his pdf of your paper in Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner belongs
to the publishers Oxbow Books and it is their copyright.
As author you are licenced to make up to 50 ofprints from it,
but beyond that you may not publish it on the World Wide
Web until three years from publication (August 2014), unless
the site is a limited access intranet (password protected). If you
have queries about this please contact the editorial department
at Oxbow Books (editorial@oxbowbooks.com).
An ofprint from
GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER
FEASTING RITUALS IN THE PREHISTORIC
SOCIETIES OF EUROPE AND THE NEAR EAST
Gonzalo Aranda Jiménez
Sandra Montón-Subías
Margarita Sánchez Romero
Prologue by Ferran Adrià
© OXBOW BOOKS
ISBN 978-1-84217-985-7
CONTENTS
List of Contributors ............................................................................................... vii
Prologue ..................................................................................................................ix
Ferran Adrià
1. Appetite Comes With Eating: An Overview of the Social Meaning
of Ritual Food and Drink Consumption ........................................................... 1
Gonzalo Aranda Jiménez, Sandra Montón-Subías, Margarita Sánchez Romero
and Eva Alarcón García
2. Commensality Rituals: Feeding Identities in Prehistory .....................................8
Margarita Sánchez Romero
3. Feasting and Social Dynamics in the Epipaleolithic
of the Fertile Crescent: An Interpretive Exercise.............................................. 30
Brian Hayden
4. Evolving Human/Animal Interactions in the Near Eastern Neolithic:
Feasting as a Case Study.................................................................................. 64
Nigel Goring-Morris and Anna Belfer-Cohen
5. Feeding Stonehenge: Feasting in Late Neolithic Britain ...................................73
Mike Parker Pearson, Joshua Pollard, Colin Richards, Julian homas,
Kate Welham, Umberto Albarella, Ben Chan, Peter Marshall and Sarah Viner
6. Political Cuisine: Rituals of Commensality
in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Aegean ..........................................................91
Paul Halstead and Valasia Isaakidou
7. Drinking and Eating Together: he Social and Symbolic Context
of Commensality Rituals in the Bell Beakers of the Interior of Iberia
(2500–2000 cal BC) ..................................................................................... 109
Rafael Garrido-Pena, Manuel A. Rojo-Guerra, Iñigo García-Martínez de Lagrán
and Cristina Tejedor-Rodríguez
8. Feasting Death: Funerary Rituals in the Bronze Age Societies
of South-Eastern Iberia .................................................................................. 130
Gonzalo Aranda Jiménez and Sandra Montón-Subías
9. Feasting Metals and the Ideology of Power in the Late Bronze Age
of Atlantic Iberia ........................................................................................... 158
Xosé-Lois Armada
10. Representing Communities in Heterogeneous Worlds: Staple Foods
and Ritual Practices in the Phoenician Diaspora ............................................184
Ana Delgado and Meritxell Ferrer
11. Consumption Relations in the Northern Iberian Household .........................204
Ramon Buxó and Jordi Principal
12. he Archaeological Identiication of Feasts and Banquets:
heoretical Notes and the Case of Mas Castellar............................................224
Lluís Garcia and Enriqueta Pons
5
FEEDING STONEHENGE: FEASTING IN LATE
NEOLITHIC BRITAIN
Mike Parker Pearson, Joshua Pollard, Colin Richards, Julian homas,
Kate Welham, Umberto Albarella, Ben Chan, Peter Marshall
and Sarah Viner
Questions about the construction of Stonehenge often concentrate on engineering
issues of how the stones were moved and how they were erected. here has been
relatively little thought about how the builders were provisioned: were they slaves or
free, were women and children involved as well as men, were they drawn from a wide
catchment, and where did they live during construction? Whilst there has been some
consideration of the economy to support Stonehenge on the basis of environmental
reconstruction (Allen 1997), it is only recently that such issues could be addressed
directly through archaeological evidence.
Excavations at Stonehenge during the 20th century have produced only a small
assemblage of food remains, even though almost half of the monument has been
excavated (Fig. 5.1) (Cleal et al. 1995). During the 1920s, the excavators retained
Figure 5.1. Stonehenge viewed from the north (photograph by Adam Stanford of Aerial-Cam Ltd.).
74
Mike Parker Pearson et al.
only the larger animal bones, discarding many of the smaller fragments; the 1,000
bones that have been counted in the most recent faunal assessment are also only a
proportion of those examined after excavation since only the interesting ones were kept
(Serjeantson 1995). None the less, there were probably never any large quantities of
animal bone. Most derive from the fills of Stonehenge’s encircling ditch, associated
with the first stage of construction in 3000–2920 cal BC at 95% probability (Fig.
5.2), and with its later in-filling (Serjeantson 1995). hese are mostly bones of cattle
and, to a lesser extent, pig. here are very few bones from contexts contemporary
with Stonehenge’s second main stage, the erection of the lintelled sarsen circle and
trilithons in the period 2640–2470 cal BC (Fig. 5.3). Most of the ceramics found at
Stonehenge date to after these two constructional stages and include over 200 sherds
of Bell Beaker pottery along with Bronze Age and Iron Age sherds (Cleal 1995, 353).
Figure 5.2. Phase 1 at Stonehenge (drawn by Irene Deluis).
5. Feeding Stonehenge: Feasting in Late Neolithic Britain
75
Figure 5.3. Phase 2 at Stonehenge (drawn by Irene Deluis).
he only ceramics thought to be contemporary with Stonehenge’s construction are 11
Grooved Ware sherds from the ditch.
It is clear that this small assemblage of sherds and animal bones – even those thrown
away by past archaeologists – cannot have met the culinary and nutritional requirements
of Stonehenge’s builders. Archaeological excavations around the immediate environs of
Stonehenge (Fig. 5.4) have demonstrated that there is a similar dearth of occupation
debris from the early-mid third millennium BC, both to the south and east of the
monument along the line of the modern A303 road (Leivers and Moore 2008) and
also to the west and north (Parker Pearson et al. 2008). Where potential settlement
remains have been found on King Barrow Ridge to the east, these have been found
to date to the late fourth-early third millennia BC (Richards 1990). It is possible that
builders of Stonehenge’s first stage might have lived in this area but there is no trace
of mid-third millennium activity.
76
Mike Parker Pearson et al.
Figure 5.4. he environs of Stonehenge (drawn by Irene Deluis).
Even though densities of surface lithic scatters are considerable in the environs
of Stonehenge (Richards 1990) and higher than most other landscapes in southern
Britain (Chan 2003; forthcoming), the worked flints derive from at least two millennia
of occupation and agriculture. Furthermore, the density of worked flint from the
occupation surfaces at Durrington Walls is over twice that of the densest surface
scatters within the Stonehenge environs and eight times that of the average surface
scatter density in the area.
Durrington Walls: a large Neolithic settlement close to Stonehenge
Durrington Walls is Britain’s largest henge enclosure (17 ha), lying 3km northeast of
Stonehenge in a dry valley perched above the west bank of the River Avon (Fig. 5.5).
Previous excavations (Farrer 1918; Stone et al. 1954; Wainwright with Longworth 1971)
demonstrated the considerable quantities of animal bones, Grooved Ware pottery and
other occupation debris at this large site, within half an hour’s walk of Stonehenge. he
1966–1968 excavations revealed the remains of two timber circles, the Northern Circle
5. Feeding Stonehenge: Feasting in Late Neolithic Britain
77
and the very large Southern Circle (Fig 5.6) (Wainwright with Longworth 1971). A
third timber circle, Woodhenge lies immediately outside the blocked south entrance
to the henge enclosure (Cunnington 1929).
Excavations in 2004–2007 at Durrington Walls by the Stonehenge Riverside Project
have revealed the remains of a large Neolithic settlement, much of it protected beneath
Figure 5.5. Plan of Durrington Walls and Woodhenge (drawn by Mark Dover).
78
Mike Parker Pearson et al.
Figure 5.6. Isometric reconstruction of the Southern Circle at Durrington Walls, viewed from the
south (produced by Lawrence Shaw).
the banks of the henge enclosure (Parker Pearson 2007; Parker Pearson et al. 2007).
he Southern Circle appears to have formed the focus of this settlement. A layer of
rammed flint outside its entrance, excavated in 1967, is likely to have formed the
northeast end of a wide, ceremonial avenue whose course towards the river was detected
during excavations in 2005–2006.
hick layers of Late Neolithic occupation debris detected under the banks of the
henge enclosure indicate that the settlement extended another 100m west of the Western
Enclosures, 200m south and north of them and 300m east of them. hus the outer
bank of the henge enclosure preserves the outer edges of this large settlement to the
height of the ancient ground surface.
he houses at Durrington Walls
About 200m west of the Southern Circle, higher up the dry valley, lie the remains of
five small, circular enclosures, known as the Western Enclosures. he largest of these
is about 40m in diameter, its ground surface terraced into the hillside, with an eastfacing entrance. Excavations in 2006 revealed that a square house had been positioned
at its centre, surrounded by a circular palisade whose east-facing entrance looked
out towards the enclosure’s entrance past a pair of holes for large wooden posts (Fig.
5.7) (homas 2007). One of the four smaller enclosures was also excavated, revealing
another house set within a circular palisade in its interior. hese two house floors were
preserved only where the burnt bases of their central hearths had hardened enough
to resist erosion. Otherwise, the houses were detectable by the small stakeholes along
093
073
100
104
096
125
075
519
133
152
106
154
129
156
208
077
158
135
110
148
065
307
145
131
108
150
161
079
114
571
070
081
169
163
528
118
530
181
171
183
083
123
400
206
361
120
185
401
252
087
187
069
271
189
513
515
298
085
122
191
177
461
193
175
511
471
064
137
090
195
197
465
510
139
463
220
437
212
222
294
416
240
228
210
414
236
288
232
141
224
296
290
218
143
468
521
237
071
526
508
408
321
214
406
410
167
532
567
511
N
565
058
112
506
DURRINGTON WALLS 2006
Western Enclosures Trench 14
0
5 metres
Figure 5.7. he house within the large western enclosure within Durrington Walls; the square house plan is at the left end of the trench (drawn by
Julian homas).
80
Mike Parker Pearson et al.
their wall lines, by the outlines of the eroded floor edges, and by the remains of beam
slots for internal wooden furnishings. Each house was just over 5m square and had a
square arrangement of four postholes around the central hearth.
Although this western central part of the settlement had been heavily scoured by
erosion, the various cut features were largely devoid of settlement refuse, suggesting
that this area was either kept clean or had not been the focus of domestic activity. Since
the hearths within each house had clearly been used, this raised two possibilities: either
the inhabitants of each house had not discarded their food waste here (the food being
consumed elsewhere or its waste being taken away) or these were uninhabited shrines
whose fires were attended but not used for cooking. he dominating position of these
houses reinforces the notion that they were of social and/or religious importance.
East of the Southern Circle, excavations in 2004–2007 uncovered the preserved floors
of seven square houses (Fig. 5.8). Five of these were terraced into the hillside on the
north side of the ceremonial avenue, and the other two were sat upon the low chalk
banks on either side of the avenue (Fig. 5.9). hese latter two houses were unlikely
to have been domestic dwellings because they were open on one side (the side facing
southwest towards the midwinter sunrise). Whilst they possessed central hearths, they
remained open to the elements. Perhaps they acted as indoor gathering spaces for small
groups watching processions or activities along the avenue towards the river.
Figure 5.8. Durrington Walls; Houses 849, 851 and 547 viewed from the north (photograph by
Bob Nunn).
5. Feeding Stonehenge: Feasting in Late Neolithic Britain
81
Figure 5.9. Durrington Walls; houses in the eastern part of the site, including part of the avenue
(drawn by Mark Dover).
82
Mike Parker Pearson et al.
he five houses north of the avenue were of different sizes. he largest was of similar
size to the two within the Western Enclosures and was the most solidly built. Its wall
survived as a square setting of stakeholes, forming a house with rounded corners. Pieces
of daub and the remains of a puddled chalk matrix along the outer face of the wall on
its west side provide evidence for a wattle, daub and chalk plaster wall.
he doorway of this house was positioned on its south side, giving entry onto a
chalk plaster floor with a slightly sunken, flat-bottomed, oval fire pit at its centre (Fig.
5.10). he floor’s edges had been formed by timber beams whose impressions remained
in the edges of the plaster floor as well as forming slots into the ground beneath. On
the north side, opposite the doorway, the beam slot had held vertical posts at its ends
and centre. On the east and west sides, the beam slots were at a greater distance from
the wall than on the north side and enclosed long, rectangular spaces against each
wall. here were two small, square beam slot settings in the southeast and southwest
corners.
Comparison of this house with the stone furniture surviving in contemporary stonebuilt houses of Orkney at settlements such as Skara Brae (Childe 1931) provides the
key to understanding the forms of the now-vanished wooden furniture in this house.
In fact, this dwelling is identical in plan, interior layout and size to House 7 at Skara
Brae. We can confidently interpret the furniture on the north wall as a ‘dresser’ (a
storage unit of two shelves, one above the other), the east and west structures as a pair
of box beds, the southeast box as a kitchen storage unit (here the floor was covered
with small pieces of broken sherds), and the southwest box as a storage unit for placing
items of clothing and tools when entering the house.
Figure 5.10. Laser scan image of House 851, draped with a vertical photograph (image produced by
Mark Dover from laser scan by Kate Welham and photograph by Adam Stanford).
5. Feeding Stonehenge: Feasting in Late Neolithic Britain
83
About 5m east of this house lay a smaller one, about 2m × 3m. Its doorway was
probably on the south side. Although the wall had not been marked by stakeholes,
the decayed remains of cob walling lay all around. A small, informal central hearth
was the only internal feature. his house is best interpreted as an outhouse or ancillary
building on the basis of its floor deposits and lack of internal features. Both houses
were separated from the other dwellings by a fence line of postholes and probably
formed a single domestic unit. Once again, Skara Brae offers a close parallel, with
House 6 being precisely the same shape and size; it is positioned next to House 7
and the two are separated at Skara Brae from the other houses, in this case by a long
corridor rather than a fence.
On the south side of the fence, three small dwellings were excavated. Two were sat
on an artificial terrace formed of turf which had probably been stripped from higher up
the hillside. he third lay immediately below this terrace, cut into the chalk bedrock.
All had central oval hearths and beam slots for beds but not dressers. he lower house’s
floor was directly on the chalk bedrock whilst the other two had chalk plaster floors.
he plaster for the house floors was formed of soliflucted chalk, created during the
last Ice Age in periglacial conditions in which the silt product of weathered chalk filled
voids in the solid chalk bedrock. Each house was associated with a cluster of intercutting extraction pits from which this clay-like weathering product had been dug
out to be mixed for the plaster for floors and presumably walls. Each house had up
to about 12 of these inter-cutting pits in its vicinity, suggesting that these represented
the number of construction episodes (building followed by episodes of repair) for each
house. his evidence could be compared with the results of soil micromorphological
analysis of separate plastering episodes for each house floor. he largest house’s floor
had been plastered seven times.
Dating of the Durrington Walls village
Radiocarbon dates for the settlement are statistically indistinguishable from the two
dates (2655–2485 cal BC and 2850–2400 cal BC, combined as 2620–2480 cal BC
at 92% probability) for erection of the sarsen circle and trilithons at Stonehenge. In
addition, the stratigraphy of the Durrington settlement, subsequently covered by the
bank of the henge enclosure, offers the potential for Bayesian statistical modelling of
radiocarbon dates in known stratigraphic relationships to each other. In this way, the
probability ranges of the dates for the settlement can be refined to within decades.
To ensure that dated materials were fresh when they entered their stratigraphic layer,
only articulated animal bones, antler picks and carbonised branches were selected for
dating. he resulting statistical model dates the settlement as beginning in 2525–2470
cal BC and ending in 2480–2440 cal BC (both at 95% probability). he Southern
Circle and avenue were constructed in 2490–2460 cal BC and 2505–2465 cal BC
respectively, and the ditch and bank of the henge enclosure were made during the
period 2485–2455 cal BC (all at 95% probability).
84
Mike Parker Pearson et al.
he radiocarbon modelling indicates that the settlement was in use for a period of
probably less than half a century. Just how much less is difficult to say, but the evidence
of floor re-plastering and plaster-extraction pits hints at a period of as little as 7–12
years (if re-plastering was performed annually).
Between the abandonment of the village and the construction of the henge bank
and ditch, a line of ramped postholes was dug on the east side of the settlement. hese
were presumably constructed to form a perimeter but the holes were never filled with
posts, instead being backfilled with clean chalk and domestic refuse.
Activity at Durrington Walls continued, perhaps on and off, for a further 200 years
or more. Once the posts of the Southern Circle had decayed – a period of perhaps
up to 170 years – pits were dug into the tops of its postholes and were filled with
structured deposits of pottery, animal bones, artefacts and worked flint (Richards and
homas 1984; homas 2007). he avenue remained in use, with a turf line eventually
forming at some point towards the end of the third millennium BC.
he lack of precision from the two relevant radiocarbon dates at Stonehenge
(2620–2480 cal BC) makes it impossible to be sure that the sarsens were put up at
the same time as the Durrington Walls settlement was occupied (2525–2470 cal BC
to 2480–2440 cal BC). For the foreseeable future, we must content ourselves with the
knowledge only that it is possible that the two events were contemporary. We cannot
prove that Durrington Walls was occupied by Stonehenge’s builders; we know only
that the two events occurred within the same two centuries. Only when Stonehenge’s
sarsen phase can be dated with greater precision will we be able to better judge the
likelihood of the two events being contemporary. For the moment, it remains a distinct
possibility.
he size of the Durrington Walls settlement
Evidence for Grooved Ware settlement has been found beneath north, south, east
and west banks of the henge enclosure as well as within its interior at the Western
Enclosures. hus it is very likely that the area covered and enclosed by the henge bank
formed one large village. Whether it was as densely settled within its interior as around
its edges cannot be demonstrated, especially because erosion has been severe within
the interior where remains of house floors survive only poorly if at all.
he density of houses in the area excavated in 2004–2007 on the east side is of
the order of one house per 120sq m. If it applies to the rest of the projected area of
settlement, we might expect a further 300 houses to remain well preserved beneath the
henge banks. If the interior was filled, then there could have been as many as 1000
buildings – for domestic, ancillary and special purposes.
he small sizes of the dwellings limit the numbers of inhabitants in each house.
With just two beds, we might expect the inhabitants to consist of no more than 4 or 5
persons. From analysis of comparable dwellings in Neolithic Orkney, Richards (2004)
has concluded that these might contain nuclear families of parents and children. he
5. Feeding Stonehenge: Feasting in Late Neolithic Britain
85
identical forms of the Durrington Walls houses raises the possibility that they were
similarly built for and used by families. If so, we can envisage the notion that Stonehenge
was built by work teams which included women and children as well as men.
hus we might be looking at a total of around 4000 men, women and children
living at Durrington Walls. Corroboration for this figure comes from estimates of the
size of work force required to build the henge ditch and bank of Durrington Walls.
he magnetometry survey of the entire henge (David and Payne 1997; Payne 2003)
reveals that the ditch was dug out in a series of conjoining segments, each about 40m
long. his is particularly clear on the monument’s east side.
his segmental method of ditch digging is well known from causewayed enclosures
and long barrow ditches of the 4th millennium BC in Britain and is generally interpreted
as the effect of gang-digging in which separate groups of labourers dig different stretches
of ditch, sometimes – but not always – breaking though into the adjacent length of
ditch at either end. We can expect around 20 such gang-dug segments.
To estimate the number of workers in each segment, we have an interesting deposit
at the bottom of the one length of ditch dug out on the south side of Durrington
Walls when the henge was constructed (Wainwright with Longworth 1971; a length
of the ditch on the northern side was also dug out but this can now be interpreted
as a later blocking of a north entrance for the henge enclosure). On the floor of the
south ditch, Wainwright encountered a deposit of 57 antler picks, evidently discarded
on completion of the herculean task of digging down 5.5m and across 10m through
solid chalk.
If the number of picks indicates the number of pick workers, we can estimate that
many more were required to help dig out the chalk, carry it by basket out of the ditch
and onto the bank, and also to provide the food and other infrastructural support.
Digging with an antler pick probably required one person, possibly helped by a second
person in the deeper seams of chalk. hus 114 diggers would have needed a similarly
large removal team to shift the rubble and provide logistical support. If 150–200 people
were engaged in digging each segment of ditch, then there could have been as many
as 4,000 at work on the entire circumference.
Of course, a smaller number could have constructed the enclosure if segments were
dug at different times, the same group sequentially digging different segments. With this
possibility in mind, we excavated a length of bank in 2005–2006 where two segments
joined. he inter-stratification of the two adjacent bank segments demonstrated that both
were dug at the same time, although one segment was begun shortly before the other.
Feasting activities at Durrington Walls
Although the faunal remains are still being analysed, the preliminary results shed light on
the practice of feasting, the seasonality of feasts, and the provisioning of the feasts.
he areas between the five houses on the north side of the Durrington Walls avenue
were filled with domestic debris. Other ‘middens’ were also identified in 2004–2007
86
Mike Parker Pearson et al.
further north beneath the henge bank and on the south side of the avenue. Wainwright
identified a posthole-enclosed terrace immediately northeast of the Southern Circle as
a midden (Wainwright with Longworth 1971) but this can now be reinterpreted as a
large building which later filled with midden debris.
hese midden deposits consist of black organic soil with ash, burnt flint, worked
flints, animal bones and potsherds. hey formed in public areas in front of and beside
the Southern Circle and beside the avenue, as well as in the ‘private’ spaces around
houses. In the latter cases, they accumulated to greatest height on property boundaries
such as the fence line which divided the large house and its ancillary building from
the three other houses down slope (Fig. 5.11) (Chan 2009).
here are about 80,000 animal bones from the areas excavated in 2004–2007.
Preliminary analysis by Umberto Albarella and Sarah Viner indicates that most are
the bones of pigs and cattle in a ratio of 10:1 (see also Albarella and Serjeantson 2002
on re-analysis of the 1966–68 faunal assemblage). All the animals were domesticates
except for a very few bones of aurochs (Bos primigenius), red deer (Cervus elaphus) and
roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). he large
quantities of animal bones indicate that
considerable numbers of livestock were
slaughtered and consumed on this shortlived settlement.
he condition of the animal bones,
as well as their quantity, provides a
good indication of the nature of their
consumption. Several hundred pig and
cattle bones were recovered still in
articulation. As well as providing highquality radiocarbon samples for dating
their contexts of deposition, they also
show that meat was plentiful enough for
bones to be discarded without extracting
the maximum nutritional value out of
each of them. As a whole, the lack of
fragmentation within the faunal assemblage
is remarkable. Whilst some long bones
have been split to extract their marrow,
the general completeness of the bones is
more than would be encountered on an
all-year round settlement.
Albarella’s re-analysis of the animal
Figure 5.11. Density of animal bones on the
bones
from the 1967 excavations and his
ground surface between houses; note how the
preliminary analysis of those from the
highest density is in the area of the fenceline
between houses (produced by Ben Chan).
2004–2008 excavations show that certain
5. Feeding Stonehenge: Feasting in Late Neolithic Britain
87
practices were employed for killing and cooking the pigs (Albarella and Serjeantson
2002). Firstly, a small number of pig bones had impact injuries from projectile points,
in most cases containing the broken-off tips of flint arrowheads. Whilst the pigs could
have been shot at point blank range, the wide variety of bones with these injuries
– from ribs to forelimb bones – hints at the possibility of some animals being shot
from a distance, perhaps in some blood sport prior to cooking.
Secondly, pigs’ limb bones were often burnt in well-defined and predictable
anatomical areas. his is indicative of roasting and a regular butchery pattern. Whether
the animals were roasted whole on spits or were cut into slabs of meat is difficult to say,
but it is certainly possible to roast pigs attached to wooden spits with organic bindings.
Immediately outside the entrance to the Southern Circle, Wainwright uncovered the
remains of a 5m-long hearth which may have been one of the locations where whole
animals were roasted.
hirdly, the pigs could be aged according to manibular wear stages (Albarella and
Serjeantson 2002). he 1967 assemblage demonstrated that a significant number were
culled at mandibular wear stages 8–12, when the pigs were around 9–10 months old
(Albarella and Payne 2005). Working on the assumption that pigs farrowed in spring,
Albarella interprets this as a midwinter cull pattern. On-going analysis of the 2004–2007
assemblage has confirmed this seasonal spike as well as identifying a second, less marked
period of culling in summer. his evidence for summertime activity is supported by
the large proportion of lipid residues deriving from dairy products found in the pots
excavated in 1967 (Mukherjee 2004); highest milk yields would have been obtained
in the summer months rather than wintertime.
Anna Mukherjee’s study of lipids from Grooved Ware and Beaker pots found in the
1967 excavations revealed that, out of 29 that had surviving remains of identifiable
lipids, most had contained dairy products, while the remainder were split between
ruminant and pork fats (Mukherjee 2004; Mukherjee et al. 2008). Since sheep were
rare in the faunal assemblage at Durrington Walls, it is likely that the ruminant flesh
cooked in the pots was beef.
he spatial distribution of these pots with different food products was not random;
most with dairy product residues were concentrated in the public area in front of
the Southern Circle (close to the 5m-long hearth) and in the midden of the filled-in
building to its northeast. here may also be a relationship between ceramic vessel size
and contents. Residues of dairy products were found in either the smallest pots (under
22cm diameter) or in larger vessels (30–35cm diameter). Ruminant fat residues were
recovered only from pots of intermediate size (22–30cm diameter), though residues
of pork fat were found in vessels of all sizes. Further analysis of lipid residues should
establish the reliability of these preliminary observations.
A new project, ‘Feeding Stonehenge’, is now investigating the provisioning of
Stonehenge, Durrington Walls and the other henge enclosures of Wessex. A pilot study
of strontium isotope values in the molar tooth enamel from 12 of the cattle mandibles
from Durrington Walls has demonstrated that the majority of animals in that sample
88
Mike Parker Pearson et al.
had been raised at least 50km away (Viner et al. 2010). Whilst two were raised on the
chalklands of Wessex, the remainder had been brought in from areas beyond. Two had
come from areas of igneous rock, either in Wales or southwest England. he variable
life histories that could be reconstructed from analysis of successive tooth slices showed
that each animal had a different ‘pathway’, suggestive of their derivation from many
different herds.
During the 2004–2007 excavations, sieving of all excavated deposits provided
a representative sample of all bones of large mammals. he complete absence of
neonatal bones of pigs and cattle from the assemblage must thus represent a genuine
phenomenon. Since neonatal animal bones are frequent finds on all-year round
farmsteads of prehistoric and later period settlements, their absence confirms that
Durrington Walls was mostly a ‘consumer’ site, importing its animal flesh probably
‘on the hoof ’, rather than raising the animals from birth.
Conclusion
he definition of feasting from archaeological remains is always going to be difficult
except in circumstances such as those at Durrington Walls. Here, the sheer scale of
the quantities of debris, the integrity of the archaeological deposits, the evidence for
waste during consumption, the short time scale of occupation, and the evidence for
seasonality of consumption all contribute to the conclusion that large numbers of
people gathered here during the Late Neolithic to engage in communal feasting.
One purpose for feasting may have been to gather for celebrations at the newly
completed Stonehenge and its wooden counterparts of Woodhenge and the Southern
Circle. Alternatively, if the occupants of Durrington Walls were indeed the builders of
Stonehenge, as seems most plausible, then the offer of feasting must have been part of
the reason why large numbers of people were co-opted into large-scale mobilization for
monument building. his would suggest that many, if not most, worked on Stonehenge
not as slaves or serfs but as individuals bringing their own food supplies and perhaps
also receiving hospitality from those orchestrating the project. Such reciprocal exchange
relationships centred on feasting are a common feature of megalith building around
the world today, albeit on smaller scales.
References
Albarella, U. and Serjeantson, D. (2002) A passion for pork: meat consumption at the British Late
Neolithic site of Durrington Walls. In P. Miracle and N. Milner (eds.) Consuming Passions and
Patterns of Consumption, 33–49. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Albarella U. and Payne S. (2005) Neolithic pigs from Durrington Walls, Wiltshire, England: a
biometrical database. Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 589–99.
Allen, M. J. (1997) Environment and land-use: the economic development of the communities
who built Stonehenge (an economy to support the stones). In B. Cunliffe and C. Renfrew (eds.)
Science and Stonehenge. Proceedings of the British Academy 92, 115–44.
5. Feeding Stonehenge: Feasting in Late Neolithic Britain
89
Chan, B. (2003) Understanding the inhabitation of the Stonehenge Environs: the interpretative potential
of ploughsoil assemblages. Unpublished PhD hesis, University of Sheffield
Chan, B. (2009) Life amongst the rubbish: middening and conspicuous consumption at Durrington
Walls. Internet Archaeology 26. http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue26/chan_index.html
Chan, B. (2011) Stonehenge, looking from the inside out: a comparative analysis of landscape surveys
in southern Britain, 116–138. In A. Saville (ed.) Flint and Stone in the Neolithic Period. Oxford,
Oxbow Books.
Childe, V. G. (1931) Skara Brae: a Pictish village in Orkney. London, Kegan Paul.
Cleal, R. M. J. (1995) Artefacts and ecofacts: the finds assemblage. Prehistoric pottery. In R. M. J.
Cleal, K. E. Walker and R. Montague. Stonehenge in its Landscape: twentieth-century excavations,
349–62. London, English Heritage.
Cleal, R. M. J., Walker, K. E. and Montague, R. (1995) Stonehenge in its Landscape: twentieth-century
excavations. London, English Heritage.
Cunnington, M. E. (1929) Woodhenge. Devizes, Simpson.
David, A. and Payne, A. (1997) Geophysical surveys within the Stonehenge landscape: a review of
past endeavour and future potential. In B. Cunliffe and C. Renfrew (eds.) Science and Stonehenge.
Proceedings of the British Academy 92, 73–113.
Farrer, P. (1918) Durrington Walls, or Long Walls. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History
Magazine 40, 95–103.
Leivers, M. and Moore, C. (2008) Archaeology on the A303 Stonehenge Improvement. Salisbury, Wessex
Archaeology.
Mukherjee, A. J. (2004) he Importance of Pigs in the Later British Neolithic: integrating stable isotope
evidence from lipid residues in archaeological potsherds, animal bone, and modern animal tissues.
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Bristol.
Mukherjee, A. J., Gibson, A. M. and Evershed, R. P. (2008) Trends in pig product processing at
British Neolithic Grooved Ware sites traced through organic residues in potsherds. Journal of
Archaeological Science 35, 2059–73.
Parker Pearson, M. (2007) he Stonehenge Riverside Project: excavations at the east entrance of
Durrington Walls. In L. Larsson & M. Parker Pearson (eds.) From Stonehenge to the Baltic: cultural
diversity in the third millennium BC, 125–44. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports (British
Series) 1692.
Parker Pearson, M., Allen, M. J., Bayer, O., Casswell, C., Chan, B., French, C, Garwood, P., Nunn,
R., Pitts, M. Pollard, J., Pullen, B., Richards, C., Richards, J., Robinson, D., Rylatt, J., Shaw, D.,
Teather, A. and homas, J. 2008. Stonehenge Riverside Project 2008: interim report. Unpublished
report, Sheffield University.
Parker Pearson, M., Cleal, R., Marshall, P., Needham, S., Pollard, J., Richards, C, Ruggles, C.,
Sheridan, A., homas, J. Tilley, C., Welham, K., Chamberlain, A., Chenery, C., Evans, J., Knüsel,
C., Linford N., Martin, L., Montgomery, J., Payne, A. and Richards. M. (2007) he age of
Stonehenge. Antiquity 81, 617–39.
Payne, A. (2003) Durrington Walls henge, Wiltshire. Report on geophysical surveys, January 1996 and
April 2003. Centre for Archaeology Report Series 107/2003. Portsmouth, English Heritage.
Richards, C. (2004) Dwelling amongst the Monuments: excavations at Barnhouse and Maes Howe.
Cambridge, McDonald Institute monographs.
Richards, C. and homas, J. (1984) Ritual activity and structured deposition in later Neolithic
Wessex. In R. Bradley and J. Gardiner (eds.) Neolithic Studies: a review of some current research,
189–218. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports (British Series 133).
Richards, J. C. (1990) he Stonehenge Environs Project. London, English Heritage.
Serjeantson, D. (1995) Animal bones. In R. M. J. Cleal, K. E. Walker and R. Montague. Stonehenge
in its Landscape: twentieth-century excavations, 437–51. London, English Heritage.
90
Mike Parker Pearson et al.
Stone, J. F. S., Piggott, S. and Booth, A. St. J. (1954) Durrington Walls, Wiltshire: recent excavations
at a ceremonial site of the early second millennium BC. Antiquaries Journal 34, 155–77.
homas, J. (2007) he internal features at Durrington Walls: investigations in the Southern Circle
and Western Enclosures 2005–2006. In L. Larsson and M. Parker Pearson (eds.) From Stonehenge
to the Baltic: cultural diversity in the third millennium BC, 145–57. Oxford, British Archaeological
Reports (British Series) 1692.
Viner, S., Evans, J., Albarella, U. and Parker Pearson, M. (2010) Cattle mobility in prehistoric Britain:
strontium isotope analysis of cattle teeth from Durrington Walls (Wiltshire, Britain). Journal of
Archaeological Science 37, 2812–20.
Wainwright, G. J. with Longworth, I. H. (1971) Durrington Walls: excavations 1966–1968. London,
Society of Antiquaries.