Re: Setting | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

FourWinds Feb 22, 2006 15:58:32

Replying to nigelswift

>> But the term "archaeological horizon" is inspired, and this part, on it's own, is great I think –
>> "even though as an individual structure it may be regarded as being of lesser important, its relationship
>> to the major monument confers additional status"

This is where I was talking about contemporary issues. A nearby site might have a locational relationship with the main one being considered, but if it was built 500 years after the main site was last used does it count? I think you'd struggle to argue that it does.

nigelswift Feb 22, 2006 17:37:49

Replying to FourWinds

I think you'd struggle to argue that it does.

True, but at least the contemporary stuff gains wait. At present, Tarmac are taunting EH saying a couple of buckets of flint and pottery from the Northern bit of Ladybridge don't amount to much, whilst EH are saying they interpret it as part of the use of the main monument. Who's right? If EH could claim it was right to adopt a presumption that a thin scatter, being evidence of occupation in connection with a super-henge, was rather important then their case is stronger.

BrigantesNation Feb 22, 2006 23:58:35

Replying to FourWinds

Yes, this is also interesting.

At Thornborough and also at Tara, there is clear indications of continuity of use into the Iron Age (Tara beyond). The IA remains at Tbro were the sq barrows and the horse burials that were interpreted as "ritual " activity and I would definately regard them as am important part of the story. Also, the Mesolithic double pit alignment - that was at least 1,000 years before even the cursus was built. It its way, this is potentially even more important that the henges.