17th July 2012, 11:41 AM
Dinosaur Wrote:I think there's a lot of commonality between the stuff dug in Cambridgeshire/Norfolk and that found in Yorkshire/Northumberland, but there are also differences - eg Garrow's work at Kilverstone relied on dense groups of pits intercutting one another - we just don't get that up here (off the top of my head I think I'm right in saying that at Marton le Moor only 2 of 153 pits had a direct physical relationship and I think there were only 2 cross-contextual pot joins).
Cartoon - actually I think the quotes are fascinating, but burnt mound stuff seems to be related to a different activity although possibly by the same people, maybe they did the burnt mound stuff up on the moors during the summer and dug all the pits in the lowlands during the winter? - yes, certainly round here the archaeology has a distinct geographic seperation although perhaps that's just because the burnt mounds only survive as earthworks to be recognised and excavated in the uplands and big infrastructure and quarry projects responsible for identifying pits occur mostly in the lowlands? Must check the book out :face-approve:
so when is a variation a regional difference? i would contend that the patchy and uneven spread of communal monuments reflects a patchy and uneven spread of cults or religeons and that there is no reason to suppose that pit digging was imune from cult thinking or that it was an entirely secular obsession. just wish we could find some waterlogged examples. anybody?
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers