Sources: Bickle, et. al (2018); Bramwell (1973); Gilks (1971 and 1973); Heath (2012); Heathcote (1938); Jackson (1951); Leask et
al. (1938); Malone (2001); Piggott (1954); Strehlau (2018)
On my visit to the site in
mid-summer 2018, Calling Low Dale was a riot of plant life encouraged by the
flow of sub-surface water from the plateau above. Wading through chin high
nettles and brambles or falling into completely rotted, fallen trees hidden by
the undergrowth made descent of this little valley exceedingly difficult.
A narrow constriction of cliffs,
is passed some 100m down the ancient stream course and a wondrous natural
amphitheatre comes into view. This truly feels like a fairy dell, as a downhill
another 100m, the cliffs surrounding this bowl-shaped fastness, draw together
again, thus isolating the rock shelter and its environs. Further down the
streamline joins the river Lathkill. Here the river flows deep and strong
deterring a crossing. Up and down-river from here the dale side is an
impenetrable mix of scrub, thorn and nettles for more than a mile in either
direction until a footbridge is available to cross to the Calling Low Dale
side. Thus, casual view and approach is cut off from this direction very effectively
dissuading any haphazard passers-by.
Gazing about myself, I noted the
tiny walled rock shelter many assume to be where cist burials A and B were
located. Intent on absorbing the scene, I simply gazed around me. Soon I
noticed that immediately to my left was an immense bulwark of stacked limestone
blocks covered in a deep moss layer, indicating some remote age of
construction. To my right a deep dip below an overhanging cliff seemed the most
likely source of these stacked boulders.
I moved across the amphitheatre
to the walled rock shelter took photos, and then sat awhile puzzling over the
small size of the burial chamber and mismatch of the position of the talus
which seemed to me excavation debris. Why would Harris’ men carry this debris
uphill some considerable distance, I thought? Without forming a conclusion to
this puzzle, I finished my coffee and made my way home.
Calling Low Dale. The small walled rock shelter – unlikely to be the burial site. N Barden, May 2018.
Calling Low Dale. Interior of the small walled rock shelter, looking towards the probable excavation site. N Barden, May 2018.
Over the next few days, and by
dint of research, it slowly dawned on me that Bramwell (1973) held at least
part of the answer: “In Calling Low Dale, off Lathkill Dale an area of
overhanging cliffs forms a dry rock shelter where a collective burial was made
of fifteen to sixteen individuals.” When we add Heathcote (1938) and Gilks
(1971) comments noting that the excavation took place beneath a talus slope,
the true position of the burials is revealed as below the overhanging cliff
with the deep dip below it, that I noted earlier.
The probable, real location of the excavations is seen at left below the tall cliff with the entrance to the ‘amphitheatre’ in the centre of the picture.
Burials in this small subsidiary
valley of Lathkill Dale were excavated by T. A Harris between 1937-39 with
advice from the ubiquitous A. L. Armstrong. The excavations were originally
reported in brief by Leask et al. (1938). It was another 15 years however, that
anything like a full description was given by Piggott (1954). Piggott used T.
A. Harris’ original notes to describe the excavation. Criminally, 66 years
later the article is still behind a paywall! Here is the text of the preview
page:
“The plan (fig 1 [unavailable]) shows the general
disposition of the inhumation burials discovered in relation to the shallow
rock-shelter: those in Cists A and B are dealt with more fully below; C was the
skeleton of a woman; D a deposit of a human pelvis and a fox’s skull in a niche
of the rock wall; E burials of young children; F fragments of indeterminate
pottery and human bones, with another sherd of pottery at G. Another group of
similarly indecisive sherds and bones was found beyond the limits of the plan
in the trench running north-east from G and against the rock wall on the west was
an extended burial of a male without grave goods.
The most important burials were
those within cists A and B, formed by rough settings of limestone blocks set
against the wall of the shelter, without capstones. Cist A contained the
articulated skeleton, her skull pierced by a sharp weapon in the frontal
portion, but with no grave goods. Cist B however contained a more significant
burial. The area enclosed by the rough arc of blocks against the shelter wall
was filled with fine soil containing a mass of disarticulated human bones, the
majority of which, distinguished by a smooth greenish surface from the
remainder, belonged to one individual; the skull and several ribs were however
missing. The other bones appeared to represent three or perhaps four persons.
Scattered among the bones were sherds of a pottery vessel (fig 2, 2) and in the
centre of the cist was a flint arrow-head of derived petit tranchet type (fig. 2, 1).
Sufficient of the sherds remained
for the vessel to be restored: it is a characteristic bowl of Peterborough ware
with ornament made by impressing the articular ends of the limb-bones of
birds..”
Peterborough ware bowl and Petit tranchet arrowhead from Calling Low Dale, cist B from Piggot (1954).
Noteworthy, is Piggot’s title Secondary burials.. This indicates that Piggot
believed as I do that at least some of the burials were excarnations.
The brief notes referred to by
Piggot, published by Leask et al. (1938), are also still (incredibly!) paywalled
82 years after they were written. Luckily, Heathcote et al. (1938) provide an
extract in the Derbyshire Archaeological Journal with the following appended
comment: “The foregoing notes are taken from the Proceedings of the Prehistoric
Society for 1938 (July-Dec.), N.S. vol. iv pt. 2, by kind permission of the
editor, Dr. J. G. D. Clark.”. All I can say is thank God for Dr Clark, a much
more enlightened academic, than the present international publishers. Here is
Heathcote’s extract:
“Major T. A. Harris, of Ashford,
has for some time been excavating a rock-shelter situated in Church Dale.
Beneath a talus or rock debris traces of occupation were discovered and. a
series of burials, one of which was a typical 'crouched burial,' but the
absence of pottery or datable objects, rendered the age of the interments
uncertain. At a depth of approximately four feet, a cist was discovered, having
one side formed by the cliff face and the remainder outlined by limestone
boulders. This was carefully excavated by Major Harris and Mr Leslie Armstrong
and found to contain the disarticulated remains of two adults, amongst which
were scattered fragments of pottery of Peterborough ware. The pottery is richly
ornamented and comprises portions of two different vessels, each of which has
been decorated on the rim both internally and externally. A well-worked
arrowhead, of the single barbed type (of petit tranchet derivative form), and
several flakes of flint and chert accompanied the remains. This is the first
record of Peterborough pottery in association with a cist burial.”
Gilks (1971) in his paper on the
Peterborough ware bowl from calling Low Dale describes the site in brief:
“Major T. A. Harris of Ashford, Derbyshire, discovered between 1936/7 traces of
occupation and unstratified burials in a rock shelter, buried below a talus
slope in Calling Low Dale (formerly known as Church Dale), (Leask 1938). At a
depth of four feet two cists were discovered, A and B-respectively; three sides of each cist were
constructed of limestone boulders and the fourth formed by the cliff face. The
cists were excavated by Major. Harris, and Mr. Leslie Armstrong; cist B was
found to contain the disarticulated remains of at least four individuals,
whether male or female it is not recorded. Associated with the remains were
fragments of flint and chert waste, a petit tranchet arrowhead, and sherds of
two Peterborough ware bowls. Only one bowl and the
arrowhead have survived and these were illustrated and briefly commented upon
by Professor Piggott in 1954. Major Harris presented the arrowhead and bowl to
the Sheffield City Museum. After restoration the bowl was redrawn by the writer
and the amended drawing is illustrated here as an alternative to that published
by the previous authors."
Peterborogh ware bowl and petit tranchet arrowhead from Gilks (1971)
No discussion is given as to the
cultural and chronological implications of the Calling Low Dale and related
burials, as these have been studied in detail in a separate paper prepared by
the writer (Gilks forthcoming).” When we read the promised ‘forthcoming’
article [Gilks (1973)], no such cultural or chronological discussion is
attempted. This is a great shame as I am sure Gilks had some well-founded
theories.
He does, however, go on to give a
very nice description of the remaining bowl: “A hard, well-smoothed buff-orange
fabric with a dark brown to grey outer surface. The interior is also dark brown
to grey but is not smoothed.
Protruding through both the
interior and exterior surfaces are large angular fragments of sandstone varying
between z and,4 mm. in length. The diameter of the bowl at the rim is 6 in.
(15.2 cm.), the overall height 3.75 in. (9.5 cm), the thickness of the wall at
the lowest point 0.3 in. (0.8 cm). The whole of the exterior surface, the
internal groove below the rim and the top of the rim are decorated with
circumferential lines of bird bone impressions.
Recent tests conducted by D.
Bramwell have shown that the impressions were probably produced by bones of the
Common Sandpiper (Tringa hypoleucos), and three bones at least appear to have
been used. The large impressions in the neck and the two rows below the
shoulder appear to have been produced by the distal end of a humerus, whilst
the small, almost circular impressions, along the top and outer face of the rim
compare with impressions produced by the distal end of a tibia. Small
wedge-shaped impressions along the top and crest of the rim can be matched with
the distal end of a metacarpal. The decoration present on this vessel can be paralleled
with that found on three Mortlake ware bowls from the West Kennet long barrow,
and it is to this decorated ceramic series that this vessel should be
assigned.”
Photograph of the Peterborough ware bowl from Gilks (1971)
Gilks (1973) also gives a table
dating the various pottery he discusses in his paper. He assigns the bowl from
Calling Low Dale to the later Neolithic. However, his table only includes early
and late Neolithic, so could be anywhere between 3300BCE and 2200BCE.
A brief description of the
burials and Peterborough ware from Calling Low Dale was also given in Gilks
(1973): “Description: Three articulated skeletons, one in cist A. Cist B
contained the disarticulated bones of least four individuals; associated with
these was a Peterborough Ware bowl with bird-bone and stick impressions and a
petit tranchet arrowhead, class E. To the north west of cist B, five
articulated skeletons of young children, no associated finds.”
The site is therefore, very
interesting from several points of view. Firstly the type of burials are very varied as
the following list shows:
Burial A, a cist with female
inhumation in ‘crouched burial’ position
Burial B a probable exhumation
with Peterborough ware of the Mortlake sub-type and a petit tranchet arrowhead containing the remains of 4-5 people
Burial C skeleton of a woman – assumed
to be disarticulated
Burial D a human pelvis and fox
skull buried together in a niche, near the rock shelter
Burial E the articulated
skeletons of 5 children buried together
Burial F fragments of human bone
and pottery – assumed to be another exhumation
or burial with decayed bone
Burial(?) G a scatter of pottery
– may have been a burial with the bones completely
decayed
Burial in trench beyond G –
scatter of bones and pottery, a possible exhumation
Burial on west wall – an extended
burial of a male
The pits and cist burials
contained both disarticulated and articulated skeletons. The articulated
skeletons, known as inhumations showed different burial positions. Both
extended burials and a ‘crouched’ burial were found. Both sexes were also
present but only a single man was definitively identified among the 15+
individuals excavated.
The disarticulated human bone
assemblages indicate some of the burials were most likely exhumations. That is
where the deceased was initially laid to rest in the open so that the flesh
rotted away or animals scavenged it. Once this process was complete, the
remaining bones were collected and interred. However, some burials were
inhumations, that is burials where the individual was interred soon after death
as a complete skeleton.
Finally a human pelvis was
deposited in a niche with a fox skull. This seems to be of ritual significance.
By ritual, I simply mean, that the act of burying these bones together had some
meaning to people who interred them. As Strehlau (2018) comments: “Instead of
only paying attention to the type of bones and the animal species, it is
equally important to consider the condition of the bones, their placement
inside the grave and the placement of artefacts ascribed to certain animals in
relation to the human dead. This is not only essential to decoding human-animal
relationships as evident in burial practices, but also to understanding the
many different processes that culminated in the deposition of animal bones in
graves.”
This is an unusual mix of burial
styles to say the least! While exhumations and the extended ‘lying flat’ burial
position were Neolithic burial practices, the ‘crouched’ position is indicative
of an early bronze age burial. In my (admittedly amateur) opinion, it may
indicate a long period of usage of the cemetery by a number of different
cultures. As Bickle et al. (2018) note: “Funerary practices in the Neolithic
show great variability, both within and between different regions of Europe, including
inhumations, cremations, collective burials and disarticulation.” [exhumation?].
This is not unexpected, as Malone
(2001) makes clear in her comments on societal change in the Neolithic: “"The
Neolithic period is one of remarkable changes in landscapes, societies and
technologies, which changed a wild, forested world, to one of orderly
agricultural production and settled communities on the brink of socially
complex 'civilisation'. It was a period that saw the arrival of new ideas and
domesticated plants and animals, perhaps new communities, and the
transformation of the native peoples of Britain. The Neolithic opened an
entirely new episode in human history. It took place in Britain over a
relatively short space of time, lasting in total only about 2000 years - in
human terms little more than 80-100 generations."
Therefore, without C14 dating it
is difficult to unpick the periods and peoples who deposited their dead in this
peaceful and remote spot.
The sparse grave goods - the
Peterborough bowl and the petit tranchet arrowhead -may give us some clues.
Peterborough ware is a type of
pottery from the middle Neolithic period (3300BCE to 2900BCE), but also extends
into the late Neolithic (2900BCE to 2200BCE). It is therefore difficult to
firmly date the burial that contained the identifiable pottery (cist B).
Some papers deal with dating of
similar pottery found both locally and nationally. For instance Jackson (1951)
identifies similarly bird-bone marked pottery from Fox Hole cave, High Wheeldon
as Neolithic B or early bronze age.
Looking at the petit tranchet
arrowhead, this type of stone tool was used from the late Neolithic into the
copper age (early Bronze Age). Heath (2012), gives a date range of 3400 –
2500BCE for these arrowheads. As it was placed in the centre of the cist, we
may surmise it was regarded as a significant object. Therefore, it may date to
the earlier part of this date range, perhaps around 3200 – 3000BCE.
Lastly, brief details about some
of the oldest flint finds from the site were given by Bramwell (1973). He
assigns these to the Mesolithic: “Some patinated blades were also associated
with horse and red deer bones in a deep stratum at Calling Low Dale rock
shelter, off Lathkill Dale.”
In summary, I estimate that the
cemetery seems to have been in use for at least a 1000 years between 3200 and
2200BCE and if Bramwell (1973) is taken into account, then the age range of the
site could be from late Mesolithic 4000BCE to early Bronze Age ca. 2200BCE or roughly 2000 years.
References:
Bickle, P., Bao J. B. and M. E. Subirà. (2018). The
archaeology of material culture, bodies and landscapes. 24th Annual Meeting of
the European Association of Archaeologists "Reflecting futures" -
Session #325 at: http://www.prehistoire.org/offres/gestion/actus_515_33025-911/inhumations-and-cemeteries-during-the-neolithic-a-comparative-approach-from-central-to-the-south-of-europe.html
accessed 31.05.20
Bramwell, D. (1973). Archaeology in the Peak District.
Moreland Publishing via Hill bros. Leek.
Gilks, J.A. (1971) The Peterborough Ware bowl from Calling
Low Dale, Derbyshire. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 91: 37-39.
Gilks, J.A. (1973) Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Pottery
from Elbolton Cave, Wharfedale. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal vol. 45 pp.
41-54
Heath, J. (2012). Life in Copper Age Britain. Amberley
Publishing.
Heathcote,
J., Court A. & H. M. Colvin
(1938) Excavations
during 1938. (Creswell, Whaley Valley & Rock Shelter, Trent gravels, Church
Dale (Ashford), Stanton Moor, Dale Abbey). Derbyshire
Archaeological Journal, Volume 59. (pp. 081-094)
Jackson,
J. W., (1951). Peterborough (Neolith|C B) Pottery from High Wheeldon Cave, Earl
Sterndale, near Buxton. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal (1951), Volume 71
pp72-77
Leask, H.G. et al. (1938) Notes on excavations in Eire,
England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, during 1938. Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society 4 (2): 314-325.
Malone, C. (2001). Neolithic Britain and Ireland. Stroud,
Gloucestershire: Tempus.
Piggott, S. (1954) Secondary Neolithic Burials at Church
Dale, near Monyash, Derbyshire, 1937–39 Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society,
Volume 19, Issue 2 pp. 229-230
Strehlau, H. (2018) Animals in burial contexts: an
investigation of Norse rituals and human-animal relationships during the Vendel
Period and Viking Age in Uppland, Sweden. Master’s thesis, available at: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1228075/FULLTEXT01.pdf accessed 31.05.20
No comments:
Post a Comment