A Taphonomic Approach to the Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 9781407315713, 9781407323213

Citation preview

Rebecca Crozier is a lecturer in the Department of Archaeology, specialising in human osteoarchaeology, at the University of Aberdeen. Geographically diverse, with projects in the UK and the Philippines, her research is focused on the reconstruction and understanding of past mortuary practices through the analysis of human remains.

‘This work forms a major contribution to the prehistoric archaeology of Orkney and will revolutionise interpretation of the funerary practices associated with megalithic tombs here and elsewhere.’ Dr Eileen Murphy, Queen’s University Belfast ‘A completely new interpretation of the mortuary remains using a novel methodological approach. The result is a new and intriguing interpretation of the function of the site. … Makes a substantive and timely contribution to both mortuary archaeology and bioarchaeology in general.’ Prof. Marc Oxenham, Australian National University, Canberra ‘This is an original reanalysis, reworking the material in a very thorough manner. … Crozier’s conclusions are interesting and unexpected.’ Prof. Colin Richards, University of Highlands and Islands

BAR  635  2018   CROZIER   A TAPHONOMIC APPROACH TO THE RE-ANALYSIS OF THE HUMAN REMAINS

Megalithic tombs in Orkney have yielded some of the largest volumes of human remains in Neolithic Britain - a significant resource. However, discrete skeletons are lacking, the researcher often presented with formidable volumes of disarticulated and comingled remains. Themes of transformation, fragmentation and manipulation of the body permeate the literature, conferring on the megalithic structures significance as places of transition. Previously, the inherent complexity of the remains has made them an unattractive proposition for detailed study. However, advances in taphonomic analysis mean techniques now exist for approaching such complex assemblages. A study has now been successfully carried out on the Orcadian remains, uncovering a wealth of new data. This data, presented here, draws attention to subtle variations in funerary ritual between and within the tombs, and pushes for a dramatic reconsideration of our current understanding of the practices and cosmologies associated with these enigmatic structures.

A Taphonomic Approach to the Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Rebecca Crozier

BAR British Series 635 B A R

2018

A Taphonomic Approach to the Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Rebecca Crozier

BAR British Series 635 2018

Published in by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series A Taphonomic Approach to the Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney © Rebecca Crozier Fragmentary human remains from Quanterness. The Author’s moral rights under the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reser ved. No par t of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any for m of digital for mat or transmitted in any for m digitally, without the written per mission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781407315713 paperback ISBN 9781407323213 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407315713 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR titles are available from: BAR Publishing Banbury Rd, Oxford, [email protected] + ( ) + ( ) www.barpublishing.com

,

For Jim and Georgie and Joan and Cecil

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I will always be indebted to my supervisor and mentor, Dr Eileen Murphy. Her invaluable guidance, unwavering support, encouragement and enthusiasm throughout helped to shape a very rewarding research experience. I would also like to extend thanks to my external supervisor, Dr Rick Schulting (Oxford University), whose advice and encouragement was also invaluable. I want to extend sincere thanks to Dr Alison Sheridan of the National Museum, Scotland, for her generosity in allowing access to the assemblages and for her interest in, and support of, my project. I was very fortunate to have had the opportunity to meet the late Anne Brundle, who provided me with access to the collections housed at the Tankerness House Museum, Orkney. A number of people generously gave their time and expertise to assist and guide me with technical details. My photography has benefited greatly from the guidance of Mr Barrie Hartwell, (Queen’s University Belfast). The SEM work was carried out under the supervision and assistance of Mr Stephen McFarland (Queen’s University Belfast). Mr Dave Brown (Queen’s University Belfast) provided access to and assistance with microscopes. I would also like to extend a big thankyou to Rebecca Enlander, for assisting me with maps. Huge thanks must also go to Ms Annie Valera (UP-ASP) for her help with layout and assistance with illustrations. Financial assistance in support of the research came from Queen’s University Belfast, via the Emily Sarah Montgomery Prize in order to travel to an international conference, and from the 75th Anniversary Award, for field research. I want to thank my dear colleague and friend Dave Lawrence - for the many discussions over cups of tea in Orkney. To my fellow doctoral researchers, EK, JC, VG, RE, SB, SM, GH, LC, SJ, TK, LT, KJ, a massive thanks for making it such a positive and memorable experience – the journey is always more enjoyable when you are with the best people. Thanks must also go to Abigail and Frank, for always encouraging me to pursue this path. And to Carl, for his tireless and unending support and belief in me – I couldn’t have done it without you!

CONTENTS

1

List of Figures List of Plates List of Tables Abstract

xi xiv xvi xviii

Introduction 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Aims 1.3 Summary

1 1 1 2

2 Archaeological Background 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Location 2.3 Environment 2.3.1 Modern Climate and Environment 2.3.2 Past Climate and Environment 2.4 Archaeological Background 2.4.1 Mesolithic Scotland 2.4.2 Mesolithic Orkney 2.4.3 A General Chronology of Neolithic Orkney 2.4.4 Settlement and Domestic Sites of Neolithic Orkney 2.4.4.1 Settlement in the Earlier Neolithic 2.4.4.2 Settlement in the Later Neolithic 2.4.5 Megalithic Tombs of Orkney 2.4.5.1 Background 2.4.5.2 Orkney-Cromarty-Type Tombs 2.4.5.3 Maeshowe-Type Tombs 2.4.5.4 Artefacts and Other Structures from the Orcadian Tombs 2.4.5.4a Artefacts 2.4.5.4b Faunal Remains 2.4.5.4c Fire 2.4.5.5 Tomb Distribution and Siting 2.4.5.6 The End of the Tombs? 2.4.6 Ritual Monuments 2.4.7 Art 2.4.8 Interpretations 2.5 Summary

3 3 3 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 8 8 9 10 12 12 12 13 13 13 14 15 15 16

3

17 17 17 17 17 18 19 20 21 21 22 22 22 23 23 24 26

Understanding Death in Neolithic Orkney: Current Themes 3.1 Introduction 3.2 The Significance of Death in the Archaeological Record 3.3 The Treatment of the Dead in Neolithic Orkney 3.3.1 Inhumation, Primary Burial and Direct Interment 3.3.2 Excarnation 3.3.3 Secondary Burial 3.3.4 Manipulation, Curation and Movement 3.3.5 The Use of Fire 3.3.6 A Complex Combination 3.3.7 Non-megalithic Locations 3.4 Ancestors and Individuals – the Symbolism of the Megaliths 3.4.1 Introduction 3.4.2 Critiques of the Ancestor Hypothesis 3.4.3 Ancestors and the Orcadian Megaliths 3.5 Orkney’s Neolithic Funerary Rites in the Wider British and Irish Context 3.6 Conclusion v

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 4 Taphonomy 4.1 Introduction 4.1.1 Chapter Outline 4.1.2 Introduction to Taphonomy 4.2 Decay and Disarticulation of the Body 4.2.1 The Onset of Decay 4.2.2 Putrefaction 4.2.3 Factors Influencing the Rate of Soft Tissue Decay 4.2.4 Rate of Decay for Children 4.2.5 Skeletal Disarticulation and Decay 4.3 Recognising ‘Normal’ Patterns of Preservation 4.4 Traumatic Taphonomic Variables 4.4.1 Fracturing in Bone 4.4.1.1 Compression 4.4.1.2 Tension 4.4.1.3 Twisting or Torsion 4.4.1.4 Bending 4.4.1.5 Shearing 4.4.2 Peri-mortem or Post-mortem? The Relative Timing of Fractures 4.4.3 The Intentional Modification of Human Remains 4.4.3.1 Cut Marks 4.4.3.2 Scrape Marks 4.4.3.3 Chop Marks 4.4.3.4 Percussion Pits 4.4.3.5 Trepanation 4.4.3.6 Interpersonal Violence 4.5 The Effects of Burning 4.5.1 Colour Change Due to Thermal Application 4.5.2 Thermal Fragmentation 4.5.3 Surficial Patterning 4.6 Animal Modification 4.7 Water as a Taphonomic Agent 4.8 Weathering 4.9 Insects 4.10 Bone Colour 4.11 Plant Roots 4.12 Taphonomic Signatures/Profiles 4.12.1 Taphonomic Profile for Cannibalism 4.12.2 Taphonomic Profile for Trampling 4.12.3 Taphonomic Profile for Excarnation and Secondary Burial 4.12.4 Taphonomic Profile of Successive Inhumation 4.13 Conclusion

27 27 27 27 28 28 29 30 30 30 31 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 34 35 35 35 35 35 35 36 36 37 37 37 38 39 39 40 40 40 40 40 41 42 43 43

5

44 44 44 45 46 46 46 47 47 47 47 47 49 49 50 50 50

Methods 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Selection of Material 5.3 Making Quanterness Accessible 5.4 The Zonation Method 5.5 Practical Analysis 5.6 Taphonomic Features Recorded 5.6.1 Skeletal Element Identification 5.6.2 Identification of Side 5.6.3 Zones 5.6.4 Weathering Stage 5.6.5 Fracture Type 5.6.6 Colour 5.6.7 Surface Features 5.6.8 Trauma 5.6.9 Burning 5.6.10 Fragment Size vi

Contents

6

5.6.11 Refitting 5.7 The Living Population - Demographic Information 5.7.1 Sex 5.7.2 Age Assessment 5.7.3 Pathology 5.8 Quantification of the Data 5.8.1 NISP and MNI 5.8.2 MNE and SER 5.9 Comparative Analysis 5.10 Making Use of the Zones 5.11 Level of Fragmentation 5.12 Dating of Quanterness Human Remains 5.13 The Faunal Remains from Quanterness 5.14 Additional Investigative Techniques 5.14.1 Scanning Electron Microscope Analysis 5.14.2 X-Ray 5.14.3 Experimental Work 5.15 Statistical Analysis 5.16 Conclusion

51 51 51 51 51 51 52 52 53 53 54 54 54 56 56 56 56 56 56

6.1 Introduction 6.2 Quanterness, Mainland 6.2.1 Introduction 6.2.2 The Cairn 6.2.3 The Chamber Deposits 6.2.4 Artefacts 6.2.5 The Human Remains 6.2.6 The Faunal Remains 6.2.7 Chronology 6.2.8 Summary 6.3 Quoyness, Sanday 6.3.1 Introduction 6.3.2 The Cairn 6.3.3 The Platform 6.3.4 The Finds 6.3.5 The Human Remains 6.3.6 Dating 6.3.7 Summary 6.4 Point of Cott, Westray 6.4.1 Introduction 6.4.2 The Cairn 6.4.3 The Finds 6.4.4 Human Remains 6.4.5 Chronology 6.4.6 The Mortuary Rite 6.4.7 Summary 6.5 Pierowall Quarry 6.5.1 Introduction 6.5.2 The Cairn 6.5.3 The Finds 6.5.4 Human Remains 6.5.5 Animal Bone 6.5.6 Dating 6.5.7 Summary 6.6 Isbister, South Ronaldsay 6.6.1 Introduction 6.6.2 The Cairn Exterior 6.6.3 The Cairn Interior 6.6.4 The Human Remains

57 57 57 57 58 59 59 59 60 60 61 61 61 61 61 61 62 63 63 63 63 63 65 65 66 66 66 66 66 66 67 67 67 68 68 68 68 68 68 69

Sites

vii

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 6.6.5 Faunal Remains 6.6.6 Artefacts 6.6.7 Chronology 6.6.8 Summary 6.7 Cuween Hill 6.7.1 Introduction 6.7.2 The Cairn 6.7.3 Artefacts 6.7.4 Human Remains 6.7.5 Dating 6.7.6 Summary 6.8 Conclusion

70 70 70 70 71 71 71 71 71 72 72 72

7 Results: Quantification and Representation of Skeletal Remains 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Quantifying the Material 7.2.1 Quanterness NISP and Minimum Number of Individuals 7.2.2 Quoyness NISP and Minimum Number of Individuals 7.2.3 Point of Cott NISP and Minimum Number of Individuals 7.2.4 Pierowall Quarry NISP and Minimum Number of Individuals 7.2.5 Isbister NISP and Minimum Number of Individuals 7.2.6 Cuween Hill NISP and Minimum Number of Individuals 7.2.7 Summary 7.3 Skeletal Element Representation (SER) 7.3.1 Quanterness Skeletal Element Representation 7.3.2 Quoyness Skeletal Element Representation 7.3.3 Point of Cott Skeletal Element Representation 7.3.4 Pierowall Quarry Skeletal Element Representation 7.3.5 Cuween Hill Skeletal Element Representation 7.4 Comparative Skeletal Representation 7.4.1 Comparison of General Skeletal Element Representation between Orcadian Sites 7.4.2 Comparison of General Skeletal Element Representation between Orcadian Sites and Medieval Sites 7.4.3 Comparison of General Skeletal Element Representation between Orcadian Sites and Irish Sites 7.4.4 Statistical Analysis 7.4.5 Summary 7.5 Representation of Each Element by Zone for All Sites 7.5.1 Crania (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) 7.5.2 Mandible (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) 7.5.3 Scapula (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) 7.5.4 Humerus (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) 7.5.5 Radius (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) 7.5.6 Ulna (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) 7.5.7 Pelvis (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) 7.5.8 Femur (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) 7.5.9 Tibia (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) 7.5.10 Fibula (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) 7.5.11 Sternum (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) 7.5.12 Patella (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) 7.5.13 Other Skeletal Elements 7.6. Summary 7.7 Conclusions

88 88 93 93 93 95 95 96 96 97 97 97 99 99 100 100 100 101 101

8 Results: Taphonomic Variables 8.1 Introduction 8.2 Weathering 8.2.1 Quanterness 8.2.2 Quoyness 8.2.3 Point of Cott

102 102 102 102 106 106 viii

73 73 73 73 76 76 77 77 78 78 79 79 80 81 82 83 83 84 88

Contents 8.2.4 Pierowall Quarry 8.2.5 Cuween 8.2.6 Isbister 8.2.7 Comparison of the main sites 8.2.8 Summary 8.3 Burning 8.3.1 Summary 8.4 Fragmentation 8.4.1 Comparison of MNE to NISP 8.4.2 Fragment Size for All Sites 8.4.3 Summary 8.5 Fractures 8.5.1 Quanterness 8.5.2 Quoyness 8.5.3 Point of Cott 8.5.4 Pierowall Quarry 8.5.5 Isbister 8.5.6 Summary 8.6 Trauma 8.6.1 Quanterness 8.6.1.1 Percussion Pits 8.6.1.2 Cut Marks 8.6.1.3 Linear Marks 8.6.1.4 Chop Marks 8.6.1.5 Scrape Marks 8.6.1.6 Damage by Animals 8.6.1.6a Gnaw Marks 8.6.1.6b Punctures and Crushing 8.6.1.7 Other Modification 8.6.1.7a Drill Holes 8.6.1.7b Possible Carved Bone - ‘Trefoil’ 8.6.1.8 Summary 8.6.2 Quoyness 8.6.2.1 Incised Marks 8.6.2.2 Chop Marks 8.6.2.3 Impact Scars 8.6.2.4 Punctures and Crushing 8.6.2.5 Summary 8.6.3 Point of Cott 8.6.3.1 Summary 8.6.4 Pierowall Quarry 8.6.4.1 Summary 8.6.5 Isbister 8.6.5.1 Percussion Pit 8.6.5.2 Incised Mark 8.6.5.3 Animal Damage 8.6.5.4 Other Features 8.6.5.5 Summary 8.6.6 Cuween Hill 8.6.6.1 Summary 8.7 Chapter Summary 9

Results: Faunal Remains at Quanterness 9.1 Introduction 9.2 Dating of the Faunal Remains 9.3 Taphonomic Analysis of Faunal Remains 9.4 Fragment Size 9.5 Weathering 9.6 Fracture Types 9.7 Trauma

108 108 108 109 110 110 112 113 113 113 113 116 116 118 118 118 118 118 119 119 121 124 128 129 133 134 134 138 139 139 142 143 144 144 149 151 152 152 153 154 155 155 157 157 157 157 158 158 160 160 163 164 164 164 167 168 168 169 169

ix

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 9.7.1 Incised Marks 9.7.2 Scrape Marks 9.7.3 Helical Fracturing 9.8 Summary

171 171 171 174

10 Discussion 10.1 Introduction 10.2 Quantification 10.2.1 How Many in the Tomb? Minimum Number of Individuals 10.3 Whole Bodies or Partial Remains? Skeletal Element Representation 10.3.1 General Representation 10.3.2 Comparison of the Orcadian Skeletal Representation Profiles to Each Other 10.3.3 Comparison of Orcadian Sites and Medieval Sites 10.3.4 Comparison of Orcadian Sites to Irish Sites 10.3.5 Specific Elements of Note 10.3.5.1 The Significance of Crania at Quanterness 10.3.5.2 The Significance of Mandibles and Femora 10.3.6 Summary: Whole Bodies or Partial Remains? Skeletal Element Representation 10.4 The Significance of Representation According to Zonation/Preservation 10.5 Taphonomic Variables 10.5.1 Weathering 10.5.2 Evidence for the Presence of Burning 10.5.3 Fragmentation and Fracturing 10.5.4 Trauma 10.5.4.1 Quanterness 10.5.4.2 Quoyness 10.5.4.3 Point of Cott 10.5.4.4 Pierowall Quarry 10.5.4.5 Isbister 10.5.4.6 Cuween Hill 10.5.4.7 Trauma Summary 10.5.5 Deliberate Modification 10.6 Mortuary Rites – The Taphonomic Profile 10.6.1 Quanterness 10.6.2 Quoyness 10.6.3 Point of Cott 10.6.4 Pierowall Quarry 10.6.5 Cuween Hill 10.6.6 Mortuary Rites - Summary 10.7 Death is Only the Beginning – the Power of the Corpse 10.8 The Significance of the Faunal Remains from Quanterness 10.9 Breathing Life into Old Stone – the Significance of the Tombs 10.10 The Orcadian Megaliths in their Wider British and Irish Setting 10.11 Conclusions – a Sense of Order 10.12 Future Directions Appendix Bibliography

175 175 175 175 177 178 178 178 179 179 179 179 181 181 182 182 183 184 185 185 186 187 187 187 187 188 188 189 189 190 190 191 191 191 191 193 195 196 197 198 199 295

x

LIST OF FIGURES Chapter 2 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Chapter 4 Figure 4.1 Chapter 5 Figure 5.1 Chapter 6 Figure 6.1 Figure 6.2 Figure 6.3 Figure 6.4 Figure 6.5 Figure 6.6 Chapter 7 Figure 7.1 Figure 7.2 Figure 7.3 Figure 7.4 Figure 7.5 Figure 7.6 Figure 7.7 Figure 7.8 Figure 7.9 Figure 7.10 Figure 7.11 Figure 7.12 Figure 7.13 Figure 7.14

Orkney Archipelago in Relation to Mainland Scotland and Detail of the Major Islands (after https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ScotlandTopo_Base_Map_VHR.png, original file released under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0). Distribution of Orkney -Cromarty Type Tombs on Orkney (Ordnance Survey* & Historic Scotland†). Distribution of Maeshowe Type Tombs on Orkney (Ordnance Survey* & Historic Scotland†).

3 10 11

SER values observed for the whole sample (subadult and adult) (adapted from Bello & Andrews 2009, 3 with permission).

32

Posterior (left) and anterior (right) views of the humerus subdivided into zones as defined by Knüsel and Outram ( 2004, 90).

47

Map with locations of sites. (Ordnance Survey* & Historic Scotland†). Quanterness: plan & section (after Davidson & Henshall, 1989, 151). Plan of Quoyness cairn and associated platform (after Childe 1954, 122). Sketch plan of the Cairn at Point of Cott. The core cairn is highlighted in grey with the interior divided into compartments by orthostats (shown in black) (after Barber 1997, 10). Ground plan and section of Isbister stalled tomb (after Davidson & Henshall 1989, 125). Ground plan and reconstruction of Cuween Hill (after Davidson & Henshall 1989, 113). Count of 3rd Metatarsal from Quanterness in calculation of MNI for each zone category showing lefts and rights. Dorsal view (left) and plantar view (right) of the foot, showing the 3rd metatarsal (highlighted) with zones indicated (adapted from Knüsel & Outram, 2004, 93) Bone present as a percentage of the potential NISP for each site. Skeletal element representation at Quanterness. This is calculated as the percentage of the MNI represented by the MNE. Summary of the numbers of adult loose teeth identified to type at Quanterness. Maxillary and mandibular counts are shown. Summary of the numbers of deciduous loose teeth identified to type at Quanterness. Maxillary and mandibular counts are shown. Skeletal element representation at Quoyness. This is calculated as the percentage of the MNI represented by the MNE. Skeletal element representation at Point of Cott. This is calculated as the percentage of the MNI represented by the MNE. Summary of the numbers of adult loose teeth identified to type at Point of Cott. Maxillary and mandibular counts are shown. Skeletal element representation at Pierowall Quarry. This is calculated as the percentage of the MNI represented by the MNE. Summary of the numbers of adult loose teeth identified to type at Pierowall Quarry. Maxillary and mandibular counts are shown. Skeletal element representation at Cuween Hill. This is calculated as the percentage of the MNI represented by the MNE. Comparison of skeletal representation for the Orkney sites of Quanterness, Quoyness, Pierowall Quarry and Point of Cott. Comparison of skeletal element representation between Quanterness and Quoyness.

xi

57 58 62 64 69 72

74 74 78 79 80 80 81 81 82 82 83 83  85 86

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Figure 7.15 Figure 7.16 Figure 7.17 Figure 7.18 Figure 7.19 Figure 7.20 Figure 7.21 Figure 7.22 Figure 7.23 Figure 7.24 Figure 7.25 Figure 7.26 Figure 7.27 Figure 7.28 Figure 7.29 Figure 7.30 Figure 7.31 Figure 7.32 Figure 7.33 Figure 7.34 Figure 7.35 Figure 7.36 Figure 7.37 Chapter 8 Figure 8.1 Figure 8.2 Figure 8.3 Figure 8.4 Figure 8.5 Figure 8.6 Figure 8.7 Figure 8.8 Figure 8.9 Figure 8.10

Comparison of skeletal element representation between Quanterness and Point of Cott. 86 Comparison of skeletal element representation between Quanterness and Pierowall Quarry. 86 Comparison of skeletal element representation between Quoyness and Point of Cott. 87 Comparison of skeletal element representation between Point of Cott and Pierowall Quarry. 87 Comparison of skeletal element representation between Pirowall Quarry and Quoyness. 87 Comparison of the relative skeletal representation of the Orkney sites to medieval and post medieval sites (medieval and post-med data after Bello & Andrews 2009, 4). 89 Comparison of the skeletal relative skeletal representation of the Orkney of Point of Cott and Quoyness to the medieval sites of St. Maximin and Hauture (medieval data after Bello & Andrews 2009, 4). 90 Comparison of the relative skeletal representation for the Orkney sites to the Irish Neolithic sites (Irish data adapted from Beckett & Robb 2009, 64). 91 Box plots comparing SER data from the various sites. 92 Box plots comparing data from sites as groups. 92 Crania: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. With Isbister. 94 Crania: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. Without Isbister. 94 Mandible: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. 95 Scapula: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. 95 Humerus: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. 96 Radius: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. 96 Ulna: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. 97 Pelvis: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. 98 Femur: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. 98 Tibia: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. 99 Fibula: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. 99 Sternum: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. 100 Patella: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. 100 Count of each weathering Stage identified in each stratum. Weathering stages present for each stratum, shown as an overall percentage for each stratum. Weathering Stages for the areas within the main chamber. Quanterness: count of fragments showing each weathering stage according to element. Weathering stages by element from the side chamber, ZF. Each stage is shown as a percentage of all the weathering stages for each element. Weathering stages by element from the main chamber, ZB. Each stage is shown as a percentage of all the weathering stages for each element. Quoyness: count of fragments showing each weathering stage according to element. Point of Cott: count of fragments showing each weathering stage according to element. Quantity of bone showing various weathering stages by compartment (CPT) at Point of Cott. Weathering stages recorded for each compartment (CPT) at Point of Cott expressed as a percentage of the total for that compartment. xii

103 103 104 104 105 105 106 106 107 107

List of Figures Figure 8.11 Figure 8.12 Figure 8.13 Figure 8.14 Figure 8.15 Figure 8.16 Figure 8.17 Figure 8.18 Figure 8.19 Figure 8.20 Figure 8.21 Figure 8.22 Figure 8.23 Figure 8.24 Figure 8.25 Figure 8.26 Figure 8.27 Chapter 9 Figure 9.1 Figure 9.2 Figure 9.3 Figure 9.4 Figure 9.5 Figure 9.6 Figure 9.7 Figure 9.8 Figure 9.9

Pierowall Quarry: count of fragments showing each weathering stage according to element. Isbister: count of humerus fragments for each weathering stage identified. Weathering stages shown as a percentage of the total weathering for each site. Count of Elements by Area with Evidence for Burning at Quanterness. Count of Elements by Layer with Evidence of Burning in Area ZB III, Quanterness. Representation of burnt skeletal elements associated with area ZB III. Count of fragment sizes for unidentified long bone fragments from Quanterness. Comparison of fragmentation at Orkney sites. Each size category (Section 5.6.10) is shown as a percentage of the total human bone assemblage for that site, except for Isbister, which is expressed as a percentage of the total sample analysed. Count of each fracture type recorded for each skeletal element at Quanterness. Count of each fracture type recorded for each skeletal element at Quoyness. Count of each fracture type recorded for each skeletal element at Point of Cott. Count of each fracture type recorded for each skeletal element at Pierowall Quarry. Count of each fracture type recorded for the humeri from Isbister. Summary of excavation areas recorded for each trauma type. Summary of trauma types recorded for each excavation area. Summary of trauma types recorded on skeletal elements at Quoyness. Composite of locations of trauma marks identified on the Quoyness remains. C14 determinations (OxCal 4.1.7) arranged in stratigraphic order. Count of animal bone present by stratum from Quanterness. This information is derived from the excavation report (Clutton-Brock 1979). Quantity of additional faunal remains at Quanterness by Stratum. Quantity of additional faunal remains by Area. Quantity of additional faunal remains at Quanterness according to their fragment size categories. Summary of the weathering stages displayed by additional faunal remains in each stratum. Summary of the weathering stages displayed by the additional faunal remains at Quanterness according to area. Summary of the quantity of fracture types identified from the additional faunal remains at Quanterness. Quantity of trauma types recorded from the additional faunal remains at Quanterness.

xiii

108 109 109 110 111 111 115 115 116 118 119 119 120 143 143 144 152 165 166 167 167 168 168 169 170 170

LIST OF PLATES Chapter 5 Plate 5.1 Plate 5.2 Chapter 8 Plate 8.1 Plate 8.2 Plate 8.3 Plate 8.4 Plate 8.5 Plate 8.6 Plate 8.7

Plate 8.8 Plate 8.9 Plate 8.10 Plate 8.11 Plate 8.12 Plate 8.13 Plate 8.14 Plate 8.15 Plate 8.16 Plate 8.17 Plate 8.18 Plate 8.19 Plate 8.20 Plate 8.21 Plate 8.22 Plate 8.23 Plate 8.24 Plate 8.25 Plate 8.26 Plate 8.27 Plate 8.28 Plate 8.29 Plate 8.30 Plate 8.31 Plate 8.32 Plate 8.33

A sample of the fragmentary human remains from Quanterness Clockwise from top left: dry fracture, helical fracture, new fracture, mineralised fracture (Left) Crania II from Cuween Hill. Weathering Stage 1. (Right) Crania V from Cuween Hill, Weathering Stage 3. Burnt fragments. Small Find 208.23-25 Stratum 4, Area ZB II Layer 21 (scale unit: 10 mm). Burnt Fragments. Small Find 1265.12 Left humerus from Stratum 3, Area ZB III, Layer 60A (Scale unit: 10 mm). Burnt Fragments Small Find 1134.01 Cranium from Stratum 3, Area ZB III, Layer 68 with possible impact notch (scale unit: 10 mm). Small Find 223.05(main fragment) and Small Find 223.03 Cranial fragment (Occipital bone). Stratum 3 Area ZB II Layer 22. (scale unit: 10 mm). Small Find 223.05 Stratum 3 Area ZB II Layer 22. Close-up of edge when Small Find 223.03 is removed. Note the smoothness of the margin. (scale unit: 10 mm). Small Find 1265.10 Right Femur Fragment (burnt) from Stratum 3, Area ZB III, Layer 60A. This femur has sustained a helical fracture. Note the smoothness of the fracture margin, indicating the presence of collagen at the time of fracture. (scale unit: 10 mm). Small Find 192, Femur, Layer 29. Three conjoined femur fragments that have a helical fracture pattern. This implies this occurred relatively soon after death (peri-mortem). Small Find 193.21 Mandible from Stratum 4, Area ZB II, Layer 21 (scale unit: 10 mm). Small Find 2459.04 Right Radius from Side cell ZF, Layer 5. (scale unit: 10 mm). Small Find 2444.01 Left Femur from Side Cell ZF (scale unit: 10 mm). SF 2473.02 Rib fragment from Side Cell ZF Layer 5. (scale unit: 10 mm). Small Find 139.13 Right Ulna (distal portion). Stratum 5b, Area ZB II, Layer 20/2. (scale unit: 10 mm). SF 208.20 Left Rib from Stratum 4, Area ZB II, Layer 21. (scale unit: 10 mm). Small Find 41.02 Rib Fragment (sterna portion) Context Unknown (scale unit: 10 mm). Small Find 2148.1 Left Fibula from Side Cell ZF, Layer 5 (scale unit: 10 mm). Small Find 130.02 Right Femur Fragment. Context Unknown. (scale unit: 10 mm). Small Find 1304.02 Right Radius from Stratum 3, Area ZB III, Layer 62. (scale unit: 10 mm). Small Find 1102 Right Fibula from Area ZB III, Layer 61. (scale unit: 10 mm). Small Find 142.01 Mandible (child) from Stratum 3, Area ZB II, Layer 22. (scale unit: 10 mm). Small Find 1217.01 Left Rib of Unknown Context. (scale unit: 10 mm). Small Find 1185.01 Left Rib Fragment. Context unknown (scale unit: 10 mm). Small Find 2127.2 Femur Fragment from Side Cell ZF, Layer 5. (scale unit: 10 mm). No Small Find Number. Pelvis Fragment. Context Unknown (scale unit: 10 mm). Small Find 2105 Maxilla Area ZF, Layer 5 (top Left) (scale unit: 10 mm). Small Find 4096.08 Left Fibula from Side Cell ZG (scale unit: 10 mm). Small Find 192.09 Left Patella Stratum 4, Area ZB II, Layer 21 (scale unit: 10 mm). Small Find 149.40 Sternum (Manubrium) Stratum 4, Area ZB II, Layer 21 (scale unit: 10 mm). Small Find 3017.19 Left Ulna Stratum 4, Area ZB III, Layer 57/6. (scale unit: 10mm). Small Find 2606.01 Left Femur (child) from Side Cell ZF, Layer 6 (scale unit: 10 mm). Small Find 164.04 Left Scapula from Stratum 3, Area ZB II, Layer 22 (scale unit: 10 mm). Record G077 Left Tibia. (scale unit: 10 mm). Record G006 Left Femur. (scale unit: 10 mm). xiv

46 49

108 111 112 112 116 117

117 120 121 122 123 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 145 146

List of Plates Plate 8.34 Plate 8.35 Plate 8.36 Plate 8.37 Plate 8.38 Plate 8.39 Plate 8.40 Plate 8.41 Plate 8.42 Plate 8.43 Plate 8.44 Plate 8.45 Plate 8.46 Plate 8.47 Plate 8.48 Plate 8.49 Chapter 9 Plate 9.1 Plate 9.2 Plate 9.3

Record G107 Femur Fragment (scale unit: 10 mm). Record G257 Right Humerus fragment (scale unit: 10 mm). Record G028 Left Distal Femur Fragment (scale unit: 10 mm). Record G165 Right Pelvis Fragment (scale unit: 10 mm). Record G032 Right Humerus (posterior aspect). Small Find 3/166 Mandible from Compartment 3 (scale unit: 10 mm). Small Find 3/391 Femur Fragment From Compartment 3 (scale unit: 10 mm). Small Find 1/5A Long Bone Fragment (Possible Femur) from Compartment 1 (scale unit: 10 mm). Small Find 145 Left Humerus From Layer 29 (scale unit: 10 mm). Radius Fragment from Layer 29 (scale unit: 10 mm). Small Find DL125 Left Humerus (scale unit: 10 mm). DL 2598 Left Humerus Fragment (scale unit: 10 mm). DL44.25, Right Pelvis (scale unit: 10 mm). DL 780 Humerus fragment (scale unit: 10 mm). Cranium II (scale unit: 10 mm). Crania IV (scale unit: 10 mm).

147 148 149 150 151 153 153

Small Find 231.02 Animal Rib Context unknown. (Scale unit: 10 mm). Small Find 3023.05 Animal fragment from Stratum 1, Area ZB II, Layer 23. (Scale unit: 10 mm). Small Find 3068.12 Animal Fragment Stratum 4, Area ZB III, Layer 57/58. (Scale unit: 10 mm).

171

xv

154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162

172 173

LIST OF TABLES Chapter 4 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Chapter 5 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 5.6 Table 5.7 Table 5.8 Table 5.9 Table 5.10 Table 5.11 Table 5.12 Table 5.13

Chapter 6 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Chapter 7 Table 7.1 Table 7.2 Table 7.3 Table 7.4 Table 7.5 Table 7.6 Table 7.7 Table 7.8 Table 7.9 Table 7.10 Table 7.11 Table 7.12 Table 7.13

Factors affecting the rate at which a body cools after death (reproduced with permission, Gunn, A. (2009) Essential Forensic Biology 2nd edn. Copyright, © 2009 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.). Summary of the general order of skeletonisation (adapted from Roksandic 2002, 102) Characteristics of fracture types occurring after death. Range of temperatures associated with bone colour (reproduced from Mays, S. 2002, Table 11.1, 2017, with permission). Summary of the Orcadian sites analysed. Information recorded from Chesterman’s Notebooks. Recording of bone fragments of unknown zone. Recording of skeletal elements to side. Behrensmeyer’s Bone weathering stages (reproduced from Buikstra & Ubelaker 1997, 98, with permission of the Arkansas Archaeological Survey). Criteria used to identify observed fracture types. Summary of surface features recorded and their criteria for identification. Summary of trauma types recorded and their criteria or description for identification. Range of temperatures associated with bone colour (reproduced from Mays, S. 2002, Table 11.1, 217, with permission). Age ranges (Baker et al. 2005, 10; Buikstra & Ubelaker 1994, 36). SER values observed for the whole sample of each site (reproduced from Bello & Andrews 2009, 4, with permission). Skeletal element representation data from Irish Neolithic sites (reproduced from Beckett & Robb 2009, 64, with permission). Summary of the key points highlighted by Bello & Andrews (2009, 3-5) in relation to bone preservation patterns (A labelled skeleton is provided in Appendix 1 for consultation). Descriptions of stratigraphic layers identified in the main chamber at Quanterness (after Renfrew 1979, 55). Age categories identified by Chesterman at Quanterness (after Renfrew 1979, 163). Summary of the original MNI calculated by Chesterman, the theoretical NISP this would produce and the actual NISP. Summary of the MNI calculated for each age category present at Quanterness. Summary of final age categories for calculation of the total MNI for Quanterness. Summary of the original and revised MNI and the subsequent impact upon the recovery rate for the Quanterness assemblage. Summary of final age categories for calculation of the total MNI for Quoyness. Figures demonstrating the size of the assemblage as a percentage of what could potentially have been recovered. Summary of final age categories for calculation of the total MNI for Point of Cott. Figures demonstrating the size of the assemblage as a percentage of what could potentially have been recovered. Summary of final age categories for calculation of the total MNI for Pierowall Quarry. Figures demonstrating the size of the assemblage as a percentage of what could potentially have been recovered. Summary of the difference the revised MNI makes to the recovered Isbister assemblage. Figures demonstrating the size of the assemblage as a percentage of what could potentially have been recovered. Summary of MNI information for the Orcadian sites. xvi

28 31 34 37 44 45 48 48 48 49 50 50 51 52 53 54 55

59 60

74 75 75 75 76 76 76 77 77 77 77 78 78

List of Tables Table 7.14

Chapter 8 Table 8.1 Table 8.2

Chapter 10 Table 10.1 Table 10.2

Details of the three medieval and post-medieval Christian cemeteries analysed used for comparison to the Orkney sites (reproduced from Bello and Andrews 2009, 2, with permission). Contextual information of skeletal elements identified with Stage 4 weathering at Quanterness (Flat bone refers to an unidentified fragment of scapula or pelvis – see Section 5.6.1). Comparison of the MNE (Minimum Number of Elements) to the NISP (Number of Identified Specimens) for each skeletal element from the sites of Quanterness(Quant); Quoyness (Quoy); Point of Cott and Pierowall Quarry.

84

102 114

Summary of the MNI for each tomb derived from the assemblages included in the study. 176 176 MNI for sites from Britain and Ireland. (Adapted from Smith & Brickley 2009, 88).

xvii

ABSTRACT This volume presents the results of a detailed reanalysis of the human remains recovered from Neolithic tombs in the archipelago of Orkney, Scotland. Whilst the archive is composed of a significant volume of human bone, the assemblages are characterised by a lack of discrete skeletons - the researcher being confronted with formidable volumes of disarticulated and comingled remains. Previously, the inherent complexity of such remains rendered them an unattractive proposition for detailed study, with current interpretations derived from examination of the excavation reports, rather than the material itself. However, more recent advances in taphonomic analysis and forensic archaeology have now furnished researchers with new techniques for approaching such complex assemblages. Therefore, the aim of this research was to examine the fragmentary human remains in order to better understand the mortuary practices and post-depositional activities the bones were subjected to. The new osteological evidence is then engaged to answer wider archaeological questions pertaining to the use and significance of the tombs. The primary site investigated is the Maeshowe-type tomb of Quanterness on Mainland, Orkney. In order to further contextualise the results obtained from the analysis, four further assemblages; Quoyness, Sanday, Cuween Hill, Mainland, Pierowall Quarry, Westray, Point of Cott, Westray, and a sample from a fifth, Isbister, South Ronaldsay, are also examined. Utilising the ‘Zonation Method’, each assemblage is initially characterised in terms of skeletal representation, minimum number of individuals and minimum number of elements. It is demonstrated that skeletal elements will degrade in a predictable manner, thereby intimating that any differences in skeletal representation are not due to differential patterns of degradation; other, often extrinsic factors are involved. The results of macroscopic and microscopic techniques, used to inspect each specimen for signs of weathering, burning, fragmentation, trauma and deliberate modification, are also presented. These analyses provide clear evidence for anthropogenic manipulation of remains from Quanterness, Quoyness and Cuween Hill. In addition to a revision of the number of individuals represented within Quanterness, the new data provides definitive evidence for the interment of whole bodies, rather than excarnation, as the mortuary process represented. Furthermore, excarnation is unlikely to apply to many of the other tombs. However, following placement within the structures, practices concerning the treatment of human remains diverge, with evidence identified for variation in the secondary manipulation of some of the dead. This variation in practice implies a greater ideological distance between groups than previously identified through the mortuary evidence. Ultimately, the new data is woven together to reveal a much more complex archaeological narrative than previously realised.

xviii

Chapter 1

Introduction 1.1 Introduction

therefore been considered unlikely to provide further evidence that might enhance our understanding of past populations, and has been left languishing on the shelves of museum stores, untapped.

Recovered from a variety of contexts, human remains are one of the most emotive relics of our past, presenting us with a tangible connection to our ancestors. Beyond this, they have the potential to provide us with a wealth of data concerning aspects of the past including health, life-style, diet, and inter-personal violence. Evidently, their value as an archaeological resource cannot be doubted. Human remains also possess significance beyond their value as a reservoir of scientific information. Their context of recovery is critical to the comprehension not only of the deposition of the remains themselves, but to the overall interpretation of the archaeological site they are recovered from. Unfortunately, some time periods and regions have yielded a greater wealth of material than others. At the end of their recent volume, ‘People of the Long Barrows’, Smith & Brickley (2009, 148) state that one of the key challenges in studying human remains from the British Neolithic is the small sizes of the assemblages. This has led to difficulties in determining convincing conclusions. However, in Orkney, a number of the Neolithic tombs are distinguished from this evaluation, having yielded thousands of fragments of human bone. It is the human remains associated with the Orcadian megaliths that form the focus of this research.

In recent years, advances in the fields of forensic archaeology and taphonomy have furnished researchers with a new set of tools with which to approach less straightforward assemblages, such as those encountered in the Orcadian megaliths. Thus, the key characteristic that has previously deterred further investigation is now the trait that renders them of particular interest. 1.2 Aims Osteologists have come under criticism for failing to integrate their data with wider archaeological debates (Sofaer 2006, 1–2; Beckett & Robb 2009, 57). Archaeologists are also facing criticism for focusing on the objects that accompany and surround bodies, rather than the bodies themselves (Sofaer 2006, 2; Gowland & Knüsel 2009, xi). One of the aims of this research, therefore, was to integrate osteological evidence more closely with the archaeological data in order to reconstruct activities associated with the Orcadian tombs. The megalithic tombs in Orkney present ideal circumstances in striving to achieve this as a paucity of other artefacts within the structures focuses attention on the human remains.

Orkney’s Neolithic tombs are renowned for their stunning architecture. Their preservation and high degree of visibility in the landscape has drawn the eye of archaeologists and antiquarians for many years. However, whilst the physicality of the tombs has been comprehensively documented, their specific purpose and function is more contentious. Several hypotheses exist to account for the condition of the associated human remains, with themes of transformation, manipulation and movement permeating the literature. However, whether considered the result of excarnation or secondary deposition, many of the interpretations of funerary practice in Orkney (and Britain) have depended on revisiting original excavation reports, rather than the osseous material, a situation that has come under recent criticism (Beckett & Robb 2009, 57). Despite the volume of archive material, it is a resource that has received little attention. This state of affairs reflects not only the formidable amount of bone, but also its highly fragmentary and ‘chaotic’ condition. Traditional osteological analyses are concerned with retrieving demographic information from skeletal populations. The absence of discrete skeletons within many of the Orcadian assemblages precludes such analysis. This material has

This research project involved a taphonomic analysis of human remains from the Orcadian tombs in order to understand the mechanisms involved in transforming whole corpses to their present fragmentary condition. Understanding these processes could lead to a greater insight into the use and significance of the monuments in which they were located. The primary site investigated was the Maeshowe-type tomb of Quanterness on Mainland (Renfrew 1979), reported as containing a minimum of 157 excarnated individuals, represented by 12,500 disarticulated bone fragments. Descriptions of the highly fragmentary condition of these remains, in tandem with recent advances in taphonomic interpretations and the excellent standard of excavation employed, inferred this large assemblage had the potential to yield new information. In order to further contextualise the results obtained from the Quanterness analysis, four further assemblages and a sample from a fifth were also examined. The sites 1

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney of Quoyness, Sanday; Point of Cott, Westray; Pierowall Quarry, Westray; Cuween Hill, Mainland and a sample from Isbister, South Ronaldsay, were selected for this purpose. Some of the key questions this research addresses are as follows: • What is the skeletal profile of each assemblage? • How have the human remains composing the assemblages come to be in such a fragmented and disorganised state? Is it through anthropogenic intervention, natural processes or a combination of both? • Do the assemblages reflect similar or divergent sequences of post-mortem events? • Does the taphonomic evidence provide further insight into the mortuary processes and treatment of the dead? • Does the new evidence support or refute the current hypotheses for mortuary practices in Neolithic Orkney? • Can a better understanding of the processes the human remains have been subjected to permit greater insight into the funerary practices and purpose of the megalithic tombs? • How do the Orcadian megaliths compare to their mainland and Irish counter-parts? This project is concerned with understanding the mortuary rites pertaining to the condition of the human remains. It is not focused on interpreting the lifestyles of the living populations from evidence of age, stature and health. The fragmentary nature of the particular assemblages investigated creates significant limitations in the amount of demographic information that may be derived. However, information of this nature, when present, was recorded and although not included in the main body of the book, it is presented in Appendix 6. 1.3 Summary This study is valuable for a number of reasons. It is the first time the assemblages of Quanterness and comparative sites have been examined in such detail. Whilst initially a formidable task, this process has generated a significant amount of new data, not only with regard to skeletal preservation, but also indicating direct anthropogenic involvement in the manipulation of some of the osseous material. This is the first time this has been ascertained for the Orcadian remains. This new data also serves to challenge a number of the current interpretations. However, it is not simply a means of proving or disproving current hypotheses. With the deconstruction of existing theories, new interpretations of the treatment of the body and their implications for understanding the purpose of the tombs are also proffered. This study demonstrates that despite the intimidating and formidable amount of material, it is possible to bring some order, and therefore understanding, to what these assemblages actually represent.

2

Chapter 2

Archaeological Background 11,000 BC). Its 974 km² land mass is home to 19,000 inhabitants who occupy only 19 of the islands (Davidson 1979; Davidson & Jones 1990, 10). The maritime location and overall position within the North Atlantic Drift are regarded as being the most influential factors on its environment (Davidson 1979, 7).

2.1 Introduction The aim of this chapter is to provide a general overview of the prehistoric archaeology on Orkney. A précis of evidence for environment, settlement and ritual conditions during the Neolithic period will be presented. This overview will bring together information relating to the settlement, mortuary and ritual record. The function of megalithic tombs, while outlined in this chapter, is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3.

2.3 Environment 2.3.1 Modern Climate and Environment Orkney’s distinctive landscape of gently rolling hills and expanses of flat ground is the legacy of heavy glaciations. With the exception of the island of Hoy, which has the second highest cliffs in Britain, these hills seldom exceed 200 m in height (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 9). The 800 km of coastline is identified by Davidson & Jones (1990, 12) as being perhaps Orkney’s most important topographic

2.2 Location Located at a latitude of 59°N in the North Atlantic Ocean, and consisting of approximately 70 islands and skerries, the archipelago of the Orkney Islands (Fig. 2.1) is separated from the north-east tip of the Scottish mainland by the Pentland Firth (a result of a rise in sea level around

Figure 2.1 Orkney Archipelago in Relation to Mainland Scotland and Detail of the Major Islands (after https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ScotlandTopo_Base_Map_VHR.png, original file released under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0). 3

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney feature. Its height and steepness varies, with high cliffs, low rocky shores and sandy beaches present in various proportions. Coastal erosion has been, and continues to be, progressively active. This erosion is a double-edged sword; for while it is responsible for revealing and influencing the distribution of archaeological remains in Orkney (Richards 2005), it is also responsible for their destruction. Unfortunately, the rate of loss since Neolithic times simply cannot be assessed (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 14).

Synoptically, it can be concluded that the present day Orcadian climate and physical environment exerts a severe constraint upon agricultural activities, and hence, the ability for the local population to sustain itself. Davidson (1979, 10) undoubtedly believes that this challenging environment also existed in Neolithic times. This hypothesis is based upon palaeobotanical studies by Jones (1979) that indicated a broad similarity between the pollen spectra from c. 4000 to 3000 bp and contemporary flora, implying there has been no major environmental change in Orkney since that period (Davidson 1979, 7).

Naturally occurring, and high quality building material, is plentiful thanks to the islands’ geology of gently inclined sedimentary and subordinate volcanic rocks. With the exception of Hoy, which is comprised of Upper Old Red Sandstone, this geology consists primarily of flagstones and sandstones of Middle Old Red Sandstone age that are also found across the Pentland Firth in Caithness (Davidson 1979; Davidson & Henshall 1989, 9). Generally located near the surface, the stone may also be acquired from the shore. On some hillsides the alternate strata of hard and soft stone have resulted in steps or terraces forming under glaciations (Davidson & Henshall 1989).

2.3.2 Past Climate and Environment At the time of the Mesolithic (c. 9000–4000 BC) the wooded landscape of Orkney contrasted markedly to what we understand it to have been in the Neolithic. The sea-level was also considerably lower (up to 30 m lower) making the hills we see today the peaks of formerly much higher ground. By the Neolithic, this landscape had altered; palaeobotanical investigations based on pollen from peat mosses have shown a gradual vegetation decline from an optimum birch-hazel woodland in the earlier fifth millennium. About 3800 BC an accelerated change is apparent with the formation of more open, almost treeless, vegetation with high values in the pollen record for grasses and an increase in ribwort plantain. Further evidence can be garnered from faunal analysis: in this case snails, with open-ground species replacing the woodland species about this time. The change in vegetation has been argued to reflect a further deterioration in the climate with lower temperatures and probably an increase in onshore winds. However, it is not clear whether the change is due solely to climatic conditions, or whether it also indicates anthropogenic activity (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 14; Davidson & Jones 1990, 23–7, 34–5). The relatively open, scrubby landscape, which (is assumed) was developing naturally, would have been attractive to early farmers, and an increase in ribwort plantain is usually taken as an indication of land clearance for pasture. The peat deposits in the ditch at Maeshowe and sediments elsewhere on Mainland have provided evidence of the continuance through the third millennium of an open, virtually treeless, landscape affected by agriculture (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 14).

According to a detailed study of a confined area of Mainland by Davidson (1979), (that is considered to be applicable to much of Orkney), poor drainage was the main inhibiting factor in the development of good soils. The hilltops and upper slopes are ill-drained and peatcovered; the lowest ground near sea level is also poorly drained, with the best soils having formed on the middle and lower slopes (Davidson 1979, 12). Blanket peat that has mostly formed since the later second millennium covers a large part of Hoy, the hills on the east side of west Mainland, central Rousay and considerable areas of Eday, and is still cut for fuel. Meteorologically, rainfall in the islands is moderate but persistent (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 9) with a relatively small annual temperature range (3.8°C in February to 12.8°C in July) (Davidson 1979, 7). The now treeless and open nature of the landscape means the most dominant attribute of the Orcadian climate is undoubtedly the wind (Davidson 1979; Davidson & Henshall 1989, 9). The effects of these strong winds can be seen in the northern isles, and also around the Bay of Skaill, on the west coast of Mainland, and on Burray, where there are extensive areas of blown sand that have produced a machair-type pasture (Fraser 1983, 17, 269–70; Davidson & Jones 1990, 19–22).

The level of the sea in relation to the land is a matter of importance as the channels between the islands are relatively shallow. There are no raised beaches and it is generally accepted that the coastline is very gradually submerging. Fraser (1983, 29) concluded that the land may have been only a few metres higher than at the present time, and that the islands were separate land masses during the Neolithic, as they are today (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 11). However, more recent research demonstrates that the combination of a gradual and continuous rise in sea-level with the erosional forces of the sea has indeed had

From an agricultural perspective, approximately half the land of Orkney is farmed, with a focus on stock-rearing. This contemporary emphasis on pasture is a result of a lack of good quality soils and a coastal climate. Any crop production is likely to suffer from strong winds that often cause physical damage, an effect that is compounded by the burning effect of salt spray (Davidson & Jones 1990, 19).

4

Archaeological Background 2.4.2 Mesolithic Orkney

significant effects on the landform (Sturt 2005, 72). This has been clearly demonstrated by Leinert et al. (2000) who created a coastal reconstruction of Skaill Bay revealing that what is today a coastal location, actually resided well inland during the Neolithic. While not conclusive, it has also been suggested that the islands of Westray and Papa Westray could have been connected by a beach flat at low tide (Sturt 2005, 72) and that Holm of Papa Westray was almost certainly a promontory on the east coast of Papa Westray (Ritchie 1995, 15; Sturt 2005, 72).

The idea that Orkney presented a blank canvas for Neolithic explorers (Ritchie 1990, 37) has been a contentious one. As with the rest of Scotland, there is no firm evidence to suggest human presence in Orkney until after the most recent glaciations (after 10,000 BP). In his review of the evidence for Mesolithic occupation of Orkney, Saville (1996, 214) highlighted how prehistorians such as Lacaille and Livens dismissed microliths found on Orkney as more likely to be culturally, rather than chronologically, Mesolithic. This view has persisted for some time (Ritchie 1995). However, more recent finds (Finlay 1997; Saville 2000; Richards 2005, 11) have pushed experts towards a reconsideration of this stance. Unfortunately, the evidence consists entirely of flaked lithic tools, mostly surface finds without any firm context, which give little information by themselves about society or economy at the time (Saville 2000, 97). Currently, the evidence suggests that Mesolithic people did not, for the most part, live in settled communities in permanent structures at a single location (Saville 2000, 98).

Davidson & Jones (1990, 16) argue that there has been no drastic alteration in the soil type since the Neolithic, though continuous cultivation, manuring, and improved drainage, must have had a positive effect, particularly in improving the better soils. It has been suggested that this apparent consistency in environmental conditions permits the use of present-day soil conditions when interpreting the location and distribution of megalithic tombs (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 14). 2.4 Archaeological Background

Despite these recent advances, Mesolithic remains from Orkney remain relatively sparse. Nevertheless, there seems little doubt that Mesolithic people were indeed present in Orkney long before the Neolithic development of farming. The relevance of this phenomenon is encapsulated by Saville (2000, 98):

The archaeological record for Orkney is unusually rich, particularly for the Neolithic period. It is one of the few areas in Europe in which both settlements and tombs are well preserved (Bradley 1998, 387). A précis of the archaeological context of prehistoric Orkney is presented below.

‘Long before anyone had the notion of building stone houses, burial cairns, or stone circles, nomadic peoples had to come to Orkney to live off the good of the land. Exactly what contribution these people made to Orcadian Neolithic society we may never know, but we must now be aware that they were a factor in the equation’.

2.4.1 Mesolithic Scotland Saville (2000, 93) argues that while there must be a strong suspicion that people arrived in Scotland before (or at least by) c. 9000 B.P., any trace of human presence will have been removed or obscured by the erosive character of the Loch Lomond Stadial. While there is currently no conclusive data to substantiate this, it must be regarded as highly unlikely that people did migrate as far as Scotland prior to this phase (Saville 2000, 93). Currently, the earliest unequivocal evidence for humans in Scotland is from three radiocarbon-dated artefacts from Druimvargie Rockshelter at Oban, Argyll (Bonsall et al. 1995), where dates centre on 8000 BP (7540–6474 cal BC). There are two further sites; Kinloch on the Isle of Rum and Fife Ness, that together place the earliest occupation of Scotland at around 8000 cal BC (Saville 2000, 93). Two phases of later Mesolithic activity (c. 7060–6650 cal BC and c. 6510–6090 cal BC) have also been identified at the site of Northton in the Western Isles (Gregory et al. 2005, 948). The number of Mesolithic sites identified is growing and earlier beliefs that the Mesolithic settlement of Scotland was predominantly coastal and estuarine have been overtaken by the realisation that the picture has been biased by problems of discovering Mesolithic indications in inland areas (Edwards et al. 1983; Saville 2000, 94).

2.4.3 A General Chronology of Neolithic Orkney Current evidence indicates that the Neolithic period in Orkney had a duration of approximately 1500 years, from the mid-fourth millennium to c. 2000 BC (Card 2005, 47). This period is traditionally divided into two distinct phases; an early and a late phase. The earlier phase is typically associated with Unstan Ware pottery and Orkney-Cromarty-type tombs, whereas the later phase is identified with Grooved Ware pottery and Maeshowetype tombs. Evidence for domestic settlement is similarly divided into an early phase and a late phase. The early period incorporates isolated farmsteads, whereas the later period is characterised by village settlements. Evidence suggests that there was a degree of overlap, or transitional period, between these two phases, most probably around c. 3000 BC (Renfrew 1979, 207; Davidson & Henshall 1989, 93). One of the difficulties in refining the chronology of the Orcadian Neolithic is that radiocarbon dates suffer from 5

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney a plateau in the calibration curve between about 3400 and 3100 BC. There are also large errors associated with a number of the available radiocarbon dates that were gathered many years ago (Ashmore & Sanderson 2005, 96).

Wideford landscape project. Excavation at Stonehall Farm (HY366 126) has revealed at least seven potential houses associated with a substantial assemblage of ‘Unstan Ware’ pottery. Some of these structures echo those seen at Knap of Howar in plan. The importance of Stonehall Farm is two-fold; the findings increase the evidence for earlier settlement and, crucially, they call into question the previously accepted model of an earlier Neolithic period characterised by isolated farmsteads. Instead, the evidence at Stonehall Farm raises the possibility of ‘dispersed’ village settlements (Richards & Jones 1994, 91; 1995, 103).

2.4.4 Settlement and Domestic Sites of Neolithic Orkney Aside from the famous village of Skara Brae (Childe 1931; Clarke 1976) evidence for settlement during the Neolithic was, until relatively recently, considered sparse. However, research carried out over recent decades has revealed an incredible wealth, range and quality of archaeological material. Most of the sites have been dated to the later Neolithic and tend to be associated with Grooved Ware pottery. However, a small number of earlier sites also exist and, as indicated above, these are usually associated with Unstan Ware pottery.

Thought to be contemporaneous with Knap of Howar, the site of Pool, Sanday, has revealed 14 structures that have been dated to the Neolithic period (Hunter 2007, 63). The earliest buildings are associated with Unstan Ware and, on the basis of the evidence for animal husbandry and cultivation, reflects an economy representative of the ‘confident farming society’ interpreted at Knap of Howar on Papa Westray (Ritchie 1990, 39). In contrast to the buildings at Knap of Howar, the Pool structures were quite small, the only complete structure being 2 m in diameter. Tectonically similar to Knap of Howar, Pool is argued to incorporate midden material as a structural component (Hunter 2007, 64). The presence of Grooved Ware in the subsequent Neolithic phases (Phase 2 and 3) is considered a basis on which to define a relative chronology for Unstan/Grooved Ware types on this site. It has recently been argued that the incised Grooved Ware from Pool is among the earliest pottery of this tradition (Schulting et al. 2010, 38). Despite some difficulties regarding the dating (Hunter 2007, 61), Pool is argued to have sustained occupation substantially longer than witnessed at Barnhouse (see Section 2.4.4.2), of slightly less than two millennia (Hunter 2007, 63). This long settlement sequence at Pool has allowed an assessment of long-term change in subsistence. Perhaps the most striking trend highlighted by the excavators is that rather than change, there is continuity in the broad subsistence base, argued to reflect a successful adaptation to island life (Hunter et al. 2007, 515).

2.4.4.1 Settlement in the Earlier Neolithic Evidence for sedentary settlement on Orkney in the Earlier Neolithic was first discovered at Knap of Howar on the west coast of Papa Westray. Coastal erosion and later excavation uncovered two conjoining and substantial stone-built houses with radiocarbon dates placing occupation within the period between about 3700 and 2800 BC (Ritchie, A. 1990, 41– 42). Eight new dates have refined this chronology (Sheridan & Higham 2006, 202–3; 2007, 225), to show occupation within the period 3500 cal BC to 3000 BC (Ritchie 2009, 26). It was determined that the two surviving houses were built on top of an earlier midden (House 1 first and then House 2), and an upper layer of midden some 0.2 m thick was contemporary with their occupation (Ritchie, A. 1990, 47). Faunal remains provide evidence that Knap of Howar possessed a predominantly pastoral economy based on rearing cattle and sheep. However Ritchie states that the cultivation of cereal crops may have been more extensive than the record implies (Ritchie, A. 1990, 48). This is intimated by soil conditions that are adverse to the preservation of organic remains, other than bone, and the presence of two querns from House 1 (ibid.) An independent and self-sufficient farming unit is suggested by the faunal evidence, and this impression is strengthened by an artefact assemblage in which there are no detectable imports, either from outside Orkney or even from outside the Papa Westray area (Ritchie 1983, 56; 1990, 48). At the time of its occupation, the site appears to have been separated from a sandy shore by an extensive sand-dune system, and it probably lay in pastureland with small freshwater pools in the vicinity. It is conceivable that Papa Westray was still joined to Westray, for the sound between the two is today very shallow in the Aikerness area (Ritchie 1990, 48; Sturt 2005, 73). The nearest excavated stalled cairn to Knap of Howar is Holm of Papa Westray North which has been demonstrated to be contemporary in use (Ritchie 2009, 34).

Also located on Sanday, the settlement complex of Toft’s Ness encompasses a series of banks, mounds and cairns (Dockrill 2007, 4). In contrast to excavated sites such as Pool, Skara Brae, and Barnhouse, Toft’s Ness demonstrates continuity in settlement beyond the later Neolithic (Dockrill 2007, 30). Dockrill links evidence, such as an apparent lack of Grooved Ware (despite having phasing contemporary to Pool’s Grooved Ware phases) and the presence of a funerary complex (the possibility of Maeshowe-type chamber tombs), to inferences of status regarding Toft’s Ness as a marginal/peripheral place when compared to, for example, Pool (Dockrill 2007, 381). 2.4.4.2 Settlement in the Later Neolithic

New evidence for another early period settlement has come to light more recently as a result of work on the Cuween-

Evidence for settlement in Britain during the third millennium BC is typified by the single farmstead. This 6

Archaeological Background consensus is in stark contrast to the situation on Orkney, where the evidence points almost entirely to settlement concentrated in villages (Clarke & Sharples 1990, 56). Perhaps even more striking is the sense of order that seems to pervade the architecture and organisation of space within individual Late Neolithic houses (Downes & Richards 2005, 57).

dunes at Links of Noltland, Westray, was first recorded by antiquarian George Petrie in the 19th century. More recent work at the site (Moore & Wilson 2009) has led to the discovery of substantial structural remains, burials and midden of Neolithic and Bronze Age date, showing this to have been a more densely settled landscape occupied over a considerably longer period than had previously been realised (Moore and Wilson 2009, 11; 2010). Three structures of the Neolithic period have been identified. At present, it is hypothesised that all three belong within the Late Neolithic period and that some or all may have overlapped chronologically, collectively forming a dispersed village rather than the single isolated settlement as was previously thought (Moore and Wilson 2009, 11). The Links of Noltland excavations have, thus far, produced evidence that domestic sheep and cattle were in plentiful supply. The large amount of pottery (5,000 sherds), including some highly decorated Grooved Ware, and other artefacts such as bone points and bead-making debris suggest on-site manufacturing (Moore & Wilson 2010). Recovered from Structure 8 and measuring just 4 cm in height, the ‘Westray Wife’ is the earliest representation of the human form found in Scotland (Moore & Wilson 2010). Next to Structure 8, another Neolithic building has been found to have more than 14 cattle skulls all set into the walls and arranged facing down in a continuous circuit, often with horns interlocking. The excavators have no doubt that these skulls were deliberately placed within the wall when it was built (Moore & Wilson 2010). Radiocarbon dating and finds analysis place this site as contemporary with Barnhouse, Mainland (Richards 2005), Skara Brae, Mainland (Ashmore 2000) and Phase 3 at Pool, Sanday (Hunter 2007). Some features, such as the structural forms and artefact assemblages, find close comparisons at Skara Brae, Barnhouse and Rinyo.

The most renowned settlement site is Skara Brae on the west coast of Mainland (Childe 1931; Clarke 1976). Exposed by a storm in 1850, this Neolithic village is still one of the most famous sites on Orkney, achieving World Heritage Status in 1999. The surviving eight houses were initially thought to have become subsumed by rubbish generated by its inhabitants (Childe 1931, 24-28), the resulting midden lending a subterranean quality to the village. Later interpretations see this midden as having been specially constructed (Clarke & Sharples 1990, 60), however, more recently it has been suggested that this material is actually evidence of collapsed roofing (Jones & Richards 2005, 34). Closely comparable in terms of construction technique, size and layout, the surviving houses of Skara Brae’s late phase are linked by a passage running the length of the village (Clarke & Sharples 1990, 60). Constructed of drystone masonry with a midden core, the walls have adequate thickness to accommodate cells, which are entered from the main chamber (Clarke & Sharples 1990, 64). Each house was entered by a single, low, narrow doorway in the wall adjacent to the passage (Clarke & Sharples 1990, 60). A square-shaped hearth formed the focal point of the interior around which the stone furniture was organised. A number of clay-luted stone tanks, about 300 mm² and of a similar depth, have been set into the floor (Childe 1931, 14 –18; Clarke & Sharples 1990, 60). On the far wall, opposite the doorway, is a recess that often contains a stone-built shelving arrangement known as a ‘dresser’. Two opposed rectangular recesses or boxes, interpreted as ‘box-beds’ by Childe, are defined by divisional stone uprights situated either side of the hearth. When viewed in its entirety a cruciform configuration of spatial organisation can be observed. These principles of order seem to be deployed within all Late Neolithic houses, not just at Skara Brae (Downes & Richards 2005, 58).

The sites described above were the principal occupation settlements that had been explored until Colin Richards discovered and excavated the Barnhouse settlement in 1984 (Richards 2005). With the remains of up to 14 buildings, this settlement was one of the most important discoveries of the time, especially when its location in close proximity to the Stones of Stenness is considered. The main settlement seemed to be arranged concentrically around an open area, with two rings of dwellings. At the western periphery was the large and distinct House 2 (Downes & Richards 2000, 161). The structural history of habitation at Barnhouse is one of continual change; individual houses were built, periodically refurbished and eventually demolished and replaced on different alignments (Jones & Richards 2005, 27). While each house displays differences in architecture, the same principles of order can be seen to underpin the spatial organisation of virtually all the excavated houses at Barnhouse. Typically, the houses are circular with a cruciform arrangement of stone furniture around a central hearth with recessed spaces within the external walls. This clearly emulates the spatial order of the earlier houses present at Skara Brae and Rinyo (Jones & Richards 2005, 30). However, Barnhouse is unusual in that it has yielded little evidence for primary food production within the area

Similar stone furniture and principles of spatial organisation were also observed at the comparable site excavated at the Braes of Rinyo, Rousay, by Childe & Grant (1939; 1949). Although the acidity of the soil was unfavourable to the preservation of osseous remains (Childe & Grant 1939, 22) numerous sherds of Grooved Ware, flint implements and stone axes and balls were recovered. A recent survey (Mainland & Moore 2010, 121) returned to the site to determine the nature and extent of the deposits beyond those originally excavated. The survey appears to have defined the extent of the settlement, which covers an area of c 2000 m². The existence of Neolithic remains amongst the sand 7

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney excavated so far (Jones & Richards 2005, 34). Conversely, there is considerable evidence for the manufacture of artefacts in the form of pottery production, manufacture of bone and/or wooden artefacts and possibly hide working (ibid.). What is at present difficult to determine is whether this highlights the difference between Barnhouse and other settlements or simply one instance of variability in social practices that occurs more generally between different village communities (Jones & Richards 2005, 34).

interpreting these structures and generally thought of them as houses for the Picts, assuming they were domestic or defensive in character and contemporary with the Romans or even later. Today, these enigmatic structures are dated to the Neolithic period and are accepted as constituting monumental construction for the containment of the dead (Richards 1992, 64). Recorded studies of the Orcadian tombs began during the middle of the 19th century, with investigations at a number of sites by George Petrie (Wideford Hill; Holm of Papa Westray North; Hoxa Hill; Burray; Calf of Eday North-West; Maeshowe; Bookan and Quoyness), James Farrer (Calf of Eday North-West; Maeshowe; Bookan and Quoyness) F.J. Hebden (Vinquoy Hill; Eday Manse) and F.W.L. Thomas (Holm of Papa Westray South) (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 6). Following a lull, work began on the Royal Commission’s Inventory of the ancient monuments of Orkney in the 1920s and 1930s (RCAMS 1946), and in the 1930s there were a series of remarkable excavations by C.S.T. Calder on Eday, and J.G. Callandar and W.G. Grant on Rousay. After the war, V.G. Childe excavated at two outstanding monuments, Maeshowe and Quoyness, and soon afterwards Piggott published his synthesis and interpretation of the information (Piggott 1954, 232–56). At this time the affinity for a diffusionist interpretation may be clearly seen in the drive to classify the tombs into distinct categories. These identifiable units/cultures would then provide the means of understanding not only where the ‘tomb builders’ came from, but the order in which the relevant areas were colonised (Piggott 1954). Any variations within the identified tomb types were credited to local innovation, but the initial proto-type was considered extraneous. As the diffusionist models fell out of favour, the tombs became symbols of territoriality among agricultural communities (Renfrew 1979; Chapman 1981).

Barnhouse has been described as a ‘place of transformation’ due to the process whereby natural materials are metamorphosed into cultural artefacts (Richards 2005, 34). However, this notion of transformation is not the only characteristic that distinguishes Barnhouse from its contemporaries; it is also considered unusual due to the relatively short period of occupation identified during excavation (Jones & Richards 2005, 30). Barnhouse also appears to have accumulated far less of the ‘midden’ material that is so prevalent at other sites although, as previously stated, micro-morphological analysis of soil samples has shown that much of the material described as ‘midden’ at other settlements may actually have been a mixture of collapsed turf roofing and possibly cladding, mixed with refuse from the houses (Jones & Richards 2005, 52). Contemporaneous with, and some 13 km east of Barnhouse, Crossiecrown on Mainland was discovered in the form of a shallow mound during the course of field walking in 1995, carried out by the Cuween-Wideford Project, Orkney (Downes & Richards 2000; Jones et al. 2010, 30). It lies on the coastal plain between the northern slopes of Wideford Hill and the Bay of Kirkwall; Quanterness chamber tomb lies immediately to the south. Excavation at Crossiecrown revealed a multi-phase Neolithic site spanning the full sequence of the Orcadian Neolithic, with Early Neolithic Unstan Ware, a major assemblage of Later Neolithic Grooved Ware and Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age Beaker pottery present (Jones et al. 2010, 31). In its latter phases the site was dominated by two substantial buildings; House 1 and House 2. Both structures were of similar design, layout and alignment, with entrances facing each other (Jones et al. 2010, 31).

A then definitive catalogue of sites and their contents with an interpretive commentary was published by Audrey Henshall in 1963 (Henshall 1963, 183–253; Henshall 1972, 562¬–3). Our knowledge and understanding of the tombs was then significantly enhanced by investigations carried out by Renfrew (1979) at the tomb of Quanterness, Hedges at the tomb of Isbister (1983), and Fraser’s investigations of tomb distribution (1983). In 1989, Henshall subsequently reviewed and updated her catalogue to include new discoveries in Davidson & Henshall (1989). Her assignment of tombs into two broad categories - Orkney-Cromarty-type and Maeshowe-type still stands today, the key features of which are described in Sections 2.4.5.2 and 2.4.5.3.

2.4.5 Megalithic Tombs of Orkney 2.4.5.1 Background The far north of Scotland has a remarkable concentration of megalithic tombs and, for their land area, the Orkney and Shetland Islands have the greatest concentrations of all. The variety of size and form, the elaborate designs and structural excellence, the number in existence that are relatively complete, and the detail with which they have been studied (Henshall 1990, 84) means the Orcadian tombs are of outstanding interest for reasons beyond their number.

Originally treated as artefacts, it was the architectural detail of tomb construction that became the mechanism for their classification (Richards 1992, 63). This designation into architectural types permitted the development of a culturehistorical approach, whereby tombs, as with pottery, could be used to indicate the spread of people into new regions. Jones & Richards (2000, 104) have stated how these architectural categories, still in place today, have in the

Previously, 19th century antiquaries had difficulties 8

Archaeological Background past constrained our understanding of their construction and use. Rather, they propose we should conceive of their architectural order ‘in terms of underlying cultural dispositions, thereby enabling us to explore the varying manifestation of this order as expressions of different projects embodying changing forms of practice’ (Jones & Richards 2000, 104). They further suggest we should reject the idea of the tomb as representing a single event - one that is over when the tomb is closed or blocked. Instead, we should consider the stages of use as an openended project (Jones & Richards 2000, 104).

Westray, Orkney (Richards 1992, 66). The third sub-group within the Orkney-Cromarty type tombs is described as another variation of the tripartite chamber. This is identified with the seven Bookan tombs, named after the cairn of the same name on Mainland. At Huntersquoy on Eday and at Taversoe Tuick on Rousay the tombs are extraordinary structures with two chambers one above the other, covered by a round cairn, the whole construction built as a unit (Henshall 1990, 89). The rock cut Dwarfie Stane on Hoy is a unique monument, and its classification as a chambered tomb is periodically questioned (Henshall 1990, 91).

Understanding the chronology of the Orcadian tombs is one of the key considerations of current research. Indeed, it was the drive to acquire dating material that inspired Colin Renfrew’s landmark excavation program at Quanterness in 1972¬–74 (Renfrew 1979). Dates have been obtained for a number of the tombs, both Orkney-Cromarty and Maeshowe-types. However, these dates are usually from animal or human bone found within the tomb deposits. This may be problematic as, while the date produced will relate to the actual deposit, it is not necessarily directly associated with the tomb construction. Suggestions that bone could be removed and re-deposited in different tombs could further complicate confident interpretation (Richards 1988, 44; Schulting et al. 2010, 19).

The pairs of orthostats that divide the tripartite and stalled tombs into their compartments have been interpreted as doorways, which, in tandem with the linearity of the monument create a pathway through the tomb. The ultimate goal appears to have been the large back slab incorporated into the end compartment, a possible symbol of the divine or an impassable gateway to another world (Richards 1992, 72–73). Evidence that some cairns were modified over time has been noted from cairns such as Calf of Eday Long and Papa Westray North. These modifications, along with cairn enlargement from the tripartite variety to the stalled variety (if an evolutionary framework is followed) have been argued to indicate a desire to increase their capacity. The focus appears to have been on the internal areas of the monuments. The increased volume of the enclosed space would have potentially allowed the deposition of more bodies and the participation of a greater number of individuals (Noble 2006(a), 128–131). This approach to modification contrasts with the evidence from the Scottish mainland where the enlargement of tombs was focused on the enhancement of the external appearance, with access to the dead being prevented by the blocking of the entrances (Richards 1992, 74).

2.4.5.2 Orkney-Cromarty-Type Tombs The Orkney-Cromarty class of tomb is found across the islands of the Orkney archipelago (Fig. 2.2) and the northern part of Scotland, in the counties of Invernessshire and Ross-shire, Sutherland and Caithness. In Orkney, there are 59 known sites, usually associated with Unstan Ware pottery and considered to be the earlier tomb forms on the Islands. They are divided into three sub-groups tripartite, stalled and Bookan.

In terms of the mortuary practice at the Orkney-Cromarty tombs, Davidson & Henshall (1989, 55) believe the skeletal evidence implies that whole bodies were brought into the chamber and laid in a crouched position, on benches where these were provided. After decomposition the bones were gathered into heaps, and at a later stage were stored in special areas such as end compartments or cells. At sites such as Yarso (Callander & Grant 1935) and Isbister (Hedges 1983) the arrangement of skulls around the walls of the compartments suggests there was a special regard for skulls. Davidson & Henshall (1989, 55) assign the incompleteness of skeletons within the tombs to removal, and even addition, of bones to the chambers during the life of the monument. These procedures would imply that the bodies were accessible without a covering of earth or stones until the final sealing of the chamber (ibid.). The incorporation of the benches into the original design of all three Orkney-Cromarty tomb types suggests there was little change in the nature of the funerary rite associated with the style of tomb. Observation of whole skeletons at tombs such as Midhowe (Callander & Grant 1934) is thought to reflect the final phase of use of these tombs (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 55).

Davidson & Henshall (1989, 20) have identified 19 tombs as being certain or probably tripartite. Generally within a circular cairn, tripartite chambers were built of dry-stone walling and were divided into three compartments (by two pairs of divisional slabs and a pair of portal slabs) arranged along the primary axis. Access was via a passage running either axially or occasionally laterally (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 19). The stalled type is considered to be a development of the tripartite tombs, having longer chambers and more compartments. In addition to shelves in several end compartments, some (but not all) of the tripartite and the stalled chambers have been found to be equipped with low benches, set along the side walls between the transverse slabs (Henshall 1990, 89). Positioning of these benches is inconsistent and whilst shelves have not been identified in every chamber, the presence in some end compartments of projecting stones, clearly intended for their support (e.g. Knowe of Yarso), suggests some shelves and benches may have been made of wood (Henshall 1990, 89). Parallels have been drawn between the spatial arrangement in these tombs and contemporary settlements such as Knap of Howar on Papa 9

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Figure 2.2 Distribution of Orkney-Cromarty Type Tombs on Orkney (Land-Form PANORAMA® data is reproduced here by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. Contains OS data © Crown Copyright (and database right) 2016. † Scheduled monument data is reproduced here under the terms laid out in the ‘One Scotland Mapping Agreement: Schedule 5 - End User Licence’ © Copyright Historic Scotland 2012. ©Crown Copyright. All rights reserved 2012). utilised in a unique manner) (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 37; Richards 1996, 197). In contrast to the strong (axial) linearity of the preceding tomb-type, Maeshowe-type chambers are usually moderately rectangular in plan, in one case square and in another case polygonal, with high roofs. Their chambers all have low entries in the chamber walls, arranged approximately symmetrically, leading to cells. Similar cells have been found on three occasions at Orkney-Cromarty-type chambers (Holm of Papa Westray North, Unstan and Isbister) (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 24). With one or two exceptions, the cairns over Maeshowetype chambers are round (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 37). It has been argued that this cellular spatial arrangement removes the public focal point from an area outside the entrance to a private area situated at the heart of the tomb (Richards 1988, 54). Furthermore, whereas the linearity of the stalled type makes the innermost chamber the ultimate goal, with the Maeshowe-type, the central

2.4.5.3 Maeshowe-Type Tombs This class of monument is named after the chamber tomb of Maeshowe, Mainland. Considered one of the supreme achievements of Neolithic Europe, Maeshowe is uniquely identified due to its structural excellence. However, although other tombs are classified by their architectural and spatial similarity to Maeshowe, radiocarbon dating suggests this monument was the last and most sophisticated artefact of this tradition of tomb-building. The Maeshowe-type tombs are concentrated on Mainland (Fig. 2.3), where five of the ten known examples are distributed across the centre of the island (Henshall 1990, 99). Chronologically later and fewer in number, they are immediately distinguished from the Orkney-Cromarty-group chambers with an absence of divided compartments, and a lack of large upright slabs in their construction (except at Maeshowe where they are

10

Archaeological Background chamber becomes the focus of the monument, needing to be returned to in order to access different cells (Sharples 1985, 68; Richards 1988, 54). Maeshowe-type tombs also differ in their content, with most being associated with Grooved Ware pottery.

A few of the Maeshowe-type chambers have some unusual features that are worth noting. There is a long ‘narrow window’ between the chamber and one of the cells at Quanterness. In the centre of the roof at Wideford Hill an opening leading to the top of the cairn was built that looked like ‘the top of a chimney’ (Thomas 1852, 126). At the commencement of the inner section of the passage at Maeshowe is a carefully built recess, designed to accommodate the large stone block that still stands today. It is triangular in plan, slightly narrower than the passage and was originally found in place, blocking the access (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 51). The plan of the unusually long chamber at Holm of Papa Westray South differs from the other Maeshowe-type tombs, with cross-walls dividing the main chamber into three distinct spaces (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 39). At Holm of Papa Westray South two

In 2010, the number of known Maeshowe-type tombs was increased by one with the discovery of Banks Tomb, South Ronaldsay. This semi-subterranean tomb was built into a quarried out rock outcrop and consists of a central chamber with five side cells. On-going excavation has, to date, recovered in excess of 1,000 disarticulated human bones. All parts of the human skeleton are represented and include all age ranges, from very young children to adults. The discovery of large quantities of otter spraint found inside the tomb, at different levels, indicates that it must have been left open for extended periods of time, allowing the otters to go in as they pleased (Lee 2011).

Figure 2.3 Distribution of Maeshowe Type Tombs on Orkney (Land-Form PANORAMA® data is reproduced here by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. Contains OS data © Crown Copyright (and database right) 2016. † Scheduled monument data is reproduced here under the terms laid out in the ‘One Scotland Mapping Agreement: Schedule 5 - End User Licence’ © Copyright Historic Scotland 2012. ©Crown Copyright. All rights reserved 2012). 11

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney of the cells have a secondary cell opening off the side so that 12 entries lead to 14 cells, similarly at Cuween Hill one cell gives access to another, secondary cell (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 40). Stones with pecked decoration have been found at Eday Manse, Pierowall and Holm of Papa Westray South (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 44; Bradley et al. 2000).

cultures (though similar economic bases) were involved in the building and use of the cairns. These two groups have been named after their respective pottery styles Unstan Ware and Grooved Ware (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 64). As alluded to above, the pottery associated with the Orkney-Cromarty-type and Maeshowe-type tombs is Unstan Ware and Grooved Ware respectively. However, a suggestion has been proffered that the pots found in the tombs may have been specially selected and thus are not representative of the normal domestic range of ceramic ware. The Unstan Ware assemblage from the settlement site at Knap of Howar, for example, exhibits some differences from the tomb assemblage, such as heavy or angular cordons, shoulders, and depressions used as decoration, which are not found on the tomb pottery (Ritchie, 1983, 54; Davidson & Henshall 1989, 77). Flints and stone axe-heads are scarce, whilst only two chambers (Isbister, Knowe of Yarso) have produced a small number of bone pins or tools (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 78). These artefacts were not associated with particular burials so are not identified as grave-goods in the normal sense (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 56).

These cairns, like those of the Orkney-Cromarty group, were faced by well-built vertical walls standing to a height a little less than that of the chamber they covered. The top of the cairn was gently domed and finished with a carefully laid capping so that the only visible feature was the entrance into the passage (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 41). The interpretations for mortuary practice within this tomb type have been strongly influenced by one site. The excavation of Quanterness by Renfrew (1979) led to the recovery of a staggering amount of human bone. Prior to this excavation, chambered tombs on Orkney had been found to range from containing no evidence of human remains, to as many as 14 or 15 individuals at Quoyness (Farrer 1870, 400; Wells 1952, 137). The Quanterness remains were disarticulated, fragmented and in total disarray – evidence which was interpreted by Chesterman (1979, 101–102) as indicative of a mortuary rite of excarnation. Largely accepted by Renfrew (1979, 166) this argument was further developed by Hedges (1983; 2000, 134–136) following the excavation of Isbister tomb, a site with an even larger amount of bone than Quanterness. Despite arguments to the contrary (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 58; Reilly 2003; Lawrence 2006) it is an interpretation that still subtly infuses the literature.

2.4.5.4b Faunal Remains Animal remains have been found comingled with the human bones in tombs of both the Orkney-Cromarty-type (Isbister; Midhowe; Know of Yarso) and Maeshowe-type (Quoyness; Quanterness) (Henshall 1990, 106). They include a wide variety of fauna ranging from domesticates such as cattle, sheep, pig and dog to wild species such as red deer and otter. Many of these deposits also contain large deposits of bird bone (Jones 1998, 308). Hedges (1983, 154) believes the evidence indicates an association between particular tombs and particular types of meat. For example, at Quanterness, Blackhammer and the Knowe of Rowiegar there was mutton or goat, but at Midhowe it was beef, and at the Knowe of Ramsay and the Knowe of Yarso, it was venison. The implication is that joints of meat were placed in the tombs as funerary offerings (Hedges 2000, 269) or were left as the remains of funerary feasting (Renfrew 1979, 168).

The sequence of increasing capacity for bodies and accessibility for individuals suggested for the OrkneyCromarty-type tombs is not reflected in the development of the Maeshowe-type tombs. Here, areas for public gathering outside the monuments became more common. Passage lengths became increasingly elongated, the views into the tombs became more restricted and fewer people could be accommodated inside (Henshall 2004, 83; Noble 2006(a), 131). At the same time, platforms were incorporated into the new traditions and were added to some of the older monuments (such as Pierowall Quarry (Sharples 1984)), suggesting that the gatherings at these locations were becoming larger in scale, while those individuals permitted access to the deposits inside became fewer in number (Richards 1988; Bradley 2006, 104; Noble 2006(a), 131).

The recovery of at least 14 white-tailed sea-eagles from the Orkney-Cromarty-type Isbister tomb and 24 dog skulls from the Maeshowe-type Cuween Hill tomb fuelled the hypothesis that some animal remains, particularly those not obviously foodstuffs, may have been of totemic significance (Fraser 1983; Hedges 1983, 145–159). However, recent work dating the sea-eagle remains (McCormick & Sheridan 2006, 6) indicated that they were deposited some 1,000 years after the accepted date for the construction of the tomb. New dates from three of the dogs from Cuween produced dates that cluster around the middle of the 3rd millennium BC (Sheridan 2005, 177) and can be assumed to represent secondary use of the tomb. Therefore, caution must be exercised when invoking ideas of totemism with the initial use of these tombs. While clearly not associated with the original mortuary practices, the dates do indicate these structures maintained accessibility and significance for quite some time. The possibility that animals may

2.4.5.4 Artefacts and Other Structures from the Orcadian Tombs 2.4.5.4a Artefacts Artefacts found within both the Orkney-Cromarty and the Maeshowe-type tombs have been understood as further evidence that two communities with distinct material 12

Archaeological Background have entered the tombs by themselves presents a further challenge to any suggestions that such remains are loaded with symbolic meaning (McCormick 1984, 109). Jones (1998, 309) however, has pointed out that many animal species such as cattle and deer are simply too large to enter a low stone tomb of their own volition. Instead of seeing animals as a secondary feature of the mortuary ritual, Jones (1998, 316) argues that they were imbued with symbolism, structuring and framing perceptions and associations with certain places.

their visual impact (Fraser 1983, 324; Finlay & Barber 1997, 3). This impact would be even greater if the tombs were manifest as large towers, as suggested by Sharples (1984; 1985, 65). However, research carried out by Woodman (2000) has concluded that, while chambered cairns have wide views over the surrounding area, they do not seem to have been designed to be visible from the local landscape itself (Cummings & Pannett 2005, 15). This was noticed earlier at the Point of Cott, where a topographical setting seems to have been chosen deliberately, to reduce its visual impact, being sited at the foot of a long low slope. It may be that visibility from the sea was the aim of its builders (Finlay & Barber 1997, 3).

2.4.5.4c Fire It is difficult to assess the part fire played in the burial rites. At some sites, notably Knowe of Ramsay and Knowe of Yarso, it is clear that fires were lit in the chamber and were intense enough to redden and crack the walls. The practicalities of doing this within such confined spaces prompts speculation that the roof may not have been in place. This implies these fires may have been lit before the chamber was finished or at the time it was sealed or both (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 57). At the tombs of Isbister and Sandhill Smithy, burning was less intense, affecting only the floors. Other chambers had black layers covering the floor, or parts of it, but it is unclear whether or not this represents in situ burning (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 57). Chesterman (1979, 102,107) argued that there was extensive evidence for burning of bones at Quanterness, but could not be sure whether the exposure to fire occurred inside or outside the tomb.

More recently, Jones (1998) has discussed the composition of deposits made at the chambered cairns in relation to human, animal and material bodies and their associations and connections. He argues that the cairns may have been positioned in relation to different types of landscape, and the animals that would have lived there, and suggests that these connections were enacted in the types of deposit made within each monument. 2.4.5.6 The End of the Tombs? Consensus of academic opinion suggests the Maeshowe tomb type marked the final stage of tomb development in Orkney and it is argued that after c. 2400 BC no further tombs were constructed. Material found choking the entrances and chambers of both types of tomb has been suggested to be evidence for their ritual closure (Henshall 1963, 98–101, 128–129; Hedges 1983, 209–210). This widely accepted interpretation has been incorporated into discussions of the social and ritual significance of the tombs. For example, closure has been seen as a reduction in the significance of ancestor-based control over land ownership (Finlay & Barber 1997, 7). Sharples (1984, 118–119; 1985, 72–73) has proposed that the Orcadian tombs were deliberately destroyed at roughly the same time the henges and stone circles came into use on Mainland (see Section 2.4.6), and that this was caused by a social transition from individual, isolated or self sustaining groups scattered throughout the islands, to unified, archipelago-wide social organisation. He also suggests this may explain bones being absent or disorganised at many of the tombs (Sharples 1985, 73). Parallels may be drawn from outside Orkney. Similar activities at this time in England at locations such as West Kennet Long Barrow (Bayliss et al. 2007c, 97) have also been seen as events that removed the space and its contents from further contemplation. However, this is not considered to indicate an abandonment of the monument but rather a shift in the focus of activities. Ancestral remains could no longer be recovered and the dead could no longer be carried through to join them. The act of closure meant these once crucial symbolic resources were no longer available for direct intercession in the rituals played out in front of the monument (Barrett 1988, 36).

2.4.5.5 Tomb Distribution and Siting The position and setting of the tombs has been a source of great discussion in the literature. Most early authors considered the setting of monuments in relation to agricultural land. Childe (1942, 141), for example, proposed that the cairns on Rousay were built near land suitable for early agriculture. This relationship between agricultural land and tombs was incorporated into Renfrew’s (1979, 221) territorial model. Analysis carried out by Fraser (1983) suggested a chronological distinction in tomb siting. Small round cairns with simple chambers (i.e. early tombs) are preferentially located ‘some distance from the shore on a hill slope, on land now considered marginal for agriculture’. The other tombs, including those with large cairns and complex chambers (which were probably constructed between 2700 and 2400 BC), are on ‘land now reckoned to be good for agriculture, with podzolic soils developed on glacial tills, and with extensive views’ (Fraser 1983, 324). However, the current distribution of sites could be considered an artefact of survival, with fewer sites on the best arable lands, possibly because they have been destroyed by farming activities, and the majority of sites in the marginal lands and poorest islands (Finlay & Barber 1997, 3). This notion of survival must be borne in mind when considering the significance of tomb distribution. It has been suggested that all the sites for the tombs of Orkney seem to have been selected in order to enhance

Barber (1997, 65) has argued strongly against the notion 13

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney of a Neolithic-wide event of deliberate destruction. The construction of a platform at Quoyness (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 156), effectively sealing the entrance, occurred during the Neolithic life of this monument. At Quanterness, an Iron Age roundhouse was inserted over the original entrance passage (Renfrew 1979, 194). Examples such as these led Barber to assert that the events which destroyed the tombs occurred as a gradual process. Barber (1997, 65) also considers that much of the evidence for ‘choking material’ has been misread and actually represents the ordinary collapse of corbelled structures.

Situated on a flat expanse, excavation has revealed the circle once stood within a ditch and bank with an overall diameter of about 44 m. This ditch has been shown to be 7 m wide at ground-level and over 2 m deep, again, cut into solid rock (Ritchie 1996, 138). It has been suggested that this ditch, and the ditch associated with The Ring of Brodgar, may have been filled with standing water for long periods of the year (Richards 1996, 203), creating striking parallels between the architecture of the henges and the local topography. In effect, the henge monuments form a microcosm of the Neolithic Orcadian world (Richards 1996, 203; Garrow et al. 2005, 256.). Radiocarbon analysis of animal bone recovered from the bottom of the ditch, along with the presence of some Grooved Ware pottery, indicates this henge was built in the early third millennium BC, making it contemporary with the villages of Skara Brae and Barnhouse.

Certainly, the modifications that seem to have obstructed direct access to the tombs suggest a change in the ideological treatment of these places. Direct access to the monuments may have ceased, but they still maintained a fixed presence in the landscape. This would indicate that the monuments still held an important role. If the intention had been to destroy them, they would not still be standing today. It seems more plausible that these later activities represent a reinvention and manipulation of the cairns, rather than their eradication (Hingley 1996, 241).

North of Brodgar, the Ring of Bookan may be another smaller henge monument, while to the immediate east is a standing stone known as the Comet Stone, set on a low platform on which the remains of two more stones are visible. A pair of standing stones, 8 m apart, is located at the very tip of the promontory near Brodgar farm. It is considered likely that in prehistoric times the promontories of Brodgar and Stenness were still joined as a narrow neck of land (Ritchie 1996, 137).

The possibility that these areas were used, and reused, over a long period of time presents other issues (Sharples 1985, 67). Analysis of the use of the chambers is difficult. Henshall (1972, 277) is particularly pessimistic, believing that, since such a significant and unquantifiable number have been disturbed, interpretations of their original use are impossible.

Earlier interpretations of these monuments were preoccupied in estimating the amount of labour required to construct them. For example, it was estimated that cutting the Brodgar ditch involved shifting some 4,700 cubic metres of rock and would have taken about 80,000 workhours to complete (Ritchie 1996, 135). Given the huge amount of labour and material involved, these monuments have been seen as demonstrating a society that was both highly organised, and united in its cosmology (ibid.).

2.4.6 Ritual Monuments The henge monuments known as the Stones of Stenness and The Ring of Brodgar are situated on opposing promontories that separate the two major lochs of mainland Orkney: Stenness and Harray (Ritchie, G. 2004, 40). Along with their attendant standing stones and barrows, it is considered they should be perceived as part of one great ceremonial complex, akin to that at Callanish on Lewis in the Western Isles or to Stonehenge in Wiltshire (Ritchie 1996, 134).

The discovery of the settlement of Barnhouse (Richards 2005) has led to new insights into the meaning and use of these monuments (Richards 1996). For example, some of the features identified by Ritchie within the Stones of Stenness gained a greater clarity of interpretation when considered in respect to the Barnhouse Structure 8. The central hearths of both structures began life as identically proportioned ‘L-shaped’ slots dug into the natural soil, suggesting strong connections between these two constructions. Further parallels may be seen between the features located at the entrance of the Stones of Stenness and the platform of Barnhouse Structure 8 (Richards 2005, 557).

Of the original 60, there are 36 stones still standing at The Ring of Brodgar, forming a near perfect circle with a diameter of 104 m. Situated on slightly elevated ground (over 10 m OD) it is visible on the skyline from all around. It was surrounded by an enormous rock-cut ditch, originally about 10 m wide at ground-level and more than 3 m deep. Despite the size of the ditch, there is surprisingly no evidence for the presence of a surrounding bank. While there is currently a lack of precise dating evidence, the early to mid third millennium is thought to be the most likely date for its construction. Unfortunately, there has been no excavation within the circle to ascertain the existence of any internal structures (Ritchie 1996, 136).

Considering the affinity in the fundamental design principles discussed above, the appearance of these henge monuments does seem to coincide with the development of the Maeshowe-type tombs. The Later Neolithic of Orkney, therefore, is characterised by an emphasis on ‘open’ monuments. External spaces were emphasised and delineated, in the form of forecourts and platforms, henges and the use of ditches and stone circles (Richards

At the Stones of Stenness, there were originally 12 stones forming a circle of 30 m in diameter (Ritchie 1976; Ritchie, G. 2004, 40), of which only four now survive. 14

Archaeological Background 1996; Bradley et al. 2000). These monuments suggest a more sophisticated, abstract, appreciation of spatial configuration where ‘enclosure’ is not literally defined by a hermetically sealed structure alone. On one level this would seem to suggest inclusion and visibility but, on another, it emphasises a distinction between performer and observer.

2000, 56–57). During a field visit to Quoyness in 1997, Bradley discovered previously unnoticed decorated stones inside the monument (Bradley 1998, 387–388). Scratched rather than pecked into the surface, these motifs echo decoration found at Skara Brae. Bradley draws further parallels with similar motifs identified on Grooved Ware pottery. Since Grooved Ware is found in both the megalithic monuments and settlement sites, this stylistic similarity is perceived as a further reinforcement of the relationship between settlements and the more elaborate chambered tombs in Orkney (Hodder 1982, 218–28; Bradley 1998, 390). The similarity of designs in tombs and settlements suggested that, rather than being associated exclusively with the dead, they helped to create a sense of community in which the deceased remained involved in the everyday activities of the living (Bradley et al. 2000, 64). The presence of an associated slab in Structure 9 at Pool, Sanday, bearing chevron and dot decoration further strengthens this postulated link between the houses of the dead and those of the living (Hunter 2007, 70).

The archaeological landscape of the henge monuments is continuing to reveal new and incredible remains. Excavations arising from geophysical survey in 2002 have changed the face of the ritual landscape of Neolithic Orkney as we have come to understand it. The ongoing excavations at the Ness of Brodgar, located between The Ring of Brodgar and the Stones of Stenness, have revealed a hitherto unknown and unexpected site of monumental Neolithic buildings, the scale of which has not been seen before on Orkney, or indeed in the rest of Britain. In addition to the sheer scale of some of the buildings (Structure 10 has outer walls 5 m wide) a great diversity in pottery and an unprecedented amount of decorated stone has led the excavators to believe this was much more than a settlement. In fact, the range of pottery on the site is thought to indicate this may have been a focus for a number of communities. In 2007, a massive prehistoric wall, 4 m thick, was unearthed on the Ness. This has been suggested to have some symbolic or ritualistic function, possibly separating a land of the living, from a land of the dead. Radiocarbon dates have so far suggested an occupation period of over 1000 years (c. 3200–2300 BC) but it is possible that occupation was earlier as the primary deposits have not yet been reached. These discoveries are causing a major rethink in the role of the henge monuments in this area. It is now suggested that The Ring of Brodgar and the Stones of Stenness may actually be end points of a corridor, through which people had to pass in order to access the monumental complex at the Ness. Rather than being the focus of ceremonial activity, these henge monuments are now perceived to have been on the periphery.

Childe’s (1931; 134, 137, 144) identification of paint pots at Skara Brae, together with traces of red and white pigment is some of the earliest and most tantalising evidence for the use of colour. As Bradley’s scratched motifs are very difficult to see without the use of artificial lighting (Bradley et al. 2000, 51) it was suggested they might simply have been sketches for designs in another medium, possibly paint. This hypothesis can now be said to have gained further credence with the recent discovery of paint at the Ness of Brodgar excavations. In recent years, the corpus of decorated Orcadian material has been greatly increased by the excavations at the Ness of Brodgar. By the end of the 2009 season of excavation, over 80 decorated items had been recovered, ranging from incised decoration, to pecking and more substantial carved motifs. The sheer volume of decoration, especially compared to the art at Skara Brae, sets this place apart, suggesting it is of special significance. Leaving what obviously constitutes art aside, Finlay & Barber (1997, 6) suggested we should see the chambered tombs themselves as art: ‘As a symbol of architectural and aesthetic ethos. They are works of art because they, by virtue of their architectural aesthetic, sense of place and the universality of their mediation in the transition from life to death, have become statements of the human condition.’

2.4.7 Art Evidence for art during the Orcadian Neolithic generally consists of decorated stonework. Stone from Holm of Papa Westray South, where some of the motifs remain in situ, and stone associated with the destroyed monuments of Pierowall and Eday Manse, were all embellished with pecked motifs (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 81–3). A stone with pecked decoration from the Howe, Stromness, while from a medieval context, is thought to have originated in a chambered tomb on the site (Ballin-Smith 1994, 209–10). The apparent exclusivity of the incised and pecked motifs to the Maeshowe-type passage tombs has been argued to suggest that tomb decoration was confined to a developed phase of the Orkney Neolithic (Bradley et al. 2000, 55–56). It is argued that the motifs were imbued with symbolism, being positioned to mark important thresholds within the tombs, such as lintels over passage entrances or to mark locations of deposits, such as at Quoyness (Bradley et al.

2.4.8 Interpretations Such a wealth of archaeological material is difficult to weave together into a comprehensive account of the past and will inevitably present multitudinous and complex issues for debate. Nevertheless, interpretation of the social organisation of the Orcadian Neolithic has been dominated by one or two major works. Childe’s conceptual framework, drawn from his work at Skara Brae, effectively set the scene for the interpretation of the Orcadian Neolithic in 15

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney culture-historical terms (Jones & Richards 2000, 102). This is clearly manifested in Renfrew’s chronological distinction between the Early Neolithic settlements and stalled cairns associated with Unstan pottery, and the later settlements and Maeshowe-type cairns associated with Grooved Ware pottery (Renfrew 1979, 207). While this framework is now largely accepted, the question of a chronological overlap between these two ‘cultures’ is still debated (Jones & Richards 2000, 102). For the period prior to the construction of the henges, Renfrew argues for the existence of a segmentary society that, he suggests, is characterised in the archaeological record by an absence of evidence for differential ranking within and between tombs. He was of the opinion that this segmentary society evolved into a chiefdom and is represented by the henges (Renfrew 1979, 218–223). The simplicity of this system, in a chronological sense, is only surpassed by Fraser (1983, 434) who suggests that all the monuments are contemporary and their use never changed. Sharples (1985, 61) is critical of Renfrew’s interpretation for failing to explain the mechanism by which the segmentary society evolved into a chiefdom, and for not addressing the variety and complexity of the archaeological record on the Islands. Renfrew’s territorial model (1979, 214–218) is considered to have influenced subsequent interpretations of the organisation of Orcadian Neolithic society. The fact that the distribution of the known monuments upon which this model is based is an artefact of survival (Barber 1997, 4), coupled with a lack of radiocarbon dates to demonstrate contemporaneous use, makes this a difficult hypothesis to support. Richards (1988, 42) issues further criticism stressing that variation in the burial record does not fit the idea of a uniformity of purpose, which is essential for such a general model to work. Recent research agendas reiterate the need for improved qualitative and quantitative data collection, for exploration of underrepresented sites and of transition periods, for the investigation of economic and environmental circumstances and consideration of sites within their landscape settings and their wider settlement hinterlands (e.g. Downes et al. 2005). 2.5 Summary This chapter has presented a précis of the key archaeological material associated with the Orcadian Neolithic. The purpose of this process has been to contextualise the megalithic tombs so they may be examined in more detail. Chapter 3 will focus, in greater detail, on the challenges these structures have generated for the interpretation of the mortuary rites.

16

Chapter 3

Understanding Death in Neolithic Orkney: Current Themes 3.1 Introduction

3.3 The Treatment of the Dead in Neolithic Orkney

The previous chapter demonstrated the wealth of information in the archaeological record concerning the Orcadian Neolithic, and allowed for the contextualisation of the tombs within this wider framework of knowledge. As previously mentioned, the condition of human remains found within these megalithic structures forms the focal point of this research. Chapter 3 will, therefore, build on this contextualising process by illustrating the key themes and interpretations that are currently employed to account for the state of the human bone assemblages recovered from Orcadian Neolithic tombs.

Despite the large number of Neolithic tombs identified on Orkney (see Section 2.4.5), few of them have yielded human remains. Before the discoveries of Quanterness (Renfrew 1979) and Isbister (Hedges 1983), and more recently Banks tomb (Lee 2011), estimates of population numbers contained within these structures were very low and directly comparable with evidence from the rest of Britain. On consideration, it was clear that these numbers could not be a direct reflection of the actual populations these structures served at the time. The ‘real’ populations have been rendered archaeologically invisible by whatever manner of funerary rite they were subjected to (Hedges 1983; 2000), and this hypothesis has naturally influenced interpretation. The eventual discovery of the large numbers of remains at Isbister and Quanterness not only set these tombs apart from their immediate neighbours, but also from the rest of Britain. Whilst there has been much discussion in the literature as to what these funerary rites may have been, several key themes are ever present. These themes are outlined and discussed in this section. It will also be apparent that the various hypotheses are founded on evidence derived from only a few tombs, reflecting both the limitations of the data and the importance of these sites.

3.2 The Significance of Death in the Archaeological Record It is self-evident to state that the dead do not bury themselves - their ultimate fate as part of the archaeological record was set in motion by the actions of the living. It is this connection to the living that has caused human remains to become of great significance to archaeologists. The idea that analysis of the mortuary record would provide a mirror image of society (Saxe 1970; Binford 1971) led to the development of an ‘Archaeology of Death’ (Chapman et al. 1981; O’Shea 1984). However, the hypothesis that the mortuary record could actually be masking inequalities in society (Edmonds 1999, 64) caused this approach to fall out of favour. No longer regarded as a direct metaphor for society as a whole (Sharples 1985, 70), mortuary practices should still be seen as a powerful medium of social discourse (Richards 1988, 42). The development of post-processualist thought has led ideology associated with funerary behaviour to now be recognised as a fluid, dynamic and malleable concept (Richards 1988; Larsson 2003, 154). Ritually and symbolically overt, mortuary activities go beyond the practicalities of dealing with a decaying corpse (Richards 1988, 42; Bello & Andrews 2006, 7). The significance of human remains is now much more than the sum of the biological information relating to age, sex and health. It is a potential window into the ideologies and practices of societies in the past. This potential can be framed in the question: How have human remains informed our interpretations of mortuary practice in the Orcadian Neolithic?

3.3.1 Inhumation, Primary Burial and Direct Interment When we refer to inhumation (from humus, meaning earth) practices, we are generally describing the act of placing a whole body in the ground. The individual is covered over and the resulting grave may, or may not, be marked. There is no further direct interaction or access to the deceased by the living (Miles 1965, 161). This practice is generally indicated by the recovery of whole, anatomically articulated skeletons. The evidence for this kind of funerary rite in Neolithic Orkney is actually quite limited, and a distinction should be made between inhumation and ‘primary burial/direct interment’. Primary burial/direct interment implies the deposition of a whole fresh body (Duday 2006, 33) though, unlike inhumation, it does not preclude a later return to either move or manipulate the remains. At the chamber tomb of Quanterness, Mainland (Renfrew 1979), the earliest burials (stratigraphically) within the cairn were those in the main chamber found in Pits A and B. Pit A was a simple earth-cut hollow, covered by eight flat sandstone slabs, containing a crouched inhumation. 17

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney the skull placed on top, has resulted in the description of a funerary rite that involved the initial direct (and probably immediate) interment of whole bodies. When fresh corpses were added, the older (and more decayed) deposits were either pushed to the back of the bench or placed below it on the floor of the tomb to make more room (Callander & Grant 1934, 331; Davidson & Henshall 1989, 53; Reilly 2003, 137). However, the heaped remains tended to be incomplete, with some individuals represented only by fragments of skull (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 148). Whilst natural decay has been suggested for instances of partial representation, this may not account for all the missing bones. Another possibility is that missing bones may have been moved deliberately to another tomb, possibly for some ritual function (Richards 1988, 46; Davidson & Henshall 1989, 53; Jones 1998, 318). A final aspect of evidence to consider is the presence of smaller bones such as proximal phalanges. This observation is cited as evidence of whole bodies being initially interred at the stalled tombs of Blackhammer and Knowe of Ramsay (both on the island of Rousay) Reilly (2003, 138).

The body lay on its left side with the head to the west. The legs were drawn up so that the right femur was positioned approximately perpendicular to the spinal column. Despite being badly decomposed and crushed, the fragmentary remains were identified as those of a male between 30 and 40 years of age and were accepted as a complete inhumation. At the south-eastern extent of the pit was a confused mass of crushed bone, identified as representing fragmentary remains of a female teenager and a child (Renfrew 1979, 59–60). In contrast, Pit B was an impressive stone-lined cist, covered by a large slab and contained traces of a crouched burial placed on the natural soil, lying on its left side. The interpretation of the remains within Pit B was based on decayed cranial fragments (which suggested the head was to the north) and two areas of dark staining (Renfrew 1979, 61). A third ‘grave’, Pit D was not fully explored as it lay outside the excavation area (Renfrew 1979, 53) but it would seem quite plausible that it should contain similar remains to the other two. One of the last acts within the tomb was the insertion of Pit C into the upper levels of the main bone-spread. This was identified as an extended burial, with the head to the south, identified as an adult male, aged about 25 years. This was the most complete burial found within the tomb (Renfrew 1979, 60).

Cleary there is evidence for the interment of whole, fully articulated, bodies in the Neolithic of Orkney, which could all be considered ‘primary burial’. Their degree of completeness would also suggest that these events occurred relatively soon after death. However, it is important to distinguish the difference in rite indicated by those burials that were clearly removed entirely from the sphere of the living; i.e. Pits A and B of Quanterness, and those which were revisited as indicated by later manipulation and disturbance.

These particular remains from Quanterness certainly indicate a process whereby whole bodies were interred in tombs and then sealed off from further access, although there would seem to be a possibility of disturbance within Pit A. However, given that these pits are located at the bottom of the sequence, it is unlikely that they were reopened. Certainly, we would expect much more evidence for disturbance if this were the case. Reilly (2003, 149) refers to them as foundation deposits, and this seems a reasonable interpretation.

3.3.2 Excarnation Excarnation, or the exposure of a corpse to the elements until it has decayed, is a relatively common ethnographically and archaeologically documented practice among many societies around the world (Kroeber 1927; Ucko 1969; Parker Pearson 1999). Excarnation as a final burial rite has been argued to suggest a perception of dead bodies as malleable, mobile and non-fixed. Decay and fluidity may have been accepted, rather than sought to be prevented or held-up through constructing specific, fixed and permanent memories through the physical and social construction of graves (Richter et al. 2010, 330–331). Initially suggested for the Neolithic of Britain as early as 1869 (Thurnam 1869), it is not a new concept for understanding the mortuary practices of this time period. Indeed, the results of research in Orkney at the tombs of Quanterness (Renfrew 1979) and Isbister (Hedges 1983) have done much to enhance and support such interpretations.

This form of practice must be distinguished from primary burial, or direct interment. According to Miles (1965, 161) primary burial implies the temporary or final severance of all physical contact of the survivors with the deceased. While the pit burials from Quanterness would fall into the latter half of this description, which is the ‘final severance of all physical contact’, other evidence for complete inhumation from Orkney would be better served by the first half of the interpretation – namely a temporary severance. It has been argued that Midhowe, on Rousay (Reilly 2003, 145), provides excellent evidence for direct interment or primary inhumation. This stalled cairn was found to contain the remains of 25 individuals, comprising both adults and children (Callander & Grant 1934, 330; Davidson & Henshall 1989, 53). The majority of the remains were positioned on low stone benches that were placed along the inner two-thirds of the north side of the tomb (Callander & Grant 1934, 329). Located on, or below, these benches were nine individuals in a crouched or ‘sitting’ position (Richards 1988, 46; Davidson & Henshall 1989, 53). The identification of remains of skeletons, seemingly heaped together to form a pile with

The human remains from Quanterness (Renfrew 1979) were found to be in a disarticulated, chaotic, highly fragmented and bleached state. Judson Chesterman (1979, 106), who analysed them, argued that this evidence indicated a process of excarnation; an interpretation he had previously proffered for the remains he analysed from the Cotswold Long Barrow at Ascott-under-Wychwood 18

Understanding Death in Neolithic Orkney: Current Themes (Chesterman 1977). At Quanterness, he cited the lack of skulls, the relatively large number of tarsals and the good condition and number of atlas vertebrae present as suggestive that some method of selection of the bones to be interred had taken place (Chesterman 1979, 107). However, he could not offer an explanation of how or where excarnation had been enacted. He stated that the bones interred did not show some of the expected indicators of excarnation, such as animal gnaw marks, or tool marks from the final separation of any remaining ligamentous attachments. He suggested this meant either that there had been a primary burial (perhaps in sand) or some means of safe storage prior to the collection of the defleshed bones, or that gnawed or cut bones were simply not retrieved from excarnation sites (Chesterman 1979, 107). A few years later, Chesterman was to analyse the vast number of 16,000 bones recovered from Isbister and here too, he returned a verdict of excarnation (Chesterman 1983, 124). There is no doubting the influence these two sites have had on subsequent funerary interpretations as Chesterman’s arguments led both Renfrew (1979) and Hedges (1983) to conclude that excarnation was the standard practice demonstrated at chambered tombs. Reilly (2003, 150) claims that leaving bodies on benches within the stalled tombs (e.g. Midhowe) until they were defleshed and then moving them was ‘technically excarnation’.

structures across Britain (e.g. Aldwincle 1, Fussell’s Lodge, Pitnacree and Wayland’s Smithy) as the remains of raised platforms for the exposure of the dead that had decayed in situ. He postulated that the variation in the condition of the associated human remains was a reflection of the different lengths of exposure of the bodies prior to the creation of the structures that later enclosed them. However, this interpretation has been criticised and it has been suggested that the post-holes are the remains of free-standing split tree-trunk posts left to decay before the locales became used for mortuary practices (Noble 2006a, 75–94). No such structures have been identified for Orkney.

A theory of excarnation was further bolstered by drawing on ethnographic parallels. Renfrew cited the Polynesian examples of excarnation (Routledge 1919, for Easter Island; Oliver, 1974, for the Society Islands) and quotes Swanton’s account (1946, 729) of the excarnation of Amerindian chiefs (Renfrew 1979, 167). However, Barber (1997, 68) cautions that in none of these examples is there any mention of ‘that single outstanding characteristic’ of the Orcadian cairn burials; the incomplete and disordered state of the remains. Other examples from the ethnographic literature also demonstrate that the process does not always result in the retention of selected bones. For example, the Sky-Burials of Tibet involve the exposure of the corpse, but the bones are not retrieved. Instead, the bones are ground up with barley and fed to scavengers (Hedges 2000, 141).

3.3.3 Secondary Burial

The presence of very small bones and instances of partly articulated remains have added the most convincing weight to the hypotheses that whole bodies were initially placed in the cairns, rather than select bones following excarnation. Nevertheless, despite the rather persuasive evidence for direct interment cited in the literature (Richards 1988, 46; Davidson and Henshall 1989, 58; Barber 1997; Reilly 2003; Lawrence 2006) excarnation is an explanation which has not, as yet, been conclusively overturned for the Orcadian remains (Reilly 2003; Henshall 2004). This adherence to the excarnation hypothesis is perhaps influenced by more convincing evidence from sites in Southern Britain (Smith 2005; 2006).

Use of the excarnation hypothesis to explain the condition of the remains from the tombs implicitly involves the recognition of an additional step; one that forms an intrinsic part of this rite – namely secondary burial. Secondary burial practices involve the manipulation of a dead body (Chénier 2009, 28) and the majority of what we understand about this process derives from ethnography and anthropology (e.g. Metcalf & Huntington 1995). Following Hertz (2004 [1907]), secondary burial refers to a two stage funerary rite, each stage being separated by a variable length of time. Typically, the flesh is disposed of before the second stage – through exposure, platform burials, temporary burials, cannibalism, incineration, embalming (Hertz 2004 [1907], 201) or mechanical excarnation and disarticulation (Murphy & Mallory 2000). Metcalf & Huntington (1995, 97) contend that the stages involved in secondary mortuary rites could be seen as a metaphor for the fate of the non-material component (‘spirit’) of the deceased. Thus, in the same way a corpse is transformed from a body to bones, so death is a slow process of transformation from one spiritual state to another. As the transformation of the corpse by decay is, physically, an unpleasant process, it follows that the process of spiritual change is also considered disagreeable; this process of material and metaphysical transformation is therefore considered a time of pollution and danger (ibid.).

Conversely, Sharples (1985, 69–70) contends that this rite was not applicable to the Orkney-Cromarty group of cairns, though he did accept excarnation as the mode of burial within the Maeshowe-type tombs. Sharples suggested this distinction in rite demonstrated a change in ideology, from an emphasis upon the individual, to a process of absorption into a collective identity. While Chesterman was adamant about excarnation itself, he was hesitant as to where such a rite might have taken place. Indeed, the identification of locations for such exposure is generally contentious. At the site of Ballynahatty in County Antrim, Hartwell (2002, 531) has suggested that the focus of a ceremonial timber complex was an excarnation platform. Scott (1992) interpreted post-holes and pits from several long and round barrow

Hertz (2004, 207–210) asserted that the death of an individual causes a great shock to the collective consciousness of a society and marks the beginning of a

19

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney period of transition for both the living and the dead. The funerary rites are in fact another type of ‘rites of passage’ for the deceased, who enters a liminal state at the time of death. Hertz argued that it is not until the body has decayed that it can pass out of this liminal state. Once the body has decayed the final ceremony occurs. This final ceremony marks the admittance of the soul of the deceased into the land of the dead and is symbolically represented by the transfer of the bones from the location of initial storage to the place of secondary and final disposal. Hertz contended that the corpse is used to symbolically represent the beliefs and values of a society. The funeral is a celebration of the deceased’s union with the ancestors and the lifting of mourning restrictions on the survivors (Miles 1965, 168). There is some debate in the anthropological literature with regard to the length of time between the two stages and its determining factors. Hertz believed the purpose of the liminal period was to give the body time to decay and for mourning to take place. However, very often the secondary burial itself is associated with great feasting, a time of conspicuous consumption (Miles 1965, 168). Miles (1965) argues that one of the driving forces behind the delay between death and the performance of secondary burial ceremonies is attributable to economic factors. Indeed, he suggests that the variation in the time period, and even whether or not people receive secondary burial, is directly affected by the ability of those responsible for providing such ceremonies to be able to fund them.

in conjunction with the under-representation of elements and disarticulation, so often quoted as evidence of such events. However, secondary burial is often concerned with retrieving representative remains of an individual and their absorption into a collective. The presence of fragmentation should rather be seen as an indication of another depth of ideological expression. Indeed, the added presence of fragmentation is often used in arguments of cannibalism (White 1992; Andrews & Fernández-Jalvo 2003) especially when accompanied by cut marks. The rationale for secondary burial practices at megalithic tombs is generally considered to be the suppression of individual strategies and tensions, the strengthening of group unity and the concept of ancestral community (Larsson 2003, 164). Larsson (2003, 164) has identified three traits of secondary burial: 1) The portrayal of the dead as a collective rather than as individuals. 2) The participation of a wider community and the strengthening of group identity among the living. 3) A social arena for the living. Whilst secondary burial is often cited as part of the mortuary events that shaped the human remains found within the megalithic tombs, it is most likely one aspect of a complex and multi-layered suite of activities. However, while there are several cogent arguments dismissing a hypothesis of excarnation, there is certainly no denying that the dead in some of the Orcadian tombs have been manipulated and moved in some way.

Evidence for this rite in Neolithic Orkney again is focused upon the condition of the human remains. If we accept that excarnation was indeed employed, then it follows that the bones now in the tombs, must have been brought in as part of a secondary funerary rite. Even if excarnation is rejected, then the heaping of bones in some tombs and disorder and fragmentation in others certainly suggests some level of later stage manipulation. However, the excarnation of corpses does not always involve the ‘secondary’ retrieval and subsequent burial of the remains (Duday 2006, 46–47). For Larsson (2003, 162), whether the dead were always within the tombs or actually originated from elsewhere, is considered irrelevant to the identification of secondary burial rituals. Larsson further argues that the fact that some kind of treatment of the bodies occurred when they were at least partly defleshed is enough to indicate that it was indeed practiced. Certainly, there are reports of the sorting of remains within the tombs of Orkney, such as Isbister (Hedges 1983) and Yarso (Callander & Grant 1935). But does sorting really constitute secondary burial as Larsson insists? Without wishing to become weighted down in semantics, there is a difference. The symbolism and rites expressed during secondary burials that involve a physically observed movement of the dead, cannot equate to rites that are conducted within the confines of a tomb, away from public view and in secrecy.

3.3.4 Manipulation, Curation and Movement The mobility of human remains, coupled with the disarticulation within the megaliths has led to the development of theories of curation and circulation of bone within and between tombs. For example, in reference to Midhowe, the discrepancy in bone representation has been suggested to be the result of bones being deliberately moved to another tomb (Richards 1988, 46; Davidson & Henshall 1989, 53; Jones 1998, 318). The burial deposits within the stalled cairn of the Knowe of Yarso, Rousay (Callander and Grant 1935), indicate a marked bias toward human skulls. Apparently preferentially deposited in the innermost compartment, the skulls discovered were in variable states of preservation, and all had an absence of mandibles (Callander & Grant 1935, 333–339). These characteristics have been cited as evidence that the skulls originated from different mortuary contexts, before finally being brought to Yarso (Richards 1988, 49). Richards (1988, 49) argues that rejection of the hypothesis of excarnation as an integral part of mortuary practice in Orkney means it is not justifiable to invoke adventitious loss during the excarnation process to account for the partial nature of human remains within the tombs. Instead it is suggested that, at certain times after initial deposition (primary interment) within the tomb, the bones of the deceased

Fragmentation of remains has also been invoked as an identifier of secondary burial (Beckett 2011, 411). Certainly, fragmentation can enhance a hypothesis of secondary burial

20

Understanding Death in Neolithic Orkney: Current Themes were deliberately disturbed, a process that involved the rearrangement, removal and deposition of selected body parts (Richards 1988, 49). Clearly, the design of the tombs would facilitate this kind of repeated access, giving more credence to this theory.

brought to one location. It is possible that these more weathered and battered bones reflect relics that had been in circulation for some time (Thomas 2000, 662). Indeed, Richards (1988, 50) has argued that the great number of bones at Quanterness compared to its neighbouring tombs may suggest that it was a hub, with bone from ‘local’ tombs being brought to Quanterness as a central focus for activity. If we accept the hypothesis of movement and curation of remains around the landscape, this will clearly have implications for using those remains to date the structures within which they are housed.

Addressing the stalled tombs of Rousay, Reilly (2003, 138) adds further weight to Richards’ (1988) argument, suggesting the discrepancy in skeletal representation (in which smaller bones are more prevalent than larger bones) at Blackhammer and Knowe of Ramsay may be due to the deliberate movement of the larger bones to another tomb. Developing a proposition by Jones (1998, 317–318), Reilly considers the stalled cairns of southern Rousay, including the Knowe of Yarso, to collectively represent a cemetery scattered among the terraces of the island. He envisages a process where bones are gradually moved up the terrace via the different tombs until the individual has been distilled from a whole body at the lower terrace levels, to a cranium at the highest levels (see Reilly 2003, 142).

3.3.5 The Use of Fire Fire may be viewed as a cleansing, destructive or transformative force. Bone that has been burnt or cremated is common in the tombs of Ireland and the west coast of Scotland (Bradley 2007, 352; Fowler 2010, 10). Evidence for full cremation in Orkney is not widely reported, although Chesterman did identify burning on the remains from Quanterness: ‘the vast majority of the superficial bones removed in 1973, and probably all those removed in 1974, showed evidence of burning, some in the form of black spots on the cortex, others by indication of exposure to cremation heat’ (Chesterman 1979, 102).

Perhaps one of the principal difficulties in accepting this elegant vision of the flow of human remains around the landscape lies in our lack of understanding as to whether or not these tombs were indeed contemporaneous. The fact that the mid-terrace tomb in this sequence, the Knowe of Lairo is a tripartite-type tomb, accepted as being the precursors to the stalled tombs, does appear to hinder this interpretation. Nevertheless, accepting Reilly’s interpretation, Fowler (2010, 12) suggests this movement of bone is a mechanism for distributing the person throughout the landscape, with specific elements placed at higher points than others. These remains were therefore highly symbolic in their ‘inalienable association’ to their place of origin, which they were imbued with if relocated again.

He incorporated this observation into the final stages of the burial rite. Following excarnation, the bones were broken, after which they were exposed to heat before being interred in the tomb (Chesterman 1979, 105). As mentioned in Chapter 2 evidence for the lighting of fires within some of the tombs has been identified (see Section 2.4.5.4c). 3.3.6 A Complex Combination

This intriguing idea is certainly put to the test when applied to Quanterness and Isbister. In a microcosm of what has been construed for the Rousay cairns (Reilly 2003, 150), the movement and disintegration of the body is confined to a single location. Fully or partly articulated corpses were placed in the main chamber until they became defleshed, at which point the larger bones were either removed or placed in the side cells. At this time, the bones may also have been burnt to accelerate the process of decomposition to enable the removal of specific skeletal elements and the bones may also have been deliberately broken (Renfrew 1979, 101–2). This hypothesis is less robust when considering Quanterness, as there was no discernable pattern within the remains as was reported at Yarso. It is also of note that Reilly is alluding to some form of secondary burial when he describes the inclusion of ‘partly articulated’ corpses.

One of the inherent difficulties that is manifest when exploring these hypotheses is the desire to identify a single, unifying mortuary treatment of the dead and therefore, a single and unifying meaning and purpose for these structures. From the evidence presented, it seems more likely that a complex combination of events has taken place, with some instances of variation between the tombs. This hypothesis is perhaps best illustrated by one of the (relatively) more modern excavations at the stalled tomb of the Point of Cott (Barber 1997). Here, understanding the taphonomy of the site was considered a research priority. Barber interpreted the skeletal evidence as being consistent with evidence from stalled cairns, such as Midhowe and Isbister, where complete corpses were placed on benches within the tombs. Indeed, Barber (1997, 69) states that the evidence for human remains having been placed on shelves suggests the tombs were ‘ordered’ spaces, rather than dumps or disorganised ossuaries. With the insertion of later cadavers, the skeletal remains were removed and placed on the chamber floor in individual groups in a similar manner to that suggested for Midhowe and Isbister.

Perhaps more convincing evidence for the circulation of remains at Quanterness can be found in Chesterman’s (1979, 101) observation that bones of greatly different weathering stages were found together. This would certainly imply that bones from different places had been 21

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney As pressure on space increased, these remains were cleared away into ossuary spaces, such as Compartment 4 at Point of Cott, or the side chambers at Isbister, often in jumbled masses or ordered by skeletal elements. Thus, the apparently disparate patterning of the deposits in the chambered cairns of Orkney may, in part, represent the ‘preservation’ of different stages in this progression in the individual tombs (Barber 1997, 69). Barber further argues that the chaotic distribution on the floor of the chamber is the result of the activities of animals whose remains litter the chamber and cairn, with otters and dogs the most likely culprits. Natural erosional processes will often preferentially degrade the smaller, low-density bones from a site. Based on this fact, Barber surmised that the random nature of the bones within this cairn defied such pattern identification (Barber 1988, 57). However, he argued that the surviving assemblages are representative of differential survivable conditions within the tomb (microenvironments), rather than of deliberate selection stating:

the layers (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 58) was probably due to disturbance throughout the history of the tomb (Reilly 2003, 149). 3.3.7 Non-megalithic Locations Whilst predominantly found within the megalithic structures, human remains have been reported from other contexts. At Knap of Howar, Papa Westray, a fragment of human skull was located in the ‘domestic’ deposits within the house structure. An isolated deposit within the Knoll of Skulzie, Westray, was composed of a large number of human skulls associated with two polished stone axes (Richards 1988, 50). The mound from which these remains originate is thought to be a broch (Mackie 2002, 247), although there is no definitive evidence at present. At Skara Brae, a contracted burial in Hut 1 was considered intrusive (Childe 1931, 139). Other human bones found in the Corner of Passage A (Hut 1) and associated with animal bone and a human femur that had been notched or cut with some ‘rude implement’ were thought, by a Mr Watt, to indicate cannibalism. However, Childe (1931, 140) thought the notching could well be due to a modern worker’s spade. The burial of two adult females beneath the walls of House 7 at Skara Brae was considered to be a foundation deposit for the walls of the hut (Childe 1931, 140–142).

‘There is no apparent order in the survival of the main types of human bone present at Point of Cott. Thick walled limb bones, thin skull fragments and weak, low density, rib fragments all survive. There is therefore no evidence for the operation of a single overriding erosional process which would have preferentially removed the smaller, thinner and less dense bones and favoured the survival of the larger, thicker and denser bones’ (Barber 1997, 68).

While the frequency of human remains in these types of non-funerary contexts accounts for a small proportion of the osseous material from the Orcadian Neolithic, they should not be overlooked. If such depositions were intentional and therefore a conscious act, this phenomenon would have implications for the perception that tombs bound and constrained the relics of the dead. Thus, any action involving the movement of remains around the landscape could be imbued with an even more powerful significance. Whilst these ‘alternative’ deposits of human bone do occur in Orkney, they are much more sparse than those reported from England, such as at Hambledon Hill (McKinley 2008, 504–505).

In this way, Barber invokes a number of depositional and post-depositional events, some natural, some anthropogenic, with the primary implication being that the ‘chaos’ of the deposits is caused by later, nonanthropogenic events. Barber’s suggestion that different stages in the progression of the funerary rites have been preserved within the tombs is interesting. If this were indeed the case (there is no insight or explanation offered as to why this should be so) why would some individuals not progress through the same stages as others? Would this intimate that such processes were practical, rather than ritualistic and essential?

3.4 Ancestors and Individuals – the Symbolism of the Megaliths

Reilly also champions a combination of events when contemplating the remains of Quanterness. At one point, he supports a theory of excarnation (Reilly 2003, 149), but is hesitant in certitude due to the perceived absence of larger bones. Rather than Richards’ ideas of movement and circulation between tombs, Reilly prefers a hypothesis where the extant bones were the result of a long accumulation of skeletons from multiple interments. This meant that some of the material was far older than later depositions, thereby accounting for the differential weathering/preservation observed. If accepted, along with the effects of differential erosion (caused by Barber’s microenvironment conditions) this hypothesis would explain the variable nature of the remains. The scattering of human bones both horizontally and vertically through

Due to the complexity of discourse regarding the symbolism of the megalithic tombs, it has been considered necessary to divide this section into a number of sub-sections. The first sub-section will introduce the influence of the ancestor hypothesis; the second will explore critiques of this interpretation, while the final sub-section will explore this discourse in the context of Neolithic Orkney. 3.4.1 Introduction The concept of collective burial is synonymous with megalithic tombs. Whether the result of excarnation or secondary deposition, the human remains within seem to furnish the archaeologist with an almost instinctive notion 22

Understanding Death in Neolithic Orkney: Current Themes of communality when considering these structures. This concept of communal tombs has had a distinct impact on the theoretical approaches employed to interpret their social meaning (Shanks & Tilley 1982; Richards 1988, 50; Thomas 2000). Perhaps of even more influence is the condition in which these remains have been found. Their disarticulated, fragmented and often disorganised state has led to what Barber (1988, 57) describes as a ‘progressive loss of self’. This apparent loss of self observes the transformation and incorporation of the individual into the collective, denoting an expression of a shared ancestral belonging (Duffy & MacGregor 2008, 71). The association of the megaliths with communality and, apparently by extension, ancestors, raises a number of issues with how we understand the function and symbolism of these structures. Are they actually tombs, housing the remains of the dead and available to the local population? Or should we instead see them as temples (Barber 1997, 70), possibly controlled by a select few, and utilised as places for the veneration of the ancestors?

Further ethnographic studies suggest we must show caution in our modern, western, reading of bodies and individuals. As Thomas (2000, 658; 2005, 168) and others demonstrate (e.g. Brück 2001), modern Western conceptions of personal identity and bodily integrity most certainly did not apply in prehistory. There is a great deal of evidence for this antithetical conception in the ethnographic literature (e.g. Strathern 1988; Busby 1997) where the body is considered partible. In other words, rather than being understood as individual minds constrained within an individual body, human beings were conceived as composed of body parts and substances that were capable of separation and circulation (Thomas 2005, 169). Fowler (2001) has further argued that Early Neolithic mortuary practices do not accentuate a singular bounded body or person. He argues that even when bodies are recovered intact, the collective nature of the tomb itself indicates a concern with relations between the dead over the celebration of individual features of distinctive identity (Fowler 2010, 17). With particular reference to the Manx Neolithic, Fowler (2002, 54) demonstrates a lack of evidence for an expression of individuality within the material culture. Fowler’s observation is further emphasised by a comparison of the British evidence to the prolific numbers of human figurines found in southeast Europe (Thomas 2005). It has also been noted that Neolithic Britain has produced more representations of body parts, than of whole individuals (Thomas 2005, 167). In contrast, finds such as the ‘Westray Wife’ (or ‘Orkney Venus’) at the Links of Noltland and the ‘Brodgar Boy’ at the Ness of Brodgar clearly denote the recognition of bounded individuals in Orkney.

3.4.2 Critiques of the Ancestor Hypothesis Barrett (1988, 36) has cautioned against the assumption that the discovery of human remains must automatically imply ‘burial monuments’. In accepting this notion we need to distinguish between ancestor rituals and funerary rituals because human remains may be employed in both (Kinnes 1975, 17; Barrett 1988, 40; Thomas 2000, 655). Funerary rituals are primarily concerned with the disposal of the human body. Each individual is remembered in their own particular way and, usually, the person’s identity remains intact even after death through the erection of gravestones or some other form of memorial (Noble 2006a, 132). Once buried, people do not normally have access to the material remains of that individual (Noble 2006a, 132). Ancestral rites are a means of establishing the presence of the dead among the living. It has been observed that archaeologists often treat the burial of the dead and the veneration of the ancestors as being much the same thing, with the place of burial also being the location for ancestor worship. Ethnography has shown this assumption is unwarranted (Morris 1991; Parker Pearson 1999, 131).

Another challenge to the ideas of the anonymous or shared and collective memory of the ancestor is that we must distinguish between veneration and violation (Chénier 2009, 32). In this instance, Chénier is referring to postdepositional disturbance that may have destroyed the original form of the mortuary assemblage, presenting us with a skewed version of what was originally intended by those who were responsible for the initial placement of the dead. This disturbance may be accidental, such as that caused by animals (see Barber (1997) for the Point of Cott), or caused deliberately by new influences of power wishing to eradicate previous symbolic associations and expressions. This concern highlights the need for a taphonomic study to distinguish not only funerary rites from ancestral rites (Barrett 1988, 40), but also original intention from later obliteration.

Whitley’s (2002, 119) later assertion that ‘a spectre is haunting British archaeology – the omnipresent ancestor’ is a direct challenge to the dominance of the ancestor interpretation. Using ethnographic studies, Whitley (2002, 122) accentuates the fact that ancestorhood is often an achieved status, not something that arrives automatically with death. In many African and East Asian societies the dead have to go through a series of ‘rites of passage’ before they can be considered ancestors (Goody 1962; Ooms 1976). Furthermore, these societies look to named ancestors from whom they can claim descent, therefore bearing little relation to the collective and anonymous ancestors we portray in the Neolithic (Whitley 2002, 122). Is it possible, on current evidence, to defend modern interpretations of ancestor veneration?

3.4.3 Ancestors and the Orcadian Megaliths Funerary rites will tend to involve structures that separate the dead from the living; in other words, the dead are no longer accessible (Noble 2006a, 132). However, the ‘enduring access’ offered by the design of the megalithic structures (Fowler 2010, 11) negates this separation. This element of their design is argued to support the hypothesis that they must represent a focus for ancestral rites (Barrett 1988, 40). The accessibility to the remains has encouraged interpretations that see human remains transformed into 23

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney portable symbols of the ancestors that were then used to manipulate power and influence. Richards’ (1988, 50) hypothesis for the role of Quanterness as a central focus for the deposition of human bone not only illustrates the potential symbolic power imbued in the remains of the dead, but also addresses some of the issues presented by Whitley (2002) (see Section 3.4.2). Richards suggested that the ancestral remains of widespread groups were removed from localised tombs and then broken, burnt and deposited within Quanterness. This effectively removed both the identity of individual ancestors and their localised sphere of influence. The ancestors become a single indistinguishable body that, importantly, is no longer accessible to everyone. Indeed, the actual positioning of human remains within a single monument stresses the physical and metaphysical monopolisation of the dead by particular elements of the living (Richards 1988, 50). The cellular tombs, particularly Quanterness, may not be collective/communal burial monuments in the normative sense, but constitute powerful, perhaps short-lived political expressions mediated through ancestor rituals (Richards 1988, 55).

a more complex ideology than is currently advocated. The boundaries governing the ability to access remains have become obfuscated. The underpinning structure of accessibility is still present in the Maeshowe-type tomb, yet the lengthening of the passageway and the loss of the linearity of these monuments suggests a greater constraint and control over direct access to the dead, and their availability to the living, than is perhaps acknowledged. The deposition of human remains within the megaliths of Orkney ensured they maintained a place within the landscape in an enduring way. Their association with a particular location allowed a sense of place and community to emerge from the on-going practices to which the bodies and sites were subject (Fowler 2010, 17–18). The accessibility of these remains, whether it was the privilege of the few or the many, delivers a very strong argument in favour of these megaliths being more than simply places of burial. The fact that some of those placed within the confines of the tombs remained undisturbed, suggests some maintained their individuality. In some cases, this individuality may have been deliberately destroyed at a later time, perhaps for political advantage.

Evidence explored in Section 3.3.1 helps to demonstrate that, within the earlier stalled and tripartite tombs, the individual was demonstrably represented. Many of these individuals were deposited soon after death and there appears to be nothing to indicate that one area of deposition was more significant than another (Sharples 1985, 69). Despite Sharples’s assertion that the practices within earlier tombs allowed the expression of individual identities, he still reverts to explanations of the tombs being a physical representation of the ancestors, allowing elders of local kin groups to establish their primacy over the use of the land and maintain power over other group members (Sharples 1985, 70). As suggested above, this interpretation is contrary to Whitley’s (2002, 122) criticisms that the maintenance of the individual body has more commonality with possible ‘named ancestors’.

A lack of real understanding of the mortuary rites has evidently caused difficulties in understanding the function and meaning/symbolism of the megaliths. Despite an acknowledgement of variation in practice, there is still a tendency to seek a homogenous, ‘one-size-fits-all’ explanation for structures that are considered to serve the same function based on key similarities in design. Reilly (2003, 150) does this when he argues that the manner in which the bodies were processed was similar, if not identical, at tombs that are architecturally different and, in terms of dating, separated by several generations. But how can the design be understood, if the actual function and purpose is not? 3.5 Orkney’s Neolithic Funerary Rites in the Wider British and Irish Context

In mainland Scotland changes in architecture from closed to accessible monuments (e.g Clyde Cairns) have been identified (Noble 2006). At the same time, the increased capacity of tombs (in mainland Scotland and in Orkney) and the addition of areas for public gathering, have been argued to indicate an increase in the importance of access to the dead (Noble 2006, 133). However, with regard to the Maeshowe-type tombs in Orkney, there is a slight contradiction. Certainly there appears to be a move to accentuate activities outside the megaliths (with the addition of forecourts and platforms e.g. Quoyness). The appearance of henge monuments such as the Stones of Stenness also suggests an invitation to witness the associated ceremonies (Richards 1996b). In spite of this acknowledgment, the Maeshowe-type tombs incorporate entrance passages that are much longer than seen before in the Orkney-Cromarty-type tombs. These long passages create a more emphatic design, removing the ultimate destination of human remains more decisively from the public arena. This feature appears to suggest

The Orcadian megalithic tombs are part of a much larger distribution of similar structures found across Britain, Ireland and the rest of Europe. It is perhaps unsurprising that monuments with comparable architecture and material remains to those in Orkney should generate similar interpretations and debates. Echoing what has been characterised for the Orkney tombs, recent studies of the British Neolithic have also demonstrated variation in mortuary practice. De-fleshing and the progressive disarticulation of skeletons (initially deposited as articulated corpses) as well as excarnation and cremation have been identified (Saville 1990; Smith & Brickley 2004; Smith 2005; McKinley 2008), all with similar underlying principles of transformation (Thomas 2000; Smith 2006, 683). Despite the recognition of these postmortem manipulations of human remains, a recent review of the Neolithic burial evidence for Britain and Ireland identifies primary inhumation as the most common initial 24

Understanding Death in Neolithic Orkney: Current Themes rite, possibly succeeded by intentional (or accidental) rearrangement (Beckett & Robb 2006, 60).

activity for Orkney (Noble 2006, 136). Evidence of corpse dismemberment with lithic implements at Coldrum, Kent, and Eyford, Gloucestershire (Wysocki & Whittle 2000, 595), along with indications of attempts to reassemble individual elements from disparate specimens (Wysocki & Whittle 2000, 598), all strengthen and develop the common theme of transformation. This evidence contrasts with Orkney where there is no indication within the current reports of evidence of deliberate de-fleshing (cut marks). The concept of manipulation of the body has been further developed with the idea that the individual identities of the dead are being amalgamated to produce a human body made up of all the different parts of a range of dead ancestors, such as postulated for tombs on the Isle of Arran (Jones 1999, 347; Noble 2006a, 134). This allows older elements to be mixed with newer remains, blurring the boundaries between the past and the present.

The low Minimum Number of Individuals calculated for tombs from Britain and Ireland, however, strongly indicates that the majority of the dead during the Neolithic were disposed of by means that are not archaeologically visible (Barrett 1988, 32; Smith 2006, 684; Fowler 2010, 15–16). This naturally leads to questions relating to why some segments of the population were selected for deposition within such enduring structures, when others were surrendered to nature. Were they in some way special, perhaps identified as having had difficult lives (shamans) or difficult deaths (violent death) (Fowler 2010, 15)? Excarnation is considered a very possible explanation for the invisibility of the majority of the population and has been identified at several sites (Fowler 2010, 7–10). For example, Smith (2006, 683) argues that the osteological and taphonomic evidence from Adlestrop in the Cotswolds is most consistent with a scenario of excarnation, followed by the collection of remains that had been scavenged by domestic canids. Conversely, recent work on three Neolithic tombs from The Burren in Southern Ireland contends that the biases in skeletal representation may be an artefact of preservation (Beckett & Robb 2006; Beckett 2011). It is further argued that the successive use and/or later disturbance of the remains, combined with the environmental factors that affected these deposits for almost 5000 years, has rendered them merely a partial representation of the initial deposits (Becket 2011, 411). Beckett & Robb (2006, 69) contend it is conceivable that natural processes of decay were culturally understood, and were channelled or allowed to happen, thus the Neolithic collective tombs should be considered ‘not as faulty machines for preserving bone but rather as efficient, slowacting machines for destroying it in a socially acceptable way’.

Further evidence that has been argued to support hypotheses relating to the deliberate disarticulation and secondary treatment of human remains has also recently been reported from the site of Pencraig Hill, East Lothian, Scotland (Duffy & MacGregor 2008, 72). Careful analysis of the position of the cremated remains demonstrated a haphazard arrangement of the human bone, contrasting with the organised nature of the surviving timbers below. The excavators have therefore concluded this was a pyre site for the burning not of individual corpses, but of body parts. This interpretation implies that corpses were disarticulated prior to the cremation process. While they acknowledge that cremation is ultimately a different pathway of transformation of the body, the disarticulation of bodies and eradication of individual identity prior to cremation draws parallels with the treatment of remains from the megalithic tombs. It is argued that this correlation in practice suggests both types were underpinned by similar structuring principles (Duffy & MacGregor 2008, 72).

Another factor in assessing whether or not the deposits within megalithic tombs are representative of the whole population or a special selection is the ‘use-span’. Work by Bayliss & Whittle (2007) has indicated that the concept of the ‘continuous use’ of many sites should be reconsidered, especially in light of their recent research on British long barrows. Following this line of thought, it has been argued that the Irish chambered tomb of Parknabinnia, while revealing dates from 3600 to 2800 cal BC, was probably used for a very specific time, then sealed, then used again by a later generation (Beckett 2011, 400). A recent dating programme for the chambered tomb of Quanterness, Orkney (undertaken as part of this research), has indicated a longer ‘use-span’, that sets the tomb apart from its southern British counterparts (regardless of whether this was continuous or not) (Schulting et al. 2010, 29). Clearly, the intensity of a monument’s use will have an impact on how representative of the population the remains are.

The evidence for the treatment of the dead in Irish Neolithic tombs has been shown to be complex (Beckett & Robb 2006; Fowler 2010, 14; Beckett 2011), involving direct interment, secondary burial and possible bone removal. Evidence for the intentional de-fleshing of human remains has also been identified on a mandible from the Neolithic cairn at Millin Bay, Co. Down (Murphy 2003a, 15). An interesting hypothesis relating to the post-mortem manipulation of human remains suggests that the stone basins within the Irish passage tombs were actually used in a ceremony, not as a repository for cremated human remains, but as a device to further disintegrate the remains, in ‘an ultimate act of the transformation of a mortal person into an ancestor’ (McQuillan & Logue 2008, 17). This hypothesis would also go some way to explaining the invisibility of most of the population. This proposed desire to eradicate the physical remains of the body clearly draws parallels with the disaggregation and subsequent burning identified by Duffy & MacGregor (2008). Thomas (2000, 662) urged that we should reconsider the identification of megalithic tombs in Britain as places of

There is evidence of the deliberate manipulation and de-fleshing of remains from tombs in Caithness and the Hebrides, further supporting the hypothesis of this type of 25

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney ancestral presence. Drawing on the idea of the circulation and manipulation of human remains throughout the landscape, he viewed these structures not as places that held the ancestors, but as places of transformation and transition where categories of personhood were dissolved and recreated. He argues it was their ‘powerful liminality’ that made them significant, rather than the fact they contained human remains. This interpretation may exclude the idea of the megaliths as places of ancestral presence, but it also considers them much more than a simple place of burial. 3.6 Conclusion There is no question that the mortuary practices of the Neolithic have rendered the majority of the population’s remains archaeologically invisible. Nevertheless, we do have a body of evidence on which to build theories and interpretations. Recurring themes of variation, transformation and manipulation are evidently apparent in current interpretations of the processes and funerary rites associated with the tombs, not just of Orkney, but of the rest of Britain and Ireland. The modes of funerary treatment were not only diverse, but at many sites multiple practices seem to have been occurring within the same period of use (Smith & Brickley 2009). Many of the interpretations and hypothesis for funerary behaviour in Orkney are based on information contained in the site reports. Re-analysis of the human remains themselves has been largely neglected (although see Barber 1997; Lawrence 2006). This may be because of the uncompromising character of the material itself: mixed, disarticulated, fragmented, incomplete, with small sample sizes and prone to cultural and post-depositional biases (Wysocki & Whittle 2000, 591). More work has been carried out in Southern Britain (e.g. Whittle & Wysocki 1998; Wysocki & Whittle 2000) that has revealed evidence in support of excarnation and deliberate modification (in the form of cut marks). As yet, these discoveries have had little impact on theoretical writings (Beckett & Robb 2006, 57). When considering this critique of current themes, it seems apparent that re-analysis of the original bone assemblages should be conducted if we are to advance our understanding of these megalithic structures. This reassessment may unearth new evidence to underpin our understanding of the mortuary treatment of the dead and offer insight into how the megalithic structures were used. The development of taphonomic analysis in osteological research over recent years suggests that this method of enquiry may be an ideal analytical tool to shed new light on these bone assemblages. The volume of human remains and high standard of excavation at the tomb of Quanterness, Mainland, Orkney, establishes the assemblage as a prime candidate for re-examination. The following chapter will present an outline of what taphonomy is and how it may be used. 26

Chapter 4

Taphonomy ‘Our ability to interpret the past through the remains of the dead is ultimately limited by the degree of social expression involved in the burial rite and the survival of evidence to the present day’ (Boddington et al. 1987, 5).

4.1 Introduction

holistic and multidisciplinary framework for investigation than more traditional paleontological and archaeological processes. Ultimately, taphonomists are investigating a whole series of questions; when analysing an assemblage, consideration has to be given to the agents and causal mechanisms that are responsible for its accumulation, spatial distribution, skeletal representation and modification (ibid.). Attempting to solve these questions is essential if we are to successfully characterise culturally motivated modifications from those caused by the unintentional or natural agents. This approach is critical if we are to have any chance of successfully interpreting mortuary behaviour.

4.1.1 Chapter Outline The preceding chapter explored the role osseous material has played in the generation of hypotheses to explain the microcosm of the Orcadian Neolithic tombs and their extrinsic relationship with a broader Neolithic environment. In acknowledging the rather parsimonious contribution of osteological analysis to these hypotheses, it was suggested that a re-examination of the material has strong potential to elucidate new information. Due to the daunting nature of the highly fragmented and disarticulated remains, a taphonomic analysis was proposed to provide a more rigorous examination of the assemblages. This chapter explores taphonomic theory and the practical application of its methods.

Evidently, when archaeologists interpret co-mingled and disarticulated mortuary remains, it is from an anthropocentric perspective. However, whilst taphonomic influences are an established discourse within zooarchaeological literature, there is comparatively little discussion to be found in the corresponding literature relating to archaeological human remains. Therefore, much of what we know is drawn from zooarchaeological and forensic research (Lyman 2001; Gunn 2009). A significant proportion of our taphonomic resource is derived from research on animal remains; however, factors that influence the survival of human bones differ in some crucial aspects. The most conspicuous distinction being that human remains are subject to burial (or disposal) rituals (Waldron 1987, 56). The disparity between the two information resources is improving and, in recent years, those interested in the taphonomic analysis of human remains have been able to draw on a growing body of more directly relevant research within the forensic literature (Mann et al. 1990; Haglund & Sorg 2002; Carter et al. 2007). However, while there is a growing awareness of the benefits in understanding how taphonomic agents can affect the preservation of human remains, current research is primarily driven by an effort to optimise information on health and environmental conditions gained from the skeletal remains (Bello & Andrews 2006, 1).

4.1.2 Introduction to Taphonomy Archaeologists acknowledge that the extant evidence, which forms the archaeological record, does not intrinsically present a reflection of past activity. Indeed, one of the key concerns when interpreting any site or assemblage is the ability to differentiate the products of human behaviour from those caused by naturally occurring agents such as geological and biological forces. Designated and defined by Ivan Efremov in 1940, ‘taphonomy’ is an interpretive model for a scientific understanding and differentiation of these processes. With regard to human and faunal assemblages, taphonomy is specifically concerned with the successive stages; death, decomposition, burial and fossilisation, examining the processes that take place between each stage (Behrensmeyer 1984, 558; Garland 1987, 120). Taphonomy, therefore, focuses on understanding the accumulation and modification of osteological assemblages from a site formation perspective. Bonnichsen (1989, 1) suggests this avenue of research can provide a more 27

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney There are numerous complex processes (or agents) that can alter the skeleton post-mortem. The post-mortem, or taphonomic, history of human remains may be regarded as an interplay between the opposing agencies of preservation and destruction (Boddington et al. 1987, 4). In archaeological assemblages, taphonomic analysis is impelled by the necessity to separate ‘normal’ taphonomic processes from cultural modification. Thus, in order to differentiate evidence of cultural modification, it is essential to have a comprehension of the normative processes bodies pass through as they are transformed to a skeletal state.

The decay and disintegration of the human body progresses through an established chain of events, generally transitioning through four stages – fresh, bloat, putrefaction, and putrid remains (Mant 1984; 1987; Janaway 1997; Gunn 2009, 12). Since the funerary archaeologist will generally be analysing human bone, an understanding of the transformation and reduction of a corpse to skeletonised remains allows patterns created by biological and taphonomic processes to be deciphered from those related to human activity (Garland and Janaway 1989; Knüsel et al. 1996, 121). 4.2.1 The Onset of Decay

4.2 Decay and Disarticulation of the Body

Derived from the word ‘agony’, the moment of death is called the ‘agonal’ period because it was assumed that death was always a painful experience (Gunn 2009, 12). Temporally speaking, either side of the moment of death is referred to as the ‘peri-mortem’ period, meaning at or around the time of death (Sorg & Haglund 2002, 7). Although the term is defined, there is a lack of agreement pertaining to the number of hours this period signifies (Gunn 2009, 12). Human decomposition commences approximately four minutes after death (Vass et al. 2002, 542). A cadaver will begin an entropic process, cooling to the temperature of the environment in which it is lying. The speed of this process is dependent on the temperature differential (Mant 1984). This change is referred to as ‘algor mortis’: literally, the coldness of death (Gunn 2009, 13). The rate of cooling is susceptible to a number of factors that may accelerate or delay the process (Janaway 1997, 63; Gunn 2009, 14) and Table 4.1 outlines many of the variables involved.

It is equitable to suggest that societal comprehension of the realities of cadaveric decay is limited in our modern western culture. Death is largely a sanitised experience, where relatives of the deceased usually have limited contact with the body before the individual is taken away and prepared for ‘viewing’ by mortuary technicians. Bodies are ‘sanitised’ and treated with chemicals in an effort to abate the natural cycle of decomposition, thereby minimising distress to the bereaved and preventing the body from becoming a public health hazard while awaiting burial or cremation (Gunn 2009, 34; Williams 2010, 66). Our psychological detachment from the actuality of death and how it alters a body physically tends to be overlooked and often seems peripheral to our archaeological reconstructions. There are, however, exceptions: the ‘anthropologie du terrain’ approach considers how processes of decay might affect the arrangement of a skeleton (Nilsson Stutz 2008, 22, 2010; Duday 2009, 3).

Table 4.1 Factors affecting the rate at which a body cools after death (reproduced with permission, Gunn, A. (2009) Essential Forensic Biology 2nd edn. Copyright, © 2009 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.) Factors that enhance the rate of cooling

Factors that delay the rate of cooling

Small body size

Large body size

Low fat content

High fat content

Body extended

Foetal position (reduces exposed surface area)

Body dismembered Serious blood loss Lack of clothes

Clothing

Wet clothes

Insulative covering (e.g. blanket)

Strong air currents

Warm microclimate

Low ambient temperature

Warm ambient temperature

Rain, hail

Exposed to sun

Cold, damp substrate that conducts heat easily

Insulative substrate (e.g. mattress)

Body in cold water

Protection from draughts

Dry atmosphere

High humidity

28

Taphonomy In addition to cooling, there is an initial softening of muscle tone, during which, the lower jaw drops, the eyelids lose their tension, the muscles are soft and the joints are flexible (Mant 1984, 140). Within a few hours of death, and while the body is still cooling, the muscles will begin to stiffen and contract until the whole body is rigid. This condition is known as ‘rigor mortis’ and will generally be noticed first in the eyelids and jaw before progressing to the torso and limbs (Janaway 1997, 65). In temperate climates, this condition usually begins within two to four hours of death, reaching a peak at 12 hours and starts to dissipate after 24 hours, with the cadaver becoming fully limp after 36 hours (Janaway 1997, 65; Gunn 2009, 19–20). As with cooling, the onset and duration of rigor is subject to variation, the most important being the metabolic state of the muscles at the time of death. For example, cold will cause rigor to persist or, if the individual was violently exercising or convulsing at the time of death, it develops more rapidly and can be instantaneous.

any bacterial action; the following section explores the microbiologically dominated process of putrefaction - the reduction and liquefaction of tissue (Janaway 1997, 64). 4.2.2 Putrefaction Though initiated at the point of death, the process of putrefaction in a temperate climate is not usually visible (under normal conditions) until approximately 48 to 72 hours after the time of death. However, in cold but not freezing temperatures, discernible putrefaction could take as much as five to seven days; in the summer this could be within as little as 24 hours (Janaway 1997, 68). In certain types of septicaemia, due to the presence of bacteria in the blood, putrefaction may commence almost immediately upon death (Mant 1987, 66). Largely caused by the action of bacterial enzymes, the initial indication of putrefaction is green or greenish-red discolouration and the blistering of the skin of the anterior abdominal wall (Janaway 1997, 65; Gunn 2009, 23). Putrefaction then spreads to the whole of the abdominal wall, chest, and thighs and eventually to the skin of the entire body; the process usually taking about seven days. This process is accompanied by a noxious smell as gases (carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulphide, ammonia and methane) are produced as a consequence of the bacterial metabolism (Janaway 1997, 67; Gunn 2009, 23). These gases cause the anterior aspect of the body to swell or bloat, the tongue may protrude and discoloured fluid from the lungs oozes out of the mouth and nostrils. Gas and fluid accumulation in the intestines usually purge from the rectum. As the skin begins to break down the bloating and distension can be severe enough to rip apart the skin causing additional post-mortem injuries (Vass et al. 2002, 542). This rupturing, when witnessed, is said to make a sound like tearing paper. In 1547, the corpse of King Henry VIII was subject to such extreme bloat that his coffin, which was being transported back to Windsor Castle for burial, allegedly exploded overnight (Gunn 2009, 23). In the UK, this stage of decomposition is reached in about 4-6 days during spring and summer, but would take longer during colder winter weather.

Instantaneous rigor, or ‘cadaveric spasm’, is thought to be associated with individuals who are subjected to conditions of high nervous tension immediately before they died (Knüsel et al. 1996, 123; Janaway 1997, 65; Gunn 2009, 20). Unlike rigor mortis, cadaveric spasm sets in immediately after death and only disappears following the decay of the relevant muscle groups, and is a ‘forensic rarity’ (Gunn 2009, 20). Given that it is considered a ‘forensic rarity’, the archaeological identification of such a phenomenon, long after the soft tissues have decayed (Knüsel et al. 1996) should be regarded with caution. When rigor affects the arrector pili muscles (microscopic band of muscle tissue that connects a hair follicle to the dermis) it can result in the scalp and body hairs standing on end, creating the appearance that the person died in a state of shock (Gunn 2009, 19). Characteristics such as cadaveric spasm and hairs standing on end, while not recoverable from an archaeological assemblage of human bone, should enhance our understanding of how the process of death and decay can affect the human body and elucidate hypotheses of how such phenomena may have been perceived. Once the heart has ceased to pump, gravity causes blood to drain to the lowest available parts of the body. This process, known as post-mortem hypostasis or lividity, is evident as a purple or reddish purple discolouration of the skin caused by the blood settling in the veins and capillaries of the dependent parts of the body (Janaway 1997, 65; Gunn 2009, 17).

Adipocere (grave wax or corpse wax) forms during the decay process if the conditions are suitable i.e. the presence of moisture, bacteria and an anaerobic environment (Fielder & Graw 2003, 291; Forbes et al. 2005a, 36). Adipocere is a post-mortem product formed from body fat in the later stages of decomposition (Forbes et al. 2005a, 35). This fatty substance is variously described as being whitish, greyish or yellowish with a consistency ranging from paste-like to crumbly (Gunn 2009, 25–26) and, in time, will become a hard, brittle shell (Forbes et al. 2005b, 45). Extensive adipocere formation inhibits further decomposition and ensures that the body is preserved for many years (Fiedler et al. 2009, 1331). It is not an endproduct, however, and decomposition of adipocere may occur under certain aerobic and bacterial conditions

Autolysis, or self-digestion, is the term given to these initial stages of algor mortis, rigor mortis and lividity (Vass et al. 2002, 542). Lividity usually represents the first visually identifiable evidence of autolysis; it is not usually apparent on the body until a few days after death. In addition to the colour change caused by lividity, fluid-filled blisters on the skin and skin slippage, where large sheets of skin slough off the body, may also be observed (ibid.). Algor mortis, rigor mortis and lividity occur independently from

29

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney (Forbes et al. 2005b, 45). Adipocere formation has been described in bodies recovered from a wide variety of conditions including fresh water, seawater and peat bogs, shallow and deep graves, bodies tightly sealed in containers, and in bodies buried without a container. The preservation of the 5300-year-old ‘Iceman’ found in the Austrian Tyrol appears to be, at least partly, a consequence of the formation of adipocere (Bereuter et al. 1997; Sharp 1997).

will eat the soft tissue, especially the face and hands (Mann et al. 1990, 106). Birds are often associated with feeding on carrion, but it is interesting to note that during their research on exposed human bodies, Mann et al. (1990, 110) did not observe birds feeding on human corpses. They were, however, observed feeding on the maggots and carrion beetles associated with the corpse. A body exposed to the sun is usually visible and detectable due to its odour, to both vertebrate and invertebrate detritivores and this leads to its rapid dismemberment and consumption and/or colonisation and consumption (Gunn 2009, 29).

Ultimately, the soft tissues will liquefy and disintegrate, leaving skeletonised remains articulated by tendons, ligaments and other structures that are more difficult to break down, such as the fingernails and hair (Duday 2009, 11; Gunn 2009, 27–28). Due to the fact that there are still traces of dead organic matter being broken down by microbes, a skeletonised body still smells of decay (Gunn 2009, 28).

4.2.4 Rate of Decay for Children The rates of stages of decay outlined above are derived from research pertaining to the decay of adult remains. The corpses of children have been shown to behave slightly differently. Their greater surface area to weight ratio allows more rapid cooling of the body, which means a child’s corpse will skeletonise much faster than that of an adult in the same environment (Lewis 2007, 23). However, as there has been little focused research into the effects of various taphonomic and environmental agents on the bodies of children (Morton & Lord 2002, 156), more detailed information is limited.

4.2.3 Factors Influencing the Rate of Soft Tissue Decay Thus far, this chapter has explored the ‘normal’ sequence of events for the decay of the human body. Recognition now has to be made of the intrinsic and extrinsic variables that have been identified in the literature which may accelerate or arrest these processes (Janaway 1997; Vass 2001; Roksandic 2002). The condition of the body at the time of burial and the burial environment itself was highlighted by Mant’s work (1987) on war graves. He observed that thin bodies would skeletonise more rapidly than more ‘fleshy’ remains in the same burial conditions, while ante-mortem or post-mortem wounding makes cadavers more prone to invasion by extracorporeal organisms than bodies buried with the skin intact; as a result they also have a more rapid rate of skeletonisation.

4.2.5 Skeletal Disarticulation and Decay As with soft tissue, the ligaments and tendons holding a skeleton together will tend to decay in a specific order. This process has been summarised in Table 4.2. The separation of skull and mandible are the two skeletal elements that are commonly the first to become disarticulated during decomposition (Roksandic 2002, 102; Ruffell & Murphy 2011, 153). The disarticulation of the first and second cervical vertebrae will also occur well before complete skeletonisation of the rest of the body (Saul & Saul 2002, 75). This is considered to be due to the weight and shape of the cranium causing a rolling action (Roksandic 2002, 102). As with decomposition rates, disarticulation sequences are highly environmentally and micro-environmentally specific (Roksandic 2002, 104).

The nature of the soil itself affects the rate of decay directly through chemical actions and indirectly through its effect on the abundance and activity of soil organisms (Carter et al. 2007, 18). Heavy clay soils are poorly aerated and therefore have low oxygen levels and this reduces microbial activity and hence the rate of decay. Very acidic soil reduces microbial activity but the low pH dissolves soft tissues and bone. High soil calcium content reduces chemical dissolution of the bones but will not prevent its microbial decomposition (Gunn 2009, 31).

As alluded to in Section 4.2.3, an exposed body is more susceptible to interference by carnivores, whose activities may speed up the disarticulation process. Carnivores are also known to transport elements, such as the cranium, up to half a kilometre from the original position of the corpse (Mann et al. 1990, 106). Research has determined that carnivores will disarticulate corpses in a predictable sequence. This has been summarised by Haglund et al. (1989) into five stages:

Buried corpses decay approximately four times slower than those left on the surface, and the deeper they are buried, the slower they decay (Mann et al. 1990, 106; Fielder & Graw 2003, 292; Dent et al. 2004). This slower process is due to the quantity of earth limiting access by extracorporeal micro-organisms and larger animals, as well as reducing the rate of gaseous diffusion (Carter et al. 2007, 18). Exposure above ground, even for a short period, will allow insects and carnivorous larvae to colonise the body and rapidly attack the soft tissue, a process that will continue after burial (Janaway 1997, 68). If scavenging carnivores, for example dogs, have access to a body, they

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

30

No bony involvement Anterior thorax damage with one or both upper extremities removed Lower extremity involvement Only vertebral segments remaining articulated Total disarticulation

Taphonomy Table 4.2 Summary of the general order of skeletonisation (adapted from Roksandic 2002, 102) 1

Cranium is first to skeletonise primarily due to the accessibility of the facial cavities to flies.

2

Clavicles and sternum are exposed early in the sequence.

3

Cervical vertebrae, even when exposed, will remain articulated for longer periods due to strong ligaments and complex interlocking bony surfaces.

4

Arms are usually at an enhanced state of decomposition compared to lower limbs.

5

Pelvis is reduced later than the thoracic/abdominal region, while the vertebral column remains intact and articulated, and ribs present differing degrees of disarticulation.

6

Legs, especially if clothed, are preserved much longer than arms.

Following soft tissue decay, bone becomes susceptible to interaction with the various chemical and physical factors in addition to the biological agents within the burial environment. Bones undergo a decay process referred to as diagenesis, during which their chemical composition and microscopic structure changes as a consequence of microbial attack and environmental exposure (Jans et al. 2004, 87; Gunn 2009, 28). Bone excavated from aerobic, non-acidic environments will usually appear to be in good condition. However, if the surrounding matrix contains fine sands, surface coarsening can occur. As the bone dries after excavation, further cracking and flaking may arise (Janaway 1997, 67).

observation is that an under-representation of infants in human bone assemblages could be the result of natural processes of preservation and decomposition. Conversely, Lewis (2007, 20) has demonstrated that there are many instances of juvenile remains surviving very well in the archaeological record, undermining the assumption that the absence of such remains is automatically due to issues of preservation. Manifold (2010) has recently refined our understanding of the survivorship of specific juvenile remains, demonstrating that bones of the skull and limbs are generally well represented, whereas bones of the face, hands and feet are less well represented. Pathology, such as senile osteoporosis, which lowers bone density, may also increase the susceptibility of bone to the vagaries of decay (Janaway 1997, 69).

Mechanical disintegration of bone is influenced by the shape of the individual bones of the skeleton (flat, tubular, cubical and irregular). The inherent strength of a tubular form means bones, such as the femur, fibula, tibia, humerus, radius and ulna are more resistant to soil pressure, whereas the skull, innominate (pelvis) and scapula bones (flat bones), are prone to warping and crushing. The size of the bones is also an important consideration in terms of vulnerability to decay. A study by Waldron (1987) has illustrated that in archaeologically recovered human skeletal remains, the phalanges and small tarsal bones are less well preserved than other skeletal elements and may totally decay. This occurrence is hypothesised to be a consequence of a large surface area for agents of decay to work on in relation to volume. Bone density is also a factor as the proportions of compact and cancellous bone vary throughout the skeleton and will contribute to differential decomposition rates.

4.3 Recognising ‘Normal’ Patterns of Preservation Evidence for what are considered ‘normal’ sequences of decay and disarticulation are derived, predominantly, from forensic literature; this evidence is strongly associated with analysis of skeletal representation. Due to the, often considerable, time period involved, disturbance of archaeological remains is not unusual, and often the analyst may be faced with the commingled remains of more than one person. As with forensic research, it is desirable to have a more detailed understanding of what the ‘normal’ preservation pattern, in this case skeletal element representation (SER), should look like. In other words, a detailed record from evidence of skeletons that have been deposited without any subsequent interference or disturbance.

The sex and age of the individual also affects bone diagenesis. Children’s bones are smaller, less dense and therefore frequently considered more prone to decay and faunal destruction. Research carried out by Bello & Andrews (2006, 10–11) on the population recovered from Spitalfields has reinforced this perception. Working with detailed records (coffin plates, parish records), they were able to ascertain that female skeletons aged 0–4 years and male skeletons aged less than 1 year had the lowest chance of survival, simply due to the structural properties of the bone. The implication of this

Bello & Andrews (2006) conducted research into the ‘typical’ preservation of human remains using three medieval and three post-medieval Christian cemeteries from France and England. At all these sites, interments were made as complete corpses, without the intervention of rituals that could result in the alteration or disappearance of selected portions of the skeleton. In this way, the patterns of preservation could be associated with natural taphonomic processes and therefore differences in the relative frequency of osseous remains in the

31

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney assemblages were more likely to depend on the structural qualities of the bones (Bello & Andrews 2006, 9). All six sites were found to have very similar frequencies of skeletal parts represented (Fig. 4.1). It was particularly noted that frequencies between the French cemeteries (earthen burials) were very similar to Spitalfields (coffins within a crypt), suggesting that human bones have a common macroscopic pattern of preservation, regardless of the characteristics of the site (Bello & Andrews 2006, 9). In broad terms, this pattern reflects higher frequencies for more robust and dense bones and lower frequencies for smaller and more cancellous bones. It is proffered that the comparison of the skeletal part profile/skeletal element representation of a collective burial with the frequencies of human remains from these cemeteries provides a new interpretive tool for the comprehension of human collective burial formation (Bello & Andrews 2006, 9).

that only elites were buried in tombs, or that the missing bodies must have been buried during other kinds of rites elsewhere. 4.4 Traumatic Taphonomic Variables Once a body has been reduced to skeletal remains, there are a number of taphonomic agents that can modify the appearance, frequency and distribution of an assemblage. Some of these may result from interference by scavenging animals as discussed in Section 4.2.5, while some may be anthropogenic. The confident identification of anthropogenically derived taphonomic variables is of particular interest as they may indicate that an assemblage has been culturally modified. The effects of trauma can often leave very clear signatures on bone (Ortner 2003, 119). Trauma may be sustained as a result of accident, cultural practices or during interpersonal violence. Trauma to the skeleton may occur when an individual is alive, or after death due to mutilation or simply as part of a funerary custom. Trauma may also occur from the use of tools, exposure to fire, animal interaction or natural occurrence, such as stone falling on skeletonised remains. The following section will explore each of these variables.

In a different study, Beckett & Robb (2006, 64–69) created a ‘virtual tomb’ to test the taphonomic interpretative method on collective tombs. One of the primary objectives of this study was to explore why the number of burials recorded in collective tombs is normally low. Their results indicate that regardless of whether 100 or 1000 people are originally buried in the ‘tomb’, and as long as there is an appreciable level of bone destruction, the Minimum Number of Individuals within the tomb will ‘converge upon a ceiling’ never exceeding 100 (Beckett & Robb 2006, 67). Further modelling suggested the key factor in this phenomenon was destruction of prior burials when a new body is interred, which can cumulatively destroy 95–99 per cent of an assemblage. Hence, low numbers of people in excavated tombs do not necessarily imply

4.4.1 Fracturing in Bone Bone is susceptible to fracturing both before and after death. It is important to understand the processes and appearances of such damage so that a distinction can be made between bone that has been damaged prior to death

Figure 4.1 SER values observed for the whole sample (subadult and adult) (adapted from Bello & Andrews 2009, 3 with permission). 32

Taphonomy from bone that has been damaged either at the time of death or substantially after death. When working with disarticulated, commingled and fragmented assemblages, the ability to identify and distinguish the approximate timings of fracturing events is particularly important as fracturing is considered a taphonomic signature of deliberate dismemberment, cannibalism or disturbance (depending on the appearance of the fracture margins) (White 1992; Turner & Turner 1999).

to bone. In this type of fracture the tubercle or process to which the tendon is attached breaks off as a result of excessive tension from the tendon (Ortner 2003, 120). If opposing forces cause a bone to bend, this will create a concave surface at the site of impact and a convex surface on the opposite side. The tension stresses on the convex surface result in a linear fracture, while the compression stresses on the concave surface lead to either splintering or multiple fractures. Often, two fractures form on the concave surface that connects to the single fracture on the convex surface, separating a triangular portion of bone – this phenomenon is known as a ‘butterfly fracture’ and occurs when collagen is still present in the bone, therefore indicating trauma occurred at or around the time of death (Ubelaker & Adams 1995, 509).

In living bone fracturing will occur when a bone is unable to adapt to the application of an abnormal stress (Schwartz 1995, 245; Ortner 2003, 120). The stress involved can be dynamic, usually sudden and high stress, or, it may be static or low level stress that is gradually increased until a break occurs (Ortner 2003, 120). A fracture varies not only in terms of the type of stress but also with regard to its severity; observation of this severity is related to the extent of the fracture. A simple fracture is one in which there is only one separation of the bone, whereas a more severe fracture with many broken fragments, is known as a comminuted fracture (Roberts & Manchester 2007, 1990). If the fracture causes the bone to tear through the soft tissue exposing it outside the body, it is known as a compound fracture. In instances of compound fracture, there is a risk that secondary infection can set in, leaving evidence of both the break and the infection (Schwartz 1995, 249). When the stress endured is excessive but intermittent (over a long time) it can lead to a stress fracture (Rodríguez-Martín 2006, 202). A final category of fracture, a pathological fracture, occurs when bone is weakened by a morbid condition (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis, leprosy, and necrosis) so that minimal stress can cause a break (Merbs 1989; Roberts & Manchester 2007, 1990). Stresses on bone may arise from a variety of situations such as injury, carrying or lifting a heavy load, an awkward movement or position, or violence. Five types of force are usually recognised and differentiated in the creation of fracture patterns: compression, tension, torsion, bending, and shearing (Schwarz 1995; Ortner 2003, 120).

4.4.1.3 Twisting or Torsion This type of fracture is also known as a spiral or helical fracture and is usually identified in long bones. The twist or unnatural rotation of part of a bone around its long axis can cause a break that is obliquely orientated – that is, one side of the break will be longer than the side opposite it. Torsion fractures can be confused with compression fractures in long bones, which follow a natural spiral cleavage plane in the bone. Torsion fractures always involve abnormal rotation of the bone (Schwarz 1995, 246). The osteologist, however, must be cautious in identifying a spiral fracture as being pre- rather than post-mortem in origin: for example, sometimes factors of preservation and deposition, such as sediment pressure or damage due to falling rocks, can cause a break which is spiral, but not anthropogenically created (Russell 1987, 373; Villa & Mahieu 1991, 30). 4.4.1.4 Bending Bending forces are commonly associated with the occurrence of ‘greenstick fractures’ in children (Lovell 1997, 143). A greenstick fracture is a fracture that does not progress through the entire shaft of the bone. This phenomenon is due to the lower elastic, but higher plastic threshold of immature bones, causing them to break more easily and with less force than mature ones (Schwartz 1995, 245; Lewis 2007, 164). With increasing age, bone becomes more rigid and brittle; thus a bending fracture is more likely to ‘project out’ a wedge-shaped piece of bone. Reminiscent of the impact spread of a compression fracture, the wedge of bone that is displaced is narrowest on the side of the bone being flexed and broadest on the side of the bone being stretched – a ‘butterfly’ fracture (Schwartz 1995, 247).

4.4.1.1 Compression Compression fractures are the result of sudden excessive impaction and result in a variety of patterns. Bone can split in the same axis as the direction of the force (Ortner 2003, 121). In long bones excessive compression may produce a fracture in which the cortex buckles and bulges outward. Pure compression fractures are best illustrated in the spine, where most fractures of the vertebral body are the result of compression, and are often associated with a fall (Lovell 1997, 142). Compression fractures may also result from a blow to the skull (Lovell 1997, 142). Many of the fractures of articular surfaces are also the result of compression (Ortner 2003, 121).

4.4.1.5 Shearing Shearing fractures result when opposing forces are applied to bone in slightly different planes (these opposing forces need not both be dynamic). The bone may be supported by a static force in one axis with dynamic force applied in the opposite direction. One example of shearing trauma is

4.4.1.2 Tension Often related to dislocation of the joint, tension fractures are generally associated with tendinous attachments 33

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney the Colles’ fracture of the distal radius (Mays 2006, 415), which occurs when a person falls onto their out-stretched hand. The static force is the ground and the dynamic force is the individual’s own body (Ortner 2003, 124).

the decay process ensues, the organic content will begin to degrade and disappear, leading to changes in the characteristics of subsequent fracture margins (Table 4.3). Fractures that occur when the collagen content is reduced, but still present, are referred to as ‘dry’ fractures (Outram 2001, 403). The ‘dry’ fracture surfaces will be very similar to the peri-mortem fractures, but importantly, the surface will have a rough or bumpy texture, rather than smooth (Johnson 1985, 176). The presence of dry fracturing has been used to indicate that remains have been moved from a primary context in the past, and have been used as an indicator of secondary burial (Knüsel & Outram 2009, 262).

4.4.2 Peri-mortem or Post-mortem? The Relative Timing of Fractures Analysing human remains taphonomically does not produce absolute temporal data, thus time, in taphonomic terms, refers to relative time periods ascribed by discernable characteristics of the transformation from a living being to skeletal remains. Establishing the ‘relative time’ of fractures in human bone is important as it creates a temporal framework on which our hypotheses depend; this framework is vital when attempting to analyse commingled remains. As outlined in Section 4.4.1, bone will fracture in a predictable way. The occurrence of fracturing to bone is divided into three possible timeframes: ante-mortem, perimortem and post-mortem. Ante-mortem fracture occurs before death, or more specifically, long enough before death to allow for an identifiable vital reaction from the living tissue (DeHaan 2008, 22). Ante-mortem fractures are therefore identified by the presence of active bone remodelling at the fracture point (Roberts & Manchester 2007, 91).

When only a minimal amount of the collagen content is present, fracture surfaces will exhibit a rough texture, fractures will tend to be perpendicular to the outer cortical surface and share the same colour as the outer cortical surface (Johnson 1985, 176). This is referred to as a mineralised fracture (Knüsel & Outram 2004, 87). The identification of these characteristics allows the analyst to distinguish fracturing that occurred at the peri-mortem stage (probably linked to anthropogenic involvement) from fracturing that occurs as a result of later disturbance. The fracture types and their characteristics are summarised in Table 4.3.

Peri-mortem fractures occur at, or around, the point of death. At this stage, bone retains its collagen content and is therefore still ‘fresh’. This type of fracturing is identified by particular characteristics of its fracture surfaces (Table 4.3), which will have the same colour as the outer cortical surface, exhibit a smooth texture and form acute and obtuse angles with the outer cortical surface (Johnson 1985, 176).

The presence of helical (or spiral) fracturing in human bone, particularly in assemblages that are commingled, is often cited as evidence of processing or modification by humans (White 1992; Turner & Turner 1995; Turner & Turner 1999). However, care must be taken to consider all taphonomic factors and, particularly, the context of recovery when considering an anthropogenic hypothesis, as spiral fractures are also known to be created by scavenging animals during the peri-mortem phase (Hill 1989, 174).

There will also be an absence of vital reaction. The presence of this type of fracture indicates the trauma occurred at the point of, or very soon after, death. As

Table 4.3 Characteristics of fracture types occurring after death Fracture Type

Implication

Characteristics

Peri-mortem (Helical/ Spiral)

Full of collagen

Smooth, sharp and helical fracture margins

Dry

Some collagen remaining

Fresh Bone

Possible indicator of secondary burial or manipulation Mineralised

Very little or no collagen Old damage, but occurs quite some time after death

New

No collagen Recent damage, possibly during excavation or other modern disturbance

34

Similar to peri-mortem, but fracture margin has a roughened, corrugated fracture surface and steps in the fracture outline Fracture margin is transverse with rough margins

Similar to mineralised fracture. Transverse with rough margins but the fracture margin is paler in colour to surrounding bone

Taphonomy In recent years attempts have been made to quantify the duration of the peri-mortem stage in osseous material although, as yet, no absolute time-frame has been established. It should also be noted that most of this research has been conducted in the USA; therefore care should be taken to acknowledge climatic differences when drawing inferences for material from the UK. A further obstruction of efforts to quantify these relative phases of decay is the environmental context of the human remains. While it is understood that bone degrades over time, the specific duration of time during which bones will display particular fracturing characteristics varies greatly, depending on the environmental (and presumably cultural) conditions to which it is subjected (Karr & Outram 2012, 555). Currently, there is insufficient data to quantify the length of time bones retain collagen and moisture after death in specific environments.

create similar signatures. Marks caused by animals are distinguished due to their U-shaped cross sections, smooth surfaces lacking striae and location on the bone (see Section 4.6). When bone is subject to trampling, grains within the substrate create scratch marks as they are dragged across the surface of the bone; the pattern left behind is reminiscent of cut marks, including the presence of internal striae under magnification. A distinction may be made by the location and orientation of the marks. In addition, trampling will produce shallow, random and multi-directional marks, whereas cut marks tend to be deeper, clustered and unidirectional (Morlan 1984). Cuts and scratches introduced during excavation or curation can be distinguished from peri-mortem, or immediately post-mortem, events by inspecting the colour of the bone at the base of the cut. Modern marks will be lighter in colour, while evidence of more ancient behaviours will be stained by the depositional environment and thus match the remainder of the bone - patina (Buikstra & Ubelaker 1997).

4.4.3 The Intentional Modification of Human Remains In addition to blunt force injuries, the identification of cut marks, scrape marks and chop marks are the most convincing evidence of deliberate trauma to human remains. These features are well documented within the literature and are often associated with events involving mutilation and inter-personal violence (Barber et al. 1989; Murphy et al. 2002; Schulting & Wysocki 2005). Interpreting whether such trauma was inflicted on the body as a result of warfare, or for reasons associated with cultural practices during funerary rituals, is a challenging distinction. It is, therefore, imperative to understand both the contextual setting of the human remains and the distribution of evidence for trauma on the skeleton or individual element, in order to generate an accurate interpretation. Clearly, the overriding concern when identifying deliberately modified human remains is to first rule out more natural taphonomic agents.

4.4.3.2 Scrape Marks Scrape marks occur when a tool is dragged across the surface of a bone, during activities such as removing the periosteum (Binford 1981). This results in a dense series of, usually superficial, parallel striations across a broad area of bone (Shipman 1981, 369). As with cut marks, other taphonomic agents such as trampling may mimic these marks. In comparison to trampling marks, scrape marks will have a more consistent pattern and direction. 4.4.3.3 Chop Marks Chop marks are caused by a striking action, often with a stone tool, impacting the bone surface with a blow directed roughly perpendicular to the bone surface (White 1992, 146). The cross-section will often be a broad V-shape or wedge shape and the internal surfaces will be the same colour, or patina, as the surrounding cortical bone.

4.4.3.1 Cut Marks The identification of cut marks on human remains can suggest a number of motivational factors; warfare, mutilation; funerary dismemberment. How the marks are interpreted will be influenced by their location, orientation, morphology and frequency. For example, cut marks produced during de-fleshing and dismemberment of a body often cluster around specific anatomical features, such as points of attachment for tendons and ligaments. Clusters of similarly orientated cut marks on the cranium may provide evidence of scalping (Murphy et al. 2002). The type of tool used to remove flesh can be inferred through examination of a cross section of the cut. V-shaped cross sections are associated with stone flakes or metal knives. Bi-facially flaked tools usually produce broad, shallow outlines. These profiles will also have internal linear striae, caused by imperfections in the cutting edge of the tool (Greenfield 1999; de Juana et al. 2010).

4.4.3.4 Percussion Pits White (1992, 140) described percussion pits as occurring when a tool such as a hammerstone has struck solid cortical bone without causing inward crushing of the bone cortex. When a percussion pit has its desired effect (fracture of the bone), half the percussion pit is carried on one specimen and half on the other (ibid.). 4.4.3.5 Trepanation A well known procedure in modern medicine, trepanation is described as the surgical removal of a piece of skull “to create a communication between the cranial cavity and the environment” (Aufderheide & Rodríguez Martin 1998, 31). However, recognition of trepanation evidence on a Peruvian cranium (Broca 1867), now thought to date from approximately AD 1300–1530, triggered a re-examination and subsequent recognition of many examples of trepanned

However, there are other taphonomic agents, such as trampling and animal tooth marks, that are known to 35

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney skulls, all over the world (Finger & Clower 2003, 24), from prehistory to present (Arnott et al. 2003). Not only were there many examples, there was also a variation in method. A review has identified five examples of trepanation from the British Neolithic e.g. The Ovingdean Skull (Parry 1935, 57), mostly from the south of England (Roberts & McKinley 2003, 59). Healed and unhealed examples exist, although it is unclear whether a lack of healing suggests an operation was performed before death and was unsuccessful, or whether it was carried out after death for reasons unknown (Roberts & McKinley 2003, 56). Assessments of relative survival time after a trepanation are further complicated in the light of research into the pathology and healing of trepanations in modern cases. This research has demonstrated that, in some instances, and despite very long periods of healing time (34 years in one case) evidence of trepanation is still visible (Nerlich et al. 2003, 49). Justification for trepanation has ranged from treating head injuries to the release of spirits to treating epilepsy and mental disease (Gross 2003, 313; Roberts & McKinley 2003, 56). However, while this process is clearly a cultural modification of human remains, care must be taken to distinguish such features from perforations due to diseases (e.g. tumours), trauma (e.g. blade injuries), perforations created for suspension (Murphy 2003b, 214), post-mortem changes from erosion and the process of excavation (Bennike 2003; Rose 2003, 348).

such remains. However, modern research has reversed this perception (McKinley 1994; 2000; Mays 2002) and demonstrated the importance of such assemblages in providing information relating to age, sex and pathology (McKinley 2000, 409–413). Furthermore, the ability to identify the condition of a body at the time of cremation, for example, whether it was fleshed or de-fleshed, is recognised as important in inferring the duration of a mortuary ritual, or the distance between the mortal event and the mortuary site (Buikstra & Swegle 1989, 247; Haglund & Sorg 1997, 3). In the same way that we need to understand how a body will decompose under ‘normal’ conditions, we also need to understand how a body will behave when exposed to a thermal source. As with decomposition, bodies have been found to behave in a relatively uniform and predictable way. Initially, exposure of a corpse to fire will result in scorching and burning of the skin and hair (Mays 2002, 207). With the loss of the body’s water content, the bulkier flexor muscles will contract more than the extensor muscles, resulting in visible movements of the extremities and extreme flexion (Mays 2002, 207; Symes et al. 2008, 30). This flexion involves the knees bending upward toward the chest and the arms bending so that the forearms also move towards the chest, creating what is referred to as the ‘pugilistic pose’ (Symes et al. 2008, 30). Flexion of the corpse also alters the physical relationship between the body and the thermal source, therefore altering the proximity of parts of the body to heat (tissue shielding). This phenomenon will also affect the order in which the body is cremated, thereby altering our understanding of the duration of the event (see Symes et al. 2008, Plates 2 and 3 for summary diagram). The abdomen may swell due to gaseous expansion within before the skin and muscles split. Parts of the skeleton are revealed as the overlying soft tissue continues to be destroyed. The ligaments and brain tissue are usually the last to go, leaving only the bones (Mays 2002, 207). While this has the most relevant application for forensic studies, it is also of use within an archaeological context for understanding the realities of mortuary events and could therefore provide valuable information regarding cultural practices.

4.4.3.6 Interpersonal Violence Damage may also be sustained by the human skeleton as a result of interpersonal aggression. This is most often associated with the cranium (Roberts & Manchester 2005, 108), but may also manifest in defence injuries of the forearms and hands (known as Parry fractures). Head injuries will be the result of sharp, blunt or projectile trauma. Cranial fractures occur from tensile strain generated as the cranium deforms (i.e. bends) in response to the force of a blow (Knüsel 2005, 56). Blunt force trauma, at or around the time of death, is identified by the presence of concentric or radiating fractures, in the immediate vicinity of the defect (Boylston 2000, 361; Kanz & Grossschmidt 2006, 210; Calce & Rogers 2007, 519). A light blow may result in a linear fracture, whilst greater force (projectile) may result in a comminuted fracture with radiating fractures in the immediate area around the wound (Boylston 2000, 361). In contrast to a dent, crack or splintered bone resulting from blunt force trauma, sharp force injury (e.g. from a blade) will produce an incised, linear defect (Bolyston 2000, 361).

In terms of the effect on human bone, it is now understood that heat exposure causes significant chemical and mechanical changes that result in discolouration, shrinkage, warping, fracture and fragmentation. Although studies have thus far been unable to specifically pinpoint required exposure times or temperature for causing these changes (Thompson 2009, 297), researchers have been successful in identifying temperature ranges with which they can be associated (Mays 2002, 217; Symes et al. 2008, 24).

4.5 The Effects of Burning Derived from the Latin cremare meaning ‘to burn to ashes’, cremation is the mortuary rite usually associated with, and implied by, the recovery of archaeological human remains with evidence of burning. In the early days of archaeological investigation, it was believed that very little useful evidence could be gleaned from

From a taphonomic perspective, the key research questions are to understand; what burning methods may have been used; what temperatures could have been achieved; what the duration of exposure could have been; and whether the 36

Taphonomy remains were dry, fresh (but defleshed) or fleshed at the time of burning (Buikstra & Swegle 1989, 248; Symes et al. 2008, 16). Researchers tend to examine three key traits: colour, fragmentation and surficial patterns.

necessarily reflect the temperature attained by the entire corpse (McKinley 2000, 405; Symes et al. 2008, 25). This variation in colour may also be the result of a body contorting into the ‘pugilistic pose’.

4.5.1 Colour Change Due to Thermal Application

4.5.2 Thermal Fragmentation

Experimental work has found a correlation between bone colour and temperature, although the exact temperature at which changes occur is variable (Shipman et al. 1984; Mays 2002, 217). Mays (2002) compared the results of his research into the effects of temperature on bone colour to those of Shipman et al. (1984), and these are summarised in Table 4.4. The main colour range associated with thermally altered bone is from brown/ black, through shades of blue and grey to buff/white (McKinley 2000, 405). Whilst there is variation between these interpretations a consensus can be observed across the main colour changes. A correlation between colour and the physical nature of the bone has also been suggested, where charred bone (black in colour) represents a carbonised skeletal material in direct contact with heat and flames. In contrast white (calcined bone) is thermally altered bone that has lost all of its organic material and moisture and exists simply in a framework of ashen, fused bone salts. In most cases, calcined bone is distorted, warped and fractured (Symes et al. 2008, 37).

As burning can lead to extreme bone fragmentation, differentiating between peri-mortem trauma and postmortem thermal-related alterations can be challenging (Ubelaker 2009, 2). Heat-induced fractures are generally identified by their location and direction of advancement (Herrmann & Bennett 1999, 461). Thermal fracture patterns have been studied for more than a century, generating numerous classification schemes. The most commonly identified fracture types are: longitudinal, step, transverse, and curved (thumb-nail) and also features of splintering and de-lamination (Symes et al. 2008, 42-43). 4.5.3 Surficial Patterning Examination of patterns left on the bone surface has been suggested to infer whether bone was burnt while fleshed or defleshed. Previous studies (Buikstra & Swegle 1989) have documented that dry bones exhibited longitudinal splitting and superficial checking of the external surfaces and less evidence of warping. In contrast, those burned with flesh displayed considerable warping, transverse fractures, frequently in a curvilinear pattern (Symes et al. 2008, 43) and more irregular longitudinal splitting (Buikstra & Swegle 1989; Ubelaker 2009, 3).

In general, bones will burn from the outside to the inside (before the shaft is compromised), therefore lighter calcined bone (if present) will be external and the black, charred (protected) bone will be internal (Symes et al. 2008, 35). It is not unusual to see a range of colours throughout the remains from a single cremation, indicating that (with a limited duration of exposure to a thermal source) bone with denser soft tissue cover will not cremate as fully as bone with less cover. This exposure differential implies that the condition of a single bone fragment does not

Multiple factors must be considered in determining the relationship between observed bone condition and inferred pre-incineration status (Buikstra & Swegle 1989, 249). The length of time in the fire, intensity of heat, thickness of protecting muscle tissue, position of the bone in relation to the point of oxidation of the consuming flame (Binford

Table 4.4 Range of temperatures associated with bone colour (reproduced from Mays, S. 2002, Table 11.1, 2017, with permission) Colour/Temp Range by Mays 2002

Colour/Temp Range by Shipman et al. 1984

Temperature (°C)

Colour

Temperature (°C)

Colour

185

Red/Orange

Under 285

White or Yellow

285

Dark Brown/Black

285–525

360

Black

Red/Brown, red/yellow, dark grey/brown or dark grey

440

Grey/Brown

525

Grey/Brown (lighter than that observed at 440°C)

525–645

Black, blue or red/yellow

645–1200

White, some pale yellow

645–940

White, light grey or light blue/ grey

940

White, some grey or red/yellow

37

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 1963, 101; Ubelaker 2009, 3) will all have an impact on the state of the recovered bone. Other variables should also be considered. For instance, it has been demonstrated that bone from individuals suffering from osteoporosis will degrade more quickly and more extensively than healthy bone when exposed to fire (McKinley 2000, 404; DeHaan 2008, 9). While the reasons are unclear, it has also been noted that cremated bone tends to survive better in the soil than unburnt bone (Mays 2002, 209).

margins; missing or detached portions, and absence as a result of ingestion or transport (ibid.). Gnawing by rodents such as mice can be distinguished from that of other carnivores by the characteristic parallel series of incisor furrows (Haglund et al. 1988, 992). Tooth punctures form an inverted, v-shaped cone depression from localised compressive failure due to the constant pressure exerted by the tooth (Johnson 1989, 437). Teeth may also leave furrows or grooves, which are produced when teeth skip and drag over compact bone. Shafts of long bones are the most likely areas of these linear, often parallel scratches that are orientated perpendicular to the long axis of the bone. Furrows are channels in bone produced by cusps of cheek teeth and extend from the ends of long bones longitudinally into the marrow cavity (Haglund et al. 1988, 986). These linear features may sometimes appear very similar to anthropogenic marks such as cut marks. However, these marks are distinguishable using SEM analysis. Larger carnivores such as wolves and dogs have produced spiral fractures of long bones of elk. Small bones and bone fragments may be eaten and later regurgitated or deposited by defecation (Haglund et al. 1988, 986).

From a physical perspective fire is a destructive force; burning causes bone to shrink, warp, discolour and fragment. Conversely, from a cultural perspective fire could be conceived as a cleansing or transformative force. It should also be appreciated that not all burnt human remains are the result of a cremation burial (McKinley 2000, 414). Context therefore, is all-important, as burned human remains are usually the result of human agency (Thompson 2009, 296). 4.6 Animal Modification When present, animal modification can be extensive, with a wide variety of species capable of creating significant post-mortem alteration to bone assemblages. Animals not only chew and destroy bone in situ, they can also transport body parts to other locations (e.g. a den) thereby acting as accumulators (Lyman 2001, 205). The extent and nature of animal modification may lead to the assumption that only limited information can be derived from the remaining osseous material, however, research has illustrated that animal modification will often follow recognisable patterns. For example, Haglund and colleagues’ (1988) study of animal scavenging on human remains produced interesting results. Analysis of human remains illustrated that bones of the upper extremity (including scapulae and clavicles) were recovered less frequently than those of the lower extremity reflecting the sequence of animal scavenger disarticulation of the remains (Haglund et al. 1988, 993–4). Axial skeletal elements were usually found scattered about the original site of discovery, in contrast to extremities that, once disarticulated from the body, can be easily removed as a unit, facilitating transport by animals (Haglund et al. 1988, 994). Recognising this type of modification provides valuable insight that may not only account for fragmented or disarticulated assemblages, but also an indication as to whether or not a body was accessible to animals. This is vital when trying to understand if any patterning of skeletal element representation is the result of deliberate funerary practices or non-anthropogenic taphonomic processes.

As already intimated, carnivore modification can be problematic to interpretive analysis as the physical manifestation of this evidence can mimic other taphonomic agents, including cut marks, percussion pits and sediment abrasion. Carnivore tooth damage is generally characterised by the location on the bone along with the combination of pits, punctures, scoring, and furrows. Unlike scoring, which follows contours of bone; cut marks usually follow a straight, rigid course (White 1992, 144). The linear striations from sediment abrasion tend to be fine, with a smoothing effect on sharp features of bone (Haglund et al. 1988, 990–91). Identification of pits without associative gnawing marks are more problematic, but their regular internal topography and outline when compared to the percussion pits from a hammerstone can help to differentiate them (White 1992, 139). Assemblages that have been scavenged usually contain high proportions of bone elements with no trabecular bone. This is due to the higher fat content of the ‘spongy’ (trabecular) bone being more attractive to predators and scavengers (Shipman 1981, 101). Bones of immature animals have a lower survival rate because they are easier to chew, have greater nutrition and are more easily destroyed by scavengers (Marshall 1989, 9). It has been suggested that a high prevalence of carnivore marks throughout an assemblage is demonstrative of the period of time the bones were exposed prior to burial, and the density of carnivore/scavengers in the area (Shipman 1981, 108). Carrion birds are now recognised as being capable of not only damaging bones, both animal and human, but also of transporting them considerable distances (Berger & Clarke 1995).

Carnivores (e.g. foxes, dogs and wolves), artiodactyls (deer, sheep, hogs) and rodents (mice, squirrels and rats) are all possible taphonomic agents (Haglund et al. 1988, 986). The potential damage and loss produced by carnivores range from tooth mark impressions; gnawing; crenulated, crushed, or splintered edges at damaged

A taphonomic approach to animal modification can provide clues as to whether or not human remains were exposed or 38

Taphonomy accessible to animals. However, care should be taken in the analysis of this evidence, especially in our assumption that these activities are an unintentional act. Ethnographic examples illustrate that animal modification of a corpse is an integral part of certain funerary rites, exemplars being Zoroastrian excarnation, or the Tibetan Sky Burials (Goss & Klass 1997, 384; Hedges 2000, 141).

Information on bone weathering was first systematically studied by Behrensmeyer (1978). As with the majority of the earlier taphonomic interpretative studies, this research was driven by the desire to interpret the accumulation histories of faunal assemblages. Despite the faunal emphasis, a substantial amount of this research can be applied to the assessment of the depositional narrative of human remains.

4.7 Water as a Taphonomic Agent

With a specific focus on osseous material that has been exposed on the ground surface, Behrensmeyer’s research resulted in a six-stage categorisation of progressive bone weathering, assigned based on macroscopic changes to the bone structure. These stages intimate that bone will degrade (or weather) according to a defined sequence, beginning with superficial cracking and ending in splintering (Behrensmeyer 1978). Behrensmeyer argued that although the rate and patterning of these changes will reflect local environmental conditions, the sequence is relatively stable, thus providing a standardised means of characterising weathering changes. These stages are an important factor in defining past depositional environments.

When relevant, fluvial processes are considered one of the key forces in bone collection, transport and dispersal (Shipman 1981, 28; Marshall 1989, 10). The most appropriate method to conceptualise how bone behaves within a fluvial environment is to equate it to sedimentary particles; thus, dispersal is likely to be strongly influenced by physical properties such as size, shape and density (Marshall 1989, 10). The overall size and shape of the bone affects its settling velocity and this process may be further complicated by bed form development, fluctuations in current velocity, depth of flow, velocity gradient near the bed and bed material size (Marshall 1989, 10). It has been observed that the skull is less likely to be recovered from bodies partially skeletonised in open bodies of water (Haglund et al. 1988, 993), as its rounded shape is more conducive to a greater degree of movement. These variables are further complicated by the possibility of weathering. It has been suggested that heavily weathered bones will logically have a lesser density than nonweathered bones and are, therefore, more susceptible to fluvial action (Marshall 1989, 10; Lyman & Fox 1997, 232). An understanding of how bone may move in fluvial circumstances can help with the interpretation of evidence such as the dispersal of crania in the Thames River Valley (Knüsel & Carr 1995).

There are some limitations to this categorisation method that should be considered. One of the obvious issues with assessing bone weathering in this manner is that the analysis has a heavily subjective bias. Even Behrensmeyer (1978) highlights the fact that a bone may overlap categories and that the stages should be used only as a guide. In addition, the smaller bones of a skeleton may weather at a slower rate than the larger ones due to their smaller surface area (Behrensmeyer 1978, 152). This imprecision becomes more problematic if the skeleton is no longer fully articulated. The ability to interpret weathering patterns and spatial distribution within a bone assemblage is vital for the taphonomist in their efforts to comprehend the assemblage’s accumulation history (Lyman & Fox 1997, 232). As with the temporal quantification of peri-mortem and post-mortem taphonomic evidence, timescales associated with the weathering stages established by Behrensmeyer are expressed in relative rather than absolute terms (Lyman & Fox 1997, 232). In spite of this limitation, the approach still provides us with a useful analytical tool, for example, a large assemblage of bones (animal) which displays only one weathering stage may be suggestive of sudden and widespread death such as a drought, or, it could also reflect local conditions that reduced vulnerability to weathering of a gradually accumulating assemblage (Behrensmeyer 1978, 161). At the other end of the scale, an assemblage displaying a great variety of weathering would strongly suggest an accumulation period of many years. Conversely, it may also reflect highly variable micro-environmental conditions in which some bones remain in stage one, while others of the same carcass could completely disintegrate (Behrensmeyer 1978, 161). For human remains, a catastrophic event such as a massacre, might cause a large assemblage of commingled bones to have a similar weathering pattern, conversely a range of weathering stages might suggest a gradual accumulation over time.

The effects of fluvial processes are not simply limited to the movement of osseous material; damage may also occur, the evidence of which can be examined in a taphonomic study. Aeolian and hydraulic-transport produce abrasion and/or pitting of bones. In both cases, the edge of breaks and anatomical crests of ridges become rounded and are eventually obliterated (Shipman 1981, 113). This evidence, combined with evidence of skeletal element sorting (reflected in presence/absence of particular elements), may be used to infer the involvement of fluvial processes. 4.8 Weathering ‘When the original microscopic organic and inorganic components of a bone are separated from each other and destroyed by physical and chemical agents operating on the bone in situ, either on the surface or within the soil zone, the dynamic at work is referred to as weathering’ (Behrensmeyer 1978, 153).

39

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney A further point of contention with Behrensmeyer’s work lies in the fact that her analysis was compiled from data in Africa; this weakens the correlative efficacy of the results, especially to temperate material (or evidence of a particular micro-climate). This observation was highlighted in a study carried out in Somerset (Andrews & Cook 1985), where observation of bones revealed no features of weathering such as pitting, cracking or exfoliation (Behrensmeyer Stage 4). McKinley (2004, 15–16) has developed an alternative series of stages for UK assemblages. However, Behrensmeyer is still widely used (Smith 2005, 92; Lawrence 2006, 50). Despite certain limitations with a subjective method and complications of correlative environmental data, these categories are extremely useful for assessing general differential weathering trends within, and between assemblages, and therefore contributing to our understanding of their depositional history.

presence of evidence for bone bleaching is therefore seen as an indication that bone has been exposed and may be used to support an argument in favour of a funerary ritual such as excarnation. 4.11 Plant Roots As roots progress across the surface of bone, humic acid is excreted causing dissolution of the bone’s surface, resulting in a dendritic, lace-like pattern, often referred to as ‘root etching’ (Lyman 2001, 375; Saul & Saul 2002, 81). These marks have smooth, U-shaped cross sections that, concomitant with their dendritic pattern, allows their distinction from anthropogenically created cut-marks (Lyman 2001, 377). Plant roots have been reported to travel through the medullary cavity and cause long bone shafts to split, while roots of various sizes can disintegrate the spongy/trabecular articulations (Saul and Saul 2002, 79). Roots may also displace bones, teeth and artifacts, as do animals, insects and other processes of bioturbation (Saul & Saul 2002, 81). The presence of root etching suggests that a bone was situated in a plant-supporting sedimentary environment for at least part of its taphonomic history (Lyman 2001, 376).

4.9 Insects While the role of carrion insects in the decay of the soft tissue of a body is well known (Vass 2001, 191; Carter et al. 2007, 13) the role of insects in the degradation of bone is frequently underestimated (Huchet et al. 2011, 92). Derry (1911) conducted one of the first analyses of damage created by the gnawing action of insects, especially termites. Behrensmeyer (1978, 154) also illustrated the possibility of such damage when analysing grooves in horn cores. This evidence was attributed to gnawing by moth larvae, feeding on the organic components of horns. According to Lyman (2001, 394) several kinds of evidence must be recorded in order to infer the action of gnawing insects. Size of the holes, the presence or absence of scratches or grooves on the walls of the holes, the presence of fossil beetle puparial cases and the location of the borings and/or grooves in the depositional context (e.g. upward or downward surface of the bone) and on the bone (e.g. in compact or trabecular bone) are also important considerations.

4.12 Taphonomic Signatures/Profiles Reflecting on the themes and discourse of this chapter, it is evident that taphonomy involves the consideration of a wide range of possible anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic agents when attempting to explain and interpret how an assemblage has been formed. A taphonomic interpretation is further influenced by the context of recovery and by the systematic assessment of all the identifiable agents; it is the tracing of these multifarious factors that will lead to the positive (or even negative) identification of taphonomic signatures leading to hypotheses for particular events. Currently, there are several different hypotheses (debated in the literature) to account for the condition of the human remains within the Orcadian tombs; excarnation, secondary burial, primary interment with successive inhumation. In order to support or refute any of these theories through osteological analysis, it is important to have an understanding of how each variation should look from a taphonomic perspective. A further interpretation for highly fragmented assemblages is that of cannibalism (White 2002; Bello et al. 2011). Although not previously considered for the Orcadian remains, it is informative to have an understanding of the accepted taphonomic profile for such a formation process, at least in order to refute the hypothesis.

4.10 Bone Colour Fresh or ‘green’ bone has an ivory colour. A variety of agents including grave inclusions, mortuary rituals, and depositional environments may cause discolouration. Exposure to heat, whether accidental or as part of an interment procedure, causes systematic colour changes that provide information about the heat source and its intensity (see Section 4.5.1) (Buikstra & Ubelaker 1997, 95). Metal objects interred with remains can cause staining, e.g. green discolouration due to contact with copper (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1997, 96). Bone often changes colour in response to the presence of bacteria, plants and soil minerals that are present in the depositional environment. Most of these agents will darken bone to tan, red-brown, grey or nearly black. In contrast, exposure to the bleaching effects of sunlight will cause bone to assume a chalky, off white colour (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1997, 96). The

4.12.1 Taphonomic Profile for Cannibalism Declaring a people to be cannibals is to debase them (Knüsel & Outram 2009, 253). Cannibalism may occur in the form of a mortuary rite (endo-cannibalism) or 40

Taphonomy denigration (exo-cannibalism) (Knüsel & Outram 2009, 266–268). Perceived as one of the great taboos, the possibility of cannibalism having occurred in the past is both fascinating and emotive. The controversial nature of the cannibalism hypothesis has prompted researchers to develop a stringent criteria of identifiable characteristics against which a bone assemblage may be measured, in order for this interpretation to be accepted (Turner & Turner 1999). Taphonomic considerations have played a significant role in defining what these should be, particularly in the American southwest (White 1992; Turner & Turner 1999). In the early archaeological literature, an absence of formal burial along with scattered and broken human bones was sufficient to suggest cannibalism or exposure (Knüsel & Outram 2009, 253). The scope for evidence of cannibalism has been substantially elaborated and features must now include: weathered, fragmented and disarticulated remains; perimortem fracturing; inner conchoidal scars; cut marks present, usually at points of articulation making them consistent with defleshing; burning; skeletal representation; pot polish (e.g. White 1992; Turner & Turner 1999; Knüsel & Outram 2009). This stringent approach has garnered some scepticism, with critics suggesting that making the criteria too rigorous runs the risk of overlooking incidences of cannibalism that do not present with every feature (White 1992, 339–340).

analysis identified traces of human myoglobin in a coprolite retrieved from one of the contexts associated with suspected cannibalised remains (Marlar et al. 2000, 77). This is direct evidence for the consumption of human tissue by humans. Such finds of coprolites are rare. In lieu of the ability to perform this biochemical analysis, interpretations of cannibalism are hampered by issues of equifinality. That is, their taphonomic profile may be similar to entirely different taphonomic processes, such as secondary mortuary practices (Lyman 2004; Knüsel & Outram 2009, 275). 4.12.2 Taphonomic Profile for Trampling When considering a highly disarticulated and fragmented assemblage, another process that must be given due consideration is trampling. As with other areas of taphonomic research presented here, most of our knowledge of trampling and the potential to modify bone assemblages is sourced from zooarchaeological literature (Fiorillo 1989; Nielsen 1991). Animal trampling occurs in an external (exposed) environment, thus the interest in the effects of trampling on an assemblage is linked to considerations of exposure time and accumulation histories. The premise being that the longer an assemblage has been exposed on a surface traversed by animals, the more prolific the evidence for trampling will be. Although derived from zooarchaeological data, the key principles of this hypothesis can be applied to human remains. In particular, trampling must be a consideration for human remains recovered from tombs that were considered to be accessible throughout their main period of use (including Quanterness in Orkney) (Renfrew 1979).

Nevertheless, cannibalism has been successfully demonstrated at the Neolithic site of Fontbrégoua in France (Villa 1992). The authors cited evidence that included the presence of impact notches (half of which had microflakes adhering to the impact point) and cut marks made by stone tools. The cut marks were found in locations predicted by modern butchery studies. Furthermore, encrusted sedimentary matrix covering the tool marks observed under SEM analysis supported their antiquity (Villa & Mahieu 1991, 31). Conversely, a taphonomic assessment disproved a hypothesis of cannibalism at the Late Neolithic site of Sarrians in Southern France. Here it was demonstrated that the bones had been broken in situ (Villa & Mahieu 1991, 29). Breakage was argued to represent a process of slow compaction and void filling, following organic decay (ibid.). The presence of incomplete fracture lines suggested that breakage was a long-term process acting on diagenetically altered and progressively weakened bones. The state of preservation of these bones was therefore related to the end, not the beginning of the breakage process (Villa & Mahieu 1991, 29). In a UK context, cannibalism has, famously, been postulated for the human remains found at Gough’s Cave in Somerset, England (Bello et al. 2011) due to the discovery of cut marks on this 14,700 year old assemblage.

Trampling will produce fracture patterns; it may create marks on bones and lead to spatial displacement of bones, both horizontally and vertically (Lyman 2001, 377). Movement of bone through the horizontal plane has been linked to the compaction of the soil (Olsen & Shipman 1988, 536). A more compact substrate enables bones to stay on the surface longer, thereby increasing the probability of horizontal movement, while buried bones are less susceptible to horizontal movement resulting from kicking (Lyman 2001, 378). Vertical movement of bones seems to be a typical, but variable result of trampling. It is not restricted to downward movement; the orientation and plunge or dip of long bones may be altered by trampling (Plate 4.13), as when one end of a long bone is stepped on and forced beneath the surface, while the other end raises up off of the ground surface (Olsen and Shipman 1988, 537; Lyman 2001, 379). Vertical movement seems to depend on the intensity of trampling, the compactness of the sediments, the extent to which bones are already buried when stepped on, and the size (weight) and shape of the bone. Downward movement and resulting burial seems to occur rapidly in soft, sandy sediment but is slower and less extensive in silt mixed with gravel, the gravel apparently acting like a pavement (Olsen and Shipman 1988, 537; Lyman 2001, 379). Trampled areas may sort by size and surface area, with small objects becoming more deeply

However, opponents of a cannibalism hypothesis identify non-cannibalistic practices such as secondary interment, denigration of an enemy and ritualised witch executions that may present similar taphonomic profiles (e.g. Bullock 1991; Darling 1999). At Cowboy Wash, Colorado, perhaps the most definitive evidence for cannibalism has been reported by Marlar et al. (2000). Part of their 41

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney buried than large objects or objects with large surface areas (Nielsen 1991, 492). Large bones such as skulls may be simply stepped around. Gifford-Gonzalez et al. (1985) provide a précis of the literature exploring the effects of trampling on the vertical distribution of artefacts.

14). Currently, the accepted archaeological indicators for exposed bodies are those outlined by Carr & Knüsel (1997, 170): 1) 2)

Several authors suggest that trampling can break bones, although only if certain criteria are met (Myers et al. 1980, 487; Andrews 1990, 8–10). Research by Lyman (2001, 380) indicates that bones are more likely to be broken by trampling following a degree of weathering (i.e. Behrensmeyer’s Stage 1 or greater) than when fresh, although fresh bones can be broken in this way. However, Olsen and Shipman (1988, 537) contend that, as the breakage is most likely to occur in the weakest part of the bone (as it would in most natural circumstances – e.g. due to sediment pressure), there is nothing particularly diagnostic about the type or pattering of breaks created by this process.

3) 4)

Animal gnawing on bones. Scattered, isolated, fragmentary, weathered or splintered bones. Disarticulated skeletons. Incomplete skeletons lacking phalanges, a limb or other parts.

The recovery of a skeletal element representation profile lacking the smaller bones of the skeleton, such as bones of the hands and feet, would suggest that the remains represent secondary burial after excarnation (Dowd 2002, 89; Dowd et al. 2006, 17). This is because the smaller bones are often overlooked when skeletal remains are being retrieved for interment elsewhere. Conversely, the discovery of scattered and isolated smaller bones, with an absence of the larger limb bones and skulls, would suggest the site of discovery was the location for the excarnation rite.

Evidence to demonstrate that trampling can produce scratch marks has been produced by Andrews and Cook (1985), Behrensmeyer et al. (1989) and Fiorillo (1989). These studies have highlighted a need for caution as scratch marks can mimic, even on a microscopic scale, cut marks left by stone tools. Fiorillo (1989, 65) demonstrated that the scratch marks were not created by the hooves of the animals, but the mineral grains within the sediment. However, as highlighted in Section 4.4.3.1, trampling marks tend to be more randomly orientated or multidirectional in comparison with butchering marks. They also tend to be located on the shafts of long bones rather than on the ends, and are shallow relative to butchering marks (Andrews and Cook 1985; Olsen and Shipman 1988).

Secondary burial is defined by Metcalf and Huntington (1991, 97) as ‘the regular and socially sanctioned removal of the relics of some or all deceased persons from a place of temporary storage to a permanent resting place’. It is generally accepted that this movement of bone will occur after the flesh has decayed, with the time separating decomposition from final interment conceived and described as a liminal phase (Carr & Knüsel 1997, 167). As stated above, secondary burials tend to be identified by a predominance of long bones and crania in the skeletal element representation. The smaller bones, such as phalanges, patellae and vertebrae tend to be lost.

4.12.3 Taphonomic Profile for Excarnation and Secondary Burial

However, confident assessment of secondary burial and excarnation on the basis of skeletal element representation alone is too simplistic. This is because some disposal patterns may appear to be the result of secondary deposition when, in fact, they are the result of a primary disposal that has been modified by subsequent natural forces (Schroeder 2001, 82). For example, it has been established that the smaller bones of the hands and feet are often underrepresented as they can be overlooked during excavation (Bello & Andrews 2006, 4), and the more delicate bones (such as the sternum and sacrum) may have already eroded. This phenomenon could create a similar profile to that of secondary burial deposition, predominantly crania and long bones. Research by Beckett & Robb (2006, 68) has highlighted similar problems through a ‘virtual tomb’ simulation exercise. They argue that it is more reliable to look for an over-representation of the small fragile bones as this is more likely to reflect genuine ritual patterning such as the removal of crania and long bones. Furthermore, it is suggested that as crania tend to preserve better than small or fragile bones, the curation or specific deposition of crania will be more likely to manifest as an imbalance between crania and major long bones (ibid.).

One of the most frequently cited explanations for the discovery of human remains in a state of disarticulation and disorder, in the absence of evidence for deliberate or accidental disturbance, is of mortuary practices involving excarnation and/or secondary burial. With the advancement in understanding of various taphonomic agents (involvement of animals, differential decay of bones) identification of these funerary traditions are more cautious and consider more strands of evidence than simply the presence of disarticulation. Defined as the act of depriving or divesting of flesh, excarnation may occur as the only stage of a mortuary ritual, or it may be the primary step, preceding a secondary rite. There are many ethnographic examples of excarnation, a prominent example being the Sioux and the Cheyenne Indians of North America (Ubelaker & Willey 1978) who were known to expose the dead on platforms while the flesh decayed. Excarnation has also been recorded in Southern Taiwan as a means to speed up the de-fleshing of human remains, which have not sufficiently decayed, to allow progression of the mortuary ritual (Tsu 2000, 42

Taphonomy Therefore, the taphonomic profile of an assemblage that has been excarnated and/or subjected to a secondary burial rite, will involve consideration of more than the skeletal element representation. Assessment should also be mediated by the preservation patterns linked to the anatomical structure of human bones (Bello & Andrews 2006, 9). There may also be the presence of tool marks where the process of dismemberment is completed manually (Redfern 2008, 283; Beckett 2011, 403). Many researchers also attribute fragmentation in archaeological assemblages to secondary burial processes (Chesterman 1979, 107; Carr & Knüsel 1997, 170; Redfern 2008, 283; Beckett 2011, 403). However, Barber (1997) has pointed out that none of the ethnographic examples of secondary burial practices that involve the retention of human bone ever involve the deliberate fragmentation of the remains. 4.12.4 Taphonomic Profile of Successive Inhumation Another hypothesis cited to explain the relative chaos and disorder within megalithic tombs is that of successive inhumation. This is defined as the continual deposition of complete bodies that are often displaced by the insertion of later interments (Beckett 2011, 402). This mortuary approach would therefore be characterised by partial articulations and high/proportional representation of skeletal elements: in other words, counts of human bones indicating that bodies decomposed in situ (ibid.). The occurrence of a catastrophic event, such as a fatal epidemic or a massacre, may result in the deposition of multiple bodies at one time; this would be reflected by articulated skeletons with similar levels of weathering (Beckett 2011, 403). 4.13 Conclusion Upon rudimentary consideration, taphonomy could be conceived as a relatively straightforward approach, allowing the archaeologist to differentiate between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic influences on the archaeological record. A simple case of Schiffer’s ‘C’ transforms and ‘N’ transforms (Schiffer 1976). However, as this chapter attests, taphonomy is evidently a complex and multidisciplinary framework for investigation. This complexity is intensified when we consider that some taphonomic agents might serve to eradicate others such as the effects of weathering eroding a cut marked surface. This is known as ‘taphonomic overprinting’. Careful consideration of the context of recovery is invaluable in informing the variables that may be relevant for each case, and will assist in the production of differential diagnosis and interpretations. Taphonomy is a powerful tool that can bring previously overlooked information to bear on the interpretation of archaeological sites and the societies behind their creation. The following chapter will explore how these principles and methods of taphonomic analysis are applied to the broader research methodology of this project.

43

Chapter 5

Methods 5.1 Introduction

these particular tombs (age, sex, pathology). Although undoubtedly thorough, Chesterman’s analysis is of its time and it must be acknowledged that advances in the approaches and techniques used for the analysis of human remains in recent years validates re-examination of the material.

The previous chapter sought to define taphonomy and how it can be utilised in an osteoarchaeological context. This chapter outlines the material selected for analysis and the methods and techniques employed using a taphonomic analytical approach. The benefits and limitations of these techniques will also be discussed.

The high standard of excavation combined with the large assemblage of human bone recovered, advocates Quanterness as the ideal site on which to focus the taphonomic analysis. Isbister, while having produced a larger assemblage of human bone, does not offer the same level of contextual detail that may be gleaned from the Quanterness assemblage and accompanying reports. Additionally, Isbister is already being reanalysed by another researcher (Lawrence 2006; 2012). Quanterness was, therefore, selected as the main focus of this study.

As alluded to in previous chapters, a number of the Orcadian Neolithic tombs have produced substantial quantities of human bone. These assemblages have been described as being both disarticulated and highly fragmented. Such high levels of fragmentation present a significant obstacle. However, what may at first be seen as a problem may in fact be the solution; it is the highly fragmentary nature of these assemblages that may provide the most profitable insight as to how the bones reached their present condition. It is their disorganised character, which for many years has consigned these assemblages to storeroom shelves, that now makes them of particular interest. As demonstrated in Chapter 4, a taphonomic analysis is the technique that could unlock new evidence.

In order to contextualise, and thereby substantiate the results of a taphonomic analysis, it was essential to compare Quanterness with assemblages from other Orcadian Neolithic tombs. Selection of comparative sites was dictated by practicalities of availability and time. This approach was necessitated by virtue of the fact that antiquarians excavated many of the Orcadian Neolithic tombs in the nineteenth century and, unfortunately, many of the assemblages have since been lost. The sites analysed are summarised in Table 5.1.

5.2 Selection of Material The two largest assemblages known emanate from modern excavations; Quanterness in Mainland and Isbister in South Ronaldsay. Quanterness was excavated by Renfrew in 1972–1974 (Renfrew 1979) and Isbister was excavated by the landowner between 1958 and 1982 (Hedges 1983; Davidson & Henshall 1989, 125). Both assemblages were analysed by Judson Chesterman (1979; 1983) who produced a comprehensive description of the demographic information relating to the populations from

The inclusion of two tomb types in the study allows comparison, not only of different human bone assemblages, but also of assemblages known to come from different types of monument. Four of the assemblages were from Maeshowe-type tombs. Of these sites, Quoyness is of particular interest as it is cited as being, architecturally, the most directly comparable to Quanterness. Two of the

Table 5.1 Summary of the Orcadian sites analysed Site

Tomb Type

Reference

Quanterness, Mainland

Maeshowe

Renfrew 1979

Isbister

Stalled

Hedges 1983

Quoyness

Maeshowe

Childe 1952

Point of Cott

Stalled

Barber 1997

Pierowall Quarry

Maeshowe

Sharples 1984

Cuween Hill

Maeshowe

Charleson 1902

44

Methods assemblages were from stalled tombs. As explained above, Isbister was not to be analysed in its entirety for this study, but it was considered a useful exercise to examine a sample of bone that could be used in subsequent comparative analyses. The humerus was selected as it was judged to be the one skeletal element that could be assessed in its entirety within the time frame available. Taphonomic analysis of all the humeri from Isbister allowed comparison of this particular skeletal element between all the sites in the study. Additionally, bones reported to represent two skeletons, known as ‘Sarah Jane’ and the ‘Doorkeeper’, from Isbister were included as it was originally thought they would form a small ‘control’ (to compare fragmented bone with whole skeletons). However, a sample size of two is realistically not large enough for use in this way, and therefore subsequent analysis focused on the sample of humeri. The archaeological background of each assemblage is described in Chapter 6.

Table 5.2 Information recorded from Chesterman’s Notebooks Information Recorded from Chesterman’s Notebooks Small Find Number Area Layer Number Age Sex Pathology Other (e.g. burning, trauma) Date on the diary page data. This caused further difficulties as it was apparent that not every bone had been labelled, and not all small find numbers were recorded in the notebooks (there were only 4502 entries from the diaries). However, according to the excavation report, bones that were close to each other were lifted as a group and given the same general small find number e.g 100. Then the bones within that group were numbered individually (Renfrew 1979, 50). For example, a group of bone may be numbered SF 1000. Perhaps there were ten bones within this group, so each bone would be numbered 1000.01, 1000.02, 1000.03 and so on. Therefore, in the event that just one bone from a group was recorded in the notebooks (as was often the case), this record provided the contextual information for the rest of that group. Unlabelled bones within a group bag were identified as part of that group.

5.3 Making Quanterness Accessible One of the main difficulties with the Quanterness assemblage was how to approach the formidable volume of material (the human bone was contained in 30 storage boxes). Indeed, some of the notations in Chesterman’s notebooks suggest this was one of the key issues that he struggled with. A preliminary assessment of the material in one box was carried out to try and ascertain how the osseous remains could be reconciled with the contextual information. This appraisal demonstrated that, despite the high standard of excavation, matching human remains to contextual information was not going to be a straightforward process. The relevant contextual information had been recorded by hand in four diaries. Unfortunately, the notebooks did not begin at ‘Small Find Number One’ and continue in sequential order. Other than some general grouping of bone according to element, there was no discernible organisational system. To further complicate matters, the bones themselves had not been stored according to small find number. The first stage of deciphering Chesterman’s data into an accessible format was to translate the four diaries onto an Excel spread sheet. The information that was recorded is summarised in Table 5.2.

Once contextual information had been acquired, an attempt could be made to assign these layers to the relevant strata allocated to the main chamber. Unfortunately, this system was not perfect. There were some instances where no contextual information was available. There were also instances of bones having no small find labels at all; this occurrence does not seem to be related to size, as some very small fragments of bone were labelled, while larger more identifiable fragments were occasionally not. Whilst this proved a very time consuming task it should be noted, in Chesterman’s defence, that programs such as Excel spread sheets would not have been available to him at the time. It is entirely plausible that some of these omissions were due to time pressures and the volume of material. Chesterman left a comment in the first notebook stating that he did not have as much time to analyse the material as he had originally been led to believe.

As Chesterman recorded the assemblage data in diaries, one of the most useful pieces of information was the actual date on the diary page each bone was recorded on. This date has become a reference number that allows future researchers to easily navigate Chesterman’s original entry to verify information. Thus, the diaries themselves remain a valuable archive source.

As the taphonomic analysis progressed, a degree of recataloguing was also carried out. Each box was given a number. The bones were stored in bags within the boxes. Each bag was also given an individual number so that, for example, Box One would contain Bags 1–44, then Box Two would contain Bags 45–60, and so on. This information is kept in an inventory and in the taphonomic database

Following the taphonomic analysis of Quanterness (described in Section 5.6), the small find numbers on the bones had to be cross referenced with the information from the diaries, so that contextual information could be included (where possible) with the new taphonomic

45

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney (available in Appendix 9). This makes the collection much more accessible, and if there is a need to return to a specific bone, locating it again within this large collection is now a reasonably straightforward process.

5.5 Practical Analysis The Quanterness assemblage was very generously made available for analysis by Dr Alison Sheridan of the National Museum of Scotland. Permission was granted for the assemblage to be examined in the specialist bone labs at the School of GAP at Queen’s University Belfast (QUB). Recording was completed on paper in the lab in the first instance so that there would be a hard copy, and to make cross-referencing with the spreadsheet of Chesterman’s diaries easier. The data was then transferred to Excel after cross-referencing the contextual information. The bones were inspected for signs of modification, whether by natural or anthropogenic events, by eye and with the assistance of a hand lens and using directional lighting. When appropriate, suspected modifications to bones were examined in more detail using a microscope. This approach was imperative as the full detail of some features was not fully visible without the assistance of increased magnification. The Quoyness and Cuween Hill assemblages were also examined at QUB. The analysis of Point of Cott, Isbister and Pierowall Quarry assemblages required travel to Orkney. Unfortunately, there was no access to microscopes during the analysis of these latter three assemblages.

5.4 The Zonation Method The main challenge in this study was in how to approach the actual material. The fragmentation, disarticulation and commingling of the remains required a method that would allow analysis to be systematic and comparable across sites. In studies of fragmentary and commingled assemblages, skeletal elements are often recorded according to the portion of the bone that is present, as outlined by Buikstra & Ubelaker (1994, chapter 2, attachment 2). Following this method, a fragment of humerus, for example, might be recorded as ‘proximal epiphysis’, or, ‘distal epiphysis’ and ‘distal third of diaphysis’. However, the highly fragmentary nature of the Quanterness assemblage required a more refined approach and the zonation method for human remains developed by Knüsel & Outram (2004, 88–96) provided the solution. The zonation method is a recording system designed to handle scattered and fragmented human remains. This procedure was itself based on the zonation method of Dobney & Reilly (1988) in relation to faunal remains. As the example in Figure 5.1 illustrates, a bone, in this case the humerus, may be recorded to a greater level of detail than has been derived from more traditional methods. Thus, the propriety and accuracy of the zonation method determined its use to record all the assemblages investigated in this study. This standardised and detailed technique allowed sites to be compared with each other at a level not previously achieved for Neolithic human remains. The division of all the bones of the human skeleton into zones is illustrated in Appendix 2.

5.6 Taphonomic Features Recorded The primary aim of this study was to construct a taphonomic profile of the site of Quanterness, and then conduct a comparative analysis with profiles from the other Orcadian tombs. As demonstrated in Section 4.12, an assessment of the taphonomic history of an assemblage is not dependent on a single line of investigation. Taphonomic change is a complex and dynamic process that is affected by many variables (environmental conditions, cultural influence, faunal interference). As a result, a diverse range

Plate 5.1 A sample of the fragmentary human remains from Quanterness (author image).

46

Methods As might be expected with such fragmented assemblages, some of the material examined was too small to identify to element. These fragments had to be recorded as ‘Unknown’ (UN). Analysis also indicated that some fragments could be identified to element, but not with confidence to a specific zone (Section 5.4). In such cases, the specimen would not be recorded to zone, indicated in the database by prefixing the element with ‘unknown’ (U); for example, a cranial fragment could be recorded as ‘Unknown Cranium’ (UCRA). Some fragments may not have been identified further than being a long bone or flat bone fragment. Such fragments were recorded as ‘unknown long bone’ (ULB) or ‘unknown flat bone’ (UFB) if possible. Table 5.3 details the types of bones incorporated in these ‘unknown’ categories. 5.6.2 Identification of Side Elements that are paired, for example arm bones, were sided ‘Left’ (L) or ‘Right’ (R). Skeletal elements that are not paired in the human skeleton were recorded as ‘Not Applicable’ (NA). In the instances where a bone did not have sufficient diagnostic characteristics to identify it to side, it was recorded as ‘Unknown’ (UN) (Table 5.4). 5.6.3 Zones The zones present for every human specimen identified were recorded following Knüsel & Outram (2004). Where specimens lacked sufficient diagnostic criteria, information on zone was not recorded (see Appendix 2 for illustration of the division of zones). 5.6.4 Weathering Stage As discussed in Section 4.8, one of the taphonomic characteristics of an assemblage that has been excarnated, or exposed, is higher levels of weathering. Therefore, an assessment of the level of weathering found in the assemblages was an imperative element of this research. Weathering was recorded conforming to Behrensmeyer’s weathering scale (1978) from Stages 0–5. The stages are described in Table 5.5. It is important to note that these weathering stages represent a relative point in taphonomic time along the continuous process of bone deterioration (Lyman 2001, 360). The actual temporal duration of each stage is unknown. The most advanced weathering stage present on each specimen was recorded.

Figure 5.1 Posterior (left) and anterior (right) views of the humerus subdivided into zones as defined by Knüsel and Outram (2004, 90). of information was recorded for each individual bone specimen. The features recorded are described in this section. 5.6.1 Skeletal Element Identification The first stage in the recording process is to identify each bone according to skeletal element. The success of identification to element will depend on the competence of the investigator and the conditions of analysis, such as time and location (White 1992, 112). In this instance the investigator had previous experience of working with fragmented and comingled remains (Craig [Crozier] et al. 2005). Further verification was possible as all the assemblages under investigation had been previously archived. Quanterness in particular required a crossreferencing exercise (Section 5.3) that allowed many of the element identifications to be checked. They were all found to be in agreement.

5.6.5 Fracture Type The Orcadian assemblages are frequently described as being both disarticulated and highly fragmentary in nature. This proliferation of highly fragmented bone is a defining characteristic of these assemblages and, as such, could provide significant insight into how these assemblages formed. As discussed in Section 4.4.1, bone will break in a predictable way, depending on its organic content; therefore, an assessment of the fracture types has

47

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Table 5.3 Recording of bone fragments of unknown zone Unidentified Element Categories

Skeletal Element

Unknown Long Bone (ULB)

Humerus, radius, ulna, femur, tibia, fibula

Unknown Flat Bone (UFB)

Scapula, pelvis

Skeletal element identified, but not to zone. For example, unknown cranial fragment (UCRA)

Cranial fragment of unknown zone

Table 5.4 Recording of skeletal elements to side Category

Example

Code

Left

Paired bone - humerus

L

Right

Paired bone - Tibia

R

Not Applicable

No pair - Sacrum

NA

Unknown side

Unknown Long bone

UN

Table 5.5 Behrensmeyer’s Bone weathering stages (reproduced from Buikstra & Ubelaker 1997, 98, with permission of the Arkansas Archaeological Survey) Weathering Stage

Description

Stage 0

Bone surface shows no sign of cracking or flaking due to weathering.

Stage 1

Bone shows cracking, normally parallel to the fiber structure (e.g. longitudinal in long bones). Articular surfaces may show mosaic cracking.

Stage 2

Outermost concentric thin layers of bone show flaking, usually associated with cracks, in that the bone edges along the cracks tend to separate and flake first. Long thin flakes, with one or more sides still attached to the bone, are common in the initial part of Stage 2. Deeper and more extensive flaking follows, until most of the outermost bone is gone. Crack edges are usually angular in cross section.

Stage 3

Bone surface is characterised by patches of rough, homogeneously weathered compact bone, resulting in a fibrous texture. In these patches, all the external, concentric layers of bone have been removed. Gradually the patches extend to cover the entire bone surface. Weathering does not penetrate deeper than 1.0-1.5mm at this stage, and bone fibers are still firmly attached to each other. Crack edges usually are rounded in cross section.

Stage 4

The bone surface is coarsely fibrous and rough in texture; large and small splinters occur and may be loose enough to fall away from the bone if it is moved. Weathering penetrates into inner cavities. Cracks are open and have splintered or rounded edges.

Stage 5

Bone is falling apart, with large splinters. Bone easily broken by moving. Original bone shape may be difficult to determine. Cancellous bone usually exposed, when present, and may outlast all traces of the former more compact, outer parts of the bones.

the potential to define a relative timeframe of when the fracture occurred in the taphonomic narrative.

However, it should be noted that there are some limitations to this analytical thread. Whilst it is understood that bone degrades over time, the specific duration of particular fracturing characteristics varies greatly, depending on the environmental (and presumably cultural) conditions to which it is subjected (Karr & Outram 2012, 555). As yet, insufficient studies have been conducted as to how long bones retain collagen and moisture after death in specific environments. Thus, any observable difference in fracture

Following the criteria for distinguishing between fracture types outlined by Johnson (1985, 176) and Morlan (1980, 48–9), fractures were recorded as helical; dry; mineralised or new. Fracture types were recorded as present or absent. The criteria for assessing each fracture type are summarised in Table 5.6 and illustrated in Plate 5.2. 48

Methods Table 5.6 Criteria used to identify observed fracture types Fracture Type

Occurrence

Identifying Criteria

Helical (also referred to as spiral)

Perimortem (at, or around the time of Fracture surfaces have the same colour as the outer death) cortical surface, exhibit a smooth texture, form acute and obtuse angles with the outer cortical surface (Johnson 1985, 176)

Dry

After death, some collagen still retained

Fracture surfaces have the same colour as the outer cortical surface, form acute and obtuse angles with the outer cortical surface, have a rough or bumpy texture (Johnson 1985, 176)

Mineralised

Significantly after death, most of the collagen is gone

Fracture surfaces will exhibit a rough texture and form right angles with the outer cortical surface (Johnson 1985, 176)

New

Recent damage/modern times

Fracture margin will be transverse, rough and paler in colour than the un-fractured bone

Plate 5.2 Clockwise from top left: dry fracture, helical fracture, new fracture, mineralised fracture (all author images).

types can only give an indication of relative time. Bearing these observations in mind, the presence of a helical fracture in the Orcadian remains will certainly indicate fracturing at, or around, the time of death, but the specific duration of this phase cannot be inferred.

In order to assess whether or not bones had been ‘bleached’ by exposure, the colour of every bone was assessed using a Munsell Soil Colour Chart.

5.6.6 Colour

There are a number of non-anthropogenic taphonomic agents that can impact upon the formation of a bone assemblage. Damage to bone surfaces caused by animal

5.6.7 Surface Features

The relevance of bone colour was outlined in Section 4.10. 49

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney importance as features such as cut marks and chop marks potentially signify anthropogenically-induced modification.

gnawing (as outlined in Section 4.6) or plant roots (see Section 4.11) were identified according to the criteria presented in Table 5.7. The colour or patination of the bone surfaces affected by such features was also assessed (see Section 4.10). ‘Polish’ may also be shown on a bone surface or fracture surface. This refers to an area that is very smooth and has a distinct ‘sheen’ to it. This characteristic could indicate cultural modification, for example, if the bone surface has been used as a tool. The surface features recorded are summarised in Table 5.7.

5.6.9 Burning In Chesterman’s (1979, 102) original report, he stated that almost all the human bone from Quanterness had signs of burning. As described in Section 4.5, exposure to heat will change the colour of bone. Any evidence of burning was therefore recorded as a colour change to the bone. The colours and inferred temperature range follows Mays 2002, and is detailed in Table 5.9.

5.6.8 Trauma The term ‘trauma’ in this study refers to damage or modification sustained by a bone after death has occurred. This category incorporates features such as cut marks and chop marks. The criteria for identifying these features are described in Table 5.8. The category of ‘linear feature’ is used to describe clearly visible marks that could not be confidently interpreted due to erosion of the relevant surfaces. Many of these features were initially identified by observation of the bone surface in good light. Where required, further investigation using a microscope was carried out. The most suitable way of illustrating this evidence is via the digital photography and microscope record that was compiled as part of the research process. This type of evidence is of particular

5.6.10 Fragment Size Another facet of the analysis undertaken was an assessment of the actual fragment sizes in the assemblages. The logic of this approach was to provide a more detailed picture of the condition of the assemblages and, in addition, create a further avenue of comparison between the sites. Fragment size has therefore been recorded for every element. This process is a slight adaptation from Knüsel & Outram (2004) where it was only applied to bone that could not be identified. Size categories are based upon the maximum dimension and are listed with their category label in brackets:

Table 5.7 Summary of surface features recorded and their criteria for identification Surface Feature

Criteria

Root etching (RE)

Negative, dendritic patterning on the cortical surface

Animal Gnaw Marks (GN)

Sets of parallel, u-shaped grooves. No internal striations

Polish (P)

Area is very smooth. Distinct sheen. Not associated with any pathological changes

Table 5.8 Summary of trauma types recorded and their criteria or description for identification Type

Criteria

Cut

V-shaped cross section; clean edge; may be in a cluster of parallel marks; unidirectional

Incised Mark

Negative, linear feature on the bone surface. Not V-Shaped enough to be a cut mark. Deeper than a scrape mark. May have internal striations present

Linear Mark

Very similar to a cut mark or incised mark, but too eroded for confident identification

Chop

Broad, V-shaped cross-section; clean edges

Scrape

Series of dense, superficial linear striations

Puncture

A hole in the bone surface. Bone adhering to the fracture margins would indicate the bone retained some organic content when the damage occurred

Crush

Inward crushing of the outer bone cortex

Percussion Pit

Negative feature in cortical bone. Irregular internal topography and outline

Impact Scar

Negative, irregular flake of the cortical surface detached

Peeling

Cortical surface has a fibrous appearance at the fracture margin; with patination

50

Methods of bony pathologies we generally need to study both lesion morphology and the distribution of lesions in the skeleton. Clearly, a disarticulated assemblage will restrict much of this kind of analysis (Mays et al. 2004, 4¬¬–5). Information relating to age, sex and pathological changes was recorded and the methods utilised for assessing these characteristics are summarised in this section. As the demographic information is limited and is not substantial enough to inform the taphonomic interpretation, the results are presented separately in Appendix 6.

Table 5.9 Range of temperatures associated with bone colour (reproduced from Mays, S. 2002, Table 11.1, 217, with permission) Colour/Temp Range by Mays (2002) Temperature (°C)

Colour

185

Red/Orange

285

Dark Brown/Black

360

Black

440

Grey/Brown

5.7.1 Sex

525

Grey/Brown (lighter than that observed at 440°C)

645-1200

White, some pale yellow

Estimation of sex from skeletal remains is commonly carried out in standard skeletal reports. It is recognised, however, that the potential exists for variation between modern and past populations. Sex assessment within the assemblages was based on the morphology of the sciatic notch (Buikstra & Ubelaker 1994, 18) and the subpubic region (Phenice 1969) of the pelvis.

0–10mm (1); 11–20 mm (2); 21–30mm (3); 31–40mm (4); 41–50mm (5); 51–60mm (6); 61–70mm (7); 71–80mm (8); 81–90mm (9); 91–100mm (10); 101–110mm (11); 111–120mm (12); 121–130mm (13); 131–140mm (14); 141–150mm (15); 151–160mm (16); 161–170mm (17); 171–180mm (18); 181–190mm (19); 191–200mm (20); 200+ (20+).

5.7.2 Age Assessment Given the disarticulated and fragmented nature of the material, it was not possible to assess the assemblage using customary methods, as would be the case for individual inhumations. When ageing adults, primary consideration was given to degenerative changes to the pubic symphysis. Although considered the most reliable indicators of age, these areas of the pelvis are often damaged or incomplete and, unfortunately, this was the case for the Orcadian remains. However, in spite of these complications it was possible to acquire a more specific age range for several individuals identified. This approach was based on an assessment of the auricular surface of the pelvis, as defined by Meindl and Lovejoy (1989, 140) and, in some instances, on degenerative changes to the pubic symphysis (Brooks & Suchey 1990). Approximate age assessment of juvenile remains was based on morphology and surviving evidence for epiphyseal fusion and postcranial measurements (Baker et al. 2005; Schaefer et al. 2009). The age categories used are summarised in Table 5.10.

In order to accomplish this measurement, circles were drawn on paper with a compass such that individual fragments could be placed within them to determine the category to which they belonged. 5.6.11 Refitting A re-fitting study can help to show patterns of fragmentation, particularly if bones were moved around within a site, and was used at Mancos (White 1992), Hazleton North (Saville 1990) and Point of Cott (Barber 1997). GIS was employed to the tomb of Parknabinnia, from the Burren in Ireland (Beckett & Robb 2006, 61) in order to better assess spatial distributions of re-fitted bone. However, the relevant data was not available for the Orcadian tombs. A refitting exercise was not practical, especially with regard to Quanterness, due to the substantial amount of bone and time constraints. However, it was possible to attempt some refitting of bones within groups that had been stored together. These have been recorded as ‘conjoined’ within the database.

5.7.3 Pathology In addition to the taphonomic criteria outlined in Section 5.6, each specimen was inspected for any sign of pathological abnormalities. When identified, detailed descriptions were recorded, and the specimen was photographed. Summary details of the pathological changes observed are presented in Appendix 6.

5.7 The Living Population – Demographic Information Although the focus of this study was to assess the taphonomic evidence, information on age, sex and pathology was also recorded where appropriate. There are significant difficulties in retrieving this type of information from such fragmentary assemblages. This complication is due to the fact that most scientific analysis involves relating different types of data comparatively at the individual level. For example, for the study of physique and stature we need to consider measurements of males and females separately; and for the adequate diagnosis

5.8 Quantification of the Data When attempting to identify and assess the impact of taphonomic variables on an assemblage, it is essential to have an estimate of how many individuals that assemblage represents. Analysis is more convoluted when the material

51

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney refined quantitative results. This objective was considered attainable as the zones provide a more comprehensive assessment of how much of each bone was present. For the purposes of this study, each assemblage was treated as a whole. MNI was derived from the element with the highest recurring set of zone combinations at each site. An MNI was assessed for each age category in order to produce an overall MNI for each assemblage. The results are presented in Chapter 6.

Table 5.10 Age ranges (Baker et al. 2005, 10; Buikstra & Ubelaker 1994, 36) Age

Range

Neonate

Birth – 1 month

Infant

Birth – 1 year

Child

1 year – puberty

Sub Adult

Puberty – 20 years

Young Adult

20–34 years

Middle Adult

35–49 years

Older Adult

50+ years

An approximation of the volume of bone that might have been expected in each assemblage was calculated based on the MNI. This involved multiplying the figure for MNI by the number of bones expected in a complete skeleton. While adult skeletons are known to be composed of 206 bones, there is a lack of consensus in the literature as to the exact numbers for juvenile remains. This is because the number of bones will vary with age, as the epiphyses appear and fuse. For this exercise, the approximate numbers cited by Lewis (2007, 26) have been utilised; neonate/infant 156 bones; child and sub adult 332 bones, although it is acknowledged that this will provide only a general approximation.

is commingled and fragmentary. 5.8.1 NISP and MNI When evaluating commingled and fragmented assemblages, such as those encountered for this study, one of the most common methods for quantifying the assemblage is to calculate the Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) and the Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) (Knüsel & Outram 2004, 86). The NISP is defined as the number of identified specimens in an assemblage (Lyman 2001, 100). However, as NISP assumes each recognisable fragment may represent an individual, it can produce a potentially inflated estimate of the numbers contributing to that assemblage (Klein & Cruz-Uribe 1984). The NISP was calculated for each assemblage and the raw data is summarised in Appendix 3.

5.8.2 MNE and SER The Minimum Number of Elements (MNE) is the minimum number of a particular skeletal element necessary to account for the number of specimens representing that element (Lyman 2001, 102). The Skeletal Element Representation (SER) is calculated as the proportion of an element present compared with what would be expected if the MNI is considered to represent whole skeletons. The SER is a popular analytical technique used to compare the representation profiles of different assemblages (Smith 2005; Beckett & Robb 2006; Bello & Andrews 2006). In addition, SER is an accepted method for highlighting discrepancies in representation that may provide insight into whether or not there was any selection of remains due to secondary burial processes.

The MNI has previously been defined on the basis of the most common bone in the assemblage for juvenile and adult individuals (Bökönyi 1970). This provides the minimum estimate for the number of individuals that could have contributed to the sample (Lyman 2001, 100). When dealing with fragmentary remains, specific segments of an element (e.g. distal femur) may be used for the calculation. Every fragment must share a unique landmark to ensure that fragments of the same element of the same individual are not counted as two distinct individuals. The basic principle of an MNI estimate is to avoid counting the same individual twice (Adams & Konigsberg 2004, 139). A combination of this procedure and the NISP will provide a minimum (MNI) and maximum (NISP) number of individuals represented in a given assemblage.

For example: a site has an MNI of ten individuals. This figure would suggest the assemblage should contain 20 humeri. The expected MNE ‘E’ is 20 because the humerus is a paired bone, i.e. the MNI x 2; this figure assumes that full skeletons are represented. Bones of the humerus at this site are observed to represent a minimum number of seven elements (Observed MNE ‘O’ =7). Therefore the skeletal element representation (SER) would be calculated as:

It is accepted in the literature that whilst this method for the calculation of MNI provides reasonable estimates, the validity of the results are enervated by the degree of identification accuracy (White 1992; Lyman 2001, 103). This issue is particularly pertinent when dealing with severely fragmented and comingled remains as it becomes increasingly difficult to rule out duplication. The zonation method was employed in this study in an attempt to overcome issues of duplication and provide more

(O ÷ E) × 100 = SER (7÷20) × 100 = 35% In this analysis, the most prevalent zone area is usually taken as the most accurate count for calculating MNE. However, some sections of individual bones are likely to bias the MNE due to their susceptibility to greater fragmentation. These elements are often identified by their over representation. For example, the body of the scapula

52

Methods (infraspinous fossa) is known to be highly fragmentary and can produce several fragments from just one bone, increasing the probability of an overestimated MNE. For this reason, the most recurring zone of a more robust portion of the bone was analysed. To follow the scapula example, the glenoid cavity portion is much more robust than the body, so this would be the element selected in this instance. The raw data for this information may be found in Appendix 3.

absence of known Neolithic cemetery sites with similar information). Comparison of Neolithic SER to medieval and post-medieval SER has already been utilised in this way for other British sites (Smith 2005; Smith & Brickley 2009, 72) and Irish sites (Beckett & Robb 2006; Beckett 2011). The information generated by Bello & Andrews (2006) and utilised in this study is presented in Table 5.11. Of more relevance on a temporal level, recent research into the fragmentation and taphonomy of human remains at three Neolithic tombs in Ireland has yielded SER profiles (Table 5.12) with which the Orcadian remains may be further compared (Beckett & Robb 2006; Beckett 2011). The assemblages from the three Irish sites have been interpreted as the physical manifestation of Neolithic collective burial. This hypothesis, coupled with their temporal and architectural similarities to the Orcadian tombs, makes these tombs an interesting proposition for comparative analysis. It should be noted that while the skeletal element representation for the Orkney sites and the Medieval and post-Medieval sites includes the full assemblage, the Irish site information is for adult remains only.

5.9 Comparative Analysis Another of the primary objectives of this research was to understand the mortuary processes that had created the Quanterness human bone assemblage. For this analysis to be meaningful, it was considered important to compare the evidence from Quanterness to other Orcadian Neolithic sites (Quoyness, Point of Cott, Pierowall Quarry, Cuween Hill and Isbister). This approach may answer the question as to whether Quanterness really is ‘atypical’, as has previously been suggested (Richards 1988). A frequently cited hypotheses for the condition of these Neolithic assemblages is that they reflect a secondary burial ritual (see Sections 3.3.3 and 4.12.3). It was, therefore, considered essential to be able to compare the skeletal element representations (SER) with a ‘control’ assemblage, where the mode of burial is known, for example, an inhumation cemetery. Bello & Andrews (2006) carried out research on medieval and post-medieval populations to create just such an exemplar framework (see also Section 4.3). Even though their work is based on medieval populations, their data provides a useful benchmark for interpreting the skeletal profiles of the Orcadian Neolithic sites (in the

In summation, the skeletal representation of the Orcadian sites are compared to each other, they are compared to medieval ‘control’ assemblages, and to Neolithic Irish collective burial assemblages. 5.10 Making Use of the Zones Recording each bone according to the zones present allowed a level of analysis that has not previously

Table 5.11 SER values observed for the whole sample of each site (reproduced from Bello & Andrews 2009, 4, with permission) Element

St. Maximin

St. Esteve

Hauture

Fedons

Observance

Spitalfields

Crania

78.8

91.7

73.2

88.8

86.6

95.4

Mandibulae

59.1

90.5

57.1

82.7

85.6

Claviculae

60.6

78.6

46

88.7

75.7

67.9

Scapulae

62.1

69

44.6

80.1

80.7

75.3

Humeri

74.2

85.7

62.1

92.9

86.9

82.2

Radii

67.4

81.5

55.4

85.7

81.8

78.6

Ulnae

69.7

79.8

55.4

83.8

81.6

76.4

Sterna

34.2

35.7

25.9

60.9

44.1

62.9

Sacrum

33.3

64.3

46.4

52.6

73.7

75.3

Pelvis

69.7

79.2

46.4

78.9

84.6

91.6

Femora

65.9

88.1

61.2

88.7

85.8

90

Patellae

16.7

33.3

10.7

45.1

39.9

48.9

Tibiae

62.1

83.3

45.5

82.7

84.4

87.8

Fibulae

52.3

72

42

69.5

78.2

73.2

53

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Table 5.12 Skeletal element representation data from Irish Neolithic sites (reproduced from Beckett & Robb 2009, 64, with permission) Element

Parknabinnia

Poulnabrone

Poulawack

Crania

60

62

100

Mandibulae

73

88

100

Claviculae

83

62

67

Scapulae

74

91

100

Humeri

80

35

67

Radii

74

32

83

Ulnae

74

62

83

Sterna

53

76

33

Sacrum

60

12

100

Pelvis

70

45

68

Femora

58

16

83

Patellae

78

98

100

Tibiae

68

35

100

Fibulae

60

50

83

been achieved for the Orcadian remains (or any other Neolithic remains). The representation of zones has been calculated in a similar way to the skeletal representation (SER above) in that the maximum count for each zone was calculated as a percentage of that which would be (theoretically) expected if the MNI related to complete skeletons.

5.11 Level of Fragmentation A method of gauging the intensity of fragmentation at each site involves simply comparing the NISP (number of identified specimens) to the MNE (minimum number of elements) for each skeletal element in each assemblage. It has been demonstrated in previous studies (e.g. Leach 2005, 61) that the NISP will be much higher than the MNE in assemblages that are fragmented. In this analysis, bones that had been identified to element, but not to the level of specific zone, were included in the NISP count for each element. Thus, what are normally considered to be reasonably uninformative fragments of bone may be utilised to enhance interpretation.

For example, the count for Zone 1 of the clavicle for a particular site is 71. This includes lefts and rights. The MNI for that site has been calculated to represent 59 individuals. In this case, the representation is the count of Zone 1 divided by the expected number (in this example it will be 118 as the clavicle is a paired bone) multiplied by 100 to give an overall percentage. (Count of Zone ÷ MNI) × 100 = zone representation (71 ÷ 118) × 100 = 60%

5.12 Dating of Quanterness Human Remains

The levels of zone representation on each element provide an illustration of the pattern of preservation of each skeletal element. Converting the zone counts to percentages facilitates a comparison of zone representation between all the sites. Consequently, similarities in zone representation may infer further similarities in the taphonomic processes each skeletal element has been subjected to. Research conducted into the preservation pattern of medieval and post-medieval skeletons by Andrews & Bello (2006) (Section 5.9) did not investigate preservation at this level, although they did provide general descriptive accounts of the preservation patterns observed in each skeletal element. The information they published is therefore utilised to assist the interpretation of results from the Orcadian assemblages (Table 5.13).

Whilst one of the original goals of the excavation of Quanterness had been to retrieve C14 dates (Renfrew 1979, 45), techniques and accuracy have greatly improved in recent years. A series of 20 new AMS radiocarbon dates was obtained, the results of which have now been published (Schulting et al. 2010). 5.13 The Faunal Remains from Quanterness The Neolithic deposits at Quanterness, in addition to human remains, also contained a substantial quantity of animal bone. It was not possible, within the required timeframe, to include this part of the assemblage in the main taphonomic study. However, approximately 500 small fragments of animal bone were found 54

Methods Table 5.13 Summary of the key points highlighted by Bello & Andrews (2009, 3–5) in relation to bone preservation patterns (A labelled skeleton is provided in Appendix 1 for consultation) Element

Anatomical Preservation from Medieval and Post Medieval Sites

Cranium

Generally well represented, with SER values over 50 per cent. Lower values generally for facial bones. Parietal bones generally well represented but suffered high fragmentation. Temporal bones generally abundant. Occipital bone present in high frequencies.

Mandible

One of the better preserved elements. The body of the mandible, especially the area between the two mental foramina, was generally better preserved than the rami.

Claviculae

Reasonable abundance, especially the middle portion of the diaphysis.

Scapula

Usually considered poorly preserved, but 5 of the 6 collections showed SER values higher than 50 per cent.

Long Bones

The larger the long bone, the greater the abundance in the sample. Proximal limb elements were better preserved than distal limb elements e.g. humeri better represented than radii and ulnae. Fibula reflects a poorer state of preservation. The diaphysis was the best preserved portion when fragmented.

Patellae

Often under-represented but usually complete when present. Under-representation could be due to excavation bias or animal scavenging activities.

Sacrum

Often fragmented and poorly preserved, most likely due to its low bone density and high proportion of cancellous bone.

Sternum

Often fragmented due to its low bone density Manubrium usually better preserved and more abundant than the body.

Pelvis

SER values usually over 50 per cent despite strong fragmentation of this element. Acetabulum and the sciatic notch were the best represented.

Vertebral Column

Generally better representation of cervical and lumbar vertebrae. Vertebral body was the poorest preserved portion due to its high proportion of cancellous bone.

Hands and Feet

Generally poorly represented, but well preserved and almost complete when present. Hand bones more abundant than foot bones. Metacarpals and Metatarsals more abundant than carpal and tarsal bones. Proximal phalanges more abundant than middle phalanges. Middle phalanges more abundant than distal phalanges.

during the course of the analysis mixed through with the human bone. Whilst not identified according to species (the fragments were generally small and lacking diagnostic features) their taphonomic feZatures were recorded in the same way as the human remains (e.g. weathering, fragment size, fracture size, burning). This small assemblage could then be compared to the human

bone from Quanterness. The results are presented in Chapter 9. Recent studies have shown that the faunal remains found with human remains in Neolithic tombs are not necessarily contemporaneous (McCormick & Sheridan 2006, 6; Sheridan 2005; Schulting et al. 2011, 9). It was, therefore,

55

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney essential to determine whether or not the faunal remains within Quanterness were indeed contemporaneous with the human bone. To this end, a further series of dates for the animal bone was obtained. The samples for dating were obtained from the main faunal assemblage. This analysis was conducted in collaboration with Dr Rick Schulting at the University of Oxford.

summarise the data. T-tests were also performed in order to test the null hypothesis that the means between the three ‘populations’ were similar. This was achieved using the ‘R: development team program 2012’ version 2.15.0. 5.16 Conclusion The intention of this chapter has been to detail the methodologies that allow the practical application of the taphonomic criteria (established in Chapter 4) to the assemblages. In other words, this clarification of the range of techniques to be exploited, bridges the gap between the theory of the taphonomic approach and the practice of observation and data accrual.

5.14 Additional Investigative Techniques 5.14.1 Scanning Electron Microscope Analysis Several taphonomic features required more detailed inspection than is possible with the naked eye or a standard high-powered microscope. These features were examined in greater detail using a scanning electron microscope. Casts were taken using ‘Repliset GF1’ moulding material, creating positive impressions that were subsequently analysed using the Scanning Electron Microscope at QUB. It was discovered that, in most instances, the subsequent image could be inverted using Photoshop to produce the correct negative feature image, thereby removing the need to re-cast.

As this study has generated a large volume of data, in order to make it more digestible, the results are presented across three separate chapters. Chapter 7 presents the results of the quantitative analysis (MNI, NISP, MNE, SER, Zone representation). Chapter 8 contains the results of the specific taphonomic criteria, and Chapter 9 is dedicated to the taphonomic analysis of the faunal remains. As stated, the demographic data is presented separately in Appendix 6.

5.14.2 X-Ray However, prior to the results, the following chapter will explore the archaeological data and associated theoretical constructs for the Orcadian sites chosen as part of this project. This approach will place the assemblages within their immediate physical and theoretical contexts, thereby completing the contextualisation of the assemblages before the results of this project are presented and discussed.

Two crania, from one site, were observed to have sustained large punctures. This probable trauma was investigated using x-ray imaging at QUB. It was hoped that this method would help to detect any evidence suggestive of perimortem damage, such as hairline fractures. The x-ray images are illustrated and discussed with the relevant crania in Chapter 8. 5.14.3 Experimental Work Some unusual modifications to three of the bones from Quanterness raised questions that were difficult to resolve from evidence in current literature. These modifications had the appearance of drilled holes. Due to the lack of data in the literature, a small experiment was designed in an attempt to identify the taphonomic agent of these modifications and thereby ascertain if they were archaeological, or due to excavation damage. The method and results of this work are presented in more detail in Appendix 7 and 8. 5.15 Statistical Analysis Additional statistical analysis was conducted on the data from the SER investigations, specifically the comparative analysis of the Orcadian sites to the Medieval and postMedieval sites (Bello & Andrews 2006) and Irish sites (Beckett & Robb 2006). With regard to the Orcadian sites, data from Cuween was omitted as the sample size was not large enough. Isbister was also excluded as the data available did not relate to the full assemblage. Descriptive statistics, in this case box plots, were used to visually 56

Chapter 6

Sites 6.1 Introduction

remains. As already stated, Quanterness is the primary assemblage for this project.

The preceding chapter described the methods used to analyse the assemblages selected for this study. This chapter presents a more detailed archaeological background for each of the relevant assemblage contexts. The main structural characteristics, spatial arrangement of the tombs and the artefacts discovered are described. Particular emphasis is given to the condition of the human

6.2 Quanterness, Mainland 6.2.1 Introduction The chamber cairn of Quanterness (HY 417129) is situated on the Mainland of Orkney in the Parish of Kirkwall. It

Figure 6.1 Map with locations of sites. (Land-Form PANORAMA® data is reproduced here by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. Contains OS data © Crown Copyright (and database right) 2016. † Scheduled monument data is reproduced here under the terms laid out in the ‘One Scotland Mapping Agreement: Schedule 5 - End User Licence’ © Copyright Historic Scotland 2012. © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved 2012).

57

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney cairn was not defined by any wall-face or kerb (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 151). However, evidence of two revetment walls within the cairn was exposed by the excavations and, whilst not confirmed, are assumed to be continuous (Fig. 6.2). Access to the tomb was via a passage on the eastern extent, 9.4 m in length, the outermost part of which was paved with slabs (Renfrew 1976, 196; 1979, 49) – a characteristic already noted at the tomb of Quoyness (Childe 1952, 122; Renfrew 1979, 49). The outer limit of the Quanterness passage and any evidence for exterior features, such as a forecourt, had been eradicated by the insertion of an Iron Age Roundhouse around c. 800 BC (Renfrew 1976, 196) (see Fig. 6.2). Rectangular in shape and measuring 6.4 m by 1.8 m, with a recorded roof height of 3.5 m, the central chamber incorporates entries to six side cells, arranged symmetrically with two on each long elevation, and one at each end. The apertures to the cells and passage are spanned by lintels at heights of around 0.8 m. The cells vary from 2.6 m to 3.4 m by 0.9 to 1.1 m. Four of the cells retain their roofs at heights of 2.25 m to 2.7 m above the floor level. As the roof of the SW

was first explored shortly before 1805 by the Reverend George Barry, who believed it to be a ‘Picts-house’ (Barry 1805, 98). From his accounts, it was apparent that much of the cairn and its contents had escaped any significant disturbance. Quanterness was therefore an attractive candidate for excavation when Colin Renfrew sought a prospective site to acquire dating samples for this monument type (Renfrew 1979, 45). In addition to the retrieval of organic material for dating, the ensuing excavations (1972–1974) aimed to uncover the form of the monument and undisturbed burial deposits to clarify the mortuary processes. 6.2.2 The Cairn The cairn lies on the northern slope of Wideford Hill at approximately 45 m OD, its location on a small rise making it appear higher than its 3.4 m (Renfrew 1979, 45). The rounded profile of the mound was created by carefully positioned capping slabs overlying densely packed rubble. Approximately 31 m in diameter, the outer edge of the

Figure 6.2 Quanterness: plan & section (after Davidson & Henshall, 1989, 151). 58

Sites cell had already collapsed, it could be accessed from above and was thus selected for total excavation by Renfrew. A deliberately built ‘window’, 0.2 m wide, through the wall that separated the SE cell from the chamber was also identified.

a fire for cooking (Henshall 1979, 77). Nine pieces of ground flint knives were recovered, representing at least three complete knives. These flint knives are not common objects and therefore the presence of three at Quanterness is of interest (Henshall 1979, 81). Half of a stone rubber for a saddle quern and a small bead of lead ore as well as a few hammer-stones were also present. A broken piece of a mace-head, made from antler, was also recovered. Several of the stone artefacts (hammer-stones, flint knives) and bone tools displayed evidence of use such as polish and abrasion (Henshall 1979, 88–89).

6.2.3 The Chamber Deposits Once the modern rubble had been removed, Renfrew discovered that the floor deposits, which reached depths up to 0.3 m, had suffered only minor disturbance (Renfrew 1979, 66). A little over 80 per cent of the main chamber (designated ZB) and the whole of the SW cell (designated ZF) were excavated. The remaining deposits, including those in the entrance passage, were left for future generations. The excavation proceeded stratigraphically by layers. All the soil and debris from inside the tomb was removed in plastic sacks and water sieved, using a 2 mm mesh. All artefacts and bones larger than 3 cm in length were planned and assigned a small-find number. Smaller bones, less than 3 cm, were lifted in small groups, with the same small-find number. These were numbered separately during post-excavation work in the laboratory (Renfrew 1979, 50).

6.2.5 The Human Remains The 12,500 fragments of human bone recovered from the main chamber (ZB) and side cell (ZF) were calculated to represent a minimum of 157 individuals (Chesterman 1979, 99). This figure was composed of 85 adults, 35 teenagers, 26 children and ten infants – a more detailed summary is provided in Table 6.2. This demographic profile was interpreted by the excavator as representative of the whole population associated with the tomb during its use-span (Renfrew 1979, 162). No babies aged less than 8 months were found which suggested to the excavator that babies dying below that age were buried elsewhere (Renfrew 1979, 162). The identification of 32 males and 27 females suggested there was no exclusion from the tomb on the grounds of sex. In terms of health, pathological lesions occurred predominantly in the spine indicating osteoarthritis, although there was a hip joint also affected (Chesterman 1979, 109). Evidence for caries (cavities) was found in only six teeth and periodontal disease was identified in a further three teeth (Chesterman 1979, 110). Evidently, a limited amount of information regarding health was derived from the remains, and this may well be symptomatic of the very fragmentary condition of the material.

The excavation of the main chamber, designated ‘ZB’, focused on five areas (ZB I – ZB V). Although divided into six strata (Table 6.1) an absence of sterile material separating the deposits made these divisions rather arbitrary. Therefore, Renfrew cautions that ‘only rarely can much weight be placed on the stratigraphic position of a single find (Renfrew 1979, 150). Furthermore, it was not possible to make stratigraphic correlations between different parts of the chamber (Renfrew 1979, 52). No evidence for modern intrusion was found below Strata 5b and 6. 6.2.4 Artefacts

When the chamber was first examined, before 1805, a complete skeleton was discovered lying on the filling of one of the cells (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 154). Stratigraphically, the earliest burials in the cairn were in

Just over 6 kg of Grooved Ware pottery was recovered from the tomb. Many of the sherds had demonstrable patterns of burning, indicating they had been used in

Table 6.1 Descriptions of stratigraphic layers identified in the main chamber at Quanterness (after Renfrew 1979, 55) Stratum

Description

Stratum 1

Thin, well-consolidated levels lying immediately above natural soil. They were generally not rich in bone, but did show signs of burning. They did not run under the walls of the tombs and these layers are certainly subsequent to its construction.

Stratum 2

Refers to the cutting of inhumation graves A, B and D and to their contents

Stratum 3

Variable levels between these lower levels and the over-lying bone spread

Stratum 4

The main bone spread

Stratum 5

The uppermost level of the original deposit, sometimes showing some signs of disturbance from above. It includes the inhumation burial lying in Pit C in area V.

Stratum 6

With Neolithic material intermingled with debris from the 19th century collapse of the roof.

59

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Age

Number

0-2 years

10

2-12 years

26

13-19 years

36

at a later time. In addition to the human remains, Renfrew drew on other aspects of the deposits and assemblage to reconstruct activities within the tomb. This evidence included the lighting of fires in the main chamber, (whether at the time of burial or subsequently), coupled with the use and abandonment of pottery, ‘a few other artefacts’ and perhaps foodstuffs for consumption or as offerings (Renfrew 1979, 159).

20-29 years

74

6.2.6 The Faunal Remains

30-40 years

7

40-50 years

3

50 – x

1

Table 6.2 Age categories identified by Chesterman at Quanterness (after Renfrew 1979, 163)

The remains of otter, fox, domestic dog, horse, pig, red deer, ox and sheep were identified within the stratigraphic levels of the tomb (Clutton-Brock 1979, 112) and were in a similar fragmentary and disarticulated condition to the human bones. The absence of rat bones and the very few finds of rabbit or cat bones (most of which are from ZF) suggest the chamber may have been closed between Neolithic times and Barry’s incursion (Renfrew 1979, 153). However, the random distribution of the bones of a dog, believed to be from the same individual, is thought to indicate significant disturbance within the tomb at some period (Clutton-Brock 1979, 112).

the pits cut through Stratum I. Pit A in area ZB II was a simple earth-cut hollow, covered by flat sandstone slabs (Renfrew 1979, 53). It contained a crouched inhumation of an adult male, parts of a teenage female and a bone fragment from a child (Chesterman 1979, 105). Pit B in area ZB V was an impressive stone-lined cist surmounted by a large slab containing the traces of a crouched burial. At the top of the sequence, cut through Stratum 4 from Stratum 5, was Pit C, which contained the lower half of an extended inhumation of an adult male (Renfrew 1979, 60).

The remains of horse and pig occur only in the upper levels of the deposit, primarily Strata 5 and Strata 6. Sheep, cattle and deer are most abundant in Strata 3 and 4 (Renfrew 1979, 154). Considering the evidence, Renfrew suggested the possibility that horse and pig were introduced in postNeolithic times, or were not utilised in earlier funerary activities. He also concluded that, apart from the rodent bones and those of a few of the small bird species (found in the tomb as a result of owl activity) the bones recovered represent the results of human action (Renfrew 1979, 156). A particularly interesting feature of the mammal bones was the frequency of foetal or new-born animals, principally lambs, and it is thought these may have been included as funerary offerings (Clutton-Brock 1979, 122; Renfrew 1979, 161).

Within the main chamber, although present in all strata, the human remains were primarily found as a densely packed spread of disarticulated bone (Stratum 4), with some animal bone mixed through. Aside from the occasional occurrence of a series of vertebrae, or arm bones in anatomical relationship, the majority of the human remains were entirely scattered and lacking any articulation (Renfrew 1979, 52). Attempts at rearticulation suggested skeletal units had been scattered in a haphazard fashion in the horizontal plane (Renfrew 1979, 157). Described as showing ‘amazing variability’ in their preservation condition, near perfect bone specimens were often next to unrecognisable fragments (Chesterman 1979, 101). The majority of the bones were fragmented, probably after death had occurred. Nearly all the bones were observed to have been subject to burning (ibid.).

6.2.7 Chronology As part of the re-analysis of the Quanterness human remains, a series of 20 new radiocarbon dates were obtained. Samples were selected firstly to include a range of strata and secondly, to ensure different individuals were sampled. All the samples were derived from the main chamber. The majority of the new radiocarbon AMS determinations fall prior to 3000 BC, with Bayesian modelling supporting a start date for deposition in the range 3510–3220 cal BC (95.4% probability) and an end date of 2850–2790 cal BC (95.4% probability), which closely corresponds with Renfrew’s original proposal for a construction date around c. 3400 BC (Schulting et al. 2010, 24). However, the results demonstrated poor concurrence with the stratigraphy, suggesting little in the way of stratigraphic integrity ever existed in the bone deposits at Quanterness, or, more likely, that little remained at the time of excavation due to post-depositional disturbance (Schulting et al. 2010, 16).

The condition of the human remains has been explained in terms of a mortuary rite involving excarnation and secondary burial practices. Due to an absence of animal damage, bodies were initially thought to have been exposed to the elements, or possibly buried in sand. Following the decay of flesh, the remains were then exposed to heat in what Chesterman called a ‘halfcremation’ before being broken and then brought to the tomb (Chesterman 1979, 102; Renfrew 1979, 158). Skulls and long bones were considered to be conspicuously absent. The parts most commonly found were often small bones: axis and atlas vertebrae and carpal and tarsal bones. This discrepancy in skeletal representation led Renfrew (1979, 167) to propose that bones were removed 60

Sites 6.2.8 Summary Two samples were dated suggesting the structure was in use around 2900 BC (c. 2250 BC in radiocarbon years). Although it is unclear whether this date represents early or later use of the tomb, the results correspond with the time range established for Quanterness; the two cairns have, therefore, been argued to be contemporaneous (Renfrew et al. 1976, 1979). Renfrew suggested a date of c. 3200 BC for the construction of Quoyness (Renfrew 1979, 202).

The excavations at Quanterness revealed the tomb to be one of the best preserved of the Orcadian monuments, with four of its six side cells retaining their original form. The detailed examination of the chamber deposits, specifically the human remains, has since had a profound impact on subsequent interpretations of the mortuary rites associated with similar structures (Hedges 1983; Richards 1988; Jones 1998; Thomas 2000; Fowler 2010). Evidence of disarray and fragmentation amongst the human remains, animal remains and pottery, in addition to the poor agreement of new AMS radiocarbon dates with the stratigraphy, strongly suggests the floor deposits suffered significant disturbance prior to the excavations.

6.3.3 The Platform The platform is a significant structure in its own right, extending a considerable distance beyond the limits of the cairn (see Fig. 6.3). The platform, irregular in plan and measuring some 41 m by 32 m, seems to have masked or blocked the entrance passage (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 156) and was associated with Grooved Ware pottery (Bradley 1998, 387). The outer edge of this structure is composed of a bank of boulders. Within this bank, the platform consists of three layers, the lowest being of horizontal slabs, above which are stones mixed with earth and refuse (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 156). Limpet shells, broken animal bones and two antler tines were found among the stones of Layer I, with this midden material becoming more abundant in Layer II (Childe 1952, 131). Also within this layer was evidence interpreted as a possible temporary hearth. A sheep’s head from Section II, half a cattle mandible between two slabs in Section I, and similar finds of large bones or of artefacts were considered by Childe to be either ritual deposits or remains of food consumed in the course of piling up the platform or on occasions after its completion (Childe 1952, 132). To the south-western extent, a wall or ‘horn’ projects 5 m from the platform, with a reciprocal feature found at the northern edge of the platform. In addition, three cist-like constructions were discovered on the south edge of the platform.

6.3 Quoyness, Sanday 6.3.1 Introduction The chambered cairn of Quoyness (HY 676378) is located on the Orcadian island of Sanday, situated on the shore on the easterly extent of the Els Ness promontory. The location of the cairn was explained by its proximity to appropriate building material in the form of Old Red Sandstone (Childe 1952, 133). The site was originally investigated by Farrer and Petrie in 1867, who believed the structure was a broch (Farrer 1870; Childe 1952, 121). The structure was subsequently re-excavated and identified as a chambered cairn by Childe in 1951–52 for the Ministry of Works (Childe 1952). 6.3.2 The Cairn Categorised as a Maeshowe-type chambered cairn, Quoyness measures 20.5 m by 17 m and is located within an artificially raised levelling surface described as a ‘platform’. Located on the south-east side of the monument, the 9 m entrance passage that leads into the central chamber is usually described in two sections; an outer section, which is 3.7 m long, has a floor paved with five slabs; and an inner section that has no paving. Leading from the central chamber are six symmetrically-arranged side cells (two cells in each of the long elevations, and one in each of the short elevations). The cells are irregular in plan, measuring from 1.2 m by 1.3 m to 1.5 m by 2 m. This configuration of internal spaces is enclosed within an ovoid cairn, supported by two retaining walls, the whole being covered with cairn material supported by a third wall (Fig. 6.3) (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 156–157).

Although Childe (1952, 134) believed the platform was most probably part or the original plan, he also suggested, given the proximity of the site to the coastal limit, that it could have been an afterthought imposed by an invasion of the chamber by the sea. These platform structures are a common feature of the passage graves in Orkney and have also been identified at the Clava Cairns of northern mainland Scotland and in the Carrowmore complex of the west of Ireland. Current hypotheses evoke a change in the ceremonial emphasis of the monument, with the additional structure literally providing a platform for wider participation (Richards 1996; Bradley 2006, 111).

In the south-east corner of the main chamber floor is a shallow, circular stone-lined pit 0.8 m in diameter and 0.2 m deep dug through the clay to the bedrock below (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 157). Between the passage and the northern extent of the chamber is a shallow trench in the floor, 0.5 m wide and 0.2 m deep, which Childe (1952, 126) thought might have been the earlier work of Farrer.

6.3.4 The Finds Sherds of Neolithic pottery, animal bone and stone implements were uncovered, in addition to a quantity of human remains. The carved stone implements are particularly intriguing and are reminiscent of the carved stone balls found at Skara Brae. Their exact use is unclear,

61

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney such as Skara Brae and the more elaborate chambered tombs in Orkney (Bradley 1998, 390).

but these stone artefacts are often assumed to have had some religious significance. A bone pin with a projection on one side was also recovered. Sherds of Neolithic pottery found on the chamber floor are comparable to those found at Rinyo (Childe & Grant 1949) and Skara Brae (Childe 1931; Clarke 1976) settlements; while a stone disc found in the chamber is commensurate with finds in western Scotland, Wales, Spain and Portugal (Childe 1952, 136).

6.3.5 The Human Remains Farrer (1870, 399) identified several skulls from the entrance passage, but noted that they were in a ‘very decayed state’. Despite this decay, he was able to discern that some of the skulls were of great thickness, ‘one at least being half an inch thick’. This observation may well indicate evidence of an unidentified pathology. However, without the original cranial fragments, it is impossible to comment further. He also describes cutting through a stratum of bone in the passage, about 0.4 m deep (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 158), but indicated that the bone was too decayed to be able to lift (Farrer 1870, 399). In 1951, during re-excavation, Childe discovered a couple of human long bones, cattle bones and a few pottery sherds. More human bones and teeth were found in a decayed state just south of the passage threshold, against the face of ‘Wall A’, and an additional larger and frangible deposit of bones was also discovered in reasonably close proximity (Childe 1952, 127).

During a field visit in 1997, Bradley (1998, 387) discovered previously unnoticed decorated stones inside the monument. One of these stones forms the lintel over the entrance to the southerly side chamber, whilst the other is a smaller slab at a higher level in the same wall. Although weathered, both stones retain traces of incised motifs (Bradley 1998, 387–388). This decoration has been scratched, rather than pecked, into the surface in a similar manner to decoration found at Skara Brae. Bradley draws parallels to similar motifs on Grooved Ware that has been found in both the megalithic monuments and settlement sites. This observation has subsequently been considered to reinforce the perceived relationship between settlements

Figure 6.3 Plan of Quoyness cairn and associated platform (after Childe 1952, 122).

62

Sites No bones were recovered from the side cells in the northwest elevation (Cells 3 and 4, Fig. 6.3). Given the parallels drawn between Quoyness and Quanterness, it is of interest to note that Cell 3 occupies a similar relative position to that of Cell ZF at Quanterness. In stark contrast to Cell 3, Cell ZF was found to contain an enormous quantity of bone. The cells either side of the entrance passage (Cells 1 and 6) contained skulls and a few other human bones (Farrer 1870, 399). The cells within the south-west and northeast elevations (Cells 2 and 5) were also found to contain human bone. An additional discovery of human arm and leg bones, in the ‘last stage of decay’, was identified within a small circular cist embedded in the floor to the southern extent of the main chamber (Farrer 1870, 400). According to Petrie’s notes, the bones were ‘very black in colour’ (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 158). Farrer re-deposited the remains, which were subsequently recovered by Childe. In his analysis, Childe identified human long bones, ribs and vertebrae together with animal bones and bits of wood and cork within the cist (Childe 1952, 126).

identified by Farrer were lost in the intervening years between his investigations and Childe’s. 6.3.6 Dating Dates from two unstratified human bones produced results within the first four centuries of the 3rd millennium, but their chronological relationship to the construction of the tomb cannot be determined (Schulting et al. 2010, 28). 6.3.7 Summary Farrer (1870, 401) considered the structure at Quoyness to have been a broch that was later reused as a place of burial, referring to the side cells as ‘graves’. Unquestionably, Quoyness has since been recognised as a refined example of a chambered tomb. Indeed, Childe regarded Quoyness as one of the finest chambered tombs after Maes Howe, and emphasised similarities between the two (Childe 1952, 132). In consideration of their analogous architectural traits, Childe surmised that there must be a connection between Quoyness and the other chamber tombs of Quanterness, Wideford, Cuween Hill and Holm of Papa Westray (Childe 1952, 137). Indeed, the similarity in tectonic expression and spatial configuration between Quanterness and Quoyness are still considered striking (Renfrew et al. 1976, 197; Renfrew 1979, 202). Renfrew (1979, 201) renamed the Maeshowe-type group the Quanterness-Quoyness group, in recognition of these two sites being the most fully excavated in their class.

Farrer surmised that, whilst the skulls and jaw bones from Quoyness were in a very fragile state, many of the teeth were perfectly preserved. However, Thurnam, who examined the cranial remains, observed that the teeth in the lower jaws were ‘much corroded’ (Farrer 1870, 400). Thurnam estimated that the fragments represented the remains of 12 to 15 skulls, of both sexes, including adults and children. Additionally, he observed that ‘one or two of them have the appearance of having been cleft prior to being interred’ (Farrer 1870, 400).

6.4 Point of Cott, Westray In the site report for Quoyness, Childe indicated that while the skulls were sent to Mr Thurnam in London, the remaining bones from Farrer’s investigation were ‘unceremoniously dumped back where they had been found’ (Childe 1952, 122). Nevertheless, L. H. Wells, who examined the bones retrieved by Childe, was able to elucidate some interesting observations. As is common in much of the Orcadian Neolithic osseous material, the bones were extremely fragmentary. Within this assemblage Wells identified only a few fragments of cranial bone and a total absence of mandibulae and teeth. Wells concluded that the left humerus was the most abundant bone, calculating a Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) of ten adult specimens. Additionally, there were bones of two or three children estimated to be ‘over ten years of age’, and one or more ‘under seven’. This estimate was considered to concur with Thurnam’s count of 12–15 skulls (Wells 1954, 137). In terms of pathology, at least two individuals had suffered severely from arthritis in the vertebral column, and one specimen showed a congenital deficiency (spina bifida) in the neural arch of the first sacral vertebra (Wells 1954, 138). There is no mention of the ‘very black’ coloured bones described by Petrie, so it seems reasonable to suggest that the human remains examined by Wells did not originate in the cist, discussed above. It also seems highly plausible to surmise that the mandible and teeth

6.4.1 Introduction The stalled tomb known as Point of Cott (HY 4654 4746) was situated on the eastern extent of the island of Westray, perched on the edge of a low cliff near the outermost extremity of the blunt peninsula (Finlay & Barber 1997, 1). Active coastal erosion had already resulted in loss of the eastern and northern sections of the cairn. As complete destruction was inevitable given the severity of the coastal erosion, RCAHMS implemented a strategy of total excavation in 1984 and 1985. Two of the main aims of the excavation were to examine the structure of the monument and to gain insight into the taphonomic processes governing the formation of the deposits contained within it (Finlay & Barber 1997, 1). 6.4.2 The Cairn Excavation revealed that the cairn had been built in three discrete stages; the core-cairn, containing the chamber and passage, a ‘constructional device’ at the north end and the ‘onion-skin’ concentric walls that both surrounded the core and provided the final appearance of the monument (Finlay & Barber 1997, 9). The Point of Cott chamber was erected as part of a rectangular ‘construction-cairn’. It was ‘boat-shaped’ in section and reduced markedly in height

63

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney from the front to the rear. The construction-cairn contained a stalled chamber with four compartments, and occupied about half of the surviving length of the trapezoidal, horned cairn (Barber 1988, 58). The facade appeared to be straight, with a horn projecting at an angle to the southwest (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 149).

2.05 m by 1.50 m. Compartments 2 and 3 both contained the residual facades of stone-faced benches on their eastern extents. Compartment 4 was different in plan to the others; slabs set on edge formed two parallel, rectangular, cistlike structures (Finlay and Barber 1997, 22). The matrix of the main chamber floor deposit consisted of a dark brown clay loam, with many embedded spalls of shattered stone. This deposit contained the majority of the animal and human bones found within the chamber. Many of the bones penetrated the full depth of the deposit indicating it cannot have accumulated slowly following deposition of the osseous material. Rather, the bones and soil matrix had been ‘jumbled together’ after both had come to be in the chamber (Finlay and Barber 1997, 22). Above, a subsequent deposit contained large angular blocks and small shattered stones, although this accumulation shared the same loam

A passage, approximately 3.8 m long, roofed by lintels set on edge led to the main chamber. This chamber measured 8.47 m and was divided into its four compartments by opposed pairs of jamb stones (Fig. 6.4). Access to the compartments was by passing through the jamb stones, which Finlay and Barber (1997, 9) describe as having narrow gaps ranging from 0.77 m to 0.62 m. Compartment 1 was the best preserved of the chamber’s four compartments, was rectangular in shape and measured

Figure 6.4 Sketch plan of the Cairn at Point of Cott. The core cairn is highlighted in grey with the interior divided into compartments by orthostats (shown in black) (after Barber 1997, 10).

64

Sites matrix as the lower deposit. These organic-rich deposits were overlain by two layers of upper and lower collapse. No human remains were found within these upper deposits in the chamber area other than from Compartment 4 (Finlay and Barber 1997, 22). Compartment 4 also lacked any presence of the organically rich deposits found in the rest of the chamber. As alluded to above, the soils of the main chamber floor deposit indicated a high level of organic matter. Excavation demonstrated that this area had been stripped of turf before construction, leading to the suggestion that the organic matter must have been introduced to the cairn and could, therefore, have derived from human bodies or offerings of food (Finlay and Barber 1997, 23).

potential for over-estimating the MNI. This approach was considered necessary due to extensive fragmentation and bioturbation within the tomb, which meant there was a strong possibility that parts of a single bone could appear in more than one context. This second stage involved an attempt to reconstruct the bones and ‘rearticulate’ individual bodies to produce a more realistic estimate (Lee 1997, 37). The flat bones of the skull, scapula, pelvis and the irregular bones of the vertebral column are noticeably underrepresented, however the low tensile strength of these bones does not make this pattern particularly unusual (Lee 1997, 38). Infant remains did not exhibit a noticeably higher rate of weathering and their presence, along with a number of skull fragments, contradicts any suggestion that the absence of many bones was the result of a faster rate of decomposition (Lee 1997, 39). Some 90 per cent of the fractures recorded fall into the transverse and longitudinal category. No marks on the bones were indicative either of deliberate disarticulation or butchery or of gnawing by animals (Lee 1997, 39). Not a single partial articulation was noted.

Excavation illustrated that the forecourt area was an open, grass-covered area for some time after the construction of the monument (Finlay and Barber 1997, 21). At the northern extent of the site a functionally separate and apparently earlier structure was discovered. The exact nature of this structure has not yet been fully resolved, particularly since it was largely destroyed during the process of incorporation of the chambered tomb into the cairn.

In addition to the bone deposits identified above, human remains representing two infants were recovered from the north end of the site. Remains were also discovered in the upper levels of core-cairn collapse material, between the chamber and the east wall six adult bone fragments were recovered representing three ribs and two radii. Whilst these bones are considered to be the result of later burials, it could also be hypothesised that they represent disturbance in the main chamber (Finlay and Barber 1997, 19).

6.4.3 The Finds Sixteen beads of cetacean teeth were present in the chamber, their close association suggesting they formed part of a necklace (Barber 1997, 70). Sixty-five sherds of pottery were also recovered from the chamber, representing five vessels. The distribution of the sherds from Vessels 1, 3 and 4 along the side of the internal walls suggest that they may have originally rested on the stone benches (Finlay & Barber 1997, 23). Some 71 pieces of flaked flint, ten coarse stone pieces and a piece of pumice were also recovered (Finlay 1997, 35). Faunal remains were identified as sheep, dog, otter, cattle, rabbit, deer, cat and horse (Halpin 1997, 45). Sheep dominated the assemblage – the majority of the bones represented immature sheep and were found throughout the monument.

One of the infant burials recovered from the main chamber was radiocarbon dated to a period between the two phases of adult inhumation. Barber (1997, 70) suggests this chronological separation denotes disposal of ‘the unwanted dead’, drawing parallels with the ‘cillini’ in Early Christian Ireland. However, the idea that the ‘unwanted’ or ‘socially excluded’ dead should be buried within megalithic tombs seems tenuous.

6.4.4 Human Remains Dental pathology in the form of two cysts resulting in tooth loss and calculus on two individuals was noted. Fracturing to two rib fragments of the same individual, probably the result of ante-mortem injury was also recorded. Non-specific infection on a right fibula and evidence for osteoarthritis was also observed. Evidence for cribra orbitalia in a young individual was also recorded (Lee 1997, 41–42).

More than 600 fragments of disarticulated human bone were recovered, estimated to represent a minimum number of 13 individuals. After the bone was lifted, the remaining chamber deposits were wet sieved through a double basket of 10 mm and 5 mm mesh. The partial remains of a minimum of five adults, two juveniles and five infants were located in the burial chamber and entrance passage (Lee 1997, 37). Of the adults, at least two were male and one was female. Approximately 70 per cent of all human bone from the site was contained within Compartment 3. The minimum number of individuals (MNI) was estimated in a two-stage process, with the first stage involving a count of the number of occasions in which each type of bone was encountered. The second stage was conducted in an attempt to minimise the

Analysis of the osseous material suggested no conclusive evidence for exposure of the body, either by weathering or from animal gnaw marks. Rather, the disarticulated and chaotic nature of the chamber floor deposit, along with the patterning of post-mortem fracture and weathering of the bone, suggested that considerable disturbance of individual skeletons had taken place, probably during

65

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney access to, or use of, the chamber by later human or animal intruders (Lee 1997, 44).

erosion and later disturbance, following abandonment, to account for the partial and fragmentary nature of the remains.

6.4.5 Chronology 6.4.7 Summary Thirteen radiocarbon dates were obtained. The earliest inhumation was dated to 3615–3350 cal BC and the latest inhumation was dated to 3025–2780 cal BC, equating to a spread of just over 1000 calendar years (Barber 1997, 58–60). This period of use is similar to those indicated for Quanterness and Knowe of Ramsay. In his consideration of the quantity of osseous material, coupled with the period of use, Barber refutes the idea that the numbers of individuals in tombs might indicate a ‘special’ section of society; concluding that this hypothesis ignores the evidence for considerable decay over time.

Absolute confidence in our understanding of Point of Cott will be always be limited by the loss of over 5 m of its structure to coastal erosion (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 149). Barber’s interpretations offer an additional perspective to the debate regarding the nature of the activities these enigmatic structures represent, and a convincing challenge to earlier interpretations of practices involving excarnation. 6.5 Pierowall Quarry

In summation, Barber suggests it is not impossible that the Maeshowe-type tombs were built before the stalled cairns, or even contemporaneously with them. He concludes that it was evident that the tombs were used as burial places over the greater part of a millennium between the 4th and mid-3rd millennia BC, and occasionally re-used for burial during the Bronze Age (Barber 1997, 60).

6.5.1 Introduction The chance discovery of a large, decorated stone during quarrying triggered a rescue excavation at Pierowall, Westray, Orkney (HY 438490). These excavations revealed a complex site, with evidence of occupation activity from both the Neolithic and the Iron Age (Sharples 1984, 78).

6.4.6 The Mortuary Rite 6.5.2 The Cairn Barber (1997, 68) is critical of the assumption made by previous researchers, including Chesterman (1979), that disarticulated and fragmented human remains indicate the influence of anthropogenic activities. Arguing strenuously against the excarnation hypothesis, he favours an alternative hypothesis of bone loss through erosion. The lack of any discernible patterning in the remains led Barber to suggest natural and unintentional manipulation of the assemblage, arguing that differential bone loss was due to microenvironments within chambered cairns that are spread along an ‘erosional gradient’ (Barber 1997, 69). The chaotic distribution of the bone is suggested to be the result of later and substantial reworking of the deposit by animals, the remains of which are found in the deposit. Dogs and otters are cited as the most likely culprits.

The primary structure revealed during excavation was a large round cairn, c. 18 m in diameter. The fabric of the cairn was composed of two concentric vertical revetments, an external built, presumably, for aesthetic effect and an inner revetment constructed to ensure the stability of the cairn. A passage 0.7 m wide led into the structure from the south-south-west, and was almost certainly spanned by the very large decorated lintel found during quarrying. Whilst nothing of the presumed chamber was ‘visible’, the size of the cairn suggested to the excavators that it was of the Maeshowe-type (Sharples 1984, 84). During its Neolithic period of use, the monument was subject to considerable transformation. Around c. 2100 bc, sometime after the cairn had collapsed, the monument was levelled and paved over, with the original outer revetment partially rebuilt to form the edge of a new platform. Excavation also revealed that consolidation of the monument was composed of a series of deliberate depositions of ‘Shillet’ (weathered and delaminated stone fragments). These layers were, however, difficult to differentiate from in situ revetment collapse of the original cairn. Drawing comparisons from the contiguous later Neolithic monument at Stenness, it is assumed that the purpose of this platform was to define a space for some form of ceremony (Sharples 1984, 118). Subsequently, a small structure was erected at the edge of the platform; excavation revealed rich occupation deposits contained within (Sharples 1984, 78). In the early Iron Age this unusual platform and structure were succeeded by a large round-house with walls c. 3 m thick. The interior of the round-house had been excavated into the mound

In spite of the disordered nature of the assemblage, Barber offers insight into the burial rites associated with the Orcadian Neolithic cairns. He believes the evidence is not inconsistent with the placing of complete cadavers within the tombs. With the insertion of later cadavers, the skeletal remains were removed from benches and placed on the chamber floor in individual groups (similar to Isbister and Midhowe). As pressure on space continued, these remains were cleared away into ossuary spaces, such as Compartment 4 at Point of Cott, or the side chambers at Isbister, often in jumbled masses or ordered by skeletal elements. Thus, the apparently disparate patterning of the deposits in the chambered cairns of Orkney may, in part, represent the ‘preservation’ of different stages in this progression in the individual tombs. Reilly (2003, 147) also supports this interpretation of direct interment, differential

66

Sites of the cairn destroying all but the lowest meter of deposit (Sharples 1984, 78). Excavation revealed that the cairn had also been very badly robbed in the Iron Age and the later Neolithic – this was especially evident around the passage (Sharples 1984, 79).

were found at Pierowall (Birkett 1984, 105). In light of the fragmentary nature of the remains, the number of individuals represented by the assemblage was considered to be a tentative estimate at best. However, a minimum of six individuals was suggested, based on the number of femora present. The disarticulated human remains were associated with a large quantity of limpet shells and their location, (within rubble immediately outside the outer façade of the cairn) suggests they were deposited following the destruction of the original monument. Sharples also suggested that it was not unreasonable to infer that the assemblage was derived from the main chamber and subsequently deposited outside (Sharples 1984, 107; Davidson & Henshall 1989, 182).

In total, three decorated stones were found, including the initial quarrying discovery. It has been suggested that the largest decorated stone was associated with the passage and is interpreted as having marked the entrance to the tomb, its dimensions suggesting it was used as a lintel (Sharples 1984, 82). The original position of the smaller stones is unknown, although it was considered a reasonable assumption that they came from the tomb, as all three stones have similar decorative motifs.

The assemblage was described in terms of three groups: 6.5.3 The Finds • The main group (I) consists of 77 fragments (72 per cent) and was found as a well-defined group stratified amongst the collapsed outer revetment of the immediately adjacent round cairn. Amongst the human bones were a few animal bones and two well defined patches of limpet shells (Birkett 1984, 107).

Pottery fragments from the Earlier Neolithic layers were too small for confident interpretation, but those from inside the Late Neolithic structure were thought to correspond to the ceramic tradition of Orcadian Grooved Ware (Yarrington 1984, 93). Debris from flint knapping, which took place in the late Neolithic structure, represents 88 per cent of the flaked stone assemblage. The lack of debris clearance has been argued to suggest that this area of the structure was not used as a living place during this period (Wickham-Jones 1984, 100).

• The second largest group (II) contains 15 fragments (14 per cent) and again originates from layer (9). This represents the collapse and decay of the already destroyed cairn, and the late Neolithic structure adjacent to it. The few fragments that were recognised during excavation came from about the cairn revetment, slightly to the south-west of the group I bones.

Seven pieces of pumice and six pieces of worked animal bone were found on the site. The only significant concentration was from the occupation of the Late Neolithic structure that contained four pieces of pumice, three of which demonstrate clear signs of use. The worked bone consists of two bone points, some worked fragments of whalebone, and two perforated phalanges (the excavator does not state which species these phalanges were from). Sharples (1984, 105) has drawn comparison with similar finds from other sites in the Northern Isles; from contexts dated to the Neolithic and Early Iron Age. Binford (1981, 44–45) had suggested that this type of perforation could easily result from a dog biting a bone. However, Sharples (1984, 105) refutes this interpretation for the Pierowall Quarry perforated phalanges, as they show no other characteristic signatures of animal gnawing. Phalange 676 (from Pierowall) is described as having a carefully bored circular hole. Other, similar examples are; ox phalange from Lower Dounreay, Caithness, which has the edges of the perforation smoothed down (Edwards et al. 1928, 145), and one of the examples from Jarlshof (Curle 1934, 261, 268) that has cut marks around the hole. There seems to be no tangible explanation for these perforations as part of any butchering process, so it appears they are deliberately produced artefacts (Sharples 1984, 105) the purpose of which is unknown.

• The last group (III) contains 10 fragments (9 per cent) and comes from five layers (20, 21,4,12 and 17). These are either in the construction of the subsidiary structure, or filling robbed areas of the round cairn. All are later than the collapse of the cairn revetment and earlier than the Early Iron Age structure. Associated with these bones was a group of shells (Birkett 1984, 107). The remaining four fragments of bone come from the interior of the subsidiary structure (2 teeth) and the early Iron Age occupation soil (8) that directly underlies the round-house wall (ibid). Apart from the femur of a small infant, all the bones were those of adults. A number of bones were identified as representing muscular young males, while others were considered to have come from older people. Wear on the teeth was thought to suggest either great age, or a very coarse diet. Some bones are clearly from females and others that are clearly male. Thus, there seems to be a spread of age and sex in the burials. Pathological changes indicative of osteoarthritis and periostitis were also identified (Birkett 1984, 107). 6.5.5 Animal Bone

6.5.4 Human Remains Faunal remains from the rubble platform beside the cairn (that corresponds to the collapsed outer revetment)

A total of 106 individual fragments of human bone

67

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney consisted primarily of sheep bones. The mortality pattern of these animals is very similar to a sheep dairying economy, and it is possible these sheep could be regarded as the surplus from such an economy (McCormick 1984, 108). Alternatively, there is also the possibility that animals of this age, particularly if weak, would find the rubble of the collapsed revetment an ideal shelter within which to rest, and potentially die (McCormick 1984, 109). The mortality pattern of the assemblage of sheep remains associated with the shillet platform proved more difficult to interpret. McCormick (ibid.) argued the most satisfactory explanation was that the remains demonstrated a strategy of farming for milk with meat production a subsidiary activity. However, it is also noted that there was no sign of any butchery on the bones and that the distribution of skeletal parts did not reflect any specific butchery practice (McCormick 1984, 110). Small quantities of cattle and pig, while wild animals included red deer and otter were also identified. The presence of small animals such as rodents and birds is thought to be due to natural occurrences, rather than any anthropogenic influence (Barlow 1984, 112).

into the original cairn and modern quarrying work had destroyed a large amount of information pertaining to the original structure. Furthermore, the excavation itself was limited to those areas of the tomb directly under threat of destruction from further quarrying work. Lastly, none of the human remains can be directly associated with the original use of the tomb. 6.6 Isbister, South Ronaldsay 6.6.1 Introduction The stalled tomb of Isbister, or the Tomb of the Eagles, is located near the south-east corner of the island of South Ronaldsay, Orkney (ND 4698843). Situated on the eastern coast, the tomb overlooks a natural amphitheatre at the edge of a cliff face, 30 m above the shore (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 125). The tomb structure was revealed by intermittent excavations between 1958 and 1982 (Hedges 1983; Davidson & Henshall 1989, 125) and by further investigations carried out during stabilisation works in 1989 (Smith 1989).

Sharples (1984, 113) challenged McCormick’s economically weighted assessment of the faunal remains and countered with a hypothesis promoting ritualistic activity. He envisioned a process similar to those invoked for human remains at sites such as Quanterness, whereby the articulated carcasses where left on the cairn to decay, followed by selection of the more visible bones, which were subsequently taken into the main chamber.

6.6.2 The Cairn Exterior From the exterior, the chamber and cells are situated within an oval cairn of masonry approximately 10 m by 7 m (Smith 1989, 55). Access to the main chamber is via a 4 m passage that traverses the structure from the eastnorth-east (outer) to the centre of its north-south axis. Erosion has resulted in the loss of the outer threshold to the entrance (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 125). At the inner threshold, the passage is still enclosed by a lintel 1.5 m long, at a height of 0.85 m. The central cairn was enlarged by the addition of an encircling wall approximately 2 m in width that was part of the original construction of the tomb (Smith 1989, 57). Masonry to the south and north of the cairn greatly enhanced the tomb facade, drawing focus to the entrance (Smith 1989, 58).

6.5.6 Dating The seven animal bones dated were all derived from secondary contexts, and it is therefore perhaps unsurprising that they fall after the turn of the 3rd millennium (Sharples 1984, 90; Schulting et al. 2010, 28). 6.5.7 Summary From his analysis of the large volumes of collapsed stonework, Sharples (1984, 116) concludes that the Neolithic cairn at Pierowall Quarry must have originally stood as a stone tower. Indeed, reinterpreting the excavation reports of Childe (1954) and Renfrew (1979) he boldly suggests that the majority of the Quanterness/ Quoyness type (‘Maeshowe-type’) tombs would have had a striking, tower-like appearance. These later structures were, it is suggested, the antithesis of the earlier, modestly scaled stalled tombs; a visibly prominent focal point of its respective community (Sharples 1984, 116). Sharples also suggests that the modifications documented during the Neolithic period of use for Pierowall Quarry represent the end of the tradition of communal burial. As such they must symbolise a fundamental reorganisation of Late Neolithic society (Sharples 1984, 119).

6.6.3 The Cairn Interior The main chamber is divided into five segments by four pairs of orthostats. Two pairs of orthostats subdivide the three central compartments. These features differ from the stalls discovered in other similar, OrkneyCromarty tombs as they project only 0.1 m to 0.15 m from the internal elevations. The two end compartments are wider at ground level than the central portion of the chamber. Within each compartment was evidence for stone shelving at heights of 1.2 m (south compartment) and 1.4 m (north compartment) (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 126). Additionally, there are three side cells. Two of these are entered from the north end of the chamber, on opposing sides, and the third is entered from the south end of the chamber in the west internal elevation (Fig. 6.5). The cells are irregular in plan and the north-east cell appeared to have been excavated at an earlier time (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 126).

There are, of course, limitations to the evidence that must be acknowledged. The insertion of the Iron Age roundhouse 68

Sites and small quantities of cremated bone. The south-west cell, found undisturbed and without filling, contained, primarily, complete skulls. The north-west cell was similar, with some skulls located centrally and others arranged around the sides. The north-east cell had been disturbed and contained only a few human and animal bones. The central part of the chamber had also been sealed from above by an infilling of slabs reaching as high as the existing wall head. In the filling were a few faunal remains, also a deliberately deposited collection of a few human bones including a skull. The passage had filled naturally with brown sandy soil (Hedges 1983).

Prior to the 1982 excavations, the chamber had been dug into, removing the upper filling including any deposits on the shelves of the end compartments. In the north end compartment, filling had been removed to ground level and most of the deposits in the north-east cell were also probably removed at this time (Hedges 1983). The earliest deposit in the chamber was of human and animal bone below the slab floor of the south end compartment. A considerable amount of osseous material was also discovered, extending both in and on most of the floor of the central area. Despite such large quantities, there appears to have been some ordering of the remains, bones seemed to be arranged in discrete piles with a skull placed on top (Hedges 1983, 20). Among the human bones were faunal remains, charcoal, frequent occurrences of peat ash with associated burnt areas on the natural subsoil,

6.6.4 The Human Remains Isbister is famed for the vast amount of bone discovered within its confines. The volume of bone is particularly

Figure 6.5 Ground plan and section of Isbister stalled tomb (after Davidson & Henshall 1989, 125).

69

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney remarkable in comparison to the significantly lower quantities recovered from other Neolithic tombs in Orkney and the rest of Britain. A total of 16,000 fragments of bone were in the assemblage, estimated to represent a minimum number of 341 individuals (MNI) (Chesterman 1983, 79). However, a recent reanalysis of this material has highlighted flaws in the rationale used to derive this MNI. A new MNI of 85 individuals is now considered more appropriate (Lawrence 2006, 85). Even with this reduction in individuals, Isbister still retains its status of having the largest Neolithic human bone assemblage in Britain. If the contents of the north-east cell had not been lost, this figure would, most likely, have been higher (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 129).

should be doubled or trebled (Hedges 2000, 145–147). The presence of sea eagle remains have been considered of great significance, leading Hedges (2000,158) to suggest they were a totemic emblem of the tribal society associated with the tomb. However, in 2005 the sea eagle bones were radiocarbon dated to between 2450 BC and 2050 BC, a significant period of time after the tomb is understood to have been constructed (McCormick & Sheridan 2006, 6). In addition to stratified remains, bones of sheep, cattle, pig and a single bone from a seal were also discovered in unstratified conditions. A small sample of the chamber floor was sieved, and this produced a great number of fish bones (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 130). Sieving was only employed for some of the material from the floor of the third, central stall (Hedges 2000, 149).

In his interpretation of the assemblage, Chesterman (1983, 124) suggested the condition of the remains most likely reflected fractional burial following excarnation. Reilly (2003, 145) countered this hypothesis, preferring a mortuary rite involving direct interment, drawing parallels with the tomb of Midhowe on Rousay. More recent reanalysis by Lawrence (2006, 55) has refuted the excarnation hypothesis through examination of the osteological evidence. In addition, Lawrence demonstrated that the fracturing patterns on the Isbister bones are of the mineralised type that is typically found in mechanical damage to dry bone that has lost much of its collagen (ibid.). There were no signs of cut marks that are indicative of the intentional disarticulation of a cadaver (ibid.). Indications of animal gnawing are rare (Chesterman 1983, 127). The differences in numbers between elements expected from complete skeletons and those recovered at Isbister (especially the low numbers of carpals and phalanges; Chesterman 1983, 124–8) was felt to almost certainly reflect differences of size, robusticity and ease of identification leading to different recovery rates (Lawrence 2006, 55).

6.6.6 Artefacts Pottery was the most abundant artefact deposited in the tomb. Burnt, and subsequently broken, Unstan Ware pots, pins and flints were discovered throughout the chamber. Material associated with the northern hornwork tended to be of crude stone artefacts. No evidence for burning was visible in the chamber, suggesting the burning observed on the artefacts must have taken place elsewhere (Hedges 2000, 150). Three polished stone axe-heads, a magnificent mace head, a stone knife (in the process of manufacture), a highly polished V-bored jet button, and half of a polished jet ring or pendant were found on the scarcement of the outer wall of the east elevation (Hedges 2000, 154). 6.6.7 Chronology A Bayesian model (Schulting et al. 2010, 26) for the Isbister dates places the start of human bone deposition in the chamber within the tightly constrained range of 3130–2920 cal BC (95.4%) or 3030–2930 cal BC (68.2%). The main phase of activity is modelled as ending in the range 2950–2760 cal BC (95.4%). This dating evidence places the main phase of use at Isbister later than that at Quanterness by at least one or two centuries. Given Isbister’s association with Unstan Ware pottery, this would seem a surprising result (ibid.) as sites containing Unstan Ware are traditionally considered to pre-date sites containing Grooved Ware, such as Quanterness.

Several pathological conditions were identified in the Isbister population, including neoplastic disease, trauma and genetic inflammatory and nutritional disorders; all were previously unrecorded (Lawrence 2006). 6.6.5 Faunal Remains Bones of cattle, sheep and otter, a few bones and talons of white-tailed eagle and one bone of a great blackbacked gull were associated with the human remains below the slab of the south end compartment. This deposit is associated with the building of the tomb. The deposit associated with the subsequent period of use of the chamber, is dominated by sheep, though also included bones of cattle, otter and red deer. 97 per cent of the bird bones from Isbister were birds of prey and other carrion feeders (Hedges 2000, 145). Of this osseous material, 90 per cent belonged to the Haliaeetus albicilla, or whitetailed sea eagle. The sea eagle remains discovered within the tomb are believed to have been carried in as complete carcasses. Hedges considered that the number of sea eagles had been underestimated, suggesting the figure

6.6.8 Summary The recovery of such a vast quantity of fragmented and disarticulated human remains has made Isbister one of the most famous of the Orcadian Neolithic tombs. However, a substantial proportion of the excavation work was carried out by the landowner and, unfortunately, the standard of contextual detail available does equate to data from Quanterness, excavated by Colin Renfrew (1979). Only a small proportion of the deposit was sieved, and this may explain the relatively low representation of some of the smaller bones (Lawrence 2006, 55).

70

Sites Isbister’s combination of stalls and side cells has confounded the categorisation of the tomb as a straightforward stalled type. This architectural diversity has led to the hypothesis that Isbister is a hybrid between the Orkney-Cromarty class and the Maeshowe class of tombs, similar to the composite observed at Unstan (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 164).

Prior to Charleson’s investigation, the cairn was known to have been first explored in 1888. At this time, three or four of the cells were investigated by removing their roofs, although the main chamber remained undiscovered. The west cell had an intact roof, little or no infilling and traces of fire were noted (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 113). The north cell was also investigated, of which the roof was already missing. From this account it is evident that the roofing of the east cell alone may be undisturbed.

6.7 Cuween Hill 6.7.3 Artefacts 6.7.1 Introduction Artefacts included a round sandstone ball, a broken urn of ‘ancient appearance’ both from the west cell, and a small portion of a steatite urn, thought by the excavator to be from secondary interments (Charleson 1902, 734). Cuween is most famous for the identification of the remains of 24 dog skulls (Charleson 1902, 736). This proliferation of canine crania has been likened in significance to finds of sea eagle remains at Isbister, leading to suggestions that these remains may indicate some form of totemism at these sites (Hedges 2000, 158). There were also other bones including cattle, what is probably a small horse and birds. There is also reference by Charleson to bones of animals in the debris that was removed from the main chamber. This osseous material is described as being in a fragmentary state and beyond preservation (Charleson 1902, 733).

Excavated by Charleson (1902), the tomb of Cuween Hill (HY 3636 1271), also known as Kewing Hill, is situated in the Parish of Firth, above cultivated land on a moorland hillside at 76 m OD (Fig. 6.1). At the base of the hill, lies the remains of a Neolithic settlement, uncovered as part of the ‘Cuween-Wideford Neolithic Landscape’ project (Richards & Jones 1994). With a diameter of 16.8 m and a maximum height of about 2.6 m (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 112) Cuween forms a round, grass covered mound enclosing a Maeshowe-type tomb. 6.7.2 The Cairn The entrance passage, constructed of fine dry-stone masonry, has an overall length of 5.5 m and a constant width of 0.71 m. The passage is unroofed for the outer 2.51 m of its length and has a slight, southerly oriented, curve toward the interior extent (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 112) (Fig. 6.6). This passage leads to the main chamber, entering at its south-east corner. Roughly rectangular in plan, the primary axis of the main chamber is perpendicular to the passage. The walls are vertical for the first 1.07 m – 1.22 m, after which they begin to corbel (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 112). The construction of the main chamber and side cells into the hill-side must have involved some excavation of bedrock, the extent of which is masked by the dry-stone walls. The floor is exposed bedrock.

6.7.4 Human Remains Evidence for at least eight interments was identified. Within the main chamber, approximately 0.3 m before reaching the floor, Charleson describes the deposit as having ‘a somewhat fatty, unctuous appearance’ (Charleson 1902, 733). It was from this deposit that the two-dozen dog skulls were recovered. Accompanying these remains were several human long bones and five human skulls, three of which ‘crumbled away when touched’ (ibid.). Within a recess of the west cell was another skull; a seventh was in the centre of the south cell; the last was embedded in clay near the roof of the passage. During Charleson’s excavation portions of human long bones ‘showing evidence of cremation’ were discovered close to the passage/ chamber threshold (Charleson 1902, 733–734, 736–738). The skull embedded near the roof and the remains in the passage were thought to indicate a deliberate blocking (Charleson 1902, 734). In 1888 the remains of a skeleton were found in the north part of the west cell. There is no further information regarding this occurrence and it is not clear if this refers to an articulated skeleton, a partial skeleton or bone fragments. Secondary interments were said to have been found at the west side of the cairn before 1901 (Charleson 1902, 734). There is no further reference to the secondary interments.

Very small openings in each internal elevation of the chamber lead to smaller cells. These apertures vary from 0.45 m to 0.61 m and 0.54 m to 0.73 m high. The cell in the west elevation has a secondary cell leading from it (giving a total of five side cells, accessed by four entrances). The west cell is entered by a rock-cut step (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 113), its floor level is 0.28 m above that of the chamber. Charleson (1902, 734) recorded a recess on the inner wall adjacent to the entrance of this cell, in which he found a skull lying on its side. The north cell is also entered by a raised aperture. At the inner edge of this opening is a kerbstone that is bonded into the cell walls. The actual floor of the cell is raised only slightly above the level of the chamber floor. The floor of the east cell is also at the same level as the chamber. The threshold to this opening has a kerb 0.13 m high, built of horizontal slabs and bonded into the wall (Charleson 1902, 736; Davidson & Henshall 1989, 113).

The human remains were examined by Professor Sir William Turner, who described five calvariae and portions of three femurs (Charleson 1902, 737). Based on suture closure, he surmised that the cranial remains were from

71

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Figure 6.6 Ground plan and reconstruction of Cuween Hill (after Davidson & Henshall 1989, 125). those in the ‘later stage of life’. He thought two (No. 2 and No. 3) were probably male, but could not be certain. Other than details of various cranial measurements that were taken, Turner does not mention any other anomalies that would be of interest, such as pathology or trauma.

with similar tombs such as Wideford and those mentioned above. Nevertheless, the combination of long bones and crania may be of note as these are the skeletal elements expected when rites such as excarnation and secondary burial are being utilised.

6.7.5 Dating

6.8 Conclusion

Prior to the availability of dating evidence, Renfrew hypothesised that Cuween was probably constructed at a similar time to both Quanterness and Wideford Hill, its simplicity in plan possibly suggesting that Cuween is a little earlier (Renfrew 1979, 203). More recently, bones from three of the 24 dogs found in the tomb produced dates that cluster around the middle of the third millennium BC (Sheridan 2005) and are assumed to represent secondary use of the tomb (Schulting et al. 2010, 28).

The intention of this chapter has been to contextualise the assemblages included in the study in order to provide an expansive framework on to which the following results can be considered. The chapter has explored the physical context of the assemblages; the structural tectonics and spatial qualities of the tombs themselves and how the correlative relationship between sites and content (artefacts) has shaped interpretations. The historical context of the archaeological investigations has also been addressed, acknowledging the temporal extent of investigations, from antiquarian exploration to modern excavations. Appreciating this context is key to understanding how the assemblages appear today (are presented for analysis) and the impact upon the possibilities and limitations of analysis.

6.7.6 Summary While recognised as a sophisticated passage grave with a strong resemblance to other Maeshowe-type tombs such as Quanterness and Quoyness, the disturbance that occurred in the 19th century imposes limitations on any subsequent interpretations. The human remains that have survived to the present day cannot be confidently linked to specific locations within the tomb. The lack of dating evidence in relation to the initial use of the tomb also restricts more detailed interpretations and uncertainty over coexistence

With the ‘scene set’, the following chapter presents the first part of the results, focusing upon the quantitative aspects of the investigation.

72

Chapter 7

Results: Quantification and Representation of Skeletal Remains 7.1 Introduction

(Minimum Number of Individuals, MNI). This, initial process, is essential as it provides a meaningful benchmark that facilitates a range of further inquiries and will inform final interpretations.

The methods outlined in Chapter 5 were applied to the six Orcadian sites detailed in Chapter 6 (see Fig. 6.1), namely: • • • • • •

Quanterness, Mainland Quoyness, Sanday Point of Cott, Westray Pierowall Quarry, Westray Isbister, South Ronaldsay Cuween Hill, Mainland

7.2.1 Quanterness NISP and Minimum Number of Individuals In Chesterman’s (1979, 97) original analysis of Quanterness, he stated there were roughly 12,600 fragments of human bone present, representing a minimum of 157 individuals. One of the first tasks of this analysis was to verify this information. Knowing that the human body consists of approximately 156 individual bones for neonate/infants, 332 for juveniles and 206 individual bones for adults (see Section 5.8.1) this would imply a potential figure of 39,654 individual bones should have been deposited within the tomb (summarised in Table 7.1). As such, the figure of 12,600 indicates that less than 32 per cent of what potentially should have been present within the tomb was recovered. However, the reanalysis presented here has actually revealed the occurrence of 9,006 human specimens within the collection (Table. 7.1). A further 500 fragments of faunal remains and 967 unidentifiable human bones were also recovered.

This chapter presents the results of the first stage of analysis undertaken as part of this project. This initial stage was concerned with understanding how many individuals may be represented by the assemblages studied, and how those individuals are represented in each assemblage. For clarity, these processes have been subdivided into a series of categories that reflect the nature of the analysis undertaken: • Calculation of the Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) • Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) • Skeletal Element Representation (SER) • Comparison of the skeletal element representation of the Orcadian sites to each other and to control sites • Representation according to zones.

As stated above, Chesterman had originally suggested an MNI of 157 individuals but the rationale behind his determination is problematic. He calculated an MNI value for each area of the tomb, using different skeletal elements across each age category, before adding them together to gain an overall MNI (Chesterman 1979, 98–99). In an assemblage of commingled remains this will invariably lead to an overestimation of the MNI (Lawrence 2006).

In order to ease comprehension of the results, much of the data is presented as summary graphs and tables, the raw data for which may be found in Appendix 3. Whilst some initial interpretation is presented, detailed discussion and interpretation of the results is reserved for Chapter 10. As suggested previously (Section 5.4), a key aspect of the analytical approach used in this project is the ‘zonation’ method; an illustrative reference of the zones for each bone type can be found in Appendix 2.

Calculation of the MNI for commingled remains is already challenging, without the added issue of high levels of fragmentation. In order to meet this challenge, consideration of the zones present was made concurrently with analysis of the most frequently recurring anatomical portion of bone. This approach was intended to further reduce the possibility of the same element being counted twice. The process in calculating MNI, with consideration of the zones, is detailed below using the data from Quanterness as an illustration. This approach has been utilised for all sites presented to ensure comparability of the data.

7.2 Quantifying the Material The first stage of analysis, outlined in Section 5.8.1, involved the establishment of a more comprehensive understanding of how much material is present in each assemblage (Number of Identified Specimens, NISP) and how many individuals this material could represent

73

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Table 7.1 Summary of the original MNI calculated by Chesterman, the theoretical NISP this would produce and the actual NISP Site

Suggested MNI

Potential NISP

Actual NISP

Quanterness

157

Total = 39,654

9,006

Infants (10 x 156) Child and Juvenile (62 x 332) Adults (85 x 206)

Figure 7.1 Count of 3rd Metatarsal from Quanterness in calculation of MNI for each zone category showing lefts and rights.

2

2

3

3

1

1

Figure 7.2 Dorsal view (left) and plantar view (right) of the foot, showing the 3rd metatarsal (highlighted) with zones indicated (adapted from Knüsel & Outram, 2004, 93).

74

Results: Quantification and Representation of Skeletal Remains remaining age category was also calculated and the results are summarised in Table 7.2.

The data from Quanterness indicated that the right 3rd metatarsal (foot bone) (Fig. 7.1 & 7.2) provided the highest possible MNI of 51. The calculation accounted for the zones represented. The MNI was composed of 28 bones with Zones 1, 2 and 3 and 23 bones with Zones 1 and 3. The bones with just Zones 2 and 3 were discounted as they could duplicate with those of Zones 1 and 3. Therefore, the MNI was the sum of the Zones 1, 2, 3 and Zones 1 and 3 categories. This process is summarised in Figure 7.1.

Therefore, the new Minimum Number of Individuals for Quanterness is 59, calculated from the sum of the categories as shown in Table 7.3. This new figure evidently has an impact on our understanding of the quantity of bone recovered from Quanterness. A crude indication of the difference is illustrated by calculating the percentage of recovered bone against what may be expected, assuming the MNI represented complete skeletons (neonate/infant 156 bones; child and sub adult 332 bones; adults 206 bones (Lewis 2007, 26)). This new figure of 59 individuals suggests a better level of recovery (69 per cent of potential) than the original figure of 157 (22.7 per cent of potential) provided by Chesterman (1979) (Table 7.4). Whilst these

This MNI of 51 incorporates the age categories of adults and children as defined in Table 5.10 of Chapter 5 (9 children; 42 adults). However, other age categories (neonate; infant; sub adult) were also identified at Quanterness. An accurate MNI needs to incorporate all the identified age categories in order to be comprehensive. The element with the highest recurring portion for each

Table 7.2 Summary of the MNI calculated for each age category present at Quanterness Age

Element

Side

MNI

Neonate

Pelvis

Left

2

Infant

Humerus

Left

5

Sub Adult

Tibia

Right

1

Table 7.3 Summary of final age categories for calculation of the total MNI for Quanterness Age

Element

Side

MNI

Neonate

Pelvis

Left

2

Infant

Humerus

Left

5

Juvenile

Tibia

Right

1

Adult/child

Metacarpal 3

Right

51

Total MNI

59

Table 7.4 Summary of the original and revised MNI and the subsequent impact upon the recovery rate for the Quanterness assemblage Site

MNI

Potential NISP

Actual NISP

% of potential NISP recovered

Quanterness (Original)

157

39,654

9,006

22.7

Quanterenss (Revised)

59

Total = 13,064

9,006

69

Neonate and infants (7 x 156) Child and Juvenile (10 x 332) Adult (42 x 206)

75

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney initial results have demonstrated a reduction in the volume of material from Quanterness, 9,006 identifiable bone fragments is still a significant sample size. Furthermore, it should be noted that Quanterness was not excavated in its entirety, suggesting the actual quantity of bone (and potential MNI) could well be much higher.

(Wells 1954, 138). The revised MNI of 13 correlates well with the original estimate and was derived on the basis of the information shown in Table 7.5. Assuming each individual is represented by a full skeleton, the NISP is found to represent only 9 per cent of the potential bones present (Table 7.6).

7.2.2 Quoyness NISP and Minimum Number of Individuals

7.2.3 Point of Cott NISP and Minimum Number of Individuals

A total of 275 bones were available for analysis from Quoyness (the crania originally examined by Thurnam were not). Of these, 17 were on display at the National Museum of Scotland, Edinburgh, and these were observed while in their display cases and recorded in as much detail as possible. All bones were identified to skeletal element, but it was not possible to record their fragment sizes or inspect them for any signs of modification or fracture types. The minimum number of individuals from Quoyness was originally thought to be between 12 and 15

Barber (1997) stated that more than 600 fragments of disarticulated human bone were recovered from the site and a minimum number of 13 individuals were represented. At the time of study, 475 fragments were available for study (the short-fall could not be located). Of these, 23 were unidentified. Based on the extant remains, a MNI of nine individuals was calculated (Table 7.7). Assuming each individual is represented by a full skeleton the NISP is found to represent 25 per cent of the potential bones present (Table 7.8).

Table 7.5 Summary of final age categories for calculation of the total MNI for Quoyness Age

Element

Side

MNI

Child

Calcaneus

R

1

Juvenile

Humerus

R

2

Adult

Humerus

L

10

Total

13

Table 7.6 Figures demonstrating the size of the assemblage as a percentage of what could potentially have been recovered Site

MNI

Potential NISP

Actual NISP

% of Potential NSIP Recovered

Quoyness

13

Total = 3056

275

9

Child and Juvenile (3 x 332) Adult (10 x 206)

Table 7.7 Summary of final age categories for calculation of the total MNI for Point of Cott Age

Element

Side

MNI

Neonate

Clavicle

R

2

Infant

Clavicle

R

2

Child

Pelvis

UN

1

Juvenile

Humerus

L

1

Adult

Clavicle

R

3

Total

9

76

Results: Quantification and Representation of Skeletal Remains 7.2.4 Pierowall Quarry NISP and Minimum Number of Individuals

of 475 bones was examined for this study. Two skeletons, known as the ‘Door Keeper’ and ‘Sarah Jane’, were examined in addition to all the humeri (only one element was unidentified). Previously analysed by Chesterman (1983), Isbister’s MNI has recently been revised by Lawrence (2006, 55) using the same zonation method applied here. In this instance, an MNI of 85 was derived based on the left temporal bone of the cranium. As with Quanterness, it is notable that the revised MNI dramatically alters the interpretation of the amount of bone recovered (Table 7.11). In both cases, the NISP figures more closely resemble the revised MNIs, strongly suggesting this is a more accurate reflection of the numbers of individuals recovered from these tombs.

Some 212 fragments of bone were recovered from Pierowall Quarry, of which ten were unidentified. A minimum number of eight individuals were derived from a count of right femurs (Table 7.9). This included adults and children. Assuming each individual is represented by a full skeleton, the NISP is found to represent 12 per cent of the potential bones present (Table 7.10). 7.2.5 Isbister NISP and Minimum Number of Individuals Of the 16,000 strong assemblage from Isbister, a sample

Table 7.8 Figures demonstrating the size of the assemblage as a percentage of what could potentially have been recovered Site

MNI

Potential NISP

Actual NISP

% of Potential NSIP Recovered

Point of Cott

9

Total = 1906

475

25%

Neonate and Infant (4 x 156) Child and Juvenile (2 x 332) Adult (3 x 206)

Table 7.9 Summary of final age categories for calculation of the total MNI for Pierowall Quarry Age

Element

Side

MNI

Child

Femur

R

1

Adult

Femur

R

7

Total

8

Table 7.10 Figures demonstrating the size of the assemblage as a percentage of what could potentially have been recovered Site

MNI

Potential NISP

Actual NISP

% of Potential NSIP Recovered

Pierowall Quarry

8

Total = 1774

212

12%

Child (1 x 332) Adult (7 x 206)

Table 7.11 Summary of the difference the revised MNI makes to the recovered Isbister assemblage Site

MNI

Potential NISP

Actual NISP

% of Potential Recovered

Isbister (Original)

342

70,452 (342x206)

16,000

22.7

Isbister (Revised)

85

17,510 (85x206)

16,000

91.3

77

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 7.2.6 Cuween Hill NISP and Minimum Number of Individuals

tombs, but proving unsuitable for analysis due to its poor state of preservation.

Only seven fragments of bone were available for analysis from Cuween Hill (Table 7.12), and five of these were perceptibly from individual crania. The other two fragments were from right femurs. The MNI was readily calculated from the crania, giving a figure of five. It was noted in the original report by Charleson (1902, 733) that a further three crania were also discovered although these were not available for this study – he was unable to curate them as they ‘crumbled away when touched’. This is not the first instance of bone having been recognised in the

7.2.7 Summary Table 7.13 summarises the information for all sites outlined above. Isbister has been excluded as only a small sample of the assemblage was analysed and is, therefore, not directly comparable in this instance. From this initial assessment of NISP and MNI, Quanterness is clearly distinct (Fig. 7.3), presenting a much greater volume of material than any of the other sites. It should be remembered that the current figures for Quanterness

Table 7.12 Summary of the difference the revised MNI makes to the recovered Isbister assemblage Site

MNI

Expected NISP

Actual NISP

% of potential recovered

Cuween Hill

5

Total = 1,030

7

0.6%

Adult (5 x 206)

Table 7.13 Summary of MNI information for the Orcadian sites Site

MNI

Potential Fragments

Actual Fragments

NISP

% of Potential NISP Present

Unidentified Fragments

Quanterness

59

13,064

10,359

9326

69

1,033

Quoyness

13

3,056

275

275

9

0

Point of Cott

9

1,906

450

427

25

23

Pierowall Quarry 8

1,774

212

202

12

10

Cuween Hill

1,030

7

7

0.6

0

5

Figure 7.3 Bone present as a percentage of the potential NISP for each site. 78

Results: Quantification and Representation of Skeletal Remains 4.12.3, funerary rites involving the relocation of human remains will inevitably result in the loss of the smaller bones of the hands and feet. Taking the 50 per cent level as a threshold, the crania, in particular, are very well represented. Skeletal elements of the upper body are better represented than the lower body. The clavicles are also in reasonable abundance at over 50 per cent, as are the scapulae. Metacarpals are more abundant than carpals. Proximal phalanges are more abundant than intermediate phalanges, which are more abundant than distal phalanges. This is a similar pattern of preservation to that outlined by Bello & Andrews (2006, 3–5) for medieval and postmedieval inhumation burials.

are not based on a complete excavation, and the true figure is most likely even higher. 7.3 Skeletal Element Representation (SER) The purpose of analysing skeletal element representation is to gain a more detailed understanding of the skeletal profile (bones present and in what quantities) of the assemblages. Establishing such profiles is vital in discerning anomalies (and normalities) that may give insight into how the assemblages have been formed. The skeletal element representation is calculated as the proportion (expressed as a percentage) of an element present compared with what would be expected if the MNI represented whole skeletons. The proportion of each element present is calculated as the Minimum Number of Elements (MNE). The MNE for each element and site is summarised in table form in Appendix 3. The skeletal element representation will be examined, initially, in general for each site and then in more detail for all the sites to compare the preservation of zones. According to studies by Bello & Andrews (2006, 3), values over 50 per cent are considered to have good representation. The percentage present for each site is illustrated in bar chart form; the raw data may be viewed in Appendix 3.

However, bones that are generally considered to be more susceptible to a low survivorship in the archaeological record are also well represented (over 50 per cent) such as the sterna and sacrum. The observation in the medieval and post-medieval populations of proximal limb bones being better represented than distal limb bones (e.g. humeri better represented than radii and ulnae) is reversed here. Furthermore, the patellae, cited as underrepresented in the medieval populations, are clearly in abundance in this assemblage. Hand phalanges are better represented than the foot phalanges. However tarsals are better represented than the metatarsals. This may well be connected to the larger size of the tarsals. It is noteworthy that given the survival of less dense and more fragile bones such as the sacrum, the femur representation is relatively low. Of particular note is the presence of the small and delicate hyoid and distal phalanges. This is not only an indication of the good general levels of preservation, but is also due to the excavation techniques used (sieving).

7.3.1 Quanterness Skeletal Element Representation Figure 7.3 demonstrates that all elements of the human skeleton are represented at Quanterness. This representation is significant as it supports the hypothesis that whole bodies were interred. As discussed in Section

Figure 7.4 Skeletal element representation at Quanterness. This is calculated as the percentage of the MNI represented by the MNE. 79

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney corresponds fittingly with the revised MNI of 13. Therefore, to present the most accurate reflection of the remains recovered from this tomb, and subsequently the skeletal representation, the decision was made to adjust the representation to include these original crania. Therefore, the cranial MNE count is estimated to be 13 and, as a result, the representation is considered to be 100 per cent (Fig. 7.7).

A large number of loose teeth were present within the assemblage. Those that were identified to type are summarised in Fig. 7.5 for the adult teeth and in Fig. 7.6 for the deciduous teeth. It is difficult to make many inferences about the teeth and how they may relate to original numbers of individuals originally within the tomb. The teeth were not found to influence the MNI. Isolated teeth may have been liberated from some of the maxillae and mandibles present in the current assemblage and many were recovered during sieving – as a result, many of the teeth lack contextual information. Further detail of the dentition, as identified to Left and Right, may be found within Appendix 5.

Quoyness does not have the full range of skeletal elements, as observed at Quanterness, with many of the smaller bones of the hands and feet absent. However, the presence of some of the smaller bones of the hands and feet, even in small numbers, could support the hypothesis that whole bodies were interred. As with Quanterness, crania are well represented. Mandibles, whilst well represented in the medieval and post-medieval (control) populations, are completely absent. However, it is likely that mandibles were originally present within the tomb. Farrer (1870,

7.3.2 Quoyness Skeletal Element Representation Although unavailable for study, the record of cranial fragments representing between 12¬–15 individuals of all ages (Childe 1952, 122) from the original excavations,

Figure 7.5 Summary of the numbers of adult loose teeth identified to type at Quanterness. Maxillary and mandibular counts are shown.

Figure 7.6 Summary of the numbers of deciduous loose teeth identified to type at Quanterness. Maxillary and mandibular counts are shown.

80

Results: Quantification and Representation of Skeletal Remains 7.3.3 Point of Cott Skeletal Element Representation

400) noted that ‘skulls and jaws’ were present in one of the side cells, and further comment is made on their condition by Thurnam (Farrer 1870, 400). Therefore the apparent absence of mandibles at Quoyness must be considered as an artefact of preservation. Clavicles and scapulae are present, although in low numbers. Arm bones have a low representation, but do follow Bello & Andrew’s (2006, 4) observation that humeri are usually better represented than radii and ulnae. Smaller bones of the hands and feet are almost completely absent. However, a proximal foot phalange and a small number of metacarpals and metatarsals are present. In contrast to Quanterness, the pelvis and femur are much better represented, whereas the patellae are not.

It is evident from Figure 7.8 that not all skeletal elements are present and the majority of those completely absent fall into the small bone category. However, similarly to Quanterness and Quoyness, the presence of smaller bones does support the hypothesis of the interment of whole bodies. Crania are well represented at over 70 per cent. However, other bones, while present, have a poor overall representation. Bones that are relatively better represented include the mandible, femur, pelvis and clavicle. While the bones of the mandible, femur and clavicle are generally considered more robust, the pelvis is not (Bello & Andrews 2006, 4).

Figure 7.7 Skeletal element representation at Quoyness. This is calculated as the percentage of the MNI represented by the MNE.

Figure 7.8 Skeletal element representation at Point of Cott. This is calculated as the percentage of the MNI represented by the MNE.

81

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney A number of loose teeth were identified within the assemblage and are summarised in Figure 7.9. In addition to the adult teeth, there was one deciduous mandibular molar. Further details of the Point of Cott teeth, identified to Left and Right, may be found in Appendix 5.

sites. Femurs are very well represented, as is the sacrum. In fact, Pierowall has the best representation of femora of all the sites examined. In general, many of the smaller bones are absent, and of the remaining bones that are present, most have a low representation. However, as before, the presence of a number of the smaller bones of the hands and feet, would support a hypothesis of the interment of whole bodies.

7.3.4 Pierowall Quarry Skeletal Element Representation Figure 7.10 clearly shows that Pierowall Quarry is also lacking representation of every skeletal element. Crania are poorly represented, whilst mandibles are well represented, an occurrence that would seem to contrast with the other

A small number of isolated teeth were identified with the Pierowall Quarry assemblage. These have been summarised in Figure 7.11.

Figure 7.9 Summary of the numbers of adult loose teeth identified to type at Point of Cott. Maxillary and mandibular counts are shown.

Figure 7.10 Skeletal element representation at Pierowall Quarry. This is calculated as the percentage of the MNI represented by the MNE.

82

Results: Quantification and Representation of Skeletal Remains 7.3.5 Cuween Hill Skeletal Element Representation

7.4 Comparative Skeletal Representation

Figure 7.12 clearly illustrates the paucity of bone recovered from Cuween. Crania were very well represented; otherwise, the only long bones recorded were femora. This data evidently contrasts with all the other sites in terms of the range and volume of osseous material recovered, and has a representation profile that conforms with those usually cited for secondary burial.

One of the objectives of the analytical process undertaken on this research project was to discern patterns of preservation and, particularly, explore any anomalies that may shed light on possible deliberate anthropogenic manipulation of the bone assemblages. This approach is underpinned by the hypothesis, expressed by Waldron (1987) and subsequently supported by Bello & Andrews

Figure 7.11 Summary of the numbers of adult loose teeth identified to type at Pierowall Quarry. Maxillary and mandibular counts are shown.

Figure 7.12 Skeletal element representation at Cuween Hill. This is calculated as the percentage of the MNI represented by the MNE.

83

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney (2006, 9) that the relative (that is to say the relative decay of one bone element to another) survival of skeletal elements is dictated by the structural and morphological qualities of individual bones. By implication, this hypothesis means that, all things being equal, we would expect a consistent relative rate of decay. Graphically, this consistency produces a uniform profile that, theoretically, can be used as a benchmark (control) for comparative analysis of the Neolithic assemblages analysed here (see Fig. 4.2.)

with the Orcadian results in Fig.7.22. The information available for the non-Orkney sites included only the larger skeletal elements. It was therefore not possible to compare the representation of smaller bones (such as hand and foot bones) between all the sites. 7.4.1 Comparison of General Skeletal Representation between Orcadian Sites

Element

From the sites plotted (Fig. 7.13), it is immediately apparent that Quanterness is distinct from the others, both in the volume of material and in the fact that every element from the body is represented. It is possible that this phenomenon has at least partly been influenced by excavation technique – Quanterness was sieved, which led to a higher recovery rate of smaller bones. While Quoyness, Point of Cott and Quanterness have very good representation of cranial remains, they all have a comparative lack of mandible representation. As stated previously, the lack of mandible presence at Quoyness has been affected by issues of preservation and/or curation as this element is referred to in the original reports (Farrer 1879). Unfortunately, it is not possible to know how well the mandible was represented at Quoyness in comparison to the cranial remains. This representation contrasts with Pierowall Quarry, where mandibles are well represented. Pierowall Quarry is also distinguished in its representation of femora; this presence further underlines the relatively low representation of femora at Quanterness. Another feature of note is the presence of patellae at Quanterness. Here the representation is excellent, in significant contrast to the poorer representation at the other sites. There is a notable similarity between the skeletal representation at the sites of Quoyness and Point of Cott. This is best illustrated in Fig. 7.17.

The first stage of comparative analysis is to explore potential associations and differences between the Orcadian collections. This approach allows an opportunity to compare the unique characteristics of each assemblage before ascertaining any notions of ‘normality’ in correlation with the control assemblages. In order to achieve this comparative analysis, the skeletal element representations from the Orcadian sites have been amalgamated into a single chart (Fig. 7.13). Cuween Hill was omitted as only two bone types were present (crania and femora). Isbister has also been omitted as the sample investigated would not be a true reflection of the relative variation of its skeletal presence, thereby skewing the data. In the following section, the SER profiles for each site are compared (Figs. 7.14 – 7.19). The skeletal elements utilised at this stage intentionally match those used by Bello & Andrews (2006). This format facilitates the subsequent comparison of the Orcadian sites with the six medieval and post-medieval control sites. The data is presented in Figure 7.20. For clarity, the site information from Bello & Andrews (2006, 4) is shown as dotted trend lines; the sites from Orkney are solid and are always shown in the same colours.

Comparison of the SER profiles on a site-to-site basis (Figs. 7.14–7.19) appears to demonstrate a lack of agreement between Quanterness and the other assemblages. Rather surprisingly, given the different tomb types, Quoyness and Point of Cott followed very similar, often over-lapping trend-lines in relative skeletal representation.

Similar research into skeletal element representation at three Neolithic sites in Ireland, allows further comparison of the Orcadian sites with tombs that are both temporally and architecturally comparable. These results are plotted

Table 7.14 Details of the three medieval and post-medieval Christian cemeteries analysed used for comparison to the Orkney sites (reproduced from Bello and Andrews 2009, 2, with permission) Site

Period

Location

Notes

No. Individuals

St. Estève Le Pont

8 Century

France

Cemetery

84

Hauture

11th-12th Century

France

Cemetery

112

St. Maximin

12th-13th Century

France

Cemetery

68

Fèdons

1590

France

Bubonic Plague Cemetery

133

Observance

1722

France

Bubonic Plague Mass Grave

179

Spitalfields

1729-1857

London

Crypt

369

th

84

Figure 7.13 Comparison of skeletal representation for the Orkney sites of Quanterness, Quoyness, Pierowall Quarry and Point of Cott.

Results: Quantification and Representation of Skeletal Remains

85

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Figure 7.14 Comparison of skeletal element representation between Quanterness and Quoyness.

Figure 7.15 Comparison of skeletal element representation between Quanterness and Point of Cott.

Figure 7.16 Comparison of skeletal element representation between Quanterness and Pierowall Quarry.

86

Results: Quantification and Representation of Skeletal Remains

Figure 7.17 Comparison of skeletal element representation between Quoyness and Point of Cott.

Figure 7.18 Comparison of skeletal element representation between Point of Cott and Pierowall Quarry.

Figure 7.19 Comparison of skeletal element representation between Pirowall Quarry and Quoyness.

87

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 7.4.2 Comparison of General Skeletal Element Representation between Orcadian Sites and Medieval Sites

line, median = 50th percentile), and third quartile (75th percentile; top box). The whiskers extend to the most extreme data point, which is no more than ‘range’ times the inter-quartile range from the box. Range is 1.5 by default in ‘R’. In other words, the whiskers extend to the most extreme data point that is no more than 1.5 times the length of the box, away from the box. It is immediately clear from Figure 7.24 that the Orcadian sites have less in common with the medieval, post-medieval and Irish Neolithic sites, than the latter groups have with each other.

From Figure 7.20 the unusual nature of the very high representation of the patella at Quanterness becomes even more apparent as it is the only site, including the medieval inhumation cemeteries, to have such prevalence. Pierowall Quarry and Quanterness do not have any similarity in their trend lines with those from the medieval sites. Closer inspection reveals that there is a similarity in the trajectory of the trend lines between the medieval sites of St. Maximin and Hauture with the Orcadian sites of Quoyness and Point of Cott. For clarity, these four sites have been shown separately in Figure 7.21, where it is clear that despite differences in the level of skeletal representation, the trend lines are indeed strikingly similar. This is especially true for Point of Cott. Quoyness has more in common with St. Maximin, while Point of Cott has more in common with Hauture. It should be noted that both of these medieval sites are inhumation cemeteries. The similarity in relative skeletal element representation would therefore imply that the remains from these two Orcadian sites represent the deposition of whole bodies in the tombs. It may also suggest that the large difference in the presence of mandibles compared to crania at the Orkney sites is an anomaly that may not be wholly explained by differences in preservation.

This may be seen more clearly in Figure 7.24 where the sites have been grouped together. In this particular summary diagram, the notches in the middle of the boxes indicate similarities between the groups of data. If the notches of two plots do not overlap then the medians are significantly different at the 5 percent level. The widths of the boxes now indicate the sample size for each group (the widths are proportional to the square root of the number of observations in each box). This diagram clearly shows that the ‘medieval’ group and the ‘Ireland’ group are similar to each other, and significantly different from the ‘Orkney’ group. These results were further analysed utilising a t-test (also performed by the ‘R’ program). This was to test the null hypothesis that the means between the populations are similar. The alternative hypothesis was therefore that the means are not similar. The p values derived are:

7.4.3 Comparison of General Skeletal Element Representation between Orcadian Sites and Irish Sites

• Ireland group vs. Medieval group: means not different (p = -.7228) • Ireland group vs. Orkney group: means different (p = 4.97e-10) • Orkney group vs. Medieval group: means different (p = 2.2e-12) • Orkney group vs. Medieval + Ireland group: means different (p = 3.77e-13) • Quanterness vs. Medieval + Ireland: means different (p= .01516)

Comparison of the Orcadian sites with the Irish sites is illustrated in Fig. 7.22. Again, the Orcadian sites are shown as solid lines, the Irish sites are broken lines. As with the medieval sites, profiles of the Irish sites show a very good representation of the mandible, whereas the Orcadian sites (apart from Pierowall Quarry) do not. In contrast to the medieval sites, the Irish sites, in a similar way to Quanterness, have very good representation of the patella. Trend lines for Point of Cott have the most in common with the trend lines for Parknabinnia, but only in terms of the upper part of the body (excluding the crania and mandible). Parknabinnia, which has been argued to represent the deposition of whole bodies (Beckett & Robb 2006, 63), also fits suitably with the representation of the medieval sites.

The p values confirm that the figures from the ‘Medieval’ group of sites and the ‘Ireland’ group of sites are not significantly different to each other. The mean of the ‘Orkney’ group is significantly different to the other groups. This was also tested for just Quanterness against the other two groups as it had the greatest volume of bone and the level of recovery of bone had been high. This also produced p values that do not support the null hypothesis.

7.4.4 Statistical Analysis As outlined in Section 5.15, descriptive statistics, specifically box-and-whisker plots, were employed in order to further compare the SER results from the Orcadian material to data available from Bello & Andrews’ (2006) medieval and post-medieval sites, and Beckett & Robb’s (2006) Irish Neolithic sites. The results are presented according to their separate sites in Figure 7.23 and are grouped in Figure 7.24. The boxes contain the first quartile (25th percentile; bottom box), second quartile (bold

These results are intended as a summary of the SER data from the sites under investigation. It is interesting that despite the apparent differences between the Orcadian sites and the ‘control’ sites, when examined in greater detail, some similarities in SER trends (such as Fig. 7.21) have been identified. This perhaps highlights the challenges when conducting statistical tests on data of this nature.

88

Figure 7.20 Comparison of the relative skeletal representation of the Orkney sites to medieval and post medieval sites (medieval and post-med data after Bello & Andrews 2006, 4).

Results: Quantification and Representation of Skeletal Remains

89

90

(medieval data after Bello & Andrews 2006, 4).

Figure 7.21 Comparison of the skeletal relative skeletal representation of the Orkney of Point of Cott and Quoyness to the medieval sites of St. Maximin and Hauture

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Figure 7.22 Comparison of the relative skeletal representation for the Orkney sites to the Irish Neolithic sites (Irish data adapted from Beckett & Robb 2006, 64).

Results: Quantification and Representation of Skeletal Remains

91

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Figure 7.23 Box plots comparing SER data from the various sites.

Figure 7.24 Box plots comparing data from sites as groups.

92

Results: Quantification and Representation of Skeletal Remains 7.4.5 Summary

3. The diagrams with corresponding zone locations may be found in Appendix 2. As only a small sample of Isbister was examined, this data has been excluded from the following results. This is because the sample does not provide an accurate reflection of the Isbister assemblage. However, the results of the crania at Isbister have been initially included to demonstrate the bias that may occur (Fig. 7.23). All the humeri from Isbister were examined; therefore the humeri results have been included in the relevant section (Section 7.5.4). The results from Cuween also involve very small numbers, but these are included as they represent a whole assemblage, rather than a sample.

At this stage of investigation, there would appear to be some similarities in the skeletal representation between the sites of Point of Cott and Quoyness, particularly for the arm bones. These sites in turn have some similarities with the medieval inhumation sites. Further comparison with Neolithic sites, investigated using a similar methodology, in Ireland, indicates some similarity between Point of Cott and the site of Parknabinnia, a site which has been previously argued to demonstrate the deposition of whole bodies (Beckett & Robb 2006, 63). The Quoyness profile does not follow Parknabinnia to the same extent as Point of Cott.

7.5.1 Crania (Zones Shown in Appendix 2)

While it is clear that useful information can be derived from this form of analysis, it is difficult to account for any specific differences in representation. How much is due to differences in preservation patterns, and how much is due to anthropogenic intervention? This issue is addressed in the next section (Section 7.5).

Initial analysis, summarised in Figure (7.13), demonstrated that the representation of the cranium at almost all the sites is generally excellent; being well over 50 per cent. Pierowall Quarry stands out as being very under-represented. Is this apparently excellent preservation reflected under more detailed scrutiny of individual areas of the cranium? As the crania examined by Thurnam were not available, the zones for Quoyness are derived solely from the fragments that were available. For this reason, unfortunately, no accurate inference may be derived from the Quoyness cranial material. The work of Bello & Andrews (2006, 3) illustrated that, while the cranium was generally well represented in their ‘control’ samples, the facial bones were poorly represented. This observation seems to be reflected in the preservation pattern shown in Figure 7.25, where Zones 8–15 represent the facial bones. The overrepresentation of bones relating to the calvaria is most logically explained in relation to its shape and size leading to high fragmentation (Bello & Andrews 2006, 3). Isbister presents a clear illustration of this, and has been included to illustrate this phenomenon (Fig. 7.25). Isbister’s small sample size in this instance provided an MNE of only two (based on the temporal bone). Therefore, if three fragments of the frontal bone (Zone 1 or 2) were counted, this would provide an over representation of that zone. Similarly for the parietal bone (Zone 3 or 4), a count of eight fragments creates an abnormally high representation. Figure 7.26 illustrates the zone representation for the crania, with Isbister removed.

7.5 Representation of Each Element by Zone for All Sites As illustrated in the previous section, the importance of understanding SER is to gain a more detailed understanding of the skeletal profile of the assemblages – these profiles, in-turn, allow comparative analysis between sites in order to formulate hypotheses. This analytical approach can be explored with a greater level of detail by incorporating the data obtained whilst utilising the zonation method. Recording the individual zones present on each bone allows a more detailed comparison of bone preservation between the sites. This complex level of analysis permits exploration of potential over or under-representation in the data. For example, several of the Orcadian sites show an excellent representation of cranial remains, but does this mean similar parts of each bone are represented? Differences in preservation across bones and sites could more accurately indicate the possibility that different natural or anthropogenic agents are at work. The results of this analysis are presented for the main skeletal elements in charts below. Results for smaller bones, such as vertebrae and carpals, are summarised in this section, but may be found in more detail in Appendix 5 (Section 5.2).

It is interesting to note that, at Quanterness, the representation of the frontal bones (Zones 1 and 2) is poor, especially in comparison to the rest of the bones that comprise the calavaria. However, as suggested by Bello & Andrews (2006, 3) this relatively poor representation may be due to the connection of the frontal bone with the facial bones. The most striking observation is the similarity of representation between Point of Cott and Quanterness in Zones 5–15. This observation is of particular interest when it is considered that the similarity in preservation pattern is not reflected in a similarity in skeletal representation (see Fig. 7.13). The over-representation of parietal fragments (Zones 3 and 4) and occipital (Zone 5) for Quanterness

The representation of zones has been calculated in a similar way to the skeletal representation in that the maximum count for each zone was calculated as a percentage of the figure that would be (theoretically) expected if the MNI related to complete skeletons. For instance, the count for Zone 1 of the clavicle for Quanterness is 71, including lefts and rights. The MNI for Quanterness is 59 individuals. Therefore, the representation is the count of Zone 1 divided by the expected number (118 to include lefts and rights) multiplied by 100 to give an overall percentage. The raw data for these charts is presented in table form in Appendix

93

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney and Point of Cott suggests high levels of fragmentation for these elements. High fragmentation may also be implied for the frontal bones (Zones 1 and 2) from Point of Cott where there is an over-representation, in contrast to Quanterness, where these zones are under-represented. Pierowall has very little in the way of cranial remains, an observation that is supported by the generally low

representation of all the zones, although there is a rise in the parietal (Zone 3, 4) and occipital (Zone 5) fragments. As demonstrated by the Isbister example, this occurrence is most likely related to the susceptibility of these portions of bone to fragmentation. Cuween follows a different trend, probably reflecting the greater completeness of the calvaria in comparison to the other sites.

Figure 7.25 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. With Isbister.

Figure 7.26 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. Without Isbister.

94

Results: Quantification and Representation of Skeletal Remains 7.5.2 Mandible (Zones Shown in Appendix 2)

7.5.3 Scapula (Zones Shown in Appendix 2)

Bello & Andrews (2006, 4) state that in their inhumation cemeteries sample, the body of the mandible, especially the area between the two mental foramina (Zone 1, 2 and 7), was generally better preserved than the rami (Zone 3–6). Figure 7.27 demonstrates that Quanterness and Pierowall Quarry possess a clear similarity in relative survival of the different zones, emulating the pattern observed by Bello & Andrews (ibid.). This observation is of particular interest as they actually differ in terms of MNE representation by approximately 20 per cent, with Pierowall Quarry having a higher MNE than Quanterness (Fig. 7.13). This strongly suggests the difference in skeletal representation of the mandible at these sites is unlikely to be influenced by different preservation environments. The Point of Cott mandibles exhibit little variation in the relative representation of each zone, although there is an agreement with Quanterness for the Zone 4 values (coronoid process).

The scapula is generally considered a poorly preserved bone due to the fragility of the sub-scapular fossa (Russell 1987). However, in the medieval skeletons, representation was found to be good, most likely due to the survival of the more robust parts of the bone, i.e. the acromion process (Zone 4), the coracoid process (Zone 1) and the lateral border by the infraglenoid tubercle (Zone 5) (Bello & Andrews 2006, 4). This scenario was not the case for the Orcadian assemblage. Apart from Quanterness, the scapula was found to be poorly represented (Fig. 7.13). However, Figure 7.28 demonstrates that while there is variation between the assemblages, those of Quanterness and Quoyness do seem to follow a similar pattern of relative preservation across the zones. These sites are not comparable in terms of the MNE representation (Fig. 7.13). Zone 1 (coracoid process) is under-represented at all of the sites, most feasibly due to its small size. A general peak at Zone 7 is most likely due to this zone’s large area

Figure 7.27 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

Figure 7.28 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

95

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 11), the zones for Isbister and Quoyness have generated strikingly similar trend lines. There is little agreement between Quanterness and Quoyness. Point of Cott and Quanterness follow almost identical trend lines in relation to the diaphysis (Zones 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11) and the proximal articulation (Zone 1 and 2). The main difference in the relative preservation of bones across the assemblages is focused upon the distal articulation (Zone 3, 4, 5 and 6). However, Quanterness, Pierowall and Point of Cott have almost identical representation for the medial epicondyle (Zone 4). The similarities and overlaps in trend lines do not reflect the variation in the overall representation of this element between the sites.

and susceptibility to fragmentation. The lateral border of Zone 7 is also relatively straightforward to identify to zone. There is an overlap for Quanterness, Quoyness and Point of Cott at the Zone 6 and Zone 8 points. Point of Cott and Pierowall Quarry illustrate a lower level of fluctuation between the zones – this may be connected to their generally low representation at the MNE level (Fig. 7.13). 7.5.4 Humerus (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) According to the general skeletal representation, the humerus is well represented at Quanterness (over 50 per cent) and Isbister (over 80 per cent). Conversely, the other sites have lower representation. According to Bello & Andrews (2006, 3–5), the diaphysis (Zones 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11) was the best-preserved portion when fragmentation (of the humerus) had occurred in their medieval and post-medieval assemblages. This occurrence is not convincingly demonstrated for the Orcadian sites. Figure 7.29 illustrates that while there is some divergence relating to the proximal third of the humerus (Zones 1, 2 and

7.5.5 Radius (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) The radius was found to be very well represented at Quanterness, and poorly represented at Quoyness, Point of Cott and Pierowall Quarry (Fig. 7.13). Quoyness and Point of Cott share similar representation values across the zones. At the level of zone representation, Figure 7.30 indicates further evidence of the similarities between Quoyness and

Figure 7.29 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

Figure 7.30 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

96

Results: Quantification and Representation of Skeletal Remains Point of Cott. The similarity and over-lapping of the trend lines for these two sites further strengthens a hypothesis that this skeletal element may have been subject to similar taphonomic processes at both locations. Despite the obvious difference in the level of representation, Quanterness does follow a reasonably similar profile in preservation across zones (although clearly skewed in relation to Zone 5). As suggested by Bello & Andrews (2006, 3–5), the main shaft of the long bone is generally better represented (Zones 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) than either of the articular ends (proximal Zones 1 and 2; distal Zones 3, 4 and J). This observation seems to be reflected in the data illustrated in Figure 7.30.

populations the pelvis is well represented, despite high levels of fragmentation. They also noted that the acetabulum (Zones 1–3) and the sciatic notch (Zone 5) were the best-preserved portions. The most obvious peak indicated in Fig. 7.32 for the pelvic zones is for the greater part of the illium (Zone 10). However, this zone is fragile and will often fracture into numerous pieces, leading to a possible bias in representation. While there is variation between the assemblages, there does seem to be some consistency in the relative preservation between the zones, in particular for Quanterness and Quoyness. Pierowall Quarry conforms less, but does exhibit agreement for several zones, including the more robust areas of the acetabulum (Zones 1 and 3) and sciatic notch (Zones 5). Point of Cott overlaps at several points with Quanterness (Zones 1, 3, and 11) and Pierowall Quarry (Zones 1, 5, 6 and 10). As stated previously, zones such as Zone 1 and Zone 5 are considered more robust; therefore similar survival rates could indicate similar preservation environments. This observation is of particular interest in light of the differential in skeletal representation between these sites.

7.5.6 Ulna (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) Quoyness, Pierowall Quarry and Point of Cott were found to share almost identical levels of representation for the ulna (Fig. 7.13). As with the other long bones, Bello & Andrews (2006, 4) observed that the diaphysis was the portion that survived the best in the medieval and postmedieval cemeteries. From Figure 7.31, the representation of Zone 3 (proximal half of the diaphysis) would seem to reflect this observation. Figure 7.31, also demonstrates that these three sites converge on three zone points; Zone C, the area of the trochlear notch; Zone F, the middle portion of the shaft; and Zone H, the distal half of the distal third of the shaft. Although Quanterness appears dissimilar, with much higher general levels of zone representation, it does appear to follow a very similar pattern in its trend line to the Point of Cott profile. This agreement is of particular interest as these two sites differ considerably in their general representation (MNE) of the ulna (Fig. 7.13).

7.5.8 Femur (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) Whilst the evidence, thus far, has demonstrated that Quanterness has good preservation for most elements, this was not the case for the femora. Indeed, Quanterness has the lowest representation of all the assemblages (Fig. 7.13). Conversely, Pierowall Quarry has excellent representation. The relative representation of the zones in Figure 7.33 suggests Pierowall Quarry is unusual as the only site with over-representation of zones relating to the diaphysis (Zone 6 and 7). This over-representation could imply these areas have suffered high levels of fragmentation. Zone 6 in particular accounts for a large portion of the diaphysis, potentially giving rise to an over-representation if this area has been subject

7.5.7 Pelvis (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) From the comparison of skeletal representation for the pelvis, none of the Orkney sites are in agreement. Bello & Andrews (2006, 4) reported that for the medieval

Figure 7.31 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

97

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney to fragmentation. Despite the divergent and seemingly erratic trend lines, there are some significant agreements. Point of Cott, Quanterness and Quoyness converge for the distal epiphysis (Zones 10 and 11). Additionally, these three sites, while not converging, follow a similar trajectory for the distal third of the diaphysis (7 and 8). Point of Cott and Quanterness also converge for Zones

2 and 3 (proximal portion). Pierowall Quarry is close to, or converges with, Quanterness for Zones 1, 4 and 5. Cuween was a very small assemblage (2 femur elements) yet demonstrates a strong similarity to Point of Cott in relation to Zones 4 and 5. Many of the agreements in zone representation occur for the more diagnostic portions of this skeletal element.

Figure 7.32 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

Figure 7.33 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

98

Results: Quantification and Representation of Skeletal Remains 7.5.9 Tibia (Zones Shown in Appendix 2)

7.5.10 Fibula (Zones Shown in Appendix 2)

Apart from Quoyness, where representation was good, the tibia had a low representation across all the Orcadian sites. In terms of zone representation (Fig. 7.34), there is a general consistency in the diaphysis portions (Zones 7–9) being better represented than the proximal (Zone 1, 2, 3, and 4) and distal (Zone 5 and 6) portions. This occurrence appears to subscribe to Bello & Andrews (2006, 4) observation that, when bones have been fragmented, the diaphysis tends to be better represented. The distal articulation and diaphysis (Zone 5 and 6 and 7, 8, 9, 10) has a much stronger representation at Quoyness than the proximal articulation (1, 2 and 3). At Point of Cott there is a low presence of both the proximal (Zone 1, 2 and 3) and distal (Zone 5 and 6) articulations. Pierowall Quarry had a very low skeletal representation for this element overall and this is reflected in the low zone representation here.

Bello & Andrews (2006, 4) state that for the medieval assemblages, the fibula usually appeared in a poorer state of preservation. The Orcadian sites would seem to reflect this observation with the greatest representation of the fibula from Quanterness only representing a value well under 50 per cent. Specifically regarding zone representation (Fig. 7.35), there is better presence of the distal epiphysis (Zone 2) than the proximal epiphysis (Zone 1). This difference is most likely due to the characteristics of the fibula, as the distal end is relatively more robust than the proximal end. The Orcadian sites would seem to follow a similar pattern in relative representation, with the diaphysis (Zones 3, 4, 5 and 6) having a fairly consistent presence. There were no fibulae recorded for Pierowall Quarry, and the Point of Cott is represented only by the distal end of the fibula (Zone 2 and 3).

Figure 7.34 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

Figure 7.35 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

99

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney the patella at Quanterness (Fig. 7.37) is striking not only in contrast to the Orcadian sites, but also to those of the medieval ‘control’ assemblages (see Fig. 7.20).

7.5.11 Sternum (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) In spite of its inherent fragility, due to the high proportion of cancellous bone, the sternum has been recorded for all the sites. Quanterness has the best preservation at over 50 per cent. Quanterness does, however, share a similar pattern of zone representation as Pierowall Quarry and Point of Cott (Fig. 7.36). Quoyness is noticeably different, with a greater representation of the manubrium (Zone 1) than the body (corpus sterni) or xiphoid (Zone 3). Only Quanterness had any record of this very delicate Zone 3 portion. Nevertheless, given the difference in skeletal representation between these sites, the similarity in the trajectory of the trend lines is striking.

7.5.13 Other Skeletal Elements Whilst the remaining, smaller skeletal elements are presented in full detail in Appendix 5 (Section 5.2), a few general observations may be noted. Although variation in overall presence was noted for the clavicles, they reflected the preservation patterns outlined by Bello & Andrews (2006, 3). The vertebrae from each site were found to follow similar patterns of zone representation to each other, with the more robust portions demonstrating the best survivorship. Carpals and tarsals were not divided into zones because of their small size. However, their generally poor representation is in agreement with the findings of Bello & Andrews (2006, 5). Metacarpals and metatarsals, when present, were found to reflect similar patterns of preservation across the sites. Comparative information for the ribs was not available from the medieval and

7.5.12 Patella (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) The patella, according to Bello & Andrews (2006, 4) is often under-represented in the medieval assemblages. Indeed, this is the case for most of the sites examined for this study. However, the prominent representation of

Figure 7.36 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

Figure 7.37 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. 100

Results: Quantification and Representation of Skeletal Remains post-medieval control sites. The ribs from Quanterness had the best general representation, with a distinct peak associated with the sternal end. Given the fragility of this portion of the rib, this is not an unexpected outcome. Overall, zone representation of these elements was found to be in agreement with observations made by Bello & Andrews (2006, 3–5) with more robust portions of the bones reflecting the best survivability. As with elements discussed in the preceding sections, a similarity in the patterns of bone preservation between the sites is evident.

medieval ‘control’ sites, thereby further supporting a hypothesis of the interment of whole bodies. • Point of Cott has a slight affinity with the Irish Neolithic site of Parknabinnia. • The Irish and Medieval and Post-Medieval ‘control’ sites do not show the discrepancy in representation of the cranium and mandible as observed in the Orcadian sites. Representation of each element by zone • Examination of the preservation patterns on particular skeletal elements, as intimated by the zone representation, demonstrates that the Orcadian remains have been subject to ‘normal’ taphonomic processes of decay, as established by Bello & Andrews (2006). • Several of the preservation patterns on particular skeletal elements are very similar, despite different figures for SER.

7.6 Summary This chapter has presented the results from a series of quantitative analyses, as described in Section 5.8. The purpose of this stage of the overall analysis was to gain an understanding of what portions of the human body are represented by the assemblages, thereby transforming what are traditionally perceived as confusing masses of human remains, into a more concise and intelligible resource.

7.7 Conclusions

A summary of the key findings at this juncture are:

Given the differences in MNIs and relative MNEs between the Orcadian sites (established in Sections 7.2 and 7.3), the assessment of relative representation across the zones for each individual bone has presented some interesting results. Many of these individual skeletal elements demonstrate similar patterns of representation; from this observation it can be concluded that there is a similarity in preservation. The most significant inference that may be construed from this phenomenon is that differences in skeletal representation between the tombs are thus unlikely to be the result of differential preservation conditions. Other extrinsic factors must be involved.

MNI and NISP • The MNI for Quanterness was originally grossly overestimated. • Comparison of the theoretically expected number of bone specimens to the NISP suggests that recovery of human remains at Quanterness was good. Skeletal Element Representation (SER) • Skeletal element representation for Quanterness, Quoyness, Point of Cott and Pierowall Quarry suggests the interment of whole bodies at all of these sites. This is primarily argued on the presence of smaller bones, such as the hands and feet, which are often lost when a body is relocated. • At Quanterness, crania would appear to have good representation, contra previous observations (Chesterman 1979). • There is a discrepancy between the representation of crania and mandibles at Quanterness and Point of Cott. • Femora in particular are under-represented at Quanterness. • Representation at Cuween does not support an interpretation of the interment of whole bodies, having more in common with the skeletal profile of secondary burial rites. Comparison of SER from different sites • Quanterness clearly stands apart from the other Orcadian sites in terms of the volume of material recovered. This is most likely, in part, a reflection of the sieving employed during excavation. • The SER profiles for Quoyness and Point of Cott have a strong affinity to each other. • The SER profiles of Quoyness and Point of Cott have some affinity with two of the medieval and post-

101

Chapter 8

Results: Taphonomic Variables 8.1 Introduction

excavation, of a variation in bone preservation (Chesterman 1979, 97), ranging from Stage 0 to Stage 4 (Figs. 8.1–8.5). Weathering Stage 0 was the most frequently recorded stage (82 per cent (7,343/9,006)). Although in smaller frequencies, more advanced stages were noted, with Stage 4 (0.01 per cent (7/9,006) representing the bones in the poorest condition. The skeletal elements exhibiting Stage 4 weathering were from some of the stratigraphically earliest and latest layers in the deposit (further contextual detail is provided in Table 8.1), although this was a low proportion of the overall assemblage.

In Chapter 7 analysis focused upon establishing material quantification and representation of the assemblages. The next stage was to consider other extrinsic factors that may have influenced the formation of the deposits. The following section presents results of the taphonomic analysis, with the results subdivided into commonly acknowledged variables – weathering; burning; fragmentation and trauma sustained by bone, such as cut marks (see Section 5.6). ‘Other modifications’ that do not easily fit the more standard categories are also presented.

The information provided in the excavation report (Renfrew 1979, 54) and Chesterman’s notebooks meant it was possible to derive the stratigraphic association of some of the human bone analysed. This data provided an indication of the distribution of weathering stages throughout the depth of the stratigraphy, rather than in just the horizontal plane (i.e. ZB I, ZB II). Although this stratigraphic information was only available for 3,740 fragments (approximately 40 per cent (3,740/9,006)) it still provides a useful indication of the presence of different weathering stages within the depth of the Quanterness floor deposits. The results are shown in Figure 8.1 and Figure 8.2. Weathering stages are then presented according to skeletal element, with the objective of assessing whether or not particular weathering stages were associated with particular skeletal elements. These results are presented in Figure 8.3.

8.2 Weathering Weathering (Behrensmeyer 1978) was recorded following the criteria outlined in Section 5.6.4 and is an assessment of the macroscopic appearance of the cortical surface of the bone. All of the assemblages under investigation have been found to display a variety of weathering stages, with the predominant weathering stage being Stage 0 (bone surface shows no sign of cracking or flaking due to weathering). The most advanced weathering stage recorded was Stage 4 (the bone surface is coarsely fibrous and rough in texture; large and small splinters occur and may be loose enough to fall away from the bone if it is moved), although this was only observed at Quanterness. The levels of weathering are presented for each assemblage individually before being discussed in relation to each other.

Figure 8.1 evidently demonstrates a predominance of Stage 0 weathering. Other stages are present, and seem to demonstrate an inverse relationship between the relative presence, and an increased degree of associated weathering.

8.2.1 Quanterness The diversity in observed weathering stages at Quanterness seems to support descriptions, made during the original

Table 8.1 Contextual information of skeletal elements identified with Stage 4 weathering at Quanterness (Flat bone refers to an unidentified fragment of scapula or pelvis – see Section 5.6.1) Skeletal Element

Area

Layer

Stratum

UN FLAT BONE

ZB III

71

1

UN FLAT BONE

ZB III

71

1

CRANIUM

ZB III

55

5b

CRANIUM

ZB IV

102

4

HUMERUS

ZB III

60/67

3

HUMERUS

ZF

6D1

Side Cell

HUMERUS

ZF

6D1

Side Cell

102

Results: Taphonomic Variables Figure 8.2 is sourced from the same original data as that presented in Figure 8.1, though in this case the results are calculated as percentage values (count of each weathering stage present as a percentage of the total for each stratum). This approach allows a more straightforward comparison of the weathering stages from each level of the deposit. As stated above, each stratum is composed of bones with a range of weathering stages. The most dominant stage was

Stage 0, indicating that on a macroscopic level the cortical bone surface was in very good condition. The range of weathering stages demonstrated throughout the depth of the stratigraphy is also confirmed for the separate areas excavated within the main chamber (Fig. 8.3). As previously noted, Stage 0 was the most frequently observed weathering stage.

Figure 8.1 Count of each weathering Stage identified in each stratum.

Figure 8.2 Weathering stages present for each stratum, shown as an overall percentage for each stratum.

103

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Figure 8.4 illustrates the fragment count according to weathering stage and element for the whole assemblage. This graphical representation demonstrates the range of weathering stages present through the depth of the Quanterness deposits (Figs. 8.1–8.3) and across the different skeletal elements.

the main chamber (ZB), the distribution of stages on the skeletal elements for each area are illustrated in Figure 8.5 (ZF) and Figure 8.6 (ZB) converted to percentage form. Both areas show a similar range of weathering stages, with Stage 0 the most common. Although the crania from ZF have a greater representation of fragments with more advanced levels of weathering than the crania from the main chamber (ZB).

To assess whether or not there was any differentiation in weathering stages represented between side cell ZF and

Figure 8.3 Weathering Stages for the areas within the main chamber.

Figure 8.4 Count of fragments showing each weathering stage according to element.

104

Results: Taphonomic Variables

Figure 8.5 Weathering stages by element from the side chamber, ZF. Each stage is shown as a percentage of all the weathering stages for each element.

Figure 8.6 Weathering stages by element from the main chamber, ZB. Each stage is shown as a percentage of all the weathering stages for each element.

105

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 8.2.2 Quoyness

8.2.3 Point of Cott

Figure 8.7 demonstrates that Quoyness also has a predominance of weathering Stage 0, and that weathering was recorded up to the level of Stage 3. A few of the elements demonstrated only one level of weathering (Stage 0), although in all cases these bones had very low counts. For example, there was only one fragment of sternum. Thus, caution should be used in assigning any major significance to elements illustrating only one weathering stage at Quoyness.

Point of Cott was also found to exhibit a range of weathering stages (Fig. 8.8). As with Quoyness, there are one or two bones that have only Stage 0 represented (calcaneus, talus, sacrum, and sternum) but, again, these have very low individual counts and so caution should also be used in this instance. The contextual information made it possible to see if there was any differentiation between the major areas of the

Figure 8.7 Count of fragments showing each weathering stage according to element.

Figure 8.8 Count of fragments showing each weathering stage according to element.

106

Results: Taphonomic Variables tomb for weathering stages. This information is exhibited in Figure 8.9.

percentages to allow a more straightforward comparison of the weathering stages observed according to context. This information is presented in Figure 8.10. The distribution of weathering stages does differ slightly for this tomb in that weathering Stage 1 is not as dominant; there would appear to be equally significant representation of the other stages.

The majority of the human remains at Point of Cott were recovered from Compartment 3. The information presented in Figure 8.9 has therefore been recalculated as

Figure 8.9 Quantity of bone showing various weathering stages by compartment (CPT) at Point of Cott.

Figure 8.10 Weathering stages recorded for each compartment (CPT) at Point of Cott expressed as a percentage of the total for that compartment. 107

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 8.2.4 Pierowall Quarry

Stage 0 to Stage 3. The most striking difference was that demonstrated by the crania marked as Cuween V. It displayed Stage 3 weathering, which was in great contrast to the much better condition of the other crania. This is illustrated in Plate 8.1.

Figure 8.11 indicates a range of weathering stages recorded for Pierowall Quarry. The graph also demonstrates a range of stages for each element other than a few isolated examples that display only stage 0. As before, these isolated examples have a very low fragment count.

8.2.6 Isbister

8.2.5 Cuween

Although the Isbister data incorporates only one skeletal element, the humeri, a range of weathering stages was also recorded. Emulating the results of the other assemblages, Stage 0 was found to be the predominant stage exhibited within the sample. The most advanced stage was Stage 3. This information is illustrated in Figure 8.12.

Only seven skeletal elements were recorded at Cuween. This figure was considered too small to justify a chart as no additional clarity could be construed. The five crania and two femurs displayed a range of weathering from

Figure 8.11 Count of fragments showing each weathering stage according to element.

Plate 8.1 (Left) Crania II from Cuween Hill. Weathering Stage 1. (Right) Crania V from Cuween Hill, Weathering Stage 3. (author image). 108

Results: Taphonomic Variables 8.2.7 Comparison of the main sites

Stage 4 at Quanterness, and complete absence of anything more advanced than Stage 3 at the other sites, may be due to the degree of disintegration of bone associated with these higher levels (Stage 5). Descriptions within the reports of bones ‘crumbling when touched’ (Cuween Hill, (Charleson 1902, 733)) may have equated to this more advanced stage of ‘weathering’. While excavators may observe such weathering stages when the bone is in situ (and the excavation reports suggest this is the case), retrieval of bone in poorer condition is difficult and may not have survived the excavation process. This observation is especially relevant considering the techniques available when the sites under consideration in this study were excavated.

To gain a better understanding of how these sites compare to each other in terms of weathering, the total number of human bone fragments for each weathering stage was calculated as a percentage of the total bone fragments for the relevant site. The results are summarised in Fig. 8.13. Figure 8.13 clearly illustrates the range of representation of weathering stages at each site. Point of Cott would appear to have a greater proportion of the more advanced weathering stages when compared to the other assemblages. The very low presence of bone at weathering

Figure 8.12 Count of humerus fragments for each weathering stage identified.

Figure 8.13 Weathering stages shown as a percentage of the total weathering for each site.

109

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 8.2.8 Summary

It is evident from Figure 8.14 that a concentration of burnt fragments is associated with area ZB III, the north end of the main chamber. Figure 8.15 is an examination of ZB III in greater detail, highlighting the distribution of burnt fragments by layer. The largest count of burnt remains within Area ZB III is obviously within Layer 60, which is assigned to Stratum 3, part of the main bone spread. The other layer numbers depicted are associated with Stratum 3 and Stratum 4 (the main bone spread).

In summation, it has been demonstrated that all of the site assemblages investigated illustrated a range of weathering stages. These stages were not associated with any particular bone type, with each category of skeletal element usually indicating a variety of weathering. An absence of more advanced weathering (Stage 4 and Stage 5) is possibly due to the friable nature of bone at these levels. This bone would be quite degraded, causing difficulties at the processing/post-excavation stage (Janaway et al. 2001, 201, 204), which may account for poor representation. The variation in weathering stage would not appear to be a reflection of different skeletal elements weathering at different rates (Lyman 2001, 364) as it has been demonstrated that the skeletal elements within each assemblage illustrated a range of stages. This variation may suggest an accumulation of bone over a protracted period of time (Behrensmeyer 1978). The fact that Quanterness demonstrates a variation in weathering stages throughout the depth of the deposit could suggest that the whole deposit has been mixed together (turbation) prior to the sealing of the tomb. Alternatively, it may imply the incorporation of bone from different locations.

The skeletal elements composing the burnt remains of area ZB III are depicted in Figure 8.16. There is no indication that any particular element might have been selected for exposure to fire as a wide range of skeletal elements are present, albeit in low numbers. The crania and humerus have the greatest number of fragments. However, there are also a relatively large number of unidentified long-bone fragments (ULB) and these could be from any of the major limb bones (e.g. tibia, humerus, and radius). The burnt remains were usually black, or a black/brown in colour. Examples of burnt fragments from the main bone spread are illustrated in Plate 8.2. The four fragments depicted are black in colour, suggesting they were exposed to relatively low temperatures of 360°C (after Mays 2002, 217).

8.3 Burning Many of the burnt bones were black or brown/black in colour, suggesting exposure to temperatures in the range of 285°–360°C (Mays 2002, 217). However, there were one or two examples that merit further discussion. Three conjoined fragments from Area ZB III, layer 60A are shown in Plate 8.3. Part of a left humerus, these fragments appear to have been burnt black in colour, again implying they were exposed to temperatures in the range 285°–360°C (Mays 2002, 217). The burning is not consistently present, however, throughout the specimen. Additionally, this arm

Of the sites under investigation, only Quanterness indicated evidence for exposure of human remains to burning; it is, therefore, the only site presented in the current section. Although evidence for burning was clearly evident on a number of bone elements, positive identification was not in the order suggested in the original reports (Chesterman 1979, 102), amounting to just 3 per cent (283/9,006) of the total human assemblage. Figure 8.14 illustrates the volume of burnt human bone fragments by excavation area.

Figure 8.14 Count of Elements by Area with Evidence for Burning at Quanterness. 110

Results: Taphonomic Variables

Figure 8.15 Count of Elements by Layer with Evidence of Burning in Area ZB III, Quanterness.

Figure 8.16 Representation of burnt skeletal elements associated with area ZB III.

Plate 8.2 Burnt fragments. Small Find 208.23-25 Stratum 4, Area ZB II Layer 21 (scale unit: 10 mm). (Author image). 111

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney in the Quanterness assemblage, it accounts for a very small proportion of the total volume of human remains. This observation contradicts Chesterman’s (1979, 102) original conclusion that burning was a significant feature of this assemblage. Although, it should also be noted that Renfrew did not entirely agree with Chesterman; offering an alternative hypothesis, Renfrew suggested the flecks of discolouration on the bones may have been due to burial in ‘black, carbon-rich soil’ (Renfrew 1979, 158). Where burning has been recorded, the temperature range implied from the colour of the bone (black) is relatively low, in comparison to temperatures associated with calcined (white) bone and experimental pyres of up to 1000°C (McKinley 1997, 134). The notch in the humerus (Plate 8.3) and the possible impact notch in the cranial fragments (Plate 8.4) may suggest something more deliberate was involved in the fragmentation of these particular remains.

bone had been broken producing a helical (peri-mortem) fracture associated with an impact notch. The presence of an impact notch may suggest the fracturing of the bone was intentional, with the spiral fracture further indicating the damage occurred early in the bone’s taphonomic history (before the collagen had disappeared). However, the possibility that the damage occurred accidentally, perhaps by a stone falling on it, cannot be absolutely discounted. A further example of partially burnt bone, also with evidence of an impact notch, is detailed in Plate 8.4. In this instance, a flake of bone has become detached leaving a negative feature on each edge of the conjoining fracture margins. 8.3.1 Summary The most conspicuous conclusion to be drawn from this form of analysis is that, although burning is evident

Plate 8.3 Burnt Fragments. Small Find 1265.12 Left humerus from Stratum 3, Area ZB III, Layer 60A (Scale unit: 10 mm). (Author image).

Plate 8.4 Burnt Fragments Small Find 1134.01 Cranium from Stratum 3, Area ZB III, Layer 68 with possible impact notch (scale unit: 10 mm). (Author image). 112

Results: Taphonomic Variables 8.4 Fragmentation

to fragment due to their morphology, the other long bones are generally considered much more robust and, hence, would not be expected to present such high levels of fragmentation.

One of the dominant characteristics of the human bone assemblages analysed is that, not only are they disarticulated, they are also highly fragmented. In order to gain some indication of the level of fragmentation, the Minimum Number of Elements (MNE) was compared with the number of identified specimens (NISP) for each skeletal element (as suggested by Leach 2005, 61) for the four sites of Quanterness, Quoyness, Point of Cott and Pierowall Quarry. The NISP includes fragments that were identified to element, but not to zone. The results are shown in Table 8.2. Further information on fragmentation is derived from the fragment sizes recorded for each individual specimen. These results are presented in Section 8.16 to facilitate further understanding of the levels of fragmentation within the assemblages.

8.4.2 Fragment Size for All Sites Figure 8.18 allows a comparison of the fragment sizes across all the sites investigated. Whilst Isbister reflects only a sample of its assemblage, there is still merit in some comparative analysis with the other sites. Quanterness and Point of Cott both illustrate large percentages of their respective assemblages within the smaller fragment size categories. Pierowall Quarry, Isbister and Quoyness have a greater proportion of their assemblages represented across the range of sizes. The recovery of high numbers of smaller bone fragments at Quanterness and Point of Cott may well reflect the sieving technique employed during excavation. The comparison of MNE and NISP (Table 8.2) suggests that the fragment sizes do in part reflect fragmentation of bone, and not simply the presence of smaller complete bones (such as distal phalanges). Additionally, given the large volume of material recovered from Quanterness; if larger fragments were actually present, it would be reasonable to expect them to also be present in comparative quantities to the other assemblages. Considering the presence of large fragments at the other sites, and the fact that the recovery of remains at Quanterness was excellent, the absence of larger fragments at Quanterness cannot be attributed to excavation technique. As illustrated, Quanterness and Point of Cott share almost identical trend lines.

8.4.1 Comparison of MNE to NISP Table 8.2 demonstrates that at Quanterness, in particular, there are some very high levels of fragmentation. At Quanterness, bones that are usually considered more fragile (pelvis; sternum; sacrum), perhaps unsurprisingly, show high levels of fragmentation. As might also be expected, smaller, more dense and robust bones (bones of the hands and feet), conversely exhibit much less fragmentation. More significantly, the long bones at Quanterness show high levels of fragmentation. For example, the femora, considered to be one of the more robust bones, have a MNE of 40, but are represented by 153 fragments. Similarly the 25 mandibulae are represented by over 100 (identified) fragments.

8.4.3 Summary

The NISP at Quanterness does not include specimens that could only be identified as ULB (Unidentified Long Bone), suggesting the number of fragments may well be higher. To illustrate their significance, the ULB fragments are summarised in Figure 8.17. This graph demonstrates a large number of fragments in the Size 3 (20–30 mm) and Size 4 (30–40 mm) categories. The larger fragments suggest splinters of bone that while large, had no diagnostic criteria with which to enable confident identification. Ultimately, these results confirm that the assemblage from Quanterness is indeed, very fragmented.

What became apparent during the laboratory analysis, and has been demonstrated here, is that Quanterness has a higher degree of fragmentation than all of the other sites. This condition is evidenced by high numbers of smaller fragments and significant differences between the MNE and NISP figures. Whilst high levels of fragmentation in more fragile bones (such as the pelvis), and less fragmentation in smaller, denser bones (such as wrist bones) is not unusual, the high level of fragmentation noted in many of the long bones is compelling. Of particular significance are the observations of high femoral fragmentation; the femur is a particularly robust element, which would usually lead to more complete survivorship. This high level of long bone fragmentation is apparent at all the sites investigated for this project. This may indicate these bones have been subject to more complex taphonomic processes than ‘normal’ decay.

Generally speaking, the other sites show relatively lower levels of fragmentation, except for the femora and crania, which seem highly fragmented at all sites. With regard to the crania, this is perhaps unsurprising, given the susceptibility of this element to high levels of fragmentation. As at Quanterness, the more delicate pelvic bones show high levels of fragmentation. Hand and foot bones, when present, have very low fragmentation, which, again, is not unexpected as their size and greater bone density makes them more robust. Long bones, in particular the humeri, femora, tibiae and fibulae all show high levels of fragmentation. This phenomenon is particularly interesting as although the fibulae are normally expected

113

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Table 8.2 Comparison of the MNE (Minimum Number of Elements) to the NISP(Number of Identified Specimens) for each skeletal element from the sites of Quanterness (Quant); Quoyness (Quoy); Point of Cott and Pierowall Quarry Element

MNE Quant

NISP Quant

MNE Quoy

NISP Quoy

MNE Point of Cott

NISP Point of Cott

MNE Pierowall Quarry

NISP Pierowall Quarry

Crania Mandibulae Hyoid Claviculae Scap ulae Humeri Radii Ulnae Sterna Cervicle Vert Thoracic Vert Lumbar Vert Sacrum Pelvis Femora Patellae Tibiae Fibulae Trapezium Trapezoid Capitate Hamate Scaphoid Lunate Triquetral MC1 MC2 MC3 MC4 MC5 Prox Ph Man Int Ph Man Dist Ph Man Calcaneus Talus Medial Cuneiform

55 25 11 65 59 64 77 74 33 246 365 127 39 52 40 88 39 46 37 24 45 42 47 32 17 57 72 61 63 68 314 179 77 77 88 51

676 106 12 104 183 173 160 138 84 326 497 165 132 239 153 88 116 134 37 24 45 42 47 32 17 61 78 66 68 70 327 183 80 92 91 51

3 0 0 3 9 12 6 6 1 3 13 11 2 15 14 1 13 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 4 0

11 0 0 4 13 28 10 11 1 3 17 11 4 38 45 1 30 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 4 0

7 3 0 6 3 5 4 4 1 2 12 4 1 6 8 2 4 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 7 4 1 2 1 1

100 4 0 12 3 23 9 12 1 7 22 7 1 30 34 2 13 8 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 8 4 1 2 1 1

1 5 0 1 2 3 2 4 2 1 8 4 6 4 14 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

43 8 0 1 6 7 4 5 2 1 8 7 8 20 52 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

Intermediate Cuneiform

73

73

0

0

1

1

0

0

Lateral Cuneiform

53

53

0

0

0

0

0

0

Navicular Cuboid MT1 MT2 MT3 MT4

74 69 54 45 88 72

74 69 60 46 88 75

0 1 0 0 0 1

0 1 0 0 0 1

1 0 0 1 1 0

1 0 0 1 1 0

0 0 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 1 0 0

MT5 Prox Ph Ped Int Ph Ped Dist Ph Ped

66 193 24 28

66 201 28 28

0 1 0 0

0 1 0 0

0 2 0 0

0 3 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

114

Results: Taphonomic Variables

Figure 8.17 Count of fragment sizes for unidentified long bone fragments from Quanterness.

Figure 8.18 Comparison of fragmentation at Orkney sites. Each size category (Section 5.6.10) is shown as a percentage of the total human bone assemblage for that site, except for Isbister, which is expressed as a percentage of the total sample analysed.

115

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney recorded at Quanterness is of a mineralised type (70 per cent, 3026/4306). This indicates fracturing or breaking of the bone quite some time after death, once the collagen content has decayed. These mineralised breaks occurred in antiquity, as evidenced by patination at their fracture margins. Most of the elements also exhibit new fractures, indicating damage sustained relatively recently. Such fractures are most likely to have occurred during excavation in the 1970s, during early exploration by Barry in the nineteenth century, or even during post-excavation and storage (Janaway et al. 2001, 199). In addition, a relatively small number of dry fractures were recorded. This type of fracture suggests breakage some time after the peri-mortem phase, though with a low level of collagen still present in the bone.

8.5 Fractures To gain further insight into the processes that may have resulted in the fragmentation of the assemblages, whether due to natural causes or anthropogenic intervention, each fragment was inspected to determine the nature of the fractures/breaks. Fractures were categorised as ‘helical’, ‘dry’, ‘mineralised’ or ‘new’ as outlined in Section 5.6.5. The site of Cuween has been omitted due to the small size of the available assemblage. 8.5.1 Quanterness It is evident from Figure 8.19, which depicts the main skeletal elements, that the majority of the fragmentation

Figure 8.19 Count of each fracture type recorded for each skeletal element at Quanterness.

Plate 8.5 Small Find 223.05(main fragment) and Small Find 223.03 Cranial fragment (Occipital bone). Stratum 3 Area ZB II Layer 22. (scale unit: 10 mm). (Author image). 116

Results: Taphonomic Variables fractured fragments have the same Small Find group numbers (SF1265; SF3083) indicating that they were lifted as a group and were, therefore, in close proximity to each other at the time of excavation. Although this evidence is compelling, the helical or peri-mortem fractures account for a small proportion of the fracturing observed within the Quanterness assemblage. It would seem that a hypothesis of deliberate fragmentation of all human remains, while the bones were relatively fresh, is unlikely. Rather, the evidence may suggest that bones subjected to helical fracturing were the result of accidental breakage, or were selected for special treatment. This evidence will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 10.

A small number of helical fractures were also recorded (92 examples). This evidence indicates fracturing occurred during the peri-mortem phase (see Plate 8.5 and Plate 8.6 for examples). Evidence of helical fracturing was identified both within the main chamber and the side chamber ZF. While this fracture type is found scattered throughout the deposit, there is a concentration of over 50 per cent (49/92) assigned to Area ZB III, and predominantly associated with layers composing the main bone spread, Stratum 3 and Stratum 4. The majority of these fragments (44/49) within the ZB III area also show signs of burning in addition to the helical fracturing (e.g. Plate 8.7), and originate from the same layer (60A). Many of the burnt and helically

Plate 8.6 Small Find 223.05 Stratum 3 Area ZB II Layer 22. Close-up of edge when Small Find 223.03 is removed. Note the smoothness of the margin. (scale unit: 10 mm). (Author image).

Plate 8.7 Small Find 1265.10 Right Femur Fragment (burnt) from Stratum 3, Area ZB III, Layer 60A. This femur has sustained a peri-mortem fracture. Note the smoothness of the fracture margin, indicating the presence of collagen at the time of fracture. (scale unit: 10 mm). (Author image). 117

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 8.5.2 Quoyness

a small number of new fractures (9.8 per cent, 17/173). Five femur fragments and one rib fragment have been noted as having helical or peri-mortem fractures (Plate 8.8). They all derive from Layer 29, but no specific details were available within the excavation report as to what this might be (Sharples 1984). In addition, an apparently large number of femur fragments exhibiting dry fractures (19) were recorded, most of which were found to conjoin, therefore representing four small find numbers.

Analogously with Quanterness, a large proportion of the assemblage from Quoyness (Fig. 8.20) exhibits mineralised fractures (64 per cent, 166/259). However, conversely, there is a comparatively greater quantity of new fractures recorded, indicating recent damage (28 per cent, 72/259). This recent fracturing is most likely to have occurred during the excavation process. In addition, one helical or peri-mortem fracture was recorded at Quoyness for a right humerus. This particular element had other interesting features associated with it and will be discussed further in Section 8.6.2.1. A small number of dry fractures were also present, the greatest number recorded for the femora (ten in total). Many of these femora also indicated other features of interest and will, therefore, be discussed in more detail in Section 8.6.2.1.

8.5.5 Isbister Figure 8.23 illustrates that no evidence of helical fracturing was found amongst the humeri from Isbister. A very small number (10/412) of fractures exhibiting characteristics consistent with dry fractures was observed. Overall the assemblage was dominated by mineralised fractures, (229/412), indicating most of the fragmentation occurred in antiquity, but after the organic content of the bones had been lost. New fractures also accounted for a large amount of damage (173/412), in all likelihood sustained during excavation.

8.5.3 Point of Cott It is evident from Figure 8.21 that, similarly to Quanterness and Quoyness, mineralised fracture types dominate the assemblage at Point of Cott (82 per cent, 267/326). Although comprising low numbers, new (modern) breaks are also present for all elements (14 per cent, 45/326). A very small number of dry fractures have also been observed (4 per cent, 14/326). It should be noted that more advanced weathering (Stages 1–3) has eroded many of the fracture margins, decreasing absolute confidence in fracture identification. There were no records of any helical or peri-mortem fractures.

8.5.6 Summary Analysis of fracture types within the assemblages illustrates that the vast proportion of fragmentation is associated with the mineralised type. As outlined in Section 4.4.1 and Section 5.6.5, mineralised fractures occur a significant time after death, following the loss of collagen content from the bone. The abundance of mineralised fractures suggests that much of the breakage characterising these assemblages occurred at a later stage in their taphonomic history. As there is no information regarding the specific length of time bone will retain its collagen after death, it is impossible to say how long after death this fracturing might have occurred. However, there

8.5.4 Pierowall Quarry The fracture types at Pierowall Quarry indicate a high proportion of the mineralised type (72 per cent, 125/173) (Fig. 8.22). Evidence of modern damage was indicated by

Figure 8.20 Count of each fracture type recorded for each skeletal element at Quoyness. 118

Results: Taphonomic Variables record that was compiled as part of the research process. Every bone was inspected for evidence, which may lend further insight into the fragmented condition of the assemblages. Each evidence type is illustrated with at least one image and accompanying detailed description. Where appropriate, differential diagnoses are discussed.

is also evidence to suggest some bones, particularly the long bones, were subject to fracturing relatively soon after death, as indicated by the presence of peri-mortem and dry fractures. At Quanterness, the presence of burnt remains exhibiting helical fracturing within the same context is intriguing, and it is tempting to suggest that this evidence represents a specific event. These findings are discussed further in Chapter 10.

8.6.1 Quanterness A variety of trauma types were recorded from the Quanterness assemblage. These included: crush marks and punctures; chop marks; cut marks; incised marks and percussion pits (Section 4.4.3 and Section 5.6.8). Additionally, some more unusual modifications that do not fit into any of these categories were also identified. These more unusual occurrences are discussed together in Section 8.6.1.7.

8.6 Trauma This section presents evidence for modification of bones from all the sites investigated. The term ‘trauma’ refers to damage or modification sustained by a bone after death has occurred. The most appropriate way of illustrating this evidence is via the digital photography and microscope

Figure 8.21 Count of each fracture type recorded for each skeletal element at Point of Cott.

Figure 8.22 Count of each fracture type recorded for each skeletal element at Pierowall Quarry.

119

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Plate 8.8 Small Find 192, Femur, Layer 29. Three conjoined femur fragments that have a helical fracture pattern. This implies this occurred relatively soon after death (peri-mortem). (Author image).

Figure 8.23 Count of each fracture type recorded for the humeri from Isbister.

120

Results: Taphonomic Variables were from the side cell, ZF. It may be of significance that nearly every occurrence of pitting is evidenced from bones of the upper body (including the pelvis). The images presented below, from Quanterness bone specimens, clearly illustrate pits in the bone with associated fracture edges.

8.6.1.1 Percussion Pits White (1992, 140) describes percussion pits as occurring when a tool such as a hammer-stone strikes solid cortical bone without causing inward crushing of the bone cortex. When the action of the striking tool has the desired effect (fracture of the bone), half the percussion pit is carried on one specimen and half on another (ibid.). Damage from carnivore tooth cusps has been suggested as a differential diagnosis for these types of pits. However, the irregularity of the internal topography and outline of carnivore marks (White 1992, 139) would argue against this hypothesis.

Plate 8.9 presents an example of pitting observed on a mandible fragment from the main bone spread (Stratum 4). Irregular damage to the cortical bone may be seen in the central area of this bone. Another, smaller area of irregular damage is closer to a fracture margin (within the white square and inset). Whilst the existing fracture margin appears quite light in colour, the actual pits were found to be patinated. It would therefore seem apparent that this fragment of bone was struck at least twice with a stone tool of some sort. Furthermore, the location of the pits on the interior surface of this mandible would imply it

The trauma type identified as ‘pitting’ at Quanterness follows the description associated with this percussive force. A total of 40 incidences of pitting were observed on the human bones. Analysis of these instances illustrated that 50 per cent (20/40) of bones with evidence for pitting

Plate 8.9 Small Find 193.21 Mandible from Stratum 4, Area ZB II, Layer 21 (scale unit: 10 mm). (Author image)

121

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney support for a hypothesis that this bone was deliberately fractured. This fracturing must have occurred at some point after the peri-mortem phase, but before all the collagen had decayed. Multiple pits may imply multiple strikes to the bone.

was already separated from the cranium in order for it to be struck in this way. Plate 8.10 illustrates similar damage to the bone surface as evidence highlighted in Plate 8.9. In this instance, a right radius from Side Cell ZF exhibits an extensive area of ‘pitting’. This damage is clearly associated with the fracture margins, and gives the fragment an appearance of having been struck numerous times.

Plate 8.12 presents a further example of percussion pit damage to the human remains. It may be observed that an irregular area of damage, located on the interior aspect of the bone surface, is adjacent to the fracture margin (arrowed and detailed in inset Plate 8.12). This evidence is similar in morphology to the percussion pits identified and illustrated above. As with the mandible in Plate 8.9, the interior location of this pit would imply the bone was already separated from the rest of the body. When this separation occurred is unknown, but the patination of the pit would imply it happened early, rather than late, in the taphonomic history of this specimen.

The left femur in Plate 8.11, also from Side Cell ZF, may be observed to have a large area of irregular damage to the central area of cortical bone. The remains of another area of similar damage, (highlighted by the white square and inset), may be observed at the fracture margin. The fracture margin may be categorised as ‘dry’ in this instance. The location of the ‘pit’ at the fracture margin, and the nature of the fracture margin itself, presents strong

Plate 8.10 Small Find 2459.04 Right Radius from Side cell ZF, Layer 5. (scale unit: 10 mm). (Author image).

122

Results: Taphonomic Variables

Plate 8.11 Small Find 2444.01 Left Femur from Side Cell ZF (scale unit: 10 mm). (Author image).

Plate 8.12 SF 2473.02 Rib fragment from Side Cell ZF Layer 5. (scale unit: 10 mm). (Author image).

123

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney patination is clearly visible. The location of these marks coincides with one of the origin points for the pronator quadratus muscle. There is no indication of any healing, implying this is a peri-mortem or post-mortem occurrence. The number and clustering of these striations combined with their location, strongly suggest these are the results of a cutting action to separate bone from muscle tissue.

8.6.1.2 Cut Marks There were ten examples of trauma interpreted as cut marks within the Quanterness assemblage. Of these, two were from the main chamber, four were from the side cell, ZF, and four were of unknown context. The positive identification of cut marks can be challenging (White 1992, 143–146; Lyman 2001, 297). The criteria required for confident identification of a feature as a cut mark included; a ‘v’-shaped cross section; patination; a clean edge and/ or a cluster of parallel marks. Three specific examples are discussed and illustrated in this section.

Plate 8.14 presents a left rib from Stratum 4. A surficial cut can be observed at the mid-point of the body of this rib. Under magnification (inset) the edges appear clean, sharp and patinated. The angle of this damage suggests the movement involved travelled from posterior to anterior. The sternal portion of this rib also shows a series of linear features. There is no indication of any healing having occurred, implying this action occurred peri-mortem or post-mortem.

Plate 8.13 illustrates the details of a cut mark identified on a right ulna from Stratum 5b. Several fine, parallel linear features and a crush mark may be seen on the distal portion of the ulna. Under magnification (centre), a sharp edge and

Plate 8.13 Small Find 139.13 Right Ulna (distal portion). Stratum 5b, Area ZB II, Layer 20/2. (scale unit: 10 mm). (Author image).

124

Results: Taphonomic Variables A series of fine, unidirectional, parallel striations are visible on the lateral border of the proximal portion of a fibula, illustrated in Plate 8.16. This area of the bone is associated with the origin point for the ‘peroneus longus’ leg muscle. The bone surrounding this feature is quite eroded. These marks were examined in more detail using a Scanning Electron Microscope, in order to observe these linear features with greater clarity. There is no healing associated with this feature implying it was either a perimortem or post-mortem occurrence. The position and existence of multiple, parallel striations reinforces the identification of this feature as a cut mark, representing a series of actions that may infer the intention of separating bone from muscle tissue.

The rib fragment depicted in Plate 8.15 was initially identified as having a crush mark to the anterior surface of its sternal end (arrowed). However, examination with a high-powered microscope revealed this to be a cut mark. Superior to this cut mark there is also a small area of abrasion (arrowed), which may have been caused by contact with a more blunt portion of whatever tool inflicted this damage. The direction of movement that produced the cut indicated by the position of the clean edge is one of anterior towards posterior. There is no sign of healing, suggesting this feature was produced peri-mortem or postmortem. This could have been caused whilst de-fleshing. A differential diagnosis for both ribs is that they were from injuries sustained immediately before death, probably due to inter-personal violence.

Plate 8.14 SF 208.20 Left Rib from Stratum 4, Area ZB II, Layer 21. (scale unit: 10 mm). (Author image).

125

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Plate 8.15 Small Find 41.02 Rib Fragment (sterna portion) Context Unknown (scale unit: 10 mm). (Author image).

126

Results: Taphonomic Variables

Plate 8.16 (Top) Small Find 2148.1 Left Fibula from Side Cell ZF, Layer 5 (scale unit: 10 mm). (Bottom left) SEM image (Right) Muscle position. (Author image).

127

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney depth, cross section and patination suggest some form of edged tool may have caused this feature.

8.6.1.3 Linear Marks In addition to the cut marks described in the preceding section, linear marks (Section 5.6.8) have been identified on some of the Quanterness bones. These linear marks have been characterised as such due to erosion of the bone surface and general weathering or decay, which inhibits confident identification of these features as cut marks. Two examples are illustrated in this section.

The radius illustrated in Plate 8.18 presents a more assertive example. In this instance, up to eight linear, parallel marks were found on the posterior aspect of the mid-shaft portion of this bone. This area is associated with the insertion of the brachioradialis muscle. The specimen has clearly been subject to a degree of weathering and decay that precludes more definitive assessment of the fine detail of these features. However, under high magnification, it is possible to identify some striations within this linear feature. Such internal striations are usually associated with the irregularities in the edge of a cutting tool (Greenfield 1999). Despite the decaying surface, these marks are patinated. Together, these characteristics all strongly support an interpretation of these features being deliberately caused by a sharp-edged tool.

The first example of a ‘linear feature’ is illustrated in Plate 8.17. It is evident from the image that this right femur fragment has lost some of its surface integrity. However, the remains of an incised mark (arrow and inset for detail) are clearly visible. This feature would seem to have a v-shaped cross section, but lacks edge ‘clarity’ as observed in the features in Section 8.6.1.2. The loss of the clean edge may be due to general decay of the bone surface. Its

Plate 8.17 Small Find 130.02 Right Femur Fragment. Context Unknown. (scale unit: 10 mm). (Author image).

128

Results: Taphonomic Variables

Plate 8.18 (Left) Small Find 1304.02 Right Radius from Stratum 3, Area ZB III, Layer 62. (scale unit: 10 mm) (centre) under magnification (Right) associated muscle. (Author image).

A further chop mark was identified on the mandible of a child from the main chamber and is illustrated in Plate 8.20. The negative feature illustrated was identified as a chop mark due to its distinct terminating edge, suggesting a dynamic percussive force (chopping action). A large area of the cortical bone has been removed, and it is considered that this action has caused the jaw to fracture. Closer inspection, under a high-powered microscope, illustrated clear striations on the surface of the bone adjacent to the chop mark (arrowed). These striations were also evident with scanning electron microscopy and correspond to marks usually associated with irregularities in the edges of stone tools (Greenfield 1999).

8.6.1.4 Chop Marks A chop mark implies a percussive force. Such features are generally broad and V-shaped in cross section, created by the impact of the edge of a stone artefact used with a striking action (Cook 1986, 151; White 1992, 146). A total of 19 marks have been interpreted as chop marks at Quanterness (Section 5.6.8), identified from both the main chamber and the side cell, ZF. Three exemplar marks are illustrated and discussed in this section. Plate 8.19 depicts a chop mark identified on a right fibula from the main chamber. On the proximal portion of this fibula, at the interosseous border, is a deep, v-shaped mark. The surrounding bone shows patination, which was confirmed by examination with a high-powered microscope. This area of the bone is associated with the origin of the ‘extensor digitorum longus’ muscle and interosseous membrane of the leg. There is no healing associated with this feature implying it must have occurred either peri-mortem or post-mortem. The location and antiquity of this feature supports the chop mark interpretation and is conceivably due to an attempt to separate bone from muscle tissue.

The final example presented in this section was identified on a left rib from an unknown context (Plate 8.21). At the neck of this rib on the superior border is a clear, chop type feature. Using a high-powered microscope, the cross section is shown to be V-Shaped and patinated. One side of the cross-section appears lighter in colour, though this may be the result of a small flake of bone detaching at a later time. This lighter area is smooth to the touch.

129

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Plate 8.19 Small Find 1102 Right Fibula from Area ZB III, Layer 61. (scale unit: 10 mm). (Left) Proximal portion of fibula (Centre left) close-up of mark, (Centre right) detail of mark under magnification, (Right) associated muscle position. (Author image).

130

Results: Taphonomic Variables

Plate 8.20 (Above) Small Find 142.01 Mandible (child) from Stratum 3, Area ZB II, Layer 22. (scale unit: 10 mm). (Lower left) detail of striations (Lower right) Striations under SEM. (Author image)

131

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Plate 8.21 (Above) Small Find 1217.01 Left Rib of Unknown Context. (scale unit: 10 mm). (Lower left) close up (Lower right) detail of feature under magnification. (Author image).

132

Results: Taphonomic Variables was observed on a left rib of unknown context. Located on the surface of the main body were numerous, very fine, striations. These markings were not fully apparent until examined under a high-powered microscope. When examined using a scanning electron microscope, fine striae within these features may be seen. However, caution must be used in the identification of these features as scrape marks. Their multi-directional orientation could suggest an alternative hypothesis of trampling.

8.6.1.5 Scrape Marks Scrape marks are produced by drawing an artefact across a bone surface. This results in a dense series of, usually superficial, parallel striations across a broad area of bone (Shipman 1981, 369). Such marks have been attributed to the removal of the periosteum (Binford 1981). However, trampling may also produce similar marks, even when examined using microscopic techniques. Scrape marks, as a result of trampling, are caused by bone surfaces being rubbed across fine grains in the substrate (Section 4.4.3.1). The pattern and distribution of such marks is usually assessed when differentiating between these two taphonomic agents. Trampling will tend to produce more randomly distributed striae, while scraping will have a more consistent pattern and direction. At Quanterness, there were at least three instances of features that illustrated the characteristics of scrape marks. Two of these are illustrated within this section.

A less contentious example of scrape marks is presented in Plate 8.23. In this instance, fine striations were observed on the distal articular surface of a femur fragment from Side Cell ZF. The location of these marks on an articular surface in conjunction with their unidirectional orientation across the bone, could support an argument against trampling. This specimen was not subject to SEM analysis however; the high-powered microscope image does make it possible to pick out fine striae within each linear feature. These striae are caused by irregularities in the edge of a stone tool such as flint.

The first example of scrape marks, illustrated in Plate 8.22,

Plate 8.22 (Above left) Small Find 1185.01 Left Rib Fragment with scrape marks (arrowed) ontext unknown. (Lower left) additional set of scrape marks on same rib (arrowed). (Right) scrape marks under SEM. (Author image). 133

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Plate 8.23 (Left) Small Find 2127.2 Femur Fragment from Side Cell ZF, Layer 5. (scale unit: 10 mm). (Right) feature under magnification. (Author image).

cutting. There are several incidences of gnawing on the roots of isolated teeth (Plate 8.25, right and bottom left). The size of these gnaw marks suggest that a small rodent may have been responsible for this modification. However, there are no similar reports of this type of damage to the roots of teeth within the available literature. More detailed examination using scanning electron microscopy confirmed these marks as smooth, u-shaped gouges, consistent with evidence expected from damage by rodent gnawing. The damage to the isolated tooth roots would suggest that the teeth were already liberated from their mandibles or maxillae when the gnawing occurred. Furthermore, the patination of these features indicates that this damage occurred early in the taphonomic history of these specimens.

8.6.1.6 Damage by Animals Approximately 18 occurrences of animal damage, in the form of gnaw marks, were identified within the assemblage. These examples account for the least contentious evidence for the modification of some of the assemblage by animals. Other damage considered, most plausibly, to have been the result of animal modification is in the form of crushing marks and punctures. Some examples of these damage types are presented in this section. 8.6.1.6a Gnaw Marks A fragment of unstratified pelvis was observed to have sustained damage in the form of ‘classic’ gnaw marks, most likely the result of rodent action (Plate 8.24). The patination of the numerous parallel grooves supports an interpretation of this modification having occurred in antiquity.

Plate 8.26 presents evidence of more recent damage to the human remains. The lack of patination of the gnaw marks on this fragment of fibula, suggests this bone was modified by a small animal significantly closer to present day. The contextual information relating to this fragment places it within the surface finds lifted during the early phase of Renfrew’s (1979, 48) excavation. Thus it is unsurprising that the damage appears relatively recent.

Plate 8.25 presents an unusual instance of gnaw marks on the roots of teeth. The top left image illustrates a 2nd molar that was gnawed while still within the maxilla. This particular specimen was first identified by Chesterman (1979, 110), who interpreted the marks as the result of

134

Results: Taphonomic Variables

Plate 8.24 No Small Find Number. Pelvis Fragment. Context Unknown.

135

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Plate 8.25 (Above left) Small Find 2105 Maxilla Area ZF, Layer 5 (scale unit: 10 mm). (Lower left) isolated molar with gnaw marks on the root. (Right inset) Isolated molar with gnaw marks to the roots. (Author image).

136

Results: Taphonomic Variables

Plate 8.26 Small Find 4096.08 Left Fibula from Side Cell ZG (scale unit: 10 mm). (Author image).

137

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney A left patella, from the main chamber, is presented in Plate 8.27 as an example of crush marks as the result of animal chewing. The margin of the posterior surface was found to have a large number of crescent-shaped, incised marks. The majority of these marks are visible across the vertical ridge. These marks have resulted in crushing of the inferior margin (Plate 8.27, detail lower right). This evidence is most consistent with animal chew marks. In the image taken using a high-powered microscope, flakes of bone (which have been produced by the crushing action) are observed to still adhere to the patella, suggesting this damage occurred when the bone still retained some of its collagen content.

8.6.1.6b Punctures and Crushing A total of 140 punctures and 167 records of crushing were identified during analysis of the Quanterness assemblage. The majority of this evidence is considered to be the result of animal damage and sediment pressure. An example of the animal damage is illustrated in Plate 8.28. Many of the punctures were found with bone fragments still adhering to the resultant fracture margins. This evidence suggests that the damage occurred when the bone still retained at least some of its collagen content. In addition, the punctures usually represented a small percentage of the total surface area (surrounded by uncrushed bone), which is usually illustrative of carnivore-induced perforations (White 1992, 138; Smith 2005).

Plate 8.27 (Left) Small Find 192.09 Left Patella Stratum 4, Area ZB II, Layer 21 (scale unit: 10 mm).(Above right) Small Find 192.09 Left Patella. (Lower right) Detail under magnification of crush marks. (Author image).

138

Results: Taphonomic Variables magnification, the patina of the walls could be scrutinised, thereby indicating their antiquity. However, the possibility that these holes may have been caused during excavation, possibly with a section nail or training arrow, was still considered as an alternative explanation. As this theory could be considered problematic, an experiment was devised to address the hypothesis; this involved experimental work using pig bones (See Appendix 7). From this research, it was concluded that this type of modification requires the application of a (constant) force applied gradually, such as drilling, rather than a dynamic, percussive force, as would be expected if these holes were the result of hammering, or pushing, in a nail. One of the holes is complete, but the two that overlap, are not as refined. It is hypothesised that these two overlapping holes may represent initial attempts at creating a perforation. There is no evidence of any wear on any of the margins that could suggest the holes were intended for suspension. The purpose of the holes is unclear, but the investigations carried out for this project are considered to satisfactorily demonstrate their antiquity.

8.6.1.7 Other Modification As stated in Section 8.6.1, two other types of modification were observed within the Quanterness assemblage. These modifications do not fit into any of the established categories of trauma sustained by osseous remains, and suggest a level of intent in their production that is divergent from the modifications presented in the preceding sections. This section will present evidence for drilling in three of the Quanterness specimens, and a further, even more unique find of a possible carved area on human bone. 8.6.1.7a Drill Holes Plate 8.28 illustrates a manubrium (part of the sternum), recovered from the main chamber, with three perforations at its centre – one isolated, two overlapping. Chesterman (1979, 109), who referred to them as drill holes, originally identified these perforations. He reported a lack of evidence to the date of the perforations and offered no further comment. It was possible to examine these holes in greater detail using a high-powered microscope. Under

Plate 8.28 (Above left) Small Find 149.40 Sternum (Manubrium) Stratum 4, Area ZB II, Layer 21 (scale unit: 10 mm). (Lower left) Detail of arrowed perforation under high magnification. (Right) Overhead view of perforations. (Author image). 139

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney suggestion of antiquity for at least one perforation (arrowed top left). The lighter colour of bone surrounding the two larger holes could imply that these have occurred recently. However, as the surrounding bone is quite delicate, the boring of the holes may have weakened the bone, making it more susceptible to further erosion, thereby leading to this more recent damage. Part of the difficulty with these (and the other) perforations was that their fragility precluded the investigation of the walls, as casting material would have caused further damage. However, an SEM cast was taken (Section 5.14.1) of the surface immediately adjacent to the smallest perforation. This analysis revealed a slight depression, concentrically related to the associated hole, which may have been created in the process of drilling. Although the antiquity of larger perforations cannot be confidently assumed, the smaller, neater, hole does appear more convincing. This interpretation is strengthened by the precedent set by the earlier examples (Plates 8.28 and 8.29).

Plate 8.29 illustrates another perforation identified on a fragment of ulna recovered from the main chamber. This was not previously recorded in the original excavation report. Observation of the margins using a high-powered microscope demonstrates smooth and patinated edges. This perforation travels through to the lateral side of this bone, where its exit margins are not as refined. These exit margins may imply this particular bone was modified at a relatively later point in its taphonomic history. However, the patination and regularity of the medial aspect (Plate 8.29), in tandem with the experimental research presented in Appendix 7, supports a hypothesis that this modification did not occur recently. Plate 8.30 illustrates perforations in a femur found within side cell ZF. Initially, these perforations appear less convincing, in terms of their antiquity, than those presented for the sternum and ulna fragments. However, closer inspection using a high-powered microscope allows a

Plate 8.29 (Far left) Small Find 3017.19 Left Ulna Stratum 4, Area ZB III, Layer 57/6. (scale unit: 10mm). (Centre) Closeup of perforation. (Far right) detail of perforation under magnification. (Author image)

140

Results: Taphonomic Variables

Plate 8.30 (Above left) Small Find 2606.01 Left Femur (child) from Side Cell ZF, Layer 6 (scale unit: 10 mm). (Lower left) SEM image of area immediately adjacent to perforation (arrowed) and the edge of the wall of the perforation. (Right) Close up of 3 perforations. (Author image).

141

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney analysis using SEM (Section 5.14.1) (Plate 8.31, bottom right) did not reveal any specific evidence of tool marks. The possible purpose of this feature is not understood. Research has found nothing of comparison from human bone. The best analogue may be seen in artefacts such as the whale bone ‘sneck’ from Jarlshoff (Hamilton 1956). As this type of artefact is associated with later time periods, it was considered necessary to verify the date of this particular specimen. The scapula produced a date of 33693090 cal BC [UBA-16581], thus confirming its Neolithic provenance.

8.6.1.7b Possible Carved Bone – ‘Trefoil’ A unique modification is illustrated in Plate 8.31. A ‘trefoil’ shaped, negative feature was identified on the posterior surface of a scapula from the main chamber. This feature has been over-exposed in the top right image in Plate 8.31 to make it easier to distinguish. The patination of this feature would suggest it was created early in the taphonomic history of this element. Under magnification (Plate 8.31, top right) it is possible to see an apparent difference in the direction of the grain of the bone, implying artificial modification of the surface. However, further

Plate 8.31 (Left) Small Find 164.04 Left Scapula from Stratum 3, Area ZB II, Layer 22 (scale unit: 10 mm). (Above right) Detail under magnification of the ‘trefoil’ (Lower right) SEM image. (Author image).

142

Results: Taphonomic Variables Similar characteristics recorded in numerous other human bone assemblages have been used to argue that such marks are produced by the use of stone tools, such as hammer stones and flint blades (White 1992; Greenfield 1999). In light of this consensus of opinion, there appears to be no reason not to follow this hypothesis in this case.

8.6.1.8 Summary Figure 8.24 and Figure 8.25 illustrate that the range of trauma recorded at Quanterness is not exclusive to any particular area. ZB II, ZB III and ZF evidently have the greatest count of each of the taphonomic characteristics. ZB I, ZB IV and ZB V demarcate smaller areas of the central chamber, and this factor most plausibly accounts for the lower figures of recorded trauma.

There was no evidence to suggest that any skeletal element was preferentially selected for modification, or evidence to suggest there was any preference for the deposition of such remains in a particular area within the tomb. The animal damage identified on some of the material further indicates that animals had access to these particular remains. Clearly, the fact that Quanterness has not been fully excavated will limit interpretations of the spatial distribution of such artefacts. The implication of these modifications will be discussed in more depth in Chapter 10.

The taphonomic observations illustrated in this section account for a small proportion of the total Quanterness assemblage. However, given the high levels of fragmentation within this material, it could be considered serendipitous that any such evidence has been recovered at all. The cut marks, linear features, scrape marks and percussion pits combine to form a compelling argument for the deliberate modification of some of these remains.

Figure 8.24 Summary of excavation areas recorded for each trauma type.

Figure 8.25 Summary of trauma types recorded for each excavation area. 143

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 8.6.2 Quoyness

Plate 8.33 depicts the detail of at least one incised mark, observed on a left femur; although there may be as many as four parallel marks. Located on the anterior midshaft of this femur, this mark crosses a deep, longitudinal fracture in the bone. This evidently implies the incised mark was in place before the fracturing occurred. From the patination of the walls of the fracture, it is clear this event occurred early in the taphonomic history of this bone. The incised mark itself is also patinated, with numerous striae visible under high magnification. Striae may be caused by irregularities in the edge of a cutting or scraping tool (Greenfield 1999). This feature is reminiscent of the scrape marks noted at Quanterness (Plate 8.23). Additionally, this fragment indicated evidence for a dry fracture, suggesting there was some collagen content remaining in the bone when the fracture occurred.

Figure 8.26 presents a general overview of the trauma types recorded at Quoyness. These occurrences account for almost 10 per cent (27/275) of the available assemblage. The trauma types identified consisted of chops; crushing; incised marks; punctures and scarring (see Section 5.6.8 for criteria). The trauma types identified are illustrated in this section using a number of examples. 8.6.2.1 Incised Marks Incised marks refer to features that have a linear characteristic and have created a negative impression on the bone surface. Nine such examples of these markings were identified on the Quoyness remains. Scrape marks and possible cut marks have also been included in this category.

The femur illustrated in Plate 8.34 exhibits two parallel and incised marks. These marks are positioned on the anterior, approximately mid-shaft, and are associated with the fracture margin. Some crushing is also associated with this fracture margin. These marks exhibit patination and striae within. The striae must have originated from the irregularities of the edge of the tool used. There is a distinct curving of these marks, suggesting this is the result of a scraping action. The depth of the marks would argue against them being the result of trampling, as this has been shown to produce much shallower and more randomly distributed marks (White 1992, 145). These are similar to those recorded for G006 (Plate 8.33). Furthermore, the associated fracture is a dry fracture, indicating the break occurred when there was collagen remaining in the bone.

Plate 8.32 illustrates the details of an incised mark identified on a left tibia. Located on the lateral aspect, this mark may be described as a deep, incised linear mark and is associated with a scar to the cortical bone surface. A second, parallel, linear feature may also be observed below the first, within the same scar. The upper linear feature is V-shaped in cross section, is patinated and shows no signs of healing. This area of the tibia is associated with the ‘tibialis anterior’ muscle. The location and characteristics of these linear features could support a hypothesis that these marks relate to a de-fleshing activity. However, a differential diagnosis that these marks were due to some kind of trauma sustained around the time of death (deliberate (inter-personal violence) or accidental) cannot be ruled out.

Figure 8.26 Summary of trauma types recorded on skeletal elements at Quoyness.

144

Results: Taphonomic Variables A right humerus exhibiting evidence of deliberate modification is detailed in Plate 8.35. In this instance a wide, incised mark was located on the anterior surface, just superior to the deltoid tuberosity (Plate 8.35, arrowed). An additional mark is located slightly inferior to the first, aligned at a slightly different angle. This portion of the humerus is the location for the origin point of the ‘coracobrachialis’ muscle. Closer inspection using a highpowered microscope demonstrates that these features consist of numerous parallel striae, consistent with marks

usually identified as scrape marks. Furthermore, these marks are associated with a helical fracture, indicating the bone still retained its collagen content when the fracture occurred. Patination of these negative features reinforces a hypothesis that these marks were sustained during the initial stages of the bone’s taphonomic history. The association of the marks with a point of muscle insertion could support a further hypothesis that these marks arose during de-fleshing activities.

Plate 8.32 (Far left) Record G077 Left Tibia. (scale unit: 10 mm). (Centre) Detail (Far Right) Associated muscle. (Author image).

145

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Plate 8.33 (Far left) Record G006 Left Femur. (scale unit: 10 mm). (Centre) Detail. (Far right) Detail of feature under magnification. (Author image).

146

Results: Taphonomic Variables

Plate 8.34 (Far left) Record G107 Femur Fragment (scale unit: 10 mm). (Centre) close-up of feature (Far right) detail of feature under magnification. (Author image).

147

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Plate 8.35 (Far left) Record G257 Right Humerus fragment (scale unit: 10 mm). (Above centre) feature under magnification (Lower centre) feature under higher magnification (Far right) associated muscle. (Author image).

148

Results: Taphonomic Variables portion of the humerus is associated with the ‘extensor carpi radialis longus’ muscle. However, a differential diagnosis could interpret this feature as a traumatic injury, received during interpersonal violence.

8.6.2.2 Chop Marks Three chop marks were identified on the Quoyness remains (See Section 5.6.8 for criteria). Two of these are presented here (Plate 8.36 and Plate 8.37); the third was from a fibula.

A pelvis fragment was also identified as having sustained a chop mark. This example, detailed in Plate 8.37, is characterised by a wide, V-shaped chop mark located on the inferior fracture margin, just posterior to the auricular surface (Plate 8.37, arrowed). The cross-section surfaces have smooth edges and are patinated. Significantly, there are no signs of any healing, implying this feature occurred during the peri-mortem period.

Plate 8.36 illustrates the detail of a chop mark identified on a humerus. This feature was located on the posterior lateral border (arrowed). The impact has resulted in a spall of the cortical bone becoming detached, revealing the underlying cancellous bone. There is no sign of any healing taking place, indicating that this trauma was sustained perimortem. This may be evidence of dismemberment, as this

Plate 8.36 (Left) Record G028 Left Distal Femur Fragment (scale unit: 10 mm). (Centre) Detail of chop mark. (Right) associated muscle. (Author image).

149

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Plate 8.37 (Left) Record G165 Right Pelvis Fragment (scale unit: 10 mm). (Above right) feature under magnification. (Lower right) feature under magnification. (Author image).

150

Results: Taphonomic Variables in the cortical bone may be observed (arrowed). There is another, smaller area of similar damage superior to this primary feature. The irregular shape suggests this is an impact scar from a blunt tool such as a hammer stone. The detailed image illustrates patination and the smoothness of the damaged edges; features indicative of a peri-mortem event. This type of damage is commonly interpreted as a percussion pit; however, the morphology of the features identified at Quanterness exhibit a different internal topography.

8.6.2.3 Impact Scars Twelve occurrences of irregular scarring (Section 5.6.8) were found on the Quoyness remains. On all but one occasion these features were associated with long bones; the other impact scar was located on a cervical vertebra. A typical example is illustrated in this section. Plate 8.38 illustrates damage sustained by a right humerus. On the posterior, distal aspect a large and irregular scar

Plate 8.38 (Left) Record G032 Right Humerus (posterior aspect). (Right) close-up of feature. (Author image).

151

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 8.6.2.4 Punctures and Crushing

8.6.2.5 Summary

The Quoyness assemblage contained a small number of bones exhibiting evidence for crushing and punctures. A crush mark was identified on the distal, medial aspect of a left femur; a section of bone had been pressed downwards, but was still adhered to the rest of the bone. Unfortunately, the fracture surfaces of this specimen were too eroded to comment further. A large puncture was identified on a right pelvis fragment. This formed a long, oval shape, with a small fragment of bone still adhering to the margins. Another puncture was identified on the inferior surface of a thoracic vertebra. However, the edges were irregular and with no bone observed to be adhering to the margins. These characteristics would suggest this particular puncture occurred a considerable time after death. The damage identified on these three specimens does not meet any criteria for deliberate modification.

The evidence identified at Quoyness is striking. Given the comparatively small size of this assemblage (relative to Quanterness) there appears to be a significant number of bones with evidence to suggest a hypothesis of deliberate modification of human remains. The validity of this hypothesis is augmented by the location of the marks at points of muscle attachments and their peri-mortem characteristics. In several instances, the features were associated with fractures that are produced on bone that still retains its collagen content and is therefore relatively fresh. In addition, there was no evidence of damage due to animal activity. An illustration of the distribution of fractures and trauma is presented in Fig. 8.27.

Figure 8.27 Composite of locations of trauma marks identified on the Quoyness remains. 152

Results: Taphonomic Variables 8.6.3 Point of Cott

at the lab where this assemblage was investigated, further analysis of the few features identified was not possible.

In comparison to Quanterness and Quoyness, there were relatively few markings from Point of Cott that could confidently be identified as traumatic in origin. Only three elements were thought to display evidence of this nature. Unfortunately, as there was no high-powered microscope

Plate 8.39 presents a mandible recovered from Compartment 3. The interior aspect of the area associated with the incisors presents a similar appearance (arrowed) to a characteristic known as peeling. Peeling has been

Plate 8.39 (Left) Small Find 3/166 Mandible from Compartment 3 (scale unit: 10 mm). (Right) detail. (Author image).

Plate 8.40 (Left) Small Find 3/391 Femur Fragment From Compartment 3 (scale unit: 10 mm). (Right) detail. (Author image). 153

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney described by White (1992, 140) as a phenomenon that occurs when bone retains its collagen content, and is identified by the fibrous appearance of the bone surface (Section 5.6.8). Identification of this characteristic on the mandible would imply it was fractured while the bone still retained its collagen.

The femur fragment illustrated in Plate 8.41 exhibits the most convincing evidence of possible deliberate modification. A large area of erosion is apparent at the fracture margin. Within this area, there appears to be two or three incised marks (arrowed). Unfortunately it was not possible to examine these microscopically. However, the patination of this area of damage does suggest this event occurred in the early stages of this bone’s taphonomic history.

Plate 8.40 illustrates a small feature identified on a femur fragment, also from Compartment 3. The patinated and u-shaped cross section of the feature (arrowed) on this fragment indicates it is probably the result of animal damage, rather than modification from tool use. This type of feature is most consistent with animal teeth dragging across the surface of the bone. However, it was not possible to examine this fragment using a high powered microscope, so this diagnosis is tentative and no further comment may be made as to the characteristics of this feature.

8.6.3.1 Summary The small number of examples illustrated in this section demonstrates a distinct contrast with the evidence from the other sites. In fact, the evidence presented for Point of Cott is somewhat tentative and seems less convincing given the precedent set by the assemblages examined thus far.

Plate 8.41 (Above) Small Find 1/5A Long Bone Fragment (Possible Femur) from Compartment 1. (scale unit: 10 mm). (Lower) Detail. (Author image).

154

Results: Taphonomic Variables The pit on the lateral surface of a radius (Plate 8.43, arrowed) may represent a percussion pit, though this identification is somewhat uncertain. The central area of this pit is patinated. However, doubts surrounding the antiquity of this evidence are evident due to the lighter colour of the surrounding margin. However, weathering of this area due to weakening of the bone surface from the initial damage may logically explain this. For this reason, this specimen has, tentatively, been included.

8.6.4 Pierowall Quarry Of the 212 bones in the assemblage at Pierowall Quarry, very few fragments were found to have compelling evidence for trauma. There is one possible incident of a percussion pit and one linear feature. As with Point of Cott, the lack of access to a high-powered microscope hampered further investigation of these particular features. There was evidence for root etching to the surface of some of the bones, but this was a more recent occurrence. The details for each of these features are presented in this section.

Root etching was observed on the surface of a femur diaphysis, the lighter colour of the etching indicating this is a more modern taphonomic agent.

The left humerus in Plate 8.42 exhibits several parallel, linear striations on the anterior surface of the medial epicondyle. The surrounding cortical bone is quite eroded, undermining any confident interpretation. This area is associated with the origin point for the ‘pronator teres’ muscle. On the posterior surface a large spall of bone has become detached. It was not possible to examine these marks in greater detail microscopically. However, the sharpness and V-shaped cross section observed during analysis, in tandem with the location and clustering of these marks, may suggest an incident of processing, namely the dismemberment of the arm.

8.6.4.1 Summary Whilst the volume of evidence for deliberate modification at Pierowall Quarry is scarce, the incised marks on the humerus and the percussion pit on the femur, imply manipulation of at least some of the remains associated with this tomb. However, the identification of agents must be considered tentative as intimated above.

Plate 8.42 (Left) Small Find 145 Left Humerus From Layer 29 (scale unit: 10 mm). (Right) Detail. (Author image).

155

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Plate 8.43 (Above) Radius Fragment from Layer 29 (scale unit: 10 mm). (Lower) detail. (Author image).

156

Results: Taphonomic Variables at the fracture margin may suggest some abrasion during excavation, or that the fracture itself is new, the pit does seem to be patinated. Unfortunately, due to the lack of facilities, further examination of this feature was not possible.

8.6.5 Isbister Of the sample of 475 bones analysed from Isbister, only a fraction provided any indication of trauma. One example of an incised mark, and one example of a percussion pit were the only examples identified with any confidence, and it should be noted that the incised mark is still a speculative interpretation. These features are presented in Plate 8.44 and Plate 8.45. In addition, there were several examples of animal damage (Plate 8.46 and Plate 8.47). One of the difficulties with a taphonomic assessment of the remains from Isbister is the presence of a concretion over many of the bones. This has, in many cases, obscured the bone surface and therefore any potential taphonomic indicators underneath.

8.6.5.2 Incised Mark Plate 8.45 presents the detail of possible trauma to a left humerus. There is an incised mark running horizontally across the area of the coranoid fossa (arrowed). The erosion of the cortical bone surface in this area means interpretation of this as a cut mark must be tentative, as the primary identifying characteristics have been eradicated. 8.6.5.3 Animal Damage

8.6.5.1 Percussion Pit A typical example of damage to a pelvis, from animal chew marks, is illustrated in Plate 8.46. Located on the illium, are several puncture-marks (arrowed). These are conical in shape, and have crushed bone still adhering to the resultant fracture margins. These marks are most

Plate 8.44 presents possible trauma sustained by a left humerus. On the anterior of the diaphysis, adjacent to the fracture margin, is a feature with the appearance of a percussion pit. Although the lighter colour of the bone

Plate 8.44 (Left) Small Find DL125 Left Humerus (scale unit: 10 mm). (Right) Detail, feature arrowed. (Author image).

157

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney consistent with damage caused by animals chewing on the bone. The patination and the fact the bone fractured by the chewing action is still adherent, implies this event happened while the bone still retained some collagen content.

inhibited the identification of taphonomic indicators. It is not fully understood what has caused this concretion, but Lawrence (2006, 51) notes the concretions are associated with bones that also have a clear brown ‘varnish’, which is suggested could be a decay product.

Further evidence for damage created by animals is presented in Plate 8.47. In this instance, two large punctures, 8.05 mm apart, may be observed on a fragment of humerus (arrowed). Both punctures have the inwardly crushed bone flakes still adhering. The smaller puncture is conical in shape. To the left of these features, a second, shallower pair of puncture marks may be observed. This type of damage is consistent with that of animal chewing. The patination of the punctures and adhering flakes suggests this occurred peri-mortem.

8.6.5.5 Summary Isbister presented only two occurrences of taphonomic indicators that may suggest anthropogenic agents in the modification of this assemblage. This represents a very small proportion and both of these examples would benefit from further microscopic investigation. It is perhaps worth noting that the recent study by Lawrence (2006) cites no examples of comparative features, such as percussion pits and cut marks, as presented for the other sites. He has, however, identified trauma to the crania from Isbister (Lawrence 2006, 53). The evidence for animal damage is convincing and certainly implies these remains were accessed by animals relatively early in their taphonomic history.

8.6.5.4 Other Features A concretion of stone, earth and small bones was found to obscure many of the bone surfaces. This concretion

Plate 8.45 (Left) DL 2598 Left Humerus Fragment (scale unit: 10 mm). (Right) Detail. (Author image).

158

Results: Taphonomic Variables

Plate 8.46 (Left) DL44.25, Right Pelvis (scale unit: 10 mm). (Right) Detail (Author image).

159

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Plate 8.47 (Left) DL 780 Humerus fragment (scale unit: 10 mm). (Right) Detail (Author image). 8.6.6 Cuween Hill

fracturing by their direction, as their direction will be constant (Calce & Rogers 2007, 526). The radiating fractures and large perforation identified on this cranium would indicate a peri-mortem, blunt force trauma that has resulted in a substantial penetrating injury.

The assessment of taphonomic indicators at Cuween Hill was complicated by the curatorial practice of using preservatives and consolidants on human remains, a procedure that was typical in 1952 when the site was excavated. This will, potentially, make assessment of any taphonomic indicators challenging. In spite of this challenge, the small assemblage from Cuween has provided evidence of peri-mortem trauma.

Cranium IV, illustrated in Plate 8.49, also exhibits a large puncture positioned on the superior aspect, across the left and right parietal bones. In contrast to Cranium II, there are no radiating fractures. This cranium was also examined using an X-Ray, which confirmed the absence of radiating fractures. However, there is some crushing on the ectocranial surface adjacent to the edge of the fracture margin. Examination of the endocranial (interior) surface identified a small portion of the compact vault bone has partially ‘released’ from the diploe (spongy bone) superficial to it (Plate 8.49, right, arrowed). This is caused by a peri-mortem impact to the ectocranial surface that has not completely penetrated the area of the defect (Knüsel 2005, 56). The location of this incomplete bevel would therefore imply it was at the periphery of the application of the main force responsible for this penetrating injury.

Cranium II from Cuween (Plate 8.48) has clearly sustained substantial damage to its superior aspect, specifically, on the right parietal. This large puncture terminates at the sagittal suture and the coronal suture. On closer inspection, at least three radiating fractures were identified (arrowed). It is apparent that an attempt has been made to stabilise one of these fractures using metal staples, most probably during post-excavation treatment. This cranium was examined further, using X-Ray (Section 5.14.2), in order to verify the fracture lines identified and to check for any others. Those identified were clearly evident (Plate 8.48 arrowed), though there appears to be no evidence of any further examples. Cranial fractures occur from tensile strain generated as the cranium deforms (i.e. bends) in response to the force of a blow (Knüsel 2005, 56). Blunt force trauma, at or around the time of death, is identified by the presence of concentric or radiating fractures, in the immediate vicinity of the defect (Boylston 2000, 361; Kanz & Grossschmidt 2006, 210; Calce & Rogers 2007, 519). Radiating, peri-mortem fracture lines are distinguished from post-mortem

8.6.6.1 Summary Neither of these two massive traumatic injuries are mentioned in the original excavation reports (Childe 1954). Whilst they are demonstrated to have arisen during the peri-mortem phase, identifying the motivation for their creation (i.e. interpersonal violence or funerary rite) is unclear. This aspect will be further discussed in Chapter 10. 160

Results: Taphonomic Variables

Plate 8.48 Cranium II (scale unit: 10 mm). (Author image)

161

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Plate 8.49 (Above left) Crania IV, from above (scale unit: 10 mm). (Lower left) detail of injury (Right) endocranial view (Author image)

162

Results: Taphonomic Variables 8.7 Chapter Summary This chapter has presented evidence of the multifarious taphonomic agents that have acted upon the Orcadian assemblages chosen for analysis. The key findings from this investigation are summarised below. • The effects of weathering have not been found to be as extensive as would be anticipated for a mortuary rite involving excarnation (exposure). • Only Quanterness was found to have any evidence for the exposure of human remains to fire. However, this evidence was not as prevalent within the assemblage as originally suggested by Chesterman (1979). Interestingly, many of the burnt remains were concentrated in one area of the tomb (ZB III/North End) and, in addition, demonstrated peri-mortem fracturing. • Comparison of the NISP to the MNE for each assemblage confirmed high levels of fragmentation, particularly at Quanterness. Of particular interest is the high fragmentation of more robust bones, such as the femora and mandibulae. • At Quanterness, there was evidence for the deliberate modification of remains in the form of cut marks, percussion pits and scrape marks. • The Quoyness remains exhibited evidence of their deliberate modification. However, some of the features identified, specifically the percussion pits, were of a different morphology to those at Quanterness. • Evidence for modification at Point of Cott and Pierowall Quarry is scarce, and the small numbers of examples identified are particularly tentative. • Two of the five crania recovered from Cuween illustrated evidence of peri-mortem, penetrating injuries to the superior aspect of each cranium. • A small number of the remains from Quanterness exhibited evidence of more unusual modification in the form of drill holes and possibly carved bone.

163

Chapter 9

Results: Faunal Remains at Quanterness 9.1 Introduction

Ireland (Sheridan 2005; McCormick & Sheridan 2006; Schulting et al. 2011).

The preceding chapters (Chapter 7 and Chapter 8) presented the results from taphonomic analysis of the human remains from Quanterness and the other Orcadian sites. This chapter is concerned with animal remains from Quanterness. The taphonomic variables discussed include weathering stages, fracture types and trauma. The dates obtained for nine specimens from the main faunal assemblage are also presented.

The samples for dating were selected from the main faunal assemblage in collaboration with Dr Rick Schulting (University of Oxford). The samples were analysed at the CHRONO centre at Queen’s University Belfast. The criteria employed in selection of the samples were to ensure both a range of strata, and a range of species (sheep, red deer, pig and dog), were included. Nine AMS radiocarbon dates were obtained and are presented in Figure 9.1.

Unfortunately, due to the limited time available, it was not feasible to analyse the main faunal assemblage from Quanterness. However, during analysis of the human remains some 500 fragments of animal bones were identified. This material was examined and recorded following the same criteria established for the human bone (Section 5.6). Thus, this small sample should provide an indication of the processes the faunal remains have been subject to, thereby allowing comparison to the human remains. This comparison was possible because the human remains were not recovered as a discrete and isolated deposit; animal bone and other artefacts were also present (Clutton-Brock 1979; Henshall 1979). With the likelihood of being subject to similar taphonomic agents, the animal bone and human bone could reasonably be expected to display similar types of evidence. Equally, different taphonomic histories would be evident by the existence of distinguishing features. This chapter presents the results of this comparative analysis.

The new dates obtained for the faunal remains suggest they are not absolutely contemporaneous with the human deposits. Twenty new AMS dates for the human remains from Quanterness have indicated that the earliest human remains deposited in the Quanterness passage tomb fall within the period 3510–3220 cal BC (95.4% probability). The main period of use of Quanterness for the deposition of human bone is modelled as lasting between 350 and 720 years (95.4% probability), ending around 2870–2720 cal BC (95.4% probability) (Schulting et al. 2010, 24). Five of the faunal samples clearly occur after this time (Fig. 9.1) indicating Quanterness was in use, although not necessarily for the deposition of human remains, for a longer duration than is suggested by the human deposits. The outlying medieval sheep was suspected to be intrusive as it was from a disturbed context. Furthermore, in a similar vein to the distribution of dates from the human bone, there seems to be little correlation with the stratigraphic sequence. For example, one of the earliest dates (UBA18432) is associated with the later layers in the sequence, Stratum 5b, whereas one of the latest dates (UBA-18425) is associated with the earliest layers in Stratum 1. This strongly implies a degree of turbation of the whole deposit following the main use-phase. An alternative hypothesis would involve the entire deposit having been brought in as one event, previously gathered from other locations and dates. However, the excavator has suggested a degree of order to the main faunal deposits. The remains of horse and pig occur only in the upper levels of the deposit, primarily Strata 5 and Strata 6, whilst sheep, cattle and deer are more frequent in Strata 3 and 4 (Renfrew 1979, 154) (Fig. 9.2). This observation would seem to contradict the hypothesis of significant turbation of the deposit. However, sheep, cattle and deer are found throughout the deposit (Fig. 9.2) and as Strata 3 and 4 comprise the main bone spread, it does not seem unusual to find a concentration of bone within this context. The possible implications of these new dates will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 10.

9.2 Dating of the Faunal Remains At the time of the original analysis, an attempt was made to confirm the antiquity of the animal remains using a method to assess the percentage of nitrogen (representing residual protein) left in the bone. The results of this technique were not found to be reliable. In spite of this setback, it was concluded that a lack of clearly intrusive material and the small number of carnivore bones indicated the animal remains in the main chamber were contemporary with the human (CluttonBrock 1979, 115). However, dates obtained later from a sample of fox bone from one of the chambers were dated to the Iron Age (Hedges et al. 1987, 300; Barber 1988, 62). Establishing the contemporaneity (or lack thereof) between the faunal and human assemblages was of further importance given the results of recent dating programs for similar Neolithic tombs in Orkney and 164

Results: Faunal Remains at Quanterness

Figure 9.1 C14 determinations (OxCal 4.1.7) arranged in stratigraphic order.

165

Figure 9.2 Count of animal bone present by stratum from Quanterness. This information is derived from the excavation report (Clutton-Brock 1979).

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

166

Results: Faunal Remains at Quanterness The bulk of the material is associated with the main bone spread in Strata 3 and 4, emulating the concentration of bone within these strata for the main faunal assemblage (Fig. 9.2) and the human remains.

9.3 Taphonomic Analysis of Faunal Remains As stated above, an additional 500 fragments of animal bone were identified within the Quanterness human bone assemblage. Their fragmentary nature meant identification to species was not possible as the diagnostic features were absent. However, many of these fragments had been given Small Find numbers. Similarly to the human remains, these numbers enabled cross-referencing with the information contained in Chesterman’s notebooks in order to retrieve the relevant contextual data. Figure 9.3 illustrates the distribution of the faunal material according to stratum.

Figure 9.4 further demonstrates that the majority of this material is associated with the north end of the main chamber, ZB III. Area ZB II in the south end and side chamber ZF also contained relatively substantial quantities of this faunal material. These distributions most probably reflect the substantial volumes of the tomb deposit incorporated within these areas.

Figure 9.3 Quantity of additional faunal remains at Quanterness by Stratum.

Figure 9.4 Quantity of additional faunal remains by Area. 167

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 9.4 Fragment Size

9.5 Weathering

As evidenced in Figure 9.5, the majority of the additional fragments were between the Size 3 (21–30 mm) and Size 5 (41–50 mm) categories (see Section 5.6.10), intimating the difficulties in identifying some of these elements. Some of the larger fragments relate to long splinters of long bone that had no anatomically distinguishing features. The lack of identification also prohibits an assessment of a comparison of MNE to the NISP for each species. However, this material could be incorporated into a future study of the main faunal assemblage that might benefit from a re-examination employing a taphonomic approach.

As with the human bone, the additional faunal material was found to display a variety of weathering stages across all the areas and through the depth of the deposit. This information is summarised in Figure 9.6 and Figure 9.7. The majority of the material was found to exhibit weathering Stage 0, with a negligible quantity displaying the more advanced Stage 3. Only Stage 0 is associated with Stratum 2 and Stratum 5a. However, the data for Stratum 2 is derived from only three bones, all from the same level. Similarly, Stratum 5a reflects the results of just two bones. The absence of osseous remains with more advanced

Figure 9.5 Quantity of additional faunal remains at Quanterness according to their fragment size categories.

Figure 9.6 Summary of the weathering stages displayed by additional faunal remains in each stratum. 168

Results: Faunal Remains at Quanterness weathering stages most likely reflects the difficulty in excavating bone that was very decayed. In other words it was highly likely to be present, but was too decayed to recover. As highlighted in Section 8.2.1, Chesterman (1979, 97) referred to bone which was extremely badly decayed next to bone in ‘mint’ condition. The observation of a variety of weathering stages found together is usually taken as evidence for an accumulation of remains over time (Behrensmeyer 1978). Furthermore, the variety of weathering stages in each stratum lends further credence to the hypothesis that the Quanterness floor deposits were subject to significant disturbance.

on the presence of this fracture type within the small assemblage assessed. This difference in the prevalence of the helical fracturing could suggest a difference in the treatment of human and animal remains. A similar number of dry fractures were identified (Fig. 9.8). These fracture types indicate breakage occurred at a point in time after the peri-mortem phase, but while some collagen was still retained. New breaks (modern) accounted for a relatively low proportion of the assemblage, and are probably due to accidental damage occurring during excavation or storage. 9.7 Trauma

9.6 Fracture Types

Thirty-two fragments of animal bone were found to display evidence for trauma (some elements had more than one trauma type). These types of trauma are commonly found on faunal remains considered to have been butchered. Due to the sizes of the fragments analysed, it was not feasible to comment on how the trauma type related to the anatomical characteristics of the element. The trauma types recorded are summarised in Fig. 9.9, some examples are also illustrated and described in this section.

Assessment of the fracture types (Section 5.6.5 for criteria) demonstrates a high level of mineralised breaks (Fig. 9.8). This type of break indicates damage occurring a significant time after death, once the organic content (collagen) has disappeared. Helical fracturing was identified on 93 fragments. These types of breaks are associated with perimortem fracturing. When this type of fracturing is found to be present on faunal remains, it is usually considered to be an indicator of butchery of meat for consumption. However, without the identification of each fragment to species, and skeletal zone, confident interpretations of butchery practice are not possible. In comparison with the human breaks, where helical fracturing accounted for 1% of the assemblage (92/9,006), within these 500 fragments, helical fracturing accounts for over 18% (93/500). It is considered reasonable to expect the main faunal assemblage will also exhibit helical fractures, based

Figure 9.9 demonstrates that many of the features identified on the human bones are also present on the animal bone. Exploring this correlation, it is tempting to suggest that human and animal bone have been treated in a similar manner. However, to furnish this hypothesis with greater validity would require further analysis, involving a comparison of the distribution of identified trauma on human skeletal elements, to the distribution of identified trauma on non-human elements.

Figure 9.7 Summary of the weathering stages displayed by the additional faunal remains at Quanterness according to area.

169

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Figure 9.8 Summary of the quantity of fracture types identified from the additional faunal remains at Quanterness.

Figure 9.9 Quantity of trauma types recorded from the additional faunal remains at Quanterness.

170

Results: Faunal Remains at Quanterness

Plate 9.1 exhibits a deep, incised mark, located on the superior border of a rib fragment. It has one very sharp margin; the other is less so. Either side of this mark are several other, v-shaped linear marks. They are unidirectional and are consistent with trauma resulting from a fine edged cutting tool, such as flint (Eickhoff & Herrmann 1985).

particular interest are several sets of linear striations. Detailed examination using a high-powered microscope indicated these marks were patinated, with a similar appearance to those features identified as scrape marks at Quanterness (see Plate 8.23) and possibly Quoyness (see Plate 8.35). This could imply that human and animal remains have been manipulated with similar tools using a similar force and motion. Another possibility is that a scavenging animal may have inflicted this damage.

9.7.2 Scrape Marks

9.7.3 Helical Fracturing

Plate 9.2 illustrates a fragment exhibiting several interesting characteristics. Helical fracturing is present on two of the fracture margins (Plate 9.2, top-left). Additionally, a roundel of bone appears to have been ‘punched out’ (Plate 9.2, right). The area of crushing associated with this margin (arrow) indicates this puncture occurred peri-mortem (White 1992, 142). Of

Plate 9.3 presents an example of a long bone fragment displaying archetypal helical fracturing, indicating that the breakage occurred during the peri-mortem phase. A possible percussion pit on the exterior surface (not shown) is associated with the fracture margin; however, the cortical surface is quite eroded, thereby limiting confidence in this identification.

9.7.1 Incised Marks

Plate 9.1 Small Find 231.02 Animal Rib Context unknown. (Scale unit: 10 mm). (Author image).

171

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Plate 9.2 Small Find 3023.05 Animal fragment from Stratum 1, Area ZB II, Layer 23. (Scale unit: 10 mm). (Author image).

172

Results: Faunal Remains at Quanterness

Plate 9.3 Small Find 3068.12 Animal Fragment Stratum 4, Area ZB III, Layer 57/58. (Scale unit: 10 mm). (Author image).

173

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 9.8 Summary The faunal remains examined taphonomically from Quanterness relate to fragments of bone that were identified during analysis of the human remains. As suggested above, time constraints meant it was not pragmatic to examine the main faunal assemblage in the same manner. However, the remains that have been examined indicate that the animal bone had been subject to some type of processing, demonstrated by the occurrence of cut marks and helical fracturing. A lack of anatomical features precludes interpretation of this processing as indicative of a more systematic practice, such as butchering. Nine C14 dates were obtained from faunal remains from the main assemblage, in collaboration with Dr Rick Schulting at the University of Oxford, who is carrying out a stable isotope analysis of the Quanterness faunal remains. These results have highlighted difficulties in assuming that the faunal remains are contemporary with the human remains. The key points established from this small sample are: • The new AMS radiocarbon dates indicate the faunal remains are not strictly contemporary with the human assemblage, and in several cases, post-date the usephase derived from the human remains. • The weathering patterns do not exhibit advanced weathering stages, as might be expected of remains that have been excarnated (exposed). • The small sample of faunal remains examined illustrates a greater proportion of helical (peri-mortem) fracturing than previously identified for the human remains. • Deliberate modification, such as cut marks and scrape marks, reinforces the hypothesis that many of the faunal remains were subject to deliberate processing. It is unclear whether this was for consumption or for mortuary rites.

174

Chapter 10

Discussion 10.1 Introduction

Barber (2000, 185) has indicated; the figures of 157 and 342 (for Quanterness and Isbister respectively), while comparatively larger, were still unlikely to represent the interment of a whole population for the duration of the tombs’ use-life.

The final chapter will provide detailed interpretation and discussion of the results presented in Chapters 7–9. As Chapter 4 alluded to, and is apparent from the results, the taphonomic approach has generated a large volume of data to decipher. The following discussion aims to elicit the key taphonomic findings that facilitate the re-interpretation of the mortuary rites associated with Quanterness, and how this hypothesis may relate to the other Orcadian tombs included in the study. The findings have been sub-divided into three broad sections; data relating to quantitative analysis; specific taphonomic variables and a subsequent discussion of the mortuary rite(s) that may be inferred. Finally, the broader implications of this new perspective will be explored, both in the context of our understanding of how human remains were treated and the potential effects upon archaeological interpretation of the tombs and Neolithic Orkney.

In highlighting previous observations of tomb populations it is possible to contextualise the MNI results generated by the current study (Table 10.1), the most significant of which is the recalculation of the Quanterness assemblage, from 157 to 59 individuals (Section 7.2.1). A similarly pronounced reduction was recently reported for Isbister, from 341 (Chesterman 1983, 77), to just 85 individuals (Lawrence 2006, 55). The new Quanterness MNI would appear to challenge the original assumption that the osseous material represents a ‘whole population’. The plausibility of the original hypothesis is also challenged by new C14 dates that suggest a long period of use of between 350 and 720 years (Schulting et al. 2010). Therefore, when considering the new, substantially lower MNI, and the prolonged duration of tomb use it can be suggested that, rather than being atypical, Quanterness also conforms to the hypothesis that a limited proportion of the population were interred within Neolithic megalithic tombs, as observed for the other British and Irish tombs (Smith & Brickley 2009).

10.2 Quantification 10.2.1 How Many in the Tomb? Minimum Number of Individuals One of the most interesting characteristics to have emanated from the Quanterness excavation was considered to be the large number of individuals represented by the osseous material (Renfrew 1979, 162). The figures produced were thought to indicate the mortality, over many years, of an entire community. This observation was in striking contrast to the low numbers of individuals recovered from other Neolithic tombs, not just in Orkney, but from the rest of Britain and Ireland.

In spite of this recalculation, the number of individuals now estimated to be represented by the Quanterness material is still substantially higher than in many other British and Irish tombs (see Table 10.2) – only Isbister has a greater number. It should be remembered, however, that 20 per cent of the main chamber and five of the side cells at Quanterness, remain unexcavated (Renfrew 1979, 162). This implies that the new MNI of 59 should rise if the rest of the monument was excavated. A final count may indeed be comparable with Isbister, but without further excavation, any suggestion must remain conjecture.

The comparatively small quantities of bone within the majority of the Neolithic tombs are regarded as a disproportionate representation of the populations who interacted with them (Smith & Brickley 2009, 88). This recognition has led to the inevitable inference that the individuals incorporated within these tomb deposits must have been distinguished from the rest of the community, perhaps due to social status or lineage (Edmonds 1999, 61; Fowler 2010), thereby warranting their inclusion within the monuments. The greater numbers of individuals calculated by Chesterman (1979) for Quanterness, and later for Isbister (1983), evidently, differentiated these Orcadian tombs. However, despite this distinction and, as

The MNIs for the other tombs investigated as part of this study are low (Table 10.1), and have little affinity with the numbers at Quanterness. How might this be explained? Accounts of disturbed deposits and decaying bone, contained in the relevant excavation reports, may provide some explanation for these lower numbers. At Pierowall Quarry, the report stated that estimation of the number of individuals represented was impossible to achieve with any accuracy due to the fragmentary nature of the

175

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Table 10.1 Summary of the MNI for each tomb derived from the assemblages included in the study Site

MNI

Tomb Type

Isbister

85 (Lawrence 2006)

Stalled/hybrid

Quanterness

59

Maeshowe

Quoyness

13

Maeshowe

Point of Cott

9

Stalled

Pierowall Quarry

8

Maeshowe

Cuween Hill

5

Maeshowe

assemblage. A tentative estimate of six individuals was made at the time (Sharples 1984, 107), and this is in close agreement with the new MNI of eight for this site (Section 7.2.4). According to the excavation report, the Pierowall Quarry human remains were not recovered from within the tomb. Although thought to have derived from the main chamber, the remains were recovered from amongst the rubble immediately outside the outer façade of the cairn, suggesting their deposition occurred following the destruction of the original monument (Sharples 1984, 107; Davidson & Henshall 1989, 182). Furthermore, the building of a roundhouse destroyed much of the original cairn. This evidence for substantial disturbance causes difficulties in interpreting the significance of the MNI for this site, as an unknown volume of original material must have been lost.

Table 10.2 MNI for sites from Britain and Ireland. (Adapted from Smith & Brickley 2009, 88)

At Quoyness, the MNI has been calculated as 13 (Section 7.2.2). However, in his report, Farrer (1870, 399) indicated that although he had cut through a stratum of bone 0.4 m thick, it had been too decayed to lift. Whilst it is impossible to be sure if this osseous material was all human, it clearly implies the original volume of bone deposited in Quoyness was much greater than has survived for analysis today. A similar observation of highly decayed bone, unsuitable for detailed inquiry, was also made at Quanterness (Chesterman 1979, 97). At Point of Cott the MNI of nine (Section 7.2.3) represents a somewhat reduced figure from the original estimates. This, in part, is due to a number of fragments not being available at the time of analysis. Furthermore, Lee (1997, 37) had ‘rearticulated’ individual bodies as part of the MNI methodology, a technique not attempted for this project. Barber (1997, 68) states that soil samples taken from inside the chamber revealed very high levels of phosphate, which could be the residue of human bone after decomposition (although this could feasibly be animal as well). Here again, there is an indication that the volume of bone, and therefore the MNI, may have been higher. The excavation reports for Cuween Hill also infer greater volumes of bone within the tombs than was actually recovered. Charleson (1902) observed up to eight individuals during excavation, however, three of these were from skulls that ‘crumbled away when touched’ (Charleson 1902, 733).

Site

Location

MNI

Isbister

Orkney

85

Quanterness

Orkney

59

West Kennet

England

36

Fussell’s Lodge

England

34

Hazleton North

England

33

Parc le Breos Cwm

Wales

31

Poulnabrone

Ireland

22

Ascott-under-Wychwood

England

21

Parknabinnia

Ireland

20

West Tump

England

18

Boles Barrow

England

15

Burn Ground

England

15

Wayland’s Smithy

England

15

Quoyness

Orkney

13

Point of Cott

Orkney

9

Pierowall Quarry

Orkney

8

Lanhill

England

7

Adlestrop

England

6

Haddenham

England

5

Poulawack

Ireland

4

The evidence within the reports evidently provides support for a hypothesis that the bone assemblages within these tombs have suffered an appreciable level of decay. Therefore, the MNI figures do not reflect the true volume of bone originally contained within the tombs when abandoned. Nevertheless, it is possible that while the final numbers archaeologists have recovered have been affected by ‘normal’ levels of decay, the variation in MNI between sites is real. That is to say, some tombs may have held greater numbers of individuals than others.

176

Discussion Issues of decay have been highlighted by Beckett & Robb (2006, 67) who argue that low numbers of individuals do not necessarily imply that only select sections of a population were buried in the tombs. Using a computer simulated ‘virtual tomb’, their research has demonstrated that with an appreciable and on-going level of bone destruction, the tomb MNI will always converge upon a ceiling. They argue that regardless of whether 100 or 1000 people were originally buried in their ‘virtual tomb’, the MNI never exceeds 100, and often converges upon far fewer. This assumes a practice involving the sequential interment of bodies, with new additions largely destroying the burials already present. This would certainly go some way to explaining the relatively low numbers from all the sites across Britain and Ireland. It does not, however, help to explain why there is such a difference in numbers in some of the Orkney tombs. As is evident, even with significantly reduced numbers, Quanterness and Isbister still rank highest when compared with Neolithic tombs from other parts of Britain and Ireland.

may provide another perspective to help interpret the low numbers of individuals within tombs. Famadihana refers to rituals held for the purpose of transferring a body from a temporary grave to its ancestral tomb, or from one tomb to another, or to remove the bodies temporarily for the purposes of wrapping them in new silk shrouds. During famadihana, Graeber (1995, 263) observed that the bodies are intentionally subjected to a great deal of rough handling: ‘they are made to dance with living partners, pulled and tugged, wrapped and bound with extreme force, and then dragged into a still more tumultuous dance before being returned to their shelves’. In this way, after 20 years and several famadihana rituals, there is little left to identify the remains as having been of human form. Furthermore, new tombs are continually being constructed as older tombs are emptied and abandoned (Graeber 1995, 262). Of particular relevance for understanding low numbers of individuals within the Neolithic tombs of Orkney is Graeber’s (1995, 263) observation that despite each tomb being in use for at least a century, he was continually surprised by how few bodies the tombs contained. He attributes this phenomenon partly to the building of new tombs, which led to the removal of ancestors from older tombs for placement in the new tombs, but primarily resulting from the habit of the consolidation of bodies as part of the famadihana rites.

As alluded to above, the figures indicate that Quanterness and Isbister may have been ‘atypical’ due to the high volume of human bone. However, whilst the other assemblages included in this study have comparatively low MNIs, some other Orcadian sites are reported to have contained not unsubstantial quantities of bone. For example, at Midhowe, 25 individuals were identified (Callander & Grant 1934, 148). A second-hand description by Petrie of Korkquoy, an ‘immense chambered tomb’ on Westray, describes skeletons lying in ‘tiers’, some apparently crouched, amounting to 60 or 70 skeletons (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 141). Frustratingly, these remains are lost. The recent discovery of human remains at Banks Tomb in South Ronaldsay (Lee 2011) indicates volumes of bone similar to those found at Quanterness and Isbister are contained within. The review of the MNI figures demonstrates that Chesterman’s original, large MNIs possibly over-emphasised the numbers of bodies within a few Orcadian tombs. Whilst the numbers are still relatively large, they are not as vastly divergent to some of the other tombs in the rest of Great Britain (see Table 10.2) and in Orkney as previously thought. However, why some tombs should contain only a handful of individuals or none at all, is not clear. Whether this reflects differences in duration of use, differences in the population permitted interment within, differences in funerary rites, or a combination of these factors is uncertain at this stage.

This illustrates that despite longevity of use, and use by the entire population, the remains within these Merina tombs are not indicative of the true numbers of people placed within their confines. The employment of similar practices, involving the clearing out and relocation of bodies, could reasonably explain the empty tombs in Orkney. This ethnographic observation would also go some way to supporting Beckett and Robb’s (2006, 67) hypothesis that low numbers do not necessarily indicate a select proportion of the population. Alternative hypotheses must be considered. 10.3 Whole Bodies or Partial Remains? Skeletal Element Representation The key issue when interpreting assemblages of fragmentary and commingled remains is to quantify the assemblage. Once the volume of osseous material has been defined, it is possible to explore how the skeletal elements are represented; in other words, identifying which elements are present or absent. It is this process of element quantification that allows interpretation of depositional practices. As illustrated in Section 4.12.3, depositional practices have been identified by the survival patterns of specific bone elements. These signatures are used to distinguish between different practices; for example, the signature for secondary

New ways of accounting for the perceived underrepresentation of individuals may be gained from the ethnographic literature. The close association of the Merina tombs of Madagascar with the ancestors (Bloch 1971) has previously been used to draw analogies for the interpretation of Stonehenge (Parker Pearson & Ramilisonina 1998; Parker Pearson 1999). Graeber’s (1995) observations of the specific funerary practices, known as famadihana, associated with the Merina tombs,

177

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney burial rites is distinct from the signature of interred whole bodies. This approach is the premise behind much of the recent research into the skeletal representation profiles of Neolithic sites from England (Smith 2005) and Ireland (Beckett & Robb 2006; Beckett 2011).

best representation, but this comparison also highlights the low representation of the femora, with Quanterness having the weakest presence. A poor representation of mandibles, relative to the crania, at Quanterness and Point of Cott is also discernible. Perhaps the largest divergence in data was from the patellae. Quanterness had a peak at over 70 per cent representation, whilst the other sites fell below approximately 15 per cent. This may reflect differences in excavation technique, as the other sites were also significantly under-represented for their smaller bones. This divergence is more difficult to account for at Point of Cott where sieving was also used. It may also be a possibility that smaller bones were simply not recognised as such (Janaway et al. 2001, 201).

10.3.1 General Representation Quanterness (see Fig. 7.4 in Section 7.3.1) was found to have the highest levels of skeletal representation, with many representation values exceeding 50 per cent. Significantly, every bone of the skeleton was recorded as present, including small and delicate bones such as the distal phalanges and hyoid. There is a noticeable under-representation of femora. In comparison, skeletal representation was not as comprehensive at Quoyness (Section 7.3.2) and Point of Cott (Section 7.3.3). Although comparatively under represented, both sites indicated a particularly low presence of hand and foot bones. The highest bone representations at Quoyness were the cranium, humerus, femur and tibia, while at Point of Cott the cranium and femur both had high representation. The higher presence is most likely indicative of the more robust nature and therefore survivability of these elements. In general, both of these sites had lower proportions of each bone represented in comparison to Quanterness. Despite contextual information suggesting the assemblage represented re-deposited material, Pierowall Quarry (Sharples 1984) also had representation of some of the smaller bones from the hands and feet (Section 7.3.4). The small assemblage from Cuween Hill contained none of the smaller bones of the human skeleton (Section 7.3.5).

Element comparison of all the Orcadian sites at once is overwhelming, thus comparison was also carried out on a site-to-site basis (see Section 7.4.1, Figs. 7.14 – 7.19). This form of analysis produced a number of interesting results, foremost of which was the demonstration that Quanterness has little in common with any of the other sites. A rather surprising result was the similarity in patterns of relative skeletal representation between Quoyness and Point of Cott (Section 7.4.1, Fig. 7.17), despite the obvious differences between the assemblages (Section 10.3.1). It should also be noted that this result was observed despite the difference in excavation methodologies used on the respective sites; Point of Cott was sieved, Quoyness was not. Sieving enhances the recovery of smaller bones and bone fragments. However, comparison of the sites was focused on the main skeletal elements, with bones such as phalanges omitted (see Section 7.4). Given that calculation of the MNE figures illustrated for these sites involves larger, more diagnostic fragments, it is argued that the Point of Cott data was directly comparable with Quoyness, despite the difference in excavation techniques. Therefore, it can be suggested that the similarity between Quoyness (not sieved) and Point of Cott represents an accurate comparison.

The presence of smaller hand and foot bones at Quoyness, Point of Cott and Pierowall Quarry, in spite of comparatively poorer representation to Quanterness, supports the theory that whole bodies were deposited within the tombs. The skeletal representation at Quanterness, with all aspects of the skeleton present, permits the most straightforward argument for the deposition of whole bodies within the structure. An explanation for a generally poorer presence of bones of the hands and feet at Pierowall Quarry and Quoyness may well be an artefact of excavation technique as these sites were not sieved, contra Quanterness. However, at Cuween Hill, the skeletal representation profile is conspicuously distinct. Absence of smaller bones, coupled with the presence of just five crania and two femurs, precludes support for a hypothesis indicating interment of whole bodies. The skeletal representation at Cuween, with its predominance of long bones and crania, actually corresponds most to a taphonomic profile of a secondary burial. 10.3.2 Comparison of the Orcadian Representation Profiles to Each Other

Overall, it would appear that the data again supports the theory that whole bodies were interred at each of the respective tombs. So, why is there little affinity between profiles? The contextual situation of Pierowall Quarry, suggesting re-deposition, may justify its distinct character. However, Quanterness exhibits no obvious similarity with any of the other sites in this study. This may be an indication of differing taphonomic processes within Quanterness, and partly a reflection of differing excavation practices. Conversely, the apparent similarity in relative skeletal element representation between Point of Cott and Quoyness, implies a similarity in depositional practice and subsequent taphonomic histories. There is no doubt that understanding the differences and similarities between the sites is a complex process.

Skeletal

A direct comparison of Quanterness to all the other sites in this study (Section 7.4.1, Fig. 7.13) clearly illustrates a much greater volume of material. In this respect, Quanterness is very different to the other assemblages. For the majority of skeletal elements, Quanterness has the

10.3.3 Comparison of Orcadian Sites and Medieval Sites Whilst there is explicit contextual merit in comparing Quanterness to the other Orcadian sites, and these sites to 178

Discussion each other, it is difficult to progress interpretation further without comparison to a profile where the burial rite is known. Previous studies (Smith 2005; Beckett 2011) have compared the skeletal element representation of commingled remains from Neolithic tombs to the skeletal profiles from medieval inhumation cemeteries. Whilst there is no temporal affinity, the integrity of, relatively, complete inhumations provide a base line against which to measure representation. This project utilised the data published by Bello & Andrews (2006) (see also Section 4.3 and Section 5.9) as a control against which to measure the Orcadian profiles (Fig. 7.20).

Parknabinnia and Point of Cott were the only sites to show any homogeneity in the trajectories of their trend-lines, but only in terms of the upper body (excluding the crania and mandible). According to Beckett & Robb (2006) Parknabinnia was considered to represent the deposition of whole bodies, and does seem to correlate readily with the skeletal representation of the medieval sites. 10.3.5 Specific Elements of Note The survey of the skeletal representation profiles has highlighted a couple of specific results relating to particular elements at Quanterness; these results merit further discussion. The crania, mandibulae and femora are discussed in more detail in the following section.

Comparative analysis (Section 7.4.2; Fig. 7.20) indicates that the representation of crania and mandibles at Quanterness and Point of Cott appears to be a divergent phenomenon and is not reflected in the medieval and post-medieval assemblages. The quantity of patellae at Quanterness is also a peculiarity. As was suggested previously, the abundance of patellae at Quanterness is probably a consequence of the high standards of excavation. The poor representation within the ‘control’ assemblages was considered due to excavation bias or animal scavenging activities (Bello & Andrews 2006, 4). It is perhaps still likely, therefore, that Quanterness simply reflects the excavation technique employed. The proportions of remains at Quanterness are of an affinity with the ‘control’ sample, but do not follow any of the trend lines specifically. However, Quoyness and Point of Cott, already identified as following similar trend lines, were found to have a degree of conformity with two of the French medieval sites. Quoyness emulated St Maximin, while Point of Cott emulated Hauture (Fig. 7.21). This strong similarity in the relative representation of the skeletal elements of these two Orcadian sites to the medieval sites further develops the hypothesis that their fragmentary remains represent the deposition of whole bodies.

10.3.5.1 The Significance of Crania at Quanterness During evaluation of the Quanterness assemblage it became apparent that crania were particularly well represented. This observation was particularly significant as it contradicted the previous perception that this element was extremely under-represented (Chesterman 1979, 102). Chesterman’s observation may have arisen due to the severe fragmentation of this particular element. This fragmentation was the antithesis of the studies of Isbister, where Chesterman recorded that many of the crania were relatively complete. Section 8.4.1 (NISP vs. MNE) demonstrates that the Quanterness crania were indeed highly fragmented; perhaps these remains simply lacked the visual presence (and ease of recognition) of the comparative assemblage from Isbister (Hedges 1983). Crania also seem well represented at Quoyness (from the details in the excavation report) (Charleson 1902) and Point of Cott, although in both cases, there are high levels of fragmentation. Pierowall Quarry has a much poorer cranial presence; as discussed previously, this may be connected to the context of recovery; nevertheless, the evidence available also suggests high fragmentation. Therefore, it can be advocated that the presence of profoundly fragmented crania, where under-representation has been previously suggested, implies that the original observation is incorrect. The under-representation is, thus, an artefact of analytical technique, rather than by Neolithic design.

10.3.4 Comparison of Orcadian Sites to Irish Sites The most concordant comparison for the Orcadian assemblages is, of course, with other Neolithic sites. Three Neolithic tombs (Parknabinnia, Poulnabrone and Poulawack) in The Burren, Ireland, have been assessed for their mortuary rite via their skeletal element representation, utilising a comparison to known medieval inhumation cemeteries (see 4.3; 5.9) (Beckett & Robb 2006; Beckett 2011). From their analysis, the researchers identified different mortuary rites for each tomb. Quanterness and the other Orcadian sites were compared to the skeletal representations for these Irish sites. The results of this comparative analysis further highlighted the discrepancy in crania and mandible representation, inferring that this profile may be a characteristic specific to Quanterness and Point of Cott. The patellae were well represented in the Irish assemblages, in contrast to the medieval and post-medieval assemblages. This discrepancy is thought to most likely represent a poor recovery of this particular element at the medieval and post-medieval sites, rather than an over-representation at the Neolithic sites.

10.3.5.2 The Significance of Mandibles and Femora The sacrum, sternum and hyoid are more fragile elements due to their lower bone density and shape. These elements are, therefore, traditionally accepted as having poorer levels of preservation relative to the rest of the skeleton (Bello & Andrews 2006). Good representation of these elements at Quanterness indicates there must have been favourable conditions for the survival of osseous material. Against this backdrop, the poorer representation of mandibles (relative to crania) and femora within this assemblage seems anomalous. An under-representation of long bones was noted in the original report (Renfrew 1979, 179

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 167). Both mandibles and femora are usually expected to have much better survival rates in the archaeological record due to their greater bone density and robustness (Bello & Andrews 2006, 4). Additionally, mandibles are considered to have good survivorship resulting from their association with the crania, and the crania have now been shown to be well represented. It would seem the apparent absence of these bones requires further explanation. As demonstrated in Section 10.3, the skeletal representation data is characteristic of the interment of whole bodies. Circulation and movement of human bone (Richards 1988; Thomas 2000; Fowler 2010) is one of the more prevailing hypotheses associated with Neolithic human remains. Drawing on this theory, an obvious explanation for the negative presence of the mandibles and femora is their removal as part of such a process. Perceived underrepresentations of crania and femora at tombs in Ireland have been suggested to reflect a similar rite (Beckett & Robb 2006, 63; Becket 2011). Analogous patterns have also been observed for assemblages from Southern Britain (Smith & Brickley 2009, 71). As with Quanterness, these Southern British assemblages indicate good preservation of smaller and more delicate bones. Smith & Brickley (ibid.) have suggested three scenarios to explain this phenomenon

to focus upon discrepancies in representation between identifiable fragments. This observation highlights a potential pit-fall in deducing mortuary rites based on the skeletal representation. Whilst an MNE calculation may highlight an anomaly in these particular elements, the explanation is not necessarily clear-cut. Although the Skeletal Element Representation (SER) method is a useful analytical tool, it is not the most rigorous approach available. Beckett & Robb (2006, 68) cautioned that inferences about mortuary rites should not be derived from skeletal representation alone, as different processes may produce similar end results. This is a phenomenon known as equifinality (Lyman 2004). For example, the secondary burial of long bones and crania, will exhibit the same SER as burials in which the more fragile bones, such as the pelvis and vertebrae, have degraded at a greater rate – an over-representation of the major long bones and skulls. Thus, other factors, such as fragmentation, must be considered. The next question to be asked for the Quanterness assemblage must be whether the fragmentation was deliberate, and if so, when did it occur? This will be discussed in Section 10.5.3 and 10.5.4. Poorer levels of skeletal representation at the other sites, in comparison to Quanterness, make it difficult to comment on the significance of the presence of these particular elements. It is not possible to draw any inference regarding mandibles at Quoyness as none were available for analysis, although unlike Quanterness, Quoyness has reasonably good presence of femora. In comparison to cranial representation, Point of Cott has a low representation of mandibles, but these were not found to be intensely fragmented (8.4.1). The very small assemblage from Cuween renders it of limited use for this aspect of the discussion – although no mandibles were associated with the crania. The contextual information for Pierowall Quarry obfuscates direct comparison; however, those mandibles present did illustrate a low fragment count in comparison to the femora, which were highly fragmented.

1) The missing material never entered the monument. The bodies placed within the chambers were brought from a prior context elsewhere after the soft tissues had decayed, with some elements being left out either incidentally or through deliberate selection. 2) The missing elements were deliberately selected and removed from the monument following the decomposition of soft tissue. 3) The missing elements were removed in the course of more recent disturbance or unrecorded antiquarian activity. An alternative hypothesis, presented below, considers the possibility that the missing elements never left the tomb. Comparison of the NISP to the MNE in Section 8.4.1, demonstrates considerable fracturing of both these elements (mandible and femur) at Quanterness. If it is accepted that severe fracturing reduces the capacity for identification, it can be suggested that this intensity of fragmentation equates to the destruction of the element. This extensive fragmentation would, therefore, be an analytical, rather than actual, absence (Lyman 2001, 379; Leach 2005, 61). In light of these observations, the apparent underrepresentation of mandibles and femora at Quanterness is argued to be the result of destruction, reflected in the large MNE to NISP ratios, rather than careful and deliberate removal. The high levels of fragmentation have resulted in an obliteration of the more diagnostic parts of the elements utilised in the calculation of a MNE. The influence of severe fragmentation on interpretations of bone representation does not seem to have been considered for the human Neolithic assemblages where skeletal representation is calculated. In previous research, analysis has tended

At Quanterness, the original analysis of the human remains suggested that skulls and long bones were conspicuously absent. The elements most commonly found were small bones: axis and atlas vertebrae and carpal and tarsal bones, thus prompting the hypothesis that the ‘missing’ bones had been removed (Chesterman 1979, 102). Studies into bone survivorship repeatedly demonstrate that, due to their greater density and therefore greater robustness, bones such as the axis and atlas are precisely the bones that are likely to survive (Mays 2002, 213). Undoubtedly, this combination of survivorship and the character of the Quanterness assemblage has ensured that Chesterman’s observations have endured to influence broader interpretations of burial rites in Neolithic Orkney. However, as this new study has demonstrated, the formerly absent skulls and long bones are not missing, they are highly fragmented and, particularly in the case of the femora, this fragmentation has rendered them ‘analytically invisible’. 180

Discussion 10.3.6 Summary: Whole Bodies or Partial Remains? Skeletal Element Representation

in preservation. The premise of the investigation was that a strong agreement in the skeletal profiles would be expected between tombs of similar design; conversely a difference in profile would be apparent between tombs of differing architectural classification. Surprisingly, in light of their architectural differences, Quoyness and Point of Cott illustrated the strongest agreement: creating a compelling argument for similar depositional practices occurring within these tombs.

One of the most prevalent interpretations of mortuary practices associated with megalithic tombs is the involvement of secondary burial practices. This hypothesis is repeatedly expressed when considering disarticulated remains discovered in a ‘chaotic’ condition. The data derived from the skeletal representation of Quanterness presents a strong argument in favour of the deposition of whole bodies within the tomb. This argument is established upon the observation that all bones of the skeleton were present, and with generally good (> 50 per cent) levels of representation overall. Support for this hypothesis is drawn from consideration of the archaeological and ethnographic literature, which repeatedly cites the loss of smaller and more fragile bones in processes that involve the relocation of remains, with a concurrent overrepresentation of bones such as the long bones and crania (Metcalf and Huntington (1991, 97; Dowd et al. 2006, 17). It is further proffered that the other sites, included in this study, also reflect practices involving the initial deposition of whole bodies, inferred by the presence of smaller bones of the skeleton. It is acknowledged that the presence of smaller and more delicate bones of the body may, certainly, indicate a differential diagnosis whereby a corpse was wrapped or covered in some way, before being transferred to the monument (Graeber 1995, 262; Smith & Brickley 2009, 53). There are certainly historic accounts of whole bodies being buried temporarily before a final funerary rite (Taylor 2003, 92). However, there is a lack of artefactual evidence, such as bone pins, to further develop such a hypothesis for the Orcadian remains.

10.4 The Significance of Representation According to Zonation/Preservation Comparison at the level of detail skeletal element representation (SER) represents is the point at which previous studies into Neolithic commingled remains have concluded (Smith 2005; Beckett & Robb 2006). However, as has been illustrated, different parts of bones will decay at different rates and activities that interfere with the ‘normal’ rate of disintegration may not be identified by this type of analysis. A more detailed level of investigation is required; this is where the zonation method has proved to be a powerful tool. The results presented in Section 7.5 have clearly demonstrated similar patterns of preservation between many of the skeletal elements across the Orcadian sites. This is significant information and is the first time such a level of interpretation has been achieved for these remains. It is impossible to comprehend what the preservation patterns of individual bones signify without comparison with a ‘known’ or ‘control’. In addition to the skeletal representation profiles of inhumation cemeteries, the work of Bello & Andrews (2006) also provided more detailed descriptions of the preservation patterns of individual skeletal elements, thereby providing a ‘control’ against which to consider the results of the zone representation. The results of this exercise, outlined in Section 7.5, demonstrated that many of the bones within the Orcadian assemblages illustrated strong agreement with the ‘normal’ preservation patterns described by Bello & Andrews (2006) for the medieval and post-medieval inhumation cemeteries. This is particularly notable given the differences in MNIs between the sites.

Despite generally poorer levels of representation, Quoyness and Point of Cott were found to have an affinity with the relative preservation patterns of some of the medieval inhumation cemeteries. Comparison with the Irish and medieval sites also implies that the discrepancy in the presence of mandibles in relation to crania may be a characteristic of the Orcadian sites. Pierowall Quarry is more challenging due to the nature of its contextual information intimating that it resulted from re-deposition. Cuween Hill is very different to the other sites, its skeletal element representation inferring a mortuary rite of secondary burial. However, the excavation was not modern, and may reflect excavation bias, especially as there was a particular interest in crania at this time (Smith & Brickley 2009, 27).

At the initial stage of investigation Quanterness appeared distinct due to its high MNI. Yet, in more detailed zonation analysis, Quanterness has consistently illustrated similar patterns of preservation in each skeletal element when compared to the other Orcadian sites. For example, the crania (Section 7.5.1) for Quanterness and Point of Cott were revealed to follow almost identical and overlapping profiles for the more diagnostic facial bones (Zones 5–15), despite the difference in MNE values for these sites. A significant difference in the representation of mandibles at Pierowall Quarry and Quanterness did not seem to affect the preservation pattern indicated by the zones (Section 7.5.2), which were strikingly similar. The homogeneity

With regard to the striking similarity in the spatial configuration of Quanterness and Quoyness, it would appear reasonable to expect that these sites were conceived to encapsulate similar mortuary processes. By the same token, the architectural differences between the OrkneyCromarty-type tombs and the Maeshowe-type tombs may indicate a difference in mortuary rites. The primary objective of comparing the skeletal representation of the assemblages to each other was to ascertain any homogeneity

181

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney of relative skeletal representation between Quoyness and Point of Cott was given further credence with the preservation patterns of individual bone types. The radius and ulna, in particular, had overlapping and similar patterns. The results of assessing the preservation patterns of humeri at Isbister demonstrated they had an affinity with the other Orcadian sites, particularly Quoyness. Despite having very different figures for skeletal element representation, Quanterness and Point of Cott had very similar preservation patterns for the ulna.

skeletal representation is comparable to the Maeshowetype tomb of Quoyness. This is a significant step towards defusing the chaotic appearance of these assemblages. The next stage of the analysis was, therefore, to assess the level of involvement of any extrinsic factors that may have left distinguishing features on the bone surfaces. 10.5 Taphonomic Variables Quanterness in particular, has played a lead role in the propagation of interpretations of excarnation. Although doubt has been cast on the excarnation hypothesis (Richards 1988; Davidson & Henshall 1989), predicated on the presence of smaller bones illustrated in the excavation report, excarnation continues to maintain a presence within the literature. It was imperative, therefore, to assess all aspects of the taphonomic profile, not simply the skeletal element representation of the assemblages.

Thus, it appears that the bones on these sites are decaying in a similar way. The similar preservation patterns successfully demonstrate that the different skeletal elements are degrading according to a predictable pattern. This confirms many of the observations of Bello & Andrews (2006), but within a much older assemblage. It must be acknowledged that Bello & Andrews were assessing complete inhumations. Recording and analysing all the Orcadian assemblages by zone has generated a means of comparing the preservation patterns for each skeletal element. This has been achieved despite the fragmentation within the assemblages being of a level that may originally have been thought to preclude such an analysis.

10.5.1 Weathering Section 4.12.3 outlined the taphonomic profile that is widely considered to be indicative of deposition rites involving excarnation. One of the key criteria for this hypothesis is that bones should exhibit clear signs of subaerial weathering (Carr & Knüsel 1997, 170).

It would be tempting to deduce that different preservation environments are not responsible for the differences in MNIs at different sites. However, the zones simply demonstrate that the bones are degrading in a predictable manner. In other words, rates of decay may be greater (or less) at different sites, but will still decay in a predictable order. Instances where individual elements do not follow the ‘normal’ pattern, or are distinct from comparable sites, may indicate anomalies that may merit further investigation. The poorest conformity of relative zone representation is noted for the femur, particularly with regard to Pierowall Quarry. As the contextual details suggest different taphonomic events (re-deposition) for this assemblage, this may go some way to explaining the erratic preservation patterns. With regard to the other sites, this lack of conformity would support more complex taphonomic processes associated with this particular element.

Much of the evidence for weathering patterns and interpretations is contained within the zooarchaeological literature. Section 8.1 presented the evidence for weathering stages gathered from Quanterness and the other Orcadian assemblages. The results (Section 8.2) illustrated a range of weathering stages present within each assemblage, although Stage 0 was undeniably the most prevalent. In general, the degree of weathering on the human remains would appear to be limited and is not considered sufficient to support a hypothesis of exposure. Lawrence (2006) reached similar conclusions for Isbister employing the same assessment technique (Behrensmeyer’s weathering stages). Whilst there is an absence of weathering stages more advanced than Stage 4 (apart from the very low quantities identified at Quanterness), it is thought this absence is most likely due to problems in the retrieval of this type of material, as discussed in Section 10.2.1.

At the outset of this project, the formidable amount of bone, in tandem with its highly fragmentary nature, presented a considerable challenge to interpretation. The recording of every identifiable skeletal element by zone, although very time consuming, has not only assisted with the generation of a more refined understanding of which skeletal elements are represented within the assemblages, but also an appreciation of the general preservation patterns of each skeletal element. With regard to Point of Cott, Barber (1997, 68) had concluded the identification of any discernible patterning in the relative survival of particular elements was not possible. Thus far, it has been possible to demonstrate that skeletal remains from Point of Cott were not only degrading in what is now understood to be a predictable sequence, but the overall

Although it is possible to refute the hypothesis concerning a mortuary process involving exposure of remains, the reasons for the notable variation in weathering stages within the assemblages have to be considered. This variation appears to indicate two scenarios; firstly, different weathering stages in an assemblage may signal a gradual accumulation of remains over time, with the more advanced stages associated with bones that have been present for longer periods (Behrensmeyer 1978). In the instance of human mortuary practices, this would suggest an assemblage generated from successive interments (Barber 1997; Beckett & Robb 2006, 63). Alternatively, the variation in weathering may have arisen as a result of bone being brought to the tombs from other locations and,

182

Discussion possibly, deposited as one assemblage. The second scenario could support a hypothesis focused on the circulation and movement of bone within a landscape context (Richards 1988; Jones 1998; Thomas 2000; Fowler 2004), similar in nature to the Merina tombs of Madagascar (Graeber 1995).

Chesterman originally described evidence of burning on some bones in the form of black spots on the cortex, and on others by ‘exposure to cremation heat’. It is not clear what the criteria were for this ‘exposure to cremation heat’, but it is possibly connected to the observation of vertical fractures, which in the absence of evidence for lateral pressure, Chesterman surmised must have been caused by heat (Chesterman 1979, 102). He went on to discuss the application of heat in terms of ‘half cremation’ to describe bone which has been partially burnt, at Quanterness. However, Renfrew was more cautious, suggesting that the flecks and patches of discolouration on many of the bones may have been the result of burial in black, carbon-rich soil (Renfrew 1979, 158). The reanalysis of these remains would support Renfrew’s interpretation.

Additionally, a lack of evidence for any patterning of weathering stages was demonstrated. Where specific contextual information was available (Quanterness and Point of Cott) specific weathering stages were not found to be associated with particular skeletal elements or locations within the tombs. This observation confirms Chesterman’s (1979, 101) observation at Quanterness that, ‘near perfect specimens were lying with unrecognisable fragments’. As previously discussed, different skeletal elements decay at different rates, and different areas of each element will also decay at different rates. Chesterman does not state which bones were adjacent to each other, and it is therefore possible he was simply observing differential preservation of different skeletal elements. However, a brief investigation to test this was carried out. Cranial fragments within Layer 64 of ZB III exhibited weathering Stage 0 and weathering Stage 3. These fragments were also represented by the same zones (Zone 3). Therefore, the difference in weathering stages observed was not influenced by normal skeletal morphology, and their contextual identity casts doubt on the possibility of a differential caused by microenvironments (Barber 1997).

Reference was made in the original report to a pelvis fragment (Small Find 1256), the upper part of which showed signs of burning, with the lower part embedded in the underlying clay of Layer 62, apparently unburnt. This fragment was located during the reanalysis, but did not exhibit any signs of burning. There were some darker spots present within the trabecular bone (exposed by fragmentation in antiquity) but this is most probably the result of manganese staining. Certainly, this bone does not show convincing signs of burning. An assessment of elements with burning according to excavation area clearly illustrated a predominance of burnt fragments within Area ZB III, the north end of the main chamber (see Fig. 8.12). As demonstrated in Figure 8.13, the layer with the greatest concentration of burnt bone came from Layer 60, which is part of the main bone spread. The contextual information from the excavation describes this as ‘a black clayey layer in the North West corner, which included much burnt bone with cranium fragments, in addition to unburnt bone’ (Renfrew 1979, 55). These fragments were black in colour, indicating exposure to temperatures of approximately 360°C (Mays 2002, 217). However, whilst this may appear to describe a discrete deposition of burnt remains, these bones were actually associated with unburnt bone. This is considered to further intimate a mixing of deposits.

The sum of weathering evidence at Quanterness is suggested to infer either a turbation of the deposit following its accumulation, or the addition of older bones from other locations. Drawing on the results of the skeletal element representation, the former interpretation is, at this point, preferred. 10.5.2 Evidence for the Presence of Burning In addition to fragmentation, one of the defining characteristics of the Quanterness assemblage, as discussed in the original analysis of the bone (Chesterman 1979, 101), was evidence of burning. This observation was incorporated into a complex sequence of mortuary rites, beginning with excarnation, followed by ‘partial cremation’, before (the bones) being broken and then interred within the tomb. No evidence for burning was previously documented from any of the other assemblages examined.

The volume of bone affected by burning is not sufficient to suggest it forms a key feature of the associated depositional practices at Quanterness. How, therefore, should these burnt remains be interpreted? Renfrew (1979, 168) describes clear evidence for burning within the tomb, both in Stratum 1 and in later levels within the main chamber, and considered it more plausible that the burning on some of the bones had resulted from the lighting of fires within the tomb, rather than prior to arrival in the tomb. It is, therefore, inferred by Renfrew that this burning occurred unintentionally. There is evidence for burning of the interior of the chambers of several cairns, indicated by fire-cracked walls (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 57) at Knowe of Yarso, and black levels within the chambers at Unstan, the Knowe of Craie and Calf of Eday Long (Renfrew 1979, 168; Davidson & Henshall 1989, 57).

This study has demonstrated that Quanterness is indeed the only assemblage containing skeletal remains exhibiting exposure to a thermal source (Section 8.3). However, the actual volume of bone indicative of burning accounts for approximately 3 per cent (283/9,006) of the total human assemblage, denoting a rather low presence. Importantly, this is in direct contradiction to the volume of burning intimated by Chesterman’s (1979, 101) original observations. Of the remains identified as burnt, it is clear they are not representative of archetypal cremated bone, as described in the literature (McKinley 2000; Mays 2002). 183

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney A lack of burning on the majority of the human remains from Orcadian tombs in general, however, suggests the use of fire was not intended to affect the bones. Henshall (1963, 119) considered the use of fire to be purely ritual in nature, while Smith & Brickley (2009, 60) suggest that fire may have been used when a chamber was being cleared out, in order to purify the air. In these scenarios, any exposure of the human bone to flames may have been unintentional. However, as illustrated by the humerus in Plate 8.3 (see Section 8.3 and Section 10.5.3) a few of the remains exposed to fire also exhibited helical fracturing in association with impact scars. The fracturing observed does not emulate the patterns typically identified in fractures due to burning (e.g. thumb-nail fractures – see Section 4.5.3). Therefore, it is suggested that the fracturing occurred as a result of a deliberate impact, which would infer a deliberate attempt to fragment this bone. It is also clear from the patterning that the burning occurred first, and then the breakage. Thus, it appears these remains have been subject to a different taphonomic sequence to the majority of the Quanterness assemblage. The implication of this different, or ‘special’, treatment will be discussed further in Section 10.9.

Such intense fracturing might reasonably be hypothesised as intentional and, therefore, the incorporation of a large number of peri-mortem fractures could be anticipated. Indeed, Chesterman’s (1979, 102) original sequence of mortuary events actually suggested deliberate breakage of the human remains prior to incorporation within the tomb. However, only a small number of peri-mortem fractures were identified within the Quanterness assemblage (see Section 8.5.1). Of particular interest was a clustering of over half (49/92) of these fracture types in Area ZB III, within layers attributed to the main bone spread, predominantly Layer 60A. Further investigation revealed many of these fragments also exhibited evidence of burning, their black colour indicating exposure to a relatively low temperature of approximately 360°C (Section 10.5.2). Contextually, these fragments were in close proximity to each other, and could be conjoined. A specific example may be observed in Small Find 1265.12, a left humerus from Layer 60A (see Plate 8.3). This specimen was burnt, and when the helically fractured fragments were conjoined, an impact notch was visible. Similarly burnt fragments of crania (see Plate 8.4) also displayed a possible impact notch when conjoined. Renfrew (1979, 168) had suggested that the burning of bone at Quanterness occurred within the tomb and was possibly unintentional. However, the presence of impact notches, especially that of Small Find 1265.12, associated with helical fracturing, may imply a more intentional modification of these particular remains. Considered in isolation, the burning of some fragments may be argued to have been unintentional, a simple case of bone lying too close to a fire in the tomb. The additional evidence of perimortem fracturing, and the apparent contextual affinity of a number of these fragments, strengthens a hypothesis that these bones were singled out for special treatment.

10.5.3 Fragmentation and Fracturing Another inherent characteristic of the human remains associated with the Orcadian Neolithic tombs is their fragmentary condition. However, little discussion of the nature of these fractures is available within the original site reports. As outlined in Section 4.4.1, understanding how bone breaks and identifying specific fracture types within an assemblage has the potential to assist interpretation of when and how an assemblage has become damaged during its taphonomic history. In Section 8.4.1 a comparison of the MNE to NISP not only confirmed the reported fragmentary nature of the Orcadian assemblages in this study, but also provided an indication of the intensity of this fragmentation. Whilst fragmentation of bones such as the pelvis and sacrum is not considered unusual, due to their inherent fragility (Bello & Andrews 2006), the high levels of fragmentation associated with the long bones, (also see Section 10.3.5.2), is a more conspicuous occurrence. This fragmentation is particularly significant in regard to one of the most robust bones – the femora. The general intensity of fragmentation, particularly at Quanterness, was further illustrated in Section 8.4.2 (see Fig. 8.18) where a profile of the actual fragment sizes of all the sites studied was presented. This demonstrated that Quanterness, in particular, is dominated by fragments of the smaller size categories (Size categories 3, 4 and 5). Furthermore, whilst the sieving of the deposits as part of the excavation has no doubt maximised the recovery of the smaller bone fragments at this site, the poorer presence of larger bone fragment categories, especially compared to the other sites in this study, seems unusual. This phenomenon is not plausibly due to excavation bias and further underlines the degree of fragmentation at Quanterness.

The other Orcadian sites analysed as part of this study presented even fewer examples of peri-mortem fracturing. A helical fracture on a humerus was identified at Quoyness (Section 8.5.2), and a number of peri-mortem fractures were identified at Pierowall Quarry (Section 8.5.4). Interpretation of the peri-mortem fractures on femora and rib specimens from Pierowall Quarry are considered to have arisen as a result of re-deposition outside the tomb (Sharples 1984). The absence of any evidence to support intentional modification (e.g. impact scars) further supports a hypothesis that this damage was incidental with relocation. The nature of the fractures would also infer this particular event must have occurred relatively soon after the original deposition of the remains. The helical fracture identified at Quoyness is argued to have resulted from anthropogenic activity and is discussed further in Section 10.5.4.2. No evidence of peri-mortem fracturing was found at Point of Cott or the sample from Isbister. The identification of dry fractures at all the sites, although few in numbers (Section 8.5), indicates post-depositional disturbance, either accidentally or intentionally (Craig [Crozier] et al. 2005, 170). The distribution of this fracture type was not found to be associated with any particular 184

Discussion context or skeletal element at Quanterness or Point of Cott. However, at Quoyness, ten femora exhibited this fracture type (Section 8.5.2). The significance of this is discussed further in Section 10.5.4.2. Pierowall Quarry also incorporated a number of femur fragments exhibiting this fracture type, although they were associated with conjoining fragments (Section 8.5.4). The Pierowall Quarry fragments are, again, most plausibly associated with the re-deposition of the human remains deposit.

with percussion pits, cut marks and scrape marks were distinguished on various skeletal elements and from diverse locations within the tomb (Section 8.6.1). The percussion pits (Section 8.6.1.1) contributed the greatest proportion of anthropogenically-derived features on these remains. Percussion pits are associated with a dynamic force, or striking action, which suggests the intention was to break and fracture the bone. Whilst it is possible for such features to be the result of ‘naturally’ occurring actions, e.g. rocks falling onto their surfaces, there are other factors that support a hypothesis of anthropogenic involvement.

As demonstrated in Section 8.5, all the assemblages in this study were dominated by mineralised-type fractures. Whilst not as affecting as peri-mortem fracturing, this information is nevertheless important, as the presence of mineralised fractures indicates that a considerable amount of the breakage occurred at a later phase in their taphonomic history. Considering this information concurrently with the weathering evidence (Section 10.5.1) would give further credence to the hypothesis that the deposits were subject to significant turbation. However, as there is no information regarding the specific length of time bone will retain its collagen, it is impossible to say precisely how long after death this fracturing might have occurred. Deciphering whether or not such turbation is anthropogenic in manifestation is still difficult. Returning to the intense fragmentation identified for the femora at Quanterness and the other sites, there may still be an argument for deliberate manipulation of the deposits – although Pierowall Quarry may be the result of re-deposition. As already stated, femora usually demonstrate good survivorship. The extent of fragmentation associated with this particular element would suggest anthropogenic intervention was required, in order to achieve such destruction, with the mineralised fractures suggesting it occurred at a later point in the uselife of the tomb. Alternatively, burrowing animals may have been responsible for the turbation.

Although a concentration of this feature on bones from the side cell ZF is intriguing, percussion pits were also identified on bones from the main chamber. It is also suggested that caution should be used in placing too much weight on this apparent clustering, as the other five side cells currently remain unexcavated. It seems unlikely that rockfall should account for all these occurrences as much of the tomb was reported as intact upon excavation, and many of the relevant bones were from within the deposit, rather than surface finds where they could be more susceptible to collapse. In addition, the pits were frequently grouped (e.g. Plate 8.10; Plate 8.11; Plate 8.12); such concurrent striking of the bone implies an anthropogenic action with more than one attempt being made to achieve fracturing of the bone. It is therefore hypothesised that these percussion pits are indicative of a deliberate attempt to fragment the human remains. It is particularly noteworthy that percussion marks were identified on two femora fragments. As argued in Section 10.3.5.2, femora have been intensely fragmented, and this is considered unusual based on their good survivorship due to their inherent robustness. The identification of these percussion pits provides an interesting indication of how the femora became so fragmented; such fracturing may confidently be suggested to have arisen as the result of anthropogenic intervention.

It is evident that interpretation of these different fractures is more complex than simple presence or absence. Association with other features (see Section 10.5.4) will aid interpretation. The discussion in this section further underlines the need to consider multiple threads of evidence in order to decipher the taphonomic history of these assemblages. The next part of the puzzle involves evidence of traumatic modification to the bones.

Similarly to the femora, the apparent under-representation of mandibles at Quanterness is suggested to be the result of intense fragmentation (Section 10.3.5.2). The identification of percussion pits on a mandibular fragment from Quanterness (Plate 8.10) may, again, indicate the mechanism for this intense fragmentation. Of added interest is the location of these particular pits on the interior surface of the mandible, strongly suggesting this specimen was already detached from the cranium when the trauma occurred. A lack of cut marks to suggest dismemberment infers the mandible had detached naturally. Certainly, the interior location implies the deliberate fragmentation of this bone occurred at an advanced stage of the skeletonisation process (Section 4.2). Similarly, the rib fragment illustrated in Plate 8.13 also exhibits a percussion pit located on the interior surface. In both cases, these features are associated with mineralised fracture margins. Ascertaining if these activities occurred intermittently, or as part of one final event, is difficult due to the apparent mixing of the

10.5.4 Trauma Section 8.6 presented evidence identified for damage sustained by the human remains after or around the time of death. The implication of this evidence is discussed for each site in this section. 10.5.4.1 Quanterness Given the intensity of fragmentation of the Quanterness human remains assemblage (Section 10.5.3), positive identification of traumatic modifications to a number of bones provides an important dimension to the taphonomic picture. Features exhibiting characteristics synonymous 185

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney deposits. However, the presence of percussion pits and mineralised fractures strongly suggests this damage was inflicted at a later point in the taphonomic history of the assemblage.

and gruesome’ (ibid.). A shadow corpse is considered very unlucky as it has refused to relinquish its corporeal form and will ‘eat up the good fortune of its descendants’. To resolve this situation, the corpse is exposed to the elements for a few weeks. To speed up the process of decay, the ritual specialist will occasionally make an incision with a knife in the tendons and muscles. After a few weeks, any remaining soft tissue is scraped off with a knife, to ensure the body has been transformed into clean and disjointed bones. This ethnographic analogy is not intended to suggest the mortuary practices of modern day Taiwan may be projected directly onto prehistoric Orkney, but it does provide a framework for interpretation of the taphonomic features observed. It may well be that at Quanterness, only those remains that had not fully decomposed required assistance in the form of manual dismemberment, in a similar circumstance to that described for the rites in Taiwan.

Other evidence for the deliberate modification of human remains at Quanterness was discovered in the form of cut marks, linear features and chop marks (Section 8.6.1.2; Section 8.6.1.3; Section 8.6.1.4). Detailed examination of these features has demonstrated that many of these marks are associated with muscle insertion points; this relationship suggests these features relate to the dismemberment of human remains. The interpretation of scrape marks is perhaps more contentious, as these markings are known to display identical diagnostic features as damage caused by trampling. With regard to those identified at Quanterness, diagnosis is difficult. The multi-directional nature of the features illustrated in Plate 8.23 could indicate damage by trampling. However, the similarity of these marks to those identified on faunal remains at Quanterness (see Plate 9.2) and possibly Quoyness (see Plate 8.35) and the fact there are so few, may provide an argument against trampling. Identification of a set of similar scrape marks on the articular surface of a distal femur (Plate 8.24) consistent with a practice involving dismemberment, and the identification of other features also suggesting deliberate dismemberment, would further strengthen a hypothesis that these marks are indeed the result of the intentional disaggregation of human remains at Quanterness. Further support may be intimated by the presence of three flint knives within the Quanterness assemblage (Henshall 1979, 86).

The identification of damage attributed to animals (Section 8.6.1.6) is contra Chesterman’s (1979, 107) statement that no such evidence existed. The gnaw marks, punctures and crushing demonstrated that the assemblage was accessible to animals throughout its taphonomic history, although this is unsurprising given the nature of the tomb construction. 10.5.4.2 Quoyness The Quoyness assemblage incorporated considerably fewer fragments than Quanterness. Nevertheless, compelling evidence for anthropogenic modification was discovered on numerous bones. The incised marks (Section 8.6.2.1) identified on the femur and humerus fragments are not only associated with dry and helical fractures, in some instances they are also clearly associated with muscle insertion points. These features present a strong argument for deliberate dismemberment at Quoyness. Three chop marks were also identified (Section 8.6.2.2), on a fibula, humerus and pelvis. Although the chop mark associated with the humerus is associated with a muscle insertion point and could therefore be indicative of dismemberment, the possibility that this was sustained during interpersonal violence cannot be confidently refuted. Nine occurrences of impact scars were also identified (Section 8.6.2.3). The motivation behind these features is similar to the percussion pits identified at Quanterness in that they are manifested by a dynamic and percussive force. The difference in morphology in the Quoyness examples is most probably a reflection of different materials (e.g. stone type) of the tools used to create them.

However, it must be acknowledged that the overall numbers of specimens displaying these features is a small proportion of the total assemblage. This may in part be due to the obliteration of features by the intense fragmentation of this particular assemblage. Another hypothesis may be that not every corpse was subject to deliberate dismemberment. Support for such an interpretation may be found within the ethnographic literature. An ethnographic account (Tsu 2000) of the mortuary practices in Fountain Village, Southern Taiwan, provides a scenario that may inform interpretations of the remains from Quanterness. In this instance, villagers demonstrate concern for the condition of the human remains within the graves (Tsu 2000, 3). Secondary burial rites are performed in order to ensure the transformation of the ‘polluting corpse’ into ‘pure bones’ (Tsu 2000, 14). Several years after burial, the grave is returned to, and the remains of the individual are exhumed under the guidance of a specialist. During this process great care is taken to ensure all the bones are accounted for (although there is no reference as to what exactly constitutes a complete skeleton). The bones are then cleaned of dirt before re-interment in a new grave. Usually, after several years of burial, the corpses have skeletonised. However, occasionally a corpse is found to not have fully decomposed. In such an instance, the cleaning of what is known as a ‘shadow corpse’ is described as ‘complicated

On first consideration, Quanterness and Quoyness exhibit similar taphonomic profiles with features indicating deliberate dismemberment of human remains. The striking similarities in the architecture of these Maeshowetype tombs render such an observation all the more significant, apparently supporting a hypothesis that similar architecture denotes similar use. However, there are subtle differences in the taphonomic characteristics. Quanterness has a greater degree of fragmentation than Quoyness (or 186

Discussion any of the sites). More of the incised marks at Quoyness are associated with dry and helical fractures than at Quanterness, implying a difference in the timing of the relevant activities.

study by Lawrence (2006, 53) has not identified any other examples of modification trauma in the rest of the Isbister assemblage, but has identified trauma to the crania. 10.5.4.6 Cuween Hill

According to Petrie (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 158) the pit in the southeast corner of the chamber floor was full of bones coloured very black. They were apparently whole and consisted of ‘human thigh bones and leg bones but no trace of skulls’. None of the assemblage available from Quoyness examined during the reanalysis had this black appearance. Therefore, it seems reasonable to infer that the bones that have been examined were those recovered from the side cells.

Despite the assemblage from Cuween Hill consisting of just seven bones, evidence of traumatic modification was identified. Crania II and Crania IV both exhibited large perforations to their superior aspects (Section 8.6.6). These rather dramatic cranial injuries were previously unrecognised, although it should be acknowledged that fracture mechanics and taphonomic processes were not well understood at the time of original inspection. How were these caused and what was the motivation for their creation?

10.5.4.3 Point of Cott In contrast to the evidence at Quanterness and Quoyness, the Point of Cott assemblage was found to have little physical evidence to account for the state of fragmentation (Section 8.6.3). The most convincing evidence of possible deliberate modification was identified as three incised marks on a femur fragment (Plate 8.42). Unfortunately, it was not possible to examine this specimen microscopically at the time, restricting further interpretation. An initial argument for the scarcity of such evidence might be made based on the comparatively low volume of bone within this assemblage, especially when compared to Quanterness. However, Quoyness has an even smaller assemblage, yet clearly presents evidence of deliberate manipulation of the remains. Does this suggest that an absence of evidence at Point of Cott means a difference in the treatment of the human remains at these sites?

The peri-mortem nature of these defects (see Section 8.6.6) warrants a consideration that they may have been caused by violence. In recent years, the volume of material recognised as having sustained trauma due to interpersonal violence during the British Neolithic has gradually increased (Schulting & Wysocki 2005; Smith 2005) with cranial injury as a result of warfare now recognised from numerous British Neolithic sites. Lawrence (pers. com) has identified several incidences of healed and unhealed cranial trauma within the Isbister assemblage, their positions on the crania (to the side and frontal aspects) being consistent with face-to-face combat. However, at Cuween, the position and size of the perforations does not automatically confirm they were sustained during warfare. The comparable superior positions of the perforations may be argued to indicate a more systematic application, such as in an execution event. Execution type injuries may be administered as blows, from behind, to the back of the head. If the individual is kneeling, blunt force trauma will create fractures around the base of the skull (Ta’ala et al. 2006). It is also possible for blows to be administered to the top of the head if the victim is maintaining a kneeling position. An alternative hypothesis could indicate a post-mortem trepanation in order to remove the brain. Unfortunately, it was not possible to decipher any further evidence in support of this due to the post-excavation treatment of these crania.

10.5.4.4 Pierowall Quarry The bones from Pierowall Quarry were also found to indicate little in the way of traumatic damage. A possible percussion pit on a radius and a humerus with several, linear striations were the only features identified that may indicate a traumatic origin. As with Point of Cott, it was not possible to conduct further detailed analysis of these features. However, as stated previously, the most plausible explanation for the fragmentation of the femoral fragments in this assemblage is as a result of the re-deposition of the bones outside the tomb. The lack of any additional features, such as percussion pits or cut marks, further augments the validity of this hypothesis.

No evidence for similar trauma was identified at the other sites investigated in this study. This may be a result of the fragmentation obscuring such evidence – an example of taphonomic over-printing. The position of the Cuween Hill traumas certainly implies the blows to these crania came from above. Although not impossible, it is difficult to imagine how this may have been achieved if the individual was no longer alive. Furthermore, there was no sign of any cut marks that could be interpreted as defleshing or mutilation, as might be expected as a result of trophy-taking in warfare (Schulting & Wysocki 2005, 129). Currently, it is impossible to decipher the specific motivation for these significant injuries. Whether they are the result of warfare, execution or a funerary practice shortly after death is unclear. However, it is tentatively

10.5.4.5 Isbister The sample of bone from Isbister was also found to have little evidence for deliberate anthropogenic intervention (Section 8.6.5), again, in contrast to Quanterness and Quoyness. A possible percussion pit and incised mark were the only features identified and, as with Point of Cott and Pierowall Quarry, the identifications were tentative in nature. Clear evidence of modification by animals was present (Section 8.6.5.3), confirming the accessibility of this tomb and its assemblage. The recent 187

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney suggested, based on their consistent and superior position, that these injuries may have been deliberately inflicted as part of a, possibly ritual, execution.

proffer it could have indicated respect and love of the ancestors, especially as there is a lack of evidence for specific violence associated with these bones (Shapland & Armit 2012, 107). Evidently, there is confusion over how to interpret such artefacts. A similar debate is associated with the interpretation of human femur heads, with perforations, as spindle whorls (Shapland & Armit 2012, 108).

10.5.4.7 Trauma Summary The evidence for deliberate modification in the form of percussion pits, scrape marks and cut marks, while accounting for a low percentage of the total Quanterness assemblage, is in striking contrast to the dearth of similar evidence from Neolithic tombs in Ireland and Southern Britain. Acknowledging that these other megalithic tombs have been excavated or reanalysed recently, it seems unlikely that such evidence has been missed. Rather, it indicates an absence of these features, thereby distinguishing Quanterness and the other Orcadian tombs. None of the traumatic features discussed in this section had been previously noted within these assemblages, further demonstrating the value of returning to archive material.

As demonstrated by Shapland & Armit (2012) interpretation of these features is problematic. The microscopic investigation of the perforations at Quanterness did not reveal evidence for any use-wear, which might have been anticipated if the purpose of the perforations was to enable suspension. The holes are all associated with different bones and come from different parts of the tomb. They also appear to be associated with different individuals (e.g. femur –adolescent; manubrium – adult). However, the suggestion that these bones were modified at the same time and then separated by later turbation cannot be discounted. Whilst it is unlikely the bones were modified for suspension, their specific purpose remains elusive.

10.5.5 Deliberate Modification The trauma discussed in section 10.5.4 may be considered an unintentional by-product of de-fleshing and dismemberment practices, as suggested by Smith & Brickley (2009, 52) for the southern British sites. However, trauma of a more deliberate nature has also been identified at Quanterness.

The patination of the drill holes suggests they were created either during the peri-mortem phase or subsequent dry phase. This is considered as the dry fracture margins observed in the Orcadian assemblages also have the same patina as the adjacent cortical bone surface. In addition, as demonstrated by the experimental work, it is possible to drill archaeological bone without causing it to shatter (Appendix 7 and 8). However, the question remains as to whether these bones were modified immediately after death, or at a slightly later juncture. The distinction between these two phases is significant as they differentiate an activity enacted upon a known individual (peri-mortem phase) from one enacted upon a potentially anonymous ancestor.

The identification of holes, apparently drilled into a manubrium (sternum), ulna and femur, initiated debate when first identified during analysis of the Quanterness remains. Subsequent microscopic investigation (8.6.1.7) in tandem with the results of experimental work (Appendix 7), are considered to have satisfactorily demonstrated the antiquity of these perforations. Contextually, the manubrium and ulna originate from different layers within the main bone spread, and the femur is from Side Cell ZF. No evidence of a comparable nature was identified amongst the other Orcadian assemblages analysed. There is no doubt that these perforations in human bone present unusual occurrences that are difficult to comprehend; however, drilled bones are not entirely without precedent in Neolithic Orkney. Sharples (1984, 105) describes perforations in animal phalanges from Pierowall Quarry as having been carefully drilled, and highlights similar occurrences from Jarlshof and Lower Dounreay (see Section 6.5.3).

The carving on Small Find 164.04 presents an even more unusual, and this time unique, occurrence on Neolithic human remains in Scotland, and indeed the whole of Britain (see Plate 8.32). As discussed in Section 8.6.1.7b, the only object of any comparison is from artefacts such as the whalebone ‘sneck’ found at Jarlshoff. It may be suggested that the fineness of this carving would suggest this bone was already defleshed. The idea of venturing into a tomb and deliberately modifying human bone is peculiar to our modern sensibilities. Yet, ethnographically, there are many unusual incidences of human bone being ‘recycled’. Many examples of human bones being made into necklaces and even rattles are known amongst the Amerindians (Owsley et al. 2007). An excellent example of the potent symbolism of human bone is found in the examples of spear points of prehistoric Guam, carved from human remains, and suggested to be used to avenge the death of the individual from whence they came (McNeill 2002). Whilst it is not suggested that such case studies are directly applicable to the drilled

Although dated to the Iron Age, the identification of drilled human crania from the Scottish Mainland and Western Isles (Armit & Ginn 2007; Shapland & Armit 2012, 106) demonstrates the modification of human remains is not unknown for this region in prehistory. Shapland & Armit (2012, 106) interpret these perforations as having been created for purposes of suspension and display. This is despite a lack of detailed analysis of use-wear to support such a hypothesis. Such modification is further suggested to indicate denigration of the dead, related to the taking of trophies from defeated enemies. As an antithesis, they 188

Discussion bones from Quanterness, they do illustrate a very diverse range in attitudes to the metaphorical connotations that human remains may be seen to possess.

In the following phase, bodies were left to decay for an unidentifiable period of time. This period may have been dictated by subsequent interments, or by cosmological or calendrical events. Bodies that had not achieved the desired skeletal status at the desired time were ‘assisted’ in the form of manual dismemberment using stone tools, evidenced by the presence of cut marks, linear features and scrape marks. A similar scenario has been proposed for assemblages from Southern British sites. In these instances, Smith & Brickley (2009, 51) consider the relatively low numbers of identifiable cut marks as being more consistent with a funerary practice where the desired end product were ‘clean’ separated bones. The absence of these marks on associated bones infers that some remains were left to decay more naturally (Smith & Brickley 2009, 51). The validity of this interpretation is enhanced when parallels with modern ethnographic observations are established, as illustrated with the example from Southern Taiwan (see Section 10.2.1).

Whilst the motivation for the creation of these modifications to human remains at Quanterness is unclear, recognising that human remains were indeed deliberately modified demonstrates a level of interaction with the dead that was not previously recognised for this period. The marks also demonstrate that these specific bones were accessible. The shapes outlined by the carving on the scapula, in particular, indicate a premeditated and deliberate desire to create something specific, probably by a single individual. 10.6 Mortuary Rites – The Taphonomic Profile The preceding sections have discussed the implications of each taphonomic variable that was identified within the assemblages analysed. The following stage will weave these strands of evidence together in order to clarify the sequence of events each assemblage has been subjected to. Understanding these events will allow an insight into the mortuary rites associated with the bones, and by extension, the relationship between the assemblages and the tombs in which they were contained. At the outset of Chapter 3, the question was asked, ‘How have human remains informed our interpretations of mortuary practice in the Orcadian Neolithic?’ Rephrasing this question in light of these discoveries: does the new taphonomic evidence demand fresh interpretations of the mortuary practices associated with the tombs?

At a later point in the taphonomic history of the assemblage, deliberate fragmentation of some of the bones took place, as evidenced by the percussion pits. The location of a number of these pits on the interior surface of particular examples indicates that these remains were already disaggregated (Section 10.5.4.1). The drilling and carving of four bones (Section 10.5.5) had most probably occurred by this stage. Either at this point, or a relatively later time, the entire deposit was subject to turbation. Turbation is indicated primarily by the lack of stratigraphic integrity for the radiocarbon dates of the human (Schulting et al. 2010) and faunal remains (Section 9.2). Further support for the turbation hypothesis is elicited from the range of weathering stages identified throughout the depth of the strata, coupled with the high level of mineralised breaks (Section 10.5.3). The presence of helical, dry and mineralised fracture types enhance a hypothesis of continuous interment, with some bones evidently at a more advanced stage of their taphonomic life than others when events connected to destruction of the assemblage occurred.

10.6.1 Quanterness At Quanterness, the taphonomic evidence presents a complex chain of events. Initially, three cists were dug into the floor of the tomb. Two of these are known to have contained inhumations (Renfrew 1979). These cists are often referred to as foundation deposits, which in this case, is a reasonable interpretation. The overlying deposit of fragmented bone is clearly the result of contrasting treatment to the ‘foundation’ deposits. Differential weathering patterns throughout this assemblage has been argued to support a hypothesis of intermittent successive interment (Section 10.5.1), with skeletal element representation indicating whole bodies were initially placed within the tomb. Knowledge of the typical decay processes acting upon a body (see Section 4.2) may provide an approximation of the timings of the initial mortuary ceremonies. The process of decay begins at the point of death, and within a matter of days a body may become significantly bloated. This bloating may have implications for the practicalities of interring bodies in the tombs. It is therefore postulated that the deceased were placed within the tombs relatively soon after death, most likely within a matter of days, to facilitate an ease of transition to the interior of the chamber.

The contextual evidence suggests turbation of the deposit must have occurred prior to the insertion of the final burial, the extended inhumation in Pit C. However, this evidence is called in to question in light of recent dating of faunal remains from the turbated deposit that post-date the pit feature. This paradox can be clarified by closer inspection of the excavation report, where Pit C is actually described as a ‘depression’, rather than a pit cutting the underlying deposits (Renfrew 1979, 60). Drawings and photographs also indicate this inhumation to be very close to the west wall of the main chamber. In addition, the upper half of this skeleton is not present. An alternative interpretation would suggest that this inhumation is not within a distinct cut. Rather, it could be part of the original deposits, its position having saved the lower part of the skeleton from the subsequent turbation of the remaining assemblage. This interpretation would allow the turbation to have

189

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney potentially occurred at a much later time in prehistory, possibly when the Iron Age roundhouse was inserted. It would also account for the mixing of the faunal remains, some of which post-dates the human material, discovered at lower levels of the stratigraphic ‘sequence’.

special treatment. This hypothesis has further implications for the small numbers of human remains found on other, non-megalithic sites. Their presence should perhaps be considered more significant than previously thought. 10.6.2 Quoyness

Within Quanterness, there is clear evidence for variation in mortuary practice. A limited number of inhumations within cists were followed by later, more complex, depositional practices involving the disaggregation of numerous individuals. Of those individuals subject to this more corporate treatment, taphonomic analysis indicates further variation. A number of bones were identified as having been exposed to fire (Section 10.5.2). At least half of these remains were found concentrated at the north end of the main chamber. Several of these burnt bones also exhibited peri-mortem fractures and possible impact scars. As noted previously, an argument has been presented to suggest that burning may well have been unintentional. However, the presence of impact notches associated with peri-mortem fracturing alternatively indicates individuals were selected for special treatment. Why should this be so?

At Quoyness, there was no evidence of foundation burials of an analogous type to those at Quanterness. The skeletal representation does, however, suggest the interment of whole bodies. Variation in weathering stages brings further credence to the hypothesis that, as at Quanterness, bodies were inserted at different times. Evidence considered to be consistent with de-fleshing activities exhorts a similar scenario to that proposed for Quanterness, whereby corpses that have not achieved a skeletal condition are manually separated from any remaining soft tissues. A number of bones exhibit evidence of damage resulting from a percussive force, suggesting that in a similar situation to Quanterness, some of these remains were deliberately fragmented. A number of these diagnostic features are associated with helical and dry fractures implying remains were generally at an earlier stage in their taphonomic narrative. Whilst the human remains at Quoyness have been shown to be fragmentary, it is not at a comparable level to Quanterness. Nevertheless, despite the obvious differences in the volume of material recovered from these two tombs, similarities in the treatment of the dead are evident. Given the striking homogeneity in their spatial configuration, this observation is of particular interest, and is the first time such direct parallels in mortuary practice have been discernible.

As discussed previously, the majority of the British Neolithic population is missing, evidently disposed of in an archaeologically invisible way. The individuals recovered from some of the megalithic tombs are therefore considered to have been specially selected. This hypothesis is founded on their low numbers, in tandem with their placement within such enigmatic and permanent structures. The criteria suggested to warrant inclusion within the tombs range from shamans and community leaders, to those suffering ‘difficult deaths’, such as suicide or accident (Leach 2008; Fowler 2010). However, based on the new evidence from this study, an alternative view, in terms of the Orcadian Neolithic, is suggested. This new hypothesis requires a fundamental shift in perspective, whereby the existing interpretation is inverted. It has been argued that the assemblages in this study represent a fraction of the original volume of remains placed within the tombs, much of the bone having simply decayed over time or been deliberately obliterated (Section 10.2.1.) It is therefore considered entirely plausible that most of the population was indeed placed within the tombs. This may be further supported by the range of ages identified within the assemblage, including young children and infants. Thus it can be considered that those individuals interred within the tomb had not been ‘specially’ selected for inclusion. If this is indeed the case, then what of those individuals that were socially taboo, or excluded, on the grounds of disease, mode of death, crime and disability? Were some individuals accorded a variation in treatment on the grounds of social status? Accepting that most of the population was interred within the tombs, then variation in treatment observed within the main bone spread may relate to those individuals often thought of as ‘different’. If this idea is accepted, then those remains that exhibit a variation in treatment, such as deliberate fragmentation or partial burning, are perhaps individuals that warranted

10.6.3 Point of Cott Skeletal representation at Point of Cott also supports a hypothesis of the interment of whole bodies. Variation in the weathering stages identified provides a supporting argument for the continual addition of bodies over the use-life of the structure. Despite differences in the spatial configuration of this tomb and Quoyness, they were found to have very similar skeletal representation profiles. At this level of investigation, it would seem reasonable to infer these tombs facilitated identical mortuary events. However, evidence for deliberate de-fleshing and dismemberment, identified at Quoyness (and Quanterness) is lacking in the Point of Cott remains. It is suggested that human remains at this tomb were left to decay of their own volition. Therefore, whilst there is homogeneity in the overall treatment of the dead i.e. the insertion of whole bodies into the tomb, there is variation in the finer details of mortuary practice between tombs. Variation of practice does not necessarily constitute a variation in beliefs. This is demonstrated in the ethnographic literature, where Metcalf & Huntington (1991, 96) report variation in burial rites among four closely connected communities. The reanalysis of this assemblage supports Barber’s (1997) original interpretations of continuous interment, with rearrangement and sorting of skeletons as fresh corpses

190

Discussion are added. Later turbation of the deposit has caused much of the original structure of the assemblage to be obscured.

associated with the megalithic tombs in Orkney (also see Chapter 3). Excarnation as the dominant burial rite at Quanterness (Chesterman 1979, 1983; Hedges 1983) cannot be supported by the osseous remains. Interment of whole bodies is considered, excepting Cuween, the normative, initial burial practice. However, subsequent manipulation of remains from Quanterness and Quoyness has been positively demonstrated. It is further proposed that this manipulation of remains was in order to hasten the decomposition process and most likely occurred within the confines of the relevant tomb. Evidence for similar modifications at Point of Cott and Pierowall Quarry is lacking, and may indicate variation in practice between the tombs. It has been demonstrated that bones originally considered to be under-represented from the Quanterness assemblage have always been present within the tomb. Whilst this is problematic for hypotheses involving the movement of human remains across the landscape (Richards 1988; Thomas 2000), they still retain some validity. Indeed, the presence of human remains in other, apparently non-funerary locations may actually imply these human remains were imbued with greater meaning. It infers that in Orkney, the circulation of human remains was more restricted and controlled than previously acknowledged.

10.6.4 Pierowall Quarry Whilst skeletal representation at Pierowall Quarry suggests the interment of whole bodies, it is more difficult to compare this assemblage directly with Quanterness, or the other tombs analysed, as the assemblage was clearly subject to very different events. As previously stated, the re-deposition of the bones outside the tomb is the most probable reason for their fragmentary nature. Indeed, the lack of any additional evidence of trauma to these bones would further support this interpretation. It is noteworthy that helical and dry fracturing was a feature of this assemblage, inferring re-deposition occurred during an earlier stage of the bones’ taphonomic history. 10.6.5 Cuween Hill Cuween Hill presents a contrasting picture to the other sites examined. Consisting of just seven bones, it is problematic to compare this assemblage to those consisting of hundreds, or in the case of Quanterness, thousands of bone fragments. There is no evidence to support the insertion of whole bodies into this tomb. In fact, the skeletal representation profile (SER) is consistent with the profile for secondary burials. The taphonomic history of Cuween diverges further from the other assemblages with the presence of large peri-mortem injuries to two of the crania, tentatively hypothesised to indicate ritual execution. Although very different to the assemblages in this study, other Orcadian sites are recognised as having a marked bias towards human skulls. One such example is the stalled cairn of the Knowe of Yarso, Rousay (Callander & Grant 1935). Within this tomb were the remains of at least 29 individuals. The skulls were arranged around the walls of the inner compartment (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 140). Significantly, these crania all lacked their mandibles. These factors not only infer secondary manipulation of the remains, but also an ordering of the bones (Richards 1988, 46–9). Isbister also contained a large number of skulls that, like Yarso, had been grouped together (Hedges 1983). The find spots marked on Charleson’s site plan (see Fig. 6.11) do not suggest similar groupings of the Cuween crania. The size of the assemblage, antiquarian disturbance and the knowledge that not all the bone present in this tomb was recoverable obfuscates confident interpretation of a secondary burial practice.

10.7 Death is Only the Beginning – the Power of the Corpse In Section 10.6, a reinterpretation of the Orcadian assemblages’ taphonomic history, from deposition to discovery, was generated from the numerous strands of evidence derived from this research. The following section will explore in more detail the implications of the mortuary practices and events identified, and seek to demonstrate the power and influence a corpse may have exerted on Neolithic Orcadian communities, and by extension, have shaped the associated mortuary rites. The human body is a universal, a biological constant that allows our knowledge of how it behaves in the present, to inform our understanding of what people may have faced in the past (Sofaer 2006, 21). In other words, death affected the human body then as now. Death itself is a significant event, causing disruption and shock to the tempo of daily life. The physicality of bodily decay is a dynamic phenomenon, but it is currently underplayed in archaeological literature and placed at the periphery of interpretation, usually as a delineator of liminal time. This oversight reflects our own experiences of death, which have become increasingly unimportant, distant and sanitised in modern British society (Parker Pearson 1999, 125). As detailed in Section 4.2, upon death, a human body will progress through a series of predictable decay stages. The bloating of the corpse and tightening (or relaxing) of muscle tissue will cause movement. Liquids will ooze from different orifices, the skin will change colour, and sound can be produced as gas escapes and flesh tears. These grotesque changes render the corpse a considerably

10.6.6 Mortuary Rites - Summary The condition of the human remains within the Orcadian tombs, at the point of excavation, equates to the final stage in a complex sequence of taphonomic events (Thomas 2000, 658). Nevertheless, detailed analysis has been able to elucidate information regarding the sequence of events leading to their present composition. The evidence generated by this study evidently presents challenges to the existing interpretations of mortuary practices 191

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney more animated entity than the western ‘stillness of death’ traditionally envisions. To gain a sense of the possible impact such transformation may have had on people during the Orcadian Neolithic, a brief consideration of the archaeological evidence is necessary.

passages, assumed to be the point of entry, are narrow and cramped, creating claustrophobic spaces with room for just one individual at a time. There is no evidence to enable confident comprehension of how the dead were manoeuvred into the tombs. Logically, it is possible a rope or matting may have been employed creating a more fluid movement of the body into the structure – without such assistance the incorporation of a body in a tomb cannot have made for an elegant spectacle. If the process relied purely on unassisted physical strength, the low heights of the passages imply the deceased and their ‘handler’ would have shared intimate space. Given these potential difficulties, it seems perplexing that the entrance passages should have been constructed in such a restrictive way. The heights of the ceilings within the tomb interiors illustrate that more accommodating spaces were not a challenge to create. It may be conceived that this intentional distinction will have accentuated a sense of ‘arriving’, as the transition is made from the confines of the entrance passage into the comparatively more expansive space of the central chamber.

The linear ordering of space created by the architecture of the early Neolithic houses, such as Knap of Howar, Papa Westray, is replicated within the contemporary stalled cairns (Richards 1992; 1996a, 193–194). During the later Neolithic, although exhibiting a different, concentric configuration in comparison to the earlier Neolithic structures, House 2 at the settlement of Barnhouse reflects homogeneity in its principles of spatial order with the architecture of tombs such as Quanterness and Quoyness (Richards 1996a, 194). Further parallels may be perceived in turning to the henge monuments of the Stenness promontory. Here, similar principles of concentricity, in tandem with their ditches, banks and monoliths provide a microcosm of the surrounding landscape and topography (Richards 1996a; 1996b; 2000, 559). Therefore, a perceived order of the world is reflected in the architecture of house, tomb and henge.

These observations permit some degree of cognizance of the more sensory and experiential aspect of the mortuary rites (Hamilakis 2012; Sofaer 2006, 22). The individuals responsible for the transition of the body from the exterior to the interior of a tomb, were potentially surrounded by onlookers, and other participants, whilst at the exterior of a tomb. With regard to monuments such as Quoyness, with their platforms and forecourts, they may have felt a degree of separation from an audience. Potentially, they may have been aware of a small number of people waiting within the core of the tomb. However, in contrast to the openness of the landscape and (later) the henge monuments, the long crawl along the passage was accomplished alone and isolated from the group, most likely in darkness.

In this way, the ordering of the landscape through architecture clearly denotes a need to impose structure and authority on the surrounding environment. As an unpredictable and uncontrollable event, what impact might mortality have on this world order? As stated above, the death of an individual would have disrupted the normal rhythm of daily life, creating a social void that required the renegotiation of roles and identities within the community (Brück 2001; Fowler 2001, 2010). However, this observation accounts for only one facet of death. The body itself is not an inanimate and passive object. Unlike the premeditation and control over the transformation of materials, such as clay into pots or animal bone into tools, the transformation of the body after death does not require anthropogenic intervention. It is a dynamic and active entity, transforming of its own accord. Furthermore, whilst the stages of decay follow a predictable pattern, not all individuals will transform/metamorphose at the same rate. Death therefore poses a serious challenge to the Neolithic Orcadian’s ability to impose structure and order upon their world. This could have been addressed by imposing highly structured ritual practices on such an event – manifest in mortuary practices.

When reconstructing mortuary rites, considerations of whether they occurred by day or night do not seem to be a prominent concern. This may be very informative for gaining a greater understanding of the sensory aspect of these events for the individuals taking part. By day, the interiors of the tombs are dark (Hedges 2000, 148). By night, the effect would have been total, heightening the senses. In modern times of light pollution, true darkness, such as would have been experienced during the Neolithic, can be difficult to conceive of. It could be envisioned that flames were used to assist when moving through these monuments. A quote from the essay, ‘In Praise of Shadows’, perhaps provides some illumination for the modern mind:

Reanalysis of the osseous remains demands a new interpretation of mortuary practices at Quanterness and similar sites. The straightforward transport of a bundle of excarnated bones from the exterior of the tomb to the interior, no longer applies. It has now been established that whole, articulated bodies were placed within the tombs. This simple fact has a significant bearing on our understanding of the practicalities involved in transferring a corpse from the exterior of the tomb, to the interior. The architecture of the tombs transforms the journey of the deceased into a potentially arduous undertaking for the living. Where they exist the entrance

‘I wonder if my readers know the colour of that ‘darkness seen by candlelight’. It was different in quality from darkness on the road at night. It was a repletion, a pregnancy of tiny particles like fine ashes, each particle luminous as a rainbow. I blinked in spite of myself, as though to keep it out of my eyes’ (Tanizaki 2001, 52). 192

Discussion In addition to this visual consideration, aroma must also have been a factor. Regarding the tombs of Isbister, Hedges (2000, 148–149) refers to the stench of decay that would have been generated from animal remains. The air may indeed have had a stench of death and decay in the Neolithic tombs, but from the new evidence presented, that stench would most certainly have come from decaying bodies. The smells associated with decaying corpses are considered repugnant today, but it must not be assumed that this was the case in prehistory. Whether they were considered polluting and abhorrent, or were simply associated with a period of transition and liminal time cannot be determined, but certainly they would have existed. Understandings of emotion and the feeling that might have been raised in individuals as they moved through the tombs may always be out of reach. Nevertheless, appreciation of the behaviour of a corpse allows the potential for a comprehension of what was faced by the living. However, this will always be from our own perspectives, our own attitudes, understandings and sensibilities to the physicality of the decay processes.

would have been delimited by the decomposition process. The corpse should therefore be understood to have been a central focus for the activities, rather than incidental to the construction of a tomb. The complex processes implied by the taphonomic analysis not only indicate an extended funerary process for the dead, but also demonstrates that the role of the deceased continued to influence and order the world of the living. 10.8 The Significance of the Faunal Remains from Quanterness A brief review of Davidson & Henshall’s (1989) inventory of Orcadian chambered cairns indicates faunal remains were recovered from at least 20 tombs. These remains were reported in varying quantities, from as little as two rib fragments at Knowe of Craie (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 132) to the more substantial volumes from Isbister and Quanterness. However, the animal remains share similar characteristics to their human counter-parts in being disarticulated, disordered and often fragmented (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 56). Interpretations are further hampered regarding older excavations by uncertainties over what proportion of the assemblages are contemporary with the original use of the tomb, and what are the result of later intrusions e.g. by carnivores using the structure as a den (Clutton-Brock 1979, 114). At present, debates as to the significance of faunal remains within the tombs may be divided into two key schools of thought – one is focused on hypotheses of anthropogenic involvement, the other favours more ‘naturally occurring’ processes. Anthropogenic activities in prehistory encompass a range of rites and practices including totemism, votive offerings and funerary feasting. ‘Naturally occurring’ processes are considered to involve accumulation of remains by carnivores and/or occupation of tombs by nesting birds and small, burrowing mammals (Clutton-Brock 1979, 114; Barber 1997, 67).

It has been suggested that justification for some of the bones at Quanterness and Quoyness to indicate dismemberment and de-fleshing reflects variation in treatment of individuals according to their circumstances at death. In considering the distinct desire to create order and structure, as reflected in the architecture, an alternative hypothesis is also offered. Decay of the body will occur at different rates based on multitudinous factors. It is therefore hypothesised that anthropogenic intervention occurred in relation to individuals for whom the decay process had not concluded within the ascribed time-frame. In so doing, the order of ‘how things should be’ was structured and controlled by society, not nature. In light of the arguments in support of order and structure, the ‘chaotic’ state of many of the deposits presents a quandary, particularly at Quanterness. However, the taphonomic evidence, specifically mineralised fractures, indicates much of the fragmentation of the remains must have occurred a significant time after death. The intense fragmentation observed, must be connected to the manual turbation of the deposits in addition to disturbance by burrowing animals. The loss of the original structure of these deposits may, in part, have been a deliberate act. Indeed, Barber (1997, 69) maintained that the evidence for human remains having been placed on shelves within tombs such as Point of Cott, indicated they were actually very ordered spaces. The disorder in the deposits was not the original construct.

The presence of a large number of white-tailed sea eagles at Isbister, and 24 dog crania at Cuween Hill, provided a platform from which Fraser (1983) and Hedges (1983, 145–159) developed the hypothesis that these remains were of totemic significance. However, re-dating of the Isbister sea eagle bones demonstrated deposition occurred considerably later than the original use-phase of this site (McCormick & Sheridan 2006). A similar situation can be observed for the Cuween dog remains (Sheridan 2005). Clearly, these remains are not indicative of totemic symbolism for the creation of the tombs. Jones (1998, 309) has argued that for the representation of an animal species to be accepted as totemic, it should be the predominant species within the assemblage – at Isbister (‘Tomb of the Eagles’) there are many more cattle and sheep than eagles, further undermining the notion of totemic significance. However, bones and antler representing 14 red deer from Knowe of Ramsay and at least 36 at Knowe of Yarso may provide support for Fraser and Hedges, especially as

For the individuals placed within the confines of the megaliths, death was indeed, only the beginning. The body passes through a sequence of events, structured both biologically and anthropogenically. Bodies of the dead were not something passive to simply be disposed of; rather they were potentially powerful and dangerous entities in themselves. The timing of placement within a tomb

193

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney in both cases, bones of other animals (sheep and cattle) were very scarce (Davidson & Henshall 1989, 56). At Holm of Papa Westray North, 10,980 limpet shells were found within the filling of the entrance passage (Ritchie 2004, 96) and a large deposit of fish bones within a boxlike setting are considered to be suggestive of totemism (Ritchie 2004, 102).

that these particular specimens were broken during the peri-mortem phase, whilst the bone was still fresh. The identification of features such as cut marks and chop marks (Section 9.7) adds further credence to an interpretation of anthropogenic involvement. This sample of animal bone is also characterised by small fragments, generally prohibiting identification to species. However, the presence of small and often unidentifiable fragments, particularly those with helical fractures, implies the modification of these bones occurred within the confines of the tomb. Given the advances in the identification of taphonomic markers on bones (Lyman 2001), there would certainly appear to be merit in a re-analysis of the main faunal assemblage. It is difficult to compare the animal and human bone directly at this stage. The majority (of the small percentage) of human bone exhibiting helical fractures had been burnt. It could be suggested that the human bone was not as intensely modified as the animal bone, although without a full survey of the animal bone, this must remain speculation.

A lack of gnaw marks and butchery marks on the remains at Quanterness (Renfrew 1979, 168) and Isbister (Hedges 1983, 269) has resulted in these assemblages being interpreted as the results of votive offerings, either specifically accompanying the dead, or brought in as part of the mortuary rites. At Quanterness, a relatively large number of lambs have been suggested to indicate they may have had a particular ritual significance (Clutton-Brock 1979, 114; Davidson & Henshall 1989, 84). In addition to lambs, at least one new-born calf, a foetal red deer, a foetal foal and young piglets were also present. The remains of smaller species, such as rodents and birds, are considered to have arrived by non-anthropogenic means, such as carnivores having used the tomb as a den (Clutton-Brock 1979, 113). Clutton-Brock (1979, 114; 118) also reported that at Quanterness, although accounting for a very small proportion of the assemblage, a few of the animal bones did show signs of having been chopped or butchered. Four bones are described, two of which (newborn red deer and an adult ox) are not confidently assigned to the Neolithic. However, a cattle scapula and a sheep humerus with chop marks are more certain (Clutton-Brock 1979, 128, 130).

However, the dates from the faunal material (Section 9.2) create further challenges to interpretation of the animal remains at Quanterness. Dates obtained for the human remains indicate a period of use beginning around 3510–3220 cal BC (95.4% probability), ending around 2870–2720 cal BC (95.4% probability) (Schulting et al. 2010, 24). The faunal remains overlap, inferring contemporaneity with the human remains in Stratum 4, Stratum 5b and the side chamber, ZC. However, five of the faunal samples clearly post-date the human remains, indicating that activity within the tomb continued for a longer duration than is suggested by the human deposits. These later dates create more confusion, as they appear to be in stratigraphically earlier layers than the earlier dates. The later dates may actually illustrate another phase of use, or a change in ideologies. Evidently, this lack of stratigraphic integrity is an issue. This may be rationalised as due either to all the remains having been brought into the tomb from other locations, or that the deposit was subject to significant turbation. A general mixing of the deposits seems the most likely scenario and would also account for the large proportions of mineralised breaks in the human and animal assemblages.

It would appear this scant number of modified animal remains from Quanterness has been overlooked when Barber (1997, 67) asserts that none of the Neolithic animal bone assemblages exhibit evidence for butchery marks. At Pierowall Quarry there was no evidence to support interpretations of butchery practice, and it was suggested that many of the animals may be accounted for by young and weak animals looking for shelter (McCormick 1984, 109). A similar interpretation was adopted by Barber (1997, 48) for the Point of Cott assemblage, who states there was no secure evidence for the placement of animal remains in the tomb as part of a funerary rite. Preferring more natural mechanisms to account for the faunal remains in tombs, Barber (1988; 1997) suggests that all animal remains in Orcadian tombs are the result of intrusion. This is refuted by Jones (1998, 309) who points out that many species such as cattle and deer are simply too large to enter the low stone entrance-ways of their own volition. Given the narrowness of the entrance passages, the larger animals cannot have been brought into the chamber intact. This practical necessity would imply animals must have been processed into more manageable units, making the apparent absence of evidence for such activities quite curious.

Animal bone dates from both Holm of Papa Westray North and Point of Cott are later than those on human bone. However, these dates reflect the selection of specimens from later contexts, such as upper fills and blocking deposits, and so post-date the use of the monuments for funerary activity (Schulting et al. 2010, 27). The identification of animal bone modification at Quanterness does not, at this stage, give definitive insight into whether animals were intended for consumption or propitiation. The idea that animals were placed within the tombs as symbols or totems associated with a particular territory is undermined by a lack of contemporaneity with the original use-span of the tombs. However, the more unusual, or exotic, deposits may indicate a complete

Against this backdrop, the taphonomic analysis of the faunal remains undertaken in the current study introduces compelling evidence of the modification of animal bone at Quanterness. The presence of helical fracturing on 18 per cent (93/500) of the fragments examined intimates 194

Discussion change of evolvement in ideology. It is most often thought that the blocking of the tombs indicates their fading significance for Neolithic societies. The actual timing of these events is, however, unclear. Jones & Richards (2000, 104) have argued that we need to abandon the view of the tomb as a single event. The emerging sequences of dates regarding the animal bones certainly present a more complex history of the role these structures played. Given the long time-spans involved, it should not be surprising to witness a gradual change in use over time. Totemic symbolism may not have been the original intention of the tomb designers, but that does not exclude the possibility that new cosmologies emerged. Jones (1998, 314) has suggested that certain kinds of animals are deposited in certain kinds of places according to a series of topographic and symbolic principles – they are a metonym for that location. For example, Yarso and Blackhammer are located in an upland position, the typical habitat of red deer (ibid.).

megalithic tombs and their place in Neolithic society. Were they for the burial of individuals, or were they symbols of a collective identity? The association of the megaliths with communality and, apparently by extension, ancestors, raises a number of issues with how we understand the function and symbolism of these structures. Are they actually tombs, housing the remains of the dead and available to either the local population or specific individuals within that population? Or should we instead see them as temples, possibly controlled by a select few and utilised as places for the veneration of the ancestors? The concept of corporate burial is synonymous with megalithic tombs (Section 3.4.1). Evidently, numerous individuals located within a shared space allow little room for contradictory interpretation. However, within this shared space, was individual integrity maintained, or was there an orchestrated absorption into the ancestral collective? In first considering the evidence from the Orkney-Cromarty tombs, the presence of skeletons placed on shelves in tombs such as Midhowe (Callander & Grant 1934), indicate individual integrity was upheld for a number of people. From the excavation of Point of Cott, Barber (1997, 69) surmised mortuary practice consisted of the successive interment of whole bodies. The addition of more cadavers would result in the older, more decayed remains being cleared away into ossuary spaces, creating room for the fresher corpse. Nothing in this current study would undermine this interpretation. Although, the variation in treatment in the arrangement of remains may be understood in similar ways to that hypothesised for variation at Quanterness i.e. those maintaining their individual identity are ‘special’. However it is entirely possible the re-arrangement of bone within the tomb is simply related to practicalities of deposition. In this way, the Orkney-Cromarty tombs may be thought of as mausoleums for individuals associated with a particular group.

The idea that animals were viewed as more than economic units during the Orcadian Neolithic is suggested by some of the unusual contexts of discovery on the domestic sites. Large animal bone assemblages have been found at the settlement sites of Skara Brae, Links of Noltland (Clarke & Sharples 1990) and Knap of Howar (Noddle, in Ritchie 1983). However, their association with a domestic setting does not automatically warrant an interpretation of their purpose in purely economic terms (Sharples 2000). The placement of skulls of cattle and whale over passageways and entrances at Skara Brae; the use of cattle long bones as a visible feature in the external walls at Skara Brae (Jones 1998, 310); at Links of Noltland, 15 red deer (although there were probably more), apparently deposited in a heap, representing a single event at Links of Noltland (Sharples 20002, 111). The presence of animal bone in the archaeological record is a valuable resource for the interpretation of the economies and activities (such as husbandry, hunting and fishing) of past peoples. The Orcadian evidence, at present, would suggest animals were more than an economic unit. The evidence from Quanterness indicates the need for a return to the main faunal assemblage, as there may be more evidence for deliberate modification of the bones than was identified at the time. Understanding which species were subject to particular modification could enhance an understanding of the role of particular species. The dating evidence further indicates a turbation of the deposits, but does suggest activities continued after deposition of human remains had ceased. Whether this continuation in use came after a period of abandonment, or reflects an evolution and change in ideology, is unclear.

The taphonomic evidence from the Maeshowe-type tombs of Quanterness and Quoyness paints a different picture. In these tombs, there is unquestionable evidence for the deliberate disaggregation and fragmentation of human remains. At both locations, there is an intention to obfuscate the individual. This event equates to more than Barber’s (1988) ‘progressive loss of self’, it is an aggressive determination to dissolve individual identity. Was this obliteration part of a mortuary rite, or was it connected to later violation of the remains? Kuijt (2008, 185) views the disaggregation and depersonalisation of the body as a desire to forget the individual, whilst simultaneously seeing them memorialised as part of a collective and shared group identity. However, Fowler (2008, 188) does not agree that disaggregation necessarily indicates depersonalisation, drawing on ethnographic examples where this process is related to the recently deceased being welcomed back into the community during such ceremonies. In revisiting the ethnographic example from Madagascar (Graeber 1995), another interpretation for such obliteration of human remains is proposed. In this instance, during the secondary

10.9 Breathing Life into Old Stone – the Significance of the Tombs Having discussed the mortuary rites and significance of human remains, it is necessary to comment on what these interpretations intimate for our understanding of the 195

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney burial ceremony, the bodies of the dead are brought out of the tombs and laid on the laps of the women. This close contact with their deceased relatives causes great distress. Graeber (1995, 269) suggests the reason for this action is that the memory of the living relative is so powerful, that only a dramatic confrontation with their corpse will bring home the fact of their death. It may be conceived that within the cellular tombs, the act of disaggregating the body of a relative would demonstrate the actuality of death.

this study has demonstrated that treatment of the dead is never entirely distinguishable between tombs. The Maeshowe-type tombs of Quanterness and Quoyness are architecturally very similar, and both exhibit evidence for the manipulation of human remains. However, there is a variation in the manner in which this disaggregation was achieved, in addition to the burial cists and drilled bones found at Quanterness. The crania from Cuween Hill suggest conspicuously different events occurred within this cellular tomb. The Orkney-Cromarty tomb of Point of Cott, although demonstrating similar skeletal representation to Quoyness, does not exhibit the same evidence for enforced dissolution of the body. The original structuring of the remains from Pierowall Quarry has been lost by post-depositional disturbance. The investigation into bone preservation patterns further suggests the bones within all the tombs are decaying in a similar, predictable fashion, intimating the differences observed are not simply an artefact of preservation. Therefore, the deposits represent a culmination of a long sequence of complex anthropogenic and natural events, occurring over an extended time period and focused within the tombs.

Although there is evidence for the deliberate dissolution of the body at Quanterness and Quoyness, the objective does not appear to have been complete eradication, such as identified by Duffy & MacGregor (2008) in Scotland and McQuillan & Logue (2008) in Ireland (Section 3.5). This could suggest a need to retain some tangible symbol of the collective community. Perhaps for the tomb to retain its potency and relevance to ritual life, it needed to also perceptibly contain and constrain the dead. A limitation of the taphonomic evidence is that it only permits discussion of events in terms of relative time, not absolute time, and the turbation of the deposits further obfuscates the precise sequence of events.

Jones & Richards (2000, 104) have previously argued that we need to abandon the view of the tomb as a single event. The taphonomic evidence and dating results from the faunal remains at Quanterness brings further validity to this concept. The addition of faunal remains, apparently postdating the deposition of human remains at Quanterness, denotes a distinct evolution in the use of these monuments – a change in their meaning and symbolism. Given the longevity of use indicated by the radiocarbon dates from Quanterness (Schulting et al. 2010) such an evolution is surely to be expected. It has previously been argued that the tombs are more akin to temples (Barber 1997, 70; Ritchie 2004, 94). The continuation in use of Quanterness, even after deposition of human remains has ceased, indicates it still maintained a significant influence over the living. Rather than trying to assign one purpose to the tombs – burial ground; mausoleum; temple – there is now a stronger foundation for accepting a constant evolution of the use and meaning of these structures.

This study has demonstrated that whole bodies were interred within the tombs. It has been argued that later manipulation of the body, where it occurred, was enacted within the architecture of the megaliths. Consideration of the realities of transferring a corpse to the interior of a tomb highlights how their architecture served to control movement, and create emphasis on certain parts of the journey through the tomb. The tombs were not only places of transformation, the location for the progress of decay and eventual disaggregation of the individual, they also constrained the tangible remains of the dead. The tombs delineate confined and restricted spaces, allowing accommodation for a limited number of people at a time. Thus, access to the dead was evidently carefully controlled, as previously suggested by Richards (1992, 70). The provision of forecourts and platforms are considered to be spaces for the congregation of the living (Thomas 2000, 656). But what if they were an extension of the space for interacting with the dead? Forecourts are semicircular, intimating observation rather than participation. The forecourt could actually have created another layer of separation between the living and the dead and may have denoted a space accessible only to the ritual specialist conducting the ceremonies. Forecourts are assumed to denote a practical space for the living, but they could equally have been a symbolic space.

10.10 The Orcadian Megaliths in their Wider British and Irish Setting A recent review of the Neolithic burial evidence for Britain and Ireland identified primary inhumation as the most common initial rite, possibly succeeded by intentional rearrangement (Beckett & Robb 2006, 60). In this respect, there is homogeneity between the British and Irish tombs and the Orcadian tombs incorporated within this study. Previously, the Orcadian tombs were considered distinct due to the large populations recovered from two key sites, Quanterness and Isbister. Although recalculation of the MNI for Quanterness and earlier work at Isbister (Lawrence 2006) has presented a less dramatic difference, the Orcadian monuments still possess greater volumes

How then, should we view the Orcadian megaliths, based on what is now understood of the activities within them? It is apparent they encompass a more complex series of events than has been confidently identified in the past. One of the stumbling blocks to previous interpretation is the desire to impose a universal, all-encompassing rite upon tombs that share key similarities in design. However,

196

Discussion of remains than their counter-parts. Evidence for the anthropogenic manipulation of remains from British and Irish sites, whilst identified (Wysocki & Whittle 2000, 595; Smith 2005; Noble 2006, 136), has been relatively scarce. In contrast, the sites of Quanterness and Quoyness, together, exhibit many more features indicating deliberate dismemberment than currently known from anywhere else in the British Neolithic. Skeletal elements previously considered to be under-represented at Quanterness have, instead, been shown to be analytically invisible due to high levels of fragmentation. Thus, concepts of mobility and circulation of human remains across the landscape (Thomas 2000, 662) in mainland Britain, may not apply in Orkney. However, the significance of unidentifiable fragments does not appear to have been considered for other Neolithic sites, limiting the ability to draw comparative inferences.

evidence would assist with the interpretations of mortuary rites, and therefore the function and role of the megalithic tombs in Orkney. Whilst the focus was the chamber tomb of Quanterness, Mainland, other, comparative sites were also incorporated. The systematic, detailed, taphonomic analysis of this quantity of Neolithic remains has not previously been achieved. Re-analysis has proved an extremely fruitful undertaking, generating a significantly more detailed picture of the taphonomic history of these remains than was previously available. One of the most enduring hypotheses of mortuary rites for the tomb of Quanterness was that of excarnation. Although many have cast doubt on this interpretation (Richards 1988, 46; Barber 1997; Reilly 2003; Lawrence 2006) it has still maintained a presence in the literature. Reanalysis has provided definitive evidence that excarnation should no longer be accepted as the mortuary rite for this tomb – and is unlikely to apply to many of the others. Instead, the evidence supports the direct interment of whole bodies. Following placement within the tombs, practices concerning the treatment of human remains diverge, with variation in the secondary manipulation of the dead, across all the tombs. This variation in practice may indicate a greater ideological distance between groups than previously identified through the mortuary evidence.

For the British and Irish tombs themes of transformation, fragmentation and manipulation of the body permeate the literature conferring on the tombs significance as places of transition (Thomas 2000, 662; Wysocki & Whittle 2000, 598). The concept of the megaliths as places of metamorphosis has been argued to be the characteristic that made them significant (Thomas 2000, 662). However, for the Orcadian tombs, and Quanterness in particular, the tombs were more than a place of liminality. Unlike southern Britain (Smith 2005; 2006) there is no supportive evidence for excarnation as a funerary rite in Orkney. The bones of the ancestors were retained within the core of the tomb, hidden, yet made ever present through the spectacle created by the megaliths themselves.

It has also been demonstrated that each skeletal element will degrade in a predictable manner. This approach supports and refines research undertaken by Bello & Andrews (2006). The similarity in preservation patterns amongst the Orcadian remains further demonstrates that differences in skeletal representation are not due to differential patterns of degradation; other, often extrinsic factors are involved. This information has utility beyond this study, and could be appropriated in similar projects as a ‘control’.

Whilst it is tempting to see similarities in spatial configuration and architecture as denoting identical intentions for use, variation in practice across the regions is evident. Spaces are given meaning through human actions, and, over time, actions, and understanding of the world, will change (Jones & Richards 2000, 104). Even today, the use of space evolves over time, their meaning and significance for those who experience them informed by an understanding of the history and events with which it is associated. Whilst it may be argued that the Orcadian tombs shared themes of transformation with their British and Irish counter-parts, their greater volume of remains, significant indications of anthropogenic modification and constraining of the dead within these structures indicated they were the manifestation of cosmologies that were distinct from those in the rest of Britain and Ireland. However, more taphonomic analysis is needed both of Orcadian remains and British and Irish remains, in order to further test this hypothesis.

A key outcome of this research has illustrated that the perceived under-representation of particular elements at Quanterness, such as the crania and femora, is not a product of Neolithic design, but of obstacles encountered during previous analysis. The methods employed in the current study have not only highlighted issues with previous analysis, but have also provided solutions to these challenges. Deposits of human remains from Neolithic Orkney are often described as being in disarticulated, fragmented and chaotic condition. Believing there is little useful information to be gained from such remains, this material has been overlooked for many years. However, as knowledge of taphonomic processes has improved, it is this key characteristic that makes this osseous material all the more interesting. The project has demonstrated that a taphonomic approach may indeed bring a sense of order to the apparent chaos these deposits represent. The value of these remains, even in their fragmented form, is proven,

10.11 Conclusions – a Sense of Order The aim of this study was to embark upon a re-analysis of Orcadian Neolithic archive material, utilising a taphonomic approach, in the hope of recovering new information from the osseous remains. It was anticipated the recovery of new

197

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney and should inform future excavation strategies. In light of the ‘recognisable cosmologically based sense of order manifest in the architecture of all the monuments’ (Richards 2000, 559), the search for a greater understanding of what these deposits represent is essential. 10.12 Future Directions This study has generated a significant amount of data, the key aspects of which have been woven together to create a new narrative for the megalithic tombs of Orkney. However, whilst this study goes some way to addressing established concerns, it also generates new questions and new directions for research: • Based on the results from the sample of faunal remains, a full taphonomic study of the remaining animal assemblage from Quanterness is needed. This will enable a more detailed understanding of the association of the human and animal remains. • Integration of the results of this research with work currently underway from other Orcadian sites, such as Isbister. • More radiocarbon dates are required to ascertain the contemporaneity of different tombs, settlements and ritual sites. • Further taphonomic analysis of human remains identified from other Orcadian megalithic tombs is essential. In particular, the recently discovered tomb at Banks, South Ronaldsay (Lee 2011) has the greatest potential to test the hypotheses outlined herein and contribute new information to future interpretations. This is based on the significant volume of human bone being recovered and the employment of the latest excavation techniques. • Further work into the preservation patterns of human remains, particularly with regard to the Neolithic, would be of particular interest. This would not only test the results produced during this study, but will also develop the volume of comparable data-sets.

198

APPENDIX CONTENTS: APPENDIX List of Figures: Appendix List of Plates: Appendix List of Tables: Appendix

201 203 204

1 The Human Skeleton

205

2 The Zonation Method

206

3

221 221 221 230 238 246 254 255 255 256 257 258 259 260

Zone Data 3.1 Summary of MNI and NISP for all Sites 3.2 Quanterness Zone Tables 3.3 Point of Cott Zone Tables 3.4 Pierowall Quarry Zone Tables 3.5 Quoyness Zone Tables 3.6 Isbister Zone Table 3.7 Cuween Zone Tables 3.8 Skeletal Element Representation 3.8.1 Quanterness 3.8.2 Quoyness 3.8.3 Point of Cott 3.8.4 Pierowall Quarry 3.8.5 Cuween Hill

4 Weathering, Trauma and Fragmentation Summary Tables 4.1 Weathering Summary Data 4.2 Trauma Summary Data 4.3 Summary Fragmentation Data 4.4 Fracture Type Summary Data

261 261 265 265 266

5

268 268 268 270 270 271 271 272 272 273 273 274 274 275 277 277 278 278 279 281

Material Omitted from Chapter 7 and Chapter 8 5.1 Dentition 5.1.1 Quanterness 5.1.2 Point of Cott 5.1.3 Pierowall Quarry 5.2 Representation of Elements by Zone for All Sites 5.2.1 Clavicle (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) 5.2.2 Cervical Vertebrae (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) 5.2.3 Thoracic Vertebrae (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) 5.2.4 Lumbar Vertebrae (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) 5.2.5 Sacrum (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) 5.2.6 Carpals (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) 5.2.7 First Metacarpal (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) 5.2.8 Second to Fifth Metacarpals (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) 5.2.9 Calcaneus (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) 5.2.10 Talus (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) 5.2.11 Tarsals (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) 5.2.12 First Metatarsal (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) 5.2.13 Second to Fifth Metatarsals (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) 5.2.14 Ribs (Zones Shown in Appendix 2)

199

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

6

5.3 Fragmentation 5.3.1 Quanterness 5.3.2 Quoyness 5.3.3 Point of Cott 5.3.4 Pierowall Quarry 5.3.5 Isbister Demographic Information 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Age and Sex 6.3 Pathological Lesions 6.3.1 Quanterness 6.3.1.1 Non-metric Variation 6.3.1.2 Musculoskeletal Stress Markers 6.3.1.2a Clavicles 6.3.1.2b Vertebrae 6.3.1.3 Osteoarthritis 6.3.1.4 Periosteal Reactive Bone Formation 6.3.1.5 Healed Fractures 6.3.1.6 Dental Pathology 6.3.1.7 Summary 6.3.2 Quoyness 6.3.3 Point of Cott 6.3.4 Pierowall Quarry 6.4 Conclusion

7 Ancient or Modern? An Experimental Investigation of Holes Found on Neolithic Human Bone from Quanterness, Mainland, Orkney 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Background 7.3 Experiment Design and Methods 7.3.1 Materials 7.3.2 Experiment Setting 7.3.3 Tools 7.4 Results 7.4.1 The Burin Tip Hand Drill 7.4.2 The Awl and Hammer 7.5 Discussion 7.6 Conclusion

200

283 283 283 284 284 285 286 286 286 286 286 286 287 287 287 287 288 288 288 289 289 289 289 289 290 290 290 290 290 290 290 292 292 293 293 294

LIST OF FIGURES: APPENDIX Appendix 1 The Human Skeleton

205

Appendix 2 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 2.6 Figure 2.7 Figure 2.8 Figure 2.9 Figure 2.10 Figure 2.11 Figure 2.12 Figure 2.13 Figure 2.14 Figure 2.15 Figure 2.16 Figure 2.17 Figure 2.18 Figure 2.19 Figure 2.20 Figure 2.21 Figure 2.22 Figure 2.23 Figure 2.24 Figure 2.25 Figure 2.26 Figure 2.27 Figure 2.28 Figure 2.29 Figure 2.30 Figure 2.31 Figure 2.32 Figure 2.33 Figure 2.34 Figure 2.35

Cranium: norma facialis Cranium: norma occipitalis Cranium: norma basalis Cranium: norma verticalis Cranium: norma lateralis dextra Cranium: norma lateralis sinistra Mandible: lateral (external) Mandible: medial (internal) Clavicle: superior view Clavicle: inferior view First Rib: superior view First Rib: inferior view Rib: superior view Rib: inferior view Scapula: ventral view Scapula: dorsal view Humerus: posterior view Humerus: anterior view Ulna: posterior and anterior views Radius: posterior and anterior views Cervical vertebrae: superior and left lateral views Thoracic vertebrae: superior and right lateral views Lumbar vertebrae: superior and right lateral views Sacral vertebrae: ventral view Sacral vertebrae: dorsal view Os coxae: medial (internal) Os coxae: lateral (external) Femur: anterior view Femur: posterior view Tibia: posterior and anterior views Fibula: anterior and posterior views The hand and wrist: dorsal view The hand and wrist: palmar view The foot and ankle: dorsal view The foot and ankle: plantar view

206 206 207 207 208 208 209 209 209 209 210 210 210 210 211 211 212 212 213 213 214 214 214 215 215 216 216 217 217 218 218 219 219 220 220

Isolated adult teeth identified at Quanterness (Maxilla). Isolated adult teeth identified at Quanterness (Mandible). Isolated deciduous teeth identified at Quanterness (Maxilla). Isolated deciduous teeth identified at Quanterness (Mandible). Isolated adult teeth identified at Point of Cott (Maxilla). Isolated deciduous teeth identified at Point of Cott (Mandible). Clavicle: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. Cervical Vertibrae: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. Thoracic Vertibrae: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. Lumbar Vertibrae: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

268 269 269 270 270 271

Appendix 5 Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7

Figure 5.8 Figure 5.9 Figure 5.10

201

271 272 272 273

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Figure 5.11 Figure 5.12 Figure 5.13 Figure 5.14 Figure 5.15 Figure 5.16 Figure 5.17 Figure 5.18 Figure 5.19 Figure 5.20 Figure 5.21 Figure 5.22 Figure 5.23 Figure 5.24 Figure 5.25 Figure 5.26 Figure 5.27 Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

5.28 5.29 5.30 5.31 5.32

Sacrum: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. Carpals: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. 1st metacarpal: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. 2nd metacarpal: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. 3rd metacarpal: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. 4th metacarpal: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. 5th metacarpal: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. Calcaneus: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. Talus: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. Tarsals: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. 1st metatarsal: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. 2nd metatarsal: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. 3rd metatarsal: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. 4th metatarsal: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. 5th metatarsal: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. Ribs: each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. Comparison of skeletal representation for the Orkney sites of Quanterness, Quoyness, Pierowall Quarry and Point of Cott. Count of elements recorded for each fragment size category at Quanterness. Count of elements recorded for each fragment size category at Quoyness. Count of elements recorded for each fragment size category at Point of Cott. Count of elements recorded for each fragment size category at Pierowall Quarry. Count of elements recorded for each fragment size category at Isbister.

202

273 274 274 275 275 276 276 277 277 278 278 279 279 280 280 281 282 283 283 284 284 285

LIST OF PLATES: APPENDIX Appendix 7 Plate 7.1 Plate 7.2 Plate 7.3 Plate 7.4

Perforations found in the Quanterness assemblage; ulna (left), femur (top right) and manubrium (bottom right). (Author image). ‘Excarnated’ pig bone after drilling with hand drill. (Author image). Microscope image of drill hole created in excarnated pig bone with a hand drill. (Author image). Excarnated pig bone that has been fractured by percussion action. (Author image).

203

291 292 293 294

LIST OF TABLES: APPENDIX Appendix 6 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 6.6 Table 6.7

Summary of age and sex data derived from adult remains at Quanterness. Summary of clavicles exhibiting defects at the costoclavicular ligament insertion point. Summary of vertebra exhibiting characteristics of osteoarthritis. Summary of skeletal elements displaying eburnation. Summary of skeletal elements with evidence for Periosteal reactive bone formation. Summary of bones exhibiting ante-mortem fracturing. Count of teeth exhibiting pathological change.

286 287 287 288 288 288 289

Appendix 7 Table 7.1

Summary of the effects observed on pig bones by tool types.

293

204

Appendix

Appendix 1 - The Human Skeleton

205

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Appendix 2 - The Zonation Method Illustrations (redrawn from Knüsel & Outram 2004)

Figure 2.1 Cranium: norma facialis

Figure 2.2 Cranium: norma occipitalis

206

Appendix

Figure 2.3 Cranium: norma basalis

Figure 2.4 Cranium: norma verticalis 207

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Figure 2.5 Cranium: norma lateralis dextra

Figure 2.6 Cranium: norma lateralis sinistra

208

Appendix

Figure 2.7 Mandible: lateral (external)

Figure 2.8 Mandible: medial (internal)

Figure 2.9 Clavicle: superior view

Figure 2.10 Clavicle: inferior view

209

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Figure 2.12 First Rib: inferior view

Figure 2.11 First Rib: superior view

Figure 2.13 Rib: superior view

Figure 2.14 Rib: inferior view 210

Appendix

Figure 2.15 Scapula: ventral view

Figure 2.16 Scapula: dorsal view

211

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Figure 2.17 Humerus: posterior view

Figure 2.18 Humerus: anterior view

212

Appendix

Figure 2.19 Ulna: posterior and anterior views

Figure 2.20 Radius: posterior and anterior views

213

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Figure 2.21 Cervical vertebrae: superior and left lateral views

Figure 2.22 Thoracic vertebrae: superior and right lateral views

Figure 2.23 Lumbar vertebrae: superior and right lateral views

214

Appendix

Figure 2.24 Sacral vertebrae: ventral view

Figure 2.25 Sacral vertebrae: dorsal view

215

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Figure 2.26 Os coxae: medial (internal)

Figure 2.27 Os coxae: lateral (external)

216

Appendix

Figure 2.28 Femur: anterior view

Figure 2.29 Femur: posterior view

217

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Figure 2.30 Tibia: posterior and anterior views

Figure 2.31 Fibula: anterior and posterior views

218

Appendix

Figure 2.32 The hand and wrist: dorsal view

Figure 2.33 The hand and wrist: palmar view

219

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Figure 2.34 The foot and ankle: dorsal view

Figure 2.35 The foot and ankle: plantar view

220

Appendix

Appendix 3 - Zone Data The first section (Section 2.1) provides a summary of the MNI and NISP calculated for each site in the study. The following sections (Section 2.2 – 2.6) present the data derived as a result of the Zonation method. The count of

each zone present (Actual) is given as a percentage of the number anticipated, assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

3.1 Summary of MNI and NISP for all Sites Site

MNI

Potential

Actual

NISP

Unidentified

Quanterness

59

13,064

10473 (of which 500 were animal)

9006

967

Quoyness

13

3056

275

275

0

Point of Cott

9

1906

450

427

23

Pierowall Quarry

8

1774

212

202

10

Isbister

53

475

474

1

3.2 Quanterness Zone Tables Cranium Zones

Expected

Actual

%

Right Frontal

(1)

59

24

40.7

Left Frontal

(2)

59

28

47.5

Right Parietal

(3)

59

95

161.0

Left Parietal

(4)

59

97

164.4

Occipital

(5)

59

80

135.6

Left Temporal

(6)

59

51

86.4

Right Temporal

(7)

59

55

93.2

Left Sphenoid

(8)

59

12

20.3

Right Sphenoid

(9)

59

11

18.6

Left Zygoma

(10)

59

6

10.2

Right Zygoma

(11)

59

13

22.0

Left Maxilla

(12)

59

25

42.4

Right Maxilla

(13)

59

24

40.7

Left Nasal bone

(14)

59

5

8.5

Right Nasal bone

(15)

59

6

10.2

221

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Mandible Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

118

78

66.1

2

118

53

44.9

3

118

32

27.1

4

118

23

19.5

5

118

41

34.7

6

118

35

29.7

7

118

58

49.2

Clavicle Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

118

70

59.3

2

118

65

55.1

3

118

82

69.5

Hyoid Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

59

11

18.6

2

59

3

5.1

3

59

3

5.1

Scapula Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

118

28

23.7

2

118

53

44.9

3

118

59

50.0

4

118

57

48.3

5

118

55

46.6

6

118

37

31.4

7

118

98

83.1

8

118

32

27.1

9

118

42

35.6

Cervicle Vertebrae Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

413

246

60.2

2

413

244

59.1

3

413

239

57.9

4

413

196

47.5

Thoracic Vertebrae Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

708

321

45.3

2

708

365

51.6

3

708

364

51.4

4

708

247

34.8

222

Appendix Lumbar Vertebrae Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

295

127

43.0

2

295

119

40

3

295

115

39

4

295

76

25.8

Sacrum Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

59

86

146

2

59

64

108

3

59

74

125

4

59

39

66

Sternum Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

59

33

56

2

59

50

84.7

3

59

1

1.7

Rib Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

1416

495

35

2

1416

601

42.4

3

1416

1211

85.5

Humerus Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

118

33

28

2

118

64

54.2

3

118

25

21.1

4

118

19

16.1

5

118

35

29.7

6

118

30

25.4

7

118

43

36.4

8

118

47

39.8

9

118

33

28

10

118

26

22

11

118

35

29.7

223

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Radius Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

118

60

50.8

2

118

63

53.4

3

118

51

43.2

4

118

53

44.9

5

118

77

65.3

6

118

53

44.9

7

118

57

48.3

8

118

53

44.9

9

118

49

41.5

10

118

51

43.2

J

118

39

33.1

Ulna Zones

Expected

Actual

%

A

118

45

38.1

B

118

42

35.6

C

118

74

62.7

D

118

63

53.4

E

118

81

68.6

F

118

43

36.4

G

118

48

40.7

H

118

46

39

J

118

37

31.4

Pelvis Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

118

32

27.1

2

118

52

44.1

3

118

24

20.3

4

118

9

7.6

5

118

42

35.6

6

118

45

38.1

7

118

33

28

8

118

33

28

9

118

41

34.7

10

118

92

78

11

118

33

28

12

118

57

48.3

224

Appendix Femur Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

118

25

21.1

2

118

17

14.4

3

118

45

38.1

4

118

40

33.9

5

118

26

22

6

118

41

34.7

7

118

22

18.6

8

118

22

18.6

9

118

39

33

10

118

29

24.6

11

118

30

25.4

Tibia Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

118

39

33.1

2

118

24

20.3

3

118

39

33.1

4

118

20

16.9

5

118

30

25.4

6

118

29

24.6

7

118

34

28.8

8

118

26

22.0

9

118

23

19.5

10

118

16

13.6

Fibula Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

118

28

23.7

2

118

46

39

3

118

43

36.4

4

118

48

40.7

5

118

51

43.2

6

118

48

40.7

Patella Zone

Expected

Actual

%

1

118

88

74.6

225

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Carpals

Expected

Actual

%

Trapezium

118

37

31.4

Trapezoid

118

24

20.3

Capitate

118

45

38.1

Hamate

118

42

35.6

Scaphoid

118

47

39.8

Lunate

118

32

27.1

Triquetral

118

17

14.4

1st Metacarpal

Expected

Actual

%

1

118

49

41.5

2

118

57

48.3

3

118

60

50.8

2nd Metacarpal

Expected

Actual

%

1

118

72

61

2

118

51

43.2

3

118

76

64.4

3rd Metacarpal

Expected

Actual

%

1

118

59

50

2

118

52

44.1

3

118

64

54.2

4th Metacarpal

Expected

Actual

%

1

118

63

53.3

2

118

47

40

3

118

66

56

5th Metacarpal

Expected

Actual

%

1

118

68

57.6

2

118

37

31.4

3

118

67

56.8

Proximal Phalange (Hand)

Expected

Actual

%

1

590

287

48.6

2

590

314

53.2

3

590

324

54.9

Int. Phalange (Hand)

Expected

Actual

%

1

472

174

36.9

2

472

179

37.9

3

472

181

38.3

226

Appendix Distal Phalange (Hand)

Expected

Actual

%

1

590

77

13.1

2

590

77

13.1

3

590

80

13.6

Calcaneus Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

118

59

50

2

118

77

65.2

3

118

70

59.3

4

118

73

61.9

5

118

73

61.9

Talus Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

118

78

66.1

2

118

88

74.6

3

118

73

61.9

4

118

78

66.1

Tarsals

Expected

Actual

%

Medial Cuneiform

118

51

43.2

Intermediate Cuneiform

118

73

61.9

Lateral Cuneiform

118

53

44.9

Navicular

118

74

62.7

Cuboid

118

69

58.5

1st Metatarsal

Expected

Actual

%

1

118

47

39.8

2

118

54

45.8

3

118

57

48.3

2nd Metatarsal

Expected

Actual

%

1

118

45

38.1

2

118

32

27.1

3

118

45

38.1

3rd Metatarsal

Expected

Actual

%

1

118

86

72.9

2

118

52

44.1

3

118

88

74.6

227

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 4th Metatarsal

Expected

Actual

%

1

118

72

61

2

118

38

32.2

3

118

69

58.5

5th Metatarsal

Expected

Actual

%

1

118

65

55.1

2

118

37

31.4

3

118

66

55.9

Proximal Phalange (Foot)

Expected

Actual

%

1

590

193

32.7

2

590

191

32.3

3

590

195

33.1

Int. Phalange (Foot)

Expected

Actual

%

1

472

20

4.2

2

472

24

5.08

3

472

28

5.9

Distal Phalange (Foot)

Expected

Actual

%

1

590

27

4.6

2

590

28

4.7

3

590

28

4.7

Teeth Maxilla (adult) (Loose)

Actual

Central Incisor

58

Lateral Incisor

40

Canine

39

Premolar

64

Molar 1

18

Molar 2

29

Molar 3

37

228

Appendix Teeth Mandible (adult) (Loose)

Actual

Central Incisor

4

Lateral Incisor

15

Incisor (UN)

43

Canine

39

Premolar

111

Molar 1

24

Molar 2

44

Molar 3

13

Teeth Maxilla (deciduous) (Loose)

Actual

Central Incisor

2

Lateral Incisor

0

Canine

5

Molar 1

10

Molar 2

9

Teeth Mandible (deciduous) (Loose)

Actual

Central Incisor

1

Lateral Incisor

0

Canine

4

Molar 1

9

Molar 2

4

229

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 3.3 Point of Cott Zone Tables Cranium Zones

MNI

Identified Fragments

%

Right Frontal

(1)

9

12

133.3

Left Frontal

(2)

9

11

122.2

Right Parietal

(3)

9

11

122.2

Left Parietal

(4)

9

13

144.4

Occipital

(5)

9

15

166.7

Left Temporal

(6)

9

7

77.8

Right Temporal

(7)

9

7

77.8

Left Sphenoid

(8)

9

1

11.1

Right Sphenoid

(9)

9

2

22.2

Left Zygoma

(10)

9

1

11.1

Right Zygoma

(11)

9

2

22.2

Left Maxilla

(12)

9

3

33.3

Right Maxilla

(13)

9

3

33.3

Left Nasal bone

(14)

9

0

0

Right Nasal bone

(15)

9

0

0

Unidentified Cranium Mandible Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

18

4

22.2

2

18

2

11.1

3

18

3

16.7

4

18

3

16.7

5

18

3

16.7

6

18

4

22.2

7

18

3

16.7

Clavicle Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

18

6

33.3

2

18

6

33.3

3

18

11

61.1

230

Appendix Scapula Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

18

1

5.6

2

18

0

0

3

18

0

0

4

18

3

16.7

5

18

1

5.6

6

18

0

0

7

18

2

11.1

8

18

0

0

9

18

2

11.1

Cervicle Vertebrae Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

63

2

3.2

2

63

2

3.2

3

63

2

3.2

4

63

0

0

Thoracic Vertebrae Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

108

7

6.5

2

108

12

11.1

3

108

11

10.2

4

108

8

7.4

Lumbar Vertebrae Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

45

3

6.7

2

45

4

8.9

3

45

3

6.7

4

45

3

6.7

Sacrum Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

9

1

11.1

2

9

1

11.1

3

9

1

11.1

4

9

0

0

Sternum Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

9

0

0

2

9

1

11.1

3

9

0

0

231

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Rib Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

216

12

5.6

2

216

20

9.3

3

216

30

13.9

Humerus Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

18

3

16.7

2

18

5

27.8

3

18

1

5.6

4

18

2

11.1

5

18

1

5.6

6

18

2

11.1

7

18

6

33.3

8

18

6

33.3

9

18

5

27.7

10

18

5

27.7

11

18

6

33.3

Radius Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

18

3

16.7

2

18

4

22.2

3

18

2

11.1

4

18

2

11.1

5

18

4

22.2

6

18

6

33.3

7

18

6

33.3

8

18

6

33.3

9

18

4

22.2

10

18

4

22.2

J

18

2

11.1

Ulna Zones

Expected

Actual

%

A

18

2

11.1

B

18

2

11.1

C

18

4

22.2

D

18

2

11.1

E

18

4

22.2

F

18

3

16.7

G

18

4

22.2

H

18

2

11.1

J

18

0

0

232

Appendix Pelvis Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

18

4

22.2

2

18

6

33.3

3

18

3

16.7

4

18

4

22.2

5

18

3

16.7

6

18

4

22.2

7

18

4

22.2

8

18

2

11.1

9

18

4

22.2

10

18

8

44.4

11

18

5

27.8

12

18

2

11.1

Femur Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

18

0

0

2

18

3

16.7

3

18

7

38.9

4

18

1

5.6

5

18

2

11.1

6

18

4

22.2

7

18

5

27.8

8

18

5

27.8

9

18

8

44.4

10

18

4

22.2

11

18

4

22.2

Tibia Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

18

1

5.6

2

18

0

0

3

18

1

5.6

4

18

1

5.6

5

18

0

0

6

18

0

0

7

18

4

22.2

8

18

4

22.2

9

18

3

16.7

10

18

0

0

233

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Fibula Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

18

0

0

2

18

1

5.6

3

18

2

11.1

4

18

0

0

5

18

0

0

6

18

0

0

Patella Zone

Expected

Actual

%

1

18

2

11.1

Carpals

Expected

Actual

%

Trapezium

18

0

0

Trapezoid

18

1

5.6

Capitate

18

0

0

Hamate

18

2

11.1

Scaphoid

18

0

0

Lunate

18

0

0

Triquetral

18

0

0

1st Metacarpal

Expected

Actual

%

1

18

1

5.6

2

18

1

5.6

3

18

1

5.6

2nd Metacarpal

Expected

Actual

%

1

18

1

5.6

2

18

0

5.6

3

18

1

5.6

3rd Metacarpal

Expected

Actual

%

1

18

3

16.7

2

18

2

11.1

3

18

2

11.1

4th Metacarpal

Expected

Actual

%

1

18

0

0

2

18

0

0

3

18

0

0

234

Appendix 5th Metacarpal

Expected

Actual

%

1

18

0

0

2

18

0

0

3

18

0

0

Proximal Phalange (Hand)

Expected

Actual

%

1

90

6

6.7

2

90

7

7.8

3

90

8

8.9

Int. Phalange (Hand)

Expected

Actual

%

1

72

4

5.6

2

72

4

5.6

3

72

4

5.6

Distal Phalange (Hand)

Expected

Actual

%

1

90

1

1.1

2

90

1

1.1

3

90

1

1.1

Calcaneus

Expected

Actual

%

1

18

1

5.6

2

18

2

11.1

3

18

1

5.6

4

18

1

5.6

5

18

1

5.6

Talus

Expected

Actual

%

1

18

1

5.6

2

18

1

5.6

3

18

1

5.6

4

18

1

5.6

Tarsals

Expected

Actual

%

Medial Cuneiform

18

1

5.6

Intermediate Cuneiform

18

1

5.6

Lateral Cuneiform

18

0

0

Navicular

18

1

5.6

Cuboid

18

0

0

235

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 1st Metatarsal

Expected

Actual

%

1

18

0

0

2

18

0

0

3

18

0

0

2nd Metatarsal

Expected

Actual

%

1

18

1

5.6

2

18

1

5.6

3

18

1

5.6

3rd Metatarsal

Expected

Actual

%

1

18

1

5.6

2

18

0

0

3

18

1

5.6

4th Metatarsal

Expected

Actual

%

1

18

0

0

2

18

0

0

3

18

0

0

5th Metatarsal

Expected

Actual

%

1

18

0

0

2

18

0

0

3

18

0

0

Proximal Phalange (Foot)

Expected

Actual

%

1

90

2

2.2

2

90

2

2.2

3

90

2

2.2

Int. Phalange (Foot)

Expected

Actual

%

1

72

0

0

2

72

0

0

3

72

0

0

Distal Phalange (Foot)

Expected

Actual

%

1

90

0

0

2

90

0

0

3

90

0

0

236

Appendix Teeth Maxilla (adult)

Actual

Central Incisor

3

Lateral Incisor

1

Canine

1

Premolar

0

Molar 1

2

Molar 2

1

Molar 3

1

Teeth Mandible (adult)

Actual

Central Incisor

0

Lateral Incisor

0

Canine

1

Premolar

3

Molar 1

0

Molar 2

0

Molar 3

0

Teeth Maxilla (deciduous)

Actual

Central Incisor

0

Lateral Incisor

0

Canine

0

Molar 1

1

Molar 2

0

Teeth Mandible (deciduous)

Actual

Central Incisor

0

Lateral Incisor

0

Canine

0

Molar 1

0

Molar 2

0

237

%

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 3.4 Pierowall Quarry Zone Tables Cranium Zones

MNI

Identified Fragments

%

Right Frontal

(1)

8

0

0

Left Frontal

(2)

8

0

0

Right Parietal

(3)

8

2

25

Left Parietal

(4)

8

1

12.5

Occipital

(5)

8

1

12.5

Left Temporal

(6)

8

0

0

Right Temporal

(7)

8

0

0

Left Sphenoid

(8)

8

0

0

Right Sphenoid

(9)

8

0

0

Left Zygoma

(10)

8

0

0

Right Zygoma

(11)

8

0

0

Left Maxilla

(12)

8

0

0

Right Maxilla

(13)

8

1

12.5

Left Nasal bone

(14)

8

0

0

Right Nasal bone

(15)

8

0

0

Unidentified Cranium Mandible Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

16

7

43.8

2

16

5

31.3

3

16

1

6.3

4

16

0

0.0

5

16

2

12.5

6

16

1

6.3

7

16

5

31.3

Clavicle Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

16

1

6.25

2

16

0

0

3

16

1

6.25

238

Appendix Scapula Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

16

1

6.25

2

16

2

12.5

3

16

2

12.5

4

16

2

12.5

5

16

2

12.5

6

16

4

25

7

16

4

25

8

16

3

18.75

9

16

0

0

Cervicle Vertebrae Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

56

1

1.8

2

56

1

1.8

3

56

1

1.8

4

56

1

1.8

Thoracic Vertebrae Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

96

8

8.3

2

96

6

6.3

3

96

5

5.2

4

96

2

2.1

Lumbar Vertebrae Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

40

4

10

2

40

4

10

3

40

3

7.5

4

40

1

2.5

Sacrum Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

8

4

50

2

8

6

75

3

8

5

62.5

4

8

6

75

Sternum Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

8

0

0

2

8

2

25

3

8

0

0

239

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Rib Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

96

7

7.3

2

96

9

9.4

3

96

7

7.3

Humerus Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

16

0

0

2

16

0

0

3

16

2

12.5

4

16

3

18.75

5

16

2

12.5

6

16

3

18.75

7

16

4

25

8

16

6

37.5

9

16

3

18.75

10

16

3

18.75

11

16

1

6.25

Radius Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

16

1

6.25

2

16

1

6.25

3

16

1

6.25

4

16

1

6.25

5

16

2

12.5

6

16

2

12.5

7

16

2

12.5

8

16

0

0

9

16

1

6.25

10

16

1

6.25

J

16

1

6.25

Ulna Zones

Expected

Actual

%

A

16

4

25

B

16

4

25

C

16

4

25

D

16

4

25

E

16

4

25

F

16

3

18.75

G

16

1

6.25

H

16

2

12.5

J

16

1

6.25

240

Appendix Pelvis Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

16

3

18.75

2

16

2

12.5

3

16

4

25

4

16

1

6.25

5

16

3

18.75

6

16

3

18.75

7

16

1

6.25

8

16

3

18.75

9

16

1

6.25

10

16

7

43.75

11

16

2

12.5

12

16

8

50

Femur Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

16

3

18.75

2

16

8

50

3

16

14

87.5

4

16

4

25

5

16

5

31.25

6

16

22

137.5

7

16

19

118.75

8

16

13

81.25

9

16

11

68.75

10

16

10

62.5

11

16

8

50

Tibia Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

16

0

0

2

16

0

0

3

16

0

0

4

16

0

0

5

16

1

6.25

6

16

1

6.25

7

16

0

0

8

16

0

0

9

16

1

6.25

10

16

1

6.25

241

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Fibula Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

16

0

0

2

16

0

0

3

16

0

0

4

16

0

0

5

16

0

0

6

16

0

0

Patella Zone

Expected

Actual

%

1

16

0

0

Carpals

Expected

Actual

%

Trapezium

16

0

0

Trapezoid

16

0

0

Capitate

16

0

0

Hamate

16

0

0

Scaphoid

16

0

0

Lunate

16

0

0

Triquetral

16

0

0

1st Metacarpal

Expected

Actual

%

1

16

0

0

2

16

0

0

3

16

0

0

2nd Metacarpal

Expected

Actual

%

1

16

0

0

2

16

0

0

3

16

0

0

3rd Metacarpal

Expected

Actual

%

1

16

1

6.25

2

16

1

6.25

3

16

1

6.25

4th Metacarpal

Expected

Actual

%

1

16

0

0

2

16

0

0

3

16

0

0

242

Appendix 5th Metacarpal

Expected

Actual

%

1

16

0

0

2

16

0

0

3

16

0

0

Proximal Phalange (Hand)

Expected

Actual

%

1

80

0

0

2

80

0

0

3

80

0

0

Int. Phalange (Hand)

Expected

Actual

%

1

64

1

1.6

2

64

1

1.6

3

64

1

1.6

Distal Phalange (Hand)

Expected

Actual

%

1

80

0

0

2

80

0

0

3

80

0

0

Calcaneus

Expected

Actual

%

1

16

1

6.25

2

16

1

6.25

3

16

1

6.25

4

16

1

6.25

5

16

1

6.25

Talus

Expected

Actual

%

1

16

0

0

2

16

0

0

3

16

0

0

4

16

0

0

Tarsals

Expected

Actual

%

Medial Cuneiform

16

0

0

Intermediate Cuneiform

16

0

0

Lateral Cuneiform

16

0

0

Navicular

16

0

0

Cuboid

16

0

0

243

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 1st Metatarsal

Expected

Actual

%

1

16

0

0

2

16

0

0

3

16

0

0

2nd Metatarsal

Expected

Actual

%

1

16

1

6.25

2

16

1

6.25

3

16

1

6.25

3rd Metatarsal

Expected

Actual

%

1

16

0

0

2

16

0

0

3

16

0

0

4th Metatarsal

Expected

Actual

%

1

16

0

0

2

16

0

0

3

16

0

0

5th Metatarsal

Expected

Actual

%

1

16

0

0

2

16

0

0

3

16

0

0

Proximal Phalange (Foot)

Expected

Actual

%

1

80

0

0

2

80

0

0

3

80

0

0

Int. Phalange (Foot)

Expected

Actual

%

1

64

0

0

2

64

0

0

3

64

0

0

Distal Phalange (Foot)

Expected

Actual

%

1

80

0

0

2

80

0

0

3

80

0

0

244

Appendix Teeth Maxilla (adult)

Actual

Central Incisor

0

Lateral Incisor

0

Canine

0

Premolar

0

Molar 1

0

Molar 2

0

Molar 3

2

Teeth Mandible (adult)

Actual

Central Incisor

0

Lateral Incisor

1

Canine

1

Premolar

0

Molar 1

0

Molar 2

0

Molar 3

0

Teeth Maxilla (deciduous)

Actual

Central Incisor

0

Lateral Incisor

0

Canine

0

Molar 1

0

Molar 2

0

Teeth Mandible (deciduous)

Actual

Central Incisor

0

Lateral Incisor

0

Canine

0

Molar 1

0

Molar 2

0

245

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 3.5 Quoyness Zone Tables Cranium Zones

MNI

Identified Fragments

%

Right Frontal

(1)

13

0

0

Left Frontal

 (2)

13

0

0

Right Parietal

(3)

13

2

15.4

Left Parietal

 (4)

13

2

15.4

Occipital

(5)

13

2

15.4

Left Temporal

 (6)

13

3

23

Right Temporal

(7)

13

3

23

Left Sphenoid

(8)

13

0

0

Right Sphenoid

(9)

13

0

0

Left Zygoma

(10)

13

0

0

Right Zygoma

(11)

13

0

0

Left Maxilla

(12)

13

0

0

Right Maxilla

(13)

13

0

0

Left Nasal bone

(14)

13

0

0

Right Nasal bone

(15)

13

0

0

Unidentified Cranium Mandible Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

26

0

0

2

26

0

0

3

26

0

0

4

26

0

0

5

26

0

0

6

26

0

0

7

26

0

0

Clavicle Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

26

2

7.7

2

26

3

11.5

3

26

3

11.5

246

Appendix Scapula Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

26

3

11.5

2

26

8

30.8

3

26

9

34.6

4

26

8

30.8

5

26

9

34.6

6

26

6

23.1

7

26

13

50.0

8

26

4

15.4

9

26

4

15.4

Cervicle Vertebrae Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

91

3

3.3

2

91

3

3.3

3

91

3

3.3

4

91

3

3.3

Thoracic Vertebrae Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

156

13

8.3

2

156

13

8.3

3

156

13

8.3

4

156

5

3.2

Lumbar Vertebrae Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

65

11

16.9

2

65

4

6.2

3

65

8

12.3

4

65

3

4.6

Sacrum Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

13

2

15.4

2

13

2

15.4

3

13

2

15.4

4

13

1

7.7

Sternum Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

13

1

7.7

2

13

0

0

3

13

0

0

247

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Rib Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

312

4

1.3

2

312

5

1.6

3

312

5

1.6

Humerus Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

26

3

11.5

2

26

3

11.5

3

26

11

42.3

4

26

12

46.2

5

26

12

46.2

6

26

12

46.2

7

26

21

80.8

8

26

20

76.9

9

26

17

65.4

10

26

17

65.4

11

26

12

46.2

Radius Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

26

3

11.5

2

26

4

15.4

3

26

3

11.5

4

26

3

11.5

5

26

6

23.1

6

26

5

19.2

7

26

5

19.2

8

26

7

26.9

9

26

4

15.4

10

26

4

15.4

J

26

3

11.5

Ulna Zones

Expected

Actual

%

A

26

5

19.2

B

26

5

19.2

C

26

6

23.1

D

26

6

23.1

E

26

10

38.5

F

26

5

19.2

G

26

4

15.4

H

26

3

11.5

J

26

0

0.0

248

Appendix Pelvis Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

26

12

46.2

2

26

15

57.7

3

26

7

26.9

4

26

5

19.2

5

26

12

46.2

6

26

12

46.2

7

26

8

30.8

8

26

5

19.2

9

26

7

26.9

10

26

16

61.5

11

26

5

19.2

12

26

9

34.6

Femur Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

26

8

30.8

2

26

14

53.8

3

26

14

53.8

4

26

13

50.0

5

26

14

53.8

6

26

18

69.2

7

26

9

34.6

8

26

10

38.5

9

26

5

19.2

10

26

7

26.9

11

26

5

19.2

Tibia Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

26

6

23.1

2

26

5

19.2

3

26

5

19.2

4

26

4

15.4

5

26

13

50.0

6

26

11

42.3

7

26

10

38.5

8

26

10

38.5

9

26

12

46.2

10

26

11

42.3

249

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Fibula Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

26

3

11.5

2

26

4

15.4

3

26

5

19.2

4

26

5

19.2

5

26

4

15.4

6

26

4

15.4

Patella Zone

Expected

Actual

%

1

26

1

3.8

Carpals

Expected

Actual

%

Trapezium

26

0

0

Trapezoid

26

0

0

Capitate

26

0

0

Hamate

26

0

0

Scaphoid

26

0

0

Lunate

26

0

0

Triquetral

26

0

0

1st Metacarpal

Expected

Actual

%

1

26

1

3.8

2

26

1

3.8

3

26

1

3.8

2nd Metacarpal

Expected

Actual

%

1

26

1

3.8

2

26

0

0

3

26

1

3.8

3rd Metacarpal

Expected

Actual

%

1

26

0

0

2

26

0

0

3

26

0

0

4th Metacarpal

Expected

Actual

%

1

26

0

0

2

26

0

0

3

26

0

0

250

Appendix 5th Metacarpal

Expected

Actual

%

1

26

2

7.7

2

26

2

7.7

3

26

2

7.7

Proximal Phalange (Hand)

Expected

Actual

%

1

130

0

0

2

130

0

0

3

130

0

0

Int. Phalange (Hand)

Expected

Actual

%

1

104

0

0

2

104

0

0

3

104

0

0

Distal Phalange (Hand)

Expected

Actual

%

1

104

0

0

2

104

0

0

3

104

0

0

Calcaneus Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

26

5

19.2

2

26

5

19.2

3

26

2

7.7

4

26

3

11.5

5

26

5

19.2

Talus Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

26

4

15.4

2

26

4

15.4

3

26

4

15.4

4

26

4

15.4

Tarsals

Expected

Actual

%

Medial Cuneiform

26

0

0

Intermediate Cuneiform

26

0

0

Lateral Cuneiform

26

0

0

Navicular

26

0

0

Cuboid

26

1

3.8

251

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 1st Metatarsal

Expected

Actual

%

1

26

0

0

2

26

0

0

3

26

0

0

2nd Metatarsal

Expected

Actual

%

1

26

0

0

2

26

0

0

3

26

0

0

3rd Metatarsal

Expected

Actual

%

1

26

0

0

2

26

0

0

3

26

0

0

4th Metatarsal

Expected

Actual

%

1

26

1

3.6

2

26

1

3.6

3

26

1

3.6

5th Metatarsal

Expected

Actual

%

1

26

0

0

2

26

0

0

3

26

0

0

Proximal Phalange (Foot)

Expected

Actual

%

1

130

1

0.8

2

130

1

0.8

3

130

1

0.8

Int. Phalange (Foot)

Expected

Actual

%

1

104

0

0

2

104

0

0

3

104

0

0

Distal Phalange (Foot)

Expected

Actual

%

1

130

0

0

2

130

0

0

3

130

0

0

252

Appendix Teeth Maxilla (adult)

Actual

Central Incisor

0

Lateral Incisor

0

Canine

0

Premolar

0

Molar 1

0

Molar 2

0

Molar 3

0

Teeth Mandible (adult)

Actual

Central Incisor

0

Lateral Incisor

0

Canine

0

Premolar

0

Molar 1

0

Molar 2

0

Molar 3

0

Teeth Maxilla (deciduous)

Expected

Actual

Central Incisor

0

Lateral Incisor

0

Canine

0

Molar 1

0

Molar 2

0

Teeth Mandible (deciduous) Expected

Actual

Central Incisor

0

Lateral Incisor

0

Canine

0

Molar 1

0

Molar 2

0

253

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 3.6 Isbister Zone Table The MNI of 85 calculated by Lawrence (2006, 55) was utilised for the Isbister Humeri. Humerus Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

170

79

46.5

2

170

139

81.8

3

170

102

60

4

170

106

62.3

5

170

116

68.2

6

170

114

67

7

170

164

96.5

8

170

163

95.9

9

170

106

62.3

10

170

105

61.8

11

170

109

64.1

254

Appendix 3.7 Cuween Zone Tables Cranium Zones

Expected

Actual

%

Right Frontal

(1)

5

5

100

Left Frontal

(2)

5

5

100

Right Parietal

(3)

5

4

80

Left Parietal

(4)

5

5

100

Occipital

(5)

5

3

60

Left Temporal

(6)

5

1

20

Right Temporal

(7)

5

0

0

Left Sphenoid

(8)

5

1

20

Right Sphenoid

(9)

5

0

0

Left Zygoma

(10)

5

0

0

Right Zygoma

(11)

5

0

0

Left Maxilla

(12)

5

0

0

Right Maxilla

(13)

5

0

0

Left Nasal bone

(14)

5

0

0

Right Nasal bone

(15)

5

0

0

Femur Zones

Expected

Actual

%

1

10

1

10

2

10

1

10

3

10

2

20

4

10

0

0

5

10

1

10

6

10

2

20

7

10

1

10

8

10

1

10

9

10

0

0

10

10

0

0

11

10

0

0

3.8 Skeletal Element Representation Minimum Number of Elements for each skeletal unit identified and expressed as a percentage of the number expected, assuming the MNI (59) indicates whole skeletons. For example, a MNI of 59 means we would

expect 59 crania. A bone such as the humerus is a paired bone, so 118 humeri would therefore be expected. The MNE therefore includes adult and non-adult specimens.

255

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 3.8.1 Quanterness Element

Quanterness MNE

% [(MNE/Expected) x 100]

Crania

55

93.2

Mandibulae

25

42.3

Hyoid

11

18.6

Claviculae

65

55.1

Scapulae

59

50

Humeri

64

54.2

Radii

77

65.3

Ulnae

74

62.7

Sterna

33

55.9

Cervicle Vert

246

60.2

Thoracic Vert

365

51.5

Lumbar Vert

127

43

Sacrum

39

66.1

Pelvis

52

44

Femora

40

33.9

Patellae

88

74.6

Tibiae

39

33.1

Fibulae

46

39

Trapezium

37

31.4

Trapezoid

24

20.3

Capitate

45

38.1

Hamate

42

35.6

Scaphoid

47

39.8

Lunate

32

27.1

Triquetral

17

14.4

MC1

57

48.3

MC2

72

61

MC3

61

51.7

MC4

63

53.3

MC5

68

57.6

Prox Ph Man

314

53.2

Int Ph Man

179

37.9

Dist Ph Man

77

13.1

Calcaneus

77

65.2

Talus

88

74.6

Medial Cuneiform

51

43.2

Intermediate Cuneiform

73

61.9

Lateral Cuneiform

53

44.9

Navicular

74

62.7

Cuboid

69

58.5

MT1

54

45.8

MT2

45

38.1

MT3

88

74.6

MT4

72

61

MT5

66

55.9

Prox Ph Ped

193

32.7

Int Ph Ped

24

5.08

Dist Ph Ped

28

4.7

256

Appendix 3.8.2 Quoyness Element

Quoyness MNE

% [(MNE/Expected) x 100]

Crania

3

23

Mandibulae

0

0

Hyoid

0

0

Claviculae

3

11.5

Scapulae

9

30.8

Humeri

12

46.2

Radii

6

23.1

Ulnae

6

23.1

Sterna

1

7.7

Cervicle Vert

3

3.3

Thoracic Vert

13

8.3

Lumbar Vert

11

16.9

Sacrum

2

15.4

Pelvis

15

57.7

Femora

14

53.8

Patellae

1

3.8

Tibiae

13

50

Fibulae

4

15.4

Trapezium

0

0

Trapezoid

0

0

Capitate

0

0

Hamate

0

0

Scaphoid

0

0

Lunate

0

0

Triquetral

0

0

MC1

1

3.8

MC2

1

3.8

MC3

0

0

MC4

0

0

MC5

2

7.7

Prox Ph Man

0

0

Int Ph Man

0

0

Dist Ph Man

0

0

Calcaneus

5

19.2

Talus

4

15.4

Medial Cuneiform

0

0

Intermediate Cuneiform

0

0

Lateral Cuneiform

0

0

Navicular

0

0

Cuboid

1

3.8

MT1

0

0

MT2

0

0

MT3

0

0

MT4

1

3.8

MT5

0

0

Prox Ph Ped

1

0.8

Int Ph Ped

0

0

257

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 3.8.3 Point of Cott Element

Point of Cott MNE

% [(MNE/Expected) x 100]

Crania

7

77.8

Mandibulae

3

33.3

Hyoid

0

0

Claviculae

6

33.3

Scapulae

3

16.7

Humeri

5

27.8

Radii

4

22.2

Ulnae

4

22.2

Sterna

1

11.1

Cervicle Vert

2

3.2

Thoracic Vert

12

11.1

Lumbar Vert

4

8.9

Sacrum

1

11.1

Pelvis

6

33.3

Femora

8

44.4

Patellae

2

11.1

Tibiae

4

22.2

Fibulae

1

5.6

Trapezium

0

0

Trapezoid

1

5.6

Capitate

0

0

Hamate

2

11.1

Scaphoid

0

0

Lunate

0

0

Triquetral

0

0

MC1

1

5.6

MC2

1

5.6

MC3

3

16.7

MC4

0

0

MC5

0

0

Prox Ph Man

7

7.8

Int Ph Man

4

5.6

Dist Ph Man

1

1.1

Calcaneus

2

11.1

Talus

1

5.6

Medial Cuneiform

1

5.6

Intermediate Cuneiform

1

5.6

Lateral Cuneiform

0

0

Navicular

1

5.6

Cuboid

0

0

MT1

0

0

MT2

1

5.6

MT3

1

5.6

MT4

0

0

MT5

0

0

Prox Ph Ped

2

2.2

Int Ph Ped

0

0

Dist Ph Ped

0

0

258

Appendix 3.8.4 Pierowall Quarry Element

Pierowall Quarry MNE

% [(MNE/Expected) x 100]

Crania

1

12.5

Mandibulae

5

62.5

Hyoid

0

0

Claviculae

1

6.25

Scapulae

2

12.5

Humeri

3

18.75

Radii

2

12.5

Ulnae

4

25

Sterna

2

25

Cervicle Vert

1

1.8

Thoracic Vert

8

8.3

Lumbar Vert

4

10

Sacrum

6

75

Pelvis

4

25

Femora

14

87.5

Patellae

0

0

Tibiae

1

6.25

Fibulae

0

0

Trapezium

0

0

Trapezoid

0

0

Capitate

0

0

Hamate

0

0

Scaphoid

0

0

Lunate

0

0

Triquetral

0

0

MC1

0

0

MC2

0

0

MC3

1

6.25

MC4

0

0

MC5

0

0

Prox Ph Man

0

0

Int Ph Man

1

1.6

Dist Ph Man

0

0

Calcaneus

1

6.25

Talus

0

0

Medial Cuneiform

0

0

Intermediate Cuneiform

0

0

Lateral Cuneiform

0

0

Navicular

0

0

Cuboid

0

0

MT1

0

0

MT2

1

6.25

MT3

0

0

MT4

0

0

MT5

0

0

Prox Ph Ped

0

0

Int Ph Ped

0

0

Dist Ph Ped

0

0

259

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 3.8.5 Cuween Hill Element

Cuween Hill MNE

% [(MNE/Expected) x 100]

Crania

5

100

Mandibulae

0

0

Hyoid

0

0

Claviculae

0

0

Scapulae

0

0

Humeri

0

0

Radii

0

0

Ulnae

0

0

Sterna

0

0

Cervicle Vert

0

0

Thoracic Vert

0

0

Lumbar Vert

0

0

Sacrum

0

0

Pelvis

0

0

Femora

2

20

Patellae

0

0

Tibiae

0

0

Fibulae

0

0

Trapezium

0

0

Trapezoid

0

0

Capitate

0

0

Hamate

0

0

Scaphoid

0

0

Lunate

0

0

Triquetral

0

0

MC1

0

0

MC2

0

0

MC3

0

0

MC4

0

0

MC5

0

0

Prox Ph Man

0

0

Int Ph Man

0

0

Dist Ph Man

0

0

Calcaneus

0

0

Talus

0

0

Medial Cuneiform

0

0

Intermediate Cuneiform

0

0

Lateral Cuneiform

0

0

Navicular

0

0

Cuboid

0

0

MT1

0

0

MT2

0

0

MT3

0

0

MT4

0

0

MT5

0

0

Prox Ph Ped

0

0

Int Ph Ped

0

0

Dist Ph Ped

0

0

260

Appendix

Appendix 4 - Weathering, Trauma and Fragmentation Summary Tables This section contains summary tables of information relating to weathering, trauma and fragmentation. 4.1 Weathering Summary Data The following tables show the count of fragments for each weathering stage according to skeletal element. Quanterness Element Cranium Mandible Clavicle Scapula C Vert T Vert L Vert Sacrum Sternum Rib Humerus Radius Ulna Pelvis Femur Tibia Fibula Patella Calcaneus Talus

Stage 0 153 61 68 159 299 477 148 122 80 1345 139 89 76 186 101 83 95 82 88 81

Stage 1 54 25 30 22 25 15 15 6 2 281 21 58 52 34 32 21 30 2 2 6

Stage 2 57 12 5 10 3 5 1 2 1 38 6 9 8 16 20 15 5 3 1 5

261

Stage 3 15 8 3 2 0 1 1 1 0 9 5 5 3 4 5 6 1 1 1 0

Stage 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Quanterness ZF Element Cranium Mandible Clavicle Scapula C Vert T Vert L Vert Sacrum Sternum Rib Humerus Radius Ulna Pelvis Femur Tibia Fibula Patella Calcaneus Talus

Stage 0 71 18 19 56 121 149 48 20 29 427 56 35 27 60 30 35 39 20 33 23

Stage 1 26 6 13 7 6 5 3 2 0 104 12 21 5 13 7 10 13 2 1 4

Stage 2 31 8 0 5 2 1 0 0 1 11 4 4 4 2 7 9 1 1 0 3

Stage 3 6 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 3 1 0 0 0

Stage 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Stage 0 151 30 40 80 137 237 82 84 41 390 65 39 36 88 45 31 34 50 38 41

Stage 1 21 15 16 11 19 5 9 3 1 63 8 29 35 17 20 9 14 1 1 1

Stage 2 11 2 4 3 1 3 1 1 0 12 1 3 4 7 9 5 3 1 1 2

Stage 3 8 6 3 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 5 1 4 0 1 0 0 1 0

Stage 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Quanterness ZB Element Cranium Mandible Clavicle Scapula C Vert T Vert L Vert Sacrum Sternum Rib Humerus Radius Ulna Pelvis Femur Tibia Fibula Patella Calcaneus Talus

262

Appendix Quoyness Element Cranium Mandible

Stage 0 4

Stage 1 5

Stage 2 2

Stage 3 0

Stage 4 0

Clavicle Scapula C Vert T Vert L Vert Sacrum Sternum Rib Humerus Radius Ulna Pelvis Femur Tibia Fibula Patella Calcaneus Talus

3 10 3 16 9 1 1 7 20 8 6 34 30 22 12 1 5 4

1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 3 1 3 4 0 0 0 0

0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 7 2 1 0 0 0

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Stage 0 33 0 4 0 6 20 4 1 1 29 10 4 4 19 8 1 5 0 1 1

Stage 1 10 4 2 3 0 2 2 0 0 12 4 1 3 4 15 7 2 2 0 0

Stage 2 19 0 5 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 4 3 5 2 6 1 0 0 0 0

Stage 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 4 1 0 0 0

Stage 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Point of Cott Element Cranium Mandible Clavicle Scapula C Vert T Vert L Vert Sacrum Sternum Rib Humerus Radius Ulna Pelvis Femur Tibia Fibula Patella Calcaneus Talus

263

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Pierowall Quarry Element Cranium Mandible Clavicle Scapula C Vert T Vert L Vert Sacrum Sternum Rib Humerus Radius Ulna Pelvis Femur Tibia Fibula Patella Calcaneus Talus

Stage 0 6 5 1 4 1 8 6 8 2 13 1 1 2 15 26 1 0 0 1 0

Stage 1 4 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 2 3 2 20 0 0 0 0 0

Stage 2 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0

Stage 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Stage 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Isbister Element

Stage 0

Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 4

Humerus

180

99

24

45

0

264

Appendix 4.2 Trauma Summary Data Quanterness Type Crush Chop Cut Linear Pitting Puncture Total

ZB I 2 0 0 0 0 3 7

ZB II 50 6 0 13 6 28 130

ZB III 20 4 1 9 2 27 79

ZB IV 9 1 0 2 0 3 15

ZB V 3 0 0 0 3 8 15

ZF 48 5 4 16 20 47 164

Total 167 19 8 56 40 140 513

Quoyness Trauma Type Chop Crush Incised Marks Puncture Scar

Count 3 1 9 2 12

4.3 Summary Fragmentation Data Fragment Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20+

Quanterness 93 1559 2279 1754 1243 843 923 366 249 139 118 102 67 45 36 34 29 10 11 17 53

Quoyness 0 0 1 7 19 26 35 15 16 18 17 17 13 10 7 6 10 4 6 5 26

Point of Cott 8 74 98 72 61 49 22 10 10 10 7 3 2 4 1 3 2 2 2 1 6

265

Pierowall Quarry 0 8 22 32 24 25 17 13 12 6 8 3 8 4 4 2 4 3 3 0 10

Isbister 0 0 15 32 55 38 38 31 21 19 14 6 14 6 17 6 8 3 6 3 16

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 4.4 Fracture Type Summary Data Quanterness Element Cranium Clavicle Scapula Humerus Radius Ulna Sternum Ribs Pelvis Sacrum Femur Tibia Fibula Patella

Helical 2 0 7 4 0 1 0 12 0 0 3 2 1 1

Dry 6 9 12 10 14 24 0 116 8 2 24 13 27 0

Mineralised 646 59 162 121 113 80 59 1326 19 102 103 97 94 45

New 172 31 58 40 37 39 8 357 89 16 48 33 39 15

Helical 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dry 0 0 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 0

Mineralised 11 3 12 17 8 8 1 4 33 3 29 26 10 1

New 4 0 1 12 1 6 0 0 22 2 13 8 3 0

Quoyness Element Cranium Clavicle Scapula Humerus Radius Ulna Sternum Ribs Pelvis Sacrum Femur Tibia Fibula Patella

266

Appendix Point of Cott Element Cranium Clavicle Scapula Humerus Radius Ulna Sternum Ribs Pelvis Sacrum Femur Tibia Fibula Patella

Helical 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dry 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 1 0 5 2 0 0

Mineralised 98 10 3 19 8 10 1 36 26 1 32 11 10 2

New 9 1 0 7 2 6 0 6 4 0 6 2 2 0

Helical 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 Helical 0

Dry 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 20 0 Dry 0

Mineralised 20 1 6 6 4 5 2 10 20 7 43 1 Mineralised 20

New 4 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 4 2 3 0 New 4

Pierowall Quarry Element Cranium Clavicle Scapula Humerus Radius Ulna Sternum Ribs Pelvis Sacrum Femur Tibia Element Cranium

Isbister Fracture type Helical Dry Mineralised New

Count 0 10 229 173

267

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Appendix 5 - Material Omitted from Chapter 7 and Chapter 8 Information omitted from Chapter 7 and Chapter 8 is presented in this section. From Chapter 7, counts of dentition according to side (left, right) are provided (Section 5.1). Details of the zone representation for skeletal elements omitted from Section 7.5 may be found in Section 5.2. From Chapter 8, the fragmentation sizes for each individual site are presented.

(Section 7.3). As the specific numbers of teeth identified to left and right teeth were not considered to contribute significantly to the taphonomic analysis, this detail was omitted and is instead presented here in the following figures. Isolated teeth were found at Quanterness, Point of Cott and Pierowall Quarry. The teeth were not found to have numbers which would affect the determination of any of the MNI figures. Quanterness had the greatest number of teeth, many of which were found during sieving of the deposits. These sieved teeth were found to be lacking in some contextual detail. There were no additional teeth within the available Quoyness assemblage.

5.1 Dentition General details of the quantities of loose teeth identified within the assemblages were presented in Chapter 7

5.1.1 Quanterness

Figure 5.1 Isolated adult teeth identified at Quanterness (Maxilla).

268

Appendix

Figure 5.2 Isolated adult teeth identified at Quanterness (Mandible).

Figure 5.3 Isolated deciduous teeth identified at Quanterness (Maxilla).

269

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Figure 5.4 Isolated deciduous teeth identified at Quanterness (Mandible).

5.1.2 Point of Cott

5.1.3 Pierowall Quarry

In addition to the adult teeth illustrated in Figure 5.5 and Figure 5.6, was a deciduous maxillary molar (M1).

Four isolated teeth were identified in the Pierowall Quarry assemblage. This small number was composed of; two right maxillary molars; one left mandibular canine; one un-sided mandibular incisor.

Figure 5.5 Isolated adult teeth identified at Point of Cott (Maxilla).

270

Appendix

Figure 5.6 Isolated deciduous teeth identified at Point of Cott (Mandible).

5.2 Representation of Elements by Zone for All Sites

and post-medieval sites, clavicles were present in reasonable abundance, particularly the diaphysis (Zone 3). As shown in Figure 5.26, there is a variation in the overall presence of clavicles at the Orcadian sites. However, as shown in Figure 5.7, the clavicles recorded do seem to follow a similar profile to the inhumation cemeteries, with the diaphysis (Zone 3) being the most abundant element. Pierowall Quarry and Quoyness both have very low general representation, (Figure 5.27) and this seems to be reflected in the low level of representation here (Fig. 5.7).

The section presents the zone representation data for skeletal elements omitted from Section 7.5. The figure illustrating the skeletal element representation data for the Orcadian sites (Figure 7.13, Chapter 7) has been reproduced as Figure 5.27 for reference. 5.2.1 Clavicle (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) Bello & Andrews (2009, 3) reported that in the medieval

Figure 5.7 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

271

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 5.2.2 Cervical Vertebrae (Zones Shown in Appendix 2)

5.2.3 Thoracic Vertebrae (Zones Shown in Appendix 2)

Calculation of the skeletal element representation demonstrated that Quanterness had a significantly better representation of cervical vertebrae than Quoyness, Pierowall Quarry and Point of Cott, which all had similarly poor representations (Figure 5.27). Bello & Andrews (2009, 4) found that the vertebral body (Zone 1) was not as well preserved as the other portions of the vertebrae for their inhumation cemeteries. The representation of the cervical vertebrae zones depicted in Figure 5.8 illustrates that the reverse is true for Quanterness. The consistency in values between Zones 1-3 at all the Orcadian sites is most logically due to the robustness of these portions of the cervical vertebra.

A similar situation can be observed with the thoracic vertebrae (Fig. 5.9) to that of the cervical vertebrae, with Quanterness having the best representation. There is a general trend of Zones 2 and 3 being better represented in relative terms, this could be due the zones representing the portions of bone with the greatest density. The general morphology of the spinous process (Zone 4) makes it more susceptible to fragmentation and subsequent loss. The overall trend lines do follow similar trajectories.

Figure 5.8 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

Figure 5.9 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons. 272

Appendix 5.2.4 Lumbar Vertebrae (Zones Shown in Appendix 2)

Pierowall Quarry and Quanterness illustrated high levels of representation (Figure 5.27). The other sites had low representation, and their relative preservation of zones seems to share a similar profile (Fig. 5.11). The overrepresentation of Zones 1-3 for Quanterness can readily be explained by low bone density making the sacrum susceptible to high fragmentation. Pierowall Quarry and Quanterness follow divergent trend lines, but do converge in relation to the spinous process (Zone 4). Pierowall and Quanterness are also quite close in terms of skeletal representation, which reflects the use of Zone 4 in estimating the MNE due to its more robust morphology. However, given the overall difference in MNIs between Quanterness and Pierowall Quarry (59 and 8 respectively) this occurrence is of interest.

Quoyness, Point of Cott and Pierowall again follow practically identical profiles, suggesting similar patterns of preservation. All sites follow a similar pattern across the zones, with the spinous process (Zone 4) being the least well represented (Fig. 5.10). 5.2.5 Sacrum (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) Evidence from the medieval and post-medieval assemblages indicated that the sacrum was often fragmented and poorly preserved (Bello & Andrews 2009, 4). This fragility is considered to be due to inherent low bone density and high proportion of cancellous bone. However, in terms of skeletal representation in the Orcadian assemblages,

Figure 5.10 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

Figure 5.11 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

273

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney 5.2.6 Carpals (Zones Shown in Appendix 2)

loss over time. The general difference in representation between Quanterness and the other sites may well reflect differences in excavation technique, rather than pointing to any Neolithic anthropogenic activities.

Carpals are not divided into a series of zones, due to their small size, instead carpals were recorded as present or absent. Fig. 5.12 is, therefore, a detail of the information depicted in Figure 5.27. In general, the bones of the hands are poorly represented in the medieval sites (Bello & Andrews 2009, 5) and this relatively poor level of representation is cited as being usual and is often linked to recovery during excavation. This would certainly seem to be the case for the Orcadian sites. As Fig. 5.12 illustrates, carpal representation never exceeds 50%, indeed, most assemblages exhibit extremely poor representation, and Pierowall Quarry has none at all. Despite sieving being carried out at Quanterness, the carpal bones are still quite under-represented. One hypothesis could be that their very small size may well result in their faster degradation and

5.2.7 First Metacarpal (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) The 1st metacarpal had a very low skeletal representation for all sites apart from Quanterness. As previously suggested, this may well reflect the techniques of excavation, as much as preservation conditions. Quanterness has a relatively lower representation of the proximal articulation (Zone 1) and a greater representation for the diaphysis (Zone 3) (Fig. 5.13). The other sites have a fairly consistent representation across all the zones where this bone has been recorded. It was absent from Pierowall Quarry.

Figure 5.12 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

Figure 5.13 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

274

Appendix 5.2.8 Second to Fifth Metacarpals (Zones Shown in Appendix 2)

zones (Fig. 5.14). This general pattern of relative preservation of the zones is repeated in the 3rd, 4th and 5th metacarpals (Fig. 5.15 – Fig. 5.17). In comparison to the 1st and 2nd metacarpals, the 3rd metacarpal has a better skeletal representation at Pierowall Quarry and Point of Cott. Whilst these sites have a poor general representation, at Quanterness the representation is still good. Only Quanterness was found to have a representation of the 4th metacarpal. The 5th metacarpal was only found to be present for Quanterness and Quoyness.

The 2nd metacarpal is similar to 1st metacarpal in having a particularly low representation for all sites except Quanterness, where it has a value of over 50%. It was not recorded at Pierowall Quarry. Quanterness indicates a different relative frequency of zones to the 1st Metacarpal in that the distal articulation has the lower representation. As before, the other sites for which the 2nd metacarpal was recorded demonstrate a relative consistency between

Figure 5.14 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

Figure 5.15 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

275

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Figure 5.16 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

Figure 5.17 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons

276

Appendix 5.2.9 Calcaneus (Zones Shown in Appendix 2)

from the other sites in terms of if actual percentage presence and some fluctuation in its relative representation of the zones.

The calcaneus was very well represented at Quanterness, with a relatively poor presence at the other sites. As shown in Figure 5.18, Zones 2 and 5 appear to have greater presence. This may be due to these zones representing the body of the calcaneus, which is the most robust portion. Point of Cott and Pierowall demonstrate very similar profile and notably have identical values with Quoyness for Zone 3 (the sustentaculum tali), which may indicate similarities in taphonomic histories. This is notable in light of the difference in general representation of the calcaneus at these sites (Figure 5.27). This is another robust and denser portion of this element. Quanterness stands apart

5.2.10 Talus (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) The talus was better represented than the calcaneus at Quanterness, with the reverse being demonstrated for the other sites. However, Quanterness again stands apart from the other sites in terms of its overall numbers. Figure 5.19 illustrates that a consistent frequency of the zones occurs for those sites for which the talus was recorded, apart from Quanterness, which exhibits some slight fluctuations.

Figure 5.18 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

Figure 5.19 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

277

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney large and robust bone, it was found to be present only at Quanterness. The absence of this bone from the other sites seems particularly striking, especially as the research performed on the medieval assemblages by Bello & Andrews (2009, 6) suggest this should be one of the better represented foot bones (over 75-99%). The relative presence (Fig. 5.21) of the 1st metatarsal zones at Quanterness demonstrates the diaphysis has the most frequent representation. This is the same pattern as demonstrated at Quanterness for the 1st metacarpal.

5.2.11 Tarsals (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) As with the carpals, data from the tarsals indicates that Quanterness has a better skeletal presence compared to the other sites (Fig. 5.20). Whilst the numbers for Point of Cott are low, there does seem to be some similarity with Quanterness in the relative pattern between zones, with peaks for the Intermediate cuneiform and the Navicular. 5.2.12 First Metatarsal (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) Despite the fact that the 1st metatarsal is a relatively

Figure 5.20 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

Figure 5.21 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

278

Appendix 5.2.13 Second to Fifth Metatarsals (Zones Shown in Appendix 2)

(Fig. 5.22). This general pattern of relative preservation of the zones is repeated in the 3rd, 4th and 5th metatarsals (Figs. 5.23 – 5.25. The 3rd metatarsal was not recorded for either Quoyness or Pierowall Quarry. Quanterness again had the greatest representation of all the sites. The 4th metatarsal was only present for Quoyness and Quanterness. Quanterness was the only site to have a record of the 5th metatarsal.

The 2nd metatarsal was not recorded at Quoyness. None of the sites had good representation of this bone, but of those that did Quanterness stands apart as having the greater presence. Quanterness has a lower representation of the distal articulation (Zone 2). The other sites share a similar pattern of a lower, but consistent level of representation)

Figure 5.22 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

Figure 5.23 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

279

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Figure 5.24 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

Figure 5.25 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

280

Appendix fact that Zone 3 incorporates a larger proportion of the rib and is less robust than Zone 1 (the head) and Zone 2 (angle of the rib, including costal facets). Pierowall Quarry and Point of Cott follow almost identical trend lines. Point of Cott does emulate Quanterness in having an increase (although admittedly slight) for Zone 3. No ribs were recorded for Quoyness.

5.2.14 Ribs (Zones Shown in Appendix 2) There was no comparative information available from the medieval and post-medieval control sites for ribs. Figure 5.26 demonstrates that Quanterness has a better general representation than the other sites, with a distinct peak for Zone 3 (corpus and sternal end). This peak may reflect the

Figure 5.26 Each zone present shown as a percentage of the number of each zone that would be expected assuming the MNI relates to whole skeletons.

281

Figure 5.27 Comparison of skeletal representation for the Orkney sites of Quanterness, Quoyness, Pierowall Quarry and Point of Cott.

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

282

Appendix (See Chapter 5, Section 5.6.10) were plotted for each assemblage. Originally presented together to allow a direct comparison in fragment size between the sites, the fragment representation graphs for the individual sites are presented as Figure 5.28 – Figure 5.32.

5.3 Fragmentation Section 8.4.1 in Chapter 8 examined the degree of fragmentation present within the assemblages. The numbers of fragments identified within each size category 5.3.1 Quanterness

Figure 5.28 Count of elements recorded for each fragment size category at Quanterness.

5.3.2 Quoyness

Figure 5.29 Count of elements recorded for each fragment size category at Quoyness. 283

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

5.3.3 Point of Cott

Figure 5.30 Count of elements recorded for each fragment size category at Point of Cott.

5.3.4 Pierowall Quarry

Figure 5.31 Count of elements recorded for each fragment size category at Pierowall Quarry.

284

Appendix

5.3.5 Isbister

Figure 5.32 Count of elements recorded for each fragment size category at Isbister.

285

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Appendix 6 - Demographic Information 6.1 Introduction

6.3 Pathological Lesions

The disarticulated and highly fragmentary condition of the assemblages incorporated in this study, severely limited the volume of traditional osteological information, such as age, sex and stature, which could be determined. This type of analysis involves relating different types of data to one another at the individual level. For example, for the study of physique and stature, measurements of males and females need to be considered separately; and for the adequate diagnosis of bony pathologies, both lesion morphology and their distribution in the skeleton need to be analysed. Clearly, a disarticulated assemblage will restrict much of this kind of analysis (Mays et al. 2004, 4-5). All the assemblages were derived from the archive and had previously been examined. Nevertheless, it was possible to identify new information, particularly from Quanterness. Therefore, information relating to age, sex and pathology is presented in this brief section.

Successful diagnosis of pathological conditions in archaeological human remains is challenging. Accurate interpretation demands a survey of the distribution of pathological lesions for a full skeleton. The lack of fully articulated skeletons within the assemblages from the Orkney deposits renders this process incredibly difficult. Interpretations of pathological lesions are further hampered by a lack of evidence for the assessment of age and sex. Nevertheless, pathological changes on individual bones can be recognised, but diagnosis will inevitably be limited. Identification of pathological changes in bones from the assemblages have previously been identified and published in the relevant site reports. This information is already summarised in Chapter 6. However, some additional evidence has been noted, and this is presented in this section. 6.3.1 Quanterness Chesterman (1979, 107-111) provided a summary of pathological lesions from the Quanterness remains. These have all been verified by this study and are summarised in Section 6.2.5 (Chapter 6). However, some additional pathological lesions which were not mentioned in the original report were identified during the main analysis.

6.2 Age and Sex The nature of these assemblages precludes a satisfactory assessment of the demographic profile of the population represented by the remains. However, the information presented by the various MNI estimates (Chapter 7, Section 7.2) illustrates that all age groups were present. Of particular note, the presence of babies aged from 0-3 months at Quanterness directly contradicts Chesterman’s (1979, 99) oft quoted assessment that no infants under the age of 8 months were within the assemblage. At Quanterness, it was only possible to categorise 16 pelvis fragments according to sex. This assessment was based on the morphology of the sciatic notch (Buikstra & Ubelaker 1994, 18) and the sub-pubic region (Phenice 1969) of the pelvis. These Male and Female categories are summarised in Table 6.1, along with the age assessments which were possible utilising the auricular surface (Meindl & Lovejoy 1989, 140) and the pubic symphysis (Brooks & Suchey 1990). It was not possible to gain any greater refinement of information relating to age and sex from the other sites (Chapter 6).

6.3.1.1 Non-metric Variation Non-metric variation is focused on recording the differences and similarities between individuals in details of skeletal morphology. The motivation for such studies it to attempt to describe populations by the relative frequencies of expression of the traits recorded, and thereby determine how distantly related to one another the groups are (Berry 1975, 519; Schwartz 1995, 257). Some traits may occur in an individual on one side of the body (unilaterally), and in another individual may occur on both sides (bilaterally). Frequencies are counted separately for male and females. However, there is still debate as to whether such studies are more informative in defining a population than the metric analysis of skeletal variation (Saunders 1989; Schwartz 1995, 258). Within the Quanterness assemblage, three types of non-metric variation were detected. Vastus notch This refers to a small notch observed in the superolateral margin of the patella (Finnegan 1978, 26) Six of the 88 patellae (four right, two left) were identified as having a vastus notch. All were recovered from the main chamber.

Table 6.1 Summary of age and sex data derived from adult remains at Quanterness Male

Female

Unknown

4

3

Young Adult (20-35 years)

2

3

Middle Adult (35-50 years)

1

3

Transverse Foramen Bipartite Frequently, some of the transverse foramina in the third to seventh cervical vertebrae are bipartite (Finnegan 1978,

286

Appendix 30). Of the 327 cervical vertebrae, six, all from Side Cell ZF exhibited this trait.

1997, 158). While the appearance of Schmorl’s nodes could be identified as occupational markers associated with carrying heavy loads, they have also been associated with congenital defects of the dorsal plate and medical conditions such as osteomalacia, infection and neoplasm (Wentz & de Grummond 2009, 112). Accurate diagnosis of these conditions would require a survey of the full individual skeleton, which is not possible for the Quanterness assemblage.

6.3.1.2 Musculoskeletal Stress Markers Musculoskeletal stress markers are activity-related changes to muscles and ligament attachment sites on the skeleton (Lieverse et al. 2009, 458). 6.3.1.2a Clavicles 17 of the 106 clavicles exhibited defects in the cortical bone at the insertion points for the costoclavicular ligament. This defect was not reported by Chesterman in the original report. Six were from the right and eleven were from the left. They were recovered from ZB II, ZB III and side chamber ZF. Cortical defects are bone resorptive defects in the cortical bone. They are usually considered to result from mechanical stress exerted on the enthesis during muscular activity and tend to be found more often in younger individuals (Knüsel 2000, 114). This defect has been reported as being especially prominent in populations who would have been involved in physically stressful occupations such as the soldiers from the Battle of Townton site (ibid.) and the crew of the Mary Rose (Stirland (1998). Pronounced costoclavicular ligament attachments have been attributed to extensive paddling of watercraft in a number of past populations (Stirland 2000; Lai & Lovell 1992, 229; Lieverse et al. 2009, 468), so-called ‘kayaker’s clavicle’ (Hawkey & Merbs 1995). Given the marine environment this assemblage is associated with, it is very tempting to attribute these markers to maritime activities. However, caution must be used. Physical activities require the physical involvement of groups of muscles (Stirland 1998, 361). As the nature of the assemblage makes it impossible to assess the distribution of skeletal markers throughout an individual skeleton, interpretation must be tentative.

6.3.1.3 Osteoarthritis Osteoarthritic change in the spine is one of the most commonly recorded joint diseases in archaeological human remains (Roberts & Manchester 1997, 105; Ortner 2003, 549). Osteophyte formation on the margins of vertebral bodies is the most common manifestation of osteoarthritis at this site, but porosity of the vertebral body end-plates also occurs (ibid.). Although several factors may contribute to the development of osteoarthritis, stress undoubtedly is the most significant of these factors. Osteoarthritis is multifactorial in its aetiology. Increasing age, a genetic predisposition, obesity, activity/ lifestyle and environmental factors such as climate may all contribute to its development (Roberts & Manchester 1997, 106). Chesterman’s original report (1979, 108) listed 39 vertebrae as having pathological lesions, of which 32 were attributed to osteoarthritis. Re-analysis has confirmed the presence of almost all these vertebrae, and only four were not found. Reanalysis has identified 130 (out of a possible 1241) vertebrae to exhibit lesions that would be indicative of osteoarthritic changes. Characteristics identified included osteophyte formation at the superior and inferior margins of the vertebral bodies and porosity of the vertebral body (Ortner 2003, 549-550). Whilst the osteoarthritic changes identified at Quanterness may be indicative of stresses to the spine from everyday physical activities, they may also be connected to increasing age. The absence of individual skeletons from which to assess distribution of lesions, age and sex limits further interpretation.

6.3.1.2b Vertebrae Schmorl’s nodes were identified on 17 vertebrae from Quanterness. This accounts for a very small proportion (1.4%) of the 1206 vertebrae recorded. Associated with osteophytosis and degeneration of the intervertebral discs, Schmorl’s Nodes (Roberts & Manchester 1997, 107) are usually seen in the lower thoracic and lumbar spine (ibid.). Schmorl’s nodes are indirect trauma injuries due to torsional and compressive forces. These result from bulging of the intervertebral disc’s nucleus pulposus, which puts pressure on the vertebral end plate and leads to bone resorption in the affected area (Lovell

Eburnation is another indicator of arthritic destruction of a bone joint (Ortner 2003, 550). It occurs when an individual continues to use a joint after the cartilage has been destroyed. The underlying bone may become very hard and polished. This resultant polished surface is referred Table 6.3 Summary of vertebra exhibiting characteristics of osteoarthritis

Table 6.2 Summary of clavicles exhibiting defects at the costoclavicular ligament insertion point

Skeletal Element

No. Affected

Cervical Vertebra

33

Skeletal Element

Side

No. Affected

Thoracic Vertebra

49

Clavicle

R

6

Lumbar Vertebra

40

Clavicle

L

11

UN Vertebra

8

287

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Table 6.4 Summary of skeletal elements displaying eburnation Skeletal Element

Side

No. Affected

Cervical Vertebra

NA

1

Hamate

L

1

Lunate

L

1

3rd Metacarpal

R

1

5th Metacarpal

R

1

Patella

L

2

Patella

R

1

Proximal Phalange (Manual)

UN

1

Proximal Phalange (Pedal)

UN

2

Rib

L

1

Scaphoid

L

1

Thoracic Vertebra

NA

1

to as ‘eburnation’ (Roberts & Manchester 197, 103). Eburnation was identified on three patellae and a further eleven bones from the wrist, vertebrae and feet.

Table 6.5 Summary of skeletal elements with evidence for periosteal reactive bone formation

6.3.1.4 Periosteal Reactive Bone Formation Non-specific infection is the term given to skeletal lesions that identify the presence of an infectious pathogen but where the exact nature of the infection is unknown. Identification of non-specific infection is common in archaeological populations and may result from a wide range of sources (Roberts and Manchester 2007, 168). An inflammatory response, the bone surface is characterised by fine pitting, longitudinal striation and plaque-like new bone formation (Ortner 2003, 89; Roberts & Manchester 2007, 172). Although these lesions may have many causes, they are often manifest by infection or trauma. It is very often identified on the tibiae, most probably as a result of its proximity to the skin surface. At Quanterness, 5 bones were identified as exhibiting characteristics of periosteal reactive bone formation. This involved bones from the axial and postcranial skeleton and was found throughout the deposit.

Skeletal Element

Side

No. Affected

Humerus

R

1

Femur

R

1

ULB

UN

2

Tibia

L

1

Table 6.6 Summary of bones exhibiting ante-mortem fracturing Skeletal Element

Side

No. Affected

Rib

R

3

Rib

UN

1

Fibula

R

1

new bone formation. During the metabolic phase the new bone is replaced with more mature lamellar bone. The mechanical phase sees the realignment and remodelling of bone along the lines of stress and accounts for over two thirds of the healing time (Roberts & Manchester 2007, 91-92). Four ante-mortem fractures were identified within the Quanterness assemblage. Four of these occurred in ribs, and the fifth was found on a right fibula. This is in addition to the two fractured ribs identified by Chesterman (1979, 109), which were not located during the re-analysis.

6.3.1.5 Healed Fractures Bone has the ability to resist high levels of force, but once its elastic limit is exceeded, the bone will fracture (Ortner 2003, 120; Waldron 2009, 141). The stress resulting in fracture may be applied in a variety of ways (Section 4.4.1 in Chapter 4); tension; compression; twisting; bending; shearing (Ortner 2003, 120). Healing time is dependent on a series of factors, including the bone element involved, type and position of the fracture, severity, stability during healing, general health of the individual (Roberts & Manchester 2007, 91). Healing occurs in three phases. The cellular phase involves closure of the fracture and

6.3.1.6 Dental Pathology Teeth generally have good survivorship within the archaeological record, providing an excellent resource

288

Appendix

Dental Trait

Number of Teeth

Caries

2

Calculus

70

Hypoplasia

10

confirms the observations made in the original report of arthritic changes in the spinal column and one incidence of spina bifida occulta (Wells 1954, 138). These changes were found to consist of Schmorl’s Nodes and destructive lesions of the centrum. In addition, a patella was found to have a Vastus Notch. A tibia was observed to exhibit eburnation.

Periodontal Disease

3

6.3.3 Point of Cott

Table 6.7 Count of teeth exhibiting pathological change

Pathological lesions from the Point of Cott assemblage were reported in 1997 (Lee 41-42). This information is already summarised in Chapter 6. A clavicle from Compartment 3 was found to have a cortical defect at the point of the attachment for the costoclavicular ligament, as previously recognised at Quanterness. Aside from this instance, the current re-analysis did not find any additional or contrary material to that already published.

for the assessment of health in past populations. Teeth are also versatile, being used as tools or artificially modified in connection to cultural identity (Waldron 2009, 236). A total of 544 isolated teeth, in addition to those present within fragments of mandibles and maxillae, were present at Quanterness. Whilst no evidence of cultural modification of teeth was observed in the Quanterness assemblage, a number of indicators of dental health were (Table 6.7). Dental caries (Latin: caries or rottenness) is characterised by cavities in the teeth, arising from the demineralisation of tissues of the tooth (Waldron 2009, 237). This is a common occurrence in archaeological specimens (Roberts & Manchester 2007, 71) and becomes particularly widespread after the introduction of sugars into the diet. Calculus, or calcified plaque, was identified on 70 Quanterness teeth. Ten teeth were observed to exhibit features of enamel hypoplasia. Enamel hypoplasia is identified as linearly distributed pits or grooves of defective enamel. This characteristic is generally considered a nonspecific indicator of physiological stress in early life, caused by events such as malnutrition, disease and fever (Ogden et al. 2007, 957). Periodontitis is plaque-induced inflammation of the periodontal tissues that results in destruction of the periodontal ligament and loss of crestal alveolar bone (Ogden 2008, 289). Recession of the alveolar margin, which is also likely to show evidence of remodelling including pitting and new bone formation, are the characteristics by which periodontitis is recognised in skeletal remains (Waldron 2009, 240). Three instances of periodontal disease were identified at Quanterness.

6.3.4 Pierowall Quarry Evidence for pathological changes at Pierowall Quarry were limited to two instances of Schmorl’s Nodes (one each on a thoracic and lumbar vertebra) and one instance of eburnation on the articular facet of a sacrum. Three mandible fragments showed evidence of periodontal disease, two of which displayed ante-mortem tooth loss of the 2nd Molar and 3rd Molar. A left clavicle had a cortical defect at the area of the costoclavicular ligament attachment. 6.4 Conclusion Roberts & Cox (2003, 55-74) have provided a general review of the evidence for health and disease in Britain and Ireland during the Neolithic period. This information was based on 24 funerary sites, thirteen in England, one in Wales, one in Ireland and nine in Scotland, and incorporated 772 individuals. The evidence was not prolific. Thus the additional pathological changes noted during this reanalysis of the Orcadian remains will serve to enhance what is currently a limited resource.

6.3.1.7 Summary Whilst it is not possible due to the nature of the assemblage to make a detailed analysis, the evidence presented does allow some insight into the health and lifestyle issues of the population represented by the remains from Quanterness. Perhaps the most interesting traits are those of the cortical defects in the costo-clavicular portions of the clavicles and the implication this has for lifestyle. Further evidence for stress may be seen in the osteoarthritic changes noted in the vertebrae. However, as previously stated, the lack of complete skeletons precludes a more confident diagnosis. 6.3.2 Quoyness As with Quanterness, confident diagnosis of pathological lesions from Quoyness is practically impossible due to the fragmentary nature of the assemblage. The reanalysis 289

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Appendix 7 - Ancient or Modern? An Experimental Investigation of Holes Found on Neolithic Human Bone from Quanterness, Mainland, Orkney 7.1 Introduction

7.3 Experiment Design and Methods

This section presents an overview of an experimental project that was developed to enable further investigation of unusual modifications to human remains, identified within the assemblage from Quanterness, Orkney (Renfrew 1979). The aim was to conduct a simple experiment to test the effect of a gradual, dynamic drilling force, compared to an impact force, upon bone. The premise was that excavation damage would suggest a percussive, impact force, whereas a drilling action would suggest a more gradually applied force – indicating a more deliberate action. The experiment design and results are presented, and the implications of the results are briefly discussed.

7.3.1 Materials The method involved attempting to replicate the perforations according to the two hypotheses outlined above, by drilling and by percussion. At the time of the experiment, excarnation (defleshing by exposure to the elements) was the mortuary rite invoked for the manifestation of the human bone assemblage the bones were associated with. In the first hypothesis, the holes in the bones had been deliberately drilled, early in their taphonomic history. In order to achieve bone in a similar condition to that believed to have been the condition at the time of modification, it was decided to ‘excarnate’ several fleshed pig bones. It is not possible (locally) to conduct this type of experimental research on human cadavers for ethical and legal reasons. However, it is widely considered that pigs offer the closest and foremost comparison to human bones and have been used in many experimental projects (e.g. Janaway et al. 2009). Several pig legs, still fleshed, were obtained from a local butcher. The alternative hypothesis was that the perforations had occurred during excavation. If this was indeed the case, the bones involved would be archaeological rather than fresh. Therefore, archaeological pig bones (medieval in date) were also obtained.

7.2 Background During the course of a taphonomic analysis of human remains from the megalithic tomb of Quanterness, Orkney, three human bones were found to have small, apparently drilled, holes (see Plate 7.1). Chesterman (1979, 109) identified one of these during his original analysis. The formerly identified perforation was on a fragment of sternum (the manubrium) and was described as ‘drilled’. Uncertainty as to the antiquity of this perforation prevented any further discussion in the original report, and it has not been cited in any literature since. Following identification of the three perforated specimens, doubt was raised as to their antiquity. Subsequent examination using a highpowered microscope allowed the internal structure of the holes to be inspected. Investigation of the perforations microscopically appeared to indicate patination, suggesting the holes were not formed recently. However, it should be noted that the bone adjacent to the hole in the ulna was quite eroded. Despite patination being identified, the nature of these features still caused uncertainty. It was considered a strong possibility that these holes could actually be the result of excavation damage, such as when a grid-nail is knocked into a deposit, or hammered into a section. Due to the fragility of the internal walls of the perforations, it was not possible to take casts for scanning electron microscope analysis. This precluded the identification of any ‘threading’ that may have been left on the bone surface by the drilling action of a tool. In order to gain an understanding of how these holes may have been created, an experiment was designed to explore the two most plausible hypotheses. In the first scenario, the holes were created in antiquity, possibly by a drilling action. In the alternative scenario, they were the result of modern excavation trauma.

7.3.2 Experiment Setting The locale for the excarnation stage of the experiment was a coastal area on the Ards Peninsula (NW 74340 08935). The site was raised 2 m from ground level with shelter to the east, and full exposure to the weather from the south. In order to protect the pig remains from wild animals, such as foxes, fish crates were filled with earth, the pig remains positioned on the surface, and then covered with chicken wire. This stage of the experiment began in November 2010. The remains were left in situ for seven months, until the end of May 2011. Periodic checks were made on the progress of decay of the remains, and recorded using a digital camera. During this time, the remains were subject to some extremes of weather. In particular, December 2010 was the coldest December for 100 years, with temperatures as low as -18°C in Northern Ireland. 7.3.3 Tools Logic dictated that if the perforations had indeed been created during the Neolithic use-span of the Quanterness tomb, the tool that may have created them must have been a form of drill. To ensure the experiment was as 290

Appendix

Plate 7.1 Perforations found in the Quanterness assemblage; ulna (left), femur (top right) and manubrium (bottom right). (Author image).

291

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney angle to the surface of the bone. The action of rubbing the hands together turned the point of the drill (Plate 7.2). It was found that very little pressure was required to achieve the ‘drilling’ action. During ‘drilling’, the specimen had to be held in place; assisted in this experiment by a third party. It took a matter of minutes, using this technique, to create a perforation in the bone surface of the modern pig specimen. The hole produced was found to have a very clean or smooth ‘wall’ with a lip of bone at the surface (Plate 7.3). The process had not caused any fracturing or further damage to the rest of the specimen. One or two ‘slips’, during which the edge of the flint tool skipped across the surface, caused additional scoring to the surrounding bone surface. However, it is likely that an individual more accustomed to using such a method could successfully ‘drill’ into bone without any such error.

authentic as possible, measurements of the size of the hole required were taken (4 mm) and a burin tip hand drill was commissioned. This was a piece of flint, fashioned into a point and hafted to a wooden shaft using deer sinew and pine pitch. This style of tip affords the flint great strength and a powerful cutting ability. To recreate the alternative, dynamic force, an awl and hammer was employed. 7.4 Results In May 2011, the ‘excarnated’ pig bones were recovered from their exposure site. Although largely skeletonised, some soft tissue was still adhering and insect and maggot activity was still noticeable. Remaining soft tissue was easily pulled away from the bone to provide a ‘clean’ surface for experimentation. One pig bone was selected for drilling with the burin tip hand drill. The equivalent bone from a second leg was selected for hammering with the awl. Some rib bones had also been excarnated, and these were also tested for both scenarios. The drilling and impact forces were then tested again on the archaeological bone.

This drilling process was repeated using the archaeological specimen. Although the perforation took several minutes longer to achieve, the resulting feature had similar characteristics in comparison to the modern specimen clean edges with no indication of any fracturing or further damage, such as fracture lines.

7.4.1 The Burin Tip Hand Drill The whole process was repeated on one more modern specimen and one more archaeological specimen, in order to ensure duplication of this result was possible. The outcome was found to be identical.

The perforations were created in both the modern and archaeological pig specimens by holding the rod of the drill between the palms of the hands, at a perpendicular

Plate 7.2 ‘Excarnated’ pig bone after drilling with hand drill. (Author image).

292

Appendix

Plate 7.3 Microscope image of drill hole created in excarnated pig bone with a hand drill. (Author image).

7.4.2 The Awl and Hammer

7.5 Discussion

As stated in Section 7.3.3, an attempt was made to create perforations similar to those observed in the Quanterness remains using a 4 mm diameter awl and hammer. The awl was placed at a perpendicular angle to the surface of the bone specimen, and then struck with a hammer. In this way, the action of hammering a nail, as might be expected during modern excavation, was recreated. This technique was first applied to the modern pig specimen. In contrast to the drilled perforations, this resulted in the fracturing of the bone (Plate 7.4). The action was repeated on another modern specimen, with the same result. The process was then repeated again, this time on an archaeological specimen. Once again, the bone was found to fracture. The results of the experimental work are summarised in Table 7.1.

The main aim of this experiment was to differentiate the influence of a gradual, drilling action from a percussive action, and to determine if either of these actions would generate perforations in bone, such as those identified in the Quanterness remains. It has been observed that whilst a drilling action will indeed produce neat perforations, the percussive action will cause the bone to fracture. This fracturing of both the fresh and archaeological specimens casts doubt on the hypothesis that the perforations were sustained during modern excavation. Conversely, the successful creation of holes using the hand drill indicates this is the most likely action involved in their manifestation. Although flint was used in this particular experiment, it is acknowledged that other materials may also produce a similar outcome. The hand drill is not necessarily the tool used to produce the perforations, but in light of the results

Table 7.1 Summary of the effects observed on pig bones by tool types Tool

Action

Modern Pig (Exposed 6 months)

Archaeological Pig (Medieval Ireland)

Burin Tip Hand Drill

Gradual pressure

Perforation created. Clean edges, no fracturing.

Perforation created. Clean edges, no fracturing.

Awl (4 mm)

Striking action

Helical fracture lines and/or complete fracture.

Fracturing into several pieces.

293

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney

Plate 7.4 Excarnated pig bone that has been fractured by percussion action. (Author image).

presented here, something very similar must have been employed.

hypothesis that the perforations were caused by a gradual, drilling action, rather than a percussive action. The focus of energy required to achieve such a result, even for a matter of minutes, demonstrates these features were deliberately created. Of further interest is the fact these marks may also be created on archaeological bone using the same technique. This challenges assumptions about the timing of such features identified elsewhere in the literature (Shapland & Armit 2012). Thus, as with all taphonomic investigations, a consideration of multiple lines of enquiry is necessary. In this particular case, the patination of the perforations, in tandem with their likely method of creation, creates a more robust argument in favour of the antiquity of the Quanterness perforations.

Additionally, the creation of perforations in archaeological bone, similar to those being investigated, is of note and requires further comment. Although evidence for the modification of human remains during the Neolithic period in Britain is scarce, fragments of human crania with holes allegedly drilled through them are known from the Scottish Iron Age (Armit & Ginn 2007; Shapland & Armit 2012, 103). It has been suggested that the presence of the perforations in the crania must indicate a peri-mortem timing for their creation. The premise for this hypothesis is that bones without their organic content would shatter during the drilling process (Shapland & Armit 2012, 106). It is evident from the results of this experiment that this is not the case.

Acknowledgement Thanks must go to Will Lord for the creation of the burrin tip hand drill and his advice on drilling technique.

7.6 Conclusion Images of the internal walls of the Quanterness perforations, illustrating excellent patination, did not prove sufficient to allay doubt as to the antiquity of these holes. Hesitation in accepting that such marks are the result of cultural modification is most reasonably the consequence of their appearance on human bones. A lack of analogous material from the British Neolithic required more innovative avenues of research. The experiment presented here has provided evidence in support of the

294

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, Bradley J. and Lyle W. Konigsberg. Estimation of the most likely number of individuals from commingles human skeletal remains. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 125, no. 2 (2004): 138–151. Andrews, Peter. Owls, caves and fossils: predation, preservation and accumulation of small mammal bones in caves, with an analysis of the Pleistocene cave faunas from Westbury-sub-Mendip, Somerset, UK. University of Chicago Press, 1990. Andrews, Peter, and Jill Cook. Natural modifications to bones in a temperate setting. Man 20 (1985): 675–691. Andrews, P., and Y. Fernández-Jalvo. Cannibalism in Britain: Taphonomy of the Creswellian (Pleistocene) faunal and human remains from Gough’s Cave (Somerset, England). Bulletin of the Natural History Museum: Geology Series 58, no. S1 (2003): 59–81. Armit, Ian, and Victoria Ginn. Beyond the grave: human remains from domestic contexts in Iron Age Atlantic Scotland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 73 (2007): 113–34. Arnott, Robert, Stanley Finger, and Chris Smith, (eds.). Trepanation. History, Discovery,Theory. Swets & Zeitlinger: Lisse, 2003. Ashmore, Patrick. J. Dating the Neolithic in Orkney. In Neolithic Orkney in its European Context, edited by Anna Ritchie 299–308. Cambridge: McDonald Institute of Archaeology, 2000. Ashmore, Patrick.J. and David Sanderson. Dating. In The Heart of Neolithic Orkney World Heritage Site Research Agenda, edited by Jane Downes, S. Foster, C.R. Wickham-Jones, and J. Callister, 96–98. Edinburgh: Historic Scotland, 2005. Aufderheide, Arthur C., Conrado Rodríguez-Martín, and Odin Langsjoen. The Cambridge encyclopedia of human paleopathology. Vol. 478. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Baker, Brenda J., Tosha L. Dupras, and Matthew W. Tocheri. The osteology of infants and children. No. 12. Texas A&M University Press, 2005. Ballin-Smith, Beverley. Howe: four millennia of Orkney prehistory excavations, 1978-1982. Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 1994. Barber, John. Isbister, Quanterness and the Point of Cott: the formulation and testing of some middle range theories. In The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: Recent Trends, edited by John C. Barrett and Ian A. Kinnes, 57–62. Sheffield, 1988. Barber, John, and J. Coy. The Excavation of a Stalled Cairn at the Point of Cott, Westray, Orkney. Edinburgh: Scottish Trust for Archaeological Research, 1997. Barber, John. Death in Orkney: A rare event. In Neolithic Orkney in its European context, edited by Anna Ritchie, 185–188. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2000. Barber, John, Paul Halstead, Heather James, and Frances Lee. An unusual Iron Age burial at Hornish Point, south Uist. Antiquity 63, no. 241 (1989): 773–778. Barlow, A. Small mammals. In Excavations at Pierowall Quarry, Westray, Orkney. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 114 (1984): fiche 2: F3. Barrett, John C. The living, the dead and the ancestors: Neolithic and Early Bronze Age mortuary practices. In The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: recent trends edited by John C. Barrett and Ian A. Kinnes, 30, 41. University of Sheffield, 1988.

295

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Barrett, John. C. and Ian A. Kinnes, (eds.) The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Recent Trends. University of Sheffield, 1988. Barry, G. History of the Orkney Islands. Edinburgh, 1805. Bayliss, Alex, Don Benson, Dawn Galer, Louise Humphrey, Lesley McFadyen, and Alasdair Whittle. 2007a. One Thing after Another: the Date of the Ascott-under-Wychwood Long Barrow. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 17, no. S1 (2007a): 29–44. Bayliss, Alex, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Johannes Van Der Plicht, and Alasdair Whittle. 2007b. Bradshaw and Bayes: Towards a Timetable for the Neolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 17, no. S1(2007b): 1–28. Bayliss, Alex, Alasdair Whittle, and Michael Wysocki. Talking About My Generation: the Date of the West Kennet Long Barrow. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 17, no-S1 (2007c): 85–101. Beckett, Jessica F. Interactions with the Dead: A Taphonomic Analysis of Burial Practices in Three Megalithic Tombs in County Clare, Ireland. European Journal of Archaeology 14, no. 3 (2011): 394–418. Beckett, Jessica F. and John Robb. Neolithic burial taphonomy, ritual, and interpretation in Britain and Ireland: a review. In Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains, edited by Rebecca Gowland and Christopher J. Knüsel, 57–80. Oxbow Books, 2006. Behrensmeyer, Anna K. Taphonomic and Ecologic Information from Bone Weathering. Palaeobiology 4, no. 2 (1978): 150–162. Behrensmeyer, Anna. K. 1984. Taphonomy and the Fossil Record. American Scientist, 72 (1984): 558–566. Benrensmeyer, Anna. K., Kathleen D. Gordon, and Glenn T. Yanagi. Nonhuman bone modification in Miocene fossils from Pakistan. In Bone Modification, edited by Robson Bonnichsen and Marella H. Sorg, 99¬–120. Orono, Maine: Center for the study of the First Americans, 1989. Bell, Catherine. Response: Defining the Need for a Definition. In The Archaeology of Ritual 3, edited by Evangelos Kyriakidis, 277–288. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California: Los Angeles, 2007. Bell, Lynne. S., Mark F. Skinner, and Sheila J. Jones. The speed of post mortem change to the human skeleton and its taphonomic significance. Forensic Science International 82, no. 2 (1996): 129–140. Bello, Silvia and Peter Andrews. The Intrinsic Pattern of Preservation of Human Skeletons and its Influence on the Interpretation of Funerary Behaviours. In Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains, edited by Rebecca Gowland and Christopher J. Knüsel, 1–13. Oxbow Books, 2006. Bello, Silvia M., Simon A. Parfitt, and Chris B. Stringer.2011. Earliest Directly-Dated Human Skull-Cups. PLoS ONE 6, no. 2 (2011): 1–12. Bennike, Pia. Ancient Trepanations and Differential Diagnosis: A Re-Evaluation of Skeletal Remains from Denmark. In Trepanation. History, Discovery, Theory, edited by Robert Arnott, Stanley Finger, and Chris Smith, 95–116. Swets & Zeitlinger: Lisse, 2003. Benson, D. G. and I.N.I. Clegg. 1978. Cotswold Burial Rites. Man 13 (1978): 133–137. Benson, D. and Alasdair Willaim Richardons Whittle. Building memories: the Neolithic Cotswold Long Barrow at Ascott-under-Wychwood, Oxfordshire, Oxbow Books: Oxford, 2006. Bereuter, Thomas L., Werner Mikenda, and Christian Reiter. Iceman’s mummification – implications from infrared spectroscopical and histological studies. Chemistry–A European Journal 3 no. 7 (1997): 1032–1038. Berger, Lee. R., and Ron J. Clarke. Eagle involvement in accumulation of the Taung child fauna. Journal of Human Evolution, 29 no. 3 (1995): 275–299. Berryman, Hugh E., and Steven A. Symes. Recognizing Gunshot and Blunt Cranial Trauma Through Fracture 296

Bibliography Interpretation. In Forensic Osteology: Advances in the Identification of Human Remains, edited by Kathleen J. Reichs, chpt 16. Illinois: Charles C Thomas, 1998. Binford, Lewis. R. An analysis of cremations from three Michigan sites. Wisconsin Archaeologist 44 no. 2 (1963): 98–110. Binford, Lewis. R. Mortuary practices: their study and their potential. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 25 (1971): 6–29 Binford, Lewis. R. Bones: Ancient men and modern myths. Academic Press, 1981. Birkett, D. A. Human bone. In Excavations at Pierowall Quarry, Westray, Orkney,Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 114 (1984): fiche 2: D4. Blau, Soren. & Douglas H. Ubelaker, (eds.) Handbook of Forensic Anthropology and Archaeology: Left Coast Press Inc, 2009. Bloch, Maurice. Placing the Dead: Tombs, Ancestral Villages, and Kinship Organisation in Madagascar. Vol. 1. London: Academic Press, 1971. Boddington, Andy, Andrew Neil Garland, and Robert C. Janaway, R. (eds.). Death, decay, and reconstruction: approaches to archaeology and forensic science: Manchester University Press, 1987. Bohnert, Michael, Thomas Rost, and Stefan Pollak. The degree of destruction of human bodies in relation to the duration of the fire. Forensic Science International 95, no. 1 (1998): 11–21. Bökönyi, Sandor. A new method for the determination of the number of individuals in animal bone material. American Journal of Archaeology 74, no. 3 (1970): 291–292. Bonnichsen, Robson. An introduction to taphonomy with and archaeological focus. In Bone Modification, edited by Robson Bonnichsen and Marella H. Sorg, 1–5. Orono, Maine: Center for the study of the First Americans, 1989. Bonsall, Clive, C. Tolan-Smith, and A. Saville. Direct dating of Mesolithic antler and bone artifacts from Great Britain: new results for bevelled tolls and red deer antler mattocks. Mesolithic Miscellany, 16, no. 1 (1995): 2–10. Boylston, Anthea. Evidence for weapon-related trauma in British archaeological samples. In Human osteology in archaeology and forensic science, edited by Margaret Cox and Simon Mays, 357–380. London: Greenwich Medical Media Ltd, 2000. Bradley, Richard. Incised motifs in the passage-graves at Quoyness and Cuween, Orkney. Antiquity 72 (1998): 387–90. Bradley, Richard. The Significance of Monuments. On the shaping of human experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe, Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, 1998. Bradley, Richard. 2007. Houses, bodies and tombs. Proceedings of the British Academy 144 (2007): 347–355. Bradley, Richard. Passage graves, statues and standing stones: megaliths and social identities in prehistoric Scotland and Ireland. Journal of Neolithic Archaeology: Megaliths and Identities (2010). Bradley, Richard, Tim Phillips, Colin Richards, and Matilda Webb. Decorating the Houses of the Dead: Incised and Pecked Motifs in Orkney Chambered Tombs. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 11 (2000): 45–67. Brickley, Megan, and Jacqueline I. McKinley. Guidelines to the standards for recording human remains. IFA paper 7 (2004). Broca, Paul. Cas Singulier de Trépanation Chez les Incas. Bull Mém Soc d’Anthrop de Paris (2ème série), 2 (1867): 403–408. Brooks, Sheilagh and Judy M. Suchey. Skeletal age determination based on the os pubis: a comparison of the

297

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Acsadi-Nemeskeri and Suchey-Brooks Methods. Human Evolution, 5 (1990): 227–238. Brück, Joanna. Monuments, Power and Personhood in the British Neolithic. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 7, no. 4 (2001): 649–667. Buikstra, Jane E., and Mark Swegle, M. Bone Modification Due to Burning: Experimental Evidence. In Bone Modification, edited by Robson Bonnichsen and Marella H. Sorg, 247–258. Orono, Maine: Center for the study of the First Americans, 1989. Buikstra, Jane E. and Douglas H. Ubelaker Standards For data collection from human skeletal remains: proceedings of a seminar at the Field Museum of Natural History. Arkansas Archaeological Survey, 1994. Bullock, Peter. A Reappraisal of Anasazi Cannibalism. Kiva, 57 no. 1 (1991): 5–16. Busby, Cecilia. Permeable and Partible Persons: a comparative analysis of gender and the body in south India and Melanesia. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 3 (1997): 261–78. Byrd, John and Bradley J. Analysis of Commingled Human Remains. In Handbook of Forensic Anthropology and Archaeology, edited by Soren Blau and Douglas H. Ubelaker (chpt 15). Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast Press, 2009. Calce, Stephanie E., and Tracy L. Rogers. Taphonomic changes to blunt force trauma: A preliminary study. Journal of Forensic Science 52, no. 3 (2007): 519–527. Callander, J. Graham, and Walter G. Grant. A long stalled chambered cairn or mausoleum (Rousay Type) near Midhowe, Rousay, Orkney. Proceedings of the Society of the Antiquaries of Scotland 68 (1934): 320–352. Callander, J. Graham, and Walter G. Grant. A long, stalled cairn, the Knowe of Yarso, in Rousay, Orkney. Proceedings of the Society of the Antiquaries of Scotland 69 (1935): 325–51. Capaldo, Salvatore D. and Robert J. Blumenschine. A quantitative diagnosis of notches made by hammerstone percussion and carnivore gnawing on bovid long bones. American Antiquity 59, (1994): 724–748. Card, Nick. Assessment of the prehistoric periods. In, The Heart of Neolithic Orkney World Heritage Site Research Agenda, edited by Jane Downes, S. Foster, and Caroline R. Wickham-Jones, 47–55. Edinburgh: Historic Scotland, 2005. Carr, Gillian and Christopher J. Knüsel. The ritual framework of excarnation by exposure as the mortuary practice of the early and middle Iron Ages of central southern Britain. In, Reconstructing Iron Age societies. New approaches to the British Iron Age, edited by Adam Gwilt and Colin Haselgrove, 167–173. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph, 1997. Carter, David O., David Yellowlees, and Mark Tibbett. Cadaver Decomposition in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Naturwissenschaften 94, no. 1 (2007): 12–24. Chapman, Robert. The Emergence of Formal Disposal Areas and the ‘Problem’ of Megalithic Tombs in Prehistoric Europe. In The Archaeology of Death, edited by Robert Chapman, Ian Kinnes, and Klavs Randsborg, 71–82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Chapman, Robert, Ian Kinnes, and Klavs Randsborg (eds.) The Archaeology of Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Charleson, M. M. Notice of a chambered cairn in the parish of Firth, Orkney. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 36 (1902): 733–738. Chénier, Ani. Bones, peoples and communities: Tensions between individual and corporate identities in secondary burial ritual. Nexus: The Canadian Student Journal of Anthropology 21, no. 1 (2009): 27–40. Chesterman, Judson T. Burial rites in a Cotswold long barrow. Man (1977): 22–32.

298

Bibliography Chesterman, Judson T. Investigation of the Human Bones from Quanterness. In, Renfrew, C. (ed.) Investigations in Orkney, edited by Coling Renfrew, 97–111. London: The Society of Antiquaries of London, 1979. Chesterman, Judson T. 1983. The human skeletal remains. In, Isbister. A chambered tomb in Orkney, edited by John W. Hedges. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series, 1983. Childe, Vere Gordon, Thomas H. Bryce, and David M. S. Watson. Skara Brae. A Pictish Village in Orkney. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd, 1931. Childe, Vere Gordon. The Chambered Cairns of Rousay. Antiquaries Journal 22 (1942): 139–142. Childe, Vere Gordon. Re-excavation of the Chambered Cairn of Quoyness, Sanday, on Behalf of the Ministry of Works in 1951–2. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 86 (1952): 121–139. Childe, Vere Gordon and Grant, Walter G. A Stone-Age settlement at the Braes of Rinyo, Rousay, Orkney. (First Report). Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 73 (1939): 6–31. Childe, V. G. & Grant, Walter G. A Stone-Age Settlement at the Braes of Rinyo, Rousay, Orkney (Second report). Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 81 (1947): 16–42. Clarke, David V. The Neolithic Village at Skara Brae, Orkney. Excavations 1972–3: An Interim Report. Edinburgh: HMSO, 1976. Clarke, David. V. & Niall M. Sharples. Settlements and Subsistence in the Third Millennium BC. In The Prehistory of Orkney, edited by Colin Renfrew, 54–82. Edinburgh University Press, 1990. Clutton-Brock, J. Report of the mammalian remains other than rodents from Quanterness. In Investigations in Orkney, edited by Colin Renfrew, 112–133. The Society of Antiquaries of London, 1979. Cook, Delia C. Physical anthropology in the field: recognizing cremation, defleshing, exposure and secondary burial. In The Practical Impact of Science on Field Archaeology, edited by Scott Pike and Seymour Gitin, 43–46. Wiener Laboratory Publication, 1999. Cook, Jill. The Application of Scanning Electron Microscopy to Taphonomic and Archaeological Problems. In Studies in the Upper Palaeolithic of Britain and Northwest Europe, edited by Derek Arthur Roe 143–163. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 296, 1986. Craig [Crozier], Rebecca, Christopher J. Knüsel, and Gillian C. Carr. Fragmentation, mutilation and dismemberment: an interpretation of human remains on Iron Age sites. In Warfare, violence and slavery in prehistory, edited by Mike Parker Pearson and I.J.N. Thorpe, 165–180. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 2005. Cummings, Vicki and Amelia Pannett. Island views: the setting of the chambered cairns of southern Orkney. In Set in stone: new approaches to the Neolithic monuments in Scotland, edited by Vicki Cummings and Amelia Pannett 14–24. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2005. Cummings, Vicki and Amelia Pannett (eds.) Set in stone: new approaches to the Neolithic monuments in Scotland. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2005. Cunha, Eugénia and João Pinheiro. Antemortem Trauma. In, Handbook of Forensic Anthropology and Archaeology, edited by Soren Blau and Douglas H. Ubelaker (chpt 21). Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast Press, 2009. Curle, A. O. 1934. An Account of the Excavation, on behalf of H.M. Office of Works, of another Prehistoric Dwelling (No. V.) at Jarlshof, Sumburgh, Shetland, in the Summer of 1934. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 69 (1934): 85–107. Darling, J. Andrew. Mass Inhumation and the Execution of Witches in the American Southwest. American Anthropologist 100 (1999): 732–752. Davidson, D. A. The Orcadian Environment and Cairn Location. In Investigations in Orkney, edited by Colin Renfrew, 7–20. The Society of Antiquaries of London, 1979. 299

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Davidson, D. A. and R.L. Jones, R. L. The Environment of Orkney. In The Prehistory of Orkney, edited by Colin Renfrew. Edinburgh University Press, 1990. Davidson, James L. and Audrey S. Henshall. The Chambered Cairns of Orkney. Edinburgh University Press, 1989. De Juana, S., A.B. Galán, and M. Domingues-Rodrigo, M. Taphonomic identification of cut marks made with lithic handaxes: an experimental study. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37, no. 8 (2010): 1841–1850. DeHaan, John D. Fire and Bodies. In The Analysis of Burned Human Remains, edited by Christopher W. Schmidt and Steven A. Symes, 1–14. London: Academic Press, 2008. Dent, Boyd B., Shari L. Forbes, and Barbara H. Stuart. Review of human decomposition processes in soil. Environmental Geology 45, no. 4 (2004): 576–485. Derry, Douglas E. Damage done to skulls and bones by termites. Nature 86, no. 2164 (1911), 245–246. Dobney, Keith, and Kevin Rielly. A method for recording archaeological animal bones: the use of diagnostic zones, Circaea 5, no. 2 (1988): 79–96. Dockrill, Steven. J. Investigations in Sanday, Orkney. Vol 2: Tofts Ness, Sanday. An island landscape through three thousand years of prehistory. The Orcadian Ltd in association with Historic Scotland, 2007. Domíguez-Solera, S. D. and M. Domíguez-Rodrigo. A Taphonomic Study of Bone Modification and of Tooth-Mark Patterns on Long Limb Bone Portions by Suids. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 19 (2009): 345–363. Donnan, Christopher B. and Guillermo A. Cock (eds.). The Pacatnamu Papers,Vol. 1. Museum of Cultural History, University of California, Los Angeles, 1986. Dowd, Marion A. Kilgreany, Co. Waterford: Biography of a Cave. The Journal of Irish Archaeology 11 (2002): 77–97. Dowd, Marion A. The use of caves for funerary and ritual practices in Neolithic Ireland. Antiquity 82 (2008): 305–317. Dowd, Marion A., Linda Fibiger and Linda G. Lynch. The human remains from Irish Caves Project. Archaeology Ireland 20, no. 3 (2006): 16–19. Downes, J., S. Foster, C.R. Wickham-Jones, and J. Callister (eds.). The Heart of Neolithic Orkney World Heritage Site Research Agenda. Edinburgh: Historic Scotland, 2005. Downes, Jane and Colin Richards. Excavating the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of Orkney: Recognition and Interpretation in the Field. In Neolithic Orkney in its European Context, edited by Anna Ritchie, 159–168. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monograph, 2000. Downes, Jane and Colin Richards. The Dwellings at Barnhouse. In Dwelling Among the Monuments, edited by Colin Richards, 57–128. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2005. Drewett, Peter. The excavation of a Neolithic causewayed enclosure on Offham Hill, East Sussex, 1976. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 43 (1977): 201–241. Duday, Henri. The Archaeology of the Dead: Lectures in Archaeothanatology, Oxbow Books, 2009. Duday, Henri. L’archeothanatologie ou l’archeologie de la mort. In Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains edited by Rebecca Gowland and Christopher J. Knüsel, 30–56. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2006. Duffy, Paul R. J. and Gavin MacGregor. Cremations, conjecture and contextual taphonomies: material strategies during the 4th to 2nd millennia BC in Scotland. In The Materiality of Death: Bodies, Burials, Beliefs, edited by Fredrik Fahlander and Terje Oestigaard, 71–78. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series, 2008. Edmonds, Mark. Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic. London and New York, Routledge, 1999. Edwards, Arthur J.H. Excavations at Reay Links and at a Horned Cairn at Lower Dounreay, Caithness. With a Report on 300

Bibliography the Human Bones and a Report on the Animal Bones. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 63 (1928): 138–149. Edwards, K. J., M. Ansell, and B.A. Carter. New Mesolithic sites in south west Scotland and their importance as indicators of inland penetration. Transactions of the Dumfries Galloway Natural History Antiquarian Society 58 (1983): 9–15. Eickhoff, Susanne and Bernd Herrmann. Surface marks on bones from a Neolithic collective grave (Odagsen, Lower Saxony). A study on differential diagnosis. Journal of Human Evolution 14, no. 3 (1985): 263–274. Efremov, Ivan.A. Taphonomy: a new branch of palaeontology. Pan-American Geologist 74 no. 2 (1940): 81–93. Ellison, Ann and Peter Drewett. Pits and Post-holes in the British Early Iron Age: some alternative explanations. The Prehistoric Society 37, no. 1 (1971): 183–194. Evans, Christopher and Ian Hodder. A woodland archaeology. Neolithic sites at Haddenham. Cambridge: McDonald Insititute for Archaeological Research, 2006. Faccia, K. J. and R.C. Williams. Schmorl’s Nodes: Clinical significance and implications for the biological record. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 18, no. 1 (2008): 28–44. Farrer, James. Note of excavations in Sanday, one of the North Isles of Orkney. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 7 (1870): 398–401. Fiedler, S., F. Buegger, B. Klaubert, K. Zipp, R. Dohrmann, M. Witteyer, M. Zarei, and M. Graw. Adipocere withstands 1600 years of fluctuating groundwater levels in soil. Journal of Archaeological Science 36, no. 7 (2009): 1328–1333. Fiedler, Sabine and Matthias Graw. Decomposition of buried corpses, with special reference to the formation of adipocere. Naturwissenschaften 90, no. 90 (2003): 291–300. Finger, Stanley and William T. Clower. On the Birth of Trepanation: The Thoughts of Paul Broca and Victor Horsley. In Trepanation. History, Discovery, Theory, edited by Robert Arnott, Stanley Finger, and Chris Smith, 19–42. Swets & Zeitlinger: Lisse, 2003. Finlay, N. & Barber, J. Introduction and Background. In The Excavation of a Stalled Cairn at the Point of Cott, Westray, Orkney, edited by John Barber, 1–8. Scottish Trust for Archaeological Research, 1997. Fiorillo, Anthony. R. An Experimental Study of Trampling: Implications for the Fossil Record. In Bone Modification, edited by Robson Bonnichsen and Marella H. Sorg, 61–71. Orono, Maine: Center for the study of the First Americans, 1989. Forbes, Shari. L., Boyd B. Dent, and Barbara H. Stuart. The effect of soil type on adipocere formation. Forensic Science International 154, no. 1 (2005a): 35–43. Forbes, Shari L., Barbara H. Stuart, and Boyd B. Dent. The effect of the method of burial on adipocere formation. Forensic Science International 154, no. 1 (2005b): 44–52. Fowler, Chris. Personhood and Social Relations in the British Neolithic with a Study from the Isle of Man. Journal of Material Culture 6, no. 2 (2001): 137–163. Fowler, Chris. Body parts: Personhood and materiality in the earlier Manx Neolithic. In Thinking through the body. Archaeologies of corporeality, edited by Yannis Hamilakis, Mark Pluciennik, and Sarah Tarlow, 47–69. London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2002. Fowler, Chris. The archaeology of personhood: an anthropological approach. Psychology Press, 2004. Fowler, Chris. Identity Politics. Personhood, Kinship, Gender and Power in Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Britain. In: In (eds.) The Archaeology of Plural and Changing Identities, edited by Eleanor Casella and Chris Fowler, 109–134. Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, 2005. 301

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Fowler, Chris. Comment on ‘The regeneration of life: Neolithic sturcures of symbolic remembering and forgetting’ (Ian Kuijt, this issue). Current Anthropology 49, no. 2 (2008): 188–189. Fowler, Chris. 2010. Pattern and diversity in the Early Neolithic. Mortuary practices of Britain and Ireland: contextualising the treatment of the dead. Documenta Praehistorica, 41 (2010): 1–22. Fraser, David. Land and Society in Neolithic Orkney, Oxford, British Archaeological Reports, 1983. Garland, Andrew N. A histological study of archaeological bone decomposition. In Death, Decay and Reconstruction: Approaches to Archaeology and Forensic Science, edited by Andy Boddington, Andrew N. Garland, and Robert C. Janaway, 9–126. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1987. Garland, Andrew N. and Robert C. Janaway. The taphonomy of inhumation burials. In Burial archaeology, current research, methods, and developments, edited by Charlotte A. Roberts, Frances Lee, and John L. Bintliff, 15–37. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series, 1989. Garrow, Duncan, John Raven and Colin Richards. The Anatomy of a Megalithic Landscape. In Dwelling Among the Monuments. The Neolithic village of Barnhouse, Maeshowe passage grave and surrounding monuments at Stenness, Orkney, edited by Colin Richards, 249–260. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2005. Gifford-Gonzalez, Diane P., David B. Damrosch, Debra R. Damrosch, John Pryor, and Robert L. Thunen. The third dimension in site structure: an experiment in trampling and vertical dispersal. American Antiquity 50, no. 4 (1985): 803–818. Goldstein, Lynne G. One-dimensional Archaeology and Multi-dimensional People: Spatial organisation and mortuary analysis. In The Archaeology of Death, edited by Robert Chapman, Ian Kinnes, and Klavs Randsborg, 53–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Goody, Jack. Death, property and the ancestors: a study of the mortuary customs of the LaDagaa of West Africa. London, Tavistock, 1962. Goss, Robert. E. and Dennis Klass. Tibetan Buddhism and the resolution of grief: The Bardo-Thodol for the dying and the grieving. Death Studies 21 (1997): 377–395. Gowland, Rebecca and Christopher J. Knüsel (eds.). Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains: Oxbow Books, 2006. Graeber, David. Dancing with corpses reconsidered: an interpretation of (in Arivonimamo, Madagascar). American Ethnologist 22, no. 2 (1995): 258–278. Grant, Walter G. and D. Wilson. The Knowe of Lairo, Rousay, Orkney. Proceedings of the Society of the Antiquaries of Scotland 77 (1943): 17–26. Greenfield, Haskel J. Bone consumption by pigs in a contemporary Serbian village: implications for the interpretation of prehistoric faunal assemblages. Journal of Field Archaeology 15, no.4 (1988): 473–479. Greenfield, Haskel. J. The origins of metallurgy: distinguishing stone from metal cut marks on bones from archaeological sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 26, no. 7 (1999): 797–808. Gregory, Richard. A., Eileen M. Murphy, Mike J. Church, Kevin J. Edwards, Erika B. Guttman, and Derek D.A. Simpson. Archaeological evidence for the first Mesolithic occupation of the Western Isles of Scotland. The Holocene 15 (2005): 944–950. Gross, Charles G. Trepanation from the Palaeolithic to the Internet. In Trepanation. History, Discovery, Theory, edited by Robert Arnott, Stanley Finger, and Chris Smith, 307–322. Swets & Zeitlinger: Lisse, 2003. Gunn, Alan. Essential Forensic Biology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. Haglund, Willam. D., Donald T. Reay, and Daris R. Swindler. Tooth mark artifacts and survival of bones in animal scavenged human skeletons. Journal of Forensic Sciences 33, no. 4 (1988): 985–997. 302

Bibliography Haglund, William D., Donald Reay, and Daris R. Swindler, D. R. Canid Savenging/Disarticulation Sequence of Human Remains in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Forensic Science 34, no. 3 (1989): 587–606. Haglund, William D. and Marcella H. Sorg (eds.). Forensic Taphonomy: The postmortem fate of human remains. CRC Press, 1997. Haglund, William D. and Marcella H. Sorg (eds.). Advances in Forensic Taphonomy: Method, Theory and Archaeological Perspectives. CRC Press, 2002. Halpin, E. Animal Bone. In The Excavation of a Stalled Cairn at the Point of Cott, Westray, Orkney, edited by John Barber, 45–49. Scottish Trust for Archaeological Research, 1997. Hamilakis, Yannis. Archaeologies of the senses. In The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion, edited by Tim Insoll, 208–225. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Hamilton, John R. C. Excavations at Jarlshof, Shetland. Edinburgh: Ministry of Works, archaeological reports, 1956. Harris, Oliver. Emotional and Mnemonic Geographies at Hambledon Hill: Texturing Neolithic Places with Bodies and Bones. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 20 (2010): 357–71. Hartwell, Barry. Late Neolithic ceremonies. Archaeology Ireland 8 (1994): 10–13. Hartwell, Barry. A Neolithic ceremonial timber complex at Ballynahatty, Co. Down. Antiquity 76 (2002): 526–532. Hawkey, Diane E. and Charles F. Merbs. Activity-induced musculoskeletal stress markers (MSM) and subsistence strategy changes among ancient Hudson Bay Eskimos. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 5, no. 4 (1995): 324–338. Hedges, John W. Isbister: a Chambered Tomb in Orkney, BAR 115. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 1983. Hedges, John W. Bu, Gurness and the Brochs of Orkney, BAR 163. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 1987. Hedges, John. W. Tomb of the Eagles. A Window on Stone Age Tribal Britain, John and Erica Hedges Ltd, 2000. Henshall, Audrey S. The Chambered Cairns of Scotland, vol.1. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1963. Henshall, Audrey S. The Chambered Tombs of Scotland. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1972. Henshall, Audrey S. Artefacts from the Quanterness cairn. In Investigations in Orkney, edited by Colin Renfrew, 75–93. The Society of Antiquaries of London, 1979. Henshall, Audrey S. The Chambered Cairns. In The Prehistory of Orkney, edited by Colin Renfrew. Edinburgh University Press, 1990. Henshall, Audrey S. Scottish Passage Graves: Some Confusions and Conclusions. In From Sickles to Circles: Britain and Ireland in the Time of Stonehenge, edited by Alex J.S. Gibson and Alison Sheridan, 78–91. Tempus 2004. Herrmann, Nicholas P. and Joanne L. Bennett. The Differentiation of Traumatic and Heat-Related Fractures in Burned Bone. Journal of Forensic Science 44, no. 3 (1999): 461–469. Hertz, Robert. A contribution to the study of the collective representation of death. In Death, Mourning, and Burial. A Cross-Cultural Reader, edited by Antonious C.G.M. Robben. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. Hill, Andrew. Bone Modification by Modern Spotted Hyenas. In Bone Modification, edited by Robson Bonnichsen and Marella H. Sorg, 169–178. Orono, Maine: Center for the study of the First Americans, 1989. Hingley, Richard. Ancestors and Identity in the Later Prehistory of Atlantic Scotland: The Reuse and Reinvention of Neolithic Monuments and Material Culture. World Archaeology 28 (1996): 231–243.

303

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Hodder, Ian. Symbols in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Huchet, J.B., D. Deverly, B. Gutierrez, and C. Chauchat. Taphonomic Evidence of a Human Skeleton Gnawed by Termites in a Moche-Civilisation Grave at Huaca de la Luna, Peru. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 21, no. 1 (2011): 92–102. Hunter, John. Investigations in Sanday, Orkney. Vol 1: Excavations at Pool, Sanday. A multi-period settlement from Neolithic to Late Norse times. The Orcadian Ltd in association with Historic Scotland, 2007. Hunter, John, Julie M. Bond and Andrea N. Smith. Overview. In Investigations in Sanday, Orkney. Vol 1., edited by John Hunter. The Orcadian Ltd, 2007. Hurlbut, Sharon A. The Taphonomy of Cannibalism: A Review of Anthropogenic Bone Modification in the American Southwest. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 10, no. 1 (2000): 4–26. Irving, W. N., A.V. Jopling, and I. Dkritsch-Armstrong. Bone technology and taphonomy from Old Crow Basin. In Bone Modification, edited by Robson Bonnichsen and Marella H. Sorg, 347–379. Orono, Maine: Center for the study of the First Americans, 1989. Janaway, Robert. C. The decay of buried human remains and their associated materials. In Studies in Crime: An Introduction to Forensic Archaeology edited by John Hunter, Charlotte A. Roberts and Anthony Martin, 58–85. London: Routledge, 1997. Janaway, Robert. C., Andrew S. Wilson, A.C. Caffell, and C.A. Roberts. Human skeletal collections: the responsibilities of project managers, physical anthropologists and conservators, and the need for standardized condition assessment. In Human remains conservation, retrieval and analysis:proceedings of a conference held in Williamsburg, VA, Nov. 7–11, 1999, edited by E. Williams, 199–208. Oxford: BAR Publishing, 2001. Janaway, Robert, Andrew S. Wilson, Gerardo Carpio Diaz, and Sonia Guillen. Taphonomic Changes to the Buried Body in Arid Environments: An Experimental Case Study in Peru. In Criminal and Environmental Soil Forensics, edited by Karl Ritz, Lorna Dawson and David Miller, 342–356. London: Springer, 2009. Jans, M.M.E., Christina M. Nielsen-Marsh, Colin I. Smith, Matthew J. Collins, M. J. and H. Kars. Characterisation of microbial attack on archaeological bone. Journal of Archaeological Science 31, no. 1 (2004): 87–95. Johnson, Eileen. Current developments in bone technology. Advances in archaeological method and theory 8 (1985): 157–235. Johnson, Eileen. Human modified bones from early southern Plains Sites. In Bone Modification, edited by Robson Bonnichsen and Marella H. Sorg, 431–471. Orono, Maine: Center for the study of the First Americans, 1989. Jones, Andrew. Where Eagles Dare: Landscape, Animals and the Neolithic of Orkney. Journal of Material Culture 3 (1998): 301–324. Jones, Andrew. Local Colour: Megalithic Architecture and Colour Symbolism in Neolithic Arran. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 18 (1999): 339–350. Jones, Andrew and Colin Richards. Living in Barnhouse. In Dwelling Among the Monuments, edited by Colin Richards, 23–56. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2005. Jones, Richards, Adrian Challands, Charles French, Nick Card, Jane Downes, and Colin Richards. Exploring the Location and Function of a Late Neolithic House at Crossiecrown, Orkney by Geophysical, Geochemical and Soil Micromophological Methods. Archaeological Prospection, 17 (2010): 29–47. Jones, Robert L. Vegetational Studies. In Investigations in Orkney, edited by Colin Renfrew, 22–28. The Society of Antiquaries of London, 1979. Jones, Siân and Colin Richards. Neolithic cultures in Orkney: classification and interpretation. In Neolithic Orkney in its European context, edited by Anna Ritchie, 101–106. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2000. 304

Bibliography Jurmain, Robert. Stories from the Skeleton: behavioural reconstruction in human osteology, Amsterdam: Gordon & Breach, 1998. Kanz, Fabian and Karl Grossschmidt. Head injuries of Roman gladiators. Forensic Science International, 160, no. 2 (2006): 207–216. Karr, Landon P. & Alan K. Outram. Tracking changes in bone fracture morphology over time: environment, taphonomy, and the archaeological record. Journal of Archaeological Science 39, no. 2 (2012): 555–559. Kinnes, Ian. Monumental function in British Neolithic burial practices. World Archaeology 7 no. 1 (1975): 16–29. Klein, Richard G. and Kathryn Cruz-Uribe. The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984. Knüsel, Christopher J. The physical evidence of warfare - subtle stigmata? In Warfare, violence and slavery in prehistory, edited by Mike Parker Pearson and I.J.N. Thorpe, 49–65. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 2005. Knüsel, Christopher J. and Gillian C. Carr. On the significance of the crania from the River Thames and its tributaries. Antiquity 69 (1995): 162–169. Knüsel, Christopher. J., Robert C. Janaway, and Sarah E. King. Death, decay and ritual reconstruction: Archaeological evidence of cadaveric spasm. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 15 (1996): 121–128. Knüsel, Christopher. J. and Alan K. Outram. Fragmentation: The Zonation Method Applied to Fragmented Human Remains from Archaeological and Forensic Contexts. Environmental Archaeology 9 (2004): 85–97. Knüsel, Christopher J. and Alan Outram. Fragmentation of the body: comestibles, compost, or customary rite? In Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains, edited by Rebecca Gowland and Christopher J. Knüsel, 253–278. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2006. Kroeber, Alfred L. Disposal of the Dead. American Anthropologist 29, no. 3 (1927): 308–315. Kuijt, Ian. The regeneration of life. Current Anthropology 49 (2008): 171–197. Lai, Ping and Nancy C. Lovell. Skeletal Markers of Occupational Stress in the Fur Trade: A Case Study from a Hudson Bay Company Fur Trade Post. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 2, no. 2 (1992): 221–234. Larsson, A. M. Secondary Burial Practices in the Middle Neolithic. Causes and Consequences. Current Swedish Archaeology 11 (2003): 153–170. Lawrence, David. Neolithic Mortuary Practice in Orkney. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 136 (2006): 47–60. Leach, Stephany. Heads, shoulders, knees and toes: human skeletal remains from Raven Scar Cave in the Yorkshire Dales. In Proceedings of the fifth annual conference of the British association of biological anthropology and osteoarchaeology, edited by Sonia R. Zakrzewkski and Margaret Clegg, 59–68. Oxford: BAR Publishing, 2005. Leach Stephany. Odd one out? Earlier Neolithic deposition of human remains in caves and rock shelters in the Yorkshire Dales. In Deviant burial in the archaeological record, edited by Eileen M Murphy, 35–56. Oxford: Oxbow, 2008. Lee, D. 2011. Banks Chambered Tomb, South Ronaldsay. Orkney Data Structure Report. Lee, F. 1997. The Human Bone. In: Barber, J. (ed.) The Excavation of a Stalled Cairn at the Point of Cott, Westray, Orkney. Leinert, A. C., Keen, D. H., Jones, R. L., Wells, J. M. & Smith, D. E. Mid-Holocene environmental changes in the Bay of Skaill, mainland Orkney, Scotland: an integrated geomorphological, sedimentological and stratigraphical study. Journal of Quaternary Science, 15 (2000): 509–28. Lewis, Mary E. The Bioarchaeology of Children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 305

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Lieverse, Angela R., Vladimir I. Bazaliiskii, Olga I. Goriunova, and Andrzej W. Weber. Upper Limb Musculoskeletal Stress Markers Among Middle Holocene Foragers of Siberia’s Cis-Baikal Region. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 138, no. 4 (2009): 458–472. Loe, Louis. Perimortem Trauma. In, Handbook of Forensic Anthropology and Archaeology, edited by Soren Blau and Douglas H. Ubelaker, 263:283. Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast Press, 2009. Lovell, Nancy. Trauma Analysis in Paleopathology. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 40 no. S25 (1997): 139–170. Lucas, Gavin M. Of death and debt. A history of the body in Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Yorkshire. Journal of European Archaeology 4 (1996): 99–118. Lyman, R. Lee. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University Press, 2001. Lyman, R. Lee. The Concept of Equifinality in Taphonomy. Journal of Taphonomy 2 (2004): 15–26. Lyman, R. Lee, and Gregory L. Fox. A critical evaluation of bone weathering as an indication of bone assemblage formation. In Forensic Taphonomy: the postmortem fate of human remains, edited by William D. Haglund and Marcella H. Sorg, 223–248. CRC Press, 1997. MacGregor, Gavin. Elemental bodies: the nature of transformative practices during the late third and second millennium BC in Scotland. World Archaeology 40 no. 2 (2008): 268–280. Mackie, Euan.W. The roundhouses, brochs and wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland c. 700 BC–AD 500. Part 1: the Orkney and Shetland Isles. British Archaeological Reports 342. Oxford: BAR Publishing, 2002. Mainland, Ingrid and J. Moore. Rinyo, Orkney (Rousay and Eglisay parish), geophysical survey. Discovery and Excavation Scotland 11 (2010): 121. Manifold, Bernadette. M. The Representation of Non-adult Skeletal Elements Recovered from British Archaeological Sites Childhood in the Past: An International Journal 3 (2010): 43–62. Mann, Robert, Willaim M. Bass, and Lee Meadows. Time Since Death and Decomposition of the Human Body: Variables and Observations in Case and Experimental Field Studies. Journal of Forensic Science 35, no.1 (1990): 103–111. Mant, A. Keith (ed.). Taylor’s principles and practice of medical jurisprudence. Edinburgh and New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1984. Mant, A. Keith. Knowledge acquired from post-war exhumations. In Death, Decay and Reconstruction: Approaches to Archaeology and Forensic Science, edited by Andy Boddington, Andrew N. Garland, and Robert C. Janaway, 65–78. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1987. Marlar, Richard. A., Banks L. Leonard, Brian R. Billman, and Patricia M. Lambert. Biochemical evidence of cannibalism at a prehistoric Puebloan site in southwestern Colorado. Nature 407 (2000): 74–78. Marshall, Larry G. Bone modification and the ‘laws of burial’. In Bone Modification, edited by Robson Bonnichsen and Marella H. Sorg, 7–24. Orono, Maine: Center for the study of the First Americans, 1989. Mays, Simon. Human Bones. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. Mays, Simon, Megan Brickley, and Natasha Dowel. Human Bones from archaeological sites. Centre for Archaeology guidelines. English Heritage, 2004. Mays, Simon. A Palaeopathological Study of Colles’ Fracture. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 16 (2006): 415–428. McCormick, F. Mammal bone. In Excavations at Pierowall Quarry, Westray, Orkney. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 114 (1984): fiche 2: D10. McCormick, Finbar and Alison Sheridan. Flight of the eagles. British Archaeology 86 (2006): 6. 306

Bibliography McKinley, Jacqueline I. Bone fragment size and weights of bone from modern British cremations and the implications for the interpretation of archaeological cremations. International Journalof Osteoarchaeology 3 (1993): 283–287. McKinley, Jaqueline I. Bone fragment size in British cremation burials and its implications fro pyre technology and ritual. Journal of Archaeological Science 21 (1994): 339–342. McKinley, Jaqueline I. Bronze Age ‘Barrows’ and Funerary Rites and Rituals of Cremation. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 63 (1997): 129–146. McKinley, Jaqueline I. The Analysis of Cremated Bone. In Human Osteology in Archaeology and Forensic Science, edited by Margaret Cox and Simon Mays, 403–421. London: Greenwich Medical Media Ltd, 2000. McKinley, Jaqueline I. Compiling a skeletal inventory: disarticulated and co-mingled remains. In Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains, edited by Megan Brickley and Jaqueline I. McKinley, 14–17. IFA paper 7, 2004. McKinley, Jaqueline I. Human Remains. In Hambledon Hill, Dorset, England: Excavations and Survey of a Neolithic Monument Complex and its Surrounding Landscape, edited by Roger Mercer and Frances Healey. London: English Heritage Archaeological Report, 2008. McNeill, J. R. Human Spear Points and Speared Humans: The Procurement, Manufacture, and Use of Bone Implements in Prehistoric Guam. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 22 (2002): 175–180. McQuillan, Liam and Paul Logue. Funerary Querns: Rethinking the Role of the Basin in Irish Passage Tombs. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 67 (2008): 14–21. Meadows, John, Alistair Barclay, and Alex Bayliss. A Short Passage of Time: the Dating of the Hazleton Long Cairn Revisited. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17 (2007): 45–64. Meindel, Richard S. and Claude O. Lovejoy. Age changes in the pelvis: implications for paleodemography. In Age Markers in the Human Skeleton, edited by Mehmet Yasar Iscan 137–168. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1989. Merbs, Charles F. Trauma. In Reconstruction of life from the skeleton, edited by Mehmet Y. Iscan and Kenneth A.R. Kennedy, 161–190. New York: Alan R Liss Inc, 1989. Metcalf, Peter and Richard Huntington. Celebrations of Death. The Anthropology of Mortuary Ritual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Meyers, Eric M. Secondary burials in Palestine. The Biblical Archaeologist 33 (1970): 1–29. Miles, Douglas. Socio-economic Aspects of Secondary Burial. Oceania 35 (1965): 161–174. Miller, Ronald. Orkney. London: BT Batsford, 1976. Moore, Hazel and Graeme Wilson. Landscape and Settlement at Links of Noltland, Westray, Orkney: Recent Work Reviewed. In Shifting sands: Links of Noltland, Westray: Interim report on Neolithic and Bronze Age excavations, 2007–09, by Hazel Moore and Graeme Wilson. Archaeology Report no. 4. Edinburgh: RCAHMS Shelft Number: E.7.11.LIN, 2009. Moore, Hazel and Graeme Wilson. The Big Dig: Links of Noltland. British Archaeology 113 (2010). Morlan, Richard E. Taphonomy and archaeology in the Upper Pleistocene of the northern Yukon Territory: a glimpse of the peopling of the New World. Musée National de L’Homme. Collection Mercure. Commission Archéologique du Canada. Publications d’Archéologie. Dossier Ottawa 94 (1980): 1–380. Morlan, Richard E. Toward the definition of criteria for the recognition of artificial bone alterations. Quarternary Research 22 (1984): 160–171.

307

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Morris, Ian. The archaeology of ancestors: the Saxe/Goldstein hypothesis revisited. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1, no. 2 (1991): 147–169. Morton, Robert J. and Wayne D. Lord. Detection and recovery of abducted and murdered children: Behavioural and taphonomic influences. In Advances in Forensic Taphonomy. Method, Theory, and Archaeological Perspectives, edited by William D. Haglund and Marcella H. Sorg, 151–172. CRC Press, 2002. Murmann, Denise C., Paula C. Brumit, Bruce A. Schrader, and David R. Senn. A Comparison of Animal Jaws and Bite Mark Patterns. Journal of Forensic Science 51 (2006): 846–860. Murphy, Eileen M. Processing of the dead in prehistoric Ireland. Archaeology Ireland 17 (2003a): 13–15. Murphy, Eileen M. Trepanations and perforated crania from Iron Age South Siberia. In Trepanation. History, Discovery, Theory, edited by Robert Arnott, Stanley Finger, and Chris Smith, 209–221. Swets & Zeitlinger: Lisse, 2003b. Murphy, Eileen, M., Ilia Gokhman, Yuri Chistov, and Ludmila Barkova. Prehistoric Old World Scalping: New Cases from the Cemetery of Aymyrlyg, South Siberia. American Journal of Archaeology 106 (2002): 1–10. Murphy, Eileen M. and James P. Mallory. Herodotus and the cannibals. Antiquity 74 (2000): 388–394. Myers, Thomas P., Michael R. Voorhies, and R. George Corner. Spiral fractures and bone pseudotools at paleontological sites. American Antiquity 45 (1980): 483–489. Nelson, Andrew J. Wandering Bones: Archaeology, Forensic Science and Moche Burial Practices. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 8 no. 3 (1998): 192–212. Nerlich, A. G., O. Peschel, A. Zink, and F.W. Rösing. The Pathology of Trepanation: Differential Diagnosis, Healing and Dry Bone Appearance in Modern Cases. In Trepanation. History, Discovery, Theory, edited by Robert Arnott, Stanley Finger, and Chris Smith, 43–51. Swets & Zeitlinger: Lisse, 2003. Nielsen, Axel E. Trampling the Archaeological Record: An Experimental Study. American Antiquity 65 (1991): 483–503. Nilsson Stutz, Liv. More than a metaphor. Approaching the human cadaver in Archaeology. In The Materiality of Death, edited by Fredrik Fahlander and Terje Oestigaard, 19–28. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 2008. Nilsson Stutz, Liv. The way we bury our dead. Reflections on mortuary ritual, community and identity at the time of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition. Documenta Prehistorica XXXVII (2010): 33–42. Noble, Gordon. Neolithic Scotland. Timber, Stone, Earth and Fire. Edinburgh University Press, 2006(a). Noble, Gordon. Harnessing the waves: Monuments and ceremonial complexes in Orkney and beyond. Journal of Maritime Archaeology 1 (2006(b)): 100–117. Novak, Shannon. A., and Dana D. Kollmann. Perimortem Processing of Human Remains among the Great Basin Fremont. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 10 (2000): 65–75. Ogden, Alan R., Ron Pinhasi, and W.J. White. Gross Enamel Hypoplasia in Molars from Subadults in a 16th–18th Century London Graveyard. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 133 (2007): 957–966. Oliver, Douglas L. Ancient Tahitian Society, Vol. 1, Ethnography. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1974. Olsen, Sandra L. and Pat Shipman. Surface modification on bone: Trampling versus butchery. Journal of Archaeological Science 15, no. 5 (1988): 535–553. Olson, Alan P. A mass secondary burial from Northern Arizona. American Antiquity 31 (1966): 822–826. Ooms, Herman. A structural analysis of Japanese ancestral rites and beliefs. In Ancestors, edited by W.H. Newell, 61–90. Mouton & Co, 1976.

308

Bibliography Orschiedt, Joerg and Miriam N. Haidle. The LBK Enclosure at Herxheim: Theatre of War or Ritual Centre? References from Osteological Investigations. Journal of Conflict Archaeology 2 (2006): 153–167. Ortner, D. J. Trauma. In Identification of Pathological Conditions in Human Skeletal Remains, edited by Donald J. Ortner, 119–227. London: Academic Press, 2003. O’Shea, John. M. Mortuary Variability: An Archaeological Investigation. London: Academic Press, 1984. Otárola-Castillo, Erik. Differences between NISP and MNE in cutmark analysis of highly fragmented faunal assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 37, no. 1 (2010): 1–12. Outram, Alan. K. A New Approach to Identifying Bone Marrow and Grease Exploitation: Why the ‘‘Indeterminate’’ Fragments should not be Ignored. Journal of Archaeological Science 28, no. 4 (2001): 401–410. Owsley, Doulgas W., Karin S. Bruwelheide, Lauris Burgess, and William T. Billeck, W. T. Human Finger and Hand Bone Necklaces from the Plains and Great Basin. In The Taking and Displaying of Human Body Parts as Trophies by Amerindians, edited by Richard J. Chacon and David H. Dye New York: Springer, 2007. Pannett, A. & Cummings, V. Island Views: the Settings of the Chambered Cairns of Southern Orkney. In Set in Stone. New Approaches to Neolithic Monuments in Scotland edited by Vicki Cummings and Ameia Pannett, 14–24. Oxford: Oxbow 2005. Parker Pearson, Mike. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 1999. Parker Pearson, Mike, Andrew Chamberlain, Mandy Jay, Peter Marshal, Josh Pollard, J, Colin Richards, Julian Thomas, Chris Tilley, and Kate Welham. Who was buried at Stonehenge? Antiquity, 83 (2009): 23–39. Parker Pearson, M. and Ramilisonina. Stonehenge for the ancestors: the stones pass on the message. Antiquity 72 1998): 308–326. Parry, Wilson T. The Ovingdean Prehistoric Skull Exhibiting Double Primitive Surgical Holing. Man 35 (1935): 56–57. Phenice, Terrell. A newly developed visula method of sexing in the os pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 30 (1969): 297–301. Piggott, Stuart. Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954. Pinheiro, João. Decay Process of a Cadaver. In Forensic Anthropology and Medicine. Complementary Sciences From Recovery to Cause of Death edited by Aurore Schmitt, Eugénia Cunha, and João Pinheiro, 85–116. Humana Press, 2006. Pollard, Joshua. The aesthetics of depositional practice. World Archaeology 33 (2001): 315–333. Pollard, Tony and Alex Morrison (eds.). The Early Prehistory of Scotland. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1996. RCAMS Twelfth Report, with an Inventory of the Ancient Monuments of Orkney and Shetland. Edinburgh: The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, 1946. Redfern, Rebecca. New evidence for Iron Age secondary burial practice and bone modification from Gussage All Saints and Maiden Castle (Dorset, England). Oxford Journal of Archaeology 27 (2008): 281–301. Reilly, Stuart. Processing the Dead in Neolithic Orkney. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 22 (2003): 133–154. Renfrew, Colin. Investigations in Orkney. London: The Society of Antiquaries of London, 1979. Renfrew, Colin. The Archaeology of Ritual, of Cult, and of Religion. In The Archaeology of Ritual, edited by Evangelos Kyriakidis, 109–122. Los Angeles: Costen Institute of Archaeology Press, 2007. Renfrew, Colin, Douglas Harkness. and Roy Switsur. Quanterness, radiocarbon and the Orkney cairns. Antiquity 50 (1976): 194–204. 309

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Richards, Colin. Altered Images: A Re-examination of Neolithic Mortuary Practices in Orkney. In The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: recent trends edited by John C. Barrett and Ian A. Kinnes, 55. University of Sheffield, 1988. Richards, Colin. The Late Neolithic house in Orkney. In The Social Archaeology of Houses, edited by Ross Samson, 111–24. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990. Richards, Colin. Skara Brae: Revisiting a Neolithic village. In Scottish Archaeology: New Perceptions, edited by William S. Hanson and Elizabeth A. Slater, 24–43. Aberdeen University Press, 1991. Richards, Colin. Doorways into another world: the Orkney-Cromarty chambered tombs. In Vessels for the Ancestors, edited by Niall M. Sharples and Alison Sheridan 62–76. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1992. Richards, Colin. Monuments as landscape: Creating the centre of the world in Late Neolithic Orkney. World Archaeology 28 (1996a): 190–208. Richards, Colin. Henges and water: towards an elemental understanding of monumentality and landscape in Late Neolithic Britain. Journal of Material Culture 1 (1996b): 313–336. Richards, Colin. (ed.). Dwelling Among the Monuments. The Neolithic village of Barnhouse, Maeshowe passage grave and surrounding monuments at Stenness, Orkney. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2005. Richards, Colin. and Richard Jones. Stonehall Farm (Firth Parish): early and late Neolithic settlements. Discovery and Excavation Scotland (1994): 91. Richards, Colin and Richard Jones. Stonehall (Firth Parish), Early and Late Neolithic settlement. Discovery and Excavation Scotland (1995): 103. Richter, Tobias, Jay T. Stock, Lisa Maher, and Caroline Hebron. An early eipipalaeolithic sitting burial from the Azraq Oasis, Jordan. Antiquity 84 (2010): 321–334. Rithchie, Anna. Excavation of a Neolithic Farmstead at Knap of Howar, Papa Westray, Orkney. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 113 (1983): 40–121. Ritchie, Anna. The First Settlers. In The Prehistory of Orkney, edited by Colin Renfrew, 36–53. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990. Ritchie, Anna. Prehistoric Orkney, London: Batsford Ltd, 1995. Ritchie, Anna. Orkney (Exploring Scotland’s Heritage). Seven Hills Books, 1996. Ritchie, A. (ed.). Neolithic Orkney in its European Context, Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2000. Ritchie, Anna. The Use of Human and Faunal Material in Chambered Cairns in Orkney. In From Sickles to Circles: Britain and Ireland in the Time of Stonehenge, edited by Alex J.S. Gibson and Alison Sheridan, 92–105. Tempus, 2004. Ritchie, Anna (ed.). On the Fringe of Neolithic Europe: Excavation of a Chambered Cairn on the Holm of Papa Westray, Orkney, Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 2009. Ritchie, J.N. Graham. Destructions, Re-erections and Re-creations. In From Sickles to Circles: Britain and Ireland in the Time of Stonehenge, edited by Alex J.S. Gibson and Alison Sheridan, 40–63. Tempus, 2004. Ritchie, J.N.Graham. The Stones of Sternness, Orkney. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 107 (1976): 1–60. Roberts, Charlotte A. and Margaret Cox. Health and Disease in Britain. From Prehistory to the Present Day, Stroud: Sutton Publishing Limited, 2003. 310

Bibliography Roberts, Charlotte. A. and Keith Manchester. The Archaeology of Disease. New York: Cornell University Press 2007. Roberts, Charlotte A. and Jaqueline I. McKinley. Review of Trepanations in British Antiquity Focusing on Funerary Context to Explain their Occurrence. In Trepanation. History, Discovery, Theory, edited by Robert Arnott, Stanley Finger, and Chris Smith, 55–78. Swets & Zeitlinger: Lisse, 2003. Rodríguez-Martín, Conrado. Identification and Differential Diagnosis of Traumatic Lesions of the Skeleton. In Forensic Anthropology and Medicine. Complementary Sciences From Recovery to Cause of Death, edited by Aurore Schmitt, Eugénia Cunha, and João Pinheiro, 197–221. Humana Press, 2006. Rogers, Juliet, Iain Watt, and Paul Dieppe. Palaeopathology of spinal osteophytosis, vertebral ankylosis, ankylosing spondylitis and vertebral hyperostosis. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 44 (1985): 113–120. Roksandic, Mirjana. Position of Skeletal Remains as a Key to Understanding Mortuary Behaviour. In Advances in Forensic Taphonomy. Method, Theory, and Archaeological Perspectives, edited by William D. Haglund and Marcella H. Sorg, 99–117. CRC Press, 2002. Rose, F. Clifford. An Overview from Neolithic Times to Broca. In Trepanation. History, Discovery, Theory, edited by Robert Arnott, Stanley Finger, and Chris Smith, 347–370. Swets & Zeitlinger: Lisse, 2003. Routledge, Katherine. The Mystery of Easter Island. London: Sifton Praed, 1919. Ruffell, Alastair and Eileen M. Murphy. An apparently jawless cadaver: A case of post-mortem slippage. Science and Justice 51 (2011): 150–153. Russell, Mary D. Bone Breakage in the Krapina Hominid Collection. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 72 (1987): 373–379. Sauer, Norman. J. The Timing of Injuries and Manner of Death: Distinguishing Among Antemortem, Perimortem and Postmortem Trauma. In Forensic Osteology: Advances in the Identification of Human Remains, edited by Kathleen J. Reichs, 321–332. Illinois: Charles C Thomas, 1998. Saul, Julie M. and Saul, Frank P. Forensics, archaeology, and taphonomy: the symbiotic relationship. In Advances in Forensic Taphonomy. Method, Theory, and Archaeological Perspectives, edited by William D. Haglund and Marcella H. Sorg, 71–98. CRC Press, 2002. Saunders, Shelley R. Nonmetric skeletal variation. In Reconstruction of life from the skeleton, edited by Mehmet Y. Iscan and Kenneth A.R. Kennedy, 95–108 . New York: Alan R Liss Inc, 1989. Saville, Alan. Hazleton North: The Excavation of a Neolithic Long Cairn of the Cotswold-Severn Group. London: English Heritage 1990. Saville, Alan. Lacaille, microliths and the Mesolithic of Orkney. In The Early Prehistory of Scotland, edited by Tony Pollard and Alex Morrison, 213–224. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1996. Saville, Alan. Orkney and Scotland Before the Neolithic Period. In Neolithic Orkney in its European Context, edited by Anna Ritchie 91–100. Cambridge: McDonald Institute of Archaeology, 2000. Saxe, Arthur A. Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices. PhD diss, University of Michigan, 1970. Schaefer, Maureen, Sue M. Black, Louise Scheuer. Juvenile Osteology. A laboratory and field manual. London: Academic Press 2009. Schiffer, Michael B. Behavioural Archaeology. Academic Press, 1976. Schroeder, Sissel. Secondary Disposal of the Dead: Cross-Cultural Codes. World Cultures 12 (2001): 77–93. Schulting, Rick J. and Michael P. Richards. The Wet, the Wild and the Domesticated: the Mesolithic Neolithic Transition On the West Coast of Scotland. European Journal of Archaeology 5 (2002): 147–189.

311

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Schulting, Rick J., Eileen Murphy, Carleton Jones, and Graeme Warren. New dates from the north and a proposed chronology for Irish court tombs. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Section C: Archaeology, Celtic Studies, History, Linguistics, Literature (2012): 1-60. Schulting, Rick. J., Alison Sheridan, Rebecca Crozier and Eileen M. Murphy. Revisiting Quanterness: New AMS Dates and Stable Isotope Data from an Orcadian Chamber Tomb. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 140 (2010): 1–50. Schulting, Rick. J. and Michael Wysocki, M. ‘In this chambered tumulus were found cleft skulls...’: an assessment of the evidence for cranial trauma in the British Neolithic. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71 (2005): 107–138. Schwartz, Jeffrey H. Skeleton Keys. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Scott, J. G. Mortuary Structures and Megaliths. In Vessels for the Ancestors, edited by Niall M. Sharples and Alison Sheridan 104–119. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1992. Shanks, Michael and Christopher Tilley, C. Ideology, symbolic power and ritual communication: a reinterpretation of Neolithic mortuary practices. In Symbolic and structural archaeology edited by Ian Hodder, 129–154. Cambridge University Press, 1982. Shapland, Fiona and Ian Armit. The Useful Dead: Bodies as Objects in Iron Age and Norse Atlantic Scotland. European Journal of Archaeology 15 (2012): 98–116. Sharp, David. Infrared reveals the “iceman’s” adipocere. The Lancet 350 (1997): 191. Sharples, Niall M. Excavations at Pierowall Quarry, Westray, Orkney. Proceedings of the Society of the Antiquaries of Scotland 114 (1984): 75–125. Sharples, Niall M. Individual and Community: The Changing Role of Megaliths in the Orcadian Neolithic. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 51 (1985): 59–74. Sharples, Niall M. and Alison Sheridan (eds.). Vessels for the Ancestors: Edinburgh University Press, 1992. Sheridan, Alison. Cuween, Cuween-Wideford project. Discovery and Excavation Scotland, 177 (2005). Sheridan, Alison and Tom Higham. The re-dating of some Scottish specimens by the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU). Discovery and Excavation Scotland 7 (2006): 202–209. Sheridan, Alison and Tom Higham. The re-dating of some Scottish specimens by the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU): results received during 2007. Discovery and Excavation Scotland 8 (2007): 225. Sherratt, Andrew. The Genesis of Megaliths: monumentality ethnicity and social complexity in Neolithic North - West Europe. World Archaeology 22 (1990): 147–167. Shipman, Pat. Applications of Scanning Electron Microscopy to Taphonomic Problems. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 276 (1981): 357–385. Shipman, Pat, Giraud Foster, and Margaret Schoeninger. Burnt bones and teeth: an experimental study of color, morphology, crystal structure and shrinkage. Journal of Archaeological Science 11 (1984): 307–325. Simon, James J. K. Mortuary Practices of the Late Kachemak Tradition in Southcentral Alaska: A perspective from the Crag Point Site, Kodiak Island. Arctic Anthropology 29 (1992): 130–149. Smith, B. Isbister, an Orkney Islands Council Guardianship Monument. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 119 (1989): 55–58. Smith, Martin. ‘Picking Up The Pieces’ An Investigation of Cotswold-Severn Funerary Practices Via Re-Analysis of Human Skeletal Material from Selected Monuments. PhD diss., The University of Birmingham, 2005.

312

Bibliography Smith, Martin. Bones chewed by canids as evidence for human excarnation: a British case study. Antiquity 80 (2006): 671–685. Smith, Martin and Megan Brickley. Analysis and interpretation of flint toolmarks found on bones from West Tump long barrow, Gloucestershire. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 14 (2004): 18–33. Smith, Martin and Megan Brickley. People of the Long Barrows. Life, Death and Burial in the Earlier Neolithic. Stroud: The History Press, 2009. Smith, M. O. Adding Insult to Injury: Opportunistic Treponemal Disease in a Scalping Survivor. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 18 (2008): 589–599. Sofaer, Joanna R. The body as material culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Sorg, Marcella H. and William D. Haglund. Advancing Forensic Taphonomy: Purpose, Theory and Process. In Advances in Forensic Taphonomy. Method, Theory, and Archaeological Perspectives, edited by William D. Haglund and Marcella H. Sorg, 4–29. CRC Press, 2002. Stahl, Peter W. and James A. Zeidler. Differential bone-refuse accummulation in food-preparation and traffic areas on an early Ecuadorian house floor. Society for American Archaeology 1 (1990): 150–169. Stirland, Ann J. Musculoskeletal Evidence for Activity: Problems of Evaluation. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 8 (1998): 354–362. Strathern, Marilyn. The Gender of the Gift: Problems with Women and Problems with Society in Melanesia, Berkley: University of California Press, 1988. Sturt, Fraser. Fishing for Meaning: Lived Space and the Early Neolithic of Orkney. In Set in stone: new approaches to the Neolithic monuments in Scotland, edited by Vicki Cummings and Amelia Pannett 68–80. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2005. Symes, Steven A., Christopher W. Rainwater, Erin N. Chapman, Desina R. Gipson and Andrea L. Piper. Patterned thermal destruction of human remains in a forensic setting. In The Analysis of Burned Human Remains, edited by Christopher W. Schmidt and Steven A. Symes, 15¬–54 London: Academic Press, 2008. Ta’ala, Sabrina C., Gregory E. Berg, and Kathryn Haden. Blunt force cranial trauma in the Cambodian killing fields. Journal of Forensic Science 51 (2006): 996–1001. Tanizaki, Jun’ichirō. In Praise of Shadows, London: Vintage 2001. Taylor, Timothy The Buried Soul. How Humans Invented Death. London: Fourth Estate, 2003. Thomas, F.W.L. Account of some of the Celtic antiquities of Orkney. Archaeologia 34 (1852): 88–136. Thomas, Julian. The Social Significance of Cotswold-Severn Burial Practices. Man (N.S.) 23 (1988): 540–559. Thomas, Julian. Death, Identity and the Body in Neolithic Britain. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 6 (2000): 653–668. Thomas, Julian. Ambiguous symbols: why there were no figurines in Neolithic Britain. Documenta Praehistorica, XXXII (2005): 167–175. Thomas, Julian and Alasdair Whittle. Anatomy of a Tomb - West Kennet Revisited. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 5 (1986): 129–156. Thompson, Tim. Burned Human Remains. In Handbook of Forensic Anthropology and Archaeology, edited by Soren Blau and Douglas H. Ubelaker (chpt 24). Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast Press, 2009. Thurnam, J. On ancient British barrows, especially those of Wiltshire and the adjoining counties. Archaeologia 42 (1869): 161–244. 313

Re-analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Chamber Tomb of Quanterness, Orkney Tiesler, Vera and Andrea Cucina. Procedures in Human Heart Extraction and Ritual Meaning: A Taphonomic Assessment of Anthropogenic Marks in Classic Maya Skeletons. Latin American Antiquity 17 (2006): 493–510. Tsintjilonis, Dimitri. A head for the dead: sacred violence in Tana Toraja. Archipel 59 (2000): 27–50. Tsu, Timothy Y. Toothless Ancestors, Felicitous Descendants: The Rite of Secondary Burial in South Taiwan. Asian Folklore Studies 59 (2000): 1–22. Turner, Christy G. I. and Jacqueline A. Cannibalism in the Prehistoric American Southwest: Occurrence, Taphonomy, Explanation, and Suggestions for Standardized World Definition. Anthopological Science 103 (1995): 1–22. Turner, Christy G. I. & Turner, Jaqueline A. Man Corn: Cannibalism and Violence in the American Southwest. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1999. Ubelaker, Douglas H. The forensic evaluation of burned skeletal remains: A synthesis. Forensic Science International 183 (2009): 1–5. Ubelaker, Douglas H. and P. Willey. Complexity in Arikara mortuary practice. The Plains Anthropologist 23 (1978): 69–74. Ubelaker, D. H. & Adams, B. J. 1995. Differentiation of Perimortem and Postmortem Trauma Using Taphonomic Indicators. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 40, 509–512. Ucko, Peter. Ethnography and Archaeological Interpretation of Funerary Remains. World Archaeology 1 (1969): 262–80. Vass, Arpad A. Beyond the grave - understanding human decomposition. Microbiology Today 28 (2001): 190–192. Vass, Arpad A., Stacy-Ann Barshick, Gary Sega, John Caton, James T. Skeen, Jennifer C. Love, and Jennifer A. Synstelien. Decomposition Chemistry of Human Remains: A New Methodology for Determining the Postmortem Interval. Journal of Forensic Science 47 (2002): 542–553. Villa, Paola. Cannibalism in Prehistoric Europe. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 1, no. 3 (1992): 93–104. Villa, Paola and Eric Mahieu. Breakage patterns of human long bones. Journal of Human Evolution 21 (1991): 27–48. Waldron, Tony. The relative survival of the human skeleton: implications for palaeopathology. In Death, Decay and Reconstruction: Approaches to Archaeology and Forensic Science, edited by Andy Boddington, Andrew N. Garland, and Robert C. Janaway, 55–64. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1987. Waldron, Tony. Palaeopathology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Wanton, J.R. The Indians of the Southwestern United States. Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnography Bulletin 137, 1946. Warren, Graeme. Mesolithic Myths. Proceedings of the British Academy 144 (2007): 311–328. Wells, L. H. Note on the human skeletal fragments from the Quoyness cairn, in Re-excavation of the Chambered Cairn of Quoyness, Sanday, on Behalf of the Ministry of Works in 1951–2 (Childe, G.V.). Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 86 (1952), 137–138. Wentz, R. K. and N.T. De Grummond, N. T. Life on Horseback: Palaeopathology of Two Scythian Skeletons from Alexandropol, Ukraine. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 19 (2009): 107–115. White, Tim D. Prehistoric Cannibalism at Mancos 5MTUMR-2346, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1992. Whitley, James. Too many ancestors. Antiquity 76 (2002): 119–126. Whittle, Alasdair and Michael Wysocki. Parc le Breos Cwm transepted long cairn, Gower, West Glamorgan: date, contents and context. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 64 (1998): 139–82. 314

Bibliography Whittle, Alasdair, Alex Bayliss and Michael Wysocki. Once in a Lifetime: the Date of the Wayland’s Smithy Long Barrow. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17 (2007): 103–21. Wickham-Jones, Caroline R. Flaked stone. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 114 (1984): fiche 1: E8. Williams, Michelle. Down among the dead men. A year in the life of a mortuary technician, London: Constable & Robinson Ltd, 2010. Wilson, C. E. Burials within settlements in Southern Britain during the pre-Roman Iron Age. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 18 (1981): 127–170. Woodham, A. A. and M.F. Woodham. The Excavation of a Chambered Cairn at Kilcoy, Ross-Shire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 90 (1957): 102–115. Woodman, P. E. Beyond Significant Patterning, Towards Past Intentions: the Location of Orcadian Chambered Tombs. In UK Chapter of Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, edited by Caitlin Buck, Vicki Cummings, Cole Henley and Steve Mills, 91–105. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 2000. Wysocki, Michael, Alex Bayliss, and Alasdair Whittle. Serious Mortality: the Date of the Fussell’s Lodge Long Barrow. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17 (2007): 65–84. Wysocki, Michael and Alasdair Whittle. Diversity, lifestyles and rites: new biological and archaeological evidence from British Earlier Neolithic mortuary assemblages. Antiquity 74 (2000): 591–601. Yarrington, Clare H. Pottery. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 114 (1984): fiche 1: D8.

315