Richard Bradley was critical of the hesitation he saw in British archaeology towards the use of the interpretive category ‘votive deposit’. The artefacts were instead interpreted in practical terms, as lost things or hidden treasures. This was published in 1990 in The passage of arms. Since then, or – as Garrow shows – since the mid-1980s, much has happened. Garrow has reacted against what he calls the hyperinterpretive turn in archaeology, where almost every patterning of material culture is regarded as intentional and symbolic. Instead, or as a complement, he wants to see a more developed discussion about material culture patterning as a result of everyday practices that just happen, without an attached symbolic meaning, but still varied and variable. So, is it time for the pendulum to swing back?

Starting with the 1984 paper by Richards and Thomas, Garrow has thoroughly and convincingly identified a series of problems in the decades-long use of the concept of structured deposition. His discussion concerns mainly British archaeology, where the term ‘structured deposition’ was coined and has had its greatest impact. It has not become greatly used in, for example, Swedish archaeology. However, a review of categorizations and interpretations of deposited materials from the Neolithic in Scandinavia shows a similar situation to that in Great Britain. The terms are different, but some of the problems seem to be the same.

The interpretation of depositions has been discussed in Scandinavia with a slightly different starting point. As Bradley pointed out, the ritual or votive interpretation has been regarded as less controversial in Scandinavian than in British archaeology (Bradley 1990). However, the general theoretical trends in archaeology have had their influence on this issue as well. While a ritual or votive category of depositions had been used in Scandinavian archaeology since its introduction in the 1860s, the processual trend in theory meant that fewer votive or ritual interpretations were put forward during the 1980s and early 1990s. But since the mid-1990s the votive or sacrificial interpretation has become more used. Some hesitation may in some cases be felt towards the votive or sacrificial category of interpretation, and the concept of ritual deposition may be preferred as a more general category (Berggren 2006; 2010). Still, interpretations of the deposited materials as symbolic or ritual have been regarded as valid alternatives.

Often the discussion of depositions, especially in Denmark, has concerned wetland deposited materials, but has extended to dry-land depositions as well.

These dry-land votive deposits consist, for example, of a few artefacts placed under a stone, a ceramic pot placed in a pit and so on. They represent what Garrow would categorize as odd deposits. One illustrative example is an intact funnel beaker placed in a small pit, fitting nothing else but the pot, placed upside down, with a big stone placed on top of it. I categorized this as a ritual deposition in the site report (Berggren and Celin 2004). About 15 examples of funnel beakers deposited intact in pits from the Malmö region in southern Sweden are known (Hadevik 2009). The concept used to categorize these pits is often sacrificial or offering pit (in Swedish offergrop).

During the last few decades large-scale infrastructural developments have taken place in areas of Sweden, leading to large-scale archaeological investigations. As a result, the topsoil has been stripped over large areas and certain patterns among the remains have become clear. Among other things, patterns of material culture in pits have been recognized. These represent what Garrow would categorize as material culture patterning.

These pits and the material in them have been discussed and categorized in various ways in Swedish archaeology. There has been discussion whether they should be interpreted as waste or ceremonial deposits (see e.g. Stålbom 1997 for a discussion concerning Bronze Age pits). The ceremonial interpretation has been seen as a valid alternative and some of the pits have been categorized as offering pits. Perhaps because the sacrificial category was a generally accepted interpretation, it was not experienced as far-fetched to use it in the case of these pits as well. A shift can be detected here. From having signified specially arranged materials such as intact pots and other artefacts, the term ‘offering pit’ now also included pits with rich assemblages of fragmented materials.

In an attempt to discuss the function of these pits with examples from the Malmö region in south-western Scania, the concept of Early Neolithic find-rich pits (in Swedish fyndrika TN-gropar) was suggested in a student paper from Lund University (Eriksson et al. 2000). Pits with large find material from this period were known before this, but the phenomenon was systematized in this paper and the concept has become accepted and increasingly used during the past decade, at least in the Malmö area. In a survey of localities where pits from the Early Neolithic have been found in the Malmö area, a little over half of 70 localities included pits that could be categorized as find-rich pits. The average was one to three pits per locality. The definition of a pit rich in finds has varied. The definition of what is rich material may be difficult and is by necessity arbitrary. In the original student paper it was defined as a total weight of between about 0.5 and 1.0 kg or above, consisting of finds of flint and/or pottery, not excluding other materials (Eriksson et al. 2000, 4). In the other mentioned study of the Malmö area, the definition was of at least one kilogramme of material (Gidlöf 2009, 94).

I believe this concept grew in popularity as there was a need for an analytical tool in the efforts to understand these material patterns. The sacrificial interpretation was experienced as too specific and not always appropriate. In fact, the sacrificial category itself had in some cases become something of a covering concept in Scandinavian archaeology, used to describe a range of various activities and rituals that were perhaps not best described as offerings or sacrifices (Berggren 2006; 2010). And the categorization of these pits as votive pits seems to have been experienced as similarly problematic. However, the use of the term ‘find-rich pit’ has also been unclear at times. In some ways this term has become used in the same way as the concept of structured depositions as described by Garrow. First introduced as an analytical tool, it has also been used as an interpretation in itself.

Pits categorized as find-rich pits have occurred in great numbers in one location as well as in isolation from other similar pits. A pattern of depositions may be especially clear at a location with many pits, as at Kilverstone, where Garrow and his colleagues conducted their investigation (Garrow, Beadsmoore and Knight 2005). Such places have been found in the Malmö area as well. They are very unusual, as the average per site is just a few find-rich pits, as mentioned above. At Svågertorp, to the south of Malmö, more than 30 pits from the Middle Neolithic were investigated, showing a clear pattern. They were of similar sizes (about 0.8 m in diameter) and depths (0.14–0.33 m) and contained large amounts of flint and pottery, and in some cases reddish-coloured stones were placed in a concentration or a circle. Also, large amounts of burnt hazelnut shells were found in the pits. Some of these pits were described as votive pits or offering pits in one of the site reports. The argument used for this interpretation was that some of the pottery may have been placed in the pits as intact pots or at least as large parts of pots. But, interestingly, the pattern of depositions in the pits of similar assemblages and amounts of everyday material from the settlement was also used as an argument for the votive interpretation (Touminen and Koch 2007). Other pits in the same locality were not categorized as votive pits as the material in them was perceived as mundane or everyday in another of the site reports from Svågertorp. These pits were categorized just as pits, even though similarities between the pits were recognized (Koch and Touminen 2006). In Garrow's words, the Middle Neolithic pits at Svågertorp would be described as material culture patterning. As we can see in this example, the patterning of everyday material has been used as an argument for interpretations of the pits both as votive and as mundane.

In the area of Almhov, also to the south of Malmö, about 200 Early and Middle Neolithic pits were found at a site with Early Neolithic grave monuments such as long barrows and dolmens. Of the pits, 94 were recognized as find-rich pits in the original site report and a subsequent article (Gidlöf, Hammarstrand Dehman and Johansson 2006; Gidlöf 2009). Most of these pits were between two and three metres in diameter and most were less than 0.5 m deep. The pits contained large amounts of pottery and flint and also animal bone. In these studies, the term was explicitly used as an analytical instrument to discern patterns in the material. The interpretations of the pits include both ritual deposition and other more mundane functions (Gidlöf 2009).

In a later study the pits of this and neighbouring sites were systematically compiled and interpreted (Rudebeck 2010). Seventeen pits from the Early and Middle Neolithic were categorized as pits with intentional depositions and 192 pits were identified as other pits from these periods. In this study, 50 were categorized as find-rich pits. Another definition of ‘find-rich pit’ was used here: a find-rich pit contained at least 50% of the average of the pits in the area in at least one of the categories of flint tools, bone or pottery. These find-rich pits were categorized and interpreted as feasting pits. Thus in this study a difference is made between pits with deliberate depositions and feasting pits. The first category is equivalent to Garrow's odd deposits and the second to his category of material culture patterning. Some of the pits are arranged in pairs. This pattern is interpreted as a part of the temporary settlements of huts used during large gatherings and feasts at this site. One pit was dug when a hut was erected. It was in use during the time of the settlement, perhaps as storage, and contained little find material as a result. The other pit was dug at the end of the settlement, where waste from the stay was deposited, resulting in much material. The feasting pits are regarded as the result of activities connected to the gatherings and the feasting, such as the preparation and consumption of food and drink, various crafts and the handling of waste (Rudebeck 2010). In this example the pattern of the material in the pits is separate from what is regarded as votive deposit and is interpreted as a function of the gatherings and the feasting that took place there.

So as can be seen from the above examples, the category of find-rich pit has been used in various ways, for example as an analytical tool to discern patterns, but also as an argument for a votive or a mundane interpretation of these patterns. Both the terms ‘structured deposition’ and ‘find-rich pit’ may be useful as analytical tools. But the amount of finds or the patterning of the material does not in itself offer an interpretation of the past actions that resulted in the patterning. The acts have to be interpreted in themselves. It seems that in many cases we find ourselves asking whether the acts were ritual or not.

As Garrow is arguing, the structure of a pattern is not in itself an argument for a ritual activity. This was pointed out already by Richards and Thomas in their paper, as they said that domestic activity also involves a high degree of structure. Among other things, this is connected to how one defines ritual. Repetition may be said to be a characteristic of ritual, but looking for repeated acts and interpreting them as ritual is inadequate.

I believe that the separation of ritual from non-ritual is part of the problem. Perhaps it is not always possible to understand how acts were categorized in the past. According to the ritualization concept as understood by Catherine Bell (1992), any act may be ritualized, through a strategy of differentiation. To identify ritualized acts these strategies have to be identified. But this may not always be possible. An act may be performed in the same way on different occasions, but only when, for example, a special word is uttered is it differentiated and ritualized. This means that the material remains of the acts, ritualized and non-ritualized, may be exactly the same. Thus we have to consider that ritualized acts are not distinct from other acts. Ritualized acts may be found anywhere in a continuum of acts of different degrees of formalization, from very formalized ceremonies to more causal, more temporal, less formal acts (Bell 1997, 138). This is similar to the continuum ranging from odd deposits to material culture patterning that Garrow points to. This means that the categories, both the analytical tools and the interpretations, are not strictly delimited, but rather flexible.

We may also take into consideration the possibility that what we would categorize as ritual today was perhaps not separated from the mundane sphere of society in the past. Or, if we stick with this separation, there is also the possibility of profane rituals. That something is ritualized does not necessarily mean that it should be connected to religion.

Thus we may not always reach an unambiguous and strict categorization of past acts. However, interpretations of the cultural context and the social results of the acts may still be possible.

In the case of materials in pits, their deposition in the ground was the very last thing that happened in the past. The different materials had been handled in various ways before this. A structured deposition may be structured as a result of actions taking place prior to the deposition. Generally, a discussion of pre-depositional practices as a part of the interpretation of depositions may be very fruitful (see Rudebeck 2010). The gatherings at Almhov may have had many structured and even ritualized acts as components, but was the deposition of the material in the pits ritualized or not?

My own view is that it is possible to discuss differentiation and ritualization strategies in many cases, while acknowledging the continuum between ritual and habit. A habitual placing of structural patterns in a ritual category is not satisfying. Instead the ambiguous character of some acts and their role in social production may be discussed.

So, is it time for the pendulum to swing back to a place where the ritual interpretation is no longer acceptable? In a very crude way, Garrow's paper may be read like this. But Garrow is calling for a more in-depth discussion of depositional practices and he does not mean for the pendulum to return to exactly the same position as before, which actually pushes the archaeological interpretation further.