How were the dead remembered in early medieval Britain? Originally published in 2006, this innovative study demonstrates how perceptions of the past and the dead, and hence social identities, were constructed through mortuary practices and commemoration between c. 400–1100 AD. Drawing on archaeological evidence from across Britain, including archaeological discoveries, Howard Williams presents a fresh interpretation of the significance of portable artefacts, the body, structures, monuments and landscapes in early medieval mortuary practices. He argues that materials and spaces were used in ritual performances that served as 'technologies of remembrance', practices that created shared 'social' memories intended to link past, present and future. Through the deployment of material culture, early medieval societies were therefore selectively remembering and forgetting their ancestors and their history. Throwing light on an important aspect of medieval society, this book is essential reading for archaeologists and historians with an interest in the early medieval period.

Does community archaeology work? In the UK over the last decade, there has been a boom in projects utilising the popular phrase 'community archaeology'. These projects can take many different forms and have ranged from the public face of research and developer-funded programmes to projects run by museums, archaeological units, universities, and archaeological societies. Community archaeology also encapsulates those projects run by communities themselves or in dialogue between 'professional' and 'amateur' groups and individuals. Many of these projects are driven by a desire for archaeology to meet a range of perceived educational and social values in bringing about knowledge and awareness of the past in the present. These are often claimed as successful outputs of community projects. This paper argues that appropriate criteria and methodologies for evaluating the effi cacy of these projects have yet to be designed. What is community archaeology for? Who is it for? And is it effectively meeting its targets? Focusing on the authors' experiences of directing community archaeology projects, together with the ongoing research assessing the effi cacy of community archaeology projects in the UK, this paper aims to set out two possible methodologies: one of self-refl exivity, and one of ethnoarchaeological analysis for evaluating what community archaeology actually does for communities themselves. Introduction'Community archaeology' has become a widespread label, refl ecting the increasing number of archaeological projects explicitly designed for, or incorporating, substantial community involvement and participation. Community archaeology has also been extensively theorised, most recently as an element in a new paradigm conceptualising FAYE SIMPSON AND HOWARD WILLIAMSthe relationship between the past and the present and the relationship between archaeology and 'the public' (Holtorf, 2006). However, to date there has been a lack of research into whether community archaeology projects are currently effective at achieving the desired and perceived benefi ts of community dialogue and participation in archaeology, and whether this translates into real effects on people's knowledge and perception of the past and subsequently their sense of identity. It remains unclear whether, beyond theoretical rhetoric and manifestos, many community archaeology projects currently taking place in the UK are fulfi lling the values espoused by archaeologists when they were initially designed. It is particularly questionable whether the social outputs of community archaeology have any lasting impact beyond the duration of the projects themselves. In short, is community archaeology working?Previous discussions of whether community archaeology works effectively have generally been based on general and proscriptive theoretical discourses supported by choice case studies (Marshall, 2002). In other words, they are based on ideal expectations of what community archaeology should achieve in terms of either educating and engaging the community or const...

No abstract

No abstract

Early Medieval Europe   (  )  - © Blackwell Publishing Ltd  ,  Garsington Road, Oxford OX   DQ, UK and  Main Street, Malden, MA  , USA Material culture as memory: combs and cremation in early medieval Britain H  W  This paper argues that mortuary practices can be understood as 'technologies of remembrance'. The frequent discovery of combs in early medieval cremation burials can be explained by their mnemonic significance in the post-cremation rite. Combs (and other objects used to maintain the body's surface in life) served to articulate the reconstruction of the deceased's personhood in death through strategies of remembering and forgetting. This interpretation suggests new perspectives on the relationships between death, material culture and social memory in early medieval Europe.How was the past perceived and created in early medieval Europe? Recent studies have discussed the dual roles of literacy and orality as ways by which the past was produced, reproduced and sometimes invented. Early medieval memory can be regarded as a social and ideological, rather than psychological, phenomenon. A wide range of studies have explored the roles and interactions between literacy and oral tradition in actively selecting and transforming the past in the light of contemporary socio-political needs. In this way, it is argued that the political structures, world-views and identities of kingdoms and communities were negotiated through the making and remaking of social memory. 1 Yet words (spoken or written) are only one means by which the past can be communicated, negotiated and contested. Social memory can be communicated through commemorative ceremonies and bodily 1 C.