Saturday, 26 September 2026

Borrowed tombs, or Ozymandias in Wessex?

A paper in Scientific Reports gives the genomes of thirty people from twelve burial places in Gloucestershire and Dorset, buried between about 3800 and 1400 BC. Those laid down before 3000 BC belong with the Neolithic farmers who raised the long mounds. Those laid down from about 2550 BC are a different people, with the ancestry that comes into Britain among the Beaker dead. At three of the old monuments the later dead were put into earth their own ancestors had not built.

Continued use is not the puzzle. The puzzle is what the use was for. It may be a tradition, taught on, even after the bloodline has changed. Or it may be Shelley's traveller, who comes on "two vast and trunkless legs of stone." He reads the boast on the pedestal. He does not inherit the kingdom. 

The graves look like that second kind of use, and the years are the reason. At Sale's Lot a woman was laid in a mound twelve centuries after the people who built it. At Monkton-up-Wimborne a man was set down in an old hollow seventeen centuries after the family buried there. At Sisters Long Barrow a young woman went into a mound twenty-two centuries after the men who lay in it. Not a rite kept up year by year. Two moments, far apart: one around 2500 BC, as the Beaker dead were beginning to arrive, and one around 1500 BC, when axes were being carved on the Stonehenge sarsens. The later dead were mostly not the builders' descendants. They wanted the places. Wanting a place is what the traveller does.

Beacon Hill, Burghclere, Hampshire - Tomb 5th Earl of Carnarvon - Picture 1

Beacon Hill, south of Newbury, is the same act with the paperwork kept. The hill was already an Iron Age fort, and the new grave was cut into it some two thousand years after the rampart. There were older barrows on it, it had carried a beacon, and skeletons had been dug up there long before. In April 1923 the fifth Earl of Carnarvon, who had stood at the opening of Tutankhamun's tomb and then died in Cairo, asked to be buried there in a mound of earth, with trees and stones, and not to have more than fifty pounds spent. He was laid in a shaft in the corner of the fort. We know what the grave was for, because he wrote it down. Nobody that day was keeping the faith of the people who dug the ditch. They were taking a high old hill and giving it a meaning of their own.

Twelve centuries, or seventeen, or twenty-two, is long enough for a place to stay standing and lose its name. It does not show that anyone could say who lay inside it. Stonehenge, which might have been the exception, is not much stronger. The Avenue, dug across the change of people, does carry the solstice line out to the river, and that is the best case for a plan remembered. But the later pits outside the sarsens are irregular, and nobody agrees what they were for. What is plain is a long habit of adding a mark: axe-heads cut in the stones, then names, one said to be Wren's, and cremated ashes still placed there, unofficially, in our own time. A claim, repeated. Not a plan obeyed. Shelley's man could read every word that had been cut. The sands were level all the same.

The genomes settle only the blood. It largely changed. A memory could still have been carried across that break: strangers can be taught, and children can forget. Nothing in these graves shows the teaching. The nearest we can come to watching a handing-on is watching one being made. At Stonehenge now, the druids keep a faith they have given the place, one the builders could not have handed them. The handing-on had already stopped, more than once, before anyone in the eighteenth century thought to begin it again. That is not a tradition out of the Neolithic. It is the traveller, returned, finding a family for the ruin. Carnarvon may have his mound. The druids may have their dawn. Neither are keeping an older faith. Both are giving a high old place a meaning of their own.

Vuković, N. et al. (2026). Diachronic reuse of Neolithic burial monuments by Bronze Age newcomers in Southwestern Britain. Scientific Reports 16:26819. 

Carnarvon’s instruction is the codicil to his will, April 1923. 

Shelley, P. B. (1818). Ozymandias.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments welcome on fresh posts - you just need a Google account to do so.