Silbury Hill forum 180 room
Image by postman
Silbury Hill

Just coincidence?

close
more_vert

>> that's where people choose to live.

Well, I would imagine the best policy would be to live <i>near</i> to the fertile land, not necessarily on it, but that's only looking at it from the point of view of large settlements. A small settlement wouldn't make too much difference I suppose in a very fertile area.

When you get to the Bronze Age though competition for land and resources increases, so why give it up then?

One odd instance is Beaghmore in Tyrone. The complex was built on to of an earlier field system, but after the land had just started to deteriorate. This is usually interpreted as an attempt to please the gods that (were obviously annoyed) by giving up more and more of the diminishing resource.

Beaghmore is definitely not alone.
There are many sites throughout Europe that are built over previously cultivated land.
One example is an interesting sequence at Machrie Moor, where two adjacent timber circles where replaced by a pair of stone circles but there were at least two episodes of cultivation between the structural phases suggesting a significant break between the abandonment of the timber phase and the construction of the stone monument.
I know I bang on about Bradley rather a lot but I can recommend his 2002 book "The Past in Prehistoric Societies" to anyone who is interested in how our ancestors may have viewed their past.