des espaces aux esprits

84 downloads 429 Views 2MB Size Report
(Burstow & Holleyman, 1957 ; Holden, 1972) and South Lodge, Dorset (Barrett et al., 1991). Large Middle Bronze Age cemeteries are occa- sionally found and a ...
DES ESPACES AUX ESPRITS L’organisation de la mort aux âges des Métaux dans le nord-ouest de l’Europe Sous la direction de Anne Cahen-Delhaye et Guy De Mulder

Patrimoine

Études et Documents Archéologie

32

La série ARCHÉOLOGIE de la collection ÉTUDES ET DOCUMENTS est une publication du DÉPARTEMENT DU PATRIMOINE (SPW/DGO4) Service public de Wallonie Direction générale opérationnelle de l’aménagement du territoire, du logement, du patrimoine et de l’énergie Département du patrimoine Pierre Paquet, Inspecteur général a.i. Rue des Brigades d’Irlande, 1 B-5100 Jambes

Éditeur responsable Pierre Paquet, Inspecteur général a.i. Coordination éditoriale Liliane Henderickx

IMPRESSION, Diffusion et vente Institut du patrimoine wallon Service publications Rue du Lombard 79 – B-5000 Namur T. : +32 (0)81 23 07 03 ou +32 (0)81 65 41 54 F. : +32 (0)81 65 90 97 [email protected] www.idpw.be

Possibilité également d’acquérir les ouvrages à la boutique de l’IPW : Résidence du Grand Cortil Place des Célestines 21 (derrière l’hôtel Ibis)  B-5000 Namur Ouverture du lundi au vendredi de 9h à 12h Pour tout renseignement complémentaire : T. : +32 (0)81 65 41 54 F. : +32 (0)81 23 18 90 En cas de litige, Médiateur de la Wallonie : Marc Bertrand T. : +32 (0)800 191 99 le-mediateur.be Le texte engage la seule responsabilité des auteurs. L’éditeur s’est efforcé de régler les droits relatifs aux illustrations conformément aux prescriptions légales. Les détenteurs de droits qui, malgré ses recherches, n’auraient pu être retrouvés sont priés de se faire connaître à l’éditeur.

Conception graphique de la collection Ken Dethier Mise en page Massoz, Alleur Imprimerie Massoz, Alleur Couverture Petit cimetière à enclos carrés agrafés à Villeseneux « Le Tertre » (Marne). Photo : B. Lambot Cahen-Delhaye A. & De Mulder G. (dir.), 2014. Des espaces aux esprits. L'organisation de la mort aux âges des Métaux dans le nord-ouest de l'Europe, Actes du Colloque de la C.A.M. et de la S.B.E.C., Moulins de Beez à Namur, les 24 et 25 février 2012, Namur (Études et Documents, Archéologie, 32), 220 p.

Avertissement Depuis le 1er août 2008, les nouvelles appellations « Service public de Wallonie. Direction générale opérationnelle de l’aménagement du territoire, du logement, du patrimoine et de l’énergie. Département du patrimoine » remplacent « Ministère de la Région wallonne. Direction générale de l’aménagement du territoire, du logement et du patrimoine. Division du patrimoine ».

Tous droits réservés pour tous pays Dépôt légal : D/2014/13.063/4 ISBN : 978-2-930711-08-9

DES ESPACES AUX ESPRITS. L'ORGANISATION DE LA MORT AUX ÂGES DES MÉTAUX DANS LE NORD-OUEST DE L'EUROPE

Sous la direction de Anne Cahen-Delhaye et Guy De Mulder/ Proceedings directed by Anne Cahen-Delhaye and Guy De Mulder Actes du Colloque de la C.A.M. et de la S.B.E.C./ Proceedings of the conference by the C.A.M. and S.B.E.C. Tenu aux Moulins de Beez à Namur, les 24 et 25 février 2012/ Organised at the Moulins de Beez at Namur, 24 and 25 February 2012 ÉTUDES ET DOCUMENTS, Archéologie, 32 Namur, 2014

organisé par la Cellule Archéologie des Âges des Métaux – Cel Archeologie van de Metaaltijden et le Groupe de contact FNRS Études celtologiques et comparatives avec le concours du Service public de Wallonie, Direction générale de l’aménagement du territoire, du logement, du patrimoine et de l’énergie organised by the Cellule Archéologie des Âges des Métaux – Cel Archeologie van de Metaaltijden and the « Groupe de contact FNRS Études celtologiques et comparatives » supported by the « Service public de Wallonie, Direction générale de l’aménagement du territoire, du logement, du patrimoine et de l’énergie »

Service public de Wallonie Direction générale opérationnelle de ­l 'aménagement du territoire, du logement, du patrimoine et de l'énergie Département du patrimoine

Table des matières

préface - preface

Avant-propos - Foreword

9

11

Anne Cahen-Delhaye & Guy De Mulder

Les nécropoles de l’âge du Bronze final entre les bassins de l’Escaut et de la Meuse moyenne : approche chronologique et culturelle de leur occupation

15

Walter Leclercq

Avant-propos 1. Introduction

15 15



1.1. Historiographie et délimitation de l’aire géographique

15



1.2. Nature et sélection des sites étudiés

16

2. Chronologie des sites funéraires

19



2.1.  Le Bronze D/Ha A1

19



2.2.  Le Hallstatt A2/B1

22

2.3.  Le Hallstatt B2/B3

24



3. Conclusion

Les rites funéraires dans le nord du bassin de l’Escaut à l’âge du Bronze final et au premier âge du Fer

25

29

Guy De Mulder

1. Introduction 2. Historique de la recherche 3. Les nécropoles

29 30 31



3.1. Évaluation archéologique

31



3.2.  Les incinérations

32



3.3.  Les monuments funéraires

35



3.4.  Les offrandes funéraires

4. L a chronologie des champs d’urnes 5. Perspectives

41 45 47

« Nouveaux » enclos funéraires dans les Ardennes flamandes à Ronse « De Stadstuin » 55 Ruben Pede, Bart Cherretté & Cateline Clement

1. Introduction 2. Historique des recherches archéologiques 3. Premiers résultats des fouilles de Ronse « De Stadstuin » 4. Conclusion Études et Documents Archéologie 32

55 55 57 59

5

DES ESPACES AUX ESPRITS. L'ORGANISATION DE LA MORT AUX ÂGES DES MÉTAUX DANS LE NORD-OUEST DE L'EUROPE

Barrows and ancestors. Neolithic, Middle Bronze Age and Merovingian burials at Beerse « Krommenhof » (province of Antwerp, Belgium) 61 Stephan Delaruelle, Bart De Smaele, Catherina Thijs, Simon Verdegem, Sofie Scheltjens & Jef Van Doninck

1. Introduction 2. Bronze Age barrows and a Merovingian cemetery 3. Late Neolithic monuments 4. Middle Bronze Age cemetery 5. Incorporating the past, claiming the land

A Late Bronze Age urnfield at Maastricht « Ambyerveld ». The results of an in-depth interdisciplinary analysis

61 62 64 64 66

69

Tina Dyselinck

1. Introduction 2. The urnfield 3. The basics 4. The extras 5. Interpretation 6. Final results

Le champ d’urnes de Kontich « Duffelsesteenweg » (province d’Anvers, Belgique)

69 70 71 72 73 75

79

Guy De Mulder & Ignace Bourgeois

1. Introduction 2. La nécropole 3. Conclusion

Les pratiques funéraires hallstattiennes dans la moitié sud  de la Belgique

79 79 84

87

Alain Guillaume

1. Le cadre chronologique

87



1.1. Chronologie absolue

87



1.2. Chronologie relative

89

2. Les nécropoles

90

2.1. Nécropoles à tombes plates vs nécropoles à tombelles

90

2.2. Critères d’implantation

90

3. Les tombelles individuelles

92

3.1.  Le bûcher

92



3.2. La destruction par bris, ploiement ou passage au feu

92



3.3. Récolte des restes incinérés/dépôt définitif

93



3.4.  Les structures rares

94

4. Le groupe mosan 5. Perspectives

Survol du deuxième âge du Fer en Champagne-Ardenne

94 95

99

Bernard Lambot

1. La Tène ancienne

1.1. Les « bouchons de champagne » et les chars

2. La Tène moyenne 3. La Tène finale 4. En conclusion 6

99 101 104 106 109

Table des matières

Approche de la société de l’Aisne-Marne à partir de l’organisation des espaces funéraires

113

Lola Bonnabel

1. L’espace de l’Aisne-Marne : des frontières confirmées et précisées 2. L’espace des structures : nécropoles et aires de stockage 3. L’espace de la tombe : une organisation stéréotypée 4. Un vocabulaire à interpréter

Vingt ans d’archéologie funéraire dans le nord de la France : un premier bilan

113 116 118 119

123

Germaine Leman-Delerive

1. Une récente synthèse des principaux chantiers en Picardie occidentale 2. Les découvertes faites en Nord-Pas-de-Calais

124 125



2.1.  Le Cambrésis

127



2.2.  La vallée de la Scarpe

127



2.3.  Les Flandres

132

3. Conclusion

Problems and opportunities : Iron Age burial traditions  in southern Britain

135

141

Niall Sharples

1. Introduction 2. Formal burial traditions 3. Settlement burials 4. Individual burials 5. Conclusion

Inhumation burials : new elements in Iron Age funerary ritual in the southern Netherlands

141 141 146 152 154

161

Peter W. van den Broeke

1. Geographical distribution of Iron Age inhumation burials 2. Nijmegen-Noord Oosterhout « De Eeuwige Lente » (site 101)

163



Lent « Steltsestraat » (site 102)

163



Lent « Lentseveld » (site 67)

165

Ressen « Zuiderveld-noordoost » (site 61)

Lent « Laauwikstraat-zuid » (site 34)

3. Geldermalsen Geldermalsen « Middengebied »

165 166 168 168



Meteren « De Plantage »

169



Meteren « De Bogen »

170

4. Other sites

Beuningen « Ewijk », Keizershoeve II

170 170

Someren « Waterdael »

170

Uden « Slabroekse Heide »

170

5. Chronology 6. Patterns 7. Locals or non-locals ? 8. Incipient answers 9. Motives behind mobility 10. Conclusion Études et Documents Archéologie 32

161 163

172 173 174 176 177 179

7

DES ESPACES AUX ESPRITS. L'ORGANISATION DE LA MORT AUX ÂGES DES MÉTAUX DANS LE NORD-OUEST DE L'EUROPE

Cemeteries of the Late Iron Age in the southern part of the Netherlands 185 Henk A. Hiddink

1. Introduction 2. The earlier prehistoric background 1. Bronze Age and Urnfield-period 3. Heath versus arable, mounds and pots versus simple pits 4. The earlier prehistoric background 2. Middle Iron Age 5. Late Iron Age cemeteries, the sites 6. Grave-types and burial-ritual 7. Grave goods

185 186 188 189 189 192 194

7.1.  Bone hairpins

194



7.2. Glass armrings

195



7.3.  Bronze arm- and ankle-rings

196



7.4. Iron belt-hooks

196

7.5.  Fibulae 197

7.6. Other metal objects

198



7.7. Pottery

199

7.8. Animal bone

200



8. Physical-anthropological research and demography 9. Social status 10. Ditches 11. Concluding remarks

201 202 203 205

Liste des figures

213

Liste des tableaux

219

8

11

Problems and opportunities : Iron Age burial traditions in southern Britain Niall Sharples1

1. Introduction

2.  Formal burial traditions

For most of the Ist millennium BC the evidence for human burial in southern England contrasts markedly with the burial traditions of the continent ; burials are uncommon and there is little evidence for formal cemeteries, instead we find isolated human remains and individual burials in settlements (Whimster, 1981 ; Wilson, 1981). This pattern changes towards the end of the millennium when cremation becomes increasingly common in the south east and regional traditions of inhumation cemeteries develop in ­Dorset and Cornwall.

In the Early Bronze Age Britain has rich traditions of barrow burials with extensive cemeteries (Last, 2007 ; Woodward, 2000), particularly around the major ritual centres of south Dorset and Stonehenge (Tilley, 2010). In general, these barrows are associated with individual burials and are accompanied by grave goods which can include prestige objects of considerable significance (Fitzpatrick, 2011). At the end of the Early Bronze Age these traditions decline and there is a dramatic shift to cremation which becomes the dominant burial tradition by the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (­McKinley, 1997). At the same time as this change to cremation takes place there is a marked decline in the variety and complexity of the grave goods accompanying the burials and the monumental aspects of the burial ritual becomes less significant (Ellison, 1980) ; barrows became smaller and in the north flat unmarked cemeteries are the norm. Extensive excavations in the adjacent areas of the continent in recent years have demonstrated that there is close contact between the Middle Bronze Age societies on either side of the Channel and burial rites appear to be relatively similar (­Bourgeois & Talon, 2009).

In this paper I will outline the evidence for formal burial in southern Britain from the end of the Early Bronze Age through to the Roman period. However, the main focus will be on the evidence from the settlements of central southern Britain that occurs throughout the Ist millennium BC. These remains comprise complete inhumations and isolated or partially articulated human remains that are often but not exclusively placed in pits. Understanding the depositional processes that explain these two features of the archaeological record has been the subject of considerable speculation and it is now possible to integrate this material into a new understanding of British society in the Iron Age. I will argue that the burial evidence reflects the atomised and insular nature of Iron Age societies ; Iron Age communities in Britain were not only consciously isolating themselves from the Continent but more importantly from their near neighbours.

In the most well studied areas of southern England the normal pattern is to build a low barrow and to use this as the focus for a small cemetery, though pre-existing Early Bronze Age barrows can also be reused (Ellison, 1980). Cemeteries normally consist of cremations placed in small pits, sometimes, but not always

 School of History, Archaeology and Religion, Cardiff University. Colum Drive, Cardiff CF10 3EU ; courriel : sharples@ cardiff.ac.uk.

1

Études et Documents Archéologie 32

141

DES ESPACES AUX ESPRITS. L'ORGANISATION DE LA MORT AUX ÂGES DES MÉTAUX DANS LE NORD-OUEST DE L'EUROPE

Fig. 94 The distribution of square barrows cemeteries in the Yorkshire Wolds and an example of a normal burial from the cemetery at Rudston (after Stead, 1991).

in urns : inhumations are occasionally present in these cemeteries (i.e. Twyford Down ; Walker & Farwell, 2000) and 14C dates suggest they are contemporary with the cremations. These ceme­teries are close to settlements and a recurrent pattern on the chalk downlands is for the cemetery to be located uphill from the settlement. Good examples of settlements with associated small cemeteries are Itford Hill, Sussex (Burstow & Holleyman, 1957 ; Holden, 1972) and South Lodge, Dorset (Barrett et al., 1991). Large Middle Bronze Age cemeteries are occasionally found and a good example is Simons Ground, Dorset where several hundred burials were found associated with seven small barrows (White, 1982). These large ceme­teries appear to be more common on the acidic heathlands of Dorset and Hampshire, where settlement is less well documented and this may indicate that these barrows acted as a focus for more dispersed or mobile communities. At the end of the IInd millennium BC the identification of a formal burial tradition becomes increasingly difficult. Most of the Middle Bronze Age cremation cemeteries seem to be abandoned before the beginning of the Ist millennium BC and only isolated cremations have been located across most of southern England. In East Anglia there is a suggestion that cremation continues as a significant feature of the archaeological record (Brück 1995, p. 247), but elsewhere only occasional burials are located (i.e. Green Park/­ Reading Business Park ; Boyle, 1992, p. 96 ; 2004, p. 106). This general absence of formal cemeteries continues through the Ist millennium BC until the emergence of regional traditions of burial 142

practice in the Late Iron Age, probably beginning at the earliest around the end of 2nd century BC. The exceptions to this pattern include a distinct regional tradition in East Yorkshire and an isolated cemetery in Oxfordshire. The latter occurs at Yarnton on the gravel terrace of the River Thames and lies to the east of a small settlement (Hey et al., 1999 ; Hey & Timby, 2011). The cemetery comprised 35 crouched inhumations and seems to represent the population of the adjacent settlement over a period of about two generations in the Middle of the Iron Age. It highlights the peculiar absence of comparable cemeteries in a landscape where extensive gravel extraction has provided an unparalleled opportunity to expose large areas of prehistoric landscape. In East Yorkshire a distinctive tradition of inhumation burial under small square barrows is found (Bevan, 1999a ; 1999b ; Dent, 1982 ; Stead, 1991). This is a very well defined burial tradition which comes from a restricted area of chalk downlands known as the Yorkshire Wolds (fig. 94), and dates to the period between 400 and 100 BC. The most characteristic feature of the burial tradition is the small square ditched enclosures, which indicate the presence of barrows over the individual inhumations. These enclosures show up clearly as crop marks and as this area is extensively cultivated chalk downland the distribution is largely provided by aerial photography. The square barrows are normally located in substantial cemeteries, for example there are 455 burials at Wetwang Slack (Dent, 1982), and the barrows cluster together, often in linear arrangements located alongside pre-­ existing boundaries or tracks. There is a clear preference for valley bottom locations adjacent to seasonal spring lines (Bevan, 1999a ; 1999b), though some cemeteries are in visually dominant locations. Individual graves are found at the centre of square ditched enclosures and it appears that the early burials were placed on the surface, or in shallow pits, and the surrounding enclosures are relatively large and widely dispersed, but over time the enclosures become smaller and more tightly clustered, and the grave pits become deeper (Dent, 1982, p. 446). The bodies are nor-

Problems and opportunities : Iron Age burial traditions in southern Britain

Fig. 95 A plan of the cemetery at Kirkburn, Yorkshire and the layout of chariot fittings, animal offerings at grave goods in grave K5 (after Stead, 1991).

Études et Documents Archéologie 32

143

DES ESPACES AUX ESPRITS. L'ORGANISATION DE LA MORT AUX ÂGES DES MÉTAUX DANS LE NORD-OUEST DE L'EUROPE

mally placed in a crouched position, on their left side with their heads to the north (Stead, 1991) though burials on their right hand side and facing west are also relatively common. Most of these individuals are adults. Grave goods are present and the most common offerings are a pot and a joint of mutton ; brooches, bracelets, beads, rings and pendants are also found, but weapons and tools are rare. Certain burials, set apart from but contemporary with the principal large cemeteries, are much more lavishly furnished. These are the famous chariot burials, which are accompanied by weapons and other high status goods. The chambers and barrows surrounding these burials are larger than normal barrows, presumably not just to accommodate the chariot, but to demonstrate the significance of the person buried. Most of the chariots are partially dismantled with the wheels detached, and either laid on the floor beneath the burial (fig. 95), or stacked to one side. Interestingly a small group of chariot burials have been discovered which were placed in the grave intact, as is normal in continental chariot burials (Diepeveen-Jansen, 2001). These burials are all located outside of the main area of square barrow burials. Most come from areas in northern England immediately adjacent to the Wolds, including the recently excavated example from Ferry Fryston, in North Yorkshire (Boyle et al., 2007), but there is also an outlier from Newbridge, near Edinburgh in Scotland (Carter et al., 2010) which is a recent unexpected discovery. The orientation of the inhumations associated with the chariots is not significantly different to the normal burials, head to the north and placed on their right hand side, but the accompanying grave goods are : joints of pork are preferred and the impressive range of grave goods includes swords, with elaborately decorated scabbards, the fragmentary remains of shields, exotic pins and brooches, iron mirrors, elaborately decorated containers and other enigmatic objects. These grave goods clearly emphasise the significance of the deceased. It is presumed that these individuals belong to the elite, and this is further emphasised by the fact that they are placed in separate small cemeteries detached from the 144

large communal ones containing the bulk of the population. These small cemeteries also contain other idiosyncratic burials ; couples, females that probably died during pregnancy and individuals that appear to have been repeatedly killed in the grave (Stead, 1991) and this highlights the ambiguous nature of status in these societies. Burial practices place the leader beyond society with other individuals who have in some way disrupted the norm. The Yorkshire square barrow tradition appears to die out in the 2nd century BC, and from then on the Late Iron Age burial activities in this region are difficult to identify. A later, 1st century BC, tradition of extended burials, oriented east/ west, was identified at Rudston (Stead, 1991). These anomalous burials preferred joints of pork to mutton, and were provided with ­ weapons and tools, rather than pots and ornaments. The absence of a widespread Late Iron Age tradition is peculiar as it is in this period that formal burial traditions re-emerge in Britain. Three separate traditions appear in southern England in the 1st century BC. In the south east we have the Aylesford Swarling tradition of cremation burial (Birchall, 1965 ; Whimster, 1981). In Dorset we have a group of inhumations known as the Durotrigian burial tradition (Sharples, 1990 ; Whimster, 1981), which are normally located on the edge of small settlements ; the bodies are crouched inhumations placed predominantly on their right hand side with their heads to the east, grave goods are relatively common and the most frequent offerings are pots and joints of meat. In Cornwall (Whimster, 1981 ; Johns, 2006) we have another inhumation tradition characterised by stone cist burials arranged in ceme­teries ; burials are laid on their right hand side with the head to the north, grave goods are rare but include metal ornaments but not pottery. The Aylesford Swarling tradition is the most important and widespread Late Iron Age tradition and covers a large area of south east England (fig. 96 ; Birchall, 1965 ; Whimster, 1981). It is assumed to represent a reestablishment of contacts between the groups either side of the Channel, which had been largely severed at the end of the Bronze Age. The burial tradition coincides with the introduction of coinage and

Problems and opportunities : Iron Age burial traditions in southern Britain

Fig. 96 The distribution of Aylesford Swarling burials in south eastern England and the plan of the cemetery at Westhampnett, Sussex (after Fitzpatrick, 1997).

a range of dramatic changes in material culture, which indicate the close political ties between the groups in south east England and northern France and Belgium, that were later documented by Caesar. The burial rite is cremation and these are normally placed in small pits accompanied by ceramics ; other grave goods include personal ornaments or costume fittings, and occasionally an iron tool (Fitzpatrick, 1997, p. 220-221). Cemeteries are normally small, below 30 burials, but two substantial cemeteries have been identified at King Harry Lane, St Albans (Stead & Rigby, 1989) and Westhampnett, Chichester (Fitzpatrick, 1997). Both of these cemeteries are found on the edge of major centres, oppida, which subsequently become important Roman towns. Unlike continental oppida, the British oppida seldom show evidence for dense urban settlements and these cemeteries are perhaps the best indication that these locations were population centres. Rich burials are a well known feature of the Aylesford Swarling traditions and can be split into the Welwyn and Lexden traditions (Stead, 1976). The Welwyn tradition starts in the first half of the 1st century BC (Fitzpatrick, 1997, p. 208) and is best illustrated by the burials from Baldock (Stead & Rigby, 1986) and Welwyn Garden City (Stead, 1967). These represent early and late burials in the tradition and indicate the increasing importance of Roman culture and in Études et Documents Archéologie 32

particular Roman concepts of eating and drinking — a move away from the communal traditions exemplified by the cauldron and fire dogs in the Baldock burial, to individual consumption using the small cups and plates in the Welwyn Garden City burial. The complex nature of these high status ­burials develops further with the Lexden tradition, which is exemplified by the recently excavated burials at Folly Lane, St Albans (Niblett, 1999) and Stanway, Colchester (fig. 97 ; Crummy et al., 2007). These burials are closely associated with oppida and indicate the close association of high status individuals with these locations. The burial at Lexden was covered by a substantial barrow and these may have covered many of the other burials. The bodies appear to be laid out in subterranean timber chambers surrounded by elaborate grave goods and there are close parallels with the well known burials at Clemency in Luxembourg (Metzler, 1991). Unfortunately the British burial ceremony appears to conclude with the systematic removal and destruction of the grave goods of the principal burials (Crummy et al., 2007, p. 431-432 ; Foster, 1986, p. 166-169 ; Niblett, 1999, p. 47-48) ; we are thus left with a very fragmented and incomplete view of the burial practices. At Stanway we do have a tantalising glimpse of the potential of these high status burials because several subsidiary burials were spared this act of destruction. These include the spec145

DES ESPACES AUX ESPRITS. L'ORGANISATION DE LA MORT AUX ÂGES DES MÉTAUX DANS LE NORD-OUEST DE L'EUROPE

Weapons are very rare in Aylesford Swarling burials, but there are a distinct group of inhumation burials with swords which appear within the Aylesford Swarling cemeteries at Owslebury, Hampshire (Collis, 1977) and Mill Hill, Kent (Parfitt, 1995). These are comparable to other isolated weapon burials that can be found across southern Britain and weapon burials appear in the Cornish cist cemeteries and Durotrigian cemeteries (fig. 98 ; Collis, 1973 ; Johns, 2006). An equivalent group of burials accompanied by elaborately decorated mirrors is also found across the south, but these accompany both cremations and inhumations and appear to be more integrated into the regional traditions (fig. 98 ; Joy, 2011).

3.  Settlement burials This brief summary of the burial evidence has dealt exclusively with the evidence for formal burials set apart from the living. However, throughout the Ist millennium most of the human remains recovered by archaeologists have not come from cemeteries but from settlement contexts. These burials essentially come in two forms ; fragmentary remains and complete human burials (fig. 99). This type of burial evidence is found throughout southern England where the soils allow the survival of bone ; in this paper I will restrict my comments to the area of central southern England known as Wessex (Sharples, 2010).

Fig. 97 The cemetery at Stanway, Colchester, Essex and a detailed plan of the « doctor’s » grave (after Crummy et al., 2007).

tacular « doctor’s » burial (fig. 97 ; Crummy et al., 2007, p. 201-252) which included 14 ceramic vessels, a copper alloy saucepan and strainer, 8 iron and brass rods, 14 surgical instruments, a wooden box, 2 copper alloy brooches, a copper alloy ring, a jet bead, and a wooden gaming board with 26 glass counters. The counters were set out on the board to indicate the early stages of a game. 146

These remains have been studied in the last three decades by a number of scholars, most notably Whimster (1981), Wilson (1981), Wait (1985) and Hill (1995). Wilson (1981) was really the first to identify the burial remains as a distinctive feature of Iron Age society and not simply a result of a casual approach to death. She suggested that there were formal characteristics such as orientation and a crouched or flexed position, and together with Wait (1985) argued that individual burials became increasingly dominant as the Iron Age progressed. It was also clear that the location of the burials was impor­ tant and that there were differences between the character of the human remains on settlements

Problems and opportunities : Iron Age burial traditions in southern Britain

Fig. 98 Rich burials from Whitcombe and Portesham, Dorset (after Aitken & Aitken, 1990).

Études et Documents Archéologie 32

and hillforts. Hill (1995) provided a detailed analysis of the context of these remains which demonstrated that the process of deposition was closely linked to the deposition of other mate­ rials including special deposits of animal bones and carcasses, which seem to be treated in a very similar manner. He argued that the rituals of deposition were driven by an attempt to classify

the surrounding world and the domestic space of the settlement. Large collections of human remains have been recovered from the settlements at Gussage All Saints (Wainwright, 1979), Winnall Down/ Easton Lane (Fasham, 1985 ; Fasham et al., 1989) and Battlesbury (Ellis & Powell, 2008). How-

147

DES ESPACES AUX ESPRITS. L'ORGANISATION DE LA MORT AUX ÂGES DES MÉTAUX DANS LE NORD-OUEST DE L'EUROPE

Fig. 99 A grain storage pit from the settlement at Flagstones, Dorset containing a variety of structured animal deposits including a complete human burial (after Smith et al., 1997).

ever, the excavations at Danebury in Hampshire provide the best evidence for the nature and significance of the deposition of human remains on settlement sites (Cunliffe, 1984 ; 1995 ; Cunliffe & Poole, 1991). A detailed reanalysis of the published record for these burials has resulted in a significant reclassification and reconsideration of the burial remains from Danebury (Sharples, 2010, p. 259-267). The site produced over 327 individual records for human remains which could be broken down into four categories of material ; complete bodies, articulated remains, head or parts of the head, and isolated bones. The most frequent discovery are fragments of heads (123 deposits), but isolated bones come a close second (115 deposits) and are significantly more frequent than articulated segments (46) and complete bodies (43).

vated is relatively large and argued to be representative of the unexcavated areas. It is therefore possible to estimate the amounts of each type of burial deposit present on the site and, as the chronology is accurately estimated by a Bayesian analysis of a large number of 14C dates (Orton et al., 1995), it is possible to work out roughly how often these deposits were made. For example, it is argued that there should be about 83 complete burials in the interior of the hillfort, which would suggest that there was approximately one burial every five years during its occupation. The other burial categories would obviously be made more often, as there are larger numbers, but these are still relatively infrequent acts of deposition and even the head remains appear to have been deposited less than once a year.

These groups can be broken down by phase but there are no striking changes in the composition of the assemblages through the Iron Age (fig. 100) — complete burials are slightly more common in the later Middle Iron Age (cp6-7), whereas skull deposits are particularly common in the earlier part of the Middle Iron Age (cp4-5). These patterns undermine the statements made from other analyses and other smaller settlements which imply that complete burials dominate the evidence from the later part of the Iron Age and are rare in the Early Iron Age.

These estimates whilst useful should not be taken at face value and they seem to be a bit on the low side. It is possible that the excavated remains are not as representative of the hillfort as it first appears. For example any burials in surface deposits would have been destroyed across most of the interior of the hillfort, and would only survive in the deposits accumulating in the quarries behind the ramparts (though burials are unusual discoveries in this location). The boundary of Danebury was only subject to a very limited examination, and it has been argued by Wilson (1981), Wait (1985) and Hill (1995) that inhumations are preferentially positioned in boundary locations. Excavations at Maiden Cas-

The settlement at Danebury is tightly defined by the surrounding boundary and the area exca148

Problems and opportunities : Iron Age burial traditions in southern Britain

tle (Wheeler, 1943) identified several burials placed within and below the ramparts around the entrance and at the junction between the original and the expanded hillfort. It seems likely therefore that human burials occurred more frequently than might at first appear. Nevertheless, if the population of Danebury at any one time was between 100 and 200 as estimated by Cunliffe (1995, p. 90) then we would expect a much larger number of people to be buried if the settlement was the normal area for disposal. Clearly it wasn’t and this raises a number of questions : Fig. 100 The proportions of different burial types from the different phases at Danebury (after Sharples, 2010, p. 263).

– Where were most of the population buried when they died ? – Where do the fragmentary remains come from ? –  Why are they buried on the settlement ?

–  Why are some people placed as complete burials in the settlement ? The question of what was the normal burial right for this region is one which has been an important point of speculation for years. Favourite options have included cremation, river deposition and excarnation. It is possible that cremation continues through the Ist millennium BC and this would provide an indigenous origin for the Aylesford Swarling cemeteries of the Late Iron Age, but cremated remains are very rare discoveries and tend to be restricted to the east of England. Rivers are the location for large quantities of elaborate metalwork in both the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age (Fitzpatrick, 1984), which have clearly been deliberately deposited, and some rivers have also produced large quantities of human remains, notably the Thames (Bradley & Gordon, 1988). Both cremation and river deposition are essentially unverifiable, but it seems unlikely given the relative paucity of evidence, that these rites could be regarded as providing the normal mode of burial for the bulk of the population. Many archaeologists (Carr & Knüsel, 1997 ; Cunliffe, 1995, p. 72 ; Ellison & Drewett, 1971 ; Lally, 2008) think excarnation is the most popular method for disposing of human remains. This process could result in the destruction of all but the small quantity of human remains that we find scattered around the settlements (Carr & Knüsel, 1997). One of the attractions of this theory has been the large number of four post structures on the Wessex settlements ; these have been interpreted as platforms where bodies could be exposed to the elements and their location around the edge of the settlements might suggest the dead were being conspicuously displayed (Ellison & Drewett, 1971). Practices similar to these are known for the continental Iron Age and the exposure of the dead at Ribemont-sur-Ancre (Brunaux, 1999) demonstrates that some Iron Age communities regarded the exposure of human remains as important, though in this case the practices are closely associated with warfare and occur in societies quite different to those in southern England. In Britain, human remains are not associated with the four post structures found on

Études et Documents Archéologie 32

149

DES ESPACES AUX ESPRITS. L'ORGANISATION DE LA MORT AUX ÂGES DES MÉTAUX DANS LE NORD-OUEST DE L'EUROPE

the edge of settlements and the absence of small bones of the hand and feet in the settlement assemblages make it very unlikely that excarnation occurred within the settlements. The exception to this is the « massacre » deposit at South Cadbury, a hillfort in Somerset (Woodward & Hill, 2000, p. 114-115), where body parts appear to have been at least partially displayed at the entrance to the hillfort.

Fig. 101 The enclosure at Suddern Farm and a plan of the burials found in the external quarry (after Cunliffe & Poole, 2000a).

One of the principal arguments against the prevalence of excarnation is the condition of the human remains. As Wilson (1981) observed in her original study, isolated and partially articulated bones show very little evidence for weathering or the effects of animal action and she suggested that the bodies were wrapped. Detailed analysis of bone taphonomy by individuals such as Madgwick (2008) and McKinley (2008) have indicated that the human bone on settlement sites are actually in much better condition than most of the animal bone. There is no evidence for animal gnawing and very little evidence for exposure which suggests they were buried soon after death and recovered after the flesh had decayed. Many of the bones have a polish which suggests they were frequently handled after they were recovered, and it may be that they circulated for some time before they were reburied. An alternative hypothesis is suggested by the excavation of Suddern Farm, Hampshire (Cunliffe & Poole, 2000a). Suddern Farm is an enclosure which in plan looks superficially like a

150

hillfort but which on the ground does not actually meet the principal criterion of being on a hill and is therefore normally discussed as a settlement with an unusually substantial boundary (fig. 101). The initial settlement had a single ditch which appears to be built to abut an existing liner earthwork which dictates the straight western boundary. At the point where the settlement boundary meets the landscape boundary a large quarry was located that lay outside the original enclosure. This quarry was only partially excavated, but these excavations recovered the remains of 31 adults, 9 children and 20 infants. It can be estimated that the quarry contains 300 adults, 80 children and 180 infants. The large number of children and infants provides a much more representative demographic than is visible in isolated burials found within settlements. This is clearly an important cemetery and one that might well represent the normal burial place for the occupants of the enclosure. Burial groups in similar positions to the Suddern Farm cemetery appear to be identifiable at several sites in Wessex, but these have not previously been recognised as specific formal cemeteries. Examples were found at the enclosures of New Buildings (Cunliffe & Poole, 2000b) and Winnal Down (Fasham, 1985 ; Fasham et al., 1989), where small groups of burials are found in quarries on the edge of enclosures where these enclosures meet linear boundaries. In neither case were the quantities of burials comparable with those at Suddern Farm.

Problems and opportunities : Iron Age burial traditions in southern Britain

A site potentially comparable to Suddern Farm is the small hillfort at Spettisbury in Dorset. This was damaged by the construction of a railway line in the 19th century (Gresham, 1939). The cutting for the railway truncated the ditch that defines the fort and at the eastern corner ; here two ancient quarries were uncovered, which contained groups of 80-90 individuals and 40 individuals (Gresham, 1939). These deposits have always been thought to be charnel pits (Cunliffe, 1991, p. 202), indicating a battle with the Romans, largely because one of the skulls found at the site had a spear embedded in it. However, the few objects recovered from the pits clearly indicate the bodies span a relatively long time period and it seems unlikely that they represent a single event, or that warfare/violence was largely responsible for the deaths of the individuals recovered. This discovery, unfortunately only very imperfectly documented (Gresham, 1939), is a very good parallel for the Suddern Farm deposit and suggests that this might be an indication of a fairly widespread pattern. Locations on the edge of settlements are not normally explored by archaeologists and this may explain why cemeteries like these are not often found. The other important feature of the Suddern Farm cemetery is the complexity of the burial practices (Cunliffe & Poole, 2000a). All the burials are crouched inhumations in shallow graves ; grave goods are rare and only two objects were deposited : a fibula and possible finger ring. There is clearly a sequence of burial, where individual graves cut, and are cut by, other graves. There seems little attempt to avoid existing graves, and bodies are frequently disturbed. Disturbance involves both rearranging the skeleton and the removal of bones from the earlier b ­ urials. The removal of bones may provide a source for the isolated, and partially articulated, bones found on Iron Age settlements. Bones recovered from burials are likely to be undamaged by gnawing and exposure and therefore provide a more likely source for the bones found in the settlements than those from excarnation platforms. I would argue therefore that the normal burial rite for the inhabitants of central southern England was burial in a shallow grave in a communal burial pit on the edge of a contemÉtudes et Documents Archéologie 32

porary settlement. The integrity of the individual was maintained during the act of burial, but once buried, and the flesh decayed, the individual became a generic ancestor. These ancestors were a resource which could be called upon by the living and bones were removed and brought into the settlement where they could be incorporated into rituals undertaken as part of the routine day to day life of the community. Personal possessions are almost non-existent in the burial pits and we see little evidence for the internal division of this society by status, age or gender. The burial rite seems to deliberately suppress individuality and emphasise the importance of the community. The emphasis on a communal undifferentiated society should not come as a surprise as it reflects the evidence we have from the settlements and the material culture of the Iron Age in southern Britain. During the Middle Iron Age settlement is characterised by houses which are normally quite small, 4,5-10 m in diameter (Sharples, 2010, p. 196) ; the houses are more or less identical and no evidence exists for the creation of social difference through architecture (Sharples, 2010). The well known large houses of the British Iron Age such as Pimperne (Harding et al., 1993), and Longbridge Deverell (Hawkes, 1994) belong to the Late Bronze AgeIron Age transition (Sharples, 2010, p. 195). Similarly the material culture of the Middle Iron Age in central southern England lacks the high status goods, such as swords, that we use to distinguish elites in areas like Yorkshire, or that are present in the Late Bronze Age and Late Iron Age contexts. The assemblages from hillforts such as Danebury and Maiden Castle (­Cunliffe, 1995 ; Sharples, 1991) are dominated by mundane objects such as spindle whorls, loom weights, bone and antler points and textile equipment, simple iron tools such as knives and awls, quern stones and assemblages of largely undecorated pottery. These could not be used to differentiate individuals or households with a significantly higher status. The only archaeological feature that distinguishes and differentiates status in Wessex is the elaboration of the settlement boundary (fig. 102). 151

DES ESPACES AUX ESPRITS. L'ORGANISATION DE LA MORT AUX ÂGES DES MÉTAUX DANS LE NORD-OUEST DE L'EUROPE

4. Individual burials These characteristics might help us to understand the other principal feature of the archaeological record in southern Britain, individual burials placed in settlement contexts such as grain storage pits (fig. 103). These individuals are clearly differentiated from the normative burial tradition. They indicate individuals who are extracted from the community and treated in quite a different fashion to the bulk of the population. This could be argued to indicate high status individuals, but the absence of accompanying grave goods, the lack of consistency of body placement, and their presence in settlement contexts would be surprising if this was the case.

Fig. 102 Schematic plans of the largest developed hillforts in Wessex.

There are clearly differences in the significance of the people who live in open settlements, those surrounded by small ditches or palisades (i.e. Winnall Down : Fasham, 1985 ; Fasham et al., 1989) and those inside the developed hillforts of the Middle Iron Age, such as Maiden Castle (Sharples, 1991). However, these differences do not differentiate individual status, there was no king of Maiden Castle, they differentiate the status of the community living within the boundary. The community living inside the hillfort at Maiden Castle was of greater importance than the community occupying the enclosure at Suddern Farm because they had the labour and resources to construct a more substantial boundary, and they also had the population to fully occupy the area enclosed (Sharples, 2007, p. 2010). The primary characteristics of the societies that occupied Wessex for most of the Iron Age appears to be a deliberate suppression of rank, family and other internal distinctions, such as gender or craft skills, that separate individuals. Instead all the effort and social prestige has gone into the creation of monumental boundaries that indicate the separation and autonomy of distinctive communities. 152

I would prefer to interpret these individuals as outcasts who were excluded from normal society ; individuals who have been identified as a danger to the community and who have been excluded from the ancestral burial grounds. Some of these individuals may have been deliberately killed (Green, 1998). There is clear evidence for restraint at Danebury (­Cunliffe, 1984, p. 444, fig. 101.1.4) and Slonk Hill (­Hartridge, 1978) where the individuals hands have been tied together, examples exist where the burials are covered with large quantities of rubble (­Cunliffe, 1993, p. 12-13) and many burials are very tightly crouched suggesting some form of binding of the body prior to burial. The evidence suggests these individuals were sacrificed and they may have close similarities to bog ­bodies where the evidence for deliberate execution in a ritual manner is more obvious (Turner & Scaife, 1995). The presence of outcasts in the societies of southern Britain should come as no surprise given the importance of community present in the burial record and the emphasis placed on the boundaries of these communities as demonstrated by the construction of hillforts. Hillfort communities in southern Britain appear to be relatively self sufficient and much of the architectural evidence from the interior of these settlements appears to be concerned with food storage ; pits are very common and almost certainly used for grain storage ; the next most frequent structure is the « 4-poster » and again the most

Problems and opportunities : Iron Age burial traditions in southern Britain

likely interpretation of these structures is that they were used for the conspicuous display of foodstuffs. Agricultural self sufficiency therefore seems to have been an important goal for these communities and their emergence coincides with a collapse in exchange networks. In the Late Bronze Age the movement of bronze objects linked different communities into relationships not only with their neighbours but with groups on the continent. These relationships are visible through the exchange of metals, but also probably involved the exchange of animals and people. The dramatic abandonment of bronze as a system of value at the beginning of the Iron Age is accompanied by the disappearance of these networks of exchange. The Iron Age in southern Britain can therefore be interpreted as a period when households came together as communities and used long term storage rather networks of exchange to compensate for bad harvests and diseased animals.

The anthropologist Mary Douglas (1970, p. 1982) has explored the social characteristics of similar bounded societies and how they differ from other more hierarchical and ego driven societies. She identifies these societies as essentially unstable because social roles are ambiguous and leadership ill-defined, and because the individual is subordinated into membership of the group. Peer polity exchange between elites would be regarded as threatening the character of the group. Physical boundaries are an expression of the coherence of the group and are therefore charged with magical significance. Contact with the external world can result in contamination of the purity of the group and are therefore restricted. Nevertheless, external contacts are necessary, and so purification rituals are a prominent and routine aspect of life intended to neutralise the potential contamination that can occur (Douglas, 1970, p. 103-104 ; Sharples, 2010, p. 294).

Fig. 103 The pit burials from Gussage All Saints (after Wainwright, 1979). Études et Documents Archéologie 32

153

DES ESPACES AUX ESPRITS. L'ORGANISATION DE LA MORT AUX ÂGES DES MÉTAUX DANS LE NORD-OUEST DE L'EUROPE

The tensions surrounding the relationship between the community, the external world and adjacent competing communities will always cause problems because their co-existence contradicts the essential ethos of self sufficiency. It is also very difficult to resolve these problems in a community without established leaders who have the authority to make judgements that will be accepted by everyone. Douglas therefore argues that internal conflicts will be common and are likely to cause the breakdown of communities, which may explain why some hillforts are abandoned for long periods. These divisions and the problems that arise through natural events such as storms, crop failures and animal diseases are also likely to lead to the isolation of individuals who can be accused of breaking the rules and undermining the purity of the community. These individuals may be condemned as witches for deliberately attacking the community using black magic (Douglas, 1982, p. 205206 ; S­ harples, 2010, p. 299). The murder or sacrifice of individuals accused of witchcraft would be one way of interpreting the isolated burials that are found on Iron Age settlements. This may also explain the fact that many of these burials have been located close to settlement boundaries. It is through boundary transgressions that pollution enters the community and therefore by placing the transgressors on the boundary, this may be a warning to ­others, or an attempt to strengthen the boundary. The increasing number of isolated burials in the later part of the Middle Iron Age may indicate that the larger communities associated with the developed hillforts were inherently more difficult to control using the community ideology that originated at the beginning of the Iron Age.

5. Conclusion This paper has been a relatively rapid review of burial practices in southern Britain and I have rushed through a great deal of evidence in a very cursory fashion. Nevertheless, I hope I have demonstrated that archaeological evidence from Britain shows a complex relationship with the continent. In some periods there are consider154

able similarities between practices in Britain and on the continent, most notably the Early Bronze Age and the Late Iron Age but even in these periods the practices are not identical. For example, the cremation cemeteries of the Late Iron Age in Britain and the continent have differences in the treatment of elite burials ; in Britain the deceased and their accompanying grave goods are systematically fragmented, and this practice is much less common on the continent (Crummy et al., 2007, p. 453). There is clearly a major difference between the societies on either side of the Channel during the Iron Age. This resulted from the breakdown of exchange relationships in the Iron Age societies of southern Britain, due to the undermining of the value of bronze at the end of the Bronze Age. Societies in southern Britain responded to this crisis by withdrawing into a state of isolated paranoia which rejected external contact. This was, however, only one regional response, in other areas such as Yorkshire, there was a very different response, which resulted in the development of a vibrant burial record that placed considerable emphasis on the individual, and status was clearly demonstrated by the use of distinctive material culture. These developments were heavily influenced by contacts with the continent which influenced the choice of two wheeled chariots as grave furniture and the nature of the artistic styles used to decorate the high status metalwork. However, again these influences were transformed and reflect an indigenous interpretation of a continental tradition. Clearly there is much that can be learned from looking at the similarities and differences on either side of the Channel and the nature of the burial practices in both regions is one of the most important means through which we can examine the structure of society in later Prehistory. The latter part of this paper has shown that even when these burial practices are elusive, that very intangibility in itself may be crucial to providing an interpretation of social relations in these societies. The evidence of fractured individuals in settlement contexts says a great deal about the relative insignificance of the individual in the Iron Age societies of southern Britain.

Problems and opportunities : Iron Age burial traditions in southern Britain

Bibliography Aitken G.M. & Aitken G.N., 1990. Excavations at Whitcombe, 1965-1967, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society, 112, p. 59-94. Barrett J.C., Bradley R. & Green M., 1991. Landscape, Monuments and Society : The prehistory of Cranborne Chase, Cambridge. Bersu G., 1940. Excavations at Little Woodbury, Wiltshire, Part 1 : The settlement revealed by excavation, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 6, p. 30-111. Bevan B., 1999a. The dead can dance. In : Downes J. & Pollard T. (eds), The Loved Body’s Corruption : Archaeological contributions to the study of human mortality, Glasgow, p. 69-93. Bevan B., 1999b. Northern Exposure : interpretive devolution and the Iron Ages in Britain, Leicester (Leicester Archaeology monographs, 4). Birchall A., 1965. The Aylesford-Swarling culture : the problem of the Belgae reconsidered, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 31, p. 241-367. Bishop N.A. & Knüsel C.J., 2005. A paleodemographic investigation of warfare in prehistory. In : Parker Pearson M. & Thorpe I.J.N. (eds), Warfare, Violence and Slavery in Prehistory, Oxford (BAR International Series, 1374), p. 201-216. Bourgeois J. & Talon M., 2009. From Picardy to Flanders : Transmanche connections in the Bronze Age. In : Clark P. (ed), Bronze Age connections : Cultural contact in prehistoric Europe, Oxford, p. 38-59. Boyle A., 1992. Human remains. In : Moore J. & Jennings D., Reading Business Park : a Bronze Age Landscape. Thames Valley Landscapes : the Kennet Valley, Volume 1, Oxford, p. 98. Boyle A., 2004. Human skeletal assemblage. In : Brossler A., Early R. & Allen C., Green Park (Reading Business Park) : Phase 2 Excavations 1995 – Neolithic and Bronze Age sites, Oxford (Thames Valley Landscape Monographs, 19), p. 106-110. Boyle A., Evans T., O’Connor S., Spence A. & Brennand M., 2007. Site D (Ferry Fryston) in the Iron Age and Roman periods. In : Brown F., Howard-Davis C., Brennand M., Boyle A., Evans T., O’Connor S., Spence A., Heawood R. & Lupton A. (eds), The Archaeology of the A1 (M) Darrington to Dishforth DBFO Road Scheme, Lancaster. Bradley R. & Gordon K., 1988. Human skulls from the River Thames, their dating and significance, Antiquity, 62, p. 503-509. Brück J., 1995. A place for the dead : the role of human remains in Late Bronze Age Britain, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 61, p. 245-277. Brunaux J.-L., 1999. Ribemont-sur-Ancre (Somme). Bilan préliminaire et nouvelles hypothèses, ­Gallia, 56, p. 177-283. Burstow G.P. & Holleyman G.A., 1957. Late Bronze Age settlement on Itford Hill, Sussex, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 23, p. 167-212. Carr G. & Knüsel C., 1997. The ritual framework of excarnation by exposure as the mortuary practice of the early and middle Iron Ages of central southern Britain. In : Gwilt A. & Haselgrove C. (eds.), Reconstructing Iron Age Societies, Oxford (Oxbow Books, Monograph, 71), p. 167-173. Carter S., Hunter F. & Smith A., 2010. A 5th century BC Iron Age chariot burial from Newbridge, Edinburgh, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 76, p. 75-94. Collis J.R., 1973. Burials with weapons in Iron Age Britain, Germania, 51, p. 121-133. Collis J.R., 1977. Owslebury (Hants) and the problem of burials on rural settlements. In : Reece R. (ed.), Burial in the Roman world, London (Research Report, 22), p. 26-35. Études et Documents Archéologie 32

155

DES ESPACES AUX ESPRITS. L'ORGANISATION DE LA MORT AUX ÂGES DES MÉTAUX DANS LE NORD-OUEST DE L'EUROPE

Craig R., Knüsel C.J. & Carr G., 2005. Fragmentation, mutilation and dismemberment : an interpretation of human remains on Iron Age sites. In : Parker Pearson M. & Thorpe I.J.N. (eds), Warfare, Violence and Slavery in Prehistory, Oxford (BAR International Series, 1374), p. 165-180. Crummy P., Benfield S., Crummy N., Rigby V. & Shimmin D., 2007. Stanway : an élite burial site at Camulodunum, London (Britannia Monograph, 24). Cunliffe B.W., 1984. Danebury : An Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire, London (CBA Research Report, 52). Cunliffe B.W., 1991. Iron Age Communities in Britain, 3rd edition, London. Cunliffe B.W., 1993. Fertility, propitiation and the gods in the British Iron Age, Amsterdam, Vijftiende Kroon-Voordracht gehouden voor de Stichting, Nederlands Museum voor Anthropogie en Praehistorie te Amsterdam. Cunliffe B.W., 1995. Danebury : An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire. Volume 6. A hillfort community in perspective, York (CBA Research Report, 102). Cunliffe B.W., 2000. The Danebury Environs Programme, volumes 1 and 2, Oxford. Cunliffe B.W. & Poole C., 1991. Danebury an Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire, volumes 4 and 5, London (CBA Research Report, 73). Cunliffe B.W. & Poole C., 2000a. Suddern Farm, Middle Wallop, Hants, 1991 and 1996, Oxford (Danebury Environs Programme 2.3). Cunliffe B.W. & Poole C., 2000b. New Buildings, Longstock, Hans 1992 and Fiveways, Longstock, Hants, 1996, Oxford (Danebury Environs Programme 2.4). Dent J.S., 1982. Cemeteries and settlement patterns of the Iron Age on the Yorkshire Wolds, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 48, p. 437-457. Dent J.S., 1984. Weapons, wounds and war in the Iron Age, Archaeological Journal, 140, p. 120-128. Dent J.S., 1985. Three chariot burials from Wetwang, Yorkshire, Antiquity, 59, p. 85-92. Diepeveen Jansen M., 2001. People, ideas and goods, Amsterdam. Douglas M., 1970. Natural Symbols : Explorations in Cosmology, London. Douglas M., 1982. Essays in the Sociology of Perception, London. Downes J., 1999. Cremation : a spectacle and a journey. In : Downes J. & Pollard T. (eds), The Loved Body’s Corruption : Archaeological contributions to the study of human mortality, Glasgow, p. 19-29. Downes J., 2009. The Construction of Barrows in Bronze Age Orkney – an « assuagement of guilt » ? In : Allen M., Sharples N. & O’Connor T. (eds), Land and People, Oxford. Ellis C.J. & Powell A.B., 2008. An Iron Age settlement outside Battlesbury Hillfort, Warminster and sites along the Southern Range Road, Salisbury. Ellison A., 1980. Deverel-Rimbury urn cemeteries : the evidence for social organisation. In : ­Barrett J.C. & Bradley R. (eds), The British Later Bronze Age, Oxford (BAR British Series, 83), p. 115126. Ellison A. & Drewett P.L., 1971. Pits and post holes in the British Early Iron Age, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 37, p. 183-194. Farwell D.E. & Molleson T.I., 1993. Excavations at Poundbury 1966-80. Volume II : The Cemeteries, Dorchester (Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society. Monograph, 11). Fasham P.J., 1985. The Prehistoric settlement at Winnal Down, Winchester, Gloucester (Hampshire Field Club. Monograph, 2). Fasham P.J., Farwell D.E. & Whinney R.J.B., 1989. The archaeological site at Easton lane, Winchester, Gloucester (Hampshire Field Club. Monograph, 6). 156

Problems and opportunities : Iron Age burial traditions in southern Britain

Fitzpatrick A.P., 1984. The deposition of La Tène Iron Age metalwork in watery contexts in Southern England. In : Cunliffe B.W. & Miles D. (eds), Aspects of the Iron Age in Central Southern Britain, Oxford (Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Monograph, 2), p. 178-190. Fitzpatrick A., 1997. Archaeological excavations on the route of the A27 Westhampnett bypass, West Sussex. Volume 2 : The cemeteries, Salisbury (Wessex Archaeology Report, 12). Fitzpatrick A.P., 2011. The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen : Bell Beaker burials on Boscombe Down, Amesbury, Wiltshire, Salisbury (Wessex Archaeology Report, 27). Foster J., 1986. The Lexden Tumulus : a re-appraisal of an Iron Age burial from Colchester, Essex, Oxford (BAR British Series, 156). Grant A., 1991. Economic or symbolic ? Animals and ritual behaviour. In : Garwood P., Jennings D., Skeates R. & Toms J. (eds), Sacred and Profane, Oxford (Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Monograph, 32), p. 109-114. Green M., 1998. Humans as ritual victims in the later prehistory of Western Europe, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 17/2, p. 169-189. Gresham C.A., 1939. Spettisbury Rings, Dorset, Archaeological Journal, 96, p. 114-131. Harding D.W., Blake I.M. & Reynolds P.J., 1993. An Iron Age settlement in Dorset : Excavations and Reconstruction, Edinburgh (University of Edinburgh. Monograph Series, 1). Hartridge R., 1978. Excavations at the prehistoric and Romano-British site at Slonk Hill, Shoreham, Sussex Archaeological Collections, 116, p. 69-141. Hawkes S.C., 1994. Longbridge Deverill Cow Down, Wiltshire, House 3 : A major round house of the Early Iron Age, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 13/1, p. 49-69. Hey G. & Timby J., 2011. Yarnton : Iron age and Romano-British settlement and landscape : Results of excavations 1990-98, Oxford (Oxford Archaeology Monograph, 32). Hey G., Bayliss A. & Boyle A., 1999. Iron Age inhumation burials at Yarnton, Oxfordshire, Antiquity, 73, p. 551-562. Hill J.D., 1995. Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex : A Study in the formation of a specific archaeological record, Oxford (BAR British Series, 242). Hill J.D., 1996. The identification of ritual deposits of animals : general perspective from a specific study of « special animal deposits » from the southern English Iron Age. In : Anderson S. & Boyle K. (eds), Ritual treatment of human and animal remains, Oxford, p. 17-32. Holden E.W., 1972. A Bronze Age cemetery barrow on Itford Hill, Beddingham, Sussex Archaeological Collections, 113, p. 83-103. Jay M. & Richards M.P., 2007. British Iron Age diet : stable isotopes and other evidence, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 73, p. 169-190. Johns C., 2006. An Iron Age sword and mirror cist burial from Bryher, Isles of Scilly, Cornish Archaeology, 41-42, p. 1-79. Joy J., 2011. Exploring status and identity in Later Iron Age Britain : Reinterpreting mirror burials. In : Moore T. & Armada X.-L. (eds), Atlantic Europe in the first millennium BC. Crossing the Divide, Oxford, p. 468-487. Lally M., 2008. Bodies of difference in Iron Age southern England. In : Davis O., Sharples N. & Waddington K. (eds), Changing perspectives on the first millennium BC, Oxford, p. 119-138. Last J., 2007. Beyond the Grave : New perspectives on barrows, Oxford. Laver P. G., 1927. The excavation of a Tumulus at Lexden, Colchester, Archaeologia, 76, p. 241-254. Études et Documents Archéologie 32

157

DES ESPACES AUX ESPRITS. L'ORGANISATION DE LA MORT AUX ÂGES DES MÉTAUX DANS LE NORD-OUEST DE L'EUROPE

Lightfoot G., O’Connell T., Stevens R.E., Hamilton J., Hey G. & Hedges R.E.M., 2009. An investigation into diet at the site of Yarnton, Oxfordshire, using stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 28, p. 301-322. Madgwick R., 2008. Patterns in the modification of animal and human bones in Iron Age Wessex : revisiting the excarnation debate. In : Davis O., Sharples N. & Waddington K. (eds), Changing perspectives on the first millennium BC, Oxford, p. 99-118. Marcigny C. & Talon M., 2009. Sur les rives de la Manche. Qu’en est-il du passage de l’Âge du Bronze à l’Âge du Fer à partir des découvertes récentes ?. In : Roulière-Lambert M.-J., Daubigney A., ­Milcent P.-Y., Talon M. & Vital J. (eds), De l’Âge du Bronze à l’Âge du Fer en France et en Europe occidentale (xe-viie siècle av. J.-C.). La moyenne vallée du Rhône aux Âges du Fer. Actes du XXXe colloque international de L’A.F.E.A.F., Dijon (Revue Archéologique de l’Est, supplément 27), p. 385-403. McKinley J.I., 1997. Bronze Age barrows funerary rites and rituals of cremation, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 63, p. 129-146. McKinley J.I., 2008. Human remains. In : Ellis C.J. & Powell A.B., An Iron Age settlement outside Battlesbury Hillfort, Warminster and sites along the Southern Range Road, Salisbury (Wessex Archaeology Report, 22), p. 71-83. Metzler J., 1991. Clemency et les tombes de l’aristocratie en Gaule Belgique, Luxembourg. Niblett R., 1999. Excavation of a Ceremonial site at Folly Lane, Verulamium, London. Orton C., Litton C.D. & Buck C., 1995. The radiocarbon chronology. In : Cunliffe B.W. (ed.), ­Danebury : An Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire. Volume 6. A hillfort community in perspective, York (CBA Research Report, 102), p. 130-136. Parfitt K., 1995. Iron Age burials from Mill Hill, Deal, London. Parker Pearson M., 1999. Food, Sex and Death : Cosmologies in the British Iron Age with particular reference to East Yorkshire, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 9/1, p. 43-69. Petersen F., 1981. The Excavation of a Bronze Age Cemetery on Knighton Heath, Dorset, Oxford (BAR British Series, 98). Redfern R., 2007. A bioarchaeological analysis of violence in Iron Age female : a perspective from Dorset, England. In : Davis O.P., Sharples N.M. & Waddington K.E. (eds), Changing perspectives on the first millennium BC, Oxford, p. 139-160. Redfern R., 2011. A re-appraisal of the evidence for violence in the Late Iron Age human remains from Maiden Castle hillfort, Dorset, England, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 77, p. 111-138. Sharples N.M., 1990. Discussion. In : Aitken G.M. & G.N., Excavations at Whitcombe 1965-1967, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeology Society, 112, p. 57-94. Sharples N.M., 1991. Maiden Castle : Excavations and Field Survey 1985-86, London (Archaeological Report, 19). Sharples N.M., 2007. Building communities and creating identities in the first millennium BC. In : Haselgrove C. & Pope R. (eds), The Earlier Iron Age in Britain and the near Continent, Oxford, p. 174184. Sharples N.M., 2010. Social relations in Later Prehistory : Wessex in the first millennium BC, Oxford. Smith R.J.C., Healy F., Allen M.J., Morris E.L., Barnes I. & Woodward P.J., 1997. Excavations along the Route of the Dorchester Bypass, Dorset, 1986-8, Salisbury (Wessex Archaeology Report, 11). Stead I.M., 1967. A La Tène III burial at Welwyn Garden City, Archaeologia, 101, p. 1-62. Stead I.M., 1976. The earliest burials of the Aylesford culture. In : Sieveking G., Longworth I.H. & Wilson K.E. (eds), Problems in social and economic archaeology, London. Stead I. M., 1991. Iron Age Cemeteries in East Yorkshire, London. 158

Problems and opportunities : Iron Age burial traditions in southern Britain

Stead I.M. & Rigby V., 1986. Baldock : the excavation of a Roman and pre-Roman settlement, 1968-72, London (Britannia Monograph, 7). Stead I.M. & Rigby V., 1989. Verulamium : The King Harry Lane Site, London (English Heritage Archaeological Report, 12). Stevens R., Lightfoot E., Hamilton J., Cunliffe B. & Hedges R., 2010. Stable isotope investigations of the Danebury hillfort pit burials, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 29, p. 407-428. Tilley C., 2010. Interpreting landscapes. Geologies, topographies, identities. Explorations in landscape phenomenology 3, Walnut Creek. Turner R.C. & Scaife R.G., 1995. Bog bodies : new discoveries and new perspectives, London. Wainwright G.J., 1979. Gussage All Saints : An Iron Age settlement in Dorset, London. Wait G., 1985. Ritual and Religion in Iron Age Britain, Oxford (BAR British Series, 149). Walker K.E. & Farwell D.E., 2000. Twyford Down, Hampshire Archaeological Investigations on the M3 Motorway from Bar End to Compton, 1990-93, Gloucester (Hampshire Field Club Monograph, 9). Wheeler R.E.M., 1943. Maiden Castle, London. Whimster R., 1981. Burial practices in Iron Age Britain, Oxford (BAR British Series, 90). White D.A., 1982. The Bronze Age Cremation Cemeteries at Simons ground, Dorset, Dorchester (­Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society Monograph, 3). Wilson B., 1992. Considerations for the identification of ritual deposits of animal bone in Iron Age pits, International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 2, p. 341-349. Wilson B., 1999. Displayed or concealed ? Cross cultural evidence for symbolic and ritual activity depositing Iron Age animal bones, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 18/3, p. 297-306. Wilson C., 1981. Burials within settlements in Southern Britain during the Pre-Roman Iron Age, Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology at the University of London, 18, p. 127-169. Woodward A., 2000. British Barrows : A matter of life and death, Stroud. Woodward A. & Hill J.D., 2000. The human bodies. In : Barrett J.C., Freeman P.W.M. & Woodward A., Cadbury Castle Somerset : The later prehistory and early historic archaeology, London, p. 114115.

Études et Documents Archéologie 32

159