More Related Content
Similar to Past ritual and present heritage in Wessex
Similar to Past ritual and present heritage in Wessex (17)
Past ritual and present heritage in Wessex
- 1. ‘Past ritual and present heritage in Wessex landscapes’ Landscaping Change Conference Death, Memory and Landscape Panel 30:03:16 John Robb Independent scholar and former Lecturer in Geography, BSU.
- 2. ‘Ritual landscape’; from academic concept to grand day out? • Monuments and natural features, • Cumulative, • Commemorative. Source: Author’s lecture slide, based on Robb (1998) p. 162. Robb (1998); Parker Pearson & Ramilisonina (1998) Pryor, (2004); Parker Pearson et al. (2008); Parker Pearson (2012) 3
- 3. How far has this idea been incorporated into modern heritage experiences? What has changed since 1998? • New extensive empirical techniques • Ethnographic parallels • Phenomenology Source: Author’s lecture slide, (2004). Barrett, Bradley and Green, (1991); Exon et al. (2000); Bradley (2000); Tilley (1994) 3
- 4. A new focus on movement • Procession, pilgrimage and learning from the landscape as text, • Prehistoric landscapers, having their say and making sense of their ancestors’ inscriptions, • Modern movement through ritual landscapes can ‘see’ cumulated messages from the deep past (Tilley). Lawson (2007); Harding (2012); Tilley (2008); Leary and Kador (2016) West Kennet Avenue, Avebury. Source: Author (2005). 3
- 5. • Subtle phasing in monument construction (e.g. earliest Silbury Hill), • Group collaboration or competition; a ‘project’ rather than focussed on a ‘finished’ monument, • Linkages sought with older sites, • The raising of stones seems to have ‘closed’ projects. The Sanctuary, Avebury. Source: Author (2005) Green (2000); Gillings et al. (2000); Pitts (2000); Bradley (2002; 2007); Chadwick and Gibson (2013). Memory: new perspectives 4
- 6. A river runs through it… • Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina’s integrated conception links different sites, • Three phases: the evolution and hardening of the monuments, • Were the monuments ‘plugged in’ to pre- existing networks of solar and river alignments? • Importance of river movement: first people with ash or bones, later just the spirits? Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina (1998a, 1998b); Parker Pearson et al. (2008); Pryor (2012); Parker Pearson (2012). Domain of the Ancestors, Phase III. Source: author’s sketch adapted from Parker Pearson (2008: 163) and Pryor (2012: 245).4
- 7. Avebury and Stonehenge: how far has the ritual landscape concept been incorporated into the construction of modern visitors’ experiences? • Thirty years since Unesco inscription, • Separated, 30 Km apart, though interaction in prehistory is becoming clear, • Should Marden be in or out? Parker Pearson (2012: 300); Simmonds and Thomas (2015). Wiltshire location map. Source: Author’s sketch, based on Simmonds and Thomas (2015: 296) 3
- 8. Spatial parsimony The current WHS boundaries at both Avebury and Stonehenge have ‘...little significance in archaeological or visual terms’. (Simmonds and Thomas, 2015: p. 15) Avebury ritual landscape defined. Source: Author’s lecture slide, based on Robb (1998) p. 162, and sketched from Simmonds and Thomas, 2015: p.308 . 1
- 9. Planning for a landscape experience? ‘For the first time in over a century, it has become rewarding to seek out Stonehenge in the landscape that gave it birth’ (Pitts, 2014, 18). 1
- 10. Land ownership, access and conservation. • 50% of monuments in the combined WHS have statutory protection… (Plan, p. 97) • There are 1 118 in combined WHS, (Plan, p. 18) • Stonehenge: cultivation affects 33% monuments, Avebury: 37% (Plan, pp. 107-8), • The ‘vast majority’ managed by private land owners with incentives from agri- environment schemes. (Plan, p. 98). ‘Plan’ = Simmonds and Thomas (2015) Land ownership and the Stonehenge landscape. Source: author’s sketch based on Simmonds and Thomas (2015: 300 and 301) 4
- 11. Tunnel to topophilia? • The A303 is recognised as a major barrier to modern phenomenologies, • National Trust open access is limited mostly to the northern half of the ‘site’, • Rights of way are not aligned with the ritual landscape, though some progress made. Access to the Stonehenge landscape. Source: author’s sketch based on Simmonds and Thomas (2015: 300 and 301) Simmonds and Thomas (2015) Robin Hood’s Ball Barrow cluster (schematic) 3
- 12. • NT estate based on ‘Keillerland’ – the legacies of Alexander Keiller, • ‘Core and periphery’ reflects the focus on the Great Henge and West Kennet Avenue, • Recent acquisition of Waden Hill a major expansion on the Avenue alignment. Simmonds and Thomas (2015) Land ownership and the Avebury landscape. Source: author’s sketch based on Simmonds and Thomas (2015: 311 and 312) National Trust open land expanded at Avebury 3
- 13. Where can we go? • Inclusion of East Kennet long barrow remains isolated from access, • Main roads are intrusive and dangerous at Avebury too, • The needs of the disabled visitor remain a challenge even at the key sites, • The rivers need their own interpretation. Land ownership and the Avebury landscape. Source: author’s sketch based on Simmonds and Thomas (2015: 311 and 312) Simmonds and Thomas (2015) 4
- 14. Conclusions • awareness of the ritual landscape as an integrated whole, • spatial fragmentation and the initial reliance on modern boundary markers is recognized, • ‘underbounding’ of the two spaces has been addressed by extensions, but no vision of an optimum ‘boundedness’, • managerial strategies working to promote wider movement, • natural features require inclusion in the landscape as represented now. 5
- 15. ‘Past ritual and present heritage in Wessex landscapes’. John Robb For the list of references and full discussion see the formal paper, copies available.