
| ISSN 1357-4442 | Editor: Simon Denison |
|---|
| FEATURES |
Kenneth Brophy tries to make sense of some of
Britain's largest and earliest prehistoric monuments
Cursus monuments are among the
most impressive yet mysterious
prehistoric sites in the British Isles.
Their sheer size - gigantic even by today's
standards - exceptionally early date, and
apparently inscrutable function make them
a particularly fascinating subject for study
and speculation.
These long, narrow earthwork structures date from the Neolithic - many from
the early part of the period about 6,000
years ago - and are thus some of the oldest
monumental buildings in the world. They
have been found across the country from
southern England to north-eastern Scotland, and stand beside some of the most
famous archaeological sites in Britain and
Ireland, such as Stonehenge, Newgrange,
and in Argyll's celebrated Kilmartin valley.
Cursus monuments are essentially very
long and relatively narrow rectangular enclosures, with a near continuous boundary
of an interior bank and an exterior ditch.
The only breaks in this boundary are the
`causeways', or possible entrances. The
ends of a cursus are either squared-off or
rounded. In Scotland, about half the
known sites (which now number over 50)
have a boundary of pits or post-holes
which held large upright timbers, rather
than earthwork perimeters. A few sites
have a single mound running along their
centre, rather like a bank barrow.
Size is perhaps their most amazing characteristic. Many cursuses are several
kilometres long, while the largest known,
the Dorset Cursus on Cranborne Chase,
Dorset, is over 10km in length, and over
100m wide. Most are visible only as crop-marks, but there are exceptions, like the
Cleaven Dyke near Blairgowrie in
Perthshire, with 1.8km of its central
mound still standing relatively intact. This
`dyke' is one of the most awe-inspiring
surviving relics of Neolithic monumentality left to us today.
Several cursus sites have been excavated,
but these excavations have usually produced a frustrating lack of artefacts or
internal features. Dating evidence, which
points to the early Neolithic, has been
derived largely from the relationship of
cursuses to other monuments. Many are
located close to other Neolithic monuments, while some have later Neolithic
henges built on top, for example at Dorchester-on-Thames in Oxfordshire and at
Thornborough in North Yorkshire. Springfield Cursus, Essex, had a timber circle built
within one of its terminal areas, and a
timber circle was built over the terminal of
a pit-defined cursus at Upper Largie in the
Kilmartin Valley. Long barrows seem to
have been built close to some cursus sites,
such as the Dorset Cursus, the Stonehenge
Cursus and the Cleaven Dyke.
But what were cursus monuments
for? Initially, they were regarded by
antiquaries such as Stukeley as Roman circuses or race-courses. However, by
the middle of this century Neolithic ritual
explanations had taken root. Theories have
varied around the theme of ritual processions (first suggested by Richard Atkinson
in 1955), although there have been other
ideas. These range from pathways linking a
series of events in the night sky, and representations of snakes, to enclosures marking
the pathways of prehistoric tornadoes!
In general, however, most ideas have
developed the processional theory. Recently, some archaeologists have suggested
that only certain people may have been
allowed in the cursus to take part in such
rituals, and that these sites may have represented planned-out pathways joining
natural and ancestral places together to
form a ritual experience.
One researcher who has tried to take
these ideas further is Chris Tilley. In his
1994 book The Phenomenology of Landscape, he described a walk along the Dorset cursus,
in which he took note of the changes in the
landscape along the cursus, the other archaeological sites he came across, and what
he could and coudn't see on the horizon at
certain points of his journey. Tilley suggested that the cursus was used as a mysterious, exciting and frightening place for
rites of passage ceremonies for young men.
In my own research in Scotland, I also
decided to walk along some cursus sites,
and to try to imagine what the cursus might
have looked like when first built, and what
it could have felt like to walk within the
newly-built enclosure. The Cleaven Dyke,
Perthshire, would have stood in a landscape which was fairly flat and had been
mostly cleared of trees. New sections were
added every now and again to the long
central mound and ditches to increase their
length.
Walking along beside the 6ft high
mound, I could see the low hill on which
the cursus ended. The wide ditch on my
right-hand side and the mound on my left
encouraged me to look, and walk, straight
ahead. I could not see what was on the
other side of the mound - but I could hear
everything going on over there.
As I got closer to the end, the land
beside the ditch began to rise up in a long
natural spur, until I could see nothing on
either side because of the mound and spur.
It even became hard to tell which feature
was natural and which artificial. Then I
reached the hill-top and the end of the
bank, and the view ahead stretched down
to the River Isla ahead, and the mountains
beyond.
To walk along a cursus in this way may
well have been a rare experience for Neolithic people, and perhaps some were never
allowed in this strange enclosure, which
had been extended again and again by the
ancestors. It could perhaps have been a
mysterious experience, where the outside
world was blocked out to one side, or even
both. These enclosures leave you with the
impression of being in a special place,
removed from the world.
Just as cursus monuments were special or
sacred places, some natural features such
as hill-tops, boulders, and woodland
clearances may also have been special.
On this page last month, David Field
described the proximity of many Bronze
Age barrows to water (`Bury the dead in a
sacred landscape', April); and many of my
walks along cursus sites also seem to end up
looking over rivers and valleys, just like at
the Cleaven Dyke.
Across Britain, there seems to be a close
connection between cursus monuments
and streams and rivers. The majority lie on
flood-plains or river-terraces, close to the
river. The Dorset Cursus and the Eskdalemuir bank barrow in Dumfries and
Galloway are amongst several possible cursuses which cross, or are crossed by, rivers.
Some sites are completely surrounded by
waterways, like Maxey Cursus in Cambridgeshire. Old Montrose Cursus in Angus sits on a raised area of a valley floor
which, in the event of flooding, could
become an island. Other sites may have
had seasonally flooded ditches, creating a
powerful visual image when sunlight reflected off watery ditches stretching across
the landscape.
Rivers are both life-giving and dangerous places. They provide water, and food,
and a means of transport; they also drown,
and flood. The effect of a flood can be
double-sided, destroying crops, but leaving
nutrient-rich soils behind when the waters
subside. I would suggest that cursus monuments were perhaps built as a response to
this paradox of nature.
Worries about fertility, about life and
death, about the continuation of their society, could have been concentrated in
these special enclosures which, in some
regards, so mirror rivers. Maybe Neolithic
people saw the cursus as a type of river
under their control, not under nature's; as
a place in which they could cleanse themselves of their existential worries through
rituals, and allow themselves to return to
their everyday lives with more confidence
in the future.
Kenneth Brophy is the aerial photographic
liaison officer with the Scottish Royal Commission (RCAHMS). He contributed to The
Cleaven Dyke and Littleour, by GJ Barclay
and GS Maxwell, which was published recently
by the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, and is
available from Oxbow Books (£28.00)
Return to Table of Contents | Return to CBA Homepage
Paganism may have survived for centuries after the
arrival of Christianity, says Paul Blinkhorn
The spread of Christianity has long
been a favourite subject within Anglo-Saxon research. Cemeteries
have been excavated and mapped, with
grave-goods and the orientation of burials
minutely studied, to produce an image of
the seemingly inexorable progress of the
new religion across the land from the 7th
century AD.
The survival of paganism, however, has
received far less attention. This is odd,
because the historical literature makes it
clear that paganism continued to flourish in
Saxon-controlled areas throughout the 7th,
8th and even 9th centuries. Now, in a new
development, 7th-8th century pottery is
beginning to be recognised in eastern England that may have been designed
specifically for use in pagan ceremonies.
The evidence perhaps suggests a greater de
facto tolerance of paganism in this period
than is suggested by church pronouncements alone, or by a literal reading of
historians such as Bede.
The early church certainly went to some
lengths to absorb paganism into its own
ceremonies, as if in recognition of the
strength of popular feeling. Bede, in his
Ecclesiastical History, quotes Pope Gregory's
letter to Abbott Mellitus, an envoy sent to
join Augustine in England in AD601, in
which the pope demanded that altars were
set up in pagan shrines, and pagan sacrifices
and feasts replaced by Christian festivals.
Many scholars regard Christmas as one
example of replacement, seeing it as perhaps a memory of an earlier winter-solstice
celebration.
We also know from Bede that idols
continued to be destroyed in Kent decades
after the conversion of Aethelbert at the
beginning of the 7th century. Moreover,
the traditional robes of the Christian cleric
may reflect an adoption of the costume of
pagan priests, according to archaeologist
Tim Taylor in his book, The Prehistory of
Sex. They, according to Tacitus, dressed as
women - at least in Germany.
This strategy of conversion by stealth
cannot have been entirely successful, because the church later turned to the use of
law - and force - to stamp out pagan survivals. The later 7th century Penitentials of
Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury,
proscribed practices including `sacrificing
to devils', augury, eating food offered as
sacrifice and burning grain for the wellbeing of the dead. Interestingly, burnt grain
is occasionally found in pagan Anglo-Saxon graves - for example in the
cemetery at Portway in Hampshire. The
Penitentials also required heathens to be
baptised, and existing pagan marriages to
be solemnised by a Christian ceremony.
Penalties were listed for Christian clerics
who performed pagan divinations.
Documents continue to indicate the
survival of paganism in the 8th century. In
AD747, one of the canons of the Synod of
Clovesho - an unknown location somewhere in England - stated that every bishop
should go round his diocese each year and
forbid pagan practices such as divination,
soothsaying, and the use of augury, omens,
amulets, and spells. As late as AD786, papal
legates admonished the English for dressing
`in heathen fashion' and slitting their
horse's nostrils in the pagan manner. Laws
proscribing pagan practice were still being
introduced in the 9th century, under Alfred,
and again in the 10th.
If paganism survived, it ought to be
possible to find some traces of it in the
archaeological record. Personal possessions were used to signal social and cultural
affiliation, and the archaeologist Julian
Richards's work on pagan Anglo-Saxon
cremation urns in eastern and central England has shown that the stamped and
incised designs, and the size and shape of
the pots themselves, may have reflected the
age, gender, social status, and, in some
cases, religious affiliation of the deceased.
T-runes, for example, may indicate the god
Tiw, and swastica-runes the god Thor.
Other objects, such as brooches, transmitted similar information.
The practise of stamping and incising
pottery was mainly used on cremation
urns, and when cremation fell from use
from the early 7th century, the decoration
of pottery virtually ceased. There was,
however, one exception: Ipswich Ware.
This type of pottery first came into production in Ipswich around AD720 using
stamped and incised decoration. Overtly
pagan designs such as swastikas or runes
were not used, but there is one Ipswich
Ware vessel decorated with stamped face-masks.
The face-mask - a stamped representation of the human face - is commonly
found on objects of the pagan period. It has
been suggested that it was a symbol of
Anglo-Saxon identity, and may represent
one of the pagan gods. The symbols are
known on cremation urns from both England and the continent, and on coins,
drinking cups, brooches and buckets. The
Sutton Hoo helmet has been thought to be
a ceremonical mask, an indicator of the
Saxon king's mythological descent from
the gods; while face-mask decorations are
also found on the Sutton Hoo ceremonial
whetstone sceptre.
The Ipswich potters used a limited suite
of stamp arrangements, including pendant
triangles, the staple decorative arrangement
of 6th century cremation urns in East Anglia. Pendant triangles do not appear solely
on pots. The silver-gilt mounts of the
Sutton Hoo drinking cups and the rimbands of some drinking horns are hung
with pendant triangles, as were many
buckets. Thus, the only objects apart from
pots which had pendant triangle decoration
were containers for liquids or food - but
not all containers for food were marked
with pendant triangles.
Since the eating of food offered as sacrifice was proscribed by the church, are we
looking at vessels that were specially
marked for use in pagan ceremonies?
Certainly, there is good reason to suspect that drinking horns were intrinsically
pagan objects. The papal legates of AD786
condemned the use of horn for communion chalices and patens, and it is likely that
goats were venerated by the pagan Anglo-Saxons. A burial at Yeavering in
Northumbria, thought to be of a pagan
priest, contained a metal staff which terminates in what appears to be a stylised goat,
and the remains of a goat's skull were found
at the foot of the grave.
Yeavering, the most important royal
and ceremonial centre in the north of
England in the 6th century, had the Saxon
name of Ad-Gefrin, the Hill of the Goats.
The Christian portrayal of the anti-Christ
was often a goat-like figure with cloven
hooves and horns. This is traditionally explained as being a memory of the classical
god Pan; but a reflection of a Saxon veneration of goats is perhaps a more likely
explanation.
Intriguingly, images of goats are rarely
found on pagan Anglo-Saxon objects.
Does this mean that they were taboo, and
only priests, such as the possible example at
Yeavering, were allowed them, perhaps as
a badge of office? We know from Bede that
pagan priests were affected by taboos. For
example, they were not allowed to carry
weapons (there are no weapons in the
Yeavering burial) and could only ride
mares, not stallions. Depictions of goats
remain unknown throughout the 8th and
9th centuries, suggesting that, like swastikas
and runes, their potency survived.
Ipswich, one of the most important
towns in 8th century England, may
then have been a centre of pagan survival. We have as yet no positive evidence
for a church in Ipswich in the 8th century
(unlike, say, at Southampton and London), and objects with Christian symbols
are unknown - although a number have
been found at Brandon, some 16 miles to
the north-east. The only burial in Ipswich
containing grave-goods with cross motifs is
from Boss Hall, about a mile outside the
Saxon town. The cemetery, recently excavated by the Suffolk Archaeological Unit,
appears to have been disused for about 100
years when the deceased was interred in the
early 8th century.
So why, at a time when the historical
record suggests that churchmen were beginning to counter pagan practices, were
Ipswich potters allowed to continue making `pagan pots'? The answer may be that
Christian power-holders turned a blind eye
for the sake of trade. Ipswich was the main
redistribution centre for imported goods
on the east coast of England; and while the
two other major ports of southern England,
London and Southampton, were mainly
supplied by Frankish merchants, who were
Christian, Ipswich is likely to have been
mainly supplied by Frisians, who were, by
and large, pagan. Thus, a clamp-down on
paganism in Ipswich may have affected
trade.
The evidence for the extent of the
survival of paganism is tentative and inconclusive; but it is likely that we have
traditionally overestimated the impact of
Christianity on most people for the first
two centuries after St Augustine's arrival.
Paganism did not go down without a struggle; we might almost say that, with the
church's adoption of many of its festivals
and practices, it never died at all.
Paul Blinkhorn is an independent specialist in
ceramics
Return to Table of Contents | Return to CBA Homepage
`Cavemen' lived in Britain as recently as this century. Chris Tolan-Smith reports
In popular culture, cave-dwelling is a
defining symbol of `stone age' life, and
many people use the term `caveman' as
a catch-all phrase - like `Neanderthal' - to
denote brutish, uncivilised behaviour that
belongs in the distant past.
Certainly, for most people, the thought
of spending more than a few moments in a
dark, dank cavern is appalling. Even archaeologists who dig in caves usually feel a
palpable sense of relief when they emerge
into the sunlight.
However, people have used caves for
habitation, storage, burial and ritual throughout most of human history, in most regions
where such natural shelters are found. The
practice of cave-dwelling in fact continues
in some regions to the present day, and in
the British Isles to within living memory.
One better-known example of a pair of
recent cave-dwellers is Joe and Jeannie
Wilson of Camusfearna in western Scotland, whose lifestyle was affectionately
described by Gavin Maxwell in Ring of
Bright Water, a book written only some 40
years ago.
When I began my archaeological fieldwork in the caves of western Scotland in
1985 I was struck by the fact that many
showed clear signs of having been used in
the recent past. It struck me that a better
understanding of this could help me to a
clearer picture of how the same sites were
used in more remote times. After all,
weren't the people involved essentially
similar to us, in their need for shelter,
warmth, light and space in which to move
or lie down? This led me into collaboration
with Roger Leitch, an ethnographer based
in the School of Scottish Studies at Edinburgh University who had been
independently studying the use of temporary dwellings.
Scotland has a rich ethnohistorical record of cave dwelling. Sources range from
myths, legends and traditions to official
government statistics and reports. The more
colourful legends include Sawney Bean,
whose legendary cave-dwelling family
lived a few hundred years ago by attacking
travellers and then eating them; or Robert
the Bruce and his study of spiders; or
various caves in which Bonnie Prince
Charlie is supposed to have sheltered.
It is the government reports, however,
that generally provide the more fascinating
information. The Census Returns for
1881, for example, record that the Keil
Cave in Kintyre, a site also occupied in the
Roman period, was at the time the home
of John McFee, aged 22, a tinsmith, Margaret his wife, aged 21, and their
one-year-old son Andrew. They shared the
cave with John's cousin Alex McCallum,
aged 45, a basket-maker, Mary his wife and
Bella their daughter.
After a visit to the Tinker's Cave at
Wick in 1866 Dr (later Sir) Arthur
Mitchell, one of the founding fathers of
Scottish ethnography, recorded that there
were 24 `inmates' in residence, comprising
four families and their `numerous and
vicious dogs'.
Oral tradition is another important
source and the School of Scottish Studies
has a number of tape recordings with cave
dwellers and people who knew them.
The practice formally came to an end in
1915 when, under the provisions of the
Defence of the Realm Act, cave dwelling
was declared strictly prohibited. A warning
was issued by the Chief Constable of Argyll
to persons `dwelling in or using as an
habitual abode caves or hollows along the
shore' - presumably because cave fires
might attract enemy submarines. However, these restrictions were only partly
successful and a 1917 government census of
travelling people recorded 55 individuals
still living in caves.
During the course of my fieldwork
in the mid-1980s several sites
were found to be still in occasional
use, though the regular use of caves as part
of a wider settlement pattern by whole
families did appear to be a thing of the past.
What light does this fascinating body of
material shed on the issue of cave-use?
First, we can gain some insights into the
importance of cave-use in the annual subsistence cycle. Many caves appear to have
been used on a regular but intermittent
basis. Before the widespread advent of
motorised transport, travellers tended to
confine their movements to traditional, or
ancestral areas, and within these areas natural shelters were used on a regular basis,
particular caves becoming associated with
individual families or clans. Caves could
be used at any season, but one firsthand
account refers to their use being a summer
activity, less draughty tents being preferred
in the winter.
Recent cave-dwelling can also suggest
the range of uses to which these natural
shelters were put. These included both
residence and storage. As many travellers
were also itinerant craftsmen, especially
tinsmiths and basket makers, many caves
were workshops as well as homes.
We can also gain some understanding of
the way in which the space available might
have been used. Many sites were rudely
equipped with furniture discarded by
house dwellers, and beds, tables, screens
and windbreaks are commonly cited. Some
caves were walled across from side to side,
perhaps for protection against animals, and
all had hearths. One informant recorded
that a hearth should be near the entrance
but to the right in order to light but not
impede access.
In addition, we can glimpse the kind of
social organisation that developed among
cave users as a way of minimising conflict
over the use of restricted facilities. Some
caves were large enough to accommodate
several families, who in recent times were
usually of the same kin such as McPhees,
McNiells or Williamsons. A leader or cave
`chief' was appointed to enforce compliance with the unwritten code of cave
conduct. Each family had its own hearth
and an analogy with a tenement house is
made more than once.
The habitual use of caves appears to
have been part of the accepted way
of life of travelling people in Scotland down to the early decades of the
present century. For people unburdened
by much in the way of material goods they
were `convenient cavities' to be made use
of as circumstances dictated. But few people occupied caves permanently and most
made use of a range of facilities including
tents. Some even occupied houses on a
short-term basis.
The attitude of non-cave dwellers was
not always entirely condemnatory. A Dr
George Dick is quoted in the Minutes of
Evidence of the 1917 Royal Commission
Report on Housing as commenting that a
cave in Caithness was much cleaner than
any house he had ever seen occupied by
tinkers - a somewhat backhanded compliment perhaps. One cave-dweller, Davy
Hutchinson, who was recorded in 1955,
recalled how he had spent the first few
years of his life in a cave but commented
that some of the caves he had known as a
boy had been `condemned' by the authorities as being too damp for human
occupation - a judgement passed by a
society for whom the concept of cave-dwelling was wholly alien.
Indeed, people who knew Gavin Maxwell's pedlar Joe Wilson, a deserter from
the army, seemed to tolerate his activities
well enough:
To what extent can this model of cave
use in recent centuries be applied to more
remote times?
The cave dwellers we have been able to
study were living at a time when most of
the population was settled. Some informants certainly thought of the caves as the
equivalent to tenements, and to some extent it seems they were trying to reproduce
conditions found in the homes of their
contemporaries.
While I do believe this evidence helps
us understand how caves were used in the
distant past, the pattern of cave-use - not
only who uses caves but also how they are
used - is affected by culture and society at
large. We cannot imagine that caves were used
in just the same way 10,000 years ago as
they were at the start of this century.
Dr Chris Tolan-Smith is a Lecturer in Archaeology at the University of Newcastle. His book,
The Human Use of Caves, edited with Clive
Bonsall, was published by BAR in 1997
(£40.00)
Return to the British Archaeology homepage
© Council for British Archaeology, 1999
Seeing the cursus as a symbolic river
Tolerating pagans for the sake of trade
Turning a cave into home sweet home
The beds on which we found these people
lying, consisted of straw, grass and bracken,
spread upon rock or shingle, and each was
supplied with one or two dirty, ragged blankets
or pieces of matting. Two of the beds were near
the peat fires which were still burning, but
others were further back in the cave where they
were better sheltered.
He used to come round here collecting rabbit
skins, sold onions and things like that. His wife
was called Jean, a big heavy woman who sold
children's clothes, laces, and all these things to
women. Joe used to live in a cave right down
by the shore . . . where they used to hold the
old cattle sales or fairs away back in the early
1900s. It didn't please them so they shifted to a
cave further along the coast . . . He lived there
for years and used to gather whelks when the
tide was suitable. (John MacAskill, born 1900,
recorded in 1982.)