by Chris Fowler
The causeways are the areas left un-dug across the system-ditches. Their width can vary from a few centimetres up to 20m. Sometimes they were removed by re-cutting. Pits and trenches were dug into some causeways, as at Noyen II, where a pit contained the remains of a child and associated objects (Mordant and Mordant 1978, 561–565). Irrespective of whether there were post-built gateways or not, the causeways could have represented entrance corridors leading to the interior, especially at multi-circuit sites like Oberntudorf, Germany (Günther 1991, 19), where they were placed in front of each other.
Fenced enclosures have been located at some of the sites of the Michelsberg, Wartberg, Windmill Hill, and Funnel Beaker cultures (Andersen 1997, 292–293). These were square, rectangular, rhomboid, or trapezoid and varied in size from 2.8m by 2.8m to 10m by 20m. Often they were constructed outside the palisade, or frequently on a causeway (Fig. 42.4), but at the Irish site of Magheraboy the fenced enclosure was inside the palisade (Danaher 2007, 104–107). Fenced enclosures could be constructed of separate posts (Fig. 42.4d) or posts placed in a trench. Where an entrance was found, the opening was towards the inside of the site (Fig. 42.4d and e). Trenches for fences were often shallower than those for the palisade. At Sarup I they are presumed to have had a height of 1.5m, about half that of the palisade (Andersen 1997, 292). At Sarup II (Fig. 42.4d) and Büdelsdorf (northern Germany) (Fig. 42.2l) ditches were located inside enclosures (Andersen 1997, figs 80 and 286). There is little information about the function of the enclosures, but the location of ditches within some of them must be an indication of a connection between these two types of features.
The enclosed area is often between 1ha and 6ha, but can be up to 120ha, as at the Michelsberg site of Urmitz, Germany (Lehner 1910, 8–9). At most sites only a small part of the interior has been uncovered, although large parts have been investigated at some. They usually produce very few structures, mostly small pits which seldom contain datable finds. At sites like Chatenay, Gravon, Grisy, Offham Hill, and Briar Hill there were abundant finds in the ditches but nothing in the interior (Drewett 1977, 211; Bamford 1980, 363; Mordant and Mordant 1988, 244–246). When interior features do occur they often cluster, leaving most of the interiors completely empty: this was evident at Sarup I and II (Andersen 1997, figs 64 and 98), and at Etton where intense activity was found only across the eastern part of the site (Pryor 1998, fig. 103). Buildings such as houses have not yet been found in the interior area. At the Chasséen South site of Saint-Michel du Touch near Toulouse, a ‘Grubenhaus’-like feature was uncovered, perhaps a structure used for special functions (Cap-Jédikian et al. 2008, 182–184). The nearby site of Villeneuve-Tolosane yielded structures containing burnt stones measuring up to 12m long and 2m wide (Vaquer 1986, 240), and just south of this site we have Cugnaux, where a series of pits near the ditches contained human burials (Gandelin and Vaquer 2008, 36; Gandelin 2011, 141–146).
Pits and features in the interior seem to have contained special deposits of human bone and various objects. Some discoveries show a link between special finds in the interior pits and the system-ditches, for example at Windmill Hill or Hembury, England, where sherds from the same vessel occur both in a ditch and a pit (Smith 1971, 96). At Sarup II, sherds from the same fine decorated vessel were found in three ditches and four pits (Andersen 1999, fig. 6.8).
Areas outside enclosures have only rarely been uncovered. At Sarup II no features were found (Andersen 1997, fig. 74), but at Klingenberg about 300 pits were found in an area of 3.5ha inside and outside the ditches (Seidel 2008, abb. 206). These pits contained special finds like aurochs horns, collections of animal bone, miniature axes, and female breasts of loam, along with three pits with human bone. Here the pits inside and outside the ditches appear to have had a common function.
ENCLOSURE FINDS
Artefacts and other materials recovered from causewayed enclosures must have been specially selected before deposition and a large number were exposed to special treatment.
Human remains
Very little of the human bone recovered from enclosures has been thoroughly analysed, but fortunately, the recent publication of Hambledon Hill (McKinley 2008) and the three German sites at Heilbronn (Wahl 2008) offer systematic taphonomic analyses of these remains and provide a clearer picture of post-mortem treatment. It appears that what happened to the human bodies and bones before their deposition at these sites was typical of many other enclosures (e.g. Tempelhof 2 in Germany (Geschwinde and Raetzel-Fabian 2009, 295); Etton (Armour-Chelu 1998, 271–272), Windmill Hill (Smith 1965, 136–137; Brothwell 1999), and Haddenham (Dodwell 2006, 306) in England; and many of the French sites (Pariat 2007)).
The analyses by McKinley (2008) and Wahl (2008) show that the human remains had been handled several times prior to deposition in the ditches. No complete human skeletons were found—unlike at the French sites of Villeneuve-Tolosane, Cugnaux (Vaquer et al. 2008) or Grisy, the latter producing two juvenile skeletons at the base of a ditch as if contained in a sack (Mordant 1989, fig. 82). Rather, we find either parts of a skeleton with two or more articulated bones or single bones disarticulated from the rest of the body, indicating that parts of a corpse were brought to the place of deposition, often with flesh and/or sinew attached. Bone fragments from Hambledon with visible traces of gnawing by carnivores (dogs and/or foxes) and/or rodents (McKinley 2008, 494) show that fresh human remains were readily accessible by these animals (Wahl 2008, 789). Few carpal and/or tarsal bones, which would indicate the quick covering of the human remains, were found. The material from Heilbronn had carnivores’ teeth marks only on the left side of the carcasses/skeleton, interpreted as meaning the bodies were originally placed on their right side in a low hollow (Wahl 2008, 789).
But many of the bones must have been ‘old’ when deposited in the ditches, on account of signs of weathering and root-etching (Healy 2008, 23). In other cases, dried bones were found, indicating a deposit of collected bone material which for some years must have been contained elsewhere (Smith 1965, 137). It is of interest that some of the articulated skeletal parts had differential weathering or root-etching across the bones (McKinley 2008, 492), and at Hambledon 7% of the bones have cut-marks, taken not so much as a sign of filleting or defleshing, more as a product of cleaning the bones (McKinley 2008, 498–499). Some of the dried bones had been burned by high temperatures, again demonstrating their deliberate preparation prior to deposition.
Human skulls often receive special treatment, and seem to have been deposited as dry bones, already disarticulated. At Hambledon eight of the 15 skulls were placed on the ditch floors (McKinley 2008, 513); at the German sites some skulls have been interpreted as trophies, where they are thought to have been put on display on a pole (Wahl 2008, 780–784; 2010, 96–101). The Heilbronn sites also produced several skulls of children and young people (less than 20 years old) (Wahl 2008, 786). Some of them have signs of a heavy and deadly blow on their right side, perhaps indicating deliberate killing as a result of being hit from behind, maybe during an offering that involved children (Wahl 2008, 762; Jeunesse 2010, 93).
Human bone was clearly deposited in different ways. Fragments of the same bone could be placed in separate parts of a ditch or in different ditches (Wahl 2008, abb. 7–10). Skulls, for example, are found in many pieces distributed between several ditches (Lüning 1968, 236) or placed beside hearths and upon platforms in the ditches (Piggott 1954, 47; Evans and Hodder 2006, 253–255). At Windmill Hill we see the cranium of a child nested within an ox frontlet (Whittle et al. 1999, fig. 82). From the same site a child’s femur was placed within the marrow cavity of an ox humerus (Whittle et al. 1999, fig. 161). At Staines near London, parts of the same arm were found in two ditches 94.4m apart (Robertson-Mackay 1987, 36). Burnt human bone is also known, like that from Briar Hill on a platform within a ditch (Bamford 1980, 363; 1985, 32–33; Cullen 1985). Some skeletons were placed in special features. At the bottom of a Michelsberg culture enclosure at Bruchsal-Aue in Germany, a
1.5m-deep shaft had been cut leading down to a chamber in which an elderly man had been buried (Behrends 1991, 32–33). Further pits containing human remains were located at the bottom of its ditches, including two complete child burials covered by the remains of an older woman and marked at the base of the ditch by a quantity of animal bones (Behrends 1991, abb. 29).
Human bone occurs in other features both inside and outside enclosures. Burnt bone from excarnated bodies was found in two postholes and a pit within Sarup II; the remains from two of these were quite possibly from the same person, a young woman (Andersen 1997, 86). At other sites where large areas have been uncovered, pits with human bone have similarly been found, as at the Stepleton Enclosure, on Hambledon Hill, where three pits had human bone in their fills (Mercer and Healy 2008, 275), or at Klingenberg, where three pits contained the fragments of two newborn children and an older woman (Wahl 2008, 719–722). At the Chasséen site of Jonquières in France, the skull and lower jaw of an 8-year-old boy were recovered 8m apart in a palisade trench (Poulain and Lange 1984, 265), and at Sarup I a burnt human finger-bone was found between crushed burnt bone, again in the palisade trench (Andersen 1997, 34).
These examples demonstrate how various parts of the enclosures—ditches, internal pits, and palisades—were host to a complicated pattern of activities involving human skeletons or human bones. Their treatment is paralleled by other materials.
Animals
Animal bones, particularly of cattle, are found in great numbers in the ditches and pits. They often appear to have been just as carefully treated as the human bones. Evidence from the latest excavation at Windmill Hill, and from the above-mentioned sites at Heilbronn, suggest we have to think of the animal bones as more than just ‘rubbish’ (Whittle et al. 1999, 361; Seidel 2008, 380). Detailed analyses from these sites demonstrate a high proportion of cattle bones which were often articulated and must have been deposited with the flesh intact. They were not, therefore, always the remains of meals. Other animal bones were weathered and again have signs of root-etching, demonstrating, as with the human material, previous deposition some years before interment in the ditches (Whittle et al. 1999, fig. 183; Stephan 2008, 173). The less formalized deposits contained bones of pig, sheep, and goat in greater numbers.
As for humans, animal skulls were given special consideration, as at Whitesheet Hill in England, where an ox skull was deliberately covered with a small heap of stones (Smith 1965, 16), at Bjerggårde (Denmark), where three or four dog skulls were uncovered (Madsen 1988, 310), and at Hygind (Denmark), where up to three ox skulls lay in a heap (Andersen 1997, fig. 287). At Bruchsal-Aue, Germany, a pair of aurochs horns marked a woman’s grave and horn cores had been placed at the ends of the system-ditches (Behrends 1991, abb. 26 and 30; 1994, abb. 15). A very special find came from the Matignon site of Champ Durand in the Vendée, where a cow’s skull in a ditch showed evidence of trepanation (Joussaume 1988, 280).
Material culture
Whole pots, turned upside down, were placed at the bottom of the ditches, as at Noyen I (Tarrête 1979, 459, fig. 21) and Etton (Pryor 1998, 33, fig. 31). Perhaps these inverted bowls symbolized a skull (Pryor 1987, 79). At other sites, a lot of vessels could be placed at the bottom of the ditches—for example, at the Michelberg site of Bazoches (Dubouloz et al. 1997, 133)—but at many ceramics were often represented by part of a vessel, which furthermore had undergone a transformation through a process of intentional fragmentation, as with bone (Andersen 1997, figs 65–66; 2008, fig. 10; Cassen and Scarre 1997, fig. 56; Whittle et al. 1999, 358; Raetzel-Fabian 2000, 73). It seems often to be fragments of open bowls which are represented on the sites, but detailed comparisons need to be made with material from ‘normal’ settlements.
Flint has been located in very variable quantities. Most of it has been found with deliberately deposited refuse materials. At Sarup I, there was a higher ratio of tools to debitage when compared to settlement sites (Andersen 1999, 279). Flint and stone axes were also found, but not in great quantities. Of special interest is the axe fragment from Haddenham, which was placed on a platform in a ditch together with fragments of human skull (Evans and Hodder 2006, 253–255), and the axe from Magheraboy which was surrounded by 30 fragments of quartz crystal (Danaher 2007, 113).
Quernstones have been found at several sites, often as fragments (Andersen 1997, 340 n. 264; Whittle et al. 1999, 341). At the Matignon site of Mastine, Charente-Maritime, a quernstone weighing 20–30kg had been brought from a quarry a dozen kilometres away (Cassen and Scarre 1997, 180). At Etton, querns were only found in the eastern half of the site, including its interior pits (Pryor 1998, fig. 114). Querns are primarily associated with processing grain and perhaps burned bones, which were found as a ground bone meal by the palisade at Sarup I and in the ditches at Briar Hill (Andersen 1997, 34; Cullen 1985).
Two large handfuls of carbonized emmer wheat were found in two jars placed within 5m of each other within Sarup I. The fact that the emmer is not mixed with other species contrasts with nearby settlements and with evidence from pollen analysis which reveals an abundance of barley from the area (Andersen 1997, 62). The wheat seems to have come from two different fields and to have been specially selected for this structured deposit (Westphal, unpublished).
At Windmill Hill, and other southern English sites, a variety of carved chalk objects were found representing phalli and figurines (Smith 1965, fig. 57), and at Klingenberg female breasts made of loam were uncovered in some of the pits (Seidel 2008, 301–308). These finds hint at the possible importance of fertility symbolism at some sites (Whittle et al. 1999, 366).
Some, perhaps most, of this material must be perceived as deliberately placed and subject to extensive transformation. It seems that the material could have been collected from different places or sites prior to deposition in the ditches. Careful analyses of the ditches from Windmill Hill give the impression of an individual history for every segment (Whittle et al. 1999, 368).
CONCLUSION
In summary, the causewayed enclosures of western and northern Europe were very large and often highly visible sites. They were built in one operation, involving the investment of many days’ work by a large number of people. Before their construction the work must have been planned for some years, the area being cleared of vegetation and big stones, with trees for the posts and palisades selected, prepared, and transported. The enclosures often seem to have been placed at regular distances from each other and sometimes close to clusters of megalithic tombs. Specially treated artefacts were deposited. The ditches, within which specially treated artefacts and both human and animal bone were deposited, seem to have been open for a very short period, in some cases perhaps for a few days only, before being carefully refilled again. Later the ditches were reopened and new deposits placed in them. This could have happened again and again, involving the same type of deposit as in the first instance. Thorough analyses of some ditches show that later deposition mimicked earlier ones in both form and content, and there must have been a type of grammar by which former depositions were remembered (Whittle et al. 1999, 368). Perhaps every single ditch represented a group of people, a family, or a team, and in the layout of the enclosures we have a metaphor for the occupation of the local area, each settlement united into a network by a single, large construction (Andersen 1997, 306; Whittle et al. 1999, 384). In the cyclical thinking which characterized early agricultural lifestyles the ditches were perhaps regarded as symbolic furrows where the material of life was ‘sown’ for later rebirth.
Causewayed enclosures were built and used, especially in northern Europe, up to 500 years after the introduction of the Neolithic economy to an area. They seem to have been constructed within a short intense period of each other and re-used in the following centuries (Whittle et al. 2011). Often their building coincides with the first signs of ploughing with the ard and the opening of the landscape, activities which must have demanded a close-knit network of people—a network which would require rei
nstating from time to time. The enclosures can be considered as central places for these activities, offering a medium by which to organize large numbers of people during the transformation from a Mesolithic/semi-Neolithic way of life to a full blown Neolithic existence (Andersen 2011). This change is the most fundamental in the history of humankind and its great success seems to have been dependent on a ritualized life played out at causewayed enclosures.
REFERENCES
Andersen, N.H. 1997. Sarup Vol. 1, The Sarup Enclosures. The Funnel Beaker culture of the Sarup site including two causewayed camps compared to the contemporary settlements in the area and other European enclosures. Århus: Jutland Archaeological Publications XXXIII.
Andersen, N.H. 1999. Sarup Vol. 2 og 3, Saruppladsen. Århus: Jutland Archaeological Publications XXXIII.
Andersen, N.H. 2000. Kult og Ritualer i Tragtbægerkulturen. KUML 2000, 13–48.
Andersen, N.H. 2008. Sarupområdet på Sydvestfyn i slutningen af 4. årtusinde f. Kr. In A. Schülke (ed.), Plads og Rum i Tragtbægerkulturen, Nordiske Fortidsminder, Series C, Bind 6, 25–44. København, Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab.
Andersen, N.H. 2011. Causewayed enclosures and megalithic monuments as media for shaping Neolithic identities. In M. Furholt, F. Lüth and J. Müller (eds), Megaliths and identities. Early monuments and Neolithic societies from the Atlantic to the Baltic. Frühe Monumentalität und soziale Differenzierung. Band 1, 143–154. Bonn: Habelt.
Armour-Chelu, M. 1998. The animal bone. In F. Pryor (ed.), Etton. Excavations at a Neolithic causewayed enclosure near Maxey, Cambridgeshire, 1982–1987, 273–288. London: English Heritage, Archaeological Report 18.
