We recently covered the DNA discovery that overturned two centuries of assumptions about the “Upton Lovell Shaman.” Now, the Upton Lovell shaman debate has a second layer: archaeologists are increasingly questioning whether the label “shaman” was ever the right word for this famous Bronze Age burial in the first place.
Where the “Shaman” Label Actually Came From
The burial itself was excavated in 1801-02 by pioneering archaeologist William Cunnington, working with antiquarian Sir Richard Colt Hoare — but the name “Upton Lovell Shaman” is a much more recent invention. It wasn’t used by either original excavator. Instead, it was coined in 1962 by archaeologist Stuart Piggott, who drew a comparison between the burial’s elaborate costume and unusual grave goods and Mesolithic burials elsewhere in northern Europe that had themselves been interpreted as belonging to shamans.
Why the Label Stuck — and Why It’s Now in Question
The evocative title captured public imagination and has remained attached to the burial ever since. But many archaeologists today treat the term with real caution. While the burial undoubtedly belonged to an exceptional individual — a highly skilled metalworker buried with a ouchstone for testing precious metals, burnishing tools, and traces of gold on several implements — there’s no direct evidence she performed any religious or shamanic role.
Researchers now suggest the extraordinary grave goods may instead simply reflect the elevated social status given to skilled metalworkers in Bronze Age society, without necessarily implying a spiritual or ritual function.
Craft as “the Space Science” of the Bronze Age
David Dawson, Director of Wiltshire Museum, where the remains are held, has framed the broader significance of metalworking itself in
striking terms, noting that metalworking was the space science of its day.
The ability to transform raw stone into shining bronze or gold would have seemed almost magical to contemporaries — which may be exactly why the association between craft, ritual, and specialized knowledge gave rise to language like “shaman” in the first place, whether or not it accurately describes the individual’s actual role.
What This Debate Reveals About Archaeology Itself
Classicist Professor Mary Beard, involved with the Francis Crick Institute’s “We Go Way Back” exhibition, has pointed to a broader pattern: archaeologists have often assigned sex and interpreted grave goods based on unexamined assumptions about gender roles — a sword suggesting a man, a necklace suggesting a woman. The Upton Lovell case shows how new methods, from DNA analysis to closer scrutiny of interpretive labels themselves, continue to reshape understanding of a single, celebrated burial more than two centuries after it was first opened.
Why This Matters for the Shamanic Community
For Shaman Portal’s readers, this debate is a useful reminder that the word “shaman” carries real weight and specific meaning — and that applying it loosely to any high-status ancient burial with unusual grave goods risks flattening genuinely distinct traditions and roles into a single catch-all label. It’s a conversation worth having, both in archaeology and within the broader shamanic community itself.
Explore More From Shaman Portal
Catch up on this month’s Selection Shaman of the Month, Selection Book of the Month, Selection Film of the Month, or browse more Shamanic News.
