Rick J. Schulting • Non-monumental burial in Britain
1
Non-monumental burial in Britain : a (largely) cavernous view
By Rick J. Schulting
Schlagwörter : Großbritannien / Nordirland – Sonderbestattungen – Grabbauten – Kontinuität / Diskontinuität – Sozialordnung – Anthropologie – Radiokarbondatierung – Ernährung –
Alt- / Frühneolithikum – stabile Isotopen
Keywords :
Great Britain / Northern Ireland – unusual burials – grave-architecture – continuity /
discontinuity – social structure – anthropology –radiocarbon dating– nutrition – early
Neolithic – stable isotopes
Mots-clés :
Grande-Bretagne / Irlande du Nord – sépultures spéciales – monuments funéraires –
continuité / discontinuité – ordre social – anthropologie – datation par le radiocarbone –
alimentation – Néolithique Ancien – isotopes stables
Introduction
Archaeological investigations of mortuary practices in the earlier Neolithic (– cal BC) of
Britain have long been dominated by monuments, whether earthen long barrows, megalithic
chambered tombs of various forms, or, to a certain extent, causewayed enclosures. For a number
of reasons, this is hardly surprising. These sites are prominent on the landscape, and, for better or
worse, have had a long history of investigation. They have in addition played central roles in all the
main theoretical developments of the last century, from culture historical concerns with origins ,
to issues of territoriality and labour investment associated with processual archaeology , to the
ideological emphasis of post-processual approaches . They have equally been at the heart of recent
inquiries into the importance of colour and sound . Yet there is increasing evidence for nonmonumental forms of burial in the British Neolithic, raising a series of questions regarding the
interpretation of these different mortuary practices. This paper summarises the range of mortuary
locations, and offers some initial observations and comments regarding their possible significance.
Caves, in particular, are identified as important alternative burial places.
1
2
E. g. C 1973 ; D 1958.
C 1981 ; R 1973 ; 1976.
Berichte der RGK ,
3
4
S / T 1982.
J 1999 ; W / K 2000.
2
Innovation and Continuity – Non-Megalithic Mortuary Practices in the Baltic
Placing the dead
Monu ment s
The vast majority of known British neolithic human skeletal remains derive from long barrows and
chambered tombs. In common with a number of other regions of predominantly western Europe
where similar monuments were in use, most of the remains are found in a disarticulated, jumbled,
and often very partial state. While they may be characterised as collective burials, the number of
individuals in a given monument varies widely, from as many as to in the case of the large
chambered tombs of Orkney, such as Quanterness and Isbister , to as few as one (or even none,
begging the question of the appropriateness of the term ‘mortuary’ monument). Fussell’s Lodge
has yielded the greatest number of individuals in southern Britain, some –, though again
many of these are only very partially represented . More typical are numbers in the region of five
to , though these figures rely in part on older excavations and reports of dubious reliability .
Adults of both sexes and children of all ages are represented, though not necessarily in the proportions expected for a living population.
In addition, less monumental mortuary enclosures, defined by a D-shaped or rectangular
ditch, have yielded human remains. One of the best known of these is Barrow Hills, Oxfordshire,
where a linear mortuary enclosure contained an articulated male skeleton and two disarticulated
females . This mirrors a wider pattern, in that articulated remains in long barrows are approximately three times more likely to be adult male than female , though the significance of this is
unclear, particularly if it is accepted that the articulated burials are simply the most recent to be
interred in a multi-stage funerary programme. This may simply reflect, then, the overall greater
representation of males in long barrows and chambered tombs ; of course this is itself also of
interest, but is again problematic because of the variable reliability of sex estimates in the literature.
D-shaped mortuary enclosures seem to be in some instances associated with cursus monuments,
which themselves sometimes also contain burials or fragmentary human skeletal elements in pits
or the ditches themselves, such as seen at Dorchester and Drayton, Oxfordshire .
Causewayed enclosures provide another monumental context in which substantial numbers
of human remains can occur, though this is the exception rather than the rule. Foremost is the
main enclosure at Hambledon Hill, Dorset. While McKinley’s recent re-analysis of this material
has considerably reduced the previously published estimates, extrapolating from the remains of
some individuals in the excavated % of the main enclosure still provides a total of c. for
the entire enclosure . As with the collective deposits that dominate mortuary monuments, these
are fragmentary and scattered remains. Indeed, bodies may have originally been left exposed
within the enclosure, slowly decomposing and becoming incorporated into the ditch fills over time.
Mercer has memorably characterised the site as ‘a vast, reeking open cemetery, its silence broken
only by the din of crows and ravens’ . This vision is strengthened by the high proportion of
human bones showing weathering, which is conversely far less apparent on the faunal remains
from the site. There is also evidence for more active disarticulation in the form of cutmarks on
human bones .
5
6
7
8
H 1983 ; R 1979 ; R 1988 ;
though because of the way in which these figures
were calculated, by context, they may be exaggerated
(L 2006).
A et al. 1979.
A 1966.
Cf. D 2004, 145 ; K 1975 ; 1992.
9
10
11
12
13
14
B / H 1997.
T 1984 ; 1996.
B / C 1988 ; B / H 1984.
MK forthcoming ; M 1980 ; 1988.
M 1980, 63.
MK forthcoming.
Rick J. Schulting • Non-monumental burial in Britain
3
While not on anywhere near this scale, human remains have also been encountered at other
causewayed enclosures : indeed, most enclosures that have seen extensive excavation have yielded
human bone . This often takes the form of deliberately placed deposits, and particularly crania on
the ditch bottoms, a practice seen at Etton and Haddenham, both in Cambridgeshire, as well as
at Hambledon Hill . At Staines, Middlesex, an adult male skull together with the first three cervical vertebrae was placed into a ditch segment, indicating the deposition of a fleshed head , and
this also appears to have been a practice at Hambledon Hill . In addition to the more usual isolated bone finds, a complete articulated burial was found under the outer bank at Windmill Hill .
At Maiden Castle, the complete skeleton of a – year old child was found in the inner ditch circuit, while the outer ditch contained a deposit comprising the poorly preserved and partial remains
of at least three individuals, an adult and two children. The proportionally greater representation
of children relative to many long barrows and chambered tombs appears to be a recurrent feature
of causewayed enclosures .
F l at g r ave s a nd i s ol ate d f i nd s
In contrast to the Neolithic of much of Continental Europe, including Ostorf (Fn : genaue
Angabe fehlt ursprgl. “this volume” , flat inhumation cemeteries are not a common feature of the
British and Irish Neolithic. There are, however, indications of a small number of apparently isolated
inhumation burials (though the nature of their discovery – whether through antiquarian explorations or incidentally during building works, coastal erosion, or excavation of later period sites –
means that their ‘isolated’ character is often assumed rather than demonstrated). These can only
be attributed to the Neolithic if associated with diagnostic material culture (pottery or worked
stone), or directly C dated. Thus their occurrence is likely to be underrepresented. Barrow Hills,
mentioned above, is also important for the presence of three neolithic flat graves found some m
east of the Abingdon causewayed enclosure : additional burials may be present in the unexcavated
surrounding area, and so the site could present an example of a flat grave ‘cemetery’, though this
is by no means certain.
Direct dating has also been used in the case of an articulated adult female skeleton lacking
any artefactual associations found during building works at Prestatyn, North Wales, with a result
of – cal BC . Two flat graves, an adult female and a child, lacking diagnostic grave goods
were found during large-scale excavations at Eton Rowing Course, Buckinghamshire, and directly
dated to the late fourth millennium BC ; a third grave, of an adult male, was dated by the presence
of Early Neolithic pottery . The disarticulated remains of an adult male found eroding out of the
foreshore at Hartlepool Bay, Durham, have been dated to the Neolithic ; this may have originally
been a ‘bog burial’, another example of which comes from Stoneyisland, Co. Galway, Ireland .
Other examples of flat graves have been dated by association with earlier neolithic pottery.
One of the more intriguing examples is Handley Hill, Dorset, where a partially disarticulated
skeleton was found in a pit with cattle bones and two plain neolithic bowls. A post-hole identified
in the pit suggests that the grave was marked in some way, and this is relevant to discussions of the
15
16
17
18
19
20
T 1984.
E 1988 ; E / H 2006 ; M 1988 ;
M / H forthcoming ; P 1998.
S / W 2005.
MK forthcoming.
W 1990
M 1988 ; S 1965 ; T 1984 ; 1996.
Berichte der RGK ,
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
AUTOR ? ? ? ? ? 2007, … .
B / H 1997.
S / G 2008.
A et al. 2000 ; 2004.
T 1978.
B / L 1995 ; S 1931.
P 1936 ; P-R 1898.
4
Innovation and Continuity – Non-Megalithic Mortuary Practices in the Baltic
possibility of secondary burial in mortuary monuments . Pottery has similarly been used to date
an adult male and a female burial, in pits at Nethercourt Farm, Kent, and Pangbourne, Berkshire,
respectively , while a closely associated leaf-shaped projectile point assigns the well-known multiple burial at Fengate to this period . Here again, it is the single adult male that is articulated,
whereas an adult female, a child and an infant are at least partly disarticulated. Further examples
are provided in Kinnes .
A more problematic means of neolithic attribution in the absence of grave goods has involved
the use of dolichocephalic cranial shape, such as in the case of pits F and V at Sutton Courtenay,
Berkshire, containing, in the first pit, an adult female, child and infant, and in the second ten
crania – mainly of adult males – with only a small quantity of postcrania. This attribution should
be taken cautiously, and needs to be confirmed through direct dating of the remains .
Greater uncertainty surrounds the interpretation of isolated human elements occasionally
found during the excavation of non-monumental neolithic sites, or sites of later periods. Alcock,
for instance, reports neolithic pits with human remains from the hilltop at Cadbury Castle, Somerset, one with a mandible and another with cranial fragments . There are a number of additional
similar examples ; while some likely reflect intentional deposition, others may represent the disturbed remains of flat graves, or destroyed mortuary monuments. Given millennia of taphonomic
processes, we should be wary of automatically assuming, as is often done, that isolated human
remains recovered from a site must themselves be treated as invariably deriving from ‘special’
contexts.
R i ver s
Perhaps the most intriguing yet difficult context to interpret involves human remains found during
the dredging of rivers and excavation of palaeochannels. These can only be assigned a Neolithic
Age either on the basis of craniometrics , or, far preferable, through direct dating. The latter has
resulted in the identification of one earlier neolithic cranium dredged from the River Thames at
Battersea in a group that otherwise dates to the Bronze Age . A complete adult male cranium and
a vault portion of another adult cranium from a palaeochannel of the Thames at Eton Rowing
Course, Buckinghamshire, have been directly dated to the Earlier Neolithic and the Late Neolithic,
respectively . The earlier neolithic specimen in particular is well preserved and does not appear
river rolled. Construction activities near the docks in Newport, Monmouthshire, led to the
recovery of two skulls purported to be of Neolithic Age . AMS determinations have since placed
one in the Late Neolithic (c. – cal BC), while the other, though reportedly recovered at a
depth of m, is Romano-British, highlighting the need to directly date such specimens .
Most striking are the results of a dating programme on a group of human crania recovered
during th century dredging of the Ribble River while construction of the Preston Docks, Lancashire. Of eight AMS determinations, four returned earlier Neolithic Ages, ranging from c. to
cal BC , with a late neolithic individual at – cal BC . The condition of some, though
not all, of these suggests that they were subjected to varying degrees of abrasion through rolling
28
29
30
31
32
33
T 1991, 113.
D 1966 ; P 1929.
P 1976.
K 1979 Appendix 2.
L 1923 ; 1934.
Though there is some support for the validity of craniometrics in distinguishing British Neolithic and
Bronze Age crania : B 1994.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
A 1972.
E. g., W 1978.
B / G 1988.
A et al. 2000 ; 2004.
C 1961 ; K 1911.
B 2000.
T et al. 2002.
Rick J. Schulting • Non-monumental burial in Britain
5
Fig. 1. Adult male ? Calvarium from Preston Docks, showing planar erosion of maxilla and base of cranium as a
result of streambed erosion. Harris Museum and Art Gallery, Preston, 1997.70.21 (Photo : R. Schulting).
along the river bed (Fig. ). More recently, the partial remains of at least twelve individuals were
found in association with an apparent log jam on a palaeochannel at Langford on the River Trent ;
direct C dating of one individual and dendro dating of the associated timbers suggest a Late
Neolithic date for the collection. The excellent state of preservation and completeness of four
crania, including three juveniles, with intact facial regions and delicate nasal bones, strongly suggests that these were not subjected to river rolling, as does the presence of a partially articulated
human torso.
But are these finds evidence for ‘river burial’, whether of complete bodies or, in some cases,
detached heads, or are they the result of burials along riverbanks that have subsequently washed
out, or accidental drownings ? The fact that the majority of finds are crania does not aid in differentiating these possibilities, as in either case the crania would become disassociated after decomposition, and, because of their round shape, would roll downriver to a point, such as a bend or a
log jam, where they would become trapped . Making their interpretation even more difficult,
depending on the distance covered, and the nature of the fluvial event, and whether fleshed or not,
crania may or may not exhibit evidence of water rolling. The low-lying, floodplain location of
many of the rivers in question means that the erosion of burials from river banks would not necessarily involve high energy events, and the deposition and subsequent burial of human remains in
protective fine sediments have may occurred very rapidly.
41
42
G et al. 1997.
Ibid, 32, Fig. 5.
Berichte der RGK ,
43
Cf. G et al. 1997 ; K / C 1995 ;
T et al. 2002.
6
Innovation and Continuity – Non-Megalithic Mortuary Practices in the Baltic
C ave s
Finally, it has long been known that many caves have yielded human remains, and that some of
these were likely to be of Neolithic Age , but the full extent of this practice has only slowly
become appreciated. The main obstacle to this realisation has been the open and hence disturbed
nature of most cave deposits, and their multi-period use, so that it is very rarely possible to assign
a date based on any artefactual associations. Chamberlain first drew attention to the number of
directly C dated Neolithic humans from caves that had been accumulating for some years . The
vast majority of these were ‘disappointments’ in terms of the research projects that funded the
dates, since these were by and large intended to discover palaeolithic or mesolithic humans. Nevertheless, as more human bone from caves is directly AMS C dated, it is becoming increasingly
clear that cave burial was a significant feature of earlier (and later) neolithic mortuary practice
(Fig. ). Some individuals across Britain have been directly dated to the Neolithic, and, if
associated remains are often of approximately the same age, there are more than individuals
represented . Some caves have yielded only a single individual, indeed sometimes only a single
element, though it is usually not clear whether this is a result of cursory examination – a number
of such finds were made by cavers investigating new passages – or is the original condition.
Other caves, often designated as ‘ossuary caves’, hold the remains of ten or more individuals :
examples include Little Hoyle, Gop Cave, and Perthi Chwarae in Wales ; Hay Wood Cave and
New Park Quarry in south-western England ; Calling Dale Low, Dowel and Elbolton Caves in
northern England ; and Raschoille Cave in western Scotland . However, the neolithic attribution
of all individuals at these sites is far from certain. It is supported most strongly for Little Hoyle,
Gop, and most especially Raschoille, all of which have multiple AMS dates, though these range
considerably within this period.
Fig. 2. 14C dated humans from cave sites in Britain, 10000–2000 BP (n=130).
44
45
46
47
E. g., B D 1874 ; G 1989 ; K 1979.
C 1996 ; 1997.
Cf. C 1997 ; C / W
1999 ; 2000a ; 2000b.
D 1989 a ; b.
48
49
50
51
B D 1874 ; B D / B 1870 ;
G et al. 1986.
E / E 1972 ; P 1928.
G 1973 ; 1989.
B 1999 ; P 1990.
Rick J. Schulting • Non-monumental burial in Britain
7
Fig. 3. Fissure containing human remains at Ifton Quarry, Monmouthshire, South Wales (from Arch. Cambrensis,
Ser. 6, 9, 1909, 115).
It should be noted that the remains are rarely ‘buried’ in the sense of being placed in a pit in
the ground (though the term will continue to be employed here for convenience). Rather, as is
indeed the case in the great majority of long barrows and chambered tombs, bodies are laid directly
on the ground, or placed within crevices or fissures. It is not always clear that deposition is intentional, as in some cases human remains may have washed into caves and crevices, perhaps from
burials placed near them. But, that being said, in the great majority of cases an interpretation of
intentional deposition does appear to be justified, though their initial condition – whether articulated or secondary – is difficult to judge. In some cases, at least, the deposition of defleshed skeletal
elements does seem to be indicated, such as the crania and longbones at Ifton Quarry, Monmouthshire , placed deep in a narrow crevice in which it would be difficult to position fleshed bodies,
though there is an issue over the exact position in which the remains were originally found (Fig. ).
Two femora here have been dated to the Late Neolithic . A number of sites in northern England,
such as Dowel Cave, Derbyshire and King Alfrid’s Cave, Yorkshire, yielded disarticulated human
remains that have been attributed to the Neolithic (though not directly dated) ; in these two cases
it has been suggested that earlier interments were pushed aside to make room for new additions,
52
K 1911.
Berichte der RGK ,
53
S / R in prep.
8
Innovation and Continuity – Non-Megalithic Mortuary Practices in the Baltic
recalling practices from mortuary monuments . Sufficient detail is provided for King Alfrid’s
Cave to support this interpretation, in that numerous small bones of the hands and feet were
recovered . This is less clear at Dowel Cave, where, from the brief report that is available, it seems
that there are too few postcranial elements in relation to the crania , leading Gilks to infer the
interment of both intact corpses – as some articulated elements were also found – and selected
skeletonised elements, with an emphasis on ‘skulls’ and longbones .
Striking is that neolithic cave burial in Britain does not appear in any way to represent a continuation of mesolithic practices. While caves were indeed used for the deposition of human
remains in the Mesolithic, the vast majority fall in the earlier part of this period, leaving a gap of
nearly two millennia between the latest Mesolithic dates directly on human bone from caves and
the earliest Neolithic dates (Fig. ). The very few exceptions include a single human tooth from
Foxhole Cave, Glamorgan, dated to – cal BC , and a human tibia dating to –
cal BC from another Fox Hole Cave, this time in Derbyshire. This pattern was noted by
Chamberlain, and further work has only served to strengthen it , such that it seems very unlikely
that it can be attributed to sampling error. This serves at the same time to put to rest any notion
that cave burial, preceding the use of monuments, may have been a source of inspiration for the
latter ; if anything, the relationship is likely to be the other way around . A possible alternative
view, however, is that people in the Neolithic became aware of cave burial through encountering
mesolithic human remains in their own use and exploration of caves. This is an idea that may
warrant further consideration, though the fact that mesolithic and neolithic human remains are
rarely found in the same caves does not lend support to this scenario.
Accounting for the variability
Having given some indication of the range of mortuary practices found in the earlier Neolithic of
Britain, how is this variability to be explained ? The first possibility to be considered and discounted
is that it is diachronic : the available dates provide no evidence for this, though in general the use of
caves may extend later into the Neolithic than the use of mortuary monuments. The possibility
of regional variation is more difficult to address, as some practices are inherently constrained by the
presence of suitable landforms, most obviously caves and rivers. Nevertheless, it is reasonably clear
that the use of caves and of mortuary monuments overlap both chronologically and spatially in a
number of regions (e. g. southern Wales, western Scotland, northern England), as discussed in more
detail below.
One obvious and potentially fruitful line of inquiry involves a comparison of the demographic
profiles of the populations found in the different contexts. It was already noted above, for example,
that causewayed enclosures tend to have a higher proportion of children compared with many long
barrows and chambered tombs. There is in addition some indication that children are similarly
better represented in caves , though such conclusions can be problematic, as they generally rely
on the neolithic attribution of entire assemblages on the basis of ‘associated’ finds, cranial morphology, or, at best, C dates on a subset of individuals, indeed sometimes only a single individual,
54
55
56
57
58
59
B 1959 ; L / L 1959.
L / L 1959.
B 1959.
G 1989, 14.
P 2000.
C 2001.
60
61
62
63
64
C 1996 ; 1997 ; see also B 2005
for a wider discussion of this hiatus.
E. g. S / R 2002a ; b.
Cf. B / E 2002.
Cf. G 1989.
C 1997.
Rick J. Schulting • Non-monumental burial in Britain
9
as at Hay Wood Cave, Somerset . At present it is simply not possible to adequately compare the
demographic profiles for caves and monuments, as too much of the necessary data either do not
exist or are unreliable. This material urgently needs systematic re-examination, and, while much
progress has been made in recent years , the kind of broad comparison required here is still some
way off. If any demographic biases can be identified, they will undoubtedly be subtle ones, based
on relatively small, but potentially still meaningful, differences in proportions, since adult males
and females, and children are represented at all site types.
The above discussion treats the various alternative burial places as though they were discrete
and mutually exclusive. This may not necessarily be the case. Considering first burials in monuments, it has long been noted that many sites have either too few or too many crania in relation to
postcrania. West Kennet long barrow, for example, has too few crania, while the nearby and at
least partly contemporary causewayed enclosure of Windmill Hill has a surfeit of human crania
relative to postcrania. This has been used to suggest the circulation of human skeletal elements,
and in particular crania. This idea, though oft-repeated, seems overstated in this particular case :
the human bone assemblage at Windmill Hill is so small that any such link must be considered
as very tenuous. Another potentially relevant practice is that of excarnation, the significance of
which during the Neolithic has long been debated . A related possibility involves secondary burial,
i. e., the removal of skeletal material from a primary burial context into a secondary context. This
could entail initial surface exposure, or burial in a flat grave, or perhaps a cave, followed by collection of some or all of the elements and subsequent placement into a mortuary monument. The
possible marker post at Handley mentioned above would facilitate such retrieval (and the skeleton
here was itself partially disarticulated). This scenario is supported by the frequent underrepresentation in mortuary monuments of the small bones of the hands and feet, which would be easily
missed – and perhaps considered of less significance – when material was gathered up from the
primary excarnation or burial location. King has suggested that the variety of funerary treatments
in the British Neolithic can be attributable to a mobile, dispersed settlement system . At the same
time, many mortuary monuments appear to themselves show sequential stages of burial, with
bodies initially placed near the entrance, and then pushed further back and rearranged as they
decompose and new bodies were added . In some cases cut marks seem to indicate that the
process was occasionally assisted by intentional disarticulation .
What is noteworthy is that all of the ‘burial’ contexts discussed above, with the possible
exception of river finds, include both articulated and disarticulated human remains, often emphasising the deposition of crania (in rivers this may be largely a taphonomic phenomenon). Monumental burial contexts are not privileged in this regard ; crania are also disproportionately represented at a number of cave sites, including Ifton, Dowel and Raschoille (though with earlier finds
there is always the issue of collection bias), as well as in one of the Sutton Courtenay pits (assuming
their neolithic attribution is correct), and at Cadbury.
There are other points of similarity, most notably between monuments and caves. The corpse,
or skeleton, went through some of the same processes at both types of sites. While the evidence is
65
66
67
68
69
E / E 1972 ; H et al. 1997.
E. g. MK forthcoming ; W / W
2000.
P 1962 ; R 1988 ; S 1965 ;
T 1984 ; 1996.
P 1962, 68 ; S 1965, 137.
Two child burials and 27 scattered bone fragments
representing an estimated seven individuals : B 1965.
Berichte der RGK ,
70
71
72
73
B / C 1978 ; C 1977 ; C 1925 ; see discussion in D 2004, 146–153.
K 2001 ; 2003.
B / R 2006 ; S 1990 ; W /
W 1998.
B 1999 ; S / B 2004.
10
Innovation and Continuity – Non-Megalithic Mortuary Practices in the Baltic
Fig. 4. Gop Caves, Flintshire, North Wales, viewed from below. The massive Gop cairn, believed to be a contemporary Neolithic monument, rises in the background behind the ridge. (Photo : R. Schulting).
not always unambiguous, it is possible to state that at least some cave and rock shelter sites saw the
deposition of disarticulated human remains. It is unlikely that the narrow crevice at Ifton Quarry
could have held fully fleshed bodies, and at King Alfrid’s Cave disarticulated human bones “were
closely packed into small natural alcoves on each side of the cave” . At Dowel Cave a “peculiar
concentration” of seven “skulls” was found, “mostly lying under the shelter of the cave wall and
usually in part enclosed by a curb of small stones” . Longbones at the site had been stacked up
into a ‘convenient parcel’, a practice mirrored in a number of mortuary monuments. And, as seen
in some formal monuments, cutmarks in positions indicating disarticulation, in this case removal
of the lower legs, were found on a skeleton from Carsington Pasture Cave, Derbyshire, directly
dated to the Late Neolithic / Beaker Period .
The remains of more than individuals of both sexes and varying ages, with all parts of the
skeleton reportedly represented, were recovered from Gop Cave, Flintshire . Some individuals
were more articulated than others, again suggesting successive burial, with earlier skeletons shifted
aside to make room for new interments. Possible grave goods include two jet ‘belt sliders’ and
Middle Neolithic Peterborough ware – this attribution is confirmed by AMS dates on the human
remains . Most intriguingly, the majority of the remains were contained within a rectangular burial
chamber constructed using limestone slabs, abutting the cave wall. This is somewhat reminiscent of
Dowel Cave, though here two transverse slabs separated particular interments. The construction
of internal partitions and chambers within caves again blurs the distinction between ‘natural’ and
‘built’ places, and invites comparisons with the internal arrangement of chambered tombs .
74
75
76
77
78
L / L 1959, 25.
B 1959, 104.
C 2001.
B D 1901 ; V / J 1970.
S / G 2008.
79
80
B 1959, 105.
Though B / E 2002 argue for a closer
affinity with sealed cists of the Late Neolithic and
Early Bronze Age.
Rick J. Schulting • Non-monumental burial in Britain
11
Fig. 5. Gop Caves, entrances (Photo : R. Schulting).
What is perhaps even more striking, though admittedly at the same time more speculative, is
how a small number of caves appear to mimic the form of chambered tombs. Gop Cave provides
a good example (Figs –). When viewed from below, the chalk ridge in which the cave entrances
are found takes the appearance of a long low mound, typical of the false-crested locations of many
monuments, with the caves bearing a distinct resemblance to the lateral chambers of chambered
tombs. Of course, this depends on the nature of the vegetation around the cave mouths, but then
this also applies to discussions of the appearance of monuments . Any modifications around the
mouths of the caves – such as widening chambers for example – or activities carried out just outside, could enhance their visibility by exposing the light-coloured limestone. Little Hoyle Cave,
Carmarthenshire, which also contained a considerable quantity of earlier neolithic human remains,
presents a similar appearance, with three entrances opening out of a limestone cliff face . Thus,
rather than being hidden places , at least some caves and rock shelters may have been selected
because of their very conspicuousness in the landscape.
One possible explanation for the use of different burial places relates to differential status
relationships. The underlying bases on which such distinctions might be made in the British Neolithic need not overly concern us at present, but could entail economic, political or ideological
considerations, or, more likely, a combination of all three. Monumental mortuary contexts involve
varying but often considerable amounts of labour investment for their initial construction. After
this, of course, they are present in the landscape ostensibly in the same way as natural features such
as caves, but this ignores claims of legitimacy and ownership often ascribed to built places (and to
‘natural’ places for that matter). More important for present purposes are the results of an extensive recent dating programme and the application of Bayesian modelling, which suggest that
81
82
83
C / G 2000.
G et al. 1986, Plate 8.
B / E 2002.
Berichte der RGK ,
84
85
S / B 1981.
B / E 2002 ; B 1998 ; 2000.
12
Innovation and Continuity – Non-Megalithic Mortuary Practices in the Baltic
mortuary monuments in southern Britain at least, were frequently built and used over very short
spans of (archaeological) time, often of less than a century . Thus the contrast between monuments as built places requiring labour, and caves as found places, can arguably be sustained.
One plausible hypothesis, then (though certainly not the only one), might be that those whose
remains were deposited in flat graves and in caves were of lower social standing in some respect, and
did not meet the requirements for inclusion in a monument. This is not a new idea, as it has long
been clear that neolithic monuments can only hold a subset of the population, but the discussion
has not progressed much beyond noting this. It is practically impossible to investigate this hypothesis through recourse to an analysis of grave goods, as these are relatively infrequent in all mortuary
contexts in the British Neolithic, consisting of modest quantities of pottery, worked flint and faunal
remains. Another approach, explored briefly here, involves the use of stable isotope analysis to
compare aspects of the average long-term diets (over c. ten years) of those interred in mortuary
monuments and caves. The reasoning is that those interred in monuments may have had privileged
access to novel resources, i. e., domesticated plants and animals, while those excluded from such
contexts may have made greater use of ‘traditional’ wild resources. Near the coast, this might include
the use of marine foods. Stable carbon isotopes (dC) are particularly useful for identifying the
inclusion of marine protein in human diets, as to a lesser extent is stable nitrogen (dN). A second
possibility is that those interred in monuments would have greater access to animal protein (meat
and milk products), which would be expected to be reflected in elevated dN values.
The Gower peninsula in Glamorgan, South Wales, presents a particularly useful case study, as
data are available from Parc le Breos Cwm, a classic Cotswold-Severn chambered tomb, and a
series of surrounding cave sites. The most immediately relevant comparison is with Cathole Cave ,
located only a few tens of metres from the chambered tomb ; indeed the sites are intervisible (Fig. ).
AMS dating of a human mandible from Cathole to – cal BC (OxA- : ± BP)
demonstrates that both sites were used for burial in the mid-fourth millennium BC . A comparison
of dC and dN values shows that individuals buried in the cave had similar dC values, but on
average lower dN values, potentially indicating lower consumption of animal protein (Table ).
The difference is not great, however, and in fact fails to reach statistical significance due to the high
variance seen in the three Cathole measurements (Student’s t test with unequal variance, t =.,
p =.). But including data from other cave sites on the Gower (Foxhole Cave, Pitton Cliff, Spurge
Hole) and elsewhere in South Wales (Caldey Island, Little Hoyle Cave, Ogof Garreg Hir, Priory
Farm Cave, Red Fescue Hole) suggests that there is indeed a slight but significant difference in
dN between the cave sites and Parc le Breos Cwm chambered tomb (Student’s t test with unequal
variance, t =., p=.) (Tab. ; Fig. ), owing mainly to lower values seen at Little Hoyle Cave
Site
d13C
±
n
d15N
±
n
Parc le Breos Cwm
Cathole
-20.5
-20.8
0.95
0.07
10
3
9.6
8.0
0.43
0.97
10
3
South Wales caves
-20.6
0.43
23
8.8
0.84
21
North Wales caves
-20.0
0.46
7
9.9
0.71
5
source
Richards 1998
Schultingª/ªRichards in prep.
Schultingª/ªRichards 2002a;
Schultingª/ªRichards in prep.
Schultingª/ªGonzalez in press;
Schultingª/ªRichards in prep.
Table 1. Summary of C and N stable isotope values on human bone collagen from Parc le Breos Cwm chambered
tomb and cave sites in South and North Wales.
86
87
88
W et al. 2007.
A 1968 ; H 1812, 87 ; K 1975 ;
though see B / R 2006.
C et al. 1982 ; DN / E 1978 ; 1981.
89
90
91
D 1937.
C 1977.
S / R in prep. ; W / W
1998.
Rick J. Schulting • Non-monumental burial in Britain
13
Fig. 6. View from just below Cathole Cave, looking towards Parc le Breos Cwm chambered tomb, Glamorgan,
South Wales (Photo : R. Schulting).
Fig. 7. Bivariate plot of C and N stable isotope values on human bone collagen from Parc le Breos Cwm chambered
tomb and various cave sites in South and North Wales.
(stable nitrogen isotope values from caves in North Wales are higher, and this warrants further
investigation) Again, there is no significant difference in dC values. This finding is important,
since all these sites are less than km from the coast, and so would have had easy access to the sea.
Berichte der RGK ,
14
Innovation and Continuity – Non-Megalithic Mortuary Practices in the Baltic
While some individuals do suggest a minor contribution of marine protein (on the order of perhaps
%), there is no distinction to be made between monumental and cave contexts in this regard. By
contrast, in the Mesolithic, substantial use was made of marine resources on nearby Caldey Island,
Pembrokeshire . Thus, there is at present an intriguing hint of isotopically distinct diets for those
interred in mortuary monuments and those interred in caves, with those in at least some caves
showing lower dN values. Whether this is due to a greater proportion of plant foods in their diets,
or to even less consumption of marine resources is not yet clear : the absence of a corresponding
difference in dC values seems to suggest the former. This is work in progress, and the results
reported here are preliminary. Further research is required both to confirm and expand this observation, and to look at other dietary and health indicators.
Abstract
While long barrows and chambered tombs have long received most of the attention of British
neolithic archaeologists investigating mortuary practices, it is clear that there were a variety of
different depositional contexts for the remains of the dead at this time. Other kinds of monuments,
and in particular causewayed enclosures, seem to have played an important role in funerary behaviour. But other, less immediately recognisable places also feature. More flat graves are being identified through the application of AMS dating to burials lacking diagnostic grave goods. A number of
human remains recovered from river contexts have also been shown in recent years to fall within
the Neolithic Period, raising the possibility in some instances of river ‘burial’. But, at least quantitatively, the most important alternative burial location to monuments is without question deposition in caves. Again, it is the increasingly routine use of AMS dating that is raising awareness of the
number of neolithic human remains from caves. In many cases there appear to be parallels in how
the skeleton is treated in caves and monuments, such as the deposition of both articulated and
disarticulated remains, and the manipulation of skeletal elements. The significance of these different burial locations remains poorly understood, but there are some clear lines of inquiry that can
be explored. Foremost is the need to document the full extent of cave burial in the Neolithic
through the instigation of systematic dating programmes. This can then provide the basis for a
comparison of the demographic and health profiles of groups interred in caves and in monuments.
Preliminary stable isotope results from South Wales suggest that the long-term diets of individuals
differed significantly between these two burial contexts, intimating the existence of considerable
socioeconomic differentiation in neolithic Britain.
92
S 2004 ; S / R 2002a.
Rick J. Schulting • Non-monumental burial in Britain
15
Zusammenfassung
Bei der Erforschung neolithischer Bestattungssitten stehen die Langhügel und Kammergräber seit
langem im Mittelpunkt. Jedoch ist offensichtlich in ihnen nur ein Teil der neolithischen Population bestattet worden. Weitere Monumente, die im Kontext des Bestattungswesens Bedeutung
besitzen, sind neolithische Erdwerke. Jedoch besitzen andere, weniger auffällige, Fundgruppen
ebenfalls Bedeutung. Beispielsweise ließen sich einige Flachgräber, ohne diagnostische Grabbeigaben, erst durch die Anwendung von AMS -Daten ins Neolithikum datieren.
Eine Zahl von menschlichen Knochenfunden aus dem Kontext von Flüssen, läßt sich nach
Ergebnissen der zurückliegenden Jahre, ins Neolithikum datieren und spricht für die Annahme,
dass in dieser Periode auch „Flussbestattungen“ vorgenommen wurden.
Die wichtigste „nichtmonumentale“ Fundart stellen Deponierungen von menschlichen Knochen in Höhlen dar. Auch in diesem Fall waren es AMS -Daten die zeigten, dass Deponierungen in
den Höhlen auch neolithischen Alters sein können.
In einigen Fällen zeigten sich Parallelen bei der Behandlung der Skelette in Höhlen und
Grabmonumenten, wie die Deponierung von zerbrochenen oder unversehrten Knochen und die
Manipulation von Skelettteilen.
Die Deutung der verschiedenen Deponierungen bleibt weitgehend im Dunkeln aber es zeigen
sich einige Ermittlungsansätze. Vor allem ist es erforderlich die neolithischen Höhlenbestattungen
systematisch in großem Umfang zu datieren. Ein derartiges Programm könnte die Grundlage
eines Vergleiches der demographischen und Gesundheitsparameter der in Höhlen und Monumenten Bestatteten bilden.
Erste Untersuchungen von stabilen Isotopen aus Südwales, zeigen, dass die Ernährungsgrundlagen von in Höhlen und Monumenten Bestatteten deutlich verschieden war, was als Hinweis auf
sozioökonmische Unterschiede im britischen Neolithikum gewertet werden kann.
Berichte der RGK ,
16
Innovation and Continuity – Non-Megalithic Mortuary Practices in the Baltic
Résumé
Les tumulus allongés et les tombes à chambres ont déjà retenu depuis longtemps l’attention des
archéologues britanniques étudiant les pratiques funéraires du Néolithique. Il est cependant bien
établi que d’autres types de sépultures existaient à cette époque, en particulier les enclos à fossé
interrompu qui semblent avoir occupé une place importante dans les traditions funéraires. Mais
d’autres structures, moins apparentes, méritent également notre attention. Grâce aux datations
AMS, on peut identifier un nombre croissant de tombes plates dénuées d’offrandes funéraires diagnostiques. Un certain nombre de restes humains provenant de contextes fluviaux remontent
finalement au Néolithique, soulevant l’éventuelle existence de sépultures ‘fluviales’. Mais, au niveau
quantitatif, ce sont indubitablement les grottes qui offrent l’alternative la plus importante aux
monuments funéraires. Ici encore, ce sont les datations AMS qui permettent de saisir l’importance
numérique des restes humains néolithiques trouvés dans des grottes. Apparemment, les squelettes
ont été parfois traités de façon similaire dans les grottes et les monuments funéraires : dépôt de
restes humains en position anatomique ou désarticulée, manipulation d’éléments du squelette. On
ne comprend pas encore la raison de ces différents sites funéraires, mais plusieurs axes de recherche
s’offrent déjà. Il importe tout d’abord de dater systématiquement l’ensemble des sépultures en
grottes du Néolithique. Un tel programme pourra servir de base à une comparaison des profils
démographiques et de santé de groupes enterrés dans des grottes et des monuments. Des analyses
préliminaires d’isotopes stables du sud du Pays de Galle indiquent que les habitudes alimentaires
individuelles de ces deux grands groupes étaient fort distinctes, suggérant l’existence de différences
socioéconomiques considérables en Grande-Bretagne durant le Néolithique.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the organisers of the conference for hosting a most enjoyable meeting. Thanks
also to Joanna Ostapkowicz for critical comments on the paper.
Literaturverzeichnis
17
Bibliography
A 1972
L. A, “By South Cadbury is that Camelot...”
The excavation of Cadbury Castle 1966 –1970
(London 1972).
A et al. 2000
T. A / P. H / A. B, Eton Rowing
Course at Dorney Lake. The burial traditions.
Tarmac Papers 4, 2000, 65 –106.
A et al. 2004
T. A / A. B / H. L-W,
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 Stone Age : Aspects of
the Neolithic in South-East England. Council
British Arch. Research Report 137 (York 2004)
82–98.
A 1966
P. A, The Fussell’s Lodge Long Barrow
Excavations 1957. Archaeologia 100, 1966,
1– 80.
A et al. 1979
P. A / I.F. S / J.G. E, Excavation
of three long barrows near Avebury, Wiltshire.
Proc. Prehist. Soc. 45, 1979, 207–300.
A 1968
R. J. C. A, Old mortality : some aspects
of burial and population in Neolithic England.
In : J. M. Coles / D .D. A. Simpson (eds.), Studies
in Ancient Europe : Essays Presented to Stuart
Piggott (Leicester 1968) 83 –93.
B / H 1997
A. B / C. H, Excavations at Barrow
Hills, Radley, Oxfordshire. Vol. I. The Neolithic
and Bronze Age Monument Complex. Thames
Valley Landscapes Monogr. 11 (Oxford 1997).
B / E 2002
J. B / M. R. E, Places apart ?
Caves and monuments in Neolithic and earlier
Berichte der RGK ,
Bronze Age Britain. Cambridge Arch. Journal
12, 2002, 113–129.
B 1999
M. B, Dancing with the dead in a mass
grave. British Arch. 50, 1999, 6 –7.
B / R 2006
J. B / J. R, Neolithic burial taphonomy, ritual, and interpretation in Britain and
Ireland : a review. In : R. Gowland / C. Knüsel
(eds.), The Social Archaeology of Funerary
Remains. (Oxford 2006) 57–80.
B 2000
M. B, Skull deposition at Goldcliff and in
the Severn Estuary. In : M. Bell / A. Caseldein /
H. Neumann (eds.), Prehistoric Intertidal Archaeology in the Welsh Severn Estuary. Council
British Arch. Research Report 120 (York 2000)
64–73.
B / C 1978
D. G. B / I. N. I. C, Cotswold burial
rites. Man, N. S. 13, 1978, 134 –137.
B 2005
S.M. B, Two hiatuses in human
bone radiocarbon dates in Britain (17000 to
5000 cal BP). Antiquity 79, 2005, 505 –513.
B 1999
C. B, Oban – Raschoille. Discovery and
Excav. Scotland 1999, 112.
B D 1874
W. B D, Cave Hunting (London
1874).
B D 1901
W. B D, On the cairn and sepulchral
cave at Gop, near Prestatyn. Arch. Journal 58,
1901, 322–341.
B D / B 1870
W. B D / E. B, On the discovery of
playcnemic men in Denbighshire. Journal Ethn.
Soc. London 2, 1870, 440 – 468.
18
Innovation and Continuity – Non-Megalithic Mortuary Practices in the Baltic
B 1998
R. B, Ruined buildings, ruined stones :
enclosures and natural places in the Neolithic
of south-west England. World Arch. 30, 1998,
13–22.
B 2000
R. B, An Archaeology of Natural Places
(London 2000).
B / C 1988
R. B / R.A. C, A new study of
the cursus complex at Dorchester on Thames.
Oxford Journal Arch. 7, 1988, 271–290.
B / G 1988
R. B / K. G, Human skulls from
the River Thames, their dating and significance.
Antiquity 62, 1988, 503–509.
B / H 1984
R. B / R. H, The Neolithic
sequence in the Upper Thames Valley. In : R.
Bradley / J. Gardiner (eds.), Neolithic Studies : a
Review of Some Current Research. BAR British
Ser. 133 (Oxford 1984) 107–134.
B 1959
D. B, The excavation of Dowel Cave,
Earl Sterndale, 1958–9. Derbyshire Arch. Journal
79, 1959, 97–109.
B / L 1995
A.L. B / J.N. L, Irish bog bodies :
the radiocarbon dates. In : R. C. T / R. G.
S (eds.), Bog Bodies : New Discoveries and
New Perspectives (London 1995) 133 –136.
B 1994
N. B, The Neolithic-Bronze Age Transition
in Britain. BAR British Ser. 238 (Oxford 1994).
B 1965
D.R. B, Human remains. In : I.F. Smith
(ed.), Windmill Hill and Avebury : Excavations
by Alexander Keiller 1925 –1939 (Oxford 1965)
138–140.
C 1977
J.B. C, The Upper Palaeolithic of Britain
(Oxford 1977).
C 1996
A.T. C, More dating evidence for
human remains in British caves. Antiquity 70,
1996, 950–953.
C 1997
A.. C, In this dark cavern thy
burying place. British Arch. 26, 1997, 6.
C 1999
A.T. C, Carsington Pasture Cave,
Brassington, Derbyshire : a Prehistoric Burial
Site. Capra 1, 1999 : http ://capra.group.shef.
ac.uk/1/carsing.html
C 2001
A.T. C, Fox Hole Cave, Derbyshire,
and the earliest Neolithic in Britain. Past 38,
2001, 7–9.
C / W 1999
A.T. C / J.P. W, A gazetteer of English caves, fissures and rock shelters
containing human remains. Capra 1, 1999 :
http ://capra.group.shef.ac.uk/1/caves.html
C / W 2000a
A.T. C / J.P. W, A gazetteer of
Welsh caves, fissures and rock shelters containing
human remains. Capra 2, 2000a : http ://capra.
group.shef.ac.uk/2/wales.html
C / W 2000b
A.T. C / J.P. W, A gazetteer
of Scottish caves, fissures and rock shelters
containing human remains. Capra 2, 2000b :
http ://capra.group.shef.ac.uk/2/scotland.html
C / G 2000
H.P. C / B.R. G, Palaeoecology
and the perception of prehistoric landscapes :
some comments on visual approaches to phenomenology. Antiquity 74, 2000, 316 –319.
C 1981
R. C, The emergence of formal disposal
areas and the ‘problem’ of megalithic tombs in
prehistoric Europe. In : R. Chapman / I. Kinnes /
K. Randsborg (eds.), The Archaeology of Death
(Cambridge 1981) 71–81.
C 1977
J.T. C, Burial rites in a Cotswold
long barrow. Man, N. S. 12, 1977, 22 – 32.
C et al. 1982
B.S. C / D.E. N / H.P. S,
Stable isotope ratios as a measure of marine versus
terrestrial protein in ancient diets. Science 216,
1982, 1131–1132.
C 1973
J.X.W.P. C, The chambered cairns of
the Carlingford culture : an enquiry into origins.
In : G. Daniel / P. Kjærum (eds.), Megalithic
Graves and Ritual. Jutland Arch. Soc. Publ. 11
(København 1973) 105–116.
Literaturverzeichnis
C 1961
L.F. C, A Neolithic skull and animal
bones found at Newport. Monmouthshire
Ant. 1, 1961, 10 –11.
C 1925
O.G.S. C, The Long Barrows of the
Cotswolds (Gloucester 1925).
D 1937
G. D, The chambered tomb in Parc Le
Breos Cwm, S. Wales. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 3, 1937,
71– 86.
D 1958
G. D, The Megalith Builders of Western
Europe (London 1958).
D 2004
T. D, Long Barrows of the Cotswolds and
Surrounding Areas (Stroud 2004).
D 1989a
M. D, Recent advances in cave archaeology in Southwest Wales. In : T. D. Ford (ed.),
Limestones and Caves of Wales (Cambridge
1989) 79 – 91.
D 1989b
M. D, Cave archaeology in North Wales.
In : T.D. Ford (ed.), Limestones and Caves of
Wales (Cambridge 1989) 92 – 101.
DN / E 1978
M. J. DN / S. E, Influence of diet
on the distribution of carbon isotopes in animals.
Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 42, 1978, 495–506.
DN / E 1981
M.J. DN / S. E, Influence of Diet
on the Distribution of Nitrogen Isotopes in
Animals. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 45, 1981,
341–351.
D 1966
G.C. D, Neolithic occupation sites in
east Kent. Ant. Journal 46, 1966, 1–25.
E 1988
C. E, Excavations at Haddenham, Cambridgeshire : a ‘planned’ enclosure and its regional
affinities. In : C. Burgess / C. Mordant / M. Maddison (eds.), Enclosures and Defences in the
Neolithic of Western Europe. BAR Internat. Ser.
403 (Oxford 1988) 127–148.
E / H 2006
C. E / I. H, A Woodland Archaeology.
Neolithic Sites at Haddenham. McDonald Inst.
Monogr. (Cambridge 2006).
Berichte der RGK ,
19
E / E 1972
A. E / R. E, Hay Wood Cave
burials, Mendip Hills, Somerset. Proc. Univ.
Bristol Spelaeological Soc. 13, 1972, 5 –29.
G et al. 1997
D. G / A. H / M. P, Archaeological investigations at Langford Quarry,
Nottinghamshire 1995–6. Tarmac Papers 1,
1997, 29–40.
G 1973
J.A. G, The Neolithic and Early Bronze
age pottery from Elbolton Cave, Wharfedale.
Yorkshire Arch. Journal 45, 1973, 41–54.
G 1989
J.A. G, Cave burials of northern England.
British Archaeology 11, 1989, 11–16.
G et al. 1986
H. S. G / P. A. B / E. C / G.
C / A. C, Excavations at Little Hoyle
(Longbury Bank), Wales in 1984. In : D. A. Roe
(ed.), Studies in the Upper Palaeolithic of Britain
and Northwest Europe. BAR, Internat. Ser. 296
(Oxford 1986) 99–119.
H 1983
J.W. H, Isbister : A Chambered Tomb in
Orkney. BAR, British Ser. 115 (Oxford 1983).
H et al. 1997
R.E.M. H / P.B. P / C. B
R / G.J. K, Radiocarbon dates
from the Oxford AMS system : Archaeometry
datelist 24. Archaeometry 39, 1997, 247–262.
H 1812
R.C. H, The Ancient History of South
Wiltshire (London 1812).
J 1999
A. J, Local colour : megalithic architecture
and colour symbolism in Neolithic Britain.
Oxford Journal Arch. 18, 1999, 339–350.
K 1911
A. K, Report on a human cranium and
animal remains found during the construction
of entrance to New Docks at Newport, Mon.
In : Human and Other Remains Found in the
Neighbourhood of Newport, Mon. (Newport
1911) 17–23.
K 2001
M.P. K, Life and death in the ‘Neolithic’ :
dwelling spaces in southern Britain. European
Journal Arch. 4, 2001, 323 –345.
20
Innovation and Continuity – Non-Megalithic Mortuary Practices in the Baltic
K 2003
M.P. K, Unparalleled Behaviour : Britain and
Ireland during the ‘Mesolithic’ and ‘Neolithic’.
BAR British Ser. 355 (Oxford 2003).
K 1975
I. K, Monumental function in British
Neolithic burial practices. World Arch. 7, 1975,
16–29.
K 1979
I. K, Round Barrows and Ring-Ditches in
the British Neolithic. British Museum Occasional
Paper 7 (London 1979).
K 1992
I. K, Non-Megalithic Long Barrows and
Allied Structures in the British Neolithic. British
Mus. Occasional Paper 52 (London 1992).
K 1911
F.H.S. K, Report on the human remains
from the Ifton limestone quarries, near Newport,
Mon. In : Human and Other Remains Found
in the Neighbourhood of Newport, Mon.
(Newport 1911) 5 –16.
K / C 1995
C. K / G. D. C, On the significance of
the crania from the River Thames. Antiquity 63,
1995, 162 –169.
L / L 1959
W. H. L / J. R. L, The excavation of King Alfrid’s Cave, Ebberston. Transact.
Scarborough and District Arch. Soc. 1, 1959,
23–31.
L 1923
E.T. L, A Saxon village near Sutton
Courtenay, Berkshire. Archaeologia 73, 1923,
147–192.
L 1934
E.T. L, Recent Bronze Age discoveries in
Berkshire and Oxfordshire. Ant. Journal 14,
1934, 264–276.
MK forthcoming
J. I. MK, Human remains. In : R. J.
Mercer / F. Healy (eds.), Hambledon Hill, Dorset,
England. Excavation and survey of a Neolithic
monument complex and its surrounding landscape. English Heritage Arch. Rep. (London
forthcoming).
M 1980
R. J. M, Hambledon Hill : A Neolithic
Landscape (Edinburgh 1980).
M 1988
R. J. M, Hambledon Hill, Dorest, England. In : C. Burgess / C. Mordant / M. Maddison
(eds.), Enclosures and Defences in the Neolithic
of Western Europe. BAR Internat. Ser. 403
(Oxford 1988) 89–106.
M / H forthcoming
R. J. M / F. H, Hambledon Hill, Dorset, England. Excavation and survey of a Neolithic monument complex and its surrounding
landscape. English Heritage Arch. Rep. (London
forthcoming).
P 1928
A. E. W. P, Burials at New Park Quarry.
Transact. Bristol and Gloucestershire Arch. Soc.
50, 1928, 361–363.
P 2000
P. P, The Paviland radiocarbon dating
programme. In : S. Aldhouse-Green (ed.), Paviland Cave and the ‘Red Lady’ : A Definitive Report
(Bristol 2000) 63 –71.
P 1929
S. P, Neolithic pottery and other remains
from Pangbourne, Berks., and Caversham, Oxon.
Proc. Prehist. Soc. East Anglia 6, 1929, 30 –39.
P 1936
S. P, Handley Hill, Dorset. A Neolithic
bowl and the date of the entrenchment. Proc.
Prehist. Soc. 2, 1936, 229–230.
P 1962
S. P, The West Kennet Long Barrow. Arch.
Reports (London) 4 (London 1962).
P-R 1898
L.-G. P-R, Excavations at Cranborne
Chase. 4. Excavations of South Lodge Camp /
Rushmore Park, Handley Hill / Entrenchment,
Stone and Bronze Age barrows and Camp /
Handley, Dorset, and Martin Down Camp
(London 1898).
P 1990
T. P, Down through the ages : a review
of the Oban cave deposits. Scottish Arch. Rev. 7,
1990, 58–74.
P 1976
F. P, A Neolithic multiple burial from
Fengate. Antiquity 50, 1976, 232 –233.
P 1998
F. P, Etton : Excavations at a Neolithic
Causewayed Enclosure near Maxey, Cambridge
Literaturverzeichnis
shire, 1982 –7. Arch. Report (London) 18
(London 1998).
R 1973
C. R, Monuments, mobilisation and
social organisation in Neolithic Wessex. In :
C. Renfrew (ed.), The Explanation of Culture
Change : models in prehistory (London 1973)
539–558.
R 1976
C. R, Megaliths, territories and populations. In : S.J. De Laet (ed.), Acculturation and
Continuity in Atlantic Europe mainly during
the Neolithic Period and the Bronze Age. Diss.
Arch. Gandenses 16 (Brugge 1976) 198 –220.
R 1979
C. R (ed.), Investigations in Orkney.
Reports Research Com. Soc. Ant. London 38
(London 1979).
R 1988
C. R, Altered images : a re-examination
of Neolithic mortuary practices in Orkney. In :
J. Barrett / I. Kinnes (eds.), The Archaeology of
Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age : Recent
Trends (Sheffield 1988) 42 –55.
R 1998
M. P. R, Bone stable isotope analysis :
reconstructing the diet of humans, In: A. Whittle /
M. Wysocki, Parc le Breos Cwm transepted
long cairn, Gower, West Glamorgan : date,
contents and context. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 64,
1998, 165 –166.
S 1990
A. S, Hazleton North, Gloucestershire,
1979 –1982 : The Excavation of a Neolithic
Long Cairn of the Cotswold-Severn Group.
Arch. Report (London) 13 (London 1990).
S 2004
R. J. S, An Irish Sea change : some
implications for the Mesolithic-Neolithic
transition. In : V. Cummings / C. Fowler (eds.),
The Neolithic of the Irish Sea : Materiality
and Traditions of Practice (Oxford 2004)
22 – 28.
S / G 2008
R. J. S / S. G, ‘Prestatyn
Woman’ reconsidered. In : M. Bell (ed.), Prehistoric Coastal Communities. The Mesolithic in
western Britain. Council British Arch. Research
Report 149 (York 2008) 303–305.
Berichte der RGK ,
21
S / R 2002a
R.J. S / M.P. R, Finding the
coastal Mesolithic in Southwest Britain : AMS
dates and stable isotope results on human remains
from Caldey Island, Pembrokeshire, South Wales.
Antiquity 76, 2002, 1011–1025.
S / R 2002b
R. J. S / M.P. R, The wet, the
wild and the domesticated : the MesolithicNeolithic transition on the west coast of Scotland.
European Journal Arch. 5, 2002, 147–189.
S / R in prep
R. J. S / M. P. R, New dating
and dietary information on human remains from
cave sites in Wales.
S / W 2005
R. J. S / M. W, “In this chambered tumulus were found cleft skulls...” : an
assessment of the evidence for cranial trauma
in the British Neolithic. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 71,
2005, 107–138.
S / T 1982
M. S / C. T, Ideology, symbolic
power and ritual communication : a reinterpretation of Neolithic mortuary practices. In : I.
Hodder (ed.), Symbolic and Structural Archaeology (Cambridge 1982) 129–154.
S 1931
S. S, Report on the human skeleton found
in Stoneyisland Bog, Portumma. Journal Galway
Arch. and Hist. Soc. 15, 1931, 73 –79.
S 1965
I. F. S, Windmill Hill and Avebury : Excavations by Alexander Keiller 1925 –1939
(Oxford 1965).
S / B 2004
M.J. S / M. B. B, Analysis and interpretation of flint toolmarks found on bones from
West Tump long barrow, Gloucestershire. Internat.
Journal Human Osteology 14, 2004, 18 –33.
S / B 1981
W. S / R. B, Some notes on work
organisation and society in prehistoric Wessex.
In : C. Ruggles / A. Whittle (eds.), Astronomy
and Society during the Period 4000 –1500 BC.
BAR British Ser. 88 (Oxford 1981) 289–296.
T 1991
J. T, Rethinking the Neolithic (Cambridge 1991).
22
Innovation and Continuity – Non-Megalithic Mortuary Practices in the Baltic
T 1984
I. J. N. T, Ritual, power and ideology :
a reconstruction of earlier Neolithic rituals
in Wessex. In : R. Bradley / J. Gardiner (eds.),
Neolithic Studies : A Review of Some Current
Research. BAR British Ser. 133 (Oxford 1984)
41– 60.
T 1996
I. J. N. T, The Origins of Agriculture in
Europe (London 1996).
T 1978
M.J. T, The history of Hartlepool
Bay. Internat. Journal Nautical Arch. 7, 1978,
71–75.
T et al. 2002
A. T / S. G / J. C. O, Prehistoric human and ungulate remains from Preston
Docks, Lancashire, UK : problems of river finds.
Journal Arch. Scien. 29, 2002, 423 – 433.
V / J 1970
A.E. V / R.D. J, An initial report
on the archaeological and palaeontological caves
and rock shelters in North Wales. Transact.
Cave Research Group Great Britain 12, 1970,
99 –107.
W / K 2000
A. W / D. K, The architecture
of sound in Neolithic Orkney. In : A. Ritchie
(ed.), Neolithic Orkney in its European Context
(Cambridge 2000) 259 –263.
W 1990
A. W, A pre-enclosure burial at Windmill
Hill, Wiltshire. Oxford Journal Arch. 9, 1990,
25 –28.
W et al. 2007
A. W / A. B / A. B / R. S / M. W, Building for the dead :
events, processes and changing worldviews
from the 38th to the 34th centuries cal BC in
southern Britain. Cambridge Arch. Journal 17,
2007, 123 –147.
W / W 1998
A. W / M. W, Parc le Breos Cwm
transepted long cairn, Gower, West Glamorgan :
date, contents and context. Proc. Prehist. Soc.
64, 1998, 139–182.
W 1978
R. V. S. W, A skull of Neolithic shape
from Newport Pagnell, Buckinghamshire. Records Buckinghamshire 20, 1978, 597– 600.
W / W 2000
M. W / A. W, Diversity, lifestyles
and rites : new biological and archaeological
evidence from British earlier Neolithic mortuary
assemblages. Antiquity 74, 2000, 591– 601.
Contact details of the author :
R ic k J. S c hu lt i n g
School of Archaeology
Beaumont Street
Oxford OX PG
U. K.
rick.schulting@arch.ox.ac.uk
Rick Schulting