Journal of the British Archaeological Association

ISSN: 0068-1288 (Print) 1747-6704 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjba20

Time Regained: The Creation of Continuity

Richard Bradley

To cite this article: Richard Bradley (1987) Time Regained: The Creation of Continuity, Journal of
the British Archaeological Association, 140:1, 1-17, DOI: 10.1179/jba.1987.140.1.1

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/jba.1987.140.1.1

Published online: 18 Jul 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 484

View related articles

Citing articles: 45 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjba20

Download by: [179.8.3.140] Date: 10 November 2017, At: 15:43

 TIME REGAINED:
THE CREATION OF CONTINUITY
By RICHARDBRADLEY

This paper considers the striking juxtaposition of prehistoric and early medieval monuments observed at
Yeavering and other sites. It suggests that rather than showing continuity of ritual significance, these
phenomena evidence attempts by a social elite to legitimise their position through reference to the past. The
argument is illustrated by discussion of the Northumbrian palaces in the Milfield Basin and the later
reuse of the Boyne tombs.

THE PUBLICATION of Brian Hope-Taylor's excavation of the Northumbrian royal site at

Yeavering1 is not only a landmark in our understanding of early post-Roman society: it
Downloaded by [179.8.3.140] at 15:43 10 November 2017

also presents an explicit case for the continued use of a prehistoric 'ritual' site into the
historical period. A similar interpretation has been suggested for the cemetery at Sutton
Hoo? It is the purpose of this paper to examine what is meant by 'ritual continuity' and to
suggest another way of looking at the question.
In each case the argument rests on the observation that sites which played such
dramatic roles in the early historical period had already been used to a significant extent
during prehistory. At Sutton Hoo that use included phases of settlement and perhaps one
of the barrows, whilst the prehistoric sequence at Yeavering commenced with Neolithic
settlement and burial and included the construction of two ceremonial monuments. In
Hope- Taylor's words this evidence supports 'the possibly startling suggestion of an
i

immensely long continuity in local "ritual" observance - of a thread running unbroken

(if at times weakened) from the Bronze Age to the Anglo-Saxon Age'.3
There is no reason to discount the striking juxtapositions of monuments observed at
these sites. Less explicit versions of the same basic argument have been employed in other
instances, for example the siting of Iron Age hill-forts in the same place as Neolithic
causewayed enclosures,4 the location of Romano-Celtic temples inside derelict hill forts5
or the choice of Roman buildings as the positions for Anglo-Saxon churches.6 Such
patterns are so widespread that they do need explanation. But do they evidence 'the long
life of a ritual folk centre', 7 as work at Sutton Hoo suggests, or can the same observations
be explained in other ways?
We can approach this question at two levels. First, we must consider the theoretical
implications of this type of argument, since these have rarely been addressed. This is
particularly important when historical archaeologists adopt the same approaches as
prehistorians, for there is some danger of mutual misunderstanding. Secondly, it is worth
considering an alternative way of interpreting observations of this type. This is attempted
in two detailed studies. The first reconsiders the empirical evidence from Yeavering and
nearby sites. In this case the main emphasis is not upon the development of the
Northumbrian royal palaces. Rather, the discussion traces the way in 'Yhich the surviving
elements of the prehistoric landscape came to be used in the early historical period. The
other study concerns a series of vitally important prehistoric monuments, the Neolithic
passage graves of the Boyne Valley, and the ways in which these were reused during the

JBAA, CXL (lg87), 1-17

 2 THE CREATION OF CONTINUITY

prehistoric period, and again in the first millennium A.D. The two phases of reuse can be
compared with one another, but in the latter period there are enough documentary
sources to suggest the nature of that process.

TIME, CONTINUITY AND RITUAL

We cannot consider the nature of 'continuity' without discussing the character oftime.8
There are considerable difficulties in combining 'anthropological time', as it is studied by
prehistorians, with the idea of historical time which our own society takes for granted.
Edmund Leach distinguishes between primitive time, which can be considered as cyclical;
historical time, which is sequential; and magical time, which can be influenced by appropriate
ritual action.9 Secular time may be punctuated by festivals in which a different conception
of time prevails. Understandably, medieval archaeologists tend to think in historical time,
even when they are referring to prehistoric material. As we shall see, this can lead to
confusion.
Downloaded by [179.8.3.140] at 15:43 10 November 2017

Part of the difficulty arises because of the existence of writing. Writing is what
distinguishes history from prehistory, but it also alters our way of looking at the past,
because it permits direct comparison between different versions of the same events.10 It is
the use of writing that makes history possible and helps to create what we consider to be
historical time. That essentially Western conception of chronology may also have been
influenced by the importance of accurate time reckoning in a mercantile economy.ll
Different types of study employ quite different conceptions of time, and historical time
itself can be divided up in different ways; the past cannot be measured on a single scale.
Historians can study sequences of very different types, but prehistoric archaeologists are
virtually confined to investigating the longue duree. This is an important distinction,
because it means that events taking place at these different time scales cannot be
compared directly. To quote Levi-Strauss:
It is ... not only fallacious but contradictory to conceive of the historical process as a continuous
development, beginning with prehistory coded in tens or hundreds of millennia, then adopting the
scale of millennia when it gets to the fourth or third millennium, and continuing as history in
centuries interlarded, at the pleasure of each author, with slices of annual history within the
century ... All these dates do notform a series: they are oj'different species. To give just one example, the
coding we use in prehistory is not preliminary to that we employ for modern or contemporary
history [my emphasis].12

Just this criticism applies to the kinds of continuity suggested in the Yeavering report, for
Hope- Taylor seems to be making a direct comparison between the post-Roman sequence
on the site, which is calibrated by documentary references, and the sequence of activity
between the Neolithic and the Roman 'native' phases, which is measured in centuries and
sometimes in millennia. It is unwise to emphasise continuity so strongly unless we
compare like with like.
So far we have been discussing the nature of historical time. There are even more
difficulties when we confront historical time with primitive time, as we are bound to do
when we take the same approach to the pre- and post-Roman periods. Particular
problems arise with the ideal of ritual continuity, for now we are obliged to consider the
coexistence of difference kinds of time within the same society.
 THE CREATION OF CONTINUITY 3
There may be a fundamental difference between 'ritual' time and 'normal', non-sacred
time. To quote Maurice Bloch:
Cognition of society, like that of time, is double. On the one hand there is a system used in normal
communication based on universal notions of time and cognition, in which people are visualised in
ways which seem to differ little from culture to culture, a system which is used for the organisation
of practical activities ... , and on the other hand there is another totally different system ... , based
on a stranger and much more culturally specific system of classification. The presence of the past in
the present is one of the components of that other system of cognition which is characteristic of ritual
communication, another world which, unlike that manifested in the cognitive system of everyday
communication, does not directly link up with empirical experiences.13

These rather abstract issues have a direct relevance to any account of 'ritual continuity' in
archaeology. If ritual time is separate from everyd~y time, it will be difficult to discuss
ritual continuity in the same terms as continuity of Iand use or domestic settlement. Ritual
time dissolves the distinction between past and present on which historical time depends.
Downloaded by [179.8.3.140] at 15:43 10 November 2017

Continuity in the distinctive sense used in discussions of Yeavering or Sutton Hoo is

located in historical time. Again we may not be comparing like with like.
Bloch's discussion of this problem introduces another fundamental point. Not all
societies make a sharp contrast between the ritual and the everyday, and those that do so
often contain marked distinctions of status or rank. This does not imply a direct
relationship with the degree of inequality. As he says,
some inequality is often manifested as unadorned oppression, but ... then it is highly unstable, and
only becomes stable when its origins are hidden and when it transforms itself into hierarchy ...
This is done by the creation ofa mystified 'nature' consisting of concepts and categories of time and person
divorcedfrom everyday experience, and where inequality takes on the appearance of an inevitable part of an
ordered system [my emphasis] .14

In this way ritual allows the past to serve needs of the present, and for this reason it can be
used to secure the status quo.
I t seems likely that this use of a ritual past may be one way in which particular groups
establish their own position and put it beyond challenge. Indeed, it is the particular
nature of ritual time that it cannot be measured in terms of everyday experience; because
it involves an element of mystification, it is particularly hard to challenge. The past
becomes a resource in the hands of the living.15 In such cases, links with a remote past,
which could not be evaluated before the development of archaeology, may have been used
to legitimise the social order.
Recent research has suggested other means of achieving the same objective, especially
during periods of instability or rapid change. It is striking how many of these are
evidenced in the post-Roman period. First, it is clear that rich burials are not a universal
feature of ranked societies but tend to occur most commonly at times when great displays
of wealth were needed to stress the position and achievements of particular individuals.16
A second tendency is for periods of insecurity or rapid change to be emphasised by a
significant investment in ideology, and sometimes by the building of impressive monu-
ments whose operation may have involved public ritual. Although this idea was originally
proposed in a discussion of early states,!? it has proved to have a wider application.16 A
further element, closely linked with this investment in ideology, is what Hobsbawm
 4 THE CREATION OF CONTINUITY

describes as the 'invention of traditions' .19 This has been investigated mainly by modern
historians, but again the principle should have a wider application. Hobsbawm's
definition of an invented tradition has features in common with Bloch's account of ritual:
'Invented tradition' is taken to mean a set of practices, normally governed by overtly or tacitly
accepted rules and of a ritual or symbolic nature, which seek to inculcate certain values and norms
of behaviour by repetition, which automatically implies continuity with the past.20

Because archaeologists study material culture, they tend to overlook one type of
invented tradition. The fabrication of traditional literature described by Hobsbawm in
the recent past is only one aspect of a much broader process, for an elite may also
legitimise its position through the promulgation of origin myths, often of an heroic or epic
character. I t is worth studying the circumstances in which oral literature of this kind was
recorded and disseminated in written form. This may also help to shed light on the
credentials of this material as a historical source.
Before turning to my own case studies, it may be helpful to summarise these points by
Downloaded by [179.8.3.140] at 15:43 10 November 2017

showing such processes at work together. I have chosen an example, not from prehistory,
bu t from Classical Archaeology.
The Archaic period saw the emergence of the Greek city states, and so striking were the
developments that took place at this time that Anthony Snodgrass describes it as 'the age
of experiment,?1 The growing importance of the individual is clear from the burial rite,
but much greater wealth was soon being deposited at sanctuaries. At the same time,
public architecture started to be used to emphasise the prestige of individual city states
and provided a focus for competitive emulation.
Such changes established themselves fairly rapidly, but the period which saw these
developments is also distinguished by constant references to the distant past. A heroic
tradition looking back into the Bronze Age seems to have been employed to support the
claims ofa new elite. Hero cults, focusing on the leading protagonists in the Trojan War,
become especially important, and at this stage Mycenean tombs were used again after a
long interval of desertion?2 It seems likely that particular individuals began to advance
claims of direct descent from heroic ancestors. In some cases the emergence of local hero
cults involved a misunderstanding of the material surviving from the past, but in others
such links may have been entirely fictitious.
The same emphasis on the distant past is apparent from Archaic art, with its portrayal
of scenes from the Trojan War and even its attempts to depict the material culture of the
Bronze Age on the basis of surviving objects and images?3 It is no surprise that it was
during this all-important period of change that the Homeric epic may have been
composed. Certainly, it seems to have been when it was written down.24 A recent study by
Ian Morris suggests that public performances of Homer at Panhellenic games and
sanctuaries interpreted the legendary past from an aristocratic vantage point and were
intended to legitimise the position of the new elite. Indeed, Morris even suggests that
writing developed at this time for the express purpose of recording epic poetry.25
This brief example suggests some of the ways in which the past can serve a political role
in the present. In the remaining part of this paper we shall consider whether a similar
process might have been taking place in the early history of the British Isles. In each case
this may have been achieved through the strategic use of monuments surviving from the
 THE CREATION OF CONTINUITY 5

distant past and their incorporation in a different cultural landscape. This, I shall suggest,
provides a better explanation for some of the patterns recognised in the archaeological
record than the problematical notion of ritual continuity.

THE PAST IN THE PRESENT: YEA VERING AND THE BOYNE VALLEY

Hope- Taylor summarises the case for ritual continuity at Yeavering in the following
words:
What cannot be ignored is that Yeavering was continuously a local centre for burial and 'ritual'
monuments for a thousand years and more before the oppidum on Yeavering Bell was built; that it
was (secretly, perhaps) used as a burial-place during the Roman occupation; and that again during
the post-Roman era (both before and after the Anglo-Saxon intrusion) it became once more overtly
a place for burial and ritual. 26

Taken together, this evidence suggests 'an immensely long local continuity in some
Downloaded by [179.8.3.140] at 15:43 10 November 2017

aspects of custom ana observance' .27

In fact the key elements in Hope-Taylor's case are remarkably few in number (Fig. I).
The excavated area at Yeavering containedjust two prehistoric ceremonial monuments, a
ring ditch and a stone circle, both dated by small pieces of Beaker pottery.28 The ston'e
circle formed the focus for a Bronze Age cremation cemetery and was reused in the post-
Roman period when its site was selected for an inhumation cemetery; a nearby timber
building was interpreted as a pagan temple.29 The ring ditch at the opposite end of the
excavated area presumably marked the site of a barrow. In the post-Roman period its
position was emphasised by a large upright post, and in time it was incorporated within
the earthworks of a massive enclosure. Again the position of the surviving prehistoric
monument was emphasised by the development of an inhumation cemetery, and later by
the establishment ofa church and its attendant graves.3DUnlike the stone circle, however,
this monument also formed the focal point for an alignment of timber buildings. In effect
the layout of the Northumbrian royal palace was determined by the positions of two
prehistoric monuments, both of which were brought back into use.
We can comment on this interpretation at two levels. First, we must review the
sequence at Yeavering in rather more detail, and with particular emphasis on a third
prehistoric monument which has been excavated since Hope-Taylor's work on the site
(Fig. I). The evidence from this monument calls into question the relationship between
the pre- and post-Roman phases at Yeavering. Secondly, and more important, we can
extend our investigation to the later use of other prehistoric monuments in the vicinity,
including those near to a second palace site at Milfield, which is believed to have
succeeded Yeavering (Fig. 2).
Understandably, Hope-Taylor's reconstruction of the prehistoric sequence is based on
the two monuments found in his excavation: the stone circle and the barrow. The third
monument which needs to be considered is a henge.31 This does appear as a crop mark in
Hope- Taylor's monograph, but was identified as the temenos of a Roman temple;32 had
that been the case, the argument for ritual continuity might have been stronger. The
Yeavering henge was probably the most substantial prehistoric monument on the site. It
had two opposing entrances; the south-eastern entrance was aligned on a standing stone
 Downloaded by [179.8.3.140] at 15:43 10 November 2017

...
THE

I
.-zI
]
CREATION
OF CONTINUITY
 THE CREATION OF CONTINUITY 7
which still survives, whilst the other entrance faced in the general direction of the
cremation cemetery accompanying the stone circle (Fig. I). This alignment is not exact,
however, perhaps because these two parts of the site would not have been intervisible.
Despite this note of caution, it does seem likely that the main axis of the prehistoric
complex was very different from that of the post-Roman structures on the site. Nearly all
the Bronze Age burials were found close to the stone circle, and some distance from the
ring ditch which played such a prominent part in the layout of the palace.
It was not until a field system was established on the site in the late prehistoric or
Roman period that its main axis changed.33 The basic alignment remained very much the
same, but now it was some 40 m further to the north and took no account of the positions of
the three existing monuments (Fig. I). Very few burials can be attributed to this phase,34
and those that were found would be by no.means unusual on any Roman rural site. Since
no other burials at Yeavering need be later in date than the Bronze Age, there is no
evidence of 'continuity' here. In the same way, the layout of the field system bears no
relationship to the alignment of the post-Roman buildings (Fig. I), and again the case for
Downloaded by [179.8.3.140] at 15:43 10 November 2017

continuous development is unproven.

There is no doubt that Hope-Taylor is right to emphasise the way in which the stone
circle and the ring ditch were reused durng the post-Roman period, when they certainly
formed focal points in the layout of the palace complex. On the other hand, they were not
the major points in the prehistoric layout of the site, for here the henge monument had
played a more important role than the ring ditch. It is surely revealing that the henge,
originally the largest of the prehistoric monuments at Yeavering, was completely dis-
regarded,35 whilst the others became the sites for two cemeteries. Undoubtedly an
attempt was made to renew links with the past through the reuse of the stone circle and the
ring ditch, but the treatment of the henge monument, and the creation of a totally new axis
for the buildings on the site, suggest that this was done with little knowledge of how the
area had once been used.
The case for continuity at Yeavering itself has always been weakened by the paucity of
material dating from the first millennium B.C., and also by the very small number of
burials associated with the field system. Indeed, the appearance of that field system could
perfectly well mark a break in the sanctity of this site, as it may in other places where a
similar sequence occurs.36 To some extent Hope-Taylor answers this criticism by
emphasising the important role played by a nearby site at this time. As he suggests, it
seems likely that the reorganisation of land use at Yeavering itself may have happened
during the period that saw the occupation of the hill-tort on Yeavering Bell, which
overlooks the palace complex.37 This directs our attention to other major sites in the
surrounding area. Apart from this massive hill-fort, which Hope-Taylor refers to as an
oppidum, we need to consider the palace complex at Milfield, 3.5 km away, which seems to
have replaced the royal site at Yeavering.38 As we shall see, similar processes to those
identified already can be recognised in both areas (Fig. 2.).
Again we must start by reconstructing the main elements of the prehistoric landscape.
Although the area had been occupied since the Earlier Neolithic, it was in the third
millennium B.C. that an important series of ceremonial monuments was established. At
present at least eight henge monuments have been identified through air photography,
and a number have been sampled by excavation.39 In addition, the area around these
 HENGE or related monument

~ Land over 61m

o
I ~
lkm i
-N-

I
MILFIELD

Downloaded by [179.8.3.140] at 15:43 10 November 2017

_ Monument reused as cemetery

<> Polygonal palisade

,
o Monument not reused

o
I
1km
E==3 -N-
t
I

~'AVENUE'

o
I

Overlies
hillfort

FIG. 2. Major prehistoric monuments in the Milfield basin and their modification
during the early medieval period. The palace complexes are shown, using the names
recorded by Bede. 'Gefrin' is Yeavering and 'Melmin' is Milfield
 THE CREATION OF CONTINUITY 9
monuments contained some of the earliest prehistoric land divisions in this country.40 The
main group ofhenge monuments, five in number, form a line running along the Milfield
Basin at intervals of between 750 m and 2.5 km (Fig. 2). Most of these monuments would
have been marked by prominent earthworks, and in some cases they included settings of
uprights. The stone circle excavated by Hope-Taylor at Yeavering is related to these
monuments.
Although these monuments concentrate in a limited area, they do not share a common
alignment. There is no evidence that they had been directed towards astronomical events,
as sometimes happened with comparable earthworks elsewhere. Rather, they appear to
have been aligned on prominent points on the skyline, including the summit ofYeavering
Bell.41 Cropmarks suggest that some of these earthworks may have formed the focus for
groups of prehistoric burials like those excavated by Hope-Taylor. It is hard to establish
how long these monuments remained prominent elements of the landscape, although
excavation on a related enclosure in the Milfield Basin seems to suggest that the main axis
of that site was emphasised by the deposition of human cremations almost a millennium
Downloaded by [179.8.3.140] at 15:43 10 November 2017

after its construction.42

There is no evidence that the hillfort on Yeavering Bell was established until a later
date. There have been claims that it was preceded by a palisaded enclosure,43 but, as we
shall see, there is some reason to doubt that interpretation. The hillfort itself has never
been dated, although the broadly comparable site on Traprain Law, 55 km to the north
west, has shown a sequence of activity beginning in the Late Bronze Age.44 All that is
known about Yeavering Bell is that several of the stone-built houses inside the defences
have produced Roman artefacts.45 Hope-Taylor must be correct to suggest a major
concentration of population in this area, for at least part of the year.
We have already traced the ways in which the existing prehistoric monuments at
Yeavering were treated in the post-Roman period. Very much the same processes can be
found on the sites considered here, and in particular those near to the palace sites.
There are several striking patterns to observe (Fig. 2). First, it seems possible that the
line ofhenge monuments running along the Milfield Basin was given added emphasis in
the early historical period. This argument is far from conclusive and depends on
reinterpreting the earthwork 'avenue' linking three of these sites.46 This feature, which
consists of two parallel ditches, follows a sinuous course between these monuments over a
distance of 4 km. It flanks two of the henges and runs through the centre of the third site,
entering and leaving by the original entrances. There is clear evidence that it postdates all
three of these earthworks, but by an unknown interval. Although its excavator, Anthony
Harding, favours a prehistoric date,47 the analogy that he suggests with cursus monu-
ments no longer seems as convincing as it did when his report was published, for recent
radiocarbon dates suggest that such monuments may belong to a much earlier period.48
Since air photography suggests that the 'avenue' ends in an open area towards the centre
of the Milfield palace,49 it seems possible that it had served as a formal approach to this
complex, not unlike some of the earthworks recorded on Irish royal sites.50 It may have
been a prehistoric feature, reused during the post-Roman period, or a new construction
altogether.
This association between henges and post-Roman royal sites is strengthened by the
discovery that two of the monuments close to the Milfield palace had been reused for
 10 THE CREATION OF CONTINUITY

inhumation cemeteries at this time.51 At Milfield North henge five burials were found
during recent excavation, whilst Milfield South contained nearly forty burials. In each
case the layout of the graves respected the prehistoric earthworks.52 It is worth adding
that Milfield South is one of the monuments on the course of the 'avenue' and lies not far
outside the palace complex (Fig. 2). Milfield North, on the other hand, is orientated
towards the summit ofYeavering Bell, and that in itself is important.
One striking feature of the Milfield palace is the existence of a polygonal enclosure,53 of
a type which is also known on a post-Roman site at Doon Hill, Dunbar.54 In fact there is
another enclosure with this distinctive ground plan inside the hill-fort on Yeavering
Bell.55 This palisaded enclosure was about the same size as that at Doon Hill. There is
some difficulty in discussing this aspect of the site because the two published plans of
Yeavering Bell differ in material details. Jobey shows the enclosure as basically curvi-
linear, like many of the palisaded "sites which predate hill-forts in the Cheviots;56 on the
other hand, his plan indicates that the earthwork of the palisade trench cut those house
platforms with which it came into contact. Hope-Taylor's plan, on the other hand, does
Downloaded by [179.8.3.140] at 15:43 10 November 2017

show it as a polygonal enclosure, cut by the house platforms.57 Examination of the site from
the air and on the ground suggests that the enclosure really is polygonal and that although
it was disturbed in the nineteenth century, its palisade trench is later than the house
platforms. Similar enclosures are not found on prehistoric sit~s in this area, and it seems
likely that this was built on the eastern summit of the hill during the post-Roman period.
Taken together, this evidence suggests that older monuments in the vicinity of both the
palace complexes could have been reused selectively during the early historical period.
On the other hand, the evidence from the excavated sites suggests that the sequence had
been broken by a long interval in which there is no evidence of activity. The alignment of
henges along the Milfield Basin seems to have been renewed, and no fewer than four
prehistoric monuments (two henges, a stone circle and a ring ditch/round barrow) were
brought back into use as the sites for inhumation cemeteries (Fig. 2). Yeavering Bell, one
of the largest hill-forts in the region, was replaced by a palisaded enclosure strikingly like
those at Milfield and Doon Hill. Hope-Taylor has discussed the Roman prototypes which
lay behind the 'grandstand' on the Yeavering palace site.58 This reference to the Roman
tradition makes much more sense when we link it with the other indications that a local
elite was making a considered effort to strengthen its position through reference to the
past. The selective reconstruction of important monuments was really equivalent to the
composition of prestigious but fictitious genealogies. We know that this process was
taking place during a period of conflict and change,59 and this may provide a particular
reason why the local rulers should have taken such trouble to legitimise their position. It is
not relevant to this argument whether those rulers were of native descent.
My second case study is much briefer. The evidence from the Boyne Valley may throw
some light on these processes because here the archaeological material is augmented by
written sources. In this paper we shall be concerned with only three sites: the great
megalithic tombs of Knowth, Dowth, and Newgrange. All of these sites are situated
within 3 km of one another, close to the River Boyne (Fig. 3). Two of the monuments,
Knowth and Newgrange, have been excavated on a large scale, but the third site, Dowth,
was badly damaged during the last century. It seems likely that all three monuments were
built during the fourth millennium B.C. and went out of use after a fairly short interva1.6o
 THE CREATION OF CONTINUITY I I

i
-r.---e-a
,0
--Ed E"3.-----.E"3--E3---'
1km
DOWTH
O

OKNOWTH
200

o NEWGRANGE
Downloaded by [179.8.3.140] at 15:43 10 November 2017

FIG. 3. The locations of the major passage graves in the Boyne Valley

Both Newgrange and Knowth were also the focus for smaller passage graves;61
comparable information is not available for Dowth.62
On this occasion our main concern is with the later history of these monuments. This
may be divided into two phases: the Beaker period and the first millennium A.D. Beaker
use of these sites is evidenced from the recent excavations at Knowth and Newgrange, and
in both cases seems to have taken place after a lengthy interval during which they were not
in use.63 There has been a tendency to regard the later activity at both monuments as
being domestic in character, but the most recent work at Newgrange suggests that the
truth may be more complicated. Figure 4 summarises the likely sequence on this site. It
now seems probable that during the Beaker occupation, a massive post built enclosure,
best described as a henge monument, was built just beyond the remains of the Neolithic
mound.64 This monument may have been superceded by the stone circle which surrounds
the main passage grave.65 The discovery of human remains in features belonging to the
henge makes it difficult to describe the site as an ordinary settlement. Although a number
of structures were recorded during 'the excavation, some of the finds from this site have a
very individual character. For example, nearly all the stone axes were found in the same
area as the henge,66 whilst a bronze axe seems to have been deposited intact just beyond
the Neolithic mound.67 The animal bones also have an unusual character. They suggest
an abnormally high level of meat consumption for a settlement of this date, and the bones
 12 THE CREATION OF CONTINUITY

found in one part of the Beaker level evidence the slaughter of an extraordinary number of
pigs.68
There is less to be said about the Beaker material from Knowth, where animal bones
were not preserved, but in one respect the finds do have an unusual character. Several
different concentrations of Beaker material have been identified around the edge of the
main passage grave, but the pottery from all but one of these groups was made up entirely
offine ware.69 Beaker material is so uncommon in Ireland that it seems likely that these

NEWGRANGE
PASSAGE GRAVES
Downloaded by [179.8.3.140] at 15:43 10 November 2017

i
-N-
o
E3E3E3E3H!
100m

STONE CIRCLE

o
o
MAIN DEPOSITS OF
ROMAN MATERIAL

FIG. 4. The outline sequence at N ewgrange (prehistoric features after Sweetman and
deposits of Roman material after Carson and O'Kelly)
 THE CREATION OF CONTINUITY

'settlements' were of a rather special character. Again the sequence is consistent with
older monuments being brought back into use during a period of social change.
The reuse ofKnowth and Newgrange would not be so relevant to this study but for the
fact that both sites were to be used again during the first millennium A.D.70 The same is
true of Dowth, but in this case the exact nature of this reuse is not known.71 In strictly
archaeological terms, we can divide the reuse of Knowth into two phases. During the first
phase, the ruined mound covering the passage grave was fortified by two concentric
earthworks (Fig. 5). In the second phase, when the earthworks were in disrepair, a
number of structures were built on the mound itself. The artefacts from both phases
suggest that this was a settlement of some pretensions.72
Newgrange, which is situated a little over a kilometre from Knowth, was also reused,
but in a very different way. Here there is no evidence that the mound or its immediate
vicinity were used for domestic occupation. Instead a major concentration of Roman
artefacts was deposited around the south side of the monument, and particularly towards
the entrance to the tomb (Fig. 4) .73 Roman artefacts are rare in Ireland and these
Downloaded by [179.8.3.140] at 15:43 10 November 2017

particular examples have an individual character, consisting mainly of coins, finger rings,
brooches and other ornaments. The coins stand out because of their high value and
unusual quality, whilst a number of the ornaments were made of precious metal It is also
interesting that the beads found at Newgrange are of a rather rare type best paralleled on
the royal site at Tara. These artefacts must surely have been deliberate offerings placed
around the entrance to the ruined tomb. Again there is no evidence of continuity of use
between the Beaker phase and this period, yet the deposits of both dates do have features
in common. Both entail the sacrifice of wealth at the focal point of a much earlier
monument, although the Beaker modifications to the structure lack any parallel in the
later phase.

KNOWTH KNOWTH
NEOLITHIC IRON AGE

/ CJ ~ \~

/
o SOm

FIG. 5. The outline sequence at Knowth (after Eagan)

 THE CREATION OF CONTINUITY

Ifwe were confined to studying the archaeological record, no doubt suchjuxtapositions

would still invite comment. They might even fuel speculation about the extent of 'ritual
continuity' on these sites. Fortunately, enough literary evidence survives for us to
gain some insight into the true nature of the developments taking place in the first
millennium A.D ..
We would be quite correct in suspecting that Knowth was a high status site.74 In fact it
was the capital of the kingdom of the northern Brega; the capital of the southern Brega
was the famous site of Lagore.75 The history of Knowth is fairly complicated, but can be
divided into two main phases: an earlier occupation during which it maintained its
independence as the capital ofa small kingdom; and a later period of use, from the ninth
century A.D., when the kingdom came under the sway of the Vi Neill dynasty, who ruled
from Tara.76
The legendary associations of Knowth and Newgrange are also revealing. Knowth is
referred to as a dwelling of supernatural beings, but for the most part its documented
associations are essentially secular.77 This did not apply to Newgrange, where the sources
Downloaded by [179.8.3.140] at 15:43 10 November 2017

contain two strands, corresponding very broadly to the two main phases in the political
history ofKnowth. The earlier strand sees Newgrange as the residence of gods or the sons
of kings. It was the house of Oengus, the son of the chief god of the pre-Christian
pantheon. In another account it was built by the chief god himself, for his own use and
that of his three sons.78 Although these were supernatural beings who belonged to a
distant past, it seems that they could still intervene in human affairs. It is tempting to
suggest that the offerings of Roman material around the entrance to the tomb reflect the
power exerted by these beliefs. The Boyne tombs not only represented the past in the
present: they were also the repository of supernatural power.
For this reason it is particularly striking to contrast these ideas with the beliefs that
came to be associated with Newgrange from the time when Knowth came under the Vi
Neill. During this second phase the legendary associations of Newgrange seem to have
changed, so that now it was asserted that the mound was the burial place of the early kings
ofTara.79 In effect history was rewritten to legitimise the Vi Neill claim to Knowth, and
Newgrange acquired a more appropriate past. Without some appreciation of the political
climate in which these changes happened, it would be little easier to interpret the
archaeology of the first millennium A.D. than it is to understand the use of these
monuments during the Beaker period.

CONCLUSION: THE AFTERLIFE OF MONUMENTS

This paper has suggested that 'ritual continuity' may not be the most appropriate
explanation for the striking juxtaposition of prehistoric and early medieval monuments
observed at sites like Yeavering. There are difficulties in equating the distinctive time
scales used in historical and prehistoric studies, and the very idea of ritual continuity, as it
has been used to date, may also involve a misunderstanding of the character of ritual time.
This study has presented an account of the ways in which the prehistoric monuments of
the Yeavering area were utilised in the post-Roman period and has compared this with
the treatment of the past evidenced in Archaic Greece and Early Christian Ireland. In
each case it seems as if the past was being used in a much more active manner, in order to
 THE CREATION OF CONTINUITY

promote or protect the interests of a social elite. The credentials of those claims as history
could hardly have been examined then, and it may be a mistake to investigate them too
minutely now.
More important is the realisation that such a passive reading of landscape history fails
to satisfy any of the interests for which it caters. It passes over one of the major strategies
by which groups in a traditional society could impose their version of reality on others and
at the same time protect it from challenge. It may involve a misreading of the prehistoric
evidence that impedes communication between workers in different periods. Most serious
of all, it does not do justice to the exceptional detail in which we can read particular parts
of the archaeological record. Instead of gaining a rare insight into the pattern of political
change, the proponents of ritual continuity are forced to make imaginative leaps across
impossibly long periods of prehistoric time; and they do so in order to support a model
which is difficult to sustain as archaeological theory.
Perhaps we would do better to appreciate that the types of pattern seen in this paper
actually occur very widely in the prehistoric and early historical periods and may reveal a
Downloaded by [179.8.3.140] at 15:43 10 November 2017

process which is rarely ~tudied in detail by archaeologists. The distinctive kind of

sequence investigated at Yeavering or at Sutton Hoo is by no means peculiar to those
particular sites, even in the first millennium A.D. It canbe recognised far more widely, and
in societies which developed largely independently of one another. It is one of the most
distinctive features of Irish royal sites such as Tara80 or Cruachain,81 where the docu-
mented use of those centres followed an intermittent sequence of monument construction
going back to the Neolithic period. It applies equally clearly to the Pictish palace at
Forteviot, which proves to occupy the same site as a major group ofhenge monuments,82
and in England, an earthwork site at Thwing on the Yorkshire Wolds, which had already
done service as a Neolithic henge and a Late Bronze Age ringwork, was reused in the
eighth century A.D. as a high status settlement and cemetery compared by its excavator to
the royal site at Yeavering.83
Too often archaeologists are told by historians - or even tell one another - that the
processes of social change will always remain out of reach. The weakness of this position
becomes clear when those who study different parts of the past (or study the same part in
different ways) fail to understand one another. For that reason they also fail to realise the
full potential of some areas of the archaeological record. This paper has suggested one
such field for study. We would begin to improve communication in a subject which is
disastrously over-specialised if we paid more critical attention to the afterlife of monu-
ments. As the poet Edwin Muir wrote, with more eloquence than I can command, 'Time's
handiworks by time are haunted' .84

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper was first given at the 1987 Sutton Hoo Seminar in Oxford. I am grateful to
Martin Carver and William Filmer-Sankey for persuading me to write it and to the
participants at the meeting for their constructive comments. I must thank Anthony
Harding and Roger Miket for information on their own work in the Milfield Basin and for
much helpful discussion. The figure drawings are by Andy Brown.
 16 THE CREATION OF CONTINUITY

NOTES

1 B. Hope-Taylor, Yeavering (London Ig77).

2 M. Carver, 'Research potential and feasibility', Bulletin of the Sutton Hoo Research Committee, 4 (lg86), 33-50.
3 B. Hope-Taylor, Yeavering, 24g.
4 R. Bradley, 'From ritual to romance: ceremonial enclosures and hill forts', in G. Guilbert (ed.), Hill-Fort Studies
(Leicester Ig81), 2fr-27.
5 B. Cunliffe, 'The Iron Age', in C. Renfrew (ed.), British Prehistory: a New Outline (London Ig74), 248.
6 R. Morris and]. Roxan, 'Churches on Roman buildings', in W. Rodwell (ed.), Temples, Churches and Religion in Roman
Britain, BAR British Series 77 (Oxford Ig80), 175-210.
7 M. Carver, 'Research potential ... ', 41.
8 T. Ingold, Evolution and Social Life (Cambridge Ig86), 128-72.
9 E. Leach, 'Primitive time-reckoning', in E. Singer, E. Holmyard and A. Hall (eds), The History of Technology, I (Oxford
Ig54), I 1fr-27; idem, 'Two essays concerning the symbolic representation oftime', in E. Leach (ed.), Rethinking Anthropology
(London I g6 I), 124-36.
10 ]. Goody, The Domestication ojthe Savage Mind (Cambridge Ig77).
11 G. Whitrow, What is Time? (London 1972).
12 C. Levi-Strauss, The Savage Mind (London Ig66), 260.
13 M. Bloch, 'The past and the present in the present', Man, 12 (lg77), 278-g2.
14 Ibid., 28g.
15 Cf. A. Appadurai, 'The past as a scarce resource', Man, 16 (lg81), 201-lg. For other discussions of Bloch's thesis see M.
Bourdillon, 'Knowing the world or hiding it: a response to Maurice Bloch', Man, 13 (lg78), 5g1-99; L. Howe, 'The social
Downloaded by [179.8.3.140] at 15:43 10 November 2017

determination of knowledge: Maurice Bloch and Balinese time', Man, 16 (lg81), 22fr-34; R. Burnham, 'Time and
socioeconomic change on Simbo, Solomon Islands', Man, 16 (lg81), 251-67; and]. Peel, 'Making history: the past in the
Ijesha present', Man, Ig (lg84), I I 1-32. Cf. T. Ingold, Evolution and Social Life, 163-6.
16 M. Parker-Pearson, 'Mortuary practises, society and ideology: an ethnoarchaeological study', in I. Hodder (ed.),
Symbolic and Structural Archaeology (Cambridge Ig82), g9-1 13.
17]. F. Cherry, 'Generalisation and the archaeology of the state', in D. Green, C. Haselgrove and M. Spriggs (eds), Social
Organisation and Settlement, BAR International Series, 47 (Oxford Ig78), 411-37.
18 R. Bradley, Consumption, Change and the Archaeological Record (Edinburgh, Ig85), 4-9.
19 E. Hobsbawm, 'Inventing traditions', in E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger (eds), The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge
Ig83), 1-14
20 Ibid., I.
21 A. Snodgrass, Archaic Greece: The Age of Experiment (London Ig80).
22 Ibid., 38-40; cf.]. N. Coldstream, 'Hero-cults in the age of Homer', journal of Hellenic Studies, g6 (lg76), 8-17.
23 A. Snodgrass, Archaic Greece, 68-75.
24 I. Morris, 'The use and abuse of Homer', Classical Antiquity, 5. 1,81-138.
25 Ibid., 122.
26 B. Hope-Taylor, Yeavering, 266.
27 Ibid., xvii.
28 Ibid., 83-5 and 108-16.
29 Ibid., 95-1 18.

30 Ibid., 46-95.
31 A. Harding, 'Excavations in the prehistoric ritual complex near Milfield, Northumberland', Proceedings of the Prehistoric
Society, 47 (lg81), 87-135. The Yeavering henge is reported on pp. 119-2g.
32 B. Hope-Taylor, Yeavering, 5 and pI. 6.
33 Ibid., 21-2,46 and 154-7.
34 Ibid., 154-7 and 335-48.
35 A. Harding, 'Excavations ... near Milfield, Northumberland', I Ig. I am grateful to Dr Harding for further details of the
post-Roman features on this site.
36 R. Bradley, 'From ritual to romance ... ',24-7.
37 B. Hope-Taylor, Yeavering, 21-2.
38 Ibid., 4-5 and fig. 7.
39 R. Miket, 'The evidence for Neolithic activity in the Milfield basin, Northumberland', in C. Burgess and R. Miket (eds),
Settlement and Economy in the Third and Second Millennia BC, BAR British Series, 33 (Oxford Ig76), 113-42; A. Harding,
'Excavations ... near Milfield, Northumberland'.
40 R. Miket, 'Pit alignments in the Milfield basin, and the excavation of Ewart I', Proceedings ojthe Prehistoric Society, 47
(lg81),137-46.
41 A. Harding, 'Excavations ... near Milfield, Northumberland', 13fr-31.
42 R. Miket, 'Ritual enclosures at Whitton Hill, Northumberland', Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 51 (lg85), 137-48.
The excavation of Whitton Hill 2 is reported on pp. 144-7.
43 B. Hope-Taylor, Yeavering, 6.
44 G.]obey, 'Traprain Law: a summary', in D. W. Harding (ed.), Hillforts: Later Prehistoric Earthworks in Britain and Ireland
(London I 976), Ig2-204.
45 B. Hope-Taylor, Yeavering, 6.
46 A. Harding, 'Excavations ... near Milfield, Northumberland', 89-93, 10fr-IOI, 132 and pI. 3 and 4.
47 Ibid., gl and 132.
 THE CREATION OF CONTINUITY 17
48 R. Bradley, 'Radiocarbon and the cursus problem', in J. Gowlett and R. Hedges (eds), Archaeological Results from
Accelerator Dating, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, monograph no. II (Oxford 1986), 139-41.
49 D: Riley, D. Edwards, T. Gates, J. Hampton and R. Whimster, 'The mapping of archaeological evidence from air
photographs', Aerial Archaeology, 11 (1985), fig. II.
50 See for example M. Herity, 'A survey of the royal site ofCruachain in Connacht' ,Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of
Ireland, 113 (1983),123.
51 A. Harding, 'Excavations ... near Milfield, Northumberland', 93 and 101. Cf. R. Miket, 'A restatement of evidence from
Bernician Anglo-Saxon cemeteries', in P. Rahtz, T. Dickinson and L. Watts (eds), Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries 1979. The Fourth
Anglo-Saxon Symposium at Oxford, BAR British Series, 82 (Oxford 1980),295-6.
52 I am grateful to Dr Harding for this information and for showing me plans of the cemeteries.
53 B. Hope-Taylor, Yeavering, fig. 7; Riley, et al., 'The mapping of archaeological evidence from air photographs', fig. II.
54 B. Hope-Taylor, 'Balbridie and Doon Hill', Current Archaeology, 72 (1980), 18-19.
55 Idem, Yeavering, fig. 3.
56 G.Jobey, 'Hill forts and settlements in Northumberland', ArchaeologiaAeliana, 43 (1965),21-64. For Yeavering Bell see
fig. 7.
57 B. Hope-Taylor, Yeavering, fig. 3.
58 Ibid., 241-4 and 316.
59 The historical background is discussed by P. Hunter-Blair, Northumbria in the Days of Bede (London 1976) and Anglo-Saxon
Northumbria (London 1984).
60 G. Eogan, Knowth and the Passage-tombs of Ireland (London 1986); M. O'Kelly, Newgrange: Archaeology, Art and Legend
(London 1982); M. O'Kelly and C. O'Kelly, 'The tumulus at Dowth, County Meath', Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy,
83C (1983), 136-90.
Downloaded by [179.8.3.140] at 15:43 10 November 2017

61 M. O'Kelly, F. Lynch and C. O'Kelly, 'Three passage graves at Newgrange, Co. Meath', Proceedings of the Royal Irish
Academy, 78C (1978),249-352; G. Eogan, Excavations at Knowth, I (Dublin 1984).
62 M. O'Kelly and C. O'Kelly, 'The tumulus ofDowth ... '.
63 M. O'Kelly, R. Cleary and D. Lehane, Newgrange, Co. Meath, Ireland: The Late Neolithic/Beaker Period Settlement, BAR
International Series, 190 (Oxford 1983); G. Eogan, Excavations at Knowth, 1, 245-322.
64 P. D. Sweetman, 'A Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age pit circle at Newgrange, Co Meath', Proceedings ojthe Royal Irish
Academy, 85C (1985),195-221.
65 Ibid., 211-16.
66 C. O'Kelly, R. Cleary and D. Lehane, Newgrange ... , 41-4.
67 M. O'Kelly and C. Shell, 'Stone objects and a bronze axe from Newgrange, Co Meath', in M. Ryan (ed.), The Origins of
Metallurgy in Atlantic Europe (Dublin 1978), 127-44.
68 L. van Wijngaarden-Bakker, 'The animal remains from N ewgrange, Co. Meath: first report', Proceedings of the Royal Irish
Academy, 74C (1974), 313-83; idem, 'The animal remains from Newgrange, Co. Meath: final report', Proceedings of the Royal
Irish Academy, 86C (1986),17-11 I.
69 G. Eogan, Excavations at Knowth, 1, 319.
70 M. O'Kelly, Newgrange ... , 47-8; G. Eogan, 'The Iron Age-Early Christian settlement ofKnowth, Co Meath, Ireland',
in V. Markotic (ed.), Ancient Europe and the Mediterranean (Warminster 1977),68-76.
71 M. O'Kelly and C. O'Kelly, 'The tumulus ofDowth ... ',154-6 and 178-81.
72 G. Eogan, 'The Iron Age-Early Christian settlement at Knowth ... '.
73 R. Carson and C. O'Kelly, 'A catalogue of the Roman coins from Newgrange, Co Meath and notes on the coins and
related finds', Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 77C (1977),35-55.
74 G. Eogan, 'The Iron Age-Early Christian settlement at Knowth ... '; F.J. Byrne, 'Historical note on Cnogba (Knowth)',
Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 66C (1968), 383-400.
75 H. Hencken, 'Lagore Crannog: an Irish royal residence of the 7th to loth centuries AD', Proceedings of the Royal Irish
Academy, 53C, 1-247.
76 F.J. Byrne, 'Historical note on Cnogba (Knowth)'.
77 Ibid.
78 M. O'Kelly, Newgrange ... ,43-8.
79 Ibid., 46.
80 S. P. O'Riordain, Tara: The Monuments on the Hill (Dundalk 1957).
81 M. Herity, 'A survey of the royal site ofCruachain ... ';J. Waddell, 'Rathcroghan - a royal site in Connacht',Journal of
Irish Archaeology, 1 (1983),47-58; cf. B. Wailes, 'The Irish "royal" sites in archaeology and history', Cambridge Medieval Celtic
Studies, 3 (1982), 1-29.
82 L. Alcock, 'A survey ofPictish settlement archaeology', inJ. Friell and W. Watson (eds), Pictish Studies. Settlement, Burial
and Art in Dark Age Northern Britain, BAR British Series, 125 (Oxford 1984), 28-9.
83 T. G. Manby, The Thwing Project: Excavation and Field Archaeology in East Yorkshire (York, 1985); idem, The Thwing Project
1986: Excavation and Field Archaeology in East Yorkshire (York 1986).
84 The quotation is from 'One Foot in Eden', published in book form in 1956.