Neolithic Europe Causewayed Enclosures PDF

The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe Chris Fowler (ed.) et al. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199545841.001.0001 Published online: 05 December 2014 Published in print: 01 March 2015 Online ISBN: 9...

The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe Chris Fowler (ed.) et al. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199545841.001.0001 Published online: 05 December 2014 Published in print: 01 March 2015 Online ISBN: 9780191750113 Print ISBN: 9780199545841 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/35019/chapter/298823896 by University of Glasgow user on 26 November 2024 Search in this book CHAPTER 42 Causewayed Enclosures in Northern and Western Europe  Niels H. Andersen https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199545841.013.042 Pages 795–812 Published: 01 April 2014 Abstract The causewayed enclosures of the second half of the fth millennium BC and the fourth millennium BC are characterized by a system of ditches, one or more palisades, and occasionally, banks. Their ditches and palisade trenches were frequently re-cut and produce materials which for the most part were specially selected, including human skeletons or body parts, animals, pottery, axes, other debris, and signs of res. These deposits had often been transformed by skeletonization, weathering, breakage and/or re. In some areas there was a clear association between activities at the causewayed enclosures and those at megalithic tombs. Keywords: Causewayed enclosures, ditches, palisade, re-cutting, transformation, megalithic Subject: Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology, Archaeology Series: Oxford Handbooks Collection: Oxford Handbooks Online  Introduction CAUSEWAYED enclosures, also referred to as causewayed camps, Erdanlagen, enceintes interrompues, and Sarupanlæg, are one of the most widely distributed types of Neolithic monument, dating from the second half of the fth millennium and the fourth millennium BC. They are characterized by a system of ditches or segmented ditches which, like oblong pearls on a string, enclose areas of up to several hectares. One or more palisade trenches, located concentric with or parallel to the ditches and banks (and also often segmented), are also occasionally found. Causewayed enclosures are typical of the Chasséen, Matignon, Peu-Richard, Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/35019/chapter/298823896 by University of Glasgow user on 26 November 2024 and Noyen cultures of northern France and adjacent countries (from the late fth millennium), the Michelsberg culture of western Germany and eastern France (late fth and beginning fourth millennium BC ), the Windmill Hill culture of southern England ( rst part of the fourth millennium BC ), the Wartberg culture of central eastern Germany (the middle of the fourth millennium BC ), and the Funnel Beaker culture of the north European plain (the second part of the fourth millennium BC ). The rst example of a causewayed enclosure in western and northern Europe was discovered in 1882, when Baron Eschasseriaux found the Peu-Richard enclosure in western France (Joussaume and Marsac 1977, 21). Two years later, the name-giving enclosure at the hill of Michelsberg near Bruchsal-Untergrombach in Germany was found, followed in 1908 by the rst site—Knap Hill—in England. Here Cunnington observed that causeways divided up the ditches into a series of segments. In the late 1920s the English amateur archaeologist Alexander Keiller undertook intensive excavations at Windmill Hill (Smith 1965; Whittle et al. p. 796 1999), identifying many of the key aspects of causewayed enclosures, and in 1971 the rst Scandinavian enclosure was found at Sarup in Denmark. About one thousand sites are now known—from southern Portugal to Sweden and from western Ireland to Poland (Fig. 42.1; cf. Andersen 1997; Darvill and Thomas 2001; Oswald et al. 2001; Jeunesse and Seidel 2010; Müller 2010; Márquez-Romero and Jiménez-Jáimez 2013)—many discovered by aerial reconnaissance (Braasch 2010). Neolithic enclosures with segmented ditches are also found elsewhere in Europe, for example on the Foggia plain in Italy (Skeates, this volume, ch. 41), and early examples are known from the Linearbandkeramik culture of the sixth millennium BC (Petrasch, this volume; see also Andersen 1997, 172–179). In coming years we can expect many new discoveries, their current distribution being largely accidental.  Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/35019/chapter/298823896 by University of Glasgow user on 26 November 2024 Fig. 42.1. Extent of late fi h millennium and fourth millennium BC enclosure distribution. The character of these sites has been debated for decades (Thomas 1991, 33), but the past 25 years have given us better excavation methods, coupled with several large-scale excavations, an improved p. 797 chronological framework, and, in some areas, intensive studies of contemporary settlements. Within the past decade many key sites have been published. This paper cannot possibly provide a synthesis of all this evidence, but it can o er a selection to demonstrate key characteristics. The most recent excavations and publications from north-west Europe will be relied upon. Enclosure Layout Their shape was governed by an aim to enclose, or ‘wrap’, a particular area. They can be entirely enclosed by earthworks or instead be formed with the aid of steep slopes, watercourses, and/or post-built fences. Through a combination of such elements, enclosures could assume the form of a circle, an oval, a spiral, a triangle, a large D-shape, or a keyhole (Fig. 42.2). They seem to have been laid out according to a de nite strategy, often resulting in a ground plan which, to our eyes, was not the most practical, such as on a promontory where the ditches do not run across the shortest distance between two slopes (e.g. the northern part of Sarup I in Denmark, Fig. 42.2j). Sites can be on or close to the highest point in the landscape, or conversely, so low they must have ooded for part of the year, as at Etton, England (Pryor 1998, 351). Many sites are located on slopes with a gradient of 5–10%. These are always completely enclosed by ditches and normally do not incorporate the highest point (Fig. 42.2d). An enclosure sited on sloping ground could be more visible, but Neolithic landscapes were often covered with trees. At some sites, for example Bury Hill in England (Bedwin et al. 1981, 76, 85), shade-seeking snails were found in the ditches, indicating surrounding dense forest. We cannot therefore be sure that enclosures could be seen from a great distance. Some sites incorporate or are located by watercourses, but others are located away from drinking water, for instance Robin Hood’s Ball, England, which was some 4km from the nearest source (Barker and Webley 1978, 172).  Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/35019/chapter/298823896 by University of Glasgow user on 26 November 2024 Fig. 42.2. Selected causewayed enclosures: A. Chez Reine, Matignon and Peu-Richardien culture, France (a er Burnez 1993, 74); B. La Coterelle, Matignon and Peu-Richardien culture, France (a er Cassen and Boujot 1990, 457); C. Noyen I and II, Noyen culture, France (a er Mordant and Mordant 1988, 236, fig. 13.3); D. Mayen, Michelsberg culture, Germany (a er Eckert 1990, abb. 3); E. Bruchsal-Aue, Michelsberg culture, Germany (a er Behrends 1994, abb. 15); F. Briar Hill, Windmill Hill culture, England (a er Bamford 1985, fig. 42.2); G. Haddenham, Windmill Hill culture, England (a er Evans and Hodder 2006, fig. 5.49A); H. Freston, Windmill Hill culture, England (a er Evans and Hodder 2006, fig. 5.49B); I. Orsett, Windmill Hill culture, England (a er Evans and Hodder 2006, fig. 5.49E); J. Sarup I, Funnel Beaker culture (TRB-North), Denmark (a er Andersen 1997, fig. 284f); K. Sarup II, Funnel Beaker culture (TRB-North), Denmark (a er Andersen 1997, fig. 284g); L. Büdelsdorf, Funnel Beaker culture (TRB- North), Germany (a er Andersen 1997, fig. 284g). In a number of areas enclosures are spaced regularly and some researchers have tried to create territories to demonstrate their function as higher order sites in a settlement hierarchy (Renfrew 1983, 132). Elsewhere, sites occur close together: La Chasse and Chez Reine in France lie only 0.8km apart; Sarup I and Sarup Gamle Skole XII are only 0.5 km from each other (Andersen 2008, g. 5); and at Niedersickte, a little south of Braunschweig in Germany, three sites are located only c. 70m apart (Geschwinde and Raetzel-Fabian 2009, abb. 84). Of course, we cannot be sure they were in use at the same time, but the people who used them must have known of each other’s existence. Burial mounds, such as longbarrows or megalithic graves, are often  located close by (Andersen 1997, 282; 2011). Normally, it seems as if enclosures were placed 5km from one another (Mordant 1992, 77; Boas 2001, 8). Whilst everywhere the intention was to enclose an area with system-ditches—a term which, unlike ‘segmented ditches’, stresses that the ditches are separate units within a system and not one long ditch broken by causeways—there were nonetheless regional di erences. In England, we often nd sites with p. 798 shorter ditches all the way round, often p. 799 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/35019/chapter/298823896 by University of Glasgow user on 26 November 2024 joined by even smaller ones, as at Windmill Hill (Whittle et al. 1999, g. 22). In western France we nd the same, but also with a ‘crab’s claw’ placed outside a break in the row of ditches (Fig. 42.2b) (Joussaume 1988, g. 16.10–16.12). In Germany many shorter ditches are often united into larger segments and placed in up to ve concentric rows (Günther 1991, 19). The form of the ditches can vary greatly. Normally they were originally about 1m deep, 2–4m wide, and 5– 7m long, but some are only 0.16m deep, whilst others reach more than 2m in depth. Through re-cutting, ditches can be united into longer sections (Andersen 1997, g. 46; Mercer and Healy 2008, 54); a ditch produced in this way will often have an irregular outline and careful excavation can distinguish its individual phases (Fig. 42.3) (Andersen 1997, 46, g. 46; Evans and Hodder 2006, g. 5.40). As a rule, the base of the ditch is horizontal, at, and about 1m wide. However, those of the Kleiner Heldenberg enclosure in Germany have a at but sloping base (Heege et al. 1990, abb. 3), and at Hambledon Hill, in England, the Main Enclosure has the same (Mercer and Healy 2008, g. 3.25). At several sites the ditches have pits, specially dug shafts, or platforms along their bottoms which may be associated with special nds like chisels, axes, deliberately fragmented pottery, animal bones, and inhumations (Andersen 1997, 284; see below). Platforms were found at Sarup I (Andersen 1997, 44, g. 44), and at Haddenham and Briar Hill in England, where an axe fragment and cremated human bone respectively were placed on top (Bamford 1980, 363; Evans and Hodder 2006, 253–255). Fig. 42.3. Re-cutting of ditch A610, Sarup II, Denmark. All the re-cuts were within a fenced enclosure of large posts. Often, artefacts left on the base of ditches were covered rapidly, but in some cases ditches remained open for a while, providing an opportunity for woodland snails to accumulate or for small bushes to grow, as at Etton (Pryor 1998, 127). Stone-set hearths and replaces, along with associated activities, were often located here. Human skulls have been found among their stone spreads, as at Gravon in northern France (Tarrête 1983, 224), and at Motagan I, also in France, human bones were covered by a slab (Boujot et al. 1985, 7). Elsewhere, there are large stones, and at Sarup Gamle Skole XII a very small dolmen typical of the Funnel Beaker culture was found, with an inner chamber measuring 1.1m by 0.7m. About a third of a funnel beaker  had been deliberately broken into 148 pieces, each about 2cm by 3cm, and placed in front of the dolmen (Andersen 2000, 27, 54). p. 800 It is uncertain for how long ditches remained open and accessible. In some the lowest 10 to 20cm could be lled with a layer of ne-grained silt blown or washed in from the side walls. It could accumulate in just a few days (Andersen 1997, g. 49), and during excavations at Sarup, strong wind or heavy rain produced such a layer in only a few hours. Heavy rain at the German site of Klingenberg gave the same results (Seidel 2008, abb. 176). Of the 80 or so ditch segments at Sarup only one pro le has these rapidly formed layers, all the others being without silt! These ditches must either have been rapidly back lled after their original Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/35019/chapter/298823896 by University of Glasgow user on 26 November 2024 cutting or the silt was removed before re lling. The same can be said of many other sites, like Diesknöll in northern Germany (Müller 2010, 256) or the enclosures of the German Braunschweiger region (Geschwinde and Raetzel-Fabian 2009, 245). Elsewhere, ditches seem to have been left open, as at Etton, where shrubs grew (Pryor 1998, 356). Above the bottom or primary ll of the ditches there are often layers from systematic back lling, as if the earth had been thrown in from both sides, a process whereby cultural remains could be incorporated into the ditch. Afterwards ditches were often re-cut. This was usually con ned to the original outline of the ditch, but as mentioned, it could join together pairs of ditches into one larger feature (Whittle et al. 1999, g. 33). Traces of re-cutting have been observed at nearly all sites, and must be regarded as an important and recurrent activity. It often occurred three to four times in each ditch and at Etton up to eight re-cutting events were observed (Pryor 1998, 352). Some re-cutting took place hundreds of years after the original digging of the ditch, with activity con ned precisely to the outline of the former ditch (Andersen 1997, 326, n. 127; Raetzel-Fabian 2000, 66, Tafel 41 and 23; Wincentz 1994). Memory of the ditches and the activities within them was very long-lived! The detailed excavations and post-excavation analysis at Windmill Hill p. 801 revealed a style or grammar dictating how depositions took place within the lifetime of a single ditch (Whittle et al. 1999, 368). That ditches were a place for continued cutting and re lling could recall work in the elds where the ard is drawing the furrow, followed by deliberately placing the seed corn and covering it again (Geschwinde and Raetzel-Fabian 2009, 245). Banks have been identi ed at some sites. At Windmill Hill and Knap Hill, England, there are still slight rises on the inner side of the ditches (Oswald 2001, g. 5.29; Smith 1965, 5–7; Whittle et al. 1999, 73 ), and at the early Funnel Beaker site of Beusterburg in northern Germany, banks are located on both the outer and the inner side of the ditches (Tackenberg 1951). On the other hand, some sites, like Sarup I and II (Fig. 42.4), do not have enough room for large banks along the ditches due to the presence of fenced enclosures. At the English site of Crickley Hill the banks look more like platforms placed inside the ditches (Dixon 1988, g. 4.4). Calculations of spoil from ditches always indicate the availability of material for only a small bank or heaps of soil (Andersen 1997, 51; Mercer and Healy 2008, g. 11.1), and the desire to see enclosures as forti cations is not supported by the existence of substantial enough earthworks. Burials were found in one of the banks at Catenoy in France (Blanchet and Martinez 1988, 157).  Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/35019/chapter/298823896 by University of Glasgow user on 26 November 2024 Fig. 42.4. Fenced enclosures close to palisades: A. Sarup I, Funnel Beaker culture (TRB-North), Denmark (a er Andersen 1997, 35–37); B. Langelandsvej-Starup, Funnel Beaker culture (TRB-North), Denmark (a er Witte 2009); C. Urmitz, Michelsberg culture, Germany (a er Lehner 1910, abb. 6); D. Sarup II, Funnel Beaker culture (TRB-North), Denmark (a er Andersen 1997, 66–67); E. Calden Enclosures 5 and 2, Wartberg culture, Germany (a er Raetzel-Fabian 2000, abb. 12). Many sites have palisades, and sometimes this was the main structure that the other features referenced (Dubouloz et al. 1989, 22). In general, palisades vary greatly, consisting of either postholes about 1m apart (e.g. Catenoy, Blanchet et al. 1984, 182), posts placed in a trench around 1m wide and 1m deep (e.g. Sarup I), or closely-spaced rows of small posts (e.g. Sarup II, Andersen 1997, gs. 29 and 77). Some sites have cross- cutting palisades, others have parallel rows laid out in such a way that they must be contemporary, as at Bazoches in France (Dubouloz et al. 1997, g. 42.2) and the northern part of Sarup I (Andersen 1997, g. 36c). The deepest trenches were found at Catenoy, extending down to 2.2m (Blanchet et al. 1984, 182), but most are about 1m deep. At some sites, small hollows were made in their bases which could result from posts of di erent length being given a level upper edge. We must reckon on posts two or three times the depth of the trench, so between 2–6m high. To construct the palisade at Sarup I about 1,300 posts, each 5m long, were brought to the site, with a total weight of more than 400 tons. Few axes were found on site, suggesting the posts were manufactured elsewhere, and their absence would also account for the levelling of the palisade by digging deeper postholes. Here the palisade remained vertically intact for only a very short period and the remains of rotten posts and sloping postholes indicate they were not removed from the trenches (Andersen 1997, g. 24, 320, n. 9). Palisade trenches also contained interesting nds, such as pottery and human bone (see below). In fact, concentrations of nds could be much higher here than in the system-ditches. At Sarup I, only 20% of the palisade trench was excavated, producing a total of 2,261 nds. Of these, 85% were ceramics, representing 278 pots, with sherds from 14 pots in one cluster (Andersen 1997, g. 60). At Noyen I (Tarrête 1983, g. 21) and Sarup I (Andersen 1997, g. 266), objects had originally been placed against the palisade’s outer face, whilst the inner face was emphasized elsewhere, as at the Michelsberg site of Thieusies in Belgium, where 2 p. 802 6,400 pieces of int per m were found (Vermeersch and Walter, 1980, 10). Palisades were clearly an important element of these sites.  The causeways are the areas left un-dug across the system-ditches. Their width can vary from a few centimetres up to 20m. Sometimes they were removed by re-cutting. Pits and trenches were dug into some causeways, as at Noyen II, where a pit contained the remains of a child and associated objects (Mordant and Mordant 1978, 561–565). Irrespective of whether there were post-built gateways or not, the causeways p. 803 could have represented entrance corridors leading to the interior, especially at multi-circuit sites like Oberntudorf, Germany (Günther 1991, 19), where they were placed in front of each other. Fenced enclosures have been located at some of the sites of the Michelsberg, Wartberg, Windmill Hill, and Funnel Beaker cultures (Andersen 1997, 292–293). These were square, rectangular, rhomboid, or trapezoid Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/35019/chapter/298823896 by University of Glasgow user on 26 November 2024 and varied in size from 2.8m by 2.8m to 10m by 20m. Often they were constructed outside the palisade, or frequently on a causeway (Fig. 42.4), but at the Irish site of Magheraboy the fenced enclosure was inside the palisade (Danaher 2007, 104–107). Fenced enclosures could be constructed of separate posts (Fig. 42.4d) or posts placed in a trench. Where an entrance was found, the opening was towards the inside of the site (Fig. 42.4d and e). Trenches for fences were often shallower than those for the palisade. At Sarup I they are presumed to have had a height of 1.5m, about half that of the palisade (Andersen 1997, 292). At Sarup II (Fig. 42.4d) and Büdelsdorf (northern Germany) (Fig. 42.2l) ditches were located inside enclosures (Andersen 1997, gs 80 and 286). There is little information about the function of the enclosures, but the location of ditches within some of them must be an indication of a connection between these two types of features. The enclosed area is often between 1ha and 6ha, but can be up to 120ha, as at the Michelsberg site of Urmitz, Germany (Lehner 1910, 8–9). At most sites only a small part of the interior has been uncovered, although large parts have been investigated at some. They usually produce very few structures, mostly small pits which seldom contain datable nds. At sites like Chatenay, Gravon, Grisy, O ham Hill, and Briar Hill there were abundant nds in the ditches but nothing in the interior (Drewett 1977, 211; Bamford 1980, 363; Mordant and Mordant 1988, 244–246). When interior features do occur they often cluster, leaving most of the interiors completely empty: this was evident at Sarup I and II (Andersen 1997, gs 64 and 98), and at Etton where intense activity was found only across the eastern part of the site (Pryor 1998, g. 103). Buildings such as houses have not yet been found in the interior area. At the Chasséen South site of Saint- Michel du Touch near Toulouse, a ‘Grubenhaus’-like feature was uncovered, perhaps a structure used for special functions (Cap-Jédikian et al. 2008, 182–184). The nearby site of Villeneuve-Tolosane yielded structures containing burnt stones measuring up to 12m long and 2m wide (Vaquer 1986, 240), and just south of this site we have Cugnaux, where a series of pits near the ditches contained human burials (Gandelin and Vaquer 2008, 36; Gandelin 2011, 141–146). Pits and features in the interior seem to have contained special deposits of human bone and various objects. Some discoveries show a link between special nds in the interior pits and the system-ditches, for example at Windmill Hill or Hembury, England, where sherds from the same vessel occur both in a ditch and a pit (Smith 1971, 96). At Sarup II, sherds from the same ne decorated vessel were found in three ditches and four pits (Andersen 1999, g. 6.8). Areas outside enclosures have only rarely been uncovered. At Sarup II no features were found (Andersen p. 804 1997, g. 74), but at Klingenberg about 300 pits were found in an area of 3.5ha inside and outside the ditches (Seidel 2008, abb. 206). These pits contained special nds like aurochs horns, collections of animal bone, miniature axes, and female breasts of loam, along with three pits with human bone. Here the pits inside and outside the ditches appear to have had a common function. Enclosure Finds Artefacts and other materials recovered from causewayed enclosures must have been specially selected before deposition and a large number were exposed to special treatment.  Human remains Very little of the human bone recovered from enclosures has been thoroughly analysed, but fortunately, the recent publication of Hambledon Hill (McKinley 2008) and the three German sites at Heilbronn (Wahl 2008) o er systematic taphonomic analyses of these remains and provide a clearer picture of post-mortem treatment. It appears that what happened to the human bodies and bones before their deposition at these sites was typical of many other enclosures (e.g. Tempelhof 2 in Germany (Geschwinde and Raetzel-Fabian 2009, 295); Etton (Armour-Chelu 1998, 271–272), Windmill Hill (Smith 1965, 136–137; Brothwell 1999), Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/35019/chapter/298823896 by University of Glasgow user on 26 November 2024 and Haddenham (Dodwell 2006, 306) in England; and many of the French sites (Pariat 2007)). The analyses by McKinley (2008) and Wahl (2008) show that the human remains had been handled several times prior to deposition in the ditches. No complete human skeletons were found—unlike at the French sites of Villeneuve-Tolosane, Cugnaux (Vaquer et al. 2008) or Grisy, the latter producing two juvenile skeletons at the base of a ditch as if contained in a sack (Mordant 1989, g. 82). Rather, we nd either parts of a skeleton with two or more articulated bones or single bones disarticulated from the rest of the body, indicating that parts of a corpse were brought to the place of deposition, often with esh and/or sinew attached. Bone fragments from Hambledon with visible traces of gnawing by carnivores (dogs and/or foxes) and/or rodents (McKinley 2008, 494) show that fresh human remains were readily accessible by these animals (Wahl 2008, 789). Few carpal and/or tarsal bones, which would indicate the quick covering of the human remains, were found. The material from Heilbronn had carnivores’ teeth marks only on the left side of the carcasses/skeleton, interpreted as meaning the bodies were originally placed on their right side in a low hollow (Wahl 2008, 789). But many of the bones must have been ‘old’ when deposited in the ditches, on account of signs of weathering and root-etching (Healy 2008, 23). In other cases, dried bones were found, indicating a deposit p. 805 of collected bone material which for some years must have been contained elsewhere (Smith 1965, 137). It is of interest that some of the articulated skeletal parts had di erential weathering or root-etching across the bones (McKinley 2008, 492), and at Hambledon 7% of the bones have cut-marks, taken not so much as a sign of lleting or de eshing, more as a product of cleaning the bones (McKinley 2008, 498–499). Some of the dried bones had been burned by high temperatures, again demonstrating their deliberate preparation prior to deposition. Human skulls often receive special treatment, and seem to have been deposited as dry bones, already disarticulated. At Hambledon eight of the 15 skulls were placed on the ditch oors (McKinley 2008, 513); at the German sites some skulls have been interpreted as trophies, where they are thought to have been put on display on a pole (Wahl 2008, 780–784; 2010, 96–101). The Heilbronn sites also produced several skulls of children and young people (less than 20 years old) (Wahl 2008, 786). Some of them have signs of a heavy and deadly blow on their right side, perhaps indicating deliberate killing as a result of being hit from behind, maybe during an o ering that involved children (Wahl 2008, 762; Jeunesse 2010, 93). Human bone was clearly deposited in di erent ways. Fragments of the same bone could be placed in separate parts of a ditch or in di erent ditches (Wahl 2008, abb. 7–10). Skulls, for example, are found in many pieces distributed between several ditches (Lüning 1968, 236) or placed beside hearths and upon platforms in the ditches (Piggott 1954, 47; Evans and Hodder 2006, 253–255). At Windmill Hill we see the cranium of a child nested within an ox frontlet (Whittle et al. 1999, g. 82). From the same site a child’s femur was placed within the marrow cavity of an ox humerus (Whittle et al. 1999, g. 161). At Staines near London, parts of the same arm were found in two ditches 94.4m apart (Robertson-Mackay 1987, 36). Burnt human bone is also known, like that from Briar Hill on a platform within a ditch (Bamford 1980, 363; 1985, 32–33; Cullen 1985). Some skeletons were placed in special features. At the bottom of a Michelsberg culture enclosure at Bruchsal-Aue in Germany, a 1.5m-deep shaft had been cut leading down to a chamber in which an elderly man had been buried (Behrends 1991, 32–33). Further pits containing human remains were  located at the bottom of its ditches, including two complete child burials covered by the remains of an older woman and marked at the base of the ditch by a quantity of animal bones (Behrends 1991, abb. 29). Human bone occurs in other features both inside and outside enclosures. Burnt bone from excarnated bodies was found in two postholes and a pit within Sarup II; the remains from two of these were quite possibly from the same person, a young woman (Andersen 1997, 86). At other sites where large areas have been uncovered, pits with human bone have similarly been found, as at the Stepleton Enclosure, on Hambledon Hill, where three pits had human bone in their lls (Mercer and Healy 2008, 275), or at Klingenberg, where three pits contained the fragments of two newborn children and an older woman (Wahl Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/35019/chapter/298823896 by University of Glasgow user on 26 November 2024 2008, 719–722). At the Chasséen site of Jonquières in France, the skull and lower jaw of an 8-year-old boy were recovered 8m apart in a palisade trench (Poulain and Lange 1984, 265), and at Sarup I a burnt human nger-bone was found between crushed burnt bone, again in the palisade trench (Andersen 1997, 34). p. 806 These examples demonstrate how various parts of the enclosures—ditches, internal pits, and palisades— were host to a complicated pattern of activities involving human skeletons or human bones. Their treatment is paralleled by other materials. Animals Animal bones, particularly of cattle, are found in great numbers in the ditches and pits. They often appear to have been just as carefully treated as the human bones. Evidence from the latest excavation at Windmill Hill, and from the above-mentioned sites at Heilbronn, suggest we have to think of the animal bones as more than just ‘rubbish’ (Whittle et al. 1999, 361; Seidel 2008, 380). Detailed analyses from these sites demonstrate a high proportion of cattle bones which were often articulated and must have been deposited with the esh intact. They were not, therefore, always the remains of meals. Other animal bones were weathered and again have signs of root-etching, demonstrating, as with the human material, previous deposition some years before interment in the ditches (Whittle et al. 1999, g. 183; Stephan 2008, 173). The less formalized deposits contained bones of pig, sheep, and goat in greater numbers. As for humans, animal skulls were given special consideration, as at Whitesheet Hill in England, where an ox skull was deliberately covered with a small heap of stones (Smith 1965, 16), at Bjerggårde (Denmark), where three or four dog skulls were uncovered (Madsen 1988, 310), and at Hygind (Denmark), where up to three ox skulls lay in a heap (Andersen 1997, g. 287). At Bruchsal-Aue, Germany, a pair of aurochs horns marked a woman’s grave and horn cores had been placed at the ends of the system-ditches (Behrends 1991, abb. 26 and 30; 1994, abb. 15). A very special nd came from the Matignon site of Champ Durand in the Vendée, where a cow’s skull in a ditch showed evidence of trepanation (Joussaume 1988, 280). Material culture Whole pots, turned upside down, were placed at the bottom of the ditches, as at Noyen I (Tarrête 1979, 459, g. 21) and Etton (Pryor 1998, 33, g. 31). Perhaps these inverted bowls symbolized a skull (Pryor 1987, 79). At other sites, a lot of vessels could be placed at the bottom of the ditches—for example, at the Michelberg site of Bazoches (Dubouloz et al. 1997, 133)—but at many ceramics were often represented by part of a vessel, which furthermore had undergone a transformation through a process of intentional fragmentation, as with bone (Andersen 1997, gs 65–66; 2008, g. 10; Cassen and Scarre 1997, g. 56; Whittle et al. 1999, 358; Raetzel-Fabian 2000, 73). It seems often to be fragments of open bowls which are represented on the sites, but detailed comparisons need to be made with material from ‘normal’ settlements. Flint has been located in very variable quantities. Most of it has been found with deliberately deposited p. 807 refuse materials. At Sarup I, there was a higher ratio of tools to debitage when compared to settlement  sites (Andersen 1999, 279). Flint and stone axes were also found, but not in great quantities. Of special interest is the axe fragment from Haddenham, which was placed on a platform in a ditch together with fragments of human skull (Evans and Hodder 2006, 253–255), and the axe from Magheraboy which was surrounded by 30 fragments of quartz crystal (Danaher 2007, 113). Quernstones have been found at several sites, often as fragments (Andersen 1997, 340 n. 264; Whittle et al. 1999, 341). At the Matignon site of Mastine, Charente-Maritime, a quernstone weighing 20–30kg had been brought from a quarry a dozen kilometres away (Cassen and Scarre 1997, 180). At Etton, querns were only found in the eastern half of the site, including its interior pits (Pryor 1998, g. 114). Querns are primarily Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/35019/chapter/298823896 by University of Glasgow user on 26 November 2024 associated with processing grain and perhaps burned bones, which were found as a ground bone meal by the palisade at Sarup I and in the ditches at Briar Hill (Andersen 1997, 34; Cullen 1985). Two large handfuls of carbonized emmer wheat were found in two jars placed within 5m of each other within Sarup I. The fact that the emmer is not mixed with other species contrasts with nearby settlements and with evidence from pollen analysis which reveals an abundance of barley from the area (Andersen 1997, 62). The wheat seems to have come from two di erent elds and to have been specially selected for this structured deposit (Westphal, unpublished). At Windmill Hill, and other southern English sites, a variety of carved chalk objects were found representing phalli and gurines (Smith 1965, g. 57), and at Klingenberg female breasts made of loam were uncovered in some of the pits (Seidel 2008, 301–308). These nds hint at the possible importance of fertility symbolism at some sites (Whittle et al. 1999, 366). Some, perhaps most, of this material must be perceived as deliberately placed and subject to extensive transformation. It seems that the material could have been collected from di erent places or sites prior to deposition in the ditches. Careful analyses of the ditches from Windmill Hill give the impression of an individual history for every segment (Whittle et al. 1999, 368). Conclusion In summary, the causewayed enclosures of western and northern Europe were very large and often highly visible sites. They were built in one operation, involving the investment of many days’ work by a large number of people. Before their construction the work must have been planned for some years, the area being cleared of vegetation and big stones, with trees for the posts and palisades selected, prepared, and transported. The enclosures often seem to have been placed at regular distances from each other and sometimes close to clusters of megalithic tombs. Specially treated artefacts were deposited. The ditches, within which specially treated artefacts and both human and animal bone were deposited, seem to have p. 808 been open for a very short period, in some cases perhaps for a few days only, before being carefully re lled again. Later the ditches were reopened and new deposits placed in them. This could have happened again and again, involving the same type of deposit as in the rst instance. Thorough analyses of some ditches show that later deposition mimicked earlier ones in both form and content, and there must have been a type of grammar by which former depositions were remembered (Whittle et al. 1999, 368). Perhaps every single ditch represented a group of people, a family, or a team, and in the layout of the enclosures we have a metaphor for the occupation of the local area, each settlement united into a network by a single, large construction (Andersen 1997, 306; Whittle et al. 1999, 384). In the cyclical thinking which characterized early agricultural lifestyles the ditches were perhaps regarded as symbolic furrows where the material of life was ‘sown’ for later rebirth. Causewayed enclosures were built and used, especially in northern Europe, up to 500 years after the introduction of the Neolithic economy to an area. They seem to have been constructed within a short intense period of each other and re-used in the following centuries (Whittle et al. 2011). Often their building coincides with the rst signs of ploughing with the ard and the opening of the landscape, activities which must have demanded a close-knit network of people—a network which would require reinstating from time to time. The enclosures can be considered as central places for these activities, o ering a medium by which to organize large numbers of people during the transformation from a Mesolithic/semi-Neolithic way of life to a full blown Neolithic existence (Andersen 2011). This change is the most fundamental in the history of humankind and its great success seems to have been dependent on a ritualized life played out at causewayed enclosures. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/35019/chapter/298823896 by University of Glasgow user on 26 November 2024  References Andersen, N.H. 1997. Sarup Vol. 1, The Sarup Enclosures. The Funnel Beaker culture of the Sarup site including two causewayed camps compared to the contemporary settlements in the area and other European enclosures. Århus: Jutland Archaeological Publications XXXIII. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Andersen, N.H. 1999. Sarup Vol. 2 og 3, Saruppladsen. Århus: Jutland Archaeological Publications XXXIII. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/35019/chapter/298823896 by University of Glasgow user on 26 November 2024 Andersen, N.H. 2000. Kult og Ritualer i Tragtbægerkulturen. KUML 2000, 13–48. Google Scholar WorldCat Andersen, N.H. 2008. Sarupområdet på Sydvestfyn i slutningen af 4. årtusinde f. Kr. In A. Schülke (ed.), Plads og Rum i Tragtbægerkulturen, Nordiske Fortidsminder, Series C, Bind 6, 25–44. København, Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskri selskab. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Andersen, N.H. 2011. Causewayed enclosures and megalithic monuments as media for shaping Neolithic identities. In M. Furholt , F. Lüth and J. Müller (eds), Megaliths and identities. Early monuments and Neolithic societies from the Atlantic to the Baltic. Frühe Monumentalität und soziale Di erenzierung. Band 1, 143–154. Bonn: Habelt. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Armour-Chelu, M. 1998. The animal bone. In F. Pryor (ed.), Etton. Excavations at a Neolithic causewayed enclosure near Maxey, Cambridgeshire, 1982–1987, 273–288. London: English Heritage, Archaeological Report 18. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Bamford, H. 1980. Briar Hill. Current Archaeology 71, 358–363. Google Scholar WorldCat Bamford, H. 1985. Briar Hill, excavation 1974–1978. Northampton: Northampton Development Corporation Monograph 3. p. 809 Barker, G. and Webley D. 1978. Causewayed camps and early Neolithic economies in central southern England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 44, 45–53. Google Scholar WorldCat Bedwin, O., Drewett, P. L., Thomas, K. D. and Cartwright, C. 1981. Excavations at the Neolithic Enclosure on Bury Hill, Houghton, W. Sussex 1979. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 47, 69–86. Google Scholar WorldCat Behrends, R.H. 1991. Erdwerke der Jungsteinzeit in Bruchsal. Archäologische Informationen aus Baden-Württemberg 22. Stuttgart: Landesdenkmalamt Baden-Württemberg. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Behrends, R.H. 1994. Abschluss der Grabungen am Erdwerk der Michelsberger Kultur in Bruchsal, Gewann ʻAue`, Landkreis Karlsruhe, Archäologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Württemberg 1993, 41–47. Google Scholar WorldCat Blanchet, J.C., Bouchain, P., and Decormeille A. 1984. ʻLe Camp de Césarʼ à Catenoy (Oise). Révue Archéologique de Picardie 1–2, 173–204. Google Scholar WorldCat Blanchet, J.C. and Martinez, R. 1988. Les champs Néolithiques Chasséens dans le Nord-Ouest du Bassin parisien. In C. Burgess, P. Topping, C. Mordant, and M. Maddison (eds), Enclosures and defences in the Neolithic of western Europe, 149–166. Oxford:  British Archaeological Reports. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Boas, N.A. 2001. Blakbjerg. In H. Andersen, K.M.Q. Frandsen, and P. Schødt (eds), En by og dens Mennesker: Marie Magdalene før og nu, 4–8. Ryomgaard. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Boujot, C., Burnez, C., and Cassen, S. 1985. Premières notes sur les vestiges archéologiques du gisement de Montagan, commune de Mainxe (Charente). Groupe Vendéen d´Etudes Préhistoriques 13, 5–14. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/35019/chapter/298823896 by University of Glasgow user on 26 November 2024 Google Scholar WorldCat Braasch, O. 2010. ʻSteinzeit 3 Uhr tiefʼ. Archäologie aus der Lu. In Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe (eds), Jungsteinzeit im Umbruch: die ʻMichelsberger Kulturʼ und Mitteleuropa vor 6000 Jahren, 72–79. Karlsruhe: Primus Verlag Gmbh. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Brothwell. D. 1999. Human remains. In A. Whittle, J. Pollard, and C. Grigson (eds), The harmony of symbols. The Windmill Hill causewayed enclosure, Wiltshire, 344–346. Oxford: Oxbow. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Burnez, C. 1993. Les camp à enceintes interrompues. In Ferrer-July, F. (ed.), Guide du Musée des tumulus de Bougon, 72–81. Bougon: Musée des Tumulus. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Cap-Jédikian, G., Perrin, T., Remicourt, M., and Servelle, C. 2008. Révision des données disponibles sur les aménagements funéraires du site de Saint-Michel-du-Touch (Toulouse, Haute Garonne). In J. Vaquer, M. Gandelin, M. Remicourt, and Y. Tchérémissino (eds), Défunts néolithiques en Toulousain, 179–196. Toulouse: Archives dʼEcologie Préhistorique. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Cassen, S. and Boujot, C. 1990. Grabenumfriedungen im Frankrich des 5. bis 3. Jahrtausends v. u. Z. Jahresschri für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 73, 455–468. Google Scholar WorldCat Cassen, S. and Scarre, C. 1997. Les Enceintes néolithiques de la Mastine et Pied-Lizet, Charente-Maritime. Chauvigny: Association des publications chauvinoises. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Cullen, R. 1985. The human bones. In H. Bamford, Briar Hill, excavation 1974–1978, 125–126. Northampton: Northampton Development Corporation Monograph 3. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Danaher, E. 2007. Monumental beginnings: the archaeology of the N4 Sligo inner relief road. Dublin: the National Roads Authority. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Darvill, T. and Thomas, J. (eds) 2001. Neolithic enclosures in Atlantic Northwest Europe. Oxford: Oxbow. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Dixon, P. 1988. The Neolithic settlements on Crickley Hill. In C. Burgess, P. Topping, C. Mordant, and M. Maddison (eds), Enclosures and defences in the Neolithic of western Europe, 75–87. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC p. 810 Dodwell, N. 2006. Human skeletal remains. In C. Evans and I. Hodder (eds), A woodland archaeology: Neolithic sites at Haddenham, the Haddenham Project Volume 1, 306–307. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Drewett, P. 1977. The excavation of a Neolithic causewayed enclosure on O ham Hill, East Sussex, 1976. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 43, 201–241. Google Scholar WorldCat Dubouloz, J., Hamard, D. and Le Bolloch, M. 1997. Composantes fonctionnelles et symboliques d´un site exceptionnel: Bazoches-sur-Vesle (Aisne), 4000 ans av. J.-C. In A. Bocquet (ed.), Espaces physiques, espaces sociaux dans lʼ analyse interne des sites du Néolithique à lʼÂge du Fer, 127–144. Paris: Editions du CTHS. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Dubouloz, J., Martinez, R. and Mordant, D. (eds) 1989. 3789 avant J.-C. en Bassin parisien: une révolution tranquille au Néolithique. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/35019/chapter/298823896 by University of Glasgow user on 26 November 2024 Nemours: Musée de Préhistoire d´Île-de-France. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Eckert, J. 1990. Überlegungen zu Bauweise und Funktion Michelsberger Erdwerke im Rheinland. Jahresschri für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 73, 399–415. Google Scholar WorldCat Evans, C. and Hodder, I. (eds) 2006. A woodland archaeology: Neolithic sites at Haddenham, the Haddenham Project Volume 1. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Gandelin, M. 2011. Les enceintes chasséennes de Villeneuve-Tolosane et de Cugnaux dans leur contexte du Néolithique Moyen Européen. Toulouse: Archives d´Ecologie Préhistorique. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Gandelin, M. and Vaquer, J. 2008. Présentation des sites chasséens de Villeneuve-Tolosane et de Cugnaux (Haute-Garonne) et localisation des faits funéraires. In J. Vaquer, M. Gandelin, M. Remicourt, and Y. Tchérémissino (eds), Défunts néolithiques en Toulousain, 33–41. Toulouse: Archives dʼEcologie Préhistorique. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Geschwinde, M. and Raetzel-Fabian, D. 2009. EWBSL. Eine Fallstudie zu den jungneolithischen Erdwerken am Nordrand der Mittelgebirge. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Günther, K. 1991. Erdwerke der Jungsteinzeit in Westfalen. Archäologie in Deutschland 1991 (4), 18–21. Google Scholar WorldCat Healy, F. 2004. Hambledon Hill and its implications. In R. Cleal and J. Pollard (eds), Monuments and material culture. Papers in honour of an Avebury archaeologist: Isobel Smith, 15–38. Salisbury: Hobnob Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Heege, E., Heege, A., and Weber, U. 1990. Zwei jungneolithische Erdwerke aus Südniedersachsen. Die Kunde NF 41/42, 85–126. Google Scholar WorldCat Jeunesse, C. 2010. Die Michelsberger Kultur. In Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe (eds), Jungsteinzeit im Umbruch: die ʻMichelsberger Kulturʼ und Mitteleuropa vor 6000 Jahren, 90–95, Karlsruhe: Primus Verlag Gmbh. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Jeunesse, C. and Seidel, U. 2010. Die Erdwerke. In Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe (eds), Jungsteinzeit im Umbruch: die ʻMichelsberger Kulturʼ und Mitteleuropa vor 6000 Jahren, 58–69, Karlsruhe: Primus Verlag Gmbh. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Joussaume, R. 1988. Analyse structurale de la triple enceinte de fosses interrompus à Champ-Durand, Nieul-sur-l´Autize, Vendée. In C. Burgess, P. Topping, C. Mordant, and M. Maddison (eds), Enclosures and defences in the Neolithic of western Europe, 275–299. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC  Joussaume, R. and Marsac, M. 1977. Le Marais Poitevin aux temps néolithiques. Archéologia 112, 20–31. Google Scholar WorldCat Lehner, H. 1910. Der Festungsbau der jüngeren Steinzeit. Praehistorische Zeitschri 2, 1–23. Lüning, J. 1968. Die Michselsberger Kultur. Ihre Funde in zeitlicher und räumlicher Gliederung. Bericht der Römisch- Germanischen Kommission 48, 1–350. Google Scholar WorldCat Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/35019/chapter/298823896 by University of Glasgow user on 26 November 2024 Madsen, T. 1988. Causewayed enclosures in south Scandinavia. In C. Burgess, P. Topping, C. Mordant, and M. Maddison (eds), Enclosures and defences in the Neolithic of western Europe, 301–336. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC p. 811 Márquez-Romero, J.E. and Jiménez-Jáimez, V. 2013. Monumental ditch enclosures in southern Iberia (fourth–third millennia BC ). Antiquity 87, 447–460. McKinley, J. 2008. Human remains and diet. In R. J. Mercer and F. Healy (eds), Hambledon Hill, Dorset, England. Excavation and survey of a Neolithic monument complex and its surrounding landscape, 477–535. Swindon: English Heritage Archaeological Reports. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Mercer, R.J. and Healy, F. 2008. Hambledon Hill, Dorset, England. Excavation and survey of a Neolithic monument complex and its surrounding landscape. Swindon: English Heritage Archaeological Reports. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Mordant, C. and Mordant, D. 1978. Les sépultures néolithiques de Noyen-sur-Seine (Seine-et Marne). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 75, 559–578. Google Scholar WorldCat Mordant, C. and Mordant, D. 1988. Les enceintes néolithiques de la Haute-Vallée de la Seine. In C. Burgess, P. Topping, C. Mordant, and M. Maddison (eds), Enclosures and defences in the Neolithic of western Europe, 231–254. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Mordant, D. 1989. Les rites de la mort. In J. Dubouloz, R. Martinez, and D. Mordant (eds), 3789 avant J.-C. en Bassin parisien: une révolution tranquille au Néolithique. Nemours: Musée de Préhistoire d´Île-de-France. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Mordant, D. 1992. Balloy, Les Réaudins. Enceinte du Néolithique Moyen, Culture de Cerny. Dammarie-le-Lys: Service Départemental du Patrimoine de Seine-et-Marne. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Müller, J. 2010. Dorfanlagen und Siedlungssysteme. Die europäische Perspektive: Südosteuropa und Mitteleuropa. In Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe (eds), Jungsteinzeit im Umbruch: die ʻMichelsberger Kulturʼ und Mitteleuropa vor 6000 Jahren, 250–257, Karlsruhe: Primus Verlag Gmbh. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Oswald, A., Dyer, C., and Barber, M. 2001. The creation of monuments. Neolithic causewayed enclosures in the British Isles. London: English Heritage. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Pariat, J.-G. 2007. Des morts sans tombe? Le cas des ossements humains en contexte non sépulchral en Europe tempérée entre les 6e et 3e millénaires av. J.-C. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.  Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Piggott, S. 1954. The Neolithic cultures of the British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Poulain, T. and Lange, G. 1984. Le camp chasséen de Mont d´Huette a Jonquières (Oise). Révue Archéologique de Picardie 1–2, 265–267. Google Scholar WorldCat Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/35019/chapter/298823896 by University of Glasgow user on 26 November 2024 Pryor, F. 1987. Etton 1986: Neolithic metamorphoses. Antiquity 61, 78–80. Google Scholar WorldCat Pryor, F. 1998. Etton. Excavations at a Neolithic causewayed enclosure near Maxey, Cambridgeshire, 1982–1987. London: English Heritage Archaeological Report 18. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Raetzel-Fabian, D. 2000. Calden. Erdwerk und Bestattungsplätze des Jungneolithikums. Architektur—Ritual—Chronologie. Bonn: Habelt. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Renfrew, C. 1983. The social archaeology of megalithic monuments. Scientific American 249, 128–136. Google Scholar WorldCat Robertson-Mackay, R. 1987. The Neolithic causewayed enclosure at Staines, Surrey: excavations 1961–1963. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53, 23–128. Google Scholar WorldCat Seidel, U. 2008. Michelsberger Erdwerke im Raum Heilbronn. Stuttgart: Theiss. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Smith, I.F. 1965. Windmill Hill and Avebury. Excavations by Alexander Keiller, 1925–1939. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Smith, I.F. 1971. Causewayed enclosures. In D.D.A. Simpson (ed.), Economy and settlement in Neolithic and early Bronze Age Britain and Europe, 89–112. Leicester: Leicester University Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Stephan, E. 2008. Die Tierknochenfunde aus Michelsberger Erdwerken von Neckarsulm-Obereisenheim ʻHetzenberg`und Heilbronn-Klingenberg ʻSchlossberg`. In U. Seidel, Michelsberger Erdwerke im Raum Heilbronn, 131–382. Stuttgart: Theiss. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC p. 812 Tackenberg, K. 1951. Die Beusterburg. Ein jungsteinzeitliches Erdwerk in Niedersachsen. Hildesheim: Landesmuseum zu Hannover. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Tarrête, J. 1979. Information archéologique de lʼ Île-de-France. Gallia Préhistorie 22, 443–470. Google Scholar WorldCat Tarrête, J. 1983. Information archéologique de lʼ Île-de-France. Gallia Préhistorie 26, 217–247. Google Scholar WorldCat Thomas, J. 1991. Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Vaquer, J. 1986. Le Chasséen meridional. In J.P. Demoule and J. Guilaine (eds), Le Néolithique de la France, 233–239. Paris: Picard. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Vaquer, J., Gandelin, M., Remicourt, M., and Tchérémissin, Y. (eds) 2008. Défunts néolithiques en Toulousain. Toulouse: Archives dʼEcologie Préhistorique. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Vermeersch, P. and Walter, R. 1980. Thieusies, ferme de lʼ Hosté, site Michelsberg. Archaeologia Belgia 230, 3–47. Google Scholar WorldCat Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/35019/chapter/298823896 by University of Glasgow user on 26 November 2024 Wahl, J. 2008. Profan oder kultisch—bestattet oder entsorgt? Die menschlichen Skelettreste aus den Michelsberger Erdwerken von Heilbronn-Klingenberg, Neckarsulm-Obereisenheil und Ilsfeld. In U. Seidel, Michelsberger Erdwerke im Raum Heilbronn, 703– 840. Stuttgart: Theiss. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Wahl, J. 2010. Wenige Knochen, viele Fragen. Auf der Suche nach den Menschen der Michelsberger Kultur. In Badisches landesmuseum Karlsruhe (eds), Jungsteinzeit im Umbruch: die ʻMichelsberger Kulturʼ und Mitteleuropa vor 6000 Jahren, 96–101, Karlsruhe: Primus Verlag Gmbh. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Westphal, J. 2005. Organiseringen af tragtbægerkulturens landskab i det danske område mellem 3500 og 2900 f.Kr. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Aarhus. Whittle, A., Pollard, J., and Grigson, C. 1999. The harmony of symbols. The Windmill Hill causewayed enclosure, Wiltshire. Oxford: Oxbow. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Whittle, A., Healy, F., and Bayliss, A. 2011. Gathering time. Dating the Early Neolithic enclosures of southern Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Wincentz, L. 1994. Nr. 341, Ballegaard. Arkæologiske Udgravninger i Danmark 1993, 176. Google Scholar WorldCat Witte, F. 2009. Excavation report. Haderslev: Museum Soenderjylland-Arkaeologi, Haderslev, j.nr. 4651. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC