explain the shift in monumental design and funerary activity (e.g., Carlyle and Chapman, 2013; Cummings, 2017). Some of these changes were brought by migrant farmers from continental Europe who eventually replaced (genetically-speaking) the local populations. However, aDNA affinity to a particular group does not mean social replacement and it must be stressed that while aDNA takes immediate effect, social change takes time. The introduction of new practices (such as funerary rites or pottery forms) meant that pre-existing practices continued alongside for decades, if not for centuries, until it was finally phased out. In some areas of Britain this phasing occurred sooner than in other areas, and this is why we see so much overlap between the different practices within the archaeological record.

The continued deposition of corpses and cremations into Neolithic monuments suggests a continued knowledge of the placement of these burials by way of some marker, or the area was left open though no scavenging marks are 57

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC)

Figure 3.38. Plan of Hindlow round cairn (adapted after Walsh, 2014: 36, fig. 4.1; and after Ashbee and Ashbee, 1981, with the permission of the Derbyshire Archaeological Society). Note, the human remains and the central Cremation 1 recovered by Bateman in 1845 are not on this plan.

Broadly speaking, burial practices during the Early Neolithic consisted of collective inhumations deposited in caves, rock-shelters and rectangular-shaped monuments such as long barrows/cairns, mortuary enclosures and portal dolmens. The unburnt skeletons and disarticulated body parts were not only organised, displayed and repositioned in their tombs but were also moved around the landscape – for example, the number of skulls and long bones at West Kennett underrepresented the number of individuals who were entombed inside suggesting a portion of the bones had been taken elsewhere. It is clear that repeated access to bones was an important part of the mortuary rite and the monument remained in continued use until it was closed by large blocking stones. By c.3400 BC, collective burial practices transitioned to single inhumations and included the deposition of well-equipped male burials under round mounds (e.g., sites such as Liffs Low and Whitegrounds). This transition coincided with a decrease in disarticulated bone deposition and signalled a change in how the deceased where perceived. Emphasis was now placed on

the individual rather than on a collective group of people or a collective assortment of body parts. Single inhumation burials began to decline from c.3500 BC onwards due to the increase in cremation rites. The waning of inhumation also corresponded with a decrease in cave and rock-shelter burials and a complete absence of cremated remains at these sites. The construction of rectangular-shaped monuments also declined as monumental shape progressed towards a geometrically circular design in which cremation burials were now commonly deposited in and around these new forms (e.g., henges, ring ditches, stone or timber circles and barrows). Single isolated cremations deposits with no visible association with monuments have also been recovered but these appear to be unusual, perhaps even deviant or special, burials (see Chapter 4). By the Late Neolithic, cremation was the preferred funerary rite which continued for c.500 years until the arrival of 58

Neolithic Mortuary Rites Associated with Monuments in Britain (c.4000–2500 BC) maintain the monuments until eventual closure. Those specifically chosen individuals featured prominently within the prehistoric landscape but also in the mindset of the living: the visible dead were honoured, revered, and remembered for generations.

Beaker People who introduced new inhumation rites and pottery forms. While cremation continued to be practiced alongside inhumation burials, Neolithic monuments were often re-used during the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age as a way of reconnecting with the ancestors or by forging a link for a particular socio-cultural or political reason. Monuments, the most visible remnants of a Neolithic landscape, were primarily constructed for the dead; however, the living continued to engage, maintain, and modify these sites until their eventual closure. Recent research on Neolithic monuments centres on 19th century historic themes which classified monuments as ‘ritual’, ‘commemorative’ (Williams, 1852), ‘religious’ (Moggridge, 1860; Rees, 1854), and as ‘territorial/ boundary markers’ (Smith, 1865) (Tellier, 2015). Darvill (2010) suggests that circular enclosures ‘represent displays of power, wealth, and control’ due to the labour and time investment into their construction. The alignment of some of the monuments to solstices has also led others to the suggest that activities were linked to specific celestial or astronomical events (e.g., Burgess, 2001; Tellier, 2015). Monuments may have also represented public or communal spaces used to perform ceremonies, trade, meeting places, and/or feasting (Renfrew, 1976; Burgess, 2001; Darvill, 2010; Tellier, 2015). The importance of communal gatherings and the emergence of major public ceremonial complexes would have been vital to the renewal of social, economic, and political relationships within a dispersed Neolithic society. However, the recovery of inhumations and cremations from monuments represent only a tiny fraction of the Neolithic population. While soil acidity in certain areas of Britain have contributed to unfavourable conditions for unburnt bone preservation (see Chapter 9) it does not explain the scarcity of recovering the estimated millions of deceased individuals from archaeological sites. This indicates that the majority of the dead were disposed of in other archaeologically ‘invisible’ ways. Methods of such disposal may have included open-air exposure/ excarnation, animal scavenging, burial in waterways (e.g., rivers, lakes, oceans), isolated pit deposits, scattering cremated bones over the ground surface, and/or grinding cremated bones into ash for consumption (as noted in anthropological cases such as the Yanomami tribe of Venezuela [e.g., Woznicki, 1998]). Such methods would have required little effort in terms of time or manual labour and would have been widely accepted as easier alternatives in which to dispose of the mainstream dead throughout the 1500-year Neolithic period. The severe lack of archaeologically visible human remains from the Neolithic stresses the importance of who selected for burial within monuments, whether they were inhumed or cremated. An enormous amount of time and labour would have been required to construct monuments and pyres, to transport the corpses, to continuously engage with the dead entombed within monuments, to pick, sort and clean cremated bones from the pyre sites and to 59

4 ‘Other’ Neolithic Burial Deposits This chapter pertains to the burials and cremation deposits that are not associated with above-ground monuments. Rather, they have been recovered from a variety of contexts and from differing landscapes throughout Britain. These ‘other’ burials refer to single graves and isolated pit deposits, burials in mines, caves, rock shelters and waterways, within the foundations of domestic dwellings, on excarnation platforms, and in association with a standing stone. Evidently clear is the variety of mortuary and funerary rites occurring at non-monumental locations which changed from the Early Neolithic to the end of the Late Neolithic.

name just a few. Isolated pits could also contain multiple individuals as was found at Sutton Courtenay, Berkshire, where a pit containing an adult female, an infant and a child was found near a second pit containing ten crania of mostly adult males (Leeds, 1923; 1934). Mines contain very few human remains but those that are placed in mines seem to have been subjected to differential deposition (Teather, 2016). The flint shafts of Cissbury, Sussex, contained three human skeletons: the first was a female found head down in Shaft H, but her skull was 0.76m above the floor of the shaft with animal bones surrounding her body (Rolleston, 1877; Teather, 2016). While it is possible that the body was placed headfirst down the shaft (and then subsequent settling moved the skull to its odd position), it is equally possible that the skull belonged to another individual (Teather, 2016). The second skeleton was that of a young adult male found 4.8m below the surface in Shaft VI, surrounded by chalk blocks and various flint tools (Figure 4.3). Rolleston (1879) noted that this individual probably had hemiplegia, a condition which affects one side of the body so that it is shorter than the other (Teather, 2016). However, this skeleton only had a very short left arm, and it is possible that he either had a defect other than hemiplegia or that he was also another composite skeleton (ibid.). The third skeleton was a female found lying on her side on top of a pile of rubble, near the wall of Shaft 27, with a broken spinal column and charcoal in her hand. It is suggested that she represents an accident victim (Barber et al., 1999) although it cannot be proven due to the poor condition of the skull (Teather, 2016).

4.1. The Early Neolithic (c.4000–3500 BC) 4.1.1. Non-monumental Early Neolithic inhumations Single inhumation graves without a monument are scarce during the Early Neolithic period (Figure 4.1) but became more common in the Middle Neolithic (Figure 4.8). This may in part, be due to very few unaccompanied individuals having been radiocarbon dated and/or more difficult to find in the landscape without a visible aboveground marker; thus, the number of single graves may actually be higher than currently believed. There are a few examples of single graves: a flat grave of a single adult female skeleton was excavated at Prestatyn, North Wales, and radiocarbon dated to 3750–3535 cal BC (OxA-16606; 4867±38 BP) (Schulting 2007; Schulting and Gonzalez, 2008). Along the Thames foreshore at Yabsley, London, a probable female adult was placed in a grave with flints and Plain Bowl sherds (Coles et al., 2003; Wysocki et al., 2013) (Figure 4.2). A single carbonised oak plank, interpreted as a sort of retaining structure within the grave, provided a radiocarbon date of 4220–3979 cal BC (KIA-20157; 5252±28 BP).

Caves, fissures and rock shelters were also utilised as places to deposit human remains in either collective or successive depositions, in crouched or extended positions (though rarely ‘buried’), and for token deposits of selected body parts (Chamberlain and Williams, 1999; Gilks, 1989). Primarily attributed to the Mesolithic/Early Neolithic periods, cave deposition decreased after 3600 BC, though it still continued into the Middle Neolithic (Chamberlain, 1996; Schulting and Richards, 2002; Dowd, 2008). Little Hoyle Cave, Pembrokeshire, contained the remains of a minimum of 17 individuals who were recovered beneath a central chimney feature, of which four individuals were sampled and produced radiocarbon dates around 3600 cal BC (Hedges et al., 1993; Peterson, 2012). Human remains of at least seven individuals from George Rock Shelter, near Cardiff, have shown either deliberate surface exposure or repeated shallow burial of single bodies (Peterson, 2012). This rock shelter is a 6m-long limestone overhang facing west, with the burials placed close to the back of the shelter and positioned parallel to the

Isolated pit burials of fully articulated skeletons and disarticulated skeletal elements seem to have been dug specifically for the burial of selected materials. While technically a flat grave, a partially disarticulated skeleton was recovered in a pit with some cattle bones and two Early Neolithic bowls at Handley Hill, Dorset (Piggott, 1936; Schulting, 2007). A post-hole in the pit may have been used to mark the grave; this could have been a sort of memorial marker or was erected as a way to identify the location in order to return at a later time. Other Early Neolithic pit burials have been recovered at Nethercourt Farm, Ramsgate (Dunning, 1966; Thomas, 1999), Pangbourne, Berkshire (Piggott, 1929; Schulting, 2007) and Cadbury Castle (Alcock, 1972; Barrett et al., 2000) to

61

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC)

Figure 4.1. Locations of the Early Neolithic isolated inhumations and cremations not associated with monuments, as discussed in this section. This map is not intended as an exhaustive list but merely illustrates some of the diversity (map by C. Willis).

rock wall. The burials were then continuously disturbed with the deposition of new skeletal material creating a disarticulated assemblage of bones (ibid.). Radiocarbon dates from George Rock Shelter range from 3965–3793 cal BC (OxA-X-2424-44; 5083±38 BP) to 3774–3649 cal BC (OxA-20968; 4929±33 BP) (Bronk Ramsey et al., 2015; Peterson, 2012).

Human remains, both articulated and disarticulated, have also been recovered from areas associated with waterways, such as rivers, estuaries, bogs, beaches, paleochannels, and flood plains. The majority of finds from waterways are disarticulated crania and it is often difficult to interpret the context of these remains (Schulting, 2007): whether buried then subsequently 62

‘Other’ Neolithic Burial Deposits

Figure 4.2. Plan of the badly degraded skeleton of a probable female adult in an isolated grave from Yabsley Street, London (after Coles et al., 2003: 219 fig. 3 by kind permission from Thames Valley Archaeological Services).

Neolithic skull dating to 3396–3388 cal BC (OxA-1199; 4880± 80 BP) from Battersea (Bradley and Gordon, 1988), and a complete Late Neolithic skeleton from Dorney (Allen et al., 2000). Another skull was recovered near the docks in Newport, Monmouthshire, dating to 2630–2430 cal BC (Bell et al., 2000). Dredging along the River Ribble near Preston, Lancashire recovered four Neolithic crania (from a total of 23 crania) ranging from 3820–3640 cal BC to 3110–2900 cal BC (Turner et al., 2002). At Langford, on the River Trent, the partial remains of around 12 individuals were recovered from a log jam within a paleochannel. Dendrochronological dating of the associated timbers indicates a Late Neolithic date for the remains (Garton et al., 1997). Their state of preservation, state of completeness, and the presence of a partially articulated torso suggest that these remains were not subjected to river-rolling (ibid.; Schulting, 2014). At the edge of one of the River Nene’s channels at West Cotton, a timber platform contained human long bones that had either been deliberately deposited or washed in by the river during the Late Neolithic (Harding and Healy, 2007).

Figure 4.3. The male skeleton at Cissbury, Sussex (Rolleston, 1879: 377, fig. 1).

washed out or a result of accidental drowning. Skulls, for instance, could either become separated from the main skeleton after decomposition and roll downriver, or the crania could be the result of deliberate deposition of specific body parts into waterways (ibid.). At Eton Rowing Course, a complete Early Neolithic adult male cranium and a Late Neolithic portion of another adult cranium were recovered from the paleochannel of the Thames (Schulting, 2007; Allen et al., 2000). Along the Thames, human remains have been recovered dating throughout the entire Neolithic period (Lamdin-Whymark, 2008) such as two skulls and a finger bone recovered at Dorney from the earlier Neolithic (Allen et al., 2000), a Middle

4.1.2. Non-monumental Early Neolithic cremations As with inhumation burials, some cremation deposits have been placed in locations that are not associated with permanent man-made monuments. The mine of Blackpatch, West Sussex, contained unburnt human remains in Shaft 4 and a cremation with grave goods in 63

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC)

Figure 4.4. The mortuary site at Trostrey, Monmouthshire (after Mein, 2003: 66, fig.1).

five posts inserted into the ground east of the platform date to 3980–3710 cal BC and are suggested to a form of marker or totem pole. The three large timbers assembled in front of the site (3960–3710 cal BC) and the stone kerb (3980–3790 cal BC [ibid.]) are broadly contemporary. Mein (ibid.) estimated that at least 15 separate cremations occurred among the three pyres, based on the cutting and re-cutting of the pits (it should be noted that the cremated remains have not been examined by an osteologist and remain in storage).

Shaft 7 (Pull, 1932; Barber et al., 1999). An antler pick from Shaft 4 provides a date of 4310–3530 cal BC (BM290; 5090±150 BP) (Barber et al., 1999). The Early Neolithic site at Trostrey, Monmouthshire, consisted of an excarnation platform, a façade, and a series of in situ cremation pyres and burial pits (Mein, 2003) (Figure 4.4). The excarnation platform was constructed using nine posts and was rebuilt at least twice before being demolished. A few fragments of unburnt bone were recovered between the platform and the façade, leading Mein to conclude that they were scattered by rodents or birds during excarnation. However, the soil in Wales is generally acidic and commonly annihilates all unburnt bone so it is not surprising that more bones were not recovered. Mein (2003) suggested that the platform would have also been used to sort the bones of the deceased prior to cremation since none of the five burial pits contained skull fragments or long bones. While these certainly could have been decapitated individuals (either pre- or post- death), there was still a deliberate choice to not cremate or bury these bones in the burial pits. The façade, located behind the excarnation platform, was 16m long with its timber posts positioned close together. The façade encouraged people to enter into the funerary area before proceeding between the two straight rows of posts towards the pyres. Radiocarbon dating indicates that the

Pyre 1, which was extended and lengthened eastwards after each firing, was used for a minimum of 10 cremations, while Pyre 2 had three cremations and Pyre 3 had two cremations. Mein (2003) noted that all three pyres had been cut into the ground surface. After activity ceased at Pyre 1, it was abandoned with no attempt to rebury it. Pyre 2 was buried by a layer of soil and stones after each use but, during the final cremation, a large cobble was placed into the pit while the cremation was still hot as the stone had cracked in multiple places. The pit of the third pyre, measuring 2m long by 1.5m wide, was lined with glacial erratics with a massive stone placed on top (ibid.). In each of the pyres, a small amount of cremated bone was recovered, along with flint debitage, one leaf-shaped arrowhead from Pyre 1, a small scraper from Pyre 2, and fragments of Grimston Ware from Pyres 1 and 2. The largest of the pottery sherds 64

‘Other’ Neolithic Burial Deposits Another isolated cremation deposit was recovered within a Romano-British cemetery in Cirencester, Gloucestershire. The deposit had been cremated in situ in a wooden coffin and produced an unexpected date of 4340–3820 cal BC (HAR-1010; 5250±90 BP) (Jordan et al., 1994). Because the date did not fit with the archaeological evidence, a second sample was measured and produced a similar date of 4230–3720 cal BC (HAR-1116; 5130±80 BP), confirming it as Early Neolithic. Two isolated pits at Duns Law Farm, near Duns in the Sottish Borders, contained cremated bones (Anderson, 2017). A small pit (100) did not contain any artefacts, but bulk sample sieving recovered carbonised plant material and unidentifiable cremated bones. Just over 100m away to the southeast, Pit 102 was found. It was a large, sub-circular pit measuring 3.2 × 2.6 × 0.75m deep and contained a very mixed deposit of cremated bones and Beaker pottery sherds throughout its distinctive fills. Cut into the base of this pit were two small scoops in which a nearly complete Beaker was placed in Scoop 110 and further Beaker pottery sherds were recovered in Scoop 108. A stone cist-like feature was built directly overtop Scoop 108 and contained both Early Neolithic and Beaker pottery sherds, a small flint flake and a retouched stone axehead (ibid.). The cremated remains of at least four individuals (three adults -of which there is one male and one female- and one sub-adult) were identified from a total of 577.2g of bones. Due to the extensive recovery of Beaker pottery (108 sherds comprising nine vessels) distributed through all the fills, the results of the radiocarbon dates were surprising (Table 4). Anderson (2017) has suggested that based on the range of material and radiocarbon dates, deposition occurred in three broad periods. Firstly, the most recent bone fragment (3337±29 BP) was recovered from the scoop under the stone cist-like feature and was in association with slightly earlier pottery sherds, significantly earlier cremated bone (4868±30 BP), and a wheat seed (4937±28 BP). The cremated bones from the uppermost fills are all dated to the Early Neolithic, suggesting re-deposition (ibid.). It is not clear if the pit was dug during the Early Neolithic and was later disturbed by an Early Bronze Age insertion or if it was dug during the Early Bronze Age but incorporated Early Neolithic cremated bone from nearby deposits or features. The third event would have been the deposition of the most recent cremated bone into a scoop at the base of the pit.

Figure 4.5. The partially cremated remains recovered from the western end of the boat at Parkbury, St. Albans (after Niblett, 2001: 161, fig. 7).

had been positioned on top of the layer of soil and stones, burying the remnants of the cremations in Pyre 2. Sherds of Grimston Ware were also recovered in each of the five burial pits, located at the eastern end of the façade (ibid.). Analysis of the charcoal has revealed three types of shrub, suggesting that these were used as initial fuel rather than as timbers for the pyres. The identified shrubs were blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), hazel (Corylus avellane) or alder (Alnus glutinosa), and probably dogwood (Cornus). All cremations were deposited in one (or more) of the five burial pits which also contained postholes, probably used as a marker, before they were removed and replaced by a stone cairn over each burial pit (ibid.). The radiocarbon dates of the pyres are as follows: the last firing of Pyre 1 was dated to 3765–3647 cal BC, the first firing of Pyre 2 was dated to 3710–3630 cal BC (Beta-184101; 5620±40 BP), and the last firing of Pyre 3 was dated to 3680–3500 to 3440–3380 cal BC (ibid.). Early Neolithic cremated remains have been recovered in a few isolated locations. At Parkbury, St. Albans, Hertfordshire, a dugout boat was burnt in situ and contained the partially cremated remains of an adult (Figure 4.5) (Niblett, 2001). Radiocarbon dates from the burnt wood produced dates between 3980–3790 cal BC and 4035–3705 cal BC (OxA-3301; 5080±75 BP) (Hedges et al., 1994).

Table 4. The radiocarbon dates of pit 102, Duns Law Farm (after Anderson, 2017: 42) Fill

Sample

cal BC date

BP date

Lab. number

104 (mid-fill)

Cremated bone

3766–3651

4927±29

SUERC-42416

105 (basal fill)

Cremated bone

3785–3657

4950±29

SUERC-42417

105 (basal fill)

Cremated bone

3942–3708

5014±28

SUERC-43923

109 (basal pit fill)

Cremated bone

1691–1530

3337±29

SUERC-42418

109 (basal pit fill)

Wheat seed

3773–3654

4937±28

SUERC-43921

109 (basal pit fill)

Cremated bone

3706–3543

4868±30

SUERC-43922

65

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) At Bessingby Hill, Bridlington, a stone-lined pit containing the partially cremated bone fragments of a skull and first cervical vertebrae of a probable adult were recovered (Earnshaw, 1973) (Figure 4.6). The pit was filled with charcoal, burnt clay and soil, as well as several small oak beams criss-crossing across the pit. Finds included a complete flint axe located on a large boulder on the north side of the pit, three scrapers and seven sherds of Grimston Ware pottery (ibid.).

small amounts of bone: Pit 201 contained the largest deposit, with 134.6g from an adult; Pit 2 contained a few bones of less than 0.5g, while the cremation spread (1190) consisted of 2.4g of bones. Carbonised hazelnuts from nearby pits provided dates of 3710–3630 cal BC (Beta203147; 4870±40 BP) and 3680–3620 cal BC (Beta203146; 4840±40 BP) (Gidman, 2005). An attempt to date the cremated bone from Pit 201 failed due to insufficient collagen in the sample.

Three cremation deposits were recovered prior to the expansion of the Barnsdale Bar Quarry, Norton, North Yorkshire (Holst, 2005; Gidman, 2005) (Figure 4.7). Two of the cremations had been deposited in pits with Neolithic flint and pottery, while the third cremation was scattered across the ground surface. All three deposits contained

At Maxey Quarry, Cambridgeshire, a cremation deposit was recovered from a pit which also contained a type of Impressed Ware bowl (Gibson, 2013). The small bowl was originally believed to be from the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age due to its similarity with Food Vessels of that period; however, a radiocarbon date for a cremated long bone returned a date of 3650–3517 cal BC (SUERC-39011; 4790±35 BP). 4.2. The Middle Neolithic (c.3500–3000 BC) The shift from communal to individual burial occurs after c.3400 BC and coincides with the rise in cremation as a funerary rite. As shown in Chapter 3, single burials have been recovered from round mounds, cairns and other forms of monuments; however, they have also been found in isolation within the landscape or in differing mortuary treatments (Figure 4.8). 4.2.1. Non-monumental Middle Neolithic inhumations The use of single inhumation graves not directly associated with monuments increased during the Middle Neolithic. At Wormington Farm in Worcestershire, for example, a pit containing a flexed skeleton of a mature adult female skeleton with degenerative joint disease and an oblique fracture of her right ulna was recovered (Coleman et al., 2006; Darvill, 2010; Fowler and Scarre, 2015) (Figure 4.9). With no evidence of a covering mound, it is considered to be an isolated flat grave dating to 3650–3370 cal BC (WK-15335; 4747±48 BP). A single grave from below the bank at Windmill Hill, Wiltshire, contained a mostly complete adult male skeleton, dating to 3650–3360 cal BC (OxA-2403; 4745±70 BP). At the Eton Rowing Course, Buckinghamshire, two flat graves of an adult female and a child date to the late fourth millennium BC (a third grave of an adult male is dated by the inclusion of Early Neolithic pottery; Allen et al., 2000; 2004). At Barrow Hills, three flat graves were recovered 200m east of a causewayed enclosure (Barclay and Halpin, 1997; Cummings, 2017). The first (5354) was of a crouched, 10–12 year old child, dated to 3650–3100 cal BC (OxA-1882; 4650±80 BP). The burial was accompanied by a blade-like flake and a sherd of pottery (Barclay and Halpin, 1997). The second burial (5356) was a disturbed and incomplete skeleton of a crouched, possible female adult dated to 3800–3100 cal BC (OxA-4359; 4700±100). The third grave (5355) was of a crouched mature male adult dated to 3380–3090 cal BC (BM-2710; 4530±50 BP) (ibid.). The three graves together suggest that it was a Middle Neolithic cemetery, situated

Figure 4.6. The stone-lined pit containing the partially cremated skull and first cervical vertebrae of a probable adult at Bessingby Hill, Bridlington (adapted after Earnshaw, 1973: 23 fig 3 with kind permission from the Yorkshire Archaeological Journal).

Figure 4.7. The two isolated pits and cremation scatter from Barnsdale Bar Quarry, North Yorkshire (adapted after Gidman, 2005: 25, fig 3 ©Archaeological Services WYAS).

66

‘Other’ Neolithic Burial Deposits

Figure 4.8. Locations of the Middle Neolithic isolated inhumations and cremations not associated with monuments, as discussed in this section. This map is not intended as an exhaustive list but merely illustrates some of the diversity (map by C. Willis).

close to a multi-period complex; however, their burial emphasizes their individuality as they were deliberately placed in single graves as opposed to a communal pit.

lies south of the Dorset Cursus. It comprises of two entrances, a large central pit measuring 10m wide and 1.5m deep, and a 6.9m-deep shaft cut into the corner of the pit (Green, 2000). The skeletal remains of four individuals were placed inside the pit which contained an adult woman around 30 years old, a male child around 9 years old, and

The circle of 14 pits at Monkton-up-Wimborne dates between 5500–5100 BP (Montgomery et al., 2000) and 67

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) Ware. A radiocarbon date for one of the primary burials, which also provided the date of construction and initial use of the monument, is 3514–3101 cal BC (OxA-8035; 4585±50 BP). Other types of Middle Neolithic funerary locations and mortuary treatments have been recovered in mainland Britain. These are not associated with any particular type of monument, though some are located in close proximity. They indicate a wide variety of ways of treating the dead and varied choices for locations of deposition. These methods were used to deliberately disarticulate deceased individuals, and at some sites, to speed up decomposition in order to achieve defleshing of bones. Excarnation, or platform disposal, is arguably the quickest and easiest way to deflesh a corpse by leaving the body exposed to both scavengers and the elements (Smith, 2006; Whittle and Wysocki, 1998; Fowler, 2010) (Figures 4.11). Exposure times would vary; in some instances, the remains were collected at a later period for further treatment or for deposition in a final resting place. In other instances, excarnation was the final act with no further intervention required. Mercer’s description of the Hambledon Hill site as ‘a vast, reeking open cemetery, its silence broken only by the din of crows and ravens’ (Mercer, 1980) is borne out by a high proportion of human bones exhibiting weathering, suggesting that the dead were exposed to the elements while decaying (Schulting, 2007).

Figure 4.9. Middle Neolithic (3640–3370 cal BC) single burial of a mature adult female at Wormington Farm, Worcestershire (Coleman et al., 2006: 33, fig. 20, ©Cotswold Archaeology).

two female children around 5 and 10 years of age (Figure 4.10). The grave was covered by a large block of chalk and was packed in with smaller pieces of chalk. Ancient DNA analysis has revealed that the adult female and the 5-yearold child were mother and daughter, and that, while the other two children were related (brother and sister), they were not related to the adult female (Green, 2000). Other finds included a piglet, a sandstone ball and Peterborough

The existence of raised platforms both close to and sometimes incorporated within or beneath more substantial

Figure 4.10. The four individuals (one adult and three children) buried within the central pit at Monkton-up-Wimborne, Dorset (photo kindly provided by M. Green).

68

‘Other’ Neolithic Burial Deposits

Figure 4.11. An excarnation platform at Point Hope, Alaska (c.1880s) which may resemble a Neolithic exposure platform. Ignoring the vertical whale bones, a timber frame structure would have held an exposed corpse while disarticulated human bones lay scattered on the ground below. (Photo NYR Gallery, Mar 14, 2015).

funerary monuments has been suggested at a number of sites within Neolithic Britain (Scott, 1992). Several of these possible excarnation structures appear to have collapsed, with the human remains having fallen to the ground. Evidence for exposure platforms has been identified at Balfarg (Barclay and Russell-White, 1993), Hambledon Hill (Mercer, 1980; Mercer and Healey, 2008), Sproxton (Stirland, 1981), Stoney Middleton (Denison, 1996), Longstone Edge (Myers, 1999; Last, 2014), Windmill Hill (Whittle, 1990), Wigber Low (Collis, 1983), and West Cotton (Windell, 1989).

large mammals and weathering, while the other half of the assemblage exhibits no such evidence (Whittle and Wysocki, 1998). This suggests that scavenging was part of the funerary process at this site rather than carnivore mammals gaining unmanaged access into the monument (Smith, 2005). Conversely, 50% of the human skeletal assemblage at Etton causewayed enclosure exhibits scavenging by dogs or foxes (Armour-Chelu, 1998; Smith, 2005), yet only 4% of the animal bones recovered from the site have recorded instances of canid gnawing. The pattern of bone destruction resulting from carnivore gnawing is characterised by puncture marks, furrowing, and crenulated edges (Binford, 1981; Smith, 2005). Gnawing is recorded on bones from other sites such as at Hambledon Hill (Mercer and Healy, 2008), Bole’s Barrow, Wiltshire (Schulting and Wysocki, 2005), and Wayland’s Smithy I (Whittle et al., 2007).

Scavenging is another process resulting in rapid defleshing of the corpse, whether by domestic or wild animals. The degree to which human remains are scavenged depends primarily on accessibility to the corpse during and after the mortuary rites (Smith, 2006). Exposure would give animals access to the bodies until either the scavenged body or any remaining bones become transferred to or sealed within the tomb. The human bones from Adlestrop barrow, Gloucestershire, provide clear evidence of scavenging by large canids (either dogs or wolves), as the pattern of damage on the bones is consistent with a scenario of scavenging animals having access to a corpse for a limited time prior to deposition within the monument (Smith, 2006). At Parc le Breos Cwm, Glamorgan, around half of the skeletal assemblage shows scavenging by

The tradition of depositing human remains within caves, fissures, and rock shelters continued during the Middle Neolithic period, though it is on a smaller scale compared to the Early Neolithic period. At Scabba Wood, Sprotbrough, South Yorkshire, the disarticulated remains of a minimum number of four individuals were recovered including a 20–30 year-old male, a 12–15 year-old juvenile, an older adult, and an 8–9 year-old child (Merrony et al., 2017). The remains were placed in a stone cist-like structure 69

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) since burial here continued into the Late Neolithic period (Schulting, 2007). 4.2.2. Non-monumental Middle Neolithic cremations In situ cremations, as previously discussed, continue to remain rare in the archaeological record; however, the so-called ‘crematorium barrow’ tradition is unique to Yorkshire. Typically containing a linear ‘crematorium’ structure made from turf or wood, an elongated trough was dug into the ground and functioned as a flue (Manby, 1963; Kinnes, 1970; Thomas, 1999). Inside the structure, corpses were placed and covered with chalk or flint. The entire structure was then set alight, with the oxygen required to feed the fire being drawn through the trough below. Not only were these crematoria exclusive to the area, but they are also distinctive in that they operated as collective cremations. Unfortunately, no cremated human bones have been dated from any crematoria, thereby bringing into question whether or not this custom relates to the Middle and Late Neolithic. Garton Slack 80 round barrow, East Yorkshire, stood 1m high and 30m in diameter prior to its excavation (Mortimer, 1905) (Figure 4.13). Its similarity with other barrows, such as Willerby Wold, has led researchers (e.g., Manby, 1963) to place Garton Slack 80 in the

Figure 4.12. Middle Neolithic human remians on a fissure at Ifton Quarry, Monmonthshire (from Archaeologia Cambrensis, 1909 series 6 (9): 115).

beneath a rock shelter, with one individual dated to 3490– 3140 BC (UB-3629; 4590±30 BP) (ibid.). A minimum of eight individuals were placed on a narrow rock ledge at Ifton, Monmouthshire (Schulting, 2007) during the Middle Neolithic (Figure 4.12) (Peterson and Pollard, 2004). Funerary deposits of both articulated and disarticulated human remains have also been found in swallets (shallow vertical shafts) such as at Brimble Pit where excavations revealed a probable male adult skull along with several fragments of rib and a radius, animal bones, flint and Grooved Ware pottery (Lewis, 2005). Osteological analysis suggested that the skull was deliberately selected then deposited in the swallet after the soft tissue had decomposed, suggesting curation or storage of the corpse elsewhere (Lewis, 2000). Human remains have been recovered for many cave sites such as Flint Jack’s, Backwell, and Chelm’s Combe (Schulting et al., 2010). The Totty Pot cave in Somerset, contained the human remains of at least seven individuals including four adults, an older child, and two young children (Schulting, et al., 2010). Six radiocarbon samples have produced one Mesolithic date of 7445–7085 (OxA16457; 8245±45 BP), and five Neolithic dates ranging from the earliest of 3630–3370 cal BC (OxA-16458; 4706±35 BP) to the latest at 2830–2460 cal BC (OxA16460; 4008±39 BP), with the other three individuals producing similar dates of around 3340–3000 cal BC (ibid.). The dates from Totty Pot suggest that cave burial may have been more long-lasting than previously believed

Figure 4.13. The plan of Garton Slack 80, East Yorkshire: 1) the flexed inhumation of an old adult; 2) an oval grave containing a central inhumation of a young adult male; 3) inhumation of an old adult, probably female; A) the elongated oval trough containing a few unburnt human skeletal elements, the cremated remains of at least six adults, and three burnt skulls; B) small pit containing decayed material and gravel; C) small dish-shaped pit in the ground surface beneath the mound, above which was located a skull fragment; D) pit filled with chalk-gravel; E) semi-circular pit containing the cremated bones of a young individual, as well as charcoal and burnt gravel; F) small pile of cremated bones (after Mortimer, 1905: 236, fig. 596).

70

‘Other’ Neolithic Burial Deposits Another earthen crematorium, Garton Slack 81, was recovered near Garton Slack 80 and measured 25.6m in diameter and 0.5m high (Figure 4.14) (Mortimer, 1905). The trough measured 7.9m and ran north-west under the barrow. It was filled with gravel, burnt soil, cremated human remains of both adults and children, and large pieces of oak charcoal (Mortimer, 1905). In contrast to Garton Slack 80 which had a peat wall, the trough within Garton Slack 81 was filled with chalk gravel along both its long sides.

Neolithic, with its secondary inhumations dating to the Beaker period. During Mortimer’s 1866 excavation of Garton Slack 80, a central elongated pit (or trough) was uncovered running east-west and partially surrounded by turf walls. Inside the pit, Mortimer recorded the partially cremated human remains of at least six individuals as well as burnt flint and chalk. This led Mortimer to conclude that the pit functioned as a crematorium, presumably with the bodies covered over with chalk and gravel before being set alight. The central grave, underneath the crematorium, has been interpreted as the primary inhumation, with the crematorium deliberately erected over it. A pit (Pit E) at the western end of the trough contained the cremated remains of a young individual. A further secondary burial was recovered in the middle of the trough, containing the remains of a young male with a pot at his feet. Within the fill of the mound, the remains of an old adult male and female, as well as a small pile of cremated bones were recovered. The unburnt bones within the trough were interpreted as having been added at a later date, while multiple disarticulated animal bones were recovered throughout the mound.

The nearly demolished barrow of Garton Slack 134 also contained a 4.6m-long trough-like crematorium structure running east to west which contained cremated human remains mixed with burnt chalk. Elsewhere in the mound, unburnt human ‘leg bones’ and an ox scapula were recovered (Mortimer, 1905). The Willie Howe barrow (no. 277 from Mortimer’s catalogue), Cowlam, was 22m in diameter and 1.5m high and contained four separate inhumations, one with a date of 2210–2040 cal BC (Jones et al., 2017). Over an oval grave, lay a 1.2m × 3.7m × 0.7m spread of hard-packed burnt soil (Mortimer,

Figure 4.14. Plan and section of the Garton Slack 81 barrow showing 1) a young adult female inhumation; A) a scattered pile of disarticulated bones of a 5–7 year old child and adult; B) the bones of an adult foot; C) a disarticulated skeleton located in an oval grave (S), under which was recovered an inhumation of a young adult female (2) with an additional humerus of a child and within the fill disarticulated adult and juvenile bones; beneath the second burial was the third inhumation (3) of a young adult who had been surrounded by other disarticulated human and animal bones. This oval grave cut into the trough (E) and is considered to be a secondary phase of funerary activity in this barrow. A small pit (D) contained pottery fragments (after Mortimer, 1905: 239, fig. 601).

71

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) 1905). Cremated human bones and charcoal was scattered throughout the entire length of this burnt soil, over which burnt chalk and lime were laid. Mortimer again interpreted this as a crematorium. The long barrow containing cremated remains at Willerby Wold, Yorkshire, measured 40m × 11m × 1.2m high and was flanked by ditches to the north and south (Thomas, 1999). Excavations revealed a mortuary enclosure which had been burnt down after the placement of the bodies. Manby (1963) suggests that the bones had been disarticulated prior to the cremation. Unlike Middle Neolithic inhumations, evidence for the deposition of cremated human remains in caves, fissures, and rock shelters has not been found in Britain. The only instance of cremated bone deposition in a cave comes from Kilgreany Cave, Ireland. Here, a small, cremated bone deposit was recovered outside the cave entrance while another deposit was found in a fissure inside the cave (Movius, 1935; Fibiger, 2005; Dowd, 2008). The complete absence of cremated remains from caves, fissures and rock shelters in Neolithic Britain strongly implies not only a conscious separation of funerary treatment between burnt and unburnt human remains (and therefore a decision on who was being cremated), but it also suggests a deliberate avoidance of the use of caves to deposit cremated bones, despite burnt bones being placed in other above-ground locations and monuments. Pit burials without monuments are frequent finds from the Middle Neolithic, mostly associated with other pits or stake-holes. At Milton Ham, Northamptonshire, three cremation deposits were recovered from small pits (Carlyle and Chapman, 2012) (Figure 4.15). The first burial was of 14g of cremated bones from an adult, consisting mainly of long bones and skull fragments. The second burial contained 822g of cremated bones from another adult, consisting of all skeletal elements and is dated to 3350– 3020 cal BC (Beta-257598; 4470±40BP) (ibid.). The third burial contained fragments too small and degraded for analysis. Two other pits were noted to have been heavily disturbed, and it is postulated that they contained cremated bone though no bones were recovered, perhaps due to truncation.

Figure 4.15. The excavated area of Milton Ham showing the location of the three pit cremation burials (1, 2, and 3), the two pits showing disturbance with probable cremation burials (209 and 211), and the two larger pits which may have held wood posts used as cemetery markers (172 and 461) (after Carlyle and Chapman, 2012: 31, fig 2, with kind permission from Northamptonshire Archaeology).

bones (ibid.). Pit 237014 contained the largest quantity of cremated bones (24.7g) of a post-adolescent individual (over 16 years old) and one fragment of undiagnostic flint micro debitage. Pit 237008 contained a few undiagnostic fragments of cremated bones (0.1g), a Middle Neolithic Impressed Ware pottery sherd and an associated hazelnut shell which dates to 3360–3090 cal BC (SUERC-54700; 4515±29 BP) and 3490–3120 cal BC (Beta-257720) (Griffiths, 2013; Hart, 2013: 8). Interestingly, deposition continued into the Early Bronze Age with a very small quantity of cremated bone recovered from Pit 237010. An associated hazelnut shell dates this pit to 1690–1500 cal BC (Beta-257721) (Hart, 2013: 8). Based on the dating evidence, this site would have been intermittently active over a period of 1400 years and, as these pits form a distinct cluster, there would have been some sort of visible surface marker.

One kilometre away from Milton Ham, is the tripleditched circular enclosure of Banbury Lane, containing a mass of unburnt disarticulated human bones (MNI=130). The first two radiocarbon dates from Banbury Lane are Middle Neolithic (c.3360–3100 cal BC) and are broadly contemporary with the cremation pits at Milton Ham (Holmes et al., 2012) but it is unknown if there is any connection between the two sites. Near Pen-y-banc, Manordeilo and Salem, Carmarthenshire, 11 pits were excavated, all within 10m of each other (Hart, 2013) (Figure 4.16). They were all circular and ranged between 0.5m-1m in diameter and 0.05m-2m deep. One of the pits (#237043) contained evidence of in situ burning while all pits contained varying quantities of charcoal, while two pits contained Middle Neolithic burnt human

4.3. The Late Neolithic (c.3000–2500 BC) The Late Neolithic sees a sharp decline in inhumation burials, specifically after 3000 BC, as cremation becomes 72

‘Other’ Neolithic Burial Deposits

Figure 4.16. The eleven pits from Pen-y-banc, Carmarthenshire, of which two contained cremated human remains from the Middle Neolithic period (after Hart, 2013: 22 fig. 2, ©Cotswold Archaeology).

the preferred funerary rite (Figure 4.17). While cremation cemeteries are commonly associated with circular monuments during this period, there are a few sites in which isolated cremation deposits/deposits without a monument have been recovered.

4195±40 BP) (Fitzpatrick et al., 2008). An articulated skeleton of an older child (8–9 years old) was recovered in a ditch at Gatehampton Farm, Oxfordshire dating to 3100– 2890 cal BC (BM-2835; 4360±45 BP) (Allen, 1995). Early Neolithic houses, multiple pits, and a hengiform ring ditch were recovered at the Kingsmead Quarry, Horton, within the Colne Valley (Barclay et al., 2009). Located near a pit cluster were the skeletal remains of an adult female which dated to 2840–2490 cal BC (NZA-32873; 4066±25 BP) (ibid.). Excavations of the settlement site of Durrington Walls, Amesbury, found three disarticulated bones and a tooth (Parker Pearson et al., 2009). The radiocarbon dates of a male mandible returned a date of 2830–2470 cal BC (OxA-V-2232-41; 4023±30 BP) and a skull fragment from a female dates to 2620–2470 cal BC (OxA-V-2232-42; 4032±30 BP) (ibid.).

4.3.1. Non-monumental Late Neolithic inhumations Burials from the Late Neolithic period are rare, and those individuals recovered from non-monumental contexts tend to be disarticulated. The skeletal elements of a probable male skeleton dating to 2890–2570 cal BC (OxA-8817; 4155±45 BP) were recovered from a palaeochannel in the River Thames on the site of the Eton Rowing Course (Healy, 2012: 151). Radiocarbon dates for two disarticulated femurs (from two different individuals) are dated to 2760–2470 cal BC at 82% probability and were recovered from the Raunds area in Northamptonshire (Harding and Healy, 2007). Another single disarticulated femur dating to 2840–1770 cal BC (OxA-1221; 3800±160 BP) was recovered from a layer formed by overbank alluviation in grassland, at Butler’s Field, Winterbourne Valley, Avebury, (Healy, 2016). At Winterbourne Monkton, a skull of uncertain provenance was dated to 2880–2620 cal BC (OxA-V-2228-41; 4157±29 BP) (Evans et al., 1993; Healy, 2016). A badly preserved sub-adult probable female articulated skeleton was recovered in Westhampnett area 3, Sussex, and was dated to 2900–2630 cal BC (AA-40353;

Excavations in a peat-filled paleochannel at Watermead, along the River Soar, Leicestershire, recovered the partial remains of two adult males and a possible female from a single machine-bucket scoop (Ripper et al., 2012). While, unfortunately, these deposits were irreparably disturbed, their extraction from the same scoop suggests that they were deposited in close proximity to each other (ibid.). The possible adult female is represented only by a right femur and is dated to 3079–2761 cal BC (GrA-6831; 4290±45 BP) (ibid.). The first adult male, represented by a cranium, right radius, right clavicle, and right femur, is 73

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC)

Figure 4.17. Locations of the Late Neolithic isolated inhumations and cremations not associated with monuments, as discussed in this section. This map is not intended as an exhaustive list but merely illustrates some of the diversity (map by C. Willis).

4.3.2. Non-monumental Late Neolithic cremations

dated to 3022–2706 cal BC (GrA-23586; 4280±45 BP). The second male is dated to the Middle to Late Bronze Age (OxA-6831; 2760±55 BP) and, interestingly, has several cutmarks on both his atlas and axis vertebrae. Despite coming from two different periods, all three individuals shared a remembrance by the living of who and where each body was buried.

Lanton Quarry, Northumberland, produced a mixture of Early Neolithic pits, four large Late Neolithic cremation pits (each having held an upright timber post), two isolated Late Neolithic cremation pits, one isolated spread of cremation material, and five other Late Neolithic pits 74

‘Other’ Neolithic Burial Deposits

Figure 4.18. The cremation deposits from Lanton Quarry, Northumberland (adapted after Cockburn, 2016: 50 fig. 3).

containing flint tools and pottery sherds (Cockburn, 2016) (Figure 4.18). A total of 16 individuals were recovered from across this site, of which 10 were children (Table 5). All were token deposits. The four cremation deposits in post pits were located in the southwest area of the site and ranged in size from 0.95m to 1.54m wide and 0.29m to 0.61m deep. Each pit contained an upright timber, mostly

charred, indicating their use as grave markers (Cockburn, 2016). Cremation pit 1 (the easternmost of the four pits) contained four deposits positioned below and around the post. These consisted of the primary burial of an infant, two adults over 17 years of age, and a neonate/infant (ibid.) (Table 5). Cremation Pit 2 also contained four cremation deposits of an adult, two sub-adults, and a juvenile/young

Table 5. Summary of the cremations recovered from Lanton Quarry, Northumberland Pit Pit 1

Pit 2

Pit 3 Pit 4

Crem No.

MNI

Weight

Age

Sex

cal BC

BP

Lab No.

4054–8

1

9.1g

Infant

–

–

–

–

4030–2

1

697.3g

MA-OA

–

–

–

–

4050–7/6

2

42.0g

Adult Neo/Inf

–

–

–

–

4056–9

1

543.7g

Adult

–

–

–

–

4061–10/11/12

3

655.9g

Juv-YA Sub-Ad Sub-Ad

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Adult

–

3080–2891

4334±34

SUERC-69264

Juv-Ad

–

3085–2897

4349±34

SUERC-69263

YC

–

–

–

–

Adult Juv

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

4036–5

1

48.3g

4032–1

1

217.5g

4075–13

1

8.5g

4041–3/4

2

846.8g

F4083

4083–14

1

8.6g

Infant

–

–

–

–

F4110

4112–15

1

226.5g

Adult?

–

2620–2467

4012±34

SUERC-69265

F4120

4120–16

1

207.3g

Juv

–

–

–

–

75

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC)

Figure 4.19. The Late Neolithic cremation deposit of a middle-aged adult approximately 50m away from a posthole alignment at the MOD headquarters, Durrington (adapted after Thompson and Powell, 2018: 10, fig 3.1).

adult. Grave goods in the form of a burnt flint knife, a flint blade, three flakes and two chips were also recovered and are the only grave goods from this site. Cremation Pit 3 contained two deposits, one of which was an adult and the other was undeterminable; however, both these deposits were dated to 3080–2897 cal BC, suggesting very little (if any) time lapse between burials (ibid.). Cremation Pit 4 contained two deposits consisting of a sub-adult and the co-mingled remains of an adult and another sub-adult. To the northwest of the site, an isolated pit (F4110) contained the cremated remains of an adult, dated to 2620–2467 cal BC (SUERC-69265; 4012±34 BP). There was no evidence of a post in this pit. The other isolated cremation pit (F4120) contained cremated bones of a sub-adult and contained the remains of a post inserted into the pit. A spread of topsoil (F4083) containing cremated bones of a sub-adult was located in the southwest corner. Cockburn (2016) suggests that they are truncated and dispersed remains from an original cremation pit. It is assumed that both the isolated pit and this spread of cremated bone are Late Neolithic in date due to their proximity to the other cremation deposits.

4000±34 BP) and is situated about 50m away from two posthole alignments dated between 2670–2550 and 2575– 2470 cal BC (Thompson and Powell, 2018). At Orwell Farm, Kinross-shire, a pair of standing stones was excavated in 1972 (Ritchie, 1974). One of the stoneholes contained two deposits of cremated human remains in the upper and lower fills, suggesting that they were inserted immediately after erecting the stone and during the filling of the hole (Figure 4.20). The upper deposit

At the former MOD headquarters at Durrington, Wiltshire (a kilometre north of Durrington Walls), an isolated cremation burial (7531) was found in a natural hollow (Figure 4.19). This was a token deposit of 161.2g of cremated bones from a middle-aged adult, sealed beneath a layer of 5,000 pieces of struck flint (McKinley, 2018). The cremation is dated to 2585–2460 cal BC (SUERC-49176;

Figure 4.20. One of a pair of standing stones at Orwell Farm, Kinross-shire, and a deposit of cremated bones dating to the Late Neolithic (adapted after Ritchie, 1974: 9, fig. 2).

76

‘Other’ Neolithic Burial Deposits contained 695.5g of cremated bones from an adult male with some osteophytosis in his vertebral column (Denston, 1974). The lower deposit contained 1,224.5g of cremated bones from three adult individuals (one possible male and two possible females) and 53g of cremated dog and pig bones (ibid.). A cremated adult femur from the lower deposits was dated to 2890–2640 cal BC (SUERC-18309; 4180±35 BP) (Sheridan, 2008). Two other cremations were also recovered: 140g from a 3–6 year-old child was deposited on the surface next to the first standing stone while 722g from a possible female adult was deposited in the second stone hole (Ritchie, 1974).

but they are probably Neolithic (R. Hedges pers. comm) as they are from the site of a Late Neolithic burial (2750– 2500 cal BC) (Kinnes et al., 1991; Harrison et al., 1999). 4.4. Summary of ‘other’ Neolithic burial deposits Isolated burials of burnt and unburnt human remains are among the ‘invisible’ remnants of the Neolithic landscape. They were generally not associated with monuments but were often positioned within close proximity to other features or pits –some contained such items as pottery, flint, polished axes, charred seeds and nuts, chalk, animal bones and antlers, organic materials and/or charcoal. While Neolithic pits are relatively common within the archaeological record their exact purpose is uncertain. Evidence indicates that many of the pits were significant, with some displaying structured deposition of materials (Thomas, 1991; Chapman, 2000) whereas other pits appear to have contained remnants of domestic waste (Clark et al., 1960; Brophy and Noble, 2012a). Pits were specifically dug for the deposition of certain materials (Thomas, 1991) and the act of digging was probably an important part of the process which changed people’s perception of that place (Thomas, 1996; 1999). Indeed, the appearance and subsequent popularity of pit deposition coincided with the appearance of monuments, and Bradley (1993) argues that pits were another part of the wider practice of ‘altering the earth’ (Garrow, 2015).

An isolated pit (0337) from Flixton, Suffolk, contained 651.5g of cremated bones of a possible male young adult, associated with Grooved Ware pottery (Figure 4.21). A cremated bone sample was radiocarbon dated to 2866– 2579 cal BC (SUERC-35891; 4120±30 BP) (Boulter, 2011). 4.3.3. Other forms of deposition A group of pottery sherds from a pit at Wellington Quarry, Marden, Herefordshire, including at least one pot incorporated with cremated human bones (some up to 4mm long) and burnt white quartz mixed in with the clay fabric, were recently recovered. While the inclusion of cremated bone is certainly known at sites such as Hazleton North and Avebury, as well as some sites in Co. Sligo and in Wales, these pots tend to date to the Bronze Age. The pottery sherds of Wellington Quarry are currently undated,

The deposition of human remains within isolated pits deviated from the more ‘visible’ funerary disposals

Figure 4.21. Location of the isolated pit cremation (0337) from Flixton, Suffolk (after Boulter, 2011: 7, fig. 3, ©Cotswold Archaeology).

77

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) within monuments. Most pits have little evidence for a post-pipe or a stone/post-hole thus indicating that, upon backfilling, the pits would have become ‘invisible’ as they were devoid of a grave marker. This suggests that these individuals warranted neither remembrance nor the honour of deposition beneath a visible monument. Perhaps these individuals were meant to be forgotten or perhaps they were special –though this treatment need not imply high status or rank (Gibson, 2016). It could also refer to the social deviancy of persons such as outcasts, strangers, criminals, or individuals who died unusual deaths. It therefore raises questions regarding the identity of those buried within pits and the deliberate choice to bury them in isolated places away from monuments. While it is clear that isolated pit burials, excarnation, animal scavenging, cremation scattering and deposition within waterways were practiced alongside monumental deposition, these methods are normally considered to be ‘archaeologically invisible’, and their survival represent the remnants of the mainstream Neolithic dead.

78

5 Methods The main aim of this research is to investigate cremated human remains of the Middle to Late Neolithic period in Britain, especially those associated with circular monuments. The investigation aims to reconstruct the demographic structure of the Neolithic population through osteological analysis to better understand the proportions of minimum number of individuals, biological sex, age at death, and, wherever possible, cremation rites and mortuary rituals of the deceased. The investigation will also incorporate the study of a previously un-analysed cremation assemblage from Aubrey Hole 7 at Stonehenge, the re-analysis of the key sites at Llandegai (Lynch and Musson, 2004), West Stow (West, 1989), and Bryn Celli Ddu (Burrow, 2010), and the inclusion of several comparative studies retrieved from osteological reports from sites across Britain. The intention of this chapter is to discuss the methods used to collect osteological data from the assemblages, and then to discuss the osteological methods applied in reports and publications of other Middle to Late Neolithic sites.

guidelines (Mitchell and Brickley, 2017), and developed from my own personal experience as an osteologist. A recording form was created to facilitate the amount of information required for each context (see Appendix 1: Cremated Human Remains Recording Form) and to verify that all data has been recorded wherever possible. Completed recording forms were scanned, inputted into the computer and converted into .pdf documents for archival purposes. Additionally, all osteological data was entered onto an excel spreadsheet in order to produce a working database (see Appendix 2: Dataset Summary). Photographs were taken on either a white or black background (dependant on bone colouration) with an appropriatelysized scale and a hand-written label identifying the site, context, age/sex (whenever possible), and the reason for taking the photograph. All photographs were downloaded into the computer, each file was labelled, then organised into folders to complement the recording forms. Recording the cremated remains for the case studies was undertaken in a series of three main steps which allowed the recovery of osteological data (after McKinley, 2004). Firstly, data which describes the type of deposit, its location, and associated contexts from the archaeological excavation were recorded. Secondly, the cremated remains were cleaned and dried naturally (if required) then measured for maximum fragment length, bone colouration, fissuring, warping, and shrinkage, as well as separating non-human material (e.g., animal and artefactual residues) from the human skeletal material. Finally, the cremated bone fragments were separated into identifiable skeletal elements for each of the 10mm and 5mm Endecotts Laboratory sieve layers, which were then all weighed separately. The left-over cremated remains were separated into 2mm and base sieve factions (again using Endecotts Laboratory Test sieves) and placed into labelled bags.

The analysis of cremated bone is similar to that of nonburnt human skeletal remains in that demographic and pathological data are recorded. However, traditional processes of systematic data collection and analytical methods applied to non-burnt skeletons are poorly suited for use on cremated human remains (McKinley, 2004; Mayne Correia and Beattie, 2002; Adams and Konigsberg, 2004). This is partly due to problems associated with the lack of standardised methodologies – and indeed standardised terminologies – within the cremation literature which have been addressed by others (e.g., McKinley, 1998; 2017; Thompson, 1999) and highlighted throughout this study. The lack of standardisation also means that the comparison of any results and conclusions between osteological reports becomes complicated and, as such, the incorporation of numerous datasets makes coherence particularly important. Furthermore, the failure to record all aspects of a cremation deposit has meant that incomplete data cannot be accurately interpreted or compared to other cremation assemblages. This is especially disappointing when assemblages are deemed ‘misplaced’ prior to any osteological analysis, as in the case of Cairnpapple and Duggleby Howe. The loss of data from the cremated remains from these sites is nothing short of catastrophic.

The separation of skeletal elements enabled recording of, whenever possible, age at death, biological sex, and health, along with pyre technology, maximum fragment length, total deposit weight and the efficiency of the cremation process. Photographs, when required, were also taken prior to the cremated remains being returned to the appropriate context bag. The combination of these three main steps meant that data recording occurred without requiring repeated handling of the cremated remains.

5.1. Recording and pyre technology

5.1.1. Cleaning

The analyses of the cremated human bones from Stonehenge, West Stow, Llandegai, and Bryn Celli Ddu have been modelled after the BABAO and IFA guidelines (Brickley and McKinley, 2004) and the CIfA’s updated

All the cremated bones from Stonehenge were gently washed in cool water to remove the dried mud and debris which adhered to the bone fragments. The dirt 79

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) average over 70 years old) and age-related bone loss (such as osteoporosis) at their time of death. In addition to this, there is relatively little data from the cremation of infants and children thus expected weight averages are only applicable to adults. Secondly, body mass and size at death are also variable as, the heavier the individual, the higher the bone mass. While obesity was probably not a factor during the Neolithic period, a highly active lifestyle (agriculture, land clearing, monument construction) certainly needs to be considered in terms of higher (and heavier) bone mass. Younger individuals would have had a larger muscle mass and thus a higher bone mass compared to an elderly individual (Bass and Jantz, 2004; McKinley, 2016). Finally, most of the modern studies also weighed coffin wood ash in addition to the cremated bones, rendering higher results than would otherwise be expected. There are only a few instances of burial in wood coffins during the Neolithic period, thus it is assumed that all bodies were burnt on a pyre without the benefit of a coffin.

was brushed away using fingertips, rather than through the use of bristly objects such as toothbrushes, so that no marks were left on the bones. The dirty water, including the wet soil and sediment, was sieved through a 1mmmesh Endecotts Laboratory Test sieve, and any tiny bone fragments were collected by hand while the remaining stones/pebbles/charcoal were dried before being included into the appropriate context bag. The damp bones were spread out on a drying rack and allowed to air-dry naturally for several days. Once completely dried, the bones were collected and placed back into their original context bags. The cremated bones from West Stow, Llandegai, and Bryn Celli Ddu were already cleaned prior to re-analysis. No information regarding how the bones were originally cleaned was provided in either of their respective reports. 5.1.2. Total weight The weight of a cremation deposit is recorded as it can indicate the minimum number of individuals and the type of funerary deposition. Total cremation weight has been studied since the 1960s as it was hypothesised that weight would complement other data such as sex determination. However, the average weight of cremated bones from modern crematoria are widely variable (Table 6), resulting from the ages of the deceased used in the studies (on

In an effort to calculate average weights for archaeological purposes, only two studies weighed their cremated cadavers using cremated bones more than 2mm in size (McKinley, 1993; Gonçalves et al., 2013) thus eliminating the amount of coffin wood ash included in the previous studies (Table 7). By calculating the total deposit weight from the 10mm, 5mm, and 2mm sieve fractions, the

Table 6. Average weight references from modern cremations based on sex and their average age at death (after Gonçalves et al., 2013: 1135 tab. 1) Reference

Female average

Female age average

Male average

Male age average

Malinowski and Porawski, 1969

1,540g

55.0 yrs

2,004g

55.0 yrs

Herrmann, 1976

1,700g

76.2 yrs

1,842g

72.8 yrs

McKinley, 1993

1,616g

81.6 yrs

2,284g

77.3 yrs

Sonek, 2004

1,875g

75.7 yrs

2,801g

64.1 yrs

Warren and Maples, 1997

2,350g

74.1 yrs

2,893g

66.3 yrs

Bass and Jantz, 2004

2,120g

70.7 yrs

3,379g

62.8 yrs

Chirachariyavej et al., 2006

2,238g

73.3 yrs

2,680g

63.5 yrs

Gonçalves et al., 2013

1,804g

74.5 yrs

2,313g

68.6 yrs

Van Deest et al., 2011

2,238g

76.1 yrs

3,233g

71.4 yrs

Average total

1,942g

73.0 years

2,603g

66.9 years

Table 7. Average weight references from modern cremations based on sex and their average age at death but taking out cremated material below 2mm, thus creating a more realistic study for archaeological cremated remains (after Gonçalves et al., 2013: 1135 tab. 1) Female average

Female age average

Male average

Male age average

McKinley, 1993

1,272g

81.6 yrs

1,862g

77.3 yrs

Gonçalves et al., 2013

1,441g

74.5 yrs

1,967g

68.6 yrs

Average total

1,357g

78.1 years

1,915g

73.0 years

Without 940°C

Neutral white, medium grey, reddishyellow

5.1.7. Identification of skeletal elements

5.1.6. Bone colouration

The easiest bone fragments to identify were the cranium, teeth, ribs, and vertebrae, but the skull was the most wellrepresented. Animal bones were identified based on size, shape and density differences when compared to human bones. The weight of animal bones was recorded in grams but, due to high fragmentation levels, no attempts were made to identify the species especially as it did not form part of this study. However, the identification of animals (both charred, cremated, and unburnt) is a possible avenue for future consideration which could analyse differing levels of inclusion and additional patterns of funerary and mortuary rites within Neolithic cremation deposits.

The degree of oxidization of the organic material of the bone is correlated with pyre temperatures during the cremation process (Shipman et al., 1984; Holden et al., 1995a; 1995b; McKinley, 2004; McKinley and Bond, 2001; Symes et al., 2008). Oxidization can be readily observed in terms of varying bone colouration on cremated bones from black indicating charred bones (c. 400°C), to hues of blue and grey indicating incomplete oxidization (c. 600°C), to white/buff-white indicating fully oxidized bones (>800°C) (Table 12). The use of bone colouration as an indicator of pyre temperatures has often been met with criticism (e.g., Devlin and Herrmann, 2008; Thompson, 2009) since a single cremation deposit will have multiple bone colours. However, the variety of bone colours is a direct response to external factors such as the position of the body on the pyre, the availability of oxygen, the quantity and quality of fuel used during the cremation, the type of weather (e.g. wind, rain, sleet), and the duration of the cremation process (McKinley, 2008; Walker et al., 2008). The colouration on cremated bone, therefore, is the reflection of the length

As a consequence of the fragmented nature of cremated remains and the considerable quantity of small bones, it was not possible to identify every skeletal element. Only the cremated remains from the 10mm and 5mm sieve fractions have been used in the identification of skeletal elements before being placed into bags labelled with their site, context number and sieve fraction. Small fragments of trabecular bone or long-bone shafts from the 10mm and 5mm sieve fractions are difficult to distinguish and, as such, were recorded and separated into labelled bags 83

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) Table 13. Combustion grades based on bone colouration from a modern crematorium modified by Wahl (2008: 168 tab. 9.1) after Chochol (1961) and Malinowski and Porawski (1969) Grade I

Colour

Temperatures

Yellowish-white

0–200°C

Like fresh unburnt bone

Ivory

c. 250°C

First shrinking ~1–2%

Glassy light grey I–II II

–

– Brown

Toots of teeth brown to dark brown. No change to tooth crowns. c. 300°C

Dark brown III

III–IV IV

– –

Black

c. 400°C

Incomplete combustion; charring of organic substances

Grey

c. 550°C

Internal bone still black sometimes

Milky light grey to bluish grey

–

–

Roots of teeth milky-grey to grey Tooth crowns are black with micro cracks

Milky white Mat cretaceous

V

Observations

Old white

c. 650–700°C c. 750°C c. >800°C

Chalky surface Bone calcined, continuous shrinking Hard and brittle

Cream-coloured

Beginning of heat cracks and deformations

Brownish, greyish, ochre

Outside colour corresponding with soil conditions; internal bone fractures always white; spongy bone sometimes yellowish-ochre; unerupted crowns of teeth survive; average shrinking 10–12%; maximum shrinking 50 years

Adult

A

>18 years

Sub-Adult

SubA

25 yrs

–

3330–2900

4399±50

NZA-32693

116

Mortuary Remains

Figure 7.5. Chronological distribution for the radiocarbon dates associated with cremated remains from Imperial College Sports Ground (adapted after Power et al., 2015: 295, tab. 11.1).

me to say she would be (re)analysing the Dorchester-onThames cremated remains and would share her results with me. As a consequence, I did not personally examine the cremated bones as I very much trust her skills and I was happy to await her report. Unfortunately, heavy work commitments on other projects meant she was unable to conduct the analysis and the cremated remains from Dorchester-on-Thames are, therefore, still awaiting modern analysis. While Dorchester-on-Thames is not an ideal case study due to its lack of radiocarbon and demographic information, its importance not only within the regional Neolithic landscape but also as a focus for cremation rites means that this complex site cannot be overlooked.

Valley (e.g., Preston, 2003), a penannular ditched enclosure at Shepperton (Jones, 2008), and the 3.5km Stanwell bank barrow from the east side of the Colne Valley (Framework Archaeology 2010). 7.2.2. Case study #2: Dorchester-on-Thames The significance of cremation cemeteries during the Neolithic period were first recognised by Atkinson during his 1940s excavations at Dorchester-onThames, Oxfordshire. This site is situated between the River Thames and the River Thame and is located on an expanse of sand and gravel. It is one of a series of prehistoric sites along the Thames; however, the site is now mostly destroyed due to gravel quarrying (Whittle et al., 1992). Excavated between 1946 and 1952, then again in 1981, Dorchester-on-Thames contained a onemile long cursus around which was arranged a massive double-ringed henge and 20 small circular monuments which included pit circles, hengiforms and a timber circle (Figure 7.6). Only the monuments associated with cremated human bones will be discussed as part of this case study.

Deposits of cremated human bones, recovered from Monuments I, II, IV, V, VI, XI, XIV, 2, and 3, represent an estimated 182 individuals across the entire site (Table 24). This makes Dorchester-on-Thames the largest collective Middle to Late Neolithic cremation site in England (Atkinson et al., 1951; Whittle et al, 1992). However, only 42% of the excavated cremated remains have been examined and then only to a 1950s standard when cremation analysis was still in its infancy. It is worth mentioning that Jackie McKinley (Wessex Archaeology) has been re-examining the cremations over the past few years but has not yet completed nor written up her analyses (J. McKinley, pers. comm).

Very few radiocarbon dates have been obtained from this site, and, unfortunately, the Dorchester-on-Thames monuments and their limited number of artefacts could be assigned only to broad time periods. As such, the deposits of cremated remains were placed in generalised periods such as Middle or Late Neolithic on the basis of typology dating from scanty evidence. During the course of researching this site, an experienced osteologist emailed

As this is an intricate site featuring nine monuments with multiple deposits of cremated human bones, each will be summarised individually in the sub-sections below. 117

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500)

Figure 7.6. Map of the Dorchester-on-Thames site in which the Roman numerals are the areas excavated between 1947–1952 (Site 1), and those in Arabic numerals are the areas excavated in 1981 (Site 2). Only the nine monuments associated with cremation deposits are labelled (adapted after Whittle et al., 1992: 147 fig. 3).

irregular, external ditch with an internal bank (Atkinson et al., 1951) (Figure 7.7). The ditch was enclosed by an unusual square ditch containing Neolithic Abingdon Ware sherds in its fill. Four cremation deposits comprising three adults and one juvenile were recovered from the penannular pits 8, 9, 11, and 13, along with two bone pins within cremations 1 and 3. Charcoal or wood ash was not recovered from any of the cremation deposits (ibid.). A severely degraded but unaccompanied crouched burial was located just west of the central pit. Additional artefacts recovered from the ditch and the pits were sherds of Abingdon, Peterborough, and Grooved Ware pottery, an antler pick, animal bones, flakes, cores, and an arrowhead. An unburnt human bone, recovered from a northern pit, was dated to 3940–3196 cal BC (OxA-119; 4800±130 BP) (Whittle et al., 1992). The cremated remains were only briefly examined after excavation (Table 25) (Weiner, 1951). A minimum of four individuals were recovered from all four deposits. Weiner considered Cremation 4 to be too small for recording purposes; however, it is counted here as a token deposit with a minimum of one individual.

Table 24. Summary of the number of Middle and Late Neolithic cremated remains from across the entire Dorchester-on-Thames site (after Weiner, 1951: 134–41) Site

1

2

Monument

MNI

I

4

II

22

IV

25

V

23

VI

56

XI

3

XIV

1

2

44

3

4

MNI per site

Total MNI

134 182

48

Site 1: Monument I Monument I was located in the north-western corner of the Dorchester-on-Thames complex and consisted of a penannular ring of 13 pits surrounded by a circular, though 118

Mortuary Remains

Figure 7.7. The four cremation deposits recovered from penannular ring of pits within a circular bank and ditch of Monument I, Dorchester-on-Thames (adapted after Atkinson et al., 1951: 8b, fig. 5, with permission from the Ashmolean Museum).

Table 25. Demographic information on the individuals deposited at Monument I, Dorchester-on-Thames (after Weiner, 1951) Crem.

Weight

MNI

Age

Sex

1

1,530g

1

MA

–

Bone pin, 5 × Abingdon Ware

Notes

2

520g

1

YA

–

McKinley has re-interpreted this cremation as a YA rather than the 14–17 year-old from Zeuner et al.’s description (Atkinson et al., 1951: 124); 4 × Abingdon Ware

3

100g

1

Adult

–

Bone pin frag

4

–

(1)

Adult

–

Token deposit (not originally weighed); antler pick, 1 × Abingdon Ware sherd

its position in the centre of the monument and containing the most grave goods, cremation 21 is interpreted as being the primary burial for this site (ibid.). Central Pit D contained a fill consisting of brown soil which had been reddened by fire; fragments of charcoal and cremated bone, and streaks of powdery grey wood-ash, indicate that it is pyre debris (ibid.). Pit D also contained two unburnt deposits of animal bones one of which was an articulated leg of a small calf and the other a pile of disarticulated bones, probably from an ox (ibid.). Artefacts recovered from around the ditches include animal bones, antler picks, flint debitage, and two sherds of pottery. None of the cremated remains or artefacts from Monument II have been radiocarbon dated, and the only dating evidence is a small Middle Neolithic sherd of Peterborough Ware and a leaf arrowhead recovered from the fill (Atkinson et al., 1951). In central pit D, a sherd deemed to be Early Bronze

Site 1: Monument II Monument II consisted of three ringed ditches made from elongated pits. Cremation deposits were recovered in 19 locations around the first two ditches, with a further two in the central area (Figure 7.8). Cremations 1–16 and 18 were deposited into ‘funnel-shaped’ holes cut into the fills of the ditches, while cremations 16, 17 and 19 were placed on the floor of one pit (which suggests they were deposited in the pit at the same time) (Atkinson et al., 1951). Cremation 20 was recovered from a shallow, rounded bottomed central pit (A) as a thin layer of compact bone. Cremation 21 was found as a compact mass of bones on the bottom of the south side of the other central pit (B) which also included a stone macehead, a flake, a flint fabricator, and a burnt bone pin (Atkinson et al., 1951). Because of 119

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500)

Figure 7.8. Plan showing the location of the cremation deposits, Monument II, Dorchester-on-Thames (adapted after Atkinson et al., 1951: 20b, fig. 9, with permission from the Ashmolean Museum). *D=ditch; P= pit.

Age was also recovered, but it was high in the fill and so considered to be a later insertion.

pottery which would have jostled the bones while being transported to their destined burial ground.

The cremated human remains were only briefly examined by Weiner in 1951 (Table 26). The 21 deposits contained a minimum of 22 individuals, of which 77% were adults (n=17), 14% were children (n=3) and 9% were indeterminate (n=2). Zeuner et al. (1951) did not note how sex was determined for six of the individuals; however, they recorded that there were three probable males, one definite male, and two probable females.

Site 1: Monument IV Monument IV was a circular ditch, approximately 6m in diameter, formed by eight elongated pits, with an internal bank and an entrance on the south-eastern side (Figure 7.9) (Atkinson et al., 1951). A minimum of 25 cremation deposits was recovered from both bank and ditch, consisting of 25 individuals. A petit tranchet derivative arrowhead was recovered with cremation 18. Large oak planks were found in pits 2 and 3, while charred flint was recovered from cremations 1, 9, 18, 19, and 24, and a flint scraper was recovered from adjacent to pit 8. Antler picks were found in pit 2 and pit 7, and a horn-core was recovered in pit 5 along with a bovine tooth (ibid.).

It was noted that the large number of phalanges recovered from the deposits indicates careful collection of the burnt bones after the cremation process (Zeuner et al., 1951) and that no charcoal was recovered intermixed with any of the remains. The report also mentions that the bones had been sufficiently cremated, which is rather puzzling since it was noted that the bones in five deposits (2, 4, 16, 18, and 19) were partly burnt and that deposit 17 was only half-burnt. No further mention was recorded in the report to define or describe these six deposits. Zeuner et al. also indicates that the cremated bones were deliberately broken into smaller fragments prior to burial because none of the bones exceeded 5cm. While this is certainly a possibility, it is equally possible that the bones had fragmented into smaller pieces during transit to Dorchester-on-Thames. It is likely that cremated remains were transported in either organic sacks (e.g., leather bags or reed baskets) or in

The cremations (Table 27) were recovered in concentrated deposits of bones without any charcoal (Atkinson et al., 1951). The minimum number of individuals, and their age and sex were not recorded for Monument IV; however, it is assumed here that all 25 deposits consisted of at least one individual. Several cremation deposits are near the expected weight for a completely cremated individual and it therefore suggests that there was probably more than one individual in these larger deposits, especially considering that all the other cremations from this monument are token deposits. It is also worth noting that Cremation 25 (the 120

Mortuary Remains Table 26. The demographic information from Monument II, Dorchester-on-Thames (after Weiner, 1951: 139 tab. VIII) Crem.

Weight

MNI

Age

Sex

1

220g

1

Adult

–

2

695g

1

YA-MA

?M

3

1,815g

1

Adult

–

–

4 5

725g 950g

1 1

?F –

6

1,530g

2

7 8 9 10 11 12

45g 20g 1,700g 665g 665g 840g

1 1 1 1 1 1

YA-MA YA YA-MA Sub-A – – Adult YA-MA OC YA

– – ?M ?M – –

13

880g

1

Juv

?F

14 15 16 17 18

210g 40g 980g 1,280g 725g

1 1 1 1 1

Adult Adult YA MA Adult

– – – M –

19

1,520g

1

MA

–

20 21

510g 790g

1 1

Adult Adult

– –

–

–

–

–

Cranial sutures closing. Noted as being ‘partly burnt’ (Zeuner et al., 1951: 125). Cranial sutures unfused Cranial sutures mostly open though beginning to fuse. Possibly a ‘child’ (Zeuner et al., 1951: 125). Deposit too small to determine information Deposit too small to determine information – Cranial sutures fusing – – McKinley has reassigned this from a YA to a juvenile based on Weiner’s 1951 description; Bone pin frag – – ‘Partly burnt bone’ ‘Half-burnt bones’; mostly complete bon pin, a flint fabricator ‘Partly burnt bone’ ‘Partly burnt bone’; bone pin (from an ox molar), flint knife, frags of large burnt flint flakes – Burnt stone mace, burnt flake, flint fabricator, burnt bone pin Scattered in upper fill of Pit D, not compacted mass like the others: residue/ token deposit?; unburnt leg of a calf and of an ox.

Pit D

–

Notes – Cranial sutures closing. Noted as being ‘partly burnt’ (Zeuner et al., 1951: 124).

deposit in the centre of the monument) only contained 10g of cremated bone. While it may be residual, it is probably a deliberate token deposit due to its central location. Radiocarbon dates have not been obtained from any of the cremations or associated artefacts, but a tentative Middle Neolithic date is given to Cremation 18 based on the petittranchet derivative arrowhead which accompanied the deposit (Whittle et al., 1992). Site 1: Monument V Monument V was a pit circle set into 13 elongated pit segments within a ditch (Figure 7.10). It was approximately 6.7m in diameter with an external bank and an entrance on the north-western side (Atkinson et al., 1951). Most of the pits contained a hole and, while no archaeological trace of any decayed or carbonised wood remained, they probably held timber posts. No postholes were noted in pits 9 and 10, while pit 12 contained two postholes (ibid.). Only two sherds of Peterborough pottery and three antler picks were recovered with no radiocarbon dates for the cremated remains or artefacts from Monument V. The sherds of Peterborough Ware in the primary and secondary fills provide a tentative date in the Middle Neolithic (Whittle et al., 1992).

Figure 7.9. The cremation deposits recovered from Monument IV, Dorchester-on-Thames (adapted after Atkinson et al., 1951: 37 fig. 16, with permission from The Ashmolean Museum). Note that Deposit 12 has been labelled twice on the site plan, but as the deposit numbers were labelled in a clockwise direction starting from Pit 4, the south-eastern deposit 12 in Pit 7 should, in fact, be deposit 13. *P= pit.

Within the circle, 21 deposits of cremated bones were recovered from the central area (n=12), in the upper fillings of the postholes (n=7), and just outside the 121

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500) Table 27. Demographic information from the cremations in monument IV, Dorchester-on-Thames (after Weiner, 1951: 136 tab. V) Cremation

Weight

MNI

Age

Sex

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

215g 185g 365g 30g 300g 75g 410g 155g 490g 185g 270g 1,535g 900g 1,680g 250g 450g 505g 90g 885g 695g 520g 75g 110g 1,005g

(1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

25

10g

(1)

–

–

Notes Burnt flint

Burnt flint

Burnt petit tranchet derivative arrowhead, 3x burnt flakes

Burnt flakes May be residual but as it is the central deposit, it was probably a deliberate deposition.

Figure 7.10. The cremation deposits from Monument V, Dorchester-on-Thames (adapted after Atkinson et al., 1951: 44, fig. 19, with permission from the Ashmolean Museum). *P= pit

122

Mortuary Remains Table 28. Demographic information for the 23 individuals deposited in Monument V, Dorchester-on-Thames (after Weiner, 1951: 135 tab. IV; 138 tab. VII). Cremations 5 and 11 were not originally analysed due to their ‘low deposit weight’; however, it is assumed here that they contained at least one individual Deposit

Weight (g)

MNI

Age

Sex

1

610

1

–

–

2

234

1

–

–

3

678

1

–

–

4

985

1

–

–

5

42

(1)

–

–

6

589

1

–

–

7

291

1

–

–

8

361

1

–

–

9

390

1

–

–

10

293

1

–

–

11

42

(1)

–

–

12

971

1

–

–

13

318

1

–

–

14

341

1

–

–

15

61

1

–

–

16

426

3

–

–

17

373

1

–

–

18

274

1

–

–

19

760

1

–

–

20

741

1

–

–

21

430

1

–

–

Notes

Dating is based on the Peterborough sherds recovered from the ditch fill. Those burying the cremations may well have known where earlier cremation deposits were located because some were grouped very close together yet never cut into an adjacent cremation. In Atkinson’s view (1951), it was clear that all of the cremations were deposited prior to the ditch being completely filled in and, for many of the cremation deposits, the ditch would have been highly visible.

lip of the ditch (n=2) on the eastern side (Atkinson et al., 1951) (Table 28). None of the cremation deposits contained any charcoal or wood ash, and no grave goods were found (ibid.). Analysis of the cremated remains in 1951 recorded only the total weight of the deposit or the MNIs from all deposits except cremations 5 and 11 which were thought to be too small for analysis. It is thus assumed that there is at least one individual in each of cremations 5 and 11 as I consider them to be token deposits. The MNI for Monument V is thus determined to be 23 individuals.

A total of 49 cremation deposits were recovered from the central area (n=13), from the fill (n=33) and from outside the ditch (n=3) providing a minimum of 55 individuals (Table 29). Five of the cremations contained a MNI of two individuals (cremations 12, 13, 33, 41, and 44) while cremation 16 contained a MNI of three individuals. Deposit weights varied considerably but most were deposited in a compact mass. Cremations 1 and 12 appeared to be scattered deposits but, due to their proximity to the modern surface, this may have been due to plough disturbance rather than intentional scattering (Atkinson et al., 1951). Burnt grave goods from Cremation 11 consisted of a flint fabricator, a few flakes and what appears to be a petit tranchet derivative arrowhead. Oak charcoal was noted to be intermixed with Cremations 15, 35, and 41.

Site 1: Monument VI Monument VI was another pit circle formed from 11 elongated segments with an internal ditch enclosed by an external bank (Atkinson et al., 1951) (Figure 7.11). Twelve postholes were recovered in the elongated pits and Atkinson suggested that the timber posts were allowed to rot in situ (ibid.). The pit circle had an entrance at its northern side, and 49 cremation deposits were recovered mostly on the eastern side of the monument. Five sherds of Peterborough Ware, four worked flints and 21 unworked flakes were found in various layers of the ditch (ibid.). 123

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500)

Figure 7.11. The cremation deposits (in red) from Monument VI, Dorchester-on-Thames (adapted after Atkinson et al., 1951: 52 fig. 22, with permission from the Ashmolean Museum). *P= pit. Table 29. Demographic information for the 55 individuals deposited from monument VI, Dorchester-on-Thames (after Weiner, 1951: 134 tab. III; 137 tab. VI) Deposit

Weight (g)

MNI

Age

Sex

1

1,440

1

Sub-A

–

2

412

1

Adult

–

3

903

1

Adult

–

4

78

1

Adult

–

5

474

1

Adult

–

6

728

1

Sub-A

–

7

713

1

Adult

–

8

1,179

1

Adult

–

9

144

1

Adult

–

10

687

1

Adult

–

11

1,139

1

Adult

–

12

822

2

Adult Adult

–

13

1,402

2

Adult Sub-A

–

14

194

1

Sub-A

–

15

524

1

Adult

–

16

3,933

3

Adult Adult Adult

–

Notes

Burnt flint fabricator, burnt petit tranchet arrowhead, 3x unworked burnt flakes

Charcoal

124

Mortuary Remains Deposit

Weight (g)

MNI

Age

Sex

17

595

1

Adult

–

18

1,017

1

Adult

–

19

431

1

Adult

–

20

133

1

Adult

–

21

111

1

Adult

–

22

58

1

Adult

–

23

1,279

1

Adult

–

24

516

1

Adult

–

25

141

1

Adult

–

26

826

1

Adult

–

27

609

1

Adult

–

28

–

1

Sub-A

–

29

720

1

Sub-A

–

30

421

1

Adult

–

31

1,265

1

Adult

–

32

485

1

Sub-A

–

33

1,094

2

Adult Adult

–

34

684

1

Adult

–

35

773

1

Adult

–

36

140

1

Sub-A

–

37

377

1

Adult

–

38

309

1

Sub-A

–

39

665

1

Adult

–

40

274

1

Adult

–

41

2,511

2

Adult Adult

–

42

664

1

Adult

–

43

735

1

Sub-A

–

44

858

2

Adult Sub-A

–

45

866

1

Adult

–

46

863

1

Adult

–

47

521

1

Adult

–

48

15

1

Adult

–

49

108

1

Adult

–

Notes

Charcoal

Charcoal

Site 1: Monument XI

for disturbance (ibid.). The complete cremation is now considered to be lost (Whittle et al., 1992) though a MNI of 3 is assumed for all three cremation deposits as osteological analysis has not been conducted.

Monument XI was formed of three concentric ditches enclosing a penannular ring of 14 pits (Figure 7.12) (Atkinson et al., 1951). The pits varied in terms of size, depth, and shape, and did not appear to have held timber posts or upright stones. Cremated bone was found in the fills of Pits 6 and 13, while a complete cremation lay in a shallow hole next to Pit 8 (Atkinson et al, 1951: 61). Atkinson interpreted the cremated bones from Pits 6 and 13 as ‘scattered throughout the filling’ despite no evidence

None of the cremations were accompanied by any grave goods, although Pit 2 contained an antler pick and Pit 9 had a sherd of Abingdon Ware pottery. All the other pits were empty of any goods and appeared to have been filled in soon after being dug (Whittle et al., 1992). Finds from the three ditches consisted of further antler picks, small 125

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500)

Figure 7.12. The cremation deposits from site XI at Dorchester-on-Thames (adapted after Atkinson et al., 1951: 62b, fig. 24, with permission from the Ashmolean Museum).

Site 2: Monument 2

scatters of Ebbsfleet/Peterborough Ware pottery, and a petit tranchet derivative arrowhead (ibid.). Two radiocarbon dates, both from the bottom of Ditch 1, came from a red deer antler tine dating to 3309–2667 cal BC (BM-2440; 4320±90 BP) and a red deer antler dating to 3082–2785 cal BC (BM-2442; 4320±50 BP) (Whittle et al., 1992).

Monument 2 is a penannular ring ditch situated at the southern end of the cursus (Whittle et al, 1992) (Figure 7.13). An adult red deer antler recovered from the upper surface of the primary fill of the penannular ditch was dated to 2912–2705 cal BC (BM-4225N; 4230±50 BP). Two flint flakes were recovered from the secondary fill. A total of 28 deposits of cremated human remains were recovered, spread throughout the interior and secondary silts of the ring ditch, of which three were ‘lost’ after excavation and thus not analysed (Table 30).

Site 1: Monument XIV Monument XIV is a small ring ditch c.20m in diameter situated between the inner and outer ditches of the Big Rings (Monument XIII). The ring ditch, which would have originally contained an inner bank, surrounded a square, four-post setting and a pit (Whittle et al., 1992). Finds from the lower fill of the ditch included 70 marine shells while finds from the upper fill consisted of an antler pick, one deposit of cremated remains, and a stone axe.

The cremations were deposited into shallow pits, and 75% of them (n=21) were subsequently damaged by later ploughing (Whittle et al., 1992). Another deposit had been cut by a Romano-British boundary ditch but the remaining six cremation deposits from this monument were undisturbed prior to excavation. Three of the cremation deposits contained artefacts: Cremations 86 and 99 each contained a burnt bone pin, and Cremation 116 contained a heat-cracked flint knife (ibid.).

At the time of excavation, the precise location of the cremation had not been recorded nor had it been analysed. Unfortunately, both the cremation and the other artefacts recovered from XIV are presumed lost (Whittle et al., 1992); however, it can be assumed that the deposit contained at least one individual. A Group I Cornish axe was recovered from the fill is attributed to the Neolithic. In addition, the bank of Monument XIII (which contains Beaker sherds) was constructed over part of Monument XIV, thereby indicating that Monument XIV is earlier than XIII (Whittle et al., 1992).

The total weight of each deposit reveals that the majority are either token deposits, as they fall far below the expected average, or represent truncated deposits. The majority of the deposits also held a single individual (n=14), while 36% (n=10) of deposits comprised two or more individuals of which one, Cremation 121, 126

Mortuary Remains contained an estimated five adults. Three of the deposits were lost after excavation, so provide no demographic information, but it is assumed here that there was a MNI of at least one individual per deposit. Another three of the cremation deposits contained burnt artefacts: single burnt bone pins were recovered from both #86 and #99 while a heat-cracked flint knife/sickle blade was recovered from #116 (Whittle et al, 1992). All of the grave goods are associated with deposits containing adult individuals. Site 2: Monument 3 Monument 3 was situated towards the south-eastern terminal of the cursus and consisted of a circle of 12 postholes in which the 4m-high posts were burnt in situ (Figure 7.14) (Whittle et al., 1992). Cremated remains were recovered from postholes 2006, 2009, 2011, and 2012. Whittle et al., (ibid.) interpret the cremated bone as having been deposited on or just below the ground surface, contemporary with the main phase of the monument as a timber post circle; however, Bradley and Chambers (1988) interpret the cremations as having been deposited after the timber posts were burnt. Other finds from Monument 3 include pottery sherds in Postholes 2013, 2014, and 2012, an unburnt cattle bone from Posthole 2009, and flint from Postholes 2004, 2005, and 2008 (Whittle et al., 1992).

Figure 7.13. Plan of Monument 2, Dorchester-on-Thames, showing the locations of most of the cremation deposits (in red) (adapted after Whittle et al., 1992: 154, fig. 7). Note that Cremations 84, 105, 121, and 124 are not shown on the map but are in the excavation report while Cremations 59 and 97 are shown on the map but are not recorded in the excavation report.

Table 30. The cremated human remains from Monument 2, Dorchester-on-Thames (after Whittle et al., 1992: 158) Context

Weight

MNI

Age

Sex

59?

–

(1)

–

–

82

10g

1

Child

–

83

460g

1

OA

–

84

640g

2

Juv Adult

– –

85

5g

–

–

–

86

270g

1

Adult

–

87

1,000g

2

Juv Adult

– –

88

990g

1

Adult

–

89

750g

1

Adult

– – –

90

750g

2

Adult Adult

91

1,000g

3

Adult Juv Juv

– – –

92

1,400g

2

Adult Adult?

– –

93

130g

1

Adult

–

Notes Location on the site plan but not in published report

Location not on the site plan Burnt bone pin

96

15g

1

Juv/Adult

97

–

–

–

–

99

2,500g

3

Adult Adult Adult

Male? Female? –

Location on the site plan but not in the published report Burnt bone pin

(Continued) 127

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500) Table 30. The cremated human remains from Monument 2, Dorchester-on-Thames (after Whittle et al., 1992: 158) (Continued) Context

Weight

MNI

Age

Sex

Notes

100

575g

1

Adult

Male?

104

–

(1)

–

–

Lost after excavation

105

–

(1)

–

–

Lost after excavation; location not on site plan

112

360g

1

Adult

–

113

75g

1

Child

–

114

125g

1

Juv/Adult

–

115

555g

2

Adult Adult

– –

116

1,425g

2

Adult Adult

–

117

175g

1

OA

–

1

Juv/Adult

–

5

Adult Adult Adult Adult OA

– – – – –

Location not on site plan

(1)

–

–

Lost after excavation Location not on site plan

118

105g

121

2,625g

123

–

124

425g

1

Juv/Adult

–

125

410g

2

Child Adult

– –

Heat-cracked flint knife/ sickle blade

The cremated human remains from Monument 3 (summarised in Table 31) consist of at least four individuals, though the remains from Posthole 2011 and 2012 derive from multiple layers. This indicates that they were separate deposits rather than the same individual deposited at different depths within the posthole. If this interpretation is correct, there were six individuals comprising one juvenile, three juveniles/young adults, and two of indeterminate age. Sex was not recorded for any of the deposits. Cremation weights show that all individuals were token deposits.

human remains was definitely the major focus of many of the sites situated at both ends of the cursus; however, not all of the pits contained human remains. For example, Monument II had a pit in its centre which contained two deposits of animal bones, while another deposit of animal bones was recovered from the top of one of the postpipes of Monument 3 (Bradley and Chambers, 1988). The deposition of cremated remains occurred over the space of a few hundred years, based on available radiocarbon dates, stratigraphy and associated artefacts. Most were constructed to hold just a few primary cremations, but deposits were added during repeated reuse. As with other Neolithic sites, grave goods were rare, but a few were found in the form of burnt flint flakes and arrowheads, pottery sherds, and a stone axe. Antlers and pottery sherds were also deposited infrequently.

Radiocarbon dates from charcoal obtained from the outer rings of mature oaks provide very wide date ranges from 3010–2341 cal BC to 2921–2299 cal BC (Whittle et al., 1992). Charcoal in postpipe 2014 is dated to 2895–2206 cal BC (BM-2166R; 4030±130 BP) while Postpipe 2013 is Early Bronze Age, dated to 2282–1545 cal BC (BM2165R; 3550±130 BP). Modelling these dates estimates that the first phase of activity associated with the timber circle and deposition of cremated remains at Monument 3 began in 3335–2500 cal BC and lasted for 100–1785 years when activity finished in 2460–1395 cal BC (see Noble and Brophy, 2017). However, these dates must be regarded with caution as they date the charcoal which may or may not be directly related to the cremations.

The cremations were mostly free from charcoal and wood ash and contained large quantities of small bones such as phalanges, indicating a level of care in collecting and selecting remains from the pyres. Both male and female individuals are represented at Dorchester-on-Thames, as well as children, juveniles, and all ages of adults from young to old. Infants and young children were not noted, but this is probably due to the limitations of analysis after the 1951 excavation rather than a genuine lack of young children and babies at this site. Indeed, Weiner (1951: 133) states that his analysis ‘…is probably an underestimate since only the obvious evidence derived from fragments ... has been taken into account.’.

Dorchester-on-Thames: a summary Dorchester-on-Thames was a large, multi-period complex situated between two rivers. The deposition of cremated 128

Mortuary Remains

Figure 7.14. The cremation deposits (in red) at Monument 3 (Site 2), Dorchester-on-Thames (adapted after Whittle et al., 1992: 170, fig. 18).

Table 31. The cremated human remains from Monument 3 (Site 2), Dorchester-on-Thames (after Whittle et al, 1992: 174) Context

Layer

MNI

2006

5

1

2009

2011

2012

7

1 6&7 – 1

1

1

1

Weight 5g

Age

Sex

–

–

Two cremated bone fragments, one which is a cattle astragalus. Charcoal from oak: 2893–2306 cal BC (BM-2161R; 4060±110 BP) Charcoal from post-pipe: 2917–2211 cal BC (BM-2163R; 4070±130 BP) This deposit also contained animal bone fragments.

75g

–

–

70g

Juv/Adult

–

150g

Juv/Adult

–

75g

Juv/Adult

–

275g

Juv

–

129

Notes

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500) Table 32. Summary of the demographic information from the cremated remains at Dorchester-on-Thames Monument

MNI

# males

# females

# ?sex

# adults

# children

# ?age

I

4

–

–

4

4

–

–

II

22

4

2

16

17

3

2

IV

25

–

–

25

–

–

25

V

23

–

–

23

–

–

23

VI

56

–

–

55

44

11

–

IX

3

–

–

3

–

–

3

XIV

1

–

–

1

–

–

1

2

44

2

1

41

28

11

5

3

4

–

–

4

–

2

2

In total, a minimum of 182 individuals were identified at Dorchester-on-Thames, some of whom came from deposits containing multiple individuals (Table 32). In one deposition, five individuals were identified, while multiples of twos and threes were also noted. The weight of many of the deposits would suggest a full cremation deposit (rather than a token deposit) and indeed, the 1950s osteological analysis supports this; however, this again probably reveals a limit to the mid-20th -century analysis since these deposits may well have contained more individuals than originally identified. Aside from the limitations of relying on 1950s osteological analyses and the lack of demographic information from this complex site, the absence of radiocarbon dating greatly hinders interpretation. As was noted at other sites, a reliance on typological dating of associated artefacts can be problematic and, as such, can only be used to provide a broad time range rather than a more specific absolute date.

the monument was used during c.3050–2900 cal BC (UB7114; 4409±39 BP, UB-7115; 4360±44 BP, and UB-7118; 4351±35 BP) prior to the entrance being sealed with a large stone between two portal stones. Human remains, both burnt and unburnt, were found within the chamber and mentioned in earlier reports: in November 1777, ‘…many human bones, uncremated bones…’ were noted, while in November 1865, Captain F. Lukis wrote about the ‘small fragments of unburnt human bones…. [and the] …burnt human bones…’ that he had encountered (Hemp, 1930). Despite these previous disturbances, Hemp still recovered a minimum of 27 individuals. His 1930 report briefly comments on the location of each deposit, as well as single bone fragments but does not go into any further detail regarding context or quantity of bones. remated human remains were first mentioned when C Hemp cleared the inside passage as they were recovered scattered over the floor (Hemp, 1930). While in a greater concentration on the northern side of the passage than on the southern side, the cremated remains were found mixed together with unburnt human teeth and other fragments of unburnt bone. The floor of the passage was constructed with small flat stones, and Hemp noted that the burnt and unburnt bones were lying on top and among the paving stones (ibid.). Under the central stone, he recovered a few fragments of charcoal and a cremated right ear-bone, which he considered to be the primary burial deposit (Hemp, 1930). A few other cremated bone fragments were scattered within the central area (ibid.).

7.2.3. Case study #3: Bryn Celli Ddu The passage tomb of Bryn Celli Ddu on the Isle of Anglesey is one of two examples of developed passage tombs in Wales (the other site is Barclodiad y Gawres, previously mentioned in Chapter 3; Powell and Daniel, 1956). The site is situated in a valley 150m to the east of the Afon Braint stream with other Neolithic sites in close proximity (Burrow, 2010). It was mainly excavated by W.J. Hemp in 1928, but other 18th-and 19th-century investigations of the passage tomb also occurred. The tomb was built in 3074–2956 cal BC and formed the burial place of at least eight inhumed and 19 cremated individuals (Figure 7.15). Pre-monument activity included a 26m-diameter ring ditch with a c.20m-wide internal circle of 14 stones, a central pit containing a token deposit of cremated bones dating to c.3200–3000 cal BC (UB-7113; 4384±46 BP and UB-7116; 4573±40 BP), a chamber, an inner passage and further token deposits in stone-holes i, j, k, and n (Burrow, 2010). In a final construction phase, a large mound was built over all the features in c.3074–2956 cal BC, in addition to the creation of an outer passage and stone kerbs (ibid.). Dating of deposits of cremated bone associated with the outer kerb and passage suggest that

Immediately in front of the passage entrance was a small mound of stones, inserted into the southern side and containing a large deposit of cremated bones of an adult male (Hemp, 1930). The bones had been placed in a shallow basin of clay and were mixed with small stones. The outer edge of the forecourt also revealed the occasional cremated bone, mixed with quartz stones and charcoal (Hemp, 1930). The outer passage was originally sealed with clay and contained the occasional cremated bone (Hemp, 1930). However, excavation here led to the discovery of a small deposit of cremated bones in a small hollow in the centre of the passage, opposite Stone 22. 130

Mortuary Remains

Figure 7.15. The location of the cremated human remains (in red) of Bryn Celli Ddu based on the descriptions provided by Hemp (adapted after Hemp, 1930: 212, plate LVI).

Another small deposit of cremated bones was recovered from a cavity directly behind Stone 29, which formed part of the outer second circle (Hemp, 1930). The inner circle contained four deposits of cremated bones: one metre from the south-east corner of inner Stone j was a small hollow containing the cremated bones of a juvenile, deposited on top of a number of quartz stones (Hemp, 1930). At the foot of Stone k, one cremated human cochlea was recovered (Hemp, 1930), while next to Stone n, a complete deposit

of cremated human bones of an older child (8–10 years) was found (Hemp, 1930). The hole of Stone i contained a single fragment of a cremated tibia (ibid.). Upon osteological re-examination, McKinley (2006) reports that the human bone assemblage comprised 30 fragments of unburnt human bone (a MNI of 8 unburnt individuals) and 611.6g of cremated bone from 19 individuals (Table 33). The cremated bone weights are 131

Number

Location

Weight at NMW

Weight by McKinley 2006

MNI

–

1

Adult

M

Age

Sex

Calibrated date

Radiocarbon date BP

Lab No.

132

99.39H/1

?Prob mound by entrance?

1,443.6g

99.39H/10

South side of passage

30.4g

17.2g C 4 × frags I

2

Adult Juv

–

99.39H/11

W end of passage between stones 10 & 11

26.3g

23.3g

1

Adult

–

3330–2910

4409±39

UB-7114

99.39H/12

Bottom layer of passage between stones 13 & 15

39.5g

30.1g

1

Juv

–

3100–2890

4360±44

UB-7115

99.39H/13

Base of central pit

5.4g

2.5g

1

Sub-Ad

99.39H/14

Stone i

9.4g

8.4g

1

Adult (18 yrs)

–

3500–3100

4573±40

UB-7116

99.39H/15

?

130.2g

–

1

?

99.39H/16

Passage, opposite stone 12

31.5g

25.7g

1

Adult (18+ yrs)

–

3310–2900

4395±40

UB-7117

99.39H/17

Cavity behind stone 29

71.9g

57.2g

1

YA-MA (30+ yrs)

–

3090–2890

4351±35

UB-7118

99.39H/18

Left side of passage, stones 10 & 11

2.2g

0.3g C 3 × teeth I

2

a) Juv b) Adult 21–40yrs

–

99.39H/19

SW end of passage

0.9g

1 × tooth I

1?

21–40yrs

–

99.39H/2

c.0.9m away from stone j

129.1g

108.8g

1

YA-MA (25+ yrs)

?F

3310–2900

4384±46

UB-7113

99.39H/20

Passage, opposite stones 9 & 11

–

1 × tooth I

1

21–40yrs

–

– +

99.39H/3

Passage

50.9g

37.1g C 2 × frags I

2

a) Adult 21 yrs b) Adult 18+ yrs

–

99.39H/5

Passage between stones 10 & 11 within paving stones

58.1g

37.3g

2

a) Adult 21+ yrs b) Adult 18+ yrs

–

99.39H/6

Passage

100.1g

77.8g C 5 × frags I

2

a) Adult 30+ yrs b) Adult 18+ yrs

–

99.39H/7

Passage, opposite stone 13 in bottom layer

49.4g

37.3g C 3 × frags I

2

a) Adult 21+ yrs b) Adult 18+ yrs

–

99.39H/8

Beneath stone k

0.7g

0.7g

1

Infant

–

58.5g C 8 × frags I

2

a) Adult 30 yrs b) Adult 18+ yrs

–

–

1

Child 8–10 yrs

–

99.39H/9

Passage opposite stone 11

83.6g

–

Stone n

–

*NMW= National Museum of Wales; C = cremated; I = inhumed (unburnt).

+

+

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500)

Table 33. Summary of the cremated remains from Bryn Celli Ddu (after Hemp, 1930; McKinley, 2006; Burrow, 2010: 256)

Mortuary Remains

Figure 7.16. The chronological radiocarbon dates from Bryn Celli Ddu (after Burrow, 2010: 257).

followed by deposition of another adult in the western passage between Stones 10 and 11 a few hundred years after during 3330–2910 cal BC (UN-7114; 4409±39 BP) (Burrow, 2010). Another deposition, outside the tomb at Stone j, of a young to mature adult female, is dated to 3310–2900 cal BC (UB-7113; 4384±46 BP), around the same time as an adult deposited in the passageway opposite Stone 12, also dated to 3310–2900 cal BC (UB7117; 4395±40 BP). The final two radiocarbon dates again show deposition at approximately the same time: a juvenile deposited between Stones 13 and 15 was dated to 3100–2890 cal BC (UB-7115; 4360±44 BP) and a young to mature adult dating to 3090–2890 (UB-7118; 4351±35 BP) was deposited outside the tomb’s entrance at Stone 29.

a small fraction of the expected weight of a completely cremated adult, and therefore, at least two scenarios must be examined. The first is that these cremated individuals represent token deposits, as was the standard deposition for cremated remains during the Neolithic. Secondly, Hemp used only 6.25mm and 12.5mm sieves to excavate the cremated bones. This therefore increases the likelihood that the smaller bone fragments were not recovered (Burrow, 2010) and the weights are consequently an under-representation of the amount that was originally deposited. As mentioned previously, earlier reports from the 18th-and 19th-centuries suggest that bones had not only been encountered by others but may have also been lost from these antiquarian investigations (Hemp, 1930; Burrow, 2010). Thus, the 18 cremated individuals are an under-estimation of the actual number of people deposited at Bryn Celli Ddu.

The radiocarbon dates reveal that not only was Bryn Celli Ddu reused continuously for the deposition of cremated human remains over a 500-year period, but that the deposits occurred in similar locations (e.g., outside stones) at different times (Figure 7.16). This suggests remembrance of who was buried in specific locations (i.e., only one deposit of cremated remains was placed at Stone j and with another deposit at i) despite the gaps of hundreds of years between depositions.

The re-analysis of the cremated bones by McKinley (2006) reveals that 68% of the individuals were adults (n=13) and, of those, only two could be sexed (one male and one possible female). The children (n=5) consisted of two juveniles, one sub-adult (of unknown age), one older child (8–10 years) and one infant. Interestingly, the infant was deposited by itself underneath Stone k, suggesting the importance given to children in Neolithic society in terms of their right for remembrance.

7.2.4. Case study #4: Llandegai Henge A The prehistoric complex of Llandegai, north Wales, was constructed and occupied between the Mesolithic and Early Bronze Age (Lynch and Musson, 2004). The site, covering about 38 acres, was built on the flat summit of a 40m-high gravel ridge between the rivers Cegin and Ogwen. Neolithic activity on the site consists of two henges dating to c.3100 cal BC, a pit circle containing

Burrow (2010) sampled six unidentifiable fragments from primary contexts in different areas around the site. Bayesian modelling of the dates suggests that Bryn Celli Ddu was a burial site for up to 182 years (ibid.). Based on the six radiocarbon dates, it appears that the cremation deposit of an adult from Stone i was deposited first, dating to 3500–3100 cal BC (UB-7116; 4573±40 BP), 133

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500)

Figure 7.17. The main Neolithic monuments of Llandegai, north Wales, whereby (A) and (B) are henges, (C) is the cursus, (D) is a ditched enclosure, and (E) is a hengiform (after Houlder, 1968: 217 fig. 1; adapted after Lynch and Musson, 2004: 21, fig 4, with kind permission from the Cambrian Archaeological Association).

Cremation deposit A252 (also known as FA370), was recovered inside Henge A from an irregular oval pit measuring 1.1 × 0.75 × 0.23m deep (ibid.). Large stones lined the bottom of the pit with smaller stones on either side. The cremated bones, covered by a thick slab of stone, were tightly concentrated together suggesting that they were originally contained in an organic sack. The cremation was of a probable female adult and dated to 3359–3013 cal BC (GrN-22954; 4480±50 BP) (Lynch and Musson, 2004; Burrow, 2010). Also included in the pit was an axe-polisher, fragments of shell, two sherds of Peterborough Ware and a stone flake. The radiocarbon date connects the cremation deposit with other features of the monument and the artefacts from the pit (ibid.).

cremation burials, a short cursus dating to c.2600 cal BC, a ditched enclosure and a small hengiform (Figure 7.17). While only the monuments containing Middle Neolithic cremations will be discussed here, it is worth noting that cremation burials continued into the Bronze Age at both Henge A and Henge B. Henge A, towards the north-east edge of the site, was a circular enclosure approximately 80m in diameter with an internal bank approximately 50m across (Figure 7.18). Finds from the ditch consisted of two sherds of Fengate pottery, a few small flakes, and a fragment from a flint thumbnail scraper (Lynch and Musson, 2004). Five pits, situated within the centre of the henge, all lacked artefacts from their fills but are attributed to the Late Neolithic based on stratigraphic relationships with certain postholes and on a fragment of charcoal dated to 3932–3034 cal BC (GrN-27192; 4740±150 BP) from pit 1 (ibid.).

Three and a half metres south-west of the entrance to Henge A, five elongated pits forming a 9m (external) diameter, segmented circle also contained cremated human remains (Figure 7.19) (ibid.). The cremation circle, known as ACC, 134

Mortuary Remains

Figure 7.18. Plan of the multiple cremation deposits at the segmented ring ditch (bottom left) and one deposit (A252) within Henge A, Llandegai (after Lynch and Musson, 2004: 36 fig. 14, with kind permission from the Cambrian Archaeological Association).

Figure 7.19. The cremation circle at Llandegai showing the location of the cremated bones (in green) and the areas of radiocarbon sampling (in red) (adapted after Lynch and Musson, 2004: 49, fig. 22, with kind permission from the Cambrian Archaeological Association).

135

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500) at least three individuals and is far below the expected weight for three complete cremations). The cremated bone from A111 and A94 was unworn and ‘fresh’-looking, indicating that they were probably introduced directly into the pits while all the other cremated bones, weathered and chalky in appearance, may have been subjected to numerous depositional episodes elsewhere (cf McKinley, 2004). The presence of fuel ash and charcoal (these pieces not deriving from the carbonised wooden planks) in some of the pits also suggests that they previously came from deposits of pyre debris (ibid.).

was first discovered in 1966 when it was ‘badly damaged during machine clearance’ (ibid.: 50). Excavations in 1967 revealed 22 deposits of cremated bones from at least six individuals. Two sherds of pottery were found in Pit ACC4, with large quantities of charcoal and a large block of stone with a smashed top in Pit ACC2. The majority of the cremation deposits consisted of only a few bone fragments and it was difficult to determine whether the bone had derived from the six identified through osteological analysis (McKinley, 2004) or whether they represented small token deposits of additional individuals. If token deposition is the favoured interpretation, then there could be c.30 individuals deposited within the segmented pit circle.

Lynch and Musson (2004) have interpreted the main cremation pit circle, PH ACC1 (not to be confused with Pit ACC1), and ‘central pit’ ACC6 as having been dug at the same time and in conjunction with the main henge. ACC9 and ACC7 are probably different from the other pits as they did not contain significant amounts of carbonised wood from the planks and were probably added at a slightly later date. Recently there has been some debate (Gibson, 2018; Lynch, 2018) as to whether there was indeed a ‘Middle Neolithic’ phase at Llandegai. The argument centres on the oak charcoal radiocarbon dates from the cremation circle as having suffered from the old wood effect and whether modelling should therefore allow for this to place the cremation circle as late as 3006–2732 cal BC (68.2% probability) (Gibson, 2018). This is substantially later than the cremation deposit from Henge A and Gibson argues that the axis running straight through the henge and cremation circle is probably a coincidence (ibid.) (see Figure 7.18 for this southwest-northeast axis). While the charcoal results confirm that the pit circle is indeed Neolithic, their wide ranges prevent determination to the Middle or the Late Neolithic (Parker Pearson et al., 2009). Thus, further sampling of the cremated bone was required, so I created a project in conjunction with the Natural Museum of Wales, Cardiff, and funded by a NERC/AHRC grant from the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU). Seven cremation samples were selected in order to clarify whether the bone deposits were indeed discrete individuals (and thus potentially representing at least 22 individuals) or were a mixed dispersal of a smaller assemblage of six individuals (Table 34). The radiocarbon dates from the

Four other smaller pits were positioned within the southern interior and exterior of the cremation circle. A posthole (PH ACC1) was situated between Pits 2 and 3 and may have held a slender post (ibid.). Pyre goods, in the form of a small quantity of cremated immature animal bones, were recovered from A111 (10.9g) and A110 (21

21

√

1

1

√

Flagstones

4

4

Thirlings*

1

1

104

105

Bryn-yr-Hen Bobl* Parc le Breos

Middle Neolithic total

Late Neolithic

Sites personally analysed

Yarnton*

4

4

Barrow Hills

1

1

Lower Luggy

1

1

Manor Farm

7

7

Dunragit

1

1

Marne Barracks

1

1

Meldon Bridge

5

3

Woodhenge

1

1

Near Winterbourne Stoke

4

3

Sarn-y-bryn-caled 2

4

4

Bryn Gwyn

2

5

Stoneyfield*

39

5

Trelystan

1

1

Duggleby Howe*

51

51

Cossington

1

1

Hindlow

1

1

Hognaston

1

1

Irthlingborough

1

1

Bixley site 9585

4

4

Bixley site 6099

2

2

Maryport

1

1

Late Neolithic total

133

99

Combined total

237

204

*= sites lacking demographic details, so it is therefore presumed that MNI is at least one per context.

157

√

√

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500) Table 42. Middle and Late Neolithic isolated cremation deposits from mainland Britain Period

Middle Neolithic

Site

# of deposits

MNI

Imperial College Sports Ground

8

8

RMC Land

3

3

Meldon Bridge*

2

3

Long Mound

1

1

Milton Ham*

3

3

Pen-y-banc

2

2

19

20

Middle Neolithic total

Late Neolithic

Heathrow Terminal, Farmstead 7*

1

1

Skilmafilly

1

2

Lanton Quarry

7

16

MOD Headquarters, Durrington

1

1

Orwell Farm

4

6

Beckton Farm

1

2

Flixton

1

1

Fordhouse

1

1

Late Neolithic total

17

30

Combined total

36

50

*= sites lacking demographic details, it is therefore presumed that there is a minimum of one individual per deposit.

of Neolithic token deposition which drastically reduced the number of identifiable bones required for MNI counting. Additionally, only half of Stonehenge has ever been excavated and the number of people buried across the entire site is estimated to be closer to 150 individuals. Therefore the 60 cremation burials, as recorded in Hawley’s diaries, will be used for statistical purposes despite knowing that they represent only a proportion of the total buried (and indeed, identified) at Stonehenge. For all sites associated with poor recording, the minimum number of individuals will be analysed but clearly, the number of individuals buried there was probably much higher.

been marked with an asterix (*) in section 8.1.3, but the number could, in fact, be much higher. Non-cremated bones recovered from certain sites (e.g., Stonehenge, West Stow, Bryn Celli Ddu) have been eliminated from any statistical analysis, mainly because these not been radiocarbon-dated. It is therefore unknown whether these unburnt bones were accidental inclusions within the cremation pit or deliberately added to the cremated remains. Grave goods will be discussed only in terms of general trends since many archaeological reports are vague regarding the precise locations of grave goods within a cremation pit and/or their stratigraphical relationships to the cremated bones.

In some of the older published reports, basic details such as MNI, age and/or sex were not recorded because they were never analysed, although deposit weight might have been documented. Additionally, disturbed sites (such as Carreg Coetan Arthur) have cremated bones scattered across the monument thereby potentially co-mingling multiple (token) deposits together and/or resulting in the loss of bone. In these instances, it is assumed that deposits weighing more than 25g contained at least one individual. Since token deposition was favoured at many Neolithic sites it cannot be determined with any certainty whether small amounts of cremated bone (800°C

Full

Light greyish-white, light browny-white, white

>800°C

Partial

Some fragments are black

525-645°C

Partial*

–

–

West Cotton

Full

–

–

Carreg Coetan Arthur

Full

Light browny-white, white

>800°C

Holly Road

Full

–

–

Newton Poppleford

Full

–

–

Carreg Samson

Full

White

>800°C

Twlc-y-Filiast

Full

White

>800°C

Bryn-yr-Hen Bobl

Full

White

>800°C

Full

Dark and light grey to white

>800°C

Partial

Some fragments are black

525-645°C

Full

White

>800°C

Full

Dark and light grey to white

>800°C

Forteviot Ferrybridge Stonehenge Late Neolithic

Efficiency of cremation

Yarnton

Partial

Some fragments are black

525-645°C

Full

–

–

Lower Luggy

Full

Light greyish-white, white

>800°C

Flixton

Full

Brown

>800°C

Full

–

–

Poor

One deposit description

–

Manor Farm Dunragit

Full

White

>800°C

Near Winterbourne long barrow

Full

Mostly white

>800°C

Orwell Farm

Full

Light brown

>800°C

*D-o-T: Dorchester-on-Thames site II only records that six deposits were partially cremated; it is not known the condition of the other deposits.

pyre. FTIR uses only a tiny bone sample and does not represent the variation of colours presented on a complete skeleton after cremation.

indicating more than one individual in the deposit (Figures 8.72 and 8.73). The preservation/condition of the cremated bone occasionally increased MNI within a deposit but also suggests burials brought in from elsewhere. For example, the main cremated bones from deposit 20, West Stow, are noted to be strong/robust, light brown in colour, and no erosion; however, a small quantity of bones are noted to be soft and chalky to the touch, white in colour, with moderate to heavy erosion (e.g., Figure 8.74). This indicates the presence of a second individual in which the bones were exposed or buried elsewhere before final deposition with the main cremation.

The majority of the cremated bones from both the Middle and Late Neolithic had reached pyre temperatures of over 800°C while only a small quantity from mixed coloured deposits were black, indicative of lower pyre temperatures. The bone colourations suggest that pyres were wellmaintained in order to achieve high temperatures and oxygen flow, and that the duration of the cremation process was long enough for the soft tissues to be completely incinerated and all skeletal elements calcinated (Mayne Correia, 1997; Symes et al., 2008).

8.3.4. Pyre debris

It is not unusual to find a range of colours from a single deposit as bone fragments, in particular the small bones of the hands and feet, will fall into the coals throughout the duration of the cremation. However, it is unusual to find completely different bone colourations and different erosion conditions on the cortical surfaces, thereby

Varying quantities of pyre debris, mainly charcoal, were recovered in association with 35 deposits from 13 Middle Neolithic cremation sites and 35 deposits from 14 Late Neolithic sites (Table 65). When identified, oak was the main species of wood used in the pyres, followed by hazel then alder. 206

Analysis and Synthesis of Middle and Late Neolithic Cremated Human Remains

Figure 8.72. This figure illustrates the different colours and cremation efficiency of at least four individuals from the same deposit (West Stow, deposit 20). The first group of bones, on the left, are light brown in colour and form the ‘main’ cremation. The second group of bones are very soft and chalky, indicative of burial within an acidic environment and are dark to light grey in colour. The third group are light grey but are very strong and robust. The fourth group of bones are completely unburnt (Photo C. Willis).

Figure 8.73. Though these are animal bone fragments they illustrate the assorted colours which can be recovered from a single cremation: (white), dark grey with partially burnt organic material in the bone matrix, black, and charred (from West Stow, deposit F42) (Photo C. Willis).

Ditch] was that in the great number of case there was hardly any burnt wood ash present, showing that the bones had been carefully taken out of the mass of the fire after it had cooled’ (1926: 157-8). Hawley then continued to say that ‘there was far more wood ash with the burials in the Aubrey holes, which in most cases (but not in all) seemed to contain all the bones, but in every case, they had apparently been brought from a distant place for interment’

Charcoal was noted in 72 grids from AH7, Stonehenge, but these may have little or no connection to the cremated bone assemblage itself as they may have derived from the mixing of contexts during and/or after Hawley’s 1920s excavations. In his interim report, Hawley noted differences between the cremation burials recovered from the Aubrey Holes and those recovered from the Ditch by stating ‘a peculiarity about the interments [from the 207

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500)

Figure 8.74. Severe erosion to a cremated bone fragment from Aubrey Hole 7, context 177 (Photo C. Willis).

(1926: 158). Indeed, Hawley commented that, of the 34 Aubrey Holes he had excavated, 16 contained wood ash/ charcoal (see Table 19 in Chapter 6).

The most common types of artefacts associated with cremations are animal bones, stone artefacts, flint, and pottery. Frequently, more than one type of artefact was recovered from a single cremation deposit. From Middle Neolithic monuments, 64 cremation deposits contained a combined total of 106 artefact types while 70 Late Neolithic monument deposits contained 202 artefact types. Very few isolated pits contained artefacts associated with the cremated remains and this reflects the low number of isolated cremation pits identified in the archaeology record rather than a deliberate avoidance of pit deposition in these locations. A future avenue for research would be to examine the differences between artefacts deposited in cremation pits and artefacts deposited in pits associated with unburnt human remains, as well as to examine any potential age/sex ratio differences between artefacts deposited within these two types of isolated pits.

In total, 10.9% of all Middle and Late Neolithic deposits contained charcoal from 42.2% of all sites. While this certainly suggests that the cremated bones were cleaned prior to deposition (winnowing), especially when small skeletal elements were also picked up from the pyre site, these figures may be misleading. Most of the archaeological reports contain no information on the presence or absence of pyre debris for most of the cremation deposits (n=573 or 89.1%). Thus uncertainty arises as to whether a deposit was truly free of charcoal or if it was just omitted from the report. 8.3.5. Grave goods and inclusions Artefacts directly associated with cremation burials from the Middle and Late Neolithic monuments were calculated (Table 66). These figures are not the total number of artefacts within a deposit, but rather the number of deposits which contained a particular grave good. The different quantities of burnt and unburnt artefacts cannot be tabulated as many reports do not specify whether the grave goods have been burnt, nor do they record the quantity of each artefact type. It is noted that animal bones and items made of flint are frequently found in both states. It is apparent that some of these artefacts are site specific, for example, the Sarsen and Bluestone fragments were only found at Stonehenge. It is also observed that the high number of cremation deposits associated with artefacts at Stonehenge appear to augment the total number of deposits from the Late Neolithic. Indeed, if the deposits from Stonehenge were removed from Table 66, then the number of cremations recovered with artefacts would be much lower.

Grave goods associated with the different age and sex categories for each cremation deposit was also examined (Figures 8.75 and 8.76). Interpretation of the results is hindered by the high number of cremated remains in which age and sex are unknown, and also by the number of co-mingled deposits in which artefacts cannot be attributed to a specific individual. However, from the single deposits in which age and sex are known, there are more grave goods associated with females (n=11 or 78.6%) than with males (n=3) (Figure 8.77), and more grave goods associated with adults (n=30 or 76.9%) than with children (n=9) (Figure 8.78). This data appears to reflect the number of known sexed/aged individuals rather than a representative sample of artefacts deposited with specific demographic-related individuals. But as 208

Analysis and Synthesis of Middle and Late Neolithic Cremated Human Remains Table 65. The Middle and Late Neolithic sites (n=27) which contain charcoal recovered from cremation deposits (n=70) Site D-o-T II D-o-T VI D-o-T 3 Bryn Celli Ddu

Cremation circle, Llandegai

Middle Neolithic

ICSG

West Stow

Atherb Barrow Hills West Cotton Carreg Coetan Arthur Newton Poppleford New Wintle’s Farm AH7 Stonehenge

Forteviot

Manor Farm Late Neolithic

Dunragit Lower Luggy Twlc-y-Filiast Meldon Bridge Trelystan Skilmafilly Hognaston Irthlingborough Maryport Bryn Gwyn Beckton Farm

Deposit 17 Pit D 15 35 – /5 ACC1 ACC2 ACC3 ACC4 ACC5 ACC6 ACC7 ACC8 4239 6 9 11 23 24 32 36 44 45 F42 – 5 F5549 F45087 – F1041 Pit 1 Pit 3 Pit 4 Pit 5 16 deposits

Notes A few pieces of oak Recorded as pyre debris Oak Oak Charcoal Charcoal 5g Hazel, pomoideae, oak Mostly oak 275g oak 110g oak Oak? Charcoal 2.5g oak 1 piece charcoal 1 fragment 0.13g 0.05g 0.09g 0.02g 0.03g 0.04g 0.01g Charcoal 2 fragments, pyre debris – – – – Small amount around pit and from SSE chamber Small amount Flecked with small fragments Flecked with small fragments Flecked with small fragments Flecked with small fragments See Table 19

550

Charcoal rich deposit with 5g cremated bones

616/617

Gorse/broom charcoal

632 651 653 F.246 F.228 – – – – – – – – – 111 F080 F033

Charcoal rich deposit with 93g cremated bones Alder charcoal Alder charcoal – – 0.5g Charcoal flecks 0.11g Oak – – – – Quercus sp. (oak) Hazel charcoal Pyre debris 7.4g Pyre debris

209

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500) Table 66. The number of cremation deposits directly associated with grave goods from Middle and Late Neolithic sites. Note: these are not the number of artefacts per deposit, and that deposits often contained more than one type of grave good Material

Flint

Stone

Pottery

Artefact type

Middle Neolithic monuments

Middle Neolithic isolated pits

1

4

Core

1

3

4

Flake

18

26

46

Knife

1

2

3

Fabricator

3

3

Blade/bladelette

3

3

Axe polisher

1

1

Macehead

1

1

2

Maul

17

Axe

1

Bluestone

35

Jasper

1

Quartzite

1

17 1

2 35 1

1

3

Sarsen

25

25

Shale

2

2

1

2

1

Chips

1

Abingdon Ware

3

Impressed Ware

2

1

1

4

Carinated bowl

1

1

1

3

Peterborough Ware

1

Grooved Ware

4

Pottery sherds

12

Pots

1

Bone pin

8

17

25

Pig

4

1

5

Cattle

4

Sheep Antler

3

1 1

5

10

20

32 1

4 2

2 1

2

11

Horn core Animal

10

Clay

3

Chalk

3

Shells

1

Nuts

3

1

4

1

1

6

17

1

1

23

2

35 3

Chalk ball

Total

Total

3

Bird

Other

Late Neolithic isolated pits

Arrowhead

Dog Bone

Late Neolithic monuments

1

4

1

1

1

2 5

2

Phosphate residue

1

1

Copper alloy

4

4

106

8

210

202

4

320

Analysis and Synthesis of Middle and Late Neolithic Cremated Human Remains

Figure 8.75. Age and sex distribution of the grave goods associated with Middle Neolithic cremation deposits.

211

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500)

Figure 8.76. Age and sex distribution of the grave goods associated with Late Neolithic cremation deposits. Note that Stonehenge contained 37 cremation deposits associated with grave goods.

212

Analysis and Synthesis of Middle and Late Neolithic Cremated Human Remains

Figure 8.77. The age distribution between the Middle and Late Neolithic cremation deposits associated with artefacts (n=134).

Figure 8.78. The sex distribution between the Middle and Late Neolithic cremations deposits associated with artefacts (n=134).

213

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500) mentioned above, an closer examination of pits and artefacts associated with unburnt human remains would augment the available data in order to understand isolated pits and artefact deposition in a broader mortuary context.

(Gonçalves et al., 2013; McKinley, 1993) and below the average 800g weight of undisturbed archaeological burials (McKinley, 1994). The average weight for deposits containing one or more cremated individuals was also calculated (Table 68). It reveals a steady increase in deposit weight as the number of individuals increase, except for the deposits containing four individuals which decrease slightly. This may be a consequence of the numerous young children within these deposits, as the weights range from 933.1g to 2,218.74g but contain infants and toddlers as well as adults.

8.3.6. Deposit weight 8.3.6a. Deposit weight from the Middle Neolithic case-study sites The average deposit weights of the Middle Neolithic case-study sites range between 83.1g and 1,113.0g, with a combined average weight of 559.6g (Table 67 and Figure 8.79). Most of the deposits fall far below the expected 1,636g average for adults from modern crematoria

The age distribution between the average weights from the single cremation deposits was also calculated (Table 69). The deposits where the age is unknown have been omitted.

Table 67. The average, maximum, and minimum deposit weights from each Middle Neolithic case-study site Site

Average weight (g)

Maximum weight (g)

Minimum weight (g)

ICSG: G2007

763.8

1,266.1

236.1

ICSG: G2008

484.1

712.5

255.7

D-o-T I

717.0

1,530.0

520.0

D-o-T II

800.2

1,815.0

20.0

D-o-T IV

455.6

1,680.0

10.0

D-o-T V

438.6

985.0

42.0

D-o-T VI

726.0

3,933.0

15.0

D-o-T 2

691.7

2,626.0

5.0

D-o-T 3

162.5

350.0

5.0

Bryn Celli Ddu

133.1

1,443.6

0.7

Llandegai ACC

83.1

1,337.7

0.3

Llandegai Henge A

1,113.0

–

–

West Stow

706.43

2,756.8

9.4

Figure 8.79. The average weights (in grams) from each of the Middle Neolithic case-study sites.

214

Analysis and Synthesis of Middle and Late Neolithic Cremated Human Remains Table 68. The average weight of the single and co-mingled cremation deposits from the Middle Neolithic case-study sites. All of the weights are in grams (g) MNI of 1: avg weight

MNI of 2: avg weight

ICSG: G2007

346.4

1,096.5

ICSG: G2008

484.1

D-o-T I

717.0

D-o-T II

763.8

D-o-T IV

455.6

D-o-T V

439.2

D-o-T VI

577.0

1,337.4

3,933.0

D-o-T 2

306.8

882.9

1,750.0

D-o-T 3

162.5

Bryn Celli Ddu

137.8

58.1

Llandegai ACC

7.0

216.6

1,337.7

546.1

778.3

727.2

1,496.3

455.8g

842.8g

1,634.8g

1,496.3g

Site

Henge A

MNI of 3: avg weight

MNI of 4: avg weight

MNI of 5: avg weight

1,530.0 426.0 2,625.0

1,113.0

West Stow Total average.

2,625.0g

Table 69. The average weight from single deposits by age category from each of the Middle Neolithic case-study sites Site

Adult avg. weight (g)

Child avg. weight (g)

ICSG: G2007

1,266.1

236.1

ICSG: G2008

–

474.9

D-o-T I

716.7

–

D-o-T II

854.1

772.5

D-o-T VI

576.9

574.7

D-o-T 2

463.8

125.8

D-o-T 3

–

285.0

Bryn Celli Ddu

184.2

12.0

Llandegai ACC

–

7.8

1,113.0

–

Llandegai Henge A West Stow Total average

593.1

230.3

721.0g

302.1g

The average adult weight of 721.0g is quite close to the 800g expected average for archaeological cremations; however, the two complete deposits at Imperial College Sport Ground G2007 (1,266.1g) and at Llandegai Henge A (1,113.0g) skew the results. These two deposits, while representing a single adult each, are the only adults buried on site while all the other sites contain numerous adult deposits ranging from 9.3g to 1,860.8g. If these two outliers were to be removed, the average weight for combined adults would decrease to 564.8g.

The average deposit weight for male and female cremations was calculated (Table 70). The deposits in which the biological sex is unknown have been omitted. The weight distribution reveals that, on average, there are more cremated bones in male deposits (904.6g or 58%) than in female deposits (644.4g or 42%). Due to the low number of sexed burials (Section 8.2.3a), especially at the Dorchester-on-Thames monuments, these average weights only represent a small fraction of the number of cremation deposits from the Middle Neolithic case-study sites.

The average weight of the child deposits is 302.1g and spans between 0.7g and 1,440.0g. This low weight average is expected as the ages of children from the Middle Neolithic case-study sites range from foetal to juvenile and will have had different skeletal weights depending on their stage of development.

8.3.6b. Deposit weight from the other Middle Neolithic sites The average deposit weights from the other Middle Neolithic sites range from 1.44g to 3,959.3g, with a combined average of 376.3g (Table 71 and Figure 8.80). 215

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500) Table 70. The distribution of adult cremation weights for male and female deposits from Middle Neolithic case-study sites Site

Male avg. weight (g)

ICSG: G2008

Female avg. weight (g)

456.6

D-o-T I

–

695.0

–

1,215.0

802.5

D-o-T 2

575.0

–

D-o-T 3

1,443.6

–

Bryn Celli Ddu

–

129.1

Llandegai ACC

–

557.4

Llandegai Henge A

–

1,113.0

D-o-T II

West Stow

1,042.6

620.0

Total average

904.6g

644.4g

Table 71. The average, maximum and minimum deposit weights from other Middle Neolithic sites Site Yarnton

Average weight (g)

Maximum weight (g)

Minimum weight (g)

7.5

22.0

1.0

Barrow Hills

3,959.3

–

–

West Cotton

352.7

810.6

1.51

Carreg Coetan Arthur Holly Road Newton Poppleford New Wintle’s Farm Whitton Hill I Carreg Samson Bryn-yr-Hen Bobl Parc le Breos Cwm ICSG (isolated pits) RMC Land Milton Ham Pen y banc

2.2 371.5 398.5 7.0 66.5 1.44 6.23 15.82 17.4 7.9 418.0 12.4

12.7 705.0 525.0 7.0 202.0 – – – 93.6 20.1 822.0 24.7

0.– 38.0 272.0 7.0 5.0 – – – 0.1 1.6 14.0 0.1

Figure 8.80. The distribution of average deposit weights for other Middle Neolithic sites.

216

Analysis and Synthesis of Middle and Late Neolithic Cremated Human Remains As with the case-study sites, most deposits fall below the average archaeological weight of 800g.

The average weights from single cremation deposits of adults and children were also calculated; the deposits where the age is unknown have been omitted (Table 73). The average adult weight of 132.1g is much smaller than expected while the average child weight is slightly higher at 145.2g. Both these low figures can be explained by a high degree of post-deposition disturbance.

The average weight for deposits containing one or multiple cremated individuals was calculated (Table 72). While there is a dramatic increase in weight between single and co-mingled deposits, this may be actually reflecting the disturbances at some of these sites (especially the portal dolmens in Wales) due to looting, pre-1900 excavations, and/or continued prehistoric funerary activity onsite which would have resulted in the loss of bone. At the undisturbed sites, it indicates a preference for token deposition.

The combination of all the Middle Neolithic deposits containing one individual (regardless of age at death or biological sex) reveals a preference for tiny token deposits of less than 25g (n=35) (Figure 8.81). Deposits weighing less than 100g (n=67) constitute 34.4% of the cremations weighing under 800g, while the 100-200g (n=23) and 200300g deposits (n=24) represent a combined 24.1%. These figures indicate that 58.5% of the deposits are token burials. When combined in 100g increments and compared against

The average weights for male and female deposits could not be determined from any of the other Middle Neolithic sites as these deposits are unsexed.

Table 72. The average weight of the single and co-mingled cremation deposits from the Middle Neolithic case-study sites. No co-mingled deposit exceeds two individuals Site Yarnton West Cotton Carreg Coetan Arthur

MNI of 1: avg. weight (g)

MNI of 2: avg. weight (g)

7.5

–

123.8

810.6

2.2

–

Holly Road

371.5

–

Newton Poppleford

398.5

–

7.0

–

New Wintle’s Farm Whitton Hill I

66.5

Carreg Samson

1.44

–

Bryn-yr-Hen Bobl

6.23

–

Parc le Breos Cwm

15.82

–

ICSG (isolated pits)

17.4

–

7.9

–

RMC Land Milton Ham

418

–

Pen y banc

12.4

–

100.0g

810.6g

Overall average

Table 73. Average weights for adults and children from the other Middle Neolithic sites

Site West Cotton Carreg Coetan Arthur Holly Road Newton Poppleford New Wintle’s Farm Bryn-yr-Hen Bobl Parc le Breos Cwm ICSG (isolated pits) RMC Land Milton Ham Pen y banc Total

Adult avg. weight (g) 246.1 7.3 38.0 395.5 – 6.23 15.8 49.75 – 418.0 12.4 132.1g 217

Child avg. weight (g) 1.51 – 705.0 – 7.0 – – 4.5 7.9 – – 145.2g

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500)

Figure 8.81. The weight distribution in 25g increments of all the Middle Neolithic single deposits to 800g (n=195).

individuals. Since there are approximately 60 deposits (and some of these probably contained multiple individuals), then the deposits at Stonehenge are consistent with being a mixture of both full and token deposition.

all of the Middle Neolithic deposits, this again clearly demonstrates a preference for token deposits (Figure 8.82). 8.3.6c. Deposit weight from the Late Neolithic case-study sites

The average weight for deposits containing one or more cremated individuals was also calculated (Table 75). While it is not a steady increase, as seen in the Middle Neolithic case-study sites, it does suggest that the deposit weight doubles with each additional individual.

The average deposit weights of the Late Neolithic casestudy sites range between 128.0g and 715.9g, with a combined average weight of 377.3g (Table 74 and Figure 8.83). Most of the deposits fall far below the expected 1,636g average for adults from modern crematoria (Gonçalves et al., 2013; McKinley, 1993) and from the average 800g weight for undisturbed archaeological burials (McKinley, 1994). The Late Neolithic case-study sites also contain, on average, 40.3% less cremated bone than those of the Middle Neolithic.

The average weights of adults and children from the single cremation deposits was also calculated (Table 76). The deposits where the age is unknown (including those from AH7) have been omitted. The average adult weight of 445.4g is 55.7% of the expected average weight for archaeological cremations (800g). The average deposit weight of children is 51.9g, with individual deposits ranging from 74g to 270g.

The 2008 re-excavation of AH7 recovered a total weight of 45,285.7g of cremated bone, but the deposit weight for each separate cremation is not known due to being comingled in 1935 when the assemblage was redeposited. But I can calculate the average deposit weights from four other cremations recovered from Stonehenge: the two deposits from the Ditch, one from AH32, and the deposit (007) recovered adjacent to AH7. Interestingly, if the archaeological average of 800g is applied to the cremated bones from AH7, then that would provide an estimated 57

The average deposit weights of male and female cremations were calculated (Table 77). The deposits in which the biological sex is unknown have been omitted, as have the cremated bone weights from AH7. On average, there are more cremated bones in female deposits (n=819.8g or 94.5%) than in male deposits (n=48g or 5.6%). However, only one single male was identified from the Late Neolithic 218

Analysis and Synthesis of Middle and Late Neolithic Cremated Human Remains

Figure 8.82. The weight distribution in 100g increments in all Middle Neolithic single deposits (n=233). Table 74. The average, maximum, and minimum deposit weights from each Late Neolithic case-study site Site

Average weight (g)

Maximum weight (g)

Minimum weight (g)

Stonehenge*

715.9

1,546.6

64.8

Forteviot

665.5

2,004.0

48.0

Ferrybridge

128.0

221.9

13.7

Balbirnie

300.3

373.4

257.5

*These weights do not include any of the co-mingled cremated bone from AH7.

case-study sites and as such, is not representative of the average weight for male deposits. 8.3.6d. Deposit weight from the other Late Neolithic sites

Interestingly, this does not follow any sort of incremental pattern as additional individuals are added to the deposit. Rather, this reflects the preference for token deposition even amongst co-mingled burials.

The average deposit weights from the other Late Neolithic sites range between 1.0g and 1,599.8g, with a combined average of 442.3g (Table 78 and Figure 8.84). As with the case-study sites, most deposits fall below the average archaeological weight of 800g. The two outliers which are above average weight (Lower Luggy: 1,249.0g; and Trelystan: 1,210.0g) each represent a single complete individual, while the remaining deposits are token burials.

The average weights for adults and children from the single cremation deposits was also calculated (Table 80). The deposits where the age is unknown have been omitted. The average adult weight of 588.6g is lower than the expected average weight for archaeological cremations (800g) and ranges between 1.0g and 1,488.0g. The average deposit weight of children is 126.3g, with individual deposits ranging from 7.0g to 217.5g.

The average weight for deposits containing single or comingled cremated individuals was calculated (Table 79).

The average deposit weights of male and female cremations were calculated (Table 81). The deposits in 219

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500)

Figure 8.83. The average weight for each deposit from the Late Neolithic case-study sites. Note that the cremated bones from AH7, Stonehenge, have not been included. Table 75. The average weight of the single and co-mingled cremation deposits from the Late Neolithic case-study sites. Note that AH7 has been omitted from the Stonehenge figures, and that all of the weights are in grams (g) Site

MNI of 1: avg weight

MNI of 2: avg weight

MNI of 3: avg weight

MNI of 4: avg weight

Stonehenge

715.9

–

–

–

Forteviot

150.5

759.8

1,945.0

2,004.0

Ferrybridge

117.8

119.0

157.2

Balbirnie Total average

300.3

–

–

–

321.1g

439.4g

1,051.1g

2,004.0g

Table 76. The average deposit weight for adults and children from the Late Neolithic case-study sites. Note that AH7 has been omitted from the Stonehenge figures Site

Adult avg. weight (g)

Child avg. weight (g)

Stonehenge

715.9

–

Forteviot

127.7

90.0

Ferrybridge

221.9

13.7

Balbirnie

715.9

–

445.4g

51.85g

Total

Table 77. The average weights of male and female deposits from the Late Neolithic case-study sites. Note that the unsexed deposits (including AH7) have been omitted Site Stonehenge Forteviot

Male avg. weight (g)

Female avg. weight (g)

–

1,324.1

48.0g

–

Ferrybridge

–

–

Balbirnie

–

315.5

48.0g

819.8g

Total

220

Analysis and Synthesis of Middle and Late Neolithic Cremated Human Remains Table 78. The average, maximum and minimum deposit weights from other Late Neolithic sites Site Yarnton Lower Luggy

Average weight (g)

Maximum weight (g)

Minimum weight (g)

124.8

620.0

1.0

1,249.0

–

–

Flixton

651.5

–

–

Manor Farm

105.0

628.0

1.0

Dunragit

300.1

–

–

84.5

111.0

58.0

522.1

1,599.8

10.3

7.4

–

–

Bryn Gwyn

538.2

1,042.9

33.4

Stoneyfield

442.4

1,488.0

2.0

1,210.0

–

–

Bixley 9585

453.8

763.8

108.5

Bixley 6099

238.0

255.9

220.0

Lanton Quarry

292.6

846.8

8.5

MOD Headquarters

161.2

–

–

Orwell Farm

695.5

1,224.5

140.0

Meldon Bridge Near Winterbourne long barrow Beckton Farm

Trelystan

Figure 8.84. The distribution of the average deposit weights for other Late Neolithic sites.

which the biological sex is unknown have been omitted. On average, there are more cremated bones in male deposits (n=727.3g or 59.2%) than in female deposits (n=501.5g or 40.8%).

less than 100g (n=67) constitute 34.4% of the cremations weighing under 800g, while the 100-200g (n=23) and 200-300g deposits (n=24) represent a combined 24.1%. These figures indicate that 58.5% of the deposits are token burials. When combined in 100g increments and compared against all of the Middle Neolithic deposits, this again clearly demonstrates a preference for token deposits (Figure 8.86). Interestingly, there is also a spike in the number of burials between 600-700g, just below

The combination of all the Late Neolithic deposits containing one individual (regardless of age at death or biological sex) reveals a preference for tiny token deposits of less than 25g (n=35) (Figure 8.85). Deposits weighing 221

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500) Table 79.The average weights of the single and co-mingled cremation deposits from the Late Neolithic case-study sites. Note that all the weights are in grams (g) Site Yarnton

MNI of 1: avg weight

MNI of 2: avg weight

MNI of 3: avg weight

MNI of 4: avg weight

124.8

Lower Luggy

1,249.0

Flixton

651.5

Manor Farm

105.0

Dunragit

300.1

Meldon Bridge

84.5

Near Winterbourne long barrow Beckton Farm

162.9

1,599.8

7.4

Bryn Gwyn

33.4

Stoneyfield

1,042.9

442.4

Trelystan

1,210.0

Bixley 9585

453.8

Bixley 6099

238.0

Lanton Quarry

218.5

MOD Headquarters

161.2

Orwell Farm

519.2

Total

444.4

655.9 1,224.5

372.6g

1,022.1g

940.2g

1,042.9g

Table 80. The average deposit weights of adults and children from other Late Neolithic sites Site

Adult avg. weight (g)

Yarnton Lower Luggy

1,249.0

Flixton

651.6

Manor Farm

628.0

Dunragit

Stoneyfield Trelystan

34.7 300.1

Meldon Bridge Near Winterbourne long barrow

Child avg. weight (g)

620.0

84.5 239.2 352.0 1,210.0

Bixley 9585

626.5

Bixley 6099

238.0

Lanton Quarry

379.0

MOD Headquarters

161.2

Orwell Farm

708.8

140.0

588.6g

126.3g

Total

the expected average weight of 800g from archaeological cremations.

108.5 90.2

8.3.6e. Summary of the combined deposit weights from all Middle and Late Neolithic sites

unsexed individuals), unpublished deposit weights, and a lack of clarification regarding contexts of the burial environment. All deposit weights are considered to be post-depositional weights rather than the weight at the time of burial.

Limitations for both interpreting and understanding deposit weight are imposed by missing data (unaged and

The total average weight of a cremation deposit from both Middle and Late Neolithic sites is 454.3g but falls to 222

Analysis and Synthesis of Middle and Late Neolithic Cremated Human Remains Table 81. The average weights of male and female deposits from other Late Neolithic sites Site Flixton

Male avg. weight (g)

Dunragit Stoneyfield Trelystan

Female avg. weight (g)

651.5 300.1 352.0 1,210.0

Bixley 9585

763.8

Bixley 6099

220.0

Orwell Farm Total

695.5

722.0

727.3g

501.5g

Figure 8.85. The weight distribution in 25g increments of all the Late Neolithic single deposits to 800g (n=95).

314.0g for deposits containing one individual. Co-mingled deposits reveal incrementation as individuals were added to the deposits (Table 82).

Late Neolithic cremation deposits vary in weight from 0.1g to 3,959.3g, there is a distinct preference for token deposition below 25g (Figure 8.87) and below 100g (Figure 8.88).

The average adult cremation deposit from both Middle and Late Neolithic sites is 478.8g while child deposits are 195.8g (Table 83). Overall, adult male deposits weigh more than female deposits despite the preference for female cremations.

The significance of low deposit weights is particularly interesting. An informal pilot study was undertaken for the purpose of this project to determine the weight of a literal handful of cremated bones (Table 84). Initial results reveal that an adult hand will pick up between 37-64g of cremated bone while a child will pick up between 19-43g. The range of figures reflect the different bone fragment sizes which were picked up at different times and from different cremation deposits. The results are slightly

The term ‘token deposition’ is used loosely in the archaeological literature to define a deposit containing less that 200g of cremated bone; however, this quantity and lack of definition is inadequate. While Middle and 223

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500)

Figure 8.86. The weight distribution in 100g increments of all the Late Neolithic single deposits (n=103). Table 82. Combined Middle and Late Neolithic weight distribution based on the number of individuals recovered from each deposit MNI of 1: avg weight

MNI of 2: avg weight

MNI of 3: avg weight

MNI of 4: avg weight

MNI of 5: avg weight

314.0g

1,045.6g

1,350.7g

1,618.5g

2,625.0g

of a handful of freshly cremated bone collected prior to burial.

Table 83. The age and sex distribution for deposit weight from both Middle and Late Neolithic sites Adult

Child

Adult male

Adult female

478.8g

195.8g

833.7g

624.3g

Small bones, such as those from the hands and feet, and tooth root fragments are recovered from the majority of the cremation deposits despite many of the deposits being classified as token deposits. The recovery of these bones suggests careful collection from the pyre as these remains may be difficult to recognise, hidden amongst wood ash. Raking the burnt pyre site in order to scrape the bones into a pile and using a basket or water to sort through the debris (called winnowing) would have allowed for a higher level of bone recovery (McKinley, 1997a: 68) as well as creating a clean bone deposit, as indicated in many cases by the lack of charcoal recovered in association with burials. Therefore, the careful recovery of freshly cremated bones from the pyre, the high number of token deposits (including small

higher than the 0-25g preferred token deposit weight, but again, this may be due to the higher fragmentation of archaeological bone (and hence more bone will be picked up) which may have undergone depositional processes in its burial environment as opposed to freshly cremated bone prior to deposition. Bone survival after deposition is another consideration as taphonomic processes and human activity may have inadvertently contributed to the destruction, disturbance, and scattering of the cremated bones. Therefore, the slightly higher handful weights from the pilot study may indeed be an accurate reflection 224

Analysis and Synthesis of Middle and Late Neolithic Cremated Human Remains

Figure 8.87. The weight distribution in 25g increments of all Middle and Late Neolithic deposits to 800g (n=307).

Figure 8.88. The weight distribution in 100g increments for all Middle and Late Neolithic deposits (n=354).

225

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500) the radiocarbon dates of the artefacts associated with cremations (Figure 8.92) were calibrated and set out in a table in chronological order.

Table 84. Pilot study results from an adult’s and from a child’s handful of cremated bone Adult handful (g)

Child handful (g)

Maximum weight

64.4

43.2

Minimum weight

37.2

19.7

50.8g

31.5g

Total average

Prior to this research, there were only 21 radiocarbon dates from Middle Neolithic cremated bones. The addition of 14 new radiocarbon dates increases this number by 41.2%. While there are limitations in interpretation due to an over-whelming lack of dates from sites with cremation burials, the calibrated dates nevertheless reveal intriguing results. Both cremation cemeteries at West Stow and Llandegai pit circle (Llandegai ACC) commenced at approximately the same time despite being on opposite sides of Britain. The earliest dating evidence is of 3510–3348 cal BC (OxA-38190; 4620±29 BP) for the (probable) stone circle at ACC indicates that it was constructed prior to the nearby monument of Henge A at 3359–3013 cal BC (GrA-22954, 4480±50 BP). Therefore Llandegai Henge A’s orientation, position of entrance and axis were all predicated by the placement of of the ACC pit circle which was not only visible during Henge A’s construction but was also still in use for cremation burials. The last cremation burial date of 3339–3023 cal BC (OxA-38086; 4465±32 BP) signifies an end to funerary rites at ACC although cremation burials resumed c.600 years later during the Early Bronze Age elsewhere on site. It is also significant that the earliest stone circles in Britain (Llandegai ACC and Bryn Celli Ddu) originate in Wales and are separated by c.8 miles of land and sea. Indeed, burial activity at Bryn Celli Ddu spanned more than a century from 3500–3100 cal BC (UB-7116; 4573±40 BP) to 3090–2890 cal BC (4351±35 BP) while burial activity at ACC concluded around 3339–3023 cal BC (OxA-38086; 4465±32) centuries after initial deposition.

bones easily lost in the pyre), and the observation that a token deposit constitutes a handful or several handfuls of cremated bone, collectively raise the question: where is the rest of the individual? Token deposits and the deposition of partial cremations suggest that the remaining bones have gone elsewhere: some may have been deposited at multiple locations (similar to modern British practices), some may have been circulated amongst the living, some may have been scattered at particular features in the landscape, and others may have been incorporated into ritual acts which have left no archaeological evidence. These ideas are all further discussed in Chapter 9. 8.4. The radiocarbon dates Prior to this project, the cremation cemeteries at Llandegai and at West Stow were considered to be Late Neolithic; however, the radiocarbon dating project (which forms part of this research) produced six dates from Llandegai and eight dates from West Stow, placing both sites firmly in the Middle Neolithic. As much as possible, this research has been about bringing together all of the radiocarbon dates for Neolithic cremated bone. Where radiocarbon dates were unavailable, dated artefacts in direct association were used.

Interestingly, the central cremation deposit was not the first burial at West Stow. Rather, cremation burials began 3632–3371 cal BC (OxA-30893; 4702±37 BP) and continued until 3261–2915 cal BC (OxA-38040; 4395±32 BP). Funerary rites at West Stow ceased around the same time that the cremation cemetery at Imperial College Sports Ground began. Dating from 3240–3010 cal BC (NZA-30920; 4485±30 BP) cremation burials continued until 3100–2920 cal BC (NZA-32718; 4330±45 BP).

In this section, the radiocarbon dates for both the Middle and Late Neolithic will be presented in chronological order, regardless of their geographical location within mainland Britain. In so doing this, the entirety of Neolithic cremation dates can be viewed at any given date, thereby illustrating not only their widespread use across the country, but also the overlapping dates for funerary activity across differing sites. The radiocarbon dates are presented in two parts: the first is of all of the dates from cremated bone while the other is of dates from associated artefacts/materials. This is intended as a general overview of the chronology of cremation rites. Radiocarbon determinations came from personally submitted cremated bone samples (West Stow and Llandegai cremation circle), and from published reports and articles. All radiocarbon determinations were calibrated using OxCal v.4.3.2 (Bronk Ramsey, 2017; Chapter 1) using IntCal13 atmospheric curve (Reimer et al., 2013).

The two cremation burials from Holly Road, Levan, do not overlap indicating that this location must have been marked above-ground in order to continue deposition. The first cremation was deposited in 3710–3360 cal BC (GrA21728; 4760±90 BP) while the second deposit occurred in 3370–2930 cal BC (GrA-21729; 4480±60 BP). This burial site continued to hold its significance as it eventually became a place for 11 cists and further cremation burials during the Early Bronze Age.

8.4.1. Radiocarbon dates for all Middle Neolithic cremated remains

The remaining Middle Neolithic cremations are from sites which lack further radiocarbon dating: the cremations at Yarnton began in the Early Neolithic and

Radiocarbon dates from Middle Neolithic cremated human remains (Table 85 and Figures 8.89 to 8.91) and 226

Analysis and Synthesis of Middle and Late Neolithic Cremated Human Remains Table 85. Middle Neolithic radiocarbon dates from cremated human bone (n=34) Deposit No.

cal BP

Lab No.

Abbreviation

Atherb

Site

–

4815±45

GrA-23971

A

Yarnton

–

4775±35

SUERC-5689

Y

Holly Road

–

4760±90

GrA-21728

HR

West Stow

31

4702±37

OxA-38093

WS

A110

4620±29

OxA-38190

ACC

19

4615±33

OxA-38041

WS

Llandegai cremation circle West Stow

34

4581±33

OxA-30842

WS

Bryn Celli Ddu

West Stow

H/14

4573±40

UB-7116

BCD

Llandegai cremation circle

A14

4570±35

OxA-38089

ACC

38

4561±22

OxA-38899

WS

A94

4557±30

OxA-38191

ACC

West Stow Llandegai cremation circle West Stow Llandegai cremation circle Whitton Hill I

24

4538±31

OxA-38016

WS

A166

4532±32

OxA-38088

ACC

15

4531±29

OxA-26259

WH1

A96

4518±32

OxA-38087

ACC

Imperial College Sports Ground

19006

4485±30

NZA-30920

ICSG

Newton Poppleford

1040

4480±30

SUERC-77622

NP

Llandegai cremation circle

Holly Road

–

4480±60

GrA-21729

HR

Llandegai Henge A

A252

4480±50

GrA-22954

Henge A

Llandegai cremation circle

A111

4465±32

OxA-38086

ACC

Imperial College Sports Ground

17890

4460±35

NZA-30919

ICSG

Imperial College Sports Ground

19123

4447±40

NZA-31017

ICSG

West Stow

47

4444±21

OxA-38900

WS

Thirlings

–

4442±35

OxA-16164

T

Imperial College Sports Ground

19013

4435±40

NZA-31067

ICSG

Bryn Celli Ddu

H/11

4409±39

UB-7114

BCD

Imperial College Sports Ground

40413

4399±50

NZA-32693

ICSG

Bryn Celli Ddu

H/16

4395±40

UB-7117

BCD

30

4395±32

OxA-38040

WS

West Stow Bryn Celli Ddu

H/20

4384±46

UB-7113

BCD

Imperial College Sports Ground

19203

4367±40

NZA-31018

ICSG

Bryn Celli Ddu

H/12

4360±44

UB-7115

BCD

Bryn Celli Ddu

H/17

4351±35

UB-7118

BCD

Imperial College Sports Ground

19010

4330±45

NZA-32718

ICSG

continued into the Early Bronze Age; however, only a small portion of the cremation depoists have been sampled. The timber circle enclosed by a segmented ring ditch at Whitton Hill I contained 16 cremation deposits, of which two have been dated to the Early Bronze Age (and are associated with an inverted vessel) while the only other deposit sampled dates to 3361–3103 cal BC (OxA-26259; 4531±29 BP). The remaining 13 cremation deposits have, unfortunately, not been dated.

associated with the now lost cremation burials. The other dates derive from charcoal and, while they all support Middle Neolithic dates for these sites, they may derive from heartwood in the pyres, or by accidental inclusions from earlier activities. 8.4.2. Radiocarbon dates for all Late Neolithic cremated remains Calibrated radiocarbon dates from Late Neolithic cremated human remains (Table 87 and Figures 8.93 to 8.97) and the artefacts associated with the cremations (Figure 8.98) have been set out in chronological order. The available radiocarbon data for cremated human remains is almost double that which is available from the

Radiocarbon dates from artefacts directly associated with cremated remains were also included (Table 86 and Figure 8.116). The bone pin from Cairnpapple is significant as it is the only dateable artefact directly 227

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500)

Figure 8.89. Middle Neolithic radiocarbon dates from cremated human remains (figure 1 of 3).

(SUERC-29188; 4370±30 BP). Funerary activity seems to have ceased at Forteviot until the second cremation, dated to 2920–2870 cal BC (SUERC-29186; 4275±30 BP), was inserted. The first of four cremation burials at Ferrybridge is dated to 3090–2700 cal BC (4300±50 BP) and then both cremation and inhumation burials resumed in the Early Bronze Age. Other cremation deposits around Britain date to the Late Neolithic but again, they are hampered due to the lack of dating of further cremation deposits at these sites. Nevertheless, by the Late Neolithic, cremation burial was the preferred archaeologically visible method of disposing of the dead, and these larger cremation cemeteries were constructed and used when cremation was at its height of popularity.

Middle Neolithic. The radiocarbon-dating programme from the Stonehenge Riverside Project resulted in 32 new dates from the co-mingled cremations from AH7. This has significantly increased our understanding of cremation rites not only at Stonehenge, but also for Late Neolithic Britain as a whole. Four radiocarbon dates from Stonehenge substantially overlap with the end of the Middle Neolithic but are included in this section in order to discuss the site as a whole. The earliest cremated bone recovered at Stonehenge dates to 3340–2945 cal BC (OxA-27045; 4455±35 BP) with continued cremated insertions around the Aubrey Holes until the last deposit over 500 years later (from the ditch) dating to 2570–2360 cal BC (OxA17952; 3961±29 BP).

Radiocarbon dates from artefacts directly associated with cremated remains were also examined (Table 88 and Figure 8.122). As with the dated artefacts from the Middle Neolithic, these are also from charcoal samples. However, they do support Late Neolithic dates for these otherwise undated cremation burials.

The cremation cemeteries at Balbirnie, Forteviot, and Ferrybridge begin around the same time as Stonehenge. The first deposit at Balbirnie dates to 3264–2917 cal BC (SUERC-24166; 4405±30 BP) while the first deposit at Forteviot dates slightly later to 3090–2900 cal BC 228

Analysis and Synthesis of Middle and Late Neolithic Cremated Human Remains

Figure 8.90. Middle Neolithic radiocarbon dates from cremated human remains (figure 2 of 3).

Figure 8.91. Middle Neolithic radiocarbon dates from cremated human remains (figure 3 of 3).

229

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500)

Figure 8.92. Radiocarbon dates from artefacts associated with cremated human remains (n=7). Table 86. Radiocarbon dates from artefacts directly associated with cremated bones (n=7) Site Drumoid Daer Valley 33 Yarnton

Deposit No.

cal BP

Lab No.

Abbreviation

–

4775±45

SUERC-1592

D

F47087

4735±35

SUERC-3556

DV

–

4577±36

OxA-11454

Y

Carreg Coetan Arthur

Hole C

4560±80

CAR-391

CCA

Cairnpapple

F47087

4470±35

SUERC-25561

C

Barrow Hills

3206

4460±70

OxA-3054

BH

F47087

4440±45

OxA-11513

Y

Yarnton

Table 87. Late Neolithic radiocarbon dates from human cremated remains (n=62) Site

Deposit No.

cal BP

Lab No.

Abbreviation

Stonehenge

246

4455±35

OxA-27045

S

Stonehenge

344

4425±20

OxA-27092

S

Stonehenge

307

4420±30

OxA-27077

S

Stonehenge

336

4415±30

OxA-27090

S

Stonehenge

389

4405±25

OxA-27082

S

Balbirnie

VIII

4405±30

SUERC-24166

B

Stonehenge

289

4390±30

OxA-30294

S

Stonehenge

334

4390±30

OxA-27079

S

Stonehenge

280

4375±30

OxA-27047

S

Balbirnie

III

4370±30

SUERC-24156

B

Forteviot

641

4370±30

SUERC-29188

F

Stonehenge

596

4365±30

OxA-27084

S

–

4361±36

UB-6751

CCA

173

4360±35

OxA-26963

S

Carreg Coetan Arthur Stonehenge

230

Analysis and Synthesis of Middle and Late Neolithic Cremated Human Remains Site Balbirnie Stonehenge Lanton Quarry Balbirnie

Deposit No.

cal BP

Lab No.

Abbreviation

IIIb

4355±35

SUERC-24152

B

366

4350±30

OxA-27081

S

4032-1

4349±34

SUERC-69264

LQ

V

4345±30

SUERC-24168

B

Stonehenge

211

4340±30

OxA-27085

S

Fordhouse

Pit 24

4340±35

SUERC-2726

FH

Lanton Quarry

Pit 3

4334±34

SUERC-69263

LQ

Stonehenge

3008

4332±34

OxA-18036

S

VI

4330±30

SUERC-24170

B

Balbirnie Stonehenge

221

4325±30

OxA-26964

S

Stonehenge

357

4325±30

OxA-27080

S

Ditch

4315±30

SUERC-24176

SyBC

Pit 138

4315±35

SUERC-39677

BG

Sarn-y-bryn-caled 2 Bryn Gwyn Stonehenge

007

4315±35

OxA-27086

S

F137027

4314±41

–

HT5

Ferrybridge

SK34

4300±50

GU-11049

FB

Cossington

Barrow 1

4285±35

SUERC-11272

Co

Lower Luggy

pit 5090

4280±45

GrA-29332

LL

F523

4280±33

SUERC-70557

WLB

Heathrow T5

near Winterbourne stoke long barrow and Stonehenge Stonehenge

110

4280±2

OxA-26962

S

Forteviot

617

4275±20

SUERC-29186

F

Stonehenge

3893

4271±29

OxA-17957

S

Stonehenge

390b

4260±20

OxA-27083

S

Sarn-y-bryn-caled 2

Ditch

4255±30

SUERC-24172

SyBC

330

4255±35

OxA-27078

S

–

4244±32

OxA-25385

H

288

4235±30

OxA-27049

S

Stonehenge Hindlow Stonehenge Stonehenge

281

4210±30

OxA-27048

S

Stonehenge

255

4195±30

OxA-27046

S

Stonehenge

382+323

4180±35

OxA-27093

S

530

4180±30

SUERC-29189

F

Forteviot Orwell Farm

–

4180±35

SUERC-18309

OF

Forteviot

328

4175±30

SUERC-29187

F

Stonehenge

227

4170±30

OxA-26966

S

near Winterbourne stoke LB and Stonehenge

F512

4167±33

SUERC-70556

WLB

Meldon Bridge Barrow Hills Balbirnie Sarn-y-bryn-caled 2 Stonehenge Dunragit

K21

4153±29

SUERC-73285

MB

F4700

4150±70

OxA-1878

BH

VII

4150±30

SUERC-24161

B

Ditch

4145±30

SUERC-24171

SyBC

225

4130±30

OxA-27089

S

PH215

4125±30

SUERC-36378

Du

Flixton

338

4120±30

SUERC-35894

Fx

Stonehenge

223

4100±30

OxA-26965

S

Bixley

6099

4020±70

GU-5185

Bx

Lanton Quarry

F4110

4012±34

SUERC-69265

LQ

MOD Headquarters Durrington

7531

4000±34

SUERC-49170

MOD

Stonehenge

3898

3961±29

OxA-17958

S

Ferrybridge

SK29

3845±34

GU-11489

FB

231

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500)

Figure 8.93. Radiocarbon dates from Late Neolithic cremated human remains (figure 1 of 5).

232

Analysis and Synthesis of Middle and Late Neolithic Cremated Human Remains

Figure 8.94. Radiocarbon dates from Late Neolithic cremated human remains (figure 2 of 5).

233

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500)

Figure 8.95. Radiocarbon dates from Late Neolithic cremated human remains (figure 3 of 5).

234

Analysis and Synthesis of Middle and Late Neolithic Cremated Human Remains

Figure 8.96. Radiocarbon dates from Late Neolithic cremated human remains (figure 4 of 5).

235

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500)

Figure 8.97. Radiocarbon dates from Late Neolithic cremated human remains (figure 5 of 5).

Figure 8.98. Radiocarbon dates from artefacts associated with Late Neolithic cremations.

236

Analysis and Synthesis of Middle and Late Neolithic Cremated Human Remains Table 88. Radiocarbon dates from artefacts associated with Late Neolithc cremation depsoits (n=6) Site

Deposit No.

Lab No.

Abbreviation

Maryport

–

cal BP 4440±70

HAR-8788

MP

Trelystan

Pit

4350±70

CAR-282

Tre

Beckton Farm

Pit F080

4220±60

GU-3534

BF

Hognaston

–

4120±70

BM-2422

Hog

Stoneyfield

Central hearth

4102±42

SRR-433

STF

Stoneyfield

Pit 49

4100±70

SRR-425

STF

237

9 Discussion take only 500 years for the initial population to reach the carrying capacity of c.100,000 for the remainder of the Neolithic (from 3500 BC onwards) (Chamberlain, pers. comm.). However, if we take the upper figure of 200,000 people and accept that approximately 8,000 people died every year, then that equates to approximately 667 dead every month or 22 people per day across Britain. Taking into consideration the amount of time it took to construct monuments and the absence of very large quantities of skeletal occupants deposited inside these monuments, the majority of the population was clearly disposed of elsewhere. The increasing popularity of cremation could explain how many of the dead were disposed of; however, cremation burials do not account for the estimated 12 million dead and thus other archaeologically invisible methods must also have been used such as disposal in waterways (e.g., rivers, streams, lakes, and sea), cremation scattering, and excarnation.

The aim of this chapter is to summarise the results from my research project by placing them into a wider Neolithic framework. It should be clear that during the Neolithic of mainland Britain there was significant variation in both funerary and mortuary practices which included inhumation burials in monuments, caves and graves, the disposal of disarticulated bones and of cremated remains. Despite the frequent and consistent recovery of cremated human bone from archaeological contexts, Neolithic cremations are understood in academic literature as being low status/deviant burials and are frequently passed over if unburnt skeletal assemblages are available. My study has revealed that cremation is its own separate and distinct funerary rite and is frequently associated with circular monuments across mainland Britain. 9.1. The ‘missing’ dead Most of the limitations to my research have been previously discussed elsewhere (see Chapters 1, 5 and 8) and these will not be repeated here; however, I must stress that Neolithic research is severely limited by the fact that only a small proportion of the Neolithic British population has been excavated. The population of Neolithic Britain has been estimated at 200,000 people living at any one time (after Maier and Zimmermann, 2017) and calculated as 1 person per km2 which was then multiplied by the area of Britain (approximately 200,000km2). If the average life expectancy was, for example, 25 years (and assuming it was a static population) then approximately 8,000 people were born, and 8,000 people died every year (Chamberlain pers. comm.). Thus, there would be a staggering 12 million deaths over the entire 1500 years of the Neolithic. Since archaeologists have only excavated the skeletal evidence for a tiny fraction of the estimated 12 million individuals, this leads us to continuously ask “where are the dead?”.

It is important to understand Neolithic population growth and decline as it affected not only the quantity of human remains (and thus, archaeologically ‘visible’ burials) but may have also affected socio-economic and political relations during periods of instability. The rise and fall of Neolithic populations may be understood by observing the extent to which cereal was consumed. The earliest archaeological evidence for cereals is c.3950–3850 cal BC (Brown, 2007) with farming starting in southwest England c.3900 BC and in Scotland about 100 years afterwards (Collard et al., 2010). Between 3800 and 3700 cal BC, the consumption of both cereals and wild foods sharply increased as a consequence of huge population growth (Collard et al., 2010; Stevens and Fuller, 2012; Bevan et al., 2017). After 3700 cal BC, there is a sharp decline in the number of sites containing cereals which may have coincided with a shift towards a more mobile, pastoralbased subsistence (e.g., Robinson, 2000) c.3350 cal BC (Stevens and Fuller, 2012; Bevan et al., 2017). This shift occurred around the same times as the rise in cremation burials and the construction of circular monuments (discussed further below). However, in some regions of mainland Britain, it appears that crop growing was abandoned entirely and a reliance on wild plant food, particularly hazelnuts, resumed (Collard et al., 2010), while inhabitants of northern Scotland and the Scottish islands continued to successfully cultivate cereal crops (Bishop, 2015). Furthermore, evidence from the Scottish islands does not reveal an increased demand for grains grown for populations elsewhere (ibid.). Rather, crop production would have continued on mainland Britain but at a reduced scale than from the intensive, small-scale farming seen in the Early Neolithic.

Now, a few modifications can be made to the above calculation: large parts of Britain are less habitable and less agriculturally productive than regions of central Europe where Maier and Zimmermann (2017) based their calculations. We can reduce the area suitable for British Neolithic settlement to approximately 100,000km2 and since the population would not have been consistent at 100,000 people throughout the whole of the Neolithic, the starting population from the Mesolithic/Early Neolithic transition would have been much smaller. Based on Zimmermann et al.,’s (2009) calculations of hunter-gatherer population densities, 1,000 people with a population growth rate of 1% per annum would cause the population to double every 70 years. Therefore, it would

239

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) Climatic deterioration (leading to repetitive crop failure) has been suggested as another cause of the termination of cereal agriculture and the post-3350 cal BC population collapse (Stevens and Fuller, 2012). However, Shennan et al. (2013) argue that there is little evidence to support variations in population levels caused by paleoclimatic conditions. Rather, the population of Neolithic Britain is presented as one of instability in a ‘boom and bust’ model resulting in a population that fluctuated enormously in this and other pre-urban societies (Shennan, 2013; Downey et al., 2014; Bevan et al., 2017). Pollen analysis, however, supports an escalation in forest clearance during the Early Neolithic due to a sharp increase in population requiring arable lands for cultivation (Richmond, 1999; Thomas, 1999; Hey and Robinson, 2011; Stevens and Fuller, 2012; Woodbridge et al., 2014). A mosaic-type landscape ensued in which pastures, meadows, grasslands, and fields were interspersed amongst dwindling tracts of woodland and fenland (Woodbridge et al., 2014). By the Middle Neolithic there appears to have been a sharp decline in the population and the pollen reflects that forests were slowly being reestablished. The lack of pollen in certain areas of Britain, interpreted as cleared woodland for field cultivation, may also be partly due to the grazing of livestock (Pétrequin et al., 2010). When trees are felled, stumps send up shoots in order to regenerate as secondary forest. If problems in cereal cultivation were causing constraints on the population during the Middle Neolithic, then livestock may have been encouraged to eat the new growth rather than be fed valuable grains. Other factors which may have resulted in population decline include diseases/epidemics (e.g., Rascovan et al., 2019), interpersonal violence (e.g., Schulting and Fibiger, 2012), over-stressed farming levels and/or the reliance on over-exploited species (Shennan et al., 2013; Schulting, 2010). It is clear that the outcome such crises would have had on small local communities would have been significant and may have also underpinned the socioeconomic instabilities seen during the Middle Neolithic resulting in the emergence of new artefact styles, monuments, and funerary rites. If the boom-or-bust model is correct, then it would drastically have reduced the inferred millions of inhabitants to much lower population levels in the Middle and Late Neolithic rather than one that continuously increased or remained stable into the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age.

limestone uplands of the Cotswolds. This is a crucial point as differing geology may lead to a biased interpretation regarding the mode of deposition in certain areas of Britain. For example, the frequent recovery of cremated remains and the general lack of unburnt bones in Scotland and Wales may be interpreted as these regions favouring cremation rites. However, it is the unburnt bones which may not have survived the hostile soil conditions rather than a deliberate funerary choice for their exclusion, thus leading to a potential bias in terms of size and distribution of recovered assemblages if soil conditions are not considered. 9.2. The identities of those selected for cremation burial Our demographic understanding of the Neolithic is largely dependent on who the living selected for special burial whether it was inhumed burial in a monument or cremation on a pyre. It must not be forgotten that the Neolithic dead recovered by archaeologists are, in large measure, a reflection of who was considered worthy of remembrance by the living, and that the demographic data derives from a tiny proportion of the Neolithic population. For example, there seems to be a predominance of adult male inhumation burials from the Middle Neolithic through to the Early Bronze Age (Last, 1998; Lucas, 1996; Mizoguchi, 1993; Smith and Brickley, 2009). Long barrows produced three times more male articulated remains than females (Thorpe, 1984,1996; Smith and Brickley, 2009). In Yorkshire, 48% of single burials are adult males, 15% are female and the remaining 37% are children (and therefore unsexed) (Mizoguchi: 1993). These numbers may be the result of the variable reliability of sex estimations in historic (pre1960s) excavations and the experience of the person examining the human remains (Schulting, 2007; Fleming, 1973). Yet, it is equally worth pointing out that the higher prevalence of male burials does not indicate that this was necessarily a male-dominant society. If demographic trends are to be discussed then all skeletal remains, including cremations, should be examined in terms of age and sex in order to accurately understand disposal trends and societal social structures during the Neolithic. A total of 646 cremated individuals from the Middle and Late Neolithic were incorporated into this study. As previously mentioned, 92% (n=596) of cremated individuals were deposited in and around circular monuments while the others were placed within isolated pits (n=50). The low number of isolated cremation burials in the archaeological record may be due to their infrequent recovery as they are not visible aboveground, but it may also reflect that these were deviant burials which were deliberately hidden away or separated from Neolithic society. Interpretation of the results from the osteological analyses was hindered by the high quantity of individuals with unknown age and sex. However, certain trends from both the Middle and Late Neolithic were noted: firstly, the majority of deceased individuals chosen for cremation were adults (n=292) while sub-adults from all age

The ‘missing dead’ can also be explained by way of differential preservation in that geographical areas with acidic soil preserves cremated bone while unburnt bone disappears. In mapping the spatial distribution of cremated and unburnt bone against the background of geology and soil conditions, Jay and Scarre (2017) saw patterns appear which highlighted preservation difficulties. The acidic soils of Scotland and Wales favour the survival of cremated bones over unburnt bones while the chalklands are particularly good regions for unburnt skeletal survival due to their non-acidic calcareous soils. It is therefore not surprising that the largest Neolithic assemblages of unburnt skeletal remains derive from the chalk downs of southern England and east Yorkshire and from the 240

Discussion categories (n=97) were also represented. Since prehistoric populations are expected to have had moderate to high mortality rates (Chamberlain, 2012), this may suggest that cremation cemeteries received a slightly higher representation of the Neolithic community compared to unburnt burials in, for example, long barrows (n=26%). Children were not only selected for the ‘expensive’ rite of cremation, but some monuments (such as Imperial College Sports Ground) were solely devoted to cremated children. In fact, out of the 49 single cremation deposits (from all Middle and Late Neolithic sites) 18 children were buried in their own separate deposit while 31 were buried in a co-mingled deposit. Interestingly, the results from the comingled cremations reveal that 66% (n=33) contain at least one child: only one co-mingled deposit consists solely of children, five deposits consist of children buried with an adult male and an adult female, and 15 deposits were of children buried with unsexed adults. There are also 50% more mixed deposits containing children with at least one adult female (n=8) than of children with at least one adult male (n=4). This tantalising data hints at Neolithic ideals of parenthood and the importance of including deceased children into co-mingled deposits.

well-maintained with appropriate oxygen flow to render efficiently cremated bones. A few cremation deposits contained charred and/or unburnt bone fragments; however, this does not signify a lack of experience in cremation. Rather, Neolithic people may have added additional human bones to the pyre late in the cremation process, added unburnt bones to the deposit at the time of burial or the charred/unburnt bones were accidental inclusions. There is not sufficient evidence from any of the cremated remains analysed for the purposes of this research to indicate that the rite of cremation rose independently. Instead, the colouration of the cremated bones reveal that the vast majority of deposits had been expertly cremated. The average deposit weight for both Middle and Late Neolithic adult cremations is 314.0g and is far below the expected archaeological average weight of 1,636g. As discussed previously, token deposition was the preferred method for the disposal and there was a distinct preference for small token deposits below 100g and especially below 25g, representing a few ‘handfuls’ of cremated bone. This signifies that retention/curation of cremated bones occurred after the bones were collected from the pyre, and/ or, that small amounts of cremated bones were deposited in multiple locations. There is no evidence to suggest that token deposition indicates that specific body parts were selected out from the pyre debris for burial elsewhere; rather, all the cremated bone deposits that I have examined contained an assortment of skeletal elements. This suggests that bones were carefully collected en mass from the pyre site, placed into a container and transported to the chosen site for burial. When a few handfuls of the bones were taken out for deposition, they were already mixed together due to mingling within the container during transportation. The pyre site at Pencraig Hill (Duffy and MacGregor, 2008) is the only example where it appears that disarticulated body parts were being cremated rather than an entire body. The burial of individual body parts after cremation has not yet been recovered at other sites suggesting this may have been a very localised practice.

Secondly, the majority of adult cremations of known sex (n=91) are female (n=60). While this potentially indicates a preference for cremated females deposited at monuments, it must be stressed that only 31% of the total number of adult cremations could be sexed. Some monuments were exclusively devoted to women (e.g., Llandegai Henge A and the segmented pit circle at Llandegai) while others contained a higher percentage of male burials (e.g., Dorchester-on-Thames site II and site 2, and Forteviot), or a higher percentage of female burials (e.g., West Stow and Stonehenge). While there is no apparent patterning in the spatial organisation of the deposits based on age at death or biological sex, the central cremation deposits which could be sexed are all female (e.g., Imperial College Sports Ground G2007 and West Stow). This trend makes sense as it has been observed at some Early Bronze Age monuments (e.g., Burgess, 1980: 297; Sofaer Derevenski, 2002: 201; Brück, 2014: 120) and suggest that these Neolithic results are reflecting an older trend.

The maximum bone lengths are mostly below the expected archaeological average of 45.2mm; however, longer bone fragments of between 70.0 to 97.1mm (Middle Neolithic) and between 51.0 to 121.4mm (Late Neolithic) have been recorded. This indicates that that taphonomic processes (especially in deposition in an unprotected environment), historic disturbance and/or looting or acidic soil conditions were factors in smaller bone fragment sizes, rather than deliberate fragmentation of the cremated bones prior to burial.

Results regarding pyre technology indicate a preference for oak logs, followed by hazel and alder trees. Only 10.9% of sites contained evidence of charcoal (and even then, only small quantities were recovered) indicating that cremated bones were washed before deposition or that charcoal fragments were not kept after archaeological excavation (especially if the excavation occurred pre-1950). Most archaeological reports do not state the presence or absence of charcoal within cremation deposits, thus the precise number of sites containing charcoal may, in fact, be much higher.

The lack of ‘rich’ grave goods is often regarded as a sign of low status (Brück, 2014) and while grave goods are certainly recovered less frequently in cremation deposits rather than in inhumation burials, there are other factors to consider. Funerary objects may have been displayed on the body but were removed prior to cremation, whilst objects left with the body (pyre goods) might have perished during the cremation process (McKinley, 1997). Equally,

The majority of the cremated bones were noted to be in varying shades of light grey and white indicating fire temperatures exceeding 800°C. The colouration implies experience in the cremation process as the pyres were 241

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) burnt objects that did survived the cremation process may have been separated out from the cremated remains at the pyre site and therefore not buried with the bones. In geographical areas with acidic soils, unburnt animal bones may not have survived within the burial environment if they were deposited with the cremated bones. Similarly, burnt animal bones and/or animal bone artefacts (e.g., bone pins) may not always be identified by the osteologist and the deposits are subsequently recorded as being ‘empty’ of grave goods.

as those from the hands and feet –this does not indicate careless bone recovery. Rather, it reveals the meticulous and painstaking efforts taken to ensure complete collection of all cremated bones. However, the current use of the term ‘token deposit’ in reports and publications is ambiguous and does not adequately describe (or define) the various amounts of recovered cremated bone in the archaeological record. While the literature generally accepts that 200g or less is a token deposition, this was not the norm during the Neolithic when the living clearly favoured the deposition of varying token amounts, both large and small (see Chapter 8). Frustrated by the constraint imposed on osteological analysis due to a lack of definition and terminology, I propose there are two main types of token deposition and two further types of heavier cremation depositions. The first type, which I have termed a small token deposit, is the symbolic representation of the deceased and constitutes c.100g or less of cremated fragments (about a ‘handful’ or two). This small amount of cremated bone is often recovered either as a tiny scatter or as a few cremated bone fragments carefully deposited in a specific location, such as a posthole (e.g., posts of the palisaded enclosure at Forteviot; Noble and Brophy, 2017) or within tombs. The second type, which I have termed a large token deposit, is the physical representation of a deceased individual and should consist of up to approximately ¼ of the expected weight from a complete adult cremation (c.100g to c.350g). This larger, but still incomplete, deposition is frequently recovered within circular monuments and Neolithic pits. For heavy cremations, the term partial cremation deposit should be used to describe a deposit of c.450–850g of cremated bone (half of the expected weight of an adult cremation) while complete or full cremation deposit should be used to describe deposits exceeding c.900g in weight. Both half and complete deposition occurred during the Neolithic, but they were the least favoured as they are infrequently found within the archaeological record.

Interpretation regarding grave goods is also hindered by a lack of information such as location of the grave goods in association to the cremation deposits or whether the artefacts were burnt or unburnt. As grave goods did not form part of my main research objectives, research into this area was minimal. However, it was noted that the most common grave goods recovered from cremation deposits were animal bones, followed by stone artefacts, flints then pottery. In addition, arrowheads, knives, fabricators, maceheads, mauls, axes and bone pins have also been found. Demographic analysis also revealed that grave goods were placed in both adult and child cremations but that they were more common in adult female burials. Again, this figure is tentative as my research did not contain a robust dataset on grave goods and osteological results are hindered by the high quantity of individuals of unknown age/sex and the number of co-mingled individuals. 9.3. The nature of deposition and the importance of ‘token deposits’ McKinley (1997) has argued that partial deposits of cremated remains (as token or as half amounts) are the result of careless bone recovery and should be interpreted as representing individuals of low status. McKinley continues by stating that the larger deposits of cremated bone indicate that more effort was made at the pyre to collect all the bones and, therefore, suggests treatment of individuals of high-status (ibid.). However, this argument cannot be applied to Neolithic cremations. Rather, all Neolithic cremations symbolise the care and attention bestowed to the deceased, and cremations would have been reserved for those considered worthy of the timeconsuming funerary rites. Cremations were a visually significant event which would have left a lasting impact on the mourners/spectators (Williams, 2004; Sørensen, 2014; Larsson and Nilsson Stutz, 2014; Brück, 2014). Indeed, food may have been consumed, stories shared, and rituals observed; however, cremations were also a labour-intensive process. A plentiful supply of wood would be required to construct and maintain the pyre, the deceased would have to have been transported onto site, and the cremation event would require hours of tending after which the bones would have been collected, sorted/cleaned and then transported to the burial site for deposition. The monument, if not already built, would then also require further time, labour and materials for its construction. In addition, archaeologically excavated cremated remains typically contained small bones such

The retrieval of cremated bone fragments from pyre sites would have been incredibly time consuming but even the smallest skeletal elements were carefully collected. By contrast, these bones were then buried in small/large token deposits, so where have the rest of the bones gone? Furthermore, how can we explain multiple individuals contained within a small/large token deposit? These questions raise intriguing possibilities regarding curation/ storage and the retention of cremated individuals: after collection from the pyre, the bones may have been placed in a container but deposited at one or more different locations, divided between mourners as a form of memento mori or for burial elsewhere, or they may have been stored in pits for removal at a later date. As noted in Chapter 8, some co-mingled deposits revealed bones with differential soil preservation and/or differential pyre temperatures when compared to the other cremated bones from the same context. This is a likely indicator that one or more individuals from the deposit were buried or stored elsewhere prior to being added to the main cremation 242

Discussion deposit. There are a few instances where cremation pits contained evidence of a postpipe (e.g., Monument 3 (site 2) Dorchester-on-Thames, Lanton Quarry), perhaps serving as a form of grave marker for remembrance and mourning. It is also possible that the location was marked in order to remove the bones for reburial elsewhere at a later date. This could explain why some pits appear to be ‘empty’ but for a few small fragments of cremated bone mixed into the fill.

were also emerging spaces for trade, feasting, communal gatherings and/or for renew socio-economic and political ties. At different times these places were both sacred and profane: both a place to bury and mourn the dead but also a place for social and business transactions. In many of these sites the living persisted in engaging with the space (or with the dead buried within) through episodes of burning or by placing broken pottery and stone tools in the forecourt (e.g., the long cairns at Caithness and at Tinkinswood) (Noble, 2006; Cummings and Whittle, 2004). These cultural deposits may have occurred after permanent closure of the monuments as these spaces continued to be used by the living. Both funerary rites and social events held at and around monuments may have had local, regional and/or even national significance for Neolithic people.

Furthermore, Henshall and Ritchie (2001: 71) suggest that some cremated bones were deposited within tombs for a short period of time prior to their removal. This short-term curation resulted in residual bone fragments being left behind, similar to some seemingly ‘empty’ pits. While Henshall and Ritchie’s theory may be a plausible explanation at some tomb locations (Smith and Brickley, 2009: 59), it is certainly not the case at other sites where the maximum bone length exceeds the archaeological average of 45.2mm (e.g., max bone fragment size from Hazelton North, 45.2mm; Fromefield, 74.6mm; Broadsands, 50mm; Luckington, 46mm). If maximum bone length is taken into consideration, then it would seem improbable that these large bone fragments were accidently missed when cleaning out the monument, especially since several large cremation fragments were found in visible locations such as entrances rather than being left behind (Cuthbert, 2018: 304). Instead, the bone fragments must have been deliberately deposited as a spiritual representation of the deceased individual, with the remainder of the individual buried elsewhere.

The sites discussed throughout this book are not intended to be an exhaustive list but a representation of the variety of mortuary and funerary rites throughout mainland Britain. The majority of these sites also contained radiocarbon dating from cremated bones though, in a few instances, dates by artefact association were also used. In total, 24 Middle Neolithic monumental sites consisting of 402 cremated individuals and 19 isolated pits containing 20 cremated individuals were identified. Twenty-five Late Neolithic sites consisting of 194 cremated individuals and 14 isolated pits containing 30 cremated individuals were identified. It is worth nothing that there may be a slight bias regarding the number of monument sites and isolated pits since monuments are easier to identify in the landscape while pits may have been positioned in remote or discrete areas purposefully hidden from view. Isolated pits may have been used for deviant/secretive burials, or indeed for some other purpose not visible in the archaeological record.

The burial of any quantity of cremated bone also opens up the possibility that deposition may have occurred at multiple locations. This again, would have time and labour implications associated with transporting the remains of the dead over long distances. Indeed, as we have seen with the isotopic results from Stonehenge, some of the earliest individuals have isotopic values consistent with origins in west Wales (Snoeck et al., 2018). While these non-local people may have died close to Stonehenge, it is equally possible that they died in west Wales and their ashes were brought to Stonehenge for burial. During my analysis of Stonehenge, I noticed that some of the cremated bones had been buried within an acidic environment and were not consistent with burial in the alkaline chalk around Stonehenge. In areas of acidic soil (such as Wales), pits may have been used as underground storage receptacles prior to retrieval and would therefore appear ‘empty’ except perhaps for a few fragments of cremated bone mixed into the fill. In other excavated pits, prior disturbances have been recorded suggesting that only a portion of the cremation deposit was removed for burial elsewhere and the remaining cremated bones were left within the pit.

Early Neolithic monuments were primarily built for the dead and took the form of mortuary chambers, long mounds/barrows and long cairns. They were used to store unburnt bones within a protective environment and their design permitted continued access in order to organise bones and to bury further individuals. In academic literature, monuments are often regarded as territorial markers and as a visible way for Neolithic people to claim decent from ancestors. My research has revealed that as cremation practices continued to rise in the Middle Neolithic, monumental form began changing towards circular shapes, yet still retained elements of earlier rites. Inhumations continued to be placed in monuments that progressed towards circular forms such as oval barrows, cursuses and causewayed enclosures. Round barrows held both inhumations and cremations (e.g., Duggleby Howe and West Stow) suggesting a link between both old and new funerary traditions. Monuments such as passage/ chambered tombs, ring ditches and pit circles were all circular in shape and were solely associated with cremated remains. By the Late Neolithic, cremation was the preferred funerary rite and cremated remains continued to be buried in circular monuments such as henges,

9.4. Cremations associated with circular monuments As I have noted (Chapter 3), circular monuments were used to deposit cremated human remains throughout the Middle and Late Neolithic; however, these monuments 243

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) palisaded enclosures, penannular ring-ditches and stone/ timber circles. Inhumation burials and disarticulated bone deposits were rare during this period. Both cremation and their association with circular monuments then continued into the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age despite the renewal of inhumation rites by the migrant Beaker people from continental Europe. Both Middle and Late Neolithic monuments were re-used for deposition during the Early Bronze Age as a way for cementing their right to the ancestors and to the land.

during the Middle Neolithic corresponded with an increase in cremation burials as well as a shift in who was selected for cremation. The changes also resulted in other funerary modifications: a decline in cave and rock-shelter burials (and an absence of cremation deposits in these areas); a transition from collective to single burial after 3400 BC; a change from disarticulated to articulated burials (and thus, an emphasis on the ‘individual’); a decline in inhumations after 3000 BC; and a decline in male inhumation burials in conjunction with an increase in female cremation deposits. Fire, therefore, helped to shape the British Neolithic by transforming social structures, material culture as well as both funerary and mortuary rites.

9.5. The destructive and transforming properties of fire Fire is briefly considered here in order to link cremation, deceased individuals, mourners/spectators, and monuments together through a transformative process of deliberate burning. Within prehistoric archaeological literature, fire is often discussed as playing an important role through its everyday uses, in particular for warmth, light and protection (cf. Cooney, 2000; Odgaard, 2007; Gheorghiu and Nash, 2007). But it’s properties also transformed objects, such as clay into pottery or raw foods into cooked meals (Gibson and Woods, 1990; Sibbesson, 2018) as well as transforming places such as woodland into farmland through episodes of burning (Brown, 1997; Moore, 1997; Edmonds, 1999). Fire is also a critical element embedded within Neolithic funerary practices. Fire-altered objects such as pottery sherds, burnt flint, charcoal, and burnt animal bones were added to deposits of cremated bone (or, were included into the pyre during the cremation process) while archaeological evidence shows a deliberate burning of some monuments. As noted in Chapter 3, mortuary enclosures (e.g., Lochhill, Eweford West, Pencraig Hill, Haddenham, Nutbane, Seamer Moor), timber cursuses (e.g., Douglasmuir, Stirling, Hollywood North) and palisaded enclosures (e.g., Pencraig Hill) were deliberately burnt in order to end activity or to begin a new phase of activity. Deliberate burning was significant in transforming monuments and people’s relationships with certain spaces and objects. Fire created a visual spectacle which transformed people’s memories and experiences (Jones, 2007; Brophy et al., 2017; Younger, 2017), transformed deceased bodies into cremated bones, and forged links between funerary practices and the dead through the process of cremation. A burning pyre would have impacted mourners and/or spectators through its sights, sounds, smells and surrounding social activity (Williams, 2004; Sørensen, 2014; Larsson and Nilsson Stutz, 2014; Brück, 2014); indeed, Downes (1999: 19) famously called cremation both a ‘spectacle and a journey’.

The burning of pyres and of (some) monuments were deliberate acts of destruction, but also acts which transformed places and deceased individuals. Burning events may have had small/large crowds and required an enormous quantity of fuel in order to tend the fire(s). These events created strong memories and maintained connections which were fundamental to Neolithic oral traditions (Thomas, 2007; Brophy et al., 2017: 442). Cremations may have been ‘extravagant affairs’ but little archaeological evidence was left behind (Parker Pearson, 1999: 6). As noted in Chapters 1 and 3, it is rare to find prehistoric pyre sites unless they were immediately covered over by a round mound or cairn. Since the process of cremation only burns the first few centimetres of soil, it will be erased from the ground surface if its left exposed even for a short period of time. The relative lack of pyre sites in the archaeological record indicates that it was not the place of burning which was important but the fiery event itself which ensured lasting memories and ties to specific deceased individuals who were deliberately selected for remembrance.

As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, cremation rites were brought by Early Neolithic migrant farming communities from continental Europe. Their arrival also brough new technology, material culture and monumental design to indigenous hunter-gatherer populations. In this context, cremation was not just a physical transformation of the deceased but was also embedded within a wider social transformation (Brophy et al, 2017). These social, and perhaps political, shifts which occurred predominately 244

10 Future Directions and Closing Remarks This book examined the funerary rite of cremation in mainland Britain during the Middle and Late Neolithic (c.3500 to 2500 BC) by exploring the distribution and chronology of monuments (Chapter 3) and isolated burials (Chapter 4). I personally analysed the cremated remains from Stonehenge, Llandegai (Henge A and pit circle), Bryn Celli Ddu, West Stow, Carreg Coetan Arthur, Lower Luggy, Carreg Samson, Parc le Breos Cwm and Twlcy-Filiast, and then incorporated extra data drawn from various archaeological reports in order to show the extent of cremation burial during the Neolithic (Chapters 6 and 7). I then used the data from 646 cremated remains in order to determine trends regarding age, sex, burial organisation, pyre technology and cremation processes (Chapter 8). The results were summarised and placed into a wider Neolithic context (Chapter 9) where I have established that cremation was its own separate funerary rite and was commonly associated with circular monuments. While my research answered its original objectives, it is clear that my results have opened up new avenues of investigation in which the main themes are presented below:

pottery. Inhumed skeletal collections stored in museums may contain unknown quantities of cremated bones (as discussed in Chapter 3), while other sites which have labelled bone as ‘burnt’, ‘charred’, or ‘scorched’ should also be re-examined as this may reflect pre-1950s terminology for cremation, rather than a description of the bone. Through the re-evaluating of these Neolithic sites it is possible that previously unknown cremation sites will be discovered. Other pre-1950s excavated Neolithic cremation cemeteries have either not been osteologically examined or the analysis was never completed. For example, only 42% of the cremated remains from Dorchester-on-Thames have been examined but not to a modern standard. Indeed, the study of cremations has improved significantly within the last 20 years and sites excavated pre-2000 may benefit from a re-analysis using current scientific methods. A complete re-analysis has the potential of reducing the high quantity of unaged and unsexed individuals so that proportional distribution would not be required when analysing population dynamics.

10.1. Future directions

10.1.2. Population dynamics

10.1.1. Systematic review

Population dynamics is key to understanding the framework for funerary and mortuary rites, monumental construction, social change, and cultural organisation within Neolithic communities. Monuments were not just funerary spaces, but also a statement with the landscape in which the deceased were specifically selected for deposition. However, the relationship between human activity, paleoenvironmental data, and population density must also be taken into consideration. For example, the inferred population decline during the Middle Neolithic is currently interpreted as a result of fluctuating paleoclimatic conditions and crop failures (Bevan et al., 2017). These crises supposedly resulted in higher mortality rates which, in turn, negatively impacted on population growth. Bevan et al.’s population data is based on radiocarbon dates from a small number of Middle Neolithic inhumed skeletons which support the picture of decline. Additionally, population declination may seem less dramatic if the large quantity of cremation burials is also taken into account. The perceived decline in population, as inferred from the mortuary data, may therefore be a result of people choosing cremation rather than inhumation for bodily disposal. If paleoenvironmental trends (as well as trends regarding population density and human activity) are to be more fully documented, then cremations must be included to provide a more representative picture of Neolithic Britain.

Firstly, a systematic overhaul of the literature both published and unpublished will establish all known Neolithic cremation sites (including the Early Neolithic). While my project examined 49 sites, they were intended to be a representative reflection of those monuments and pits associated with radiocarbon-dated cremated bone. The establishment of a database consisting of all British Neolithic sites, including cremated remains recovered on the British Isles (e.g., Orkney, Shetland, Isle of Man), the western Isles and Ireland, would allow for an in-depth understanding of Neolithic cremation practices, their chronological trajectory, regional variations/site-specific practices, as well as demographic data as it progressed towards becoming the dominant funerary rite. The database will also allow for a complete re-appraisal of our current practices when excavating, analysing, and reporting cremated bones. One of the main actions would then be to discuss a) what archaeological information is required when analysing cremated bones and how to consistently report these within archaeological reports, and b) how current osteological methods could be improved in order to obtain better, and more accurate, results. Secondly, a systematic re-analysis of Neolithic human bones is also required. Many sites excavated prior to the 1950s did not document the recovery of cremated bones focusing instead on the inhumations and

245

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) 10.1.3. Radiocarbon dating

communities entered Britain during the Early Neolithic and introduced a greater complexity in social organisation by investing heavily into monument building; they also introduced communal burials and rites of cremation against a backdrop of new agricultural strategies and changing political dynamics. This led to a huge population growth among people genetically descended from Iberian populations while the local indigenous hunter-gatherer communities gradually disappeared (Brace et al., 2019). As I have previously discussed, by the Middle Neolithic, a shift towards a more mobile, pastoral-based subsistence coincided with changes to mortuary rites including the development of circular monuments and a transition from collective burial, as well as to cremation. Population movement by pastoralists within Britain may have resulted in the spread of cremation rites, so that by the Late Neolithic cremation had become the dominant mode of disposal.

Cremation cemeteries are still often considered to be either Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age through artefact association (e.g., pottery typology or radiocarbon dates from charcoal, bone pins, hazelnut shells or inhumation burials) as cremated bones were rarely sampled. Noble and Brophy’s (2017) Bayesian modelling of some of the cremation cemeteries in Britain has provided an alternative interpretation for some sites; however, the low number of radiocarbon dates from cremated bones (n=5 sites) has meant that most of the dates were a result of artefact association (n=14 sites). The modelling of their analysis has led them to demonstrate that the majority of cremation cemeteries were constructed c.3000 cal BC (Noble and Brophy,2017: 236). However, it is vitally important that radiocarbon dates are taken from the cremated bones rather than relying on artefacts as this can be misleading: both Llandegai and West Stow were thought to be Late Neolithic based on artefact association, but radiocarbon dating the cremated bones has pushed these sites back to the Middle Neolithic. Fortunately, commercial archaeological units are now routinely radiocarbon dating cremated bone and a few research projects have re-visited old cremation assemblages (those excavated pre-1980s) resulting in an increase in dates directly from cremated bones (see Appendix 2). However, there are still dozens of cemeteries lacking direct radiocarbon sampling, and if such sampling projects transpire in the future, then a true chronological trajectory of the Neolithic rite of cremation can be achieved. This will bolster the quantity of known Neolithic cremation cemeteries, deepen our understanding of local and regional funerary trends, and identify any chronological patterns regarding demographic and social processes within the population. The radiocarbon dating data will also provide evidence regarding the nature of the transition from inhumation to cremation and will indicate any potential overlaps or gaps within the chronological model. The corpus of dates should be modelled using Bayesian approaches such as the summed probability of depositional dates per monument (thus providing a time frame for monumental activities), dates per region, and then to compare dates across mainland Britain. Additionally, by examining the radiocarbon dates from cremated bones and the dates from other artefacts within the same stratigraphical context, it will be possible to investigate curation/storage activities. By assessing the agreement indices and X2 tests, it would be feasible to test the hypothesis that the dates of death and deposition were contemporaneous. This may reveal patterns regarding specific ages or sexes being curated prior to their deposition with other individuals during the final burial –such as the possibilities of curating deceased children before adding them to adult cremations.

Mobility played a role in regard to residential rules (e.g., matrilocality and/or patrilocality) in which specific sexand age-related individuals moved between communities. Studies elsewhere have shown that some agricultural societies which practised collective burial may have been more concerned with endogamous inheritance systems (marriage within one’s own group), as these kept land within specific familial lineages. This is in contrast to pastoralists who commonly practised single burials and where their herds may have been more important than land (e.g., Parker Pearson and Regnier, 2018). Thus, while pastoralists had greater mobility throughout the landscape, they may also have practised exogamy (marriage outside one’s own group) where individual residential changes transpired. Differential burial treatment, as reflected by the two farming styles, may indicate residential rules within that community since, for example, a dominance of male inhumations may reflect patrilocality. Scientific analysis of skeletal remains (both cremated and unburnt) is required to further reveal geographical differences in terms of where an individual lived versus where they were buried, thus indicating an exogamous/endogamous social system within that community. While human mobility affected profound changes in burial practice, the impact among specific age and sex groups is still poorly understood. I an age/sex demographic trajectory of mobility patterns using strontium isotope analysis and radiocarbon dating from Neolithic cremated bones. The focus will be on further identifying who was selected for cremation and how this reflects mobility by examining where they were raised in relation to where they lived the last decade of their lives, and where they were buried. The results will clarify current assumptions regarding patriarchal and exogamous social structures through the examination of non-local and local individuals within cremation cemeteries. The results will also provide a chronological framework for monumental burial activity as well as for individuals buried in non-monumental contexts such as isolated pits.

10.1.4. Strontium stable isotopes Human movement and migration were key factors in the spread of ideas and technology which profoundly changed society (e.g., Olalde et al., 2018). Indeed, migrant farming 246

Future Directions and Closing Remarks 10.1.5. Location of cremation deposits and the purposes of isolated pits

landscape, it would be essential to calculate the number of pits containing postpipes and the number of disturbed and/or the number of almost-empty pits that contained a few cremated bone fragments mixed into the fill. The data could help determine if pits were used as storage receptacles or if the pit location was selected due to the proximity to some sort of feature (e.g., large tree throw, post alignment, river/lake). Indeed, cremated individuals contained within isolated pits may be considered special in some way — this does not imply high rank or status — but rather a deliberate separation of those considered worthy of remembrance within a monument, those who were meant to be forgotten in a vast landscape or those who were buried in sacred, or perhaps even secret, locations.

My research compared cremated remains from sites across mainland Britain and I did not find any burial organisation based on age at death or biological sex within monuments, nor was it apparent if burial location (e.g., next to an entrance or cardinal orientation) was a factor in the placement of cremated bones. However, if the problems and limitations I discussed in Chapter 1 were resolved, then local and regional variations should be examined to determine if burial organisation can be seen on a smaller geographical scale. This would provide new insight into regional timelines for funerary and mortuary change and the extent these changes may overlap or deviate from each other.

A critical discussion regarding alternative pit function is also required. It could be argued, for example, that cremation pits increased the extent of bodily fragmentation and the continuation of commingling multiple unburnt individuals. Pits may also be a link between declining inhumation traditions and the increasing popularity of cremations, as Neolithic people attempt to make sense of new funerary rites by incorporating them with the old. The co-mingling of cremated individuals within a single deposit may reflect the co-mingling of inhumed individuals (and of disarticulated body parts) within Early Neolithic chambered tombs. Additionally, it would be useful to clarify whether some cremation pits (perhaps those with post-pipes/postholes) may have developed into a monument during or at a later stage of deposition (to this, we can ask ‘when did a monument become a monument?’). It is worth considering that cremation pits, seemingly randomly placed in isolation, may have been the first stage towards a monument; however, deposition ceased before further development could transpire.

The complete absence of cremated remains from caves, fissures and rock shelters strongly implies a conscious decision on who was being cremated (and thus, a deliberate division of funerary treatment between burnt and unburnt individuals), but further research is needed enquiring why Neolithic people were avoiding caves for the deposition of cremated bones. In the simplest manner, caves are similar to long barrows: they both contain a single entrance, a dark interior, and can be repeatedly accessed for a variety of purposes. However, archaeological excavations of long barrows have recovered deposits of cremated bones and cremation scatters, yet cremated bones have yet to be found in caves. Additionally, the deposition of cremated remains is almost completely absent from settlements, dwellings, or places used for day-to-day living. As an example, the houses excavated from the large henge at Durrington Walls were seen as places for the living (Parker Pearson forthcoming) and maintained links with Stonehenge (just four miles away) as a place for the dead. The only domestic site which contained cremations is House 7, Yarnton, where cremated bone fragments were deposited in the postholes of the house foundation (see Hey et al., 2016). The overall lack of cremated bones from Neolithic domestic areas is a clear and deliberate division of spaces for the living and spaces for the dead. This line of enquiry requires further exploration since cremated bones have been recovered within house foundations in Neolithic Ireland (Smyth, 2020) and there does not appear to be the same separation of space when considering the locations of unburnt human remains across Britain (Barclay et al., 2020). I must therefore ask, why were cremations intentionally absent from areas occupied by the living, yet it was customary to incorporate unburnt human bones into domestic spaces?

10.1.6. Grave goods and inclusions Research regarding grave goods associated with cremations may identify possible patterns regarding, for example, the quantity of burnt and unburnt objects, the origin of the grave goods versus the location of deposition, age, and sex of the cremated individual in relation to the types of objects placed within the deposit, and the stratigraphical relationship of the objects in relation to the cremated bones. Relating to all this, a discussion on whether the addition of another human individual (either burnt or unburnt) into a main cremation should be considered a ‘grave good’. Currently, such deposits are labelled as ‘co-mingled’ yet there is a huge discrepancy in using that term: our understanding of co-mingling suggests, for example, that the addition of 25g of cremated bone to a main cremation deposit is the equivalent as adding 14g of extremely weathered cremated bones from an adult, 35g of cremated bones from a child, and 2g of unburnt bone to the main cremation deposit. In this example it is clear that the overriding difference (other than MNI) is the quantity of cremated bone inserted within the main deposit. While this brings us back to my definition of symbolic representation and token deposition, a discussion must ensue which

Further research is also required on isolated pits in terms of their place within the surrounding environment, their proximity to natural and/or man-made temporary feature, and a critical reflection on possible alternative functions. While the act of digging new pits was probably an important part of the mortuary process, little is known about the re-opening and/or the re-use of pits after initial deposition. Since cremation pits are largely invisible in the 247

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) contemplates whether the addition of extra individuals into a main cremation should be considered a ‘grave good’ or whether that definition excludes unmodified human skeletal remains. 10.2. Closing remarks The Neolithic was a period of continuous change: new ideas and technology, the re-organisation of social structures, the introduction of agriculture and pastoral practices, as well as significant changes in mortuary and funerary rites. The growing popularity of cremation reflects a complex process of social organisation of the living but also suggests long-term changes in people’s interaction with the dead. While these changes may be linked to outside influences (e.g., population decline, economic instabilities, migration) it is clear that cremation was a catalyst that affected funerary and mortuary rites, such as monumental design and its progression towards geometrically circular shapes, and in linking specific individuals to these highly visible monuments within the landscape. Within academia, Neolithic cremations are often regarded as deviant burials or as a ‘poor man’s funeral’ and they are viewed as a single process which rapidly destroyed a corpse by removing the flesh and fragmenting the bones, so that the end result was a quick burial. However, Neolithic cremations were much more than that: they underpinned how the dead were mourned, transformed, circulated, and commemorated by the living. Cremations were labourintensive as they required large quantities of wood for the pyres but also through the construction of earthen or stone monuments. They were likewise time-intensive requiring hours/days to tend the pyre, to hand-collect the cremated bones, and to transport the bones to their place of burial. In my mind, cremation was reserved for those considered worthy of the effort and the rite of cremation may indicate a different concept of the body and of the self, especially when compared to the declination of inhumations burials. Scientific technology is advancing at a supersonic rate and cremation studies are in the midst of a technological revolution with new research data and methodologies being published regularly. For example, forensic studies have had recent success in detecting DNA from burnt bones and it will (hopefully) not be long until we are able to detect ancient DNA (aDNA) in prehistoric cremations. Other examples include a new method to detect vitamin D deficiency in cremated teeth by examining microscopic traces of unmineralized tissue [a sign of vitamin D deficiency] has recently been developed (Veselka and Snoeck, 2021) while a different study has determined the initial position of the corpse in the pyre and has assessed whether the deceased was wearing leather shoes during the cremation process (Salesse et al., 2021). These new technologies, and those yet to be developed, will ultimately change our understanding of funerary and mortuary rites in the future, and of the people who were selected for cremation within Neolithic Britain.

248

References Abercromby, J. 1912. A study of the Bronze Age pottery of Great Britain and Ireland and its associated gravegoods. Vols 1–2. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Journal of Physical Anthropology 154: 70–78. doi:10.1002/ajpa.22473 Anderson, S. 2017. A prehistoric cremation burial at Duns Law Farm, near Duns, Scottish Borders. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 147: 29–47. doi.org/10.9750/PSAS.147.1167

Adams, B.J., and Konigsberg, L.W. 2004. Estimation of the most likely number of individuals from commingled human skeletal remains. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 125: 138–151. doi.org/10.1002/ ajpa.10381

Appleby, J. 2013. Temporality and the Transition to Cremation in the Late Third Millennium to Mid Second Millennium BC in Britain. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 23: 83–97. doi:10.1017/S0959774313000061

Afacan, G.O., Onal, T., Akansel, G., and Arslan, A.S. 2017. Is the lateral angle of the internal acoustic canal sexually dimorphic in non-adults? An investigation by routine cranial magnetic resonance imaging. Homo 68 (5): 393–397. doi: 10.1016/j.jchb.2017.09.001

Araújo, A.C. 2012. Une histoire des premières communautés mésolithiques au Portugal. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Université Paris 1: Préhistoires.

Ahlbrecht, M. 1997. Geschlechtsdifferenzierung an der Pars pet-rosa ossis temporalis. PhD Thesis, Tübingen.

Armour-Chelu, M. 1998. The Human Bone. In, Pryor, F. (ed). Etton, Excavations at a Neolithic Causewayed Enclosure near Maxey, Cambridgeshire 1982–7. London, English Heritage, 271–2.

Akansel, G., Inan, N., Kurtas, O., Sarisoy, H.T., Arslan, A., and Demirci, A. 2008. Gender and the lateral angle of the internal acoustic canal meatus as measured on computerized tomography of the temporal bone. Journal of Forensic Science 178: 93–5. doi:10.1016/j. forsciint.2008.02.006

Arnaud, J.M. 1989. The Mesolithic communities of the Sado valley, Portugal, in their ecological setting. In, Bonsall, C. (ed). The Mesolithic in Europe. Papers presented at the Third International Symposium, Edinburgh 1985: 614–631.

Alcock, L. 1972. Was That Camelot? Excavations at Cadbury Castle 1966–70. London: Thames and Hudson.

Arts, N., and Hoogland, M. 1987. A Mesolithic settlement area with a human cremation grave at Oirschot V, municipality of Brest, the Netherland. Helenium 27: 172–189. doi:10.4312/dp.36.16

Allard, M. 1984. Site de Peyrolebade à Espalion (Aveyron). Etude des tertres n° 1, 2 et 3. Rapport de sauvetage urgent, 45.

Arup Atkins. 2017. A303 Stonehenge. Amesbury to Berwick Down: archaeological trial trench evaluation. HE551506, Highways England.

Allen, T. 1995. Lithics and landscape: archaeological discoveries on the Thames Water Pipeline at Gatehampton Farm, Goring, Oxfordshire 1985–92. Thames Valley Landscapes Monograph. Oxford: Oxford Archaeological Unit.

Ashbee, A. and Ashbee, R. 1981. A cairn on Hindlow, Derbyshire: excavations, 1953. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 101: 9–41. doi. org/10.5284/1038992

Allen, T., Hacking, P., and Boyle, A. 2000. Eton Rowing Course at Dorney Lake. The burial traditions. Tarmac Papers 4: 65–106.

Ashbee, P. 1966. The Fussell’s Lodge long barrow excavations 1957. Archaeologia 100: 1–80. doi:10.1017/S0261340900013709

Allen, T. Barclay, A., and Lamdin-Whymark, H. 2004. Opening the wood, making the land: the study of a Neolithic landscape in the Dorney area of the Middle Thames Valley. In, J. Cotton, D. Field (eds). Towards a new Stonehenge Age: aspects of the Neolithic in SouthEast England. Research Report 137. York: Council for British Archaeology, 82–98.

Ashmore, P.J. 2006. Neolithic and Bronze Age Scotland. London: Batsford. Ashwin, T. and Bates, S. 2000. Excavations on the Norwich Southern Bypass, 1989–91 Part 1: Excavations at Bixley, Caistor St Edmund, Trowse, Cringleford and Little Melton. East Anglian Archaeology 91. Norfolk: Archaeology and Environment Division, Norfolk Museums Services.

AlQahtani S.J., Hector M.P., and Liversidge, H.M. 2010. The London Atlas of human tooth development and eruption. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 142: 481–490. doi:10.1002/ajpa.21258

Atkinson, R.J.C. 1965. Wayland’s Smithy. Antiquity xxxix, 126–133. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00031653

AlQahtani S.J., Hector M.P., and Liversidge, H.M. 2014. Accuracy of dental age estimation charts: Schour and Massler, Ubelaker, and the London Atlas. American

Atkinson, R.J.C., Piggott, C.M., and Sandars, N.K. 1951. Excavations at Dorchester, Oxon. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum. 249

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500) Aufderheide, A.C., and Rodriguez-Martin, C. 1998. The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Human Paleopathology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Barclay, G.J. 1999. Cairnpapple revisited: 1948–1998. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 65: 17–46. doi: 10.1017/S0079497X00001936

Avery, M. 1982. The Neolithic causewayed enclosure, Abingdon. In, Case, H., and Whittle, A. (eds). Settlement patterns in the Oxford region: excavations at the Abingdon causewayed enclosure and other sites. London: Council for British Archaeology, 10–50. doi. org/10.5284/1000332

Barclay, G.J. 2003. Neolithic settlement in the lowlands of Scotland: a preliminary survey. In, Armit, I., Murphy, E., Nelis, E. and Simpson, D. (eds). Neolithic settlement in Ireland and Western Britain. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 71–83. Barclay, G.J. 2005. The ‘henge’ and ‘hengiform’ in Scotland. In, Cummings, V. and Pannett, A. (eds). Set in stone: new approaches to Neolithic monuments in Scotland. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 81–94.

Baby, R.S. 1954. Hopewell Cremation Practices. Papers in Archaeology 1–7. Ohio Historical Society: Columbus, Ohio. Bapty, I. 2007. Lower Lugg archaeology and aggregates resource assessment, volume 2. Herefordshire Archaeology Report 226, Hereford: Herefordshire Archaeology.

Barclay, G.J. and Russell-White, C.J. 1993. Excavations in the ceremonial complex of the fourth to second millennium BC at Balfarg/Balbirnie, Glenrothes, Fife. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 123: 43–210.

Barber, A., and Hart, J. 2015. South West Gas Pipeline Project, site 503, Land east of Vaynor Farm, Llanddowror, Carmarthenshire: Archaeological Excavation. Cotswold Archaeology, unpublished report for Rhead Group on behalf of the National Grid.

Barfield, L. 1961. The human skeletal remains. In, Alexander, J. The excavation of the Chestnuts megalithic tomb at Addington, Kent. Archaeological Cantiana 76: 1–57.

Barber, M. 2001. The creation of monuments: Neolithic causewayed enclosures in the British Isles. London: English Heritage.

Barker, C.T. 1992. The chambered tombs of south west Wales. Oxbow Monograph 14. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Barrett, J.C. 1994. Fragments from antiquity. Oxford: Blackwell.

Barber, M., Field, D., and Topping, P. 1999. The Neolithic flint mines of England. Swindon: English Heritage.

Barrett, J.C., Bradley, R., and Green, M. 1991. Landscape, Monuments and Society: the prehistory of Cranborne Chase. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Barclay, A., and Bayliss, A.L. 1999. Cursus monuments and the radiocarbon problem. In, Barclay, A., and Harding, J. (eds). Pathways and ceremonies: the cursus monuments of Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow, 11–29.

Barrett, J.C., Freeman, P.W.M., and Woodward, A. 2000. Cadbury Castle, Somerset: The later prehistoric and Romano-British archaeology. English Heritage Archaeological Report 20. London: English Heritage.

Barclay, A., Field., D., and Leary, J. 2020. Houses of the dead? Neolithic Studies Group, volume 17. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Bartos, N. 2016. Rethinking Durrington Walls: a long-lost monument revealed. Current Archaeology 320.

Barclay, A. and Halpin, C. 1997. Excavations at Barrow Hills, Radley, Oxfordshire. Vol 1. The Neolithic and Bronze Age Monument Complex. Thames Valley Landscapes Monograph 11. Oxford: Oxford Archaeological Unit.

Bass, W.M. 1995. Human osteology: a laboratory and field manual. Fourth edition. Columbia: Missouri Archaeological Society. Bass, W.M. and Jantz, R.L. 2004. Cremation weights in East Tennessee. Journal of Forensic Science 49(5): 1–4. doi:10.1520/JFS2004002

Barclay, A., and Marshall, P. 2011. Chronology and the radiocarbon dating programme. In, Fitzpatrick, A.P. The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen. Bell Beaker burials at Boscombe Down, Amesbury, Wiltshire. Excavations at Boscombe Down, volume 1. Wessex Archaeology Report 2. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology, 167–184.

Bate, D.M.A. 1938. Animal remains from the Nympsfield Long Barrow, In E.M. Clifford (ed). The excavation of Numpsfield Long Barrow, Gloucestershire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 4: 188–213. doi. org/10.1017/S0079497X00021186

Barclay, A., Beavan, N., Bradley, P., Chaffey, G., Challinor, D., McKinley, J.I., Powell, A., and Marshall, P. 2009. New evidence for Mid-Late Neolithic burial from the Colne Valley, West London. PAST 63: 4–6.

Bayliss, A., Allen, M.J., Healy, F., Whittle, A., Germany, M., Griffiths, S., Hamilton, D., Higham, T., Meadows, J., Shand, G., Stevens, S., and Wysocki, M. 2011. The Greater Thames estuary. In, Whittle, A., Healy, F., Bayliss, A. (eds). Gathering time: dating the Early Neolithic enclosures of southern Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 348–383.

Barclay, A., Gray, M., and Lambrick, G. 1995. Excavations at the Devil’s Quoits, Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire, 1972–3 and 1988. Oxford: Thames Valley Landscapes Monograph. 250

References Bayliss, A., Whittle, A., and Wysocki, M. 2007. Talking about my generation: the date of the West Kennet long barrow. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17(S1): 85–101. doi:10.1017/S0959774307000182

Blaizot, F. 2001. Premières données sur le traitement des corps humains à la transition du Néolithique final dans le Bas-Rhin, dimensions culturelles. Gallia Préhistoire 43: 175–225.

Bell, M., Caseldine, A., and Neumann, H. 2000. Prehistoric intertidal archaeology in the Welsh Severn estuary. CBA Research Report 120. York: Council for British Archaeology. doi.org/10.5284/1081773

Bloxam, A. 2020. The other Beaker People: funerary diversity in Britain c.2450–1950 BC. Unpublished PhD thesis: UCL Institute of Archaeology. Booth, T.J. 2019. A stranger in a strange land: a perspective on archaeological responses to the palaeogenetic revolution from an archaeologist working amongst palaeogeneticists. World Archaeology 51(4): 586–601. doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2019.1627240

Benson, S. 2014. Morphometric assessment of the internal auditory canal for sex determination in subadults using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Unpublish thesis, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Benson, D. and Clegg, I.N.I. 1978. Cotswold burial rites? Man 13: 134–7.

Borić, D., French, C., and Dimitrijević, V. 2008. Vlasac revisited: formation processes, stratigraphy and dating. In, Budja, M. (ed). 15th Neolithic Studies: Documenta Praehistorica 35: 1–28.

Benson, D. and Whittle, A (eds). 2007. Building memories: the Neolithic Cotswold Long Barrow at Ascott-underWychwood, Oxfordshire. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Borić, D., Raičević, J., and Stefanović, S. 2009. Mesolithic cremations as elements of secondary mortuary rites at Vlasac (Serbia). Documenta Praehistorica: 247–282.

Bérard, G. 1954. Nouvelles découvertes au dolmen de la “Bouissière”, Cabasse (Var). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française.

Boulter, S.P. 2011. Flixton Park Quarry, Suffolk, archaeological evaluation: written scheme of investigation and risk assessment. SCCAS Report No. 2011/111 prepared for Cemex (UK) Materials Ltd. Accessed online.

Bevan, A., Colledge, S., Fuller, D., Fyfe, R., Shennan, S., and Stevens, C. 2017. Holocene fluctuations in human population demonstrated repeated links to food production and climate. Proceedings of the natural Academy of Sciences, 114: E10524–31. doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1709190114

Brace, S., Diekmann, Y., Booth, T.J., van Dorp, L., Faltyskova, Z., Rohland, N., Mallick, S., Olalde, I., Ferry, M., Michel, M., Oppenheimer, J., Broomandkhoshbacht, N., Stewardson, K., Martiniano, R., Walsh, S., Kayser, M., Charlton, S., Hellenthal, G., Armit, I., Schulting, R., Craig, O.E., Sheridan, A., Parker Pearson, M., Stringer, C., Reich, D., Thomas, M.G., and Barnes, I. 2019. Ancient genomes indicate population replacement in Early Neolithic Britain. Nature ecology and evolution, 3: 765–771. doi. org/10.1038/s41559–019-0871–9

Bewley, R., Longworth, I., Browne, S., Huntley, J., and Varndell, G. 1992. Excavation of a Bronze Age cemetery at Ewanrigg, Maryport, Cumbria. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58: 325–54. Bicho, N.F. 2009. Sistemas de povoamento, subsistencia e relações sociais dos últimos caçadores-recolectores do Vale do Tejo. Estudos Arqueológicos de Oeiras, 17: 133–156. Bicho, F., Cascalheira, F., Marreiros, J., Gonçalves, C., and Pereira, T. 2013. Chronology of the Mesolithic occupation of the Muge valley, central Portugal: the case of Cabeço da Amoreira. Quaternary International, 308–309: 130–139. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.07.223

Bradley, P. 2004. Causewayed enclosures: monumentality, architecture, and spatial distribution of artefacts, the evidence from Staines, Surrey. CBA Report. London: Council for British Archaeology, 115–123. Bradley, R.J. 1984. The social foundations of prehistoric Britain. London: Longmans.

Binford, L.R. 1963. An analysis of cremations from three Michigan sites. Wisconsin Archaeologist 44: 98–110.

Bradley, R.J. 1992. The excavation of an oval barrow beside the Abingdon causewayed enclosure, Oxfordshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58: 127–42. doi:10.1017/S0079497X00004138

Binford, L.R. 1981. Bones, Ancient Men, and Modern Myths. London: Academic Press. Bird, H. 1865. An account of the human bones foun d in the round and long tumuli, situated on the Cotswold Hills, near Cheltenham. Journal of the Anthropological Society of London 3:ixv-lxxiv.

Bradley, R. 1993. Altering the earth. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Bradley, R. 2007a. The prehistory of Britain and Ireland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bishop, R. 2015. Did Late Neolithic farming fail or flourish? A Scottish perspective on the evidence for Late Neolithic arable cultivation in the British Isles. World Archaeology 47(5): 834–855. doi.org/10.1080/ 00438243.2015.1072477

Bradley, R. 2007b. Houses, bodies and tombs. Proceedings of the British Academy 144: 347–55. doi:10.5871/ bacad/9780197264140.003.0018

251

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500) Bradley, R. 2011. Stages and screens: an investigation into henge monuments in northern and north-eastern Scotland. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1): 337–360. doi:10.1017/ S0033822200033865

Bradley, R. and Chambers, R. 1988. A new study of the cursus complex at Dorchester on Thames. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 7(3): 271–289. doi. org/10.1111/j.1468–0092.1988.tb00181.x

Bronk Ramsey, C., Higham, T.F.G., Brock, F., Baker, D., Ditchfield, P., and Staff, R.A. (2015). Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry Datelist 35. Archaeometry 57: 177–216. doi.org/10.1111/ arcm.12134

Bradley, R., Over, L., Startin, D.W.A., and Weng, R. 1975. The excavation of a Neolithic Site at Cannon Hill, Maidenhead, Berkshire 1974–75. Berkshire Archaeological Journal 68: 5–20. doi. org/10.5284/1069644

Brophy, K. 1999. The cursus monuments of Scotland. In, Barclay, A., and Harding, J. (eds). Pathways and ceremonies; the cursus monuments of Britain and Ireland. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 4. Oxford: Oxbow, 119–29.

Bradley, R. and Gordon, K. 1988. Human skulls form the River Thames, their dating and significance. Antiquity 62: 503–509. doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00074603

Brophy, K. 2016. Reading between the lines: the Neolithic cursus monuments of Scotland. London: Routledge.

Brewster, T.C.M. 1984. The excavation of Whitegrounds Barrow, Burythorpe. The East Riding Archaeological Research Committee. Malton: Wintringham.

Brophy, K., Goeckeritz, C., and MacGregor, G. 2017. Build n burn: using fire as a tool to evoke, educate and entertain. Archaeology Journal 174(2): 437–463. doi.or g/10.1080/00665983.2017.1309950

Brickley, M. 2004. Guidance on recording age at death in juvenile skeletons. In, Brickley, M. and McKinley, J.I. (eds) Guidelines to the standards for recording human remains. Institute of Field Archaeologists 7: 21–22.

Brophy, K. and Noble, G. 2012a. Within and beyond pits: deposition in lowland Neolithic Scotland. In, AndersonWhymark, H., Thomas, J., and Darvill, T. (eds). Regional perspectives on Neolithic pit deposition: beyond the mundane. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 63–76.

Brickley, M. and McKinley, J.I. 2004. Guidelines to the standards for recording human remains. Institute of Field Archaeologists 7.

Brophy, K. and Noble, G. 2012b. Henging, mounding and blocking: the Forteviot henge group. In A. Gibson (ed.) Enclosing the Neolithic: Recent studies in Britain and Europe. BAR s2440. Oxford: BAR Publishing, 21–36.

Brinch Petersen, E., and Meiklejohn, C. 2003. Three cremations and a funeral: aspects of burial practice in Mesolithic Vedbaek. In, Larsson, L., Kindgren, H., Knutsson, K., Loeffler, D., and Åkerlund, A. (eds). Mesolithic on the Move: papers presented at the Sixth International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 485–493.

Brophy, K., and Sheridan, A. 2012. Neolithic Scotland. ScARF Panel report. Brophy, K., and Wright, D. 2013. Leadketty excavations 2013: Data Structure Report. SERF project. Accessed 29/04/2018 and available at: https://www.gla.ac.uk/ media/media_296376_en.pdf Brothwell, D. 1972. Paleodemography and earlier British populations. World Archaeology 4: 75–87.

Brindley, A.L., Lanting, J.N. and van der Plicht, J. 2005. Appendix 7: radiocarbon-dated samples from the Mound of the hostages, In. O’Sullivan, M. (ed). Duma na nGiall: the mound of the Hostages, Tara. Dublin: Wordwell.

Brothwell, D.R. 1981. Digging up bones. Third edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brown, A. 2007. Dating the onset of cereal cultivation in Britain and Ireland: the evidence from charred cereal grains. Antiquity 81: 1042–52. doi: 10.1017/ S0003598X00096101

Britnell, W., Darvill, T.C., Dresser, P.Q., Ehrenberg, M.R., Healey, E., Hillman, G., Keeley, H.C.M., Morgan, G.C., Northover, J.P., and Wilkinson, J.L. 1982. The excavation of two round barrows at Trelystan, Powys. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 48: 133–201. doi:10.1017/S0079497X00008409.

Brown, A.G. (1997). Clearances and clearings: deforestation in Mesolithic/Neolithic Britain. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16: 133–46. doi. org/10.1111/1468–0092.00030

Britnell, W.J. and Savory, H.N. 1984. Gwernvale and Penywyrlod: two Neolithic long cairns in Brecknockshire. Cardiff: Cambrian Archaeological Association.

Brück, J. 2014. Cremation, gender and concepts of the self in the British Early Bronze Age. In, Kuijt, I., Quinn, C.P., and Cooney, G. (eds). Transformation by fire: the archaeology of cremation in cultural context. Tucson: Arizona University Press, 119–139.

Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: the OxCal program. Radiocarbon 37: 425–430. doi:10.1017/ S0033822200030903

Buck, C.E., Litton, C.D., and Smith, A.F. 1992. Calibration of radiocarbon results pertaining to related 252

References archaeological events. Journal of Archaeological Science 19(5): 497–512. doi.org/10.1016/0305– 4403(92)90025-X

Cassidy, L.M. 2019. A steppe in the right direction. Nature ecology and evolution 3(6): 877–878. doi.org/10.1038/ s41559–019-0876–4

Buikstra, J.E., and Swegle, M. 1989. Bone modification due to burning: experimental evidence. In, Bonnichsen, R., and Sorg, M.H. (eds). Bone modification. Center for the Study of the First Americans. Orono: University of Maine, 247–258.

Cassidy, L.M., Martiniano, R., Murphy, E.M., Teasdale, M.D., Mallory, J., Hartwell, B., and Bradley, D.G. 2016. Neolithic and Bronze Age migration to Ireland and establishment of the insular Atlantic genome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(2): 6886–6891. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1518445113

Buikstra, J.E. and Ubelaker, D.H. 1994. Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains. Archaeological Survey Research, Series No 44. Fayetteville, Arkansas. doi.org/10.1002/ ajhb.1310070519

Cassidy, L.M., Ó Maoldúin, R., Kador, T., Lynch, A., Jones, C., Woodman, P.C., Murphy, E., Ramsey, G., Dowd, M., Noonan, A., Campbell, C., Jones, E.R., Mattlangeli, V., and Bradley, D.G. 2020. A dynastic elite in monumental Neolithic society. Nature 582: 384–388. doi.org/10.1038/s41586–020-2378–6

Burgess, C. 2001. The age of Stonehenge. London: Phoenix Press. Burl, H.A.W. 1984. Report on the excavation of a Neolithic mound at Boghead, Speymouth Forest, Fochabers, Moray, 1972 and 1974. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 114: 35–73.

Caswell, E. and Roberts, B.W. 2018. Reassessing community cemeteries: cremation burials in Britain during the Middle Bronze Age (c.1600–1150 cal BC). Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 84: 329–357. doi:10.1017/ppr.2018.9

Burrow, S. 2010. Bryn Celli Ddu passage tomb, Anglesey: alignment, construction, date, and ritual. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 76: 249–270. doi:10.1017/ S0079497X00000517

Cauwe, N. 2001. Skeletons in motion, ancestors in action: Early Mesolithic collective tombs in southern Belgium. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 11(02): 147–163. doi:10.1017/S0959774301000087

Caillaud, R. and Lagnel, E. 1972. 1. Etude archéologique: Le cairn et le crématoire néolithiques de la Hoguette à Fontenay-le-Marmion (Calvados). Gallia Préhistoire 15: 137–185.

Cavalli, F., Innocenti, D., and Simonit, F. 2015. Multidetector computerized tompography vs microexcavation: perspectives in the study of ancient cinerary urns. Paper presented at the 17th annual conference of the British Association for Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology, University of Sheffield, 18th20th September 2015.

Campbell, G. 2007. Cremation deposits and the use of wood in cremation ritual. In, Harding. J, and Healy, F. (eds). The Raunds Area Project: A Neolithic and Bronze Age Landscape in Northamptonshire. Swindon: English Heritage, 30–33.

Cerezo-Román, J., Wessman, A., and Williams, H. 2017. Cremation and the Archaeology of Death. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carlyle, S. and Chapman, A. 2012. Neolithic cremation burials at Milton Ham, Northampton. Northamptonshire Archaeology 37: 29–35.

Chaffey, G., and Brook, E. 2012. Domesticity in the Neolithic: excavations at Kingsmead Quarry, Horton, Berkshire. In, Anderson-Whymark, H., and Thomas, J. (eds). Regional perspectives on Neolithic pit deposition: beyond mundane. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 12: 200–215.

Carvalho, A. 2009. O Mesolítico final em Portugal. In, Utrilla, M.P. and Montes, L. (eds). El Mesolítico Geométrico en la Península Ibéerica. Mongraphfías Arqueológicas 44. Universidad de Zaragoza, Departamento de Ciencias de la Antigüedad, 33–68.

Chamberlain, A.T. 1996. More dating evidence for human remains in British caves. Antiquity 70: 950–953. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00084222

Case, H. & Whittle, A. W. R. (eds) 1982. Settlement Patterns in the Oxford Region: excavations at Abingdon Causewayed Enclosure and Other Sites. Council for British Archaeology and Department of Antiquities, Council of British Archaeology Research Report 44. London: Ashmolean Museum. doi. org/10.5284/1000332

Chamberlain, A. T. 2006. Demography in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi. org/10.1017/CBO9780511607165 Chamberlain, A.T. 2012. Caves and the funerary landscape of prehistoric Britain. In, Moyes, H. (ed). Sacred darkness: a global perspective on the ritual use of caves. Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 81–86.

Casey, E. 1987. Remembering: a phenomenological study. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Chamberlain, A.T., and Williams, J.P. (1999). A gazetteer of English caves, fissures and rock shelters containing human remains. Capra 1: http://capra.group.shef. ac.uk/1/caves.html

Cassen, S. 2000. Eléments d’architecture: exploration d’un tertre funéraire à Lannec er Gadouer, Erdeven, Morbihan. Chauvigny: Éd. Chauvinoises. 253

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500) Chambon, P. 2003. Les morts dans les sépultures collectives Néolithique en France, du cadaver aux rested ultimes. Supplément à Gallia Préhistoire XXXV, CNRS edition: Paris.

Cotswold Archaeology Monography 3, Cotswold Archaeology: Cirencester. Coles, J.M., Simpson, D.D.A., Denston, C.B. 1965. The excavation of a Neolithic round barrow at Pitnacree, Perthshire, Scotland. Proceedings of the Pehistoric Society 31: 34–57. doi:10.1017/S0079497X00014705

Chapman, J. 2000. Pit digging and structure deposition in the Neolithic and Copper Age. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66: 61–87. doi:10.1017/ S0079497X00001778

Coles, S., Ford, S., and Taylor, A. 2003. White Swan Public House, Yablsey Street, Blackwall, London Borough of Tower Hamlets: a post-excavation assessment for St James Group Ltd. Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd.

Chapman, J. 2013. From Varna to Brittany via Csöszhalom -was there a ‘Varna Effect?’. In, Anders, A., Halla, G., Kiss, V., Julcsar, G., and Szabo, G.V. (eds). Moments in time. Budapest: L’Harmattan, 323–336.

Collard, M., Edinborough, K., Shennan, S. and Thomas, M. 2010. Radiocarbon evidence indicates that migrants introduced farming to Britain. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 866–70. doi.org/10.1016/j. jas.2009.11.016

Chesterman, J.T. 1977. Burial rites in a Cotswold long barrow. Man 12: 22–32. Childe, V.G. 1952. Prehistoric communities of the British Isles. London: W.R. Chambers.

Collins, T. and Coyne, F. 2003. Fire and water: Early Mesolithic cremations at Castleconnell, Co. Limerick. Archaeology in Ireland 17 (2): 24–27.

Chocol, J. 1961. Anthropologische analyse menschlicher Brandreste aus den Lausitzer Gräberfeldern in ústí Nad Labem-Strekov II und in Zírovice, Bezirk Cheb. In, E. Plesl (ed) Die Lausitzer Lultur in Nordwestbömen. Monumenta Archaeologica 8, Akademie der Wissenschaften, Prag: 273–290.

Collis, J. 1983. Wigber Low, Derbyshire: a Bronze Age and Anglian burial site in the White Peak. Sheffield: Department of Prehistory and Archaeology, University of Sheffield.

Clark, J.G.D 1961. Notes on Excavations in England, Irish Republic, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, during 1960. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 27: 344– 351. doi:10.1017/S0079497X00016091

Collis, J. 1996. A bronze Age barrow at Big Lane, Hognaston, Derbyshire. In, Barnatt, J. and Collis, J. (eds). Barrows in the Peak District. Sheffield: J.R.Collis Publications.

Clark, J.G.D., Higgs, E., and Longworth, I. 1960. Excavations at the Neolithic site at Hurst Fen, Mildenhall, Suffolk (1954, 1957 and 1958). Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 26: 202–245. doi:10.1017/ S0079497X00016315

Colt Hoare, R. 1812. The ancient history of Wiltshire. Vol 1. Wakefield: EP Publishing. Coombs, D. 1976. Callis Wold round barrow, Humberside. Antiquity 50(158): 130–131. doi:10.1017/ S0003598X0010153X

Cleal, R.M.J. 1995. The First Monument, Phase 1. In, Cleal, R.M.J., Walker, K.E., and Montague, R. (eds). Stonehenge in its landscape: twentieth-century excavations. Archaeological Report 10, London: English Heritage, 63–114.

Cooney, G. 2000. Landscapes of Neolithic Ireland. London: Routledge. Cooney, G. 2014. The role of cremation in mortuary practice in the Irish Neolithic. In, Kuijt, I., Quinn, C.P. and Cooney, G. (eds). Transformation by fire: the archaeology of cremation in cultural context. Amerind Studies in Archeology. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Cleal, R.M.J., Walker, K.E., and Montague, R. 1995. Stonehenge in its landscape: twentieth-century excavations. Archaeological Report 10, English Heritage: London. Clifford, E.M. 1936. Notgrove Long Barrow, Gloucestershire. Archaeologia 86: 119–61. doi. org/10.1017/S0261340900015393

Cooney, G. 2016. Pathways to ancestral worlds. In, Brophy, K., MacGregor, G. and Ralston, I. (eds). The Neolithic of mainland Scotland. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 74–96.

Clifford, E.M. 1938. The excavation of Nympsfield long barrow, Gloucestershire. The Prehistoric Society 4(1): 188–213. doi:10.1017/S0079497X00021186

Corcoran, J.X.W.P. 1970. The Giants Caves, Luckington. The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, 65.

Cockburn, P. 2016. Archaeological excavations at Lanton Quarry, Northumberland, Phase 8, 2016. ARS Ltd Report No-2016/169. Prepared for Tarmac Ltd.

Corrêa, A.M., and Teizeira, C. 1949. A jazida pré-histórica de Eira Pedrinha. Lisbon: Publicações do Serviço Geológico de Portugal.

Coleman, L., Hancocks, A., and Watts, M. 2006. Excavations on the Wormington to Tirley pipeline, 2000: four sites by the Carrant Brook and River Isbourne Gloucestershire and Worcestershire.

Cosack, E. 1982. Das sächsische Gräberfeld bei Liebenau, Kr. Nienburg (Weser) Teil 1. Mann: Berlin. 254

References Courtaud, P. and Duday, H. 1995. Découverte d’une nécropole mésolithique à la Vergne (CharenteMaritime). Bulletins et mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris 7: 181–184.

de Heere, L. c.1574. Untitled. British Library. http:// w w w. b l . u k / o n l i n e g a l l e r y / o n l i n e e x / u n v b r i t / s / largeimage82764.html De Mulder, G., Van Strydonck, M., Boudin, M., Lerclercq, W., Paridaens, N., and Warmendbol, E. 2007. Reevaluation of the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age chronology of the western Beldian urnfields based on 14C dating. Radiocarbon 49: 499–514. doi:10.1017/ S0033822200042429

Courtin, J. 1974. Le Néolithique de la Provence. Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Française 11. Crotti, P. 1993. L’Epipaléolithique et le Mésolique en Suisse: les derniers chasseurs. La Suisse du Paléolithique à l’aube du Moyen-Age, SPM 1: 203–240.

Denison, S 1996.Open-air burials. British Archaeology 19, Council for British Archaeology. Accessed 01/08/2015 http://www.archaeologyuk.org/ba/ba19/BA19NEWS. HTML

Cruz, A.R. 1997. Vale do Nabāo: do Neolítico à Idade do Bronze. ARKEOS 3, Tomar: CEIPHAR. Cuadrado Ruiz, J. 1930. El yacimiento eneolítico de Los Blanquizares de Lébor en la provincia de Murcia. Archivo Español de Arte y Arqueología VI: 51–66.

Denston, B. 1974. The cremated remains from Orwell, Kinross-shire. In, Ritchie, J.N.G. (ed). Excavation of the stone circle and cairn at Balbirnie, Fife. Archaeological Journal 131: 27–29. doi.org/10.1080/00665983.1974.1 1077518

Cullen, T. 1995. Mesolithic mortuary ritual at Franchthi Cave, Greece. Antiquity 69: 270–289. doi.org/10.1017/ S0003598X00064681

Devlin, J.B. and Herrmann, N.P. 2008. Bone colour as an interpretive tool of the depositional history of archaeological remains. In, Schmidt, C.W. and Symes, S.A. (eds) The analysis of burned human remains. London: Academic Press, 109–128.

Cummings, V. 2017. The Neolithic of Britain and Ireland. Routledge: Abingdon. Cummings, V., and Richards, C. 2014. The essence of the dolmen: the architecture of megalithic construction. Prehistoires Méditerranéennes 5: 131–141.

Dokládal, M. 1971. A further contribution to the morphology of burned bones. In, Novotny, N. (ed). Proceedings of the Anthropological Congress Dedicated to Ales Hrdlicka. Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences: Prague: 561–568.

Cummings, V., and Whittle, A. 2004. Places of special virtue: megaliths in the Neolithic landscapes of Wales. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Cunnington, M. 1929. Woodhenge. Devizes: G. Simpson & Co.

Dowd, M. 2008. The use of caves for funerary and ritual practices in Neolithic Ireland. Antiquity 82: 305–317. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00096824

Curl, J.S. 1999. Oxford dictionary of architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dowd, M. 2015. The archaeology of caves in Ireland. Oxbow Books: Oxford.

Cuthbert, G.S. 2018. Enriching the Neolithic: the forgotten people of the Barrows. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Exeter.

Downes, J. 1999. Cremation: a spectacle and a journey. In, Downes, J., Pollard, T. (eds). The Loved Body’s Corruption. Cruithne: Glasgow, 19–29.

Darvill, T. 2005. Stonehenge World Heritage Site: an archaeological research framework. English Heritage and Bournemouth University: London and Bournemouth.

Downey, S.S., Cocaege, E., Kerig, T., Edinborough, K., and Shennan, S. 2014. The Neolithic demographic transition in Europe: correlation with Juvenility Index supports interpretation of the summed calibrated radiocarbon date probability distribution (SCDPD) as a valid demographic proxy. PLOS ONE (online). doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105730

Darvill, T. 2010. Prehistoric Britain. Second edition. London: Routledge. Darvill, T., Marshall, P., Parker Pearson, M., and Wainwright, G. 2012. Stonehenge remodelled. Antiquity 86: 1021–1040. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00048225

Drewett, P. 1975. The excavation of an oval burial mound of the third millennium BC at Alfriston, East Sussex, 1974. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 41: 119– 52. doi:10.1017/S0079497X0001094X

Davidson, J.L., and Henshall, A.S. 1991. The chambered cairns of Caithness: an inventory of the structures and their contents. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Dubois, J.A. and Beauchamp, H. R. 1943. Hindu Manners, Customs, and Ceremonies. Clarendon: Oxford.

de Becdelievre, C., Thiol, S., Saligny, L, Granjon, L., and Rottier, S. 2016. The role of fire within Neolithic collective burials: spatial analyses of cremains at the site of La Truie Pendue, France. Journal of Field Archaeology 41: 550–567. doi.org/10.1080/00934690 .2016.1219209

Ducrocq, T. & Ketterer, I., 1995. Le gisement mésolithique du“ Petit Marais”, La Chaussée-Tirancourt (Somme). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 92(2): 249–260.

255

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500) Duday, H., and Courtaud, P. 1998. La nécropole mésolithique de la Vergne. In, Guilaine, J (ed). Sépultures d’Occident et genèse des mégalithismes, Séminaire du Collège de France: 25–37.

Evans, J.G., Limbrey, S., Máté, I., and Mount, R. 1993. An environmental history of the Upper Kennet Valley, Wiltshire, for the last 10,000 years. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 59: 139–195. doi:10.1017/ S0079497X00003789

Duffy, P.R.J. and MacGregor, G. 2008. Cremations, conjecture and contextual taphonomies: material strategies during the 4th to 2nd millennia BC in Scotland. In, Fahlander, F. and Oestigaard, T. (eds). The materiality of death: bodies, burials, beliefs. International Series. Oxford: BAR Publishing, 71–78.

Ferembach, D., Schwidetzky, I, and Stloukal, M. 1980. Recommendations for age and sex diagnoses of skeletons. Journal of Human Evolution 9: 517–549. doi.org/10.1016/0047–2484(80)90061–5 Fergusson, J. 1872. Rude stone monuments in all countries: their age and uses. John Murray: London. Accessed 27/04/2018: https://archive.org/details/ rudestonemonumen00ferg.

Dunk, J. and Rugg, J. 1994. The management of old cemetery land. Crayford: Shaw and Sons. Dunning, G.C. 1966. Neolithic occupation sites in east Kent. Antiquaries Journal 46: 1–25. doi:10.1017/ S0003581500062843

Fernandez Castillo, R., Ubelaker, D.H., Acosta, J.A.L., Rosa, R.J.E., & Garcia, I.G. 2013. Effect of temperature on bone tissue: histological changes. Journal of forensic sciences, 58 (3): 578–582. doi:10.1111/1556– 4029.12093

Earnshaw, J.R. 1973. The site of a medieval post mill and prehistoric site at Bridlington. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 45: 19–40.

Fibiger, L. 2005. Analysis of human bones from 23 Irish caves: the human remains from Irish Caves Project. Unpublished report submitted to the Heritage Council.

Edmonds, M.R. 1993. Interpreting causewayed enclosures in the past and the present. In: C. Tilley (ed). Interpretative Archaeology. London: Berg, 99–142.

Fitzpatrick, A.P. 2011. The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen: Bell Beaker burials at Boscombe Down, Amesbury, Wiltshire. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology 27.

Edmonds, M. 1999. Ancestral geographies of the Neolithic: landscapes, monuments and memory. London: Routledge. Etock, S.E., Valsami-Jones, E., Wess, T.J., Hiller, J.C., Maxwell, C.A., Rogers, K.D., Manning, D.A.C., White, M.L., Lopez-Capel, E., Collins, M.J., Buckley, M., Penkman, K.E.H., and Woodgate, S.L. 2007. Structural and chemical changes of thermally treated bone apatite. Journal of Materials Science 42 (23): 9807–9816. doi. org/10.1007/s10853–007-1993-z

Fitzpatrick, A.P., Powell, A.B., and Allen, M.J. 2008. Archaeological Excavations on the route of the A27 Westhampnett Bypass, West Sussex, 1992. Volume 1: Late Upper Palaeolithic-Anglo Saxon. Wessex Archaeology Reports. Oxford: Oxbow. Fleming, A. 1973. Tombs for the living. Man (NS) 8: 177–93.

Evans, C. and Hodder, I. 2006. A woodland archaeology: Neolithic sites at Haddenham. The Haddenham Project, volume 1. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Flinders Petrie, W.M. 1880. Notes on Kentish earthworks. Archaeologia Cantiana 13: 8–17. Fowler, C. 2015. In touch with the past? Bodies, monuments and the sacred in the Manx Neolithic. In, Cummings, V., and Fowler, C. (eds). The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: materiality and traditions of practice. Oxford: Oxbow, 91–102.

Evans, C., Edmonds, M., Boreham, S., Evans, J., Jones, G., Knight, M., and Legge, T. 2006. Total archaeology and model landscapes: excavation of the Great Wilbraham causewayed enclosure, Cambridgeshire, 1975–76. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 72: 113–162. doi:10.1017/S0079497X00000803

Fowler, C. 2010. Pattern and diversity in the Early Neolithic mortuary practices of Britain and Ireland: contextualising the treatment of the dead. Documenta Praehistorica 37: 1–22.

Evans, J.A., Montgomery, J., Wildman, G., and Boulton, N. 2010. Spatial variations in biosphere 87Sr/86Sr in Britain. Journal of Geological Society 167: 1–4. doi. org/10.1144/0016–76492009-090

Fowler, C. 2013. The emergent past: a relational realist archaeology of Early Bonze Age mortuary practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Evans J.G. 1984. Stonehenge: the environment in the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age and a Beaker-Age burial. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 78: 7–30.

Fowler, C. and Scarre, C. 2015. Mortuary practices and bodily representations in north-west Europe. In, Fowler, C. and Hoffmann, D. (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1023–1047. doi: 10.1093/ oxfordhb/9780199545841.001.0001

Evans, J.G., and Simpson, D.D.A. 1991. Giant’s Hills 2 Long barrow, Skendleby, Lincolnshire. Archaeologia 109: 1–45. doi:10.1017/S0261340900014016

256

References Gibson, A. 1994. Excavations at the Sarn-y-bryn-caled cursus complex, Welshpool, Powys, and the timber circles of Great Britain and Ireland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 60: 143–224. doi:10.1017/ S0079497X00003431

Framework Archaeology 2010. Landscape Evolution in the Middle Thames Valley: Heathrow Terminal 5 Excavations, volume 2. Framework Archaeology Monograph 3, Oxford/Salisbury. Gale, R. 1997. Charcoal. In, Fitzpatrick (ed). Archaeological Excavations on the Route of the A27 Westhampnett Bypass, West Sussex, 1992, Volume 2: The Late Iron Age, Romano-British, and AngloSaxon Cemeteries. Wessex Archaeological Report 12. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology, 77–82.

Gibson, A. 1998. Stonehenge and timber circles. Tempus: Stroud. Gibson, A. 2006. Excavations at a Neolithic enclosure at Lower Luggy, near Welshpool, Powys, Wales. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 72: 163–191. doi:10.1017/S0079497X00000815

Galer, D. 2007. The human remains. In, Benson, D. and Whittle, A. (eds). Building memories: the Neolithic Cotswold Long Barrow at Ascott-under-Wychwood, Oxfordshire. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 188–220.

Gibson, A. 2010a. New dates for Sarn-y-bryn-caled, Powys, Wales. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 76: 351–356. doi:10.1017/S0079497X00000554

Gallego Lletjós, N. 2013. El mesolítico de la Península Ibérica. Historia crítica de la investigación y estado actual del conocimiento. PhD dissertation, Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

Gibson, A.M. 2010b. Dating Balbirnie: recent radiocarbon dates from the stone circle and cairn at Balbirnie, Fife, and a review of its place in the overall Balfarg/Balbirnie site sequence. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 140: 51–78.

García Sánchez, M. and Spahni, J.C. 1959. Sepulcros megalíticos de la region de Gorafe (Granada). Archivo de prehistoria Levantina, 8: 43–113.

Gibson, A. 2012. The Neolithic Palisaded Enclosure at Hindwell, Powys, Wales. Journal of Neolithic Archaeology. https://doi.org/10.12766/jna.2000.72

García Toro, J.R. 1980. Cueva sepulchral eneolitica de ‘Los Alcores’, Caravaca de la Cruz (Murcia). Anales de la Universidad de Murcia 37: 239–259.

Gibson, A. 2013. Two Middle Neolithic radiocarbon dates from the East Midlands. Past 73: 1.

Garrow, D. 2015. Deposition in pits. In, Fowler, C., Harding, J., and Hofmann, D. (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe. Oxford: University of Oxford. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199545841.001.0001

Gibson, A. 2014. Burials and Beakers: seeing beneath the veneer in late Neolithic Britain. In, J. Czebreszuk (ed). Similar but different: Bell Beakers in Europe. Sidestone Press: Leiden (second edition), 173–192.

Garton, D., Howard, A., and Pearce, M. 1997. Archaeological investigations at Langford Quarry, Nottinghamshire 1995–6. Tarmac Papers 1: 29–40.

Gibson, A. 2016. Who were these people? A sideways view and a non-answer of political proportions. In, Brophy, K., MacGregor, G., and Ralston, I. (eds). The Neolithic of mainland Scotland. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 57–73.

Gatto, E. 2002. Cremation fires in Late Neolithic France. In, Gheorghiu, D. (ed). Fire in Archaeology. Papers from the European Association of Archaeologists 6th annual meeting, Lisbon, 2000. BAR International Series 1089. London: BAR Publishing. doi. org/10.30861/9781841714677

Gibson, A. 2018. Llandegai A – sanctuary or settlement? Archaeologia Cambrensis 167: 95–108. Gibson, A. and Woods, A. 1990. Prehistoric pottery for the Archaeologist. Leicester: University of Leicester Press.

Gatto, E. and Buquet, C. 2000. La structure plurielle à cremations de la grotte du Gardon (Ain): une pratique funéraire originale du Néolithique recent? Bulletin et Mémoire de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris. Nouvelle series 12: 303–332.

Gibson, A., Bayliss, A., Heard, H., Mainland, I., Ogden, A.R., Bronk, C., Ramsey, G., Cook, J van der Plicht, and Marshall, P. 2009. Recent Research at Duggleby Howe, North Yorkshire. Archaeological Journal 166 (1): 39–78. doi.org/10.1080/00665983.2009.11078220

Gejvall, N-G. 1963. Cremations. In, Brothwell, D., and Higgs, E. (eds). Science in Archaeology. Thames and London: Hudson, 379–390.

Gibson, A., Allen, M., Bradley, P., Carruthers, W., Challinor, D., French, C., Hamilton, D., Mainland, I., McCarthy, M., Ogden, A., Scaife, R., Sheridan, A., and Walmsley, C. 2011. Report on the Excavation at the Duggleby Howe causewayed enclosure, North Yorkshire, May-July 2009. The Archaeological Journal 168: 1–63. doi.org/10.1080/00665983.2011.11020828

Gheorghiu, D. and Nash, G. (eds). 2007. The archaeology of fire: understanding fire as material culture. Budapest: Archaeolingua. Gibaja, J.F., Subrià, M.E., Terradas, X., Santos, F.J., Agulló, L., and Gómez-Martínez, I. 2015. The emergence of Mesolithic cemeteries in SW Europe: insights from the El Collado (Oliva, Valencia, Spain) radiocarbon record. PLoS ONE 10 (1): e0115505. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115505

Gidman, J. 2005. Barnsdale Bar Quarry, Norton, South Yorkshire: archaeological excavation. Archaeological Services WYAS. Unpublished report. 257

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500) Gilks, J.A. 1989. Cave burials of northern England. British Archaeology 11: 11–16.

Chase, Dorset. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs, 3–22.

Gilmour, N., and Loe, L. 2015. A Mesolithic cremationrelated deposit from Langford, Essex, England: a first for the British Mesolithic. Mesolithic Miscellany 23 (2): 55–57.

Griffiths, S. 2013. Radiocarbon dating. In, Hart, J. (ed). South Wales gas pipeline project, site 23.07: archaeological watching brief. Cotswold Archaeology for Rhead Group on behalf of National Grid: 20.

Gittins, E., Leivers, M., and Powell, A.B. (forthcoming). Excavations at Cheeseman’s Green: the development of prehistoric, Romano-British and Medieval landscapes. Kent Archaeological Society.

Grimes, W. 1949. Pentre Ifan burial chamber, Pembrokeshire. Archaeologia Cambrensis 100: 3–23. Grimes, W.F. 1939. Excavation of Ty-Isaf long cairn, Brecknockshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 6: 119–142. doi:10.1017/S0079497X00020715

Gonçalves, D. 2011. The reliability of osteometric techniques for the sex determination of burned human skeletal remains. Homo 62: 351–358. doi.org/10.1016/j. jchb.2011.08.003

Grupe, G. and Herrmann, B. 1983. Über Das Schrumpfungsverhalten Experimentell Verbrannter Spongiöser Knochen Am Beispiel Des Caput Femoris. Zeitschrift Für Morphologie Und Anthropologie 74(2): 121–27.

Gonçalves, D., Cunha, E., and Thompson, T.J.U. 2013. Weight references for burned human skeletal remains from Portuguese samples. Journal of Forensic Science 58(5): 1134–40. doi:10.1111/1556–4029.12167

Grupe, G. and Hummel, S. 1991. Trace element studies on experimentally cremated bone. I. Alteration of the chemical composition at high temperatures. Journal of Archaeological Science 18(2): 177–186. doi. org/10.1016/0305–4403(91)90046-R

Gonçalves, D., Cunha, E., and Thompson, T.J.U. 2015. Estimation of the pre-burning condition of human remains in forensic contexts. International Journal of Legal Medicine 129: 1137–1143. doi: 10.1007/s00414– 014-1027–8

Grünberg, J. 2000. Mesolithische Bestattungen in Europa. Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Gräberkunde. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.

Gonçalves, V.S. 1999. Reguengos de Monsaraz: territórios megalíthicos. Câmara Municipal de Reguengos de Monsaraz, Lisboa.

Hackenbeck, S. 2008. Migration in archaeology: are we nearly there yet? Archaeological Review from Cambridge 23(1): 9–26.

Gonzalo, A.H. 1997. The funerary world and the dynamics of change in southeast Spain (fourth-second millennia BC). In, Díaz-Andreu, M., and Keay, S. (eds). The archaeology of Iberia: the dynamics of change. London: Routledge.

Hale, D., Platell, A., and Millard, A. 2009. A Late Neolithic palisaded enclosure at Marne Barracks, Catterick, North Yorkshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 75: 265–304. doi:10.1017/S0079497X00000372

Gosden, C. and Marshall, Y. 1999. The cultural biography of objects. World Archaeology 31: 169–78. doi: 10.2307/125055

Harbison, P. 1988. Pre-Christian Ireland: from the first settlers to the early Celts. Thames & Hudson: London. Harding, J., and Healy, F. 2007. Raunds Area Project: a Neolithic and Bronze Age landscape in Northamptonshire. English Heritage.

Gowland, W. 1902. Recent excavations at Stonehenge. Archaeologia 58: 37–118. Gray Jones, A. 2017. Cremation and the use of fire in Mesolithic mortuary practices in North-West Europe. In, Cerezo-Román, J., Wessman, A., and Williams, H. (eds). Cremation and the archaeology of death. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 27–51. doi.org/10.1017/ aaq.2018.67

Harding, J., and Healy, F. 2011. Raunds Area Project: a Neolithic and Bronze Age landscape in Northamptonshire, 2. English Heritage. Harman, M. 1992. Cremated human bone. In, Whittle, A., Atkinson, R.J.C., Chambers, R., and Thomas, N. (eds). Excavations in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Complex at Dorchester-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, 1947–1952, and 1981. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58: 143–201. doi:10.1017/S0079497X0000414X

Graw, M., Schultz, M. and Wahl, J. 2003. A simple morphological method for gender determination at the petrous portion of the os temporalis. Forensic Science International 136 (Supplementary 1): 165–166.

Harris, O., Cobb, H., Gray, H., and Richardson, P. 2014. New radiocarbon dates from Cladh Aindreis chambered tomb, Ardnamurchan. PAST 76: 5–6.

Green, M. 2000. A landscape revealed: 10,000 years on a Chalkland farm. Stroud: Tempus. Green, M., and Lewis, H. 2007. The archaeological background of the Wyke Down study area. In, French, C., Lewis, H., Allen, M., Green, M., Scaife, R., and Gardiner, J. (eds). Prehistoric landscape development and human impact in the upper Allen valley, Cranborne

Harrison, R.J., Jackson, R., and Napthan, M. 1999. A rich Bell Beaker burial from Wellington Quarry, Marden, Herefordshire. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18: 1–16. doi: 10.1111/1468–0092.00068 258

References Hart, J. 2013. South Wales Gas Pipeline Project, Site 23.07, land south of Pen-y-banc, Manordeilo and Salem, Carmarthenshire: Archaeological Watching Brief. Cotswold Archaeology report for Rhead Group on behalf of the National Grid.

Hedges, R.E.M., Housley, R.A., Bronk Ramsey, C., and van Klinken, G.J. 1993. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry Datelist 16. Archaeometry 35: 147–167. doi.org/10.1111/j.1475–4754.1993. tb01030.x

Hart, J. and Leonard, C. 2013. South Wales gas pipeline project, sites 222 and 223: archaeological watching brief. Cotswold Archaeology report for Rhead Group on behalf of the National Grid.

Hedges, R.E.M., Housley, R.A, Bronk Ramsey, C. and Van Klinken, G.J. 1994. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS System: Datelist 18. Archaeometry 36: 337–374. doi.org/10.1111/j.1475–4754.1994.tb00975.x

Harvig L., Lynnerup N., and Amsgaard Ebsen, J. 2011. Computed Tomography and Computed Radiography of Late bronze age cremation urns from Denmark: an interdisciplinary attempt to develop methods applied in bioarchaeological cremation research. Archaeometry 54(2): 369–387. doi.org/10.1111/j.1475– 4754.2011.00629.x

Heglar, R. 1984. Burned remains. In, Rathburn, T.A., and Buikstra, J.E. (eds). Human identification: case studies in Forensic Anthropology. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 148–158. Hemp, W.J. 1930. The chambered cairn of Bryn Celli Ddu. Archaeologia 80: 179–214. Hemp, W.J. 1936. The chambered cairn known as Bryn yr Hen Bobl near Plas Newydd, Anglesey. Archaeologia, 85: 253–292.

Hawkey, D.E. and Merbs, C.F. 2005. Activity-induced musculoskeletal stress markers (MSM) and subsistence strategy changes among ancient Hudson Bay Eskimos. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 5: 324–38. doi.org/10.1002/oa.1390050403

Henshall, A.S. and Ritchie, J.N.G. 2001. The chambered cairns of the central highlands. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Hawley, W. 1921. Stonehenge: interim report on the exploration. Antiquaries Journal 1: 19–41.

Herbaut, F. 2000. Les haches carnacéennes. In, S. Cassen (ed.): Eléments d’architecture.exploration d’un tertre funéraire à Lannec er Gadouer, Erdeven, Morbihan. Chauvigny (Association des Publications Chauvinoises,Mémoire 19), 387–395.

Hawley, W. 1922. Second report on the excavations at Stonehenge. Antiquaries Journal 2: 36–51. Hawley, W. 1923. Third report on the excavations at Stonehenge. Antiquaries Journal 3: 13–20.

Herity, M. 1987. The finds from Irish Court Tombs. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 87C: 103–281.

Hawley, W. 1924. Fourth report on the excavations at Stonehenge. Antiquaries Journal 4: 30–39.

Herrmann, B. 1976. Neuere Ergebnisse zur Beurteilung menschilcher Brandknochen. Zeitschrift für Rechtsmedizin 77:191–200.

Hawley, W. 1926. Report on the excavations at Stonehenge during the season of 1924. Antiquaries Journal 5: 21–50.

Herrmann, B. 1977a. On histological investigations of cremated human remains. Journal of Human Evolution 6: 101–103. doi.org/10.1016/S0047–2484(77)80112–7

Hawley, W. 1928. Report on the excavations at Stonehenge during 1925 and 1926. Antiquaries Journal 8: 149–176.

Herrmann, B. 1977b. Uber die Abhängigkeit der Schrumpfung vom Mineralgehalt bei experimentell verbrannten Knochen. Anthropologischer Anzeiger 36(1): 7–12.

Healy, F. 1997. ‘Site 3. Flagstones’. In, R. J. C. Smith, F. Healy, M. J. Allen, E. L. Morris, I. Barnes, and P. J. Woodward (eds). Excavations along the Route of the Dorchester By-pass, Dorset, 1986–8 (Report no. 11). Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology, 27–48.

Herrmann, N.P. and Bennett, J.L. 1999. The differentiation of traumatic and heat-related fractures in burned bone. Journal of Forensic Science 44(3): 461–9.

Healy, F. 2012. Chronology, corpses, ceramics, copper and lithics. In, Allen, M., Gardiner, J., and Sheridan, A. (eds). Is there a British Chalcolithic? People, place and polity in the late 3rd millennium. Oxford: Oxbow, 144–63; CD: 21–50.

Hey, G., Dennis, C., and Mayes, A. 2007. Archaeological Investigations on Whiteleaf Hill, Princess Risborough, Buckinghamshire, 2002–6. Records of Buckinghamshire 42: 1–80.

Healy, F. 2016. Scientific dating. In, Leivers, M., and Powell, A.B. (eds). A research framework for the Stonehenge, Avebury, and associated sites World Heritage Site: Avebury resource assessment. Wessex Archaeology Monograph 38. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology, 40–58.

Hey, G. and Robinson, M.A. 2011. Neolithic communities in the Thames Valley: living in the natural landscape. In, Hey, G., Garwood, P., Robinson, M., Barclay, A., and Bradley, P. (eds). The Thames through time: volume 1, part 2; Mesolithic to Early Bronze Age, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 221–60.

Hedges, J.D. and Buckley, D.G. 1981. Springfield cursus and the cursus problem. Chelmsford: Essex County Council Occasional Paper 1.

Hey, G., Bell, C., Dennis, C., and Robinson, M. 2016. Yarnton: Neolithic and Bonze Age settlement and 259

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500) Idáñez Sanchez, J.F. 1986. Incineración parcial en los enterramientos colectivos eneolíticos del SE español”. Mesa redonda sobre Megalitismo Peninsular. Madrid: 165–167.

landscape. Thames Valley Landscapes Monograph 39. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology. Hiatt, B. 1969. Cremation in aboriginal Australia. Mankind 7: 104–115.

James, H.F. and Simpson, B. 1997. Drumoig, Craigie Hill, Fife. Data Structure report. The golf course and compound, part 1. Unpublished report. GUARD: Glasgow.

Hodder, I. and Shand, P. 1988. The Haddenham long barrow: an interim statement. Antiquity 62: 349–353. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00074184 Hogan, S. 2013a. Manor Farm cursus complex: floodplain investigations on the River Great Ouse, Milton Keynes. PAST 73: 2–4.

Jay, M. and Scarre, C. 2017. Tracking the dead in the Neolithic: the ‘invisible dead’ in Britain. In, Bradbury, J., and Scarre, C. (eds). Engaging with the dead: exploring changing human beliefs about death, mortality and the human body. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 13: 7–23. doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1vgw6s0

Hogan, S. 2013b. Manor Farm, Old Wolverton, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire: 2008–2010 excavation report. Unpublished Report No. 1180. Cambridge Archaeological Unit.

Jay, M., Richards, M.P. and Marshall, P. 2019. Radiocarbon dates and their Bayesian modelling. In, Parker Pearson, M., Sheridan, J.A., Jay, M., Chamberlain, A.T., Richards, M.P., and Evans, J. (eds). The Beaker People: Isotopes, mobility and diet in prehistoric Britain. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 43–80.

Holck, P. 1986. Cremated Bones: A medicalanthropological study of an archaeological material on cremation burials. Anthropologiske skrifter Nr. 1 Oslo: Anatomisk Institutt, University of Oslo. Holden, J.L., Phakey, P.P., and Clement, J.G. 1995a. Scanning electron microscope observations of heattreated human bone. Forensic Science International 74:29–45. doi:10.1016/0379–0738(95)01735–2

Jay, M., Richards, M., Parker Pearson, M., and Needham, S. 2010. Appendix A – Liffs Low radiocarbon date footnote. In, J. Leary, T. Darvill, and D. Field (eds) Round mounds and monumentality in the British Neolithic and Beyond. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 10. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 128–9.

Holden, J.L., Phakey, P.P., and Clement, J.G. 1995b. Scanning electron microscope observations of incinerated human femoral bone: a case study. Forensic Science International 74:17–28. doi:10.1016/0379– 0738(95)01734-z.

Jones, A. 2007. Memory and material culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511619229

Holland, T.D. 1989. Use of the cranial base on the identification of fire victims. Journal of Forensic Sciences 34(2): 458–460.

Jones, A.M. 2017. Preserved in the peat: an extraordinary Bronze Age burial on Whitehorse Hill, Dartmoor, and its wider context. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Holmes, M., Yates, A., Chapman, A., and WolframmMurray, Y. 2012. A Middle Neolithic enclosure and mortuary deposit at Banbury Lane, Northampton: an interim report. Northamptonshire Archaeology 37: 19–28.

Jones, A.M., Brunning, R., Keefe, K., and Holst, M. 2017. Recent radiocarbon dating and skeletal analysis of two log coffin burials from Yorkshire: Willie Howe and Towthorpe 139. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 89: 61–74. doi.org/10.1080/00844276.2017.1333349

Holst, M. 2005. Osteological analysis, Barnsdale Bar Quarry, Norton, South Yorkshire. Unpublished report number 0205 for Archaeological Services WYAS.

Jones, M. 1978. The plant remains. In, Parrington, M. (ed). The Excavation of an Iron Age Settlement, Bronze Age Ring-ditches and Roman Features at Ashville Trading Estate, Abingdon (Oxfordshire) 1974–6. Council for British Archaeology, 93–110. doi.org/10.5284/1000332

Hoppe, K.A., Koch, P.L., and Furutani, T.T. 2003. Assessing the preservation of biogenic strontium in fossil bones and tooth enamel. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 13(1–2):20–28. doi: 10.1002/oa.663

Jones, N.W. 2009. Excavation and survey at Meusydd henge and timber circles, Llanrhaeadr-ym-Mochnant, Powys: excavation and survey, 2007. Archaeologia Cambrensis 158: 43–68. doi.org/10.5284/1059207

Houlder, C.H. 1968. The henge monuments at Llandegai. Antiquity 42: 216–21. doi:10.1017/ S0003598X00034311

Jones, P. 2008. A Neolithic ring ditch and later prehistoric features at Staines Road Farm, Shepperton, Woking. Spoil Heap Monograph 1, Surrey County Archaeological Unit.

Hummel S. and Schutkowski, H. 1986. Das Verhalten von Knochengewebe unter dem Einfluß höherer temperature. – Bedeutungen für die Leichenbranddiagnose. Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie 77: 1–9.

Jordon, D., Haddon-Reece, D., and Bayliss, A. 1994. Radiocarbon dates from samples funded by English Heritage and dated before 1981. English Heritage: London. doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvxcr80d

Hüls, C.M., Erlenkeuser, H., Nadeau, M-J., Grootes, P.M., and Anderson, N. (2010). Experimental study on the origin of cremated bone apatite carbon. Radiocarbon 52: 587–599. doi:10.1017/S0033822200045628 260

References Joussaume, R. 1988. Dolmens for the dead: megalith building throughout the world. Translated by A. Chippendale and C. Chippendale. Batsford: London.

obszarze Starego Świata. Księga Jubileuszowa dedykowana Profesorowi Januszowi K. Kozłowskiemu. Kraków: 405–412.

Kador, T. 2010. Searching for Neolithic migrants at the introduction of agriculture to Ireland. Heritage Council, Dublin.

Kozłowski J. K. 2004. Wielka historia świata 1. Świat przed rewolucją neolityczną. Kraków. Küßner, M., and Schunke, T. 2016. A Mesolithic cremation burial and a hazelnut roasting site in Coswig, Wittenberg District, Central Germany. In, Grünberg, J.M., Gramsch, B., Larsson, L., Orschiedt, J., and Meller, H. (eds). Mesolithic burials- rites, symbols and social organisation of early postglacial communities. International Conference Halle (Saale), Germany, Sept 18–21, 2013. Halle (Saale): Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte: 345–358.

Kador, T., Cassidy, L.M., Geber, J., Hensey, R., Meehan, P., and Moore, S. 2018. Rites of passage: mortuary practice, population dynamics, and chronology at the Carrowkeel Passage Tomb complex, Co. Sligo, Ireland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 84: 225–255. doi:10.1017/ppr.2018.16 Kaliff, A., and Oestigaard, T. 2017. Cremation, Corpses and Cannibalism. Cambridge Scholars Publishing: Cambridge.

Kuijt, I., Quinn, C.P., and Cooney, G. 2014. Transformation by Fire: the archaeology of cremation in cultural context. The University of Arizona Press: Tuscon.

Keepax, C.A. 1973. Human bone report. In, Vatcher, F. de M. and Vatcher, H.L. Trial excavations on the site of the megalithic tomb at Fromefield, Somerset. Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 117: 19–32.

Lamdin-Whymark, H. 2008. The residue of ritualised action: Neolithic deposition practices in the Middle Thames Valley. BAR British Series 466.

Kennard, A., and Jackson, W.J. 1935. Reports on 1. The non-marine mollusca, and 2. The animal remains from the Stonehenge excavations of 1920–6. Antiquaries Journal 15: 432–40. doi.org/10.1017/ S0003581500041378

Lange, M., Schutkowski, H., Hummel, S., and Herrmann, B. 1987. A bibliography on cremations. Strasboug: PACT. Lanting, J.N., Aerts-Bijma, A.T., and van der Plicht, J. 2001. Dating cremated bone. Radiocarbon 43(2a): 249–254. doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200038078

Kennedy, K.A. 1996. The wrong urn: commingling of cremains in mortuary practices. Journal of Forensic Sciences 41: 689–692.

Larsson, Å.M. & Stutz, L.N. 2014. Reconcilable Differences: Cremation, fragmentation, and inhumation in Mesolithic and Neolithic Sweden. In, Kjuit, I., Quinn, C.P., and Cooney, G (eds). Transformation by Fire: The Archaeology of Cremation in Cultural Context. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 47–66.

Kenward, R. 1982. A Neolithic burial enclosure at New Wintles Farm, Eynsham. In, Case, H.J. and Whittle, A.W.R. (eds). Settlement Patterns in the Oxford region: excavations at the Abingdon causewayed enclosure and other sites. Council of British Archaeology, and Department of Antiquities, Ashmolean Museum: London. Council of British Archaeology Research Report 44: 51–54. doi.org/10.5284/1081782 Kinnes, I. 1970. Review of Ashbee, 1970. Antiquity 44: 318–19.

Larsson, L. 1989. Late Mesolithic settlements and cemeteries at Skateholm, Southern Sweden. In, Bonsall, C. (ed). The Mesolithic in Europe. Papers presented at the III International Symposium, Edinburgh 1985. Edinburgh: J. Donald, 367–378.

Kinnes, I. 1975. Monumental function in British Neolithic burial practices. World Archaeology 7: 16–28. doi.org/ 10.1080/00438243.1975.9979618

Last, J. 1998. Books of life: biograph and memory in a Bronze Age barrow. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 17(1): 43–53.

Kinnes, I. 1979. Round barrows and ring ditches in the British Neolithic. London: British Museum.

Last, J. 2014. Excavation of two round barrows on Longstone Edge, Derbyshire. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 134: 81–172. doi.org/10.5284/1066716

Kinnes, I., Schadla-Hall, T., Chadwick, P., and Dean, P. 1983. Duggleby Howe reconsidered. Archaeological Journal 140: 83–108. doi.org/10.1080/00665983.1983 .11077686

Leach, S. 2006. Going underground: an anthropological and taphonomic study of human skeletal remains from caves and rock shelters in Yorkshire. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Southampton.

Kinnes, I.A., Gibson, A., Ambers, J., Bowman, S., Leese, M., and Boast, R. 1991. Radiocarbon dating and British Beakers: The British Museum programme. Scottish Archaeological Review 8: 35–68.

Leach, S. (unpublished). Report on the human skeletal remains excavated from the prehistoric ceremonial complex site at Forteviot, Perthshire (2008–2010). Exeter: University of Exeter.

Kośko A. 2001. Z badań nad genezą rytuałów kremacji w bałkańsko-środkowoeuropejskim kręgu kulturowym. In, B. Ginter (ed.). Problemy epoki kamienia na

Lee, F. 2006. Human skeletal remains. In, Evans, C., and Hodder, I. (eds). A woodland archaeology: Neolithic 261

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500) Lloyd, T., Orbach, J., and Scourfield, R. 2006. Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion. Yale: Yale University Press.

sites at Haddenham. McDonald Institute Monographs. Oxford: Oxbow, 140–153. Lee, S. and Bronk Ramsey, C. 2012. Development and application of the trapezoidal model for archaeological chronologies. Radiocarbon 54(1): 107–122. doi. org/10.2458/azu_js_rc.v54i1.12397

Loth, S.R. and M. Henneberg 1996. Mandibular ramus flexure: a new morphological indicator of sexual dimorphism in the human skeleton. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 99: 473–485. doi:10.1002/ (SICI)1096–8644(199603)99:33.0.CO;2-X

Leeds, E. 1923. A Saxon village near Sutton Courtenay, Berkshire. Archaeologia 73: 147–192. doi.org/10.1017/ S0261340900010328

Louis, M. and Peyrolle, D. 1934. Aire à incinerations de l’époque nélithique, Congrès préhistorique de France. Compte-rendu de la XIe session, Périgueux: 142–144.

Leeds, E. 1934. Recent Bronze Age discoveries in Berkshire and Oxfordshire. The Antiquaries Journal 14 (3): 264–276. doi.org/10.1017/S000358150003818X

Loveday, R. 2002. Duggleby Howe revisited. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 21(2): 135–46. doi.org/10.108 0/00665983.1983.11077686

Le Goff, I. 2000. Une incineration mésolithique à la Chaussée-Tirancourt “Le Petit Marais” (Somme). CROTTI P. Meso, 96: 115–118.

Loveday, R., and Barclay, A. 2010. “One of the Most Interesting Barrows Ever Examined” – Liffs Low revisited. In, J. Leary, T. Darvill, and D. Field. (eds). Round mounds and monumentality in the British Neolithic and beyond. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 108– 129.

Leisner, G. and Leisner, V. 1951. Antas do concelho de Reguengos de Monsaraz (Materiais para o estudo da cultura megalitica em Portugal). Lisboa: Instituto para a Alta Cultura. Leivers, M. 2017. Robin Hood’s other ball? A newlydiscovered causewayed enclosure at Larkhill, Wiltshire. PAST 85: 12–13.

Lovejoy, C.O., Meindl, R.S., Pryzbeck, T.R., and Mensforth, R.P. 1985. Chronological metamorphosis of the auricular surface of the ilium: a new method for the determination of adult skeletal age at death. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 68: 15–28. doi. org/10.1002/ajpa.1330680103

Lelong, O., and MacGregor, G. 2007. The lands of ancient Lothian: Interpreting the Archaeology of the A1. Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Edinburgh. Lewis, J. 2000. Upwards at 45 degrees: the use of vertical caves during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age on Mendip, Somerset. Cave Archaeology and Palaeontology Research Archive, Issue 2.

Lucas, G.M. 1996. Of death and debt: a history of the body in Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Yorkshire. European Journal of Archaeology 4: 99–118. doi:10.1179/096576696800688105

Lewis, J. 2005. Monuments, ritual, and regionality: the Neolithic of northern Somerset. BAR British Series 401, Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Lukacs, J.R. 1992. Dental paleopathology and agricultural intensification in South Asia: new evidence from Bronze Age Harappa. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 87: 135–50. doi: 10.1002/ ajpa.1330870202

Lewis, J. and Terry, J. 2004. The excavation of an early Bronze Age cemetery at Holly Road, Leven, Fife. Tayside and Fife Archaeological Journal 10: 23–53.

Lukacs, J.R. 2007. Dental trauma and antemortem tooth loss in prehistoric Canary Islanders: prevalence and contributing factors. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 17: 157–73. doi.org/10.1002/oa.864

Lindquist, C., and Possnert, G. 1999. The first seal hunter families on Gotland. On the Mesolithic occupation in the Stora Förvar Cave. Current Swedish Archaeology 7: 65–68.

Lukacs, J.R. and Pal., J.N. 1993. Mesolithic subsistence in north India: inferences from dental attributes. Current Anthropology 34: 745–65.

Little, A., Van Gijn, A., Collins, T., Cooney, G., Elliott, B., Gilhooly, B., Charloton, S., and Warren, G. 2017. Stone Dead: Uncovering Early Mesolithic Mortuary Rites, Hermitage, Ireland. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 27(2): 223–243. doi.org/10.1017/S0959774316000536

Lynch, A. 1988. Poulnabrone: a stone in time. Archaeology Ireland 5: 105–7.

Lisowski, F.P. 1955–6. Cremations from Culdoich, Leys and Kinchyle sites. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 89: 83–90.

Lynch, A. 2014. Poulnabrone: An early Neolithic portal tomb in Ireland. Archaeological Monograph Series 9, Stationary Office: Dublin.

Lisowski, F.P. 1956. The cremations from Barclodiad y Gawres. In, Powell, T.G.E. and Daniel, G.E. 1956. Barclodiad y Gawres: the excavation of the megalithic chamber tomb in Anglesey, 1952–3. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

Lynch, A., and Ó Donnabháin, B. 1994. Poulnabrone, Co. Clare. The other Clare 18: 5–7. Lynch, F. 1972. Portal dolmens in the Nevern Valley, Pembrokeshire. In, Lynch, F., and Burgess, C. (eds).

262

References Marshall, P., Bronk Ramsey, C., and Cook, G. 2021. Radiocarbon dating of Stonehenge. In, Parker Pearson, M., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Thomas, J., Tilley, C., and Welham, K. (eds). Stonehenge for the ancestors. Part 1: Landscapes and Monuments. Sidestone Press: Leiden, 527–546.

Prehistoric Man in Wales and the West. Bath: Adams & Dart, 67–84. Lynch, F. 1975. Excavations at Carreg Samson Megalithic Tomb, Mathry, Pembrokeshire. Archaeologia Cambrensis 124: 15–35. Lynch, F. 2018. Llandegai excavations 1966–67: further thoughts on interpretations. Archaeologia Cambrensis 167: 109–112.

Masotti, S., Succi-Leonelli, E. and Gualdi-Russo, E. 2013. Cremated human remains: is measurement of the lateral angle of the meatus acusticus internus a reliable method of sex determination? International Journal of Legal Medicine 127(5): 1039–1044. doi:10.1007/ s00414–013-0822-y

Lynch, F., and Musson, C. 2004. A prehistoric and early medieval complex at Llandegai, near Bangor, North Wales. Archaeologia Cambrensis, 150: 17–142. doi.org/10.5284/1059152

Masset, C. 1968. Les incinerations du Néolithique anciene de Neuvy-en-Dunois (Eure-et-Loir), II: etude anthropologique. Gallia Préhistoire 1: 205–234.

Lynnerup, N. 2010. Medical imaging of mummies and bog bodies. Gerontology, 56(5): 441–8. doi:10.1159/000266031

Masset, C. 1995. Neuvy-en-Dunois (Eure-et-Loir), entre 4366 et 3773 avant J.-C. In, Masset, C., and Soulier, P. (eds). Allées couvertes et autres monuments funéraires du Néolithique dans la France du nord-ouest: allées sans retour. Errance.

Lynnerup N., Hjalgrim H., Rindal Nielsen L., Gregersen H., and Thuesen, I. 1997. Non-invasive archaeology of skeletal material by CT-scanning and three-dimensional reconstruction. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 7: 91–94. doi. org/10.1002/(SICI)1099–1212(199701)7:13.0.CO;2-T

Masters, L. 1973. The Lochhill long cairn. Antiquity, 47(186): 96–100. doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X0003489X Mauss, M. 1950. The Gift: the form and reason for exchange in archaic societies. Second edition, 1990. London: Routledge.

Lynnerup, N., Schulz, M., Madelung, A., and Graw, M. 2006. Diameter of the human internal acoustic meatus and sex determination. International Journal of Osteoarcheology 16(2): 118–123. doi.org/10.1002/ oa.811

May, F. 1986. Les sépultures péhistoriques. FRA: Édns CRS, Paris. Mayne Correia, P.M. 1997. Fire modification of bone: a review of the literature. In, Haglund, W.D., Sorg, M.H. (eds). Forensic taphonomy: the postmortem fate of human remains. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 275–293.

Maier, A. and Zimmermann, A. 2017. Populations headed south? The Gravettian from a palaeodemographic point of view. Antiquity 91: 573–588. doi.org/10.15184/ aqy.2017.37

Mayne Correia, P.M., and O. Beattie 2002. A critical look at methods for recovering, evaluating, and interpreting cremated human remains. In; Haglund, W.D., and M.H. Sorg (eds). Advances in forensic taphonomy: methods, theory and archaeological perspectives. Boca Raton: CRC Press: 435–450.

Malinowski, A. and Porawski, R. 1969. Identifikationsmöglichkeiten menschlicher Brandknochen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung ihres Gewichts. Zacchia 44: 1–49. Manby, T.G. 1963. The excavation of the Willerby Wold Long Barrow, East Riding of Yorkshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 29: 173–205. doi:10.1017/ S0079497X00015383

Mays, S. 1990. The human remains from West Cotton, Raunds, Northamptonshire. Ancient Monuments Laboratory Report 56/1990 (56/90). London: English Heritage.

Maresh, M.M. 1970. Measurements from roentgenograms, heart size, long bone lengths, bone, muscles and fat widths, skeletal maturation. In, McCammon R.W. (ed). Human growth and development. Charles C. Thomas: Springfield, 155–200.

Mays, S. 2004a. Human bone. Transactions of the Essex Society for Archaeology and History. Essex Archaeology and History, 35. Mays, S. 2004b. A note on Neolithic human remains from south-east England. In, Cotton, J. and Field, D. (eds). Towards a new Stone Age: aspects of the Neolithic in south-east England. CBA Research Report 137. York: Council for British Archaeology, 110–114. doi. org/10.5284/1081728

Marques, S.R., Ajzen, S., D’Ippolito, G., Alonso, L., Isotani, S., and Lederman, H. 2012. Morphometric analysis of the internal auditory canal by computed tomography imaging. Iranian Journal of Radiology 9(2): 71–78.

Mays, S. and Cox, M. 2000. Sex determination in skeletal remains. In, Cox, M. and Mays, S. (eds) Human osteology in archaeology and forensic science. London: Greenwich Medical Media: 117–30.

Marsden, B.M. 1970. The excavation of the Bee Low round cairn, Youlgreave, Derbyshire. The Antiquaries Journal 50: 186–215. doi:10.5812/iranjradiol.7849

263

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500) McKinley, J.I. 2015a. In the heat of the pyre. In, Schmidt, C., and Symes, S. (eds). The analysis of burned human remains. Second edition. Elsevier: Oxford, 181–202.

McEvedy, C., and Jones, R. 1978. Atlas of world population history. London: Penguin. McKinley, J.I. 1993. Bone fragment size and weights of bone from modern British cremations and the implications for the interpretation of archaeological cremations. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 3: 283–287. doi.org/10.1002/oa.1390030406

McKinley, J.I. 2015b. Human Bone. In, Powell et al. (eds). Imperial College Sports Ground and RMC Land, Harlington: the development of prehistoric and later communities in the Colne Valley and on the Heathrow Terrace. Wessex Archaeology Report 33: 223–233.

McKinley, J.I. 1994. The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Spong Hill, North Elmham. Part VIII: the cremations. Report No. 69, East Anglian Archaeology: Dereham.

McKinley, J.I. 2015c. Cremated bone. In, Thomas, J. (ed.) A Neolithic ceremonial complex in Galloway: excavations at Dunragit and Droughduil, 1999–2002. Oxbow Books: Oxford, 127–131.

McKinley, J.I. 1995. Human Bones. In, Cleal, R.M.J., Walker, K.E., and Montague, R. (eds). Stonehenge in its landscape: twentieth-century excavations. Archaeological Report 10, English Heritage: London: 451–461.

McKinley, J.I. 2016. Complexities of the ancient mortuary rite of cremation: an osteoarchaeological conundrum. In, Grupe, G. and McGlynn, G.C. (eds). Isotopic Landscapes in Bioarchaeology: 17–41. London: Springer. doi.org/10.1007/978–3-662–48339-8_2

McKinley, J.I. 1997a. Bronze Age ‘barrows’ and funerary rites and rituals of cremation. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63: 129–145. doi.org/10.1017/ S0079497X00002401

McKinley, J.I. 2017. Compiling a skeletal inventory: cremated human bone. In, Mitchell, P., and Brickey, M. (eds). Updated Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains. Reading: Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, 14–19.

McKinley, J.I. 1997b. Burnt bone. In, Pollard, T. (ed). Excavation of a Neolithic settlement and ritual complex at Beckton Farm, Lockerbie, Dumfries & Galloway. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 127: 103–105.

McKinley, J.I. 2018. Human Bone. In, Thompson, S., and Powell, A.B. (eds). Along prehistoric lines: Neolithic, Iron Age, and Romano-British activity at the former MOD Headquarters, Durrington, Wiltshire. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology Occasional Paper (Kindle edition).

McKinley, J.I. 1998. Archaeological manifestations of cremation. The Archaeologist 33: 18–20. McKinley, J.I. 2000a. Phoenix rising: aspects of cremation in Roman Britain, in Pearce, J., Millett, M., and Struck, M. (eds). Burial, Society and Context in the Roman World. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 38–44.

McKinley, J.I. (forthcoming). Cremated bone and aspects of the mortuary rite. In, Gittins, E., Leivers, M., and Powell, A.B. (eds). Excavations at Cheeseman’s Green: the development of prehistoric, Romano-British and Medieval landscapes. Kent Archaeological Society.

McKinley, J.I. 2000b. The Analysis of Cremated Bone. In, Cox, M. and Mays, S. (eds). Human Osteology in archaeology and forensic science. London: Greenwich Medical Media LTD, 403–421.

McKinley, J. I., and Bond, J. M. 2001. Cremated Bone. In, Brothwell, D. R., and Pollard, A. M. (eds). Handbook of Archaeological Sciences. Chichester: Wiley, 281–292.

McKinley, J.I. 2004. Compiling a skeletal inventory: cremated human bone. In, Brickley, M. and J.I. McKinley (2004). Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains. IFA Paper No. 7, BABAO: University of Reading: 9–13.

McOmish, D., Field, D., and Brown, G. (2002). The field archaeology of the Salisbury Plain training area. London: English Heritage. McSweeney, K. 2004. Cremated bone. In, Lewis, J. and Terry, J. (eds). The excavation of an early Bronze Age cemetery at Holly Road, Leven, Fife. Tayside and Fife Archaeological Journal 10: 44–45.

McKinley, J. I. 2006. Bryn Celli Ddu, Anglesey: human bone publication report. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology unpublished report for Amgueddfa Cymru -National Museum Wales.

Meiklejohn, C. 2009. Radiocarbon dating of the Mesolithic human remains in Spain. Mesolithic Miscellany 20(2): 2–20.

McKinley, J.I. 2008. Human remains. In, Mercer, R. and Healey, F. (eds). Hambledon Hill, Dorset: excavation and survey of a Neolithic monument complex and its surrounding landscape. Swindon: English Heritage, 477–521.

Meiklejohn, C., Brinch Petersen, E., and Babb, J. 2009. From single graves to cemeteries: an initial look at chronology in Mesolithic burial practice. In, McCartan, D., Schulting, R., Warren, G., and Woodman, P. (eds). Mesolithic horizons: papers presented at the seventh International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Belfast 2005. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

McKinley, J.I. 2011. Human Remains. In, A.P. Fitzpatrick, The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen: Bell Beaker burials at Boscombe Down, Amesbury, Wiltshire. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology 27, 18–32.

264

References Meiklejohn, C., Bosset, G., and Valentin, F. 2010. Radiocarbon dating of Mesolithic human remains in France. Mesolithic Miscellany 21(1): 10–56.

Mitchell, P., and Brickey, M. 2017. Updated Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains. Chartered Institute for Archaeologists: Reading.

Meiklejohn, C., and Woodman, P.C. 2012. Radiocarbon dating of Mesolithic human remains in Ireland. Mesolithic Miscellany 22 (1): 22–41.

Mizoguchi, K. 1993. Time in the reproduction of mortuary practices. World Archaeology 25: 223–35. doi.org/10.1 080/00438243.1993.9980239

Mein, A. G. 2003. Neolithic mortuary ritual at Trostrey, Monmouthshire. Archaeology in Wales 43: 65–68.

Moggridge, M. 1860. Druidic circle, Rhosmaen, Radnorshire. Archaeologia Cambrensis 6: 21–22.

Meindl, R.S. and Lovejoy, C.O. 1985. Ectocranial suture closure: a revised method for the determination of skeletal age at death based on the lateral-anterior sutures. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 68(1): 57–66. doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330680106

Molnar, P., Ahlstrom, T.P. and Leden, I. 2013. Osteoarthritis and activity: an analysis of the relationship between eburnation, musculoskeletal stress markers (MSM) and age in two Neolithic hunter-gatherer populations from Gotland, Sweden. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 21: 283–91. doi.org/10.1002/ oa.1131

Mercer, R.J. 1980. Hambledon Hill: a Neolithic landscape. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Mook, W. G. 1986. Business meeting: recommendations/ resolutions adopted by the Twelfth International Radiocarbon Conference. Radiocarbon 28: 799. doi. org/10.1017/S0033822200008043

Mercer, R. J. 1981. The excavation of a late Neolithic henge-type enclosure at Balfarg, Markinch, Fife, Scotland, 1977–78. The Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 111: 63–171. Mercer, R.J. 1990. Causewayed Enclosures. Shire Publications: Princes Risborough.

Moore, J. 1997. The infernal cycle of fire ecology. In, Topping, P. (ed). Neolithic landscapes. Oxford: Oxbow, 33–40.

Mercer, R., and Healy, R. 2008. Hambledon Hill, Dorset, England. Excavations and survey of a Neolithic monument complex and its surrounding landscape. English Heritage Archaeological Reports: London.

Moorrees, C.F.A., Fanning, E.A., and Hunt Jr, E.E. 1963. Formation and resorption of three deciduous teeth in children. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 21(2): 205–213. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330210212.

Merrony, C., Buckland, P., Dungworth, D., and Parker Pearson, M. 2017. A prehistoric rock shelter burial site and enclosure at Scabba Wood, Sprotbrough, South Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 89: 23–60. doi.org/10.1080/00844276.2017.1333339

Morel, P., and Perrot, R. 1976. Travaux et documents du centre de Paleoanthropologie et de Paleopathologie. Tome 3: Anthropologie d’un Abri-sous-roche préhistorique. Le Rond-du-Levrier (Haute-Loire). Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France.

Metcalf, P., and Huntington, R. 1991. Celebrations of death: the anthropology of mortuary ritual. Second edition. Cambridge University Press: New York.

Moreland, J. 1999. The world(s) of the cross. World Archaeology 31(2): 194–213. doi.org/10.1080/00438 243.1999.9980441

Miket, R. 1985. Ritual enclosures at Whitton Hill, Northumberland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 51: 137–148. doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00007064

Morgan, F. de Mallet. 1959. The excavation of a long barrow at Nutbane, Hants. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 25: 15–51. doi.org/10.1017/ S0079497X00016492

Miles, D. 1986. Archaeology at Barton Court Farm, Abingdon, Oxon: an investigation of Late Neolithic, Iron Age, Romano-British, and Saxon settlements. Archaeological Unit and the Council for British Archaeology: Oxford. doi.org/10.5284/1081709

Morse, D., Duncan, J., Stoutamire, J. 1983. Handbook of Forensic Archaeology and Anthropology. Florida: Tallahassee.

Milne, J. 1892. Traces of early man in Buchan. Transactions of the Buchan Field Club 2 (1891–2): 97–108.

Mortimer, J. R. 1905. Forty Years’ Researches in British and Saxon Burial Mounds of East Yorkshire. London, Hull and York: A. Brown and Sons.

Milner, N., Craig, O.E., Bailey, G.N., Pedersen, K. and Andersen, S.H. 2004. Something fishy in the Neolithic? A re-evaluation of stable isotope analysis of Mesolithic and Neolithic coastal populations. Antiquity 78: 9–22. doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00092887

Montgomery, J., Budd, P., and Evans, J. 2000. Reconstructing the lifetime movements of ancient people: a Neolithic case study from southern England. European Journal of Archaeology 3: 370–385. doi. org/10.1179/146195700807860828

Milner, N., Craig, O.E., Bailey, G.N. and Andersen, S.H. 2006. A response to Richards and Schulting. Antiquity 80: 456–458. doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00093777

Movius, H.L. 1935. Kilgreany cave, County Waterford. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 65: 254–96.

265

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500) Noble, G. and Brophy, K. 2009. Forteviot, Perthshire, 2009: excavations of a henge and cist burial: data structure and interim report. https://www.gla.ac.uk/ media/Media_183910_smxx.pdf

Murphy, E., Ó Donnabháin, B., Welsh, H., Tesorieri, M., and Mcsparron, C. 2010. INSTAR: The people of prehistoric Ireland. Progress report on Phase 2 -Synthesis of osteological, contextual and chronological data relating to Irish prehistoric human remains. Report prepared for the Heritage Council.

Noble, G. and Brophy, K. 2011a. Ritual and remembrance at prehistoric ceremonial complex in central Scotland: excavations at Forteviot, Perth and Kinross. Antiquity 85: 878–804. doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00068319

Myers, A.M. 1999. An archaeological resource assessment of the Neolithic and Bronze Age in Derbyshire. East Midlands Archaeological Research Frameworks.

Noble, G., and Brophy, K. 2011b. Big enclosures: the Later Neolithic palisaded enclosures of Scotland in their north-western European context. European Journal of Archaeology 14: 60–87. doi. org/10.1179/146195711798369346

Nash, G. 2008. Encoding a Neolithic landscape: the linearity of burial monuments along Strumble Head, South-west Wales. The Journal of Archaeology 3: 345– 62. doi.org/10.2752/175169708X329381

Noble, G., and Brophy, K. 2017. Cremation practices and the creation of monument complexes: the Neolithic cremation cemetery at Forteviot, Strathearn, Perth & Kinross, Scotland, and its comparanda. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 83: 213–245. doi.org/10.1017/ ppr.2017.11

Naysmith, P., Scott, E.M., Cook, G.T., Heinemeier, J., van der Plicht, J., Van Strydonck, M., Bronk Ramsey, C., Grootes, P.M., and Freeman, S.P.H.T. 2007. A cremated bone inter-comparison study. Radiocarbon 49: 403–8. Needham, S. 2005. Transforming Beaker culture in North-West Europe: processes of fusion and fission. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71: 171–217. doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200042338

Norén, A., Lynnerup, N., Czarnetzki, A., and Graw, M. 2005. Lateral angle: a method for sexing using the petrous bone. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 128: 318–23. doi:10.1002/ajpa.20245

Needham, S. 2012. Case and place for the British Chalcolithic. In, Allen, M.M.J., Gardiner, J., and Sheridan, J.A. (eds). Is there a British Chalcolithic? People, place and polity in the later 3rd millennium. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1–26.

NYR Gallery: https://twitter.com/NYRgallery/media, tweet from March 14, 2015: accessed 01/08/2015. O’Connell, L. 2004. Guidance on recording age at death in adults. In, Brickley, M. and McKinley, J. (eds). Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains. IFA Paper No. 7. University of Southampton: Southampton, p. 18.

Needham, S., Parker Pearson, M., Tyler, A., Richards, M., and Jay, M. 2010. A first ‘Wessex 1’ date from Wessex. Antiquity 84: 363–373. doi.org/10.1017/ S0003598X00066631

O’Donnell, L. 2016. The power of the pyre – a holistic study of cremation focusing on charcoal remains. Journal of Archaeological Science 65: 161–171. doi. org/10.1016/j.jas.2015.11.009

Nelson, R.A. 1992. Microscopic comparison of fresh and burned bone. Journal of Forensic Sciences 37(4): 1055–1060. Newall, R.S. 1929. Stonehenge. Antiquity 3: 75–88. doi. org/10.1017/S0003598X00003008

Odgaard, U. 2007. The fireplace as centre of life. In, Gheorgiu, D. and Nash, G. (eds). The archaeology of fire: understanding fire as material culture. Budapest: Archaeolingua, 61–84.

Niblett, R. 2001. A Neolithic dugout from a multi-period site near St. Albans, Herts, England. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 30(2): 155–195. doi. org/10.1006/ijna.2001.0363

Olalde, I., Brace, S., Allentoft, M.E., Armit, I., Kristiansen, K., Booth, T., Rohland, N., Mallick, S., SzécsényiNagy, A., Mittnik, A., Altena, E., Lipson, M., Lazaridis, I., Harper, T.K., Patterson, N., Broomandkhoshbacht, N., Diekmann, Y., Faltyskova, Z., Fernandes, D., Ferry, M., Harney, E., de Knijff, P., Michel, M., Oppenheimer, J., Stewardson, K., Barclay, A., Werner Alt, K., Liesau, C., Ríos, P., Blasco, C., Vega Miguel, J., Menduiña García, R., Avilés Fernández, A., Bánffy, E., BernabòBrea, M., Billoin, D., Bonsall, C., Bonsall, L., Allen, T., Büster, L., Carver, S., Castells Navarro, L., Craig, O.E., Cook, G.T., Cunliffe, B., Denaire, A., Egging Dinwiddy, K., Dodwell, N., Ernée, M., Evans, C., Kuchařík, M., Francès Farré, J., Fowler. C., Gazenbeek, M., Garrido Pena, R., Haber-Uriarte, M., Haduch, E., Hey, G., Jowett, N., Knowles, T., Massy, K., Pfrengle, S., Lefranc, P., Lemercier, O., Lefebvre, A., Heras Martínez,

Neves, W.A., Barros, A.M., and Costa, M.A. 1999. Incidence and distribution of postcranial fractures in the prehistoric population of San Pedro de Atacama, Northern Chile. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 109: 253–258. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096– 8644(199906)109:23.0.CO;2-P Noble, G. 2006. Neolithic Scotland: timber, stone, earth and fire. Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh. Noble, G. and Brophy, K. 2008. Forteviot, Perthshire: excavations at the entrance avenue of the Neolithic palisaded enclosure 2007 (SERF): Interim report and data structure. https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/ Media_183922_smxx.pdf 266

References C., Galera Olmo, V., Bastida Ramírez, A., Lomba Maurandi, J., Majó, T., McKinley, J.I., McSweeney, K., Gusztáv Mende, B., Modi, A., Kulcsár, G., Kiss, V., Czene, A., Patay, R., Endrődi, A., Köhler, K., Hajdu, T., Szeniczey, T., Dani, J., Bernert, Z., Hoole, M., Cheronet, O., Keating, D., Velemínský, P., Dobeš, M., Candilio, F., Brown, F., Flores Fernández, R., HerreroCorral, A-M., Tusa, S., Carnieri, E., Lentini, L., Valenti, A., Zanini, A., Waddington, C., Delibes, G., GuerraDoce, E., Neil, B., Brittain, M., Luke, M., Mortimer, R., Desideri, J., Besse, M., Brücken, G., Furmanek, M., Hałuszko, A., Mackiewicz, M., Rapiński, A., Leach, S., Soriano, I., Lillios, K.T., Cardoso, J.L., Parker Pearson, M., Włodarczak, P., Price, T.D., Prieto, P., Rey, P-J., Risch, R., Rojo Guerra, M.A., Schmitt, A., Serralongue, J., Silva, A.M., Smrčka, V., Vergnaud, L., Zilhão, J., Caramelli, D., Higham, T., Thomas, T.G., Kennett, D.J., Fokkens, H., Heyd, V., Sheridan, A., Sjögren, K-G., Stockhammer, P.W., Krause, J., Pinhasi, R., Wolfgang Haak, W., Barnes, I., Lalueza-Fox, C., and Reich, D. 2018. The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic transformation of northwest Europe. Nature 555: 190–196. doi.org/10.1038/nature25738

Oswald, A., Dyer, C. and Barber, M. 2001. The Creation of Monuments: Neolithic causewayed enclosures in the British Isles. English Heritage: Swindon. Parker Pearson, M. 1999. The archaeology of death and burial. Sutton Publishing: Stroud. Parker Pearson, M. and Ramilisonina. 1998. Stonehenge for the ancestors: the stones pass on the message. Antiquity 72: 308–326. doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00086592 Parker Pearson, M., Bevins, R., Ixer, R., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Welham, K., Chan, B., Edinborough, K., Hamilton, D., Macphail, R., Schlee, D., Schwenninger, J-L., Simmons, E., and Smith, M. 2015. Craig Rhos-y-felin: a Welsh bluestone megalith quarry for Stonehenge. Antiquity 89: 1331–1352. doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2015.177 Parker Pearson, M., Chamberlain, A., Jay, M., Marshall, P., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Thomas, J., Tilley, C., and Welham, K. 2009. Who was buried at Stonehenge? Antiquity 83: 23–39. doi.org/10.1017/ S0003598X00098069 Parker Pearson, M., Chamberlain, A., Jay, M., Richards, M., Sheridan, A., Curtis, N., Evans, J., Gibson, A., Hutchison, M., Mahoney, P., Marshall, P., Montgomery, J., Needham, S., O’Mahoney, S., Pellegrini, M., and Wilkin, N. 2016. Bell Beaker people in Britain: migration, mobility and diet. Antiquity 90: 620–637. doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2016.72

Olsen, J., Hornstrup, K.M., Heinemeier, J., and Bennike, P. 2011. Chronology of the Danish Bronze Age based on 14C dating of cremated bone remains. Radiocarbon 53 (2): 261–275. Olsen, J., Heinemeier, J., Hornstrup, K.M., Bennike, P., and Thrane, H. 2013. ‘Old wood’ effect in radiocarbon dating of prehistoric cremated bones? Journal of Archaeolgical Science 40: 30–4.

Parker Pearson, M., Cleal, R., Marshall, P., Needham, S., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Ruggles, C., Sheridan, A., Thomas, J., Tilley, C., Welham, K., Chamberlain, A., Chenery, C., Evans, J., Knüsel, C., Linford, N., Martin, L., Montgomery, J., Payne, A., and M. Richards. 2007. The age of Stonehenge. Antiquity 81: 617–639. doi. org/10.1017/S0003598X00095624

O’Neil, S., Montgomery, J., Evans, J., Cook, G.T., and Scarre, C. 2017. Land use and mobility during the Neolithic in Wales explored using isotope analysis of tooth enamel. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 164: 371–393. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.23279. O’Neill, H. 1966. Sale’s Lot long barrow, Withington, Gloucestershire 1962–1965. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucester Archaeological Society 85: 5–35.

Parker Pearson, M., Marshall, P., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Thomas, J., and Welham, K. 2012. Stonehenge. Oxford Encyclopaedia: Oxford.

Oosterbeek, L.M. 1995. Ao neolítica da Gruta do Cadaval (Tomar). Actas da I Reuniāo do Quarternário Ibérico 2: 147–159.

Parker Pearson, M., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Thomas, J., Tilley, C., and Welham, K. 2020. Stonehenge for the ancestors: Part 1 landscape and monuments. Sidestone Press: Leiden.

Ortner, D.J. 2003. Identification of Pathological Conditions in Human Skeletal Remains. Second edition. London: Academic Press.

Parker Pearson, M. and Regnier, D. 2018. Collective and single burial in Madagascar. In, Schmitt, A., Déderix, S. and Crevecoeur, I. (eds). Gathered in Death: archaeological and ethnological perspectives on collective burial and social organisation. Louvain-laNeuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain, 41–62.

Osman Hill, W.C. 1950. The cremated human remains. In, Piggott, S. The excavations at Cairnpapple Hill, West Lothian, 1947–8. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 87: 122. doi.org/10.1017/ S0003598X00019955 O’Sullivan, M. 2005. Duma Na Ngiall: The Mound of the Hostages, Tara. Bray: Wordswell and University College Dublin School of Archaeology.

Parker Pearson, M., Sheridan, J.A., Jay, M., Chamberlain, A.T., Richards, M.P., and Evans, J. 2019. The Beaker People: Isotopes, mobility and diet in prehistoric Britain. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Oswald, A. 1969. Excavations at Barford, Warwickshire. Transactions of the Birmingham and Warwickshire Archaeological Society 83: 3–54.

Pascual, J.L. 2002. Incineración parcial en contextos funerarios neolóticos y calcolíticos del este peninsular al sur del Xúquer. In, Rojo, M.A., and Kunst, M. (eds). 267

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500) Piggott, S. 1931. The Neolithic pottery of the British Isles. The Archaeological Journal 88: 67–158. doi. org/10.5284/1018054.

Sobre el significado del fuego en los rituales funerarios del Neolítico. Studia Archaeologica 91, Valladolid: Secretariado de Publicaciones e Intercambio Editorial, Universidad de Valladolid: 155–189.

Piggott, S. 1936. Handley Hill, Dorset: a Neolithic bowl and the date of the entrenchment. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 2: 229–30. doi.org/10.1017/ S0079497X00021824

Pautreau, J.P. 1994. Quelques aspects de cremations contemporaries en Asie de Sud-Est. In, Lambot, B., Briboulet, M., Méniel, P. Le site Protohistorique D’AcyRomance (Ardennes) – II; Les Nécropoles dans leur context régional. Mémoire de la Société Archéologique Champenoise: Reims, 306–315.

Piggott, S. 1949. The excavations at Cairnpapple Hill, West Lothian, 1947–8. Antiquity 89: 32–39. doi.org/10.1017/ S0003598X00019955

Pellegrini, M., Pouncett, J., Jay, M., Parker Pearson, M., and Richards, M. 2016. Tooth enamel oxygen “isoscapes” show a high degree of human mobility in prehistoric Britain. Nature Scientific Report 6: 1–9. doi. org/10.1038/srep34986

Piggott, S. 1950. The excavations at Cairnpapple Hill, West Lothian, 1947–8. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 82: 68–123. doi. org/10.5284/1000184 Piggott, S. 1954. The Neolithic cultures of the British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Peterson, R. 2012. Social memory and ritual performance. Journal of Social Archaeology 13 (2): 266–283. doi. org/10.1177/1469605312455768

Piggott, S. 1962. The West Kennet long barrow: excavations 1955–1956. Ministry of Works Archaeological Report 4, HMSO: London.

Peterson, R. and Pollard, J. 2004. The Neolithic: the first farming societies. In, Aldhouse-Green, M. and Howells, R. (eds). County History of Gwent: Volume 1, foundations – Gwent in prehistory and early history. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 56–82.

Piggott, S. 1973. The Dalladies long barrow: NE Scotland. Antiquity 47 (185): 32–36. doi.org/10.1017/ S0003598X00034645 Pitts, M. W. 2001a. Hengeworld (second edition). London: Arrow Books.

Pétrequin, P., Arbogast, R-M., Bourquin-Mignot, C., Lavier, C., and Viellet, A. 2010. Demographic growth, environmental changes and technical adaptations: responses of an agricultural community from the 32nd to the 30th centuries BC. World Archaeology 30(2): 181–192. doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1998.9980406

Pitts, M.W. 2001b. Excavating the Sanctuary: new investigations on Overton Hill, Avebury. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 94: 1–23.

Peyroteo Stjerna, R. 2016. Roots of death: origins of human burial and the research on Early Holocene mortuary practices in the Iberian Peninsula. In, Grünberg, J.M., Gramsch, B., Larsson, L., Orchiedt, J., and Meller, H. (eds). Mesolithic burials – rites, symbols and social organisation of early postglacial communities. International conference Halle (Saale), Germany, 18– 21 September 2013. Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle Band 13/11: 629–644.

Pitts, M.W. 2017. Second Mesolithic cremation burial found. British Archaeology, 155: July/August. Pitts, M.W., Bayliss, A., McKinley, J., Boylston, A., Budd, P., Evans, J., Chenery, C., Reynolds, A. and Semple S. 2002. An Anglo-Saxon decapitation and burial at Stonehenge. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 95: 131–46. Pitts, M.W., Hamilton, D. and Reynolds, A. 2007. A revised date for the early medieval execution at Stonehenge. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 100: 202–3.

Phenice, T.W. 1969. A newly developed visual method of sexing the os pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 30:297–301. doi.org/10.1002/ ajpa.1330300214 Phillips, C.W. 1936. The excavation of the Giants’ Hills Long Barrow, Skendleby, Lincolnshire. Archaeologia 85: 374–406. doi.org/10.1017/S0261340900015162

Pointek, J. 1976. The process of cremation and its influence on the morphology of bones in the light of results of experimental research. Archeologica Polski 21: 247–80.

Pignat, G. 2002. L’abri de Châble-Croix: un camp de chasse et de pêche en plaine du Rhône. Premiers hommes dans les Alpes: Catalogue de l’exposition, Sion: Lausanne et Sion: 165–169.

Polet, C. and Cauwe, N. 2007. Étude anthropologique des sépultures préhistoriques de l’Abris de Autours (Province de Namur, Belgique). Anthropologica et Præhistorica, 118: 87–126.

Piggott, S. 1929. Neolithic pottery and other remains from Pangbourne, Berks. And Caversham, Oxon. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia 6: 30–9. doi.org/10.1017/S0958841800025722

Pollard, J. 1995. Inscribing space: formal deposition at the later Neolithic monument of Woodhenge, Wiltshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61: 137–56. doi. org/10.1017/S0079497X00003066

268

References Rees, W. 1854. An account of two druidicial circles and a Roman camp on a mountain near Trecastle, Brecknockshire. Archaeologia Cambrensis 5: 125–134.

Pollard, J., Allen, M., Cleal, R., Shashall, N., Gunter, J., Roberts, V., and Robinson, D. 2012. East of Avebury: tracing prehistoric activity and environmental change in the environs of Avebury henge (excavations at Rough Leaze 2007). Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 105: 1–20.

Reimer, P.J., Baille, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Buck, C.E., Burr, G.S., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T.P., Hajdas, I., Heaton, T.J., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F., Kromer, B., McCormac, F.G., Manning, S.W., Reimer, R.W., Richards, D.A., Southon, J.R., Talamo, S., Turney, C.S.M., van der Plicht, J., and Weyhenmeyer, C.E. 2009. IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51(4): 1111–1150. doi. org/10.1017/S0033822200034202

Pollard, T. 1997. Excavation of a Neolithic settlement and ritual site at Beckton, Lockerbie, Dumfries & Galloway. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 127: 69–123. Powell, A.B., Barclay, A., Mepham, L., and Stevens, C.J. 2015. Imperial College Sports Grounds and RMC Land, Harlington. Wessex Archaeology Monograph. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Buck, C.E., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T.P., Haflidason, H., Hajdas, I. Hatté, C., Heaton, T.J., Hoffman, D.L., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F., Kromer, B., Manning, S.W., Niu, M., Reimer, R.W., Richards, D.A., Scott, E.M., Southon, J.R, Staff, R.A., Turney, C.S.M., van der Plicht, J. 2013. IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4): 1869–1887. doi.org/10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16947

Powell, T.G.E. 1973. Excavation of the megalithic chambered cairn at Dyffryn Ardudwy, Merioneth, Wales. Archaeologia 104: 1–49. doi.org/10.1017/ S0261340900010602 Powell, T.G.E. and Daniel, G.E. 1956. Barclodiad y Gawres: the excavation of the megalithic chamber tomb in Anglesey, 1952–3. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Powell, T.G.W. and Litt, D. 1973. Excavation of a chambered cairn at Dyffryn Ardudwy, Merioneth, Wales. Archaeologia 104: 1–49. doi.org/10.1017/ S0261340900010602

Renfrew, C. 1976. Before civilization: the radiocarbon revolution and prehistoric Europe. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Pull, J. 1932. The flint miners of Blackpatch. London: Williams & Norgate.

Richards, C. 2013. Building the great stone circles of the north. Oxford: Windgather.

Preston, S. (ed) 2003. Prehistoric, Roman and Saxon sites in Eastern Berkshire, Excavations 1989–1997. Monograph 2, Reading: Thames Valley Archaeological Services.

Richmond, A. 1999. Preferred economies: the nature of the subsistence base throughout mainland Britain during prehistory. BAR series 209. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Proudfoot, E. 2004. Fordhouse Barrow, House of Dun (NO 6658 6053). In, Turner, R. (ed). Discovery and Excavation in Scotland. Council for Scottish Archaeology, New Series 5: 158.

Ripper, S., Beamish, M., Bayliss, A., Bronk Ramsey, C., Brown, A., Collins, M., Cooper, N.J., Cook, G., Cook, J., Gouldwell, A., Greig, J., Hatton, J., Marshall, P.D., Meadows, J., Monckton, A., Van Der Plicht, H., Smith, D., and Tetlow, E. 2012. Bogs, bodies, and burnt mounds: visits to the Soar Wetlands in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 78: 173–206. doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00027158

Pryor, F. 1998. Etton: excavations at a Neolithic causewayed enclosure near Maxey, Cambridgeshire, 1982–7. English Heritage: London. Pryor, F. 2003. Britain BC: Life in Britain and Ireland before the Romans. London.

Ritchie, J.N.G. 1974. Excavation of the stone circle and cairn at Balbirnie, Fife. Archaeological Journal 131: 1–32. doi.org/10.1080/00665983.1974.11077518

Rainbird, P. and Lichtenstein, L. 2018. A Middle Neolithic ring ditch and settlement at King Alfred Way, Newton Poppleford. Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Society 76: 29–56.

Robert, B. 2008. Concevreux (Aisne) “les jombras”, “les rambles”, “les russembaux”. Amiens: INRAP. Robert, B., Allard, P., Bonnardin, S., Boulen, M., Coubrais, S. Hachem, L., Maigrot, Y., Naze, Y., and Thevenet, C. 2007. Une tombe mésolithique à Concevreux (Aisne, France). Poster in Chronology and Evolution in the Mesolithic of NW Europe, Brussels.

Rascovan, N., Sjögren, K-G., Kristiansen, K., Nielsen, R., Willerslev, E., Desnues, C., and Rasmussen, S. 2019. Emergence and spread of basal lineages of Yersinia pestis during the Neolithic decline. Cell 176: 295–305. doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.11.005

Roberts, C.A., and Manchester, K. 2005. The Archaeology of Disease. Second edition. Cornell University Press: Ithaca, New York.

Rees, S. 2012. Excavations at Carreg Coetan Arthur chambered tomb, Pembrokeshire. Archaeologia Cambrensis 161: 51–163. doi.org/10.5284/1059184 269

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500) Roberts, C.A., and Cox, M. 2003. Health and Disease in Britain: from prehistory to the present day. Sutton Publishing: Stroud, Gloucestershire.

presence of leather footwears during cremation through isotope (δ13C, δ18O) and infrared (FTIR) analyses of experimentally burnt skeletal remains. PLoS ONE 16(10): e0257199. doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0257199

Roberts, I. 2005. Ferrybridge Henge: the ritual landscape; Archaeological investigations at the site of the Holmfield Interchange of the A1 Motorway. Archaeological Services WYAS, Morley.

San Nicolás del Toro, M. 1981. Un nuevo ídolo del Bronce I procedente de la Cueva sepulchral de La Represa, Caravaca (Murcia). Argos 2: 21–50.

Robertson-Mackay, R. 1987. The Neolithic causewayed enclosure at Staines, Surrey: excavations 1961–63. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53: 23–128. doi. org/10.1017/S0079497X00006174

San Nicolás del Toro, M., and Martínez Andreu, A. 1979. El dolmen de Bagil (Moratalla, Mucia): análisis palinológico. Pyrenae 15: 115–124.

Robinson, M. A. 1988. The significance of tubers of Arrhenatherum elatitus (L) Beauv from Site 4, cremation 15/11. In, Lambrick, G. The Rollright Stones: Megaliths, Monuments, and Settlement in the Prehistoric Landscape. English Heritage Archaeological Report 6. English Heritage: London, 102.

Sauzade, G. 1983. Les sépultures du Vaucluse du Néolithique à l’Âge du Bronze. Géologie, Paléontologie, Préhistoire: étude quaternaires. Mémoire numero 6, Laboratoire de paléontologie humaine et de préhistoire. Sauzade, G. 1987. Le dolmen de Gauttobry, Commune de la Londe-les-Maures (Var). Travaux du Laboratoire d’anthropologie de préhistoire et d’ethnologie des pays de la Méditerranée occidentale: 97–105.

Robinson, M.A. 2000. Further considerations of Neolithic charred cereals, fruits, and nuts. In, Fairnbairn, A.S. (ed) Plants in Neolithic Britain and beyond. Neolithic Studies seminar paper 5. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 85– 90.

Sauzade, G. 1988. Le dolmen II de San-Sébastien, Communes de Plan-de-la-Tour et Sainte-Maxime (Var). Réflexion sur les pratiques de l’inhumation dans les sépultures collectives provençales. Gallia Préhistoire 30: 119–143.

Rolleston, G. 1877. Note on the animal remains found at Cissbury. Journal of Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 8: 20–36. doi.org/10.2307/2841242

Sauzade, G., Courtin, J., and Chabaud, G. 1975. Le dolmen I de San Sébastien, commune de Plan-de-laTour, Sainte-Maxime (Var). Congrès Préhistorique de France: 581–594.

Rolleston, G. 1879. Notes on skeleton found at Cissbury, April 1878. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 8: 377–389. doi. org/10.2307/2841080

Sauzade, G., Courtin, J., and Chabaud, G. 1988. Le dolmen de la Hatue-Suane (Grimaud-Sainte-Maxime, Var) et la tombe circumaire en bloc de l’Amourié (Grimaud). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 85: 148–159.

Rösing, F.W. 1977. Methoden und Aussagemöglichkeiten der Anthropologischen Leichenbrandbearbeitung. Archaeologie und Naturwissenschaften 1: 53–80. Roudil, O. and Berard, G. 1981. Les sépultures mégalithiques du Var. Centre National de Recherche Scientifique, Paris.

Saville, A. 1990. Hazleton North, Gloucestershire, 1979– 82: the excavation of a Neolithic long cairn of the Cotswold-Severn group. English Heritage Archaeology Reports 13.

Rugg, J. 1998. A new burial form and its meanings: cemetery establishment in the first half of the 19th century. In, Cox. M. (ed). Grave concerns: death and burial in England 1700–1850. CBA Research Report 113. Pennine Printing Services Ltd: Ripponden, 44–53.

Savory, H.N. 1956. The excavations of a “Twlc-y-filiast” cromlech, Llangynog (Carm). Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies.

Russell, M. 2000. Flint mines in Neolithic Britain. Tempus Publishing: Stroud.

Scarre, C. 2007. The megalithic monuments of Britain and Ireland. Thames and Hudson: London.

Russell, M. 2002. Monuments of the British Neolithic: the roots of architecture. Stroud: Tempus Publishing Ltd.

Scheuer, L. and S. Black 2000. Developmental Juvenile Osteology. Academic Press: London.

Ryan, M. 1973. The excavation of a Neolithic burial mound at Jerpoint West, Co. Kilkenny. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 73C: 107–27.

Schmidt, C., and Symes, S. 2015. The analysis of burned human remains. Second edition. Elsevier: Oxford. Schulting, R.J. 2007. Non-monumental burial in Neolithic Britain: a (largely) cavernous view. In, Larsson, L., Lüth, F., and Terberger, T. (eds). Non-megalithic mortuary practices in the Baltic: new methods and research into the development of Stone Age society. Schwerin: Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 88: 581–603.

Salesse, K., Stamataki, E., Kontopoulos, I., Verly, G., Annaert, R., Boudin, M., Capuzzo, G., Claeys, P., Dalle, S., Hlad, M., de Mulder, G., Sabaux, C., Sengeløv, A., Veselka, B., Warmenbol, E., Vercauteren, M., and Snoeck, C. 2021. These boots are made for burnin’: inferring the position of the corpse and the 270

References Schulting, R.J. 2010. Holocene environmental change and the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition in northwest Europe: revisiting two models. Environmental Archaeology 15: 160–172. doi.org/10.1179/14614101 0X12640787648586

Schwartz, J.H. 2007. Skeleton Keys. 2nd edition, Oxford University Press: Oxford. Scott, J.G. 1992. Mortuary structures and megaliths. In, N. Sharples and A. Sheridan (eds) Vessels for the Ancestors. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 104–119.

Schulting, R.J. 2014. Freshwater reservoir offsets investigated through paired human-faunal 14C dating and stable carbon and nitrogen isotope analysis at Lake Baikal, Serbia. Radiocarbon 56(3): 991–1008. doi:10.2458/56.17963

Séara, F.D.R., Rotillon, S., and Cupillard, C. 2002. Campements mésolithiques en Bresse jurassienne: Choisey, Ruffey-sur-Seille, Jura. Paris: Maison des sciences de l’homme.

Schulting, R.J. and Fibiger, L. 2012. Sticks, stones, and broken bones: Neolithic violence in a European perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sharples, N.M. 1991. Maiden Castle: excavations and field survey 1985–6. English Heritage Archaeological Report 19: London.

Schulting, R.J. and Gonzalez, S. 2008. Pretatyn Woman reconsidered. In, M. Bell (ed) Prehistoric Coastal Communities. The Mesolithic in western Britain. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 149: 303–305. doi.org/10.5284/1081717

Shepherd, A. 1996. A Neolithic ring-mound at Midtown of Pitglassie, Auchterless, Aberdeenshire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 126: 17–51. Shennan, S. 2013. Demographic continuities and discontinuities in Neolithic Europe: evidence, methods and implications. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 20(2): 300–311. doi.org/10.1007/s10816– 012-9154–3

Schulting, R.J., Gardiner, P.J., Hawkes, C.J., and Murray, E. 2010. The Mesolithic and Neolithic human bone assemblage from Totty Pot, Cheddar, Somerset. Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaelogical Society 25: 75–95.

Shennan, S., Downey, S.S., Timpson, A., Edinborough, K., Colledge, S., Kerig, T., Manning, K., and Thomas, M.G. 2013. Regional population collapse followed initial agriculture booms in mid-Holocene Europe. Nature Communications. doi.org/10.1038/ncomms3486

Schulting, R.J., Lanting, J.N., and Reimer, P. 2009. New dates from Tumulus-St-Michel, Carnac. Laboratoire de recherches archéologiques, CNRS and Université de Nantes.

Sheridan, A. 2007. From Picardie to Pickering and Pencraig Hill? New information on the ‘carinated bowl Neolithic’ in norther Britain. Proceedings of the British Academy 144: 441–492. doi:10.5871/ bacad/9780197264140.003.0023

Schulting, R.J., Murphy, E., Jones, C., and Warren, G. 2012. New dates from the north and a proposed chronology for Irish court tombs. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy: archaeology, culture, history, literature, 112c: 1–60.

Sheridan, J.A. 2008. Radiocarbon dates arranged through National Museums Scotland Archaeology Department during 2007/8. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 9: 201–5.

Schulting, R.J. and Richards, M.P. 2002. The wet, the wild and the domesticated: the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition on the west coast of Scotland. European Journal of Archaeology 5: 147–189. doi.org/10.1177/1 4619571020050020201

Sheridan, J.A. 2010a. Dating Scotland’s Neolithic nonmegalithic round mounds: new dates, problems and potential. In, Leary, J., Darvill, T., and Field, D. (eds). Round mounds and monumentality in the British Neolithic and beyond. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 10. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 28–52.

Schulting, R.J., Snoeck, C., Loe, L., and Gilmour, N. 2016. Strontium isotope analysis of the Mesolithic cremation from Langford, Essex, England. Mesolithic Miscellany 24(1): 19–21. Schulting, R.J. and Wysocki, M. 2005. ‘In this chambered tumulus were found cleft skulls…’: an assessment of the evidence for cranial trauma in the British Neolithic. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71: 107–138. doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00000979

Sheridan, J.A. 2010b. The Neolithization of Britain and Ireland: the ‘Big Picture’. In, Finlayson, B. and Warren, G. (eds). Landscapes in Transition. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 89–105. Sheridan, J.A., Bradley, R., and Schulting, R. 2009. Radiocarbon dates arranged through National Museums of Scotland Archaeology Department during 2008/0. Discovery and Excavation Scotland 10: 214–16.

Schulz Paulsson, B. 2017. Time and stone: the emergence and development of megaliths and megalithic societies in Europe. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Schulz Paulsson, B. 2019. Radiocarbon dates and Bayesian modelling support maritime diffusion model for megaliths in Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 116(9): 3460–3465. doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1813268116

Shipman, P., Foster, G., and Schoeninger, M. 1984. Burnt bones and teeth: an experimental study of color, morphology, crystal structure and shrinkage. Journal of Archaeological Science 11: 307–325. doi. org/10.1016/0305–4403(84)90013-X 271

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500) Sibbesson, E. 2018. Consuming bodies: bowls, bones, food and fire in Early Neolithic Britain. In, Bickle, P. and Sibbesson, E. (eds). Neolithic bodies. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 44–59.

Snoeck, C., Lee-Thorp, J.A., Schulting, R.J., de Jong, J., Debouge, W., and Mattielli, N. 2015. Calcined bone provides a reliable substrate for strontium isotope ratios as shown by an enrichment experiment. Rapid Communication in Mass Spectrometry 29: 107–114. doi.org/10.1002/rcm.7078

Silva, F.C. 2015. The funerary practice of cremation at Augusta Emerita (Mérida, Spain) during High Empire: contributions from the anthropological analysis of burned human bone. In, Thompson, T. (ed). The Archaeology of Cremation: burned human remains in funerary studies. Oxford: Oxbow, 123–150.

Snoeck, C., Pouncett, J., Ramsey, G., Meighan, I.G., Mattielli, N., Goderis, S., Lee-Thorp, J.A., and Schulting, R.J. 2016a. Mobility during the Neolithic and Bronze Age in Norther Ireland explored using strontium isotope analysis of cremated human bone. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 160(3): 397–413. doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22977

Silva, A.M., Leandro, I., Pereira, D., Costa, C., and Valera, A.C. 2015. Collective secondary cremation in a pit grave: a unique funerary context in Portuguese Chalcolithic burial practices. Journal of Comparative Human Biology 66: 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.jchb.2014.10.003

Snoeck, C., Schulting, R.J., Lee-Thorp, J.A., Lebon, M., and Zazzo, A. 2016b. Impact of heating conditions on the carbon and oxygen isotope composition of calcined bone. Journal of Archaeological Science 65: 32–43. doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2015.10.013

Simpson, B. 1997. Drumoig, Cragie Hill, Fife. Part 4: Scottish Golf Academy. Unpublished report. GUARD: Glasgow.

Snoeck, C., Schulting, R.J., Lee-Thorp, J., de Winter, N., Goderis, S., Matielli, N., Pouncett, J., McMillan, R., Weis, D., and Claeys, P. 2017. New developments for the study of cremated bone in archaeological contexts. UK Archaeological Science Conference 2017 (UKAS 2017).

Simpson, D.D.A. 1996. Excavation of a kerbed funerary monument at Stoneyfield, Raigmore, Inverness, Highland, 1972–3. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 126: 53–86. Smith, C.A., and Lynch, F.M. 1986. Trefignath and Din Dryfol. The excavation of two megalithic tombs in Anglesey. Cambrian Archaeological Monographs No. 3, Cambrian Archaeological Association.

Snoeck, C., Pouncett, J., Claeys, P., Goderis, S., Mattielli, N., Parker Pearson, M., Willis, C., Zazzo, A., LeeThorp, J., and Schulting, R. 2018. Strontium isotope analyses support links with west Wales. Nature Scientific Reports 8. doi.org/10.1038/s41598–01828969–8

Smith, G. 2013. The Bryn Gwyn stone circle, Brynsiencyn, Anglesey. Archaeology in Wales 1174: 1–26. Smith, G.N. 1865. Charcoal under meini-hirion, etc. Archaeologia Cambrensis 11: 210.

Speak, S. and Burgess, C. 1999. Meldon Bridge: a centre of the third millennium BC in Peeblesshire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 129: 1–118.

Smith, M.J. 2005. Carpe cadaver: evidence of excarnation as a British Neolithic mortuary rite. TAG 2005: Theoretical Archaeology Group, 19–21 December 2005, University of Sheffield. England.

Speed, J. 1911. Wiltshire. The theatre of the empire of Great Britain: presenting an exact geography of the kingdoms of England, Scotland, Ireland. Atlas 2.61.1. University of Cambridge Digital Library. Accessed 23/10/2018. http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PRATLAS-00002–00061-00001/62

Smith, M. 2006. Bones chewed by canids as evidence for human excarnation: a British case study. Antiquity 80: 671–685. doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00094126 Smith, M. and Brickley, M. 2006. The date and sequence of use of Neolithic funerary monuments. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 25(4): 335–355. doi.org/10.1111/ j.1468–0092.2006.00265.x

Stern, D. 2005. Image of Stonehenge. In, Stone, R. Mystery Man of Stonehenge. Smithsonian Magazine. Accessed 25/09/2018. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/ mystery-man-of-stonehenge-81483965/

Smith, M. and Brickley, M. 2009. People of the long barrows: life, death and burial in the earlier Neolithic. Stroud: The History Press.

Stevens, C.J. and Fuller, D.Q. 2012. Did Neolithic farming fail? The case for a Bronze Age agricultural revolution in the British Isles. Antiquity 86: 707–722. doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00047864

Smyth, J. 2020. House of the living, house of the dead: an open and shut case from Ballyglass, Co. Mayo? In, Barclay, A., Field, D., and Leary, J. (eds). Houses of the dead? Neolithic Studies Group, volume 17. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Stirland, A. 1981. The human bones. In, P. Clay, The excavation of two multi-purpose barrows at Sproxton and Eaton, Leicestershire. Leicestershire Museums Art Galleries and Records Service, Archaeological Report No. 2: 17–19.

Snoeck, C., Brock, F., and Schulting, R.J. 2014. Carbon exchanges between bone apatite and fuels during cremation: impact on radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 56: 591–602. doi.org/10.2458/56.17454

Suchey, J.M., Brooks, S.T., and Katz, D. 1988. Instructions for use of the Suchey-Brooks system for age determination of the female os pubis. Instructional 272

References Thompson, S. and Powell, A.B. 2018. Along prehistoric lines: Neolithic, Iron Age and Romano-British activity at the former MOD Headquarters Durrington, Wiltshire. Wessex Archaeology Occasional Paper.

materials accompanying female pubic symphysial models of the Suchey-Brooks system. Distributed by France Casting (Diane France, Fort Collins, Colorado). Suy, R. 2006. The varying morphology and aetiology of arterial aneurysms: a historical review. Acta Angiologia 12: 1–6. doi:10.1080/00015458.2006.11679907

Thompson, T.J.U. 1999. A Preliminary Investigation into the Influence of Burning on the Ability to Sex the Pelvis. Unpublished MSc Dissertation: University of Bradford.

Symes, S.A., Rainwater, C.W., Chapman, E.N., Gipson, D.R., and Piper, A.L. 2008. Patterned thermal destruction of human remains in a forensic setting. In, Schmidt, C.W. and Symes, S.A. (eds). The analysis of burned human remains. London: Academic Press, 15–54.

Thompson, T.J.U. 2002. The assessment of sex in cremated individuals: some cautionary notes. Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal 35: 49–56. doi.org/10.108 0/00085030.2002.10757535 Thompson, T.J.U. 2004. Recent advances in the study of burned bone and their implications for forensic anthropology. Forensic Science Institute 146S: 203– 205. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.09.063

Symes, S.A., Rainwater, C.W., Chapman, E.N., Gipson, D.R., and Piper, A.L. 2015. Patterned Thermal Destruction in a Forensic Setting. In, Schmidt, C., and Symes, S. (eds). The analysis of burned human remains. Second edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 17–60.

Thompson, T.J.U. 2005. Heat-induced dimensional changes in bone and their consequences for forensic anthropology. Journal of Forensic Science 50(5): 1008–1015.

Teather, A.M. 2016. Mining and materiality: Neolithic chalk artefacts and their depositional contexts in southern Britain. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Thompson, T.J.U. 2009. Burned human remains. In, Blau, S. and Ubelaker, D.H. (eds). Handbook of forensic anthropology and archaeology. Left Coast: Walnut Creek, 295–303.

Tellier, G. 2013. Report on the cremated bone. In, Smith, G. (ed). The Bryn Gwyn stone circle, Brynsiencyn, Anglesey. Archaeology in Wales 1174: 7–9. Tellier, G. 2015. The analysis of funerary and ritual practices in Wales between 3600–1200 BC based on osteological and contextual data. PhD thesis, Department of Archaeological Sciences, University of Bradford.

Thompson, T.J.U. 2015. The Archaeology of Cremation. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Thomas, J. 1991. Understanding the Neolithic. First edition. London: Routledge.

Thorpe, I.J.N. 1984. Ritual, power and ideology: a reconstruction of earlier Neolithic rituals in Wessex. In, Bradley, R., and Gardiner, J. (eds). Neolithic Studies: a review of some current research. BAR British Series 133. Oxford: BAR Publishing, 41–60.

Thomas, J. 1996. Time, Culture and Identity: an interpretive archaeology. London and New York: Routledge.

Thorpe, I.J.N. 1996. The Origins of Agriculture in Europe. London: Routledge.

Thomas, J. 1999. Understanding the Neolithic. Second edition. London: Routledge.

Thurman, M.D., and Willmore, L.J. 1981. A replicative cremation experiment. North American Archaeologist 2: 275–283. doi.org/10.2190/29A5–84ED-4MB8EP3M

Thomas, J. 2000. Death, identity and the body in Neolithic Britain. The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 6(4): 653–668.

Thurman, J. 1871. On ancient British barrows, especially those of Wiltshire and the adjoining counties (Part II round barrows). Archaeologia 43(2): 285–552. doi:10.1017/S0261340900004124

Thomas, J. 2006. On the origins and development of cursus monuments in Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 72: 229–42. doi.org/10.1017/ S0079497X00000839

Tilley, C. 1994. A phenomenology of landscape: places, paths and monuments. Oxford: Berg.

Thomas, J. 2007. Place and memory: excavations at the Pict’s Knowe, Holywood and Holm Farm, Dumfries and Galloway, 1994–8. Oxford: Oxbow.

Todd, T.W. 1920. Age changes in the pubic bone I. The white male pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 3: 258–334. doi.org/10.1002/ ajpa.1330030301

Thomas, J. 2013. The birth of Neolithic Britain: an interpretive account. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Toussaint, M., Brou, L., Le Brun-Ricalens, F., and Spier, F. 2009. The Mesolithic site of Heffingen-Loschbour (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg). A yet undescribed human cremation possibly from the Rhine-MeuseSchelde culture: anthropological, radiometric and archaeological implications. In, Crombé, P., Van Strydonck, M., Sergant, J., Boudin, M., and Bats, M.

Thomas, J. 2015. A Neolithic ceremonial complex in Galloway: excavations at Dunragit and Droughduil, 1999–2002. Oxbow Books: Oxford. Thomas, J., Marshall, P., Parker Pearson, M., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Tilley, C., and Welham, K. 2009. The date of the Greater Stonehenge Cursus. Antiquity 83: 40–53. doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00098070 273

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500) (eds). Chronology and evolution within the Mesolithic of North-West Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Scholars Publishing.

du Néolithique dans la France du nord-ouest: allées sans retour. Paris: Errance. Verjux, C. 2000. The function of the Mesolithic sites in the Paris basin (France): New data. Mesolithic on the move. Papers presented at the sixth international conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm: 262–268.

Toynbee, J. M. C. 1996. Death and Burial in the Roman World. London: John Hopkins. Turner, V. 1969. Liminality and communitas. The ritual process: structure and anti-structure. Chicago: Aldine Publishing: 94–113.

Veselka, B. and Snoeck, C. (2021). Interglobular dentine attributed to vitamin D deficiency visible in cremated human teeth. Nature Scientific Reports 11 (20958). doi. org/10.1038/s41598–021-00380-w

Turner, A., Gonzalez, S., and Ohman, J.C. 2002. Prehistoric human and ungulate remains from Preston Docks, Lancashire, UK: problems of river finds. Journal of Archaeological Science 29: 423–433. doi.org/10.1006/ jasc.2002.0730

Veselka, B., Locher, H., de Groot, J.C.M.J., Davies, G.R., Snoeck, C., and Kootker, L.M. 2020. Strontium isotope ratios related to childhood mobility: revisiting sampling strategies of the calcined human pars petrosa ossis temporalis. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 35(7): e9038. doi.org/10.1002/rcm.9038

Ubelaker, D.H. 1978. Human skeletal remains: excavation, analysis, interpretation. Chicago: Aldine Press. Ubelaker, D.H. 1989. Human skeletal remains: excavation, analysis, interpretation. 2nd edition, Taraxacum: Washington.

Veselka, B., Hlad, M., Wolfe Steadman, D., Annaert, H., Boudin, M., Giacomo, C., Dalle, S., Kontopoulos, I., De Mulder, G., Sabaux, C., Salesse, K., Sengeløv, A., Stamataki, E., Vercauteren, M., Tys, D., Snoeck, C. (2021). Estimating age-at-death in burnt adult human remains using the Falys-Prangle method. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 175 (1): 128–136. doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24210

Valdeyron, N. 2008. The Mesolithic in France. In, Brailey, G., and Spikins, P. (eds). Mesolithic Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Valentin, F., Cottiaux, R., Buquet-Marcon, C., Confaloniéri, J., Delattre, V., Lang, L., Le Goff, I., Laurence-Dubovac, P, and Verjux, C. 2008. Découvertes récentes d’inhumations et d’une incineration datées du mésolithique en Ȋsle-de-France. Revue Archéologique d’Ȋle-de-France 1: 21–42.

Voruz, J-L., Perrin, T., and Sordoillet, D. 2004. La séquence néolithique de la grotte du Gardon (Ain). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 101–4: 827–866. Vulliamy, C.E. 1922. Excavation of a long barrow in Breconshire. Man 22: 150–152. doi. org/10.2307/2839604

Valera, A.C. 2012. Ditches, pits and hypogea: new data and new problems in South Portugal Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic practices. In, Gibaja, J.F., Carvalho, A.f., and Chambon, P. (eds). Funerary practices in the Iberian Peninsula from the Mesolithic to the Chacolithic. International Series 2471. Oxford: BAR Publishing, 103–112.

Vyner, B.E. 1984. The excavation of a Neolithic cairn at Street House, Loftus, Cleveland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 50: 151–196. Vyner, B.E. 1986. Evidence for mortuary practices in the Neolithic and burial mounds and cairns of northern Britain. Scottish Archaeological Review 4: 11–16.

Valera, A.C., Silva, A.M., Cunha, C., and Evangelista, L.S. 2014. Funerary practices and body manipulation at Neolithic and Chalcolithic Perdigões ditched enclosures (South Portugal). In, Valera, A.C. de (ed). Recent prehistoric enclosures and funerary practices in Europe. Proceedings of the International meeting held at the Gulbenkian Foundation (Lisbon, Portugal, November 2012). international Series 2676. Oxford: BAR Publishing, 37–58.

Waddell, J. 2010. The prehistoric archaeology of Ireland. Revised third edition, Dublin: Wordwell. Wahl, J. 1981. Ein Beitrag zur metrischen Geschlechtsdiagnose verbrannter und unverbrannter menschlicher Knochenreste - ausgearbeitet an der Pars petrosa ossis temporalis. Zeitschrift für Rechtsmedizin 86(2): 79–101.

Vatcher, F. de M. and Vatcher, H.L. 1973. Trial excavations on the site of the megalithic tomb at Fromefield, Somerset. Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 117: 19–32.

Wahl, J. 1982. Leichenbranduntersuchungen. Ein überblick über die bearbeitungs-ung aussagemöglichkeiten von Brandgrӓbern, Prӓhistorische Zeitschrift 57: 1–125. Wahl, J. 2008. Investigations on pre-Roman and Roman cremation remains from southwestern Germany: results, potentialities and limits. In, C.W. Schmidt and S.A. Symes (eds). The analysis of burned human remains. London: Academic Press, 154–162.

Van Strydonck, M., Boudin, M., Decq, L., van den Brande, T., Borms, H., Ramis, D., and de Mulder, G. 2011. AMS 14C dating of Balearic lime burials. Radiocarbon 53: 563–574. doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200039047 Vaquer, J. 1998. Les sépultures du Néolithique moyen en France méditerranéenne. In, Masset, C., and Soulier, P. (eds). Allées couvertes et autres monuments funéraires

Wahl, J. And Graw, M. 2001. Metric sex differentiation of the pars petrosa ossis temporalis. International Journal 274

References of Legal Medicine 114: 215–223. doi.org/10.1007/ s004140000167

Chalcolithic Portugal. Journal of Iberian Archaeology 7: 37–73.

Wahl, J. and Wahl, S. 1983. Zur Technik de Lichenverbrennung: I. Verbrennungsplӓtze aus ethnologischen quellen. Archӓologisches Korrespondenzblatt 13: 513–520.

Wells, C. 1960. A study of cremation. Antiquity 34: 29–37. doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00035146 West, S. E. 1989. West Stow, Suffolk: The Prehistoric and Romano-British Occupations. East Anglian Archaeology Report No. 48, Norfolk Archaeological Unit, Suffolk.

Waldron, T. 2021. Aneurysm of the popliteal fossa. In, Parker Pearson, M., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Thomas, J., Tilley, C., and Welham, K. (eds). Stonehenge for the Ancestors. Part 1: Landscape and Monuments. The Stonehenge Riverside Project Volume 1. Amsterdam: Sidestone Press, 521–522.

Whittle, A. 1990. A pre-enclosure burial at Windmill Hill, Wiltshire. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 9(1): 25–28. doi.org/10.1111/j.1468–0092.1990.tb00212.x Whittle, A. 1997. Sacred mound, holy rings. Salisbury Hill and the West Kennet palisade enclosures: a later Neolithic complex in north Wiltshire. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Walker, K.R. 1995. Previous work and methods. In, Cleal, R.M.J., Walker, K.E., and Montague, R. (eds). Stonehenge in its landscape: twentieth-century excavations. Archaeological Report 10. London: English Heritage, 9–21.

Whittle, A. 1999. The Neolithic Period, c.4000–2500/2200 BC: changing the world. In, Hunter, J. and Ralston, I. (eds). The archaeology of Britain: an introduction from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Industrial Revolution. London: Routledge, 58–76.

Walker, P.L., Miller, K.W.P. and Richman, R. 2008. Time, temperature, and oxygen availability: an experimental study of the effects on environmental conditions on the color and organic content of cremated bone. In, C.W. Schmidt and S.A. Symes (eds) The analysis of burned human remains. London: Academic Press, 129–136.

Whittle, A., Pollard, J., and Grigson, C. 1999. The harmony of symbols: the Windmill Hill causewayed enclosure, Wiltshire. Cardiff Studies in Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Walsh, S. 2014. Is it possible to access identity through the osteological record? Hindlow: a Bronze Age case study. In, Crozier, R.G., and Enlander, R. (eds). Exploring prehistoric identity in Europe: our construct or theirs? Oxford: Oxbow Books, 34–40.

Whittle, A., Atkinson, R.J.C., Chambers, R., and Thomas, N. 1992. Excavations in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Complex at Dorchester-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, 1947– 1952, and 1981. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58: 143–201. doi:10.1017/S0079497X0000414X

Warrilow, W., Owen, G., Britnell, W., Bowmer, M., Crew, P., Darvill, T.C., Dresser, P.Q., Green, H.S., Milles, A., Morgan, G.C., Morgan, L., Needham, S.P., Noddle, B.A., Ryder, M.L., Staddon, B.W., Webster, P.V., Wilkinson, J.L., and Wimble, G. 1986. Eight ringditches at Four Crosses, Llandysilio, Powys, 1981–85. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 52: 53–87. doi. org/10.1017/S0079497X00006587

Whittle, A., Bayliss, A., and Wysocki, M. 2007. Once in a lifetime: the date of the Wayland’s Smithy long barrow. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17(S1): 103–121. doi.org/10.1017/S0959774307000194 Whittle, A., Healy, F., and Bayliss, A. 2011. Gathering Time: dating the early Neolithic enclosures of Sothern Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Waterman, D.M. 1978. The excavation of a court cairn at Tully, Co. Fermanagh. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 41: 3–14.

Whittle, A., Pollard, J., and Grigson, C. 1999. The harmony of symbols: the Windmill Hill causewayed enclosure. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Webb, W., and Snow, C. 1974. The Adema People. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Whittle, A., and Wysocki, M. 1998. Parc le Breos Cwm transepted long cairn, Gower, west Glamorgan: date, contents and context. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 64: 139–82. doi.org/10.1017/ S0079497X00002206

Wei, H., Guenet, B., Vicca, S., Nunan, N., Asard, H., AbdElgawad, H., Shen, W., and Janssens, I.A. 2014. High clay content accelerates the decomposition of fresh organic matter in artificial soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 77: 100–108. doi.org/10.1016/j. soilbio.2014.06.006

Whyte, T.R. 2001. Distinguishing remains of human cremations from burned animal bones. Journal of Field Archaeology 28: 437–448. doi.org/10.1179/ jfa.2001.28.3–4.437

Weiner, J.S. 1951. Cremated remains from Dorchester. In, Atkinson, R.J.C., Piggott, C.M., and Sandars, N.K. (eds). Excavations at Dorchester, Oxon: first report: Sites I, II, IV, V and VI. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum, 129–41.

Wilkin, N. 2013. Food vessel pottery form Early Bronze Age funerary contexts in northern England: a typological and contextual study. Unpublished PhD thesis: University of Birmingham.

Weiss-Krejci, E. 2005. Formation processes of deposits with burned human remains in Neolithic and 275

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500) Williams, J. 1852. British interments. Archaeologia Cambrensis 3: 81–92.

Field Archaeology 28: 437–448. doi.org/10.1179/ jfa.2001.28.3–4.437

Willis, C. 2020. Stonehenge and the Middle to Late Neolithic cremation rites in mainland Britain c.3500– 2500 BC. Unpublished PhD Thesis, UCL.

Young, W.E.V. 1935. Leaves from My Journal VII. Manuscript diary, Library of the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society (Devizes).

Willis, C. 2021. The people of Stonehenge: human osteology. In, Parker Pearson, M., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Thomas, J., Tilley, C., and Welham, K. (eds). Stonehenge for the Ancestors. Part 1: Landscape and Monuments. The Stonehenge Riverside Project Volume 1. Amsterdam: Sidestone Press, 499–526.

Younger, R.K. 2015. De-henging the henge: a biographical approach to Scotland’s henge monuments. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Glasgow. Younger, R. 2017. Fire and memory: transforming place using fire at henge monuments. Archaeological Journal 174(2): 335–362. doi.org/10.1080/00665983.2017.129 5752

Willis, C., Marshall, P., McKinley, J., Pitts, M., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Richards, J., Thomas, J., Waldron, T., Welham, K., and Parker Pearson, M. 2016. The dead of Stonehenge. Antiquity 90: 337–356. doi.org/10.15184/ aqy.2016.26

Zimmermann, A., Hilpert, J., and Wendt, K.P. 2009. Estimations of population density for selected periods between the Neolithic and AD 1800. Human Biology, 81(2): 357–380. doi:10.3378/027.081.0313

Windell, D. 1989. A late Neolithic ‘ritual focus’ at West Cotton, Northamptonshire. In, A. Gibson (ed). Midlands prehistory: some recent and current researches into the prehistory of central England. British Series 204. Oxford: BAR Publishing, 85–94.

Zeuner, F.E., Cornwall, I.W., and Summers, R.F.H. 1951. Soils, charcoal, and osteological material from Sites I and II. In, Atkinson, R.J.C., Piggott, C.M., and Sandars, N.K. (eds). Excavations at Dorchester, OXON. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum, 119–127.

Winterbotham, L. 1866. Belas Knap. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London 3: 275–85. Witts, G.B. 1886. Randwick Long Barrow. Transactions of the Cotteswold Naturalists Field Club 8: 156–160. Woodbridge, J., Fyfe, R.M., Roberts, N., Downey, S., Edinborough, K. and Shennan, S. 2014. The impact of the Neolithic agricultural transition in Britain: a comparison of pollen-based land-cover and archaeological 14C date-inferred population change. Journal of Archaeological Science 51: 216–224. doi. org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.10.025 Woodward, P.J, Davies, S.M, and Graham, A.H. 1993. Excavations at the Old Methodist Chapel and Greyhound Yard, Dorchester, 1981–1984. Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society Monograph Series 12. Dorchester: Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society. Woznicki, A.N. 1998. Endocannibalism of the Yanomami. The Summit Times 6: 18–19. Wysocki, M. and Whittle, A. 2000. Diversity, lifestyles and rites: new biological and archaeological evidence from British Earlier Neolithic mortuary assemblages. Antiquity 74: 591–601. doi.org/10.1017/ S0003598X00059950 Wysocki, M.P., Griffiths, S., Hedges, R., Bayliss, A., Highman, T., Fernandez-Jalvo, Y., and Whittle, A. 2013. Dates, diet, dismemberment: evidence from the Coldrum megalithic monument, Kent. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 79: 1–30. doi.org/10.1017/ ppr.2013.10 Whyte, T.R. 2001. Distinguishing remains of human cremations from burned animal bones. Journal of

276

Appendix 1 Cremated Human Remains Recording Form

277

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500) Site: ___________________________________________________________________ Deposit #

Feature #

Cut #

Special find #

Soil sample #

Wet sieve #

Bulk sample #

Accession #

Cremation # ________________

Museum curator’s/Unit’s contact details: Osteologist:

Date:

Type:

Urned

Unurned

Pyre site

Lidded:

Yes

No

Unknown

Pyre debris

Redeposited

Scatter

Unknown

Disturbed:

No

Yes:

Location within feature:

Location within deposit:

Description of pit:

Description of sediment/fill:

Type of feature/monument:

Time period:

Other details: MNI: Indicators:

Age: Feo Indicators:

Sex: Male Indicators:

Neo

Inf

Female

Pathological lesions: Indicators:

Yes

YC

OC

Juv

YA

MA

OA

Sub-Adult

Adult

Unknown

No

Major skeletal inventory

Cranium

Scapula

Carpals

Lumbar

Tibia

Maxilla

Ribs

Metacarpals

Sacrum

Fibula

Mandible

Humerus

Hand phals.

Pelvis

Tarsals

Teeth

Ulna

Cervical

Femur

Metatarsals

Clavicle

Radius

Thoracic

Patella

Foot phals.

278

Appendix 1 Observations: Total deposit (g): 10mm sieve: 5mm sieve: 2mm sieve: Base sieve: Maximum fragment size (mm) (10mm sieve) Bone: (5mm sieve) Bone: (2mm sieve) Bone: Fragment size distribution (%) 10mm: 5mm:

Measurement: Measurement: Measurement:

2mm:

Observations:

Preservation: Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Observations re. erosion/weathering/soil conditions:

Grade 5

Grade 5+

Colour ranges: 10mm sieve: 5mm sieve: Pyre temperatures reached: Observations re. efficiency of cremation process: Fissuring:

Absent

Moderate

Severe

Absent

Curvilinear

Transverse

Angular

Reticular

Crazed

Dendritic

Longitudinal

U-shape

Concentric Observations and bones affected: Green/fleshed

Dry/defleshed

Shrinkage:

Absent

Moderate

Severe

Warping:

Absent

Moderate

Severe

Bone staining: Describe:

Yes

Pyre technology: Describe: Pyre debris: Observations:

Yes

Fuel

Pyre goods/inclusions: Describe: Faunal remains: Describe:

No

Yes

No

Ash

Yes

Slag

Charcoal

Other:

No

No

279

Moderate

Severe

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500) Radiocarbon sampling Bone: Before-weight of frag: Before-measurement of frag: Pictures taken (before and after): Yes Sent to: Isotopic sampling Bone: Before-weight of frag: Before-measurement of frag: Pictures taken (before and after): Yes Sent to: Other:

Other:

Bone: Before-weight of frag: Before-measurement of frag: Pictures taken (before and after): Yes Sent to:

No

Sample weight taken: Sample measurement: Permission to sample from: Date:

No

Sample weight taken: Sample measurement: Permission to sample from: Date:

No

Bone: Before-weight of frag: Before-measurement of frag: Pictures taken (before and after): Yes

Other:

Sample weight taken: Sample measurement: Permission to sample from: Date:

Sample weight taken: Sample measurement: No

Permission to sample from:

Sent to:

Date:

Bone: Before-weight of frag: Before-measurement of frag: Pictures taken (before and after): Yes Sent to:

Sample weight taken: Sample measurement: Permission to sample from: Date:

No

Sampling results:

Other observations:

280

Appendix 1 10mm sieve Cremated bone fragment

Site: Weight (g)

Cremation #: Age

Sex

281

Pic

Notes/diagnostic measurements

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500–2500) 5mm sieve Cremated bone fragment

Weight (g)

Age

Sex

282

Site:

Cremation #:

Pic

Notes/diagnostic measurements

Appendix 1 2mm sieve Cremated bone fragment

Site:

Cremation #:

Weight (g)

Age

Sex

Pic

Notes/diagnostic measurements

Weight (g)

Age

Sex

Pic

Notes

Base sieve Observations

283

Appendix 2 Dataset Summary

285

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) Site

Adlestrop

Type of Monument Long barrow

Excarnation platform

Feature #

Context #

–

–

Deposit D, northern inner cist

–

Cremation MNI # –

D5

2+

Appendix 2 Sex

Weight (g)

Max size (mm)

Colour/ Notes

cal BC (95%)

BP

Lab No.

Adult

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Sub–adult

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Age

C14 material ENeo

Grave goods/ inclusions

16 frags crem frags only. Lots of disartic bones recovered in the chambers showing scavenging by wolves/dogs; excarnation;

–

1

Adult

?M

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

1

Adult

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

1

Adult

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Ascott-underWychwood Long barrow

Atherb (Pow Sod)

Balbirnie

Balnuaran Central (Clava)

Barnsdale Bar Quarry, Norton, North Yorkshire

Barclodiad y Gawes

Beckton Farm, Lockerbie

Long barrow (Cairn 1)

Stone circle

–

–

In situ pyre with crems

–

–

–

(1)

1

–

–

–

GrA–23971

Potttery, burnt flint leaf-shaped Crem bone arrowheads, charcoal

Sheridan, 2003: 37, 167; Milne, 1892: 102; Sheridan, 2007: 456

–

3700–3380

4815±45

–

3088–2899

4355±35

SUERC-24152 Crem bone

–

–

–

3089–2907

4370±30

SUERC-24156 Crem bone

–

–

–

–

–

–

3080–2898

4345±30

SUERC-24168 Crem bone

–

?F

Sub–Adult

–

1

–

–

–

–

1

Adult

?F

373.4

50.0 long bone

–

3019–2894

4330±30

SUERC-24170 Crem bone

–

–

VII

–

1

Adult

?F

257.5

57.0 long bone

–

2876–2628

4150±30

SUERC-24161 Crem bone

–

–

VIII

–

1

OC (6–12 yrs)

–

270.0

52.0 long bone

–

3264–2917

4405±30

SUERC-24166 Crem bone

–

Stonehole 7

V

–

Stonehole 9

VI

W of Stone 9 Stonehole 10

2

3

3?

Ring cairn

–

–

(1)

Isolated pits

Pit 201

–

200

Isolated pits

Pit 1147

–

Isolated pits

Spread

–

157.2

–

–

–

– only 3 frags of crem bone

Some small rough flakes of pebble flint

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

1

Adult

–

134.6

–

–

FAILED

FAILED

FAILED

Crem Bone

Flint and pottery sherds

1149

–

–

–

0.5

–

–

–

–

–

–

Flint and pottery sherds

1190

–

–

–

2.4

–

–

–

–

–

–

Southern chamber

scatter on ground surface

–

1

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Eastern chamber

scatter on ground surface

–

1

Adult

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Western Chamber

scatter on ground surface

–

2

Adult

M

–

–

–

–

–

Adult

M

–

–

–

–

–

488.0

Pit F080 Isolated pits near penannular enclosure

–

–

1

–

–

7.4

–

–

2924–2620

4220±60

GU-3534

Pit F033

–

–

1

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

286

–

Benson and Whittle, 2007; Chesterman, 1977; Benson and Clegg, 1978: 137.

The crem bones were mixed with wood ash, stones and soil, and were used as the fabric for the construction of the cairn

Adult

III

Smith, 2005

Galer, 2007: 192209 (In, Benson and Whittle [eds]).

?M

43.0 long bone

References

The long barrow also contained MNI 19 inhumations (15 adults [6 males, 3 females] and 4 children).

Adult

Beneath Stone 1

scatter/ disturbed

Passage tomb

–

Notes

–

Ritchie, 1974; Gibson, 2010; Sheridan, 2008

Piggott states centra area had been disturbed and contained charcoal and a scatter of crem bones

Piggott, 1954-6: 190

Pits nearby provide radiocarbon dates from hazelnut shells: 3710-3630 cal BC (Beta-203147; 4870±40) and 3680-3620 cal BC (Beta-203146; 4840±40)

Holst, 2005

Previously disturbed

LNeo?

Previously disturbed

Antler pin

Lisowski, 1956: 66 (In, Powell and Daniel [eds]: 18-20)

Did not appear to have been significantly disturbed

Hazel charcoal

–

30x Grooved Ware sherds, MNI 1x juvenile animal from upper fill, MNI 1x juvenile animal from lower fill, charcoal Juvenile animal bones

287

Prob. pyre debris rather than token deposit (McKinley). The 30 sherds came from the same vessel as the sherds recovered from the fill of the ringditch (F109). –

Pollard, 1997

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) Site

Bessingby Hill, Bridlington

Belas Knap

Blackpatch

Type of Monument

Feature #

Isolated pit

Context #

–

Long barrow

–

–

1

Age

Prob adult

Sex

–

Weight (g)

–

Max size (mm)

–

Colour/ Notes

–

cal BC (95%)

–

BP

–

Lab No.

–

C14 material

Grave goods/ inclusions

Notes

Eneo?

Earnshaw, 1973; YAS 45

ENeo?

–

A single crem frag (noted by Smith and Brinkley) from 1920s spoilheap material

Winterbotham, 1866; Smith and Brinkley, 2009: 58.

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Mine

Shaft 4

–

–

1

–

–

–

–

–

4310–3530

5090±150

BM-290

Antler pick in shaft 4 gallery

–

–

Mine

Shaft 7

–

–

1

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Round Mound over a pyre site

Briar Hill, Northamptonshire Brightlingsea

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

4330–3104

4946±250

SRR-683

Causewayed enclosure

Inner ditch segment 38

Fill 77a

F52

–

–

–

–

–

–

3632–3031

4600±90

HAR-3208

Round barrow

in central pit w/in a ring work

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

1

Adult

–

74.2

50.0 –

–

Adult

–

30.4

–

–

99.39H/10

2

Juv unburnt

–

–

–

Broadsands, Devon Long barrow

–

S side of passage

Passage tomb

–

Charcoal from central pit under the mound; date adjusted by Historic Scotland. Charcoal from 5 other locations under mound provide similar dates. Mound overlies heavily burnt sand, interpreted as a pyre site

Blackthorn charcoal

–

–

Bamford, 1985; Meadows, J. 2003

–

ENeo?

–

–

Mays, 2004b: in, Cotton and Field (eds): 110-4

–

–

ENeo

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

White

Ralegh Radford, Also recovered inhumations: 3 adult males, 1958; Cuthbert, 2018: 64 1 juvenile and 1 infant

99.39H/11

1

Adult

–

26.3

–

–

3330–2910

4409±39

UB-7114

–

–

–

Bottom layer passage bet stones 10 & 11

–

99.39H/12

1

Juv

–

39.5

–

–

3100–2890

4360±44

UB-7115

–

–

–

Base of central pit

–

99.39H/13

1

Sub–Ad

–

5.4

–

–

–

–

–

–

?

–

99.39H/15

1

–

–

130.2

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

99.39H/16

1

Adult (18+ yrs)

–

31.5

–

–

3310–2900

4395±40

UB-7117

–

–

–

Juv

–

2.2

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

99.39H/18

2

21–40yrs unburnt

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

L side of passage, stones 10 & 11

– –

2x jasper

–

SW end of passage

–

99.39H/19

1

21–40yrs unburnt

–

–

–

Passage, opp stones 9 & 11

–

99.39H/20

1

21–40yrs unburnt

–

–

–

Adult 30+ yrs

–

83.6

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

18+ yrs unburnt

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Passage opp stone 11

99.39H/9 –

288

2

Burl, 1984; Sheridan, 2010: 30; Kinnes, 1979

–

–

–

Pull, 1932; Barber et al., 1999; Pitts, 1996; PPS 61

Charcoal

W side bet stones 10 & 11

Passage, opp stone 12

References

Filled with charcoal, burnt clay and soil, several Stone-lined pit, contained small oak beams, a cremated skull and first complete flint axe, cervical vert only three scrapers, and 7x sherds Grimtson Ware

–

Boghead, Moray

Bryn Celli Ddu

Cremation MNI #

Appendix 2

289

Burrows, 2010; Hemp, 1930; McKinely, 2006

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) Site

Type of Monument

Feature #

Age

Sex

Weight (g)

Max size (mm)

Colour/ Notes

cal BC (95%)

BP

Lab No.

C14 material

Grave goods/ inclusions

Notes

Adult 21+ yrs

–

50.9

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

18+ yrs unburnt

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Adult 21+ yrs

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Adult 18+ yrs

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Adult unburnt

–

79.79

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Adult 30 yrs

–

100.1

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

18+ yrs unburnt

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Adult 21+ yrs

–

49.4

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

18+ yrs unburnt

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

M?

1,443.60

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Context #

Cremation MNI #

– Passageway

–

–

Passage

– –

Passage opp stone 13 in bottom layer

Stone kerb

Stone circle

Bryn-yr-Hen Bobl, Anglesey

Cairnpapple

Arc of stones within a circle of 24x postholes

99.39H/5

99.39H/6

99.39H/7

3

2

2

+

58.1

– –

browny– white

Near mound at entrance

–

99.39H/1

1

Adult

Cavity behind stone 29

–

99.39H/17

1

YA–MA (30+ yrs)

–

71.9

–

–

3090–2890

4351±35

UB-7118

–

–

–

Beneath stone k

–

99.39H/8

1

Infant

–

0.7

–

–

–

–

–

Stone i

–

99.39H/14

1

Adult (18+ yrs)

–

9.4

–

–

3500–3100

4573±40

UB-7116

–

–

–

c.0.9m from stone j

–

99.39H/2

1

YA–MA (25+ yrs)

?F

129.1

–

–

3310–2900

4384±46

UB-7113

–

–

–

Stone n

–

–

1

Child 8–10 yrs

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

MNI 20x inhumed skeletons in chamber, along with animal bone, pottery sherds, flint flakes, cores, arrowheads, stone axes, shells, stone ball, and a bone pin. Unburnt bone dates to 3330–2920 cal BC (OxA12742; 4441±34BP).

Single Scatter chambered tomb

Stone circle

2

–

111 Bryn Gwyn, Anglesey

99.39H/3

–

Passage bet stones 10 & 11 within paving

Appendix 2

Pit 138

–

–

1

–

–

1

–

–

4

Adult

–

–

6.23

–

33.4

Neonate

–

Infant

–

Juvenile

–

Adult

–

1042.9

26.3 long bone

white, soft + chalky

–

–

–

MNeo?

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

3020–2886

4315±35

SUERC-39677 Crem bone

–

–

–

–

–

Near Hole A

C1

(1)

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Internal

C2

(1)

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

NE of Hole E

C3

(1)

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

NE of Hole F

C4

(1)

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Internal, laid on a stone slab, W of Hole G

C5

(1)

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Hole B

–

(1)

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

290

291

References

Hemp, 1936; Lynch, 1969; Cummings and Whittle, 2004; Leivers, 1999; Leivers et al., 2001; Burrow, 2010; Willis, 2020

Smith, 2013; Tellier, 2013

Sheridan et al, 2009:214. Piggott, S. 1950.

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) Site

Type of Monument

Catihness (East)

Group of chambered tombs

Cae’r Odyn, Pen-y-Garn, Rhydypennau, Ceredigion

Isolated pit

Callis Wold 275

Mortuary structure underneath a round barrow

Feature #

Context #

Cremation MNI #

Appendix 2

Age

Sex

Weight (g)

Max size (mm)

Colour/ Notes

cal BC (95%)

BP

Lab No.

C14 material

Grave goods/ inclusions

Notes

–

–

SUERC-25561 Antler bone GU–19423 pin

–

Hole C

–

(1)

–

–

–

–

–

3341–3024

4470±35

–

Hole D

–

(1)

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Hole E

–

(1)

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Hole F

–

(1)

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Near Hole F

–

(1)

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Hole G

–

(1)

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Near Hole G

–

(1)

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

1007

–

1006

1

–

–

3.9

14.7 –

Scatter

–

–

(1)

–

–

–

–

Pit on W. edge of pavement

–

–

(1)

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

White

–

–

–

c.3700

3770–3640

4906±32

OxA-V-2199-17

–

–

–

–

–

–

none

Inhumed bone

–

–

Disarticulated unburnt human bones; disarticulated animal bones

White Capel Garmon, Gwynedd

Chambered tomb

Deposit 53, Cut 2

–

–

Old ground surface of SSE chamber

–

Cairn material from SSE chamber Portal dolmen

1

Adult

–

6.51

51.78 skull

–

–

–

3620–3020

4560±80

CAR–391

ENeo– Mneo?

–

a ‘considerable amount’ of crem bones recovered

Davidson and Henshall, 1991; Henshall and Ritchie, 2001

May be pyre re-deposited debris, but only 13 yrs

Isolated pit

Notes

–

Holly Road, Levan Pit

Appendix 2

– – –

317

Powell et al., (2015)

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) Site

Type of Monument

Feature #

Context #

–

16452

Isolated pit Isolated pit

–

Irthlingborough, Northamptonshire

Colour/ Notes

cal BC (95%)

BP

Lab No.

–

–

–

MNeo?

none

1

Juv-Ad >13 yrs

–

3.6

–

–

–

–

–

MNeo?

none

Juv-Ad >13 yrs

–

7.9

–

–

–

–

–

MNeo?

none

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

MNeo?

Burnt clay; burnt flint

1

Juv-Ad >13 yrs

–

20.1

–

–

–

–

–

MNeo?

-

–

1.6

–

–

–

–

–

MNeo?

-

–

1.9

–

–

–

–

–

MNeo?

-

Charcoal

Charcoal

ENeo?

Grimston style bowl

4239

–

(1)

–

Isolated pit

–

1609

1610

1

Juv-Ad >13 yrs

Isolated pit

–

4398

–

1

Juv-Ad >13 yrs

Barrow 5

–

291–33308

–

(1)

–

–

–

–

–

3351–2928

4460±70

OxA-3054

–

–

1

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

1

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Long barrow

Clava passagegrave

Langford

Isolated pit

Isolated pit

Isolated pit

–

3761

Cremation pit 1

Cremation pit 2

Grave goods/ inclusions

–

–

Crem scatter over central chalk inhumation C strip’ Crem deposit near Inhumation C

C14 material

–

Isolated pit

572

Max size (mm)

7.6

1

573

Weight (g)

–

17557

–

Sex

Juv-Ad >14 yrs

17556

Kinchyle of Dores, Loch Ness, Inverness

Lanton Quarry, Northumberland

16769

Age

1

–

Pit 4

Kilham, East Yorkshire

16+453

Isolated pit

Isolated pit Imperial College Sports Ground: RMC Land

16768

Cremation MNI #

Appendix 2

–

1

–

–

–

–

–

3945–3360

4830±125

BM-293

–

(1)

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

27.0 long bone

Grey-white to white

–

1

–

–

19.0

3758

–

1

Adult

–

118.0

34.0 –

–

4054–8

–

1

Infant

–

9.1

–

–

–

–

–

–

4030–2

–

1

MA-OA

–

697.3

–

–

–

–

–

–

Adult

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

2

Neonate/ Inf

–

4056–9

–

1

Adult

–

Juv-YA

–

Sub-Ad

–

Sub-Ad

–

42 543.7

–

5645–5544 6680±286695±31 5666–5556 6660±30 5635–5532

–

–

–

4050–06/07

–

Charcoal from long barrow (ditch?)

GU35121 GU36754 GU36753

–

– –

–

–

–

None

Greenwell, 1877: 553-6; Manby, 1976 PPS 42: 111-159. Barker et al, 1971

to the SW of the bowlshaped pit was a scatter of crem bones on the old ground surfave and under a few flattish stones

Henshall and Ritchie, 2001: 19; Piggott, 1954-6: 185; 207; Lisowski, 1955-6: 83-89

Pit held a mostly charred upright timber post = grave marker

–

Pit held a mostly charred upright timber post = grave marker

–

–

–

48.3

–

–

3080–2891

4334±34

SUERC-69264 Crem bone

4032–1

–

1

Juv-Ad

–

217.5

–

–

3085–2897

4349±34

SUERC-69263 Crem bone

4041–3/4

–

2

Adult

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Isolated pit

Cremation pit 4

Juv

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

4075–13

–

1

YC

–

8.5

–

–

–

–

–

–

Pit held a mostly charred upright timber post = grave marker

Isolated pit

F4083

4083–14

–

1

Infant

–

8.6

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Isolated pit

F4110

4112–15

–

1

Adult

–

226.5

–

–

2620–2467

4012±34

Isolated pit

F4120

4120–16

–

1

Juv

–

207.3

–

–

–

–

318

MNI 12x inhumations also recovered. Excavated by Greenwall in 1868 and was called Barrow CCXXXIV. Mesolithic activity, then Neolithic burials, then EBA ring ditch constructed near long barrow

–

Adult

SUERC-69265 Crem bone –

Olsen et al, 2008; Archaeometry 35(1)

Pit held a mostly charred upright timber post = grave marker

1

846.8

Charcoal was from pit containing the crem; pit located between ditches of the mound for the barrow.

Crem bone burnt flint, Quercus redeposited pyre material. Crem bone sp. Charcoal Charcoal

–

Isolated pit

–

Powell et al., (2015)

–

4036–5

Cremation pit 3

– –

–

655.9

References

–

4061– 10/11/12

3

Notes

Spread in SW corner

–

–

Post inserted into pit

319

–

Gilmour and Loe, 2015

Cockburn, 2016

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) Site

Type of Monument

Feature #

Context #

Cremation MNI # a

A111

b

30-40yrs 3

c

Pit ACC1

Pit ACC5 Pit ACC6 Pit ACC7

Max size (mm)

Colour/ Notes

–

40+yrs

F

Infant

–

1,337.7

62.0 –

white, chalky, weathered

cal BC (95%)

BP

Lab No.

C14 material

–

–

–

–

3339–3023

4465±32

OxA-38086

Crem humerus

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

23.9

–

–

–

–

–

–

A81

–

–

–

–

11.2

–

–

–

–

–

–

A103

–

–

–

–

LOST

–

–

–

–

–

–

Adult

–

–

white, chalky

FAILED

FAILED

FAILED

–

white, chalky

3510–3348

4620±29

OxA-38190

2 b

Pit ACC2

Pit ACC4

Weight (g)

–

A110

Pit ACC3

Sex

A101

a

Llandegai pit circle Pit Circle

Age

Appendix 2

72.1 Infant

–

Base of pit covered with rammed stones; N + S ends lg qty of oak Crem skull charcoal; rounded pebbles ontop of charcoal at N. end. Charcoal may have been planks. McKinley Id’s crem immature

–

–

–

–

3.3

–

white, chalky

A94

–

1

SubA

–

13.2

–

white, strong, unworn

3485–3105

4557±30

OxA-38191

A76

–

–

–

–

0.3

–

white, chalky, weathered

–

–

–

–

A82

–

–

–

–

1.9

–

white, chalky, weathered

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

A83

–

–

–

–

2.4

–

A95

–

–

–

–

5.4

–

white, chalky, weathered

–

–

–

–

A98

–

–

–

–

20.0

–

white, chalky, weathered

–

–

–

–

A114

–

1

–

2.6

–

white, chalky, weathered

–

–

–

–

A116

–

–

–

–

1.2

–

white, chalky, weathered

–

–

–

–

A132

–

–

–

–

1.5

–

white, chalky, weathered

–

–

–

–

A96

–

1

Juv/Adult

–

9.9

–

white, sl. chalky

3356–3100

4518±32

OxA-38087

Crem humerus

A68

–

–

–

–

17.3

–

white

–

–

–

–

A69

–

–

–

–

1.5

–

white

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

white

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

white

–

–

–

–

A125

–

–

–

–

5.0

–

white

–

–

–

–

A86

–

1

Juv/Adult

–

5.0

–

white, chalky

–

–

–

–

A70

–

–

–

–

0.5

–

white

–

–

–

–

361.0

c.30

white

3362–3104

4532±32

OxA-38088

320

a b

2

Adult

–

Adult

–

Notes

References

A101, A81 and A103 found scattered in the NE half of pit; A111 was deep in pit

Pit covered by a lg. sloped block of hornfels rock which had its top shattered (?pushed over from standing position). Charcoal: 3328-2918 cal BC (GrN-26818; 4420±40 BP)

animal bones in Crem ulna A110 (13 yrs

–

111.0

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

2877–2631

–

4153±29

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

3350–2550

–

SRR-646

Charcoal

–

–

3350–2450

–

SRR-647

Burnt nut

–

–

3750–3000

–

SRR-644

Charcoal

–

–

–

–

–

–

– Finely broken crem bone. This deposit (and prob the K65 complex) is contemporary with the enclosure

–

SUERC-73285 Crem bone 2x postholes

– 35.0 humeral head

Only frags of crem bone on surface of PH21. Not excavated

–

ENeo?

*Radiocarbon date courtesy of A. Sheridan, NMS. This feature is prob. contemporary with K26 due to cloxe proximity –

1x post

– Near EBA cist… may be EBA crem?

–

Twisted cord sherds These 2 pits lay amungst a group of pits set within 10m (pot 7) of each other (B6, B10, B12 Sherds from pot 15 and B15). Only one crem. bone fragment recovered. and 8 A bowl (Windmill hill?) with a pair of lugs and Windmill Hill ware a pair of handles was recovered on a ‘knob’ of (?) bowl chalk with cremated bones in and around it.

5x sherds of a Crem bone carinated bowl, charcoal

The shallow depression (close to a probable pyre) containing the cremated bones was sealed beneath the round cairn

Shallow depression near pyre

CP1

–

1

–

–

–

–

White

3940–3660

4995±35

GrA-34772

North of pit CP1

CP2

–

(1)

–

–

–

–

White

–

–

–

–

Charcoal

–

Beneath stone forming part of the mound

CP3

–

(1)

–

–

–

–

White

–

–

–

–

1x sherd of pottery (Ash ?13), a leafshaped arrowhead

–

324

Speak and Burgess, 1999.

325

Piggott, 1931: 945; Thomas, 1999: 152. DES, 2007: 220; Whittle et al, 2011: 821; Shepherd, 1996. The surface around the site showed evidence of discolouration and hardening through fire. Intereprested as indication of pyre location?

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) Site

Milton Ham, Northamptonshire

Type of Monument

Notes

White

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

White

–

–

–

–

–

–

14.0

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

822.0

–

–

3350–3020

4470±40

Beta-257598

Crem bone

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

(1)

–

–

–

–

–

1

Adult

–

Burial 2

–

–

1

Adult

Burial 3

–

–

(1)

–

–

Bank material of ring-bank

–

Isolated pit

Burial 1

Isolated pit Isolated pit

“Large cist”

–

–

1

lowest layer

–

523

524

Settlement

Colour/ Notes

–

161.2

–

–

2585–2460

4000±34

(1)

Adult

?F

–

–

–

3730–3520 3890–3647 3779–3642

4855±45 4945±40 4920±40

1

Adult

–

453.6

–

Mostly white

2930–2870

4280±33

Redeposited SUERC-70557 Crem bone unburnt bones from upper fill

8–12 yrs OC

–

Adult >30 yrs

?F

Mostly white

2890–2620

4167±33

SUERC-70556

–

2

Pit 513

507

–

Sub– Adult/ Adult

–

10.3

–

–

–

–

–

Ditch 506

511

–

Adult

–

24.7

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Context 1032, fill 1033, bones 1037

–

1

–

?YA

–

F1041

Segmented double-ditched ditch

–

272.0

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

3341–3030

4480±30

–

–

1

Child

–

c.7.0

–

–

–

–

–

–

1

Pit 3

–

–

(1)

326

–

MNeo?

–

Pit 2

None

–

525.0

Pit 1

–

–

–

“… probable cremation burial dating to the Middle Neolithic was found. The burnt bone was extremely fragmented and efficiently burnt…”

–

2x pottery sherds, 3x worked flints, fired clay.

1x Peterborough Ware, worked flints, charred SUERC-77622 Crem bone Hazelnut shells, small amount of charcoal –

–

–

–

?MA

DES 2005: 182 DES 2004: 176

Residual Beaker/ EBA pottery

–

1

“Large cist” is prob a chambered tomb, reused during EBA

–

–

–

Thompson and Powell, 2018; McKinley, 2018

–

–

Fill 1040

Recovered in a natural hollow underneath 5,000 pieces of struck flint. Situated 50m from 2 posthole alignments

Crem bone 2 flakes, 1 broken (Ind?) flake, 3 debitage

–

Ring ditch

–

GrA-28741 Crem bone GrA-24858 Crem bone 3x burnt flakes GrA-26158 Crem bone

508

–

1599.8

SUERC-49176 Crem bone

–

References

Burial 3 too small/degraded for analysis. Two other pits noted to have been heavily Carlyle and distrubed and are suspected Chapman, 2012 to have contained crem bones though none were found.

MA

512

Trench 5

F1034

New Wintle’s Farm, Eynsham, Oxfordshire

Grave goods/ inclusions

(1)

Scatter

Moleigh (Cleigh), Argyll and Bute

Newton Poppleford, Devon

C14 material

Max size (mm)

7531

Newbiggin Quarry

Lab No.

Weight (g)

Subsoil surface, west of CP1 and CP2

Penannular enclosure

BP

Sex

Context #

MOD headquarters, Isolated pit Durrington

Near Stonehenge and Winterbourne Stoke long barrow

cal BC (95%)

Age

Cremation MNI #

Feature #

Chambered tomb?

Appendix 2

Small flecks of charcoal

Child

–

c.7.0

–

–

–

–

–

MNeo

2x sherds, untouched flint chip, burnt quartzite pebble, cornbrash frag

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

MNeo

2x sherds, 2x burnt clay, flecks of charcoal

327

Arup Atkins, 2017 report.

BABAO annual review 2001 (12): 10. Excavated by AOC Archaeology.

Inner lip of the ring ditch. Rainbird and Lichtenstein, in Earliest of the cremation press. pits, disturbed by digging of F1034; charcoal = oak, hazel/alder, hawthorn/apple and ash. – Five slabs of the forest marble (cornbrash) had been set in a continous arc on S. side of deposit. A larger slab was laid next to the deposit. Other frags scattered within fill, some reddened by heat. –

Case and Whittle, 1982: 52-3.

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) Site

Notgrove

Type of Monument

Long barrow

Barrow mound 61: South Norwich Southern Bypass, Bixley site 9585 Barrow mound 61: North

Norwich Southern Bypass, Bixley site Ring ditch 200 6099

Nutbane, Hampshire

Nympsfield

Mortuary structure (burnt), chalk long cairn, long barrow

Feature #

Context #

Cremation MNI #

Appendix 2

Age

Sex

Weight (g)

Max size (mm)

Colour/ Notes

cal BC (95%)

BP

Lab No.

C14 material

Grave goods/ inclusions

Notes

Pit 4

–

–

(1)

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

1x rim sherd, flecks of charcoal

Pit 5

–

–

(1)

–

–

–

–

White

–

–

–

–

1x sherd, small amount of charcoal

Inner ditch

–

–

(1)

Child

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Fragment of a child’s cranium recovered on surface of the central part of the inner segment of the ditch

–

Clifford (p141) mentions burning? MNI 10 unburnt individuals also recovered (3x A, 1x Juv, 2 x children, 3x Inf, 1x foe) during first phase.

– –

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

32

1

YA: 18–35 yrs

F

763.8

–

–

2871–2490

4090±50

GU-5184

–

–

12

1

Adult

–

489.2

–

–

–

–

–

LNeo?

–

–

–

47

1

Juv: 14–18 yrs

–

108.5

–

–

–

–

LNeo?

–

–

–

1132

1

YA: 18–35 yrs

–

661.0

–

–

–

–

–

LNeo?

collard urn

–

–

300

1

Adult

?F

220.0

–

–

2865–2342

4020±70

GU-5185

Charcoal

Small copper-alloy Pit in area enclosed by pin/awl, charcoal innermost ring

–

–

289

1

Adult

–

255.9

–

–

–

–

–

Adult

–

–

–

–

Adult

–

–

–

–

Child

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

3

3774–2945

4680±150

BM-49

ENeo?

Charcoal

LNeo? Charcoal from post of the second forecourt building

Small accessory Collard Urn, charcoal

Clifford, 1936; Smith and Brickley, 2006: 343; Cuthbert, 2018

Cut into barrow mound w/ in central area Cut into barrow mound Cut into barrow mmound; Bayliss et al scorching apparent on sides (2013); Mays, of pit and in adjacent area. 2000: 228, in Ashwin and Bates 172.9g of the crem bones (2000) in the collard urn, the rest were in the upper fill of the pit. Pyre may have been close as pit was scorched, and tha the upper fill contained pyre sweepings

–

Pit in area enclosed by innermost ring

–

All individuals placed between the two split tree-trunk posts, banks and ditches. No weathering on bones. Signs of disturbance before mortuary space was enlarged and another adult body added.

Bayliss et al (2013) Ashwin and Bates (2000)

Morgan, 1959; Bunting et al., 1959; Fowler, 2010

This chamber is were the majority of the burnt humand and animal bones were found, mixed with unburnt bones (again both human [x2 individuals] and animal) at different levels in the floor. Charcoal (yound hazel). Neolithic A pottery Clifford, 1938: recovered. 199; Whittle and Wysocki, 1998 Fragments of burnt skull bones (partially burnt?)

Chamber C

–

–

(1)

–

–

–

–

“really burnt and not merely charred”

–

–

–

ENeo?

–

Trench III

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

ENeo?

–

Passage grave

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

ENeo?

–

3 frags of burnt bone , also unburnt bone frags from 3 other individuals

Antechamber

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

ENeo?

–

3 frags of burnt bone (p. 208); also unburnt bones of 2 other individuals

Long barrow

328

References

329

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) Site

Type of Monument

Feature #

Context #

Standing stone 1 Orwell Farm, near Milnathort, Perth and Kinross

Next to first standing stone Standing stone 2

Parc le Breos Cwm, Chambered Glamorgan tomb

–

Lower deposit

BP

Lab No.

C14 material

Grave goods/ inclusions

Notes

–

–

–

LNeo?

–

–

Sex

Weight (g)

Max size (mm)

Adult >30 yrs

M

695.5

105.0 –

Adult

?M

3

Adult

?F

1224.5

–

Adult

?F –

140.0

51.0 –

Light brown

–

–

–

LNeo?

–

–

?F

722.0

66.0 –

Light brown

–

–

–

LNeo?

–

–

1 –

–

on the surface

–

1

YC: 3-6 yrs

–

within second stonehole

–

1

Adult

Colour/ Notes

cal BC (95%)

Age

Cremation MNI #

Upper deposit

Appendix 2

Light brown

Mainly 2889–2636 light brown

4180±35

–

A69

1

Adult

–

15.82

38.5 cranial

lt. greyish– white

–

–

–

–

–

Adult

–

–

–

–

3980– 37904035– 3705

5080±75

OxA-3301

burnt wood (of boat?)

–

–

–

–

–

3693–3381

4940±50

SUERC-7910 Crem bone

–

–

–

–

–

3660–3380

4800±50

SUERC-7911 Crem bone

–

SUERC-54700 Hazelnut Beta-257720 shell

Burnt dugout boat

–

–

–

1

Pencraig Hill

Mortuary Structure at a standing stone

Main in situ concentration of bone from pyre

–

–

2

237008

–

–

1

Adult

–

0.1

–

–

3360–3090 3490–3120

4515±29–

237014

–

–

1

>16 yrs

–

24.7

–

–

–

–

–

Isolated pits (x11) –

–

Penywyrlod, Talgarth

Long cairn

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Pitnacree

Round barrow

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Randwick

Long barrow

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Rodmarton

Sarn-y-bryn-caled 2, Powys

Long barrow

Penannular enclosure

53g of cremated dog and pig bones

SE chamber floor

Parkbury, St. Albans, Hertfordshire

Pen-y-banc, Carmarthenshire

SUERC-18309 Crem bone

N side of vault

– Authors interpret pyre site was re-used to cremate body parts

Impressed Ware sherd, hazelnut shell

1x flint micro debitage

Sheridan, 2007: 485

various frags’ of burnt bone and a single burnt tooth; 3 chambers with co-mingled Britnell and and disartic unburnt bones. Savory, 1984: 37A unburnt bone from NEII 8; O’Neil, 2017. chamber was dated to 39603640 cal BC

ENeo

–

–

Coles and Simpson, 1965

ENeo?

“…many of the bones in the chamber were much burnt, Witts, 1886: 160 some of them being quite black…”

ENeo?

“a few calcined bones of children were found in the vault on its north side”, in Lyson’s list of contents from the barrow does not mention the crem bones.

2+

Children?

–

–

–

–

–

–

Ditch

Primary

1

1

YA

?F

–

–

–

3007–2886

4315±30

SUERC-24176 Crem bone Burnt flint flakes

placed at the base of ditch, near entrance

Ditch

–

2

1

YC (3 yrs)

–

–

–

–

2915–2864

4255±30

SUERC-24172 Crem bone

–

deposited when the ditch was recut

Ditch

–

3

1

YA

?F

–

–

–

2885–2671

4145±30

SUERC-27171 Crem bone

–

deposited when the ditch was recut

Ditch

–

4

1

Adult

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

deposited when the ditch was recut

–

Niblett, 2001: 159, 173; Hedges et al., 1994

Pit 237043 evidence of in situ burning; all 11 pits contained varying quantities of charcoal; crem deposition con’t Griffiths, 2013 into EBA (Pit 237010). Thus, due to 1400 years of intermitten activity, must have had visible grave markers

–

–

–

Ritchie, 1974: 8-9 Archaeological Journal 131; Denston (in Ritchie): 27-29 Appendix B. Sheridan, 2008

Whittle, A. and Wysocki, M. Radiocarbon dates from 9 (1998). PPS 64: inhumations were ENeo, 1 139-182; Willis, was LNeo and 2 were EBA. 2020 and this volume

–

330

–

–

References

331

Bird, 1865: lxviii; Piggott, 1931: 138

Gibson, 1994; 2010a; Miket, 1985

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) Site

Type of Monument

Feature #

Context #

P (posthole 5) Sale’s Lot

45

–

–

Age –

Sex –

Weight (g) –

Max size (mm) –

Long mound M (W. side of antechamber)

Mortuary Seamer Moor, East structure (burnt) under a long Ayton, Yorkshire barrow

Skilmafilly, Aberdeenshire

Isolated pit

Sperris Quoit, Cornwall

Quoit

Sproxton

Pit sealed by EBA barrow/ ring ditch

Stonehenge

Cremation MNI #

Appendix 2

43

–

–

Pit 044

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

2

–1

–

–

–

–

cal BC (95%)

Black, grey, greyish– 3640–3370 white –

3910–3650

BP 4716±38

Lab No. Wk-17187

4958±40

Wk-17192

–

–

–

–

3984–3649

5030±90

NPL-73

YA: 25-30 yrs

M

–

–

–

1890–1680

–

GrA-26531

Juv: 12-16 yrs

M

–

–

–

2864–2495 1930–1740

4090±35 3505±35

Poz-7706 Poz-7708

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

RC8

–

–

–

–

–

–

Aubrey Hole 7

110

–

1

Adult

?F

6.6

39.7 occipital

173

–

1

Prob Adult

–

3.2

28.7 occipital

211

–

1

OC

–

3.7

221

–

1

Prob Adult

–

7.7

223

–

1

Adult

?M

225

–

1

Adult

M

–

C14 material Crem bone

Grave goods/ inclusions –

Crem bone

Charcoal

? oak charcoal –

–

Burnt polished axe

Charcoal from old ground surface under barrow

–

–

–

–

References O’Neill, 1966; Whittle et al.,2011: 464 vol 1; Smith and Brinkley, 2009; Smith and Brinkley, 2006: 346. Simpson, DAA 1963; Manby 1974; Stead, 1979; Callow et al, 1965:157-8; Conyngham, 1849; Kinnes, 1970:10 Johnson and Cameron (2012) SAIR report 53. DES p. 158-159

–

scant’ flecks of crem bone. Unidentifiable

Charcoal from a small pit containing burnt bone and Jordon et al., sealed by the old ground 1994: 190 surfave and cuty by the ring ditch

4235–3780

5170±90

HAR-3133

Charcoal

–

lt greyish white

2915–2885

4280±20

OxA-26962

Crem bone

–

greyishwhite

3090–2900

4360±35

OxA-26963

Crem bone

–

37.4 prox left Med grey diaph humerus

3025–2895

4340±30

OxA-27085

Crem bone

–

42.4occipital

lt greyish white

3015–2890

4325±30

OxA-26964

Crem bone

–

4.4

43.6 occipital

med greyishwhite

2865–2500

4100±30

OxA-26965

Crem bone

–

9.2

38.9 occipital

Med grey

2870–2585 2900–2710

4130±30 4220±20

OxA-27089 GU-28587

Crem bone Crem bone

–

2880–2635

4170±30

OxA-26966

Crem bone

–

227

–

1

Prob Adult

?F

9.9

37.6occipital

Lt brown external, weathered

246

–

1

Adult

–

8.4

54.8 occipital

Lt yellowishwhite

3340–2945

4455±35

OxA-27045

Crem bone

–

255

–

1

Prob Adult

–

8.8

42.6 occipital

white with 2890–2675 patch of 2880–2670 bluish-grey

4195±30 4165±20

OxA-27046 GU-28589

Crem bone Crem bone

–

263

–

1

Adult

M

14.1

–

280

–

1

Adult

M

6.2

Stone circle

Notes

–

–

–

332

Colour/ Notes

lt. greyishwhite

–

–

–

Crem bone

–

38.3occipital

Pale beige

3090–2910

4375±30

OxA-27047

Crem bone

–

Beige-white 2900–2680

4210±30

OxA-27048

Crem bone

–

281

–

1

Adult

?M

3.6

33.8 occipital

288

–

1

Adult

?M

6.1

59.0 occipital

White w/ chalky residue

2910–2700

4235±30

OxA-27049

Crem bone

–

289

–

1

Adult

M

6.0

36.7 occipital

lt greyishwhite

3090–2920

4390±30

OxA-30294

Crem bone

–

307

–

1

Adult

M

9.9

41.5 occipital

Dk to med grey

3320–2920 4420±30 4385±20 3090–2920

OxA-27077 GU-28586

Crem bone Crem bone

–

The separate crem weight, max size and colour refers to bone used for radiocarbon dating as they are all unique individuals. Unburnt skull dated 2890-2620 cal BC (OxA-V-2232-46; 4169±31BP) from ditch fill C25 [1560]; Huam skull dated 2880-2570 cal BC (OxA-V-2232-47; 4127±31BP) from ditch fill C28 [2589]. For a list of grave goods/inclusions recovered for specific Aubrey Holes, see Chapter 6, Table 19 this volume. In addition, 1.5g of tooth root from AH24 (context 1236) is all that is left from ‘a large cremation deposit’ that was redeposited into AH7.

333

Cuthbert, 2018

McKinley, In Cleal et al, 1995; Willis, 2016; 2020; this volume; Snoeck at al., 2018; Parker Pearson et al., 2009

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) Site

Type of Monument

Feature #

Context #

Cremation MNI #

Age

Appendix 2 Sex

Weight (g)

Max size (mm) 32.3 occipital

Colour/ Notes White

cal BC (95%)

BP

Lab No.

C14 material

Grave goods/ inclusions

2920–2700

4255±35

OxA-27078

Crem bone

–

3090–2920 4390±30 4395±20 3090–2925

OxA-27079 GU-2858

Crem bone Crem bone

–

3315–2920

4415±30

OxA-27090

Crem bone

–

330

–

1

Adult

–

5.0

334

–

1

Prob Adult

?F

9.0

49.5occipital Dk grey

336

–

1

Prob Adult

–

2.7

43.1 occipital

344

–

1

YC

–

3.23

44.9 prox right White diaph humerus

3310–2930

4425±20

OxA-27092

Crem bone

–

357

–

1

Adult

M

16.2

Lt 73.4 occipital yellowishwhite

3020–2890 3020–2910

4325±30 4350±20

OxA-27080 GU-28590

Crem bone Crem bone

–

3080–2900

4350±30

OxA-27081

Crem bone

–

2890–2635

4180±35

OxA-27093

Crem bone

–

Yellowishwhite

366

–

1

Prob Adult

?F

4.5

Reddishbrown to 33.9 occipital yellowishwhite

382+323

–

1

Juvenile

–

18.9

Med 82.4 prox left diaph brownishgrey femur

389

–

1

Adult

F?

6.9

45.1 occipital

lt brownish3095–2920 grey

4405±25

OxA-27082

Crem bone

–

390b

–

1

Adult

–

5.6

35.6 occipital

Yellowishgrey

2910–2880

4260±20

OxA-27083

Crem bone

–

596

–

1

Adult

M

2.9

27.7 occipital

Brownishgrey

3085–2905

4365±30

OxA-27084

Crem bone

–

Adjacent to Aubrey Hole 7

007

–

1

YA–MA

F

1101.5

88.8 humerus

Greyishwhite, white

3020–2885 3090–2900

4315±35 4420±35

Aubrey Hole 32

3008

–

1

Adult

–

150.7

–

weathered

3080–2890

4332±34

OxA-18036

OxA-27086 Crem bone SUERC-30410 Crem bone

None

Notes

– –

–

Stonehenge

Ditch

C41 (Ditch)

3893

–

1

YA–MA

F

64.8

–

–

2918– 28862920– 2870

4289±20 4271±29

SUERC42882OxA– 17957

Crem bone Crem bone

–

Stonehenge

Ditch

C42 (Ditch)

3898

–

1

YA

F

1546.6

–

White

2570–2360

3961±29

OxA-17958

Crem bone

–

–

Pit 41

–

–

(1)

–

–

2.0

–

–

3777–3638

4890±60

SRR-426

Charcoal

–

–

Pit 49

–

–

(1)

Adult

M?

42.0

–

–

2873–2509

4100±70

SRR-425

Charcoal

–

–

–

– –

Stoneyfield, Stone circle Raigmore, Iverness

May have been disturbed

M

662.0

–

–

–

–

–

Grooved Ware

–

–

1488.0

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

18.0

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

3703–3344

4732±90

SRR-187

Charcoal

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Pit -

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Pit -

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Pit -

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Pit -

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Pit -

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Pit -

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Pit -

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Cairn material

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Cairn material

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Cairn material

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Pit 50

–

–

(1)

Pit 25

–

–

(1)

Pit 44

–

–

(1)

Pit 11

now pit 6

–

Pit -

–

Pit Pit -

334

MA

References

335

Simpson, 1996

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) Site

Type of Monument

Feature #

Thirlings, Northumberland

Trelystan, Powys

Trostrey, Monmouthshire

Cremation MNI #

Age

Sex

Weight (g)

Max size (mm)

Colour/ Notes

cal BC (95%)

BP

Lab No.

C14 material

Grave goods/ inclusions

Notes

References

Cairn material

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Post-hole

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Post-hole

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Post-hole

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

now pit 37

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

2871–2498

4102±42

SRR-433

Charcoal

Old ground surface

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Old ground surface

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Old ground surface

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Old ground surface

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Old ground surface

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Old ground surface

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Old ground surface

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Old ground surface

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Old ground surface

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Old ground surface

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Old ground surface

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Old ground surface

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Baulk

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Baulk

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Baulk

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Long barrow

-

–

–

1

–

–

14.39

–

–

–

–

–

–

Posthole in Henge

F587

–

–

(1)

–

–

–

–

–

3909–3658

4972±34

OxA-16101

Crem bone? Or hazelnut?

Charcoal, flint, Carinated Ware

Pit from a ?trapezoidal structure

F643

–

–

(1)

–

–

–

–

–

3334–2929

4442±35

OxA-16164

Crem bone

Flint blade, Impressed Ware, post-marked deposit Single-edge flint knife (F78), two pieces of worked flint (F75-76)

Wooden coffin with inhumation placed ontop of crem.

None

Cremated tooth frags only; prob. from main crem deposit

Flint debitage, one leaf-shaped arrowhead, frags. of Grimston Ware,

Pyre 1 was used for a minimum of 10 cremations, after activity ceased it was Mein, 2003 abandoned. Radiocarbon date refers to the last cremation firing of pyre 1

Central hearth

Stoney Littleton

Context #

Appendix 2

Stone cairn

In-situ pyre

Pit on western side of a LNeo pit grave

–

–

1

MA–OA+

F

1,305.0

59.0 –

Towards centre of pit grave

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

1

–

–

–

–

–

1

–

–

–

–

1

–

–

–

1

–

–

–

1

–

–

1

Pyre 1

336

Greyish– white, white

White

3331–2875

4350±70

CAR-282

Charcoal

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

– – – – 8x crem bone frags missed Smith and by excavators but identified Brickley, 2009: 58 by Smith and Brickley

337

Other dates: F1275 4678±34BP (OxA-16100); Miket et al, 2008: F470 4442±35BP (OxA10-11 Arcgaeol 16164); F467 4270±100BP J. 165. (HAR-1450); and F466 4080±130BP (HAR-1451).

Britnell, 1982; Tellier, 2018

Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC) Site

Type of Monument

In-situ pyre

In-situ pyre

Twlc-y-Filiast, Llangynog, Carmarthenshire

Ty Isaf

Context #

Pyre 2

Pyre 3

Cremation MNI #

Age

Sex

Weight (g)

Max size (mm)

Colour/ Notes

cal BC (95%)

BP

Lab No.

C14 material

–

–

1

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

1

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

1

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

1

–

–

–

–

–

3765–3647

–

–

Crem bone

–

–

1

–

–

–

–

–

3710–3630

5620±40

Beta-184101

Crem bone

–

–

1

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

1

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

1

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

1

–

–

–

–

–

3690–3500 3440–3380

–

–

Crem bone

Grave goods/ inclusions

Notes

Flint debitage, frags of Grimston Ware

Pit was lined with glacial erratics with a massive stone placed on top. Radiocarbon date refers to the last firing of pyre 3 Unburnt bone frags found between platform and façade

–

–

–

?

–

–

–

–

–

3980–3710

–

–

?

–

3 large timber posts

–

–

–

?

–

–

–

–

–

3960–3710

–

–

?

–

–

Stone kerb

–

–

–

?

–

–

–

–

–

3980–3790

–

–

?

–

–

Pit

Burial pit 1

–

–

?

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Grimstone Ware sherds, post hole

Grave marker?, then pit covered by a stone cairn

Pit

Burial pit 2

–

–

?

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Grimstone Ware sherds, post hole

Grave marker?, then pit covered by a stone cairn

Pit

Burial pit 3

–

–

?

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Grimstone Ware sherds, post hole

Grave marker?, then pit covered by a stone cairn

Pit

Burial pit 4

–

–

?

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Grimstone Ware sherds, post hole

Grave marker?, then pit covered by a stone cairn

Pit

Burial pit 5

–

–

?

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Grimstone Ware sherds, post hole

Grave marker?, then pit covered by a stone cairn

Not labelled

–

–

1

–

–

1.1

–

–

–

–

–

MNeo

–

From chamber near upright 6, 11” below cairn material’

–

–

1

Adult

–

5.4

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

From N. edge and bottom of pit, S of sill in chamber’

–

–

1

–

–

3.5

19.8 long bone

–

–

–

–

–

–

Portal dolmen

Chambered cairn

Adjacent to Long Mound Barrow 5?

F5549: small pit Between middle and outer ditches