1

Social networks, cultic innovation and ritual activity in Roman Baldock

Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews

North Hertfordshire District Council

Introduction: cult and ritual as performance Despite the frequency of jokes about archaeologists dismissing anything they do not understand as a ‘cult’ or ‘ritual’ object, such jokes are entirely misplaced. Both ‘cult’ and ‘ritual’ are well defined areas of human activity with archaeological correlates that enable considerable certainty to be expressed in their recognition. Both are essentially performative in nature, the individual actor constrained by the norms of their habitus, the suite of behaviours regarded as appropriate within the specific cultic milieu in which the actor is operating. Such norms will include social norms defining praxis and subcultural norms that may be regarded as forming elements of ‘tradition’ within the overall pattern of acceptable praxis and with individualistic ‘deviations’ from these.

The social actor is central to the performance of ritual and to the maintenance of cultic traditions (Fig 1); the actor is also responsible for the introduction and social acceptance of innovation through a web of social network ties. Social network analysis has become prominent in recent years as a means of analysing contemporary uses of networking using mobile ’phones and the internet, and its application to the analysis of the past has barely begun, but it offers important new insights both for the diffusion of cultural innovation and for the maintenance of traditions.

The analysis of human burials is a good way to explore these concepts as the grave deposit is the end product of a sequence of events limited in time, space and purpose. Funerary rituals involve a performance in space, with locations chosen by the celebrants for their accessibility, creating public/private dichotomies, and leaving either a public memorial or one that is restricted to just a part of the social network of the deceased. The rituals also involve performance in time, with ceremonies taking place away from the grave site, such as most instances of cremation, and others involving the grave, such as acts of deposition.

Baldock The earliest evidence for ritual practices in the Baldock area dates from the second century BC, with the construction of a pit alignment that runs for over 2 km from the springs of the River Ivel into the hills to the east of the town. Perhaps around the time the alignment was constructed or possibly a little later, a series of linear ditch systems were created over a wide area, running perhaps from Purwell, 4.5 km south-east of the settlement core, to Odsey, 6.5 km to the north-east, and from Ashwell End, 5 km to the north, perhaps to Six Hills (Stevenage), 6 km to the south.

Figure 1: The relationship between social norms and the archaeological residue of

human behaviour

2

These ditches constrained movement within the landscape to prescribed routes, focusing on the settlement, and they probably define the growth of an oppidum, which became increasingly nucleated during the first century BC (Fig 2). Ceramic evidence suggests that this was in the little explored Clothall Road area of the town. The earliest ritual activity within the oppidum was the deposition of the very early Welwyn-type burial at The Tene, c 100 BC (Stead & Rigby 1986, 60).

By the middle of the first century BC, a

nucleated settlement was developing in

Walls Field, to the north of the early evidence

on Clothall Road. Around this time, the pit

alignment was converted into a post

alignment by deliberate backfilling of the pits

around posts some 0.3 m in diameter; this

line of posts separated the settlement area

from an area that was subsequently used

only for human burials. In one location,

though, where parallel ditches were dug

across its line, the pits were simply backfilled.

The ditches extended for about 95 m either

side of the line, forming a monument of

apparently unique character, which Gil

Burleigh and I have designated a ‘cursiform

monument’ (Fig 3; Burleigh & Fitzpatrick-

Matthews 2010, 16).

Figure 2: The central part of the Baldock oppidum

Figure 3: The cursiform monument at Mercia Way

3

Shrines and temples At the north-eastern end of the cursiform monument at Mercia Road, a circular building was constructed at the same time as the ditches, around 50 BC (Fig 3). This lay within the zone otherwise reserved for human burials and does not appear to have been domestic in character, as three cremation burial deposits lay to its south. Badly truncated by post-Roman ploughing, they may have been the only surviving examples of a larger number of similar deposits as a similar assemblage was found redeposited in one of the enclosure ditches. They appear to have remained open for some time after the deposition of their contents, as a silt deposit in their bases partly overlay the feet of the pedestal jars that formed part of the assemblage. In this way, they were subtly different from other contemporary burials in the settlement, where backfilling appears to have occurred immediately after deposition. The circular building may have been used as part of the ritual associated with the burials; it may have been a mortuary house, used for the display of the bodies before the act of cremation on a pyre that was not located, or a place used after the human remains had been deposited for ceremonies of commemoration. It is also possible that the burials deposited around the building were intended to occupy the pits only temporarily and that they would usually be removed for permanent burial elsewhere. In this scenario, burials found on other sites would first have been displayed in a public setting inside the Mercia Road cursiform enclosure for a period of perhaps days, weeks or even months before deposition in their final resting places. These burials may have been contemporary with the final use of the cursiform enclosure around the time of the Roman Conquest of AD 43.

Figure 3: The circular shrine at the north-eastern end of the Merica Road cursiform enclosure

At Hartsfield School, to the west-north-west of the Mercia Road cursiform enclosure, a circular building of two phases was apparently associated with a human inhumation burial, F261 (Fig 4). The burial was found during work with a mechanical excavator and could not be recorded in situ but was located in the angle between a later roadside ditch and the former pit alignment. During its early phase, the building, F250, was around 17 m in diameter; F251, its subsequent rebuilding, was 15 m in diameter. Although the investigation was of a salvage nature and it was not possible to excavate more than the footprint of the school building, there was no indication of domestic activity on the site.

4

Figure 4: The Hartsfield School circular shrine

Burial grounds In the burial zone to the north-east of the post alignment, there were several square burial enclosures, all aligned on it, and, further away from it, a number of cemeteries displaying a variety of rites. The largest of the enclosures, some 33 m square, at California, contained an Aylesford-Swarling type burial with a bronze-bound wooden bucket, a pedestal jar (Thompson 1982 Type A1, dated c 25 BC) and at least three piglets, badly truncated by a second-century AD T-shaped kiln. Less than a metre away from the grave pit was a pit containing what was evidently debris from the funeral pyre. Large quantities of melted copper alloy (some gilded), cut up fragments of iron mail armour and animal bones were recovered from the pit; analysis of the copper alloy suggested that the copper had originated in the Alpine region of western Europe. Around this central burial were what appeared to be secondary burials, the shallowness of which suggested that they had been made into a mound constructed over the primary burial. The enclosure ditch also contained what appeared to be redeposited elements of cremation burial assemblages.

To the east-south-east of this large enclosure, at Downlands, were two smaller square enclosures, one badly truncated by a later roadway. The better preserved contained a single central burial dating from the first quarter of the first century AD (Stead & Rigby 1986, 61 burial 2). The burial contained only one pedestal jar with no accompanying grave gifts and no trace of secondary burials within the enclosure. To the west-north-west of the large enclosure at California lay another smaller example. This was badly truncated by early Romano-British domestic activity, a late Roman cemetery and post-Roman ploughing, but three damaged burials were discovered in situ, while two other possible redeposited burials were recovered from the fill of a later feature. There was no trace of a central burial in this enclosure and the burials could not be dated more closely than late first century BC or early first century AD.

A fifth probable burial enclosure lay 250 m to the west-north-west, at Icknield Way East, where one ditch was observed during construction work in January 1933 (Applebaum 1932, 257) and another at right angles excavated in 1988. Although two relatively wealthy burials with pedestalled vessels, piglets, an iron razor and a whetstone were discovered, any possible central

5

burial lay outside the area investigated; this enclosure would have been around 25 m square. The archaeology of the area between the smaller enclosure at California and Icknield Way East is not well known as it lies under gardens; however, an evaluation at Clothall End in 2007 located a disturbed cremation burial of the Late Iron Age that potentially indicates the location of another enclosure.

Several burial grounds were located more distant from the post alignment than the square enclosures, none of which appears to have been enclosed. The easternmost, at Wallington Road, consisted principally of inhumation burials, with cremation burials becoming more common during the first century AD; this was the only one of the known cemeteries to have lain to the east of the Mercia Road cursiform enclosure. A number of distinct cemeteries lay to the north and north-east of the large enclosure at California. One, at Stane Street, consisted almost entirely of unaccompanied inhumation burials (Fig 5) with the one cremation burial perhaps a ‘deviant’ burial; to the west of this cemetery, Yeomanry Drive North was located in the bottom of a large, shallow doline and contained only cremation burials. Further north, another doline, at Sale Drive, contained mostly cremation burials but also two inhumation burials.

There were also isolated burials, apparently associated with a structure, in a doline immediately south-east of the large enclosure at California. The earliest excavated deposits in this doline contained weathered and residual human bone, one of which produced a radiocarbon date of 2380 ± 130 bp (508 ± 198 Cal BC), suggesting that it had been used for the disposal of human remains since the Middle Iron Age. However, they occurred in deposits contemporary with the construction of the large enclosure, around 25 BC. At the centre of the doline was a clay floor and although the walls of an associated structure were not recognised during excavation, the approximately rectangular plan of the floor suggests that the building was approximately 7.0 × 4.5 m in extent. A number of superimposed floors of slightly differing extent were identified, indicating that the structure had been replaced on several occasions. Two inhumation burials, F556 (a child) and F610 (an adult female), were located outside the building and dated to the first century BC. As with the circular building at the Mercia Road cursiform enclosure, a connection between this structure and funerary ritual seems likely.

There is clear zoning within this area reserved for burials. The square enclosures are evidently of higher status that the unenclosed cemeteries to their north and it is probably significant that the large enclosure at California lay very close to the probable shrine at Hartsfield School. Although the obstacle presented by the pit alignment—which left no gaps whatsoever between individual pits at ground level—had been reduced by its conversion to a post alignment, the posts being about 3 m apart, no formal access was provided through it except at the Mercia Road cursiform enclosure. It is possible that the posts supported horizontal beams that would have made access difficult or the posts may have played a more symbolic role. The system was nevertheless highly controlled, at least at a symbolic level, and in terms of access analysis, the burial zone was poorly permeable in relation to the settlement.

Figure 5: Inhumation burial in the Stane Street cemetery

6

The Roman conquest None of the excavated shrines continued to be used after the conquest; at both Hartsfield School and Mercia Road, the buildings had been demolished by the middle of the first century AD. How far these sites on the north-eastern periphery of the settlement accurately reflect cult activity throughout the town, though, is unclear. Close to the centre of the later Romano-British town is a temple complex at Bakers Close, in which a typical rectangular Romano-Celtic temple in an enclosure faces one of the principal streets. In front of it, there is evidence for an altar base. To its south, a large walled enclosure may have been associated, while there are two large square stone foundations straddling the road, reminiscent of an arch. The date at which this complex was first established is unknown, but its central position in the town suggests an early origin. Indeed, this may be the most important single site in the town and the very raison d’être for its existence: there are many aspects of the archaeology of Baldock that suggest it was a regionally important cult centre.

The destruction of cult sites However, the conquest witnessed the apparently deliberate destruction of a number of cult sites and other ritual monuments. The post alignment went out of use around this time and there is evidence for the removal of posts from some of the pits. Although the dating is not always clear, in at least some instances, the original pits and the central post pipes were destroyed by pits or ditches of the mid first century AD. At the Mercia Road cursiform enclosure, the ditches were allowed to silt up around the time of the conquest and a dog burial was inserted into the eastern ditch. Significantly, this was at precisely the point where the ditch crossed the former pit alignment. Dog burials often appear in early Roman cult contexts as closure deposits and this is presumably the case here.

The Hartsfield School shrine was also dismantled. The innermost ring gully (from the second, slightly smaller building) was cut by a rubbish pit of mid first century AD date (Fig 6). Around the same time, the former burial zone was colonised by domestic sites, with a new road system and associated enclosures. Many of these lay directly on top of cemeteries or burial enclosures, while a new north-west to south-east road ran across the northern end of the Mercia Road cursiform enclosure.

The creation of new cult sites Some new sites were established at the time of the conquest or shortly afterwards. The best known of these is an enclosure and shrine at Wynn Close that have been dated to the later second century (Burleigh 2008, 190). Curiously, the structure is a roundhouse (Stead & Rigby 1986, 37 Building V), which was one of the last to be built in Baldock (Fig 7). Inside the enclosure was a series of pits containing artefacts of clear religious significance (a rattle, model antler and so on) and others that appear to relate to cult activities (a large assemblage of early third-century iron spearheads, for instance). However, there is evidence that before the new enclosure was laid out, the area was reserved for ritual practices. An deposit of sheep bones dating from the 50s-70s AD was published as evidence for the Boudican revolt—with the suggestion that the Roman army had obtained provisions in the town (Stead & Rigby 1986, 86)—but it is more convincingly interpreted as the remains of feasting (Burleigh 2008, 190). Although there is some confusion

Figure 6: The pit cutting the drip gully of the Hartsfield School shrine

7

about which feature produced the bone (Stead & Rigby 1986, 85 state that it was feature A19, while Chaplin & McCormick 1986, 396 give the feature as A12), it lay in the area subsequently inside the Wynn Close enclosure. There are stretches of earlier gullies (some as early as the first half of the first century AD) on the same alignment as the later second century enclosure that suggest that the site was laid out as part of the general reorganisation of this part of the town.

The so-called ‘theatrical mask’ (Fig 8) is a puzzling artefact whose presence in Baldock has not been adequately explained. Rather than providing direct evidence for theatrical performances of Roman plays in the town, it was more probably a decorative object and it was discarded in the mid second century. Such ‘masks’, which are too large to be worn, may have adorned theatre buildings, although no such structure has so far been identified in Baldock. There are traces of burning on the mask that suggest that the building to which it was attached was damaged by fire at some point. It is likely that Romano-British theatres were more frequently used for religious dramas—akin to medieval mystery plays—than for the performance of classical plays, so the mask is probably evidence for another type of cult activity in the town. Whether this took place inside a structure that might be characterised archaeologically as a ‘theatre’ or inside a temple precinct cannot be answered on present evidence.

Figure 8: The ‘theatrical mask’ from Baldock: surviving portions (left) and reconstruction (right)

The continuing use of cemeteries Only at Wallington Road, evidently the sole cemetery to have lain to the east of the Mercia Road cursiform enclosure, did the deposition of burials continue after the end of the first century AD. During the first century, there was a gradual shift in this burial ground away from mixed rite to uniquely cremation burials, although it remained a relatively poor cemetery in terms of the

Figure 7: The Wynn Close shrine

8

number of grave gifts and unusually poor life expectancy among the population represented (Burleigh and Fitzpatrick-Matthews 2010, 000). An enclosure around the burial ground was established around AD 70, defining a more restricted cemetery following Romano-British norms.

The abandonment of cemeteries Other cemeteries that had been established before the Roman conquest were abandoned, although not all of them as rapidly as other cult sites, with evidence for continuing use up to half a century after AD 43. The Icknield Way East enclosure, for instance, continued to receive new cremation burials up to AD c 75, although by this time, there were also being deposited outside the enclosure. This was evidently followed by the complete abandonment of the site. All the other known square enclosures were abandoned at the time of the conquest, their ditches being allowed to silt up. At California, the large enclosure was given over to domestic use, although its western edge was used to define the course of a new road; on the opposite side of this new road, a domestic enclosure was laid out, covering the smaller enclosure. To the east, a new road was driven through one of the enclosures at Downlands, while a quarry was dug over the south-eastern corner of the second.

The inhumation cemetery at Stane Street continued in use until just after AD 100. Following the conquest, the new road that had been laid to the west of the large enclosure at California was continued up to the Icknield Way, along the north-western edge of the cemetery. However, following the disuse of the cemetery, the road was realigned across it, with road metalling surviving slumped into the grave backfills, suggesting that road maintenance became a serious issue as potholes developed frequently.

Similarly, the cemetery at Yeomanry Drive North continued to receive new burials until the late first century. However, after a new mixed-rite cemetery was established at Royston Road to its north-east around AD 70, the boundary ditch of the new burial ground cut through the earlier cemetery, indicating that it had gone out of use.

All of these cemeteries were abandoned two or three generations after the Roman Conquest, so it is difficult to suggest a causal link. The delay is perhaps evidence for a slower cultural shift, with older burial grounds gradually falling out of favour.

Deliberate destruction? At the Downlands enclosures, new features were established immediately around the time of the conquest that caused damage to the integrity of the burials. The westernmost enclosure, which seems to have been in use very early in the first century AD, lacks a central burial because the road laid out across centre of enclosure developed into a hollow way, removing all trace of the grave pit. Although the central burial survived in the eastern enclosure at Downlands, the enclosure ditch was partly removed by a large quarry. It is also likely that both enclosures surrounded low square barrows and the lack of evidence for secondary burials may suggest that the mounds were deliberately removed; indeed, it would have been necessary to level the site of the western enclosure to enable the road to be laid out.

Figure 9: Part of the Stane Street cemetery, with later road metalling visible around the

graves

9

At the California large enclosure, a T-shaped kiln was constructed in the centre of enclosure, truncating both the high status burial and the pyre pit. Although it can be argued that it was inserted into the centre of the square barrow that almost certainly occupied most of the enclosure, those who constructed it must have been aware that the mound marked the site of an ancient burial of some importance.

These types of destruction appear to be deliberate, targeting the central burials in two instances.

New practices There is also some evidence for Classical influence, suggesting a degree of acculturation, at least, or the settlement of individuals from places where more Roman practices were commonplace. For instance, there is an example of a coin in the mouth of a late first century inhumation burial at Walls Field (Westell 1931, 258 Group 17). There are also burials containing ceramic lamps and/or iron lamp holders, as at Walls Field (Westell 1931, 255 Groups 1 and 2; 256 Group 7; 258 Group 12; 261 Group 32; 273 Group 94; 276 Group 105); the so-

called ‘Lamp Pit’ (Stead & Rigby 1986, 78 f. Burial 50) is apparently unique and perhaps, as Stead & Rigby conclude, “a deposit linked with some unknown ritual” rather than a typical Romano-British human burial.

Numerous burials attest to the deposition of footwear, which is usually seen as evidence for Classical beliefs about the afterlife involving a journey for the deceased. There is one possible pre-conquest example, which may be evidence for the adoption of Roman beliefs in the Late Iron Age, further evidence for John Creighton’s hypothesis that south-eastern Britain was strongly influenced by Roman culture in the years between Caesar’s expeditions and the Claudian invasion. Other novelties found after the conquest include the lead curse tablet from the Walls Field cemetery (Westell 1931, 290-2 Group 309).

Interpreting the changes It is clear that with the Claudian conquest, established shrines saw closure, generally with a physical inscription of that closure. At Mercia Road, the dog burial in a significant location is clear evidence for the termination of cult practice at that site, while the digging of a pit across the outer wall and ring gully of the Hartsfield School shrine immediately after demolition is suggestive of deliberate slighting. It is also probably significant that it was the higher status burial grounds that were subject to closure around the time of the conquest and there can be little doubt that the highest status burials were deliberately targeted for destruction. It might be suggested, for instance, that these elites were regarded as the representatives of a discredited régime.

By contrast, the low status burial grounds, those that were more distant from the post alignment, remained in use, only to be gradually abandoned forty to sixty years after the conquest. This is more suggestive of a gradual shift towards new practices, a slow acculturation to new social norms, whatever their ultimate origin.

The establishment of the Wynn Close shrine in an enclosure that may have originated as part of the reorganisation of the landscape to the north-east of the Iron Age settlement is evidence for

Figure 10: The ‘lamp pit’

10

conscious archaising. All other roundhouses in the town date from no later than around AD 100, but the ring gully of this example suggested a mid second century or later construction, while the ritual deposits show that use continued into the third century.

It seems likely that there was an initial impetus to redefine the past following the Claudian conquest. The old regime, which may have supported the elevation of Caratacus to rulership of the Catuvellauni against the terms of Roman imperial support, had been discredited by actions possibly regarded as disloyal. Immediately, there was a slighting of tombs of the elite’s ancestors and the imposition of a new pattern, driven not by the growth of the town (there was plenty of room to expand in every other direction) but by a desire to destroy these tangible links.

In the second century, though, the deliberately archaic architecture of the Wynn Close shrine suggests that an accommodation had been reached with the past. Perhaps the political complexities of the years following the death of Cunobelinos had been forgotten; perhaps they had been spun differently to generations with no memory of these events; perhaps it was now possible to identify more openly with the pre-Conquest regime; perhaps it was a deliberate return to the ideals of a Catuvellaunian client state.

While the Bakers Close religious complex at the centre of the town remains unexcavated, it will be impossible to assess its date and significance. Its location suggests that it was one of the most important elements of the settlement, but it is unclear if it was established at the time of the Claudian conquest in an effort to centralise cult practices that had previously been dispersed. If it had been established earlier, might it have been a focal point for community rituals, with the Hartsfield School and Mercia Road shrines reserved for more private rituals? Even if it were a post-Conquest innovation, the start of what appear to be cult practices at Wynn Close suggest that there was a variety of ritual activity. It is not clear to what extent this represents ‘choice’ in religious practice, or is evidence for religious diversity; it may equally be evidence for social distinctions between cult sites, whether these be based on kinship or subcultural tradition.

Other evidence for belief and cult practice is found in the graffiti scratched onto vessels—mostly samian—deposited in burials. Ernest Black (2010, 209) has identified prophylactic and apotropaic signifiers among what have previously been seen as ‘illiterate’ graffiti or semi-literate marks of ownership, generally consisting of the letters A, E, O and X or of stars (Fig 11). We see a mixture of Celtic and Roman concepts of the underworld expressed (*Andumnos and Orcus respectively as its personification) and it is of some significance that two of the examples published by Black are on pre-Conquest vessels.

The significance of human burials is generally explored in terms of human biology, wealth and ritual. However, the deposition of human remains involves one or more individual actors and the funerary rites necessarily invoke the social networks of the deceased. Funerals involve the commemoration of the deceased and the leave-taking of the mourners, who experience a rite of passage as important to them as it is symbolically for the dead.

Figure 11: Graffiti on funerary vessels in the Wallington Road cemetery (Black 2010)

11

In many instances, the ritual involved the giving of gifts, which are represented archaeologically as grave gifts and as pyre gifts. It is often assumed that an anonymous depositor placed the gifts on the pyre or in the grave pit, but it is probably more realistic to regard these activities as something carried out by the mourners, those members of the social network of the deceased who were present. In much the same way as family members today are encouraged to sprinkle handfuls of soil on to a coffin lid in the grave, or as Howard Carter imagined Tut‘ankhamūn’s widow ‘Ankhesenamūn winding a braid of flowers around the uraeus of his inner coffin, participants in Romano-British funerary rituals may have deposited individual gifts with personal meanings in graves. The fact that at least some graves appear to have remained open for some time after the initial deposition of the human remains may indicate that this process of gift giving could be protracted. It also raises the possibility that the grave deposit was not simply structured by was dynamic and subject to rearrangement, addition and even removal.

The possibility that items could be removed from a grave before its final closure may go some way toward explaining why some cremation burials contain so little bone. At the Wallington Road cemetery, for instance, Burial 161 contained only 107.8 g of cremated bone (Burleigh & Fitzpatrick-Matthews 2010, 136), but had not been subject to post-Roman disturbance: this was the quantity of bone inside the urn at the time the grave pit was backfilled. At the same time, it is likely that virtually all the cremated bone was removed from the pyre site following the cremation, as there is little, if any, evidence for the mixing of bone from different individuals in cremation assemblages. At the same time, the spreads of pyre debris found in a series of abandoned quarry pits on the north side of the Royston Road cemetery contained only small quantities of cremated bone. In this case, much of the bone must have been taken away from the site. Whether it was taken away from the cemetery immediately after the cremation or was taken away in stages, including from the grave pit, is impossible to determine. It is only possible to speculate why bone might be removed, but it is possible that mourners might take away small quantities as a means of maintaining a connection with the deceased—maintaining social networks beyond death—or as a memento mori analogous to the carving of a skull and crossbones on seventeenth-century grave markers.

There are also cremation burials so shallow that no trace of a cut can be recognised and in many cases, they are represented only by the survival of the base of a ceramic vessel, of hobnails from a shoe or even, in a few instances, of carbon staining in the subsoil. With unurned cremation burials, it might be argued that they are the remains of deposits placed by simply lifting a piece of turf and tucking the bone underneath, but with urned burials, this cannot have been the case. Instead, the rim of the urn must have been left projecting above the ground surface, which would permit the incorporation of new items or the removal of bone. On a site where post-Roman ploughing has been as devastating as at Baldock, it is impossible to determine whether there were additional elements of the grave placed at or close to the ground surface that have not survived.

It is not only with cremation burials that there is evidence that a grave pit might remain open for some time following the deposition of the body. The case of the infant buried with a Dea Nutrix figurine in the late Roman cemetery at Icknield Way East has already been published (Burleigh et al. 2006) and there are other examples from Baldock. The late second- or early third-century grave [5332] in the Royston Road cemetery, for instance, contained a coffin placed centrally in an unusually wide cut, with chalk packed down either side of the coffin to be flush with the lid after it was deposited (Fig 12); there were poorly defined scoops in the surface of the chalk, suggesting that it had been exposed for a while after being packed into the grave, while the decapitated head of the coffin’s occupant lay on its lid (Jacqui McKinley suggested that the head may not have belonged to occupant of the coffin, as it had a more male morphology). A group of postholes around the grave suggested that a structure had been erected over it, perhaps to protect the head and whatever else might have been deposited at this stage of the burial process. Finally, a series of fills was deposited over the coffin and chalk; several of the fills had amorphous depressions in their surfaces, initially thought to reflect the collapse of the underlying coffin, but

12

they were not repeated between deposits and suggest that each of these deposits was placed in the grave at irregular intervals during which the hollows had formed. These deposits contained pottery that was considered to represent a redeposited urned cremation; however, different vessels were found in different layers, although they were restricted to three fabrics. Pottery found in inhumation grave backfills is usually considered to be ‘residual’, although this is a problematical term in the context of a cemetery where there was never any domestic activity, meaning that all artefacts must have been introduced to the site when it was in use as a cemetery. Given the patterning of separate vessels in discrete layers, it must be suspected that they were introduced deliberately as gifts during the backfilling activity. It is equally likely that pottery found as ‘residual’ in many other inhumation graves should instead be regarded as a grave gift.

Figure 12: Grave [5332] in the Royston Road cemetery, with the decapitated head placed on the lid of the coffin

The act of deposition clearly involves individual agency, structuring the contents of the grave. However, this may be more complex than the actions of an individual actor, the excavated contents representing only the final outcome of a process that may have lasted for a considerable time. The process will have involved numerous decisions, perhaps by different individuals, of what constituted a correct for of commemoration for a member of their social network. At this level, we are not observing wider social norms but a combination of highly individualistic decisions, some probably taken at moments of intense emotion, mediated through subcultural traditions. The case of grave [5332], with the apparently unique placement of the head on the lid of the coffin, must be viewed in terms of a broader pattern of decapitation, burials in coffins, the provision of grave gifts and the erection of a structure. At the same time, the decision to place the head—which was not necessarily the head of the individual in the coffin!—in a place where it could be seen by visitors to the cemetery.

Deposition is therefore a different phenomenon from the backfilling. There is thus no guarantee that those who arranged the placement of grave gifts were the people who decided when to close the deposit. It is also unclear how the decision might be reached. Was there a specific period during which it was felt appropriate to leave a grave open? Might it coincide with a period of

13

mourning, the length of which might be determined by the bereaved? Was it a decision taken by an individual or by a group? By the bereaved or by cemetery (or other) officials?

These issues raise the question of duration. It can be very difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish archaeologically between depositional events that have taken place only minutes apart from those that have occurred at intervals of months or even years. The silting that covered the bases of pedestalled vessels in the grave deposits at the Mercia Road cursiform enclosure might have taken weeks if it occurred in a season where rainfall was intermittent and low, but might have been contemporary with the initial act of deposition if it had taken place during a rainstorm. Nevertheless, there are hints that in some cases, at least, the interval was of weeks or longer.

These time intervals also imply movement; mourners, cemetery workers, the simply curious will have come and gone, passing by the grave pit, sometimes pausing, sometimes spending a while with the deceased. We understand very little about how people might have moved through these cultic landscapes. Although there is the clear evidence from the late first century BC and early first century AD that movement was regulated through the Mercia Road cursiform enclosure, there is nothing to indicate whether there were further restriction or controls on movement within the burial zone apart from the restricted entrances to the burial enclosures, which were always on the south-eastern sides (a pattern that perhaps derived from the preferred location for roundhouse doors). However, given the poor permeability of the burial zone, it is reasonable to assume that there were further controls on movement.

With the Roman period, there are fewer indications of such restrictions except with enclosed cemeteries, as at Wallington Road, where pathways between the entrances can be recognised in the distribution of burials. We can infer that movement took place between pyre sites and grave pits, but it is again unclear how many constraints there may have been on free movement. There appears to have been no boundary between the temple at Bakers Close and the road to its east; the possible altar base between it and the road is suggestive of cult activities carried out in full view of passers by. However, if Burleigh (2008, 191) is correct in linking nearby enclosures and structures with the temple, it suggests that some ritual activities were carried out separately and excluded those who were not permitted to participate. At Wynn Close, the later second-century enclosure had two entrances; that on the east had a massive timber gateway, while that to the north seems to have consisted of a simple offset in the bank and ditch, although this led into an area partly separated off from the main enclosure by a fence line. This may imply that movement through the enclosure followed a particular route or it may indicate that the northern part was restricted to those with permission to enter.

The evidence is complex and open to a variety of interpretations. The proposition of this paper, that ritual behaviour was determined by a number of different conventions—the habitus of cultic practice, the traditions of subcultural behaviours and occasional individualistic decisions—means that comparisons with other sites can only offer very broad-brush insights into ritual and religious belief.

Bibliography Applebaum, E S 1932 Excavations at Baldock in 1932. Trans St Albans Architect Archaeol Soc (1932), 244-58

Black, E W Graffiti on samian pottery from the Roman cemeteries at Baldock, Herts. In: Burleigh & Fitzpatrick-Matthews, 205-9

Burleigh, G R 2008 Temples, shrines and deities in Iron Age and Romano-British Baldock and its territorium, Hertfordshire, England, UK. In: d’Encarnação, 189-219

14

Burleigh, G R & Fitzpatrick-Matthews, K J 2010 Excavations at Baldock, Hertfordshire, 1978-1994 volume 1: an Iron Age and Romano-British cemetery at Wallington Road. Letchworth Garden City: North Hertfordshire District Council and North Hertfordshire Archaeological Society

Burleigh, G R, Fitzpatrick-Matthews, K J & Aldhouse-Green, M 2006 A Dea Nutrix figurine from Baldock. Britannia 37, 273-94

Chaplin, R E & McCormick, F 1986 Appendix V: the animal bones. In: Stead & Rigby, 396-415

d’Encarnação, J ed 2008 Divinidades indígenas em análise: divinités pré-romaines – bilan et perspectives d’une recherché. Actas do VII workshop FERCAN, Casais 25-27.05.2006. Coimbra & Porto : Centro de Estudos Arqueológicos das Universidades de Coimbra e Porto

Stead, I M & Rigby, V 1986 Baldock: the excavation of a Roman and pre-Roman settlement, 1968-72. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies (Britannia Monogr 7)

Westell, W P 1931 A Romano-British cemetery at Baldock, Hertfordshire. Archaeol J 88, 247-301