Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T17:15:10.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RETHINKING HARDOWN HILL: OUR WESTERNMOST EARLY ANGLO-SAXON CEMETERY?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2014

Matthew Austin
Matthew Austin*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading RG6 6AB, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper reassesses the early Anglo-Saxon assemblage from Hardown Hill, Dorset. Wingrave excavated the objects in 1916 but apart from his 1931 report, and Evison's 1968 analysis, there has been little subsequent discussion. Despite a lack of human remains, the assemblage has been interpreted as representing an early Anglo-Saxon cemetery – our westernmost burial site by a considerable distance and one that pre-dates the historically attested seventh-century expansion of Wessex. The following typological reclassification and contextual analysis casts serious doubts on a funerary context. Instead, an alternative interpretation is presented that views the assemblage as a useful collection of metalwork, intended to be reforged and recycled, which was presumably deposited for safekeeping and never retrieved. Such a reinterpretation highlights the need for a critical reappraisal of material from older excavations. It also has implications for our understanding of post-Roman Dorset, and for the distribution of fifth- and sixth-century Anglo-Saxon material culture more broadly.

Résumé

Cet article réexamine la construction anglo-saxonne très ancienne de Hardown Hill, dans le Dorset. Wingrave a mis au jour des objets en 1916 mais, hormis son rapport de 1931 et l'analyse d'Evison en 1968, il y a eu peu de discussions ultérieures. Malgré l'absence de restes humains, cette construction a été interprétée comme étant un ancien cimetière anglo-saxonne, notre site de funérailles de très loin le plus occidental, qui date d'avant à l'expansion du Wessex du VIIe siècle attestée par des sources historiques. La reclassification typologique et l'analyse textuelle suivantes jettent de sérieux doutes sur le contexte funéraire. Au lieu de cela, l'interprétation présentée considère que cette construction est une collection utile d'objets en métal, dans le but de les recycler en les forgeant à nouveau, probablement déposés pour les conserver mais jamais récupérés. Cette nouvelle interprétation souligne la nécessité de réévaluer d'un il critique les objets trouvés dans des fouilles plus anciennes. En outre, elle influence notre compréhension du Dorset post-romain et de la répartition de la culture matérielle anglo-saxonne des Ve et VIe siècles de manière générale.

Zusammenfassung

In dieser Abhandlung werden die angelsächsischen Funde von Hardown Hill, Dorset, neu bewertet. Wingrave brachte die Gegenstände 1916 zutage, aber außer seinem Bericht von 1931 und Evisons Analyse von 1968 wurde dieses Thema in der Folge nur wenig behandelt. Trotz des Fehlens menschlicher Überreste wurde der Fundplatz als ein frühes angelsächsisches Gräberfeld interpretiert, und zwar nicht nur die bei weitem westlichste Grabstätte, sondern auch als eine, die der historisch belegten Erweiterung von Wessex im 7. Jahrhundert zeitlich vorangeht. Die nachfolgende typologische Neuklassifizierung und Kontextanalyse stellt jedoch einen Begräbniskontext stark in Zweifel. Stattdessen wird eine alternative Interpretation präsentiert, wonach die Funde als eine nützliche Sammlung von Metallteilen anzusehen ist, die später neu gestaltet oder recycelt werden sollten und die wahrscheinlich zur sicheren Verwahrung hier aufbewahrt, aber nie geborgen wurden. Eine derartige Neuinterpretation verweist auf die Notwendigkeit einer kritischen Neubewertung des Materials aus älteren Ausgrabungen. Des Weiteren hat dies Auswirkungen auf unser Verständnis von Dorset in nachrömischer Zeit und von der Verbreitung der angelsächsischen Sachkultur des 5. und 6. Jahrhunderts ganz allgemein.

Type
Papers
Information
The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 94 , September 2014 , pp. 49 - 69
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Addyman, P V, Leigh, DHughes, M J 1972. ‘Anglo-Saxon houses at Chalton, Hampshire’, Medieval Archaeol, 16, 13–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avent, REvison, V I 1982. ‘Anglo-Saxon button brooches’, Archaeologia, 107, 77–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, W A 1893. ‘The recent discovery of human remains at Wareham House, Dorchester’, Proc Dorset Natur Hist Archaeol Soc, 14, 105–107Google Scholar
Baxter, K 2004. ‘Extrinsic factors that affect the preservation of bone’, Nebraska Anthropologist, 19, 38–45Google Scholar
Bayliss, Aet al 2008. Radiocarbon Dates from Samples Funded by English Heritage under the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund 2004–7, English Heritage, SwindonGoogle Scholar
Bayliss, A, Hines, JHøilund Nielsen, K 2013. ‘Integrations and comparisons’, in Hines and Bayliss 2013, 459–92Google Scholar
Bowen, H C 1968. ‘Addendum’, Proc Dorset Natur Hist Archaeol Soc, 90, 240Google Scholar
Brothwell, D 1971. ‘Forensic aspects of the so-called Neolithic skeleton Q1 from Maiden Castle, Dorset’, World Archaeol, 3 (2), 231–241CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cox, P W 1989. ‘A seventh-century inhumation cemetery at Shepherd's Farm, Ulwell, near Swanage, Dorset’, Proc Dorset Natur Hist Archaeol Soc, 110, 37–48Google Scholar
Cranfield University 2013. Soils Guide, 〈http://www.landis.org.uk/services/soilsguide/index.cfm〉 (29 Apr 2014)Google Scholar
Cumberland, A 1938. ‘Saxon cemetery, “Riseley”, Horton Kirby’, Trans Dartford Dist Antiq Soc, 8, 15–29Google Scholar
Dark, K R 1994. Civitas to Kingdom: British political continuity 300–800, Leicester University Press, LeicesterGoogle Scholar
Dark, K R 2000. Britain and the End of the Roman Empire, Tempus, StroudGoogle Scholar
Dark, K R 2004. ‘The late antique landscape of Britain, AD 300–700’, in N Christie (ed), Landscapes of Change: rural evolutions in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages, 279–299, Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar
Dickinson, T 2005. ‘Symbols of protection: the significance of animal-ornamented shields in early Anglo-Saxon England’, Medieval Archaeol, 49, 109–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickinson, THärke, H 1992. Early Anglo-Saxon Shields, Archaeologia 110, Society of Antiquaries of London, LondonGoogle Scholar
Drinkall, G 1998. ‘Knives and tanged implements’, in G Drinkall and M Foreman (eds), The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Castledyke South, Barton-on-Humber, 279–284, Sheffield Academic Press, SheffieldGoogle Scholar
Eagles, BMortimer, C 1993. ‘Early Anglo-Saxon artefacts from Hod Hill, Dorset’, Antiq J, 73, 132–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evison, V I 1955. ‘Early Anglo-Saxon inlaid metalwork’, Antiq J, 35, 20–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evison, V I 1956. ‘An Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Holborough, Kent’, Archaeol Cantiana, 70, 84–141Google Scholar
Evison, V I 1965. The Fifth-century Invasions South of the Thames, Athlone Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
Evison, V I 1968. ‘The Anglo-Saxon finds from Hardown Hill’, Proc Dorset Natur Hist Archaeol Soc, 90, 232–240Google Scholar
Evison, V I 1987. Dover: the Buckland Anglo-Saxon cemetery, Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, LondonGoogle Scholar
Faulkner, N 2004. ‘The case for the Dark Ages’, in R Collis and J Gerrard (eds), Debating Late Antiquity in Britain AD 300–700, 5–12, BAR Brit Ser 365, Archaeopress, OxfordGoogle Scholar
Flemming, R 2012. ‘Recycling in Britain after the fall of Rome's metal economy’, Past Present, 217, 3–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, C S 1984. ‘Early Anglo-Saxon burials at the “Trumpet Major” public house, Alington Avenue, Dorchester’, Proc Dorset Natur Hist Archaeol Soc, 106, 149–152Google Scholar
Green, C S, Lynch, FWhite, H 1982. ‘The excavation of two round barrows on Launceston Down, Dorset (Long Crichel 5 and 7)’, Proc Dorset Natur Hist Archaeol Soc, 104, 39–58Google Scholar
Grinsell, L V 1959. Dorset Barrows, Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society, DorchesterGoogle Scholar
Grinsell, L V 1982. Dorset Barrows Supplement, Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society, DorchesterGoogle Scholar
Härke, H 1989. ‘Knives in early Anglo-Saxon burials: blade length and age at death’, Medieval Archaeol, 33, 144–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Härke, H 1990. ‘ “Warrior graves”? The background of the Anglo-Saxon weapon burial rite’, Past Present, 126, 22–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Härke, H 2005. ‘The Anglo-Saxon weapon burial rite: an interdisciplinary analysis’, Opus, 3, 197–207Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J B 1981. ‘Bradford Peverell, a further grave’, Proc Dorset Natur Hist Archaeol Soc, 103, 126Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J BGreen, C J S 1977. ‘Bradford Peverell, Frome View’, Proc Dorset Natur Hist Archaeol Soc, 99, 120Google Scholar
Henig, M 2004. ‘Remaining Roman in Britain AD 300–700: the evidence of portable art’, in R Collis and J Gerrard (eds), Debating Late Antiquity in Britain AD 300–700, 13–23, BAR Brit Ser 365, Archaeopress, OxfordGoogle Scholar
Hines, J 2013. Anglo-Saxon Graves and Grave Goods of the 6th and 7th Centuries AD: a chronological framework [data set], 〈http://dx.doi.org/10.5284/1018290〉 (30 Apr 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hines, JBayliss, A 2013. Anglo-Saxon Graves and Grave Goods of the 6th and 7th Centuries AD: a chronological framework, Society for Medieval Archaeology, LondonGoogle Scholar
Hines, J, Scull, CBayliss, A 2013. ‘The results and their implications’, in Hines and Bayliss 2013, 517–71Google Scholar
Hinton, D A 1998. Saxons and Vikings, Dovecot Press, Wimborne MinsterGoogle Scholar
Hoare, R C 1812. The Ancient History of South Wiltshire, William Miller, LondonGoogle Scholar
Høilund Nielsen, K 2013. ‘Typology’, in Hines and Bayliss 2013, 133–229Google Scholar
Hoskins, W G 1960. The Westward Expansion of Wessex, Department English Local Hist Occas Pap 13, Leicester University Press, LeicesterGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, K 1980. ‘An Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Bargates, Christchurch, Dorset’, in P A Rahtz, T Dickinson and L Watts (eds), Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries in 1979: the fourth Anglo-Saxon symposium at Oxford, 307–309, BAR Brit Ser 82, British Archaeological Reports, OxfordGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, K, Arnold, C, Janaway, RKeepax, C 1983. ‘The Bargates pagan-Saxon cemetery with late Neolithic and Bronze Age sites’, in K Jarvis (ed), Excavations in Christchurch 1969–1980, 102–144, Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society, DorchesterGoogle Scholar
Keen, L JHawthorne, J B 1978. ‘Bradford Peverell, Frome View’, Proc Dorset Natur Hist Archaeol Soc, 100, 112Google Scholar
Keen, L JHawthorne, J B 1979. ‘Bradford Peverell, Saxon cemetery’, Proc Dorset Natur Hist Archaeol Soc, 101, 133Google Scholar
Kerep, A 2012. ‘Spearheads’, in K Parfitt and T Anderson, Buckland Anglo-Saxon Cemetery, Dover. Excavations 1994, 61–69, Canterbury Archaeological Trust, CanterburyGoogle Scholar
Ladle, L 2012. Excavations at Bestwall Quarry, Wareham 1992–2005. Vol 2: The Iron Age and Later Landscape, Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society, DorchesterGoogle Scholar
Laing, L 1975. The Archaeology of Late Celtic Britain and Ireland c 400–1200 AD, Methuen & Co, LondonGoogle Scholar
Leeds, E T 1945. ‘The distribution of the Angles and Saxons archaeologically considered’, Archaeologia, 91, 1–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loader, EHearne, C M 1999. ‘Tolpuddle Ball Cemetery (Phase 5A)’, in C M Hearne and V Birbeck (eds), A35 Tolpuddle to Puddletown Bypass DBFO, Dorset, 1996–8: incorporating excavation at Tolpuddle Ball 1993, 55–63, Wessex Archaeology, SalisburyGoogle Scholar
Lucy, S 2000. The Anglo-Saxon Way of Death: burial rites in early England, Sutton Publishing, StroudGoogle Scholar
Meaney, A 1964. A Gazetteer of Early Anglo-Saxon Burial Sites, George Allen & Unwin, LondonGoogle Scholar
Meaney, A 1981. Anglo-Saxon Amulets and Curing Stones, BAR Brit Ser 96, British Archaeological Reports, OxfordGoogle Scholar
Morgan, A 2011. ‘EDAS lecture: bones, ritual and rubbish with Lilian Ladle’, East Dorset Antiq Soc Newslett, Oct, 1–2Google Scholar
National Soil Resources Institute 2013. Academic Soils Site Report for Location 340702E, 94587N, 1km x 1km, 〈https://www.landis.org.uk/sitereporter〉 (9 Dec 2013)Google Scholar
Okasha, E 1993. Corpus of Early Christian Inscribed Stones of South-west Britain, Leicester University Press, LeicesterGoogle Scholar
RCHME 1952. An Inventory of Historical Monuments in the County of Dorset. Vol 1: West, HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, ASemple, S 2011. ‘Anglo-Saxon non-funerary weapon depositions’, in S Brooks, S Harrington and A Reynolds (eds), Studies in Early Anglo-Saxon Art and Archaeology: papers in honour of Martin G Welch, 40–48, BAR Brit Ser 527, Archaeopress, OxfordGoogle Scholar
Semple, S 2013. Perceptions of the Prehistoric in Anglo-Saxon England: religion, ritual and rulership in the landscape, Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharples, N M 1991. English Heritage Book of Maiden Castle, B T Batsford, LondonGoogle Scholar
Smith, C R 1852. Collectanea Antiqua: etchings and notices of ancient remains illustrative of the habits, customs and history of past ages, J R Smith, LondonGoogle Scholar
Smith, R A 1923. British Museum Guide to Anglo-Saxon Antiquities, British Museum, LondonGoogle Scholar
Swanton, M J 1974. A Corpus of Pagan Anglo-Saxon Spear-Types, BAR Brit Ser 7, British Archaeological Reports, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, R B 2007. Roman Woodworking, Yale University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, M 1943. Maiden Castle, Dorset, Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 12, Society of Antiquaries of London, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wingrave, W 1931. ‘An Anglo-Saxon burial on Hardown Hill’, Proc Dorset Natur Hist Archaeol Soc, 53, 247–249Google Scholar