Archaeology of Gatherings Conference | Institute of Technology, Sligo, Ireland | October 2013 | Part VI
[** If you
like this post, please make a donation to the IR&DD project using the
secure button at the right. If you think it is interesting or useful, please
re-share via Facebook, Google+, Twitter etc. To help keep the site in
operation, please use the amazon search portal at the right - each purchase
earns a small amount of advertising revenue **]
I present the concluding segment of an epic trawl through an
excellent conference!
Parker Pearson in Sligo © Chapple Collection |
The final session of the Archaeology of Gatherings Conference was chaired by Fiona Beglane, who welcomed Prof. Mike Parker Pearson (Institute of Archaeology, University College London). Like many in archaeology, I only know him through his published works and television appearances. On TV, I’ve heard him speak and seen him wander about half of Salisbury plain. He is a respected authority on all things Stonehenge and related and, if I’m honest, I was extremely excited about hearing him speak. At the drinks reception on the Friday night he bought me a G&T, simultaneously cementing my high opinion of him and activating my inner archaeo-fanboy. He was in Sligo as the conference’s Keynote Speaker (Archaeology), and his chosen topic was Gatherings at Durrington Walls and Stonehenge. He began by outlining that recent research at Stonehenge indicates that the site was developed in short bursts of activity, interspersed with periods where no building occurred at all. The first Stage of this process dated to the period from 2990-2755 cal BC, while Stage II was dated to 2580-2475 cal BC. Following Clive Ruggles, he is of the opinion that the only astronomical alignments that we can be sure of are the Midwinter Sunset and the Midsummer Sunrise. However, there may be a possible lunar alignment at the site, dating to Stage I & II activity. Parker Pearson rejects all notions that Stonehenge or similar sites are observatories or ‘Temples of the Sun’, or any such constructs. Instead, he argues that their more important aspects lie in their contexts: their relationships to their immediate topography and their wider landscape setting. Following Colin Renfrew, he sees the Wessex and its henge enclosures, as one of a series of independent regions and social polities.
The Stonehenge
Riverside Project (SRP) saw the excavation of 42
trenches at Woodhenge, Stonehenge, and related monuments,
including the Cursus and
the Avenue.
As the Wikipedia article notes: “The main aims of the project was to test the
hypotheses of earlier studies that Stonehenge was a monument dedicated to the
dead, whilst Woodhenge & Durrington Walls,
two miles away, were monuments to the living and more recently deceased.”
Essentially, the proposition is that at these sites stone was used to
commemorate the ancestors at Stonehenge, while wood was reserved for the living
at Woodhenge etc. In this theoretical construct, the River
Avon formed a liminal journey between the two
realms.
Neolithic house at Durrington Walls excavated in 2007 (Source) |
In terms of the excavation background, G.J.
Wainwright discovered two Woodhenge-like timber circles during excavations
at Durrington
Walls. Recent excavations, carried out as part of the
SRP initiative, uncovered house floors surrounded by middens. On average, these
measured 5.25m square with a central, circular hearth and could have seated 25
people at a pinch. In many respects, they were remarkably similar to the Skara
Brae houses in Scotland, with the exception that the latter had
rectangular hearths. Surviving remains from within the houses is interpreted by
Parker Pearson as evidence that both the Durrington Walls and Skara Brae houses
were laid out in the same manner, with beds to the sides and a dresser opposite
the entrance. Excavation under the banks at Durrington Walls showed that there
was a dense and very rich occupation layer preserved here. Analysis of the
modelled radiocarbon dates indicates that the duration of settlement activity
at Durrington Walls lasted from 2515 to 2470 cal BC – a mere 45 years. This is
broadly parallel to the Stonehenge Stage II developments. Within this time
frame, the Durrington Walls chronology may be broken down further, with the
southern timber circle and the avenue being constructed in the period from
2500-2480 cal BC, followed by the construction of the ditch and bank at
2480-2460 cal BC.
An examination of the soil micromorphology has revealed
that the floors of these houses were built up over the course of up to seven
floor-plastering events. Parker-Pearson asks – if the events are accepted as
occurring at regularly spaced intervals – how often were the floors plastered?
Annually? Once every six months? One potential answer may lie in the excavation
of the plaster-digging pits. These were found in groups, and once the
stratigraphy was untangled, it became apparent that they contained up to 12
sets of inter-cuttings. Parker Pearson argues that the whole sequence (and, by
extension, the lives of the houses) could have been confined to little more
than a decade.
Analysis of the contents and positioning of the
middens and the pits suggest that different depositional strategies –
indicating different forms of activity – were in operation here. For example,
the majority of the pits had been dug in the corners of the house, and Parker Pearson
argued that they represented activities associated with the ‘closing’ of the
sites. Analysis of the houses themselves showed that they were used for
different activities. For example, some have more evidence for cooking than
others. Perhaps some were used as kitchens whereas others were used for
assembly. The patterns of waste disposal indicated they swept the floors, as
the debris was most commonly swept into the corners. Work on the animal bones
shows that pig bones dominate in the pits and middens in the public spaces, but
analysis of the lipid residues indicates that the pottery was mostly used in
conjunction with ruminants. Strontium isotope
analysis of the cattle teeth has shown that the
animals arrived very rapidly to the site for slaughter. Most of the animals
came from relatively close by (20-30 miles), though the evidence points to
several animals coming from western Britain, the Scottish highlands, and
even Aberdeenshire.
The δ18O data
suggests that the cattle coming to the site were, largely, from the western
zones of Britain, as opposed to the eastern portions.
Dr Richard Madgwick at work in the lab (Source) |
Madgwick’s analysis of the stable isotopes δ13C
and δ15N from 150 samples has shown a massive spread of results from
these animals. This suggests that the animals consumed as part of these feasts
were not bread on special diets, nor were there any specialist producers.
Strontium isotope analysis (87Sr/86Sr) of 13 samples from
Potterne suggests that some pigs were locally reared in the Llanmaes area and
in the southern Brecon Beacons and Black Mountains, up to 30-40 miles distant.
One sample so far examined indicates that the animal probably travelled from
the Welsh Marches, a distance of some 50-60 miles. The evidence from so many of
these sites is of people and the landscape coming together for these major
feasting gatherings.
At Durrington Walls in the Late Neolithic
there is a significant focus on pigs. This is quite common for the period, but
with up to 90% of the animal bone assemblage being pig, this is particularly dominant.
Unlike Potterne, there is no evidence of a particular quarter being selected,
but there is still evidence of unusual procurement. Close analysis of has shown
that what appear to be the tips of flint arrowheads embedded in the pig bones. While
this may be thought of as evidence of hunting, these are domesticated pigs, not
wild boar. It is possible that these were deliberately shot with arrows as part
of a pre-feasting ritual. Strontium isotope analysis has been carried out on
the remains of 23 pigs. This has, so far, demonstrated that nine are probably
of local origin; six are fairly local and originated approximately 20 miles
away from the site. However, the remaining eight are thought to be from four
different regions of Britain. These include two from south/west Wales, one from
Scotland, and one from the Lake District. The first thing that Madgwick
noted is that this does not mirror the origins of the cattle that came to
Durrington Walls. Beyond this, he noted that pigs are actually quite difficult
to move, so bringing one from Scotland is no small undertaking. The other issue
is that pig is not a scarce animal, so it’s not like it couldn’t have been
sourced locally. In this way, it becomes important to ask why it was relevant or necessary to bring pigs all this way.
Further analysis of the strontium isotope results, coupled with new sulphur
isotope work, suggests that many of these animals were brought up in coastal
areas. This would imply that the majority of animals do not originate from
anywhere particularly close to Durrington Walls.
Turning to the question: why pigs? Madgwick
suggested that they were a high status food with a strong secondary product
economy. They’re also efficient meat producers and as swift, large-scale,
breeders, they’re pretty easy to replace. However, he argues that we need to
move beyond a purely functional explanation of the importance of the pig. I’m
afraid this is one point where I must seriously disagree with Madgwick.
Throughout my life, I have attempted to cook and eat just about anything that’s
made of meat. I’m pretty much the antithesis of a vegetarian. Through all that,
I’ve still got to say that pork is simply the loveliest, tastiest, most
wonderful meat there is. It’s not just me that thinks like this – just do a
Google image search for bacon and you’ll find plenty of images of the stuff …
but there are pictures of fake bacon moustaches, bacon suits, bacon dresses,
mounds of the stuff, bacon on a bagel (definitely not kosher), the US flag done in bacon, a Star Wars AT-AT in bacon, a portrait of Kevin Bacon done (you guessed it!) in bacon, dress your child, dress your pet, you can even have a bacon-flavoured soda while you sit
in you bacon-scented home. Similar Google image searches for beef and mutton
only bring back images of the actual foodstuffs in raw or cooked form, and show
none of the same cultural fetishisation and emotional elevation that bacon has
achieved. It may appear a silly point, made in humour, but I do believe it
comes down to the fact that, as Vincent Vega says ‘Bacon tastes gooood. Porkchops taste gooood.’
Whatever about the reason for choosing delicious
pigs, Madgwick argues that the rise of feasts and feasting in the Late Bronze
Age parallels the breakdown of the traditional Bronze Age trade network. In
this new cultural landscape, we may be looking at a renegotiation of social
polity where pigs are the new currency. Tasty, tasty currency!
Old Scatness broch during excavation (Source) |
At Old Scatness, the walls of the central broch
were 5m thick and the structure was surrounded by a substantial ditch. She
explained that Phase 4, dating to the Iron Age, saw the primary acts deposition
within this ditch. Excavation recovered lots of animal bone, all of it very
fresh in appearance, with no pre-depositional damage. Thus, the implication is
that the material was not first deposited elsewhere – say, in a midden, - and
later pushed into the ditch. It was deposited immediately after consumption
directly into the ditch. The succeeding Phase 5 dates to the first centuries BC
to AD and is characterised by what Cussans describes as ‘normal domestic
middens’. During Phase 4 the dominant animals are cattle, sheep, and pig. In
terms of body part preservation, the cattle appear to represent whole animals,
slaughtered on the site. The sheep and pig remains were dominated by limb
bones, with very few heads and feet preserved. All the bones recovered
indicated that the individuals, regardless of species, were of prime meat-age
animals. This is in contrast to the sheep bones from Phase 5, where the
evidence indicates that the whole animal was utilised on site, and at a range
of ages. Taken together, the Phase 4 activity is regarded as evidence of
conspicuous feasting where the remains are deposited directly into the ditch.
There is a deliberate selection for the best meaty parts of the animal,
especially meat on the bone. The deposited large, unbroken bone pieces mean
that they were not cracked to extract the highly nutritious marrow. This in
itself is evidence of ‘conspicuous consumption’ where calorificly valuable
materials were publicly wasted by deposition into the ditch. This is in
direct contrast to the Phase 5 activity, where the entirety of the animal was
processed to extract all possible nutrients.
Broxmouth hillfort in East Lothian was investigated
as part of a rescue excavation in the 1970s. This was, essentially, a
multi-ditched enclosure, surrounding a collection of roundhouses. The animal
bone assemblage was exceptionally well preserved. Cattle, sheep, and pig
dominated the corpus, though horse, dog, cat, and otter were also recorded.
Based on an analysis of tooth wear, the age of the pigs at slaughter has been
estimated at 1-2 years. In terms of sexing the pigs, it appears that there were
more males than females across Phases 1-6. The authors also conclude that it is
unlikely that that they were brought in from any great distance. Metrics
gathered on the pig limb bones shows a dominance of the forelimbs that may be
broken down across individual phases of occupation. For example, in Phase 3 63%
of the limb bones were from the front half of the animal. This increased to 70%
in Phase 5 and 73% in Phase 6. Cussans noted that, unlike Madgwick’s work,
there had been no examination of a left vs. right imbalance in the preserved
remains.
At both of these sites, pigs are clearly marked
out in the Iron Age as feasting-compatible animals. Beyond this, they are tied
up in concepts of tribute and conspicuous consumption. Feasting in these
instances may be seen as a means of bringing together communities at high
status sites. The pigs may be viewed as gifts or tribute from outside, while
the act of receiving the gift is well known as a mechanism for the maintenance of
high status and enforcement of status boundaries. The deposition of the bones
in the ditch at Old Scatness should not be seen as a means of disposal of waste.
Instead, the display of food debris on the site boundary may be interpreted as
a deliberate show of wealth and power, proudly proclaiming to the world: ‘Look
at us! We’re so rich we can afford to waste this resource!’
Following a final question-and-answer session, the
conference drew to a close with warm applause for both the speakers and the
organisers. For those who felt up to it, there was a tour around the
magnificent megalithic monuments of Sligo. Unfortunately, I had a long journey
back to Belfast ahead of me, so had to pass on that portion of the conference …
maybe next time!
Well, folks, I hope you enjoyed reading through
all these posts & I hope they bear some similarity to the papers as given
at the conference. I certainly enjoyed writing them! But not as much as I
enjoyed attending the actual conference. All the people at Sligo IT who were
involved in the organising and flawless running of the event deserve high
praise for their efforts. Hopefully, in the not too distant future, my posts
will be eclipsed by the publication of the conference papers. I also hope that
these posts – though an imperfect record of the papers delivered – will give
some flavour of the event itself and encourage people to purchase the volume
when it arrives. Finally, when news reaches you that the good folk at Sligo IT
are organising another archaeological conference, I hope that you will consider
going along and enjoying it in person. Based on this experience, it will be
another extraordinary gathering bringing together a wide variety of experts and
enthusiasts for fun and education.
Comments
Post a Comment