|
27 Nov 07 - 11:43 AM (#2203201) Subject: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: Goose Gander 7th century royal burial site found in north of England |
|
27 Nov 07 - 11:55 AM (#2203207) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: katlaughing Wow, how neat! Thanks! |
|
27 Nov 07 - 12:03 PM (#2203215) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: MMario very interesting! I do find that the coroner being the one to determine whether or not the find is "treasure" strikes me as odd. Why the Coroner? |
|
27 Nov 07 - 12:06 PM (#2203221) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: katlaughing Because a body once was in the grave? Determine age and cause of death, even though there is no body left? Good question, MMario. Must be some kind of formality! |
|
27 Nov 07 - 12:47 PM (#2203244) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: TheSnail Because it's part of their job under the Treasure Act 1996. |
|
27 Nov 07 - 01:07 PM (#2203255) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: Beer Love hearing and reading about these finds when they take place. Thanks for sharing. Beer (adrien) |
|
27 Nov 07 - 01:16 PM (#2203260) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: MMario well - I *know* it was part of the Act - I was wondering *WHY*? but this site here explains...sorta. Still doesn't make sense to me. |
|
28 Nov 07 - 01:10 AM (#2203692) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: Sandra in Sydney I finally got back, I thought I'd never return from following all the fascinating archaeology links. wot fun! sandra (ps thanks, Michael) |
|
28 Nov 07 - 07:06 AM (#2203771) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: GUEST,Santa What's this about royal burials only in the south? Was that really true about the Northumbrian kings? Although coming previously from East Anglia, they didn't have strong ties to the south - quite the alternative! |
|
28 Nov 07 - 07:17 AM (#2203777) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: GUEST,PMB I'm sure they got buried in Northumbria, and Bernicia, Deira, and Elmet, and Strathclyde (the last two were Celtic not AS). But there aren't many burial sites known in all Britain anyway, there's been a fair amount of erosion round the coast which could have destroyed some burials (especially Deira), and other burials could be masked by later structures, like cathedrals. I think Youk Minster and Ber=verley would be good places to look if they'd let us pull them down. |
|
28 Nov 07 - 08:30 AM (#2203805) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: A Wandering Minstrel Mmario, It is because the Coroner (a probable contraction of "crown officer") was responsible for things found buried in the ground particularly if valuables were dug up which, if unclaimed, became the property of the crown. The title covers more than dead bodies. |
|
28 Nov 07 - 10:18 AM (#2203868) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: GUEST,Santa PMB. We could also look on Iona, and north of the Solway, and Lothian. I understood that there was likely to be tombs on the Wolds above Beverley, but I don't know where I got that idea from. It may just be romantic fantasy. It was not the lack of known sites that surprised me, it was the suggestion that all Anglo-Saxon kings were buried in the south, as if this was some sort of acknowledged practice. It just doesn't make sense. Suth anglii prejudice, methinks |
|
28 Nov 07 - 10:22 AM (#2203870) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: MMario well they do say that it is "is thought to be the only known Anglo-Saxon royal burial site in the north of England." |
|
28 Nov 07 - 12:50 PM (#2203981) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: GUEST,leeneia Thanks for the link, Michael. Most interesting! Does anybody know the meaning of 'Ethel' and 'Aethel', which were so common in AS names? It is only reasonable to have the coroner involved where a treasure is found. Few people can say whether a body has been in the ground 75 years or 700. Yet in the first instance, the person might have family with emotional ties or a claim to jewelry or other valuables found with them. |
|
28 Nov 07 - 12:54 PM (#2203983) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: Emma B According to this site it means "noble" |
|
28 Nov 07 - 09:25 PM (#2204362) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: The Fooles Troupe A Wandering Minstrel is correct - it comes from the days when the English Power WAS the Crown (short term for the Crowned King), and such power was delegated out to various local officers. Investigation of deaths was a very serious and important function - since the King held only to himself the power to execute his subjects - indeed murder was almosed ranked near treason as an act aginst the power of the King. The 'Coroner' once held many serious powers. |
|
28 Nov 07 - 09:43 PM (#2204371) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: GUEST,leeneia Thank you, Emma B. I suppose Ethel is related to the German, 'edel," which also means noble. (I had a grandmother and have a cousin named Ethel.) |
|
29 Nov 07 - 04:09 AM (#2204478) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: GUEST,PMB leeneia: Few people can say whether a body has been in the ground 75 years or 700. About 20 years ago human remains were found by a peat- digger in Lindow Moss, Cheshire (UK). A forensic scientist identified them as the remains of a woman aged 20-35 years. Shortly afterwards, a local man confessed to murdering his wife some 20 years before, and burying her body in the moss. It was only after his conviction that carbon dating showed that the body was over 2000 years old. |
|
29 Nov 07 - 04:29 AM (#2204486) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: Stu The bog bodies of Lindow Moss are incredible - it's not fashionable for the English to acknowledge their Celtic past let alone claim it as part of their identity but the discovery of Lindow Man (or Pete Moss as he was named in the local press) generated an enormous amount of interest. He was in Manchester Museum for a while before those pesky southerners kidnapped the poor lad an took him to London, and even though I was uneasy about the manner of his display, it was fascinating to come face to face with one of our ancestors 'in the flesh' so to speak(actually, more like 'in the leather' as the tannin in the peat had turned him into a bit of coarse, hairy orange leather). |
|
29 Nov 07 - 05:36 AM (#2204502) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: GUEST,Santa "it's not fashionable for the English to acknowledge their Celtic past let alone claim it as part of their identity" Boadicea? Isn't there a statue opposite Westminster? King Arthur? A round table in Winchester? Seems to me that the English are perfectly happy with their Celtic past and Norman/French/German rulers, but are embarrassed to mention their real Anglo-Saxon history, preferring to rely on some pre-Roman idylls and the glories(?) of the Vikings. (This seems even more true of Scotland, with their romantic highland fantasies. Please go start another thread if you object to that.) This is on a par with the snubbing of English folk music (though I'm not suggesting that goes back to the Anglo-Saxons). |
|
29 Nov 07 - 06:21 AM (#2204512) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: GUEST,LTS pretending to work Part of the problem is that ancient history is no longer taught at school. A typical school history curriculum covers the Ancient Egyptians, the Romans, the Norman Conquest, the Tudors and the two World Wars. Certainly in my own history lessons, we jumped straight from Vespasian to Victoria via Henry VIII, with only a passing mention of William of Normandy. We missed out myriad monarchs, at least two civil wars, a Rump Parliament and the invention of the steam engine - over a thousand years worth, not even mentioned in 3 years worth of lessons. There's so much more to being English than wearing a bowler hat and understanding Cricket. We barely scrape the surface at school, only those with a genuine interest will continue to pursue historical studies and they're few and far between these days. LTS |
|
29 Nov 07 - 06:40 AM (#2204517) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: GUEST,PMB Being English is wearing a flat cap and understanding whippets. The flat cap is descended from ancient Celtic headgear (Welsh yr capp fflath, Old Irish chtheaph fhlahertheagh (pronounced "shufflebottom"), via the Roman gallea plana. One was found on a preserved leatherised old maid by gold diggers in Kate Moss, and carbon dated to 4000 years before a week last Thursday. Sadly her bicycle had been clamped, as she'd left it on the village green. We learned a lot about ancient British history at school, what with King Arthur burning the cakes, and Hereford the Wake and Edgar the Allthings, and infangthief and outfangthief and piepowder and Trial by Ordure all that. I can't say it gave me much of a feeling of Englishness though, apart from the folks being mostly Irish 3 or 4 generations back, they never seemed to have much to say about people who worked in foundries and pits and tripe factories round Salford. |
|
29 Nov 07 - 07:52 AM (#2204556) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: GUEST,Elfcall Guest PMB Sellars and Yeatman would have been proud of you - Trial by Ordure - very funny ROTFLMAO. Elfcall |
|
29 Nov 07 - 03:41 PM (#2204959) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: Arnie I know it's being done in the name of archeology, but I still feel a bit uneasy about graves being dug up and the contents removed. Whatever happened to requiet in pace? We haven't started digging up the Victorians yet but don't raise any objection to digging up our medieval ancestors.Is there a time limit on respect for the dead? - discuss in 250 words.... |
|
29 Nov 07 - 04:22 PM (#2205000) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: Liz the Squeak Err... we have dug up many Victorians, usually in the name of progress... Lots of urban churchyards have been paved over to provide revenue-generating office space. LTS |
|
29 Nov 07 - 04:25 PM (#2205003) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: MMario well - I figure if the grave is old enough that natural process had eliminated the bodies (note - they mentioned that no bones remained) that in many ways you can't really consider it a grave anymore. |
|
29 Nov 07 - 04:50 PM (#2205027) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: Santa That's an entirely legitimate question. It would, however, do away with large elements of archaeology. Burial practices vary with culture: there is no one right way. Even within the UK there has been a wide range of different approaches to the right way to treat a body. I believe that death is the end of the person, and the body is just waste material. However, many others do not feel that way, so it is reasonable to wait until everyone who knew that person had also died, so that there was no longer a direct connection. This is to pay due respect to the living: the dead need no such. Let alone those who can only be identified as such by stains in the soil, and the trinkets they left behind. |
|
29 Nov 07 - 05:31 PM (#2205061) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: Rowan It would, however, do away with large elements of archaeology. Which is a very sensitive subject in different parts of the world. There are some places where a burial plot (as variously defined) is not "owned" but merely "rented"; the durations and other restrictions applicable also vary. Those physical anthropologist who wish to study skeletal remains don't have a lot of choice, as there are very few collections available; Spitalfields is one I recall. The attitudes of the nonarchaeological public to those who study human remains and their study methods varies enormously too. When a colonising population becomes dominant, the cultural requirements of the colonised are frequently ignored and often flouted, as anyone familiar with archaeology in Australia would know. It's wise to tread very carefully in such circumstances. Cheers, Rowan |
|
29 Nov 07 - 10:41 PM (#2205241) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: Q (Frank Staplin) Under NAGPRA, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, legislation that became U. S. law in 1990, native groups can influence the disposition and treatment of human remains and associated artifacts, as well as reclaim objects important in tribal religion and history. This includes artifacts used in ceremonies, or otherwise with religious significance. Hawai'i is included in the Act. Many objects have been reclaimed and returned to the tribes. Bones stored in museums and other collections public or private must be returned to tribal custody, if the request is made by tribal authorities and decision made in their favor (not denied if any evidence shows that the objects belong in their history). Material in private hands is subject to the Act, limiting collector's holdings. Updates are published in "American Indian Arts Magazine," listing decisions, articles repatriated, an both the divested collection and the end disposition. The British Library has these updates on line for subscribers because tribal authorities are seeking return of materials from all repositories and some cases are in the courts. There is, of course, no legal means at present for the return of materials from foreign holdings, but some have been returned on principle. Moreover, exavation and/or removal of any artifacts from tribal lands, graves, ruins or archaeological sites on tribal lands, is forbidden or at the permission of tribal authorities. Dealing in these objects is forbidden, with penalties and confiscation. Some remains of ancient man are in dispute; archeologists want to study them, but further work is not possible until litigation is completed. Tribes have the right to restrict access to their lands. |
|
30 Nov 07 - 04:12 AM (#2205346) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: GUEST,PMB In Britain, there's a sort of general presumption that about 50 years is ok, subject to permission from surviving family. This applies both to archaeology and redevelopment, though archaeologists don't like unexpectedly finding recent remains, as the police will probably get involved. Church of England grounds are seldom disturbed- this marks a change of practice from previous centuries, when old graves were dug up to make room for new (see Hamlet)- and bones found are reburied in consecrated ground. All archaeologists treat human remains with reverence as well as fascination- after all, their profession is to extract the maximum information from the deposits. If it can be presumed that the remains are those of a Christian, arrangements are frequently made for them to reburied at the local church. As for beliefs, I don't think anyone has the right to demand that their corpse remain undisturbed for ever- dust to dust as the Bible says. You were built from the materials of the earth, and should expect to be recycled. Christians and most other religions of couse agree with atheists that the bones aren't 'you' anyway- the spirit or mind has departed. |
|
30 Nov 07 - 08:08 AM (#2205426) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: A Wandering Minstrel Burke and Hare had little problem with digging up victorians.:) I believe however that in archaeological finds the bones are usually reburied. |
|
30 Nov 07 - 08:56 AM (#2205446) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: gnomad Sorry, WM, not victorians, Burke & Hare operated before Victoria was crowned. She was about 8 at that time, and would become Queen 10 years later. Mind, I had to look 'em both up, until today I thought B&H were 18th century. Like several others here, I don't see harm in excavating/exhuming provided that any remains found are treated with respect. I do feel, however, that a case exists for not disturbing where a longstanding family plot is still in use, with succeeding generations being added. We need to show sensitivity towards the still living. |
|
30 Nov 07 - 09:11 PM (#2205957) Subject: RE: BS: 7th century burial site north England From: Rowan As for beliefs, I don't think anyone has the right to demand that their corpse remain undisturbed for ever- dust to dust as the Bible says. Not everyone regards that text (in any of its versions) as having any authority in the matter. The legislative situation Q describes for the US has operated in most parts of Oz since the early 70s but applies to all Aboriginal artefacts whether found on private or public lands. However, unlike all other legislation in Oz, the relevant legislation in all Oz jurisdictions allows ignorance as a successful defence against prosecution; only trained archaeologists can thus be successfully prosecuted. Artefacts that were in private possession before the various Acts came into being are exempt from their provisions but usually come under Heritage legislation. And although We need to show sensitivity towards the still living, the application of such sensitivity towards Aboriginal remains in Oz means that negotiation must occur between archaeologists and the relevant Aboriginal groups and institutions. This hasn't always been the case and the 1980s were a watershed in this area. While some Aboriginal people may be interested in archaeology, others are hostile to both the discipline and the practitioners. Tasmanian Aboriginal people are still having trouble with the British Museum. Cheers, Rowan |