
| ISSN 1357-4442 | Editor: Simon Denison |
|---|
| FEATURES |
Bronze Age barrows are often found near rivers,
lakes and springs. David Field explains why
Where did Bronze Age people
bury their dead? Where were
the favoured locations for their
round barrows? For years, there has been
an unquestioned assumption within archaeology that over 3,000 years ago people
preferred to site barrows on the tops of hills
and ridges, or on the `false crests' of prominent hills, as these were places that
commanded the widest view.
Quite why this incorrect assumption has
prevailed may be partly because it offers an
enduring image of funeral ceremonies taking place at visually dramatic points in the
landscape. Archaeologists have also tended
to focus on the relatively few surviving
barrows on the chalk downs, while paying
less attention to the greater number of
flattened barrows in lower locations such as
lower hill slopes and river valleys.
Recent surveys of the evidence as a
whole across large tracts of southern England suggest, in fact, that relatively few
barrows were positioned on the highest
points in the landscape. Most were rather
built on sloping ground, usually on the
middle or lower slopes of a hill, where
drainage is good. Remarkably large numbers were also sited close to springs, lakes,
or rivers, sometimes in the valley floor but
often along the upper reaches of the river.
It is difficult to escape the conclusion that
water and well-drained soils were deliberately sought out for the location of Bronze
Age barrow cemeteries.
These observations allow us to revise
our interpretation of certain aspects of
Bronze Age funeral practice. The idea of
the existence of `ritual landscapes' in prehistory is now well-established, and from
ethnographic records we know that many
non-western societies regard the whole
landscape as imbued with sacred or mythological significance. It is easy to imagine
how features such as caves and springs
might be thought to provide a point of
contact with the spirit world.
Seen in this light, the positioning of
barrow cemeteries may suggest a funeral
practice in the British Bronze Age as
much concerned with the sanctity of the
landscape as with status display, leaderveneration and other such traditional
interpretations.
It has long been thought that surviving
barrow cemeteries tend to cluster in
certain restricted areas - such as, for
example, around Stonehenge and Avebury. This clustering has been said to
reflect the location of the summer pastures
of a transhumant community, or the presence of settlement nearby, or even the
existence of a property or territorial
boundary. It has also been argued that
earlier monuments attract later ones around
them.
The assumption has been, however, that
these concentrations are genuine. In fact
the areas where barrows exist today as
earthworks appear to be amongst the few
that have escaped episodes of intensive
cultivation during the Roman, medieval
and later periods.
Recent research by the English Royal
Commission in North-East Yorkshire indicates that there is greater chance of
survival where barrows are located on
steeper ground rather than on gentler
slopes, and this is likely to be the case for
the southern chalk too. Many large clusters
may have been lost long ago. Air photography has revealed many such levelled
cemeteries and the emphasis has shifted as
a result. The concentration of ring ditches
on the Isle of Thanet in Kent, for example,
compares with extant barrow distribution
around Stonehenge.
Pioneering work by Peter Woodward
and Stephen Green in the Great Ouse
valley of Cambridgeshire during the 1970s
helped to draw attention to the number of
levelled round barrows along river valleys.
Here, over 400 ring-ditches, most of them
likely to be levelled barrows, occurred in
often quite large clusters at intervals along
the river terrace.
Along the Avon valley, in Wiltshire, air
photographs show that a string of levelled
barrow cemeteries extend all the way to
the river's source, close to the great henge
at Marden. A similar pattern can be seen
around other rivers, for example the
Wylye, Nine Mile River, and the Kennet,
all in Wessex, as well as elsewhere.
Other water features may also have been
important markers. In Hampshire, for example, some barrows tend to focus on lakes
and meres.
New surveys of surviving barrows in the
south-east of England, Salisbury Plain, and
the Marlborough Downs have also offered
a different perspective. Even among surviving examples, few are found on the
highest points in the landscape. Instead
barrows are found on middle or lower
slopes or around the foot of a hill. Sometimes low ridges in the lee of higher hills
were used. Many cemeteries of barrows on
the chalk - such as Ladywell Barrows, near
Imber on Salisbury Plain, Rockley on the
Marlborough Downs, and the Seven Barrows at Lambourne in Berkshire - can in
fact be interpreted better as groups located
around the heads of valleys or at places
where springs formerly emerged.
If we accept that barrows may have
been placed near rivers and springs for
sacred reasons, it remains to ask what
those sacred reasons might be. No answer
is certain. But it is nonetheless interesting
that in China, cemeteries have for centuries
been placed in carefully chosen positions in
the landscape. Ideally such sites are well-drained - to allow the life-force to `drain
away' - being situated on slopes with a
water feature or sump at the foot, and
sheltered from supposedly evil north winds
by a mountain or hill. These factors are
considered of such importance that where
no natural drainage feature is present a
ditch is often dug to provide one.
In a sacred landscape, prominent landscape features often develop their own
mythology. In this light, it may be no
accident that the many barrows along the
South Downs escarpment are not mirrored
by a similar distribution on the North
Downs. The South Downs escarpment
faces north, the North Downs face south.
The North Downs escarpment therefore
receives more light - encouraging different
vegetation - and the complementing opposites of light and shade, north and south,
could perhaps have had some sacred significance; albeit one whose exact meaning
may no longer be recoverable.
It also seems that a concept of harmony
within the landscape may have played
some part in the placing of burial mounds.
Barrow cemeteries are rarely geometric,
but are often aesthetically pleasing. The
final plan often seems to have been deliberately arranged, even though individual
barrows may have been constructed over
centuries.
A number of barrow cemeteries may
also have been aligned on celestial features,
along a north-east/south-west axis. The
barrow cemetery at Winterbourne Stoke
crossroads, near Stonehenge, is perhaps the
best known example. This is the same
alignment incorporated in Stonehenge itself, in a number of other stone circles and
also in typical middle Bronze Age co-axial
field systems (see BA, November 1997,
May 1998).
The Bronze Age landscape, therefore,
appears to have been arranged according to
a cosmological plan that was widely understood and accepted. Now, the latest survey
work suggests that the burial mounds of the
dead, like the monuments, field systems,
and possibly even domestic architecture of
the living, were ordered according to a
system in which the landscape itself played
a defining role.
David Field is an archaeologist with the English
Royal Commission (RCHME), which merged
this month with English Heritage
NEXT MONTH: Neolithic cursus
monuments, which tell a similar story
Return to Table of Contents | Return to CBA Homepage
Archaeologists are beginning to recognise evidence
for past dental treatment, says Chrissie Freeth
Death and taxes are not the only
guaranteed curse of everyday
lives. Every culture, regardless of
date, area or sophistication has been
plagued, to some degree, by toothache.
Because teeth are the hardest substance
in the body and often survive after death,
the extent of dental disease in the past is
now quite well known - in Europe it starts
half a million years ago with Boxgrove
Man and has had a seamless history since.
Less well known, but equally interesting, is
the evidence for dental care. This also has
a long history which can, in part, be recovered by archaeology.
The first level of dental care is oral
hygiene. Toothbrushes, however, are a
relatively modern phenomenon. In the past
a finger, piece of cloth, or some more
abrasive object would have been used, and
these may leave distinctive marks on
enamel. Teeth belonging to Isabella of
Aragon (1470-1524), for example, wife of
the Duke of Milan, were studied in Italy
and were thought to suggest that she had
used pumice or cuttlefish bone to remove
black staining on her teeth. The stain may
have been caused by mercury used to treat
syphilis. Not only did Isabella remove
some of this staining, she removed some of
her enamel as well. It has been argued that
she was the inspiration for the Mona Lisa,
and if true, trying to hide the state of her
teeth may explain the Mona Lisa's curious
smile.
Abrasive toothpastes are also likely to
leave scratches on teeth, and some pretty
extraordinary recipes are known from
documentary records. The Ebers Papyrus
of about 1500BC recommended ground
pebbles, honey, verdigris and pulverised
fruit; the Greek doctor Hippocrates favoured ground mice, the head of a hare and
white stone; one Roman recipe suggested
ground oysters, eggshells, cattle hooves and
horns; and in a medieval concoction we
have dried bread, cuttlefish, rock salt and
pumice. There is also evidence from a later
period for the use of powdered alabaster,
brick dust, china, earthenware and soot. It
is hardly surprising, given these recipes,
that microscopic abrasion can be found on
some ancient teeth - one example is on
those belonging to Christian III of Denmark (1503-59).
Toothpicks can leave grooves between
the teeth, and it has been claimed that they
were used by Homo habilis 1.8 million years
ago. Both Isabella of Aragon and Christian
III have these tell-tale grooves on their
teeth, and no doubt many other examples
could be cited. Metal toothpicks are
known from Bronze Age Mesopotamia,
but most early toothpicks were probably
made of wood and have not survived.
If oral hygiene wasn't up to scratch, the
likely result would be tooth decay.
Cavities are one of the most commonly
reported pathological lesions seen in archaeology, and we know of some attempts to
fill them.
A 15th century Danish man had used a
rosary bead as a filling and numerous examples of suspected fillings - including wax,
gum, and resin - have been reported in
remains from the Americas. British examples
of gold fillings and silver/mercury amalgams were found in post-medieval remains
from Spitalfields and St Bride's in London.
If decayed teeth remained untreated, the
pulp could become infected and an abscess
develop. A sinus (or hole near the root of
the tooth) might then form naturally to
allow the pus to drain away, but we sometimes find a perforation of the tooth made by drilling. The earliest known example is
from Neolithic Denmark, and a Danish
researcher found that, using a wooden bow
drill available in the Neolithic, it took 5½
minutes to make such a perforation. Several medieval examples of drilling - dating
from the 11th-18th centuries - have been
identified in remains
from North America
(including Alaska, Colorado and Illinois).
Decorative modifications
such as drilling holes into teeth,
insertion of inlays, and the filing down
of the biting surface have been reported in
cultures such as the Maya of South America
- although not yet in Europe. Such non-therapeutic dentistry may have been purely
cosmetic or have marked a rite of passage,
tribal affiliation or social status.
If a tooth could not be saved, it had to
be removed. If this could not be done by
hand, instruments such
as the forceps, pelican or
key could be used. The
forceps is known from the Greek and
Roman periods, while the pelican is first
mentioned in the 14th century. Several
17th and 18th century examples are
known. This instrument had a hook that
fitted over the tongue-side surface of the
tooth, a bolster on the cheek-side surface,
and a handle with which the tooth was
levered out. The key is first mentioned in
the 18th century and worked in a similar
way. From classical to medieval times extraction was regarded as a treatment of last
resort.
Archaeological evidence for extraction
is usually ambiguous - who is to say
whether a missing tooth was extracted by
an instrument, or was gently worked free
by hand? - but fractured crowns, damaged
neighbouring teeth, cut-marks in the gum,
or fracture or dislocation of the jaw may
indicate an over-vigorous attempt at extraction. Excavations in the cemetery of
the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary produced
several examples of such oral damage, and
this was interpreted as the post-mortem
extraction of teeth in order to sell them.
Nobody likes to lose their teeth. It
not only symbolises old age and
loss of vitality, but may also lead
to digestive problems and a speech impediment. It is therefore not surprising that
attempts were made in the past to compensate for tooth loss by the use of
dentures, transplants, implants, bridges
and crowns.
The earliest example of a dental prosthetic is Phoenician and dates to the
6th-4th century BC. It is made of gold
wire and holds two carved ivory false teeth.
However, the most prolific manufacturers
of dental prosthetics in the archaeological
record are the Etruscans (also 6th-4th century BC), from whom around 20 examples
are known. Most consist of bands of gold
into which false teeth were riveted, with
empty lateral rings which were anchored
around sound teeth. The
false teeth may have
been made from gold or
from human or animal teeth.
Despite documentary evidence from the medieval
period - writers such as Gerard
of Cremora (1114-87) and
Guy de Chauliac (1300-68)
mention false teeth - artefactual evidence is sporadic until
the 18th century. In this period, false teeth were usually
riveted into a base of ivory.
This material was problematic
as it tended to discolour and
decay causing an offensive
smell and unpalatable taste. The
false teeth themselves were
made from animal teeth or
bone, from mother of pearl or
silver, and what are now known as Waterloo teeth. These were human teeth
extracted from hanged convicts, plundered
graveyards, battlefields and mortuaries and
from the destitute willing to sell them.
Porcelain dentures made a brief appearance and did not have some of the problems associated with ivory. However,
because they were expensive, fragile and
noisy they were not popular. The use of
porcelain to make individual teeth, however, was more successful. The availability
of anaesthetic in the 19th century - and
therefore pain-free extraction - led to
increased demand for affordable, natural-looking and comfortable dentures, a demand later fulfilled by vulcanite and acrylic
resins.
Implants - and transplants, which are
the use of teeth from other people - differ
from dentures in that the false `tooth' is
inserted into the empty socket in the jaw,
and held in place with a wire or silk
ligature. Only a small number of archaeological cases are known, the earliest of
which dates from 6th century BC Anatolia.
Implants have been made from stone, iron
and shell. Transplants became more popular during the 18th century.
The relative paucity of skeletal evidence
for dental care does not, probably, indicate
that dentistry was not practised in the past.
Teeth are easily accessible and it is reasonable to assume that attempts were regularly
made to alleviate toothache.
To some extent, the evidence for dentistry may simply not survive. Dentures
may have been removed before burial;
organic fillings could have decayed, and
graves may have been plundered for gold
teeth. More likely, however, is that evidence for dentistry is still not being
recognised during skeletal examination.
The subject is fairly new in archaeology,
and no syntheses of published findings are
yet available. More evidence, without
doubt, awaits discovery.
Chrissie Freeth is a doctoral student at the
University of Bradford
Return to Table of Contents | Return to CBA Homepage
But further down on either bank were covered houses, built of stone, square and roughly
cornered, set as if the brook were meant to be
the street between them. Only one room high
they were, and not placed opposite each other,
but in and out as skittles are, only that the first
of all, which proved to be the captain's, was a
sort of double house, or rather two houses
joined together by a plank bridge over the river.
It is hardly surprising that the remains
recall Blackmore's description, for it was
precisely this site that inspired his account.
What Blackmore saw at Badgworthy were
the archaeological traces of one of the best
preserved deserted medieval settlements in
the west of England, mapped for the first time
by the English Royal Commission during a
recent survey of Exmoor (see inset).
The place name means `Baga's farm'
and is first recorded in 1170 when
the land was given to the Knights
Hospitallers and was described as `the land
of the hermits of Badgworthy'. Who these
hermits were, and how and where they
lived remains a mystery. By the 13th century there was a priest named Elias and a
chapel at the `vill of Badgworthy', but by
the early 15th century documents record
that the tenements were in decay, and new
tenants could not be found.
The place was abandoned, chiefly, perhaps, because the climate was becoming
wetter and colder, which made an already
arduous farming life unbearable. In the
early 19th century only a man and his
grand-daughter lived there, and they were
to die in a terrible snowstorm in the winter
of 1814.
The grassed over wall-footings of at least
12 buildings can be seen. They were low,
single-storey houses and barns, built of
stone with thatched roofs. Some are loosely
grouped around little yards; others seem to
be randomly placed. Around the village are
the traces of strip lynchets - terraced fields
- and proof that the medieval farmers were
growing crops even at this high altitude.
Other big enclosures or fields provided
more favourable grazing than the barren
moorland.
So could the legendary Doones really
have lived here? The legend associates the
family with this western part of Exmoor
but with no village in particular. The archaeological evidence at Badgworthy
suggests complete desertion in the 15th
century, with just one post-medieval
building standing at some distance from the
centre of the village. Perhaps it was in this
house that the luckless grandfather lived
with his little girl. There is no archaeological evidence for an outlaw settlement here
dating from the 17th century.
Moreover, in the mid-17th century the
Royal Forest was under the control of
James Boevey, an extremely litigious man.
No reference to a band of outlaws operating in the area can be found in any of the
cases in which he was involved, or in any
other contemporary documents.
Badgworthy's story is fascinating, however, with or without the Doones. An
ancient farm existed here long before King
Harold was killed at Hastings; later it became the dwelling place of a group of
medieval hermits, which evolved into a
remote rural settlement. Now it gives us an
evocative reminder of farming life in the
medieval period. There are indeed few
places where the sense of the past is so
strong. It was this powerful sense of the past
in the modern landscape that gripped
Richard Blackmore, and which continues
to enthrall visitors to the site today.
Rob Wilson-North and Hazel Riley conducted
the RCHME survey of Exmoor. RCHME
merged this month with English Heritage
Some are unmissable like the impressive Bronze Age barrows which can be
seen silhouetted on many Exmoor skylines, and which medieval travellers used
as waymarkers and to define the boundaries of the Royal Forest. Other monuments are ambiguous, like the prehistoric
stone settings arranged in rectangles or
diamond-shapes, or in other more random patterns. Some of these emerge in
summer when the peat retracts, only to be
buried again when the winter rains swell
the ground. They are the only monuments of their type in England, and their
purpose remains obscure.
Elsewhere there are remarkable numbers of small earthwork enclosures,
probably dating from the Iron Age, and
several deserted medieval villages surrounded by their networks of abandoned
fields.
Such a precious and elusive historic
environment can only tell its story when
its sites are mapped and studied. That is
why the English Royal Commission
(RCHME) has been working with the
Exmoor National Park Authority and the
National Trust to investigate the moor.
Through fieldwork and air photography, the survey has encompassed
archaeological sites of all periods from the
earliest stone monuments of the Neolithic to the training facilities of World
War II. The results will form the basis
of the first comprehensive book on
Exmoor's archaeology for 30 years.
Return to the British Archaeology homepage
© Council for British Archaeology, 1999
Bury the dead in a sacred landscape
Ancient history of trips to the dentist