The discovery of a small scatter of pottery sherds from around and to the south of the timber rows on the Fengate site and of more pottery from the Flag Fen platform enables us to undertake a comparative study which might throw some light on the history of activities associated with these two structures.

The assemblages discussed here are small, 103 sherds from Fengate and 293 sherds from the Flag Fen platform, and the procedures by which these assemblages were recovered differ. The Fengate pottery was excavated in the course of uncovering either the timbers or the metalwork. Consequently, the distribution of known material derives not from a detailed examination of the entire area but from the position of the timbers or the metal objects and where the position of the latter was indicated by metal-detector readings. These recovery procedures present us with some difficulties if we wish to seek a direct comparison between this assemblage and the material from the Flag Fen platform. The platform is being excavated fully and under closer archaeological scrutiny; the contrast is well illustrated by the fact that sherds of less than 20 mm in diameter are absent from the Fengate site but comprise about 17% of the Flag Fen assemblage.

For the purpose of discussion the platform and the alignment must be regarded as two separate sites which might in the future prove to have been related. Taken together the metal objects from the two sites represent a remarkable collection, not only by their context and numbers but also by the range of metals represented. Whilst the majority of the objects are in copper alloy (almost certainly bronze) there are also objects in iron, a white metal (some definitely tin, others, lead) and a single gold object.

On 14 February 1992, all the archaeological participants in the project met for a seminar at Flag Fen. Drafts of the papers published in this Special section were presented by their authors, and after each paper there was a lively general discussion.

This concluding paper does not pretend to be a synthesis of that discussion, because good archaeology cannot be done by committee. Having said that, I have tried to include the views of all dissenting voices, to give balance to the interpretations offered here. I have also tried to credit those individuals who put forward some of the excellent ideas that came from the meeting. In the discussion that follows ‘pers. comm.’ should be read as a coded reference to the St Valentine’s Day Seminar.