Abstract
A simple derivation of henges from causewayed camps is rejected. Attention
is also drawn to a range of neolithic structures, some covered by a mound,
some not. Though interpreted as mortuary structures, they have affinities to
henges. Henges may thus best be derived from a broad tradition of neolithic
structures; this may in turn have been part of a more widely distributed
north-west European tradition of both ritual and domestic structures. Within
Britain, similarities of form and function suggest that henges should be
seen as a parallel development to ring banks, ring ditches and stone
circles. Regional preferences rather than distinct regional types of
monuments emerged. Later survival of henge traditions into the first
millennium is also discussed.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Geography, Planning and Development
Cited by
16 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Beyond Newgrange: Brú na Bóinne in the later Neolithic;Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society;2021-06-09
2. Whirlow Hall Farm: Sheffield’s Forgotten Henge?;Yorkshire Archaeological Journal;2019-01-01
3. Cairnpapple Revisited: 1948–1998;Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society;1999
4. Neolithic/Early Bronze Age Pit Circles and their Environs at Oakham, Rutland;Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society;1998-01
5. Henges and Water;Journal of Material Culture;1996-11