Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T04:06:48.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ritual and Rationality: Some Problems of Interpretation in European Archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Joanna Brück
Joanna Brück*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University College Dublin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper argues that the conception of ritual employed in both archaeology and anthropology is a product of post-Enlightenment rationalism. Because it does not meet modern western criteria for practical action, ritual is frequently described as non-functional and irrational; furthermore, this designation is employed as the primary way of identifying ritual archaeologically. However, this evaluation of ritual action must be questioned. Contemporary modes of categorizing human practice are not untainted by socio-political interest but enable the reproduction of certain forms of power. It is argued that many other societies do not distinguish ritual from secular action. In fact, what anthropologists identify as ritual is generally considered practical and effective action by its practitioners. This is because different conceptions of instrumentality and causation inform such activities. For archaeologists, use of the concept of ritual has resulted in a serious misapprehension of prehistoric rationality such that ‘secular’ activities (for example subsistence practices) are assumed to be governed by a universally-applicable functionalist logic. In order to address this problem, what is required is an approach that explores the essential difference between prehistoric rationality and our own notions of what is effective action. A discussion of some finds from middle Bronze Age settlements in southern England will provide a working example of how one might begin to move towards this goal.

L'article discute de la conception du rite utilisé a la fois en archéologie et en anthropologie sociale en tant que création du rationalisme né au siècle des lumières. Parce qu'il ne répond pas aux critères occidentaux actuels, les rites sont fréquemment décrits comme non-fonctionnels et irrationels. Pire encore, ces deux critères sont utilisés en archéologie comme premiers moyens d'identification des rites. Cette définition des actes rituels mérite d'être mise en question. Les catégorisations modernes des àctivités humaines ne sont pas dépourvues de sous-entendus et d'interêts socio-politiques et contribuent à la reproduction de certains formes de pouvoir. L'auteur rappelle que de nombreux autres sociétés ne distinguent pas les rites des actions séculaires. En fait, ce que les anthropologues sociaux identifient comme rites sont en général considéréd comme des actions concrètes et effectives par ceux qui les pratiquent. Cela vient de ce que, pour eux, ces activités sont sous-tendues par des conceptions d'instrumentalité et de causalité différentes. Pour les archéologues, il resulte de l'usage du concept de rites de serieux malentendus sur la rationalité préhistorique; ainsi, les activités “séculaires” (telles que les activités de subsistance) sont supposées n'être gouvernées que par une logique fonctionelle applicable universellement. Pour résoudre ce problème, il faut construire une approche qui explore les différences essentielles entre la rationalité préhistorique et notre notion d'une action efficace. L'étude de plusieurs trouvailles venant des habitats du Bronze Moyen du Sud de l'Angleterre fournit un exemple sur la façon dont on peut y parvenir.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Artikel spricht sich dafür aus, dass die Konzeption von ‘Ritual’, wie sie in Archäologie und Ethnologic angewandt wird, ein Produkt des seit der Aufklärung vorherrschenden Rationalismus ist. Da das Ritual nicht modernen westlichen Kriterien für praktisches Handeln entspricht, wird es häufig als nicht-funktional und irrational beschrieben; darüber hinaus wird dieses Verständnis als primärer Weg zur archäologischen Identifikation von Ritualen angewandt. Jedoch muss diese Bewertung ritueller Handlung in Frage gestellt werden. Heutige Weisen, menschliche Handlungen zu kategorisieren sind nicht unbeeinflusst von soziopolitischen Interessen sondern ermöglichen die Reproduktion bestimmter Formen von Macht. Es wird argumentiert, dass viele andere Gesellschaften nicht zwischen ritueller und säkularer Handlung unterscheiden. Vielmehr wird, was EthnologInnen als Ritual identifizieren, von den Ausführenden als praktische und effektive Handlung betrachtet. Der Grund dafür sind unterschiedliche Konzeptionen von Instrumentalität und Kausalität, die diese Aktivitäten durchdringen. Für ArchäologInnen führte die Verwendung des Konzepts ‘Ritual’ zu einer schwerwiegenden Fehleinschützung prähistorischer Rationalität, so dass für ‘säkulare’ Aktivitäten (z.B. Subsistenzpraktiken) angenommen wird, sie seien von einer universell anwendbaren funktionalistischen Logik getragen. Um dieses Problem anzugehen ist es notwendig, den grundlegenden Unterschied zwischen prähistorischer Rationalität und unseren eigenen Vorstellungen von effektiver Handlung zu untersuchen. Eine Diskussion von Funden aus Siedlungen der Mittelbronzezeit Südenglands gibt ein Beispiel dafür, wie man ansetzen kann, sich auf dieses Ziel zu zu bewegen.

Keywords

depositionmiddle bronze agerationalityritualsecular
Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , 1999 , pp. 313 - 344
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 Sage Publications 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ashbee, Paul, 1960. The Bronze Age Round Barrow in Britain: an Introduction to the Study of the Funerary Practice and Culture of the British and Irish Single-Grave People of the Second Millennium BC. London: Phoenix House.Google Scholar
Bahn, Paul, 1989. Bluff Your Way in Archaeology. Horsham: Ravette Books.Google Scholar
Barnes, Ian, Boisimier, William A., Cleal, Rosamund M.J., Fitzpatrick, Andrew P. and Roberts, Mark R., 1995. Early Settlement in Berkshire: Mesolithic-Roman Occupations Sites in the Thames and Kennet Valleys. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeological Report 6.Google Scholar
Barrett, John C., 1980. The evolution of later Bronze Age settlement. In Barrett, John C. and Bradley, Richard J. (eds), Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age: 77–100. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British series 83.Google Scholar
Barrett, John C., 1988. The living, the dead and the ancestors: Neolithic and early Bronze Age mortuary practices. In Barrett, John C. and Kinnes, Ian A. (eds), The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: Recent Trends: 30–41. Sheffield: Sheffield University Department of Archaeology and Prehistory.Google Scholar
Barrett, John C., 1989. Time and tradition: the rituals of everyday life. In Nordström, Hans-Åke and Knape, Anita (eds), Bronze Age Studies: Transactions of the British-Scandinavian Colloquium in Stockholm, May 10–11, 1985: 113–126. Stockholm: The National Museum of Antiquities Studies 6.Google Scholar
Barrett, John C., 1991. Towards an archaeology of ritual. In Garwood, Paul, Jennings, David, Skeates, Robin and Toms, Judith (eds), Sacred and Profane: Proceedings of a Conference on Archaeology, Ritual and Religion, Oxford, 1989: 1–9. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 32.Google Scholar
Barrett, John C., 1994. Fragments from Antiquity: an Archaeology of Social Life in Britain, 2900–1200 BC. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Barrett, John C. and Needham, Stuart P., 1988. Production, circulation and exchange: problems in the interpretation of Bronze Age bronzework. In Barrett, John C. and Kinnes, Ian A. (eds), The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: Recent Trends: 127–140. Sheffield: Sheffield University Department of Archaeology and Prehistory.Google Scholar
Barrett, John C., Bradley, Richard J. and Green, Martin, 1991. Landscape, Monuments and Society: the Prehistory of Cranborne Chase. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bell, Catherine, 1992. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bloch, Maurice, 1985. From cognition to ideology. In Fardon, Richard (ed.), Power and Knowledge: Anthropological and Sociological Approaches: 21–48. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre, 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bradley, Richard, 1984. The Social Foundations of Prehistoric Britain: Themes and Variations in the Archaeology of Power. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Bradley, Richard, 1990. The Passage of Arms: an Archaeological Analysis of Prehistoric Hoards and Votive Deposits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, Mary, 1984. Ritual and prestige in the prehistory of Wessex, c. 2200–1400 BC: a new dimension to the archaeological evidence. In Miller, Daniel and Tilley, Christopher (eds), Ideology, Power and Prehistory: 93–110. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brightman, Robert, 1993. Grateful Prey: Rock Cree Human–Animal Relationships. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Andrew, 1991. Structured deposition and technological change among the flaked stone artefacts from Cranborne Chase. In Barrett, John, Bradley, Richard and Hall, Melanie (eds), Papers on the Prehistoric Archaeology of Cranborne Chase: 102–133. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 11.Google Scholar
Brück, Joanna, 1995. A place for the dead: the role of human remains in the late Bronze Age. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61: 245–277.Google Scholar
Brück, Joanna, 1999. What's in a settlement? Domestic practice and residential mobility in early Bronze Age southern England. In Brück, Joanna and Goodman, Melissa (eds), Making Places in the Prehistoric World: Themes in Settlement Archaeology: 52–75. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
Budd, Paul and Taylor, Timothy, 1995. The faerie smith meets the bronze industry: magic versus science in the interpretation of prehistoric metal-making. World Archaeology 27: 133–143.Google Scholar
Burgess, Colin, 1980. The Age of Stonehenge. London: Dent.Google Scholar
Burl, Aubrey, 1987. The Stonehenge People: Life and Death at the World's Greatest Stone Circle. London: J.M. Dent.Google Scholar
Burstow, G.P. and Holleyman, G.A., 1957. Late Bronze Age settlement on Itford Hill, Sussex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 23: 167–212.Google Scholar
Childe, V. Gordon, 1949. Social Worlds of Knowledge. L.T. Hobhouse Memorial Trust Lecture 19. London: Geoffrey Cumberledge/Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, David V., Cowie, Trevor G. and Foxon, Andrew, 1985. Symbols of Power at the Time of Stonehenge. Edinburgh: National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland.Google Scholar
Colt Hoare, Richard, 1812. The Ancient History of South Wiltshire. London: William Millar.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, Barry, 1970. A Bronze Age settlement at Chalton, Hampshire (site 78). Antiquaries' Journal 50: 1–13.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, Barry, 1992. Pits, preconceptions and propitiation in the British Iron Age. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 11: 69–83.Google Scholar
Darvill, Tim, 1987. Prehistoric Britain. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
Deal, Michael, 1985. Household pottery disposal in the Maya highlands: an ethnoarchaeological interpretation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4: 243–291.Google Scholar
Descola, Philippe and Pálsson, Gísli (eds), 1996. Nature and Society: Anthropological Perspectives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Drewett, Peter, 1980. Black Patch and the later Bronze Age in Sussex. In Barrett, John C. and Bradley, Richard J. (eds), Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age: 377–396. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 83.Google Scholar
Drewett, Peter, 1982. Later Bronze Age downland economy and excavations at Black Patch, East Sussex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 48: 321–340.Google Scholar
Drucker, Philip and Heizer, Robert F., 1967. To Make my Name Good: a Reexamination of the Southern Kwakiutl Potlatch. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Durkheim, Émile, 1976. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (2nd edn). London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Ellison, Ann, 1975. Pottery and settlements of the later Bronze Age in southern England. , University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Ellison, Ann, 1981. Towards a socioeconomic model for the middle Bronze Age in southern England. In Hodder, Ian, Isaac, Glynn and Hammond, Norman (eds), Pattern of the Past: Studies in Honour of David Clarke: 413–438. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellison, Ann, 1987. The Bronze Age settlement at Thorny Down: pots, post-holes and patterning. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53: 385–392.Google Scholar
Evans-Pritchard, Edward E., 1937. Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Firth, Raymond, 1951. Elements of Sodai Organisation. London: Watts.Google Scholar
Fortes, Meyer, 1966. Religious premises and the logical technique in divinatory ritual. In Huxley, Julian (ed.), Ritualization of Behaviour in Man and Animals: 409–422. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, series B 251.Google Scholar
Fortune, Reo F., 1932. Sorcerers of Dobu. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel, 1970. The Order of Things: an Archaeology of the Human Sciences. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel, 1973. The Birth of the Clinic. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel, 1977. Discipline and Punish. New York: Vantage.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel, 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings. 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Fowler, Peter J., 1981. Wildscape to landscape: ‘enclosure’ in prehistoric Britain. In Mercer, Roger (ed.), Farming Practice in British Prehistory: 9–54. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fowler, Peter J., 1983. The Farming of Prehistoric Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Cyril, 1941. Stake-circles in turf barrows: a record of excavation in Glamorgan 1939–40. Antiquaries' Journal 21: 92–127.Google Scholar
Frazer, James G., 1890. The Golden Bough: a Study in Comparative Religion. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Garwood, Paul, 1991. Ritual tradition and the reconstitution of society. In Garwood, Paul, Jennings, David, Skeates, Robin and Toms, Judith (eds), Sacred and Profane: Proceedings of a Conference on Archaeology, Ritual and Religion, Oxford, 1989: 10–32. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 32.Google Scholar
Gent, Henry, 1983. Centralised storage in later prehistoric Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 49: 243–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, Alex, 1980. A re-interpretation of Chippenham Barrow 5, with a discussion of the Beaker-associated pottery. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society 70: 47–60.Google Scholar
Gibson, Alex, 1982. Beaker Domestic Sites: a Study of the Domestic Pottery of the Late Third and Early Second Millennium BC in the British Isles. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British series 107.Google Scholar
Gingell, Christopher, 1992. The Marlborough Downs: a Later Bronze Age Landscape and its Origins. Devizes: Wiltshire Archaeology and Natural History Society Monograph 1.Google Scholar
Goody, Jack (ed.), 1958. The Developmental Cycle in Domestic Groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goody, Jack, 1961. Religion and ritual: the definitional problem. British Journal of Sociology 12: 142–164.Google Scholar
Goody, Jack, 1977. Against ‘ritual’: loosely structured thoughts on a loosely defined topic. In Moore, Sally F. and Myerhoff, Barbara G. (eds), Secular Ritual: 25–35. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen, 1971. Technology and science as ideology. In Habermas, Jürgen, Toward a Rational Society: Student Protest, Science and Politics: 81–122. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna, 1991. Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In Haraway, Donna, Simians, Cyborgs and Women: the Reinvention of Nature: 183–202. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra and Hintikka, Merrill B. (eds), 1983. Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Hawkes, Christopher F.C., 1954. Archaeological method and theory: some suggestions from the Old World. American Anthropology 56: 155–168.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl, 1965. Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Hill, J.D., 1995. Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex: a Study on the Formation of a Particular Archaeological Record. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 242.Google Scholar
Hodder, Ian, 1982. Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hodder, Ian, 1987. Contextual archaeology: an interpretation of Çatal Hüyük and a discussion of the origins of agriculture. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 24: 43–56.Google Scholar
Hughes, Gwilym, 1996. Lockington. Current Archaeology 146: 44–49.Google Scholar
Hviding, Edvard, 1996. Nature, culture, magic, science: on meta-languages for comparison in cultural ecology. In Descola, Philippe and Pálsson, Gísli (eds), Nature and Society: Anthropological Perspectives: 165–184. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Joyce, Arthur and Johannessen, Sissel, 1993. Abandonment and the production of archaeological variability at domestic sites. In Cameron, Catherine and Tomka, Steve (eds), Abandonment of Settlements and Regions: Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Approaches: 139–153. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lane, Paul, 1986. Past practices in the ritual present: examples from the Welsh Bronze Age. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 5 (2): 181–192.Google Scholar
Leach, Edmund, 1964. Ritual. In Gould, Julius and Kolb, William (eds), A Dictionary of the Sodai Sciences: 607–608. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Leach, Edmund, 1966. Ritualization in man in relation to conceptual and social development. In Huxley, Julian (ed.), Ritualization of Behaviour in Man and Animals: 403–408. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, series B 251.Google Scholar
Leach, Edmund, 1968. Ritual. In International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences: 520–526. New York: Macmillan and Free Press.Google Scholar
Lew, Janet E., 1982. Social and Religious Organisation in Bronze Age Denmark. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series S124.Google Scholar
Lewis, Gilbert, 1980. Day of Shining Red: an Essay on Understanding Ritual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malone, Caroline, 1989. Avebury. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
Mizoguchi, Koji, 1993. Time in the reproduction of mortuary practices. World Archaeology 25 (2): 223–235 Google Scholar
Moore, Henrietta, 1986. Space, Text and Gender: an Anthropological Study of the Marakwet of Kenya. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, Sally F. and Myerhoff, Barbara G., 1977. Introduction: secular ritual: forms and meaning. In Moore, Sally F. and Myerhoff, Barbara G. (eds), Secular Ritual: 3–24. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Morris, Brian, 1994. Anthropology of the Self: the Individual in Cultural Perspective. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
Nadel, Siegfried F., 1954. Nupe Religion. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Needham, Stuart and Sørensen, Marie-Louise Stig, 1988. Runnymede refuse tip: a consideration of midden deposits and their formation. In Barrett, John C. and Kinnes, Ian A. (eds), The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: Recent Trends, 113–126. Sheffield: Sheffield University Department of Archaeology and Prehistory.Google Scholar
Needham, Stuart and Spence, Tony, 1996. Refuse and Disposal at Area 16 East, Runnymede. London: British Museum Press.Google Scholar
Needham, Stuart and Spence, Tony, 1997. Refuse and the formation of middens. Antiquity 71 (271): 77–90.Google Scholar
Okely, Judith, 1983. The Traveller Gypsies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pálsson, Gísli, 1996. Human-environmental relations: orientalism, paternalism and communalism. In Descola, Philippe and Pálsson, Gísli (eds), Nature and Society: Anthropological Perspectives: 63–81. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Papworth, Martin, 1992. Excavation and survey of Bronze Age sites in the Badbury area, Kingston Lacy Estate. Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 114: 47–76.Google Scholar
Parker Pearson, Mike, 1982. Mortuary practices, society and ideology: an ethnoarchaeological study. In Hodder, Ian (ed.), Symbolic and Structural Archaeology: 99–113. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Parker Pearson, Mike and Richards, Colin, 1994. Architecture and order: spatial representation and archaeology. In Pearson, Mike Parker and Richards, Colin (eds), Architecture and Order: Approaches to Social Space: 38–72. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Piggott, Stuart, 1940. Timber circles: a re-examination. Archaeological Journal 96: 192–222.Google Scholar
Pollard, Joshua, 1992. The Sanctuary, Overton Hill, Wiltshire: a re-examination. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58: 213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl, 1963. Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred R., 1952. Structure and Function in Primitive Society: Essays and Addresses. London: Cohen and West.Google Scholar
Ratcliffe-Densham, H.B.A. and Ratcliffe-Densham, M.M., 1961. An anomalous earthwork of the Late Bronze Age on Cock Hill. Sussex Archaeological Collections 99: 78–101.Google Scholar
Reid, Andrew and MacLean, Rachel, 1995. Symbolism and the social contexts of iron production in Karagwe. World Archaeology 27: 144–161.Google Scholar
Renfrew, A. Colin, 1985. The Archaeology of Cult: the Sanctuary at Phylakopi. London: British School of Archaeology at Athens.Google Scholar
Richards, Colin and Thomas, Julian, 1984. Ritual activity and structured deposition in later Neolithic Wessex. In Bradley, Richard and Gardiner, Julie (eds), Neolithic Studies: a Review of Some Recent Work 189–218. British Archaeological Reports, British series 133.Google Scholar
Russell, Miles, 1996. Problems of phasing: a reconsideration of the Black Patch Middle Bronze Age ‘nucleated village’. Oxford Archaeological Journal 15 (1): 33–38.Google Scholar
Schefold, Remar, 1982. The efficacious symbol. In de Josselin de Jong, Patrick E. and Schwimmer, Erik (eds), Symbolic Anthropology in the Netherlands: 125–142. The Hague: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Michael, 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Nordholt, Schulte and Herman, G., 1980. The symbolic classification of the Atoni of Timor. In Fox, James J. (ed.), The Flow of Life: Essays on Eastern Indonesia: 231–247. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shanks, Michael and Tilley, Christopher, 1982. Ideology, symbolic power and ritual communication – a reinterpretation of Neolithic mortuary practices. In Hodder, Ian (ed.), Symbolic and Structural Archaeology: 129–154. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sillar, Bill, 1996. The dead and the drying: techniques for transforming people and things in the Andes. Journal of Material Culture 1 (3): 259–289.Google Scholar
Smith, Isobel F., 1965. Excavation of a bell barrow, Avebury G55. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 60: 24–46.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, 1975. Rethinking Symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stone, John F.S., 1936. An enclosure on Boscombe Down East. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 47: 466–489.Google Scholar
Tambiah, Stanley J., 1990. Magic, Science, Religion and the Scope of Rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, Julian, 1991. Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, Julian, 1993. The politics of vision and archaeologies of landscape. In Bender, Barbara (ed.), Landscape: Politics and Perspectives: 19–48. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Thomas, Julian, 1996. Time, Culture and Identity: an Interpretive Archaeology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thompson, Michael, 1979. Rubbish Theory: the Creation and Destruction of Value. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, Bryan S. 1992. Regulating Bodies: Essays in Medical Sociology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Turner, Victor, 1967. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Wainwright, Geoffrey J., 1979. Mount Pleasant, Dorset: Excavations 1970–1971. London: Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 37.Google Scholar
Waterson, Roxanna, 1990. The Living House: an Anthropology of Architecture in Southeast Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Whittle, Alasdair, 1980. Two Neolithics? Part 2. Current Archaeology 71: 371–373.Google Scholar
Winch, Peter, 1970. Understanding a primitive society. In Wilson, Bryan R. (ed.), Rationality: 78–111. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wymer, John J. and Brown, Nigel R., 1995. Excavations at North Shoebury: settlement and economy in south-east Essex, 1500 BC–AD 1500. Chelmsford: East Anglian Archaeology Monograph 75.Google Scholar