You are on page 1of 23

MATT BRUDENELL AND ANWEN COOPER

POST-MIDDENISM: DEPOSITIONAL HISTORIES ON LATER


BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENTS AT BROOM, BEDFORDSHIRE

Summary. This paper considers recent discussions of deliberate, formal,


placed, special, structured, or token deposits on later prehistoric
settlements in Britain. It argues that while these concepts have certainly been
very important in raising and forefronting the interpretative possibilities that
depositional practices might offer, the idea of structured deposition has, at
times, been adopted and applied somewhat simplistically. In such instances,
exploration of the potential complexity and interpretative scope of depositional
histories on later prehistoric settlements has been substantially curtailed.
Current understandings of depositional practices involving pottery and burnt
human bone are examined, and alternative interpretations offered, through a
case study of the evidence recovered from a series of later Bronze Age
settlements at Broom Quarry, Bedfordshire.

introduction
Since its development in ethno-archaeological (Moore 1982) and Neolithic studies
(Richards and Thomas 1984; Shanks and Tilley 1982) and subsequent revitalization in accounts
of later prehistoric settlement (Brck 1999; 2001; Hill 1993; 1995), the concept of structured
deposition has proved to be highly pervasive and influential in understanding material dynamics
in British prehistory (Jones 2001). While in its earliest archaeological rendition, the term was
used quite specifically to describe material associations that were thought to have been produced
according to highly formalised, repetitive [and thus potentially ritual] behaviour at the henge
monument of Durrington Walls (Richards and Thomas 1984, 191), more recently it has been
applied much more broadly, throughout later prehistory, to deposits containing material that was
seemingly selected or arranged within cut or upstanding features (e.g. Cunliffe 1992; Hill 1995;
McOmish 1996) or placed in strategic locations (such as major settlement boundaries) on
archaeological sites (e.g. Brossler 2001; Brck 1995; 1999).
In parallel with the increasing use of this concept, the language used to describe
structured deposits has come to include the terms deliberate, formal, placed, ritual, selected,
special, and token. This broader vocabulary has been generated in order to highlight subtle
differences in the character of the deposit under consideration. For example, the term formal has
been used to imply that material elements were arranged in some way or that the act of deposition
was performed with some care (e.g. McKinley 2003; Pollard 1995). Deliberate and placed
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 27(1) 1536 2008
2008 The Authors
Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK
and 350 Main Street Malden, MA 02148, USA.

15

POST-MIDDENISM

likewise emphasize the intentionality attributed to such deposits, and, in the case of the latter,
their strategic positioning in relation to other features such as structures or boundary ditches (e.g.
Bradley 2003; Guttman and Last 2000). Special has been applied to deposits including certain
distinctive materials (e.g. Grant in Cunliffe 1984, 53343). Finally, token or selected refers to
instances in which fragments of a material entity (for example, pieces of charred bone from a
human cremation) were deposited as a symbolic referent (Brck 1999; 2001; 2006).
Attempts to interpret structured deposits have considered the possible meanings
associated with the formal treatment of certain materials (e.g. Cunliffe 1992). They have
examined the potential properties (physical, metaphorical, transformational, etc.) that may have
been ascribed to such materials, and the conceptual links that could have been made between
different kinds of material that were afforded special attention (e.g. Brck 2001; 2006). It has
been argued that, in the Bronze Age of southern Britain, strong symbolic connections were
made between the life-cycles of people and the life-cycles of the materials they used (Brck
1999). Given that the items involved in such deposits are often fragmented or even seemingly
ground up, it has also been contended that the act of destroying (breaking or burning) materials
for deposition may have been seen as a metaphor for the closure of a period of settlement or
the ending of someones life (Brck 2006). A number of studies have analysed the location of
special deposits in relation to archaeologically visible junctures major settlement boundaries
or post-holes at the entrances to roundhouses leading to suggestions that such deposits were
sometimes made in order to mark strategic places (e.g. Parker Pearson 1996) or particular
moments in the duration of a settlement (e.g. Brck 1999). Others still have noted the
potentially aesthetic or performative qualities of structured deposits, distinguishing between the
acts of selecting items of aesthetic worth (e.g. decorated pottery), and carefully arranging items
(that were not necessarily visually attractive in themselves) in such contexts (e.g. Pollard
2001).
However, it has recently been argued that there is an increasing tendency simply to
identify structured deposits, without fully considering the processes by which they were
produced: structured deposition . . . has become an interpretation in itself (Garrow 2007).
While this last point was made in relation to the Neolithic literature, it is not at all difficult to seek
out recent accounts of Bronze and Iron Age archaeology for which the same assertion could be
made (e.g. Brown et al. 2006; Cook et al. 2004; Guttman 2000; Kirk and Williams 2000; Ladle
and Woodward 2003; Proctor 2002; Woodward 19989).
Building on both the insights and shortcomings of some of this earlier work, this paper
critically examines the ways in which structured deposits on later prehistoric (Bronze and Iron
Age) settlements have been identified and understood. We contend that while the initial
discussion and interpretation of depositional practices was undoubtedly very valuable, the
criteria that have subsequently been used to recognize structured deposits in later prehistoric
contexts have frequently been simplistic and selective: certain elements of assemblages have
been singled out at the expense of others, and as a result other potential explanations for the
patterning of material remains have not been explored. Our aim is not to suggest that the concept
of structured or ritual deposition on later prehistoric settlements should be rejected outright.
Rather, it is to elicit some of the potential complexities that are involved in interpreting structured
deposits; to suggest that the intentionality we ascribe to the creation of such deposits must be
argued for much more rigorously (following Hill 1995); and, most importantly, to raise the
possibility that the patterning we observe in archaeological remains can be interpreted in other,
equally interesting ways. Such an approach is perhaps particularly important for a period in
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

16

2008 The Authors


Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

MATT BRUDENELL AND ANWEN COOPER

which it is widely acknowledged that settlement debris in general may have been a source of
symbolic reference (Brck 2001), and distinctive deposits are encountered not only in cut
features, but also in large middens above the ground (Lawson 1994; McOmish 1996; Needham
1993).
By considering the broader contexts in which certain distinctive materials (decorated
or freshly broken pottery and burnt human bone) were deposited, and adopting an approach
that does not assume from the beginning that there was always intentionality behind the
structuredness that archaeologists perceive, this paper presents some alternative understandings
of depositional histories on later Bronze Age sites. In order to do so we present a case study
examining in substantial detail the evidence from a series of later Bronze Age settlements at
Broom Quarry in Bedfordshire (Cooper and Edmonds 2007). Using this analysis, we question
exactly how the assemblages in features containing unusual items were formed, situate these
items in relation to the wider spatial and material contexts in which they were deposited, and
examine what other interpretative possibilities might arise, once the evidence is viewed in this
way.
It is important to note that while the interpretations we make in relation to this case study
are necessarily contextually specific, we also raise points that are significant to understandings
of later prehistoric settlement histories much more broadly. By highlighting the interpretative
potential that we encountered through our engagement with this particular body of material, we
intend to re-emphasize the argument that depositional practices can be different in different
places and times (following Hill 1995), and to encourage more creative and thoughtful
exploration in future of the practices that structured later prehistoric deposits.

broom quarry
Before turning to a detailed analysis of the material itself, it is useful to introduce briefly
the archaeological sites under consideration (Fig. 1). Broom Quarry is situated just over 2 km to
the south west of Biggleswade, Bedfordshire on a spur of river gravels to the west of the Ivel
valley. Investigations over a 10-year period by the Cambridge Archaeological Unit, in advance
of quarrying, yielded archaeology dating from the earlier Neolithic to the post-medieval period
(this evidence is discussed in full in Cooper and Edmonds 2007). This included three distinct
clusters of later Bronze Age settlement features associated with plain post-Deverel Rimbury
pottery (c.1100800 BC). Each of the three sites was made up of a seemingly familiar grammar
of groups of pits and post-holes, roundhouses and four post structures, the vast majority of which
were filled in one episode with a matrix of charcoal-rich soil, burnt stone, bone, flint and clay,
pottery, worked flint and charred seeds of wild plants and cereals.

pottery
Understanding the types of practice responsible for the accumulation of ceramic
material is by no means straightforward. Recent archaeological studies have demonstrated some
of the complexities behind deposition, highlighting the numerous processes which can
potentially give rise to varying compositions of material (see Needham and Spence 1997 for
reviews of this literature). Despite such insights, where analyses have moved on to try and
interpret the practices that created such deposits, they have tended to focus almost exclusively on
finding ways to define and identify overt or highly formalized acts of pottery dumping and/or
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
2008 The Authors
Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

17

POST-MIDDENISM

Figure 1
Later Bronze Age settlements at Broom Quarry, Bedfordshire.

table 1
An example of traits used to identify special pottery deposits (Guttman and Last
2000, 355)

Many sherds from a particular vessel/s


Unusually large pieces of a vessel/s
Freshly broken or curated sherd material
Selected parts of vessels such as rims
A high mean sherd weight for individual pottery deposits
A large quantity of pottery from a range of different vessels

placing of ceramic debris. Pottery groups are thus classified as special if they contain one or a
combination of the criteria listed in Table 1.
Before moving on to examine the specific character of some later Bronze Age pottery
assemblages from Broom Quarry, it is worth considering how the criteria listed in Table 1 were
formulated, and more specifically, asking what founding principles lay behind separating
exceptional from other pottery deposits. It is important to emphasize at the outset that these
criteria are primarily derived from J.D. Hills work on depositional practices in Iron Age Wessex
(Hill 1995). In his original scheme, Hill identified two distinct types of exceptional pottery
deposit (Table 2), on the basis of a series of detailed investigations into how the quantity and
size of sherds from individual deposits (layers in pit fills) varied across site-specific pottery
assemblages.
Using pottery data from six EarlyMiddle Iron Age assemblages, Hill showed there to
be a general logarithmic relationship between mean sherd weight (MSW) and the number of
sherds in individual pottery groups. By plotting the MSW of pottery deposits against the number
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

18

2008 The Authors


Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

MATT BRUDENELL AND ANWEN COOPER

table 2
Hills four categories of exceptional deposits from individual layers/context (Hill 1995, 40)
I.

POTTERY

II. ANIMAL BONE


III. SMALL FINDS
IV. HUMAN REMAINS

Ia. Small numbers of large to very large sized pot sherds


Ib. Large numbers of small to medium sized pot sherds
Large numbers of bone fragments, the majority often from a single species, and often including
articulated/associated groups of bone
Two or more small finds

table 3
Hills three distinct types of pottery assemblage (1995, 39)
I. Low densities of smallmedium sized sherds the bulk of layer assemblages
II. Large assemblages of mediumsmall sherds
III. Deposits of small numbers of largevery large freshly broken, or at least carefully curated, sherds

of sherds, he was able to identify different types of pottery deposit based on recurring patterns
in the distributions. Using MSW as an index of sherd size, three distinct types of pottery deposit
were defined, each characterized by differences in the number and size of sherds, and the
frequency of their occurrence in an assemblage (Table 3). This threefold classification of pottery
types formed the basis for distinguishing special deposits. Building on this categorization, Hill
interpreted deposit Types II and III as being exceptional, with Type I being the average or
background on a site. To put it simply, only large dumps of pottery or large unabraded sherds
were considered to be special.
Over the past decade, the traits which Hill identified as characterizing exceptional
pottery deposits have come to be used across Britain as a litmus test for establishing whether or
not any given pottery group represents an act of formalized deposition (e.g. Marsden in Beamish
1998, 524; Brown et al. 2006, 172; Last in Gibson 2004, 3641; Guttman and Last 2000).
Although Hills scheme was aimed quite specifically at explaining variation in Iron Age pottery
assemblages from Wessex, and he himself stressed that the topic required further investigation
(Hill 1995, 39), the traits he defined have since been transformed somewhat straightforwardly
into a universally applicable check-list for identifying structured deposition. As a result,
material has come to be categorized, and interpretations made on a simple presence/absence
basis, without necessarily being supported by detailed analytical work. It is therefore not Hills
original discussion of deposition and deposits that we take issue with, but the sometimes rather
simplistic and mechanistic ways in which his ideas have been applied by others. Quite apart from
questioning if the patterns identified for Wessex are relevant elsewhere in Britain, or at different
times in later prehistory, there has been little further discussion as to whether Hills threefold
classification adequately reflects the full range of variation within and between pottery groups.
This point is critical, since the traits which have come to be used to identify special pottery
deposits are derived directly from a very particular understanding of assemblage variation. In
other words, if there are problems inherent with the current universal perception of the overall
variation within pottery assemblages, there are also likely to be problems with the traits that are
held to signify special deposits.
It is argued here that the complexity of variation that is evident within and between later
Bronze Age ceramic groups cannot necessarily be reduced to the three all-encompassing types
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
2008 The Authors
Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

19

POST-MIDDENISM

table 4
Characteristics of pottery deposits weighing over 500 g from sites at Broom Quarry
Site

Pit

% Small
(<4 cm)

% Med.
(<8 cm)

% Large
(>8 cm)

No. sherds

Weight (g)

MSW

Min. no. vessels

Hill Lane
Toll House
Toll House
Toll House
Toll House
Gypsy Lane
Gypsy Lane
Gypsy Lane
Gypsy Lane
Gypsy Lane
Gypsy Lane

F. 199
F. 542
F. 550
F. 557
F. 568
F. 673
F. 754
F. 780
F. 865
F. 874
F. 891

62
72
76
76
82
89
86
48
67
62
42

34
25
23
22
16
7
30
47
30
34
56

4
4
1
1
2
4
2
5
3
4
2

67
74
122
139
167
150
564
99
85
131
78

703
532
612
875
974
793
3535
1001
648
931
838

10.5
7.2
5.0
6.3
5.9
5.3
6.3
10.1
7.6
7.1
10.7

6
11
2
10
13
3
35
15
5
7
7

that Hill originally outlined. The problem with this scheme is that the divisions are based on the
relationship between just two variables, namely the number of sherds and MSW. Whilst in Hills
analysis the correlation between these factors was aptly demonstrated, it is vital to recognize that
the relationship between these two variables may not always be so clear-cut. Consequently, it is
important to explore the possibility that alternative patterns in the material might be established
using different variables. It is not the aim of this paper to provide new correlations, or to find
alternative ways of categorizing types of ceramic deposits. The point we hope to make is that
assemblage composition can be explored in a multitude of ways, and that by categorizing
deposits on the basis of particular variables, we ultimately limit the scope of our interpretations.
Variation in the composition of deposits should be a theme to be explored, taking into account
a much wider range of variables than just the number of sherds and MSW.
It was with this approach in mind that the pottery assemblages from three later Bronze
Age sites at Broom Quarry were assessed. This revealed that in most cases, the pottery deposits
precluded any straightforward classification. Even in instances where there were some broad
similarities between deposits, in terms of the number of sherds or overall weights of material, it
was simply not possible to categorize these assemblages into meaningful or coherent types.
Rather, a closer examination of the material showed that the pottery deposits were typified by
mixed and varied assemblages, containing sherds of different sizes, different vessels, with
varying pre-depositional histories. Importantly, whether these deposits were large or small, the
spectrum of variation within any one feature was often as wide ranging as it was between
assemblages from different features.
The complexity of variation within the ceramic groups from Broom Quarry is further
demonstrated by exploring the details of a sample of pit assemblages containing over 500 g of
pottery. It is worth noting that these large deposits of pottery were relatively rare, with only 11
such examples in total from the three sites. Using Hills criteria, all of these groups would also
have been deemed special, based on either the total weight of material, the number of sherds,
or in some deposits, the presence of multiple vessel fragments. In fact they would all have fitted
comfortably into Hills Type Ib category of exceptional pottery deposits (Table 3).
It also became clear during our analysis that type-casting the pottery groups in this
manner, or fixing the interpretative process at this point, would not do justice to the material. As
Table 4 shows, there was actually considerable variation even between the large deposits, in
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

20

2008 The Authors


Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

MATT BRUDENELL AND ANWEN COOPER

Figure 2
Comparison of % of small, medium and large sherds from a sample of eight deposits from Gypsy Lane, Broom Quarry.
Graph A shows sherd sizes from four different sized deposits, each under 500 g in weight. Graph B shows sherd sizes
from four different sized deposits, each over 500 g in weight.

terms of the number of sherds, the MSW, number of vessels, and sherd sizes. The MSW was
generally higher in deposits containing fewer sherds, whilst the minimum number of vessels was
greater in deposits containing a larger number of sherds. However, beyond these tendencies,
there were no strict correlations between any of the different variables. For any trend that was
established, an exception could be found. For example, whilst the number of vessels tended to
increase with the quantity of material, this was not always the case. In fact F. 542, the smallest
deposit by weight, had the fourth greatest number of vessels.
To take this analysis one step further, it is also important to emphasize that the same
range of variation evident in the larger pottery groups was witnessed in smaller assemblages
as well. Whether deposits contained 56 g or 931 g of pottery, the basic composition of the
assemblage at least in terms of sherd sizes remained relatively similar (Fig. 2). This adds
further weight to the argument that nothing was inherently special or significant about the large
deposits of pottery other than the number of sherds they contained. In reality, the nature of the
larger groups was entirely in keeping with the broader continuum of deposits on the site, making
it difficult to justify why certain examples should be considered significant and not others. Far
from there being distinct discernible categories, variation in sherd size, level of abrasion, or
number of vessels represented appeared as a continuum, both within and between deposits of all
sizes. Consequently, for the material from Broom Quarry at least, any simple classification of
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
2008 The Authors
Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

21

POST-MIDDENISM

Figure 3
Mixed pottery assemblages from two later Bronze Age pits at Broom. Photo: M. Brudenell.

pottery deposits, such as that proposed by Hill, broke down on closer inspection. The divisions
became blurred when variables other than the number of sherds and MSW were introduced.
Having demonstrated the true complexity and variability of the later Bronze Age pottery
assemblages from Broom Quarry, and suggested that any straightforward identification of
special deposits amongst this material is problematic, it is important to ask how the patterning
in these particular pottery assemblages might be more subtly characterized, and what
interpretations might arise on this basis.
As a result of undertaking detailed analysis of the entire pottery group from each
feature, one notable pattern identified was that small, worn sherds tended to dominate many of
the assemblages, though in most cases a few larger fresher pieces were also present (Fig. 3).
This variability in assemblage composition suggested that fragments which ultimately came to
be deposited together had probably undergone relatively diverse post-breakage histories. The
dominance of small sherds within these pottery groups implied that in most cases, once pots were
broken, a relatively long period ensued before they were deposited in the ground, a period during
which the sherds were transformed and broken down through processes of attrition, abrasion and
burning (Hill and Braddock in Evans and Hodder 2006, 15294). Meanwhile, the occurrence of
a few, larger, freshly broken sherds, in the same assemblages, suggested that in some cases
fragments were deposited soon after the pot was broken. Even in these examples, however, it is
important to emphasize that in no instance was there clear evidence that these fresher, larger
sherds had been carefully arranged within, or selected for, the act of deposition. As a result, it is
very difficult to argue that the deposits of which they were part were in any way special.
It was also apparent that fragments derived from a single vessel were sometimes
separated and differently transformed prior to deposition. This is perhaps best demonstrated by
one occurrence in which a burnt and unburnt sherd from the same feature refitted (Fig. 4). In
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

22

2008 The Authors


Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

MATT BRUDENELL AND ANWEN COOPER

Figure 4
The refitting of burnt and unburnt sherds highlights how fragments from a single vessel were sometimes differently
transformed prior to deposition. Photo: M. Brudenell.

other examples, sherds were refitted between different features, in one case up to 55 m apart.
This could suggest that following breakage, from time to time fragments came to be moved
around the settlement over quite considerable distances, rather than being necessarily stored in
one place.
With regards to what kinds of settlement histories this evidence represents, it is certainly
possible that the mixed assemblages of material were derived from one or more pre-depositional
contexts such as upstanding middens. Here, repeated episodes of discard relating a range of
settlement practices could have generated a diverse but relatively consistent accumulation of
material. By drawing upon this refuse for depositional events, a cross-section of the pottery
accumulated would have become caught in individual pit deposits, the result being the assorted
ceramic arrangements that we encountered in the assemblages from Broom Quarry. Slight
variations in these compositions would therefore be expected, though the broad tendency
towards mixed deposits would remain constant.
In some circumstances, it is possible that this material was deposited in pits close to the
location in which it was stored. However, on other occasions it appears that material was shifted
around the site prior to deposition, perhaps as a means of rationalizing these piles of debris, or
perhaps because, for whatever reason, certain fragments were picked up and discarded elsewhere
by the people and animals living on the site. Whilst this interpretation is less dramatic than one
involving special pottery groups, it does seem to be a much more appropriate way of explaining
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
2008 The Authors
Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

23

POST-MIDDENISM

how sherds from different vessels in different states of fragmentation came to be deposited
together on later Bronze Age settlements within this particular landscape. More importantly, this
interpretation does not preclude the possibility that in some instances ceramic material was
deposited with a greater degree of formality. It is simply that in these specific deposits, such
practices were not materialized in a way that was archaeologically demonstrable.
In summary, this analysis has shown that the criteria which have frequently been used
to identify structured deposits of ceramic material on later prehistoric settlement sites are in
many ways selective and exclusive. They are based on generalized assumptions about the overall
nature and composition of pottery assemblages, and they fail to consider the full range of
variation which can be exhibited within and between deposits. Interpretations that are made on
this basis forefront only selected elements of material assemblages, at the expense of examining
the composition of these assemblages as a whole. As a result, it can be argued that the use of such
criteria blinds us to the possibility that material compositions can arise from a range of complex
practices, some of which may, or may not, be formalized. The challenge is therefore to address
this complexity, and to try and build alternative understandings of later Bronze Age settlement
histories on this basis.
What this study has demonstrated is that by bringing entire pottery assemblages into
focus and exploring their individual components in detail, we can move towards a more sensitive
consideration of later Bronze Age depositional practices. By appreciating the fact that most
ceramic deposits are comprised of mixed material with different pre-depositional histories, it is
possible to unpick the processes that underpinned everyday practice (both mundane and
otherwise) and to be released from the simplistic and selective approach of seeking out the
special. In fact it could be suggested that any attempt to define rigid criteria for identifying
special deposits may ultimately miss the point. Formal deposits may be structured in complex
and varied ways, a possibility which is precluded by specifying any particular criteria by which
to recognize them. Without exploring the variation within and between deposits, we run the risk
of dismantling potentially informative groups of material, pulling out and emphasizing only
those sherds which conform to the established criteria and our own preconceptions.

burnt human bone


While the previous section examined how assemblages of one specific material (pottery)
have been treated selectively in interpretations of structured, special or placed deposits on later
prehistoric settlements, this section addresses understandings of deposits that include another
very different material, burnt human bone, which has arguably been treated rather unselectively.
It has long been acknowledged that while few formal burials are known from this period,
human remains, both burnt and unburnt, frequently occur in later prehistoric settlement contexts
(Brck 1995). A number of interpretative studies over the last 15 years have examined this
phenomenon in some detail (Brck 1995; 1999; 2001; 2006; Hill 1995) and raised some very
important ideas. A strong case has been made for reconsidering our understandings of attitudes
towards life and death during this period. In addition, these investigations have demonstrated that
the observed connection between human remains and other later prehistoric settlement debris is
not only worthy of consideration, but that by undertaking contextually specific analyses, it is
possible to generate much more sophisticated understandings of what these material associations
might mean. Such studies have also contributed to a significant increase in the recognition of
fragmentary human remains on later prehistoric sites, and influenced the growing identification
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

24

2008 The Authors


Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

MATT BRUDENELL AND ANWEN COOPER

of placed or token deposits of human remains in such contexts (e.g. Boden 2003; Brossler 2001;
Gibson 2004; Guttman 2000; Guttman and Last 2000; Kirk and Williams 2000).
Rather than dwelling on the details of these recent interpretations, the intention here is
to highlight some of the significant themes they have raised, and to consider them in relation to
the burnt human bone from later Bronze Age contexts at Broom Quarry. In particular, this
account will examine the common assumption that all archaeologically visible deposits of
human remains were made intentionally (see, for example, the criteria defined in Table 2); the
idea that human bone was perceived to have liminal qualities, and was thus deposited at
significant settlement thresholds (e.g. Brck 1995, 255); and the suggestion that the specific
histories of the individuals represented may have been recalled during the act of deposition itself
and in subsequent encounters with these burial sites (e.g. Brck 1995, 259).
Once again, the aim of this account is not to undermine the often very thoughtful
analyses of the authors that initially developed these ideas in later prehistory. Rather, it is to
highlight that if such concepts are taken as a blueprint for understanding all human remains
encountered in settlement contexts of this period (e.g. Guttman and Last 2000), there is a danger
of simply imposing our own expectations of significance and meaning onto the archaeological
record, without fully considering how it was created. In fact, our analysis of the burnt bone from
later Bronze Age settlements at Broom Quarry required us to explore the likelihood that not all
fragmentary human remains were deliberately deposited in the contexts that archaeologists
excavate, or even necessarily recognized as being of human origin at the time they entered the
ground. This led us to consider in detail when and where the connections were actually made by
the occupants of these sites between human remains and other settlement-related material, and
ultimately to seek other interpretative possibilities.

Toll House
The later Bronze Age settlement at Toll House, Broom, included clusters of pits, a
post-built roundhouse, four- and six-post structures, and other less coherent groups of post-holes
(Fig. 5). Due to the acidic character of the geology, the only bone surviving in excavated features
was that which had been charred or burnt. This material was identified in 26 separate contexts
and in all instances was accompanied by a variety of other settlement debris, usually including
a combination of burnt stone, pottery fragments, baked clay, worked and burnt flints, charred
seeds and charcoal-rich soil.
One of these deposits incorporated almost 400 g of burnt bone, which was clearly of
human origin. However, the remaining burnt bone assemblages ranged from just 180 g in
weight, and the amounts of settlement debris that accompanied them were much higher (Fig. 6).
More significantly, the identity of the burnt bone in most of these smaller assemblages was very
difficult to determine. It was only when this material was analysed microscopically by a human
bone specialist that one further deposit was recognized as being definitely human, another as
possibly human, and five as being of animal derivation (Dodwell in Cooper and Edmonds 2007).
Importantly, the burnt bone could only be identified as human with any certainty in eight of the
26 contexts. It is also worth highlighting that not all of this burnt bone was actually noticed or
even visible during the careful process of excavation. Notably, the potentially human fragments
from the entrance to the roundhouse were only retrieved once the soil was sieved for charred
plant remains.
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
2008 The Authors
Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

25

POST-MIDDENISM

Figure 5
Plan of later Bronze Age archaeology at Toll House, Broom.

An examination of the spatial patterning of the burnt bone assemblages at Toll House is
also revealing. While deposits of this material were clearly concentrated towards the centre of the
site, close to the roundhouse, so were those of other materials, such as pottery (Fig. 7). As a
result, it appears that deposits of settlement refuse in general, rather than burnt bone in particular,
were focused in this vicinity. More specifically, if a comparison is made between the patterning
of material that was positively identified as human, and that which was of animal origin, it
appears that, if anything, it was burnt animal bone, rather than burnt human bone, that was most
closely associated with roundhouse contexts (Fig. 8).
Viewed in this way it is very difficult to understand the burnt human bone from Toll
House using the interpretative avenues which were outlined at the beginning of this section.
Firstly, it was extremely difficult to establish whether or not the vast majority of burnt bone
deposits on this site were indeed human (a common problem on later prehistoric sites, e.g.
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

26

2008 The Authors


Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

MATT BRUDENELL AND ANWEN COOPER

Figure 6
A selection of assemblages including burnt human and animal bone at Toll House. Photo: A. Cooper.

Figure 7
Distribution of burnt bone and large pottery deposits (>250 g) at Toll House.

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY


2008 The Authors
Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

27

POST-MIDDENISM

Figure 8
Distribution of burnt human and animal remains at Toll House.

Waldron in Guttman and Last 2000, 346). Secondly, none of the material that was identified as
human was deposited with obvious formality in any particular context. Even the largest deposit
of burnt human bone was combined with other settlement debris in a pit. Thirdly, burnt human
bone was no more clearly associated with important junctures in the settlement (for example in
the features defining the roundhouse) than burnt animal bone, or in fact any other material.
Significantly, the connection between burnt human bone and the wider settlement matrix of soil
and other debris was apparently much stronger than its association with any particular spatial
location. Finally, in several cases the amount of burnt bone incorporated in any one context was
so small that it was not even visible during excavation; it was only retrieved during further
analyses. On the basis of this evidence, at least, it seems very unlikely that the people making
these deposits were always aware of the identity (human or otherwise), or even necessarily the
presence of charred bone in the material they were interring.
The point here is not to suggest that the death and charring of human bodies was not
important to the later Bronze Age occupants of this site who knew and may well have loved the
dead that are represented, or to deny that human remains were sometimes processed and
deposited much more formally or linked with very specific narratives in other settlements of this
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

28

2008 The Authors


Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

MATT BRUDENELL AND ANWEN COOPER

period. Rather, it is to raise the possibility that these were not the only (or even the predominant)
ways in which human fragments became incorporated in later prehistoric archaeological
features. Moreover, if this is the case, it is necessary to negotiate how the particular deposits of
burnt human bone encountered at Toll House (which did not fit such explanations) might
otherwise be understood. In doing so, it is vital to consider not only how and where human
remains were ultimately deposited as many recent interpretations have done, but also when this
material was first mingled with the other remains of settlement. As has been noted elsewhere,
cremation rites may include a number of different stages in various different places, and
considerable lengths of time can pass before the resulting burnt material is eventually deposited
in the ground (Barrett 1991, 1212; McKinley 1997).
One potential explanation for the patterning of the charred human bone at Toll House,
for example, is that most (if not all) of this material was combined with the settlement matrix of
soil and other discarded materials some time before it was ultimately deposited in the ground.
Furthermore, if we accept the arguments raised elsewhere, that human remains (both burnt and
unburnt) were sometimes interred in contexts other than cut features (McOmish 1996) or simply
left on the ground surface (Cunliffe 1992), and that considerable periods of time may have
elapsed before some of this material was deposited in the ground (Barrett 1991), we must also
acknowledge the possibility that the exact location of human fragments within later prehistoric
settlement features is not always going to be archaeologically meaningful. In fact, the lack of
clear spatial patterning of burnt human remains in isolation on sites such as Toll House probably
indicates that in certain circumstances, this material was accidentally incorporated into deposits
that may have arisen from a wide variety of different forms of social practice.
While the cremation ceremony itself may still have been highly formalized, and in
some instances the act of interring human remains into the settlement matrix (for example in
upstanding piles of debris) may have been performed with some care (see, for example,
McOmish 1996, 73), it is certainly possible that these bodies were subsequently mixed (either
deliberately or accidentally) with other burnt and unburnt materials, stored in piles, and broken
down. In this light it is worth noting that the material accompanying the human fragments at Toll
House had clearly undergone quite varied pre-depositional histories in all cases, it included
items that were differently fragmented, weathered, abraded and burnt. As was observed with the
burnt human remains, some of this settlement-related material was heavily abraded and may
have been lying on the ground surface for some time before being deposited, while some was
fairly intact and may have been buried soon after it was discarded.
Moreover, the occurrence of human fragments (and indeed entire burials) in upstanding
later prehistoric middens in Britain is well attested in the exceptional circumstances in which
such features survive (Brck 2001, 154). It is therefore perhaps surprising that while the close
conceptual links between human remains and other settlement debris have been discussed in
some detail (Brck 1999; 2001; 2006), the possibility that funerary deposits were sometimes
made in similar (if less extensive) piles of refuse at sites on which they do not survive has not
been fully considered. In seeking to identify structure in these deposits, it has perhaps too often
been assumed that the formality was enacted at the moment that human fragments were interred
in the ground, rather than much earlier in their pre-depositional histories.
Following this argument it is possible to imagine that over time, charred human remains
became scattered throughout the matrix that surrounded the occupation at Toll House. Indeed,
the act of mixing human fragments together with other settlement remains may in itself have
been of symbolic significance (Brck 2006, 297). What is more, in the period during which this
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
2008 The Authors
Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

29

POST-MIDDENISM

material was stored and combined with other fragments, rather than being remembered,
recounted or even deliberately transfigured (e.g. Brck 2001, 157), the specific histories of the
people represented could have sometimes drifted out of focus. In this way, by the time that
human remains were caught up in cut features of the settlement, their previous identities, and
even their presence in the material being deposited, may not have been clear. In fact, perhaps the
enigmatic origin of this material was sometimes a source of intrigue in itself.

discussion
This paper has examined the ways in which two very different materials (pottery and
burnt bone) have sometimes been treated too simply in discussions of structured deposits on later
prehistoric settlements. In the case of pottery, it has been argued that certain unusual elements of
the assemblage (freshly broken or decorated sherds) have been highlighted at the expense of
others in order to define special deposits. In addition, the amount of pottery deposited has been
seen as significant in itself, rather than considering the full variability of the assemblage (size,
condition, etc.) and imagining the complex ways in which it was produced. In the case of burnt
human bone, it has been argued that many recent studies have viewed all archaeological
occurrences of this material as deliberate deposits, without fully considering the possibility that
in some instances at least, any formality in the funerary sequence took place long before the
human fragments were eventually incorporated in cut features in the ground.
In order to consolidate these arguments, and to elicit the complexities that can be
encountered in trying to define and interpret unusual deposits, we will finish by discussing
another rather distinctive assemblage from a different later Bronze Age settlement at Broom
Quarry, which included both of the materials considered thus far. This final example is presented
in order to highlight one instance in which we did encounter a group of materials that at first sight
clearly stood out from the remainder on one particular site. Even so, further examination of this
material showed that its composition could easily be understood as having resulted from a much
broader continuum of depositional practices, rather than necessarily being specially curated for
the purpose of deposition. What is more, by viewing the deposit in this way, we were required
to think much harder about the kinds of settlement histories that could have created it, why it
seemed exceptional in relation to the deposits found elsewhere on the site, and what this meant
more broadly in terms of how the sites occupants handled the material remains of their everyday
lives.
The assemblage recovered from one of the small later Bronze Age pits at Gypsy Lane
(F. 754) was both large and broad in composition. It included over 564 sherds of pottery from 35
different vessels, a burnt and shattered saddle quern, a complete loom weight and spindle whorl,
burnt and unburnt worked flint, burnt bone, burnt stone, and the charred grains and processing
waste of wheat and barley (Fig. 9).
Using the criteria defined earlier in this paper, this assemblage would have been
interpreted as exceptional because it contained a substantial amount of pottery, a high proportion
of rim sherds, and fragments of burnt bone. It could also have been considered as exceptional
because it contained whole artefacts such as a loom weight and spindle whorl, and items that
were freshly burnt and broken, like a quern. In fact, as a whole, this assemblage could easily have
been understood as a carefully curated collection of materials that was intended to symbolize a
full repertoire of later Bronze Age household activities. It might even have been suggested that
the deposit was made to mark a significant moment in the history of the settlement, or, perhaps
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

30

2008 The Authors


Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

MATT BRUDENELL AND ANWEN COOPER

Figure 9
Plan of pit F. 754 at Gypsy Lane and photo of the assemblage from this feature. Photo: A. Cooper.

more specifically, in the lives of the occupants of the roundhouse situated just to the east. Such
interpretations are certainly very alluring, and would also tie in with evidence from elsewhere in
southern Britain that representative domestic assemblages were sometimes collected together
and deposited with some care on later Bronze Age settlements (Brck 2006, 300).
However, it could also be contended that viewing the assemblage from pit F. 754 in this
way is in fact rather selective in itself. Indeed, the formality assumed by the authors in arranging
this material for the photograph in Figure 9 was arguably much greater than that enacted in
making the deposit in prehistory. Once again, it is important to stress that while the sheer amount
and overall composition of this material was in some ways remarkable, if interpretation ends at
the point of identifying it as a special deposit, or only focuses on items that stand out as being
unusual, it actually obscures a substantial part of the history and character of the assemblage, and
forecloses the possibility that it could be understood in different ways.
Rather, it is vital that the large fineware sherds, fragments of burnt bone and complete
objects are viewed alongside the smaller scraps of material and soil with which they were placed
in the ground. The pottery assemblage from this pit did indeed include a high proportion of rims
and fine, burnished sherds, but there was also a wide variety of other vessels that were broken
down to different degrees (Fig. 10). While some of the items were still usable and more or less
intact, there were also tiny scraps of burnt and unburnt material, including the fragments of
unidentifiable burnt bone. What is more, while the burnt quern was nestled at the base of the pit
and might have been placed there specifically, all of the remaining items were thoroughly mixed
up within a soil matrix. Significantly, in no way can it be argued that this material was deposited
with any clear formality. Moreover, given the incredibly varied condition of the items
represented, it is in fact very difficult to imagine exactly how, and over what period, this
assemblage could have been produced.
In spite of the complexities involved in interpreting this material, it is argued here that
by seeking to understand the assemblage as a whole (rather than focusing on its more unusual
aspects), and by not assuming from the beginning that it was compiled or deposited with any
clear purpose, it is possible to develop a subtler understanding of the history of this specific
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
2008 The Authors
Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

31

POST-MIDDENISM

Figure 10
The variable fragmentation of pottery in F. 754 (images taken at same scale). Photo: M. Brudenell.

deposit in relation to the broader settlement practices of which it was part. For instance,
it is certainly possible that the material in this pit came from a fairly discrete context, such
as a rubbish pile associated with a particular household. As a result, what might be seen
as a representative, or even token, domestic assemblage could well have built up quite
unintentionally over a period of time. At some point in the history of the occupation, one that
coincided with the burning of a fragment of saddle quern, and perhaps or perhaps not the
close of the household, a portion of this material was gathered together, along with its soil matrix,
with certain unbroken but no longer useful items, and dumped in a pit. Following this scenario,
it is possible to imagine that some artefacts (the burnt bone and smaller pottery fragments) had
accumulated for a long time and fragmented before they were ultimately deposited in the ground,
while others (the burnt quern, spindle whorl and freshly broken sherds) were added to the
assemblage much closer in time to the point at which the deposit was made, and were thus
relatively intact.
This interpretation might seem less exciting than one which involves trying to imagine
the potential significance of compiling a representative domestic repertoire, the possible
reasoning behind the treatment afforded to certain items prior to deposition (e.g. burning,
shattering, etc.), or the performative aspects of burying these items. However, it does account for
the evidence from this particular pit within the context of this particular site much more
convincingly. It also allows for a discussion of the settlement histories that might have led to the
creation not only of this specific deposit but also of those encountered elsewhere on the site.
For example, it is possible to gain an insight into the tempo of rubbish accumulation
on this site. The fact that such an assemblage accumulated at all implies that there was a certain
consistency in the way that the occupants of this site gathered up their spent materials on the
ground surface. It also suggests that people were discarding their debris in one place over a fairly
long time period, at least as long as it took to break at least 35 different pots (see Hill 1995,
12931 for a calculation of the average number of pots broken per household per year on the
basis of evidence from ethno-archaeological and ethnographic examples). In addition, the fact
that this particular assemblage stands out from those elsewhere on the site (which were typically
varied in composition but relatively impoverished) indicates that stationary piles of settlement
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

32

2008 The Authors


Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

MATT BRUDENELL AND ANWEN COOPER

debris of this kind did not often survive for long on this site. Rather, it seems likely that even if
the debris from individual or adjacent households, or from certain spatially confined activities,
was initially accumulated in one place, it was usually then shifted around the site, where it
became mixed with other materials and distributed much more broadly. In fact, this process is
captured very effectively by the previously mentioned refitting of two sherds of the same vessel
from cut features that stood some 55 m apart.

conclusion
In conclusion, it is important to consider the implications of our work at Broom Quarry
for interpretations of later Bronze Age settlement practices more broadly. Firstly, we would like
to emphasize that this paper does not advocate a blanket rejection of the notion of structured
deposition, or interpretations surrounding the idea that later prehistoric settlement materials were
sometimes collected and deposited with clear formality, and that such practices occasionally
involved unusual items which were employed in surprising ways. Indeed, we ourselves elicited
a history at one of the slightly later (500300 BC) settlements at Broom Quarry in which certain
articulated large mammal limbs were repeatedly selected and deposited in storage pits close to
an earlier Bronze Age barrow (Cooper and Edmonds 2007, Ch. 4). However, what we do hope
to have shown is that such understandings form only part of a much broader interpretative
potential on sites of this period, the realization of which can easily be foreclosed by focusing on
the identification and interpretation of structured or special deposits. Furthermore, if we accept
this point, we can be provoked into thinking much more critically and thoughtfully about how we
understand the character and patterning of settlement remains from this period in Britain.
We have argued that it is not necessarily helpful or even relevant to try and identify
structured deposits according to specific and rigid criteria, whether these relate to sherd size,
quantity, or simple presence and absence. Thus, in the case of pottery, it was shown that on sites
where assemblages are varied in composition, it is vital to try to understand this variability
rather than picking out certain items (large, fineware, or rim sherds) that conform to checklists
for identifying structured deposits, and interpreting them on this basis. By analysing the
assemblages from individual features in their entirety, and trying to understand them in relation
to the material recovered from other settlement features on the site, it is possible to generate
contextually specific histories of depositional practice, which can then be built into broader
understandings of later Bronze Age occupation. In the case of burnt human bone, it was argued
that on settlements in which this material was not deposited with any clear formality (either
within individual features or across the site), and where the amounts of burnt bone interred were
sometimes very small, it is essential to try and understand the patterning of this material in
relation to that of the other remains with which it was deposited. Such instances provide an
opportunity to explore the possibility that the exact identity or history of the burnt human bone
might not always have mattered by the point at which it entered the ground. More importantly,
they allow for the creation of alternative and just as interesting understandings of practices
involving this material on later prehistoric sites.
Finally, it is important to acknowledge that, in our experience at least, it is often quite
challenging to make unambiguous interpretations about the patterning of materials recovered
from later prehistoric settlements. While it has been shown that it is possible to establish a fairly
close connection between settlement activity and the material deposited in cut features in some
earlier prehistoric contexts (see for example Garrow et al. 2005), it is very rarely feasible to
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
2008 The Authors
Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

33

POST-MIDDENISM

demonstrate similar connections on later Bronze and Iron Age sites, where there often appears
to have been a temporal or spatial distance between the two. It is perhaps partly for this reason
that the notion of structured deposition has proved to be so pervasive in British later prehistoric
settlement studies, given that such practices represent occasional instances in which clear,
interpretable patterning was created at the moment of interment in the ground. However, as was
evinced using the example of the mixed deposit in F. 754, it is all too easy to select the unusual
characteristics of material assemblages, to recognize them as being deliberate, formal,
placed, special, or token, and then to make generalized interpretations on this basis. It is
much more complex but also more rewarding and interesting to start by considering in detail the
contextually specific settlement histories that created such patterning, to think about the different
scales at which such practices might have operated, and to explore the possibility that the
structures which are rendered could have come about quite inadvertently, or through practices
that were enacted over a much longer period before these assemblages were ultimately fixed in
the ground.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Mark Edmonds, Christopher Evans and David Gibson at the Cambridge
Archaeological Unit for supporting us during our research for this article. Tarmac Southern Ltd. funded the
archaeological investigations at Broom Quarry. Richard Mortimer and Lesley McFadyen directed the
excavations at Hill Lane and Toll House, and undertook the initial analysis and interpretation of material
from these sites. Marcus Abbott, Iain Forbes, Andy Hall and Jane Matthews contributed at various stages
to the production of the graphics. Richard Bradley, Joanna Brck, Mark Edmonds, Duncan Garrow, Chris
Gosden, J.D. Hill, Jonathan Last, Mark Knight and Lesley McFadyen provided critical, insightful and
encouraging comments on the TAG 2005 presentation in which the ideas from this article were initially
aired, and/or on earlier versions of the text.

Department of Archaeology
The University of Reading
Whiteknights
PO Box 217
Reading
Berkshire RG6 6AH
E-mail: a.j.cooper@rdg.ac.uk

references
barrett, j. 1991: Mortuary Archaeology. In Barrett, J., Bradley, R. and Green, M. (eds.), Landscape,
Monuments and Society: the Prehistory of Cranbourne Chase (Cambridge), 1208.
beamish, m. 1998: A Middle Iron Age Site at Wanlip, Leicestershire. Transactions of the Leicester
Archaeological and Historical Society 72, 191.
boden, d. 2003: Shelford Quarry, Broad Oak. Canterburys Archaeology 20022003 (Canterbury,
Canterbury Archaeological Trust), 202.
bradley, r. 2003: A Life Less Ordinary: The Ritualization of the Domestic Sphere in Later Prehistoric
Europe. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13, 523.
brossler, a. 2001: Reading Business Park: results of phases 1 and 2. In Brck, J. (ed.), Bronze Age
Landscapes: Tradition and Transformation (Oxford), 12938.
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

34

2008 The Authors


Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

MATT BRUDENELL AND ANWEN COOPER

brown, l., lewis, j. and smith, a. 2006: Landscape Evolution in the Middle Thames Valleys, Heathrow
Terminal 5 Excavations. Vol. 1 Perry Oaks (Salisbury).
brck, j. 1995: A place for the dead: the role of human remains in Late Bronze Age Britain. Proceedings
of the Prehistoric Society 61, 24577.
brck, j. 1999: Houses, Lifecycles and Deposition on Middle Bronze Age Settlements in Southern
England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 65, 14566.
brck, j. 2001: Bronze Age Landscapes: Tradition and Transformation (Oxford).
brck, j. 2006: Fragmentation, Personhood and the Social Construction of Technology in Middle and Late
Bronze Age Britain. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 16, 297315.
cook, j., guttman, e.b.a. and mudd, a. 2004: Excavations of an Iron Age Site at Coxwell Road,
Faringdon. Oxoniensia 69, 181285.
cooper, a. and edmonds, m. 2007: Past and present: land and time on the broom gravels (Oxford).
cunliffe, b. 1984: Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire. Vol. 2 The Excavations 196978: the
finds (London, Council for British Archaeology Research Report 52).
cunliffe, b. 1992: Pits, preconceptions, and propitiation in the British Iron Age. Oxford Journal of
Archaeology 11, 6983.
evans, c. and hodder, i. 2006: Marshland communities and cultural landscapes from the Bronze Age to
present day. The Haddenham Project, Vol. 2 (Cambridge, McDonald Institute monograph).
garrow, d. 2007: Placing pits: landscape occupation and depositional practice during the Neolithic in East
Anglia. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 73.
garrow, d., beadsmoore, e. and knight, m. 2005: Pit clusters and the temporality of occupation: An
earlier Neolithic site at Kilverstone, Thetford, Norfolk. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71, 13957.
gibson, c. 2004: Lines in the sand: middle to late Bronze Age settlement at Game Farm, Downham Way,
Brandon (Norwich, East Anglian Archaeology Occasional Paper 19).
guttman, e.b.a. 2000: Excavations on the Hatfield Heath to Matching Tye rising main, north west Essex.
Essex Archaeology and History 31, 1832.
guttman, e.b.a. and last, j. 2000: A Late Bronze Age Landscape at South Hornchurch, Essex.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66, 31959.
hill, j.d. 1993: Can we recognise a different European past? A contrastive archaeology of later prehistoric
settlements in southern England. Journal of European Archaeology 1, 5775.
hill, j.d. 1995: Ritual and rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex: a study on the formation of a specific
archaeological record (Oxford).
jones, a. 2001: Archaeological theory and scientific practice (Cambridge).
kirk, t. and williams, g. 2000: Glandy Cross: A Later Prehistoric Monumental Complex in
Carmarthenshire, Wales. Proceedings of the Prehistoric 66, 25796.
ladle, l. and woodward, a. 2003: Middle Bronze Age House and Burnt Mound, Bestwall, Dorset.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 69, 26578.
lawson, a. 1994: Potterne. In FItzpatrick, A.P. and Morris, E.L. (eds.), The Iron Age in Wessex: Recent
Work (Salisbury, Trust for Wessex Archaeology/Association Francaise dEtude de lAge du Fer), 426.
mckinley, j. 1997: Bronze Age barrows and funerary rites and rituals of cremation. Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society 63, 12945.
mckinley, j. 2003: Cremated bone. In Manning, A. and Moore, C. (eds.), Late Bronze Age site at
Springfield Park, Chelmsford, Essex. Essex Archaeology and History 34, 32.
mcomish, d. 1996: East Chisenbury: ritual and rubbish at the British Bronze Age-Iron Age transition.
Antiquity 70, 6876.
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
2008 The Authors
Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

35

POST-MIDDENISM

moore, h.l. 1982: The interpretation of spatial patterning in settlement residues. In Hodder, I. (ed.),
Symbolic and Structural Archaeology (Cambridge), 749.
needham, s.p. 1993: The structure of settlement and ritual in the Late Bronze Age of south-east Britain.
LHabitat et loccupation du sol lAge du bronze en Europe (Paris, Editions du Comit des travaux
historiques et scientifiques), 4969.
needham, s.p. and spence, t. 1997: Refuse and the formation of middens. Antiquity 71, 7790.
parker pearson, m. 1996: Food, fertility and front doors in the first millennium BC. In Champion, T. and
Collis, J. (eds.), The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: recent trends (Sheffield), 11732.
pollard, j. 1995: Inscribing space: formal deposition at the later Neolithic monument of Woodhenge,
Wiltshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61, 13756.
pollard, j. 2001: The aesthetics of depositional practice. World Archaeology 33, 31533.
proctor, j. 2002: Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age placed deposits from Westcroft Road, Carshalton: their
meaning and interpretation. Surrey Archaeological Collections 89, 65103.
richards, c. and thomas, j. 1984: Ritual activity and structured deposition in Later Neolithic Wessex. In
Bradley, R. and Gardiner, J. (eds.), Neolithic Studies: A Review of Some Current Research (Oxford, British
Archaeological Reports British Series 133, 189218.
shanks, m. and tilley, c. 1982: Ideology, symbolic power and ritual communication: a reinterpretation of
Neolithic mortuary practices. In Hodder, I. (ed.), Symbolic and Structural Archaeology (Cambridge),
12954.
woodward, a. 19989: When did pots become domestic? Special pots and everyday pots in British
prehistory. Medieval Ceramics 223, 310.

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

36

2008 The Authors


Journal compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

You might also like