Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:24:05.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Animals and Cotswold-Severn Long Barrows: a Re-examination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2013

Richard Thomas  and
Lesley McFadyen
Richard Thomas
Affiliation:
School of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, LE1 [email protected]
Lesley McFadyen
Affiliation:
Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, Via Panorâmica, s/n, 4150-564 Porto, Portugal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper new collaborative research is presented following a re-examination of the faunal remains and architectural evidence from a selected number of Cotswold-Severn long barrow sites. Five different loci of deposition are considered: ‘pre-barrow’ contexts; the chambers; the superstructure of the barrow and the ditches; the forecourt; and blocking material. These spatial locations were chosen following research that has demonstrated that these areas are likely to represent different temporal, as well as spatial, patterns of activity. While the faunal remains are diverse in character, common themes observed at the sites include: the deposition of complete or partial remains of foetal and young animals within chambers; the use of teeth and cranial elements within blocking material; and, within each temporal context, the absence of clear evidence for feasting and the importance of cattle, and the small but constant inclusion of wild mammals. This complexity of practice has the potential to mature our thinking regarding the nature of human–animal relationships within the early Neolithic of Britain and provide a secure foundation of evidence for subsequent interpretations.

Résumé

Dans cette étude nous présentons de nouvelles recherches fruit d'une collaboration à la suite à d'un ré-examen des vestiges de faune et des témoignages architecturaux d'un nombre choisi de sites de tertres en longeur de la régiom Cotswold-Severn Nous avons pris en compte cinq lieux de dépôt différents: des contextes ‘pré-tertre’; les chambres; la superstructure du tertre et les fossés; l'avant-cour et le matériel d'obstruction. Ces situations spatiales ont été choisies suite à des recherches qui ont démontré que ces zones étaient susceptibles de représenter des modes d'activités différents dans le temps aussi bien que dans l'espace. Tandis que les restes d'animaux ont des caractéristiques diverses, les thèmes communs observés sur les différents sites sont les suivants: le dépôt de restes complets ou partiels de fœtus ou de jeunes animaux à l'intérieur des chambres, l'utilisation de dents et d'éléments craniens dans les matériaux d'obstruction; et à l'intérieur de chaque contexte temporel, l'absence de témoignage clair de festin et de l'importance du bétail, et la petite mais constante présence de mammifères sauvages. La complexité de ces pratiques nous offre l'occasion de mûrir nos pensées en ce qui concerne la nature des relations homme–animal dans le cadre du néolithique ancien en Grande-Bretagne et nous fournit une solide base de témoignages pour des interprétations ultérieures.

Résumen

En este trabajo se presenta una nueva investigación en colaboración tras un reexamen de los restos de fauna y de la evidencia arquitectónica de yacimientos escogidos de túmulos alargados en Cotswold-Severn. Se contemplan cinco lugares de deposición distintos: contextos “pre-túmulo”; las cámaras; la superestructura del túmulo y de los fosos; el patio; y el material utilizado para bloquearlos. Estas localidades espaciales fueron elegidas tras una investigación que ha demostrado que estas áreas probablemente representan diversos modelos de actividad temporal y espacial. Mientras que los restos faunísticos son diversos en carácter, los temas comunes observados en los yacimientos incluyen: la deposición del restos completos o parciales de fetos de animales y animales jóvenes dentro de las cámaras; el uso de dientes y de elementos craneales dentro del material de bloqueo; y, dentro de cada contexto temporal, la ausencia de evidencia clara de banquetes y la importancia de ganados, y de la pequeña pero constante inclusión de mamíferos salvajes. Esta complejidad de práctica tiene el potencial de madurar nuestro pensamiento sobre la naturaleza de las relaciones hombre-animal en el primer neolítico de Gran Bretaña y de proporcionar una base segura de evidencia para interpretaciones posteriores.

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Beitrag wird die neue gemeinschaftliche Forschung präsentiert, die aus einer neuerlichen Untersuchung der tierischen Funde und archäologischen Daten einer Auswahl von Cotswold-Severn Langhügelgräbern resultiert. Fünf verschiedene mögliche Niederlegungsorte werden untersucht: der Raum außerhalb des Langhügels (pre-barrow); die Kammern; der Oberbau des Hügels und die Gräben; der Vorhof; das Verschlussmaterial. Diese Stellen wurden ausgewählt auf der Basis von Forschungen, die zeigten, dass diese Areale sehr wahrscheinlich unterschiedliche zeitliche und auch räumliche Aktivitätssequenzen reflektieren. Während die tierischen Funde von unterschiedlicher Art sind, gibt es einige gemeinsame Themen in allen Fundplätzen, z.B. die Niederlegung kompletter oder teilweiser neugeborener und junger Tiere innerhalb der Kammern, die Verwendung von Zähnen und Schädelelementen innerhalb des Verschlussmaterials, sowie in jedem zeitlichen Kontext das Fehlen eindeutiger Hinweise auf Feste und die Bedeutung von Rind sowie das konstante Vorhandensein von Wildsäugern, wenn auch in kleiner Zahl. Diese Komplexität von Praktiken kann helfen unsere Vorstellungen von der Natur der Mensch-Tier-Beziehungen im frühen Neolithikum Großbritanniens weiterzuentwickeln und eine sichere Datenbasis für weitere Interpretationen zu erlangen.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 76 , 2010 , pp. 95 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ashbee, P. 1966. The Fussell's Lodge long barrow excavations, 1957. Archaeologia 100, 1–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, J. 1988. Isbister, Quanterness and the Point of Cott: the formulation and testing of some middle range theories. In Barrett, J.C. & Kinnes, I.A. (eds), The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: recent trends, 57–62. Sheffield: John R. CollisGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J.C. 1984. The living, the dead, and the ancestors: Neolithic and early Bronze Age mortuary practices. In Barrett, J.C. & Kinnes, I.A. (eds), The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: recent trends, 30–41. Sheffield: John R. CollisGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J.Bradley, R. & Green, M. 1991. Landscape, Monuments and Society: the prehistory of Cranborne Chase. Cambridge: University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bate, D.M.A. 1936. Appendix VII. In Clifford, (ed.) 1936, 156–7Google Scholar
Bate, D.M.A. 1938. Appendix VII. In Clifford, (ed.) 1938, 212–13Google Scholar
Benson, D & Whittle, A. (eds) 2007. Building Memories: the Neolithic Cotswold Long Barrow at Ascott-under-Wychwood, Oxfordshire. Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
SirBerry, J. 1929. Belas Knap long barrow, Gloucestershire; report of the excavations of 1929. Transactions of the Gloucestershire & Bristol Archaeological Society 51, 273–303Google Scholar
SirBerry, J. 1930. Belas Knap long barrow, Gloucestershire. Second report of the excavations of 1930. Transactions of the Gloucestershire & Bristol Archaeological Society 52, 123–50Google Scholar
Bourdon, R.M. & Brinks, J.S. 1982. Genetic, environmental and phenotypic relationships among gestation length, birth weight, growth traits and age at first calving in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 55, 543–53CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradley, R.J. 1984. Studying monuments. In Bradley, R.J. & Gardiner, J. (eds), Neolithic Studies, 61–6. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 133Google Scholar
Brickley, M. & Thomas, R. 2004. The young woman and her baby or the juvenile and their dog: re-interpreting osteological material from a Neolithic long barrow. Archaeological Journal 161, 1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britnell, W.J. 1984. The Gwernvale long cairn, Crickhowell, Brecknock. In Britnell, W.J. and Savory, H.N. (eds), Gwernvale and Penywyrlod: two Neolithic long cairns in the Black Mountains of Brecknock, 41–154. Cardiff: Cambrian Archaeological Monographs 2Google Scholar
Buckman, J. 1865. Notes on an ancient British tumulus at Nympsfield opened by the Cotteswold Club. Proceedings of the Cotteswold Naturalists Field Club 3, 184–8Google Scholar
Bull, G. & Payne, S. 1988. Components of variation in measurements of pig bones and teeth, and the use of measurements to distinguish wild from domestic pig remains. Archaeozoologia 2, 27–65Google Scholar
Bünger-Marek, I. 1972. Beitrag zur Altersbestimmung von Feten des Deutschen Schwarzbunten Rindes insbsesondere auf Grund von Längenmassen. University of Hannover: unpublished ThesisGoogle Scholar
Carpentier, V.; Ghesquière, E. & Marcigny, C. 2007. Archéologie en Normandie. Paris: Éditions Ouest-FranceGoogle Scholar
Clifford, E.M. 1936. Notgrove long barrow, Gloucestershire. Archaeologia 86, 119–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, E.M. 1938. The excavation of Nympsfield long barrow, Gloucestershire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 4, 188–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, E. 1966. Hetty Pegler's Tump. Antiquity 40, 129–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darvill, T. 2004. Long Barrows of the Cotswolds and Surrounding Areas. Stroud: TempusGoogle Scholar
Deniz, E. & Payne, S. 1982. Eruption and wear in the mandibular dentition as a guide to ageing Turkish Angora goats. In Wilson, B., Grigson, C. & Payne, S. (eds), Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, 155–206. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 109Google Scholar
Donovan, H.E. 1938. Adlestrop Hill barrow, Gloucestershire. Transactions of the Gloucestershire & Bristol Archaeological Society 60, 152–64Google Scholar
Edmonds, M. 1999. Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic. Landscape, Monuments and Memory. London & New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Field, D. 2006. Earthen Long Barrows: the Earliest Monuments in the British Isles. Stroud: TempusGoogle Scholar
Gjesdal, F. 1972. Age determination of swine foetuses. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica Supplementum 40, 1–29Google ScholarPubMed
Grant, A. 1982. The use of tooth wear as a guide to the age of domestic ungulates. In Wilson, B., Grigson, C. & Payne, S. (eds), Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, 99–108. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 109Google Scholar
Grimes, W.F. 1960. Excavation on Defence Sites, 1939–1945. Vol 1. Mainly Neolithic and Bronze Age. London: HMSO, Ministry of Works Archaeological Report 3Google Scholar
Habermehl, K.-H. 1975. Die Altersbestimmung bei Haus-und Labortieren. Berlin/Hamburg: Paul PareyGoogle Scholar
Harland, J.F., Barrett, J.H., Carrott, J., Dobney, K. & Jaques, D. 2003. The York System: an integrated zooarchaeological database for research and teaching. Internet Archaeology 13 (http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue13/harland_index.html)Google Scholar
Hemp, W.J. 1929. Belas Knap long barrow, Gloucestershire. Transactions of the Gloucestershire & Bristol Archaeological Society 51, 261–72Google Scholar
Hodder, I.R. 1990. The Domestication of Europe. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Jackson, J.W. 1929. Report on the remains from Belas Knap, Gloucestershire. In Hemp, (ed.) 1929, 271–2Google Scholar
Jones, A. & Richards, C. 2003. Animals into ancestors: domestication, food and identity in Late Neolithic Orkney. In Parker-Pearson, M. (ed.), Food, Culture and Identity in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, 45–51. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S1117Google Scholar
Kinnes, I.A. 1985. Circumstance not context: the Neolithic of Scotland as seen from outside. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 115, 115–57Google Scholar
Kinnes, I. 1992. Non megalithic long barrows and allied structures in the British Neolithic. London: British MuseumGoogle Scholar
Klein, R.G. & Cruz-Uribe, K. 1984. The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Chicago: University PressGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, W.L. 1866. Examination of a long barrow in Gloucestershire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London (2nd ser.) 3, 275–82Google Scholar
Levitan, B. 1990. The non-human vertebrate remains. In Saville, (ed.) 1990, 199–214Google Scholar
Matschke, G.H. 1967. Aging European wild hogs by dentition. Journal of Wildlife Management 31(1), 109–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCormick, F. 1984. Large mammal bone. In Sharples, N.M. (ed.), Excavations at Pierowall Quarry, Westray, Orkney. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 114, 108–12Google Scholar
McFadyen, L. 2006. Building technologies, quick and slow architectures and early Neolithic long barrow sites in southern Britain. Archaeological Review from Cambridge. 21(1), 117–34Google Scholar
McFadyen, L. 2007a. Neolithic architecture and participation – practices of making in early Neolithic Britain. In Last, J. (ed.), Beyond the Grave: New Perspectives on Barrows, 22–9. Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
McFadyen, L. 2007b. Making architecture. In Benson, D. & Whittle, A. (eds), Building Memories: the Neolithic Cotswold Long Barrow at Ascott-under-Wychwood, Oxfordshire, 348–353. Oxford: Oxbow BooksGoogle Scholar
McFadyen, L., Benson, D. and Whittle, A. 2007. The long barrow. In Benson, & Whittle, (eds) 2007, 79–136Google Scholar
Morey, D.F. 2006. Burying key evidence: the social bond between dogs and people. Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 158–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulville, J. & Grigson, C. 2007. The animal bone. In Benson, & Whittle, (eds) 2007, 237–54Google Scholar
O'Neill, H.E. 1966. Sale's Lot long barrow, Withington, Gloucestershire. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society 85, 5–35Google Scholar
Payne, S. 1973. Kill-off patterns in sheep and goats: the mandibles from Asvan Kale. Anatolian Studies 23, 281–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, S. 1975. Partial recovery and sample bias. In Clason, A.T. (ed.), Archaeozoological Studies, 7–17. Amsterdam: North Holland PublishingGoogle Scholar
Payne, S. 1987. Reference codes for wear stages in the mandibular cheek teeth of sheep and goats. Journal of Archaeological Science 14, 609–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piggott, S. 1954. The Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Piggott, S. 1962. The West Kennet Long Barrow: Excavations 1955–56. London: HMSOGoogle Scholar
Pollard, J. 1993. Traditions of Deposition in Neolithic Wessex. University of Wales College Cardiff: unpublished ThesisGoogle Scholar
Pollard, J. 2005. Memory, Monuments and Middens in the Neolithic Landscape. In Brown, G., Field, D. & McOmish, D. (eds), The Avebury Landscape. Aspects of the Field Archaeology of the Marlborough Downs, 103–14. Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
Pollard, J. 2006. A community of beings: animals and people in the Neolithic of Southern Britain. In Serjeantson, D. & Field, D. (eds), Animals in the Neolithic of Britain and Europe, 135–48. Oxford: Oxbow/Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Paper 7Google Scholar
Ray, K. & Thomas, J. 2003. In the kinship of cattles: the social centrality of cattle in the early Neolithic of southern Britain. In Parker-Pearson, M. (ed.), Food, Culture and Identity in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, 37–44. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S1117Google Scholar
Regli, K. 1963. Beitrag zur Altersbestimmung von Feten des Simmentaler und Freiburger Fleckviehrindes insbsesondere auf Grund von Messungen an Gliedmassenknochen. Zürich: unpublished thesisGoogle Scholar
Rolleston, G. 1876. On the people of the long barrow period. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 5, 120–73Google Scholar
Ryder, M.L. 1983. Sheep and Man. London: DuckworthGoogle Scholar
Saville, A. 1979. Further excavations at Nympsfield chambered tomb, Gloucestershire, 1974. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 45, 53–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saville, A. 1990. Hazleton North: the Excavation of a Neolithic Long Cairn of the Cotswold-Severn Group. London: English Heritage Archaeological Report 13Google Scholar
Schmid, E. 1972. Atlas of Animal Bones for Prehistorians, Archaeologists and Quaternary Geologists. New York: ElsevierGoogle Scholar
Silver, I.A. 1969. The ageing of domestic mammals, In Brothwell, D. & Higgs, E. (eds), Science in Archaeology (2nd edn), 283–302. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Smith, M. 2006. Bones chewed by canids as evidence for human excarnation: a British case study. Antiquity 80, 671–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M. & Brickley, M. 2006. The date and sequence of use of Neolithic funerary monuments: new AMS dating evidence from the Cotswold-Severn region. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 25(4), 335–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. 1988. The social significance of Cotswold-Severn burial practices. Man 23(3), 540–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. 1991. Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Veale, E.M. 1957. The rabbit in England. Agricultural History Review 5(1), 85–90Google Scholar
Whittle, A., Pollard, J. & Grigson, C. 1999. The Harmony of Symbols. The Windmill Hill Causewayed Enclosure, Wiltshire. Oxford: OxbowCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittle, A., Barclay, A., Bayliss, A., McFadyen, L., Schulting, R. & Wysocki, M. 2007. Building for the dead: events, processes and changing worldviews from the 38th to the 34th centuries cal BC in southern Britain. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17(1)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witts, G.B. 1881. Description of the long barrow of West Tump in the parish of Brimpsfield, Gloucestershire. Transactions of the Gloucestershire & Bristol Archaeological Society 5, 201–11Google Scholar
Wysocki, M. & Whittle, A. 2000. Diversity, lifestyles and rites: new biological and archaeological evidence from British earlier Neolithic mortuary assemblages. Antiquity 74, 591–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar