Two Beaker Burials Recently Discovered on the Isle of Thanet

Two Beaker burials Recently discovered on the Isle of Thanet

paul hart and gerald moody

Crouched inhumations accompanied by Beaker vessels were found in two recent excavations by the Trust for Thanet Archaeology. In October 2004 an archaeological Watching Brief on groundworks associated with the construction of an underground garage at a house known as Beauforts, North Foreland Avenue, Broadstairs (NGR TR 3991 6921) revealed part of the circuit of a ring ditch of a round barrow with a rectangular central grave containing a Beaker burial (Site Code BNF 04; Hart 2005). The site is located approximately 200m west of the present cliff line on a south-east facing slope descending from a plateau to the north-west at an elevation of approximately 40m aod that forms the roughly n-s aligned spine of the North Foreland promontory. The features were cut into the surface of the Upper Chalk at 33.27 to 33.74m aod.

An excavation in June 2005 on the proposed site of a new staff accom-modation facility on land adjacent to the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital, Margate (NGR TR 3599 6938) revealed a large oval flat-grave containing an inhumation accompanied by a Beaker (Site Code NAM 05; Gardner and Moody 2006). The Beaker burial was cut by a secondary inhumation, possibly of the same period. The site is located on the west facing slope of a valley aligned roughly se-nw towards the sea exiting at the bay at Margate. Further inland the valley links with the eastern extent of the central plateau area of Thanet. The natural geology of the site is Upper Chalk and the elevation varies from 31.7m at the east of the site, to 22.2m on the valley bottom to the west. A stream may have flowed through the valley in ancient times.

beauforts, north foreland (BNF 04)

The profile of the small exposed section of the ring-ditch of the round barrow was irregular but generally a steep sided truncated V-shape with a flat base (Fig. 1, cut 110). The full width of the ring-ditch section was not exposed, but can be estimated to be approximately 1.41m. The base of the ditch was 1.44m from the existing ground surface, a maximum of 0.68m below the level of the chalk. The width of the base varied from 0.40 to at least 0.50m. The projected circuit of the ring-ditch is estimated at approximately 15.45m diameter. A slight biasing of the primary infill of chalk spoil (109) might indicate the presence of an outer bank or other deposit outside the ditch. A re-worked polished flint axe was recovered from the primary ditch fill.

The primary grave cut (Figs 1 and 2) was rectangular and well-cut and was orientated ene-wsw through the long axis. It measured 2.28m long by a maximum of 1.30m wide and up to 0.36m deep. A single sherd from a (comb-zoned) Beaker vessel was discovered on the base of the grave below the primary backfill of chalk. A soil mark visible in the unexcavated grave fill suggested that the inhumation had originally been enclosed in a distinct rectangular area approximately 1.70m long by 0.81m wide within the larger area of chalk fill within the grave cut. Excavation showed that chalk spoil had been backfilled around an upright structure that had entirely decayed forming a steep sloping interface. The sloping bank of chalk fill which surrounded and partially underlay the back of the skeleton (Fig. 2) suggests that the coffin-structure could have been a rounded container, perhaps a hollow log. No chalk spoil was found in the area of the body. Residual Early Neolithic flint cores and blades were found in the soil infill of the grave.

The grave contained a crouched inhumation laid on its left side with the head to the east end of the grave, facing south. A Beaker vessel was positioned at the feet (Fig. 2). A possible additional grave offering may have been a small utilitarian end-scraper recovered from inside the skull in post excavation, though this may have been a residual artefact. A space remained at the west end of the grave beyond the Beaker and this may have contained perishable organic grave-goods or tributes.

Skeletal Analysis

The human remains were analysed by the late Trevor Anderson and J. Andrews (Anderson and Andrews 2005). The skeleton was that of a fairly tall woman (1.651m in height), over 40 years old; she had suffered from poor oral health resulting in abscesses and widespread ante-mortem tooth loss. Her spine revealed evidence of the results of mechanical stress and severe compressional forces, while both femora (upper leg bones) also showed either an adaption to mechanical stress or evidence of vitamin and mineral deficiencies. The left femur showed a trait which might have resulted from running down steep hillsides, perhaps reflecting the steep chalk downs of the North Foreland area of Thanet. Of particular note was the presence of an anomalous (vascular) parietal foramen (a small hole) on the woman’s skull, of which no other definite examples from Britain have been published. A sample of bone from the skeleton was radiocarbon dated to 2290-2190 bc (64.3%) / 2350-2130 bc (94.4%) (Wk 18732).

land adjacent to qeqm hospital, margate (NAM 05)

The primary cut associated with the Beaker inhumation at this site was a large elliptical pit 2.58m long, 2.08m wide by 0.45m deep with steep sides and an irregular flat base (Fig. 2). Two stratigraphic interpretations of the sequence of the burial are possible. The pit may already have been filled with the clean chalk deposit when it was cut away to form a rectangular grave to take a coffin structure, which was then packed around with clean chalk. Alternatively the coffin may have been laid directly in the large pit and subsequently backfilled with the chalk deposit. Both scenarios account for the presence of a vertical interface between the chalk fill of pit and the softer soil fill of the rectangular feature containing the inhumation. The coffin may have comprised a wooden box-like con-struction or possibly a hollowed log measuring a maximum of 2.19m long by 1.26m wide.

The body had been laid on its left hand side with its head to the north and facing east within the coffin structure and was accompanied by a Beaker vessel. The Beaker had been positioned behind the head and was leaning toward the skull in an inverted position when discovered. Three finely made barbed-and-tanged flint arrowheads were found behind the lower back of the skeleton.

A partial soil-mark 1.84m long by 0.64m wide, orientated approximately n-s down the long axis of the grave cut, perhaps denoted an internal void later filled with a different deposit. Soil had infilled the interior of the coffin-structure and sherds from at least two other Beakers (one fingernail-rusticated) were present in the fill, along with some contemporary flint flakes. Unusually however there was a distinct lack of any earlier, residual flintwork which may have been deliberately purged from the deposit.

Skeletal analysis

The skeleton was analysed by Dr Sarah Tatham (Tatham 2006). The bones were those of a strong, muscular male adult who led an active, physical life. The arm and leg muscle attachments were very apparent. The general condition of the bones suggested a mature adult of 40-50 years. Dental condition was good and overall there were no signs of disease (including arthritis) or injury which had survived post-mortem bone erosion. Limited tooth wear indicated that his diet did not require the excessive grinding of his teeth. Radiocarbon dating of a sample of bone from the skeleton placed his remains between 2350-2270 bc (37.6%) / 2460-2200 bc (95.4%) (Wk 18733).

The secondary inhumation

The fills at the north-east corner of the Beaker grave had been cut by a secondary inhumation. The irregular elliptical grave measured 1.30m long by 0.86m wide and 0.26m deep and contained a crouched skeleton laid on its right-hand side, facing east. Base sherds from at least two Early Bronze Age (possibly Beaker?) vessels were recovered from the grave fill. This body was also accompanied by a barbed-and-tanged flint arrowhead of much cruder form, recovered from inside the skull during post-excavation work.

Skeletal analysis

The second skeleton was also analysed by Dr Sarah Tatham. The remains were of a female between 25-35 years of age with a maximum stature estimated at 1.59m. Dental attrition suggested an age of 17-25 years though this wear is also related to diet. Oral health was generally good, though the presence of some calculus (plaque) may have caused gum disease. Well defined muscle markers on the arms, shoulders and legs showed high levels of muscle use. No evidence of disease or injury had survived post-mortem bone erosion.

The Beakers

Both Beaker vessels were examined by Dr Alex Gibson of Bradford University whose reports are summarised below (Fig. 3):

BNF 04 The Beaker was identified as belonging to Clarke’s (1970) Developed Southern (S2) series; Step 5 or 6 of Lanting and van der Waal’s scheme (1972) and one of Case’s (1993) Southern Group B (Gib-son 2005).

The fabric was finely grog-tempered with sparse additional small burnt flint fragments; it was extremely hard and well-fired with light brown surfaces and some occasional grey patches and a black core, characteristics indicating rapid but complete open firing. Possible traces of coil or ring-building could also be seen. The rim diameter was 130mm, with a low, bulbous belly 135mm in diameter and a flat base of 80mm diameter. Overall the vessel was 145mm high.

The vessel was of fine fabric but was not decorated to the very highest quality, with some motifs being carelessly executed on occasion. The decoration was probably made using two combs, both with square-sectioned teeth. One longer comb may have been approximately 50mm long; a shorter comb of possible oval profile (though this is not certain) might also have been used.

One particular point of interest was a large, D-shaped hole positioned just above the base. The breaks were old and abraded and a possible impact-point to one side of this hole suggests this pre-depositional damage was deliberate. It could relate to activity associated with the burial ritual.

Gibson notes that S2 Beakers are rare in Kent. A similar, though poorer, quality vessel was also discovered in the central burial of a round barrow, under the approach to Manston Airport (MRA87; Perkins and Gibson 1990; Jay 1995). The remains there were radiocarbon dated to 2120-2080 bc (68%) / 2140-1885 bc (95%) (BM-2642).

NAM 05 Dr Gibson suggested that the Beaker from NAM 05 seemed typologically early in the British sequence, equating to Clarke’s (1970) Wessex/Mid Rhine Group and Step 3 of Lanting and van der Waals’ (1972) scheme. It is similar to the Beaker discovered at Cliffsend, Ramsgate (Macpherson Grant 1968). Gibson notes that the decorative scheme, executed using a square-toothed comb, is one that is also encountered on East Anglian Beakers – vessels which are actually more common in Kent.

The fabric was very friable and poorly fired, with red surfaces and a black core and contained abundant crushed grog (rarely over 2mm across) and sparse flecks of burnt flint (up to 3mm across). Both surfaces had been covered with a slip but this was peeling away leaving abraded, decoration-free patches on the outer surface. Rim diameter was in the region of 140mm, base diameter c.65mm and the vessel height estimated at 145mm.

Despite the friable nature of the pot, it appears from the remaining sherds that this vessel may not have been complete when deposited. An area devoid of sherds was visible in the centre of the Beaker during excavation and it is possible that this may be another example of a vessel intentionally perforated in a similar way to the Beauforts Beaker. The fragmentary nature of the NAM 05 vessel has prevented complete reconstruction at this time although the fragments were sufficient to produce the published drawing.

The Flint Arrowheads

Beaker grave The inhumation at NAM 05 was accompanied by three finely-made barbed-and-tanged flint arrowheads (Fig. 4, A1-3). These are the first recorded arrowheads recovered from a Beaker burial on Thanet and they may be only the third such occurrence recorded in Kent, with single examples known from Cliffe (Kinnes et al 1998) and possibly Sittingbourne.

The arrowheads were fresh, sharp and unused, exhibiting a high degree of skill in their manufacture. All were finely bifacially and invasively pressure-flaked; thickness varied from 4.5-5.5mm and they weighed less than 2g each. Only very small areas of the original flake surface of the blank remained (on two of the pieces). It may be that the arrowheads were intended to be prestigious objects, perhaps made specifically for the person they were buried with although the presence of ‘fancy’ arrowhead types in other contexts elsewhere indicate that they must also have been in everyday use (Green 1980).

The NAM 05 arrowheads are of two distinct formal types as identified by Green (1980), both of ‘fancy’ (i.e. carefully shaped) form. Two are of Conygar Hill type while the third appears to be of Green Low type (although it lacks the distinctly obliquely-cut barbs). All the arrowheads have some slight differences to the classical forms, though the differences in the case of the Conygar Hill arrowheads would appear to be negligible.

Secondary grave The arrowhead associated with the secondary burial was of ‘non-fancy’ Sutton B type (Green 1980) and was much thicker (6.5mm, 4g) and cruder than the three arrowheads recovered from the earlier Beaker grave (Fig. 4, A4). It had been invasively retouched around its margins only, leaving much of the original flake surface intact (showing that the raw material had been obtained from a weathered surface deposit). The retouching varied from shallow flakes to biting, semi-abrupt scars, though nearly all the larger scars were feather terminated.

discussion

The two Beaker burials share some similarities and it is appropriate to describe them together here as they are important on both a local and regional basis and have added to the already significant contribution that the Beaker burial archaeology of Thanet makes to the Kent corpus as a whole. The two new Beakers bring the current total of Beakers known to have been found in burial contexts recorded on Thanet to twelve (Hart 2005).

Radiocarbon dates have been obtained from both of the burials with the result that the ‘Early Style’ NAM 05 Beaker is now associated with the earliest date of any Thanet Beaker so far. This contrasts with a local trend of ‘Early Style’ Thanet Beakers producing later than expected dates (Jay 1995). Although of ‘Late Style’ the BNF 04 Beaker is associated with a somewhat earlier date than might have been expected on some typological grounds and is the second earliest of the five dated Beakers from Thanet.

The three barbed and tanged flint arrowheads from the NAM 05 Beaker burial are the first recorded in a Thanet Beaker burial and may be only the third such association in Kent. Green’s extensive study of flint arrowheads (1980) allowed him to establish parameters and trends regarding dates, associations and contexts of use. In reference to this, it can be seen that the presence of the NAM 05 Green Low type arrowhead is not unexpected in this context. However it would appear to be associated with an earlier vessel form than would normally expected – in this case a Step 3 Beaker. Green suggests that these arrowheads first appear in Beaker contexts at Step 4 and notes that they are largely restricted to the distribution area of Southern Beakers, suggesting they were a largely exclusive Southern Beaker type, associated with S1-S3 Beakers with some exceptions. It is important to note that the NAM 05 arrowhead lacks the obliquely cut barbs of Green’s classic form. The two Conygar Hill arrowheads are of a type that, prior to 1980 at least, were not thought to occur with Beakers when in ‘finely finished’ form. The two examples from NAM 05 therefore appear to be at odds with the general trend observed by Green. The differences between these two arrowheads and the classical form proposed by Green are so slight as to be of little significance.

Green’s research (1980) showed that the ‘B’ form of Sutton type arrowheads found with the secondary inhumation, while ‘omni-present’, occur with particular frequency in Beaker Archer’s graves. It seems that ‘everyday arrowhead forms were typically placed in such a context in contrast to a preference for finely finished and therefore sometimes non-utilitarian forms in Food Vessel, Urn and other Early Bronze Age burials’ (Green 1980). The arrowhead is somewhat asymmetrical (which may represent reworking) but is otherwise fresh and might also have been made for depositing with the body, though by a much less skilled flintknapper than the one who made the earlier Beaker burial arrowheads.

The secondary grave had been cut into the existing Beaker grave, possibly an attempt to inter the new burial as close to the head and Beaker of the earlier burial as possible and thereby would suggest that these mourners had knowledge of its existence. She had also been laid facing the same easterly direction, a circumstance which seems to occur fairly frequently in Thanet’s Beaker burials. A similar preference has been noted in Yorkshire, where male Beaker burials were laid on their left-hand side, facing east and seemed to be reversing a trend seen in that county’s Neolithic burials which generally were placed on their right hand side and faced west (Tuckwell 1975). The arrowhead in the secondary burial adds to the degree of affinity between this grave and the earlier Beaker burial and it might be suggested that there may have been some familial relationship between the two individuals. Both burials probably occurred in a relatively short period of time and demonstrate that the Beaker flat-grave was visibly marked in some way on the ground surface, perhaps by a small mound. Analysis of the skeletal remains by Dr Sarah Tatham showed that both led active physical lives and dental evidence suggested diets low in sugars and gritty foodstuffs.

acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Mr and Mrs Kimble for funding the Watching Brief and post-excavation works at BNF 04 and Geoffrey Osborne Ltd for funding the excavation and post excavation works at NAM 05. The site plans were produced by Stephen Clifton and Susan Deacon and the illustrations are by Oliver Gardner and Emma Boast. The artefact illustrations are by Maggy Redmond.

The specialists who contributed to the archive reports for BNF 04 were Trevor Anderson and John Andrews – The Human Skeleton; Dr Alex Gibson – The Beaker and Other Pottery; and Chris Butler – Prehistoric Flintwork.

The specialists who contributed to the archive reports for NAM 05 were Dr Sarah Tatham – The Human Bone; Dr Alex Gibson – The Beaker and other Prehistoric Pottery; and Kate Roberts – Charred Plant Remains.

The author would like to acknowledge the contribution that the late Trevor Anderson made to the study of Human Osteology on Thanet. He will be sadly missed.

The discovery of the Beaufort’s Beaker prompted a review and update of Beaker-associated archaeology on Thanet, previously the subject of a study by Len Jay (1995). This ongoing review is published in the ‘Virtual Museum’ on The Trust for Thanet Archaeology’s website, www.thanetarch.co.uk.

bibliography

Anderson, T. and Andrews, J., 1997, ‘The human bones’, in Parfitt, K. and Brugmann, B., The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery on Mill Hill, Deal, Kent (Medieval Archaeology Monograph Series no. 14), London, Appendix II, 230-232.

Anderson, T. and Andrews, J., 2005, ‘The Human Skeleton’, in Hart, P.C., ‘Beauforts’, North Foreland Avenue, Broadstairs, Kent, unpubl. TTA client report.

Case, H.J., 1993, ‘Beakers: Deconstruction and After’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 59, 241-68.

Clarke, D.L., 1970, Beaker pottery of Great Britain and Ireland, Cambridge University Press.

Gardner, O.W., and Moody, G.A., 2006, Land adjacent to the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother Hospital, St. Peter’s Road, Margate, Kent, unpubl. TTA client report.

Gibson, A., 2005, ‘The Beaker and Other Pottery’, in Hart, P.C., ‘Beauforts’, North Foreland Avenue, Broadstairs, Kent, unpubl. TTA client report, Part 3.

Gibson, A., 2006, ‘The Beaker and other Prehistoric Pottery’, in Gardner and Moody, Part 3.

Green, H., S., 1980, The flint arrowheads of the British Isles, BAR British Series 75.

Hart, P.C., 2005, ‘Beauforts’, North Foreland Avenue, Broadstairs, Kent, unpubl. TTA client report.

Hart, P.C., 2006, Thanet’s Beakers, Virtual Museum Beaker Gallery http//www.thanetarch.co.uk

Hart, P.C., 2006, ‘The Flintwork’ in Gardner and Moody, Part 5.

Jay, L., 1995, Thanet Beakers, Trust for Thanet Archaeology.

Lanting, J.N. and van der Waals, J.D., 1972, ‘British Beakers as seen from the Continent’, Helinium, 12.

Macpherson Grant, N., 1968, ‘A Beaker from Cliffsend, Ramsgate’, Archaeologia Cantiana lxxxiii, 268-71.

Perkins, D.R.J. and Gibson, A.M., 1990, ‘A Beaker burial from Manston, near Ramsgate’, Archaeologia Cantiana, cviii, 11-27.

Tatham, S., 2006, ‘The Human Bone’, in Gardner and Moody, Part 4.

Webb, S.G., and Thorne, A.G., 1985, ‘A congenital meningocele in prehistoric Australia’, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 68, 525-533.

Fig. 1 Site location plan; plan and section of BNF barrow.

Fig. 2 BNF 04 and NAM Grave plans.

Fig. 3 The Beaker Vessels.

Fig. 4 The Flint Arrowheads.