Blank A1 poster

1
SKULLS ON SHOW Dr Ellen HambletonSchool of
Conservation Sciences
1) Introduction Traditionally animal bone
studies in archaeology have focussed on the
economic role of animals, how they were hunted or
farmed, and their contribution to peoples diet.
However, animal remains can also provide insights
into the ritual and symbolic behaviour of past
societies. Evidence for ritual or symbolic
treatment of animal remains has been recovered
from many Iron Age settlements in southern
Britain.
Figure 1. Special deposit of horse skull and
mandible at base of pit at Danebury Iron Age
Hillfort (Source Cunliffe 1984)
2) Special Deposits This evidence usually
takes the form of special deposits, groups of
carefully selected objects deliberately placed
within pits or ditches, which often include
animal skulls (Figure 1), skeletons or
articulated limbs. Identification of special
deposits and interpretations of the ritual
activities they may represent, tend to
concentrate on the significance of their location
(in the ground) and their composition (the types
of objects present). Little or no consideration
has been given to the question of whether the
objects themselves had a history of unusual
treatment and a special significance of their own
even before they were buried. Was it the objects
themselves rather than their location and
structured burial that held special significance
for Iron Age communities? Research on the animal
remains from the site of Battlesbury Bowl,
Hampshire (Figure 2) provided an opportunity to
investigate this question (Hambleton Maltby
unpub.).
3) Animal Bone Evidence One of the Iron Age
ditches at Battlesbury Bowl contained a group of
seven cattle and three horse skulls which the
excavators had already identified as being
unusual and potentially special. This
conclusion was drawn because they were a group of
similar objects buried in the same place.
However, detailed examination by
zooarchaeologists at Bournemouth University
indicated that the thing that was most important
about these bones was actually their treatment
before they entered the ground.

• Teeth - the teeth in the skulls are missing which
  indicates that they were kept above ground for
  enough time for these to drop out prior to
  burial.
• Condition - the lack of weathering and severe dog
  gnawing indicates that these skulls were kept off
  the ground and possibly protected from both
  scavengers and the elements prior to burial
  (Figure 3).
• Skinning/cleaning - fine knife cuts observed on
  the skulls indicate that they had been skinned,
  and in some cases knife marks were excessive
  indicating careful cleaning of the skull (Figure
  4).
• Horns in some cases gnawing is restricted to
  the base of the horn core where it joins the
  skull, indicating that the outer horn casing had
  been left on the skull (Figure 5).
• Modification - the backs of the skulls had been
  removed, this may have helped the skull to lay
  flat against a vertical surface as if mounted on
  a wall or post (Figure 3).

4) Conclusions It is clear from this research
that this group of skulls from Battlesbury Bowl
had a role prior to burial, and the evidence is
pointing towards their use as display objects.
The common visual cliché of skulls adorning the
walls of prehistoric houses (Figure 6) may at
last have some real archaeological basis.
Bibliography Cunliffe, B. (1984) Danebury an
Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire. The excavations
1969-1978, Volume 2 The Finds. York
CBA Cunliffe, B. (1993) Danebury London
Batsford/English Heritage Hambleton E Maltby M.
Unpublished. Animal Bones from Excavations at
Battlesbury Bowl, Wiltshire. Bournemouth
University Animal Bone Report for Wessex
Archaeology (2004).
Acknowledgements This research was carried out
with the help of Mark Maltby of Bournemouth
University, and commissioned as part of a study
for Wessex Archaeology