James Morris (Bournemouth University; morrisj@bmth.ac.uk) and Clare Randall (Bournemouth University; crandall@bmth.ac.uk)

As Hodder (1992, 223) rightly pointed out, archaeologists have at times used the term ritual for two closely connected reasons, what is observed is non-functional and is not understood. It could be argued that archaeologists still use these criteria to define ritual deposits and it is still a much used explanation.

A quick investigation of archaeological literature would reveal that ritual is a well used and accepted interpretation of a feature or deposit. As archaeologists we are at ease in using the term, but very few of us have ever defined it and those that have, have used concepts such as structured, repetitive, placed, purposeful, unusual, non-domestic which can be vague and paradoxical. Perhaps one of the main reasons archaeologists have such a problem in defining ritual is that many still associate it exclusively with religious and spiritual beliefs. For example Insoll’s (2004, 11-12) comments that many archaeologists simply substitute the term ritual for religious and suggests that ritual needs to be placed within its wider religious framework. However, social anthropologists have shown there are many different types of rituals. These can be secular, religious, class-related, sex-related, personal etc (Humphrey and Laidlaw, 1994). Although rituals are often a part of religious practices, each has a different meaning and purpose and many secular ones also exist. Therefore, should we equate ritual with religious?

Handelman (2006) has pointed out that there is a meta-level 'ritual' which encompasses all ritual activities. In effect, feasting, sacrifice and offering deposits etc, are all separate ritual acts, which are classified under the general term 'ritual'. By stating an archaeological feature/artefact was part of a 'ritual' deposit is only giving a meta-level explanation. It does not explain the activities or reasons for such deposits. Recently both Brück (1999) and Bradley (2003) have suggested different ways archaeologists should look at 'ritual' in an attempt to understand why people are ‘doing things’, In effect attempting to move beyond meta-level ritual explanations.

This session starts with the assumption that ritual does exist within the archaeological record (although papers challenging this would be welcome). However, we propose that we need to move beyond the meta-level use of the term and aim to explore how this can be achieved. We invite papers covering any archaeological time period, which use detailed studies of material culture and the archaeological record to develop detailed explanations for the archaeology we encounter, rather than generalist explanation of 'ritual'.

Bradley, R. 2003. A life less ordinary: the ritualization of the domestic sphere in later prehistoric Europe. Cambridge Archaeology Journal, 13:1, 5-23.
Brück, J. 1999. Ritual and rationality: some problems of interpretation in European archaeology. European Journal of Archaeology, 2, 313-344.
Handelman, D. 2006. Conceptual alternatives to 'ritual'. In. J. Kreinath, J. Snoek & M. Stausberg (Eds.). Theorizing Rituals: Issues, Topics, Approaches, Concepts. Leiden, Brill, 37-49.
Hodder, I. 1992. Theory and Practice in Archaeology. London, Routledge.
Humphrey, C. & Laidlaw, J. 1994. The Archetypal Actions of Ritual. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Insoll, T. 2004. Archaeology, Ritual, Religion. London, Routledge.