Porocilo XXXII.Qxd

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Porocilo XXXII.Qxd UDK 903.2(410)"631\634">291.37 Documenta Praehistorica XXXII (2005) Ambiguous symbols> why there were no figurines in Neolithic Britain Julian Thomas School of Arts, Histories and Cultures, University of Manchester, UK [email protected] ABSTRACT – In this paper I discuss the scarcity of representational art, and particularly of represen- tations of the human body, in Neolithic Britain, in contrast with the Neolithic of south-east Europe. My suggestion is that this contrast can be linked with differing notions of personal identity and bodi- ly integrity. In later Neolithic Britain, a complex mode of non-representational decoration developed, which elaborated the practice of making reference to absent persons and things by using deliberately ambiguous motifs, which connected past and present as well as remote locations. IZVLE∞EK – V tem ≠lanku razpravljam o redkosti reprezentativne umetnosti, predvsem o redkosti upodobitev ≠love∏kega telesa v neolitiku Britanje, kar je v nasprotju z neolitikom Jugovzhodne Evro- pe. Menim, da lahko to nasprotje lahhko pove∫emo z razli≠nimi predstavami o osebni identiteti in telesni integriteti. V poznnoneolitski Britaniji, se je razvila kompleksna oblika nereprezentativnih de- koracij. Na ta na≠in so z uporabo namensko dvoumnih motivov, ki so povezovali preteklost in seda- njost kot tudi oddaljena mesta, izpopolnili obi≠aje povezovanja z odsotnimi osebami in predmeti. KEY WORDS – Neolithic; figurines; symbols; ritual practice INTRODUCTION: MISSING BODIES At a very high level of generality, there are interest- There are also somewhat unconvincing human tor- ing contrasts between the more overtly symbolic sos sculpted from chalk, and recovered from the forms of material culture found in the Neolithic of causewayed enclosures of Windmill Hill and Mai- Atlantic north-west Europe and those of the Balkan den Castle (Piggott 1954.88). And finally, there is peninsula. Potentially, these can provide the starting- the bulbous female figurine that A. L. Armstrong points for an investigation of how material symbols retrieved from Pit 15 at the later Neolithic flint mine were deployed and manipulated in these two re- of Grimes Graves in Norfolk. Debate still continues gions. In south-east Europe one of the most distinc- over whether or not this find was genuine, or a hoax tive elements of the Neolithic archaeological record perpetrated by the workmen on the site, or perhaps is the presence of numerous human figurines, prin- even by Armstrong himself (Russell 2000.42). The cipally made of fired clay. In the British Isles, how- chalk figure has no parallel, and would have been ever, representations of the human body are extre- easy to fake, yet the platform of packed flint and mely rare. There is, for example, the so-called ‘God- group of antler picks with which it was associated dolly’, made of ash wood and recovered from the do suggest a genuinely special context. Perhaps sig- wooden ‘Bell A’ track-way at Westhay in the Somer- nificantly, Neolithic Britain has produced more car- set levels (Coles 1968.276). This hermaphroditic fi- vings of body parts than of whole bodies. Chalk phal- gure with a head, protruding breasts and a phallus luses are known from Windmill Hill and Grimes Gra- had been incorporated into the fabric of the track- ves, as well as the long barrow at Thickthorn Down, way itself, and dates to 3913–3370 BC at the 2 sigma the flint mines of Blackpatch in Sussex, and the later level of confidence (GaK–1600). Neolithic henge enclosures of Mount Pleasant and 167 Julian Thomas Maumbury Rings (Piggott 1954.88; Wainwright and Carpathians, and it is tempting to relate this con- 1979.167; Bradley 1976.25). trast to the very particular inter-generational com- mitment to specific residential locations that charac- In the Balkan context, Douglass Bailey has recently terised the Balkan Neolithic. The longevity of Band- suggested that the emergence of clay figurines can keramik settlements in central Europe, by compar- be connected with the development of the ‘built ison, took a rather different form. Here, clusters of environment’ of the tell settlements, from around houses slowly crept across the loess plateaus, each 6500 BC onwards (Bailey 2005.4). Bailey’s argument building being replaced adjacent to the original, ra- is that in this region the adoption of domesticated ther than on precisely the same spot (e.g. Lüning plants and animals was of less significance than the 1982.19). development of a constructed life-space, within which people lived in dense aggregations. Under these cir- However, it is in the Atlantic zone, and in the British cumstances, the negotiation of personal identity and Isles in particular, that the scarcity of representa- household composition would have become major tions of the integral human body coincided with a preoccupations, as indeed would the resolution of quite different conception of the person, manifested disputes between persons or groups. In the earliest in mortuary practice. While there is great variability Balkan Neolithic settlements, burials were deposited in the evidence available to us, and while that evi- beneath and between the houses, but from around dence presumably only relates to a minority of the 5500 BC onwards funerary practice was often re- Neolithic population, one of the principal themes in moved to extramural cemeteries. Consequentially, British early Neolithic funerary activity was the dis- we have the development of two parallel contexts in articulation and disaggregation of the body (Tho- which the human body was displayed and manipu- mas 2000). In both the timber mortuary structures lated. For while figurines became more complicated which preceded the construction of earthen long bar- in their manufacture and decoration, and possibly rows and in a variety of forms of megalithic tombs, became more numerous over time, their use conti- the initial deposition of complete bodies was fol- nued to be concentrated in the house and its sur- lowed by a lengthy process of re-arrangement follo- roundings. Only in the Hamangia area of the lower wing the rotting away of the flesh. In some cases, Danube were figurines routinely deployed as grave this involved the selection and re-grouping of body goods. By contrast, mortuary rites focused on the parts, so that skulls were sometimes lined up at the body increasingly made use of objects and substan- foot of an orthostat, while long-bones were often ces such as metalwork, which are rarely found on stacked or bundled (Saville 1990.80). In some cases, settlements. We might say that within these two con- individual bones may have been introduced to tombs texts the body was becoming elaborated, in rather or mortuary structures from elsewhere, whether different ways. from other structures or as the products of practi- ces of excarnation. In more cases, the indication is Bailey describes these developments in the Balkan that skeletal elements had been removed from mor- Neolithic and Copper Age as representing a new ‘po- tuary deposits, for use in other contexts. And indeed, litics of the human body’ (Bailey 2005.197). What is single bones or groups of bones are often encoun- interesting is that although as time proceeded there tered in the ditches of causewayed enclosures, in pit came to be a concern with the breaking and fragmen- deposits, in caves, in rivers, and in a variety of other tation of figurines (see Chapman 2000.68–79), the locations. Moreover, there are indications that body human body was both represented and deposited in parts may sometimes have been curated for exten- the grave as an integral whole, around which other sive periods before they were finally deposited. In objects could be arranged. It seems plausible that these circumstances, it may be appropriate to think this is indicative of a particular conception of person- of megalithic tombs and long barrows less as com- hood, in which people were at once the components munal cemeteries, and more as places of transforma- of household and community units, and the vehi- tion, through which human bodies passed in the pro- cles of alliances, prestige, and the distribution of cess of becoming something different (Lucas 1996. wealth. The representation of the body in miniature 102). enabled reference to be made to particular persons in multiple spheres of conduct, possibly enabling dif- In the context of the present discussion, the signifi- ferent aspects of their identity to be elicited as cir- cant point is that in Neolithic Britain human beings cumstances required. Figurines are a much less com- were understood as partible, at least in death (see mon component of the Neolithic north of the Alps Fowler 2004.25–31). That is to say, they were not 168 Ambiguous symbols> why there were no figurines in Neolithic Britain individual minds or spirits bounded within an undi- sitional practices in which these objects were de- vided body, but composed of body parts of substan- ployed. The later Neolithic saw elaborate artefacts ces that were capable of separation and circulation. being placed in formal pit deposits, in single grave In the early Neolithic landscape the dead were ubi- burials which gradually replaced the multiple buri- quitous, and the body parts of the dead generations als of the earlier Neolithic, in hoards and ‘closing de- passed from place to place, and perhaps from per- posits’ inserted into megalithic tombs, in rivers, bogs son to person. Under these circumstances human and caves, and in new monument types such as hen- identity may have been understood as fluid, pro- ges and palisaded enclosures (Thomas 1999.Chap- tean and transitory, and less anchored in place and ter 4). continuity than in south-east Europe. Descent and the continuous inhabitation of a fixed location may Significantly, a sub-set of these new artefacts were have been less significant than the maintenance of decorated with a set of symbols which ultimately ties of kinship and affinity between dispersed and (but not exclusively) owed their inspiration to the in some cases mobile communities.
Recommended publications
  • The University of Bradford Institutional Repository
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Bradford Scholars The University of Bradford Institutional Repository http://bradscholars.brad.ac.uk This work is made available online in accordance with publisher policies. Please refer to the repository record for this item and our Policy Document available from the repository home page for further information. To see the final version of this work please visit the publisher’s website. Where available access to the published online version may require a subscription. Author(s): Gibson, Alex M. Title: An Introduction to the Study of Henges: Time for a Change? Publication year: 2012 Book title: Enclosing the Neolithic : Recent studies in Britain and Ireland. Report No: BAR International Series 2440. Publisher: Archaeopress. Link to publisher’s site: http://www.archaeopress.com/archaeopressshop/public/defaultAll.asp?QuickSear ch=2440 Citation: Gibson, A. (2012). An Introduction to the Study of Henges: Time for a Change? In: Gibson, A. (ed.). Enclosing the Neolithic: Recent studies in Britain and Europe. Oxford: Archaeopress. BAR International Series 2440, pp. 1-20. Copyright statement: © Archaeopress and the individual authors 2012. An Introduction to the Study of Henges: Time for a Change? Alex Gibson Abstract This paper summarises 80 years of ‘henge’ studies. It considers the range of monuments originally considered henges and how more diverse sites became added to the original list. It examines the diversity of monuments considered to be henges, their origins, their associated monument types and their dates. Since the introduction of the term, archaeologists have often been uncomfortable with it.
    [Show full text]
  • Renfrewshire Local History Forum & Authors RLHF Journal Vol.3 (1991/2)
    RLHF Journal Vol.3 (1991/2) 5. Megaliths on Arran - Maths, Myths and Mysteries Aubrey Burl Buchan Lecture, 1991, Ayr (Society of Antiquaries of Scotland) Abstract The prehistoric archaeology of the islands of Malta and Arran is entirely different. That on Malta is characteristic of an “island culture' with unique styles of architecture unaffected by outside influences. Arran, despite the splendour of its megaliths, lacks such individuality. Its monuments are those of external culture. The explanation is simple. Malta is an isolated island fifty miles from Sicily and with no attractive local products to encourage trade. Arran is closely surrounded to north, west and east by the Scottish mainland, and lies at the intersection of several important routes. Its earliest megalithic sites are chambered tombs of the Clyde-Solway tradition with crescentic forecourts and segmented chambers. One, Monamore, excavated by Dr Euan MacKie in 1961, yielded calibrated dates ranging from 3900 to 2900 BC. In Great Britain most regional groups of tombs display an interest in particular orientations. The entrances of many Clyde-Solway tombs are generally aligned to the north east, perhaps toward the mid summer sunrise, and on Arran on the remote cairn of Carn Ban is almost perfectly directed towards this solar event. Other Arran tombs, however, do not share this orientation, demonstrating some fragmentation of beliefs. Carmahome, near Blackwaterfoot, is an oddity on Arran, a circular tomb of the Inverness-shire Clava passage-grave tradition, suggesting Middle or Late Neolithic contacts between Arran and the northern end of the Great Glen. The stone circles on Arran also share architectural traits with mainland regions.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeology's Place in Modernity
    THOMAS / archaeology’s place in modernity 17 Archaeology’s Place in Modernity Julian Thomas Introduction Archaeology, as an academic discipline and as a means of MODERNISM / modernity addressing the past, is a phenomenon that emerged in the mod- VOLUME ELEVEN, NUMBER ern era. For many commentators this is because some specific ONE, PP 17–34. © 2004 THE JOHNS aspect of the modern experience has facilitated or promoted HOPKINS UNIVERSITY PRESS the study of the material traces of the past. These might include the rise of an educated and affluent middle class; improvements in transport, which rendered the antiquities of the countryside accessible; or the construction of canals and railways, and the consequent exposure of buried deposits. However, in this con- tribution I will argue that the link between archaeology and modernity is more than circumstantial. Indeed, I will suggest that modern philosophy, modern forms of political organization, and modern social practices represent the ground of the possi- bility of “doing archaeology.” I will hope to demonstrate that in some senses archaeology distills a modern sensibility, embody- Julian Thomas is ing conceptions of time, humanity, nature, and science that have Chair of Archaeology at the University of been widely adopted over the past half-millennium. It is dis- Manchester, and is a tinctive of the modern world that philosophy and science, while Vice-President of the representing the discourses of specialized professionals, have Royal Anthropological contributed much to the everyday rationality routinely employed Institute. His publica- by lay people. This is in part because philosophy and science tions include Time, partake of a “ground plan” or set of fundamental assumptions Culture and Identity that is hard to fully articulate, and is therefore metaphysical.1 (Routledge, 1996), Understanding the Archaeology, perhaps as much as any other discipline, is steeped Neolithic (Routledge, in the implicit and explicit presuppositions of modern thought.
    [Show full text]
  • Machrie Moor Stone Circles Statement of Significance
    Property in Care (PIC) ID: PIC092 Designations: Scheduled Monument (SM90207) Taken into State care: 1972 (Guardianship) Last reviewed: 2004 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE MACHRIE MOOR STONE CIRCLES We continually revise our Statements of Significance, so they may vary in length, format and level of detail. While every effort is made to keep them up to date, they should not be considered a definitive or final assessment of our properties. Historic Environment Scotland – Scottish Charity No. SC045925 Principal Office: Longmore House, Salisbury Place, Edinburgh EH9 1SH © Historic Environment Scotland 2019 You may re-use this information (excluding logos and images) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- government-licence/version/3/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected] Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Any enquiries regarding this document should be sent to us at: Historic Environment Scotland Longmore House Salisbury Place Edinburgh EH9 1SH +44 (0) 131 668 8600 www.historicenvironment.scot You can download this publication from our website at www.historicenvironment.scot Historic Environment Scotland – Scottish Charity No. SC045925 Principal Office: Longmore House, Salisbury Place, Edinburgh EH9 1SH MACHRIE MOOR STONE CIRCLES BRIEF DESCRIPTION Machrie Moor in Arran is a rich archaeological landscape containing prehistoric ritual, funerary and domestic structures. The visible monuments include stone circles, standing stones, chambered cairns, hut-circles and field systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Sample Excavation at Croftmoraig Stone Circle, 2012 Richard Bradley
    Sample excavation at Croftmoraig stone circle, 2012 Richard Bradley 1 The Croftmoraig stone circle The stone circle at Croft Moraig (otherwise Croft Moraig) was first documented in the eighteenth century and was excavated by Stuart Piggott and Derek Simpson in 1965. Their report on the project appeared in 1971 and has formed the basis of all subsequent discussions of the monument. The site had five distinct elements: (A) a rounded mound of glacial origin; (B) a ring of nine monoliths, eleven metres in diameter, four of which had fallen; (C) a pair of ‘portal’ stones outside the main circle; (D) an inner setting of eight standing stones measuring eight metres by six; and (E) a perimeter of stone blocks, eighteen metres in diameter, which can be interpreted as the remains of a wall. 2 Plan of the 1965 excavation Excavation revealed a number of other features which had not been evident on the surface: a ring of posts, about seven metres in diameter, accompanied by a shallow gully and two slots interpreted as the foundation of a porch; a possible hearth in the centre of the site; two arcs of rubble underlying the outer wall; and two oval pits, one beside each of the portal stones. A smaller pit associated with a deposit of charcoal underlay one of the stones in the wall. The interior of the site, and, in particular, the positions of the oval setting and the portal stones, contained an exceptional quantity of quartz. 3 The 1965 excavation The excavation is documented in detail in the 1971 report, but the available information is supplemented by a series of over three hundred photographs in the National Monuments Record of Scotland, a pencil plan of the central area of the site after excavation, and a small number of sherds in the National Museum of Scotland.
    [Show full text]
  • The Chalk Drums from Folkton and Lavant: Measuring Devices from the Time of Stonehenge
    The Chalk Drums from Folkton and Lavant: Measuring Devices from the Time of Stonehenge Anne Teather1, Andrew Chamberlain1, Mike Parker Pearson2 1. School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PT, U.K. ([email protected], [email protected]) 2. Institute of Archaeology, UCL, 31-34 Gordon Square, London, WC1H 0PY, U.K. ([email protected]) Abstract Investigating knowledge of mathematics and the use of standard units of measurement in prehistoric societies is a difficult task. For the British Neolithic period (4000-2500 BC) attempts to refine our understanding of mathematical knowledge for this period have been largely unsuccessful until now. Following recent research, we propose that there is a direct link between the design of the monument of Stonehenge and the chalk artefacts known as the Folkton and Lavant Drums, in which the Drums represent measurement standards that were essential for accurate and reproducible monument construction. This has important implications for the future analyses of artefacts and monuments for this period. Introduction Within studies of the British Neolithic, material culture and monument forms are commonly approached in different ways. Material culture is largely examined through the form, function and decoration of artefacts such as stone tools and pottery vessels (Hurcombe 2007, 59), while monuments (i.e. large-scale earthworks and structures built of timber and stone) are studied through elements of their construction, and evidence for their inferred use (Cummings 2008). This conventional approach inadvertently poses an interpretive separation, whereby items of material culture are sometimes conceived as being supplementary to British Neolithic monumental activity, and simply form an incidental part of the archaeological record.
    [Show full text]
  • MODELS of MIND: Carved Stone Balls from the Islands of Scotland
    MODELS OF MIND: Carved Stone Balls from the Islands of Scotland - Jim Pattison Jim Pattison Ballsfromthe IslandsofScotland Carved Stone MODELS OFMIND: MODELS OF MIND: Carved Stone Balls from the Islands of Scotland Jim Pattison Visual Thinking: Carved Stone Balls in the Isles Murdo Macdonald Prehistoric people were as interested as we are in regularities of form in three- 1Daud Sutton, 2001, Platonic and Archemedean Solids, Presteigne: Wooden Books; dimensional space. The carved stone balls of Neolithic Scotland are an amazing 20-21. expression of that. There are several hundred of these objects, usually about the 2Keith Critchlow, 1979, Time Stands Still, London: Gordon Fraser. New edition, size of a tennis ball but with complex surfaces, sometimes irregular but often 2007, published by Floris Books, Edinburgh. See, in particular, chapter 7, ‘Platonic attaining an extraordinarily balanced formal beauty, which can be contained within Spheres – a Millenium before Plato’. See also Michael Atiyah and Paul Sutcliffe, a cube, a pyramid or even a dodecahedron. The sophistication of form of these 2003, ‘Polyhedra in Physics, Chemistry and Geometry’ Milan Journal of Mathematics objects led the geometer Daud Sutton to note that they ‘are the earliest known vol. 71, 33–58, who note that ‘Although they are termed Platonic solids there is examples of man made design with icosahedral symmetry’. 1 This intriguing aspect convincing evidence that they were known to the Neolithic people of Scotland at of carved stone balls was explored in the 1970s in particular by Keith Critchlow least a thousand years before Plato …’, 34-35. who noted that among these objects were examples of all five of what we call 3Michael Atiyah and Paul Sutcliffe, 2003, ‘Polyhedra in Physics, Chemistry and the ‘Platonic’ solids.2 In 2003 the mathematicians Michael Atiyah and Paul Sutcliffe Geometry’ Milan Journal of Mathematics vol.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • ROCK ART BIBLIOGRAPHY (Current at July 2008) This Detailed Listing Contains Over a Thousand Publications on Rock Art
    ROCK ART BIBLIOGRAPHY (current at July 2008) This detailed listing contains over a thousand publications on rock art. It relates primarily to rock art in the counties of Durham and Northumberland but also includes many publications on rock art in other parts of Britain and Ireland, as well as on the recording, management, and conservation of carved panels, plus a number of theoretical studies. The bibliography was compiled by Northumberland and Durham Rock Art Pilot Project volunteer, Keith Elliott, with additional contributions from Kate Sharpe and Aron Mazel. Abramson, P. 1996 ‘Excavations along the Caythorpe Gas Pipeline, North Humberside’. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 68, 1-88 Abramson, P. 2002 'A re-examination of a Viking Age burial at Beacon Hill, Aspatria'. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 100: 79-88. Adams, M. & P. Carne, 1997 ‘The Ingram and Upper Breamish Valley Landscape Project: interim report 1997’. Archaeological Reports of the Universities of Durham and Newcastle upon Tyne 21, 33- 36 Ainsworth, S. & Barnatt, J., 1998, ‘A scarp-enclosure at Gardom’s Edge, Baslow, Derbyshire’. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 118, 5-23 Aird, R. A., 1911 ‘Exhibits’. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne 3rd series 5(9), 102 Aitchison, W., 1950 ‘Note on Three Sculptured Rocks in North Northumberland’. History of the Berwickshire Naturalists’ Club 32(1), 50 Alcock, L 1977 ‘The Auld Wives’ Lifts’. Antiquity 51, 117-23 Aldhouse-Green, M., 2004 ‘Crowning Glories. The Language of Hair in Later Prehistoric Europe’. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 70, 299-325 Allott, C. & Allot, K., 2006 ‘Rock Art Indoors’.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Two Middle Neolithic Radiocarbon Dates from the East Midlands
    THE NEWSLASTetteR OF THE PREHISTORIC SOCIetY P Registered Office: University College London, Institute of Archaeology, 31–34 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PY http://www.prehistoricsociety.org/ Two Middle Neolithic radiocarbon dates from the East Midlands Earlier this year, radiocarbon dates were commissioned for awaiting confirmation of post-excavation funding. The two Middle Neolithic artefacts from the east Midlands. The bowl was originally identified as a Food Vessel. It has a fine first was obtained from a macehead of red deer antler from thin fabric, a concave neck, rounded body and foot-ring. Watnall, Northamptonshire, currently in the collections It is decorated all over with incised herring bone motif and of the National Museums Scotland who acquired it in certainly has a Food Vessel form. However the rim form is 1946/7. The macehead is No. 2 in Simpson’s corpus (PPS much more in keeping with Impressed Ware ceramics and 1996). It is of standard ‘crown’ type, it is undecorated, and the foot-ring has been added to an otherwise rounded base. unfortunately the circumstances of the find are unknown. Both the foot-ring and the decorated lower part of the vessel A radiocarbon date was obtained from the antler itself and are features more common in Food Vessels than in Impressed produced a result of 4395±30 BP (SUERC-40112). This date Wares. Could this be a missing link? Does this vessel bridge unfortunately coincides with a plateau in the calibration curve the Impressed Ware-Food Vessel gap? A later Neolithic or but nevertheless calibrates to 3097–2916 cal BC (95.4% Chalcolithic date was expected but instead the date is very probability) and is in keeping with the few available dates firmly in the Middle Neolithic – 4790±35 BP (SUERC- already obtained for these artefacts (see Loveday et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Cornwall in the Bronze Age AICIA M CISIE
    CORNISH ARCHAEOLOGY No. 25 (1986) Cornwall in the Bronze Age AICIA M CISIE The Concept of a Bronze 'Age' Any review of the Bronze Age in Cornwall, or indeed in other areas of the British Isles, must today present the writer with a very different prospect to that which lay before Bernard Wailes 28 years ago, although much of the basic information remains the same. We now know, for example, that metallurgy was introduced into these islands before the middle of the third millennium bc, probably from two continental quarters, the Rhineland and the Atlantic region. Our period has lengthened and the calibration of radiocarbon dates means that it not only overlaps the Late Neolithic but also merges into the Iron Age in the mid-first millennium BC, giving a total of some 2000 years. The accumulation of data and dates, togther with advances in excavation and research techniques and the recognition of regional variation, make the whole concept of a Bronze 'age' far more complex than hitherto. In the 1960s, HawkeV scheme for the divisions of the British Bronze Age provided the framework (Hawkes, 1960) and was widely accepted in principle. As more radiocarbon dates have become available, there have nevertheless been surprises and many refinements have been applied, allowing a broader, more flexible approach into which ceramics and metalwork can be fitted. Today the most widely accepted scheme is that propounded by Burgess (in 5/0 wo OE AGE SIES SS 00 SX - 2,0 Fig 1 Location map showing principal sites mentioned in the text. Settlements or occupation
    [Show full text]