The Neolithic
(c. 4200 – 2500 BC)
Picture your breakfast this morning. Imagine how many people played a role in bringing it to your table. Thousands of individuals probably contributed to creating your meal, from lorry drivers to graphic designers, chief executives to supermarket shelf stackers. Few of these actually grew the organic components of your breakfast. The productivity of our agricultural system ultimately means that it can support the majority of the population who play no role in farming. It is only possible for you to read this book, or me to write it, because of the agricultural surplus which means that there is little (if any) subsistence farming in modern Britain. Throughout history, complex societies with structured hierarchies have arisen only because an agricultural surplus supported specialist and elite occupations. The transition from hunting and gathering to farming is therefore one of the most important phases in the archaeological history of Britain. Arguably, it is of greater significance than the Industrial Revolution in economic and social terms. The Neolithic (meaning ‘new stone age’) represents the dawn of agriculture in Britain. The beginning of the Neolithic is generally dated to around 4200 BC although, as we shall see, recent scientific advances suggest that this date can be refined further.
THE IMPACT OF THE NEOLITHIC
The origins of farming in human history can be traced geographically to the Levant and southwest Asia around 12,000 years ago. It is possible that agriculture began in a number of areas independently. From a scientific perspective, the presence of farming is detected through the domestication of animal or plant species. Domesticated species are genetically or physically distinct from their wild relatives as a result of manipulation by humans. This manipulation usually takes the form of artificial selection, in choosing specimens to reproduce in order to produce offspring with particular traits. Repeated over time, this process will eventually lead to a clear distinction between domesticated and wild species. Domesticating a species may take a considerable amount of time, and need not have been a result of a deliberate strategy. It is entirely possible that the origins of farming within a particular region witnessed a considerable overlap between hunter gatherer lifestyles and agricultural practices, as the two need not be mutually exclusive.1
The Neolithic spread of farming across Britain prompted profound changes in landscape, society, religion and culture. In archaeological terms, these changes are reflected through a number of features, which archaeologists refer to as the Neolithic package. Most obviously, this includes evidence for crops and domesticated animals, in the form of seeds, pollen and animal bones. But it would be wrong to see the dawn of the Neolithic as representing only the arrival of new flora and fauna in Britain. On the contrary, it led to a significant shift in the mindset of the population. By their very nature, farming communities are far less mobile than hunter gatherer societies. The presence of crops indicates a personal investment by the farmer in a particular area of land. It is difficult and potentially dangerous to move domesticated animals over large distances. This reduced mobility is evident archaeologically through the presence of permanent settlements and other sites which represent particular investment in a specific landscape indicating an element of ownership or territoriality.
The Neolithic witnessed a broad diversity in material culture across Britain. Hunter gatherers tend to travel light, eschewing the burden of lots of possessions in favour of the speed and adaptability of a mobile lifestyle. With less mobility, farming communities can invest in possessions which are difficult to transport. Pottery first occurs in Britain during this period. Despite their convenience for storage, cooking and dining, pots would be prone to breaking during the travels of a hunter gatherer group. The sedentary lifestyle offered by agriculture encouraged the use of pottery and the developing economy provided an opportunity for trade. Stone tools were also further refined during the Neolithic, in terms of both form and function. They became increasingly significant not only for their utility, but also as symbols of status and objects of power.
The Neolithic presents the first evidence for the social cohesion of communities within Britain. Hunter gatherer societies inevitably leave little trace on the landscape. This changed radically with the dawn of farming. Neolithic communities marked the landscape through a range of collaborative construction projects which created a series of different types of impressive monuments, including henges, causewayed enclosures and cursus monuments. These monuments seem specifically designed to mark the presence of the community on the landscape in which they lived, to such an extent that many are clearly visible over 6,000 years later.
Less easy to trace is the change in mindset of the British population as a result of the transition to a farming lifestyle. Their entire way of life was fundamentally altered through the decline of mobile hunting and gathering. Instead of transiting across the British landscape, they now lived within a specific location which acquired critical importance for the sustainability of their community. It is almost certain that this focus on a particular area would have had a considerable impact on religious belief systems. Early farming communities from across the globe are known to have a particular focus on the worship of ancestral spirits, who were believed to have the power to provide a good harvest or prevail upon higher deities to do so. Aspects of this ancestral worship can still be found in areas of rural China today. Indeed, the custom of leaving an empty seat at a wedding in honour of a recently deceased family member is a distant echo of this belief system. Many of the monuments of the Neolithic have a connection to death and the ancestors, providing a broad range of evidence for understanding the religious beliefs of our Neolithic ancestors.
DATING THE NEOLITHIC
How did the Neolithic actually begin in Britain? Throughout the twentieth century, there were two competing theories to explain the emergence of farming. According to one theory, farmers arrived in Britain from the Continent, bringing domesticated animals and crops with them. Through population growth, these incoming farmers gradually replaced the native hunter gatherer population. As we saw in the previous chapter, there is considerable evidence for contact between Britain and the northern Europe during the late Mesolithic. An alternative viewpoint minimises the role of incomers and instead views the spread of farming as the transmission of ideas rather than individuals. In this model, hunter gatherers switched to farming as a lifestyle for the benefits it brought rather than being forcibly displaced.
Recent advances in archaeological dating techniques offer a new understanding of the origins of the British Neolithic. The most useful method for dating prehistoric remains consists of radiocarbon dating. All living things absorb Carbon 14 from the atmosphere during their lifetime. After death, these Carbon 14 reserves begin to break down at a known measurable rate (referred to as the ‘half-life’ of Carbon 14). By analysing the amount of Carbon 14, it is possible for scientists to provide an approximate date range for when the specimen died. Carbon 14 dating only works for organic material, such as wood, seeds and bones and it is difficult to obtain a narrow date range for material from the distant past. However, in recent years archaeologists have significantly refined dates obtained from Neolithic sites by utilising Bayesian statistics. This technique is named after the eighteenth century clergyman and mathematician who invented it. Bayesian statistics improve the accuracy of probabilities (in this case a particular date range) through applying a broader range of relevant data to inform the calculation.
Bayesian statistics have radically improved our understanding of the dawn of the British Neolithic through clarifying the chronology of early sites. Detailed analysis reveals that the so-called Neolithic package first appears around the Greater Thames Estuary between 4100 and 4000 BC. It then slowly spreads westwards, reaching Wales by around 3700 BC. The first appearance of farming within a single localised context strongly supports the possibility that it was brought to Britain by migrants from the Continent. Early animal bone and cereal assemblages show marked genetic similarities from similar material found in Brittany, Normandy, Calais and the Paris region. It is unclear how large this incoming group of farmers actually was, but the evidence seems to suggest that they assimilated into the native population relatively quickly, rather than replacing them.2
Some trace of the impact of the formation of agricultural communities may be found in early Neolithic tomb structures. Recent studies indicate that such sites in southern England, such as Wayland’s Smithy in Oxfordshire and West Kennett in Wiltshire, were constructed and used for only a few generations between 3800 and 3700 BC. The relatively rapid utilisation of these sites during the early phases of the Neolithic suggests that they may have been purposefully used to display the status of powerful farming families. Monumentalising the residences of the ancestors would have emphasized the ownership of particular dynasties over specific territories.3
Causewayed enclosures are some of the most important monuments from this period.4 These sites are found mostly in southern England and vary considerably in size and layout. In general, causewayed enclosures are formed through the digging of between one to four enclosing ditches. Their name comes from the fact that not all of the ditches were continuous, leaving untouched ground (or causeways) in some sections of the perimeter. Earth dug from the ditches formed internal banks. The diameter of causewayed enclosures ranges between 200 – 400 m. The function of these sites is disputed. Similar structures are known from central and northern Europe. There is no evidence of permanent structures within the enclosures, indicating that they were not established as settlement sites. The permeability of the surrounding ditch systems means that they could not have had a defensive function. Some causewayed enclosures contain burials, indicating a potential link with religious belief and the realm of the ancestors. The interior of the enclosures may have been used for ceremonies, perhaps involving religious specialists with the rest of the community spectating from beyond the ditches.
Causewayed enclosures flourished between 3700 and 3600 BC. They were usually built on virgin sites, away from any previous Palaeolithic or Mesolithic activity. It therefore seems likely that the construction of causewayed enclosures played a crucial role in establishing and sustaining early farming communities. The discontinuous nature of the surrounding ditches could have been a result of particular lengths of ditch being dug by individual families. This would make the construction of causewayed enclosures particularly important for cementing family unity within the context of larger communities. The construction of large scale sites usually indicates some form of command authority overseeing the project, in the form of chieftains or elders. The significant investment of labour in constructing causewayed enclosures demonstrates a desire to inscribe the landscape, which would fit with the mindset of a community permanently based within a specific area.
It may be noteworthy that, around 3500 BC, a new form of landscape monument became prominent. Named cursus monuments, these enigmatic sites defy easy explanation.5 Cursus monuments consist of two parallel ditches running for up to 10 km. In some cases, the ditches are connected at either end, although there is no evidence for any monumental entrance. In contrast to causewayed enclosures, cursus monuments were often constructed close to earlier sites. The layout of these sites suggests that they may have been used for religious processions. The emergence of the cursus monument, perhaps in opposition to the earlier form of the causewayed enclosure, may indicate a deliberate attempt to present a new communal identity within the landscape. It is possible that they were created by emerging groups eager to distinguish themselves from established farming communities.
The term ‘prehistoric’ is traditionally applied to societies which are incapable of recording their own history. In Britain, this is generally taken to be the case for all periods prior to the Roman conquest. Yet the use of Bayesian statistics allows a tantalising glimpse of a possible historical framework for the early Neolithic. Incoming farmers established themselves around the Thames Estuary and grew crops and domesticated animals imported from the near Continent by 4000 BC. These farmers soon assimilated into the native population and their lifestyle replaced hunting and gathering over the next few centuries. Neolithic communities sought to display their new relationship with the landscape and other groups through constructing monuments to display their status. Although we cannot identify specific individuals or families, we can begin to understand how the arrival of farming and the social structures it encouraged impacted on the archaeological record.
SKARA BRAE
Our discussion of the Neolithic has focussed initially on broad trends. Much can be learnt by examining how these trends are reflected on a local level. The most spectacular Neolithic settlement in Britain can be found at Skara Brae in the Orkneys. It was established in approximately 3000 BC and occupied for around 600 years. The impressive level of preservation is a result of the settlement being covered by sand dunes until its discovery in the nineteenth century and the fact that many of the structures, and indeed furniture, were made of stone. Skara Brae provides a fascinating insight into the daily lives and social structure of early farming communities.6
The settlement at Skara Brae was dug into pre-existing midden mounds, formed by the accumulation of rubbish over time. This meant that most of the structures were actually beneath the level of the ground. This construction method is also present at other Neolithic sites in Orkney. Sinking the settlement into the midden mounds would have provided some protection against the elements. Skara Brae contains a total of eight separate buildings, all but one connected to each other by a single central passage. There are great similarities in the size and layout of the individual houses. The close proximity of the houses and their uniform design promote a clear sense of community within Skara Brae.
Most of the houses follow a standard pattern in their layout. Each house has only one entrance, leading off the main passage through the settlement. One central room dominates the interior of the house and was clearly a focal point for the lives of the inhabitants. Facing the entrance stands a stone dresser providing space for storage and display. The centre of the room holds the hearth. Stone box beds can be found next to the walls on either side of the hearth. The bed on the right is always slightly larger than its counterpart on the left, perhaps suggesting that it was occupied by the male inhabitant. Stone cupboards are set into the walls, particularly next to the beds. In several places, stone tanks were set into the floor. These were probably lined with clay. It is possible that these held water to be used for drinking and in food preparation. There is evidence that some of the tanks may have contained limpets, perhaps kept to be used as fishing bait. Leading off the central room are a series of small cells. These were used as storage spaces. In some instances, cells have drains connected to the main settlement drain. This suggests that they could have functioned as lavatories. The roof structure has left little trace. Most probably it consisted of turf or thatch supported on a framework made from driftwood or even whalebone.
Two of the structures at Skara Brae differ markedly from the usual design. House 8 stands separately from the rest of the settlement, and is the only structure to stand completely above ground level. The walls are unusually thick, up to two metres in width. The building contained no stone dresser or box beds, although there was a hearth and cupboard spaces. It has been suggested that this may have functioned as a workshop for the community. Alternatively, it is possible that this building was a later addition to the site. House 7 is probably the oldest structure within the settlement. It is reached its own side passage, making it more remote than the rest of the houses. The bodies of two women were found buried beneath the floor during excavation of the structure. This indicates that ritual and religion may have played a role in the function of the building. The door to this house was strangely locked from the outside. It is evident that House 7 was unique within Skara Brae and had a specialist function for the community. Its purpose was clearly to isolate individuals from their peers. It has been suggested that this structure was used as a retreat for women during their menstrual cycle, a practice which has been noted in other early societies.
Daily life at Skara Brae was dominated by membership of the community as a whole, which would have felt much stronger than it does for most people today. All of the houses are directly linked to each other promoting an intimate communal spirit. There is no evidence within the architecture of the settlement to identify a specific chief or leader of the community. None of the houses is much larger or more elaborate than the others. Indeed, there is very little evidence for social hierarchy. The inhabitants of Skara Brae seem to have possessed remarkable equality. It is possible that status was displayed through possessions rather than the size of a house. The stone dresser was the first aspect of each house visible upon entry. This was possibly used to display items of value to visitors, including pottery, beads or other artefacts which have left no trace. Gender roles seem important at Skara Brae. The distinction in the size of stone beds may reflect a divide within the house between female and male spheres. It is noteworthy that visitors were often channelled towards the male area of the house on entry from the main passage. The unusual nature of House 7, which was possibly used to isolate individual females, may also indicate a defined gender divide within the community.
PERSONAL VIOLENCE IN THE NEOLITHIC
The egalitarian community of Skara Brae can mislead the unwary into assuming that the Neolithic was a peaceful agricultural Eden. In fact, the evidence suggests that the Neolithic may have witnessed the emergence of organized warfare in Britain. From an archaeological perspective, it is difficult to clearly distinguish warfare from other forms of violence, including murder, execution and human sacrifice. In the absence of historical records, evidence for violence in the Neolithic can be deduced from human remains and through the excavation of defensive sites.7
One research study has examined the evidence for cranial trauma inflicted on Neolithic individuals. Three-hundred and fifty individual crania were examined, mostly dating from the early Neolithic period. From this sample, a total of thirty-one showed healed or unhealed injuries. There is an equal occurrence of cranial trauma in both male and female individuals, indicating that violence was not gender specific. The nature of the injuries indicates that most were probably caused through blunt force trauma, probably inflicted through the use of clubs made from stone, antler or wood. Not all of these individuals died as a result of their injuries as, in a number of instances, the wound clearly healed. From this sample, it has been estimated that around 2% died as a result of blunt force trauma, with another 4 – 5% surviving such an assault. Not all of these may have resulted from organized warfare, but it is nevertheless clear evidence that life in Neolithic Britain could be violent.8
The most devastating weapon utilized in the Neolithic was probably not the club, but rather the bow. This weapon would have been used primarily for hunting but its devastating effectiveness would have made it useful during periods of conflict. Neolithic bows were made from yew and stood between 1.5 – 2 m tall. Experiments have demonstrated that a Neolithic bow was capable of penetrating a target at a distance of 60 m. One scholar has argued that archery played a significant role in Neolithic warfare.9 Leaf arrowheads have been found in association with a number of individual burials. An adult male skeleton recovered at West Kennet Long Barrow, for instance, was found with such an arrowhead lying in his throat area.10
Arrowheads have also been found in large numbers at a number of Neolithic enclosures.11 Crickley Hill causewayed enclosure, for example, seems to have come under sustained arrow attack on at least two occasions during its history. The earliest attack seems to have resulted in part of the enclosure being burnt. After rebuilding, a section of the enclosure was attacked again. This assault resulted in over 400 arrowheads being discovered grouped around two entrances to the enclosure. Clearly, this was a coordinated attack involving multiple individuals. Similarly, at Carn Brea enclosure in Cornwall, over 800 arrowheads were found during excavation along with evidence of burning. Excavations at Hambledon Hill causewayed enclosure revealed two male individuals who had been buried beneath a collapsed rampart. Both men had arrowheads lodged in their throats.
The emergence of organized warfare during the Neolithic is not surprising. Farming requires investment in a specific area through the cultivation of crops and the raising of herds. Inevitably some areas would have been more productive than others through soil type, climate and the prevalence of natural resources. Whilst some hunter gatherer societies also protect territories or hunting ranges, Neolithic farmers had far more at stake in defending a specific area from incomers. The growth of larger societies, indicated by the monuments erected during the period, may also have encouraged tensions between rival groups which could erupt into open warfare.
STONEHENGE
Perhaps the most famous monument associated with the Neolithic stands as a prime example of the collaborative efforts of social groups during the period. The story of Stonehenge in fact encompasses the centuries both before and after the Neolithic. All too often, the monument is seen in isolation when it was actually part of a much larger ritual landscape (Fig 1). Our understanding of the site has been revolutionised in recent years by fieldwork conducted by the Stonehenge Riverside Project, made up of academics and students from a number of universities led by Professor Mike Parker Pearson.12 A key aim of the project was to test a theory developed by Parker Pearson and his collaborator Ramilisonina, an archaeologist from Madagascar. This theory connected the meaning of Stonehenge with timber circles at the nearby site of Durrington Walls. In many societies, including those of Madagascar, wood is associated with life and stone with death. By this reckoning, the timber circles at Durrington Walls represented the domain of the living with Stonehenge forming the domain of the dead. Linking the two domains is the River Avon, which perhaps functioned as a route for transiting between the realms of the living and the dead.13
The site of Stonehenge as we currently see it is the result of a series of modifications made to the site throughout Prehistory. The first evidence for ritual activity at Stonehenge consists of four holes, discovered beneath the modern visitor car park, which held timber posts aligned on a single axis. The discovery of monuments erected by hunter gatherers is extremely unusual, indicating that this landscape held religious significance prior to the Neolithic. Construction at the site began during the middle Neolithic (3000 – 2920 BC) and continued through to the middle Bronze Age (c. 1520 BC). Throughout this period the site changed rapidly with standing stones being removed and rearranged into new groups. The phases of construction at the site entailed a significant level of investment in terms of manpower and management structure.
The largest stones within the monument are the sarsens, which weigh up to thirty-five tons. Although sourced from the local area, the transport and erection of these stones was a considerable feat of engineering. The smaller stones set within Stonehenge are named ‘bluestones’. These were the earliest stones to be erected at the site. Geological analysis has indicated that these stones were quarried in the Preseli Hills of south west Wales. This would have involved a journey of around 250 km to transport the stones, the largest of which weighs up to ten tons. For centuries, debate has raged about the method by which these stones were transported. Some scholars have argued that they were moved naturally to the area through glacial action. Recent analysis of the movement of glaciers across Britain indicates that this is unlikely. Movement by sea and rivers would have required less manpower but raises considerable practical problems. Transporting the stones over land would have required significant manpower and organisation, but would have emphasized the special nature of the task being undertaken. In some ways, the journey of the bluestones may have been similar to the journey of the Olympic Torch through Britain in 2012, in terms of promoting a sense of communal celebration and pride. A number of archaeologists have suggested that the bluestones were believed to have special healing powers, based on a number of folklore sources, which would have also explain the great effort invested in transporting them.14
The monument at Stonehenge is aligned on the solstice axis, meaning that sunrise and sunset at the midsummer and midwinter solstices was reflected in the architecture and arrangement of the stones. This deliberate marking of the seasons is as important to some people today as it evidently was to the Neolithic population near Stonehenge. During fieldwork conducted by the Stonehenge Riverside Project, a surprising feature was discovered which may explain the alignment of the stones. Archaeologists discovered parallel gullies running through the chalk bedrock. These features are entirely natural, having been created by the movement of water and the freeze-thaw mechanism. Yet despite their natural creation, they are also aligned with the solstice axis. It therefore seems extremely likely that Stonehenge was constructed as a means of monumentalising an existing natural phenomenon. This may also explain the erection of the line of posts by Mesolithic hunter gatherers in the same area. Even when buried beneath the soil, the gullies would still have been visible on the grass above during dry summers through inhibiting the growth of vegetation above.
Yet Stonehenge is about far more than the midsummer and midwinter solstices. It is the largest known cemetery from the period between 3000 – 2000 BC, with over sixty known cremation burials. There is the potential for many more cremation burials to reside within the area which has not been excavated due to legal protection. This significantly reinforces Parker Pearson’s argument that Stonehenge represented the domain of the dead. Reverence for the ancestors is particularly important in early agricultural societies and it is possible that the cremation burials interred at Stonehenge represent the ancestors of the community which laid claim to the site.
If Stonehenge was dedicated to the ancestors, then the nearby site of Durrington Walls may represent the domain of the living. At least three timber circles are known to have stood within the vicinity of the site. Durrington Walls consists of a henge, which is defined as a large enclosure ditch with a bank raised outside. Strictly speaking, Stonehenge cannot be defined as a henge as its bank lies inside the surrounding ditch. The Stonehenge Riverside Project focussed on understanding what had happened at the site prior to the construction of the henge. Excavations revealed one of the largest settlements ever discovered from Neolithic Europe. It is estimated that there may have been up to 250 houses on the site, housing a potential population of 4000 individuals. Despite its size, this was not a permanent settlement. Analysis of the copious amount of pig bones found during the excavation demonstrates that the settlement was probably occupied at midwinter and midsummer, the same period of the year when Stonehenge would have been particularly important. The animals were not reared locally, but seem to have brought to the site specifically for consumption. Very few human bones were recovered at Durrington Walls, suggesting a clear emphasis on the living rather than the treatment of the dead. It seems likely that Durrington Walls functioned as a seasonal settlement, where communities gathered to celebrate key events in their annual calendar. This perhaps would have been when animals could be traded, deals done and marriages arranged. It would have provided a welcome respite from the harsh lives of the early farming communities.
Parker Pearson believes that the Stonehenge sacred landscape was deliberately shaped to represent unity. The natural bedrock gullies in alignment with the solstice axis perhaps indicated that the area represented the unity of the earth, sun and heavens. The transport, shaping and erection of the stones would have required communal unity on a massive scale, as witnessed by the size of the Durrington Walls settlement. Parker Pearson has theorised that there may have been a migration of early farming communities from the Preseli region of Wales to Salisbury Plain during the Neolithic period. If this is the case, than the inclusion of Preseli bluestones at Stonehenge would have clearly identified the site as belonging to the ancestors and would have demonstrated the unity of the living with the dead and the wider cosmos. It is possible that we will never fully understand the meaning and significance of the monuments of the Stonehenge landscape. What is clear, however, is that the monuments represent a complex belief system supported by an advanced understanding of engineering and the movement of celestial bodies.15
The Neolithic represents possibly the most important period of change in Britain. The transition from hunting and gathering to farming facilitated a number of changes in social organisation, from the small community of Skara Brae to the great mass of people who gathered twice a year at Durrington Walls. The surplus provided by effective farming practices supported the creation of a range of distinct monuments including henges, causewayed enclosures and cursus monuments. Yet this change came at a cost, in the form of significant intercommunal violence.