Understanding the incorporation of older Human bodyparts into Bronze Age burials in Britain.

Improvements in dating techniques have led archaeologists to conclude that many artefacts placed in graves in Bronze Age Britain were already old when they were deposited. This possibly made them heirloom objects buried with people of significant standing, and retained till that point as an indicator of relationships to an older generation. Burials from this period also frequently include partial Human remains as well as the main burials, which raises the prospect that these objects too might have been heirloom objects prior to their burial.

Partial remains, including articulated and disarticulated fragments of bodies, are frequent occurrences in Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age burials in Britain, and have traditionally been interpreted as evidence for the disturbance of earlier remains at sites which were re-used due to some spiritual significance. From about 2100 BC onwards, the cremation of remains prior to burial became the predominant funerary practice, although these cremation burials appear to have often only comprised fragments of the deceased, and on occasion fragments of more than one individual.

In a paper published in the European Journal of Archaeology on 25 May 2022, Joanna Brück of the School of Archaeology at University College Dublin, and Thomas Booth of the Skoglund Laboratory at the Francis Crick Institute, explore the possibility that the partial remains found in many Bronze Age British burials may be the result of the deliberate placement of these remains as artefacts in their own right, rather than the accidental disturbance of earlier remains.

A number of recent studies have found evidence of bodies in Bronze Age tombs in Britain being mummified before they were deposited. The most famous of these is the mummy from Cladh Hallan on South Uist, which was deposited beneath the floor of a Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age roundhouse, but the practice has also been recorded from Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age tombs. It is therefore not unreasonable to wonder if partial remains, articulated, disarticulated or cremated, from Bronze Age tombs in Britain might also have been mummified prior to their placement within the burial sites.

Brück and Booth collated 81 radiocarbon dates from fifteen graves at thirteen different locations; sixty four of these were from previous studies and seventeen are new to this publication. Of the thirteen burial sites, eleven were Chalcolithic or Early Bronze Age in origin. Eleven of the graves contained only unburnt bone, while the remaining four contained cremated remains. In the case of graves containing unburnt bones from both whole and partial bodies, the whole skeletons were used to provide an assumed date of burial, while other remains were dated separately and compared to these. In the case of graves containing cremated remains, each bone was dated separately. All but two of the graves were modern excavations, with osteological examination of the site being used to exclude the possibility of bones from the same individual being dated. Two of the sites included in the study were the subject of earlier excavations, though in both cases Brück and Booth are confident that the records provided by the archaeologists who carried out these digs were good enough to prevent double-sampling of the same individuals.

Bones which can be shown to have been old at the time of their burial could have been placed deliberately or accidentally, but the high proportion of burials in which older bones are incorporated makes accidental inclusion unlikely, as would any consistent relationship between the age of the main burial and the age of other bones included within a grave. Brück and Booth's data suggests that many of the partial remains incorporated into Bronze Age burials in Britain are about two generations older than the main burials; i.e. they had apparently been looked after elsewhere for decades, but not centuries. Other partial remains incorporated into burials showed no age difference to the main burial, but it is still possible that they were older, just not sufficiently so for the techniques used to detect the difference. 

Brück and Booth note that a high proportion of seafood in a persons diet can have an impact on the isotopic signature of their bones, but also observe that numerous previous studies have suggested that seafood was at most a very minor component of the British Bronze Age diet.

Histological examination of bones can also tell us a great deal about how they are treated after death. When individuals are buried in a dry, but well aerated, environment (such as that of most Bronze Age tombs), their bones will tend to suffer a great deal of bacterial bioerosion. On the other hand, bones of individuals who are prepared in some way prior to burial in the same environment, for example by mummification or excarnation (removal of the flesh from the bones), will show much less bone damage.

Seven of the thirteen sites examines were found to contain partial remains significantly older than the main burials. These remains all show less bioerosion than the main burials, suggesting that they were subjected to different treatment prior to their incorporation within the graves, and that this different treatment had begun immediately after death. 

At one site, Melton Quarry in East Yorkshire, the disarticulated and incomplete remains of an infant were found between the legs and torso of a complete and articulated adult. Radiocarbon dates obtained from the two sets of remains showed that the infant was in fact probably between 189 and 348 years older than the adult, and had relatively low levels of bioerosion to its bones, suggesting that the child had been stripped of their flesh shortly after death. Brück and Booth suggest that this infant may then have been kept in some sort of organic bag, possibly worn by a person, until the time of their eventual burial. 

Another example comes from a slab-lined grave found on the Cnip Headland on the Isle of Lewis. This grave contained one set of incomplete and partially articulated remains, thought to be those of an adolescent male, as well as the disarticulated remains of at least two adults. The adolescent male was placed on his right side, and it is thought that he was in an advanced state of putrefaction when he was buried; several vertebrae, the left fibula, and the right humorous were all out of position, suggesting that these parts of the body were skeletallised by the time burial occurred. There were also spaces between the head and torso, and the torso and lower body, which suggest the individual may have been in several pieces. However, the bones of the left hand are well articulated, which makes it likely that the hand was intact and fleshed at the time of deposition. The right arm, and both feet, are completely missing. The bones of this individual show little bioerosion, which may imply he was excarnated and then buried before complete skeletonisation occurred. However, a disarticulated bone from a layer depositionally below the adolescent produced a younger radiocarbon age, implying that his bones were already old when they were placed into the tomb. It is possible that the remains had been buried elsewhere and then excavated and placed in the Cnip Headland tomb, however calculations made using the OxCal radiocarbon calibration program suggest that between three and 82 years had passed between the death of the youth and his burial in the tomb, and again his bones show relatively low levels of bioerosion, suggesting that some form of treatment of the remains happened soon after death.

Cnip Headland, Isle of Lewis: plan of the partially articulated burial. Brück & Booth (2022).

Another burial of note is that at Windmill Fields in North Yorkshire. Here the primary burial is that of an adult woman, whose skeleton was articulate but heavily bioeroded, consistent with her having been buried whole and fully fleshed. In front of this individual had been stacked the disarticulated remains of another three individuals, an adult male, an adult female, and a probable adolescent female. Approximate dates were obtained from the crania of the two adults, suggesting that they are between 59 and 179 years older than the principle burial. Close to this burial was a pit with dark staining, consistent with a wooden structure such as a coffin having once been present. Further disarticulated bones were found within this structure, which were found to be of a similar age to the two crania, suggesting that this was the original location of the disarticulated remains found with the main burial.

Windmill Fields, Ingleby Barwick, Stockton-on-Tees: inhumation burial accompanied by a carefully arranged stack of disarticulated bone. Tees Archaeology in Brück & Booth (2022).

It has been known for a long time that Bronze Age burial chambers in Britain were frequently reopened to place additional remains within them, and more recently it has also become clear that remains were also removed from them. 

The South Dumpton Down site in Kent contains two complete individuals buried in the Early Bronze age, one of which is also accompanied by a detached Human mandible. This mandible was not found to be anonymously older than the two intact individuals, but showed a level of decomposition which suggests that it was removed from a body that had died some time before. It is unclear whether this implies removal from a tomb of from remains kept elsewhere, but the revisiting of burials is known to have occurred in this area. One nearby site consists of a shaft with five bodies on it, which had been deposited sequentially. Several of these bodies were missing their skulls, suggesting that pieces of the skeletons were being removed as well as new bodies added. It is quite possible that the mandible was removed from one of these bodies, although if they are less than decades older than the other burial the dating technique used would be unable to detect the age difference.

A pit at Cotswold Community near Ashton Keynes in Wiltshire yielded fragments of burned bone from both Humans and Animals, as well as pieces of beaker pottery, charcoal, burnt stone and plant remains. Dates were obtained from a fragment of Human femur and a piece of Animal bone, with the femur proving to be between five and 175 years older than the Animal. It has been suggested that such pits represent settlements, due to the presence of possible domestic contents (charcoal, burnt Animal remains, pottery fragments), but these sites could also represent locations revisited periodically, possibly for annual festivals or other such events. If that is the case then it is also quite possible that the remains, or partial remains, of the dead might have been brought to these sites, either specifically, or as part of a wider pattern of carrying portions of the dead with a semi-mobile community. 

Analysis of the locations examined by Brück and Booth suggests that certain bones from grave sites may have been predominantly chosen for redeposition elsewhere, notably long limb-bones and skulls, However, they also caution that their sample size is small, and for the most part they are reliant on data collected by other archaeologists, who were not looking for data on this topic.

The comparison of burned and unburned bone using isotope dating methods is problematic, and Brück and Booth have sought to avoid this, including only four sites with burned bone in their study. Two of these sites again produced anonymously old bones, and although Brück and Booth are less confident of these findings, this does appear consistent with the data from non-cremation burials.

The Trelowthas burial in Cornwall comprises a stone cist filled with cremated bones from numerous individuals. The site also contained an urn containing further cremated remains, from at least two individuals, which appears to have been placed their at a later date. However, analysis of the remains in the urn suggests that they were between three and 72 years older than the other remains. Brück and Booth believe this is indicative of these remains being kept elsewhere between their cremation and their eventual placement within the tomb, possibly in an environment where they would be encountered, and possibly even handled, by the living on a regular basis.

Another pit burial was found in the middle of a stone circle at Whitton Hill in Northumberland. This yielded 21.6 kg of bone from at least 24 individuals, including both adults and children. Only a single individual could be sexed, being found to be female. All of the bones here appear to have deposited in a single event, but the three bones which could be dated yielded different ages, with the older skeletons being between three and 115 and between three and 37 years older than the youngest skeleton. This has previously been interpreted as remains from an older cremation being accidentally incorporated into the deposit, although there is no evidence for the site having been revisited. Brück and Booth suggest that, in the light of evidence from other sites of a similar age, this is likely to be another example of older remains being deliberately included into a burial.

Brück and Booth present a large body of evidence for the incorporation of older remains into Bronze Age burials (and in particular Early Bronze Age) in Britain. Some of these appear to have been recovered from other grave sites specifically for re-internment within the new burial, but others show signs of practices such as mummification and excarnation not seen in primary burials, strongly suggesting that these bodies were treated differently from the time of death. Brück and Booth strongly suspect that this may have involved carrying portions of the dead with the living, possibly as a form of personal ornamentation, a practice known from some modern Human groups.

Brück and Booth suggest that the incorporation of older Human remains into Bronze Age burials is likely to indicate kinship between these remains and the principle occupiers of the graves, given that the occupants of other multi-occupancy grave-sites from the same period are typically related. 

This can be confirmed for one site, the Boscombe Bowmen burial at Boscombe Down in Wiltshire. Here several sets of adult and child remains were found together, with one adult male being accompanied by a bundle of bones representing the partial remains of at least four other individuals; two adult males, a subadult male and a juvenile. The bones in the bundle were principally long bones (i.e. arm or leg bones) from the left side of the body, but the skeleton also had two further crania and a partial mandible at his feet. DNA was recovered from both the male skeleton and one of the skulls (an adult male, 25-30 years old), enabling comparison of the relationships between these two individuals. This revealed that this two came from different lineages on their maternal side, but paternally were related, potentially being half-siblings, cousins, an uncle (or great uncle) and nephew, or grandfather (or great grandfather) and grandson. Unfortunately this skull was not radiocarbon dated, but one of the bones from the bundle, a femur, was, and was found to be significantly older than the intact skeleton.

The Boscombe Bowmen, Wiltshire: plan. Wessex Archaeology in Brück & Booth (2022).

Furthermore, strontium isotope analyses of tooth enamel from the skeleton and the two detached skulls suggests that all three undertook similar childhood journeys (strontium isotopes in water vary with local geology, and are incorporated in tooth and bone, providing a record of where people have lived). This implies that either all three had undertaken a the same journey as children, presumably together as living contemporaries, or all three had lived at a similar location away from the burial site, and been transported to that site after death. Either case would imply that the individuals involved shared some measure of shared life-history as well as a genetic relationship, and that this is likely to be reflected in the decision to bury them together.

Next Brück and Booth examined the age gap between partial remains found within graves and the principal occupants of those graves, finding that the principle occupants were on average about 95 years younger than the partial remains incorporated into their burials. They suggest this may represent a rough upper limit on the cultural memory of these older individuals as living people.

Not all ancient skeletons can be confidently sexed, particularly when dealing with partial remains, but of the partial remains incorporated into younger burials which could be identified, four were male and two female, implying that gender was not considered important when selecting remains for this purpose. Therefore, if these burials do represent the inclusion of remains of significant relatives with the recently deceased, then perception of who was a significant relative was apparently not related to gender.

The age of these older relatives also appears relatively unimportant. Of the examined remains for which an age could be determined, four were adults, one a subadult, one an adolescent, and one was an infant aged 2-4 months. Views on who represents an adult are known to have changed significantly over written history, making it unlikely that the views of Bronze Age Britons were identical to those of their modern descendants, but this is unlikely to have included babes-in-arms, making it plausible that age at death was unrelated to the status of individuals, when determining significant relationships.

Brück and Booth also note that perceived kinship is unrelated to biological relationships, which may present difficulties when establishing relationships between individuals within ancient burials.

Finally, Brück and Booth mention the burial of an adult male at Wilsford in Wiltshire, dated to between 1950 and 1970 BC, who was found to have among his grave goods a whistle made from a Human femur. It has been suggested that this was the grave of a shaman or other ritual specialist. Brück and Booth were able to date the whistle from this grave, finding it was not significantly older that the skeleton it was buried with, and therefore that the two individuals could have been known to one-another in life, as well as having both been known by the people who placed the whistle in the grave with the body. Though the relationship between the two individuals could not be determined, there are clearly other possibilities than the two being relatives, for example the whistle could have been made from the bone of another ritual specialist, possibly a previous holder of the same role within the community, or a person perceived as an enemy by the deceased or whole community.

Bronze Aged peoples are known to have valued goods made from certain materials, such as jet or amber, and treated these as being significant and powerful items. It is not an unreasonable supposition that goods made from Human remains would be seen as being similarly significant, and that the ownership of such items may have conferred social status. The incorporation of Human remains into burials as grave goods may also be an indication of status, although this is difficult to unravel from funeral practices intended to reflect ritual, familial, or emotional relationships between the dead. Brück and Booth note that the tendency to finally deposit relics made from Human remains at about the time when the individuals from whom these were made would have been disappearing from the collective memory of the group may also be significant.

See also...

Follow Sciency Thoughts on Facebook.

Follow Sciency Thoughts on Twitter.

Was Stonehenge originally located at Waun Mawn in the Preseli Hills of Wales.

Around 1036 AD, Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote that the stones of Stonehenge came originally from Giants’ Dance on the legendary Mount Killaraus in Ireland, and that they were brought to England by the wizard Merlin, who had defeated the Irish and stolen their stones. Stonehenge itself was erected by an army of 15 000 workers, as a memorial to the Ancient Britons murdered by the treacherous Saxons during peace talks at Amesbury. This version of events is no longer viewed as being completely accurate; the Saxons did not arrive in England until after 300 AD, long after Stonehenge was erected, and none of the stones come from Ireland. However, in Geoffrey of Monmouth's time much of southwest Wales, from where the stones have been shown to originate, was considered to be Irish territory, which has led to some speculation that the story could contain a grain of truth, with the bluestones of Stonehenge having originally stood at a site somewhere in the Preseli Hills of west Wales, and subsequently having been moved to their current position on Salisbury Plain.

In a paper published in the journal Antiquity on 12 February 2021, Mike Parker Pearson of the Institute of Archaeology at University College London, Josh Pollard of the Department of Archaeology at the University of Southampton, Colin Richards of the Archaeology Institute at the University of the Highlands & Islands, Kate Welham of the Department of Archaeology & Anthropology at Bournemouth University, Timothy Kinnaird of the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of St Andrews, Dave Shaw of Allen Archaeology Ltd, Ellen Simmons of the Department of Archaeology at the University of Sheffield, Adam Stanford of Aerial-Cam Ltd, Richard Bevins of the Department of Natural Sciences at the National Museum of Wales, Rob Ixer, also of the Institute of Archaeology at University College London, Clive Ruggles of the School of Archaeology & Ancient History at the University of Leicester, Jim Rylatt of Past Participate, and Kevan Edinborough of the Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences at the University of Melbourne, describe the results of the ‘Stones of Stonehenge’ project's attempts to find the Welsh origin of the Stonehenge stones. 

The standing stones of Waun Mawn, in the Preseli Hills of Pembrokeshire, comprise four monoliths, three now recumbent, which originally stood in an arc. These were identified in 1925 as the remains of a stone circle, but subsequently have been seen as ‘doubtful or negative’ and ‘destroyed or unrecognisable’. However, recent excavations have identified bluestone megalith quarries at Craig Rhos-y-felin and Carn Goedog in the Preseli Hills as dating from 3400–3000 BC, making the Waun Mawn site a much more likely candidate for the original site of Stonehenge.

 

Location of the dismantled stone circle of Waun Mawn (red-ringed circle), as well as the bluestone sources of Carn Goedog (spotted dolerite), Craig Rhos-y-felin (rhyolite) and Cerrigmarchogion (unspotted dolerite). The locations of the Neolithic causewayed enclosure of Banc Du and palisaded enclosure of Dryslwyn (black-ringed circles), as well as Early Neolithic portal tombs (black squares), are also shown. Mike Parker Pearson in Parker Pearson et al. (2021).

The Waun Mawn site was first identified as being of interest in 2010, but subsequent magnetometer and earth-resistance surveys carried out in 2011 failed to find any evidence to support this. Thus, Waun Mawn received no further attention at that time, while several other circular monuments in the area were surveyed and excavated between 2012 and 2017, none of these proved to be Neolithic in origin.

In 2017, Parker Pearson et al. returned to Waun Mawn, carrying out excavations at either end of the arc of stones, which revealed two stoneholes without stones which had not been detected by magnetometric investigation. Further surveys using earth resistance, ground-penetrating radar, and electromagnetic induction, also failed to reveal any indication of ancient activity, which led Parker Pearson et al. that, due to the minimally magnetic and conductive properties of the substrate, only physical excavation would be able to reveal further stoneholes in the non-magnetic substrate of glacial drift deposits at the site.

 

The arc of former standing stones at Waun Mawn during trial excavations in 2017, viewed from the east. Only one of them (third from the camera) is still standing. Recumbent stone 13 is in the foreground. Adam Stanford in Parker Pearson et al. (2021).

In September 2018, Parker Pearson et al. began a new series of excavations at Waun Mawn, carrying of further work beyond each end of the arc, and opening up further small trenches to the west, south-west and south, which followed the projected circumference of the circle. The 2017 and 2018 excavations revealed a total of twelve sub-surface features, six of which were identified as stoneholes with emptied sockets from which standing monoliths had been removed, and two as stoneholes of two of the fallen stones at the ends of the arc. These holes suggest a former stone circle with a diameter of 110 m, which may have comprised as many as 30–50 stones.

 

Waun Mawn during excavation in 2018, viewed from the north. The stone circle sits on the side of the hill Cnwc yr Hˆy (‘the hillock of the deer’) at 311m OD, with distant views of Ireland to the west and the mountains of Snowdonia to the north. Adam Stanford in Parker Pearson et al. (2021).

The majority of the stoneholes comprised shallow pits, 0.80–1.20m in diameter and 0.30–0.50m deep, with a shallow ramp up to 0.50m long. These contained stone packing around an emptied socket, which had subsequently filled with sediment following the removal of each standing stone. At the base of each socket an imprint of the monolith that once stood in it can be seen, preserving each stone’s basal shape and size. The largest of these (stonehole 91) preserves a pentagonal imprint, with four of the other holes preserve square of rectangular imprints.

 

(a) Waun Mawn: the excavation trenches (in red) showing the locations of the four remaining standing stones (in red and black), the additional stoneholes (in green and black) and other features (in blue). From the centre of the circle, the midsummer solstice sun rose within the entrance formed by stoneholes 9 and 21; (b) Stonehenge stage one (beginning in 3080–2950 BC and ending in 2865–2755 BC). Stonehenge’s enclosing ditch and bank were constructed in 2995–2900 BC (at 95% probability). Kate Welham & Irene de Luis in Parker Pearson et al. (2021).

Several stone tools were uncovered at Waum Mawn, including a flint scraper, a flint chip and a trimmed, circular mudstone disc. None of this material was directly datable, but the mudstone disc was made from a type of rock accessible within Neolithic levels at the Carn Goedog megalith quarry, which is about 5 km to the east of Waum Mawn. This is fairly typical of stone circles, which can be very hard to date, due to the small amount of associated material, and the fact that what material there is tends to be of types that do not lend themselves to radiometric dating. This problem is particularly acute at Waum Mawn, where the acid soil prevents the preservation of material made from bone. A small amount of charcoal, a material amenable to radiometric dating, was recovered by sediment flotation, was recovered, but the largest of these was under 4 mm long, making it likely that this material could have been moved from its original stratigraphic position by bioturbation. To attempt to remedy this, Parker Pearson et al. combined radiocarbon dating of these samples with optically stimulated luminescence dating of the sediments from which they were recovered. Optically stimulated luminescence dating can reveal the date at which a sample was last exposed to light; this potentially gives the date of burial, but can be reset if an object is subsequently exposed, making it unreliable on its own, but providing a plausible test for radiometric dating results.

 

Stonehole 7, after removal of sediment filling the emptied socket, but with the stone packing still in place (viewed from the east). The packing stones were created from a single boulder, split into pieces before being packed against the side of the monolith. Its imprint in the base of the stonehole reveals that this monolith had a square cross-section. Mike Parker Pearson in Parker Pearson et al. (2021).

Optically stimulated luminescence dating of samples from 11 feature profiles revealed a complex depositional history, with material from several exposures, possibly relating to the emplacement and removal of the megaliths, found within the sockets. Nevertheless, the material good internal stratigraphic coherence, with material likely to have been deposited in the Neolithic or Early Bronze Age.

 

A 3D photogrammetric image of stonehole 91 after excavation of the socket left by the standing stone’s removal, viewed from the north. The imprint of this stone (in the right half of the stonehole) reveals that the base of this stone had a pentagonal cross-section. The ramp, along which the stone was erected and removed, is at the top of the picture. Adam Stanford in Parker Pearson et al. (2021).

The sediments from the holes yielded dates of between 6980 BC and 1900 AD, although the primary fills of the four sampled stoneholes, i.e. the deposits associated with the erection of the stone circle, are likely to have been deposited around 3530 BC, and the secondary fills, associated with the removal of the stones, were probably deposited around 2120 BC, although this date will not reflect the actual date of removal of the stones, but rather material that infilled the holes later, potentially at any time in the subsequent centuries or even millennia.

Radiocarbon dates were obtained from 43 charcoal samples recovered from Waun Maen, 31 from the stoneholes and 12 from other features. Most of these yielded Mesolithic dates, from the the ninth to fifth millennia BC, making them too old to be associated with the site, and were therefore discarded. Several more dates were rejected because they were too young, dating from the second and first millennia BC, i.e. the Bronze and Iron Ages. However, seven charcoal fragments, four of them from the postholes, yielded dates of 3600-3000 BC, i.e. the end of the Early Neolithic and beginning of the Middle Neolithic, dates which could plausibly relate to the construction of the site.

Such a date would place Waun Mawn amongst the earliest stone circles in Britain, alongside Long Meg and her Daughters in Cumbria (109m diameter) and the stone circle beneath the passage tomb of Bryn Celli Ddu on Anglesey (18m diameter). Radiometric dates obtained from a sample of Hazel charcoal recovered from one of the stoneholes of Long Meg and her Daughters dates to 3340–3100 BC, and cremated human remains obtained from pits associated with stoneholes at Bryn Celli Ddu have given radiocarbon dates of 3500–3100 and 3310–2900 BC, As no stone circle in Britain is currently thought to date to more than 3400 BC, Parker Pearson et al. suggest that the Waun Mawr stone circle was probably erected between 3400 and 3200 BC, and most likely towards the end of this range.

The three remaining stones at Waun Mawn are comprised of an unspotted dolerite, which may have come from the outcrops 3km to the south-east at Cerrigmarchogion on the Preseli ridge. A flake of rock left in the hole left by the standing stone with the pentagonal base is also made of this material.

 

(Left) a flake of unspotted dolerite from stonehole 91 was recovered from the junction of the empty socket and the ramp; (top right) stone 62 is one of the three unspotted dolerite pillars at Stonehenge; (bottom right) stone 62’s basal cross-section matches the imprint of the pillar that once stood in stonehole 91 at Waun Mawn. Sophie Laidler & Adam Stanford in Parker Pearson et al. (2021).

Three of the stones of Stonehenge (stones 44, 45 & 62), are also made from unspotted dolerite bluestone, and one of these (stone 62) has a pentagonal cross-section at the turf line, which is similar in shape and dimensions to the imprint in stonehole 91 at Waun Mawn. Stones 44 and 45, which are undressed and form part of the outer circle at Stonehenge, are about 2 m high, similar in size to the single standing stone at Waum Mawn, at 1.20 m, but smaller than the two fallen stones, which are about 3.20 m long; stone 62, which stands about 2 m above the ground, would probably be almost as large as the fallen stones if its full length were exposed. The stones of Waum Mawn are therefore reasonably comparable with the stones of Stonehenge in terms of size.

Two of the stoneholes at Waum Mawn show no signs of having packing stones or ramps. One of these formerly held a short monolith 1.20m long, 0.90m wide and 0.25m thick, which is now recumbent at the east end of the arc, the second holds no stone, and is about 1.3 m to the east of the first. The long sides of these stones would have been perpendicular to the circumference of the circle, rather than parallel with it, forming what Parker Pearson et al. describe as a 'gunsight' on the north-east side of the circle, which possibly served as an entrance. To somebody standing in the centre of the circle during the Neolithic period, the Sun would have risen within this entrance on the Summer Solstice. 

 

(Top) recumbent stone 013 lying beside its stonehole (9), viewed from the west. It formed the west side of the stone circle’s north-east-facing entrance. Although the top of this pillar (left) is broken off, its weathered surface indicates that this probably occurred long before the Neolithic; (bottom) stonehole 21 in half-section, viewed from the east. With its ‘gunsight’ arrangement, perpendicular to the circumference of the stone circle, the removed pillar would once have formed the east side of the north-east-facing entrance. Mike Parker Pearson in Parker Pearson et al. (2021).

With a diameter of 110 m, Waum Mawn is the joint third largest stone circle in Britain (with the outer circle at Stonehenge), behind the outer circle at Avebury, at 331 m, and Stanton Drew, at 113 m, and ahead of Long Meg and her Daughters at 109 m, the Ring of Brodgar at 104 m, and the north and south circles at Avebury, at 104 m each. The inner circle of bluestone monoliths at Stonehenge was 87 m in diameter, with the stones carefully placed 4.5 m apart. This is quite different from the situation at Waum Mawn, where the stones are spaced irregularly, and where there are gaps in the perimeter where no stones were erected, particularly on the northwest side, although whether this was always the intention or whether the circle was not completed for some reason is unclear. Either way, the construction of Waum Mawn and Stonehenge appear to have been carried out with different emphasis and perspectives, with the regularity and homogeneity seen at Stonehenge being an inovation which was not present during the construction of the (older) Waum Mawn.

There are, however, still parallels with Stonehenge, notably the sighting of the putative entrance to Waum Mawn, in line with the Summer Solstice, which corelates with the setting of Stonehenge, which is positioned at the south-west end of a geomorphological landform of parallel ridges that coincidentally align on the solstitial axis. However, Stonehenge also appears to have an entrance aligned broadly with the northernmost major Moonrise, something which does not appear to have been marked at Waum Mawn.

The common diameter of Stonehenge and Waum Mawn, combined with the match between the cross section of stone 62 at Stonehenge and hole 91 at Waum Mawn, as well as the common building material (unspotted dolerite) used at both sites, strongly hints at a connection between the two ancient monuments.

Parker Pearson et al. believe there is a strong case for at least some of the material used at Stonehenge having originated at Waum Mawn, although they doubt that the stone circle at Waum Mawn ever contained 56 standing stones, the number suggested for Stonehenge by the Aubrey Holes. It is thought that about 80 bluestones were brought from Wales to Salisbury Plane in the Neolithic, with 56 going to Stonehenge and about 25 to the nearby Bluestonehenge circle. During Stonehenge stage two (2740–2505 BC) the site is thought to have comprised a double arc of standing stones, which were rearranged into an inner and outer circle at the onset of stage 3 (beginning in about 2400–2220 BC). During this last phase all of the original stones were re-organised, and the stones which had previously stood at Bluestonehenge incorporated into the new monument.

While the geology of the Waum Mawn stones matches that of some of the Stonehenge stones, this is not the case for the majority. Only three of the 44 bluestone stones at Stonehenge today are unspotted dolerite, compared to 27 spotted dolerite stones. Thus, while some of the Stonehenge material may have come from Waum Mawn, it is likely that the majority of the 80 original stones came from elsewhere. The Alter Stone at Stonehenge clearly did not come from Waum Mawn, or anywhere else in Preseli, and is thought most likely to have cone from the Devonian Senni Sandstone, about 100 km to the east. Two other sandstone pillars are thought to be of Palaeozoic origin, and to have come from the area to the north and east of Preseli. It is quite possible that these stones once formed part of other stone circles, which were dismantled in order to provide material for the construction of Stonehenge, as were other stones at the site with different lithologies.

It is unlikely that Waum Mawn is the Giants’ Dance described by Geoffrey of Monmouth. The common features seen at Waum Mawn and Stonehenge are sufficient to suggest that the stones were moved from one site to the other by people with a common purpose, not carried off as trophies of war following a military victory.

Recent strontium isotopic analysis on 25 of the approximately 60 cremation burials from Stonehenge has shown that four of these individuals had probably lived the last decades of their lives on the Ordovician/Silurian rocks of south-west Wales, the area that includes the Preseli Hills, with the remaining remains consistent with the individuals having lived on the chalk of Salisbury Plain or on the surrounding Mesozoic strata. Bone is remodelled repeatedly throughout our lives, with all our bone being replaced over a period of about a decade. This means that it is impossible, using bone as a test material, to detect the difference between a migrant who has lived in an area for more than a decade and a local who has lived their all their lives, so it is impossible to say if any of the other burials represent individuals who had moved to the area more than ten years before dying.

It is notable that the four individuals identified as being of southern Welsh origin have all been radiocarbon dated to around the very beginning of construction at Stonehenge, at about 3000 BC, when it is thought that the Bluestones were first erected, suggesting that these individuals might have relocated to the Salisbury Plain with the stones, while later burials reflect descendants of these migrants living on local chalk. This may even have applied to livestock as well as people. A sample of dentine from the mandible of an elderly Cow found in Stonehenge’s enclosing ditch has been dated to around 3350–2920 BC, and is has a strontium isotope signature consistent with the Animal having been reared in South Wales (unlike bone, dentine is laid down shortly before a tooth erupts, an is not replaced again within an Animal's lifetime.

No material at Waum Mawn has been dated to more recent than about 3000 BC, and very few items from the Preseli region in general. This is in spite of decades of research at Neolithic sites in the area. Waum Mawn did not go on to become the core of a larger monument complex, as happened to older stone circles at sites such as the Ring of Brodgar, Avebury and Stonehenge. Instead, the site seems to have been developed as a major centre in the earlier Neolithic, but then dismantled and abandoned. It is, however, unlikely that the area was completely depopulated, and the remaining stones at the circle may have remained in use in some way.

Stonehenge appears to have been built by Neolithic migrants from South Wales, whether on their own, or in collaboration with the local population. These migrants appear to have brought the large stones of the circle with them, possibly as a physical manifestation of their ancestral identities to be recreated in their new home. This brining of sacred stones to a new, mystically significant location may have helped to unify the people of southern Britain during the first phase of activity at Stonehenge. 

Stonehenge lies upon a north–south line of henges, stone circles and cursuses (elongated parallel-sided enclosures) from the Thames Valley to the south coast of England, which broadly forms a geographic divide between different regional traditions in earlier Neolithic material culture, as well as variations in genetic ancestry between east and west, a location which has previously been cited as evidence for a unifying role for the monument.

 

The location of Stonehenge and other monument complexes of the Middle to Late Neolithic (roughly 3400–2450 BC) that may have formed a neutral zone or territorial boundary between the west and south-east of Britain. Irene de Luis in Parker Pearson et al. (2021).

The discovery of evidence for a potential migration of people and livestock from Wales to Salisbury Plain at the same time as the stones were relocated raises new questions about Stonehenge's origins and purpose. Why did these people move at this time? Was the movement driven by a change in climatic conditions, or was it driven by some economic, social or political change? Did people leave adverse conditions in Wales, or simply take advantage of some new opportunity on Salisbury Plane? Did they take over an older sacred site at Stonehenge? And if they did, was this an act of conquest, or unification (or both)?

See also...

Follow Sciency Thoughts on Facebook.

Follow Sciency Thoughts on Twitter. 

 

Deaths of Fish on Kennet & Avon Canal blamed on lack of traffic.

Officials from the UK Environment agency investigating reports of dead Fish in the Kennet & Avon Canal at Devizes in Wiltshire, England, have concluded that they died of oxygen starvation due to a lack of boat traffic on the canal. The investigation began after members of the public reported seeing a quantity of dead Fish, including at least 20 large Carp, on a section of canal near Town Bridge in the centre of Devizes. The Fish were found to have died of oxygen starvation, which is in turn thought to have been caused by a lack of traffic on the canal, as people have stopped boating for leisure during the Coronovis epidemic. Canals are essentially a series of long, narrow and shallow ponds, linked together by locks (devices used for raising and lowering boats between stretches of water of different levels on river and canal). Under normal circumstances traffic on the canal keeps water flowing between different sections of canal through the locks, maintaining oxygen levels within each section, but the drop in traffic due to the Coronovirus outbreak has stopped this, isolating sections of the canal, and enabling oxygen levels to drop.

Dead fish in the Kennet & Avon Canal at Devizes in Wiltshire. Trevor Porter/Wiltshire Times.

Water is able to hold less dissolved oxygen at higher temperatures than when it is cooler, so enclosed pools exposed to direct sunlight are dangerous to aquatic organisms dependent on dissolved oxygen, particularly in warmer weather. The presence of excess nutrients in the water, such as waste oil from boats, discarded food, or even bread given to Ducks and other waterfowl by well-intending Humans can lead to eutrophication events; dramatic increases in the quantity of Bacteria in the water, which then use all the available oxygen in the water, leading other organisms to asphyxiate. Some aquatic Bacteria and other micro-organisms also produce toxins that can build up in the water killing larger organisms, even those not dependent on dissolved oxygen for survival.

How lochs connect sections of canal, but also break them into smaller pools more at risk of eutrophication. WikiHow.

See also...

Follow Sciency Thoughts on Facebook.

Determining the origin of the Southern Inner Circle at Avebury.

Alongside Stonehenge, the passage graves of the Boyne Valley and the Carnac alignments, the Avebury henge is one of the pre-eminent megalithic monuments of the European Neolithic. Its 420 m diameter earthwork encloses the world’s largest stone circle. This in turn encloses two smaller yet still vast megalithic circles - each approximately 100m in diameter - and complex internal stone settings. Avenues of paired standing stones lead from two of its four entrances, together extending for approximately 3.5km and linking with other monumental constructions. Avebury sits within the centre of a landscape rich in later Neolithic monuments, including Silbury Hill and the West Kennet palisade enclosures. Reliable dates for the hypothesised construction phases at Avebury and other monuments in its environs remain scarce We can be confident that the main Avebury earthwork was created around 2500 BC, but this seals a primary earthen bank whose precise date is uncertain; there is similar ambiguity with regard to the dating of the Southern and Northern Inner Circles and the megaliths that they enclose. Secure knowledge of the monument’s chronology is essential, as it frames our understanding of how the henge and its megalithic settings came into being - whether through incremental development or as a single notionally planned entity.

In a paper published in the journal Antiquity on 10 April 2019, Mark Gillings of the School of Archaeology & Ancient History at the University of Leicester, and Joshua Pollard and Kristian Strutt of the Faculty of Arts and Humanities at the University of Southampton present the results of a recent (2017) excavation at Avebury, and its implications for our understanding of the construction of the Southern Inner Circle at the monument.

The Avebury monument. Gillings et al. (2019).

The earliest antiquarian records for the Southern Inner Circle comprise those made by John Aubrey and Walter Charleton in 1663, and William Stukeley’s plan and written narrative compiled between 1719 and 1724. Unfortunately there are few definitive areas of agreement between them. Charleton’s schematic plan, for example, depicts the Obelisk surrounded by a perfect circle of 13 megaliths. In contrast, Aubrey’s plan offers a more confused picture of the Southern Inner Circle’s settings. Aubrey mapped a portion of the Circle’s arc, within which he recorded four large stone positions and two smaller stone symbols annotated with the letter ‘Z’. To the north-east are three further stones, and Aubrey makes no mention of the Obelisk. By the time Stukeley began recording the site 56 years later, a combination of entropy and active destruction had taken its toll. The Obelisk had fallen, and much of the complexity in layout hinted at by Aubrey was gone. The presence of a single megalith standing in a somewhat anomalous location in the context of the Southern Inner Circle stones led Stukeley to propose the existence of a second concentric inner circle. Stukeley’s drawings show a stone of substantial size, comparable in basal dimension to the main Southern Inner Circle stones.

Stukeley’s Frontispiece - the single stone that had survived to the early eighteenth century is indicated by the arrow; it was subsequently destroyed. Gillings et al. (2019).

The Southern Inner Circle visible today is the product of a programme of excavation and reconstruction carried out by Alexander Keiller in 1939. Utilising a 50 ft (15.24 m) grid of squares subdivided into 25 ft (7.62 m) quarters, Keiller’s intention was to excavate areas not covered by village houses and gardens. The outbreak of the Second World War curtailed this operation, but not before a substantial area had been excavated, including the western arc and interior. Within the circle was the site of one of Avebury’s largest stones, the Obelisk, which had been recorded and so-named by the eighteenth century antiquary William Stukeley. During excavation, Keiller discovered an unexpected 30.8m-long line of stoneholes that had formerly held megaliths to the west of the Obelisk. His excavations also unearthed a series of medieval stone burial pits (cut along the same line) that contained distinctive reddish sarsens, which were much smaller than other Avebury megaliths; the maximum dimensions of these stones ranged from 1.3–2.4 m. Labelled by Keiller as the ‘Z-feature’, the presence of stoneholes perpendicular to the ends of the line hinted that these features may once have formed a rectangular setting. Keiller’s excavations also revealed the stonehole for a megalith (stone D) that did not appear to be part of either circle or the Z-feature, and a cluster of postholes, gullies and pits to the immediate north of the Obelisk. The Z-feature remains something of an enigma, though it has been suggested that if the excavated features were duplicated in reverse on the east side of the Obelisk, this megalithic component might resemble the stone kerb of an Early Neolithic long barrow.

The Southern Inner Circle showing recovered lithic densities. Gillings et al. (2019).

Critical re-evaluation of the Keiller excavation archive indicates that the excavated stoneholes were far too large for the Z-feature stones that Keiller re-erected into them. As a baseline, the excavated stoneholes of the main Southern Inner Circle ring range from 1.7–2.5 m in maximum length, and hold stones standing 2.74–4.15 m in height. With the exception of stonehole xii, which was genuinely intended for a small stone, the Z-feature stonehole dimensions fall comfortably within this range. Thus, these stoneholes originally held much larger stones - equivalent in size to those making up the Southern Inner Circle. This explains the difficulty Keiller had in matching Z-feature stones to stoneholes, and his decision to raise these megaliths above the bases of ‘their’ stoneholes, by between 0.15 and 0.40m, when re-erecting them.

Within the Southern Inner Circle, Keiller excavated two features, both of which he labelled ‘Natural Fissure (?)’, alongside a cluster of gullies, pits and postholes to the immediate north of the Obelisk. This cluster included a series of shallow hollows (maximum 2.7 × 1.8 m), which he interpreted as medieval marl pits. Of greater significance are the parallel lengths of gulley, which define a structure approximately 6.9 m wide and 6.8 m long—although the southern extent has been affected by the destruction of the Obelisk. Running between these gullies was a line of three oval pits or postholes, with hints of a shallow slot linking the westernmost two. A fourth such pit was located on the approximate central axis to the north. While Keiller was content to assign a prehistoric date to these pits/postholes, he was confident that the gullies formed part of a much later, open-ended structure, presumably medieval in date. This, he surmised, had been opportunistically built against the fallen bulk of the Obelisk, using the latter as an ersatz rear wall. While Keiller toyed with the idea of the structure being a pigsty, his supervisor, William Young, suggested that it may have been a cart shed. By the time that the fieldwork was formally published, these features had been reduced to the status of field boundary ditches.

The features excavated and interpreted by Keiller in 1939. The ‘1865 excavations’ refer to trenches dug in 1865 by Alfred Smith and William Cunnington on behalf of the Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Society. Gillings et al. (2019).

The medieval date assigned to the pits and structure can be questioned, as no medieval pottery was found within the gullies, and only three sheds were recovered from one of the pits. This is surprising, given the high density of twelfth- to fourteenth-century pottery recorded in the excavation archive that was recovered from the overlying soil (up to 100 shards per 25 ft/7.62 m square). The three shards of medieval pottery from the pit are probably intrusive, as Rabbit burrows were recorded in the vicinity. The pits may even be naturally formed features (e.g. tree-throw pits) of prehistoric date. It is the gully-defined structure, however, that takes on particular significance, once Keiller’s unsupported claim for a medieval origin is rejected.

Gillings et al. present lines of evidence which they argue suggest a prehistoric, and specifically Early Neolithic, date for the structure. Firstly its axis is parallel to the excavated line of the Z-feature stoneholes, and it occupies the geometric centre of the Southern Inner Circle, which is located just north of the Obelisk. Secondly it is associated with a localised spread of Neolithic worked flint and pottery, which is otherwise rare in the interior of the monument. Finally the plan of the structure bears a remarkable resemblance to those of smaller Early Neolithic houses from Britain and Ireland.

The spread of Neolithic artefactual material includes 346 pieces of worked flint from soil contexts in the area of the Southern Inner Circle, comprising 334 flakes, nine scrapers, a knife, a retouched flake and a polished axe. In addition, there are 138 worked flints from the Z-feature stoneholes and burial pits, from features associated with the Obelisk, and from the gullies. Amongst this material are two awls, a fabricator, a knife and a bifacially retouched flake. The associated debitage includes blades, narrow flakes and several thinning flakes. Such an assemblage is consistent with an Early Neolithic domestic site. The distribution of this material is particularly striking, as the greatest concentration of worked flint is focused on the gully-defined structure, with a lower density ‘halo’ of approximately 20m radius around this. This distribution compares to the artefact spreads around the Early Neolithic buildings at Hazleton North and Ascott-under-Wychwood.

Gillings et al. feel that the most expedient interpretation is that this structure is a Neolithic house. Keiller was correct to interpret the gullies as wall trenches, although, unfortunately, descriptions of fills and sections are lacking. Three of the prehistoric pits sit within the interior, central and perpendicular to the gullies. Their small diameter probably indicates that they are postholes for an internal division. The fourth pit is located at the end of the structure in a central, gable-end position. Taken together, they form a plan that has close parallels with several small post- and trench-constructed houses of the thirty-eighth to early thirty-seventh centuries cal BC from mainland Britain and Ireland. At close to 7 × 7 m, the Avebury structure falls comfortably within the size range. Close parallels include Fengate, Cambridgeshire, Ballintaggart 1 and 3,County Down, Newrath, County Kilkenny and Horton, Berkshire. The larger structure at White Horse Stone, Kent, was constructed within clear sight of a substantial sarsen spread, much as the Avebury building would have been. This would be the first such Early Neolithic house to be identified in Wessex.

The Early Neolithic house structure in the centre of the Southern Inner Circle and comparators. Gillings et al. (2019).

To investigate further the possible connection between the house and the excavated portion of the Z-feature, more data were required. Since Keiller’s excavations, fieldwork in the Southern Inner Circle has been limited to an inconclusive geophysical survey in 1989, alongside more ad hoc mapping of parch marks. More recent surveys elsewhere at Avebury have proven the efficacy of ground-penetrating radar and soil resistance survey for the detection of buried sarsens. Given the known presence of large (between 15 and 100 tonnes), buried sarsen stones at Avebury in close association with highly compacted stoneholes, Gillings et al. consider it surprising that no previous large-scale ground-penetrating radar surveys have been attempted in the Southern Inner Circle. This is despite the success of ground-penetrating radar in detecting buried megaliths on the Beckhampton Avenue.

In April 2017 Gillings et al. surveyed a 5670 m² area to the east of the areas excavated by Keiller. Soil-resistance survey was carried out using twin-probe and square arrays, and this was complemented by ground-penetrating radar. The resistance results display several anomalies indicative of former megaliths. These take the form of discrete high resistance anomalies (marking buried stones), moderately high responses (indicating either deeply buried stones or concentrations of stone debris) and lower-resistance features (destruction pits). Some of these had been previously identified as hollows by Keiller, and as generalised anomalies in the 1989 survey; several had not been identified at all. There are also south-east- to north-west- (and perpendicularly) aligned linear features corresponding to former boundaries - some of which are clearly visible in the field as earthworks - along with probable drainage features. Although not indicated on the interpretation plot, it is interesting to note that the interior of the Southern Inner Circle seems to be characterised by higher resistance. The south-west to north-east band of low resistance crossing the top third of the plot probably reflects the complex sequence of medieval and post-medieval boundary ditches that criss-cross this area.

Results of the soil-resistance survey carried out across the Southern Inner Circle with interpretation. Gillings et al. (2019).

Several clear anomalies are visible in the time-sliced ground-penetrating radar results, from the surface to a depth of 3.1 m. Alongside linear medieval property boundaries and the general ‘noise’ adjacent to the modern gardens, 16 stone-related and three other features have been identified. One of these is adjacent to a modern boundary and manifests as a zone of high resistance, as well as an amorphous ground-penetrating radar anomaly; it probably derives from medieval and/or post-medieval building activity. Another is the edge of Keiller’s 1939 excavation trench. Other anomalies, however, correspond to elements of Neolithic monumental architecture. These include a sub-circular feature evident in the ground-penetrating radar data at a depth between 0.5 and 0.9 m below the present surface, which appears to comprise a series of discrete, small circular anomalies that are probably postholes or pits, four buried sarsens associated with the continuation of the Z-feature setting, two destruction pits or debris relating to the continuation of the Z-feature setting, five substantial, deeply buried sarsens of the Southern Inner Circle, two probable destruction pits (low resistance) and the compressed bases of megalithic stoneholes (ground-penetrating radar reflection) of the Southern Inner Circle, probable destruction pits (low resistance) and compressed stone sockets (ground-penetrating radar reflection) relating to a pair of stones that form a linear alignment with tow other anomalies, a spread of large fragments of sarsen or packing stones, resulting from the destruction of a substantial Southern Inner Circle sarsen, and a possible stone position visible in the ground-penetrating radar data (depths 0.3–0.6 m), but partially masked by debris relating to the modern boundary.

Ground-penetrating radar interpretation combining anomalies identified in the sequential depth slices. In this figure, the level of re-inscription (i.e. over-drawing) acts as a direct proxy for the persistence of the features with depth. Gillings et al. (2019).

Six of the features mirror the position of the excavated Z-feature stoneholes. Taken together, they form a 30 × 30 m square megalithic setting that has been aligned to echo the principal axes of the house. The maximum dimensions of the ground-penetrating radar responses for the buried sarsens have been recorded as a proxy for the size of the buried stone, along with an estimate of the depth of the burial pit. Four of the anomalies fall at the upper end of the size range for the smaller Z-stones, while five are comparable in size to the main Southern Inner Circle megaliths. In all cases, the depth of burial is within the known range. Enough of this megalithic square had survived into the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries for both Aubrey and Stukeley to record its remnants. This suggests that the constituent megaliths had not been dismantled or reconfigured in prehistory. The excavated sarsens and the unusually large stoneholes encountered by Keiller indicate a mixture of larger and smaller stones. If set in alternate fashion, the result would form a contrast between the grey of the larger sarsens and the distinctive orange-red of the surviving Z-stones. The megalithic square is a highly unusual monument in its own right, the closest parallel being the ‘cove’ inside site IV at Mount Pleasant in Dorset. At 36m², however, the latter is considerably smaller.

Additional newly identified features include the sub-circular anomaly seemingly cut by the Southern Inner Circle and two lines of stoneholes radiating from the centre. The former is reminiscent of a double concentric circular anomaly identified previously in the Northern Inner Circle. 

Gillings et al.'s preferred structural sequence for these newly identified features begins with the putative house, followed by the erection of the Obelisk and the square stone setting, and then the construction of the Southern Inner Circle and associated lines. The circular anomaly may pre-date the Southern Inner Circle, but direct dating evidence is currently lacking. By analogy with other Early Neolithic structures, the putative house should date to the second quarter of the fourth millennium BC. Shards of Neolithic bowl and Peterborough Ware from stoneholes in the square setting are presumably residual, although some appear quite fresh. Perhaps this and the Obelisk were constructed in the late fourth or early third millennium BC - a period that might also have witnessed the erection of the Cove stones inside the Northern Inner Circle. The radiating lines form a final megalithic phase. They each have a different origin point and both appear to have been carefully keyed into stones of the square and Southern Inner Circle, implying that the former were already in place. Overall, the site may record activity spanning as much as 1500 years, from the Early Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age.

The newly revealed structural detail of the Southern Inner Circle. Gillings et al. (2019).

If Gillings et al.'s new interpretation of the structure within the Southern Inner Circle as an Early Neolithic house is correct, the implications for understanding Avebury’s origins are profound: the ancestry of one of Europe’s great megalithic monuments can be traced back to the monumentalisation of a relatively modest dwelling. This supports the view that fourth-millennium BC tombs and houses/halls played an active role in the creation and commemoration of foundational social groups. Eventually encased within the centre of the ‘deepest’ space of the henge, Gillings et al. hypothesise that it was the connections that this erstwhile building had with a significant, perhaps founder, lineage that led to it taking on a (mytho-)historic importance; and for the status of the site to move from the quotidian to the sacred. Avebury is not unique in this transformation from ‘mundane’ to monumental structure. The process is evidenced at several Neolithic monuments, such as in the construction of an earlier fourth-millennium BC chambered tomb over a former house at Hazleton North, Gloucestershire, and the later reworking of large free-standing buildings or halls into henges and timber and stone circles at Stenness, Orkney, and Coneybury, Wiltshire. What marks Avebury as exceptional is the heightened significance and long-term resonance of this act of ontological transformation.

The Early Neolithic house at Avebury would have lasted perhaps only a generation or two; the collapsed daub walls would probably have left a visible earthwork that was subsequently afforded careful respect. Later acts of pit digging and artifact deposition highlight the long-term memory work that could attend the visible traces of Early Neolithic houses. Similar activity has been observed in the deliberate digging and filling of later Neolithic pits containing Grooved Ware into the house/hall sites at Yarnton, Oxfordshire, White Horse Stone, Kent, and Littleour, Fife. A Middle Neolithic pit group was carefully dug between the traces of two early fourth-millennium BC houses at Llanfaethlu, Anglesey, while at Cat’s Water, Fengate, Cambridgeshire, pits containing Peterborough Ware were dug along the edge of a centuries-old house.

Since its unexpected discovery in 1939, the Z-feature at Avebury has presented an interpretative conundrum. Isobel Smith came close to Gillings et al.'s preferred explanation when she proposed a link with Early Neolithic funerary architecture, in that the settings within the Southern Inner Circle deliberately echo elements of a long barrow, with the Obelisk representing a burial deposit. Instead of a tomb, however, the Z-feature settings can now be considered to commemorate a form of domestic architecture. Neolithic house forms in Britain changed over time, from square and rectilinear to more oval and rounded later forms. It may be that an explicit link with concepts of the house and household was maintained at Avebury; the subsequent enclosure of the square megalithic setting and erstwhile house by the Southern Inner Circle may replicate - on a truly monumental scale - the square-in-circle format of later Neolithic houses and halls.

Finally, given the frequency with which Early Neolithic houses in Britain and Ireland occur in pairs or small groups, Gillings et al. suggest that we might expect there to be more early houses at Avebury. Indeed, the Cove that sits in the centre of the Northern Inner Circle, amidst a confusing array of un-investigated stone settings, may be a good candidate for the site of a second foundational
building.

See also...

Follow Sciency Thoughts on Facebook.