Places Apart? Caves and Monuments in Neolithic and Earlier Bronze Age Britain

Barnatt, John; Edmonds, Mark

doi:10.1017/s0959774302000069

Cited by 32 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In sum, the greatest change in terms of burial practice at the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition is the introduction of monuments, but as we have already seen, Barnatt and Edmonds (2002) suggest that chambered tombs and caves could have been used interchangeably. The fact that disarticulation also occurs in the Mesolithic, and caves are the main place where we find the bones, suggests that there is some continuity rather than change in practice during the Early Neolithic.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 87%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Burial practices at the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Britain: change or continuity?

Hellewell

Milner

2011

Doc. praeh.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is no doubt that the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition was a time of great change. It has been suggested that at this time people began to disarticulate their dead and use caves and monuments as ways of interacting with the ancestors. This paper looks at the transition from a Mesolithic perspective in order to identify evidence for change and continuity. It is suggested that certain practices such as disarticulation and the use of caves are much earlier in date and thus provide some continuity. Practices such as the use of shell middens for the deposition of human remains and the construction of monuments stand out as innovations, but are not necessarily the result of a new ideology.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…The similarity between the restricted space in caves and chambered tombs has been suggested by Barnatt and Edmonds (2002) to show that they could have been used as interchangeable and equally appropriate places for burial, and reflect the playing out of similar beliefs about life, death, and rebirth.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Burial practices at the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Britain: change or continuity?

Hellewell

Milner

2011

Doc. praeh.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been widely recognized that monuments from the past would have held a continuing attraction for later communities, and may even have influenced the development of the surrounding landscape long after the period of their primary use. Furthermore, the interplay between monuments and their landscape setting is increasingly seen as vital to archaeological interpretation (Barnatt and Edmonds ). During the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age ( c .2500–1500 BC (Needham )) it is apparent that Neolithic monuments had an influence over the development of their surrounding landscape and provided a focus of ‘continuing attraction’ (Bradley , 166) for the construction of new monuments, especially the funerary barrow.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Afterlife of Monuments in the English Peak District: The Evidence of Early Bronze Age Burials

Rogers

2013

Oxford J Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary This research is an investigation of the locations of Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age round barrows in the Peak District. The work involved close examination of the barrows present around two earlier monuments: the Long Low bank barrow and the henge at Arbor Low. Using a Geographic Information System, it considered the densities of the barrows around these focal monuments, inter‐visibility between the sites, and the distribution of distinctive artefacts in the surrounding area. The results raise important questions about the role of memory in the past.

show abstract

“…J. Barnatt and M. Edmonds (2002) have recently discussed some Neolithic and Bronze Age caves in Britain, where funerary and ritual activity is evident, which could be treated as monumental sites.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Symbolic behaviour at places of social activity beyond the domestic area in the Ionian Neolithic

Stratouli¹

2005

Doc. praeh.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTIONRecent debate on archaeological theory has shifted interest towards reading material culture as part of the symbolic realm of a society (Hodder 1986). Moving from the study of the physical properties and practical uses of artefacts towards the search for more abstract symbolic meanings, many archaeologists have attempted to unravel and interpret the various ways through which a community expresses and constructs itself in time and space (e.g. Hodder 1991;1995; Thomas 1996.55-83). However, many studies consider specific types of artefacts, such as figurines and ornaments, as the main objects of research on symbolic meaning (e.g. Gimbutas 1982;Séfériadès 1995; Nikolova 2003.chps. 6, 9, 10, 14, 15). Moreover, such categories of material culture are thought to be the dominant symbols of Neolithic society and, consequently, the main mediators of social meaning. Meanwhile, other scholars suggest that the conceptual universe of a community could be directly accessible through other fields of analysis, such as architecture, or spatial arrangements and, thus, space and place (e.g. Parker-Pearson and Richards 1994;Kotsakis 1998).In recent times, even the meaning of the term Neolithic has radically changed; at present, it is synony-

show abstract

Places Apart? Caves and Monuments in Neolithic and Earlier Bronze Age Britain

Cited by 32 publications

References 10 publications

Burial practices at the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Britain: change or continuity?

Burial practices at the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Britain: change or continuity?

The Afterlife of Monuments in the English Peak District: The Evidence of Early Bronze Age Burials

Symbolic behaviour at places of social activity beyond the domestic area in the Ionian Neolithic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About