Grave-goods, contexts and interpretation: towardsregional narratives of Early Bronze Age Scotland

NEIL C.A. WILKIN1

Summary

This paper proposes that a contextual approach is required to make the most ofthe rich and diverse evidence for Early Bronze Age funerary practices in Scotland.It reviews the spatial patterning of the principal funerary traditions and identifiessignificant regional differences in their popularity by region. The chronologicalrelationship between Beaker and Food Vessel burials is then reviewed in the lightof new radiocarbon dates. Both distributional and chronological factors thencontribute to a refined, regional and contextual approach to Beaker typology.The paper concludes by bringing these various strands together within thegeographical and historical context of North-East and East-Central Scotland, inorder to provide two regional ‘narratives’ of social organisation and identity.

Keywords: contextual archaeology, funerary practices, regionality, Beakers, FoodVessels

Introduction

The evidence for Scotland’s Early Bronze Age single burials (c.2500–1600 calBC) has traditionally been interpreted within a Culture Historical framework,concerned with distribution patterns and grave-good corpora/typology. As highlyvaluable as these approaches continue to be, the accounts to which they are centraloften rely upon exogenous or economic/functional explanations. In contrast,broadly post-processual approaches have offered more engaging interpretations,concerned with memory, materiality and the relational character of identity.Frequently, however, these approaches fail to place funerary practices in theirsocial and historical setting. This paper argues that a better balance of evidence andtheory can be achieved through a contextual approach: incorporating chronology,regional artefact distributions and the strands of ritual and technological practicethat connected and divided regions. The relevance of this approach to the study of

1 The British Museum, Great Russell Street, London, WC1B 3DG, NWilkin@britishmuseum.org

Scottish Archaeological Journal 33.1–2 (2011): 21–37Edinburgh University Press

DOI: 10.3366/saj.2011.0022© Glasgow Archaeological Society

www.euppublishing.com/saj

22 NEIL C.A. WILKIN

Early Bronze Age funerary practices is described before case-studies from easternScotland demonstrate its potential for better understandings of regional identity,social organisation and change.

The Data-Theory Split in Scottish Early Bronze Age Studies

Accounts of the historical development of archaeological thinking in Britain overthe last century tell of a tripartite development: from the Culture History ofthe early 20th century to Processual-Functionalism in the 1960s and 70s, andfinally the post-processualism of the 1980s until the present day (e.g. Johnson2010; Trigger 2006). These respective theoretical movements have approachedthe relationship between data and theory in different ways. Culture Historyand Processual approaches have prioritised the collection and testing of data,sometimes for their own sake, without reference to research aims (Pierpoint 1980,122). In contrast, post-processual archaeologies have placed far greater emphasison interpretation and the development of an explicit theoretical discourse,sometimes at the expense of collecting and presenting data (Brindley 2008;Chadwick 2003, 97–8; Klejn 2006). However, the unstated but implicit notion thatarchaeological theory has developed in the same way in the study of all periods andregions of Britain is potentially misleading (Trigger 1989; 2000, 364–5). Indeed,the direct impact of Processual approaches cannot be easily identified in ScottishEarly Bronze Age studies and are therefore not discussed here. Rather, there is astill active tension and division between post-processualism and the approachesand the methods of Culture History. The latter may be considered out-dated (theresult of generational differences) and only a temporary relict inconvenience,before more interpretative archaeologies gain total primacy. However, followingparallel criticisms of post-modernists in other disciplines, care should be takennot to be overly dismissive of earlier methods and overly-reliant on the use ofsociological and anthropological works (cf. Josipovici 1999).

Strong connections with arts and humanities based disciplines haveundoubtedly been positive, broadening and enriching the study of Early BronzeAge Scotland (e.g. Cummings and Fowler 2007; Jones 2003; 2007, 122–61;MacGregor 2008). However, the way in which some post-processual accountsallow us to select what we want of our own and other disciplines and dismiss muchelse has also generated suspicion and distrust of the work undertaken by previousgenerations (e.g. Jones 2007, 122–5). An ‘unproductive tension’ has resulted andis at odds with an arguably more appealing, ‘craft-like’, tradition in which thework, methods, and lessons of earlier generations are not immediately cast-outbut are engaged-with, critiqued and also imaginatively reworked and ultimatelybuilt upon. It is thanks to the multivocality of post-processual (e.g. contextual)‘archaeologies’ that the theoretical framework for doing so is already available.

A Contextual Approach

Scottish Early Bronze Age grave-goods have traditionally been analysed andinterpreted in a comparative, Culture Historical, fashion, by morphological anddecorative similarities (i.e. traditional typology) and by reference to their spatial

GRAVE-GOODS: EARLY BRONZE AGE SCOTLAND 23

and chronological extent (e.g. Ritchie and Shepherd 1973; Sheridan 2004; 2007).In recent times researchers have come to reject or overlook these methodsand even the method of identifying ceramic types to understand evidence fromfunerary practices. For instance, Jones (2003; 2007, 122–61) argues that thetraditional approach assumes passive relationships between artefacts, producersand those who used them, and instead considers the memories and identitiesthat they helped to construct and express (Ibid.). However, by dismissing theimportance of traditional, typological approaches to material culture there is a riskof encouraging anachronism and interpretation based on mismatched traditions ofartefact production and ritual practice. As Robin Osborne (2008, 292) has argued:

Archaeologists rely for the stories they create upon making links betweenobjects . . . [but] producers too are self-consciously part of a story, and theway in which they situate themselves in that story affects the episode thatthe archaeologist can narrate. Without taking tradition into account thearchaeologist’s story will be impoverished.

Indeed, in recent years studies of Early Bronze Age funerary practices havefocused upon particular interpretative themes (e.g. the construction of memoryand the relational character of identity) and have tended to ‘cherry-pick’ theircase-studies and sites from many regions, in order to furnish the exploration ofthese themes (e.g. Brück 2004a; Jones 2001; Thomas 1991). In the process theyhave paid less attention to the social context and historical trajectories in whichthe meanings of artefacts and funerary practices were bound up and activelyconstructed (cf. Garwood 2007, 30–2; Roberts 2008). As a result, such approachesprovided stimulating ideas about how aspects of the past may be viewed, but fewvistas of Early Bronze Age Britain or Scotland.

A ‘contextual archaeology’ provides a means of redressing this imbalancebetween evidence and theory (see Hodder and Hutson 2003, 156–205; Trigger1989, 348–57). It is now commonly accepted that interpretation occurs ‘at thetrowel’s edge’, and that rather than being a separate field, data is always seenthrough a ‘cloud’ of theory (Hodder 1999, 80–104). However, in adopting thisview of the data–theory relationship, we should be equally vigilant of biasingsubjective interpretation and pre-understanding at the expense of a full awarenessof context and material-culture; and therefore often at the expense of moretraditional methods and concerns. Doing so weakens the rigour of the relationshipbetween data and theory and threatens to undermine our understanding of pastpeople (Fig 1). Instead, contextual archaeology identifies patterns in terms ofsimilarities and differences among many relevant and important strands of the datafor funerary practices, before selecting theories to explain these similarities anddifferences. As Hodder and Hutson have argued:

Within contextual archaeology a recognition of the need for general theoryand for theoretical archaeology remains, but rather, the concern is to demanda closer relationship between theory and data, placing one in terms of theother, and emphasizing inductive as well as deductive procedures. (2003, 205,emphasis added)

24 NEIL C.A. WILKIN

Pre-understanding

Understanding

Interpretation

Objects Context

THEORY

DATA

Fig 1 The relationship of data and theory in archaeology (after Hodder 1999,Figure 5.2)

This approach is particularly attractive for Early Bronze Age studies in easternScotland, as new data is being generated rapidly (e.g. radiocarbon determinations;stable isotope analyses; accurate osteological reports; GIS data). The followingstudies draw upon research undertaken by the Leverhulme-Trust funded Beakersand Bodies Project, University of Aberdeen, in order to identify regionalsimilarities and differences in terms of spatial, chronological, and typologicaldimensions of variation.

Spatial Patterns: Single Burial Traditions in Eastern Scotland

Early Bronze Age single burials in Scotland have been studied in terms ofthe similarity and difference of their spatial distribution for some time. CultureHistorical accounts, pursued by the likes of Crichton-Mitchell (1934), identifiedstrong concentrations of Beakers in East Lothian and Aberdeenshire (Ibid, 137,154–7; Table 1). This distribution was then used to reconstruct a map of the‘invasion’ and movement of Beaker people through Scotland (cf. Crichton Mitchell1934; Clarke 1970, 276–80). As an explanation for cultural change, this approachis grossly over-simplistic: treating ‘pots as people’ and prioritising them aboveother contextual factors surrounding their deposition, not least the intentions andagency of past mourners in placing these distinctive pots in graves. Yet the clearexistence of distinct spatial distributions of Beakers and other funerary traditions(e.g. Food Vessel and bronze flat-riveted dagger burials; Table 1; Fig 2) doesrequire explanation. The patchwork distribution of Beaker burial does not appearto be the result of biases of collection due to the recovery (and patterning) ofother grave-good traditions (Table 1); we may expect biases to apply equally toall traditions, especially given that ‘flat’ graves are ubiquitous. Rather, it appearsto reflect the social connections and mobility (e.g. through marriage alliance;see Brodie 2001) between Beaker using communities and a wider network of

GRAVE-GOODS: EARLY BRONZE AGE SCOTLAND 25

Table 1 Single burials in eastern Scotland by major grave-good traditions, N.B. *:V-bored buttons; disc-bead and spacer-plate necklaces (data from personal datasetsincluding Wilkin 2009)

Regions / Funerary traditions Beakers Food Vessels Daggers ‘Jet’ ornaments* TOTAL

Moray Firth 49 32 5 14 100Aberdeenshire 107 6 2 4 119Angus 30 46 8 15 99Perth & Kinross 11 52 2 3 68Stirling 4 16 - 1 21Fife 9 46 13 13 81West Lothian 3 7 - - 10Midlothian 4 17 1 1 23East Lothian 16 6 1 1 24TOTAL 233 228 32 52 545

Fig 2 Histogram of four key Early Bronze Age funerary traditions in north-east Scotland(Aberdeenshire and Angus) and east-central Scotland (Perth & Kinross, Stirling, Fife and

Lothian)

discontinuous or ‘core’ groups who practiced similar funerary rites along the eastcoast of Northern Britain (cf. Vander Linden 2007, 344–6, Figure 1).

There is a clear divide between burials associated with Beaker pottery in bothnorth-east Scotland and East Lothian and those associated with a wider range ofgrave-good types in other regions of east-central Scotland, particularly Perthshireand Fife. The spatial distribution of these respective traditions corresponds withsimilarities and differences among other stands of evidence. For instance, theBeaker burials of north-east Scotland and East Lothian are, like those of the widerBeaker network, highly formalised and rule-bound in terms of the orientation of theshort-cist and the positioning of the body and associated grave-goods (A. Shepherd1989; Tuckwell 1975). Additional grave-goods are rare and burials are relatively

26 NEIL C.A. WILKIN

austere, although a small number are associated with the Beaker ‘archery package’(cf. Needham 2005, 191–5, 200–7, Fig. 11). Furthermore, Beaker cemeteriesare typically unbounded and un-monumentalised. The cemetery at Borrowstone,Kingswells, near Aberdeen, is fairly typical of this pattern: consisting of somesix short-cists orientated east/west and spread across several gravel knolls withno known formal demarcating kerb or covering mound (Shepherd 1986, 12–5,Illus. 12).

In contrast, regions of east-central Scotland such as Fife have demonstratedrelatively little evidence for Beaker short-cist burial, but do include a considerablenumber of Food Vessels, bronze flat-riveted daggers, and artefacts of ‘jet’ (Table 1).While diverse, Fife’s burials can be characterised as a ‘package’ of broadlycontemporary grave-goods which occurred in direct (in the same burial) andindirect (in the same cemetery) contact with one another (Wilkin 2009). Theseburials lack the strict spatial prescriptions that characterise Beaker burial inAberdeenshire and East Lothian. Sometimes, as at Barns Farm, Dalgety Bay, inFife, cremation burial as well as inhumation burial were deposited together andappear to represent a greater flexibility and diversity in the treatment of the dead(e.g. Watkins 1982; cf. Williams 2005). Additionally, some of these burials wereplaced within demarcated cemeteries while others were covered by monuments.The spatial patterning of architectural features and burials at these sites appears torepresent more site-specific sets of rules and ideas governing single burial. In theseways, communities in east-central Scottish regions outwith the Beaker ‘network’could express and construct identity for the dead through more idiosyncratic,flexible, and less prescribed rites.

On the basis of the contrast already drawn between spatial patterning inareas such as Aberdeenshire and Fife, it is possible to argue for the existenceof separate regional traditions and, potentially, identities based on distinct ritualand cosmological principles. However, the opportunity to construct more rigorousand detailed interpretations is increased if we consult additional strands of theevidence.

Chronological Patterns: Beakers and Bayes Theorem

Recent accounts have interpreted the Early Bronze Age of northern Britain as aperiod of variation in contemporary funerary traditions and practices (e.g. Bruck2004a, 185–6); however, suspected variability may really be the product of poorchronological resolution. Improved chronologies are possible through statisticalmethods, such as Bayesian statistical analysis (e.g. Bayliss et al. 2007; Curtis andWilkin 2012). Bayesian statistics involves moving back and forth between dates(‘standardized likelihoods’) and theory (‘prior beliefs’) in order to derive newanswers which can inform new prior beliefs and thus hone in on better fittinginterpretations in an ‘explicit, quantitative, manner’ (ibid.). Bayesian analysisis therefore closely compatible with the methodology and aims of contextualarchaeology and the ‘hermeneutic spiral’, which also aims to provide the bestfitting interpretation by drawing on as many dimensions of evidence as possible(see Hodder 1999, 80–104; Hodder and Hutson 2003, 195–203). The value ofthe technique can be demonstrated with reference to a chronological relationship

GRAVE-GOODS: EARLY BRONZE AGE SCOTLAND 27

of central significance: between Beaker and Food Vessel burials in east-centralScotland.

The chronology of Beaker and Food Vessel burials

A visual inspection of the available dates for Beakers and Food Vessels fromeast-central Scotland suggests a range of c.2400–1900 cal BC and c.2200–1500cal BC respectively. The relatively long range of these traditions is more likelyto reflect the imprecision of the determinations than the true length of time(equivalent to around 20 and 28 generations of 25 years) over which they weredeposited in burials (cf. Brindley 2007; Sheridan and Bayliss 2008). Modelledusing Bayesian statistics, the start of Short-Necked and ‘S’-Profiled Beaker burialstook place 2320–2150 cal BC (95% probability) and ended 2270–2080 cal BC(95% probability). Food Vessel burial has beginnings in 2140–1980 cal BC (95%probability) and ended 2020–1865 cal BC (95% probability) (Fig 3). The boundaryend and start parameters of Beakers and Food Vessels therefore overlap at 95%probability. But this does not necessarily mean that the two traditions overlappedfor several centuries (contra. Sheridan 2004, 260–2, Fig. 89). Indeed, at theless satisfactory 68% probability, the boundary end of Eastern Beakers and theboundary start of Food Vessels do not overlap.

Needham (2007, 44) suggests that Food Vessel burials were the response of a‘rump of indigenous society which may have felt itself to have been marginalisedor relegated in social terms’, by Beaker using communities. However, it is alsoimportant to consider the complexities of reception. Indeed, the timing anddistribution of Food Vessel burial in eastern Scotland appears to reflect a significantchange of attitude among communities or regions previously unwilling or unable totake up Beaker single burial. It is tempting to suggest that networks established inconnection with the supply of copper from Ireland and tin from southern England(Needham’s (2004) Migdale-Marnoch ‘system’, c.2200/2150–2000 cal BC) wereinvolved in instigating this change (Curtis and Wilkin 2012). Thus the evidence forthe chronology and distribution of Beakers and Food Vessels in eastern Scotlandsuggest that Needham’s (2007, 44) ‘disenfranchised rump’ is better understood interms of regional preferences, rather than marginalisation, and a realignment of thecharacter and symbolic meaning of single burial in regions without the historical‘baggage’ of an earlier Beaker burial tradition.

As Sheridan (2007, 96–9) has noted, the construction of Bayesian modelsrequires the presumptions and caveats of the modeller to be carefully stated. Inthe model presented here the integrity of several of the late Food Vessel dates arequestioned in the above model (based on the assessment of Anna Brindley) thatthey are ‘too young’, possibly due to contamination (2007, 303–4). Furthermore,only the major concentration of Beaker burials (primarily Needham’s (2005)‘Short-Necked’ grouping) is included. Alternative Bayesian models can be createddepending on the interpretation of Beaker and Food Vessel typology (see Baylisset al. 2007; Curtis and Wilkin 2012). For instance, the overlap between typo-chronologically later Beakers and Food Vessels is likely to be far more convincing.Unfortunately, too few dates are available to explore this relationship in more

28 NEIL C.A. WILKIN

Fig 3 One possible Bayesian model for Beakers and Food Vessels in east-centralScotland (including Angus). See text for additional details and caveats

detail, but the typological divisions of Beaker pottery do present an importantadditional contextual strand with which to construct regional narratives.

Contextual Typo-Chronologies

Culture Historical approaches have produced typologies which primarily considerthe form and decoration of Early Bronze Age grave-goods (often pottery) and

GRAVE-GOODS: EARLY BRONZE AGE SCOTLAND 29

relate these similarities and differences to chronology and static, bounded cultural‘blocks’. This approach de-contextualises the pots and fails to recognise the fullrange of potential factors which could have influenced their form. However, thisdoes not mean that the typological approach can be rejected outright (contra. Jones2007, 122–61). In their rigorous observations, past typologies may have identifiedsimilarities and differences which can now be related to social and cosmologicalfactors (Hodder and Hutson 2003, 180). A good example of the benefits of a‘contextualised’ typology is provided by Alexandra and Ian Shepherd’s work onBeakers from north-east Scotland. After constructing a typological scheme fornorth-east Scotland based on Lanting and van der Waals’s (1972), principallymorphological, scheme, they noted that Steps 4 and 5 vessels were found withmales and females respectively (A. Shepherd 1989; cf. Turek 2006). This has beenan important development, highlighting the potential of relating Beaker form anddecoration to other dimensions of the funerary practice. In the following sections,three typological groups from Needham’s (2005) scheme for British funeraryBeakers are reviewed with reference to similarities, not just in the morphologyand decoration, but also absolute chronology, regionality, associations, and age andsex of the dead. While these groups are not intended to provide a comprehensivetypology (Curtis and Wilkin in prep), they do draw attention to an importantdifference in the form taken by Beaker burials in areas of north-east and east-central Scotland.

Tall Short-Necked vessels

Tall Short-Necked (TSN) vessels can be isolated as a meaningful group withinNeedham’s Short-Necked group (Fig 4.1). While the angle between body andneck or the depth of the neck, which in Needham (2005, 191) suggests are usually< 35% of the vessel height, are significant, they are not the only important factors;attention should also be paid to the relative narrowness of the vessels (e.g. heightas against diameter at various points along the profile). This provides a usefuladditional measure with which to separate TSN vessels from other groups withsquatter and wider profiles considered below (see Ibid., 192, Fig. 8, nos. 11–14).Additional features of these vessels include particular decorative elements: thepresence of thin, raised cordons or ‘ribs’ to the necks, and the more generaldemarcation of the neck as a separate entity within the overall decorative schemeof the vessel. There is a considerable overlap between Step 4 in Shepherd’s (1986)typology and TSN vessels: both are primarily associated with adult males placedon their left hand side with head to the east. TSN vessels are also, on occasion,associated with a coherent package of archery equipment (wristguards, bone belt-rings, barbed-and-tanged arrowheads and copper daggers). While these graves areoften considered to be high-status ‘rich’ graves, they are also frequently dated tothe 25th to 23rd century cal BC, and therefore among the earliest Beaker burials inBritain (cf. Sheridan 2007).

In this light, these burials may be better understood as special artefactsthat sealed bonds among the communities of the Beaker network during itsinitial expansion and which were less important after Beaker practices hadbeen adopted and consolidated (cf. Needham 2005). TSN Beakers have a wide

30 NEIL C.A. WILKIN

Fig 4 Illustrations of the three Beaker groups discussed in the text (1. Tall Short-Necked;2. Elongated/Cupped Necked; 3. Weak-Carinated). (Left to right: Clarke 1970, Figs.

661, 704, 1018, permission of Cambridge University Press)

distribution within the north-east and are well represented in other areas of easternBritain (including dense pockets in East Lothian, Northumberland, and Yorkshire)suggesting strong relationships between these regions at this time, as part of awider east-coast network of contacts and shared ritual practices.

Elongated- and Cupped-Necked vessels

A second group of eastern Scottish Beaker that can be isolated within Needham’sShort-Necked group is the Elongated and Cupped Necked (E/CN) group (Fig 4.2).These are less ‘narrow’ and ‘tall’ and more ‘squat’ in appearance. Frequentlythey have high, angular, bellies, and markedly constricted or cup-shaped and/orlengthened necks (with a depth >35% the total height). Several of these vesselsare associated with double inhumations and with more than one pot on severaloccasions. In contrast to earlier TSN groups, burials with E/CN vessels are moreprominently associated with adult females and children (separately and withadults), rather than predominantly with males. This appears to represent a wideningof the groups of people that could be buried with Beakers. The majority of thesevessels are accommodated within Shepherd’s Steps 5 to 6 and this connection issignificant given the male and female dichotomy with Step 4 and 5 respectively.The chronology of these vessels is also of interest; they occur primarily after the22nd century cal BC onwards and therefore appear to be a later development thanTSN vessels. The occurrence of pottery with exaggerated necks, therefore occursat the same time as contacts with Ireland are heightened through the Migdale-Marnoch ‘system’ of bronze metalwork (Needham 2004). This represents a strongtradition of bronze metalworking in the Buchan region of Aberdeenshire, basedupon the supply of Irish copper (Needham 2004). Cultural, as well as metallurgicalinfluences, are also perceptible in funerary practices in Eastern Scotland during thefinal two centuries of the 3rd millennium cal BC (Cowie 1988, 18–19; Stronachet al. 2006, 8), including a notable burial with an Irish Food Vessel bowl locatednext to a bronze dagger burial at Seafield West, near Inverness (Cressey andSheridan 2003). In this context or ‘contact horizon’ with Ireland, the exaggerationof Beaker necks may be seen as a reaction to the introduction of neck-less Irish

GRAVE-GOODS: EARLY BRONZE AGE SCOTLAND 31

Food Vessel bowls; perhaps even as an expression of heightened identity in theface of an ethnic or religious ‘other’ from whom Beaker using communities weresourcing copper.

‘Late’ or Weak-Carinated Beakers

Needham’s (2005, 188–91) Weak-Carinated vessels lack clear necks or carinationsand share much in common with Clarke’s Final Southern group (1970, vol. 1,234–4) (Fig 4.3). In Scotland these vessels are most common in East-CentralScotland, especially in Fife. By comparison, Needham’s Short-Necked vesselsare notable by their absence from this region. They feature incised decorationin ‘rough’ criss-cross lines and chevrons rather than the comb-impressiondesigns which predominate on Short-Necked Beakers. Weak-Carinated vesselsare associated with an elaborate range of grave-goods, including ‘jet’ ornamentsand bronze daggers. This is notable given the rarity of comparable artefactsfrom the vast majority of TSN and E/CN Beaker burials. Indeed, despite havingapproximately ten times as many Beaker burials there is only a single grave inAberdeenshire with a (copper) dagger (Ralston 1996), and none at all with ‘jet’ornaments. While Beakers in Fife are never directly associated with Food Vessels,they may occur in the same cemeteries, as at Balbirnie (Ritchie 1974), BarnsFarm (Watkins 1982) and Ashgrove, Methilhill (Henshall 1964). Relatively lateradiocarbon dates (from Blackhill, Tyrie; and Barns Farm, cist 4; see Sheridan2007; Curtis et al. 2008) and relative dating for bronze flat-riveted daggers (Bakeret al. 2003; Sheridan 2006, Appendix) places them at the end of the sequence ofBeaker burials in Scotland (pace Needham 2005, 189), and probably overlappingwith the use of Food Vessels.

In sum, the form, decoration, associations and distribution of this groupare quite different from Short-Necked (TSN and E/CN) Beakers, and appearsto represent the uptake of Beakers within a distinct ritual and cultural context.Having reviewed three typological groups and noted the importance of chronology,contacts and the character and tempo of associated funerary practices, it onlyremains to draw this evidence together with the other dimensions of the evidenceoutlined above and thus chart two distinctive regional narratives.

Regional Narratives of Early Bronze Age Scotland

North-east Scotland: An expanding network faces change

We have seen from the above strands of evidence that there was a significantconcentration of Beaker burials in Aberdeenshire and that the funerary practicesassociated with Beakers were also highly formalised. Gordon Barclay hascontrasted the distribution of henges and henge-like monuments in east-centralScotland, with the recumbent stone circles of Aberdeenshire (Barclay 1999, 21;2005, 85–6). At a general level, recumbent stone circles are clearly distinguished asa uniform architectural tradition by their setting of a large recumbent stone betweentwo narrower, upright ‘flankers’. Excavation suggests that the construction ofthese monuments also followed a prescribed and pre-determined sequence, withthe addition of the recumbent and stone circle following the construction of a

32 NEIL C.A. WILKIN

ring-cairn (Bradley 2005, 100–1, Illus. 97–8). The dating evidence for the circlesis limited, however a date in the second half of the 3rd millennium cal BC seemsreasonable (ibid.; Curtis and Wilkin 2012), and it is of note that the structuraluniformity of recumbent stone circles is mirrored in the structured uniformity ofthe Beaker tradition (ibid.; Fig 5). This is perhaps also significant in understandingwhy Food Vessel burial, which lacked standardised long-axis alignments and bodypostures (McAdam 1974, 50; Wilkin 2009, 25), was not taken up on a significantscale in north-east Scotland. Social connections, both within Aberdeenshire andwithin the larger Beaker ‘network’, were also a motivating factor in the expressionof shared ritual and technological knowledge (e.g. of tin-bronze metalworking).Indeed, the coastal plains and local seaways along which the majority of Beakerburials in east Scotland are situated, permitted privileged contact among like-minded communities from the TSN Beaker phase. However, by the 22nd centurycal BC, they connected north-east Scotland more closely to regions such as Ireland;from this date Irish copper was sourced at a far greater rate. It is also fromc.2200 cal BC that identity was expressed with reference to differences from othergroups, for instance in the exaggeration and lengthening of E/CN Beaker necksand the association of ‘Late’ Beakers with a range of ‘fancy’ grave-goods (e.g.‘jet’ ornaments and bronze daggers).

East-central Scotland: Embracing difference and variety in single burial

Communities in this region were relatively late in their adoption of singleinhumation burial with Beakers. However, single burial rites do become visiblefrom the 22nd century cal BC when a more eclectic range of grave-goods, andanother mode of burial (cremation) were in use. It is also only from this time periodthat single burial practices were regularly associated with funerary monumentsin eastern Scotland. The spatial organisation of burials within these cemeteriesfollows a set of structuring principles that is played out within the site, ratherthan regional rules. Furthermore, in several cases, these burials took place withinpre-existing, Late Neolithic monuments. Indeed, a connection may exist betweenthe historic, centralising pull of these henge-like monuments and ceremoniallandscapes and the Early Bronze Age funerary practices of the region in which arange of material culture and burial rites are present, often within single cemeteriesor even burials. In contrast to north-east Scotland, central and western regions (e.g.West Lothian and Perth & Kinross) are archaeologically and historically prone toproviding a complex ‘melting pot’ for the centralisation of influences (cf. Telford2002, fig. 8). This may help to explain the form that funerary practices and grave-goods took during the Early Bronze Age. The prescriptions of Beaker practicesmay have been sufficiently stringent to actively prevent or inactively dissuade EarlyBronze Age communities in other areas from breaking with established practices.Indeed, from the chronological evidence presented above, it appears that the statusquo was not broken until the close of the Beaker tradition and the availability ofalternative, and more flexible funerary practices, including the contemporary useof inhumation, cremation and in-urned burial. Only in east-central Scotland werecommunities either removed or disengaged from the Beaker tradition to produce

GRAVE-GOODS: EARLY BRONZE AGE SCOTLAND 33

Fig 5 The distribution of monuments and single burial traditions in eastern Scotland

the ‘Late’ or Weak-Carinated Beakers, and to associate (and replace them with) anew range of grave-good traditions.

Discussion and Conclusions

These summary accounts demonstrate the existence of strong traditions andgreater flexibility and variability in the ritual practices of east-central Scotland.As Osborne (2008, 284) has argued: ‘[t]radition is embraced by actors as a framewithin which they may choose to act or against which they react . . . [t]raditionsdraw attention to their links in order to emphasize distinctiveness and difference’.Communities in these two respective regions of Scotland appear to have done so indifferent ways: while uniformity helped to express identity in a world where bothmetalwork and single burial were new phenomena, by the 23rd and 22nd centuriescal BC these no longer commanded the novelty they once possessed. Moreover,the course of history took a different form in east-central Scotland and single burialwas, accordingly, taken up in relation to different beliefs and priorities. In this way,

34 NEIL C.A. WILKIN

the contextual study of funerary practices reveals insights regarding the experienceof, and reaction to, social and historical conditions.

Our own approaches are of course susceptible to our own contexts, and it isperhaps no surprise that narratives stressing the variability of Early Bronze Agefunerary practices have come to the fore in recent years, when the traditionalconcerns and methods of Culture History were treated with suspicion and distrust.While funerary practices among some communities in eastern Scotland were proneto change and variability, at other times and places communities trusted in thesame, highly formalised, funerary traditions over large distances and for severalgenerations. It is therefore only by considering as many relevant dimensions ofdata relating to funerary practices as possible that we can more fully serve post-processual approaches, such as those the relational construction of socio-culturalidentity (e.g. Brück 2004b), and the way in which memory worked in particularsocieties and regions (cf. Garwood 2007). This is not equivalent to being for moreempirical patterns or against more invaluable, post-processual approaches. Rather,conciliation and contextualisation provides the necessary groundwork for moreenduring interpretations.

Acknowledgements

Research for this paper was carried out in two capacities: during my time asResearch Assistant for the Leverhulme Trust funded Beakers and Bodies Project(Grant F/00 152/S) at Marischal Museum, University of Aberdeen, and whilstundertaking simultaneous M.Phil research at the University of Birmingham,supported by an AHRC postgraduate award and supervised by Paul Garwood.I am grateful to Daniel Sahlen and Elizabeth Pierce for the opportunity topresent an initial version of this paper at STAG 2008. Ray Kidd providedhelpful discussion regarding Bayesian analysis and provided the base map ofeastern Scotland. Neil Carlin, Neil Curtis, Jeff Sanders, Louise Wheeler and ananonymous referee provided very useful critiques and comments. I am gratefulto Cambridge University Press for permission to reproduce three Beakers fromClarke’s (1970) corpus. All radiocarbon dates were calibrated and modelledusing OxCal v.4.0.5 (Bronk Ramsay 2009), with atmospheric data from Struiveret al. (1998). All errors remain entirely of my own making.

Bibliography

Baker, L., Sheridan, A. and Cowie, T, 2003 An Early Bronze Age ‘dagger grave’from Rameldry Farm, near Kingskettle, Fife, Proc Soc Antiq Scot 133, 85–123.

Barclay, G.J. 1999 Cairnpapple Revisited: 1948–1988, Proceedings of thePrehistoric Society 65, 17–46.

Barclay, G.J. 2005 The ‘henge’ and ‘hengiform’ in Scotland, in V. Cummings andA. Pannett (eds) Set in Stone. New Approaches to Neolithic Monuments inScotland, Oxford, 81–94.

Bayliss, A., Bronk Ramsey, C, Van der Plicht, J and Whittle, A. 2007 Bradshawand Bayes: Towards a timetable for the Neolithic, Cambridge ArchaeologicalJournal 17.1 supplement, 1–28.

GRAVE-GOODS: EARLY BRONZE AGE SCOTLAND 35

Bradley, R. 2005 The Moon and the Bonfire: An investigation of three stone circlesin north east Scotland, Edinburgh.

Brindley, A.L. 2007 The Dating of Food Vessels and Urns in Ireland, Galway.Brindley, A.L. 2008 A Canon for the Bronze Age?, Bronze Age Review 1, 1–6.Brodie, N. 2001 Technological frontiers and the emergence of the Beaker culture,

in F. Nicolis, (ed.) Bell Beakers Today: pottery, people, culture, symbols inprehistoric Europe, Trento, 487–96.

Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009 Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates, Radiocarbon51(1), 337–60.

Brück, J. 2004a Early Bronze Age burial practices in Scotland and beyond:differences and similarities, in I.A.G. Shepherd and G.J. Barclay (eds)Scotland in Ancient Europe: The Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of Scotlandin their European Context, Edinburgh, 179–86.

Brück, J. 2004b Material metaphors: The relational construction of identityin Early Bronze Age burials in Ireland and Britain. Journal of SocialArchaeology, 4.3, 307–33.

Chadwick, A. 2003 Post-processualism, professionalization and archaeologicalmethodologies. Towards reflective and radical practice, Archaeologicaldialogues, 10.1, 97–117.

Clarke, D.L. 1970 Beaker Pottery in Great Britain and Ireland. Cambridge.Cowie, T. 1988 Magic Metals: Early metalworkers in the north-east. Aberdeen.Cressey, M. and Sheridan, A. 2003 The excavation of a Bronze Age cemetery at

Seafield West, near Inverness, Highland, Proc Soc Antiq Scot 133, 47–84.Crichton-Mitchell, M.E. 1934 A new analysis of the early Bronze Age beaker

pottery of Scotland, Proc Soc Antiq Scot 68, 132–89.Cummings, V. and Fowler, C. 2007 From Cairn to Cemetery: An archaeological

investigation of the chambered cairnsand early Bronze Age mortuary depositsat Cairnderry and Bargrenna White Cairn, south-west Scotland, Oxford.

Curtis, N., Wilkin, N., Hutchison, M., Jay, M, Sheridan, A and Wright, M. 2008Radiocarbon dating results from the Beakers and Bodies Project. Discoveryand Excavation in Scotland 2007, 198–201.

Curtis, N. and Wilkin, N. 2012 The Regionality of Beakers and Bodies inthe Chalcolithic of North-East Scotland, in M.J. Allen, J. Gardiner andA. Sheridan (eds) Is there a British Chalcolithic? People, place and polityin the later 3rd millennium, Oxford, 237–256.

Curtis, N. and Wilkin, N. in prep The Beakers & Bodies Project: A contextualBeaker typology for North-East Scotland.

Garwood, P. 2007 Before the hills in order stood: chronology, time and history inthe interpretation of early Bronze Age round barrows, in J. Last (ed.) Beyondthe Grave: new perspectives on barrows, Oxford, 30–52.

Henshall, A.S. 1964 A dagger-grave and other cist burials at Ashgrove, Methilhill,Fife, Proc Soc Antiq Scot 97, 166–79.

Hodder, I. 1999 The Archaeological Process: An Introduction. London.Hodder, I. and Hutson, S. 2003 Reading the Past: Current approaches to

interpretation in archaeology (Third Edition). Cambridge.Johnson, M. 2010 Archaeological Theory: An Introduction (Second edition).

London.

36 NEIL C.A. WILKIN

Jones, A, 2001 Drawn from memory: the archaeology of aesthetics and theaesthetics of archaeology in Earlier Bronze Age Britain and the present, WorldArchaeology 33.2, 334–56.

Jones, A. 2003 Technologies of Remembrance: Memory, materiality and identityin EarlyBronze Age Scotland, in H. Williams (ed.) Archaeologies ofRemembrance: Death and Memory in Past Societies, New York, 65–88.

Jones, A 2007 Memory and Material Culture, Cambridge.Josipovici, G. 1999 On Trust: Art and the Temptations of Suspicion. New Haven

and London.Klejn, L.S. 2006 Neither archaeology nor theory: a critique of Johnson, Antiquity

80, 435–43.Lanting, J.N. and Van der Waals, J.D. 1972 British beakers as seen from the

Continent: a review articles, Helenium 12, 20–46.MacGregor, G. 2008 Changes in dwelling, people and place, c.3500–1000 BC, in

O. Lelong and G. MacGregor (eds) The Lands of Ancient Lothian. Interpretingthe Archaeology of the A1, Edinburgh, 221–37.

McAdam, E. 1974 Some Aspects of Early Bronze Age Cists in Scotland,Department of Archaeology. Unpublished MA dissertation, University ofEdinburgh.

Needham, S. 2004 Migdale-Marnoch: sunburst of Scottish metallurgy, in I.A.G.Shepherd and G.J. Barclay (eds) Scotland in Ancient Europe: The Neolithicand Early Bronze Age of Scotland in their European Context, Edinburgh,217–45.

Needham, S. 2005 Transforming Beaker Culture in North-West Europe; Processesof Fusion and Fission, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71, 171–217.

Needham, S. 2007 Bronze Makes a Bronze Age? Considering the Systemicsof Bronze Age Metal Use and the Implications of Selective Deposition, inC. Burgess, P. Topping, and F. Lynch (eds) In the Shadow of the Age ofStonehenge: papers in honour of Colin Burgess, Oxford, 278–87.

Osborne, R. 2008 Introduction: for tradition as an analytical category, WorldArchaeology 40.2, 281–94.

Pierpoint, S. 1980 Social Patterns in Yorkshire Prehistory, 3500–750 BC, Oxford.Ralston, I.B.M. 1996 Four short cists from north-east Scotland and Easter Ross,

Proc Soc Antiq Scot 126, 121–55.Ritchie, J.N.G. 1974 Excavation of the Stone Circle and Cairn at Balbirnie, Fife.

Archaeological Journal 131, 1–32.Ritchie, J.N.G. and Shepherd, I.A.G. 1973 Beaker pottery and associated artefacts

in south west Scotland, Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and GallowayNatural History and Antiquarian Society, 3rd series 50, 18–36

Roberts. B. 2008 Information, Interaction and Society, Bronze Age Review 1,48–56.

Shepherd, I.A.G. 1986 Powerful Pots: Beakers in north-east prehistory. Aberdeen.Shepherd, A.N. 1989 A note on the orientation of beaker burials in North-East

Scotland, Proc Soc Antiq Scot 119, 79–80.Sheridan, J.A. 2004 Scottish Food Vessel Chronology Revisited in A. Gibson and

A. Sheridan (eds.) From Sickles to Circles: Britain and Ireland at the Time ofStonehenge, London, 243–69.

GRAVE-GOODS: EARLY BRONZE AGE SCOTLAND 37

Sheridan, J.A. 2006 Dating the Scottish Bronze Age: ‘There is clearly much thatthe material can still tell us’, in C. Burgess, P. Topping, and F. Lynch (eds)In the Shadow of the Age of Stonehenge: papers in honour of Colin Burgess,Oxford, 162–85.

Sheridan, J.A. 2007 Scottish Beaker dates: the good, the bad and the ugly, inM. Larsson and M. Parker Pearson (eds) From Stonehenge to the Baltic: Livingwith cultural diversity in the third millennium BC, Oxford, 91–108.

Sheridan, J.A. and Bayliss, A. 2008 Pots and time in Bronze Age Ireland. Antiquity82, 204–7.

Stronach, S., Sheridan, A. and Henderson, D. 2006 A Bronze Age cemetery atNorth Straiton, Fife, Tayside and Fife Archaeological Journal 12, 1–13.

Struiver, M., Reimer, P.J. and Brziunas, T.F. 1998 High-precision radiocarbon agecalibration for terrestrial and marine samples, Radiocarbon 40, 1041–83.

Telford, D. 2002 The Mesolithic inheritance: contrasting Neolithic monumentalityin Eastern and Western Scotland, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 68,289–315.

Thomas, J. 1991 Reading the body: Beaker funerary practice in Britain, inP. Garwood, F. Jennings, R. Skeates, and J. Toms, (eds) Sacred and profane.Archaeology, ritual and religion, Oxford, 33–42.

Trigger, B.G. 2006 A History of Archaeological Thought (2nd edition). Cambridge.Trigger, B.G. 2000 Rodger Beefy’s Primer (review article). Cambridge

Archaeological Journal 10.2, 367–9.Tuckwell, A.N. 1975 Patterns of burial orientation in the round barrows of East

Yorkshire, Bull Inst Archaeol Univ Lond 12, 95–123.Turek, J. 2006 Bell Beaker Gendered Cups in Central Europe in A. Gibson (ed.)

Prehistoric Pottery: Some Recent Research, Oxford, 63–8.Vander Linden, M. 2007 What linked the Bell Beakers in third millennium BC

Europe?, Antiquity 81, 343–52.Watkins, T. 1982 The excavation of an Early Bronze Age cemetery at Barns Farm,

Dalgety, Fife, Proc Soc Antiq Scot 112, 48–141.Wilkin, N.C.A. 2009 Regional Narratives of the Early Bronze Age. A contextual

and evidence led approach to the funerary practices of East-Central Scotland.Unpublished M.Phil thesis, University of Birmingham.

Williams, H. 2005 Death Warmed Up. The agency of bodies and bones in EarlyAnglo-Saxon Cremation Rites, Journal of Material Culture 9.3, 263–91.