ABSTRACT
The most substantial trace of Neolithic activity which remains in the modern landscape of Britain consists of a large number of earth and stone monuments of a variety of forms. From Aubrey and Stukeley down to Daniel and Piggott, these constructions have attracted the interest of the archaeologists. However, a concern with ‘monumentality’ as an issue can perhaps be dated to Colin Renfrew’s essay, ‘Monuments, mobilisation and social organisation in Neolithic Wessex’ (Renfrew 1973a). Renfrew’s thesis was that monuments constituted ‘the natural counterparts of other features of society’ (1973a, 556). As such, their scale and complexity could be taken as an index of that of the society which created them. More recently, Richard Bradley has provided a series of contributions which together represent a concerted critique of Renfrew’s position (Bradley 1984a; 1984b; 1985; 1993). Bradley draws upon Cherry’s (1978) observation that large monumental constructions may be undertaken by dominant groups either at a time when they are establishing their authority, or under conditions of stress and instability. Applying this perspective to the British sequence, Bradley points to the discontinuous character of monument-building. Thus a massive structure like the Dorset Cursus may be constructed as the initial act in the settlement of a new area, while the large Wessex henges can be seen as a reaction to social change and conflict. For Bradley, the most important feature of monuments is their permanence. ‘They dominate the landscape of later generations so completely that they impose themselves on their consciousness’ (Bradley 1985, 9).
