The ritual context of pottery deposits from the Late Bronze Age sett lement at Wroc ł aw Widawa in southwestern Poland

Justyna Baron 2012. The ritual context of pottery deposits from the Late Bronze Age settlement at Wrocław Widawa in southwestern Poland. Journal of Archaeology and Ancient History. 2012, No. 3 pp 1-24. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-167884 In this paper, I survey archaeological evidence for deliberate deposits mostly containing ceramic vessels but also stones and animal bones. They were discovered at a Late Bronze Age settlement, dated to the 9th-8th centuries, situated in the northern part of the contemporary city of Wrocław in southwestern Poland. Their stratigraphical contexts indicate that their deposition took place at the very end of the use of the site, i.e. after the accumulation of the thick occupational layers. Based on the fine preservation of the vessels and their distribution, I argue that they are remains of practices performed in a common settlement area, resulting in the deposition of used ceramics. I also refer to a broad concept of the notion of ‘pottery deposits’ and compare the presented evidence with similar finds from other sites with a similar chronology. KEYWORDs: Archaeology, Poland, Wrocław, Deposits, Pottery, Bronze Age, Ritual Practice.


Introduction
Pottery fragments that frequently constitute the only basis in cultural and chronology studies on both a single pit-and site level are doubtlessly the most common artefact type in everyday archaeological practice.Although ceramics imported from Central Europe have been discovered on a series of Swedish Bronze Age sites (e.g.Vistad, Prissgården -Larsson, Hulthén 2004:1, with further references), the collection presented in this paper solely reflects local characteristics.In this sense, I refer to H. Thrane's view that formal and stylistic analysis of Bronze Age pottery from North and Central Europe proved that ceramics were manufactured almost exclusively for local use, and thus reflected local and common standards in both production and decoration modes (Thrane 2008:246).
Sometimes, however, archaeologists come across structures that are interpreted as pottery deposits (Horst 1977:125).What are the main assumptions in such interpretations and what makes them different from other types of ceramics?The most common structures are "special contexts" (Beilke-Voigt 2007:256), a high number of which are usually complete vessels of similar forms, sometimes deposited in a deliberate way and covered with one larger vessel (Horst 1977:129;Dohnal 1997:165).The uniqueness of the deposited pots, i.e. of better quality and with a unique decoration, compared to other shards from the same site, might be another criterion (e.g.Horst 1977:109).Deposits obviously constitute significant evidence in research on various aspects of life in the past and are thus very important in Bronze Age studies (Blajer 2001:14).Interpretations usually focus on a degree of production development of particular types of artefacts, their spatial and chronological range, the nature of exchange, spiritual culture or political situation, to mention only a few.However, these issues are mostly discussed in the context of bronze finds, while pottery deposits have deserved much less attention.In Central European archaeology, the most complete studies have been presented by F. Horst (1977) and in one chapter of Das "Opfer" im archäologischen Befund by I. Beilke-Voigt (2007).The latter author recalls older interpretations in presenting pottery deposits dated to the Bronze Age.
The abundant bibliography on the definitions and differences between hoards and deposits also mostly refers to bronze items (see Blajer 2001:16 with further references); however, for F. Horst, these two are equal (1977:113).The deliberate 'killing' of artefacts, including pottery, has also been a subject of Chapman's study on fragmentation (2000).
In this paper, I survey archaeological evidence for deliberate deposits of ceramic vessels, which I argue are the remains of public ceremonial practices performed in a settlement area at the very end of the site use.The pottery deposits were discovered at a Late Bronze Age settlement in Wrocław Widawa, which is situated in the northern part of the contemporary city of Wrocław (Fig. 1).The paper is also an attempt to interpret such deposits compared to similar finds from other sites of contemporary chronology.

The site
The site had been discovered in 2005 during a surface survey (Fig. 2) preceding a planned road construction.It is situated on an edge of a terrace of a small, nameless stream that is a tributary of the Widawa River (Fig. 3).The geomorphological research showed that the contemporary stream is located in the old riverbed of Widawa (Badura in press).
During the 2007 and 2008 seasons, the site was excavated by the Institute of Archaeology, University of Wrocław and the results will be published before long (Masojć in press), while a preliminary report was prepared soon after completing the fieldwork (Masojć 2009).In total, 1153 pits on the area of over 36,000 m 2 were excavated (Fig. 4, 5).Several clear settlement stages at the site were recorded, beginning from the Mesolithic over the Bronze Age up to a grave from the Second World War.
Most of the pits contained artefacts from two main settlement phases dated to the Late Bronze Age (9-8 th centuries BC) and the Roman Iron Age (1 st century BC-4 th century AD, Baron in press).They were remains of large open settlements and covered more less the same area (Fig. 5).For the sake of the study, the attached plan of the central part of the excavated area only contains Bronze Age pits (marked in red) and undated pits (blank), while the remaining pits were removed to make the picture clearer (Fig. 6).The whole site area was covered with a thick occupational layer containing abundant archaeological evidence: pottery shards, animal bones, daub lumps etc.In some cases, functional analyses of the pits enabled the determination of their original functions as pit houses, storage pits, postholes, fireplaces, wells, limekilns and devices connected with iron production.Several graves were also identified 2 , one dated to the Early Bronze Age (18-17 th centuries BC), one from the Late Bronze Age (9-8 th centuries BC), three from the Pre-Roman and the Roman Iron Age (1 st century BC-4 th century AD) and two dated to modern times.Owing to poor collagen content, little radiocarbon data was obtained from the site and most of the dating is based on artefact studies.However, dendrochronological dating was done to establish the chronology of the Pre-Roman and Roman Iron Age remains (Krąpiec in press)

Deposits
Despite some doubts on this notion as maintained by W. Blajer (2001:16, note 4), the discussed finds will be called 'pottery deposits'.In this study, I understand them as single or several vessels of various sizes deliberately deposited in the settlement area.This structured deposition act includes the arrangement of the ceramics in pits and presence of stones in and/or on the vessels.
At least two deposits may be dated to the Bronze Age: one containing several ceramic vessels (pit 130) and a deposit of 134 bronze arrowheads placed in a pot (Lasak in press).However, another twenty contexts containing Bronze Age ceramics seem to have been deliberately deposited in the settlement area.They will be briefly presented in the following paragraphs.Table 1 lists a number of identified vessels, the presence of stones and the data on the vessel arrangement and animal bones.
All the ceramics presented here were dug into both the existing thick (about 40-60 cm) occupational layer and a sterile soil that defines their stratigraphic position and which indicates that they were deposited after the cultural layers had been accumulated.
As table 1 shows, the number of vessels varied from one to ten.The most frequent forms were cups (Fig. 7:c-f, h, o-q).Vases were a common form as well; however, owing to their size, their reconstruction was only possible to a small degree (Fig. 7:i; 8:g, 9:f).Other forms are pots (Fig. 7:a, l; 8:a, j), bowls (Fig. 7:k; 9:a, e) and plates (Fig. 7:g; 9:b).
Some of the vessels were arranged in a very specific way: in pit 129, a bowl was put upside down (Fig. 10), the same situation was observed in pit 149.Some contexts represent a situation when a small vessel (usually a cup) was put into a larger one (Fig. 11).
Another interesting phenomenon is the presence of stone(s) in the discussed contexts.In 14 of the contexts, at least one stone was recorded and numbers varied between one and five.Depending on their sizes, they were put both into the vessels, as in pit 268, where four stones were found at the bottom of a vase (Fig. 12), and in pit 22, where a single stone was found (Fig. 13:a), or on vessels, which was probably one reason for the extent of their fragmentation (Fig. 13:b, c).Pits 564, 581, 591 and 1014 also contained stones, but a high degree of vessel destruction does not allow for identifying whether they were put into or onto the ceramics.
As shown in the table, animal bones were found in nine pits, which in two cases (pits 129 and 268) indicated traces of fire.In general, the bones represent specimens commonly occurring at the site (Abłamowicz in press).Particular attention should be drawn to a pottery deposit that was recorded in a central part of the settlement (context no.130).Some further pits containing ceramics (e.g.pit 129) and the hoard of bronze arrowheads were found nearby (Fig. 6).The chronology of the ceramic container can be defined only as general as the Late Bronze Age and thus their possible chronological correspondence with pottery deposits is ambiguous.In pit 130, a large pot was dug into the occupational layer and partly into the yellow-brown sterile soil, as demonstrated in the picture (Fig. 14).During the excavation, no traces of a pit containing this pot were observed and only the vessel was recorded.
With respect to the morphology and some stylistic attributes of the vessel, it can be described as a simple pot with four flat holders at the rim.It was 53 cm tall, while the base diameter was 16 cm and rim diameter was 40 cm.The pot exterior surface was covered with a thin layer of clay tempered with crushed granite and then smoothed with fingers, resulting in long, uneven grooves that were horizontal on the rim and vertical at the body (Fig. 8:a; 14).Much smaller fragments of similar vessels have frequently been found at the site.Such pots are common at other contemporary settlements.After the vessel had been fired and when the clay became hard, the base was perforated vertically in the centre.The hole had a diameter of 2 cm.This resulted in a coarse surface of the perforation, which was made from both the outside and the inside of the vessel, as proven by the sand clock shaped perforation.
The pot contained seven almost complete cups, one cup or small bowl (part of the rim was destroyed, thus it cannot be established whether it was provided with a handle) and shards from another small bulbous pot 25 cm high with an everted rim (Fig. 8:j).Its surface was treated with visible finger trails similar to the larger vessel.All cups had smooth and burnished, glossy surfaces and five had broken handles.In addition to the pottery, the large pot contained five stones and five fragments of animal bones (mostly from cattlesee table 1).All deposits were dug into already existing occupational layers resulting from an extended use of the site.The stratigraphic situation suggests that the pots were deposited at the very end of the Bronze Age stage (about 700 BC) before the settlement before the settlement was abandoned, not to be resettled until the 1st century BC.

The intra-site distribution of the deposits
Observations of the deposit distribution in the site area enabled arguing that most deposits were spread over the entire central part of the settlement, while no spatial connections with the Bronze Age pits (marked red in the Fig. 6) were recorded.They were found far from post houses and mostly in the areas where Bronze Age pits were widely spaced.However, a possible concentration might be observed in the western part of the site.This comprised seven pits (129,130,149,170,177,249,268) containing similar sets of vessels, i.e. a large vessel (vase or pot) and small cups or bowls.
Another interesting phenomenon is that the distribution of pits with a higher number of vessels, stones and animal bones 'surrounded' the area where all the deposits occurred, while most of single large vessels without stones or animal bones were found in the centre (Fig. 6).
Complete vessels at settlements are not frequent finds and these are usually large and massive storage jars, dug into deep pits and left there after use.Nevertheless, some small vessels from prehistoric settlements have been reported, and most of the complete ceramics have been recorded in sepulchral contexts (e.g.Mogielnicka-Urban 1992).
Obviously, it is possible that some of the discussed large vessels could have been used for storage, as has been demonstrated at many sites.However, that does not explain the stones or smaller vessels found inside the larger ones or arranged upside down.In most pits, both sets of forms, i.e. vases, cups, bowls and plates, their arrangement and the presence of stones, resemble gravegoods discovered at the urnfields of the same chronology.Unlike the graves, they did not contain any bones.It should be noted that one Bronze Age urn grave containing an infant burial was found at the site, about 10 metres north of pit 1040.Thus, we must assume that bones would be present if the discussed contexts were graves.It does not seem likely that they were symbolic graves, which are usually rare at urnfield sites.Moreover, the site seemed to be a regular open settlement with typical pits, occupational layers and artefacts and the one grave seems to be unique in this context.Further, animal bone evidence found both in the pots and around them in the pits seems to represent selected body parts, mostly skulls and limbs.Despite its fragmentation, no bone material exhibited traces of gnawing, and thus we may assume that it was not exposed and thus not accessible to scavengers before deposition.
For many reasons, pot deposits seem to be a much less attractive category for archaeologist than metal deposits.Comparing some terminological and methodological remarks included in W. Blajer's work on depositional patterns in the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in Poland ( 2001), one may easily note that the notion 'deposit' is usually connected with metal artefacts only, while pottery deposits are not included in discussions on what deposits or hoards are or are not.One exception is a paper by F. Horst (1977), who refers to these notions while analysing vessels that probably contained food offerings.Issues of the probable value of deposited artefacts have not arisen in the literature.This is most likely owing to the assumption that all the pottery has been manufactured from commonly accessible raw materials using relatively simple techniques.It has been also questioned whether the pottery, particularly settlement pottery, can be useful in studies on chronology, owing to its low "chronological sensitivity", especially when compared to contexts dated by bronze artefacts.
The contexts defined as pottery deposits have been recognized at many Bronze Age and Early Iron Age sites.Many of them are mentioned in the paper by F. Horst, who presents such finds from open and fortified settlements of the so-called Lusatian culture.He points to some common properties of these deposits, e.g.selected forms and decorations, lack of traces of use of the deposited items, remains of organic substances such as cereals, animal bones, blood, honey etc.Additionally, the spatial distribution of the deposits including their locations near sites that are considered to have been centres of cult and offering activities was noticed.Horst focuses mostly on wetland locations and pottery deposits in wells, for example at settlements in Berlin-Lichterfelde and Senftenberg (1977:125) or at borders of settlements (1977:136), interpreting the vessels as remains of food offerings that have been deposited in the course of fertility rituals.A similar interpretation was presented by I. Czybbora, who argued that pots found at the bottom and on the coast of Lake Gross Glienicke near Potsdam in Germany are remains of complex ritual offerings that probably included pouring liquids into the lake and throwing the empty containers into the water afterwards (1997:87).At least five pottery deposits dated to the Early Iron Age were described as 'votive offerings', i.e. thanksgiving offerings, and were discovered at a fenced settlement at Milejowice in SW Poland (Bugaj & Kopiasz 2008:107-109).The pots were deposited both in the centre and in the borders of the fence and the assemblage included several vessels of various sizes and animal bones.Again, in four cases, the deposits consisted of similar sets of pottery forms, i.e. a large vase with small cups inside.In one pit, an iron knife was found together with vessels and animal bones (Bugaj & Kopiasz 2008:110).Although the authors do not refer to any possible interpretations of the deposits, their context within the site suggests their connection with construction activities, in this case the fence, which was partly re-built (Bugaj & Kopiasz 2008:Fig. 3).The presence of typical 'after-feast' artefacts and a possible connection between feasts and construction activities make the phenomenon even more interesting.
Comparing Central European pottery deposits with those known from classical Greek culture, V. Dohnal advocates their connection with libations and initiations rituals that required abandoning the containers after completing the rite (1997:165).P. Schauer gives a similar opinion, interpreting pottery deposits as sets of forms used mostly for ceremonial drinking (1996:408).
Returning to the contexts from Wrocław Widawa, it is noticeable that they do not meet all the criteria of 'cultic pits' as proposed by F. Horst.These included a particular form, decoration, context, lack of any trace of use and remains of food offerings (Horst 1977).In pit 130, it is difficult to establish whether the large pot was manufactured for the purpose of depositing, but it seems unlikely.The form itself -a simple undecorated pot -belongs to the most common type of settlement thick-walled pottery.Apparently, a typical vessel, whether used or not, was selected and removed from common use by perforating the base.The same seem probable for the cups, again known from other contexts at the settlement, but in pit 130, their handles were chipped off from the bodies.The removal of some parts of the deposited items has been noticed for bronze hoards and in some cases, this became a tool for distinguishing their votive or economic nature (e.g.Levy 1982).However, recent studies proved that they do not need to be considered as discrete categories (e.g.Fontijn 2001Fontijn /2002:5):5).Deliberate breakages of bronze items have recently been analysed by R. Bradley, who criticised earlier opinions, including his own (2005:148).Bradley analysed selected items from bronze hoards and interpreted some use-wear analyses that proved intensive use of bronze axes (for woodwork, fights etc.), which were subsequently deposited as gravegoods or hoards (Roberts & Ottaway 2003:132).He argues that most of the artefacts from these particular contexts were commonly used in situations that we can define as mundane.Both axes and sickles were used, sharpened and repaired; thus, the opinion that they were produced exclusively for deposition is difficult to support (Bradley 2005:149).
With these remarks in mind, one may attempt to interpret vessels from the Wrocław Widawa site in a similar mode.In general, the pots used were cooking pottery sets that were given a ritual character by breakage (broken off handles, perforated base) and deposited, i.e. dug into the settlement area.We cannot say what they contained; however, animal bones indicated that it could have been small portions of meat.
According to F. Horst, another property of the pottery deposits is their location in the vicinity of other structures of a probable 'ritual' nature, such as fireplaces or wells or at borders of settlements.This is dissimilar to the Wrocław Widawa site, where the vessels were scattered all over the central part of the settlement (Fig. 6, 7).
How can we interpret such vessels?The interpretation belongs to a broad discourse on any deposits made of various materials whose biographies end with throwing them into water or digging them into the ground.Can we call them offerings, or, perhaps more neutrally, deposits (cf.Kaul 2004:73)?The pits themselves do not enable the recognition of any particular type of rituals; moreover, if they are found at settlements, they are dug into occupational layers, among fireplaces, limekilns or storage pits.Deposits of easy-to-produce and partly broken vessels do not allow for an interpretation as vessels stored in a pit, ready to use for the settlement inhabitants.The occurrence of cups suggests Greek influences into the urn field areas for use in libations, as suggested by J. Bouzek (2000:48).In the Greek world, liquid offerings involved the use of perforated vessels for rhyta (Konsolaki-Yannopoulou 2001:217), and from this perspective, the large vases, together with smaller cups, seem to confirm their use in libation-like performances.
What we may assume is that the vessels are remains of activities performed in 'the public space' of the village and thus accessible to most of its inhabitants.This is demonstrated in the deposit distribution over the entire settlement area and the lack of connection with any particular type of pits, houses etc.Moreover, the ceremonies took place at the end of the settlement use, after the occupational layer had become thick.
Obviously, feasts were activities of a highly ritualized nature, that not only included preparing and celebrating the feast but also the deposition of feast remains.Recalling some characteristics of rituals as set up by C. Bell that include formalism, traditionalism, invariance, rule governance, sacral symbolism and performance (Bell 1992:92), I argue that the discussed remains might be interpreted as deliberately deposited used feasting equipment.
According to J. Wright: "Feasting, by its virtue of bringing people together in the biological act of eating, is a social activity that binds a group through sharing" (2004:134), while B. Hayden gives a detailed list of practical benefits of feasting.Hayden maintains that feasting can create a special bond between groups (desired in various situations -from marriages to wars), display a success and maintain political power, just to mention a few (2001:29-30).On the other hand, feasting, owing to its public character, could have been used as a tool of social exclusion.The same author points out the archaeological signatures of feasts, including the size and number of preparation and serving vessels (mostly of everyday use pottery) deposited in central community spaces (Hayden 2001:Table 2.1).M. Dabney, P. Halstead and P. Thomas offered detailed methods to identify post-feasting deposits based on synchronic analyses of pottery, animal bones and contexts (2004:202).
Comparing the archaeological evidence from the Wrocław Widawa site, the large vessels containing small cups, sometimes arranged in pits in a very specific way and the presence of selected parts of animal bodies seem to be feast remains.The area of deposition was also deliberately designed with 'rich' deposits on the borders and single vessels in the central part (Fig. 7).Obviously they do not have to confirm Greek connections, as traditions of feasting and the deposition of used items go far beyond, both in a geographical and a chronological sense (Dietler & Hayden 2001:1-3).According to J. Wright, material remains of feasting "have to be understood as the material displays of other kinds of social activity, many of which relate to the expression and re-affirmation of individual identity and membership in groups " (2004:135).
Since the archaeological evidence indicated that the deposits date from the final stage of the Bronze Age settlement at the site, many questions arise and I realise that many will remain unanswered.Based on the properties of the pottery, and thus on fairly general data on the chronology, it is not possible to establish whether the feasts were of a collective nature or not, and whether they were single or repeated events.Finally, it is not possible to find out why the site was actually abandoned.
Why were the feasts performed so intensively or performed in this particular way only at the end of the existence of the village?If we assume that feasts are of a ritual nature, their high occurrence may reflect an increase of certain rites.Many scholars argue that ritual plays a particularly essential role in the situation of uncertainty and suspense in social relations, while the level of intensity of the collectively expressed and enacted ritual depends on the level of uncertainty experienced by individual members of a population (e.g.Wuthnow 1987:140).In this sense, intensified ritual actions are responses to increasing uncertainty experienced by the population.Bearing in mind that the settlement was abandoned shortly after the pots were deposited, we may assume that the deposition was an act of 'closure' as well as reflecting an intensification of ritual activities.

Fig. 6 .
Fig. 6.Wrocław Widawa.Distribution of the pottery deposits in the central part of the settlement.Bronze Age pits are marked in red, pits of undetermined chronology are blank http://www.arkeologi.uu.se/digitalAssets/94/94671_JAAH_Baron_Fig_06.pdf