Whodunnit?
Grave-robbery in early medieval northern
and western Europe
AM Klevnäs
Girton College
University of Cambridge
Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of
work done in collaboration except where specifically indicated in the text.
This dissertation does not exceed the limits set by the Archaeology and Anthropology degree
committee.

Whodunnit?
Grave-robbery in early medieval northern and western
Europe
AM Klevnäs, Girton College, University of Cambridge, 2010
Abstract
This thesis brings together all that is currently known of early medieval grave reopening in
northern and western Europe. It investigates in detail an intensive outbreak of grave-robbery in
6th-7th century Kent. This is closely related to the same phenomenon in Merovingia: an example
of the import of not only material goods but also a distinctive cultural practice. Limited numbers
of similar robbing episodes, affecting a much smaller proportion of graves in each cemetery, are
also identified elsewhere in Anglo-Saxon England.
Although the phenomenon of grave-robbery is well-attested in Merovingia, this research is the
first study at a regional level. The aim is to advance the debate about early medieval robbery from
general discussion of interpretative possibilities to evaluation of specific models and their
compatibility with the archaeological evidence. The conclusions have significant implications for
the interpretation of grave-robbery across early medieval Europe.
In Kent robbing is at a level that must be considered in any discussion of cemetery evidence. The
poor publication record has inhibited recognition and analysis of robbing in the county.
However, by using extensive archive material, this thesis has shown that the practice of
ransacking graves was on a similar scale in East Kent as in Merovingia. This research identifies
over 200 reopened graves across Kent, with at least 15 sites affected. At the most intensely
robbed sites, an average of over 20% of burials were disturbed. Robbing is likely to have had a
significant impact on artefact finds, especially from the late 6th century onwards.
Grave-robbery opens a window onto the wider meanings and values of grave-good types within
the early medieval period. The analysis in this thesis demonstrates that the main motive for
reopening was the removal of grave goods. However, straightforward personal enrichment was
not the goal. A deliberate, consistent selection of certain grave-good types were taken from
burials, while other apparently covetable possessions were left behind. The desired grave-goods
were removed even when in an unusable condition. It is argued that the selection of goods for
removal was related to their symbolic roles in the initial burial rite. Their taking was intended to
harm living descendants by damaging the prestige and strength of the dead.
In addition to the robbed graves, there is a small number of graves spread across the sites which
were reopened for bodily mutilation or rearrangement of skeletal parts. These closely resemble
the better known deviant burial rites which were applied to certain corpses at the time of initial
burial and are interpreted as a reaction to fear of revenants.
In modern Britain burial is a finite and final process: the definitive disposal of a dead body. The
archaeological and ethnographic records contain many examples of more complex series of
events to enable the dead to move on from the living. The material remains of such processes
can be seen in revisited and reopened graves, and in myriad manipulations of human bodies. This
case study is a detailed, contextualised investigation of the after-history of burial monuments
focused on the early middle ages.

iContents
List of tables................................................................................................................................. iii
List of figures................................................................................................................................ v
Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................... ix
1 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1
2 Merovingia and Beyond......................................................................................................... 11
3 Kent and Beyond: Introduction ........................................................................................... 63
4 Results and Analysis: Where and When .............................................................................. 73
4.1 Extent of early disturbance................................................................................... 73
4.2 Excavators............................................................................................................... 74
4.3 Distribution of disturbed sites ............................................................................. 75
4.4 Dimensions ............................................................................................................. 76
4.5 Grave markers and structures .............................................................................. 80
4.6 Coffins ..................................................................................................................... 86
4.7 Age ........................................................................................................................... 88
4.8 Gender..................................................................................................................... 90
4.9 Date.......................................................................................................................... 92
5 Results and Analysis: How .................................................................................................. 109
5.1 Robbing methods................................................................................................. 109
5.2 Mixing of grave contents .................................................................................... 124
5.3 Backfilling.............................................................................................................. 125
5.4 Spatial distribution of disturbed burials within cemeteries............................ 129
6 Results and Analysis: Why................................................................................................... 141
6.1 Grave-goods ......................................................................................................... 141
6.2 Multiple burials and grave reuse ........................................................................ 162
6.3 Ritual treatment of human remains................................................................... 168
6.4 Anglo-Saxon written sources ............................................................................. 175
7 Beyond Kent ......................................................................................................................... 181
7.1 Disturbed sites elsewhere in Anglo-Saxon England....................................... 181
7.2 Earlier and later .................................................................................................... 192
8 Conclusions: Interpreting early medieval grave-robbery ................................................ 195
Tables......................................................................................................................................... 215
Figures ....................................................................................................................................... 269
References ................................................................................................................................. 355
Appendix 1. Kent Sites ........................................................................................................... 381
Appendix 2. Checklist: Recognising Ancient Robbing....................................................... 465
ii
iii
List of tables
Table 1: Disturbed cemeteries in western and central Europe ......................................... 215
Table 2: Kent graves identified as disturbed in antiquity by Richardson .......................... 68
Table 3: Kent graves identified as disturbed in antiquity by Härke.................................... 69
Table 4: Dimensions of disturbed graves in Kent ................................................................ 77
Table 5: Sarre grave-goods from all excavations 1843-1990 ............................................. 146
Table 6: Kent sites: extensive early disturbance .................................................................. 219
Dates and overall levels of disturbance................................................................... 219
Gender ......................................................................................................................... 220
Age................................................................................................................................ 221
Dimensions ................................................................................................................. 222
Coffins and structural features: ditches and mounds............................................ 223
Structural features: slots, postholes, ledges, blocks ............................................... 224
Artefacts....................................................................................................................... 225
Table 7: Kent sites: limited or doubtful early disturbance ................................................. 226
Table 8: Kent sites: no early disturbance.............................................................................. 227
Table 9: Broadstairs I, Bradstow School (Dumpton Park, Valetta House)..................... 228
Table 10: Broadstairs III, St. Peter’s Tip .............................................................................. 234
Table 11: Lyminge II ............................................................................................................... 247
Table 12: Monkton I, Primrose Hill...................................................................................... 248
Table 13: Northbourne I, Finglesham .................................................................................. 249
Table 14: Ramsgate IV, Ozengell (Osengal, Ozingell, Lord of the Manor)................... 256
Table 15: Sarre I ....................................................................................................................... 260
Table 16: Disturbed Anglo-Saxon cemeteries outside Kent ............................................. 266
iv
vList of figures
Figure 1: Map of disturbed cemeteries in western and central Europe (a large format version is bound at the back of
this volume) ............................................................................................................................................................... 269
Figure 2: Plan of Brunn am Gebirge, Flur Wolfholz, Lower Austria (after Aspöck 2002) ............................................. 270
Figure 3: Brunn am Gebirge, Austria, Graves 5, 9, 13, 20, 23, 26, 46 (after Aspöck 2002)............................................. 271
Figure 4: Bülach, Switzerland, finds from Graves 285 and 286 (from Werner 1953) ...................................................... 272
Figure 5: Pliening, Ebersberg, Bavaria, finds from Gr 105 and Gr 79 (from Codreanu-Windauer 1997).................... 272
Figure 6: Friedberg-Bruchenbrücken, Wetteraukreis, Hesse, damaged bone from Grave 8 (from Thiedmann &
Schleifring 1992) ....................................................................................................................................................... 273
Figure 7: Reconstruction of early medieval robbing at Friedberg-Bruchenbrücken, Wetteraukreis, Hesse (from
Thiedmann & Schleifring 1992)............................................................................................................................. 273
Figure 8: Reconstruction of Bronze Age grave-robbery at Gemeinlebarn F, Lower Austria (from Neugebauer 1991)
..................................................................................................................................................................................... 274
Figure 9: Map of Kent sites ......................................................................................................................................................... 275
Figure 10: Date ranges of the Kent sites (dates from Richardson 2005) ............................................................................ 276
Figure 11: Date ranges of the Kent sites (dates from ASKED)........................................................................................... 276
Figure 12: Plan of Broadstairs I, Bradstow School showing the disturbed burials (after Härke 1992) ......................... 277
Figure 13: Plan of Broadstairs III, St Peter's Tip showing the disturbed burials (after Hogarth 1973) ........................ 278
Figure 14: Plan of Broadstairs III, St Peter's Tip showing the disturbed burials in which the bones have been heaped
together (after Hogarth 1973) ................................................................................................................................ 279
Figure 15: St Peter’s Tip Grave 3 ............................................................................................................................................... 280
Figure 16: St Peter’s Tip Grave 14 ............................................................................................................................................. 280
Figure 17: St Peter’s Tip Grave 31 ............................................................................................................................................. 281
Figure 18: St Peter’s Tip Grave 43 ............................................................................................................................................. 281
Figure 19: St Peter’s Tip Grave 45 ............................................................................................................................................. 282
Figure 20: St Peter’s Tip Grave 54 ............................................................................................................................................. 282
Figure 21: St Peter’s Tip Grave 57 ............................................................................................................................................. 283
Figure 22: St Peter’s Tip Grave 62 ............................................................................................................................................. 283
Figure 23: St Peter’s Tip Grave 64 ............................................................................................................................................. 284
Figure 24: St Peter’s Tip Grave 69 ............................................................................................................................................. 284
Figure 25: St Peter’s Tip Grave 71 ............................................................................................................................................. 285
Figure 26: St Peter’s Tip Grave 78 ............................................................................................................................................. 285
Figure 27: St Peter’s Tip Grave 79 ............................................................................................................................................. 286
Figure 28: St Peter’s Tip Grave 83 ............................................................................................................................................. 286
Figure 29: St Peter’s Tip Grave 86 ............................................................................................................................................. 287
Figure 30: St Peter’s Tip Grave 86 Fair Copy .......................................................................................................................... 287
Figure 31: St Peter’s Tip Grave 96 ............................................................................................................................................. 288
Figure 32: St Peter’s Tip Grave 97 ............................................................................................................................................. 288
Figure 33: St Peter’s Tip Grave 101........................................................................................................................................... 289
Figure 34: St Peter’s Tip Grave 117........................................................................................................................................... 289
Figure 35: St Peter’s Tip Grave 122........................................................................................................................................... 290
Figure 36: St Peter’s Tip Grave 126........................................................................................................................................... 290
Figure 37: St Peter’s Tip Grave 130........................................................................................................................................... 291
Figure 38: St Peter’s Tip Grave 131........................................................................................................................................... 291
Figure 39: St Peter’s Tip Grave 140........................................................................................................................................... 292
Figure 40: St Peter’s Tip Grave 147........................................................................................................................................... 292
Figure 41: St Peter’s Tip Grave 155........................................................................................................................................... 293
Figure 42: St Peter’s Tip Grave 165........................................................................................................................................... 293
Figure 43: St Peter’s Tip Grave 182........................................................................................................................................... 294
Figure 44: St Peter’s Tip Grave 185........................................................................................................................................... 294
Figure 45: St Peter’s Tip Grave 186........................................................................................................................................... 295
Figure 46: St Peter’s Tip Grave 198........................................................................................................................................... 295
Figure 47: St Peter’s Tip Grave 200........................................................................................................................................... 296
Figure 48: St Peter’s Tip Grave 203........................................................................................................................................... 296
Figure 49: St Peter’s Tip Grave 210........................................................................................................................................... 297
Figure 50: St Peter’s Tip Grave 215........................................................................................................................................... 297
Figure 51: St Peter’s Tip Grave 216........................................................................................................................................... 298
Figure 52: St Peter’s Tip Grave 221........................................................................................................................................... 298
Figure 53: St Peter’s Tip Grave 225........................................................................................................................................... 299
vi
Figure 54: St Peter’s Tip Grave 226 ...........................................................................................................................................299
Figure 55: St Peter’s Tip Grave 227 ...........................................................................................................................................300
Figure 56: St Peter’s Tip Grave 227 ...........................................................................................................................................300
Figure 57: St Peter’s Tip Grave 229 ...........................................................................................................................................301
Figure 58: St Peter’s Tip Grave 232 ...........................................................................................................................................301
Figure 59: St Peter’s Tip Grave 232 ...........................................................................................................................................302
Figure 60: St Peter’s Tip Grave 233 ...........................................................................................................................................302
Figure 61: St Peter’s Tip Grave 233 ...........................................................................................................................................303
Figure 62: St Peter’s Tip Grave 235 ...........................................................................................................................................303
Figure 63: St Peter’s Tip Grave 236 ...........................................................................................................................................304
Figure 64: St Peter’s Tip Grave 237 ...........................................................................................................................................304
Figure 65: St Peter’s Tip Grave 237 ...........................................................................................................................................305
Figure 66: St Peter’s Tip Grave 240 ...........................................................................................................................................305
Figure 67: St Peter’s Tip Grave 241 ...........................................................................................................................................306
Figure 68: St Peter’s Tip Grave 243 ...........................................................................................................................................306
Figure 69: St Peter’s Tip Grave 251 ...........................................................................................................................................307
Figure 70: St Peter’s Tip Grave 254 ...........................................................................................................................................307
Figure 71: St Peter’s Tip Grave 255 ...........................................................................................................................................308
Figure 72: St Peter’s Tip Grave 258 ...........................................................................................................................................308
Figure 73: St Peter’s Tip Grave 261 ...........................................................................................................................................309
Figure 74: St Peter’s Tip Grave 267 ...........................................................................................................................................309
Figure 75: St Peter’s Tip Grave 268 ...........................................................................................................................................310
Figure 76: St Peter’s Tip Grave 270 ...........................................................................................................................................310
Figure 77: St Peter’s Tip Grave 272 ...........................................................................................................................................311
Figure 78: St Peter’s Tip Grave 273 ...........................................................................................................................................311
Figure 79: St Peter’s Tip Grave 278 ...........................................................................................................................................312
Figure 80: St Peter’s Tip Grave 284 ...........................................................................................................................................312
Figure 81: St Peter’s Tip Grave 288 ...........................................................................................................................................313
Figure 82: St Peter’s Tip Grave 294 ...........................................................................................................................................313
Figure 83: St Peter’s Tip Grave 295 ...........................................................................................................................................314
Figure 84: St Peter’s Tip Grave 297 ...........................................................................................................................................314
Figure 85: St Peter’s Tip Grave 297 ...........................................................................................................................................315
Figure 86: St Peter’s Tip Grave 303 ...........................................................................................................................................315
Figure 87: St Peter’s Tip Grave 304 ...........................................................................................................................................316
Figure 88: St Peter’s Tip Grave 308 ...........................................................................................................................................316
Figure 89: St Peter’s Tip Grave 315 ...........................................................................................................................................317
Figure 90: St Peter’s Tip Grave 327 ...........................................................................................................................................317
Figure 91: St Peter’s Tip Grave 328 ...........................................................................................................................................318
Figure 92: St Peter’s Tip Grave 333 ...........................................................................................................................................318
Figure 93: St Peter’s Tip Grave 354 ...........................................................................................................................................319
Figure 94: St Peter’s Tip Grave 356 ...........................................................................................................................................319
Figure 95: St Peter’s Tip Grave 368 ...........................................................................................................................................320
Figure 96: St Peter’s Tip Grave 375 ...........................................................................................................................................320
Figure 97: St Peter’s Tip Grave 377 ...........................................................................................................................................321
Figure 98: St Peter’s Tip Grave 379 ...........................................................................................................................................321
Figure 99: St Peter’s Tip Grave 380 ...........................................................................................................................................322
Figure 100: St Peter’s Tip Grave 381.........................................................................................................................................322
Figure 101: St Peter’s Tip Grave 385.........................................................................................................................................323
Figure 102: Plan of Lyminge II showing the disturbed burials (after Warhurst 1955 and Härke 1992) .......................324
Figure 103: Plan of Lyminge II showing the disturbed burials and the wealthiest intact burials (after Warhurst 1955,
Härke 1992, and Schröder 2007) ...........................................................................................................................325
Figure 104: Plan of Lyminge II showing the burial plots (from Schröder 2007)...............................................................326
Figure 105: Lyminge II Grave 40, sketch plan from Alan Warhurst's site notebooks. ....................................................327
Figure 106: Plan of Monkton I, Primrose Hill showing the disturbed burials (after Perkins & Hawkes 1984)...........328
Figure 107: Plan of Northbourne I, Finglesham showing the disturbed burials (after Hawkes & Grainger 2006) ....329
Figure 108: Plan of Northbourne I, Finglesham showing the disturbed burials and the wealthiest intact burials (after
Hawkes & Grainger 2006) ......................................................................................................................................330
Figure 109: Plan of Northbourne I, Finglesham marked according to the extent and position of damage (after
Hawkes & Grainger 2006) ......................................................................................................................................331
Figure 110: Plan of Northbourne I, Finglesham showing the burial plots and chronology (from Sayer 2009)...........332
Figure 111: Northbourne I, Finglesham Disturbed Graves (from Sayer 2009).................................................................333
Figure 112: Plan of Ramsgate IV, Ozengell showing the disturbed burials (after Richardson 2005) ............................334
vii
Figure 113: Plan of the 1990 excavations at Sarre I showing the disturbed burials (after Perkins 1991)...................... 335
Figure 114: Sarre Graves 276, 279, 281, 283, 285, 286, 287, 288, and 289 (from Perkins 1991 and 1992) .................. 336
Figure 115: Darenth I, Darenth Park Grave 6 (from Batchelor 1990)................................................................................ 337
Figure 116: Plan of Deal I, Mill Hill showing the disturbed burials (after Parfitt 1997) .................................................. 338
Figure 117: Mill Hill, Deal Graves 72 and 85 (from Parfitt 1997)........................................................................................ 339
Figure 118: Plan of Dunton Green I, Polhill showing the disturbed burials (after Härke 1992) ................................... 340
Figure 119: Minster-in-Thanet III, Hoo Farm Graves A, B, C (from Perkins 1985) ....................................................... 341
Figure 120: Plan of Minster IV, Thorne Farm showing the disturbed burials (after Perkins 1985) .............................. 341
Figure 121: Map of cemeteries with early grave disturbance in Anglo-Saxon England beyond Kent........................... 342
Figure 122: Buttermarket, Ipswich, Suffolk Grave 2203 (from Scull 2009) ....................................................................... 343
Figure 123: Plan of Bloodmoor Hill, Carlton Colville, Suffolk showing the disturbed burials (after Lucy, Tipper, &
Dickens 2009) ........................................................................................................................................................... 344
Figure 124: Bloodmoor Hill, Carlton Colville, Suffolk Graves 5, 12, 22 and 23 (from Lucy, Tipper, & Dickens 2009)
..................................................................................................................................................................................... 345
Figure 125: Plan of Edix Hill, Barrington A, Cambridgeshire showing the disturbed burials (after Malim & Hines
1998) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 346
Figure 126: Edix Hill, Barrington A, Cambridgeshire Grave 16 (Sk 33), Grave 31 (Sk 103), Grave 35 (Sk 119), Grave
49 (Sk 149) (from Malim & Hines 1998) ............................................................................................................. 347
Figure 127: Plan of Minerva, Alwalton, Cambridgeshire showing the disturbed burials (after Gibson 2007)............. 348
Figure 128: Minerva, Alwalton, Cambridgeshire Graves 1339, 1364 and 1435 (from Gibson 2007)............................ 349
Figure 129: Spong Hill, Norfolk Grave 31 (from Hills et al 1984) ...................................................................................... 350
Figure 130: Westfield Farm, Ely, Cambridgeshire Grave 2 (from Lucy et al 2009, with thanks to CAU) ................... 351
Figure 131: Plan of Winnall II, Hampshire showing the disturbed burials (after Härke 1992) ...................................... 352
Figure 132: Plan of Worthy Park, Kingsworthy, Hampshire showing the disturbed burials (after Härke 1992) ........ 353
Figure 133: Worthy Park, Kingsworthy, Hampshire Graves 22 and 41 (from Hawkes & Grainger 2003) .................. 354
viii
ix
Acknowledgements
My warmest thanks to my supervisor Catherine Hills for her advice and support throughout
the process of devising and completing this thesis. Likewise Neil Price, who supervised my
initial MA dissertation on robbed Scandinavian boat-graves and has given encouragement
throughout.
Access to pre-publication material has generously been given by the following: Leslie Webster
and Sonja Marzinzik (St Peter’s Tip and Bradstow School, Broadstairs, Kent), Chris Scull and
Sam Lucy (Bloodmoor Hill, Carlton Colville and Buttermarket, Ipswich), Frank Meddens (St
Margaret’s at Cliffe, Kent), Helena Hamerow (Sonia Chadwick Hawkes’ archive), Stuart
Brookes and Sue Harrington (ASKED database), Natasha Dodwell (Westfield, Ely), Markus
Blaich and Michael Geschwinde (Werlaburgdorf, Lower Saxony), Dave Perkins (Ozengell,
Kent), Keith Parfitt and Astrid Schröder (Lyminge, Kent), and Gil Burleigh (Baldock,
Hertfordshire).
Much valuable information, advice, and discussion are gratefully acknowledged from Sam
Lucy, John Blair, Martin Welch, Sonja Marzinzik, Stephanie Zintl, Howard Williams, Martin
Jones, Charlie French, Stuart Brookes, Keith Parfitt, Andrew Richardson, Dave Perkins, Frank
Meddens, Peter Biehl, Edeltraud Aspöck, Susanne Hakenbeck, Ian Hanson, Paul Blinkhorn,
Becky Farbstein, Alice Stevenson, Lee Wilson, Katharina Rebay-Salisbury, Adolf Fridriksson,
Natalie White, Tom Birch, David Klingle, Jo Appleby, James Holloway, Andy McLaren,
Isabelle Vella Gregory, Naomi Farrington, Mark Evans from BAAC and the Midland Aircraft
Recovery Group, and Giles Guthrie and the staff of Maidstone Museum.
In addition, I thank Jane Woods, Casey Synge, and Mark Newman for their administrative
help, along with the staff of the Haddon Library in Cambridge, who make toddlers and their
student parents welcome.
I am grateful to the AHRC, the John Templeton Foundation, and Girton College for the
funding which enabled this research.
Lastly, I have received a great deal of practical and moral support from friends and family,
especially Gillian Draper, Stephen Draper, Ulla-Karin Klevnäs, Folke Eklund, Hebe Gouda,
Abi Wills, Yousef Ghazi-Tabatabai, and most of all my husband Per Klevnäs.
x
11 Introduction
This thesis has grown from two roots. The first grew out of discussions on training digs run by
the Kent Archaeological Society in which I took part as a teenager in the 1990s. Several
excavators talked about local Anglo-Saxon cemeteries where they had found curiously disturbed
graves. Some of the finds were gruesome: many burials had evidently been reopened and had
body parts rearranged soon after burial, while corpses were still fleshed. It looked as though early
reopening of graves, presumably for robbing, had been rife in early medieval Kent. So many
graves had been robbed that it seemed implausible that the burying population was not aware of
or even involved in the reopening. Although grave-goods were thought to be missing from the
reopened burials, some of the rearrangement of body parts appeared deliberate. Might there be a
ritual element? Many of the affected cemeteries dated from the 7th century period of the
conversion to Christianity. Had new believers returned to the old cemeteries to destroy furnished
burials? Or could there be a pious motive, to bring the remains of dead parents or grandparents
into the new Christian burial settings? Then there were the cautious voices: was the robbery just
rabbit damage? Coffin collapse? Over-interpretation?
The second root to this research reaches back to Gamla Uppsala in the Mälar valley of central
Sweden. Here my MA research focused on a small group of Viking Period boat-graves buried in
a mixed-rite cemetery just north of the famous monumental mounds (Nordahl 2001, Klevnäs
2007). When four boat-graves were excavated at the site in the 1970s, only one was found intact.
This was the earliest datable grave, holding the bones of a woman with beautiful jewellery and a
range of grave-goods. The other burials had been thoroughly robbed. Two were almost empty,
with only strewn bones and boat rivets as witnesses to their ransacking. The fourth grave had also
been robbed, but here the reopening was carried out within days or weeks of the funeral, while
the corpse was still fully articulated and the boat intact. The body of the dead man had been
rolled to one side, probably by lifting and tipping the bearskin rug on which he lay. The sacrificed
animals and unwanted artefacts had all been heaped together to clear the boat for a careful search
and selection of grave-goods. In order to reach the burial chamber, the robbers had removed a
layer of large boulders which marked the graves. Robbing must have involved several hours’
labour, yet was carried out within a stone’s throw of habitation.
I was struck by the audacity of the almost immediate robbing, and no less by the matter of fact
way in which it was presented in the excavation report. Why was such a lavish burial ransacked
before the body had even started to decompose? Who were the perpetrators? What did the
2ransacking mean for the mourners who had created the monument? Was robbing like this
common? What were its implications for the meanings of grave-goods, for funerary ritual, for
power and law?
My MA dissertation explored the robbing at Gamla Uppsala and a selection of further boat-burial
sites in the Mälar valley, alongside references to grave opening in the Scandinavian written
sources. It established that it is possible to reconstruct much of the robbers’ activities and to
make strong inferences about their aims. Robbing of boat-graves is common, nearly ubiquitous in
central Sweden and elsewhere in Scandinavia. However, the disturbance is not a unified
phenomenon: monuments were attacked in different periods and for a variety of motives.
My interest in Scandinavian grave-robbery led me to the 1978 volume edited by Herbert Jankuhn,
which established grave-robbery as a research topic within German-language archaeology. This
opened up a window onto Merovingian grave-robbery, for which evidence had been
accumulating from nearly every site excavated during the course of the 20th century. Robbery
was both intense and widespread in the continental row-grave cemeteries, with whole sites
ransacked in some areas. Many of the questions about the motives for reopening, the degree of
violence or respect involved, and possible ritual elements in the evidence, were similar to those I
had been asking in Scandinavia, along with the technical approaches to identifying and dating
disturbance.
Encountering the wide literature on Merovingian grave-robbery, I realised that the rumoured
East Kent robbing must almost certainly be related to the phenomenon seen over the Channel.
At that time the connection had not been made, and only one of the heavily disturbed Kentish
sites had been published. I set out to find the rest of the evidence: was early medieval robbing in
East Kent a real phenomenon? Was it connected to the Merovingian practice? Was it confined to
Kent, or had similar finds been made elsewhere in the country?
On the basis of these interests, the original intention for this thesis was to compare the three
areas of Scandinavia, Merovingia, and Kent. In Scandinavia I extended the range of inquiry,
looking at a range of first millennium high status burials. The Migration Period chamber-graves
of the Mälar valley, for example, nearly all show signs of early disturbance. Here reopening
occurred soon enough after burial that the chamber roofs were intact. Straightforward robbing is
unlikely to have been the motive, since bodies were removed and many grave-goods, including
gold objects, were left behind.
3Another case study focused on the parish of Vendel in central Sweden, where famous helmet and
weapon finds were made in a boat-grave cemetery at the end of the 19th century. These finds are
much-celebrated, but would have been ten times more impressive, had not all but four of the
fourteen boat and chamber-graves been systematically emptied in antiquity. My research showed
that this robbing probably took place in conjunction with the building of the nearby early church.
It was a unique event in the district, with none of the hundreds of other pre-Christian
monuments elsewhere in the parish being targeted. It is my contention that it was the symbolism
of these particular graves that demanded their emptying, either to destroy their contents or to
reincorporate them into the new Christian burial context.
As discussed, the intention was to cover all three areas in this thesis. However, during the course
of my research it became evident that there was considerably more early grave-robbing in early
medieval Kent than has previously been recognised. Significant evidence of both this and other
forms of early reopening was also uncovered elsewhere in Anglo-Saxon England, and demanded
full consideration.
In Kent my research identified at least 15 sites with signs of ancient robbing, several of them with
significant numbers of graves affected, in line with the proportions seen in Merovingia. With
access kindly given by the British Museum to the full archives of the two major unpublished
Broadstairs cemeteries, by Heinrich Härke to data from Lyminge, and the Finglesham results
published in 2006, there was suddenly a substantial quantity of fresh material through which to
investigate early medieval grave-robbing.
Despite the high numbers of disturbed sites reported on the Merovingian-period continent, there
has previously been only limited synthetic research. Almost all discussion has been confined to
single sites, usually a brief section in each excavation report. Some reports have detailed analyses
of the evidence, but in many reporting is still minimal. Recent reviews of the research have
focused on the breadth of theoretical interpretations which might be possible, rather than on
evaluating ideas against the growing body of data.
This thesis therefore focuses on thorough investigation of the multi-site evidence from Anglo-
Saxon England, and on its comparison with what is known of the reopening practice on the
continent. This is the first time that the robbing evidence from the sites of a whole region has
been considered as a whole. The aim is to learn from the questions that have arisen from the
several decades of continental research. It is hoped that the results produced here will able to
advance the debate on the nature and causes of grave-robbery more widely.
4It was therefore decided to publish the Scandinavian material separately. This is mainly for
reasons of space, but also because it describes an effectively different practice, or rather set of
practices, from the disturbance seen in the large community burial grounds on the continent and
in Kent. That is not to say that useful comparisons cannot be made. The same questions,
methods, and often interpretations appear in the investigation of grave-robbing in widely
different areas and periods. Some elements in the Scandinavian robbing may be closely related in
time and intention to the Merovingian disturbance. This thesis shows that there are broad
patterns seen across northern Europe, for example in the selection of artefacts taken by robbers,
which probably reflect long-term themes in the symbolism of the furnished burial rite.
Thesis structure
The rest of this introductory chapter explores how the case study of early medieval robbing in the
community burial grounds of Merovingia and Kent relates to wider themes within burial
archaeology.
Chapter 2 is a critical review of the history of research into grave-robbery in Merovingia and in
German-language archaeology more widely. It identifies key interpretative themes, with the
emphasis on narrowing down the contenders to those which find support in the material
evidence. Significant new evidence has emerged since the last major review in the 1970s, so that
there is considerable potential to move interpretations forward. This chapter provides the
background and sets up the questions for the Anglo-Saxon material which forms the main body
of the thesis.
Chapter 3 introduces the Anglo-Saxon material and my approaches to it. An intensive period of
grave disturbance is identified in 6th-7th century Kent, with limited numbers of similar robbing
episodes seen across the country. In Kent robbing is at a level that must be taken into
consideration in any discussion of cemetery evidence. In the most heavily robbed cemeteries an
average of around 20% of graves are affected. We can infer a major distorting effect on previous
archaeological analyses of wealth distribution, especially as there is evidence that the better-
furnished graves were targeted.
Chapters 4, 5, and 6 present detailed inter-site analysis of where, when, how, and why the
Kentish robbing was carried out. The disturbance is examined in terms of geography, date,
gender, age, grave types, grave markers, grave size, spatial distribution, grave-good provision,
multiple burials, and reopening methods.
5This analysis is based on the evidence set out and evaluated on a site by site, grave by grave basis
in Appendix 1 and Tables 6-16. Archived excavation records are used to supplement published
data wherever possible. Throughout the detail is as forensic as the recorded evidence permits.
Appendix 2 is a checklist compiling excavators’ experience of how disturbance can be recognised,
dated, and recorded.
Chapter 7 presents the evidence from the twelve sites in Anglo-Saxon England beyond Kent
which have been identified as showing signs of early reopening. It shows that in Anglo-Saxon
England as a whole there was a sporadic practice of grave opening, some of which may have
been driven by the same fears of revenant corpses as lie behind many deviant burial practices.
Disturbance closely resembling the Kentish phenomenon, although at much lower levels, is seen
at sites in Hampshire and East Anglia.
Chapter 8 sets out the results of the investigation: what has been established about the extent and
nature of early medieval grave-robbery, and what remains unclear. It evaluates previous
interpretations against the much larger body of data analyzed here and suggests new lines of
investigation. Robbing is argued to be a destructive, mal-intentioned practice with the aim of
removing certain symbolically-loaded grave-goods from burials. It is interpreted as carried out
between local communities, as part of the conflicts arising from the 7th century rise of kingly
power.
Reopening, ransacking, robbing
Early medieval grave-robbery is a case study into the reception and life history of ancient
monuments: how the material remains of the past were used by past peoples to manipulate their
presents and futures. It is also an exploration, in a limited and focused context, of the extended
interactions between the living and the physical remains of the dead that are almost forgotten in
modern Britain, but which are a feature of so many cultures known from the archaeological and
ethnographic records.
Grave reopening, for robbery or other motives, is reported in a huge variety of contexts around
the world. Revisiting graves and manipulating their contents is part of extended burial rites in
ethnographic and archaeological contexts including the recent past of Madagascar (Bloch 1971),
Neolithic Malta (Malone et al 2009), Neolithic Britain (Beckett & Robb 2006), and early Bronze
Age Peru (Isbell 2004). Such rites are often interpreted as contributing to the lengthy process of
separating the dead from the living, or reforming them from individuals into communal ancestors
(e.g. Bloch 1971: 213). As discussed in Chapter 2, Martin Bartelheim and Volker Heyd (2001)
6have recently argued that grave reopening is just the most archaeologically visible of many post-
funerary activities carried out at burial sites, a broader field which they consider demands greater
attention from prehistorians.
Turning to reopening for explicitly material motives, the example which always comes most
readily to mind is ancient Egypt, with its richly furnished monuments in which plundering is well-
attested in both archaeological and written sources from the time the graves were created up to
the present day. Stephen Savage (1997) has recently shown that grave-robbers were already
targeting monuments in the Predynastic period, sometimes directly after burial had taken place.
Despite the popular image of Egyptian treasure-hunting, he argues that only part of the motive
for early robbing was to despoil graves of valuables. The second reason was an ideological one: to
damage or destroy the corpse in order to deny the deceased an existence in the afterlife. The
targeted graves were of the elite, and plundering may have been carried out either by lower
echelons or by rival high status groups. In either case, Savage sees robbing as some of the best
evidence of competition between different subgroups in Predynastic society. He calls plundering
the “underside” of competitive emulation through burial displays, an interpretation which is
echoed in the model proposed for the early medieval period in the conclusion to this thesis.
It would be wrong, however, to dismiss the economic aspect of grave-robbery. Mining ancient
burials supports the livelihood of some communities to this day in Jordan (Rose & Burke 2004).
In such contexts, graves can be seen as a resource exploited by local people over centuries.
Martin Carver’s (2005) reconstruction of the post-medieval robbing episodes at Sutton Hoo in
Suffolk is reminder of the generations who have profited from ancient monuments in the
centuries between their creation and our own investigations. The Kentish burial grounds which
are the main dataset for this thesis bear the physical scars of widespread unrecorded activity in
the early modern borderland between looting and research.
The Sutton Hoo work is also a benchmark demonstration of the potential to understand long-
past site disturbance through excavation. The excavators there were able to build up a detailed
picture of the robbers’ activities, including the paths they trod as they removed spoil from the
mounds and the length of time robber pits remained exposed to the elements before back-filling.
Further similarly detailed investigations of ancient robbing are reviewed in Chapter 2.
Otherwise, the most detailed analyses of how grave reopening can be recognised and
reconstructed in the field generally come from forensic and post-conflict archaeology (e.g. Mant
1987, Haglund & Sorg 1997, Skinner et al 2001, Hanson 2004, Cheetham et al 2008, Cox 2008).
7Reopening may be evidence of attempts to conceal crimes, looting, or reburial of relatives. The
types and quantities of surviving evidence are much more plentiful in these recent contexts, but
the approaches and the taphonomic knowledge built up from forensic investigations are drawn
upon in several ways in this thesis.
Heading into the early medieval context, reopening of graves features in written as well as
archaeological sources. Motivations range from the most honorific to the basest expressions of
contempt. Early Christianity in particular featured close physical interactions with the remains of
the dead which are almost unrecognisable in today’s practices. Exhumation of remains and
translation to a higher status burial place was a key rite in the creation of an early medieval saint
(Geary 1986, 1990, Thacker 2002). Recently similar processes involving the transferral of secular
elite bodies have been proposed – and contested – for several major monuments during the
conversion of northern Europe to Christianity (Krogh 1982, Andersen 1996, Musin 1998,
Staecker 2005, Herschend 2001). Chapter 7 of this thesis highlights three examples of the
apparent transferral of lay bodies during the development of early churches in Anglo-Saxon
England.
A major focus for explorations of reopening in early medieval northern Europe has been
Scandinavia and Iceland during the period of the conversion to Christianity. The main stimulus
here is the series of horror stories in the Icelandic sagas featuring haugbrot, or mound-breaking.
The core theme involves a heroic character entering a grave and wrestling with a supernaturally
strong revenant known as a draugr, before “killing” the unquiet ghost and escaping with valuable
grave-goods, often swords. Variations on this evidently popular and widespread genre appear in
several sagas, plus the Griplur verses, and Saxo’s Gesta Danorum (Grammaticus 1886, Kelchner
1935, Ellis 1943, Aðalsteinsson 1998).
Although far from literal accounts, these tales give us a picture of a mentality that saw
overcoming fear of the dead and physical repulsion at contact with corpses as a brave and
braggable act. They should be seen alongside, for example, the runic graffiti left by Vikings at
Maeshowe, Orkney, boasting of breaking the Neolithic mound there (Barnes 1994), an act which
can have brought little if any material reward.
The draugr genre is almost inevitably referred to in any discussion of early medieval disturbed
graves and frequently in circumstances more distant in time and space. A more contextual
approach to these stories would be fruitful. On the other hand, as discussed in Chapter 6.4, the
8Nordic tales are part of a strikingly widespread revenant theme in European folklore, with
modern descendants in the vampire horror genre.
The saga tales are most frequently cited with reference to the disturbance of the “royal” mounds
at Oseberg and elsewhere in western Norway. The Oseberg mound is the largest and most
impressively furnished burial ever found in Scandinavia, containing the bodies of two Viking Age
women in a boat nearly 22m long (Brøgger et al 1917, Brøgger 1945, Christensen et al 1992,
Gansum 1999, Holck 2006). Its reopening, after the bodies had skeletonized but while the
wooden boat and grave-goods were still whole, has given rise to a stream of interpretations and
counter-interpretations in the century since its excavation.
A.W. Brøgger’s early twentieth-century work first linked mound-breaking to ghost beliefs at
Oseberg, Gokstad, Borre, and other Norwegian mounds (Brøgger et al 1917, Brøgger 1945). As
well as the sagas, Brøgger pointed to a number of early Scandinavian law codes which prohibit
attempts to communicate with the dead at burial mounds, implying the existence of an actual
pagan practice. More recently these ideas have been expanded by Jan Brendalsmo and Gunnhild
Røthe, who connect grave-robbing with the “waking the dead” motif in several Eddic poems,
and argue for a necromantic element in grave-opening (Brendalsmo & Røthe 1992).
More recently the Norwegian mound-robbing has been explained by Björn Myhre (1994), also
with reference to the early literature, as attacks on the power symbols of competing dynasties.
Although the details of dynastic struggles as described in literature should perhaps be treated with
greater caution, a destructive motive fits well with the archaeological evidence. The Oseberg
robbing must have been a public affair, and the treatment of the bodies and grave-goods seems
to indicate deliberate disrespect. There is also evidence of violence: at Oseberg the beds were
chopped to pieces with axes, while the Gokstad robbers attacked the ship and wooden furniture
(Brøgger et al 1917, Brendalsmo & Røthe 1992: 91).
The violence used in the Oseberg and Gokstad reopenings is a compelling argument against the
interpretations which have appeared in recent years featuring transferral into a church or
churchyard of the bodily remains of pre-Christian royal figures (Krogh 1993, Herschend 2001).
There is an episode in Heimskringla Ch.143 in which a marauding army robs what seems to be a
combination of burial-mound and pagan shrine; such stories may provide a more likely context
for the damage. A related archaeological find is seen in the destructive positioning of Viking
graves over the Christian burials of the defeated population on the Isle of Man (Tarlow 1997).
Plundering of graves during warfare or as destruction of the monuments of a defeated elite are
9interpretations which have been put forward in a number of contexts, including the Early Bronze
Age of southern Scandinavia and northern Germany (Randsborg 1998) and early medieval
continental Europe (Chapter 2).
The focus on reopening motivated by draugr has drawn attention away from other relevant
themes in the literature. One particularly relevant strand is the role of heirlooms. High status
early medieval graves frequently contain objects which were already centuries old at the time of
burial. In Scandinavia, it is often ancient swords which are found in this way, for example in
Valsgärde grave 6 (Arwidsson 1942) and the boat chamber grave at Hedeby-Busdorf (Staecker
2005: 9), in both of which there seems to be deliberate pairing of one old and one new sword. In
Anglo-Saxon England, significant quantities of Roman objects are found in pagan graves, and are
either heirlooms or recycled from disturbed cemeteries (Meaney 1981, White 1990, Williams 1998,
Eckhard & Williams 2003). The cultural biography of such artefacts extends well beyond the
chronological divisions drawn by archaeologists. Using ethnographic examples, Katina Lillios
(1999) has explored how heirlooms may be used in chiefly ideology to objectify memories and
histories and remind the living of their link to a distant, ancestral past. In the early Middle Ages, it
may sometimes be the act of burial itself which gives an object its significance and makes it worth
retrieving from the grave.
Countless written sources attest the symbolic value of certain early medieval treasures, especially
swords, and in many cases it is their history which gives them significance. In some sources,
including the eerie Waking of Angantyr, valuables are actually recovered from the dead in their
mounds. Written down as part of a 13th century saga, the poem probably has much earlier roots
(Terry 1990: 253). In the poem, Angantyr's daughter, Hervor, sails to the Isle of Samsey to find
the mound in which her father and his brothers are buried, in order to recover her father's sword,
Tyrfing, and avenge his death. Tyrfing is cursed, and has already brought about the deaths of
many men. Hervor threatens the mound-dwellers until they reluctantly give up their possession,
warning her of the consequences.
By contrast, a few sources describe mound-dwellers willingly handing over treasures, often with
magical powers, to descendants or other deserving characters (e.g. Þorskfirðinga saga, Reykdæla saga,
and Þorsteins saga víkingssonar (Kelchner 1935)). Most relevant here is the saga episode of Olav
Geirstadalv and King Olav the Holy (Brøgger 1945, Røthe 1997), in which the dead King
Geirstadalv appears in a dream and demands that his mound be opened so his sword and belt
can be present at the birth of the boy who will become King Olav. The story can be seen as a
10
claim to personal legitimacy by Christian King Olav, through a gift from the grave of his pagan
predecessor. In a similar vein, it has been argued that the Old Icelandic prefix ár is used in poetry
to describe ancient heirlooms linked with myth and legend, as in King Hákon’s árhjálmi in
Hákonarmál (Norr 2005). These possessions can be seen as the material equivalents of the royal
qualities – beauty, skill, luck – which marked out predestined rulers.
The symbolic roles of grave-goods are a central part of the interpretative framework for the
Merovingian-period grave-robbery developed in this thesis. The Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon
literature gives important background, especially for the significance of swords as inherited and
presented objects. However, the intention here is to show that sufficient archaeological evidence
exists to go beyond the cultural elements recorded in the written sources and to extend our
understanding of the symbolic values attached to a wider range of possessions.
Above all, the aim in this thesis is to demonstrate that the physical evidence should be the first
port of call for convincing interpretations of grave reopening. With burial archaeology
traditionally focused on recording whole, in situ grave assemblages, evidence that can shed light
on the activities of grave-robbers has frequently been overlooked. Post-excavation, there is a
tendency to dash to the readily available explanations in written sources or ethnography, without
detailed consideration of whether they fit the material evidence in a specific context. It is the
hands-on details of how and when graves were opened which hold the keys to the identities and
motives of the openers.
11
2 Merovingia and Beyond
This chapter presents a critical review of research into grave-robbery in western and central
Europe. It traces the development of academic interest in this area, identifying the key
publications and main points of debate. Interpretative themes are explored and evaluated against
the growing body of archaeological evidence. The questions which arise from the continental
material here will inform my approach to the Kentish material in the chapters which follow.
The main focus is the epidemic of robbery reported in the early medieval row-grave cemeteries of
Merovingia. Considerable previous research into this disturbance has been carried out on the
continent, mainly within German-language scholarship. High levels of early robbing have been
recognised in Merovingian cemeteries since the 19th century. Set against the ostentatious
investment in grave offerings that characterized the period, and the severe penalties for grave
robbers in numerous law codes, this widespread reopening of graves is a longstanding
interpretative puzzle. From the mid-20th century onwards the grave-robbery debate has formed
an active satellite to the archaeology of early medieval burial on the continent.
To date the most systematic review of the range of interpretations for early medieval grave
reopening is that provided by Edeltraud Aspöck (2002, 2003). She uses written sources and
ethnography to show the spectrum of potential explanations which might apply, from ritual
reopening as part of funerary rites to greed-driven robbing. Holger Baitinger (1992) has done the
same in an Iron Age context, evaluating different interpretative approaches against the evidence
from the robbing of a high status chamber grave. A similar approach is taken by Christoph
Kümmel (2005, 2008), although his ability to move interpretations forward is limited by the
scope of his study, from the Neolithic onwards, and the distance from the archaeological material.
The approach here is the opposite: rather than exploring the breadth of interpretations which
might be possible, the aim in this chapter and in the thesis as a whole is to narrow down the
contenders to those which find support in the material evidence.
Excavation reports from disturbed burial grounds have been the main forum for discussion, and
their evidence forms the basis for this chapter. Over 100 robbed sites are listed in Table 1 and
mapped in Fig. 1. Most are of early medieval date, but some Bronze and Iron Age sites are also
included. Interest in grave-robbery has developed in parallel in prehistoric and early medieval
research on the continent and there are useful comparisons to be made. One caveat: the mapped
sites should not be taken as indicative of the range or intensity of robbing evidence; rather their
12
distribution reflects where research has been carried out and is accessible to the western
European, particularly German-language, academic network.
Beyond excavation reports there is also a smaller body of secondary literature with the
investigation of grave disturbance as its primary aim. Some of this material is based on
observations from single sites (e.g. Koch 1974, Kokowski 1991, Baitinger 1992, Thiedmann &
Schleifring 1992, Dannhorn 1994, Sprenger 1999, Aspöck 2002, Aspöck 2003), but there are
significant wider-ranging studies (e.g. Adler 1971, Jankuhn et al 1978, Rittershofer 1987,
Randsborg 1998, Plum 2004, Kümmel 2005, 2008). Principal here is the 1978 collection of papers
from the Göttingen colloquium (Jankuhn et al 1978), which first brought the study of grave
disturbance to prominence and did much to direct future research. In addition, with grave-
robbery now an established theme in continental research, the phenomenon increasingly features
in broader discussions of burial custom (e.g. Steuer 1982, Bartelheim & Heyd 2001, Effros 2002,
2003).
The 1978 colloquium took as its starting point grave-robbery in Germanic legal history, so
written sources predominate, and only a minority of papers have their foundations in archaeology.
The legal theme has been a recurrent feature of continental research into grave-robbery, since
prohibitions against robbing are found in Church and other law codes (below). In terms of
geography, the colloquium expansively construes “Germanic” to include papers on Bronze Age
central and northern Europe (Raddatz 1978, Thrane 1978), Iron Age central Europe (Driehaus
1978), the Roman Empire and Merovingian kingdoms (Behrends 1978, Krüger 1978, Nehlsen
1978, Raddatz 1978, Roth 1978, Schmidt-Wiegand 1978), and Viking Age Scandinavia (Beck
1978, Capelle 1978, Düwel 1978).
Roth
By far the most significant paper in the 1978 collection, in terms of the depth and enduring
relevance of its research, is Helmut Roth’s survey of grave-robbery in the Merovingian kingdoms
(Roth 1978). Roth reviewed the first stages of research into early medieval grave-robbery on the
continent, from the 19th century observations by the Abbé Cochet and Ludwig Lindenschmidt
to a stream of mid-20th century excavations of robbed cemeteries (Cochet 1854, Lindenschmidt
1889). His main focus was on Germany, but he also used examples from Austria, Switzerland,
France, Hungary and the Czech and Slovak lands. He discussed the range of interpretations then
current, expanding on some in a separate article (Roth 1977). Roth’s key contribution was in
13
bringing together evidence from nearly sixty sites, and so demonstrating the prevalence and
intensity of early disturbance in Merovingia and the surrounding regions.
Most of Roth’s sites are what are known as row-grave (Reihengräber) cemeteries. These are found
in western and southern Germany, Switzerland, northern France, and Belgium. First defined by
Joachim Werner in 1950, they are characterized by W-E alignment, graves in rows, or
approximations of rows, and the regular inclusion of grave-goods. The earliest appear during the
mid 5th century and most are gradually abandoned through the 7th century, persisting into the
8th century in some areas. More than 100,000 row-grave burials are recorded, making an
outstanding dataset. However, as Ross Samson (1987: 120-121) shows, the extent to which such
widely spread sites can be seen as a cultural unit is questionable. At a broad level there are shared
tastes, values, and ritual practices, but considerable local variation can be seen in the range of
goods placed in graves and in the likely meanings with which these objects were imbued.
Roth’s survey was not confined to the Reihengräber zone. He included evidence, where it is
accessible in German, from sites as far away as Hungary. He also included earlier cemeteries,
notably those attributed to Lombards in Austria, in which robbing dates to the 5th and 6th
centuries. This broad approach brings the advantage of abundant comparative material, but
leaves open the question of where the boundaries of the grave-robbery phenomenon should be
drawn – if indeed the widespread evidence can be seen as representing a single phenomenon.
That Roth was able to find so much evidence for robbery over so wide an area significantly
reduces the likelihood of any single satisfactory interpretation being put forward. Yet studies after
Roth have tended to avoid this question, frequently because they focus on limited geographical
ranges and are therefore able to treat grave-robbery as a coherent practice with particular
meaning in their context, without considering the boundaries of the interpretation.
Within the core row-grave cemetery zone there is a broad consensus on the date range of
robbing. Roth showed that Merovingian reopening affects a limited number of graves of the later
6th century, increases in intensity into the middle of the 7th century, and is almost unknown by
the end of the 7th century (Roth 1978: 61-64). This still holds true, although Roth’s dating is
hampered by the assumption that disturbance was always close to burial. He assumed, for
example, that disturbed 6th century graves mean that robbing took place in the 6th century.
Several subsequent authors have demonstrated that this not the case, and that the bulk of
robbing activity is probably limited to the mid-late 7th century. As the more recent case studies
14
presented in this chapter demonstrate, close analysis can show whether reopening occurred
repeatedly over several generations, or was concentrated in one particular phase.
Within his sample of almost 60 disturbed sites, Roth found a mean rate of robbing of 39% of
graves. However, there is huge underlying variation in the proportion of graves affected, from
just a few at some sites (e.g. Stößen, Marktoberdorf) to almost all in others (e.g. Merdingen,
Pulling). Roth used the different reported percentages of robbed graves to draw conclusions
about the geographical spread of grave-robbery and rates among different ethnic groups (Roth
1978: 61-65, 73). In this he overstated the precision of the data. In the first place, and as he
acknowledged (Roth 1977: 287), the local variation in robbing levels within regions competes
with any inter-regional patterns. Considerable discrepancies in reported robbing rates between
even nearby cemeteries have been noted, and are discussed below. It seems likely that some of
this variation reflects real differences in levels of ancient robbing, but at least some is due to the
series of taphonomic filters between robbing and reporting.
As Roth discussed, there are two main ways through which grave-robbery comes to the attention
of excavators: “robber cuts” (Raubschächte) into the soil of the grave fill, and disordered skeletal
parts in the fill or on the grave floor. To these may sometimes be added disorder in the dress
accessories and grave-goods. Skeletal disorder is the most commonly noted indicator of robbing.
Bones are heavily displaced, often into the fill, and a proportion of each skeleton is frequently
missing. Robber cuts are less frequently noted. There are reasons for thinking that they are more
often seen than reported, but at sites where their presence or absence is explicitly discussed it is
evident that they are discernable in only a minority of rifled graves, and that their visibility
depends on the nature of the subsoil (e.g. Codreanu-Windauer 1997, Dannheimer 1998).
Recognition of robbing is therefore reliant on good bone preservation, the right soil conditions,
and a high standard of excavation (Plum 2004: 23). Site publications from the last 25 or so years
generally discuss the limitations of the evidence encountered, and sometimes give an estimate of
how accurately robbing levels were established. At Rödingen, for example, Walter Janssen (1993:
52-54) emphasized that his figure of 10% is only a conservative minimum. Poor bone
preservation in the rest of the Rödingen graves made it impossible to say how many others had
been disturbed, and variable standards of excavation in earlier campaigns left information gaps.
Janssen cautioned that the find circumstances must be fully taken into account before
comparisons are made between cemeteries.
15
Ruth Plum (2004: 23-24) went further in her recent comparison of five cemeteries in Nordrhein-
Westfalen. Uniquely, Plum divided the graves in each of her study cemeteries into those that had
clearly been robbed, probably robbed, probably not robbed, not assessable, and not robbed. The
two burial grounds with the fewest surviving skeletal remains, Siersdorf I and Merzenich I, have
markedly low rates of definitely robbed graves at 10% and 6.2% respectively, and high numbers
of graves which could not be assessed for robbing evidence. It seems likely that variations in
bone preservation are also responsible for a considerable part of the inter-site disparities in
robbing rates elsewhere.
Similar points about the subjectivity of robbing reports have been made in an Early Iron Age
context by Holger Baitinger (1992: 336-340). Baitinger argued that the apparent pattern of Early
Iron Age robbing concentrated on princely graves reflects the state of research rather than the
evidence (contra Driehaus 1978). He also pointed out that preservation factors such as soil type
vary geographically, creating misleading distribution patterns. For instance, he considered that
poor local conditions for bone preservation are responsible for apparently ‘robbing-free’ areas
such as much of Early Iron Age Switzerland. Also relevant to the early medieval period is
Baitinger’s observation that, particularly when bone preservation is poor, it is much easier to
identify disturbance in richly furnished than in simple graves.
Such detailed discussions of the evidence are, however, only recently becoming standard. In 1978
Roth lamented the limited reporting of robbing evidence, so that “one rarely learns more than
the fact that robbery occurred” (Roth 1978: 53). The reports available to him typically gave only
an idea of the numbers of graves affected in the cemetery, plus some sparse comments on the
appearance of the disturbance. Even today minimal recording and reporting of robbing evidence
continues to limit analysis at many sites. This chapter presents evidence from a range of
publications which demonstrate how much more can be reconstructed of the early medieval
robbing practice. The data from many more are presented in Table 1.
Hailfingen
Roth identified Hermann Stoll’s 1939 publication of the cemetery at Hailfingen, Baden-
Württemberg, as the first time that information about grave-robbery was presented to a detailed
standard, albeit not one always maintained by later writers. Stoll gave exact figures for the
number of graves disturbed in the cemetery: 180 out of 600, with 21 damaged by secondary
burials, 3 by intercutting burials, and the remaining 156 (26%) robbed in antiquity. Stoll’s
observations are precise, including his impression that the lower fill layers of disturbed graves had
16
been trampled down, which he interpreted as an attempt to conceal the robbery by preventing
the formation of a conspicuous lump on the surface (Stoll 1939: 9).
Stoll concluded that robbing mainly affected the more richly furnished female graves, less
frequently the less well-furnished male graves, and only exceptionally (8 cases, all female) the
generally poorly furnished graves of children. He therefore believed that reopening was targeted
and must have taken place soon after burial, while knowledge of the dead and grave assemblage
was still current.
Further, he considered that different parts of male and female graves had been targeted. Disorder
in women’s graves was said typically to be limited to the area from head to hips, where jewellery
lay, whereas in male graves the whole burial was affected. Similar claims have subsequently been
repeated many times in the literature, although – as at Hailfingen – generally without the
presentation of substantiating data. The degree of foreknowledge which robbers had about the
identity of the interred and the contents and layout of graves is one of the most persistent points
of contention in the robbery debate.
Stoll was convinced that removal of artefacts was the robbers’ motive. This is a consistent theme
throughout the literature: although many other interpretations for early medieval grave
disturbance have been put forward, reports from the excavations themselves are united in their
impression that the primary purpose of almost all reopening was to take grave-goods. Stoll
considered that artefacts of all kinds were missing from the disturbed graves, including beads,
precious metals, bronze, and iron objects, especially weapons. He describes several graves which
contained small pieces of otherwise missing objects, including at least three cases in which part or
all of a scabbard remained to show the former presence of a cutting weapon.
Stoll appears to have concluded that removed objects were being reused within the burying
community. He suggests that a number of anomalously early items appearing in the latest graves
could be explained through robbery, mentioning in particular that among the necklace
assemblages in some late female graves there were incongruously old beads, with the appearance
of having been in the ground longer than the rest. This suggestion from Stoll has not been picked
up in the later literature but, as discussed below, subsequent finds of apparently stolen objects
being reused at other cemeteries support his impression.
At Hailfingen robbery appeared only in the middle of the 7th century: no 6th century graves were
affected, and only a few from the earlier part of the 7th century. Stoll does not say so, but given
the consistent layout of cemeteries of this type, there is every reason to think that the 6th century
17
graves were still visible at the time the 7th century graves were dug, and presumably also when
they were reopened. The selection of only the most recent burials for reopening is therefore
significant.
However, as Stoll is careful to note, there are also large numbers of well-furnished but
undisturbed graves among the later group. It is not the case that all the later 7th century burials
were reopened; some further selection was made. From Stoll’s description it appears that some
spatial clustering was evident in the distribution of robbing across the cemetery, although this is
not fully explored. At other sites discussed below, especially at Pliening in Bavaria, such patterns
have been central to interpretation.
Redlich
The most widely transmitted of Stoll’s conclusions proved to be the idea that graves were robbed
by people who knew their contents and layout. It was taken up by Clara Redlich, who in 1948
made the first systematic attempt to explain the high levels of Merovingian grave-robbery.
Redlich saw the trigger in supposed changes to inheritance law in the 7th century, which meant
that the kin group was suddenly entitled to possess valuable items which had previously been
buried with the deceased as their inalienable property. The inheritance law route is now seen as a
blind alley, but was followed for some decades. There is no evidence for a major change in law or
customs relating to grave-goods in this period. However, the heritability of different types of
grave-goods is one of the interpretative threads explored in this thesis.
Bülach
At Bülach, Switzerland, at least 44 out of some 300 excavated graves had been reopened in
antiquity (Werner 1953: 7). As at most sites, there were also various sources of more recent
disturbance, which are distinguished in the report from the early reopening. Joachim Werner
followed Stoll in concluding that the ancient robbers were familiar with the graves. He had good
grounds for doing so, since the cemetery contained one of a handful of examples of removed
objects being reused and reburied. The undisturbed female in Gr 286, buried in the later 7th
century, was wearing a belt fastening which appears to have been taken and adapted from the set
of inlaid shoe buckles worn by the woman in robbed Gr 285 (Fig. 4). Gr 285 and 286 are not
adjacent or parts of an obvious group, but are in the same area of the cemetery. It remains
possible that this buckle was omitted from the Gr 285 set at burial and used by the Gr 286
woman, but Werner’s conclusion that it had been removed from Gr 285 is highly plausible.
18
Similar examples of robbing and reuse have since been reported at Marktoberdorf and Pliening
(Christlein 1966: 17, Codreanu-Windauer 1997: 32, below).
As at Hailfingen, the typical patterns were either for burials to be rifled in their entirety, or for
disturbance to be confined to the area of the upper body, where the majority of grave-goods lay.
Some female skeletons had traces of bronze staining, suggesting that dress elements had been
removed – a feature seen at many of the disturbed sites of this and other periods (Chapter 4.9).
At Bülach it was mainly graves of the 6th and first half of the seventh century which fell prey to
the robbers. The later 7th century burials were unrobbed, suggesting that disturbance had
occurred during the middle of that century, and that burial at the site had afterwards continued.
In a somewhat disconnected final comment, Werner (1953: 7) attributes the plunder to a
deepening scarcity of precious metals during the 7th century:
"Since the graves of the 6th and the first half of the 7th century were particularly richly
furnished with artefacts of solid bronze, or silver or occasionally of gold, materials which in
the course of the 7th century became ever more scarce, they made a particularly profitable
goal for the robbers, who had to work by night and in all secrecy under threat of severe
punishment… The scarcity of metal in the later period is without doubt the main cause of
the impious grave-robbery, from which hardly a Germanic row-grave cemetery escaped in
the early middle ages."
These conclusions are surely at odds with both the chronology and the previously presented
evidence. In particular, the reused find implies that at least some robbing was carried out by the
burying population, and most significantly that public display of removed objects was possible,
which seems incompatible with the claim of secrecy. Meanwhile the apparently broad selection of
artefacts for removal at this and the other sites gives little basis for the suggestion of precious
metal targeting.
Müngersdorf
Fritz Fremersdorf’s publication of the Müngersdorf cemetery in Köln includes at least one
example of a grave (Gr 97b) being robbed of its artefacts when an overlying burial was added
(Fremersdorf 1955: 31). This opportunistic form of robbery is occasionally seen in a wide range
of cemeteries, including one or two cases in Kent (Chapter 4.9). It is a minor feature of the
robbing phenomenon, but shows conclusively that at least some reopening took place alongside
burial.
19
Fremersdorf also believed that the planned robbing at Müngersdorf took place within the use
period of the cemetery, while accurate information about assemblages was still current. He found
that while most of the robbed graves were totally ransacked, in 18 examples disturbance was
confined to particular areas of the skeleton. As at Hailfingen, many female graves were disturbed
only in the chest area, where valuable brooches were worn. However, Fremersdorf also includes
the possibly contradictory finding that in many cases stolen metal objects had left substantial rust
deposits in the earth of the grave floor, showing that both they and the wooden coffins had
substantially decayed during the time between interment and reopening. In Gr 135, for example,
a rust stain and fragments of wooden scabbard showed the former position of a sword
(Fremersdorf 1955: 30).
Merdingen and Güttingen
In 1971 Gerhard Fingerlin added considerable nuance to the picture with his dual publication of
the cemeteries of Merdingen and Güttingen. He pointed out firstly that many rich graves remain
unrobbed, especially at Güttingen, suggesting that robbers worked inefficiently and probably had
only imperfect knowledge of the cemetery. This perception was supported by his evidence that
the robbers did not work selectively in terms of gender or grave type and depth at Merdingen,
and by Christiane Neuffer-Müller’s work at Iversheim, where she showed that robbers sometimes
opened unfurnished graves (Neuffer-Müller 1972: 11).
Fingerlin also raised the question of why neighbouring cemeteries had such different robbing
rates. This led him to speculate that other factors beyond metal scarcity might contribute to the
pattern. At Merdingen, for example, 85% of burials were disturbed, while less than half were
affected at Güttingen (Fingerlin 1971: 16-54). As can be seen in Table 1, other nearby Baden-
Württemberg burial grounds have robbing rates somewhere between the two, such as Donzdorf
with 67% and Fridingen with 75%. Sontheim is much lower, with robbing evidence found in only
18% of burials (Roth 1978: 60). This marked local variation in robbing rates is repeated across
the areas under discussion in this thesis and must be taken into account by any attempted
interpretation.
Rübenach
Christiane Neuffer-Müller published several disturbed cemeteries, including Rübenach in the
Rheinland, where she made some of the first systematic observations about the timing of robbing
activity in a Merovingian context. At Rübenach she argued for a first wave of robbing during
20
which the earlier burials were disturbed, occurring while coffins were still intact and some
ligaments survived, so that partially articulated body parts were found in the fill of disturbed
graves. Despite this disturbance, burial continued at the site. After the use period of the cemetery
there was a second robbing phase, once graves were no longer readily visible on the surface.
Robber cuts to locate and open graves sometimes covered several interments, indicating a large
scale search for graves to loot. Lastly there was evidence for antiquarian and modern digging
(Neuffer-Müller & Ament 1973: 18-19).
Vörs
A related approach had in fact already been set out in the Lombardic cemeteries of Hungary, but
was only brought to western European attention by Roth (1978: 58-59). At the completely
robbed cemetery of Vörs, Ka 
roly Sa
gi (1964) identified 3 distinct robbing methods:
Coffin completely decayed, burial completely excavated and desirable goods taken.
Shaft dug, hole smashed in intact coffin lid, goods fished out with a stick or hook.
Larger pit dug, intact coffin lid lifted off, desirable objects collected.
Since the choice of method appeared to be linked to the state of preservation of the grave
contents, particularly the coffin, Sa
gi believed that robbers had advance knowledge of the age and
likely condition of the burial. This has subsequently been shown to be incorrect, as discussed
below. It is much more likely that robbers adapted their methods to the state of the remains they
found as they progressed. However, and notwithstanding the various elaborations proposed by
later authors, Sa
gi’s basic grave opening methods are widely recognisable, including, as shown in
Chapter 5, across the channel in the early medieval cemeteries of Kent.
All 37 excavated graves at Vörs were totally or partially disturbed, which Sa 
gi argued had
happened in one episode immediately after burial had ceased at the site in circa AD 568.
Hemmingen
Hermann Müller’s (1976) report of his excavations at Hemmingen, Baden-Württemberg, arrived
too late to be considered by Roth. This is regrettable, since Müller showed conclusively that at
Hemmingen, and probably elsewhere, the impression that grave robbers must have had personal
knowledge of the buried individuals and their grave-goods is incorrect (Müller 1976: 121-125).
His conclusions have not been taken universally on board by subsequent authors (e.g. Steuer
21
1998: 519, Effros 2002: 59), perhaps because they are missing from Roth’s survey, but where
used they have substantially added to the value of later work (e.g. Codreanu-Windauer 1997).
Twenty-six out of 59 graves at Hemmingen had been robbed. The homogenous humic soil
meant that robber cuts could only be seen in one or two graves; disturbance in the others was
evidenced by skeletal disorder. The degree of disturbance varied considerably from grave to grave,
as at other sites, and there were some borderline cases where the skeletal disorder was slight
enough that it might have been caused by animals.
The description of disturbance at Hemmingen follows the classic pattern repeated again and
again in the literature: in 3 cases, disturbance affected the whole upper part of the skeleton to the
pelvis; in 4 cases a femur was also moved; in 10 cases the upper part plus two femurs; in 5 cases
the whole skeleton except for the extremities of the limbs. In 16 out of 26 cases bones lay in the
grave fill.
At other sites, as we have seen, the fact that different parts of graves showed disorder has usually
been taken as evidence of targeted opening, and thus prior knowledge on the part of the robbers
about the gender and possessions of the dead. This belief has been supplemented by the
impression in several cemeteries that richer graves were being chosen for looting. However by
the time of the Hemmingen publication, scepticism had already been expressed about this thesis,
by Frauke Stein (1961: 97), Gerhard Fingerlin (1971: 20) and by Helmut Schoppa (1950: 7) in his
report on Eltville, Hesse, where he reasoned that robbers were going by the above ground
appearance of graves, with rich burials in some way distinguishable on the surface.
Müller’s crucial insight was that the pattern of skeletal disorder in each grave did not hold all the
necessary information about the method used to reopen it, and that it could frequently mislead.
Instead of focusing on mapping the disturbance to the static remains, Müller turned his attention
to the process that created them and to the decisions made by the robbers as they worked. He
argued that robbers first of all looked in the chest area, where they knew that female jewellery
conventionally lies. Although he did not say so, this area could easily be guessed given the typical
W-E grave orientation. If the grave turned out to be female, the robbers contented themselves
with robbing the upper body. If they had happened upon a male grave, they could additionally
extend the robber cut. That the cut was not all made in one go would not be visible to the later
excavator, since only a matter of moments intervened between the initial upper body opening
and the extension. Differential disturbance of male and female burials is therefore the result not
of prior knowledge, but of information obtained during the process of robbing.
22
Moreover, Müller shows that partial disturbance of the skeleton does not allow the conclusion
that only this part of the burial was exposed. In Hemmingen Gr 41, for example, only the bones
of the upper body were recognisably disturbed. However, careful observation showed that a
piece of shoe decoration at the other end of the grave had also been moved, and thus that the
whole length of the burial had in fact been uncovered. It was simply unnecessary for the robbers
to interfere with the bones lower down, since no desirable artefacts lay there.
This idea is corroborated in wealthy male Gr 25. Exceptionally at this site, a visible robber cut
could be seen into this burial, stretching from the right shoulder to the right knee. It therefore
dug out the area in which a sword could be expected, and indeed traces of left-behind sword
ornament were found. However, despite the initial appearance, this was not a case of targeted
opening for a sword the robbers knew to be present. Although the intrusive cut could only be
seen in the part from which artefacts had been taken, this grave must also have been uncovered
in its whole length, since outside the visible cut the right lower leg had been moved and the left
femur was entirely missing.
Müller also argues that since certain valuable items, decorative studs and a large ivory bead with
silver decoration, were left in this grave, the robbers cannot have had personal knowledge of the
assemblage, or they would have taken care to remove all such items. Likewise the silver brooches
overlooked in Gr 6 and 36. In this he follows observations made at the high status grave
excavated at Baldenheim, Alsace much earlier in the century. Even though this burial was robbed
of other more conventionally placed remains, the valuable helmet eluded the robbers, clearly
because they did not know to expect finds beside the skull (Henning 1907: 4). Müller therefore
agreed with Schoppa’s observations at Eltville, that the grave robbers went by the aboveground
form of the graves.
No preference for particularly wealthy graves could be demonstrated at Hemmingen. It could
only be shown that about half the robbed interments had been originally well-furnished. Given all
this and the high number of unmutilated graves with valuable finds, Müller considered any
systematic targeting of rich burials improbable. Roughly equal proportions of male and female
graves were robbed, but children's graves were less frequently targeted. Robbing was seen in one
third of juvenile burials as opposed to half of adult graves. This may have been because children’s
graves were less clearly marked on the surface. Müller does not, however, consider the likelihood
that disturbance was harder to detect amongst the less well preserved bones of children.
23
Müller notes a tendency for vessels to be left behind in disturbed graves, as reported elsewhere.
In four graves vessels lay in specially-constructed niches, and none of these had been removed. It
was not possible to conclude whether they had been overlooked, since they were peripheral to
the main burial, or whether they had been deliberately left. Likewise the remains of shields were
undisturbed in Gr 25 and 32, whether intentionally or because they lay at the edge of the deposit.
Turning to the question of date, at Hemmingen both earlier and later burials were robbed.
However in every case the disturbance took place after the muscle and connective tissue had
decayed. In addition, the metal oxidation process was so far advanced at the time of robbing that
intensive rust marks were left by stolen objects. In some graves it could be seen that the organic
materials holding together metal parts, such as in a sword sheath, had disintegrated by the time of
robbing, so that the metal pieces were found separately. In some cases metal objects were
sufficiently corroded to fall apart during robbing.
Müller therefore concludes that the robbing took place after the abandonment of the cemetery,
since even in the latest graves the bodies were fully skeletonized. He recognized that this finding
was different from the conclusions reached at most other sites, where at least some of the
robbing typically took place during the use period of the cemetery (e.g. Werner 1953: 7, Böhner
1958: 281, Neuffer-Müller 1966: 10). This may well be because the Hemmingen cemetery was
only in use for a relatively short time and was given up earlier than most row-grave cemeteries
which span the 6th to 7th centuries. At Hemmingen a number of graves seem to have been
reopened simultaneously, since bones were sometimes returned to the wrong trench. The backfill
of Gr 25, for example, contains bones from Gr 8, about five metres away. Müller therefore sees
robbing as taking place in a concentrated period in the 7th century, with rich earlier graves
attacked at the same time.
To explain this ransacking of an ancestral burial ground, he turns to accounts in the written
sources of war bands raiding graves in times of strife. His use of the Vita Severini in particular
risks anachronism, but serves to show that such assaults could be used as acts of war, as also seen
in the Scandinavian literature (Chapter 1). Müller saw grave-robbery as happening in times of
exception rather than as an embedded social practice, connecting this more specifically to war
bands, and above all the many feuds which disturbed the peace of the land: "Wir haben daher
Unruhezeiten, Kriegszüge, vor allem die zahlreichen Fehden bei fehlendem Landfrieden als wesentliche Ursache
anzusehen - Zeiten, in denen die Gültigkeit bestehender Gesetze aufgehoben ist und in denen die Bevölkerung
keinerlei Ordnungsfunktion ausüben kann." (Müller 1976: 125).
24
Friedberg-Bruchenbrücken
Andreas Thiedmann and Joachim Schleifring (1992) provide much-needed detail about robbers’
methods in their presentation of the evidence from Gr 8 at the partially excavated row-grave
cemetery of Friedberg-Bruchenbrücken, Hesse. The only complete artefact left in Gr 8 was a
spearhead, lying outside the coffin. This spearhead dates the grave to the second half of the 6th
century. The bones were of a male, about 35 years of age. The size and form of the grave suggest
that the burial would originally have been better-furnished, probably with at least a sword and
belt. These are thought to have been the robbers’ plunder.
The grave was disturbed after the process of soft tissue decomposition had begun but not
complete, perhaps 1-3 years after the man’s death. The bones showed some disorder, especially in
the central area, but the disturbance was not massive. A cone-shaped area of dark soil marked the
robber cut into the right side of the pelvis, and contained bone and a piece of iron, probably a
fragment of belt fitting.
Thiedmann and Schleifring argue that the initial appearance, that the robbers must have had prior
knowledge of the burial in order to make their targeted cut, was incorrect. They had in fact used a
probe to explore the grave before digging, in order to find the quickest and most economical
route to the grave-goods. Evidence of this implement, probably a pick of some kind, could be
seen in a square lesion cut into one shinbone (Fig. 6), and also in the slight displacement of bones
outside the reopened area.
Thiedmann and Schleifring’s deductions about the tool used at Friedberg-Bruchenbrücken are
supported by discoveries at several other sites. Small boreholes into graves are reported at
Eußenheim (Leinthaler 1995-6). Damage from probing was reported in the disturbed skeleton in
Pantonville Gr 101, discussed below. There it was shown to have been inflicted some years or
decades post-mortem, by a blunt-ended instrument (Wahl & Brunecker 2008). Coincidentally,
this early medieval probing method is almost identical to that developed a millennium later by
Kentish antiquarians (Appendix 1.4).
There have been various claims of finds in disturbed graves of metal instruments used as probes,
although Stephanie Zintl (pers. comm.) cautions that some of the finds claimed as robbing hooks
appear too fragile for the purpose and may be metal parts belonging to Klappstühle.
For the early medieval period, a metal implement in a disturbed grave at Unterfeld in Viecht,
Bavaria was interpreted as this kind of probe and/or tool for hooking artefacts out of the grave
(Dannhorn 1994: 300). It was a 45.5cm long iron stick with a ring at one end and a hook at the
25
other, found sticking vertically out of the burial stratum in Gr 65. The probing was not wholly
successful, since two bird brooches and other grave-goods were also found left in the burial.
Perhaps the robbers were disturbed in their work, causing them to forget the implement.
At Aubing, also in Bavaria, Gr 379 had the iron prong of some kind of tool stuck deep in the
earth at the foot end of the grave. The suggested reconstruction resembles a wooden hay fork.
The report suggested that once the burial level was reached, a tool rather than the hand was
preferred for searching through the remains (Dannheimer 1998: 26-29).
Robbing tools are also documented in the widely robbed graves of the European Bronze Age.
Henrik Thrane (1978) presents a number of examples in his paper on grave-robbery in Bronze
Age Denmark. The exceptional wood preservation in many of these graves enabled finds of
hook-ended sticks up to a metre or so long. The coffins were also in good enough condition that
the holes through which the sticks had been pushed could be seen. The holes were small, at most
13 by 24 cm, so that the robbers could not see the grave contents, and could at best get a hand
and an arm inside. In larger coffins it might not be possible to reach the whole assemblage.
Thrane provides a reconstruction drawing of this method, which he considers shows robbing to
be a hidden rather than official act, and highly irreverent (Thrane 1978: 16).
In central Europe, parts of a wooden spade found in the central chamber of the Iron Age mound
at Magdalenenberg bei Villingen have been used to date the robbers’ intrusion by
dendrochronology. The spade reportedly dates to at least 47 years after the timbers were cut for
the chamber, giving unusually precise information about the interval between burial and robbing
(Hollstein 1973: 54, Baitinger 1992: 341-342). Additionally, since we can see that the disturbance
there took place within the airspace of an intact wooden chamber, the Magdalenenberg evidence
shows that this kind of construction could last for nearly half a century before the roof collapsed,
which is a useful analogy for investigations of grave-robbery elsewhere.
Some of the most detailed information so far recovered about robbers’ working methods comes
from the late Roman or Migration period chamber grave excavated in 2006 at Poprad, Matejovce,
in northern Slovakia (Pieta 2008). A heavy axe, a pick, and three wooden shovels were interpreted
as the robbers’ tools – although why they were left behind is unclear. A hearth and remains of
torches imply that in this case the robbers worked at night. The inner chamber had been
systematically robbed, leaving only a few uninteresting or overlooked items, including bronze
arrowheads, playing pieces, and an awl. Nuts, the remains of leather and clothing, and a gold
26
pendant made from a solidus, perhaps accidentally dropped, were also found. In the outer
chamber were intact grave-goods in the form of vessels and food remains.
Viecht-Unterfeld
Thomas Dannhorn (1994) made a study of robbing methods at Viecht-Unterfeld, Bavaria, where
some 90% of the 278 excavated 5th-8th century graves had been disturbed in antiquity. Mapping
the disturbed areas of each skeleton, he identified 13 different robbing patterns, from near
complete disturbance and removal of some bones to much more limited disorder. However, it is
not clear what conclusions can be drawn from these patterns, since Dannhorn makes the same
observation as Müller (1976) and Codreanu-Windauer (1997), that the visible traces of robber
shafts and the areas of skeletal disturbance do not necessarily match up, so that neither is by itself
a complete guide to the activities of robbers in a given grave. More significantly, Dannhorn
shows that use of a hook should not be thought of as a separate robbing method, but could
feature in either total or partial reopening (Dannhorn 1994: 304).
Since the disturbance at Viecht-Unterfeld is so near complete, Dannhorn speculated that some
motive beyond material gain may have underlain it. He tentatively suggested that this may be
connected with the memory of social status represented by grave-goods, giving the living a
motive to obtain them. In this model the value of the robbed artefacts lies not in their pre-burial
worth, but in their former use as grave-goods and their associations with dead individuals. It is
similar to the idea of recovering kingly valuables from graves in Scandinavia (Chapter 1),
although on a more mundane scale. Although Dannhorn does not explore the idea this far, if
social status were to be conveyed by stolen artefacts, it would have to be possible legitimately to
display the goods.
At Viecht-Unterfeld Dannhorn presents one of a handful of examples of what look like attempts
to propitiate the robbed dead through sacrificial rituals. In the half-filled robber cut of one grave
at the site were placed the beheaded corpses of a fox and a dog. Dannhorn sees this as a strongly
pagan ritual act (Dannhorn 1994: 209). Such finds are rare in the row-grave zone, but appear
from time to time and may be reported more frequently as robbed graves and their backfill are
increasingly regarded as worthy research objects.
Much more frequent and developed examples of an apparently similar practice are seen in the
Masøom
cz group graves in Hungary (below). In addition, Ludwig Pauli (1975: 172) cites
evidence presented by Joachim Werner (1962: 87) from a group of 6th century AD Czech and
27
Slovenian cemeteries in which robbed graves contain whole or partial deer antlers. Werner
ascribes this to a magical, ritual form of early medieval grave opening.
Pliening
Silvia Codreanu-Windauer’s publication of Pliening in Bavaria includes one of the most detailed
appraisals of robbing evidence so far (Codreanu-Windauer 1997: 28-34). Like Müller, Codreanu-
Windauer shows that in most cases robbers did not have detailed knowledge of the graves they
opened. She presents evidence which puts into question the primacy of material gain as the main
motive, instead interpreting grave-robbery as a weapon in social conflict.
Some 36-40% of the 260-270 excavated graves at Pliening showed signs of ancient robbing, with
a few more in which disturbance might be due to animals or recent opening. Robbing
predominantly affected adult male burials, with 32 men disturbed compared to only 19 women.
This imbalance is unusual; more common are comments that roughly equal numbers of male and
female graves were affected (as seen in most of the sites discussed above, also e.g. Pe 
rin 1980:
284-5, Verwers 1987: 187). It must imply foreknowledge of graves, or at least a partial ability to
identify male burials on the surface.
As in other cemeteries the graves of children were largely spared. Codreanu-Windauer suggests
this may hang together with the sparse grave assemblages accorded to children, if the robbers
were aware of it. Alternatively, the smaller grave mounds over children's graves may have been
more difficult to find and so overlooked.
In most cases robber cuts were no longer visible, so that disturbance could only be identified
through skeletal disarray. In 24 graves the contents were totally dug through, with skeletal parts
strewn throughout the grave cut or heaped together. Even in these thoroughly disturbed graves
the skull and/or mandible sometimes remained in situ, perhaps due to their peripheral position.
In the other graves the disturbance was more confined, with female skeletons usually showing
disorder in the upper body down to the pelvis, and male ones on the left side, or less frequently
the right.
As Müller demonstrated at Hemmingen, the few graves which had identifiable robber shafts
showed clearly that the location of skeletal disorder is a poor guide to the route taken by the
robbers into the grave. For example, in Pliening Gr 66 the skeletal disturbance was confined to
the right leg, which would give the impression of a targeted cut. However, since the robber
trench survived in this grave, we can see that they in fact opened and inspected a much greater
area of the grave, from the head down to the right knee. Moreover, in many other graves the
28
bones found strewn through the grave fill are evidence that the plunder shaft was much larger
than the observably disturbed area of the skeleton.
In another example, Gr 42, Codreanu-Windauer shows that the robbers initially opened a cut
along the right hand side, in hope of finding a male grave with a weapon. Once they realised they
had opened a female grave, they extended the cut over the upper body. However, only the bones
of the trunk were disturbed, since that was the only area from which artefacts were plucked. This
is the opposite approach from the one Müller proposed, suggesting that the robbers had different
priorities at the two sites. Here at Pliening they aimed first for weapons, whereas at Hemmingen
female jewellery was the main goal. These priorities may well reflect the dates and furnishing
customs of the cemeteries, since later Pliening includes a greater preponderance of weapons than
early Hemmingen.
Without better coffin preservation it was not possible to say much more about the robbing
methods used. In two graves (42 and 67) the coffins seem to have been intact, and they may be
cases of breaking through an intact coffin lid, probably using some form of the hook robbing
technique. Still, in most cases the robbers evidently used the method of partially or entirely
digging out the grave.
In most cases at Pliening, and as discussed at other sites, the robbers seem to have been able to
dig straight down into burials. However in one case, Gr 183, the position of the robber cut
showed that the robbers could not in fact see the alignment of the grave clearly on the surface.
The report remarks on the brutality with which some graves were opened. In Gr 64 the entire left
arm lay in the grave fill and had evidently been still articulated at the time of robbing. On the
basis of the spread of other bones, the robber cut had encompassed the entire grave. There
appears to have been a solid coffin, from which the robbers removed the lid. Yet instead of
simply removing the desired grave-goods, they ransacked the whole contents and mutilated the
corpse.
Against this are a few other graves, such as Gr 66 and 67, where the robbers appear to have
worked with “piety”. The treatment of the bodies was thus conspicuously varied, from total or
partial rifling to apparent care and avoidance of damage. This variety is probably present at other
continental sites, though rarely commented on before Codreanu-Windauer, and is a feature of the
disturbance of Anglo-Saxon cemeteries discussed in Chapter 5.
The degree of secrecy under which the robbers operated is one of the main points of contention
in interpretations of grave-robbery, and has obvious implications for the robbers’ identity and for
29
the legitimacy of their actions. At Pliening Codreanu-Windauer argued that the robbers needed
both daylight and plenty of time to complete their work, pointing to the successful removal of
even small grave-goods such as beads. She therefore postulates some toleration of robbing by
society at large.
Codreanu-Windauer questioned whether material gain can have been the robbers’ main motive at
Pliening and elsewhere, in particular seeing little support for the hypothesis that a scarcity of
precious metals fuelled robbing. She observed that the robbing mainly affected 7th century
graves, which typically do not contain significant quantities of valuable non-ferrous metals. Silver
earrings and bead necklaces were the most that could be hoped from the graves of this period,
yet in some burials the earrings were actually left behind.
Certain 6th century graves were probably more productive, such as Gr 185, from which three
brooches had apparently been removed from an original four part set. Gr 163 is also likely to
have contained brooches, but all had been taken. However, in Gr 14 most of the valuables were
actually left. Out of this clearly robbed grave only a bow brooch was missing; the bronze pendant
and two silver brooches remained in the grave. Knives, combs, pendants, and bags do not seem
to have roused the interest of the grave robbers, and neither did belt buckles, which are left in
four robbed female graves.
Turning to the male graves, it is clear that the robbers had the sword in the first line of sight
when they set to work. Parts of sword sheaths were found in 6 graves; Gr 70 showed rustmarks
from the stolen weapon. However, could a sword in this condition possibly be put to use as a
weapon? The tripartite belt sets were also liable to fall apart when lifted, and must in any case
have been old-fashioned by the time of robbing.
Codreanu-Windauer’s spatial analysis of the layout of Pliening identified family groups, one of
which appears uniquely free from robbing. Only one grave (Gr 100) in this cluster is robbed,
even though two well-furnished female graves Gr 102 and 109, sword grave Gr 103 and the only
spear grave of the 7th century, Gr 107, are all found here. Codreanu-Windauer argued that their
sparing from grave-robbery cannot be explained chronologically, but rather that this family was
able to protect its graves from plunder. This implies that they knew the potential grave robbers,
or perhaps even that the robbers were to be found in their ranks.
The latter may be indicated by the find in Gr 105 of a spiral inlaid belt buckle tongue which
appeared to have been taken from robbed Gr 79 and reused (Fig. 5). Codreanu-Windauer takes
this find as confirming that the grave robbers come from within the local population. Along with
30
the similar cases from Bülach and Marktoberdorf discussed above, this is another indication that
robbed items at least sometimes stayed within the local community and were worn and displayed
openly.
Codreanu-Windauer concludes that the violent approach and the targeting of weapons point to a
motive in the spiritual realm, and were intended to diminish the power and prestige of the dead,
rendering them unfit to support the living. She argues that the cause of the robbing is to be
found in “local arguments, the character of which admittedly remains hidden from us”. This, she
suggests, is the reason why almost 80 percent of grave-fields like Pulling and Feldmoching fell
victim to the robbers, while the cemeteries at Altenerding and Öxing remained as good as
unrobbed. Her interpretation is thus along the same lines, although more specific, as that put
forward at Hemmingen by Müller, who saw the origin of grave-robbery in the feuding that
plagued the period (Müller 1976: 125, above). It is related to Dannhorn’s model (above), but
negative in the sense that the removal of artefacts was intended to remove status from the dead
as much as to convey it to the living.
Codreanu-Windauer’s work at Pliening is an example of how tightly robbing activity can
sometimes be dated. Robbing at Pliening affected mainly 7th century burials, with at least 43
disturbed, but there are also 8 robbed 6th century graves. In almost all cases skeletonization was
complete by the time of disturbance. However two bodies, in Gr 64 and 67, were still partially
articulated. Both of these are artefact-dated to the middle of the 7th century. The other datable
disturbed 7th century graves belong to the first part of the century. As at Bülach (Werner 1953:
5-7), the grave clusters from the later 7th century were undisturbed. Codreanu-Windauer
therefore considered that the bulk of robbing at Pliening took place during a brief phase in the
middle and the third quarter of the 7th century.
While earlier phases of robbing cannot be ruled out, there is no evidence that requires them. The
6th century disturbed graves were substantially decayed by the time of robbing, so were probably
all robbed along with the others in the 7th century. This is clearly the case for Gr 163, which was
uncovered and looted during the digging of Gr 162, which dates to the second half of the 7th
century. Three further robbed 6th century graves were unusually deep, and given the correlation
between grave depth and mound size evidenced at other sites, they probably also had
uncommonly large mounds which would still have been clearly visible in the 7th century.
Further corroboration for the dating comes from the robbers’ choice of graves to target.
Although (as discussed above) Codreanu-Windauer shows that in most cases the robbers had no
31
knowledge of the grave contents before reopening, she argued that in the heavily disturbed south
section, the selection of graves shows that the robbers possessed a rough picture of the burials
near-contemporary with their own time. In this particular area all the untouched adult graves
were poorly endowed or unfurnished. Meanwhile the surrounding graves were without exception
robbed.
Aubing
Another a clear, recent discussion of robbing evidence is provided by Hermann Dannheimer
(1998: 26-29) for the extensive cemetery at Aubing, Bavaria. At least 881 graves have been
excavated at the site, with the remains of over 900 individuals, about half of whom had been
disturbed in antiquity. Dannheimer noted that children’s skeletons were almost entirely
decomposed, and so could not be assessed for robbing.
In several cases older graves were robbed before the interment of an overlying burial, as seen at
Müngersdorf and Pliening (above), and sites in Kent (Chapter 5). These do not seem to have
been secondary burials, in the sense of a complete re-use of the same grave cut, but the
juxtaposition with the earlier interments may have been deliberate. It is not clear that robbing
took place in conjunction with the overlying burials, but it must have occurred before or during
their interment. In some cases the later burials had also been subsequently robbed. For example,
robbed male Gr 495 lay some 20cm under robbed adult Gr 494. The burial layers were not mixed;
the burials had been robbed separately, Gr 495 before the deposition of Gr 494. Two important
conclusions can be drawn from these examples: robbing took place while burial continued at
Aubing, and there were multiple robbing episodes.
It was evident from several graves that reopening frequently occurred before skeletonization was
complete. In at least 5 cases skeletal parts remained attached despite being dug out of and thrown
back into graves. In a few cases the robber cuts could be clearly seen. In many cases the
excavators had the impression that the robbers knew where they should search for the desired
grave-goods. For example, in double grave Gr 676/677 only the female burial was disturbed, and
only in the upper body area.
On the other hand, Dannheimer also observed that robbing could take place without any evident
disturbance to the body. It is likely that Müller and Codreanu-Windauer’s analysis applies here
too: the disturbed areas of the skeletons are not the only ones viewed or explored by the robbers
and cannot be taken as evidence of prior knowledge of grave contents. Then again, Dannheimer
reported that the undisturbed graves at the site were poorly furnished or without gravegoods,
32
which may suggest robbers knew which burials to target, or were able to make deductions on the
basis of their surface appearance.
Remseck-Pantonville
Some of the most up-to-date evidence for Merovingian-period robbing comes from the recently
excavated row-grave cemetery of Remseck-Pantonville in Kreis Ludwigsborg, Baden-
Württemberg (Bofinger & Przemyslaw 2008). Here the excavators were able to approach the
material with a body of questions raised by previous research into grave opening. Their broad
conclusion, like that at most of the early medieval sites discussed here, is that although motives
might go beyond the purely material, removal of grave-goods was the central focus.
The use period of Remseck-Pantonville stretched from the early Merovingian period to the later
7th century, with the peak in the second half of the 6th century and the beginning of the 7th
century. Nearly all the graves showed signs of “more or less brutal robbing”.
The favourable soil conditions preserved unusually clear evidence of the robber cuts, which in
most cases were visible from immediately under the topsoil. The cuts were seen as irregular
discolourations within the areas of the grave cuts, continuing down to the grave floors. In most
cases displaced skeletal parts were found in the robber cuts, thought to have been dug out with
the earth and then thrown back into the pits.
The position of the robber cut is said to have been closely correlated with the sex of the dead at
Pantonville, although no statistics are presented. The cuts were generally in the area of the upper
body in female graves, where most jewellery and dress elements were found, and towards the
middle and lower parts of male graves, where weapons and other equipment lay. It was therefore
inferred that either the sex was evident from the aboveground grave marking, or the robbers
knew who was buried in each grave.
In addition, the small number of graves which were spared robbing were generally shallow and
lacking in valuables. They also lacked the traces of wooden coffins and other structures seen in
many of the disturbed graves. The deepest graves and those with wooden chambers had
reportedly been most completely disturbed and robbed out.
This effective targeting of wealthy burials is unusual. More common are comments such as those
of Stoll, Fingerlin, and Neuffer-Müller, that the robbers had left some markedly well-furnished
graves, while opening some apparently empty ones. On the other hand, although the Pantonville
robbers seem to have had advance knowledge of assemblages, or at least to have been able to
33
make accurate inferences about them from grave markings, they were still not particularly
selective in their reopening, if fewer than 10% escaped robbing. Both male and female graves
appear to have been equally attractive; no claim that weapons were particularly sought after can
be made here.
Secrecy was thought unlikely, on the grounds of the large size and depth of the cuts. There was
considerable variation in the treatment of the skeletal remains. In some burials the bones lay in
disorder on the grave floor, while in others the majority of the skeleton was missing. There were
also some cases of bones piled in a corner of the grave, a pattern seen in other sites including
Pliening (see above), Burgweinting-Schule (Stephanie Zintl pers. comm.) and cemeteries in Kent
(Chapter 5).
In most cases the graves appeared to have been readily identifiable on the surface. However, in
one area of the cemetery there were a number of pits similar to the robber cuts, but which did
not correspond with any graves. These were interpreted as prospecting for burials, perhaps at a
later period. Such have also been reported at Künzig-Bruck in Kreis Deggendorf (Hannibal-
Deraniyagala 2007: 7). At Pantonville some graves in this zone seemed to have been disturbed
more than once: Gr 577 had been cut by a robber pit, with the characteristic skeletal disturbance
of the early period. It had then later been “sounded” by the use of a tool thought similar to the
iron rod reported at Eching-Viecht, leaving small boreholes like those seen at Eußenheim plus
puncture and scraping marks on the remaining skeletal parts (Dannhorn 1994: 300, Leinthaler
1995-6, Wahl & Brunecker 2008, above).
Lombards
Just outside the main Merovingian focus of this chapter, both in date and geography, lie the
Lombardic cemeteries of central Europe. Widespread early disturbance has been recognized here
since the 1930s (Seracsin 1936, Aspöck 2002, 2003, Tejral 2008), and was noted in brief by Roth,
who featured the detailed observations about robbing methods made at Vörs, Hungary, by
Ka 
roly Sa 
gi (Sa
gi 1964, Roth 1978: 65-66, above). So common was the 5th-6th century
ransacking, that the unusual depth of Lombardic graves has been interpreted as a deterrent to
robbers (Adler 1970: 39 note 11, cited in Aspöck 2002: 27). Edeltraud Aspöck presents a recent
overview of the Lombardic research as background to her investigation of the disturbed cemetery
at Brunn am Gebirge, Austria (Aspöck 2002: 26-28, 2003: 239-240), so only the most relevant
points are included here.
34
In this region interpretations have centred on the movements of ethnic groups, especially
through historical accounts of migrations and other events. Mid-20th century authors saw
robbery as a marker of migrations as incoming populations, especially Slavic tribes, replaced the
inhabitants and raided the grave fields of their predecessors (e.g. Werner 1962, Sa
gi 1964,
Beninger & Mitscha Märheim 1966: 170, Adler 1970). Šaratice in the Czech Republic is one
example. Here 
enk Staa identified two phases punctuated by a population change. At the end
of the first, every single one of the 5th century pre-Lombardic graves was ransacked and left
open. In the second burial phase, seven of the emptied graves were reused, but in a way not felt
to respect the previous interment (cited in Tejral 1977: 84).
Lack of respect shown to the remains of the dead is also referred to as ruling out robbing by the
burying population in Horst Adler’s 1970 review of the regional evidence (Adler 1970: 138-147).
However, Adler gives prime place to material gain rather than a destructive motive. Since
weapons were rarely placed in graves of the Lombardic type, non-ferrous metals were thought
the main goal (Beninger & Mitscha Märheim 1966: 170). Metal scarcity is suggested here too, as
later in the Merovingian context: “Der Grund für diese Beraubung mag sicherlich in der Gier nach dem rar
gewordenen Edelmetall gelegen haben, auch eine gewisse Rohstoffknappheit dürfte dafür verantwortlich gewesen
sein.” (Friesinger 1988: 59).
More recently, István Bóna (1993) has strongly criticized Austrian research perspectives as
unwilling to admit the written and archaeological evidence that their “own” populations carried
out robbing. Bóna presents a varied picture of robbing in the Pannonian region – as opposed to
the much more intensively raided cemeteries north of the Danube – pointing to the variation in
robbing levels between sites. Such discrepancies between burial grounds are frequently remarked
in several regions. In Bóna’s case, the variation is explained as between “family burial grounds”
(Familiengräberfelder) of which only parts are affected, and “clan burial grounds” (Sippegräberfelder),
which are completely ransacked, presumably due to the looser personal connections between the
cemetery users. That said, he too accepts systematic robbing in conjunction with certain 6th
century population movements (Bóna 1993: 124-5, cited in Aspöck 2003: 240).
Brunn am Gebirge
Edeltraud Aspöck’s recent publication of the 6th century cemetery at Brunn am Gebirge, Flur
Wolfholz, Austria is one of the benchmark recent reports of Lombardic robbing evidence
(Aspöck 2002, 2003, Aspöck & Stadler 2003). All 42 of the burials at Brunn had been disturbed
in antiquity, with one possible exception. Aspöck classified the degree of disturbance to each
35
grave, plus the location of the robber cut where identified, and the state of preservation of the
corpse at the time of disturbance. She made the crucial observation that in coffined burials it is
frequently possible to tell whether the chamber was still intact at the time of disturbance, or
whether it was earth-filled (Chapters 4.9, 5). Her approaches are drawn upon several times in the
sections which follow on Anglo-Saxon reopening.
Aspöck’s conclusions are limited by the small size of her sample, but she judges that the Brunn
am Gebirge graves were probably successively, rather than simultaneously, reopened by the
burying population. Reopening happened within about 35 years of burial, and in some cases
much sooner. Many graves seemed to have been refilled only partially after robbing, so that their
violation must have been plain to see. This is the opposite of Stoll’s observation of attempts to
conceal robbing in a Merovingian context (Stoll 1939: 9, above).
The exception was the group of burials which had been reopened before fleshy decomposition
was complete: these had been fully backfilled. Aspöck does not speculate on the reasons behind
this, but it seems likely that more care was taken in re-covering the partially rotted bodies,
presumably because of the smell and disgust or a sense that this decomposition should take place
out of sight. There is also a possibility that the early reopening was connected with fears of
revenants (below and Chapter 6.3).
In several of the Brunn graves skeletal parts had been deliberately separated from the rest, which
Aspöck saw as an indication of a destructive impulse behind the reopening. Disturbed skeletons
were frequently damaged or incomplete, though this was probably frequently the accidental result
of digging, rather than intentional removal. Then again, it is striking that the skull, despite its size
and high recognition factor, was the bone most frequently missing, absent in 13 (38%) of burials.
Four out of the six burials where the skeletonization was still incomplete at time of disturbance
showed skull manipulation. In two (Gr 9 and 20, Fig. 3), very similar burials, an extra skull had
been added during the reopening. Stones were placed around the original skull in one of these. In
another burial (Gr 5) the skull had been placed in the chest area. In the last (Gr 26) the skull had
been removed. Two of these four burials showed signs of grave-goods also having been removed,
but in the others this was not proven. Aspöck suggests that this treatment of bodies may be
connected with the overcoming of Wiedergänger, especially as it occurred so soon after burial
(Aspöck 2002: 67).
Aspöck notes another Austrian case of skull collection, at Erpersdorf where 4 skulls were found
in one disturbed grave (Hampl 1964: 60, Aspöck 2002: 26). Similar tendencies deliberately to
36
rearrange skulls are also seen in the 7th century context. At the Viecht-Unterfeld burial ground in
Bavaria Dannhorn considered this manipulation secondary to the main motive of removing
grave-goods, but found that in 7 reopened graves the skull had been lifted and placed in the area
of the lower body. The skull-moving pattern was marked enough to form one of his 13 robbing
types (Dannhorn 1994: 303).
At Brunn am Gebirge small numbers of bones from a second individual were found in 4
disturbed graves. Such evidence may be taken as evidence for the simultaneous reopening of
more than one grave, as at Bronze Age Gemeinlebarn F (below). However, Aspöck shows that it
is crucial to think stratigraphically here, as bones, like other loose material, can find their way into
hollows left after reopening and thus appear to be incorporated into grave fill. This was the case
in two of the Brunn graves, while in the other two extra skulls had been deliberately added to the
burial context during reopening. Due to poor bone preservation and the high proportion of
emptied graves it was not possible at Brunn to reconstruct from which graves the extraneous
material had come. (Aspöck 2002: 66).
Mixing of bone material between disturbed graves is a marked feature of the Bronze Age
cemetery at Gemeinlebarn F, also in Austria. Johannes-Wolfgang Neugebauer (1991: 115, below)
takes it as evidence of the disrespect with which graves were treated by robbers. It is much more
limited in the Merovingian-period cemeteries, although seen at Rübenach (Neuffer-Müller &
Ament 1973: 18-19) and Hemmingen (Müller 1976: 121-125). Hemmingen Gr 25, for example,
contained extra bones believed to have been taken from nearby Gr 8, about five metres away. It
was thought that the graves had been opened simultaneously, and the bones accidentally or
carelessly returned into the wrong trench. At Künzing-Buck, Kreis Deggendorf three
neighbouring graves, Gr 189, 196, and 197 were considered all have been opened at the same
time because skeletal parts from Gr 197 ended up in the backfill of the other two burials
(Hannibal-Deraniyagala 2007: 7).
There are a small number of similar cases in Kent (Chapter 5.2), although the evidence there
highlights the difficulties of distinguishing this kind of admixture from material which has been
redeposited during the reuse of a grave cut.
Masøom
cz
At the eastern edge of the study area is a group of cemeteries included here for their unusually
elaborate ritual treatment of reopened graves. This is the Masøom
cz group of grave fields in
37
eastern Poland, dating to the last centuries of the Roman Empire and earlier part of the
Migration Period, or the 3rd to 5th centuries AD (Kokowski 1991).
These cemeteries serve mainly as a counterpoint to the Merovingian burial grounds which are the
main focus of this chapter. Ritual activity, such as secondary funerary customs, has several times
been put forward as an alternative for the robbery explanation for early medieval grave reopening.
The Masøom
cz cemeteries have evidence for such customs in abundance; they illustrate by
contrast the near (although not complete) absence of ritual activity during grave disturbance in
Merovingia.
Andrzej Kokowski (1991: 128) saw grave-robbery as the exception in the Masøom
cz cemetery
cluster; most of the reopening being explained by the population’s own burial rituals. At
Masøom
cz itself 47 out of 290 graves were assessed as reopened in antiquity, at Gródek am Bug
17 out of 163, and at Moroczyn 2 out of 10. Kokowski identified three main grounds for
reopening: (1) to cremate part of a body; (2) to symbolize family links by putting adult bones into
a child’s grave or vice versa; (3) to add vessels or animals to graves. There are also some
unfurnished graves which had been reopened for reasons which are not archaeologically visible.
Twenty-one burials had only part of the skeleton lying in situ, but with cremated bone deposited
in the fill. In some cases it could be shown that these secondary deposits were of the missing
parts of the primary interment. The secondary cremated remains were often furnished with their
own grave-goods (Kokowski 1991: 123).
Masøom
cz Gr 84, for example, was initially reopened in order to remove the bones of the upper
body down to the pelvis. The upper parts of the wooden coffin were damaged and the robber cut
went a little deeper than the grave floor. The second reopening took place in order to bury
cremated bones, almost certainly the parts earlier taken from the body, in the grave fill. The
cremated deposit was furnished with a brooch and beads, grave-goods which are normally found
in the chest area and quite possibly those originally interred with the primary burial (Kokowski
1991: 124).
Twelve graves had added cremated remains or selected bones from second individuals. Some of
these secondary depositions had their own grave-goods. In some cases bones of adult women
were placed in children’s graves, suggesting a kin relationship. There was also evidence for the
concentration of ritual behaviour on skulls: the skeletal part added to Gr 287 at Masøom
cz was
the complete head of an adult, while two skulls had been placed in the secondary cut in Gródek
38
Gr 22. This is notable since, as discussed below, the limited evidence for skeletal manipulation in
the row-grave zone centres on skulls.
There were several interments with animals on the grave floor and cremated human remains in
the backfill of reopened graves. One burial was of a hen covered with a vessel. In another a large
goose lay in a wooden coffin with a comb, beads, belt parts and other grave-goods. Other such
burials contained complete skeletons of hare, boar, and duck (Kokowski 1991: 122).
Some analogous practices, at least the partial inhumation burials, are known from neighbouring
cultures, where a magical/cultic interpretation has been preferred. However, excavation and
recording of these cemeteries tended to focus only on the grave floor, with little attention given
to the fills. Kokowski expresses the hope that future study will reveal whether similar
redeposition also featured there (Kokowski 1991: 124, 130). The backfill of early medieval graves
in general may be considered neglected, notably as a source of evidence about recuts. Still, we can
securely conclude that evidence of ritual activity on this scale is absent in Merovingia.
Christianisation
Merovingian grave-robbery is frequently linked with the spread of Christianity, substantially
because of the broad chronological concord between the two. However, the nature of any causal
relationship between the change of religion and grave-robbery is contested. The idea of a link
largely originates with Roth, who made it a cornerstone of his interpretations. Roth saw a
connection between robbery and Christian rejection of the furnished burial custom. In his 1977
article he argued that since grave-goods had no place in Christian thought, Christianity provided
legitimation for grave-robbery in what remained an essentially pagan society (1977: 290). He
concluded his seminal 1978 paper with the statement that:
“During the Merovingian period, a distinctive sort of grave-robbery first made its
appearance, a development that can only be explained as a consequence of the knowledge
and further spread of Christianity and its ideas. A general familiarity with Christian belief
systems, in which grave goods for the dead no longer had a place, caused these pagan
customs and ideas to lose their unique efficacy”.
(Roth 1978: 74)
These ideas have since been criticised from several angles. Ludwig Pauli pointed to the
implausibility of this one element of Christian doctrine, the modest poverty of the dead in the
hereafter, being picked out to justify the snatching of resources from graves: “Sie kann nicht einfach
39
dadurch beschrieben werden, daß Langobarden, Bajuwaren oder Franken aus dem christlichen Lehrgebäude
isoliert den Satz von der Bedürfnislosigkeit der Toten im himmlischen Jenseits herausgepickt hätten, um in einer
Zeit der Metallverknappung die subjective Legitimation für Rohstoffgewinnung aus Gräbern zu erhalten” (Pauli
1982: 472).
Bonnie Effros (2002: 61) has shown that Roth’s thesis rests on an outdated conception of grave-
goods as a non-Christian practice. She points to the lack of evidence of clerical disapproval of
furnished burial, contrasting this silence with the many law codes that show the efforts of the
Christian hierarchy to protect grave-goods and integrity of the grave. The tide of opinion has
more generally turned against the idea of Christian hostility to grave-goods during the conversion
period (e.g. Geake 1997, Blair 2005).
On the other hand, Effros followed Roth in considering robbing “symptomatic not only of the
breakdown of social fabric but also of less concern with or respect for the functions of grave
goods” (Effros 2002: 59). This idea is contested here. In an English context, Helen Geake (1997,
Chapter 3) in particular has shown that the cultural references of conversion period grave
assemblages changed to maintain grave-goods as a meaningfully constituted part of the burial rite.
The specific selection of objects for removal suggested on the continent (below), and
demonstrated in detail in the Anglo-Saxon sections of this thesis, puts the basis of robbing in the
meaningfulness, not irrelevance, of funerary artefacts.
Heiko Steuer (1982: 498) has argued that since large parts of the Frankish elite had been Christian
since Clovis’ time, the row-grave custom and Christianisation should be seen as parallel and not
antithetical phenomena. However, he also considered the new religion as a factor in the robbery
boom, suggesting that the spread of the cult of the saints contributed to an atmosphere in which
less stringent mores allowed greater contact with the dead (Steuer 1982: 500).
Steuer saw grave-robbery as happening at times of radical social change, of breakage with the past:
“Umbruchzeiten” with “veränderten sozialen Verhältnisse”. In the Merovingian case he argued that
graves were looted as a result of the shift from a “free” to a “dependent” manorial society, and
the associated centralization of wealth. The majority could no longer afford to keep up the grave-
good practice and families abandoned their ancestral graves, leaving them vulnerable to looting
(Steuer 1982: 499).
Steuer refuted Müller’s suggestion of robber bands or feuds on the grounds that such practices
would not occur within or between closely related ethnic groups “zwischen so kulturell verwandten
Gruppen wie Alemannen und Franken, geschweige dem innerhalb einer Stammesgemeinschaft”, but could only
40
be expected in cases of mass migration or collision between “völlig fremder Völkerschaften”, entirely
foreign nations (Steuer 1982: 499).
As supporting evidence Steuer argued that smaller, structured cemeteries have lower robbing
levels than larger, amorphous ones, and that this is because social ties are closer in the smaller
communities. This possibility that will be investigated in Kent, but it is unlikely that the data are
of sufficient precision to support this conclusion either in England or on the continent.
Aside from these criticisms, Steuer’s model is undermined by the chronology. Where detailed
recent analysis as been carried out, such as by Codreanu-Windauer (1997) at Pliening and
Dannheimer (1998) at Aubing, we can see that cemeteries continued to be used for at least a
generation after robbing ceased. The burials also continued to include grave-goods, even after
major robbing episodes.
The chronology is a central objection to many of the arguments which have attempted to explain
reopening in terms of Christianisation. Effros (2002: 57), for example, suggests that the steadily
rising level of grave-robbery in the Merovingian kingdoms and adjacent regions actually
contributed to the decline of grave-good deposition and the search for more effective means of
commemoration. This is a plausible idea, but based on Roth’s probably erroneous dating. As
discussed above, it is more likely the case that robbery happened during a fairly concentrated 7th
century period, with furnished burial continuing afterwards, admittedly in a waning form.
Frans Theuws (1999), in his review of settlement and burial evidence from the Meuse-Demer-
Scheldt region of present-day southern Netherlands and northern Belgium, speculates that so-
called robbery might be explained by newly converted Christians reopening the graves of heathen
ancestors for rituals of posthumous Christianisation. Here again the chronology is incompatible,
or at least suggests that there was considerable disagreement about the new religion within
communities, if some were disinterring pagan relatives while others clung for decades to the old
practices. More fundamentally, the physical evidence of how the robbing was carried out speaks
against benign interpretations, while the consistency with which excavators report grave-goods as
the target of the reopening argues against reburial as the motivation.
A central argument against a link between Christianization and grave-robbery, or at least against
acceptance of the widespread robbing by the Christian elite, is the frequent appearance of severe
strictures against disturbance in the early law codes. The early 7th century Lex Alamannorum (57.9),
for example, stipulates a fine of 40 solidi for grave-robbery; the same amount as to be paid in
compensation for rape (56.1) or for violating the safe asylum of a church (3.1) (Merkel 1863).
41
Codes more closely based on Salic Law were even harsher, giving fines of 200 solidi and
threatening outlaw status (Nehlsen 1978, Effros 2002: 49-50).
The legal prohibitions and other continental written sources on grave disturbance have been dealt
with extensively by other authors (Lindenschmidt 1880-9, Redlich 1948, Fremersdorf 1955,
Genrich 1971, Behrends 1978, Krüger 1978, Nehlsen 1978, Raddatz 1978, Roth 1977, 1978,
Effros 2002: 41-78, Aspöck 2002, 2003), so only additional points will be made here.
It is important to be clear about exactly which references relate directly to the phenomenon of
the intense robbery of the row-grave cemeteries. The range of legal and literary references during
the early medieval period give a broad picture of the evolving approach of the church and secular
elites towards burial, grave-goods, and the integrity of the Christian corpse. However, there is a
temptation to seize upon mentions of grave reopening in sources widely divorced from the row-
graves in time, space, and social context.
In particular, tales of grave-robbery in an ecclesiastical context, such as most of the oft-quoted
stories related by Geoffrey of Tours, can have little direct relevance to the row-grave robbing.
They feature thieves entering churches to steal jewelled crosses or golden decorations from
tombs. Although disturbing the peace of the dead may aggravate the crime, there is a strong
element in these tales of cautions against stealing what is essentially church property. Likewise
stories which focus on the theft of relics rather than on grave-goods originate in the fierce
competition between churches and monasteries for saintly remains (Geary 1986, 1990), rather
than in the lay plundering of the field cemeteries.
Although grave-robbery seems everywhere reviled in the post-Roman period, the precise angle
taken by law codes and other sources exhibits considerable regional and temporal variation. This
would be a more fruitful research direction than the rather blanket approach frequently taken.
Effros (2002: 50-51) shows, for example, that while Roman penal laws and those of the 11th
century link grave opening with necromancy, this view is not shared by the Frankish sources. The
possible exception is Burgundy, where grave-robbery is bracketed with sorcery and adultery in
providing grounds for divorce. This evidence finds substantiation in the archaeological material,
which, as argued here, gives little support for a ritual element in the row-grave robbing.
Steuer (1982: 498) raises a further objection to the posited link between Christian beliefs and
grave-robbery, in that it occurs in other areas, such as Viking Age Scandinavia, where the new
religion cannot be the driving force. This is certainly a weakness of the Christianisation argument,
since even if the Scandinavian robbing can be regarded as a rather different phenomenon, the
42
central European Lombardic discoveries are markedly similar to the Merovingian finds, but are
not explained in terms of conversion. However, there are a small number of examples outside
Merovingia which suggest that Christianization, especially where associated with forced
conversion, may sometimes have given rise to grave-robbery.
Werlaburgdorf
The first is an inhumation cemetery at Werlaburgdorf in Lower Saxony, where 236 out of a
probable original total of 260 graves were excavated in 2004 (Blaich & Geschwinde 2007). Bone
preservation was excellent due to the chalky soil conditions, allowing the excavators to see that
about 14% of graves had been robbed in antiquity. Precise dating of the use period was difficult,
since grave-goods were few in the first place and robbing had removed many more. Only about
20% of burials were found with artefacts. However, a start date around AD 800 and use
throughout the 9th and into the 10th century are probable. The robbing here is therefore of a
significantly later period than the Merovingian phenomenon.
The excavators’ preliminary analysis suggests that the robbing is gender-specific and targeted, so
that only the particular area of the grave-cut where grave-goods were known to lie is opened.
This would imply that the grave-robbers had good knowledge of which people with what
assemblages lay in which graves. However, as we have seen, this impression is probably
misleading. What is useful, in spite of this, is that in some cases the disturbance was specific
enough that a reasonable conjecture could be made about what grave-goods had been taken from
their customary position. In particular, when a male grave was robbed, it appears to have been
the knife that was usually targeted. This stands out against the Merovingian robbing, in which
knives are typically – possibly uniformly – left behind.
On the limited evidence currently available, it appears that the closely targeted, limited
disturbance caused to the burials at Werlaburgdorf was exclusively aimed at removing objects,
rather than damaging or desecrating graves. This is in contrast to sites such as Pliening, where
excavators comment on the brutality with which some burials have been attacked (Codreanu-
Windauer 1997: 32, above). The objects might be taken for some reason other than material gain,
such as to remove heathen grave-goods during Christianisation (Michael Geschwinde pers.
comm.), but the artefacts themselves seem to be the focus.
The Werlaburgdorf excavators suggest a link between the grave field and the historically attested
forced mass baptism at nearby Ohrum in AD 780. There is a strong possibility that here, as has
been suggested for the Merovingian sites, the reopening of graves is in some way linked to the
43
coming of Christianity, either directly through the new ideology and practice of burial or
indirectly through the social upheaval it caused. In this region in particular there is historical
evidence for the violent power struggles of the conversion.
Estonia
The second outlying site is the Pada field cemetery in Virumaa in north-eastern Estonia (Tamla
1998). In the 1980s 192 burials were uncovered here, of which 42 had been disturbed in antiquity.
The cemetery is coin-dated with burials starting about the middle of the 12th century and
continuing into the 13th century. It is contemporary with the better-known ringfort which lies
alongside.
Despite the much later date, in important aspects the cemetery resembles the row-grave
cemeteries of Merovingia. The bodies are buried in an extended supine position, mostly in single
graves, with a few double graves consisting of an adult with a child. Most have their heads
towards the west, with a minority towards the east. Most have several grave-goods and dress
items. Men are buried with household and work tools, weapons, and jewellery and dress
accessories. Women have jewellery, dress accessories, and tools in the form of scythes. Children
have arm rings, beads, pendants, and spearheads. Only two burials were originally unfurnished.
Almost all disturbance was confined to the chest area of burials. In just 8 cases the whole grave
contents was disordered, and there were 3 cases of disturbance at the foot end. Burials were
disturbed after skeletonization was complete. Frequently enough time had passed for substantial
bronze stains to bear witness to the original wealth of the robbed burials. However robbing
seems to have taken place during the use period of the cemetery, since at least one undisturbed
grave overlies a robbed one. Graves must have been visible on the surface, and probably the
orientation was also still marked, since chest areas were apparently successfully targeted, even
when burials faced east.
Tomas Tamla sees the robbing as an open act and locates the robbers amongst the local
population. He emphasizes that the robbing happened right under the eyes of the fort dwellers.
He argues that strangers, perhaps besiegers, would be much more probable culprits if a whole
area of the grave field had been disturbed, instead of which the robbed graves are spread out
amongst the undisturbed ones as though individually selected.
Against the idea of robbing carried out by enemies stand the unexpectedly high number of grave-
goods apparently deliberately left behind in graves. Valuable grave-goods were left in the
disturbed areas of a number of burials. They are a mixed selection including brooches, arm rings,
44
finger rings, buckles, and a silver coin. Unlike in the Merovingian evidence, there is no claim of
Christian symbolism for any of them. However, it does appear that they were deliberately
selected to remain in graves, suggesting symbolic significance overriding a plunder motive.
Tamla follows the earlier authors on Merovingia in ascribing the robbing to the desire to obtain
metal objects. The pattern of robbing suggests that the targets were the bronze objects which are
mainly worn on the chest and arms. He refers to a find made in Hämeenlinna Hattula in Finland
in 1925 of a hoard of more than a dozen bronze items, brooches, armrings, belt fittings and so
forth, most of them in some way damaged. This is seen as a bronzesmith's collection, taken from
graves at the end of the Merovingian and start of the Viking periods. Perhaps a similar enterprise
was going on here.
Underlying this profit motive, however, Tamla sees robbery as connected to the Schwertmission
with which Christianity was brought to the region. He points out that all known examples of
Estonian robbery are grave fields which were in use during the 13th century. This is the phase
during which the greater part of the Estonian people were being forcibly converted to
Christianity. In Tamla’s argument, robbing is unleashed by upheaval, rather than being
ideologically-based in the church’s opposition to grave-goods.
He sees the causes of grave-robbery as lying in the loss of political independence, the coming of a
new ideology, and the associated identity crisis which shattered accepted beliefs and the
established world view, leading to hitherto respected graves being violated. Tamla therefore
suggests that robbery can be seen as an index for the arrival of Christianity in the Baltic, just as
Roth considered it to be centuries before in Merovingia.
Prehistory
Alongside the early medieval work is a growing body of literature on grave-robbery in the Bronze
and Early Iron Ages. The 1978 colloquium first juxtaposed prehistoric and early medieval papers,
and subsequent literature on either period habitually includes examples from the other (E.g. Pauli
1975: 172, Rittershofer 1987: 5-9, Neugebauer 1991: 113, 126, 128, Baitinger 1992: 314,
Randsborg 1998, Bartelheim & Heyd 2001: 269, Aspöck 2002, Kümmel 2005, 2008). The
benefits are considerable, with improvements in recognition and recording of disturbance shared
between the periods. This is notably the case for Christine Neugebauer-Maresch and Johannes-
Wolfgang Neugebauer’s work at Gemeinlebarn and Franzhausen in Austria (Neugebauer 1991,
Neugebauer-Maresch & Neugebauer 1997, Sprenger 1999), which has informed recent early
medieval publications (e.g. Aspöck 2002, 2003).
45
Another common motive for quoting material from other periods is to extend the interpretative
range. This is seen, for example, in claims of amuletic material being deliberately left in graves,
where mention is frequently made of apparent instances in other times and places (e.g. Pauli 1975:
172, Bartleheim & Heyd 2001: 271). As in other contexts, the significance and representativeness
of findings may be overstated as speculative initial interpretations are transmitted into secondary
literature. There is also a risk of circularity of argument as interpretations are bounced back and
forth between periods without necessarily being firmly grounded in either.
With these cautions, prehistoric material can substantially inform investigations of early medieval
robbery. The same questions crop up in diverse times and places: how close in time and affinity
the robbers were to the dead and their mourners, under what degree of secrecy or social sanction
the robbers worked, how to work out what was taken, and whether straightforwardly material
motives adequately account for the evidence. Interpretations of prehistoric grave-robbery feature
several of the same themes as in the early middle ages, but without the change of religion as an
explanatory option.
Tauberbischofsheim-Dittigheim
Publications since 1978 have shown how much more widely spread the phenomenon of grave-
robbery is in European prehistory than previously recognized (e.g. Rittershofer 1987, Baitinger
1992). Holger Baitinger (1992), for example, sets out to demonstrate that (contra Driehaus 1978)
disturbance affects a range of Hallstatt period graves, by no means only those of the highest elite.
Baitinger’s starting point is a single disturbed tumulus: Gr 607 from the partially excavated Iron
Age cemetery of Tauberbischofsheim-Dittigheim, Main-Tauber-Kreis in southern Germany. This
is one of the benchmark reports which establish the level of detail at which grave disturbance
needs to be reconstructed, if solid interpretations are to be made.
The scale and form of the Dittigheim grave means that the most direct early medieval parallels
are found in boat and chamber burials, rather than the row-grave cemeteries. In particular, the
method of reopening bears striking similarities with the robbing of Viking Age boat grave Gr 1 at
Gamla Uppsala, Sweden (Klevnäs 2007). Gr 607 consisted of an inhumation burial in a shallow
wooden chamber about 1.85m by 1.20m and 0.30-0.40m deep. The body was of a young woman,
clothed, with dress accessories and grave-goods. Over the chamber was placed a stone setting,
itself covered by a mound estimated at some 3.50m across and 1.20m high (Baitinger 1992: 330).
Baitinger emphasizes that identifying signs of ancient grave-robbery with any certainty is not
straightforward. There are other, non-anthropogenic sources of disorder in ancient tombs. Even
46
when deliberate human disturbance is established, there are a wide range of potential motivations
beyond the strict sense of theft (Baitinger 1992: 336, 338, 339). However, there can be little doubt
of post-burial interference in Gr 607. To enter the grave, first a hole must have been dug through
the mound, although this does not survive. Then the stone setting was cleared from the exposed
area, giving an access point measuring about 0.80m by 0.55m. The robbers must then have
broken through the wooden grave cover. The wood-lined cist in which the body lay evidently
held together at the time of disturbance, since displaced bones were pushed into free space
(Baitinger 1992: 332).
As in the Viking Age Gamla Uppsala grave, skeletonization was far from complete by the time of
disturbance in Dittigheim Gr 607. Significant portions of the upper body (spine, right arm and
hand) remained articulated when moved. There were no signs that bones were separated by
violence (Baitinger 1992: 334); the body seems simply to have held together in some places but
not others. While admitting that decomposition is a highly variable process, Baitinger therefore
estimates that reopening occurred within about 3 years of burial (Chapter 4.9).
Since the robbers dug directly for the upper body, where women’s valuables typically lie,
Baitinger concluded that they knew the grave inventory and had perhaps even been present at the
funeral. He points to other Iron Age examples in the region which give the same impression
(Baitinger 1992: 342). As Müller and others have shown, this interpretation may not be necessary,
if the robbers could work out the position and orientation of the grave on the surface. However
it cannot in this case be ruled out, especially given the short timescale between burial and
reopening here.
Baitinger did not consider this a hurried or violent intrusion. Rather, he felt that care had been
taken in the way the remains of the upper body were moved and some of them arranged on top
of the ceramic vessels. He uses this to argue that the robbery may have been carried out by
relatives of the dead woman (Baitinger 1992: 333).
On the basis of the description and grave plan, that conclusion is contested here. Since the
chamber was so shallow and the robbers’ access hole quite small, the remains must have been
pushed rather than lifted when moved, as indeed their appearance in a line along the side of the
grave suggests. They were evidently considerably disordered during their displacement, or
perhaps during an initial search for valuables, since the bones are jumbled with the skull nearest
the pelvis. Presumably the remains of clothing interfered with the search, given that many of the
postulated valuables would have been worn as dress items.
47
Given the state of the corpse, it is difficult to imagine the intruders doing anything more
meticulous than using some sort of tool to try as quickly as possible to separate the most obvious
valuables from the tangle of rotting flesh, bone and putrefied fabric. Perhaps they did it by
shifting parts of the body in turn, in as large pieces as held together, and picking up the valuables
which were left behind. This would explain both the jumbled body portions and the near
complete emptiness of the original resting place. Notably the robbers did not pick up all the
amber beads from the necklace which they broke during the ransacking, suggesting that these
would have been more trouble than reward. Perhaps they were using a tool like the hooked sticks
described above which could not lift a round bead.
Although the signs of special care or respect paid to the corpse are doubtful, Baitinger’s evidence
that the grave was fully backfilled after opening is more convincing (Baitinger 1992: 333-334). He
also points out that in order to reach the burial, a maximum of only about 0.5m3 of earth had to
be shifted (Baitinger 1992: 333). For larger mounds more than one robber would be needed, but
a lone plunderer could manage a small monument like Gr 607 in a matter of hours (Baitinger
1992: 343). Baitinger does not consider that one needs to think in terms of “robber bands”, or to
assume that that the robbing took more than a day (Baitinger 1992: 333).
Since the Dittigheim skeleton was essentially all present, there is also no reason to think that the
robbers were targeting bones or body parts. On the other hand, artefacts probably had been
removed, since much less jewellery was found in Gr 607 than is expected in graves of this type.
Corroboration was given by copper alloy stains on various bones which showed the former
presence of costume items. Slight discolouration on the right radius, for example, came from a
removed object. However Baitinger suggests that these stains were fewer than expected because
soft tissue decomposition was incomplete and not all the metal objects were yet lying directly
against bone (Baitinger 1992: 332). He cites information given to Karl-Friedrich Rittershofer
(1987: 14, note 71) that bronze stains could appear on bone within a year of burial, but I am
unaware of any experimental or other data on this, which is a question relevant to post-burial
disturbance more widely. Copper alloy staining on bone is also frequently cited in the early
middle ages as evidence for removed objects. For the Bronze Age, Silvia Sprenger (1999) has
produced a substantial study reconstructing the original grave furnishings at heavily robbed
Franzhausen I on the basis of the high numbers of bronze stains left on disturbed skeletons.
Back at Dittigheim, the objects left in Gr 607 were a simple bronze ring on the little finger of the
displaced right hand, two iron pins and two bronze wire earrings among the disarticulated bones,
48
along with 38 amber beads, some fragments of metal artefacts, and a collection of 3 ceramic
vessels (Baitinger 1992: 332). Baitinger suggests that the iron pins may have been left behind
deliberately, perhaps indicating some amuletic character. He points to a grave at nearby Werbach,
where a special significance has been argued for the belt ornament and bronze pins left by
robbers (Baitinger 1992: 335, Wehrberger 1984: 183). Pauli (1975: 172) gives the example of the
Iron Age tumulus at Kleinaspergle near Stuttgart, which was reopened while the wooden
chamber still held together, with artefacts of apparently amuletic character remaining inside.
However, in Gr 607 there is no evidence of any special treatment or placing of these artefacts:
the pins were found mixed up with the rest of the displaced bones and grave-goods. It seems
more likely that they were entangled in clothing and either too awkward to remove or simply
overlooked. The ceramics, on the other hand, must surely have been deliberately left, either
because they were of too little value to the robbers, or because they were ineligible for removal
for a symbolic, ritual, or simply hygienic reason.
Given the close relationship which he envisages between the dead woman and the robbers,
Baitinger finds it paradoxical that they chose to reopen the grave at a time when the fleshy
decomposition was not finished, since they not only had to come into direct contact with a half-
rotten corpse, but also ran a great risk to their “spiritual wellbeing” (Baitinger 1992: 335). There is
an assumption here, widespread in the literature but rarely explored in detail, that the period of
soft tissue decomposition was seen as spiritually dangerous as well as physically disgusting. This is
connected to the idea of a “decent interval” after which grave-goods might legitimately be
removed, which is discussed below.
Bronze Age central Europe
The most direct analogies for the Merovingian material come from the large inhumation
cemeteries of the central European Bronze Age. The reopening described at Lower Austrian
Gemeinlebarn F (Neugebauer 1991), Franzhausen I (Neugebauer-Maresch & Neugebauer 1997,
Sprenger 1999), Pottenbrunn (Blesl 2005), and similar sites is astonishingly like the early medieval
evidence in its intensity, the variable proportions of each cemetery affected, and the apparent
selection of only certain objects for removal. Just as in the Merovingian burial grounds, the
Bronze Age sites typically have a minority of graves totally dug out, and the rest disturbed in the
area between the head and pelvis. One minor difference is that the removal of metal can more
readily be demonstrated in the Bronze Age context, due to the extensive bone staining. As in
Merovingia, ceramics seem often or always to have been left behind. Children’s graves, which
49
have relatively few artefacts in a Bronze Age context, as in Merovingia, are less affected by
robbing.
In 1987 Karl-Friedrich Rittershofer surveyed the evidence from a number of heavily disturbed
cemeteries of Bronze Age central and eastern Europe, including Dolný Peter, Nové Zámky, and
Nesvady (Dus
ek 1969), Ve
ký Grob (Chropovsky 1960), Mintraching, Regensburg (Ruckdeschel
1985), and Raisting am Ammersee (Koschik 1981). He concluded that grave reopening was a
widespread practice, with selected grave-goods removed within a few years of burial by members
of the same social group. Skeletal manipulation also featured, especially removal or displacement
of the skull.
He argued that since only selected artefacts were removed, it is wrong to see disturbance as solely
for personal enrichment. Taking of jewellery and dress accessories from women was most
common, with fewer men affected and almost never children. Ceramics were left in graves along
with objects of an amulet-like character, finger rings, dress pins, and sometimes tools and
weapons.
Mez
csát
The idea of socially-accepted reopening is most pronounced in the analysis of the disturbed
Bronze Age cemetery at Mezcsát in North East Hungary carried out by Bernhard Hänsel &
Nandor Kalicz (1986: 51-52). They saw “grave emptying” as a ritual practice, with descendants or
other relatives routinely returning grave-goods into the community of the living once bodies had
skeletonized: “die den Gräbern entnommenen Gegenstände habe der Tote nur eine gewisse Zeit behalten dürfen,
nämlich solange siene Körperhaftigkeit in concreto gegeben war”. This reopening did not, however, involve
all graves, since only 18 out of the 35 inhumations at the site were affected.
The idea of a ‘decent interval’ after which it was no longer disrespectful to reopen graves and
remove grave-goods is brought up in an early medieval context by Aspöck, amongst others (e.g.
Grünewald 1988). The proposal is that once grave-goods had played their part in the competitive
display of the burial rites, it would be understandable to reintroduce them to circulation: “In
diesem Fall sind Begräbnisrituale vor allem auch ein Schauplatz von Machtspielen, bei denen es darum geht, die
Vorrangstellungen innerhalb der Gruppe auszuhandlen. In einen solchem Rahmen wäre es verständlich, dass
Beigaben, haben sie ihre Funktion bei den Begräbnisritualen erfüllt, wieder zurückgeholt werden” (Aspöck 2003:
264). Similarly in Anglo-Saxon Kent David Perkins has suggested that so-called robbery might
represent the recovery of artefacts whose “spirit identity” was thought to have departed the grave
(Perkins 1991).
50
Gemeinlebarn
Back in the Bronze Age, this model of accepted grave-good retrieval is significantly undermined
by the evidence from Gemeinlebarn F, where Johannes-Wolfgang Neugebauer emphasizes the
destructive nature of much of the robbing. Bones were taken out and strewn over the site or
ended up mixed in with other burials. He points out that semi-articulated bodies were pulled
apart – so the reopeners had not waited for skeletonization to finish – and characterizes the grave
opening as destruction (Zerstörung) or defilement (Schändung) (Neugebauer 1991: 127).
A similarly destructive approach has also been noted in early medieval cemeteries (e.g. Adler
1970: 138-147, Codreanu-Windauer 1997: 30-31, Aspöck 2003: 252), and there too blackens the
portrait of accepted reopening. However, Neugebauer’s replacement model, of grave-robbery
carried out by armed bands (Neugebauer 1991: 127-128), is not compatible with the early
medieval evidence either. Two of the most recent and detailed reports of early medieval disturbed
sites, by Codreanu-Windauer at Pliening and Aspöck at Brunn, comment on the variation within
the cemeteries in the degree of care with which graves were treated, from destructive brutality to
“piety” (Codreanu-Windauer 1997: 30-31, Aspöck 2003: 264). As will be shown the chapters
which follow, these discrepancies are also seen over the channel in Anglo-Saxon Kent, and give
the impression of a near-individualized approach to graves.
At Gemeinlebarn F in many cases bones from disturbed graves had been mixed up during the
robbing and had found their way back into neighbouring graves. This showed that much of the
reopening had happened simultaneously; it is not compatible with Hänsel and Kalicz’s model of
routine reopening of individual graves at a regular interval after interment. In the early medieval
cemeteries there is only very limited evidence of mixing of bones between graves. When it occurs
in the Kentish burial grounds, it is not between neighbouring graves, but between graves at some
distance from each other, as though bones had been purposefully carried across the cemetery and
reburied together (Chapter 5.2).
More fundamentally, the model of accepted grave-good retrieval after a decent interval is
unreliable because it makes a nonsense of the furnished burial rite itself. As Aspöck says, funeral
display on the scale in question is currently viewed as a stage for power play, for social
competition within a society (Aspöck 2003: 264). Row-grave cemeteries are “the location for a
frequently competitive discourse between families” (Halsall 2003: 66). Specifically, the
conspicuous consumption of artefacts as pyre or grave-goods sends a spectacular signal about the
superfluity of resources which the burying party commands. If everyone expects that the artefacts
51
will soon be reintroduced to circulation, then the costliness of sending the signal is removed, and
(to borrow the language of game theory) a cost-free signal is worthless. In other words, burning
or burying an array of valued objects is a costly and impressive boast, but would be rendered idle
in the face of the knowledge that the wealth was not actually being relinquished.
It might be possible to argue that in times of economic stress communities could use cemeteries
as banks, raiding them for artefacts which they regretted giving up. If sufficiently rare, this could
be seen as an exceptional act which did not interfere with the validity of the funerary display. This
would, however, require a rather particular form of economic crisis during which there was ready
access to markets through which the looted goods could be exchanged for life’s necessities.
Inhumation, as opposed to furnished cremation, has the inbuilt loophole that although body and
grave-goods are ritually cut off from the living, they are still physically present in this world for
anyone with the stomach to disinter them. The need to maintain this ritually-induced separation,
to uphold the validity of the funerary rite, underlies what are referred to as “taboos” about grave
opening.
Another perspective is given by Martin Bartelheim and Volker Heyd (2001), who see grave-
robbery as just one aspect of post-burial interactions with the dead. Post-funerary activities at
grave sites, they argue, are a neglected field amongst prehistorians, a point which might also be
made for the early middle ages. They suggest the primary reason for this neglect is that ancestor
cult is a surface activity which rarely leaves substantial archaeological traces. However they also
argue that when finds are made which might represent the remains of post-funerary ritual activity
at burial sites, such as potsherds in the fills of tumuli, these receive too little attention (Bartelheim
& Heyd 2001: 261).
Bartelheim and Heyd see mistrust of the dead as a common feature in the Central European
Bronze and Iron Ages, and emphasize measures to keep the dead in their graves and to protect
the grave-opener. In this argument, the total devastation of some graves is interpreted as a
preventative measure against revenge from the occupants. Similarly, artefacts apparently
deliberately left within the disturbed areas of graves are seen as intended to “fix the dead in their
graves” (Bartelheim & Heyd 2001: 271).
Many cases of apparently significant objects left behind in disturbed Bronze Age graves have also
been presented by Rittershofer (1987, above). Bartelheim and Heyd concentrate on
Gemeinlebarn F (Neugebauer 1991) and Franzhausen I (Neugebauer 1997), both in Lower
Austria. In 33 graves across these two cemeteries, at least one solid bronze or other metal object
52
was left in the disturbed area. Most were axes or daggers, but in some cases diadems, pins and
even gold earrings were left. Bartelheim and Heyd argue that these objects had a special
importance for the dead. They suggest that “doubts remained in the minds of the plunderers as
to the wisdom of disturbing the dead”.
Revenants
Fear of the dead, or more specifically of Wiedergänger or revenant bodies, has been a widespread
theme in interpretations of unusual burial rites across Europe in recent decades. It is frequently
cited as an explanation for Sonderbestattungen or deviant burials, which are a feature of both the
early medieval and Bronze Age cemeteries under discussion here (Reynolds 2009, Blair 2009,
Aspöck 2008, Taylor 2008, Tsaliki 2008, Griffiths 2003, Caciola 1996, Barber 1988, Lecouteux
1987, Harman, Molleson & Price 1981, Meaney & Hawkes 1970: 30-31).
The term deviant is used for the minority of burials in which the bodies have been treated
strangely, especially when there is an element of apparent hostility or “over-kill” in the burial
method. Bodily mutilation, tied limbs, staking down of the body, face-down burials, and heavy
stone layers may be used as criteria for defining deviancy. At Franzhausen, for example, the
Sonderbestattungen include a prone burial of a violently killed male with his left forearm apparently
pinned to the grave floor with a large wooden peg (Neugebauer-Maresch & Neugebauer 1997:
35).
These kinds of measures are often interpreted as attempts to keep the potentially unquiet dead in
their graves. Certain individuals seem to have been thought at particular risk walking again,
perhaps due to incomplete or badly lived lives. There is both ethnographic and historical
evidence for this idea in a number of contexts, but a substantial weakness of the interpretation is
its wide application. A recent article by Sebastian Brather (2007) argues strongly against the over-
ready identification of deviant burials in Slavic cemeteries of the 9th to 12th centuries, and
specifically against the idea that they can all be due to fears of revenant bodies. However, there
are good grounds for thinking that fear of the revenant dead played a part in deviant burial rites
in early medieval period of northern Europe, where written sources anchor the idea in the belief
systems of the age (Chapter 6.3, 6.4).
Problems with revenant bodies have been cited as a motive for grave reopening in several
contexts. The link is most explicitly made in the Icelandic and Scandinavian literature, in the well-
known trope of heroes entering graves to do battle with revenants who have been spreading
disease and strife (Chapter 1). Treasure was taken from the graves at the same time, so there is a
53
close link to reopening motivated by robbery. The similarities between these ancient hauntings
and modern vampire horror stories based on eastern European folklore are startling. These were
evidently persistent myths, with a well-known and still-recognisable repertoire of anti-revenant
measures: stakes through the heart, beheading, and exhumation and burning of troublesome
bodies.
Recognising this kind of reopening archaeologically is not straightforward. Returning to
Dittigheim Gr 607, Baitinger (1992) speculated whether the reopening there might have been
aimed at making safe a revenant. He pointed out that the taking of the jewellery still has to be
explained, although it is possible that walking again was considered sufficient justification for the
possessions of the dead to be confiscated, as in the Norse tales (Chapter 1). However there no
any signs of unusual treatment of the body that might indicate ritual action against a revenant: the
way the body parts have been moved can adequately be explained as motivated by a desire to
access grave-goods with least effort.
For the early medieval period, the possibility has been discussed at Unterthürheim, Bavaria by
Grünewald (1988) and at Brunn am Gebirge, Austria, by Aspöck (2002, 2003, above). Aspöck
identifies six graves opened soon after burial in which reopening to deal with revenants may have
been a motivation. Some of these burials had gravegoods removed, and some not. In four the
heads had been interfered with: extra skulls were added to two burials; one had the head placed
on the chest; in one the skull was taken away; and in another stones were placed around the head
(Aspöck 2002: 66-7). Skull manipulation is also a feature of Bronze Age reopening, as discussed
above. In the early medieval context it is seen both in deviant burials and in the rearrangement of
some primary burials when secondary interments were added. The possibility of identifying
reopening to combat revenants in the Anglo-Saxon material is discussed in Chapter 6.3.
Selection of artefacts
Evidence for manipulation or removal of bodies is cited in only a small minority of the material.
For the overwhelming majority of graves, as discussed above, reports are agreed that the
archaeological traces of disturbance were indicative only of rifling of graves for artefacts. The
former presence of removed artefacts is frequently demonstrated by metal stains on bone, or by
fragmentary remains such as the sword sheaths at Hailfingen and Pliening (Stoll 1939, Codreanu-
Windauer 1997, above). However, the broad consensus on removal of artefacts as the main
motive for reopening does not extend to agreement on which types of artefacts were targeted, or
why.
54
The possibility of certain “amuletic” types of artefact being deliberately left behind in disturbed
graves has been put forward several times for the early medieval period, as in the Bronze and
Iron Ages. Foremost here are claims of artefacts with apparent Christian symbolism being left
behind. This was raised by Ursula Koch at Berghausen, Baden-Württemberg, where objects with
Christian decoration such as crosses seemed untouched by the robbers (Koch 1973a, 1973b,
1974). She was of the opinion that the position of the amuletic objects showed that they had not
been accidentally overlooked but were deliberately left, concluding that “Das Verhalten der
Grabräuber beweist, daß seit dem späten 7. Jahrhundert die Preßblechfibeln zugleich als christliches Amulett
geachtet und gefürchtet und die darauf erscheinenden Motive als christliches Symbolgut verstanden wurden” (Koch
1973: 2).
Roth (1977: 289, 1978: 68) gave further examples of explicitly Christian artefacts being left
behind by robbers at Rübenach and Sasbach Behans, but also went further, suggesting that a
wider range of symbolically-loaded artefacts were rejected by robbers. These include, for example,
decorative plates from a wooden bucket with depictions of two faces and an animal in Gr 159 at
Junkersdorf, and a gold Scheibenfibel with a representation of a bird from a site in Alamannia.
Many of the items he identifies were of apparently high value, as in the examples of gold leaf
crosses, which are only found in the richest graves. Roth acknowledges the difficulty of assessing
in each case whether objects were deliberately left or accidentally overlooked (Roth 1978: 68, 72).
Effros (2002: 59-60) suggests that “Some of these artifacts may still have had recognisable
religious and amuletic significance, serving to identify the deceased as Christian and protect his or
her body from harm. If so, this practice resulted from the fact that Christians in the West
continued to attach great significance to the physical well-being of the dead.” She argues that
despite the teachings of Augustine, the general population continued to be concerned with the
physical integrity of the dead body for resurrection. However, one of the most marked features
of the robbing is that in most cases it left bodies partial, and almost always in disorder. Robbers
may have left behind amuletic objects in a small minority of graves, but they showed no other
regard for the integrity of bodies or their resting places. Nor are there reports of the amuletic or
explicitly Christian objects being specially treated or arranged in graves; they seem to be scattered
like the rest of the contents.
Dannhorn’s (1994, above) evidence from Viecht-Unterfeld, in which grave-robbery appears to
have explicitly pagan ritual connections, may point towards artefacts with Christian symbolism
being left behind through aversion, rather than respect. High status weapon grave Gr 131 at
55
Viecht was almost completely emptied of both human bones and grave-goods (Dannhorn 1994:
299). Some of the only remaining artefact remains were decorative parts of a sword, which dated
the grave to the 2nd third of the 7th century. Six of the fragments showed cross symbols,
suggesting the possible interpretation that they were deliberately left out of respect for Christian
symbolism. However, Dannhorn argues that this explanation is incompatible with the apparently
pagan animal sacrifice buried in the backfill. The motive for leaving these pieces behind, if
deliberate, is more in the nature of a taboo during a cultic act than respect for Christianity.
Beyond the artefacts with Christian or other symbolic designs, several other categories of object
have been claimed as deliberately left behind in graves. Plum’s (2004: 23-24) evidence from
cemeteries in Nordrhein-Westfalen raises the question of whether such objects might even have
been added to some graves at the time of robbing. Two graves in her study included artefacts
which were thought later introductions. In the case of Gr 20/1939 from Froitzheim, this was a
later 7th century bronze bell (Bronzeschelle), which gives an indication of the likely date of
reopening in line with the evidence from Pliening and elsewhere. In Lamersdorf Gr 78 parts
from a sheath were thought to post-date the original burial. The bell is an unusual grave find, and
raises the question of whether it might have been deliberately added with symbolic intent. At
Pleidelsheim in Baden-Württemberg grave robbers had apparently added a coin of the late 7th
century to one burial (Koch 1991), suggesting a lapse of about a hundred years between burial
and reopening, and confirming the broadly late 7th century timeframe for robbing suggested at
Pliening and elsewhere.
Roth (1978: 67-68) claimed a number of examples where single parts of multiple sets of artefacts
are left behind, suggesting such items might be left for fear of raising revenants (Roth 1978: 73).
In two Junkersdorf graves the rejected objects are embellished pins, with one taken and one left
in each grave. Most of Roth’s examples, from Rübenach and Eich, refer to one brooch being left
from a set of four. This is necessarily difficult to prove, since the original grave contents can only
be postulated. Effros (2002: 61) takes the view that Roth’s conclusion was based on a
presumption of much greater uniformity in contemporary costume than is likely. Subsequent
examples of the practice are not forthcoming. At Brunn am Gebirge, for example, Aspöck found
no evidence of parts of sets being left; in Gr 13 she could show that all the brooches had been
taken (2002: 60).
Roth also noted the high numbers of female disturbed graves in which beads still remain, in
either the grave or the backfill, and argued that this showed that beads were rejected by robbers
56
(Roth 1978: 69, 73). A closer look at the evidence (e.g. from Pliening, Codreanu-Windauer 1997:
32, and Brunn am Gebirge, Aspöck 2002: 58, 59) suggests that it is not usually the case that the
entire bead assemblage remains untouched, but rather that bead groups were incompletely
collected by robbers. At Brunn beads remained in eight graves, but could only represent the
whole necklace in only three of these (Aspöck 2002: 58-60).
Beads are small and easily scattered, particularly if their necklace string breaks on lifting, and were
apparently not of sufficient value to be worth searching for, although probably removed when
they came to hand. In the absence of any contrary evidence, it seems likely that beads remain on
purely practical grounds. The same probably applies to the finger rings which Roth also noted are
found in disturbed graves (Roth 1977: 289, 1978: 69). In these kinds of examples we can see
revealed the actual values placed on categories of artefacts by early medieval grave openers, and
find where the curves of effort and worth met in practice.
At Aubing Dannheimer (1998: 26-29) found little support for claims of objects with Christian
symbolism being deliberately left behind in graves. Some significant pieces of jewellery were left
behind, one of which was a gold bracteate with an image of a person praying, but these were
thought to have been overlooked, and it was considered likely that other similar objects had been
taken. In Gr 361 the man had rust staining, presumably from a sword, on the femur. The clearest
evidence for robbing at Aubing is for the removal of swords, with parts of baldrics or scabbards
left behind in several cases.
Likewise at Brunn am Gerbirge no evidence was found for amulet-type objects being deliberately
left in graves. Aspöck pointed out that different robbing methods give quite different results in
terms of their effectiveness in removing artefacts. So although valuable objects were left in
female graves Gr 13 and 15, they had simply been missed by the hook method used to raid the
graves, rather than intentionally left behind (Aspöck 2002: 60).
The same argument was made at Remseck-Pantonville (Bofinger & Przemyslaw 2008, above). As
at other sites, in a small number of graves objects considered valuable by the excavators had been
left behind. In some cases, notably Gr 112, they had apparently be missed due to the inefficient
robbing methods, with objects fished haphazardly out through a hole in the wooden coffin.
Various small items were thus left behind, and a glass beaker remained standing in its niche.
Christoph Grünewald (1988: 38-39) made the related point that a deliberate choice of grave-
goods can only be made if the complete grave is revealed. Any ritual reopening that requires a
representative selection of artefacts or particular types of artefacts must therefore use this
57
method. This would include, for example, Roth’s suggestion that parts of sets of objects were
taken. By contrast, Grünewald sees robbing with a hook as indicative of an entirely material
motive. Perhaps this should not be taken as a complete division, since even during a hook
robbery artefacts might be examined and replaced in the grave. However, the degree of
disturbance to the burial assemblage and human remains caused by the hook method does seem
likely to imply a lack of respect for the dignity of the dead.
Working out which grave-goods were taken is necessarily difficult, since it involves arguing from
absence. Nevertheless most commentaries include an attempt to assess what is missing, either
from traces of removed artefacts or from a lack of expected gravegoods. Both Roth’s 1977 and
1978 articles considered the question, although with rather anecdotal data. Roth did not consider
robbing for material gain to be the sole motive for reopening, not least because the custom of
leaving grave gifts was abating in the 7th century, so that fewer and fewer objects were available
for theft. However, he did think it significant, especially in female graves which more frequently
include non-ferrous metals and precious stone inlays (Roth 1978: 67).
Roth judged brooches and other dress accessories the robbers’ main targets in female graves,
with the caveats that parts of brooch sets, many beads, and finger rings may have been left
behind, as discussed above. In male graves he considered pecuniary reward a lesser incentive,
since they contain much smaller quantities of non-ferrous metals, and usually only as decoration
firmly bonded to ironwork (Roth 1978: 70). However, he did not expand on the form of the
more spiritual motive which he envisaged (Roth 1977: 289).
Aspöck (2003: 263) took justifiable exception to the implication in Roth’s interpretations that
only male grave-goods carry symbolic value, while female artefacts were desired for material
worth. If artefacts were chosen on the basis of their symbolic associations, rather than for their
raw materials or as objects for gift or exchange, then there is every reason to think that these
considerations play a similar part in the selection of objects from women’s graves.
For male graves, Roth was of the opinion that swords, knives, and belts (as represented by
buckles) were the principal objects missing, and that shield buckles, spear heads, and arrowheads
were left behind by robbers. This assessment finds support in the subsequent literature, as some
of the site discussions above have shown. Reports of stolen swords in particular have been noted
at several sites in this review, including at least six evidenced by broken sheaths and rustmarks at
Pliening (Codreanu-Windauer 1997, above).
58
Aspöck’s work at Brunn am Gebirge included the most detailed investigation of grave-good
removal so far (2002: 56-61). Although the Brunn robbing dates from the century before the
main phase of Merovingian reopening, the selection of artefacts taken appears to correspond
closely with the later pattern as shown in both Roth’s observations and the more recent
excavations. Aspöck found that in the 41 disturbed burials at the site, belt buckles tended to be
left in female but not male graves, which accords with Roth’s evidence. A probable (but empty)
sword sheath was represented by metal and wooden remains in one grave, Gr 28. This burial also
included a shield buckle, whose position in the robber fill suggested that it had been intentionally
left behind, as Roth argued. On the other hand Gr 8 had rivets from a removed shield, suggesting
that these artefacts, or part of them, might sometimes be taken. Two bags and their contents plus
a comb were among the other small objects left in graves. At least parts of girdle-hangers were
left in 8 female graves, a pattern which is strongly reflected in the Anglo-Saxon evidence
presented in this thesis.
Spearheads remained in five Brunn graves, but due to their peripheral position it was unlikely
they had been seen by the robbers. Here the evidence from Remseck-Pantonville evidence is
useful (Bofinger & Przemyslaw 2008, above). There it was shown that the avoidance was
deliberate: spearheads were left even when the entire grave had been ransacked, and in some
cases were found thrown back into the robber fill. The report authors suggest that the reluctance
to remove spearheads was connected to the symbolism of this weapon type. It is certainly
otherwise difficult to understand why these objects, even if of relatively low worth, were of no
use at all to the reopeners.
The selection of specific artefact types for removal is the strongest argument against robbing
being driven by scarcity of either iron or precious metals, both of which have been recurrent
suggestions for both the early medieval and prehistoric robbing outbreaks (e.g. Werner 1953,
Beninger & Mitscha Märheim 1966, Driehaus 1978). There can be little doubt that metal grave-
goods formed at least part of the robbers’ loot. For one thing, these were more or less the only
artefacts which could be in a condition to reuse. Organic materials, especially clothing, would be
irretrievably soiled by bodily decomposition, and must in many cases have been in an advanced
state of decay by the time graves were reopened. However, artefacts made of metal of all types
are variously taken and rejected: the selection of artefacts is not made on the basis of raw
materials.
59
As Aspöck (2003: 236-7) has shown, the evidence for greater metal scarcity in the 6th and 7th
centuries than in the surrounding periods is unclear. In any case actual scarcity is not necessarily
required as a driver. It would be necessary only for recycling metal from graves to accrue
sufficiently lower costs than obtaining it by other means. These costs might be in terms of labour
or social sanctions – or indeed emotion, if close contact with the decomposing dead was similarly
regarded as today. A reduction in any of the costs associated with robbing, such as a removal of
social sanctions in time of war, might tip the balance in favour of grave-robbery just as well as a
rise in the cost of metal. Differential access to more legitimate sources of metal or other wealth
by different groups in society might well also give some an incentive to rob. Indeed, if we accept
any involvement of a material motive in grave-opening, and consider the pervasive evidence for
the practice, the conclusion must be that the balance of profits and costs required for artefacts to
remain in graves is extremely fine.
Back at Brunn am Gebirge, three ceramic vessels and bronze fittings from a wooden one were
found in disturbed graves (Aspöck 2002: 58). This avoidance of vessels of all kinds is one of the
most persistent patterns in the selection of graves for robbing. Even the large bronze dishes
found in well-furnished graves in certain regions and presumed to be highly valuable were left
untouched. Roth observed, for example, that out of 200 bronze dishes then known between Lake
Konstanz and the Lower Rhine, 154 came from disturbed and only 46 from undisturbed graves.
Such vessels could hold cushions, fabrics, and combs as well as the more usual foodstuffs (Roth
1978: 70). Vessels typically lie in peripheral positions in graves, but if they were an object of
desire for robbers, surely an effort would have been made to look for them.
Ceramic vessels were left behind in several disturbed graves at Remseck-Pantonville, one of the
most recently excavated sites in this review (Bofinger & Przemyslaw 2008, above). The report
follows Grünewald (1988: 37) in suggesting that ceramics may have been left on the grounds of a
hygienically motivated taboo. There is probably no need for an actual taboo to explain why
vessels from graves made unappealing kitchenware, but perhaps this avoidance is another piece
of evidence that removed objects were intended for intra-community reuse, rather than exchange
with outsiders who would not have known the source of goods.
Through all the various perspectives on grave-good removal from Roth’s work onwards runs a
common thread: that the careful selection of artefacts and in particular the rejection of large
numbers of apparently valuable objects make straightforward personal enrichment an inadequate
explanation for the widespread robbing. A symbolic element in robbing, so that objects are taken
60
for their meanings and associations rather than to be exchanged, has been suggested many times
from different points of view, although nowhere fully developed. Codreanu-Windauer’s (1997)
observation at Bavarian Pliening, that many grave-goods were in extremely poor condition by the
time of robbing and could hardly have borne any use value, is of crucial importance; it is
remarkable that this point has not previously been made explicit. The condition of each artefact
is dependent on several factors, above all its material, but there is ample evidence that many
objects were in a poor state of preservation when removed. Vessels, at least those used for food
preparation and presentation, may have been unappealing for hygienic reasons, but in the other
choices of artefacts for removal we may well have a glimpse of some of the symbolic values
which linked the myriad variations on the barbarian weapon assemblage of northern Europe in
this period.
Discussion: Merovingia and Beyond
This chapter has identified a series of key areas of contention which will form the basis for the
analysis of the disturbed Anglo-Saxon sites in the chapters which follow. The Kentish material
presents an opportunity to investigate the evidence for grave-robbery at the level of a whole
region, an approach which has previously been lacking, and to undertake that investigation fully
informed by the several generations of research which have been carried out in the Merovingian
kingdoms.
The foremost area of contention is the purpose of the grave opening. This review has
emphasized that the strongest interpretations emerge from detailed consideration of the
archaeological evidence. In almost all cases on the continent excavators report disturbance as
robbery, intended to remove goods from graves. Subsequent commentators have put forward
other more immediately exciting explanations, such as reopening as an extended funerary rite or
as a Christianizing ritual, but these are not backed up by data. Where the evidence is seen, the
archaeological footprint of disturbance is principally indicative of the ransacking of graves for
objects.
The Kent analysis will consider in detail the physical process of grave reopening and how the
methods reveal the goals. Further sections will reconstruct robbers’ approaches to grave opening
and investigate how they vary within and between cemeteries. As this chapter has shown, the
authors who have explored robbing methods as a dynamic process rather than simply classifying
the appearance of the static remains have thrown considerable doubt on the idea that robbers
had detailed knowledge of grave contents before beginning work.
61
The extent of robbers’ foreknowledge about the age and gender of buried individuals and about
their grave assemblages will be a key area in the chapters which follow. This is closely related to
the question of how individual graves were selected for reopening. In Kent as in Merovingia only
a proportion – a highly variable proportion – of burials in each cemetery were disturbed. It has
frequently been claimed that, for example, robbers were able to select wealthy graves for
reopening. This proposition will be investigated, along with the possibility of other selection
criteria.
The research presented here demonstrates that the dating of robbing is crucial to its
interpretation. This applies both to the absolute dating of robbing episodes and to the
chronology of burial and reopening within individual cemeteries. The most thorough excavation
reports presented here suggest that the bulk of robbing was concentrated in the middle or third
quarter of the 7th century. Furnished burial continued in many of the same cemeteries after
robbing ceased. The Anglo-Saxon material offers the chance to reconstruct the dating of robbing
using a much larger sample of disturbed graves and to make inter-site comparisons.
As demonstrated at Pliening, the spatial distribution of disturbed burials across cemeteries is a
neglected but potentially highly significant area. There it was shown that part of the burying
community suffered heavy robbing, while other burial groups were unaffected and may even
represent the kin of the perpetrators. More broadly, exploring the spatial distribution of robbing
is crucial to the question of whether robbing within each burial ground represents one major
event or many single reopenings. This is an under-exploited aspect of the Merovingian evidence.
Another question in need of fuller consideration is the selection of artefacts for removal from
graves. Numerous reports note that many apparently valuable objects were rejected by robbers,
but there has been no systematic investigation of patterns in grave-good choice. Crucial here is
the observation, explicitly made only by Fremersdorf and Codreanu-Windauer, that many grave-
goods were in extremely poor condition by the time they were taken. This has considerable
implications for interpreting the ways in which they were desirable to the reopeners.
The material reviewed in this chapter demonstrates that the information needed to reconstruct
early medieval grave-robbery exists, if there is the will for full excavation, documentation, and
analysis. Recording of disturbed graves has improved, with some benchmark publications now in
existence. It is time to go further than just setting out a range of possible interpretations: the data
are available at least to rule out a number of interpretative lines, and to start to develop
archaeologically-grounded interpretations for the reopening phenomenon.
62
63
3 Kent and Beyond Introduction
Reports of ancient robbing in Kent
Kent has been chosen as the focus for this case study because of the sporadic but persistent
reports of early grave-robbery which have emerged during the long history of excavation in the
county. Kent is frequently cited as the one area of Anglo-Saxon England with substantial
evidence of grave plunder (Härke 1992: 65, O’Brien 1999: 86, Härke 2000: 391, Lucy 2000: 102,
Welch 2007: 222-3). Disturbed graves have been noted at intervals since the first excavations in
the county (Faussett 1856, Brent 1868), with robbing levels as high as 50% of graves claimed at
some cemeteries (Perkins 1985, Perkins 1991).
Such reports typically describe robbing as having taken place “in antiquity” or “soon after burial”.
Various grounds for an early date are cited, the strongest being that some graves were apparently
reopened while the bodies were still partially articulated (Hawkes, Hogarth et al. 1974, Perkins
1985, Hawkes & Grainger 2006). Further, several excavators and other commentators have
suggested that robbers had prior knowledge of grave assemblages and were able to target wealthy
burials (Perkins 1985b, Schröder 2007, O’Brien 1999: 57). It has also been argued that grave-
robbers preferentially opened graves containing iron weapons (Härke 1992: 65, Härke 2000: 391-
2 and Table 5, Welch 2007: 222-3).
Yet despite the recurrent reports and potential significance of the phenomenon, there is by no
means consensus amongst excavators about the existence, let alone the extent, of genuine
robbery in Kentish cemeteries. Archaeologists currently working in Kent have quite different
opinions of the evidence (Stuart Brookes, Keith Parfitt, Dave Perkins, Andrew Richardson, pers.
comm.). A key area of doubt is why such high levels of disturbance are claimed in some
cemeteries, while close neighbours report no signs of early robbery at all.
Until now there has not been any systematic attempt to collate reports of robbery, nor has the
evidence from different sites been compared or evaluated. The overall numbers of sites and
graves involved are undetermined, beyond an impression that the eastern part of the county is
mostly affected, particularly the Isle of Thanet. A central problem here, as in any synthetic work
in Kent, is the persistently poor publication record for excavations. Only two of the cemeteries
where substantial levels of early robbery have been recorded are fully published to date.
This thesis is the first time the full extent of the evidence has been set out, thanks to access
kindly granted to archive material from all the key sites, notably the two large unpublished sites in
64
Broadstairs, St Peter’s Tip and Bradstow School (a.k.a. Valletta House), the archives of which are
held by the British Museum. These two sites contribute between them nearly one third of the
robbing evidence, including much of the most detailed raw information.
Even where publication has taken place, details given about robbing evidence are typically
sketchy. Most excavation reports, including recent ones, make only brief mention of grave
disturbance and often omit plans of disturbed burials. A typical minimum standard is to note that
a grave is or appears to be robbed, often with the comment that this is believed to have occurred
‘in antiquity’. The reasoning behind this diagnosis is not generally stated, though there are
positive exceptions. For these reasons it has been necessary to go back to the original field
records, where available, for all sites where robbing is suspected.
Part of the reluctance to accept reports of grave-robbery in Kent can almost certainly be
attributed to their never having been placed in the wider geographical context of the pervasive
disturbance in contemporary cemeteries across the channel (Chapter 2). The likelihood of a link
here has recently been pointed out but not yet explored (Welch 2007: 222).
Although grave-robbery is a well-established phenomenon in Merovingia, this case study is the
first time data about grave-robbery has been intensively compared between early medieval
cemeteries at a regional level. It provides an opportunity both to look at the Kent cemeteries in
the light of the growing body of comparative material from the Merovingian lands, and in turn to
reflect back on the ways in which the continental robbing is interpreted.
Contemporary grave-disturbance on the scale claimed in Kent raises major questions about the
meaning of burial and grave-goods in the period, and about the power structures within which
grave-openers acted. Such high levels of re-opening seem bound to lift the phenomenon from a
hidden transgressive act to a public practice, and one whose context demands exploration.
65
Early medieval burial in Kent and beyond
Early medieval burial across England, and in Kent in particular, has been the subject of a wide
range of studies over the last ten or fifteen years. This thesis draws on diverse recent work on
funerary rites, grave-goods, the organisation and appearance of field cemeteries, and the social
structures represented in them (O’Brien 1999, Lucy 2000, Lucy & Reynolds 2002, Crawford 2003,
Stoodley 1999, 2000, 2007, Williams 2004a, 2005a, Semple & Williams 2007, Sayer 2009, 2010).
Crucial are several recent studies of the conversion period, with which much of the robbing
coincides, drawing on both historical and archaeological sources (Geake 1997, Carver 2003, Blair
2005).
Approaches to burial archaeology in all periods over the last decades have emphasized the active
role of death rituals in creating, not merely reflecting, social order. Recently the emphasis has
been on the spectacle of the funerary ritual and the memories and associations created by the
display of body and grave goods (e.g. Halsall 2003, Williams 2005). Moving away from
calculations of overall grave wealth, there has been a resurgence of interest in the specific roles of
types of grave goods and how their presence in the ritual was understood by the audience (e.g.
Crawford 2002, 2004, Eckhardt & Williams 2003, Williams 2003a, King 2004, Osborne 2004, Lee
2007, Devlin 2007). This is perhaps particularly the case for the culture of weapon-bearing
(Härke 1990, 1992, 1997, 2000, Shepherd 1999, Theuws & Nelson 2000).
Interest in grave-robbery should be seen in the context of a rise in research into burials outside
the norm more generally. Where once the focus was on trying to build up a picture of the typical
burials of a period and thus of community life, there has lately been increasing focus in
exceptional and deviant practices. For the Anglo-Saxon period recent research has focused in
particular on deviant burials in the context of necrophobia and judicial violence (Murphy 2008,
Reynolds 2009, Chapter 6.3). Both deviancy and grave-robbery involve themes of transgression,
violence, and tightening authority during the process of kingdom formation. There is also a closer
connection: some graves may have been reopened on the basis of similar concerns as motivated
the deviant treatment of other bodies at the time of their original interment.
Within Kent the last decade has seen the publications of some major sites, especially Finglesham
and Updown, Eastry (Hawkes & Grainger 2006, Welch 2008). There has been intensive work on
cemetery data and on trade and landscape (Srensen 1999, Brookes 2002, 2003, 2007a, 2007b,
Richardson 2005a&b, Welch 2007, Sayer 2009). These have added considerable detail to
66
understanding of Kent’s distinctive material culture, and of the differences which are seen in the
gravegood assemblages and broader burial customs across the county.
Recent studies by Stuart Brookes (2002, 2003, 2007a, 2007b) and by Duncan Sayer (2009) are
concerned, from different angles, with the considerable changes seen in Kentish archaeology in
the broad 7th century, but without conversion as the main explanatory force. Trade and the
tightening of elite authority are instead brought to the fore. Relevant themes in Brookes’ work
include trade, the extent of monetized exchange, and control of imports. Sayer focuses on the
role of kindreds in 7th century politics, and their conflicts with rising royal power.
A division is traditionally made between the east and west regions of the county, as divided by
the River Medway, based on both the historical sources and the archaeology. East Kent has
marked and well-known artefactual links to Francia from the 6th century (Welch 1991, Wood
1992, Brugmann 1999). Many of the imported items were adapted to Kentish fashions, but
others are indicative of adoption of continental customs, such as the row grave cemeteries which
are a much stronger feature of this area than the rest of the country (Stoodley 1999: 128). East
Kent cemeteries are also known for their range of intriguing but poorly understood structural
features suggestive of various kinds of superstructure over some graves (Chapter 4.5).
Andrew Richardson’s recent compilation, disambiguation, and analysis of the Kent’s nearly 300
known 5th to 8th century burial sites has been of great practical use for this study (Richardson
2005a&b). Richardson provides a site gazetteer, brief details of nearly 3000 graves, and analysis of
a great number of variables of burial custom. Particularly relevant to this study, he includes
analysis of the proportions, dates, and age, sex, and status associations of all types of Kentish
grave-goods, both at the level of individual artefacts and in their typically associated assemblages.
All subsequent analyses of early medieval burial in the county will owe a debt to his work.
The Anglo-Saxon Kent Electronic Database (ASKED) is another important newly-arrived
research tool (Brookes, Harrington, et al 2006). Developed by Sue Harrington and Stuart
Brookes at UCL, the database is now available online through the Archaeological Data Service. It
brings together details of all the excavated burials from 52 Kentish Early Anglo-Saxon cemeteries
into a single searchable corpus. Nuance is lost in transferral to a database format, but the tool
provides fast entry into a huge amount of information and the ability to identify and test patterns
on a regional scale.
At the time of writing, the dating of Anglo-Saxon burials is liable to revision as largescale
precision radiocarbon dating is carried out for the first time. This is particularly true of late 6th to
67
late 7th century, the main period relevant to grave-robbery. There are indications that graves
previously dated towards and immediately after the end of this period may have been placed too
late (Scull & Bayliss 1999, Sayer 2009). This means that the absolute dates – and quite possibly
the relative ones – discussed in this chapter should be considered only working hypotheses,
although the best currently available ones (Chapter 4.9). The sources and grounds for each
significant date are as far as possible set out in the relevant sections. New artefact studies crucial
for dating are Birte Brugmann (1999, 2004) on 6th century Kentish chronology and on glass beads
and Sonja Marzinzik (2003) on belt buckles.
Grave disturbance may in theory affect cremations just as well as inhumations. This is the case
even if robbery is the primary motive: although gravegoods in Anglo-Saxon cremations were
frequently burnt (Lucy 2000: 108), and thus presumably unattractive to plunderers, burnt bodies
could also be accompanied by unburnt artefacts. This is certainly the case in Kent, as in the two
cloth-wrapped swords, spearhead, beads and brooch that were buried with the (undisturbed)
double cremation at Coombe (Ellis Davidson & Webster 1967). It is therefore necessary to be
open to the idea of finding deliberately disturbed cremation graves. Besides, if early grave
disturbance has a motive beyond material gain, cremations may be targeted even in the absence
of retrievable grave wealth.
In practice, however, this study is dominated by inhumation graves. Inhumation was by far the
dominant method of corpse disposal in Anglo-Saxon Kent, unlike in other areas of eastern
England. Cremations make up less than 1% of known burials in the county, even when the new
finds from Lyminge and Ringlemere are included (Richardson 2005a: 91). At the non-Kent sites
with higher numbers of cremations, such as Worthy Park in Hampshire and Spong Hill in
Norfolk, it proved impossible to distinguish any deliberately disturbed or robbed cremations
from the mass of cremated material displaced by later inhumations, rabbits, and agriculture
(Chapter 7).
Items of terminology: the terms “early medieval” and “Anglo-Saxon” are used interchangeably
here to refer both to the typical forms of burial and to the period from the 5th to 11th centuries
AD, with no specific ethnic attribution intended. A distinction is made between “grave” and
“burial”, whereby the latter is used to refer to an individual corpse placed in a grave, thus a
double grave contains two burials. Bronze, copper alloy, silver, and other terms for grave good
materials and types are used according to the site reports and archives.
68
Previous research into Kentish grave-robbery
Grave-robbery in Kent, or indeed elsewhere in the British Isles, has not previously been the
subject of any broad survey. However, it has sometimes formed one variable in multi-site
analyses of burial rite, mainly to assess its impact on sample integrity. As will be shown, these
reviews do not tally either in numbers of disturbed cemeteries or in the particular sites identified
as robbed.
Disturbance, ancient and modern, is briefly covered in Richardson’s wide-ranging study, with
guarded scepticism expressed about the reported phenomenon of early grave-robbery. He notes
robbing in antiquity in only 30 graves, 23 of these from the Isle of Thanet, and states further that
all the Thanet examples were reported by a single excavator, David RJ Perkins of the Thanet
Archaeological Trust (Richardson 2005: 95). Perkins has taken a particular interest in early
robbing, as will be discussed below.
Site Grave numbers
Thanet 185. Minster III, Hoo Farm Gr 1(A), 8 (C)
186. Minster IV, Thorne Farm Gr 2
192. Monkton I, Primrose Hill Gr 21, 22
209. Ramsgate IV, Ozengell Gr 7, 9, 17, 18, 34, 65, 229
213. Ramsgate VII, Chalk Hill Gr 1 (106) (double burial)
231. Sarre Gr 276, 279 (four burials), 281, 283, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
Rest of Kent 95. Dunton Green I, Polhill Gr 52a, 83 (double)
197. Northbourne I, Finglesham Gr A3 (4), 205
Table 2: Kent graves identified as disturbed in antiquity by Richardson (2005b)
Brief discussion of grave-robbery is also found in Heinrich Härke’s study of Anglo-Saxon
weapon-graves (Härke 1992: 65). Härke examined 47 cemeteries across eastern England,
including 7 in Kent. He found a total of 67 robbed graves in 6 cemeteries in Kent, plus 4 “not
entirely unambiguous cases” in 3 cemeteries outside the county. Since robbery was only
peripheral to his work, Härke did not enter into discussion of his basis for counting graves as
robbed. The force of Härke’s argument is, justifiably, that disturbance is not at a high enough
level to bias his sample and affect the validity of his analysis. As he points out, several of the
Kent cemeteries at which high levels of robbery have been reported do not fall within his sample.
It also seems likely that only partial details of some sites were available to him, since the
subsequent publication of Finglesham and the archive from Valetta House/Bradstow School in
Broadstairs record much higher levels of robbing than he lists.
69
Site Graves Grave numbers
Bekesbourne II 1 of 38 inhumations – 2.6% ?Gr 12
(no weapon graves robbed)
Broadstairs I 3 of 113 inhumations – 1.8% Gr 12, 67, 98
2 of 24 weapon graves – 8.3%
Finglesham 9 of 256 inhumations – 3.5% Gr 22, 38/2, 44, 78, 93, 110, 126, 205
2 of 28 weapon graves – 7.1%
Lyminge II 9 of 64 inhumations – 14.1% Gr 40, 45, 50, 49, 48, 49, 56, 57, 59, 63
(no. of robbed weapon graves uncertain)
Polhill 1 of 130 inhumations – 0.8% Gr 83
1 of 17 weapon graves – 5.9%
Sarre 43 of 293 inhumations – 14.7% no plan
12 of 70 weapon graves – 17.1%
Table 3: Kent graves identified as disturbed in antiquity by Härke (1992)
As mentioned above, several prominent reports of robbing originate with one local archaeologist
in particular, the recently retired DRJ Perkins, who worked in Thanet for many years. However,
the apparent association of Perkins with robbed sites is largely the result of publishing bias: the
majority of disturbed graves have been found by other excavators, but not so promptly published.
Perkins also contributes significantly more information and analysis of robbing than is typical in
excavation reports (Perkins & Hawkes 1984, Perkins 1985, Perkins 1987, Perkins 1991, Perkins
1992).
In addition, Perkins’ BSc dissertation at the North-East London Polytechnic (Perkins 1985) used
statistical techniques to compare the robbing evidence from his excavation at Ozengell with data
from five other sites. Perkins found an association between grave size, or more specifically width,
wealth, certain types of grave structures, and disturbance. These findings are discussed below
(Chapters 4.4, 6.1). Unfortunately this dissertation is now only partially extant, in a letter in Sonia
Chadwick Hawkes’ archive in Oxford. The Ozengell records are not published, nor fully available
to researchers, so the analysis is not reproducible.
A possible link between disturbance and better-furnished graves does not necessarily mean that
robbing, in the sense of theft by people with no right to ownership, should be assumed to be the
universal motive. Perkins suggested as alternative interpretations the removal of objects whose
70
“spirit identity” was thought to have departed the grave, or partial exhumation, perhaps as a
Christianising ritual.
Likewise Martin Welch (2007: 222-3) has suggested that the practice might represent households
seeking secretly to recover items that it felt obliged to placed publicly in a family burial, avoiding
loss of face. This interpretation has also been put forward in Merovingia (Chapter 2). If simple
theft is the motive, Welch proposes that the stolen goods may have been sold on to foreign
traders at the beach markets of the period, access to which might explain the concentration of
robbing on Thanet and in the eastern coastal region.
Beyond the above, data on Kentish grave-robbery are available in published cemetery reports,
interim excavation reports often in journals such as Archaeologia Cantiana, and on-site
documentation. This last category has proved the most fruitful for this thesis, especially the
detailed but unpublished records from St Peter’s Tip and Bradstow School in Broadstairs. The
drawings, photographs, diaries, and context sheets held in site archives preserve the contingency
and uncertainty of archaeological interpretation in the field in a way that is almost always edited
out through the publication process.
Aims and Methods
The initial aim of this case study was to collect, quantify, and map as much as possible of the
reported early robbing in the county. The second was to establish on what basis robbery had
been identified at the various cemeteries, to evaluate the evidence, and to develop criteria for
future identification and reporting of grave disturbance. Next come attempts to understand why
these particular cemeteries, and these graves within them, have been subjected to robbing. Are
we are dealing with a coherent custom or with isolated incidents? A reverent ritual or a violent
transgression? Is disturbance in Kent part of the same phenomenon as the better-known
continental robbing? What observations here can contribute to the ongoing debate there?
There are as many as 300 known or probable pre-Conquest burial sites in Kent, but the majority
are find spots, accidental unearthing, or poorly recorded work, unsuitable for the purposes of this
case study. Graves have been excavated and recorded at only about 120 sites (Richardson 2005a:
87). The first step was to assess these burial grounds for data quality. All 120 were reviewed in
order to identify sites where the scale and standard of excavation produced data useful for this
study. A total of 32 cemeteries were selected in which the quality of excavation and recording
indicated that any robbing was likely to have been both observed and documented. In addition, a
further group of antiquarian sites with passable data are discussed in Appendix 1.4.
71
Records of the 32 selected burial sites were searched for evidence of reopening, whether or not
recognized as such by the excavators. Other forms of disturbance were also noted, including
plough damage, unrecorded antiquarian excavation, recent robbing, and animal damage.
Particular attention was paid to how excavators identified, described, and distinguished between
different forms of disturbance. Appendix 2 (Checklist: Recognising Ancient Robbing) brings
together their experience. It presents, with reference to specific graves, all the various ways
robbing in antiquity has been recognised and dated, what features may exist for recording, and
the confounding factors which can blight interpretations.
The cemeteries were divided into three groups: 8 sites with considerable evidence of early
disturbance (Table 6), 10 sites with limited or doubtful evidence (Table 7), and 14 sites with no
evidence of early grave-robbery (Table 8). The distribution of disturbed and undisturbed sites is
shown in Fig. 9. Appendix 1 sets out the evidence for each cemetery and discusses its reliability,
often at the level of individual graves. All available details of each disturbed and probably
disturbed grave are presented in Tables 9-15. Plans of the disturbed cemeteries and graves, many
previously unpublished, are included as Fig. 12-120. This appendix and these tables, site plans,
grave plans, and maps form the basis for the inter-site analysis below and are referred to
frequently.
The chapters which follow focus on the sites with significant numbers of disturbed burials. There
is qualitative and quantitative analysis at an inter-site level of reopening and its potential
correlates in gender, age, grave types, grave markers, grave size, date, spatial distribution,
gravegood provision, and multiple burials. The findings are analysed to explore where, when,
how, and why graves were disturbed. Which kinds of cemeteries were affected, and which kinds
of graves within them were selected for reopening are key questions. The date range of
disturbance is investigated: was it concentrated within one period, or was it a long term practice?
Were all the graves in each cemetery opened together, or at different times? The methods used to
reopen graves are reconstructed, including what they reveal about the reopeners’ identities and
motives.
A substantial section investigates the remains of gravegood assemblages in disturbed graves to
establish what, if anything, had been removed. This phenomenon has always been called robbing,
but was recovering gravegoods the primary motive? On the continent various types of
gravegoods are said to have been either preferentially taken or actively avoided by robbers: can
such patterns be seen here?
72
None of the disturbed sites presents a full picture of the evidence. Some have grave drawings but
not a cemetery plan, and vice versa. Several lack post-excavation bone and artefact reports. This
is therefore an attempt to reconstruct as nuanced a picture as possible from data of varied quality.
Wherever possible the site records are used, because there is a strong tendency for information
about disturbance to be lost or for interpretation to take the place of observation through the
post-excavation process.
In the figures the data are presented in a visual form as close to the original drawings as possible.
The cemetery plans, for example, are adapted from the published or interim versions without
redrawing. Several of the heavily disturbed cemeteries lack finalized plans and the interim
versions contain mistakes which it would be unhelpful to reproduce. Creating standardized
versions would look more attractive, but would give an erroneous impression of homogeneity in
data of variable quality. Standardized versions also tend to omit landscape and other features
considered worth noting by the excavators and potentially relevant to robbers’ approach to a
cemetery.
For St Peter’s Tip the grave plans are photographs of the originals drawn on site. This is partly
because drawing of the fair copies has not been completed, but also because the originals give a
much better sense of the rigour (or otherwise) with which each grave was recorded, and the
varied condition of the bones. Using the originals also avoids loss of data as the excavators’ notes
are removed. The fair copy of Gr 86 is included for comparison with the original to illustrate
these points (Fig. 30). In addition, imperial measurements have not always been converted to
metric in the text, since to render 1” as 2.54cm or even 2.5cm would give an false impression of
the precision intended when inches are used in casual descriptions. Metric is used for calculations.
In Anglo-Saxon England beyond Kent, grave reopening is a much rarer practice and never
reaches the intensity seen in the East Kent cemeteries. However, a total of twelve sites with
reports of robbed Anglo-Saxon graves have been identified for the purposes of this thesis,
showing the phenomenon to be more widely spread than previously recognised. Their evidence is
discussed in Chapter 7 and is compared with the Kentish material in the analysis and conclusions.
These examples have significant implications for the interpretation of robbery, partly on the basis
of their contexts, and partly because several of the reports come from recent high standard
excavations.
73
4 Results and Analysis: Where and When
4.1 Extent of early disturbance
• Eight sites in Kent show substantial evidence of early reopening. A further 10 sites have
limited evidence.
• At least 201 reopened or possibly reopened graves have been recorded in Kent.
• Rates of disturbance within cemeteries range from one or two graves to nearly half.
Records of the 32 Kentish Anglo-Saxon burial sites in this analysis were searched for signs of
early disturbance. Eight sites showed considerable evidence of early disturbance, affecting at least
183 graves (193 burials), or 15% of the 1197 well-recorded graves in the 8 sites (Table 6,
Appendix 1.1). This is a much higher level of ancient grave reopening than previously recognised,
largely due to the new evidence from the two Broadstairs sites, St Peter’s Tip and Bradstow
School, presented here for the first time.
A further ten cemeteries have more limited evidence of early disturbance, confined to one or two
graves at each site (Table 7, Appendix 1.2). At least 18 disturbed graves are known from these
sites, taking the minimum number recognised in Kent to 201 graves (212 burials). At Polhill,
Darenth Park, Mill Hill, and Eastry substantial areas have been excavated, showing that these
sites are almost entirely intact, with just one or two cases of disturbance. On the other hand the
two Minster sites, Hoo Farm and Thorne Farm, may represent limited excavations into
extensively disturbed burial grounds. Bourne Park may also turn out to be another heavily robbed
cemetery, when the data become available. The remaining fourteen sites either showed no signs
of early robbing, or, as at Bekesbourne II, it was demonstrated that the reports of robbing are
unsubstantiated (Table 8, Appendix 1.3).
Within the heavily disturbed cemeteries, an average of 21% of graves were affected, ranging from
8% at Finglesham to 44% at Ozengell. The variation in the proportion of graves disturbed is
partly a result of incomplete cemetery excavations, since at some sites robbed graves are unevenly
spread. It is also likely that the diagnosis of early disturbance has more readily been made at some
sites than others. However, since the basis of the diagnosis of robbing has been reviewed for
every single grave in this sample, it is likely that there is real variation in robbing levels. Both the
overall rate and the variation between cemeteries are comparable with the pattern of robbing
seen across the sea in Merovingia (Chapter 2).
74
4.2 Excavators
Evidence of deliberate early disturbance has been recorded by at least nine site directors: J Brent,
WPD Stebbing, A Rowe, A Warhurst, AC Hogarth, L Webster, SC Hawkes, DRJ Perkins, and D
Hart. Accounts of disturbed graves have been published from 1863 onwards. At four sites
(Finglesham, Bradstow School, Monkton, Sarre) robbing has been identified by different
excavators in successive campaigns of excavation. At Finglesham this was despite initial
scepticism by the second director about the earlier interpretation of robbing (Appendix 1.1).
Where the information is available, such as at St Peter’s, excavation records confirm that a variety
of individual diggers worked on graves identified as disturbed.
Many of the prominent 20th century excavators in Kent were close colleagues, with Hogarth and
Hawkes both assisting with or visiting Leslie Webster’s dig at Bradstow School for example.
Hawkes’ letters show that she discussed robbing in antiquity with Perkins, who sent her part of
his BSc dissertation on the Ozengell disturbance. It seems likely that these personal contacts
contributed to the acceptance and spread of the diagnosis of robbing, at least within this circle of
acquaintances.
On the other hand, despite these connections, the various published and archived reports of
suspected Kentish grave robbery refer to each other remarkably rarely. This is the case even for
the two Broadstairs excavations, which were carried out at roughly the same time and involved
much to-ing and fro-ing between the two sites. Despite this interaction, the site notes contain no
comment on the comparative appearance of the robbed graves.
Until now there thus has been almost no comparison of how the evidence manifests itself at
different sites, nor how different excavators have approached the problems of detecting and
recording robbing. These questions are considered in detail in Appendices 1 and 2 and
throughout the inter-site analysis below.
75
4.3 Distribution of disturbed sites
• The most intensely disturbed cemeteries are in East Kent, mainly but not exclusively on
the Isle of Thanet.
• Heavily disturbed cemeteries are intermingled with undisturbed ones.
All the heavily disturbed sites are in East Kent, with 6 out of 8 on the Isle of Thanet (Fig. 9).
Since the numbers are low a few further discoveries could change the distribution significantly,
but at present the spread is strongly concentrated along the eastern seaboard. In the early
medieval period the former Wantsum Channel still provided navigable access to the sites on the
west side of Thanet, and this was a significant area for coastal trading (Brookes 2003).
In Merovingia it has often been commented that the distribution of heavily disturbed cemeteries
is frequently intermingled with unrobbed sites. In several cases neighbouring cemeteries of
similar date show quite different robbing rates (Fingerlin 1971: 16-54, Roth 1978: 60, Chapter 2).
No satisfactory explanation has so far been forthcoming. The same is broadly true in Kent.
Which cemeteries are disturbed cannot be explained by geography alone.
Despite the concentration on Thanet, two of the eight heavily disturbed cemeteries are well
outside the island. These are Finglesham and Lyminge, both several kilometres from the coast.
Finglesham is close by the extensively excavated sites of Mill Hill, Deal, and Updown, Eastry,
which have only minimal evidence of early robbing. Mill Hill appears to go out of use earlier than
Finglesham, but then so does heavily robbed Lyminge (Appendix 1, Chapter 4.9). The
publication of Bourne Park may place another disturbed site in this immediate area.
At nearby Dover Buckland over 400 burials have been excavated without any signs of early
medieval robbing being recorded. It lies only a few miles from extensively disturbed Lyminge,
with their use periods substantially overlapping. It is also notable that Dover Buckland and its
similarly undisturbed neighbours at Townsend Road and St Margaret’s-at-Cliffe are so close to
the coast. It is not simply the case that accessible coastal cemeteries were disturbed while inland
sites remained intact.
On Thanet, only four sites fall outside the heavily robbed category (Appendix 1). The first is
Chalk Hill, Ramsgate, which was the excavation of a single grave, probably robbed. The second is
the unpublished excavation of 12 graves at Cliffs End, Ramsgate, about which little information
is available. The third is Thorne Farm, Minster, a rescue excavation of 3 graves, of which one was
thought robbed. The last and most convincing is Mount Pleasant, Minster, at which 18 graves
were excavated and no disturbance found. This was despite the involvement of DRJ Perkins,
76
who has reported robbing evidence at several other sites. If the 18 recorded graves at Mount
Pleasant represent only part of a larger cemetery, it is possible that signs of robbing will turn up
in future excavations. Alternatively, perhaps the late date of this cemetery puts it after the
robbing phase (Chapter 4.9). It would be going too far to say that all properly recorded Thanet
cemeteries in use before the late 7th century were disturbed, but the evidence of this sample
certainly points to very widespread early medieval robbing on Thanet.
4.4 Dimensions
• Disturbed graves are on average deeper, longer, and wider than undisturbed ones.
• Graves reported as ‘robbed’ or ‘disturbed’ are not ploughed out burials.
• Robbers may have been selectively targeting bigger, better furnished burials.
Grave dimensions were available for 4 out of the 8 heavily disturbed sites. These are shown in
Table 4. Disturbed graves were found to be on average substantially deeper, longer, and wider
than undisturbed ones. There is variation between sites: disturbed graves at Ozengell are only an
average of 7cm deeper than undisturbed ones, compared to 30cm at Sarre. However, in every
dimension at every site for which figures are available, the disturbed graves are larger.
An objection to this finding would be that (as shown in Chapter 4.7) the disturbed graves include
a low proportion of child burials. Perhaps the lower proportion of child burials amongst the
disturbed burials is artificially pulling up their average size? To exclude this possibility, the
analysis was repeated with child burials removed (Table 4).
The results of this second analysis confirmed the initial findings. The size difference between
disturbed and undisturbed adult graves is reduced, but still marked. Disturbed adult graves were
on average 27% deeper, 6% longer, and 16% wider than the intact ones. The lower figure of 6%
for difference in length is largely due to the outlying result from Sarre, where disturbed graves
were actually an average of 11cm shorter than undisturbed ones. All the other results still show
greater dimensions for disturbed adult graves. The presence of child burials in the sample had
only a limited effect on the comparative length and width averages, and none at all on the depth.
Even when the analysis is confined to adult burials, reopened graves remain conspicuously larger
than undisturbed ones.
77
ALL GRAVES Average depth (m) Average length (m) Average width (m)
Monkton
All graves 0.34 2.05 0.77
Undisturbed graves 0.34 2.00 0.74
Disturbed graves 0.35 2.43 1.00
Difference 0.01 0.43 0.26
Finglesham
All graves 0.49 2.04 0.71
Undisturbed graves 0.48 2.01 0.70
Disturbed graves 0.64 2.32 0.88
Difference 0.16 0.31 0.18
Ozengell
All graves 0.74 u u
Undisturbed graves 0.71 u u
Disturbed graves 0.78 u u
Difference 0.07 u u
Sarre (TAT)
All graves 0.55 2.22 0.94
Undisturbed graves 0.38 1.99 0.85
Disturbed graves 0.71 2.46 1.01
Difference 0.33 0.47 0.16
Average all graves, all sites 0.53 2.10 0.81
Average difference 0.14 0.40 0.20
Difference as % of average 27% 19% 25%
ADULT GRAVES
Monkton
All adult graves 0.34 2.09 0.80
Undisturbed adult graves 0.34 2.05 0.77
Disturbed adult graves 0.35 2.43 1.00
Difference 0.01 0.38 0.23
Finglesham
All adult graves 0.51 2.18 0.74
Undisturbed adult graves 0.51 2.15 0.73
Disturbed adult graves 0.64 2.31 0.88
Difference 0.13 0.16 0.15
Ozengell
All adult graves 0.75 u u
Undisturbed adult graves 0.74 u u
Disturbed adult graves 0.78 u u
Difference 0.04 u u
Sarre (TAT)
All adult graves 0.59 2.42 1.00
Undisturbed adult graves 0.27 2.51 0.99
Disturbed adult graves 0.71 2.46 1.01
Difference 0.44 -0.05 0.02
Average for all adult graves, all sites 0.55 2.23 0.85
Average difference 0.16 0.16 0.13
Difference as % of average 28% 7% 16%
Table 4: Dimensions of disturbed graves in Kent
78
The finding that graves reported as disturbed are consistently deeper than average more or less
rules out the possibility that “disturbance in antiquity” is misreported plough damage. Most
cemeteries in this intensively farmed region have suffered some plough damage, but it is the
shallowest graves which are most vulnerable. That the disturbed graves are among the deepest
also reduces the likelihood that animals caused the disorder, since deeper graves are also less
accessible to scavengers and burrowers.
Why are the disturbed graves so much larger than undisturbed ones? One possibility is that the
reopening itself leads to enlarged grave cuts. There certainly are some cases where grave cuts
have been damaged and extended by the robbers. In St Peter’s Tip Gr 261, for example, the head
end is some 20cm deeper than the rest, suggesting that the robbers “over-dug” and increased the
dimensions in this area of the grave. However, such cases are relatively few and seem usually to
result in recognisably irregular re-cuts confined to the grave lip (Chapter 5.1). In such cases
excavators have often tried to record the dimensions of the original cut, rather than letting the
robbers’ work render their measurements inaccurate (e.g. Finglesham Gr 139).
Grave size in Anglo-Saxon cemeteries has long been seen as linked to wealth, as expressed in
grave-goods and other trappings. Larger graves require more energy expenditure and they also
have greater visual impact. At Bradstow School, for example, the excavators noted during work
on Gr 67, “The grave looks robbed, and its great depth suggests it may have been richly
furnished.” (Cutting Book p183, 05/08/74, Appendix 1.1).
However, this widespread and persistent impression of a relationship between grave size and
wealth is difficult to demonstrate statistically. In the first place there is the problem of defining
and quantifying the wealth displays in Anglo-Saxon graves (Chapter 6.1). Occasionally tentative
links have been found, such as between grave depth and number of grave-goods at Sewerby,
Yorkshire (Hirst 1980: 248), but at other sites correlations have been ruled out. At Dover
Buckland, for example, grave size was shown to be primarily a function of body size (Evison
1987: 50).
Richardson’s (2005a: 124, 128-9) larger sample brings these patterns into focus. He does not
make depth comparisons between sites because topsoil erosion is so variable, but concentrates on
grave length and width. The primary factor affecting grave length in most cases is shown to be
the stature of the individual being interred, to the extent that grave length is almost a normal
distribution. Grave width, however, is not as dependent on size of corpse. At the very top of the
social scale Richardson shows a correlation between status and grave size, so that some of the
79
biggest graves are also unusually well provided with grave-goods. Additionally, where body
stature can be compared to grave length, individuals with proportionately larger graves also have
more grave-goods indicative of wealth or high status. The link between grave size and wealth is
present in Kent, but it is not as determining nor as straightforward as has sometimes been
suggested.
Like this thesis, Perkins’ 1985 dissertation on grave robbery in five East Kent cemeteries (Perkins
1985, Chapter 3) found a link between grave size and robbery. Perkins also found a limited
relationship between grave size, specifically width, and grave wealth measured essentially as
numbers of artefacts. Like Richardson, he found that this was marked only at the top of the
wealth and size scales. Grave structures were also associated with robbery in Perkins’ findings, as
here (Chapter 4.5).
Perkins considered grave size and grave structures primarily in terms of the investment in graves,
so that robbing of graves with high numbers of artefacts or with high effort expenditure was
linked to the status of the interred. However, the link may be a practical matter of recognition:
larger graves were likely to be more readily and lastingly visible aboveground simply by virtue of
their size. This also fits with the evidence that graves with aboveground structures attracted
robbing. If there is any correlation between size of grave cut, the investment in gravegoods, and
the elaborateness and durability of any aboveground marker, which is not implausible, then this
effect would be amplified.
On the other hand, since there are good reasons for thinking that grave robbery was taking place
during the use period of most of the cemeteries (Chapter 4.9), it is likely that most burials were
still visible on the surface. The near-absence of accidental intercutting in the cemeteries, despite
the spatial mixing of burials of different dates, suggests that all, or almost all, graves were marked
on the surface while the burial grounds were in use. When graves intercut, as at Mill Hill, it is the
latest burials interfering with the earliest ones, as though time is the main factor in rendering
graves invisible, not size (Chapter 4.9). Although surface visibility remains a probable influence, it
is therefore likely that the larger and more conspicuous graves were being deliberately selected for
reopening.
80
4.5 Grave markers and structures
• Graves were usually marked while cemeteries were in use, but could fade from view
within a century.
• There is a high, but not complete, coincidence of cemeteries with East Kent-type
structural features and cemeteries with grave robbery.
• Graves with and without grave structures were robbed.
• Graves with any form of structural elaboration were at greater risk of disturbance.
• Disturbance is not associated with any particular form of grave structure.
• Graves were not concealed and barrows were not an effective defence against robbery.
Grave markers
There is widespread evidence for the use of grave markers in Anglo-Saxon field cemeteries.
Above all, intercutting is so rare that all or almost all graves must have been indicated in some
way (Cherryson 2007). In many cases the marker may have been simply the heaped earth over the
grave. At Dover Buckland, Evison argued that the purpose of the numerous large flints added to
the fill of some graves was to add volume to the heap of excavated chalk and soil, so providing a
more distinctive marker (Evison 1987: 18).
The most common forms seen archaeologically are the postholes for wooden grave markers
found at many sites including Lyminge (Schröder 2007: 13, Appendix 1.1) and Minerva (Gibson
2007: 241, Chapter 7). Sometimes postholes are found scattered within a cemetery without an
obvious connection to a particular grave (e.g. Gibson 2007: 242). In other cases they may be
grouped together around a burial, suggesting some form of structure. The most concentrated
group of such finds is in East Kent and is discussed below. Christina Lee has recently surveyed
the evidence for such constructions – outside Kent – and speculated on the possible
superstructures and functions (Lee 2007: 93-95). The full range of known forms of grave marker
are surveyed by Lucy (2000: 97-102, see also Hirst & Clark 2009: 645).
For how long graves remained marked on the surface is a key issue for grave-robbery. Useful
information can sometimes be reconstructed from sites with good data on the sequence of
burials, for example at Mill Hill, Deal, Kent (Parfitt 1997, Appendix 1.2). As in most field
cemeteries, intercutting was rare in the Anglo-Saxon period at Mill Hill, implying the use of grave
markers. Around 13 graves are believed from the spacing to have originally been covered by
small mounds, and another form of marker must have been employed for the rest.
81
However, one group of burials, some of the latest at the site (Phase IV), overlay and cut through
earlier (Phase II and III) graves (Parfitt 1997: 17). It is just possible that this was deliberate, but
elsewhere at this and similar sites superimposition is carefully avoided. Therefore it seems likely
that the earlier graves were no longer marked on the surface when the later graves cut them. This
implies that graves of the early and mid 6th century were already invisible by the end of that
century or beginning of the next. If wooden posts were used as markers, this timescale would fit
a scenario in which graves were marked at the time of burial, but posts were not replaced once
they had rotted. The uneven ground and vegetation created by grave-digging must also have
disappeared by this time.
This information, although preliminary and requiring confirmation from other sites, is valuable
for dating disturbance elsewhere. In almost all Kent cases graves seem to have been still visible
when reopened, since the robbers cut directly into the graves without any digging to locate them.
Mill Hill gives an indication that the period during which this was possible could be quite limited,
since the exact locations of graves there had faded from sight and memory within the use period
of the cemetery.
Further information about the aboveground appearance of cemeteries can be gleaned from the
robbers’ activities. In most cases it appears that they could see not only the vague position of the
grave, but also its precise outline and orientation, since they were able to dig directly into the
burial. There are some exceptions where finding cuts were used to locate the exact edge of the
grave cut (Chapter 5.1), and more such evidence may have been missed or truncated, but the
overall impression is that graves were well-defined on the surface at the time of robbing.
Earth mounds are a conspicuous and durable form of grave marker and were commonly used in
Early Anglo-Saxon Kent. Some 752 out of Richardson’s 2934 Kent burials were recorded as lying
under barrows, the majority single graves under individual early medieval mounds, but some
inserted into prehistoric monuments. This figure is likely to represent significant under-recording.
Antiquarian observations before 20th century intensive ploughing record much higher numbers of
barrows than are seen today. The former presence of barrows can sometimes also be inferred by
ditches or extra space around graves (e.g. at Finglesham, Grainger & Hawkes 2006: 30). Barrows
are particularly a feature of 7th-8th century cemeteries in Kent, but were sometimes used earlier
(Richardson 2005a: 112-3). As shown below, mound graves do not appear to have attracted high
rates of robbing, despite their lasting visibility.
82
If, as appears to be the case (Chapter 6.1), graves with greater numbers of artefacts were
disturbed, it is likely that potential robbers could assess the probable assemblage from the
aboveground appearance of the grave. Whether we see grave-goods as gifts to the dead,
statements of ethnicity or allegiance, or counters in a game of social rivalry, one of the
remarkable things about them is the briefness of their opportunity to make an impact on the eyes
and memories of mourners and witnesses. During the funerary rites they were presumably on
display, though we do not know exactly how or to whom, but once buried their impression could
only fade. It therefore makes sense that the aboveground elaboration should in some way boast
the grave wealth below. However, no straightforward relationship between archaeologically
visible aspects of grave marking or size and grave-goods can be reconstructed (Chapters 4.4, 6.1).
It seems that whatever clues were available to the early robbers are lost to us today.
Structural features in East Kent
In addition to the simple grave markers and barrows suggested above, a number of cemeteries in
East Kent have evidence for more elaborate forms of internal and external structural features.
These were first classified by Hogarth at St Peter’s, Broadstairs (Hogarth 1973), with updates by
Perkins at Sarre and Ozengell (Perkins 1991), and a recent survey by Richardson (2005a: 116-124).
Although conventionally discussed together, these forms of grave elaboration are varied, ranging
from flint-packing around coffins to apparently substantial structures or canopies over graves.
In many cases it is unclear how the archaeologically-visible structures related to the aboveground
appearance of the grave. This is particularly true of the various types of sockets, slots, and ledges.
Hogarth’s distinction between internal and external features refers to whether they lie inside or
outside the grave cut, as viewed by the archaeologist, not to the original form of the grave. In
some cases they may have been visible only during the grave construction, as in Ozengell Gr 10,
where Perkins suggested that parallel slots across the grave floor had been used as rope ways for
the lowering of the coffin. Some probably relate to now vanished burial mounds (Richardson
2005a: 112).
However, other types of vertical and pitched postholes are credible evidence for the building of
wooden structures or fences around certain graves in Thanet (Richardson 2005a: 122). The
fieldnotes from St Peter’s show Hogarth’s developing ideas about these. For Gr 307, for example,
he notes “3 postholes each side definitely for pitched timbers”. Walls or covers made of
sandstone blocks seem also to have elaborated some Thanet burials, and as discussed in
Appendix 1.1: Ozengell, these are sometimes found disturbed in reopened graves.
83
Richardson (2005a: 123-4) shows that some variation in structural features is related to date.
External (Hogarth’s class II) structures, external postholes, recesses and rectangular slots seem
mainly confined to the 5th or 6th centuries. Internal grave features (Hogarth’s class III), are also
more common during the 6th and possibly 5th centuries, rather than later. By contrast, external
penannular and ring ditches and other indications of barrows are predominantly dated to the 7th
century or later. Integral (Hogarth’s class I) features are also much more common from the 7th
century. Post-built structures began to be erected over graves in Thanet during the early to mid
6th century, but they were much more common during the 7th-8th centuries.
There is a prima facie association between East Kent cemeteries with structural features, and ones
with early disturbance. The first large scale observations of structural features were at the two
large Broadstairs sites, St Peter’s Tip and Bradstow School, both of which are also extensively
robbed. The other sites noted for high levels of these types of grave elaboration - Ozengell, Sarre,
and Finglesham - are also among the heavily disturbed group.
The undisturbed cemetery at Dover Buckland has very little evidence for structural features. Gr
163 was a single example of a rough ledge around the grave along the lines of Hogarth’s type Ib7.
However, the excavators judged this to be the result of a change in planned grave size, rather
than a deliberate feature. There was no sign of the penannular and ring ditches seen at St Peter’s,
Finglesham, Kingston and elsewhere. However, the shallowness of the Buckland graves
suggested that the upper layers were significantly truncated (Evison 1987: 16-18).
Like Buckland, minimally disturbed Mill Hill had almost no evidence for structural features. Gr
48 had a narrow step or ledge, but as at Buckland this was considered part of the practicalities of
digging a narrow grave, rather than as a support for a wooden cover or the like (Parfitt 1997: 23).
Monkton, which has 3 disturbed graves, also has a few with slots and ledges within the grave cut
(Perkins 1985). Updown, Eastry, has both structural features and a couple of graves reported as
robbed in antiquity (Welch 2008). On the other hand, the cemetery at Mount Pleasant near
Minster-in-Thanet has structural features in 2 out of 18 graves, including a previously
unrecognised form suggestive of a canopy, but no signs of robbing (Riddler and Haith unpub.,
Richardson 2005b: 56).
The Lyminge excavations predated Hogarth’s identification of structural features at St Peter’s.
The only structural embellishments noted at Lyminge were three graves enclosed by rectangular
gullies (Richardson 2005a: 120, Schröder 2007: 94, Appendix 1.1). Two of these were excavated;
both had been robbed in antiquity. If the interpretation of these as the same category as the kerb-
84
slots at St Peter’s and Ozengell is correct, this is a type of structural feature that is frequently,
although not consistently, robbed in at least three cemeteries (Table 6 and below).
Turning to the selection of graves for robbing within cemeteries, the best available data on
structural features is from St Peter’s, Broadstairs (Hogarth 1973). As can be seen in Table 6,
robbing affects small numbers of graves with most kinds of structures at the site. There is no
reason here to think that the presence or absence of any type of structural feature wholly decided
the selection of a grave for reopening.
Table 6 shows the disturbance rates of graves with different kinds of structural elaboration across
all the heavily robbed sites. It appears that having some form of structural feature predisposed a
grave to disturbance. A similar finding was made in Perkins’ analysis of five cemeteries (Perkins
1985, Chapter 3). However, the specifics of which structural features are targeted vary
significantly from site to site. As the table shows, there is no clear relationship between robbing
and types of grave structure. It is not the case that any particular form of internal or external
feature was consistently avoided or preferred by robbers across the disturbed sites.
On the basis of the current evidence there is therefore an association but not an exact correlation
between sites with the twin phenomena of grave structures and robbing. The apparent
association between sites with robbing and structural features may be a coincidence of geography
alone. If there is a connection, the relationship may be a background factor underlying both
phenomena, rather than a causal link between the two. Perhaps there was something in the
nature of the communities creating these cemeteries that resulted in both structural elaboration
and reopening.
The construction of Table 6 has involved a degree of guesswork in attempting to establish
categories of structural feature likely to have been meaningful to an Anglo-Saxon viewer. As
mentioned above, it is not clear which archaeological features signify aboveground features. Even
where they almost certainly were lastingly visible on the surface, for example in the case of
ditches around graves, I may not be at all correct in the types I have grouped together.
Penannular and rectangular ditches, for instance, may have had quite different symbolic
connotations. The original form and the symbolism of East Kent grave structures, and their
possible continental models, would be a fruitful area of research but are beyond the scope of this
thesis.
As noted by Elizabeth O’Brien (1999: 140), none of the graves with certain types of internal
structural features at Finglesham are disturbed, whereas at Sarre and Ozengell a high proportion
85
of these were reopened. Since structured graves at Finglesham contained little by way of grave-
goods, O’Brien takes this as evidence that the robbers knew in advance which graves were worth
targeting, irrespective of external features. However, the forms of structural elaboration in
question, ledges or beam slots within the grave, do not appear to represent externally visible
structures. If there is a real difference in the types of grave selected for reopening between these
sites, identifying it will require much better reconstruction of the contemporary appearance of
structural features than is at present available.
Barrows, probably the most conspicuous and lasting form of grave marker, are by no means
always robbed. At Finglesham, for example, only 8 out of the at least 18 likely mounds were
found disturbed. On the other hand, robbers evidently did sometimes consider it worth their
while digging down through these substantial monuments. That barrow graves are sometimes
robbed has significant implications for the selection of burials for reopening: it is not the graves
which are easiest to access which are chosen. Digging through a mound takes much longer and
more effort than opening a flat-grave, yet barrows were still sometimes chosen. Barrows cannot
be seen as a deterrent to robbers, at least not an effective one.
There are plenty of examples of highly elaborated graves which are not robbed. Ozengell Gr 64 is
a particularly striking example. Within the grave was a ‘pillow’ of earth packing plus chalk packing
along the sides. Probably visible aboveground were 3 pairs of posts along the sides, a square
sandstone slab and a chalk pyramid (Perkins unpub., Richardson 2005a: 121). Yet this grave was
found undisturbed at a site with an overall robbing rate of up to 44%.
The only strong association that emerges is between kerb-slots and robbing. Graves surrounded
by these rectangular gullies thought to have originally contained stone uprights are seen at
Lyminge, Ozengell, and St Peter’s Tip (Appendix 1.1). A high proportion are robbed at all three
sites. At Lyminge both examples had been robbed, and at Ozengell 4 out of 5 were disturbed. At
St Peter’s Tip 4 out of 7 examples were definitely robbed, and it is possible that all had been
(Appendix 1.1). Were these graves selected on the basis of specific symbolic connotations, or
simply because they were conspicuous? There is little to indicate whether this form of grave
structure was associated with impressive gravegood assemblages, largely because almost all
examples have been looted.
Beyond the kerb-slot graves, the assortment of grave types which have been robbed is so
markedly varied that a case could be made that a deliberate selection has taken place at each site
to include representatives of as many grave forms as possible. Especially once the spatial
86
distribution is taken into account, the marked dispersal of reopened burials across the cemeteries
and across grave types begins to appear intentional. In this scenario the aim of the reopening
would not be to target any section of the burying group(s), but to ensure that the symbolic act of
reopening encompassed, for good or ill, the whole community of the dead (Chapter 5.4).
As a final point, there is the possibility that graves were occasionally concealed, rather than
marked. At Gunthorpe, Peterborough, several graves were recently discovered which appeared to
have been deliberately back-filled with gravel pebbles, as if to disguise their location (Patrick 2007:
211). With no robbing reported at Gunthorpe or in the immediate area, this cannot be seen as a
response to contemporary grave robbery. However, it flags up the apparent lack of such
defensive reactions in Kent. The evidence is that graves become more elaborately marked
through the likely 7th century robbing period, not less.
4.6 Coffins
• There is considerable variation in reported coffin numbers between sites, probably due to
differences in preservation, recording, and date.
• Graves both with and without coffin evidence are reported as robbed.
• Graves with coffin remains are more frequently reported as robbed.
The presence or absence of a coffin or other air-filled chamber around a burial is relevant to
grave-robbery for two main reasons. First, it is a central factor affecting the decomposition of the
body in the years immediately after burial. A corpse exposed to air will in general decay much
more quickly than one which is earthbound (e.g. Hawkes & Grainger 2006: 313). Second, it has
implications for access to the burial assemblage, and for the robbers’ ability to move objects
around within the exposed grave. A solid wooden lid requires robbers either to dig out all the
earth covering the grave in order to lift it off, or to dig a smaller access shaft and saw out a
smaller opening. A burial lying in the hollow cavity of a coffin can be exposed and rifled far more
easily than one lacking a lid and enveloped in earth (Chapters 4.9, 5.1).
Coffins are frequently reported in early medieval inhumation cemeteries. Richardson’s sample of
Kentish burials had coffins with 18% of bodies (Richardson 2005a: 129). However, as Table 6
shows, the proportion of coffined burials varies widely from site to site. This raises questions
about the types and levels of evidence which have been used to report coffins (see also Stoodley
1999: 59-60, Hirst & Clark 2009). A further uncertainty is the exact form of coffins of the period,
in particular whether they were always lidded (Richardson 2005a: 130, Hawkes & Grainger 2006:
87
51). At Holborough, for example, there was evidence for lidless coffins in at least 8 graves
(Evison 1956: 92). Burials might also be lidded but uncoffined: ledges indicative of wooden
covers were seen in nearly a fifth of recorded graves at Park Lane, Croydon (McKinley 1994: 28).
St Peter’s Tip has much higher reported coffin rates than most cemeteries, which may suggest
over-interpretation of wood remains. Then again it seems to have had much better preservation
conditions for wood than is usual. In Gr 277, for example, the coffin line is recorded as “solid
wood”, which compares favourably with the faint soil shadows more frequently seen (see also
Waldron 2007). Richardson notes that Faussett also recorded much higher numbers of coffins
than have been seen in 20th century excavations (Richardson 2005a: 129), which is a reminder that
decay is still ongoing in unexcavated sites.
The impression from the rough grave plans drawn at St Peter’s is that the coffins were of
substantial planks with a thickness measuring several centimetres. Anglo-Saxon coffins could
certainly last a long time before collapsing: in Gr 197 at Finglesham both body and gravegoods
were well-decayed but the coffin still held up at the time of robbery (Chapter 5.1).
Table 6 shows a high proportion of disturbed graves with coffins. This is perhaps a function of
soil conditions, with better general preservation allowing identification of both coffin and
disturbance. Date probably also plays a part, with fast rising rates of coffins from the start of the
7th century, which is also the main phase of robbing (Chapter 4.9). Still it remains possible that
this is a real phenomenon, with coffined burials preferred by robbers. Perhaps the relative ease of
rifling a lidded burial played a part.
88
4.7 Age
• The heavily disturbed cemeteries are not unusual in their age-at-death profiles.
• Children’s graves are much less likely to be reported as robbed.
• Almost all disturbed child graves are adult-sized.
• Robbers may have selectively avoided children’s graves.
• In some cases robbers were able to judge the size of graves from their surface appearance,
but lacked knowledge of their occupants.
• Among adults, robbing affects all age categories.
The disturbed burials have been divided into two age groups: adult and child. Here ‘child’ is used
for individuals under about 17 years of age. The categories used to record age at death vary
between sites, so that for the few individuals in their late teens some approximation has been
necessary. A skeleton recorded as ‘14-18’ has been put into the child bracket, while ‘16-20’ has
been grouped with the adults. In other cases, such as in the work of John Brent at Sarre, it has
been assumed that burials are of adults where no comment is made to the contrary.
Making similar assumptions, Richardson finds an overall average of 17.5% sub-adult mortality in
Kent AS cemeteries. He argues that the true figure lies somewhere between 17.5 and 32%
(Richardson 2005: 99). As Table 6 shows, children make up about 18% of burials across the
heavily disturbed sites, albeit with considerable inter-site variation. This figure is in line with
Richardson’s average, indicating that the numbers of sub-adult dead in these burial grounds are
typical for the region.
That said, there are two sites where the age profiles need further consideration. The first is
Primrose Hill, Monkton, where only 2 out of a total of 35 (undisturbed and disturbed) burials
were identified as children. Monkton also has an unusually high proportion of identifiably male
burials (37% male, 17% female). The two disturbed burials at Monkton were both male. It is
possible that Monkton represents a particular type of non-household-based community.
Alternatively, since Anglo-Saxon cemeteries show some clustering of burial types, there is a
significant chance that the portion of the Monkton cemetery which has been excavated happens
to be an area with more adult males and fewer youngsters. The second site to be mentioned is
Sarre, where age clustering may well also be a feature. While Brent’s 19th century work reported
only 11% (31/293=11%) of burials as children, the 20th century excavations in a different area of
89
the same site found a much higher proportion (9/23=39%). Improved excavation technique is
also likely to be a factor.
Adult burials are more frequently reported as robbed than those of children. As Table 6 shows,
across the sites 18% of adults have evidence of robbing, compared to only 10% of children.
Again there is considerable inter-site variation, with nearly half the total number of disturbed
child burials coming from Ozengell, which also has the highest overall robbing rate. However,
even there the level of reported disturbance is much lower among children than adults.
Disturbance is much harder to identify in the graves of children. Their skeletons decompose
faster and more completely (Chapter 4.9) and they are provided with fewer grave-goods (Stoodley
1999, 2000), leaving less grave contents to bear witness to rifling. A high proportion of child
graves appear entirely or almost empty when excavated, often with only teeth to show the former
presence of a body. It is probable that at least some of the discrepancy in apparent robbing levels
between adult and child burials is explained by these taphonomic factors. However, there are also
reasons to think that robbers may have avoided child-sized graves.
A total of 20 child burials are reported as robbed across the 8 cemeteries. Three of these are
multiple burials with adults in adult-sized graves. Length and width measurements are recorded
for 6 of the remaining 17, and depth for 14. As can be seen in Table 4, the child graves reported
as robbed are on average bigger in all dimensions than the mean grave size across these
cemeteries (see also Chapter 4.4). In width they exceed the average adult grave. They would all be
large enough to accommodate an adult burial.
On the available data, we therefore have no examples of recognisably child-sized graves being
robbed. This absence introduces the possibility that robbers selectively avoided graves which
could be seen on the surface to be those of children. They might do so for reasons of taboo, if it
was felt a greater transgression to disturb a child’s grave, or simply because children’s graves
typically contained fewer valuables. In the cases shown in Table 4, robbers may have been misled
by the surface appearance of the graves into thinking them adult burials. In this scenario, the
robbers were acting on the aboveground appearance of the cemetery, rather than on knowledge
of the contents of graves. This has important implications for the timescale of disturbance and
the identities of the grave-openers.
It would, however, be incorrect to say that child-sized graves were never reopened, since Sarre
104 is recorded as a "very small grave and disturbed" and Sarre 25 may well also be small,
although the dimensions are not reported (Appendix 1.1: Sarre). Still, such cases are vanishingly
90
rare. In addition, a large proportion of the reopened children’s graves are at the Ozengell
cemetery, which has an unusually high reported robbing rate, indicating either that robbing was
particularly rife there, or that there may have been over-interpretation on the part of the
excavators (Appendix 1.1: Ozengell).
Beyond the apparent avoidance of children’s graves, no other age patterns are evident. Reopening
affected adult graves in all age categories. The highest quality data is from the published
Finglesham report, in which 11 of the disturbed burials are simply listed as “adult” or “probable
adult”, one is 10-12 years, one is 17-20, three are in the 20-30 bracket, one is about 35, two are
between 40 and 50, and one is over 50. There is no reason at Finglesham, or at any of the other
sites, to suppose that adults in any particular age range were targeted.
4.8 Gender
• The disturbed cemeteries are not unusual in their gender profiles.
• Male burials were possibly slightly more frequently disturbed than females.
• There is considerable inter-site variation in ratios of F:M disturbance.
• At some sites robbers may have selectively targeted male graves, either from previous
knowledge or from gendered aboveground marking.
• Alternatively, male graves may have been more lastingly marked on the surface and so
more vulnerable to looting.
The sexing of burials used here is based on the excavation notes and reports, which variously use
skeletal and/or artefactual evidence. This information is supplemented by the ASKED database,
which has separate fields for skeletal and grave-good data. In addition for the purposes of this
thesis some further male and female graves have been identified through their grave-good arrays.
Gendered artefacts correlate closely (though not infallibly) with skeletal sex in Kent and
elsewhere in Anglo-Saxon England (Richardson 2005a: 168, Stoodley 1999). There are
exceptions: Gr 5 at Bradstow School, for example, is reportedly the skeleton of an older male
buried with typically female artefacts plus a bronze manikin amulet.
The 8 heavily disturbed sites have an average of 31% female, 36% male, and 32% unsexed burials,
with large inter-site variation. This is a total of 191 burials sexed as definite or probably females
and 205 sexed as males. The proportion of female interments is thus slightly lower than
Richardson’s ratio of about 49% female to 51% male skeletally sexed individuals (Richardson
2005a: 97). However, the low numbers of females at Bradstow School and Monkton are mainly
91
responsible for pulling the female average down. Both these sites, or at least their excavated
portions, show particularly strong expression of a 6th century martial male identity in the
furnishing and placing of weapon graves (Chapter 5.4). With the possible exceptions of these two
cemeteries, the sex/gender profiles of the heavily disturbed sites are therefore within the usual
range.
Across the 8 sites, a total of 19% of female, 22% of male, and 15% of unsexed burials were
disturbed (Table 6). This is a total of 54 female, 74 male, and 63 unsexed individuals across all
sites. These figures mask considerable differences between cemeteries. At Monkton and Lyminge
male burials make up the overwhelming majority of disturbed graves. With the caveat that many
disturbed burials are unsexable, it is therefore possible that male burials were more frequently
targeted than female ones, at least at some sites.
However, it is by no means the case that male graves were exclusively targeted. Male graves may
have been preferred, either for their grave-goods or for some other reason, but female graves
were also frequent targets. There is no need for robbers to have had foreknowledge of the gender
of the buried individuals; male and female graves may have been differentially marked on the
surface. It seems likely that the marked gendering of gravegood assemblages extended to other
aspects of burial ritual and monument. Finally, there is also the possibility that male graves were
more lastingly marked, so that more of them were visible to robbers. This would explain the
possible imbalance without any need for selection.
92
4.9 Date
• Reopening of graves probably started in the 6th century.
• Reopening evidence is concentrated in the 7th century, ceasing before the last interments
in field cemeteries.
• The robbing evidence is spread over at least half a century, probably several decades
longer.
• Reopening took place in cemeteries still used for burial.
• Graves could be reopened at widely different stages of decomposition. A few were
opened while bodies were wholly or partially articulated. In others bones and grave-goods
were decomposing and friable.
• Most bodies were disarticulated skeletons with intact bones when disturbed. In many
cases coffins or wooden covers were still solid.
Dating Kentish graves
As discussed above (Chapter 3), early medieval dating is in a state of flux, especially for the late
6th to late 7th century period which is particularly relevant to this study (Scull & Bayliss 1999,
Welch 2007: 211). In Kent almost all dating is currently based on artefact seriation, with some use
of “horizontal stratigraphy” within certain cemeteries (Chapter 5.4, Appendix 1.1: Lyminge).
Artefacts with well-supported recent typologies used for dating in Kent include glass beads
(Brugmann 2004), belt buckles (Marzinzik 2003), and glass vessels (Evison 1982, Stephens 2006).
This study uses dating from several sources, since it was beyond the possible scope of this
research to re-examine finds and establish an independent chronology. The source of every date
is set out and the basis of each significant date is explored in the relevant sections.
In the site tables (Tables 9-15) the dates for individual graves are in most cases taken from
ASKED (Chapter 3). The ASKED researchers used published chronologies where available, and
otherwise assigned dates themselves on the basis of the artefact finds. However, these should not
be considered definitive in the absence of detailed reasoning about the dates given.
Individual burials are necessarily dated with varying degrees of precision. In Kent, as elsewhere,
more artefacts suitable for chronological sequencing are retrieved from female than male graves.
Some burials with distinctive artefacts can be fixed to within a 50 year stretch, while others may
date to any time within the early medieval period. Distinguishing between date of production and
date of deposition is a perennial difficulty, especially where conservation of possessions as
93
heirlooms is suspected (Brugmann 1999: 40, and in the case of Kentish bracteates, Hawkes &
Pollard 1981: 370). Dating can be particularly imprecise in the case of robbed graves, which often
lack datable objects. The basis, precision, and reliability of relevant individual dates are discussed
in the sections which follow.
Dates of the disturbed cemeteries
Figures 10 and 11 show the date ranges of the cemeteries in this study according to the two main
recent sources: Richardson’s (2005) gazetteer and study, and the ASKED database. As can be
seen, the two sources are not in accord, and their differences are not consistent. In addition, since
most of the cemeteries are incompletely excavated, the date ranges are liable to extension in
either direction. In particular, the date range of the Half Mile Ride burial ground is highly
imprecise, given the limited records from the site (Appendix 1.1). There is no certainty that it first
came into use as late as the mid 7th century.
This said, the data are sufficient to show that the known date ranges of the heavily disturbed
cemeteries are widely distributed, and that there is no consistent difference between the date
profiles of the disturbed and undisturbed cemeteries. The disturbed cemeteries do not share a
similar date profile, nor was there any point when they were all in use. It is not simply the case
that, for example, all 7th century Kentish cemeteries were subject to robbing.
Dates of the disturbed graves
The date ranges of each site are shown in Fig. 10-11. The date ranges of the disturbed graves are
shown in the site tables (Tables 9-15). As the figures show, the majority of disturbed burials are
dated to the 7th century, either by artefact finds or by inference since they are in cemeteries
dominated by 7th century burials. However, it is not the case that all the burials of any one phase
are robbed at any one site, nor across the sites. As far as the evidence goes, a proportion of
graves from each phase of each site is affected. At all the sites there are untouched graves
contemporary with the robbed ones.
94
Interval between burial and disturbance
This section concentrates on assessing how much time elapsed between burial and reopening in
cases where disturbance is already broadly established to have happened in antiquity. This
involves thinking about processes of decomposition immediately after burial for all elements in
the grave: body tissues of different types, grave-goods of various materials and sizes, and any
coffin or other container in which these lay.
The disturbed Kent burials were in varied states of preservation when reopened. A small
proportion were reported as disturbed while the bodies were still fully or partially articulated.
Others were not reopened until the skeletons themselves were crumbling, so that fragments of
the same bone were spread around the grave during the disturbance. The first step was to
categorize this evidence and systematize an approach to the state of decay at disturbance of each
grave.
The continental research gives useful precedents for classifying the state of decay of graves at the
time of disturbance. In particular, Edeltraud Aspöck developed a series of timeframes (Zeiträume)
to categorize the length of time between burial and disturbance for each grave at Brunn am
Gebirge, Austria (Aspöck 2002: 49, 2003: 251-252). Aspöck’s timeframes were adapted from
those used by Johannes Wolfgang Neugebauer for the Early Bronze Age site of Gemeinlebarn F,
also in Lower Austria (Neugebauer 1991), and by Ka roly Sa gi at the early medieval cemetery of
Vörs, Hungary (Sagi 1964). Like them, Aspöck bases her timeframes on the state of decay of the
corpse and of the coffin, but she uses more finely divided categories:
Timeframe A: the body still held together (up to one year).
Timeframe B: the decomposition of the body was not yet complete (up to 8 or 10
years).
Timeframe C: skeletonisation was complete, but the coffin was whole, so that there
was empty space around the burial (10-35 years).
Timeframe C (D): skeletonization complete, unclear whether the coffin held together.
Timeframe (C) D: the grave was mostly filled with earth, any coffin having collapsed
(35 years +).
95
For this Kent study, two or three additional sources of evidence are included. How clearly the
robbers could see the grave outline on the ground surface is reported in a number of cases, and
can be a useful indicator of the interval between burial and disturbance. As discussed in Chapter
4.5, there is evidence that graves sometimes disappeared from view within the use periods of
cemeteries, although only after the passage of some decades. The condition of gravegoods at the
time of robbing is also indicative, and again is discussed below but not included in the timeframe
categories, because the necessary data is too rarely recorded. Where an intercutting grave
provided an opportunity for robbing the date can frequently be quite tightly established. These
cases are also discussed below.
For Kent the sources of evidence have been separated, because their decay may progress more or
less independently, depending on preservation conditions at the site. For example, coffin collapse
may occur before or after the grave ceases to be visible on the surface, depending on factors such
as soil acidity and moisture levels, and on how graves are marked and whether the cemetery is
grazed.
Kent timeframes
Body
1 The corpse is whole and can be moved without disintegration.
2 Decomposition is underway, but substantial parts of the corpse hold together during
disturbance.
3 Decomposition is well-advanced, but some joints remain articulated during disturbance.
4 The corpse is skeletonized to disarticulated bone.
5 Bones fragment during disturbance, so that parts of the same bone are found spread around
grave.
Coffin
i Coffin/wooden cover still holds together, robbing takes place in air-filled space.
ii Wood of coffin/cover broken into chunks.
iii Coffin fully decayed so that coffin line interrupted by robber cut, or grave dug through as
though full of earth.
An attempt was made to categorise each disturbed grave according to these timeframes (Tables
9-15). In a minority, those with the fullest recording, it was possible to assess the state of all
96
aspects (body, coffin, aboveground visibility, condition of gravegoods) at the time of robbing.
However, in the main the exercise served to highlight how much detail is lacking from most of
the data. Information about the state of the body or skeleton is most frequently recorded. All the
indicators of the intervals between burial and robbing are discussed in detail in the sections which
follow.
Body
Most graves were robbed after muscle and ligaments had decayed, but while bones were still solid
and resistant to breakage (Timeframe 4). There were very few clear examples of Timeframe 5, in
which bones fragmented during disturbance. St Peter’s Gr 62, 303, and 333 are some of the only
graves that could be securely placed in this category. Even in some of these the damaged bones
are probably a result of the violence of the robbing. In St Peter’s Gr 240, for example, it looks as
though the skull was crushed by the collapsing coffin and then the fragments were subsequently
dispersed by the robbers.
The ability to distinguish between Timeframes 4 and 5 is frequently reduced by poor bone
preservation and limited recording, since question of the state of the skeleton at disturbance has
rarely been explicitly raised. A number of graves are therefore categorised as Timeframe 4/5,
because the information needed securely to place them in Timeframe 4 is lacking. However in
almost all burials with grave plans, the bones can be seen to have remained complete during the
disturbance.
This is in marked contrast to the severely decayed state of the bones by the time of the
excavations at most of the sites. In child burials especially, bones were frequently undetectable.
Others, especially at St Peter’s, were visible only as “bone shadow” soil stains. Where bone
condition is systematically recorded, as at St Peter’s, or mentioned in grave descriptions, it can be
seen that a high proportion were spongy or friable and often unrecoverable. It is clear in almost
all cases that the ancient disturbance occurred long before the bones reached their modern state
of decay.
The small number of burials which were disturbed before fleshy decomposition was complete
(Timeframe 1/2) enable reopening to be pinned to a limited number of years after burial.
However, although still a tight date range from an archaeological point of view, the length of
time taken for a corpse to skeletonize is highly variable. Discussions of fleshy decomposition in
the grave robbing literature have tended to overstate the conformity of these processes.
97
The most useful estimates of the time taken for skeletonization are those which take into account
local conditions. At Brunn, for example, Aspöck (2002: 49) consulted a local grave-digger, who
reported that skeletonization was usually complete within 10 years, but could take longer
depending on soil moisture levels. Wooden coffins lasted at least ten years, and up to 35
depending on the wood type. In Kent Perkins (1991: 164) reports some accidental experimental
archaeology, showing that adult foxes immured in chalk rubble were reduced to clean
disarticulated bone by 22 years. He also consulted grave-diggers, and concluded that articulation
would be limited to a maximum of 25 years for coffined cadavers in chalk graves.
For our purposes, these estimates – that skeletonization in the types of burial under discussion is
usually complete after a decade, and almost always after 25 years – are sufficient to indicate the
broad timescale for reopening. However, when considered in detail the situation is far more
complex. Variation in decomposition rates is governed by a range of factors at every level, from
climate down to soil conditions and body fat (Henderson 1987, Waldron 1987, Garland &
Janaway 1989, Haglund & Sorg 1997, 2001, Duday 2006, Andrews & Bello 2006). Information
from post-WWII exhumations in particular emphasizes the varied condition of corpses when
recovered after a c. 3 year burial period. Clothing, for example, played a significant role in
preserving whole and parts of bodies (Mant 1987). It would be misleading to attempt to give a
precise timescale for reopening for any single disturbed burial.
The effects of some of the factors governing skeletonization may be demonstrated in the sample
of graves discussed in this thesis. At Ozengell, for example, a group of burials reported as still
partially articulated when disturbed are clustered in one part of the cemetery. As discussed in
Appendix 1.1: Ozengell, there is a strong possibility that (rather than these burials all having been
reopened unusually early), skeletonization was protracted in this area of the burial ground,
perhaps due to water-logging.
Complete articulation at the time of disturbance is not claimed in any of the Anglo-Saxon cases
presented in this thesis. The extent of the remaining articulation varies considerably, from the
almost whole body in Monkton Gr 22, to the near-complete skeletonization of St Peter’s Gr 270
(below). Where partial articulation is claimed, this must be in accordance with the known order in
which articulated joints decay. The first to deteriorate are the articulations involving small bones
(e.g. the cervical spine, hands, and distal parts of the feet), or fragile ones (e.g. the scapulo-
thoracic joint). More persistent articulations are those which in life require thick and powerful
ligaments (e.g. the lumbar spine, sacro-iliac articulations, knees, and ankles) (Ubelaker 1997,
98
Duday 2006). Reported cases which stand out from this pattern have been noted here, such as in
Edix Hill Gr 31, in which most of the body appears to have been fully disarticulated when
disturbed, but the left foot was moved intact. In this case it is suggested that the foot may have
been encased in a leather shoe (Chapter 7).
For the purposes of this study a high evidential bar was imposed on claims of bodies disturbed
while still articulated. These were only accepted when it could be shown that a portion of the
skeleton had been moved yet still remained in anatomical order, and where that portion might
reasonably be expected to be one of the last fully to skeletonize and lose the ligaments holding
together the skeletal elements (Bello & Andrews 2006, Duday 2006, Garland & Janaway 1989,
Waldron 1987, Appendix 2).
Elsewhere, as at Brunn am Gebirge, partial articulation is assumed when part of a skeleton
remains in situ while the rest is displaced, especially if the displaced portion does not correspond
with the robber cut (Aspöck 2002: 50). That interpretation is rejected here on several grounds. In
the first place a mismatch between detectable grave entry points and skeletal disturbance is
common and has been shown to be the result of particular grave opening methods (Chapters 2,
5.1). Secondly, the parts of the skeleton seen remaining in situ are not the portions that would be
expected to decay slowest (Appendix 2). Instead the visibly disturbed areas are those, such as on
the chest, where removal of brooches and other gravegoods would require interference with
clothing or a collapsed ribcage. That the arms remain in situ is not evidence that their ligaments
held them together, but that it was not necessary to move them. The difference between graves
in which part of the body remains in situ and ones which are thoroughly rifled lies in the
approaches of the robbers, not in the conditions of the bodies.
There are at least 16 claims of skeletons still partially articulated at the time of disturbance in the
heavily disturbed Kent cemeteries. Cases are seen at Bradstow School, St Peter’s, Monkton,
Finglesham, and Ozengell. Only Lyminge and Sarre have no examples. However, seven of the
reported cases are at Ozengell, where the lack of available grave plans prevents proper evaluation
of the evidence. From the Ozengell descriptions the claims of articulation seem plausible, except
perhaps in Gr 19a (Appendix 1.1). At the other sites a significant proportion are unconvincing.
At St Peter’s only 2 out of the 6 possibles were judged likely (Appendix 1.1). In Gr 165 a large
part of the skeleton (R femur, pelvis, lower spine) seems to have held together during the robbing
and been moved intact. In Gr 270 a couple of sections of spinal column seem to have remained
articulated.
99
The other sites each have only one possibly articulated burial. At Bradstow School this is Gr 72,
which may equally be a peri- or post-mortem decapitation or a later reopening (Appendix 1.1,
Chapter 6.3). At Finglesham one of the 2 or possibly 3 individuals in Gr 205 was thought still
semi-articulated. In Monkton Gr 22 it appeared that the right leg and part of the pelvis had been
moved intact to the foot of the grave.
The Monkton grave is dated by the publication to the 6th century (Hawkes 1974) and by ASKED
more precisely to AD 530-590, but the basis for the dating is discussed in neither. The bronze
buckle should be identifiable in Marzinzik’s (2003) typology, but the illustration alone does not
enable a secure classification.
Finglesham Gr 205 is dated by ASKED to the 6th century and by Sayer (2009) to the early 7th.
The basis for artefact dating must be the silver bow-brooch, but there is no reason to assume that
this was associated with the still-articulated body, which was almost certainly the last burial. The
brooch is just as likely to have been buried with the first, skeletonized body. Accepting Sayer’s
date, the latest burial here must therefore have been made sometime in or after the early 7th
century; it cannot be earlier.
Bradstow School Gr 72 is dated by ASKED to AD 640-700, presumably on the basis of the
bronze buckle, but neither the artefact itself nor an illustration were available for inspection.
Likewise St Peter’s Gr 165 is dated to AD 650 – 670, which is an unusually narrow date range.
This is presumably on the basis of the beads, which have one of the most up to date local
chronological sequences (Brugmann 2004).
The Ozengell examples are more doubtful, both in their diagnosis as articulated and in their
dating, since the material is neither published nor accessible. ASKED, the only available source
of information, assigns them all date ranges overlapping in the 7th century.
The dating evidence from these articulated burials therefore points to the majority of disturbance
taking place within the 7th century, perhaps the mid-part of that century. However, even on the
shortest possible range, they are spread over more than half a century. The Monkton example
raises the likelihood that robbing had started before the end of the 6th, while the Bradstow School
and St Peter’s graves are evidence that the practice continued into the mid or later decades of that
century.
100
Coffin
Aspöck’s (2002: 39, Chapters 2, 4.6, 5.1, Appendix 2) observation that it is possible to distinguish
between disturbance that took place within the air-filled space of a coffin and that which
happened in an earth-filled grave is very useful here. This point has been made for large
chambers (e.g. Baitinger 1992, Groop 2000), but also applies to smaller containers. Aspöck
reasons that where the disordered bones are strewn in a flat layer over the grave floor,
disturbance must have taken place within an intact coffin. The grave openers have cleared the
earth from above the coffin lid, then either removed it entirely or made an access hole through it.
They thereby gained access to the whole burial and were able to move its elements around within
the open space maintained by the coffin. By contrast, if the coffin had collapsed or entirely
disintegrated, or in graves without coffins, the openers would have to dig right down into the
burial layer. Unless they used methods that were positively archaeological, bones and artefacts
would be thrown up into the spoil and backfill.
This is a source of evidence that has previously been overlooked at most sites, including in Kent.
However, records allow reconstruction of the situation in a fair proportion of graves. Gr 22 at
Monkton is a good example of robbing taking place in clear airspace. Here there must almost
certainly have been a coffin, wooden cist or at least cover, although none is recorded, because the
robbers were able to open the whole of the grave and lift an entire articulated leg to the foot of
the grave. Had the body been encased in earth this would have been very difficult, and robbing
must have proceeded differently. Gr 197 at Finglesham is another: here bodily decomposition
was much further advanced and the robbing was much more drastic, but the remaining pieces of
bone are all displaced across the grave floor. This must have taken placed within the space of an
intact coffin and may be an example of “hook robbing” (Chapter 5.1).
St Peter’s has a high proportion of graves in which robbing can be seen to have taken place
inside intact coffins (e.g. Gr 3, 31, 45, 57, 64). This may be partly because the original grave plans
are available from which to reconstruct the information. In one case (Gr 78) the St Peter’s
excavators make a comment that shows they were aware of this source of dating evidence, but it
is not systematically or explicitly recorded here or at the other sites. Another reason that so many
coffins at St Peter’s were still intact at the time of disturbance may be their construction: the
drawings at least make these look like very substantial, thick-sided containers (Chapter 4.6). Gr 57
in particular shows that coffins could remain whole well after the body had skeletonized and
gravegoods were falling apart. This may in part be due also to unusually good wood preservation
101
conditions at the site: a number of graves still had “solid wood” fragments surviving at the time
of excavation.
Aboveground visibility
In most cases in Kent it appears that the outlines of the graves were still clearly discernable on
the surface at the time of robbing, since the disturbance is confined to within the grave cut and
frequently to a specific part of it. This argument is explicitly made in the case for an early robbing
date at several sites, including Lyminge, Spong Hill, and Carlton Colville (Site Appendices). At
Bradstow School it is notable that the prehistoric graves which are intermingled with the early
medieval ones as secondary interments on a Bronze Age barrow are not robbed: they were either
invisible or readily distinguishable from the more recent interments that were the robbers’ target.
There is a small number of graves in which “finding cuts” to locate the exact edge of the grave
cuts are reported. One of these is Ozengell Gr 60, which is probably also the oldest disturbed
grave at the site. As shown above (Chapter 4.5), graves occasionally disappeared from view
within the use periods of sites, but the generally low levels of intercutting suggest this was rare.
There are several more cases where slight extensions of grave cuts may be the result of
uncertainty about where to dig, but are more likely due to carelessness or the need to get a tool
under a coffin lid to lever it open. One of the latter explanations is likely in Monkton Gr 22,
which was reopened while the body was still substantially articulated. There may also be
difficulties in distinguishing between finding cuts and structural features (e.g. Bradstow School
Gr 11 and St Peter’s Tip Gr 233).
Ozengell Gr 60, which has the evidence of searching by the robbers, is highly unusual in
preserving what was thought to be the Anglo-Saxon ground surface under the robbers’ spoil.
Substantial truncation of the upper levels of graves is much more usual, especially since modern
ploughing. Witness, for example, how much shallower the graves excavated in the late 20th
century at Sarre were than those dug in the previous century by Brent (Perkins 1991). Where
these upper layers are lost, so is any evidence of finding cuts, and disturbance apparently centred
on a particular part of the grave may be giving an exaggerated appearance of accuracy on the part
of the robbers.
102
Grave-goods
The decay of gravegoods immediately after burial is not traditionally a research subject for
archaeologists. Questions of preservation on an archaeological timescale more usually involve the
passage of hundreds or thousands of years, not the few years or decades under consideration
here. However, one specialist area with a relevant timescale is WWII aviation archaeology, a
widespread and largely amateur pursuit in the UK. Comments from aircraft excavators have been
valuable here, in building up a picture of the likely timescales for decay and some of the factors
which influence its progress.
At WWII crash sites, steel parts were already heavily corroded some 40 years after burial,
especially if near the surface. Parts which had embedded themselves into the ground at impact
were better-preserved than those which had been buried by hand, presumably because less air
was trapped around them. Parts in contact with oil or fuel were in much better condition. The
same applied to spare parts wrapped in greased paper in storage sheds. On the same 40-50 year
timescale, brass and copper objects fared much better. The surface oxidation could easily be
removed, leaving them in good condition (pers. comm. Mark Evans, BAAC/Midland Aircraft
Recovery Group).
This information provides useful analogies for the early medieval material. It seems highly
unlikely that unprotected steel weapons such as spearheads could have been in anything like a
usable state in most of the disturbed graves. On the other hand, swords may have fared better, if
protected in scabbards, as may brooches and other copper alloy objects (Chapter 6.1).
In the Kentish graves, there is considerable range in the condition of grave-goods at the time of
robbing. In St Peter’s Gr 165, robbed while the skeleton was still partially articulated, it looks as
though the necklace of 78 glass beads and 6 pendants was lifted and moved intact (Appendix 1.1:
St Peter’s). At the other end of the scale, in St Peter’s Gr 57, 64, 182, 200, 229, 237, 303, 333 and
Bradstow School Gr 65 and 67 artefacts were in a markedly decayed condition and fragmented
during disturbance. In Bradstow School Gr 67, for example, pieces of the same iron shield grip
were found in different parts of the grave (Appendix 1.1: Bradstow School). The condition of the
grave-goods at the time of disturbance has significant implications for the robbers’ motives, as
discussed in Chapter 6.1.
In a large proportion of graves, artefact preservation is too poor to say whether fragmentary
objects were damaged during disturbance or have decayed in situ since. This is a point on which
specific comments by excavators would be valuable.
103
Where copper alloy objects have left stains on bone, this may be taken as an indication of some
time having passed before disturbance (e.g. at Lyminge, Schröder 2007: 10). Such evidence is
frequently cited in accounts of Bronze Age grave robbery, where the timescale required is said to
be as little as a year (Schleifring 1991; Rittershofer 1987; Baitinger 1992). This is a question on
which experimental archaeology would be valuable.
Sarre Gr 285 is an example of a grave with marked copper alloy staining, in this case on the
mandible. However, this grave also illustrates the perennial problem of whether the artefact
which caused the stain had been removed or had simply disintegrated in situ. Occasionally this
may be overcome, as in Finglesham Gr 139, where bronze staining on the right clavicle could be
attributed to a gunmetal clothing pin which subsequently ended up in the robber fill. There we
can argue that the pin lay in its original position for long enough to corrode and stain, which fits
with the evidence that the skeleton was disarticulated by the time of disturbance.
Intercutting graves
There are two examples in the sample in which an intercutting grave robs a previous burial. This
type of robbing is necessarily within the use period of the cemetery, though its rareness and its
opportunistic nature suggest it may not be entirely the same phenomenon as the widespread East
Kent reopening. Neither case is in the heavily robbed group of East Kent cemeteries mainly
under discussion here. One is at Polhill in West Kent, which also has a single example of what
looks like the more usual form of robbery (Appendix 1.2: Polhill). The intercutting grave is Gr 52,
which lacked gravegoods useful for dating but is almost certainly 7th century, in line with the main
use period of the site. The other is at Mill Hill, which despite its proximity to several of the
heavily robbed sites only has one or two disturbed graves (Appendix 1.2: Mill Hill). The Mill Hill
grave is Gr 10, which cuts and robs Gr 72. Gr 10 belongs to Kentish Phase IV, which gives it a
likely date in the later 6th century (Parfitt 1997: 102, 106-107). This robbing therefore almost
certainly occurred within the 6th century.
104
Discussion: date of disturbance
Robbery had probably begun before end of the 6th century.
Although the majority of disturbed graves belong to the 7th century, there is a significant number
from the 6th and even 5th centuries. Most of these were well-decayed by the time they were
reopened, so that their robbing may have taken place with the bulk of the phenomenon in the 7th
century. However, on the basis of the current evidence it is quite possible that robbing started, at
least in a limited way, as early as the start of the 6th century. There are strong indications of
robbing before the end of the 6th century at Monkton, Finglesham, Mill Hill, and Lyminge.
At Mill Hill, late 6th century Gr 10 intercuts and robs earlier 6th century Gr 72. If this can be seen
as the same phenomenon as the more widespread planned reopening, it is a clear case before the
start of the 7th century. At Monkton, Gr 22 is probably a 6th century grave robbed while the body
was still substantially articulated. Reopening in the 7th century would require both this to be a very
late 6th century burial, and the body to have decomposed uncommonly slowly. The other
disturbed burial at the site, Gr 21, is also of 6th century date, but was fully disarticulated when
reopened. No disturbed 7th century burials have been found at the site, but the excavation was
only partial. At Finglesham one of the earlier disturbed graves, Gr 22, has a mid-6th century date
(Sayer 2009), and yet robbing was probably carried out within a substantially intact coffin.
Robbing much into the 7th century seems unlikely, although not impossible.
More substantial evidence for 6th century robbing comes from Lyminge. On the basis of the
partial excavations so far carried out, this is a cemetery entirely of the 5th and 6th centuries.
ASKED gives a single (undisturbed) grave a date in the 6th-7th centuries (Gr 31), but Astrid
Schröder (2007) places this burial in the second half of the 6th century, on the basis of the 6th
century weaponry and the Marzinzik 2003 type I.9 buckle. Uniquely among the heavily robbed
cemeteries, Lyminge was therefore probably not in use during the main 7th century phase of
robbing.
None of the disturbed burials at Lyminge are dated to later than the 3rd quarter of the 6th century
(Schröder 2007). All but one have possible dates in either the late 5th or early-mid 6th century. The
exception is Gr 63, which was thought one of the oldest burials at the site, as it contained a glass
Kempston type cone beaker produced around AD 400 (Evison 1987: 95, Stephens 2006: 13,
Schröder 2007). Unless this vessel was over a century old when buried, which is not impossible,
Gr 63 is a 5th century disturbed grave.
105
To argue for robbing in the 7th century, or even the later 6th century, would require the Lyminge
graves to have been very old when reopened. They certainly were not fresh; there are no claims
of disturbance of articulated skeletons at Lyminge. The bronze staining reported on some bones
(Appendix 1.1: Lyminge) may be an indication of gravegoods in poor condition by the time of
robbing, but there is little substantiated evidence for how long such marks take to form, and less
than a year has been claimed (above).
Without grave plans or comment from the excavators, the states of any coffins at Lyminge are
unknown, although the limited disturbance to the upper body of Gr 40 depicted in a sketch (Fig.
105) is remarkably well-targeted if no coffin was present. Several other burials have this kind of
limited disturbance to specific areas. In general, if the Lyminge graves were not robbed within
intact coffins so that the whole burial could be viewed (Chapter 5.1), then they must have been
clearly defined aboveground. This is particularly significant given the difficulties noted by both
sets of excavators in locating graves at this site (Appendix 1.1: Lyminge).
There is also the possibility that at Lyminge whoever opened the graves was able to target the
wealthier burials in the disturbed part of the cemetery (Chapter 5.4). It appears that the robbers
had knowledge of the cemetery, or were able in some way to judge the wealth of graves from
their aboveground marking. Mid-7th century robbing seems implausible here. It is unlikely that
this kind of targeted reopening could be carried out after the abandonment of the cemetery and
up to two centuries after the burials had been made.
The bulk of evidence for robbery is concentrated in the 7th century.
As shown above, most of the disturbed graves can be dated to the 7th century. Where earlier
graves are robbed, they can usually be shown to have been in poor condition by the time they
were reopened.
The broadly 6th to 7th century cemetery at Bradstow School illustrates this point. Here there are a
number of disturbed graves with likely dates in the 6th century, all of which were probably well-
decayed before disturbance took place. Gr 15, for example, was thought by the excavators to
belong to the earliest phase of the site, and it appears that the human bones were not just
disarticulated but actually friable by the time of disturbance. This is unusual at Bradstow School,
where there are few if any other graves with clear evidence that skulls or other bones had
fragmented before or during robbing.
In 6th century Gr 32 the coffin had probably collapsed before reopening. Likewise in Gr 65, 67,
and 85 it looks as though the robbers dug through earth-filled graves, although in these cases it is
106
not clear that coffins were ever present. From the "2 halves of iron shield grip at opposite sides
of grave" in Gr 65 it appears that iron grave-goods were fragmenting by the time of disturbance.
By contrast in several of the 7th century graves coffins were still intact at the time of robbing.
There is one grave at Bradstow School with possible skeletal articulation at the time of
disturbance (Gr 72), which has a probable date in the mid or later 7th century. The evidence is
compatible with all the robbing at the site having taken place around this time.
Likewise at Sarre some of the disturbed graves may have 6th rather than 7th century dates.
However, most of the robbed burials here are relatively well-decomposed, with many iron objects
friable. The iron chatelaine in Gr 281 was lifted and moved intact by the robbers, and Gr 283
probably had an intact coffin, but both of these graves could be 7th century.
Ozengell is one of longest-lived cemeteries, with burials thought to date from the 5th to the end
of the 7th centuries. Here records are more limited, but the indications are similarly that the earlier
graves were in worse condition when robbed. Gr 60, for example, is probably one of the oldest
burials at the site and is disturbed, but the robbers appear to have had difficulty finding where to
dig. Perkins reports that “the robbers had located it by stripping topsoil from the chalk in a
southward direction” (Appendix 1.1: Ozengell).
Without publication or full post-excavation analysis, the dating at St Peter’s is particularly
uncertain, but the use period is thought to be mainly 7th century (Appendix 1.1). A high
proportion of the graves here had demonstrably intact coffins at the time of disturbance. There
are two 7th century graves with probable articulation at the time of disturbance (Chapter 4.9:
Body). One of the earliest disturbed graves may be Gr 303, in which both bones and artefacts
were probably friable by the time of disturbance, with one femur breaking in two. On the other
hand, this kind of damage may be a factor of the level of violence used, as well as the state of the
remains. The coffin in this grave was probably still intact at disturbance.
Across all the heavily disturbed sites, all but one of the burials in which the bodies were still
partially fleshed at the time of disturbance have likely dates in the 7th century. The most closely
dated of these is St Peter’s Gr 165, probably buried around AD 650 – 670, although the basis for
this date is unclear (Chapter 4.9: Body). This mid-7th century period is a plausible peak for much
of the Kentish robbing evidence: there are only a limited number of graves which need to have
been robbed much earlier, and none which must have been robbed later.
On the other hand, robbing was not necessarily tightly concentrated around this probable mid-7th
century peak. As shown above, at least some almost certainly occurred during the previous
107
century. The dates of the burials which were robbed while still articulated span at least half a
century. Within some sites it is possible that all the disturbance took place within a generation, if
not a shorter timespan. However at Finglesham, for example, it is likely that the reopening of Gr
22 occurred sometime in the 6th century, while Gr 205 and 139 cannot have been disturbed until
the early to mid 7th century. There is therefore no reason, on the basis of the current evidence, to
see the robbery as concentrated into a single short phase. It is more likely to have occurred,
perhaps sporadically at first, over a period of at least two or more generations.
Robbery had probably ceased by the last quarter of the 7th century.
There are no disturbed burials which must have been buried during or after the last quarter of the
7th century – although this is the period for which the absolute dates are least secure. Burial at
most of the disturbed cemeteries appears to continue after the robbing, with the possible
exception of Lyminge, which may have been disturbed after abandonment.
A strong indication that robbery ceased before the final interments were made in field cemeteries
comes from the internal layout of the Finglesham burial ground, which has recently been
explored by Duncan Sayer (2009, Chapter 5.4). Sayer identifies three broad plots within the
cemetery (A, B, and C) in which burials of successive periods can be found. Plot C, on the
eastern side, is identified as generally the later burial location, replacing plot A through the 7th
century. The majority of datable burials in plot C are by Sayer’s reckoning late 7th or early eighth
century, especially close to the eastern edge. Plot C has almost no evidence of robbing, with the
exception of a couple of graves which may be part of this area but are at its western edge. The
other disturbed graves are all concentrated in plots A and B. The difference here may well
chronological: the main use period of plot C probably postdates the disturbance phase. There
may also be a closer connection, if the changes that caused the shift in burial location are related
to the outbreak of robbing.
Another indication that widespread robbing was over well before the end of the 7th century is the
absence of the phenomenon at the Mount Pleasant cemetery, which is surrounded by heavily
disturbed earlier burial grounds. On the basis of the limited available data, Mount Pleasant is
probably a short-lived mid or late 7th century burial ground, with the greatly reduced investment
in gravegoods typical of this phase. None of the 18 excavated graves showed any signs of
reopening, despite the proximity of this site to many of the heavily robbed cemeteries (Chapter
4.3).
108
109
5 Results and Analysis: How
5.1 Robbing methods
Robbing methods: overview
• Ancient disturbance in Kent has an archaeological footprint similar to that seen in
Merovingia.
• Disturbance is concentrated within the grave cut and looks like rifling of graves rather
than attempts to obliterate them.
• There is a parallel in the piling of displaced bones at the end of the grave cut in both
robbed graves and reused graves.
Observable disorder in the Kent graves is usually confined to within the grave cut. Most of the
graves in the East Kent cemeteries are cut into hard chalk, so that the effort needed to expand a
cut is much greater than that needed to remove fill, and the grave sides are readily identifiable.
However, there is some limited evidence for recutting of grave sides. In most cases this is
confined to the top of the cut, as though the robbers were attempting to locate the exact edge of
the grave (e.g. St Peter’s Gr 11). In others there is a slight expansion of the grave cut, perhaps in
order to prise open a coffin lid (e.g. St Peter’s Gr 268).
In addition Perkins (1985: 45) identified what he called “finding cuts” at the top edges of several
graves, but too little information is available to assess whether these are the same phenomenon as
the St Peter’s recuts. There was sometimes difficulty in distinguishing between such cuts and
structural features, especially in loose sub-soil with large inclusions (e.g. Bradstow School Gr 4
and 11). In one case (Ozengell Gr 60) Perkins reported that the grave had been located “by
stripping topsoil from the chalk in a southward direction”, but no drawings are available.
Nowhere in Kent is there evidence of the trenches used to open several graves at a time seen on
the continent at Rübenach (Neuffer-Müller & Ament 1973: 18-19, Chapter 2).
Robber cuts into the fills of disturbed graves are only rarely recorded in Kent. Poor recording of
grave fill is a common problem in investigating robbing (e.g. Aspöck 2002: 46). None of the
cemeteries in this Kent sample have the section drawings that would be needed fully to
understand the observed intrusions. Where grave plans are available, robbed burials are
frequently omitted or drawn as blanks. Sometimes only in situ bones and artefacts are drawn, with
displaced ones not depicted, although present. Since bird’s eye grave plans can only effectively
depict two dimensions, objects found in the fill above the main burial are frequently omitted,
110
reducing the appearance of disorder and removing valuable information about where the robbers
dug.
Where notes or drawings do exist, they give invaluable information about robbing methods.
Where there are no records of robber cuts, the problem is to divine whether none were visible,
they were overlooked, or just not noted. In several cemeteries (including St Peter’s and Lyminge,
Appendix 1.1) there are tantalising indications that more information about fill anomalies and
stratigraphy was observed than was recorded. At Lyminge, for example, a chance comment in a
letter suggests that robber cuts were seen, but they are not recorded. Evidence for robber cuts
includes areas of different fill (e.g. topsoil instead of chalk lumps) and variations in consistency.
Sometimes loose fill is noted as an indication of a robbed grave below (e.g. St Peter’s Gr 203),
but it also quite frequently appears in descriptions of apparently intact burials (e.g. Bradstow
School Gr 13).
In some cases where no robber cut is observed it seems likely that the whole of the grave fill was
removed and replaced. This would be necessary if a whole coffin lid were to be removed, for
example, and for the ransacking of an entire grave in the absence of a coffin. It is almost certainly
the case in the graves which are described as having bones strewn throughout the fill (e.g.
Bradstow Gr 32). At Sarre this was Perkins’ conclusion in all but one or two burials. In other
cases (e.g. Bradstow Gr 37) there are no recorded robber cuts, but the appearance of the
underlying remains suggest that only particular areas of the grave have been dug into. However,
this link is not straightforward (see below).
In other cases where no cuts are noted, evidence has probably been eradicated by the passage of
time. This was demonstrably the case at Pliening, Bavaria, where the excavators looked for but
were unable to find evidence of robber cuts in all but a tiny minority of graves (Codreanu-
Windauer 1997). It is notable that when recently disturbed graves are reported in Kent,
differences in fill and modern inclusions are very frequently remarked (e.g. Monkton Gr 24).
Within the grave cut, disturbance is almost always diagnosed on the basis of disorder to the
skeleton, and sometimes the artefacts. Disarranged bones may be encountered in the fill (e.g.
Bradstow Gr 32) or only on the grave floor (e.g. Bradstow Gr 15). The latter scenario is usually
an indication that the robbers were working within the space of an intact coffin (see below),
either by removing the lid and exposing the whole contents or by making a hole into the coffin
space and pulling objects out. Where bones and artefacts are in the fill, the burial has usually been
111
more completely dug through, either because there was no coffin, or it had decayed. Objects may
also be thrown back into the fill.
There is considerable variety in how much of the skeleton is disarranged and how far parts are
moved. In some graves the suspected disturbance is very slight (e.g. Finglesham Gr 2, 34).
Alternatively it may be substantial but confined to particular areas of the grave (e.g. Finglesham
Gr 78, 162, St Peter’s Gr 45). In many more it affects the whole or almost the whole grave
contents (e.g. Finglesham Gr 197, St Peter’s Gr 31), sometimes with heaping of remains at one
end of the grave (e.g. St Peter’s Gr 140, see below). If any skeletal parts remain in situ they are
usually the extremities, skulls or lower legs (e.g. St Peter’s Gr 3, 65, 126). The core of the body,
from the neck down to the knees, is therefore the most frequently disturbed area, but with
considerable variation in the precise location and extent of disarrangement.
These patterns are very similar to those seen at the continental sites (Chapter 2). At Pliening in
Bavaria, for example, Codreanu-Windauer describes how over half the robbed graves were totally
disturbed, with skeletal parts either strewn throughout the grave cut or in a heap at one end. In
several further graves only the skull and/or mandible remained in situ. Then there was another
group in which the disturbance was limited to particular areas of the body: in women the upper
body down to the pelvis, and in men (and one woman) either the left or more rarely the right side
(Codreanu-Windauer 1997: 29).
Gendered patterns have also been claimed at other Merovingian sites (e.g. Hailfingen, Stoll 1939,
Chapter 2). However they are not a strong feature of the Kent cemeteries. As might be expected,
the picture is more complicated in the larger and more varied Kent dataset. At Finglesham, for
example, there are 4 burials with limited disturbance to the upper body: 3 female and 1 male. In
one of these, Gr 139, the disturbance is concentrated on the left side of the upper body, but the
skeleton is female. There are 4 graves with substantial disturbance to the upper body: 2 male, 1
female, and 1 probably female. A further 6 burials are totally disturbed, of which 2 had sufficient
remains to be judged male (see also discussion of robbing methods at Finglesham, below). There
are Kentish examples of the patterns described by Codreanu-Windauer, such as St Peter’s Gr 45,
which is a weapon burial of a young man whose skeleton has been disturbed down the left side,
suggesting common features in the ways robbers approached the graves. However, too many
counter-examples can be found to establish any clear gender link. Overall the extent and position
of disturbance in Kent is characterised more by diversity than by gendered order.
112
In Kent, as on the continent, a proportion of the skeleton is frequently missing from disturbed
graves. This is not always the case, and often bone preservation is too poor to tell, but missing
skeletal parts are a common feature. Finglesham Gr 197 is a clear example: the feet and lower
legs are well preserved and in situ; the rest of the skeleton is missing. The bones are not stray in
the fill but are entirely absent. However, there is no selection of certain bones for removal; there
is no targeting of skulls or longbones, for example, nor of other specific areas of the body.
At Brunn am Gebirge Aspöck found that the most frequently missing bones were the skull and
those of the main body trunk. However, she considered this indicative of the robbers’
concentration on the upper part of graves, not of any selection of bones. The same is seen in
Kent, except that skulls were frequently left in situ: the robbers were often able to target their
disturbance at the area from the neck down. On the other hand, there is some limited evidence in
some of the Anglo-Saxon cemeteries and at Brunn for deliberate interference with skulls in the
context of the small number of graves in which reopening may be associated with revenants
(Chapter 6.3). In addition, there are a tiny number of Kentish graves into which bones from
other burials seem to have been added during the reopening. Here it is possible that femurs in
particular were selected for transferral (Chapter 5.2).
In the great majority of graves, however, the bones have simply been haphazardly dug out with
the rest of the contents and fill. They often end up strewn in the backfill, as discussed above.
Where bones are absent, the most likely explanation is simply that no attempt was made to
backfill with the same material as was dug out. In such cases it evidently did not matter to the
robbers that skeletons were dispersed.
There are no reports of large quantities of stray skeletal material on the disturbed sites, but then
the upper levels are lost to ploughing and erosion. Nor is there substantial evidence for bones
being transferred from one grave to another (Chapter 5.2). Presumably grave fill with bones and
rejected artefacts was left beside reopened graves and was eventually scattered by weather and
scavengers. In this case there could have been no concealment of the robbing; it must have been
evident to anyone viewing the burial ground. Indeed there is evidence (Chapter 5.3) that at least
some disturbed graves were not backfilled at all. Perkins made a useful observation here: the
chalky subsoil at Ozengell (and several of the other disturbed sites) leaves a telltale spread around
any digging that would in any case make concealment of robbing impossible (Perkins 1991: 163).
In a substantial minority of graves there is evidence for more deliberate treatment of the human
bone. In at least 14 disturbed graves at St Peter’s displaced bones had been heaped or piled at
113
one end of the grave, usually but not always the foot end. Long bones seem particularly often to
have been redeposited in this way, though this impression may be the result of preservation bias.
Sometimes the bones are on the grave floor and sometimes at different heights, as though moved
with a quantity of soil. The descriptions of Gr 285, 287, and 288 at Sarre imply that the same
phenomenon was seen there.
This may simply have been a convenient way of working: digging from one end of the grave to
the other and throwing or shovelling unwanted material to the other end. However, in some
cases the piling appears more deliberate. The clearest example is St Peter’s Gr 140, in which the
displaced bones, mainly longbones, have been laid lengthways across the width of the grave floor
(Fig. 39). Indeed this is altogether one of the most straightforward examples of early reopening:
there can be no doubt but that this burial was reopened and rearranged by human hand, at a time
before the coffin had collapsed. In St Peter’s Gr 140 the piling of bones is sufficiently careful that
it looks like respectful treatment, in contrast to the apparently brutal emptying of many other
graves, for example nearby Gr 147, which left the few remaining bones fragmented and scattered
– but also concentrated at one end of the grave cut.
Heaping of bones at one end of a grave is a practice also carried out at St Peter’s in another
context: when secondary bodies are added to primary burials. This is the kind of secondary burial,
perhaps more aptly called grave re-use, in which the later corpse entirely displaces the first
occupant. In the re-used graves at St Peter’s the way in which the displaced primary skeletons
have been heaped at the foot appears analogous to the piling described above. This practice is
discussed in Chapter 6.2.
114
Robbing methods: detailed reconstruction
• Robbing methods can best be reconstructed through an approach that considers each
stage of the reopening process, rather than by classifying the static patterns in the
disordered remains.
• That skeletal disturbance is sometimes confined to the artefact-rich areas does not mean
that robbers knew the grave assemblage in advance. It depends on the exact grave-
opening technique they used.
• Grave-opening techniques are in part adaptations to the state of decay of the coffin and
contents. But it does not follow that grave-robbers had prior knowledge of the age of
graves.
• There is considerable variation in grave-robbing technique between graves, even within
cemeteries.
• It is highly unlikely that all the disturbed graves in each cemetery were opened by the
same robbers, and unlikely that all the reopening happened on one occasion.
This section investigates the techniques used to reopen graves in Kent. The disturbed graves at
Finglesham are used to illustrate the range of methods and the problems in reconstructing them.
Finglesham has been selected for the detailed discussion because it has a manageable number of
disturbed graves to describe, plus relatively high quality published data including grave plans and
descriptions. However, reconstruction of opening methods is also possible in some graves at
other sites, especially St Peter’s, for which detailed grave plans also exist. The evidence from the
other sites is incorporated below.
On the continent, robbed graves are frequently classified on the basis of the extent and position
of the static disturbed remains. This can be useful in useful in demonstrating the range and types
of evidence, for example in Aspöck’s system at Brunn am Gebirge and Dannhorn’s work at
Viecht-Unterfeld (Aspöck 2002: 45, Dannhorn 1994, Chapter 2). However, it is unclear that such
classifications relate closely to the working methods or the intentions of the robbers.
As discussed in Chapter 2, Hermann Müller at Hemmingen and Silvia Codreanu-Windauer at
Pliening have demonstrated that the position of displaced skeletal remains within a grave is a
poor guide to the reopening method (Müller 1976, Codreanu-Windauer 1997). Where robber cuts
are detectable, they show that the disturbed areas of the skeleton do not correspond directly to
115
the areas dug into by the robbers. Frequently much more of the burial has been explored by the
robbers than is evident from skeletal disorder.
Over-reliance on the evidence of skeletal disorder has previously led to false conclusions that
robbers knew exactly where to dig into graves in order to retrieve specific gravegoods. At
Hailfingen, for example, Fremersdorf inferred that since in many female graves skeletal disorder
was confined to the chest area, robbers had made targeted cuts into these parts of the burials
(Fremersdorf 1955: 29-31). Once all the evidence, especially the state of the coffin at the time of
disturbance plus the position of any robber cut, have been taken into consideration it can be seen
that such conclusions are usually erroneous.
Using the Finglesham graves, this section explores in detail the mismatch between the static
patterns in the disordered remains and the several different robbing processes which created
them. First the disturbed burials are classified on the basis of the disorder shown in the skeletal
remains. The graves are divided into three broad groups according to the extent and location of
the disturbance. These are compared to robbing patterns on the continent, showing a broadly
similar robbing footprint.
Then an attempt is made to consider the methods of reopening which created the disorder in
each grave. It is shown that apparently similar graves with disturbance in the same areas have
been approached in quite different ways. There is considerable variety in the methods used to
access burials in Kent, but none of these require foreknowledge of grave contents or condition
on the part of the robbers.
Classifying disorder in the disturbed graves at Finglesham
Pattern I: limited disturbance to the upper body
Gr 2, 34, 139, 162
Graves 2 and 139 were both disturbed around the upper body, but in a limited way and with
most of the skeleton still in place. Gr 162 was similarly disturbed around the neck and chest, but
also in the pelvic area. Gr 34 shows a similar pattern, though the robbing there is doubtful.
The skeletal remains in Gr 139 and 162 are sexed as female, which is also supported by the
presence of the chatelaine in grave 139. Gr 2 is tentatively sexed as male, but on the basis of ‘very
eroded and fragmentary remains’ (Hawkes & Grainger 2006: 333).
116
Pattern I is therefore somewhere between Aspöck’s Befund 2 (e.g. Brunn Gr 9, 20, Fig. 3) and
Befund 3 (e.g. Brunn Gr 5, 23, Fig. 3), since the disturbance is very limited and concentrated on
the thorax.
Most of these graves may therefore represent the remains of female burials. The displaced bones
may give an indication of what artefacts were removed: the disturbed areas are where brooches
and necklaces are worn. Perhaps skeletal elements became disarrayed either because dress
accessories had to be untangled from the remains of clothing, or because such artefacts had fallen
down amongst the bones and were clumsily lifted out.
Across all the sites in this sample, however, this is not an exclusively female pattern. Gr 97 and
233 at St Peter’s and Gr 40 at Lyminge, for example, have this type of limited skeletal disturbance
in the upper body but are both probably male.
Pattern II: upper two-thirds heavily disturbed
Gr 22, 44, 78
This second group of burials shows much greater disorder than Pattern I, but again concentrated
in the upper part of the grave from the head end towards the knees or feet. At least one (Gr 22)
had displaced bones in the robber fill. Only a few graves at Brunn show a similar pattern (e.g.
Brunn Gr 13, Fig. 3), and are all classified as Befund 4.
These burials are heavily disturbed in the upper two-thirds or so of the grave – where the grave-
goods are typically concentrated – but not in the “lower” part. The converse is not found at
Finglesham: there are no examples of graves where only the foot end is disturbed. This suggests
knowledge of the orientation of the burials on the part of the robbers, but since they follow the
W-E orientation common up to the present day, the robbers need not have had any particular
knowledge of the grave arrangements.
Gr 44 is heavily disturbed, but with the legs “approximately in the right part of the grave”. The
skeleton in Gr 78 is “disturbed and removed down to the knees”. Gr 22, a 6th century weapon
grave, has a totally displaced skeleton with the remains “thrown back in” to the fill. However, the
plan indicates that some sort of robber cut was visible, and it could be seen that only the upper ¾
of the grave had been dug into. Gravegoods, although not bones, are in situ in the apparently
undisturbed lower part. The skeleton has either been removed from that lower area, or did not
reach this far down the grave.
117
Pattern III: (almost) totally emptied
Gr 38a, 91, 93, 100, 110, 126, 205
A further group of burials have been more or less totally disturbed, often emptied, throughout
the whole of the grave cut. Several have bones in the fill, which are described as having been
thrown back in. These are not depicted on the grave plans.
The skeleton in Gr 38a was “recovered as a few disturbed bones only”. The plan shows the grave
empty except for a bone fragment in approximately the position of the head. In Gr 93 the
skeletal remains had been “thrown back into grave”, with no in situ bones or artefacts drawn on
the plan. Gr 110 is likewise emptied with “Surviving skeletal fragments thrown back in filling
after robbing”. The disturbance in Gr 126 is doubtful but the skeleton remains are described as
“Either disturbed and thrown back into fill or possible undisturbed but severely eroded”.
Gr 91 has no remaining skeletal remains at all, just two probably displaced iron artefacts. It is
more difficult to diagnose disturbance with fewer remains left in the grave, but presuming this
grave is robbed, it belongs in this group. Gr 100 is likewise empty.
It is difficult to know what exactly to make of the drawing of Gr 110. The dotted areas seem to
represent spreads of redeposited grave-goods rather than the separate robber cuts initially
suggested. From the description it sounds as though none of the grave contents were left in situ.
Gr 205 was totally disturbed, with some heaping of bones in part of the grave.
Reconstructing the grave-opening methods at Finglesham
As discussed above, although these kinds of classifications are a useful starting point, they are of
limited use in trying to move from the static bone spreads to reconstructing the process that
created them. This is particularly the case once the presence or absence of coffin lids (or similar
wooden covers) is taken into account.
Pattern I
Gr 2, 34, 139, 162
Pattern I is the most coherent group. The disorder in each grave is markedly similar, and there is
a strong possibility that these are all female burials from which similar artefacts were taken. The
assumption might therefore be that the robbers did indeed know what to expect in the graves,
and tailored their approach accordingly. However, once we consider the hands-on details of the
118
grave opening process, it becomes evident that this is not necessarily the case. There are (at least)
four different scenarios which could lead to the same Pattern I appearance:
1) The robbers know that a dead woman is wearing desirable brooches on her chest. They
dig a small but well-aimed hole into that area, breaking through a coffin lid, and take the
brooches, leaving evident disorder in the chest area.
2) The robbers know nothing about the contents of this specific grave, but they are aware
that artefacts are typically concentrated in the upper body area of burials. They can tell
which is the head end from the W-E orientation of the grave, the outline of which is still
visible on the surface. The robbers dig a small hole down towards the upper body area,
break through the coffin lid, and shine a light into the coffin space to identify valuables.
They find that the only desirable artefacts are close at hand, so remove those, leaving the
rest of the burial undisturbed.
3) The robbers may or may not know that the dead woman has brooches. They dig out the
whole of the grave cut in order to remove the coffin lid and view the burial. The only
desirable grave-goods are the brooches, so they remove those, leaving evident disorder in
the thoracic area. No detectable robber cut is left, because whole grave fill was removed.
4) The robbers know that the dead woman is wearing valuable brooches on her chest. They
target a small cut at the right area. There is no coffin lid, so they dig straight down to the
body and remove the brooches. Their digging and rummaging leave disorder in the
thoracic area, but the rest of the burial is in situ because it has not been dug into or
exposed at all.
Whichever scenario applies, either the burials must have been coffined, or the robber cut was
very limited and well-targeted. It is inconceivable that the robbers could have dug out the whole
fill from above an uncoffined skeleton and managed to cause so little disorder. That would
require positively archaeological methods.
Which scenario is responsible for the disorder in the Finglesham Group I graves? The second
scenario seems unlikely, since it would require putting one’s head down into the coffin. However
it remains a possibility, and since its archaeological footprint is indistinguishable from that of
scenario 1, neither gives us conclusive information about the robbers’ state of knowledge. This
leaves scenario four as the most interesting possibility, since it indicates the greatest degree of
knowledge and precision on the part of the robbers.
119
The fourth scenario is the only one in which no coffin lid is present. As it happens, no coffin
traces were seen in any of the graves of Pattern I at Finglesham. If we could be sure that none
were ever present, we would have good grounds for arguing that scenario four must apply, and
that the robbers therefore had precise knowledge of both the contents and the layouts of the
graves. However, as discussed above (Chapter 4.6), recording of coffins is rather uncertain.
Evidence from sites with better wood preservation suggests that many more coffins may have
been present than are archaeologically visible (e.g. Waldron 2007). This may well have been the
case at Finglesham. Gr 2 at least, and perhaps also Gr 139 and Gr 162, have the appearance of
graves in which robbing took place in the airspace created by an intact coffin, so that the robbers
were able to move skeletal elements around on the grave floor.
This impression is strengthened by the damaged grave cut of Gr 139. Although the disturbance
to the skeleton is in the area of the left shoulder and chest, the only evidence for a robber cut is
the irregular digging to the outline of the grave near the right foot. My interpretation is that the
robbers extended that corner in order to locate and insert a tool under the coffin lid. They
removed it, exposing the whole burial, and removed their booty from the chest area.
The robbers therefore need not have had any prior knowledge of the grave assemblage. The
disturbance is confined to the chest area because that was where the desirable grave-goods were.
Or rather, that was the location of the desirable grave-goods whose removal necessitated skeletal
disturbance, perhaps because brooches were still attached to the remains of clothing, or because
ornaments had fallen into the rib cage and had to be picked out. Unattached grave-goods could
have been removed from other parts of the grave without leaving noticeable disorder.
Pattern II
Gr 22, 44, 78
Pattern II at Finglesham appears, if only the static remains are considered, to be a fairly coherent
group. However, once the additional evidence for the process of robbing is considered,
significant differences become evident in the methods used in the graves.
A robber cut is drawn on the plan of Gr 22, suggesting that that only the upper two thirds of the
grave were opened. This corresponds to Aspöck’s W-knee group. There are no section drawings
showing the form or depth of this cut. However, it appears from the description that the
excavators thought that the coffin was fairly intact when the grave was reopened, so that the
120
robbers were able to reach into the bottom part and pull out the contents, even though their hole
did not expose this area. This would explain why even this unexposed part of the coffin is empty.
A certain amount of knowledge is required of the robbers here, since they must have been aware
that the grave-goods are typically concentrated above the knee, and that the heads typically lie at
the west end. However, this information is not at the level that would require them to have been
present at the burying. Indeed the knowledge could well be acquired in the course of opening a
grave or two. There is, on the other hand, the requirement that the grave cut should still be well
defined aboveground.
No coffin was recorded in Gr 78. However, the eroded edges around the whole grave cut plus
the uniform fill within it suggest that an entire coffin lid was exposed and removed here. The
upper two thirds of the burial contents, bones and artefacts, were then completely removed. The
neatness with which this was done suggests that they had been lying on a solid wooden floor.
This is therefore a similar method to that proposed for Gr 139 in Pattern I above.
The disturbed remains in Gr 44 are not drawn, but the comment that “the legs were
approximately in the right part of the grave” probably indicates that they were on the grave floor,
even if displaced. In that case, it is likely that the disturbance here also happened within a coffin,
whether by the whole lid being removed or through a hole made in it.
Pattern III
Gr 38a, 91, 93, 100, 110, 126, 197, 205
Within Pattern III, the completely disturbed burials, there is considerable variation.
As the excavators noted, the robbing of Gr 197 must have happened within the open space of a
still-solid coffin, since the grave contents were spread across the grave floor and the coffin sides
remained intact. Gr 197 may therefore have been opened in a similar way to (Pattern II) Gr 78,
with the whole coffin lid taken off. Alternatively, it may be an example of the Hakenberaubung or
“hook robbing” method identified in Merovingian cemeteries (Chapter 2). This method involves
a small hole being made through a solid coffin lid and a hook or other tool being inserted to pull
out grave contents. In this case it appears that the intrusion was made into the centre of the grave,
with the hook not quite reaching the cranium. Only the smaller bones and artefacts were left in
the grave, since the kind of tool envisaged would fail to pick them up. The beads would be
particularly awkward to retrieve by these means, which is a much more likely explanation for their
remaining than any taboo attached to them (Chapter 6.1).
121
Gr 38a has been completely emptied, with no remains left on the grave floor or in the fill. The
disturbance is confined within the original grave cut, except that the plan shows what appears to
be a slight recut along the top edge of the left side. If this is a recut, it may be evidence of digging
to remove a coffin lid or to locate the exact edge of the grave. The contents of this grave have
been shovelled out, possibly but not necessarily from inside a coffin, and have not been thrown
back in with the backfill. If Gr 91 and 100 are disturbed, they have been treated in the same way.
Gr 93 had probably been emptied in a similar way, but in this case some at least of the bones had
ended up in the backfill, either because they were deliberately picked out and thrown in, or
because they were incorporated in shovel loads of fill that were being replaced. If Gr 126 is
disturbed, it has been robbed in this way as well.
Gr 205 had been thoroughly dug out, with even the coffin sides obliterated, except for a section
near the middle where the lines of chalk-packing from around the coffin survived close to the
bottom of the cut. Bones had been heaped into this area.
Reconstructing the grave-opening methods across the sites
The reopening methods identified at Finglesham can be seen across the disturbed sites in this
sample. Fully removed coffin lids, as in Finglesham Gr 139, 78 and possibly 38a, were suspected
in St Peter’s Gr 3 and 140, among others. There are a large number of graves, especially at St
Peter’s, in which contents have been moved around within intact coffin spaces. In most of these
cases it is not possible to tell whether this involved the removal of the whole lid, or just an access
hole made through it. Examples include St Peter’s Gr 45 and 303 and Bradstow School Gr 50.
Partial removal of a fairly solid coffin so that the robbers could reach into the remaining cavity,
as in Finglesham Gr 44, was also suspected in a few other cases, notably St Peter’s Gr 268 and
perhaps 308.
Thorough digging out of whole graves, often obliterating large parts of coffin lines, as in
Finglesham Gr 93, 126, and 205, is frequently seen including in St Peter’s Gr 62 and Bradstow
School Gr 32. As at Finglesham, some of these graves have bones thrown back in, some are
emptied, and some have bones heaped in one part of the grave. There are also a few instances of
novel approaches, such as Bradstow School Gr 37, which appeared to have a robber cut at each
end. Another type not seen at Finglesham is the small group of graves which seem to have been
reopened primarily for the removal or rearrangement of the head, discussed in Chapter 6.3.
122
The different robbing methods seen in Kent are in part an adaptation to the state of decay of the
grave contents, particularly the coffin. However, it does not follow that, as Ka roly Sa gi argued at
Vörs, Hungary (Sa gi 1964, Chapter 2), the robbers must have known the condition of each grave
before reopening. The different methods can be explained by decisions made during the robbers’
operations.
For example, the approach which involves the removal of the whole coffin lid (Sagi’s Method 3),
is necessarily confined to burials with intact coffins. The state of the coffin could be discovered
by sounding, or simply during the digging process. If the robbers began by making a cut into the
approximate chest area of the grave, this could be extended to encompass the whole grave cut as
soon as a solid coffin lid was encountered. As this would entail much more work than making a
small hole in the coffin, the removal of the whole lid must have given some advantage,
presumably that whole burial could be exposed to view and no desirable goods missed.
Although the state of decay in the graves is certainly a factor, it does not fully explain the range of
robbing methods, nor the specific approach taken in any one grave. On discovering an intact
coffin lid, for example, we have seen examples of the keyhole method, examples of digging out
the fill and removing the whole lid, and of digging robustly through most of the grave and
reaching into the remaining cavity for the rest. The choice here may be led partly by the amount
of time available: the keyhole method would be quicker, but removing the whole lid ensures no
objects are missed. Where there is no coffin or it has collapsed, the grave may be totally dug out,
or it may be dug at the centre, or at each end, or more commonly from the head end down
towards the knees. Sometimes the robbers stay neatly within the coffin area, sometimes they dig
out the grave cut wholesale, including chalk packing. Bones are sometimes thrown back,
sometimes apparently discarded with spoil, and sometimes heaped together in part of the grave
cut. This heaping can be with the fill, or it may be carefully piling on the grave floor, as in St
Peter’s Gr 140 (above, Appendix 1.1).
Discussion: grave-opening methods
It is my contention that the approaches taken to grave opening are sufficiently diverse that they
represent the work of different individuals or teams, probably on multiple occasions. It would be
hard to argue the contrary, that this was wholescale robbery by a group going from grave to grave
on one occasion. Such an event would surely leave a more systematic footprint, with at least
approximately the same method used over and over again.
123
There is no reason to think that one group of robbers opened a particular group of graves in one
area and another group opened other graves in another part of the cemetery. Fig. 109 shows the
grave disturbance patterns at Finglesham mapped onto the cemetery plan. Fig. 14 shows the
graves at St Peter’s Tip in which the robbers heaped bones together (see also Chapter 5.4: St
Peter’s Tip and Chapter 6.2) mapped on to the cemetery plan. The different approaches do not
cluster; it is not the case that nearby graves were robbed in similar ways or left in similar states. In
general the approach to each grave appears individual, dispersed across the cemetery as are the
graves selected for robbing. There are only a few cases where neighbouring graves may have been
opened together. These are discussed below (Chapter 5.4).
This conclusion, that the reopening evidence represents multiple individuals and events in each
cemetery, is the same at that reached by Aspöck at Brunn am Gebirge – the only other site at
which the question has been given detailed consideration. However, the grounds cited here are
quite different from Aspöck’s reasoning. She argues that:
“Graves in which artefacts with high material value had been put back, graves out of which
only selected gravegoods had been taken, and grave-opening without removal of artefacts
were connected with different intentions and different grave-opening events, and so with
different perpetrators, and thus with different phases.”
(Aspöck 2002: 66).
That argument is not pursued here. At the level of a single grave it is not possible to be
sufficiently certain about whether gravegoods have been removed (Chapter 6.1). As shown above,
complete removal versus selection of grave-goods is also in part a function of the method used to
reopen the grave. On the other hand, the much larger Kent sample has made it possible to
demonstrate the variety of grave-opening methods, which points strongly towards multiple
agents. This is supported by the dating evidence (Chapter 4.9) which indicates that the robbing
practice recurred over a period of many decades, including within individual sites.
124
5.2 Mixing of grave contents
• The contents of reopened graves were almost never mixed.
Where reopening is involved, bones from multiple individuals in single graves raise the possibility
that the contents of two or more graves had become mixed during disturbance. On the continent,
several authors have used such finds as evidence for the simultaneous reopening of more than
one grave (e.g. Neugebauer 1991: 115, Aspöck 2002: 66, Chapter 2). In a few cases the original
grave from which remains had been taken can be traced (e.g. Müller 1976: 121-125). At some
sites a ritual element is postulated (e.g. Kokowski 1991), but at others the mixing is interpreted as
a matter of the robbers’ convenience, for example with a large trench opening several graves
together (e.g. Neuffer-Müller & Ament 1973: 18-19). Since in several cemeteries skulls are noted
as the principal transferred body parts (e.g. Aspöck 2002: 66), a combination of practical and
ritual considerations may be at work. It seems unlikely that one of the largest and most
recognisable skeletal parts should so often be accidentally mixed.
There are very few cases in Kent where bones from extra individuals may have been added
during reopening. For Mill Hill Gr 85 this was indicated as a possible interpretation in the report
(Parfitt 1997: 26). It also seems likely in two graves which had anomalously high minimum
individual counts: Sarre Gr 279 and Finglesham Gr 205 with remains of probably 4 and possibly
3 skeletons respectively (Appendix 1.1). Gr 34 at Ozengell may be another candidate: there are
scattered fragments of two male skeletons, plus enough beads to imply a female burial.
As discussed in Appendix 1.1, the Finglesham example is some distance from any disturbed grave
which might be the source of the extra skeletal material. In this case the transferral of bones
would almost certainly have to be deliberate rather than accidental. Selection of particular bones
for transferral may be indicated since some of the extra skeletons in both the Finglesham and
Sarre cases are represented by femurs alone, although differential preservation is another
possibility.
125
5.3 Backfilling
• A small number of disturbed graves were not completely backfilled.
• There is minimal evidence for ritual activity at the sites of reopened graves.
The stratigraphy of the fill of disturbed graves is crucial to understanding the process and nature
of the reopening, yet is often neglected in the excavation records. No section drawings through
disturbed fill have been located for any of the robbed graves in Kent. Most have only a two-
dimensional plan of the grave floor, although even this is lacking at Lyminge, for example. In
some cases, including several at Finglesham, bones and artefacts considered out of place are
omitted from the grave plans. Depicting objects displaced upwards into the fill is in any case
difficult in a bird’s eye view. At St Peter’s Tip attempts have been made to include such objects
on the plans of some graves by labelling the depth of each find, but the drawings quickly become
confusing.
It is evident from several comments on grave forms at St Peter’s Tip in particular that the
excavators could at least sometimes detect considerably more information about changes in fill,
robber cuts, and the internal stratigraphy of graves than they recorded. Where the disturbed fill
has been considered a research object (e.g. Perkins 1991), considerable details of how graves were
opened and refilled have been reconstructed.
Overall, sufficient information is noted to show that there is marked variety in the ways in which
graves were (or were not) backfilled. Reopened graves could be backfilled with the original fill,
often with bones and artefacts thrown or shovelled back in, or could be backfilled with a
different material. Backfilling with the same fill probably accounts at least in part for the lack of
discernable robber cuts in many clearly disturbed graves. A few were probably not backfilled at all.
Where graves were backfilled with the original fill it is hard to tell whether bones and artefacts
were intentionally thrown back into the grave or simply shovelled in with the rest of the material,
perhaps overlooked by the robbers. This latter possibility also limits our ability to say for certain
that artefacts were intentionally rejected (Chapter 6.1). Grave descriptions frequently state that
bones or artefacts had been “thrown back in”, but without supporting evidence.
Gr 22 at Finglesham is an example of a grave in which the disturbed area is backfilled with an
unmistakably different material: “brown loamy soil containing a few salvaged bones, and this
contrasted markedly with the original fill of chalk rubble”. In this case bones must have been
picked out and intentionally added to the backfill, not just heaved back in with the rest of the
126
spoil. Only part of the skeleton was replaced, but there was evidently at least a symbolic effort to
restore the grave’s integrity. The impression here is therefore that rifling the burial contents was
the motive, not emptying or desecrating the grave for its own sake (Chapter 5.1).
On the other hand, the excavators’ observation that the backfilling of Gr 22 was not necessarily
carried out by the robbers is significant. A delay in backfilling or different diggers might account
for the change in backfill, especially if the reopeners had scattered their spoil. Perhaps the robbed
grave and its exposed contents were discovered and replaced by someone with a connection to or
respect for the burial. We can still make only limited conjectures about how frequently Early
Anglo-Saxon field cemeteries were visited by the burying community and how near to settlement
sites they lay, despite some recent settlement excavations (e.g. Welch 2007: 198, Lucy et al 2009).
At Ozengell Perkins identified two graves in which deliberate backfilling probably never occurred,
or only after a delay of at least some hours. In Gr 18 the robbers had dug out much of the fill,
but original fill was still present at the sides. Within the disturbed area, “The stratification of fill
indicated that the grave was not back-filled immediately after disturbance, heavy rain bringing a
dark silt from land surface”. In Gr 60 the original chalk rubble fill could still be seen “heaped on
both sides of the grave, trapping the land surface to the south” (Perkins draft, Appendix 1.1:
Ozengell). In this case the excavators thought that backfilling had happened naturally.
Non-backfilled disturbed graves are also seen in the continental literature. At Brunn am Gebirge,
Aspöck (2002: 53-4) argued that the majority of graves had not been fully backfilled after
reopening. The disturbed fill was far from homogenous. Considerable quantities of intrusive
material, including snail shells and artefacts postdating the 6th century use period, were found in
the upper levels of the robbed graves. However no intrusive material was found in the lower
levels or on the grave floor. The indications were therefore that the burials had been only
partially backfilled immediately after reopening, with material accumulating slowly in the upper
layers.
There were exceptions: the six graves thought to have been opened during the decomposition of
the body had been properly backfilled (Aspöck 2002: 53). There would be compelling hygienic
and aesthetic reasons for backfilling graves containing still-decomposing bodies, in addition to
potential cultural meanings of corpse exposure. Further, at Brunn this early reopening may be
associated with attempts to stop revenants walking (Chapter 6.3). In Anglo-Saxon England as
elsewhere such attempts are characterized by measures to make graves especially secure, such as
127
stone layers or weighting down to prevent the corpse rising (Reynolds 2009, Tsaliki 2008, Taylor
2008).
It fits that if these are burials of the particularly feared dead – indeed revenants who had to be
dealt with soon after burial – care has been taken to backfill their graves properly. However, the
identification of at least some of these Brunn burials as still articulated at reopening is doubtful
(Chapter 4.9). Back in Kent, non-backfilled Ozengell Gr 18 was identified as containing a
partially articulated body at the time of disturbance. If this is correct, which without grave plans
cannot be assessed, the act of leaving open a grave containing a rotten corpse appears highly
transgressive.
A small number of Kentish disturbed graves had intrusive later material in the upper fill, as seen
at Brunn. Several of these are at St Peter’s Tip (e.g. Gr 54, 126, 270). Gr 52 at Ozengell had a
medieval potsherd at 7cm depth. Bradstow School Gr 12 had a piece of medieval tile in the upper
fill. As at Brunn, these objects appear to have collected in hollows above the disturbed burials.
However, in Kent the phenomenon is much more limited, both in the numbers of graves
involved and in the quantities of extraneous material found in them. Here the intrusive finds are
probably indicative not of partial backfilling, but of much slighter dips formed by the sinking of
backfill. It is presumably also this sinking that leads to occasional finds of later material in the
upper fill of even undisturbed burials: St Peter’s Tip Gr 95 had a piece of clay pipe 2” down into
the fill, but the underlying burial was to all appearances untouched. This later material is
significant in confirming an early medieval date for the robbing: it is never found in the disturbed
burial contexts, only near the surface.
Whether or not graves were backfilled is tied up with questions of the degree of secrecy with
which reopening was carried out, and whether attempts were made to conceal the reopeners’
actions after the fact. At Hailfingen in Baden-Württemberg, Hermann Stoll (1939: 9) found that
the lower earth fill layers of disturbed graves had been trampled down, which he interpreted as an
attempt to conceal the robbery by preventing the formation of a conspicuous lump on the
surface. No such efforts have been recorded in Kent.
The non-backfilled graves speak against any need for concealment; they indicate rather that the
robbers were either indifferent or wished to advertise their work and perhaps to increase offence
by leaving graves open. Recorded examples of non-backfilled graves are few, but on the other
hand the fill evidence has been so widely disregarded that many more may have been missed. The
quantities of bone missing from many graves suggests that piles of material were probably left
128
strewn around most reopened graves (Chapter 5.1). In any case it would be extremely difficult
entirely to conceal the digging out of a grave: Perkins (1991: 163) points out that in these chalky
cemeteries a telltale spread of white dust forms around any digging.
In Anglo-Saxon England there are just a couple of rather vague reports of animal bones from
edible species being found in the fill of disturbed or possibly disturbed graves (Finglesham Gr
205, Kingston Down Gr 242, St Peter’s Tip Gr 270). In the St Peter’s Tip example these were in
the upper fill and are probably accidental accumulations. Kingston Down Gr 242 is an early
antiquarian excavation and not definitely either a grave or disturbed. In Finglesham Gr 205 there
was evidence of other ritual activity, as extra human bones seemed to have been transferred into
the grave (Chapter 5.2). The excavators suggested that the animal bones might be evidence of
“either some sort of animal sacrifice or the remains of a meal, or both” (Hawkes & Grainger
2006: 153). The bones are said to be those of a sheep or goat, but there is no animal bone report
and the quantities and types of bone are unstated, as is whether any cut marks or evidence of
cooking were seen. At Chadlington in Oxfordshire a hearth may have been prepared over a
disturbed grave after resealing (Chapter 7).
At best this is very limited evidence for a ritual element in a small minority of grave opening; it is
on nothing like the scale of that seen, for example, in the Masøom
cz group of grave fields in
eastern Poland (Kokowski 1991, Chapter 2). On the other hand, it is a marked contrast to the
reopening of the majority of disturbed Kent graves, which appears efficient, perhaps even hurried,
and focused on rifling the contents. The instances of reopening with a potential ritual element
add to the evidence that the Kentish disturbance represents more than a single phenomenon, and
certainly more than one group of perpetrators.
129
5.4 Spatial distribution of disturbed burials within cemeteries
The spatial distribution of disturbed graves in cemeteries is a key question for understanding how
they came to be selected for reopening. Are the disturbed burials clustered together, as if several
were opened at once, or are they spread across the burial grounds? Is robbing focused on any
identifiable subgroup of graves? At Pliening in Bavaria, Codreanu-Windauer argued that robbing
affected the graves of one kin group, and may have been carried out by members of another
(Codreanu-Windauer 1997: 28-34, Chapter 2). Can such evidence be found in Kent?
In England, the internal layout of Early Anglo-Saxon cemeteries has been a subject of some
interest in recent years. Several structuring themes have been identified, including development
from single or multiple core points, zoning of burials by age and gender, and plots ascribable to
family or household units (e.g. Härke 1997: 138-9, Stoodley 1999: 126-35, Scull & Bayliss 1999:
85, Devlin 2007: 49-53, Sayer 2009, 2010). However, these patterns can only be described as
tendencies to cluster, certainly not distinct or readily delimited groups. The absence of clear
spatial patterning by date in particular indicates that a considerable degree of infilling was usual at
most of the sites in this study, with the possible exception of the last phase of burials at
Finglesham, which is discussed below.
Two of the heavily disturbed Kentish cemeteries have been discussed in recent explorations of
spatial patterning: Bradstow School briefly by Nick Stoodley (1999: 128), and Finglesham in
greater depth by Duncan Sayer (2009). Astrid Schröder (2007) includes some discussion of the
internal layout of Lyminge in her dissertation on the cemetery. That work is drawn upon below.
For the other cemeteries this is the first time the spatial patterning has been considered. It should
be noted that all the sites under discussion have only been partially excavated, which impedes
recognition of spatial patterns especially at the broadest level.
As Stoodley (1999: 128) observes, the layouts of Kentish cemeteries differ from those seen in the
other Early Anglo-Saxon regions. There is considerable variety of spatial arrangements within the
county, but this is the area of England where graves arranged in rough rows, as well known in
Merovingia, are most commonly seen. Cemeteries focused on prehistoric mounds are also
frequently found in Kent, as elsewhere in the country.
130
Bradstow School
The early medieval cemetery is focused on a series of Bronze Age barrows. More graves probably
once lay on the centre of the main prehistoric mound, but it has been ploughed out and so
appears artificially empty on the plans. Many of the Anglo-Saxon graves are arranged in irregular
rows, either side-to-side or end-to-end. A few are isolated as though they were originally covered
by smaller barrows, notably Gr 67 and 71. Both Leslie Webster (Webster lecture dated 26 April
1978, British Museum archive) and Nick Stoodley (1999: 128) identify some rough zoning of
grave types in the cemetery, discussed below.
The disturbed graves are fairly evenly dispersed across the excavated area. The main exception is
that none are definitely identified as disturbed in the southern group from the first excavation
season. This may indicate a delay in recognition of disturbance, or it may be a genuine pattern,
with little or no robbing in this southern area. Such a pattern would mirror that found at Lyminge
(below), with one major section of the cemetery heavily robbed and another part not at all.
Additionally, there is a low proportion of robbed examples on the prehistoric barrow, but this
impression is partially misleading because several of the intact burials there are prehistoric. The
prehistoric burials are unrobbed, presumably because they were either invisible or of no interest
to Anglo-Saxon robbers.
Webster’s 1978 lecture identifies various patterns in the “horizontal stratigraphy” of the site, with
clusters of graves by type and date. Several graves from the first phases of the site (Gr 67, 69, 71,
79) are laid out just to the east of the mound, while other 6th century graves cluster against the
west side of the central prehistoric barrow. In general she sees a tendency for later, less richly
furnished graves to be located further from the central barrow. In the eastern group, she suggests
that there may be a chronological progression with the burials of a family group spreading out
from the mound. A tight group in the west corner includes several infant burials. One burial here,
Gr 15, is robbed, but the grave is among the larger in the group and may well be of an adult.
Nick Stoodley (1999: 128) observes that 6th century weapon burials tend to be placed on the
eastern side of the burial ground, and argues that during that century it may have been common
practice at this site to separate the masculine interments from the rest of the population.
Something similar may have occurred at Monkton, where there is a preponderance of adult male
burials in the excavated area (Chapter 4.7). At Bradstow School Leslie Webster points to the
general lack of well-furnished female burials (Webster 1978), which probably holds true even
131
taking into account the robbing, and may well be linked to the strong expression of masculine
martial identity here.
Webster sees Gr 67 as the probable nucleus for the eastern cluster of weapon graves, which she
calls “such a marked feature of the cemetery”. Gr 67 had been robbed, “at some point after
burial when the ironwork was already rotting into a friable condition, as numerous small rust
fragments from this grave show. However, sufficient survived to indicate that this had indeed
been the burial of a high-ranking warrior. There was a short shield-grip and a bronze rivet from
the shield, a long spear ferrule, and most tantalising of all, a heavily worn tiny silver gilt scrap of
grooved sheet which comes from a sword scabbard mouth of late 5th and early 6th century type”
(Webster 1978).
At least one (Gr 97), and possibly three or four, of the graves ranged around Gr 67 had also been
reopened. However, the clear majority are untouched, including several with weapon assemblages.
This subgroup of weapon graves is not by any means subjected to robbing in greater intensity
than the rest of the cemetery. Both Bradstow School and Monkton may tentatively be regarded as
sites at which the 6th century male warrior ethos took both spatial as well as material form.
However, there is no evidence for any direct connection between this display and robbing;
indeed the selection of graves for robbing seems entirely to have disregarded this zoning.
In only one case is it possible to argue for a relationship between disturbance and the smallscale
patterning in the internal layout at Bradstow School. Graves 32, 37, and 64 appear mutually
aligned to form a row, along with one of Hurd’s graves, and all three are disturbed. However,
while Gr 32 is probably one of the earliest graves at the site, from the first half of the 6th century
(date from ASKED, on the relatively secure basis of the beads, Chapter 4.9), the other two have
likely dates in the 7th century. Such a gap puts into question the apparent relationship between the
graves. They are unlikely to have been selected for reopening on the basis that they all represent
one household, for example.
On the other hand, the relative conditions of the three graves at the time of disturbance leave
open the possibility that all three were reopened simultaneously. In Gr 32, probably the earliest,
the corpse was fully skeletonized and the iron grave-goods apparently sufficiently friable to
disintegrate during disturbance. In Gr 37 the bones, at least the cranium, were decomposing and
disintegrated during the robbing. In Gr 64 the skeleton was disarticulated, but the coffin still held
together well enough that a large chunk of wood separated from the rest and was redeposited in
the pelvic area. Particularly if Gr 37 predates Gr 64, a robbing date in the mid-late 7th century is
132
compatible with the evidence from all three. They were all heavily rifled in a sufficiently similar
way as to indicate a single modus operandi, although the disturbance in Gr 64 may be more targeted,
focusing on the area between the chest and the knees.
Beyond that small group, there is no identifiable connection between disturbance and spatial
groupings, either of grave type or chronology. Disturbed graves are scattered across the
excavated area. They belong to both the earlier (e.g. Gr 8, 67, 32) and later (e.g. Gr 94, 95) phases
of the site. Even where grave clusters indicate possible social relationships between the dead,
such as in the tight group on the smaller prehistoric mound in the western corner, only one or
two graves in the cluster are disturbed. For example, if we accept the premise that Gr 95, 91, 93,
92 and 95 form a mutually aligned later group, perhaps with a relationship between the dead, we
find that two (Gr 94 and 95) are (probably) disturbed, while the others are intact. Within the
disturbed area, there is thus no reason to think that robbing was exclusively focused on burials of
one phase or one part of the community. There remains, however, the possibility that there is a
larger-scale division here, between the unrobbed south side of the cemetery and the robbed north.
St Peter’s Tip
The reopened graves are dispersed across the excavated area, perhaps with a slight concentration
towards the centre. The apparent group of co-aligned graves at the extreme west is nearly free
from robbing, and the cluster of ring-ditched graves at the south edge may also be, but
disturbance appears to affect all excavated areas to some degree.
There are one or two possible small clusters of robbed graves, such as co-aligned Gr 233, 235,
and 236, in which the latter two in particular seem to form a pair. However, even in the areas
where robbing is particularly intense, the disturbed burials are intermingled with intact ones. The
two burials which were possibly still articulated at the time of disturbance (Gr 165 and 270) are
not near each other, unlike at Ozengell (below).
Fig. 14 shows the burials in which there is some degree of heaping of bones in part of the grave.
These are dispersed among the disturbed burials. If heaping can be considered a modus operandi, it
therefore suggests different people working in different parts of the burial ground. However, as
discussed in Chapter 5.1, the diversity in the appearance of the disturbed graves in which bones
are heaped together does not in any case suggest that this was a consistent working method.
On the other hand, there are one or two small clusters of graves in which similar modi operandi
may be identified. In neighbouring Gr 235 and 236 the robbing footprint is sufficiently similar
that it seems likely that these two graves were opened as a pair (Fig. 62-63). Gr 232 and 233, also
133
close by, are not so markedly alike (Fig. 58-61). Some distance to the west are Gr 261 and 268,
both disturbed by an unusual method of pushing the whole body towards the side and foot-end
of the grave (Appendix 1.1: St Peter’s, Fig. 73, 75). Nearby Gr 270 may also be the same (Fig. 76).
Gr 333, in which this kind of pushing also appears, is further away but in the same part of the
cemetery (Fig. 92). Again Gr 267, near to Gr 261 and 268, is different (Fig. 74), suggesting that
the pairs or small groups of graves opened at the same time or by the same people are very
limited.
Finglesham
In the main the disturbed burials are best described as scattered across the excavated area. There
is an unrobbed area on the eastern side, despite the presence there of some highly visible ditched
graves.
There is only one case of neighbouring graves being disturbed (Gr 2 and Gr 44). The disturbance
patterns in these two graves are quite different, with Gr 22 suffering only slight displacement of
some bones of the upper body, and Gr 44 heavily disturbed, but with only the legs
“approximately in the right part of the grave”. However, these differences may reflect the
conditions of the burials or presence/absence of coffins, rather than different operating methods
(Chapter 5.1). It is quite possible that these two graves were opened together for reasons of
proximity and convenience. Apart from this one example, however, the impression is rather the
opposite: that robbed graves are spaced across the cemetery to such an extent that the dispersal
may even be deliberate.
Fig. 108 highlights the several intact burials with high numbers of artefact types. As at the other
sites, these are interspersed among the disturbed graves. If wealthy graves were targeted, this has
been carried out only partially or on the basis of imperfect information.
Duncan Sayer has carried out a spatial analysis of the Finglesham cemetery as part of his research
into Anglo-Saxon family and kinship structures (Sayer 2009). He identifies three plots (A, B, and
C) in which burials of successive periods can be found (Fig. 110). Plot B is described as the less
wealthy zone, but this impression is perhaps coloured by the robbing of at least six graves here.
Plot C has markedly fewer disturbed burials than the other plots, and these are on the western
edge. This plot is identified as generally the later burial location, replacing plot A through the 7th
century. The majority of datable burials here are by Sayer’s assessment late 7th or early eighth
century, especially close to the eastern edge. That plot C has so little robbing may therefore be an
indication that disturbance pre-dates the use of this area.
134
The robbing episodes may even be associated, directly or indirectly, with the shift in burial
location. Sayer (2009) argues for considerable changes in the funerary rite practised at Finglesham
through the 7th century, tied to the role of kin networks in the power struggles of that century.
The evidence presented here shows that a substantial phase of grave robbery was part of these
changes, perhaps as a weapon in the 7th century conflicts.
Lyminge
There is a decided division of the excavated area into a robbed section, which curves around the
southern side, and an unrobbed northeastern/central part. Possibly the robbed graves should be
seen as two separate groups, with Gr 56, 57, 59, and 63 as one and the others as another.
Within the robbed area the disturbed graves are interspersed with intact ones, as at the other sites.
It is not the case that all the burials in this part of the cemetery have been reopened; there is
selection of graves for reopening even within the heavily robbed part.
Schröder (2007: 10) identifies three plots within the excavated area of the Lyminge cemetery,
based mainly on the alignment of the graves in rows or against other features (Fig. 104).
Although robbery is concentrated in her plots B and C, the southern part of the cemetery, it is
not confined to them. It does not appear that the selection of the graves for reopening was
tightly bound up with their association with the social structure, if any, that underlay these plots.
Schröder’s plots all include burials from several phases (Schröder 2007: 82). The datable graves in
the disturbed southern area are mainly from the 6th century, but a large proportion here are
undatable. There are plenty of unrobbed 6th century graves in the undisturbed part of the
cemetery. The spatial distribution is therefore not simply a question of chronological zoning. All
the plots also include different ages and both genders. There is some zoning of burials by gender
(Schröder 2007: Site Map 3), but these clusters do not correspond either to Schröder’s plots or to
the robbed areas.
One pattern, however, stands out: no unrobbed graves from the heavily disturbed southernmost
part have more than a couple of grave-goods. No weapon burials are left in the robbed area. By
contrast, several impressively furnished graves were found in the undisturbed north-eastern zone
(Fig. 103). Perhaps the robbers knew, or more likely were able to tell from the aboveground
appearance, which graves in the southern area were worth reopening. On the other hand, some
of the well-furnished undisturbed graves are very close to the robbed graves. Disturbed Gr 28
and 40, for example, are flanked by unrobbed wealthy Gr 44 and 39, all lying right on the division
135
between the robbed and unrobbed areas. A case might be made that all the well-furnished graves
from the southern area have been identified and looted, but the evidence is ambiguous.
Monkton
Robbing here is much more limited. The two most convincingly disturbed burials are neighbours
and it seems reasonable to suggest that these at least were reopened together. The reopening of
newly buried Gr 22 may have been the main motive, with Gr 21 also ransacked due to its
proximity. Gr 21 was significantly more decayed, and therefore older, at the time of reopening.
The third possibly disturbed burial is not far away, but there is an indication that its robbing may
be modern (Appendix 1.1: Monkton).
Ozengell
As at the other sites, only part of the Ozengell cemetery has been excavated. As an additional
impediment, grave data is only available for one section of the excavated area. However, as far as
the information goes, it can be seen that the disturbed burials are dispersed across the excavated
area. Fewer graves are affected within the prehistoric feature, and there is an unrobbed area just
to its north, but these patterns do not correspond to any identifiable subgroups on the basis of
alignment, orientation, gender or age.
Seven burials at Ozengell were identified by the excavators as disturbed while ligaments still held
parts of the skeleton together, although these claims could not be evaluated (Chapter 4.9,
Appendix 1.1: Ozengell). Unusually, these still-articulated burials form a distinct cluster in one
area of the cemetery, although with Gr 65 some distance away (Fig. 112). Clusters of burials
robbed soon after interment are not seen at other sites. All may be 7th century; it is possible that
all date to the middle of that century (Chapter 4.9). If all seven of these Ozengell bodies were
buried during a short period, it is just possible that their robbing all occurred as one event when
they were all simultaneously nearing skeletonization. However if, as seems more likely, they
represent successive burials over some decades, their similar state of partial articulation at the
time of reopening indicates several reopening events. In that case, this corner of the Ozengell
cemetery is the only place in Kent with evidence that might be consistent with a recurrent
practice of reopening graves a set number of years after burial. Even here, however, the rite could
only have been very limited, and applied only to certain individuals.
Other explanations are more mundane. For example, there is the possibility that local conditions
in this area of the cemetery are responsible for the articulation: perhaps a wetter area slowed soft
tissue decomposition so that bodies here were better preserved when reopened. Alternatively, if
136
there were any evidence that this area represented a kin group, it would be possible to argue that
a family variant of burial practice was responsible for prolonged fleshy decomposition, perhaps
wrapping of bodies in extra textiles or skins. However, the cluster of semi-articulated disturbed
burials does not correspond to another form of grave group; the burials are not mutually aligned
or isolated from the rest of the cemetery. They are intermingled with both unrobbed graves and
ones which were disturbed once fully skeletonized.
The other, disarticulated, disturbed burials within this cluster also have likely 6th or 7th century
dates (ASKED, Chapter 4.9). The undisturbed graves in this area are: Gr 20, the unfurnished 6th
or 7th century burial of a child; Gr 8, a well-furnished but weaponless adult male who died in the
late 6th or early 7th century; and Gr 14, a woman buried in the mid-7th century with a bone pin, a
knife, and a buckle.
Even in this area the reopening therefore looks selective, even personal. There is no date pattern;
it is not the earlier or later burials which are exclusively disturbed. There is every reason to think
that the 3 undisturbed burials in this area were visible when the others were reopened, but were
deliberately left intact. In the case of Gr 20 this might be an avoidance of child burials (Chapter
4.7), although at 1.65m long the grave is not particularly small. Gr 13 and 15, two of the only
other undisturbed burials in the area, also contained children.
If material gain was the object of the disturbance, it is notable that Gr 8 and 14 both have
gravegoods, yet are unrifled. On the other hand, neither has the brooches or swords which seem
to have been the robbers’ main targets (Chapter 6.1). However, rejection on these grounds would
require knowledge of burial assemblages not generally demonstrated elsewhere (Chapter 5.1).
Beyond the semi-articulated cluster, the disturbed burials are dispersed across the grave field,
with fewer robbed within the round barrow ditch and with an intact group immediately to its
north (Fig. 112). These 11 undisturbed graves include burials with date ranges from the first half
of 6th century to the early 8th century (ASKED). There is therefore every reason to think this area
in use at the same time as the more heavily robbed south side. The undisturbed cluster forms part
of a zone with graves in rough rows. The rest of the zone contains several robbed graves (Gr 46,
52, 53, 56): if these mutually aligned rows form a subgroup within the cemetery, perhaps
corresponding with part of the burying community, it has not been spared from disturbance.
It is possible that graves cut into the “soft fill” of the barrow ditch disappeared from view more
readily than the rest, so that they were less vulnerable to robbers. The only incident of apparently
non-intentional intercutting in this cemetery occurred within the ditch, when Gr 73 was truncated
137
by Gr 67. The two postholes associated with Gr 67 may even be an attempt to prevent it
suffering the same fate. However, the evident marking of this grave did not lead to its robbing;
nor did the four postholes around nearby Gr 79.
Sarre
Detailed cemetery plans are lacking for most of the site, but as far as the records go it appears
that the disturbed graves are dispersed among intact ones, probably with some areas of the
cemetery more heavily affected than others.
The extant site plan of Brent’s work lacks most grave numbers, but the numerical proximity of
many of the disturbed burials suggests there may also have been some spatial clustering. Brent
notes this feature in the description of Gr CXLII, commenting that “Most of the graves in this
part of the field had been disturbed”.
The 20th century excavations were in long trenches rather than large open areas, impeding
analysis of spatial layout. However, the disturbed graves can be seen to be scattered among intact
examples, as at the other sites (Fig. 113).
Three graves at Sarre are described as showing some heaping of grave contents (Chapter 5.1). Fig.
113 shows that these are grouped together, although along with another without heaping. The
robbing footprint shown in the grave plans is probably similar enough to consider this one modus
operandi, so that (unlike the St Peter’s heaping, above) these three graves may represent a small
cluster opened together.
Discussion: spatial distribution
At three sites – Lyminge, Finglesham, and possibly Bradstow School – reopening affected only
part of the excavated area. At Finglesham this is explainable by date: the undisturbed area
probably postdates or is simultaneous with the disturbance phase. This is not the case at Lyminge
or Bradstow School. At those sites a reasonable hypothesis might be that the robbed and
unrobbed zones correspond to areas used by different sections of the burying community.
However, neither there nor at the other sites do the robbed zones correspond to any of the other
spatial patterns seen in the alignment, orientation, clustering, age, or gender of burials.
There is therefore no evidence in Kent that robbing was inflicted by one identifiable part of the
burying community upon another. It cannot be shown in any of the cemeteries that burials
thought to represent one kin group or household are disturbed while those of another are not.
Nor could it be argued, for example, that a Christianized family was reopening the graves of its
138
pagan ancestors. As far as household or descent group burial clusters can be identified in these
cemeteries, robbing does not coincide with any of them.
In none of the cemeteries are all the graves in any area affected. The reopened graves are
dispersed across the robbed areas or the whole sites and are interspersed with intact burials.
There is no evidence for any systematic, simultaneous reopening of large sections of any of the
burial grounds. There a few cases of apparent clusters, or of close neighbours being targeted
together, but in general reopening appears to be on an individual basis. Additionally, the dispersal
of reopened burials across the cemeteries is further evidence against this being misinterpretation
of rabbit or badger burrowing, which would be concentrated in areas of the grave fields which
provided suitable habitat.
At some sites, particularly Lyminge and Bradstow School, small clusters of weapon graves have
been identified. There is no direct link between these and robbery. It is possible that weapon
graves are robbed slightly more frequently (Chapters 4.8, 6.1), but spatially robbing is not
exclusively or even particularly focused on the weapon graves.
Perhaps the disturbed graves are those which by their markers or by accidents of topography and
taphonomy were most clearly and persistently visible on the surface. This would explain the
lower levels of robbing among burials set within prehistoric ditches, as the Ozengell evidence
suggests these disappeared from view more rapidly than the rest. There are indications that
having an aboveground structure or marker increased the chances of a grave being reopened
(Chapter 4.5). Larger, and probably more visible, graves were also more prone to robbing
(Chapter 4.4). Yet this answer is not wholly satisfying, as a significant proportion of apparently
elaborately marked graves were left untouched at all sites (Chapter 4.5).
The dispersal of the robbed graves across the cemeteries is sufficiently marked that it may even
be deliberate. A case can be made that the reopeners have taken care to select burials dotted all
over the cemeteries, or all over the robbed areas. One interpretation would be that robbing was
aimed not at one part of the burying community by another, but at the whole community by
outsiders. In this scenario robbing was primarily a symbolic act, perhaps an insult directed at the
people using the cemetery, or an attack on their wellbeing through their ancestors.
This would not be incompatible with the indications at Lyminge, and perhaps plot B at
Finglesham, that robbers were able to identify and target the burials with most gravegoods.
Removal of gravegoods appears, from the ways in which the graves were rifled, to have been the
main focus of the reopeners’ activities (Chapter 5.1). This is despite the poor condition of many
139
of the artefacts (Chapter 6.1). Taking gravegoods may have been integral to the symbolic
effectiveness of the reopening. At the other sites many well-furnished intact graves remain
interspersed with the robbed ones: either reopening them all was not necessary, or the robbers
were less successful at identifying the best targets.
There is, however, a major problem with this interpretation: there is no reason to think that all
the robbing at any one cemetery was carried out simultaneously as a concerted attack. From the
variety of reopening methods used, the impression is rather of robbing by different individuals
and on separate occasions (Chapters 5.1, 5.2). At St Peter’s Tip, Monkton, and Sarre, pairs or
small clusters of graves have been identified which may have been opened together. However
these are exceptional, and otherwise the evidence points to specific, individual selection of graves
to reopen on different occasions. This is confirmed by the dating evidence, as far as its precision
allows: robbing was probably carried out over many decades, even if its peak is in the mid-7th
century. The indications are that this was not a brief series of mass reopenings, but a repeated
practice which nonetheless left robbed burials scattered across most of the cemeteries.
140
141
6 Results and Analysis: Why
6.1 Grave-goods
• Grave-goods were removed from reopened graves.
• Furnished graves were targeted.
• Weapon graves were not systematically targeted.
• Knives, copper alloy as well as iron ones, were left in disturbed graves.
• Brooches were taken.
• Beads and pendants may sometimes have been taken.
• Female belt accessories of all kinds were left behind.
• Swords and seaxes were taken.
• Spearheads and shields were frequently left behind.
In both Kent and Merovingia the presumption has always been that a central motivation for
reopening was the removal of grave-goods, whether as theft, reclamation, or a superstitious
practice. In Kent several excavators and other commentators have suggested that robbers
targeted wealthy burials (e.g. Perkins 1985b, Schröder 2007, O’Brien 1999: 57) or those
containing weapons (Härke 1992: 65, Härke 2000: 391-2 and Table 5, Welch 2007: 222-3). In
Merovingia a metal shortage has frequently been suggested as a motivation for extracting
gravegoods (Chapter 2).
In Kent, as on the continent, the appearance of the disturbed graves supports the view that
discovery and removal of artefacts was a primary motivation (Chapter 5.1). The archaeology
bears witness to rummaging of grave contents, but not to attempts to eradicate graves. In most
cases disorder and damage to the skeleton and artefacts appear to be incidental to the robbers’
main activity of searching. Generally the remains are left in considerable disorder, but
occasionally (e.g. Gr 140 St Peter’s), the searching appears positively orderly. As discussed below,
a number of Kent graves show clear signs that objects have been removed. Copper staining on
bone, broken fragments of missing objects, and in a couple of cases the remains of scabbards but
no swords (Finglesham Gr 22, St Peter’s Gr 97) testify to the former presence of removed
artefacts.
Surviving artefacts in Anglo-Saxon burials are generally of metal, bone, glass or pottery, while
traces of wood, leather, and textile occasionally remain. Only a proportion of these are what are
classically known as grave-goods, or objects deposited alongside the body. Others include items
142
of grave furniture, such as coffin nails, or remnants of costume, such as belts or shroud pins
(fuller information about the finds from this period and region in Geake 1997, Lucy 2000,
Richardson 2005a, Harrington 2007).
The artefact types discussed here are those which survive on an archaeological timescale. They
are unlikely to represent the full range of objects displayed at the original burial, or the totality of
objects available to the early robbers. The oft-repeated assertion that grave-robbers were in
search of “metal objects” (e.g. Kümmel 2008: 43) seems uncritically based on the probably
erroneous impression given by the decayed remains, that metal artefacts were the main part of
the burial display. That said, given the sometimes considerable span of time between burial and
robbing shown in the analysis above, objects of most other materials, certainly absorbent ones,
would have been severely damaged by their time in the burial environment (Chapter 4.9) As
discussed below, even metal artefacts were frequently in poor condition by the time of reopening.
There is considerable variation in the furnishing of Anglo-Saxon graves in Kent. About 30% of
graves in Richardson’s sample contained no artefacts of any kind (Richardson 2005a: 137). At the
other end of the scale, an abundantly furnished 6th century female burial like Finglesham Gr 203
contained multiple silver brooches, a gold bracteate and gold pendants, 50 beads of coloured
glass and silver, buckles decorated with garnet, silver pins, a ring, comb, bronze bowl, glass vessel,
and weaving equipment. Furnished male graves frequently contain weapons in various
combinations, the most common being a spearhead (Richardson 2005a: 140). Ownership of
weapons, or rather burial with them, is considered indicative of social rank and of a symbolic
warrior status independent of the ability to fight and of the actual experience of fighting (Härke
1990, 1992, 1997).
Various forms of ranking system for comparing the wealth of different grave assemblages have
been attempted for furnished Anglo-Saxon burials, as for other periods. Recent descriptions and
evaluations of the possible approaches have been made by Stoodley (1999: 91-4), Marzinzik
(2003: 73-89), and Sayer (2009: 157), all of whom needed for their own analyses to establish
formal systems to compare the investment represented by the highly varied numbers and types of
artefacts used as gravegoods.
Perkins (1985b, Chapter 3) showed a correlation between grave width and robbing at five
disturbed cemeteries, with wider graves more frequently robbed. The larger sample studied here
also indicates a correlation between grave size and robbing (Chapter 4.4). Perkins found a further
correlation between grave width and gravegood wealth, as represented by numbers of types of
143
artefacts, with extra weighting given to gold and silver objects. This enabled him to suggest that,
although the assemblages of robbed graves are probably denuded, their large size means they
were originally among the better-furnished burials. On the other hand, Richardson’s recent and
much larger study showed only a limited association between grave width and wealth, at the top
of the wealth scale (Chapter 4.4).
On the continent, as discussed in Chapter 2, certain categories of grave-goods are thought to
have been targeted, usually swords, knives, and brooches, while others were typically left behind
by grave-robbers, particularly spearheads, arrowheads, and vessels. Some of the rejected objects
are considered of high value, including bronze dishes and even gold bracteates. There are also
several claims of objects with Christian symbolism being left in Merovingian graves. Likewise
ritual or superstitious elements have been suggested in, for example, the leaving behind of one
out of a set of brooches.
For the purposes of this analysis no assumptions have been made about the exchange or other
values represented by each artefact type. The sections which follow attempt to establish whether
Anglo-Saxon robbers sought as many objects as possible, or particular kinds. Attention is paid to
the condition of gravegoods when disturbed: it is by no means clear that the exchange value, if
any, and the symbolic meanings of artefacts were the same at the time of burial and the time of
reopening.
For understanding the robbers’ selection of artefacts, a central problem lies in recognising
whether an object has been deliberately left behind or just accidentally overlooked. The exact
position of the artefact in the grave is the first consideration. A gravegood that remains in situ
but is peripheral to the main burial, such as a bowl beyond the feet or a spearhead near the skull,
may be outside the area opened and viewed by the robbers. Objects displaced on the grave floor
or in the disturbed fill are a more difficult call.
The method used to open the grave is significant (Chapter 5.1). There are a few coffined burials
from which it appears that the whole lid was removed, and the entire assemblage presumably
inspected (e.g. St Peter’s Gr 268). Any objects remaining in these have probably been left by
design. Some other graves with intact coffins seem to have been robbed by a “keyhole” method,
with a hooked stick or other tool inserted through a small hole. Smaller artefacts might well be
missed by these means.
Uncoffined burials and ones in which the coffin had disintegrated before reopening are more
thoroughly dug through, although the disturbance may only affect part of the grave. These burials
144
frequently have bones and sometimes objects strewn throughout the robber fill. In some cases
they are described as “thrown back in” (Chapter 5.3), as though the excavators had the
impression that they had been lifted and rejected. However, in many cases objects must surely
have been missed in shovel-loads of earth. Even under excavation conditions this occurs: a silver
and garnet brooch was missed in Finglesham Gr 205 and found on the spoil heap, and likewise a
gold pendant brooch at Thorne Farm (Appendix 1.1, 1.2). It is impossible that some artefacts
should not have been accidentally missed by robbers, especially if they were working under
pressure of time, and doubly so if reopening happened at night.
The position of artefacts in the grave, and especially how they are worn, are also relevant to the
degree of disturbance likely to be caused by their removal. The ASKED database (Chapter 3) is
invaluable in recording the position of artefacts within graves. There is a tendency in Kent, as in
Merovingia, for recognisable skeletal disturbance to be concentrated in the chest to knee zone,
although with considerable variation (Chapter 5.1). This is the area in which artefacts are
concentrated, especially those such as necklaces, bracelets, and belts which are worn on the body.
The removal of these worn objects, especially if any soft tissue or clothing is left, is almost bound
to cause disorder to the skeleton. Where no robber cut is identified or recorded, which is
generally the case in Kent, it is quite possible that objects have been taken from other parts of the
grave without leaving telltale disturbance. For example a sword, unless it is still strapped on,
might well be lifted from beside a body without affecting the position of the bones at all. Skeletal
disorder is therefore only a limited guide to which gravegoods are missing.
Table 6 compares the proportion of disturbed and undisturbed graves containing artefact finds in
each burial ground. As the table shows, an average of 79% of disturbed graves at each site have
artefact finds, compared with 72% of graves overall. (Intrusive finds such as potsherds residual in
the topsoil have been discounted, as far as records allow.) These figures are in line with
Richardson’s average of about 70% of graves containing artefacts in his much larger county-wide
sample (Richardson 2005a: 137); the slightly higher numbers reflect the location of the disturbed
cemeteries on wealthy Thanet. Graves reported as disturbed are therefore as likely or slightly
more likely to contain artefact finds than the undisturbed examples in the same cemeteries.
This is a crude measure, partly because the data from some sites are patchy, but mainly because it
records only the presence or absence of any part of any kind of artefact. The same result is given
by a trace of coffin nail as a full weapon assemblage. However, this is an effective approach in
the context of robbing, because, for example, if robbers left just a tiny scrap of a scabbard, it is
145
counted in the same way as a whole scabbard, giving a better comparison of the original state of
the grave. Despite the likely removal of objects, this shows that robbed graves are at least as likely
to have residual artefacts as their intact counterparts. This is an indication, although by no means
proof, that graves with larger numbers of artefacts were selected for robbing.
Taking a closer look at the residual assemblages in the disturbed graves, at the numbers and types
of the remaining gravegoods, it appears highly likely that objects have been removed. Although a
superficially similar proportion of disturbed and undisturbed graves at each site have gravegoods,
the disturbed graves are at the bottom of the range in terms of the numbers of artefacts. In
addition, high proportions of grave-goods in the disturbed graves are represented by partial,
displaced fragments.
At Lyminge, Schröder (2007: 78) divided all the graves into four wealth classes on the basis of the
numbers of gravegoods, with some weighting to particular types. This gives a broad picture of
artefact distribution across the cemetery, although there is considerable variation within the
medium and rich classes:
Very poor (findless): 22 + 2 graves
Poor (1/2 minor objects): 7 graves
Medium (1 major object and/or more minor objects): 26 graves
Rich (2 or more major objects) 11 graves
Table 11 shows how the disturbed graves fit into these categories. Six of the robbed burials are
‘Very Poor’, 2 are ‘Poor’, 3 ‘Medium’, and none ‘Rich’. So although 5 out of 11 disturbed burials
contained artefact finds of some kind, these were meagre. Even the graves classified as ‘Medium’
are at the bottom of their category: Grave 28 just had a Roman coin, which was probably hidden
under the leg. Gr 48 had some beads and a small bronze strip which may be a remnant of a
removed object. Gr 63 contained only a fractured glass beaker. The indications are therefore that
the disturbed Lyminge graves have indeed been denuded of contents.
The picture at Finglesham is similar (Table 13). Applying the same wealth categories as used by
Schröder at Lyminge, the disturbed graves fall mainly into the lower grades. The three that can be
rated as ‘rich’ only barely qualify for that category. Many artefacts are represented only by partial
remains, such as the shield grip in the fill of Gr 110. The two complete shields were both found
propped outside coffins and so were probably missed by robbers. As mentioned above, traces of
a scabbard in Gr 22 indicated the former presence of a sword. The glass vessel was almost
certainly broken before or during the disturbance (see below). At both Finglesham and Lyminge
146
a high proportion of the remaining gravegoods are knives. This pattern is repeated across the
disturbed sites, as discussed below.
Table 5 shows the proportions of graves containing different categories of artefacts at Sarre. The
disturbed graves contain lower overall numbers of gravegoods, and none at all in certain
categories. Most significantly, there are no swords in any of the disturbed graves, despite the 28
recovered from the intact graves.
Disc
brooches
Other brooches
and pendants Beads Coins Glassware Pottery Swords Spears Shields
All graves 10 15 46 6 7 26 28 60 34
% of all graves 3% 5% 16% 2% 2% 9% 10% 20% 12%
Disturbed graves 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 7 2
% of disturbed graves 0% 2% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 13% 4%
Table 5: Sarre grave-goods from all excavations 1843-1990 (figures from Perkins 1992: 106-7)
The sections which follow investigate in detail the evidence across the sites for the removal of
gravegoods of each type.
Knives
The significant numbers of knives left in disturbed graves at Lyminge and Finglesham are also
seen at the other Kentish robbed cemeteries, and are a notable point of difference from the
continental material. Out of the 17 disturbed graves at Finglesham, 10 or 59% contained knives.
That compares with an overall 123 knives in 256 Finglesham graves, or 48%. Disturbed graves
were therefore actually rather more likely than the average to include knives at Finglesham.
Likewise at Bradstow School, 12 (66%) of the 18 disturbed graves contained knives compared to
the 58 (61%) of the total 89 graves.
St Peter’s Tip had 35 knives in 50 disturbed graves. Slightly fewer were found at Sarre, with
knives recognized in 9 out of 42 robbed graves, but at Ozengell 18 knives were recovered from
39 disturbed graves. There are therefore good reasons for thinking that knives were consistently
left in reopened graves in Kent, in contrast to Merovingia, where they are regarded as one of the
robbers’ regular targets (Chapter 2).
There is a possibility that knives were sometimes tested by the robbers for soundness, and
rejected if they broke. Bending of knives and spearheads by robbers was suggested in a number
of cases at Ozengell (Perkins 1991), although the data are not available. The iron knife in
Finglesham Gr 44 may be another example, since the tip of its blade is missing and the damage is
147
thought post-deposition. However, the high numbers of knives which are left in disturbed graves
confirm that robbers can rarely, if ever, have found a satisfactorily sound blade.
Most of the knives found in disturbed graves are iron, the standard material. However, there are
cases of knives of more valuable metal being left behind. Finglesham Gr 44 contained a copper
alloy knife in addition to the iron one, both apparently rejected in the disturbed fill. Even if a
copper alloy knife was not usable as an artefact by the time of robbing, it should have contained
recoverable metal. Its rejection may therefore indicate that the avoidance of knives has its root in
their cultural meaning, rather than in practical considerations.
Vessels
Almost a fifth of Richardson’s Kentish grave-good assemblages contained vessels or containers
of some kind (Richardson 2005a: 160) – although this is a broad category which does not
necessarily map onto any Anglo-Saxon concept. Nearly half of the vessels in Richardson’s sample
were pottery, up to a fifth were glass vessels, plus slightly fewer wooden boxes, smaller numbers
of wooden cups/bowls, bags/purses, and wooden buckets. Metal bowls, including imported
copper alloy bowls from the Rhineland and Mediterranean and hanging bowls of British
manufacture, appeared in only 14 out of 2020 assemblages. Two of these were with adult males
in undisturbed graves 203 and 204 at Finglesham, an otherwise heavily robbed site.
On the continent, vessels of all kinds are consistently reported as left in disturbed graves
(Chapter 2). In Kent only nine (0.5%) of the 183 disturbed or possibly disturbed graves contained
vessels of any sort. This is considerably below the expected proportion. Vessels may well be
particularly vulnerable to destruction during robbing, with glass or potsherds scattered and prone
to decay or interpretation as intrusive scraps. However, the numbers are so low in Kent that at
least some removal of vessels seems indicated.
The glass beaker in Lyminge Gr 63 may well have been missed by the robbers due to its
peripheral position in the grave. Although its position is not recorded, it was almost certainly at
one end of the grave away from the body. Among the 42 glass vessels with recorded positions in
ASKED (queried 20090225), by far the most common locations were at the bottom of the grave
beyond the feet (16 ‘below’, 2 ‘left bottom’, 1 ‘right bottom’ = 19) or at the top beyond the head
(9 ‘left top’, 6 ‘right top’ 2 ‘above’ = 17). Conversely, in St Peter’s Gr 215 a loose area of fill at the
foot of the grave was thought by the excavators to be evidence of targeting of a vessel known to
lie in this area.
148
The glass fragments in Finglesham Gr 110 were also by the skeleton’s feet, but unlike the
Lyminge example this vessel had been crushed before the grave was opened, or broke during the
disturbance, since the fragments were disturbed. In St Peter’s Gr 333 the copper alloy bowl, like
the rest of the gravegoods, was in such poor condition that it fragmented and was scattered
during the robbing. Too little is preserved or recorded of most of the other vessels to ascertain
their condition at disturbance or whether they were damaged by the robbers, although this was
suggested in Finglesham Gr 34.
Brooches
It seems highly likely that brooches are missing from many disturbed female burials. Over a
quarter of identified adult females in Richardson’s sample had a brooch, bracteate or pendant
(Richardson 2005a: 141, for a briefer summary of Kentish brooch styles see Welch 2007: 213).
During the 5th and 6th centuries multiple brooches were worn, with a shift to single brooches in
the later 6th and 7th centuries, and a switch to pendants from the mid 7th century (Richardson
2005a: 143). Richardson records a total of 356 brooch finds in his 2020 grave-good assemblages
(Richardson 2005a: 137). Despite this frequency, the ring brooch in Sarre Gr 85 and the two
Finglesham bow brooches are the only artefacts of this kind found in disturbed graves in Kent.
Bow brooches are rare in Kent graves, with only 8 examples listed in ASKED (queried
20090227), yet two of them come from disturbed burials. Is it possible that this was a type of
brooch unacceptable to robbers? The Finglesham find contexts make this interesting conclusion
unlikely. The first, a fragmentary Roman Cu alloy bow-brooch, was almost certainly a stray object
which found its way into the dip at the top of the disturbed fill of Gr 22 after the robbing. The
second is of a quite different type and date, a silver bow-brooch, gilded, nielloed and set with red
glass and garnet. Found on the spoil heap, it was probably associated with Gr 205 and may have
been responsible for the copper-staining on the clavicle of the woman in this grave. Since the
modern excavators failed to notice it as they dug it seems quite possible that the early grave
openers did so too, perhaps for similar reasons, if it was stuck to the collar bone.
At Sarre 25 (8%) of the 294 excavated burials contained brooches or pendants (Table 5). Disc
brooches were found in 10 burials (3%), but in none of the 54 disturbed graves. Other types of
brooches and pendants were found in 15 burials, but only the Gr 85 early ring fibula was in a
disturbed grave.
Brooch removal is frequently cited as an explanation for disturbance in the chest area of female
skeletons. The under-representation of brooches in robbed female graves supports this
149
interpretation, but the other categories of artefact found in this area should not be forgotten. Of
the 318 objects registered in ASKED (queried 20090227) as found in the chest area, only 43 are
brooches. These compare with 134 beads, 16 bracteates, 14 pins, 24 knives, 2 swords, 5
spearheads, 3 coins, 2 bracelets, 14 buckles, and 12 shields. Nor are brooches found only on the
chest. In the ASKED sample 22 lay beside the body, compared to 171 on the body and 1
underneath. Of those on the body, 50 were described as on the neck, 43 on the chest, 48 on a
shoulder, and 33 at the waist. Brooch finds are thus widely spread between neck and waist, with
occasional finds at the head, feet, or knees.
Beads
About a quarter of Richardson’s grave-good assemblages contained beads. These were made of a
variety of materials including glass, amber, amethyst and shell, with amber more common during
the 6th century and amethyst in the 7th. They appear predominantly but not exclusively in female
graves (Richardson 2005a: 146). Richardson does not consider numbers of beads in assemblages,
only their presence or absence.
Some 36 of the disturbed graves contained beads, or 25% of the disturbed graves with artefact
finds (Table 6). This is pulled down by the low number from Brent’s excavations at Sarre, which
is likely to reflect a low retrieval rate, and by Monkton, where only male graves were disturbed.
However, it remains in line with Richardson’s findings. Bead assemblages were not removed
wholesale from graves.
Intra-site comparisons give similar results. At Finglesham 37 (16%) of 237 graves contained
beads. Three of these had been disturbed, so that 3 (18%) of the 17 disturbed graves contained
beads. Disturbed graves were thus no more or less likely than the average to contain beads. At
Sarre only 4 (7%) disturbed graves contained beads, compared to 46 (16%) overall. On the other
hand, since these counts records only the presence or absence of beads, not their numbers, it is
very possible that some beads from each assemblage may have been removed from the disturbed
graves. The small size and smooth shape of beads would make retrieval difficult, especially if a
hooked tool was used.
At Brunn Aspöck thought that the bead assemblages left in 8 graves were incomplete (Chapter 2).
In Kent bead numbers are too variable to for this to be determined with any certainty. At
Finglesham bead assemblages vary between 1 and nearly 80 beads, although it is fair to say that
the three disturbed graves with beads are at the lower end of the scale, containing 2, 5, and 7
beads respectively. In Finglesham Gr 34 in particular the excavators suspected that the bead
150
assemblage was incomplete. However, in other robbed graves the assemblages must surely be
complete or very near-complete, notably in St Peter’s Gr 165 with its necklace of 78 beads and 6
pendants. These were found out of position, clustered together around the femur, as though the
necklace had been lifted and moved intact, yet still rejected.
Beads of all kinds are found in disturbed graves: St Peter’s Gr 186 had 2 amethyst quartz beads,
St Peter’s male Gr 303 contained at least 42 amber beads, Ozengell Gr 25 had a bronze bead, and
Sarre Gr 286 had 9 amber beads and 31 beads of coloured glass. The glass, amber, and amethyst
beads in particular were among the gravegoods which would deteriorate least rapidly. It would be
quite possible to clean and wear many examples excavated today. That beads were not more
frequently taken was not down to their condition.
Bracteates and other pendants
Gold bracteates are an overwhelmingly female grave-good, associated with the largest
assemblages (Behr 2001). No bracteates remain in any of the disturbed graves in Kent, although
they are found in intact graves in several of the same cemeteries. Bracteates were worn in the
frequently disturbed upper body area, which makes them strong candidates for robbing targets.
All but one of the bracteates with recorded positions in ASKED were lying on the wearer’s chest,
neck or shoulders. However, these finds are too rare for any statistical indication that bracteates
are missing from the robbed graves. Only 35 bracteates are recorded from all the cemeteries in
ASKED (queried 20090227).
Other forms of pendant are sometimes found in disturbed graves. Ozengell Gr 53 has two small
fragments of silver thought to have been from a pendant attachment, with the main part either
taken or decayed in situ. Six pendants variously of silver, silver-gilt, glass and garnet were on the
rejected necklace in St Peter’s Gr 165, two silver pendants Gr 237, and another in Gr 354. Sarre
Gr 286 had a type fashioned from a tremissis and a silver-mounted key-stone-shaped pendant of
pink glass. There is no reason to think that most of these were in particularly bad condition at the
time of robbing; the materials ought to place them among the better-preserved gravegoods.
At St Peter’s it seems likely that pendants were not taken. Fully one third of the 27 pendants
found at that site were in disturbed graves, although only 14% of burials were reopened. The
high numbers of disturbed pendant finds may well be an indication that well-furnished graves
were preferentially robbed, but the pendants themselves do not seem to have been targets. As
mentioned above, the bead and pendant necklace in Gr 165 was whole at the time of robbing and
had almost certainly been viewed and even handled by the robbers, yet was not taken. At this site
151
at least beads and pendants seem to have been no use to the reopeners, or to have belonged to a
category inappropriate for them to remove.
At the other sites pendants may be missing. The two examples from Sarre Gr 286 compare with
14 or so found in undisturbed graves (Perkins 1991: 106-7). At Ozengell at least 8 pendants were
found in undisturbed graves, in addition to the one possibly taken from Gr 53. At Finglesham 18
pendants were found, none of them in disturbed graves.
Female belt accessories
Eighty-one out of Richardson’s 2020 grave-good assemblages contained objects recorded as
chatelaines. Preservation and recording do not make it possible to distinguish between types of
girdle accessories in most of the records, so that a further 151 assemblages containing keys,
girdle-hangers, and latch-lifters should be taken into account (Richardson 2005a: 152). This gives
an overall percentage of a maximum of about 10% of furnished burials containing objects that
can be described as chatelaines or similar.
Comparatively high numbers of chatelaines and latch-lifters are found in disturbed graves.
Looking only at the larger sites, there were at least 8 in the disturbed graves at St Peter’s and 4 at
Sarre in addition to the 2 at Finglesham. These represent between 14% and 19% of furnished
burials at these sites: above the expected average. In Gr 281 at Sarre the latch-lifter/chatelaine
complex was lifted and replaced at the side of the grave floor, which is an unusually definite case
of an object being handled and rejected.
A chatelaine represents one of the more substantial metal objects in a female grave. Most are of
iron, but there may also be copper alloy elements, as in the example left in disturbed Gr 165 at St
Peter’s. That they were almost certainly not taken is therefore one of the several indications that
quantities of metal were not the robbers’ goal.
Weapons
It has been claimed that burials containing weapons were preferentially targeted for grave-
robbing (Härke 1992: 65, Härke 2000: 391-2 and Table 5, Welch 2007: 222-3). This would require
either detailed knowledge of the cemeteries by the robbers, or for weapon graves to have been
differentially marked on the surface. The evidence collated here gives no basis for this conclusion.
About 18% of burials in Richardson’s Kent-wide study were accompanied by at least one weapon
type: spear, shield, sword, axe, seax, or arrows. Roughly a third of identified adult males in Kent
had weapons (Richardson 2005a: 138). Among the disturbed graves, 45 out of 181 (25%)
152
contained traces of weapons (Table 6). The initial appearance is therefore that weapon graves are
over-represented among the disturbed group. However, there are reasons for thinking this
impression incorrect.
The frequency of the weapon burial rite varied considerably over time and was at its highest
during the disturbance phases. In Kent in the 5th and 6th centuries weapons were confined to less
than a quarter of graves, but at the 7th century peak about 40% of burials had weapons
(Richardson 2005a: 141). Given that most of the disturbed burials have likely dates in the late 6th
to 7th centuries, 25% of graves with weapons may be rather a low figure.
Comparing within sites, at Bradstow School 4 (17%) of the 24 weapon graves were disturbed, at
Finglesham 4 (14%) of 28, and at Sarre 8 of 70 (11%) (Table 6). At both Bradstow School and
Sarre robbed graves are therefore less likely to contain weapons than unrobbed ones. At
Finglesham a somewhat higher proportion of disturbed graves contained weapons than the
average, but the numbers are low. At all the disturbed sites there are large numbers of unrobbed
weapon graves. As Table 6 shows, only about 13% of weapon graves were robbed even at the
heavily disturbed sites.
There are distinct spatial clusters of weapon graves at some sites, notably at Lyminge and
Bradstow School (Chapter 5.4), only a few of which have been reopened. If robbers had a
preference for weapon graves, it was not systematic or thorough. Any apparent targeting of
weapon graves is likely to be a function of a preference for wealthy or well-marked graves.
Shields
Shields are less common in Kent than across the rest of Anglo-Saxon England (Richardson
2005a: 138). An average of just under a quarter of weapon graves in Richardson’s study included
shields. The majority of shield finds date to the 6th to 7th century transition, but a higher
proportion of earlier weapon burials contained shields (Richardson 2005a: 139-140).
The indications are that shields or parts of shields were sometimes but not always taken from
disturbed graves. Since these are large items with several organic and inorganic elements it can be
particularly difficult to gauge whether the remaining fragments represent whole or partial shields.
However, at least parts of shields remained in 10 or 12 disturbed graves at St Peter’s Tip,
although it is possible the bosses were removed from Gr 57 and 267. At Sarre shields were found
in two (4%) disturbed graves compared to 34 (12%) overall. At Finglesham two probably
complete shields were left in robbed graves, but both of these were found propped against the
outside of the coffins and thus outside the areas opened by the robbers. A shield was left in
153
Bradstow School Gr 67, and in four graves at Ozengell. Shield bosses represent some of the
largest iron objects in Anglo-Saxon graves. That no effective effort was made to remove them
makes it very unlikely that the recovery of iron was a primary motivation for grave opening.
Spears
In Merovingia spears consistently remain in reopened graves (Roth 1978: 70, Effros 2002: 60,
Chapter 2). The same appears to be the case in Kent. In the county as a whole the highest
proportion of graves with spears is in the 7th century, when about 20% (81/391=20%) of burials
contain them. During the 6th to 7th century transition the figure is more like 11% (80/670=11%)
(Richardson 2005a: 140).
The disturbed burials contain a rather high percentage of spearheads. At St Peter’s Tip, 20 out of
50 disturbed graves contain spear remains, with at least two burials with two spearheads. At
Bradstow School 3 (15%) of 19 robbed graves had spears, and at Ozengell 4 (10%) of 41. In the
overall figures at Sarre 13% of disturbed burials have spears compared with 20% of all graves,
but in the 20th century excavations, with presumably better recognition rates, the figure rises to 7
(16%) of 42 disturbed graves. There is thus no reason to think that spearheads were removed
from disturbed graves in any numbers.
ASKED confirms that by far the most common place for a spearhead was at one of the top
corners of the grave: out of 333 spearheads with recorded positions, 295 are in the top left or
right of graves. Only 4 are directly above the head, requiring them either to be separated from the
spear shaft or for the spear to be laid along the length of the body. These data support the belief
that has been held since the earliest reconstruction drawings, that the usual way for a spearhead
to be introduced into a grave is attached to the full length of a spear laid beside the corpse.
In the cases of graves robbed shortly after burial, a whole spear would therefore be an unwieldy
object to remove. However, for a robber determined to obtain a spearhead – and who had
already dug through several feet of earth – cutting through a wooden spear shaft would not be
insurmountable. As shown in Chapter 4.9, the majority of graves were robbed some while after
burial, after the bodies were skeletonized and once wooden artefacts were presumably also in
poor condition. In these cases detaching a spearhead would present even less difficulty.
That spearheads lie a little apart from the body and from the centrally worn or displayed
valuables is a plausible reason for them to be overlooked and left behind. However, had they
been desirable items, a search would surely have been made for them. Spearheads do not seem to
have been targeted, either for their value as artefacts or for their iron content.
154
Swords
Only one complete sword has been recorded in the 178 disturbed/probably disturbed burials.
This was in Gr 304 at St Peter’s and may well have been missed by the robbers, who made a
limited intrusion into the other site of the grave. Additionally there may have been sword blade
fragments scattered in St Peter’s Gr 57, 182, and 200. These weapons must have been in very
poor condition by the time of robbing, since they fragmented when disturbed. In Sarre Gr 104
the top of a sword hilt was found. The rest of the artefact had been taken, but again was probably
in bad condition.
None of the other sites have any substantial remains of swords in robbed graves. This is despite
Kent having by far the highest proportion of graves with swords of any region (Richardson
2005a: 138), with swords in 108 or about 20% of weapon graves, or just over 5% of Richardson’s
2020 furnished grave-good assemblages (Richardson 2005a: 140-141). It would be reasonable to
expect sword finds in a considerably higher proportion of disturbed graves. At Sarre in particular
Brent’s excavations unearthed swords in almost one in every ten graves (Perkins 1992: 107; Brent
1868: 318 seems a slight undercount). Yet the only trace of a sword any of the 44 disturbed
graves at the site is the top of the hilt found in Gr 104.
In Gr 97 at St Peter’s some fragments of iron mounts from a wooden object were found dropped
outside the coffin; the excavators suggested these were the remains of a scabbard from which a
sword had been taken. Similarly it was suggested that a sword had been removed from
Finglesham Gr 22: some fragments of wood, fleece and horn, found with the shield-grip were
interpreted as remains of a scabbard which had once covered a robbed sword. This seems
plausible, although such materials are not impossible components of the shield itself. Ozengell
Gr 229 is another possible case of sword removal: despite the disturbance it still contained 2
knives, a spearhead, shield-fittings, and a buckle, so that if anything at all was taken, a sword
seems a likely candidate.
Turning to the likely disturbance caused by the removal of a sword, it is notable that most lie
next to rather than on the body. This is unlike brooches worn on the upper body, where removal
must almost inevitably cause disorder to a skeleton. ASKED has 139 swords recorded in its 53
sites, of which 51 are recorded as beside and only 6 on top of the corpse (queried 20090225). The
great majority are somewhere towards the middle of the grave, with 35 at the left middle and 12
on the right. With fairly careful digging or an intact coffin, it ought to be possible to remove a
sword with only minimal disturbance to the skeleton – unless swords were fastened to the body
155
or clothing in a way that still held true at the time of robbing. A substantial leather belt around
the waist or shoulder might hinder removal and leave the human remains in disorder.
These possibilities were hinted at by the excavators of Gr 65 at Bradstow School, where
disturbance affected the pelvis and thorax, especially the right side, and an iron buckle at the
waist was tentatively interpreted as the remains of a sword belt (Table 9). In Gr 22 at Monkton
the pattern of disturbance has likewise been interpreted as the result of sword theft. Here the
man’s right pelvis and leg were detached, apparently while still partially articulated, and deposited
at the foot of the grave (Table 12, Chapter 4.9, Appendix 1.1: Monkton). If the leg was removed,
presumably pulled off, in order to extract a sword, the weapon must have been attached
remarkably securely to the body.
The abundantly documented symbolic significance of swords (Ellis Davidson 1994, Härke 2000,
Theuws & Alkemade 2000) almost certainly played a part in their attraction for grave-robbers.
However, swords may also have been targeted simply because they were in better condition than
most artefacts at the time of reopening. While there is no reason to think that spears and shields
were in any way protected in the grave, there is frequent evidence that swords were deposited
inside protective sheaths and scabbards (Cameron 2000). In intact Gr 182 at St Peter’s, for
example, traces of animal hair were preserved covering the sword blade. While a scabbard makes
little or no difference to preservation on an archaeological timescale, it might keep a weapon in
usable condition during the passage of some years between burial and reopening. This would be
true particularly if it included some oily element – such as fleece or the animal skin mentioned
above – which protected the iron blade from moisture. WWII archaeologists testify that such
protection makes a crucial difference in the preservation of metal artefacts on this timescale
(Chapter 4.9).
Seaxes
The longer knives known as seaxes appear in Kentish graves in limited numbers in the 6th to 8th
centuries. During this period between 4 and 8% of weapon graves include them (Richardson
2005a: 141). Only one possible seax is recorded in a disturbed grave, Gr 22 at Monkton, where it
is described as “a large iron knife or perhaps a small seax, blade very incomplete”.
Seaxes are therefore underrepresented in disturbed graves and it is a definite possibility that these,
as opposed to the smaller utility knives, were removed from disturbed graves. The small overall
numbers of seax finds mean that this remains a hypothesis which could easily be disproved by
156
only a few discoveries, but the current indication is that seaxes may have classed alongside
swords as objects for removal.
Arrows
No arrowheads are recorded in disturbed graves. However, arrowheads are rare in Kent,
appearing only in any numbers in the 7th century, when some 5% of weapon graves include them
(Richardson 2005a: 141). It would be premature to conclude that any have been removed,
although the possibility stands.
Axes
No axe-heads have been found in disturbed graves, but they are sufficiently uncommon that
none could be expected. In addition the period of their deposition barely coincides with the
robbing phase. Axes are a feature of earlier graves in Kent, with around 9% of weapon graves
containing them during the 5th-6th century transition but none by the later 6th century (Richardson
2005a: 141).
Other grave-goods
Buckles, sometimes more specifically “small buckles”, are frequently listed in disturbed graves. In
some cases they were probably still attached to the remains of clothing at the time of disturbance,
as in Monkton Gr 22. However in others they are found the fill, for example in Ozengell Gr 7.
Bronze as well as iron buckles are left behind, as in Ozengell Gr 56 and Sarre Gr 25 and 198.
Other small items which were also probably part of clothing similarly remain, including the gold
braid in Sarre Gr 285 and perhaps the 3 silver wire slip-knot rings in St Peter’s Gr 62. On
practical grounds these may have been still attached to cloth or considered too small to be worth
finding and removing. The same may apply to the bronze pins in Sarre Gr 81 and Ozengell Gr 23
and 65, as well as the spiral in the latter.
Bronze tweezers were left in Monkton Gr 22 and St Peter’s Gr 304. These are quite rare items,
with only just over 50 finds listed in ASKED (queried 20090921). Their small size would have
made them difficult to find, even if robbers regarded them as a target. Comb fragments are also
occasionally noted, as in Sarre Gr 276, but there were no whole ones in disturbed graves. Like
tweezers, these are infrequent finds in Kentish graves.
Counters or gaming pieces were discovered in disturbed graves Ozengell Gr 11 and Sarre Gr 198,
although rabbits rather than robbers may be responsible for the disturbance in the latter. These
are highly unusual finds, with only 10 other graves listed in ASKED as containing them (queried
157
20090921). Especially since high numbers were found, it does not appear that the robbers made
any effort to recover them. Tools in the form of two whetstones and an awl were left in St
Peter’s Gr 303. Only about 20 awls and 10 hones are known from graves in Anglo-Saxon Kent
(ASKED queried 20090921), so there is no reason to suspect that other examples have been
stolen from disturbed graves.
Disturbed graves tend not to contain the kind of overtly amuletic objects characteristic of the
burials described by Audrey Meaney as “cunning women” (Meaney 1981: 249-62, Dickinson
1993, Gilchrist 2008, Reynolds 2009: 73-4). As Helen Geake (1997: 98-100) has shown, the
boundaries of this category may be too vague to be meaningful, and the probably symbolic
girdle-hangers and other female belt items certainly do remain in disturbed graves. However it
may be significant that none of the crystal balls, perforated spoons, or animal or mineral
keepsakes otherwise found in Kent are seen in the robbed graves. Numbers are too low, however,
to conclude for certain either that such objects were taken, or that this kind of burial was avoided
by robbers.
Discussion: grave-goods
The evidence analysed here suggests that a deliberate and largely consistent selection was made of
artefacts to remove from graves. It was not the case that whoever reopened the graves wanted
indiscriminately to remove as many artefacts as possible. The selection was similar to the pattern
seen in Merovingia, with swords and brooches probably the main targets, but not identical, since
knives of both iron and copper were consistently left in the disturbed Kentish graves.
A range of artefacts which to modern eyes appear highly desirable were left behind. This applies
most clearly to the necklace elements: the beads of all materials and the various pendants. The
necklace in St Peter’s Gr 165 in particular had probably been viewed and left behind by the
robbers, as had the pendant depicted in the drawing as still hanging around the woman’s neck
(Fig. 42). Other elements of female dress frequently rejected are the various forms of chatelaine
and other iron and copper alloy objects worn hanging from belts. These were consistently left
behind even when in good condition.
Given the labour, unpleasantness, and perhaps risk involved in reopening a grave, it seems
counter-intuitive not to take all the artefacts on offer. Presuming that grave-robbery was a
transgressive or insulting act, why not take everything that might be exchanged or given away?
Even if beads and pendants were not useful for the main purpose of the robbing, why were they
not acceptable trinkets for a partner or playthings for a child? There is a puzzle here: the manner
158
of robbing looks transgressive, with bones scattered and graves sometimes left often (Chapter
5.1), yet it was carried out by people who obeyed rules about what objects could and could not be
taken.
Turning to male gravegoods, it is by no means the case that iron weapons as a category were
uniformly targeted. It is likely that swords were taken, but shields and spearheads remain in
quantity. In some cases, such as Monkton Gr 22, robbing took place soon after burial, while
swords were presumably still in useable condition. In other weapon burials the iron objects were
friable and fragmenting by the time of reopening, so that swords cannot have been in anything
approaching their original condition, even if protected by scabbards. In Sarre Gr 104 the top of
the sword hilt broke off, but the rest of the weapon was taken. In three graves at St Peter’s the
swords disintegrated during disturbance and were left behind. It seems that swords were removed
if substantially whole, whether or not they were still cutting weapons.
Despite the marked preference for swords, there is no evidence that weapon graves in general
were systematically or even preferentially targeted. At all the sites there remain untouched
weapon graves, including many containing swords. There are indications that the robbers were
able to identify and target well-furnished graves. However, there is no reason to think that they
knew exactly what they would find in graves, nor what the state of the grave-goods would be.
That they missed the sword in St Peter’s Gr 304 and opened several graves at that site in which
grave-goods were already fragmentary speaks against detailed knowledge. Perhaps more was
known about the graves reopened when new: expectations of swords in Monkton Gr 22 and St
Peter’s Gr 270 and of the probably generous jewellery display in St Peter’s Gr 165 may have
overcome repugnance at uncovering the still-rotting corpses.
It has frequently been suggested that the metal content of gravegoods attracted robbers
(Chapters 2, 3). This may apply in the case of the copper alloy brooches. There is considerable
evidence for remelting and recycling of copper alloys during the Early Anglo-Saxon period in
England and on the continent (Marzinzik 2003: 79-81, Leahy 2003: 136). Catherine Mortimer’s
study of the manufacture and composition of cruciform brooches showed that nearly all the
production during this period was based on recycling of old Roman or post-Roman artefacts
(Mortimer 1999: 88). On the other hand, there are plenty of other copper alloy objects left
behind in the disturbed burials. Obtaining copper alloy cannot have been an overriding concern.
Production of iron and steel in the Anglo-Saxon period is relatively poorly understood. There is
minimal evidence of iron smelting, especially in comparison with the preceding Roman period,
159
but high level smithing skill is seen in the iron objects. Such high quality steel as is seen in Anglo-
Saxon artefacts could not readily be obtained from scrap iron, so more iron production evidence
may well be found in the future. The large-scale settlement excavation at Mucking, Essex
uncovered substantial smelting remains from the 6th and 7th centuries (Hamerow 1991,
McDonnell 1989: 380-1, McDonnell 1993, Marzinzik 2007: 96-97). As far as smithing is
concerned, most early medieval settlement sites produce some evidence (McDonnell 1989, Leahy
2003: 116, Marzinzik 2003: 79-81, Pleiner 2006, Lucy et al 2009). There is evidence for itinerant
individual smiths, probably alongside both local and elite workshop production, with potentially
considerable inter-regional mobility on the part of specialist workers. Smiths appear to have
engaged in a range of metalwork tasks.
For grave-robbers, the technology to melt down a brooch or repair or rework a sword would
therefore not have been far away. However, if a need for iron drove robbing, the rejection of
substantial iron objects in the form of shield bosses, spearheads, and knives is hard to explain.
Just possibly the specialized iron used in swords was particularly attractive, but it is likely that the
process of reforging the metal would alter its state too much to keep its advantage (Thomas Birch,
University of Aberdeen, pers. comm.).
The selection of artefacts seen here thus cannot be explained by their material, size, gender
association, or position in the grave or on the body. Some worn items were taken, some were left.
Some male and some female grave-goods were taken. Some of the artefacts that were left behind
were small and probably difficult to retrieve, particularly beads, but others, especially shields,
were large and easy to find. The selection of objects to remove and to leave seems to be based on
a set of values unknown today, presumably related to the artefacts’ roles in life and in the
funerary process.
The evidence presented here suggests that reopening was carried out by people from the same
immediate or regional community as the burying group, who shared the same understandings of
the roles of different grave-goods. Robbing was probably a transgressive act, perhaps intended to
be harmful to the dead and to the living through them. However, it did not entail a total disregard
for social mores. There remained pressing reasons to leave certain categories of objects behind in
graves. Perhaps the dead, if deprived of all their grave-goods, could become dangerous despite
the damage to their remains and their resting places.
Alternatively, perhaps only certain categories of artefact, in particular brooches and swords, were
felt to be sufficiently alienable from their owners that they could be of use to the living. The idea
160
that certain objects are polluting to the living and must be disposed of with their deceased owners
are reported in a variety of archaeological and ethnographic contexts (Gregory 1982, Leach 1976,
Goody 1962, Parker Pearson 1993: 207). Related concepts may be operating here: certain grave-
goods could more readily be taken from the dead than others.
A shown above, swords are some of the objects most consistently removed from Anglo-Saxon
graves. Throughout a range of literature, swords are portrayed as bearing a personhood of their
own, which enabled them to be given, stolen, and inherited (Ellis Davidson 1994, Härke 2000,
Theuws & Alkemade 2000). These, then, are objects which could readily be transferred between
the living, and, on the evidence of grave-robbery, also from the dead to the living.
Swords are almost exclusively associated with male burials. Brooches, on the other hand, may
have been a category of female-gendered artefact which could be similarly freely exchanged. Zoe
Devlin (2007: 41-42) has recently emphasized the role of brooches as related to women’s life
stages, as connectors to their birth and marriage families, and to their ethnic groups, rather than
as items for the possession and use of an individual. She points to a 10th/11th century will in
which a Wulfric Spott left to his goddaughter a brooch or pendant that had been his
grandmother’s, with the implication that such items and associated memories were passed on
down the female line, at least by the time such transactions were recorded in writing. As
mentioned above, there is considerable evidence for melting and reworking of brooches, as
though this were objects which could be reformed for new generations, or perhaps even new life
stages (Mortimer 1999, Hirst 1985: 95).
Chatelaines and necklaces, on the other hand, seem on the basis of the robbing evidence to have
been too closely tied to the personality of the wearer for transferral. They are never or almost
never taken from graves, irrespective of their material or their condition. In this scenario knives
are also highly personal items for both sexes, since they were probably never taken by robbers.
Knives were worn at the waist and seem to have been a frequently used, multi-purpose tool for
both genders and most age classes. A close association between individuals and their knives
might also explain why these artefacts were so frequently deposited in graves, if they could not
readily be passed on to a new owner (although see the suggestion from the Warwickshire
cemetery of Wasperton that inferior knives may have been deposited in burial contexts (Starley
2009)).
Here we may have archaeological evidence for customary practice relating to the heritability of
different types of possession. These ideas have not previously been explored in this form,
161
although the influence of inheritance laws on early medieval grave-good deposition was an object
of debate for some decades in the mid-20th century, based on passages in 9th century Germanic
law codes of rather doubtful relevance (Boddington 1990: 189, Shephard 1979, Young 1977: 55).
In particular, one of the earliest analyses of grave-robbery proposed a root cause in changes from
personal to kin-group ownership of certain objects in these laws (Redlich 1948). This analysis has
shown that in Kent – as on the continent (Müller 1976, Codreanu-Windauer 1997, Chapter 2) –
there is little support for the idea that robbery was carried out by kin. If concepts of
transferability of different kinds of objects lie behind the selection of artefacts for removal from
graves, they run deeper than the written law, and deeper than taboos or prohibitions against
grave desecration.
A major objection to this line of argument is the poor condition that many grave-goods were in
by the time graves were reopened. This is one of the most striking but also neglected features of
grave-robbery. It has been mentioned on the continent (Codreanu-Windauer 1997, Chapter 2),
but this is the first time that the state of artefacts at the time of disturbance has been
systematically investigated.
In Kent iron objects in particular were frequently in a friable state, as witnessed by the several
graves at St Peter’s in which excavators commented on the iron flecks throughout the disturbed
areas. Swords may have been given a measure of protection by their scabbards (Chapter 4.9), but
since these evidently fell apart in at least Finglesham Gr 22 and St Peter’s Gr 97, it seems unlikely
that the swords inside were in anything like their original condition. It is questionable whether
they could be restored to a useable state or even whether recoverable iron could be found in their
rusted blades.
Reasons for removing grave-goods beyond their use value need to be found. Or rather, it is likely
that the values and uses of the artefacts had been altered by their deposition in a grave. The act of
deposition may confer new attributes onto the artefacts. This may be a bond with the interred
individual, as in the Norse tales (Chapter 1), although the frequency of Merovingian and Anglo-
Saxon robbing makes a link with named heroes unlikely. Similarly a general search for objects of
antiquity is also unlikely on the timescale represented here (Chapter 4.9).
A strong contender is the idea that grave-goods were removed not because they are needed by
the living, but to deprive their dead of their use. This idea was first put forward by Codreanu-
Windauer (1997, Chapter 2), who is also one of the only other authors to consider the state of the
removed objects. Stoodley (1999, 2000) has emphasized grave-good deposition as signalling and
162
maintaining the status of the primary descent group within small Early Anglo-Saxon communities.
In this model, weapons in particular may be seen as symbols of strength, with armed ancestors as
a support for living descendants. The robbery evidence suggests that female brooches should be
seen as an analogous part of this status display. As argued above, brooches were more strongly
linked to kin than to personal identity, including through the melting down, reworking, and
passing on of metal alloys.
In this interpretation, robbing is an act to shame and weaken the living kin of the interred. It is
not aimed at the individual personalities of the dead, but at their connections with the living. It
may reflect competition between descent groups within communities or extended households.
More likely, given the evidence that reopening was carried out by people who did not know
details of burials, it was the result of rivalry between wider groups competing for power in the
emergent Kentish kingdom. This ties into the scenario recently presented by Sayer (2009, 2010,
Chapter 3), of the strengthening of outward shows of kin identity in Kentish burials in the 7th
century, and the writing down of laws aiming to suppress kin-group versus royal power.
6.2 Multiple burials and grave reuse
Although the majority of the inhumed Anglo-Saxon dead were placed individually in single
graves, most cemeteries also contain a number of double or multiple burials. These are divided by
archaeologists into two types: contemporary multiples where two or more bodies were buried at
the same time, and consecutive or secondary burials with a subsequent burial or burials inserted
into an existing grave. Secondary burial is the main form of grave reopening seen in the early
medieval period. As this research progressed it became evident that although in almost all cases
they represent quite separate practices, reopening for secondary burial is relevant to grave-
robbing in a number of ways, both to its identification in the archaeological record and to its
interpretation as a social phenomenon.
The most detailed study of Anglo-Saxon multiple burials has been carried out by Nick Stoodley
(2002), quantifying the evidence from a sample of 59 cemeteries. Of his sample cemeteries, 78%
included at least one multiple grave (46/59=78%). Within cemeteries, percentages of multiple
burials varied from just under 1% at Holywell Row, Suffolk, to just over 20% at Ports Down I,
Hampshire. Consecutive multiples (23.7%) are much less common than contemporary multiples
(70.6%). Less than half of Stoodley’s cemeteries contained consecutive multiples, and most of
these had only one or two instances (Stoodley 2002: 103-107).
163
Andrew Richardson’s study of Kent cemeteries found similar percentages of multiple burials,
with about 7.9% of individuals in his sample sharing graves. The frequency of multiple graves
exceeded 10% at only six sites (Bishopsbourne I, Darenth I, Finglesham, Polhill, Wickhambreaux
II and Whitfield I). Consecutive burials make up just a small proportion of multiples: in his
sample of over 2000 graves, Richardson records only 18 probable consecutive multiples
containing a total of 36 bodies (Richardson 2005a: 93).
There are many borderline examples where it is difficult to distinguish between stacked
contemporary and added secondary burials, or between accidental overlyers and deliberate
secondaries. Mill Hill Gr 105 is an unusual case of a grave that resembles a contemporary
multiple burial, but with a short interval before the third body was added (Appendix 1.2).
Secondary burials are not always inhumations, with cremations inserted into the fills of
inhumation graves at both Orpington I and Lyminge in Kent.
Stoodley (2002) considered the possibility that multiple burial may simply be a way of reducing
the effort of grave-digging. He attempted to correlate multiple burials with hard subsoils or
poorer communities, but did not find a overall statistically significant link with either. However,
he suggests that difficult digging or poverty may have been factors at some sites. Polhill, for
example, has an unusually high number of multiples, which may be a consequence of the labour
of grave-digging in the chalk. Then again, as Richardson’s results show, many Kentish cemeteries
are dug into chalky bedrock, and yet do not have high proportions of multiple burials.
Multiple burials have traditionally been interpreted as family groups, with sexual partners or
consanguineal relations buried together or added subsequently, as is often done today (e.g.
Wilson 1992: 71-7, Parfitt 1997: 13). Alternatively it is sometimes suggested that one individual
was killed for burial with the other, particularly when a female in a non-standard posture
accompanies a male skeleton (recent discussion in Reynolds 2009: 65-67). Where contemporary
multiples are concerned, the family model is supported by evidence that certain age and sex
combinations were felt particularly compatible for grave-sharing, with women buried with
children/infants making up the bulk of such interments (Stoodley 2002: 113). This reinforces the
impression that in-life relationships were modelled through co-burial.
In the case of consecutive burials, on the other hand, Stoodley finds no clear age/sex structuring.
Such patterns as can be found are rather the opposite of those in contemporary multiples. For
example, there are no female/infant combinations at all in his sample. Stoodley’s analysis
therefore indicates that contemporary and consecutive multiples should be seen as much more
164
distinct phenomena than has previously been presumed (contra e.g Heide Lüdemann’s (1994)
wider-ranging but less statistically-oriented continental row-grave cemetery study).
Stoodley suggests that choosing a pre-existing grave for a secondary burial may have been a
random process, within the constraint that an adult could not be conveniently added to a child-
sized grave. However, the Kent sample used here includes examples of adults added to children’s
graves (e.g. Ozengell Gr 58, Polhill Gr 86, plus St Peter’s Gr 307, which is a secondary squeezed
into a too short grave) which give the impression that the choice is not just based on convenience,
but that there is a definite intention to combine these particular burials.
The low rate of intercutting in most early Anglo-Saxon field cemeteries shows the degree of care
generally taken to avoid accidental reopening (Cherryson 2007: 137). That graves used for
secondary burial were deliberately selected is also suggested in the occasional evidence of grave
diggers abandoning their cuts when they unexpectedly encountered earlier graves. Anna
Cherryson cites an example from the sixth century cemetery at West Heslerton (Cherryson 2007:
137-8, Haughton and Powesland 1999: 157). Two more are found at Finglesham, where Gr 49
and 71 both seem to be half-dug grave-pits that were abandoned when it became apparent that
earlier graves were being intruded upon. At Bekesbourne II the digger of Gr 10 appears to have
shortened the cut to avoid damaging an underlying grave.
Half-dug graves also give rare glimpses of the process of burial place preparation. Grave 5 at
Finglesham is an unfinished grave, abandoned for no evident reason. Its half-finished state shows
that grave-diggers worked “first by opening up starter-holes at either end of the grave and then
joining them up by a trench” (Hawkes 2006: 34), which implies that two people dug together on
the grave.
When a secondary interment is added to a grave, it causes a variable degree of disturbance to the
primary burial. In some cases there is no damage at all, but in others the first burial is all but
obliterated. Only 24% of Stoodley’s consecutive multiples saw secondary burials placed well
above the initial interment so as to cause minimal damage (14/58=24%). In others the primary
burial was pushed to the grave sides, as in Gr 48 and 49 at Bedhampton, Hampshire. Then in
almost a third, the later burial cut right through the first, often leaving only fragmentary remains
scattered in the fill above the second body (Stoodley 2002: 109).
Where primary burials are this badly damaged, it may be more accurate to speak about grave re-
use than about multiple burial, as the initial occupant of the grave cut has been as good as ousted
by the new corpse. As seen in several Kent examples, this type presents particular problems of
165
identification. Are we looking at grave reuse, with a secondary cut down through a primary, or a
disturbed double burial where the overlying secondary skeleton is robbed but the lower primary
intact? Grave 54 at St Peter’s, for example, is a particularly difficult call: the excavators thought it
one robbed and one intact burial; the catalogue compiler considered it might be a single burial
with an spearhead on the coffin lid; and the analysis in this thesis has suggested it may be an
undisturbed secondary burial cut through a near-destroyed primary (Appendix 1.1). Stray bones
and artefacts finding their way into the fills of other graves, as is likely at Bradstow School Gr 4,
present a final complication of this type.
In Wessex, Cherryson (2007) has remarked on the mismatch between the traditional
interpretation of re-used graves as family plots and the frequently discourteous treatment of
original occupants during reopening. Stoodley (2002) concurs, pointing to the unceremonious
way in which the former occupant was in many cases moved out of the way of the new corpse.
In the Kentish sample explored in this thesis there are a number of graves in which treatment of
one or both of the individuals goes beyond casual disrespect to suggest actual malevolence.
To start with there are the incidents of gravegoods being taken from the initial burial when the
secondary burial was added. In Polhill Gr 52, for example, it appears the digger(s) of the second
grave made a deliberate detour into the centre of the original grave to reach the gravegoods.
Similar occurred at Mill Hill, Deal, where Gr 72 had its objects removed when Gr 10 was later
cut through it (Parfitt 1997: 29). An older buckle found in Gr 10 was interpreted as coming from
Gr 72. The primary and secondary burials here were set at right-angles, so it may have been a
case of accidental rather than deliberate superimposition. However, both these instances present
a marked contrast to the examples where intercutting graves are abandoned.
Further examples associate some secondary and intercutting interments with indications of
deviant treatment (Chapter 6.3). Gr 5 at Darenth Park is an example of a double burial where the
addition of the second body severely damaged the earlier interment, and where a degree of
aggression or contempt seems indicated. In this case, a male youth had been added to the grave
of an adult male (Walsh 1980: 315). The upper burial was considered hurried, as the head and
shoulders were found ‘hunched up at the north end of the grave’. A skull fracture indicated that
this second individual may have met a violent death. The later burial cut into the vertebrae and
rib-cage of the earlier interment. The primary skeleton lacked a skull, which may have been
removed at the time of the secondary interment, although decapitation as cause of death or post-
mortem removal of the head are also possibilities.
166
Redeposition of the skulls of primary burials is also seen in Bekesbourne Gr 39, Gr 40 and Gr 41,
Polhill Gr 63, and Eccles K19 and K01, where there is again a possible connection with violent
death (Appendix 1.2, 1.3). In Gr 63 at Polhill, the skull of the first burial was placed between the
legs of the second body, where heads of execution victims and post-mortem decapitations are
frequently found (Reynolds 2009: 76-81, 166-169, Chapter 6.3). The primary head was similarly
redeposited between the secondary legs in Gr 224 at St Peter’s Tip, and the same is indicated by
Brent’s description of Gr XLVI at Sarre.
The secondary burial in Kingston Down Gr 273 was covered in a flint layer “a foot deep”; the
flints had been carried to the site specially for the purpose (Appendix 1.4). Another example of
an inserted burial which appears decidedly less than benign is Gr 26 at Finglesham, where the
prone and bound body of a man with severed feet was added to a grave, evicting into the fill the
disarticulated bones of the previous occupant.
Is there is sometimes an element of punishment in grave re-use? Multiple burial in general has
been convincingly shown to be part of the “normal” modes of Early Anglo-Saxon burial
(Reynolds 2009: 65-67). However, within this diverse phenomenon there are practices which
point to aspects of retribution or humiliation in the replacement of one body by another.
Conversely, other examples from Kent indicate that secondary burials may in some cases have
been both respectful and planned. There are indications that some East Kent graves with certain
types of superstructures were designed to have secondary burials added, and may in readiness
have been only partially back-filled. Finglesham Gr 21 had four pairs of postholes dug into the
sides of the grave as though to hold the vertical posts of a pitched-roof structure. It contained a
secondary burial which did not disturb the primary, with the two burials are in noticeably
different fills (Hawkes & Grainger 2006: 44). Here the secondary interment did not interfere with
the first: both symbolically and from the point of view of the diggers this is a quite different
practice from the exposure and heaving out of the previous occupant seen in many other graves.
A connection between secondary burial and grave-good removal, or between grave re-use and
deviance, raises questions about the social organisation of the burial process, and the degree of
specialization involved. Were there some individuals within a burying community who specialized
in grave-digging and who were therefore more accustomed both to the task and to the possibility
of encountering human remains? Or was preparing a grave the responsibility of kin, in which case
removal of goods from a primary burial may more retrieval than theft? Digging by kin is
indicated by excavators’ observations on the variety of grave cuts in cemeteries, for example at
167
Dover Buckland (Evison 1987: 16-7) or Hogarth’s comment that at St Peter’s Tip graves varied
widely in “design, standard of excavation and degree of weathering” (Hogarth 1973: 109).
Secondary burials occur frequently enough to show that those involved in burying the Anglo-
Saxon dead were familiar with the experience of uncovering human remains. Given the
indications of deliberate selection in the choice of graves to re-use, these were probably the
remains of known individuals. This willingness to expose and manipulate the dead, particularly
the remembered dead, is at wide variance to modern attitudes, and must play a part in the
mentality of grave-robbery.
On the other hand, in all the cases found in this Kent sample, primary burials disturbed by
secondary interments were fully skeletonized by the time the second burial was added. This
pattern appears sufficiently consistent to suggest that the timing was calculated to ensure fleshy
decomposition was complete. Given the considerable length of time needed to be certain of
skeletonization (Chapter 4.9), it also indicates that the individuals put together in consecutive
multiple burials may frequently not have been of the same generation, at least in the cases where
the secondary burial exposes the first. Against this background, the uncovering of fleshed or
semi-fleshed bodies for robbing (Chapter 4.9, contra Penn & Brugmann 2007: 82) looks by
contrast highly transgressive.
A number of consecutive multiple burials show heaping of the primary skeleton at the end of the
grave, closely resembling the heaping of disturbed burials described in Chapter 5.1. In St Peter’s
Gr 224, for example, the remains of the primary skeleton were heaped beyond the feet of the
second body, having been “thrown into that end when skel B was placed in reopened grave”.
They are not on the grave floor with the secondary burial at 34” depth, but at only 25”, so on top
of some fill. The primary skull had been placed between the secondary femurs, but again at the
higher 25” depth. Curiously the primary skeleton is described on the plan as ‘wrapped up’, as
though it seemed to have been collected in a cloth and redeposited. The remains of the primary
skeleton are only partial, although fairly well preserved. Much of the skeleton must have been dug
out of the grave and lost, in the same way as in the robbed graves. The femurs are described as
“shortened and shattered”; the digging out does not seem to have been careful or respectful of
the original occupant, even if the bones were gathered up and heaped together afterwards.
Gr 288 is less well recorded and was mislabelled as a single disturbed burial, but the plan and
bone report show an intact secondary weapon burial with the disarticulated remains of a primary
burial heaped together beyond the feet. Gr 384 is an intact female burial with the partial and
168
fragmentary remains of a primary skeleton and gravegoods heaped above the lower legs. In this
case the heights of the objects in the fill are recorded, and show that the remains were above the
secondary burial, so that they had first been dug out of the grave and then piled back in on top of
the new body. This is in contrast to those where the primary skeleton was pushed to the sides
before the new corpse was interred, but probably reflects only the state of decay of the grave at
the time of reopening: in Gr 384 any primary coffin had collapsed so that the skeleton and
gravegoods were encased in soil and could only be shovelled out in the fill.
In all three St Peter’s cases there appears to have been sufficient concern about the primary
skeleton that at least parts of it were thrown back in, but not enough concern to leave it in situ in
the first place or to make sure that the whole was retained in the grave. The parts that were
thrown back were at least heaped together, not strewn throughout the fill. Here there is a
resemblance with the treatment of skeletal remains in the “robbed” graves. This may simply be a
matter of convenience for the diggers, or it may be evidence that the same people reopened
graves for both purposes and unconsciously treated them in the same way, or it may be a
deliberate creation of a parallel between the two forms of reopening.
6.3 Ritual treatment of human remains
In the overwhelming majority of disturbed graves in this dataset, the human remains were
disordered in a manner which indicates only ransacking, not deliberate rearrangement or ritual
treatment (Chapter 5.1). As in Merovingia (Chapter 2), there is little evidence in Kent for a ritual
element in robbers’ approach to graves. However, a small minority of reopened burials show
signs of more careful bodily manipulation: mutilation or repositioning of skeletal parts carried out
post-burial, after fleshy decomposition was advanced or complete. Eleven possible examples
have been identified in the sites investigated in this thesis. The majority are not from the Kentish
robbed cemeteries, but are from burial grounds outside Kent.
Bodily mutilation as a peri-mortem rite is a well-recognised, if unusual, practice in the Anglo-
Saxon period (Reynolds 2009, below). Identifying burials in which manipulation occurred during
reopening rather than at initial burial relies mainly on distinguishing between mutilations carried
out on fleshed and skeletonized bodies. There may also be evidence of reopening in the form of
a robber cut or other disturbance to the grave context.
The examples identified here are all cases in which an interpretation of skeletal rearrangement
before fleshy decomposition would be impossible or highly unlikely without significant marks of
butchery. These therefore involve the passage of some years between burial and disturbance.
169
Earlier reopening, with bodies exposed and manipulated while still whole or partial, would be
even more difficult to distinguish from peri-mortem mutilation.
The eleven examples in this sample are each discussed in full in the data sections of this thesis:
Appendix 1 and Chapter 2. In brief, they are:
Bradstow School Gr 11 – most of the skeleton in the usual disarray in the fill, but the skull
turned over onto the face and held in place with two large flints (no finds; probably 7th
century).
Bradstow School Gr 72 – skull put back upside down onto “an otherwise perfectly articulated
extended supine corpse” (dated by ASKED to AD 640-700, presumably on basis of bronze
buckle).
St Peter’s Tip Gr 45 – curious reversed femur (dated by ASKED to AD 625-700, several
gravegoods for dating).
Bifrons Gr 16 – head and foot had been severed and reversed, although this may be pre-burial
(dated by ASKED to 6th century).
Worthy Park Gr 41 – although repositioning of the skull may be accidental.
Westfield Farm, Ely Gr 2 – body had been partially turned over to a prone position and the
skull displaced (later 7th century).
Nassington Gr II – skull, clavicles, and humeri removed from a partially articulated skeleton.
Chadlington Gr 7 – skull repositioned by leg.
Winnall II – two/three burials with repositioned skulls.
Edix Hill Gr 49 – skull lifted and redeposited between legs. Possibly also some of the other
apparently disturbed burials at this site.
Melbourn Gr V – skull (but not mandible) lifted and redeposited on the pelvis.
In addition there are the secondary burials which involved removal of the skull of the primary:
for example Darenth Park Gr 5, Polhill Gr 63, and Eccles K19 (Appendix 1.2, 1.3). In these the
primary skull is often placed between the secondary legs. In several examples there is an
association with violent death or with other unusual treatment of the body. Skulls between legs or
by feet are also a feature of Anglo-Saxon peri-mortem decapitations (Reynolds 2009: 76-81).
Other possible examples of reopening for mutilation have been rejected. Abingdon Gr 48, for
example, was the skeleton of an older adult male, with the head detached from the body, one
neck vertebra above the head, and another in front of the face. This damage seems to have taken
170
place after fleshy decomposition; it has been suggested that it may be the result of animal
disturbance (Reynolds 2009: 186). An alternative is some form of organic pillow under the head,
which decayed and caused the displacement. Several similar examples were noted in the Kentish
sample, especially at St Peter’s (Appendices 1.1, 2). For a convincing diagnosis of post-burial
interference, the rearrangement of body parts needs to appear deliberate, not mere displacement.
Bradstow School Gr 11 is one of the clearest examples. It bore unequivocal signs of reopening
and disturbance, in most respects resembling the more typically ransacked appearance of the
Kentish robbed graves. Disturbance took place after skeletonization was complete, so that
disarticulated bones were strewn throughout the cut. In contrast to the disorder in most of the
grave, the skull had been repositioned face down and held in place with two large flints: clearly a
deliberate act by human hand. No cut marks were reported to skull or vertebrae, implying that
the skull had separated from the vertebral column by the natural process of decay. This would
indicate that the skull positioning was carried out as part of the reopening, rather than at the time
of the original burial, when removing the head from the articulated corpse would have required
butchery.
Other interpretative scenarios are possible. The burial may originally have been made prone, so
that the skull had remained in situ, rather than being placed face-down by the reopeners. This
was not the excavators’ impression, but cannot definitely be ruled out on the recorded evidence.
Neither can peri-mortem decapitation be entirely discounted. In the absence of a full bone report
it is possible that cut mark evidence went unnoticed. There is no record of whether skull and
mandible were found together, and so whether these were still articulated at the time of head
removal. The state of the skeletal parts is not recorded; perhaps any superficial cut marks were
not preserved.
Decapitated burials are well-evidenced in an Anglo-Saxon context, although not as commonly as
in the preceding Romano-British period (Philpotts 1991, Taylor 2008). Heads may be absent,
repositioned within the grave, replaced in anatomical position, or buried alone (Reynolds 2009:
76-81). In some cases, especially in the later Anglo-Saxon execution cemeteries, decapitation is
thought to have been the cause of death. However there is ample evidence that head removal was
also carried out as a post-mortem rite. Head manipulation could continue into a Late Saxon
churchyard context, as at Ketton, Rutland, where “The head of one of the burials near the church
had been cut off and placed by its feet, presumably to lay a troublesome ghost” (Blair 2005: 381).
171
Alison Taylor (2008: 102-3) and Andrew Reynolds (2009: 76-78) both give overviews of the
forensics of decapitation, noting the problem of whether cut marks in each case were absent,
decayed, or just not noted. The indications are that marks ought to be observable on reasonably
well-preserved skeletons, especially where beheading was the cause of death. Decapitated bodies
in late Anglo-Saxon execution cemeteries show major trauma to the head and neck regions. Post-
mortem decapitation, if carried out skilfully, might leave substantially less evidence, although
Reynolds notes that even three years after Oliver Cromwell’s death, eight blows were reportedly
required to sever his head from his exhumed body.
As well as executions and post-mortem decapitations, post-burial interference with heads has also
been noted in a Romano-British context (Taylor 2008: 103). One example comes from the
California Cemetery, Baldock, Hertfordshire (aka Upper Walls Common Cemetery). The head
end of Gr 3640, a 4th century burial of a young adult male, had been reopened and the skull
apparently pulled off. The excavator writes:
“The re-opening of the grave was confined to the north-eastern end of the grave, so as
to expose the head of the corpse. The head was then pulled from the body so that all
that remained was a fragment of lower jaw in the backfill of the recut. The head was
not apparently cut from the body as no cut marks were found on the bone, as was the
case with some decapitations from the cemetery. The head was possibly pulled from
the corpse at the stage of partial decomposition, with rotting flesh still present, so that
the lower neck vertebrae were left behind. The north-eastern end of the grave was the
only area disturbed, clearly the excavators knew the body’s position which may indicate
that there had been a grave marker of some description.”
(Gil Burleigh, Draft report)
Gr 3640 was itself a re-cut or re-use of a previous grave, which had been completely emptied.
There is also other evidence of prone burials, decapitations, and grave emptying at the site
(Burleigh 1993). Skull removal was seen as a variant on a ritual theme involving head
manipulation. Gr 643, for example, contained one skeleton with two skulls, both displaced and
lacking mandibles. One may have been introduced later (although not from Gr 3640, since the
sex is wrong), or may have been retained from an earlier grave of which this is a re-cut.
It seems likely that Bradstow Gr 11 fits into this long-term theme of head manipulation and
removal in Romano-British and early medieval burial rites. More specifically, its treatment, with
the skull placed face-down and held in place with flints, has close parallels in the group of long
172
recognised and currently topical burial practices known as deviant rites (Reynolds 2009, Blair
2009, Aspöck 2008, Taylor 2008, Tsaliki 2008, Griffiths 2003, Caciola 1996, Barber 1988,
Lecouteux 1987, Harman, Molleson & Price 1981, Meaney & Hawkes 1970: 30-31). The
boundaries of what constitutes a non-standard or deviant rite within a given period are difficult
to define (Brather 2007, Chapter 2). For the early Anglo-Saxon period, Reynolds (2009) has
recently highlighted decapitation, amputation, stones on top of the body, prone position, and
restraint in the form of tied limbs. These practices all bear sinister interpretation. A major
element appears to be attempts to disable the corpse or to make graves abnormally secure.
In the same way, the rearrangement of the bones in Bradstow Gr 11 can be interpreted as an
attempt to disable or confuse the dead. The other grave at the same site which shows evidence of
ritual treatment, Gr 72, is similar: the head had been replaced “upside-down” on the body. The
other examples in the sample can be seen in the same way, with heads and legs removed or
reversed, or whole bodies shifted into prone positions, in order to prevent the dead walking.
The longstanding interpretation for the deviant burial rites of the early middle ages, as of other
periods, is that the dead who received them were thought to be, by the circumstances of their
lives or deaths, prone to unquietness (Reynolds 2009: 235-6). This interpretation is based partly
on rather distantly related ethnography, and its application from Bronze Age central Europe to
early medieval Iceland may be unsteady, but in Anglo-Saxon England and northern Europe more
widely such beliefs are relatively well-grounded in literary sources (Blair 2009, Caciola 1996).
On this basis, an argument can be made that the repositioning in the graves identified here was
similarly intended to prevent or stop revenant corpses from walking. This treatment may have
been carried out as part of robbing, if robbers feared that the violated dead would seek revenge.
This seems likely in the cases in the heavily robbed Broadstairs cemeteries. Alternatively
reopening may have been at least nominally motivated by the need to tackle a revenant who was
disturbing the living, perhaps involving removal of valuables at the same time. Reopening with
mutilation as the primary aim seems indicated in the Westfield Farm grave, for example, which is
the only disturbed burial in the cemetery and in which significant grave-goods were left behind.
It is notable that the written sources used to support interpretations of deviant burials as related
to fear of revenants (e.g. Bartlett 2002: 195-7, Blair 2009, Reynolds 2009:91, Chapter 6.4), actually
describe grave reopening, not special preparations for corpses for initial burial. All these stories
of the unquiet dead refer to measures taken to deal with ambulant corpses some time after burial.
The written material supports the interpretation of deviant burial rites as connected to fear of
173
revenants, but more directly refers to the kinds of archaeological evidence for reopening
identified here. It seems likely that in the archaeological examples identified above we are
beginning to find some of the unfortunate dead who were not prevented from walking at their
initial burial, but who had to be exhumed and disabled.
The possible connection between some reopening and Wiedergänger is under debate on the
continent (e.g. Bartelheim & Heyd 2001, Chapter 2). At Brunn am Gebirge, Austria, Aspöck
discusses this possibility in the cases of the six graves which she considered to have been
disturbed soonest after burial (Aspöck 2002: 66-7, Chapter 4.9). In four of these heads have been
interfered with: extra skulls were added to two burials; one had the head placed on the chest; in
one the skull was removed; and in another stones were placed around the head (Fig. 3). This last
seems potentially analogous to the treatment of Bradstow School Gr 11. Some of the Brunn
burials were thought to have had gravegoods removed as part of the reopening and some not.
There were also a small number of burials at Brunn in which bones appeared to have been
sharply cut off (Aspöck 2002: 50-1), which resemble the finds in St Peter’s Tip Gr 375 and 380.
The St Peter’s evidence is questionable in the absence of a bone report, and at both sites the
damage may simply be the accidental result of careless and forceful grave-opening. However, the
possibility arises that this was deliberately done to disable a vengeful spirit, not necessarily as the
aim of the disturbance, but perhaps in the course of grave-opening motivated by robbery.
Other forms of ritual action to set revenants to rest may be archaeologically invisible. Blair (2009)
notes that stakes through the chest may not necessarily be seen, for example, and that where
whole bodies are missing from reopened graves, there is the possibility that they were taken out
and burnt. The stake through the heart possibility cannot be ruled out in graves such as Gr 139 at
Finglesham, where there is limited disturbance confined to the chest area. However, the preferred
interpretation here is that these represent the least damaged graves on a scale of disturbance all
the way to full ransacking – with the amount of displacement a function of the robbing method
chosen and perhaps the attitude of the robbers towards the burial – rather than a separate
category of robbed graves. There is considerable variety in the treatment of the bones in the
disturbed graves in this sample (Chapter 5.1, 5.2), with some exhumed and discarded, some
thrown back in, and others heaped or even neatly arranged at the ends of graves. The examples in
which this treatment shows associations with deviant or revenant burials are a tiny minority.
None of the rearranged burials have signs of deviant treatment at initial burial, which suggests
these were unexpected revenants, and perhaps also that anti-revenant measures in initial burials
174
were usually successful. At St Peter’s there is one possibly disturbed semi-prone burial with a
large chalk block in the fill over the leg area (Gr 354), but it is exceptional to find a robbed
deviant burial. This does not necessarily indicate avoidance, however, since deviant burials are
uncommon in Kent (Reynolds 2009). Gr 354 is in any case difficult to interpret: the semi-prone
position and chalk block were thought themselves possibly the result of reopening and partial
turning of the body, which would be analogous to the Westfield Farm case. Part of the upper
body also seems to be missing, but this could not be part of the same reopening episode without
substantial butchery, for which there is no evidence. If these bones are indeed missing, rather
than decayed in situ, this would require a later reopening event.
The criteria on which an individual was selected for an Early Anglo-Saxon deviant burial are not
fully understood, although wrong-doing or untimely death are strong candidates. In the case of
post-burial interventions a more political interpretation is possible: allegations of revenancy
against a recently deceased family member or even a more remote ancestor may have malign
intentions towards the living relatives. In this scenario allegations of walking again would be
analogous to the element of power play seen by anthropologists behind witchcraft accusations
(e.g. La Fontaine 1998, Evans-Pritchard 1976, Geschiere 1997, Green 2005). They might also be
a response to a crisis in a community: Blair points to ethnography portraying vampire accusations
as a response to disease epidemics (Blair 2009: 15).
Only some of the burials identified here as reopened to lay unquiet ghosts were articulated at the
time of reopening. As in St Peter’s Gr 354 the evidence is frequently ambiguous. It has previously
been suggested on ethnographic grounds that bodies were considered at risk of revenancy only
during the “wet” phase of fleshy decomposition (Caciola 1996: 32). That several cases of later
interference have been collected here implies that in the early medieval period the fear of ghosts
could last well beyond this phase. The indications are that reopening with an anti-revenant
motive could occur not only soon after death but also at some remove from burial, with the
implication that walking again – or the accusation of walking again – was not necessarily strongly
linked to the individual personality of the interred. The identification of a buried individual as a
problematic ghost perhaps had more to do with relationships within the living community than
with the revenant’s life or the manner of their death.
175
6.4 Anglo-Saxon written sources
In Anglo-Saxon England, unlike in Merovingia, there are no written sources directly relating to
the 7th century robbing of community burial grounds. However, there are various textual
traditions relevant to the re-opening of graves more generally, and in particular to the
superstitions about walking corpses which seem to have driven some burial disturbance (Chapter
6.3). These sources have not previously been discussed in the context of the archaeological
phenomenon of grave-robbery.
Most directly relevant to the 6th and 7th century reopenings are the many early ghost stories which
describe hauntings by revenant bodies. These have been cited frequently with reference to the
unusual or “deviant” treatment of some bodies in early Anglo-Saxon cemeteries (Blair 2009,
Reynolds 2009). Deviant rites, including beheading, mutilation, prone burial, and stoning, are
interpreted as attempts made during funerals to secure the corpses of risky individuals in their
graves. The ghost stories, however, are more directly relevant to the practice identified in this
thesis of digging up and mutilating bodies after burial (Chapter 6.3). Although small-scale, these
reopenings appear to be archaeological evidence of the kinds of anti-revenant rituals described in
the written sources.
There is a whole genre of revenant stories, describing bodies, often of evil-doers, leaving their
graves and attacking or bringing disease upon the living. The similarities to modern vampire tales
are striking. William of Newburgh even describes one returning corpse as a sanguisuga or
bloodsucker (Howlett 1885 V24: 481, cited in Blair 2009: 543). A large number have been
complied by Reynolds (2009), Gilchrist & Sloane (2005), and Caciola (1996), but the most
comprehensive discussion, including of the dating of these tales, is by Blair (2009). As Caciola
(1996) shows, this genre is found all over Europe. It is surely related to, although by no means
identical with, the Scandinavian and Icelandic draugr tales (Chapter 1).
Insular examples abound in the 12th century in particular. They include several episodes in Walter
Map’s chronicle De nugis curialium, all with the local detail typical of this genre (James 1983: 202-4).
In one tale a bishop advises that the grave should be opened and holy water sprinkled on the
corpse. This fails, and the revenant is only defeated when the knight William Laudan cleaves
open its head “to the neck”. In another the revenant is more peacefully laid to rest when the
corpse is given proper burial, marked by a cross.
William of Newburgh’s late 12th century Historia rerum Anglicarum claims that “such things often
happened in England” (Howlett 1884-9 ii: 475). Three of his cases ended with the exhumation
176
and burning of the revenant corpse, while in the fourth a bishop intervenes and persuades locals
that a letter of absolution added to the grave will suffice to end the haunting. A later tale, from a
Yorkshire collection of revenant stories dating to about 1400, ends with the corpse and coffin
being thrown into a local river or lake (James 1922: 418).
For our purposes, one of the most illustrative is the tale of the Drakelow haunting, related by
Geoffrey of Burton in his 12th century Life and Miracles of St Modwenna (Bartlett 2002: 195-7). Two
men, peasants who had caused conflict by leaving their lord’s lands, were struck suddenly dead
and were buried in a churchyard. The same evening they appeared in the village of Drakelow,
which had given them refuge during their flight, “now in the shape of men carrying wooden
coffins on their shoulders, now in the likeness or bears or dogs or other animals”. They banged
on the walls of houses, summoning the peasants out. This continued every evening and night for
some time, until almost the whole village was wiped out by a sudden plague.
Permission was sought from the bishop to dig up the dead. They were found undecayed, but with
the linen cloths over their faces stained with blood. From the archaeological point of view, the
crucial details here are the ways in which the bodies were treated: “They cut off the men’s heads
and placed them in the graves between their legs, tore out the hearts from their corpses, and
covered the bodies with earth again.” (Bartlett 2002: 197). The hearts were carried across the
running water of the Trent and burnt at a hilltop beacon site, at the junction of parish boundaries
(Blair 2009: 540, Reynolds 2009: 91-92).
The decapitation, placement of the skulls between legs, and recovering are exactly the evidence
seen in most of the burials identified as reopening to tackle revenants in Chapter 6.3. Removal of
the heart is more difficult to see archaeologically, but the damage to legs and feet seen in several
graves may also be interpreted in the light of attempts to stop bodies walking.
Although broadly related to the Scandinavian tales of mound-breaking (Chapter 1), these insular
stories progress along different lines and in particular lack the trope of the struggle with the dead
tomb occupant. In the Anglo-Saxon and medieval English tales the corpses are lying inanimate in
their graves when exhumed, even if bearing signs of supernatural activity.
In the cases described so far, the hauntings are all unwelcome and dangerous to the living.
Conversely, the sources also depict a series of beliefs about corpses being deliberately reanimated
by the living. As late as the 10th or 11th century Ælfric complains of witches going “to cross-
roads and to heathen burials” and calling up the dead, who appear in the physical likeness of their
former selves. Audrey Meaney notes parallels with the Pseudo-Egbert Penitential, in which this
177
practice is described as for the purpose of asking about the future (Meaney 1984: 130-131,
Griffiths 1996: 35, Reynolds 2009: 214, 250).
These references suggest that signs of necromantic practices might be found at Anglo-Saxon
burial places, at least the liminal sites. Such evidence has been more widely discussed in a
Scandinavian context (Brendalsmo & Røthe 1992, Chapter 1). Given the date of Ælfric’s writing,
the idea of contacting the dead in this way may be a direct Scandinavian import; the heathen
songs at burials against which Ælfric also speaks are interpreted as a Viking influence (Wilson
1992: 179).
On the other hand, there may be a deeper Anglo-Saxon tradition here. Victoria Thompson (2004:
94-96, also Storms 1948: 196, Crawford 2000: 59) draws attention to references to corpse-
divination in the Anglo-Saxon lawcodes, and to charms relating to pregnancy and birth which
involve graves. In one charm the grave is stepped over, in the other soil is taken from a child’s
burial. Here again these forms of necromantic magic are linked to female practitioners.
References to these types of practices are both slight and infrequent, but give a glimpse of some
of the darkest reasons for which a grave might be revisited and even reopened.
Much of the wider literature relevant to grave-opening was brought together as early as 1844 in a
prescient article by Thomas Wright, who explored the Anglo-Saxon and medieval excavation and
reception of ancient artefacts. Wright focused on ancient gems and cameos, but also includes a
range of other sources which mention the recovery of antiquities from the earth. The sources are
all significantly later than the 7th century and are not related to the intense, near-contemporary
robbing of Kentish cemeteries. However, they give a broad picture of the uses that medieval
populations made of ancient grave wealth and the activities which may have left archaeological
evidence at burial sites.
Wright’s sources include the excavations carried out by the 11th century abbots of St Albans,
related by Matthew Paris (Wright 1844: 441). More directly relevant for our purposes are the
benedictions which he notes in some of the earliest surviving rituals of the English church,
designed to make objects of pagan manufacture fit for Christian use. The Anglo-Saxon rite of the
church of Durham, for example, includes two such blessings calling for cleansing of pagan
vessels taken from the earth after the passage of much time (Stevenson 1840: 97-98, Wright 1844:
440).
Folklore about the recovery of treasure from mounds is widespread from the early medieval into
the modern period (Ellis Davidson 1950, Grinsell 1967, 1976). Mound-breaking is almost
178
certainly an early tradition, with Audrey Meaney (2003: 229) pointing to references in Anglo-
Saxon charters to re-opened mounds as landscape features. The robbed mound in Felix’s Life of
St Guthlac is a well-known case in point (Colgrave 1956, Shook 1960).
Less well-known, but attested from several sources, is the strand of early medieval grave opening
motivated by the need to obtain relics for the many local saints which appeared during this
period. Relics were crucial as a focus for devotions and a source of income for any religious
house, but the supply of martyrs’ remains from Rome and southern Europe was limited and
highly contested. There were strong motives for the inventio of relics from local saints (Rollason
1989, Geary 1990). This form of reopening, like treasure-hunting, seems to have affected grave
monuments of evident status and antiquity.
The Life of St Eligius, for example, relates the discovery of the remains of St Quentin in an ancient
tomb near city of Vermand. Bishop Eligius engaged in fasts and vigils during the lengthy search
for the burial place (Thacker & Sharpe 2002: 57). Similarly Roger of Wendover gives the story of
how the resting place of St Amphibalus and his companions was revealed through the miraculous
posthumous appearance of St Alban to a youth named Robert. The resting place was in a mound
at Redbourn in Hertfordshire, at a site described in the chronicle as a former assembly place
(Giles 1849: 38, Coxe 1841: 389-391). East Anglian St Ivo, a “Persian Bishop” was found in AD
1001/2 when a peasant ploughed up a stone coffin containing bones. Other burials found at the
same time were described as his companions (Blair 2002: 541). Re-use of a similar (presumably)
Roman coffin appears most famously in Bede’s description of the one found at Grantchester and
given to St Æthelthryth, but St Eanswith and St Wulfsige are further examples of early saints
buried in re-used stone sarcophagi (Blair 2002: 531, 562).
Ultimately, however, hunting in ancient mounds either for treasure or for holy relics is a different
phenomenon from the concentrated reopening of graves in contemporary cemeteries seen in the
7th century. There the interest is not in objects valued for their antiquity; the reopened graves
were fresh or from the generations immediately preceding the robbers’ own time.
As the analysis here has shown, Anglo-Saxon grave-robbery is largely a phenomenon of the 7th
century, the same period as the written laws appear. Like the law codes, robbery has its origins in
Francia, yet strictures against it are not imported into the Kentish written sources. This absence is
probably one of the main reasons for the delayed recognition of the archaeological phenomenon
of grave-robbery in Kent. On the continent almost every excavator of a robbed cemetery from
179
the 19th century onwards has pointed to the written records to support their interpretation of the
disturbance, but this has not been possible in England.
The earliest recorded law codes in Kent have their origins in the 7th century: the laws of
Ethelbert (602-603?), Hlothhere and Eadric (673-685?), and Wihtred (695) (Whitelock 1985: 357-
398). These first Kentish law codes are above all concerned with problems which had arisen from
the new political and economic landscape of state formation, establishment of the church, and
growing mercantile activity. They focus on establishing the rights of the king and of the church,
on establishing the degrees of people, their rights and wergild values, and with problems arising
from the presence of “traders and strangers”. Hlothhere and Eadric’s laws about purchase of
property in London in particular look like advice for investors new to a scene where agents are
not personally known to each other. The written laws are presumably supplementary to an
established body of customary law dealing with more traditional forms of dispute, although in
places they appear to attempt to override older practice.
The surviving Kentish law codes are those which were transcribed into the Textus Roffensis at
Rochester, probably in the 12th century. Dorothy Whitelock (1985: 357) observes that they are
likely to represent only a fraction of what once existed and that in these circumstances it is
dangerous to argue from absence. There are several possible explanations for the omission.
Perhaps the rash of grave-robbery in East Kent rose and ceased too quickly for inclusion. It may
not have been a sufficient threat to kingly power or revenue to need a specific prohibition –
although many of the matters included in the laws are much smaller-scale affairs. Perhaps the
written laws arise from actual cases and East Kent grave-robbery disputes did not appear in court
hearings. Was robbing too shameful for a case to be brought? Finally, there is the possibility that
references were left out as irrelevant for contemporary purposes by the transcribing monks of
subsequent centuries.
180
181
7 Beyond Kent
7.1 Disturbed sites elsewhere in Anglo-Saxon England
This section presents evidence from 12 sites in Anglo-Saxon England beyond Kent which have
been identified as showing signs of early reopening (Table 16, Fig. 121). One further site, Apple
Down, has been included for discussion because it shows signs of skeletal disarrangement which
may be confused with reopening.
The sample was initially identified by a search through reports of the largest fully published sites
(those with 51+ inhumations) in a database of Anglo-Saxon cemeteries kindly lent by Dr Sam
Lucy (CAU). However, most of the examples of reopening were found by other means: some by
references in reports to earlier observations of disturbance; and for the several recent sites, by the
kindness of the excavators in contacting me before publication. This is a survey rather than an
exhaustive list.
Buttermarket, Ipswich, Suffolk
(Scull 2009. Fig. 122)
This 7th century cemetery had suffered substantial disturbance from the centuries of overlying
settlement. The excavated burials were considered to represent no more than 25% of those
which originally existed within the excavated area. Most of the surviving graves were disturbed,
but in only one case was there evidence that this activity was deliberate and contemporary with
the cemetery phase. The report suggests that the wooden cover over Gr 2203, one of the several
burials in small chambers, may have been broken through before it collapsed. The skeleton was
very poorly preserved by the time of excavation, but there was no evident disturbance to the
remaining parts. It is notable that both here and in the Spong Hill example (below) the
disturbance would not have been detectable in the absence of the evidence from the wooden
covers. The buckle in this burial is likely to date to the middle or later part of the 7th century
(Scull 2009: 249).
Bloodmoor Hill, Carlton Colville, Suffolk
(Lucy, Tipper, & Dickens 2009. Fig. 123-124)
Twenty-eight inhumation graves or probable graves have been excavated here. One contained
two individuals. All date to the 7th century, perhaps to a period of as little as 20-50 years in the
182
mid to later part of that century. Skeletal preservation was poor, with human bone recovered
from only 18 individuals. Grave-goods survived in only 10 burials.
Twelve graves had evidence of post-depositional disturbance by animals, which in some cases
had displaced elements of the burial assemblage. There are specific mentions of animal gnawing
on the long bones of one burial, rabbit burrowing in several, and a rabbit skeleton in one grave.
Root disturbance is also reported in at least one case.
Four graves (Gr 5, 12, 22, 23) showed signs of deliberate attempts at robbery in antiquity, which
are fully described in the report. The torso and fill of Gr 5 had been badly disturbed in the region
of the torso. The description of the secondary fill is reminiscent of Aspöck’s observations of
detritus collected in hollows above robbed graves at Brunn am Gebirge (Chapter 5.3). Gr 12 had
an identifiable pit reaching down into the chest area. The evidence from Gr 22 is less solid, since
the dispersal of elements of the grave-goods may have resulted from animal burrowing. The
section of Gr 23 showed a large re-cut reaching its lowest point in the torso region. No skeletal
remains survived to show evidence of disturbance. The remaining grave-goods, including a
brooch, were plausibly still in situ.
All 4 possibly robbed graves have likely dates within the 7th century but after the first quarter.
The robber pits appeared to have been dug while the location of the burials was still visible. No
later material was found in any of the re-cuts.
As in Kent, the robbed burials retained significant numbers of grave-goods. Graves 12, 22, and
23 were among those with the highest counts of numbers of artefact types in the cemetery. Gr 5
retained an iron knife and tool, Gr 12 had iron shears and chatelaine complex, and Gr 22 had a
necklace, linked pins, and knives. These are all objects frequently seen in disturbed graves in East
Kent (Chapter 6.1). More unusually, Gr 23 retained a silver-gilt keystone garnet disc brooch
alongside its knife and chatelaine group. Brooches were almost certainly taken from Kentish
graves.
Graves 12, 22, and 23 are neighbours, with Gr 5 somewhat further away (Fig. 123). The robbed
graves are not confined to any one of the (possibly family-based) grave groups identified in the
report, but are spread across three out of the five groups. Simple proximity may therefore have
been a factor in the selection of these burials for reopening, although it does not explain the
choice of Gr 5 over one of those nearer to the main target group (Chapter 5.4).
183
The discovery of a burial ground within a settlement site is highly unusual and raises the question
of whether grave robbery could possibly have been carried out in secret. The chronology is not
sufficiently fine to show exactly which areas were being used by the living at the time of
reopening, but use of the cemetery was contemporary with metalworking activity in its immediate
area.
The radiocarbon chronology here, as at Westfield Ely, confirms that furnished and unfurnished
burial were contemporaneous practices. It also confirms that grave robbery could happen to
burials which had been made after Christianity had become firmly established in East Anglia.
Chadlington, Oxfordshire
(Leeds 1949)
Two graves at this site were thought to have been disturbed in antiquity. The damage to Gr 5 was
substantial: the whole of the right side except the tibia, fibula, toes were missing, along with the
ribs and most of the vertebrae. Only the limb bones on the left side were in position. The burial
was overlain by a hearth in the form of a small circular group of stones with traces of charcoal,
about 15” above the skeleton. This must be associated with or post-date the disturbance. If
associated with the reopening, it may be evidence for some form of ritual activity carried out
once the burial had been resealed.
Gr 7 is described as “Another disturbed grave... The skull had been detached from the trunk and
set upright at the back of the right femur facing northwards”. This belongs to the group of
burials with minimal disturbance focused on rearrangement of the skulls, which are interpreted
here as evidence of attempts to quiet troublesome revenants (Chapter 6.3). Pre-burial
decapitation, presumably with the same aim, was also practised at this site. On one of the
decapitated bodies, that in Gr 10, it could be seen that the cervical vertebrae had been cut by a
sharp instrument.
Edix Hill, Barrington A, Cambridgeshire
(Malim & Hines 1998, Devlin 2007: 64-5. Fig. 126)
Four graves at Edix Hill showed possible signs of deliberate early interference.
Gr 16 is one of two prone burials at the site. Most of the skeleton from the ribs down was
missing. The grave cut was full length and some pieces of bone were scattered in the grave cut, so
it seems likely that the corpse was originally buried whole. Nearby graves had suffered 19th
century grave robbing, and it seems likely that the damage to Gr 16 can be attributed to the same
184
cause, but the excavators considered that there might also have been an earlier episode:
“Evidence for removal of the right arm without disturbance to the rest of the upper body and old
cracks in the skull suggest there might have been deliberate interference with the grave during
Anglo-Saxon times” (Malim & Hines 1998: 51).
Gr 31 has been dug into via a shallow pit by the left shoulder. The pit is cut partially into the
grave fill and also extends it. As in a number of Kent graves (Chapter 5.1), it seems likely that this
was dug in order to lever off or cut down through a coffin lid. Most of the left side of the upper
body was dug out along with the left femur. Bodily decomposition must have been well-advanced
for this to be possible, so that the finding of the articulated left foot by the spine is incongruous.
It might possibly be explained if the foot was encased in a tough leather shoe and so moved
intact (Chapter 4.9 Date: Body, Appendix 2). The disturbance here looks very like that seen in
many Kentish graves, and would be explained by a limited entry into the coffined burial near the
shoulder, and some sort of reaching tool being used to pull out remains from the left side of the
body.
Gr 35 was thought to have been squeezed in between two earlier burials. It contained a
disordered and incomplete skeleton (Sk 119), which appeared to have been placed in the grave
while only partially articulated. The right arm and hand were still articulated, part of the left foot
held together, and the pelvis was still connected to part of the lower spine. The ribs are jumbled
but still all grouped together: it looks as though much of the disarticulation occurred while the
body was confined in clothing or perhaps some sort of sack, in which it was then dumped into
the grave cut. Similar disorder is also seen in sitting burials in small chambers, but the lack of
discernable grave cut makes this highly unlikely. Zoe Devlin (2007: 65) has interpreted Gr 35 as
transferral from another grave: she suggests that there might have been a dispute over an
appropriate burial place. However the partial nature of the remains is curious and the absence of
the head may be significant.
Gr 49 was dated to either the Iron Age or the 7th century. It is disturbed in a similar way to Gr 31,
with most of the left upper body removed after skeletonization. The rest of the skeleton is in situ,
except that the mandible has been carefully lifted, without any disturbance to the skull or
vertebrae, and placed between the legs. This appears analogous to the more common
repositioning of skulls (Chapter 6.3). The repositioning here must, as the report notes, have
occurred in an intact coffin space. This is therefore contemporary reopening, whether Iron Age
or Anglo-Saxon; it is not Anglo-Saxon reopening of an Iron Age grave.
185
Melbourn, Cambridgeshire
(Wilson 1955)
Slight displacement of bones probably attributable to animal damage was noted in several graves.
Three were looted during the excavation. In addition Gr V had evidence for post-burial
repositioning of the head: “An old male with the skull resting on the pelvis... The mandible was
in position at the neck; this position suggests that the grave was disturbed and the skull moved at
a later date” (Wilson 1955: 31). In Gr II it was suggested that the displacement of the cervical
vertebrae might be evidence for peri- or post-mortem breaking of the neck, but animal activity or
bone tumble are as likely.
Minerva, Alwalton, Cambridgeshire
(Gibson 2007. Fig. 127-128)
Thirty cremation burials from the 5th and 6th centuries AD plus 34 inhumations from the late
5th to early 7th centuries were unearthed here in 1999, representing part of a larger burial ground.
Just under half the inhumation graves contained grave-goods. Some were in stone-lined cuts,
possibly indicating high social status, but there was no evidence of coffins. Some skeletons were
well-preserved, but many graves were shallow and had been severely truncated by ploughing and
other activities.
Robbing for grave-goods was suspected in an unspecified number of inhumation graves,
including Gr 1435 (Fig. 128), in which only part of the disarticulated and disordered skeleton
remained. Neighbouring Gr 1339 (Fig. 128) is also described as a “Badly disturbed and robbed
grave – almost completely disarticulated” (Gibson 2007: 336). For Gr 1377 the grave catalogue
notes “green staining on right clavicle suggests that a copper alloy ornament (possibly a brooch)
was once part of the funerary outfit” (Gibson 2007: 337). Brooch removal would fit with the
Kentish evidence (Chapter 6.1).
Other graves, such as Gr 1364 on the other side of the excavated area, seem to have been
disturbed while the corpse was still partially fleshed (Fig. 128). In this case there are intrusive
juvenile bones, so perhaps the reopening was to add further burials. Details and discussion of the
robbing evidence in the report are limited. However percentages of skeleton retrieved are given
for each grave, which is unusual and useful for understanding the extent of the disturbance.
186
Nassington, Northamptonshire
(Leeds 1944)
The circumstances of the war-time excavation here were far from ideal. The cemetery was
discovered during the re-opening of an old gravel pit by mechanical digger. Many graves were
destroyed or damaged before the excavators arrived, and recording was partial. Some robbing by
onlookers took place during the process of excavation.
Grave 44 is reported as containing “Scattered bones in deep grave, including skull and arm-bones,
but pelvis missing” (Leeds 1944: 111). The implication seems to be that this disturbance was not
caused by the mechanical excavator, since the wording is different than for those graves. The
depth also speaks against digger damage.
The evidence for deliberate disturbance of Grave II is stronger: the skull, clavicles, and humeri
were missing and the “upper part of the spine had been moved bodily out of position, showing
that the grave had been disturbed before decomposition of the cartilage was complete” (Leeds
1944: 113).
Only Gr II is located on the plan, the locations of graves 41-46 being unknown to the
draughtsman, so it is not possible to say whether the two disturbed graves lay in the same area of
the cemetery.
No comment on possible interpretations for the disturbance is made in the report. The targeting
of the head end of Gr II soon after burial and the removal of the skull may place this in the likely
group of graves reopened to combat troublesome ghosts (Chapter 6.3).
Spong Hill, Norfolk
(Hills 1977, Hills et al 1984. Fig. 129)
Gr 31 in the inhumation cemetery is a later 6th century chamber grave which shows all the signs
of reopening soon after burial. The robbing evidence has been comprehensively published (Hills
1977, Hills et al 1984: 80-2). The manner of reopening, with a robber cut removing most of the
contents of the centre of the grave, and the selection of grave-goods left behind closely resemble
the disturbance seen in Kent, especially if, as suspected, the spearhead has been viewed and
rejected by the robbers. Again as in Kent the choice of grave appears highly specific: Gr 32,
another inhumation within the same ring-ditch, was left intact.
187
Gr 31 was originally interpreted as a double burial, but the reassessment of the inhumations
(McKinley 1994: Appendix VI) showed it to contain only a few unidentifiable fragments of
human bone along with a pig molar and some fragments of animal long bone.
At Spong Hill a number of un-urned cremations were judged to have been spills from
accidentally and deliberately disturbed urns. Some had been redeposited following deliberate
emptying of the urn contents by robbers, for example No. 2130, in which remains of 4
individuals had been heaped together (McKinley 1994: 103). However, given the various
disturbance and antiquarian work at the site, there is no reason to think this early activity.
St Mary's Stadium, Southampton, Hampshire
(Birbeck 2005)
This is a mid-7th to early 8th century cemetery overlain by the mid-Saxon Hamwic settlement.
Over two-thirds of the graves were disturbed by mid-Saxon pits or later features. One in
particular, Gr 4425, had been almost totally excavated during the digging of a pit and part of the
adult male skeleton redeposited at the bottom of the pit. Part of a second individual, a sub-adult
aged 17-19 years, was also found in the pit, along with an iron knife which may have originally
accompanied one of the burials (Birbeck 2005: 33).
The re-use of the site occurred within as little as a generation of the last interments, as the
cemetery was subsumed into the expanding settlement. This encroachment may have been
permitted as a political statement, to eradicate the monuments of a past Jutish order supplanted
by West Saxon rule. Alternatively, the burials may simply have been forgotten or not respected
during the pressing need for settlement growth, perhaps in conjunction with the shift to
churchyard burial (Birkbeck 2005: 77, 194).
Although a connection between this area and the supposedly Jutish origins of Kent has long been
postulated, and despite the similarities between the weapon burials at this cemetery and those
seen in East Kent (Birbeck 2005: 194), there is no reason to think the disturbance at this site
related to the East Kent robbing. It occurred perhaps a century later and under quite different
circumstances. Even if Gr 4425 was opportunistically rifled for grave-goods, this is quite different
from the planned reopening of large parts of in-use field cemeteries seen in Kent.
188
Westfield Farm, Ely, Cambridgeshire
(Lucy et al 2009. Fig. 130)
This is a small later 7th century cemetery, perhaps associated with the early religious foundation
at Ely. One burial, Gr 2, had possibly been reopened. The body of the young woman appeared to
have been displaced from its original position while still largely articulated. There may also be
later plough damage. There is substantial discussion of this grave in the recent report (Lucy et al
2009: 91-93, 112), so minimal additional points are made here.
This may well be one of the group of burials reopened to lay to rest troublesome revenants
(Chapter 6.3). These show characteristics known from typical “deviant” burials of the period, but
applied post-burial. Here the main aim of the disturbance seems to have been to remove the head,
probably by pulling, judging by the line of apparently dragged vertebrae. The upper body has also
been moved into a partially prone position. The left foot is missing; if it was removed rather than
decaying in situ then this is a clear sign of an attempt to stop a ghost walking.
A bag containing a collection of objects with probably amuletic associations remained close to
the right leg; perhaps it was attached to clothing and moved with the body. There was no obvious
robber cut, but this is common even in the most obviously disturbed early medieval burials in
Kent and Merovingia (Chapter 5.1), and perhaps to be expected if the grave was reopened soon
after burial before the soil had settled.
Winnall, Hampshire
(Meaney & Hawkes 1970. Fig. 131)
Here there were several burials which might represent post-burial disturbance, but information is
limited. Gr 11 and 23 both lacked heads; the displacement of the top cervical vertebrae in both
cases suggests removal may have occurred after fleshy decomposition. In Gr 48 the skeleton was
described as much disturbed, and there were large flints on top of the body. In Gr 49 the skull is
described as much disturbed and displaced, but with no further information.
Worthy Park, Kingsworthy, Near Winchester, Hampshire
(Hawkes & Grainger 2003. Fig. 132-133)
Worthy Park is a mixed rite cemetery of the 5th to 7th centuries. The 46 cremations and 94
inhumation burials excavated are thought to represent about half the total cemetery. There were
unusually high levels of intercutting of both types of burial, with up to 4 inhumation graves
189
superimposed in places. Shallower burials had also suffered plough damage. Deliberate robbing
of cremations would be a possibility at this site, especially as most artefacts were buried unburnt,
but this could not be distinguished from the extensive accidental damage caused to the
cremations by ploughing and later burials.
Two inhumation graves were identified as robbed or possibly robbed in antiquity. These are
graves 22 and 41, neighbours near the centre of the excavated area. Grave 22 was marked with
what seems to have been a substantial wooden post. It seems reasonable to interpret the
disturbance of these two graves as a single event. Their selection for reopening may well be down
to the marker post, the only example found in the cemetery.
In Gr 22 visible disturbance of the skeleton is confined to the torso, though perhaps also explains
the lack of flint packing along the right hand side of the grave. Connective tissue had clearly
decomposed by time of disturbance in both burials. Bones and grave-goods remained intact,
however, with no apparent fragmentation during the disturbance.
In Gr 41 the right arm is missing along with the bones of that side of the chest and part of the
pelvis. The skull has been moved, with the cranium redeposited upside down on the chest and
the mandible near the pelvis. This may be incidental, but should also be considered in the context
of other manipulation of heads seen, for example, in Bradstow School Gr 11 and 72 (Chapter 6.3,
Appendix 1.1). Such interference may indicate an insult, or an attempt to quiet a revenant.
The report suggests the robbing of Gr 41 might have been aimed at a sword, and the same is
possible of Gr 22, which contained other weapons. However, if the graves were targeted because
of the wooden marker, as appears to be the case, there is no reason to think that the robbers had
advance knowledge of their contents.
Apple Down, Compton, Sussex
(Down & Welch 1990, Boyle et al 1995: 121)
Damage by tree roots and by burrowing animals was seen in several graves in this large mixed-rite
cemetery, with the path taken by the animal “quite clearly marked by darker soil brought into the
burrow” (Down & Welch 1990: 18). In addition, at least four further burials were disarranged in
less readily explicable ways. The report suggests that these bodies may have been exposed before
burial (Reynolds 1976 Empingham II, Aldsworth 1978: 196-3 Droxford). However, this
explanation is unnecessary (see also Boyle et al 1995: 121 for a refutation of the idea that graves
with internal wooden structures are associated with pre-burial exposure). The conclusion here is
190
that none of these graves necessarily involve either pre-burial decomposition or post-burial
disturbance. They are discussed in full in order to illustrate the difficulties in distinguishing
between the various forms of unusual treatment.
In Gr 97 the arms were in an unusual, but not definitely anatomically incorrect position. They, or
the whole upper body, may have been raised or propped on an organic object of some kind
which decayed and allowed them to fall. Alternatively they have simply been arranged in a folded
position, with the wrists near the head. This might be a variant of normal burial practice, but the
absence of both the hands and feet may push this body into the category of deviant burial. No
cut marks were seen, but the report implies that the appendages were thought removed, rather
than decayed in situ. There is no evidence that Gr 97 had suffered post-burial, rather than pre-
burial, maltreatment.
The arm position in Gr 19 is similar, and again does not require an advanced state of decay at
burial. This grave is also unusual, as it was already partially backfilled when the corpse was
lowered in.
In Gr 55 the left femur was slightly displaced, having rolled so that the ball for the hip joint faced
away from the pelvis. This obviously occurred at an advanced stage of fleshy decay. Given the
flexed position of the legs, it does not appear impossible that this degree of bone tumble might
occur naturally within a coffin space, especially if the knees were originally raised (as seen in
several examples at St Peter’s Tip, Broadstairs (Appendices 1.1, 2)), or if – as appears to be the
case from the grave plan – the left leg rested on the right.
Likewise the displacement of the neck, skull, and some ribs in Gr 23 may well be due to tumble
from a propped position. Evidence for pillowed heads and propped upper bodies is occasionally
seen at other sites (e.g. Appendix 1.1: St Peter’s). In Gr 23 the body appears cramped at the head
end of the grave, which supports this interpretation. It is possible that this belongs to the group
of burials with post-deposition interference with skulls identified in Chapter 6.3, but the simpler
explanation is preferred.
Apple Down also included numerous examples of grave re-use with varying degrees of damage to
the original interment, including several in which the original burial had been completely
destroyed or removed. Zoe Devlin’s analysis showed no spatial patterning behind the selection of
graves for re-use (Devlin 2007: 68-69, contra e.g. Addingham, above).
191
Discussion: Beyond Kent
Beyond the county of Kent, 12 furnished Anglo-Saxon cemeteries have been identified as
presenting reports of deliberate early reopening of graves (Table 16, Fig. 121). These appear in
two main areas: East Anglia and Hampshire, with a further example in Oxfordshire. It is too early
to say whether actual clusters are represented. The concentrations may, for example, reflect better
local bone preservation or greater awareness among excavators. Since several of the reports are as
recent as the last few years, the latter factor may well be playing a part.
At most of the sites possible early robbing is limited to one or two graves. The intensity of the
phenomenon is nothing like the high percentages of disturbed graves seen in the East Kent
cemeteries. It is more similar in intensity to the sporadic reopening seen in West Kent (Chapter
4.1, 4.3).
At Buttermarket, Ipswich one grave may have been deliberately reopened soon after burial, but
otherwise graves at both this cemetery and at St Mary’s Stadium, Southampton seem to have
been accidentally or opportunistically disturbed during the redevelopment of the sites. This form
of opportunistic robbing is a quite different practice from deliberate selection and reopening of
graves in an in-use cemetery.
One or two graves at each of Worthy Park, Nassington, Melbourn, Chadlington, Winnall II, and
Westfield, Ely may have been reopened primarily or exclusively in order to remove or reposition
the head. It is suggested that this practice is analogous to the better documented pre-burial
decapitations and may be associated with the laying to rest of troublesome revenants (Chapter
6.3). If so, the sample here suggests that this practice may be more common outside than inside
Kent. It appears to fit the same late 6th to mid/late 7th century timeframe as has been suggested
here for the more intense East Kent reopening phenomenon.
Disturbance resembling the Kentish phenomenon is seen at Ipswich Buttermarket, Carlton
Colville, Spong Hill, Worthy Park, and Minerva, Alwalton. It affects a smaller proportion of
graves, but the manner of reopening, selection of artefacts remaining, and likely date range are in
line with the East Kent evidence. This form of deliberate early disturbance appears therefore to
have occurred in a limited way in at least two further areas of Anglo-Saxon England.
192
7.2 Earlier and Later
Roman reopening
Archaeological evidence for early grave robbery crops up only occasionally in a Romano-British
context. Alongside is the evidence for reopening for manipulation of the body, which appears to
be a long-lasting theme in insular burial rites (Chapter 6.3).
One of the few examples of likely robbery of Roman period graves occurs in a group of probably
2nd and 3rd century stone cist graves excavated at Lanchester, Durham in 1981 (Turner 1990).
This cemetery was unusual in a number of ways, not least the lack of either bones or artefacts in
most of the cists. Clear evidence of robbing was found in two burials, in the form of distinct
robber cuts filled with what appeared to be ploughsoil. Section drawings, sadly lacking in most
early medieval cases, show the robber pits and in one grave the tip lines of the backfilling. There
was no evidence for the date of the robbing, but enough time had passed for the cists to have
become filled with soil so that the robber cuts were distinct. No later material had intruded.
Later Anglo-Saxon and medieval reopening
Evidence for grave re-opening and re-use continues, although in new forms, into several of the
few known late Saxon burial grounds. Here the motivations appear to be grounded in the spatial
values of the new religion, or at least are usually interpreted in that context.
The late Saxon cemetery belonging to the earliest church at St Peter’s, Barton-upon-Humber
included a number of graves which appeared to have been deliberately emptied (Rodwell &
Rodwell 1982: 300-301, Waldron 2007). The most prominent of these was a “shrine grave” with
substantial post-holes at each corner, suggesting that the burial had at first marked by a canopy.
The burial had at some point been exhumed and the grave site covered with rubble foundations
for a funerary monument of some kind. In this case transferral of high status relics to a new
position, perhaps in the church, seems indicated. Similarly F1750 in a prominent position east of
the chancel appeared to have been emptied. Less conclusive were various graves lacking human
remains to the south of the tower. There might have lost their occupants through subsequent
grave digging, but the excavators suggested that removal in at least one or two cases may have
been deliberate. Here it therefore seems likely that reopening can be interpreted as for transferral
of bodies to holier locations – but was probably only carried out for special burials.
The probably 8th-10th century cemetery at Addingham, West Yorkshire showed unparalleled
complexity in reopening and redepositing of disarticulated bone (Adams 1996: 165-7, 181-4). The
193
burial ground lies just over 50m to the west of the parish church and is carefully laid out with
graves in rows and very little intercutting. Despite this care, there was a high degree of grave re-
use and transferral of human remains between graves.
The excavation uncovered the remains of c.80 individuals in 55 graves. A large proportion were
found as partial redeposited skeletons. Only 39 individuals were considered to have been primary
interments. A further 27 were considered redeposited interments, with at least a further 14
individuals identified in the post-excavation human bone analysis. Many were represented by only
a very few bones; skeletal elements had evidently been lost during removal and redeposition. The
preservation of the redeposited bone was also worse, perhaps due to multiple episodes of
exposure. As in the earlier rural cemeteries, the redeposited interments were generally located as
scatters of bone within grave fills. In earlier field cemeteries these would probably be interpreted
as primary burials displaced by grave re-use (Chapter 6.2).
In three cases at Addingham redeposited remains had been arranged around an intact interment.
In F148 it appeared that the bones of the first burial in the grave had been rearranged to
accommodate a subsequent burial, as is frequently seen in earlier cemeteries. Again in F6 a
subsequent burial had replaced the initial body, and the remains of at least 6 individuals had been
arranged around it. In F145 a deposit of 2 skulls and some other bones had been made at the
foot end, as has been described in the earlier cemeteries at St Peter’s Tip and elsewhere (Chapter
5.1). Although this secondary re-use is much more common in Addingham than in the earlier
field cemeteries, it is thus not necessarily a radical departure from the secondary burials seen in
the earlier cemeteries. The treatment of displaced initial burials at Addingham may be a
developed form of the old practice.
A feature not seen in the earlier cemeteries is represented by the several graves at Addingham
containing redeposited bone but not intact interments. There was also a number of almost empty
graves, containing small fragments of human bone. The empty graves were concentrated towards
the west of the excavated area, while the graves at the eastern edge all contained intact burials. It
therefore seems likely that the motivation for redeposition was to move interments as close as
possible to the eastern edge. It was evidently not felt necessary to transfer the whole of a burial,
but only a symbolic proportion. This seems to have been carried out only after full
skeletonization.
The report concludes that “The orderly layout, close spacing, possible focal alignment and
reinterment in graves to the E. all suggest strongly that there was competition for space in this
194
cemetery, and that a position as close as possible to something which lay to the E. was desirable”
(Adams 1996: 183). A church, a cross, or a special grave are all suggested as possible candidates.
The present church is to the east, although further away than would make sense for the early
monument which attracted burials.
It may be significant that both here and at Whitton, Lincolnshire the late Anglo-Saxon graves are
at a short distance from the present churchyard. The Whitton burial ground is a smaller and
much less thoroughly published excavation, but the reinterment of bodies seen there may be a
similar phenomenon of transferral of human remains to positions close to an early Christian
monument, which was then superseded by a church at a slight distance.
At Whitton a total of at least 25 individuals have been excavated in a group of probably late
Anglo-Saxon burials about 50m from the parish church (Hadley 2001a). Some were in a
disturbed condition, with partially articulated parts of the skeleton in disorder. The report
suggests they may have been disturbed in situ or moved to the site during the process of
decomposition. Devlin (2007: 53) favours the latter explanation, suggesting that these were
bodies which had been had been disinterred soon after burial and moved to a position on the
edge of the cemetery. Here the evidence may be for transferral of bodies out of, rather than into,
a favourable location.
Evidence for grave reopening in a medieval context is more extensive than might be imagined,
and is reviewed by Roberta Gilchrist and Barney Sloane in their study of monastic cemeteries
(Gilchrist & Sloane 2006: 194-201). Within the confines of a churchyard the integrity of most
burials was anyway of limited duration (Cherryson 2007). Translation of saintly bodies is well-
attested in the written sources, and Gilchrist and Sloane (2006: 195-6) additionally point to
several instances of transferral of ordinary corpses during disputes over burial rights, and to
archaeological evidence for outright robbery at St Mary Graces, London. While most robbing of
church tombs seems associated with the dissolution of the monasteries or Civil War (e.g.
Lichfield Cathedral (Nenk, Margeson et al 1995), St Mary Graces, London (Grainger & Phillpotts
in prep.), medieval chronicles and legal petitions record the occupants of graveyards being dug up
in land disputes and even being used as offensive weapons. Problems with the unquiet dead
continued into the medieval period, as did the traditional remedies of burning or decapitation.
There is also some evidence for the church attempting to take over the means of combating
revenants by issuing its own protection in the form of charters to be buried with the dead
(Gilchrist & Sloane 2006: 200).
195
8 Conclusions: Interpreting Early Medieval Grave-Robbery
This thesis began by bringing together all that is currently known of early medieval grave
reopening in the Merovingian kingdoms and more widely in northern, western and central
Europe. It went on to identify and investigate an intensive outbreak of grave-robbery in 6th-7th
century Kent, and relate this to the same phenomenon in the Frankish lands. Limited numbers of
similar robbing episodes, affecting a much smaller proportion of graves in each cemetery, were
identified elsewhere in Anglo-Saxon England, mainly in East Anglia and Hampshire.
Although the phenomenon of grave-robbery is well-attested at individual sites in Merovingia, this
research is the first study at a regional level. The aim here is to advance the debate about early
medieval robbery from general discussion of hypothetical explanations to evaluation of specific
interpretations and their compatibility with the archaeological evidence. This thesis has
demonstrated that it is possible to reconstruct the practice of early medieval robbing in
considerable detail, where there is the will to examine the evidence in full. The conclusions
emerge from close analysis of the Kentish material, but have significant implications for the
interpretation of grave-robbery across northern and western Europe.
In Kent robbing is at a level that must be taken into consideration in any discussion of cemetery
evidence. The poor publication record has inhibited recognition and analysis of robbing in the
county. However, by using extensive archive material, this thesis has shown that the practice of
ransacking graves was on a similar scale in East Kent as in Merovingia. This research has
identified over 200 reopened graves across Kent, with at least 15 sites affected. In the most
intensely disturbed East Kent sites, an average of over 20% of burials were disturbed. There is
evidence that the wealthier burials were targeted, so that robbing is likely to have had a significant
impact on artefact finds, especially from the late 6th and 7th century. We can infer a major
distorting effect on previous archaeological analyses of wealth distribution.
Beyond Kent it is likely that more robbing evidence exists to be found, especially in areas with
good bone preservation. This survey identified 12 sites with evidence of deliberate grave
disturbance in Anglo-Saxon England outside Kent. At most sites only one or two graves were
affected. The majority of cases are from recent excavations. This robbing appears to belong to
the same period as the Kentish disturbance. The similarities in the robbers’ approaches and
selection of artefacts indicate that it should be regarded as the same practice, but carried out only
at a sporadic level.
196
Many of the more speculative interpretations for early medieval grave-robbery are rejected in this
thesis. Reopening is highly unlikely to have been a socially-sanctioned practice, part of funerary
rites, or aimed at obliterating monuments. The term “robbery” has always been used by
excavators, and with justification. This research has demonstrated that in the great majority of
cases the motive for reopening was the removal of grave-goods. The robbery appears mal-
intentioned, disordering and damaging carefully laid out grave contents. It was not necessarily
carried out by people within the immediate burying community, but certainly within the same
regional cultural sphere.
However, straightforward personal enrichment was not the goal. A deliberate, consistent
selection of certain grave-good types was taken from burials, while other apparently covetable
possessions were left behind. The desired grave-goods were removed even when in an unusable
condition, often falling apart when lifted. The argument that will be presented in this chapter is
therefore that the aim of robbing was not to obtain artefacts or raw materials for the use of the
living, but to deprive the dead of symbolically significant objects.
Grave-robbery thus gives a window onto the wider meanings and values of the possessions used
as grave-goods within the early medieval period. It is argued here that the selection of goods for
removal was related to their symbolic roles in the initial burial rite. The removed artefacts may
have been thought of as actively used by the dead in supernatural intervention in the conflicts of
the living. More likely, the aim was to harm living descendants by damaging the family prestige
built up by the display and sacrifice of funerary wealth. The robbers’ choice of loot has significant
implications for understanding the furnished burial rite, and the symbolism of specific artefacts
within it.
The interpretation presented in this chapter is that grave-robbery was a weapon in small-scale,
festering communal violence, most likely between burying communities. Robbery was by no
means wanton ransacking of whole cemeteries. Graves were targeted on an individual basis, with
each cemetery showing evidence of multiple episodes spread over many years or decades. The
selection of graves gives insights into the roles of different age and gender groups in 7th century
society and presents a quite different picture of the nature of ongoing conflicts than appears in
literary depictions of the male feuding custom.
In addition to the robbed graves, there is a small number of graves spread across the sites which
were reopened for bodily mutilation or rearrangement of skeletal parts. These are interpreted as a
reaction to fear of revenants. On the current evidence this was a small-scale practice: this motive
197
is suspected in ten or eleven burials out of just over 200 disturbed graves. These are burials with
signs of interference with the body which appears more deliberate than the usual disturbance
seen in the robbed graves and involves repositioning in ways that resemble the better-known
“deviant” rites carried out at initial burial. The most common practice was for the body to be
decapitated, or if skeletonization was further advanced, for the skull to be removed and
repositioned. Some bodies were turned to prone positions, and others had legs or feet mutilated.
It thus appears that measures could be taken against revenants not only at funerals but also after
burial in cases where corpses were thought to be walking again.
The remainder of this concluding chapter brings together the evidence from all the aspects of
grave-robbery investigated in the main body of the thesis. Findings in Anglo-Saxon England are
compared with the continental research reviewed in Chapter 2, showing similarities of both
evidence and interpretation between the Anglo-Saxon data and the more recent and detailed
Merovingian studies. Finally, a new interpretative model for early medieval robbing is set out.
Turning first to the question of date, Chapter 4.9 showed that the majority, if not all, of Kentish
grave reopening took place during the broadly 7th century period of the conversion of England
to Christianity. The chronology of reopening is closely linked to the style of burial known as the
“final phase” of the furnished cemeteries. This phase is defined by a marked change in the types
of deposited artefacts, as set out by Helen Geake’s 1997 study. Migration-period Germanic-style
assemblages cease, and a new grave-good and costume repertoire comes in, with visual references
to Francia and Rome. A rising proportion of graves are unfurnished, but a minority of burials
receive lavish treatment. The transition to the conversion period funerary style is quite abrupt at
c.AD 600 across England, but probably begins slightly earlier in Kent, around AD 580 (Geake
1997: 124). There is therefore a plausible chronological link between the start of the main
Kentish robbing phase and the change in burial practice, just before the end of the 6th century.
The evidence presented in this thesis shows there is every reason to think that the robbery in
Kent is closely related to the practice seen over the channel. As discussed below, the dating
appears identical. The same grave reopening methods as seen on the continent also appear in
Kent, indicating similarity of motive. The same marked variation in robbing intensity between
cemeteries is seen in Kent as in Merovingia, with neighbouring burial grounds experiencing
widely different levels of disturbance. The dispersed distribution of robbed graves within Kentish
cemeteries is also seen in Merovingia, although little work has focused on this aspect on the
198
continent. The variations in the preference for male versus female graves seen in Kent are also
reported in Merovingia, as is the avoidance of child burials. This link makes sense in the context
of growing Frankish influence and the import of a Frankish custom. Both the written and
material records show the development of close ties between Francia and Kent in this period.
However, for robbing to take hold with the intensity that it reached in East Kent, local
populations must have found compelling reasons of their own to pursue the practice. It is
possible to overstate Kent’s links to Francia and the degree of Frankish acculturation involved in
the conversion process. Martin Welch (2002: 123, 2007) has emphasised that imported artefacts
were not necessarily used and displayed in the same ways in Kent as in their areas of manufacture,
while Helen Geake (2002: 152-5) has traced significant differences in the final phase of furnished
burial and the transition to churchyard burial in England and northern France. The same applies
to grave-robbery: there are substantial similarities in the evidence on each side of the channel, but
the differences, especially in the selection of artefacts removed, suggest that the practice was
adapted to specific local circumstances.
In Merovingia grave-robbery has frequently been linked to the rise of Christianity. Robbing is
often seen as part of the decline of the furnished burial custom, which until recently was
considered to have been driven by the church. Grave-robbery has been interpreted either as
symptomatic of waning respect for grave-goods or as actually speeding the end of this form of
wealth deposition. As discussed in Chapter 2, this model has recently come under criticism from
several angles.
In England, as in Merovingia, more recent interpretations of the archaeologically visible changes
in burial practice in the 7th century have placed less emphasis on the role of religious conversion.
Geake sees the impetus for the material culture change in an increasingly ranked society and in
the revival of an essentially Roman cultural identity to support the forming institutions of
statehood. Subsequent scholars have placed the model closer to home in Francia (e.g. Marzinzik
2003), but the implication remains the same: neither the church nor personal piety were the
driving forces for change. Rather the wider and deeper changes in the structure of Anglo-Saxon
society come to the fore, along with the shifting identities and allegiances which communities
expressed through their burials. Seventh-century burials are increasingly interpreted in the
context of competitive display connected to the developing local and regional authorities of the
time (e.g. Sayer 2009, 2010). This thesis argues that the grave-robbery that accompanies the
change in burial practice in Merovingia and in Kent should also be seen in this light.
199
Across England, the switch to the conversion-period grave-good repertoire is sometimes
associated with a shift in burial location. However, grave-robbery is not. In Kent the two
Broadstairs burial grounds may be new foundations of the late 6th century, but at Monkton,
Finglesham, Ozengell, and Sarre the dead were still being buried in their ancestral cemeteries into
the late 7th and perhaps 8th centuries. Burial, including furnished burial, continued in the
disturbed cemeteries during and after the robbing phase.
Grave-robbery is a significant event in the development of these cemeteries. The symbolic and
physical damage caused during the robbing phase needs to be taken into consideration in any
discussion of the cemeteries as monuments and especially as places of memory. The damage was
highly visible, with white chalk spread around the reopened burials, some left open, and in many
cases bones probably left strewn at the grave side. At Finglesham the robbing phase was
associated with a shift in location of burials: most of the graves which postdate the reopening
cluster to one side of the site, away from the earlier sections where robbing had taken place.
It cannot be argued that reopening was part of the shift to churchyards or other new burial places
of the late 7th or 8th centuries. Robbing does not represent the end of the use periods of the
cemeteries either in Kent or elsewhere in England. The robbing was not carried out by the
generation which abandoned the field cemeteries. Neither does it represent the end of the
furnished burial rite. Although this was in decline by the likely date of robbing, the robbers’
generation continued to bury artefacts in graves during and after the period of frequent
reopening.
On the continent, although large numbers of disturbed sites have been published (Chapter 2),
relatively few reports include detailed dating of the robbing evidence. However, in almost all
cases where the question was considered, robbing was shown to have happened during the use
period of the cemeteries, as in Kent. An exception is Hemmingen (Müller 1976, Chapter 2),
which was abandoned earlier than many contemporary cemeteries. This site was considered to
have been robbed after burial ceased. A Kentish analogy may be Lyminge, at which there is
currently no evidence for burial during the main 7th century robbing phase, although the full
extent and use period of the cemetery are unknown.
Where the dating of robbing has been fully analysed on the continent, the results are remarkably
similar to the Kentish finds. The chronology of robbing in Kent, most clearly manifested at
Finglesham, is precisely the same as that seen, for example, at Bülach in Switzerland, Hailfingen
in Baden-Württemberg, and Pliening in Bavaria (Werner 1953, Stoll 1939, Codreanu-Windauer
200
1997, Chapter 2). In Kent it was mainly graves of the later 6th and first half of the 7th centuries
which fell prey to robbers, with the later 7th century burials unrobbed. At Pliening, Codreanu-
Windauer concluded that disturbance took place during a brief phase in the middle and the third
quarter of the 7th century. One difference is that the Kent robbing starts earlier and more
gradually, but it is possible that this pattern could only be recognised in the larger Kent sample.
Although grave-robbery appears both earlier and later in early medieval Europe, for instance in
6th century Lombardic cemeteries and in Carolingian Saxony, this 7th century form was almost
ubiquitous in continental row-grave cemeteries and occurred simultaneously across a remarkably
wide area. This thesis has shown that in Kent, as in most of the Frankish sites, burials were being
made with lavish grave-good displays in the 5th and 6th centuries, but these were not robbed.
Reopening only appeared in the later 6th century, and then became frequent in the 7th century. It
disappeared before the last quarter of the 7th century.
While the majority of reopening in Kent took place in the 7th century and affected near-
contemporary graves, a limited number of older burials were also reopened. This occurred even
though many of the items they contained were no longer part of the contemporary material
display repertoire. The 6th century brooches in particular would have been markedly out of
fashion by the time they were retrieved in the mid-7th century (Geake 1997, Owen-Crocker
2004). The same occurred at Pliening: most reopened graves were from the 7th century and had
probably been made during the robbers’ own lifetimes, but a small proportion were from the 6th
century. Only the very oldest members of the community at the time of reopening could have
been living at the time these burials were made.
At other sites, notably Hailfingen in Baden-Württemberg (Stoll 1939, Chapter 2), robbing was
exclusively concentrated on contemporary burials. At Hailfingen robbery appeared only in the
middle of the 7th century: no 6th century graves were affected and only a few from the earlier
part of the 7th century were robbed. Burials from the robbers’ own time were the focus of
robbing, despite ample evidence that older graves were still clearly marked aboveground. In the
Kent analysis chapters it was shown that the ways cemeteries developed, with in-filling of later
graves mingled with older ones, and the near-absence of intercutting, demonstrates that
gravediggers were able to see where earlier graves lay, and that the same must have applied to
contemporary robbers.
The 6th century graves contain large numbers of artefacts, which would initially appear to be
desirable loot. Some of the intact 6th century female graves at Finglesham are particularly
201
impressive. That these were largely ignored underlines the contemporary nature of the motives
for grave-robbery. A central conclusion is thus that one of the most significant elements in the
selection of graves for robbing is that the great majority were burials of people who had died
within living memory.
A key question for interpretations of reopening is whether graves were opened individually or in
mass episodes. A model of mass reopening by robber bands has been favoured in the Bronze
Age field cemeteries, for example (Chapter 2). For several reasons it has been argued here that
the Kentish reopening occurred at different times in different cemeteries, and that it represents
repeated episodes within each cemetery.
The chronology supports this view: it has been shown that the robbing cannot all be
contemporary, even within burial grounds. In addition, the scattered distribution of robbed
graves across the cemeteries argues against mass reopening. Robbers never opened all the graves
in any one area. On the contrary, the disturbed burials are always interspersed with untouched
graves. The selection of graves is much more specific and individual than would be indicated by
indiscriminate ransacking.
The variety in the methods used to reopen graves and in the degree of damage caused to them
also suggests multiple episodes of robbing, or at least multiple reopeners. In Chapter 5.4, an
attempt was made to map different robbing methods to the spatial distribution of graves. It was
expected that this methodology might reveal that one individual or group of robbers worked in
one section of a cemetery. No such patterns could be found. The approach to graves appears
near-individual. There are just a few examples in which neighbouring or nearby graves have been
robbed using apparently similar methods, as if reopened in the same event and by the same
diggers.
In one or two cemeteries there are areas free from robbing. These sections do not correspond
with any other identifiable spatial patterning in terms of rows, clusters, or other groups of graves
which might correspond to family or other groups. At Pliening, Codreanu-Windauer (1997)
argued that the robbers came from one family whose graves had been spared; similar evidence
was not found in Kent.
Grave contents are almost never mixed in the Kentish cemeteries, as might happen in mass
robbing of large numbers of neighbouring graves. As shown in Chapter 5.2, in the few cases
where remains seem to have been added to disturbed graves, the reopeners carried the extra
bones some distance in order to rebury them.
202
In other periods, grave-robbery events have sometimes been interpreted as connected with major
societal or dynastic change. This, for example, has been argued by Crumlin-Pedersen (1995,
Chapter 1) at the Roman Iron Age boat-grave cemetery at Slusegaard, Denmark. Crumlin-
Pedersen showed that all the graves of one phase have been ransacked, probably during a period
of intense unrest. The research presented here shows that this is not the case in the early
medieval period. Robbing in Kent was a series of small events, spread over at least several
decades. Only a limited proportion of interments were robbed at a time, and unlike at Slusegaard,
the same form of burial continued after robbing ceased.
Given this evidence that robbing was a small-scale, frequently repeated practice, the question
arises whether it may have been an accepted custom. As discussed in Chapter 1, explanations for
grave-robbery have sometimes been put forward in terms protracted funerary rites, which are
well-documented in several areas of the ancient and modern world. Ritual manipulation of the
dead is seen, for example, in the Neolithic periods of Malta and Britain, and in the well-known
ethnographical material from Madagascar (Malone et al 2009, Beckett & Robb 2006, Bloch 1971).
The analysis in this thesis has shown that there is no archaeological basis for such interpretations
in the early medieval period. In Merovingian-period robbing there is considerable variety in the
ways in which disturbed bones are treated. There are examples of neat bone piling, as well as
more common evidence of carelessly strewn bones in the fill and probably around the graveside.
However, there is very little evidence for any treatment of remains which appears deliberate
enough to be considered ritual. Bones are certainly missing from disturbed graves, but these
represent the areas dug out by robbers, particularly the torso, where artefact finds were
concentrated.
The exceptions are the small numbers of graves in which bodies have been mutilated in ways
analogous to contemporary deviant burial rites (above, Chapter 6.3). There are also a few
examples in Kent of reopened graves to which extra human remains, probably also from
disturbed burials, have been added. On the continent such finds have sometimes been
interpreted as evidence of mass reopening. In Kent it could be shown that, since there was
considerable distance to any reopened graves which might be the source of the extra bones, the
admixture was almost certainly deliberate and meaningful.
Related to the idea of body manipulation is the suggestion that artefacts may have been regularly
removed from graves at the end of a ritual period, perhaps corresponding with the
decomposition of the body. As argued in Chapter 2, such a practice is unlikely in any context as it
203
risks fatally undermining the validity of the burial display. It seems particularly unlikely that this
kind of ritual interval and associated soul beliefs would develop in the 7th century, a time when
the ideology of death and the afterlife was heading in a Christian direction.
More concretely, the chronology of reopening eliminates this ritual period hypothesis. There is
no reason to see the reopening in Kent, or more widely in Merovingia, as an established custom.
It may appear gradually but is mainly concentrated within two or three generations. It is not a
single intense outbreak but nor is it a long-term practice. Grave-robbery was not a lingering
heathen practice in 7th century Kent but a new introduction in tune with the times.
Graves were not reopened at a set interval after burial but at widely varied stages of
decomposition. This is one of the many points on which there is close resemblance between the
evidence in Kent and continental Europe. It is common to find that a small minority of graves in
a cemetery were reopened while the bodies were still partially articulated, demonstrating how
quickly reopening could sometimes follow burial. However the majority of burials at all sites were
skeletonized by the time of disturbance.
The rough methods used in robbing also argue against interpretations of the early medieval
reopening as a socially sanctioned part of the funerary process. There is too marked a contrast
with the respect and care for the dead otherwise evidenced by the burial rituals, the investment in
funerary display, and the care taken to prevent and halt accidental disturbance of graves. For the
reopening there is only minimal evidence for active aggression towards the grave contents, but
the human remains were at least treated carelessly and with disregard for the integrity of the
disturbed bodies. As discussed, bones are missing from the disturbed graves and were probably
left scattered. Otherwise they are found haphazardly thrown back in with the fill and rejected
artefacts. It is difficult to discern any concern for the remains of family members or revered
ancestors in the way robbing is carried out.
Chapter 6.2 showed that a similar carelessness towards older interments is often seen in the
widespread custom of secondary burial. These have traditionally been interpreted as the addition
of bodies to the graves of related individuals, as is often done today. Recent work has noted an
inconsistency between this interpretation and the cavalier treatment of many primary interments
(Stoodley 2002, Cherryson 2007). The evidence in this thesis further questions this familial
interpretation. In many graves it was more a case of removing and replacing a primary burial than
of adding a secondary corpse. Although there is a spectrum of care taken, as in robbed graves,
primary skeletons are frequently partial and scattered.
204
Both grave-robbery and secondary burials thus show a disregard for the integrity of the body
which seems otherwise so carefully honoured in Anglo-Saxon inhumation cemeteries. This thesis
has presented evidence that some secondary burials go beyond carelessness and appear an
aggressive act, associated with indicators of deviant burial. Some secondary or intercutting burials
also involve robbery of gravegoods from the underlying grave, suggesting that the division
between secondary burial and grave-robbery may not be entirely clear-cut.
However, it is not suggested that all secondary burials have a malign intent. It seems more likely
that the apparently careless treatment of primary skeletons indicates that defleshed bones were
not revered as a significant part of a dead person’s remains or identity. An individual’s burial
place, on the other hand, presumably carried meaning, motivating the interment of further
remains in the same grave. The grave site seems relevant for the maintenance of memory, for
adding corpses and reaffirming relationships between individuals, but not the skeletal remains.
What looks to us like maltreatment of human remains was not necessarily a defilement in an
Anglo-Saxon context.
There is one major difference between reopening for secondary burials and for robbery:
secondary burial respects the period of fleshy decomposition, while grave-robbery does not. No
cases have been found in this study of still-fleshed bodies being damaged for secondary burials,
whereas there are multiple reports of robbery of decomposing corpses. It is likely that the
element of very early reopening in grave-robbery indicates that this practice broke a significant
ritual boundary.
Although early medieval grave-robbery involves damage to burials, it does not appear to
represent attempts to obliterate monuments. It has sometimes been suggested that the power of
grave-robbing was through the destruction of the earthly home of the soul (Randsborg 1998,
Thrane 1978, Chapter 2). This thesis has found only limited support for this interpretation in the
early limited context. Robbing causes physical damage to burials, in some cases extensive damage,
but this is limited to the process of finding and removing valuables. In many graves there is
evidence that robbers minimised the effort needed to reach artefacts, for example by cutting a
small hole into the coffin lid. Robbing caused damage, often highly and probably intentionally
visible damage, but graves remained as monuments and in most cases were backfilled by the
reopeners or by cemetery users.
How graves were selected for reopening is a long-standing and largely unanswered question in
Merovingia. The proportion of burials disturbed in each cemetery varies even more widely in the
205
continental sample than in Kent (Chapter 2, Table 1). The indications are that robbers were
operating under some form of constraint, which meant that they were unable or unwilling to take
artefacts from all graves. The limiting factors may have been time, fear of discovery, or the effort
of digging out burials. Alternatively, it may have been unnecessary for robbers to open further
graves in order to achieve their purpose. The selection of graves is therefore a window onto their
priorities and aims.
As discussed above, one major preference appears to be for burials from close to the robbers’
own time. Older graves were much less frequently robbed, although there is every reason to think
that they were still readily identifiable as monuments in the burial grounds.
Judging by the high levels of residual artefact fragments in the disturbed Kentish graves, robber
preferentially selected better-furnished burials. This is a further indication that obtaining grave-
goods was a significant motive. However, there is no need to assume that reopeners had specific
prior knowledge of grave assemblages. It is a sufficient explanation that high investment in burial
displays was also expressed through the aboveground marking of graves. Robbed graves are on
average substantially larger than the intact burials, lending support to this idea. On the other hand,
plenty of well-furnished graves were left undisturbed. Either the robbers’ information was
incomplete, or they had reasons for selecting only certain well-furnished graves.
In Merovingia preferences for burials of one or other sex have been reported at some sites, with
roughly equal proportions at others. In Kent, there are more disturbed male burials than female
burials (Chapter 4.8). However, this difference may not be archaeologically significant, especially
since many disturbed burials cannot be sexed. It is possible, for example, that the proportions are
skewed by the strongly male-gendered artefacts, especially spears and shields, which were
typically left behind by robbers. If it is significant, it may only indicate that male burials could at
least sometimes be distinguished from their surface elaboration. Indeed one widely applicable
conclusion from this research is that during the use period of these cemeteries, information about
the age, gender, and grave-good wealth of buried individuals could at least sometimes be inferred
from aboveground appearance of graves.
In Kent the proportions of male and female graves robbed at each site vary widely, suggesting
that male graves may have been targeted at some sites but not others. However, no sites
demonstrate an exclusive preference for male graves. The grave-goods particular to men were not
the only or even the main goal. Reopening was not abandoned when a female burial was revealed;
some female-gendered artefacts are among the most consistently removed artefacts. In particular
206
the Kentish evidence does not support arguments that robbers were primarily looking for
weapons (Chapter 6.1).
Although gender preferences were not strongly expressed, there is stronger evidence that grave
robbers deliberately avoided burials of children. Low levels of disturbance in child graves have
also frequently been reported on the continent, but poor preservation of juvenile bones makes it
harder to recognise. This thesis has demonstrated that in Kent, burials of children were almost
only reopened when they were in adult-sized graves. These burials of children may not have been
distinguished from adult graves on the surface, and so in effect were reopened by mistake. Child
graves may have been avoided for superstitious or emotional reasons, or because they tended to
contain fewer and more mundane artefacts. The apparent mistake in choosing the over-sized
child graves did not stop the robbers disturbing the contents, suggesting that the latter rationale
probably dominates.
At several continental sites it has previously been argued that robbers knew artefact assemblages
in advance and so were able to target their cuts into the right parts of graves. Müller (1976) and
Codreanu-Windauer (1997) have shown that this impression is at least usually false. Detailed
examination of the robbing methods used in Kent supports their view. It is possible that robbers
were able to see grave outlines sufficiently well on the surface that they often cut directly into the
torso area, but no more specific knowledge of assemblages can be demonstrated.
The apparent mistakes in opening some adult-sized child graves also tend to imply that the
robbers did not have detailed knowledge about the buried individuals, but were using above-
ground indications. The structures of the burying communities represented in the field cemeteries
are not fully understood in terms of how many descent groups or households are represented,
although recent work has considered the question in detail (Sayer 2009, 2010). Nor is it known
whether cemeteries are directly linked to settlements. However, these are burial grounds of at
most several hundred individuals buried over the course of several centuries; this is by no means
beyond the scale at which all members of the living communities would be personally known to
each other. It is possible that the robbers were part of the immediate burying community, but
there is no evidence that requires it.
In this vein, it has been suggested that access to traders outside the local community enabled the
East Kent robbing (Welch 2007: 222-3). Stuart Brookes (2003: 95) identifies “a monetary zone of
alienable exchange” along the eastern margin of the county during this period, at a time when
depersonalized trade in the kind of possessions that became grave-goods was just beginning. He
207
emphasizes trader mobility at this early stage of developing exchange networks, an impression
which also comes through in the 7th century Kentish law codes (Chapter 6.4). Moreover,
Brookes’ study of the distribution of Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon sites in Kent has
demonstrated the intentional visibility of the field cemeteries, set in conspicuous positions along
routeways (Brookes 2003: 87-88). They would have been ready targets for a trader or adventurer
willing to take the risk. Furthermore, East Kent is easily reachable by sea, for anyone in need of a
quick getaway.
However, the geographical distribution of the disturbed sites suggests that explanations in terms
of access to the sea or to trading networks are insufficient (Chapter 4.3). As in Merovingia,
cemeteries with high levels of robbing are intermingled with untouched sites. In Kent the robbed
sites are not all close to the sea, and there are several nearer the coastline which were not
disturbed. If robbing happened as large-scale events, with mass looting of graves in each
cemetery, then these interpretations would have more currency. However, as argued above, there
is evidence to the contrary. Robbing seems to have happened repeatedly in each affected
cemetery, one or a few graves at a time. In some 7th century East Kent cemeteries it occurred
many times, whereas in others, it never happened.
Crucial here is the observation that many of the removed grave-goods were in decidedly poor
condition by the time of reopening. If graves were robbed with the intention of re-circulating
stolen artefacts, whether for trade or through some other mechanism, the objects would need to
have been in usable condition. This would be true for the objects removed from the freshest
graves, at least the items made of metal or other non-absorbent materials. However, since most
graves were reopened years or decades after burial, most removed artefacts had deteriorated
significantly during their time in the ground.
Chapter 6.1 showed that many removed grave-goods were so badly decayed that they were
actually falling apart, as the rust stains, fragments, and whole chunks of broken objects left
behind in disturbed graves testify. Iron grave-goods in particular were frequently highly friable,
and bronze objects also left corrosion marks. Sheathed swords may have been better protected,
but in several cases they also broke apart. It is therefore remarkable that they were still removed.
The only swords which remain in disturbed graves are those which wholly disintegrated when
lifted. Others were in sufficiently poor condition to lose even parts of hilts, but were still taken.
Good condition therefore was not a criterion for the selection of grave-goods. The artefacts must
have been valuable to the reopeners, in the sense that they were worth going to considerable
208
trouble to obtain. However, it seems unlikely that they bore the same kind of value as at the time
of their deposition. While some bronze or silver brooches could perhaps still have been cleaned
for wearing or melted down for reuse, iron goods were in such poor condition that it is unlikely
that they yielded recoverable metal. Neither use value, exchange value, or even raw materials are
therefore convincing explanations for the desirability of these objects. Their significance lay in
their provenance, in their use as grave-goods.
The proposal here is that the aim of the robbing was not to obtain artefacts for the use of the
living, but to remove them from the realm of the dead. This is an idea which has also appeared in
a Merovingian context, but without being widely noted. Codreanu-Windauer (1997: 32, Chapter
2), in her report on the Pliening cemetery, is one of the few authors to comment on the poor
condition of many stolen artefacts. She argued that the robbing there was aimed at diminishing
the power and prestige of dead ancestors, as an indirect attack on their living relatives.
In Kent, the evidence suggests the intention was to deprive the dead of their grave-goods, and
that this act involved highly specific symbolism. As shown in Chapter 6.1, only certain types of
artefact, primarily swords and brooches, are consistently missing from disturbed burials. Other
artefact types, for instance knives and hangers worn on women’s belts, were frequently left
behind, apparently deliberately, sometimes after being handled by the robbers.
Some selection of artefacts has been suggested in on the continent (Chapter 2). Here, jewellery
and weapons are most frequently cited as the robbers’ targets, mainly because they are considered
among the most valuable archaeologically-visible artefacts. Vessels, including bronze bowls,
frequently remain in disturbed graves, and it has been suggested that a taboo existed against their
theft, possibly on hygienic grounds. There is also a small number of reports of objects with
explicitly Christian symbolism left in disturbed graves.
The detailed analysis of the multi-site Kent sample has allowed these questions to be explored in
much greater depth. This thesis demonstrates that, despite the apparently transgressive nature of
the robbing, the people who carried it out followed clear rules about what should and should not
be taken. It is argued here that these rules were closely related to the reasons that particular
artefacts found their way into burials in the first place. This was malefaction within firm bounds:
the perpetrators expressed contempt for the individual graves, but not for the furnished burial
rite itself.
The differences between the artefacts selected for removal on the continent and in Kent indicate
that robbers are unlikely to have been outsiders to the region; rather they understood and were
209
able to manipulate local customs. In Kent, knives of all materials were consistently left behind,
appearing more frequently in robbed than in unrobbed graves. Glass and ceramic vessels, on the
other hand, are under-represented in the Kentish disturbed burials, suggesting that whatever the
aversion to removing these objects in Francia, it did not apply in England.
The robbers' preferences, as exposed through this research, allow some previous hypotheses to
be rejected. There is no evidence that reusable metal was the target. Certain artefacts of iron,
bronze, and silver were removed, but none of these metals were consistently taken. Conversely,
other object types, especially knives and the various forms of girdle hanger, seem never to have
been taken irrespective of their metal. Weapons as a broad category were not the goal. Swords
were taken, but spears, shields, and other forms of weaponry were not usually removed. Similarly,
jewellery was not a desired category. Brooches were taken, but not pendants or beads in any
quantity.
Having gone to the effort and risk of opening a grave, it is remarkable that robbers then left
behind so many items. Some of the rejected items, especially the necklace elements, appear highly
desirable. Even if smaller artefacts such as beads were not highly valuable, there must have been
compelling reasons for the robbers’ unwillingness to use them for exchange or as small gifts.
Beads are a useful example, since they are some of the few items which could consistently have
been in the same condition at both burial and reopening. Their commonness might also have
made them easier to fence. Yet they are frequently found rejected in disturbed graves, and not
only because of their small size. In at least one case a whole necklace was lifted and moved intact
by the robbers, but still left behind. The removed objects are not the relatively anonymous beads
or knives which could be exchanged with little fear of recognition. Instead they are the most
distinctively decorated and therefore recognisable possessions.
In this concluding chapter it has been argued that the pervasive disturbance of graves in late 6th-
7th century East Kent should be regarded as the same phenomenon as the long-recognised and
widespread robbing of Merovingian-period row-grave cemeteries over the channel. This practice
appeared during a period when Frankish material culture was being eagerly imported into Kent,
but must have had significance in a local context to explain such ready adoption. Similar robbing
appears much more sporadically in West Kent, East Anglia, Hampshire, and elsewhere in Anglo-
Saxon England.
210
The Kentish grave disturbance should be seen as robbing, in the sense that its main purpose was
to remove artefacts from burials. In the county as a whole and within each cemetery, robbing
occurred on numerous separate occasions, spread over the course of many decades. The choice
of graves was specific, even if it is difficult to reconstruct the basis of the robbers’ selection.
Graves from close to the robbers’ time were favoured. Robbing was carried out in a manner that
was at best disrespectful and which caused considerable damage to grave contents, including
human remains. It was sometimes carried out while corpses were still fleshed.
Central to interpretation of the robbing are the observations first that a precise and consistent
selection of object types were removed from graves, leaving large numbers of other goods behind,
and second that many of the removed objects were in an extremely poor condition when taken.
It is argued here that the purpose of the robbing was not to obtain goods for use, exchange, or
raw materials, but rather to remove objects with certain symbolism from the possession of the
dead. This form of grave-robbery therefore represents a unique opportunity to move on from
understandings of grave-goods as representing different quantities of wealth, or even as
representing different life stages and social identities, to tracing some of their symbolic values as
understood by the burying communities themselves.
In Chapter 6.1 it was argued that some artefacts, especially knives, were too closely tied to the
personality of the dead owner to be used by an heir. This explains both why they appear so
frequently in graves and why they were not taken during robbing. A knife was an object which
most individuals possessed, and which was particular to them. A used knife evidently could not
be appropriated by another person, and nor could it be effectively removed from the possession
of a dead owner. The various forms of belt hangers worn by a proportion of women also fall into
this category of personal items, since they are always left in graves, even when newly buried and
in good condition.
Other grave-goods have been interpreted as more readily transferrable between individuals. This
applies particularly to swords, for which there is ample documentary evidence of both gift-giving
and inheritance (Chapter 6.1). Swords were consistently removed from disturbed burials in Kent,
even when irrecoverably decayed. It is argued here that these objects were symbolic of the wealth
and prestige of the descent group, rather than held as individual possessions. As Heinrich Härke
(1992) has shown, even small boys and invalids were sometimes buried with weapons which they
could not have wielded in life. A sword could be symbolically transferred to a new owner through
theft from a grave, in a way which did not apply to personal items. The taking of a sword was
211
also an effective attack on the living kin of the buried individual, which the removal of a purely
personal possession would not achieve.
Swords have frequently been suggested as robbers’ targets by past commentators, largely because
of their legendary associations. The Kentish evidence substantiates this hypothesis, but with an
important caution: the intense robbing of the field cemeteries can only in the loosest sense be
related to the recovery of famous swords from the graves of heroes seen in literature, notably The
Waking Of Angantyr (Chapter 1). Seventh-century robbing is far too common, and the preference
for swords is by no means exclusive.
Swords are not the only objects that can be interpreted as representing a family’s prestige. The
other category of artefact consistently targeted by robbers is women’s brooches, whether of
bronze or silver. Aspöck (2003) has commented that in interpretations of grave-robbery male
stolen objects, especially swords, are often described as carrying symbolism, but female brooches
just as objects of worth. The evidence from the Kentish robbing suggests that brooches may be
much more symbolically significant as female-line heirlooms than previously thought. Or rather,
given the evidence for melting down and reuse, perhaps not as heirlooms, but as objects whose
material could be passed on and reshaped for new generations.
In the model presented here grave-robbery was thus an attack on the descent group, rather than
on the individual dead. Graves were selected for robbing on the basis of their connections with
living relatives. The aim was not destruction for its own sake, nor the gaining of wealth, but the
removal of symbolically-loaded artefacts from the store of prestige that is built up in the graves
of a family. Grave-robbery was a tactic to undermine the use of competitive burial rites and
monuments, and in particular the deposition of grave-goods. The remains of past displays were
destroyed, and subverted into memories of weakness and defeat.
In this interpretation, sword burial in particular was a boast about the superfluity of a family’s
ability to provide for and protect itself. Grave-robbery called that bluff, and showed that a family
– or other group – was vulnerable. It was symptomatic of insecure times, when displaying the
means of deadly violence was essential for protecting family and belongings, and when those seen
as weak had little protection from the strong.
For Kent it is suggested that the disputes which gave rise to grave-robbery were between, rather
than within, the groups using each cemetery. Children were largely excluded, but both male and
female dead could be attacked to damage the public standing of their descendants. This gender
equality is one of the most notable aspects of the grave-robbery: if reopened graves are
212
symptomatic of conflict, this was not a male-world political struggle, but one involving both the
women and the men of the affected communities.
How we envisage grave-robbery is a point of departure for some quite different reconstructions
of early medieval society: as a well-ordered place, in which justice ensured order; or a strife-ridden,
insecure world in which violence was the only protection against the ambitions of others. It
brings into focus the question of what we mean by the archaeological shorthand of ‘elites’ and
‘high status’ in terms of the ability of individuals and groups to protect their persons and property,
and in this case their ancestral dead.
Across the Merovingian kingdoms 7th century grave-robbery was a widespread practice, but one
driven by local conflicts: sufficiently local to ravage some cemeteries, but leave neighbouring
communities untouched. Grave-robbery was, at least in Kent, a long series of tit-for-tat incidents
in which revenge was taken outside the growing remit of judicial intervention. Even on the
continent, there are no indications that the stream of official proclamations against robbing had
any effect against the practice.
The 7th century was a time of experimentation with the social signals that could be sent by
costume, possessions, rites, and monuments. Recent work has emphasized the diversity of burial
practices in this period of transition (Geake 1992, Reynolds 2009). Disruption of the old belief
systems through which death customs found meaning was not immediately stilled by a clear
Christian burial model. Grave-robbing must also be seen against the backdrop of rising royal
power and elite competition in the transition from a dispersed rural society to an early state.
There was much more to fight for, with the possibility of influence and wealth accumulation in
the newly forming court and church hierarchies.
Grave-robbery can be seen as one element of the diversification of the types and uses of
conversion period burial. Unlike the other new features of this period, its aims were negative: it
was used to undermine memories of past displays and to seize the stores of remembered prestige
which families built up in graves. It reflects not the waning of the furnished burial custom, but its
continuing meaning to the communities who practised it.
213
Future research
Further research will show the extent to which the Kentish interpretations are applicable in
Merovingia. The indications so far are that the conclusions drawn here are in concord with the
continental evidence, especially the material from the most recent and thorough publications.
However, it is likely that considerable variation exists to be uncovered, both regionally and even
within local areas. A specific area in which further work is needed in Merovingia is in a more
systematic approach to the question of which grave-goods were selected by robbers. In particular
the idea that certain amuletic or Christian objects were left behind in continental graves is at
present supported only by rather anecdotal evidence.
The analysis of the Kentish robbing has shown how much evidence can be extracted even from
poorly recorded data. Grave-robbery is not just a destructive taphonomic process which needs to
be accounted for in the reconstruction of early medieval cemeteries. It is a social phenomenon
which took place during the use-period of the sites, changing their appearance, influencing their
development, and impacting on the burying community. Future cemetery excavations which see
grave-robbery as a research object in itself, and which can build on this research into the
recording and interpretation of robbery, will add considerably to the picture which has been put
together here.
214
21
5
T
ab
le
1:
D
is
tu
rb
ed
C
em
et
er
ie
si
n
W
es
te
rn
an
d
C
en
tra
lE
ur
op
e
Br
on
ze
Ag
e
-M
ap
no
.
-S
ite
-R
eg
io
n
-C
ou
nt
ry
-D
is
tu
rb
an
ce
-M
ai
n
re
fe
re
nc
es
fo
rr
ob
bi
ng
-
1
-G
em
ein
leb
ar
n
F
-L
ow
er
A
us
tri
a
-A
us
tri
a
-c
.2
20
/c
.2
50
-N
eu
ge
ba
ue
r1
99
1
-
2
-F
ra
nz
ha
us
en
I
-L
ow
er
A
us
tri
a
-A
us
tri
a
--
-N
eu
ge
ba
ue
r-M
ar
es
ch
&
N
eu
ge
ba
ue
r1
99
7
-
3
-M
ez

c
sá
t
-B
or
so
d
-H
un
ga
ry
--
-H
än
se
l&
K
ali
cz
19
86
-
4
-P
itt
en
-L
ow
er
A
us
tri
a
-A
us
tri
a
-c
.1
0%
-H
am
pl
et
al
19
81
-1
99
1
-
5
-D
ol
ný
Pe
te
r
-S
ou
th
w
es
tS
lo
va
ki
a
-S
lo
va
ki
a
-o
ve
r5
0%
- D
us

ek
19
69
-
6
-V
e
ký
G
ro
b
-S
ou
th
w
es
tS
lo
va
ki
a
-S
lo
va
ki
a
-3
9
(c
.6
0%
)
-C
hr
op
ov
sk
y
19
60
-
7
-N
ov
é
Z
ám
ky
-S
ou
th
w
es
tS
lo
va
ki
a
-S
lo
va
ki
a
--
- D
us

ek
19
69
-
8
-N
es
va
dy
-S
ou
th
w
es
tS
lo
va
ki
a
-S
lo
va
ki
a
-o
ve
r8
0%
- D
us

ek
19
69
-
9
-M
uš
ov
-S
ou
th
ea
st
Cz
ec
h
-C
ze
ch
Re
pu
bl
ic
--
- S
tu
ch
lik
19
87
-
10
-M
in
tra
ch
in
g,
Re
ge
ns
bu
rg
-B
av
ar
ia
-G
er
m
an
y
--
-R
uc
kd
es
ch
el
19
85
-
11
-R
ais
tin
g
am
A
m
m
er
se
e
-B
av
ar
ia
-G
er
m
an
y
--
-K
os
ch
ik
19
81
-
12
-E
in
ig
en
-B
er
ne
-S
w
itz
er
lan
d
--
-G
rü
tte
r1
97
2-
19
73
-
Ir
on
Ag
e
13
-T
au
be
rb
isc
ho
fs
he
im
-D
itt
ig
he
im
-M
ain
-T
au
be
r-
K
re
is
-G
er
m
an
y
--
-B
ait
in
ge
r1
99
2
-
14
-M
ag
da
len
en
be
rg
,V
ill
in
ge
n
-B
ad
en
-W
ür
tte
m
be
rg
-G
er
m
an
y
--
-S
pi
nd
ler
19
71
-1
98
0
-
E
ar
ly
M
ed
ie
va
l
15
-R
eic
he
nh
all
-B
av
ar
ia
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.1
2
-C
hl
in
ge
ns
pe
rg
-B
er
g
18
90
-
16
-B
ald
en
he
im
-A
lsa
ce
-F
ra
nc
e
--
-H
en
ni
ng
19
07
-
17
-N
eu
-R
up
pe
rs
do
rf
--
-A
us
tri
a
--
-B
en
in
ge
r1
93
1
-
18
-S
ch
w
ec
ha
t
-W
ien
-A
us
tri
a
--
-S
er
ac
sin
19
36
-
19
-H
ail
fin
ge
n,
Tü
bi
ng
en
-B
ad
en
-W
ür
tte
m
be
rg
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.2
6
-S
to
ll
19
39
-
20
-E
ltv
ill
e
-H
es
se
-G
er
m
an
y
-8
1/
16
9
-S
ch
op
pa
19
50
-
21
-B
ül
ac
h
-Z
ur
ich
-S
w
itz
er
lan
d
-(
44
/3
00
)1
3%
-W
er
ne
r1
95
3
-
22
-M
in
de
lh
eim
-B
av
ar
ia
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.3
6
-W
er
ne
r1
95
5
-
23
-K
öl
n-
M
ün
ge
rs
do
rf
I
-N
or
dr
he
in
-W
es
tfa
len
-G
er
m
an
y
-(
46
)3
1%
-F
re
m
er
sd
or
f1
95
5
-
24
-F
eld
m
oc
hi
ng
-B
av
ar
ia
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.7
6
-D
an
nh
ei
m
er
&
U
lb
er
t1
95
6
-
21
6
-M
ap
no
.
-S
ite
-R
eg
io
n
-C
ou
nt
ry
-D
is
tu
rb
an
ce
-M
ai
n
re
fe
re
nc
es
fo
rr
ob
bi
ng
-
25
-S
en
dl
in
g
-B
av
ar
ia
-G
er
m
an
y
--
-D
an
nh
ei
m
er
&
U
lb
er
t1
95
6
-
26
-H
oh
en
fe
ls,
Tr
ier
-R
he
in
lan
d-
Pf
alz
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.4
-B
öh
ne
r1
95
8
-
27
-E
ise
na
ch
,T
rie
r
-R
he
in
lan
d-
Pf
alz
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.3
-B
öh
ne
r1
95
8
-
28
-R
itt
er
sd
or
f-K
op
p,
Tr
ier
-R
he
in
lan
d-
Pf
alz
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.2
5
-B
öh
ne
r1
95
8
-
29
-E
hr
an
g,
Tr
ie
r
-R
he
in
lan
d-
Pf
alz
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.2
1
-B
öh
ne
r1
95
8
-
30
-M
ün
ch
en
-G
ie
sin
g
-B
av
ar
ia
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.2
-R
ot
h
19
78
:6
0
-
31
-L
in
z-
Z
iz
lau
--
-A
us
tri
a
-0
.2
-L
ad
en
ba
ue
rO
re
l1
96
0
-
32
-G
ög
gi
ng
en
-B
av
ar
ia
-G
er
m
an
y
--
-S
te
in
19
61
-
33
-R
oh
re
nd
or
f
--
-A
us
tri
a
--
-H
am
pl
19
64
-
34
-E
rp
er
sd
or
f
--
-A
us
tri
a
--
-H
am
pl
19
64
-
35
-V
ör
s
-S
om
og
y
-H
un
ga
ry
--
-S
ág
i1
96
4
-
36
-P
oy
sd
or
f
--
-A
us
tri
a
--
-B
en
in
ge
r&
M
its
ch
a
M
är
he
im
19
66
-
37
-M
ar
kt
ob
er
do
rf
,A
llg
äu
-B
av
ar
ia
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.0
17
-C
hr
ist
lei
n
19
66
-
38
-S
on
th
eim
,B
re
nz
-B
ad
en
-W
ür
tte
m
be
rg
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.1
8
-N
eu
ffe
r-M
ül
ler
19
66
-
39
-K
öl
n-
Ju
nk
er
sd
or
f
-N
or
dr
he
in
-W
es
tfa
len
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.8
7
-L
a
Ba
um
e
19
67
-
40
-E
po
ld
in
g-
M
üh
lta
l
-B
av
ar
ia
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.3
9
-D
an
nh
ei
m
er
19
68
b
-
41
-L
au
te
rh
of
en
-B
av
ar
ia
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.1
4
-D
an
nh
ei
m
er
19
68
a
-
42
-E
ick
-N
or
dr
he
in
-W
es
tfa
len
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.3
1
-H
in
z
19
69
-
43
-G
ös
ch
w
ei
ler
,S
üd
ba
de
n
-B
ad
en
-W
ür
tte
m
be
rg
-G
er
m
an
y
--
-G
ar
sc
ha
19
70
-
44
-W
eim
ar
-T
hü
rin
ge
n
-G
er
m
an
y
-<
10
%
-S
ch
m
id
t1
97
0
-
45
-S
tö
ße
n
-S
ac
hs
en
-A
nh
alt
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.0
4
-S
ch
m
id
t1
97
0
-
46
-O
be
rw
er
sc
he
n
-T
hü
rin
ge
n
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.3
5
-S
ch
m
id
t1
97
0
-
47
-D
irl
ew
an
g
be
iM
in
de
lh
ei
m
-B
av
ar
ia
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.0
4
-C
hr
ist
lei
n
19
71
-
48
-G
üt
tin
ge
n
-B
ad
en
-W
ür
tte
m
be
rg
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.4
7
-F
in
ge
rli
n
19
71
-
49
-M
er
di
ng
en
-B
ad
en
-W
ür
tte
m
be
rg
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.8
5
-F
in
ge
rli
n
19
71
-
50
-F
rid
in
ge
n
-B
ad
en
-W
ür
tte
m
be
rg
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.7
5
-R
eim
19
72
-
51
-D
on
zd
or
f
-B
ad
en
-W
ür
tte
m
be
rg
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.6
7
-N
eu
ffe
r1
97
2
-
52
-I
ve
rs
he
im
-N
or
dr
he
in
-W
es
tfa
len
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.2
2
-N
eu
ffe
r-M
ül
ler
19
72
-
53
-R
üb
en
ac
h
-R
he
in
lan
d-
Pf
alz
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.6
9
-N
eu
ffe
r-M
ül
ler
&
A
m
en
t1
97
3
-
54
-B
er
gh
au
se
n,
N
or
db
ad
en
-B
ad
en
-W
ür
tte
m
be
rg
-G
er
m
an
y
--
-K
oc
h
19
73
a,
K
oc
h
19
73
b,
K
oc
h
19
74
-
55
-B
ar
ge
n,
N
or
db
ad
en
-B
ad
en
-W
ür
tte
m
be
rg
-G
er
m
an
y
--
-K
oc
h
19
73
a,
K
oc
h
19
74
-
56
-K
re
fe
ld
-G
el
lep
-N
or
dr
he
in
-W
es
tfa
len
-G
er
m
an
y
--
-P
irl
in
g
19
74
-
57
-W
eiß
en
fe
ls
-S
ac
hs
en
-A
nh
alt
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.1
8
-S
ch
m
id
t1
97
5
-
21
7
-M
ap
no
.
-S
ite
-R
eg
io
n
-C
ou
nt
ry
-D
is
tu
rb
an
ce
-M
ai
n
re
fe
re
nc
es
fo
rr
ob
bi
ng
-
58
-A
m
m
er
n
-T
hü
rin
ge
n
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.3
7
-S
ch
m
id
t1
97
5
-
59
-H
em
m
in
ge
n,
K
re
is
Lu
dw
ig
sb
ur
g
-B
ad
en
-W
ür
tte
m
be
rg
-G
er
m
an
y
-2
6/
59
(4
4%
)
- M
u
l
ler
19
76
-
60
-P
om
m
er
ho
fb
ei
Pl
aid
t
-R
he
in
lan
d-
Pf
alz
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.3
8
-A
m
en
t1
97
6
-
61
-K
ot
te
nh
eim
-R
he
in
lan
d-
Pf
alz
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.6
1
-A
m
en
t1
97
6
-
62
-Š
ar
at
ice
--
-C
ze
ch
Re
pu
bl
ic
--
-T
ejr
al
19
76
:8
4
-
63
-G
ro
ßö
rn
er
-T
hü
rin
ge
n
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.2
4
-R
ot
h
19
78
:6
4
-
64
-A
ul
ni
ze
ux
,L
a
V
ig
ne
tte
-M
ar
ne
-F
ra
nc
e
-c
.3
8%
-R
ot
h
19
78
:6
0
-
65
-N
or
m
ée
,L
a
Te
m
pê
te
-M
ar
ne
-F
ra
nc
e
-c
.6
0%
-R
ot
h
19
78
:6
0
-
66
-V
er
t-l
a-
G
ra
ve
lle
,L
e
M
ou
lin
-M
ar
ne
-F
ra
nc
e
-o
ve
r6
0%
-R
ot
h
19
78
:6
0
-
67
-G
ou
rg
an
ço
n,
Le
sO
nc
he
s-
Pe
tit
pa
s
-M
ar
ne
-F
ra
nc
e
-o
ve
r6
0%
-R
ot
h
19
78
:6
0
-
68
-P
ul
lin
g,
Fr
eis
in
g
-B
av
ar
ia
-G
er
m
an
y
-0
.7
8
-R
ot
h
19
78
:6
0
-
69
-F
ré
no
uv
ill
e
-C
alv
ad
os
-F
ra
nc
e
--
-P
ile
t1
98
0
-
70
-K
ajd
ac
z
--
-H
un
ga
ry
-0
.8
-R
ot
h
19
78
:6
1
-
71
-T
ám
as
i
--
-H
un
ga
ry
-0
.5
-R
ot
h
19
78
:6
1
-
72
-S
ze
nt
en
dr
e
--
-H
un
ga
ry
--
-R
ot
h
19
78
:6
1
-
73
-U
nt
er
th
ür
he
im
,B
ay
er
isc
h-
Sc
hw
ab
en
-B
av
ar
ia
-G
er
m
an
y
--
-G
rü
ne
w
ald
19
88
-
74
-M
as
øo
m

c
z
--
-P
ol
an
d
-4
7/
29
0
(1
6%
)
-K
ok
ow
sk
i1
99
1
-
75
-G
ró
de
k
am
Bu
g
--
-P
ol
an
d
-1
7/
16
3
(1
0%
)
-K
ok
ow
sk
i1
99
1
-
76
-M
or
oc
zy
n
--
-P
ol
an
d
-2
/1
0
(2
0%
)
-K
ok
ow
sk
i1
99
1
-
77
-F
rie
db
er
g-
Br
uc
he
nb
rü
ck
en
-W
et
te
ra
uk
re
is,
H
es
se
-G
er
m
an
y
--
-T
hi
ed
m
an
n
&
Sc
hl
ei
fr
in
g
19
92
-
78
-R
öd
in
ge
n,
K
re
is
D
ür
en
-N
or
dr
he
in
-W
es
tfa
len
-G
er
m
an
y
-m
in
.1
0%
-J
an
ss
en
19
93
-
79
-M
öd
lin
g
--
-A
us
tri
a
--
-B
ón
a
19
93
-
80
-J
ut
as
--
-H
un
ga
ry
--
-B
ón
a
19
93
-
81
-K
ád
ár
ta
--
-H
un
ga
ry
--
-B
ón
a
19
93
-
82
-R
ác
alm
ás
--
-H
un
ga
ry
--
-B
ón
a
19
93
-
83
-V
ár
pa
lo
ta
--
-H
un
ga
ry
--
-B
ón
a
19
93
-
84
-T
am
ás
i
--
-H
un
ga
ry
--
-B
ón
a
19
93
-
85
-S
ze
nt
en
dr
e
--
-H
un
ga
ry
--
-B
ón
a
19
93
-
86
-V
iec
ht
-U
nt
er
fe
ld
,E
ch
in
g
-B
av
ar
ia
-G
er
m
an
y
-c
.9
0%
of
27
8
-D
an
nh
or
n
19
94
-
87
-E
uß
en
he
im
,W
ür
zb
ur
g
-B
av
ar
ia
-G
er
m
an
y
--
-L
ein
th
ale
r1
99
5-
19
96
-
88
-P
lie
ni
ng
,E
be
rs
be
rg
-B
av
ar
ia
-G
er
m
an
y
-3
6-
40
%
-C
od
re
an
u-
W
in
da
ue
r1
99
7
-
89
-A
ub
in
g
-B
av
ar
ia
-G
er
m
an
y
-c
.5
0%
-D
an
nh
ei
m
er
19
98
-
90
-P
ad
a
-V
iru
m
aa
(W
ier
lan
d)
-E
st
on
ia
-4
2/
17
2
(2
5%
)
-T
am
la
19
98
-
21
8
-M
ap
no
.
-S
ite
-R
eg
io
n
-C
ou
nt
ry
-D
is
tu
rb
an
ce
-M
ai
n
re
fe
re
nc
es
fo
rr
ob
bi
ng
-
91
-M
aid
la
--
-E
st
on
ia
--
-T
am
la
19
98
-
92
-K
ar
ja
--
-E
st
on
ia
--
-T
am
la
19
98
-
93
-K
ab
er
la
--
-E
st
on
ia
--
-T
am
la
19
98
-
94
-B
ru
nn
am
G
eb
irg
e,
Fl
ur
W
ol
fh
ol
z
-L
ow
er
A
us
tri
a
-A
us
tri
a
-4
1/
42
-A
sp
öc
k
20
02
-
95
-W
er
lab
ur
gd
or
f,
W
ol
fe
nb
üt
te
l
-S
ch
lad
en
,L
ow
er
Sa
xo
ny
-G
er
m
an
y
-3
2/
23
6
(1
4%
)
-B
lai
ch
&
G
es
ch
w
in
de
20
07
-
96
-P
op
ra
d,
M
at
ejo
vc
e
--
-S
lo
va
ki
a
-1
/1
-P
iet
a
20
08
-
97
-Š
ak
vi
ce
,B

e
cl
av
-S
ou
th
M
or
av
ia
-C
ze
ch
Re
pu
bl
ic
-a
lm
os
ta
ll/
56
-T
ejr
al
20
08
-
98
-Ž
ur
á
be
iB
rn
o
--
-C
ze
ch
Re
pu
bl
ic
-2
/2
-T
ejr
al
20
08
-
99
-V
en
de
ui
l-C
ap
ly
-P
ica
rd
y
-F
ra
nc
e
--
-p
er
s.
co
m
m
.
-
10
0
-P
fa
fk
ok
en
,R
eg
en
sb
ur
g
-B
av
ar
ia
-G
er
m
an
y
--
-C
od
re
an
u-
W
in
da
ue
r1
99
3
-
10
1
-W
es
th
ei
m
,W
eiß
en
bu
rg
-G
un
ze
nh
au
se
n
-B
av
ar
ia
-G
er
m
an
y
--
-R
eiß
19
94
-
10
2
-K
ün
zi
g-
Br
uc
k,
D
eg
ge
nd
or
f
-B
av
ar
ia
-G
er
m
an
y
--
-H
an
ni
ba
l-D
er
an
iya
ga
la
20
07
-
10
3
-R
em
se
ck
-P
at
to
nv
ill
e,
Lu
dw
ig
sb
ur
g
-B
ad
en
-W
ür
tte
m
be
rg
-G
er
m
an
y
-9
0%
+
-B
of
in
ge
r&
Pr
ze
m
ys
law
20
08
-
10
4
-N
ied
er
m
er
z
I,
D
ür
en
-N
or
dr
he
in
-W
es
tfa
len
-G
er
m
an
y
-3
2-
45
%
+
-P
lu
m
20
04
-
10
5
-L
am
er
sd
or
f,
D
ür
en
-N
or
dr
he
in
-W
es
tfa
len
-G
er
m
an
y
-3
8-
50
%
+
-P
lu
m
20
04
-
10
6
-W
ol
ler
sh
eim
I,
D
ür
en
-N
or
dr
he
in
-W
es
tfa
len
-G
er
m
an
y
-6
0-
65
%
+
-P
lu
m
20
04
-
10
7
-S
ier
sd
or
fI
,D
ür
en
-N
or
dr
he
in
-W
es
tfa
len
-G
er
m
an
y
-1
0-
26
%
+
-P
lu
m
20
04
-
10
8
-M
er
ze
ni
ch
I,
D
ür
en
-N
or
dr
he
in
-W
es
tfa
len
-G
er
m
an
y
-6
-1
5%
+
-P
lu
m
20
04
-
10
9
-A
lp
he
n
-N
or
th
Br
ab
an
t
-N
et
he
rla
nd
s
-?
2/
51
(4
%
)
-V
er
w
er
s1
98
7
-
11
0
-B
or
sb
ee
k
-N
or
th
Br
ab
an
t
-N
et
he
rla
nd
s
-6
-1
6/
42
(1
4-
38
%
)
-V
er
w
er
s1
98
7
-
11
1
-B
ro
ek
en
ein
d
-N
or
th
Br
ab
an
t
-N
et
he
rla
nd
s
-6
/2
6
(2
3%
)
-V
er
w
er
s1
98
7
-
11
2
-M
ee
rv
eld
ho
ve
n
-N
or
th
Br
ab
an
t
-N
et
he
rla
nd
s
-4
-1
0/
54
(7
-1
8%
)
-V
er
w
er
s1
98
7
-
11
3
-O
eie
nb
os
di
jk
-N
or
th
Br
ab
an
t
-N
et
he
rla
nd
s
-7
-9
/2
6
(2
7-
35
%
)
-V
er
w
er
s1
98
7
-
11
4
-E
ng
els
m
an
sh
ov
en
-L
im
bu
rg
-B
elg
iu
m
-1
7/
60
(2
8%
)
-V
er
w
er
s1
98
7
-
11
5
-R
os
m
ee
r
-L
im
bu
rg
-B
elg
iu
m
-3
5/
11
8
(3
0%
)
-V
er
w
er
s1
98
7
-
11
6
-H
am
oi
r
-L
ièg
e
-B
elg
iu
m
-3
-5
/2
72
(1
-2
%
)
-V
er
w
er
s1
98
7
-
11
7
-B
ul
les
,O
ise
-P
ica
rd
y
-F
ra
nc
e
-2
58
/4
68
(5
5%
)
- P
er
in
19
80
-
21
9
T
ab
le
6:
Ke
nt
si
te
s:
ex
te
ns
iv
e
ea
rly
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e
D
at
es
an
d
ov
er
al
ll
ev
el
so
fd
is
tu
rb
an
ce
-S
ite no
.-
Si
te
na
m
e
-P
ha
se
s1
-D
at
es
1
-D
at
e
fr
om
(A
D
)2
-D
at
e
to (A
D
)2
-G
ra
ve
s:
m
in
.n
o.
gr
av
es
in
ce
m
et
er
y
-G
ra
ve
s:
no
.g
ra
ve
s
fo
r
an
aly
sis
-G
ra
ve
s:
no
.
di
st
ur
be
d/
po
ss
ib
ly
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
-G
ra
ve
s:
%
gr
av
es
di
st
ur
be
d
-B
ur
ial
s:
no
.b
ur
ial
s
fo
r
an
aly
sis
-B
ur
ial
s:
no
.
di
st
ur
be
d/
po
ss
ib
ly
di
st
ur
be
d
bu
ria
ls
-B
ur
ial
s:
%
bu
ria
ls
di
st
ur
be
d
-B
ur
ial
s:
di
st
ur
be
d
w
hi
le
sk
ele
to
n
at
lea
st
pa
rti
all
y
ar
tic
ul
at
ed
- D
ist
ur
be
d
do
ub
les
an
d
m
ul
tip
les
-
40
Br
oa
ds
ta
irs
I,
Br
ad
st
ow
Sc
ho
ol
V
-V
II
I
en
d
6t
h
-
lat
e
7t
h
50
0
70
0
13
7
89
18
20
%
91
19
21
%
1
1
42
Br
oa
ds
ta
irs
II
I,
St
Pe
te
r's
Ti
p
IV
-I
X
?
lat
er
6t
h
-
fir
st
ha
lf
8t
h
52
5
70
0
40
5
38
8
54
14
%
U
54
U
2
2
16
0
Ly
m
in
ge
II
I-
II
I
5t
h
-m
id
6t
h
45
0
65
0
10
7
68
11
16
%
68
11
16
%
0
0
16
8
M
ar
ga
te
I,
H
alf
M
ile
Ri
de
V
II
?-
IX
m
id
/l
at
e
7t
h-
60
0
70
0
34
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
19
2
M
on
kt
on
I,
Pr
im
ro
se
H
ill
II
?-
V
II
?
5t
h
-
m
id
/l
at
e
7t
h
50
0
70
0
35
34
3
9%
35
3
9%
1
0
19
7
N
or
th
bo
ur
ne
I,
Fi
ng
les
ha
m
II
-V
II
I
5t
h
-l
at
e
7t
h
52
0
75
0
25
2
23
7
17
7%
25
1
20
8%
1
2
20
9
Ra
m
sg
at
e
IV
,
O
ze
ng
ell
IB
?-
V
II
I
5t
h
-l
at
e
7t
h
47
5
72
5
71
0
89
39
44
%
91
41
45
%
7
2
23
1
Sa
rr
e
I
(B
re
nt
)
I-
IX
5t
h
-f
irs
t
ha
lf
8t
h
48
0
70
0
40
0
27
2
30
11
%
29
3
31
11
%
0
1
23
1
Sa
rr
e
I
(T
A
T)
I-
IX
5t
h
-f
irs
t
ha
lf
8t
h
48
0
70
0
40
0
20
9
45
%
23
12
52
%
0
1
A
ll
sit
es
11
97
18
1
15
%
85
2
19
1
16
%
12
9
1.
Ri
ch
ar
ds
on
(2
00
5)
2.
A
SK
E
D
22
0
G
en
de
r
-S
ite no
.-
Si
te
na
m
e
-S
ex
:
di
st
ur
be
d
fe
m
ale
bu
ria
ls
-S
ex
:
di
st
ur
be
d
m
ale
bu
ria
ls
- S
ex
:
di
st
ur
be
d
se
x
un
kn
ow
n
-S
ex
:
to
ta
l
fe
m
ale
bu
ria
ls
-S
ex
:
to
ta
l
m
ale
bu
ria
ls
-S
ex
:t
ot
al
bu
ria
ls
se
x
un
kn
ow
n
-S
ex
:%
fe
m
ale
bu
ria
ls
di
st
ur
be
d
- S
ex
:%
m
ale
bu
ria
ls
di
st
ur
be
d
-S
ex
:%
of
bu
ria
ls
of
un
kn
ow
n
se
x
di
st
ur
be
d
- S
ex
:%
of
di
st
ur
be
d
bu
ria
ls
w
hi
ch
ar
e
fe
m
ale
- S
ex
:%
of
di
st
ur
be
d
bu
ria
ls
w
hi
ch
ar
e
m
ale
- S
ex
:%
of
di
st
ur
be
d
bu
ria
ls
w
hi
ch
ar
e
of
un
kn
ow
n
se
x-
Se
x:
fe
m
ale
bu
ria
ls
as
%
of
to
ta
l
bu
ria
ls
- S
ex
:
m
ale
bu
ria
ls
as
%
of
to
ta
l
bu
ria
ls
-S
ex
:
un
kn
ow
n
se
x
bu
ria
ls
as
%
of
to
ta
l
bu
ria
ls
-
40
Br
oa
ds
ta
irs
I,
Br
ad
st
ow
Sc
ho
ol
4
8
7
15
36
40
27
%
22
%
18
%
21
%
42
%
37
%
16
%
40
%
44
%
42
Br
oa
ds
ta
irs
II
I,
St
Pe
te
r's
Ti
p
16
23
15
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
16
0
Ly
m
in
ge
II
2
9
0
28
30
10
7%
30
%
0%
18
%
82
%
0%
41
%
44
%
15
%
16
8
M
ar
ga
te
I,
H
alf
M
ile
Ri
de
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
19
2
M
on
kt
on
I,
Pr
im
ro
se
H
ill
0
3
0
6
13
16
0%
23
%
0%
0%
10
0%
0%
17
%
37
%
46
%
19
7
N
or
th
bo
ur
ne
I,
Fi
ng
les
ha
m
8
8
4
96
87
68
8%
9%
6%
40
%
40
%
20
%
38
%
35
%
27
%
20
9
Ra
m
sg
at
e
IV
,
O
ze
ng
ell
18
15
8
38
33
20
47
%
45
%
40
%
44
%
37
%
20
%
42
%
36
%
22
%
23
1
Sa
rr
e
I
(B
re
nt
)
1
6
24
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
23
1
Sa
rr
e
I
(T
A
T)
5
2
5
8
6
9
63
%
33
%
56
%
42
%
17
%
42
%
35
%
26
%
39
%
A
ll
sit
es
54
74
63
19
1
20
5
16
3
19
%
22
%
15
%
28
%
39
%
33
%
34
%
37
%
29
%
22
1
Ag
e
-S
ite no
.
-S
ite
na
m
e
-A
ge
:
di
st
ur
be
d
ad
ul
tb
ur
ial
s
-A
ge
:d
ist
ur
be
d
pr
e-
ad
ul
t
bu
ria
ls
- A
ge
:d
ist
ur
be
d
bu
ria
ls
ag
e
un
kn
ow
n
-A
ge
:t
ot
al
ad
ul
t
bu
ria
ls
-A
ge
:t
ot
al
pr
e-
ad
ul
t
bu
ria
ls
-A
ge
:t
ot
al
bu
ria
ls
ag
e
un
kn
ow
n
-A
ge
:%
ad
ul
t
bu
ria
ls
di
st
ur
be
d
-A
ge
:%
su
b-
ad
ul
tb
ur
ial
s
di
st
ur
be
d
-A
ge
:a
du
lt
bu
ria
ls
as
%
of
to
ta
lb
ur
ial
s
-A
ge
:p
re
-a
du
lt
bu
ria
ls
as
%
of
to
ta
lb
ur
ial
s
-A
ge
:u
nk
no
w
n
ag
e
bu
ria
ls
as
%
of
to
ta
lb
ur
ial
s
-
40
Br
oa
ds
ta
irs
I,
Br
ad
st
ow
Sc
ho
ol
14
2
3
56
21
14
25
%
10
%
62
%
23
%
15
%
42
Br
oa
ds
ta
irs
II
I,
St
Pe
te
r's
Ti
p
48
5
1
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
16
0
Ly
m
in
ge
II
12
0
0
52
10
6
23
%
0%
76
%
15
%
9%
16
8
M
ar
ga
te
I,
H
alf
M
ile
Ri
de
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
19
2
M
on
kt
on
I,
Pr
im
ro
se
H
ill
3
0
0
21
2
12
14
%
0%
60
%
6%
34
%
19
7
N
or
th
bo
ur
ne
I,
Fi
ng
les
ha
m
16
1
3
17
5
54
22
9%
2%
70
%
22
%
9%
20
9
Ra
m
sg
at
e
IV
,
O
ze
ng
ell
31
8
2
63
24
4
49
%
33
%
69
%
26
%
4%
23
1
Sa
rr
e
I
(B
re
nt
)
29
2
0
26
2
31
0
11
%
6%
89
%
11
%
0%
23
1
Sa
rr
e
I
(T
A
T)
10
2
0
14
9
0
71
%
22
%
61
%
39
%
0%
A
ll
sit
es
16
3
20
9
64
3
15
1
58
18
%
10
%
75
%
18
%
7%
22
2
D
im
en
si
on
s
-S
ite no
.
-S
ite
na
m
e
-D
im
en
sio
ns
:
av
er
ag
e
de
pt
h
of
all
gr
av
es
-D
im
en
sio
ns
:
av
er
ag
e
le
ng
th
of
all
gr
av
es
-D
im
en
sio
ns
:
av
er
ag
e
w
id
th
of
all
gr
av
es
-D
im
en
sio
ns
:
av
er
ag
e
de
pt
h
of
un
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
-D
im
en
sio
ns
:
av
er
ag
e
le
ng
th
of
un
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
-D
im
en
sio
ns
:
av
er
ag
e
w
id
th
of
un
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
-D
im
en
sio
ns
:
av
er
ag
e
de
pt
h
of
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
-D
im
en
sio
ns
:
av
er
ag
e
le
ng
th
of
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
-D
im
en
sio
ns
:
av
er
ag
e
w
id
th
of
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
-
40
Br
oa
ds
ta
irs
I,
Br
ad
st
ow
Sc
ho
ol
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
42
Br
oa
ds
ta
irs
II
I,
St
Pe
te
r's
Ti
p
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
16
0
Ly
m
in
ge
II
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
16
8
M
ar
ga
te
I,
H
alf
M
ile
Ri
de
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
19
2
M
on
kt
on
I,
Pr
im
ro
se
H
ill
0.
34
2.
05
0.
77
0.
34
2
0.
74
0.
35
2.
43
1
19
7
N
or
th
bo
ur
ne
I,
Fi
ng
les
ha
m
0.
49
2.
04
0.
71
0.
48
2.
01
0.
7
0.
62
2.
33
0.
86
20
9
Ra
m
sg
at
e
IV
,
O
ze
ng
ell
0.
74
U
U
0.
71
U
U
0.
78
U
U
23
1
Sa
rr
e
I
(B
re
nt
)
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
23
1
Sa
rr
e
I
(T
A
T)
0.
55
2.
22
0.
94
0.
37
1.
84
0.
81
0.
68
2.
51
1.
02
A
ll
sit
es
0.
54
2.
05
0.
73
0.
52
2.
00
0.
71
0.
62
2.
35
0.
88
22
3
Co
ffi
ns
an
d
st
ru
ct
ur
al
fe
at
ur
es
:d
itc
he
sa
nd
m
ou
nd
s
-S
ite no
.-
Si
te
na
m
e
-N
o.
of
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
w
ith
co
ffi
ns
- %
of
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
w
hi
ch
ha
ve
co
ffi
ns
- T
ot
al
no
.o
f
gr
av
es
w
ith
co
ffi
ns
-%
of
co
ffi
n
gr
av
es
w
hi
ch
ar
e
di
st
ur
be
d
-N
o.
of
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
w
ith
an
y
in
te
rn
al
or
ex
te
rn
al
st
ru
ct
ur
es
- %
of
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
w
ith
an
y
in
te
rn
al
or
ex
te
rn
al
st
ru
ct
ur
es
- N
o.
of
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
w
ith
re
ct
an
gu
lar
,o
va
l,
or
pe
na
nn
ul
ar
di
tc
he
s(
H
og
ar
th
II
b)
- T
ot
al
no
.o
f
gr
av
es
w
ith
re
ct
an
gu
lar
or
pe
na
nn
ul
ar
di
tc
he
s
- %
of
gr
av
es
w
ith
re
ct
an
gu
lar
or
pe
na
nn
ul
ar
di
tc
he
sw
hi
ch
ar
e
di
st
ur
be
d
- N
o.
of
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
w
ith
pr
ob
ab
le
un
di
tc
he
d
m
ou
nd
s
- T
ot
al
no
.o
f
gr
av
es
w
ith
pr
ob
ab
le
un
di
tc
he
d
m
ou
nd
s
- %
of
gr
av
es
w
ith
pr
ob
ab
le
un
di
tc
he
d
m
ou
nd
sw
hi
ch
ar
e
di
st
ur
be
d
-
40
Br
oa
ds
ta
irs
I,
Br
ad
st
ow
Sc
ho
ol
6
33
%
U
U
8
44
%
2
2
10
0%
1
2
50
%
42
Br
oa
ds
ta
irs
II
I,
St
Pe
te
r's
Ti
p
42
78
%
15
7
27
%
20
37
%
3
17
18
%
U
U
U
16
0
Ly
m
in
ge
II
0
0%
0
-
2
18
%
0
0
-
0
1
0%
16
8
M
ar
ga
te
I,
H
alf
M
ile
Ri
de
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
19
2
M
on
kt
on
I,
Pr
im
ro
se
H
ill
1
33
%
1
10
0%
1
33
%
0
0
-
0
0
-
19
7
N
or
th
bo
ur
ne
I,
Fi
ng
les
ha
m
6
35
%
59
10
%
3
18
%
2
11
18
%
0
2
0%
20
9
Ra
m
sg
at
e
IV
,
O
ze
ng
ell
14
36
%
22
64
%
20
51
%
0
0
-
0
0
-
23
1
Sa
rr
e
I
(B
re
nt
)
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
0
0
-
23
1
Sa
rr
e
I
(T
A
T)
0
0%
1
0%
4
44
%
0
0
-
0
0
-
A
ll
sit
es
69
46
%
24
0
26
%
58
38
%
7
30
-
1
5
-
22
4
St
ru
ct
ur
al
fe
at
ur
es
:s
lo
ts
,p
os
th
ol
es
,l
ed
ge
s,
bl
oc
ks
-S
ite no
.-
Si
te
na
m
e
-N
o.
of
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
w
ith
ke
rb
-s
lo
ts
(H
og
ar
th
II
d)
-T
ot
al
no
.o
f
gr
av
es
w
ith
ke
rb
-
slo
ts
- %
of
gr
av
es
w
ith
ke
rb
-
slo
ts
w
hi
ch
ar
e
di
st
ur
be
d
-N
o.
of
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
w
ith
po
st
ho
le
s
-T
ot
al
no
.
of
gr
av
es
w
ith
po
st
ho
le
s-
%
of
gr
av
es
w
ith
po
st
ho
le
s
w
hi
ch
ar
e
di
st
ur
be
d
-N
o.
of
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
w
ith
ex
te
rn
all
y
vi
sib
le
st
ru
ct
ur
al
fe
at
ur
es
- T
ot
al
no
.
of
gr
av
es
w
ith
ex
te
rn
all
y
vi
sib
le
st
ru
ct
ur
al
fe
at
ur
es
- %
of
gr
av
es
w
ith
ex
te
rn
all
y
vi
sib
le
st
ru
ct
ur
al
fe
at
ur
es
w
hi
ch
ar
e
di
st
ur
be
d
- N
o.
of
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
w
ith
in
te
rn
al
led
ge
so
r
be
am
slo
ts
et
c
- T
ot
al
no
.
of
gr
av
es
w
ith
in
te
rn
al
led
ge
so
r
be
am
slo
ts
et
c
-%
of
gr
av
es
w
ith
in
te
rn
al
led
ge
so
r
be
am
slo
ts
et
c
w
hi
ch
ar
e
di
st
ur
be
d
-N
o.
of
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
w
ith
sa
nd
st
on
e
bl
oc
ks
in
fil
l
- T
ot
al
no
.
of
gr
av
es
w
ith
sa
nd
st
on
e
bl
oc
ks
in
fil
l
- %
of
gr
av
es
w
ith
sa
nd
st
on
e
bl
oc
ks
in
fil
lw
hi
ch
ar
e
di
st
ur
be
d
-
40
Br
oa
ds
ta
irs
I,
Br
ad
st
ow
Sc
ho
ol
0
0
-
1
3
33
%
4
7
57
%
5
20
25
%
1
U
U
42
Br
oa
ds
ta
irs
II
I,
St
Pe
te
r's
Ti
p
4
7
57
%
5
70
7%
13
94
14
%
9
94
10
%
3
U
U
16
0
Ly
m
in
ge
II
2
2
10
0%
0
0
-
2
3
67
%
0
0
-
0
0
-
16
8
M
ar
ga
te
I,
H
alf
M
ile
Ri
de
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
19
2
M
on
kt
on
I,
Pr
im
ro
se
H
ill
0
0
-
0
0
-
0
0
-
1
4
25
%
0
0
-
19
7
N
or
th
bo
ur
ne
I,
Fi
ng
les
ha
m
0
0
-
3
18
17
%
5
31
16
%
0
23
0%
0
0
-
20
9
Ra
m
sg
at
e
IV
,
O
ze
ng
ell
4
5
80
%
4
23
17
%
8
28
29
%
6
16
38
%
13
20
0.
65
23
1
Sa
rr
e
I
(B
re
nt
)
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
23
1
Sa
rr
e
I
(T
A
T)
0
0
-
2
3
67
%
2
3
67
%
3
4
75
%
0
0
-
A
ll
sit
es
10
14
-
15
11
7
-
34
16
6
-
24
16
1
-
-
-
-
22
5
Ar
te
fa
ct
s
-S
ite no
.-
Si
te
na
m
e
-M
in
.n
o.
of
gr
av
es
(b
ot
h
di
st
ur
be
d
an
d
un
di
st
ur
be
d)
w
ith
ar
te
fa
ct
fin
ds
-O
ve
ra
ll
%
of
gr
av
es
(b
ot
h
di
st
ur
be
d
an
d
un
di
st
ur
be
d)
w
ith
ar
te
fa
ct
fin
ds
- N
o.
of
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
w
ith
ar
te
fa
ct
s
- N
o.
of
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
w
ith
no
fin
ds
- %
of
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
w
ith
ar
te
fa
ct
s
- D
ist
ur
be
d
w
ea
po
n
gr
av
es
- %
of
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
w
hi
ch
ar
e
w
ea
po
n
gr
av
es
- T
ot
al
nu
m
be
ro
f
w
ea
po
n
gr
av
es
- %
of
w
ea
po
n
gr
av
es
w
hi
ch
ar
e
di
st
ur
be
d-
D
ist
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
co
nt
ain
in
g
be
ad
s
- %
of
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
w
hi
ch
co
nt
ain
be
ad
s
- %
of
fu
rn
ish
ed
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
w
hi
ch
co
nt
ain
be
ad
s
- D
ist
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
co
nt
ain
in
g
ch
at
el
ain
es
or
sim
ila
r
- %
of
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
co
nt
ain
in
g
ch
at
el
ain
es
or
sim
ila
r
-
40
Br
oa
ds
ta
irs
I,
Br
ad
st
ow
Sc
ho
ol
63
71
%
15
3
83
%
4
22
%
24
17
%
3
17
%
20
%
-
-
42
Br
oa
ds
ta
irs
II
I,
St
Pe
te
r's
Ti
p
30
1
78
%
47
7
87
%
21
39
%
U
U
13
24
%
28
%
9
19
%
16
0
Ly
m
in
ge
II
42
62
%
5
6
45
%
0
0%
U
U
1
9%
20
%
-
-
16
8
M
ar
ga
te
I,
H
alf
M
ile
Ri
de
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
19
2
M
on
kt
on
I,
Pr
im
ro
se
H
ill
22
65
%
3
0
10
0%
3
10
0%
U
U
0
0%
0%
-
-
19
7
N
or
th
bo
ur
ne
I,
Fi
ng
les
ha
m
14
5
71
%
12
5
71
%
4
24
%
28
14
%
3
18
%
25
%
2
17
%
20
9
Ra
m
sg
at
e
IV
,
O
ze
ng
ell
75
84
%
33
6
85
%
5
13
%
U
U
12
31
%
36
%
-
-
23
1
Sa
rr
e
I
(B
re
nt
)
U
U
18
12
60
%
7
23
%
65
11
%
2
7%
11
%
-
-
23
1
Sa
rr
e
I
(T
A
T)
16
94
%
10
1
11
1%
1
11
%
5
20
%
2
22
%
20
%
4
14
%
A
ll
sit
es
66
4
72
%
14
3
40
79
%
45
25
%
12
2
13
%
36
20
%
25
%
15
-
22
6
T
ab
le
7:
Ke
nt
si
te
s:
lim
ite
d
or
do
ub
tfu
le
ar
ly
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e
-S
ite
-C
em
et
er
y
us
e
pe
rio
d:
Ke
nt
is
h
Ph
as
es
*
- N
o.
gr
av
es
fo
ra
na
ly
si
s
-M
ax
no
.d
is
tu
rb
ed
/
po
ss
ib
ly
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
-M
ax
no
.d
is
tu
rb
ed
/
po
ss
ib
ly
di
st
ur
be
d
bu
ria
ls
-D
is
tu
rb
ed
or
po
ss
ib
ly
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
-A
rti
cu
la
tio
n
at
tim
e
of
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e?
-S
ex
-A
ge
-
Ca
nt
er
bu
ry
V
I,
O
ld
W
es
tg
at
e
Fa
rm
V
-I
X
2
1
1
U
no
U
U
D
ar
en
th
I,
D
ar
en
th
Pa
rk
I-
IV
13
1
2
6
no
M
+
F
ad
ul
t+
ad
ul
t
D
ea
lI
,M
ill
H
ill
II
-I
V
76
2
3
72
no
U
ad
ul
t
…
…
…
…
…
85
no
U
+
M
ad
ul
t+
ad
ul
t
D
un
to
n
G
re
en
I,
Po
lh
ill
V
I-
IX
10
7
2
3
52
no
U
ad
ul
t
…
…
…
…
…
83
no
?M
+
U
ad
ul
t+
ch
ild
E
as
try
II
I,
U
pd
ow
n
V
II
-I
X
78
2
2
76
:1
8
no
M
su
b-
/y
ou
ng
ad
ul
t
…
…
…
…
…
U
no
U
U
H
or
to
n
K
irk
by
II
,R
ise
ley
I-
V
II
?
11
7
5
5
CI
I
?a
rti
cu
lat
io
n
U
U
…
…
…
…
…
X
IX
no
U
U
…
…
…
…
…
X
X
II
no
U
U
…
…
…
…
…
LX
V
no
U
U
…
…
…
…
…
CX
V
no
U
U
M
in
st
er
II
I,
H
oo
Fa
rm
U
3
3
3
A
no
U
U
…
…
…
…
…
B
no
U
?c
hi
ld
…
…
…
…
…
C
?a
rti
cu
lat
io
n
U
ad
ul
t
M
in
st
er
IV
,T
ho
rn
e
Fa
rm
V
-V
II
?
3
1
1
2
no
U
ad
ul
t
Ra
m
sg
at
e
V
II
,C
ha
lk
H
ill
U
1
1
2
1/
10
6
no
U
?a
du
lt+
?c
hi
ld
Br
id
ge
I,
Bo
ur
ne
Pa
rk
V
II
I-
IX
0
U
U
U
U
U
U
*
Ri
ch
ar
ds
on
(2
00
5a
)
22
7
T
ab
le
8:
Ke
nt
si
te
s:
no
ea
rly
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e
-S
ite
-C
em
et
er
y
us
e
pe
rio
d:
Ke
nt
is
h
Ph
as
es
*
-M
in
.n
o.
of
gr
av
es
-N
o.
gr
av
es
fo
ra
na
ly
si
s
-
-A
yle
sf
or
d
II
,E
cc
les
-V
II
-X
?
-2
15
-2
02
-
-B
ek
es
bo
ur
ne
II
,A
er
od
ro
m
e
(C
ow
sli
p
W
oo
d)
-I
I-
IV
?
-4
3
-4
2
-
-C
an
te
rb
ur
y
V
,S
to
ur
St
re
et
-I
A
-1
-1
-
-C
ha
rth
am
II
,H
or
to
n
-I
-V
-6
-3
-
-D
ov
er
II
,B
uc
kl
an
d
-I
?-
IX
-4
15
-4
14
-
-M
in
st
er
-in
-T
ha
ne
tV
II
,M
ou
nt
Pl
ea
sa
nt
-V
II
-I
X
?
-1
8
-1
8
-
-N
on
in
gt
on
I
-V
-I
X
?
-1
9
-5
-
-O
rp
in
gt
on
I
-I
-I
I?
-8
4
-8
4
-
-R
am
sg
at
e
IX
,C
lif
fs
E
nd
(P
eg
w
ell
Ba
y)
-I
I-
V
?
-1
2
-1
2
-
-S
tM
ar
ga
re
t's
-a
t-C
lif
fe
-V
I-
IX
-8
-8
-
-S
tM
ar
ga
re
t's
at
Cl
iff
e
II
,T
ow
ns
en
d
Fa
rm
Ro
ad
-I
V
-V
I?
-1
2
-1
2
-
-S
no
dl
an
d
II
,H
ol
bo
ro
ug
h
-V
II
-I
X
-4
4
-3
9
-
-W
oo
dn
es
bo
ro
ug
h
II
I,
Ri
ng
lem
er
e
Fa
rm
-I
-I
II
-5
0
-5
0
-
-S
alt
w
oo
d
Tu
nn
el
-I
-I
X
-1
60
-1
60
-
*
Ri
ch
ar
ds
on
(2
00
5a
)
22
8
T
ab
le
9:
Br
oa
ds
ta
irs
I,
Br
ad
st
ow
Sc
ho
ol
(D
um
pt
on
Pa
rk
,V
al
et
ta
H
ou
se
)
In
hu
m
at
io
n
ce
m
et
er
y.
M
in
.n
o.
gr
av
es
:1
37
.S
am
pl
e
fo
rs
tu
dy
:c
.9
1
bu
ria
ls
in
c.8
9
gr
av
es
.
D
ist
ur
be
d/
po
ss
ib
ly
di
st
ur
be
d:
19
bu
ria
ls
in
18
gr
av
es
(1
8/
89
=
20
%
).
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-F
in
ds
3
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
4
-
4
M
?
28
-3
0
D
W
60
0-
70
0
(n
on
e
re
co
rd
ed
)
-
-
iro
n
kn
ife
,i
ro
n
bu
ck
le,
iro
n
bo
x
fit
tin
gs
"b
eg
an
to
cl
ea
n
up
G
ra
ve
4,
bu
tw
ill
ne
ed
so
m
e
re
st
ra
in
ta
si
ts
ed
ge
sa
re
no
tw
ell
-d
ef
in
ed
an
d
it
ha
si
n
ad
di
tio
n
be
en
cu
ti
nt
o
by
th
e
'd
uc
kp
on
d
fe
at
ur
e'"
(S
ite
Jo
ur
na
lp
35
-3
6,
14
/0
8/
70
);
“A
v
di
ff
gr
av
e
in
lo
os
e
th
ic
k
fla
ke
so
fc
ha
lk
.T
he
ou
tli
ne
sh
el
ve
sv
.s
lo
w
ly
in
3
gr
ad
ua
ls
ta
ge
sv
sh
ak
ily
,a
nd
lo
ok
sr
at
he
ra
s
th
ou
gh
it
co
ul
d
ha
ve
be
en
du
g
in
to
at
so
m
e
tim
e.
Th
is
im
pr
es
sio
n
w
as
co
nf
irm
ed
by
th
e
pr
es
en
ce
in
up
pe
rf
ill
of
tw
o
lar
ge
fr
ag
so
f?
sc
ap
ul
a
(p
os
s.
hu
m
an
)w
ell
do
w
n
ab
ov
e
pe
lv
ic
ar
ea
.H
ow
ev
er
bo
th
sk
ul
l
an
d
lo
ng
bo
ne
sa
re
in
pl
ac
e
w
hi
ch
su
gg
es
ts
th
ey
m
ay
be
fr
om
so
m
et
hi
ng
–
or
so
m
eo
ne
–
els
e.
Th
e
ar
m
s
ar
e
v
od
d
th
ou
gh
,t
he
R
on
e
be
in
g
at
a
ve
ry
od
d
an
gl
e
&
po
ss
br
ok
en
be
fo
re
de
at
h”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p2
7,
17
/0
8/
70
);
"d
es
pi
te
fin
di
ng
fr
ag
so
f?
sc
ap
ul
a
an
d
pe
lv
is
(?
?h
um
an
)w
ay
up
in
th
e
fil
l,
th
e
gr
av
e
se
em
s
pr
om
isi
ng
,a
st
he
leg
sh
av
e
tu
rn
ed
up
on
fu
rth
er
cle
an
in
g
9"
be
lo
w
...
pl
an
ne
d
it,
w
ith
all
its
ou
te
rl
ed
ge
s
(w
e
th
ou
gh
ta
tf
irs
tr
ob
be
rc
ut
tin
gs
-t
he
y'r
e
ve
ry
sh
all
ow
sh
elv
es
w
hi
ch
co
ul
d
be
lat
er
cu
tti
ng
sb
ut
de
cid
ed
pr
ob
ab
ly
w
er
e
sh
elv
es
fo
rp
lan
ks
)"
(S
ite
Jo
ur
na
lp
38
-3
9,
17
/0
8/
70
);
"t
oo
k
m
id
se
ct
io
n
to
se
e
if
an
y
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e
sh
ow
ed
,b
ut
it
di
dn
't.
Le
gs
(w
ith
ca
sk
et
re
m
ain
s)
&
sk
ul
li
n
po
sit
io
n
bu
ts
ca
pu
lae
(if
hi
s)
w
ay
up
in
fil
l,
ab
ov
e
pe
lv
is.
Lo
ts
of
sm
all
ro
de
nt
bo
ne
in
up
pe
rf
ill
,s
o
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e
po
ss
du
e
to
th
em
-o
r
fo
x?
"
(S
ite
Jo
ur
na
lp
42
,1
8/
08
/7
0)
,"
V
co
nt
or
te
d
sk
ele
to
n
in
go
od
co
nd
iti
on
"
(S
ite
Jo
ur
na
lp
44
,
19
/0
8/
70
);
“?
po
st
-m
or
te
m
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e
pr
od
uc
in
g
cu
rio
us
po
sit
io
n
of
rig
ht
fo
re
ar
m
po
in
tin
g
sh
ar
pl
y
up
w
ar
ds
”
(d
ra
ft
gr
av
e
ca
ta
lo
gu
e,
22
/0
4/
77
).
8
M 12
-1
5
C
-
50
0-
55
0
co
ffi
n
U
iii
iro
n
sp
ea
rh
ea
d,
kn
ife
,b
uc
kl
e
"c
of
fin
lin
e
em
er
gi
ng
at
E
en
d
bu
td
isa
pp
ea
rin
g
in
?d
ist
ur
be
d
ar
ea
in
th
e
m
id
dl
e,
w
he
re
N
B
tw
o
iro
n
fr
ag
sc
am
e
ou
t.
Be
lo
w
hu
m
ic
co
m
pa
ct
to
p
fil
l,
a
ve
ry
lo
os
e
ru
bb
ly
fil
lw
ith
bi
g
ch
alk
y
lu
m
ps
…
co
ffi
n
lin
e
tra
ce
d
fu
rth
er
…
an
d
pl
an
ne
d.
Sk
ele
to
n
in
v
ba
d
st
at
e
-s
ku
ll
on
ly
bo
ne
fr
ag
s&
ye
llo
w
sm
ud
ge
,t
ho
'
lo
ng
bo
ne
st
ol
er
ab
le.
V
ba
d
iro
n
sp
ea
rh
d
to
R
of
he
ad
,&
a
kn
ife
at
w
ais
t.
Bu
ck
le
@
w
ais
t.
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p8
9,
23
-2
4/
8/
71
).
11
F ad
ul
t
B
-
60
0-
70
0
po
st
ho
le
s
4
U
no
fin
ds
"a
n
ex
ce
pt
io
na
lly
w
id
e
gr
av
es
w
ith
fla
ki
ng
sh
elv
in
g
sid
es
"
[sk
et
ch
sh
ow
sp
lan
ou
tli
ne
w
ith
ap
pa
re
nt
w
id
en
in
g
alo
ng
N
sid
e
(S
ite
Jo
ur
na
lp
78
,1
7/
08
/7
1)
;"
co
m
pa
ct
br
ow
ny
hu
m
ic
ap
pe
ar
an
ce
at
hi
gh
es
t
lev
el
bu
tq
ui
ck
ly
do
w
n
to
ru
bb
le.
A
ra
th
er
sh
at
te
re
d
N
ou
tli
ne
th
re
at
en
ed
at
fir
st
bu
tt
hi
sc
on
fin
ed
on
ly
to
th
is
sid
e
on
fu
rth
er
cle
an
in
g.
Tr
ac
es
of
PH
in
S
ed
ge
,E
en
d
bu
tN
sid
e
les
sc
er
ta
in
…
Th
e
w
or
st
is
pr
ov
ed
by
bo
ne
at
all
an
gl
es
ev
er
yw
he
re
–
tib
ia
st
ick
in
g
up
rig
ht
in
fil
la
tE
en
d,
pe
lv
is
fr
ag
ju
st
to
W
of
it,
sk
ul
lt
ur
ne
d
ov
er
on
fa
ce
...
ve
ry
lo
os
e,
po
ck
et
y
ru
bb
le
fil
l..
.A
nd
N
B,
2
lar
ge
fli
nt
sb
y
sk
ul
l,
at
S
an
d
W
sid
e"
[sk
et
ch
sh
ow
st
he
fli
nt
sa
ga
in
st
th
e
sk
ul
l,
pr
op
pi
ng
it
in
ov
er
tu
rn
ed
po
sit
io
n]
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p7
1,
17
-1
8/
08
/7
1)
;"
th
is
pr
ov
ed
ve
ry
di
st
ur
be
d,
w
ith
tib
ia
st
ic
ki
ng
up
rig
ht
fr
om
lo
w
er
fil
l&
th
e
sk
ul
lf
ac
e
do
w
n.
N
ot
hi
ng
ca
m
e
ou
to
fi
ta
nd
it
se
em
sc
le
ar
ly
ro
bb
ed
.v
lo
os
e
ru
bb
ly
fil
l,
fu
ll
of
ho
le
sa
nd
ga
ps
"
(S
ite
Jo
ur
na
lp
81
,1
8/
08
/7
1)
;"
th
is
gr
av
e
se
em
st
o
ha
ve
be
en
ro
bb
ed
"
(d
ra
ft
gr
av
e
ca
ta
lo
gu
e,
22
/0
4/
77
).
22
9
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-F
in
ds
3
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
4
-
12
U ad
ul
t
C
-
60
0-
70
0
pe
na
nn
ul
ar
di
tc
h
U
i
til
e
an
d
be
ad
in
fil
l,
br
on
ze
bu
ck
le,
iro
n
na
il,
iro
n
kn
ife
"w
ith
gu
lly
/p
ali
sa
de
tre
nc
h
ro
un
d
ou
ts
id
e
ap
pe
ar
in
g
in
S
ba
lk
!G
uy
th
in
ks
he
ca
n
id
en
tif
y
lo
os
e
ar
ea
si
n
fil
lw
hi
ch
co
ul
d
be
po
st
-h
ol
es
,o
n
an
alo
gy
w
ith
St
Pe
te
r's
Ti
p"
(S
ite
Jo
ur
na
lp
70
,1
3/
08
/7
1)
;"
di
tc
h
no
w
se
en
to
be
a
ha
nd
so
m
e
ov
al
an
d
en
tra
nc
e
at
E
en
d.
U
pp
er
fil
lv
ru
bb
ly
??
ro
bb
ed
.1
fr
ag
m
ed
til
e
fr
om
th
is
lay
er
an
d
a
tin
y
re
d
gl
as
sb
ea
d"
(S
ite
Jo
ur
na
lp
94
,2
2/
08
/7
1)
;"
pi
ck
ed
up
a
lar
ge
kn
ife
@
w
ais
t&
br
&
iro
n
bu
ck
le
at
w
ais
t..
.t
he
sk
el
et
on
is
v
od
dl
y
lai
d
-R
leg
ak
im
bo
,i
fs
uc
h
leg
sc
an
be
,&
th
e
ar
m
s
cla
sp
ed
od
dl
y
at
R
sid
e.
Bo
ne
si
n
po
or
co
nd
iti
on
,b
ut
ca
rp
als
,m
et
ac
ar
pa
ls
&
ph
ala
ng
es
ha
ve
su
rv
iv
ed
od
dl
y
w
ell
"
(S
ite
Jo
ur
na
lp
96
,2
4/
08
/7
1)
;“
sk
ele
to
n
in
cu
rio
us
at
tit
ud
e
–
cr
oo
ke
d
R
leg
?a
n
ol
d
w
ou
nd
or
rig
or
m
or
tis
.i
ro
n/
br
on
ze
bu
ck
le
@
w
ais
t&
lar
ge
kn
ife
by
L
ar
m
.s
ku
ll
v
ba
d
st
at
e”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p9
5,
24
/0
8/
71
).
13
M yo
un
g
ad
ul
t
D
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
-
-
w
oo
d,
lea
th
er
,2
br
on
ze
bu
ck
le
s,
iro
n
sp
ea
rh
ea
d,
iro
n
kn
ife
"a
ve
ry
lo
os
e
fil
l,
po
ss
ib
ly
ro
bb
ed
"
(S
ite
Jo
ur
na
lp
70
,1
3/
08
/7
1)
;"
G
ra
ve
a
no
ta
bl
e
pe
ar
sh
ap
e,
as
+
gr
1
las
ty
ea
r..
.[
th
e
ac
co
m
pa
ny
in
g
sk
et
ch
ap
pe
ar
st
o
sh
ow
ex
te
ns
io
ns
to
th
e
gr
av
e
cu
tp
ro
du
cin
g
th
is
un
us
ua
l
fo
rm
]c
of
fin
tra
ce
se
m
er
gi
ng
ni
ce
ly
,e
sp
ec
ial
ly
W
of
he
ad
…
so
m
e
fa
irl
y
su
bs
ta
nt
ial
ch
un
ks
of
w
oo
d
su
rv
iv
ed
at
th
e
W
en
d
an
d
th
es
e
to
o
w
er
e
ta
ke
n
up
…
Fu
rth
er
cl
ea
ni
ng
br
ou
gh
tu
p
a
kn
ife
an
d
sp
ea
rh
ea
d.
..
fr
om
fo
ot
of
gr
av
e
a
cu
rv
ed
fla
tt
hi
n
pi
ec
e
of
iro
n.
..
w
oo
d
tra
ce
s..
.p
ar
to
fa
bu
ck
et
"
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p7
3,
19
/0
8/
71
;"
m
ay
be
cu
ti
nt
o
by
(v
sh
all
ow
)d
iag
ot
he
rg
ra
ve
or
di
tc
h.
10
ha
sa
v
co
m
pa
ct
fil
l
co
m
pa
re
d
w
ith
th
e
po
ss
.r
ob
be
d
13
"
(S
ite
Jo
ur
na
lp
73
-7
4,
14
/0
8/
71
)
15
U U
B
-
60
0-
70
0
?le
dg
es
at
sid
es
4/
5
?ii
i
no
fin
ds
“A
ve
ry
od
d
gr
av
e,
w
hi
ch
ce
rta
in
ly
lo
ok
sa
tt
he
W
sid
e
as
if
it’
sb
ee
n
ex
pa
nd
ed
so
m
ew
ha
t,
an
d
Pa
ul
als
o
sa
ys
it’
sv
.m
uc
h
m
or
e
fli
nt
y
th
an
th
e
ot
he
ru
pp
er
fil
ls.
Fl
in
ts
als
o
lo
ok
to
m
e
to
be
m
or
e
co
nc
.o
n
th
e
W
sid
e”
(S
ite
Jo
ur
na
lp
87
,2
0/
08
/7
1)
;“
ex
ca
va
tio
n
be
ga
n
w
ith
so
m
e
ho
pe
ss
in
ce
its
ali
gn
m
en
ta
nd
pr
ox
im
ity
to
gr
.1
0
su
gg
es
te
d
it
co
ul
d
be
a
gr
av
e
fr
om
th
e
ea
rli
es
tp
ha
se
of
th
e
sit
e
e.g
.C
5
or
ea
rly
C6
.A
sli
gh
tb
ul
ge
on
th
e
E
sid
e…
in
di
ca
te
d
th
at
it
ha
d
be
en
w
id
en
ed
at
so
m
e
pe
rio
d
an
d
w
as
pr
es
um
ab
ly
a
2b
le
on
e”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p8
1,
20
/0
8/
71
);
“f
ou
nd
em
pt
y
of
all
bu
tt
in
y
pi
le
of
fr
ag
.l
on
g
bo
ne
st
ow
ar
ds
S
en
d.
E
xc
av
at
ed
pr
of
ile
ce
rta
in
ly
be
ar
so
ut
th
e
2b
le
th
eo
ry
,a
nd
als
o
re
ve
als
v.
sh
all
ow
led
ge
so
n
ea
ch
sid
e
–
Sa
xo
n
led
ge
so
rp
lo
ug
h
m
ar
ks
?”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p8
1,
21
/0
8/
71
);
“T
he
bi
g
ev
en
t-
&
di
sa
pp
oi
nt
m
en
to
f
th
e
da
y
w
as
th
e
ex
ca
va
tio
n
of
15
w
hi
ch
pr
ov
ed
it
to
ta
lly
di
st
ur
be
d
an
d
em
pt
y
of
all
bu
ta
fe
w
?lo
ng
bo
ne
fr
ag
sa
tS
en
d
(h
ea
d
en
d,
ju
dg
in
g
by
its
pl
an
)”
(S
ite
Jo
ur
na
lp
89
,2
1/
08
/7
1)
.
30
M ol
d
C
-
60
0-
70
0
be
am
slo
ts
,
led
ge
at
W
en
d
U
U
sp
ea
rh
ea
d
in
fil
l,
2
br
on
ze
st
ap
le
s,
br
on
ze
bu
ck
le
lo
op
an
d
to
ng
ue
"a
sp
len
di
d
ex
am
pl
e
of
th
e
be
am
-s
lo
tt
yp
e..
.l
ed
ge
@
th
e
W
en
d.
Sl
ot
ss
ho
w
an
am
az
in
g
di
ffe
re
nc
e
of
fil
l:
SW
slo
tc
on
ta
in
sc
ha
lk
ru
bb
le:
N
W
lo
am
(b
ot
h
sh
all
ow
)S
E
an
im
m
en
se
qu
an
tit
y
of
??
?:
N
E
lo
am
(b
ot
h
de
ep
).
Th
e
up
pe
rf
ill
of
th
e
gr
av
e
als
o
sh
ow
sa
no
m
ali
es
-a
di
ag
on
al
sw
ee
p
of
ch
alk
ru
bb
le
@
W
en
d,
lar
ge
da
rk
ho
le
in
m
id
dl
e.
Th
is
ha
sb
ee
n
pl
an
ne
d
an
d
ph
ot
oe
d
be
fo
re
go
in
g
fu
rth
er
.A
sp
ea
rh
ea
d
w
ith
ha
nd
so
m
e
[?d
iam
on
d-
sh
ap
ed
]b
lad
e
w
as
ap
pe
ar
in
g
to
w
ar
ds
en
d
of
da
y,
alm
os
tv
er
tic
all
y
(p
oi
nt
up
w
ar
ds
)i
n
fil
l@
W
en
d
of
gr
av
e”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
15
,0
4/
08
/7
3)
;“
fil
ld
iff
er
en
ce
ab
at
ed
af
te
ra
pp
ro
x
50
cm
,a
nd
is
no
w
ch
alk
ru
bb
le
th
ro
ug
ho
ut
–
so
pe
rh
ap
st
he
ro
bb
er
sm
iss
ed
th
eir
ta
rg
et
”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
15
,0
5/
08
/7
3)
.[
Fu
rth
er
fin
ds
an
d
sk
ele
to
n
th
en
em
er
ge
d,
w
ith
no
di
so
rd
er
m
en
tio
ne
d.
]
23
0
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-F
in
ds
3
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
4
-
32
F ol
d
B
-
50
0-
55
0
co
ffi
n
4
?ii
i
5
be
ad
s,
iro
n
fr
ag
m
en
ts
“R
ub
bl
y
co
ar
se
fil
la
fte
ru
pp
er
lo
am
y
lay
er
…
pr
od
uc
ed
fr
ag
so
fi
ro
n
?s
tra
p
fit
tin
gs
in
to
p
m
os
tl
ay
er
of
fil
l,
&
lo
w
er
lev
els
ha
ve
gi
ve
n
fu
rth
er
in
di
ca
tio
n
of
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e
w
ith
tw
o
gr
os
sly
di
so
rie
nt
ed
tib
ia
st
ic
ki
ng
up
in
th
e
fil
l@
E
en
d.
Sc
at
te
ra
su
su
al
of
I.A
.s
he
rd
sb
ut
no
ot
he
rf
in
ds
…
"
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
17
,0
6-
07
/0
8/
73
);
"T
he
bo
ne
si
n
th
is
gr
av
e
ar
e
a
m
es
s.
A
ll
th
e
leg
bo
ne
sa
re
w
ild
ly
di
st
ur
be
d
an
d
ap
pe
ar
st
ick
in
g
up
at
od
d
an
gl
es
in
th
e
fil
l,
w
hi
le
th
e
cr
an
ial
fr
ag
sa
pp
ea
re
d
up
sid
e
do
w
n
in
m
id
gr
av
e.
Th
er
e
se
em
st
o
be
no
th
in
g
(e
xc
ep
tc
of
fin
sm
ud
ge
)@
th
e
W
en
d,
w
he
re
bo
tto
m
ha
sb
ee
n
re
ac
he
d”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
17
,0
8/
08
/7
3)
;“
5
be
ad
s,
by
th
e
sk
ul
la
m
id
sh
ip
si
nc
l.
3
de
co
ra
te
d
gl
as
sb
ea
ds
,1
bo
ne
an
d
1
am
be
r.
N
o
ot
he
rf
in
ds
at
th
is
(lo
w
)l
ev
el)
”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
17
,
09
/0
8/
73
).
37
U U
B
-
62
5-
70
0
sid
e
led
ge
(s
)
4
U
po
t,
sil
ve
rs
ta
in
,
iro
n
fr
ag
m
en
ts
"L
oo
se
ch
alk
ru
bb
le
v.
qu
ick
ly
,w
ith
sli
gh
tly
sh
el
vi
ng
sid
es
.S
po
ng
y
bo
ne
fr
ag
(?
ve
rte
br
ae
?p
elv
is)
in
pe
lv
ic
po
sit
io
n
hi
gh
in
fil
l"
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
49
;1
3/
08
/7
3)
;"
Co
nt
in
ui
ng
do
w
n.
Th
e
sh
el
vi
ng
of
sid
es
st
op
s&
a
sh
el
fp
ro
pe
ra
lo
ng
N
sid
e
em
er
ge
d.
Th
os
e
di
sp
lac
ed
bo
ne
th
ro
’o
ut
fil
l,
in
c
cr
an
ial
fr
ag
ne
ar
pe
lv
is"
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
49
;1
4/
08
/7
3)
;"
Fr
ag
so
f?
w
he
el
tu
rn
ed
po
tb
y
R
fo
ot
po
sit
io
n,
th
e
sh
er
ds
di
st
ur
be
d
in
th
is
ar
ea
,L
tib
ia
di
sp
la
ce
d,
bo
th
pr
es
um
ab
ly
by
ro
bb
er
s.
Fe
m
ur
a,
R
tib
an
d
ar
m
ss
ee
m
in
gl
y
in
po
sit
io
n
un
de
rt
he
lay
er
of
cr
an
ial
an
d
ot
he
ru
ni
de
nt
if.
sp
on
gy
bi
ts
pr
es
um
ab
ly
he
ad
en
d
du
g
fo
r
go
od
ies
.S
lig
ht
sil
ve
rs
ta
in
in
th
is
bo
ne
gu
ng
e
ar
ea
…
”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
49
.1
5/
08
/7
3)
;“
fr
ag
so
f
a
?w
he
el
tu
rn
ed
po
tb
y
th
e
R
fo
ot
po
sit
io
n
w
er
e
fo
un
d.
Th
e
L
tib
ia
is
rig
ht
ou
to
fp
os
iti
on
,a
si
ft
hi
se
nd
of
th
e
gr
av
e
w
as
ch
ur
ne
d
up
w
he
n
ro
bb
ed
.A
no
th
er
ho
le
w
as
pr
es
um
ab
ly
du
g
at
th
e
he
ad
en
d
of
th
e
gr
av
e
w
he
n
cr
an
ial
bo
ne
ha
d
alm
os
tc
om
pl
et
ely
go
ne
,b
ein
g
fo
un
d
sh
at
te
re
d
in
to
tin
y
pi
ec
es
&
di
st
rib
ut
ed
ab
ov
e
th
e
pe
lv
is.
A
sil
ve
rs
ta
in
in
th
is
di
st
ur
be
d
ar
ea
w
as
pl
ot
te
d
an
d
ph
ot
oe
d”
(S
ite
Jo
ur
na
l
p1
42
,1
5/
08
/7
3)
.
50
M
?
17
-2
0
B
-
60
0-
70
0
(n
on
e
re
co
rd
ed
)
4/
5
U
iro
n
kn
ife
,n
ail
,
fr
ag
m
en
ts
“a
go
od
ha
rd
ed
ge
,t
ho
th
e
E
en
d
is
a
bi
tv
ag
ue
.P
el
vi
c
fr
ag
sa
nd
in
ve
rte
d
m
an
di
bl
e
in
th
e
ce
nt
re
"
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
51
,1
3/
08
/7
3)
"I
ro
n
kn
ife
on
flo
or
an
d
so
m
e
ot
he
ri
ro
n
fr
ag
sw
ith
go
od
te
xt
ile
(tw
ill
)
on
th
em
.N
o
ot
he
rf
in
ds
ex
ce
pt
an
iro
n
na
il
ye
st
er
da
y,
hi
gh
in
fil
l.
Bo
ne
sc
on
tin
ue
di
st
ur
be
d”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
51
,1
4/
08
/7
3)
.[
Sk
et
ch
sh
ow
sw
ha
tl
oo
ks
lik
e
a
se
co
nd
ar
y
cu
te
xt
en
di
ng
E
en
d.
]
55
/a
F ol
d
D
-
60
0-
62
5
U
-
-
ch
ec
k
co
in
da
te
“T
hi
sc
on
ta
in
ed
at
lea
st
tw
o
ve
ry
di
st
ur
be
d
bu
ria
ls,
th
e
lo
w
er
on
e
po
ss
ib
ly
un
di
st
ur
be
d
an
d
in
sit
u,
th
e
up
pe
rs
ca
tte
re
d
lib
er
all
y
in
fil
l”
(S
ite
Jo
ur
na
lp
14
2,
15
/0
8/
73
)
55
/b
F ol
d
D
-
60
0-
70
0
U
-
-
iro
n
kn
ife
,
pu
rs
e
m
ou
nt
s,
go
ld
co
in
,8
be
ad
s
(s
ee
ab
ov
e)
23
1
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-F
in
ds
3
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
4
-
64
U 30
-4
0
B
ro
ot
s
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
4
ii
iro
n
kn
ife
fr
ag
m
en
ts
“T
op
cle
an
ed
…
A
ve
ry
m
ar
ke
d
di
ffe
re
nc
e
in
fil
ls
ug
ge
st
sa
se
co
nd
ar
y
bu
ria
l”
[a
sk
et
ch
sh
ow
sa
ce
nt
ra
l
ar
ea
of
br
ow
n
ea
rth
su
rr
ou
nd
ed
by
ch
alk
ru
bb
le
,w
ith
a
su
bs
ta
nt
ial
ro
ot
cu
tti
ng
in
to
th
e
gr
av
e
ha
lfw
ay
alo
ng
on
e
sid
e]
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
77
,0
1/
08
/7
4)
;“
Ru
bb
le
pe
rs
ist
s@
N
E
an
d
SW
co
rn
er
sw
ith
so
ft
po
w
de
ry
da
rk
fil
lp
et
er
in
g
ou
td
ow
n
ce
nt
re
.C
ou
ld
af
te
r[
all
]t
hi
sb
e
ro
ot
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e?
”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
77
,0
2-
03
/0
8/
74
);
“S
ha
llo
w
se
em
in
g
up
pe
rf
ill
ap
pe
ar
ed
to
be
pe
te
rin
g
ou
t,
bu
tr
ee
m
er
ge
d
in
N
W
co
rn
er
as
po
ss
.r
ob
be
r?
ho
le”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
77
,0
5/
08
/7
4)
;“
Tw
o
fe
m
or
a
em
er
ge
d
pa
ra
lle
lx
-w
ise
at
W
en
d
of
gr
av
e.
D
ar
k
fil
lc
on
tin
ue
sd
ow
n
in
po
ck
et
s@
E
en
d.
V
er
y
m
uc
h
di
st
ur
be
d
an
d
ro
bb
ed
”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
77
,0
6/
08
/7
4)
;“
Le
gs
of
pr
im
ar
y
in
hu
m
at
io
n
vi
sib
le
on
ba
se
of
gr
av
e.
?M
et
al
st
ain
em
er
gi
ng
at
he
ad
en
d.
”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
77
,0
7/
08
/7
4)
;“
pi
ck
in
g
up
iro
n/
w
oo
d/
te
xt
ile
fla
ke
s
fr
om
?k
ni
fe
an
d
sh
ea
th
an
d
be
lt?
at
fe
m
or
al
lev
el.
Te
et
h
ap
pa
re
nt
at
he
ad
en
d:
w
ho
le
sk
ele
to
n
in
po
or
co
nd
iti
on
pr
ob
ab
ly
du
e
to
co
ffi
n.
”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
78
,0
8/
08
/7
4)
;“
Ri
ch
de
po
sit
,o
fi
m
pr
eg
na
te
d
w
oo
d
in
pe
lv
ic
ar
ea
–
in
pa
rti
cu
lar
,o
ne
lar
ge
pi
ec
e.”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
78
,0
9-
10
/0
8/
74
);
“E
nt
ire
pe
lv
ic
ar
ea
lo
ok
sl
ik
e
di
st
ur
be
d.
N
o
fe
m
ur
s.”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
78
,1
2/
08
/7
4)
;“
st
ill
in
te
rp
re
tin
g
th
e
da
rk
fil
l,
w
hi
ch
,
af
te
rs
ee
m
in
g
to
pe
te
ro
ut
at
.c
30
cm
de
ep
,n
ow
co
nt
in
ue
si
n
N
W
co
rn
er
of
gr
av
e,
m
ak
in
g
an
om
in
ou
s
lo
ok
in
g
ho
le
.N
o
fin
ds
so
fa
r,
th
ou
gh
RB
po
tte
ry
w
as
pr
es
en
ti
n
up
pe
rf
ill
"
(S
ite
Jo
ur
na
lp
16
2,
05
/0
8/
74
);
“6
4
cle
ar
ly
ro
bb
ed
:l
eg
bo
ne
sa
ta
ll
an
gl
es
.B
ut
th
is
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e
se
em
st
o
pe
te
ro
ut
be
lo
w
th
e
bo
ny
lay
er
,s
o
w
e
ju
st
m
ig
ht
ha
ve
an
un
di
st
ur
be
d
pr
im
ar
y
be
lo
w
th
is.
W
ish
fu
lt
ho
ug
ht
s,
do
ub
tle
ss
.”
(S
ite
Jo
ur
na
lp
16
4,
06
/0
8/
74
);
“v
er
y
di
st
ur
be
d
pe
lv
ic/
th
or
ac
ic
se
ct
io
n.
It
lo
ok
s,
ev
en
at
th
e
bo
tto
m
,a
si
ft
he
ro
bb
in
g
in
th
e
up
pe
rs
ta
ge
so
ft
hi
sg
ra
ve
m
ay
ac
tu
all
y
ha
ve
pe
ne
tra
te
d
to
th
e
pr
im
ar
y
an
d
th
at
th
e
bo
ne
fr
ag
so
fu
pp
er
fil
lr
ea
lly
ar
e
fr
om
it.
”
(S
ite
Jo
ur
na
lp
17
4,
12
/0
8/
74
);
"g
ra
ve
di
st
ur
be
d"
(d
ra
ft
gr
av
e
ca
ta
lo
gu
e
25
/0
4/
77
).
65
M 35
-4
0
B
-
57
5-
62
5
(n
on
e
re
co
rd
ed
)
4
U
iro
n
bu
ck
le
,
do
ub
le
riv
et
(?
sh
iel
d)
,
br
on
ze
sh
ee
t
fr
ag
m
en
t(
?b
elt
)
“R
ub
bl
y
ch
alk
fil
l.
A
tW
en
d
tra
ce
so
fd
ist
ur
be
d
pe
lv
ic
bo
ne
sa
nd
?R
.h
um
er
us
in
up
pe
rf
ill
.F
em
ur
sa
nd
lo
w
er
leg
bo
ne
se
xt
en
de
d
in
sit
u
ap
pr
ox
20
cm
lo
w
er
.F
ra
g
of
sp
ea
rh
ea
d
tip
at
SW
co
rn
er
.”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
79
,0
1-
02
/0
8/
74
);
“T
in
y
br
on
ze
sh
ee
tf
ra
g
on
lo
w
er
pe
lv
is
-?
fr
om
be
lt
fit
tin
g.
”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
79
,0
3/
08
/7
4)
;“
gr
av
e
65
is
cl
ea
rly
ro
bb
ed
an
d
m
os
to
ft
he
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e
is
at
th
e
he
ad
/t
ho
ra
x
en
d,
th
o
sk
ul
li
so
k.
M
ay
be
a
sw
or
d
w
as
ta
ke
n?
Sm
all
iro
n…
bu
ck
le
an
d
2b
le
riv
et
w
ith
w
oo
d
gr
ain
su
gg
es
ts
om
e
ela
b.
st
ra
p
eq
ui
pm
en
t–
bu
tt
hi
sp
er
ha
ps
fr
om
a
sh
ie
ld
.N
o
sig
n
ye
to
fr
es
to
fs
pe
ar
.”
(S
ite
Jo
ur
na
lp
16
1,
04
/0
8/
74
);
“S
ee
m
sc
lea
rt
ha
tt
he
up
pe
r(
i.e
.W
)½
of
th
is
gr
av
e
ha
sb
ee
n
ro
bb
ed
–
gt
.d
ist
ur
ba
nc
e
in
th
or
ax
re
gi
on
.P
er
ha
ps
th
ey
w
en
ti
n
to
ta
ke
ou
ta
sw
or
d?
Sm
all
iro
n
bu
ck
le
at
w
ais
t-
?i
st
hi
sf
ro
m
sw
or
d-
be
lt
fit
tin
g”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
79
,0
5/
08
/7
4)
;"
di
st
ur
be
d"
(d
ra
ft
gr
av
e
ca
ta
lo
gu
e,
25
/0
4/
77
).
23
2
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-F
in
ds
3
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
4
-
67
M 20
B
-
53
0-
57
0
?b
ar
ro
w
,
sa
nd
st
on
e
ch
un
k
4
U
iro
n
sp
ea
r
fe
rr
ul
e,
iro
n
sh
iel
d
gi
m
p,
br
on
ze
st
ud
,
sil
ve
r?
sc
ab
ba
rd
,
gi
lti
ng
"B
ro
w
n
hu
m
ic
fil
le
xc
ep
t@
N
E
en
d
w
he
re
m
or
e
ch
alk
y
ru
bb
le
cu
tti
ng
th
ro
ug
h
a
hu
m
us
fil
led
IA
pi
t/
ph
.T
hi
sc
on
ta
in
ed
on
up
pe
rl
ev
el
2
w
he
lk
sa
nd
2
sh
er
ds
of
IA
po
tte
ry
"
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
83
,
02
/0
8/
74
);
"C
ha
lk
y
ru
bb
le
ap
pe
ar
in
g
@
c.
40
cm
de
pt
h.
N
o
lo
os
e
bo
ne
sc
ra
ps
"
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
83
,
03
/0
8/
74
);
"T
ur
ni
ng
ou
tv
.d
ee
p
-n
ea
rly
4f
tt
o
ch
alk
.L
ar
ge
ch
un
k
Th
an
et
sa
nd
st
on
e
fo
un
d
lo
w
in
fil
l
@
W
.e
nd
.W
as
th
is
th
ro
w
n
on
to
th
e
co
rp
se
de
lib
er
at
el
y?
Pa
rt
of
gr
av
e
fu
rn
itu
re
?B
ac
k
fil
lo
f
de
sp
oi
ler
s?
O
rj
us
tr
es
id
ua
li
n
so
il.
Th
e
gr
av
e
lo
ok
sr
ob
be
d,
an
d
its
gr
ea
td
ep
th
su
gg
es
ts
it
m
ay
ha
ve
be
en
ric
hl
y
fu
rn
ish
ed
.S
m
all
sil
ve
rg
ilt
?b
elt
fit
tin
g
lo
os
e
in
fil
l@
W
en
d”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
83
,
05
/0
8/
74
);
"C
lea
re
vi
de
nc
e
of
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e
co
nt
in
ue
sd
ow
n.
Ir
on
?s
pe
ar
fe
rr
ul
e
an
d
di
st
ur
be
d
fe
m
ur
s
fo
un
d
1/
2
w
ay
do
w
n
fil
l"
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
83
,0
6/
08
/7
4)
;"
2
ha
lv
es
of
iro
n
sh
ie
ld
gr
ip
at
op
po
sit
e
sid
es
of
gr
av
e"
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
84
,0
7/
08
/7
4)
;“
Th
is
gr
av
e
st
an
ds
iso
lat
ed
in
th
is
ar
ea
of
th
e
ce
m
et
er
y,
w
ith
no
ot
he
rr
ich
sh
iel
d-
gr
av
es
ne
ar
by
.T
he
fa
ct
th
at
it
ha
sb
ee
n
ro
bb
ed
als
o
su
gg
es
ts
th
at
it
w
as
pe
rh
ap
s
m
or
e
gr
an
dl
y
fu
rn
ish
ed
st
ill
th
an
71
or
66
or
74
”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
84
);
"g
ra
ve
ro
bb
ed
an
d
in
gr
ea
t
di
so
rd
er
"
(d
ra
ft
gr
av
e
ca
ta
lo
gu
e,
25
/0
4/
77
);
“6
7
w
as
a
lar
ge
,d
ee
p
an
d
w
ell
-c
ut
gr
av
e
w
hi
ch
ha
d
be
en
th
or
ou
gh
ly
ro
bb
ed
at
so
m
e
po
in
ta
fte
rb
ur
ial
w
he
n
th
e
iro
nw
or
k
w
as
alr
ea
dy
ro
tti
ng
in
to
a
fr
iab
le
co
nd
iti
on
,a
sn
um
er
ou
ss
m
all
ru
st
fr
ag
m
en
ts
fr
om
th
is
gr
av
e
sh
ow
.H
ow
ev
er
,s
uf
fic
ie
nt
su
rv
iv
ed
to
in
di
ca
te
th
at
th
is
ha
d
in
de
ed
be
en
th
e
bu
ria
lo
fa
hi
gh
-r
an
ki
ng
w
ar
rio
r.
Th
er
e
w
as
a
sh
or
ts
hi
eld
-g
rip
an
d
a
br
on
ze
riv
et
fr
om
th
e
sh
ie
ld
,a
lo
ng
sp
ea
rf
er
ru
le
,a
nd
m
os
tt
an
ta
lis
in
g
of
all
,a
he
av
ily
w
or
n
tin
y
sil
ve
r
gi
lt
sc
ra
p
of
gr
oo
ve
d
sh
ee
tw
hi
ch
co
m
es
fr
om
a
sw
or
d
sc
ab
ba
rd
m
ou
th
of
lat
e
5t
h
an
d
ea
rly
6t
h
ce
nt
ur
y
ty
pe
.I
ti
si
m
po
ss
ib
le
to
da
te
th
is
se
cu
re
ly
fr
om
su
ch
de
br
is
of
co
ur
se
,b
ut
it
se
em
sl
ik
ely
th
at
th
is
gr
av
e
be
lo
ng
st
o
th
e
6t
h
ce
nt
ur
y,
m
os
tp
ro
ba
bl
y
to
th
e
m
id
dl
e.
It
m
ay
w
ell
ha
ve
fo
rm
ed
th
e
nu
cl
eu
sf
or
th
is
clu
st
er
of
w
ar
rio
rg
ra
ve
sw
hi
ch
is
su
ch
a
m
ar
ke
d
fe
at
ur
e
of
th
e
ce
m
et
er
y.”
(W
eb
st
er
sp
ee
ch
da
te
d
26
A
pr
il
19
78
,B
M
ar
ch
iv
e)
.
72
M 30
A
/C
-
64
0-
70
0
pe
na
nn
ul
ar
di
tc
h,
so
ck
et
s
2
U
iro
n
kn
ife
,
br
on
ze
bu
ck
le
“G
ra
ve
ha
s[
?]c
ra
ni
al
bo
ne
hi
gh
in
fil
l–
pa
rt
of
tib
ia
an
d
a
to
ot
h.
Th
e
sk
ul
la
nd
ne
ck
ha
ve
be
en
di
slo
dg
ed
fr
om
th
e
bo
dy
an
d
ar
e
in
an
up
sid
e
do
w
n
co
nd
iti
on
–
gr
av
e
ro
bb
er
sa
tw
or
k.
Re
st
of
th
e
bo
dy
in
go
od
co
nd
iti
on
,s
til
le
xt
en
de
d”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
93
,0
7/
08
/7
4)
;
"L
at
e
C7
br
on
ze
bu
ck
le
an
d
iro
n
at
ta
ch
m
en
t(
?k
ni
fe
)@
w
ais
t.
Bo
ne
s,
ap
ar
tf
ro
m
sk
ul
l,
in
a
ve
ry
go
od
co
nd
iti
on
"
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
93
,
08
/0
8/
74
);
“b
eg
an
ta
ki
ng
th
e
fil
ld
ow
n
on
72
an
d
lo
ca
te
d
th
e
gr
ue
so
m
ely
di
sa
rti
cu
lat
ed
he
ad
,t
op
pl
ed
ba
ck
up
sid
e
do
w
n
–
pr
es
um
ab
ly
by
gr
av
e
ro
bb
er
s–
on
an
ot
he
rw
ise
pe
rf
ec
tly
ar
tic
ul
at
ed
ex
te
nd
ed
su
pi
ne
co
rp
se
.T
he
ce
rv
ica
lv
er
te
br
ae
lo
ok
ve
ry
m
uc
h
as
if
th
e
ne
ck
or
pa
rt
of
it
w
as
st
ill
m
or
e
or
les
s
he
ld
to
ge
th
er
w
he
n
th
e
he
ad
w
as
se
ve
re
d
fr
om
its
rig
ht
fu
lp
os
iti
on
–
so
it
co
ul
d
ju
st
pe
rh
ap
sb
e
a
pr
e-
bu
ria
ld
ec
ap
ita
tio
n”
(S
ite
Jo
ur
na
lp
16
7,
07
/0
8/
74
).
83
F ad
ul
t
B
-
50
0-
60
0
(n
on
e
re
co
rd
ed
)
4/
5
U
iro
n
kn
ife
,
riv
et
s,
bo
x
fit
tin
gs
,b
uc
kl
e,
br
on
ze
in
lai
d
st
ud
,b
ro
nz
e
st
ra
p
ta
g,
gl
as
s
be
ad
“8
3
v.
ch
ur
ne
d
up
,r
ob
be
d
pr
es
um
ab
ly
,o
ne
or
tw
o
tin
y
iro
n
fr
ag
sa
nd
?a
bu
ck
le
.”
(S
ite
Jo
ur
na
lp
16
4)
;
“Y
es
te
rd
ay
83
pr
od
uc
ed
a
br
on
ze
st
ra
p
en
d
in
ap
pr
ox
im
at
ely
th
e
rig
ht
po
sit
io
n,
an
d
up
ne
ar
th
e
he
ad
,a
bl
ue
be
ad
an
d
a
br
on
ze
sh
oe
-s
ha
pe
d
riv
et
.O
th
er
w
ise
ro
bb
ed
.”
"L
at
er
in
sp
ec
tio
n
af
te
rl
ift
in
g
sh
ow
ed
th
e
riv
et
w
as
in
fa
ct
de
co
ra
te
d
w
ith
a
do
ta
nd
cir
cle
an
d
in
lai
d
w
ith
a
st
on
e,
th
ou
gh
tg
ar
ne
t"
(S
ite
Jo
ur
na
l
p1
72
);
“R
pe
lv
is
di
st
ur
be
d
in
fil
l.
So
m
e
sm
all
iro
n
fr
ag
s–
in
c
iro
n
riv
et
–
in
fil
l..
.“
Br
on
ze
tw
ee
ze
rs
,s
tra
p
en
d
an
d
iro
n
fr
ag
s,
riv
et
sa
nd
w
oo
d
on
leg
s–
fr
om
bo
x?
br
on
ze
W
en
d.
”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p1
72
);
"g
ra
ve
ro
bb
ed
?"
(d
ra
ft
gr
av
e
ca
ta
lo
gu
e
25
/0
4/
77
).
23
3
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-F
in
ds
3
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
4
-
94
M 30
C
W
64
0-
70
0
4
pa
irs
of
so
ck
et
s
4/
5
U
iro
n
kn
ife
,i
ro
n
bu
ck
le
“C
ru
m
bl
y
ch
alk
ed
ge
sw
ith
a
nu
m
be
ro
fi
rr
eg
ul
ar
iti
es
.P
er
ha
ps
tw
o
gr
av
es
in
te
rs
ec
tin
g?
...
G
en
er
al
ru
bb
ly
ap
pe
ar
an
ce
of
fil
lt
hr
ou
gh
ou
t.”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p2
31
,1
4/
08
/7
4)
;“
Fo
ur
sm
all
un
de
rc
ut
so
ck
et
si
n
ea
ch
sid
e.
Th
e
ch
alk
he
re
is
ve
ry
cr
um
bl
y
bu
tI
do
n’
tt
hi
nk
th
es
e
ha
ve
be
en
m
an
uf
ac
tu
re
d!
”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p2
31
,1
5/
08
/7
4)
;“
Sk
ul
lt
hr
ow
n
fo
rw
ar
d
on
to
th
or
ax
.C
er
vi
ca
lv
er
te
br
ae
st
ill
in
sit
u
@
en
d,
so
th
is
po
st
-
m
or
te
m
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e.
A
sm
all
an
im
al
ac
ro
ss
pe
lv
is;
pe
rh
ap
sa
cc
id
en
ta
l,
pe
rh
ap
sd
eli
be
ra
te
,s
in
ce
rib
sw
er
e
N
of
th
e
L
leg
an
d
its
lo
ng
bo
ne
sb
et
w
ee
n
th
e
leg
s.”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p2
31
,1
6/
08
/7
4)
.
95
U ad
ul
t
C
W
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
4/
5
i?
br
on
ze
sh
ro
ud
pi
n
"N
ed
ge
ve
ry
pr
ob
lem
at
ic
ow
in
g
to
an
im
al
ru
ns
"
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p2
33
,1
3-
14
/0
8/
74
);
"D
ist
in
ct
bu
ff
fil
l
ar
ou
nd
ce
nt
ra
lh
um
ic
fil
ls
ee
m
st
o
re
pr
es
en
td
itc
h
de
riv
ed
fil
lr
ou
nd
th
e
co
ffi
n"
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p2
33
,1
9-
20
/0
8/
74
);
“9
5…
97
…
an
d
98
…
all
re
ve
al
ho
rr
ib
ly
di
st
ur
be
d
co
nt
en
ts
”
(S
ite
Jo
ur
na
lp
18
9,
20
/0
8/
74
);
"G
oo
d
co
ffi
n
lin
e
em
er
ge
d
sh
or
tly
ab
ov
e
flo
or
an
d
co
nf
irm
ed
th
e
in
te
rp
re
ta
tio
n
of
fil
ld
ist
in
ct
io
n"
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p2
33
,2
1/
08
/7
4)
;“
G
ra
ve
95
co
nt
in
ue
sv
er
y
di
st
ur
be
d
an
d
ha
ss
o
fa
ry
ie
ld
ed
no
fin
ds
”
(S
ite
Jo
ur
na
lp
19
2,
22
/0
8/
74
);
"[
sk
ele
ta
ls
ta
te
:]
fr
ag
m
en
ts
on
ly"
(d
ra
ft
gr
av
e
ca
ta
lo
gu
e,
25
/0
4/
77
).
97
M ad
ul
t
B
-
60
0-
70
0
(n
on
e
re
co
rd
ed
)
4/
5
i?
iro
n
kn
ife
“C
ha
lk
y
ru
bb
le
fil
l.
D
ist
ur
be
d
bo
ne
fr
ag
st
hr
ou
gh
ou
ta
nd
in
te
rn
all
y
on
ly
sk
ul
lf
ra
gs
an
d
tw
o
fe
m
or
a
on
th
e
gr
av
e
flo
or
its
elf
.”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p2
37
);
“9
5…
97
…
an
d
98
…
all
re
ve
al
ho
rr
ib
ly
di
st
ur
be
d
co
nt
en
ts
”
(S
ite
Jo
ur
na
lp
18
9,
20
/0
8/
74
)
98
/a
F 40
-5
0
C
-
60
0-
70
0
?c
of
fin
?4
/5
U
iro
n
kn
ife
“F
ill
no
w
ch
alk
y
ar
ou
nd
a
da
rk
lo
am
y
ce
nt
re
.I
st
hi
sc
ha
lk
sp
oi
la
ro
un
d
a
co
ffi
n
ag
ain
–
as
po
ss
ib
ly
in
gr
.
95
als
o?
O
re
vi
de
nc
e
of
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e.”
(C
ut
tin
g
Bo
ok
p2
38
,1
6/
08
/7
4)
;“
95
…
97
…
an
d
98
…
all
re
ve
al
ho
rr
ib
ly
di
st
ur
be
d
co
nt
en
ts
”
(S
ite
Jo
ur
na
lp
18
9,
20
/0
8/
74
);
“9
8
als
o
re
m
ain
su
np
ro
m
isi
ng
”
(S
ite
Jo
ur
na
l
p1
92
,2
2/
08
/7
4)
;"
[sk
el
et
al
st
at
e:]
ve
ry
po
or
"
(d
ra
ft
gr
av
e
ca
ta
lo
gu
e
25
/0
4/
77
).
98
/b
U 8
C
-
U
-U
-
?4
/5
U
-
(s
ee
ab
ov
e)
A
SE
20
06
U U
B
-
U
-U
U
U
U
no
fin
ds
-
1.
Th
e
Br
ad
st
ow
Sc
ho
ol
ce
m
et
er
y
ha
sn
ot
be
en
pu
bl
ish
ed
.T
he
se
xi
ng
an
d
ag
ein
g
he
re
is
pr
ov
isi
on
al,
bu
tb
as
ed
on
all
av
ail
ab
le
in
fo
rm
at
io
n.
It
co
m
bi
ne
sa
rte
fa
ct
ua
le
vi
de
nc
e
w
ith
sk
ele
ta
la
na
lys
is
ca
rr
ied
ou
tf
or
th
e
A
SK
E
D
da
ta
ba
se
.
2.
A
SK
E
D
3.
Fi
nd
sa
sl
ist
ed
in
th
e
dr
af
tg
ra
ve
ca
ta
lo
gu
e
da
te
d
22
-2
5
A
pr
il
19
77
,B
rit
ish
M
us
eu
m
ar
ch
iv
e.
4.
Si
te
Jo
ur
na
la
nd
Cu
tti
ng
Bo
ok
,B
rit
ish
M
us
eu
m
ar
ch
iv
e.
23
4
T
ab
le
10
:B
ro
ad
st
ai
rs
II
I,
St
.P
et
er
's
T
ip
In
hu
m
at
io
n
ce
m
et
er
y.
M
in
.n
o.
gr
av
es
:4
05
.S
am
pl
e
fo
rs
tu
dy
:3
88
.D
ist
ur
be
d/
po
ss
ib
ly
di
st
ur
be
d:
54
bu
ria
ls
in
54
gr
av
es
(5
4/
38
8=
14
%
).
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e3
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-F
in
ds
4
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
5
-
-3
M ad
ul
t
B
Z
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
?3
/4
i
iro
n
kn
ife
,?
sp
ea
rh
ea
d
“P
os
iti
on
:U
nc
er
ta
in
,c
on
sid
er
ab
ly
di
sp
lac
ed
by
ro
bb
in
g.
Sk
ul
lN
.E
nt
ire
R
leg
w
ith
ha
lf
pe
lv
is
se
pa
ra
te
d
fr
om
re
st
of
sk
ele
to
n
in
fo
ot
of
gr
av
e.
Te
et
h
m
ix
ed
w
ith
rib
si
n
pe
lv
ic
ar
ea
.P
ro
b
or
ig
in
all
y
su
pi
ne
,e
xt
en
de
d,
ar
m
sa
t
sid
es
…
Co
nd
iti
on
:V
er
y
Ba
d.
Bo
ne
sd
es
tro
ye
d
by
m
od
er
n
va
nd
als
be
fo
re
th
ey
co
ul
d
be
lif
te
d.
..
“P
ro
b
a
ric
h
bu
ria
l,
sin
ce
po
sit
io
n
of
R
leg
su
gg
es
ts
w
ho
le
lim
b
co
he
siv
e
en
ou
gh
to
ha
ve
se
pa
ra
td
at
tim
e
of
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e
an
d
su
bs
eq
ue
nt
ly
re
m
ain
ed
ar
tic
ul
at
ed
.S
ug
ge
st
sr
ob
be
d
w
ith
in
10
-1
5
ye
ar
so
fb
ur
ial
,a
nd
he
nc
e
(&
gr
av
e
siz
e)
a
ric
h
bu
ria
l.
Po
ss
tra
ce
of
sp
ea
rh
ea
d
at
L
sh
ou
ld
er
.”
14
U ad
ul
t
C
-
60
0-
70
0
4
i
iro
n
kn
ife
[C
on
di
tio
n:
]F
air
.
31
F ad
ul
t
B
Z
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
5
i
iro
n
kn
ife
ta
ng
fr
ag
m
en
t,
ch
at
el
ain
e
co
m
pl
ex
“F
oo
to
fg
ra
ve
ro
bb
ed
22
Ju
l6
9
to
na
tu
ra
lc
ha
lk
lev
el
,
an
d
as
fa
ra
s4
’f
ro
m
th
e
fo
ot
re
m
ov
ed
to
les
se
rd
ep
th
s..
.
A
sw
ell
as
va
nd
als
re
ce
nt
ly
,h
ad
be
en
ro
bb
ed
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
…
Se
rio
us
ly
di
sp
lac
ed
by
an
cie
nt
ro
bb
er
s.
Sk
ul
l
fr
ag
ss
ca
tte
re
d,
te
et
h
w
id
ely
di
sp
er
se
d,
lo
ng
bo
ne
sf
ar
ou
t
of
po
sit
io
n.
”
43
U ad
ul
t
C
Z
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
U
U
11
iro
n
na
ils
,k
ni
fe
ta
ng
,a
ll
fo
un
d
lo
os
e
in
di
st
ur
be
d
so
il
"R
ob
be
d
Ju
ne
69
,a
lso
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
…
Po
sit
io
n:
U
nc
er
ta
in
.
H
ea
d
N
(?
)b
on
es
re
m
ov
ed
by
va
nd
als
,s
ku
ll
fr
ag
sa
nd
te
et
h
ne
ar
N
en
d
(h
ea
d)
.[
Fi
nd
s:]
lo
os
e
in
di
st
ur
be
d
so
il.
"
45
M ad
ul
t
B
-
62
5-
70
0
H
og
ar
th
Ia
4:
4
po
st
ho
le
s
ea
ch
sid
e
4/
5
i
iro
n
bu
ck
le
,s
pe
ar
he
ad
,k
ni
fe
,t
ag
,p
ot
te
ry
ve
ss
el
"H
ea
d
no
rth
.H
an
ds
m
ee
tin
g
at
w
ais
t.
D
ist
ur
be
d
lef
t
leg
…
Lo
ng
bo
ne
sg
oo
d.
H
ea
d
fa
ir.
Pe
lv
is
&
sp
in
e
&
rib
s
de
ca
ye
d…
Le
ft
leg
di
st
ur
be
d
an
d
m
uc
h
ou
to
fp
lac
e
w
ith
re
ve
rs
ed
fe
m
ur
."
23
5
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e3
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-F
in
ds
4
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
5
-
54
- -
D
-
62
5-
70
0
-
-
Sa
m
ian
rim
sh
er
d
an
d
2
na
ils
in
up
pe
rf
ill
,2
iro
n
sp
ea
rh
ea
ds
,b
uc
kl
e,
sp
ea
rf
er
ru
le,
sw
or
d,
sc
ab
ba
rd
ch
ap
e,
kn
ife
,s
hi
eld
-g
rip
,2
riv
et
s,
bu
ck
le
an
d
pl
at
e
“A
tt
op
ea
rth
y
w
ith
ch
alk
lu
m
ps
;l
oo
ke
d
ro
bb
ed
alm
os
t
fr
om
ou
ts
et
.I
n
th
is
m
ix
ed
fil
lt
he
pi
ec
es
of
sw
or
d,
br
ok
en
sp
ea
rs
oc
ke
t,
kn
ife
,f
er
ru
le
,e
tc
w
er
e
fo
un
d.
A
tt
hi
sp
oi
nt
w
e
th
ou
gh
tt
he
re
w
ou
ld
be
on
ly
a
di
st
ur
be
d
bu
ria
l..
.A
t
de
pt
h
24
"
be
lo
w
su
rf
ac
e
fil
lin
g
be
ca
m
e
su
dd
en
ly
ch
alk
y
an
d
ou
tli
ne
of
co
ff
in
ap
pe
ar
ed
ve
ry
cle
ar
ly
-h
ar
d
pa
ck
ed
ch
alk
ou
ts
id
e,
lo
os
er
fil
li
ns
id
e.
H
er
e
th
er
e
w
as
an
in
ta
ct
bu
ria
lw
ith
sp
ea
rb
y
le
ft
sid
e
of
sk
ul
l..
.T
hi
sg
ra
ve
co
nt
ain
ed
2
bu
ria
ls:
A
)t
he
lo
w
er
in
ta
ct
bu
ti
n
po
or
co
nd
iti
on
,w
ith
sp
ea
r1
by
lef
ts
ho
ul
de
r;
B)
up
pe
r
re
pr
es
en
te
d
by
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
e
go
od
sb
ut
sp
ea
r2
st
ill
in
po
sit
io
n
at
lef
ts
id
e
[?a
bo
ve
]c
of
fin
lin
e.
E
ith
er
th
e
pe
op
le
w
ho
bu
rie
d
A
di
st
ur
be
d
B
lea
vi
ng
sp
ea
r2
in
po
sit
io
n
O
R
bu
ria
lB
w
as
ta
ke
n
by
th
e
ro
bb
er
sw
ho
di
d
no
tp
en
et
ra
te
be
lo
w
.T
hi
sp
ro
ba
bl
y
th
e
m
os
tl
ik
el
y
in
te
rp
re
ta
tio
n.
..
A
)
Su
pi
ne
,e
xt
en
de
d
-j
us
tl
eg
bo
ne
sp
re
se
rv
ed
.B
)N
o
bo
ne
s
at
all
su
rv
iv
e.
”
C.
H
ait
h,
dr
af
tg
ra
ve
ca
ta
lo
gu
e:
“T
he
as
su
m
pt
io
n
th
at
th
is
is
a
do
ub
le
bu
ria
ls
ee
m
sb
as
ed
up
on
th
e
po
sit
io
n
of
th
e
iro
n
sp
ea
rh
ea
d,
bu
ti
tc
ou
ld
eq
ua
lly
w
ell
be
a
sin
gl
e
di
st
ur
be
d
bu
ria
lw
ith
bo
th
sp
ea
rh
ea
ds
st
ill
in
sit
u,
on
e
by
th
e
sk
el
et
on
,a
nd
th
e
ot
he
rl
yin
g
on
to
p
of
th
e
co
ffi
n.
”
57
M ad
ul
t
B
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
4
i
iro
n
an
d
co
pp
er
all
oy
sh
ie
ld
st
ud
s,
rim
cli
p,
sh
iel
d-
gr
ip
,c
op
pe
ra
llo
y
m
in
at
ur
e
bu
ck
le
,i
ro
n
sp
ea
rh
ea
d
fr
ag
m
en
t,
sw
or
d
bl
ad
e
fr
ag
m
en
ts
,c
op
pe
ra
llo
y
sc
ab
ba
rd
m
ou
nt
,w
oo
d
?f
ro
m
sc
ab
ba
rd
,i
ro
n
bu
ck
le
an
d
pl
at
e
“R
ob
be
d
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
.F
in
ds
,e
sp
w
oo
d,
br
on
ze
‘st
ud
s’
et
c,
su
gg
es
tt
o
m
e
(A
CH
)a
sh
iel
d
w
ith
de
co
ra
te
d
(a
nd
he
nc
e
co
ve
te
d)
bo
ss
,a
nd
po
ss
a
sw
or
d,
br
on
ze
fr
ag
sa
tR
sh
ou
ld
er
su
gg
es
ta
n
in
lai
d
iro
n
ob
j.
Fe
m
ur
sa
nd
tib
ia
on
ly
po
sit
iv
e
bo
ne
s…
Po
or
,s
ha
do
w
so
nl
y,
no
tra
ce
of
sk
ul
ls,
sm
all
se
ct
io
n
of
sc
ap
ul
a
jo
in
ta
nd
fr
ag
so
fh
um
er
us
…
Ti
bi
a
di
sa
rr
an
ge
d
as
sh
ow
n.
”
62
F ad
ul
t
B
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
5
iii
ne
ck
lac
e
of
8
be
ad
s:
5
m
on
oc
hr
om
e
gl
as
s,
1
po
lyc
hr
om
e
gl
as
s,
2
am
et
hy
st
qu
ar
tz
;3
sil
ve
rw
ire
sli
p-
kn
ot
rin
gs
H
ea
d
N
,v
di
st
ur
be
d
by
ro
bb
er
si
n
an
tiq
ui
ty
.A
ll
bo
ne
su
p
of
ft
he
flo
or
,a
tv
ar
yin
g
he
ig
ht
s..
.[
Co
nd
iti
on
:]
v
po
or
…
Pr
ob
a
ric
h
bu
ria
l,
th
or
ou
gh
ly
ra
ns
ac
ke
d
gr
av
e…
[F
in
ds
:]
sc
at
te
re
d
ov
er
an
ar
ea
15
”
by
13
”
am
id
sk
ul
lf
ra
gs
,j
aw
fr
ag
sa
nd
di
sp
er
se
d
te
et
h,
ab
ou
tm
id
w
ay
do
w
n
th
e
gr
av
e’s
len
gt
h.
Th
es
e
po
ss
1
st
rin
g
of
a
m
ul
ti-
st
rin
g
ne
ck
lac
e
w
hi
ch
br
ok
e
an
d
sp
ill
ed
be
ad
sb
ac
k
in
to
th
e
gr
av
e."
23
6
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e3
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-F
in
ds
4
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
5
-
64
F ad
ul
t
B
-
60
0-
70
0
H
og
ar
th
Iid
:r
ec
ta
ng
ul
ar
ke
rb
slo
t
4
i
iro
n
kn
ife
,1
2
be
ad
s:
10
m
on
oc
hr
om
e
gl
as
sa
nd
2
am
et
hy
st
qu
ar
tz
"G
ra
ve
ro
bb
ed
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
…
H
ea
d
N
.E
xt
en
de
d
su
pi
ne
.
Sk
ele
to
n
di
st
ur
be
d…
A
ll
bo
ne
se
xc
ep
tf
or
fe
m
ur
sg
on
e
or
in
sm
all
bi
ts
.S
om
e
tib
ia.
Sk
ul
lf
air
ly
po
or
…
O
bv
io
us
ly
gr
ea
tly
di
st
ur
be
d…
[B
ea
ds
in
]A
ss
or
te
d
po
sit
io
ns
ar
ou
nd
ce
nt
re
of
gr
av
e.”
69
U ad
ul
t
B
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
H
og
ar
th
II
Ia
:"
Tw
o
lar
ge
st
on
e
sla
bs
re
co
rd
ed
on
pl
an
,b
ot
h
alo
ng
ce
nt
ra
l
ax
is
of
gr
av
e;
on
e
at
th
e
he
ad
at
a
de
pt
h
of
15
cm
,
on
e
at
th
e
fo
ot
at
a
de
pt
h
of
2.
5c
m
"
4
U
no
fin
ds
"V
di
st
ur
be
d.
G
ra
ve
ro
bb
ed
,w
ho
le
re
m
ain
in
g
?s
ke
l
th
ro
w
n
in
to
(?
)fo
ot
of
gr
av
e
(s
ku
ll,
2
fe
m
ur
(fr
ag
s)
,1
tib
)…
Co
nd
iti
on
:B
ad
,v
.f
ra
gi
le.
"
71
U ?a
du
lt
C
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
H
og
ar
th
II
B:
pe
na
nn
ul
ar
di
tc
h
4
i
no
fin
ds
"M
uc
h
di
st
ur
be
d
ro
un
d
he
ad
of
sk
ele
to
n,
als
o
be
lo
w
kn
ee
s..
.S
ku
ll
di
st
ur
be
d
to
L
of
L
sh
ou
ld
er
,l
ow
er
leg
s
di
st
ur
be
d.
..
Ro
bb
er
sw
en
tf
or
he
ad
&
lo
w
er
leg
s(
ne
ck
lac
e
et
c
+
bo
x?
)"
78
U ad
ul
t
C
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
H
og
ar
th
II
a/
b:
pe
na
nn
ul
ar
ba
rr
ow
di
tc
h
an
d
po
st
ho
le
4
i
iro
n
kn
ife
,c
op
pe
ra
llo
y
st
ap
le/
re
pa
ir
cli
p
fr
om
w
oo
de
n
ve
ss
el
"P
ro
b
di
st
ur
be
d.
Br
.c
lip
m
us
th
av
e
be
en
pa
rt
of
a
ro
bb
ed
ar
tic
le
(p
os
sw
oo
de
n
cu
p
or
bo
x)
.I
fs
o,
ro
bb
ed
w
hi
le
co
ffi
n
st
ill
in
ta
ct
an
d
no
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e
of
tru
nk
or
ar
m
s
(th
er
ef
or
e
po
ss
ta
rg
et
ne
ck
ar
ea
?..
.C
on
di
tio
n
v
ba
d.
Sk
ul
l
cr
us
he
d
fr
om
ab
ov
e
(ro
bb
er
y
or
co
ffi
n
co
lla
ps
e)
.O
nl
y
lo
ng
bo
ne
sh
af
ts
re
m
ain
in
g.
..
Ir
on
kn
ife
ac
ro
ss
w
ais
t..
.
Br
on
ze
cli
ps
on
to
p
of
sk
ul
lr
em
ain
s."
79
U ad
ul
t
B
-
60
0-
70
0
4/
5
no co
ffi
n/
iii
iro
n
kn
ife
bl
ad
e
fr
ag
m
en
t,
fla
ti
ro
n
fr
ag
m
en
ts
,
co
pp
er
all
oy
st
ra
p
en
d
"V
di
st
ur
be
d,
rib
sa
nd
te
et
h
ro
un
d
pe
lv
is
ar
ea
.R
up
pe
rl
eg
di
sp
lac
ed
.S
ku
ll,
?s
pi
ne
,s
ho
ul
de
rs
go
ne
.R
ob
be
d.
"
83
D
-
60
0-
70
0
H
og
ar
th
Ic
(I
a1
/I
b4
):
pl
at
fo
rm
ea
ch
en
d,
a
po
st
ho
le
ea
ch
sid
e…
flo
or
bo
at
-s
ha
pe
d
"A
ll
go
ne
[e
xc
ep
t]
sk
ul
lf
ra
gs
an
d
te
et
h…
Ch
ild
…
N
ot
e:
I
th
in
k
po
ss
up
pe
rh
alf
ro
bb
ed
."
96
F ad
ul
t
C
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
4
i
iro
n
kn
ife
,i
ro
n
fr
ag
m
en
t,
4
gl
as
sb
ea
ds
:3
m
on
oc
hr
om
e
an
d
1
po
lyc
hr
om
e
"D
k
gr
ey
sil
to
n
flo
or
be
lo
w
no
rm
al
gr
ey
sil
t…
Ro
bb
ed
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
(?
)…
[S
ke
let
al
co
nd
iti
on
:]
N
il
ex
sk
ul
lf
ra
gs
."
23
7
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e3
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-F
in
ds
4
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
5
-
97
M ad
ul
t
B
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
H
og
ar
th
II
Ib
"li
ne
of
fli
nt
su
nd
er
sk
ele
to
n
on
rig
ht
sid
e"
4
i
iro
n
sp
ea
rh
ea
d,
kn
ife
,c
op
pe
ra
llo
y
m
ou
nt
an
d
va
rio
us
iro
n
cli
ps
fr
om
w
oo
de
n
ve
ss
el
"S
us
pe
ct
ro
bb
ed
ab
ov
e
w
ais
ta
nd
at
L
sid
e..
.F
ra
gs
of
iro
n
m
ou
nt
so
fw
oo
de
n
ob
j(
su
gg
es
ts
w
or
d
sc
ab
ba
rd
,b
ro
ke
n
by
gr
av
e
ro
bb
er
sa
nd
dr
op
pe
d
in
sid
e
co
ffi
n.
"
12
6
M ch
ild
B
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
"A
'tr
ou
gh
',5
cm
si
n
de
pt
h,
w
as
cu
ti
nt
o
th
e
flo
or
ac
ro
ss
th
e
he
ad
of
th
e
gr
av
e."
[o
ut
sid
e
co
ffi
n]
4
?i
iro
n
sp
ea
rf
er
ru
le
,k
ni
fe
.I
n
fil
l:
po
tte
ry
sh
er
d,
po
tte
ry
til
e
fr
ag
m
en
t,
2
sn
ail
sh
el
ls
an
d
a
be
ad
in
fr
ag
m
en
ts
“C
on
di
tio
n:
ba
d.
V
di
st
ur
be
d.
Pr
ob
ro
bb
ed
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
.
Te
et
h
m
id
w
ay
do
w
n
L
sid
e
of
co
ffi
n.
”
13
0
U ad
ul
t
B
-
60
0-
70
0
4/
5
?ii
i
"H
ea
d
N
,e
xt
en
de
d
su
pi
ne
,d
ist
ur
be
d.
[C
on
di
tio
n:
]v
ba
d.
Sk
ul
lv
fe
w
fr
ag
s.
Lo
ng
bo
ne
sh
af
ts
on
ly
su
rv
iv
ed
.B
on
es
at
va
rio
us
le
ve
ls.
Pr
ob
.r
ob
be
d
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
."
13
1
U su
b-
ad
ul
t
C
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
4
?i
no
fin
ds
"d
ist
ur
be
d
&
ro
bb
ed
?E
sp
up
pe
rb
od
y."
14
0
M ad
ul
t
B
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
"t
re
nc
h
7"
w
id
e,
1.
5"
de
ep
,2
'4"
w
id
e
at
he
ad
of
co
ffi
n"
4
i
no
fin
ds
“C
on
di
tio
n:
fa
ir,
v
di
st
ur
be
d,
on
ly
L
ra
d/
ul
n,
tib
/f
ib
,
ca
lc/
ta
lu
s,
an
d
F
Fi
b
Ca
lc/
Ta
lu
ss
til
li
n
sit
u
(p
os
sa
lso
m
an
d)
.R
es
ti
n
he
ap
at
he
ad
of
co
ff
in
”
14
7
F ad
ul
t
B
-
60
0-
70
0
4/
5
no
co
ffi
n
or
iii
iro
n
sh
ea
rs
,c
ha
te
lai
ne
co
m
pl
ex
.P
ot
te
ry
sh
er
d
or
an
ge
fa
br
ic,
bo
dy
fr
ag
m
en
tw
ith
lin
e
bo
rd
er
fr
om
be
lo
w
rim
,n
ot
on
gr
av
e
fo
rm
or
pl
an
L
2.
8c
m
"v
di
st
ur
be
d.
Su
br
ec
t,
sid
es
ro
ug
h
bu
tv
er
t,
flo
or
bo
at
sh
ap
ed
.R
ou
nd
ed
co
rn
er
s,
L
sid
e
bo
w
ed
ou
t…
[S
ke
let
al
po
sit
io
n:
]?
Fr
ag
so
nl
y,
an
d
th
os
e
v
fe
w
.C
on
di
tio
n:
di
st
ur
be
d.
"
16
5
F au
b-
ad
ul
t
A
-
65
0-
67
0
?2
?i
ne
ck
lac
e
of
6
pe
nd
an
ts
va
rio
us
ly
of
sil
ve
r,
sil
ve
r-
gi
lt,
gl
as
sa
nd
ga
rn
et
,a
nd
78
m
on
oc
hr
om
e
gl
as
sb
ea
ds
;
gl
as
sv
es
se
l;
iro
n
kn
ife
;a
nd
iro
n
an
d
co
pp
er
all
oy
ch
at
el
ain
e
co
m
pl
ex
[N
on
e]
18
2
M ad
ul
t
B
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
H
og
ar
th
Ic
(I
a3
/I
b3
)/
Id
:
3
pa
irs
of
lat
er
al
so
ck
et
s,
in
te
rn
al
le
dg
e
on
bo
th
sid
es
of
gr
av
e,
2
tra
ns
ve
rs
e
slo
ts
in
gr
av
e
flo
or
4
?i
co
pp
er
all
oy
an
d
iro
n-
bo
un
d
bu
ck
et
re
m
ain
s,
iro
n
sh
iel
d-
gr
ip
,?
sh
iel
d
bo
ss
fla
ng
e
fr
ag
m
en
t,
2
sp
ea
rh
ea
d
so
ck
et
fr
ag
m
en
ts
,k
ni
fe
bl
ad
e,
iro
n
sw
or
d
re
m
ain
si
nc
lu
di
ng
bl
ad
e
fr
ag
m
en
tc
ov
er
ed
w
ith
an
im
al
ha
ir,
3
lar
ge
co
ffi
n
br
ac
ke
ts
an
d
riv
et
sh
an
k,
va
rio
us
iro
n
an
d
w
oo
d
fr
ag
m
en
ts
"H
ea
d
w
es
t(
fr
ag
of
sk
ul
ln
an
d
ar
tic
sc
ap
,h
um
an
d
cla
vi
cl
e)
…
V
di
st
ur
be
d,
w
ha
tb
on
e
th
er
e
w
as
v
ca
lc
an
ou
s…
v
di
st
ur
be
d
–
fe
m
ur
sp
ile
d
on
to
p
of
tib
ias
at
fo
ot
w
ith
pi
ec
e
of
pe
lv
is,
m
an
y
bo
ne
su
nf
in
da
bl
e."
23
8
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e3
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-F
in
ds
4
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
5
-
18
5
M ad
ul
t
B
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
4
iii
iro
n
sh
ie
ld
bo
ss
,i
ro
n
sh
iel
d
gr
ip
,i
ro
n
bu
ck
le
an
d
pl
at
e
"G
ra
ve
ro
bb
ed
.H
alf
on
ly
of
co
ffi
n
re
m
ain
in
g.
W
oo
d
re
m
ain
so
ut
sid
e
co
ffi
n…
Sk
ul
lt
ra
ce
(1
5
te
et
h)
in
co
ffi
n.
H
ea
d
w
es
t.
Tw
o
sm
all
bo
ne
si
n
co
ff
in
ce
nt
re
of
gr
av
e.
Fe
w
bo
ne
so
ut
sid
e
co
ffi
n
tra
ce
di
ag
on
all
y
ac
ro
ss
gr
av
e.
Co
nd
iti
on
:v
er
y
po
or
…
Sk
ele
to
n
di
sp
er
se
d
pr
ob
ab
ly
du
rin
g
ro
bb
in
g.
"
18
6
F ad
ul
t
B
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
4
U
2
am
et
hy
st
qu
ar
tz
be
ad
s,
iro
n
kn
ife
ta
ng
,i
ro
n
ke
y/
gi
rd
le-
ha
ng
er
an
d
rin
g,
iro
n
?s
pe
ar
so
ck
et
fr
ag
m
en
to
fc
ur
ve
d
se
ct
io
n,
co
nt
ain
in
g
m
in
er
ali
ze
d
re
m
ain
so
fa
sh
sh
af
t.
N
ot
on
pl
an
or
gr
av
e
fo
rm
.
"G
ra
ve
ve
ry
lar
ge
.O
bv
io
us
ly
ro
bb
ed
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
.S
lig
ht
ly
[??
?]
to
bo
tto
m
.B
ro
ke
n
lay
er
of
st
on
e
ac
ro
ss
to
p
of
co
ffi
n…
O
nl
y
tw
o
lo
ng
bo
ne
sr
em
ain
in
ve
ry
ta
tty
co
nd
iti
on
…
D
ist
ur
be
d
to
gr
ea
te
xt
en
t."
19
8
M ad
ul
t
C
W
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
H
og
ar
th
Ia
2:
slo
ts
at
co
rn
er
s
4
U
iro
n
kn
ife
,s
pe
ar
he
ad
,b
uc
kl
e,
sh
ee
tc
op
pe
ra
llo
y
fr
ag
m
en
ts
"C
ha
lk
ru
bb
le
w
ith
so
il
pa
tc
he
s.
V
er
y
lo
os
e
sp
ot
sa
nd
als
o
so
m
e
ve
ry
co
m
pa
ct
es
pe
ci
all
y
ov
er
fe
m
ur
s,
tib
ia,
an
d
ul
n/
ra
d…
[C
of
fin
:]
w
oo
d
re
m
ain
sa
ti
nt
er
va
ls
bu
t
un
m
ea
su
ra
bl
e…
ap
ar
tf
ro
m
an
an
im
al
bu
rr
ow
th
e
gr
av
e
ap
pe
ar
st
o
ha
ve
be
en
ro
bb
ed
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
th
e
cu
ts
be
in
g
m
ad
e
by
th
e
he
ad
an
d
alo
ng
th
e
rig
ht
ha
nd
sid
e..
.
ex
te
nd
ed
su
pi
ne
,h
ea
d
w
es
t,
hu
m
er
iv
er
tic
al
bu
th
an
ds
w
er
e
ov
er
on
pe
lv
is.
leg
ss
tra
ig
ht
.C
on
di
tio
n:
fe
m
ur
s,
w
ith
ul
n/
ra
d,
to
p
of
tib
ias
go
od
,h
an
ds
go
od
,r
es
ta
nd
pe
lv
is,
sk
ul
l,
an
d
fe
et
ve
ry
po
or
sh
ad
ow
...
"
20
0
M ad
ul
t
B
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
?5
?ii
i
iro
n
bu
ck
le
lo
op
fr
ag
m
en
t,
gl
as
sv
es
se
lf
ra
gm
en
ts
,
iro
n
lo
op
ed
ro
d
fr
ag
m
en
t,
na
il,
sh
ie
ld
bo
ss
,g
rip
,
st
ud
s,
rim
m
ou
nt
,v
ar
io
us
ot
he
r s
hi
eld
re
m
ain
s,
iro
n
kn
ife
,s
pe
ar
he
ar
d,
sw
or
d
re
m
ain
si
nc
lu
di
ng
bl
ad
e
an
d
sc
ab
ba
rd
fr
ag
m
en
ts
sc
at
te
re
d
in
gr
av
e,
3
ye
llo
w
cr
ys
ta
lli
ne
fr
ag
m
en
ts
,m
in
iat
ur
e
iro
n
bu
ck
le,
iro
n
tw
ee
ze
rs
,c
of
fin
w
oo
ds
,v
ar
io
us
po
tte
ry
sh
er
ds
of
ha
nd
-m
ad
e
bl
ac
k
fa
br
ic
,v
ar
io
us
iro
n
an
d
co
pp
er
all
oy
fr
ag
m
en
ts
"F
ill
in
g:
he
ad
en
d:
ha
rd
pa
ck
ed
ch
alk
fil
l.
Fo
ot
en
d:
lo
os
e
ea
rth
fil
l.
E
nd
in
g
in
m
id
dl
e
as
on
pl
an
.[
Co
ffi
n:
]h
ea
d
en
d
on
ly.
Th
in
k
alo
ng
to
p
2-
3"
in
w
id
th
.F
irm
w
oo
d
re
m
ain
s
cu
ta
cr
os
st
he
gr
ain
.T
hi
n
tra
ce
sa
lo
ng
th
e
sid
es
up
to
ch
an
ge
in
fil
lt
he
n
no
ne
at
all
...
G
ra
ve
ro
bb
ed
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
.
Fi
nd
sd
isp
er
se
d
w
ith
ou
to
rd
er
at
fo
ot
of
gr
av
e..
.O
nl
y
tra
ce
so
fs
ku
ll
(s
qu
as
he
d)
an
d
od
d
fr
ag
m
en
ts
of
bo
ne
...
tra
ce
si
n
no
sk
el
et
al
or
de
r."
20
3
M ?c
hi
ld
C
-
62
5-
70
0
co
ffi
n
U
U
iro
n
sp
ea
rh
ea
d,
kn
ife
"[
Co
ffi
n:
]w
oo
d
tra
ce
si
n
ca
rb
on
iz
ed
fo
rm
be
gi
nn
in
g
18
"
be
lo
w
th
e
su
rf
ac
e
w
ith
w
oo
d
bo
tto
m
.3
ft
9"
*
2f
t4
"…
Be
ca
us
e
of
lo
os
e
so
il
an
d
lac
k
of
an
y
as
so
ci
at
ed
fin
ds
it
is
ob
vi
ou
st
ha
tt
he
gr
av
e
ha
sb
ee
n
ro
bb
ed
."
23
9
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e3
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-F
in
ds
4
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
5
-
21
0
U ad
ul
t
B
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
H
og
ar
th
II
Ia
:b
ro
ke
n
sa
nd
st
on
e
in
th
e
fil
la
t
de
pt
h
15
cm
?3
/4
i
iro
n
rin
g
"F
ill
in
g:
lo
os
e
so
il
at
fe
et
,c
om
pa
ct
at
he
ad
to
ab
ou
t1
ft.
Th
en
ch
alk
ru
bb
le
,a
ga
in
lo
os
e
at
fe
et
an
d
co
m
pa
ct
at
he
ad
…
[C
of
fin
:]
H
ar
d
pu
dd
led
ch
alk
ou
tli
ne
at
11
"
in
sid
e
w
hi
ch
??
?W
oo
d
re
m
ain
be
ga
n
at
1
ft
1"
…
Th
e
gr
av
e
w
as
lar
ge
an
d
ha
d
ob
vi
ou
sly
be
en
ro
bb
ed
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
.
E
sp
ec
ial
ly
lo
os
e
ar
ou
nd
th
e
fe
et
.A
cr
os
st
he
to
p
w
as
a
lay
er
of
br
ok
en
sa
nd
st
on
e..
.o
nl
y
fe
w
lo
ng
bo
ne
sl
ef
t,
po
or
co
nd
iti
on
...
Th
e
on
ly
tw
o
ap
pa
re
nt
ly
ar
tic
ul
at
in
g
bo
ne
s
w
er
e
a
fe
m
ur
an
d
tib
ia.
W
hi
ch
w
as
pl
ac
ed
at
fo
ot
of
gr
av
e.
O
th
er
lo
ng
bo
ne
pr
ob
ab
ly
fe
m
ur
/t
ib
ia
pi
le
d
be
sid
e
in
di
sa
rr
ay
."
21
5
F ad
ul
t
C
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
w
ith
lid
H
og
ar
th
Ic
(I
a4
/I
b7
):
lat
er
al
so
ck
et
s,
in
te
rn
al
led
ge
U
U
iro
n
bu
ck
le
,k
ni
fe
,s
he
ar
bl
ad
e
"S
oi
la
tt
op
.B
en
ea
th
ch
alk
ru
bb
le
co
m
pa
ct
ge
ne
ra
lly
bu
t
ra
th
er
lo
os
e
at
th
e
bo
tto
m
.[
Co
ffi
n:
]w
oo
d
pa
tc
he
s
un
m
ea
su
ra
bl
e
to
an
y
gr
ea
te
xt
en
tb
ut
co
ffi
n
di
d
ha
ve
a
lid
…
Th
e
lo
os
e
so
il
an
d
w
id
e
em
pt
y
ar
ea
at
th
e
fe
et
su
gg
es
ts
ro
bb
er
y
of
pr
ob
ab
ly
a
po
t."
22
6
F ad
ul
t
C
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
H
og
ar
th
II
a/
Iid
:k
er
b-
slo
t
w
ith
sa
nd
st
on
e
sla
bs
,2
po
st
-h
ol
es
,c
on
ne
ct
ed
to
G
r2
37
an
d
25
1
4/
5
U
co
pp
er
all
oy
pi
n,
m
on
oc
hr
om
e
gl
as
sb
ea
d,
iro
n
ch
at
el
ain
e
co
m
pl
ex
,i
ro
n
sh
ea
rs
,g
las
sf
ra
gm
en
t
"[
Co
nd
iti
on
:]
V
V
po
or
...
O
nl
y
tib
ia
fr
ag
sf
ou
nd
,p
lu
s
so
m
e
po
w
de
ry
tra
ce
s,
als
o
3
te
et
h.
"
22
7
M ad
ul
t
B
-
62
5-
65
0
co
ffi
n
4
i
iro
n
bu
ck
le
an
d
pl
at
e,
fr
ag
m
en
t,
co
pp
er
all
oy
sh
ie
ld
st
ud
s,
iro
n
bu
ck
le
,i
ro
n
sp
ea
rh
ea
d
"t
he
lo
os
e
to
p
so
il
su
rr
ou
nd
ed
by
co
m
pa
ct
ch
alk
oc
cu
rr
in
g
ne
ar
ly
all
th
e
w
ay
do
w
n,
di
sc
on
tin
ui
ng
in
ch
alk
ru
bb
le
ne
ar
th
e
flo
or
;i
nd
ist
in
gu
ish
ab
le
ne
ar
to
p…
[C
of
fin
:]
87
"
x
27
"
de
pt
h
at
34
"
m
ain
ly
ca
rb
on
ise
d
w
oo
d…
H
ea
d
w
es
t,
bu
tt
he
re
st
ha
d
be
en
v.
di
st
ur
be
d,
pr
ob
ab
ly
ro
bb
ed
...
W
ha
tb
on
es
w
er
e
th
er
e
-g
oo
d.
Sk
ul
l
cr
us
he
d
by
sh
ie
ld
bo
ss
,t
ee
th
w
or
n,
m
an
y
bo
ne
sm
iss
in
g.
Lo
ng
bo
ne
sa
nd
gi
rd
les
(w
ha
tr
em
ain
ed
)g
oo
d.
H
ea
d
an
d
fe
et
bo
ne
s(
w
ha
tr
em
ain
ed
)s
lig
ht
ly
ca
lca
ne
ou
s..
.S
ke
let
on
w
as
di
st
ur
be
d
by
ro
bb
er
s."
22
9
U ad
ul
t
B
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
4/
5
iii
iro
n
kn
ife
“D
ue
to
lo
os
en
es
so
ff
ill
,a
bs
en
ce
of
co
ffi
n
in
pl
ac
es
an
d
di
sa
rr
ay
ed
bo
ne
si
ti
sc
le
ar
th
at
w
e
w
az
ro
bb
ed
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
…
O
nl
y
fo
ur
lo
ng
bo
ne
sr
em
ain
in
g…
Th
er
e
w
er
e
va
rio
us
bi
ts
of
un
pl
ot
ab
le
sh
ad
ow
bo
ne
sa
nd
fr
ag
s
all
ov
er
th
e
gr
av
e.”
24
0
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e3
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-F
in
ds
4
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
5
-
23
2
F ad
ul
t
B
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
4/
5
?ii
i
sh
ee
tc
op
pe
ra
llo
y
fr
ag
m
en
ts
?f
ro
m
a
ve
ss
el
,
ne
ck
lac
e
of
8
be
ad
s:
7
m
on
oc
hr
om
e
gl
as
s,
1
am
et
hy
st
qu
ar
tz
in
a
co
pp
er
all
oy
sil
ve
rs
lip
-k
no
t
rin
g,
pl
us
a
se
co
nd
co
pp
er
all
oy
sil
ve
rs
lip
-k
no
tr
in
g
"lo
os
e
fin
el
y
di
vi
de
d
to
ps
oi
ls
ur
ro
un
de
d
by
co
m
pa
ct
ch
alk
so
il…
By
th
e
na
tu
re
of
th
e
fil
la
nd
th
e
ar
ra
ng
em
en
to
ft
he
fin
ds
,i
tw
as
ob
vi
ou
st
ha
tt
he
gr
av
e
ha
d
be
en
ro
bb
ed
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
…
he
ad
w
es
t,
bu
tp
os
iti
on
of
bo
dy
im
po
ss
ib
le
to
te
ll
be
ca
us
e
ve
ry
fe
w
bo
ne
sl
ef
t,
an
d
ha
d
be
en
di
st
ur
be
d
an
yw
ay
...
[S
ke
le
ta
lc
on
di
tio
n:
]v
er
y
po
or
,v
er
y
fe
w
bo
ne
s
lef
t."
23
3
M ad
ul
t
B
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
H
og
ar
th
Ia
3:
3
pa
irs
of
lat
er
al
so
ck
et
s,
lar
ge
se
m
i-
cir
cu
lar
de
pr
es
sio
n
(d
ig
gi
ng
??
)
4
?ii
i
no
fin
ds
"s
oi
l/
ch
alk
at
to
p
lo
os
e
ar
ou
nd
he
ad
an
d
th
or
ax
an
d
fe
et
co
m
pa
ct
el
se
w
he
re
.C
ha
lk
.L
ow
er
do
w
n
in
sim
ila
rs
ta
te
s
an
d
co
m
pa
ct
ne
ss
…
[C
of
fin
:]
so
m
e
un
m
ea
su
ra
bl
e
w
oo
d
re
m
ain
s…
Th
e
gr
av
e,
by
th
e
lo
os
e
so
il
an
d
pr
em
at
ur
e
ap
pe
ar
an
ce
of
se
ve
ra
lb
on
es
ha
sc
le
ar
ly
be
en
ro
bb
ed
.T
he
ro
bb
er
sh
av
e
de
st
ro
ye
d
a
gr
ea
td
ea
lo
f[
?]o
rig
in
al
up
pe
r
w
all
be
fo
re
fin
di
ng
it.
..
W
ith
th
e
ex
ce
pt
io
n
of
th
e
rig
ht
fo
re
ar
m
all
bo
ne
ss
til
li
n
pr
op
er
pl
ac
e
ar
e
go
od
.I
e
sk
ul
l
ve
ry
go
od
,f
em
ur
s,
tib
/F
ib
sr
ig
ht
hu
m
er
us
go
od
.F
ee
ta
nd
rig
ht
ha
nd
fa
ir/
go
od
.T
he
di
st
ur
be
d
bo
ne
sa
re
in
fa
ir
co
nd
iti
on
in
cl
ud
in
g
a
sc
ap
ul
ar
.L
ef
tp
elv
is
fa
ir/
rig
ht
pe
lv
is
po
w
de
ry
on
ly
on
e
cla
vi
cle
…
A
lth
ou
gh
ro
bb
ed
th
e
sk
ele
to
n
w
as
ge
ne
ra
lly
in
go
od
co
nd
iti
on
it
se
em
st
ha
tt
he
ro
bb
er
sw
er
e
af
te
ra
sw
or
d
?s
us
pe
nd
ed
on
a
be
lt
fr
om
rig
ht
sh
ou
ld
er
to
lef
th
ip
.H
en
ce
th
e
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e
of
pe
lv
is,
rib
ca
ge
an
d
lef
ta
rm
.P
er
ha
ps
th
e
bo
dy
w
as
w
ell
de
ca
ye
d
be
fo
re
ro
bb
er
y
be
ca
us
e
ot
he
rb
on
es
no
td
ist
ur
be
d.
"
23
5
F ad
ul
t
B
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
4
?ii
i
iro
n
kn
ife
,b
lad
e
fr
ag
m
en
to
fs
am
e
"c
ha
lk
so
il
m
ix
w
ith
ea
rth
ar
ou
nd
bo
dy
…
as
hy
w
oo
d
lin
e
up
by
lef
ts
ho
ul
de
r1
3’
’l
on
g…
Ro
bb
ed
!..
.H
ea
d
w
es
t,
lo
ng
bo
ne
si
n
m
as
sa
ro
un
d
pe
lv
is…
[C
on
di
tio
n:
]P
oo
r,
es
pe
ci
all
y
sk
ul
l…
"
23
6
M ad
ul
t
B
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
4
iii
iro
n
sp
ea
rh
ea
d
so
ck
et
,2
m
on
oc
hr
om
e
gl
as
sb
ea
ds
"f
in
el
y
di
vi
de
d
to
ps
oi
la
tc
en
tre
;h
ar
d
pa
ck
ed
ch
alk
so
il
ar
ou
nd
ou
ts
id
e…
co
ffi
n
tra
ce
sw
er
e
fo
un
d,
bu
tn
ot
cle
ar
en
ou
gh
to
fo
rm
de
fin
ite
ou
tli
ne
…
[S
ke
let
on
:]
Sc
at
te
re
d
an
d
at
di
ffe
re
nt
lev
el
sa
si
tw
as
ev
id
en
tt
ha
tt
he
gr
av
e
ha
d
be
en
ro
bb
ed
an
d
th
e
bo
dy
di
st
ur
be
d
on
ly
sh
or
tly
af
te
r
bu
ria
l..
.p
oo
rb
ut
lo
ng
bo
ne
ss
til
li
n
fa
irl
y
go
od
sh
ap
e."
24
1
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e3
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-F
in
ds
4
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
5
-
23
7
F ad
ul
t
B
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
H
og
ar
th
II
a/
Iid
:k
er
b-
slo
t
w
ith
sa
nd
st
on
e
sla
bs
,2
po
st
-h
ol
es
,c
on
ne
ct
ed
to
G
r2
26
4
U
ne
ck
lac
e
of
3
m
on
oc
hr
om
e
gl
as
sb
ea
ds
,a
sil
ve
r
sc
ut
ifo
rm
pe
nd
an
t,
an
d
fr
ag
m
en
ts
of
an
ot
he
r,
co
pp
er
all
oy
pi
n,
iro
n
kn
ife
,i
ro
n
an
d
co
pp
er
all
oy
ob
jec
t,
iro
n
ch
ain
co
m
pl
ex
,i
ro
n
bo
x
fit
tin
gs
,r
od
,
iro
n
fr
ag
m
en
ts
,f
lin
tf
ra
gm
en
ts
“F
ill
in
g:
Ch
alk
/s
oi
lm
ix
w
ith
pu
dd
led
ch
alk
ou
ts
id
e
co
ff
in
an
d
lo
os
e
so
il
in
sid
e
fr
om
2’
2
do
w
n.
Fl
oo
rg
re
y
sil
t.
Pu
dd
led
ch
alk
ov
er
lyi
ng
flo
or
sil
t…
Be
am
slo
t…
co
nt
ain
ed
(T
ha
ne
ts
an
d?
)f
lag
so
n
en
d
fo
rm
in
g
re
ct
an
gu
lar
ke
rb
or
w
all
su
rr
ou
nd
in
g
gr
av
e
at
ab
ou
t3
’
fr
om
gr
av
e
ed
ge
s…
H
ea
d
W
pr
es
um
e
e x
t.
su
p.
[S
ke
let
on
:]
A
ll
go
ne
bu
tf
or
iso
lat
ed
fr
ag
s?
an
d
fe
w
w
id
ely
sc
at
te
re
d
te
et
h.
F
(g
ra
ve
go
od
s)
.A
du
lt
(g
ra
ve
siz
e)
.R
O
BB
E
D
,a
nd
fa
irl
y
th
or
ou
gh
ly
at
th
at
.P
ro
b.
a
v
ric
h
bu
ria
lo
rig
in
all
y,
as
ela
bo
ra
te
st
on
e
su
rr
ou
nd
in
g
w
all
su
gg
es
ts
.”
24
0
F ad
ul
t
B
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
4
?ii
i
iro
n
gi
rd
le-
ha
ng
er
s/
ke
ys
,s
he
ar
s,
kn
ife
,w
hi
te
?f
os
sil
“F
ill
in
g:
Ch
alk
/s
oi
lt
op
lo
os
e.
Lo
os
e/
ve
ry
lo
os
e
ch
alk
,
ch
alk
/s
oi
lr
ub
bl
e
be
lo
w
.[
Co
ffi
n:
]q
ui
te
st
ro
ng
de
ca
ye
d
w
oo
d
tra
ce
…
By
lo
os
e
fil
la
nd
lac
k
of
an
y
as
so
ci
at
ed
bo
ne
st
hi
sg
ra
ve
ha
sc
le
ar
ly
be
en
ro
bb
ed
…
[S
ke
let
on
:]
O
ne
po
or
/f
air
tib
ot
he
rw
ise
bo
ne
eit
he
rv
er
y
ca
lce
no
us
or
ab
se
nt
.S
ku
ll
sh
ad
ow
va
rio
us
ot
he
rp
at
ch
es
.”
25
1
U ch
ild
C
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
H
og
ar
th
II
d/
II
Ib
:k
er
b-
slo
tw
ith
sa
nd
st
on
e
sla
bs
4/
5
iii
co
pp
er
all
oy
pi
n
"I
nc
om
pl
et
e
tra
ce
so
fc
of
fin
bu
te
no
ug
h
to
ca
ll
or
ig
in
al
di
m
en
sio
ns
.I
tw
as
ro
bb
ed
du
e
to
th
e
lo
os
e
fil
l..
.P
oo
rs
ke
l
&
ab
se
nc
e
of
bo
ne
du
e
pr
ob
ab
ly
to
a)
ro
bb
er
y
an
d
b)
co
ffi
n.
"
25
4
M ad
ul
t
B
-
62
5-
70
0
co
ffi
n
4
U
iro
n
sh
ie
ld
bo
ss
,g
rip
,s
tu
d,
iro
n
sp
ea
rh
ea
d,
bu
ck
le
an
d
pl
at
e,
kn
ife
“F
ill
in
g:
H
ar
di
sh
ch
alk
m
ix
,w
ith
pu
dd
led
ch
alk
.[
Co
ff
in
:]
In
te
ns
e
bl
ac
k
as
h
on
gr
av
e
flo
or
,w
ith
sid
e
tra
ce
s…
A
pp
ar
en
tly
di
st
ur
be
d…
[S
ke
let
on
:]
H
ea
d
w
es
t.
Co
nd
iti
on
:
Po
or
ish
.S
ku
ll
fla
tte
ne
d
in
to
m
as
so
fs
po
ng
e,
no
te
et
h.
N
o
th
or
ax
or
pe
lv
ix
.L
on
g
bo
ne
sd
ist
ur
be
d.
”
25
5
M ad
ul
t
C
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
?4
?i
iro
n
sp
ea
rh
ea
d,
sh
ie
ld
bo
ss
an
d
gr
ip
,s
tu
ds
,k
ni
fe
,
bu
ck
le
an
d
pl
at
e
“L
oo
se
ch
alk
fil
lw
ith
ea
rth
co
ve
ro
ve
rb
od
y.
G
oo
d
ou
tli
ne
of
co
ff
in
de
sc
en
di
ng
to
ba
se
fr
om
6i
n
do
w
n…
Fa
irl
y
w
el
lc
ut
sid
es
an
d
ba
se
.G
ra
ve
qu
ite
sh
all
ow
an
d
br
oa
d.
O
bv
io
us
ly
di
st
ur
be
d.
[S
ke
le
to
n:
]E
xt
en
de
d
su
pi
ne
.
Ri
gh
ta
rm
ov
er
lo
w
er
rig
ht
pe
lv
is.
Le
gs
st
ra
ig
ht
.L
ef
ta
rm
st
ra
ig
ht
.H
ea
d
w
es
tt
ilt
ed
to
w
ar
ds
le
ft
co
rn
er
of
co
ffi
n.
[C
on
di
tio
n:
]P
oo
r.
O
nl
y
lo
ng
bo
ne
sr
em
ain
in
g.
N
o
rib
s.
Sp
in
e
an
d
pe
lv
is
on
ly
sh
ad
ow
.”
24
2
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e3
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-F
in
ds
4
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
5
-
26
1
F ad
ul
t
B
-
60
0-
70
0
4
?i
2
iro
n
st
ud
s,
bi
nd
in
g,
ch
at
el
ain
e
co
m
pl
ex
,k
ni
fe
ta
ng
e
fr
ag
m
en
t
“C
on
so
lid
at
ed
ch
alk
w
as
fo
un
d
ar
ou
nd
th
e
sid
es
ab
ou
t
ha
lf
w
ay
do
w
n.
Th
e
ce
nt
re
ar
ea
of
th
e
gr
av
e
w
as
so
ft.
A
t
th
e
he
ad
en
d
to
p
8’
’d
ug
ou
tm
or
e
th
an
re
st
…
Pr
es
um
e
he
ad
w
es
te
xt
en
de
d
su
pi
ne
(a
lth
ou
gh
bo
ne
sm
uc
h
di
sp
lac
ed
).
[C
on
di
tio
n:
]P
oo
r,
m
uc
h
m
ec
ha
ni
ca
ld
am
ag
e
[i.
e.
no
n-
ch
em
ic
al]
…
Ro
bb
ed
or
[so
m
et
hi
ng
ru
bb
ed
ou
t].
”
26
7
M ad
ul
t
B
-
60
0-
65
0
co
ffi
n
4
?i
co
pp
er
all
oy
bu
ck
le
an
d
pl
at
e,
iro
n
sh
iel
d-
gr
ip
,
st
ud
s,
sp
ea
rh
ea
d
“F
air
ly
lo
os
e
ch
alk
so
il
on
to
p
gi
vi
ng
w
ay
to
lo
os
e
ch
alk
ru
bb
le
ne
ar
bo
ne
s.
[C
of
fin
:]
Fa
irl
y
st
ro
ng
ne
ar
co
m
pl
et
e
w
oo
d
tra
ce
s…
Fr
om
e v
en
tu
al
po
sit
io
n
of
bo
ne
sa
nd
fin
ds
w
e
w
as
cle
ar
ly
ro
bb
ed
.[
Sk
el
et
on
:]
H
ea
d
w
es
t,
pr
es
um
e
ex
te
nd
ed
su
pi
ne
.R
ig
ht
ar
m
st
ra
ig
ht
…
Le
g
bo
ne
sf
air
bu
t
no
ep
ip
hy
se
so
n
an
y
of
th
em
.L
ef
ta
rm
po
or
.O
th
er
[?]
ar
m
sp
oo
rt
o
ab
se
nt
.S
ku
ll
sh
ad
ow
.J
aw
fa
ir,
re
st
ab
se
nt
.”
26
8
F ad
ul
t
B
-
55
0-
65
0
co
ffi
n
?1
/2
?ii
12
be
ad
s:
9
m
on
oc
hr
om
e
gl
as
s,
2
po
lyc
hr
om
e
gl
as
s,
1
am
be
r;
2
iro
n
ke
ys
/g
ird
le-
ha
ng
er
s,
iro
n
kn
ife
“A
tt
op
ch
alk
fa
irl
y
co
m
pa
ct
.N
ea
re
rb
ot
to
m
pu
re
fa
irl
y
co
m
pa
ct
ch
alk
ou
ts
id
e
co
ffi
n
lin
e
w
ith
ve
ry
so
ily
ch
alk
/s
oi
li
ns
id
e
gi
vi
ng
ve
ry
vi
vi
d
ev
id
en
ce
of
ro
bb
er
y.
[C
of
fin
:]
A
ve
ry
st
ro
ng
th
in
go
od
w
oo
d
co
ffi
n
tra
ce
in
co
m
pl
et
e
du
e
to
ro
bb
er
s.
O
ut
sid
e
pu
re
pu
dd
le
ch
alk
ru
bb
le…
Th
e
gr
av
e
ha
sc
le
ar
ly
be
en
ro
bb
ed
pa
rt
of
th
e
rig
ht
sid
e
of
th
e
gr
av
e
ha
sb
ee
n
sli
gh
tly
re
cu
t.
Ro
bb
er
s
ve
ry
go
od
.A
lth
ou
gh
th
ey
st
ol
e
alm
os
te
ve
ry
th
in
g
th
ey
di
d
no
tg
o
th
ro
ug
h
th
e
lef
ts
id
e
of
co
ff
in
.T
he
y
kn
ew
ex
ac
tly
w
he
re
to
di
g.
A
gr
ea
td
ea
lo
ft
he
w
all
sa
re
un
de
rc
ut
gi
vi
ng
a
w
id
er
bo
tto
m
…
Pr
ob
he
ad
w
es
ta
nd
ex
pe
ct
ex
te
nd
ed
su
pi
ne
…
A
ll
re
m
ain
in
g
bo
ne
sg
oo
d
bu
tg
re
at
m
ec
ha
ni
ca
l
da
m
ag
e
e.g
.s
ku
ll
cle
av
ed
in
tw
o
by
ro
bb
er
ss
pa
de
…
du
rin
g
th
e
ro
bb
er
y
th
e
bo
dy
se
em
st
o
ha
ve
be
en
fa
irl
y
in
ta
ct
an
d
w
as
lif
te
d
an
d
th
ro
ne
[si
c]
to
th
e
bo
tto
m
of
th
e
gr
av
e
to
gi
ve
a
se
m
ic
ro
uc
h
ap
pe
ar
an
ce
w
ith
th
e
to
p
ha
lf
of
th
e
gr
av
e
em
pt
y.”
24
3
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e3
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-F
in
ds
4
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
5
-
27
0/
a
M ad
ul
t
A
-
62
5-
70
0
co
ffi
n
3
U
2
iro
n
sp
ea
rh
ea
ds
,s
hi
eld
,m
an
y
iro
n
an
d
co
pp
er
all
oy
fr
ag
m
en
ts
an
d
ob
je
ct
s,
an
im
al
bo
ne
si
n
up
pe
r
fil
l(
gr
av
e
sh
ee
t)
“M
uc
h
ea
rth
ar
ou
nd
up
pe
rl
ay
er
s,
an
d
ve
ry
fin
e
sil
t
ar
ou
nd
sk
ul
le
nd
.O
ut
sid
e
co
ffi
n
lin
e,
m
uc
h
pu
dd
led
ch
alk
ar
ou
nd
ed
ge
.L
oo
se
ch
alk
fil
li
ns
id
e…
Co
ffi
n
co
ns
ist
ed
of
a
nu
m
be
ro
fb
ro
ke
n
up
ar
ea
so
fd
en
se
bl
ac
k
as
h,
at
he
ad
,
fo
ot
an
d
sid
es
…
V
er
y
ne
at
ly
cu
ti
n
pl
ac
es
,s
lo
pe
d
do
w
n
fr
om
he
ad
to
w
ar
d
a
po
in
ta
bo
ut
2/
3
do
w
n
gr
av
e,
th
en
slo
pe
d
up
to
w
ar
ds
en
ds
.R
ou
nd
ish
m
is-
cu
ti
n
bo
tto
m
R
w
all
so
m
ew
ha
tr
ob
be
d
an
d
ve
ry
di
st
ur
be
d.
A
ni
m
al
bo
ne
s
in
up
pe
rf
ill
.A
pp
ar
en
tly
he
ad
–
w
es
t(
ba
se
d
on
po
sit
io
n
of
fiv
e
ce
rv
ica
lv
er
te
br
ae
).
Br
ok
en
an
d
sc
at
te
re
d
m
an
di
bl
e,
bu
tn
o
ot
he
rs
ku
ll.
[C
on
di
tio
n:
]G
oo
d,
ex
ce
pt
fo
rp
elv
is
of
w
hi
ch
on
ly
pa
rts
of
sa
cr
um
an
d
rig
ht
ili
um
re
m
ain
ed
.
Bo
ne
so
fs
ol
e
su
rv
iv
in
g
fo
ot
ex
ce
lle
nt
…
M
ale
(b
as
ed
on
go
od
se
.g
.s
pe
ar
he
ad
s,
sh
ie
ld
)…
Fe
m
ur
ap
pe
ar
sq
ui
te
yo
un
g.
A
ll
te
et
h,
ev
en
m
3
w
or
n…
O
nl
y
re
gi
on
in
ta
ct
w
as
on
e
fo
ot
!L
on
g
bo
ne
so
fl
ef
ti
n
a
pi
le
at
fo
ot
of
gr
av
e.
V
er
te
br
ae
an
d
re
st
of
sk
el
et
on
sc
at
te
re
d
w
ho
les
ale
.”
27
0/
b
-
-
(s
ee
ab
ov
e)
27
2
U ad
ul
t
B
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
H
og
ar
th
II
Ia
:2
sa
nd
st
on
e
bl
oc
ks
at
fo
ot
of
gr
av
e
4
iii
iro
n
kn
ife
“C
on
so
lid
at
ed
ch
alk
at
sid
es
w
ith
a
lar
ge
ch
alk
ch
un
k
fil
lin
g.
[C
of
fin
:]…
co
ns
ol
id
at
ed
at
he
ad
en
d…
2
sa
nd
st
on
e
bl
oc
ks
fo
un
d
be
ne
at
h
ea
ch
ot
he
ra
ts
up
po
se
d
fe
et
en
d.
G
ra
ve
di
st
ur
be
d…
[S
ke
le
to
n:
]P
os
sib
ly
ex
te
nd
ed
.[
Co
nd
iti
on
:]
v.
v.
po
or
…
Bo
ne
se
xt
re
m
ely
po
w
de
re
d.
Pr
ob
ab
ly
th
e
re
su
lt
of
ro
bb
er
y.”
28
8/
a
M ad
ul
t
D
-
62
5-
70
0
-
-
-
-
28
8/
b
U ad
ul
t
D
-
62
5-
70
0
-
-
-
-
29
4
M U
C
-
60
0-
70
0
4
U
iro
n
?s
hi
eld
-b
os
sf
lan
ge
fr
ag
m
en
t,
2
st
ud
s,
2
bu
ck
le-
pl
at
e
fr
ag
m
en
ts
,k
ni
fe
bl
ad
e
fr
ag
m
en
t,
iro
n
an
d
w
oo
d
lu
m
p,
iro
n
bu
ck
le
“C
lay
ey
so
il.
Ch
alk
.F
lin
t.
[C
of
fin
:]
N
on
e…
[F
ur
th
er
re
m
ar
ks
:]
D
ist
ur
be
d.
[S
ke
let
on
:]
Le
gs
up
sid
e
do
w
n.
H
ea
d
w
es
te
xt
en
de
d
su
pi
ne
.[
Co
nd
iti
on
:]
Le
gs
go
od
.R
em
ain
de
r
ab
se
nt
.”
29
5
- -
D
Z
60
0-
70
0
H
og
ar
th
Ib
1:
in
te
rn
al
led
ge
at
he
ad
(o
nl
y
pl
an
su
rv
iv
es
)
24
4
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e3
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-F
in
ds
4
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
5
-
30
3
M ad
ul
t
B
-
55
0-
65
0
co
ffi
n
5
U
iro
n
sh
ie
ld
bo
ss
,s
hi
el
d-
gr
ip
fr
ag
m
en
ts
,s
tu
ds
,k
ni
fe
,
bu
ck
les
an
d
pl
at
es
,i
ro
n
m
ou
nt
?f
ro
m
w
oo
de
n
bo
x,
va
rio
us
iro
n
lu
m
ps
an
d
ob
je
ct
s,
2
st
on
e
w
he
ts
to
ne
s,
iro
n
aw
l,
rin
g,
42
am
be
rb
ea
ds
,8
8
am
be
rf
ra
gm
en
ts
,
1
jet
fr
ag
m
en
t
“[
Co
ffi
n:
]C
ha
lk
ou
ts
id
e,
so
il
in
.[
Fu
rth
er
re
m
ar
ks
:]
fa
irl
y
re
g
re
ct
an
gu
lar
,s
id
es
ve
rt.
an
d
go
od
,f
lo
or
fla
tti
sh
.
[S
ke
let
on
:]
H
ea
d
N
pr
es
um
ed
ex
ts
up
.L
eg
sd
ist
ur
be
d
(o
nl
y
2
fe
m
fr
ag
ss
ur
vi
vi
ng
&
th
os
e
di
sp
lac
ed
…
A
lm
os
t
all
go
ne
.S
ku
ll
sh
ad
ow
+
fe
w
tin
y
fr
ag
s.
Po
st
cr
an
ial
on
ly
2x
fe
m
.f
ra
gs
.”
30
4
M ad
ul
t
B
-
57
5-
70
0
co
ffi
n
4/
5
iii
iro
n
sp
ea
rh
ea
d,
sh
ie
ld
-b
os
s,
gr
ip
,b
uc
kl
e
an
d
pl
at
e,
iro
n
sw
or
d,
kn
ife
,c
op
pe
ra
llo
y
tw
ee
ze
rs
,i
ro
n
bu
ck
le,
iro
n
fr
ag
m
en
t
“L
oo
se
ch
alk
fil
lw
ith
ea
rth
.[
Co
ffi
n:
]D
k
w
oo
d
as
h…
W
oo
d
bo
tto
m
to
co
ffi
n.
[F
ur
th
er
re
m
ar
ks
:]
H
ea
vi
ly
di
st
ur
be
d
ar
ou
nd
.D
ist
in
ct
lac
k
of
sk
ul
la
nd
te
et
h.
(B
ro
oc
h
ro
bb
er
s?
?)
…
E
xt
en
de
d
su
pi
ne
–
he
ad
E
A
ST
!!
[C
on
di
tio
n:
]P
oo
r,
w
ha
tw
e
fo
un
d
of
hi
m
.M
ale
.A
du
lt.
Co
llo
sa
lm
us
cu
lat
ur
al
rid
ge
so
n
fe
m
ur
s&
hu
m
er
ii.
Bi
g
fe
llo
w
…
Tw
o
te
et
h,
bo
th
te
m
po
ra
ls,
fr
ag
so
fo
cc
ip
ita
la
nd
pa
ru
ta
l–
N
o
fr
on
ta
ls,
pa
lat
in
at
e..
.m
an
di
bl
e…
on
ly
on
e
cla
vi
cl
e.”
30
8
M ad
ul
t
B
-
62
5-
70
0
H
og
ar
th
Ic
(I
a3
/I
b4
):
3
pa
irs
of
lat
er
al
so
ck
et
s,
led
ge
sa
th
ea
d
an
d
fo
ot
4
?ii
i
iro
n
sp
ea
rh
ea
d,
kn
ife
bl
ad
e,
m
in
iat
ur
e
bu
ck
le,
sh
ee
t
co
pp
er
all
oy
fr
ag
m
en
t,
po
tte
ry
ve
ss
el
“F
ill
in
g:
ch
alk
/s
oi
l;
ha
rd
co
m
pa
ct
ed
ch
alk
to
w
ar
ds
fo
ot
en
d.
[C
of
fin
:]
ni
l.
[F
ur
th
er
re
m
ar
ks
:]
ge
ne
ra
lly
ba
dl
y
cu
t.
H
ea
d
an
d
fo
ot
en
ds
cu
rv
ed
in
te
rn
all
y,
slo
pi
ng
in
w
ar
ds
.
E
vi
de
nc
e
of
po
st
ho
les
,3
on
L
sid
e
w
er
e
vi
sib
le
bu
to
nl
y
2
co
ul
d
be
fo
un
d
on
th
e
R,
th
e
m
ed
ial
on
e
be
in
g
ap
pa
re
nt
ly
ab
se
nt
.O
ft
he
se
5
po
st
ho
le
so
nl
y
on
e,
th
e
up
pe
rL
ha
nd
on
e,
w
as
re
all
y
w
ell
cu
t.
Po
ss
ib
ly
ro
bb
ed
at
he
ad
en
d.
N
B
sim
ila
rit
y
in
de
sig
n
to
ad
jac
en
t3
07
po
ss
ib
ili
ty
of
fa
m
ily
gr
ou
ps
.[
Sk
ele
to
n:
]H
ea
d
no
rth
.E
xt
en
de
d
su
pi
ne
,
pr
es
um
ab
ly
.[
Co
nd
iti
on
:]
G
en
er
all
y
ba
d
–
di
st
ur
be
d.
Lo
ng
bo
ne
sb
ad
at
ep
ip
hy
se
s,
pe
lv
is
vi
rtu
all
y
no
n-
ex
ist
en
t,
fe
et
sh
ar
ds
pr
es
en
to
nl
y
as
v
ca
lc
an
eo
us
m
as
s.
Te
et
h
go
od
.
Lo
w
er
sp
in
e
no
n-
ex
ist
en
t…
Sk
ele
to
n
de
ra
ng
ed
ar
ou
nd
pe
lv
is,
fe
m
ur
sa
nd
rt.
ar
m
.”
31
5
M ad
ul
t
C
-
60
0-
65
0
co
ffi
n
4
i
iro
n
co
ff
in
fit
tin
g,
fr
ag
m
en
ts
of
iro
n
sh
iel
d
bo
ss
,
sh
iel
d
riv
et
,i
ro
n
m
ou
nt
,m
in
iat
ur
e
co
pp
er
all
oy
bu
ck
le
an
d
pl
at
e,
iro
n
bu
ck
le
an
d
pl
at
e,
pl
at
e
fr
ag
m
en
t,
sp
ea
rh
ea
d,
va
rio
us
iro
n
fr
ag
m
en
ts
,a
ni
m
al
bo
ne
s
“[
Fi
lli
ng
:]
lo
os
e
ch
alk
an
d
so
il.
[C
of
fin
:]
da
rk
br
ow
ny
bl
ac
k
co
ffi
n
tra
ce
s.
[S
ke
le
to
n:
]e
xt
.s
up
.H
ea
d
w
es
t.
[C
on
di
tio
n:
]V
fa
ir
[‘b
ut
di
st
ur
be
d’
is
er
as
ed
bu
tv
isi
bl
e]
…
M
ale
,3
5
ish
…
lo
ng
bo
ne
sv
go
od
co
nd
iti
on
(fe
m
ur
).”
24
5
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e3
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-F
in
ds
4
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
5
-
33
3/
a
U ad
ul
t
B
-
57
5-
62
5
co
ffi
n
5
iii
6
be
ad
s:
4
am
be
r,
1
m
on
oc
hr
om
e
gl
as
s,
1
po
lyc
hr
om
e
gl
as
s;
fr
ag
m
en
ts
of
sh
ee
tc
op
pe
ra
llo
y
be
ad
ed
rim
bo
w
l,
co
pp
er
all
oy
bu
ck
le,
iro
n
fit
tin
gs
fr
om
w
oo
de
n
bo
x,
iro
n
m
ou
nt
,k
ni
fe
,p
ot
te
ry
rim
sh
er
d
an
d
ba
se
sh
er
d,
w
he
el-
tu
rn
ed
gr
ey
fa
br
ic
“[
Fi
lli
ng
:]
Ch
alk
–
so
il
gr
av
e.
V
.c
om
pa
ct
ch
alk
on
eit
he
r
sid
e
fo
ra
bo
ut
6i
n.
V
.l
oo
se
to
w
ar
d
th
e
ce
nt
re
.[
Co
ff
in
:]
qu
ite
vi
sib
le
th
ic
k
tra
ce
ss
ca
tte
re
d
ab
ou
t.
[S
ke
let
on
:]
(R
ob
be
d)
H
ea
d
W
ex
t.
su
pi
ne
.[
C
on
di
tio
n:
]f
air
…
fe
m
ale
?E
ld
er
ly
ad
ul
t.”
-
- -
-
-
---
-
-
-
(s
ee
ab
ov
e)
35
4
F ad
ul
t
C
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
H
og
ar
th
II
a/
b/
Iia
:
pe
na
nn
ul
ar
di
tc
h,
po
st
ho
le,
bl
oc
ks
?1
/4
?i
4
m
on
oc
hr
om
e
gl
as
sb
ea
ds
,s
he
et
sil
ve
rs
cu
tif
or
m
pe
nd
an
t,
sn
ail
sh
ell
"N
B
sn
ail
sh
el
lu
nd
er
L
pe
lv
is.
..
[c
of
fin
:]
da
rk
sh
ad
ow
of
or
ga
ni
c
m
at
er
ial
-v
st
ro
ng
...
Re
ct
,r
eg
ul
ar
,w
ell
cu
t,
sid
es
ve
rt.
N
B
cu
bo
id
w
ell
cu
tc
ha
lk
bl
oc
k
in
fil
l,
ju
st
be
lo
w
su
rf
ac
e
-e
nd
st
ap
er
ed
v
ro
ug
hl
y
on
lo
w
er
en
d.
[S
ke
le
to
n:
]
Pr
ob
ab
ly
or
ig
in
all
y
(a
)e
xt
su
p
or
(b
)e
xt
on
rt
sid
e
-h
ea
d
fa
cin
g
rt.
N
ow
!e
xt
en
de
d
pr
on
e,
he
ad
po
s.
un
ch
an
ge
d.
BU
T
rt
up
pe
ra
rm
an
d
sh
ou
ld
er
m
iss
in
g
an
d
gr
av
e
ro
bb
e d
.S
O
pr
es
en
tp
os
pr
ob
du
e
to
eit
he
ri
f(
a)
di
st
ur
be
d
by
ro
bb
er
so
ri
f(
b)
na
tu
ra
lc
ol
lap
se
fr
om
po
s(
b)
ab
ov
e.
[C
on
di
tio
n:
]g
oo
d
(s
ku
ll
co
lla
ps
ed
fo
rw
ar
d
an
d
rt
sid
e
an
d
ve
rt
po
or
ly
pr
es
er
ve
d)
...
L
ar
m
ab
ov
e
L
hi
p;
rt
ar
m
(r
ad
ul
na
se
pa
ra
te
d
ax
ial
ly
)b
elo
w
L
pe
lv
is.
H
an
d
ju
st
in
sid
e
L
[u
nc
lea
r].
BU
T
1
m
et
ac
ar
pa
lj
us
ta
bo
ve
rt
hi
p
su
gg
es
tin
g
or
ig
in
all
y
an
ar
m
on
th
at
sid
e.
Le
gs
ex
t,
fe
et
to
ge
th
er
.L
pe
lv
is
hi
gh
er
th
an
rt,
bu
tp
ub
ic
sy
m
ph
ys
is
di
sa
rti
cu
lar
po
s.
24
6
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e3
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-F
in
ds
4
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
5
-
37
5
U ad
ul
t
C
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
4
?i/
iii
ab
ra
de
d
po
ts
he
rd
(g
ra
ve
sh
ee
t:
Ir
on
A
ge
/R
om
an
)
“[
Fi
lli
ng
:]
Ch
alk
so
il
fa
irl
y
co
m
pa
ct
fo
rf
irs
tf
oo
t.
Th
en
on
do
w
n
to
th
e
flo
or
,c
ha
lk
ru
bb
le
fa
irl
y
lo
os
e
bu
tc
om
pa
ct
in
pa
tc
he
s.
[C
of
fin
:]
Fa
irl
y
st
ro
ng
w
oo
d
as
h,
ve
ry
st
ro
ng
in
pl
ac
es
es
pe
ci
all
y
ne
ar
th
e
bo
tto
m
…
W
oo
d
tra
ce
sr
ig
ht
ac
ro
ss
th
e
flo
or
su
gg
es
tin
g
bo
tto
m
to
co
ffi
n
bu
tn
o
de
te
ct
ab
le
lid
an
d
no
co
ff
in
na
ils
.[
Fu
rth
er
re
m
ar
ks
:]
Su
b
re
ct
an
gu
lar
an
d
ve
ry
irr
eg
ul
ar
ly
du
g.
A
ll
sid
es
slo
pe
in
at
un
ev
en
an
gl
es
.P
ar
ts
of
th
e
flo
or
bo
tto
m
be
ne
at
h
th
e
pe
lv
is
an
d
kn
ee
ha
ve
be
en
ov
er
-d
ee
pe
ne
d.
Pe
rh
ap
s
irr
eg
ul
ar
ly
du
g
bu
tp
er
ha
ps
ro
bb
er
y
as
no
go
od
sa
re
pr
es
en
ti
n
a
lar
ge
gr
av
e
an
d
bo
th
th
e
tib
ias
an
d
hu
m
er
i
en
d
su
dd
en
ly
as
if
cu
tt
hr
ou
gh
.[
Sk
ele
to
n:
]H
ea
d
W
es
t.
E
xt
en
de
d
su
pi
ne
(p
re
su
m
ed
,t
ib
ias
up
rig
ht
).
U
pp
er
ar
m
s
st
ra
ig
ht
by
sid
e.
Le
gs
st
ra
ig
ht
.[
Co
nd
iti
on
:]
V
er
y
ba
d.
Lo
ng
bo
ne
ss
ha
fts
of
hu
m
er
i,
fe
m
ur
sa
nd
tib
ias
pr
es
en
t
bu
ta
pp
ar
en
tly
cu
to
ff.
Pe
lv
is
go
ne
,s
ku
ll
sh
ad
ow
of
ap
pr
ox
2f
td
iam
et
er
.N
o
te
et
h.
N
o
ha
nd
s.
V
er
y
po
w
de
ry
fe
et
…
A
du
lt
(s
iz
e
of
gr
av
e
an
d
po
sit
io
n
of
re
m
ain
in
g
bo
ne
s)
.”
38
0
U ad
ul
t
C
-
60
0-
70
0
co
ffi
n
4
?i
iro
n
kn
ife
,b
uc
kl
e
an
d
pl
at
e
“[
Fi
lli
ng
:]
Fa
irl
y
so
lid
,l
ar
ge
lu
m
ps
of
ch
alk
.S
of
ti
n
pl
ac
es
.
[C
of
fin
:]…
ve
ry
st
ro
ng
w
oo
d
as
h.
[F
ur
th
er
re
m
ar
ks
:]
Ro
bb
ed
?V
er
y
lar
ge
gr
av
e
co
m
pa
re
d
w
ith
th
e
am
ou
nt
of
bo
ne
sf
ou
nd
.[
Sk
ele
to
n:
]E
xt
en
de
d
su
pi
ne
,h
ea
d
E
as
t,
up
pe
ra
rm
st
ra
ig
ht
,l
eg
ss
tra
ig
ht
.[
C
on
di
tio
n:
]S
ku
ll
cr
us
he
d,
lo
ng
bo
ne
sp
oo
r,
no
ep
ip
hy
se
s(
tib
ias
go
ne
,r
es
t
ab
se
nt
)…
Bo
tto
m
tib
ias
cu
to
ff
by
gr
av
e
ro
bb
er
s?
.”
1.
St
Pe
te
r's
ha
sn
ot
be
en
pu
bl
ish
ed
.A
ll
th
e
da
ta
us
ed
he
re
ar
e
pr
el
im
in
ar
y,
in
clu
di
ng
th
e
nu
m
be
rs
of
gr
av
es
an
d
bu
ria
ls
bu
te
sp
ec
ial
ly
th
e
se
xi
ng
an
d
ag
ein
g
of
sk
ele
to
ns
an
d
th
e
de
ta
ils
of
gr
av
e
as
se
m
bl
ag
es
.S
ex
an
d
ag
e
ar
e
de
riv
ed
fr
om
a
co
m
bi
na
tio
n
of
th
e
gr
av
e
sh
ee
ts
,d
ra
ft
gr
av
e
ca
ta
lo
gu
e,
an
d
se
xi
ng
an
om
ali
es
re
po
rt
in
th
e
Br
iti
sh
M
us
eu
m
ar
ch
iv
e,
pl
us
th
e
A
SK
E
D
da
ta
ba
se
.
2.
A
SK
E
D
3.
D
ra
ft
gr
av
e
ca
ta
lo
gu
e,
Br
iti
sh
M
us
eu
m
ar
ch
iv
e
4.
G
ra
ve
sh
ee
ts
,B
rit
ish
M
us
eu
m
ar
ch
iv
e
24
7
T
ab
le
11
:L
ym
in
ge
II
M
ix
ed
ce
m
et
er
y.
M
in
.n
o.
gr
av
es
:1
07
.S
am
pl
e
fo
rs
tu
dy
:6
6
in
hu
m
at
io
ns
an
d
2
cr
em
at
io
ns
.D
ist
ur
be
d/
po
ss
ib
ly
di
st
ur
be
d:
11
(1
1/
68
=
16
%
)
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-D
at
e
ra
ng
e3
Co
ffi
n/
St
ru
ct
ur
e1
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-W
ea
lth
cl
as
s3
-F
in
ds
3
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
1
-
-7
U ad
ul
t
D
47
5-
57
5
-
no
ne
re
co
rd
ed
iro
n
kn
ife
an
d
sm
all
br
on
ze
bu
ck
le
at
lef
t
w
ais
t,
iro
n
ax
e-
he
ad
at
rig
ht
ar
m
"o
nl
y
on
e
bo
ne
,p
ar
to
fa
leg
bo
ne
,w
as
fo
un
d
in
th
is
gr
av
e"
-8
M 45
-
50
B
47
5-
57
5
-
no
ne
re
co
rd
ed
4
?ii
i
ve
ry
po
or
-
fin
dl
es
s
no
fin
ds
"d
ist
ur
be
d
at
an
un
kn
ow
n
da
te
ab
ov
e
th
e
kn
ee
sa
nd
th
e
bo
ne
sa
bo
ve
th
is
po
in
tw
er
e
fo
un
d
in
co
nf
us
io
n
in
th
e
ba
ck
fil
l"
-2
8
F 50
-
55
B
47
5-
55
0
-
no
ne
re
co
rd
ed
4
U
m
ed
iu
m
iro
n
kn
ife
in
di
st
ur
be
d
ba
ck
-fi
ll,
br
on
ze
Ro
m
an
co
in
of
Co
ns
ta
nt
in
e
Ib
en
ea
th
lef
tl
eg
"d
ist
ur
be
d
be
tw
ee
n
th
e
pe
lv
is
an
d
th
e
sk
ul
la
ta
n
un
kn
ow
n
da
te
;s
up
in
e,
fu
ll
len
gt
h"
-4
0
M 25
-
30
B
47
5-
57
5
-
no
ne
re
co
rd
ed
4
U
ve
ry
po
or
-
fin
dl
es
s
no
fin
ds
"d
ist
ur
be
d
ov
er
th
e
ch
es
ta
ta
n
un
kn
ow
n
da
te
"
-4
5
M ad
ul
t
B
47
5-
57
5
-
no
ne
re
co
rd
ed
4
U
ve
ry
po
or
-
fin
dl
es
s
(s
m
all
po
tte
ry
fr
ag
m
en
ts
)
"t
op
ha
lf
of
sk
ele
to
n
m
iss
in
g"
-4
8
?F ad
ul
t
B
47
5-
57
5
-
no
ne
re
co
rd
ed
4
?ii
i
m
ed
iu
m
am
be
ra
nd
gl
as
sb
ea
ds
,s
m
all
br
on
ze
st
rip
"b
on
es
in
co
nf
us
io
n
in
gr
av
e
fil
l"
-4
9
M ad
ul
t
B
47
5-
57
5
-
no
ne
re
co
rd
ed
4
?ii
i
ve
ry
po
or
-
fin
dl
es
s
(p
ot
te
ry
fr
ag
m
en
ts
)
"b
on
es
in
co
nf
us
io
n
in
gr
av
e
fil
l"
-5
0
M ad
ul
t
B
47
5-
57
5
47
5-
57
0
sq
ua
re
di
tc
h
en
clo
su
re
4
U
po
or
iro
n
?p
ur
se
m
ou
nt
,p
ot
te
ry
fr
ag
m
en
ts
,i
ro
n
kn
ife
,g
las
sf
ra
gm
en
ts
"t
op
ha
lf
of
sk
ele
to
n
di
st
ur
be
d"
-5
6
M ad
ul
t
C
47
5-
57
5
-
no
ne
re
co
rd
ed
4
U
ve
ry
po
or
-
fin
dl
es
s
no
fin
ds
"p
os
sib
ly
ro
bb
ed
"
-5
7
M ad
ul
t
C
47
5-
57
5
-
no
ne
re
co
rd
ed
4
U
ve
ry
po
or
-
fin
dl
es
s
no
fin
ds
"p
os
sib
ly
ro
bb
ed
"
-5
9
M ad
ul
t
C
47
5-
57
5
47
5-
55
0
sq
ua
re
di
tc
h
en
clo
su
re
4
U
po
or
po
tte
ry
fr
ag
m
en
ts
,i
ro
n
st
ap
le
,b
ro
nz
e
st
rip
"p
os
sib
ly
ro
bb
ed
",
"e
xc
ep
tio
na
ld
ig
ni
ty
...
ro
bb
ed
"
-6
3
M ad
ul
t
B
47
5-
57
5
40
0-
45
0
no
ne
re
co
rd
ed
4
U
m
ed
iu
m
gl
as
sb
ea
ke
r,
fr
ac
tu
re
d
bu
ta
lm
os
tc
om
pl
et
e
"s
ke
le
to
n
m
iss
in
g
be
lo
w
w
ais
t"
1.
G
r7
-4
0
W
ar
hu
rs
t1
95
5,
G
r4
5-
63
W
ar
hu
rs
tl
et
te
rt
o
H
ei
nr
ich
H
är
ke
17
/1
0/
19
85
2.
A
SK
E
D
3.
Sc
hr
öd
er
20
07
24
8
T
ab
le
12
:M
on
kt
on
I,
Pr
im
ro
se
H
ill
M
ix
ed
rit
e
ce
m
et
er
y.
M
in
.n
o.
gr
av
es
:3
5.
Sa
m
pl
e
fo
rs
tu
dy
:3
4.
D
ist
ur
be
d/
po
ss
ib
ly
di
st
ur
be
d:
3
bu
ria
ls
in
3
gr
av
es
(3
/3
4=
9%
).
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-D
ep
th
(m
)1
-L
en
gt
h
(m
)1
-W
id
th
(m
)1
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e1
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-F
in
ds
1
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
1
-
-2
1
M 35
-
45
B
X
55
0-
59
0
0.
43
1.
09
1.
09
?c
of
fin
4
?ii
i
(1
)G
ilt
br
on
ze
bu
ck
le
an
d
pl
at
e
"h
ea
vi
ly
ru
st
-
st
ain
ed
as
if
th
e
m
iss
in
g
to
ng
ue
ha
d
be
en
of
iro
n,
an
d
if
so
it
w
ill
ha
ve
be
en
a
re
pl
ac
em
en
t
fo
ra
lo
st
or
ig
in
al
in
br
on
ze
.B
ut
th
er
e
is
no
su
ch
st
ain
in
g
on
an
y
pa
rt
of
th
e
pl
at
e;
so
,
pe
rh
ap
s,
be
fo
re
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e,
th
e
lo
op
ha
d
be
en
in
de
pe
nd
en
tc
on
ta
ct
w
ith
an
iro
n
ob
jec
ts
uc
h
as
a
kn
ife
",
(2
)T
in
y
br
on
ze
fr
ag
m
en
t,
(3
)
Sh
at
te
re
d
re
m
ain
so
fi
ro
n
sh
iel
d-
bo
ss
“O
n
so
ut
h
sid
e
of
pi
pe
-tr
en
ch
an
d
ex
ca
va
te
d
by
w
or
km
en
…
Re
gu
lar
ly
cu
tr
ec
ta
ng
ul
ar
gr
av
e
w
ith
ro
un
de
d
co
rn
er
s.
A
bo
ut
13
cm
.f
ro
m
th
e
fo
ot
en
d
th
er
e
w
as
a
sli
gh
td
ep
re
ss
io
n
in
th
e
gr
av
e-
flo
or
,L
.
3.
51
m
.,
W
.c
.0
.5
0
m
.,
w
hi
ch
m
ay
in
di
ca
te
th
e
or
ig
in
al
pr
es
en
ce
of
a
co
ffi
n.
Bu
tt
he
gr
av
e
ha
d
ev
id
en
tly
be
en
ro
bb
ed
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
;o
nl
y
th
e
sk
ul
la
nd
to
e-
bo
ne
sw
er
e
in
sit
u
an
d
th
e
leg
bo
ne
sw
er
e
fo
un
d
on
th
e
so
ut
h
sid
e
ne
ar
th
e
to
p
of
th
e
gr
av
e-
fil
l.
Th
e
bu
ck
le
an
d
pl
at
e
lay
di
st
ur
be
d,
15
cm
.a
pa
rt,
at
th
e
fo
ot
-e
nd
an
d
th
e
br
ok
en
bo
ss
w
as
in
th
e
to
p
of
th
e
fil
lin
g
at
th
e
he
ad
-e
nd
.T
he
br
on
ze
fr
ag
m
en
tl
ay
un
de
rt
he
sk
ul
l.
Th
e
sk
el
et
on
w
as
of
an
ad
ul
tm
ale
ag
ed
35
-4
5.
”
22
M 35
-
45
A
X
53
0-
59
0
0.
31
1.
12
1.
12
no
ne
re
co
rd
ed
no
ne
re
co
rd
ed
i
(1
)A
lar
ge
iro
n
kn
ife
or
pe
rh
ap
sa
sm
all
se
ax
,
bl
ad
e
ve
ry
in
co
m
pl
et
e,
(2
)B
ro
nz
e
tw
ee
ze
rs
,(
3)
Br
on
ze
bu
ck
le
,a
pp
ar
en
tly
on
a
be
lt,
(4
)S
ho
e-
sh
ap
ed
br
on
ze
be
lt
riv
et
,(
5)
Tw
o
iro
n
fr
ag
m
en
ts
.
“O
n
th
e
so
ut
h
sid
e
of
th
e
pi
pe
-tr
en
ch
an
d
ex
ca
va
te
d
by
w
or
km
en
…
Su
b-
re
ct
an
gu
lar
an
d
so
m
ew
ha
t
irr
eg
ul
ar
,p
er
ha
ps
be
ca
us
e
it
ha
d
be
en
ro
bb
ed
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
.T
he
sk
ele
to
n,
of
an
ad
ul
tm
ale
ag
ed
35
-4
5,
lay
su
pi
ne
an
d
ex
te
nd
ed
,b
ut
th
e
rig
ht
sid
e
of
hi
s
pe
lv
is
an
d
rig
ht
leg
ha
d
be
en
re
m
ov
ed
an
d
pl
ac
ed
,s
til
l
ar
tic
ul
at
ed
,a
tt
he
fo
ot
of
th
e
gr
av
e.
Fr
om
th
is
w
e
m
ay
in
fe
rt
ha
tt
he
co
rp
se
ha
d
be
en
di
st
ur
be
d
no
tl
on
g
af
te
rb
ur
ial
,p
er
ha
ps
to
re
m
ov
e
a
pa
rti
cu
lar
ly
va
lu
ab
le
ite
m
of
gr
av
e
fu
rn
itu
re
su
ch
as
a
fa
m
ou
ss
w
or
d.
”
24
D
Y
/Z
-
[0
.2
5]
[1
.0
0]
[1
.0
0]
no
ne
re
co
rd
ed
no
ne
re
co
rd
ed
"P
re
su
m
ed
to
be
a
gr
av
e
fr
om
co
nf
ig
ur
at
io
n.
N
o
sk
ele
ta
lm
at
er
ial
;s
ev
er
al
m
in
ut
e
fr
ag
m
en
ts
of
iro
n,
an
d
a
sc
ra
p
of
po
ly
th
en
e
in
fil
l;
so
pr
es
um
ab
ly
ro
bb
ed
in
re
ce
nt
tim
es
."
25
M ad
ul
t
C
~
54
0-
56
0
0.
32
0.
8
0.
80
no
ne
re
co
rd
ed
no
ne
re
co
rd
ed
U
(1
)F
ra
gm
en
to
fi
ro
n
kn
ife
,(
2,
3,
4)
Ir
on
fr
ag
m
en
ts
,(
5)
O
bj
ec
to
fw
oo
d
an
d
iro
n
(p
ar
t
of
sp
ea
rh
ea
d
so
ck
et
),
(6
)S
m
all
br
on
ze
bu
ck
le
,
(7
)I
ro
n
sp
ea
rh
ea
d,
(8
)S
m
all
br
on
ze
rin
g
(n
ot
a
fin
ge
r-r
in
g)
.
"D
ist
ur
be
d,
ob
je
ct
sf
ra
gm
en
ta
ry
an
d
at
all
lev
els
,o
ne
to
ot
h
fo
un
d.
"
1.
H
aw
ke
s,
H
og
ar
th
&
D
en
st
on
19
74
,P
er
ki
ns
&
H
aw
ke
s1
98
4
2.
A
SK
E
D
24
9
T
ab
le
13
:N
or
th
bo
ur
ne
I,
Fi
ng
le
sh
am
In
hu
m
at
io
n
ce
m
et
er
y.
M
in
.n
o.
gr
av
es
:1
37
.S
am
pl
e
fo
rs
tu
dy
:c
.9
1
bu
ria
ls
in
c.8
9
gr
av
es
.
D
ist
ur
be
d/
po
ss
ib
ly
di
st
ur
be
d:
19
bu
ria
ls
in
18
gr
av
es
(1
8/
89
=
20
%
).
G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
- D
at
e3
-D
ep
th
(m
)1
-L
en
gt
h
(m
)1
-W
id
th
(m
)1
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e1
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
- F
in
ds
1
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
1
-
-2
M
?
ad
ul
t
C
W
60
0-
70
0
-
1.
12
2.
56
0.
95
3/
4
?i
(1
)F
e
fr
ag
m
en
t–
at
lef
ts
id
e
of
w
ais
t.
“…
?D
ist
ur
be
d.
Po
ss
ib
ly
ro
bb
ed
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
sh
or
tly
af
te
rt
he
bu
ria
lt
oo
k
pl
ac
e.
Th
e
ar
m
s
ap
pe
ar
to
ha
ve
be
en
m
ov
ed
aw
ay
fr
om
th
e
bo
dy
,p
er
ha
ps
to
fa
cil
ita
te
re
m
ov
al
of
ob
jec
ts
fr
om
th
e
to
rs
o…
.B
as
ic
all
y
a
w
ell
-c
ut
,r
eg
ul
ar
gr
av
e,
bu
tt
ra
ce
so
fi
rr
eg
ul
ar
di
gg
in
g
ar
ou
nd
to
p
re
in
fo
rc
e
im
pr
es
sio
n
of
ro
bb
er
ac
tiv
ity
...
G
ra
ve
-fi
ll:
ve
ry
lo
os
e.
?M
ale
,a
du
lt.
E
xt
en
de
d
su
pi
ne
,l
eg
ss
tra
ig
ht
;c
om
pl
ex
of
fo
ot
bo
ne
s,
ap
pa
re
nt
ly
no
tf
ro
m
th
is
sk
el
et
on
,b
et
w
ee
n
kn
ee
s;
so
m
e
sk
ul
lf
ra
gm
en
ts
,p
ro
ba
bl
y
m
ov
ed
by
bu
rr
ow
in
g
an
im
al,
in
to
p
lef
tc
or
ne
ro
f
gr
av
e.”
A
3(
4)
F? U
B
-
60
0-
70
0
-
0.
46
2.
44
0.
91
co
ffi
n
?4
U
19
28
:c
ru
sh
ed
po
t,
Fe
kn
ife
,?
ne
ck
lac
e
(a
m
be
rb
ea
d,
bl
ue
gl
as
sb
ea
d)
,1
95
9:
Fe
kn
ife
-ta
ng
fr
ag
m
en
t,
pi
ec
e
of
m
od
er
n
til
e
“…
Pr
ev
io
us
ly
ex
ca
va
te
d
by
St
eb
bi
ng
,w
ho
th
ou
gh
ti
th
ad
be
en
ro
bb
ed
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
…
W
ell
-c
ut
re
gu
lar
gr
av
e.
Pa
ck
in
g
of
fli
nt
sf
ou
nd
in
19
28
su
gg
es
ts
a
co
ff
in
.C
ha
lk
-p
ac
ke
d
sid
es
of
gr
av
e
no
tt
ou
ch
ed
by
St
eb
bi
ng
.R
es
to
f
gr
av
e
re
fil
led
w
ith
m
ix
ed
ea
rth
an
d
ch
alk
in
clo
ds
.P
re
su
m
ab
ly
fe
m
ale
–
on
ly
on
e
sm
all
?f
em
or
al
fr
ag
m
en
ts
fo
un
d
in
19
59
re
-
ex
ca
va
tio
n.
”
19
F? ad
ul
t
D
Y
60
0-
70
0
-
0.
35
2.
69
0.
85
~
~
(1
)F
e
kn
ife
-d
ist
ur
be
d
in
fil
l
“P
ro
ba
bl
y
pr
ev
io
us
ly
ex
ca
va
te
d
(b
ut
no
t
re
co
rd
ed
)b
y
St
eb
bi
ng
,o
th
er
w
ise
ro
bb
ed
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
…
O
rig
in
all
y
w
el
l-c
ut
,r
eg
ul
ar
.
St
ru
ct
ur
e:
no
ne
vi
sib
le
in
19
60
.?
Fe
m
ale
,a
du
lt.
Bo
ne
st
hr
ow
n
ba
ck
in
to
gr
av
e
af
te
ro
rig
in
al
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e/
ex
ca
va
tio
n.
”
25
0
G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
- D
at
e3
-D
ep
th
(m
)1
-L
en
gt
h
(m
)1
-W
id
th
(m
)1
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e1
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
- F
in
ds
1
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
1
-
22
M ad
ul
t
B
-
55
0-
65
0
m
id
6t
h
0.
84
2.
59
1.
3
co
ffi
n
?M
ou
nd
4
i/
ii
(1
)F
ra
gm
en
ta
ry
Ro
m
an
ca
st
Cu
all
oy
bo
w
-
br
oo
ch
:"
di
st
ur
be
d
so
m
e
0.
75
m
fr
om
fo
ot
en
d
of
gr
av
e,
de
pt
h
0.
10
- 0
.1
3m
…
O
ut
w
or
n
Ro
m
an
br
oo
ch
es
,p
re
su
m
ab
ly
co
lle
ct
ed
fr
om
Ro
m
an
sit
es
,a
re
m
or
e
us
ua
lly
as
so
cia
te
d
w
ith
A
ng
lo
-S
ax
on
w
om
en
’s
gr
av
es
,a
sp
ar
to
fb
ag
-c
ol
lec
tio
ns
.H
ow
th
is
on
e
en
de
d
up
in
a
ro
bb
ed
m
ale
gr
av
e
m
us
t
alw
ay
sr
em
ain
a
m
ys
te
ry
:p
er
ha
ps
it
w
as
a
lo
os
e
fin
d
lyi
ng
ar
ou
nd
on
th
e
sit
e;
pe
rh
ap
s
on
e
of
th
e
gr
av
e-
ro
bb
er
sw
as
a
w
om
an
w
ho
dr
op
pe
d
it
ac
cid
en
ta
lly
."
(2
)W
oo
de
n
co
ffi
n,
(3
)S
hi
eld
:"
un
di
st
ur
be
d,
pr
op
pe
d
up
ag
ain
st
le
ft
sid
e
of
gr
av
e
ou
ts
id
e
co
ffi
n
ne
ar
fo
ot
en
d,
ha
nd
le
in
w
ar
ds
an
d
ne
ar
ly
ve
rti
ca
l",
(4
)F
e
sw
or
d:
"r
ob
be
d.
..
Fr
ag
m
en
ts
of
w
oo
d,
fle
ec
e
an
d
ho
rn
,f
ou
nd
w
ith
Sh
iel
d-
gr
ip
(3
)-2
,a
re
pr
ob
ab
ly
pa
rt
of
a
sw
or
d-
sc
ab
ba
rd
".
“R
ob
be
d
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
…
W
ell
-c
ut
re
gu
lar
gr
av
e
w
ith
ro
un
de
d
en
ds
.T
he
bo
dy
w
as
or
ig
in
all
y
co
nt
ain
ed
in
a
st
ou
tw
oo
de
n
co
ff
in
fit
te
d
w
ith
Fe
an
gl
e-
br
ac
ke
ts
.T
he
gr
av
e-
ro
bb
er
sb
ro
ke
in
to
th
e
he
ad
-e
nd
of
th
is
co
ffi
n
pe
rh
ap
sw
hi
le
it
w
as
st
ill
su
b s
ta
nt
ial
ly
in
ta
ct
.A
ta
ll
ev
en
ts
th
ey
ap
pa
re
nt
ly
re
m
ov
ed
en
ou
gh
of
th
e
co
ffi
n,
w
ith
its
va
lu
ele
ss
Fe
fit
tin
gs
st
ill
at
ta
ch
ed
,t
o
en
ab
le
th
em
to
ta
ke
ou
tm
os
to
ft
he
bo
dy
w
ith
all
its
gr
av
e
go
od
s,
ex
ce
pt
fo
rt
he
sh
iel
d
pr
op
pe
d
ag
ain
st
th
e
gr
av
e-
w
all
ou
ts
id
e
th
e
co
ffi
n
at
th
e
un
di
st
ur
be
d
fo
ot
en
d.
Th
ey
or
so
m
eo
ne
el
se
re
fil
led
th
e
di
st
ur
be
d
ar
ea
w
ith
br
ow
n
lo
am
y
so
il
co
nt
ain
in
g
a
fe
w
sa
lv
ag
ed
bo
ne
s,
an
d
th
is
co
nt
ra
st
ed
m
ar
ke
dl
y
w
ith
th
e
or
ig
in
al
fil
lo
f
ch
alk
ru
bb
le.
In
sp
ite
of
th
e
se
ve
re
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e
to
th
e
gr
av
e,
4
an
gl
e-
br
ac
ke
ts
w
er
e
fo
un
d,
3
in
w
ha
ta
pp
ea
re
d
to
be
th
eir
or
ig
in
al
po
sit
io
ns
in
th
e
un
di
st
ur
be
d
ch
alk
fil
la
tt
he
fo
ot
en
d…
M
ale
,a
du
lt.
Sk
ele
to
n
re
pr
es
en
te
d
by
a
fe
w
bo
ne
st
hr
ow
n
ba
ck
in
to
th
e
di
st
ur
be
d
fil
l.”
24
U U
D
Y
60
0-
70
0
-
0.
79
1.
6
0.
58
~
~
no
fin
ds
“P
ro
ba
bl
y
un
di
st
ur
be
d,
th
ou
gh
po
ss
ib
ly
pr
ev
io
us
ly
ex
ca
va
te
d
by
St
eb
bi
ng
or
ro
bb
ed
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
…
W
ell
- c
ut
re
gu
lar
gr
av
e.
Lo
os
e
ch
alk
ru
bb
le…
N
o
sk
ele
ta
lr
em
ain
sf
ou
nd
.S
ub
-a
du
lt
to
ta
lly
de
ca
ye
d
aw
ay
?”
34
F 40
-5
0
C
-
60
0-
70
0
-
0.
36
1.
79
0.
66
3/
4
?i
(1
)W
oo
de
n
bo
x
w
ith
Fe
fit
tin
gs
:"
to
lef
to
f
fe
et
,b
y
sid
e
of
gr
av
e..
.T
he
bo
x
fit
tin
gs
th
at
w
er
e
re
co
ve
re
d
ar
e
br
ok
en
an
d
in
co
m
pl
et
e,
ap
pa
re
nt
ly
du
e
to
ha
vi
ng
be
en
di
st
ur
be
d.
W
hi
le
th
is
co
ul
d
be
th
e
re
su
lt
of
gr
av
e
ro
bb
in
g,
an
im
al
or
tre
e-
ro
ot
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e
se
em
m
or
e
lik
el
y"
;(
2)
N
ec
kl
ac
e
of
5
be
ad
s
"o
rp
os
sib
ly
an
ea
rr
in
g,
bu
ti
n
an
y
ca
se
po
ss
ib
ly
an
in
co
m
pl
et
e
as
se
m
bl
ag
e
du
e
to
gr
av
e
ro
bb
in
g
-i
n
th
e
ar
ea
of
th
e
rig
ht
cla
vi
cl
e"
;
(3
)C
u
all
oy
br
ac
el
et
;(
4)
Fe
kn
ife
.
“?
U
nd
ist
ur
be
d…
St
ru
ct
ur
e:
N
on
e.
G
ra
ve
-fi
ll:
Br
ow
n
lo
am
.F
em
ale
,4
0-
50
ye
ar
s.
E
xt
en
de
d
su
pi
ne
,a
rm
sa
nd
leg
ss
tra
ig
ht
.T
he
ap
pa
re
nt
di
sp
lac
em
en
to
fs
ku
ll
an
d
rig
ht
ar
m
su
gg
es
ts
po
ss
ib
le
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e,
?g
ra
ve
ro
bb
in
g
fo
ra
br
oo
ch
or
so
m
e
ric
h
el
em
en
ts
of
th
e
ne
ck
lac
e.”
25
1
G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
- D
at
e3
-D
ep
th
(m
)1
-L
en
gt
h
(m
)1
-W
id
th
(m
)1
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e1
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
- F
in
ds
1
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
1
-
36
U U
D
Y
60
0-
70
0
-
0.
51
2.
44
0.
76
~
~
no
fin
ds
"P
re
vi
ou
sly
ex
ca
va
te
d
by
St
eb
bi
ng
,t
ho
ug
h
no
t
re
co
rd
ed
…
N
o
hu
m
an
re
m
ain
sr
ec
ov
er
ed
in
19
60
."
37
F ad
ul
t?
D
Y
60
0-
70
0
-
0.
43
2.
21
0.
69
~
~
(1
)B
ea
d,
?n
ec
kl
ac
e
fit
tin
g:
“d
ist
ur
be
d,
in
fil
l”
“P
re
vi
ou
sly
ex
ca
va
te
d
by
St
eb
bi
ng
,t
ho
ug
h
no
t
re
co
rd
ed
,o
rr
ob
be
d
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
…
Fe
m
ale
,?
ad
ul
t.
Sk
ele
to
n
re
co
ve
re
d
as
a
fe
w
di
st
ur
be
d
bo
ne
so
nl
y.”
38
/a
M ad
ul
t
B
-
60
0-
70
0
-
0.
51
2.
36
0.
66
4
?i
no
fin
ds
“R
ob
be
d
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
.J
us
tc
ut
lef
ts
id
e
of
G
ra
ve
38
b…
G
ra
ve
-fi
ll:
ea
rth
y
w
ith
ch
alk
lu
m
ps
.M
ale
,a
du
lt.
Sk
ele
to
n
re
co
ve
re
d
as
a
fe
w
di
st
ur
be
d
bo
ne
so
nl
y.”
42
U U
D
Y
60
0-
70
0
-
0.
51
2.
44
0.
91
~
~
no
fin
ds
“P
re
vi
ou
sly
ex
ca
va
te
d
by
St
eb
bi
ng
,a
lth
ou
gh
no
tr
ec
or
de
d,
or
ro
bb
ed
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
.”
44
M ad
ul
t
B
-
60
0-
70
0
lat
e
6t
h
0.
69
2.
39
1.
17
co
ffi
n
?M
ou
nd
4
?i
(1
)C
u
all
oy
(g
un
m
et
al)
kn
ife
,w
ais
t-b
elt
fit
tin
g?
:“
di
st
ur
be
d,
in
fil
l”
;(
2)
Fe
kn
ife
:
“d
ist
ur
be
d
in
fil
l…
tip
of
bl
ad
e
m
iss
in
g
–
po
st
-d
ep
os
iti
on
”.
“R
ob
be
d
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
…
W
ell
cu
tr
eg
ul
ar
gr
av
e.
Tr
ac
es
of
a
w
oo
de
n
co
ffi
n
w
er
e
se
en
on
th
e
gr
av
e
flo
or
.M
ale
,a
du
lt.
Th
e
sk
ele
ta
lr
em
ain
s
ha
d
be
en
se
ve
re
ly
di
st
ur
be
d,
bu
tt
he
leg
sw
er
e
ap
pr
ox
im
at
el
y
in
th
e
rig
ht
pa
rt
of
th
e
gr
av
e.”
60
U ad
ul
t
D
Y
/Z
60
0-
70
0
-
0.
76
2.
69
0.
84
Po
st
ho
le
fo
r
w
oo
de
n
m
ar
ke
rp
os
t
~
~
no
fin
ds
“D
ist
ur
be
d
fa
irl
y
re
ce
nt
ly
:P
ie
ce
so
fm
od
er
n
iro
n
an
d
ch
in
a
in
fil
l.
Pe
rh
ap
so
ft
he
of
th
e
un
re
co
rd
ed
gr
av
es
ex
ca
va
te
d
in
19
28
…
irr
eg
ul
ar
gr
av
e
pe
rim
et
er
‘er
od
ed
’b
y
ro
bb
in
g
ac
tiv
iti
es
.A
po
st
ho
le…
,p
re
su
m
ab
ly
fo
ra
w
oo
de
n
m
ar
ke
rp
os
tw
as
fo
un
d
to
th
e
ea
st
of
th
e
gr
av
e
pi
t.
A
du
lt.
O
nl
y
a
fe
w
sk
ul
la
nd
lo
ng
bo
ne
fr
ag
m
en
ts
,t
hr
ow
n
in
to
a
he
ap
at
th
e
he
ad
en
d,
w
er
e
re
co
ve
re
d.
”
78
F? 50
-6
0
B
-
60
0-
70
0
-
0.
51
2.
04
0.
8
4
?i
no
fin
ds
“R
ob
be
d
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
–
so
on
af
te
rd
ep
os
iti
on
?..
.
G
ra
ve
ed
ge
sa
pp
ea
rs
ev
er
ely
er
od
ed
at
su
rf
ac
e,
pr
ob
ab
ly
da
m
ag
ed
by
ro
bb
in
g
ac
tiv
iti
es
...
Fi
ll:
Ch
alk
y.
?F
em
ale
,p
ro
ba
bl
y
50
-6
0
ye
ar
s.
Sk
ele
to
n
di
st
ur
be
d
an
d
re
m
ov
ed
do
w
n
to
th
e
kn
ee
s;
tib
iae
,f
ib
ul
ae
an
d
fe
et
su
rv
iv
e
in
ta
ct
.
A
pp
ar
en
tly
ex
te
nd
ed
su
pi
ne
,t
ho
ug
h
rig
ht
leg
cle
ar
ly
be
nt
to
th
e
rig
ht
at
kn
ee
.”
91
U U
C
-
60
0-
70
0
-
0.
46
2.
4
0.
88
U
U
(1
)F
e
kn
ife
:r
ou
gh
ly
in
ce
nt
re
of
gr
av
e;
(2
)
Fe
bu
ck
le
pl
at
e,
?w
ais
t-b
elt
fit
tin
g:
in
ce
nt
re
of
gr
av
e
pi
tn
ea
rk
ni
fe
(1
),
?d
ist
ur
be
d.
“?
D
ist
ur
be
d…
Fi
ll:
E
ar
th
y.
N
o
sk
el
et
al
re
m
ain
s
su
rv
iv
ed
.”
25
2
G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
- D
at
e3
-D
ep
th
(m
)1
-L
en
gt
h
(m
)1
-W
id
th
(m
)1
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e1
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
- F
in
ds
1
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
1
-
93
U c.3
5
B
-
60
0-
70
0
-
0.
76
2.
3
1.
03
Pe
nn
an
ul
ar
di
tc
h,
sin
gl
e
po
st
-h
ol
e
4
U
no
fin
ds
“R
ob
be
d
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
,s
oo
n
af
te
rb
ur
ial
?..
.T
he
gr
av
e
w
as
su
rr
ou
nd
ed
by
a
pe
na
nn
ul
ar
di
tc
h…
es
tim
at
ed
ex
te
rn
al
di
am
et
er
5.
95
m
w
ith
a
sin
gl
e
po
st
-h
ol
e
fo
ra
w
oo
de
n
m
ar
ke
rp
os
ti
n
th
e
ca
us
ew
ay
.T
he
no
rth
er
n
pa
rt
of
th
e
di
tc
h
w
as
pl
ou
gh
ed
ou
ta
nd
on
ly
tra
ce
ab
le
as
a
ve
ry
sh
all
ow
hi
nt
of
a
de
pr
es
s io
n.
G
ra
ve
fil
l:
Ch
alk
y.
Se
x
no
td
isc
er
ni
bl
e,
c.
35
ye
ar
s.
Sk
el
et
al
re
m
ain
st
hr
ow
n
ba
ck
in
to
gr
av
e
af
te
rr
ob
bi
ng
.”
10
0
U U
C
-
60
0-
70
0
-
0.
46
2.
41
0.
83
U
U
no
fin
ds
“?
D
ist
ur
be
d…
A
w
ell
cu
t,
re
gu
lar
gr
av
e.
Fi
ll:
m
ix
ed
ch
alk
ru
bb
le
an
d
ea
rth
.N
o
tra
ce
of
an
y
sk
ele
ta
lr
em
ain
ss
ee
n.
”
11
0
M c.2
5
B
-
62
5-
70
0
-
0.
76
2.
48
0.
94
?M
ou
nd
4/
5
U
(1
)-1
Fe
sp
ea
rh
ea
d.
D
ist
ur
be
d,
in
fil
la
t
he
ad
en
d;
(1
)-2
Fe
sp
ea
r
fe
rr
ul
e:
?u
nd
ist
ur
be
d,
on
lef
ts
id
e
of
fo
ot
en
d
of
gr
av
e.
W
oo
d
fr
ag
m
en
ts
su
rv
iv
e
in
so
ck
et
;
(2
)F
e
sh
iel
d-
gr
ip
fr
ag
m
en
t,
di
st
ur
be
d
in
fil
la
th
ea
d
en
d
of
gr
av
e;
(3
)
Fr
ag
m
en
ts
of
a
gl
as
sv
es
se
l:
di
st
ur
be
d
at
fo
ot
en
d
of
gr
av
e,
all
ap
pa
re
nt
ly
fr
om
sa
m
e
ve
ss
el
;(
4)
O
rg
an
ic
ob
je
ct
w
ith
gu
nm
en
ta
l
fit
tin
gs
,d
ist
ur
be
d
in
m
id
dl
e
of
gr
av
e;
(5
)
G
ilt
-b
ro
nz
e
m
ou
nt
/s
tu
d:
di
st
ur
be
d
in
m
id
dl
e
of
gr
av
e;
(6
)F
e
kn
ife
:d
ist
ur
be
d,
in
m
id
dl
e
of
gr
av
e;
(7
)?
In
tru
siv
e
po
ts
he
rd
s.
“R
ob
be
d
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
,p
ro
ba
bl
y
so
on
af
te
r
de
po
sit
io
n,
so
m
e
tim
e
du
rin
g
th
e
6t
h
ce
nt
ur
y…
A
w
ell
-c
ut
,u
nu
su
all
y
de
ep
gr
av
e.
N
o
tra
ce
so
fa
st
ru
ct
ur
e
su
rv
iv
ed
.F
ill
:m
ix
ed
ea
rth
an
d
ch
alk
.
M
ale
,c
.2
5
ye
ar
s.
Su
rv
iv
in
g
sk
el
et
al
fr
ag
m
en
ts
th
ro
w
n
ba
ck
in
fil
lin
g
af
te
rr
ob
bi
ng
.”
12
6
U 10
-1
2
C
-
60
0-
70
0
-
0.
56
2.
5
1
Pe
na
nn
ul
ar
di
tc
h,
sin
gl
e
po
st
-h
ol
e
?4
U
no
fin
ds
“D
ist
ur
be
d?
...
N
o
tra
ce
so
fs
tru
ct
ur
e
vi
sib
le
in
sid
e
gr
av
e
pi
t.
Th
e
gr
av
e
w
as
su
rr
ou
nd
ed
by
a
pe
na
nn
ul
ar
di
tc
h…
ex
te
rn
al
di
am
.5
.5
m
,w
ith
a
sin
gl
e
po
st
-h
ol
e…
in
th
e
en
tra
nc
e,
pr
es
um
ab
ly
fo
ra
w
oo
de
n
m
ar
ke
rp
os
t..
.N
o
tra
ce
so
fa
m
ou
nd
w
er
e
se
en
.S
ex
no
td
isc
er
na
bl
e,
10
-1
2
ye
ar
s.
E
ith
er
di
st
ur
be
d
an
d
th
ro
w
n
ba
ck
in
to
fil
lo
rp
os
sib
le
un
di
st
ur
be
d
bu
ts
ev
er
ely
er
od
ed
.”
25
3
G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
- D
at
e3
-D
ep
th
(m
)1
-L
en
gt
h
(m
)1
-W
id
th
(m
)1
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e1
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
- F
in
ds
1
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
1
-
13
9
F 40
-5
0
B
-
62
5-
75
0
-
0.
48
2.
4
0.
78
4
U
(1
)G
un
m
et
al
pi
n:
“i
n
gr
av
e
fil
lin
g,
hi
gh
ab
ov
e
le
ft
sid
e
of
sk
ul
l.
Br
on
ze
st
ain
on
rig
ht
cla
vi
cl
e
in
di
ca
te
st
he
pi
n
w
as
pr
ob
ab
ly
di
sp
lac
ed
fr
om
rig
ht
sh
ou
ld
er
.”
Pi
n
be
nt
;
(2
)F
e
kn
ife
:i
n
pi
ec
es
to
lef
to
fl
ef
th
ip
.T
ip
of
bl
ad
e
an
d
tip
of
ta
ng
m
iss
in
g;
(3
)F
e
ch
at
el
ain
e?
V
ar
io
us
pi
ec
es
ar
ou
nd
L
hi
p
an
d
pe
lv
is.
“D
ist
ur
be
d,
po
ss
ib
ly
ro
bb
ed
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
…
(fo
ot
en
d
ha
sa
n
irr
eg
ul
ar
cu
tt
o
rig
ht
of
fe
et
an
d
lo
w
er
leg
s)
…
Fi
ll:
ea
rth
y
at
to
p,
ch
alk
ier
at
bo
tto
m
.F
em
ale
,4
0-
50
ye
ar
s.
E
xt
en
de
d
su
pi
ne
.
V
irt
ua
lly
all
th
e
rig
ht
sid
e
of
th
e
up
pe
rb
od
y
is
m
iss
in
g,
an
d
th
os
e
fr
ag
m
en
ts
th
at
do
su
rv
iv
e
ap
pe
ar
m
isp
lac
ed
.M
os
to
ft
he
gr
av
e
go
od
sa
lso
ap
pe
ar
to
ha
ve
be
en
di
st
ur
be
d.
”
16
2
F 20
-2
5
B
-
60
0-
70
0
-
0.
43
2
0.
79
?M
ou
nd
4
U
(1
)O
rg
an
ic
ob
jec
tw
ith
Cu
an
d
Fe
fit
tin
gs
.
“D
ist
ur
be
d…
Fi
ll:
ea
rth
y.
Fe
m
ale
20
-2
5
ye
ar
s.
Su
pi
ne
an
d
alm
os
tf
ul
ly
ex
te
nd
ed
,t
ho
ug
h
lef
t
leg
be
nt
sli
gh
tly
to
lef
ta
tk
ne
e,
ar
m
ss
ha
rp
ly
be
nt
w
ith
ha
nd
sa
tw
ais
t.
Th
e
sk
ul
l,
rig
ht
in
no
m
in
at
e
bo
ne
an
d
sa
cr
um
ha
ve
be
en
di
st
ur
be
d
an
d
lie
in
th
e
rig
ht
ch
es
t/
w
ais
ta
re
a.”
19
7
F 17
-2
0
B
-
60
0-
70
0
-
0.
81
2.
03
0.
74
co
ffi
n
4
i
(1
)N
ec
kl
ac
e:
di
st
ur
be
d
in
up
pe
rc
he
st
–
w
ais
ta
re
a;
(2
)F
e
ch
at
el
ain
e:
di
st
ur
be
d
in
bo
tto
m
3r
d
of
gr
av
e;
(3
)F
e
kn
ife
:
di
st
ur
be
d,
in
pi
ec
es
in
bo
tto
m
3r
d
of
gr
av
e.
“D
ist
ur
be
d.
..
A
w
ell
-c
ut
,r
eg
ul
ar
gr
av
e.
Tr
ac
es
of
a
co
ff
in
w
er
e
cle
ar
ly
vi
sib
le
.B
ot
h
sk
ele
to
n
an
d
gr
av
e
go
od
sw
er
e
se
ve
re
ly
di
st
ur
be
d,
ye
t
th
e
tra
ce
sr
ep
re
se
nt
in
g
th
e
sid
es
an
d
en
ds
of
th
e
co
ffi
n
w
er
e
in
ta
ct
at
th
e
tim
e
of
ex
ca
va
tio
n.
It
ap
pe
ar
ed
th
at
th
e
co
ff
in
m
us
th
av
e
be
en
op
en
ed
up
an
d
th
e
bu
ria
lr
ob
be
d
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
,
af
te
rt
he
bo
dy
ha
d
de
co
m
po
se
d
bu
tb
ef
or
e
th
e
co
ffi
n
ha
d
co
lla
ps
ed
.G
ra
ve
-fi
ll:
cl
ay
to
a
de
pt
h
of
c.0
.3
0-
0.
45
m
be
lo
w
su
rf
ac
e
of
ch
alk
,t
he
n
ha
rd
pa
ck
ed
ch
alk
ar
ou
nd
co
ff
in
an
d
ch
alk
y
ea
rth
in
sid
e.
Fe
m
ale
,c
.1
7-
20
ye
ar
s.
O
nl
y
di
st
ur
be
d
fr
ag
m
en
ts
of
sk
ele
to
n
su
rv
iv
e.”
25
4
G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
- D
at
e3
-D
ep
th
(m
)1
-L
en
gt
h
(m
)1
-W
id
th
(m
)1
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e1
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
- F
in
ds
1
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
1
-
20
5/
a
F 25
-3
0
B
-
52
0-
60
0
ea
rly
7t
h
0.
91
2.
39
0.
76
co
ffi
n
?M
ou
nd
3
iii
(1
)F
e
kn
ife
:l
oo
se
in
fil
lin
g
on
le
ft
sid
e
of
bo
ne
he
ap
;(
2)
Si
lv
er
bo
w
-b
ro
oc
h,
ca
st
,
gi
ld
ed
,n
iel
lo
ed
an
d
se
tw
ith
re
d
gl
as
sa
nd
ga
rn
et
:“
fo
un
d
on
ex
ca
va
tio
n
sp
oi
l-h
ea
p
af
te
rr
ain
,i
n
tip
of
da
rk
so
il
w
hi
ch
ha
d
de
fin
ite
ly
co
m
e
fr
om
th
e
ro
bb
ed
ar
ea
of
th
is
gr
av
e.
It
ha
d
th
us
be
en
ov
er
lo
ok
ed
by
ex
ca
va
to
rs
an
ci
en
ta
nd
m
od
er
n
an
d
its
po
sit
io
n
in
th
e
gr
av
e
is
no
ta
sc
er
ta
in
ab
le
ex
ce
pt
,o
fc
ou
rs
e,
th
at
it
m
ay
ha
ve
be
en
re
sp
on
sib
le
fo
rt
he
gr
ee
n-
st
ain
in
g
of
th
e
w
om
an
’s
cla
vi
cle
.”
“R
ob
be
d
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
...
A
w
ell
-c
ut
gr
av
e
w
ith
ro
un
de
d
en
ds
.R
em
ain
so
fc
ha
lk
pa
ck
in
g
at
bo
th
sid
es
of
gr
av
e
ne
ar
bo
tto
m
su
gg
es
tt
he
re
ha
d
be
en
a
co
ffi
n
c.0
.5
3m
w
id
e.
A
ll
th
e
up
pe
r
pa
rt
of
th
e
gr
av
e
to
a
de
pt
h
of
0.
61
m
fil
led
w
ith
di
st
ur
be
d
fil
lo
fc
lay
ey
ea
rth
.B
elo
w
th
is
w
as
di
st
ur
be
d
ch
alk
y
ea
rth
,b
ut
re
m
ain
so
fc
ha
lk
pa
ck
in
g
su
rv
iv
ed
at
sid
es
clo
se
to
gr
av
e-
bo
tto
m
.B
on
es
,s
om
e
se
m
i-a
rti
cu
la
te
d,
w
er
e
fo
un
d
he
ap
ed
in
th
e
m
id
dl
e
of
th
e
gr
av
e,
in
th
e
da
rk
fil
l,
fr
om
a
de
pt
h
of
0.
33
m
to
0.
58
m
.T
he
ex
ca
va
to
rs
ha
d
th
e
im
pr
es
sio
n
th
at
gr
av
e-
ro
bb
in
g
ha
d
ta
ke
n
pl
ac
e
no
tl
on
g
af
te
rb
ur
ial
,
be
fo
re
th
e
pr
im
ar
y
bu
ria
lh
ad
ha
d
tim
e
fu
lly
to
de
co
m
po
se
.M
ar
y
H
ar
m
an
,t
he
bo
ne
as
sis
ta
nt
on
sit
e,
be
lie
ve
d
th
at
th
e
gr
av
e
ha
d
co
nt
ain
ed
th
e
re
m
ain
so
f3
hu
m
an
in
di
vi
du
als
an
d
of
a
sh
ee
p
or
go
at
.I
nd
iv
id
ua
lA
:F
em
ale
,c
.2
5-
30
ye
ar
s.
G
re
en
st
ain
as
fr
om
sil
ve
ro
rC
u
all
oy
?b
ro
oc
h
on
cl
av
icl
e.
In
di
vi
du
al
B:
M
ale
,
ad
ul
t.
In
di
vi
du
al
C:
?M
ale
,a
du
lt.
Re
pr
es
en
te
d
by
a
5t
h
fe
m
ur
,n
ot
e d
in
th
e
Si
te
N
ot
eb
oo
k
bu
t
no
ti
n
th
e
fin
al
re
po
rt
on
th
e
sk
el
et
on
s.
Sh
ee
p/
go
at
:R
ep
re
se
nt
ed
by
m
an
di
bl
e
an
d
te
et
h,
ve
rte
br
ae
an
d
ca
nn
on
bo
ne
s.”
20
5/
b
M ad
ul
t
B
-
52
0-
60
0
-
m
ul
tip
le
m
ul
tip
le
m
ul
tip
le
"
se
e
ab
ov
e
se
e
ab
ov
e
20
5/
c
M
?
ad
ul
t
A
-
52
0-
60
0
-
m
ul
tip
le
m
ul
tip
le
m
ul
tip
le
"
se
e
ab
ov
e
se
e
ab
ov
e
21
1/
a
M ad
ul
t?
C
X
52
0-
55
0
-
0.
71
2.
36
0.
84
co
ffi
n
?M
ou
nd
4
?ii
i
(1
)F
e
sp
ea
r-
fe
rr
ul
e:
un
di
st
ur
be
d
at
fo
ot
en
d
of
gr
av
e
ju
st
in
sid
e
lef
ts
id
e
of
co
ffi
n;
(2
)S
hi
eld
:t
o
th
e
lef
to
ft
he
lef
ta
nk
le
of
In
di
vi
du
al
A
,o
ut
sid
e
an
d
pr
op
pe
d
ag
ain
st
lef
ts
id
e
of
co
ff
in
,s
hi
eld
-b
oa
rd
in
w
ar
ds
;(
3)
Cu
all
oy
fr
ag
m
en
ts
:b
elo
w
L
fo
ot
;(
4)
Fe
sp
ea
rh
ea
d:
lo
os
e
in
pl
ou
gh
so
il
ab
ou
t4
m
SE
of
G
r2
11
“a
nd
ju
st
po
ss
ib
ly
as
so
ci
at
ed
w
ith
it”
.
“M
os
to
ft
he
gr
av
e
w
as
di
st
ur
be
d
by
ch
alk
ex
tra
ct
io
n,
po
ss
ib
ly
it
w
as
als
o
ro
bb
ed
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
…
Th
e
gr
av
e
ha
d
co
nt
ain
ed
tw
o
ad
ul
t
in
di
vi
du
als
.T
he
se
em
in
gl
y
un
co
ffi
ne
d
In
di
vi
du
al
B
w
as
de
po
sit
ed
di
re
ct
ly
ab
ov
e
an
d
th
er
ef
or
e
so
m
et
im
e
af
te
rt
he
co
ffi
ne
d
In
di
vi
du
al
A
…
In
di
vi
du
al
A
:M
ale
,?
ad
ul
t.
O
nl
y
rig
ht
tib
ia
an
d
fib
ul
a
an
d
lef
tf
ib
ul
a
an
d
fo
ot
bo
ne
ss
ur
vi
ve
d.
E
xt
en
de
d
su
pi
ne
.I
nd
iv
id
ua
l
B:
?F
em
ale
,a
du
lt.
E
xt
en
de
d
su
pi
ne
.”
25
5
G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
- D
at
e3
-D
ep
th
(m
)1
-L
en
gt
h
(m
)1
-W
id
th
(m
)1
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e1
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
- F
in
ds
1
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
1
-
21
1/
b
F? ad
ul
t
C
X
60
0-
70
0
ea
rly
7t
h
m
ul
tip
le
m
ul
tip
le
m
ul
tip
le
"
se
e
ab
ov
e
se
e
ab
ov
e
1.
H
aw
ke
s&
G
ra
in
ge
r2
00
6
2.
A
SK
E
D
3.
Sa
ye
r2
00
9
25
6
T
ab
le
14
:R
am
sg
at
e
IV
,O
ze
ng
el
l(
O
se
ng
al
,O
zi
ng
el
l,
Lo
rd
of
th
e
M
an
or
)
In
hu
m
at
io
n
ce
m
et
er
y.
M
in
.n
o.
gr
av
es
:7
10
.S
am
pl
e
fo
rs
tu
dy
:8
9.
D
ist
ur
be
d/
po
ss
ib
ly
di
st
ur
be
d:
41
bu
ria
ls
in
39
gr
av
es
(3
9/
89
=
44
%
)
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-D
ep
th
1
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e1
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-F
in
ds
1
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
1
-
5
F ad
ul
t
B
-
62
5-
72
5
0.
55
"f
ou
rc
or
ne
rp
os
t
so
ck
et
sw
ith
w
oo
d
tra
ce
s,
an
d
a
slo
ta
bo
ut
7c
m
de
ep
,1
.8
0m
x
0.
50
m
cu
ti
nt
o
th
e
flo
or
"
U
U
bl
ue
gl
as
sb
ea
d
hi
gh
in
fil
l,
iro
n
kn
ife
"g
ra
ve
di
st
ur
be
d"
6
F 22
a
B
-
62
5-
70
0
0.
75
4
U
in
fil
la
bo
ne
be
ad
an
d
iro
n
fr
ag
m
en
ts
"g
ra
ve
di
st
ur
be
d,
bo
ne
ss
ca
tte
re
d"
7
M 23
A
-
57
5-
67
5
0.
8
sa
nd
st
on
e
sla
bs
3
U
?in
sit
u
an
iro
n
kn
ife
ag
ain
st
lef
tf
or
e-
ar
m
,i
n
fil
ls
m
all
br
on
ze
bu
ck
le
an
d
iro
n
sp
ik
e,
iro
n
fr
ag
m
en
ts
an
d
riv
et
"G
ra
ve
di
st
ur
be
d,
bo
ne
ss
ca
tte
re
d
at
he
ad
of
gr
av
e
bu
tl
ef
ta
rm
pr
ob
ab
ly
se
m
i-a
rti
cu
lat
ed
at
tim
e
of
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e,
sa
nd
st
on
e
sla
bs
in
gr
av
e
fil
l"
9
F ad
ul
t
A
-
62
5-
70
0
0.
8
sa
nd
st
on
e
sla
bs
3
U
po
ts
he
rd
,i
ro
n
gi
rd
le
ha
ng
er
fr
ag
m
en
ts
in
fil
l
"G
ra
ve
di
st
ur
be
d,
bo
ne
ss
ca
tte
re
d,
lo
ng
bo
ne
so
fl
ow
er
leg
sp
ro
ba
bl
y
se
m
ia
rti
cu
lat
ed
at
tim
e
of
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e.
Sa
nd
st
on
e
sla
bs
st
re
w
n
ab
ou
t
gr
av
e."
10
M ad
ol
es
ce
nt
B
-
57
5-
67
5
0.
95
slo
ts
in
gr
av
e
flo
or
,?
ro
pe
w
ay
s
U
U
5
sm
all
br
on
ze
ob
je
ct
s,
sh
iel
d
bo
ss
fr
ag
m
en
ts
,s
m
all
br
on
ze
bu
ck
le
,s
hi
eld
st
ud
s,
kn
ife
hi
gh
in
fil
l
"G
ra
ve
di
st
ur
be
d
fo
r1
.8
0m
,b
ac
k
fr
om
w
es
te
nd
"
11
U U
B
-
52
5-
57
5
0.
81
?1
/4
U
11
ob
jec
ts
,?
ga
m
in
g
pi
ec
es
of
ho
rs
e
or
co
w
te
et
h,
iro
n
fr
ag
m
en
ts
an
d
riv
et
s
"G
ra
ve
di
st
ur
be
d
fo
r2
.0
0m
,b
ac
k
fr
om
w
es
te
nd
.N
o
sk
ele
ta
l
re
m
ain
s."
12
M 45
A
X
52
5-
72
5
0.
55
3
U
no
fin
ds
"G
ra
ve
di
st
ur
be
d
an
d
bo
ne
sp
ile
d
in
to
tw
o
he
ap
s,
bo
ne
so
fl
ow
er
leg
sp
ro
ba
bl
y
se
m
i-a
rti
cu
lat
ed
at
tim
e
of
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e."
17
M 25
-3
0
A
-
62
5-
72
5
0.
75
co
ffi
n
slo
ti
n
gr
av
e
flo
or
,L
1.
92
m
,W
0.
45
m
,D
0.
10
m
3
U
iro
n
kn
ife
,b
en
tt
o
a
rig
ht
an
gl
e
"H
ea
d
ha
lf
of
th
e
gr
av
e
di
st
ur
be
d,
bo
ne
so
fl
eg
sp
ro
ba
bl
y
se
m
i-
ar
tic
ul
at
ed
at
tim
e
of
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e"
18
M 25
-3
0
A
-
62
5-
67
5
0.
8
4
po
st
ho
le
s,
sa
nd
st
on
e
sla
b
up
rig
ht
at
S
sid
e
3
U
iro
n
bu
ck
le
"G
ra
ve
di
st
ur
be
d,
bo
ne
ss
ca
tte
re
d
at
fo
ot
…
V
er
te
br
ae
st
ill
se
m
i-
ar
tic
ul
at
ed
at
tim
e
of
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e…
O
rig
in
al
gr
av
e
fil
lp
re
se
nt
at
sid
es
…
Th
e
st
ra
tif
ic
at
io
n
of
fil
li
nd
ica
te
d
th
at
th
e
gr
av
e
w
as
no
t
ba
ck
-fi
lle
d
im
m
ed
iat
ely
af
te
rd
ist
ur
ba
nc
e,
he
av
y
ra
in
br
in
gi
ng
a
da
rk
sil
tf
ro
m
lan
d
su
rf
ac
e."
25
7
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-D
ep
th
1
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e1
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-F
in
ds
1
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
1
-
19
a
M 30
A
-
62
5-
72
5
0.
56
3
U
iro
n
kn
ife
"G
ra
ve
di
st
ur
be
d,
sk
ul
l,
rib
-c
ag
e,
sp
in
e,
an
d
m
os
to
fp
elv
is
fr
ag
m
en
ta
ry
an
d
sc
at
te
re
d.
Lo
ng
bo
ne
so
fa
rm
sa
nd
leg
si
n
po
sit
io
n,
pr
ob
ab
ly
se
m
i-a
rti
cu
lat
ed
at
tim
e
of
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e."
19
b
M yo
un
g
ad
ul
t
B
-
-
m
ul
tip
le
4
U
0
"I
n
th
e
gr
av
e
fil
lo
f1
9
th
e
sc
at
te
re
d
re
m
ain
so
fa
yo
un
g
ad
ul
tm
ale
."
21
?F ad
ul
t
B
-
62
5-
67
5
0.
95
4/
5
U
br
on
ze
ob
jec
t,
sc
at
te
re
d
iro
n
fr
ag
m
en
ts
,p
ot
sh
er
d
"G
ra
ve
he
av
ily
di
st
ur
be
d.
Bo
ne
fr
ag
m
en
ts
in
di
ca
te
an
ad
ul
tf
em
ale
."
22
F ad
ul
t
B
-
62
5-
72
5
1
sh
elf
on
all
sid
es
,c
.
40
cm
w
id
e,
30
cm
de
ep
,
in
to
th
is
w
er
e
cu
t6
sh
all
ow
re
ct
an
gu
lar
de
pr
es
sio
ns
4/
5
U
gl
as
sb
ea
d,
cla
y
be
ad
,b
ro
nz
e
fr
ag
m
en
t,
iro
n
kn
ife
,
po
ts
he
rd
"T
he
gr
av
e
w
as
he
av
ily
di
st
ur
be
d,
an
d
a
nu
m
be
ro
fs
an
ds
to
ne
sla
bs
w
er
e
fo
un
d
at
all
lev
el
so
fg
ra
ve
fil
l.
Sk
ele
ta
lr
em
ain
sw
er
e
fr
ag
m
en
ta
ry
"
23
F 25
B
-
57
5-
62
5
0.
8
sh
elf
on
all
sid
es
,1
0-
20
cm
w
id
e,
20
cm
de
ep
,
in
to
th
is
w
er
e
cu
t4
sh
all
ow
de
pr
es
sio
ns
,
pr
ob
ab
ly
po
st
ho
le
s
4
U
br
on
ze
pi
n,
po
ly
ch
ro
m
e
gl
as
s
be
ad
,4
cla
y
be
ad
s,
iro
n
kn
ife
,i
ro
n
rin
gs
"G
ra
ve
he
av
ily
di
st
ur
be
d…
bo
ne
sb
et
w
ee
n
sk
ul
la
nd
kn
ee
s
sc
at
te
re
d.
"
24
F 30
B
X
52
5-
72
5
0.
9
sa
nd
st
on
e
sla
bs
U
U
2
be
ad
s,
iro
n
kn
ife
"g
ra
ve
cu
tb
y
m
od
er
n
pi
pe
tre
nc
h…
gr
av
e
di
st
ur
be
d,
sa
nd
st
on
e
sla
bs
pr
es
en
ti
n
gr
av
e
fil
l."
25
F 7
B
-
52
5-
72
5
0.
8
4/
5
U
br
on
ze
be
ad
,g
las
sb
ea
d
"G
ra
ve
he
av
ily
di
st
ur
be
d,
bo
ne
ss
ca
tte
re
d
an
d
fr
ag
m
en
ta
ry
,
sa
nd
st
on
e
sla
bs
hi
gh
in
gr
av
e
fil
l."
27
F 3
B
-
52
5-
57
5
0.
7
U
U
po
lyc
hr
om
e
be
ad
,1
0
m
elo
n
gl
as
sb
ea
ds
,1
7
sin
gl
e
an
d
4
do
ub
le
cy
lin
dr
ica
lb
ea
ds
,
kn
ife
,i
ro
n
fr
ag
m
en
ts
"G
ra
ve
he
av
ily
di
st
ur
be
d.
"
28
F 15
B
-
62
5-
67
5
0.
95
?c
of
fin
sh
all
ow
led
ge
ac
ro
ss
he
ad
an
d
sid
es
of
gr
av
e,
at
so
ur
th
er
n
co
rn
er
of
he
ad
en
d
a
po
st
ho
le
4/
5
?ii
i
iro
n
fr
ag
m
en
ts
,b
ro
nz
e
st
ap
le
s(
?w
oo
de
n
bo
x)
,
br
on
ze
pi
n,
le
ad
di
sc
,b
uc
kl
e
of
br
on
ze
,i
ro
n
sil
ve
r,
kn
ife
,
iro
n
fr
ag
m
en
t
"G
ra
ve
he
av
ily
di
st
ur
be
d,
bo
ne
ss
ca
tte
re
d
an
d
fr
ag
m
en
ta
ry
."
"s
ho
rt
w
oo
d
or
co
ffi
n
tra
ce
"
30
F ad
ul
t
B
-
52
5-
72
5
0.
78
U
U
no
fin
ds
"G
ra
ve
he
av
ily
di
st
ur
be
d.
"
32
F ad
ul
t
B
-
57
5-
67
5
0.
69
4/
5
U
2
cla
y
be
ad
s,
iro
n
ke
ys
,2
po
ts
he
rd
s
"d
ist
ur
be
d,
bo
ne
an
d
m
et
all
ic
fr
ag
m
en
ts
sc
at
te
re
d
at
all
lev
el
s"
25
8
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-D
ep
th
1
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e1
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-F
in
ds
1
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
1
-
34
/a
M ad
ul
t
C
X
57
5-
67
5
0.
96
4/
5
U
po
lyc
hr
om
e
be
ad
,2
ye
llo
w
cla
y
be
ad
s"
pe
rh
ap
s
in
di
ca
tiv
e
of
a
th
ird
an
d
fe
m
ale
in
hu
m
at
io
n"
,i
ro
n
bu
ck
le
"g
ra
ve
cu
tb
y
m
od
er
n
pi
pe
tre
nc
h,
de
st
ro
yin
g
th
e
m
id
dl
e
on
e
th
ird
,
th
er
e
w
as
als
o
ev
id
en
ce
of
ea
rli
er
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e.
E
xa
m
in
at
io
n
of
th
e
sc
at
te
re
d
an
d
fr
ag
m
en
ta
ry
bo
ne
sr
ev
ea
led
tw
o
in
di
vi
du
als
…
th
e
in
te
rm
itt
an
tc
of
fin
tra
ce
on
th
e
gr
av
e
flo
or
w
as
pr
ob
ab
ly
as
so
ci
at
ed
w
ith
34
b"
34
/b
M 30
-3
5
C
X
---
m
ul
tip
le
co
ffi
n
-
-
-
-
46
U 9
C
-
52
5-
62
5
0.
75
4/
5
U
iro
n
kn
ife
,f
ra
gm
en
ts
"G
ra
ve
pr
ob
ab
ly
di
st
ur
be
d
as
ar
tif
ac
ts
,b
on
e
fr
ag
m
en
ts
an
d
te
et
h
sc
at
te
re
d
at
he
ad
of
gr
av
e."
49
U 21
-2
5
B
-
52
5-
72
5
0.
91
co
ffi
n
re
ct
an
gu
lar
'k
er
b
slo
t'
in
su
rr
ou
nd
in
g
ch
alk
su
rf
ac
e,
c.
4.
40
m
x
2.
80
m
,s
om
e
sa
nd
st
on
e
fr
ag
m
en
ts
re
ta
in
ed
in
th
is
4
U
iro
n
kn
ife
,i
ro
n
fr
ag
m
en
ts
in
fil
l
"G
ra
ve
di
st
ur
be
d,
bo
ne
ss
ca
tte
re
d"
50
M 25
-3
0
B
-
52
5-
72
5
0.
8
sa
nd
st
on
e
sla
bs
,k
er
b
slo
t
U
U
no
fin
ds
"G
ra
ve
he
av
ily
di
st
ur
be
d,
lar
ge
sa
nd
st
on
e
sla
bs
sc
at
te
re
d
in
fil
l."
51
M 25
-3
0
B
-
57
5-
67
5
0.
9
co
ffi
n
sa
nd
st
on
e
sla
bs
U
?ii
i
br
on
ze
bu
ck
le
,i
ro
n
kn
ife
"S
an
ds
to
ne
cla
bs
in
gr
av
e
fil
l…
an
d
co
ffi
n
tra
ce
on
flo
or
of
gr
av
e
on
ly…
in
di
ca
te
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e."
52
F ad
ul
t
B
-
52
5-
72
5
0.
73
sa
nd
st
on
e
sla
bs
4
U
at
de
pt
h
7c
m
,a
rim
sh
er
d
of
Ty
lo
rH
ill
m
ed
iev
al
po
tte
ry
"G
ra
ve
he
av
ily
di
st
ur
be
d,
bo
ne
sa
nd
sa
nd
st
on
e
sla
bs
sc
at
te
re
d
at
all
lev
els
of
gr
av
e
fil
l."
53
F 30
-3
5
B
-
52
5-
72
5
0.
76
sa
nd
st
on
e
sla
bs
4
U
2
sm
all
fr
ag
m
en
ts
of
sil
ve
r?
fr
om
a
pe
nd
an
t
at
ta
ch
m
en
t,
cla
y
be
ad
"G
ra
ve
di
st
ur
be
d,
sa
nd
st
on
e
sla
bs
at
all
lev
el
so
ff
ill
.B
on
es
…
sc
at
te
re
d
at
fo
ot
of
gr
av
e."
56
U 6
C
-
57
5-
67
5
0.
66
co
ffi
n
4
U
2
br
on
ze
bu
ck
le
s
"G
ra
ve
ap
pa
re
nt
ly
di
st
ur
be
d
fo
rt
w
o
th
ird
so
ft
he
w
ay
ba
ck
fr
om
w
es
te
rn
en
d,
th
e
re
m
ain
de
ro
ft
he
fil
lb
ein
g
m
or
e
ch
alk
y"
60
M ad
ul
t
B
-
45
0-
52
5
1
co
ffi
n
4/
5
U
sp
ea
rh
ea
d,
w
oo
d,
clo
th
/l
ea
th
er
,b
ro
nz
e
bu
ck
le
pl
at
e,
br
ok
en
iro
n
kn
ife
"G
ra
ve
di
st
ur
be
d,
a
no
rth
-s
ou
th
se
ct
io
n
ac
ro
ss
th
e
gr
av
e
in
di
ca
te
d
th
at
th
e
ro
bb
er
sh
ad
lo
ca
te
d
it
by
st
rip
pi
ng
to
ps
oi
lf
ro
m
th
e
ch
alk
in
a
so
ut
hw
ar
d
di
re
ct
io
n.
Th
e
sp
oi
lo
fc
ha
lk
ru
bb
le
w
as
he
ap
ed
on
bo
th
sid
es
of
th
e
gr
av
e,
tra
pp
in
g
th
e
lan
d
su
rf
ac
e
to
th
e
so
ut
h.
M
os
tb
ac
k-
fil
lin
g
m
ay
ha
ve
oc
cu
rr
ed
na
tu
ra
lly
.A
led
ge
of
ch
alk
pa
ck
in
g.
..
th
e
iro
n
sp
ea
rh
ea
d
lay
on
th
is.
Be
tw
ee
n
pa
ck
in
g
an
d
gr
av
e
fil
lw
as
a
st
ro
ng
co
ffi
n
tra
ce
...
sc
at
te
re
d
an
d
fr
ag
m
en
ta
ry
bo
ne
s"
61
M ad
ul
t
C
X
52
5-
67
5
0.
9
?c
of
fin
sa
nd
st
on
e
sla
bs
4/
5
U
br
on
ze
st
ud
,r
iv
et
,w
oo
d
fr
ag
m
en
t,
sp
ea
rh
ea
d,
3
iro
n
sh
iel
d
st
ud
s
"G
ra
ve
cu
ta
cr
os
sa
tf
oo
tb
y
m
od
er
n
tre
nc
h,
co
nt
en
ts
di
st
ur
be
d,
bo
ne
an
d
m
et
all
ic
fr
ag
m
en
ts
sc
at
te
re
d.
"
25
9
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-D
ep
th
1
-C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e1
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-F
in
ds
1
-E
xc
av
at
or
s'
co
m
m
en
ts
1
-
65
F 25
-3
0
A
-
52
5-
72
5
0.
4
sa
nd
st
on
e
sla
bs
3
U
br
on
ze
pi
n,
br
on
ze
w
ire
sp
ira
l
"G
ra
ve
di
st
ur
be
d,
sa
nd
st
on
e
sla
bs
at
all
lev
el
so
fg
ra
ve
fil
l…
bo
ne
s
sc
at
te
re
d,
ve
rte
br
ae
se
m
i-a
rti
cu
lat
ed
at
tim
e
of
di
st
ur
ba
nc
e."
69
F 35
-4
0
B
-
52
5-
72
5
0.
63
4/
5
U
br
on
ze
fin
ge
rr
in
g,
br
ow
n
pa
st
e
be
ad
"h
ea
vi
ly
di
st
ur
be
d,
all
bo
ne
an
d
m
et
all
ic
fr
ag
m
en
ts
et
c.
co
nc
en
tra
te
d
at
m
id
dl
e
of
gr
av
e"
72
F 25
-3
0
B
-
62
5-
67
5
0.
67
4
U
gl
as
sb
ea
d,
iro
n
kn
ife
"g
ra
ve
di
st
ur
be
d,
bo
ne
ss
ca
tte
re
d"
75
U ad
ul
t
B
-
57
5-
62
5
0.
83
co
ffi
n
4/
5
U
iro
n
bu
ck
le
w
ith
br
on
ze
riv
et
s,
iro
n
ch
at
ela
in
e
rin
g,
po
lyc
hr
om
e
be
ad
,c
lay
an
d
pa
st
e
be
ad
s,
iro
n
kn
ife
,i
ro
n
bu
ck
le
"G
ra
ve
di
st
ur
be
d
an
d
co
nt
en
ts
sc
at
te
re
d,
so
m
e
co
ff
in
tra
ce
sv
isi
bl
e
on
ch
alk
flo
or
…
fr
ag
m
en
ta
ry
re
m
ain
si
n
po
or
co
nd
iti
on
"
78
M 40
-4
5
B
-
52
5-
72
5
0.
5
4
U
no
fin
ds
"G
ra
ve
cu
tt
hr
ou
gh
fil
lo
fb
ar
ro
w
di
tc
h,
di
st
ur
be
d,
bo
ne
so
fl
ef
tl
eg
,
pe
lv
is,
sp
in
e
an
d
rib
so
ut
of
po
sit
io
n…
bu
rie
d
fa
ce
do
w
n
w
ith
rig
ht
ar
m
un
de
rs
ku
ll.
"
81
F 20
-2
5
B
-
52
5-
72
5
0.
82
?c
of
fin
sa
nd
st
on
e
sla
b
U
U
no
fin
ds
"t
he
w
ho
le
m
uc
h
di
st
ur
be
d"
85
U 1-
2
B
-
52
5-
72
5
0.
82
co
ffi
n
4/
5
U
sp
ea
rf
er
ru
le,
iro
n
bu
ck
le
,
sh
iel
d
st
ud
s,
iro
n
bu
ck
le
fr
ag
m
en
ts
"g
ra
ve
di
st
ur
be
d…
to
ot
h
sc
at
te
r..
.b
on
e
fr
ag
m
en
ts
"
87
U 0-
1
B
-
52
5-
72
5
0.
81
co
ffi
n
U
U
ve
rte
br
a
of
a
co
w
or
ho
rs
e
"g
ra
ve
di
st
ur
be
d"
22
9
M ad
ul
t
B
-
---
1.
05
co
ffi
n
sa
nd
st
on
e
sla
bs
4
U
2
kn
iv
es
,s
pe
ar
he
ad
,s
hi
el
d-
fit
tin
gs
,b
uc
kl
e
"D
ist
ur
be
d
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
,h
ea
d
an
d
fo
ot
un
di
st
ur
be
d.
Co
ffi
n,
en
clo
se
d
in
pa
ck
in
g
ru
bb
le.
Sa
nd
st
on
e
sla
bs
hi
gh
in
fil
l,
po
ss
ib
ly
re
m
ain
so
f
gr
ou
nd
lev
el
co
ve
r."
23
0
U U
B
-
---
U
?c
of
fin
sa
nd
st
on
e
sla
bs
U
U
co
m
b
fr
ag
m
en
ts
,c
len
ch
bo
lt
"D
ist
ur
be
d,
Sa
nd
st
on
e
sla
bs
sc
at
te
re
d
in
fil
l."
1.
Pe
rk
in
sd
ra
ft
gr
av
e
ca
ta
lo
gu
e
2.
A
SK
E
D
26
0
T
ab
le
15
:S
ar
re
I
In
hu
m
at
io
n
ce
m
et
er
y.
M
in
.n
o.
gr
av
es
:4
00
.S
am
pl
e
fo
rs
tu
dy
:2
91
.D
ist
ur
be
d/
po
ss
ib
ly
di
st
ur
be
d:
48
bu
ria
ls
in
44
gr
av
es
(4
4/
29
1=
15
%
).
-G
ra
ve
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-L
en
gt
h3
-W
id
th
3 -D
ep
th
3 -C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e3
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-D
is
tu
rb
an
ce
cl
as
s4
-F
in
ds
an
d
ex
ca
va
to
rs
'c
om
m
en
ts
1
-
-2
II
U ad
ul
t
B
-
50
0-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"T
hi
sg
ra
ve
ha
d
at
so
m
e
pe
rio
d
be
en
di
st
ur
be
d.
So
m
e
bo
ne
so
fo
xe
n,
ne
ar
th
e
su
rf
ac
e,
w
er
e
fo
un
d,
bu
tn
o
ot
he
rr
eli
cs
."
3
II
I
U ad
ul
t
C
-
50
0-
60
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"f
ra
gm
en
ts
of
a
sw
or
d
w
er
e
sc
at
te
re
d
ab
ou
tt
he
gr
av
e"
21
X
X
I
U ad
ul
t
B
-
50
0-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"D
ist
ur
be
d.
N
o
re
lic
s."
25
X
X
V
U ch
ild
B
-
50
0-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"A
ch
ild
’s
gr
av
e;
di
st
ur
be
d.
O
nl
y
a
br
on
ze
bu
ck
le
."
33
X
X
X
II
I
U ad
ul
t
B
-
53
0-
59
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
X
II
Ia
nd
X
X
X
IV
–
"B
ot
h
di
stu
rb
ed
.F
ra
gm
en
ts
of
an
ea
rth
en
ve
ss
el
an
d
of
a
kn
ife
;a
fe
w
cle
nc
h
bo
lts
;a
br
ok
en
iro
n
bu
ck
le
an
d
a
br
on
ze
ta
g.
"
34
X
X
X
IV
U ad
ul
t
B
-
53
0-
59
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
X
II
Ia
nd
X
X
X
IV
–
"B
ot
h
di
stu
rb
ed
.F
ra
gm
en
ts
of
an
ea
rth
en
ve
ss
el
an
d
of
a
kn
ife
;a
fe
w
cle
nc
h
bo
lts
;a
br
ok
en
iro
n
bu
ck
le
an
d
a
br
on
ze
ta
g.
"
66
LX
V
I
U ad
ul
t
B
-
50
0-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"D
ist
ur
be
d;
no
re
lic
s."
69
LX
IX
U ad
ul
t
B
-
50
0-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"D
ist
ur
be
d;
on
ly
a
fr
ag
m
en
to
fp
ot
te
ry
."
81
LX
X
X
I
?M ad
ul
t
B
-
50
0-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"D
ist
ur
be
d;
th
e
de
ep
es
tg
ra
ve
op
en
ed
at
Sa
rr
,b
ein
g
six
fe
et
fr
om
th
e
su
rf
ac
e.
It
sl
en
gt
h
w
as
ni
ne
fe
et
,a
nd
its
w
id
th
ne
ar
ly
fiv
e.
A
tt
he
he
ad
w
as
a
sm
all
br
on
ze
pi
n,
a
sp
ea
r-
he
ad
w
ith
its
fe
ru
le,
bo
th
br
ok
en
,a
nd
ap
pa
re
nt
ly
be
fo
re
bu
ria
l;
pa
rt
of
a
sh
iel
d-
br
ac
e.
A
sm
all
pi
ec
e
of
ye
llo
w
cl
ay
,a
bo
ut
th
e
siz
e
of
a
w
aln
ut
,w
as
fo
un
d
on
th
e
ch
alk
flo
or
of
th
e
gr
av
e."
82
LX
X
X
II
U ad
ul
t
B
-
50
0-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"D
ist
ur
be
d;
no
re
lic
s."
84
LX
X
X
IV
U ad
ul
t
B
-
50
0-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"D
ist
ur
be
d;
th
e
bo
ne
sm
uc
h
de
ra
ng
ed
.O
nl
y
a
sm
all
do
ub
le
gl
as
s
be
ad
."
26
1
-G
ra
ve
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-L
en
gt
h3
-W
id
th
3 -D
ep
th
3 -C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e3
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-D
is
tu
rb
an
ce
cl
as
s4
-F
in
ds
an
d
ex
ca
va
to
rs
'c
om
m
en
ts
1
-
85
LX
X
X
V
U ad
ul
t
B
-
47
5-
58
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"A
n
ob
liq
ue
gr
av
e;
di
st
ur
be
d.
A
bo
ne
of
sh
ee
p
or
de
er
w
as
fo
un
d
w
ith
th
e
sk
ele
to
n,
as
w
ell
,a
sa
br
ok
en
kn
ife
,a
nd
a
br
on
ze
fib
ul
a
of
th
e
rin
g
sh
ap
e…
Fr
om
th
e
ar
ch
aic
ch
ar
ac
te
ro
ft
hi
sf
ib
ul
a,
an
d
th
e
fa
ct
st
ha
tt
he
gr
av
e
va
rie
d
co
ns
id
er
ab
ly
in
di
re
ct
io
n
fr
om
its
ne
ig
hb
ou
rs
an
d
co
nt
ain
ed
an
an
im
al’
sb
on
e,
Ia
m
in
cli
ne
d
to
ra
nk
th
is
am
on
g
th
e
ol
de
st
of
th
e
gr
av
es
at
Sa
rr
e."
87
LX
X
X
V
II
?M ad
ul
t
B
-
50
0-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"D
ist
ur
be
d.
A
sp
ea
r-h
ea
d,
a
br
on
ze
bu
ck
le,
an
d
st
ud
."
10
4
CI
V
?M ch
ild
B
-
50
0-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"A
ve
ry
sm
all
gr
av
e
an
d
di
st
ur
be
d.
A
kn
ife
an
d
th
e
to
p
of
a
sw
or
d-
hi
lt.
"
13
6
CX
X
X
V
I
U ad
ul
t
C
-
50
0-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"A
re
m
ar
ka
bl
y
lo
ng
gr
av
e,
ele
ve
n
fe
et
in
len
gt
h
by
tw
o
fe
et
six
in
ch
es
in
w
id
th
.I
th
ad
pr
ob
ab
ly
be
en
di
st
ur
be
d,
an
d
co
nt
ain
ed
no
th
in
g
bu
t
a
fr
ag
m
en
to
fr
ed
po
tte
ry
."
14
2
CX
LI
I
?M ad
ul
t
B
-
57
5-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"A
lar
ge
sp
ea
r-h
ea
d,
an
d
an
ot
he
rs
m
all
er
,w
ith
on
e
fe
ru
le
;a
fr
ag
m
en
t
of
re
d
po
tte
ry
.N
o
ve
st
ig
e
of
th
e
sk
ele
to
n
bu
ta
po
rti
on
of
th
e
lo
w
er
jaw
-b
on
e.
M
os
to
ft
he
gr
av
es
in
th
is
pa
rt
of
th
e
fie
ld
ha
d
be
en
di
st
ur
be
d.
"
14
9
CX
LI
X
U ad
ul
t
C
-
50
0-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CX
LI
X
-C
LI
–
"P
ro
ba
bl
y
di
st
ur
be
d.
A
kn
ife
an
d
a
pi
ec
e
of
iro
n.
"
15
0
CX
LX
U ad
ul
t
C
-
50
0-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CX
LI
X
-C
LI
–
"P
ro
ba
bl
y
di
st
ur
be
d.
A
kn
ife
an
d
a
pi
ec
e
of
iro
n.
"
15
1
CL
I
U ad
ul
t
C
-
50
0-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CX
LI
X
-C
LI
–
"P
ro
ba
bl
y
di
st
ur
be
d.
A
kn
ife
an
d
a
pi
ec
e
of
iro
n.
"
15
4
CL
IV
U ad
ul
t
B
-
50
0-
60
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CL
IV
,C
LV
–
"B
ot
h
di
st
ur
be
d.
A
br
ok
en
pi
n
or
bo
dk
in
,o
ne
am
be
r
be
ad
,a
nd
fr
ag
m
en
ts
of
br
on
ze
an
d
iro
n.
"
15
5
CL
V
U ad
ul
t
B
-
50
0-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CL
IV
,C
LV
–
"B
ot
h
di
st
ur
be
d.
A
br
ok
en
pi
n
or
bo
dk
in
,o
ne
am
be
r
be
ad
,a
nd
fr
ag
m
en
ts
of
br
on
ze
an
d
iro
n.
"
17
8
CL
X
X
V
II
I
?F ad
ul
t
B
-
50
0-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"D
ist
ur
be
d;
no
re
lic
s.
G
ra
ve
of
a
w
om
an
,a
ss
he
w
n
by
th
e
te
et
h.
"
18
6
CL
X
X
X
V
I
U ad
ul
t
B
-
50
0-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"A
sm
all
ob
liq
ue
gr
av
e,
di
st
ur
be
d,
an
d
w
ith
th
e
bo
ne
sm
uc
h
di
sp
lac
ed
.A
n
iro
n
bu
ck
le
,a
nd
a
sm
all
su
bs
ta
nc
e
re
se
m
bl
in
g
re
sin
."
[a
lso
fo
un
d
in
ot
he
r,
un
di
st
ur
be
d
gr
av
es
e.g
.C
CI
Iw
he
re
th
ou
gh
t
pe
rh
ap
ss
om
e
un
gu
en
t].
26
2
-G
ra
ve
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-L
en
gt
h3
-W
id
th
3 -D
ep
th
3 -C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e3
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-D
is
tu
rb
an
ce
cl
as
s4
-F
in
ds
an
d
ex
ca
va
to
rs
'c
om
m
en
ts
1
-
19
4
CX
CI
V
U ad
ul
t
B
-
50
0-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CX
CI
V
an
d
CX
CV
I–
"h
ad
be
en
di
st
ur
be
d,
an
d
th
e
bo
ne
sm
uc
h
di
sp
lac
ed
.T
he
lat
te
rh
ad
co
nt
ain
ed
tw
o
pe
rs
on
s."
19
6a
CX
CV
I
U ad
ul
t
B
-
50
0-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CX
CI
V
an
d
CX
CV
I–
"h
ad
be
en
di
st
ur
be
d,
an
d
th
e
bo
ne
sm
uc
h
di
sp
lac
ed
.T
he
lat
te
rh
ad
co
nt
ain
ed
tw
o
pe
rs
on
s."
19
6b
0
U ad
ul
t
B
-
50
0-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
19
8
CX
CV
II
I
?M ad
ul
t
C
?W
50
0-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"(
ne
ar
th
e
tu
rn
pi
ke
-g
at
e
on
th
e
Ra
m
sg
at
e
ro
ad
.)
A
tt
he
fo
ot
of
th
e
gr
av
e
w
as
a
sm
all
ho
le
co
nt
ain
in
g
hu
m
an
bo
ne
s.
A
lso
ab
ou
tf
or
ty
co
un
te
rs
of
bo
ne
so
ri
vo
ry
…
In
th
is
gr
av
e
w
er
e
als
o
tw
o
gi
lt
st
ud
-
he
ad
so
rr
iv
et
s,
st
ill
qu
ite
br
ig
ht
;a
br
on
ze
bu
ck
le
,a
nd
on
e
of
iro
n,
an
d
tw
o
sm
all
sp
ea
r-
he
ad
s.
Th
e
gr
av
e
m
ea
su
re
d
se
ve
n
fe
et
by
fo
ur
.
Th
e
lo
w
er
en
d
ha
d
be
en
di
st
ur
be
d.
"
20
1
CC
I
U ad
ul
t
B
-
50
0-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"N
ot
hi
ng
.T
he
bo
ne
sd
isp
lac
ed
."
24
4
CC
X
LI
V
?M ad
ul
t
B
-
50
0-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"D
ist
ur
be
d.
Sh
iel
d-
st
ud
s,
an
d
fr
ag
m
en
ts
of
br
on
ze
an
d
iro
n.
A
tt
he
fo
ot
,a
fla
tp
iec
e
of
iro
n
w
ith
tw
o
fla
tte
ne
d
cir
cu
lar
kn
ob
su
po
n
it;
a
sp
ea
r-
he
ad
lay
in
th
e
ci
st
at
th
e
he
ad
of
th
e
gr
av
e."
24
9
CC
X
LI
X
U ad
ul
t
B
-
50
0-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"D
ist
ur
be
d.
N
o
re
lic
s."
25
1
CC
LI
U ad
ul
t
B
-
50
0-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"D
ist
ur
be
d.
N
o
re
lic
s."
27
1b
CC
LX
X
I
U ad
ul
t
D
-
---
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"N
ea
rt
he
su
rf
ac
e
hu
m
an
bo
ne
s,
a
ho
rs
e's
jaw
- b
on
e
an
d
te
et
h,
an
d
an
iro
n
sn
af
fle
-b
it.
A
sk
ele
to
n
lay
be
lo
w
,e
nt
ire
,w
ith
on
ly
a
br
ok
en
kn
ife
."
Pe
rk
in
s1
99
2:
11
9
ha
si
nt
er
m
en
tb
as
di
st
ur
be
d
Cl
as
sA
,2
[U
]
#
1
[U
]
[U
]
D
-
---
3
1.
12
0.
45
no
ne
-
-
-
"A
ne
at
ly
cu
tg
ra
ve
w
ith
ro
un
de
d
co
rn
er
s,
an
d
of
U
se
ct
io
n.
E
m
pt
y
bu
tf
or
tw
o
er
od
ed
lo
ng
bo
ne
fr
ag
m
en
ts
at
th
e
w
es
te
rn
en
d,
(a
).
Th
e
fil
lw
as
lo
os
e,
gr
ey
-b
lac
k,
an
d
ge
ne
ra
lly
un
lik
e
th
at
of
th
e
ot
he
r
gr
av
es
.T
hi
sw
as
pr
ob
ab
ly
a
gr
av
e
in
ve
st
ig
at
ed
by
Br
en
t."
26
3
-G
ra
ve
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-L
en
gt
h3
-W
id
th
3 -D
ep
th
3 -C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e3
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-D
is
tu
rb
an
ce
cl
as
s4
-F
in
ds
an
d
ex
ca
va
to
rs
'c
om
m
en
ts
1
-
27
6
#
3
U ?a
du
lt
B
-
50
0-
70
0
2.
4
0.
88
0.
57
H
og
ar
th
II
,a
,2
4
?i
A
,1
,f
ac
to
r
2(
b)
"A
ne
at
ly
cu
tg
ra
ve
ha
vi
ng
an
ex
te
rn
al
st
ru
ct
ur
e
Cl
as
sI
I,
a,
2,
co
ns
ist
in
g
of
fo
ur
w
ell
cu
tp
os
t-h
ol
es
ea
ch
of
w
hi
ch
ha
d
be
en
re
-
cu
t…
Th
e
gr
av
e
ha
d
be
en
di
st
ur
be
d
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
,C
las
sA
,1
,f
ac
to
r
2(
b)
.S
ku
ll
fr
ag
m
en
ts
m
ay
ha
ve
be
en
in
sit
u,
bu
tl
on
g
bo
ne
sw
er
e
he
ap
ed
at
th
e
w
es
te
rn
en
d
of
th
e
gr
av
e.
Th
e
on
ly
fin
ds
w
er
e
tw
o
br
on
ze
st
ra
p
en
ds
…
an
d
so
m
e
fr
ag
m
en
ts
of
w
or
ke
d
bo
ne
,p
er
ha
ps
fr
om
a
co
m
b
(n
ot
ill
us
tra
te
d)
."
27
9a
#
6
?F ad
ul
t
B
-
50
0-
70
0
2.
4
1.
2
0.
98
no
ne
4
U
1,
2(
b)
"G
ra
ve
w
ith
ro
un
de
d
co
rn
er
sa
nd
ve
rti
ca
ls
id
es
.D
ist
ur
be
d
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
,b
on
es
an
d
ob
jec
ts
sc
at
te
re
d
in
th
e
fil
la
ta
ll
le
ve
ls,
Cl
as
s1
,
2(
b)
.P
re
su
m
ab
ly,
a
m
ul
tip
le
bu
ria
l,
bo
ne
sw
er
e
fo
un
d
re
pr
es
en
tin
g
fo
ur
pe
rs
on
sa
tl
ea
st
on
e
of
th
em
m
ale
.T
he
on
ly
fin
ds
w
er
e
an
iro
n
kn
ife
an
d
a
sp
ea
rf
er
ru
le…
"
27
9b
0
U ju
ve
ni
le
B
-
50
0-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
27
9c
0
U ch
ild
B
-
50
0-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
27
9d
0
U ad
ul
t
B
-
50
0-
70
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
28
1
#
10
F 25
-3
0
ye
ar
s
ap
pr
ox
B
-
50
0-
70
0
2.
7
1
0.
55
H
og
ar
th
I(
b)
5
4/
5
?i
C.
1.
3(
b)
"T
he
gr
av
e
ha
d
a
sh
el
fc
ut
in
to
ch
alk
at
th
e
he
ad
an
d
sid
es
to
a
de
pt
h
of
0.
29
m
.s
ee
(b
)i
n
gr
av
e
pl
an
.T
hi
sr
ep
re
se
nt
sH
og
ar
th
’s
G
ra
ve
St
ru
ct
ur
e
Cl
as
sI
(b
)5
.I
th
ad
be
en
di
st
ur
be
d
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
,a
nd
on
ly
th
e
leg
bo
ne
s(
of
ad
ul
ts
iz
e)
w
er
e
in
sit
u.
D
ist
ur
ba
nc
e
Cl
as
sC
.1
.3
(b
).
G
ra
ve
go
od
s:
Fo
ur
iro
n
ke
ys
or
lat
ch
-li
fte
rs
an
d
iro
n
rin
g
fr
ag
m
en
ts
…
Th
es
e
ha
d
be
en
pi
led
ag
ain
st
th
e
sid
e
of
th
e
gr
av
e,
se
e
(a
)i
n
th
e
gr
av
e
pl
an
."
28
2
#
13
U 25
-3
0
ye
ar
s
ap
pr
ox
D
Y
---
2.
35
1.
25
0.
8
no
ne
-
-
1,
2(
b)
"G
ra
ve
w
ith
ro
un
de
d
en
ds
an
d
sid
es
slo
pi
ng
in
w
ar
ds
.D
ist
ur
be
d
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
(C
las
s1
,2
(b
)),
th
e
bo
ne
sf
ra
gm
en
te
d
an
d
sc
at
te
re
d
in
fil
l
w
hi
ch
co
nt
ain
ed
fr
ag
m
en
ts
of
pe
g-
til
e
an
d
a
cla
y-
pi
pe
st
em
of
eig
ht
ee
nt
h-
ce
nt
ur
y
pa
tte
rn
."
28
3
#
14
M 30
+
ye
ar
s
B
X
52
5-
60
0
2.
05
0.
75
0.
24
no
ne
4
U
1,
1(
a)
2(
b)
"A
gr
av
e
w
ith
ro
un
de
d
en
ds
an
d
op
en
U
-s
ec
tio
n.
D
ist
ur
be
d
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
(C
las
s1
,1
(a
)2
(b
)),
on
e
tib
ia
m
ay
ha
ve
re
m
ain
ed
in
sit
u.
Fu
rth
er
da
m
ag
e
in
m
od
er
n
tim
es
by
pl
ou
gh
in
g.
W
he
n
ex
po
se
d
by
m
ac
hi
ne
a
sp
ea
rh
ea
d
w
as
di
st
ur
be
d
fr
om
gr
av
e
fil
la
tc
ha
lk
su
rf
ac
e
lev
el.
A
t(
a)
an
iro
n
kn
ife
…
"
26
4
-G
ra
ve
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-L
en
gt
h3
-W
id
th
3 -D
ep
th
3 -C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e3
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-D
is
tu
rb
an
ce
cl
as
s4
-F
in
ds
an
d
ex
ca
va
to
rs
'c
om
m
en
ts
1
-
28
5
#
16
F 20
ye
ar
s
ap
pr
ox
B
-
55
0-
60
0
2.
9
1.
53
1.
23
no
ne
4/
5
U
A
.1
.3
(b
)
"T
hi
sl
ar
ge
w
ell
-c
ut
gr
av
e
ha
d
be
en
di
st
ur
be
d
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
,
D
ist
ur
ba
nc
e
Cl
as
sA
.1
.3
(b
).
Th
e
bo
ne
so
fa
n
ad
ul
ta
nd
ar
tif
ac
ts
w
er
e
di
st
rib
ut
ed
th
ro
ug
ho
ut
th
e
lo
w
er
fil
l.
G
ra
ve
go
od
s:
go
ld
br
aid
…
an
d
tw
o
kn
iv
es
…
a
ke
y
or
lat
ch
lif
te
r…
an
d
a
iro
n
ey
ed
-h
oo
k…
M
an
y
iro
n
fr
ag
m
en
ts
w
er
e
fo
un
d
in
th
e
fil
l,
an
d
th
e
m
an
di
bl
e
bo
re
he
av
y
cu
pr
ic
st
ain
in
g.
"
28
6
#
17
F 30
ye
ar
s
ap
pr
ox
B
-
52
5-
60
0
2.
88
1.
1
0.
88
H
og
ar
th
II
(e
)
4/
5
U
A
.1
.3
(b
)
"A
lar
ge
w
ell
-c
ut
gr
av
e
w
ith
an
ex
te
rn
al
gr
av
e
st
ru
ct
ur
e
at
th
e
fo
ot
,
Cl
as
sI
I(
e)
.I
th
ad
be
en
di
st
ur
be
d
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
,D
ist
ur
ba
nc
e
Cl
as
s
A
.1
.3
(b
),
w
ith
sk
ele
ta
lm
at
er
ial
,o
bj
ec
ts
an
d
fr
ag
m
en
ts
sc
at
te
re
d
at
all
lev
els
in
th
e
fil
l.
Su
ch
in
ta
ct
bo
ne
sa
sw
as
pr
es
en
ti
nd
ica
te
d
an
ad
ul
t.
G
ra
ve
go
od
s:
a
pe
nd
an
tf
as
hi
on
ed
fr
om
a
tre
m
iss
is…
A
sil
ve
r-
m
ou
nt
ed
ke
y-
st
on
e-
sh
ap
ed
pe
nd
an
to
fp
in
k
gl
as
s…
a
fr
ag
m
en
to
fa
n
iro
n
ke
y…
an
d
a
kn
ife
be
ar
in
g
a
fa
br
ic
tra
ce
…
N
in
e
am
be
rb
ea
ds
…
an
d
th
irt
y-
on
e
be
ad
so
fc
ol
ou
re
d
gl
as
s.
A
br
on
ze
lif
tin
g
ha
nd
le…
a
br
on
ze
ke
y…
a
fr
ag
m
en
to
fb
ro
nz
e…
an
d
a
br
on
ze
fit
tin
g
w
ith
an
iro
n
riv
et
…
Se
ve
ra
lf
ra
gm
en
ts
of
th
in
br
on
ze
sh
ee
tw
er
e
als
o
fo
un
d…
"
28
7
#
19
U 35
-4
0
ye
ar
s
ap
pr
ox
B
-
50
0-
70
0
2.
24
0.
78
0.
79
no
ne
4
?ii
1,
2
(b
)
"G
ra
ve
w
ith
sli
gh
tly
un
de
rc
ut
sid
es
.D
ist
ur
be
d
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
(C
las
s1
,2
(b
)),
bo
ne
sp
ile
d
at
th
e
fo
ot
(b
).
A
t(
a)
an
d
(c
)t
he
he
ad
sa
nd
pa
rts
of
th
e
sh
af
ts
of
tw
o
lar
ge
iro
n
na
ils
,b
ot
h
be
ar
in
g
w
oo
d
tra
ce
s…
"
28
8
#
20
?M 30
-3
5
ye
ar
s
ap
pr
ox
B
-
50
0-
70
0
2.
6
1.
15
0.
9
no
ne
4
U
1,
2
(b
)
"G
ra
ve
w
ith
sli
gh
tly
un
de
rc
ut
sid
es
.D
ist
ur
be
d
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
(C
las
s1
,2
(b
)),
bo
ne
sp
ile
d
at
th
e
fo
ot
of
gr
av
e.
A
t(
a)
a
sm
all
br
on
ze
bu
ck
le…
In
th
e
ar
ea
of
(b
)t
hr
ee
an
gl
ed
fr
ag
m
en
ts
of
iro
n
st
ra
pp
in
g,
ea
ch
be
ar
in
g
a
w
oo
d
tra
ce
…
H
ig
h
in
th
e
fil
lw
as
pa
rt
of
an
iro
n
na
il
or
sk
ew
er
,f
ra
gm
en
ts
of
iro
n
ro
ds
,p
os
sib
ly
in
th
e
re
m
ain
so
fk
ey
s…
"
28
9
#
21
F 25
-3
0
ye
ar
s
ap
pr
ox
B
-
57
5-
70
0
1.
95
0.
67
0.
25
H
og
ar
th
I(
b)
5
4
U
F,
1(
c)
"A
gr
av
e
w
ith
ro
un
de
d
en
ds
,i
ts
sh
all
ow
bo
w
l-s
ha
pe
d
se
ct
io
n
cu
t
w
ith
a
slo
ts
ha
pe
d
fo
rt
he
bo
dy
,g
ra
ve
st
ru
ct
ur
e
Cl
as
s1
(b
)5
.
D
ist
ur
be
d
in
an
tiq
ui
ty
,C
las
sF
,1
(c
),
lo
ng
bo
ne
ss
ca
tte
d
in
fil
l,
sk
ul
l
an
d
fe
et
in
sit
u.
A
t(
a)
an
am
et
hy
st
be
ad
an
d
at
(b
)t
w
o
be
ad
so
f
or
an
ge
gl
as
s…
A
t(
c)
an
iro
n
kn
ife
,a
nd
at
(d
)a
pi
ec
e
of
an
gl
ed
iro
n
st
ra
pp
in
g
be
ar
in
g
w
oo
d
tra
ce
s."
26
5
-G
ra
ve
-G
ra
ve
-S
ex
,
Ag
e1
-E
ar
ly
ro
bb
in
g-
O
th
er
da
m
ag
e-
D
at
e
ra
ng
e2
-L
en
gt
h3
-W
id
th
3 -D
ep
th
3 -C
of
fin
/
St
ru
ct
ur
e3
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
rp
se
-T
im
e-
fra
m
e:
co
ffi
n
-D
is
tu
rb
an
ce
cl
as
s4
-F
in
ds
an
d
ex
ca
va
to
rs
'c
om
m
en
ts
1
-
27
3a
[1
]
U ?a
du
lt
D
-
---
1.
9
0.
75
0.
32
no
ne
4
U
A
3,
1
"B
ur
ial
1,
ve
ry
fr
ag
m
en
ta
ry
re
m
ain
so
fa
n
ad
ul
t,
sk
ul
la
nd
ar
m
s
pl
ou
gh
ed
of
f,
bu
ria
ll
ev
el
w
ith
th
e
ch
alk
su
rf
ac
e.
Tw
o
po
t-s
he
rd
sa
t
th
e
fo
ot
of
th
e
gr
av
e
w
er
e
in
bl
ac
k
an
d
re
d
fa
br
ics
...
th
e
lat
te
rw
ith
tra
ce
so
fr
ou
le
tti
ng
as
in
a
Fr
an
ki
sh
bo
ttl
e
va
se
.B
ur
ial
2,
bo
ne
fr
ag
m
en
ts
of
an
ad
ul
ts
ca
tte
re
d
th
ro
ug
h
fil
lo
fb
ro
w
n
lo
am
at
all
lev
els
.A
ni
m
al
te
et
h
an
d
bo
ne
fr
ag
m
en
ts
(O
vi
s/
Ca
pr
a)
at
ea
st
en
d.
Sm
all
sh
er
ds
of
Ir
on
A
ge
an
d
Be
lg
ic
po
tte
ry
in
lo
w
er
fil
l."
1.
Br
en
t1
86
3,
18
66
,1
86
8,
Pe
rk
in
s1
98
8,
19
91
,1
99
2
2.
A
SK
E
D
3.
Pe
rk
in
s1
98
8,
19
91
,1
99
2
4.
Pe
rk
in
s1
99
1
26
6
T
ab
le
16
:D
is
tu
rb
ed
An
gl
o-
Sa
xo
n
C
em
et
er
ie
so
ut
si
de
Ke
nt
-S
ite
-C
ou
nt
y
-M
ai
n
re
fe
re
nc
e
-D
at
e
(A
D
)
-D
is
tu
rb
ed
gr
av
es
-S
ex
-A
ge
-G
ra
ve
-g
oo
ds
-
Bu
tte
rm
ar
ke
t,
Ip
sw
ich
Su
ffo
lk
Sc
ul
l2
00
9
7t
h
22
03
U
U
iro
n
bu
ck
le
,i
ro
n
ob
jec
t
Bl
oo
dm
oo
rH
ill
,
Ca
rlt
on
Co
lv
ill
e
Su
ffo
lk
Lu
cy
,T
ip
pe
r,
&
D
ick
en
s2
00
9
m
id
-la
te
7t
h
5
?M
A
du
lt
iro
n
to
ol
,i
ro
n
kn
ife
…
…
…
…
12
?F
A
du
lt
iro
n
sh
ea
rs
,i
ro
n
ke
y/
lat
ch
lif
te
r,
iro
n
ch
at
el
ain
e
co
m
pl
ex
…
…
…
…
22
U
A
du
lt
ne
ck
lac
e
of
gl
as
sb
ea
ds
,s
ilv
er
rin
gs
,a
nd
a
go
ld
pe
nd
an
t,
pa
ir
of
lin
ke
d
sil
ve
rp
in
s,
2
iro
n
riv
et
s,
iro
n
kn
ife
,v
ar
io
us
sm
all
iro
n
ob
jec
ts
…
…
…
…
…
U
U
sil
ve
r-
gi
lt
ke
ys
to
ne
ga
rn
et
di
sc
br
oo
ch
,i
ro
n
kn
ife
,c
ha
te
lai
ne
co
m
pl
ex
Ch
ad
lin
gt
on
O
xf
or
ds
hi
re
Le
ed
s1
94
0
7t
h-
8t
h
5
U
40
+
kn
ife
,b
on
e
co
m
b,
iro
n
ne
ed
le,
tw
o
po
ts
he
rd
s
…
…
…
7
M
25
-3
5
no
ne
E
di
x
H
ill
,B
ar
rin
gt
on
A
Ca
m
br
id
ge
sh
ire
M
ali
m
&
H
in
es
19
98
5t
h
-7
th
16
(S
k
33
)
M
25
-3
5
no
ne
…
…
…
…
31
(S
k
10
3)
M
45
+
iro
n
fr
ag
m
en
ts
(?
kn
ife
),
sh
el
lf
ra
gm
en
t
…
…
…
…
35
(S
k
11
9)
F
19
-3
5
no
ne
…
…
…
…
49
(S
k
14
9)
F
25
-3
5
Ir
on
A
ge
/R
om
an
br
oo
ch
,2
?C
7t
h
be
ad
s,
2
na
ils
,I
ro
n
A
ge
po
ts
he
rd
M
elb
ou
rn
Ca
m
br
id
ge
sh
ire
W
ils
on
19
56
lat
e
6t
h-
7t
h
V
M
A
du
lt
kn
ife
M
in
er
va
,A
lw
alt
on
Ca
m
br
id
ge
sh
ire
G
ib
so
n
20
07
ea
rly
5t
h
-l
at
e
6t
h/
ea
rly
7t
h
13
39
M
15
-2
5
no
ne
…
…
…
…
13
77
?F
A
du
lt
ha
lf
of
a
w
ris
t-c
las
p,
?ir
on
sp
ea
rf
er
ru
le
…
…
…
…
14
35
F
A
du
lt
no
ne
N
as
sin
gt
on
N
or
th
am
pt
on
sh
ire
Le
ed
s&
A
tk
in
so
n
19
44
5t
h
-7
th
II
?M
A
du
lt
iro
n
kn
ife
,i
ro
n
bu
ck
le
…
…
…
…
44
U
A
du
lt
sm
all
re
d
w
ar
e
po
t
Sp
on
g
H
ill
N
or
fo
lk
-
5t
h
-6
th
31
U
U
sp
ea
rh
ea
d,
fe
rr
ul
e,
sh
iel
d,
iro
n
ob
je
ct
s,
bu
ck
le
,k
ni
fe
,v
ar
io
us
po
ts
he
rd
s,
st
ru
ck
fli
nt
s,
Ro
m
an
co
in
St
M
ar
y's
St
ad
iu
m
,
So
ut
ha
m
pt
on
H
am
ps
hi
re
Bi
rb
ec
k
20
05
m
id
7t
h
-e
ar
ly
8t
h
44
25
M
25
-4
0
?k
ni
fe
W
es
tfi
el
d
Fa
rm
,E
ly
Ca
m
br
id
ge
sh
ire
Lu
cy
et
al
20
09
lat
er
7t
h
2
?F
15
-1
7
ba
g-
gr
ou
p:
co
pp
er
all
oy
w
or
kb
ox
,c
op
pe
ra
llo
y
Ro
m
an
br
oo
ch
,s
m
all
an
tle
rs
pi
nd
le
w
ho
rl,
co
pp
er
all
oy
fla
tr
in
g,
5
am
et
hy
st
be
ad
s,
tw
o
iro
n
ho
bn
ail
s,
fr
ag
m
en
ts
of
an
iro
n
rin
g,
iro
n
na
il
fr
ag
m
en
ts
W
in
na
ll
II
H
am
ps
hi
re
M
ea
ne
y
an
d
H
aw
ke
s1
97
0
7t
h
-8
th
11
F
30
-3
5
bo
ne
sp
in
dl
e-
w
ho
rl,
iro
n
kn
ife
,b
on
e
co
m
b
…
…
…
…
23
M
ad
ul
t
no
ne
…
…
…
…
48
F
30
-4
0
no
ne
…
…
…
…
49
?M
ol
d
iro
n
kn
ife
,i
ro
n
st
ee
l,
di
st
ur
be
d
an
d
fr
ag
m
en
ta
ry
iro
n
bu
ck
le
lo
op
26
7
-S
ite
-C
ou
nt
y
-M
ai
n
re
fe
re
nc
e
-D
at
e
(A
D
)
-D
is
tu
rb
ed
gr
av
es
-S
ex
-A
ge
-G
ra
ve
-g
oo
ds
-
W
or
th
y
Pa
rk
,
K
in
gs
w
or
th
y
H
am
ps
hi
re
H
aw
ke
s&
G
ra
in
ge
r2
00
3
5t
h
-m
id
7t
h
22
M
25
-3
0
sh
iel
d,
sp
ea
r,
iro
n
kn
ife
,c
op
pe
ra
llo
y
tw
ee
ze
rs
…
…
…
…
41
M
50
+
be
lt/
ba
ld
ric
fit
tin
gs
,i
ro
n
kn
ife
,c
op
pe
ra
llo
y
tw
ee
ze
rs
26
8
269
Figures
Figure 1: Map of disturbed cemeteries in western and central Europe (a large format version is bound at the
back of this volume)
270
Figure 2: Plan of Brunn am Gebirge, Flur Wolfholz, Lower Austria (after Aspöck 2002)
271
Figure 3: Brunn am Gebirge, Austria, Graves 5, 9, 13, 20, 23, 26, 46 (after Aspöck 2002)
272
Figure 4: Bülach, Switzerland, finds from Graves 285 and 286 (from Werner 1953)
Figure 5: Pliening, Ebersberg, Bavaria, finds from Gr 105 and Gr 79 (from Codreanu-Windauer 1997)
273
Figure 6: Friedberg-Bruchenbrücken, Wetteraukreis, Hesse, damaged bone from Grave 8 (from
Thiedmann & Schleifring 1992)
Figure 7: Reconstruction of early medieval robbing at Friedberg-Bruchenbrücken, Wetteraukreis, Hesse
(from Thiedmann & Schleifring 1992)
274
Figure 8: Reconstruction of Bronze Age grave-robbery at Gemeinlebarn F, Lower Austria (from
Neugebauer 1991)
275
Figure 9: Map of Kent sites
276
Disturbed Limited/ doubtful disturbance Undisturbed
450 475 500 525 550 575 600 625 650 675 700 725 750
Aylesford II, Eccles
Bekesbourne II, Aerodrome (Cowslip Wood)
Canterbury V, Stour Street
Chartham II, Horton
Dover II, Buckland
Minster-in-Thanet VII, Mount Pleasant
Nonington I
Orpington I
Ramsgate IX, Cliffs End (Pegwell Bay)
St Margaret's-at-Cliffe
St Margaret's at Cliffe II, Townsend Farm Road
Snodland II, Holborough
Woodnesborough III, Ringlemere Farm
Saltwood Tunnel
Canterbury VI, Old Westgate Farm
Darenth I, Darenth Park
Deal I, Mill Hill
Dunton Green I, Polhill
Eastry III, Updown
Horton Kirkby II, Riseley
Minster III, Hoo Farm
Minster IV, Thorne Farm
Ramsgate VII, Chalk Hill
Bridge I, Bourne Park
Broadstairs I, Bradstow School
Broadstairs III, St Peter's Tip
Lyminge II
Margate I, Half Mile Ride (St. John's)
Monkton I, Primrose Hill
Northbourne I, Finglesham
Ramsgate IV, Ozengell
Year (AD)
Figure 10: Date ranges of the Kent sites (dates from Richardson 2005)
Disturbed Limited/ doubtful disturbance Undisturbed
450 475 500 525 550 575 600 625 650 675 700 725 750
Aylesford II, Eccles
Bekesbourne II, Aerodrome (Cowslip Wood)
Canterbury V, Stour Street
Chartham II, Horton
Dover II, Buckland
Minster-in-Thanet VII, Mount Pleasant
Nonington I
Orpington I
Ramsgate IX, Cliffs End (Pegwell Bay)
St Margaret's-at-Cliffe
St Margaret's at Cliffe II, Townsend Farm Road
Snodland II, Holborough
Woodnesborough III, Ringlemere Farm
Saltwood Tunnel
Canterbury VI, Old Westgate Farm
Darenth I, Darenth Park
Deal I, Mill Hill
Dunton Green I, Polhill
Eastry III, Updown
Horton Kirkby II, Riseley
Minster III, Hoo Farm
Minster IV, Thorne Farm
Ramsgate VII, Chalk Hill
Bridge I, Bourne Park
Broadstairs I, Bradstow School
Broadstairs III, St Peter's Tip
Lyminge II
Margate I, Half Mile Ride (St. John's)
Monkton I, Primrose Hill
Northbourne I, Finglesham
Ramsgate IV, Ozengell
Year (AD)
Figure 11: Date ranges of the Kent sites (dates from ASKED)
277
Figure 12: Plan of Broadstairs I, Bradstow School showing the disturbed burials (after Härke 1992)
278
Figure 13: Plan of Broadstairs III, St Peter's Tip showing the disturbed burials (after Hogarth 1973)
279
Figure 14: Plan of Broadstairs III, St Peter's Tip showing the disturbed burials in which the bones have
been heaped together (after Hogarth 1973)
280
Figure 15: St Peter’s Tip Grave 3
Figure 16: St Peter’s Tip Grave 14
281
Figure 17: St Peter’s Tip Grave 31
Figure 18: St Peter’s Tip Grave 43
282
Figure 19: St Peter’s Tip Grave 45
Figure 20: St Peter’s Tip Grave 54
283
Figure 21: St Peter’s Tip Grave 57
Figure 22: St Peter’s Tip Grave 62
284
Figure 23: St Peter’s Tip Grave 64
Figure 24: St Peter’s Tip Grave 69
285
Figure 25: St Peter’s Tip Grave 71
Figure 26: St Peter’s Tip Grave 78
286
Figure 27: St Peter’s Tip Grave 79
Figure 28: St Peter’s Tip Grave 83
287
Figure 29: St Peter’s Tip Grave 86
Figure 30: St Peter’s Tip Grave 86 Fair Copy
288
Figure 31: St Peter’s Tip Grave 96
Figure 32: St Peter’s Tip Grave 97
289
Figure 33: St Peter’s Tip Grave 101
Figure 34: St Peter’s Tip Grave 117
290
Figure 35: St Peter’s Tip Grave 122
Figure 36: St Peter’s Tip Grave 126
291
Figure 37: St Peter’s Tip Grave 130
Figure 38: St Peter’s Tip Grave 131
292
Figure 39: St Peter’s Tip Grave 140
Figure 40: St Peter’s Tip Grave 147
293
Figure 41: St Peter’s Tip Grave 155
Figure 42: St Peter’s Tip Grave 165
294
Figure 43: St Peter’s Tip Grave 182
Figure 44: St Peter’s Tip Grave 185
295
Figure 45: St Peter’s Tip Grave 186
Figure 46: St Peter’s Tip Grave 198
296
Figure 47: St Peter’s Tip Grave 200
Figure 48: St Peter’s Tip Grave 203
297
Figure 49: St Peter’s Tip Grave 210
Figure 50: St Peter’s Tip Grave 215
298
Figure 51: St Peter’s Tip Grave 216
Figure 52: St Peter’s Tip Grave 221
299
Figure 53: St Peter’s Tip Grave 225
Figure 54: St Peter’s Tip Grave 226
300
Figure 55: St Peter’s Tip Grave 227
Figure 56: St Peter’s Tip Grave 227
301
Figure 57: St Peter’s Tip Grave 229
Figure 58: St Peter’s Tip Grave 232
302
Figure 59: St Peter’s Tip Grave 232
Figure 60: St Peter’s Tip Grave 233
303
Figure 61: St Peter’s Tip Grave 233
Figure 62: St Peter’s Tip Grave 235
304
Figure 63: St Peter’s Tip Grave 236
Figure 64: St Peter’s Tip Grave 237
305
Figure 65: St Peter’s Tip Grave 237
Figure 66: St Peter’s Tip Grave 240
306
Figure 67: St Peter’s Tip Grave 241
Figure 68: St Peter’s Tip Grave 243
307
Figure 69: St Peter’s Tip Grave 251
Figure 70: St Peter’s Tip Grave 254
308
Figure 71: St Peter’s Tip Grave 255
Figure 72: St Peter’s Tip Grave 258
309
Figure 73: St Peter’s Tip Grave 261
Figure 74: St Peter’s Tip Grave 267
310
Figure 75: St Peter’s Tip Grave 268
Figure 76: St Peter’s Tip Grave 270
311
Figure 77: St Peter’s Tip Grave 272
Figure 78: St Peter’s Tip Grave 273
312
Figure 79: St Peter’s Tip Grave 278
Figure 80: St Peter’s Tip Grave 284
313
Figure 81: St Peter’s Tip Grave 288
Figure 82: St Peter’s Tip Grave 294
314
Figure 83: St Peter’s Tip Grave 295
Figure 84: St Peter’s Tip Grave 297
315
Figure 85: St Peter’s Tip Grave 297
Figure 86: St Peter’s Tip Grave 303
316
Figure 87: St Peter’s Tip Grave 304
Figure 88: St Peter’s Tip Grave 308
317
Figure 89: St Peter’s Tip Grave 315
Figure 90: St Peter’s Tip Grave 327
318
Figure 91: St Peter’s Tip Grave 328
Figure 92: St Peter’s Tip Grave 333
319
Figure 93: St Peter’s Tip Grave 354
Figure 94: St Peter’s Tip Grave 356
320
Figure 95: St Peter’s Tip Grave 368
Figure 96: St Peter’s Tip Grave 375
321
Figure 97: St Peter’s Tip Grave 377
Figure 98: St Peter’s Tip Grave 379
322
Figure 99: St Peter’s Tip Grave 380
Figure 100: St Peter’s Tip Grave 381
323
Figure 101: St Peter’s Tip Grave 385
324
Figure 102: Plan of Lyminge II showing the disturbed burials (after Warhurst 1955 and Härke 1992)
325
Figure 103: Plan of Lyminge II showing the disturbed burials and the wealthiest intact burials (after
Warhurst 1955, Härke 1992, and Schröder 2007)
326
Figure 104: Plan of Lyminge II showing the burial plots (from Schröder 2007)
327
Figure 105: Lyminge II Grave 40, sketch plan from Alan Warhurst's site notebooks.
328
Figure 106: Plan of Monkton I, Primrose Hill showing the disturbed burials (after Perkins & Hawkes 1984)
329
Figure 107: Plan of Northbourne I, Finglesham showing the disturbed burials (after Hawkes & Grainger
2006)
330
Figure 108: Plan of Northbourne I, Finglesham showing the disturbed burials and the wealthiest intact
burials (after Hawkes & Grainger 2006)
331
Figure 109: Plan of Northbourne I, Finglesham marked according to the extent and position of damage
(after Hawkes & Grainger 2006)
332
Figure 110: Plan of Northbourne I, Finglesham showing the burial plots and chronology (from Sayer 2009)
333
Figure 111: Northbourne I, Finglesham Disturbed Graves (from Sayer 2009)
334
Figure 112: Plan of Ramsgate IV, Ozengell showing the disturbed burials (after Richardson 2005)
335
Figure 113: Plan of the 1990 excavations at Sarre I showing the disturbed burials (after Perkins 1991)
336
Figure 114: Sarre Graves 276, 279, 281, 283, 285, 286, 287, 288, and 289 (from Perkins 1991 and 1992)
337
Figure 115: Darenth I, Darenth Park Grave 6 (from Batchelor 1990)
338
Figure 116: Plan of Deal I, Mill Hill showing the disturbed burials (after Parfitt 1997)
339
Figure 117: Mill Hill, Deal Graves 72 and 85 (from Parfitt 1997)
340
Figure 118: Plan of Dunton Green I, Polhill showing the disturbed burials (after Härke 1992)
341
Figure 119: Minster-in-Thanet III, Hoo Farm Graves A, B, C (from Perkins 1985)
Figure 120: Plan of Minster IV, Thorne Farm showing the disturbed burials (after Perkins 1985)
342
Figure 121: Map of cemeteries with early grave disturbance in Anglo-Saxon England beyond Kent
343
Figure 122: Buttermarket, Ipswich, Suffolk Grave 2203 (from Scull 2009)
344
Figure 123: Plan of Bloodmoor Hill, Carlton Colville, Suffolk showing the disturbed burials (after Lucy,
Tipper, & Dickens 2009)
345
Figure 124: Bloodmoor Hill, Carlton Colville, Suffolk Graves 5, 12, 22 and 23 (from Lucy, Tipper, & Dickens
2009)
346
Figure 125: Plan of Edix Hill, Barrington A, Cambridgeshire showing the disturbed burials (after Malim &
Hines 1998)
347
Figure 126: Edix Hill, Barrington A, Cambridgeshire Grave 16 (Sk 33), Grave 31 (Sk 103), Grave 35 (Sk 119),
Grave 49 (Sk 149) (from Malim & Hines 1998)
348
Figure 127: Plan of Minerva, Alwalton, Cambridgeshire showing the disturbed burials (after Gibson 2007)
349
Figure 128: Minerva, Alwalton, Cambridgeshire Graves 1339, 1364 and 1435 (from Gibson 2007)
350
Figure 129: Spong Hill, Norfolk Grave 31 (from Hills et al 1984)
351
Figure 130: Westfield Farm, Ely, Cambridgeshire Grave 2 (from Lucy et al 2009, with thanks to CAU)
352
Figure 131: Plan of Winnall II, Hampshire showing the disturbed burials (after Härke 1992)
353
Figure 132: Plan of Worthy Park, Kingsworthy, Hampshire showing the disturbed burials (after Härke 1992)
354
Figure 133: Worthy Park, Kingsworthy, Hampshire Graves 22 and 41 (from Hawkes & Grainger 2003)
355
References
Aðalsteinsson, J. H. (1998). A piece of horse liver: myth, ritual and folklore in Old Icelandic sources.
Reykjavik, Haskolautgafan Felagsvisindastofnun.
Adams, M. (1996). "Excavation of a pre-conquest cemetery at Addingham, West Yorkshire." Medieval
Archaeology 40: 62-150.
Adler, H. (1970). "Zur Ausplünderung langobardischer Gräberfelder in Österreich." Mitteilungen der
Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien: 138-147.
Akerman, J. Y. (1855). Remains of pagan Saxondom. London.
Andersen, H. (1951). "Tomme Høje." Kuml.
Andersen, H. (1996). "The Graves of the Jelling Dynasty." Acta Archaeologica 66: 281-300.
Andrews, P. and S. Bello (2006). Pattern in human burial practice. The social archaeology of funerary
remains. R. Gowland and C. Knüsel. Oxford, Oxbow: 14-29.
Anonymous (1859). "The Kent Archaeological Society 2nd annual meeting." Archaeologia Cantiana 2:
xxxiii-xliii.
Anonymous (1951). "The Royal Museum, Canterbury, report for 1950." Archaeologia Cantiana 64: xliii-
xliv.
Anonymous (2003). "North of Saltwood tunnel." Archaeologia Cantiana CXXIII: 302-305.
Anonymous (2004). "Interim reports on recent work carried out by the Canterbury Archaeological Trust."
Archaeologia Cantiana 124: 365-374.
Anonymous (1847). "Archaeological intelligence." The Archaeological Journal 4: 145-164 and 252-264.
Arnold, C. J. (1980). Wealth and social structure: a matter of life and death. Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries,
1979. P. Rahtz, T. Dickinson and L. Watts. Oxford, BAR British Series 82: 81-142.
Aspöck, E. (2002). Graböffnungen im Frühmittelalter und das langobardenzeitlichen Gräberfeld von
Brunn am Gebirge, Flur Wolfholz. Diplomarbeit zur Erlangung des Magistergrades der
Philosophie aus der Studienrichtung Ur- und Frühgeschichte eingereicht an der Geistes- und
Kulturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Wien.
Aspöck, E. (2003). "Graböffnungen im Frühmittelalter und das Beispiel der langobardenzeitlichen Gräber
von Brunn am Gebirge, Flur Wolfholz, Niederösterreich." Archaeologia Austriaca 87: 225-265.
Aspöck, E. (2008). What actually is a 'deviant burial'? Comparing German-language and anglophone
research on 'deviant burials'. Deviant Burial in the Archaeological Record. E. M. Murphy. Oxford,
Oxbow: 17-34.
Aspöck, E. and P. Stadler (2003). "Die langobardenzeitlichen Gräber von Brunn am Gebirge, Flur
Wolfholz, Niederösterreich." Archaeologia Austriaca 87: 169-224.
Baitinger, H. (1992). "Zur Beraubung hallstattzeitlicher Gräber in Süddeutschland. Dittigheim Grab 607."
Fundberichte aus Baden-Württemberg 17(1): 327-345.
Barber, P. (1988). Vampires, burial and death - folklore and reality. Yale, Yale University Press.
Barnes, M. (1994). The runic inscriptions of Maeshowe, Orkney. Uppsala.
Bartelheim, M. and V. Heyd (2001). Cult after burial: patterns of post-funeral treatment in the Bronze and
Iron ages of central Europe. The archaeology of cult and religion. P. F. Biehl, F. Bertemes and H.
Meller. Budapest, Archaeolingua: 261-276.
Bartlett, R. (2002). Geoffrey of Burton: Life and miracles of St Modwenna. Oxford, Oxford University
Press.
356
Batchelor, D. (1982). "Darenth Park, Dartford: interim report." Kent Archaeological Review 67: 160.
Batchelor, D. (1990). "Darenth Park Anglo-Saxon cemetery, Dartford." Archaeologia Cantiana 108: 35-72.
Beck, H. (1978). Haugbrot im Altnordischen. Zum Grabfrevel in vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit :
Untersuchungen zu Grabraub und 'haugbrot' in Mittel- und Nordeuropa : Bericht über ein
Kolloquium der Kommission für die Altertumskunde Mittel- und Nordeuropas vom 14. bis 16.
Februar 1977. H. Jankuhn, H. Nehlsen and H. Roth. Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 211-
228.
Beckett, J. and J. Robb (2006). Neolithic burial taphonomy, ritual, and interpretation in Britain and
Ireland: a review. The social archaeology of funerary remains. R. Gowland and C. Knüsel.
Oxford, Oxbow: 57-80.
Behr, C. (2001). Do bracteates identify influential women in Early Medieval kingdoms? Kingdoms and
regionality. Transactions from the 49th Sachsensymposium 1998 in Uppsala. B. Arrhenius.
Stockholm, Archaeological Research Laboratory, University of Stockholm: 95-101.
Behrends, O. (1978). Grabraub und Grabfrevel im römischen Recht. Zum Grabfrevel in vor- und
frühgeschichtlicher Zeit : Untersuchungen zu Grabraub und 'haugbrot' in Mittel- und
Nordeuropa : Bericht über ein Kolloquium der Kommission für die Altertumskunde Mittel- und
Nordeuropas vom 14. bis 16. Februar 1977. H. Jankuhn, H. Nehlsen and H. Roth. Göttingen,
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 85-106.
Bello, S. and P. Andrews (2006). The intrinsic pattern of preservation of human skeletons and its
influence on the interpretation of funerary behaviours. The social archaeology of funerary
remains. R. Gowland and C. Knüsel. Oxford, Oxbow: 1-13.
Beninger, E. (1931). "Die Leichenzerstückelung als vor- under frühgeschichtliche Bestattungsitte."
Anthropos: 769-781.
Beninger, E. and H. Mitscha Märheim (1966). "Der langobardenfriedhof von Poysdorf, NÖ."
Archaeologia Austriaca 40: 167-187.
Bennett, P. (1980). "Interim report on excavations in 1980 by the Canterbury Archaeological Trust."
Archaeologia Cantiana 96: 406-410.
Bennett, P. (1982). "Old Westgate Court Farm site, London Road." Archaeologia Cantiana 98: 220-222.
Bennett, P. and J. Williams (1997). "Monkton." Current Archaeology 151: 258-264.
Bersu, G. W., DM (1966). Three Viking graves in the Isle of Man. London, The Society for Medieval
Archaeology.
Birbeck, V. (2005). The origins of mid-Saxon Southampton: excavations at the Friends Provident St
Mary's Stadium 1998-2000. Old Sarum, Wessex Archaeology.
Birch and D. R. J. Perkins (1987). The Gateway Island: archaeological discoveries on the Isle of Thanet
1630-1987, Thanet District Council.
Blaich, M. C. and M. Geschwinde (2007). Zur Binnenstruktur des karolingerzeitlichen Gräberfeldes von
Werlaburgdorf. Innere Strukturen von Siedlungen und Gräberfeldern als Spiegel gesellschaftlicher
Wirklichkeit? Akten des 57. Internationalen Sachsensymposions vom 26. bis 30. August 2006 in
Münster. C. Grünewald and T. Capelle. Münster, Veröffentlichungen der Altertumskommission
für Westfalen: 109-117.
Blair, J. (2002). A handlist of Anglo-Saxon saints. Local saints and local churches in the early medieval
west. A. Thacker and R. Sharpe. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 495-565.
Blair, J. (2002). A saint for every minster? Local cults in Anglo-Saxon England. Local saints and local
churches in the early medieval west. A. Thacker and R. Sharpe. Oxford, Oxford University Press:
455-494.
Blair, J. (2005). The Church in Anglo-Saxon society. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
357
Blair, J. (2009). The dangerous dead in early medieval England. Early medieval studies in memory of
Patrick Wormald. S. Baxtor, C. E. Karkov, J. L. Nelson and D. A. E. Pelteret. Aldershot, Ashgate.
Blesl, C. (2005). Das frühbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Pottenbrunn. Horn, Berger & Söhne.
Blumstein, M. (1956). "The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Polhill." Archaeologia Cantiana LXX: 278-280.
Boddington, A. (1987). Chaos, disturbance and decay in an Anglo-Saxon cemetery. Death, decay and
reconstruction. Approaches to archaeology and forensic science. A. Boddington, A. Garland and
R. Janaway. Manchester, Manchester University Press: 27-42.
Boddington, A. (1990). Models of burial, settlement and worship: the Final Phase reviewed. Anglo-Saxon
cemeteries : a reappraisal: proceedings of a conference held at Liverpool Museum 1986. E.
Southworth. Stroud, Sutton: 177-199.
Boddington, A., Ed. (1996). Raunds Furnells: the Anglo-Saxon church and churchyard. London, English
Heritage.
Boddington, A. (1996). "Raunds, Northamptonshire: analysis of a country churchyard." World
Archaeology 18(3): 411-425.
Boddington, A., A. Garland, et al. (1987). Death, decay and reconstruction. Approaches to archaeology
and forensic science. Manchester, Manchester University Press.
Bofinger, J. and S. Przemyslaw (2008). Reihenweise ausgeraubt: Beobachtungen zum Grabraub im frühen
Mittelalter. Raubgräber - Schatzgräber. F. Brunecker, Biberach: 48-59.
Böhner, K. (1958). Die fränkische Altertümer des Trierer Landes. Berlin.
Bóna, I. (1993). Bestattung der Langobarden. Hunok -- gepidák -- langobardok. I. Bóna, J. Cseh, M. Nagy,
P. Tomka and Á. Tóth. Szeged, JATE Magyar 
störténeti Kutatócsoportja: 121-125.
Brather, S. (2007). Wiedergänger und Vampire? Bauch- und Seitenlage bei westslawischen Bestattungen
des 9. bis 12. Jh. aedificatio terrae: Festschrift für Eike Gringmuth-Dallmer zum 65. Geburtstag.
G. H. Jeute, J. Schneeweiß and C. Theune. Rahden/Westf., Verlag Marie Leidorf: 109-117.
Brendalsmo, J. and G. Røthe (1992). "Haugbrot eller de levendes forhold til de døde – en komparativ
analyse." Meta 1-2: 84-119.
Brent, J. (1863). "Account of the Society's Researches in the Saxon Cemetery at Sarr. Part I." Archaeologia
Cantiana V: 305-322.
Brent, J. (1866). "Account of the Society's Researches in the Saxon Cemetery at Sarr. Part II."
Archaeologia Cantiana VI: 157-185.
Brent, J. (1868). "Account of the Society's Researches in the Saxon Cemetery at Sarr. Part III."
Archaeologia Cantiana VII: 307-321.
Brøgger, A. (1945). "Oseberggraven-Haugbrottet." Viking 9: 1-44.
Brøgger, A., H. Falk, et al. (1917). Osebergfundet. Kristiania, Universitetets Oldsaksamling.
Brøgger, A., H. Shetelig, et al. (1951). The Viking ships: their ancestry and evolution. Oslo, Dreyers
Forlag.
Brookes, S. (2002). Landscapes, communities and exchange: a reassessment of Anglo-Saxon economics
and social change AD 400-900 with special reference to Kent, University College London. PhD
thesis.
Brookes, S. (2003). The early Anglo-Saxon framework for middle Anglo-Saxon economics: the case of
east Kent. Markets in early medieval Europe. T. Pestell and K. Ulmschneider. Macclesfield,
Windgather: 84-96.
Brookes, S. (2007). Economics and social change in Anglo-Saxon Kent AD 400-900. Landscapes,
communities and exchange. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports British Series 431.
358
Brookes, S. (2007). Walking with the Anglo-Saxons: landscapes of the living and landscapes of the dead in
early Anglo-Saxon Kent. Anglo-Saxon studies in Archaeology and History 14. S. Semple and H.
Williams. Oxford, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology.
Brookes, S. J., S. Harrington, et al. (2006). "Documenting the dead: creating an on-line census of Anglo-
Saxon burials from Kent." Archaeology International 9 2005/2006: 28-31.
Brothwell, D. (1981). Digging up bones. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Brothwell, D. (1987). Decay and disorder in the York Jewbury skeletons. Death, decay and reconstruction:
approaches to archaeology and forensic science. A. Boddington, A. Garland and R. Janaway.
Manchester, Manchester University Press: 22-42.
Brown (1981). The cult of the saints - its rise and function in Latin Christianity. Chicago, University of
Chicago Press.
Brugmann, B. (1999). The role of Continental artefact-types in sixth-century Kentish chronology. The
pace of change: studies in early-medieval chronology. J. Hines, K. Høilund Nielsen and F.
Siegmund. Oxford, Oxbow.
Brugmann, B. (2004). Glass Beads from Early Anglo-Saxon Graves. Oxford, Oxbow.
Brunecker, F., Ed. (2008). Raubgräber - Schatzgräber, Biberach.
Bubb, R. (1883). Historical and descriptive guide to the Isle of Thanet.
Bullough (1983). Burial, community and belief in the early medieval west. Ideal and reality in Frankish and
Anglo-Saxon society. P. Wormald. Oxford: 177-201.
Burleigh, G. (1993). Some aspects of burial types in the cemeteries of the Romano-British settlement at
Baldock, Hertfordshire, England. Romerzeitliche Graber als Quellen zu Religion,
Bevolkerungsstruktur und Sozialgeschichte. M. Struck. Mainz, Johannes Gutenberg-Universita
t,
Institut fu
r Vor- und Fru
hgeschichte: 41-49.
Caciola, N. (1996). "Wraiths, Revenants and Ritual in Medieval Culture." Past and Present 152: 3-45.
Cameron, E. A. (2000). Sheaths and scabbards in England AD 400 - 1100, BAR British Series 301.
Capelle, T. (1978). Grabraub im wikingischen Norden. Zum Grabfrevel in vor- und frühgeschichtlicher
Zeit : Untersuchungen zu Grabraub und 'haugbrot' in Mittel- und Nordeuropa : Bericht über ein
Kolloquium der Kommission für die Altertumskunde Mittel- und Nordeuropas vom 14. bis 16.
Februar 1977. H. Jankuhn, H. Nehlsen and H. Roth. Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 197-
210.
Carver, M., Ed. (2003). The cross goes north: processes of conversion in northern Europe, AD 300 -1300.
York/Woodbridge, York Medieval Press in association with Boydell & Brewer.
Chadwick, S. E. (1958). "The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Finglesham, Kent: a reconsideration." Medieval
Archaeology 2: 1 - 71.
Cheetham, M. Cox, et al. (2008). Search, location, excavation and recovery. The scientific investigation of
mass graves. M. Cox. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Cherryson, A. K. (2007). Disturbing the dead: urbanisation, the Church and the post-burial treatment of
human remains in early medieval Wessex, c. 600-1100 AD. Anglo-Saxon studies in Archaeology
and History 14. S. Semple and H. Williams. Oxford, Oxford University Committee for
Archaeology: 131-142.
Cherryson, A. K. (2008). Normal, deviant and atypical: burial variation in Late Saxon Wessex, c. AD 700-
1100. Deviant Burial in the Archaeological Record. E. M. Murphy. Oxford, Oxbow: 115-131.
Chlingensperg-Berg, M. v. (1890). Das Gräberfeld von Reichenhall in Oberbayern. Reichenhall.
Christensen, A., A. Ingstad, et al., Eds. (1992). Oseberg-Dronningens Grav. Oslo, Schibsted.
359
Christlein, R. (1966). Der alamannische Reihengräberfeld von Marktoberdorf in Allgäu.
Christlein, R. (1971). Das alamannische Reihengra
berfeld von Dirlewang bei Mindelheim. Kallmünz.
Chropovsky
, B. (1960). Graberfelder aus der alteren Bronzezeit in Ve
ký Grob. Graberfelder aus der
alteren Bronzezeit in der Slowakei. B. Chropovsky
, M. s. Dusek and B. Polla. Bratislava, Verlag
der Slowakischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Cochet, L. a. (1854). La Normandie souterraine ou notices sur des cimetières romains et des cimetières
francs explorés en Normandie. Rouen.
Codreanu-Windauer, S. (1997). Pliening im Frühmittelalter. Materialhefte zur Bayerischen Vorgeschichte
A 74. Kallmünz, Lassleben.
Colgrave, B., Ed. (1956). Felix's life of Guthlac. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Conyngham, A. (1844). "An account of the opening and examination of a considerable number of tumuli
on Breach Downs, in the county of Kent." Archaeologia 30: 47-56.
Cosack, E. (1982). Das sächsische Gräberfeld bei Liebenau, Kr. Nienburg (Weser). Berlin, Mann.
Cox, M., Ed. (2008). The scientific investigation of mass graves. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Cox, M. and S. Mays, Eds. (2000). Human osteology in archaeology and forensic science. London,
Greenwich Medical Media.
Coxe, H., Ed. (1841). Rogeri de Wendover chronica sive flores historiarum. London, English Historical
Society.
Crawford, S. (2003). Anglo-Saxon women, furnished burial, and the Church. Women and religion in
medieval England. D. Wood. Oxford, Oxbow: 1-12.
Crawford, S. (2004). "Votive desposition, religion and the Anglo-Saxon furnished burial ritual." World
Archaeology 36(1): 87-102.
Croker, T. (1844). "An account of further excavations of barrows on Breach Downs." The Archaeological
Journal 1: 379-380.
Crumlin-Pedersen, O. (1995). Boat-burials at Slusegaard and the Interpretation of the Boat-grave custom.
The Ship as Symbol. O. T. Crumlin-Pedersen, B. Copenhagen, National Museum.
Cumberland, A. (1937). ""Riseley", Saxon cemetery, Horton Kirkby. Interim report." Transcripts of the
Dartford and District Antiquarian Society 7: 17-18.
Cumberland, A. (1940). "Riseley Anglo-Saxon cemetery." Archaeologia Cantiana 53: 142.
Dannheimer, H. (1968). Epolding - Mühltal, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften München.
Dannheimer, H. (1968). Lauterhofen im frühen Mittelalter. Kallmunz.
Dannheimer, H. (1998). Das bajuwarische Reihengräberfeld von Aubing, Stadt München. Stuttgart,
Theiss.
Dannheimer, H. and G. Ulbert (1956). Die bajuwarischen Reihengräber von Feldmoching und Sendling.
Dannhorn, T. (1994). Beobachtungen zu den antiken Beraubungsmethoden im frühmittelalterlichen
Reihengräberfeld von Viecht, "Unterfeld", Gde. Eching, Lkr. Landshut. Vorträge des 12.
Niederbayerischen Archäologentages. K. Schmotz. Deggendorf: 295-306.
Devlin, Z. (2007). Remembering the Dead in Anglo-Saxon England: Memory Theory in Archaeology and
History British Archaeological Reports 446.
Devlin, Z. (2007). Social memory, material culture and community identity in early medieval mortuary
practices. Anglo-Saxon studies in Archaeology and History 14. S. Semple and H. Williams.
Oxford, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology: 38-46.
360
Diack, M. (2004). Bradstow School, Broadstairs. Canterbury's Archaeology 2003–2004, Canterbury
Archaeological Trust: 19-21.
Dickinson, T. (1993). An Anglo-Saxon "cunning woman" from Bidford-on-Avon. In search of cult:
archaeological investigations in honour of Philip Rahtz. M. O. H. Carver. Woodbridge, Boydell:
45-54.
Dickinson, T. (2006). "The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Finglesham, Kent by Sonia Chadwick Hawkes and
Guy Grainger." Antiquity 80(310): 1023-1024.
Dixon, C. (1848). New historical guide to the Isle of Thanet.
Dixon, C. (1850). The visitor's new guide...to the Isle of Thanet...Margate. Margate.
Down, A. and M. Welch (1990). Chichester excavations 7: Apple Down and the Mardens. Chichester,
Chichester District Council.
Driehaus, J. (1978). Der Grabraub in Mitteleuropa während der älteren Eisenzeit. Zum Grabfrevel in vor-
und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit : Untersuchungen zu Grabraub und 'haugbrot' in Mittel- und
Nordeuropa : Bericht über ein Kolloquium der Kommission für die Altertumskunde Mittel- und
Nordeuropas vom 14. bis 16. Februar 1977. H. Jankuhn, H. Nehlsen and H. Roth. Göttingen,
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 18-47.
Drinkall, G. and M. Foreman (1998). The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Castledyke South, Barton-on-
Humber. Sheffield.
Duday, H. (2006). L'archéothanatologie ou l'archéologie de la mort. The social archaeology of funerary
remains. R. Gowland and C. Knüsel. Oxford, Oxbow: 30-56.
Düwel, K. (1978). Grabraub, Totenschutz, Platzweihe nach dem Zeugnis der Runeninchriften. Zum
Grabfrevel in vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit : Untersuchungen zu Grabraub und 'haugbrot' in
Mittel- und Nordeuropa : Bericht über ein Kolloquium der Kommission für die Altertumskunde
Mittel- und Nordeuropas vom 14. bis 16. Februar 1977. H. Jankuhn, H. Nehlsen and H. Roth.
Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 229-243.
Dusek, M. s. (1969). Bronzezeitliche Graberfelder in der Sudwestslawakei. Bratislava, Vydavatel'stvo
Slovenskej Akademie vied.
Eckardt, H. and H. Williams (2003). Objects without a past? The use of Roman objects in early Anglo-
Saxon graves. Archaeologies of remembrance: death and memory in past societies. H. Williams.
New York: 141-170.
Effros, B. (2002). Caring for Body and Soul: Burial and the Afterlife in the Merovingian World.
Effros, B. (2003). Merovingian Mortuary Archaeology and the Making of the Early Middle Ages.
Ellis Davidson, H. R. (1994). The sword in Anglo-Saxon England: its archaeology and literature.
Woodbridge, Boydell Press.
Ellis, H. R. (1943). The road to Hel: a study of the conception of the dead in Old Norse Literature.
Westport (CT), Greenwood Press.
Evison, V. (1982). "Anglo-Saxon glass claw-beakers." Archaeologia 107: 43-76.
Evison, V. (1987). Dover: Buckland Anglo-Saxon cemetery. London.
Evison, V. I. (1956). "An Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Holborough, Kent." Archaeologia Cantiana LXX: 84-
141.
Faussett, B. and C. R. Smith (1856). Inventorium sepulchrale: An account of some antiquities dug up at
Gilton, Kingston, Sibertswold, Barfriston, Beakesbourne, Chartham and Crundale in the county
of Kent, from A.D. 1757 to A.D. 1773.
361
Fingerlin, G. (1971). Die alamannische Graberfelder von Güttningen und Merdingen in Südbaden, de
Gruyter.
Foster, W. (1883). "Account of the excavation of an Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Barrington,
Cambridgeshire." CAS forum?? V: 5-32.
Fox, D. and H. Pálsson (1974). Grettir's Saga. Toronto, University of Toronto Press.
Fremersdorf, F. (1955). Das fränkische Reihengräberfeld Köln-Müngersdorf. Berlin, W. de Gruyter.
Frere, S. and P. Bennett (1987). Canterbury excavations: intra- and extra-mural sites, 1949-55 and 1980-84.
Maidstone, Kent Archaeological Society.
Friesinger, H. (1988). Die Langobarden in Österreich. Die Langobarden. Von der Unterelbe nach Italian.
R. Busch, Veröffentlichungen des Hamburger Museums für Archäologie und Geschichte. 54.
Gansum, T. and T. Risan (1999). "Oseberghaugen – en stratigrafisk historie." Vestfoldminne 1998-1999:
60-72.
Garland, A. and R. Janaway (1989). The taphonomy of inhumation burials. Burial archaeology: current
research, methods and developments. C. Roberts, F. Lee and J. Bintliff. Oxford, BAR British
Series 211: 83-94.
Garscha, F. (1970). Die Alamannen in Südbaden. Berlin, Walter de Gruyter.
Geake, H. (1992). Burial practice in seventh- and eighth-century England. The age of Sutton Hoo. M. O.
H. Carver. Woodbridge, Boydell Press: 83-94.
Geake, H. (1997). The use of grave-goods in conversion-period England, c.600-c.850, British
Archaeological Reports, British Series 261.
Geake, H. (1999). Invisible kingdoms: the use of grave-goods in seventh-century England. Anglo-Saxon
studies in Archaeology and History 10. Oxford, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology:
203-215.
Geake, H. (2002). Persistent problems in the study of conversion-period burials in England. Burial in
Early Medieval England and Wales. S. Lucy and A. Reynolds. London, Society for Medieval
Archaeology. 17: 122-131.
Geake, H. (2003). "Plough damage on Anglo-Saxon cemeteries." Archaeologist 47: 16-17.
Geary, P. (1986). Sacred commodities: the circulation of medieval relics. The social life of things:
commodities in cultural perspective. A. Appadurai. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 169-
191.
Geary, P. (1987). "Germanic tradition and royal ideology in the ninth century: the 'Visio Karoli Magni'."
Frühmittelalterliche Studien 21: 274-294.
Geary, P. (1994). Living with the dead in the middle ages. Ithaca, Cornell University Press.
Geary, P. (1994). Phantoms of remembrance: memory and oblivion at the end of the first millennium.
Princeton.
Geary, P. J. (1990). Furta sacra: thefts of relics in the central Middle Ages. Princeton, Princeton University
Press.
Genrich, A. U. (1971). "Grabbeigaben und germanisches Recht." Die Kunde 22: 189-226.
Genrich, A. U. (1981). A remarkable inhumation grave from Liebenau, Nienburg, Germany. Angles,
Saxons and Jutes. V. I. Evison. Oxford: 59-71.
Geschiere, P. (1997). The modernity of witchcraft: politics and the occult in postcolonial Africa. .
Charlottesville, University of Virginia Press.
362
Gibson, C. (2007). Minerva: an early Anglo-Saxon mixed-rite cemetery in Alwalton, Cambridgeshire.
Anglo-Saxon studies in Archaeology and History 14. S. Semple and H. Williams. Oxford, Oxford
University Committee for Archaeology: 238-250.
Gilchrist, R. and B. Sloane (2005). Requiem. The medieval monastic cemetery in Britain. London,
Museum of London Archaeology Service.
Giles, J., Ed. (1840). Roger of Wendover's flowers of history. Comprising the history of England from the
descent of the Saxons to AD 1235. Formerly ascribed to Matthew Paris. London, Bohn.
Godfrey-Faussett, T. (1876). "The Saxon cemetery at Bifrons." Archaeologia Cantiana X: 298-315.
Godfrey-Faussett, T. (1880). "The Saxon cemetery at Bifrons." Archaeologia Cantiana XIII: 522-556.
Gowland, R. and C. Knüsel, Eds. (2006). Social archaeology of funerary remains. Oxford, Oxbow.
Grainger, I. and C. Phillpotts (in prep). Excavations at the abbey of St Mary Graces, East Smithfield,
London. London, Museum of London Archaeology Service.
Grammaticus, S. (1886). Saxonis Grammatici Gesta Danorum. Straßburg.
Green, M. (2005). "Discourses on inequality: poverty, public bads and entrenching witchcraft in post-
adjustment Tanzania." Anthropological Theory 5: 247-266.
Griffiths, B. (1995). An introduction to early English law. Norfolk, Anglo-Saxon Books.
Griffiths, B. (2003). Aspects of Anglo-Saxon magic. Hockwold-cum-Wilton, Anglo-Saxon.
Grinsell, L. (1967). "Barrow treasure, in fact, tradition and legislation." Folklore 78(spring): 1-38.
Grinsell, L. V. (1961). "The breaking of objects as a funerary rite." Folklore 72.
Grinsell, L. V. (1975). The ancient burial-mounds of England. Westport, Conn, Greenwood Press.
Grinsell, L. V. (1976). Folklore of prehistoric sites in Britain. Newton Abbot, David and Charles.
Grinsell, L. V. (1979). Barrows in England and Wales. Aylesbury, Bucks, Shire Publications.
Grinsell, L. V. (1991). "Barrows in Anglo-Saxon land charters." Antiquaries Journal.
Groop, N. (2000). Öppnad eller Plundrad? Department of Archaeology. Uppsala, University of Uppsala.
MA.
Grünewald, C. (1988). Das alamannische Graberfeld von Unterthürheim, Bayerisch-Schwaben.
Hadley, D. M. (2001). "Whitton: SE 9035 2450." Lincolnshire History and Archaeology 36: 59.
Haglund, W. D. and M. H. Sorg, Eds. (1997). Forensic taphonomy: the postmortem fate of human
remains, CRC Press.
Haglund, W. D. and M. H. Sorg, Eds. (2001). Advances in forensic taphonomy: method, theory, and
archaeological perspective, CRC Press.
Halsall, G. (2003). Burial writes: graves, texts and time in early Merovingian Gaul. Erinnerungskultur im
Bestattungsritual. J. Jarnut and M. Wemhoff. Munich, Wilhelm Fink: 61-74.
Hamerow, H. (1993). Excavations at Mucking Vol 2: the Anglo-Saxon settlement, English Heritage /
British Museum Press.
Hampl, F. (1964). "Die langobardischen Gräberfelder von Rohrendorf und Erpersdorf, NÖ."
Archaeologia Austriaca 36: 40-78.
Hampl, F., H. Kerchler, et al. (1981-1991). Das mittelbronzezeitliche Graberfeld von Pitten in
Niederosterreich: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen des Niederosterreichischen Landesmuseums in
den Jahren 1967 bis 1973 mit Beitragen uber Funde aus anderen urzeitlichen Perioden Wien,
Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
363
Hannibal-Deraniyagala, A. S. (2007). Das bajuwarische Gräberfeld von Künzig-Bruck, Lkr. Deggendorf.
Bonn, Bonner Beiträge zur vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie 8.
Hänsel, B. and N. Kalicz (1986). "Das Bronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Mez
csát, Kom. Borsod,
Nordostungarn." Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 67: 5-88.
Hanson, I. (2004). The importance of stratigraphy in forensic excavation. Forensic geoscience: principles,
techniques and applications. K. Pye and D. Croft. London, Conference Abstracts, Geological
Society of London: 39-48.
Härke, H. (1989). Early Saxon weapon burials: frequencies, distributions and weapon combinations.
Weapons and warfare in Anglo-Saxon England. S. C. Hawkes. Oxford.
Härke, H. (1990). ""Warrior graves"? The background of the Anglo-Saxon burial rite." Past and Present
126: 22-43.
Härke, H. (1992). Angelsächsische Waffengräber der 5. bis 7. Jahrhunderts. Cologne and Bonn, Zeitschrift
für Archäologie des Mittelalters. Beiheft 6.
Härke, H. (1992). Changing symbols in a changing society: the Anglo-Saxon weapon burial rite. The Age
of Sutton Hoo : the seventh century in north-western Europe. M. O. H. Carver. Woodbridge,
Suffolk, Boydell Press.
Härke, H. (1997). Material culture as myth: weapons in Anglo-Saxon graves. Burial and society: the
chronological and social analysis of archaeological burial data. C. Jensen and K. Nielsen. Aarhus:
119-128.
Härke, H. (2000). The circulation of weapons in Anglo-Saxon society. Rituals of power: from late
antiquity to the early Middle Ages. F. Theuws and J. L. Nelson. Leiden; Boston, Brill.
Harman, Molleson, et al. (1981). "Burials, bodies and beheadings in Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon
cemeteries." Bulletin of the British Museum of Natural History 35: 145-188.
Harrington, S. (2007). Soft furnished burial: an assessment of the role of textiles in early Anglo-Saxon
inhumations, with particular reference to east Kent. Anglo-Saxon studies in Archaeology and
History 14. S. Semple and H. Williams. Oxford, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology:
110-116.
Hart, D. (2006). "Excavations at Bradstow School, Broadstairs." Kent Archaeological Society
Newsletter(69): 14-15.
Hässler, H.-J. (1983). Das sächsische Gräberfeld bei Liebenau, Kr. Nienburg (Weser). Hildesheim, Lax.
Hawkes, S. C. (1960). "Note." Medieval Archaeology 4: 135.
Hawkes, S. C. (1965). "Note." Medieval Archaeology 9: 172.
Hawkes, S. C. (1966). "Note." Medieval Archaeology 10: 171.
Hawkes, S. C. (1968). "Note." Medieval Archaeology 12: 158.
Hawkes, S. C. (1974). "The Monkton Brooch." The Antiquaries Journal 54: 245-256.
Hawkes, S. C. (1976). "Interim report by Mrs SC Hawkes, MA, FAS, on the excavations at Eastry."
Archaeologia Cantiana 92: 247-248.
Hawkes, S. C. (1979). Eastry in Anglo-Saxon Kent: its importance, and a newly found grave. Anglo-Saxon
Studies in Archaeology and History I. S. C. Hawkes, D. Brown and J. Campbell. Oxford, British
Archaeological Reports British Series 72: 81-113.
Hawkes, S. C. (1981). "Recent finds of inlaid iron buckles and belt-plates from seventh-century Kent."
Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 2: 49-70.
Hawkes, S. C. (1982). Finglesham: a cemetery in East Kent. The Anglo-Saxons. J. Campbell. Oxford: 24 f.
364
Hawkes, S. C. (1984). "The Amherst brooch." Archaeologia Cantiana 100: 129-151.
Hawkes, S. C. (1990). Bryan Faussett and the Faussett Collection: An Assessment. Anglo-Saxon
cemeteries: a reappraisal. Proceedings of a conference held at Liverpool Museum 1986. E.
Southworth. Stroud, Sutton.
Hawkes, S. C. (2000). The Anglo-Saxon cemetery of Bifrons. Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and
History 11. D. Griffiths. Oxford, Oxford University School of Archaeology: 1-94.
Hawkes, S. C., H. R. Ellis Davidson, et al. (1965). "The Finglesham man." Antiquity 39: 17-32.
Hawkes, S. C. and G. Grainger (2003). The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Worthy Park, Kingsworthy, near
Winchester, Hampshire. Oxford, University of Oxford, School of Archaeology.
Hawkes, S. C. and G. Grainger (2006). The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Finglesham, Kent. Oxford, OUSA.
Hawkes, S. C., A. Hogarth, et al. (1974). "The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Monkton, Thanet." Archaeologia
Cantiana 89: 49-89.
Hawkes, S. C. and M. Pollard (1981). "The gold bracteates from sixth-century Kent, in the light of a new
find from Finglesham." Frühmittelalterliche Studien 15: 316-370.
Hearne, C., D. Perkins, et al. (1995). "The Sandwich Bay wastewater treatment scheme archaeological
project, 1992-1994." Archaeologia Cantiana 115: 239-354.
Henderson, J. (1987). Factors determining the state of preservation of human remains. Death, decay and
reconstruction. Approaches to archaeology and forensic science. A. Boddington, A. Garland and
R. Janaway. Manchester, Manchester University Press: 43-54.
Henning, R. (1907). Der Helm von Baldenheim und die verwandten Helme des frühen Mittelalters.
Strassburg, Karl L. Trübner.
Herschend, F. (2001). Journey of Civilisation: The Late Iron Age view of the human world, Uppsala.
Hills, C. (1977). "Chamber grave from Spong Hill, North Elmham, Norfolk." Medieval Archaeology 21:
167-76.
Hills, C., K. Penn, et al. (1984). The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Spong Hill, North Elmham. Part III:
Catalogue of inhumations. Gressenhall, Norfolk, East Anglian archaeology reports.
Hines, J. (1997). A new corpus of Anglo-Saxon great square-headed brooches. London, Reports of the
Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 51.
Hines, J., K. Høilund Nielsen, et al., Eds. (1999). The pace of change: studies in early-medieval
chronology. Cardiff studies in archaeology. Oxford, Oxbow.
Hinz, H. (1969). Das fränkische Gräberfeld von Eick, Gemeinde Rheinkamp, Kreis Moers. Berlin,
Romisch-Germanische Kommission des Deutschen Archa ologischen Instituts. Rheinisches
Landesmuseum Bonn des Landeschaftsverbandes Rheinland.
Hirst, S. and D. Clark (2009). Excavations at Mucking: Volume 3, The Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries, Museum
of London Archaeology.
Hogarth, A. (1973). "Structural features in Anglo-Saxon graves." Archaeological Journal CXXX: 104 -119.
Holck, P. (2006). "The Oseberg Ship Burial, Norway: New Thoughts On the Skeletons From the Grave
Mound." European Journal of Archaeology 9: 185-210.
Hollstein, E. (1973). "Die Jahrringe vom Magdalenenberg: dendrochronologische Datierung des
hallstattzeitlichen Fürstengrabes bei Villingen im Schwarzwald." Trierer Zeitschrift 36.
Howlett, R. (1884-9). William of Newburgh, Historia rerum Anglicarum in Chronicles of the Reigns
of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I. London.
Hunter, J. and M. Cox, Eds. (2005). Advances in forensic archaeology, Routledge.
365
Hunter, J., C. Roberts, et al. (1997). Studies in crime: an introduction to forensic archaeology. London,
Batsford.
Hurd, H. (1913). Some notes on recent archaeological discoveries at Broadstairs. Broadstairs.
Hurd, H. and R. Smith (1910). "An Anglo-Saxon burial ground at Broadstairs." Proceedings of the Society
of Antiquarians of London 23: 272-282.
Isbell, W. H. (2004). "Mortuary preferences: a Wari culture case study from middle horizon Peru." Latin
American Antiquity 15(1): 3-32.
James, M. (1922). "Twelve medieval ghost stories." English Historical Review xxxvii: 413-422.
Janes, D. (1998). Treasure bequest: death and gift in the early Middle Ages. The community, the family
and the saint: patterns of power in early medieval Europe. J. Hill and M. Swan. Turnhout,
Brepols: 363-378.
Jankuhn, H., H. Nehlsen, et al., Eds. (1978). Zum Grabfrevel in vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit:
Untersuchungen zu Grabraub und 'haugbrot' in Mittel- und Nordeuropa: Bericht über ein
Kolloquium der Kommission für die Altertumskunde Mittel- und Nordeuropas vom 14. bis 16.
Februar 1977. Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Janssen, W. (1993). Das fränkische Reihengräberfeld von Rödingen, Kr. Düren. Germanische Denkmäler
der Völkerwanderungszeit B16, Stuttgart.
Jay, L. (1990). "The Trust for Thanet Archaeology: excavations and evaluations, 1989-1990." Archaeologia
Cantiana 108: 271-277.
Jenkins, F. (1955). "Excavations and discoveries: Bekesbourne." Archaeologia Cantiana 69: xlii.
Jenkins, F. (1957). "The Bekesbourne excavations." Kent and Sussex Journal 2(11): 294-295.
Jessup, R. (1930). The archaeology of Kent. London.
Jessup, R. (1943). "Field notes in East Kent." Archaeologia Cantiana 56: 68-70.
Johns, C. (1982). "Finds from a late Roman burial from Stour Street, Canterbury." The Antiquaries
Journal 62: 361.
Keats, G. (1846-7). "A Saxon weapon, recently discovered in a grave at Osengal, in the Isle of Thanet."
Journal of the British Archaeological Association 2: 338.
Kelchner, G. D. (1935). Dreams in Old Norse literature and their affinities in folklore. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Kelly, D. (1987). "Archaeological notes from Maidstone Museum." Archaeologia Cantiana 104: 350-67.
King, J. (2004). "Grave-goods as gifts in early Saxon burials." Journal of Social Archaeology 4(2): 214-238.
Klevnäs, A. M. (2004). Disturbing the dead: grave-robbing and body-snatching in Late Iron Age
Scandinavia, Unpublished MA dissertation, Uppsala University.
Klevnäs, A. M. (2007). "Robbing the dead at Gamla Uppsala, Sweden." Archaeological Review from
Cambridge 22(1): 24-42.
Klinkhammer, H. (2008). Der Topos der Schatzsuche: Raubgräber, Weisheitssucher und
Dämonenbeschwörer. Raubgräber - Schatzgräber. F. Brunecker, Biberach: 64-87.
Knüsel, C., R. Janaway, et al. (1996). "Death, decay and ritual reconstruction: archaeological evidence for
cadaveric spasm." Oxford Journal of Archaeology 15(2): 121-128.
Koch, U. (1968). Die Grabfunde der Merowingerzeit aus dem Donautal um Regensburg. Berlin, Walter de
Gruyter.
Koch, U. (1973). "Das fränkische Graberfeld von Berghausen." Denkmalpflege in Baden-Württemberg 2:
34.
366
Koch, U. (1973). "Grabräuber als Zeugen frühen Christentums." Archäologische Nachrichten aus Baden
11: 22-26.
Koch, U. (1974). "Beobachtungen zum frühen Christentum an den fränkischen Gräberfeldern von Bargen
und Berghausen in Nordbaden." Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 4: 259-266.
Koch, U. (1991). Führer zu archäologischen Denkmälern in Deutschland: Heilbronn und das mittlere
Neckarland. Stuttgart. 22.
Kokowski, A. (1991). Das Problem der Wiederöffnung der Gräber in den Friedhöfen der Masøom
cz-
Gruppe (aus den Studien über die Kulturveränderung bei den Goten während ihrer Wanderung).
Peregrinatio Gothica III. Oslo, Universitets Oldsaksamling: 115-132.
Krag, C. (1999). "Hrani-konungsfostri and Olafr-Geirstathaalfr. On the development of two saga figures."
Historisk Tidsskrift 129(1): 21-47.
Krogh, K. (1982). "The royal Viking-age monuments at Jelling [Jylland] in the light of recent
archaeological excavations. A preliminary report." Acta Archaeologica 53: 183-216.
Krogh, K. (1993). Gåden om kong Groms grav. Herning.
Krüger, K. H. (1978). Grabraub in erzählenden Quellen des frühen Mittelalters. Zum Grabfrevel in vor-
und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit : Untersuchungen zu Grabraub und 'haugbrot' in Mittel- und
Nordeuropa : Bericht über ein Kolloquium der Kommission für die Altertumskunde Mittel- und
Nordeuropas vom 14. bis 16. Februar 1977. H. Jankuhn, H. Nehlsen and H. Roth. Göttingen,
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 169-187.
Kümmel, C. (2005). Ur- und frühgeschichtlicher Grabraub: Archäologische Interpretation und
kulturanthropologische Erklärung, Tübingen. Unpublished PhD Thesis.
Kümmel, C. (2008). Raubgräber der Frühzeit: Grabraub oder Grabmanipulation? Raubgräber -
Schatzgräber. F. Brunecker, Biberach: 40-47.
La Baume, P. (1967). Das fränkische Graberfeld von Junkersdorf bei Köln. Berlin.
La Fontaine, J. S. (1998). Speak of the devil: tales of satanic abuse in contemporary England. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Ladenbauer Orel, H. (1960). Linz-Zizlau. Das baierische Gräberfeld an der Traunmündung. Vienna.
Leahy, K. (2003). Anglo-Saxon crafts. Stroud, Tempus.
Lecouteux, C. (1987). Geschichte der Gespenster und Wiederganger im Mittelalter. Ko ln, Bohlau.
Leeds, E. (1938). "An Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Wallingford, Berkshire." Berkshire Archaeological Journal
42: 93-101.
Leeds, E. (1940). "Two Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries in North Oxfordshire." Oxonensia V: 23-30.
Leeds, E. and R. Atkinson (1944). "An Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Nassington, Northants." Antiquaries
Journal 24: 100-128.
Leeds, E. and D. Harden (1936). The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Abingdon, Oxford. Oxford, Ashmolean
Museums, University of Oxford.
Leinthaler, B. (1995-1996). "Ein frühmittlelalterliches Reihengräberfeld bei Eußenheim." Das
archäologische Jahr in Bayern: 130-133.
Lillios, K. T. (1999). "Objects of memory: The ethnography and archaeology of heirlooms." Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 6(3): 235-262.
Lucy, S. (2000). The Anglo-Saxon way of death: burial rites in early England. Stroud, Sutton.
367
Lucy, S. and A. J. Reynolds (2002). Burial in early medieval England and Wales: past, present and future.
Burial in Early Medieval England and Wales. S. Lucy and A. J. Reynolds. London, Society for
Medieval Archaeology. 17: 1-23.
Lucy, S., J. Tipper, et al. (2009). Anglo-Saxon Cemetery and Settlement at Bloodmoor Hill, Carlton
Colville, Suffolk, East Anglian Archaeology 131.
Lüdemann, H. (1994). "Mehrfachbelegte Gräber im frühen Mittelalter." Fundberichte aus Baden-
Württemberg 19(1): 421-589.
Mack, I., G. McDonnell, et al. (2000). "Liquid steel in Anglo-Saxon England." Historical Metallurgy 34(2).
Macpherson-Grant, N. (1972-3). "Operation Gas Pipe: Thanet section." Kent Archaeological Review 30:
298-301.
Malim, T. and J. Hines (1998). The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Edix Hill (Barrington A), Cambridgeshire.
London, Council for British Archaeology.
Malmesbury, W. o. (1964). Gesta Pontificum Anglorum, Rolls Series, Kraus reprint.
Malone, C. A. T., S. K. F. Stoddart, et al., Eds. (2009). Mortuary ritual in prehistoric Malta. The Brochtorff
Circle excavations (1987-1994). Cambridge, McDonald Institute.
Mant, A. (1987). Knowledge acquired from post-war exhumations. Death, decay and reconstruction.
Approaches to archaeology and forensic science. A. Boddington, A. Garland and R. Janaway.
Manchester, Manchester University Press: 65-78.
Map, W. (1983). De nugis curialium: Courtiers' trifles M. James, C. Brooke and R. Mynors. Oxford,
Clarendon Press.
Marzinzik, S. (2003). Early Anglo-Saxon Belt Buckles (late 5th to early 8th centuries A.D.): Their
classification and context. . Oxford.
Marzinzik, S. (2007). But where did it all come from? Production and raw materials in an Early Anglo-
Saxon cemetery at Ringlemere, East Kent. The 58th International Sachsensymposium. T. Brattli,
Vitark 7.
Matthews, C. (1962). "The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Marina Drive, Dunstable." Bedfordshire
Archaeological Journal 1: 25-47.
McDonnell, G. (1989). "Iron and its alloys in the fifth to eleventh centuries AD in England." World
Archaeology 20(3).
McKinley, J. (1994). The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Spong Hill, North Elmham. Part VIII: the cremations.
Dereham, East Anglian Archaeology Research Report, 69.
McKinley, J. (2003). "The early Saxon cemetery at Park Lane, Croydon." Surrey Archaeological
Collections 90: 1-116.
Meaney, A. (1984). "Ælfric and idolatry." Journal of Religious History 13: 119-128.
Meaney, A. (2001). "Felix's life of St Guthlac: hagiography and/or truth?" Proceedings of the Cambridge
Antiquarian Society 90: 29-48.
Meaney, A. (2003). Anglo-Saxon pagan and early Christian attitudes to the dead. The cross goes north:
processes of conversion in northern Europe, AD 300 -1300. M. Carver. York/Woodbridge, York
Medieval Press in association with Boydell & Brewer.
Meaney, A. L. (1981). Anglo-Saxon amulets and curing stones. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports.
Meaney, A. L. and S. C. Hawkes (1970). Two Anglo-Saxon cemeteries at Winnall, Winchester, Hampshire.
London, The Society for Medieval Archaeology.
Meaney, A. L. S. (1964). A Gazetteer of Early Anglo-Saxon Burial Sites. London, George Allen & Unwin.
368
Merkel, J. (1863). Leges Alamannorum. Hannover, Hahn.
Mildenberger, G. (1981). "Tomb desecrations in prehistorical and ancient-times - grave robbing in middle
and northern europe - reports from colloquium on the archaeology of middle and northern
europe, february 14-16, 1977 - German - Jankuhn, H, Nehlsen, H, Roth, H." Historische
Zeitschrift 232 (1): 116.
Millard, L., S. Jarman, et al. (1969). "Anglo-Saxon burials near The Lord of the Manor, Ramsgate. New
light on the site of Ozengell?" Archaeologia Cantiana 84: 9-30.
Mittermeier, I. (2003). Die Deutung von Grabbeigaben des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit - eine
Interpretationshilfe für das frühe Mittelalter? Erinnerungskultur im Bestattungsritual. J. Jarnut and
M. Wemhoff. Munich, Wilhelm Fink: 219-236.
Mortimer, C. (1999). Technical analysis of the cruciform brooch. Völker an Nord- und Ostsee und die
Franken. U. von Freeden, U. Koch and A. Wieczorek. Bonn, Habelt: 83–90.
Muller, H. F. (1976). Das alamannische Graberfeld von Hemmingen (Kreis Ludwigsburg). Stuttgart,
Muller & Graff.
Murphy, E. M., Ed. (2008). Deviant Burial in the Archaeological Record. Studies in Funerary Archaeology
2. Oxford, Oxbow.
Musin, A. (1998). Two churches or two traditions: common traits and peculiarities in northern and
Russian Christianity before and after 1054 AD through the archaeological evidence. The view
from the East. Rom und Byzanz im Norden. Mission und Glaubenswechsel im Ostseeraum
während des 8.-14. Jahrhunderts. Band 2. M. Müller-Wille. Mainz, Akademie der Wissenschaften
und der Literatur, Abhandlungen der Geistes- und socialwissenschaftlichen Klasse Nr.3, II: 275-
295.
Myhre, B. (1994). Haugbrott eller gravplyndring i tidlig kristningtid? Fra Hammer til Kors. 1000 år med
kristendom. Brytningstid i Viken. J. B. Hansen, KG. Oslo, Schibsteds: 68-85.
Myres, J. (1977). A corpus of Anglo-Saxon pottery of the pagan period, 1 and 2. Cambridge.
Nehlsen, H. (1978). Der Grabfrevel in der germanischen Rechtsaufzeichnungen - zugleich ein Beitrag zur
Diskussion um Todesstrafe und Friedlosigkeit bei den Germanen. Zum Grabfrevel in vor- und
frühgeschichtlicher Zeit : Untersuchungen zu Grabraub und 'haugbrot' in Mittel- und
Nordeuropa : Bericht über ein Kolloquium der Kommission für die Altertumskunde Mittel- und
Nordeuropas vom 14. bis 16. Februar 1977. H. Jankuhn, H. Nehlsen and H. Roth. Göttingen,
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 107-168.
Nenk, B. S., S. Margeson, et al. (1995). "Medieval Britain and Ireland, 1994." Medieval Archaeology
XXXIX: 180-293.
Neuffer, E. M. (1972). Der Reihengraberfriedhof von Donzdorf. Stuttgart, Muller & Graff.
Neuffer-Müller, C. (1966). Ein Reihengraberfriedhof in Sontheim an der Brenz Stuttgart.
Neuffer-Müller, C. (1972). Das fränkische Graberfeld von Iversheim.
Neuffer-Müller, C. and H. Ament (1973). Das fränkische Graberfeld von Rübenach, Römisch-
Germanische Kommission des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts
Rheinisches Landesmuseum Bonn des Landschaftsverbandes Rheinland.
Neugebauer, J.-W. (1991). Die Nekropole F von Gemeinlebarn, Niederösterreich. Mainz, Phillipp von
Zabern.
Neugebauer-Maresch, C. and J.-W. Neugebauer (1997). "Franzhausen. Das frühbronzezeitliche
Gräberfeld I." Fundberichte aus Österreich, Materialhefte Reihe A, Heft 5/2, Horn, Berger.
Nightingale, B. (1857-9). "A small collection of antiquities from Kent." Proceedings of the Society of
Antiquarians of London 1st Series 4: 334-335.
369
Norr, S. (2005). "A New Look at King Hakon's Old Helmet, the arhjalmr." Scripta Islandica: 71–86.
O'Brien, E. (1999). Post-Roman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England: burial practices reviewed. Oxford, BAR.
O'Brien, L. (2004). "Early Anglo-Saxons in Dartford." The Archaeologist 52: 32-33.
Ohler, N. (1990). Sterben und Tod im Mittelalter. München, Artemis.
Owen-Crocker, G. (2004). Dress in Anglo-Saxon England. Woodbridge, Boydell.
Page, W., Ed. (1908). The Victoria History of the County of Kent. The Victoria History of the Counties
of England. London.
Palmer, S. (1975). "Poverest - interim report." Archaeologia Cantiana 91: 206-207.
Palmer, S. (1977). "London Borough of Bromley." Archaeologia Cantiana 93: 223.
Palmer, S. (1978). "Poverest Orpington Roman/Saxon site." Archaeologia Cantiana 94: 283-284.
Palmer, S. (1984). Excavation of the Roman and Saxon site at Orpington, London Borough of Bromley,
Libraries Department.
Parfitt, K. (1994). "Buckland Anglo-Saxon cemetery, Dover: an interim report." Archaeologia Cantiana
114: 454-456.
Parfitt, K. (1995). "The Buckland Saxon cemetery." Current Archaeology 144: 459-464.
Parfitt, K. (2002). "Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Nonington." Kent Archaeological Review 147: 154-159.
Parfitt, K. (2002). Report on evaluation trenching at Lyminge Anglo-Saxon cemetery, 2002, Dover
Archaeological Group unpublished site report.
Parfitt, K. (2003). Report on excavations at Guilton Mill, Ash, 2003, Dover Archaeological Group
unpublished site report.
Parfitt, K. (2003). Ringlemere Farm, Woodnesborough. Canterbury's Archaeology 2001-2, Canterbury
Archaeological Trust: 34-35.
Parfitt, K. (2003). Ringlemere Farm, Woodnesborough. Canterbury's Archaeology 2002-3, Canterbury
Archaeological Trust: 28-29.
Parfitt, K. (2004). "Ancient burials at St Margaret's." Kent Archaeological Society Newsletter(81): 1-2.
Parfitt, K. and B. Brugmann (1997). The Anglo-Saxon cemetery on Mill Hill, Deal, Kent. London, Society
for Medieval Archaeology.
Parfitt, K. and B. Corke (2004). Ringlemere Farm, Woodnesborough. Canterbury's Archaeology 2003-4,
Canterbury Archaeological Trust: 21-22.
Parfitt, K. and B. Corke (2005). 'Eden Roc', Bay Hill, St Margaret's at Cliffe. Canterbury's Archaeology
2004–2005., Canterbury Archaeological Trust: 31-32.
Parfitt, K. and B. Corke (2006). Ringlemere Farm, Woodnesborough. Canterbury's Archaeology 2004-5,
Canterbury Archaeological Trust: 26-27.
Parker Pearson, M. (1993). "The powerful dead: archaeological relationships between the living and the
dead." Cambridge Archaeological Journal 3(2): 203-229.
Parsons, F. (1911). "On some Saxon bones from Folkestone." Journal of the Royal Anthropological
Institute 41: 101 - 111.
Parsons, F. (1913). "On some Bronze Age and Jutish bones from Broadstairs, with type contours of all the
Bronze Age skulls in the Royal College of Surgeons Museum." Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute 43: 550-592.
Pauli, L. (1975). "Keltischer Volksglaube." Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 28.
370
Payne, G. (1888). "An archaeological survey of Kent." Archaeologia 51(II): 447-468.
Payne, G. (1891-3). "Kentish and Anglo-Saxon remains... from the collection of... Henry Durden."
Proceedings of the Society of Antiquarians of London 2nd series 14: 312-5.
Peirce, I. G., Ed. (2007). Swords of the Viking age. Woodbridge, Boydell.
Penn, K. (2000). Excavations on the Norwich southern bypass, 1989-91 Part II: The Anglo-Saxon
cemetery at Harford Farm, Caistor St Edmund, Norfolk, East Anglian Archaeology Report No.
92. Norwich.
Penn, K. and B. Brugmann (2007). Aspects of Anglo-Saxon inhumation burial: Morning Thorpe, Spong
Hill, Bergh Apton and Westgarth Gardens, East Anglian Archaeology Report No. 119.
Pe
rin, P. (1980). La datation des tombes me
rovingiennes: historique, me
thodes, applications. Geneve,
Droz.
Perkins, D. (1988). "The site of the church of St Giles, Sarre." Archaeologia Cantiana 105: 291-297.
Perkins, D. and S. Chadwick Hawkes (1984). "The Thanet Gas Pipeline Phases I and II (Monkton Parish),
1982." Archaeologia Cantiana 101: 83-114.
Perkins, D. R. J. (1983). "The Isle of Thanet Archaeological Unit." Archaeologia Cantiana 99: 272.
Perkins, D. R. J. (1985a). "The Monkton gas pipeline: phases III and IV, 1983-84." Archaeologia Cantiana
102: 43-69.
Perkins, D. R. J. (1985b). Wealth, robbery and status in Anglo-Saxon cemeteries, North-East London
Polytechnic. Bsc.
Perkins, D. R. J. (1987). " The Jutish cemetery at Half Mile Ride, Margate: A Re-appraisal." Archaeologia
Cantiana 104: 219-236.
Perkins, D. R. J. (1991). " The Jutish cemetery at Sarre revisited: A rescue evaluation." Archaeologia
Cantiana 109: 139-166.
Perkins, D. R. J. (1992). "The Jutish cemetery at Sarre revisited: Part II." Archaeologia Cantiana 110: 83-
120.
Perkins, D. R. J. (1997). "Researches and discoveries: a report on work by the Trust for Thanet
Archaeology." Archaeologia Cantiana 117: 227-237.
Perkins, D. R. J. (unpub.). Excavations in the Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Ozengell nr. Ramsgate, Kent,
Phase I, 1977.
Pestell, T. and K. Ulmschneider, Eds. (2003). Markets in early medieval Europe. Macclesfield, Windgather.
Philp, B. (1964). "Sevenoaks." Archaeologia Cantiana 79: lix.
Philp, B. (1965). "Saxon cemetery at Polhill, near Sevenoaks." Kent Archaeological Review 1: 3.
Philp, B. (1967). "Further excavations at Polhill." Kent Archaeological Review 10: 2-4.
Philp, B. (1967). "The Saxon cemetery at Polhill." Kent Archaeological Review 9: 2-6.
Philp, B. (1973). Excavations in West Kent 1960-1970. Dover.
Philp, B. (1979). "The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Polhill." Kent Archaeological Review 58: 178.
Philp, B. (2002). The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Polhill near Sevenoaks, Kent 1964-1986, Kent
Archaeological Rescue Unit.
Philp, B. (2007). "The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Alkham near Dover." Kent Archaeological Review 170:
213-214.
371
Philp, B. and S. C. Hawkes (1980). "Four more Anglo-Saxon graves discovered at Polhill." Kent
Archaeological Review 58: 178-188.
Philp, B. and P. Keller (2002). The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Eastry, near Dover. West Wickham, Kent
Archaeological Rescue Unit.
Philpott, R. (1993). Late Roman cemetery organisation in Britain. Romerzeitliche Graber als Quellen zu
Religion, Bevolkerungsstruktur und Sozialgeschichte. M. Struck. Mainz, Johannes Gutenberg-
Universitat, Institut fur Vor- und Fruhgeschichte: 413-420.
Philpott, R. A. (1991). Burial practices in Roman Britain: a survey of grave treatment and furnishing AD
43 - 410. Oxford, BAR British Series 219.
Pieta, K. (2008). Das Fürstengrab von Poprad-Matejovce. 59. Internationales Sachsensymposion.
Frankfurt am Main.
Pilet, C. (1980). La Nécropole de Frénouville. Oxford.
Pirling, R. (1974). Das Romisch-Frankische Graberfeld von Krefeld-Gellep. Berlin.
Planche, J. (1859). "An Anglo-Saxon grave at Guilton." Journal of the British Archaeological Association
15: 290.
Pleiner, R. r. (1993). The Celtic sword. Oxford, Clarendon.
Pleiner, R. r. (2006). Iron in archaeology. Early European blacksmiths. Prague.
Plum, R. (2004). Die merowingerzeitliche Besiedlung in Stadt und Kreis Aachen sowie im Kreis Düren.
Mainz.
Priest, S. (1938). "Saxon cemetery, "Riseley", Horton Kirkby." Transactions of the Dartford District
Antiquarian Society 8: 14-30.
Raddatz, K. (1978). Zum Grabraub in der Frühen Bronzezeit und in der Römischen Kaiserzeit. Zum
Grabfrevel in vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit: Untersuchungen zu Grabraub und 'haugbrot' in
Mittel- und Nordeuropa: Bericht über ein Kolloquium der Kommission für die Altertumskunde
Mittel- und Nordeuropas vom 14. bis 16. Februar 1977. H. Jankuhn, H. Nehlsen and H. Roth.
Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 48-52.
Rahtz, P., T. Dickinson, et al., Eds. (1980). Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries, 1979. BAR British Series. Oxford.
Randsborg, K. (1998). "Plundered Bronze Age graves. Archaeological and social implications." Acta
Archaeologica 69: 113-138.
Redlich, C. (1948). "Erbrecht und Grabbeigaben bei den Germanen." Forsch. u. Fortschr. 24: 177-180.
Reim, H. (1972). Ein alamannische Friedhof in der Fridinger Flur "Spital". Fridingen: Lebenskreise einer
Stadt an der oberen Donau. S. Fridingen. Fridingen.
Reiß, R. (1994). Der merowingerzeitliche Reihengräberfriedhof von Westheim (Kreis Weißenburg-
Gunzenhausen). Nürnberg, Wissenschaftliche Beibande zum Anzeiger des Germanischen
Nationalmuseums, 10.
Reynolds, A. J. (1997). The definition and ideology of Anglo-Saxon execution sites and cemeteries. Death
and burial in medieval Europe. Papers of the Medieval Europe Brugge 1997 Conference. G. d.
Boe and F. Verhaeghe. Zellik [Belgium], Instituut voor het Archeologisch Patrimonium: 134 p.
Reynolds, A. J. (2009). Anglo-Saxon deviant burial customs. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Reynolds, N. (1976). "The structure of Anglo-Saxon graves." Antiquity 50: 140-143.
Rhodes, M. (1990). Faussett rediscovered: Charles Roach Smith, Joseph Mayer, and the publication of
Inventorium Sepulchrale. Anglo-Saxon cemeteries: a reappraisal. Proceedings of a conference
held at Liverpool Museum 1986. E. Southworth. Stroud, Sutton.
372
Richardson, A. (1994). The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Dover Hill, Folkestone, University of Wales College
of Cardiff. BA dissertation.
Richardson, A. (1995). The Lathe of Lympne. A study of a region in Kent, from the 5th to 8th centuries
AD, University of Wales College of Cardiff. Unpublished M.Phil thesis.
Richardson, A. (2005). The Anglo-Saxon cemeteries of Kent. Vol 2. Oxford, BAR.
Richardson, A. (2005). The Anglo-Saxon cemeteries of Kent. Vol I. Oxford, BAR.
Riddler, I. and C. Haith (unpublished). The Mount Pleasant Anglo-Saxon cemetery.
Ridyard, S. J. (1988). The royal saints of Anglo-Saxon England: a study of West Saxon and East Anglian
cults, Cambridge University Press.
Rittershofer, K.-F. (1987). "Grabraub in der Bronzezeit." Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen
Kommission 68: 5-23.
Roach Smith, C. (1860). "On Anglo-Saxon remains discovered recently in various places in Kent."
Archaeologia Cantiana III: 35-48.
Rodwell, W. and K. Rodwell (1982). "St Peter’s, Barton-upon-Humber, Lincolnshire: excavation and
structural study, 1978-81." Antiquaries Journal 62: 283-315.
Rolfe, W. (1847-8). "Early Saxon keys, found in a grave at Osengal." Journal of the British Archaeological
Association 3: 246.
Rollason, D. (1989). Saints and relics in Anglo-Saxon England. Oxford, Blackwell.
Rose, J. C. and D. L. Burke (2004). "Making money from buried treasure." Culture without Context(14).
Rostoker, W. and B. Bronson (1990). Pre-industrial iron. Its technology and ethnology. Philadelphia,
Archaeomaterials monograph 1.
Roth, H. (1977). "Bemerkungen zur Totenberaubung während der Merowingerzeit." Archäologisches
Korrespondenzblatt: 287–290.
Roth, H. (1978). Archäologische Beobachtungen zum Grabfrevel im Meroweingerreich. Zum Grabfrevel
in vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit: Untersuchungen zu Grabraub und 'haugbrot' in Mittel- und
Nordeuropa: Bericht über ein Kolloquium der Kommission für die Altertumskunde Mittel- und
Nordeuropas vom 14. bis 16. Februar 1977. H. Jankuhn, H. Nehlsen and H. Roth. Göttingen,
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 53-84.
Røthe, G. (1997). Fra Olav Geierstadalv til Olav den hellige. Gokstadhøvdingen og hans tid. T. Frost.
Sandefjord, Sandefjordmuseene: 25-42.
Rowe, A. (1923). Isle of Thanet Gazette and Thanet Times. 20/01/1923: 1.
Rowe, A. (1923). Letter to H.Hurd (19/10/1923). OS Records.
Rowe, A. (1923). Postcard to H.Hurd (31/07/1923). Margate Public Libary.
Ruckdeschel, W. (1985). "Das frühbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Mintraching, Ldkr. Regensburg,
Bayern." Vorgeschbl 50: 127-182.
Sa
gi, K. r. (1964). "Das langobardische Graberfeld von Vörs." Acta Archaeologica Hungarica 16: 359-408.
Salin, E. (1952). La civilisation Mérovingienne. Paris.
Samson, R. (1987). "Social structures from Reihengräber: mirror or mirage?" Scottish Archaeological
Review 4: 116-126.
Savage, S. H. (1997). "Descent group competition and economic strategies in predynastic Egypt." Journal
of Anthropological Archaeology 16: 226-268.
373
Sayer, D. (2009). The 7th century Kentish family: considering the evidence from the legal codes and
cemetery organisation. Mortuary Practice and Social Identities in the Middle Ages. D. Sayer and
H. Williams. Exeter, Exeter University Press.
Sayer, D. (2010). "Death and the family. Developing generational chronologies." Journal of Social
Archaeology 10.1.
Sayer, D. and H. Williams, Eds. (2009). Mortuary Practice and Social Identities in the Middle Ages. Exeter,
Exeter University Press.
Schleifring, J. (1991). "Antiker Grabraub. Ausgrabungsbefunde als Nachweis von Grabraub und
Grabfrevel." Das Rheinische Landesmuseum Bonn. Berichte aus der Arbeit des Museums.
Schmidt, B. (1970). Die späte Völkerwanderungszeit in Mitteldeutschland, Katalog (Südteil). Berlin.
Schmidt, B. (1975). Die späte Völkerwanderungszeit in Mitteldeutschland, Katalog (Nord-Ostteil). Berlin.
Schmidt-Wiegand, R. (1978). Wargus. Eine Bezeichnung für den Unrechstäter in ihrem
wortgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang. Zum Grabfrevel in vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit :
Untersuchungen zu Grabraub und 'haugbrot' in Mittel- und Nordeuropa : Bericht über ein
Kolloquium der Kommission für die Altertumskunde Mittel- und Nordeuropas vom 14. bis 16.
Februar 1977. H. Jankuhn, H. Nehlsen and H. Roth. Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 188-
196.
Schoppa, H. (1950). "Der fränkische Friedhof bei Eltville im Rheingau-Kreis." Nassauische Annalen 61:
1-105.
Schröder, A. (2007). The Anglo-Saxon cemetery of Lyminge, Kent, Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-
Universität zu Bonn. MA.
Scott-Robertson, W. (1878). "Archaeological notes on Thanet." Archaeologia Cantiana 12: 329-419.
Scragg, D., Ed. (1989). Superstition and popular medicine in Anglo-Saxon England. Manchester,
Manchester Centre for Anglo-Saxon Studies.
Scull, C. (2001). Local and regional identities and processes of state formation in fifth- to seventh-century
England: some archaeological problems. Kingdoms and regionality. Transactions from the 49th
Sachsensymposium 1998 in Uppsala. B. Arrhenius. Stockholm, Archaeological Research
Laboratory, University of Stockholm: 121-125.
Scull, C., Ed. (2009). Early Medieval (Late 5th-Early 8th Centuries AD) Cemeteries at Boss Hall and
Buttermarket, Ipswich, Suffolk. Society for Medieval Archaeology Monograph, Volume 27,
Society for Medieval Archaeology.
Scull, C. and A. Bayliss (1999). Dating burials of the seventh and eighth centuries: a case study from
Ipswich, Suffolk. The pace of change: studies in early-medieval chronology. J. Hines, K. Høilund
Nielsen and F. Siegmund. Oxford, Oxbow.
Scurrell, D. (1964). "Isle of Thanet." Archaeologia Cantiana 79: lx.
Scurrell, D. (1970). "Isle of Thanet." Archaeologia Cantiana 85.
Scurrell, D. (1971). "Thanet." Archaeologia Cantiana 86.
Semple, S. (1998). "A Fear of the Past: The Place of the Prehistoric Burial Mound in the Ideology of
Middle and Later Anglo-Saxon England." World Archaeology 30: 109-126.
Semple, S. and H. Williams (2007). Early medieval mortuary practices: new perspectives. Oxford, Oxford
University Committee for Archaeology.
Seracsin, A. (1936). "Das langobardische Reihengräberfeld von Schwechat bei Wien." Mannus: deutsche
Zeitschrift für Vorgeschichte 28: 521-533.
374
Sharpe, R. (2002). Martyrs and local saints in late antique Britain. Local saints and local churches in the
early medieval west. A. Thacker and R. Sharpe. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 75-154.
Shaw, R. (1994). "The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Eccles: a preliminary report." Archaeologia Cantiana
CXIV: 165-188.
Shetelig, H. (1945). "The Viking graves in Great Britain and Ireland." Acta Archaeologica 16: 1-55.
Shook, L. (1960). "The burial mound in Guthlac A." Modern Philology 58: 1-10.
Siewers, A. (2003). "Landscapes of conversion: Guthlac's mound and Grendel's mere as expressions of
Anglo-Saxon nation-building." Viator 34: 1-39.
Skinner, M. F., H. P. York, et al. (2001). Postburial disturbance of graves in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Advances in forensic taphonomy: method, theory, and archaeological perspective. W. D. Haglund
and M. H. Sorg, CRC Press: 293-309.
Smith (1908). The Anglo-Saxon remains. The Victoria History of the County of Kent. W. Page. London.
1: 339-389.
Smith, C. (1860). "On Anglo-Saxon remains discovered recently in various places in Kent." Archaeologia
Cantiana 3: 35-46.
Smith, C. R. (1844). "An account of some antiquities found in the neighbourhood of Sandwich, in the
county of Kent." Archaeologia 30: 132-136.
Smith, C. R. (1845-6). "Discoveries of Anglo-Saxon antiquities... Ramsgate." Journal of the British
Archaeological Association 1: 242-243.
Smith, C. R. (1849). "Discoveries of Saxon antiquities at Gilton, near Ash, in Kent." Journal of the British
Archaeological Association 4: 385-6.
Smith, C. R. (1868). Collectanea Antiqua VI. London.
Society, B. a. S. P. s. A. (1973). Archaeological discoveries in Broadstairs and St Peter's up to 1972.
Broadstairs, Broadstairs and St Peter's Archaeological Society.
Southworth, E., Ed. (1990). Anglo-Saxon cemeteries: a reappraisal. Proceedings of a conference held at
Liverpool Museum 1986, Sutton.
Sparey-Green, C. (2003). Horton, Chartham. Canterbury's Archaeology 2001-2002, Canterbury
Archaeological Trust.
Spindler, K., Ed. (1971-1980). Magdalenenberg I - VI: Der hallstattzeitliche Fürstengrabhügel bei
Villingen im Schwarzwald. Villingen, Neckar-Verlag.
Sprenger, S. (1999). "Zur Bedeutung des Grabraubes fur sozioarchaologische Graberfeldanalysen: eine
Untersuchung am fruhbronzezeitlichen Graberfeld Franzhausen I, Niederosterreich."
Fundberichte aus Osterreich Materialhefte. Heft 7; Reihe A, Horn, Berger.
Staecker, J. (2005). "The concepts of imitatio and translatio: perceptions of Viking-age past." Norwegian
Archaeological Review 38(1): 3-28.
Starley, D. (2009). The Metallurgical Examination of Ferrous Grave Goods from Wasperton Anglo-Saxon
Cemetery MN80-85, Royal Armouries Technological Report 2006/1.
Stebbing, W. and W. Whiting (1929). "Jutish Cemetery near Finglesham, Kent." Archaeologia Cantiana 41:
115-125.
Stein, F. (1961). "Das alamannische Gräberfeld von Göggingen, Ldkr. Augsburg." Bayerische
Vorgeschichtsblätter 26: 75-107.
Stephens, W. (2006). Early medieval glass vessels found in Kent: a catalogue of the glass vessels of
European migrants to Kent, from approximately AD 450-700, in museums, archaeological trusts
and societies, and private collections. Oxford, BAR British Series 424.
375
Steuer, H. (1982). Fruhgeschichtliche Sozialstrukturen in Mitteleuropa: eine Analyse der
Auswertungsmethoden des archaologischen Quellenmaterials. Gottingen, Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
Steuer, H., H. Beck, et al. (1998). "Grabraub." Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 12: 516-
527.
Stevenson, A. (2007). "The aesthetics of Predynastic Egyptian burial: funerary performances in the fourth
millennium BC." Archaeological Review from Cambridge 22.1: 75-91.
Stevenson, J. (1840). Anglo-Saxon ritual of the church of Durham / Rituale Ecclesiæ Dunelmensis, nunc
primum typis mandatum, Surtees Society.
Stoddart, S., M. Wysocki, et al. (1999). The articulation of disarticulation: preliminary thoughts on the
Brochtorff circle at Xaghra (Gozo). The loved body's corruption: archaeological contributions to
the study of human mortality. J. Downes and A. J. Pollard. Glasgow, Scottish Archaeological
Forum, Cruithne Press: 94-105.
Stoll, H. (1939). Die Alamannengräber von Hailfingen in Wurttemberg. Berlin.
Stoodley, N. (1999). The Spindle and the Spear: a Critical Enquiry into the Construction and Meaning of
Gender in the Early Anglo-Saxon burial rite. Oxford.
Stoodley, N. (2000). "From the cradle to the grave: age organization and the early Anglo-Saxon burial
rite." World Archaeology 31(3): 456-472.
Stoodley, N. (2002). Multiple Burials, Multiple Meanings? Interpreting the Early Anglo-Saxon Multiple
Interment. Burial in Early Medieval England and Wales. S. Lucy and A. Reynolds. London,
Society for Medieval Archaeology. 17: 103-121.
Stoodley, N. (2007). New perspectives on cemetery relocation in the seventh century AD: the example of
Portway, Andover. Anglo-Saxon studies in Archaeology and History 14. S. Semple and H.
Williams. Oxford, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology: 154-162.
Stork, I. (1997). Als Persönlichkeit ins Jenseits. Bestattungsitte und Grabraub als Kontrast. Die
Alamannen, Begleitband zu Ausstellung "Die Alammannen" 14.6-14.9.1997, Stuttgart: 418-432.
Storms, G. (1948). Anglo-Saxon magic. The Hague, Nijhoff.
Stoyel, A. (1959). "The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Polhill." Archaeologia Cantiana 73: 225-226.
Stuchli
k, S. (1987). U
neticke
 pohrebiste v Musove. Prague, Academia.
Svoboda, B. (1965). "Böhmen in der Völkerwanderungszeit." Monumenta Archaeologica 13: 140.
Tamla, T. (1998). Zum Grabraub in vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Gräbern in Estland. Studien zur
Archäologie des Ostseeraumes: 291-297.
Tarlow, S. (1997). The dread of something after death: violation and desecration on the Isle of Man in the
tenth century. Material harm: archaeological studies of war and violence. J. Carman. Glasgow,
Cruithne Press: 133-142.
Taylor, A. (2008). Aspects of deviant burial in Roman Britain. Deviant Burial in the Archaeological
Record. E. M. Murphy. Oxford, Oxbow: 91-115.
Tejral, J. (1977). Grundzüge der Völkerwanderungszeit in Mähren. Prague.
Tejral, J. (2008). Zur Frage der norddanubischen, aufwändigen Grabstätten aus der Schlussphase der
langobardischen Herrschaft im Mitteldonauraum, ihre Zeitstellung und Bedeutung. 59.
Internationales Sachsensymposion. Frankfurt am Main.
Tester, P. (1956). "An Anglo-Saxon occupation site at Dartford." Archaeologia Cantiana 70: 256-259.
Tester, P. (1968). "An Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Orpington, first interim report." Archaeologia Cantiana
83: 125-150.
376
Tester, P. (1969). "Excavations at Fordcroft, Orpington: concluding report." Archaeologia Cantiana 84:
39-77.
Tester, P. (1977). "Further notes on the Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Orpington." Archaeologia Cantiana 93:
201-202.
Thacker, A. (2002). Loca sanctorum: the significance of place in the study of the saints. Local saints and local
churches in the early medieval west. A. Thacker and R. Sharpe. Oxford, Oxford University Press:
1-44.
Thacker, A. (2002). The making of a local saint. Local saints and local churches in the early medieval west.
A. Thacker and R. Sharpe. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 45-74.
Thacker, A. and R. Sharpe (2002). Local saints and local churches in the early medieval west. Oxford,
Oxford University Press.
Thäte, E. (1996). "Alt Denkmäler under frühgeschichtliche Bestattungen: ein sächsisch-angelsächsischer
Totenbrauch und seine Kontinuität." Archäologische Informationen 19(1/2): 105-116.
Theuws, F. (1999). Changing settlement patterns, burial grounds and the symbolic construction of
ancestors and communities in the late Merovingian southern Netherlands. Settlement and
Landscape. C. Fabech and J. Ringtved. Moesgaard, Jutland Archaeological Society: 337-350.
Theuws, F. and M. Alkemade (2000). A kind of mirror for men: sword depositions in late antique
northern Gaul. Rituals of power from late antiquity to the early Middle Ages. F. Theuws and J. L.
Nelson. Leiden, E. J. Brill: 401-476.
Thiedmann, A. and J. Schleifring (1992). "Bemerkungen zur Praxis frühmittelalterlichen Grabraubs."
Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 33.
Thomas, I. (1974). The Cult of Saints' Relics in Medieval England. London, University of London. Ph.D.
Thompson, V. (2003). The view from the edge: dying, power and vision in Late Saxon England.
Boundaries in Early Medieval Britain. D. Griffiths, A. J. Reynolds and S. Semple. Oxford, Oxford
University School of Archaeology. 12: 92-97.
Thompson, V. (2004). Dying and Death in Later Anglo-Saxon England.
Thrane, H. (1978). Beispiele für Grabraub aus der Bronzezeit Dänemarks. Zum Grabfrevel in vor- und
frühgeschichtlicher Zeit: Untersuchungen zu Grabraub und 'haugbrot' in Mittel- und
Nordeuropa: Bericht über ein Kolloquium der Kommission für die Altertumskunde Mittel- und
Nordeuropas vom 14. bis 16. Februar 1977. H. Jankuhn, H. Nehlsen and H. Roth. Göttingen,
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 9-17.
Timby, J. R. (1996). The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Empingham II, Rutland. Oxford, Oxbow Books.
Trust, C. A. (1999). North Of Saltwood Tunnel, Kent. ARC SLT 98C Detailed Archaeological Works,
Interim Report. Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Union Railways (South) Ltd.
Trust, C. A. (2000). North Of Saltwood Tunnel, Kent. ARC SLT 99 Southern Section, Detailed
Archaeological Works, Interim Report. Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Union Railways (South) Ltd.
Tsaliki, A. (2008). Unusual burials and necrophobia: an insight into the burial archaeology of fear. Deviant
Burial in the Archaeological Record. E. M. Murphy. Oxford, Oxbow: 1-16.
Turner, R. (1990). "A Romano-British Cemetery at Lanchester, Durham." Archaeologia Aeliana XVIII(5th
series): 63-77.
Tylecote, R. F. (1986). The prehistory of metallurgy in the British Isles. London.
Tylecote, R. F. (1987). The early history of metallurgy in Europe. London.
Tyler, S. (1992). "Anglo-Saxon settlement in the Darent Valley and its environs." Archaeologia Cantiana
110: 71-81.
377
Verwers, W. (1987). North Brabant in Roman and early medieval times, IV: the Merovingian cemeteries.
Amersfoort, Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek.
von Freeden, U. (2008). "Wer Stört Gräber? Grabstörungen ohne Graböffnungen." Acta Archaeologica
Hungarica 59(2): 247-255.
Wahl, J. and F. Brunecker (2008). Der beraubte Merowinger: nicht für die Ewigkeit gebettet. Raubgräber -
Schatzgräber. F. Brunecker, Biberach: 60-63.
Waldron, T. (1987). The relative survival of the human skeleton: implications for palaeopathology. Death,
decay and reconstruction. Approaches to archaeology and forensic science. A. Boddington, A.
Garland and R. Janaway. Manchester, Manchester University Press: 55-64.
Waldron, T. (2007). St Peter’s, Barton-upon-Humber, Lincolnshire: a parish church and its community.
Oxford, Oxbow.
Walsh, R. (1980). "Recent investigations at the Anglo-Saxon cemetery, Darenth Park hospital, Dartford."
Archaeologia Cantiana XCVI: 305-320.
Walton Rodgers, P. (2007). Cloth and clothing in early Anglo-Saxon England AD 450-700. York, Council
for British Archaeology.
Warhurst, A. (1952). "Excavations on Holborough Hill." Archaeologia Cantiana 65: 192.
Warhurst, A. (1954-5). "The excavation of the Jutish cemetery at Lyminge, Kent." The Archaeological
Newsletter 5(11): 228-230.
Warhurst, A. (1955). "The Jutish cemetery at Lyminge." Archaeologia Cantiana LXIX: 1-40.
Webster, L. E. (1972). "Medieval Britain in 1971: I, Pre-conquest." Medieval Archaeology 16: 147-70.
Webster, L. E. (1977). "Medieval Britain in 1971: I, Pre-conquest." Medieval Archaeology 21: 204-222.
Webster, L. E. (1982). "An Anglo-Saxon seventh-century pendant from the Old Westgate Farm site,
Canterbury." Antiquaries Journal 62: 374-5.
Webster, L. E. and J. Cherry (1974). "Medieval Britain in 1973." Medieval Archaeology 18: 174-223.
Webster, L. E. and J. Cherry (1975). "Medieval Britain in 1974." Medieval Archaeology 19: 220-260.
Webster, L. E. and J. Cherry (1976). "Medieval Britain in 1975." Medieval Archaeology 20: 158-176.
Wehrberger, K. (1984). "Das hallstattzeitliche Gräberfeld von Werbach, Main-Tauber-Kreis."
Fundberichte aus Baden-Württemberg 9: 81-221.
Welch, M. (1983). Early Anglo-Saxon Sussex. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports British Series 112.
Welch, M. (1991). "Contacts across the Channel between the fifth and seventh centuries: a review of the
archaeological evidence." Studien zur Sachsenforschung 7(Ed. Häßler, H. Veröffentlichungen der
urgeschichtlichen Sammlungen des Landesmuseums zu Hannover 39 (Hildesheim)): 261-269.
Welch, M. (2002). Cross-channel contacts between Anglo-Saxon England and Merovingian Francia. Burial
in Early Medieval England and Wales. S. Lucy and A. Reynolds. London, Society for Medieval
Archaeology. 17: 122-131.
Welch, M. (2007). Anglo-Saxon Kent. The archaeology of Kent to AD 800. J. H. Williams. Woodbridge,
Kent County Council and Boydell Press.
Welch, M. (2008). "Report on excavations of the Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Updown, Eastry, Kent."
Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 15: 1-146.
Werner, J. (1950). "Zur Entstehung der Reihengräberzivilisation. Ein Beitrag zur Methode der
frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie." Archaeologia Geographica 1: 23-32.
Werner, J. (1953). Der alamannische Gräberfeld von Bülach. Basel, Birkhauser.
378
Werner, J. (1955). Das alamannische Reihengraberfeld von Mindelheim.
Werner, J. (1962). Die Langobarden in Pannonien, Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
White, R. (1988). Roman and Celtic objects from Anglo-Saxon graves: a catalogue and an interpretation of
their use. BAR 191 Oxford.
White, R. (1990). Scrap or substitute: Roman material in Anglo-Saxon graves. Anglo-Saxon cemeteries: a
reappraisal: proceedings of a conference held at Liverpool Museum 1986. E. Southworth. Stroud,
Sutton.
Whitelock, D. (1985). English historical documents c. 500-1042. London, Methuen.
Williams, H., Ed. (2003). Archaeologies of remembrance: death and memory in past societies. New York,
London, Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers.
Williams, H. (2003). "Material culture as memory: combs and cremation in early medieval Britain." Early
Medieval Europe 12: 89-128.
Williams, H. (2003). Remembering and forgetting the medieval dead. Exploring death, memory and
material culture in monastic archaeology. Archaeologies of remembrance: death and memory in
past societies. H. Williams. New York.
Williams, H. (2004). Artefacts in early medieval graves - a new perspective. Proceedings of 'Debating Late
Antiquity' conference. R. Collins and J. Gerrard. Oxford, BAR British Series 365: 89-102.
Williams, H. (2005). "Keeping the dead at arm's length: memory, weaponry and early medieval mortuary
techniques." Journal of Social Archaeology 5(2): 253-275.
Williams, H. (2006). Death and memory in early medieval Britain. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
Williams, H. (2007). Transforming body and soul: toilet implements in early Anglo-Saxon graves. Anglo-
Saxon studies in Archaeology and History 14. S. Semple and H. Williams. Oxford, Oxford
University Committee for Archaeology.
Williams, J. H., Ed. (2007). The archaeology of Kent to AD 800. Kent History Project 8. Woodbridge,
Kent County Council and Boydell Press.
Willson, J. (1984). "Further Saxon burials from Breach Down, Barham." Kent Archaeological Review 76:
125-130.
Willson, J. (1990). "Rescue excavations on the Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Eastry, 1989." Kent
Archaeological Review 100: 229-231.
Wilson, D. (1956). "An Anglo-Saxon grave near Dartford, Kent." Archaeologia Cantiana 70: 187-91.
Wilson, D. (1956). "The initial excavation of an Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Melbourn, Cambridgeshire."
Proceedings of the Cambridgeshire Archaeological Society XLIX: 29-41.
Wilson, D. (1958). "Medieval Britain in 1957: I, Pre-conquest." Medieval Archaeology 2: 183-90.
Wilson, D. (1960). "Medieval Britain in 1959: I, Pre-conquest." Medieval Archaeology 4: 134-139.
Wilson, D. (1966). "Medieval Britain in 1965: I, Pre-conquest." Medieval Archaeology 10: 168-76.
Wilson, D. (1967). "Medieval Britain in 1966: I, Pre-conquest." Medieval Archaeology 11: 262-272.
Wilson, D. (1969). "Medieval Britain in 1968: I, Pre-conquest." Medieval Archaeology 13: 230-243.
Wilson, D. (1970). "Medieval Britain in 1969: I, Pre-conquest." Medieval Archaeology 14: 155-165.
Wilson, D. (1971). "Medieval Britain in 1970: I, Pre-conquest." Medieval Archaeology 15: 124-137.
Wilson, D. (1992). Anglo-Saxon Paganism. London and New York, Routledge.
379
Wood, I. (1992). Frankish hegemony in England. The age of Sutton Hoo. M. O. H. Carver. Woodbridge:
235-241.
Wright, R., I. Hanson, et al. (2005). The archaeology of mass graves. Advances in forensic archaeology. J.
Hunter and M. Cox, Routledge.
Wright, T. History of Ludlow.
Wright, T. (1844). "An account of the opening of barrows in Bourne Park, near Canterbury." The
Archaeological Journal 1: 253-6.
Wright, T. (1844). "On antiquarian excavations and researches in the Middle Ages." Archaeologia 30: 438-
457.
Wright, T. (1845). The archaeological album: or, museum of national antiquities. London.
Wright, T. (1850). "An early Anglo-Saxon barrow on Barham Downs." Proceedings of the Society of
Antiquaries 1st Series 2: 174-176.
Wright, T. (1852). The Celt, the Roman and the Saxon. London.
Young, K. B. (1975). Merovingian funeral rites and the evolution of Christianity: a study in the historical
interpretation of archaeological material, University of Pennsylvania. PhD.
Youngs, S. M. (1981). "Medieval Britain in 1980: I, Pre-conquest." Medieval Archaeology 25: 166-186.
Youngs, S. M. and J. Clark (1982). "Medieval Britain in 1981." Medieval Archaeology 26: 189-190.
Youngs, S. M., J. Clark, et al. (1985). "Medieval Britain in 1984." Medieval Archaeology 29: 158-230.
380
381
Appendix 1: Kent Sites
This appendix presents detailed information about the 32 burial grounds under study. The sites
are divided into three rough groups (Fig. 9, Tables 6, 7, 8). Eight cemeteries have significant
evidence of early disturbance. Ten have reports of robbing on a very small scale, or which lack
supporting data. The remaining 14 sites are categorized as showing no evidence of early grave
robbing. The main references are given for each site; for further references see Richardson 2005b.
For each site any possible evidence of deliberate early disturbance is set out and evaluated. Other
forms of disturbance are also discussed, including plough damage, animal burrowing, unrecorded
antiquarian excavation, and recent robbing. How excavators distinguish between the various
types of disturbance and other taphonomic processes is a question addressed in the specific
preservation context of each site.
Appendix 1.1 Kent Sites: extensive early disturbance
This section discusses in detail the eight Kent cemeteries at which high levels of disturbance in
antiquity have been reported (Table 6, Fig. 9).
Broadstairs I, Bradstow School (Dumpton Park, Valetta House)
(Hurd & Smith 1910, Hurd 1913, Parsons 1913, Scurrell 1964, 1970, Webster 1972, 1974, 1975,
O'Brien, 1999, Diack 2004, Richardson 2005, Trust for Thanet Archaeology 2006, Hart 2006,
excavation archive held by British Museum.)
Table 9, Fig. 12
Bradstow School has been the subject of several phases of excavation. The first recorded work at
the site was carried out in 1910 and 1911 by Howard Hurd, after soil removal for a new driveway
exposed graves. Hurd opened a total of around 39 graves of prehistoric and early medieval date.
Information about his work is limited, and mostly confined to the artefacts. A copy of his main
1913 report survives in the British Museum archive. No grave robbing is noted in any of the
records, but it is doubtful whether this could be expected. On the other hand, Hurd does record
some graves with “displaced skulls” (Hurd & Smith 1910: 276).
The main phase of excavation was carried out in 1970-4 by Leslie Webster for the British
Museum. Around 92 new graves were excavated, with two of Hurd’s graves reopened, although
there is some confusion about the numbers (Webster lecture 1978, Diack 2004). Again the graves
included both prehistoric and Anglo-Saxon burials, with the early medieval cemetery focused on
382
a series of Bronze Age barrows and cutting through Iron Age occupation debris. The results of
these excavations have not been published, but for the purposes of this thesis access was kindly
permitted to the archive in the British Museum.
The archive includes the site documentation and such post-excavation work as has been carried
out: most usefully a draft grave catalogue dated to 1977 and the text of a lecture which gives a
sense of how the excavator saw the site as a whole in 1978. The site documentation here is much
fuller and franker than exists for most of the disturbed cemeteries. The journal and cutting book
allow reconstruction of the process of excavation of each grave in a way that is never carried over
into a conventional site report. The records relate the excavators’ evolving interpretations as each
layer is dug: there is no facade of certainty, no retrospective conclusion imposed on the evidence.
This candid narrative is particularly valuable when the diggers encounter the completely
unexpected evidence of early disturbance (Table 9).
The chagrined reaction of the Bradstow School excavators to each disturbed grave is typical
across the sites in this study. Ancient robbing is seen as loss, as the removal of hoped-for data.
The excavation of Gr 15, for example, is described in the site journal as “The big event - &
disappointment of the day”. Nevertheless, the detail in which the disturbed graves are recorded at
Bradstow School along with the interjected comments about possible interpretations show that
the disturbed burials became an object of interest and probably some speculation on the site.
Implicit throughout the records is the impression that robbing was contemporary with the
cemetery, that the robbers knew what was in the graves and targeted the rich ones. On Gr 67, for
example: “This grave stands isolated in this area of the cemetery, with no other rich shield-graves
nearby. The fact that it has been robbed also suggests that it was perhaps more grandly furnished
still than 71 or 66 or 74” (Cutting book 184) and “its great depth suggests it may have been richly
furnished” (Cutting Book 183).
For the purposes of this analysis, the records have been pieced together to identify 19 burials in
18 graves as probably robbed in antiquity. Table 9 also includes a number of graves in which
robbing was a possibility, but is thought unlikely. All the notes in the various records relating to
each grave are compiled in the table to give as full a picture as possible. Curiously, it is not the
graves (Gr 4 and 12) which have previously been reported as robbed at this site which have the
strongest evidence. The affected graves are discussed individually below, to demonstrate the
nature of the disturbed remains and the problems of interpretation.
383
In most graves skeletons were at least disarticulated at time of disturbance and in some cases (e.g.
Gr 97), actually fragmentary. Iron was friable in e.g. Gr 67, in which the two halves of the shield
grip ended up at opposite sides of the grave. Gr 72 is the only case in which the body may still
have held together during disturbance. Even here the evidence is not compelling, although it
cannot be fully assessed without grave plans. The ASKED database gives Gr 72 a likely burial
date sometime between about AD 640 and 700, presumably on the basis of the bronze buckle,
but it was not possible to view and redate artefacts for this study. If the date is accurate and the
decapitation is post-burial, this reopening almost certainly happened within the mid to late 7th
century. The dating is discussed further in Chapter 4.9.
In 2003 two further Anglo-Saxon graves were discovered by Canterbury Archaeological Trust
during evaluation work at the site. One was excavated and found to contain no grave goods. The
only bones mentioned are the eroded shanks of the left and right femurs. It appeared to be
oriented west-east, like most of those found in 1970s, and so was dated by inference to the
seventh century (Diack 2004, Hart 2006).
The Trust for Thanet Archaeology carried out another evaluation of the site in January 2006 and
Archaeology South-East excavated there in May and June of that year (Hart 2006). A large
Bronze Age round barrow (ditch with internal diameter of 23m) was found, with a possible
robbed grave in the centre: “A rectangular pit had also been dug by the builders in the exact
centre of the barrow. The feature was empty, but the mixed nature of its fill suggested that it may
have been a grave robbed out in antiquity (Hart 2006: 14).
A few metres away was found a much smaller, undisturbed Bronze Age barrow containing
several interments, along with 3 undated 4-post structures and a possible boundary ditch for the
AS cemetery. Finally there was a single east-west orientated grave at the edge of the excavation,
believed to be part of the Anglo-Saxon cemetery. This “contained little other than a few
disarticulated fragments of human bone and it is probable that this feature was robbed out in
antiquity. Its clearly Christian character, however, (i.e. its orientation) suggests that it formed part
of the Anglo-Saxon cemetery described above” (Hart 2006: 15). These recently found examples
of disturbance have not been included in the tables, since they lack grave numbers and full details.
However, they confirm that evidence of early disturbance was apparent to two quite different
teams of excavators, 30 years apart.
384
Grave 4
This grave has previously been reported as robbed (Broadstairs and St Peter's Archaeological
Society 1973: 7). However, full consideration of the evidence suggests this is unlikely.
Right from the start Gr 4 was a difficult excavation project, with poorly defined edges and an
additional cut from a later (“duckpond”) feature (site journal 35-36). Then as work progressed,
suspicions of disturbance were raised by the loose fill and the unusual outline which “shelves v.
slowly, and looks rather as though it could have been dug into at some time” (cutting book 27).
This disturbed impression seemed confirmed by “the presence in upper fill of two large frags
of ?scapula (poss. human) well down above pelvic area” (cutting book 27). Perhaps the grave was
robbed, or alternatively traces of small rodent bone in the upper fill suggested disturbance might
be due to their burrowing, or to foxes (site journal 42).
However, despite the excavators’ lowered expectations, the skull and long bones of the legs were
soon revealed in situ in their anatomical positions, about 9” further down. The rest of the body
soon followed, and a sketch of the fully uncovered burial (Gr 4 “swift continuation plan”) shows
an apparently complete skeleton. An iron knife, buckle and box fittings also lay as expected with
the body (draft grave catalogue, 1977). The stray scapula had presumably come from “something
– or someone – else” (cutting book 27). The ledges around the rim of the grave “thought at first
robber cuttings – they’re very shallow shelves which could be later cuttings” were reinterpreted as
shelves for planks (site journal 38-39).
Yet the burial still had an unusual appearance. The site journal describes the skeleton as “very
contorted” (site journal 44), while the cutting book more specifically attributes the oddness to the
arms, with “the R one being at a very odd angle & poss broken before death”. The later draft
grave catalogue suggests there may have been “post-mortem disturbance producing curious
position of right forearm pointing sharply upwards” (draft grave catalogue, 1977).
In the absence of final bone or site reports, it has not been possible to resolve the interpretation
of the grave. However, three main possibilities suggest themselves. First, the scapulae fragments
may have been incorporated into the fill from other disturbed graves, or from the Iron Age
remains that litter several areas of the site (cutting book 57, 87). Nearby Gr 20 had redeposited
Iron Age material including animal bone in the fill (cutting book 87), and the Gr 4 scapulae are
not definitely identified as human.
Second, the scapulae may have been redeposited by scavengers, as the rodent bones suggested.
This might have occurred at any point since the burial. However, as the remains were heavily
385
decayed and soil processes had removed evidence of burrows, it can perhaps be placed earlier
rather than later. It is chiefly shallow or surface burials which are affected by scavengers. We have
no means of knowing how far below the contemporary ground surface these Anglo-Saxon graves
were placed, but it is not inconceivable that some were shallow enough to be opened by
scavengers. In this case, the unusual position of the corpse may be the result of dragging by a
large animal such as fox or dog pulling at the hand. Paul Barber (1988: 133-146) describes many
comparable cases where scavengers left hands actually protruding from graves, leading to
macabre tales of live burial.
The third possibility is that the intact skeleton was a secondary burial, cut through and largely
obliterating the first, which is represented only by the redeposited shoulder blades. Such graves,
described variously as consecutive multiple burials or secondary re-use, are discussed in detail in
Chapter 6.2. Secondary burials with evidence of violence to the deceased, as in the contorted
position and damage to the arm of the Gr 4 corpse, recur at several sites.
Grave 8
There was a “?disturbed” area in the fill in the centre of this grave, where the coffin line
disappeared and two iron fragments were found in this disturbed fill. No disturbance was
reported to the underlying burial with its spearhead and knife, although the notes give the
impression that preservation was in any case too poor for minor disorder to be detectable
(cutting book 89).
Grave 11
As work begins on Gr 11 the site journal describes it as “an exceptionally wide grave with flaking
shelving sides”. The accompanying sketch shows what may be a secondary cut widening the N
side. This appears to obliterate a postulated matching pair to the posthole on the S side (site
journal 78). The notes comment “A rather shattered N outline threatened at first, but this
confined only to this side on further cleaning. Traces of PH in S edge, E end but N side less
certain” (cutting book 71).
Clearly similar difficulties were faced here as in Gr 4 (see above) in distinguishing between
robbing cuts and structural features. “Finding cuts” or slight re-cuts of the upper parts of grave
cuts are noted in a few graves at most of the disturbed sites, and seem to indicate robbers’
attempts to locate the exactly where to dig into the grave fills (Perkins 1985a: 45, Chapter 5.1).
386
As the grave is opened, “The worst is confirmed by bone sticking up at all angles everywhere –
tibia sticking upright in fill at E end, pelvis frag just to W of it, skull turned over on face” (cutting
book 71). No finds, and “it seems clearly robbed” (site journal 81). The rotation of the skull may
have been deliberate, as it was flanked by two large flints (sketch in cutting book 71). Intentional
rearrangement of skeletal parts in disturbed graves is highly unusual, and perhaps evidence of
attempts to set revenants to rest or to prevent revenge by the robbed dead (Chapter 6.3).
The loose nature of the fill is noted several times. After ‘compact humic appearance at highest
level”, it quickly turns into “very loose, pockety, rubble fill” (cutting book 71), apparently
noticeably different from the fill of the undisturbed graves excavated up to this point.
Grave 12
Gr 12 has previously been reported as robbed (Härke 1992: 65). However, the evidence is not as
substantial as for some other graves at the site.
Like Gr 72, this burial was surrounded by a penannular ditch indicative of the original existence
of a barrow. Gr 12 was dug, along with Gr 13 and several others, by excavators from Cecil
Hogarth’s site, pupils from his school’s archaeological society, who also excavated the nearby St
Peter’s Tip cemetery. St Peter’s is well known for the high proportion of graves with internal and
external structural features (Hogarth 1973), and also remarkable for a high level of early grave
robbery (see below). As work on Gr 12 began, the director commented that one of these
excavators “thinks he can identify loose areas in fill wh. could be post-holes, an analogy with St
Peter’s Tip” (site journal 70).
But interpretation soon moved towards robbing, as the rubbly upper fill proved reminiscent of
that in nearby Gr 11. Finds of a fragment of medieval tile and a tiny red glass bead in the upper
fill also pointed that way (site journal 94).
The skeleton, once revealed, proved to be substantially in situ but “in curious attitude – crooked
R leg ?an old wound or rigor mortis” (cutting book 95). The site journal notes that “The skeleton
is v oddly laid – R leg akimbo, if such legs can be, & and the arms clasped oddly at R side. Bones
in poor condition, but carpals, metacarpals and phalanges have survived oddly well” (site journal
96). The draft grave catalogue has “skull displaced to W and right humerus absent” (draft grave
catalogue, 1977). The catalogue lists the finds as the glass bead from the fill, bronze buckle, iron
nail, and iron knife.
387
The unusual position of the legs finds parallels at St Peter’s (below) where several undisturbed
bodies seem to have been buried with the knees bent and raised. There is therefore no reason to
see this as evidence of early reopening and repositioning of the corpse.
On the other hand, the rubbly fill with its loose areas may be evidence of robber entry, and on
the plan there does seem to be some disturbance to the area of the head, neck and right arm,
including the apparent removal of the humerus. If this is robbing, it happened after
skeletonization.
The artefacts in the upper fill are likely to be examples of objects collecting in hollows above
graves, especially disturbed graves (Chapter 5.3).
Grave 13
Cecil Hogarth’s pupils also excavated Gr 13, initially describing it as “large with a very loose fill,
possibly robbed” (site journal 70). Some sort of secondary cut into the grave was identified,
perhaps another shallow grave set at an angle (site journal 73), though robbing remained a
possibility (site journal 74). The cutting book notes that both this grave and Gr 1 from the first
season are distinctly pear-shaped, and the accompanying sketch appears to show extensions to
the grave cut producing this unusual form (cutting book 73).
But once the grave was fully opened, no further mention of robbing was made in the records.
Skeletal preservation was very poor, but “splendid bone silhouettes” were photographed and
finds included wood, leather, 2 bronze buckles, an iron spearhead, and an iron knife. The
presence of grave-goods and absence of apparent disorder in the grave contents seem to have
negated initial suspicions of disturbance.
Grave 15
Expectations were high as work began on this grave: “excavation began with some hopes since
its alignment and proximity to gr. 10 suggested it could be a grave from the earliest phase of the
site e.g. C5 or early C6” (cutting book 81). However, unusual features were immediately noted,
with apparent expansion to one or both sides of the grave. Internal structures, recutting for a
secondary burial, and plough damage were all considered.
In the end though, “The big event - & disappointment of the day was the excavation of 15 which
proved it totally disturbed and empty of all but a few ?long bone frags at S end (head end, judging
by its plan)” (site journal 89). This “tiny pile of frag. long bones towards S end” (cutting book 81)
388
is probably an example of the heaping of remains at the ends of graves also found at St Peter’s
and elsewhere (Chapter 5.1).
Grave 30
This grave appears to have been the subject of a failed robbing attempt. It is described as a
splendid example of the beam slot type, with a ledge at the west end (cutting book 115). There
was an apparent robber cut in the centre, but this petered out and the burial below was
undisturbed: “perhaps the robbers missed their target”. The spearhead in the fill at the west end
of the grave was almost certainly in its original position (Chapter 6.1).
Grave 32
Gr 32 was clearly disturbed almost from the start of excavation, with bones and artefacts strewn
randomly in every layer of fill. The only finds were “5 beads, by the skull amidships incl. 3
decorated glass beads, 1 bone and 1 amber” (cutting book 117). There is no indication of
whether these were found close together, as though an intact string had been moved. Perhaps
one spadeful moved both head and beads to the middle of the grave.
Grave 37
This grave was also identified as robbed from beginning, with the fill a mess of bones and
artefacts. It was disturbed right to the head and foot ends, but with some central bones
apparently in situ. The excavators seem to suggest that separate holes had been dug at each end.
A silver stain implies a removed artefact, but decay in situ cannot be ruled out (Chapter 4.9).
Grave 50
This grave was cut into the fill of a prehistoric ditch, giving “a good hard edge”, although the
diggers reported that “The E end is a bit vague” and the sketch shows a possible secondary cut
there (cutting book 151), though it might be a ledge (site journal 139). From the description it
sounds as though most of the contents were severely disturbed, possibly in this case mainly
strewn across the grave floor rather than in the fill, with the implication that the robbers were
working within an open coffin space (Chapter 5.1).
Grave 55
This is almost certainly an example of a secondary burial cut down through and severely
disturbing the primary (Chapter 6.2)
389
Grave 64
For most of the excavation it looked as though this would be a disordered upper burial above an
intact lower body (like e.g. Gr 55). However, the conclusion of the notes seems to be that a hole
had been dug into the central part of the grave and the bones from around the chest to the knees
redeposited in the fill. Various fill anomalies suggested robber cuts, but none of these seems to
have straightforwardly led to the disturbed area.
Grave 65
This was a reopened weapon grave with disturbance concentrated on the upper body. The
excavators suggested a sword as the target, since none was found (see Chapter 6.1). It is unclear
whether the artefacts were fragmentary because they had decayed or because they had been
damaged during the disturbance, in which case they must have been in poor condition by the
time of reopening.
Grave 66
This grave was clearly disturbed with bones and artefacts in disarray. However it was not judged
by the excavators to have been robbed, mainly because so many grave goods remained: “At any
rate the presence of the shield suggest that this grave has not been disturbed by human agency,
tho animals have clearly been active” (Cutting Book p181-182). No actual signs of animal activity
are recorded, other than the displacement of objects, so it seems likely that this is an
interpretation of the disorder rather than an observation. As shown in Chapter 6.1, many
disturbed graves contain large numbers of artefacts, and shields in particular frequently remain.
This grave has not been counted among the disturbed burials for this study, but there are good
reasons for thinking it one of them.
Grave 67
This was seen as the largest in a nucleated group of weapon graves (Webster & Cherry 1975: 223)
and the excavators clearly felt it had been targeted due to its wealth: “The fact that it has been
robbed also suggests that it was perhaps more grandly furnished still than 71 or 66 or 74”
(Cutting Book p184). However, that the two halves of the shield grip were found at opposite
sides of the grave suggests that both wood and iron were in poor condition by the time the grave
was reopened. It is also indicative of the haphazard manner with which most graves seem to have
390
been ransacked. Gr 67 seems to have been thoroughly disturbed; no bones or artefacts are
mentioned as still in situ.
Grave 72
The only disturbance mentioned here is to the head, which had been removed and replaced
upsidedown “on an otherwise perfectly articulated extended supine corpse”. It is not clear
whether the “[?]cranial bone high in fill – part of tibia and a tooth” came from this burial. If they
did, the possibility of articulation at the time of disturbance can be discounted. In that case the
decapitation must be the result of reopening after fleshy decomposition was complete. Otherwise,
it may well simply be a peri- or post-mortem decapitation. There is no mention of cut marks, but
these are rarely preserved/reported (Chapter 5.1). The excavators seem fairly sure that the
redeposition of the head is due to reopening, but they do not record any evidence to support the
idea, for example in the form of a robber cut.
Grave 83
Grave 83 is described as robbed and “very churned up”, but the mention of finds on the legs
suggests that perhaps these at least were in situ.
Grave 94
Here again there is uncertainty about identifying grave structures, especially with possibly
disturbed fill and recut grave sides. The skull was on the chest, but this may well be due to bone
tumble, especially if originally pillowed (Appendix 2). The small animal, whatever it was, does not
seem to have done any lasting damage – if indeed it entered the grave alive. The excavators
thought its position perhaps due to deliberate placing, which might either be at the original
interment or during the possible reopening.
Grave 95
This grave was thoroughly disturbed. “Animal runs” are mentioned on the north edge of the
upper fill. The excavators do not seem to have thought them related to the disturbance, but more
information would have been desirable.
Grave 97
There is little information about this grave, but it was heavily disturbed, with only skull fragments
and thighbones on the grave floor.
391
Grave 98
The site documentation gives no indication that two skeletons were found here. However, the
entry for this grave in ASKED shows that two individuals were subsequently identified as
represented by the bones, and it is just possible that the cause of the apparent disturbance was a
replaced primary burial. Alternatively, and probably more likely, this is a double grave in which
both burials have been disturbed.
392
Broadstairs III, St. Peter’s Tip
(Wilson 1971: 126, Broadstairs and St Peter's Archaeological Society 1973, Richardson 2005,
excavation archive held by British Museum.)
Table 10, Fig. 12-101
A rescue excavation over three seasons from 1969 to 1971 recorded 388 graves in advance of the
construction of a municipal refuse tip. The excavation was directed by AC Hogarth, head of
Classics at Chatham House Grammar School, Ramsgate, and mainly carried out by pupils from
the school’s archaeological society. The school group was supported by adult volunteers
including members of the Broadstairs and St Peter’s Archaeological Society. The excavation was
also assisted by Sonia Hawkes and her friend Mary James of Updown, Eastry. Schoolboy humour
on grave sheets notwithstanding, the records are among the most detailed in this sample.
The excavated graves do not represent the whole of the site. Six burials had previously been
discovered about 40m to the east of the main group, and 11 were subsequently found about 20m
to the west. These latter were thought late 7th or early 8th century (Richardson 2005b: 14).
Since 1984 the material has been in the British Museum, where the archive has recently been
reorganised. The site remains unpublished and almost entirely unstudied, although much
preparation was carried out by Catherine Haith. Access to the original paperwork was kindly
permitted for the preparation of this thesis, as ancient grave robbery was such a marked feature
of the St Peter’s cemetery. Reports of early robbing emerged with the excavation, with Medieval
Archaeology’s 1971 update announcing that: “Evidence of large-scale contemporary grave-robbing
continues, and not one of many graves that were once richly-furnished has survived unlooted”.
This evidence is now presented and examined for the first time.
The main sources used here are the grave sheets and plans completed by the excavators; a draft
grave catalogue compiled by Catherine Haith; and the initial stage of a human bone report
entitled “Demographic and sexing anomalies”. The grave catalogue was in an early stage of
preparation and contains both errors and omissions, but these were checked against the original
paperwork. Haith’s notes also identify errors in the published plan (Hogarth 1973), but none
affect the graves discussed here. All the data used here are preliminary, including the numbers of
graves and burials but especially the sexing and ageing of skeletons and the details of grave
assemblages. Sex and age are derived from a combination of the grave sheets, Haith’s catalogue,
the anomalies report and the ASKED database, which in most cases are in accord.
393
Haith’s notes show that she considered the robbing a key issue at St Peter’s, but had not yet
reached any conclusions about its extent or implications. She was aware of the parallels at
Ozengell, and at three sites outside Kent, but not of the prevalence of robbing elsewhere in
Thanet. As she put it:
“Central to any discussion of the St Peter’s burials is the marked incidence of what is slickly
referred to in the published literature as post-depositional disturbance, which would appear
to cover a multitude of sins, amongst them at St Peter’s the systematic looting of rich
graves. If skeletons at Raunds exhibit so-called bone tumbling then those at St Peter’s on
occasions achieve double somersaults, but it is important to try and assess which
dislocation could have been caused by natural phenomena, such as the collapse of coffins
or similar structures, animal burrowing, and what constitutes deliberate interference by
human agency... It is clear that a wealth of information from the site worthy of examination,
as over 10% of burials exhibit some form of disturbance.”
(C. Haith notes in St Peter’s archive, ?1986)
Haith goes on to identify some of the most convincingly robbed graves, reconstructing their
original grave assemblages: Gr 3, 57, 62, 140, 182, 200, 235, 333. Her examples are selected to
highlight the variety in the robbing evidence: displaced bones can be on the grave floor (Gr 57),
in the fill (Gr 62), or piled up (Gr 140 and 182). Disturbed graves contain broken, dispersed
fragments of rich and varied assemblages (Gr 182 and 200), or no artefacts at all (Gr 235). The
dates are mainly 7th century, but can be earlier (Gr 333). Graves may be robbed so early that
corpses were apparently still articulated (Gr 3), or bones and artefacts objects may be friable and
fragmenting (Gr 57).
For this thesis some 54 burials at St Peter’s have been identified as probably or possibly robbed
in antiquity (Table 10). They are discussed individually below, along with a number of others in
which robbing is judged unlikely, but requires consideration. The individual grave discussions
below try to set out each case as fully as necessary, but reference should also be made to the
excavators’ notes (Table 10) and the grave plans (Fig. 15-101). Some of the 54 were described as
disturbed by the excavators, but some were not. It is unclear what, other than boldness of
interpretation, caused some graves to be labelled as robbed, while other fairly clear examples (e.g.
Gr 226) were not. Some graves described as disturbed during excavation can be otherwise
explained (e.g. Gr 288). The notes on the grave forms rarely explain the excavators’ reasoning in
full.
394
In this analysis robbing is for the most part diagnosed by disordered skeletons, but also displaced
grave goods and in some cases fill anomalies or re-cutting of the tops of grave cuts. One or two
disturbed graves also have over-deep cutting into the grave floor, but in most robbing seems to
have occurred within intact coffins. It is evident from various comments that the excavators
could at least sometimes detect more information about changes in fill, robber cuts, and the
internal stratigraphy of graves than they recorded. There are no section drawings, so that
depicting disturbed objects at different heights is problematic on the plans.
In addition there are a number of borderline cases: Gr 101 is almost certainly just poor
preservation; in Gr 155 one leg may be disturbed; a remark on the form for Gr 170 suggests the
legs are displaced; Gr 216 might be dug out or more likely just very badly decayed, but unusual
fill is noted; Gr 221 may be the disturbed grave of a child, if that was really the shadow of a long
bone at the foot; Gr 273 is very decayed but the only long bone shadow is in an unexpected,
though not totally implausible, position; for Gr 284 only the grave plan survives showing the
grave cut through at head and foot, the centre part seems also disturbed, but there is no further
information; the head of Gr 356 is missing, either never buried or removed, in which case this
may be a reopening of the revenant type (Chapter 6.3); Gr 122 is unusual in being entirely empty
except for a tooth in approximately the right area and orange fabric rim sherd 6” into the fill at
the foot, but this is almost certainly decay plus a ploughed-in fragment; Gr 217 had been
bulldozed. Finally Gr 29 had an area of loose fill over the thorax, a commonly disturbed area, but
the underlying skeleton is probably undisturbed. This is the kind of footprint that would be left
by careful early robbing of an articulated corpse inside an intact coffin – but could never be
proved.
Minor disturbance or the appearance of disturbance is judged here to be due to unusual body
positions in a number of graves: the corpse in Gr 86 was sitting up; Gr 117 seems to have had an
unusual arm position plus skull tumble; the suspicious appearance of Gr 225 is probably just
poor preservation of upper body with skull tumble; Gr 243 had an unusual body position due to
a too short grave; Gr 258 and 328 had legs flexed upwards at knees at burial and collapsing
sideways or into a bow-legged position; Gr 327 has a degree of bone tumble because pelvis was
lying oddly against the wall, causing finger bones to spread during decay; skulls were propped in
Gr 329 and 368; and a propped or sitting upper body collapsed in Gr 377.
Undisturbed Gr 277 has an interesting if elliptical comment on effect of coffin collapse on decay:
there was a marked difference in preservation between the solid lower legs and the powdery rest
395
of the skeleton which the excavators put down to “the fact that they fell with the chalk when the
coffin collapsed instead of waiting to be crushed”. It seems likely that more of internal
stratigraphy of the graves was observable than was thought worth recording.
Undisturbed Gr 382 has a destructive secondary burial (Chapter 6.2), with most of the primary
skeleton scattered throughout the grave, except the skull, which is tucked in the crook of the
secondary elbow.
The tops of the grave cuts of disturbed burials are reported as damaged in several cases, as
though the robbers had slightly recut them before finding the exact outlines of the chalk-cut
graves. However, the upper parts of graves can also be irregularly cut without any robbing, e.g.
Gr 278.
There are several examples of objects collecting in hollows above disturbed burials (Chapter 5.3).
More than one disturbed grave has a potsherd or two of orange fabric stored with its assemblage
but not recorded on the sheet or plan. As far as it is possible to tell from photographs taken in a
basement, these are likely to be post-medieval (Paul Blinkhorn, pers. comm.). It seems likely that
they came from the upper fill and so were kept, but not drawn on the essentially two-dimensional
grave plans, and not considered part of even the disturbed grave assemblages. Later intrusions
into the upper fill could also happen on occasion to undisturbed burials: Gr 95 had a piece of
claypipe 2” into the fill, but the underlying burial was to all appearances untouched.
Towards the end of the excavation, “animal activity” was recorded on several grave forms,
though robbed graves continued to be diagnosed. There is no explanation of what sort of animals
are meant, nor what were the signs of their activity. It is not clear whether animals are suddenly
mentioned because there was clear evidence of their work, or because this was an interpretation
of disturbance which had gained popularity. Perhaps the excavation had reached part of the grave
field (northern end) where conditions were suitable for burrowers.
Specifically: the disturbance in Gr 297 was put down to animal activity, though without
explanation. The grave form is missing. Bones fragmented during disturbance, with even the
femurs in dispersed pieces, which is unlike all or almost all the robbed graves. There was bronze
staining on the mandible. Bones seem to be in the fill rather than on the grave floor. From the
position of the bones I am inclined to think this grave was robbed in a similar way to the
neighbouring ones, with the skeleton pushed to one side, even if there was evidence of
subsequent animal activity of some kind, but there is insufficient information to be certain. Gr
379 was also thought animal disturbance, again without any explanation.
396
Traces of fieldmice were found in the skull of Gr 241, and thought recent, but had not caused
any evident disturbance to the poorly preserved grave contents. The form of Gr 385 notes “soft
patches of brown earth taken down by animals” in the fill, but the underlying burial appears
undisturbed, beyond what was caused by a propped skull and coffin collapse. Gr 381 is
interpreted as showing “Marked animal disturbance”, but all the disorder looks explainable by the
near-sitting position of the corpse, which was “on a slope of packed chalk with head up”. No
animal traces are actually drawn or described, and it seems likely that this comment is an
interpretation of the disorder, rather than an observation.
In addition, several graves were attacked by modern robbers during the excavation (e.g. Gr 30, 31,
43). This seems to have happened overnight between working days and its effects were obvious.
Gr 31 and 43 were thought also disturbed in antiquity, but the later vandalism makes this harder
to assess.
A high proportion of graves contained evidence for internal or external structures, such as post-
holes indicative of pitched roofs or other superstructures. These had previously been noted at
other East Kent sites, but were classified and published for the first time in an article on St
Peter’s (Hogarth 1973, Chapter 4.5). Some 20 of the 54 disturbed graves had a grave structure of
some kind. As Table 6 shows, small proportions of graves with each type of grave structure were
robbed. The exception is ring ditches, which graves may possibly have been avoided by robbers.
Likewise it looks as though having a post marker may perhaps have increased the chances of a
grave being robbed, since the frequency in unrobbed graves is markedly lower than in robbed
ones. However, with the low numbers involved, the partial excavation of the cemetery, and the
evolving recognition of both structures and robbing throughout the excavations, these should
not be regarded as more than preliminary indications.
This said, one pattern that may be significant is the relatively high numbers of robbed graves with
kerb-slots. This kind of grave seems to attract higher rates of robbing at other sites as well
(Chapter 4.5). At St Peter’s seven graves were surrounded by sub-rectangular kerb-slots of
Hogarth’s type IIa/IId containing remains of upright sandstone slabs (Hogarth 1973). Going by
the plan and the grave catalogue, these were Gr 64, 168, 226, 231, 237, 242, 251. All but Gr 168,
242 and 231 are probably robbed. Gr 168 and 231 are too poorly preserved for any disturbance
to be recognisable. Gr 242 is the burial of a child, with the skeleton entirely decomposed. It is
therefore possible that all the graves with kerb-slots at St Peter’s were reopened, and 4 out of 7
were probably so.
397
There were 6 graves at St Peter’s in which some degree of skeletal articulation at disturbance was
thought possible (3, 78, 165, 210, 268, 270). However, the evidence is persuasive in only two: Gr
165 and Gr 270. The latter is not dated other than to the broad 7th century. However Gr 165
contained large numbers of artefacts, sufficient to pin its likely date down to between AD 650
and 670 (ASKED, Chapter 4.9). Rates of decay are highly variable, but this robbing must have
occurred within a limited number of years of AD 670, at the very latest.
In his 1973 article Hogarth commented on how widely the St Peter’s graves varied in “design,
standard of excavation and degree of weathering” (Hogarth 1973: 109). Similar comments on the
variety of grave cuts are also made elsewhere (Section 6.2). The impression is not of grave-
digging as a specialized role, but of graves dug by a variety of individuals, presumably kin.
Probably the “puddled chalk” mentioned in several disturbed and undisturbed graves at St Peter’s
is an example of the kind of weathering to which Hogarth refers. This is an indication that graves
might be dug in advance of burials, though considerable damage to such a cut might happen only
overnight. At nearby Bradstow School the excavators noted, “a night of heavy rain, leaving some
of the unprotected graves e.g. 11 & 16 lined with puddled chalk when we came on site at 8:30”
(Site Journal p89, 21/08/71).
Grave 3
This is one of the graves in which articulation at the time of disturbance is claimed on the grave
sheet: “position of R leg suggests whole limb cohesive enough to have separated at time of
disturbance and subsequently remained articulated”. However, the evidence is unconvincing. In
the first place, the limb does not look articulated on the grave drawing. Rather, it looks like the
kind of heaping or sweeping of contents towards the foot of the grave which the excavators went
on to find in many more burials. At this stage they were of course unaware of that pattern.
Secondly, the rest of the skeleton was clearly defleshed, to the extent that bones dispersed and
teeth fell out. On the other hand, bones do not appear to have fragmented; they were reasonably
fresh. The robbers appear to have operated within a coffin space, since the remains were all
moved around on the floor. Wood preservation was sufficiently good for the excavators to
discern parts of the coffin floor on which the bones directly lay. If wood could survive on the
1300 year timescale, it is reasonable to suppose that its initial decomposition was also rather slow,
so that an intact coffin might still be encountered at this site well after fleshy decomposition was
complete (see also Chapter 4.9).
398
Grave 14
The bones of the legs appear disturbed on the plan, which might just suggest bone tumble from a
propped position, but as the grave catalogue notes, the left femur seems to be missing.
Grave 31
The foot of this grave was dug out by modern robbers during the excavation. There was also
disorder in the rest of the grave indicative of ancient disturbance. I was initially sceptical about
the diagnosis of two phases of robbing, but on examination of the plan it is clear why the
excavators received that impression.
The cut into the foot end was obvious, and presumably not backfilled. There was no discernable
cut into the rest of the grave, yet the objects were totally disarranged. The ancient robbers appear
to have been selective about what they removed from the grave, since they left several bones and
grave-goods including beads and iron objects scattered across the floor of the grave. The
impression is that the ancient robbers ‘picked through’ the burial, while their modern equivalents
dug out its contents wholesale.
Even the ancient robbing must have occurred well into the process of decomposition, as the
skeleton and bead necklace broke apart during the disturbance. However, that the objects are
strewn on the grave floor rather than in the fill strongly suggests that they worked within an
intact coffin space. On the other hand, the crushed skull raises the possibility that the coffin had
collapsed, but that the roof pieces were sufficiently intact for the robbers to be able to lift them
off and expose the whole burial layer. Both sets of robbers had the sense to leave the outer fill of
chalk which had been packed round the coffin and dig only into the central soil that encased the
burial itself.
Grave 43
This is another grave which the excavators believed to have been robbed both in antiquity and
recently (June 1969). However the plan shows only an empty grave, perhaps with the dotted line
at the bottom corner indicating the extent of the modern robber cut, so it is not possible to
reconstruct the excavators’ reasoning. The few finds, coffin nails and a knife tang, were “loose in
disturbed soil”. Presumably the excavators had grounds for diagnosing ancient disturbance in
addition to the modern looting, but neither the grave sheet nor the plan present any evidence to
that effect.
399
Grave 45
There was no sign of modern vandalism here. As in almost all of the anciently robbed graves, no
robber cut was discernable at all, yet the bones of the left leg were clearly disturbed, lying away
from the rest of the body with the proximal end of the left femur pointing towards the foot of
the grave. The absence of much of the rest of the skeleton was felt to be due to decay rather than
removal, as areas of bone shadow indicated. Again the robbers were operating in a space free
from soil, as they were able to move objects around on the grave floor. The pushing of the bones
of one leg to the foot of the grave is similar to Gr 3, though the damage to the rest of that grave
was much greater. As Gr 45 is the burial of a young man with weapons represented by a
spearhead, the disturbance might be interpreted as caused by the removal of a sword lying by the
left leg, as on a right-handed man.
Grave 54
The grave sheet records that this grave “looked robbed almost from outset”. For the first 2 feet
the excavators encountered “mixed fill”, earthy with chalk lumps, containing grave-goods
including a sword broken in two, a broken spear socket, a knife, spear ferrule, and pieces of a
scabbard. At this point they “thought there would be only a disturbed burial”. However as they
dug deeper the fill separated into the more usual packed chalk outside the coffin line and looser
fill within it, and they encountered an apparently intact burial below the disturbed zone.
The excavators’ interpretation was that “This grave contained 2 burials: A) the lower intact but in
poor condition, with spear 1 by left shoulder; B) upper represented by disturbed grave goods but
spear 2 still in position at left side [?above] coffin line. Either the people who buried A disturbed
B leaving spear 2 in position OR burial B was taken by the robbers who did not penetrate below.
This probably the most likely interpretation.”
The draft grave catalogue observes that “The assumption that this is a double burial seems based
upon the position of the iron spearhead, but it could equally well be a single disturbed burial with
both spearheads still in situ, one by the skeleton, and the other lying on top of the coffin.”
It seems probable that this is an example of a secondary burial cut right through the primary
(Section 6.2), and as such it has not been counted among the disturbed burials, but it is fair to say
a question mark remains over this one.
The draft grave catalogue lists a Samian ware pottery rim sherd in the upper fill of this grave.
400
Grave 57
Haith calls this “clearly a robbed rich male burial”. Hogarth notes on the grave sheet that the
finds suggest to him “a shield with decorated (and hence coveted) boss, and poss a sword”. Haith
lists “two iron shield studs, two tinned copper alloy shield studs, a sheet copper alloy rim clip, an
iron shield grip, but not shield boss, a copper alloy miniature buckle, an iron buckle and plate, a
sheet copper alloy scabbard mount and fragments of an iron sword blade and wood, and a
portion of the split socket from a spearhead”.
This was evidently a well-furnished weapon grave, and the excavators clearly felt that the
gravegoods had attracted the robbers. However, it is equally evident that by the time of robbing
the artefacts were severely decayed and fragmenting. A shield boss seems to be missing, but the
rest of the shield was broken apart, accidently or deliberately, and left behind. Pieces of objects
are strewn across the grave floor. There is some confusion in the records about whether parts of
a sword were actually found in the grave, but if so it was certainly in pieces. It is difficult to see
that the worth of the grave assemblage in terms of use value or splendid display was a fraction of
what it had been at the funeral. Other forms of worth, for example through association with a
notable individual, might well be still intact, but it cannot have been the straightforward
“richness” of the original grave as reconstructed by archaeologists which attracted the reopening.
Of the skeleton only the femurs were left anything like in situ, with the tibias disarranged, but it is
unclear how much the absence of the rest is absent due to decay, or because removed. The bones
and artefacts are spread across the grave floor, indicating a clear working space for the robbers.
Grave 62
The bones in this grave were disarticulated and liable to fragment when disturbed. They are
described as “up off the floor, at varying heights”, so that the coffin was probably soil-filled at
the time of robbing, and the remains dug through in a way that apparently caused considerable
damage.
The only artefacts left were beads, which lay in a fairly localised area of the grave so that the
excavators suggested this might have been “one string of a multi-string necklace which broke and
spilled beads back into the grave”.
Grave 64
The disturbance to the skeleton and grave goods is evident on the grave plan. The skull and
remaining arm bones appear in situ, while the bones of the legs have been moved down towards
401
the foot end, as seen in Gr 3 and 45. Remains of various other bones including some from a
hand are collected with the leg bones. Twelve beads are spread around the lower torso area. Two
pieces of an iron knife were found, one in the presumable pelvic area and one with the leg bone
collection. It appears therefore that the knife was fragmenting by the time of disturbance, but
that the coffin was intact and gave a clear working space.
Grave 69
There are no gravegoods and all the surviving skeletal parts had been moved into the foot of the
grave. The word used by the excavators was “thrown”. It is not clear how much of the skeleton
was removed and how much decayed in this heap, as the condition of the remaining bones was
very bad.
Grave 71
Bone preservation here is poor. As the plan shows, the skull fragments are displaced to the left
side, but such a minor disturbance could easily be the result of the tumbling of a pillowed head,
crushing and movement during coffin collapse, or burrowing by small mammals. However, the
displacement of the tibia is more marked and also suggests disturbance over the whole area of the
grave, so that this is counted as “possibly robbed”. If it was reopened, which seems likely, it
happened while the coffin was still intact and the robbers were able to lift out any artefacts
without digging through the whole contents.
Grave 78
Again the signs of disturbance here are slight and difficult to distinguish from skeletal decay. The
excavators have by now picked up on the reasoning that graves like this in which disturbance is
limited to particular areas and all the remains still lie on the grave floor were reopened while the
coffin was still intact.
Grave 79
In this case the excavators seem to have judged the missing skeletal parts (upper body except
arms, skull) to have been removed rather than decayed. The artefact fragments left behind were
in fill just above the skeleton, suggesting that this burial may have been dug through, rather than
in a coffin space. No coffin line was found.
402
Grave 83
This is the grave of a child which the excavator thought just possibly disturbed in the upper part,
though without explaining why. It has not been counted among the robbed graves for this
analysis.
Grave 96
The only remaining skeletal parts were in situ fragments of a collapsed skull. The excavator
thought the rest had been robbed out in antiquity. If so, this happened without damaging the
coffin floor, large parts of which could still be seen. However, decomposition in situ does not
seem impossible, and the gravegoods are not definitely disordered beyond what might occur
naturally during coffin collapse or the rolling of a pillowed head.
The remains are described as “in 1/2" of grey silt... on floor below normal grey silt”. This may be
evidence of delayed backfilling, or perhaps more likely is the kind of varied weathering of grave
cuts noted by Hogarth (Chapter 6.2). It is a pity that the stratigraphy was not explored in more
detail here. Gr 90 is an undisturbed burial with a similar silt layer; in both cases it probably
formed preburial rather than after robbing.
Grave 97
The excavators suspected this was robbed above the waist and at the left side. Bones from these
areas appear to be missing, although the preservation of the others was very poor – the skull is
described as “sponge”. If robbed, this happened inside an intact coffin.
The group of artefact fragments at the foot of the grave was interpreted as iron mounts from a
wooden object, which the excavators suggested had been a “sword scabbard, broken by grave
robbers and dropped inside coffin”.
“Grey/black silt on floor 2" deep” is noted here, similar to that in neighbouring Gr 96.
Grave 126
Convincingly disturbed, with most of the remains heaped at the foot end. There are teeth midway
down the grave, which perhaps fell out of the mandible as the bones were moved. The records
are not clear, but it seems the bones were all found on the grave floor, with some objects in the
chalk rubble above. On the other hand, the spear ferrule is listed as under one of the legs. The
sherd and tile fragment high in the fill are probably examples of objects collecting in the hollows
403
above disturbed graves (Chapter 5.3). The skeleton is of a child, but at over 6 foot long the grave
is not child-sized (Chapter 4.4).
Grave 130
Only the long bone shafts survive, but most are significantly out of position and at different
heights in the fill. The collapsed skull seems to be in situ and the crushed pieces have not been
scattered.
Grave 131
It seems likely that bones and artefacts have been removed from the upper body here, although
severe localised decomposition cannot be ruled out. The skull appears too close to the lower
body, but this may well be a mistake in the drawing.
The fair copy of the drawing makes robbing look much more probable, because the extra detail
put on the remaining bones makes them appear in better condition than the original drawing or
grave sheet imply.
Grave 140
Only the legs and one lower arm are in situ, with the “remaining bones swept into a pile at the
head of the grave”. This seems to be the same method as the heaping at the foot, but reversed. In
this grave the heaping is markedly neat, with the long bones apparently deliberately laid out
across the width of the cut. It is possible that they were all pushed rather than lifted into position,
but there is surely human intention behind the pattern here.
Grave 147
This was almost entirely emptied, with only fragments of bones and a few mainly broken
artefacts remaining. Some of these seemed to represent a chatelaine complex. The grave had an
unusual boat-shaped floor, which might be the result of over-digging by the robbers. (On the
other hand, Gr 87, 88, and 89 are all boat shaped without apparently being robbed.) The L side
of Gr 147 was bowed out, giving the impression of a recut. No coffin trace was seen and it seems
likely that either there never was a coffin, or it had disintegrated and the robbers dug out what
was left along with the other remains.
The grave catalogue notes that a pottery sherd, (orange fabric, body fragment with line border
from below rim, L 2.8cm) is associated with the assemblage from this grave but is not shown on
404
the grave form or plan. It is almost certainly another example of artefacts collecting above
robbed graves (Chapter 5.3).
Grave 165
The grave form has not been completed, but the disturbance is evident on the plan and is
included in the draft catalogue. Unless the drawing went very wrong, a section of the skeleton (R
femur, pelvis, lower spine) must have been articulated at the time of robbing and moved together.
Large numbers of artefact fragments were found, most part of a chatelaine complex and a
necklace. Both the necklace and the chatelaine were whole at the time of disturbance and moved
intact, which supports the interpretation of this as a grave which was robbed soon after the burial.
Grave 182
Bones and objects are widely scattered across the grave floor but with some heaping of the leg
bones and pelvis at the foot. The many fragments of artefacts indicate a weapon burial, but the
scattered studs and other pieces show that objects were in poor condition by the time the grave
was robbed.
Grave 185
This grave was dug through after the wood of the coffin had deteriorated enough to be cut
through. Bones and pieces of wood were found in the fill. Unusually it seems robbing was aimed
at the foot end, or rather at most of the grave from the foot end up. Skull fragments were in situ
with a shield above.
Grave 186
Close by Gr 185, this was also thought “obviously disturbed in antiquity”. The stratigraphy is
difficult to reconstruct, but it seems that a layer of broken sandstone slabs lay over part of the
coffin, with some of the displaced remains underneath and others within the coffin line but away
from the stones. It does not look as though the sandstone slabs had been lifted off the main part
of the coffin; rather entry has been made at one or both ends and objects pulled out. However,
recording this sort of detail about how robbing was carried out was not a priority for the
excavation.
405
Grave 198
The grave form is tantalising: “apart from an animal burrow the grave appears to have been
robbed in antiquity the cuts being made by the head and along the right hand side”. Sadly, none
of this is shown on the drawing. Where was the animal burrow? Does that explain the
displacement of the metatarsal? Were there noticeable cuts at the head and on the right hand side?
Were these in fact seen in other “robbed” graves but taken for granted and not mentioned? What
did they look like? How could they be distinguished from the four sockets cut into the grave
edges? If this grave was robbed, disturbance is confined to the upper body/neck.
Grave 200
Convincingly and radically robbed. The coffin (“firm wood remains cut through the grain”) is left
only in the head end. There is a noticeable change of fill between this area and the thoroughly
disturbed rest. However, only a spearhead and the crushed skull seem to be in situ within the
coffin, as though other objects were pulled out (see Årby boat-grave). From the way the grave
side curves at the foot, it looks as though the robbers dug deeply into the grave long about half
its length and then found they could reach in for the rest. The dispersed fragments are of a
weapon grave with many artefacts. However, the spearhead and shield boss are definitely left and
the grave catalogue lists “sword remains including blade and scabbard fragments scattered in
grave”, so that if recoverable weapons were the targets, the robbers were in for a disappointment.
Grave 203
The excavators considered that “Because of loose soil and lack of any associated finds it is
obvious that the grave has been robbed”. However, the grave is child-sized so that the absence of
a skeleton is readily explained by decay. The grave contains a spearhead, a spearhead socket, and
an iron knife, all of which appear to be in situ. If the spearhead and socket have become
disassociated, this may well suggest that the spear was lying on top of the coffin and moved
during collapse. Other graves (e.g. Gr 53) note loose fill without any other signs of disturbance.
Without more detail on the excavators’ reasoning, the robbing here is doubtful.
Grave 210
Only a few long bones were left here, heaped at the foot of the grave. The comment that “The
grave... had obviously been robbed in antiquity. Especially lose [sic] around the feet” is a further
hint that differences in fill type or consistency may have been found in many disturbed graves,
but taken for granted and not noted. The loose fill continued down into the grave, suggesting
406
that the main entry was from this end. It is unclear from the plan how much broken sandstone
was found over the coffin, how complete a layer it formed, and whether it had been lifted and
thrown back. These would be key questions for further understanding of the robbing process,
but here as elsewhere graves are treated as essentially two-dimensional contexts.
The excavators thought that the tibia and femur might have been articulated, but on the plan this
looks unlikely.
Grave 215
The excavators thought that “The loose soil and wide empty area at the feet suggests robbery of
probably a pot”, but this seems doubtful. Perhaps an incursion had been made at the foot (as in
nearby Gr 203 and 210), but the empty space there could just as well indicate the decay in situ of
an organic object, or just an extra-long grave.
Grave 226
Not noted as robbed on the grave form, but the plan shows a probably disturbed burial. The few
remaining fragmentary bones and artefacts are concentrated at the foot. The tibia fragments are
clearly out of place.
The kerb-slot around Gr 226 is connected to those around Gr 237 and 251, which are also
disturbed.
Grave 227
Disturbance is near-complete but concentrated in the centre of the grave. It seems, although it is
not explicitly stated, that a large robber cut in the form of an area of loose topsoil surrounded by
compact chalk was discernable right down into the grave.
A whole earthenware vessel is in situ at the foot, while the crushed skull lies under a shieldboss at
the head-end. The mandible is detached and in the centre of the grave with other parts strewn
across the grave floor. Disturbance is confined to within the coffin space.
Grave 229
Disturbance throughout the coffined area. Only four displaced long bones are drawn but “There
were various bits of unplotable shadow bones and frags all over the grave”.
407
Grave 232
Widely strewn bones and artefacts all within the coffin line, but at different heights as though
thrown back in with the fill. The topsoil area on Plan A seems to indicate the robber cut,
although other graves have similar descriptions without robbing (e.g. Gr 336).
Grave 233
Unusually detailed comments from the excavators here (Table 10). Bones were at different
heights in the fill and it seems likely that some were removed completely, since those remaining
are mostly in good condition. Beneath this disturbed layer (Plan A, Fig. 60-61), the excavators
found the skull and legs in situ: disturbance had been targeted at the trunk. They suggested that “it
seems that the robbers were after a sword ? suspended on a belt from right shoulder to left hip.
Hence the disturbance of pelvis, rib cage and left arm. Perhaps the body was well decayed before
robbery because other bones not disturbed”.
The robbers were thought to have caused considerable damage to the upper parts of the grave
wall before working out exactly where to dig, but it is not clear what of these features (e.g.
possible finding cut by the skeleton’s right hand) might actually be part of the structural features.
Grave 235
Considerable disturbance, concentrated in centre/trunk area, some heaping towards the foot end
with the long bones and pelvis piled or pushed together along with an iron knife. Remains all on
grave floor and within the coffin line.
Grave 236
Almost total disarray with only the crushed skull in situ. Skeleton and artefacts strewn across the
grave floor but some heaping of the leg bones at the foot of the grave. It is not evident on the
plan, but the form notes that the objects were at different levels. The spearhead in particular was
just below the topsoil, as though it had perhaps been lying on the coffin lid. Few traces of the
coffin could be found; perhaps it had disintegrated before the robbing. This is another one where
the excavators say “disturbed only shortly after burial” but without explaining their reasoning.
Grave 237
Grave contents thoroughly disturbed and probably largely removed. Again the skull alone
remains in situ, whether intentionally or because of its peripheral position. Gravegoods are the
fragmentary and scattered remains of an originally generous assemblage. They seem to have been
408
roughly treated during the robbing. The puddled chalk outside the coffin may be the kind of
weathering of grave cuts mentioned by Hogarth (Chapter 6.2).
The kerb-slot around Gr 237 is connected to those around Gr 226 and 251, which are also
disturbed.
Grave 240
Again total disturbance of contents and probably much dug out. The tibia are perhaps near their
original positions. The different heights in the fill of the skeletal parts are noted on the grave plan.
Loose fill is remarked. Here the skull seems to have been crushed – presumably by the collapsing
coffin – and then disturbed.
Grave 251
The excavators thought that the loose fill in this grave indicated robbing, and from the plan it
does indeed look as though the middle may have been dug through, removing from this area
grave contents, coffin line, and the flints that surrounded it.
The kerb-slot around Gr 251 is connected to those around Gr 226 and 237, which are also
disturbed.
Grave 254
Disturbance is concentrated in the chest area, with the pelvis and bones of the thorax probably
removed. The skull may be in situ and there is less disturbance to the bones of the legs, although
they too are out of position. The coffin was noted as “intense black ash on grave floor, with side
traces” but it is not evident how intact this was at the time of disturbance.
Grave 255
The excavators described this grave as “obviously disturbed”, but it is not clear why. The unusual
position of the head could be due to a disintegrating pillow. They probably detected a limited cut
into the left thorax, where fragments of various objects were found off the grave floor in the fill.
Still this might be explainable by gravegoods including the knife lying on the coffin lid. Few
bones are left in this area but this may be down to decay, since the spinal column and pelvis
survived only as shadows.
409
Grave 261
Severely disturbed, bones apparently pushed or shovelled towards the foot of the grave. Finds at
slightly varied depths. The skull seems to have been whole when moved. I considered whether
this body might have slid down inside its coffin during burial and then later been disturbed, but
the presence of a long bone above (i.e. towards the head end of) the skull suggests not; the bones
have been moved after skeletonization.
The method used here may be similar to that in Gr 268 below. Gr 261 and 268 are neighbours,
raising the likelihood that the similarity of methods indicates that they were robbed at the same
time or by the same people. Nearby Gr 270 may also be the same. Gr 333, in which this kind of
pushing also appears, is further away but in the same part of the cemetery.
The head of the grave was some 8” deeper than the rest, suggesting that this was perhaps the first
part that the robbers dug down into, before locating the burial level.
Grave 267
The centre of the grave is primarily affected, but almost the whole is disturbed. Bones and
artefacts seem to have been dug out of the centre of the grave. The skull, a spearhead and parts
of the arms are in situ; the leg bones have been heaped at the foot. Remaining parts of a shield
are strewn in the head/neck area, but the boss has apparently been removed.
Grave 268
The excavators thought that “during the robbery the body seems to have been fairly intact and
was lifted and throne [sic] to the bottom of the grave to give a semi crouch appearance with the
top half of the grave empty”. However, from the disorder it seems more likely that a
disarticulated skeleton was simply pushed, perhaps using something large like a shovel, to the side
and foot end of the grave. The bones remain roughly in anatomical position, but not sufficiently
so as to indicate articulation.
It would be quite possible to push the burial like this if reaching in from the right hand side of
the grave, which is where the excavators found traces of a cut. The coffin is damaged or entirely
dug away on that side but whole on the left where the skeleton lies and evidently still maintained
an intact airspace for the remains to be pushed around in. That this was done with some violence
is shown by the skull “cleaved in two by robbers spade”.
So we are envisaging a cut along the right hand side (from the corpse’s viewpoint) of the grave,
breaking the side and part of the lid of the coffin and allowing access to the contents, most of
410
which were pushed away into the recess held up by the rest of the coffin. Here the recut along
the right side is therefore not a finding cut but due to a need to create extra working space,
perhaps to get a shovel under the coffin lid. This is similar to the method used in Gr 200,
although a different part of the grave has been cut into and the unwanted contents are pushed
away rather than pulled out.
Grave 270
A thoroughly disturbed weapon burial with fragments of artefacts and bones concentrated on the
left side of the grave and at the foot, where the lower limbs are piled. Significant amounts of
skeleton are missing, presumably dug out. One foot and two parts of the vertebral column are the
only connecting bones, and it is possible that these held together when moved. This looks likely
in the case of the spine in particular, since there are short lines of vertebrae in two separate places
in the grave, but the articulation can only have been very partial. Parts of the spinal column are
among the last articulations to fail during skeletonization (Duday 2006, Chapter 4.9). The
articulated foot may have been encased in a leather shoe. There were unidentified animal bones
in the upper fill. It is tempting to interpret them as a possible ritual offering, as postulated in
Finglesham Gr 205 (below), but perhaps more likely that they have collected in a hollow above
the grave or are evidence of small animal burrowing near the surface.
The excavators only noted one individual, but the “Demographic and sexing anomalies report” in
the archive found two separate boxes, each containing an adult male skeleton, labelled Gr 270. In
this case there seems to be a mistake rather than a double grave, but there may be a secondary
burial in here. If so, both are disturbed.
Grave 272
It seems likely that the grave contents here were considerably disordered, probably with some
bones heaped at the foot end, but the skeletal preservation is very poor. The grave plan shows
enlargement of the top of the grave cut and damage to the coffin line around the centre of the
grave.
Grave 288
Both the excavators and the draft grave catalogue have this as a single disturbed male burial.
However, the grave plan shows what appears to be an intact male weapon burial which has
replaced a previous burial, the remains of which are heaped near the secondary feet. The
411
“Demographic and sexing anomalies report” confirms this: the grave contains two individuals.
There is no visible reason to think the secondary burial disturbed.
Grave 294
Heavily disturbed with the few remaining bones and fragmentary artefacts haphazardly in the
centre of the grave. They seem to have been at different depths. The remaining bones were in
good condition, suggesting that the absent ones had been dug out and not thrown back in. The
head of the grave was cut off, whether by the ancient robber cut or some more recent activity.
Grave 295
This grave was undisturbed but destroyed by modern vandals. It is not far away from Gr 294, so
the cut into the end of 294 may have been made at the same time. However, the area of Gr 294
unopened in recent times showed huge disarray, whereas the intact parts of Gr 295 were
apparently in order.
Grave 303
Almost complete disorder, with very few undecayed bones or artefacts remaining in the grave.
Some of the bones and certainly the shield seem to have fragmented during disturbance,
suggesting that some time had passed before robbing. However, all the remains lie on the floor
of the coffin, which had evidently not yet collapsed.
Grave 304
The cut here is into the right hand side of the head end, with the skull and other bones missing
and considerable disorder to the upper body. Since the head was to the east, it is possible the
robbers were expecting the left hand side of the foot end. In any case they missed or left behind
an in situ sword on the far side of the grave. Indeed in a weapon grave with the sword, spearhead,
and shield left intact, it is difficult to guess what they might have removed, other than the skull.
Grave 308
There is marked disorder to the pelvis, legs, and right arm of the skeleton. By “Possibly robbed at
head end” the excavators seem to have been referring to the likely entry point, some anomaly in
the fill, since there was no disorder to the skull or its immediate area. The form of this grave is
similar to that of adjacent Gr 307, which the excavators suggested might be evidence of a family
connection. If so this did not extend to reopening, as Gr 307 is intact.
412
Grave 315
The grave plan shows unmistakeable disturbance, with the left femur on the chest and left arm in
disarray. However the grave sheet does not mention disturbance or robbing, indeed it looks as
though a comment about the disturbed femur has been rubbed out. Perhaps something was
moved or dropped during the excavation? There are animal bones beyond the left foot,
apparently on the grave floor. No species is mentioned and the draft grave catalogue lists them as
missing, but if the drawing scale is correct they appear too large to be burrowing rabbits or other
smaller mammals. Still, perhaps the excavators could see the damage here was due to animals and
failed to note it. On the other hand, it looks as though the femur and other bones were moved
within an intact coffin, not pulled into a burrow.
Grave 333
Thoroughly disturbed, with bones and fragments of artefacts displaced throughout the grave.
Most of the skeleton seems to have been pushed to the left and foot of the grave in the same way
as in Gr 268. The gravegoods, including a sheet copper alloy beaded rim bowl, were severely
decayed by the time of disturbance and broke into small pieces which are widely scattered. The
gravegoods here indicate a female burial, and the (non-expert) excavators thought the skeleton
that of an elderly woman. However, the “Demographic and sexing anomalies report” in the
archive records that the remains of two individuals, both skeletally young men, were found
labelled as coming from this grave. A is the poorly preserved main skeleton and “B is only some
skull fragments with a mandibular dentition”. The report notes that the bones are in identical
condition so probably came from the same grave, and that there is no adjacent burial to Gr 333,
so mixing before the post-excavation stage is not very likely.
Exactly what occurred is therefore unclear. Perhaps there had been a secondary burial of the
“replacement” kind (Chapter 6.2) some while before the disturbance. The female gravegoods
might belong to the preceding burial, which would also explain the poor condition of the bowl.
The main skeleton seen in the drawing is in sufficiently close to anatomical position that it seems
highly likely to have been occupying the grave prior to disturbance: this is not a male skeleton
that has been transferred from another grave and thrown into the woman’s grave during robbing.
Whoever the occupant(s) were, this grave has been well-rifled, and does not appear to have been
treated differently by the robbers than other graves.
413
Grave 354
This is one of the only examples in the whole sample of the robbing of a non-supine burial. In
almost all the graves where original burial position can be determined, it was the conventional
extended supine. Here the body seems not to have been simply prone, but to have lain slightly or
completely on one side and collapsed forward. It was also thought robbed, presumably since the
right upper body is missing. There is a suggestion that the unusual body position might be the
result of robbing, but it seems highly unlikely that both the turning over of a (necessarily fleshed)
corpse and the removal of so many bones could have occurred during the same episode, at least
without substantial butchery, for which there is no evidence here or in any other robbed burials.
The unusual burial position must either be original and deliberate, or occurred as the coffin was
lowered, or is the result of very early reopening. If the bones of the upper right body have been
removed, not just decayed, then this happened much later. The scattered beads and out of place
right radius support the idea of robbing. There is one, or according to the plan possibly more,
chalk cut block in the fill.
Grave 375
This is a mysterious example. What remains of the decayed skeleton is drawn as in situ, but the
excavators thought that the ends of some of the long bones might have been cut off, in
connection with three holes cut down into the grave floor. This they thought perhaps over-
deepening by grave robbers. The only artefact was one probably residual potsherd. A comment
on the grave sheet that the tibias were “upright” might lend weight to the robbing theory, if that
means that they were vertical rather than horizontal as drawn.
Grave 380
Either the lower half is robbed out, or there has been severe (but not impossible) differential
decomposition with the skeleton entirely decayed from the chest down. The excavators here also
thought bones cut through, as in Gr 375, but in this case just the distal ends of the tibias. Perhaps
loss of epiphyses is to blame in both cases? The names of the excavators are recorded on the
grave sheets and it is not the same team who worked on these two graves, but their close
numbers make it likely that they were both dug simultaneously or nearly so, with interpretations
shared. If this is robbed, there is a chance the robbers got the wrong end, as the head is
unconventionally to the east.
414
Lyminge II
(Warhurst 1954-5, Warhurst 1955, Arnold 1980, Richardson 1995, Parfitt 2002, Richardson 2005,
Schröder 2007, letters from Alan Warhurst to Heinrich Härke, excavation archive held by
Maidstone Museum.)
Table 11, Fig.102-105
In winter 1953 workmen putting together a mushroom shed discovered human bones and iron
artefacts in a field near the village of Lyminge. The archaeological assistant at Maidstone Museum,
Alan Warhurst, was called in and excavated 8 inhumation graves, which he dated to the 6th
century AD. Realising that he was dealing with a substantial site, Warhurst returned the following
summer and excavated a further 36 graves. This initial total of 44 burials was promptly published
in Archaeologia Cantiana with a site plan, though no grave plans (Warhurst 1955). This publication
is light on detail, but some of the site records can be seen in Maidstone Museum archive.
At this stage, 3 out of 44 graves were reported as “disturbed above the knees at an unknown
date” (Gr 8, 28, and 40) (Warhurst 1955: 5). A further grave (Gr 7) bore the note “only one bone,
part of a leg bone, was found in this grave” and has subsequently been described as probably
disturbed (Warhurst 1955: 10, Richardson 2005: 260). The disturbance to Gr 8, 28, and 40 is
distinguished from the modern mushroom shed damage to Gr 4 and 5. A calcium phosphate test
was carried out on apparently skeleton-less Gr 16 to show that bones had once been present but
had decayed. A notebook in the archive at Maidstone Museum includes a rough sketch of Gr 40.
This illustrates the degree of disturbance to the skeleton, but gives no further clues about the fill
or other evidence (Fig. 105).
In 1955 Warhurst excavated a further 20 graves, which have not been published, and records of
which have been not been widely circulated. However, Heinrich Härke has kindly shared with me
his correspondence with Warhurst, which includes notes for a planned article on this 1955 season
of excavation. The Lyminge cemetery has also recently been the subject of an MA dissertation
which should lead to full publication of Warhurst’s findings (Schröder 2007) and which provides
supplementary analysis.
The unpublished records of the 1955 season add considerably to the evidence of disturbance at
the site. Eight out of the 20 graves excavated that year were found to be disturbed or probably
disturbed. At this point, if not previously, Warhurst decided he was dealing with robbing in
antiquity. He calls the disturbed graves “violated and almost certainly robbed of their grave
furniture”, describing the phenomenon as “extremely interesting and important”. Warhurst’s
415
detailed assessment of the likely date for the robbing and his belief that the robbers knew the
contents of the graves are discussed below.
In 2002 a further evaluation of the site was carried out by the Dover Archeological Group (DAG)
under director Keith Parfitt. DAG excavated two cremation burials and two inhumations and
planned a further 39 definite or probable graves, showing that the cemetery is much larger than
previously established. No signs of disturbance were found in the 4 excavated graves, which are
60m from Warhurst’s area.
For our purposes, one of the most useful aspects of the Lyminge cemetery is that a grave-by-
grave dating sequence has been set out (Schröder 2007). Lyminge is actually the only cemetery in
the ‘heavily disturbed’ group for which fully justified artefactual and stratigraphical dating is
available. All the material recovered so far dates from about AD 400 to 600, which puts these
amongst the earliest Germanic burials in Kent. No 7th century material has yet been recovered
from the cemetery, although as discussed above, much of the site remains unexcavated.
It was possible to establish broad dates for 4 out of the 12 disturbed or possibly disturbed graves
(Table 11). Gr 7 contained grave-goods dating it to the mid 5th-6th century, although since
Warhurst’s wording is ambiguous and these grave-goods are described as in situ, the disturbance
in this grave is doubtful. Gr 63 was thought definitely robbed, and contained only a clear glass
cone beaker of the early 5th century (Chapter 4.9). Disturbed graves 50 and 59 were both empty,
but can be broadly dated by ‘horizontal stratigraphy’. Both are surrounded by rectangular
enclosures, on which subsequent graves are aligned. In this way Schröder shows that they must
have been in place by about AD 480 to 565 at the latest. So although information is limited, there
is no evidence to place any of the datable robbed graves in the later phases of the site, and several
reasons to think them among the earlier burials in the cemetery.
How soon after burial were the graves reopened? Warhurst judged that the robbing had taken
place “fairly soon (within a few years) after the burial”, and his reasoning is worth quoting in full:
The robbers could detect the graves easily for the robber pits were extremely accurate.
The robbing of the grave was sometimes fairly localized showing that the robbers knew
what they were looking for and where to look for it.
In the violated part of the cemetery many poor graves were left untouched. Two graves of
exceptional dignity [Gr 50 and 59: those with gullies] which might have been expected to
have been richly furnished, were robbed.
Against this must be remembered:
416
The body had disintegrated by the time of the robbery and the dismembered bones were
found in confusion in the backfill of the robber pits.
Green bronze staining from objects once present had developed on some of the bones.
Warhurst, unpublished report on 1955 excavations
In addition, Warhurst observes that except for the Anglo-Saxon cemetery, he found no evidence
of any activity on the site from the Mesolithic until the mushroom sheds and some earlier
chicken houses were built within living memory (Warhurst 1955: 6).
Incidentally, these notes from Warhurst are also the only record that shows that robber cuts were
in fact discernable into the disturbed graves, which is useful information for any future
excavators at the site. No drawings of the cuts survive.
The point that the robbers had been able easily to find the graves, even targeting specific areas, is
significant given the difficult conditions at the site. Both Warhurst and the Dover Archaeological
Group excavators commented on the difficulty of identifying grave cuts in the subsoil (Warhurst
1955, Parfitt 2002: 2). In addition, the graves at Lyminge are deeper than at many Kent Anglo-
Saxon cemeteries (Richardson 2005: 49). Nor are the disturbed graves amongst the shallower of
the excavated sample, which vary from 14” to 4’ 3” (Warhurst 1955). All this strengthens the
impression that the graves were reopened while still readily identifiable on the surface.
Warhurst’s second point, that the robbers targeted artefact-rich parts of the graves, is borne out
by the records, as far as they go. Skeletons are described either as disturbed in the
pelvic/thoracic/upper areas, or as entirely disordered. In only one case is the “skeleton missing
below waist” (Gr 63). The archive sketch of Gr 40 shows that the disorder is mainly within the
pelvic/thoracic area, with the skull and one arm apparently in situ (Fig. 105). On the site plan
published in Archaeologia Cantiana only the lower part of Gr 8 is illustrated, suggesting that the
grave cut itself may have been damaged by the robbing. However, as has been definitively shown
on the continent, that noticeable disorder is confined to one part of a grave does not necessarily
mean that this is the only area opened or viewed by the robbers (Chapters 2, 5.1).
No double or multiple burials were found at Lyminge. In one case, Gr 35 and 36, one burial cut
into but did not disturb the contents of another. The burials were arranged in rough rows and
mainly orientated east-west (Warhurst 1955: 5). At least one grave had originally been marked by
mound of chalk lumps with a ditch. Two graves were surrounded by rectangular gully enclosures,
which appear similar to the kerb-slots seen at St Peter’s. Both of these burials are robbed, which
is in line with the high levels of disturbance in such graves elsewhere (Chapter 4.5).
417
The ageing and sexing of the skeletons at this site, in particular Gr 48 and 63, is rather uncertain,
as the various sources (Schröder 2007, Warhurst’s notes, Richardson 2005b, and ASKED) give
slightly different information. Almost all of the (admittedly small number) of disturbed graves so
far identified at Lyminge are male; this is one of the only Kentish disturbed sites with a
pronouncedly biased sex profile (Chapter 4.8). Few grave goods remain in the disturbed burials
(Chapter 6.1). In particular, no weapons remain in any of them. Seen alongside the apparent
preference for male burials, this may imply targeted removal of weapons at this site. However,
any link is not straightforward: many weapon burials remain intact at Lyminge, as elsewhere,
including a distinct cluster on the north side of the excavated area (Fig. 102).
418
Margate I, Half-Mile Ride (St. John’s)
(Dixon 1948, 1950, Rowe 1923a, 1923b, 1923c, Perkins 1987, Birch & Perkins 1987: 45,
Richardson 2005: 50-51, 264-266.)
The main investigation of this site was carried out by Dr A Rowe in 1922, after human skeletons
were discovered during roadworks. Rowe excavated 20 graves, leaving limited, ephemeral records
and a small collection of finds now in Margate Public Library. The following year he excavated a
further 4 graves, but record of them is even more limited (Richardson 2005: 51). With less than
half the recorded graves containing any artefacts, and those simple and of poor quality, Rowe
viewed Half Mile Ride as the burial ground of an early and impoverished community.
Information about his graves was inaccessible to researchers, failing even description in Audrey
Meaney’s gazetteer (Meaney 1964: 128).
That was until 1987, when local archaeologist DRJ Perkins published a reappraisal of the Half
Mile Ride material, following its cataloguing in a museum reorganisation. He showed that the
artefacts in fact date to the 7th century, giving a likely use period for the site from the late 7th to 8th
centuries. Its poverty is probably therefore accounted for by the ‘final phase’ characteristic of
reduced investment in grave goods.
Perkins also highlights evidence that many of the excavated graves had been previously opened,
perhaps also contributing to the paucity of finds. Perkins attributes this reopening to the kind of
extensive early disturbance with which he was familiar from nearby sites such as Sarre and
Ozengell. Various early discoveries had been made in the Half-Mile Ride area and probably
represent part of the same cemetery, but there is no known previous activity at Rowe’s immediate
site (Richardson 2005: 51). In any case disturbance did not appear recent, as Rowe initially
remarks “even the empty graves conveyed no impression that they had been previously disturbed,
the nature of the digging made that point clear”. The implication seems to be that no robber cuts
or other fill anomalies were discernable. Yet the disordered remains eventually forced him to
conclude that his was not the first reopening: “unless the graves have been deliberately disturbed
it is difficult to see how even an 18 inch grave could be opened by a ploughshare, which only cuts
to a depth of 6 ins”. Although his grave descriptions are not expansive, Rowe makes a telling
comment about Grave 3: “it alone showed an attempt at proper sequence, skull, jaw, cervical
vertebrae, and upper arms were in position, the rest out of position and mostly absent” (Perkins
1987: 230). This sounds very like the disturbed graves described at the other East Kent sites.
419
Perkins, who had recently produced a dissertation on grave-robbery at Ozengell, argued for very
extensive disturbance, with all 20 of Rowe’s 1922 graves robbed (Perkins 1987: 230). While this
conclusion could be drawn from Rowe’s remarks, it appears the excavator himself did not have a
clear assessment of the evidence he was unearthing, nor how to distinguish between robbing and
mere poor preservation. It was only as work progressed that he recognized the disturbance for
what it was. With no grave plans and only a partially inaccurate cemetery plan (Perkins 1987: 221),
the exact numbers and nature of the disturbance cannot be reconstructed. Graves 2, 3, and 7 are
the strongest candidates.
420
Monkton I, Primrose Hill
(Bubb 1883, Payne 1888, Macpherson-Grant 1972-3, Hawkes & Hogarth 1973, Perkins 1983,
Perkins & Hawkes 1984, Perkins 1985a, Bennett & Willians 1997, Richardson 2005.)
Table 12, Fig. 106
Thirty-five Anglo-Saxon graves have been recorded in this area, spread along a 360m stretch of
gas pipeline. In 1971 teams led by N Macpherson-Grant and AC Hogarth recorded 22 graves, of
which 2 were reported as disturbed in antiquity (Hawkes, Hogarth & Denston 1974). Around this
time AC Hogarth was also excavating the extensively disturbed cemetery at St Peter’s, Broadstairs.
In 1982 DRJ Perkins led a watching brief on a second, parallel pipeline and excavated a further
12 graves, of which one was said to be disturbed (Perkins & Hawkes 1984).
As the plan shows, the three disturbed graves are in close proximity to each other, though
intermingled with undisturbed burials. All three are interments of adult males with 6th century
grave goods, and the body in Gr 22 was apparently still articulated at the time of disturbance.
However, the conditions of excavation and the limited published details leave some question
marks over the diagnosis of robbing, which are discussed below.
Artefacts indicative of 6th century weapon burials were found in all 3 of the graves believed
disturbed in antiquity, putting them among the earliest burials at the site. In the case of Grave 22,
Hawkes inferred that “the corpse had been disturbed not long after burial, perhaps to remove a
particularly valuable item of grave furniture such as a famous sword” (Hawkes, Hogarth and
Denston 1974: 71), and the same motive may apply to all three reopenings.
Other graves from the same period remained undisturbed at the site, including Grave 7, a
probable male with a broken iron knife and a bronze buckle (Hawkes, Hogarth and Denston
1974: 59-63), Grave 27, badly plough-damaged but including the recognizable remains of a shield,
and Grave 26, which although also plough-damaged included a sword, shield, bronze buckle,
whetstone, and gold bracteate, the latter an unusual or unique find in a man’s grave (Perkins and
Hawkes 1984: 102-107). So at least one roughly contemporary richly furnished weapon burial was
left intact.
One reason that Hawkes attributes the reopening of Grave 22 to the theft of a sword is
presumably that the disturbance affects only the right leg of the corpse, beside which the sword
of a left-handed man would be lying. No plans exist for the 1971 graves, but according to the
description, most of the skeleton lay in situ, supine and extended, while the right side of the
pelvis and right leg had been removed and placed, still articulated, at the foot of the grave
421
(Hawkes, Hogarth and Denston 1974: 71). The skeletal remains from this grave are described by
the human bone expert as “the most complete of the series” (Hawkes, Hogarth and Denston
1974: 89), yet no cut marks are mentioned which could show that the injury was sustained at or
immediately after death. It appears to have occurred at a stage of partial decomposition, once
most soft tissue had decayed, but while sufficient ligaments remained to hold the bones of the leg
together. This puts the robbing, at least of Grave 22, well within the use-period of the cemetery
(Chapter 4.9).
While it is reasonable to infer that disturbance to any one area of a skeleton is evidence of
robbers accessing grave goods which are typically found in that area, it is difficult to reconstruct
the gory scenario which can satisfactorily explain the complete detachment of this man’s leg
during the theft of his sword. Perhaps the most plausible is that for some reason the
entanglement of clothing and whatever strap held the sword led the robbers to drag the right leg
away from the body by the shoe. Perhaps they opened the grave only partially and then dragged
at the exposed remains, pulling the leg and its clothing along with the sword in its sheath. The
theft of shoes or clothing seems unlikely, since by the time the corpse had decayed sufficiently
for the leg to detach, they would surely be permanently soiled.
By contrast the body and artefacts in Grave 21 were already well-decayed by the time of
disturbance. Only the skull and toe-bones were in situ while the leg bones were found on the
south side near the top of the grave-fill. A gilt bronze buckle and plate lay 15 cm. apart at the
foot-end, a shattered iron shield-boss in the top of the fill at the head-end, and a tiny bronze wire
and mount fragment under the skull. Heavy rust staining on the buckle loop may show that
before disturbance it was in contact with an iron object such as a knife (Hawkes, Hogarth and
Denston 1974: 69), which would indicate the passage of considerable time between burial and
robbing. An indentation in the floor of the grave suggested the original presence of a coffin,
which had presumably also decayed, since the finds were scattered in the fill.
No structural features were recorded in 1971, despite AC Hogarth’s evident interest in them
from St Peter’s. In 1982 three graves were found to contain various slots and ledges, but these
did not include any of the disturbed burials. Grave 22, however, was recorded as “somewhat
irregular, perhaps because it had been robbed in antiquity” (Hawkes, Hogarth and Denston 1974:
71), suggesting either a finding cut of the type Perkins later described at sites including Ozengell,
Hoo Farm, and Thorne Farm, or perhaps reflecting a necessity to widen the grave cut a little in
order to prise the lid off a coffin.
422
Both sets of excavators noted a good deal of plough damage to the shallower burials, as well as
truncation of graves through their discovery by bulldozer. Perkins and Hawkes (1984: 91) go into
useful detail in distinguishing between these two sources of damage, explaining that the pipeline
bulldozers worked east and west, while deep-ploughing of shallow graves such as Gr 26 resulted
in objects being pushed southwards and buried. From the descriptions it does not seem that the
disturbance to graves 21, 22 or 25 could be explained by ploughing or bulldozer action, and this
was clearly the excavators’ impression.
However, there was also evidence of deliberate interference with graves in the more recent past.
In the first place there is a report of the discovery of a skeleton on the brow of the hill in 1879 or
1880 (Bubb 1883: 41, Payne 1888: 452, Smith 1908: 385-6, Meaney 1964: 132), but that is 183m
from the 1971 pipeline (Richardson 2005: 57) and need not imply any interference with those
graves.
More compromising is the 1984 discovery of a scrap of polythene in Gr 24, close neighbour of
supposedly robbed Gr 25 (Perkins and Hawkes 1984: 89, 107). The excavators evidently felt that
this proximity was co-incidental and that the graves had been rifled centuries apart, but the
limited published details do not explain their reasoning. They do note that Gr 24 was believed to
have been a grave only from its configuration, containing no skeletal material and only minute
fragments of iron along with the polythene piece. It is possible, therefore, that it was only a
modern pit, though the dimensions and orientation suggest otherwise. Gr 25 is a more certain
burial, described as containing a number of fragmentary iron and bronze objects throughout the
fill, with human remains represented by a tooth. Decay therefore was well advanced when the
grave was rifled. Evidence of what looks like modern grave-robbery in a neighbouring grave must
bring into question the attribution of robbing in Grave 25 to antiquity, at least on the published
information.
However, Graves 21 and 22, although nearby, seem to have been reopened in quite different
fashions, and in 22 the apparent articulation speaks against modern opening. On the other hand,
minor question marks lie over these two graves as well, since they were in fact not discovered
during the watching brief, but were excavated by the workmen who found them during
backfilling (Perkins and Hawkes 1984: 49-50). That said, the detail of the recorded information
suggests that either that they did a very good job, or that an archaeologist was present. The only
major omission is that the positions of the grave goods in Grave 22 were not noted.
423
Monkton I, like the two Minster-in-Thanet burial sites discovered during the same pipeline
construction, may well turn out to be a heavily disturbed Thanet cemetery along the lines of its
larger cousins at Broadstairs, Ozengell, and Sarre. The evidence points that way, though there are
uncertainties about the diagnosis of early robbing in the small sample of graves so far excavated
424
Northbourne I, Finglesham
(Richardson 2005, Hawkes & Grainger 2006, Sayer 2007, 2009, Sonia Chadwick Hawkes’ archive
held by School of Archeology, University of Oxford.)
Table 13, Fig. 107-111
Smallscale chalk quarrying in the early 20th century disturbed human bones at this site, leading to
a request from the landowner for investigation. WPD Stebbing excavated and recorded 28 graves
(A1-H4) in 1928-9. He subsequently excavated a further 10 or so (including AA1-AA4), but
without leaving proper documentation, so that the numbers and whereabouts of these graves are
uncertain.
Stebbing identified one grave (A3) as having “early received attention from grave robbers”. He
suggested a grave mound may have singled it out for their attention. It is unclear why he believed
it robbed, other than that it contained fewer grave goods than its generous dimensions had led
the excavators to expect. The sparse description of the grave goods does not mention any
disorder. He records a flat-bottomed black pot, a knife at the right side in a line with the femur,
and one amber and one glass bead. The skeleton was not recorded. The grave contained many
large flints, which looked as though they were a lining.
Sonia Hawkes (then Chadwick) published a reconsideration of Stebbing’s finds in 1958. She
appeared initially sceptical about the possibility of early robbing at the site, noting Stebbing’s
suggestion of robbing in antiquity for A3, but commenting that “in default of detailed record, this
must be considered doubtful” (Chadwick 1958: 8). However, once she commenced her own
excavations at the site, she identified or suspected early disturbance in some 21 graves, nearly
10% of her total.
Hawkes excavated at Finglesham from 1959-67, recording some 216 graves (although there are
difficulties in reconciling the stated numbers of graves for this site (Dickinson 2006)). It is
thought that the majority of the site has been recorded, although there is reason to believe that a
group of later 6th century graves may have been missed (Hawkes & Grainger 2006: 22). The 2006
publication takes the form mainly of a grave catalogue, with limited analysis. Still, this is one of
the most completely excavated and published Anglo-Saxon cemeteries in the county.
There is no discussion of the nature and implications of the robbing evidence in the report.
Limited details are given in the grave descriptions, but do not adequately set out the evidence or
reasoning behind the diagnosis of robbing. In several cases drawings of disturbed graves are
missing, or the disturbed elements are omitted. The plan of Gr 44, for example, shows an empty
425
grave, although the description tells that leg bones were found. In Gr 126 the few remaining
bones are described as “Either disturbed and thrown back into fill or possible undisturbed but
severely eroded”, but are omitted from the plan. Again Gr 93 is depicted as empty, although the
grave catalogue describes skeletal remains “thrown back in” to the grave. The focus has been on
the objects in their “right” places in graves, to the detriment of robbing or other taphonomic
processes.
The site plan offers a few further clues, but there seems to be a mistake in the way the key refers
to the robbed graves (Hawkes & Grainger 2006: 28, Fig. 107). The plan key divides graves into
“grave robbed in antiquity” (grave outline with “R”) and “grave probably robbed” (grave outline
with “R” plus a line and dot indicating orientation). However on the grave plan itself there is
another type, with a small question mark after the ‘R’ (e.g. grave 139) which appears in fact to
indicate the graves where robbing was uncertain. It seems likely that 3 categories were intended:
robbed graves so disturbed that the orientation was not discernable (e.g. grave 22), robbed graves
with orientation information (e.g. grave 162), and graves where robbing was only suspected (e.g.
grave 139). This uncertainty reduces the usefulness of the plan. It also incorrectly labels grave A4
as robbed, instead of grave 4.A3 (a.k.a. A3(4)).
One difficulty at Finglesham was in distinguishing between grave-robbing and the earlier
archaeological work carried out by Stebbing. Several graves thought probably opened by Stebbing
were discovered well to the south of the quarry area where his recorded work took place. The
report suggests that some test trenches aimed at establishing the southern limit had been dug in
the second and poorly recorded phase of Stebbing’s work, which seems highly plausible (Hawkes
& Grainger 2006: 28). However, from the limited descriptions given in the report it is frequently
unclear why the disturbance in some graves is assigned as robbing, while in others it is put down
to Stebbing. Gr 36, 37, and 38 are a case in point (Table 13). Without explanation Gr 36 is
labelled as one of Stebbing’s, Gr 37 is said to be robbed/Stebbing, and Gr 38 is called robbed in
antiquity. Gr 37 and 38 are close together. More information would be needed fully to justify
these diagnoses.
For this thesis 20 burials in 17 graves have been identified as probably or possibly disturbed
during the early medieval period (Table 13). On the basis of the available evidence, the most
convincing examples are Gr 22, 44, 78, 93, 110, 139, 162, 197, and 205. It is regrettable that plans
or photographs, especially section drawings, are not available to show the disturbance in detail.
For example, the question of why parts of skeletons are missing from some graves but are
426
apparently “thrown back in” to others has potential to give useful insights into the robbers’
working methods, but illustrations are needed to show the nature of this evidence.
Erosion of the grave sides at the surface was noticed in at least two graves, but there were no
other signs of attempts by the robbers to locate graves. It appears to have been a question of
pinpointing the exact edge of each chalk-cut grave, which could then be emptied of its fill with
relative ease.
As at the other sites, the state of decay of the remains in each grave at the time of robbing varied
considerably (Chapter 4.9). In Gr 205 at least one of the skeletons – there is no information as to
which – seems still to have been held together by ligaments when disturbed. This is the only
explicit claim of articulation at Finglesham, although if the right arm of Gr 34 really was moved
away from the body, the alignment of the humerus and ulna imply that this happened while the
two were still connected or wrapped in a sleeve.
In Gr 197 it was thought that robbing must have happened “after the body had decomposed but
before the coffin had collapsed” which from the grave plan appears highly plausible and fits with
Aspöck’s observation that in such cases the remains all lie on the grave floor (Chapters 4.6, 5.1).
It is therefore notable that the iron knife and chatelaine in the grave were already sufficiently
decayed to fragment during the reopening, so that pieces are spread around. In this case at least,
iron gravegoods fragmented even before the coffin collapsed.
The robbing in Gr 197 grave seems to have been brutal enough to break not just the iron objects
but also some bones. It also involved removing much of the grave contents, which in this case
were not thrown back in the fill. This is in contrast to the apparently almost surgical reopening of
e.g. Gr 139. This difference is not down to different states or types of graves: both seem to have
been female burials within intact coffins. It is simply a different approach to removing
gravegoods. Different again are the graves such as Gr 22, 78, and 211 from which part of the
burial has been entirely dug out, and the rest left untouched. It is my contention that these
markedly varied robbing methods represent the work of different individuals, or at least robbing
on different occasions.
The fill of Gr 197 is described as “hard packed chalk around coffin and chalky earth inside”. That
this difference was maintained despite the robbing implies that the coffin lid was not substantially
removed. Gr 197 is therefore highly likely to be an example of the “hook robbing” technique
identified on the continent. This would fit with the fragmented remains, which in this scenario
427
have been smashed around with an iron or wooden instrument, and most of the contents lifted
out through a hole in the coffin lid. Robbing methods are discussed at length in Chapter 5.1.
Gr 205 is one of the few examples in Kent where extraneous bones seem to have been added to
a reopened burial – intentionally or accidentally – implying simultaneous reopening of more than
one grave (Chapter 5.2). Gr 205 contained bones from at least two and possibly three adult
humans, as well as sheep/goat. The report comments:
Though it is possible that there had been a male as well as a female skeleton in this grave, at
the time of excavation SCH wondered whether the male bones might have been re-interred
in this grave after they had been robbed from either or both of the contemporary Graves
22 and 110. Such would imply an occasion of large-scale, even ceremonial, grave-robbing,
presumably by members of the Finglesham community itself. The remains of the sheep or
goat certainly suggest either some sort of animal sacrifice or the remains of a meal, or both.
Neither would be inappropriate to an occasion of such solemnity as the formal violation of
ancestral graves to recover family wealth and objects of virtue, if such is indeed as the
grave-robbings imply.
(Hawkes & Grainger 2006: 153)
Notes on the 1959-60 season attached to a letter from Grainger to Hawkes dated 4th Sept 1988
give further clues to their thinking:
Grave 22: A partially robbed grave, and body removed. But had been MALE, witness
shield still propped against grave wall. NB This one a possible candidate for one of those
sets of male bones in this year’s grave 205? (all ‘done’ in one night?), but cf. also grave 110.
Gr 110 is much closer to Gr 205, so if the simultaneous reopening scenario is correct, and if
proximity was a factor in selecting graves to reopen, then it is the stronger candidate. However,
Gr 205 is by no means close neighbours with any of the reopened graves. If fill from another
robbed grave became mixed into Gr 205, it had been carried some distance. This might imply
deliberate transferral of bones, which would fit with the possible evidence of animal sacrifice.
Then again it might be evidence of fill being carried from more than one open grave to a single
point – perhaps by a lamp or a fire – to be searched, and then shovelled back into the nearest
grave. This seems, however, an oddly laborious way of going about a task which the evidence of
disarray in the graves suggests was not otherwise carried out with noticeable care.
Another reason for thinking Gr 110 may be the source of the apparent extra fill in Gr 205 is
the ?intrusive pottery noted at the end of its grave contents list, but not included in the pottery
428
report (Hawkes & Grainger 2006: 395). This is probably an example of the debris collecting in
hollows above graves (Chapter 5.3), and suggests that Gr 110 may not have been fully backfilled.
This apparently simultaneous reopening is compared with the examples from the other sites in
Chapter 5.2.
The animal bones in the Gr 205 fill are also seen elsewhere (Chapter 5.2). Unfortunately neither
here nor at the other sites is there any information about the species, the parts of the animal, nor
any butchery marks. Without this the conclusion that the bones represent either a ritual deposit
or the remains of a meal can only be speculation.
A range of internal and external grave structures was found at Finglesham. These finds were
made before Hogarth’s work defining structure types at St Peter’s Tip, so some at least of their
identification must be retrospective. However, letters in Hawkes’ archive show that she and
Hogarth were in frequent contact, and that she approved of Hogarth’s excavating technique.
Several graves with postholes and other apparently externally-visible structures had been
disturbed at Finglesham, but without any link between any particular structure type and robbing.
However, none of the 23 graves with ledges or beam slots had been disturbed, a marked
exception (Table 6). Something in the appearance or the symbolism of such graves may have
exempted them from reopening. On the other hand, graves with ledges are robbed at the other
sites, so perhaps the omission at Finglesham is by chance. Quite possibly the robbing was drastic
enough to remove evidence of such structures from at least some disturbed graves.
Finglesham had been ploughed flat long before the excavations, but is likely originally to have
had a similar appearance to the barrow fields described by Faussett and other antiquarians, with
many individual mounds of different sizes. There are at least 11 graves surrounded by ditches
indicating the former presence of mounds, and a strong suggestion that some of the more
isolated burials were originally covered. Guy Grainger carried out a “nearest neighbour” analysis
to establish which graves are most likely to have had mounds (Hawkes & Grainger 2006: 30,
Sayer 2009). Several of the robbed graves probably had barrows (e.g. Gr 22, 93, 162), but many
did not (e.g. Gr 38, 91, 100). Likewise some barrow-graves are robbed, but many more are intact.
It is not simply the case that graves were robbed because their barrows made them conspicuous;
conversely, there are good reasons to think that graves were robbed at a time when the graves
without barrows were also readily discernable on the surface.
429
Ramsgate IV, Ozengell (Osengal, Ozingell, Lord of the Manor)
(Smith 1845-6, 1846-7, Keats 1846-7, Isaacs 1847-8, Rolfe 1847-8, Scott-Robertson 1878, Wilson
1967, Millard, Jarman & Hawkes 1969, Webster & Cherry 1975, Youngs 1981, Youngs & Clark
1982, Perkins 1985a, Birch & Perkins 1987, Jay 1990, Richardson 2005.)
Table 14, Fig. 112
This large cemetery has seen multiple chance discoveries and campaigns of excavation from at
least the mid-1800s onwards (Roach Smith 1854: 1-18, Perkins unpub, Richardson 2005: 63-64).
The main phase of work saw some 230 graves excavated by the Thanet Archaeological Unit in
the late 20th century (Richardson 2005: 63-64). However, records of the early discoveries are
limited, and the recent excavations remain unpublished. Details of Gr 1-87 from the 1977 season
exist in the form of a draft excavation report, and Richardson publishes details of Gr 229 and 230
from 1989 plus a site plan showing the TAU work.
High levels of ancient disturbance have been reported at Sarre, although reports of the exact
numbers vary. The draft report mentions a figure of 47 out of Gr 1-87 (Perkins draft: 3), while
elsewhere 58% and ‘over 50%’ of all 228 TAU graves are claimed as early robbing (Birch 1987:43,
Perkins 1985b). However, in the grave catalogue a total of 41 burials in 39 graves are actually
listed as disturbed/possibly disturbed in antiquity (39/87=45%). This is the highest overall rate
of disturbance from any one site in Kent (Table 6).
One factor in raising the recognition of disturbance here may well be bone preservation:
unusually high numbers of children, including very young children, are listed in the grave
catalogue, suggesting that skeletal remains survived well here. The identification of so many sub-
adult burials also speaks well of the excavation procedures. In addition, a higher than average
proportion of child burials at Ozengell are listed as disturbed – although the numbers are still low
– suggesting that the near-absence of robbed sub-adults from most other sites may at least
partially be due to the difficulties of diagnosing disturbance with minimal skeletal remains
(Chapter 4.7).
The Ozengell excavators were reasonably cautious about diagnosing ancient disturbance,
counting graves only as robbed where there was gross skeletal disorder, in some cases combined
with evidence of digging into the grave. In a few examples at Ozengell, as elsewhere, this disorder
takes the form of heaping or piling of bones at one end of the grave (below, see also Chapters 5.1,
6.2). No gnawing marks or other signs of animal activity are reported. Graves such as Gr 33,
430
from which part of the skeleton may be missing but is more likely decomposed, are not counted
among the disturbed burials.
Several graves had suffered damage from a modern trench; these are marked on Fig. 112. In Gr
61 it is not clear whether solely modern or also ancient disturbance is implied; this has been
included as a “possibly disturbed” (Table 14). The excavators also noted plough damage since the
shift in land use from pasture to arable during the 19th century, especially to the Anglo-Saxon
graves superimposed on prehistoric round barrows. It was the landowner’s concerns about
plough attrition which prompted the 1977 excavation.
The 20th century excavators were content that they were not simply re-excavating antiquarian
work, on various grounds. First, such reports as exist place the antiquarian activity well to the
south of the more recently excavated area. Further, and as seen at other sites (Chapter 6.1), high
numbers of gravegoods remained in the disturbed graves. In the excavators’ assessment: “It is
most improbable that any of this can be the work of the curiosity seekers mentioned by Roach-
Smith, as many items of interest were found in them. Also, the position of skeletal material
suggested partial articulation at the time of disturbance. Thus the plundering of the graves was
probably carried out while the cemetery was still in use or shortly thereafter.”
Elsewhere Perkins states that that “At Ozengell evidence of the period of disturbance took three
forms. The first of these was negative in that, while subsoil over the entire site yielded pottery in
the range Early Iron Age – Modern, grave fills contained no sherds later than the Dark Age
period. Positively, the limited and particular nature of the some disturbances suggests that they
were carried out by persons having knowledge of the placing of objects within the grave. There
was also the evidence of articulation.” (Perkins 1991: 164).
As shown in Table 14, there are a total of seven cases at Ozengell in which bodies are described
as still partially articulated at the time of disturbance. In the absence of grave drawings this
evidence cannot be fully assessed. It is clear from the draft report that grave plans exist, but they
are neither published nor in circulation. The Trust for Thanet Archaeology, which holds the
archive, has not responded to requests for access. From the descriptions the claims of articulation
seem plausible, except perhaps in the case of Gr 19a, where limited rifling of the central area
seems a more likely explanation for the in situ limbs (Table 14). The spatial distribution of these
and the other disturbed burials is discussed in Chapter 5.4.
Although the Ozengell draft is limited, various further observations about the disturbance at this
site have been published as an appendix to the first Sarre report (Perkins 1991). This includes
431
Perkins’ classification system for grave robbery, which he worked out on the basis of his
Ozengell excavations, although it is not used in the Ozengell draft report (see Sarre below). He
also put forward possible interpretations for the Kentish robbery (Chapter 3). Perkin’s appendix
includes discussion of how long after burial robbing had taken place, and in particular how long
the process of disarticulation might be expected to take in local chalky conditions. His conclusion
is that skeletonization would be expected within about 25 years for coffined cadavers in chalk
graves. This is discussed at greater length in Chapter 4.9, but used here as a working hypothesis.
The disturbed graves date from all phases of the site’s use, from Gr 60 (450 – 525), to mid-6th
century Gr 11 and 27, to Gr 75 around AD 600, to mid-7th century Gr 72. Three were buried
before AD 575, while at least 7 are thought to date to after AD 625. As at the other sites, it is by
no means the case that all the robbed graves are of one period, nor that all the graves of a
particular period are affected.
There are, however, indications that although the Ozengell robbing affects burials of all periods,
most or even all of it could have occurred in the mid- or later 7th century. The oldest disturbed
grave, Gr 60, is also the only example where there are signs that the robbers could not
immediately identify the grave cut on the surface. They had “located it by stripping topsoil from
the chalk in a southward direction”, suggesting that they could perhaps see that a grave was
present but not its exact outline, and wanted to make sure they were digging down directly into it.
This fits with Gr 60 being an old grave at the time of disturbance.
The graves with evidence of articulation at the time of disturbance, by contrast, all have much
later dates, as far as the evidence goes (Table 14). Gr 12 and 65 had no artefact finds for dating,
but the dates of the others would all be compatible with burial between AD 625 and 675. The
most finely dated, Gr 18, dates from between 625 and 675 AD (ASKED, Table 14). Presuming
Perkins’ estimate of up to 25 years for skeletonization is broadly correct, this is consistent with
disturbance by about 675 or 700 at the latest. As argued above, it seems unlikely that all seven of
the articulated graves were buried simultaneously and reopened as one episode; rather the
evidence at Ozengell points to reopening as a repeated practice concentrated in – and possibly
confined to – the mid- to late 7th century. If these represent some of the last burials at the site it is
therefore possible that they were robbed at the time of abandonment. Current dating suggests
that burial at Ozengell is thought to have continued into the 8th century, but this conclusion may
well be revised by the imminent AMS radiocarbon dating program (Chapters 3, 4.9).
432
Although grave drawings are not available for Ozengell, the descriptions of the disturbed graves
give substantially more information than at most sites. In at least two graves, Gr 12 and 53, the
skeletal remains are described as heaped or piled. In Gr 53 the pile was at the foot of the grave, in
Gr 12 it was into two heaps. From the description of Gr 18 it seems that the edge of the robber
cut into the original fill could be identified, and by inference that the excavators thought that in
the other graves the whole cut had been emptied.
It is unfortunate that the descriptions give no indication of whether in some cases robbing could
be seen to have happened within the walls of an intact coffin (Chapters 4.6, 5.1). Similarly, it
would be useful to know here, and at other sites, whether the bone heaps appeared to lie on the
grave floor, as though bones had been lifted or pushed together, or whether the bones were just
mixed in with fill which had been spaded in that direction. In several St Peter’s graves the former
seems definitely to have been the case.
The graves were cut into hard chalk, so that they had well-defined edges within which the
robbers dug, and there could be no question of the robbers accidently expanding a grave. So
apart from damage to the lip in some cases, no evidence was found of robbery affecting the
dimensions of the grave.
Ozengell showed a similar range of external and internal grave structures as other East Kent sites
(Hogarth 1973, Chapter 4.5), including the less common large sandstone slabs above some graves.
In Gr 49 it appears that such slabs had stood in the rectangular kerb-slot around the grave, which
was also the conclusion at St Peter’s. At Ozengell they are also found in quantity in graves
without kerb-slots, perhaps as a sort of paving above the grave, or as a lining to part of the grave
cut as in undisturbed Gr 1. A remark in Perkins’ dissertation implies that he may even have
regarded them as coffin-like structures (Perkins 1985b: 7).
Sandstone slabs are found strewn about in the fills of disturbed Gr 7, 9, 22, 24, 25, 50, 51, 52, 53,
65, 81, 229, and 230. Sometimes they are found only high in the fill; sometimes the wording
suggests they had found their way down to the burial layers. This is further evidence that animal
burrowing is not responsible for this kind of disturbance; the slabs have not simply shifted or
collapsed inwards, they have been removed and thrown back in. Their haphazard positioning
makes it clear that no effort had been made to restore the aboveground appearance of the robbed
graves. In two burials, Gr 18 and 60, there was evidence that the grave cuts had not even been
fully back-filled (Chapter 5.3).
433
Other graves of interest: Gr 52 has medieval pottery at depth 7cm, which seems to indicate later
material collecting in a hollow above a robbed grave, as identified by Aspöck (Chapter 5.3). The
presence of such later material on the site but not incorporated into the disturbed fills is a further
indication of the early date of the robbing.
Gr 58 may be an unusual example of a child’s grave with an adult added. Gr 19 appears to be an
example of a primary interment effectively replaced by a secondary (with the primary bones
displaced into the fill) and then both robbed.
Gr 16 may just possibly be the single example of a second inhumation into a previously robbed
grave. The excavators observed that “The excavation yielded five curb slot graves, of these four
were obviously robbed. The bone fragments and objects in the fill make it possible therefore, that
the skeleton in grave 16 is a second inhumation.” However, this was considered too speculative
for Gr 16 to be included among the disturbed graves listed here. For the first, Gr 16 may (like Gr
19) simply be a secondary burial of the kind that effectively replaces the primary (Chapter 6.2),
although it is fair to say that the near-total removal of the primary skeleton is not usual. Second,
the inter-site analysis shows that robbing is not closely correlated with grave structures, so that it
is quite normal for only some graves with each type of structure to be disturbed. That said, graves
with kerb-slots are more consistently disturbed across the sites than those with other types of
structure (Chapter 4.5).
In c.1985 David Perkins wrote his undergraduate dissertation on “Wealth, robbery and status in
Anglo-Saxon cemeteries” at North-East London Polytechnic, based mainly on the data from
Ozengell. The dissertation used statistical techniques to investigate possible correlations between
grave structures, dimension, sex, wealth, and robbery. Unfortunately Perkins no longer has a copy
and it was not included among the sample retained by the library when it was subsumed into the
University of East London. By chance, however, a copy of the summary section survives in Sonia
Hawkes’ archive in Oxford, in a letter sent to her by Perkins.
The dissertation uses data from 110 Ozengell graves, plus evidence from 5 other unnamed
Kentish cemeteries. It finds associations between wealth – defined mainly as numbers of
gravegoods, with some ranking on the basis of raw material – grave width, grave structures, and
robbery. Like this thesis, then, it finds that larger graves are more frequently robbed (Chapter 4.4),
and that grave structures tend to attract grave robbery (Chapter 4.5). It further suggests that
larger graves are robbed because they tend to contain greater wealth deposits, a correlation not
attempted here but partially supported by Richardson’s findings (Chapter 4.4). Further, Perkins
434
argues that certain types of grave structure – ring ditches, barrows, and sandstone slabs – are
more frequently disturbed, but that other structure classes are only rarely disturbed. These
findings are in part borne out here, but with considerable variation between sites, and with
numerous caveats about the identification and the original forms of the structures, which must
severely compromise any purely quantitative analysis (Chapter 4.5).
435
Sarre I
(Anonymous 1847, Anonymous 1859, Smith 1860, Brent 1863, 1866, 1868, Hawkes 1984,
Perkins 1988, 1991, 1992, Richardson 2005, Brookes 2007: 198.)
Table 15, 113-114
John Brent, under the aegis of the Kent Archaeological Society, excavated just over 270 graves at
this site from 1863 to 1865. He published his observations and grave catalogue in successive
issues of Archaeologia Cantiana, and the Rev. Drake drew a site plan which survives in Sonia
Hawkes’ archive (online in the Oxford-based Novum Inventorium Sepulchrale).
There had also been some previous antiquarian activity at the site, both documented and
undocumented. A composite disc brooch known as the Amherst Brooch and the Coptic or
Byzantine bronze bowl dug up in 1841 are thought to have come from a grave here, despite the
finders’ claims to the contrary. In c.1858 the British Museum had artefacts said to come from
Sarre or Crundale Down, suggesting further undocumented activity had taken place at the site,
and at least 2 graves were recorded at Sarre Mill by Charles Roach Smith in 1861.
Brent (1868: 318) notes oral traditions of finds in chalk pits around the site. David Perkins’
excavations in the 1980s and 1990s showed 18th century interference with at least one grave. This
led Perkins to suggest that the Sarre community knew rather more about the graves and their
contents than they admitted (Perkins 1992: 99-100), so that early modern treasure-hunting is a
significant potential source of disturbance (see also Appendix 1.4).
Brent reported 30 out of his 272 graves as disturbed, giving variable amounts of information
about each (Table 15). Brent realized almost immediately, in his second grave, that he was dealing
with previous opening. Bones are described as “much deranged” or “displaced” and in some
cases most of the skeleton is missing or mixed with gravegoods in the fill. One case, Gr 198,
should perhaps be discounted as the description sounds like animal burrowing. However the
disturbance in the others is much too extensive for this explanation, involving the disappearance
of much of the grave contents. Gr 198 is also the only grave in which Brent observed any kind of
cut into the fill; in the others the robber intrusion was no longer visible.
Brent discovered graves initially by running parallel trenches across the field, then by use of an
iron probe, which he found to be all that was required, although he was sometimes led astray by a
fault in the chalk. The whereabouts of graves was not evident from the surface, but the surface
does not appear to have been levelled by ploughing: several times the excavators were deceived
by “some circular holes, or shallow pits, dug in various parts of the field. The object of these
436
holes was not at first apparent, but in some instances at least we found them to be connected
with Roman sepulture, and exhumed from them broken pieces of Roman pottery, burnt wood,
and charred bones of sheep, swine, and other animals, as well as a considerable quantity of oyster
shells” (Brent 1863: 309). It is therefore indicative that Brent does not mention seeing any signs
of previous digging into any of the early medieval graves either on the surface or in the fill. No
telltale hollows were left over the disturbed graves, nor was their fill looser or a different colour
from the rest.
Beyond the disturbance, Brent’s observations are acute, if sometimes light on detail. He
distinguishes clearly between graves which are disturbed, those which have no artefact finds and
those without human bones (e.g. XXXI “No relics”; XXXVII “No interment discoverable”;
CXXXVII “No relics. The femur and tibia measured together thirty-seven inches.”). He notes
double graves of both the alongside and stacked types, the latter including CXXXIV with “the
skeletons nearly touching”. He notes the poorer preservation of children’s bones, with the
general observation that “the state of the human bones exhibited much variety” (Brent 1868:
320). His impression was that, on the whole, bone preservation improved with age at death, while
bone quality was worse in deeper graves. He also commented that the part of the skull in contact
with the grave floor was almost always decayed.
In 1982 David Perkins excavated two Anglo-Saxon graves (Gr 273 and 274) on the supposed site
of the medieval Church of St. Giles. One of these was disturbed in antiquity, though probably
only by the insertion of a secondary or replacement burial (Chapter 6.2).
In 1990 the Trust for Thanet Archaeology planned a further 36 graves and excavated 18, one of
which had previously been opened by Brent. Between 9 and 12 are reported as disturbed in
antiquity. There is some ambiguity about Gr #13/282 which Perkins (1991: 142) appears to
count as both disturbed in antiquity and in modern times. In addition, Gr #33 and #35 are
marked as disturbed on the plan, but no information about them is given. It is possible they were
not among the excavated sample, but showed signs of disturbance in the exposed upper context.
These have not been counted among the robbed graves for this analysis.
At 50% this is a much higher proportion of robbed graves than reported by Brent. Thanet
Archaeology may well have happened to open one of the areas of the grave field with a
concentration of disturbance (a phenomenon noted by Brent, Table 15). The grave plans show
convincing and typical early robbing. However, the possibilities remain that the later excavators
437
were significantly bolder in their interpretations, or that some of the disturbance had occurred
since Brent’s work.
Perkins leaves open the question of exactly how much of the robbing is early medieval and how
much, as in Gr 282, dates to more recent centuries. However, he clearly considered most of it as
the same phenomenon as he had previously seen at Ozengell. He comments that here, as at
Ozengell, it is the widest graves which are robbed, often those with external structures (Perkins
1992: 99).
There are several further reasons for seeing most of the Sarre disturbance as part of the same
phenomenon of ancient robbery as seen at the other East Kent sites. For the first, recently
disturbed Gr 282 is right at the edge of the excavated area, not among the other robbed graves.
The 18th century fill inclusions are obvious, and not seen in any other graves. Likewise when
Perkins rediscovered one of Brent’s graves, the difference in fill was immediately evident (Gr #1).
In addition, the quantity and types of gravegoods which remain in the other disturbed burials are
characteristic of the highly selective ancient robbery seen elsewhere (Chapter 6.1), not of early
modern excavation. Fragmented bones were left in the fill, but no Anglo-Saxon artefacts. By
contrast the burials with early disturbance contain large numbers of artefacts which would be
highly attractive to antiquarians: part of a sword hilt, a pendant fashioned from a tremissis, a
silver-mounted pendant of pink glass, beads of amber, glass, and amethyst, a bronze key, gold
braid, and many more.
In the cemetery as a whole large numbers of grave-goods were found, including high proportions
of imported objects, as well as swords (Perkins 1992: 106-7, Richardson 2005: 71). Brent’s 272
graves yielded 28 swords, almost one to every ten graves (Perkins 1992: 107; Brent 1868: 318
seems a slight undercount). Kent has by far the highest proportion of graves with swords of any
region (Richardson 2005: 138), but Sarre stands out even in this county. No swords were found
in any of the disturbed graves, except the top of a sword hilt left in Gr 104 (not counted among
the 28 full examples). Targeting of swords by the robbers seems likely and is discussed along with
other patterns of grave-good removal in Chapter 6.1.
One grave, Gr 281, showed apparently deliberate lifting and replacing of a latch-lifter/chatelaine
complex by the side of the grave. Given the several component parts, this could only have
happened before the iron object was fragmented, a strong indication of the early date of
disturbance. The apparently deliberate rejection of this object by the reopeners also fits with
evidence from the other sites of their lack of enthusiasm for artefacts of the chatelaine-type.
438
There are many more examples, however, of objects considerably decayed and fragmenting
during disturbance. Perkins notes that “The fills of the disturbed graves yielded many iron
fragments, for the most part small and amorphous, so that nothing could be made of them.”
(Perkins 1992: 96). There are plenty of whole objects, including iron knives and keys, in the
disturbed graves, but the overall impression is not that the graves were robbed while the contents
were fresh. This is reinforced by the lack of articulated skeletal remains in the robbed graves (or
at least the 18 excavated by TAT), unlike at several of the other heavily disturbed sites (Chapter
4.9).
Disturbed Gr 279 contained bones from a minimum of 4 individuals (Perkins 1992: 103), a highly
unusual occurrence in Kentish early Anglo-Saxon cemeteries (Richardson 2005a: 92). All the
skeletons and many of the bones were very incomplete and with the bones in various states of
preservation. The bones represented an adult ?female, a juvenile, a child, and an unsexed adult.
The remaining grave goods suggest an original male burial. This may be one of the very few
examples from Kent of the phenomenon noted on the continent of several graves being
reopened simultaneously and their contents deliberately or accidentally mixed (Chapter 5.2). In
this case it is possible that there was deliberate selection of particular body parts to redeposit,
since all four individuals are represented by at least one femur but little more. Some of the bones
also showed red markings, for which no explanation is attempted in the report.
It is in an appendix to the first Sarre report (Perkins 1991) that Perkins published his
classification scheme for grave disturbance (Appendix 1.1: Ozengell, Table 14), which is actually
based on his finds from Ozengell. It covers how much of the grave fill was removed and in
which direction; human v. animal disturbance; whether skeletal material is present, scattered, or
methodically moved; whether gravegoods are present, scattered, or deliberately damaged;
evidence of attempts to locate the grave cut; and whether the grave was backfilled with the
original fill, backfilled with a different fill, or not backfilled at all. This is by far the most
systematic approach to analysing early medieval grave robbery so far published, including on the
continent. However, unless a very large number of graves are to be discussed, and perhaps
subjected to statistical analysis, it is somewhat cumbersome to use. This thesis has preferred a
thick description approach, particularly given the very varied data quality from the various sites.
This said, Perkins’ classification system for disturbed burials, although not entirely user-friendly,
yields more information about the evidence for disturbance at Sarre than is recorded at most sites.
In most of the graves the classes given show that the whole of the fill has been removed and then
439
backfilled, but in Gr 281 it was possible to see that digging had been from the head end. In only
one grave, Gr 283, did the original grave floor definitely survive the digging. This suggests that
Gr 283 may still have had an intact coffin providing airspace around the burial at the time of
disturbance (Chapters 4.6, 5.1), which interpretation is supported by the apparently in situ
position of one tibia.
Although Perkins described the remaining bones in most graves as “scattered”, the plans or
descriptions show that in 3 Sarre examples there was apparently deliberate heaping or piling of
bones of the type seen at several other sites (Chapters 5.1, 6.2). In one of these the heap was at
the head end, rather than the more usual foot. Such heaping was evidently a feature that struck
Perkins, since he includes in his classification both “(c) Bones have been moved and placed or
stacked methodically” and “(d) Bones have been moved and placed or stacked in a humorous or
capricious fashion”. It is greatly to be regretted that the delayed publication of Ozengell, from
which these observations almost certainly arise, means there is no way of knowing in which, or
how many, graves these features were seen. The “yoricking about” or “re-arrangment of
disinterred bones [which] demonstrates a childlike or Rabelaisian humour on the part of the
robbers” (Perkins 1991: 164) is particularly intriguing and has not been reported at any of the
other sites investigated here. However, stacking of bones has been noted at several other
cemeteries and is discussed in Chapters 5.1, 6.2.
Back at Sarre, the 20th century excavations found a range of internal and external grave structures
corresponding to those classified by AC Hogarth at St Peter’s Tip (Hogarth 1973, Chapter 4.5).
Brent’s excavation technique would not have enabled him to observe external grave structures,
and Perkins notes that although he makes occasional mention of internal structures, this “is so
tersely reported as to betray a lack of interest” (Perkins 1992: 98). Perkins considers that plough
attrition may have removed external or grave lip structures such as post-holes or beam slots from
more of the 20th century graves. Five of the shallowest graves were in the process of destruction
by the plough. None of these were more than 25 cm deeper than the chalk surface,
demonstrating considerable topsoil erosion at the site over the 130 years since Brent’s excavation
(Perkins 1992: 97). Similarly, he suggests that the large disturbed graves Gr 285 and 286 might
originally have exhibited curb-slots or the like (Perkins 1992: 98), with the implication that the
disturbance was devastating enough to have removed all signs of such internal structures.
Sarre has one of the earliest start dates among the Kent cemeteries. Brent suspected that part of
the cemetery disturbed Roman interments (1866: 177). He thought Gr CXXXI a Roman burial,
440
and in CCXXVIII may even have discovered a Roman occupation deposit. In 1991 a Thanet
Unit watching brief on a Southern Water sewage pipe in the locality found no new graves, but did
discover a sunken featured building with an iron Anglo-Saxon buckle in the fill, and a ditch to the
south of the cemetery with a 9th century dress fastener in the fill. Along with the Roman remains,
there are therefore hints of settlement in the immediate vicinity of the cemetery into the later
Anglo-Saxon period (see also Brookes 2007: 78). Opportunities for exploitation of this cemetery
by local populations have not been lacking over the centuries.
441
Appendix 1.2 Kent Sites: limited or doubtful early disturbance
This section discusses in detail the sites with reports of limited early disturbance, affecting only
one or two graves (Table 7, Fig. 9). In some cases the diagnosis appears justified, but in others
the evidence is doubtful or has not yet been published. This picture may change as more
information becomes available, particularly about the recent excavations at Bourne Park, Bridge.
Canterbury VI, Old Westgate Farm
(Bennett 1982, Frere & Bennett 1987, Webster 1982.)
Table 7
A voluntary watching brief was carried out by Canterbury Archaeological Trust in 1982 on the
redevelopment of this former farm. The site was dominated by a Roman period cremation
cemetery, from which at least 50 burials were recovered. In addition there were signs that the
burial ground had been reused in the 7th century. Several Anglo-Saxon finds were made,
including a sherd of early Saxon grass-tempered pottery and two glass palm cups.
Feature 70 was tentatively interpreted as an Anglo-Saxon grave robbed in antiquity. It was
thought to have been covered originally by a small mound. A gold pendant, probably
manufactured around AD 620 but buried some decades later, was lying on the shallow grave
floor in two pieces. The grave was cut by an adult male inhumation burial including a sceatta
dating to c. AD 690-725. Perhaps this is a case, like that at Polhill discussed below, of plundering
of a burial happened across during later grave-digging. That the pendant was left behind, despite
its impressive nature, would be consistent with the pattern of grave good removal from the more
extensively excavated robbed cemeteries (Chapter 6.1).
Darenth I, Darenth Park
(Brock 1884, Wilson 1956, Walsh 1980, Batchelor 1982, 1990, excavation archive held by
Maidstone Museum.)
Table 7, Fig. 115
Thirteen graves have been excavated out of a probably much larger cemetery in the grounds of
Darenth Park Hospital. One double burial (Gr 6) is reported as ‘disturbed in antiquity’, but the
evidence is not overwhelming and tree root damage is another possibility. The other point of
interest is Gr 5, which is disturbed by an aggressive secondary burial (Chapter 6.2).
442
Various accidental finds of human bones and artefacts in the hospital grounds are documented
from the late 19th century onwards. Excavations took place in 1972-3 (grave 3), 1978 (graves 4
and 5), 1981 (re-excavation of graves 4 and 5, graves 6-12 found), and 1998 (grave 13). Finds so
far suggest that the burial ground was in use c.450-600 (Batchelor 1990, Richardson 2005: 23). A
large number of postholes and stakeholes were also excavated, the majority of which were judged
to pre-date the cemetery, although some may be associated with graves (Batchelor 1990: 57). The
discovery of an intact early 5th century glass bowl with chi-rho symbol has given debates about
the survival of Roman Christianity in Kent and the relationship of burial ritual to religion
particular focus at this cemetery.
The published report describes Gr 6 as “disturbed in antiquity”, stating that “the two burials have
been totally disturbed and thoroughly mixed with the filling. The stepping of the sides may
possibly indicate a recut and double burial similar to that found in grave 5” (Batchelor 1990: 43-
44). The bones were of two adults, one male and one female. No grave-goods were found.
No explanation is given as to why the disturbance was assigned to ‘antiquity’. However, the
excavators were evidently certain that they were not reopening one of the graves known to have
been disturbed in the 19th or earlier 20th centuries, presumably because they found no trace of a
modern cut into the grave fill. Indeed, as discussed below, the grave was covered with a
substantial layer of tree roots, ruling out any possibility of recent damage.
The site archive in Maidstone Museum preserves all the letters, plans, proofs, photos, context
sheets, and drawings from the 1981 Central Excavation Unit work. This material adds
considerable detail to the information in the published report. It shows that a number of
different sources of disturbance to Gr 6 were observed as excavation progressed. Although these
do not eliminate the possibility of disturbance in antiquity, they do bring the diagnosis into doubt.
First, it appears from the context sheets that the top layers of the burial context were affected by
a modern garden bedding trench. Second, a modern GPO trench sliced off the south west
section of the grave. Third, the grave-fill is immediately noted as suffering ‘much tree root
disturbance’. A multitude of tree roots crisscrossing the grave is evident in photo 9, a vertical
shot of the grave-cut before excavation. Suddenly, however, when the excavators reached the
burial (context 134), they noted ‘Two skeletons, unarticulated, much disturbed in antiquity...
robbed in antiquity, thoroughly smashing up both burials’. There is no explanation as to why tree
root damage was ruled out as a cause of the disturbance. Although the excavators may well have
had ample grounds for their interpretation, these are not set out.
443
At 0.46m, Gr 6 was among the deeper of the graves found in the modern excavations at the site.
Its disturbance therefore cannot be attributed to shallowness increasing vulnerability to either
robbers or to the plough. Nor is this the only burial so far excavated at the site which lacks grave-
goods. No artefacts were recovered from Gr 3, of which no further details are recorded, and Gr
12, an adult female, was unfurnished. Lack of grave-goods alone cannot be taken as evidence for
robbing.
There is no dating evidence for the disturbed grave, either absolute or relative to the rest of the
cemetery, so no conclusions can be drawn about the selection of the grave for robbery on the
basis of date. It is at the north corner of the excavated area, beyond which the cemetery is
believed to continue. Its near neighbour, grave 5, is another double burial but was found intact.
Future exploration beyond the northern limit of the 1981 excavation would be necessary to
establish whether any further graves are disturbed.
Gr 5 at Darenth Park is an example of a double burial where the addition of the second body
damaged the earlier interment, and where a degree of aggression or contempt seems indicated. In
this case, a male youth had been added to the grave of an adult male (Walsh 1980: 315). The
upper burial was considered hurried, as the head and shoulders were found ‘hunched up at the
north end of the grave’. A skull fracture indicated that this second individual may have met a
violent death. The later burial cut into the vertebrae and rib-cage of the earlier interment. As at
Eccles and elsewhere, the primary skeleton lacked a skull. This may have been removed at the
time of the secondary interment, although decapitation as cause of death or post-mortem
removal of the head are also possibilities. Each skeleton had a small iron knife blade at the hip.
Deal I, Mill Hill
(Parfitt & Brugmann 1997, Richardson 2005, Sayer 2007, 2009.)
Table 7, Fig. 116-117
This cemetery did not show the widespread robbing reported at other east Kent sites. There were
just a couple of cases of possible early disturbance in the 76 graves excavated by the Dover
Archaeological Group in the late 1980s. However, other evidence from grave markers and
intercutting at the site is informative. Mill Hill is a primarily 6th century cemetery, which may
explain the low levels of reopening (Chapter 4.9), although Duncan Sayer (2009: 156) has recently
argued that its use period extends into the 7th century.
444
For a Saxon field cemetery, Mill Hill had some unusually tangled stratigraphy. Focused on a
Bronze Age mound, as is common in Kent and elsewhere, part of the cemetery also overlay a late
Iron Age inhumation burial ground. Since these sparsely furnished prehistoric graves lay on very
similar axes to the early medieval ones, later burials could in some cases be distinguished only by
the presence of Roman period material in the fill. The re-use of the Iron Age site also meant that
many Anglo-Saxon graves contained redeposited human bone, as at Bradstow School (see below),
where it created ambiguity in identifying multiple burials. Some of the latest burials at Mill Hill
cut into those of an earlier phase (Parfitt 1997: 17), implying that whatever grave markers had
been used were no longer visible by this time. This has important implications for the length of
time graves could be identified on the ground and thus for the timeframe of grave robbery
(Chapter 4.5).
Two graves in the cemetery showed signs of robbing in antiquity. The first, Gr 72, seems to have
had its objects removed when Gr 10 was later cut through it (Parfitt 1997: 29). Gr 10 (Phase IV)
cuts through both Gr 72 and Gr 71 (Phase II) at right-angles, so that it appears to be a new grave
rather than a recut for a secondary burial. The cutting is presumably accidental. A second, older,
buckle found in Gr 10 was interpreted as coming from Gr 72. This opportunistic removal of
valuables from an older burial is also seen at Polhill (Chapter 6.2).
The second deliberately disturbed burial is Gr 85, described as “Disturbed; remains of skull and
spearhead in place. Scattered long-bones of more than one individual.” (Parfitt 1997: 148). The
remaining grave-goods comprised a shield boss, spear fittings including a spearhead with tip
broken off, an incomplete knife, and a copper alloy object which might be waste from a casting.
No mention is made of any detectable robber cut into the grave. Two individuals were identified
from the bone assemblage: an adult of unknown sex, aged 30-35, and a young adult male aged
20-30, who would fit with the weapon collection (Parfitt 1997: 215-6).
The remains are interpreted as “a thoroughly disturbed single width grave containing the remains
of two individuals. Sometime after the spearman representing the primary burial had been
interred, the grave had apparently been re-opened, leading to extensive disturbance of the body.
The disarticulated bones of a second individual were thrown into the grave as it was being back-
filled” (Parfitt 1997: 26).
The site director, Keith Parfitt, who is not convinced by many claims of grave-robbery, considers
this the best example he has excavated. His impression was that someone had definitely been
digging in Gr 85, but that the contents were from different people (Parfitt pers. comm.). This
445
may be a disturbed double burial, or it may be a case of the contents of more than one grave
being collected together, as suggested at in one grave at Sarre and another at Finglesham (Chapter
5.2).
Dunton Green I, Polhill
(Ward 1931, Blumstein 1956, Stoyel 1959, Philp 1964, 1965, 1967, 1973, 1979, Arnold 1980,
Philp & Hawkes 1980, Tyler 1992, Philp 2002, Richardson 2005.)
Table 7, Fig. 118
There was an oral tradition of early discoveries of skeletons and weapons at this site, possibly
dating to the 1839 road building. Records of 107 excavated graves have been published (Philp
1973). There were a number of multiple burials, some of which were thought to involve
secondary insertions.
Double grave 83 had been “almost completely disturbed” with the bones of an adult and a child
mixed together in the backfill. Two artefacts were also found in the fill: an unidentified iron
object and a bronze scabbard-chape, thought to suggest the former presence of a seax. These
were also found in 3 undisturbed graves at the site, including well-furnished Gr 84 and 85 which
were neighbours with Gr 83. As at other sites, the selection of this grave to reopen therefore
appears highly specific. The removal of the seax fits with the evidence for sword removal seen at
the heavily disturbed sites in East Kent (Chapter 6.1).
The only other evidence for grave robbery came from Gr 52. This is actually two graves, one
partly superimposed across the other. Graves at Polhill clearly had markers: 6 have barrows,
several have postholes, and there is very little intercutting. This superimposition may therefore
have been deliberate, or may be one of the occasional but persistent examples of accidental
intercutting seen at most of the sites (Chapters 4.5, 6.2). The report notes, “It seems that the
grave-digger of the north grave made a slight detour into the centre of the original grave, perhaps
to recover valuable grave-goods. Four of the long-bones disturbed in this operation were placed
on the south side of the second grave”. An iron buckle remained at the waist of the earlier
skeleton, while an iron knife in the backfill of the second grave was considered probably
disturbed from the original burial. The same kind of removal of grave goods from an earlier
grave is also seen at Mill Hill, Deal, where Gr 72 had its objects taken when Gr 10 was later cut
through it (Parfitt 1997: 29, Chapter 6.2). Both of these are sites with minimal deliberate
reopening.
446
Gr 63 contained two adult burials, the secondary causing considerable damage to the primary.
The lower skeleton was “largely removed when upper body placed in same grave, but skull
replaced between legs of upper skeleton”. This placing of the head is associated with deviant
burials (Chapter 6.3), but perhaps here has a more benign interpretation: it may have been
acceptable to dig out and discard most of the primary skeleton, but with the skull replaced as the
most significant bone, representing the whole individual.
Eastry III, Updown
(Webster 1977, Hawkes 1976, Hawkes 1979, Philp & Keller 2002, Richardson 2005, Welch 2008.)
Table 7
A total of 78 graves were excavated here in rescue campaigns in 1976 and 1989 (Philp & Keller
2002, Welch 2008). Despite the poor bone preservation, evidence for grave robbery was noted in
one burial in each of the excavations. In 1976 this was Gr 76:18, an adult-sized weapon grave of a
sub-adult or young adult, possibly encircled by a ring-ditch (Welch 2008: 10, 18, 83, 101). This is
reported as “appeared to have been robbed in antiquity”.
No skeletal remains were found in Gr 76:18 beyond a single molar tooth. There was a four-sided
coffin stain, within which was found a spear socket or ferrule near the south side, an iron tang
from a knife or tool near the north side, and a buckle at the centre. A copper alloy fragment was
in the fill just outside the south side wall of the coffin.
The number of the 1989 disturbed grave is unknown. The report of the 1989 exavations states
only that of the 41 newly discovered graves, one “had been robbed by treasure hunters” (Philp
2002: 24). There is no further information about the evidence for disturbance, likely date, nor
which grave was affected. Martin Welch suggested that it may have been Gr 89:31 (Welch 2008:
10), another possibility is empty Gr 89:33, for which no grave plan has been published.
Gr 76:18 is tentatively dated to the third quarter of the 7th century, but no dating was possible
for either 89:31 or 89:33 (if one of those is the 1989 robbed burial) beyond a general 7th century
bracket. They are not in the same area of the cemetery. Neither Gr 89:31 nor 89:33 have grave
structures. All have coffins. Gr 76:18 contained fragmentary remains of grave-goods, but neither
of the possible 1989 candidates had associated finds beyond the coffin remains.
447
Horton Kirkby II, Riseley
(Cumberland 1937, Priest 1938, Tyler 1992, Richardson 2005.)
Table 7
Several graves at this site were disturbed during their discovery by workmen. At least 4 others,
however, are described as disturbed without any further information as to date or cause (XIX,
XXII, LXV, CXV). These may be examples of ancient disturbance. Gr CII is described as
“Skeleton very much decomposed; right leg – femur, tibia, fibula and patella – found lying on
breast” (Priest 1938). This may be the result of post- or peri-mortem injury, or of reopening
immediately after burial. Unfortunately no further information is recorded. In addition Gr LXXV
is an example of a burial where a propped skull has tumbled from its original position (Priest
1938: 22).
Minster-in-Thanet III, Hoo Farm
(Scurrell 1971, Macpherson-Grant 1972-3, Perkins & Hawkes 1984, Perkins 1985a, Richardson
2005.)
Table 7, Fig. 119
In 1983 three inhumations were recorded by the Thanet Archaeological Unit under the
supervision of DRJ Perkins during a watching brief on gas pipeline construction. None contained
grave-goods, but structural features in Grave A similar to those at other Thanet cemeteries
suggest an early medieval date. All 3 graves were thought previously disturbed, in addition to
substantial damage to Graves B and C from the pipeline trench. The graves were excavated under
rescue conditions and the publication is brief.
These three graves are not grouped closely together, but were found strung out along the pipeline
cut, with Grave A at TR 29956565, Grave B at TR 30116565, and Grave C at TR 30206566. It is
by no means certain that they represent one burial ground. Nor are they immediately associated
with the 1971 discovery of 5 graves, which may well be Romano-British rather than Anglo-Saxon,
about 110m away at TR 30326567 (Scurrell 1971: 246, Macpherson-Grant 1972-3: 299,
Richardson 2005: 55). The absence of grave goods could suggest a ‘final phase’ date for the
burials in the 7th or 8th centuries. However, the lack of W-E alignment and the likelihood that
artefacts were removed from all three graves by robbers leave the question of dating open.
448
Grave A (NNE) (Perkins 1985a: 45)
Damage to the western edge of the grave cut by what Perkins calls a “characteristic ‘finding’ cut”
can clearly be seen on the plan (Fig. 119). It implies that the presence of a grave was still
observable aboveground at the time of disturbance, but that its exact cut was not visible. The
robbers started digging a little way outside the grave, and had to work inwards to find the side.
The remaining contents consisted only of a small fragment of long bone, and what appeared to
be two gall-stones, confirming the impression that some time had passed between burial and
robbing. The grave had been almost completely emptied.
Perkins also takes the presence of mounds of hard chalk silt on the floor of the grave as
indicative of disturbance. These may be evidence that the reopened grave was left without
backfill, so it is regrettable that it was not possible to publish in greater detail.
Grave B (Roughly NE-SW) (Perkins 1985a: 45)
From the waist up this grave was destroyed by the pipe trench. The middle is intact, while the
plan and sections show disturbance to the foot end. This lowest part seems to have been totally
emptied.
In the intact part the plan shows stone packing indicative of a coffin, though this is not
mentioned in the report text. Any coffin must have decayed considerably by the time of
disturbance, since all traces are cleanly removed by the robber cut.
In the intact middle section of the grave lay the powdery pelvis and femurs of a probable child,
making this a rare case of disturbance of a child burial. However, although it was not possible to
discover the full dimensions of the grave, it does not appear from the scale plan to be particularly
diminutive, and probably was not identifiable as the grave of a child on the surface. It is unlikely
that this is a case of a child’s burial deliberately selected for robbing.
Grave C (WSW) (Perkins 1985a: 47)
The head end of this grave had been truncated by the pipe trench. Only the fragmentary long
bones of the legs remained, in more or less anatomical positions but semi-crouched at the foot of
the grave. Perkins states that “This grave had been disturbed in antiquity… at the north end at a
time when the bones of the legs were still articulated”.
Presuming that his interpretation is correct, the entire body may have been lifted or pushed to the
foot of the grave. For this to happen the whole area of the burial would need to be clear of fill,
449
which would be much easier to achieve in a coffined burial or lined grave. And indeed traces of
stone packing suggest the original presence of a wooden coffin.
However, at least two possible alternative interpretations suggest themselves, and on the
published evidence it is difficult to assess their value. The first is that the body simply slipped to
the foot end of its container in transit or as it was lowered into the grave. Second, it is possible
that this is simply a body squashed into a too-small grave. Although part of the cut was destroyed,
it appears from the curve of the W corner that the grave may have been shorter than expected
from the adult size of the longbones. The stone packing more or less rules out the possibility that
this could be a crouched Bronze Age burial. However the packing is also peculiar, as the line
appears to run under the knees, rather than enclosing the whole burial.
The feature on the long side of Grave C was interpreted as a possible posthole. Presumably it
was clear to the excavators that they were excavating something different from the Grave A
“finding cut”, which is similarly situated, but they do not elaborate on how they made that call.
Minster-in-Thanet IV, Thorne Farm
(Perkins 1985a, Birch & Perkins 1987, Richardson 2005.)
Table 7, Fig. 120
A group of three graves was excavated here by the Thanet Archaeological Unit (directed by DRJ
Perkins) during a watching brief on gas pipeline trenching in 1984. Richardson suggests the latest
datable find, a buckle, is of probably of mid to late 7th century date (Richardson 2005: 56).
Gr 2 is reported as “Disturbed, presumably in antiquity” (Perkins 1985a: 53). Only long bone
fragments (tibia and fibula) were found, parallel and high in the fill. Neither bone tumble or
animal burrowing could explain this kind of disturbance, so it seems clear that the grave had
previously been opened.
From the plan it appears that all the remaining grave contents were collected at the east (probably
foot) of the grave, and that there is a possible ‘finding cut’ at the west end, suggesting that the
robbers may have started digging from the head down. However no mention is made of this
evidence in the grave catalogue. Grave contents collected at the foot are typical of East Kent
robbed graves (Chapter 5.1, 6.2).
There is nothing to indicate the period of this reopening, except that the ‘finding cut’ suggests the
presence of a grave must still have been visible on the surface, but not its exact outline. No later
450
material was found in the fill, although all the graves in this area contained much redeposited
Iron Age material.
The remains in the other two early medieval graves were complete, except where sectioned by the
pipeline trench. A small gold pendant brooch, probably an adapted Frankish solidus, was found
by metal detector in the topsoil spoil heap during work on Graves 1 and 2. It is unclear whether
it came from one of these graves, but just possibly it was part of the rifled contents of Grave 2.
A cluster of nine Roman period cremations and inhumations was also found at Thorne Farm,
less than 100m to the east. Perkins considered that two fragmentary urns, found together in a
small pit, had been disturbed by human hand rather than by the plough. This may be evidence of
antiquarian or casual digging in the area, though no other of the Roman period graves were
affected.
Ramsgate VIII, Chalk Hill
(Hearne et al 1995: 240, 244, 262, 266-7, 301-3, 328, 338, Richardson 2005.)
Table 7
Wessex Archaeology and the Trust for Thanet Archaeology excavated a single inhumation grave,
believed Anglo-Saxon (Grave 1/106), during their 1992-1994 fieldwork programme in the area.
Few bones were recovered (skull and lower limb), but may represent two individuals, an adult
and a juvenile/sub-adult. No grave goods were recovered. The grave was described as disturbed
in antiquity, with the skeletal remains found scattered through the fill. However it is possible that
this disturbance was caused by the insertion of the secondary burial of one individual (Chapter
6.2).
Bridge I, Bourne Park
(Richardson 2005)
Table 7
The director of this site reports that the excavations starting in 2005 found signs of disturbance
soon after burial and that publication is expected imminently (Paul Wilkinson pers. comm.).
451
Appendix 1.3 Kent Sites: no early disturbance
This section examines the 13 burial sites without evidence of early disturbance (Table 8, Fig. 9).
Most of these have no signs at all pointing to ancient robbery. A few have indications which
could point that way, but are judged unconvincing. Still, there is an important ‘absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence’ caveat here. All of these are sites where the scale and
standard of excavation make it likely that any evidence of robbery would have been observed,
recorded, and reported. Any particular concerns are mentioned in the site-specific discussions.
However, it is not possible to rule out the possibility that poor preservation destroyed evidence,
or that signs were overlooked, or that future excavation will unearth evidence of disturbance not
found in the areas so far explored.
Aylesford II, Eccles
(Shaw 1994, Richardson 2005, Reynolds 2009.)
Eccles is a late 7th to 9th/10th century cemetery, unusual in that the graves are crowded in and
around a ruined Roman villa, with high levels of intercutting. It may represent an intermediate
stage in the transition to the crowded graveyards of the Middle Ages (see Cherryson 2007).
Considerable plough damage is noted to some shallower graves, but the interim and preliminary
reports contain no mention of grave-robbery nor any evidence pointing that way.
There are a number of examples of secondary interments inserted into existing graves, including
an example of a secondary or intercutting burial with sinister undertones (Chapter 6.2). K19 had
either been disturbed when K01, which lies across K19’s chest, was buried, and the head dug up
and redeposited elsewhere, or had been decapitated before burial. In addition to its headlessness,
burial K19 is also at an atypical orientation for this cemetery, as are some of the surrounding
graves. The feet or legs of K19 were bound together in some way, preserving the bones unusually
well. It is in an area with several victims of fatal cranial sword injuries, all of which lack defence
injuries (Shaw 1994: 182).
Bekesbourne II, Aerodrome (Cowslip Wood)
(Anonymous 1951, Jenkins 1955, 1957, Härke 1992 Richardson 2005.)
Many of the 40-plus graves excavated here had suffered disturbance from tree roots and
uprooted trees (most were discovered in the garden of a house called ‘Woodlands’). Burrowing
animals were also implicated in at least one case. In addition, one grave, Gr 12, was identified by
its 1955 excavators as interfered with by human hand. This is presumably the grave listed as
452
robbed by Härke (1992: 248). In the site report it is described as ‘Entirely disturbed’, with the
contents strewn indiscriminately in the lowest fill. No details of any skeletal remains were
recorded, unlike in the other graves, and probably suggesting that none were found. Recorded
artefacts were a fragment of green glass bowl rim, a fragments of copper alloy bowl rim, a knife, a
flint flake, metal ?box fittings, and two nails.
The likelihood of this being an example of early robbing is greatly reduced by the subsequent
identification during the 1959 excavations of recent rifling in two graves near Gr 12. One was
thought to be a re-excavation of the original grave whose discovery during woodland clearance
had prompted the 1955 excavations. The other contained a modern bottle stopper, though there
was no record or local recollection of its opening. Richardson identifies these as the two graves
marked in pencil on the site plan close to Gr 12, one labelled Gr 36 (Richardson 2005: 9). In this
case it seems likely that all three were opened in the same or similar circumstances in or
immediately prior to 1955.
Bekesbourne showed an unusual amount of intercutting, with several burials damaged by
subsequent grave-digging. As at Eccles, it is sometimes unclear where the line should be drawn
between accidental intercutting and deliberate secondary burial. For example, Gr 40 was directly
overlain and had its skull removed by Gr 39, which also almost destroyed Gr 41. The Gr 40 skull
had been placed at the end of Gr 41. Perhaps this group should be regarded as consecutive
multiple burials. In such cases the interference with the skull of the earlier burial is a recurrent
feature, as already seen at Eccles (above).
All the intercutting was despite evidence that marker posts were at least sometimes used here (Gr
13). In one case (Gr 10), it appeared that a gravedigger shortened a cut to limit damage to a pre-
existing grave (Chapter 6.2).
Canterbury V, Stour Street
(Bennett 1980, Johns 1982, Brugmann 2004, Richardson 2005.)
This a multiple burial of 2 adults, 2 children and 2 small dogs in a large pit cut through the last
phases of a Roman courtyard. One of the children had been killed by a blow to the head, and the
bodies had been placed carelessly into the pit. When the Canterbury Archaeological Trust
excavated in 1982, they found many bones out of position. However, this disturbed impression
was attributed to the bodies having been contained within a wooden structure and shifting
position as the organic material on which they lay decomposed. This interpretation is supported
453
by the finds of Roman jewellery accompanying the bodies, which more or less rule out re-
opening for robbing, if not other purposes.
Chartham II, Horton
(Kelly 1987, Sparey-Green 2003, Anonymous 2004, Richardson 2005.)
During a watching brief on a water main trench in 2001 Canterbury Archaeological Trust
identified 6 and excavated 3 graves from a previously unknown early Anglo-Saxon cemetery here.
Grave goods were plentiful, including weapons and jewellery. One grave was enclosed in a
penannular ditch. Traces of medieval and later settlement overlay and partially cut into the burial
ground.
No substantial evidence of robbery was found. However, the limited excavation did turn up a
possible sign of deliberate interference with an underlying grave by the later site occupants. Two
burials had their cuts truncated by the terraced floor and postholes of a later hut, which itself was
probably abandoned in the 11th or 12th century. These graves were not fully excavated, but the
upper fill of one contained a copper alloy bracelet and an iron ring. The excavators interpreted
these objects as in their original positions, having from the beginning been placed in the fill
separately from any body. However, since such finds in the fill are uncommon, an alternative
explanation may be that the grave had been rifled and these artefacts rejected as unusable.
Further excavation may bring more evidence.
Dover II, Buckland
(Evison 1987, Parfitt 1994, Parfitt 1995, Richardson 2005.)
Various sources of disturbance have been identified at this site, but none is attributed to the early
medieval period. The 1987 report gives an unusually clear account of the evidence relating to the
disturbance and its interpretation. Minimal details of the later excavation are available, but no
disturbance is noted.
The most recent disturbance was caused by a modern machine trench which cut through Gr 13,
14, 21, 23, 18, 92, 94a and b, and 95. If the machine operators even noticed the ancient remains
in their trench, they do not appear to have accepted the invitation to plunder, as the uncut parts
of the graves remained intact. However, the fill of nearby Gr 88 was loose, and contained only a
body stain and a fragment of a humerus, and the excavators attributed its robbing to the
trenching phase (Evison 1987: 16).
454
Graves 152 and 153 were known to have been rifled by children in 1953. Graves 3, 4, 5, and 7
had all been disturbed in whole or part, and since they are adjacent to the late nineteenth century
railway cut, this was attributed to the navvies. The loose fill of Gr 7 included a fragment of clay
pipe, supporting this interpretation (Evison 1987: 15-16).
Two features were interpreted as medieval reburials of disturbed Anglo-Saxon material (Evison
1987: 15, 127, 252). The first was a shallow rough hole about 60cm in diameter cut into the chalk
in an area of the cemetery much damaged by the machine work. This contained partial remains of
at least 6 individuals, including male and female adults and a neonate or full-term foetus. A knife
fragment, 5 iron clench bolts, which could be Anglo-Saxon, and a probably medieval jug handle
were found. Later a second feature containing disarticulated bone was found in the same area of
the cemetery. This was closer in appearance to the early medieval graves, an oblong on the same
rough west-east alignment as the surrounding burials, but was only about half as long as the
typical adult graves. It contained fragments of the left forearm and ribs of a probably male at the
east end. A connection between this feature and the first reburial deposit was suggested in the
bone report because of the similarly enhanced state of bone preservation in both interments. If
this is a case of reopening and transfer of remains during the medieval period, it appears
significantly to have improved bone survival, including of the fragile perinatal infant skeleton.
Signs of disturbance by animals, both soon after burial and at later dates, were seen in various
graves (Evison 1987: 16). Frequently the cause was obvious, as in the rabbit hole disturbing the
skull and shoulder in Gr 75. It should be noted that these displacements of skeletal parts are on a
markedly slighter scale than the churning and digging out of bones seen in most of the graves
reported as robbed at other sites. Displacement described as animal disturbance typically affects
only the smallest skeletal parts, such as the teeth in Gr 165, and may well have been caused by
small rodents.
The disturbance to the skeleton of the weapon-bearing male in Gr 135 is slightly more substantial.
Most of the right hand is out of place by the knee; it appears to have been moved while still
partially articulated. The bones of the lower left arm are slightly out of place, and the left patella is
under the femur. The report suggests this might be the work of rats soon after burial, but no
signs of gnawing were found. Alternative suggestions include an unusual arm position, perhaps
with hands raised on an organic bundle such as a folded cloak, or displacement during coffin
collapse, as there were signs of a coffin in this grave.
455
Minster-in-Thanet VII, Mount Pleasant
(Riddler & Haith unpublished, Richardson 2005.)
The Canterbury Archaeological Trust and the Trust for Thanet Archaeology excavated eighteen
graves ahead of road-building. Only 8 contained grave goods, but these were sufficient for
Richardson to suggest a date range from the late 7th to 8th centuries (Richardson 2005: 56). This
is probably a final phase cemetery of the “churchyard-type” defined by Helen Geake (2002: 150).
The draft report states that no evidence was found for contemporaneous disturbance of burials.
One excavator on this site was Dave Perkins, who has reported high levels of robbery at sites
elsewhere in Thanet.
Nonington I
(Perkins 1997, Parfitt 2002, Richardson 2005.)
In 1875 fourteen skeletons were disinterred at the site, but the few grave goods left open the
question of date and the finds were overlooked by the archaeological community at the time
(Perkins 1997). In 2001 the Dover Archaeological Trust opened 5 graves and was able to confirm
a ‘Final Phase’ date for the cemetery (Parfitt 2002). No disturbance was reported.
Orpington I
(Tyler 1992, Tester 1968, 1969, 1977, Palmer 1975, 1977, 1978, 1984, Richardson 2005.)
Excavations during the 1960s and 70s recorded 84 inhumation and cremation graves from an
early Anglo-Saxon cemetery of circa AD 450-550. The site had been extensively disturbed during
the last two centuries, but no ancient disturbance was found. The cemetery included at least 2
secondary burials in the form of cremations set into the fills of inhumation graves (Gr 1 and 46).
Ramsgate IX, Cliffs End (Pegwell Bay)
(http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/kent/ramsgate/cliffs_end/index.html, accessed
01/10/2007, Richardson 2005.)
An excavation by Wessex Archaeology in 2004 found 12 Anglo-Saxon graves plus Bronze Age
remains. Burials were furnished with grave goods including weapons and glass and amber beads.
Richardson suggests that some or all of the graves probably dated to the 6th century (Richardson
2005: 65). The site is not yet published, but there is no mention of disturbance in the available
information.
456
St Margaret’s-at-Cliffe
(Parfitt 2004, Parfitt & Corke 2005, Richardson 2005.)
Of all the various discoveries in this area, the only graves with sufficient information for the
purposes of this research are the eight recorded by Canterbury Archaeological Trust (CAT) in
2004. These form part of a ‘Final Phase’ cemetery, with few grave goods and evidence of barrows.
The briefly published details in the CAT annual report note that ‘None had been disturbed in the
recent past’, with the implication that the excavators were certain they were not simply re-
excavating antiquarian or accidental discoveries. There is no mention of ancient disturbance.
St Margaret’s at Cliffe II, Townsend Farm Road
(http://www.pre-construct.com/sites/Summary04/KTFM04.htm accessed 20080218, Pre-
Construct Archaeology unpublished interim site report, Richardson 2005.)
Twelve graves were identified and 11 excavated August 2004 during a watching brief by Pre-
Construct Archaeology, who have kindly provided the unpublished site report. No disturbance
was detected. Richardson suggests a late 6th or early 7th century date (Richardson 2005: 69).
Snodland II, Holborough
(Evison 1956, Warhurst 1952, Richardson 2005.)
Various finds from the area came to archaeological notice during the 1940s. From 1950 several
graves were revealed by chalk extraction, and from 1952 a rescue excavation was directed by Vera
Evison. The 39 recorded graves form part of a ‘Final Phase’ cemetery dated by Evison to the
second half of 7th and first half of 8th centuries. No pre-20th century disturbance was reported,
though the skeleton in grave 13 is noted as “fairly complete except for left ribs apparently
destroyed by roots” (Evison 1956: 122).
Woodnesborough III, Ringlemere Farm
(Parfitt 2003, Parfitt & Corke 2004, 2006, Richardson 2005, Marzinzik 2007.)
At least 50 early Anglo-Saxon burials have been discovered on the site of a Bronze Age barrow.
These are mostly inhumations but also some cremations, which is unusual in early Anglo-Saxon
east Kent. Dates from 5th century to c. AD 550. Interim reports note a great deal of animal
burrowing in the barrow, but no robbing. Photographs show clear and extensive rabbit burrows.
However, site director Keith Parfitt adds the caveat that bone preservation at Ringlemere was
very poor, so that where any bones were recovered at all, it was generally just skull and long
457
bones. In these circumstances he thinks it questionable whether the excavators would have been
able to detect the sort of disturbance by humans reported at other sites, and suggests an 'absence
of evidence is no evidence of absence' clause (Parfitt pers. comm.). Rabbit disturbance was
extensive, with Anglo-Saxon grave goods spread up to 3 metres from the associated graves.
Saltwood Tunnel
(http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/search/fr.cfm?RCN=CTRL03-25&M=1 accessed 20080219,
http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/search/fr.cfm?M=1&RCN=CTRL03-24 accessed 20080219,
Canterbury Archaeological Trust 1999, 2000, Anonymous 2003, Richardson 2005.)
Excavated in advance of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link construction, this cemetery/pair of
cemeteries is not yet fully published, but interim reports available via the Archaeological Data
Service contain no mention of early disturbance. The site is therefore included as undisturbed,
with the twin caveats first that further information may emerge, and second that bone
preservation was very poor.
458
Appendix 1.4 Kent Sites: antiquarian excavations
The only antiquarian excavation which recorded extensive ancient robbing is John Brent’s work
at Sarre in the 1860s, which is included among the heavily disturbed sites in Appendix 1.1 and the
Analysis sections (Chapters 4, 5, 6). Brent’s recognition of disturbance at Sarre is supported by
the 20th century excavations at the site. Evidence of minor ancient disturbance is recorded at a
handful of other antiquarian sites and discussed below, along with other relevant observations
from the antiquarian records.
The best-known and most prolific Kentish antiquarian is the Rev. Bryan Faussett, who excavated
in the mid-18th century Faussett (Faussett 1865, Hawkes 1990, Rhodes 1990, Richardson 2005a:
3-5). The detail and accuracy of his records, published in 1856 by Charles Roach Smith, compare
favourably with many of the 20th century excavations carried out in the county. The work of the
many other early excavators in the county is documented – to variable extents – in the journals of
the period, and is a well-explored area of the history of British archaeology. For the purposes of
this thesis, some of the most interesting parts of Faussett’s notes are when he gives glimpses of
the many others, beyond these antiquarian-minded men, who were also digging up graves in this
period.
Early excavations by landowners are noted at several of Faussett’s sites. Disappointment in the
nature or quantity of the resulting finds often features, as of Thomas Barrett at Kingston, who
considered himself to have ‘discovered but little’, despite turning up iron weapons and glass urns
(Faussett 1856: 37). Similarly at Sibertswold Down the landowner Awnsham Churchill wrote to
Faussett warning that his wife’s grandfather had many years before opened a grave hillock and
found nothing but a gilt or inlaid spur (Faussett 1856: 102).
Typical Anglo-Saxon remains evidently did not live up to the hoped-for treasures. However, both
the glass urns and the spur had been kept by the finders or their descendants, in the latter case
“locked up”. Similarly, the editor and compiler of the published Inventorium Sepulchrale, Charles
Roach Smith, notes in an aside that dishes of Roman red ware such as that found by Faussett in
Kingston Down Gr 178 were not uncommonly to be found in houses in Kent in his day.
In one case Faussett records a high degree of familiarity with the form and contents of graves by
the population at large. At Gilton in Ash a large and deep sand pit was well-known locally for the
antiquities which could be picked out of it after frost or rain. The servants of the farmer,
inhabitants of Ash, and more particularly the servants of the miller from the nearby windmills,
are all noted as having made discoveries there. One of the miller’s servants was able to recognise
459
the presence of a grave from discolouration in the sand, and also to identify part of a spear
sticking out, although to Faussett it initially appeared nothing more than a stick or root (Faussett
1856: 1-2). Evidently some sites were regularly mined by local people with considerable expertise.
At Gilton Faussett purchased various finds including a sword blade, spearheads, shield umbos,
and beads, which largesse presumably fuelled such mining for some time to come. What would
otherwise have become of the antiquities? Plenty of other collectors were also operating in the
area (e.g. Boys 1792), so perhaps finds were kept in mills and cottages until an opportunity for
sale presented itself. Alternatively, there is a suggestion that the silversmith’s furnace was a more
usual fate (Faussett 1856: 33-34, footnote), though finds of non-ferrous metal that could be
melted down cannot have been the norm.
A comment by Faussett’s son Henry suggests that the enthusiasm of antiquaries may itself have
given an exaggerated impression of the treasure to be found. Henry describes himself discovering
the beautiful Kingston brooch and presenting it to his gout-ridden father:
“On finding it, he carried it with great glee to his father, who was in his carriage hard by...
his father drove off with it; and the next day a report was spread around that the carriage
had been so full of gold that the wheels would hardly turn…”
(Faussett 1856: 206).
Tales of ancient treasure are well-attested in English folklore (Grinsell 1967), and may have
driven much barrow-opening, if frequently with disappointing results.
As well as the written accounts of previous digging, Faussett also recorded signs of earlier
explorations in the archaeological evidence at several sites. At Crundale, for example, he
identified “trenches, or pits, which had heretofore been opened by Lord Winchelsea or by Mr
Forster” (Faussett 1856: 188). Gr 8 had previously been disturbed, but this was presumably by
the previous excavators, as Faussett comments on “soil as appeared by its looseness to have been
moved before” (Faussett 1856: 185).
At Adisham Down, Bekesbourne, Faussett found several heavily disturbed graves, for example
Gr 17 and 18, which both “appeared, by many scattered bones all the way down, to have been
opened before” (Faussett 1856: 149). These may well, however, be attributable to the soil-
extraction and excavations ordered by the father of the landowner of Faussett’s time (Faussett
1856: 145). Much of the confusion in the largest tumuli is almost certainly due to the reuse of
prehistoric barrows by the Anglo-Saxon inhabitants, but some also results from previous rifling
(e.g. Gr 43, Faussett 1856: 156).
460
At Kingston Down there was various evidence for previous grave-opening, but none is
demonstrably early medieval. Faussett quickly came to recognise the appearance of a reopened
tumulus. The “very large mound” of Grave 242 had telltale sinkings on the top, and proof of its
reopening as soon found:
“For we met with nearly a whole tobacco-pipe, of that sort which were used when first
tobacco was used in England, viz. with a large and short strig, and a very small and narrow
bowl. This lay nearly at the bottom of the highest part of the tumulus. We may, therefore,
from this circumstance conclude that this mound was opened not long after the reign of
king James the First, or perhaps in it.”
(Faussett 1856: 83-4)
In the apparently undisturbed parts of this mound were found “here and there, an oyster shell
and a boar's tusk, as also the shin-bone of an ox” (Faussett 1856: 84). This is one of many reports
from Faussett’s work of animal remains and artefacts being found in tumuli. Grave 167 at
Kingston Down, for example, had a small figure of a man carved out of chalk buried deep in the
tumulus. It seems likely that with the ploughing out of almost all such mounds in recent centuries
we have lost considerable information about the rites of barrow building and perhaps also
evidence of continuing ritual activity at burial sites.
This said, as no other ancient remains were found in Gr 242, it is possible that this particular
example was not a grave at all, but perhaps “intended as a sort of rampart or place of guard” as
Faussett suggests. Whatever its original purpose, it appears to have lured two sets of excavators
into devoting a great deal of time digging it out.
The next grave, Gr 243, is recorded as previously disturbed: “'The tumulus was very small and
low, and seemed to have been opened before; the grave was very shallow, and pointed with its
feet to the east. The bones, which were small, were very much decayed. There was no appearance
of a coffin.” (Faussett 1856: 84). Although no cemetery plan was made, Faussett’s description
and the grave numbers make it clear that this burial was in close proximity to the previous
disturbed mound, although very different in appearance. Presumably their reopening was one
event.
The excavation of Gr 257 was probably a separate incident. Faussett was told it had been dug
into by a Mr Barrett along with some other tumuli (Faussett 1856: 37, 86), and indeed there was a
“great hollow” in the top. Only some disordered human bones were left to find. Gr 261,
presumably close by, also had the appearance of having been opened before. Faussett was right,
461
“for we found nothing but a confused heap of predisturbed bones, when we came to the bottom
of the grave, which, exclusive of the tumulus, was full six feet deep” (Faussett 1856: 86). It seems
that whoever ransacked the grave, quite possibly Mr Barrett, may have overestimated the depth
needed in order to secure any finds.
Most of the graves opened by Faussett were in his day still covered by distinct tumuli. However,
he rightly suspected that “there might be many other graves in every burying place where I have
yet dug, which might either have never had any tumulus thrown up over them; or, whose tumuli
might have been entirely taken away by those who in aftertimes raised others in their
neighbourhood” (Faussett 1856: 87). Late in his career he invented “an instrument for the
purpose of discovering such latent graves without opening the ground”. This proved highly
successful, detecting large numbers of otherwise invisible graves at Beakesbourne, Sibertswold,
and Kingston Down. It is described as “Total length, four feet; from the top to the spur, two feet
two inches; from the spur to the point, including the spur, one foot ten inches, spur three inches
and a quarter long.” (Faussett 1856: 88). Faussett’s drawing and description may well be a useful
clue to the form and function of the various probing instruments reported at Bronze Age and
Merovingian sites on the continent (Chapter 2). A similar device was also used by John Brent at
Sarre in the 1860s, but is described only as an “iron probe” (Brent 1863: 309).
Faussett notes many graves in which a second burial has displaced the first (e.g. Kingston Down
Gr 15, 16, 130, 176, 205). Some of these are the type in which the primary skeleton is in a neat
heap alongside the added body, including richly furnished Kingston Gr 205, in which a dead
woman had been added to a child’s grave. In others the secondary burial seems to have been dug
through the primary, as in Kingston Down Gr 176 and 273, unless these are cases of disturbed
upper burials. His reports are thus in line with recent discussions of the variability of the
secondary burial practice (e.g. Stoodley 2002: 114-5, Cherryson 2007: 132, Chapter 6.2).
One of these secondary burials, Kingston Down Gr 273, which is of the more destructive kind
where the second interment throws the first aside, was covered by a flint layer about a foot deep.
Similar flint layers or even entire fills of flint are reported several times at Faussett’s sites,
including in Kingston Down Gr 16, which was “so entirely filled up, even to the surface of the
natural earth, with flints, that the labourers were much troubled to get down to the skeleton...”
(See also Crundale Gr 19 and Chartham Down, Faussett 1856: 163). Faussett comments on the
distance which flints must have been carried for the purpose, since they do not occur naturally at
the sites in question. Such rites may be considered “deviant”, or perhaps more specifically the
462
result of a need to keep potentially troublesome dead in their graves (see e.g. Murphy 2008,
Reynolds 2009: 81-5, 93-3, Chapter 6.3).
Lastly, Faussett records some of the most detailed and specific information about animal
disturbance in Kent cemeteries published to date. In Gr 282 at Kingston Down, for example,
“within about six inches of the skeleton, about the middle of the grave”, he discovered the skull
of a probable polecat, which seemed also to have dragged in bones of its prey.
Other antiquarians recorded relevant information in more limited quantities, but give an
impression of the extent and intensity of deliberate excavation during the period. From Barham
Downs we have the oldest written record of mound-digging, with a mention by Sir Thomas
Browne (1605-86) of a barrow being opened “in the days of Henry VIII” and a large urn found
under it (Browne 1884, III, 244-5). The next records do not appear until the 18th century, but as
discussed above, many contain notes of oral accounts of previous digging that suggest such
activity continued during the intervening time.
At Witherden Farm, Wingham, Conyngham’s 1843 excavations were predated by informal
digging of uncertain date (Conyngham 1844b, Richardson 2005b), and Akerman’s later work
seems to have refound this or Conyngham’s “rifling” (Akerman 1855 a&b, Richardson 2005b).
At Wye Downs the 1842 excavator Morris found that most of the barrows he opened had been
previously disturbed, and this does not seem to be connected with the report by some workmen
of finds of skeletons during the digging of an embankment (Morris 1842). However, it may well
represent other activity of the period. Lord Conyngham’s 1844 excavations at Breach Downs,
Barham uncovered at least one probably disturbed grave (Gr 81) (Croker 1844, Conyngham
1844), but this reopening cannot confidently be said to be ancient, and no other evidence has
been reported at the site.
Like Faussett’s work in the previous century, Godfrey-Faussett’s excavations at Bifrons
uncovered a small number of burials which might in current parlance be described as “deviant”,
in this case based on their unusual body positions (e.g. Gr 82, 89, 91, Godfrey-Faussett 1880). In
addition, Grave 16 may represent a reopened and manipulated grave, along the lines of those
described in Chapter 6.3. Alternatively, this is a victim of severe peri- or post-mortem violence.
The head and foot reversals could well be signs of an attempt to prevent a revenant walking (see
also Chapter 6.3, Reynolds 2009: 91-93):
“The skeleton in this grave was much displaced and mutilated: it lay on its side, with the
knee pointed forward and the foot backward, but with only one foot and fore-leg bone: the
463
top of the skull was also severed from the head, and was lying in exactly reversed position.
Near the left hand was a single bead. At the right shoulder a flat brooch of the ring shape,
engraved with small circular ornaments, and a the left shoulder another brooch of a
modification of the hammer shape: both are of bronze."
(Grave 16, Godfrey-Faussett 1876)
The Bifrons cemetery as a whole has an earlier date than Bradstow School, the other Kent
cemetery in which signs of revenant-combating are suggested. This grave in particular is dated to
475 - 550 AD (ASKED, queried 20091112), while the Bradstow School examples are 7th century
(Chapter 4.9).
464
465
Appendix 2
Checklist: Recognizing Ancient Robbing
2.1 Identifying disturbance
Skeletal remains in disorder
(Finglesham 2, 22, 93, 139, 162, 205, Hoo Farm C)
In Kent, as in Merovingia, this is the main diagnostic marker for reopening. The degree of
disturbance varies considerably. Bones may be scattered on the grave floor, heaped together, or
strewn in the robber fill (Chapter 5.1).
Missing part of an otherwise well-preserved skeleton
(Finglesham 44, 78, 139)
Almost ubiquitous. Few disturbed skeletons are complete, but the proportion that is missing
varies considerably (Chapter 5.1).
Secondary cut into grave fill
(Finglesham Gr 22)
Not commonly recorded in Kent, although there are hints, especially at St Peter’s Tip (Appendix
1.1), that robber cuts are more frequently visible than noted (Chapters 2, 5.1). The most detailed
reports give information about the angle of the cut and the direction from which it was made, as
well as the nature and contents of the fill.
Enlargement of grave cut
(Finglesham 2, 78, Lyminge II 8, Monkton 22)
Not common in Kent; reopening seems mainly to have been confined to within grave cuts,
which must have still be clearly visible on the surface. There are a few examples where grave cuts
seem to have been deliberately extended in one direction in order to lever off a coffin lid (e.g. St
Peter’s Gr 268, Appendix 1.1, Chapter 5.1).
Grave-goods in disorder
(Finglesham 197, Monkton 21)
Rejected or missed artefacts are frequently scattered on the grave floor or in the robber fill
(Chapter 6.1).
Grave contents (goods/bones) in fill
(Finglesham 37, 110, Monkton 21, 25)
Grave contents are frequently found thrown back into the grave with the robber fill (Chapter 5.1).
Coffin damaged
(Finglesham 22, 197)
Where wood preservation is sufficiently good, the robbers’ entry to the coffin can sometimes be
seen (Chapter 5.1).
Additions to the grave contents
(Sarre Gr 279, Finglesham Gr 205, Ozengell Gr 34)
Graves may contain artefacts or human or animal bones not believed to have formed part of the
original assemblage (Chapter 5.3).
466
Later artefacts in grave fill
(Finglesham 60, St Peter’s Gr 54, 126, 270, Ozengell Gr 52, Bradstow Gr 12)
The upper fill of disturbed graves sometimes contains stray material which collected in hollows
left by reopening (Chapter 5.2, 5.3). They indicate the date before which robbing must have taken
place. Later artefacts in the burial contexts would give an indication of the date of robbing.
Absence of artefacts with evidence for original presence
(Finglesham 22, Monkton 21, St Peter’s Gr 97, Minerva 1377)
Examples include the remains of a scabbard but no sword, or bronze staining on bone (Chapter
6.1).
Lack of expected grave-goods
Occasionally cited but doubtful evidence, given the variability in Anglo-Saxon burial assemblages
(Chapter 6.1).
Finding cuts
(Ozengell Gr 60)
Dave Perkins (1985: 45, Appendix 1.1) describes “finding cuts” at the top edges of a small
number of graves. He takes these as indicative of the robbers using a small trial cut to identify the
precise edge of a grave cut (Chapter 5.1).
467
2.2 Confounding factors
Poor preservation
(Finglesham 126, St Peter’s 2, 89?, 95)
Disturbance is more readily observable in graves with good preservation, since disordered bones
or grave-goods are the most frequently cited as the grounds for suspecting disturbance. This is
significant because it probably creates a systematic bias in observed robbing cases. Disturbance is
likely to be diagnosed more frequently in better-furnished graves simply because they have more
objects to show disorder.
Sub-adults
(St Peter’s 203)
Age at death is one of the main factors determining skeletal preservation (Bello and Andrews
2006: 10). As has been observed by archaeologists for generations (e.g. Brent 1868: 320), bone
preservation increases markedly with age, with infants and children frequently entirely
decomposed or evidenced only by teeth. Since skeletal disorder is a key indication of robbing, it is
therefore more difficult to observe disturbance in the graves of sub-adults. Chapters 4.4 and 4.7
discuss in detail whether the low numbers of children’s graves reported as robbed are due to this
taphonomic bias or are a real phenomenon.
Differential preservation within the grave
(St Peter’s 2?, 49?, 50?, 63?, 76?)
Robbery is sometimes diagnosed on the basis that part of a skeleton is absent. Where stated, the
presumption is usually that the desirable grave-goods lay in this area, and that the bones of this
portion of the body were dug out along with the valuables (Chapter 5.1). This may frequently be
the case, but caution is necessary fully to take into account the differential decomposition that
skeletons naturally undergo, and the effect of any clothing worn by the corpse.
Even in undisturbed graves it is usual for some parts of the skeleton to be poorly preserved or
absent, and certain parts of the body are disproportionately affected. Typically the thoracic
vertebrae are frequently less well preserved than the rest of the vertebral column, and the parts of
the body which are buried deepest will fare worst (Bello & Andrews 2006, Duday 2006, Garland
& Janaway 1989, Waldron 1987). In a typical Anglo-Saxon supine inhumation this will be the
back and pelvis, which lie on the grave floor.
Additionally, areas of the body may be much better preserved if covered by clothing, as shown by
exhumed WWII casualties (Mant 1987). With the Kent sample, Burial K19 Eccles had unusually
well preserved feet, suggestive of some covering or binding not usually used in Anglo-Saxon
graves (Appendix 1.3).
Empty graves
At Brunn am Gebirge, Edeltraud Aspöck (2002: 49) suggested that the small number of empty
graves may have been robbed while the corpses were whole, with the bodies themselves removed.
No such examples were found in Kent. Empty graves were generally small and assumed to have
been those of juveniles. In apparently empty but adult-sized Gr 16 at Lyminge, a calcium
phosphate test showed that the body had decayed in situ (Appendix 1.1). One potential source of
confusion here is that disturbed graves are sometimes drawn as empty when in fact displaced
skeletal parts were found (e.g. Finglesham Gr 44, Appendix 1.1).
468
Secondary burial/reuse
(St Peter’s 200)
Secondary burials, especially where considerable disturbance is caused to the primary interment,
can be difficult to distinguish from robbery (Chapter 6.2).
Coffin slide
(Polhill Gr 105)
Unusual body positions can sometimes be explained by slippage within a coffin during burial. In
these cases the bones will be lying in anatomical position. For example, in Polhill Gr 105 the
“Arrangement suggests body had slipped to east end of a wooden coffin during burial” (Philp
1973, Appendix 1.2).
Bone tumble
(Finglesham Gr 34)
Bone tumble is the process by which skeletal parts become displaced during the natural decay of
the body and any container. The best-known description is by Boddington (1987) at Raunds in
Northamptonshire. There tumble mainly affected the bones of the thoracic and lumbar regions
and was thought due to a combination of natural movement within a coffin space plus the effects
of shrouds and collapsing coffin lids. Some bodies may also have been partially decayed by the
time of burial, as suggested by Brothwell (1987) for the York Jewbury cemetery.
Similar points were made by Nicholas Reynolds (1996) at the Anglo-Saxon cemetery at
Empingham, Rutland, where he argued that the displacement of bones showed that bodies must
have decomposed within voids created by wooden grave covers, even though no wood traces
survived (Chapters 4.6, 5.1).
More recently, the natural processes of bodily decay and skeletal collapse have been set out in
much greater detail by Henri Duday (2006). He explores the displacement of bones within the
cadaver, the process of infilling of the burial void, plus the effects of containers and of secondary
depositions.
Within the Kent sample, there are a small number of borderline cases in which displacement of
bones might be due to bone tumble. In Finglesham Gr 34, for example, it seems likely that the
excavators would have explained the apparent displacement of the arm bones in this way had it
not been for the other evidence of reopening at the site (Appendix 1.1).
However, in almost all cases, the degree of disturbance to skeletal remains in the robbed Kentish
graves is an order of magnitude greater. As the grave plans show, the displacement goes far
beyond what could be explained by natural movement during decay. Bones are so far from
anatomical position that some outside agency is absolutely necessary to explain the disturbance.
Pillowed heads
(Lyminge Gr 31, Bradstow Gr 94, St Peter’s Gr 71, 96, 117, 225, 255, 329, 377)
Bone tumble which appears to be a result of skulls rolling from disintegrating pillows is
frequently seen in the Kent examples. In some cases more than just the head seems to have been
propped, with the whole upper body leaning or sitting up in St Peter’s Gr 86 and Gr 377
(Appendix 1.1). The movement of the collapsing body can create an appearance of disturbance.
Physical evidence for the kinds of organic pillows which can be inferred from the tumble in Kent
graves has recently been published at Mucking (Hirst & Clark 2009: 478).
469
Unusual burial positions
(St Peter’s 41, 59, Bradstow School 4, 12)
Minor disturbance or the appearance of disturbance was judged to be due to unusual body
positions in a number of graves at St Peter’s Tip. Beyond the seated examples, Gr 117 seems to
have had an unusual arm position plus skull tumble, Gr 243 had an unusual body position due to
a short grave, Gr 258, 35, and 378 had legs flexed upwards at knees at burial and collapsing
sideways or into a bow-legged position, and Gr 327 suffered a degree of bone tumble because the
pelvis was lying oddly against the wall, causing finger bones to spread during decay.
Mutilated bodies, especially decapitations, can also be difficult to distinguish from post-burial
rearrangement of skeletal parts (Chapter 6.3).
Delayed burial
(Westfield Farm Gr 2)
Brothwell (1987) suggested that burial after decomposition had set in would explain the
disordered appearance of many burials at Jewbury, York. In most of the graves discussed in this
thesis the degree of disorder is far beyond this level, plus there is ample other evidence for
reopening. However, it was thought a possible explanation for some of the damage to Gr 2 at
Westfield Farm, Ely (Chapter 7).
Objects in fill
(Polhill Gr 53, Buckland Gr 83, 87 and 91, Sarre CCXXXVII and CCXXXVIII)
Certain grave-goods, particularly knives and spearheads, have occasionally been noted in the
backfill of graves in this sample without any indications of disturbance. At Dover Buckland
Evison (1987: 19) concluded that “This phenomenon has occurred elsewhere... and, because of
this frequency, must be assumed to be an intentional deposition” (Chapter 5.3).
Burrowing animals
(St Peter’s 198, Kingston Down Gr 282, Ringlemere, Dover Buckland)
Kent Anglo-Saxon cemeteries generally are not sited on the banks favoured by badgers and foxes,
which can dig to considerable depths and cause substantial damage to burials (von Freeden 2008).
However, rabbit damage is commonly noted, especially where cemeteries are focused on ancient
burial mounds. At Ringlemere in particular rabbit damage was extensive (Appendix 1.3). The
burrows could be traced through the excavated area and are visible in site photographs. However,
it should be emphasized that the degree of disturbance caused to burials there and at Dover
Buckland is far less than that seen in the graves claimed as robbed. At Dover Buckland the
disturbance is typically a case only of teeth being moved around.
Extensive rabbit damage is not a feature of any of the heavily robbed sites. The archaeological
footprint of rabbits tunnelling into graves and dragging bones into their runs is quite different
from the directed, large-scale digging down into the robbed graves. In addition, Chapter 5.4
shows that robbed graves are dispersed across the sites, not clustered together as would be
expected if a rabbit warren were responsible.
Scavenging animals might damage burials, especially while corpses were still fleshed. Barber (1989:
125) discusses various examples. However, in such cases one would expect to see articulated or
partially articulated body parts dragged upwards out of graves, which is not the appearance of the
robbed examples. Rats and other rodents can cause considerable damage to human remains, both
fleshed and unfleshed. However, this is typically confined to shallow burials or surface disposal
(Haglund 1997b). Indeed a significant motivation for burial at the depths seen in the Anglo-
Saxon period is presumably avoidance of scavengers. Lastly and crucially, no tooth damage has
been noted on any of the over 200 Kentish burials recorded as reopened by human hand.
470
Flooding
Flooding has occasionally been suggested as causing disturbance that might be mistaken for
robbing (Plum 2004: 23, note 205). It is unlikely on the hillside settings of most of the cemeteries
under discussion here, and fails to explain the bones and grave-goods seen within robber cuts.
Root damage
(Bekesbourne II, Darenth Park Gr 6)
Tree damage can cause extensive disturbance to burials and may be difficult to distinguish from
reopening. It is a likely cause of the apparent robbing in Darenth Park Gr 6, for example
(Appendix 1.2).
Plough damage
(Westfield Farm Gr 2)
Many sites in Kent, as elsewhere in the country, are badly plough-damaged (Geake 2003). At
most sites there seems to have been little difficulty in distinguishing between plough damage and
reopening (even for antiquarian excavators, e.g. at Half Mile Ride, Appendix 1.1), but it is a
complication when both occur in the same grave, as is likely at Westfield Farm, Ely (Chapter 7).
Heavy machinery damage
(Monkton, Dover Buckland)
Several sites suffered heavy machinery damage, but again this was considered readily
distinguishable from early reopening (Appendix 1).
Antiquarian/undocumented excavation
(Bekesbourne II, Dover Buckland, Finglesham)
Several sites showed evidence of unrecorded archaeological work, although this could in most
cases be distinguished from the ancient reopening. The state of the bones at the time of
disturbance is significant, since in almost all ancient cases they were whole and moved intact,
whereas when excavated in more recent times skeletal matter is frequently highly fragmentary
(Chapter 4.9).
Modern robbing/vandalism
(St Peter’s Gr 31)
At least one site, St Peter’s Tip, was looted during the excavation. One or two of the looted
graves may also have been disturbed in antiquity, but the vandalism complicated interpretation
(Appendix 1.1).
471
2.3 Recording disturbance
Extent of the disturbance
What proportion of the grave contents remain in situ? Are the disturbed contents on the grave
floor or in the fill? (Chapter 5.1).
Skeletal disturbance
What proportion and parts of skeleton are present/absent and in situ/disturbed? Are disturbed
parts on the grave floor or in the fill? (Chapter 5.1).
Grave-good disturbance
Which grave-goods remain undisturbed, plus the positions of disturbed objects. Are disturbed
artefacts on the grave floor or in the fill? Does it appear that the reopeners saw or handled the
remaining objects? (Chapter 6.1).
Missing grave-goods
Is there evidence for missing grave-goods? For example traces of a sword scabbard, fragments of
removed objects, copper alloy or rust stains (Chapter 6.1).
Robber cut
The visibility of the robber cut depends on several factors, particularly the soil type (Chapters 2,
5.1). From the Kentish material it seems likely that evidence is under-reported (Appendix 1.1: St
Peter’s, Sarre, Ozengell).
Robber method
The approach taken by the robbers needs comment (Chapter 5.1). Did they open the entire grave
or part – which part? Were the remains heaped or scattered? Was the same method used in all or
several graves or does the approach seem individual?
Additions
Additions to the grave contents, for example human or animal bones not believed to have been
part of the original assemblage (Chapter 5.2).
Finding cuts
Evidence of methods used to locate the grave – or their absence (Chapter 5.1).
Date
The dates of the affected burials, absolute or relative to the rest of the cemetery. Indications of
the interval between burial and reopening (below, Chapter 4.9).
Grave structures
Including grave structures and markers visible on surface, and internal grave structures and
coffins (Chapter 4.5).
Position
The location of the disturbed graves within the cemetery. Are there any evidence of clusters?
Does disturbance correlate within any internal organisation, such as rows or family groups?
(Chapter 5.4).
Internal weathering
Is there any evidence that graves remained open after robbing (Chapter 5.3)?
472
2.4 Dating disturbance
Condition of corpse or skeleton at time of disturbance
(Monkton 22, St Peter’s Tip Gr 165, 270)
The state of the human remains when disturbed is frequently the most precise indicator of the
interval between burial and reopening. Complete or partial articulation, whole or fragmenting
bones (Chapter 4.9).
Condition of coffin/wooden cover at time of disturbance
(Monkton Gr 22, St Peter’s Gr 3, 31, 45, 57, 64, 78)
Aspöck (2002: 39, Chapters 2, 4.6, 5.1) showed that it is possible to distinguish between
disturbance that took place within the air-filled space of a coffin and that which happened in an
earth-filled grave. She reasoned that where the disordered bones are strewn in a flat layer over the
grave floor, disturbance must have taken place within an intact coffin. This applies in a significant
proportion of Kent cases, but has previously been overlooked as a source of dating evidence
(Chapter 4.9).
Condition of grave-goods at time of disturbance
(St Peter’s Gr 165, Sarre Gr 104, 281, Finglesham 139)
The condition of grave-goods at the time of robbing has significant implications for both the
date and the interpretation of reopening (Chapters 4.9, 6.1). Were they lifted whole or did they
leave fragments, rust-marks, or copper alloy stains behind?
Grave disturbed by subsequent burial
(Polhill Gr 52, Mill Hill Gr 72)
A small number of graves had been robbed when overlain or intercut by a later burial. This
shows that robbing happened during the use period of the cemetery, and sometimes permits
much finer dating (Chapter 4.9).
Absence of later material
(Bradstow Gr 12, St Peter’s Gr 95)
More useful than it initially sounds, this is the negative evidence that no later material is found in
the backfill, although plentiful in the upper layers of the site (e.g. at Ozengell, Perkins 1991).
Later or redeposited material is sometimes found in the upper fill layers of disturbed graves,
probably the result of a hollow left by the reopening (Chapter 5.3).
Evidence that diggers knew age/sex of individuals in grave
The analysis in this thesis shows that in Kent there is no evidence that those reopening graves
had firsthand knowledge of the deceased. However, it is possible that in a significant proportion
of cases they were able to infer some information about the age and sex of the interred from the
aboveground appearance of graves (Chapter 4.7, 4.8).
Evidence that diggers knew contents/arrangement of grave-goods
Although frequently cited as evidence for early robbing, this argument is of doubtful validity. It
has been shown by Merovingian authors and in Chapter 5.1 that the appearance in some graves
of reopening targeted at specific areas is generally misleading.
Evidence that diggers could identify graves on the surface
A tiny minority of Kentish graves showed evidence for “finding cuts” suggesting that their
outline was no longer clear on the surface at the time of reopening (Perkins 1985: 45, Chapter
4.9).