Depends on the size and shape of your chosen 'region'.
Depends on the evidence.
Depends on your question.
Humans have a habit of demonstrating their 'difference' be it ethical, religious, kinship or even locational based in a multitude of mundane (and non-mundane) ways. You need to vary the scale of analysis to 'see' this.
My favorite recent example of someone demonstrating this will to demonstrate difference was a Yorkshire dales farmer I spoke to whilst doing an uplands survey. We were talking about sheepfolds, bields etc and he proudly pointed to the nearest one and said.
'We build round ones [here], call em rounds.'
Which was true, for the most part. I wonder where the territory of the rectangular sheepfold tradition started. I also wonder if you mapped these territories of traditions across the country from the physical evidence, then define actual perceived traditional 'territories' through interviewing how well they would tie in. It would make a great study.
Bet it would show how rubbish archaeologists are at deriving 'traditions' meaning and differing areas of different traditions from the physical evidence.
But to get back to neolithic pits.............compare and contrast the actual evidence.............look for similarities but don't ignore the differences.............don't follow the trendy academic themes.
Tailor the range of comparisons to the question.
Yes comparing East Anglian pits to say those on Orkney may provide some interesting comparison relating to general traditions, differing traditions and the functional aspects of the purpose of digging a pit, but wont tell you much about how the Orkney pits differ from other Orkney pits.
At the other end of the scale............how similar are East Anglia neo pits to neo pits in say the balkans? Or the far east? Anyone know? What questions would that comparison be asking?
Depends on the evidence.
Depends on your question.
Humans have a habit of demonstrating their 'difference' be it ethical, religious, kinship or even locational based in a multitude of mundane (and non-mundane) ways. You need to vary the scale of analysis to 'see' this.
My favorite recent example of someone demonstrating this will to demonstrate difference was a Yorkshire dales farmer I spoke to whilst doing an uplands survey. We were talking about sheepfolds, bields etc and he proudly pointed to the nearest one and said.
'We build round ones [here], call em rounds.'
Which was true, for the most part. I wonder where the territory of the rectangular sheepfold tradition started. I also wonder if you mapped these territories of traditions across the country from the physical evidence, then define actual perceived traditional 'territories' through interviewing how well they would tie in. It would make a great study.
Bet it would show how rubbish archaeologists are at deriving 'traditions' meaning and differing areas of different traditions from the physical evidence.
But to get back to neolithic pits.............compare and contrast the actual evidence.............look for similarities but don't ignore the differences.............don't follow the trendy academic themes.
Tailor the range of comparisons to the question.
Yes comparing East Anglian pits to say those on Orkney may provide some interesting comparison relating to general traditions, differing traditions and the functional aspects of the purpose of digging a pit, but wont tell you much about how the Orkney pits differ from other Orkney pits.
At the other end of the scale............how similar are East Anglia neo pits to neo pits in say the balkans? Or the far east? Anyone know? What questions would that comparison be asking?