The Public Forum and the Space Between: the Materiality of Social Strategy in the Irish Neolithic

Abstract

Framed within an interpretive, humanistic ‘archaeology of inhabitance’, the study explores the means by which a social, intellectual order particular to time and place is embedded within the material universe. Through the mediation of the human body, natural and architectural space is considered to be a medium for the production and reproduction of social relations. The specific materiality of places inhabited in the past is explored in detail, focusing on possibilities for and constraints upon the body and the senses.The phenomenon of monumentality at the Loughcrew passage tomb cemetery in east-central Ireland is considered in the context of changing narratives of place and biographies of person and landscape. In contrast to many previous studies, the focus is upon engagement with the exterior spaces of the complex: the more frequent and larger-scale involvement of the communal body in these ‘public’ spaces will have played a critical role in the validation of knowledges and claims to authority which a more restricted group will have articulated within the confines of tomb chambers and passages.The earlier tombs draw out qualities latent within the landscape, placing particular emphasis on prior, natural boundaries. Through time, the regionalisation of the Loughcrew hills acquires increasing architectural definition, by means of which a series of interconnecting spaces emerge at a much more human scale. The latest architectural and spatial developments may well form part of material strategies through which were engendered particular structures of authority carrying the potential for substantially heightened individual prominence within increasingly exclusive kinship solidarities. Ultimately, mediation between the physical and metaphysical elements of existence may be controlled with reference to distinct lines of descent rather than to a more generalised ancestral community. At the same time, the range of hills is gradually transformed from a meaningful locus which conceals within it the human efforts of monumental construction, to a landscape that derives its significance from massive summit cairns visible from considerable distances. This appropriative transformation may be seen as a material strategy which moves communities' conceptions of existence from an integrated, cultural whole in which people and landscape are embedded in each other, towards a vision of individuals and places as increasingly separate and self-contained.

Encountering Imagery: Materialities, Perceptions, Relations

“…On Carnbane West, the topographic northwest to southeast divide is further enhanced by the construction of three passage tombs, two of which form a pair on the knoll ridge (Cairns G and F), while Cairn H is placed to the northeast on the flatter slope and takes 'centre stage' . Cooney (2000a:159) has commented on the visual impact which the conglomeration of Cairns F, G, H, I, J and K would have created for spectators, and how the positions of the tombs close together would have restricted views of what lay beyond (see also Fraser 1998). Cairn M is located on the top of the Newton ridge to the southeast of Carnbane West.…”

“…By developing the models presented by Thomas (1990;), Shee Twohig (1996 and Fraser (1998), we can begin to speculate that different people were doing different things and sometimes even the same things, but in alternative settings. The Loughcrew settings may present permanence in flux with punctuated shifts in orientations.…”

Organizational principles of Khirigsuur monuments in the lower Egiin Gol valley, Mongolia

“…Many varieties of monumental features have been seen as constructions that create and reflect organization in social systems that go beyond hierarchy into alternate realms of social space (Tilley, 1993;Llobera, 1996). Monuments are approached as the tangible remains of social experiences and social strategies (Thomas, 1993;Barrett, 1994;Fraser, 1998;Bradley, 2002 see also Hillier and Hanson, 1984). Other have sought to bring strategies and experiences back to life by studying monumental sites and landscapes for their visual and theatrical potential and as repetitions and refractions of other aspects of material culture (Tilley, 1994;Richards, 1996;Llobera, 2001see also Brü ck, 2005.…”

“…The key aspect of the study of small monuments is the way that they define space and activity in the immediate area around them. Their theatrical potential as locales for activity, backdrops and stages (Larsson, 1992;Fraser, 1998 see also Inomata and Coben, 2006) along with how they create sight lines and visual blocking within complexes of monuments as well as channeling movement and bringing the scale of the experience of a larger complex of monuments down to a human scale (Barrett, 1994;Fraser, 1998) are essential elements of the interpretation of activity around small monuments. Unlike a site such as a major earthwork or stone circle, small monuments do not actively or completely restrict space or movement.…”

Tombs with a view: landscape, monuments and trees

“…Over the past decade there has been considerable interest in the significance of the landscape in relation to Neolithic monuments (e.g. Bender 1993;Fraser 1998;Tilley 1994). This approach, part of a broader phenomenology, has relied in general on the sense of vision.…”