|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: tiompan wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: tiompan wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: tiompan wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: tiompan wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: tiompan wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: tiompan wrote: iconoclasm
Not that MPP said much about it, but I find that a bit of a murky area.
I wanted to ask him about stuff like the avenues at Avebury, which came later than the circle, iirc, well after 2400bc. And the barrows that surround Avebury, what does that indicate in those terms?
The RSCs are another example where there seems to be a blending of ideas rather than some kind of 'take over'.
I was thinking of damage to stones at Stonehenge , Mount Pleasant , Le Petit Chasseur ,Sion etc .
Not familiar with that. What happened at Mount Pleasant?
There was a setting of a sarsen cove , no sarsens were discovered only the sockets and 300 pounds of smashed up sarsen deposits accompanied with charcoal , both had been subject to intense heat , plus another smaller amount found around the monument .Grooved Ware and the presence of timber circle was discovered , but also a later beaker burial .
Interesting.
Were they coming down from Scotland? Some of the earliest beaker burials and the first area they go out of use. To answer my bit about Avebury above, that could possibly mean some of those barrows dotted around were much later? Possibly meaning no beaker influence at all before 2300/2200, when the communal stuff came to a close. Do you have any dates for earliest beaker use (in any context) for wessex? I think there were burials (underneath avenue stones rings a bell) but not barrows for the earliest perhaps?
Thinking out loud..
Sorry missed the Avebury avenue /barrows .
Yep later than henge and same time as the earliest Beaker burials (2500 BC ) , RSC 'S (approx 2500 BC )and Silbury (2400bc ) .
It would seem tempting to view Silbury, and others, Marden etc, not as the last of the neolithic communal monuments but new ideas from elsewhere.
I think Marden and Hatfield barrow fit into the earlier category chronologically and stylistically .
Sorry, by Marden I meant the hatfield barrow, not the henge.
If Silbury was started around 2400, complete around 2100/2000 after a hiatus, as has been suggested, then it's easy to imagine what it became was an idea from elsewhere.
I don't see why Hatfield barrow couldn't fit too. The date of 2500 must come from the base layer (not a lot left, a few inches) we don't know when it was finished.
Just found this. A continuation of the neolithic tradition in terms of the scale and communal build, yes, but small numbers of continental immigrants at 2100/200BC? Mutual fascination?
Why can't Silbury, Hatfield, Marlborough be interpreted as Beaker 'statements'?
https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/BAR1_2008_6_Sheridan_c.pdf
The dating of specific monument types, particularly in Wessex and Scotland, has also helped to produce a step-change in our understanding of what happened when. In Wessex, the recent re-dating of the construction of Silbury Hill (Bayliss et al. 2007), and of other monuments as part of the Stonehenge Riverside Project and Longstones Project, has revealed that the Late Neolithic tradition of investing large amounts of labour on the construction of conspicuous monuments continued after the appearance of the Beaker 'package' of novelties. This revelation allows us to explore the nature, and social dynamics, of events in Wessex during the third quarter of the third millennium - the Chalcolithic, in other words – when the use of Beakers and other Continental novelties appeared, in Needham's terms, as 'a circumscribed, exclusive culture' (Needham 2005, 209). This interaction, it would appear, took the form of a mutual fascination between small numbers of Continental immigrants, perhaps drawn to the major ceremonial centres of Wessex by the legendary nature of the monuments and festivities there, and of the indigenous communities, who appreciated the exotic novelties as offering new ways of gaining and expressing power (Needham 2007).
Much the same happened in Iberia where the earlier Bell Beaker "folk" had used collective Neolithic monuments for their burials . Yet when they built their own cemeteries they were hardly noticeable .
As ever , Silbury is puzzling , in this respect the end result being so monumental and long past it's stylistic sell by date .
Might be of interest
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.co.uk/?m=1
Good bloke Maju , his presence in the archaeogenetic community is quite a bit less than it used to be .
|
