A Specific Analysis of Barrows
In order to examine whether anomalies represent transformations due to interactions or produced any graphic expressions – a third study examined the cemetery context of one of the anomalies. This was the Net Down barrow cemetery in Shrewton, Wiltshire.
A similar study of the sequence of mounds at the Net Down cemetery was conducted by Koji Mizoguchi (1995) and the present study draws partially on his work. Mizoguchi came to the conclusion (similar to Last 1998) that the difference in mounds represented a process of gradual change at the cemetery. However, because he tried to identify similarities between the mounds – using the typological method to make genealogical links – the differences between them were not fully addressed. This left a few questions insufficiently answered. One was why the Beaker burial practice changed so radically in all aspects in such a short time – claimed to be the “accumulated effect of the unintended consequences of action” over a long period (Mizoguchi 1995:248). The other was why two supposedly earlier Beaker inhumation graves intruded into the top of ‘later’ Wessex Bell barrows.
Net Down is one the best excavations of an entire mound cemetery in Wessex (Green and Rollo-Smith 1984:255). 11 of the 14 mounds in two linear alignments were excavated in 1960, which included 5 bowl barrows, 5 bell barrows and a disc barrow. Taking a lead from Gerloff (1975), Mizoguchi illustrated that the sequence of mounds in linear alignments from one end to the other was largely chronological (Mizoguchi 1995).
By following the sequence of Beaker to Wessex mounds and focusing on both the similarities and differences, a slightly different picture from Mizoguchi’s is apparent. Several instances of transformation, physical destruction and subsumance of one cultural type of mound by another illustrates that what occured was not necessarily progressive evolution at all.
Western Beaker Barrows
Starting with the Beaker Barrow 5e, the first stage was the deposition of an adolescent and an adult inhumation with a Beaker and red deer antler. After this, a ditch was dug around it (containing a related piece of antler) and a turf core with chalk cap was erected over it.
Fig.1: Beaker Barrows 5e & 5a
Fig.2: Beaker Barrow 5a
Beaker Barrow 5a was much the same, except for the erection of stakes around the surface. One male inhumation was deposited in the centre with a Beaker, followed by the excavation of a ditch around it and the construction of a turf core with chalk cap.
Wessex Intrusion
Some time after this (quite soon after Barrow 5a - considering its silt deposits), the ditches of both Beaker barrows were recut at their outer edge - 5e after having been filled with chalk rubble. This appears to have created a slight Wessex-style berm around the mounds (see fig.2). The secondary ditch around 5a also contained an infant covered by a small cairn of flints, a deposit common in the ditches of Wessex barrows at the site. This appears to be an effort by the Wessex group to transform both mounds into Wessex Bell Barrows. At the same time as this (according to the excavator), a Wessex-style cremation was also excavated through the top of Barrow 5e directly into the central grave pit (Green and Rollo-Smith 1984:269).
The Western Alignment
Wessex Barrow 5c
The first Wessex Barrow in the western alignment was Barrow 5c, placed next to Beaker Barrow 5a. Curiously, this Wessex mound directly mirrored the Beaker barrow next to it while differing with the Wessex barrows in the other alignment. The first stage was the erection of a similar stake structure to 5a around an adult male cremation. This was deposited in a circular cist with a Wessex Culture incense cup. A wide flat-bottomed ditch was then dug with an identical diameter to the ditch around Beaker barrow 5a, leading the excavator to claim that the two mounds were contemporary.
Fig.3: Wessex Barrow 5c
Again, a similar configuration of features existed for the next mound, Wessex Barrow 5d. Neat concentric stake circles surrounded an adult male cremation with a wide flat-bottomed ditch around it, the same diameter as Barrow 5a. This led the excavator to claim that this mound was contemporary too (Green and Rollo-Smith 1984:267).
Fig.4: Wessex Barrow 5d
The similarities with the Beaker Barrow 5a, while being different to the Wessex Barrows in the other alignment, cannot be mere coincidence. Like the apparent transformation of the Beaker Barrows into Wessex Barrows, it seems that some sort of statement or dichotomy was being made, using references to what had gone before.
The Eastern Alignment
The second alignment was equally interesting. It also started with a Beaker Barrow - 5k, on the highest point. This consisted of an adult male in a large oblong grave with a Beaker, a copper dagger and an antler. Three further pits were then excavated with two young females buried in two of them and another adult male with a Beaker placed in a pit above the central burial. After this, a U-shaped ditch was dug and a turf core with chalk cap erected.
Fig.5: Beaker Barrow 5k
Wessex Barrows
On two sides of this Beaker Barrow were constructed Wessex barrows. Directly north was Wessex Barrow 5j and to the southwest was Wessex Barrow 5l. Again, both barrows mirrored the Beaker Barrow next to them in size and several structural traits.
Fig.6: Wessex Barrows 5j & 5l
Wessex Barrow 5j contained an oblong central pit with 3 satellite pits around it similar to the Beaker Barrow, but instead of containing inhumations, an adult male cremation was deposited in the center and the pits were sterile. In the ditch, was the burial of an infant covered by a cairn of flints, a common Wessex deposit at the cemetery.
Wessex Barrow 5l also had a central burial pit with a cremation and 3 satellite pits, 2 of which were sterile. One of the pits had a female cremation with a unique Wessex Culture necklace of shale, faience and amber beads and a Littorina Littralis shell (see fig.7). Both mounds had wide flat-bottomed ditches with similar diameters to the ditch around Beaker Barrow 5k.
Fig.7: Wessex Necklace from Barrow 5l Fig.8: Beaker Necklace from Barrow 5j
The Anomaly: Intrusive Beaker Inhumations
The next stage of activity created one of the anomalies that was observed in the first study of burial practices in Wiltshire. This occurred after Wessex barrow 5j had been constructed and seems to point to an overlap between the two groups. Crouched inhumations (a Beaker burial type) appear to have intruded directly into the chalk caps of both Wessex Barrows 5j and 5L.
Deposited with the inhumation in 5j was a very similar necklace to the above Wessex necklace of 45 shale and amber beads and a Littorina Littralis shell. This is also one of the finest necklaces to be found in Wiltshire (see fig.8). Significantly, this necklace also had two dumb-bell shaped shale beads, beads that occur only with burials intrusive into Wessex Barrows – ie. Durrington G14 and Snail Down G3 + G8. On the base of both of these beads were slightly oblique cruciform symbols directly similar to another famous Beaker symbol, the oblique cruciform symbol on the gold disc in the Mere Barrow G6a.
The other mounds in this alignment represent a continuation of Wessex culture mounds with the deposition of cremated remains in circular pits. However, no later mounds contained secondary inhumations. The later return to the Beaker mound type (low bowl-shaped barrows) with Wessex cremations occurs further down the alignment.
Summary of Sequences
Although Mizoguchi interpreted similarities in deposits as an indication of diachronic continuity, the discrepancy between the two alignments indicates that there was something more than a community continuing to practice its Beaker principles in the Wessex period. Instead, the similarities between the individual Beaker barrows and the Wessex barrows beside them appear to be influenced by their physical proximity to each other.
The possibility that two of the Beaker barrows were reconfigured to resemble Wessex Barrows, and their structure subsequently borrowed and used differently by subsequent Wessex barrows, strongly indicates that an attempt was made to redefine the earlier ideas – not to continue them. These redefinitions, whether made by dissenters within the Beaker community or from without, indicate that a separate worldview had emerged, different from that of the earlier Beaker mounds. The temporal proximity of this difference and its ideological devisiveness is illustrated by the subsequent intrusion into the top of one of the first Wessex barrows by two Beaker inhumations. This appears to be an attempt to counter the redefinition.
What is interesting about this exchange is the use of similar objects to express differences in ideas. On the one hand the Wessex barrows use the Beaker barrows’ size and structural configurations, and on the other hand, the Beaker counter-definitions explicitly refer to deposits in the Wessex barrows. The character of this latter reference – the necklace with Beaker symbols – was also one of the most striking artefacts in the Wessex region.
Latour (2005) explains this phenomenon by referral to Semiotics. Semiotics, the study of how material culture communicates, illustrates how actors use similar artefacts to achieve commensurability between different frames of reference (Latour 2005:12). By using similar forms, communication between groups is much more easily achieved, despite the difference in meaning attributed to the forms. However, in contestations between groups, the attempt to achieve commensurability and to demonstrate the essence of their differences results in brilliantly explicit hybrid forms. In Latour’s words, “trials trace the limit of a paradigm… what holds tightly and what gives way easily, what is negotiable and what is not” (Latour 1987:208).
This means that similarity of form in the Early Bronze Age may have been a prerequisite for sub-cultural groups when challenging the consensus. If this is the case then forms are unreliable to identify differences between groups, especially when groups occur side by side, and context must be taken into account. It also means that contexts of interaction may hold the clues to understanding key paradigmatic elements of worldviews.
Conclusion
This chapter demonstrates how the classification of mounds by form and context (or practice) is a much better taxonomic method than classification purely by form. The history of archaeological practice in Early Bronze Age studies proves that a purely formal classification cannot help but bias analysis and perpetuate the concept of culture as unified. Without a critical re-evaluation of the typological method in archaeological practice, this concept will likely continue to haunt interpretations despite the acknowledgement of its ethical and empirical problems.
Using an adapted typological method to study variation in Early Bronze Age burial practice has revealed a number of interesting points. Firstly it has revealed several distinct ideological differences within the so-called ‘core’ region of Wessex. The consideration of both contextual similarities and differences, using databases that do not predicate the one over the other, indicates that there is more evidence for multiple groups than against. This militates against the direct or indirect supposition (based upon formal similarities) that Wessex, or even larger an area, was homogenous.
Secondly, the illustration from Net Down that anomalous contexts may be the result of interactions between different worldviews may help to explain the general contexts of anomalies in Wiltshire. While these anomalies have been seen as reasons for rejecting the existence of multiple groups since the late 1960s, the exceptional circumstances in which these anomalies exist – in contexts of interaction – is enough of a reason to review this rejection.
Thirdly, rather than presenting a pluralistic view of culture, by tracing the interactions between these groups much can be learnt about the general processes of change in regions. The possibility that interactions between worldviews result in the transformation of representations has huge ramifications for the understanding of cultural change.
Finally, the possibility that the richness of certain Early Bronze Age cemeteries may have resulted from the process of interaction between groups - as they attempted to prove to each other the superiority of their knowledge (Latour 1987:205) – would be an interesting idea to follow up. Although research into the contexts of these anomalies is still in its infancy, continuing research through the Wessex Culture Project at Bournemouth University may reveal further insights into these phenomena.
Excerpt from Martin, A. 2008 ‘The Alien Within: the forgotten subcultures of Early Bronze Age Wessex’ to be published in Jones, A. and G. Kirkham (ed.s) Beyond the Core: reflections on regionality in prehistory, Oxford: Oxbow Books.
