5th December 2014, 01:50 PM
I'd say so!
I'm in the process of plotting broad phased landscapes for 3 pipelines against stuff like truncation, topography, geology and archaeological methodology looking for patterns. The patterns emerging so far don't match the 'on higher ground' or overlooking water models....though these aren't discounted as factors. We got Neo/EBA lone pits and clusters on hill tops, on flat spurs, on hill slopes and in valley bottoms. It may be a specific 'special case though' as our transect goes across the yorkshire wolds and vale of pickering.
Have you thought about location vs palaeosoils, In the East riding its all about the old brown earth soils that existed in the neo and bronze ages and/or areas of preservation/destruction i.e. deep ploughing vs areas of colluvium.
But in the literature 'location' of these sites was previously definitely heavily biased by assumptions of where the pits should be.
The old circular argument of: 'that hilltop has extant barrows on it and there are some neo/BA pits on the hill, therefore the hill is a 'special place' in the landscape and the pits are part of a ritual focus'. Followed by: 'the hilltop is a special place in the landscape and the ritual activity of pit-digging is focused on it'.
Problem was when some folks put pipelines across this landscape it turned out that the pits weren't focused on the hill.
I suspect that given a time machine and a gps that works in the neolithic that a plot of neolithic sites would look very different than what we get now.....a bit more like a mix of temporary camps, semi-permanent farms, semi-permanent non-farming settlements a few mostly permanent settlements/farms, ceremonial/burial places ranging from a funny rock, to kin burial sites to epic tribal ceremonial/festival sites.
The distribution of these sites I suspect would cover far more of the country than any of us would suspect.....animals tend to rapidly fill their environment till an equilibrium with available resources is met.
I'm in the process of plotting broad phased landscapes for 3 pipelines against stuff like truncation, topography, geology and archaeological methodology looking for patterns. The patterns emerging so far don't match the 'on higher ground' or overlooking water models....though these aren't discounted as factors. We got Neo/EBA lone pits and clusters on hill tops, on flat spurs, on hill slopes and in valley bottoms. It may be a specific 'special case though' as our transect goes across the yorkshire wolds and vale of pickering.
Have you thought about location vs palaeosoils, In the East riding its all about the old brown earth soils that existed in the neo and bronze ages and/or areas of preservation/destruction i.e. deep ploughing vs areas of colluvium.
But in the literature 'location' of these sites was previously definitely heavily biased by assumptions of where the pits should be.
The old circular argument of: 'that hilltop has extant barrows on it and there are some neo/BA pits on the hill, therefore the hill is a 'special place' in the landscape and the pits are part of a ritual focus'. Followed by: 'the hilltop is a special place in the landscape and the ritual activity of pit-digging is focused on it'.
Problem was when some folks put pipelines across this landscape it turned out that the pits weren't focused on the hill.
I suspect that given a time machine and a gps that works in the neolithic that a plot of neolithic sites would look very different than what we get now.....a bit more like a mix of temporary camps, semi-permanent farms, semi-permanent non-farming settlements a few mostly permanent settlements/farms, ceremonial/burial places ranging from a funny rock, to kin burial sites to epic tribal ceremonial/festival sites.
The distribution of these sites I suspect would cover far more of the country than any of us would suspect.....animals tend to rapidly fill their environment till an equilibrium with available resources is met.