Social Stratigraphy: Contextualising site formation processes, a case study from Saxon

Southampton.

Ben Jervis: December 2010

Depositional studies have recently become a relatively hot topic in Anglo-Saxon archaeology, largely
thanks to recent work by Helena Hamerow on early Anglo-Saxon special deposits and by Gabor
Thomas on late Anglo-Saxon hoards. Unfortunately, the impact of such work has been slow to trickle
into interpretations of wider depositional processes, with interpretations often being fairly generic,
being the result of imposing these interpretations, or those derived from the work of scholars such
as JD Hill, onto Anglo-Saxon material. That said, there have been important methodological studies
of Anglo-Saxon material in the past, the Hamwic pit and West Stow grubenhus for example, which
were excavated experimentally, with finds being 3D recorded and Jess Tippers study of
grubenhuser. Despite these high points, a review of the literature will probably leave you swimming
in a sea of generalisation and imported interpretations.

Lets take, for example the filling of that most ubiquitous feature of early and mid- Anglo Saxon
settlements, the grubenhus or sunken featured building. From a methodological perspective, Jess
Tippers work should have revolutionised the way we study these features, although it has taken
time to trickle into analysis, possibly due the effects of publication lag. Tipper examined the
material from some of the largest known early Anglo-Saxon settlements, studying, for example, the
fragmentation and abrasion of finds and the presence of cross fits between features, concluding that
they have varied and complex constructional and de-constructional processes behind them.
Importantly, Tipper demonstrated that different depositional trajectories can be present within a
single feature, with secondary dumps, that is waste directly deposited into a feature, and re-
deposited waste being present in some structures.

Still, two general interpretations of these features prevail in excavation reports; either that they are
filled with redeposited midden material, or have primary occupation deposits in them, related to the
occupation or use of these structures. These are often not backed up by detailed study of the
pottery, animal bone or other finds from these structures. Our study of pits is equally under-
developed. Often these are classed as rubbish pits without any critical examination of why a pit
may be dug for this purpose. In some cases this is followed by disbelief that the pits contained very
little rubbish. Generally speaking however we have been fairly good at identifying the range of
functions of pits, which are particularly a feature of later Anglo-Saxon settlements. These include
roles as quarries, cess pits and storage pits. Often domestic rubbish does not occur in quantity in the
primary fill of these pits, demonstrating that they were probably not dug as rubbish pits.

Hamerows study of special deposits has provided a further explanation, that deposits of complete
ceramic vessels or associated bone groups, could be ritual in nature. This is not an issue I wish to
dwell on in this paper, but I do wish to say that whilst not fundamentally disagreeing with Hamerow,
I feel that the situation is more subtle than she suggests. In critiquing this paper for a forthcoming
publication, Jim Morris and myself have argued that a purely functional rubbish deposit does not
exist and that meaning is generated through the creation of all archaeological deposits. Given the
high level of variability in depositional practice on Anglo-Saxon sites, we believe that identifying
some as special or as having a ritual rather than functional role is unhelpful. Instead, we believe
that rather than considering what meaning a deposit had, we first need to understand how meaning
developed. This is the approach which I will take in this paper, considering how the engagements
between people and material culture in depositional practice were active in the creation of a
particular social context.

My approach is grounded in Actor-Network Theory, developed in the late 1970s in sociology

through the work of John Law and Bruno Latour amongst others. It has recently been brought into
archaeological analysis, particularly in the work of scholars such as Andrew Jones and Dan Hicks. I
wish to briefly explain a few key points about this approach which are relevant to this paper. Firstly,
the approach considers all people, objects and elements of the environment to be actors which
have agency. Material agency is not secondary to human agency, nor does it imply intentionality on
the part of objects. Instead, this agency is distributed through all of the actors which are connected
through a particular engagement. Secondly groups or categories of people or objects only last for as
long as the engagements which brought that group into existence are sustained. Objects play a role
in making a group durable, either through it being a stable presence, or by people continually
engaging with similar objects in the same way, for example by regularly consuming a disposable
good. Finally, and most importantly, the approach states that rather than the social being a stable
guiding hand, which acts as explanation, it is the product of engagements between people, objects
and the environment. It is something to be explained and characterised, something which is
constantly changing as associations are built and dissolved between actors and, furthermore, it is
distributed between people, the traditional social world, objects, the traditional material world
and the environment.

In order to study how the social emerged through associations built through depositional practice,
we need a case study and to study a dataset in such a way as to be able to reconstruct depositional
practice, through the traces that engagements between people and their waste left. This allows us
to consider how objects came to be rubbish, the agency of rubbish deposits and how categories of
disposer emerged, as well as how, by being associated with one another, they were active in the
construction of a particular manifestation of the social.

The case study I have chosen is Hamwic, mid-Saxon Southampton. For those of you unfamiliar with
Anglo-Saxon archaeology, this was one of several large trading and production centres of proto-
urban character, which developed in the 7th century. The site has been extensively excavated, with
many structures, pits and wells being identified. A large ceramic assemblage was excavated, which is
the subject of this paper, as well as large quantities of faunal remains .

I have employed several methodologies to understand depositional practices. Firstly, a study of

fragmentation was undertaken, considering the average sherd weight of particular types in features.
This has demonstrated differences between tertiary (that is material re-deposited from surface
deposits) and secondary dumps in features. Secondly, cross fit analysis was undertaken between
selected features to consider whether they were filled at the same time, from the same source. I
briefly want to outline the results of this analysis, before considering how these engagements were
active in the constitution of particular manifestation of the social, which we have labelled Hamwic.

The results of this analysis demonstrate that much of the material in the Hamwic pits is redeposited,
based on its level of fragmentation and the presence of cross fits between features. This is
suggestive of the presence of surface deposits or middens, which may have been the main focus of
depositional activity. A few layers and shallow hollows have been interpreted by the excavators as
midden bases. Middening is further supported by the gnawing marks present on some animal bones.
Similar depositional activity has been identified at sites in Lundenwic, mid-Saxon London, for
example at the Royal Opera House. Middening was not only an urban phenomenon however, it is
increasingly being accepted as one of the main modes of deposition on early and mid- Anglo-Saxon
rural settlements. This interpretation appears to have first been suggested with any conviction by
the excavators of Cowdreys Down near Basingstoke, where the use of middens, followed by
disposal of waste onto fields, was suggested, largely on the basis of negative evidence. Increasingly
we are finding evidence of midden use on Anglo-Saxon settlement sites, either as excavated layers,
as at Flixborough in Lincolnshire and Trowbridge in Wiltshire, through palaeo-botanical evidence, as
at Yarnton in Oxfordshire or through micromorphological studies.

It is likely that much of this waste was transported out of Hamwic, either to be spread on
surrounding fields, or to be dumped, perhaps in the sea, as in the harbour at the wic of Dorestad in
the Netherlands. This may in part explain why so few vessels can be refitted. Not all was removed
however, and some was re-deposited into negative features. Some features also contain secondary
waste deposits, material dumped directly into features, rather than accumulating on the surface.
Typical pits are those in the Clifford Street area and at Six Dials, which are largely filled with
redeposited waste, with a small number containing additional secondary waste. Often the lower fills
of these pits contain little material, whilst the upper fills are more prolific. This suggests two things.
Firstly, the pits were generally kept clear of waste during their use, implying that they were not dug
as rubbish pits. Secondly, that once these went out of use for some reason, they were filled with
redeposited midden material and, perhaps, secondary waste, if it was available. At Clifford Street the
pits largely seem to have been filled during the remodelling of the area towards the end of Hamwics
life in the late 9th century. This period saw boundaries being closed and pits, which appear to have
had a function related to metalworking, being dug through graves. This remodelling relates to a
change in Hamwics role, with trade declining, or at least changing in nature at this time. These
changes eventually led to Hamwic declining to be replaced by a new settlement on the banks of the
River Test, which developed into the medieval town of Southampton. These changes can, of course,
be seen in terms of associations between actors either breaking up, or being re-negotiated.

Further evidence for pits being kept clear during their use can be found at Melbourne Street. Here
several pits were dug to form a boundary between two plots. These were largely kept clear of waste
through their life, with them seemingly silting up slowly and being filled intermittently by waste
being swept into them. This waste perhaps relates to the remnants of surface deposits which were
removed, and is evidenced through the presence of cross fitting sherds between these pits. We can
also see how waste management indexes other areas of spatial divisions within tenements, at SOU
14 for example, a clear distinction emerges between the distribution of domestic waste, in green,
and craft waste, in red, perhaps suggesting that activity zones existed within the plot.

Pits were not the only features to be filled with waste as an act of closure, deposits in wells are
present, but I will not discuss them here in depth. I do however, want to discuss one further deposit.
The deposit is in a grubenhus, excavated at SOU 16. This is one of the earliest features in Hamwic,
and is one of only 2 of these structures, typical of early and mid Saxon rural settlements, to be found
in Hamwic. Both are located at the edge of the settlement, perhaps suggesting that the fringe was
semi-rural in nature. In the earliest phase this is supported by the presence of a number of ceramic
vessels at these sites which display usewear evidence indicative of a role in food processing. This
grubenhus was filled with a mixture of secondary waste, including joining or large sherds of
imported and locally produced vessels, as well as re-deposited material, likely from a midden.
Tippers study of grubenhuser, mentioned earlier, demonstrates that it is quite typical for these
structures to have been filled with a mixture of secondary and tertiary waste. This deposit is clearly
an act of closure. Some would argue that the closing of this structure is in some way special, based
on the presence of near complete vessels. I believe however that whilst the act of closure may have
been significant, the material used to fill it was inconsequential. The closure of the grubenhus
marks a period of transition in the life of the settlement, and of those living within it, and perhaps
cites similar closures at rural sites, from which the occupants of Hamwic may have originated.
Through the act of deposition these objects became icons of memory, it is the associations built
through deposition which gave them meaning. Through engagement with these objects in this way,
memory of past activities would have been cued, whilst they also cue future remembrance, through
similar engagements. These objects need not be pottery however, and could just as easily be animal
bones, metal objects, loomweights or re-deposited earth. What is significant is that this depositional
activity marks the passing of a structure which played a role in peoples everyday lives, and that
rather than being allowed to decay, it was filled in such a way that would have emphasised
continuity with the past at a transitional point in the life of the settlement and its occupants. In this
case this transition is likely to have been a period of population growth in Hamwic, accompanied by
an intensification of trade and craft activity, perhaps related to further changes such as the
development of craft specialists and the settlements relationship with its rural hinterland changing.

As I outlined earlier, it is my intention in this paper not to argue for this depositional activity to be
reflective of social norms, or habitus if you like, but to demonstrate that peoples engagement with
their waste was active in the constructing of the social in Hamwic. In particular I want to focus on
two themes; the first is the relationship between Hamwic and its rural hinterland and secondly a
consideration of relationships within the settlement.

The discussion of Hamwics role with its hinterland can be broken into two parts. Firstly we can
suggest how embedded people were with this hinterland, through forming similar associations with
their material culture. At a number of rural sites in Hampshire middening has either been suggested
to be, or demonstrated to be, the main means of deposition. Examples include Cowdreys Down
discussed previously, or settlements at places such as Rowner, where middens have been identified,
or Riverdene and Chalton, where material from grubenhuser has been argued to have derived
from surface deposits. Middens are not simple deposits. By throwing material onto a midden it
becomes re-classified as waste, but this is what can be termed provisional waste, that is that it is
open to re-negotiation, it can be recycled or reused, thrown away, or allowed to decay into a mulch
of matter which can perhaps be spread onto fields. It can be re-drawn into a whole new set of
associations. Therefore, deposition onto a midden is the first part of a process of re-categorising an
object as waste, it can be come tertiary (re-deposited) waste, or can be re-classified as a new type of
object or as a resource. Such classifications emerge as people engaged with waste following
deposition.

A midden is the materialisation of a network of associations between a disposer, or disposers, waste

and an existing surface dump. A particular category of disposer emerged through participation in
this network, one who was citing practice at rural sites in Hamwics hinterland. The act of tossing
waste onto the midden, and sensory engagements with it, made durable associations between
urban and rural disposers , as urban practice cited rural practice and was cued by it. The midden
came to stand for the relationship between urban and rural practice. We can see then how the
agency for the emergence of these categories of waste and of disposer were distributed through
these three actors, and how the continuation of rural practice in the urban context continued to re-
make associations between the occupants of Hamwic and its hinterland. They may have shared
further associations, perhaps through familial bonds. Further depositional activity, including the
closing of grubenhuser as mentioned previously, also served to periodically re-make these
associations, through evoking memory.

The second element is more physical, and that is the way that waste came to be re-categorised in
the midden. Some material may have been removed, particularly bone, as a craft resource, whilst
some was re-deposited into features as a closing deposit. Both of these activities are likely to be
common to Hamwic and the rural sites, further strengthening those associations discussed
previously. Whereas at rural sites middens are likely to have been spread over fields, this was not
the case for the population of Hamwic. The occupants of Hamwic do not appear to have engaged in
agricultural activity, certainly the faunal remains suggest that the town was provisioned from
outlying rural settlements, rather than through a system of closely related satellite farms, as has
been suggested for continental wics such as Hedeby and Dorestad. Midden material would seem to
have been dumped outside of the settlement, although it may have been removed to outlying
estates for use as fertiliser. Although depositional activity created a citational relationship between
Hamwic and some rural settlements, the network of associations did not translate directly into the
urban context. Instead, the removal of middens as dumps, rather than their use as a resource by the
urban population, and the use of rural middens as fertiliser, served to create an exploitative
relationship between rural sites and Hamwic, which is also indexed through the faunal remains.
Whilst people living in Hamwic may have identified with those in rural settlements, they were also
reliant on them. We can see then that in some ways the occupants of Hamwic were closely
embedded with their neighbours, whilst in others they can be seen as a liminal population. One
reason for this is that they were connected with a wide range of other actors, for example through
continental trade, associations which were made durable through material engagement in other
areas of household life, such as the use of imported pottery across the settlement.

Durable relationships were made with Hamwics hinterland through engagement with objects in
depositional activity. Some links were more durable than others however. The exploitative
relationship through provisioning could only last as long as the countryside was able to support
Hamwic and for as long as rural landowners were able or willing to provision the settlement.
Therefore the agency for this relationship was distributed through a range of actors, including the
rural producers and consumers, but also environmental factors and the foodstuffs themselves.
Although this study is framed by the physical boundaries of Hamwic, we should remember that
connections built in and with Hamwic overflowed into the hinterland, with them also being active in
creating the social in these areas. By citing depositional activity on rural sites, people in Hamwic built
more durable associations with the rural population. Middens acted as icons of memory, memory
which was re-made every time people engaged with middens, be it through disposing waste onto
them or by seeing or smelling them.

Moving on, then, to how depositional activity served to mediate relationships within the settlement.
I have already shown that boundaries were largely kept clear of waste until they were closed. We
can see then how the physical landscape of Hamwic was active in generating social order, through
demarcating tenement plots, for example. The pits could not do this alone however, the agency was
distributed through the population as well as the features and also their brooms and their waste, as
people made a decision to keep these boundaries clear, and enacted this by moving waste away
from these boundaries, which could only be achieved through engagement with this range of
material actors. This management of boundaries not only served to mediate social relationships
between people within Hamwic, but also created a distinction between Hamwic and rural
settlements, where such boundaries were not common in this period. We can see then that by
engaging with waste in this manner that an urban category of disposer emerged.

The agency to create Hamwic as a proto-urban phenomena was distributed in part through a
network of associations between people and objects that we can term waste disposal. Some
engagements served to situate Hamwic within its rural hinterland, through citing rural practices and
with these practices in turn cuing action in the settlement. Others served to change the nature of
this relationship to an exploitative one, whilst engagement with waste in a particular way within the
settlement served to create a distinctly urban landscape. Clearly this process of building a social
assemblage was not only distributed through depositional activity. Connections can be drawn with
consumption, trade and craft activity as well as personal relationships, which demonstrate Hamwic
to have been highly connected, both to its rural hinterland and to the continent. Through various
temporal cycles we see the social of Hamwic being formed and re-formed, as the connections sought
placed it in a continental trading network, but also in a rural provisioning network, as the occupants
were made into cosmopolitan town dwellers, whilst also re-making associations which brought them
into a more local network of associations. We can see then that Hamwic as an entity was not a
product of a guiding social hand, nor were the practices within it determined by an over-riding
social. Instead, Hamwic as the nexus of connections between a range of human, material and
environmental actors, was an ever changing social assemblage, created through the making and re-
making of these associations, and eventually declining as the associations transformed and faded
into something else.