The dead of Stonehenge.
Willis, Christie ; Marshall, Peter ; McKinley, Jacqueline 等
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Introduction
Stonehenge, a Late Neolithic-Early Bronze Age monument in
Wiltshire, southern England, was constructed in five stages between
around 3000 BC and 1500 BC (Darvill et al. 2012). The first stage
consisted of a circular ditch enclosing pits thought to have held posts
or standing stones, of which the best known are the 56 Aubrey Holes.
These are now believed to have held a circle of small standing stones,
specifically 'bluestones' from Wales (Parker Pearson et al.
2009: 31-33). In its second stage, Stonehenge took on the form in which
it is recognisable today, with its 'sarsen' circle and
horseshoe array of five sarsen 'trilithons' surrounding the
rearranged bluestones.
Starting in 2003, the Stonehenge Riverside Project explored the
theory that Stonehenge was built in stone for the ancestors, whereas
timber circles and other wooden structures were made for the living
(Parker Pearson & Ramilisonina 1998). Stonehenge has long been known
to contain prehistoric burials (Hawley 1921). Most were undated, so a
priority for the project was to establish whether, when and in what ways
these dead were associated with the monument. Until excavation in 2008,
most of the recovered human remains remained inaccessible for scientific
research, having been reburied at Stonehenge in 1935 (Young 1935:20-21).
Stonehenge's human remains
As reported in a previous issue (Parker Pearson et al. 2009),
radiocarbon dating of museum specimens of human bone from Stonehenge
(Figure 1) reveals that they date from the third millennium BC (Late
Neolithic) to the first millennium AD (Pitts et al. 2002; Hamilton et
al. 2007; Parker Pearson et al. 2009; Parker Pearson & Cox Willis
2011). Most of the human remains from Stonehenge were cremated, the
excavated sample being recovered largely as cremation deposits by
William Hawley between 1920 and 1926. Of these cremated bones, the
larger components recognised and hand-collected by Hawley were later
reburied, unanalysed, in Aubrey Hole 7 in 1935 (Young 1935: 20-21). This
material was re-excavated in 2008 by the Stonehenge Riverside Project in
order to assess demographic structure, recover pathological evidence and
date the burial sequence at Stonehenge. Aubrey Hole 7 was itself
investigated to explore whether the Aubrey Holes had formerly held
standing stones--the Welsh 'bluestones' (Hawley 1921: 30-31;
Parker Pearson et al. 2009: 31-33).
Hawley excavated cremated remains from many contexts across the
south-eastern half of Stonehenge, including the fills of 23 of the 56
Aubrey Holes (AH2-AH18, AH20-AH21, AH23-AH24 & AH28-AH29), the
Stonehenge enclosure ditch and the area enclosed by that ditch (Figure
2; Hawley 1921, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1928). Most of the cremation
deposits within the enclosure were found clustered around Aubrey Holes
14-16, with only one (2125) from the centre of the monument, just
outside the sarsen circle. Fifty-nine deposits of cremated bone are
identifiable from Hawley's records. There was a single grave good:
a polished gneiss mace-head from a deposit within the enclosures
interior (Hawley 1925: 33-34; Cleal et al. 1995: 394-95, 455); pyre
goods of bone/antler skewer pins were recovered from Aubrey Holes 5, 12,
13 and 24, and from a deposit in the ditch (Cleal et al. 1995: 409-10).
A ceramic object from a disturbed deposit of cremated bone in Aubrey
Hole 29 may also be a grave good (Hawley 1923: 17; Cleal et al. 1995:
360-61).
Hawley noted that several of the burial deposits had circular
margins, suggesting that they had been placed in organic containers such
as leather bags. He states that: "in every case [the burials in the
Aubrey Holes] had apparently been brought from a distant place for
interment" (1928: 158).
Young (1935) recorded that four sandbags of bones were brought to
the site for reburial in 1935. On re-excavation in 2008, the remains
formed an undifferentiated layer at the base of Aubrey Hole 7 (Figure
3). Consequently, it was not possible to distinguish visually either the
material from the four sandbags or the original 59 cremation deposits,
or to relate the remains to the grave or pyre goods. The remains were
re-excavated by spit (50mm) and by grid (50mm x 50mm) to allow the
formation process to be studied through osteological analysis. The
distribution of discrete skeletal elements (e.g. occipital bones,
internal auditory meatus (IAM)) deriving from different individuals
showed, however, no spatial patterning. This suggests that the remains
were thoroughly commingled on deposition rather than having been packed
separately by context as individual burials.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
During re-excavation of Aubrey Hole 7 (Figures 4 & 5), the
remains of a hitherto unexcavated cremation burial (007), unaccompanied
by any grave goods, was identified on the western edge of the Hole. It
had a circular margin indicative of a former organic container and was
set in its own shallow, bowl-shaped grave (Figure 6).
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
The remains (1173.08g) were identified as those of an adult woman,
and were dated to 3090-2900 cal BC (95% confidence; SUERC-30410, 4420 [+
or -] 35 BP; and OxA-27086, 4317 [+ or -] 33 BP; providing a weighted
mean of 4366 [+ or -] 25 BP). No stratigraphic relationship survived
between the grave and the Aubrey Hole. An adult cremation burial made
within the primary fill of Aubrey Hole 32 is dated to 3030-2880 cal BC
(OxA-18036, 4332 [+ or -] 35 BP; Parker Pearson et al. 2009: 26), so
burial 007 may be broadly contemporary with the digging of the Aubrey
Holes.
The discovery of this grave beside Aubrey Hole 7, in an area
already excavated during the 1920s, provides a reminder that
Hawley's methods were not particularly thorough (McKinley 1995:
451-55; Pitts 2001: 116-21). An idea of these methods is provided by a
diary entry for 25 March 1920: "We sieved the cremated bones [from
AH9], keeping the larger ones and casting away the sifted remnant after
thoroughly searching" (Hawley 1920: 73). The deposits of bone that
Hawley found varied from scattered fragments to the remains of burials;
during excavation of Causeway crater 2 on 7 November 1922, he noted
that: "There were odd pieces of cremated bone met with occasionally
and at one spot about a handful in a small mass" (Hawley 1922:
129). We cannot rule out the possibility that some of these remains
might be multiple deposits from single cremations; there may have been a
variety of methods of deposition (McKinley 2014).
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
Thus, any assessment of the numbers of such remains and other forms
of cremation-related deposits recovered by Hawley must take into account
the likelihood that his retrieval was incomplete. Estimates for the
total number of cremation burials at Stonehenge, which range from 150
(Parker Pearson et al. 2009: 23) to 240 (Pitts 2001: 121), must remain
informed guesswork.
Ages of the individuals from Aubrey Hole 7
During examination of the well-preserved bone retrieved from Aubrey
Hole 7 in 2008, a minimum number of individuals (MNI) of 22 adults and
five sub-adults was determined by counting the most frequently occurring
skeletal element in each of the broad age categories. Fragments of 24
right petrous temporal bones (incorporating internal auditory meati
(LAM)) were identified. The second most commonly recovered skeletal
element is the occipital bone, of which 22 adult examples were
recovered.
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
The MNI of five immature individuals represented in the assemblage
was established by looking for the most frequently occurring duplicate
elements, and noting obvious age-related differences in bone growth and
development. There was no duplication of skeletal elements within any of
the sub-adult age categories, so it can be assumed that only one
individual is represented from each (Table 1). Shrinkage was taken into
consideration in determining broad age ranges, but more precise
determinations of age at death were not possible owing to the fragmented
nature of the cremated bones (see McKinley 1997: 131).
A MNI of seven adults was identified from fragments of two pubic
symphyses and nine auricular surfaces (left and right hips; Table 1).
The former indicate individuals aged 15-24 years (Suchey & Brooks
1990) and the latter indicate individuals aged between 25 and 49 years
of age (Lovejoy et al. 1985).
Some form of intervertebral disc disease (IVDD) was noted in five
cervical, six thoracic, three lumbar and one sacral vertebrae (from one
or more individuals), all exhibiting osteophytosis along the body
surface margins, suggesting mature or older adults. A fragment of molar
tooth root showing severe occlusal wear (down to the tooth root)
provides further evidence for an older adult.
The total MNI of 27 is considerably less than might be expected
from Hawley's record of 59 cremation burials. The quantity of bone
included originally in each burial will have varied (see McKinley 1997).
For example, Hawley noted that, while most Aubrey Hole burials
"seemed to contain all the bones" (1928: 158), burials into
the fill of the ditch "were chiefly small and insignificant little
collections" (1924: 33).
Analysis of ages reveals a high ratio (4.4:1) of adults (n=22) to
sub-adults amongst the MNI of 27. Given the smaller sizes of the
elements, sub-adult cremated bone fragments are usually more easily
recognised, and should thus be well identified against the mass of
fragmented adult bones. Very few sub-adult bone fragments were, however,
recovered from the re-buried assemblage from Aubrey Hole 7. The original
ratio of adults to sub-adults in Hawley's 59 deposits would
probably have been much higher.
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
The ratio of adults to sub-adults among Stonehenge's cremation
deposits does not follow expected mortality curves for pre-industrial
populations (Chamberlain 2006), where child mortality has been estimated
at 30 per cent or more of all deaths (Lewis 2006: 22). The Aubrey Hole 7
ratio is also higher than those recorded for British earlier Neolithic
burials of the fourth millennium BC in southern Britain, where the
average ratio is 3.9:1 (Smith & Brickley 2009: 87-90). Thus, there
may have been a preference for adults to be buried at Stonehenge as
opposed to juveniles, children or infants.
Sex of the individuals in Aubrey Hole 7
Forensic and archaeological advances in analysing non-cremated and
cremated LAMs have produced reliable techniques for determining sex by
measuring the lateral angle of the internal acoustic canal (Wahl &
Graw 2001; Lynnerup et al. 2005; Noren et al. 2005). This was achieved
by taking measurements from CT scans of each of the 24 right and 16 left
LAMs from Aubrey Hole 7 (Figure 7). The results from the lateral angles
reveal nine males and fourteen females (three are undeterminable). There
are potentially some sub-adult IAMs within this assemblage, so these
CT-scan results are considered to provide a count for the entire
assemblage, not just for adults.
[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]
Biological sex was also determined from the 22 adult occipital
bones: nine are identified as male, and five as female. Given the small
sample size, it is not possible to say more than that numbers of males
and females were roughly equal.
Pathology
The most commonly occurring pathology is IVDD, resulting in changes
to the spinal column. Many vertebral bodies exhibit mild to moderate
osteophytosis (new bone growth) around their margins, and Schmorl's
nodes (indentations) on their surfaces (Rogers & Waldron 1995:
20-31). Also noted were changes to the neck of a femur and to the
intercondylar ridge of a distal femur, linked to osteoarthritis
affecting the synovial joints. These changes are most often the result
of advanced age but can also derive from occupation, genetic disposition
and a highly calorific diet (Roberts & Cox 2003: 32).
Periostitis, a non-specific disease affecting the periosteum
(connective tissue on the surface of the bones) that results in new bone
growth, was noted on fragments of a clavicle, a fibula, a radius and a
tibia. Periostitis can be caused by injury, chronic infection or overuse
of a particular body part.
The distal fifth of a left femur had a defect in the popliteal
fossa on the back of the bone just above the femoral condyles (Figure
8), likely to result from the pulsatile pressure caused by an aneurysm
of the popliteal artery (a widening of the femoral artery where it
passes through the popliteal fossa). This condition is rare in women but
occurs among 1 per cent of men aged 65-80, and was common in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries among horsemen, coachmen and young
men in physically demanding jobs (Suy 2006). This is the first-recorded
palaeopathological case of an aneurysm of the popliteal artery from any
archaeological assemblage.
[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]
Radiocarbon dating
Although the internal auditory meati provided the largest MNI from
Aubrey Hole 7, it was decided to select the occipital bones for
destructive sampling for radiocarbon dating because of the greater
potential of the complex structure of the LAMs to yield future insights
into the lives of these individuals buried at Stonehenge. Twenty-one
adult/probable-adult occipital bone fragments were dated (one was
omitted), along with three sub-adult bone fragments. The foetus and
infant bone fragments were omitted because they would have been entirely
destroyed by sampling. All samples were submitted to the Oxford
Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) and samples from six of the 21
adults dated at Oxford were also dated at the Scottish Universities
Environmental Research Centre (SUERC) as part of a quality assurance
programme.
[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]
Five of the six replicate measurements are statistically consistent
(Table 2), with only the measurements on sample 225 (OxA-27089 and
SUERC-42886) being statistically inconsistent at 95% confidence
(T'=5.5; v=1; T'(5%)=3.8). The measurements on sample 225 are
statistically consistent at 99% confidence (T'=5.5; v=l; T
(1%)=6.6), and thus weighted means of all the replicate determinations
have been taken as providing the best estimate of the dates of death of
these six individuals.
Previously dated human remains from the third millennium BC at
Stonehenge include two fragments of unburnt adult skull from different
segments of the ditch (OxA-V-2232-46 & OxA-V-2232-47; Parker Pearson
et al. 2009: 28-29), and cremated bone from Aubrey Hole 32 (see above)
and two contexts in the ditch. One of these ditch contexts (3893)
contained 77.4g of cremated bone (McKinley 1995: 457), from which a
fragment of a young/mature adult radius dates to 2570-2360 cal BC
(OxA-17958, 3961T29 BP; Parker Pearson et al. 2009: 26). The other two
cremated specimens, both from ditch context 3898, date to 2920-2870 cal
BC (SUERC-42882, 4289 [+ or -] 20 BP; combined with OxA-17957, 4271 [+
or -] 29 BP); one of these (if not both) is from a young woman aged
around 25 years.
Finally, a human tooth from the SPACES project 2008 trench at
Stonehenge dates to 2470-2210 cal BC (OxA-18649, 3883 [+ or -] 31 BP;
Darvill & Wainwright 2009). This has been excluded from this study
because it was found immediately below the turf in soil that may not be
from Stonehenge (the turf was laid some 20-25 years ago, and may
incorporate topsoil from nearby).
The radiocarbon dates from all dated human remains group between
3100 and 2600 cal BC (Figure 9), except for one cremation-related
deposit dating to 2570-2360 cal BC (context 3893; OxA-17958) and the
Beaker-period inhumation burial (Evans 1984) dating to 2400-2140 cal BC
(Cleal et al. 1995: 532-33). The measurements are not, however,
statistically consistent (T'= 1339.4; v=38.7; T'(5%)= 26; Ward
& Wilson 1978), so they represent more than one burial episode.
Chronological modelling
Bayesian statistical modelling was employed because these
radiocarbon dates all come from the same site (Buck et al. 1992; Bayliss
et al. 2007). A standard approach to modelling, when dealing with
chronological outliers such as ditch context 3893, would be to eliminate
them manually from the analysis. This was considered an unsuitable
method to apply to this assemblage because the late cremation-related
deposits (including burials) in the ditch--"small and insignificant
little collections" (Hawley 1928: 157), such as the Beaker-period
cremated remains from context 3893--appear to be under-represented or
entirely missing from the Aubrey Hole 7 sample. Therefore the
chronological outliers from Hawley s ditch contexts are of great
significance, especially for the cemetery's end-date.
More useful are trapezoidal models for phases of activity (Lee
& Bronk Ramsey 2013) in situations where we expect activity to
follow the pattern of a gradual increase, then a period of constant
activity and finally a gradual decrease, unlike the assumptions of a
uniform model (Buck et al. 1992). The model shown in Figure 10 uses the
trapezoid model of Karlsberg (2006) as implemented in OxCal v4.2 (Lee
& Bronk Ramsey 2013).
A trapezoid prior model more accurately reflects the uncertainties
in processes such as the use of a cremation cemetery: in uniform models
there is an abrupt increase from no use to maximum use, while the
trapezoid model allows for gradual change. The parameters from the
trapezoid model represent the very first and last use, and this model is
preferred over others because we do not have the archaeological
information to show that there were any abrupt changes a priori.
This model has good overall agreement ([A.sub.model] = 93) and
provides an estimate for the first burial of 3180-2965 cal BC {95%
probability: start_of_start, Figure 10) or 3075-2985 cal BC (68%
probability). This model estimates that the last burial took place in
2830-2685 cal BC {40% probability: end_of_end\ Figure 10) or 2565-2380
cal BC {55% probability) and probably 2825-2760 cal BC (28% probability)
or 2550-2465 cal BC (40% probability). The model estimates that burial
of cremation deposits took place for 170-715 years {95% probability) and
probably 225-345 years {26% probability) or 485-650 years (42%
probability).
[FIGURE 9 OMITTED]
The development of the cemetery
The date of 2990-2755 cal BC (95% probability; Ditch constructed-,
Marshall et al. 2012: fig. 6) for the digging of the ditch in
Stonehenge's first stage (Darvill et al. 2012: 1028) accords well
with the dates of the earliest cremation burials. The use of Stonehenge
as a cemetery probably ended with the Beaker-period inhumation burial
after 2140 cal BC, by which time Stonehenge stages 2 and 3 were
completed (Darvill et al. 2012: 1026). Thus, burials began at Stonehenge
before, and continued beyond, the stage when the sarsen trilithons and
circle were erected.
[FIGURE 10 OMITTED]
The re-cutting of the ditch after 2450-2230 cal BC (Darvill et al.
2012:1038) means that all cremation-related deposits from its upper
fills--as many as 15 of Hawley's "small and insignificant
little collections" (1928: 157)--probably date to after 2450 cal
BC. Yet only context 3893 has been radiocarbon-dated to this period
(Beaker Age), presumably because none of these 15 deposits from the
ditch's upper fills (25 per cent of Hawley's 59 deposits
re-buried in Aubrey Hole 7) was substantial enough to include
identifiable occipital bones.
Hawley noted that, in contrast, most of the burials in Aubrey Holes
"seemed to contain all the bones" (1928: 158), so the dated
occipital bones from Aubrey Hole 7 therefore probably provide a
representative sample of the individuals originally buried in these
pits. Some, such as the adult in the packing of Aubrey Hole 32, were
buried at the time of the digging-out of the pit circle. Hawley (1923:
17) considered that others were buried while a pillar stood in the hole:
he remarks that the upper edges of many Aubrey Holes had bowl-shaped
recesses for containing cremated remains, indicating that interments
were made against standing stones after they were erected. He also
records one cremation-related deposit that was placed in its Aubrey Hole
(24) after the standing stone had been withdrawn (Hawley 1921: 31; he
mis-numbered this hole 21). The hypothesis that human cremated remains
were introduced into the Aubrey Holes when bluestones were erected
within them during stage 1 of Stonehenge, and subsequently (until the
bluestones were removed for constructing stage 2), is supported by the
date range for the occipital bones.
The chronological distribution of age and sex within the cemetery
reveals that men and women were buried at Stonehenge from its inception,
and that both sexes continued to be buried over the following centuries.
This lack of sexual bias is of interest when considering the probable
higher social status of those buried, and when compared with higher
ratios of adult males to females in earlier Neolithic tombs in southern
Britain (Smith & Brickley 2009: 88-90). Stonehenge was a cemetery
for a selected group of people who were treated separately from the rest
of the population. It was surely a powerful, prestigious site in the
Neolithic period, with burial there being a testament to a
culture's commemoration of the chosen dead.
Cremation practices in Late Neolithic Britain (c. 3000-2500 BC)
There are very few human remains in Britain dated to the early and
mid third millennium cal BC, a period when the rite of inhumation burial
seems, by and large, not to have been practised (see Healy 2012 for rare
exceptions). Cremation burials that are probably of this date are known
from a growing number of sites (Parker Pearson et al. 2009: 34-36).
Stonehenge is the largest-known cemetery from this period, with small
cemeteries or groups of burials excavated from former stone circles or
stone settings at Forteviot (Noble & Brophy 2011), Balbirnie (Gibson
2010), Llandygai (formerly Llandegai; Lynch & Musson 2004) and
Cairnpapple (Sheridan et al. 2009: 214), and from circular enclosures at
Imperial College Sports Ground (Barclay et al. 2009) and
Dorchester-on-Thames (Atkinson et al. 1951). Cremation burials that may
date to this period have also been found at Flagstones (Healy 1997),
Barford (Oswald 1969), Duggleby Howe (Mortimer 1905) and West Stow (West
1990).
The growing recognition of the extent and number of Late Neolithic
cremation burials and cemeteries across Britain has largely resulted
from the ability to radiocarbon-date cremated bone in unaccompanied
cremation burials. It is now possible to recognise in Britain a major
phase, lasting half a millennium, during which cremation was practised
almost exclusively. This followed the collective and individual
inhumation rites of the Early and Middle Neolithic but occurred prior to
the inhumation rites of the Beaker period.
With so few cremation burials independently dated, let alone known
from this period, the Stonehenge assemblage is the largest and most
important in Britain, regardless of the significance of the site itself.
Although scattered examples of cremation burial are recorded in the
British Early Neolithic (Smith & Brickley 2009: 57-60; Fowler 2010:
10-11), Stonehenge and other Late Neolithic sites mentioned above are
the first-known cremation cemeteries in Britain.
In contrast, the evidence from Ireland shows a more continuous and
extensive tradition of cremation burial stretching back to the first
half of the fourth millennium BC (e.g. O'Sullivan 2005; Bergh &
Hensey 2013; Cooney 2014). It is possible that the widespread adoption
of cremation in Late Neolithic Britain may have been influenced by
mortuary practices in Ireland.
Conclusion
Our research shows that Stonehenge was used as a cremation cemetery
for mostly adult men and women for around five centuries, during and
between its first two main stages of construction. In its first stage,
many burials were placed within and beside the Aubrey Holes. As these
are believed to have contained bluestones, there seems to have been a
direct relationship between particular deceased individuals and standing
stones.
Human remains continued to be buried during and after
Stonehenge's second stage, demonstrating its continuing association
with the dead. Most of these later burials appear, however, to have been
placed in the ditch around the monument's periphery, leaving the
stones, now grouped in the centre of the site, distant from the human
remains.
Stonehenge changed from being a stone circle for specific dead
individuals linked to particular stones, to one more diffusely
associated with the collectivity of increasingly long-dead ancestors
buried there. This is consistent with the interpretation of
Stonehenge's stage 2 as a domain of the eternal ancestors,
metaphorically embodied in stone (Parker Pearson & Ramilisonina
1998; Parker Pearson 2012).
Technical note
The calibrated date ranges for the radiocarbon samples were
calculated using the maximum intercept method (Stuiver & Reimer
1986), and are quoted with end points rounded outwards to 10 years, or 5
years if the error is <25 years. The probability distributions of the
calibrated dates, calculated using the probability method (Stuiver &
Reimer 1993), are shown in Figures 9 & 10. They have been calculated
using OxCal v4.1.7 (Bronk Ramsey 2009) and the internationally agreed
atmospheric calibration dataset for the northern hemisphere, IntCal09
(Reimer et al. 2009).
doi: 10.15184/aqy.2016.26
Acknowledgements
We thank Amanda Chadburn for helping us to meet English
Heritage's requirements for sampling for radiocarbon dating, and
David Sugden and Charles Romanowski of the Royal Hallamshire Hospital
for scanning and measuring of petrous canals. Useful comments on the
manuscript were provided by Duncan Garrow and Derek Hamilton. Funding
was provided by the AHRC (Feeding Stonehenge Project; AH/H000879/1) and
Oxford Scientific Films.
References
ATKINSON, R.J.C., C.M. PIGGOTT & N. SANDARS. 1951. Excavations
at Dorchester, Oxon. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum.
BARCLAY, A., N. BEACAN, P. BRADLEY, G. CHAFFEY, D. CHALLINOR, J.I.
MCKINLEY, A. POWELL & P. MARSHALL. 2009. New evidence for mid--late
Neolithic burial from the Colne valley, west London. Past 63: 4-6.
BAYLISS, A., C. BRONK RAMSEY, J. VAN DER PLIGHT & A. WHITTLE.
2007. Bradshaw and Bayes: towards a timetable for the Neolithic.
Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17 supplement: 1-28.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0959774307000145
BERGH, S. & R. HENSEY. 2013. Unpicking the chronology of
Carrowmore. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 34: 343-66.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ojoa.12019
BRONK RAMSEY, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates.
Radiocarbon 51: 337-60.
BUCK, C.E., C.D. LITTON & A.F.M. SMITH. 1992. Calibration of
radiocarbon results pertaining to related archaeological events. Journal
of Archaeological Science 19: 497-512.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(92)90025-X
CHAMBERLAIN, A.C. 2006. Demography in archaeology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CB09780511607165
CLEAL, R.M.I., K.E. WALKER & R. MONTAGUE. 1995. Stonehenge in
its landscape: twentieth-century excavations. London: English Heritage.
COONEY, G. 2014. The role of cremation in mortuary practice in the
Irish Neolithic, in I. Kuijt, C.P. Quinn & G. Cooney (ed.)
Transformation by fire: the archaeology of cremation in cultural
context. 189-206. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
DARVILL, T.C. & G.J. WAINWRIGHT. 2009. Stonehenge excavations
2008. The Antiquaries Journal 89: 1-19.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S000358150900002X
DARVILL, T.C., P. MARSHALL, M. PARKER PEARSON & G.J.
WAINWRIGHT. 2012. Stonehenge remodelled. Antiquity 86: 1021-40.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00048225
EVANS, J.G. 1984. Stonehenge--the environment in the Late Neolithic
and Early Bronze Age and a Beaker-age burial. Wiltshire Archaeological
and Natural History Magazine 78: 7-30.
FOWLER, C.J. 2010. Pattern and diversity in the Early Neolithic
mortuary practices of Britain and Ireland: contextualising the treatment
of the dead. Documenta Praehistorica 37: 1-22.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4312/dp,37.1
GIBSON, A. 2010. Dating Balbirnie: recent radiocarbon dates from
the stone circle and cairn at Balbirnie, Fife, and a review of its place
in the overall Balfarg/Balbirnie site sequence. Proceedings of the
Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 140: 51-77.
HAMILTON, D., M. PIRRS & A. REYNOLDS. 2007. A revised date for
the early medieval execution at Stonehenge. Wiltshire Archaeological and
Natural History Magazine 100: 202-203.
HAWLEY, W. 1920. Diaries. Unpublished manuscript, Salisbury and
South Wiltshire Museum.
--1921. The excavations at Stonehenge. The Antiquaries Journal 1:
19-39.
--1922. Diaries. Unpublished manuscript, Salisbury and South
Wiltshire Museum.
--1923. Third report on the excavations at Stonehenge. The
Antiquaries Journal 3: 13-20.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500004558
--1924. Fourth report on the excavations at Stonehenge. The
Antiquaries Journal A: 30-39.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500005357
--1925. Report of the excavations at Stonehenge during the season
of 1923. The Antiquaries Journal 5: 21-50.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500015250
--1926. Report on the excavations at Stonehenge during the season
of 1924. The Antiquaries Journal 6: 1-25.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013184
--1928. Report on the excavations at Stonehenge during 1925 and
1926. The Antiquaries Journal 8: 149-76.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500012063
HEALY, F. 1997. Site 3. Flagstones, in R.J.C. Smith, F. Healy, M.J.
Allen, E.L. Morris, I. Barnes & P.J. Woodward (ed.) Excavations
along the route of the Dorchester by-pass, Dorset, 1986-8: 27-48.
Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology.
--2012. Chronology, corpses, ceramics, copper and lithics, in M.J.
Allen, J. Gardiner & A. Sheridan (ed.) Is there a British
Chalcolithici People, place and polity in the later 3rd millennium:
144-63. Oxford: Oxbow.
Karlsberg, A.J. 2006. Flexible Bayesian methods for archaeological
dating. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Sheffield.
LEE, S. & C. BRONK RAMSEY. 2013. Development and application of
the trapezoidal model for archaeological chronologies. Radiocarbon 54:
107-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.2458/azu_js_rc.v54il.12397
LEWIS, M. 2006. The bioarchaeology of children: perspectives from
biological and forensic anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511542473
LOVEJOY, C.O., R.S. MEINDL, T.R. PRYZBECK & R.P. MENSFORTH.
1985. Chronological metamorphosis of the auricular surface of the ilium:
a new method for the determination of adult skeletal age at death.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 68: 15-28.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajpa. 1330680103
LYNCH, F. & C. MUSSON. 2004. A prehistoric and early medieval
complex at Llandegai, near Bangor, north Wales. Archaeologia Cambrensis
150: 17-142.
LYNNERUP, N., M. SCHULZ, A. MADELUNG & M. GRAW. 2005. Diameter
of the human internal acoustic meatus and sex determination.
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 16: 118-23.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/oa.811
MARSHALL, P, T.C. DARVILL, M. PARKER PEARSON & G. J.
WAINWRIGHT. 2012. Stonehenge, Amesbury, Wiltshire: chronological
modelling (Research Report Series 1/2012). London: English Heritage.
MCKINLEY, J.I. 1995. Human bone, in R.M.J. Cleal, K.E. Walker &
R. Montague (ed.) Stonehenge in its landscape: twentieth-century
excavations: 451-61. London: English Heritage.
--1997. Bronze Age 'barrows' and funerary rites and
rituals of cremation. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63: 129-45.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00002401
--2014. Cremation in archaeological contexts, in C. Smith (ed.)
Global encyclopaedia of archaeology: 1730-38. New York: Springer.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2
MORTIMER, J.R. 1905. Fifty years' researches in British and
Saxon burial mounds of East Yorkshire. London: A. Brown & Sons.
NOBLE, G. & K. BROPHY. 2011. Ritual and remembrance at a
prehistoric ceremonial complex in central Scotland: excavations at
Forteviot, Perth and Kinross. Antiquity 85: 787-804.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00068319
NOREN, A., N. LINNERUP, A. CZARNETZKI & M. GRAW. 2005. Lateral
angle: a method for sexing using the petrous bone. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology 128: 318-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.20245
O'SULLIVAN, M. 2005. Duma na nGiall: the Mound of the
Hostages, Tara. Bray: Wordwell.
OSWALD, A. 1969. Excavations at Barford, Warwickshire. Transactions
of the Birmingham and Warwickshire Archaeological Society 83: 3-54.
PARKER PEARSON, M. 2012. Stonehenge: exploring the greatest Stone
Age mystery. London: Simon & Schuster.
PARKER PEARSON, M. & C. COX WILLIS. 2011. Burials and builders
of Stonehenge: social identities in Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic
Britain, in M. Furholt, F. Luth & J. Muller (ed.) Megaliths and
identities: early monuments and Neolithic societies from the Atlantic to
the Baltic: 285-93. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.
PARKER PEARSON, M. & RAMILISONINA. 1998. Stonehenge for the
ancestors: the stones pass on the message. Antiquity IT. 308-26.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00086592
PARKER PEARSON, M., A. CHAMBERLAIN, M. JAY, P. MARSHALL, J.
POLLARD, C. RICHARDS, J. THOMAS, C. TILLEY & K. WELHAM. 2009. Who
was buried at Stonehenge? Antiquity 83: 23-39.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00098069
PITTS, M.W. 2001. Hengeworld. London: Arrow.
PITTS, M.W., A. BAYLISS, J.I. MCKINLEY, A. BOYLSTON, P. BUDD, J.
EVANS, C. CHENERY, A. REYNOLDS & S. SEMPLE. 2002. An Anglo-Saxon
decapitation and burial at Stonehenge. Wiltshire Archaeological and
Natural History Magazine 95:131-46.
REIMER, P.J, M.G.J. BAILLIE, E. BARD, A. BAYLISS, J. W. BECK, P.G.
BLACKWELL, C. BRONK RAMSEY, C.E. BUCK, G.S. BURR, R.L. EDWARDS, M.
FRIEDRICH, P.M. GROOTES, T.P. GUILDERSON, I. HAJDAS, T.J. HEATON, A.G.
HOGG, K. A. HUGHEN, K.F. KAISER, B. KROMER, G. MCCORMAC, S. MANNING,
R.W. REIMER, S. REMMELE, D.A. RICHARDS, J.R. SOUTHON, S. TALAMO, F.W.
TAYLOR, C.S.M. TURNEY, J. VAN DER PLICHT & C.E. WEYHENMEYER. 2009.
IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0-50,000 years
cal BP. Radiocarbon 51: 1111-50.
ROBERTS, C. & M. Cox. 2003. Health and disease in Britain: from
prehistory to the present day. Stroud: Sutton.
ROGERS, J. & T. WALDRON. 1995. A field guide to joint disease
in archaeology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
SHERIDAN, J.A., R.J. BRADLEY & R. SCHULTING. 2009. Radiocarbon
dates arranged through National Museums Scotland Archaeology Department
during 2008/9. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 10: 212-14.
SMITH, M. & M. BRICKLEY. 2009. People of the long barrows:
life, death and burial in the earlier Neolithic. Stroud: History Press.
STUIVER, M. & P.J. REIMER. 1986. A computer program for
radiocarbon age calculation. Radiocarbon 28: 1022-30.
--1993. Extended [sup.14]C data base and revised CALIB 3.0
[sup.14]C age calibration program. Radiocarbon 35: 215-30.
SUCHEY, J. & S. BROOKS. 1990. Skeletal age determination based
on the os pubis: a comparison of the Acsadi--Nemeskeri and
Suchey--Brooks methods. Human Evolution 5: 227-38. http://dx.doi.org/!
0.1007/BF02437238
SUY, R. 2006. The varying morphology and aetiology of arterial
aneurysms: a historical review. Acta Angiologia 12: 1-6.
WAHL, J. & M. GRAW. 2001. Metric sex differentiation of the
pars petrosa ossis temporalis. International Journal of Legal Medicine
114: 215-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s004140000167
WARD, G.K. & S.R. WILSON. 1978. Procedures for comparing and
combining radiocarbon age determinations: a critique. Archaeometry 20:
19-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.1978. tb00208.x
WEST, S. 1990. West Stow: the prehistoric and Romano-British
occupations (East Anglian Archaeology Reports 48). Norwich: East Anglian
Archaeology.
YOUNG, W. 1935. Leaves from my journal VII. Unpublished manuscript,
Library of the Wiltshire Archaeological Society, Devizes.
Received: 26 February 2015; Accepted: 21 May 2015; Revised: 5 June
2015
Christie Willis (1), Peter Marshall (2), Jacqueline McKinley (3),
Mike Pitts (4), Joshua Pollard (5), Colin Richards (6), Julian Richards
(7), Julian Thomas (6), Tony Waldron (1), Kate Welham (8) & Mike
Parker Pearson (1), *
(1) UCL Institute of Archaeology, 31-34 Gordon Square, London WC1H
0PY, UK
(2) Chronologies, 25 On slow Road, Sheffield S11 7AF, UK
(3) Wessex Archaeology, Portway House, Old Sarum Park, Salisbury
SP4 6EB, UK
(4) Council for British Archaeology, 66 Bootham, York YO30 7BZ, UK
(5) Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton,
Southampton SO17 1BF, UK
(6) School of Arts, Languages & Cultures, University of
Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
(7) Archaemedia, Foyle Hill House, Shafiesbury SP7 OPT, UK
(8) Department of Archaeology, Anthropology & Forensic Science,
Bournemouth University, Poole BH12 5BB, UK
* Author for correspondence (Email: m.parker-pearson@ucl.ac.uk)
Table 1. Ageing descriptions for bone fragments from Aubrey Hole 7,
identifying those bones from which age was determined in each
category. The occipital bones and internal auditory meati do not
appear in this table; the full sample MNI of 27 is calculated from
the adult occipitals and the five sub-adults shown here.
Age-diagnostic skeletal
Category Broad age range MNI fragments
Foetus-neonate conception-1 month 1 scapula *
after birth
Infant 1 month-1 year 1 mandible, humerus, ulna,
ribs, femur *
Young child 1-5 years 1 maxilla, humerus, radius,
scapula, clavicle,
sacrum, pelvis, femur,
tibia, patella,
metacarpals/
metatarsals *
Older child 5-12 years 1 maxilla, teeth, humerus,
radius, clavicle, ribs,
femur, tibia,
metacarpals/
metatarsals *
Juvenile 12-18 years 1 clavicle, femur, tibia,
patella *
Young adult 18-35 years 3 pubis and auricular
surfaces
Mature adult 35-50 years 4 auricular surfaces
Older adult 50+ years 1 intervertebral disc
disease (IVDD) in the
spine, severe dental
wear to tooth root
* As there was no duplication of bones within the sub-adult
categories, it is assumed that there is only one individual in each
sub-adult age range.
Table 2. Radiocarbon dates on cremated human remains
from Aubrey Hole 7 and adjacent deposit 007.
Laboratory Sample
number reference
Aubrey Hole 7
OxA-26962 110
OxA-26963 173
OxA-26964 221
OxA-26965 223
OxA-26966 227
SUERC-42892 227A
OxA-27045 246
OxA-27046 255
SUERC-42893 255A
OxA-27047 280
OxA-27048 281
OxA-27049 288
OxA-27077 307
SUERC-42885 307A
OxA-27078 330
OxA-27079 334
SUERC-42883 334A
OxA-27080 357
SUERC-42895 357A
OxA-27081 366
OxA-27082 389
OxA-27083 390b
OxA-27091 390b
OxA-27084 596
OxA-27083 211
OxA-27089 225
SUERC-42886 225A
OxA-27090 336
OxA-27092 344
OxA-27093 382+323
OxA-30294 289
Cremation deposit adjacent to AH7
SUERC-30410 007
OxA-27086 007
Laboratory
number Material
Aubrey Hole 7
OxA-26962 cremated human occipital bone, probable adult, ?female
OxA-26963 cremated human occipital bone, probable adult
OxA-26964 cremated human occipital bone, probable adult
OxA-26965 cremated human occipital bone, adult, ?male
OxA-26966 cremated human occipital bone, probable adult, ?female
SUERC-42892 as OxA-26966
OxA-27045 cremated human occipital bone, adult
OxA-27046 cremated human occipital bone, probable adult
SUERC-42893 as OxA-27046
OxA-27047 cremated human occipital bone, adult male
OxA-27048 cremated human occipital bone, adult, ?male
OxA-27049 cremated human occipital bone, adult, ?male
OxA-27077 cremated human occipital bone, adult male
SUERC-42885 as OxA-27077
OxA-27078 cremated human occipital bone, adult,
OxA-27079 cremated human occipital bone, probable adult, ?female
SUERC-42883 as OxA-27079
OxA-27080 cremated human occipital bone, adult male
SUERC-42895 as OxA-27080
OxA-27081 cremated human occipital bone, probable adult, ?female
OxA-27082 cremated human occipital bone, probable adult, ?female
OxA-27083 cremated human occipital bone, adult
OxA-27091 as OxA-27083
OxA-27084 cremated human occipital bone, adult male
OxA-27083 cremated human proximal left diaphyseal humerus bone,
child, 5-12 years
OxA-27089 cremated human occipital bone, adult male
SUERC-42886 as OxA-27089
OxA-27090 cremated human occipital bone, probable adult
OxA-27092 cremated human right diaphyseal humerus bone, child,
1-5 years
OxA-27093 cremated human proximal left femoral diaphysis bone,
juvenile, 12-18 years
OxA-30294 cremated human occipital bone, adult male
Cremation deposit adjacent to AH7
SUERC-30410 cremated human bone, femoral shaft fragment
OxA-27086 cremated human bone, femoral shaft fragment
[delta]-
[sup.13]C
Laboratory ([per Radiocarbon
number thousand]) age (BP)
Aubrey Hole 7
OxA-26962 -22.0 4281 [+ or -] 31
OxA-26963 -23.5 4358 [+ or -] 34
OxA-26964 -24.3 4325 [+ or -] 31
OxA-26965 -22.6 4101 [+ or -] 30
OxA-26966 -23.7 4168 [+ or -] 29
SUERC-42892 -19.7 4107 [+ or -] 19
OxA-27045 -21.5 4456 [+ or -] 36
OxA-27046 -18.5 4195 [+ or -] 31
SUERC-42893 -20.8 4164 [+ or -] 19
OxA-27047 -21.8 4377 [+ or -] 31
OxA-27048 -22.4 4210 [+ or -] 31
OxA-27049 -22.5 4237 [+ or -] 30
OxA-27077 -24.9 4418 [+ or -] 31
SUERC-42885 -24.4 4385 [+ or -] 20
OxA-27078 -24.2 4255 [+ or -] 33
OxA-27079 -22.8 4391 [+ or -] 30
SUERC-42883 -22.3 4394 [+ or -] 18
OxA-27080 -22.5 4325 [+ or -] 32
SUERC-42895 -22.6 4350 [+ or -] 19
OxA-27081 -23.0 4348 [+ or -] 30
OxA-27082 -19.9 4404 [+ or -] 26
OxA-27083 -19.8 4261 [+ or -] 30
OxA-27091 -20.6 4255 [+ or -] 30
OxA-27084 -20.3 4364 [+ or -] 31
OxA-27083 -23.3 4340 [+ or -] 30
OxA-27089 -20.9 4132 [+ or -] 31
SUERC-42886 -21.6 4219 [+ or -] 20
OxA-27090 -23.5 4413 [+ or -] 32
OxA-27092 -23.6 4426 [+ or -] 33
OxA-27093 -23.4 4180 [+ or -] 34
OxA-30294 -21.7 4392 [+ or -] 30
Cremation deposit adjacent to AH7
SUERC-30410 4420 [+ or -] 35
OxA-27086 -21.5 4317 [+ or -] 33
Calibrated
date, cal
Laboratory BC (95%
number Weighted mean confidence)
Aubrey Hole 7
OxA-26962 2920-2870
OxA-26963 3090-2890
OxA-26964 3020-2890
OxA-26965 2870-2500
OxA-26966 4125 [+ or -] 16 BP 2865-2585
(T'=3.1; v=l;
T'(5%) = 3.8)
SUERC-42892
OxA-27045 3340-2940
OxA-27046 4173 [+ or -] 17 BP 2880-2675
(T'=0.7; v=l;
T'(5%)=3.8)
SUERC-42893
OxA-27047 3100-2900
OxA-27048 2900-2690
OxA-27049 2910-2750
OxA-27077 4395 [+ or -] 17BP 3095-2920
(T'=0.8; V=l;
T'(5%)=3.8)
SUERC-42885
OxA-27078 2920-2790
OxA-27079 4393 [+ or -] 16 BP 3090-2920
(T'=0.0; v=l;
T'(5%)=3.8)
SUERC-42883
OxA-27080 4344 [+ or -] 17BP 3020-2900
(T'=0.5; v=l;
T'(5%)=3.8)
SUERC-42895
OxA-27081 3090-2890
OxA-27082 3270-2910
OxA-27083 4258 [+ or -] 22 BP 2910-2875
(T'=0.0; v=l;
T'(5%)=3.8)
OxA-27091
OxA-27084 3090-2900
OxA-27083 3080-2890
OxA-27089 4194 [+ or -] 17BP 2890-2695
(T'=5.5; v=l;
T'(5%)=3.8)
SUERC-42886
OxA-27090 3310-2910
OxA-27092 3330-2920
OxA-27093 2890-2630
OxA-30294 3095-2920
Cremation deposit adjacent to AH7
SUERC-30410 4366 [+ or -] 25 BP 3090-2900
(T'=4.6; v=1;
T'(5%)=3.8)
OxA-27086
