Popular Movements and Late Roman Cemeteries

Author(s): Giles Clarke

Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 7, No. 1, Burial (Jun., 1975), pp. 46-56
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/124108
Accessed: 12/12/2009 13:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World
Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

World Archaeology Volume 7 No. i

Burial

Popularmovementsand late Romancemeteries

Giles Clarke

One of the objectives common to archaeologists studying almost any period of the past
is that of using material remains to define ethnic groups. This springs no doubt from the
close connections that exist between archaeology and the related disciplines of history and
anthropology, where there is clear evidence for discrete groups of people seeing themselves as entities, and for their sense of group identity being expressed by indicators such
as a common language. To a very considerable extent these disciplines use social or
ethnic groups of this kind as a basic framework in terms of which other aspects of life and
the historical changes that affect them are described. Because of the close relationship
which archaeology has with history and anthropology, it is perhaps inevitable that
archaeologists have tried to use their material to define similar groups, and so provide
themselves with the same kind of basic framework. Although in recent years such
attempts have been subject to criticism, they would seem both desirable and necessary.
So long as archaeology is accepted as being concerned with communities and with people,
rather than solely with inanimate objects, it is clearly important that the relevant social
groups should be identified. It is important to have some means of stating who was
responsible for the material which archaeology recovers and analyses.
Archaeological attempts to define social groups generally take one of two forms. One
form is represented by studies of a given area over a given time, seeking to define the
groups of people living in that area and to plot the nature and degree of their relationships (e.g. Childe I929). Such studies come up against the problem of the existence of
differing levels of self-aware groups in any given region. Some of these different levels
will inevitably be reflected in the archaeological record, and they make it impossible to
establish any clear taxonomic divisions in the archaeological material. For these and other
reasons studies of this kind seem never to have been entirely conclusive, and it may be
that the limitations of the archaeological record will never permit them to be otherwise.
The second way of studying ethnic groups, perhaps more familiar to British archaeologists,
involves identifying the movement of people from one place to another. It has an
advantage over the first type of study in that newcomers to an area will not hitherto have
lived in close proximity to its original inhabitants, and so may well have been sharply
differentiated from them in many aspects of their life. It may thus be possible to identify
in the archaeological record unequivocal evidence of the newcomers, and perhaps to
determine whence they came. This second type of study, which may in broad terms be
said to concern popular movement, is the subject of the present paper.
Popular movements, like all matters concerning ethnic groups, are relevant to most
fields of archaeology. Yet it has to be remembered that the span of time and the types of

Popular movementsand late Roman cemeteries

47

society with which archaeology is concerned are extremely diverse. On the one hand there
are the sophisticated societies of medieval Europe, and on the other the stone-using communities of man's ape-like ancestors. Although in general terms phenomena such as
popular movement may be common to all these human communities, in detail the types
of society involved are so diverse that the specific criteria appropriate for defining any
given phenomenon will vary radically. Accordingly the means used to recognize popular
movement at one time and place may very well be hopelessly irrelevant in other contexts.
A paper such as the present must therefore restrict itself, and define the time and place to
which it refers. With good fortune its conclusions will be valid there: elsewhere they
may be applicable only to a limited extent; but this cannot be assumed, and will be a
matter for specific discussion in individual cases.
This paper is written with regard to the late Roman Empire in Western Europe. That
period is one in which popular movements played a major and decisive role, a fact
incontrovertibly demonstrated by literary sources (cf. Werner I950; Bohner I963; B6hme
I974; Clarke I975b). These sources tell us that throughout the Roman period the
Imperial government moved peoples around their dominions for military or political
reasons. In the fourth century especially, increasing pressure on the frontiers caused
this process to be extended to include the settlement within the Roman provinces of
barbarians from outside the empire, usually free Germans. These newcomers, many of
whom were recruited into the army, came to be extremely powerful; eventually they
took control of the western Roman Empire, and so laid the foundations of the political
structure of medieval Europe. The documentary sources thus suffice to show how popular
movements in the fourth and fifth-centuries gave rise to historical consequences of the
first importance.
It would clearly be desirable to know as much as possible about these popular movements, but the written evidence is sparse in the extreme. It says nothing about the
numbers involved, the relationships between the newcomers and the natives, about the
exact origin of most of the arrivals, the detailed circumstances of when and why they
came, and where they went. All these matters are of interest, and the historian of the late
Roman period might justifiably look to the archaeologist for illumination. So far, however,
archaeology has not given him any assistance. The reason is quite simply that there is no
agreement on what criteria may legitimately be used to identify popular movement and
intrusive people. Without such criteria, the intrusive people are archaeologically
invisible, thus making it impossible to provide any new evidence about them. Until
suitable criteria have been found, archaeology can make little contribution to knowledge
of the barbarian settlement of the late Roman Empire.
The present paper is an attempt to evaluate some of the criteria that have been put
forward and to determine those which are likely to be of most value. It is intended at the
same time to offer some contribution to general archaeological discussion about the
recognition of popular movement. The first part of the paper is theoretical and suggests
one means of recognizing intrusive people. The second part describes a practical application of that theory, with the aim of providing it with some concrete justification.

48

Giles Clarke

Theory
Archaeological evidence takes on a great variety of different forms, reflecting many
facets of life. It includes objects such as pottery or metal work, settlements and house
plans, economic indicators, and remains concerned with death and the supernatural
such as temples and cemeteries. Most kinds of evidence have been used in late Roman
and other contexts to postulate popular movement, but whatever evidence is used, it
must satisfy three general propositions. First, the archaeological material in question
must have no parallel or antecedent in the context to which it is said to be intrusive.
Second, it must have many such parallels and antecedents in the area whence the people
involved are supposed to have come. Third, the material must have demonstrably become
assimilated over time into the context to which it was initially foreign. These propositions
are basic, and may by some be regarded as a statement of the obvious. Even so, whatever
may be the case in archaeology at large, they have rarely been applied to the barbarian
settlement of the late Roman Empire (cf. Lanyi 1972; Clarke I975b).
These three propositions involve two further requirements. One is that the context in
which the material is alleged to be intrusive should be sufficiently well studied for the
negative evidence of this material's earlier absence to be demonstrable. There is little point
in suggesting similarities between one context and some other place, for such similarities
need only show parallel development or close trading links. Yet this has often been done
in the study of late Roman archaeology: thus graves have often been regarded as
intrusive in Hungary, even when there was no evidence for the native burials against
which they could have been compared (cf. Lanyi 1972). The second requirement is that
there should be an accurate chronology. It will have been noted that parallels, antecedents
and evidence for assimilation are of considerable importance. This obviously presupposes
an element of typology, but typology alone is far from being sufficiently exact to carry
much weight on its own. If two basically similar objects are slightly different - the
essence of typological variation - that is in itself no evidence for which is earlier. To
define antecedents or indeed successors involves chronology - dating the types externally
- and not just pure typology. This is of particular importance in connection with
assimilation. In basic form the archaeological evidence for assimilation will be material
that lies between the definitely new and the certainly indigenous in the area under study.
If found in isolation, however, it could well be impossible to tell whether such intermediate types represent a fusion between new and indigenous, both previously established, or whether they represent the gradual absorption into the indigenous of new
ideas, a process culminating in the adoption of the new ideas in their entirety. If the
latter were indeed the case, it would merely signify the circulation of ideas, perhaps
through trade or other contact. It would not indicate intrusive people. For the evidence to
be interpreted in terms of intrusive people, the new types must precede the intermediate forms. To demonstrate this, a very accurate chronology is required.
Such may suffice for the general requirements involved in using material remains to
postulate intrusive people. It is now time to consider particular kinds of evidence and to
evaluate their differing character and potential. As noted above, archaeological evidence
is diverse and varied, and it is impossible to view all its possible permutations in their
entirety. Yet it is worth standing back and asking whether any part of the evidence is

Popular movementsand late Roman cemeteries

49

particularly likely to be of value in recognizing popular movement. It was noted above

that people see themselves as belonging to groups, and identify themselves as such by
indicators like a common language. It is these group indicators that will enable different
groups of people to be recognized, and it is those aspects of the archaeological record
where such indicators may be encountered that are of particular interest there.
Group indicators may manifest themselves more in some areas of life than in others.
In particular, they are not likely to be apparent where to adopt or retain them would
obviously involve extra labour or discomfort for those involved. This would be for the
most part where the more basic requirements of life are concerned, such as food, shelter
and keeping warm. These activities may loosely be termed functional: that which is done
to further them has a clear functional end. Because they are necessities, the quickest and
most expedient methods will be adopted, and there will probably be no place for abstract
and sometimes impractical concepts of group awareness. However, not all aspects of life
are basic necessities, and many of these other aspects are extremely important. In regard
to them, there will be no compelling functional reasons to determine how what has to be
done is done, and peoples' choice will accordingly be shaped by less tangible considerations, by what their forefathers did, and by the knowledge that what they do sets
them apart from other men, and thus articulates their sense of group identity. It is these
aspects of life that are likely to be relevant in the present context. It is the material
remains that result from these activities which are of interest here.
Despite these considerations and at least in a late Roman context, many have sought to
recognize popular movement from evidence that is closely related to the functional
aspects of life. The way people build their houses has sometimes been deemed to
indicate intrusive people (e.g. Branigan I971). More often it has been held that such
people can be identified by their everyday equipment, for example by pottery vessels
(e.g. Myres I969). In other cases particular forms of weapon have been seen as intrusive
(e.g. Swanton 1973). Yet in choosing houses people want the most comfortable, in
acquiring pots the best for the price and the most durable, and in obtaining weapons the
most effective. Material remains of this kind are thus unlikely to represent group
identity. In the particular context of popular movement in the late Roman Empire, it
could surely be expected that arrivals from backward free Germany would avail themselves of luxurious Roman houses, durable Roman pots, and efficient Roman weapons.
Studies of popular movement based on such criteria are thus inherently likely to be inconclusive, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that this is in fact the case. Virtually no fourth-century Germanic pots or houses are known in Gaul and the Rhineland,
and it may be hard indeed to distinguish the weapons appropriate to native or to newcomer (cf. Clarke forthcoming). As these phenomena are closely related to the functional
aspects of life, no surprise should be occasioned. Evidence of a less functional kind is
required.
One aspect of life that is an obvious candidate for consideration is dress. There may be
little to choose between different styles of dress in such functional matters as warmth
and comfort, and people will often become accustomed to a particular style through
tradition. Dress could well therefore be, and indeed is, an indicator of ethnic groups.
The drawback is that in archaeology dress leaves little trace. It is rare to find long-dead
people fully clothed, and the clothes themselves are rarely preserved on their own. All of

50

Giles Clarke

dress that normally survives are the showy metal objects such as brooches, buckles,
bracelets and beads. Perhaps not surprisingly, these have balked large in studies of
intrusive people in late Roman and other contexts (e.g. Hawkes and Dunning 196I;
Werner I950; Bohme I974). The study of objects of this kind is open to one major
objection, for being small and often made from valuable metals such objects are
liable to be traded over long distances. To find a number of them in a place where they
might not otherwise be expected could indicate trade, not popular movement. Notwithstanding this, in the late Roman period it is women's brooches that form one of the
most generally accepted criteria for identifying Germanic people (cf. B6hme 1974),
although this may be less because of the typology of the brooches than because for
women to have worn them at all seems to have been markedly untypical of the late
Roman Empire. Dress, then, clearly has some potential as a group indicator and is
certainly worthy of study, even if limited by factors of preservation and interpretation.
Religion is an aspect of life even less functional than dress. Religious beliefs - people's
beliefs in the supernatural - are a matter of great complexity, and are extremely difficult
to define. In pre-industrial societies they are in large measure a substitute for science, and
they provide a system of explaining to people the world around them and their place
within it. Religion is not directly related to such basic necessities as food and shelter,
but has the essential function of enabling people to come to terms with their environment
both intellectually and emotionally. It represents a compulsive force acting on its
believers. People will be brought up in childhood to hold certain beliefs, and to carry out
specified actions in pursuance of them. They will know - or rather have become
indoctrinated to know - that unless they conform to these beliefs dire and unspecified
consequences will follow. Religion thus has a built-in mechanism for ensuring tradition. It
is also closely connected with any group's sense of identity. One of its aspects will be to
explain how that group came into being, and why it is to be distinguished from other
groups. In so doing, it will assert the group's identity, and by bringing that identity within
its compass, will ensure that its powerful sanctions are available to check the break-down
of that identity. At the same time, religion will be felt to be a major part of identity, and
so religious beliefs and actions will be a major and powerful way in which the group
defines itself from others.
In this light religious beliefs appear most attractive as a means of defining popular
movement. Yet it has to be remembered that for the archaeologist the study of religion
has two serious drawbacks. Traces of religious activity rarely survive in the archaeological
record, being either completely non-material or liable to rapid decay. Second, what does
survive may well consist of common-place articles and structures, whose religious
significance existed in the minds of the worshippers, rather than in the thing itself. It is
no doubt for such reasons that religion is so intractable for archaeology. Its apparent
potential for identifying popular movement is likewise severely restricted. What is
required for this identification is some aspect of life that is closely connected with
religion, yet not so much so as to suffer the disadvantage of being inaccessible to
archaeology. There are few aspects of life that are at all appropriate. Indeed, there is
probably only one - death and burial. At death, human remains are generally buried
below ground, and are thus given a built-in mechanism for survival. Furthermore, the
very nature of a grave means that its ritual context is at once recognized.

Popular movementsand late Roman cemeteries

51

On this count, and in view of its close affinity with religion, funerary rite, as seen in
the evidence from graves, would seemnto be of considerable interest in the present
discussion. A further reason for this interest revolves round the purpose of funerary
rite. Funerary rite is not simply concerned with religious beliefs. It is also concerned with
dead people. At burial, the living will be very conscious of the departed person and will
have taken particular trouble to do things as he would have wished, either as a mark of
respect, but also no doubt out of some fear of being haunted. The dead person may well
have been a senior member of the society in question, and if so will have been one of
those concerned to preserve the identity of that society and its traditions. Even if young,
the dead, being departed, will have been held to have an interest in what was past and
thus familiar, rather than in innovation. Accordingly, in burying the dead people will
have sought to please them by following the traditional forms peculiar to their particular
group; forms that by the same token serve as an expression of their group identity. If
this is accepted, it follows that funerary rite may be evidence of great value in defining
popular movement.
In research into popular movement funerary rite has not so far been accorded much
attention. Although perhaps surprising, this can probably be explained as the result of
a failure to understand the nature and limitations of the evidence of funerary rite. It has
to be remembered that funerary rite does not exclusively reflect religious belief. Perhaps
unlike other aspects of religion, it is conerned with at least one basic functional need: the
efficient and decent disposal of the dead. Any society has to remove dead bodies from its
midst, for quite apart from emotional considerations, there is the threat of disease.
Funerary rite is likely in some way to reflect this functional end. It was argued above that
indications of group identity are more likely to be encountered in those walks of life most
removed from functional necessities. It is this that renders funerary rite of such interest
by virtue of its being a manifestation of religious belief. If the potential of funerary rite
as an indicator of group identity is to be realized, its functional aspect must be
distinguished from that part of it reflecting belief. It is failure to do this, it may be
argued, that has caused the importance of funerary rite to be underestimated.
Funerary rite can be broken down into a number of different elements. These include
the method of disposal (cremation or inhumation), the means of conveying the body to
disposal (coffin or whatever), the position of the body at disposal, the nature of any
grave-pit or chamber, the presence and character of grave-furniture, and the organization of the cemetery. Each of these elements is governed to differing degrees by functional
considerations and by belief. For the potential of funerary rite to be realized those
elements that are most affected by ritual considerations must be distinguished and
analysed.
The method of disposal is the aspect of funerary rite to which archaeologists have
hitherto given most attention. This would seem unfortunate. Of all aspects of funerary
rite it is the one that has a most obviously functional end, for it involves the actual
removal of the body, and is the one part of funerary rite that has unavoidably to take
place. Being functional, one might expect that people's choice of disposal would be
dictated by what was easiest, by what was generally done, and hence that any newcomers
to a region would conform to the practice there, rather than importing whatever custom
has prevailed in their homeland. Attributing only slight ritual significance to cremation

52

Giles Clarke

and inhumation gains support from the empirical observation that today the difference
between the two practices means little. Despite this, however, archaeologists have tended
to regard the difference as highly significant and nowhere is this more true than of the
late Roman period (e.g. Keller I97I). It is known that in the fourth century people within
the Roman provinces inhumed their dead, and that outside the empire in free Germany
they cremated them. It has accordingly been argued that free Germans within the
Empire would have distinguished themselves by cremating their dead, and could thus be
recognized. In fact, very few fourth-century cremations are known within the empire,
except in Britain, where it is clear that they represent local conservatism (Clarke forthcoming). This absence has led some to postulate that few free Germans entered the
empire, or that if they did they are archaeologically difficult to recognize (e.g. Keller
I97I). In fact it probably implies nothing more than that people accustomed to
cremation themselves turned to inhumation when they came into a community where
that was the practice (cf. Clarke I975b). The difference between cremation and inhumation is not one that may be regarded as important in recognizing self-aware groups
of people. It is a difference that is perhaps more significant to the archaeologist than it
was in reality.
Of the other elements of funerary rite, the means of conveying the body, the position
of the body, the grave-pit, and cemetery-organization are more difficult to evaluate, but
in some measure at least it is clear that they are connected with the functional side of
removing the dead. Thus, the body has to be conveyed to its grave, it has to be laid out,
a pit of some kind is usually required to accommodate the body or its burnt remains, and
a cemetery has to be organized to prevent the recently buried from being inadvertently
disinterred. These aspects will of course also be the product of ritual and tradition,
especially as regards matters of detail, but it is difficult to know to what extent and in
what manner these details operate, and this makes interpretation difficult. Such difficulties
inhibit the value of these elements in defining self-aware groups, and for that reason it is
unwise to overemphasize them.
Most elements of funerary rite seem, then, for one reason or another unsuitable for
recognizing popular movement. The only one not so far discounted is the gravefurniture. This may be defined as everything within a grave which was intentionally
deposited, but which did not form part of the body, the means used to convey the body to
the grave, or the grave-structure itself. Thus defined, grave-furniture is quite nonfunctional, for it does nothing to expedite the efficient and decent disposal of the dead.
Furthermore, its deposition is positively wasteful, as it involves forfeiture by the living of
usable and sometimes valuable objects. In such circumstances, the deposition of gravefurniture can only be explained in terms of belief, in terms of what people believed to be
necessary, or, at the very least, in terms of what was not forbidden. It is the only element
of funerary rite explicable in such terms. It would thus seem to be the only element
appropriate for defining self-aware groups and popular movement.
However, like funerary rite in general, grave-furnishing has so far been given little
attention. It has been abundantly studied in terms of the typology of the individual
objects involved, but rarely in terms of the beliefs that lay behind the putting of these
objects into the grave in the first place. This imbalance probably reflects an assumption
that there is little variation in how graves are furnished, apart from the quality of objects

Popular movementsand late Roman cemeteries

53

provided, and a belief that even if such variation exists, it is neither significant nor
appropriate for objective analysis. The former point can be dismissed without difficulty,
for in reality there is extensive scope for variation in grave-furnishing. There is in the
first place the simple point of whether a grave was furnished or not and, over a whole
cemetery, what proportion of burials were furnished. Second, there is the question of
what was provided; the number and range of objects with which it was deemed
appropriate to equip the dead. Third, there is the matter of the position of each object
relative to the body, the coffin and to other furniture. Fourth, over a cemetery as a whole ,
it is possible to ascertain the degree of regularity which prevailed among the different
graves as regards the provision of furniture: in one cemetery, furnished graves might be
similar down to small details, while in another there might be an overall conformity, but
great variation in detail.
There is thus no lack of variation in grave-furnishing. Of more import is whether
such variation is significant and able to be analysed objectively. That it is significant is
inherently likely, simply because grave furnishing is in general so much the product of
belief. If the putting of objects in a grave in the first place resulted from people regarding
such a practice as the proper thing to do, so likewise they will have had views on what
exactly should be provided and where it should be put. This means that, in any given
grave with furniture, specific objects will have been provided, and put in specified
positions. It follows from this that, as well as being significant, such variation will also be
suitable for objective archaeological analysis. It will merely involve investigating the
particular group of graves under study, and identifying regularities in the presence and
position of different types of furniture - for example, whether one class of object is
always found in a particular position. When identified, such regularities can be identified
as indicating the particular beliefs of the community using the cemetery. They will thus
be significant, and have been defined by objective archaeological analysis.
If this is accepted, it disposes of the argument against using grave-furnishing to define
ethnic groups and intrusive people. It might seem reasonable to postulate popular
movement in the following circumstances. First, in one cemetery or area a new and
distinct way of furnishing graves would have to appear, entirely without antecedents in
that area. Second, this new type of grave-furnishing would have to show precise parallels
and antecedents in some other area. Third, in the area to which it was new, the new
style would have to become assimilated over time with indigenous customs. If these
conditions were met, popular movement could with reason be invoked to explain the
situation. These conditions, it may be suggested, form one set of criteria to be adopted
when evidence for such movements is being sought.

Application
Having concluded the theoretical discussion, it is time to become more practical and
provide a concrete example. The example centres round an excavation that took place at
Lankhills, in the northern cemetery of Venta Belgarum, the Roman Winchester. In
I967-72 some 450 late Roman burials were examined, dated from c. 3I0-c. 41o. Several
interim reports have already been published (Clarke I970; I972; I975a), and the full
report is now in the press (Clarke forthcoming).

54

Giles Clarke

The area excavated at Lankhills was some I,844 m.2, and lay to the east of the Roman
road running north from Winchester to Cirencester. This road, and a ditch that for a time
formed the eastern limit of the cemetery, dominated the late Roman topography of the
area. Practically all the burials were aligned at right angles to one or other feature, the
heads in the graves being approximately to the west. Almost every grave was an inhumation, there being only seven cremations. There was in most cases a well-dug pit, in
which had been buried a carefully laid-out body in a wooden coffin. Rather more than
half the graves had been provided with furniture of some kind, and this consisted mostly
of vessels, coins, personal ornaments, equipment, and hobnailed boots. A chronological
framework for the site was established, based on coins, horizontal stratigraphy, vertical
stratigraphy and various datable objects. This cannot be described in detail here, but it
formed an essential prerequisite for the analysis of the site, and for all the conclusions
that were reached (Clarke forthcoming).
Most of these conclusions were concerned with the grave furniture. It seemed possible
to identify a clear general trend in grave-furnishing. From c. 310 until c. 340-50, graves
were normally provided with a vessel; during 350-70, with unworn personal ornaments;
and after c. 370, with coins. The vessels and personal ornaments could be put anywhere
in the grave, but coins came increasingly to be placed in the mouth. All three types of
furnished grave were sometimes also provided with equipment, and frequently with
hobnailed boots; and hobnailed boots and equipment also occurred alone in graves. A
few burials had coins and vessels, coins and unworn personal ornaments, or vessels and
unworn personal ornaments, and in these graves the position and character of the respective types of furniture seemed in no way different to that in the graves in which they
occurred alone. Such graves, however, were few, a general characteristic of the furnished
graves being a paucity of objects. These various circumstances, combined with the fact
that the three main types of furniture enjoyed successive periods of particular popularity,
suggest that the changes represent a single population, the Romano-British inhabitants of
Winchester, changing its funerary customs as time passed. One further point to be noted
is that the number of graves with any furniture at all was much lower in c. 400 than in
c. 320. It was possible to demonstrate that this decline was gradual not abrupt, and it
can thus also be interpreted in terms of change among a single population. All these
changes are probably best seen in terms of fourth-century religious upheavals (cf.
Macdonald I975).
Standing apart from this general trend were two groups of graves. One group, with
sixteen graves, spanned the years 350-400. These graves had a funerary rite characterized
by the provision of many objects (notably personal ornaments, vessels and equipment), by
great regularity in its positioning of these objects, and by the wearing of personal
ornaments at burial. Hobnailed boots or shoes were not typical of these burials. Some
of the graves seemed to be more regular in layout than others, and among the latter were
some with features typical of the majority of the graves at Lankhills described above. It
could be argued that the less regular graves in this group show the elaborate and regular
funerary rite evolving from other burials more characteristic of the Lankhills cemetery.
In fact they do not, for while the graves with the most regular layout were dug during
the twenty years 350-70, the less regular ones can be dated to 370-410. The latter have
thus to be interpreted as representing assimilation that was perhaps taking place over about

Popular movementsand late Roman cemeteries

55

two generations. These sixteen graves thus represent a series of new and well-defined
funerary practices introduced to Lankhills abruptly, in or shortly after 350. They would
seem to accord well with two of the conditions set out above for postulating popular
movement, namely that they have no antecedents in the area and subsequently show
evidence of assimilation. A search for parallels in Britain has not been successful. On the
continent, however, graves furnished in an almost identical manner are known in South
Bavaria (Keller I97I). In particular, such graves come from a group of cemeteries
associated with unfortified rural settlements which seem to have been abandoned c. 350.
It is tempting - indeed, it is almost inevitable - to relate the evidence of chronology and of
funerary rite, and to regard the South Bavarian material as fulfilling the final condition for
suggesting popular movement, namely close parallels and antecedents in another place.
These circumstances make it difficult to avoid the conclusion that people from South
Bavaria came to Winchester c. 350.
The second unusual group at Lankhills is represented by only six graves. All are dated
to 390-4I0, and all are totally unalike. They would not at first sight be grouped together
at all, and, if they are to be so grouped, they can only represent a highly irregular and
individual manner of grave-furnishing. The reason for grouping them is that each would
be out of place in a Romano-British cemetery, be it Lankhills or elsewhere, and that each
has affinities that point towards Anglo-Saxon cemeteries, which are themselves characterized by diverse furnishings. These affinities include the provision of a weapon in one
grave, the presence of pierced canine teeth in another, and the range of objects in three
more. The six Lankhills graves meet two of the conditions laid down above for defining
popular movement in that they are without antecedent in the context in which they
occurred, and have parallels in the context in which they are said to belong. They do
not meet the third condition, evidence for assimilation, but this is no doubt because
Lankhills ceased to be used for burial in c. 4I0. In these circumstances the lack of such
evidence need not seriously affect the conclusions reached. There would seem little
doubt that the six Lankhills graves belonged to Anglo-Saxon people who had reached
Britain from across the North Sea at the end of fourth century.

Conclusion
The excavation at Lankhills may be regarded as an illustration of the value of gravefurnishing in the study of popular movement. Two popular movements have been
identified, one of which took place c. 350 and is as yet unparalleled. If other cemeteries
were analysed in a similar fashion, similar conclusions might be reached. Archaeology
might then be able to document popular movements in the late Roman period and so to
make the contribution that can reasonably be expected of it in this sphere. Equally, it is
clear that analysis of grave-furnishing should be a major aim of cemetery archaeology in
general. More progress might then perhaps be made in the generally intractable aspect of
archaeological research that is represented by popular movement.
I.1.1975

Box House

near Stroud
Gloucestershire

56

Giles Clarke

References
Branigan,K. I971. Latimer.Chesham.
Bohme, H. W. I974. GermanischeGrabfundedes 4. bis 5. Jahrhunderts.Munich.
Bohner, K. I963. Zur historischen Interpretation der sogenannten Laetengraber. Jahrbuch
des Rimisch-Germanischen
Mainz. I0:139-67.
Zentralmuseums,
Childe, V. G.

I929.

The Danube in Prehistory. Oxford.

Clarke, G. I970. Lankhills School. In Martin Biddle, Excavations at Winchester, I969.

AntiquariesJournal,50:277-326.
Clarke, G. I972. Lankhills School. In Martin Biddle, Excavations at Winchester, 1970.
AntiquariesJournal,52:93- 31.
Clarke, G. 1975a. Lankhills School. In Martin Biddle, Excavations at Winchester, I971I
AntiquariesJournal, 55 :in press.
Clarke,G. 1975b.Funeraryrite and intrusive people in north-east Gaul and the Rhinelandin
the fourth century. In Reece I975 :in press.
Clarke,G. forthcoming. The Roman Cemeteryat Lankhills (Winchester Studies, 3(2):forthcoming). Oxford.
Hawkes, S. C., and Dunning, G. C. I96I. Soldiers and settlers in Britain, fourth to fifth
century. MedievalArchaeology.5:I-70.
Keller, E. 1971. Die spdtrimischenGrabfundein Sudbayern.Munich.
Lanyi, V. 1972. Die spatantikenGraberfeldervon Pannonien. Acta ArchaeologicaHungarica.
24:53-213.
Macdonald,J. L. 1975. Pagan religion and burial practice. In Reece 1975:in press.
Myres, J. N. L. I969. Anglo-SaxonPottery and the Settlementof England.Oxford.
Reece, R., ed., 1975. Burial in the RomanWorld.In press.
Swanton, M. J. I973. The Spearheadsof the Anglo-SaxonSettlements.London.
Werner, J. 1950. Zur Entstehung der Reihengraberzivilisation.ArchaeologiaGeographica.
I:23-32.

Abstract
Clarke,Giles
Popular movements

and late Roman cemeteries

This paper is a theoretical discussion of how popular movements can be recognized in

archaeology,with special reference to the late Roman period in north-western Europe. It
argues that funerarypractice, and in particular grave-furnishing,have propertiesinherent in
them that make them peculiarly worthy of study in this connection. It illustrates this proposition with examples drawn from the late Roman cemetery at Lankhills, Winchester,