Abstract:In Europe, cremation as a burial practice is often associated with the Bronze Age, but examples of cremated human remains are in fact known from the Palaeolithic onwards. Unlike conventional inhumation, cremation destroys most of the evidence we can use to reconstruct the biography of the buried individual. Remarkably, in Ireland, cremation is used for the earliest recorded human burial and grave assemblage (7530–7320 bc) located on the banks of the River Shannon, at Hermitage, County Limerick. While we are un… Show more
“…Tiny quantities of calcined bone are known from the Urchfont Hill, Stonehenge and Warren Fields pits, but none has been identified to species. Conceivably it may be human (cremations are known from the period: Little et al 2017), and could suggest a recurrent connection between these places and mortuary rites.…”
This paper describes a series of substantial pits of Mesolithic date, notable for their complex fill and recutting sequences, association with burnt and transformed materials, occasional linear arrangement, and connection to the observation of celestial phenomena. While likely tied into regular rounds of movement, it is argued they represent reserved and sacred places where special activities were undertaken which connected cosmic forces. Keywords Mesolithic, pits, alignments, cosmology 1. Mesolithic 'monuments' and landscape markers A remarkable record of monument building is associated with earliest (Neolithic) farming communities of Atlantic and Northern Europe, comprising a range of earthen and megalithic tombs, enclosures and menhirs (Scarre 2002; Bradley 2007; Cummings 2008). In contrast, ceremonial architecture belonging to post-glacial (Mesolithic) hunter-gatherers within these regions is slight, or, regionally, non-existent. Cummings and Harris rightly observe that 'the monuments constructed in the Neolithic are, without question, something very new' (2014:832). Notwithstanding these very real differences in the record for the two periods, evidence for Mesolithic monumentality has been posited, and deployed to shape narratives of the period which move beyond a long-standing focus on matters economic (eg Pollard 1990; Cummings 2000; Allen & Gardiner 2002; Blinkhorn & Little in press). At best, any definition of what constitutes a 'monument' or something 'monumental' will be loosely defined, but the terms evoke physical constructs, either humanly-made or natural, that possess size and durability, serve to commemorate or memorialise, and which may afford settings/spaces through which the living can intercede with ancestral and/or supernatural domains (Bradley 1993; Scarre 2011). Conneller (2011) cites examples of Mesolithic wooden landscape markers, middens and natural places as features that might be described as monuments. They can certainly be accommodated within broad definitions of monumentality that focus on scale, endurance and commemoration; though critique has been levelled at the interpretation of midden sites as monuments akin to later chambered tombs (eg Pollard 1990), not least because of their reading as such in relation to Neolithic frames of reference (Finlayson 2006; Warren 2007). Equally, one might see large circular houses of 9th to early 7th millennia cal BC date from northern Britain and Ireland, such as those at Howick, Northumberland (Waddington 2007), Echline Fields, in the Forth estuary (Robertson et al 2013), and Mount Sandel in Northern Ireland (Woodman 1985; Bayliss & Woodman 2009), as monumental in quality. Warren, for example, considers their extrahabitational role as enduring places which fostered common traditions, hospitality and connection (Warren 2015). Rather than being overly constrained by the monument label and its definitional boundaries and connotations, there is mileage in thinking through the different ways post-glacial hunter-gatherers transformed places through d...
“…Tiny quantities of calcined bone are known from the Urchfont Hill, Stonehenge and Warren Fields pits, but none has been identified to species. Conceivably it may be human (cremations are known from the period: Little et al 2017), and could suggest a recurrent connection between these places and mortuary rites.…”
This paper describes a series of substantial pits of Mesolithic date, notable for their complex fill and recutting sequences, association with burnt and transformed materials, occasional linear arrangement, and connection to the observation of celestial phenomena. While likely tied into regular rounds of movement, it is argued they represent reserved and sacred places where special activities were undertaken which connected cosmic forces. Keywords Mesolithic, pits, alignments, cosmology 1. Mesolithic 'monuments' and landscape markers A remarkable record of monument building is associated with earliest (Neolithic) farming communities of Atlantic and Northern Europe, comprising a range of earthen and megalithic tombs, enclosures and menhirs (Scarre 2002; Bradley 2007; Cummings 2008). In contrast, ceremonial architecture belonging to post-glacial (Mesolithic) hunter-gatherers within these regions is slight, or, regionally, non-existent. Cummings and Harris rightly observe that 'the monuments constructed in the Neolithic are, without question, something very new' (2014:832). Notwithstanding these very real differences in the record for the two periods, evidence for Mesolithic monumentality has been posited, and deployed to shape narratives of the period which move beyond a long-standing focus on matters economic (eg Pollard 1990; Cummings 2000; Allen & Gardiner 2002; Blinkhorn & Little in press). At best, any definition of what constitutes a 'monument' or something 'monumental' will be loosely defined, but the terms evoke physical constructs, either humanly-made or natural, that possess size and durability, serve to commemorate or memorialise, and which may afford settings/spaces through which the living can intercede with ancestral and/or supernatural domains (Bradley 1993; Scarre 2011). Conneller (2011) cites examples of Mesolithic wooden landscape markers, middens and natural places as features that might be described as monuments. They can certainly be accommodated within broad definitions of monumentality that focus on scale, endurance and commemoration; though critique has been levelled at the interpretation of midden sites as monuments akin to later chambered tombs (eg Pollard 1990), not least because of their reading as such in relation to Neolithic frames of reference (Finlayson 2006; Warren 2007). Equally, one might see large circular houses of 9th to early 7th millennia cal BC date from northern Britain and Ireland, such as those at Howick, Northumberland (Waddington 2007), Echline Fields, in the Forth estuary (Robertson et al 2013), and Mount Sandel in Northern Ireland (Woodman 1985; Bayliss & Woodman 2009), as monumental in quality. Warren, for example, considers their extrahabitational role as enduring places which fostered common traditions, hospitality and connection (Warren 2015). Rather than being overly constrained by the monument label and its definitional boundaries and connotations, there is mileage in thinking through the different ways post-glacial hunter-gatherers transformed places through d...
“…The following example comes from recent research at the Irish Early Mesolithic site of Hermitage, Co. Limerick (Little et al 2017). Here, a polished shale adze (Fig.…”
Section: Polished Shale Adze From Hermitagementioning
This paper reflects critically on the use of the term ‘craft’ within prehistoric archaeology and its recent rise to prominence within a variety of analytical contexts. Having briefly evaluated the way in which prehistorians employ craft, it moves on to consider the potential value that Craft Theory, a growing interdisciplinary body of literature relating to practices of making, might hold for thinking about prehistoric material culture within an archaeological context. Three case studies originating from Mesolithic Britain and Ireland are used as a vehicle to explore some of this potential in practice, before a broader discussion reflects on these initial efforts and sketches out other areas of interest for future research. The picture which emerges from this discussion is one of promise, within which prehistorians simultaneously draw from, and contribute towards, the ongoing interdisciplinary debates on craft in contemporary society.
“…Figure 2.Reconstruction illustration of pit A cremation burial, showing the polished stone adze, cremation deposit and what was probably a wooden post grave marker.Figure 3.Well-cremated remains of complete adult, burial pit A (after Little et al . 2017). …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Figure 4.Polished adze from burial pit A: microwear analysis revealed the working edge was deliberately blunted prior to deposition (after Little et al . 2017). …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As part of a Marie Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship in 2015, the artefact assemblage from burial pit A was analysed for microwear and organic residue traces (Little et al . 2017). The results of this analysis (Figure 4) led to a reappraisal of human activity at Hermitage, and its relationship to both the Irish and wider European Mesolithic records.…”
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
