Mareike Ahlers | Newcastle University (original) (raw)
Papers by Mareike Ahlers
The symposium aims to provide an opportunity for students of the British and Irish Neolithic and ... more The symposium aims to provide an opportunity for students of the British and Irish Neolithic and Early Bronze Age to present their research and to network in a friendly and relaxed environment with others who share their interests. The conference is aimed at PhD students, early career researchers or archaeologists, and MA level research students; however anyone with an interest in this period is invited to attend.
Presentations are expected to be between 15-20 minutes long and presented in English. Posters may be bilingual but they must be understandable to English speakers and must be size A1. An abstract in English must also be provided for bilingual posters.
There is no set theme in order for applicants to present aspects of their research as they so wish. Research should focus on any aspect of the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in Britain and Ireland (papers and posters can include parallels or examples from further afield if it is relevant or an essential aspect of your research, however the focus is on British and Irish archaeology). The conference is for PG research students, early career researchers and independent archaeologist and researchers to present their research in a paper or poster.
Deadline for abstract submission is 1st October 2015
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Conference Presentations by Mareike Ahlers
TAG 2016, Session 25: Typology and Relational Theory Typological differentiation of Early Neolith... more TAG 2016, Session 25: Typology and Relational Theory
Typological differentiation of Early Neolithic non-megalithic mortuary structures have been made by previous authors like Kinnes (1979+1992) or Ashbee (1970). However, the thereby created types are often detached from other aspects of mortuary architecture at the same site. Furthermore, similar looking features can be used differently, however a stagnant typology does not allow diverging interpretations. This would actually trigger the creation of a new type. This can lead to a one-sided interpretation of such features as isolated elements. To understand relationships between the defined elements of the features and structures, such a classical typology needs to be transformed into a more flexible system to identify relations and connections of distinct elements. This relational approach then can also include specific other aspects that are not at all considered in a classical typology, such as ‘types of events’, which for example relate to the deliberate destruction of mortuary features or distinct phases of activity that include changes of the mortuary structures and burial activity.
A relational approach to typology allows to construct flexible connections between elements of specific features. These relations are therefore not fixed and can be transferable. Furthermore other elements such as landscape settings or events can be added to allow a better understanding of the interaction between features and use of the sites. This paper will add the element of relational theory to a classical typological approach on early Neolithic non-megalithic mortuary features of the British Isles and the northern TRB in Denmark.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The construction of long and also round barrows during the Early Neolithic period in the British ... more The construction of long and also round barrows during the Early Neolithic period in the British Isles has long been argued as to relate to equality in social organisation of early farming communities. The role of the community is one of the most important aspects in recent investigations on social organisation, however the concept of community (or communities) is a modern and quite popular invention and a clear definition is difficult to determine. Although archaeologists adopt the term quite frequently they often fail to define the exact meaning of ‘their community’ in their specific contexts.
This paper will use assemblage theory to define an Early Neolithic barrow building community. By doing so this paper will outline two examples of structural elements that have been identified at several Neolithic barrows and that potentially could help to trace community and group identity archaeologically. By applying the concept of assemblage theory new aspects on social organisation and relations of members of the community throughout the building processes will be addressed. The relational nature of community members not only with each other but with the material, landscape and act of building itself will play a major role in this model. This will allow to construct a community that is genuinely flourishing and constantly changing and adjusting, a concept that can also be transferred to roles or values of individuals influencing the community or group without implying a hierarchical structure.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Paper given at the 'Postgraduate Forum Conference' at Newcastle University, 20th May 2016 The co... more Paper given at the 'Postgraduate Forum Conference' at Newcastle University, 20th May 2016
The construction of long and also round barrows during the Early Neolithic period in the British Isles has long been argued as to relate to equality in social organisation of early farming communities. The role of the community is one of the most important aspects in recent investigations on social organisation, however, the concept of community (or communities) is a modern and quite popular invention and a clear definition is difficult to determine. Although archaeologists adopt the term quite frequently they often fail to define the exact meaning of ‘their community’ in their specific contexts.
This paper will propose a definition of a ‘barrow building community’ during the Early Neolithic using the concept of assemblage theory, which helps explaining uniformity as well as differences in different barrow traditions. Specific structural elements of long barrow displayed by ‘bay architecture’ and ‘occupational layers’ will be reviewed to identify group related activities as part of an otherwise communal building act.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Since the mid-20th century archaeologists have recognised similarities between mortuary features ... more Since the mid-20th century archaeologists have recognised similarities between mortuary features underneath earthen long barrows found in the earlier Neolithic in the British Isles and such features in southern Scandinavia and northern Germany associated with the Funnel Beaker Culture (TRB). Although the phenomenon of long barrows in general is wide-spread across Western Europe, specific site types (e.g. split-tree features known in Scandinavia as ‘Konens Høj type’ features) are only known from these two major areas. These mortuary features, which had been used as the primary area for burial activity are in fact so similar that (direct) cultural contacts and connections between these areas over long distances and across the North Sea must have existed. Although this has been acknowledged by archaeologists since the 1950s, intensive studies comparing these different regions and site types directly are very limited in scale and in fact rather scarce in general. This lack of collaborate research results in different approaches to interpreting those sites. Whereas the Scandinavian tradition tries to imply hierarchical organisation on the early TRB communities according to their habit of single burials and contrasting idea of elaborate burials in long barrows and simple earthen graves in graveyards, the British research follows a more anti-hierarchical interpretation focussing on community activities, due to the identification of multi-burials and successive burial features.
To unfold the actual connections between these regions and what they can tell about social organisation of these early farming communities it is necessary to look at each individual site and the elements they entail to compare the detailed similarities and just as important the differences on a micro and macro scale. This paper gave a brief summary of the state of research of both regions so far and will outline my PhD research and methodology.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Poster presented at the Prehistoric Society EUROPA conference in Dublin, 29th and 30th May 2015, ... more Poster presented at the Prehistoric Society EUROPA conference in Dublin, 29th and 30th May 2015, 'Origins of Monumentality'
References for illustrations (all altered by author of the poster)
Great Britain:
Lochhill - Kinnes, I. (1992) Non-megalithic long barrows and allied structures in the British Neolithic. London: British Museum, p. 206, Fig 1D.28 NX7.
Dalladies - Piggott, S. (1972) 'Excavation of the Dalladies long barrow, Fettercairn, Kincardineshire', Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 104, pp. 23-47, Fig. 9.
Kemp Howe - Kinnes, I. (1992) Non-megalithic long barrows and allied structures in the British Neolithic. London: British Museum, p. 200, Fig 1D.23 SE14.
Haddenham - Kinnes, I. (1992) Non-megalithic long barrows and allied structures in the British Neolithic. London: British Museum, p. 194, Fig 1D.17.
Nutbane - Barclay, G.J., Brophy, K. and McGregor, G. (2002) 'Claish, Stirling: an early Neolithic structure in its context', Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 132, pp. 65-137; Illus 35, p. 123.
Aldwincle I - Scott, J.G. (1992) 'Mortuary structures and megaliths', in Sharples, N. and Sheridan, A. (eds.) Vessels for the Ancestors: Essays in Honour of Audrey Henshall. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 104-119, Fig. 8.1, p. 105.
Fussell’s Lodge - Scott, J.G. (1992) 'Mortuary structures and megaliths', in Sharples, N. and Sheridan, A. (eds.) Vessels for the Ancestors: Essays in Honour of Audrey Henshall. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 104-119, Fig. 8.3, p. 109.
Kilham - Manby, T. (1976) 'The Excavation of Kilham Long Barrow, East Riding of Yorkshire', Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 42, pp. 111-159, Fig. 19, p. 146.
Denmark:
Asnæs Forskov - Gebauer, A.B. (1988) 'The Long Dolmen at Asnæs Forskov, West Zealand', Journal of Danish Archaeology, 5, pp. 40-52, Fig. 7, p. 48.
Lindebjerg - Liversage, D. (1980) 'Neolithic monuments at Lindebjerg, Northwest Zealand', Acta Archaeologica, 51, pp. 85-152, Fig. 7, p. 95.
Konens Høj - Madsen, T. (1972) 'Grave med teltformet overbygning', Kuml, 1971, pp. 127-149, Fig. 1, p. 128.
Bygholm Nørremark - Madsen, T. (1979) 'Earthen long barrows and timber structures: aspects of the Early Neolithic mortuary practice in Denmark', Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 45 (1979), pp. 301-320. Fig. 5(b), p. 314.
Germany:
Tinnum LA 37 - Kossian, R. (2005) Nichtmegalithische Grabanlagen der Trichterbecherkultur in Deutschland und den Niederlanden. Halle (Saale): Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt, Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte, Vol 2, Tafel 160 245.I.
Flintbek Grave C - Mischka, D. (2011) 'Flintbek LA 3, biography of a monument', in Furholt, M., Lüth, F. and Müller, J. (eds.) Megaliths and identities: early monuments and Neolithic societies from the Atlantic to the Baltic. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt GmbH, pp. 67-94, Fig. 10, p. 72.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Documents by Mareike Ahlers
Session Abstract for TAG2016 Southampton - Submit paper abstracts (250 words) to the contacts pro... more Session Abstract for TAG2016 Southampton - Submit paper abstracts (250 words) to the contacts provided. Deadline 15th November.
Typologies have always existed within archaeology as a way of organising, grouping and describing sites and finds; they serve to aid archaeologists in making effective descriptions of changes. In this sense typologies can be seen as a core subject of archaeological investigation. There is however a long standing debate over the value and significance of the typology system. Typologies can be considered vital tools for building chronologies, however they can also be seen to reduce or erase variation in the creation of a series of types. This session will aim to readdress this discussion in light of recent research and new theoretical approaches.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
PDF version of the conference booklet given to delegates of the 2nd NEBARSS conference on 20th an... more PDF version of the conference booklet given to delegates of the 2nd NEBARSS conference on 20th and 21st November 2015 at Newcastle University.
The booklet contains the abstracts of the keynote lecture, PGR student presentations and of the posters exhibited during the symposium. Presentations covered all areas of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age archaeology in Britain and Ireland as well as interdisciplinary papers from craft practitioners.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Thesis Chapters by Mareike Ahlers
PhD Thesis submitted at Newcastle University
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Magister thesis at Heidelberg University April 2014
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The symposium aims to provide an opportunity for students of the British and Irish Neolithic and ... more The symposium aims to provide an opportunity for students of the British and Irish Neolithic and Early Bronze Age to present their research and to network in a friendly and relaxed environment with others who share their interests. The conference is aimed at PhD students, early career researchers or archaeologists, and MA level research students; however anyone with an interest in this period is invited to attend.
Presentations are expected to be between 15-20 minutes long and presented in English. Posters may be bilingual but they must be understandable to English speakers and must be size A1. An abstract in English must also be provided for bilingual posters.
There is no set theme in order for applicants to present aspects of their research as they so wish. Research should focus on any aspect of the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in Britain and Ireland (papers and posters can include parallels or examples from further afield if it is relevant or an essential aspect of your research, however the focus is on British and Irish archaeology). The conference is for PG research students, early career researchers and independent archaeologist and researchers to present their research in a paper or poster.
Deadline for abstract submission is 1st October 2015
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
TAG 2016, Session 25: Typology and Relational Theory Typological differentiation of Early Neolith... more TAG 2016, Session 25: Typology and Relational Theory
Typological differentiation of Early Neolithic non-megalithic mortuary structures have been made by previous authors like Kinnes (1979+1992) or Ashbee (1970). However, the thereby created types are often detached from other aspects of mortuary architecture at the same site. Furthermore, similar looking features can be used differently, however a stagnant typology does not allow diverging interpretations. This would actually trigger the creation of a new type. This can lead to a one-sided interpretation of such features as isolated elements. To understand relationships between the defined elements of the features and structures, such a classical typology needs to be transformed into a more flexible system to identify relations and connections of distinct elements. This relational approach then can also include specific other aspects that are not at all considered in a classical typology, such as ‘types of events’, which for example relate to the deliberate destruction of mortuary features or distinct phases of activity that include changes of the mortuary structures and burial activity.
A relational approach to typology allows to construct flexible connections between elements of specific features. These relations are therefore not fixed and can be transferable. Furthermore other elements such as landscape settings or events can be added to allow a better understanding of the interaction between features and use of the sites. This paper will add the element of relational theory to a classical typological approach on early Neolithic non-megalithic mortuary features of the British Isles and the northern TRB in Denmark.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The construction of long and also round barrows during the Early Neolithic period in the British ... more The construction of long and also round barrows during the Early Neolithic period in the British Isles has long been argued as to relate to equality in social organisation of early farming communities. The role of the community is one of the most important aspects in recent investigations on social organisation, however the concept of community (or communities) is a modern and quite popular invention and a clear definition is difficult to determine. Although archaeologists adopt the term quite frequently they often fail to define the exact meaning of ‘their community’ in their specific contexts.
This paper will use assemblage theory to define an Early Neolithic barrow building community. By doing so this paper will outline two examples of structural elements that have been identified at several Neolithic barrows and that potentially could help to trace community and group identity archaeologically. By applying the concept of assemblage theory new aspects on social organisation and relations of members of the community throughout the building processes will be addressed. The relational nature of community members not only with each other but with the material, landscape and act of building itself will play a major role in this model. This will allow to construct a community that is genuinely flourishing and constantly changing and adjusting, a concept that can also be transferred to roles or values of individuals influencing the community or group without implying a hierarchical structure.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Paper given at the 'Postgraduate Forum Conference' at Newcastle University, 20th May 2016 The co... more Paper given at the 'Postgraduate Forum Conference' at Newcastle University, 20th May 2016
The construction of long and also round barrows during the Early Neolithic period in the British Isles has long been argued as to relate to equality in social organisation of early farming communities. The role of the community is one of the most important aspects in recent investigations on social organisation, however, the concept of community (or communities) is a modern and quite popular invention and a clear definition is difficult to determine. Although archaeologists adopt the term quite frequently they often fail to define the exact meaning of ‘their community’ in their specific contexts.
This paper will propose a definition of a ‘barrow building community’ during the Early Neolithic using the concept of assemblage theory, which helps explaining uniformity as well as differences in different barrow traditions. Specific structural elements of long barrow displayed by ‘bay architecture’ and ‘occupational layers’ will be reviewed to identify group related activities as part of an otherwise communal building act.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Since the mid-20th century archaeologists have recognised similarities between mortuary features ... more Since the mid-20th century archaeologists have recognised similarities between mortuary features underneath earthen long barrows found in the earlier Neolithic in the British Isles and such features in southern Scandinavia and northern Germany associated with the Funnel Beaker Culture (TRB). Although the phenomenon of long barrows in general is wide-spread across Western Europe, specific site types (e.g. split-tree features known in Scandinavia as ‘Konens Høj type’ features) are only known from these two major areas. These mortuary features, which had been used as the primary area for burial activity are in fact so similar that (direct) cultural contacts and connections between these areas over long distances and across the North Sea must have existed. Although this has been acknowledged by archaeologists since the 1950s, intensive studies comparing these different regions and site types directly are very limited in scale and in fact rather scarce in general. This lack of collaborate research results in different approaches to interpreting those sites. Whereas the Scandinavian tradition tries to imply hierarchical organisation on the early TRB communities according to their habit of single burials and contrasting idea of elaborate burials in long barrows and simple earthen graves in graveyards, the British research follows a more anti-hierarchical interpretation focussing on community activities, due to the identification of multi-burials and successive burial features.
To unfold the actual connections between these regions and what they can tell about social organisation of these early farming communities it is necessary to look at each individual site and the elements they entail to compare the detailed similarities and just as important the differences on a micro and macro scale. This paper gave a brief summary of the state of research of both regions so far and will outline my PhD research and methodology.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Poster presented at the Prehistoric Society EUROPA conference in Dublin, 29th and 30th May 2015, ... more Poster presented at the Prehistoric Society EUROPA conference in Dublin, 29th and 30th May 2015, 'Origins of Monumentality'
References for illustrations (all altered by author of the poster)
Great Britain:
Lochhill - Kinnes, I. (1992) Non-megalithic long barrows and allied structures in the British Neolithic. London: British Museum, p. 206, Fig 1D.28 NX7.
Dalladies - Piggott, S. (1972) 'Excavation of the Dalladies long barrow, Fettercairn, Kincardineshire', Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 104, pp. 23-47, Fig. 9.
Kemp Howe - Kinnes, I. (1992) Non-megalithic long barrows and allied structures in the British Neolithic. London: British Museum, p. 200, Fig 1D.23 SE14.
Haddenham - Kinnes, I. (1992) Non-megalithic long barrows and allied structures in the British Neolithic. London: British Museum, p. 194, Fig 1D.17.
Nutbane - Barclay, G.J., Brophy, K. and McGregor, G. (2002) 'Claish, Stirling: an early Neolithic structure in its context', Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 132, pp. 65-137; Illus 35, p. 123.
Aldwincle I - Scott, J.G. (1992) 'Mortuary structures and megaliths', in Sharples, N. and Sheridan, A. (eds.) Vessels for the Ancestors: Essays in Honour of Audrey Henshall. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 104-119, Fig. 8.1, p. 105.
Fussell’s Lodge - Scott, J.G. (1992) 'Mortuary structures and megaliths', in Sharples, N. and Sheridan, A. (eds.) Vessels for the Ancestors: Essays in Honour of Audrey Henshall. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 104-119, Fig. 8.3, p. 109.
Kilham - Manby, T. (1976) 'The Excavation of Kilham Long Barrow, East Riding of Yorkshire', Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 42, pp. 111-159, Fig. 19, p. 146.
Denmark:
Asnæs Forskov - Gebauer, A.B. (1988) 'The Long Dolmen at Asnæs Forskov, West Zealand', Journal of Danish Archaeology, 5, pp. 40-52, Fig. 7, p. 48.
Lindebjerg - Liversage, D. (1980) 'Neolithic monuments at Lindebjerg, Northwest Zealand', Acta Archaeologica, 51, pp. 85-152, Fig. 7, p. 95.
Konens Høj - Madsen, T. (1972) 'Grave med teltformet overbygning', Kuml, 1971, pp. 127-149, Fig. 1, p. 128.
Bygholm Nørremark - Madsen, T. (1979) 'Earthen long barrows and timber structures: aspects of the Early Neolithic mortuary practice in Denmark', Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 45 (1979), pp. 301-320. Fig. 5(b), p. 314.
Germany:
Tinnum LA 37 - Kossian, R. (2005) Nichtmegalithische Grabanlagen der Trichterbecherkultur in Deutschland und den Niederlanden. Halle (Saale): Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt, Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte, Vol 2, Tafel 160 245.I.
Flintbek Grave C - Mischka, D. (2011) 'Flintbek LA 3, biography of a monument', in Furholt, M., Lüth, F. and Müller, J. (eds.) Megaliths and identities: early monuments and Neolithic societies from the Atlantic to the Baltic. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt GmbH, pp. 67-94, Fig. 10, p. 72.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Session Abstract for TAG2016 Southampton - Submit paper abstracts (250 words) to the contacts pro... more Session Abstract for TAG2016 Southampton - Submit paper abstracts (250 words) to the contacts provided. Deadline 15th November.
Typologies have always existed within archaeology as a way of organising, grouping and describing sites and finds; they serve to aid archaeologists in making effective descriptions of changes. In this sense typologies can be seen as a core subject of archaeological investigation. There is however a long standing debate over the value and significance of the typology system. Typologies can be considered vital tools for building chronologies, however they can also be seen to reduce or erase variation in the creation of a series of types. This session will aim to readdress this discussion in light of recent research and new theoretical approaches.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
PDF version of the conference booklet given to delegates of the 2nd NEBARSS conference on 20th an... more PDF version of the conference booklet given to delegates of the 2nd NEBARSS conference on 20th and 21st November 2015 at Newcastle University.
The booklet contains the abstracts of the keynote lecture, PGR student presentations and of the posters exhibited during the symposium. Presentations covered all areas of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age archaeology in Britain and Ireland as well as interdisciplinary papers from craft practitioners.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact