The "Marlow Warlord", apparently:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/oct/05/archaeologists-unearth-remains-believed-anglo-saxon-warrior
thanks Duncan,
I wonder if the conclusion that he was an Anglo-Saxon is due to other details not described in the article.
Well for one thing, he was buried with a north-south orientation which suggests a non-Christian burial rite. That by itself suggests Germanic rather than Romano-Brit, I'd have thought.
true although alot depends on when in the 6th Century the floruit and eventual death/burial is....early middle or late
Quote from: Holly on October 05, 2020, 09:57:33 AM
thanks Duncan,
I wonder if the conclusion that he was an Anglo-Saxon is due to other details not described in the article.
I was left wondering if it was the assumption of the journalist?
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 05, 2020, 12:31:24 PM
Quote from: Holly on October 05, 2020, 09:57:33 AM
thanks Duncan,
I wonder if the conclusion that he was an Anglo-Saxon is due to other details not described in the article.
I was left wondering if it was the assumption of the journalist?
The original press release is here (http://www.reading.ac.uk/news-and-events/releases/PR848532.aspx). The Anglo-Saxon identification seems to have been first made by the PAS archaeologist and followed by the University of Reading team.
Quote from: Holly on October 05, 2020, 11:34:31 AM
true although alot depends on when in the 6th Century the floruit and eventual death/burial is....early middle or late
Not sure I follow. It's a pagan burial (explicitly stated now in the original press release Anthony linked to); if it were a Christian burial the date might matter, but at any point during the 6th century a pagan burial in the southern English lowland zone is not, surely, going to belong to a post-Roman Briton.
it probably is pagan but not necessarily Anglo-Saxon per se. Likely but not nailed on. I didnt read of any genetic testing on the subject so could possibly be one of a few different options in terms of their identity. The early, middle or late timing for the 6th Century has massive ramifications in terms of what the local area was in terms of its outlook and control.
I am splitting hairs here I know....
How would genetics prove him not to be Anglo Saxon? Suppose he was a Swabian or a Herul. Wouldn't the DNA matches be Western German or Scandinavian? Either of those would be in the category of A/S?
If they analysed his tooth enamel for origin then its most likely to be Britain. This is perfectly comprehensible. People lived then to 35-40yrs. Someone who came across aged 20 would only have 15-20 yrs. of living here before they died. Their children would likely have British geology in their teeth. So great if the teeth give a Continental location, but most likely he is second or third generation and thus British born.
Roy
it would be useful to see if we could put meat on the bones and determine if a 'newbie' or an 'established' A-S or even a culturally flexed British person
Quote from: Holly on October 06, 2020, 08:35:11 AM
it would be useful to see if we could put meat on the bones and determine if a 'newbie' or an 'established' A-S or even a culturally flexed British person
I suppose he might be a Jute. Were there not some in nearby Hampshire? He's too late to be Irish and the alignment of the grave and the goods in it don't point that way anyhow. I'm not sure what a culturally flexed British person might be? The only one I can think of is the hero of Alfred Duggan's Cerdic novel.
Quote from: Anton on October 06, 2020, 12:04:15 PM
Quote from: Holly on October 06, 2020, 08:35:11 AM
it would be useful to see if we could put meat on the bones and determine if a 'newbie' or an 'established' A-S or even a culturally flexed British person
I suppose he might be a Jute. Were there not some in nearby Hampshire? He's too late to be Irish and the alignment of the grave and the goods in it don't point that way anyhow. I'm not sure what a culturally flexed British person might be? The only one I can think of is the hero of Alfred Duggan's Cerdic novel.
I think the problem is interesting
Firstly, whatever he thought he was, it wouldn't be 'Anglo Saxon' because as far as we know the term appears in the Late 8th century so may have been used a century earlier.
That pedantic point out of the way we are left with the following options
He was 'genetically' Germanic, but that might merely mean he was the descendant of Germanic Foederati
He was 'culturally' Germanic so he or his father had adopted the trappings of being 'Germanic' which may merely mean they lived a martial life with a warband composed of men drawn from many backgrounds
Certainly he was obviously successful, in that he died in control and was buried by people who honoured him, and his body wasn't just robbed and kicked into a ditch. But it doesn't tell us whether he was the paid guardian of a Sub-Roman British community, a collection of Saxon settlers or a combination of the above
But it's another piece in the jigsaw which is good 8)
Yeah, could be a Federate Chieftain. The location is in the old Catuvalaunian territory if memory serves.
Currently I buy mixed British/Germanic armies for the period not so much British/Germanic mixed warbands. I tend to favour the idea of cooperating discreet contingents.
I'd expect a British war chief to be buried in the Christian fashion regardless of who his overlord was. We don't have any evidence of British apostasy in the period. Likewise a German one could be buried in German fashion while having a British overlord.
Whoever he was he's proving to be interesting to speculate on.
I am not convinced by the wholesale adoption of Christianity by "British" people at around the start of the 6th century although likely for Roman leaning 'leaders'. The evidence doesn't preclude a person leading a community of Germanic, British or mixed bag and being genetically or even culturally British. Don't forget, the chap could have been both a Christian and a pagan and when he died his warband decided to choose his burial rites for him......
I'd say the conversion happened much earlier than that pretty much as outlined by Dark, Koch and Charles-Edwards. A top down initiative of course but an effective one. We can note that there's no hint of paganism among the British in the jeremiad of Gildas.
The evidence we have doesn't suggest integrated communities to me. Unless, at the end of the century, we see Ine as a legal innovator rather than someone formalising the current status quo.
As for burial practice I'd expect it to follow the cultural imperatives of the deceased and those close associates, likely including kin, who interred him.
I'm inclined to see Marlow Man as a Germanic pagan buried in the Germanic fashion regardless of who his overlord may have been.
I'm looking forward to seeing more information about him.
I feel like I am being a bit too controversial in my musings...perhaps I am becoming the new Patrick! I will bow out and as you suggest Stephen, await further developments from the discovery. All very interesting though
Jim, I don't have any problem in calling earlier post Roman migrants Anglo-Saxon. The arrivals were a very mixed lot from Germany abd Scandinavia. There needs to be a term for describing the incomers who are united by a common Germanic culture ( Were not British or Irish, or Scots or Picts) . These new settlers might be Angles , Saxons or Jutes, Sueves, Heruls, Frisians, Allamanns, Franks Geats, Danes , Swedes or Norwegians. We don't even know that someone called a Saxon is actually a Saxon or part of a minor group that claims. or is given Saxon ethnicity because they are very like a Saxon and no one doing the writing bothered to enquire.
So even though the combination term really only comes to a meaning when the Danes have destroyed the heptarchy it does for describing the lot of them as a conglomerate in earlier times .
Perhaps in one of your books you could have a Pythonesque situation where a British leader is giving land in return for military service to a group of barbarians, saying ' You Saxons can have the meadows by the river to settle in' , meeting the response: 'We are not Saxons, we are Batavians mate. How can you take us for Saxons we're completely different' ...points to group standing next to them , identically dressed and accoutred. 'They are Saxons...isn't it obvious?'
Roy
what Roy said.....
;D
It's perfectly obvious Roy. ;D ;D
Quote from: davidb on October 07, 2020, 09:11:46 PM
It's perfectly obvious Roy. ;D ;D
Probably with a sotto voce comment in the background, "Batavian? But me mum were a Wend, and me grandfather were Irish."
;)
I can imagine you then Jim ordering each group to bop one of their own on the head so you could see how they buried them and decide who was who. It would, if course, be a bit late for the Batavian to find out he was a Frank.
Roy
Quote from: aligern on October 08, 2020, 11:18:17 AM
I can imagine you then Jim ordering each group to bop one of their own on the head so you could see how they buried them and decide who was who. It would, if course, be a bit late for the Batavian to find out he was a Frank.
Roy
I suspect life expectancy in those warbands was such that burial details came round pretty often anyway :-[
....but I did it last time!
Of course, unless you die at home, you have to be on the winning side to get buried at all. Otherwise corpse looted and wildlife fed. A lot of gear must have changed hands post battle.
Quote from: Holly on October 08, 2020, 12:23:46 PM
....but I did it last time!
Good, you must know how it's done.
Get digging, warrior ;)
Quote from: Anton on October 08, 2020, 12:26:31 PM
Of course, unless you die at home, you have to be on the winning side to get buried at all. Otherwise corpse looted and wildlife fed. A lot of gear must have changed hands post battle.
Inevitably. So what you were buried with might tell the archaeologist more about the culture of your defeated opponents than about your own 8)
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 08, 2020, 12:48:47 PM
Quote from: Anton on October 08, 2020, 12:26:31 PM
Of course, unless you die at home, you have to be on the winning side to get buried at all. Otherwise corpse looted and wildlife fed. A lot of gear must have changed hands post battle.
Inevitably. So what you were buried with might tell the archaeologist more about the culture of your defeated opponents than about your own 8)
Though we might be cautious about treating all things are culture-neutral. There are hints that styles of dress could be cultural identifiers. If you were a Jute, it might be important that you wore a Jutish brooch, rather than a Saxon one, as a symbol of belonging. Whereas a nice spear might be just a nice spear. Not really studied this but use of styles of dress or ornament as a cultural identifier has a solid social anthropological pedigree.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 08, 2020, 01:07:52 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 08, 2020, 12:48:47 PM
Quote from: Anton on October 08, 2020, 12:26:31 PM
Of course, unless you die at home, you have to be on the winning side to get buried at all. Otherwise corpse looted and wildlife fed. A lot of gear must have changed hands post battle.
Inevitably. So what you were buried with might tell the archaeologist more about the culture of your defeated opponents than about your own 8)
Though we might be cautious about treating all things are culture-neutral. There are hints that styles of dress could be cultural identifiers. If you were a Jute, it might be important that you wore a Jutish brooch, rather than a Saxon one, as a symbol of belonging. Whereas a nice spear might be just a nice spear. Not really studied this but use of styles of dress or ornament as a cultural identifier has a solid social anthropological pedigree.
although 'aping' of cultural accoutrements is a fairly well trodden path :)
Quote from: Holly on October 08, 2020, 02:37:35 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on October 08, 2020, 01:07:52 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 08, 2020, 12:48:47 PM
Quote from: Anton on October 08, 2020, 12:26:31 PM
Of course, unless you die at home, you have to be on the winning side to get buried at all. Otherwise corpse looted and wildlife fed. A lot of gear must have changed hands post battle.
Inevitably. So what you were buried with might tell the archaeologist more about the culture of your defeated opponents than about your own 8)
Though we might be cautious about treating all things are culture-neutral. There are hints that styles of dress could be cultural identifiers. If you were a Jute, it might be important that you wore a Jutish brooch, rather than a Saxon one, as a symbol of belonging. Whereas a nice spear might be just a nice spear. Not really studied this but use of styles of dress or ornament as a cultural identifier has a solid social anthropological pedigree.
although 'aping' of cultural accoutrements is a fairly well trodden path :)
Theoderic himself was said to have commented, "the poor Roman imitates the Goth, the rich Goth the Roman."
Quotealthough 'aping' of cultural accoutrements is a fairly well trodden path
"Aping" also emphasises the identification aspect, of course. You want to be associated with some aspect of the original wearer.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 08, 2020, 01:07:52 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 08, 2020, 12:48:47 PM
Quote from: Anton on October 08, 2020, 12:26:31 PM
Of course, unless you die at home, you have to be on the winning side to get buried at all. Otherwise corpse looted and wildlife fed. A lot of gear must have changed hands post battle.
Inevitably. So what you were buried with might tell the archaeologist more about the culture of your defeated opponents than about your own 8)
Though we might be cautious about treating all things are culture-neutral. There are hints that styles of dress could be cultural identifiers. If you were a Jute, it might be important that you wore a Jutish brooch, rather than a Saxon one, as a symbol of belonging. Whereas a nice spear might be just a nice spear. Not really studied this but use of styles of dress or ornament as a cultural identifier has a solid social anthropological pedigree.
Absolutely, Cynan returns with 18 Irish battle coats whatever they were they were distinctive of Brychienog's elite warriors. The deed was worthy of Bardic mention and that's how we know.
On the other hand if you killed a particularly formidable enemy warrior you might well wear his personal bling. Not to ape him, or his culture, but more to remind everyone of the deed.
Or just not have your cloak fall off.
I thought that archaeologists had rather backed away from the idea of culturally definition by grave goods. It might make sense to say that there might be a relationship between two groups that had similar brooch styles, but was this a matter of brooch makers travelling, of merchants following a trade route or the same group moving with its style going with it? Some of the Danubian style accoutrements said to be definers of ethnicity are actually manufactured within the Roman Empire to service a market in and across the Danube.
Is it true that finds in Britain do not reflect direct contact with continental styles that are from areas thar ought to ndicate where the invaders came from. So if the grave goods represent ethnicities we should be able to plot migration...but I understand that its all my much more complex and difficult and it may be that when a chap was interred his burial party were not thinking about declaring their nationality to future generations?
Roy
very true Roy. Latest thinking is that it was a blend especially in frontier areas
There's always utility.
Quote from: Anton on October 08, 2020, 04:26:38 PM
There's always utility.
Yes, always start from utility. Then there is fashion. Then there is identity. Are those football fans all wearing those replica kits because they happened to be in the drawer, or because they are trendy or because they support the team, and the name and the number on the back is the hero they particularly root for? In this picture of teenage girls from the early 70s, are they wearing tartan scarves because their necks are cold, because they Scottish, because they follow the Bay City Rollers or a combination of the above?
I'm no fan of material culture defined divisions in archaeology but nor should we assume that what is in a grave is random or insignificant to the deceased or, perhaps more significantly, to the funeral party.
It is really difficult to separate specific items and classify them as x culture or y culture but I guess the total sum points the way on balance
I think it was Guy Halsall who pointed out that grave goods varied according to the context at the time of burial. Thus , in stressed times, and when the ceremony was in the community rather than 'We the extended family of X can afford rich accoutrements to put into a grave and the slaughter of horses and or slaves and so on. That might include a marker of ethnicity which claimed the support of a wider group or a relationship to the mystic power of Rome . I recall that Prof Halsall tied the burials into the historical context and that it was an act of show by the heirs and associates.
So it's what the burial means in immediate context that is important. It might be important that there is something that looks like a marker of ethnicity in order for the group to state a connection with a powerful group, or it might be a case of burying the deceased with that brooch ge took in a raid on Kent ten years ago. Its going to be much easier to paint a picture of the context if there are many graves with a dateable sequence tgat enable us to estimate the pressures on the group performing the burial when it was actually occurring. So the man by the Thames might be relatively ordinary, but buried prominently so his group can make a point, or pretty important but buried rather privately abd modestly on family land because his relatives were not making a public statement.
I think you are right re it being Guy Halsall and the context of the burial with the goods and accoutrements etc especially in stressed times. As you say, the ideal would be a series of burials across a time period in the same vicinity to 'track' the progression and flux of outward trappings and socio-political affectations
Didn't Peter Heather comment on GH's funeral research and link some of the practice under the dominance of the Huns?
I would have thought the funeral as public spectacle would relate not just to asserting identity but also status within that identity. Legal rights probably.
Influential, that Guy Halsall paper. It transformed my thinking on burial archaeology - that it wasn't just about the afterlife but the ongoing position of those left behind.
To go back to the original report, they don't mention detecting a barrow. High status burials of the time often had a barrow as a memorial . While it may have been ploughed out, traces usually remain.
Agreed Stephen, status and legality are very important to Early Medieval people and in a largely non literate society people have to be shown who owns what and who is a power in the land, at least in part because the legal system is jury based and you need worthwhile and trustworthy people to attest to your inherited rights and duties. A funeral is a potential big occasion for displaying wealth and power and having clients turn up. As is a weddibg, of course, but then the evidence doesn't get preserved in the ground.
We still do not understand what the motivations for the selection of particular grave goods are and have thebproblem that , fery often there is not the density and continuity of sample that would tell us something. Does burial with two spears tell us that this was the norm weapon set? Does a heavier spear in richer graves tell us that the better off had heavier kit and fought closer or just that poorer families could not afford to waste the iron?
The great service archaeologists have done is assert that the reasoning behind grave deposition is to do with what the people at the time wanted to show, not what the diggers hoped we would be told.
Roy