>>Kevin Tolley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
As such, if Stonehenge were a place to
visit, then why shouldn't people from distant places
No doubt people from some distance would have visited Stonehenge but what concerns me is the numbers along with the distances.
Trades people no doubt moved about the countryside trading goods and hence we get a spread of such about the place. When we see goods spread about it is usually the activity of traders and not the manufacturers themselves. The manufacturers are likely to be in greater number than the traders but it is treder's movements recorded in the archaeological record not the mass movement of the general public.
My overall concern is that of territorialism and how I imagine that uncontrolled fluidity of population movements in the Neolithic is unlikely. We can get in a car and go for a day trip to Stonehenge these days because there are no territorial restrictions for us to encounter, also we can get about much easier thanks to the internal combustion engine. In the Neolithic the travel would not be as easy nor may it be worth the effort whilst also terratorial/tribal boundaries might inhibit mass movement.
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine