59 replies to this topic

[stonecarver]

yes there was some decision-making going on about the choice of materials... but chronologically, cause-wayed enclosures are earlier than the meaglithic constructs that followed them...so could we just be witnessing simple trends in building practise?

At other times of course, earthern banks were incorporated into structures with megalithic elements.. but then that's true of building techniques throughout history and prehsitory... earthern banks appear generally (in my opinion) to be designed to focus or restrain the movement of people in one way or another (the same can be said of ditches)... whereas megalithic structures generally seem to be more like 'statements', as if somehow the problem of moving heavy individual elements says something about the site...

[kevin.b]

As I think the question of materials of construction is very important, I would hope to continue to discuss this with all of you.
I hope this is how I am supposed to do this , its a bit confusing, but As I want to talk about the materials in an alternative way, I will start another thread on the approriate section, then if anyone doesn't want to talk about the construction materials in this way, I will not be upsetting them ?
Kevin

[senua]

There were the Bronze age round barrows.And if i remember rightly there are some Iron age and Roman Barrows too.
Something to look into a bit more if I had the time.

[Tybrind]

I think the issue of building materials is a bit of a red herring. Stone was used in monuments prior to and contempoary with causewayed enclosures; tor enclosures such as Carn Brae and Helman Tor in Cornwall date to the early fourth millenium BC as do megalithic tombs such as those from the Cotswolds. It seems that people would use different materials according to availability and social concerns rather than there being a chronological distinction.

>>>> Stonecarver

Quote

earthern banks appear generally (in my opinion) to be designed to focus or restrain the movement of people in one way or another (the same can be said of ditches)... whereas megalithic structures generally seem to be more like 'statements',

I really like these ideas on how the architecture of these places functioned but I'd argue against a categorical distinction between different materials, earthern constructions such as long barrows or, exceptionally, silbury hill, appear to be more the 'statements' you mention whilst megalith can  be used in contexts that control access or views such as the stones of the avebury avenue, which define a processional way, or the trilithons at stonehenge that restrict access and visibility.

[BuckyE]

The following is too vague a concept to express clearly, but, my impression is that types of sites seem to cluster, and that the largest sites cluster, too, without regard to materials or methods. Look at Wiltshire, with Woodhenge, Durrington Walls, Stonehenge, the postholes in the carpark, barrows all over the place, cursus, avenues; and not far away Avebury, Silbury and all the things associated with those.

On Orkney, Maes Howe, Unstan, Brogar, Stenness, Barnhouse all within spitting distance. But then you look around, say, Aberdeenshire and find recumbant circles and little else. Or at least, relatively little else; there's the odd standing stone, certainly. But no statue menhirs as you find dotted all over the Languedoc.

Then look at Carnac with its alignments, cairns, tumulus, squares, circles, immense menhirs, recycled stones, and nary a causeway in sight.

There's some correlation to population density and or political/economic/ritual importance going on here. And my bet is that the larger the population, and the bigger the p/e/r importance, the more diverse the ideas and personal needs of the population. In other words, the more the creativity? Within certain bounds of local tradition developing over time, of course.

[stonecarver]

Yes Bucky E there seems to be an element of truth in your observation that regional monument clusters Might indicate population density.

On the other hand, there is considerable recent archaeological discussion about monumental 'landscapes'... it Could be that we see more monuments in areas which held some specific meaning in terms of ritual/religion... and if people were visiting those areas to attend rituals there, the 'population' might not actually be permanently resident locally. You Did cover this briefly in your post I notice. This might be particularly the case with Neolithic Orkney.

The other matter - that of the nature of construction materials (earth vs stone)... the distribution of monument types does tend to follow regional trends... in the uplands we see stone monuments, and in the lowlands we see more earthern monuments (though there are exceptions).

Carla might have something to say about the relevance of Grooved Ware pottery and its links with monuments...  

[BuckyE]

Well, here's another thought might have been covered elsewhere, although I can't think of any references offhand. Is it possible there were different cults/religions at work? Were there ancestor-worshipping(propitiating/controlling/etc.) barrow builders AND sky-worshipping(etc.) ring builders living concurrently or regionally?

Are we conflating what may have been very different traditions?

[kevin.b]

BuckyE, good to hear from you,
There may have been differing levels of knowledge available to different tribes etc?
This may have cultimated in the coming together of different knowledge?
It may also been the accumulization of knowledge as they progressed, finding that one construction affected another or assisted a former one to perform to a better design standard?
I find that at causeways and embankments /ditches, that what I detect is been teased apart, this is been achieved by the carefull arrangement of differing materials .
Without digging one up vertically and horizontally I can't fully explain this, but I know it happens, and consider it is why the constructions were created.
If you can place yourself in a distant past, and could find what I do with reletive ease?
Then how would you percieve this strange dual force?
I consider that they would have thought of it as almost a god like substance, responsible for life/death.
If they had worked out as I have, that one was life giving, and the other conveyed deceased life force.
Then it is reasonable to see how , and if they could?, that they would seek to manipulate these two opposite forces apart for their benifit and survival, and to honour their ancestors all at the same time ?
I believe that with the aid of modern science , I am closing in fast on how the manipulation of these two flows is achieved ( chirality of certain materials )
And that the causeways and embankments/ditches are for the directional control of these two flows, and that the materials used at circles was for the accumulation in great quantity of the opposite flows.
Then it simply comes down to where you send each flow and for what reason?
Kevin

[stonecarver]

Yes i suppose it is possible (Bucky E), that there Might have been socio/religious factirs at work here... but perhaps a more tangible possibility is tha availablity of materials... or even a shift in practices over time... have to go and re-read some of the key texts (Bradley, Insoll, Edmonds, Burl) and get back to you on that one...

I suppose we might also suggest they were built for two different aspects of any world-view... mortality on the one hand, and birthing on the other... when I find the papers I am thinking of, I'll get back here with details

[stonecarver]

There Does seem to be some connection between grooved ware and sites... but I'm not sure that causewayed enclosures are necessarliy 'ritual' in nature. Richard Bradley has discussed them as some form of nexus point in the landscape, based on the artefacts excavated in association with them. Grooved Ware pottery Also seems to have some association with important sites (many of whch appear to have some socio/religious significance).

But there is an alternate interpretation for causewayed enclosures... that they may have been places where people lived seasonally, using temporary structures (possibly like Native American Teepees, or Eastern European Yurts), and that would just as easily account for the artefacts that we Do find in their proximity. So potentially, we are seeing different building materials used for different classes of structure...

On the basis of the evidence at present, it seems Most likely that stone circles, on the other hand, appear to have definitely been associated with some cosmological world view, or religion/belief system.

[Tybrind]

Stonecarver, are you suggesting the use of earth banks and ditches is more related to 'domestic' settlement and megaliths to 'religous/ceremonial/ritual' sites? I agree that cusewayed enclosures probably did see seasonal occupation. However to seperate the ritual from the domestic in prehistory is impossible and undesirable, as Bradley has forcefully demonstrated in a recent book. The form of causewayed enclosures with their group dug segmented ditches and the deliberate and extensive deposits within the ditches suggest they cannot be viewed solely as settlements, and that special activities were taking place there. I would suggest that causewayed enclosures were theatre for social interactions, especially for large aggregations of people at certain times of the year. The enclosures are a space in which certain activities could be carried out, be it exchange, rites of passage, feasting, marriage etc etc. The form appears to stress unity with a large enclosed space accessible from several points. Henges appear to elaborate on the idea of enclosure but become much more exclusive, a smaller area is defined entrances are defined and formalised and even the views into the monuments are restricted by the bank and any internal structures, be they timber or wood. Henges represent a closer control being exerted over the experience any participants would have at the site. I think it likely that these developments are linked to the increasing control of ritual knowledge by a minority in Neolithic society.

[BuckyE]

Are there instances of "earth henges" existing for any significant length of time without wood or stone rings? If so, that might bolster the idea that at least to begin with, the henges were boundaries for living spaces. If on the other hand they are found with "woodhenges" or "stonehenges" exclusively, the idea seems less likely.