A demographic perspective on burial practices at Early Neolithic enclosures in south-east England

2022 ◽  
pp. 61-80
Author(s):  
Dawn West Cansfield
2018 ◽  
Vol 147 ◽  
pp. 29-47
Author(s):  
Sue Anderson ◽  
Melanie Johnson ◽  
Ann Clarke ◽  
Mike Cressey ◽  
Mhairi Hastie

A large prehistoric pit was uncovered during a watching brief on a water main installation. The pit was partially stone-lined and two small scoops were identified at the base. These contained one complete and one partial Beaker vessel. The fills of the pit produced a small quantity of cremated human bone which represented a minimum of four individuals (three adults and a juvenile). Also mixed into the fills were sherds of other Beaker vessels, a few lithics, a stone axehead, and fragments of Neolithic pottery. Radiocarbon determinations produced early Neolithic dates for four samples of human bone and a grain of wheat, and one human bone sample produced a Bronze Age date later than the generally accepted currency of Beaker pottery production in Scotland. Interpretation of this strange collection of material is discussed with reference to Neolithic and Bronze Age burial practices; the evidence for the use of this pit in the Neolithic for cremation burial is a rare find and provides a valuable contribution to our understanding of this period and type of monument.


2013 ◽  
Vol 79 ◽  
pp. 61-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Wysocki ◽  
Seren Griffiths ◽  
Robert Hedges ◽  
Alex Bayliss ◽  
Tom Higham ◽  
...  

We present radiocarbon dates, stable isotope data, and osteological analysis of the remains of a minimum of 17 individuals deposited in the western part of the burial chamber at Coldrum, Kent. This is one of the Medway group of megalithic monuments – sites with shared architectural motifs and no very close parallels elsewhere in Britain – whose location has been seen as important in terms of the origins of Neolithic material culture and practices in Britain. The osteological analysis identified the largest assemblage of cut-marked human bone yet reported from a British early Neolithic chambered tomb; these modifications were probably undertaken as part of burial practices. The stable isotope dataset shows very enrichedδ15N values, the causes of which are not entirely clear, but could include consumption of freshwater fish resources. Bayesian statistical modelling of the radiocarbon dates demonstrates that Coldrum is an early example of a British Neolithic burial monument, though the tomb was perhaps not part of the earliest Neolithic evidence in the Greater Thames Estuary. The site was probably initiated after the first appearance of other early Neolithic regional phenomena including an inhumation burial, early Neolithic pottery and a characteristic early Neolithic post-and-slot structure, and perhaps of Neolithic flint extraction in the Sussex mines. Coldrum is the only site in the Medway monument group to have samples which have been radiocarbon dated, and is important both for regional studies of the early Neolithic and wider narratives of the processes, timing, and tempo of Neolithisation across Britain


Author(s):  
Rick Peterson

This chapter examines the diversity of Neolithic cave burial practices after around 3800 BC. In this period there is evidence of a secondary burial rite which is focussed on the cranium. There is also one possible example of mummification or the curation of body parts as part of extended funerary practices. Other secondary burial rites can be recognised in a small number of sites. There are also a very small number of primary burials. The most common burial rite in this period is successive inhumation, which is well documented at a number of sites. There are also sites where multi-stage rites of some kind clearly took place, but without sufficiently well preserved evidence to describe them in more detail and other sites where there are Early Neolithic dates from poorly understood single bones. This diversity of burial practice seems to be linked to the fact that all of these different kinds of rite are also attested at other kinds of Early Neolithic site as well as caves.


2000 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 330-349 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivana Radovanović

Houses and burials recorded in the settlements of Lepenski Vir I and II and burials previously ascribed to Lepenski Vir III are here discussed in view of the recent analyses of archaeological material and re-analyses of the field burial record from this site. Evidence of pottery in situ in houses of Lepenski Vir I, together with the evidence for important dietary change in the Lepenski Vir community in the course of the second half of the seventh millennium cal BC, reinforces the assumption, made by a number of scholars over several previous decades, of intensive contacts between early Neolithic groups and local hunter-gatherers. Burial practice throughout the seventh and sixth millennia cal BC at Lepenski Vir is thus reanalyzed in this new light. Apart from burials unrelated to architectural remains, five ‘types’ of burial deposition are noted in relation to houses of Lepenski Vir I–II, all but one having a distinct chronological and spatial patterning. The inhabitants' choice of mode of deposition of the deceased is always associated with a certain location in the settlement, sometimes used over several centuries. In the course of their history, these locations were often used for building a particular house or group of houses. The content of such houses is also discussed wherever it was possible. Duality in settlement organization could also be recognized in the burial practices related to settlement architecture. The attribution of the majority of burial remains to early Neolithic Lepenski Vir III is here also questioned in the light of new data and reinterpreted settlement sequences.


2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
David MacInnes

The nature of social organization during the Orcadian Neolithic has been the subject of discussion for several decades with much of the debate focused on answering an insightful question posed by Colin Renfrew in 1979. He asked, how was society organised to construct the larger, innovative monuments of the Orcadian Late Neolithic that were centralised in the western Mainland? There are many possible answers to the question but little evidence pointing to a probable solution, so the discussion has continued for many years. This paper takes a new approach by asking a different question: what can be learned about Orcadian Neolithic social organization from the quantitative and qualitative evidence accumulating from excavated domestic structures and settlements?In an attempt to answer this question, quantitative and qualitative data about domestic structures and about settlements was collected from published reports on 15 Orcadian Neolithic excavated sites. The published data is less extensive than hoped but is sufficient to support a provisional answer: a social hierarchy probably did not develop in the Early Neolithic but almost certainly did in the Late Neolithic, for which the data is more comprehensive.While this is only one approach of several possible ways to consider the question, it is by exploring different methods of analysis and comparing them that an understanding of the Orcadian Neolithic can move forward.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document