The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen. Bell Beaker burials at Boscombe Down, Amesbury, Wiltshire. By A.P. FitzpatrickWessex Archaeological Reports 27, Wessex Archaeology. 2011. 278 pages; 81 figures, 53 plates, 37 tables; Abstracts in English, German, French and Spanish. ISBN 978-1-874350-54-5, hb, £ 30.00
The Amesbury Archer, The King of Stonehenge, who doesn’t know this person from the British (or Swiss?) Early Bronze Age: the richest Beaker burial in all of Europe. Thanks to the web the finds were already known to the wider public, but we were still awaiting the full scientific publication of this unique discovery made in 2002.Andrew Fitzpatrick and his colleagues of Wessex Archaeology plus a large number of specialists from all kinds of disciplines have now finished their analyses of this famous burial and of that of thecontemporary ‘Boscombe Bowmen’discovered in April 2003.Publication has taken some time but commercial archaeology is not organised to produce extensive scientific publications: funds have to be raised, people have to do the work (often in their evenings and weekends). And special finds deserve special treatments. So fellow scholars (I counted 32 contributors and three illustrators) had to be coached to produce specialist reports on a comparable level. Given those constraints, it is an enormous achievement that the publication is now available. Full marks for that, to Andrew and his collaborators, and for Wessex Archaeology to have providedthe facilities and time.And last but not least to Julie Gardiner whose able editorial hands are evident throughout the book, if I’m not mistaken. Yes we have waited long, and probably many of the experts who did the analyses have also had a long wait, but it is now here, so let’s not dwell on this longer.
The main question of course is, does this give us what we, ever critical scholars, want? Does this report enhance our knowledge? Is this a good example of a high quality publication which provides new insights and inspiring analyses?Can one recommend this to colleagues and students and is it an example of good practise for fellow archaeologists? These are the kinds of questions asked of the reviewer and so these are the questions I will try to answer.
The first impression is always important: how does it feel?Do the images challenge you to read on and are they of good quality? The answer is yes! The quality of the line drawings is generally superb, especially those of the excavation plans, but also those redrawn images of the already long-published Beaker burials. Colour is used efficiently and effectively, give added value with the result that the images are, exemplary. I’m less impressed by the photographs of objects, many of which are familiar from the very early days of the discovery (sometimes dark and a bit too shady, or with a very black background). Also the familiar two column (Oxbow style) publication format makes the book pleasant to read.So: first impression is yes, read on, this is a good quality book.
The structure of the volume is what one might expect of a scientific report. It is divided into three parts. Part 1 deals with the excavation of the Boscombe Bowmen burial and the analysis of the finds, Part 2 does the same for the burials of the Amesbury Archer and the second burial known as his ‘Companion’. Part 3 analyses all finds in terms of chronology, isotope studies and archaeological interpretation. The final section probably took longest to compile because it involved incorporating and discussing all available evidence on Beakers andan overall interpretation of the finds.
The structure of the report has its advantages and disadvantages. The first two parts give detailed descriptions and analyses of the burials and their grave gifts. This has the advantage that it is structured and one can read and re-read some of the evidence. A disadvantage is that every section draws its own conclusion and interpretation. In general these confer but sometimes it takes some re-reading to compare contrasting visions. This is especially the case with discussions of the 14C dates in the different chapters and then again in more detailed analysis set out in Chapter 6. Moreover, several of the interpretive sections make some sort of circular argument. There is a general understanding that Beakers originated in the LowerRhineBasin (orSpain), that the Continent is where to look for origins and affiliations, and especially that Brittany was a node in networks: for the Archer, his Companion and the Boscombe Bowmen, were non-locals, as well as high status individuals. Much of the evidence discussed is constrained by these ‘givens’, which are in fact interpretations in their own right.Sometimes this leads to rather complicated analyses of the possible routes taken by these travellers and the goals they pursued: leading to no clear consensus or conclusions. More interesting questions, like for example how it was possible that foreigners were buried according to local traditions and how they had also obviously become respected members of local communities,are, unfortunately, not addressed.
The book starts with the description of the oldest burials, that of the Boscombe Bowmen. Nine or ten individuals were recorded, four burials were discovered in situ (p. 16). The demographic data (analysis by Jackie McKinley) show that several age classes are represented and alongside the in situinhumations re-deposited (human) bones were also present. A cremated infant was inserted probably last in the sequence and this occurred more than a hundred years after the first burials (p. 172), then the chamber was filled in. Sometime later an infant was buried in the fill and represented a secondary burial. We therefore can speak of a collective or, in any case,a re-opened burial with several burial events. This is very interesting from the point of view of visibility and collective memory, a point which is discussed further by Fitzpatrick in Chapter 9. He demonstrates that this was in fact not out of the ordinary in Britainalthough it is not known as a Grooved Ware tradition. Personally I feel that the contrast with Grooved Ware traditions is artificially created here. In Ireland Carlin (2011) has demonstrated that there is much more continuity between Grooved Ware and Beaker traditions than previously realised, but this is especially visible in settlements and ceremonial sites. It might be interesting to have a closer look at how Beaker-type artefacts and traditions are incorporated into Late Neolithic contexts. In this light Harding’s suggestion that the flint blade technology is reminiscent of old traditions, becomes interesting, although he interprets the objects as possible heirlooms (p. 36).
Pottery typology is still at the heart of most Beaker studies, and this is demonstrated very well in the discussions of the pottery of both the Boscombe Bowmen (Alistair Barclay) and the Amesbury Archer (Rosamund Cleal). In the Boscombe Bowmen burial the remains of eight All-over Ornamented Beakers were found, in the Amesbury Archer burial another five. Interestingly the fabric analysis makes clear that these pots had been made locally, but their decorative patterns and forms are comparable with all other known Beaker pots in Europe, especially those that are suspected to have been visible on possible routes of the Archer and the Bowmen. My problem with this type of approach is that it ignores the underlying social processes. Why would people copy decoration? How did they acquire knowledge of them? Did the travellers make sketches? Were people taking wives (en masse!) from the continent between 2500 and 2450 cal BC? Did Beaker Women hold European conventions (hosted by the Dutch Beaker People Association) in order to discuss Beaker decoration and compare specimens for copying form and decoration? Silly questions of course, but they make you think about the social processes involved, and in my view this discussion is notably absent here. But that is another discussion. So,yes, the analyses by Barclay and Cleal are interesting, they bring all Beakers together, give comprehensive overviews, and most Beaker scholars will read them with interest and agree with the outcomes.
The Amesbury Archer burial is described in the Part 2. Particularly interesting is McKinley’s detailed analysis of the bones and especially the pathology. Maybe we should rename him the ‘Amesbury limp’: he was missing his left kneecap and as a result had a severe limp, possibly due to an accident or a fight (a medical condition could also be the cause, but is considered less likely, p. 86). It is interesting that a man who was clearly disabled and probably in considerable pain all the time because of a large abscess in his jaw, was buried with such a large number of artefacts. An interesting detail is the discovery of the deciduous tooth of a second individual, a child, which was found in the grave of the ‘Companion’. This is interpreted as a re-deposited tooth because the ‘Companion’ himself had a complete set of teeth (p. 78).With one missing rib (p.86), it is proposed that the burial of the Amesbury Archer was also re-opened. This is not discussed further by Fitzpatrick, but the re-opening of the burial alongside the addition of sets of artefacts has crossed his mind (along with John Barrett and Alex Gibson, p. 226). Given that fact that no artefacts were removedmight mean that the man himself was seen as mythical, dangerous or even sacred rather than (or in addition to) rich and powerful. But this interpretation is not discussed in the book. In my view his physical condition, and his potential status an a smith, may have perhaps determined the way his body through burial was transformed into an (idealised) and powerful ancestor. This leaves open the possibility that he himself was not exactly the richest and most powerful person on earth, but that his descendants experienced him as such.
The finds have, of course, made the Amesbury Archer famous. Phil Harding describes over a hundred flint artefacts including 15 arrowheads and two edged-flaked knives (all beautifully drawn) found in three caches. The two bracers are described by Fiona Roe. Rob Ixer and Peter Webb argue (p. 112) that both could have come from a British source (Cornwall or Devon), though Roe tries to locate a continental source (which is also possible).
The cushion stone, copper daggers and gold basket-shaped ornaments are discussed by Stuart Needham. The thorough analysis of other contemporary finds, their distribution and typology, is clear added value to their descriptions. Metal analyses are carried out by Mike Cowell and others. The copper daggers/knives were made of two distinct types of coppers: Bell Beaker metal and arsenic-only metal, with two different histories of procurement and probablemanufacture. Thisprompts Needham to the suggest that ‘it is entirely feasible that an individual as the Amesbury Archer could have drawn social capital from the fact that he possessed copper objects from more than one ultimate ‘source’’ (p. 126). That, in my view, is a step too far: an example of bending data in the direction of one type of interpretation. In this case the assumption is that the Archer was of high social class/elite, so data are ‘read’ to fit that perspective.
The analysis of the basket-shaped gold ornaments by Needham shows that the style is typically British (p. 138). This provides a ‘problem’ because on the one hand the Amesbury Archer and his ‘Companion’ are supposed to have been Beaker pioneers, while on the other, they wear an established British type of ornament (p. 138). This seems a bit odd, because the elaborate 14C-analyses by Barclay, Marshall and Higham (Chapter 6) show that both burials postdate 2400 cal BC, which surely is early in a British context, but not necessarily in a pioneer context.
The pioneer-model, which seems to be present throughout most of the volume, is probably generated also through the knowledge that the Amesbury Archer, and also the Boscombe Bowmen, were not local. Following the pre-publication of the oxygen-isotope results, the Amesbury Archer is now cited widely as a migrant from southern Germany, with the Boscombe Bowmen as migrants from Wales. In Chapter 7 Chernery and Evans publish the final analyses of the isotope data. I find the strontium data, and the combination of both types of analysis particularly convincing. Figure 70 (p. 189), comparing continental analyses with those of the Boscome Bowmen and the Amesbury burial, is interesting, though it is a pity that the Archer and the ‘Companion’ are not shown as separate measurements. I still keep my reserves about oxygen-isotopes analysis. The measurements I do not contest, but I still have no idea of base-line research, seasonal variation, the effects of climatic change, etc.The map presented (fig. 69) is crude, and I would like to see the same data interpreted by other laboratories. But the combined data of strontium and oxygen isotopes are convincing, and Fitzpatrick’s analysis (Chapter 12) that the Alpine region could be the region of origin, is convincing as well. The Boscombe Bowmen were not local either, but their isotope values do not necessarily point to an origin on the continent (p. 190). Nevertheless Roe (the bracers) and Fitzpatrick (Chapter 10) use comparanda in Beaker decoration and burial traditions to study their possible journeys on theContinent.
I am genuinely impressed by discussions in Chapters 8 through to 13. Fitzpatrick really has done a large amount of research. He is critical and analytical and does not hesitate to veer away from trodden paths. Maybe it is very good that he was not a Beaker specialist to begin with and this prevents him from slipping into a Beaker ‘groove’. He appears to have read most recent literature, even accounts in Dutch, German, French and Spanish. Of particular interest is the analysis of Beaker mortuary rites (Chapter 9), which shows that wooden chambers do frequently occur, as they in fact do everywhere at this period, and that frequently bones appear to have been taken from the chambers. Secondary burial or re-deposition is frequent as well, as demonstrated by the burials discussed here. In my opinion Fitzpatrick over-rates the newness of the Beaker burial tradition in Britain. In many regions we see that the new rites are incorporated into existing traditions. This is evidencedfrom continued use of, alongside additions to, existing monuments, from the use of local clays for pots, with local materials exploited for other artefacts as well.
One of the most important chapters, from an interpretative point of view is Chapter 11 about the construction of social identities. It has a very good summary of metalworking implements across Europe, but also makes use of Svend Hansen’s important (though little known) paper about Überausstattungen. The connection made between extremely ‘rich’ burials like that of the Archer, and the status of metal worker is convincing (p. 229). That fact that these ‘smiths’ burials are over-provisioned, is indeed a sign that they wereheld in very high esteem and commanded high social status. Which is not the same as saying that theywere rich, influential or part of a social elite. But that is a different discussion.
In all I have read the book with great interest. It is a lot of value for relatively little money. The authors have not only thoroughly analysed and described artefacts and features found in these two exiting burials, but they have all set out on extensive comparative analyses of objects and features elsewhere in Britain and on the Continent. The Amesbury Archers’ grave in particular contained most of the items that belong to the Beaker ‘set’ and so these comparisons are valuable as they comprise many of the known Beaker objects. That really is the added value, and it shows that one can no longer write about Bell Beakers without referring to this elaborate and significantwork.
References
Carlin, N. 2011. A proper place or everything: the character and context of Beaker depositional practice in Ireland. Unpublished thesis Dublin.
Hansen, S. 2002. "Überausstattungen" in Gräbern und Horten der Frühbronzezeit. In J. Müller (ed.), Vom Endneolithikum zur Frühbronzezeit: Muster sozialen Wandels? Tagung Bamberg 14. - 16. Juni 2001, 151-73. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 90, 151-173.
Harry Fokkens,
Faculty of Archaeology,
Leiden University
May 2012
“The views expressed in this review are not necessarily those of the Society or the Reviews Editor”