Grave Finds: Mortuary-Derived Antiquities from England and Wales

Abstract

Artefacts deriving from mortuary contexts form a unique group among the vast numbers of unstratified portable antiquities found every year in England and Wales. Such finds, usually discovered by hobbyist metal detectorists, have great potential to tell us about the character, state, and preservation of the mortuary environments from which they derive. Yet, unlike the situation regarding the discovery of human remains, the reporting of unstratified grave goods is not compulsory. This presents a strange paradox in view of contemporary theory in mortuary archaeology and practice in indigenous heritage overseas, where funerary objects are usually regarded as a fundamental aspect of the archaeological deceased, if not an inalienable part of it. At present, grave goods — whether found on the body or dislodged from it — are normally the property of the landowner and as such can be lawfully privately owned or traded on the antiquities market. This paper outlines the current ethical and legal status of unstratified grave goods sourced from England and Wales, and explores current trends in their discovery and subsequent sale on the antiquities market. Throughout the paper, consideration is given to the question as to whether mortuary-derived antiquities should be given some form of enhanced legal or ethical status; however, the discussion reveals a range of complexities that present significant challenges.

Keywords:

• portable antiquities
• illicit antiquities
• grave goods
• antiquities trade
• human remains

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Michael Lewis, Ian Richardson, Suzie Thomas, and Howard Williams for their helpful comments. All errors and opinions are my own.

ORCID

Adam Daubney http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6325-6287

Notes on contributor

Adam Daubney is the Lincolnshire Finds Liaison Officer for the Portable Antiquities Scheme. He has been recording archaeological finds for over eighteen years, and has co-directed several excavations in response to major discoveries by the public, including that at the Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Scremby, Lincolnshire. Adam’s research interests are in metallic small finds, post-Roman ceramics, and public archaeology.

Notes

1 See http://worldarch.org/code-of-ethics/. (Accessed 3 July 2019).

2 Intact burials are sometimes also discovered by metal detectorists. These discoveries are usually reported to authorities and then professionally excavated. The results of the excavation are usually published on the PAS database, in addition to being deposited with the local Historic Environment Record.

3 See www.finds.org.uk/database. (Accessed 3 July 2019).

4 This paper follows Coleman’s suggestion that the term ‘inalienable’ possession defines a ‘kind of value, and a relationship between an object and a person or group’s identity’. It is ‘this identity relationship which defines an object as inalienable, as opposed something that is property, and alienable’ (Coleman, 2010: 82).

5 See https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/46. (Accessed 3 July 2019).

6 There are exceptions on occasion; the Jewbury site in York was treated differently to respect Jewish beliefs and traditions concerning the dead (Lilley, 1994).

7 Human remains can become ‘artefacts’ when they have been modified through an act of will. This occurs when human remains are modified in some way by human skill and become ‘physically bound-up with other non-human materials to form an artefact composed of several materials’ (DCMS, 2005: 9). So-called ‘bound-up material’ can normally become private property, since the object is technically an artefact rather than human remains (Mays, 2017: 9; Sayer, 2010: 63). Current government guidance recommends that artefacts containing human remains should ‘hold a unique status within collections’ (DCMS, 2005: 8), although it does not explore what this status means in practice. Bound-up material is, nonetheless, a category of material that can be considered in requests for repatriation (DCMS, 2005: 23). This form of material culture is not often encountered in British archaeology, however.

8 Grave goods can also ‘naturally’ become disassociated from human remains where the process of decay renders the body completely absent.

9 The discovery and excavation of a Roman child’s coffin in Leicestershire attracted widespread media attention, and resulted in a public vote to give ‘her’ a name ‘as a mark of respect to the child and to avoid constantly referring to the find as ‘It’ or a scientific reference number’. Ironically, while the act of re-naming the child helped the present-day population to feel a degree of respectfulness, it may well have been disrespectful to the parents who named her in the first place (Warwickshire County Council, n.d.).

10 See, for example, https://www.kentonline.co.uk/deal/news/saxon-artefacts-13008/. (Accessed 3 July 2019).

11 Timelines Auctions, Lot 0538 of 23 November 2018.

12 Timelines Auctions, Lot 0592 of 23 November 2018.

13 Timelines Auctions, Lot 2609 of 23 November 2018. The catalogue description notes that the sleeve clasp has ‘mineralized remnant of the tablet-braid cuff(?)’.

14 Bonhams Antiquities London, New Bond Street, 27 April 2006, Lot 286; Timelines Auctions London, Bloomsbury Way, 5 February 2014, Lots 1050, 1054. The assemblage was initially shown to the author who made brief records of the finds in anticipation of visiting the site to carry out an emergency excavation. Unfortunately, the author was not subsequently given detailed information on the find spot.

15 The acronym HOPPER has recently been used as a methodology to assess such sites: these are sites which have a ‘History’ (a history of finds at the site); which are ‘Open’ (the site has physical public access, and/or is documented in the public domain); which have ‘Protection’ (protected status can act as a beacon for offenders); which have ‘Publicity’ (the site is known about or receiving new attention); which offer ‘Evasion’ (there are known ways to escape apprehension); and which have suffered ‘Repeat victimization’ (the site has been a target before) (Grove, et al., 2018).

16 See, for example, https://www.ebay.co.uk/pages/help/policies/remains.html; https://www.etsy.com/uk/legal/prohibited#Q2. (Accessed 3 July 2019).