59 replies to this topic

[stonecarver]

Hi Carla,

well, there Are changes that accompany Grooved Ware... the appearance of the first metallurgy in the British Isles (it's a rough correlation I know, but it occurred to me it might be linked). I'll do some reading round the lithics side and get back to you direct.

[Tybrind]

From my reading I would say there is a shift during the Neolithic in lithic technology, generally from blade based technologies marked by a careful knapping strategy in the earlier Neolithic to less structured techniques in the later Neolithic. Coarsely i would associate blade based techniques with causewayed enclosures, long barrows and earlier neolithic decorated wares such as windmill ware, mildenhall etc, and the later techniques with peterborough ware and, later, grooved ware. To follow these changes in detail I think you'd have to focus on a regional sequence. Interesting questions!

[Scotty]

stonecarver, on 15 September 2006, 14:43, said:

Please guys, can we keep posts on this thread restricted to things relevant to Neolithic stone tools and causewayed enclosures   ??    

The Atunes wheel has Nothing to do with causewayed enclosures. The ancient druids had Nothing to do with causewayed enclosures. The only reason anybody associates them with Stonehenge is because an antiquarian suggested they did (and he was a 'modern Druid').

We are (trying) to discuss the inter-relationships between causewayed enclosures and tools/pottery.

Incidentally, Bradley suggested that stone-axes are often found in or near to causewayed enclosures... but I have real problems with the distribution maps for stone axes... as they inevitable turn up at Neolithic/Bronze Age sites that get excavated.... ergo - Of Course we find them there.... because that is where we excavate.

I am putting together a research program at the moment which looks at the distribution of axes and causewayed enclosures statistically... and there might Not be the correlation between the two that Bradley takes for granted... on first impression...

I've been reading the posts with some interest.On a recent visit to Denmark I visited the Moesgard Museum, in the grounds is a reconstruction of what they call a " Death Temple ". The original construction was 3200BCE, that is in the funnel beaker period of the late stone age. 26 richly decorated vessels and pottery ladles were found during excavations.The original remains of the structure and the megalithic graves can still be seen on the site at Trustrup. I have seen the reconstruction but not the original site.
Scotty

[stonecarver]

You are certainly right about the flint-knapping Tybrind... but don't forget that flint tools and implements continued in use well into the subsequent Early Bronze Age... and the drop in knapping qaulity might be because metal tools were starting to appear.... and because they would have been so valuable, they weren't disposed of (but handed-down possibly)... hence they don't appear in the archaeological record until much later than they were actually first being used.

Also, the dating for Grooved Ware is problematic in that it came into fashion at different times in different places... and there Is a correlation between grooved Ware and early metallurgy in some regions.

But it's all very interesting !!

[Tybrind]

Thanks stonecarver. I'd agree that the decline in knapping techniques is at least partly linked to the occurence of metal tools, however it seems to me that blade based industries (aswell as careful platform preperation and widespread use of soft hammers) were being abandoned somewhat earlier than the first use of metals. I think this has been linked to a fall of in mobility after the earlier neolithic when such care with raw materials was no longer paramount- although I'm not sure I agree with such a functional interpretation. I'm a bit hazy about the first occurence of metals in Britain and I'd appreciate details on the grooved ware associated metals if you have any, I wasn't aware of metals pre beaker and would be interested to hear more.
cheers.

[stonecarver]

Hi, I will post a new thread about the first metals....

[stonecarver]

As causewayed enclosures are generally earlier then the stone circles which incorporate large stones into their design, I was thinking...

Causewayed enclosures generally consist of a series of holes arranged in a circle around a central space. If we look at circles such as Stonehenge... and remove all the stones... we have a circular monument with a lot of holes around the perimeter - not unlike a causewayed enclusure...

Maybe the ability to move heavy rocks (such as the sarsens at Stonehenge) was a response to a desire to put something in the holes...

[Jose Antonio]

-->

Stonecarver, I don't know if you have noticed this posting on the portal, it has had a few comments relating to bullshit, but not from me.
Whether it is right or wrong ?, I feel is irrelevant, it raises good ideas away from the usual funerary ideas.
It is under the name of jcantunes,  I believe there was a  professor in Portugal called s d antunes?
  [url="http://www.henges.no.sapo.pt"]http://www.henges.no.sapo.pt[/url]
Kevin[/quote]

Absolutely impressive it is this Web


Greetings from Spain

[url="http://dolmen.es.iespana.es/"]http://dolmen.es.iespana.es/[/url]

• Back to top
• Quote
• MultiQuote

[kevin.b]

Jose Antonio,
                  Hola , from sunny England.
Welcome to the strange world of the megaliths.
Kevin

[stonecarver]

Carla,

prehistoric pits, interesting as they may be, might sometimes have been prehistoric outhouses. It was not unusual in other periods (Iron Age, Roman, Dark Ages, Medieval... and probably today) for people to throw all manner of rubbish into them. A pit to us might have been nothing more than a sh***er (convenient place to chuck waste) to them? Not that I'm saying the Aubey holes were mere lavatories mind you...

[letmein]

Hi, this post is very informative; however I would like some specific information. If someone can help me then please send me a private message. Best Regards,

[stonecarver]

Not all causewayed enclosures may have fulfilled the same purpose. A single radio carbon date from a ditch full of cattle bones surely can't provide an accurate date for all the activity surrounding the deposition of bones in a ditch several feet deep. As the bone deposits are not entirely bone (they are mixed with earth and other materials), isn't it possible that the depositions took place over a lengthy period and were not the single event some of the published works would have you believe.

If the bones were being deposited over several hundred years, then they represent not a 'feast' event but an accumulation of rubbish...