The cemetery is located in the south-west of Pottenbrunn, on plot "Steinfeld" (15°41´05"/48°13´55"). Discovered in 1930, it had already yielded objects dating to the early La Tène period. In 1981, road construction revealed further finds which initiated rescue excavations by the Bundesdenkmalamt (State Office for Protection of Historical Monuments) under the guidance of J.-W. Neugebauer (Ramsl 2002a(Ramsl , 13) in 1981(Ramsl and 1982. A total of 42 graves with 45 burials (single and double inhumations, and cremations) have been documented. Some burials were severely disturbed (by ancient activities such as grave robbing and/or contemporary construction work), and some were set within fenced enclosures ("Grabgärten"). Three (of 22) samples of charcoal and bone fragments taken by Peter Stadler (Department of Prehistory, Natural History Museum Vienna) in the course of the FWFproject "Absolute Chronology for Early Civilisations in Austria and Central Europe" returned AMS dates of 410-200 cal BCE (grave 520), 550-200 cal BCE (grave 565) and 380-350 cal BCE (grave 1005) (Ramsl 2002b, 359). The cremation burials were not included in the initial osteological analysis, but 31 inhumed individuals were studied (Gerold 2002). Petrous bones from three of these were successfully analyzed for aDNA. Sample I11699 (female) derived from an individual (inv. no. 26.238) aged c. 20 years in grave 89 which, despite disturbance in antiquity, was accompanied by fibulae and ceramic vessels. Sample I11701 (male) derived from an individual (inv. no. 26.249) aged c. 18 years in grave 570, which also included shears, fibulae, and ceramic vessels. Evidence for bone porosity in the mandible and maxilla suggest possible Vitamin C deficiency, while enamel hypoplasia points to malnutrition or illness during childhood. Sample I11708 (female) derived from an individual (inv.no. 26.250) aged c. 25-35 years in grave 574/2, who was richly adorned with fibulae, bronze, iron and silver-rings, an amber ring, a bracelet, a glass bead, and a worked bone artefact.

Developer-funded archaeology on the Isle of Sheppey resulted in the discovery of not one but two Neolithic causewayed enclosures on the same hilltop in very close (c. 300 m) proximity. In the later Bronze Age enclosures and cremation cemeteries were constructed immediately to the east, followed by Iron Age enclosures and, ultimately, field systems dating to the later Iron Age onwards. A radiocarbon programme enabled the chronological sequence and hiatus between all of these events to be discerned, but the majority of this paper explores the physical, chronological, and social relationship between the two Neolithic causewayed enclosures. These were of different forms and, although on the same hilltop, they each seem to have had distinctly different viewsheds over the Thames and the Swale respectively. There are subtle, but potentially significant, differences in the material culture and deposition which allow exploration of the possible functions and role(s) of the two largely contemporaneous sites. Questions may be addressed such as whether they performed the same functions for two communities or had separate and distinct roles for a single community. Beyond the Neolithic, the paper also explores the nature of the later use of the hilltop. The Bronze Age enclosures, though agricultural in function, clearly seem to respect their Neolithic predecessors invoking a remembrance of space, which is lost by the Iron Age. The shift away from the special function of this landscape in the Neolithic to a subsequent agricultural use is explored, as is the hiatus in use and subsequent re-use of the area.

No abstract

No abstract

Recent excavations for the Army Basing Programme on the periphery of the Stonehenge World Heritage Site have revealed extensive evidence of Early, Middle and Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age activity, including a causewayed enclosure, burials, occupation, pit groups, henges, post alignments and circles. Several of these either incorporate or refer to features of the landscape such as solution hollows, dry valleys, hilltops and rivers, as well as to astronomical phenomena. An appraisal of this evidence alongside other recent programmes of research around Stonehenge suggest an accreting pattern of development of this landscape that begins in the 38th century BC, and which throws new light on the location and meaning of several of the ceremonial earthworks, including Stonehenge itself.