Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:46:58.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rethinking the ‘Cursus Problem’ – Investigating the Neolithic Landscape Archaeology of Rudston, East Yorkshire, UK, using GIS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

Henry P. Chapman
Henry P. Chapman
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, University of Hull, Hull, HU6 7RX
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In terms of their interpretation, cursus monuments remain arguably the most enigmatic class of Neolithic landscape monument. This paper reconsiders this ‘cursus problem’ through the study of the complex of cursuses that surrounds the village of Rudston, East Yorkshire. Using a GIS-based analysis, it is argued that two distinct forms of architecture can be recognised. In the earlier phase it is possible to recognise the importance of somatic experience generated through movement along the interior of the monuments, incorporating elements of visual surprise in addition to constant visual relationships with earlier monuments. By the later phase, somatic experience becomes less important, with the cursus forming a more naturalised role in harmony with the natural landscape and less structured for movement. The results of this analysis have wider implications for the study of both cursus landscapes elsewhere and prehistoric landscape archaeology more generally.

Résumé

En matière d'interprétation, on peut argumenter que les monuments à allée avec fossés demeurent la catégorie la plus énigmatique des monuments du paysage néolithique. Cet article rééxamine ce problème des ‘allées avec fossés’ à la lumière d'une étude du complexe d'allées qui entoure le village de Ruston, dans l'East Yorkshire. En utilisant une analyse basée sur le système GIS, on émet l'hypothèse qu'on peut reconnaitre deux formes distinctes d'architecture. Dans la phase la plus ancienne, on peut reconnaitre l'importance de l'expérience somatique générée par le mouvement le long de l'intérieur des monuments, incorporant des éléments de surprise visuelle qui viennent s'ajouter aux liens visuels constants avec les monuments plus anciens. A la phase plus tardive, l'expérience somatique devient moins importante, l'allée avec fossés assumant alors un rôle plus naturalisé, en harmonie avec le paysage naturel et moins structuré pour le mouvement. Les résultats de cette analyse ont des implications plus étendues pour l'étude de ces deux types de paysages à allée avec fossés dans d'autres lieux, et plus généralement, pour l'archéologie du paysage préhistorique.

Zusammenfassung

Im Hinblick auf ihre Interpretation bleiben die Cursus-Monumente wohl die rätselhafteste Kategorie Neolithischer Landschaftsdenkmäler. In diesem Beitrag wird das ‘Cursus Problem’ durch eine Untersuchung des Cursus-Komplexes um das Dorf Rudston, East Yorkshire neu bewertet. Mit Hilfe einer GIS-gestützten Analyse, wird dargelegt, dass zwei unterschiedliche Architekturformen erkannt werden können. In der früheren Phase kann man die Bedeutung von körperlicher Erfahrung verstehen, die durch das sich Bewegen im Inneren der Monumente erzeugt wird, und die Elemente von visuellem Erstaunen zusätzlich zu den konstanten visuellen Verbindungen zu früheren Monumenten einschließt. Während der späteren Phase verliert diese körperliche Erfahrung an Bedeutung; der Cursus spielt eine naturalisierende Rolle, die sich im Einklang mit der natürlichen Landschaft befindet und für das sich Bewegen zu wenig strukturiert ist. Die Ergebnisse dieser Analyse haben weit reichende Implikationen für weitere Untersuchungen anderer Cursus-Landschaften und für die prähistorische Landschaftsarchäologie im Allgemeinen.

Résumen

Por lo que se refiere a su interpretación, los monumentos cursus son quizás uno de los más enigmáticos tipos de monumentos de paisaje neolíticos. Este trabajo reconsidera el ‘problema del cursus’ a través de un estudio del complejo de cursus que rodea el pueblo de Rudston, en East Yorkshire. Utilizando un análisis basado en GIS, se arguye que es posible reconocer dos formas distintas de arquitectura. En la primera fase es posible reconocer la importancia de la experiencia somática generada por el movimiento a lo largo del interior de los monumentos, incorporando elementos de sorpresa visual y constantes relaciones visuales con monumentos más tempranos. En la última fase, la experiencia somática es menos importante, y el cursus toma un papel más naturalizado, en armonía con el paisaje natural, y menos estructurado hacia el movimiento. Los resultados de este análisis tienen implicaciones más amplias para el estudio tanto de los paisajes con cursus en otras zonas como de la arqueología prehistórica del paisaje de modo más general.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 71 , 2005 , pp. 159 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 2005

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

Abramson, P. 1997. Excavation at Pits Plantation, Rudston: archaeological excavation for Perenco UK Ltd. Northern Archaeological Associates Report 97/51Google Scholar
Barclay, A. & Bayliss, A. 1999. Cursus monuments and the radiocarbon problem. In Barclay, & Harding, (eds) 1999, 11–29Google Scholar
Barclay, A. & Harding, J. (eds). 1999. Pathways and Ceremonies. The Cursus Monuments of Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow, Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Paper 4Google Scholar
Barclay, A. & Hey, G. 1999. Cattle, cursus monuments and the river: the development of ritual and domestic landscapes in the Upper Thames Valley. In Barclay, & Harding, (eds), 1999, 67–76Google Scholar
Barclay, G.J. & Maxwell, G.S. 1998. The Cleaven Dyke and Littletour: monuments in the Neolithic of Tayside. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Monograph 13Google Scholar
Barrett, J.C., Bradley, R. & Green, M. 1991. Landscape, Monuments and Society. The Prehistory of Cranborne Chase. Cambridge: University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R. 1993. Altering the Earth: the origins of monuments in Britain and continental Europe. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Monograph 8Google Scholar
Chapman, H.P. 2000. Understanding wetland archaeological landscapes: GIS, environmental analysis and landscape reconstruction; pathways and narratives. In Lock, G. (ed.), Beyond the Map – Archaeology and Spatial Technologies, 49–59. Amsterdam: IOS PressGoogle Scholar
Chapman, H.P. 2003. Rudston ‘Cursus A’ – engaging with a Neolithic monument in its landscape setting using GIS. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 22, 345–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, J. 1996. Reconsidering the Neolithic round barrows of eastern Yorkshire. In Frodsham, P. (ed.), Neolithic Studies in No-man's Land. Papers on the Neolithic of Northern England, from the Trent to the Tweed, 67–78. Newcastle: Northumberland Archaeology GroupGoogle Scholar
Harding, J. 1997. Interpreting the Neolithic: the monuments of North Yorkshire. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16, 279–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, J. 1999. Pathways to new realms: cursus monuments and symbolic territories. In Barclay, & Harding, (eds), 1999, 30–8Google Scholar
Harding, J. & Barclay, A. 1999. An introduction to the cursus monuments of Neolithic Britain and Ireland. In Barclay, & Harding, (eds), 1999, 1–8Google Scholar
Harvey, D.C. 2003. ‘National’ identities and the politics of ancient heritage: continuity and change at ancient monuments in Britain and Ireland, c. 1675–1850. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 28, 473–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedges, J.D. & Buckley, D.G. 1981. Springfield Cursus and the Cursus Problem. Chelmsford: Essex County CouncilGoogle Scholar
Kinnes, I. 1984. Prehistoric sites in the Great Wold Valley. Archaeological Journal 141, 36–7Google Scholar
Lake, M.W., Woodman, R.E. & Mithen, S.J. 1998. Tailoring GIS software for archaeological applications: an example concerning viewshed analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 25, 27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leese, M. 1991. A preliminary statistical survey. In Stead, I.M. (ed.), Iron Age Cemeteries in East Yorkshire, 171–8. London: English Heritage Archaeological Report 22Google Scholar
Lock, G.R. & Harris, T.M. 1996. Danebury revisited: an English Iron Age hillfort in a digital landscape. In Aldenderfer, M. & Maschner, H.D.G. (eds), Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems, 214–40. Oxford: University PressGoogle Scholar
Loveday, R. 1985. Cursuses and Related Monuments of the British Neolithic. Leicester: unpublished PhDGoogle Scholar
Loveday, R. 2002. Duggleby Howe revisited. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 21, 135–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manby, T.G. 1976. Excavation of the Kilham long barrow, East Riding of Yorkshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 42, 111–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manby, T.G. 1988. The Neolithic period in eastern Yorkshire. In Manby, T.G. (ed.), Archaeology in Eastern Yorkshire. Essays in Honour of T.C.M. Brewster, 35–93. Sheffield: Department of Archaeology & Prehistory, University of SheffieldGoogle Scholar
Penny, A. & Wood, J.E. 1973. The Dorset cursus complex – a Neolithic astronomical observatory? Archaeological Journal 130, 44–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riley, D.N. 1988. Air survey of Neolithic sites on the Yorkshire Wolds. In Manby, T.G. (ed.), Archaeology in Eastern Yorkshire. Essays in Honour of T.C.M. Brewster, 89–93. Sheffield: Department of Archaeology & Prehistory, University of SheffieldGoogle Scholar
Stoertz, C. 1997. Ancient Landscapes of the Yorkshire Wolds: aerial photographic transcription and analysis. Swindon: Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of EnglandGoogle Scholar
Stukeley, W. 1740. StonehengeGoogle Scholar
Thomas, N. 1955. The Thornborough Circles, near Ripon, East Riding. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 38, 425–45Google Scholar
Tilley, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape – Places, Paths and Monuments. Oxford: BergGoogle Scholar
Webster, G. & Hobley, B. 1964. Aerial reconnaissance over the Warwickshire Avon. Archaeological Journal 121, 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheately, D. 1996. The use of GIS to understand regional variation in earlier Neolithic Wessex. In Maschner, H.D.G. (ed.), New Methods, Old Problems – Geographic Information Systems in Modern Archaeological Research, 75–103. Illinois: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, occasional paper 23Google Scholar
Wheatley, D. & Gillings, M. 2000. Vision, perception and GIS: developing enriched approaches to the study of archaeological visibility. In Lock, G. (ed.), Beyond the Map. Archaeology and the Spatial Technologies, 1–27. Amsterdam: IOS PressGoogle Scholar