Context of the research
Throughout the past two weeks of excavation, progressively more finds had been discovered in the form of faunal remains at different stages of articulation. Throughout the top stratigraphic layers of the smaller features, the finds only existed in the form of very fragmentary pieces of bone, nearly unidentifiable in their state. However, as the students dug deeper into circular features which resembled possible storage pits, larger remains, including those of mostly articulated crania, began surfacing. Most recently, the mandible and maxilla remains of a cow had been discovered in one feature (in the South-Western edge of Trench B) and the metacarpal and phalanges of a horse buried alongside a cow rib and femur in another (in the North-West, also of Trench B).
The significance of animal bone deposits in storage pits of the Iron Age
The deposition of faunal remains in a partially articulated state, found on the lowermost stratigraphic layers of storage pits and post holes have been noted on many Iron Age and Romano-British sites (Cunliffe 1992; Wilson 1999). Many parallel literary studies of the observed phenomenon had come to the conclusion that, not only within Britain but also internationally, the Iron Age marked an era of special deposition of not only cranial remains of larger domesticated animals such as horses and cattle, but also partially articulated bone groups such as part of a leg (Wilson 1999). These deposits differ from regular discarded remains through their notably high degrees of articulation as well as low degrees of degradation, achieved by their lack of subjection to the full range of taphonomic processes (Wilson 1992).
However, the real question is; are these ‘special’ deposits placed specifically as part of a ritual?
On one hand, biochemical analysis of many of the pits containing the specially deposited remains suggested that it had contained farm produce such as cereal grain, prior to the deposition (Wilson 1999). Such depositional practice infers a ritual and mythical approach towards the remains as the placement of crania and other partially articulated remains is associated with the wishes for prosperity and successful harvest (Wilson 1999). This suggests that the remains may have served as an offering to possible Gods, in order to grant the peoples good fortune (Wilson 1999). Furthermore, the placement of remains belonging to different species within the same feature (as seen in one of the storage pits in Trench B) is also noted as significant as it may be associated with different forms of fortune (Wilson 1999). Such deposits are common throughout the world, on Iron Age sites around Sudan, France and Africa (among others) and are believed to serve a variety of purposes including healing, sorcery and fertility (Wilson 1999).
On the other hand, while the level of articulation and particularly notable preservation of the remains is often used as an argument for their ritual significance, taphonomic models depict that such levels of articulation are common within features similar to storage pits (Wilson 1992). This in turn suggests that the level of articulation is not as much a reflection of the treatment and preparation of the remains prior to their placement, rather than the optimal conditions of the storage pits themselves (Wilson 1992).
Conclusions
The differentiation between ritual and other behaviours recognised within archaeological evidence has proven extremely challenging since the dawn of the discipline. However, whether officially considered to be of ritual origin or not, the deposition of faunal cranial and other partially articulated remains in storage pits has been observed on many British Iron Age settlement sites, as well as internationally (Wilson 1992; 1999). This suggests that such treatment of remains held particular significance within that time period or, at the very least, was recognised as the norm. Lastly, such depositional patterns are also noted at many Romano-British sites, suggesting that this behaviour transpired throughout the changing cultures (Wilson 1992; 1999).
Bibliography
Cunliffe, B. 1992. Pits, preconceptions and propitiation in the British Iron Age, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 11 (1): 69 – 83
Wilson, B. a) 1992. Considerations for the Identification of Ritual Deposits of Animal Bones in Iron Age Pits, International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 2: 341 – 349
b) 1999. Displayed or concealed? Cross cultural evidence for symbolic and ritual activity depositing Iron Age animal bones, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 18 (3): 297 – 305