Catherine Hills

The archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England in the pagan period: a review

In recent years there has been a great increase in both excavation and research in the field of pagan Anglo-Saxon archaeology. Yet much of the literature remains so detailed and specific for a non-specialist it resembles a maze without obvious clues. A recent book, The Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England , dealt with many aspects of later Anglo-Saxon archaeology but did not cover some of the topics which have been central to study of the pagan period in recent years. This article is an attempt at an outline of some of those topics. The subject falls into two interrelated parts. First there is the course, date and nature of the Anglo-Saxon settlement of England, involving consideration of the continental background, both late Roman and Germanic, and assessment of the significance of the earliest Germanic finds in England. The second part is concerned with the material culture of early Anglo-Saxon England, chiefly as reflected in the cemeteries of the period. Although I discuss settlement patterns in general, I do not examine individual settlements or house types in detail, because this subject has been dealt with twice recently, once by Addyman in this publication and once by Rahtz. I refer only occasionally to documentary records, since my intention is to present the archaeological evidence to non-archaeologists.

New light on the Anglo-Saxon succession: two cemeteries and their dates

The origin of the English is an interesting problem – and not only for them. In one short century, the evidence from texts, burial, artefacts, stable isotopes and now DNA provides several different answers to the question of whether England was invaded by Germans in the fifth century and if so in what manner. The rigorous approach by our authors tips the balance back in favour of a population changing its cultural allegiance – rather than being physically overwhelmed – but, as they emphasise, any new reading must depend on a very high level of archaeological precision – perhaps only now coming within reach.

The Burial of A Princess? The Later Seventh-Century Cemetery At Westfield Farm, Ely

Abstract This paper reports on the excavation of a small, but high-status, later seventh-century Anglo-Saxon cemetery in Ely. Of fifteen graves, two were particularly well furnished, one of which was buried with a gold and silver necklace that included a cross pendant, as well as two complete glass palm cups and a composite comb, placed within a wooden padlocked casket. The paper reports on the skeletal and artefactual material (including isotopic analysis of the burials), and seeks to set the site in its wider social and historical context, arguing that this cemetery may well have been associated with the first monastery in Ely, founded by Etheldreda in ad 673. Résumé Cette communication présente un rapport sur les fouilles effectuées à Ely dans un cimetière anglo-saxon, petit mais aristocratique, datant de la fin du septième siècle. Deux des quinze sépultures étaient particulièrement bien nanties, et l’un des morts avait été enterré avec un collier d’or et d’argent comportant une croix pendentif, ainsi que deux coupes de paume en verre entières et un peigne composé à l’intérieur d’un coffret en bois muni d’un cadenas. Cette communication présente un rapport sur le matériel osseux et les objets façonnés (y compris une analyse isotopique des sépultures) et s’efforce de situer le site dans son contexte social et historique plus large. Elle soutient que ce cimetière aurait bien pu être associé au premier monastère d’Ely, fondé par Etheldreda en l’an 673. Zusammenfassung Diese Abhandlung berichtet von einer Ausgrabung in einem kleinen, aber hochrangigen angelsächsischen Friedhofs in Ely. Von den fünfzehn Gräbern waren zwei besonders gut ausgestattet, und einer der Verstorbenen wurde mit einer goldenen und silbernen Kette mit Kreuzanhänger bestattet, sowie zwei kompletten Glasbechern und einem Kamm, der sich in einer mit Vorhängeschloß versehenen hölzernen Schatulle befand. Es wird über die Skelette und Artefake berichtet (inklusive der Analyse von Isotopen der Bestattungen), und versucht den Ort in seinen sozialen und historischen Zusammenhang einzuordnen. Es wird argumentiert, daß dieser Friedhof mit dem ersten Kloster in Ely in Verbindung gebracht werden kann, daß ad 673 von Etheldreda gegründet wurde.

History and archaeology: the state of play in early medieval Europe

How useful is archaeology to historians? Do they use it in their work? If so how? Catherine Hills considers a number of mighty histories of early medieval Europe that have recently appeared and examines how far the extremely productive archaeology of the last two decades has affected them – or failed to.

The Staffordshire (Ogley Hay) hoard: problems of interpretation

The hoard presents us with a startling number of unfamiliar images from the Anglo-Saxon past, not least in the new icon of treasure that it presents. As the descriptions of treasure and gift-giving in Beowulf so vividly remind us, the gaining of treasure, and its corollary, gift-giving, were major preoccupations for Anglo-Saxons and their northern European contemporaries, whether Clovis, showering the crowds in Tours with gold solidi when he was created consul in 508, Oswiu attempting to buy off Penda before the Battle of Winwæd with what Bede (HE III.24; Colgrave & Mynors 1969: 288–91) described as an incalculable and incredible store of royal treasures or the huge Danegelds extorted by Vikings in the tenth and early eleventh century. But until July 2009, the picture presented by the archaeological evidence for Anglo-Saxon treasure could hardly have been more different: the material remains of treasure with which we are familiar come overwhelmingly from high-status burials, or as individual gold finds without context, most of them the result of relatively recent metal-detecting activity. Only one seventh-century Anglo-Saxon gold hoard exists, from Crondall in Hampshire, dated to c. 640; but that is essentially a coin hoard, the only non-numismatic items two small clasps which must have fastened the purse or satchel containing the coins.

The Cruciform Brooch and Anglo-Saxon England. By Toby F Martin. 244mm. Pp 406, many figs, tables, etc. Boydell Press, Woodbridge, 2015.isbn 9781843839934. £75 (hbk).

three authors who have together spent about a hundred years of research to produce them, provide a well-founded model for farming in England in the Anglo-Saxon and early Norman periods. Overall, the model is not significantly different from mine, though it is better researched and now more secure. Much more research will be required to change it, though change it will. ‘Perhaps Anglo-Saxon farming’s time has come at last’ (B & F, p 8): these volumes go far to make that so. Travelling by different routes through the later twentieth century and into the twenty-first, the three authors and, now trailing in their wake, this reviewer, reach a measure of agreement, up to a point.

The Anglo-Saxon settlement of England. The State of research in Britain in the late 1980s

When I gave my paper at Reichenau I tried to explain why it is difficult at present to produce a satisfactory synthesis of the evidence for the Anglo-Saxon migration to Britain. In particular, I focussed on two works, which seem to me to epitomize two very different approaches to the subject, and I tried to explore the reasons for those differences. I did this because I think that theoretical and ideological perspectives are important, and that they do affect the way we select and interpret evidence for the past, although I might not go so far as R. Reece, who has recently claimed »the way that you see Britannia turning into early England is going to say far more about you . . . than about Britain f rom A D 200 to 800« \ The point I was trying to make was that conflicting views of how to set about interpreting the evidence for the fifth Century in Britain exist, and that the conflict sometimes seems to have inhibited research. It was not really fair to concentrate on two authors, or on the two kinds of thinking I think they represent. In fact a number of perspectives can be detected in current work, and scholars seldom fit quite so neatly into categories as I might have seemed to suggest. A second very important point which needed more emphasis is that there is a great deal of recent and current research, by scholars in various disciplines, which is relevant to our understanding of this period. The detail and volume of this work constitute another obstacle to synthesis, but offer considerable hopes for future resolution of some problems. In this paper I want to review some of the different approaches and to outline some recent work on different aspects of the problem, rather than myself attempting to offer any general account of the settlement of England by the AngloSaxons. At Reichenau I discussed the paper published by H . W. Böhme ) . I also discussed the book by C. Arnold »Roman Britain to Saxon England« (London 1984). These two works seem to me to represent very different approaches to the subject, indeed to archaeology. Böhme has collected and plotted the distribution of certain categories of metalwork of late fourth and fifth Century date found in Britain. H e has interpreted this in the light of historical evidence, although, as he says, he is attempting to use the archaeological material to go beyond existing

Anglo-Saxon migration: historical fact or mythical fiction?Stephen Yeates. Myth and history. Ethnicity and politics in the first millennium British Isles . xi+348 pages, 104 bw 978-1-84217-478-4 paperback £ 29.95.

The book by Guy Halsall is “half handbook or introduction for the student, non-specialist or interested layman, and half controversial academic essay” (p. xiv). It succeeds in the first goal, which occupies the first seven chapters but, as the author predicts, I find the latter, set out in Chapters 8–12, less convincing. Some readers will be put off by the occasionally belligerent tone, especially if they detect attacks on their own work. The first half of the book is a critical account of the development of scholarship relating to the transition from Roman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England, together with analysis of the fragmentary historical sources on which most of that scholarship precariously rests. The ostensible focus is Arthur, and the immediate inspiration for the work seems to be exasperation at the ever-growing literature on the subject of that probably mythical figure. Arthur, however, seems to be disposed of by the end of Chapter 4, although false Arthurs occupy Chapter 7 and put in occasional subsequent appearances. Otherwise the book moves into a broader discussion, first reviewing recent and current scholarship, and then presenting Halsall’s own

Andrew Reynolds. Anglo-Saxon deviant burial customs. xiv+324 pages, 70 illustrations, 28 tables. 2009. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 978-0-19-954455-4 hardback £65.

outside influences conventionally thought to have prevailed (p. xii, passim). Phillipson identifies such local continuities in certain structural elements of the architecture (such as the timber dooror windowframes with square beam-ends projecting, as well as their carved monolithic pastiches) which define, in his eyes, an ‘Aksumite style’ (pp. 84, 178). This is not new but what is new, and quite a departure, is that this style is seen, in the context of Lalibela, as a chronological marker (pp. 178–9) when the architectural elements considered are common in the repertoire of most medieval churches in the land, whatever their precise date. Beyond this specific question, some details in the volume serve, in our view, as a warning against relying too heavily on strictly stylistic or typological considerations. Two examples illustrate this: concerning Beta Merqorewos in Lalibela’s Eastern Complex, Phillipson writes that the principal entrance to the church’s courtyard is through a tunnel leading to the courtyard ‘through a rectangular rock-cut Aksumite-style doorway’ (pp. 138– 9) but illustrations 214 and 215 show us a doorway not in the Aksumite style. Later on, for Beta Masqal in the Northern Complex, we read ‘Beta Masqal is cut within the ridge of rock [. . . ] which here separates the court from the trench surrounding [the Northern Complex], suggesting that the church cannot pre-date either of these features’ (p. 165). Based on the same observation, the present reviewer would intuitively be led to suggest exactly the opposite; since the doorway through the north wall of the church is in ‘Aksumite-style’ on both faces (which contradicts another of Phillipson’s observation on p. 165), this suggests that there existed a passage before it was truncated, and thus that the monument predates the trench. Were stylistic arguments always compelling, both cases would present serious problems for the phasing proposed in the volume. But, looking beyond such detailed questioning, the merit of this work is that it challenges us to undertake the considerable task of devising a classification system for the Christian monuments of Lalibela and of ancient Ethiopia as a whole.

Book Reviews - Seilichi Suzuki. The Quoit Brooch style and Anglo-Saxon settlement: a casting and recasting of cultural identity symbols . xiv + 218 pages, 100 figures, 38 plates, 2000. Woodbridge: Boydell; 0-85115-749-1

This hook contains a study of a small class (39 objects) of decorated metalwork found, and usually thought to have been made, in southeastern Britain, during the 5th century AD. Recorded finds contexts are mostly Anglo-Saxon graves, male and female. The name comes from the most striking artefact type decorated in the style, large broad band annular or ’quoitshaped’ brooches. Most other pieces are belt fittings. Suzuki’s book is best read with another recent study of this material, by Peter Inker (2000). Both were originally completed as MA dissertations, Suzuki as an established scholar in another field producing the more ambitious work. The authors knew of each other’s research and are mostly complementary rather than contradictory. One reason for looking at both is the variable quality of the illustrations, both line drawings and photographs, in the Suzuki book. hiker has produced his own excellent drawings, whereas Suzuki uses existing pictures, including Inker’s. Comparison with the originals in various sources shows inferior reproduction in the book (e.g. Inker figure 3, Suzuki figure 3). Suzuki produced most of his own text figures and sometimes modified the drawings he used in ways which confirm his careful examination of the objects, so it is a pity the published illustrations are not as good as one might expect in an expensive hardback book. Earlier discussion of this style focused on the ethnic identity of those making or wearing the objects. It was at first thought of as in some way Germanic, both from the burial contexts and as a precursor of later Germanic zoomorphic ornament, and has been variously attributed to Franks, Jutes and Anglo-Saxons. This was part of an upside-down approach to the period which tended to explain it backwards from the perspective of the Anglo-Saxon period, rather than beginning in the Roman period. Recent scholarship has begun to rectify this. Evison (1965) first pointed out connections with continental late Roman metalwork, confirmed by the discovery of the Mucking buckle, a late Roman military belt buckle decorated in Quoit Brooch style. The Mucking buckle also allowed an interpretation of the material as originally mostly the equipment of high ranking soldiers. Even the brooches could originally have belonged to men large single shoulder brooches were a feature of male dress, indeed a symbol of rank, in the late Roman empire. hiker has carried out detailed examination of the technology used, especially punchmarks. His discussion makes several interesting points, and in general strengthens the conclusion that this is a British variant of late Roman metalworking. This is interesting in the coiitext of other work on the later Roman empire which suggests growing regionalization, especially in metalwork production, long before the end of official central control (Swift 2000). Suzuki takes a new and interesting approach. Rather than pursuing any one detail he emphasizes that a key to understanding style is the relationship between design elements. He attempts to define a set of rules, almost a grammar (he is a linguist), for the Quoit Brooch style, derived from systematic analysis of the patterns on each object. It might he objected that with such a small group new discoveries could undermine his system, and also that there is a degree of circularity in defining rules from a set of objects and then rejecting some because they do not conform. But in practice it does seem to work. There are consistent patterns in the way motifs are arranged and they do differentiate most of the Quoit brooch objects from other groups of metalwork. This strengthens a perception of the style as coherent and distinct, different from other contemporary styles, such as the Scandinavian Sosdala, a local British development of ideas and techniques current in the later Roman empire. I would like to see this kind of analysis applied to other groups of material. Above all, the Quoit Brooch style objects need to be discussed together with other contemporary British metalwork, especially the horse-head buckles found mostly in the southwest. A clearer view of the relationships between the groups of metalwork might further our understanding of the still murky transition from Roman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England. I am not entirely convinced by his reworking of Kentish history in the final chapter, hut overall Suzuki’s book is a valuable contribution to research in this area. C.M. HILLS Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge