PAST 1

IINNTTRROODDUUCCIINNGG TTHHEE‘‘LLOONNGG--TTAAIILLEEDD OOBBLLIIQQUUEE’’AARRRROOWWHHEEAADD:: EEXXAAMMPPLLEESSFFRROOMM MMAARRDDEENN HHEENNGGEE,,WWIILLTTSSHHIIRREE,, AANNDD SSAANNTTOONNWWAARRRREENN,, NNOORRFFOOLLKK

In PAST 66, the recent excavations at Marden hengein Wiltshire were reported on, alongside the varioussurveys that have lately been undertaken at themonument. The article discussed the very wellpreserved Neolithic building surface, and mentionedtwo exquisitely worked and near identical ripple-flaked oblique flint arrowheads that were found nextto the building. We can now provide a brief update onthese arrowheads and describe another long-tailedexample from Norfolk.

The Marden arrowheads belong to Green’s markedlyasymmetrical, or lop-sided, ripple-flaked typesdateable to the Later Neolithic (see his volume, TheFlint Arrowheads of the British Isles). These arecharacterised by having near all-over ripple flaking,acute tips, hollow bases and asymmetric ‘tails’composed of a small sharp barb on one side and alonger and thicker stem on the other. The execution,techniques, positioning and extent of the retouch onthe two Marden arrowheads is virtually identical andit would be very easy to be persuaded that they weremade by the same, very competent, flintworker. Botharrowheads have their very tips missing and theirstems have also been broken off, leaving just remnant‘stumps’. These, however, would clearly haveoriginally been longer.

In the previous PAST article, it was suggested that along, narrow, finely worked ‘rod’ of flint, found inanother part of the site, represents one such brokenstem or tail. This narrow piece of flint was initiallyassumed to be a microlithic rod, but Martin Green,who briefly worked with us at the site, suggested thatit might instead be associated with the arrowheads.Closer inspection after the excavation supports this:the piece has been very carefully formed using bifacialretouch, and the size, form and techniques used in itsmanufacture do indeed indicate that it was once partof the ‘tail’ of an arrowhead of very similar form tothe others. This means that the arrowheads wouldhave had a grossly elongated tail on one side.Although made using the same techniques and closelymatched to the remnant stumps on the arrowheads,the tail does not actually conjoin either of these andmust have come from another, almost identical,arrowhead.

NUMBER 68 July 2011

THE NEWSLETTER OF THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY Registered Office University College London, Institute of Archaeology, 31–34 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PY

http://www.prehistoricsociety.org/

The copy date for PAST 69 is 3 October 2011. Contributions to Joanna Brück, School of Archaeology, NewmanBuilding, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland. Email: joanna.bruck@ucd.ie Contributions on disc oras e-mail attachments are preferred (either word 6 or rtf files) but hardcopy is also accepted. Illustrations can be sentas drawings, slides, prints, tif or jpeg files. The book reviews editor is Dr Mike Allen, Wessex Archaeology, PortwayHouse, Old Sarum Park, Salisbury, Wilts, SP4 6EB. Email: aea.escargots@gmail.com Queries over subscriptions and

membership should go to the Society administrator Tessa Machling at the London address above.

68

The Marden arrowheads either side of the Santon Warren arrowhead

PAST

The earlier article concluded regarding thearrowheads, perhaps somewhat prematurely, that “Asfar as we know, nothing similar exists in Britain...”.However, after reading the article, Peter Robins got intouch, via PAST, to point out that Norwich CastleMuseum also has one such ‘unique’ piece in theircollection. This was found by Tim Holt-Wilson(formerly with the Diss Museum in South Norfolkand now working on the Geodiversity Project) in1999-2000, while he was fieldwalking a compartmenton Santon Warren (centred on TL 825 883), Norfolk,which had recently been cleared of pine trees and hadtrenches ploughed for replanting. In 2008 Tim, withthe agreement of the Forestry Commission, donatedhis collection to the Norwich Castle Museum(accession number 2008.286). Among his finds wasan oblique arrowhead of unusual, even to sayeccentric, design, with an elongated ‘tail’. This wasduly noted as a probably ‘unique’ artefact. Theaccompanying collection included an incompletepolished flint axe, scrapers, piercers, cores, includingan unstruck Levalloisoidal core, and other debitage,and is a typical example of what Frances Healy hasdescribed as a Breckland Late Neolithic assemblage.

Although very different to the Marden arrowheads,lacking their ripple flaking and not nearly so finelyworked, the Santon Warren example is important asit shows that some oblique arrowheads did indeedhave elongated tails. Most published examples ofmarkedly asymmetrical ripple-flaked arrowheads sofar encountered have had their stems broken off.However, based on the Marden henge ‘tail’ fragmentand the complete Santon Warren example, we suggestthat very long stems/tails is a recurring, previouslyunrealised, type of oblique arrowhead. There areother examples too: for example there is at least onewith its tail intact in Salisbury Museum from the1966/7 Durrington Walls excavation, and we suspectthat there are further examples within other museumcollections. When accessioning the Santon Warrenarrowhead, Peter Robins described it as a ‘long-tailedoblique’ arrowhead - we suggest that this is a usefulterm.

In the previous PAST article, we also challenged flintknappers to reproduce the Marden long-tailedobliques . . . we have yet to hear from anyone!

Barry Bishop, Jim Leary, and Peter Robins

LLAATTEE NNEEOOLLIITTHHIICCCCIIRRCCUULLAARR SSTTRRUUCCTTUURREEDDIISSCCOOVVEERREEDD IINNLLEEIICCEESSTTEERRSSHHIIRREE

Recent excavations at Rothley (8km north ofLeicester) in Leicestershire have revealed evidence fora Neolithic settlement, the highlight being a circularstructure dated by Grooved Ware pottery andradiocarbon samples to c. 2700-2500 BC.Surrounding this was evidence for at least a furthertwo possible structures, along with numerous pitscontaining significant quantities of artefacts.

The excavation was undertaken by University ofLeicester Archaeological Services between Januaryand May 2010 in advance of residential developmentby Charles Church (North Midlands). The site waslocated midway up a north-facing slope on the westside of the River Soar, 1.7km south of earlierexcavations at Lodge Farm that identified significantNeolithic discoveries in 2005 including a stone plaque(see PAST 50, July 2005).

The structuresThe circular structure comprised 48 postholesforming a rough circle c. 5m in diameter. Three sherdsof pottery were recovered from the structure,including a sherd of Grooved Ware. Three of the post-holes had charred hazel fragments that were suitablefor radiocarbon dating. At 95.4% probability, thedates were 2880-2580 cal BC, 2700-2480 cal BC and2780-2570 cal BC.

Eight metres northwest was a further possiblestructure. This consisted of a shallow irregular-shapedpit or hollow measuring at its maximum extent 2.8 x2.8m, becoming narrower at the east end (1.5m).Within this were five postholes, all located on thesloping sides of the pit. Overlying the postholes andfilling the hollow was a pale brown sandy silt thatcontained around 30 finds (including Grooved Ware

2 PAST

The Neolithic circular structure being excavated

PAST 3

pottery and worked flint). The structure has broadsimilarities to sunken-floored buildings - or pit-dwellings - of the Neolithic period, seen most often insoutheast Europe. A broadly similar building ofNeolithic date was found at Lodge Farm. A furthercluster of postholes 25m to the northeast indicates atleast two phases of another circular structure.

Pits and piecesSurrounding these structures were dispersed clustersof refuse pits or perhaps ‘working hollows’. Four pitscontained large quantities of worked flint and potterysherds. Of particular interest was a large undressedCharnwood-type axe, along with flaked fragmentsfrom the polished surface. Fragments of the same axewere found in another pit 60m north. The deliberatedestruction of later Neolithic axes is a practice widelyrecognised across Britain including at the nearbyLodge Farm site. Two of the four pits also had leaf-shaped arrowheads placed on their bases. Aradiocarbon sample from one of these provided a dateof 3520-3330 BC and suggests earlier Neolithicactivity, perhaps some 800 years earlier than thecircular structure.

DiscussionSettlement evidence of the later Neolithic in the EastMidlands is rare - and is generally limited to a few pitsor residual finds. However, in more recent years therehas been an increasing number of settlement sites ofthis period excavated including Lodge Farm, Rothley,Leicestershire; Eye Kettleby, Leicestershire; andCurzon Lodge, Derbyshire. The discovery of thecircular structure of late Neolithic date is rare withinthe region and further afield. The building is verysmall, being comparable in size to examplesexcavated at Trelystan, Powys, though the structureat Rothley is far more substantial being constructedwith wide posts, rather than thin stakes. In view of itssize, the circular structure may best be interpreted as

a domestic house rather than a timber circle. Thedeposition of the objects within the various pits -including the deliberate destruction of the axe -appears to have been structured, and may signify anact of closure to the settlement. The discovery of twoimportant Neolithic sites within a short period of time- both from developer-funded projects - is in partdown to good fortune, but also due to their perceivedfavourable location in the landscape. Rothley issituated in the River Soar valley, close to theconfluence zone with Rothley Brook and the RiverWelland. It is not far from Charnwood Hills - a majoroutcrop site for axes that were widely distributedacross the country. The two Rothley sites combinedtherefore offer significant new information onNeolithic settlement in the region, and more widely toNeolithic studies across Britain.

Gavin SpeedSenior Archaeological SupervisorUniversity of Leicester Archaeological Services

MMIIDDSSUUMMMMEERR SSOOLLSSTTIICCEE AATT CCAAHHOOKKIIAA:: TTHHEEPPRREEHHIISSTTOORRIICC SSOOCCIIEETTYY’’SSMMOOUUNNDDBBUUIILLDDEERR TTOOUURR22001122 Imagine looking out from a hotel room in Chicago ona sunny morning in June - perhaps with views overLake Michigan - at the start of a five state tour ofMoundbuilder sites in the US Midwest. This couldall be yours by signing up for a Prehistoric Societystudy tour planned for June next year which willinclude iconic places such as Cahokia and SerpentMound (see enclosed leaflet or contact theMembership Secretary for further details).

The tour will leave Chicago to visit the unusual effigymounds in Wisconsin and Iowa, via the palisadedsettlement at Aztalan - considered to be part of theMississippian trade network which controlled access

Plan of the Neolithic circular structure

Cahokia: Monks Mound viewed from the reconstructed‘Woodhenge’ (photo: Dave Field)

4 PAST

to copper around the Great Lakes. We will thenfollow the Mississippi south, visiting various mound complexes, rock art, settlements and museums untilwe reach Cahokia to view the towering MonksMound (three times the bulk of Silbury) and the 104subsidiary mounds, plazas, palisades and‘Woodhenges’ - and an award winning museum. If itcan be arranged, we shall return to Cahokia thefollowing morning to witness midsummer sunriseover Monks Mound, one of the great solstitial eventsof Native North America.

When we leave Illinois for Indiana, we will begin toencounter dramatic hilltop enclosures which range inform from what we would consider causewayedenclosures to hillforts. Once into Ohio, we will reachthe heartland of the Hopewell Culture wheregeometric enclosures, scattered farmsteads andmound cemeteries create highly structuredlandscapes. The Hopewell were also notable for theirextensive trade networks which extended from theGreat Lakes in the north, to the Gulf Coast in thesouth, the Rockies in the west and as far as theeastern seaboard. Exotic prestige goods such as micacarvings and effigy pipes were signature artefacts.While in Ohio, we will also visit the Hopewellquarries at Flint Ridge where extraction occurredalong a 7-8 mile ridge with ‘countless trenches andpits’ which have left behind earthworks reminiscentof Grime’s Graves. We might also be lucky enough to

visit some of the ongoing excavations at Hopewellsites in Ohio if the timings work out.

So, if a tour visiting most of the classic Midwesternsites appeals to you, while providing the opportunityto experience a blues club in Chicago or participate inMargarita Mondays in Chilicothe – then sign up forthis once in a lifetime tour. Be there or be geometric,as they would say in the Scioto Valley in Ohio.

Pete Topping

IITT’’SS OOFFFFIICCIIAALL -- TTHHEEMMAARRLLBBOORROOUUGGHH MMOOUUNNDDIISS PPRREEHHIISSTTOORRIICC!!

The Marlborough Mound, a large earthen mound(just over 18m high) located within the grounds ofMarlborough College, Wiltshire, has been dated forthe first time. The mound is a feature of considerablehistorical significance having previously formed amount in a major seventeenth century garden and,earlier, the motte of Marlborough Castle. However,as early as 1821, Richard Colt Hoare had suggestedthat it may be of prehistoric date because of itssimilarity in form and valley location to Silbury Hill,just a few miles to the west. The mound hassubsequently entered the prehistoric literature as anenigma, with some authors feeling that it is likely tobe a medieval construct, and others more acceptingof a Neolithic origin. The Archaeological ResearchAgenda for the Avebury World Heritage Sitesummed the situation up as: “It would appear,however, sensible to reserve judgement until the dateof antlers associated with the mound are known.”

With this as the background, and with the recentwork at Silbury Hill and the Hatfield Barrow inMarden henge underway (the other two giants ofWessex), it seemed like a good time to discuss thepossibility of coring centrally through theMarlborough Mound with a view to obtainingdateable material. It was particularly good timingsince the Marlborough Mound Trust is currently

The Serpent Mound, Adams County, Ohio: the Squier and Davissurvey of 1846, pre-dating the Putnam restoration.

Note the original detail at the head and the egg/sun earthwork with central cairn. Adjacent ‘Indian Graves’ emphasise the

special nature of this location.

The Marlborough Mound (© Pete Glastonbury)

PAST 5

engaged in a major conservation programme there,co-ordinated by Donald Insall Associates, and afterdue deliberation the trustees and the college agreedto the work. Scheduled monument consent wasgranted and the coring was paid for by theMarlborough Mound Trust, which is supported by alegacy from founder and former college pupil, EricElstob.

Two 10cm diameter cores were drilled byGeotechnical Engineering Ltd from the summit tothe base and four smaller cores were drilled throughthe surrounding ditch. The cores were brought backto the English Heritage laboratories at FortCumberland in Portsmouth for analysis (the coreswere described and assessed by Matt Canti and thepalaeo-environmental remains by Gill Campbell).Four fragments of short-lived wood charcoal wererecovered at a variety of levels through the moundand submitted by the English Heritage ScientificDating Team to SUERC for radiocarbon dating. Theresults showed that the majority of the mound iscontemporary with its neighbour, Silbury Hill,falling within the second half of the third millenniumcal BC. This is a significant discovery: theMarlborough Mound is now known to be the secondtallest prehistoric mound in Britain, and a majoraddition to the Wiltshire prehistoric landscape; italso has implications for the interpretation of SilburyHill. The search is now on to find Marlborough’smissing henge.

Jim Leary

FFUURRTTHHEERR NNOOTTEESS FFRROOMMMMAARRDDEENN HHEENNGGEE

The fascinating discoveries at Marden henge remindme of a time in the fifties when, as the very youngcurator of the Devizes museum, I got to know andcultivate the farmer who lived in and worked itsinterior, Joe Simper. His home-made and unbelievablyalchoholic mead was one attraction. The other wasthe ever-growing collection of flint implements whichhe was finding when ploughing. He could spot a goodimplement at several yards from his tractor. Inparticular, I recall a splendid, medium-sized flintscraper with a ground edge. I had plans to borrow thecollection, draw and publish it. But before I couldstart, I moved to a museum in the Midlands and myproject foundered. Shortly afterwards Joe Simperdied, and his widow - completely oblivious to theimportance of his flint collection - threw the lot out.If a present-day field archaeologist should comeacross a notable surface concentration of flintssomewhere within Marden henge, they may well beJoe’s assemblage. Look out for that scraper!

Nicholas Thomas

PPRREEHHIISSTTOORRIICC SSOOCCIIEETTYYSSTTUUDDEENNTT SSTTUUDDYY TTOOUURRAAPPRRIILL 22001111

During a beautiful, hot, sunny weekend in April,archaeology students from seven different UKuniversities gathered in Oxford for the PrehistoricSociety’s annual student study tour. Students on thisyear’s tour were introduced to the archaeology of theCotswolds and the Upper Thames Valley by a team ofexperts in the area: Alex Lang, Tim Darvill, GeorgeLambrick and Gill Hey. The contrasting landscapesof the two regions provided an excellent setting inwhich to study the changing nature of Neolithicmonument construction and Iron Age settlement, inthe context of differing levels of modern intensiveland-use.

Oxford, Friday 8 AprilThe weekend commenced with a Friday nightreception, kindly hosted by Oxbow Books at theirOxford headquarters, where students met theirarchaeological guides for the weekend and picked upsome great bargain books. A drink or two later, andwith bags slightly heavier, the group made its way tothe base for the weekend - the magnificent St EdmundHall, Oxford University - before heading out tosample real ales at some of Oxford’s fine publichouses.

The Cotswolds, Saturday 9 April The fieldtrip began in a sunny but apparently emptyfield at Rollright Heath in the Cotswolds (SP345310).However, as was soon explained by tour leader andexcavator, Alex Lang, a late Iron Age banjo enclosurehad recently been discovered on this site. With theaid of a geophysical survey map, he explained thelayout of the enclosure and outlined the nature of thesite’s discovery via aerial photography andsubsequent excavation. Despite the concentration ofknown banjo enclosures in the Cotswolds, the site isnotable as one of the few in this area to have beenexcavated.

Throughout the rest of the day, the diverse andchanging nature of Iron Age settlement in the regionwas highlighted, with visits to a small low-lying‘hillfort’ (Chastleton; SP258282), a large hillfort(Crickley Hill; SO928161), as well as a large low-lying square enclosure (Salmonsbury; SP174208). Incontrast to the flat site at Rollright Heath, these sitesconsisted of extensive banks and ditches. All threesites have been excavated to some extent, and whileCrickley Hill and Salmonsbury provide clear evidencefor domestic settlement, the lack of extensiveoccupation remains at Chastleton suggests that it mayhave been used as a focus for communal activitiesrather than permanent settlement.

A range of important Neolithic monuments were alsovisited during day one of the tour, including theRollright Stones monument complex (SP29753105),Belas Knap long barrow (SP02092554) and CrickleyHill causewayed enclosure (SO928161). TheRollright Stones consists of three separate sites: theKing Stone, the King’s Men stone circle andWhispering Knights portal tomb. While the portaltomb and stone circle represent early and lateNeolithic monuments respectively, it is probable thatthe King’s Stone was a later, perhaps Bronze Age,addition to the monument complex. Interestingly,both the stone circle and dolmen have western Britishparallels: the form of the King’s Men resembles someof the major Lake District stone circles, such asSwaledale and Long Meg and Her Daughters, and theWhispering Knights is similar to many dolmens insouth Wales and Cornwall. Each of the monumentsshowed considerable levels of post-Medievalinterference. For instance, many of the stones in theKing’s Men stone circle had either been completelyremoved or had been re-erected in antiquity, and theshape of the King Stone has been considerably alteredby the removal of fragments as souvenirs in theeighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

The second Neolithic site visit of the day was to BelasKnap, a large, well-preserved Cotswold-Severn typelong barrow. Tim Darvill outlined the key features ofthe site - a false portal setting, drystone walling in theback of the forecourt and three small lateralchambers of different sizes - before everyone squeezedinto the side chambers to test their differingcapacities. The highlight of the day was the visit toCrickley Hill causewayed enclosure (SO928161)which, thanks to the beautiful weather, providedspectacular panoramic views across the Severn Valleyand beyond. Interestingly, excavation of the site inthe 1970s-90s revealed that after several phases ofreuse, the earlier Neolithic enclosure had beenmodified in the later Neolithic as a defendedsettlement.

The Upper Thames Valley, Sunday 10 April Day two focused on the archaeology of the ThamesValley region. The sites visited were equally varied,but in general showed greater levels of moderninterference and destruction than the Cotswolds sites.For instance, both of the Neolithic-Bronze Age sitesvisited (Dorchester-on-Thames and the Devil’sQuoits) have been almost completely destroyed bygravel extraction during the twentieth century.

At Dorchester (SP5795), all that remains of the once-extensive monument complex, which included acursus monument, enclosures, henge and post circles,are crop marks visible in aerial photographs, togetherwith occasional records from a few of the sitesexcavated prior to gravel extraction. Similarly, theDevil’s Quoits henge (SP4005) was completelydestroyed by gravel extraction and use as a secondworld war airfield, except for a few stones left lyingon the surface of the site. However, subsequentexcavation has revealed the locations of the stone-holes, allowing the stone circle to be reconstructedusing the distinctive type of orangey gravelconglomerate employed in the original monument.

In contrast to the Neolithic monuments visited, theIron Age settlements that were explored hadundergone much less modern disturbance anddestruction. Three different Iron Age site types werevisited, each in contrasting topographical locations.The huge (c.1km across), low-lying late Iron Agenucleated settlement at Dyke Hills (SP574933) wasparticularly well preserved in most places except forrabbit burrows, with massive ditches and bankssurrounding the hut circles on the two sides notencompassed by the River Thames. Likewise, theearthworks around the early-mid Iron Age hillfort atCastle Hill, Wittenham Clumps (SP569924), werestill clearly visible. However, as at Chastleton, there islittle evidence for permanent settlement within thehillfort itself, except for a few pits mostly containinghuman burial evidence. This emphasises the diversityof hillfort functions in the area.

The final site visit was to Port Meadow, Oxford, a flatgrassy common which, amazingly, has remainedunploughed since the Medieval period. As a result,extensive areas of Bronze-Iron Age open settlementare faintly visible on the surface of the common.There was just time to trace some of the slight IronAge roundhouses and enclosure features, before thegroup dispersed at Oxford station.

Overall, the weekend was extremely enjoyable andprovided an interesting introduction to the plethoraof exciting Neolithic-Iron Age sites in the two regions.The study tour also provided a thought- provokingcase-study of the nature of site preservation anddestruction within a densely populated lowlandsouthern British context.

Rosie Bishop, Department of Archaeology, DurhamUniversity

6 PAST

Our group at Belas Knap long barrow

AANN IIRROONN AAGGEE ‘‘TTAANNKKAARRDD’’FFRROOMM NNOORRTTHH YYOORRKKSSHHIIRREE

Prehistoric archaeology, likely to be of Iron Age date,was encountered in summer 2010 during buildingworks at a primary school in Sherburn, Vale ofPickering, North Yorkshire (SE 9587 7702). It wasrecorded by Fern Archaeology and was sealedbeneath Medieval occupation. Its most significantcomponent was 46 sherds of calcite-temperedpottery, local to the area, including parts of a handled‘tankard’ of possible ritual significance. The findingsoccur in the context of an extensive local prehistoricto Roman landscape recorded by the LandscapeResearch Centre Ltd. and characterised by laddersettlement, the precursor of some of the medievalvillages that today straddle the main A64 Malton-to-Scarborough road. The archive is to be depositedwith Malton Museum.

Chris Fern, Fern Archaeology, Ampleforth, NorthYorkshire

IINN MMEEMMOORRIIAAMM::PPRROOFFEESSSSOORRSS JJOOHHNN DDAAVVIIEESSEEVVAANNSS AANNDD MMAARREEKKZZVVEELLEEBBIILL In a single week, the Society has lost twodistinguished Members: Professor John D. EvansOBE (President, 1974–78) on 4 July, aged 86, andProfessor Marek Zvelebil (Council member,1996–99) on 7 July, aged 59. Both had made a majorcontribution to European prehistory and to theteaching of archaeology. The Society extends itscondolences to the families and expresses its heartfeltthanks for their service to the Society.

John Evans specialised in Mediterranean - andparticularly Maltese - prehistory and was the Directorof the Institute of Archaeology in London from 1973to 1989. He excavated several key megalithic sites inMalta during the 1940s and 1950s, and in 1952 wasinvited by the Royal University of Malta to prepare acatalogue of the National Museum collections inValletta and to oversee archaeological fieldwork onthe island. His connection with the island continuedover several decades: in 1992 he advised UNESCO onextending the inscription of Maltese temples. Hismany publications on Mediterranean archaeologyinclude an influential article on ‘Islands aslaboratories for the study of cultural process’ (1973).His work at the Institute of Archaeology - holding theChair of Prehistoric Archaeology before serving asDirector - included establishing the Field ArchaeologyUnit and overseeing the Institute’s incorporationwithin University College London. His manydistinctions include the fact that he was President notjust of our Society, but also of the Society ofAntiquaries of London (1984–87), and was the firstPresident, in 1954, of the Archaeological Society ofMalta. He was not only an eminent scholar but alsoa dedicated and widely respected teacher andcommunicator, who will be missed by all his students,as well as by colleagues across Europe.

Marek Zvelebil’s life was very different. Born inPrague, he fled to the West in 1968 when the SovietUnion invaded, ending up undertaking his PhD on theScandinavian Mesolithic under Graham Clark inCambridge and going on to lecture at SheffieldUniversity from 1981. He specialised in theMesolithic-Neolithic transition in ContinentalEurope, making game-changing contributions to thedebate in publications such as Harvesting the Sea,

PAST 7

Reconstruction of the calcite-tempered ‘tankard’ vessel

Professor John D. Evans. Reproduced courtesy of the Society of Antiquaries of London.

8 PAST

‘Down by the river: excavations of prehistorictimber alignments in the Waveney Valley, eastEngland’ by Dr Ben Gearey (Institute ofArchaeology and Antiquity, University ofBirmingham)

Joint Prehistoric Society/Cambridge AntiquarianSociety

University of Bradford Ages Research SeminarsWeekly lectures on prehistoric topics open tomembers by kind invitation of Dr Alex Gibson. Forfull details see our website.

The 10th Sara Champion Memorial Lecture: ‘Creative destruction: middens at the end of theBronze Age’ by Dr Kate Waddington (BangorUniversity)This lecture will consider some of the new materialculture practices taking place in the Late BronzeAge and Earliest Iron Age transition, payingparticular attention to a selection of ‘midden’ sitesin southern Britain. The historical processes whichsurrounded this storm of material accumulation,and the apparent shifts in materiality, will beexplored.

Bronze Age ForumFor information and booking details seewww.cardiff.ac.uk/share/newsandevents/events/archaeology/baf.html

Reception sponsored by the Prehistoric Society

Mon 3 Oct 20116pm

Tue 11 Oct-Tue 6Dec 20115.15pm

Wed 19 Oct 20116pm

Sat 12-Sun 13 Nov2011

LectureVenue: Cambridge

Lecture seriesVenue: University of Bradford

LectureVenue: Society of Antiquaries, Burlington House, Piccadilly,London

Weekend conferenceVenue: Cardiff

MMEEEETTIINNGGSS PPRROOGGRRAAMMMMEE22001111--22001122The programme for next year’s lectures and meetingsis coming together. However, details for a number ofevents have yet to be finalised - these will be posted

on our website, together with times, prices, contactinformation and booking forms as soon as theybecome available. Forms will also be included inupcoming editions of PAST. If you would like to bekept updated by email, please contact TessaMachling on prehistoric@ucl.ac.uk.

Farming the Forest (1998) and, through hisconsiderable linguistic skills, making otherwisedifficult of access information available to anAnglophone audience. Having lived through politicaltroubles (and, as he was amused to point out, havingbeen drafted into the armies of three countries),Marek lived life to the full, and also gave much backto the country of his birth. A bon viveur, a brilliantscholar and a charismatic teacher, he generated aloyal following among his Sheffield students - somuch so that a ‘Marek Zvelebil Appreciation Society’exists. An unforgettable character, he leaves behindmany happy memories and he will be sorely missedby prehistorians and friends around the world.

Dr Alison Sheridan, President

Marek Zvelebil, by Mariana Cook, from her Faces of Science, 2005, published by W. W. Norton.

PAST 9

‘Conquering the North: early humans atHappisburgh’ by Dr Nick Ashton (British Museum)

Joint Prehistoric Society/Norfolk & NorwichArchaeological Society

‘Introduction to the Moundbuilders’ by PeteTopping (English Heritage)

A special lecture to introduce the subject of the2012 Study Tour (see below) and open to all,whether coming on the tour or not.

The long view: place and prehistory in the ThamesValley

Landscape, monuments and society, including theEuropa Lecture, ‘Houses of commons, houses of lords: domesticdwellings and monumental architecture inprehistoric Europe’ by Prof Richard Bradley(University of Reading)

There will be a fee for the conference but theEuropa Lecture is free to members. The conferencewill be preceded by a one-day PhD studentconference on a related topic on 8 June in theHenley Business School Room G11 onWhiteknights campus.

MoundbuildersOur rescheduled trip to the USA, led by PeteTopping.

Cranborne Chase Weekend

Sat 4 Feb 20122.30pm

Wed 15 Feb 20126pm

Sat 25 Feb 2012

Sat 9 June 2012

Thu 14 Jun-Sun 1Jul 2012

Sep 2012 TBC

LectureVenue: Castle Museum,Norwich

LectureVenue: Society of Antiquaries, Burlington House, Piccadilly,London

Day conferenceVenue: London

Day conference & Europa LectureVenue: Great Hall, LondonRoad Campus, University of Reading

Overseas study tourVenue: USA

UK budget study tourVenue: TBC

In the planning stages:

• Student study tour• ‘Climate change in prehistory’ conference• Joint lectures with the Society of Antiquaries

of Scotland and the Devon Archaeological Society

IIMMPPOORRTTAANNTT:: AARREE YYOOUU AA SSTTAARR??

Please look closely at the top right hand corner ofyour copy of PAST. Do you have a coloured star? Ifso, then you are NOT up-to-date with yoursubscription for the current year. If you have notpaid the FULL amount at one of the following rates,then your subscription will be invalid and you willnot be sent PPS when it is published. Rates for 2010are as follows: £35 Ordinary Members; £25 Retiredwith PPS; £17.50 Student; £12.50 Retired withoutPPS; and £50 for Institutional Members. Jointmembership for any of the above (not includingInstitutional Membership) is £5.

If you are in any doubt about the status of yoursubscription, please contact our administrator TessaMachling at the address below, or by email atprehistoric@ucl.ac.uk. Cheques should be madepayable to ‘The Prehistoric Society’ and sent to: ThePrehistoric Society, Institute of Archaeology, 31-34Gordon Square, London, WC1H 0PY. Many thanksfor your support!

RRUUNN OOFF PPPPSS

Free to a good home but a donation to the currentowner’s nominated charity appreciated: PPS vols 22(1956) through to 36 (1970), along with volume 37,part 1. Interested parties must be willing to collectfrom a west London (Holland Park) address. Forfurther information, please contact ChristopherTaylor, tel. 07710525196.

BBEETTWWEEEENN TTHHEEMMOONNUUMMEENNTTSS:: NNEEWWFFIIEELLDDWWOORRKK AATT AAVVEEBBUURRYY

Avebury’s great Neolithic and early Bronze Agemonuments have attracted considerable academicand public attention, but the wider social worlds ofroutine, subsistence and dwelling within which theywere created are by comparison poorly understood.Visitors to Avebury often ask ‘where did people livewhen the monuments were built?’ and ‘how did theylive?’ These have not been easy questions to answer.The scale and endurance of monumentalconstructions contrast markedly with the ephemeralcharacter of the record of everyday activity, and forthis reason archaeological narratives of social lifeduring these periods have often been crafted aroundthe ‘goings on’ at highly visible monuments.

Surface collection of lithic artefacts has now becomea well-established methodology for locating areas ofNeolithic and earlier Bronze Age settlement and stoneworking, but the Avebury region has not been subjectto the concerted programmes of extensive surfacecollection that have taken place in the environs ofStonehenge or the eastern Dorset Ridgeway, forexample. There have been notable attempts toredress this balance, such as the programmes offieldwalking undertaken by Robin Holgate andJulian Thomas in the late 1980s, by Alasdair Whittleand Ian Dennis on the southern slopes of WindmillHill in 1993, and by the National Trust in advance ofconversion of arable areas to grassland. An ongoingproblem is that the data generated by such work, andby the excavation of features such as stake-holes andpits beneath surface scatters, has often proved verydifficult to interpret – we don’t always know whatthe evidence is telling us. Perhaps this speaks ofunderambitious interpretive strategies and ofexpectations of what the archaeological signature ofresidence during these periods should be? We are,however, learning more, particularly from the recentexcavation of late Neolithic houses at DurringtonWalls, as well as earlier work on those at Trelystanand Upper Ninepence in Powys. One importantinsight from the work at Durrington Walls is that thedigging and filling of artefact-rich pits is closelylinked to the closure or commemoration of housesand, by extension, that pits often mark the locationsof former dwellings (Parker Pearson 2007).

Here we announce a new project under the titleBetween the Monuments that seeks to investigatelandscapes of residence and ecology between thefourth and second millennia BC within the Aveburyregion. The aim is to identify the range of practicesthat constituted routine life in the region during thistime period, their role in shaping social relations, andtheir relationship to monument construction and tonatural constituents of the landscape. Within this, we

wish to better understand the extent, density,character and tempo of human activity in theAvebury landscape during the Neolithic and earlierBronze Age; how residence was enacted in relation to‘natural’ phenomena such as sarsen spreads,woodland, other vegetation regimes, springs, streamsand rivers; and prehistoric architectures that are notmonumental. A key issue is understanding thedynamic social context in which the monuments werebuilt and used, and the recursive relationship betweendwelling/residence and monumentality. Is it the act ofliving within a landscape which creates the conditionsin which monumentality emerges, and how does thepresence of monuments then shape histories ofsettlement? We hope the project will act as a vehiclefor new ways of theorising and interpreting landscapeinhabitation, and environmental andgeomorphological change. The academic imperativecan be found within a series of ongoing debatessurrounding the character of settlement and routinelife during the British Neolithic and early Bronze Age;the Holocene environmental history of thechalklands; human-environment relations in theirbroadest sense; and connections between landscapeinhabitation, memory and monumentality. Theproject will be carried out by a consortium ofindividuals from the Universities of Southampton,Leicester, Birkbeck (University of London) andCambridge, the National Trust, Allen EnvironmentalArchaeology and independent researchers. It willbuild upon the work undertaken by John Evans andAlasdair Whittle on the region’s post-glacialenvironmental history and Neolithic archaeology,and on that of the Longstones Project andStonehenge Riverside Project, while also working intandem with the Avebury component of the Stones ofStonehenge Project led by Mike Parker Pearson.

Even setting aside for one moment the incrediblemegalithic, earthwork and timber monuments of theAvebury henge, its avenues, numerous long andround barrows, Windmill Hill, Silbury Hill, theSanctuary and the West Kennet Palisades, the regionis remarkable because of the diversity and richness ofits Neolithic and Bronze Age archaeology. One cannote the presence of conventional settlement-relatedlithic scatters, flint procurement sites, buriedsoils/colluvial sequences with in situ deposits ofartefactual material, potential megalith quarry sites,midden deposits, pit clusters, ceramic-dominatedartefact scatters, flat graves, early ard cultivation andriverside depositions. Calcareous soils and colluvialand alluvial sequences within the region provideconsiderable potential for high-resolutionenvironmental reconstruction, while the regularpreservation of animal and human bone allows directinsight into subsistence strategies, burial anddepositional practices and, via isotopic analysis,information on diet and lifetime movement. In termsof the questions being asked by the project, the

10 PAST

quality of evidence and research potential is here asgood as anywhere in southern Britain.

Our lead into the project was provided by experienceof previous fieldwork in the region, and a growingawareness of the potential provided by re-analysis ofcollections held in the Alexander Keiller Museum atAvebury. In 2007, a short season of test-pitting andexcavation was undertaken as a student trainingproject in the field known as Rough Leazeimmediately to the east of the Avebury henge. Thisrevealed scatters of worked flint that includedmaterial of possible late Mesolithic and certain earlyNeolithic to early Bronze Age date, a series of earlyHolocene tree-throw pits, and one location withconcentrations of both lithics and stake-holes thatlikely represent the traces of middle/late Neolithicdwellings. The tree-throw pits might normally bewritten off as of little archaeological significance, yetthe hollow formed by one was utilised perhaps as thebase for a shelter during the middle Neolithic, whilea second had a post-hole cut into the primary fills andan aurochs humerus deposited within it. Molluscafrom the tree-throw fills provide important details onvegetation sequences that add to the debatesurrounding the character of early Holocenewoodland on the chalklands. Immediately south ofRough Leaze, and previously reported in PAST 63,augering at the foot of the Avebury henge bankrevealed compacted chalk marl surfaces buried under

colluvium. Could these be Neolithic house floorssimilar to those known from Durrington Walls?Further work as part of the Between the Monumentsproject will tell.

Joshua Pollard, Mike Allen, Rosamund Cleal, CharlyFrench, Julie Gardiner, Mark Gillings, LesleyMcFadyen, Nick Snashall

HHAANNDDSS AACCRROOSSSS TTHHEEWWAATTEERR:: TTHHEEAARRCCHHAAEEOOLLOOGGYY OOFF TTHHEE CCRROOSSSS--CCHHAANNNNEELLNNEEOOLLIITTHHIICC

Over a hundred delegates gathered in Bournemouthin May of this year for Hands Across the Water, aconference jointly hosted by the Prehistoric Societyand Bournemouth University in association with theNeolithic Studies Group and the SociétéPréhistorique Française.

The theme was cross-Channel interaction in theNeolithic period and the meeting provided anopportunity to hear the presentation of newinformation from scholars on both sides of theChannel. After a convivial wine reception, whendelegates had a chance to chat to colleagues andfriends from both sides of la Manche, PrehistoricSociety President Dr Alison Sheridan set the scenewith a superbly illustrated tour de force during whichshe reviewed four different models for theneolithisation of Britain, all of which were defendedthroughout the weekend. The first model Alisonidentified was that of ‘indigenous hunter-fisher-foragers as prime movers for change, selectivelyadopting domesticates and elements from theContinent’ (as promoted most vigorously by JulianThomas); second was the model of colonisers arrivingin southeast England and spreading northwards andwestwards from there resulting in acculturation byindigenous groups (advocated by Alasdair Whittle etal.); third was Collard et al.’s model (based on the useof radiocarbon dates as proxies for population sizeand density) of colonisers arriving in southernEngland and spreading from there; and last but notleast the President’s own model of a multi-strandprocess, with the prime movers for change beingsmall farming groups from different parts of Francewho arrived in different parts of Britain and Irelandat different times between c.4300 and c.3800 BC fordifferent reasons and with different outcomes(including acculturation in most cases). We certainlyhad a lot to think about as we left the venue for the‘conference pub’!

PAST 11

Excavation at Rough Leaze, 2007. Note the build up of colluvium against the Avebury henge bank and the early

Holocene tree-throw pit sealed beneath it

12 PAST

On Saturday morning we were addressed by Frenchcolleagues who set the scene on their side of theChannel starting with Serge Cassen from theUniversity of Nantes who gave a superb overview ofhis work on the megaliths of Brittany and beyond.Michel Phillippe then told us of his detailed work inthe Canche Estuary directly opposite the ‘White Cliffsof Dover’ and delighted colleagues by bringing withhim a pottery vessel from his excavations which hewas hoping someone would identify or draw parallelsto. Along with the usual tempting array of books ondisplay for browsing and purchase, this pot was thestar attraction in the exhibition room. Severalexcellent posters were also on display covering topicsfrom house types, ceramic sequences andenvironmental records.

Other papers on Saturday included Emmanuel Mens,who argued that stone circle and standing stonebuilders deliberately chose the smooth faces of therock to face inwards, and Françoise Bostyn whodiscussed the amazing number of flint mines knownfrom northern France and outlined her recentresearch on them. The afternoon session reminded usof the vast amount of material culture that surviveson both sides of the Channel. We were treated to anoverview of carinated bowls in southern Britain byAlistair Barclay, a well-illustrated and thought-provoking paper by Ann and Peter Woodward on thefunction and patterning of some of the ceramicmaterial and an overview by French colleagues CyrilMarcigny and Emmamuel Ghesquière - ablydelivered by Lesley McFadyen - of pottery andartefact series for northern France and the ChannelIslands. This was followed by an in-depth look at theenvironmental work that has been carried out inIreland as part of the INSTAR Cultivating Societiesproject. The quality of the results from this work waswonderful to witness. On Saturday evening, therewere further convivialities as the launch of the StoneAxe Studies 3 volume by Vin Davis and MarkEdmonds was celebrated - a fitting end to a day oftruly brilliant and thought-provoking papers.

On Sunday, we were made to think about theviability of early populations with farming skills bySteve Shennan, followed by a defence of his model ofneolithisation by Alisdair Whittle with some goodhumoured heckling from the sides. A synthesis ofrecent isotopic work and related radiocarbon datingwas then presented by Rick Schulting who alsoreminded us that the ‘water’ had not always beenseparating Britain and France. The theme of islandswas addressed by Chris Scarre who presented thework he is carrying out on Herm, one of the ChannelIslands, and reminded us of the differing models ofisland archaeology - are they special places or simplymicrocosms of the mainlands they are closest to?Fraser Sturt then summarised the recent work that heand Duncan Garrow have been carrying out on

Guernsey, and provided a brilliant synopsis of thepossibilities for actually getting physically across theChannel following tides and currents. Finally, TimDarvill rounded up the proceedings by summarisingthe milestones in British Neolithic studies from thetime of Gordon Childe and Stuart Piggott. Hesuggested that perhaps we are too focussed on theorigins of the Neolithic and all that entails and thatwe should rather be examining further what happensin the various regions at different times.

This was an excellent conference and a real treat fordelegates who had equal measures of ‘ententecordiale’ and ‘vive la difference!’. A final special wordmust go to the happy band of student helpers whokept everything running like clockwork. Magnifique!

Heather Sebire

AACCTTIIOONNSS IINN TTIIMMEE:: AAFFTTEERRTTHHEE BBRREEAAKKAAGGEE OOFFPPOOTTTTEERRYY AANNDD BBEEFFOORREETTHHEE CCOONNSSTTRRUUCCTTIIOONN OOFF WWAALLLLSS AATT CCAASSTTEELLOOVVEELLHHOO IINN TTHHEE AALLTTOODDOOUURROO OOFF PPOORRTTUUGGAALL

Castelo Velho is a prehistoric walled enclosuresituated in the Alto Douro of Portugal (parish ofFreixo de Numão, county of Vila Nova de Foz Côa).The site is located on the spur of a hill, with aspectacular view of the surrounding landscape. Themonument comprises a series of subcircularstructures and wall footings made out of schist thatonce had clay superstructures. The main enclosurewall, with multiple entranceways, is elliptical inshape and contains an inner tower. The base of thetower is formed from a large natural outcrop of schistthat is interdigitated with stretches of coursedwalling. The construction dates from the beginning ofthe third millennium BC (Middle Chalcolithic) to1300 BC (Middle Bronze Age). However, this is avery simple and static description of a buildingproject that consists of a series of makings andummakings, cuttings and blockings, with differentdurations and scales of change and alteration. SusanaOliveira Jorge (University of Porto) directed theexcavation and subsequent post-excavation research.The final results of this work are being prepared fora monograph that is to be published next year inPortuguese and English.

There is an interesting history of ideas associatedwith this type of site in Portugal. Traditionally, anenclosure like this is defined by its walls as a ‘fortifiedsettlement’, and attention drawn to its ‘bastions’ and‘barbicans’ and central tower or ‘citadel’. These kindsof site are found throughout the Iberian Peninsula

and southern France, with the most famous inPortugal located in the Estremadura (e.g. Vila Novade São Pedro, Zambujal and Leceia). S. O. Jorge haspointed out that despite intensive programmes ofexcavation at many sites, the evidence is usuallytaken to support a colonial model, with enclosurewalls interpreted as ‘fortifications’ (see her paper inJournal of Iberian Archaeology, 1999). However, sheargues that this theory is circular, unverifiable beyonditself. Interestingly, in Britain, Alasdair Whittle andRobert Chapman have also shown interest in analternative take.

In a series of articles (many of which are published in English and available online: seehttp://architectures.home.sapo.pt), S. O. Jorge hasdeconstructed the totalising argument for fortifiedsettlements and looked in detail at the practices that

were carried out at the site of Castelo Velho. She hassuggested that there were ritual activities andstructured depositional practices including a ritualstructure with human bone, and she argues that it ismore effective to think of the site as a monumentalenclosure or, since fragments of walling seem tocontinue down the hill slope and are not bound to thepromontory, as a monumentalised hill.

There are several studies that consider in detail howmaterial culture and architecture relate to oneanother at Castelo Velho (e.g. S. O. Jorge et al. inPortugalia, 1998; and the 2003 Masters dissertationsby Lídia Baptista, Sérgio Gomes and Maria de LurdesOliveira of the University of Porto). Their research isat the scale of materials, and investigates the detailand dynamic of deposition in the past. These authorshave demonstrated that the processes by which thingswere assembled together also carried with them anarchitectural quality. For the last two years, I havebeen studying the fragmentation of the pottery fromthe site, and how this relates to the excavatedcontexts in time. My focus is on the pre- and post-breakage histories of the pottery: what happened tothe pottery prior to deposition. This gets at otherkinds of practice, other times, and it takes us intoother spaces. So this is a study of something beforewalls, and something before the moment ofdeposition. It is inspired by the research of twopottery specialists who work on British prehistoricmaterial: Mark Knight (see Garrow et al. inProceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 2005) andMatthew Brudenell (see Brudenell and Cooper inOxford Journal of Archaeology, 2008).

PAST 13

Aerial photograph of the walled enclosure of Castelo Velho

Distribution of small (A), medium (B) and large (C) sherds across four main contexts

There were no complete vessels recovered fromCastelo Velho, and this is important. From aninvestigation of the overall percentage of small,medium and large sherds in each pottery assemblage,it is evident that medium-sized sherds dominatedseveral of the excavated contexts. In the graph shownhere, the first three contexts produced a consistentlylarger proportion of medium-sized sherds, and this,along with the homogenous character of the potteryand the greater number of refits, suggests animmediacy to their deposition, but not a directrelationship.

From the feature with human bone (identified by S.O. Jorge as a ritual structure), the assemblageincluded fineware bowls with fingernail decoration,coarseware vessels with applied bosses and punctatedecoration, and possibly a higher percentage ofsherds with a burnished finish (this included lightfluting or even grooved decoration). Perhaps thisassemblage included less ‘familiar’ forms. However,the predominant sherds were plain body pieces andthe assemblage included multiple refits. 18-20 vesselswere recognisable from within the assemblage.Several refitting sherds were recovered from outsideof the structure, and these connections across the sitewere made during the use of the structure because thefeature was sealed with a stone capping soon after ithad been used.

Rather than thinking in traditional terms about astructure and its subsequent use, instead I use mypottery work to turn things around and think aboutthe building project as a series of activities thatemerge out of the rhythm and tempo of occupation.This is where the large proportion of medium-sizedsherds, and the non-complete nature of the vessels,really comes into play because there was no evidencefor a direct connection between breakage anddeposition; there is a crucial absence of large-sizedpieces and near-complete refits. There was asubstantial proportion of small sherds withweathered and abraded edges that are evidence for

14 PAST

The stone structure containing the deposit of human bone (H)

Close-up detail of the deposit of human bone

other practices post-breakage and pre-deposition, butthese did not dominate the assemblage. People wereliving in and around broken things before theyentered this structure, prior to deposition, but thiswas not a simple matter of residuality: therelationship was more direct than that. Instead, it isthe tempo of occupation, the daily practice of livingwith things (many in a broken state), which createdthe conditions for the structure with human bone.Maybe it is precisely because activities were producedout of occupation that the feature was constructed ina part-open shape, and this may be why refittingpieces of pottery could be identified at the larger scaleof the site. The analysis of the patterns offragmentation of pottery demonstrated thatoccupation, the playing out of time, was a part of thebuilding project.

This may seem a little strange compared to the way inwhich we normally conceptualise a building project,be it one in the past or present. However, as anexample of a different take on the making of things,the Italian architect Aldo Rossi took polaroidphotographs his whole life. The polaroid wasimportant because it captured instantaneous bits andpieces of life, but it was the practice that wasimportant to him, not any one polaroid. Rossi tookand collected such images, over and over again, andthis took time: these were actions in time. What isimportant to us, as prehistorians, is that his creativeprocess depended on that accumulation, and livingamongst the fragments of that accumulation. That iswhy he talked about his architecture as things thathad already been seen. It was a creativity thatreverberated between memory and invention, andwas not simply located in an idea and an object.

These are exciting times in the history of ideas ofprehistoric walled enclosures. And this workcontinues with the research of Ana Vale (University ofPorto), who is working on the fragmentation of thepottery from the nearby site of Castanheiro do Vento.

Lesley K. McFadyen, University of Porto (funded bythe Foundation of Science and Technology, Portugal)

TTHHEE RROOCCKK AARRTT OOFF TTHHEEVVAALLLLTTOORRTTAA GGOORRGGEE::FFIIGGUURRIINNGG TTHHEELLAANNDDSSCCAAPPEE

In August 2010, thanks to a Prehistoric Societyresearch grant, I spent some days in the Valltortagorge in Valencia, visiting its rock art sites. The aimof my visit was to acquire first-hand knowledge ofthe sites in the area in order to analyse thedistribution of motifs along the canyon. Twenty-tworock art sites have so far been published over a 6km-long stretch of the gorge. Their dating is still a

matter of fierce debate, with some favouring aMesolithic and a majority a Neolithic chronology. Inrecent years, a relative chronology of SpanishLevantine anthropomorphic motifs has beenproposed. Six types have been established: an earlierCentelles type substituted at a later date by fourintermediary types, the Tolls, Civil, Mas d’en Josepand Cingle types, and a final phase characterised bythe presence of linear human motifs. Theclassification provides a chronological frameworkfor a similar typology devised almost a century agowhich comprises the following classes of motif:‘pachypod’ (roughly Centelles), ‘nematomorphic’(Linear) and ‘cestosomatic’ (the remaining types).Unfortunately, at present it seems impossible tocorrelate chronologically human and animal types,although it is known that at one site at least(Cavalls), there is evidence of an earlier period inwhich animal as well as some schematic motifs wererendered before the first anthropomorphs made anappearance.

It is remarkable to observe that in the whole of thegorge most anthropomorphs represent adults.Women are distinctive mainly because of thepresence of breasts and/or skirts and because theyare never running or even walking and never holdhunting gear. In contrast, there is a completecorrespondence between anthropomorphs with apenis and hunting gear. The body proportions ofsexed men are clearly different to those of women.Using this difference as a basis, one can infer thathunters represent men and, given the importance ofthis theme, that the great majority of figuresrepresented in Valltorta are male. Interestingly, astudy of the gender of the anthropomorphic motifsindicates that most women are of Centelles style andtherefore belong to the earliest phases of Valltorta rock art. Most female representations seem to belocated in the southeast half of the gorge, a locationthat, as we will see, is repeated in other types offigures.

PAST 15

View of a section of the Valltorta gorge from the hills above (photo by author).

16 PAST

The animal species represented at Valltorta are notdissimilar to those found elsewhere in the Levantinerock art area. Deer are the most frequent animaldepicted, followed by goats and cattle. For thesethree species, although the whole body is usuallydepicted, on some occasions synecdoches are used -a part, the head, represents the whole. In contrast,other species such as wild boar, insects and birds arerare. Regarding the latter, a similar distinction tothat observed in the case of female representationscan be made: whereas birds or insects are depicted ascrosses in the northwest area, in the southeast theyare represented as arrows. This distinction betweenthe two halves of the gorge is reinforced by lookingagain at anthropomorphs. The presence of the Tollstype only in the northwestern half of the gorge andof the Cingle type only in the southeast half mayindicate that artists were not able to paint all overthe area, but may have been restricted with respectto where they could undertake their work.

Several conclusions result from plotting human andanimal motifs onto a map of the Valltorta gorge. Thepresence/absence of anthropomorphs indicates thatthe same portions of the gorge were decorated overtime, for there are types representing the three majorperiods in all parts of the gorge. Yet, not all sites hadthe same relevance; the number of types in each siteindicates that the gorge was an uneven space withsome sites heavily inscribed and others less so. Thisis not the first time that this has been noted. CruzBerrocal already observed this, but included theCovetes del Puntal among the most profuselydecorated sites in the gorge, which does not seem tobe the case. From published literature and my ownobservations, I would propose that there are threesites in which memories were repeatedly inscribed

throughout time: Saltadora, Cavalls and Civil. Theycontain anthropomorphs of all (Cavalls) or many(Saltadora and Civil) styles. Moreover, these threesites were those chosen to depict the highest numberof motifs and scenes. Interestingly, the location ofthese three mega-rock art sites was non-random:memories were inscribed at the entrance, in themiddle and at the exit of the Valltorta gorge. Cavallsis the key rock art site in Valltorta. It is located in thecentre of the gorge, it has more human typesrepresented in it than any other site, it displays themost spectacular hunting scene, as well as uniquemotifs such as a baby deer and, remarkably, has themost amazing entrance through a stunning cut in therock.

There are many other issues observed in the art ofValltorta that are currently work-in-progress andwill be the focus of a future research paper.

AcknowledgementsI would like to thank the following for their help: thedirector of the Museum of La Valltorta, GuillermoMorote, Ramón Viñas (IPHES, University ofTarragona), Francesc Bellmunt Gil and Daniel deCruz Gómez.

Margarita Díaz-Andreu. Durham University.

Entrance to the Cavalls site (photo by author).

Hunting scene. Cavalls site, as ideally reconstructed in 1919