There is generally much less evidence for Mesolithic activity compared to later prehistoric periods. Mesolithic structures were normally very ephemeral and evidence for them is thin on the ground. As organic materials do not normally survive, the best evidence for Mesolithic presence often comes from the presence of flint scatters - which are datable only to the broadest chronological periods. This means that it is very difficult to establish fine-grained chronologies and establish continuity between Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites.
One of the things that makes the presence of the Mesolithic Stonehenge post-holes so remarkable is that there are so few seemingly "non-domestic", "non-utilitarian" Mesolithic sites in the British Isles, and guess what, one pops up at Stonehenge! This would seem to suggest that the memory that this place was important in the Mesolithic continued into the Early Neolithic. Of course we don't know whether this memory/knowledge was transmitted in stories, or whether it was in some way marked at the site itself. We know from many other sites (long barrows, chambered tombs and causewayed enclosures) that there is a broad continuity of the importance of some places from the Mesolithic to the E. Neolithic. So whilst many things changed with the start of the Neolithic at least some elements of earlier beliefs seem to have been retained.
 Reply | with quote | Posted by smallblueplanet
26th December 2004ce
15:02 |
stonehenge mesolithic post holes (Treeman, Dec 26, 2004, 02:59)- Re: stonehenge mesolithic post holes (Treeman, Dec 26, 2004, 03:03)
- Re: stonehenge mesolithic post holes (moss, Dec 26, 2004, 14:13)
- Re: stonehenge mesolithic post holes (smallblueplanet, Dec 26, 2004, 15:02)
- Re: stonehenge mesolithic post holes (fitzcoraldo, Dec 28, 2004, 15:27)
- Orion's belt? (pendant, Jan 18, 2005, 23:35)
- Re: stonehenge mesolithic post holes (Dave1982, Oct 29, 2014, 17:14)
|
|
Head To Head 
stonehenge mesolithic post holes (Treeman)