The Bioarchaeology of Pocklington and other ‘Warrior Graves’

The Bioarchaeology of Pocklington and other ‘Warrior Graves’

       Recent discoveries of an Iron Age cemetery at Pocklington has recently had a lot of press attention due to the presence of grave goods such as swords in some of the graves.  This discovery immediately interested me as I have been looking into Iron Age burial rites as part of my course on Bioarchaeology. When reading the various news articles surrounding the excavations, I realised that the Iron Age burials are repeatedly referred to as burials of ‘Warrior Kings’. The interpretation of a grave with a weapon as a grave belonging to a warrior is a problem in archaeology, often leading to the excavator to immediately jumping to the conclusion that burial was a ‘High-Satus Warrior’ without looking at other factors.

Figure 1: Article showing the recent discoveries at Pocklington

The discipline of Bioarchaeology looks at the scientific evidence available from the wider context to look at possible interpretations of burials. The warrior burials found in the Prehistoric period show a specific style of mortuary treatment which involves burying an individual with a weapon. However the mortuary treatment of the individual may not represent the lived reality of the individual. By interpreting just the grave goods, the archaeologist will only be interpreting the mortuary event, not the individual’s lifestyle. Therefore I believe without further analysis on the individuals and there lifestyle, it is impossible to say whether they were warriors, and even more impossible to say they were kings!

       I believe that is more likely that the burial of individuals with swords is more likely to be a burial rite, rather than an indication of their identity in life. This is shown by the large number of burials in Prehistoric and Medieval Britain with weaponry and the high levels of variation between them. 
           Although a very different period to the Iron Age, an example of this is the Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Buckland in Dover. One of the graves included a male and a female, accompanied by a number of grave goods, usually typical of a warrior burial (See figure 2). However as one of the individuals in the grave was female and the grave was for two individuals, it was looked at as a variant of the ‘Warrior Grave’ theory. The excavator interpreted the double grave instead as ‘It raises the possibility that homo-sexuality was sufficiently socially acceptable to the Anglo-Saxons’ due to the presence of a female and that there were two individuals in one grave (Evison 1987 p.126). Although this may be true, I believe that it is more likely that the two individuals were buried following a typical burial rite at the time, which was a burial with weaponry, which may not have reflected there identity in life. 

       Figure 2: Illustration of Grave good found in the double grave at Buckland. Evison 1987.

           Although a large number of these individuals may have been warriors, I believe that it is important to take a ‘Bioarchaeological’ approach to the remains, and look at the wider context and area first, only making an interpretation when there is sufficient evidence to do so. An important aspect of this is realising that what we see in the grave, is part of a mortuary ritual, and may not represent what the individual is like in life. Looking at the Identity of the individual needs to take into account other contextual information such as the individual’s skeletal remains and the time period and area the individual lived in.

Bibliography/Further Reading

Evison, V I., 1987. Dover: The Buckland Anglo-Saxon Cemetery. London: Historic England.

Larsen, C S., 2015. 2^nd Edition. Bioarchaeology: Interpreting Behaviour From The Human Skeleton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The Regini: The Lost Tribe of the Iron Age

The Regini: The Lost Tribe of the Iron Age

The Late Iron Age (100 BC – 43 AD) is often characterised by a set of ‘Tribes’, which ruled over certain areas of Britain before the Roman Invasion. Ever since Ptolemy’s Geography named the tribes in Late Iron Age Britain, the view of the tribes present has not seen many changes, with most modern volumes on the subject showing similarities to Ptolemy’s interpretation of the tribes of Britain.

Figure 1: Interpretation of Ptolomy’s Map Of Britain. Compared to Modern Interpretations of Late Iron Age Britain.                 A tribe that was not mentioned in Ptolemy’s Geography and is therefore often overlooked is the Regini. Currently little is known about the tribe known as the Regini, and little work has been done trying to define the tribe’s territory and culture.                 The existence of the tribe is known from the city of Chichester. In the Roman Period Chichester was a ‘Civitas’ Capital, meaning a minor capital city in control of a small tribal area. As shown on the maps in Figure 1, the tribe usually believed to have been occupying Chichester is the Atrebates, however I believe that through looking at the name of the city, it can be interpreted that the Regini were the tribe in control of the area instead. Chichester’s Roman name was ‘Noviomagus Reginorum’. It is widely agreed that the ‘Noviomagus’ section translates as ‘New Market’, however the ’Reginorum’ aspect has often been debated. Historically ‘Reginorum’ was seen to translate to something to do with the word ‘Kingdom’ for example ‘The People of the Kingdom’. However when compared to other capitals it becomes clear that it means something different. The tribal capital of the Durotriges tribe of Dorset (Dorchester) is known as ‘Durotrigium’, which translates as the land of the Duro(triges). This pattern is also seen in other local capitals such as Atrebatum (Silchester), which is in the Atrebates territory and Belgarum (Winchester) which is in the territory of the Belgae tribe. When applied to Chichester, the same interpretation shows that the town’s name, Reginorum, actually should be interpreted as ‘New Market, Land of the Regini’. Unfortunately there is little other written evidence for the Regini tribe, so it is hard to distinguish an exact territory or material culture. Furthermore there is little archaeological evidence for the Late Iron Age in the area, except for the large entrenchments to the north of Chichester, known as the Chichester Dykes (See Figure 2). Figure 2: Line of the Chichester Dykes.                The Chichester Dykes possibly could show the Regini tribe marking their territory on a major scale, however a large Late Iron Age settlement is yet to be found in the area. The Regini are a tribe that has always interested me, and hopefully more will be understood about the tribe as more research in the area takes place. For example, the site of Westward House shows potential to be related to the tribe, however the work on the site is still on going.                 Although there is still information about the tribe out there, which I will be exploring in future blogs. The interpretation of the small amount of archaeological information for this period and possible links to historical sources show an opportunity to understand more about this forgotten tribe. I believe that it is likely that there are a large number of smaller tribes across Britain that were have been forgotten in recent work on the Late Iron Age. The re-analysis of the interpretation of Chichester’s Latin Name has allowed a smaller tribe to be named, changing the usual interpretation of the Late Iron Age tribes in Britain for the first time since Ptolemy's Geography in the 2nd Century AD. Figure 3: The Iron Age tribes of Southern and Central Britain, showing the proposed position of the Regni or Regini tribe. Bibliography/Further Reading Manley, J., ed. 2008. The Archaeology of Fishbourne and Chichester A Framework for its Future. Lewis: The Sussex Archaeology Society. Russell, M., 2006. Roman Sussex. Gloucestershire: Tempus Publishing Ltd. Russell, M., 2010. Bloodline. Gloucestershire: Amberley Publishing Ltd.