The 1926 General Strike and Gloucestershire

We’ll start in Stroud. The Great Western Railway Company decided to make an example of some Union men, as a consequence of the Strike. We should remember this act of victimisation each time we visit the railway station, and also remember the fact that Stroud railway workers refused to return to work at the end of the nine day strike, even when ordered to do so by their union. The Great Western Railway’s response was to say that the only people to have suffered victimisation were their shareholders.
In Gloucester, at the Docks, there were fights between strikers and police when attempts were made to prevent boats moving up and down the river and canal; there was a police baton charge when people tried to stop the swing bridge opening. The motto in Gloucester was “ All out together, all in together”; here follows Ralph Anstis’ description of the events at the bridge in Gloucester (much more of Ralph later).
Three to five hundred pickets were involved after crews of three vessels agreed not to move some goods. In consequence, volunteer labour was utilised, with police presence. After “scuffles” between police and pickets, the two barges and a tug set sail. This prompted the owners to want “to send a tug and an empty lighter along the canal to Sharpness with scab labour to pick up a cargo. Ralph writes: “Striking dockers tried to stop the tug from sailing by preventing the bridgeman from opening the swing bridge. Police were rushed to the scene. Hissing and booing, the crowd refused to give way and the police made a baton charge to force the pickets from the bridge. Eventually the tug and lighter got through. Fourteen men were arrested and thirteen of them were later sent to prison for fourteen days with hard labour.”
We shall now look at the Forest of Dean – the weather was against us this weekend, but we do intend to walk the colliery trails at some point, using the below for context. In addition, the Dean Heritage Centre has three leaflets available: The Speculation Trail, New Fancy and Cannop Ponds. You could use these and this blog to re-create those far-off days of the spring, summer and autumn of 1926. The Dean is quite well served by ‘bus services; there is also the railway to Lydney and bike hire available. The campsite recommended on an earlier posting on this blog impressed us when we visited, if you fancy staying a while.
The miners were “locked out” for another seven months after the TUC called off the nine day General Strike, and that, of course, had a dire effect upon lives in the Forest. Seven thousand men were unable to support themselves and/or their families; they needed assistance not just for the nine days of the General Strike in May but right up to the month of November. The Co-op saved many families from starvation when some Poor Law Guardians were refusing food and outdoor relief for men who had been, let us remember, locked out; they had not gone on strike. They had been locked out by their employers. Think of that when you visit the Forest of Dean.
If you want to know more about the General Strike and the Forest of Dean, then buy, beg or borrow a copy of Ralph Anstis’ “Blood on Coal”. The following information is taken from that book but I can only touch the surface – do try and read it, if you can. Having said that, let’s look at the main collieries in the Dean in 1926, with grateful thanks to Ralph.
He provides a map and a list at the front of his book – these are sites worth visiting to look at and write about; all contributions gratefully received. So, let’s start with these bald facts, transcribed from the map and Ralph’s evocative and detailed descriptions:

A: Norchard (Betwixt the Lydney-Bream and Lydney-Parkend roads, on the old railway line, just north-west and about 3 miles outside of Lydney.) Libby Bullock told me that the main entrance was at Pillowell., but there is no sign of it now. In its place is a small industrial estate, selling commercial cleaning equipment.

B: Princess Royal (Betwixt the Bream-Parkend and Lydney-Parkend roads, north-east of Bream). Clive Bullock said that if you were travelling to Bream from Whitescroft, you pass the Royal Oak as you climb into Bream and you pass the colliery site at the bottom of the hill. There is a housing estate called Princess Royal.

C: Flour Mill (North-west of Princess Royal, on the other side of the Lydney-Bream road, about one third of the way between Bream and Parkend). The following are Ralph Anstis’ words: “ Started in the 1840s, it was not until the 1860s that large-scale development began at Flour Mill Colliery, Bream. Coal was sent down a rope-worked tramway to the screens at Park Gutter (Princess Royal) for loading. The two pits were connected underground in 1916 to improve working and ventilation. Flour Mill closed in 1928 and Princess Royal in 1962. Some buildings survive, one in use by a firm repairing steam locomotives. The route of the rope-worked tramway can also be traced.” Clive said: “Leaving Parkend, go up to the old Pike House, turn left, and the site is a quarter of a mile up there on the left hand side.” By the way, the locomotive that steamed on the 150th anniversary of the opening of the London Underground was restored here.

D: Parkend (West of Parkend on the left hand side of the road that leads towards Cockshoot Wood)

E: New Fancy (Follow the previous road north towards a junction with Staple Edge Wood to your west, the colliery was north of and on the other side of the junction.) Ralph wrote these words: “New Fancy Colliery, on the hill above Parkend, employed many miners from that village following the closure of the Parkend Royal Colliery. The pipes at the latter remained in operation for ventilating “the Fancy”, as it was referred to by the men. The colliery closed in 1944, despite the presence of large reserves, as it became uneconomic to work. Today, the waste heap is a noted viewpoint and the imposing stone wall of the loading bank can still be found in the woods.” Clive told me that there is a working free mine near a quarry on the road from Parkend to Lydbrook.

F: Cannop (On the road that leads from Parkend to Lydbrook, just north of the junction with the Coleford-Speech House road, on the left hand side). Ralph’s book has the following caption beneath a photograph: “ A view of the Coleford to Cinderford road in the 1930s. Cannop Colliery can be seen just down the road, with the Hopewell Colliery site in view behind. Still working today, it has been turned into the Hopwell Colliery Mining Museum and visitors can take trips underground. In the centre distance, Speech House Colliery can also be seen; by this date it was use purely for pumping water out of Lightmoor.”

G: Arthur and Edward (Continue north on the Parkend-Lydbrook road, then follow the road west at the next junction; it will be on your right, within the triangle of roads.) Ralph Anstis wrote this description back in 1999: “Arthur & Edward Colliery or Waterloo as the men preferred to call it, lay at the head of the Lydbrook Valley. It was connected to the railway loading screens by a system of tram tubs, on a half mile-long incline, connected by an endless rope and known colloquially as “The Creeper”. The pit closed at Christmas, 1959.”

H: Trafalgar (closed) (East of G in Serridge Inclosure and roughly equidistant between G and Cinderford, just north of the old railway line). Clive told me to look for Brierley, halfway between Lydbrook and Cinderford; locate a road opposite a petrol station that goes down into a wood; Trafalgar was down there.

I: Crump Meadow (West of Cinderford, between two old railway lines, north of the road that leads to Speech House, in Serridge Inclosure.) Ralph’s book states that at the end of the last century, “after bulldozing and landscaping, all that can be seen are some concrete foundations and, perhaps, the remains of a loading wharf.” Ralph also states: “Sunk in 1824, Crump Meadow was another old colliery which did not long survive the General Strike; it closed in 1929. As with Foxes Bridge, workable reserves of coal were becoming exhausted and Crawshays were concentrating their energies on their new pit, Northern United, which opened in 1933; this pit provided employment for many who were out of work after the closure of Crump Meadow and Foxes Bridge.” (This is where Clive’s grandfather first worked.) Clive advised that you find an industrial estate in Cinderford, then Winner’s Garage (a Skoda garage), where a track leads up into the woods; there are signs of old workings about a quarter of a mile along.

J: Foxes Bridge (Just south of I) Ralph Anstis: “Yet another Crawshay pit, Foxes Bridge sat atop the escarpment looking over Bilson and Cinderford, and began producing coal in the early 1870s. In the 19th century, Foxes Bridge, Trafalgar, Lightmoor and Crump Meadow collieries, which lay within a couple of miles of one another, produced two thirds of the coal raised in Dean. Foxes Bridge closed in August 1930.”

K: Lightmoor (South of J, south of the Speech House road, west of Ruspidge) Ralph Anstis, wrote the following in 1999: “Lightmoor Colliery lay in the heart of the Forest, close to Speech House and the Dilke hospital, alongside the mineral loop line of the Severn & Wye Railway. The colliery also had its own private branch line and locomotives, linking it with Bilson Yard, near Cinderford. It closed in 1940 after a hundred year life and is today the most intact Dean colliery site remaining, including one of the engine houses.” The caption to a 1910 photograph in the book states that, “The waste heaps in the centre foreground eventually became the tip which remains as a landmark to this day. The nearer engine house still stands, albeit minus its roof and is an extreme state of neglect.” The caption adds that its Cornish pumping engine is now at the Dean Heritage Centre, “restored to working order.” Clive added that you look for a left before you get to the Dilke Hospital and a sign saying “Forest Products”; you then go down a track past ponds and the remains of the pit head.

L: Eastern United (South of Ruspidge, south-east of K, on left hand side of the road that leads from Soudley to Ruspidge). Ralph wrote: “Eastern United was also owned by Henry Crawshay &Co. Sinking began in 1909. It was one of the easier pits to work, with wide, well-lit roadways, and it returned handsome profits for the company. Following nationalisation, the mine closed suddenly in 1959, much to the shock of the workforce, at a time when it was thought the location of a new seam promised it a bright future.” Clive said that when it closed the miners said there was more coal left down below that they had taken out. There is warehousing there now and an industrial estate. This is where Clive’s granddad finished. Clive said the colliers were dumbfounded. It was such a big pit.

M: Speech House Colliery closed before the Strike; a caption to a photograph in Ralph’s book states: “Speech House Colliery, circa 1910, after it had closed for coal production but was still in use for pumping Lightmoor. The site is now a car park and a picnic area.” Look for the Beechenhurst Picnic Site, going towards Coleford.
Libby Bullock reminisced while we drank our tea and said: “When we were children, we used to go and visit the pit ponies. There were about eight. We’d go the miners’ huts and have cheese on toast cooked by the miners on an open fire.”

Archaeological Phenomenology and the Landscape of Prehistoric Burial Sites by Neil Baker

Archaeological Phenomenology and the Landscape of Prehistoric Burial
by Neil Baker
Phenomenology is a branch of social
theory that has achieved archaeological notoriety
in recent years for explorations of primarily prehistoric landscapes.  Its use in archaeology has been one of
the most provoking theoretical developments in the discipline in recent years
and has been a constant source of debate between archaeologists (Bruck, 2005:
Fleming 2006).  The following discussion
will not provide an overview of the wide-ranging philosophical field of
phenomenology.  It will focus upon on
archaeological phenomenology and whether it can increase our understanding of
the landscape context of Neolithic and Bronze Age burial sites. 
“Went to see an ancient mound
People buried underground
Long ago, will never know
What it was like to hear their sounds”
Lyrical excerpt of “Rollright Stones” from “Shoot Out At The Fantasy
Factor” by Traffic, 1973.
What is archaeological phenomenology?
Archaeologists have a long
history of describing and classifying prehistoric burial sites but many are often uncomfortable with defining how people might have experienced them.  Early studies tended to focus on the monument rather than its’ situation (Chapman & Geary, 2000, 318; Watson, 2001).  The way in which landscapes and sites were, and still are generally understood is commonly dictated by conventional established fieldwork methodologies such as survey or excavation.  To this end, landscapes are still frequently depicted as static and disembodied, two-dimensional diagrammatic
representations (Tilley, 2004).  The landscape archaeologist would argue that such “typical” information gives no sense of first-hand familiarity with the site. It does not convey information relevant to how prehistoric burial sites were physically experienced by the people that constructed and interacted with them (Cummings et al, 2002: Parker Pearson, 1999).  In an attempt to address this problem, landscape phenomenologists study place, and analyse “sites and locations as static positions where human actions are carried out” (Peterson, 200, 394; Woodward, 2000, 123).
In order to fully comprehend and appreciate how a monument relates to its landscape, one has to attribute value and meaning to it by experiencing it first-hand.  In this way the relations and interconnections of a landscape such as “place, social and personal identity and experience” together with feeling, emotion and significance will be better understood (Tarlow, 2000: Tilley, 2004, 185).  However, critics of this approach have described it as “a nice long walk with your eyes open” (Russell, 2007, 31).  Phenomenology is often viewed as a modern discipline, but this is not the case.  The relationship between a monument and its setting is by no means a new phenomenon and was first mooted and recorded by antiquarians such as William Stukeley in the 18th century (Barnatt & Edmonds, 2002; Peterson, 2003).
Can the adoption of a phenomenological approach to prehistoric burial studies increase our knowledge of them?  Landscape phenomenologists often claim that barrows, cairns and other prehistoric monuments were carefully located so as to ensure views of particular landscape features while others were deliberately obscured (Tilley 1994, 135; Bender et al, 1997; Cummings 2002).  They argue that some prehistoric burial sites were specifically located to establish control over “topographic perspective”, uniting significant natural places in the wider landscape (Tilley, 1994: 204: Tilley, 2002, 185).
In 1994, Christopher Tilley suggested that a number of Welsh Neolithic chambered tombs in Pembrokeshire (26) and The Black Mountains (14) were designed and constructed to have deliberate relationships with natural landscape features (Fleming, 2005: Tilley, 1994, 92 & 118).  These included mountains, river valleys and places outside natural limits such as caves and were suggested to be liminal zones where the boundary between this world and the otherworld became blurred (Bradley 2000, Cummings et al, 2003: Fleming 1999).  It was noted that the long axis of some of the Pembrokeshire cairns “seemed to be oriented” west-east and emphasised prominent natural features (Tilley, 1994, 94).  Fifty four percent of the Pembrokeshire group (14) were suggested to have had close or direct relationships to inland rock outcrops.  The principal orientation of the Black Mountain group of cairns was also suggested to have “relationships” with dominant landscape features such as rivers (5) and prominent hill spurs (9) on the Black mountains  (Tilley, 1994, 124).  Tilley proposed that in the Neolithic period such features were regarded as “natural, non-cultural or non-domesticated megaliths” making them special places (Tilley, 1994, 94).
Tilley’s fieldwork in Pembrokeshire and the Black Mountains was the catalyst for more studies of both areas which cast some doubt upon his interpretations.  Cummings et al (2002) re-examined various claims about the axis of the Black Mountain cairns.  Their research studied the tombs’ relationship to specific features in the landscape using a methodology that would reproduce their own observations (Cummings et al, 2002).  The work focussed on the cairns’ construction, ground plans, positions and building materials.  They suggested that the tombs were deliberately asymmetrical both in their location and in their construction but seldom “oriented directly upon landscape features” (Cummings et al, 2002: Fleming, 1999).  It was concluded that the cairns were sited to emphasise transitional areas.  These were “places in between places” for example between river valleys and between mountain escarpments (Cummings et al, 2002, 67).  Much of the work in Wales by Cummings et al and Tilley has been criticised by Andrew Fleming (1999, 2005 & 2006).  He checked Tilley’s observations and pointed out that many of his proposed alignments were in fact erroneous (Woodward, 2000, 123).  Fleming argued that the apparent relationship between monuments and rock outcrops at North Preseli in Pembrokeshire may be the result of preferential survival.  Many of the sites are in found marginal, stony areas where the land has not been intensively farmed.  This fact, coupled with the easy availability of building materials to subsequent generations possibly meant that tombs were not robbed out.
Tilley also employed a phenomenological approach in “Round Barrows and Dykes as landscape metaphors”.  This was an exploration into the locational significance of Bronze Age round barrows and dykes located at the eastern end of the Ebble-Nadder ridge in southwest Wiltshire (Fleming, 2006: Tilley, 2004).  Of relevance to this essay is the section of Tilley’s work which focussed on twenty-four Bronze Age barrows.  The project concentrated on the relationship between a northern and southern group of barrows, and the natural coombes and spurs found on the chalk ridge.  Each barrow was visited and its’ individual relationship to major topographical features was noted (Fleming, 2006: Tilley, 2004: Woodward 2000).
Tilley concluded that eleven of the twenty-four barrows were directly related to coombes and were located at or near coombe heads or conjunctions.  Seven barrows were connected to character changes in the landscape i.e. spurs (2), gullies (2) and changes of escarpment direction (3).  The southern barrow group was not intervisible with the northern group, which led Tilley to suggest that the barrow siting was related to “highly localised topographical features” (Tilley, 2004, 194).  The link between barrows and coombes has been suggested by many archaeologists, and various studies have focussed on intervisibility and barrow placement.  These have shown that burial sites frequently occur on false crests, ridges or higher ground, while others have a geometric relationship within thelandscape (Tomalin, 1991; Woodwood & Woodwood, 1996; Field, 1998; Parker Pearson & Ramilisonina 1988).
Some phenomenological arguments cut both ways and it is possible that perceived orientations were deliberate, but then again it could is equally possible that they could be accidental.  Archaeologists’ need to critically consider how relationships should be identified, asking, for example, how close a monument needs to be to a particular topographic feature for a deliberate link between the two to be suggested (Fleming, 1999, 120 & 2005, 927). Similar points can be made regarding the significance of other sensory elements of monuments and landscapes.  Phenomenologists are often criticised of manipulating evidence in favour of their assumptions and not being objective.  Caution should be applied when hypothesizing about sacred mountains in areas where isolated hills and mountain ranges dominate the skyline.
We first need to identify which particular elements of a burial landscape can be shown to be important factors influencing their location in the past and which cannot.  However as a point of interest, two of Tilley’s proposed sacred mountains have later religious connections which could have originated in the prehistoric period.  Carn Ingli or “hill of angels”, has been linked with the Irish saint Brynach, while Mynydd Troed in the Black Mountains was known in the 5th century as Garth Matrun, the “hillspur of the Great Mother” (Thomas, 1994, 57 & 145-6).
Any archaeologist should be wary of overemphasising what is perceived as a deliberate landscape relationship without careful consideration of all the facts.  It would be normal practice to note that the burials were in carefully chosen locations, and that those on high ground are often intervisible with each another while those on low ground are not (DeBoer, 2004: Fleming, 2006).  Apparent orientation, intervisibility or invisibility is not an indicator that those who built and used a prehistoric burial site recognised or considered a visual relationship important.
The visual interactions postulated by Tilley (1994 & 2004) may not have been the overriding factor in barrow placement.  The dead do not bury themselves (Parker-Pearson, 1999), and the selection of burial sites is a carefully considered undertaking and argument only arises in interpretation of the barrow placement (Barrett, 2004).  Field suggests that it is not the burial that is  sacred but the landscape itself is sacred, and the important relationship may have been one that placed the barrows in harmony with the landscape (Field, 1998, 321).  He compared British Prehistoric burial sites in Sussex with the preferred location for Chinese burials and concluded that they were broadly similar in nature.  The majority of sites were located on “well drained, south facing slopes…with water at the base…and mountains in the rear to protect them from…evil influences”
(Field, 1998, 322).
In an effort to illustrate their visual theories, phenomenologists have attempted to demonstrate visual relationships between places they have identified with photographs, photomontages and line drawings (Cummings et al, 2000: Tilley 1994).  These techniques are reputed to enable landscapes to be represented from the perspective of lived experience in contrast to traditional cartographic depictions.  In their attempt to produce a repeatable methodology Cummings et al (2002) produced panoramic representations of the landscape around each monument.  This was achieved by sketching a 360 degree view from a set point in the centre of the monument a method also used by Stukeley in the 18th century.  All drawings were supplemented by taking a series of photographs which created a wraparound photograph of the surrounding landscape (Cummings et al, 2002, 61).  These have proved useful for analysis but they are difficult to understand, and only of limited use in the presentation of the data.  The use of photography and video footage as evidence to support the claims made for particular relationships must be treated with caution.  Unfortunately the images produced are not objective records but are themselves selected and edited representations of landscape (Chadwick 2004, 21; Peterson, 2003, 398).  However, it could be argued that any criticisms of phenomenological recording methodologies are themselves flawed unless the site had been visited by the critic (Cummings, et al, 2002, 68).
while relying heavily on a sense of vision, also embraces a belief that there are key points of common connection.  In Wiltshire, Tilley contrasts a “deep interior world of the coombes and the exterior world of the ridge tops” where the coombes were dangerous places associated with “spirits, mythical forces and the underworld” (2004, 196).  He argues that the Neolithic cairns he studied in Wales were connections between Neolithic inhabitants and their Mesolithic ancestors, and were placed in locations with “emotional attachment…and significant places linked by paths of movement” (Tilley, 1994, 202).  This raises interesting questions about whether prehistoric barrows were deliberately constructed over spaces imbued with significance, or whether it was pure coincidence (Benson & Whittle, 2007, 31).  There is certainly a case for the argument of continuity, as many of the Black Mountain cairns have been found to be sited on early Mesolithic flint scatters, suggesting an ancestral connection via a collective social memory (Nash, 2003, 5 & 2007, pers. comm.; Tilley, 1994, 117).  Cummings et al interpreted the Black Mountain cairns as “places of transformation” sited to mark significant landscapes and places where the dead would undergo a metamorphosis from flesh to bone (Cummings et al, 2003, 67).  This is another plausible phenomenological theory that cannot be discounted but like so many phenomenological arguments, cannot be proved either.
A Phenomenologist
would argue that a present-day experience within a burial landscape will not be considerably different from that experienced in the Neolithic or Bronze Age (Tilley, 1994).  In his discussion of Wiltshire Bronze-Age barrows, Tilley suggests that the present day topography of coombes and ridges was virtually the same in the Bronze Age as it is now.  Natural features such as sudden dips, marshland or steep inclines are perceived to have had a similar effect on prehistoric people’s experience of landscape as they have on his own (Tilley, 2004).  He neglects to mention that form and character of the landscape may have altered dramatically over many years.  The surface appearance of the monuments will also be different as several millennia of soil drift and erosion, stone robbing and plant invasion has transformed their original appearance (Savoy, 1973, 1).  It may also look and feel quite different at different times of the year or different times of day.  Therefore, it is recommended that sites should be visited under different conditions over a lengthy period of time to have any hope of recreating the experiences of people in the past.  (Cummings et al, 2003: Chapman and Geary 2000).
The consideration of visibility and lines of sight are also potentially flawed by a lack of appreciation for past environmental factors.  Any theorised visual effect in the past may have been hindered, prevented or even enhanced by trees, woodland or long grass (Bruck, 2004; Cummings et al, 256).  Palaeoecological analysis of carbonized plant remains, and disturbed soil from a selection of the Black Mountain cairns revealed that some were constructed in areas of heath or woodland pasture while others were sited in more open landscapes (Cummings and Whittle, 2003, 259; Tilley, 1994, 220).  This would obviously have implications for phenomenological studies; a wooded setting can have real physical and psychological effects on anyone experiencing that landscape.  Prehistoric people may have been deliberately siting burials in and around wooded landscapes to create particular experiences of place that may be difficult to recreate today (Muir, 2005).  Even if it is possible to identify convincing relationships between landscape features, the meaning of these associations may be more difficult to understand.
Perhaps the most important debate concerning phenomenology is whether present-day interactions with a burial landscape will ever approach the actual experience of past peoples.  Any first hand experience of a phenomenological landscape interaction today can only be imaginary, socially constructed, cultural specific and subject to modern beliefs and emotions.  The landscape will be experienced and interpreted by people in many different ways, and will vary depending on the context of their engagement with it (Edmonds, 1999).  This makes it easy to question phenomenological landscape theories as “at any one time, landscapes…are multiple and contradictory” (Bender, 1998, 34).  To some, artefacts can be places in the same way places can be artefacts to others, likewise monuments can be landscapes and landscapes may be monuments (Bradley, 2000).
interpretation “is carried out in and for the present”, and a prehistoric experience of a burial landscape might have been very different and probably emotional experience to that encountered today (Tarlow, 2000; Tilley, 2004, 225).  While some aspects of “being there” are partially or directly reconstructable such as “…visibility, sound, and touch”, we can never wholly reconstruct the way in which our prehistoric ancestors viewed or experienced a burial landscape (Parker Pearson, 1999, 139).  We know that prehistoric people visited, used and reused burial sites, but we don’t know that they understood and saw burial sites in the same way we do today.  We often forget that any visits to burial sites were most certainly encountered with friends, family, strangers, animals and objects, and all to the sound of stories, songs and conversation (Nash, pers. comm.; Watson, 2001).  Tilley himself acknowledges this and “makes no claims to an understanding…or significance of the prehistoric burial landscape (Tilley, 2004, 74).  All that can be suggested by phenomenological explorations of burial landscapes are interpretive possibilities based on our own contemporary experience and observations.
Phenomenological studies of archaeological landscapes have been based upon attempting to replicate the experience of “being-in-the-world”, primarily through analysing visibility patterns (Tilley 1994: 12).  This has been called into question and had been critiqued as un-testable, overtly subjective and misguided (Fleming, 1999, 2005 & 2006).  A major problem with taking a phenomenological approach to the study of prehistoric burials is that the landscape can only be experienced as it appears today (Brophy, 2004).  While phenomenology does assist the recognition of some visual relationships that were considered significant in the past, it cannot tell us what they may have meant (Tilley 2004: Woodward 2004).  Despite its drawbacks, landscape phenomenology has certainly encouraged archaeologists to reanalyse the architecture and landscape settings of various different categories of burial monument.  It certainly shows the need for a greater understanding of the “detailed landscape setting” of prehistoric burials (Woodward 2000, 130).
Any criticism that stimulates both rigorous archaeological debate and new research can only be good for archaeology as a whole.  Phenomenology does at least remind us that prehistoric burial sites were more than “just somewhere to put dead bodies” (Parker Pearson, 1999, 196).  They may also have been markers of special places, a recreation of valued landscape features, or commemorated the passage of time (Richards, 1996).  No school of archaeological thought has a “monopoly on the imagination”, and while phenomenology cannot tell us about community and characters, or their hopes and fears, neither can traditionally accepted archaeological methodologies (Fleming, 2006, 272).  Archaeologists do not need to throw away their maps and air photographs.  They just have to recognise that there are many ways of thinking about and interpreting prehistoric burial landscapes, and appreciate that there may b  a
deeper significance to the placement of prehistoric burials than is currently
Barnatt, J. & Edmonds, M. (2002) “Places Apart? Caves and Monuments in Neolithic and Earlier Bronze Age Britain”.  In Cambridge Archaeological Journal, Vol. 12, Part 1, pp. 113-129 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Barrett, J. C. (1990) “The monumentality of death: the character of Early Bronze Age mortuary mounds in southern Britain”.  In World Archaeology, Vol. 22, pp. 179-189 (Routledge Journals: Abingdon).
Barrett, J. C. (2004) Comment in Tilley, C. “Round Barrows and Dykes as Landscape Metaphors’.  In Cambridge Archaeological Journal, Vol. 14, Part 2, pp. 199 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Bender, B., Hamilton, S & Tilley, C. (1997) ‘Leskernick: Stone worlds: alternative narratives; nested landscapes’.  In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, Vol. 63, 147-178 (Salisbury: The Prehistoric Society).
Bender, B. (1998) Stonehenge: Making Space (Oxford: Berg).
Benson, D. & Whittle, A. (2007) Building Memories: The Neolithic Cotswold Long Barrow at Ascott-Under-Wychwood, Oxfordshire (Oxford: Oxbow).
Bradley, R. (2000) An Archaeology of Natural Places (London: Routledge).
Bruch, J. (2004) Comment in Tilley, C. ‘Round Barrows and Dykes as Landscape Metaphors’.  In Cambridge Archaeological Journal, Vol. 14, Part 2, pp. 201 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Chadwick, A.M. (2004) “Geographies of sentience” – an introduction to space, place and time.  In Chadwick, A.M. (ed.) Stories from the Landscape: Archaeologies of Inhabitation” BAR (International Series) S1238, pp. 1-48 (Oxford: Archaeopress).
Chapman, H. P. & Geary, B. R. (2000) “Palaeoecology and the perception of prehistoric landscapes: some comments on visual approaches to phenomenology”.  In Antiquity, Vol. 74, no. 284, pp. 316-319 (London: Society of Antiquaries).
Cummings, V. Jones, A. & Watson, A. (2002) “Divided Places: Phenomenology and Asymmetry in the Monuments of the Black Mountains, Southeast Wales”.  In Cambridge Archaeological Journal, Vol. 12, Part 1, pp. 57-70 (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press).
Cummings, V. & Whittle, A. (2003) “Tombs with a view: landscape, monuments and trees”.  In Antiquity, Vol. 77, No. 296, pp. 255-266 (London: Society of Antiquaries).
Darvill, T. (2003) The Oxford Concise Dictionary of Archaeology (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Edmonds, M. (1999) Ancestral geographies of the Neolithic (Oxford: Berg).
Field, D. (1998) “Round Barrows and the Harmonious Landscape: Placing Early Bronze Age Burial Monuments in South-East England”.  In Oxford Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 78, Part 3, pp. 309-326 (Oxford: Blackwell Press).
Fleming, A. (1999) “Phenomenology and the megaliths of Wales: A Dreaming Too Far”.  In Oxford Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 18, Part 2, pp. 119-125 (Oxford: Blackwell Press).
Fleming, A. (2005) “Megaliths and post-modernism: the case of Wales”.  In Antiquity, Vol. 79, No. 306, pp. 921-932 (London: Society of Antiquaries).
Fleming, A. (2006) “Post-processual Landscape Archaeology: a Critique”.  In Cambridge Archaeological Journal, Vol. 16, Part 3, pp. 267-280 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Muir, R. (2005) Ancient Trees, Living Landscapes (Stroud: Tempus).
Nash, G. (2003) “Re-evaluating monumentality: Arthur’s Stone, Dorstone, Herefordshire”.  In 3rd Stone: Archaeology, folklore and Myth, No. 45, pp. 3-14 (Devizes: Neil Mortimer).
Nash, G. (2007) pers. comm. 18-11-07.
Parker Pearson, M, & Ramilisonina (1988) “Stonehenge for the ancestors: the stones pass on their message”.  In Antiquity Vol. 72, No. 276, pp. 306-326 (London: Society of Antiquaries).
Parker-Pearson, M. (1999) The Archaeology Of Death And Burial (Stroud: Sutton).
Peterson, R. (2003) “William Stukeley: an eighteenth-century phenomenologist?”.  In Antiquity, Vol. 77, No. 296, pp 394-400 (London: Society of Antiquaries).
Russell, M. (2007) “The Dangers of Archaeo-doublespeak”.  In Current Archaeology, Vol. XVIII, No. 212, pp. 31 (London: Current Publishing).
Savory, H. N. (1973) “Pen-y-wyrlod: a new Welsh long cairn”.  In Antiquity, Vol. 47, pp.187-194 (London: Society of Antiquaries). Tarlow,
S. (2000)
“Emotion in Archaeology”.  In Current Anthropology, Vol. 41, No. 5, pp. 713-746 (Chicago: Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research).
Thomas, J. (2004) Archaeology and modernity (Routledge: London).
Tilley, C. (2004) “Round Barrows and Dykes as Landscape Metaphors”.  In Cambridge Archaeological Journal, Vol. 14, Part 2, pp. 185-203 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Tomalin, D. J. (1991) “Coombe-cluster barrow cemeteries in the Isle of Wight; a locational predictional model”.  In Proceedings of the Isle of Wight Natural History and Archaeological Society, Vol. 11, pp. 85-96 (Isle of Wight: Isle of Wight Natural History and Archaeological Society).
Watson, A. (2001) “Composing Avebury”.  In World Archaeology, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 296-314 (Abingdon: Routledge).
Woodward, A. B. & Woodwood, P. J. (1996) “The Topography of some Barrow Cemeteries in Bronze Wessex”.  In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, Vol. 62, pp. 275-291 (Salisbury: The Prehistoric Society).
Woodward, A. (2000) British Barrows (Stroud: Tempus).