Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T00:35:38.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Houses, Lifecycles and Deposition on Middle Bronze Age Settlements in Southern England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

Joanna Brück
Joanna Brück
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University College Dublin, Dublin, 4, Ireland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores how the lifecycles of Middle Bronze Age settlements were intimately related at both a practical and metaphorical level to the lifecycles of their inhabitants. Many settlements of this date appear to have been single-generational sites. Building sequences and other changes in the use of settlement space can be understood within a framework that explores how the demographic, social, and economic circumstances of a site's occupants changed over time. However, the lifecycle of the settlement was not only related to that of its occupants in practical terms; each was also a symbolic representation of the other. For example, such acts as the deposition of whole quernstones or animal burials in pits and ditches may have been carried out at critical points in the lifecycle of a settlement, its structures, and its inhabitants. The notion that settlements had lifecycles introduces the possibility of anthropomorphic symbolism in house architecture, a suggestion that may help to explain the presence of a standardised house form during the Middle Bronze Age. Yet, despite the formality of the architecture, there was considerable diversity in how space was actually used within the round-house. Likewise, variability in other aspects of these settlement sites suggests that, although cultural ideals may have existed, in practice the developmental cycle of each household group depended on a particular set of social and material circumstances as well as on household members' commitment to communal tradition.

Résumé

Cette étude explore l'existence de liens intimes entre les cycles de vie des occupations de l'âge du bronze moyen et ceux de leurs habitants à la fois sur le plan pratique et sur le plan métaphorique. Beaucoup de sites d'occupation de cette période semblent n'avoir été utilisés que sur une seule génération. On peut comprendre/appréhender la séquence des bâtiments ainsi que les autres changements apportés à l'usage qu'on fait de l'espace dans le cadre d'une exploration de la manière dont les conditions démographiques, sociales et économiques des ocupants d'un site ont changé au fil du temps. Le cycle de vie de l'occupation n'était toutefois pas seulement lié à celui de ses habitants en termes pratiques; chacun était également une représentation symbolique de l'autre. Par exemple des actions telles que le dépôt de meules entières ou l'inhumation d'animaux dans des fosses ou des fossés ont peut-être été perpétrées à des moments critiques du cycle de vie d'une occupation, de ses structures et de ses habitants. La notion que les occupations ont un cycle de vie introduit la possibilité de symbolisme anthropomorphique dans l'architecture des maisons, une suggestion qui pourrait nous aider à trouver une explication à l'existence d'une forme standardisée de maison durant l'âge du bronze moyen. Cependant, malgré la conformité de l'architecture, la manière dont l'espace à l'intérieur des maisons rondes était effectivement utilisé variait considérablement. De même, des variations dans d'autres aspects de ces sites d'ocupation donnent à penser que, bien qu'il existât des idéaux culturels, en pratique, le cycle de développement de chaque unité domestique dépendait d'une série spécifique de circonstances sociales et matérielles tout autant que de l'attachement des membres du foyer aux traditions communautaires.

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Artikel untersucht, wie die Lebenszyklen der Siedlungen der mittleren Bronzezeit aufs engste mit den Lebenszyklen ihrer Bewohner sowohl auf einer praktischen als auch einer metaphorischen Ebene verbunden waren. Viele Siedlungen aus dieser Zeit scheinen nur über eine Generation hinweg besiedelt gewesen zu sein. Bauabfolgen und andere Veränderungen in der Nutzung des Siedlungsraumes können innerhalb eines Grundgerüstes verstanden werden, das ergründet wie sich die demo-graphischen, sozialen und ökonomischen Verhältnisse der Bewohner einer Siedlung im Laufe der Zeit verändert haben. Der Lebenszyklus der Siedlungen war jedoch nicht nur in praktischer Hinsicht mit dem der Bewohner verbunden; jeder war auch symbolische Darstellung des anderen. So sind wahrscheinlich Handlungen, wie zum Beispiel die Niederlegung von unversehrten Mahlsteinen oder Tierbestattungen in Gruben und Gräben, an kritischen Punkten im Lebenszyklus einer Siedlung, seiner Strukturen und seiner Bewohner durchgeführt worden. Die Vorstellung, dass Siedlungen Lebenszyklen hatten, führt zur Möglichkeit eines anthropomorphen Symbolismus der Hausarchitektur, wobei ein solcher Vorschlag helfen könnte, das Vorhandensein der standardisierten Hausform während der mittleren Bronzezeit zu erklären. Aber trotz der Formalität der Architektur gab es eine bedeutende Unterschiede darin, wie der Raum innerhalb eines Rundhauses wirklich genutzt wurde. Gleichermaßen weist die Variabilität in anderen Aspekten dieser Siedlungsstellen darauf hin, dass, obwohl kulturelle Idealfälle existiert haben mögen, der Entwicklungszyklus jeder Gruppe von Haushalten in der Praxis von einer bestimmten Anzahl sozialer und materieller Verhältnisse wie auch von der Verpflichtung, die Haushaltsmitglieder gegenüber kommunalen Traditionen empfanden, abhängig war.

Résumen

Este artículo explora cómo los ciclos de vida de los poblados de la Media Edad del Bronce estuvieron intimamente relacionados a un nivel práctico y metafórico con los ciclos de vida de sus habitantes. Muchos poblados de este periodo parecen haber sido asenramientos uni-generacionales. Las secuencias de construcción y otros cambios en el uso del espacio habirable pueden ser entendidos dentro de un marco que explora los cambios a través del tiempo de las circunstancias demográficas, sociales y económicas de un asentamiento. Sin embargo, el ciclo de vida del poblado no se relaciona solamente con el de sus ocupantes en términos prácticos sino que cada uno es, además, una representación simbólica del otro. Por ejemplo, acciones tales como la deposición de piedras de moler completas ó enterramientos de animales en pozos y fosos, bien pudieran haberse llevado a cabo en momentos críticos del ciclo de vida de un poblado, de sus estructuras, y de sus habitantes. La noción de ciclos de vida para los poblados introduce la posibilidad de simbolismos antropomórficos en la arquitectura de las casas. Esta sugerencia puede ayudar a explicar la presencia de formas de vivienda estandarizadas durante la Media Edad del Bronce. Aún así, y a pesar de la formalización en la arquitectura, hubo durante este periodo una considerable diversidad en los modos de utilizar el espacio interior de estas viviendas de planta redonda. De igual modo, la variabilidad en otros aspectos de estos poblados sugiere que, no obstante la posible existencia de ideales culturales, en la práctica el ciclo de desarrollo de cada unidad de habitación dependía de un conjunto particular de circunstancias materiales y sociales así como del compromiso de cada miembro de esa vivienda con la tradición comunal.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 65 , 1999 , pp. 145 - 166
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1999

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, M. 1992. Products of erosion and the prehistoric land-use of the Wessex chalk. In Bell, M. & Boardman, J. (eds), Past and Present Soil Erosion: archaeological an geographical perspectives, 37–52. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 22.Google Scholar
Ashbee, P. 1987. Hook, Warsash, Hampshire: excavations 1954. Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club & Archaeological Society 43, 21–62.Google Scholar
Avery, M. & Close-Brooks, J. 1969. Shearplace Hill, Sydling St. Nicholas, Dorset, house A: a suggested reinterpretation. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 35, 345–51.Google Scholar
Bailey, D. 1990. The living house: signifying continuity. In Samson, R. (ed.), The Social Archaeology of Houses, 19–48. Edinburgh: University Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, I., Boisimier, W. A., Cleal, R. M. J., Fitzpatrick, A. P. & Roberts, M. R. 1995. Early Settlement in Berkshire: Mesolithic-Roman occupations sites in the Thames and Kennet Valleys. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology Report 6.Google Scholar
Barrett, J.C. 1989. Time and tradition: the rituals of everyday life. In Nordström, H.-Å. & Knape, A. (eds), Bronze Age Studies: transactions of the British-Scandinavian Colloquium in Stockholm, May 10–11, 1985. Stockholm: Museum of National Antiquities.Google Scholar
Barrett, J. C. 1994a. Fragments from Antiquity: an archaeology of social life in Britain, 2900–1200 BC. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Barrett, J. C. 1994b. Defining domestic space in the Bronze Age of southern Britain. In Pearson, M. Parker & Richards, C. (eds), Architecture and Order: approaches to social space, 87–97. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barrett, J. C. & Needham, S. P. 1988. Production, circulation and exchange: problems in the interpretation of Bronze Age bronzework. In Barrett, J. & Kinnes, I. (eds), The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: recent trends, 127–40. Sheffield: Dept of Archaeology & Prehistory.Google Scholar
Barrett, J. C., Bradley, R. J. & Green, M. 1991. Landscape, Monuments and Society: the prehistory of Cranborne Chase. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Bell, M. 1983. Valley sediments as evidence of prehistoric land-use on the South Downs. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 49, 119–50.Google Scholar
Bell, M. 1992. The prehistory of soil erosion. In Bell, M. & Boardman, J. (eds), Past and Present Soil Erosion: archaeological and geographical perspectives, 21–35. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 22.Google Scholar
Blier, S. P. 1987. The Anatomy of Architecture: ontology and metaphor in Batammaliba architectural expression. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Boast, R. & Evans, C. 1986. The transformation of space: two examples from British prehistory. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 5, 193–205.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1973 [1971]. The Berber house. In Douglas, M. (ed.), Rules and Meanings, 98–110. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowden, M. & McOmish, D. 1987. The required barrier. Scottish Archaeological Review 4, 76–84.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. 1990. The Passage of Arms: an archaeological analysis of prehistoric hoards and votive deposits. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Bradley, R., Lobb, S., Richards, J. & Robinson, M. 1980. Two Late Bronze Age settlements on the Kennet gravels: excavations at Aldermaston Wharf and Knight's Farm, Burghfield, Berkshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 46, 217–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R., Entwistle, R. & Raymond, F. 1994. Prehistoric Land Divisions on Salisbury Plain: the work of the Wessex Linear Ditches Project. London: English Heritage Archaeological Report.Google Scholar
Brown, G., Field, D. & McOmish, D. 1994. East Chisenbury midden complex. In Fitzpatrick, A. P. & Morris, E. L. (eds), The Iron Age in Wessex: recent work, 46–9. Salisbury: Trust for Wessex Archaeology/Association Française d'Etude de l'Age du Fer.Google Scholar
Brown, N. 1988. A Late Bronze Age enclosure at Lofts Farm, Essex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54, 249–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brück, J. 1995. A place for the dead: the role of human remains in the Late Bronze Age. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61, 245–77.Google Scholar
Brück, J. 1999. What's in a settlement? Domestic practice and residential mobility in Early Bronze Age southern England. In Brück, J. & Goodman, M. (eds), Making Places in the Prehistoric World: themes in settlement archaeology. London: University College London Press.Google Scholar
Brück, J. In press. Ritual and rationality: some problems of interpretation in European archaeology. European Journal of Archaeology 2(3).Google Scholar
Burstow, G. P. & Holleyman, G. A. 1957. Late Bronze Age settlement on Itford Hill, Sussex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 23, 167–212.Google Scholar
Cox, P.W. & Hearne, C.M. 1991. Redeemed from the Heath: the archaeology of the Wytch Farm oilfield (1987–90). Dorchester: Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society Monograph 9.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. 1970. A Bronze Age settlement at Chalton, Hampshire (site 78). Antiquaries Journal 50, 1–13.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. 1987. Hengistbury Head, Dorset. Volume 1: the prehistoric and Roman settlement, 3500 BC–AD 500. Oxford: University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 13.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. & Phillipson, D. W. 1968. Excavations at Eldon's Seat, Encombe, Dorset. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 34, 191–237.Google Scholar
Cunningham, C.E. 1964. Order in the Atoni house. Bijdragen tot de taal-, land- en volkenkunde 120, 34–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunnington, M.E. 1929. Woodhenge. Devizes: Simpson.Google Scholar
Curwen, E.C. 1934a. A prehistoric site in Kingley Vale, near Chichester. Sussex Archaeological Collections 75, 209–15.Google Scholar
Curwen, E.C. 1934b. A Late Bronze Age farm and Neolithic pit-dwelling on New Barn Down, Clapham, near Worthing. Sussex Archaeological Collections 75, 137–70.Google Scholar
Deal, M. 1985. Household pottery disposal in the Maya highlands: an ethnoarchaeological interpretation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4, 243–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, M. 1966. Purity and Danger: an analysis of the concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Douglas, M. 1973. Natural Symbols: explorations in cosmology (2nd ed.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Drewett, P. 1979. The excavation of a Middle Bronze Age settlement at Black Patch, Alciston, East Sussex. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 16, 27–37.Google Scholar
Drewett, P. 1980a. Black Patch and the Later Bronze Age in Sussex. In Barrett, J. & Bradley, R. (eds), Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age, 377–96. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 83.Google Scholar
Drewett, P. 1980b. New evidence for the structure and function of Middle Bronze Age round houses in Sussex. Archaeological Journal 136, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drewett, P. 1982. Later Bronze Age downland economy and excavations at Black Patch, East Sussex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 48, 321–40.Google Scholar
Dunning, G.C. 1932. Notes on the excavation of two round barrows at Niton and a Bronze Age hut on Gore Down, Chale. Proceedings of the Isle of Wight Natural History and Archaeological Society 2, 196–210.Google Scholar
Ellison, A. 1975. Pottery and Settlements of the Later Bronze Age in Southern England. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Ellison, A. 1978. The Bronze Age in Sussex. In Drewett, P. (ed.), Archaeology in Sussex to AD 1500, 30–7. London: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 29.Google Scholar
Ellison, A. 1981. Towards a socioeconomic model for the Middle Bronze Age in southern England. In Hodder, I., Isaac, G. & Hammond, N. (eds), Pattern of the Past: studies in honour of David Clarke, 413–38. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Ellison, A. 1987. The Bronze Age settlement at Thorny Down: pots, post-holes and patterning. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53, 385–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farwell, D. & Newman, R. 1992. Twyford Down: archaeology and the M3. Trust for Wessex Archaeology.Google Scholar
Fasham, P.J., Farwell, D.E. & Whinney, R.J.B. 1989. The Archaeological Site at Easton Lane, Winchester. Winchester: Hampshire Field Club & Archaeological Society Monograph 6.Google Scholar
Fleming, A. 1988. The Dartmoor Reaves: investigating prehistoric land divisions. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
Fowler, P. 1983. The Farming of Prehistoric Britain. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Gent, H. 1983. Centralised storage in later prehistoric Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 49, 243–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gingell, C. 1987. An earthwork near Badbury Rings in Dorset. Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 109, 65–78.Google Scholar
Gingell, C. 1992. The Marlborough Downs: a Later Bronze Age landscape and its origins. Devizes: Wiltshire Archaeology and Natural History Society Monograph 1.Google Scholar
Goody, J. (ed.) 1958. The Developmental Cycle in Domestic Groups. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Green, C.S. 1987. Excavations at Poundbury, Dorchester, Dorset 1966–1982, volume 1: the settlements. Dorchester: Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society Monograph 7.Google Scholar
Greig, I. 1997. Excavation of a Bronze Age settlement at Varley Halls, Coldean Lane, Brighton, East Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections 135, 7–58.Google Scholar
Guilbert, G. 1981. Double-ring round-houses, probable and possible in prehistoric Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 47, 299–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilbert, G. 1982. Post-ring symmetry in round-houses at Moel Y Gaer and some other sites in prehistoric Britain. In Drury, P.J. (ed.), Structural Reconstruction: approaches to the interpretation of the excavated remains of buildings, 67–86. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 110.Google Scholar
Harrison, P. n.d.Winnall Allotments. Winchester: interim report for Winchester City Council.Google Scholar
Hayden, B. & Cannon, A. 1983. Where the garbage goes: refuse disposal in the Maya highlands. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2, 117–63.CrossRefGoogle 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 Report 242.Google Scholar
Hingley, R. 1990. Domestic organisation and gender relations in Iron Age and Romano-British households. In Samson, R. (ed.), The Social Archaeology of Houses, 125–47. Edinburgh: University Press.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1982. Symbols in Action: ethnoarchaeological studies of material culture. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1990. The Domestication of Europe: structure and contingency in Neolithic societies. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Holleyman, G.A. & Curwen, E.C. 1935. Late Bronze Age lynchets on Plumpton Plain, Sussex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 1, 16–38.Google Scholar
Hugh-Jones, C. 1979. From the Milk River: spatial and temporal processes in northwest Amazonia. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Hugh-Jones, S. 1985. The Maloca: a world in a house. In Carmichael, E. & Hugh-Jones, S. (eds), The Hidden Peoples of the Amazon, 78–93. London: Museum of Mankind.Google Scholar
Humphrey, C. 1974. Inside a Mongolian tent. New Society 31, 273–5.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. 1975. Archaeology and the M25: 1971–1975. Guildford: Surrey Archaeological Society.Google Scholar
Lawson, A. 1994. Potterne. In Fitzpatrick, A.P. & Morris, E.L. (eds), The Iron Age in Wessex: recent work, 42–6. Salisbury: Trust for Wessex Archaeology/Association Française d'Etude de l'Age du Fer.Google Scholar
Lewis, E. R. & Walker, G. 1976. A Middle Bronze Age settlement site at Westbury, West Meon, Hampshire. Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club & Archaeological Society 33, 33–4.Google Scholar
Moore, H. 1986. Space, Text and Gender: an anthropological study of the Marakwet of Kenya. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, J. & Jennings, D. 1992. Reading Business Park: a Bronze Age landscape. Oxford: Oxford Archaeological Unit.Google Scholar
Musson, C. 1970. House plans and prehistory. Current Archaeology 21, 267–75.Google Scholar
Nowakowski, J. 1991. Trethellan Farm, Newquay: the excavation of a lowland Bronze Age settlement and Iron Age cemetery. Cornish Archaeology 30, 5–242.Google Scholar
Okely, J. 1983. The Traveller Gypsies. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oswald, A. 1991. A Doorway in the Past: round-house entrance orientation and its significance in Iron Age Britain. Unpublished BA dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Papworth, M. 1992. Excavation and survey of Bronze Age sites in the Badbury area, Kingston Lacy Estate. Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 114, 47–76.Google Scholar
Parker Pearson, M. 1996. Food, fertility and front doors in the first millennium BC. In Champion, T. & Collis, J. (eds), The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: recent trends, 117–32. Sheffield: J.R. Collis.Google Scholar
Parker Pearson, M. & Richards, C. 1994a. Ordering the world: perceptions of architecture, space and time. In Pearson, M. Parker & Richards, C. (eds), Architecture and Order: approaches to social space, 1–37. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Parker Pearson, M. & Richards, C. 1994b. Architecture and order: spatial representation and archaeology. In Pearson, M. Parker & Richards, C. (eds), Architecture and Order: approaches to social space, 38–72. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Parsons, J. 1961. Broomwood Bronze Age settlement, St. Paul's Cray, Kent. Archaeologia Cantiana 76, 134–42.Google Scholar
Piggott, C.M. 1942. Five Late Bronze Age enclosures in north Wiltshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 8 48–61.Google Scholar
Rahtz, P. & ApSimon, A.M. 1962. Excavations at Shearplace Hill, Sydling St. Nicholas, Dorset, England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 28, 289–328.Google Scholar
Ratcliffe-Densham, H.B.A. & Ratcliffe-Densham, M.M. 1953. A celtic farm on Blackpatch. Sussex Archaeological Collections 91, 69–83.Google Scholar
Ratcliffe-Densham, H.B.A. & Ratcliffe-Densham, M.M. 1961. An anomalous earthwork of the Late Bronze Age on Cock Hill. Sussex Archaeological Collections 99, 78–101.Google Scholar
Ratcliffe-Densham, H.B.A. & Ratcliffe-Densham, M.M. 1966. Amberley Mount: its agricultural story from the Late Bronze Age. Sussex Archaeological Collections 104, 6–25.Google Scholar
Richards, C. 1990. The Late Neolithic house in Orkney. In Samson, R. (ed.). The Social Archaeology of Houses, 111–24. Edinburgh: University Press.Google Scholar
Richards, J. 1990. The Stonehenge Environs Project. London: Historic Buildings & Monuments Commission Archaeological Report 16.Google Scholar
Russell, M. 1996. Problems of phasing: a reconsideration of the Black Patch Middle Bronze Age ‘nucleated village’. Oxford Archaeological Journal 15(1), 33–8.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. 1972. Archaeological context and systemic context. American Antiquity 37, 156–65.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Shand, P. n.d. Corporation Farm, Abingdon. Unpublished BA dissertation, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Sofaer Derevenski, J. 1996. Editorial. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 13(2), 1–5.Google Scholar
Stone, J.F.S. 1936. An enclosure on Boscombe Down East. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine 47, 466–89.Google Scholar
Stone, J.F.S. 1937. A Late Bronze Age habitation site on Thorny Down, Winterbourne Gunner, south Wiltshire. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine 47, 640–60.Google Scholar
Stone, J.F.S. 1941. The Deverel-Rimbury settlement on Thorny Down, Winterbourne Gunner, south Wiltshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 4, 114–33.Google Scholar
Turner, V. 1969. The Ritual Process: structure and antistructure. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Wainwright, G.J. & Longworth, I.H. 1971. Durrington Walls: excavations 1966–1968. London: Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 29.Google Scholar
Waterson, R. 1990. The Living House: an anthropology of architecture in south-east Asia. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Weismantel, M.J. 1988. Food, Gender and Poverty in the Ecuadorian Andes. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, A.E. 1940. Report on the excavations on Highdown Hill, Sussex, August 1939. Sussex Archaeological Society 81, 173–203.Google Scholar
Wolseley, G.R., Smith, R.A. and Hawley, W. 1927. Prehistoric and Roman settlements on Park Brow. Archaeologia 76, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, P.J. 1991. The South Dorset Ridgeway: survey and excavations 1977–1984. Dorchester: Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society Monograph 8.Google Scholar
Woodward, P.J. & Smith, R.J. 1987. Survey and excavation along the route of the southern Dorchester by-pass 1986–7: an interim note. Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 109, 79–89.Google Scholar
Wymer, J.J. & Brown, N. 1995. Excavations at North Shoebury: settlement and economy in south-east Essex 1500 BC–AD 1500. Chelmsford: East Anglian Archaeology 75.Google Scholar
Yates, T. 1989. Habitus and social space: some suggestions about meaning in the Saami (Lapp) tent ca. 1700–1900. In Hodder, I. (ed.), The Meanings of Things: material culture and symbolic expression, 249–62. London: Harper Collins Academic.Google Scholar
Young, R. & Simmonds, T. 1999. Debating marginality: archaeologists on the edge? In Brück, J. & Goodman, M. (eds), Making Places in the Prehistoric World: themes in settlement archaeology. London: University College London Press.Google Scholar