The Neolithic of the Peak District: a Lefebvrian Social Geography Approach to Spatial Analysis
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE NEOLITHIC OF THE PEAK DISTRICT: A LEFEBVRIAN SOCIAL GEOGRAPHY APPROACH TO SPATIAL ANALYSIS by ROBIN BRYN WEAVER A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity College of Arts and Law The University of Birmingham May 2012 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT In this thesis I construct, implement and evaluate a Lefebvrian model of space and society suitable for archaeology, using the Neolithic Peak District as my case study. Archaeologists have largely overlooked the work of French Marxist philosopher and social theorist Henri Lefebvre or come to it second-hand, meaning that his dialectical model of the production of space has never been used to understand prehistoric society. My thesis demonstrates the value to archaeology of such an approach by applying Lefebvre’s three-part dialectical model of the production of space to the monuments and landscape of the Neolithic Peak. In doing so, it challenges simplistic binary readings of social space, replacing them with a Lefebvrian social geography approach to space. Not only does this reveal previously hidden facets of Neolithic society and architecture in the Peak, but my research also provides the first detailed study of this subject in some years. It highlights inter-regional connections between the Peak and other parts of the UK, and illustrates the sheer wealth and diversity of Neolithic monuments in the region, which until now have been sorely neglected. One of its central achievements is to introduce the ‘cross-fertilisation’ monument as a novel class of structure, with a particular architectural history and significance. Avoiding the erroneous pre-structuring of reality common to modern Western thought, and offering in its place a philosophy of internal relations, my thesis makes an important contribution to archaeology’s ongoing rethinking of the relationships between space and society. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would particularly like to thank my supervisor, Paul Garwood, for his incisive comments and formidable knowledge of social theory. Thanks are due to Vicki Herring, for help with my maps. I have enjoyed and benefited from conversations and exchanges with the following during my research: Roy Loveday, David Knight, Clive Waddington, John Hill, David Newsome, Adrian Davies, Andy Howard, Henry Chapman, Ellie Ramsey, Tim Darvill, John Barrett and Keith Boughey. My warmest thanks and love go to my mother and to the memory of my late father; to Peter and Ruth Allan for Gower, the Cotswolds, the Lakes and more; to Sarah Allan for her help with Excel; and, finally, to my wife, Judith, whom I cannot thank enough. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures iv List of Tables viii Chapter One: Archaeology, Space and Society 1.1 Rethinking Space and Society 1 1.1.1 Henri Lefebvre: Life and Contribution 2 1.1.2 A Lefebvrian spatial model for archaeology? 6 1.2 Archaeology, Geography and Space 9 1.2.1 Shared Problems in Approaches to Space 10 1.2.2 Summary: Archaeology, Dichotomy and Spatial Analysis 15 1.3 Research Design 17 Chapter Two: Developing a Spatial Dialectical Model of the Production of Space 2.1 Calibrating Space and Society 22 2.1.1 The Social and Spatial Turns in the Social Sciences 22 2.1.2 The Social Construction of Space 25 2.1.3 Lefebvre and Thirdspace/ third-way perspectives 28 2.1.4 Summary 30 2.2 Understanding Lefebvrian Spatial Dialectics 31 2.2.1 ‘Production’ in The Production of Space 32 2.2.2 Dialectical Philosophy and Method 36 2.2.3 Using Lefebvre’s Spatial Dialectics 40 2.2.4 Summary: A Revised Model of Lefebvre’s Spatial Theory 44 Chapter Three: The Neolithic Peak District: An Introduction 3.1 Landscape: Physical Geography, Ecology and Society 47 3.2 Monuments: Classification, Chronology and Distribution 53 3.2.1 Understanding the Neolithic Data Set 53 i 3.2.2 The Earlier Neolithic Period, c. 4000- c. 3000 cal. BC 56 3.2.3 The Later Neolithic Period, c. 3000- c. 2200 cal. BC 78 3.3 Revised Chronological Framework 91 3.3.1 The Earlier Neolithic Period, c. 4000- c. 3300 cal. BC 91 3.3.2 The Later Neolithic Period, c. 3300- c. 2400 cal. BC 92 3.3.3 Summary of Revised Chronology 93 Chapter Four: Implementing the Model 4.1 Introduction: Theory and Data 95 4.2 Socio-Spatial Questions and Data 95 4.2.1 Social-Spatial Practices and Everyday Practical Spaces 97 4.2.2 Representations of Space: Symbol, Culture, Cosmology 104 4.2.3 Spaces of Representation: the Socialising Role of Ritual 114 and Ceremony 4.3 Spatial Analysis and Interpretation: Key Themes and Issues 118 Chapter Five: The Earlier Neolithic Period, c. 4000- c. 3300 cal. BC 5.1 Social-Spatial Practice 122 5.1.1 Social Cores and Monumental Spaces 122 5.1.2 Movement and Orientation 135 5.1.3 Summary 152 5.2 Representations of Space 153 5.2.1 Closed Chambered Cairns 153 5.2.2 Earthen Long Barrows 158 5.2.3 Cross-Fertilisation Period Monuments 163 5.3 Spaces of Representation 167 5.3.1 Special Places and Social Distance 167 5.3.2 Closed Chambered Cairns and Earthen Long Barrows 172 5.3.3 Funerary Rites and Ancestral Rites 175 5.3.4 Overview 178 ii Chapter Six: The Later Neolithic Period, c. 3300- c. 2400 cal. BC 6.1 Social-Spatial Practice 182 6.1.1 Social Cores and Monumental Spaces 187 6.1.2 Movement and Orientation 192 6.1.3 Summary 202 6.2 Representations of Space 203 6.2.1 The Enlargement of Chambered Mounds 203 6.2.2 The Henges 209 6.3 Spaces of Representation 219 6.3.1 Large Funerary Mounds and Henges 219 6.3.2 The Local and Regional 223 6.3.3 Overview 229 Chapter Seven: Conclusions and New Directions 7.1 Neolithic Society in the Peak District 232 7.1.1 Earlier Neolithic Society 232 7.1.2 Later Neolithic Society 243 7.1.3 Achievements of My Lefebvrian Approach 250 7.2 Evaluation of My Lefebvrian Model 252 7.2.1 Space and Society: A ‘Three Part’ Dialectic? 252 7.2.2 My Model of Lefebvrian “Production” 254 7.2.3 Going Beyond Post-Processual Approaches 256 7.2.4 Continuing to Think About Space and Society 259 Bibliography 261 iii FIGURES Fig. 1.1 Two post-processual engagements with Cartesian rationalism. 10 Fig. 1.2 The dichotomies of space and place in structural-symbolic approaches. 12 Fig. 1.3 Distribution map of menhirs in Brittany. 16 Fig. 1.4 A symbolic-structuralist interpretation of the Late Neolithic to Bronze Age 17 landscape around Stonehenge. Fig. 2.1 Central Place Theory as deployed to Southern Germany. 24 Fig. 2.2 Illustration from Harpers magazine in 1876 documenting the contemporary 27 ‘Vagrant Threat’. Fig. 2.3 Soja’s Trilectics. 30 Fig. 2.4 Milgrom’s schematic of Lefebvre’s ‘conceptual triad’. 33 Fig. 2.5 Untitled sketch from The Production of Space. 34 Fig. 2.6 Representation of Table 2.3 as an intellectual process. 40 Fig. 2.7 Schematic depiction of my model of Lefebvre’s theory of the production of 46 space. Fig. 3.1 Location map of the Peak District in Britain. 48 Fig. 3.2 The physical geography of the Peak District with emphasis on areas 49 suitable for settlement and cultivation. Fig. 3.3 Elevation map of the Peak District, highlighting the local rivers and the 50 limestone plateau. Fig. 3.4 The two buildings and other features at Lismore Fields. 52 Fig. 3.5 The classification, chronology and distribution of Neolithic period sites and 54 monuments in two recent syntheses. Fig. 3.6 The Middle Neolithic period, based on Loveday and Barclay (2010) and 55 my discussion in this section. Fig. 3.7 The Earlier Neolithic period sites and monuments in the Peak District. 57 Fig. 3.8 The chambers of two Peak District closed chambered cairns. 61 Fig. 3.9 Four examples of simple passage grave-type chambered cairns. 63 Fig. 3.10 Sample of the Peak’s long barrow-forms. 67 Fig. 3.11 The orientations of the Peak District long barrows. 69 Fig. 3.12 Comparison between chambered long barrows from the Midlands and 71 Cotswold-Severn region, emphasising shared chronology and features. Fig. 3. 13 Three Earlier Neolithic monuments from the Midlands with flat façades. 73 Fig. 3.14 The façade-like revetment wall and horned forecourt at Parc le Breos Cwm 77 (Gower). Fig. 3.15 The Later Neolithic period sites and monuments in the Peak District. 79 Fig. 3.16 Barnatt’s four ‘certain’ great barrows. 81 Fig. 3.17 Mortimer’s 1905 sketch of Duggleby Howe showing the correspondence 82 between the inhumations and the modest primary mound. Fig. 3.18 Location map of the henges of the British Isles. 87 Fig. 3.19 Four Classic henges. 89 Fig. 3.20 The Yorkshire henges, including Ferrybridge. 90 Fig. 4.1 The Monyash Basin TCZ viewed from Arbor Low henge. 98 Fig. 4.2 Lathkill Dale limestone gorge, Monyash.