University of Sheffield Prehistoric Landscapes of Cumbria Irene Helen Evans Volume II Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Faculty of Arts Department of Archaeology July 2005 Chapter 8: Burial and depositional traditions Introduction Discussions in previous chapters have established some of the ways monuments related to how people moved around and understood the landscapes in which their lives played out. Seasonal journeys between landscape zones became increasingly marked by monuments into the Early Bronze Age. Drawing on aspects of the natural world, and formalising and embellishing places that had seen earlier use, monuments tied into the maintenance of social identity and tenurial ties. But how do their contents relate to their settings? Burial and other sorts of depositional practice have seen limited discussion in previous chapters as they were common practice at different 'types' (and scales) of monument. In this chapter, the focus is on the character of deposition itself and exploration of the relationships between people, monuments and the natural world. As with other elements of the prehistoric record in Cumbria, there is no synthetic account or interpretation of burial and depositional practice. This chapter sets out the evidence, and discusses how it articulates with the themes established in earlier chapters. The frrst section outlines the character of the evidence, and problems with the ways it has been interpreted in the past. This is followed by a discussion of Neolithic funerary practice, leading to a reassessment of the 'single grave' burial traditions of the Neolithic-Bronze Age transition. The third section concerns funerary and depositional practice into the Bronze Age. Focussing on the deposition of human and cultural remains in areas away from ceremonial complexes, this allows consideration of how 'token' deposits can be interpreted in the context of seasonal occupation. Through discussion of depositional traditions and monuments associated with natural features, the fmal section outlines the ways people forged and maintained connections with particular places, drawing on the dead and other 'transformed' substances at different social and geographical scales. Character of the evidence The majority of evidence for prehistoric burial in Cumbria is derived from antiquarian sources. Given the character of those investigations that reached publication, it is apparent that the data are skewed in a number of ways. That the majority of investigations were focussed on recovering 'central' burials means it is likely that cut features and deposits and structures outside central excavation areas were overlooked. Although early attention was predominantly focussed on easily accessible features, most associated with major monumental complexes, Collingwood's (1933) 'call to arms' prompted the excavation of many upland monuments. 221 Records of these are relatively detailed and provide structural and loose stratigraphic information. However, interpretations were set within culture historical frames of reference with emphasis placed on the identification of material culture styles rather than the understanding of stratigraphic sequences. More recent investigations, of which there have been few, have revealed monuments with rich and complex histories. Providing scientific dating, detailed analysis of burial deposits and material culture assemblages, this information indicates the major loss of detail which characterises most early investigations. Academic approaches to prehistoric burial in northern England have been based on the classification of common denominators; particular types of funerary site associated with specific 'packages' of burial furniture and material culture (e.g. Clare 1973; Kinnes 1979, Annable 1987; Bamatt 1996a). Although these sorts of approach, often based on statistical analysis, have added to understandings of chronology and material culture associations, they have commonly brushed over the complexities inherent to funerary and depositional practice. As with aspects of monument architecture, elements of the 'burial' record in Cumbria slip through traditional classification schema. Although what we might call 'formal' burial traditions in 'classic' monument forms are apparent, less easily interpreted token deposits of charcoal and material culture are much more common. As a result, previous analyses have failed to find anything but a small degree of quantitative patterning in the available data (e.g. Annable 1987). The chronology of Neolithic and Bronze Age burial in Britain is apparently well understood; in the Early Neolithic, long cairns, often associated with wooden and stone chambers, were repositories for the communal burial of disarticulated bone. During the Final Neolithic and Early Bronze Age this gave way to articulated inhumations in cists or cut graves, often accompanied by beakers. During the Bronze Age, burial turned to cremation, associated with urns and food vessels. Cremations were often found to be 'secondary' burials, inserted into barrows built to cover earlier central 'primary' inhumation graves. Although this narrative does suggest a broad overall chronology it is inherently problematic. Reliant on long held ideas concerning the increasing stratification of prehistoric society, such accounts also result from 'grand narrative' approaches where patterns of variability are compressed in order to produce neat syntheses of the national 'story'. Traditional interpretations, based on the 'fact' that burial during the Final Neolithic and Early Bronze Age focussed on single, central inhumations, are derived from early antiquarian excavations (Peterson 1972). Increasingly, the evidence suggests that single phase monuments account for only a limited proportion of those constructed. Where burial cairns have seen detailed excavation, single 'primary' burials are often impossible to identi1Y, with many 222 deposits associated with the original ground surface (Peterson 1972; Barnatt 1996a). Evidence for stake circles, 'mortuary houses', boxes or cists, ring ditches and kerbs sealed beneath barrows is well known from the Neolithic onwards (e.g. Lynch 1972,1979,1993; Kinnes 1979; Barnatt 1996a; Woodward 2000). In many cases, the addition ofa covering cairn or mound was merely a constructional episode, finalising the use of an open site and providing a focus for later insertions and structural additions. The existence of protracted mortuary and funerary rituals over the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age is also well established (e.g. Barrett 1988b, 1990, 1991, 1994; Thomas 2000; Bruck 2001). During the Early Neolithic, excarnation and the movement of bone between different sites was apparently common (e.g. Mercer 1980; Thorpe 1984). In some regions, movement and curation of human remains is suggested by the emphasis, in specific assemblages, on long and skull bones with smaller body parts poorly represented. During the Later Neolithic and Bronze Age partially and fully disarticulated burial, primarily of skull and long bone fragments is also well attested, as is the existence of excarnation platforms (Barnatt & Collis 1996; Turnbull & Walsh 1996). Evidence for large pits containing multiple burials of different phases and disturbed and re-used cists (Peterson 1972; Barnatt & Collis 1996; Woodward 2000; Owoc 2001) are also common, suggesting the movement and mixing of human remains after what may be perceived archaeologically as their 'final' deposition. To constructed mortuary and burial monuments can be added the token deposition of human remains in caves, fissures and natural mounds (Edmonds & Seaborne 2001; Mullin 2001; Barnatt & Edmonds 2002). Chronological distinctions traditionally drawn between inhumation and cremation have been overstated, as particularly over the Neolithic-Bronze Age transition, cremations, disarticulated and articulated inhumations are well represented, often in the same contexts (Peterson 1972; Kinnes 1979; Annable 1987; Barnatt 1996a). The evidence also suggests a degree of continuity in that cremation ritual was an extended process. By definition the practice involves at least two phases; the cremation itself, and deposition of the remains (Barrett 1990, 1991; Barnatt 1996a). The presence of un burnt bone and cremation deposits in association with excarnation platforms (e.g. Barnatt & Collis 1996; Turnbull & Walsh 1996; Mullin 2003) suggests mortuary practi,e was even further protracted, possibly including the cremation of excarnated bone. Pyre remains and pits containing cremations and charcoal deposits are commonly found in open structures sealed beneath cairns and in association with the tops of cairns which saw subsequent phases of construction (Barnatt 1996a; Williams & Howard Davies forthcoming). Pyre sites, illustrated by post settings and areas of burnt ground are relatively common and in some cases, scorched pits suggest that burial took place whilst cremations were still hot (e.g. Barnatt 1994). Where pyres have not been identified, it is possible that cremation took place at some distance. The deposition of 'cold' cremations in perishable containers or urns also 223 suggests that cremated remains were curated. As with many inhumations, both urned and unurned cremation deposits (where these have seen modem analysis) often represent more than one individual (McKinley 2003). Token deposits of cremated and unburnt remains are common and it may be that elements of the same individual saw deposition in a number of different contexts. This