The Excavation of a Beaker Burial Monument at Ravenstone, Buckinghamshire, in 1978

The stripping, for commercial purposes, of an area of chalk downland near Leckford, Hants., led to the excavation of a small ring ditch containing the remains of two male inhumations. The earlier, 3740±80 BP uncal., buried in a mortuary chamber, was accompanied by a bell-shaped beaker of early type (with European or Wessex/Middle Rhine affinities), an antler spatula, two pairs of gold earrings, a gold tubular bead, 55 stone beads, a copper dagger, a flint strike-a-light, a marcasite nodule and a number of flint tools and flakes. The second burial, 3780±80 BP uncal., interred shortly after the first in the same grave, was accompanied by a finger-nail decorated beaker and two flint flakes.

show abstract

“…breadth 16 mm, max. thickness 7 mm, was with the primary burial Measurements in mm; * = a probable cenotaph (Allen 1981).…”

Section: Gold Earringsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two Beaker Burials from Chilbolton, Hampshire

Russel¹,

Boismier

Foxon³

et al. 1990

Proc. Prehist. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of these, plank lining seems the more likely as it appears to have fitted the grave closely. A coffin, such as that at Ravenstone in Buckinghamshire, required surrounding space for manoeuvring it into position (Allen et al 2015). However, it is unlikely that the wood had been 'burned' as none of the human remains were reportedly scorched, although two fragments of 'cremated' bone were found in the disturbed area.…”

Section: The Graves and Human Remainsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A re-interpretation of the Levens Park ring cairn, Cumbria, based on the original excavation archives

Clare

Cook²,

Hodkinson

et al. 2021

Archaeological Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The site of a Beaker burial excavated in Levens Park, Cumbria was published by David Sturdy in 1972 as that of a farmstead or place for the living altered into a ring cairn or place for the dead. However, the recent discovery of the excavation archive and contemporary correspondence reveals a far more complex monument than previously understood. We draw attention to a series of important omissions from the excavation report, provide a detailed account of the excavated monument and seek to create a new narrative regarding its development and purpose. We argue that the monument was built as a series of changing structures and demonstrates the idea of monuments in progress and, thereby, the creation of communal memory and identity. The absence of a full report of this excavation means that its wider significance has remained unknown. It represents one of the earliest examples of what Sturdy called 'rescue archaeology' and demonstrates a complex sequence of structural components and burial that contributes to our understanding of the Early Bronze Age. The broader archaeological appraisal of Levens Park, which provided the context for this excavation, represents one of the earlier examples of landscape archaeological survey in Britain.

show abstract

“…At the outset it is important to stress that our main focus here is on identifications of cenotaphs that comprise body-less object deposits at funerary sites rather than on the 'empty' graves or barrows that are also sometimes also described as cenotaphs (e.g. Allen 1981;Downes 2006).…”

Section: Cenotaphs and Memorial Burialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spectrums of depositional practice in later prehistoric Britain and beyond. Grave goods, hoards and deposits ‘in between’

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper critically evaluates how archaeologists define ‘grave goods’ in relation to the full spectrum of depositional contexts available to people in the past, including hoards, rivers and other ‘special’ deposits. Developing the argument that variations in artefact deposition over time and space can only be understood if different ‘types’ of find location are considered together holistically, we contend that it is also vital to look at the points where traditionally defined contexts of deposition become blurred into one another. In this paper, we investigate one particular such category – body-less object deposits at funerary sites – in later prehistoric Britain. This category of evidence has never previously been analysed collectively, let alone over the extended time period considered here. On the basis of a substantial body of evidence collected as part of a nationwide survey, we demonstrate that body-less object deposits were a significant component of funerary sites during later prehistory. Consequently, we go on to question whether human remains were actually always a necessary element of funerary deposits for prehistoric people, suggesting that the absence of human bone could be a positive attribute rather than simply a negative outcome of taphonomic processes. We also argue that modern, fixed depositional categories sometimes serve to mask a full understanding of the complex realities of past practice and ask whether it might be productive in some instances to move beyond interpretively confining terms such as ‘grave’, ‘hoard’ and ‘cenotaph’. Our research demonstrates that is it not only interesting in itself to scrutinize archaeological evidence that does not easily fit into traditional narratives, but that the process of doing so also sheds new light on the validity of our present-day categories, enabling deeper insights into how people in the past ordered their material and conceptual worlds. Whilst our main focus is later prehistoric Britain, the issues we consider are potentially relevant across all periods and regions.

show abstract

The Excavation of a Beaker Burial Monument at Ravenstone, Buckinghamshire, in 1978

Cited by 11 publications

References 28 publications

Two Beaker Burials from Chilbolton, Hampshire

Two Beaker Burials from Chilbolton, Hampshire

A re-interpretation of the Levens Park ring cairn, Cumbria, based on the original excavation archives

Spectrums of depositional practice in later prehistoric Britain and beyond. Grave goods, hoards and deposits ‘in between’

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About