Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T16:08:05.054Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Henge Monuments: Reappraisal or Reductionism?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2014

G. J. Barclay
G. J. Barclay*
Affiliation:
Ancient Monuments Inspectorate, SDD, Historic Buildings and Monuments Directorate, 20 Brandon Street, Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Classification has been a fundamental tool in archaeology since the birth of the discipline, particularly in artefactual analysis. All artefacts, including field monuments, have a limitless variety of characteristics and their reduction into a system of classification necessitates the selection, summarization and simplification of those characteristics regarded as diagnostic in order to clarify groupings of related monuments which might otherwise be obscured by concentration on detail. While some doubt has been cast on the value of the classification of henge monuments as an internally coherent group (and the discovery of many more sites has certainly done little to consolidate that coherence) it can still be argued that a strictly defined class of henge is a useful contribution to our understanding (Harding 1987). Other classes of monument of the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC which seem to have ceremonial/funerary functions have also been defined, such as enclosed cremation cemeteries, recumbent stone circles, postcircles, ring cairns, ring ditches and so on. It is widely agreed that there are complex relationships between these various types and their myriad hybrids, or at least that comparisons can be made between various constructional elements.

Type
Other
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , 1989 , pp. 260 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1989

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barclay, G. J. 1983. Sites of the third millennium be to the first millennium ad at North Mains, Strathallan, Perthshire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 113, 122–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barclay, G. J. 1985. Balfarg Riding School, Interim Report. Edinburgh: privately circulated paper.Google Scholar
Burl, H. A. W. 1969. Henges: internal features and regional groups. Archaeological Journal 126, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clare, T. 1986. Towards a reappraisal of henge monuments. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 52, 281–316.Google Scholar
Clare, T. 1987. Towards a reappraisal of henge monuments: origins, evolutions and hierarchies. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53, 457–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, A. F. 1987. Henge Monuments and Related Sites of Great Britain. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 175.Google Scholar
MacLaren, A. 1967. Recent excavations in Peeblesshire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 99, 93–104.Google Scholar
Mercer, R. J. 1981. The excavation of a Late Neolithic henge-type enclosure at Balfarg, Markinch, Fife, Scotland. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 111, 63–171.Google Scholar
Piggott, S. 1948. The excavations at Cairnpapple Hill, West Lothian 1947–48. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 82, 68–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piggott, S. and Piggott, C. M. 1939. Stone and earth circles in Dorset. Antiquity 13, 138–58.Google Scholar
Wainwright, G. 1969. A review of henge monuments in the light of recent research. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 35, 112–33.Google Scholar