We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This is an Element about some of the largest sites known in prehistoric Europe – sites so vast that they often remain undiscussed for lack of the theoretical or methodological tools required for their understanding. Here, the authors use a relational, comparative approach to identify not only what made megasites but also what made megasites so special and so large. They have selected a sample of megasites in each major period of prehistory – Neolithic, Copper, Bronze and Iron Ages – with a detailed examination of a single representative megasite for each period. The relational approach makes explicit comparisons between smaller, more 'normal' sites and the megasites using six criteria – scale, temporality, deposition / monumentality, formal open spaces, performance and congregational catchment. The authors argue that many of the largest European prehistoric megasites were congregational places.
According to some anti-diffusionistic (or evolutionistic, or “immobilistic”) models, the European Neolithic originated from local innovations. However, indications accumulated during the past years prove that a large part of the cultural traits of the oldest Neolithic of the Balkans have an apparent correlation with Anatolia. These correlations can clearly be seen at the site of Kovačevo in Bulgaria which yielded especially rich information about architecture, techniques and forms of bone industry, body ornaments, “pintaderas,” figurines and certain characteristics of pottery, including some clearly imported objects. Other sites in northern Greece and Bulgaria support these observations. One can therefore suggest a chronological model with five principle periods of the Neolithic colonization of the Balkans. Nevertheless, the reasons motivating Anatolian populations to colonize Europe remain to be explored, although the Neolithic remained relatively stable in the zone of its origin, the Levant, during all of the “Pre-Pottery Neolithic.” With the revival of deterministic models, which partially derives from modern ecological fear of “global warming,” a climatic deterioration has been invoked for the end of the 7th millennium (the “8.2k cal BP climatic event”). One could, however, also put forward political and cultural reasons: The refusal to live in large settlements with a dense concentration of people, a system collapsing in the Near East at exactly this point in time. This chapter aims to explore these different tracks.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.