Miles Russell. The early Neolithic architecture of the South Downs.

Malone, Caroline

MILES RUSSELL. The early Neolithic architecture of the South Downs (British Archaeological Reports British Ser. 321). iii+176 pages, 63 figures, 3 tables. 2001. Oxford: Archaeopress; 1-84171-234-5 paperback 30 [pounds sterling].

MILES RUSSELL. Monuments of the British Neolithic: the roots of architecture. 192 pages, 100 figures, 26 colour plates. 2002. Stroud & Charleston (SC): Tempus; 0-7524-1953-6 paperback 17.99 [pounds sterling] & $29.99.

Miles Russell presents his PhD thesis (The early Neolithic) and the worked up version for a 'popular' audience (Monuments). The first suffers, as do most student theses, from much definition and explanation of the theoretical model to be presented. It does, nevertheless, offer a new look at a rather neglected area of southern Britain, even if the standard terms of archaeology are replaced by a self-conscious new vocabulary. In essence, the volume examines the rich resource of causewayed enclosures (horizontal cuts) and flint mines and shafts (vertical cuts) as the prime material of Neolithic architecture, together with flint scatters and mounds. These are lengthily described, drawing on useful and little known sources from journals, museums and collections. There is rather little critique of much of the data, which is historical description for the most part, and little seems to have been derived from new fieldwork. Later chapters 'deconstruct' the various 'landcuts' and 'shafts' but the discussion is curiously simplistic and draws little upon archaeological evidence from beyond the immediate zone of study, from actual experience, or from ethnography. However, this does not deter the author from plunging into interpreting long mounds as analogies for houses, and horizontal land cuts as metaphors for settlement. Suddenly, the thesis concludes that modern classification and categorisation of monuments by functional attributes has been misplaced and, splendidly and prophetically, that 'unlike the monuments we study, our attempts at structuration are ephemeral and may be remodelled, reshaped, deconstructed and rebuilt many times over, with only minimal effort' (p. 116)!

Monuments unashamedly and uncritically picks up from the original work and, in eight chapters, develops the earlier ideas with grander aims. The Parthenon and the Arch of Constantine are brought in as images upon which to ponder the Neolithic, alongside references to city development, traffic congestion, tax and much else that concerns the author about modern times. This preoccupation is used to draw a distinction between now and the Neolithic! More follows, lectures compressed into paragraphs about how it all began--farming, settlement, social division, Native Americans and plenty of Pop Sociology to satisfy even the most naive of readers. But the author ploughs on and explains that he is skimming over data, case studies etc. in favour of an 'attempt to explain the Neolithic, and its impact on the land, through the inception and establishment of the first pieces of architecture: namely the mound, the enclosure, the shaft and the uprights of timber and stone' (p. 17). Why then must we have the sociology? That is not the only new approach that Russell introduces us to; he turns to modern art to assist him. 'My general take on the Neolithic is permeated by the philosophy of Rene Magritte' (p. 17) and on he goes to explain why the Neolithic is surreal and ambiguous, and lectures us the while with 'We must explore all the possibilities', 'question what we perceive to be our own archaeological reality', and so on.

Chapter 2 mercifully takes us back to the monuments but, unfortunately, back to those preconceptions about terminology and classification. Chapter 3 looks at the mounds, 4 at the enclosures, 5 at the shafts, and 6 at the other peripherals in the later Neolithic--the henges, ditches, dykes and the standing stone and timber monuments. Stonehenge, the Ring of Brodgar and more are compared. They form the base for the penultimate chapter on 'Case studies', where Russell branches out to incorporate the Orkneys and Isle of Man with his own territory of the South Downs. Whilst this is ambitious, it is more successful than much else in the discussion, since the development of the monumental 'architecture' in each area is examined over time, and he seems to make some sensible, if limited, observations. What none of it does is actually to examine architecture in any meaningful way. There is nothing on materials and their building potential, their source, their working, the human requirements for building or anything approaching new development in this field. When there is so much potential for reconstruction, for testing through visualisation techniques and proper science, the book (and the thesis) are empty of such information or discussion. Where, indeed, is the architecture?

The final chapter enables Russell to reopen his big debate on the world of today and that of the Neolithic. He could have kept most of his Pop Sociology for this part of the book: not only might it have been a useful way of drawing the discussion together but also the reader might have made it this far. But, as my description above shows, the whole approach to the subject is observation whilst, at the same time, trying to make profound comments on very obscure archaeological structures that only a scholar well versed in prehistory can comprehend. Neither readership will like the Pop Sociology, and many will simply not bother to read the rest.

What is the role of 'pop sociology' in the interpretation of prehistoric archaeology? Providing useful similes from modern experience is popular in a lecture room of novice students and has a proper teaching role best kept to that venue. One most effective example of modern/ancient simile was the splendid catalogue, Symbols of power (Clarke, Cowie & Foxon 1985). There, pillars of modern society were shown complete with medals, uniforms and regalia as appropriate metaphors for the mysterious objects of prehistoric elite dress and ritual. However, I have doubts about the suitability of the images conjured in Monuments. The sociological discourse strays into a lengthy and often inappropriate rant on the modern world that leaves me, and I suspect, many other readers, writhing in annoyance at the crass images drawn and ponderously described.

Reference

CLARKE, D.V., T.G. COWIE & A. FOXON. 1985 Symbols of power at the time of Stonehenge. Edinburgh: National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland.

CAROLINE MALONE

Hughes Hall, Cambridge, England.