Duncan Garrow

Odd deposits and average practice. A critical history of the concept of structured deposition.

This paper presents a critical history of the concept of ‘structured deposition’. It examines the long-term development of this idea in archaeology, from its origins in the early 1980s through to the present day, looking at how it has been moulded and transformed. On the basis of this historical account, a number of problems are identified with the way that ‘structured deposition’ has generally been conceptualized and applied. It is suggested that the range of deposits described under a single banner as being ‘structured’ is unhelpfully broad, and that archaeologists have been too willing to view material culture patterning as intentionally produced – the result of symbolic or ritual action. It is also argued that the material signatures of ‘everyday’ practice have been undertheorized and all too often ignored. Ultimately, it is suggested that if we are ever to understand fully the archaeological signatures of past practice, it is vital to consider the ‘everyday’ as well as the ‘ritual’ processes which lie behind the patterns we uncover in the ground.

Grey waters bright with Neolithic argonauts? Maritime connections and the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition within the ‘western seaways’ of Britain, c . 5000–3500 BC

Careful examination of the probable natural conditions for travel in the North Sea and Irish Sea during the late Mesolithic are here combined with the latest radiocarbon dates to present a new picture of the transition to the Neolithic in the British Isles. The islands of the west were already connected by Mesolithic traffic and did not all go Neolithic at the same time. The introduction of the Neolithic package neither depended on seaborne incomers nor on proximity to the continent. More interesting forces were probably operating on an already busy seaway.

Pit clusters and the temporality of occupation: an earlier Neolithic site at Kilverstone, Thetford, Norfolk

This paper discusses 226 earlier Neolithic pits found at Kilverstone in Norfolk. In particular, it focuses on the dynamics involved in the sites creation, investigating what had happened to the material found in the pits prior to deposition, and exploring the material connections (refitting sherds and flints) across the site. As a result of these material insights, it proved possible to shed important light on the character of that place in particular, and on the temporality of Neolithic deposition and occupation in general.

Dating Celtic art: a major radiocarbon dating programme of Iron Age and early Roman metalwork in Britain

This paper presents the first substantial set of radiocarbon determinations for the later Iron Age decorated metalwork known as Celtic art in Britain. Hitherto this material has been dated relatively on the basis of changes in decoration and form, which were then linked to materials with some absolute date. The latter process has tended to give relatively late dates, as most of the material with a firm date stems from the last century BC or after. This has meant that British Celtic art appears to be rather later than that on the Continent. Our results provide some tentative support for an earlier dating for at least some British material, more closely aligned to that on the Continent. Stead, building on earlier work, has developed a series of Stages or Styles for the decorations of Celtic art and we shall review these here. We also look at particular classes of artefacts and forms of deposition in the light of our new results. We conclude by drawing some contrasts between Bronze Age metalwork and that of Celtic art, reflecting on how far assumptions of a sequential series of changes, key to all forms of typology, are useful in the case of the latter.

Placing pits: landscape occupation and depositional practice during the Neolithic in East Anglia

This paper takes Neolithic pits as a starting point from which to investigate the broader issues of settlement and deposition in Britain at that time. It suggests that while sites made up primarily, and often only, of pits have recently been incorporated much more readily into accounts of the period, they are still not well understood. It is only by investigating the character of occupation across the landscape as a whole, and the nature of deposits in a variety of different contexts, that we will be able to understand pits, settlement, or deposition fully. On the basis of a study of this kind, it is suggested that pits were sited in specific locations which might be considered suitable for ‘settlement’; it is also demonstrated that deposition varied considerably between contexts and over time. By including large numbers of sites known only through ‘grey’ reports and Historic Environment Records, the study draws on an important body of work which has been under-used in the past. The paper focuses primarily on East Anglia, a region well-known for its pit sites but not well-known for its monuments; in doing so, it aims to counterbalance the weight of previous narratives which have tended to focus on other parts of Britain.

Refitting Etton: Space, Time, and Material Culture Within a Causewayed Enclosure in Cambridgeshire

This paper considers the dynamics of deposition around and across the causewayed enclosure at Etton, Cambridgeshire. As a result of detailed re-analysis (particularly refitting) of the pottery and flint assemblages from the site, it proved possible to shed new light both on the temporality of occupation and the character of deposition there. Certain aspects of our work challenge previous interpretations of the site, and of causewayed enclosures in general; but, just as importantly, others confirm materially what has previously been suggested. The quantities of material deposited at Etton reveal that the enclosure was occupied only very intermittently and certainly less regularly than other contemporary sites in the region. The spatial distribution of material suggests that the enclosure ditch lay open for the entirety of the monuments life, but that acts of deposition generally focused on a specific part of the monument at any one time. As well as enhancing our knowledge of one particular causewayed enclosure, it is hoped that this paper – in combination with our earlier analysis of the pit site at Kilverstone – makes clear the potential that detailed material analysis has to offer in relation to our understanding of the temporality of occupation on prehistoric sites in general.

Artefacts between disciplines. The toothbrush and the axe

This paper takes the form of a dialogue between an archaeologist and a sociologist. In recent years, interdisciplinary working has become increasingly fashionable within academia. The aim of our exchange was to establish exactly what implications this way of working has for understandings of material culture. Our methodology was simple, involving the ‘archaeological’ and ‘sociological’ analysis of two different objects. In undertaking this work, we hoped to bring about new or different understandings of the objects under scrutiny. The process was indeed successful, but not necessarily in the ways we had expected. Ultimately, it revealed a complex set of questions about how the materials of culture are conceptualized and understood, and led us to a renewed appreciation of the theoretical and methodological qualities of what we do within our respective disciplines

Microliths and maritime mobility: a continental European-style Late Mesolithic flint assemblage from the Isles of Scilly

Abstract Once Britain had become separated from the European mainland in the seventh millennium BC, Mesolithic stone tool traditions on opposite sides of the newly formed Channel embarked upon different directions of development. Patterns of cross-Channel contact have been difficult to decipher in this material, prior to the expansion of farming (and possibly farmers) from northern France at the beginning of the fourth millennium BC. Hence the discovery of Late Mesolithic microliths of apparently Belgian affinity at the western extremity of southern Britain—in the Isles of Scilly—comes as something of a surprise. The find is described here in detail, along with alternative scenarios that might explain it. The article is followed by a series of comments, with a closing reply from the authors.

The tip of the iceberg? Reply to responses

We would like to thank all four authors for their thoughtful responses to our paper and the assemblage it describes. In some cases those comments confirmed things we had thought already, but in others they surprised us, confronting us with ideas that we had never previously considered. Collectively this has made us think hard about future research possibilities.

Artefacts between disciplines. Response to responses

As is often the way, a ‘finished’ article disguises aspects of its own production and gives an overly orderly account of theoretical and methodological moves which were not especially planned. In responding to our commentators and in coming clean about our own working methods we have some confessions to make. In making these admissions we continue what has by now become a conversation about matters of interdisciplinarity and about our approach to the axe and the toothbrush.