Denna diskussion är för närvarande "vilande"—det sista inlägget är mer än 90 dagar gammalt. Du kan återstarta det genom att svara på inlägget.
As I understand it, librarything has only books, I can't find journals, serials, and the grey literature, so it is only part of the matter.
The matter is how do we join things together to make things easier?
The matter with the neolithic, is that all sorts of words are used by all sorts of people for all sorts of things, so no one knows? Then the matter is that all sorts of stuff is all over the place, pre-history being a special type of matter. In Britain, the pre-historic is subject to planning environments so that huge chunks of it simply, destroyed, the Springfield cursus, and on and on. Making it easy for people to become aware of their past means public libraries having collections, young people going exploring, older people bringing their memories, then linking these things.
In Britain there is a Council for British Archaeology running the bibliography for british archaeology, BIAB, open access on the internet, and which has a Facebook group, then there is Heritage Open Days, and there is a para statal organisation called English Heritage which has a thing called Pastscape, with the Heritage Environment Record and there are enthusiasts who run a megalith portal, and all that lot wants connecting with documents in libraries which are open.
Bit of a stream.
The fact that you intended to post in this archaeology group changes things a bit though. But you'll get my drift.
I'm afraid it might be because it has to do with Britain, Heritage Open Days, the Council for British Archaeology, Archaeological bibliography, English Heritage, Pastscape, the Heritage Environment Record, Megalith Portal and these are simply things you haven't yet invstigated?
Instead I want to go further, and now add the Thames Estuary, the Essex Coastline, and the rivers round to the Nene and Great Ouse and Welland. For which you need google earth. Then, number each of the rivers, and number the sites from the coast to the spring. On the Thames, I'm going to stop at Staines, thereafter is another matter. Now we take the sections of documents such as Whittle, Gatherting time, at 1,000 pages, 60 pages of bibliography, 15 chapters with about ten sections per chapter, some of which have detail about some sites, such as Orsett, and then nothing but a mention of others, such as Freston.
Now each site has a number and each river a number. all the things in the paragraph starting I'm afraid may be resorted and re-ordered, and grouped and tagged as terms which weren't understood either, such as long barrow, mortuary enclosure, causewayed enclosure, cursus, henge, ring ditch, according to the terms particular authors have used, and in turn tagges with pot type, lithic type, and in particulary, whether anything approaching the sort of symbolism found in what is called elsewhere, rock art.
As we have secure carbon dating records and Bayes approaches to the records in Whittle, we can link these with the bibliography and the records. That's about it, I think.
You seem to be trying to inform us of something, but I have to tell you that you're really not communicating very well. You seem to be talking about creating some sort of super-catalogue, but I'm damned if I can see what you want us to take from knowing that or how you want us to react.
As you're posting here, you presumably want something from LibraryThing or Librarythingers. What is it you want? What do you want us to do? What do you want LibraryThing to do? Is there something you want to do with LibraryThing that you haven't been able to do?
Again: this is a cataloguing site - it's not some worldwide automated database of everything ever published. If users catalogue it, it's here - if not: not.
P.s.: and it's certainly also not an archaeological survey map. If those things haven't been properly investigated: go out and do so. Then write about it and list the publications here if you will.
Perhaps English is not your native language? You seem to be concerned with what terminology is used to describe various neolithic structures such as barrows, etc.
Are you looking for help in figuring out which terms mean the same thing?
So for example, in EAA75, North Shoebury, very well hidden, is a list of axes found in the Rochford Hundred and now partly in Southend Museum. The Museum has a catalogue, not on the Internet, most of the items are not on display, so to see them, one needs their registration numbers. In addition, one may add from the Essex Archaeological Transactions, 1933, that one of the hand axes, was found in Tendring, and its museum number is 172.32. This is not known by the author of EAA75, and the find spot is not known by the Museum.
Librarything stores the document records for me in a most economical manner and the CBA Facebook Group allows me to communicate to the interested people. Library Thing is quite well known among information professionals and the LinkedIn Group on knowledge sharing allows for the sharing of the more general points of whcih archaeology is a case.
Starting with an empty database would indeed mean building heavens alone knows what whole thing over what lifetime, but using linked data allows really simple joins, as between a document and a monument with one tag.
Also, out of curiosity, does EAA75 tell us where the Rochford Hundred axes that are not in the Southend Museum collection may be found? Your library is a very interesting one, BTW.
If I remember, it did some of them. The problem with all the inter library loans is they take ages, and have to be returned.
Some reports are on ads.ac.uk and I don't remember whether that was in my first stack. These have been digitised but as pdf so all the tabulation has been lost.
Treat it as an opportunity, there are enough problems already.
Mucking is another site along the collection on which I am working. There are at least four volumes already of published reports. The last two, the Anglo Saxon, are fairly easily available, the first two, the ones I want to see, much less so. They are on ads.ac.uk but I have crashed two machines simply trying to down load one of their files.
There is another matter though, and more disputatious than the ones I have been raising so far, the balance of working with digitised, or electronic records and documents, and paper documents. It seems to me there are personal preferences and skill sets involved for which there are no right and wrong answers, just as there is no right way of taking notes or constructing narratives in social media.
I find I can work with many paper documents open all around me, but working with even a small number of digital documents is more difficult. This is particularly the case when trying to look at sections from archaeological excavations, location maps, site plans, finds such as pottery and lithics, and the cross references.
In any event, let me apologize for not taking you seriously initially but I honestly had no idea what you were saying at first. Now I get you!
It isn't anyone.
In the really old days, there were public libraries and there were card catalogues, and once you had learned how to use them, all was clear. When Tim Berners Lee came up with html and www I warned him that internet wasn't the semantics of context, and now all we have is google. That wont work. Though he is not to blame for google.
Now I have a worked case. Orsett will work on google earth. You can see what has happened, since 1978 it has been a gravel pit. The neolithic causewayed enclosure, after five thousand years, went. All we have is the text. From the top of a double decker bus you can see the hole. I'm going to start something called Written on Holes. The 1978 publication, so if you have Orsett and archaeology you have a good start in Library Thing, or simply Orsett in BIAB, or Pastscape (there is nothing in Megalith, not surprising, as there is nothing there) will give you what was found, the pots, and so forth. Then some more stuff will give you the axes, a place called Tank Rd., or Purfleet, and you need to know these terms. Then Purfleet has a wonderful axe from Cornwall, how did it get there, or how did I know about it? ~Now on the map you can see Purfleet and Orsett, there must be a connection.
We already know about Mucking archaeology, we know the two henges at Rainham (just read back if lost), and now we have a new matter for theory and archaeology, when does quantity change into quality?
This is a civilisation.
A monumental task but I agree with you it should be doable. Though I have to say again, if I were doing it I would want to start with some database software, even if only Microsoft Access, if only to keep track of the tagging at least while in development.
Not sure exactly what is your intention with, "I'll have to construct a work, then touch on it"; possibly, your intent is to use Touchstones to leave messages? You're possibly contemplating an action that will induce howls of rage from other LibraryThing users. Have you found the following on the LT help pages, yet?
"What are touchstones?
"Touchstones" are works and authors "touched on" by your message (in a group message board or talk posting). To add a touchstone, put brackets around the works and authors in your message - single brackets for works, double brackets for authors.
Example: "If I were on a desert island, I'd bring along that [Worst-case Scenario Survival Handbook]. If that wasn't allowed, I'd go for [Lolita] or [Pale Fire], or really anything by [[Nabokov]]. I'd also bring along [[Lisa Carey]], because she's my wife."
Touchstones will guess the appropriate works and authors to link to. If the wrong work or author comes up in the touchstone list to the right of the textbox, click "others" to specify the appropriate links."
>29 Garp83:, read on the road?
>31 anthonywillard:... google today has just lost some virtual money, which might prove to be entertaining.. but I see an emerging matter of dipliomatics with this notation, not replying to people is rude. I don't think one should rely on google, the matter is when professional and chartered bodies use google type search for structued data, that is what I call #Aquabreexer, and I think is derelction of responsibility.
>32 alaudacorax: thanks for the post about touchstones, I don't think I understand any of it... or want to... the trouble with all communities is they construct complexities.. just like on the road. I can see some of the matters which might arise, so I think I'll steer clear.
What I wanted to do was return to my main thread of neolithic semantics and the role of classification and cataloguing Which partly deals with why this isn't a database matter. Originally I knew something about the neolithic, then I found something of the literature and changing semantics of the concept neolithic. This dates from the 19th century and goes through waves. Now I have a methods matter which can start from the two henges at Rainham, to the causewayed enclosure at Orsett, Mucking (used above), now I have found the Purfleet stone axes (from Cornwall), The New Tannks Rd. site (the library document matter for this one is a bit complicated), the Hullbridge, Shoebury, the Grays Bypass excavation (all these are now in my collection), the Blackwater, Brightlingsea and St.Osyth, (and each of these strings with archaeology is precise enough to locate the documents I am looking for) so I think there is now enough to pose the Stonehenge question, or perhaps the Stone Wall question, but I'm calling it Written on holes, #writtenonholes, how many of these things do you need to have to say quantity has changed into quality and we have now identified a significant civilisation, significantly different from some of the others already identfied, with a significant mode of production as a response to significant changes in the environment?
As for #writtenonholes, it may be so, but I'm not seeing anything reviewable, only pointers.
Since I don't understand most the discussion, I thought I might add another layer of complexity just for fun.
What I can't remember is whether I put in the google earth element already or not. With the Cambridge University Collection of photographs of crop marks, added into google earth time line we will have some element of deep time. Then, following my previous post, over large areas, we have broad space. The place names I have put in already should work as search terms in google earth then in addition, with zoom, scroll, pan gestures, we have a combination of space and time. Then I add in the pots and stuff tables from the documents referred, and the sites are augmented. More to follow, something to check with 108Apples.
I've read quite a bit now, I can't see this referenced.
I think I have cracked the touchstones thing now but there wont as far as I can see be anything precise enough for the topic. I've put up a Facebook Group for Neolithic semantics to point to all the sources and document material as I find it. It will go into my collection but not onto this topic until I find something which is a category killer.
Just notices the @ rather than the > so now something else to wander off and learn about.
Meanwhile, after deep time and broad space, the next major matter to add is the role of fresh water and tidal water in the area I am considering... that comes back to an earlier post about the semantics of time changing, but the matter is what are the material conditions that enable or make this change, and the reason I have picked the area I have picked is I think there is something in the fresh water tidal water changing over time.
I've checked google earth and it works well. Now for the crop marks photos for the places I'm looking for. I think those I will document in collection annotation, not on topic, it is much too specific.
@47... this seems to me a semantic mistake, I can see a real value in > as a pointer to a message, while @ and hashtagging have made other characters knewly interesting.
(My comments have become so interlinked I really have to check typing and mistakes.)
As is often the case, the white goddess has come into the thinks, but I don't yet see how making a collection (or, I would call it a shelf) in library thing makes connections with other shelves, which we would do with faceted classification. I have opened a group on Facebook, neolithic semantics, which I think I mentioned before, and am off tomorrow to a meeting of the neolithic studies group.
the facebook link in intended to drag in slowly anyone in the neolithic studies group and I'm experimenting with taking abstracts off their site following the meeting and beginning to comment.
The essay, nor anything by Ian Kinnes is currently on LibraryThing and I don't have the documents with me to add, so scuttle over to google;
pause... stupid google, that failed, so I have to have the real thing. It came up in the 1994 publication of the Royal Archaeological Institution and I found it in Senate House, but it was well hidden.
then we have acts of enclosure which includes Pythagoras' ontology, domestic activity which isn't, landscape setting which isn't but of course landscape and domestic are unliimited (that is a Pythagoras joke).
In the meantime, Ashbee on long barrows, eathen, funerary, culture, neolithic, and his ideas on classification on page 5, I have enough to be going with.
Is a penis for procreation?
Also, a big shout out to the one person that has "liked" the Neolithic Semantics FaceBook page
Post modern neolithic penis, with that we could play.
But it gets me away from the main matter, now I have to add barrow diggers, who might be long, in the sense that the barrow might be long, and early, in the sense that the barrow might be earlier than another barrow, and the barrow might be longer than an earlier or later barrow, or the digging might have been earlier than a later digging. And on such matters do we have to catalogue library books, and the reviews of the opinions.
The second is on an earlier thread about methods, and Now I have Dartford, Library and Museum, and the Darent river, one polished jadite from Hawley, so a start. The museum catalogue is uncomputerised.
Plus, the meeting this year.
Back to >63 Nicole_VanK:, I have referred earlier to the Neolithc studies group meeting, on mobility, and have now found the Topping volume, with a cover, a title, more than ten years ago. Which indicates very slow or no learning. The Group says it has a list, and joining is consequent on attending a meeting, for which you pay. There is no evidence so far of this list. There is a web site, but that doesn't document the series publications. I think I might have said all this already.
For those who don't know the principles and practices of documentation, there are things called series, things called serials, things called monographs, and these are all managed differently, in principle, and in practice.
There is an additional matter to this thread now, called open access. Those who don't know the debate, don't ask me to explain myself on this either. Neolithic semantics is an evidence case for the matter. Please don't ask me to explain evidence cases either.
Into this case are now dropped two new cards, the Royal Archaeological Institution, which has a Facebook page, and the Society of Antiquaries of London, which has a library. The RAI library is now in the SAL library. The SAL library has a card catalogue, until the 1980s, with a dictionary subject index. Heavens alone knows the filing principles for the shelf order, I haven't dared to ask. The dictionary catalogue was stopped in 2000, as now there is google. This last five word string is a quote.
Please don't ask me to explain what I mean by ontology.
But in addition, we have the matter of Autonomy. The Autonomy matter is chained to Hewlett Packard and five billion $ which makes a particularly rewarding matter.
Ontology Autonomy are now chained. #OntologyAutonomy.
My neolithic semantics started with Whittle, BAR then add supplementary series, then 35.
I'm reminded by a little panel of touchstones....
Whittle Earlier Neolithic
Not sure whether I have that right, can't remember what strings may be included.
Ah, wonderful, it has popped up in the little panel. That is most useful.
Now, earlier neolithic has to have an ontology.
What does earlier mean in the context neolithic? Does it depend on Whittle, is it subjective to Whittle? Is there a community in practice? Is there a standard which should be known by practitioners within a body of competences? Is there a standard to which obedience is a duty?
Then there is Southern England. This is like earlier neolithic.
He has almost nothing on my axe matter, so no help there. He has a little on my potty matter but very little.
Keeping myself up to date with myself, I now have a report from Greenwich Museum that they have 126 items in the axe category but this raises more issues than I have time to document here.
The UCL library has open access (with the meaning I wanted before open access meaning two, and borrowing access, so I have the Thames volumes which I haven't put into library thing collection yet. (I don't know yet who can see what goes into my collections, I haven't investigated that yet). But there are at least thirty of them, and that is simply because an organisation called English Heritage has spent what is called Extraction levy money on publication (this is a local matter that no one outside England, and possibly no one inside England will understand). But the importance is that none of this stuff (don't bee distracted, that is a Daniel Miller matter not being dealt with here) would exist otherwise. This is the initial condition.
This is now going beyond decent message length and becoming some other stuff, but the end to which I am arriving is that the ontology paragraph required the forces of subsistence, which appears in many of the publications, and I wanted to force in the forces of production. Now this matter I am happy to try to develop further, for this I think needs understanding.
We now have a set of terms which presumes a mode of production, which is called subsistence, is called farming, is called mixed farming, is called habitation, but appears to be without explanation.
Now, let us suggest a mode of production called droving.
What I actually wanted to check was whether I had already referred to the use of OS referencing, using map numbers and four figure grids. Those not UK would need to know how the OS mapping works, to see how place names in river systems could be sorted into river system order.
And let's not forget major amounts of ceramics showing us prehistoric garden centers.
Where did this mode of subsistence Idea come from, never mind the Topping drawing I referred to earlier?
We now have OS map referencing tagged, so if we take Staines on board, which might go with strawberry pudenda, we have the Stanwell cursus, Bedfont, Yeoveney, Staines Rd., Shepperton, Runnymede, and each of these refers to sites which has name, location, place, and documented archival matter for excavation, and in proximity.
Now the matter is, does this joining bring into being something so far needing conenction, but precision in time is needed and more recent documentation gives more accurate dating for particularities, though, so far, this doesn't include strawberries.
there seems to be a real difference in behaviour between putting text strings into add book, and in touchstones... the latter seems more google oriented, I tried the same string in add book and it couldn't find it; have done this twice now... this is the not volume, I want volume 2, 2010, so perhaps that hasn't emerged yet.
> I can do, but that means I have to have the document with me which at the moment I don't; there is a matter of remembering enough of something which weighs in at 1,000 pages or so, which one isn't carrying around, when one gets round to making notes on fieldwork in mud, where one doesn't carry stuff... the fields beyond Heathrow have to be walked to be experienced at this time of the year.
The volumes I have just referred make it all even more difficult for they have introduced their own GIS universe, somewhere about 1990, and published it 2010, including CD!.
Meanwhile, the stuff was discovered about 1930 with cropmark photography, I read of the Stanwell cursus some time ago. The text refers to oodles of polished axes on the card catalogue of Museum of London, and I still have to work out what has been done with that. In the meantime, what was the county of Middlesex has disappeared. The post code is Twickenham. The organisation called London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, LAMAS still exists, it has digitised and published electronically its material, as had London Arcaeologist, so no all you have to do it is try to find something.
In addition to the fives cursuses of Stanwell, there are at least twenty causewayed enclosures, or ring ditches, or whatever you want to call them, which is why I entertained this semantics matter in the first place.
There is open access and its implications.
The Royal Archaeological Institution, Society of Antiquaries of London, Council British Archaeology (go back to my first few posts in this thread for a summary) are all engaged in trying to work out how to do all this.
Then there is access to the sites and the reports, which is a local matter, for example around Heathrow.
Then there is the methods matter, if you have five cursuses and twenty ring ditches, or enclosures, in the area around Staines on the Thames, and the reaches of the Colne, perhaps as far as the Cray, plus a stream called the Ash which now hardly appears, the whole area is flat now, but deep tractor ploughing has happened only since the second world war, plus you have the sewage works of the 1920s, the reservoirs of the Metropolitan Water Works, and of course, the motorways of the Ministry of Motorism, you have enough stuff for a wet evening.
But Middlesex no longer exists, Heathrow is in Hillingdon, a London borough, then below it, places in Hounslow, another London borough, while Stanwell is in Surrey, a county, next door, Horton, is in Buckinghamshire, and beyond, Slough, once in a place called Berekshire but now a unitary authority, and of course none of the museums have followed any of these patters never mind the cataloguing of the materials.
(Showing my age I guess).
landscape evolution heathrow
hmmm.. touchstones doesn't seem to like two references....
why the titles are landscape evolution I have no idea, as that is not what they deal with, but a small memory for the last aurochs, just to get us away for a short while from strawberries. The six arrowheads are in the Museum of London, I feel it for the aurochs, the view from the 350 bus in Holloway Lane. Then there is more, but for the moment, the last aurochs.
I now have the two Landscape Evolution reports, nearly a thousand pages, and according to how the sites are grouped, I have about twenty. On one page, with the figure caption, refers to circular monuments. The table opposite, referring to the same objects, calls them enclosures. Now in a computer, these strings will not co-grep. The two volumes include CDs, with require a proprietary viewer, supplied, a microsoft machine with particular version, this from 2006 and 2010.
The Imperial College site is also the training ground for Queens Park Rangers, has security guards protecting their motor cars, so you can't get anywhere near it.
Now I have
and an ... intersting, it says no results, but I have already found it, and put it in my collection...
but more interesting, this catalogue from the British Museum of the stone and flint axes from the River Thames, seeing I have to type it in, gives nearly four hundred, yet the reports to which I have referred gives almost none at all. In other words, all the finds have been in the water.
>106 JohnLindsay: now been to Windsor to find out about the Rawlins collection, they know nothing about it; and there is nothing on display, it is all in store; been to Kingston to find out about the three collections there; they know nothing about them, but some of the material is on display, and it reads as if either
Adkins Neolithic ... ha ha much better, found it this time
is quoting them or they are quoting him, but nothing on the literature and not even any catalogue numbers on the displays.
And in the meantime, I have found
now it says no result, again, but I have already added this to my collection
or BAR194 or
nope no results, and it doesn't matter whether , or not.
which is called neolithic settlements but is actually tables of lithics, including flint and stone, unlike CBA67, and watery and dry, all of which is most useful.. there are hundreds of the things.
Incidently, and a digression, Doggerland. Makes an interesting link that as the land flooded, people would have had to move, and moving along the rivers would have had a logic, but as we don't know the earlier paths, which might have been continued, this is only a guess.
Europe's lost world
To return to the main thread, I haven't yet put in what is known about the collections on which I am most drawing, Senate House, which includes the ICS and IHR; UCL; and SAL. These have strengths and weaknesses in the variety of their classification schemes, cataloguing and shelf organisation.
Have you read it? Perused it? No aurochs, please, just the facts, man
Later and earlier refer to time. Upper and lower refer to sediment. But Upper and Lower also apply to the reaches of rivers, which is entirely a matter of convention. Middle refers to all of these. Terraces may be upper or lower too, but those will depend on the reaches of the rivers. Then someone uses the term terrestrial to refer to these, wheras I thought it referred to terra, which isn't a terrace matter entirely.
Stratification in terraces still means lower is earlier of course.
No wonder we have a semantics matter. Then of course the authors aren't consistent and use terms such as newer.
And given the literary warrant of ball busting, I though Garp83 might like a round butt... this refers on an old map to a place now called Round Hill, so my guess is that semantically we might deduce that there was a prior reading?
Butts however also refer to the stone axes, so whether the round butt made a connection I don't know. What I have found is that many of the museums are now run by volunteers, the records have all gone, and they know nothing about the stuff they have on display. This is a loss of knowledge value in the last thirty years. They also do not know the literature, so a little group of touchstones I feel coming upon me.
I don't remember whether the Furze Platt Giant has popped up, in a ball busting sort of way, for the idea is these were too large to be tools, if you get the in u endo...an early virtual reality.
probably more than I'm willing to spend. pity though because it looks wonderful.
I've been a bit of a time getting back to this, as so many tracks to follow and i have difficulty maintaining the narrative integrity of the line I am following .. for I am sticking with Library Thing in this frame but in the meantime, the Ice Age Art exhibition has opened at the British Museum, along with the publication, sub titled arrival of the modern mind, with the real danger that will throw a switch and I'll lose the main plot.
Figurative art seems to be what turns them on, so stone axes, or standing stones, aren't in their stack.
And standing stones are "somewhat hard" to exhibit in a museum without removing them from situ, and thereby possibly destroying evidence. It doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
In other words: don't take it too hard. Museum exhibitions have their limitations.
They do have video of the famous cave art, so video is always an option, though I prefer walking among the real things.
What is shown and in the catalogue is clearly not the tools, utensils, but figurative marks, which we might call drawing...
the arrival of the modern mind on the selection of the exhibition... got me to a discussion with someone in the marketing department, who said, marketing is evil....
>115 Garp83:, back to libraries and inter library loan
So the grooved ware at the cursus, with the polished axe is a join, (arrival) of entities (pot, cursus, axe).
Now entities and attributes leaves open the question that arrival modern mind as case train, is to collapse entity instance, or record, from class, member, which I always thought a problem with notation, for we need circles and cycles and spirals. Or, super class, sub class. Train is Class, Leonardo da Vinci is member, or instance.
grooved ware is potty.
> 116: Figurative too, heh? That's indeed going beyond the limitations set by what's available. To make "my position" clear, I happen to be an art historian and merely have a keen interest in archaeology. But even in paleolithic art there isn't "just" figurative art.
art historians and archaeology seems to me precisely the join which is worth exploring. I don't know where the idea "just" came from. Just though is polysemantic, just right, and now, I'm going to do it, just ice.... sigh, it was inevitable.
But I think we might be having an interdisciplinary semantic problem. With "figurative" art I mean art depicting people, animals, etc. but excluding anything more "abstract".
so if you look at what is called rock art, you see spirals, if you look at pots, it gets a bit more complicated for the shards have to be thought of into shapes, as well as the decoration into patterns, then these are given silly names like bell beakers. One essay, Sharratt, at least has a good line, the corded ware is made with hemp and depicts the stoned age.
>122 stellarexplorer:... good... for example in a recent text on
people long barrow... nope that didn't work, I didn't want Ashbee, so I'll have to track it down,
Smith people long barrow nope, I'll have to add it...
the author says that it isn't easy to document a literature across disciplines... then introduces a table of several hundred long barrows ordered in date excavated, a table (called bibliography) which lists in author order, and a table (called index) in alphabetical order. So you can work out what you have to do to join text with tomb! It would have been so easy to build the join. This isn't neolithic semantics, it is common sense. The long barrows which are not barrows, in the sense that no body was found of course haven't been dealt with, thus making the prophecy self fulfilling.
That wasn't my next step. My next step was to use touchstones to make a short bibliography on bell - beakers and bell barrows to make a different point, but too much time taken up for now.
I'm coining hollowscene #hollowscene to give myself a tag on this matter.
P.s.: and even today there are still peoples who don't have agriculture and such. "Neon-lithic"? ;-)
Yes, I was being naughty. But one could argue the point. They did have agriculture, but they didn't have serious mettalurgy (etc, yadayada).
This is a fun debate huh? ;-}
(Kidding -- very interesting!)
Not dishing the concept as such though. It sort of works, for closely related areas - especially for northern Europe (which was what the system was designed for). But don't expect too much.
Whereas "holocene" (see #125), even though it's of course much too broad to be practical - as I get it we've been in the holocene for about 30,000 years now and we're all still in it - at least refers to some sort of identifiable time period.
Assigning values to each society according to their agricultural, technological, political, and religious, abilities might allow honest comparisons between societies scattered across time and space.
The idea I am working on is that there is a missing mode of production which I am calling Droving, between hunting and farming, and will write that up at some point in some detail.
Terms such as religion mean whatever the user wants them to mean., The same is true for art, but figurative or abstract representations open themselves to a view. That was the case with the arrival of the modern mind at the british museum. Similarly the absence of "art" might itself have meaning. Much of the writing on the things which are called tumuli or barrows, but have often no burials associated seem often to have a combination of coloured materials much written upon, but not discussed as an aesthetic matter, along with access to water, reflection, sky colour, vegetation colour and so forth.
Writings in one area are dominated by county boundaries, probably post neo-lithic, and then district boundaries, post 1965 or 1974 which makes tracking things difficult.
I'm sticking to the polished stone tool as a starting point and attempting to trace the locations. I don't think the tool on its own makes a mode of production, and in addition, not being able to tell whether the flint or UNflint thing makes an onotological distinction still bugs. The arrival of tiny things in bronze certainly doesn't make a mode of production transformation, so the neolithic bronze is no use at all. By the time of Troy and then Homer we are clearly in another world entirely and that doesn't exist in the south of england at all. No figurative, no text, both these technologies rejected. The stones arrive, highly polished. The pots arrive, then over two thousand years or so either deteriorate as tools or don't imporve. So we have holes, which have lots of names in the literature, henges, ditches, and so forth, we have lots of lumps, which have lots of names, and in addition might no longer exist. We have a huge literature, completely disorganised.
The places I visit I log on megalith portal, and for the places, I use Pastscape as bibliography and send them a note when I find a reference they haven't included. The notation using grid references for spatial information I have explained before, and I have explained the river notation as a special case.
It remains the clumping of the lumps which seems the key matter. The Frensham tumuli (without tombs) make one distinct group aas shown from ariel photography of 1934 published in 1987, which one can then draw or sketch. one, space, one with ditch then two, these three together, and surrounded by ditch. Now what does that look like?
I am afraid that we can classify these strategies as one more advanced than another but groups will change strategies, up and down whatever scale we make, according to the conditions they encounter. I confess that I am not comfortable with my professors instance that herding came before farming. On the semiarid grassland of the Eurasia, maybe, but along the Nile?
Insert bloggy mismatch, the whole data thing has just become more complicated through someone called Pouzin, of whom I have never heard, or forgotten, and that is another stack entirely.
The second thread is the herding matter, its intervention between gathering and farming and why I would introduce droving. That hangs back to the mode of production matter, contraditions, and transformations. Herding implies herds and I think that comes much later. Now we need to go back to an earlier matter about space and place and time, difference in different parts of the world, so the stack starts with geology, climate, hydrology, phytology, so one may make an initial stack form. I've explained mine. Now I can add some new data, for it seems to me that Thursley, Elstead or Crooksbury, Puttenham or Wanborough, Whitmore or Worplesdon, Horsell, Staines, are almost in a straight line. The valley of the Wey and the Blackwater, the form called the HogsBack, the valley of the Mole, tributaries now of the Thames, shaped a landscape in whcih are there forms constructed by human action. All these can be looked at in google earth, in megalith portal and the literature tracked in Pastscape, but I would make a short cut with SyAC, Grinsell, 1932, 1934, 1987, to which I would add two papers from 2004 in a Surrey Framework. from that I would work up a forty minute talk but I speak at twenty pages an hour so it is too much writing for this medium.
Now in this text, a recent one, we have quite an interesting acccount of some of the semantics of the neolithic, though you wouldn't tell that from the title, and an account of some of the practitioners, until recent time.
Done that again..clicked on the touchstone and lost everything I had written. Then Harding Henge failed to find
but never mind, BAR 175 is now here. This gets us to the semantics of the hengiform, and something I didn't know about, the transformation of ariel photographs onto maps using a computer, in 1982, showing where Cambridge Univbersity was then! This makes another archaeology.
The complete mess of the concept henge, enclosure, ditch, barrow.... I have now 28 along the river Wey for which he has none. Now working on the Stour.
Given a while ago I came across the matter of Farnham and its boundaries, more to be followed up here
which has an interesting approach, walking and conversation with pal. Raising a lot of the matters I've been raising here.
The problem I have with the dominant literature on the neolithic package, the arrival of farming, is that it doesn't seem to recognise that herding and farming are what we might call contradictory modes of production. You have to sort both to sort either.
Prehistory in practice Cooper BAR 577
failed again, I'll have to pop off and add to my collection....
but this study of the history of archaeology over the last 30 years in British Prehistory and touches on some of the matters.
King Unparalleled neolithic
no results again, but I've added it to the collection...
King isn't a good grep string.
He has most the matters but in the wrong order, without the connections, so we might add a new metaphor or analogy.... now there is another matter
give peas a chance, slugs off..
the dialectic of nature.
Slugs nature, peas art. Slugs a delicacy then art, feed peas slugs
which I have above, with a lot more stuff as there is a lot there, but not the time now, so just to remind myself I haven't done it.
But the really strange thing is that in Britain, that sort of quality wasn't achieved until the twentieth century,
incidently, a parallel thread, I'm getting to moving from texts to reviews of texts to compare with google scholar and citation indexing.
Yes, that seems to work.
Yes, apparently that works too.
But if you have to you can always force a touchstone by putting in the LT worknumber, in this case 98969680, followed by two colons, followed by the title.
P.s.: Maybe that part of the LT system simply has problems finding newly first time entered works. Where no one has gone before... Could be some caching thing at their end. But now I'm just guessing.
plus, here at senate house, they told me I still had it out, I knew from LT entry I had returned it, that is my rule; the shelves were such a mess that there was no chance of finding it; but my phUSs got the shelf reading done, so now the BAR series is in wonderful order and I can find stuff.
proved to be quite hard to find in library thing but got there in the end.
chalk, limestone, lime, slake...
arrowheads, how is it known, how did the bow idea occur? Could dart be a better term?
domesticates, as a noun, has popped up... so we could have domesticat, domestidog, domestihen and so forth.
Mobile herder joins domesticate... I think the whole picture is becoming more and more convoluted in recent readings, for example
that is right, Thames & Hudson, no references or citations at all, and he is the editor of Antiquity.
that worked. A strange text, emphasis on boundaries, but rivers are also channels, so to emphasise one and not the other isn't natural.
Then to add, I need collared urns. Now what is collared and what carinated I haven't worked out yet, but I did do Clarke on Beakers a long time ago... As dating improves the making of linked data and federated search should improve.
From Current World Archaeology, the current one, I have another story about isotopes and manure but the author doesn't make the obviouys connection , droving.
this is in new series and has apparently been republished but I read the 1988
mapping the title and the series, he seems to me to be raising some really strange arguments. I'm meeting him in a few weeks so most puzzled what will be said.
Archaeologica, 100, in ICS.
this is as good as it gets at the moment.
from Evans in
There is another Evans in that, so he is at least looking at the matter. I wonder what he has done since 1988? Haddenham is one I must follow up, and this volume has Crickley, with a picture of a man, child, and arrowhead.
and have found #HazzledineWarren and his 1916 Presidential address.
Gibson, Walton, CBA 118
touchstones daft again
tried various forms
The Brecon matter also raises Powys matter, Brecknock matter, Black Mountains matter.
future archaeology layton
all about Ucko, the only directly neolithic thing the figurines, of which of course we have none, and with that not is dealt. The other thing is Harris, who has something on palaeology botany and zoology and says they don't talk. Nothing on my matter therefore. I wonder whether I can track any of these people down?
so I might be able to access them both from here
Touchstones works this time.
The note is the absence of the estuary material but the usefulness of the collections and Thames placenames listining. I was reminded that the Kingston thread I started a long time ago, and have made no progress. That was Roots, Finney and Gould.
nope, that didn't work, will need to recheck
Incidently, meeting on 8 January of RAI on how and why neolithic
and need to add
that did work, for it produced evidence of the enscarpment.
but 1905 Anthropological wouldn't be, that gives us Carshalton.
Plus need to add the Surrey Collections now on line, as is LAMAS and opened #UNFramedWork in linkedin
Then there is Clare on the meanings of henges and whatevers, another article on the Runnymede affair, plus a couple of book reviews, Hodder, Renfrew.