"But why does there have to be a mutual exclusion between the two? After all, more modern peoples have religious sites within their villages, why shouldn't ancient man have combined the two, ie had a religious/sacred area as part of his settlement?"
Only on TV Jenny. Most archaeologists are well aware that these sites were multi-functional, which is why there was the suggestion that they should stop discussing the issue or else they'd agree.
Of course, once you accept that a lot of animals were being brought here, and that also lots of prople were coming. There is the immediate thought of trade - an area not discussed yesterday.
I'd suggest that within a causewayed camp we have a mix of trading, animal husbandry and ritual connected with the two. I do not see that the primary purpose of a causewayed enclosure was religious. I would however suggest that the religious activities that started here were to grow in importance over time until by the time henges and stone circles were being erected religion was a primary purpose for an enclosure whose roots lie in the development of trading centres along the transmigration routes of earlier times.
quote:Originally posted by Owain Glyndwr: Time Teams version of Health and Safety strikes again...no chainsaw trousers,gloves and visor up,well done again Also coppicing and pollarding _are_ in the Forestry Commisions vocabulary(whatever that silly woman says).
I didn't notice gloves or visor but the chap was wearing trousers with Stihl written down the sides so I would assume they were chainsaw trousers. The wood woman didn't mention the Forestry Commission by name and what she said about modern forestry practice for cash cropping is true to a great extent. She didn't say they are not practiced anymore - just they don't figure so highly. Pollarding and coppicing are still practiced but only in a relatively small number of woods and forests compared to in the past......but I digress....
As for the purpose of the enclosure, I think that the evidence clearly showed some elements of both ritual and farming use of both the ditches and the enclosed areas - something that wouldn't have been out of place in rural areas right up to the modern period in many ways (in my old village churchyard they have sheep grazing to keep the grass down!!) The paucity of finds could be explained by the manner of digging. With the three-day time constraint it would have been impossible to dig by hand all the way down from the plough soil, so I suspect that many artefacts will have been scooped up in the machine bucket and dumped on the spoil heap. As an evaluation of the type, depth and preservation of the archaeology it worked pretty well. Perhaps a local Uni will take this up as a summer research dig one day....
I actually thought the opposite about finds - I thought they did very well. The vast majority of sites of this age have very few remaining finds and as such what TT found in three days was excellent.
I also think that this is one of those sites that could easily have gone unexcavated until some quarry company came along and destroyed it.
At least now EH have the option of scheduling the area as TT proved beyond doubt that importance of the site - we done team - a perfect three day evaluation outcome to my mind - no real answers to function but clear confirmation of site type, structure and age.
quote: The paucity of finds could be explained by the manner of digging. With the three-day time constraint it would have been impossible to dig by hand all the way down from the plough soil, so I suspect that many artefacts will have been scooped up in the machine bucket and dumped on the spoil heap. As an evaluation of the type, depth and preservation of the archaeology it worked pretty well. Perhaps a local Uni will take this up as a summer research dig one day....
It is unlikely that many finds ended up in the machine bucket or on the spoil heap. The site had not suffered any significant truncation since it was abandoned. Only a small sample of he deposits uncovered were excavated however.
My first thought regarding the 'argument' over farming vs ritual between the two experts, was that there is no need for the two to be mutually exclusive, and the argument was surely just to make the show more interesting to laymen like me. The comment from the gut who favoured the farming approach, about 'you wouldnt let cows into church and let them pooh on the floor' was just plain silly....I didn't realise Neolthic man was C of E ??
I agree with you about the site being a meeting place. As far as I am aware this is still the accepted conclusion drawn on Windmill Hill, which incidentally, was built on a real hill as opposed to the elevated level at Northborough.
Another outstanding difference between the two is the narrow causeways at Northborough compared to Windmill Hill. This would not make for easy cattle droving.
The proximity to water in Northborough and the find of a Beaker potsherd would incline me to a Bronze Age date. As would the lovely flint [part] leaf-shaped arrow head. The finest examples of flint knapping are from the Bronze Age.
But. Yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice.
NB I think this posting should be read in conjunction with my last one
Just read your posting about Thwing. I have never visited the site [it is on private land] and heard about it in class.
I place it at the junction of the 400 and 600 foot contour lines, facing south. This way lies the Great Wolds Valley, an east/west dry valley across the Yorkshire Wolds and the location of many ritual sites. It is possible therefore that it does meet your criteron.
I agree with you about the site being a meeting place. As far as I am aware this is still the accepted conclusion drawn on Windmill Hill, which incidentally, was built on a _real_ hill as opposed to the elevated level at Northborough.
Another outstanding difference between the two is the narrow causeways at Northborough compared to Windmill Hill. This would not make for easy cattle droving.
The proximity to water in Northborough and the find of a Beaker potsherd would incline me to a Bronze Age date. As would the lovely flint [part] leaf-shaped arrow head. The finest examples of flint knapping are from the Bronze Age.
But. Yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice.
NB I think this posting should be read in conjunction with my last one
Cheers
Ian G.
_Resurgam_
Leaf shaped arrowheads are usually Neolithic in date, and the Mildenhall pottery found on the site (from a secure context) is also Neolithic.
Can't agree with you about the flintwork. Have seen some superb Neolithic flintworking (especially leaf shaped arrowheads). Whilst I agree that there is some very good Early Bronze Age flintworking, in my experience, the later you go into the Bronze Age, the cruder the flint working becomes
Why would the proximity to water have an influence on the date of the feature?
Perhaps we shouldn't get too hung up on whether something is neolithic or Bronze Age as there is no exact time when one period finished and the other began ! Beaker pottery belongs to both the late Neolithic and the early Bronze age. There is also evidence that neolithic enclosures were used into the early bronze age, so some artefacts could belong to either period. I do not profess to be an expert on such things so I did a bit of a google search and I found this report quite interesting and pertinent http://www.le.ac.uk/archaeology/pdf_files/emidnba.pdf
Is it possible that the site was initially designed for ritual purposes, and subsequently (say several generations later) was adapted for domestic use - in the way that many churches have been converted into flats or nightclubs?
I think that with sites of this type, you just have to keep an open mind as to it’s original, and eventual use. I am also rather sceptical (not just on this site) of the theories put forward, based on the finding of odd pieces of pottery.
I also wonder how much potential evidence was removed by the JCBs ?
........................................................................ Support the PAS Go with the FLO
I also wonder how much potential evidence was removed by the JCBs ?
Almost certainly very little, as the site had not been disturbed by ploughing, so there would have been little evidence from the causewayed enclosure in the layers removed by machine.
I also wonder how much potential evidence was removed by the JCBs ?
Almost certainly very little, as the site had not been disturbed by ploughing, so there would have been little evidence from the causewayed enclosure in the layers removed by machine.
Evidence relating to the enclosure perhaphs, but what about later periods, Roman for instance ?
........................................................................ Support the PAS Go with the FLO
I also wonder how much potential evidence was removed by the JCBs ?
Almost certainly very little, as the site had not been disturbed by ploughing, so there would have been little evidence from the causewayed enclosure in the layers removed by machine.
Evidence relating to the enclosure perhaphs, but what about later periods, Roman for instance ?
The Roman remains would have been similarly well preserved had there been any in the trenches. As it was, all that was Roman in date was some limited evidence for the spreading of the bank of Car Dyke
I watched the excellent 'Tribe' last night, and was struck by the way the MOngolian nomads met up at a specific place for what was basically a party : feasting, drinking, wrestling, singing, horse racing, and no doubt some bartering went on, as well as plenty of mingling of opposite sexes. To me this is the ideal purpose for the neolithic enclosure. It is surely a basic human need for isolated communities to meet up at a neutral place on set occasions, for all the aforesaid reasons, but perhaps most importantly so that potential marriage partners from different tribes could meet, thus spreading the gene pool.
It could be argued that there should be lots of evidence of feasting etc lying around, but if this was a special place I am sure it would have been kept clean, and after the partying all the debris swept up and deposited elsewhere.
I know this is a well-established theory, but I dont remeber it being mentioned on the programme, just the ritual or farming debate - did I miss it??
Lack of finds was due to the three-day limit, of course, should have thought of that. Having boned up (yuk yuk) on W Hill some years ago, I guess I was expecting something like that, but of course Keiller & Co. did much more extensive work.
I had another wonder today about the ditch segments being so short (it was a slow day). Could it be due to te underlying water table? TT's trenches seemed rather waterlogged, and if the level was similar back in the Neo, perhaps digging longer ditches would have been too messy, impractical and perhaps dangerous.
'Sir' Mark -Cor Et Manus- 'I want the last cheque I write to bounce' - Carl Reiner, 'Oceans 12'
Still concerned about the castration argument - fat contents do change as a consequence of this but I haven't seen any evidence that fore end growth can be 50% less and hind quaters bigger. That would be a strange looking animal! Relative size of carcass more is influenced by breed of animal. In any case, why would they want an animal smaller at front? Bigger front = more meat & also increased power for use as draft animal. As far as length of bone argument goes, again, this is more down to breed than castration. Castrated animal is more akin to a female which is lighter boned, usually, than a bull. It could just be that this was an older/larger animal. The comment that longer bone = castrated is, as they say, bullocks!
I've contacted Peter Rowley-Conwy, the expert used in the programme, for more info on the Northborough bones and castration. I'll let you know when I hear back from him.
A castrated animal will not develop in the same way as an entire male. During puberty, or the onset of sexual maturity, there is a huge surge of testosterone which leads to the development of secondary sexual characteristics. The extreme musculature of the neck and forequarters is a result of this, and obviously will not happen if the testosterone surge doesn't occur. It is also likely, although I haven't researched this and will now go have a look, that the surge of hormone at sexual maturity will have an effect on growth, that will be absent in castrated animals. There is an associated growth surge in humans, but what effect castration has on growth I can't say - but will check it out!
I suppose they ate what ever they cut off after the castration, I have seen Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall do this in a sort of Hannibal Lecture goes to the farm sort of way and he seemed to think that they tasted quite nice..
Provided castration takes place before puberty, human eunuchs do not exhibit secondary sex characteristics, they do not develop facial hair (or hair in the 'other place'!); do not show the classic 'triangular' muscle and stature development of human males with broad shoulders and narrow pelvis; the voice does not break and they do not develop 'down there'. (Trying to avoid using words that might trigger blocking not being precious - I teach biology and if I can say the words in front of a room full of adolescent boys there ain't much that embarasses me!)
quote: I suppose they ate what ever they cut off after the castration, I have seen Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall do this in a sort of Hannibal Lecture goes to the farm sort of way and he seemed to think that they tasted quite nice..
They probably did - and it was probably considered a delicacy to be enjoyed. Rich in protein, and rarely could useful protein be discarded. Did you see Ewan McGregor and Charlie Boorman on their motorcycle trip when faced with a cauldron of steaming testes stew?
quote: Also what does marrow taste like?
Do you mean bone marrow or vegetable marrow? Bone marrow is a fatty, juicy, jelly-like substance which has quite a strong taste. I dislike it, but my father used to love it spread on bread. Woe betide my Mum if she threw a lamb bone out without him having the marrow first! I now dig it out with a skewer as a treat for our dog!
