59 replies to this topic

[Tybrind]

Mortuary practise certainly appears to be a key activity at many causewayed enclosures. Are you referring to the platforms at hambledon hill? These were interpreted as excarnation platforms by the excavator due to the large amount of human remains deposited in the ditches, many with defleshing cut marks, he saw the site as a "a vast, reeking open cemetery, its silence broken only by the din of crows and ravens" (R. Mercer 1980 Hambledon hill a neolithic landscape). There was also a deposit of grain in one of the ditches, as far as i know this is the only large deposit of grain to have come from a causewayed enclosure.  Human remains especially skulls were often deposited in the ditches at other sites such as etton, windmill hill and staines. Julian Thomas imagines  that human bones were curated and passed around, some deposited in long barrows some placed in pits or enclosure ditches.

[Tybrind]

I guess Mercers quote would be seen as a bit dramatic now! However the amount of human remains at hambledon is large (about 80 individuals from relatively small excavations). For recent work on Hambledon see Healy in Cleal and Pollard 'Monuments and Material Culture' 2004. I like the idea of group segments, not sure if lithics were included as grave goods though, deposition of pottery and flint and other cultural material seems to be an activity which had special significance besides mortuary activity, as seen in the large numbers of pit deposits in the early Neolithic (for a good example  see Garrow, D. Beadsmoore, E. and Knight, M. 2005. Pit Clusters and the Temporality of Occupation: an Earlier Neolithic Site at Kilverstone, Thetford, Norfolk. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71),which continues with peterborough and grooved ware traditions  (e.g. those at the fir tree field in cranbourne chase; Barrett, J.C., Bradley, R.J. and Green, M. 1991. Landscape, Monuments and Society The Prehistory of Cranborne Chase.). I think the remains of cattle definitley represent feasting but agree with you that they had special symbolic value as well, theres some great examples from windmill hill with a human infant bone inserted into a cows bone and articulated cattle remains deposited with human bones (Whittle, A., Pollard, J. and Grigson, C. 1999. The Harmony of Symbols: The Windmill Hill causewayed enclosure.). Also recalls the cattle skulls buried under otherwise empty long barrows in the avebury region (Ashbee et al in Procedings of the prehistoric society 1979)- could these be 'standing in' for humans? Thomas has talked about cattle-human relations in the neolithic (in parker-pearson (ed) food culture and identity 2003) as has josh pollard (in 'animals in neolithic britain and beyond' 2005), concluding that the relationship between humans and cattle was closely entwined as they were exchanged and bred. I think the slaughter of cattle would have been relatively rare and confined to special times and places like at causewayed enclosures; at other times they would have been valued for their dairy products, abundant evidence for which is coming from lipid analysis of pottery. Intresting to consider the decline in the importance of cattle in the later Neolithic and abundance of pig remains associated with grooved ware.

[yogro]

I'm  interested in prehistoric cattle farming in Scotland any body got good leads to follow?

[mullien]

"Intresting to consider the decline in the importance of cattle in the later Neolithic and abundance of pig remains associated with grooved ware."

I wonder if it could have been due to cattle disease, later periods of history always have plagues and pestilence, it could easily have been the same here.  Read an account the other day when because of the long winter months in scandinavia during the Viking era the cattle who had been overwintered in barns, had to be carried out because of their weakened condition due to starvation.

[stonecarver]

That's possible. On the other hand, may archaeologist suggest that the association of pig bones with grooved ware might reflect the function of the pots, and not necessarily the availability of either cattle or pigs.

There Are associations between causewayed enclosures and large numbers of cattle bones, and generally, causewayed enclosures are seen as an early Neolithic phenomenon, not a later Neolithic one...

[BuckyE]

So, returning to my earlier question, we need a survey of the known dates of the bank/ditch enclosures and the known dates of their architectural contents. Who has one?

[stonecarver]

A good starting point for anybody interested in causewayed enclosures is the excellent little book by  R. J. Mercer published by Shire  ISBN 0 7478 0064 2

This book details the form, dating and possible function of causewayed enclosures.

Tybrind has noted the more detailed accounts (see above), and Bradley stands out as an author who has looked at the question of function especially.

[chimera]

On the Antunes wheel: it appears to be like the continuous block-and-tackle, where one gear is slightly larger than the attached other gear.  The sliding stone engagement idea resembles the vernier method of a near-parallel line to a sun-shadow at solstice to gain great accuracy in measurement of time.(i.e. druids?).
As Celts had chain rigging for ships, they evidently had gears to handle such a heavy anchor weight, as in capstans of recent times.  The wear on Stonehenge rocks looks interesting.
Count me in.
chimera

[stonecarver]

Please guys, can we keep posts on this thread restricted to things relevant to Neolithic stone tools and causewayed enclosures   ??    

The Atunes wheel has Nothing to do with causewayed enclosures. The ancient druids had Nothing to do with causewayed enclosures. The only reason anybody associates them with Stonehenge is because an antiquarian suggested they did (and he was a 'modern Druid').

We are (trying) to discuss the inter-relationships between causewayed enclosures and tools/pottery.

Incidentally, Bradley suggested that stone-axes are often found in or near to causewayed enclosures... but I have real problems with the distribution maps for stone axes... as they inevitable turn up at Neolithic/Bronze Age sites that get excavated.... ergo - Of Course we find them there.... because that is where we excavate.

I am putting together a research program at the moment which looks at the distribution of axes and causewayed enclosures statistically... and there might Not be the correlation between the two that Bradley takes for granted... on first impression...

[kevin.b]

When they are looking for flint, does it run in seams?
If as I suspect, that the lines I follow have always been there and basically form everything along their path, then it is possible that flint and similer were deposited or formed along these lines?
If this is so, it would seem obvious if you were searching for this material to keep digging along the lines to follow a seam?
They would then end up constructing embankments of quarry spoil, this would be mainly chalk or limestone.
It would also make sense for them to knapp the tools that they required at the same place as where they quarried them?
Therefore i would expect to find lost or discarded axes along the line of the causeway?
By then making use of the site after quarrying, for religous or funery purposes, it would explain a few things?
As I have never hunted for flint, I dont know how it is found , at what depth etc, as the lines I follow also create circles ,due to the geometric patterns of many sets of crossing lines, perhaps the flint can also be found in circuler deposits, this again would explain the ditches around barrows?
Kevin

[stonecarver]

Well now we have something I can really get my teeth into... flint (ouch!).

At other prehistoric sites where humans were extracting flint there are usually scatters of flint which can be attributed to specific episodes of knapping activity. The refitting of these waste flakes to determine a technical scheme for the manufacture of a particular tool or tools is a well established archaeological methodology.

Prehistoric communities in Britain were exploiting very specific flint resources (such as those at Grimes Graves in Norfolk), and using particular and established ways of extracting that flint (the little book on prehistoric flint mines published by Shire is excellent by way of introduction). They Knew where to get flint from, and not all causewayed enclosures are found on flint-bearing soils.

I cannot recall (though I admit my memory is far from perfect) a single flint scatter from the ditch of a causewayed enclosure which can be attributed to a single episode of knapping activity. Refitting debitage (waste flakes from flint-working) is an established methodology (as mentioned above), and I would have thought that if they Had been making tools in the circumstances underlined by Kevin b. (previous post) we would have identified that...

The flint tools deposited in ditches are (generally) interpreted as ritually deposited, After the ditches have already been dug.

That said, it's an interesting idea to throw into the pot Kevin !

[stonecarver]

One of the interesting thing about causewayed enclosures is the way archaeologists have discussed the finds from the sites as if they were intentionally deposited... but, if the sites were inhabited (perhaps even seasonally), we might just be looking at lots of 'Lost property' ?