Problems of Phasing: A Reconsideration of the Black Patch Middle Bronze Age ‘Nucleated Village’

Russell, Miles

doi:10.1111/j.1468-0092.1996.tb00072.x

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At Itford Hill the settlement has been interpreted (Ellison 1978) as shifting five times but retaining roughly the same composition of houses and retaining a continued interest in place. A similar interpretation has been suggested for the site at Blackpatch (Russell 1996) where it has been argued the two principal houses were replaced by houses that were placed in between the original 105…”

Section: Niall Sharpiessupporting

confidence: 58%

Abandoned but not forgotten: Gerritsen on the domestic lifecycle

Nevett¹

1999

Arch. Dial.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The subject of Gerritsen's paper and the way in which it is presented invite comment on three main aspects: firstly, his theoretical stance, secondly the methodology he uses and thirdly, his conclusions regarding the farmsteads which he seeks to understand. Since my own specialism lies well outside the area and period with which his paper deals, I shall focus my discussion on the first two aspects.

show abstract

Section: Niall Sharpiessupporting

confidence: 58%

Abandoned but not forgotten: Gerritsen on the domestic lifecycle

Nevett¹

1999

Arch. Dial.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In southern and south-eastern England Middle Bronze Age sites such as Itford Hill and Black Patch in Sussex, and Thorny Down, Wiltshire, were originally considered to be small villages, but later analysis suggested that the chronological depth of the sites had been missed, and that in each case only a handful of the buildings were occupied simultaneously (Burstow & Holleyman 1957; Drewett 1982; Ellison 1987, 391; Russell 1996, 35–7; Stone 1941, 117). Brück's in-depth analysis of Middle Bronze Age settlements in southern England concluded that: ‘most were occupied by a single household, perhaps comprising a nuclear or small extended family group’ (Brück 1999, 145–7).…”

Section: Bronze Age Villages: the Definite And The Dubiousmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Consideration of Villages in Neolithic and Bronze Age Britain and Ireland

Rathbone¹

2013

Proc. Prehist. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neolithic and Bronze Age settlements in Britain and Ireland have, on occasion, been referred to as being prehistoric villages but there is little agreement as to what a settlement from these periods should consist of for it to be confidently identified as such. A particular problem is that the development of villages in Britain and Ireland is commonly seen as being a medieval phenomenon and most discussions regarding the essential characteristics of villages are centred on medieval evidence. This paper examines which features of a prehistoric settlement can be used to determine if the use of the term ‘village’ is appropriate, ultimately finding the number of contemporary households to be the primary concern. Sites which have been identified specifically as being Neolithic or Bronze Age villages are critically reviewed, as are a selection of sites where the designation may be appropriate but where the term has so far been avoided. The number of sites from both periods that could justify being identified as being villages is found to be low, and in all cases it seems that moves toward larger nucleated settlements are geographically and chronologically restricted and are followed by a return to dispersed settlement patterns. This curious pattern of the rapid creation and decline of villages at a regional level is contrasted with different explanations for the development of nucleated settlements from other areas and during other time periods, which revolve around economic and agricultural intensification, the development of more hierarchical societies and the increase in structured trading networks. They do not fit well with either our current perceptions of Neolithic and Bronze Age societies, or with the strictly localised moves towards nucleation that were observed. New explanations with a more local focus are found to be required

show abstract

“…At many sites, there are clear indications of chronological depth. Over the years, buildings were constructed, refurbished and abandoned, fences erected and dismantled and ponds dug and infilled (Ellison 1978; Barre� et al 1991, section 5.3;Russell 1996). Such sequences of construction can most convincingly be explained through reference to changes in the demographic, social and economic circumstances of the household over the course of its developmental cycle (Brück 1999;cf.…”

Section: Se�lement Lifecyclesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fragmentation, Personhood and the Social Construction of Technology in Middle and Late Bronze Age Britain

Brück

2006

CAJ

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines a range of practices involving the deliberate fragmentation of human bodies and objects in Middle and Late Bronze Age Britain. Focusing on evidence from settlements and mortuary sites, it is suggested that metaphorical links were drawn between people and things, and that productive processes such as potting and metallurgy provided potent metaphors for the construction of the human self. Building on these points, it is argued that current models which posit the rise of an ideology of the ‘individual’ during the Bronze Age may be inappropriate in this cultural context.

show abstract

Problems of Phasing: A Reconsideration of the Black Patch Middle Bronze Age ‘Nucleated Village’

Cited by 11 publications

References 4 publications

Abandoned but not forgotten: Gerritsen on the domestic lifecycle

Abandoned but not forgotten: Gerritsen on the domestic lifecycle

A Consideration of Villages in Neolithic and Bronze Age Britain and Ireland

Fragmentation, Personhood and the Social Construction of Technology in Middle and Late Bronze Age Britain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About