DOCSLIB.ORG

Early Neolithic Wall Construction Techniques in the Light of Ethnographical Observations on the Architecture of the Modern Syrian Village of Qaramel

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Early Neolithic Wall Construction Techniques in the Light of Ethnographical Observations on the Architecture of the Modern Syrian Village of Qaramel TELL QARAMEL SYRIA EARLY NEOLITHIC WALL CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES IN THE LIGHT OF ETHNOGRAPHICAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE MODERN SYRIAN VILLAGE OF QARAMEL Marcin Białowarczuk The so-called “Neolithic Revolution”, beginning of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic, which began in the Near East about especially wall construction, employed 12,000 BC, led to enormous changes in technological solutions so efficient that the everyday life of human communities. they are still being used unchanged in Farming and sedentary life were important modern architecture through-out the elements of these changes, but also Near East. in architecture a huge development was The huge similarities between modern observed. and early Pre-Pottery Neolithic structures Beginning with the Proto-Neolithic stand at the root of the present study. Natufian Culture there was growing Modern architectural units were observed diversification of architectural forms mainly in the area of the modern village and techniques in different regions of of Qaramel and subjected to comparative the Near East. The process appears to analysis during a few seasons of field- have accelerated during the Pre-Pottery work in Tell Qaramel. The data were Neolithic A and Early Pre-Pottery enriched with information from other Neolithic B periods, which are dated areas of northern Syria. The signifi- between 10,200 and 8000 BC calibrated cance of observing modern Arabic (Aurenche and Kozłowski 1999). Intensive architecture is twofold: it pinpoints field research, especially in the past 20 years, elements of architecture which have has brought to light enormous variation remained unchanged for thousands of in the architecture of these periods. years and it facilitates interpretations of Younger stages of the Neolithic Period prehistoric archaeological finds from the also introduced architectural innovations, region. Parallels with modern architecture although these were mostly modifica- provide explanations for many important tions of already invented elements. features that are not always easy to Some architectural techniques from the understand in the archaeological record. 586 Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 19, Reports 2007 TELL QARAMEL SYRIA STONE WALL CONSTRUCTION The most general division of wall in a variant that is not represented in construction techniques is by the raw modern architecture: “cigar-shaped” blocks of material, which is either stone or mud. Stone limestone (van Loon 1965). The single row construction appears to be both more diverse technique was discovered in this region also at and more numerous, in Neolithic as well as the site of Jerf el-Ahmar [Fig. 1a], where it modern architecture. A classification of these appears at the same time as in Mureybet II techniques thus seems essential. Similar (Stordeur 2001). The single row technique is classifications for historically younger also known from PPNA sites in the southern architecture are based traditionally on the Levant, such as Gilgal (Noy 1989) and Netiv way materials are arranged, but this criterion Hagdud (Bar-Yosef, Gopher 1997). At both is not valid for early architecture where the these sites stones were used as raw material, arrangement of material is usually accidental, but they were carefully selected for size. even if the material was prepared beforehand. This variant of the single row technique Criteria that are, in my opinion, crucial is the youngest of the three methods of for distinguishing stone wall techniques, construction, as the settlement in Gilgal is other than the array, are wall width and wall dated to c. 9300–9000 BC calibrated and surface construction. On this basis three Netiv Hagdud to 9000–8800 BC calibrated main techniques of wall construction have (Aurenche, Kozłowski 1999). been identified: single row, double row and double row with internal filling. DOUBLE ROW TECHNIQUE A more developed and sophisticated SINGLE ROW TECHNIQUE technique involved two rows of stones fitted It is the simplest of the three techniques. The closely together and forming the two faces of wall is made of a single row of stones the wall [Fig. 1d]. Walls made in this arranged in superimposed layers and bonded technique are usually 0.30–0.50 m thick. with mortar [Fig. 1b]. The thinness of such Unlike the walls described above, double row walls, usually 0.25–0.30 m, is characteristic. walls are always built on foundations made of They are founded straight on the ground or big, flat stones. Walls were thus reinforced on a low foundation made of big, flat stones. and could support heavier loads, a characte- The technique is used today for erecting ristic that is evidenced by the functions of single-storey buildings used as stores for buildings raised in this technique. They are various goods. Structures of this kind do not usually dwellings or storage buildings, the flat appear to be resistant to big loads. roofs of which are often used as terraces for One of the earliest archaeological sites to household activities. demonstrate the presence of the single row The earliest traces of this technique have technique is Hallan Çemi in southeastern been found at Hallan Çemi, where they Anatolia, dated to about 10,000 BC coexist with walls erected in the single row calibrated (Rosenberg 1994). In the Middle technique (Rosenberg 1994). Almost Euphrates region, in Mureybet II, the same simultaneously the technique appears south technique appears slightly later, that is, about of the Taurus Mountains, in Tell Qaramel, 9800–9200 BC calibrated. In Mureybet III, where it can be found in the lower parts of the single row technique is also present, but the so-called “grill house” (Mazurowski 587 Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 19, Reports 2007 TELL QARAMEL SYRIA Fig. 1. Examples of stone wall construction: A) Early Neolithic example of single row technique with limestone “bricks”. Jerf el-Ahmar (Syria), reconstruction in the National Museum of Damascus B) modern example of single row technique. Qaramel village; C) plan of PPNA house with walls in the double row technique. ZAD 2, Jordan (after Edwards et alii 2004: 27); D, E) modern examples of double row technique, with (E) and without (D) internal fill (Photos M. Białowarczuk) 588 Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 19, Reports 2007 TELL QARAMEL SYRIA 2003: 323–325). It is latest to arrive in the building. The choice of technique is southern Levant. Between 9150 and obviously governed by intended wall 8550 BC calibrated, this technique can be function. And so, external walls are almost observed first in ZAD 2 (Edwards et alii always built using the double row technique 2004) [Fig. 1c] and then in Netiv Hagdud or double row technique with internal (Bar-Yosef, Gopher 1997). During the filling, while internal walls are usually built Earl PPNB, this technique developed using the single row technique. This is an further in the Taurus region, as attested optimal solution. External walls are usually by some dwellings from Nevali Çori thick and strong because their main function (Hauptmann 1988). is to insulate house interiors from weather conditions and to transfer the load of the DOUBLE ROW TECHNIQUE WITH roof onto the ground. Internal walls, on the INTERNAL FILLING other hand, divide up space inside a house The next stage in the development of stone and, if the house is large, support the roof as wall construction is distinguished by two well. For these tasks, a single-row wall is perpendicular single-stone alignments which entirely sufficient. form the wall faces. The two rows of stones Such a diversification of construction stand at a distance from each other and the techniques within a single house is seldom space between them is filled with crushed encountered in early Neolithic architecture. stones and mud [Fig. 1e]. The thickness of Walls were usually built in one technique. such walls is 0.50–0.60 m or more. Same as in Among the rare exceptions are some the double row technique, these walls are buildings from PPNB Beidha (Kirkbride built on foundations made of big, flat stones. 1966). Buildings constructed in this way have the same functions as those described in the BUILDING STONE ARRAY previous group. Many variants of these three techniques exist. The pattern of development of this A common feature is the careful choice and technique in the early Neolithic is completely preparation of building material. Even if different. The earliest examples known so far a wall looks messy, the blocks or stones used come from Tell Qaramel; the technique is in its construction are fitted tightly. When represented in the lower parts of Towers I and the stone raw material is used without II, the latter one being radiocarbon-dated to preparation, the gaps between stones are 8340+/-85 bc (uncalibrated) (Mazurowski often packed with small pebbles or pieces of et alii forthcoming). Another early Neolithic rocks. These efforts seem to have served the site is Çayönü Tepesi in southeastern purpose of strengthening the walls in order Anatolia, where during the PPNA/PPNB to make them higher. Wall strength has transitional phase the double row technique always been an issue in the Near East, with internal fill was used for building the the region being an earthquake-prone foundations of “grill houses”. A continuation zone since prehistoric times. Building of this technique appears again in Çayönü stonearray is thus an important criterion Tepesi during the Late PPNB and PPNC for distinguishing wall types, which fall into stages (Shrimer 1990). two principal categories: disordered and Significantly, the technique is often used ordered arrangements. side by side with one of the other described The disordered stone arrangement techniques in the construction of a single features a chaotic and haphazard array of 589 Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 19, Reports 2007 TELL QARAMEL SYRIA stones that are all of different shapes and sizes midsize stones; and finally, mixed structures [Fig.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Recumbent Stone Circles of Aberdeenshire
    The Recumbent Stone Circles of Aberdeenshire The Recumbent Stone Circles of Aberdeenshire: Archaeology, Design, Astronomy and Methods By John Hill The Recumbent Stone Circles of Aberdeenshire: Archaeology, Design, Astronomy and Methods By John Hill This book first published 2021 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2021 by John Hill All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-6585-8 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-6585-2 This book is dedicated to: Dr Joan J Taylor (1940-2019) Dr Aubrey Burl (1926-2020) “What was once considered on the fringe of archaeology, now becomes mainstream” and to Rocky (2009-2020) “My faithful companion who walked every step of the way with me across the Aberdeenshire landscape” TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures............................................................................................ ix List of Tables ............................................................................................ xii Acknowledgements ................................................................................. xiii Introduction ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Tracking the Neolithic House in Europe Sedentism, Architecture, and Practice One World Archaeology
    One World Archaeology Daniela Hofmann Jessica Smyth Editors Tracking the Neolithic House in Europe Sedentism, Architecture, and Practice One World Archaeology Series Editors: Heather Burke, Flinders University of South Australia, Australia Gustavo Politis, Universidad Nacionaldel Centro, Buenos Aires, Argentina Gabriel Cooney, University College, Dublin, Ireland For further volumes: http://www.springer.com/series/8606 Daniela Hofmann · Jessica Smyth Editors Tracking the Neolithic House in Europe Sedentism, Architecture and Practice 1 3 Editors Daniela Hofmann Jessica Smyth School of History, Archaeology and Religion School of Chemistry Cardiff University University of Bristol Cardiff Bristol United Kingdom United Kingdom ISBN 978-1-4614-5288-1 ISBN 978-1-4614-5289-8 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-5289-8 Springer New York Dordrecht Heidelberg London Library of Congress Control Number: 2012954540 © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recita- tion, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or infor- mation storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar meth- odology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplica- tion of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Architecture Prehistory Through Roman Professor Miti Aiello WHY STUDY HISTORY of ARCHITECTURE? A,B,C,D...All of the Above?
    NewSchool of Architecture + Design AR761 | History of Architecture Prehistory through Roman Professor Miti Aiello WHY STUDY HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE? A,B,C,D...all of the above? A. Because we like dead,old things B. Precedents C. Architecture vs. Building D. Common Language in the Profession For every building we should ask.... WHAT HOW WHY THE BEGINNING OF ARCHITECTURE Early Dwellings Caves Terra Amata huts, France: 400,000 years ago. The Cave at Lescaux, France: 10,000 to 20,000 years ago. The Urban Revolution Catal Huyuk, Central Anatolia (Turkey): ca. 7400 B.C.E Jericho, West Bank, Jordan |Palestine: ca 7000 B.C.E New Stone Age Architecture Neolithic ca. 10,000-5000 B.C.E :Farming in Greece (ca. 7000 BCE), Iberia and Britain (ca. 5000 B.C.E) and Scandinavia (ca.4000 BCE) Late Neolithic ca.5000-2500 B.C.E Early Bronze Age ca. 3000-2000 B.C.E Most impressive Neolithic Architecture not built for practial uses; hauntings and need to control Nature. Monumental Megalithic construction (Mega+Lithos) Terra Amata huts, France: 400,000 years ago Lascaux Caves, France 10,000 to 20,000 years ago Lascaux Caves, France 9 Rock Art in caves at Altamira, Spain, discovered 1880, dated 16,000 to 8,000 BCE 10 Catal Huyuk – present day Turkey reconstruction of housing center approximately 6000 B.C. 12 Unfortified Dense package of dwellings without streets Access through roofs, high openings in walls for ventilation Mud-brick walls and post and lintel framework. Houses established perimeter town wall Windowless shrines Precursor of more sophisticated communities along Tigris and Euphrates Jericho walls, West Bank c.
    [Show full text]
  • Why the Neolithic Is (R)Evolutionary
    This is a repository copy of Why the Neolithic is (r)evolutionary. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/163709/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Catapoti, D. and Relaki, M. orcid.org/0000-0002-6579-8717 (2020) Why the Neolithic is (r)evolutionary. Journal of Material Culture, 25 (3). pp. 289-308. ISSN 1359-1835 https://doi.org/10.1177/1359183519894012 Catapoti D, Relaki M. Why the Neolithic is (r)evolutionary. Journal of Material Culture. 2020;25(3):289-308. Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1359183519894012. Article available under the terms of the CC- BY-NC-ND licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Reuse This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) licence. This licence only allows you to download this work and share it with others as long as you credit the authors, but you can’t change the article in any way or use it commercially. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ This is the accepted version of the manuscript post peer-review. For the published version please see: https://doi.org/10.1177/1359183519894012 Catapoti, D.
    [Show full text]
  • Breaking the Surface: an Art/Archaeology of Prehistoric Architecture by Doug Bailey
    The Prehistoric Society Book Reviews BREAKING THE SURFACE: AN ART/ARCHAEOLOGY OF PREHISTORIC ARCHITECTURE BY DOUG BAILEY Oxford University Press, Oxford. 2018, 338pp, 121 figs, pb, ISBN 9780190611880, £25.49 For many years archaeologists have struggled with the problem of addressing prehistoric worlds that may have been experienced and understood in ways that are remote from those of the modern west, and yet are only accessible to us through their material traces. The observations of social anthropologists have provided a perennial source of insights that help to challenge our contemporary prejudices and expectations, but the danger of imposing an ‘ethnographic present’ on the past is ever-present. Many prehistorians presently engage with various forms of philosophical thought as a way of looking at their evidence in fresh and counter-intuitive ways, but in this book Doug Bailey adopts a different and novel strategy. Bailey presents Breaking the Surface as a work of ‘art/archaeology’, a practice that emerges from the encounter between two disciplines, in which archaeological materials are removed from their normal context and deployed in artistic ways to create unfamiliar perspectives. However, in practice the book works in the opposite direction, drawing on the work of artists, psychologists and linguistic anthropologists in order to shed new light on a supremely archaeological phenomenon: holes in the ground. This project was inspired by Bailey’s experience of excavating Early Neolithic Criș pit-houses at Măgura in Romania. These are amorphous semi-subterranean structures, which might contain kilns, burials, feasting debris or traces of craft activities, but it is unclear whether they were always roofed.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing Near Eastern Neolithic Megasites and Southwestern Pueblos
    1 Comparing Near Eastern Neolithic Megasites and Southwestern Pueblos: Population Size, Exceptionalism, and Historical Trajectories Cambridge Archaeological Journal DOI: 10.1017/S0959774318000276 Published online: June 6, 2018 Wesley Bernardini & Gregson Schachner Abstract Çatalhöyük and other Near Eastern Neolithic ‘megasites’ are commonly interpreted as exceptional because of their large size and early dates. In this paper, we question exceptional claims about the size and social organization of megasites like Çatalhöyük by comparing them to pueblos in the American Southwest. We argue that Çatalhöyük and other Near Eastern Neolithic megasites are better understood as large villages whose size, layout, and social organization compare readily to many of the late prehispanic and historic period pueblos in the American Southwest. We suggest that four factors contribute to disparate interpretations of structurally similar sites in the Near East and American Southwest: 1) surface architectural visibility; 2) different regional intellectual traditions that emphasize ‘micro-’ vs ‘macro’ scale social organization; 3) a tendency toward overestimation in archaeological population estimates, especially when the ‘biggest’ or the ‘earliest’ sites are involved; and 4) perceptions of continuity with later time periods. 2 Çatalhöyük is often described as a Neolithic “megasite” with a large, densely packed population that is puzzling because it predates by 3000 years the kind of urban settlement associated with early cities. Although no longer seen by most archaeologists as the ‘first city’ (e.g., Mellart 1967), Çatalhöyük is nevertheless still viewed as exceptional: a site whose size “pushes the idea of an egalitarian village to its ultimate extremes” (Hodder 2006, 98), a huge street-less mass of houses that was a ‘“dead end’ in the evolution of human architecture and settlement planning” (Ben-Shlomo and Garfinkel 2009, 204).
    [Show full text]
  • Domesticating Space
    Domesticating Space Construction, Community, and Cosmology in the Late Prehistoric Near East edited by E. B. Banning and Michael Chazan Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 6, 2006 Berlin, ex oriente (2006) Gedruckt mit finanzieller Unterstützung von / Printed with the financial support of ex oriente e.V., Berlin SENEPSE wird von Hans Georg K. Gebel und Reinder Neef herausgegeben für SENEPSE is edited by Hans Georg K. Gebel and Reinder Neef for ex oriente e.V., Produktion, Subsistenz und Umwelt im frühen Vorderasien, Berlin Buchbestellungen bitte direkt an / Please, send book orders directly to : ex oriente e.V. Freie Universität Berlin c/o Institut für Vorderasiatische Altertumskunde Hüttenweg 7, D - 14195 Berlin Fax 0049 30 83852106 or 98311246 Eine Liste der Publikationen von ex oriente ist am Ende dieses Bandes zu finden. A list of publications by ex oriente can be found at the end of this volume. © 2006 ex oriente e.V. Produktion, Subsistenz und Umwelt im frühen Vorderasien, Berlin. Alle Rechte vorbehalten. All rights reserved. Gedruckt in Deutschland von dbusiness, Berlin. Printed in Germany by dbusiness, Berlin. ISSN 0947-0549 ISBN 3-9807578-3-8 Contents Acknowledgements ………………………….............................................…….. 4 E.B. Banning and Michael Chazan: Structuring interactions, structuring ideas: Domestication of space in the prehistoric Near East ………………………… 5 Trevor Watkins: Architecture and the symbolic construction of new worlds ….. 15 Dani Nadel: Residence ownership and continuity: From the Early Epipalaeolithic unto the Neolithic ………………………………………………. 25 Nicolas Samuelian, Hamudi Khalaily, and François R. Valla: Final Natufian architecture at ‘Eynan (‘Ain Mallaha): Approaching the diversity behind uniformity ……………………………………………………...……………….. 35 Stefan Karol Kozlowski: The hunter-gatherer “villages” of the PPNA/EPPNB 43 Seiji Kadowaki: Ground-stone tools and implications for the use of space and social relations at ‘Ain Abu Nukhayla, a PPNB settlement in southern Jordan 53 Hans Georg K.
    [Show full text]
  • An Evaluation of Restitutions Prepared for the Architecture of The
    ARTICLE MEGARON 2019;14(1):63-73 DOI: 10.5505/MEGARON.2018.60362 An Evaluation of Restitutions Prepared for the Architecture of the Neolithic Site of Göbeklitepe and a Proposition Göbeklitepe Neolitik Alanı Mimarisi İçin Hazırlanmış Restitüsyonlar Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme ve Bir Öneri Atlıhan Onat KARACALI, Nur URFALIOĞLU ABSTRACT Neolithic studies were mainly about the agriculture. However, the Neolithic was a period where all aspects of human life changed dramat- ically. Hence, this era must be studied in detail by various disciplines, as well as the architecture. Although small in number, there still are some studies processing the Neolithic architecture. And additionally, there are restitutions drawn for some Neolithic structures. However, the restitutions are heavily based on personal predictions and are open and vulnerable to criticism. Göbeklitepe is a stunning Neolithic findspot from Tukey. Not only by the scale of the structures excavated but also by the facts it offered, this site forced scholars to reconsider what they knew about the early Neolithic. As the much interest increased in time, many studies processed about this site and various restitutions were prepared as well. Once again, these restitutions were personal, and they must be investigated by the facts that scientific studies on the site figured out. And more accurate restitutions for Göbeklitepe must be drawn, matching with same scientific data. Keywords: Göbeklitepe; neolithic; neolithic architecture; restitution. ÖZ Neolitik döneme dair araştırmalar büyük oranda tarım konusu üzerinden yürütülmüştür. Ancak Neolitik, insan yaşantısının tüm yönleriyle değiş- tiği önemli bir dönemdir. Bu yüzden, bu dönem mimarlık gibi farklı disiplinlerce de derinlemesine incelenmelidir. Görece az da olsalar, döneme dair mimari çalışmalar da yürütülmüştür.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Research in Eurasia
    German Archaeological Institute EURASIA-DEPARTMENT Current Research in Eurasia Eurasien-Abteilung des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Im Dol 2-6, D-14195 Berlin Berlin 2017 www.dainst.org German Archaeological Institute Eurasia Department Current Research in Eurasia Issued by Svend Hansen Berlin 2017 Research projects of the Eurasia Department 74 76 120 Berlin 48 40 46 42 114 32 36 44 60 62 64 26 30 70 66 112 Peking 54 68 110 56 58 52 100 94 104 102 98 84 96 80 82 88 Teheran 118 86 Page 70 Tabakoni, Republic of Georgia 26 Silk Road Fashion, China 74 Veska, Russian Federation 30 Aşağı Pınar, Turkey 76 Tartas 1, Russian Federation 32 Pietrele, Romania 80 Lithic Industries, Iran 36 Orlovka-Kartal, Ukraine 82 Tappe Pahlavan, Iran 40 Petreni, Republic of Moldova 84 Rivi, Iran 42 Bronze Age Offerings, Romania 86 Bronze Statue, Iran 44 Taman-Peninsula, Russian Federation 88 Ancient Mining, Afghanistan 46 Lower Bug-River, Ukraine 94 Dashly Depe, Turkmenistan 48 Dnieper-Seversky Donets-Watershed, Ukraine 96 Gonur, Turkmenistan 52 Kamiltepe, Republic Aserbaijan 98 Bandikhan, Uzbekistan 54 Aruchlo, Republic of Georgia 100 Molali, Uzbekistan 56 Milsteppe, Republic of Azerbaijan 102 Jah-Su-Tal, Tajikistan 58 House architecture, Republic of Georgia 104 Torbulok, Tajikistan 60 Marfa, Russian Federation 110 Development of clothing-patterns in the 1st mill. BC, China 62 Bioarchaology, Russian Federation 112 Restoration of leather, China 64 Landscape archaology, Russian Federation 114 Jomon-Culture, Japan 66 Trialeti-Plateau, Republic of Georgia 118
    [Show full text]
  • Vesica Using Neolithic British Ritual Art And
    University of Plymouth PEARL https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk 04 University of Plymouth Research Theses 01 Research Theses Main Collection 2007 Vesica: using Neolithic British ritual art and architecture as a model for making contemporary art Pearce, Michael http://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/2574 University of Plymouth All content in PEARL is protected by copyright law. Author manuscripts are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author. VESICA USING NEOLITHIC BRITISH RITUAL ART AND ARCHITECTURE AS A MODEL FOR MAKING CONTEMPORARY ART. BY MICHAEL PEARCE MFA FSA Scot A thesis submitted to the UnivE!rsity of Plymouth in partial fulfillment for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Dartington College of Arts February 2007 This copy of the thesis has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognize that its copyright rests with its author and that no quotation from the thesis and no information derived from it may be published without the author's prior written consent. 1 ••• 1 0. ~ (JO -rq 3 0 f-2.3 __...._....,_,_. -~. _ 1~i~k_70Cf I 0( PEA 2 Abstract Can the creative practices of British Neolithic art and architecture be used in the making of contemporary art? This dissertation describes my practice making works of art based on the Neolithic model, presented in a gallery setting and occasionally in the landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • The Significance of Monuments
    The Significance of Monuments The Neolithic period, when agriculture began and many monuments were constructed, is an era fraught with paradoxes and ambiguities. Students of prehistory have long found the highly theoretical interpretations of the period perplexing and contradictory. Starting in the Mesolithic and carrying his analysis through to the Late Bronze Age, Richard Bradley sheds light on this complex period and the changing consciousness of the people who lived at the time. The book studies the importance of monuments, tracing their history for nearly three millennia from their first creation over six thousand years ago. Part I discusses how monuments developed and their role in forming a new sense of time and space among the inhabitants of prehistoric Europe. Such features of the landscape as mounds and enclosures are also examined in detail. Through a series of case studies, Part II considers how monuments were modified and reinterpreted to suit the changing needs of society. The Significance of Monuments is an indispensable text for all students of European prehistory. It is also an enlightening read for professional archaeologists and all those interested in this fascinating period. Richard Bradley is Professor of Archaeology at Reading University. Current interests include landscape archaeology and rock art. Recent books include Altering the Earth and Rock Art and the Prehistory of Atlantic Europe. The Significance of Monuments On the shaping of human experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe Richard Bradley London and New York First published 1998 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2001.
    [Show full text]
  • The Significance of Megalithic Monuments in the Process of Place
    Open Geosci. 2018; 10:504–516 Research Article Open Access Alicja Edyta Krzemińska*, Anna Dzikowska, Anna Danuta Zaręba, Katarzyna Rozalia Jarosz, Krzysztof Widawski, and Janusz Stanisław Łach The Significance of Megalithic Monuments in the Process of Place Identity Creation and in Tourism Development https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2018-0040 Received February 28, 2018; accepted June 22, 2018 1 Introduction Abstract: All over the world and for thousands of years, The presence of megaliths in cultural heritage is of great megaliths have been significant cultural elements, as well importance for most countries throughout the world. as sacred sites and places of power. Nowadays megaliths These objects exist on all continents, creating a unique act as a strong magnet for tourists, who appreciate their network of priceless cultural geosites. Areas on which me- history, esoterica and magic. Some megaliths were used galithic buildings are located create a uniquely mysterious for astronomical observations, so vital to maintain the aura; they intrigue, stimulate the imagination, and often continuity of harvest and crop. Other megalithic construc- evoke the feeling of communing with something supernat- tions were erected for funerary purposes, and served as ural. Since the dawn of time, these places have been sur- individual or collective burial chambers. Megalithic struc- rounded by a specific cult, playing an important role in tures are usually referred to as belonging to the European the development of civilization. The oldest megaliths can Neolithic but it has to be stressed that some megalithic be found on the African continent, notably in the Sahara constructions date back to the Bronze Age, and some were and the Central African Republic.
    [Show full text]