Diagnóstico de multicolinealidad

This thesis on ‘odd deposits’ in early medieval settlements is based on literature research. The dataset comes from official published reports and grey literature. The criteria that are used to determine an ‘odd deposit’ are based on the articles written by Hamerow (2006), Morris and Jervis (2011) and Sofield (2012; 2015a; 2015b; 2017).

The criteria are:

• Type of material

o Material deposited in an unexpected way. Material concentrations that differ from the settlement ‘norm’.

• Location

o Material from unexpected places, like burials in a posthole

o Material at liminal places like boundaries, buildings and entrances.

• Clear association with a settlement phase

o This supports the understanding of the ‘odd deposit’s’ context.

Some ‘odd deposits’ are already described as such by the excavators. These are included in the dataset as well. These criteria could not be applied as strict as was desired at first. Some reports were not clear about the exact location of the ‘odd deposit’, others were unclear about the total content of a deposit. Some ex- cavations were simply too small to place an ‘odd deposit’ in the settlement lay- out. The criteria did not seem to be exclusive as well. They are based on the thought of single ‘odd deposits’, while Kok (2008) also describes the possibility of ‘odd deposits’ that were deposited within multiple events. It then was decided to include waterpools that are similar to the one described by Kok (2008, 150-152). At the end, the following type of deposits in early medieval settlements were cho- sen to describe as ‘odd deposits’:

• Inhumations

• Human bone deposits • Animal burials

• Animal skulls

• Artefacts from postholes (especially pots and stone artefacts) • Deposit contexts formed in multiple episodes of deposition

Interesting material that came with these deposits are included as well.

4.2. Database

The lay-out of the database is based on the database used by Hamerow (2006, 4-7) (table 4.1). Hamerow solely focuses on the deposition of animals and hu- mans. This thesis also focuses on other types of materials in ‘odd deposits’ like pottery and stone. This is why an extra column ‘material’ is added. This is to de- scribe the basic materials in the ‘odd deposit’, as for example animal bone, pot- tery or stone. The database is filled in as standardised as was possible. This standardisation is also based on the database of Hamerow (2006). The raw da- tabase also includes the associated feature of the ‘odd deposit’. The feature types are based on the ones used by Sofield (2012): Earthfast buildings, SFB (sunken-featured-building), major enclosure, minor enclosure, rectilinear enclo- sure system, other enclosure, other ditch/ gully, earthwork and post (not associ- ated with a building).

This list was not fully applicable to the early medieval Low Land coast settle- ments. Therefore two extra features were added: Wells and waterpools.

Table 4.1: Database table. Example

Site Type Age/ Sex Mate- rial Spe- cies Butch- ery Date (centu- ry) Context Refer- ence Site nam e De- posit type Age/ sex of animal or hu- man individ- ual Mate- rial type Animal spe- cies or human Butch- ery marks Date of the deposit Associ- ated context Litera- ture ref- erence

4.3. Data processing

The two datasets are processed separately. This is done to make a clear com- parison at the end. The same processes are conducted on both datasets, even when it was visible in advance that the numbers were too small to create a clear picture.

Results tables are based on the number of contexts at which a phenomenon was found. At first the material types are processed. The association of material with feature-types follows this. To describe the found animal species it was chosen to count in contexts with multiple animal species twice. The purpose here was to create a clear picture of the species spread over skull and burial deposits. Com- binations of species within contexts are tested as well, to make the picture com- plete. It is mentioned at the table when contexts are included more than once.

4.4. Contexts numbers and problems

The chosen contexts are eventually picked out because of the available report data. It was not difficult to determine which Anglo-Saxon settlements to use in the thesis. All sites are published in detailed excavation reports. It was harder to find enough early medieval sites in the Netherlands and Belgium with detailed re- ports. Not every report is officially published, which makes it hard to get access to it, especially for Belgian reports. In the end we got our hands on multiple recent reports from Belgium via personal contacts. This thesis now contains 29 contexts from eight early medieval Low Land coastal settlements, four from the Nether- lands and four from Belgium, and 34 contexts from nine Anglo-Saxon settle- ments.

The number of settlements is still small. Especially the early medieval Low Land coastal settlements do not show a homogenous picture, as will be discussed in chapter 7-8. This means the results are very flexible. One extra settlement might change the overall results entirely. The conclusions here need to be taken with caution. From the start, this research is seen as a starting point for the future. This is why numbers need to be taken with caution.

5.

Settlement deposits from the early medieval