134 



THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 



quartzite and there were several large natural flints 

 about . . . The grave was so shallow that . . . the 

 Stonehenge stratum was only 1 '/> inch [4 cm] above 

 [the skull] ending at l4Vi inch BGL [37 cm 'below 

 ground level']'. These measurements fit the 

 observation (above) that the skull was 16 inches 

 'below ground level'. The latter is thought to be 

 the modern turf level (Cleal et al. 1995, 16). 



As noted above, Hawley and Cleal er al. argued 

 from the absence of stone fragments in the pit, and 

 the overlying 'Stonehenge layer' (albeit apparently 

 containing only four stone pieces) that the grave 

 was 'pre-Stonehenge'. The simplest way of 

 accommodating this with the much later 

 radiocarbon date for the skeleton, is to note that 

 the grave fill seems to have been almost pure chalk, 

 presumably thrown straight back into the pit at the 

 time of its creation: there is no necessary reason for 

 any extraneous material to have joined the backfill. 



The grave was close to Early Bronze AgeY Hole 

 9, but apparently not intersecting it (Figure 2). 

 There were also post holes in the area, two with 

 direct relationships with the grave pit. 

 Unfortunately, it is not now possible to be certain 

 what those were, although Hawley apparently 

 thought grave succeeded post holes. The pit 'was 

 cut between 2 post holes which were included in it 

 and their circular sides remain at the ends of the 

 grave'. This is held to explain the short length of 

 the grave, the excavators being 'unwilling to extend 

 it beyond the limits of the post holes'. A further 

 somewhat ambiguous remark seems to corroborate 

 this: 'Those who dug the post hole came upon a 

 very large flint at the top end and as they [excavators 

 of post hole or grave?] were unable to remove it by 

 battering it they [grave diggers] left the grave shorter 

 than they otherwise would have done'. 



From other diary entries, it appears that 

 Hawley's notions of stratigraphic sequences, and 

 his use of a word like 'cut' (as in one feature cutting 

 through another) were quite flexible. He gives no 

 clear evidence for relationships between post holes 

 and pit. However, by itself the plan suggests these 

 features might have been contemporary, and it is 

 possible the grave was marked by a small post at 

 each end. The pit is aligned with a row of post holes 

 to the east (Figure 2) : this, too, could be post-Roman 



Table 1. Radiocarbon dates for skeleton 4.10.4 



in date, not Neolithic, as conventionally assumed in 

 the absence of dating evidence. Re-excavation of the 

 area might throw further light on this. 



In summary, the man was buried, in what 

 appears to have been an isolated incident, in a 

 shallow pit not quite long enough to accommodate 

 his unconstrained corpse. The pit was aligned east 

 north-east/west south-west (approximately 

 tangential to the stone circles at that point), with 

 the head probably at the easterly end. The grave 

 was sited on the south-east side of the stone circles, 

 facing Amesbury (invisible behind the downs). There 

 is no record of which way up the body lay, but it can 

 be assumed that had it been prone (face down) this 

 would have been noted. The grave fill consisted of 

 the excavated chalk, packed down hard over the body. 

 There may have been a post standing at each end. 

 No artefacts were found with the skeleton. 



RADIOCARBON DATES 



by Alex Bayliss 



In 1975 two leg bone shafts were sent to Harwell 

 A.E.R.E. for radiocarbon analysis. Peach's 

 manuscripts record the result as 1190±80 BP, but 

 no further data are available (such as laboratory 

 number). Peach noted 'it was felt that insufficient 

 bone was submitted and the bone had been treated. 

 No further bone was submitted and the bone 

 sample was used' (undated lecture typescript). This 

 result cannot now be used for dating purposes. 



New samples (10 gm each) were processed as 

 outlined in Bronk Ramsey et al. 2000 and measured 

 using accelerator mass spectrometry (Bronk 

 Ramsey and Hedges 1997). The two measurements 

 are not statistically significantly different (T'=3.4; 

 T'(5%)=3.8; v=l) and so a weighted mean can be 

 taken before calibration (Ward and Wilson 1978). 

 The results are expressed as conventional 

 radiocarbon ages (Stuiver and Polach 1977). 



The calibrated date range for the weighted mean 

 has been calculated using OxCal v3.5 (Bronk 

 Ramsey 1995), the maximum intercept method of 

 Stuiver and Reimer (1986), and the dataset of 

 Stuiver er al. (1998). The range has been rounded 

 outwards to 10 years. 



Laboratory 

 Number 

 OxA-9361 

 OxA-9921 



Radiocarbon 



sl3C 



sl5N 



C:N 



Weighted 



Calibrated range 



Age (BP) 



(%o) 



(%") 



Ratio 



Mean (BP) 



(2s) 



1359±38 



-19.7 



7.6 



3.2 



1397±32 



cal AD 600-690 



1490±60 



-19.5 



8.1 



3.3 







