Re-interpreting the Durrington Walls Pit Complex: A Functional Animal-Hunting and Trapping Landscape in the Late Neolithic

 

Abstract 

Large pits surrounding Durrington Walls have generally been interpreted within a symbolic or ritual framework. However, recent sedimentary ancient DNA (sedaDNA) evidence, alongside zooarchaeological, architectural, and ethnographic parallels, suggests an alternative: these pits may have functioned as traps for large animals, integrated into a wider system of controlled hunting and slaughter involving aurochs, cattle, sheep, and pigs. In particular, the presence of Bos and Ovis sedaDNA in the basal deposits of several pits provides evidence suggestive of early animal–pit interaction. Combined with indications of arrow trauma on some pig bones at Durrington Walls, this supports a model in which capture, dispatch, and possibly performative or prestige-motivated killing were key activities. Such an interpretation requires reconsidering the Stonehenge landscape not only as a ceremonial complex, but as a working animal landscape whose monumentality reflects practical engagement with large, dangerous mammals—potentially blending subsistence with social display. This functional lens does not preclude ritual elements but situates them within the gritty realities of Neolithic animal mastery.

1. Introduction

Imagine the chalky Wiltshire downlands at dusk, 5,000 years ago: a line of hunters, cloaked in hides, beats drums of stretched skin to drive a herd of thunderous aurochs toward a concealed arc of yawning pits. The lead bull stumbles, horns glinting in torchlight, as it plummets into the void—a tonne of fury immobilised for the group's survival and spectacle. This scene, drawn from ethnographic accounts of bovid drives in arid landscapes, evokes not mysticism, but the raw calculus of prehistoric pragmatism.

Interpretations of the Stonehenge and Durrington Walls landscape have long prioritised ritual explanations. This interpretive reflex is deeply rooted in twentieth-century prehistory, which tended to equate monumentality with non-utilitarian behaviour. Yet, as new methods such as sedaDNA analysis expand our access to microstratigraphic histories, functional readings that incorporate subsistence, hunting, and animal management practices deserve renewed consideration.

Recent work on the “Durrington pits”—a ring of large, regularly spaced shafts surrounding the henge—has been framed almost exclusively in cosmological terms. However, the discovery of early-phase Bos (cattle/aurochs) and Ovis (sheep) DNA in basal pit deposits invites a reassessment. This paper argues that the pits may have functioned as animal traps, forming part of a landscape-scale system for capturing aurochs and other large mammals. Zooarchaeological hints of arrow use on pigs suggest complementary performative practices, rather than purely pragmatic slaughter. I acknowledge potential ritual overlays but emphasise how this model—bolstered by ethnographic analogues—reframes Neolithic monumentality as a response to ecological and social challenges, including the management of dangerous megafauna amid a shifting climate.

2. Background: The Durrington Walls Landscape

Durrington Walls stands at the centre of a rich archaeological zone, encompassing house clusters, monumental avenues, palisaded enclosures, and extensive middens dominated by pig remains (~90% of identifiable fauna), with cattle comprising around 10%. These have often been interpreted as the remains of feasting associated with Stonehenge’s construction. However, high-resolution analyses of butchery marks, seasonality, and kill methods suggest a more complex picture of animal management and slaughter.

Pigs, herded over long distances (up to 400 km, per isotopic studies), indicate organised procurement, while cattle remains hint at both domestic herds and rarer wild encounters. The recent identification of large pits around Durrington Walls adds a new dimension. Their scale (typically >5 m in diameter and depth), spacing (non-random arcs ~1.5 km radius), and rapid infilling have no close British parallels. While initially interpreted as a boundary or ritual circuit, their physical form invites functional comparison with global pit-trap traditions—systems designed to harness the landscape for high-stakes hunting.

3. Sedimentary aDNA Evidence and “Crime Scene” Signatures

3.1 Methods Overview

SedaDNA was extracted from borehole core samples (e.g., WS 8A) taken from pits in both northern and southern arcs, using established protocols for ancient environmental DNA (e.g., shotgun metagenomics with damage profiling). Signals were authenticated via depth-dependent DNA fragmentation and cross-referenced with chemostratigraphy (e.g., phosphorus peaks) and OSL dating. This multi-proxy approach minimises contamination risks, with 82% of taxa showing stratified distributions indicating minimal post-depositional mixing.

3.2 Key Findings

The sedaDNA study revealed unambiguous signatures of:

• Bos taurus/Bos primigenius (cattle/aurochs) DNA in basal layers across all sampled pits.
• Ovis (sheep) DNA, concentrated in southern pits.

These findings are crucial for three reasons:

1. Stratigraphic Position: The DNA appears in the lowest layers (chemostratigraphic zones CZ2 and CZ3), immediately above the original pit floor (e.g., 4.79 m depth in WS 8A), with bone fragments present—pointing to direct animal presence or deposition during early use, rather than later contamination.
2. Patterned Distribution: Bos signals are ubiquitous, while Ovis is localised south of the monument, suggesting structured animal movement or selective deposition, not random input.
3. Rapid Infilling Events: Microstratigraphy indicates episodic deposition (e.g., 57% of DNA tied to influxing sediments from distal sources), matching scenarios of animals falling (or being driven) into open pits, followed by deliberate backfilling. OSL dates cluster around 3000–2500 BCE, aligning with pit construction.

This pattern is difficult to reconcile with a purely symbolic boundary (e.g., no uniform infill expected). Instead, it aligns with active trapping, where basal residues reflect initial captures. Counter-evidence, such as the absence of articulated skeletons, may stem from post-trap processing (e.g., carcass removal for feasting), a common feature in ethnographic pit systems.

4. Ethnographic and Archaeological Analogues for Pit Trapping

Pit trapping for large mammals is globally attested, with traits mirroring Durrington's pits. Table 1 summarises key parallels, highlighting alignments in scale, spacing, and residues while noting ecological variances (e.g., chalk downlands vs. tundra).

Table 1: Comparative Features of Pit-Trapping Systems

System	Region/Era	Prey Type	Pit Scale/Spacing	Drive Elements	Residues/Infilling	Key Alignment with Durrington
Caribou Drives	Arctic/North America, Historic	Reindeer/Caribou	3–6 m deep; spaced lines	Palisade funnels	Basal dung/bone; rapid fill post-kill	Structured arcs; episodic deposition
Bovid Traps	Eurasian Steppe, Bronze Age	Wild cattle/horse	4–7 m diameter; linear arrays	Fenceline gaps	DNA/bone in bases; deliberate backfill	Non-random spacing; animal signals in lows
Wild Boar Pits	Medieval Europe	Boar/Pigs	2–5 m deep; clustered	Natural topography aids	Gnaw marks; quick infill	Pig dominance; trauma hints
Elephant/Bovid Pits	Central Africa/South Asia, Ethnographic	Elephants/Water buffalo	5–10 m diameter; hazard fences	Beaters + barriers	Faecal/DNA residues; event-based fill	Large scale for megafauna; basal organics

These systems share functional imperatives: pits as immobilisers, integrated with drives for predictability. Durrington's pits exhibit all core traits, suggesting adaptation to local aurochs behaviour (e.g., flight along avenues).

5. The Aurochs Problem: Dangerous Prey and Monumental Solutions

Aurochs (Bos primigenius) were formidable: males reached ~1 tonne, with aggressive charges documented ethnographically. Trapping via pits is one of few effective methods, as spears risked hunter injury. Their tendency to follow linear routes when driven suits landscape-scale funnels.

Given the Bos sedaDNA (potentially including wild primigenius, though domestic taurus dominates post-Mesolithic), the simplest explanation is that pits immobilised large bovines—opportunistically or via coordinated drives. This accounts for the pits' engineering: sheer walls prevent escape, while arcs maximise coverage. Absence of direct primigenius bones may reflect rarity or selective deposition, but sedaDNA bridges this gap.

6. Pig Hunting with Arrows: Evidence Suggesting Sporting or Display Behaviour

Zooarchaeological patterns at Durrington Walls include hints of arrow trauma on some domestic pig bones, unusual given pigs' manageability. Arrows are inefficient for close-quarters dispatch—stunning or knifing suffices—yet trauma signatures imply short-range shots, potentially in confined settings (cf. experimental lithic impacts).

This parallels performative hunts in later cultures (e.g., Iron Age boar spearing for status). Contextualised amid aurochs traps, arrow-hunting of pigs may represent a lower-risk proxy: a blood sport broadcasting prowess during gatherings. While evidence is tentative (trauma not ubiquitous), it suggests hunting as social theatre, complementing pit pragmatism.

7. Palisades as Animal Control Structures

Timber palisades near Durrington Walls (4 m high, with narrow gaps) are typically seen as ceremonial. Yet their form—long barriers with controlled interruptions—resembles ethnographic drive structures. Integrated with pits, they would:

• Channel animals toward gaps/crossings.
• Limit escape during drives.
• Create kill zones for ambush.

This yields a coherent system: palisades prod, pits capture, aligning with Ovis/Bos distributions.

8. Mesolithic Precedents: Stonehenge Pits as Potential Machans

Mesolithic postholes at Stonehenge resemble machans—elevated platforms for ambush in Asia/Africa—offering visibility and safety for archers. If functional here, they suggest continuity: early hunting infrastructure evolving into Neolithic traps, not a ritual rupture.

9. Discussion: Ritual Reflex vs. Functional Interpretation

Ritual interpretations dominate partly due to modern unease with slaughter, framing monuments as symbolic despite functional cues. Durrington's pits align better with trapping: architecture for containment, sedaDNA for interaction, middens for processing.

Counters—e.g., no in-pit tools—may reflect cleaning for reuse, as in steppe systems. This model enriches Neolithic views: as ecological engineers, communities engineered landscapes against megafauna decline (~2500 BCE), blending hunt with homage. Gendered prestige (male-led drives) or seasonal timing (winter feasts) warrant future modelling.

10. Conclusion

Reinterpreting Durrington Walls pits as animal traps offers a materially grounded alternative to ritual models. SedaDNA proves early Bos/Ovis interaction; zooarchaeology hints at performative kills; ethnography supplies analogues. Viewing this as a working landscape—of aurochs captures, pig spectacles, and palisade prods—reclaims Neolithic monumentality as bold ecology: human-animal encounters forging social bonds amid peril. Future work, including micromorphology for tool traces, could test this further, illuminating an era of tangible triumphs.