The question:
"The great communal monuments of the later Neolithic required enormous effort to construct. What form of society and organisation would be required for such a task?"
Summer 1994
The later British Neolithic is a period during which an insular island people turned further into their own social milieu for inspiration to express ideas of the sacred, whether in pottery assemblages or the building of public monuments of various types. Toward the end intrusive ideas were introduced from the continent[1], which were to interact with native British preoccupations.
The variety of public monuments attributed to the later neolithic include henges, stone circles, large mounds and passage graves[2], the most dominant construct being circularity. A feature shared with earlier hilltop causewayed enclosures, from which they probably evolved[3] and some of which may have been contemporary[4].
The next most common shared feature is the range of individuality expressed in construction - size, composition, use of solar/lunar alignments (where relevant)[5], relationship to internal/external components (where these occur) and use of materials. Clare lists 335 henges and hengiforms[5]. The former being "circular earthworks with a bank surrounding an inner ditch and broken by one or more entrances"[7], and the latter which do not have a ditch and a bank. Some henges have two ditches (mainly in eastern England), a rare few an outer ditch (the most famous being Stonehenge), some no ditch at all (western Britain and Ireland). The 'classic' henge is located in all regions of the British Isles, the other varieties being found in discrete geographical regions, though with some overlap[8].
To add to the complexity some henges contained circles of wood or stone, or concentric rings that may have supported structures or have free standing poles[9]. Stone circles exist without a henge "ditch and bank"[10]. Various alignments or structures within or without add to the impression of a "kaleidoscope of ideas and traditions"[11], a stone 'screen' at Avebury and a wooden one at Durrington Walls[12], five monuments incorporate 'coves', at Avebury within the main circle, at Stanton Drew outside. Some ritual landscapes incorporate artificial mounds, Marden's is within the henge, at Avebury it is outside. It is possible that artificial ritual mounds are more common than previously believed, the castle mott at Marlborough is probably a neolithic monument and other motts may prove to have a similar provenance.
Pottery is important as it can be used to date a monument in the absence of radio carbon dating. There are three main pottery styles associated with later neolithic communal monuments, Peterborough (impressed) Ware, Grooved Ware and Beakers[13]. Each main style is further complicated by regional variations.
However, it is also problematic as deposits may be earlier or later in date than the building activity. It is not certain how pottery assemblages relate to one another, they may be chronologically sequential, or represent co-existing cultic packages, particularly toward the end of the period. There is evidence of geographical spread through time in a number of areas, and particular relationships between pottery and defined types of monuments.
Clare notes that Peterborough Ware is absent from henges other than sub-types b,c,d,e and possibly f[14], sub-group h has predominantly Beaker associations, with interesting exceptions of Grooved Ware being found at the large diameter henges (or henge enclosures) of Durrington, Marden, Waulud's Bank and the unenclosed Cannon Hill[15]. (see Illustrations 1-3).
The provenance of the three main ceramic styles are interesting, Peterborough Ware which developed out of the indigenous round based pots of the earlier neolithic and had northern and southern sub-divisions[16] is mainly found at domestic sites, with ritual deposits in discrete geographical areas (e.g. Dorchester). Grooved Ware appears to have been an Orkadian fusion of Irish plain/ridged bucket-shaped ware, with Irish grave art, to produce a new ceramic style which travelled down the east coast of Scotland and England, penetrating inland to Wessex and the Upper Thames Valley, spawning a number of regional variations[17]. (see Illustration 4). Grooved Ware is also found in ritual and domestic contexts (e.g Woodhenge and Skara Brae). Beakers are intrusive arrivals from the continent toward the end of the period[18].
It is generally agreed "that the earliest beakers are found in Wessex"[19], from where they spread. Early beakers are primarily associated with death rituals and are rarely found in henges or other communal monuments during this period, however they are sometimes found in a domestic context[20]. Beakers are strongly associated with the introduction of individual burials and early metals[21]. Earlier users[22[ appear to have avoided, or respected, monuments with strong Peterborough or Grooved Ware associations[23] (see illustration 5).
The overall picture is of homogeneity in religion, sharing widespread common beliefs that found expression in circular (or similar) constructions. However, the variety of expression through architectural difference also appears to be a significant indicator that religious/ritual orthodoxy is not present. The pottery suggests a more complex picture of small, somewhat scattered communities holding on to local/regional pottery traditions (Peterborough and other later neolithic ware), a more widespread, perhaps innovative, community adopting ideas and pottery or Orkadian origin (Grooved Ware) and an initially contained community in Wessex reaching out and incorporating 'foreign' (continental) rituals as seen through deposits of Beaker Ware and an associated avoidance of 'Grooved' and other indigenous pottery sites. The three (probably ritual) pottery assemblages occupied the same space and time in Wessex at the end of the period.
Wessex appears to have been an area where problems between competing social systems impacted. The indigenous plain/impressed ware and grooved ware may have been representative of divergent land-tenure claims. With ancestral rights of passage for animals being claimed by herders to and from summer pasturage, and the competing claim of more settled communities wanting to curtail ancestral rights in order to enclose land for agricultural use[24]. The Orkneys provide proof of early settled communities and farming and it is possible that, along with grooved ware, orkadians exported an ideology legitimising changes in land tenure. The arrival of beakers appears to have signalled an ideology of prestige/status being attached to individuals through individual burials in round barrows and the deposition of grave goods in them of a beaker and other artifacts, amongst them small amounts of gold/copper (it is not entirely clear at this stage whether beaker burials are separate from both indigenous forms of expression, or whether they are representative of a new 'high status' group practising extra-curricular, rather than separate rites)[34].
It has been said that the building of the new communal monuments required a considerable investment in human resources, 80,000 hours to construct the Ring of Brodgar (Renfrew) and 500,000 to dig the ditch at Durrington Walls (Startin & Bradley), compared to 10,000-100,000 for a megalithic tomb (Renfrew), all of which are up to a hundred times higher than expenditure on a "typical round barrow"[25]. Renfrew argues that this was achieved by a combination of several early neolithic groups (each associated with a causewayed enclosure and long barrow) forming a larger political territorial unit, with the capacity to combine and direct the larger workforce required, through an emerging "social hierarchy"[26]. For the largest sites he posits a 'confederation of Chiefdoms'[27], or, preferably, a single polity of a 'greater Chiefdom'. Atkinson takes this further and argues the unlikelihood of the monuments being "the expression of the common will, but rather the fulfillment of a purpose imposed from above"[28].
I would like to consider whether there was a need for the societal changes argued by Renfrew, or the more radical ones of Atkinson. In Queensland (Australia) family bands of 40 or so people come together in larger groupings relatively regularly, occasionally even larger 'tribal' gatherings occur. The large gatherings are rotated "because the economic activities required to support large gatherings could rapidly deplete local food resources". The groups making up the 'tribal' gatherings are kin-related, but membership of family or 'clan groups are flexible[29].
In the British neolithic similar fairly flexible societal organisations may have enabled the building of communal monuments. Internal evidence of ditch quarrying for long barrows and causewayed enclosures, suggest they were dug in segments, possibly the work of several teams. Each segment (or pair) may have been the responsibility of a number of related families, forming a 'clan' of from 160-400 persons[30]. For larger ceremonial meetings, perhaps to arrange marriages, they may have rotated with other kin-clans, for similar reasons quoted from native Australians, forming loose tribal affiliations of between 220-2,000 people[31]. As sedentism gradually occurred and agriculture became more established, central resources (pigs, grain etc) could sustain larger numbers consistently, thus the need to rotate would become necessary and the natural response may have been to build a tribal centre (henge).
Given the recent experiments carried out by Julian Richards on the Stonehenge trilithon, it is possible that the hours required to build monuments has been overstated[32] thus they were well within the ability of tribal assemblies. The amount of organisation (as opposed to work) needed would not be substantially greater than that required to build earlier monuments and organise tribal gatherings. The obligatory 'chief' seems unnecessary at this stage of development, although it is possible that 'obligation' networks existed, enabling some people to assume relatively tenuous status (big men/women)[33].
It has been suggested that the later neolithic architectural changes, for example ditch reversal (causewayed enclosures and henges) from external to internal was evidence for the rise of a priesthood and exclusion of the people. Various other functional/ritual changes are put forward as evidence of exclusionary strategies and devices in the establishment of an elite priesthood:-
The use of 'screening' devices to restrict the vision of participants
(e.g. Avebury and Durrington Walls)see Illustration 6
Coves erected in association with five monuments that would severely
limit the number of celebrants(e.g. Avebury and Stanton Drew)
Construction of ritual hills that would limit the number of celebrants
and restrict vision (e.g Silbury Hill)
The best example of neolithic architectural evidence that supports a priestly take over is found not in the British Isles, but on the tiny Mediterranean islands of Malta and Gozo, which contain the oldest free standing structures in the world. The chronology of building it that the original simple trefoil structures became increasingly elaborate, culminating in the the final complex Tarxien phase. According to Simon Stoddart, the architecture is paralleled by an egalitarian society becoming increasingly dominated by the rituals of a complex temple society, in which an elite priesthood were able to exclude the people from all bar the temple forecourts or the first set of chambers in some temples. The archaeological evidence put forward is that doors were closed from within, priestly oracles and elaborate decorations reserved to public view along visual sight lines through entry portal to inner altar[34].
The evidence against this theory is that it is not certain when door mechanisms were incorporated, they may have been installed any any age prior to the final phase, or even added in post temple periods[35]. Decorated stonework is not reserved to areas of public view and entry to the 'oracle' rooms does not require access through 'priestly' areas.
The most telling evidence is the continuation of undifferentiated burial rituals from the pre-temple to final Tarxien Phase,
suggesting a continuation of the early egalitarian society (new excavations at the Brochtorff Circle)[36]. See illustrations 7 - 10(37].
Returning to the British Isle, similar problems exist, it stretches the evidence to argue that structures enclosing large spaces, with ample entrances (e.g. Avebury), or capable of holding fair sized congregations, such as the flattened top of Silbury Hill, were build to deny access to all but a small elite. If the 'screen' at Avebury was intended to restrict the view of onlookers it was not very efficient. Coves and similar small scale monuments may have been erected to serve more personal rituals with individuals, for examples rites of puberty, which do not necessarily require the offices of a priesthood. Finally the reversal of ditches does not strike me as either more or less exclusionary.
This is not to imply that inclusion/exclusion was not practiced, indeed all societies have practices that exclude people for some period of time and then include them. In our society one example is school, each year children are excluded from a higher class, the following year they are included. Neolithic society may have behaved similarly, with whole age groups being included at various stages, with the criteria for inclusion/exclusion being longevity and youthfulness.
Another argument against the building of late neolithic monuments being organised by an 'elite' of chiefs or priests, is that the monuments themselves may not have been perceived as 'communal'. The excluded majority of 'non-elite', 'non-priests' would not have had a vested interest in co-operating unless a reward or payment could be made, but what resources would have been available? Pots have been suggested as being status laded, but how could distribution of a commodity open to easy abuse have been controlled? Sources of flint and stone, which could have been controlled were not[38], as far as we are aware, land was probably still a communal asset and thus not available for individual distribution. A powerful elite able to control scarce resources and distribute them, is not likely to have occurred until the large-scale introduction of metals, which did not happen until the bronze age was well developed[39].
In summary I would argue that the later neolithic communal monuments were built by a basically egalitarian people whose societal and religious practices were not very different from their causewayed enclosure/long barrow building forbears, but whose economic base had changed. The organisation required to accomplish the new tasks need not have been any more formal than those required by their ancestors and carried through on "diffused power which 'spreads in a more spontaneous, unconscious way, decentred through a population' ..... being expressed through 'an understanding that these practices are natural or moral or result from self-evident common interest'"[40]. Barratt observes "the hand of Atkinsons autocratic chief no longer lies behind the construction of Stonehenge"[41], and the "mobilization of labour necessary for these undertakings must have arisen within earlier, and different, forms of political obligation"[42].
Barratt adds "by building Avebury and Durrington Walls new social realities were also constructed. These social realities did not lie behind the building of these monuments but emerged from their existence"[43], I suggest that the ramifications of this did not come about until the Bronze Age when a new order based on the control of metals would enable individuals to achieve power, status and prestige which would then be expressed in religious ritual, using the fabric of the old communal monuments of their ancestors. Rich burials would signal that "a new social principle of ranking has emerged, displayed in the ostentatious use of costly objects. The process of the emergence of ranking is currently one of the most actively discussed in the field of European history"[44].
NOTES:
1. Represented in the archaeological record by beaker assemblages
2. Which are of uncertain date Richard Bradley 'The social Foundation of Prehistoric Britain: themes and variations in the archaeology of power' P44
3. "henges are best explained as evolving from a broad tradition which we see manifest in causewayed camps". T Clare "Towards a Reappraisal of Henge Monuments: origins, evolution and hierarchies' P462
4. "it is also apparent that any explanation of the origins of the sites must allow for .... the possibility that some of the early sites were contemporary with some causewayed camps" T Clare 'Towards a Reappraisal of Henge Monuments: origins, evolution and hierarchies' P310
5. e.g. Newgrange, Maes Howe, Stonehenge and Clava Cairns Richard Bradley 'The social Foundation of Prehistoric Britain: themes and variations in the archaeology of power' P77/8
6. T Clare 'Towards a Reappraisal of Henge Monuments: origins, evolution and hierarchies' P310-314
7. Aubrey Burl 'Prehistoric Henges' P13
8. Aubrey Burl 'Prehistoric Henges' P13
9. e.g. The Sanctuary (Avebury) and Woodhenge
10. e.g. The Sanctuary (Avebury), Avebury, Stanton Drew and Callanish
11. T Clare 'Towards a Reappraisal of Henge Monuments: origins, evolution and hierarchies' P472
12. John C Barrett 'Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life' Chapter 1
13. There are also a number of indigenous, localised styles
14. Where found in secondary contexts T Clare 'Towards a Reappraisal of Henge Monuments: origins, evolution and hierarchies' P306
15. T Clare 'Towards a Reappraisal of Henge Monuments: origins, evolution and hierarchies' P306
16. Ebbfleet, Mortlake, Fengate/Maldon Bridge, Ford, Rudston respectively
17. Clacton, Durrington, Woodlands etc
18. Well made pottery in red fabric in two decorative styles 'all over cord/combed' and 'comb-zoned'
19. Richard Bradley 'The social Foundation of Prehistoric Britain: themes and variations in the archaeology of power' P79
20. General pottery information taken from Alex Gibson 'Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Pottery'
21. Gold and copper
22 The users of beakers were mainly indigenous, however there may have been a population of migrants from continental europe who brought with them new technologies (early metallurgy) and religious/social ideas
23. Though this is not always true, there is evidence in Aberdeenshire of desecration by beaker users. Aubrey Burl 'Prehistoric Stone Circles' P43
24 See arguments in previous assignment
25 Richard Bradley 'The social Foundation of Prehistoric Britain: themes and variations in the archaeology of power' P76
26 John C Barrett 'Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life' P140
27 John C Barrett 'Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life' P159
28 John C Barrett 'Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life' P27
29 M J Morwood 'The Archaeology of Social Complexity in South-East Queensland' P339
30 Assuming clan size to be made up of between 4 and 10 family groups of average size 40 persons
31 Assuming the affiliation of 2-5 clans to form a tribe
32 The age and physical make up of the volunteers did not conform to the normal theoretical requirement of physically fit, strong, youthful males. The numbers of volunteers were, additionally, 50% less than the lowest minimum estimate. Personal communications with Julian Richards 1994
33. Lewis R Binford 'In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record' P219/220
34. Various articles by Anthony Bonanno, Tancred Gouder, Caroline Malone, Simon Stoddart and David Trump as listed in the Bibliography. Plus personal communication with Simon Stoddart during Bristol University Summer Tour September 1994
35. Some temples were used by later peoples domestically, for burial rituals or animal shelters
36. Personal communication Simon Stoddart Bristol University Study Tour September 1994. Simon Stoddart's argument is that a 'priesthood took over the Temples after they had been substantially completed.
37. Personal communication Simon Stoddart Bristol University Study Tour September 1994. Simon Stoddart accepts that the first set of chambers of the main temple at Tarxien was communal. On my first visit to Tarxien in January 1992, I felt that the Tarxien final phase temple layout was suggestive of a 'priestly take-over', as can be seen in Illustration 10, the portal is 'closed' by a decorative block, which effectively says 'do not enter here'. Although visually very impressive I preferred the other temples to Tarxien.
38. Richard Bradley various arguments concerning pots, flints and stone in Chapter 3
39. The small amount of gold and copper introduced in association with beaker burials would not have been sufficient, added to which there appears to be no connection between early beaker users and monument building
40. John C Barrett 'Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life' P162
41. John C Barrett 'Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life' P163
42. John C Barrett 'Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life' P28
43. John C Barrett 'Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life' P28
44. Colin Renfrew 'Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins' P33
ILLUSTRATIONS:
Frontispiece. Artists impression of neolithic ditch at Avebury. Thanks Mandsu
1. Pottery distribution adapted from a table in T Clare 'Towards a Reappraisal of Henge Monuments: origins, evolution and hierarchies' P309
2. Continuation of 1 above
3. Classification Matrix for 1 and 2 above T Clare 'Towards a Reappraisal of Henge Monuments: origins, evolution and hierarchies' P283
4. Outline distribution of Grooved Ware and Passage Graves Richard Bradley 'The social Foundation of Prehistoric Britain: themes and variations in the archaeology of power' P60
5. Sequence of henges and complex burials in Wessex (adapted) Richard Bradley 'The social Foundation of Prehistoric Britain: themes and variations in the archaeology of power' P81
6. Possible reconstruction of 'Screen' at Durrington Walls John C Barrett 'Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life' P81
7. Aerial view of Mnadjra Temple Complex, Malta (postcard)
8. Plan of Mnajdra Temple Complex, Malta - showing visual sight line portal-altar and the presence of decorated stone-work outside the line of vision. Study notes September 1994 Bristol University Study Tour
9. View of inner temple entry portal Tarxien Complex, Malta (postcard)
10. Plan of Tarxien Temple Complex, Malta - showing position of entry portal above, which cannot be seen from either the main portal, or from the first set of chambers. Study notes September 1994 Bristol University Study Tour.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
BARRETT, John C 'Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life' Blackwell 1994
BONANNO, GOUDER, MALONE & STODDART Monuments in an Island Society: The Maltese Context World Archaeology Vol.22.2 1990 P190-205
BONANNO, GOUDER, MALONE, STODDART & TRUMP [U]Cult in an Island Society: Prehistoric Malta in the Tarxien Period Cambridge Archaeological Journal Vol 3:1 1993 P3-19 The Death Cults of Prehistoric Malta Scientific American December 1993 P76-83
BRADLEY, Richard The Social Foundation of Prehistoric Britain: themes and variations in the archaeology of power Longman 1992
BINFORD, Lewis R In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record Thames & Hudson 1988
BURL, Aubrey Prehistoric Henges Shire Archaeology 1991 Prehistoric Stone Circles Shire Archaeology 1994
CLARE, T Towards a Reappraisal of Henge Monuments Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society Vol.52 1986 P281-316 Towards a Reappraisal of Henge Monuments: origins, evolution and hierarchies Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society Vol.53 1987 P457-477
GIBSON, Alex Neolithic & Early Bronze Age Pottery Shire Archaeology 1986
MORWOOD, M J The Archaeology of Social Complexity in South-East Queensland Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society Vol.53 1987 P337-350
RENFREW, Colin Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins Penguin 1987
TUTOR COMMENTS:
Another good and thoughtful essay. Although there may seem to be a lot of comments there is very little for me to fundamentally disagree with. I do feel that it would have been useful to have brought out the potentially divided nature of late Neolithic society a little more, in other words the conflict of ritual authority (Grooved ware/henges) with that based on economic power and personal prestige (Peterborogh 'Big Men').
I'm not sure that I agree with your conclusions about later Neolithic society being basicallly egalitarian, but look forward to debating this with you.
Having talked with you I'm not so sure now!
Julian Richards - October 1994
"The great communal monuments of the later Neolithic required enormous effort to construct. What form of society and organisation would be required for such a task?"
Summer 1994
The later British Neolithic is a period during which an insular island people turned further into their own social milieu for inspiration to express ideas of the sacred, whether in pottery assemblages or the building of public monuments of various types. Toward the end intrusive ideas were introduced from the continent[1], which were to interact with native British preoccupations.
The variety of public monuments attributed to the later neolithic include henges, stone circles, large mounds and passage graves[2], the most dominant construct being circularity. A feature shared with earlier hilltop causewayed enclosures, from which they probably evolved[3] and some of which may have been contemporary[4].
The next most common shared feature is the range of individuality expressed in construction - size, composition, use of solar/lunar alignments (where relevant)[5], relationship to internal/external components (where these occur) and use of materials. Clare lists 335 henges and hengiforms[5]. The former being "circular earthworks with a bank surrounding an inner ditch and broken by one or more entrances"[7], and the latter which do not have a ditch and a bank. Some henges have two ditches (mainly in eastern England), a rare few an outer ditch (the most famous being Stonehenge), some no ditch at all (western Britain and Ireland). The 'classic' henge is located in all regions of the British Isles, the other varieties being found in discrete geographical regions, though with some overlap[8].
To add to the complexity some henges contained circles of wood or stone, or concentric rings that may have supported structures or have free standing poles[9]. Stone circles exist without a henge "ditch and bank"[10]. Various alignments or structures within or without add to the impression of a "kaleidoscope of ideas and traditions"[11], a stone 'screen' at Avebury and a wooden one at Durrington Walls[12], five monuments incorporate 'coves', at Avebury within the main circle, at Stanton Drew outside. Some ritual landscapes incorporate artificial mounds, Marden's is within the henge, at Avebury it is outside. It is possible that artificial ritual mounds are more common than previously believed, the castle mott at Marlborough is probably a neolithic monument and other motts may prove to have a similar provenance.
Pottery is important as it can be used to date a monument in the absence of radio carbon dating. There are three main pottery styles associated with later neolithic communal monuments, Peterborough (impressed) Ware, Grooved Ware and Beakers[13]. Each main style is further complicated by regional variations.
However, it is also problematic as deposits may be earlier or later in date than the building activity. It is not certain how pottery assemblages relate to one another, they may be chronologically sequential, or represent co-existing cultic packages, particularly toward the end of the period. There is evidence of geographical spread through time in a number of areas, and particular relationships between pottery and defined types of monuments.
Clare notes that Peterborough Ware is absent from henges other than sub-types b,c,d,e and possibly f[14], sub-group h has predominantly Beaker associations, with interesting exceptions of Grooved Ware being found at the large diameter henges (or henge enclosures) of Durrington, Marden, Waulud's Bank and the unenclosed Cannon Hill[15]. (see Illustrations 1-3).
The provenance of the three main ceramic styles are interesting, Peterborough Ware which developed out of the indigenous round based pots of the earlier neolithic and had northern and southern sub-divisions[16] is mainly found at domestic sites, with ritual deposits in discrete geographical areas (e.g. Dorchester). Grooved Ware appears to have been an Orkadian fusion of Irish plain/ridged bucket-shaped ware, with Irish grave art, to produce a new ceramic style which travelled down the east coast of Scotland and England, penetrating inland to Wessex and the Upper Thames Valley, spawning a number of regional variations[17]. (see Illustration 4). Grooved Ware is also found in ritual and domestic contexts (e.g Woodhenge and Skara Brae). Beakers are intrusive arrivals from the continent toward the end of the period[18].
It is generally agreed "that the earliest beakers are found in Wessex"[19], from where they spread. Early beakers are primarily associated with death rituals and are rarely found in henges or other communal monuments during this period, however they are sometimes found in a domestic context[20]. Beakers are strongly associated with the introduction of individual burials and early metals[21]. Earlier users[22[ appear to have avoided, or respected, monuments with strong Peterborough or Grooved Ware associations[23] (see illustration 5).The overall picture is of homogeneity in religion, sharing widespread common beliefs that found expression in circular (or similar) constructions. However, the variety of expression through architectural difference also appears to be a significant indicator that religious/ritual orthodoxy is not present. The pottery suggests a more complex picture of small, somewhat scattered communities holding on to local/regional pottery traditions (Peterborough and other later neolithic ware), a more widespread, perhaps innovative, community adopting ideas and pottery or Orkadian origin (Grooved Ware) and an initially contained community in Wessex reaching out and incorporating 'foreign' (continental) rituals as seen through deposits of Beaker Ware and an associated avoidance of 'Grooved' and other indigenous pottery sites. The three (probably ritual) pottery assemblages occupied the same space and time in Wessex at the end of the period.
Wessex appears to have been an area where problems between competing social systems impacted. The indigenous plain/impressed ware and grooved ware may have been representative of divergent land-tenure claims. With ancestral rights of passage for animals being claimed by herders to and from summer pasturage, and the competing claim of more settled communities wanting to curtail ancestral rights in order to enclose land for agricultural use[24]. The Orkneys provide proof of early settled communities and farming and it is possible that, along with grooved ware, orkadians exported an ideology legitimising changes in land tenure. The arrival of beakers appears to have signalled an ideology of prestige/status being attached to individuals through individual burials in round barrows and the deposition of grave goods in them of a beaker and other artifacts, amongst them small amounts of gold/copper (it is not entirely clear at this stage whether beaker burials are separate from both indigenous forms of expression, or whether they are representative of a new 'high status' group practising extra-curricular, rather than separate rites)[34].
It has been said that the building of the new communal monuments required a considerable investment in human resources, 80,000 hours to construct the Ring of Brodgar (Renfrew) and 500,000 to dig the ditch at Durrington Walls (Startin & Bradley), compared to 10,000-100,000 for a megalithic tomb (Renfrew), all of which are up to a hundred times higher than expenditure on a "typical round barrow"[25]. Renfrew argues that this was achieved by a combination of several early neolithic groups (each associated with a causewayed enclosure and long barrow) forming a larger political territorial unit, with the capacity to combine and direct the larger workforce required, through an emerging "social hierarchy"[26]. For the largest sites he posits a 'confederation of Chiefdoms'[27], or, preferably, a single polity of a 'greater Chiefdom'. Atkinson takes this further and argues the unlikelihood of the monuments being "the expression of the common will, but rather the fulfillment of a purpose imposed from above"[28].
I would like to consider whether there was a need for the societal changes argued by Renfrew, or the more radical ones of Atkinson. In Queensland (Australia) family bands of 40 or so people come together in larger groupings relatively regularly, occasionally even larger 'tribal' gatherings occur. The large gatherings are rotated "because the economic activities required to support large gatherings could rapidly deplete local food resources". The groups making up the 'tribal' gatherings are kin-related, but membership of family or 'clan groups are flexible[29].
In the British neolithic similar fairly flexible societal organisations may have enabled the building of communal monuments. Internal evidence of ditch quarrying for long barrows and causewayed enclosures, suggest they were dug in segments, possibly the work of several teams. Each segment (or pair) may have been the responsibility of a number of related families, forming a 'clan' of from 160-400 persons[30]. For larger ceremonial meetings, perhaps to arrange marriages, they may have rotated with other kin-clans, for similar reasons quoted from native Australians, forming loose tribal affiliations of between 220-2,000 people[31]. As sedentism gradually occurred and agriculture became more established, central resources (pigs, grain etc) could sustain larger numbers consistently, thus the need to rotate would become necessary and the natural response may have been to build a tribal centre (henge).
Given the recent experiments carried out by Julian Richards on the Stonehenge trilithon, it is possible that the hours required to build monuments has been overstated[32] thus they were well within the ability of tribal assemblies. The amount of organisation (as opposed to work) needed would not be substantially greater than that required to build earlier monuments and organise tribal gatherings. The obligatory 'chief' seems unnecessary at this stage of development, although it is possible that 'obligation' networks existed, enabling some people to assume relatively tenuous status (big men/women)[33].
It has been suggested that the later neolithic architectural changes, for example ditch reversal (causewayed enclosures and henges) from external to internal was evidence for the rise of a priesthood and exclusion of the people. Various other functional/ritual changes are put forward as evidence of exclusionary strategies and devices in the establishment of an elite priesthood:-
The use of 'screening' devices to restrict the vision of participants
(e.g. Avebury and Durrington Walls)see Illustration 6
Coves erected in association with five monuments that would severely
limit the number of celebrants(e.g. Avebury and Stanton Drew)
Construction of ritual hills that would limit the number of celebrants
and restrict vision (e.g Silbury Hill)
The best example of neolithic architectural evidence that supports a priestly take over is found not in the British Isles, but on the tiny Mediterranean islands of Malta and Gozo, which contain the oldest free standing structures in the world. The chronology of building it that the original simple trefoil structures became increasingly elaborate, culminating in the the final complex Tarxien phase. According to Simon Stoddart, the architecture is paralleled by an egalitarian society becoming increasingly dominated by the rituals of a complex temple society, in which an elite priesthood were able to exclude the people from all bar the temple forecourts or the first set of chambers in some temples. The archaeological evidence put forward is that doors were closed from within, priestly oracles and elaborate decorations reserved to public view along visual sight lines through entry portal to inner altar[34].
The evidence against this theory is that it is not certain when door mechanisms were incorporated, they may have been installed any any age prior to the final phase, or even added in post temple periods[35]. Decorated stonework is not reserved to areas of public view and entry to the 'oracle' rooms does not require access through 'priestly' areas.
The most telling evidence is the continuation of undifferentiated burial rituals from the pre-temple to final Tarxien Phase,
suggesting a continuation of the early egalitarian society (new excavations at the Brochtorff Circle)[36]. See illustrations 7 - 10(37].Returning to the British Isle, similar problems exist, it stretches the evidence to argue that structures enclosing large spaces, with ample entrances (e.g. Avebury), or capable of holding fair sized congregations, such as the flattened top of Silbury Hill, were build to deny access to all but a small elite. If the 'screen' at Avebury was intended to restrict the view of onlookers it was not very efficient. Coves and similar small scale monuments may have been erected to serve more personal rituals with individuals, for examples rites of puberty, which do not necessarily require the offices of a priesthood. Finally the reversal of ditches does not strike me as either more or less exclusionary.
This is not to imply that inclusion/exclusion was not practiced, indeed all societies have practices that exclude people for some period of time and then include them. In our society one example is school, each year children are excluded from a higher class, the following year they are included. Neolithic society may have behaved similarly, with whole age groups being included at various stages, with the criteria for inclusion/exclusion being longevity and youthfulness.
Another argument against the building of late neolithic monuments being organised by an 'elite' of chiefs or priests, is that the monuments themselves may not have been perceived as 'communal'. The excluded majority of 'non-elite', 'non-priests' would not have had a vested interest in co-operating unless a reward or payment could be made, but what resources would have been available? Pots have been suggested as being status laded, but how could distribution of a commodity open to easy abuse have been controlled? Sources of flint and stone, which could have been controlled were not[38], as far as we are aware, land was probably still a communal asset and thus not available for individual distribution. A powerful elite able to control scarce resources and distribute them, is not likely to have occurred until the large-scale introduction of metals, which did not happen until the bronze age was well developed[39].
In summary I would argue that the later neolithic communal monuments were built by a basically egalitarian people whose societal and religious practices were not very different from their causewayed enclosure/long barrow building forbears, but whose economic base had changed. The organisation required to accomplish the new tasks need not have been any more formal than those required by their ancestors and carried through on "diffused power which 'spreads in a more spontaneous, unconscious way, decentred through a population' ..... being expressed through 'an understanding that these practices are natural or moral or result from self-evident common interest'"[40]. Barratt observes "the hand of Atkinsons autocratic chief no longer lies behind the construction of Stonehenge"[41], and the "mobilization of labour necessary for these undertakings must have arisen within earlier, and different, forms of political obligation"[42].
Barratt adds "by building Avebury and Durrington Walls new social realities were also constructed. These social realities did not lie behind the building of these monuments but emerged from their existence"[43], I suggest that the ramifications of this did not come about until the Bronze Age when a new order based on the control of metals would enable individuals to achieve power, status and prestige which would then be expressed in religious ritual, using the fabric of the old communal monuments of their ancestors. Rich burials would signal that "a new social principle of ranking has emerged, displayed in the ostentatious use of costly objects. The process of the emergence of ranking is currently one of the most actively discussed in the field of European history"[44].
NOTES:
1. Represented in the archaeological record by beaker assemblages
2. Which are of uncertain date Richard Bradley 'The social Foundation of Prehistoric Britain: themes and variations in the archaeology of power' P44
3. "henges are best explained as evolving from a broad tradition which we see manifest in causewayed camps". T Clare "Towards a Reappraisal of Henge Monuments: origins, evolution and hierarchies' P462
4. "it is also apparent that any explanation of the origins of the sites must allow for .... the possibility that some of the early sites were contemporary with some causewayed camps" T Clare 'Towards a Reappraisal of Henge Monuments: origins, evolution and hierarchies' P310
5. e.g. Newgrange, Maes Howe, Stonehenge and Clava Cairns Richard Bradley 'The social Foundation of Prehistoric Britain: themes and variations in the archaeology of power' P77/8
6. T Clare 'Towards a Reappraisal of Henge Monuments: origins, evolution and hierarchies' P310-314
7. Aubrey Burl 'Prehistoric Henges' P13
8. Aubrey Burl 'Prehistoric Henges' P13
9. e.g. The Sanctuary (Avebury) and Woodhenge
10. e.g. The Sanctuary (Avebury), Avebury, Stanton Drew and Callanish
11. T Clare 'Towards a Reappraisal of Henge Monuments: origins, evolution and hierarchies' P472
12. John C Barrett 'Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life' Chapter 1
13. There are also a number of indigenous, localised styles
14. Where found in secondary contexts T Clare 'Towards a Reappraisal of Henge Monuments: origins, evolution and hierarchies' P306
15. T Clare 'Towards a Reappraisal of Henge Monuments: origins, evolution and hierarchies' P306
16. Ebbfleet, Mortlake, Fengate/Maldon Bridge, Ford, Rudston respectively
17. Clacton, Durrington, Woodlands etc
18. Well made pottery in red fabric in two decorative styles 'all over cord/combed' and 'comb-zoned'
19. Richard Bradley 'The social Foundation of Prehistoric Britain: themes and variations in the archaeology of power' P79
20. General pottery information taken from Alex Gibson 'Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Pottery'
21. Gold and copper
22 The users of beakers were mainly indigenous, however there may have been a population of migrants from continental europe who brought with them new technologies (early metallurgy) and religious/social ideas
23. Though this is not always true, there is evidence in Aberdeenshire of desecration by beaker users. Aubrey Burl 'Prehistoric Stone Circles' P43
24 See arguments in previous assignment
25 Richard Bradley 'The social Foundation of Prehistoric Britain: themes and variations in the archaeology of power' P76
26 John C Barrett 'Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life' P140
27 John C Barrett 'Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life' P159
28 John C Barrett 'Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life' P27
29 M J Morwood 'The Archaeology of Social Complexity in South-East Queensland' P339
30 Assuming clan size to be made up of between 4 and 10 family groups of average size 40 persons
31 Assuming the affiliation of 2-5 clans to form a tribe
32 The age and physical make up of the volunteers did not conform to the normal theoretical requirement of physically fit, strong, youthful males. The numbers of volunteers were, additionally, 50% less than the lowest minimum estimate. Personal communications with Julian Richards 1994
33. Lewis R Binford 'In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record' P219/220
34. Various articles by Anthony Bonanno, Tancred Gouder, Caroline Malone, Simon Stoddart and David Trump as listed in the Bibliography. Plus personal communication with Simon Stoddart during Bristol University Summer Tour September 1994
35. Some temples were used by later peoples domestically, for burial rituals or animal shelters
36. Personal communication Simon Stoddart Bristol University Study Tour September 1994. Simon Stoddart's argument is that a 'priesthood took over the Temples after they had been substantially completed.
37. Personal communication Simon Stoddart Bristol University Study Tour September 1994. Simon Stoddart accepts that the first set of chambers of the main temple at Tarxien was communal. On my first visit to Tarxien in January 1992, I felt that the Tarxien final phase temple layout was suggestive of a 'priestly take-over', as can be seen in Illustration 10, the portal is 'closed' by a decorative block, which effectively says 'do not enter here'. Although visually very impressive I preferred the other temples to Tarxien.
38. Richard Bradley various arguments concerning pots, flints and stone in Chapter 3
39. The small amount of gold and copper introduced in association with beaker burials would not have been sufficient, added to which there appears to be no connection between early beaker users and monument building
40. John C Barrett 'Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life' P162
41. John C Barrett 'Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life' P163
42. John C Barrett 'Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life' P28
43. John C Barrett 'Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life' P28
44. Colin Renfrew 'Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins' P33
ILLUSTRATIONS:
Frontispiece. Artists impression of neolithic ditch at Avebury. Thanks Mandsu
1. Pottery distribution adapted from a table in T Clare 'Towards a Reappraisal of Henge Monuments: origins, evolution and hierarchies' P309
2. Continuation of 1 above
3. Classification Matrix for 1 and 2 above T Clare 'Towards a Reappraisal of Henge Monuments: origins, evolution and hierarchies' P283
4. Outline distribution of Grooved Ware and Passage Graves Richard Bradley 'The social Foundation of Prehistoric Britain: themes and variations in the archaeology of power' P60
5. Sequence of henges and complex burials in Wessex (adapted) Richard Bradley 'The social Foundation of Prehistoric Britain: themes and variations in the archaeology of power' P81
6. Possible reconstruction of 'Screen' at Durrington Walls John C Barrett 'Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life' P81
7. Aerial view of Mnadjra Temple Complex, Malta (postcard)
8. Plan of Mnajdra Temple Complex, Malta - showing visual sight line portal-altar and the presence of decorated stone-work outside the line of vision. Study notes September 1994 Bristol University Study Tour
9. View of inner temple entry portal Tarxien Complex, Malta (postcard)
10. Plan of Tarxien Temple Complex, Malta - showing position of entry portal above, which cannot be seen from either the main portal, or from the first set of chambers. Study notes September 1994 Bristol University Study Tour.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
BARRETT, John C 'Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life' Blackwell 1994
BONANNO, GOUDER, MALONE & STODDART Monuments in an Island Society: The Maltese Context World Archaeology Vol.22.2 1990 P190-205
BONANNO, GOUDER, MALONE, STODDART & TRUMP [U]Cult in an Island Society: Prehistoric Malta in the Tarxien Period Cambridge Archaeological Journal Vol 3:1 1993 P3-19 The Death Cults of Prehistoric Malta Scientific American December 1993 P76-83
BRADLEY, Richard The Social Foundation of Prehistoric Britain: themes and variations in the archaeology of power Longman 1992
BINFORD, Lewis R In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record Thames & Hudson 1988
BURL, Aubrey Prehistoric Henges Shire Archaeology 1991 Prehistoric Stone Circles Shire Archaeology 1994
CLARE, T Towards a Reappraisal of Henge Monuments Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society Vol.52 1986 P281-316 Towards a Reappraisal of Henge Monuments: origins, evolution and hierarchies Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society Vol.53 1987 P457-477
GIBSON, Alex Neolithic & Early Bronze Age Pottery Shire Archaeology 1986
MORWOOD, M J The Archaeology of Social Complexity in South-East Queensland Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society Vol.53 1987 P337-350
RENFREW, Colin Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins Penguin 1987
TUTOR COMMENTS:
Another good and thoughtful essay. Although there may seem to be a lot of comments there is very little for me to fundamentally disagree with. I do feel that it would have been useful to have brought out the potentially divided nature of late Neolithic society a little more, in other words the conflict of ritual authority (Grooved ware/henges) with that based on economic power and personal prestige (Peterborogh 'Big Men').
I'm not sure that I agree with your conclusions about later Neolithic society being basicallly egalitarian, but look forward to debating this with you.
Having talked with you I'm not so sure now!
Julian Richards - October 1994
