The enduring puzzle of Early Neolithic mortuary practices in southern Britain—why so few human remains survive relative to expected population sizes—has long been attributed to taphonomic loss, poor preservation, or incomplete excavation coverage. Katharine Ward’s groundbreaking work decisively reframes this issue, demonstrating empirically that the scarcity reflects deliberate cultural selection rather than accidental absence.
In her 2022 Master’s thesis (A Holistic Approach to Understanding Mortuary Practices in Early Neolithic Southern Britain, University of Birmingham) and its refined 2025 publication (Evidence of Absence: A Case Study of Early Neolithic Human Remains Near Stonehenge World Heritage Site, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, first published 8 December 2025), Ward compiles a comprehensive dataset of all known Early Neolithic human remains in Wiltshire (minimum number of individuals, MNI = 298 across four centuries). The overwhelming majority derive from monumental contexts: long mounds (152), chambered tombs (128), with only minor contributions from causewayed enclosures (9) and pits (9).
The assemblages are predominantly disarticulated, fragmentary, and commingled, indicating complex multi-stage rites involving defleshing, circulation of elements, and selective redeposition. Demographically, prime-age adults dominate, while sub-adults and mature adults are markedly under-represented.
To test whether this pattern results from investigative bias, Ward conducts a rigorous presence–absence analysis in two intensively surveyed areas: the Stonehenge World Heritage Site and the Salisbury region. Despite decades of large-scale developer-funded archaeology, non-monumental Early Neolithic features and human remains remain vanishingly rare outside known monuments. This, Ward argues, confirms the genuineness of the absence: monumental deposition was a privileged, exclusive rite afforded only to a curated minority, while the majority—the ‘absent dead’—underwent practices (e.g., excarnation or cremation with dispersal) that left no durable trace.
Ward’s methodology—systematically contrasting recovered evidence against the extent of modern investigative coverage—offers a replicable framework for other regions. Her findings align with recent aDNA studies indicating tightly controlled kin-based access to chambered tombs, reinforcing the interpretation of deliberate social differentiation
By shifting focus from presumed loss to demonstrated selection, she compels us to view surviving remains not as depleted samples but as evidence of ideological and social exclusivity. This illuminates concepts of ancestry, personhood, and memory in the Early Neolithic while highlighting the diverse, often invisible, rites applied to most of the population.
Ward, K. (2025). Evidence of absence: a case study of early Neolithic human remains near Stonehenge World Heritage Site. Oxford Journal of Archaeology. doi:10.1111/ojoa.70009. Also on researchgate.
Hi Tim — thanks for flagging this. I’d missed Ward’s work, and your summary made it click into focus straight away.
ReplyDeleteA question, really, about where you think this leads us socially as well as ritually:
If Ward’s presence/absence method effectively rules out “we just haven’t found them yet”, and what we’re left with is deliberate selection into monumental deposition, does that imply (at least in embryonic form) a shift towards exclusive, kin-mediated rights over place and resources?
In other words: if long mounds/chambered contexts are privileging a curated minority, and if (as you note) this sits neatly alongside aDNA indications of tightly controlled kin access, is it reasonable to read the mortuary pattern as more than “belief” — as part of a mechanism for legitimising descent groups in the landscape (“our dead are here, therefore our claim is here”), with everyone else routed into archaeologically “invisible” rites?
I’m conscious this can be overcooked into anachronistic “private property” language, so I’m thinking in softer terms: not alienable ownership, but ancestral entitlement, unevenly distributed and reproduced through kinship. Do you think Ward’s dataset allows that inference, or do you see good reasons to keep the interpretation strictly within mortuary ideology (i.e., differentiation without necessarily mapping onto access to land/resources)?
Either way, really appreciate you bringing the paper to wider attention — it feels like one of those studies that quietly forces a recalibration.