Divisions of floodplain space and sites on riverine 'islands': functional, ritual, social, or liminal places?

Abstract

Studies of floodplain evolution in NW Europe have shown that multiple-channel systems, braided or anastomosing, were far more common in the past than today with riverine islands and islets being a frequent component of lowland landscapes. Archaeological studies on floodplains, such as the Nene and Thames, have revealed prehistoric, particularly Bronze Age sites, which appear to have been located on islands. This raises the question; is the association coincidental and hence without cultural meaning, functional, ritual and/or the manifestation of some social division of space. At first sight riverine islands would seem to be functionally disadvantageous - difficult or at least inconvenient for people to reach, and prone to flooding. It is also difficult to find many resource-based arguments (although there are some) which cannot be satisfied by more accessible riverside or even floodplain edge locations. However, islands have ritual or societal advantages for precisely these reasons; access is restricted and landuse can be controlled (i.e. grazing can be restricted). The land may also be free of proprietorial, familial, or other claims but still part of a socially constructed image of nature. Riverine islands easily fulfil the definition of liminal spaces - but liminal spaces within and defined by occupied space and thus central rather than peripheral. In the historical period they have continued to function as special places: locations for :treaty signing, illegal activities, monuments and high status burials. In the Late Bronze Age into the Iron Age the emergence of a water cult, which may be related to changes in flood magnitude and frequency, can be seen as an another aspect of the cultural importance of such special places. This paper argues that the location of a site on a riverine (or lake) island can never be coincidental, due to its functional disadvantages, and can rarely be explained by access to resources, instead such a location must have meaning in ritual and societal terms and have been conceived as being qualitatively different from the rest of the landscape.