Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:50:02.856Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can we recognise a different European past? A contrastive archaeology of later prehistoric settlements in southern england

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

J. D. Hill
J. D. Hill*
Affiliation:
Darwin College, Cambridge, Great Britain
Get access

Abstract

This paper argues that archaeologists should become more critical of the assumptions they work from when studying prehistoric settlements in Europe, stressing that we must learn to recognise the difference of the past. Traditional studies of Later Prehistoric settlements ask a limited range of questions of the data and portray past worlds which are immediately familiar to our own lived experience. The paper argues that such visions run the danger of being ‘modernist fantasies in prehistory', suggesting that it is possible to avoid writing the past as if it were the same as the present. Offering a contrastive archaeology of Later Prehistoric settlements in Southern England, it illustrates a very different past to that of our expectations through considerations of how material entered the archaeological record, the symbolic aspects of settlement layout, and the nature of past subjectivities.

In diesem Artikel wird die Auffassung vertreten, daß Archäologen den Annahmen, von denen sie im allgemeinen beim Studium prähistorischer Siedlungen in Europa ausgehen, mit einer kritischeren Haltung gegenübertreten sollten, unter besonderer Betonung der Erkenntnis eines Unterschiedes zwischen Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. Traditionelle Untersuchungen spätprähistorischer Siedlungen stellen eine beschränkte Auswahl von Fragen an die Daten und porträtieren vergangene Welten, die unserer eigenen Lebenserfahrung sofort vertraut erscheinen. Der Artikel behauptet, daß solchen Sichtweisen die Gefahr innewohnt ‘modernistische Phantasien der Vorgeschichte’ darzustellen, und deutet darauf hin, daß es möglich ist, diese Form der Geschichtsschreibung, in der Vergangenheit und Gegenwart einander gleichgesetzt werden, zu vermeiden. Mittels einer „kontrastiven Archäologie” spätprähistorischer Siedlungen in Südengland wird eine andere, als die unseren Erwartungen entsprechende Vergangenheit illustriert. Dies geschieht durch Berücksichtigung der Art und Weise, der Materialien ihren Eingang in die archäologische Überlieferung gefunden haben, der symbolischen Bedeutung des Siedlungsgrundrisses selbst, sowie der Art früherer Einschätzungen.

Cet article affirme que les archéologues doivent devenir plus critiques lorsqu'ils interprètent les habitats prèhistoriques de l'Europe, en soulignant le fait qu'ils doivent apprendre à reconnaitre que le passé est différent. Les études traditionnelle des habitats préhistoriques récents reposent sur une analyse très réduite des données, et dépeignent des mondes passés, dont l'ambiance nous est immédiatement familière à partir de notre expérience quotidienne. L'article montre que de telles visions courrent le risque de constituer des ‘fantaisies modernes de la préhistoire', en montrant qu on peut éviter d'écrire le passé comme s'il était semblable au présent. En proposant une archéologie alternative des habitats de la préhistoire récente du sud de l'Angleterre, cet essai illustre un passé très différent de nos à-priori, par des considérations sur la manière dont les vestiges archéologiques parviennent à l'enregistrement, sur les aspects symboliques des plans d'habitats et sur la nature des subjectivités du passé.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of European Archaeology , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , Spring 1993 , pp. 57 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © European Association of Archaeologists 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Audouze, F. and Buchenschutz, O., 1989. Villes, villages et campagnes de l'Europe celtique. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Barrett, John C. 1988. Fields of discourse: reconstituting a social archaeology. Critique of Anthropology 7:3: 5–16.Google Scholar
Barrett, John C. 1989. Food, gender and metal: questions of social reproduction. In Marie-Louise, Stig Sørensen and Roger, Thomas (eds), The Bronze Age-Iron Age Transition in Europe: 304–20. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (International Series 483).Google Scholar
Barrett, John C. 1991. Review of Richard Bradley 1990, The Passage of Arms; an archaeological analysis of prehistoric hoards and votive deposits. Antiquity 65: 743–4.Google Scholar
Barrett, John C, Richard, Bradley, and Martin, Green, 1991. Landscape, Monuments and Society; the Prehistory of Cranborne Chase. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barth, F., 1987. Cosmologies in the Making: a generative approach to cultural variation in inner New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bersu, G., 1940. Excavations at Little Woodbury, Wiltshire. Part 1. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 6: 30–111.Google Scholar
Blacking, J., (ed.), 1977. The Anthropology of the Body. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Boast, Robin, and Christoher, Evans, 1986. The transformation of space: two examples from British prehistory. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 5: 193–205.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre, 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre, 1990. The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Bowden, Mark and McOmish, David, 1987. The required barrier. Scottish Archaeological Review 4: 97–84.Google Scholar
Bowden, Mark and McOmish, David, 1989. Little boxes: more about hillforts. Scottish Archaeological Review 6: 12–6.Google Scholar
Bradley, Richard, 1990. The Passage of Arms; an archaeological analysis of prehistoric hoards and votive deposits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bradley, Richard, 1991. The patterns of change in British prehistory. In Timothy, Earle (ed.), Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology: 44–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brunaux, J. L., 1988. The Celtic Gauls: Gods, Rites and Sanctuaries. London: Seaby.Google Scholar
Bulmer, R., 1967. Why is the Cassowary not a bird? Man 2: 5–25.Google Scholar
Carrithers, M., Collins, S., and Lukes, S. (eds), 1985. The Category of the Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Champion, Timothy, 1987. The European Iron Age: assessing the state of the art. Scottish Archaeological Review 4: 98–107.Google Scholar
Clarke, David L. 1972. A provisional model of an Iron Age society and its settlement system. In David, L. Clarke (ed.), Models in Archaeology: 801–69. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, Barry, 1984. Iron Age Wessex: continuity and change. In Barry, Cunliffe and David, Miles (eds), Aspects of the Iron Age in Central Southern Britain: 12–45. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 2.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, Barry, 1991. Iron Age Communities in Britain. London: Routledge (3rd edition).Google Scholar
Douglas, Mary, 1966. Purity and Danger. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Ellison, Ann, 1981. Towards a socio-economic model for the middle Bronze Age in southern England. In Ian, Hodder, Glyn, Issacs, and Ncholas, Hammond (eds), The Pattern of the Past: 413–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Christopher, 1989. Archaeology and modern times: Bersu'S Woodbury 1938 and 1939. Antiquity 63: 36–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fasham, P. J., 1985. The Prehistoric Settlement at Winnall Down, Winchester. Winchester: Hampshire Field Club Monograph No. 2.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, Andrew F. 1991. ‘Celtic (Iron Age) religion’ – traditional and timeless? Scottish Archaeological Review 8: 123–8.Google Scholar
Foster, Sally M. 1989. Analysis of spatial patterns in buildings (access analysis) as an insight into social structure: examples from the Scottish Atlantic Iron Age. Antiquity 63: 40–50.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel, 1984. Nietzsche, genealogy, history. In Rabinow, P. (ed.), The Foucault Reader. 76–100. Harmondsworth: Peregrine.Google Scholar
Geertz, Clifford, 1983. ‘From the natives point of view‘: on the nature of anthropological understanding. In Clifford, Geertz, Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology: 55–70. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Geertz, Clifford, 1986. The uses of diversity. In McMurrin, S. (ed.), The Tanner Lecturcs on Human Values. VII: 251–76. Salt Lake City and Cambridge: The University Presses of Utah and Cambridge.Google Scholar
Giddens, Anthony, 1984. The Constitution of Society: outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Gregory, Derek, and John, Urry (eds), 1985. Social Relations and Spatial Structures. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Haselgrove, Colin, 1989. The later Iron Age in southern Britain and beyond. In Malcolm, Todd (ed.), Research on Roman Britain: 1960–89:1–18. London: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies (Britannia Monograph 11).Google Scholar
Hill, Jeremy D. 1989. Rethinking the Iron Age. Scottish Archaeological Review 6: 16–24.Google Scholar
Hill, Jeremy D. forthcoming a. Hillforts and the Iron Age of Wessex. In Timothy, Champion and John, Collis (eds), Recent Research on the Archaeology of Iron Age Britain. Sheffield: Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Hill, Jeremy D. forthcoming b. Ritual and Rubbish: Rethinking the Iron Age of Wessex. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hingley, Richard, 1984. Towards social analysis in archaeology: Celtic society in the Iron Age of the upper Thames valley. In Barry, Cunliffe and David, Miles (eds), Aspects of the Iron Age in Central Southern Britain: 72–88. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 2.Google Scholar
Hingley, Richard, 1990a. Domestic organisation and gender relations in Iron Age and Romano-British households. In Ross, Samson (ed.), The Social Archaeology of Houses: 125–49. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hingley, Richard, 1990b. Boundaries surrounding Iron Age and Romano-British settlements. Scottish Archaeological Review 7: 96–103.Google Scholar
Hingley, Richard, 1990c. Iron Age ‘currency bars’: the archaeological and social context. Archaeological Journal 147: 91–117.Google Scholar
Hodder, Ian, 1982. Symbols in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hodder, Ian, 1986. Reading the Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hodder, Ian, 1990. The Domestication of Europe. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hodder, Ian, 1991. Interpretive archaeology and its role. American Antiquity 56: 7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hugh-Jones, C. 1979. From the Milk River: spatial and temporal processes in northwest Amazonia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maltby, Mark, 1985. Patterns in faunal assemblage variability. In Grahame, Barker and Clive, Gamble (eds), Beyond Domestication in Prehistoric Europe: 33–74. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
McOmish, David S. 1989. Non-hillfort settlement and its implications. In Bowden, M., Mackay, D., and Topping, P. (eds), From Cornwall to Caithness: Some aspects of British Field Archaeology: 99–110. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (British Series 209).Google Scholar
Merriman, Nick, 1987. Value and motivation in prehistory: the evidence for ‘Celtic’ spirit. In Ian, Hodder (ed.), The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings: 111–6 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, Henrietta, 1986. Space, Gender and Text. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Oswald, A, 1991. A Doorway on the Past: Round-house Orientation and its Significance in Iron Age Britain. Unpublished BA Dissertation submitted to the Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Parker-Pearson, Michael, forthcoming. Food, fertility and front doors in the first millennium BC. In Timothy, Champion and John, Collis (eds), Recent Research on the Archaeology of Iron Age Britain. Sheffield: Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Renfrew, A. Colin, 1987. Archaeology and Language: the Problem of Indo-European Origins. London: Cape.Google Scholar
Reynolds, Peter, 1984. Iron Age Farm. London: British Museum Publications.Google Scholar
Reynolds, Peter, 1985. Iron Age Agriculture Reviewed. Wessex Lecture 1, Council for British Archaeology group 12.Google Scholar
Richards, Colin and Thomas, Julian, 1984. Ritual activity and structured deposition in later Neolithic Wessex. In Richard, Bradley and Julie, Gardiner (eds), Neolithic Studies: a review of some current research: 189–218. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, Paul, 1984. The Reality of the Historic Past. The Aquinas Lecture 1984. Milwaukee: Milwaukee University Press.Google Scholar
Robben, A. 1989. Habits of the home: spatial hegemony and the structuration of house and society in Brazil. American Anthropology 91: 570–88.Google Scholar
Rowlands, Michael J. 1984. Conceptualising the European Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. In John, Bintliff (ed.), European Social Evolution: 147–56. Bradford: Bradford University.Google Scholar
Rowlands, Michael J. 1986. Modernist fantasies in prehistory. Man 21: 745–6.Google Scholar
Rowlands, Michael J. 1987a. The concept of Europe in prehistory. Man 22: 558–9.Google Scholar
Rowlands, Michael J. 1987b. ‘Europe in prehistory’: a unique form of primitive capitalism? Culture and History 1: 63–78.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. 1976. Behavioral Archaeology. London/New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Shanks, Michael and Tilley, Christopher, 1982. Ideology, symbolic power and ritual communication: a reinterpretation of Neolithic mortuary practices. In Ian, Hodder (ed.), Symbolic and Structural Archaeology: 129–154. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shanks, Michael and Tilley, Christopher, 1987. Reconstructing Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sharples, Niall, 1991. Warfare in the Iron Age of Wessex. Scottish Archaeological Review 8: 79–89.Google Scholar
Tambiah, S. 1969. Animals are good to think with and good to prohibit. Ethnology 8: 423–59.Google Scholar
Therkorn, L. 1987. The inter-relationships of materials and meanings: some suggestions on housing concerns in the Iron Age of Noord-Holland. In Ian, Hodder (ed.), The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings: 102–10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, Julian, 1989. The technologies of the self and the constitution of the subject. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 8: 101–7.Google Scholar
Thomas, Julian, 1990. Same, other, analogue. Writing the past. In Frederick, Baker and Julian, Thomas (eds), Writing the Past in the Present 18–23. Lampeter: St. Davids University College.Google Scholar
Thomas, Julian, 1991. Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wainwright, G. 1979. Gussage All Saints: an Iron Age settlement in Dorset. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Wait, Gerry, 1985. Ritual and Religion in Iron Age Britian. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (British Series 149).Google Scholar
Walker, Lucy, 1984. The deposition of the human remains. In Barry, Cunliffe (ed.), Danebury: an Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire, vol 2: 442–63. London: Council for British Archaeology.Google Scholar
Yates, Timothy, 1989. Habitus and social space: some suggestions about meaning in the Saami (Lapp) tent ca. 1700–1900. In Ian, Hodder (ed.), The Meaning of Things: 249–63. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Yates, Timothy, 1990. Archaeology through the looking glass. In Ian, Bapty and Timothy, Yates (eds), Archaeology after Structuralism: 153–204. London: Routledge.Google Scholar