The Moon, the Bonfire and the Beaker? Analysing White Inlay from Beaker Pottery
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Pottery Technology As a Revealer of Cultural And
Pottery technology as a revealer of cultural and symbolic shifts: Funerary and ritual practices in the Sion ‘Petit-Chasseur’ megalithic necropolis (3100–1600 BC, Western Switzerland) Eve Derenne, Vincent Ard, Marie Besse To cite this version: Eve Derenne, Vincent Ard, Marie Besse. Pottery technology as a revealer of cultural and symbolic shifts: Funerary and ritual practices in the Sion ‘Petit-Chasseur’ megalithic necropolis (3100–1600 BC, Western Switzerland). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, Elsevier, 2020, 58, pp.101170. 10.1016/j.jaa.2020.101170. hal-03051558 HAL Id: hal-03051558 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03051558 Submitted on 10 Dec 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 58 (2020) 101170 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Anthropological Archaeology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa Pottery technology as a revealer of cultural and symbolic shifts: Funerary and ritual practices in the Sion ‘Petit-Chasseur’ megalithic necropolis T (3100–1600 BC, -
The Holm of Papa Westray Stonework Survey 2018
HOLM OF PAPA WESTRAY SOUTH, PAPA WESTRAY, ORKNEY DECORATED INTERIOR STONEWORK SURVEY 2018 ANTONIA THOMAS 2019 Contents List of figures ......................................................................................................................... 3 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 4 Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. 5 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 6 2.0 Site Description .......................................................................................................... 6 3.0 Archaeological Background ................................................................................... 8 3.1 Early accounts and investigations .................................................................................. 8 3.2 20th-century Guardianship, restoration, and survey work .................................... 9 3.3 Recent work and current state ........................................................................................ 11 4.0 Project Aims and Objectives ................................................................................. 13 4.1 Project Aims ........................................................................................................................... 13 4.2 Alignment to HES Corporate Plan 2016-2019 -
How to Tell a Cromlech from a Quoit ©
How to tell a cromlech from a quoit © As you might have guessed from the title, this article looks at different types of Neolithic or early Bronze Age megaliths and burial mounds, with particular reference to some well-known examples in the UK. It’s also a quick overview of some of the terms used when describing certain types of megaliths, standing stones and tombs. The definitions below serve to illustrate that there is little general agreement over what we could classify as burial mounds. Burial mounds, cairns, tumuli and barrows can all refer to man- made hills of earth or stone, are located globally and may include all types of standing stones. A barrow is a mound of earth that covers a burial. Sometimes, burials were dug into the original ground surface, but some are found placed in the mound itself. The term, barrow, can be used for British burial mounds of any period. However, round barrows can be dated to either the Early Bronze Age or the Saxon period before the conversion to Christianity, whereas long barrows are usually Neolithic in origin. So, what is a megalith? A megalith is a large stone structure or a group of standing stones - the term, megalith means great stone, from two Greek words, megas (meaning: great) and lithos (meaning: stone). However, the general meaning of megaliths includes any structure composed of large stones, which include tombs and circular standing structures. Such structures have been found in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, North and South America and may have had religious significance. Megaliths tend to be put into two general categories, ie dolmens or menhirs. -
The Knowe of Rowiegar, Rousay, Orkney | 41
Proc Soc Antiq Scot 145 (2015), 41–89 THE KNOWE OF ROWIEGAR, ROUSAY, ORKNEY | 41 The Knowe of Rowiegar, Rousay, Orkney: description and dating of the human remains and context relative to neighbouring cairns Margaret Hutchison,* Neil Curtis* and Ray Kidd* ABSTRACT The Neolithic chambered cairn at Knowe of Rowiegar, Rousay, Orkney, was excavated in 1937 as part of a campaign that also saw excavations at sites such as Midhowe and the Knowe of Lairo. Not fully published at the time, and with only partial studies since, the human bone assemblage has now been largely re-united and investigated. This included an osteological study and AMS dating of selected bones from this site and other Rousay cairns in the care of University of Aberdeen Museums, as well as the use of archival sources to attempt a reconstruction of the site. It is suggested that the human remains were finally deposited as disarticulated bones and that the site was severely damaged at the time the adjacent Iron Age souterrain was constructed. The estimation of the minimum number of individuals represented in the assemblage showed a significant preponderance of crania and mandibles, suggesting the presence of at least 28 heads, along with much smaller numbers of other bones, while age and sex determinations showed a preponderance of adult males. Seven skulls showed evidence of violent trauma, while evidence from both bones and teeth indicates that there were high levels of childhood dietary deficiency. Although detailed analysis of the dates was hampered by the ‘Neolithic plateau’, a Bayesian analysis of the radiocarbon determinations suggests the use of the site during the period 3400 to 2900 cal BC. -
Neolithic Carvings in Maes Howe P J Ashmore*
Proc Soc Antiq Scot, 116 (1986), 57-62 Neolithic carvings in Maes Howe P J Ashmore* ABSTRACT A Neolithic date is argued for at least one of the carvings identified in the tomb in the 19th century, and more tentatively otherstomb.for the in In 1861 A W Gibb drew the runic and other carvings in Maes Howe following their discovery durin gJ Farrer' s excavation f thaso t year (Farrer 1862, 14) . plata Numbe n o e s (illu1 wa r3 ) 1 s captioned by Farrer (ibid, 40): 'The remainin consideree ar learnee s th l gNo al dy d Professorb "scribbless a s r scratches"o d an , mus consideree b t unimportant's da , although they include the lion and serpent knot. It is at the west side of the face of the smooth, massive, flagstone slab lining the north side of the south-west pier, 0-8 m above the present gravel floor. Examinatio othee th f rno carvings draw Giby nillustrateb d ban Farrey db e b o rt show1 3 o sN lighte Norsre thath l neal carving runie th t c salphabebu t (Farre quitd ran e) 1862 5 differen o N , t from the other 'scribbles' in Maes Howe. There seems no reason to suppose it Viking: it has no parallel among known Norse carving Orkneyn si . engravine Th 0-1gs i tall9m lines ;thickit 0- e m drawss 3ar m i t crabbea .I n i de handth f i s a , toobees ha ln used with considerable pressure applied sla e closth b o e(illut s 2). -
ARC 112 History of Architecture II
Prehistoric Architecture Dr. Zeinab Feisal Stone Age period When? Where? How did we know about it? What about social characteristics & Believes? Architecture of the civilization. Stone Age period Occurred before invention of written records No written record from the prehistoric period How did we know about it? Information is gathered from scientific studies of prehistoric objects Many academic disciplines are interested in studying human civilization- archeology, paleontology, anthropology etc The disciplines study prehistoric objects They provide information about civilizations based on studies Early Stone Age (or Paleolithic) Up to 9000 BC New Stone Age (or Neolithic) Stone Age STONE AGE 9000 BC to 3000 BC Stone Age period Not restricted to any particular geographical region Occurred in different locations, Usually close to sources of food, near rivers Stone Age period Life style differed between the Early Stone Age period and the New Stone Age Period Each of the two periods will be examined independently to understand the people and their society Nomadic, always on move Move about in search of food, water, and good climate Got their food through food gathering, hunting and fishing Usually move about in small bands of less than 15 persons Not much is known about their beliefs GOT THEIR FOOD THROUGH FOOD GATHERING, HUNTING AND FISHING GOT THEIR FOOD THROUGH FOOD GATHERING, HUNTING AND FISHING People stopped wandering and settled down in permanent settlements Discovered art of farming and animal husbandry Period -
Megaliths and Geology: a Journey Through Monuments, Landscapes and Peoples
Megaliths and Geology Megálitos e Geologia MEGA-TALKS 2 19-20 November 2015 (Redondo, Portugal) Edited by Rui Boaventura, Rui Mataloto and André Pereira Access Archaeology aeopr ch es r s A A y c g c e o l s o s e A a r c Ah Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Summertown Pavilion 18-24 Middle Way Summertown Oxford OX2 7LG www.archaeopress.com ISBN 978-1-78969-641-7 ISBN 978-1-78969-642-4 (e-Pdf) © the individual authors and Archaeopress 2020 Financial support for the meeting Mega-Talks 2 has been provided by the project Moving megaliths in the Neolithic (PTDC/EPH-ARQ/3971/2012), funded by FCT (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, Portugal) and the Municipality of Redondo (Portugal). All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners. This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com Contents Introduction: Megaliths and Geology: a journey through monuments, landscapes and peoples ........................... iii Moving megaliths in the Neolithic - a multi analytical case study of dolmens in Freixo-Redondo (Alentejo, Portugal). Rui Boaventura, Patrícia Moita, Jorge Pedro, Rui Mataloto, Luis Almeida, Pedro Nogueira, Jaime Máximo, André Pereira, José Francisco Santos & Sara Ribeiro ............................................................... 1 Funerary megalithism in the south of Beira Interior: architectures, spoils and cultural sequences. João Luís Cardoso .................................................................................................................................................................. 25 A look at Proença-a-Nova’s Megalithism (Beira Baixa Intermunicipal Community, UNESCO Global Geopark Naturtejo, Portugal). -
Megaliths in Ancient India and Their Possible Association to Astronomy1
MEGALITHS IN ANCIENT INDIA AND THEIR POSSIBLE ASSOCIATION TO ASTRONOMY1 Mayank N. Vahia Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, India And Manipal Advanced Research Group, Manipal University Manipal – 576104, Karnataka, India. E-mail: [email protected] Srikumar M. Menon Faculty of Architecture, Manipal Institite of Technology Manipal – 576104, Karnataka, India. E-mail: [email protected] Riza Abbas Indian Rock Art Research Centre, Nashik (a division of Indian Numismatic, Historical and Cultural Research Foundation), Nashik E-mail: [email protected] Nisha Yadav Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, India E-mail: [email protected] Abstract The megalithic monuments of peninsular India, believed to have been erected in the Iron Age (1500BC – 200AD), can be broadly categorized into sepulchral and non-sepulchral in purpose. Though a lot of work has gone into the study of these monuments since Babington first reported megaliths in India in 1823, not much has been understood about the knowledge systems extant in the period these were built – in science and engineering, especially mathematics and astronomy. We take a brief look at the archaeological understanding of megaliths, before taking a detailed assessment of a group of megaliths (in the south Canara region of Karnataka state in South India) that were hitherto assumed to be haphazard clusters of menhirs. Our surveys have indicated positive correlation of sight-lines with sunrise and sunset points on the horizon for both summer and winter solstices. We identify 5 such monuments in the region and present the survey results for one of the sites, demonstrating the astronomical implications. We also discuss the possible use of the typologies of megaliths known as stone alignments/avenues as calendar devices. -
Island Meditation Parkland Features Stonehenge-Like Monuments
Island Meditation Parkland features Stonehenge-like Monuments (SEATTLE, Washington) - On a 72-acre parcel logged 20 years ago, forest, streams, ponds, and a peat bog have found new life as "Earth Sanctuary." A 500-year master plan for its restoration now guides the future of this Whidbey Island nature reserve and meditation parkland north of Seattle. More than 4,000 plants from 60 native species are being planted in the first phase of the plan, according to Dan Borroff, the project's award-winning landscape designer. The remarkable project created by a remarkable visionary, Chuck Pettis, has the environmental goal of restoring the landscape's old growth forest, wetlands, and streams - as well as providing habitat for the greatest possible diversity of bird and animal species native to Whidbey Island. See http://www.EarthSanctuary.org. "Earth Sanctuary is designed to restore wholeness to the human spirit, as well as to the natural environment" says Pettis, noted for his megalithic Stonehenge-like environmental artworks, as well as his writings. Visitors, on a reservation basis, are welcome to walk the two miles of Earth Sanctuary's forested paths and to meditate at the sites of the environmental artworks. The stone structures, designed as focal points for meditation, include a labyrinth, a dolmen, and a stone circle. In Borroff's view, planning for human response - both emotional and intellectual - is an integral part of good design. He describes his plant placement choices as "enhanced environmentalism." Borroff believes that the project will "nurture our spirit and transform and re-empower our passion for the land." Pettis, author of Secrets of Sacred Space: Discover and Create Places of Power ($20, Llewellyn), has financed the entire project with personal funds. -
Download Date 30/09/2021 08:59:09
Reframing the Neolithic Item Type Thesis Authors Spicer, Nigel Christopher Rights <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc-nd/3.0/"><img alt="Creative Commons License" style="border-width:0" src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by- nc-nd/3.0/88x31.png" /></a><br />The University of Bradford theses are licenced under a <a rel="license" href="http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/">Creative Commons Licence</a>. Download date 30/09/2021 08:59:09 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10454/13481 University of Bradford eThesis This thesis is hosted in Bradford Scholars – The University of Bradford Open Access repository. Visit the repository for full metadata or to contact the repository team © University of Bradford. This work is licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons Licence. Reframing the Neolithic Nigel Christopher SPICER Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of PhD Department of Archaeological Sciences School of Life Sciences University of Bradford 2013 Nigel Christopher SPICER – Reframing the Neolithic Abstract Keywords: post-processualism, Neolithic, metanarrative, individual, postmodernism, reflexivity, epistemology, Enlightenment, modernity, holistic. In advancing a critical examination of post-processualism, the thesis has – as its central aim – the repositioning of the Neolithic within contemporary archaeological theory. Whilst acknowledging the insights it brings to an understanding of the period, it is argued that the knowledge it produces is necessarily constrained by the emphasis it accords to the cultural. Thus, in terms of the transition, the symbolic reading of agriculture to construct a metanarrative of Mesolithic continuity is challenged through a consideration of the evidential base and the indications it gives for a corresponding movement at the level of the economy; whilst the limiting effects generated by an interpretative reading of its monuments for an understanding of the social are considered. -
An Introduction to Neolithic to Mid Bronze Age Prehistoric Pottery of Cambridgeshire
Jigsaw Cambridgeshire Best Practice Users' Guide An Introduction to Neolithic to Mid Bronze Age Prehistoric Pottery of Cambridgeshire Sarah Percival December 2016 © Jigsaw Cambridgeshire Page 1 of 12 INTRODUCTION This short guide describes the types of pottery which were in use in Cambridgeshire from the Early Neolithic until the mid-Bronze Age. All pottery during this period was made and used in the household and was handmade, mostly formed using coil construction. The pots were fired in a domestic hearth, bonfire or clamp, at temperatures of 600 to 700 degrees centigrade. Based on evidence from ethnographic comparisons most archaeologists believe that clay collection, preparation and potting were undertaken by women. There were no pottery industries or production centres such as those found during the Roman or medieval periods however certain forms and fabrics were widely adopted during specific periods allowing pottery to be used for dating archaeological deposits. Prehistoric pottery may be found in both funerary and domestic deposits and archaeologists use pottery as evidence of trade and exchange and of the type and scale of activity present on an archaeological site. Characteristics used to identify the age of a pot include form (the shape of the vessel), decoration, and fabric. Fabric here refers to the clay of which a pot was made and the inclusions within it. Inclusions are materials within the body of the clay which may be present naturally or are often deliberately added as temper, to aid construction, firing and resilience of the pot or for cultural or social reasons. The colour of the finished pot tells archaeologists something of how it was fired. -
Durrington Walls
Feeding Stonehenge: cuisine and consumption at the Late Neolithic site of Durrington Walls Oliver E. Craig1, Lisa-Marie Shillito1,2, Umberto Albarella3, Sarah Viner-Daniels3, Ben Chan3,4, Ros CleaP, Robert Ixer6, Mandy Jay7, Pete Marshall8, Ellen Simmons3, Elizabeth Wright3 & Mike Parker Pearson6 The discovery o f Neolithic houses at Durrington Walls that are contemporary with the main construction phase o f Stonehenge raised questions as to their interrelationship. Was Durrington Walls the residence o f the builders o f Stonehenge? Were the activities there more significant than simply domestic subsistence? Using lipid residue analysis, this paper identifies the preferential use of certain pottery types for the preparation o f particular food groups and differential consumption of dairy and meat products between monumental and domestic areas o f the site. Supported by the analysis o f faunal remains, the results suggest seasonal feasting and perhaps organised culinary unification o f a diverse community. Keywords: UK, Stonehenge, Neolithic, feasting, isotopic lipid residue analysis, public and private consumption 1 BioArCh, Department o f Archaeology, University o f York, Heslington, York YO lO 5DD , U K (Email: Oliver. craig@york. ac. uk) 2 School o f History, Classics and Archaeology, Armstrong Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK 2 Department o f Archaeology, University o f Sheffield, Northgate House, West Street, Sheffield S I 4ET, U K 4 Laboratory for Artefact Studies, Faculty o f Archaeology, Leiden