bronze age barrows on the heathlands of …bronze age barrows on the heathlands of southern england:...

ojoa_338 15..34

RICHARD BRADLEY AND ELISE FRASER

BRONZE AGE BARROWS ON THE HEATHLANDS OFSOUTHERN ENGLAND: CONSTRUCTION, FORMSAND INTERPRETATIONS

Summary. The Bronze Age barrows on the downs of southern England havebeen investigated and discussed for nearly 200 years, but much less attentionhas been paid to similar structures in the areas of heathland beyond the chalkand river gravels. They were built in a phase of expansion towards the end ofthe Early Bronze Age, and more were constructed during the Middle BronzeAge. They have a number of distinctive characteristics. This paper considersthe interpretation of these monuments and their wider significance in relationto the pattern of settlement. It also discusses the origins of field systems inlowland England.

crichel down, launceston down and beaulieu heath

A large number of prehistoric burial mounds were excavated during the Second WorldWar as their sites were taken over for use by the armed forces. Among them were the barrows onCrichel Down and Launceston Down on the Wessex chalk, and those on Beaulieu Heath in theNew Forest. Both excavations were conducted by the same people. Stuart Piggott and MargaretPiggott worked together at Crichel Down, where the sites of a series of barrows were to be usedas a bombing range (Piggott and Piggott 1944). Margaret Piggott also worked at Beaulieu Heathwhere the mounds were removed to make way for a military airfield (Piggott 1943). Again StuartPiggott contributed to the excavation report.

These projects were important as it was rare for so many barrows to be excavated in asingle location, or for them to be explored by the same techniques. Of course the circumstancesof the excavations imposed some constraints. At Crichel and Launceston Downs the workfocused on 16 of the smaller Bronze Age barrows so that more monuments could be explored inthe time available. When the site reverted to farmland in 1958, two larger mounds (Long CrichelBarrows 5 and 7) were completely excavated (Green, Lynch and White 1982). At Beaulieu Heaththere were fewer limitations, but parts of the ten barrows were only sampled (Fig. 1).

Work at Long Crichel Barrows 5 and 7 was more extensive than the earlier research, andwhen it was published the authors of the report were able to draw on the results of a number ofprojects that had taken place during the intervening years. As a result they paid more attentionto the stages by which the structures were built. They also discussed the reuse of older graves.In doing so, they rejected the traditional view that the barrows were intended to house‘individual’ burials. Instead each could be considered as a cemetery in its own right.

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 29(1) 15–33 2010© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UKand 350 Main Street Malden, MA 02148, USA. 15

Figure 1Plans and profiles of two chalkland round barrows (Long Crichel 5 and 7) and two heathland barrows (Beaulieu 5and 6). The mounds at Long Crichel were rebuilt and were associated with a sequence of intercutting graves. Thoseat Beaulieu illustrate a widespread structural sequence with a turf core and a gravel capping. Information from

Piggott (1943) and Green, Lynch and White (1982).

BRONZE AGE BARROWS ON THE HEATHLANDS OF SOUTHERN ENGLAND

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.16

There have not been many projects of similar character in recent years as mostexcavations have investigated single monuments or have been concerned with barrows that hadalready been levelled by the plough. For that reason these particular sites retain a specialimportance. They are often mentioned in accounts of prehistoric burials, but, considering that theprojects were conducted by the same people, the striking differences between their results havehardly been discussed. At a time when the character of Bronze Age burials is being reconsidered(Brück 2004; Last 2007) the problem needs to be investigated.

The graves and their contents

The more recent report on sites at Crichel Down draws attention to a feature that wasmentioned only briefly in the Piggotts’ paper (Green, Lynch and White 1982). Many of theBeaker and Early Bronze Age graves had been reopened after an interval and often containedmore than one body. Some of the burials seem to have been disturbed and not all the skeletonswere complete; one of the primary graves included a small number of disarticulated bonesbelonging to another person. It seems possible that relics were removed from the originaldeposits and that others were introduced from outside.

Apart from the containers that held cremated bones, there were not many grave goodsat Crichel and Launceston Downs. Long Crichel Barrow 5 was associated with one anomalousdeposit. Large fragments of a single decorated vessel were distributed between two differentgraves. The remainder of the pot was missing. Either it had been brought to the barrow in pieces,or parts were removed during the Bronze Age. One of the cremation burials from Barrow 7 poseda similar problem. It was inside two urns, one inverted over the other. The outer vessel wasbroken and may have been damaged subsequently, yet it was clear that its companion wasincomplete when it came to the site. It is tempting to suggest that such items were heirlooms(Woodward 2002; Woodward et al. 2005). It seems likely that the missing fragments continuedto circulate among the living. Both artefacts and human remains may have been treated in thesame ways, and even those buried in graves could later be removed.

There was little evidence of the same process at Beaulieu Heath where most of thebarrows contained only one burial and almost all the associated artefacts were pots. There wasnothing to suggest that any of the graves had been reopened. An amber necklace was foundbeneath one of the monuments. Since it was not complete, Margaret Piggott made the prescientsuggestion that it was probably an heirloom (1943, 14).

The mounds and their materials

For the reasons mentioned earlier, the Piggotts’ excavations were limited to the smallerbarrows on Crichel and Launceston Downs. That introduced a certain bias, but it was alsorevealing, for nearly all the structures they investigated belonged to just two phases: the Beakerperiod and the Middle Bronze Age. The Beaker burials could be associated with shaft graves, yetthe covering mounds were inconspicuous. The Middle Bronze Age round barrows were built ona similar scale, but in this case they were associated with small pits containing cremations(Piggott and Piggott 1944).

On the other hand, two of the Early Bronze Age monuments, Long Crichel Barrows 5and 7, were quite distinctive (Green, Lynch and White 1982). Each was a prominent feature ofthe landscape and provided evidence of several phases of enlargement and modification. Barrow


OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 17

7 may have begun as a small mound in the Beaker phase, but it ended as a considerableearthwork, 3 m high and nearly 30 m in diameter. Although it contained the remains of severalpeople, it is clear that not every funeral resulted in the enlargement of the mound (Barrett 1991;Barrett 1994, chapter 5).

Again there is a significant contrast between the sites excavated by the Piggotts.Individual barrows on Beaulieu Heath could be as large as those on Crichel Down, but fieldworksuggested a much simpler sequence of development. There was little to suggest that the moreconspicuous monuments were created by augmenting older structures, and only one of the tenmounds had been enlarged. The structural sequence was equally simple, for in most cases aninner core of turf was covered by a layer of gravel (Piggott 1943).

The barrows on Beaulieu Heath are distinctive because they provide such limitedevidence for cremation burials: the dominant rite on Crichel Down at the time when they werebuilt. On the other hand, two of the mounds covered timber structures which could have houseda corpse (Piggott 1943, 6–9, 17–19 and 24–5). Since these sites are located on acid soils it ispossible that certain of them were associated with inhumations or with deposits of unburntbones.

Chronology

There are no radiocarbon dates from either group of barrows but the associated artefactsare of types with an established chronology. The mounds can also be dated by comparison witha scheme recently published by Garwood (2007). Both methods provide similar results.

Garwood distinguishes between three different phases:

• In the first, between about 2400 and 2100 BC, inhumation burials were often placed in deepgraves, some of which were later reopened. Not all were marked by mounds, and wherebarrows were built they were usually small and inconspicuous. (Later Neolithic/Chalcolithic)

• The second phase took place between approximately 2100 and 1850 BC. It was characterizedby larger, more complex monuments, some of which were built over the positions of flatcemeteries or enclosures. These barrows were considerably larger than their predecessors andwere often reconstructed. Many of the graves were reopened to include inhumation andcremation burials. Any one mound might contain the remains of a large number of people.(earlier Early Bronze Age)

• That contrasts with developments in Garwood’s final phase, which extends from 1850 to 1500BC. Now newly built barrows were constructed in a single operation and were frequentlyassociated with just one primary burial, usually a cremation. Sometimes they were erectedover the sites of pyres. Later deposits might be inserted into the tops of the mounds, but themonuments were rarely enlarged. Some of the mounds took the specialized forms known asbell barrows and disc barrows. (later Early Bronze Age)

These three phases span the period from the introduction of Beakers to the end of theEarly Bronze Age. Middle Bronze Age barrows were not included in Garwood’s analysis, buttheir characteristics are easy to summarize. They consist of smaller circular mounds, a few ofwhich were on sites with evidence of burning. They were apparently built in a single phase andmight cover one or more cremations. More can be set in the edge and top of the mound, andothers occur in shallow pits beyond the barrow altogether (Ellison 1980; Petersen 1981, chapter11). After about 1200 BC round barrows of any kind are rare in southern England.




The periods of use of these different structures may have overlapped, but it is easy tolocate the cemeteries excavated by the Piggotts within this general sequence. The mounds atCrichel Down extend through all four phases, beginning with Beaker shaft graves covered by lowmounds and ending with a series of small Middle Bronze Age barrows. Those on Beaulieu Heathwere confined to the last two stages in this sequence, meaning that the cemetery should havestarted later than its counterpart on the chalk. It lasted for a shorter time, although both groupsof monuments may have gone out of use together.

the wider context: the early bronze age

The changing significance of the past

It is a sequence that spans an important development in the archaeology of centralsouthern England. Round barrows were built continuously between the first introduction ofmetals and the middle of the Bronze Age, but in other respects the landscape underwent a changeas the influence of older ceremonial centres decreased.

Many of the first round barrows were built near older structures, especially longbarrows, enclosures, cursuses and henges dating from the Neolithic period. They are a specialfeature of the chalk and the river gravels and do not occur in areas that are currently occupied byheathland. The positions of the Bronze Age barrows not only acknowledged the existence ofimportant structures dating from the past, new research has shown that those on the chalk ofsouth Dorset, Cranborne Chase and Salisbury Plain were located in areas of fertile land that hadnever been densely wooded. These regions attracted an unusual concentration of earlierprehistoric monuments, most of which would have been built in places that had already beensettled (French et al. 2007, chapter 4).

The character of these monuments changed over time. The process is epitomized by themost famous example, Stonehenge. For a long time it was thought that the major stone settingson the site were contemporary with the Bronze Age barrows that cluster around it. Now thatseems unlikely. Instead the burial mounds appear to have been built close to what was certainlyan important place, but one which was already becoming an ancient monument (Parker Pearsonet al. 2006). The same applies to other henges in Wessex, which were not rebuilt after the Beakerperiod. The monuments on Crichel Down and Launceston Down illustrate the complexity of theevidence. They commanded a view over the Dorset Cursus – once the largest monument of itskind in Britain (Barrett, Bradley and Green 1990, 35–58). There had been a Neolithic burial onCrichel Down itself (Piggott and Piggott 1944, 51–2), but excavation suggests that the areaoccupied by the mounds contained a settlement associated with Beaker pottery (Piggott andPiggott 1944, 56; Green, Lynch and White 1982, 48–50). Perhaps the recent history of the sitebecame more important in the Early Bronze Age.

There is yet another way in which the political geography of southern England waschanging. For too long the discussion has been based on the main concentrations of roundbarrows on the downland, in particular those on Salisbury Plain. New research suggests thatgreater attention should be paid to the English Channel coast where there was a series ofexceptionally rich graves and other deposits reaching from Kent to Cornwall. Their contentsprovide evidence of long-distance contacts extending around the shoreline and into ContinentalEurope (Needham 2006). Needham and Woodward suggest that communities near to the sea mayhave maintained a certain independence from those who buried their dead in inland areas (2008,



41–3). This distinction can be recognized as early as 1950 BC but continued throughout theperiod studied in this paper. Needham argues that these long-distance contacts provide evidenceof a distinct ‘Channel Bronze Age’ (Needham 2006). The case is certainly persuasive as there areimportant concentrations of surface finds at the mouths of the main rivers in the Solent Basin(Field 2008a).

Barrows and the occupation of new land

The nature and distribution of Bronze Age barrows changed while such developmentswere taking place. The excavated monuments at Crichel Down and Beaulieu Heath typify thesewider developments.

From the Beaker period onwards round barrows were established on the downs and rivergravels across large parts of southern England. Their sizes varied considerably and so did theirdistributions on the ground. Some of the mounds occur singly, but others were built in groups orlaid out in more elaborate configurations. The barrows in both these regions were constructed formore than 1000 years.

Similar monuments occur in limited numbers in areas of sand or plateau gravel whichare now occupied by heathland (Dimbleby 1962). They include parts of the Solent Basin, theWeald, the Surrey Greensand and the hinterland of the Thames and Kennet Valleys (Fig. 2).Although the density of monuments varies, the regions with round barrows extend acrossapproximately 2000 sq km between the Solent and the River Thames. They are adjacent to areasin which round barrows were built in larger numbers. They were also close to places with alonger history of settlement. Most fieldwork has taken place in the south of Wessex, and it is thatregion which is studied in most detail here.

The heathlands of southern England assumed their present form at different times, butthe oldest monuments there were constructed in the Bronze Age (Dimbleby 1962; Branch andGreen 2004, 13–15; Grant and Barber 2008). Apart from Mesolithic artefacts, they produce fewsurface finds dating from earlier periods, and those that have been recorded rarely extend backbefore the adoption of metals (Gardiner 1984; Needham 1987; Cotton 2004, 24–7 and 33–5;Field 2008a). None of the barrows contained a Beaker burial. The first diagnostic artefactsassociated with them belong to the later part of the Early Bronze Age. Some of the smallermonuments were used again during the Middle Bronze Age when other examples were built, butfew of these areas were occupied after that time. Pollen analysis shows that they had been usedfor cultivation and for pasturing animals (Bradley and Keith-Lucas 1975).

It seems as if the heathland barrows developed some time after those in other areas. Themonuments on Beaulieu Heath are typical of a much wider pattern which has been traced bypiecemeal excavation and field survey in Dorset, Hampshire, Sussex, Surrey and in Berkshiresouth of the Thames. The mounds often form small groups but larger cemeteries are rare orabsent. In certain respects this evidence is unusual. The excavated mounds may be contemporarywith those in other regions, but the burials associated with them contained few, if any artefacts.

The expansion of settlement seems to have been relatively short lived, and the surfacebeneath the round barrows is normally podsolized. People may have cleared fresh areas ofmarginal land as the quality of the soil deteriorated. An alternative was retrenchment, and it mayhave been in this context that the first co-axial field systems were created, for in central southernEngland they have a restricted distribution on the lower ground of the Solent Basin where theyare associated with deposits of gravel (Yates 2007, chapter 7). The clearest evidence comes from




fieldwork at Bestwall Quarry, Wareham where the field ditches were associated with sherds ofbiconical urn (information from Lilian Ladle and Ann Woodward). That would make themcontemporary with the barrows constructed on the chalk and the heathland towards the end of theEarly Bronze Age. It is possible that early fields existed on the chalk at this time, but none of theevidence is entirely satisfactory.

the character of early bronze age round barrows

Structural sequences at the heathland barrows

Most of the heathland barrows were built in a single phase (Fig. 3). The process wasusually the same. An extensive area was stripped of turf, although the position of the monument

Figure 2The study area, showing the main sites and regions considered in this paper in relation to the distribution of surviving

round barrows. Heathland mounds are indicated in black. Information from Grinsell (1941).



was not affected, and a mound of sods was built. This would have been separated from itssurroundings by an area of exposed subsoil. Then the barrow was enlarged by enclosing it with aditch and capping it with gravel or sand. Occasionally this process was followed more than once.It would have altered the whole appearance of the monument, and the barrows would have changedtheir colour from black to yellow or white (Fraser 2005). That sequence has been recognized onmost excavated sites, but one question is never asked. Why was the turf deposited separately fromthe bedrock? It rarely happened in regions where older mounds were constructed.

A typical heathland mound began as a structure that appeared dark and potentiallyfertile, enclosed by an open area that would have looked like a cultivated field. It was transformedinto something bleached and inert. At the same time its composition was altered. The initial turfstack was composed of an organic deposit which could have continued living for some time.When the ditch was dug, the original mound was covered over and the turf of which it was madewould rapidly die. On the evidence of pollen analysis at Ascot in Berkshire it seems possible that

Figure 3(Upper) The surviving remains of Beaulieu Heath Barrow 6, parts of which escaped destruction in the 1940s. The ditchis filled with water. Photograph: Richard Bradley. (Lower) A heathland round barrow on Mortimer Common.

Photograph: Elise Fraser. For a plan of the cemetery, see Figure 4.




these stages were separated by a year or more (Bradley and Keith-Lucas 1975, 104). Theprogression is surely revealing. When the dead were buried, they were covered by a deposit ofliving matter. After an interval which was possibly quite brief, that process came to an end andany burial was cut off from the world outside. Where an unburnt body was buried, the stages ofconstruction may have happened as the corpse decayed. Now the turf beneath the mound couldno longer grow, and as this happened the living were separated from the dead by a ditch. Thissequence is found throughout the heathlands.

Heathland barrows were built on newly opened ground and seem to have been locatedsome distance away from areas of long-established settlement, and even from the monumentsbuilt by earlier generations. Few of these earthworks were on sites with many artefacts, and justas they were established in areas that had not been inhabited before, the mounds themselves weresealed after they had been built. The dead were kept apart from the living to an extent that hadrarely happened during previous phases, and the newly built structure created an impermeablebarrier between the corpse and the mourners.

Few of these structures were associated with grave goods. One possibility is that theywere associated with the ‘poorer’ members of the community, but that is improbable since thebuilding of the covering mounds would have involved the same investment of labour as in manyof those on the chalk. It is more likely that in places which lacked a strong connection to the past,special objects were less often buried with the dead (cf. Woodward 2002 and Woodward et al.2005). Instead they might have been used as offerings in other locations. It may be nocoincidence that it was at just this time that bronze daggers were first deposited in rivers (Bradley1998a, 99–100).

Boundaries between the living and the dead

A few heathland barrows took specialized forms. Among them were bell barrows wherea circular mound was separated from a ditch by a strip of unexcavated ground (Grinsell 1934).It seems likely that many examples were built in a single operation. Disc barrows are also foundon the heathland of southern England, but less often. They were circular ditched enclosures withone or two low mounds at the centre (Grinsell 1974). It is hard to know how to interpret them.Grinsell suggested that the differences reflected the burials found there – bell barrows were formen and disc barrows for women – but the field evidence was not convincing, and a significantproportion of the sites combined the attributes of both kinds of monument (Grinsell 1974, 86–7;Petersen 1981, 236–55).

Perhaps it is time to abandon a typology of barrows which does not accommodate theevidence from the heathlands. It is more informative to emphasize the common links between themounds that were built towards the end of the Early Bronze Age. Several characteristics call forcomment. These mounds illustrate a quite specific sequence in which an organic core of turves wassealed beneath a deposit of inert material. Once those barrows were built they were rarelymodified. Their distinctive character was emphasized by the very features that make them sodifficult to classify: the strips of open ground between a mound and its ditch; the presence ofcircular enclosures associated with some of these structures; and even the multiplication ofearthwork barriers defining the limits of these sites. For example, a number of bell barrows alsopossess the external bank characteristic of quite different forms of monument (Fig. 4). As a resultthe dead were no longer accessible. A series of physical barriers was erected to keep them at adistance.



Figure 4Outline plans of the heathland barrow groups on Mortimer Common, Berkshire, and Elstead, Surrey, showing theunusual configuration of the mounds. Ditches are indicated in light tone. Information from Grinsell (1932 and 1939).




Structural sequences in the chalkland barrows

Paul Garwood’s scheme defines three phases in the use of barrows on the chalk and,indeed, on the river gravels (Garwood 2007). The early stages date from the period before theheathland barrows were built, but those constructed between about 1850 and 1500 BC areparticularly relevant to this study. They do not need to be described in detail, for in most accountsof this period they are treated as the norm.

It is important to distinguish between barrows of the proportions of those in heathlandareas and significantly larger mounds which have a more restricted distribution on the chalk.Similarly, it is necessary to consider the mounds in major cemeteries separately from the rest.Not only were those monuments laid out in formal patterns that are less apparent in other areas,they often include more specialized kinds of earthwork.

The principal cemeteries contain most of the more conspicuous mounds. They alsoinclude a higher proportion of richly furnished burials, although there is no obvious correlationbetween the character of the individual barrows and the artefacts that were deposited in them. Itseems as if the deployment of certain objects was especially appropriate in these places. Thatcould be because the cemeteries had a lengthy history, in some cases extending back to theBeaker phase and beyond. Particular artefacts had a history, too. There is evidence that they hadbeen worn, broken and even repaired long before they entered the grave (Woodward 2002;Woodward et al. 2005). It had happened during Garwood’s first two phases, but the practicecontinued after the widespread adoption of cremation. Other offerings may have been destroyedon the pyre.

It was in Garwood’s third phase (the later Early Bronze Age) that monuments assumednew forms. In some respects they ran in parallel with developments on the heathlands. More ofthe mounds were constructed in a single operation, and they were generally associated with onlyone burial. They followed a comparable sequence to those in other areas, with a core of turvescovered by a mantle of chalk quarried from a ditch. Again this could happen more than once. Themost conspicuous mounds were occasionally organized in cemeteries aligned on the position ofan older monument or even on the setting sun (Garwood 2003, 60–1). Burial mounds had beenbuilt in groups before, but it was only at this stage that there are indications of a more formallayout. Even in their final configuration, barrow cemeteries were usually divided betweenclusters of different earthworks (Exon et al. 2000, chapter 8).

Boundaries between the living and the dead

On one level the barrows just described acted in a similar fashion to those built on theheathlands, but there were important variations among the monuments established on the chalk.Mounds like Long Crichel 5 and 7 are of roughly the same proportions as barrows south of thechalk, but that would not apply to those in a major cemetery like Oakley Down, which was only8 km away (Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England 1975, 102–4). Thedistinction is apparent in other ways. In complexes of this kind more artefacts were associatedwith the dead, and these groups also included a significant proportion of bell barrows and discbarrows where the limits of individual monuments were marked in special ways. If access tothese cemeteries was restricted to certain sections of society, the forms taken by these moundscould have reinforced that exclusiveness. The distinction is apparent from the distribution of anumber of elaborate artefacts, but it also depended on enjoying privileged access to the past.



the wider context: the middle bronze age

The distribution of field systems

The expansion onto heathland soils seems to have lasted to the end of the Middle BronzeAge, although the distribution of dated barrows suggests that some of the first areas to be clearedwere abandoned in favour of others. It was now that larger areas were enclosed. Field systems onthe gravels and the chalk were associated with circular houses, pits and water-holes. A few siteswere bounded by a bank and ditch (Barrett 1994, 146–53). Burial mounds of the same date canoften be found in the vicinity. By the end of this phase field systems had extended into many ofthe areas that had been occupied by downland barrow cemeteries, but now those monumentswere little used. Elsewhere existing mounds were incorporated in land divisions. Theirimportance was respected, but most had gone out of use (Field 2008b).

the character of middle bronze age round barrows (Fig. 5)

Structural sequences at the heathland barrows

Some of the heathland barrows were reused in the Middle Bronze Age, but theywere rarely reconstructed. Instead cremations were deposited in pits in the tops of existingmounds, around their edges and even in their ditches. At the same time the distribution of theburials extended well beyond the perimeter of the monument itself (Ellison 1980; Petersen 1981,chapter 11).

More often new barrows were established. Most were smaller than their predecessorsand some of them were built on new sites. Although they often illustrate the same structuralsequence, with a turf mound overlaid by a deposit of sand or gravel, there were importantdifferences between them and their predecessors. There were fewer layers of capping, andnormally only one (Petersen 1981, 198). Where Early Bronze Age barrows had been demarcatedby a continuous boundary, the new construction was provided with an entrance where the ditchwas interrupted by a causeway; this is a particular characteristic of sites in the Solent Basin. Thelater monuments were no longer separated from the surrounding area by a band of unexcavatedground or by the construction of an outer bank. Instead they were simpler and less conspicuous.

These mounds occur singly or in groups, but there is only limited evidence of a formallayout among the barrows themselves or in the organization of the burials at a single monument.There might be one or more cremations below the centre of the mound, but they might also befound in its upper levels. Others occur around its limits or outside it altogether. The number ofcremations varies from a single deposit to a series of different burials. Within the largercemeteries they can sometimes be divided into clusters (Ellison 1980). Some were in potteryvessels whilst others lacked any associations and were in small pits. At most sites there were nograve goods, perhaps because the offerings provided by the mourners had been depositedsomewhere else (Bradley 2007, 200–4).

The relationship between the living and the dead

Of course there was some continuity between the heathland barrows of the Earlyand Middle Bronze Ages, and it is possible that for a while their currencies overlapped. Even




so, several contrasts are important. The newer monuments were smaller, the associatedburials were more plentiful, and many were not covered by the mound. Most important ofall, the forms of these structures interposed less of a barrier between the living and thedead.

Figure 5Outline plans of the Middle Bronze Age barrows at Crichel Down, Knighton Heath and Simons Ground, Dorset, andBarrow Pleck, Wiltshire, indicating the distributions of cremation burials and related features. Information from Piggott

and Piggott (1944), Petersen (1981), White (1982) and Barrett, Bradley and Green (1990).



Some of the later barrows were associated with many more burials than those of theprevious phase. Moreover the mound itself might provide the focus for cremation deposits, butonly rarely did it seal them off entirely. In that sense the monuments were permeable. Fewerpeople were buried beneath these barrows than in its surface or outside them altogether. Theprovision of an entrance is particularly revealing, for it has very different connotations from theelaborate barriers constructed around Early Bronze Age mounds. It suggests that these placeswere intended to appear open and accessible. The forms of these monuments imply a change inthe relationship between the living and the dead. So do the details of the burials themselves. Incontrast to Early Bronze Age practice, most of the vessels that contained cremations were uprightin the ground and could have been reopened. In the previous phase more had been inverted.

Structural sequences at the chalkland barrows

In many respects developments in the Middle Bronze Age took a similar course to thoseon the heathlands. Older round barrows were reused and smaller ones were built. They usuallytook the form already described. They appear singly or in groups, and in the southern part ofWessex they were often defined by a causewayed ditch which was often open towards the south.Again the burials were in pits beneath the mound; others might be cut into its surface; and somewere around its outer edge or beyond the structure altogether. There is little evidence that thesemonuments were constructed in the same way as their immediate predecessors, with an innercore of turves and an outer capping of chalk. A feature of the chalkland barrows was thedeposition of large quantities of worked flint in their ditches (Barrett, Bradley and Green 1990,168–81).

There was a change in the siting of Middle Bronze Age burials. Where existing moundswere reused, they were usually the smaller barrows of the previous period rather than the moreelaborate bell barrows. When they did occur in close proximity to Early Bronze Age cemeteriesthe later barrows were sometimes located towards their limits. A number of these barrows wereorganized into groups in their own right. They show important contrasts in the sizes of differentmounds, in the character of the deposits, and even in their positions in relation to the monuments(Barrett, Bradley and Green 1990, 217–19).

The relationship between the living and the dead

Again the chalkland barrows share many features with their counterparts on theheathlands. They seem to have been open to the surrounding area and many of the cremationdeposits were outside the monuments altogether. Those associated with pottery might haveremained accessible as they were in upright vessels.

Another development was of more significance, for on the Wessex chalk thesemonuments were closely associated with settlements and field systems: the first to leave cleartraces on the ground. It is possible that the same was true in the heathlands where the earthworksof fields have also been identified (Smith 1999; English 2007). The downland barrows werenormally located within 200 m of the settlements of the same period (Bradley 1981).

Other connections were less direct. It seems possible that barrows with entrancesopening towards the south were constructed in the image of the round houses found nearby, forthey were about the same size as these buildings. Where the mounds were associated with agroup of burials, they may have signified the importance of the household (Bradley 1998b,




150–8). The same link is emphasized by the use of domestic pottery in the cemeteries and alsoby the presence of large amounts of worked flint like that associated with settlements. The linkis so widespread that it has been possible to discover previously unrecorded cemeteries byinvestigating the surroundings of already known occupation sites (Bradley 1981).

summary – round barrows and the prehistoric landscape

Table 1 summarizes a series of similarities and contrasts. This paper ends by suggestingwhy they were significant.

The first question to consider is chronology. The earliest round barrows on the chalk werebuilt during the later third millennium BC, but those on the heathlands of southern England wereconstructed many years afterwards. Their distribution extends from the English Channel to theKennet and the Thames. Most of these monuments were strikingly similar to one another, and fewwere associated with many artefacts. The heathland barrows included smaller versions of thespecialized monuments found on the chalk. It seems likely that most of them were built in areaswhich lacked a history of monumental architecture. More barrows were constructed in both areasduring the Middle BronzeAge, and only then is there any indication of regional variation. It seems

table 1

The main characteristics of chalkland and heathland barrows between 2100 and 1200 BC

2100–1850 BC (Earlier EBA) 1850–1500 BC (Later EBA) 1500–1200 BC (MBA)

Barrows were generally permeable andwere often rebuilt. There were multipleburials, and graves were sometimesreopened.

Barrows were generally impermeableand were usually built in one operation.There were single burials, and thegraves were not reopened. The bodieswere covered by a turf core. They wereprotected by a capping of inorganicmaterial and by the construction ofearthwork boundaries.

Barrows were generally permeable andwere built in a single phase. Many hadan entrance and were associated withmultiple burials, some of whichextended beyond the limits of themonument.

Most barrows are found on the chalk,but in lowland areas others may havebeen levelled by the plough.

THE FIRST HEATHLANDBARROWS WERE BUILT. Otherbarrows were constructed on the chalkand in lowland areas.

Barrows are found on the chalk and onthe heathlands.

Some groups of round barrows wereclose to older monuments, the first ofwhich date from the Neolithic period.

Some groups were close to oldermonuments, and specialized types wereespecially common in the major barrowcemeteries on the chalk. Other lessconspicuous mounds were more widelydistributed. Heathland barrows wereof similar proportions to the majorityon the chalk and were often isolatedor in small groups. Specialized typesdid occur there, but they were not aslarge as their counterparts on thechalk.

On the chalk, small groups of barrowswere built on the edges of majorcemeteries. Others were nearby. Somemounds were directly related tosettlements and field systems. Thesame types of barrows are found onthe heathlands.

Grave goods were usually represented.There is evidence for the recycling ofheirlooms and perhaps of humanremains.

Grave goods were present at a numberof chalkland barrows, where someobjects may have been heirlooms.Grave goods were rarely deposited inheathland barrows.

Grave goods were generally absent onboth the chalk and the heathlands.



as if mounds with entrance causeways are a feature of southern Wessex, but it is impossible todiscuss more general patterns as so much of the excavated evidence comes from a restricted areanear the south coast. The construction of these monuments had ended by 1200 BC.

A second question concerns the character and distribution of round barrows. The areaswith heathland mounds had not been occupied during the Neolithic period and some of themseem to have been colonized for the first time during the Early Bronze Age. It happened as partof a more general expansion of settlement in England (Bradley 2007, 170–2). Heathland barrowshad distinctive features of their own. In contrast to earlier developments on the chalk, there islittle evidence for the prolonged use of the mounds or for the reopening of graves and thecirculation of heirlooms. Each monument was employed only once before it was closed. Ratherthan emphasizing the links between the generations, the significance of certain individuals wasaccepted without the need to emphasize their relationships to other people. If that informationwas provided at all, it was expressed by the positioning of different barrows within the samecemetery (Barrett 1994, 123–9). That is also relevant to sites on the Wessex chalk wherethere were unusually large concentrations of monuments in places with a long-establishedsignificance. Here distinctive artefacts are associated with the graves. In other areas, andparticularly on the heathlands, it rarely happens, perhaps because funeral offerings weredeposited in different locations.

How was this development related to other changes in the pattern of settlement? Thereare two factors to consider here: social organization and ecology.

It is notoriously difficult to infer prehistoric social structure using the evidence ofburials, but in this case the attempt is worth making. The earliest barrows considered herewere essentially permeable, for they contained a sequence of successive deposits. There is anemphasis on continuity between the generations. In the later Early Bronze Age practices beganto change. Nowhere is this more obvious than on the heathlands. The structure of round barrowswas modified. Now they were impermeable and most of them were sealed after only one personhad been buried. There was a greater emphasis on the individual and less concern with the past.Descent may have played a smaller part than achievements in life, and it may be no accident thatthe people commemorated in this phase had settled in new areas, some of them well away fromlong-established ceremonial centres. Did they free themselves from the constraints of tradition asthey colonized new land? In the Middle Bronze Age round barrows changed their characteragain. Now they were closely associated with the domestic world and individual monumentscould even have been built in the image of the house. They were entirely permeable monuments,and the clusters of cremations associated with them may have emphasized the importance of thehousehold. That would certainly be consistent with the character of the associated settlements.

A second factor is ecology. The colonization of poorer soils continued in the MiddleBronze Age, but the dead were not always buried in the same areas as before. Perhaps the landcould not sustain a protracted period of exploitation. It seems likely that food production wasreorganized as the expansion approached its limits. The earliest evidence of ditched field systemscomes from four sites on the southern margin of Wessex, where they probably date from the endof the Early Bronze Age (Fig. 6; Yates 2007, chapter 7).

Their creation could have been a response to the poor returns obtained from marginalareas, but another factor could have been equally important. It is possible that the developmentof field systems in the south of Dorset began at such an early date because the inhabitants of thatarea had different outside contacts from the people who buried their dead on Cranborne Chaseor Salisbury Plain. The axis described as the ‘Channel Bronze Age’ involved connections with




south-west England where parts of Dartmoor were enclosed at approximately the same time(Needham 2006; Fleming 2008). The development of the first field systems in the Solent Basinmay have been suggested by developments outside Wessex altogether.

There is too little evidence to take this argument further, but two features are clearlydocumented. Field systems became much more important during the Middle Bronze Age. If thefirst examples were in south Dorset, they soon extended across a wider area which included largetracts of chalk downland and the river valleys. At the same time the significance of ancientceremonial centres lapsed as the new land divisions developed around them. The last roundbarrows on the chalk were constructed during this phase, yet by the Late Bronze Age their periodof use was over.

This paper has discussed one category of field monument, the round barrow, and hasemphasized how its character changed over space and time. It began by contrasting the results oftwo excavations undertaken at the onset of the Second World War. Some of the differences may

Figure 6(Upper) The distribution of Bronze Age co-axial field systems in the study area, showing the four examples attributedto the Early Bronze Age. Information from Yates (2007). (Lower) The location of the study area in relation to theposition of Dartmoor, and the geographical extent of the ‘Channel Bronze Age’. Information from Needham (2006).



shed light on more general developments. It is unfortunate that perceptions of this evidence havebeen biased by the well known evidence from the chalk, for it should have been apparent fromthe excavation at Beaulieu that heathland barrows had a distinctive character of their own. It isby comparing the monuments in both these regions that their wider significance becomesapparent. The opportunity was missed when so many barrows were investigated 60 years ago. Itis important to take advantage of it now.

Acknowledgements

We must thank Ann Woodward and Lilian Ladle for permission to refer to their current researchon Bestwall Quarry. We would also like to thank Ann for her comments on an earlier draft of this articleand Margaret Mathews for the figure drawings.

Department of ArchaeologySchool of Human and Environmental Sciences

University of ReadingWhiteknights

Reading RG6 6AB

references

barrett, j. 1991: The monumentality of death: the character of Early Bronze Age mortuary mounds insouthern Britain. World Archaeology 162, 31–64.

barrett, j. 1994: Fragments from Antiquity (Oxford).barrett, j., bradley, r. and green, m. 1990: Landscape, Monuments and Society. The Prehistory of

Cranborne Chase (Cambridge).bradley, r. 1981: ‘Various styles of urn’: cemeteries and settlement in southern England, 1400–1000 BC.

In Chapman, R., Kinnes, I. and Randsborg, K. (eds.), The Archaeology of Death (Cambridge), 93–104.bradley, r. 1998a: The Passage of Arms (2nd ed.) (Oxford).bradley, r. 1998b: The Significance of Monuments (London).bradley, r. 2007: The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland (Cambridge).bradley, r. and keith-lucas, m. 1975: Excavation and pollen analysis on a bell barrow at Ascot,

Berkshire. Journal of Archaeological Science 2, 95–108.branch, n. and green, c. 2004: The environmental history of Surrey. In Cotton, J., Crocker, G. and

Graham, A. (eds.), Aspects of Archaeology and History in Surrey (Guildford, Surrey ArchaeologicalSociety), 1–19.

brück, j. 2004: Material metaphors: the relational construction of identity in Early Bronze Age barrows inIreland and Britain. Journal of Social Archaeology 4, 307–33.

cotton, j. 2004: Surrey’s early past: a survey of recent work. In Cotton, J., Crocker, G. and Graham, A.(eds.), Aspects of the Archaeology and History in Surrey (Guildford, Surrey Archaeological Society),19–38.

dimbleby, g. 1962: The Development of British Heathlands and their Soils (Oxford).ellison, a. 1980: Deverel-Rimbury urn cemeteries: the evidence for social organisation. In Barrett, J. and

Bradley, R. (eds.), Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age (Oxford, BAR Brit. Ser. 83),115–26.

english, j. 2007: Fieldwork on Whitmoor Common. Bulletin of the Surrey Archaeological Society 398,5–6.

exon, s., gaffney, v., woodward, a. and yorston, r. 2000: Stonehenge Landscapes (Oxford).field, d. 2008a: The Use of Land in Central Southern England during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age

(Oxford).field, d. 2008b: The development of an agricultural countryside. In Pollard, J. (ed.), Prehistoric Britain

(Oxford), 202–24.




fleming, a. 2008: The Dartmoor Reaves: Interpreting Prehistoric Land Divisions (2nd ed.) (Oxford).fraser, e. 2005: Colour, Structure and Stratigraphy in Bronze Age Barrows (Unpublished M.A. thesis,

University of Reading).french, c., lewis, h., allen, m., green, m., scaife, r. and gardiner, j. 2007: Prehistoric Landscape

Development and Human Impact in the Upper Allen Valley, Cranborne Chase, Dorset (Cambridge,McDonald Institute Monographs).

gardiner, j. 1984: Lithic distributions and Neolithic settlement patterns in central southern England. InBradley, R. and Gardiner, J. (eds.), Neolithic Studies (Oxford, BAR Brit. Ser. 133), 15–40.

garwood, p. 2003: Round barrows and funerary traditions in Late Neolithic and Bronze Age Sussex. InRudling, D. (ed.), The Archaeology of Sussex to AD 2000 (Brighton, University of Sussex), 47–68.

garwood, p. 2007: Before the hills in order stood: time and history in the interpretation of Bronze Agebarrows. In Last, J. (ed.), Beyond the Grave. New perspectives on Barrows (Oxford), 30–52.

grant, m. and barber, k. 2008: Palaeoecology of human impact in the New Forest. http://kingston.ac.uk/ceest/palaeo/NFNew_Forest.htm

green, c., lynch, f. and white, h. 1982: The excavation of two round barrows on Launceston Down,Dorset (Long Crichel 5 and 7). Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society104, 39–58.

grinsell, l. 1932: Some Surrey bell barrows. Surrey Archaeological Collections 40, 56–64.grinsell, l. 1934: Bell barrows. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia 7, 203–30.grinsell, l. 1939: Berkshire barrows: Part IV. Berkshire Archaeological Journal 43, 9–21.grinsell, l. 1941: The Bronze Age barrows of Wessex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 7, 73–113.grinsell, l. 1974: Disc barrows. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 40, 79–112.last, j. 2007: Beyond the grave. New perspectives on barrows. In Last, J. (ed.), Beyond the Grave. New

perspectives on Barrows (Oxford), 1–13.needham, s. 1987: The Bronze Age. In Bird, J. and Bird, D. (eds.), The Archaeology of Surrey to 1540

(Guildford, Surrey Archaeological Society), 97–137.needham, s. 2006: Networks of contact, exchange and meaning: the beginning of the Channel Bronze Age.

In Needham, S., Parfitt, K. and Varndell, G. (eds.), The Ringlemere Cup. Precious Cups and theBeginning of the Channel Bronze Age (London, British Museum), 75–81.

needham, s. and woodward, a. 2008: The Clandon Barrow finery: a synopsis of success in an EarlyBronze Age world. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 74, 1–52.

parker pearson, m., pollard, j., richards, c., thomas, j., tilley, c., welham, k. and albarella, u.2006: Materialising Stonehenge: the Stonehenge Riverside Project and new discoveries. Journal ofMaterial Culture 11, 227–61.

petersen, f. 1981: The Excavation of a Bronze Age cemetery on Knighton Heath, Dorset (Oxford, BARBrit. Ser. 98).

piggott, c.m. 1943: Excavation of fifteen barrows in the New Forest, 1941–2. Proceedings of thePrehistoric Society 9, 1–27.

piggott, s. and piggott, c.m. 1944: Excavation of barrows on Crichel and Launceston Downs, Dorset.Archaeologia 90, 47–80.

royal commission on the historical monuments of england 1975: County of Dorset. Vol. 5 EastDorset (London).

smith, n. 1999: The earthwork remains of enclosure in the New Forest. Proceeding of the Hampshire FieldClub and Archaeological Society 54, 1–56.

white, d. 1982: The Bronze Age Cremation Cemetery at Simons Ground, Dorset (Dorchester, DorsetNatural History and Archaeological Society Monograph Series No. 3).

woodward, a. 2002: Beads and Beakers: heirlooms and relics in the British Early Bronze Age. Antiquity76, 1140–7.

woodward, a., hunter, j., ixer, r., maltby, m., potts, p., webb, p., watson, j. and jones, m. 2005:Ritual in some Early Bronze Age grave goods. Archaeological Journal 162, 31–63.

yates, d. 2007: Land, Power and Prestige. Bronze Age Field Systems in Southern England (Oxford).



Copyright of Oxford Journal of Archaeology is the property of Blackwell Publishing Limited and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

bronze age barrows on the heathlands of …bronze age barrows on the heathlands of southern england:...

Documents