What's So Special? A Reinterpretation of Anglo-Saxon 'Special Deposits'

Livestock and animal husbandry in early medieval England

“…Wharram also yielded a deposit of dog and cattle bones that appears to have been a deliberate, perhaps ceremonial emplacement (Stamper and Croft, 2000,3 6 e7). The subject of 'special' bone deposits on Saxon sites has been reviewed by Hamerow (2006) and reconsidered by Morris and Jervis (2011), who argue for less dualism in our interpretation of 'functional' and 'ritual' assemblages of animal bones.…”

Middens, memory and the effect of waste. Beyond symbolic meaning in archaeological deposits. An early medieval case study

“…As such, the material dumped in these features can be considered ‘icons of memory’ (Jones 2007, 31), providing a medium through which memory of past depositional events could be cued, through the forming of mental associations which broke down the material distinctions afforded to these objects in use. Particular circumstances therefore afforded the possibility for material which might, in other instances, be characterized as disruptive and negative to gain positive connotations (see Morris and Jervis 2011), as it became enrolled in what appear to be consciously mnemonic courses of action which led to the creation of deposits, some of which might have the appearance of being in some way ‘special’ or ‘odd’.…”

“…Hamerow (2006) argued for the presence of ‘special deposits’ within early Anglo-Saxon settlements, principally related to the foundation or termination of structures. This work was critiqued by Morris and Jervis (2011), who argue, like Garrow, that such deposits need not be seen as specifically meaningful or as the result of ‘ritual’ action. Indeed, the term ‘ritual’ is as unhelpful as ‘structured’ in interpretive terms, and should be considered a meta-level of interpretation.…”

“…Ritual is not a uniform class of action, just as structured deposits are not a uniform class of deposit – ritual can be secular or religious, class- or sex-based, for example. Therefore the use of ritual, like the use of structured deposition, as an explanation, whilst not wrong, is uninformative (Morris and Jervis 2011, 70). In particular, Morris and Jervis question whether, against a background of marked variability in depositional practice, it is possible to identify any deposits as intrinsically ‘special’ and adopt a biographical approach to the formation of these deposits to explore the practices behind them and the ways in which they developed meaning.…”

A Note on the Role of Dogs in Anglo‐Saxon Society: Evidence from East Anglia

“…However, Hamerow () identified this as a ‘special deposit’ because of its completeness and suggested that it and Dog 2 were placed in the SFB after it was disused. Morris and Jervis () have rejected the term ‘special deposit’ in favour of Associated Bone Group because it removes ‘any inherent bias toward ritual explanations’ (Morris and Jervis : 67). They further note that it is important to focus on the individual biographies of these Associated Bone Groups.…”