Abstract

Loss of context is a challenge, if not the bane, of the ritual archaeologist’s craft. Those who research ritual frequently encounter difficulties in the interpretation of its often tantalizingly incomplete material record. Careful analysis of material remains may afford us glimpses into past ritual activity, but our often vast chronological separation from the ritual practitioners themselves prevent us from seeing the whole picture. The archaeologist engaging with structured deposits, for instance, is often forced to study ritual assemblages post-accumulation. Many nuances of its formation, therefore, may be lost in interpretation. This article considers what insights an archaeologist could gain into the place, people, pace and purpose of deposition by recording an accumulation of structured deposits during its formation, rather than after. To answer this, the article focuses on a contemporary depositional practice: the love-lock. This custom involves the inscribing of names/initials onto a padlock, its attachment to a bridge or other public structure, and the deposition of the corresponding key into the water below; a ritual often enacted by a couple as a statement of their romantic commitment. Drawing on empirical data from a three-year diachronic site-specific investigation into a love-lock bridge in Manchester, UK, the author demonstrates the value of contemporary archaeology in engaging with the often enigmatic material culture of ritual accumulations.

Highlights

  • Loss of context is a challenge, if not the bane, of the ritual archaeologist’s craft

  • Ritual activity may be evident in the form of material structured deposits, for example, but often the details surrounding their deposition do not survive

  • As Fontijn observes in his work on the sacrificial and depositional landscapes of the Bronze Age: We know something about the treatment of the object deposited as well as its earlier history, but many questions remain

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Loss of context is a challenge, if not the bane, of the ritual archaeologist’s craft. Those who research prehistoric ritual frequently encounter difficulties in the interpretation of its often tantalisingly incomplete material record. Ritual activity may be evident in the form of material structured deposits, for example, but often the details surrounding their deposition do not survive. All these aspects may contribute to a further understanding of the meaning of depositional practices, but they are practically beyond the limits of archaeological knowledge (2002: 275) Careful analysis of material remains may afford us glimpses into past ritual activity, but our often vast chronological separation from the ritual practitioners themselves prevents us from seeing the whole picture.

Objectives
Methods
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.