INTRODUCTION

This chapter is dedicated to three rituals. The first two are closely related: ritual deposition and deliberate fragmentation. The first will be discussed in paragraph 4.2. Rituals involving the deliberate fragmentation of figurines is the subject of paragraph 4.3. Paragraph 4.4 is dedicated to so-called magical practices.

Until the end of the last millennium, the ritual deposition of metal objects, bones and other artefacts was regarded with scepticism by archaeologists and seen as ‘illogical’ or ‘non-functional’. In his book on ritual deposits between the first millennium BCE and the late Medieval period, Richard Bradley sketches in A Chapter of Accidents, how scholars stick to practical interpretations of metal hoards in rivers and other watery places, by explaining them as ‘accidents’: cargos of sunken vessels or inundations. In 1999, the British archaeologist Simon Clarke pointed out that in antiquity ritual behaviour was perceived as perfectly logical and rational. He concluded his lecture on the re-interpretation of deposits in pits at Newstead, Scotland, with the following statement:

‘Perhaps for the benefit of some Romanists it is still necessary to labour the point that what we call ritual activity was widespread in the ancient world, invading areas of life which in our own experience appear wholly secular. Deposition on Iron Age and Roman period sites was controlled in large part by behaviour patterns that to our mind were illogical responses to superstition or religious belief. But it only really stands out as outlandishly ritualistic from the standpoint of the outsider. To members of that society it was perfectly rational behaviour, which supported a sense of social identity, was integrated with the economic system and meshed perfectly with technological understanding. We need to move beyond the mere identification of ritual.