Search Results

The 15 melodies that are arranged in this book are part of a much larger collection made in the Eastern Counties. It is not to be supposed that they are the exclusive property of the counties to which they are credited; all that is claimed for them is that they certainly are sung in these counties, and that most of the melodies have not as yet been discovered elsewhere. It will be noticed that, while six songs from Essex and seven from Norfolk are given, there are only two from Cambridgeshire and none from Suffolk. This means, not that these two counties are less rich in folk song than the others, but simply that time and opportunity have not yet been found to explore them. It is to be hoped that an acquaintance with the melodies here given will incite others to explore those parts of East Anglia which are still unsearched.

This chapter considers a region that is termed ‘greater East Anglia’, embracing Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, and Cambridgeshire, which straddles the eastern edge of England's central zone characterized by villages and open fields. To the south of the Gipping and Lark valleys in Suffolk (i.e. southern Suffolk and Essex) there was a considerable degree of continuity between the Roman and medieval periods with no evidence for a major restructuring of the landscape. To the north, there was a significant change in how the landscape was exploited with a nucleation of settlement and intensification of agriculture around the eighth century. This emergence of villages—‐which is probably part of the same phenomenon seen in the East Midlands—‐was, however, short‐lived, and a greater degree of dispersion soon emerged in most areas.

This chapter considers the reasons for the 1279–80 inquiry including those given in the surviving commission. It examines the case for Edward I consciously modelling the inquiry on Domesday Book. It analyzes the articles of inquiry and raises the question of how far the inquiry was ever carried out countrywide. A case is made that more counties were covered than the surviving records would suggest.

The excavation of human remains is one of the most contentious issues facing global archaeologies today. However, while there are numerous discussions of the ethics and politics of displaying the dead in museums, and many academic studies addressing the repatriation and reburial of human remains, there has been little consideration of the practice of digging up human remains itself (but see Kirk and Start 1999; Williams and Williams 2007). This chapter will investigate the impact of digging the dead within a specific community in Oakington, Cambridgeshire, during the excavation of an early Anglo-Saxon cemetery in 2010 and 2011. The analysis of impact was enabled by applying a double-stranded methodology of collecting quantitative and qualitative social data within a public archaeology project. This aimed to explore the complexity of local people’s response to the excavation of ancient skeletal material. These results will provide a starting point to discuss the wider argument about screening excavation projects (see also Foreword this volume; Pearson and Jeffs this volume). It is argued that those barriers, rather than displaying ‘sensitivity’ to local people’s concerns, impede the educational and scientific values of excavation to local communities, and fosters alienation and misunderstandings between archaeologists and the public. The professionalization of British archaeology has taken place within Protestant modernity, and we will argue that it is this context which drives the desire to screen off human remains from within the industry, rather than the need to protect the public or the dead from one another. In England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, it is a condition of the Ministry of Justice licence to remove human remains that modern excavation is screened from public gaze. For many projects, particularly those carried out in an urban or public context, this condition manifests as the erection of barriers to block lines of sight. However, this has not always been standard practice. Archaeological projects have often involved a public engagement element, even before public archaeology was formally recognized. Large excavation projects, such as Whithorn, a Scottish project carried out in the late 1980s, included a viewing platform so members of the visiting public could see the excavation, including burials, from the edge of the trench (Rick Peterson, pers. comm.).

Visitors to the Lawrence Room, Girton College, Cambridge University, on Thursday afternoons (when the small one room museum is open to the public) will find a dead body on display. The body is that of an Egyptian mummy from the Coptic period with a painted face mask and inscription ‘Hermione Grammatike’. It was this inscription that attracted Girton College to acquire this ancient body. A loose translation suggests this was a woman scholar, and therefore the first recorded woman scholar in history and as such an appropriate ‘mascot’ for one of the early great champions for formal female education. The mummy was purchased from Egyptologist Flinders Petrie who had excavated it in 1910–11 (Imogen Gunn and Dorothy Thompson, pers. comm.). The case of Hermione is both particular and general. Across all of the UK and indeed the Western world, human remains from all ages and all parts of the world can be found in all types of museums of all sizes apparently isolated and insulated from society’s normal relationships with the dead: grief, morbidity, respect, invisibility. Context would appear to be everything in terms of attitudes to the display of the human dead. This paper reviews this concept of context, and offers some commentary on the origins, constraints, and boundaries for the display of human remains. To begin with an Egyptian mummy as an example is also appropriate, as this particular category has an almost ubiquitous and overpowering place in Western museums. It has been accepted practice to include human remains in displays since the widespread establishment of public museums in the nineteenth century. These are normally associated with archaeological discoveries but can also be found in physical and social anthropological displays, medical and history of medicine displays, and occasionally in other contexts. Museum practice is very much a creation of Western, primarily Enlightenment, values and the inclusion of human remains in displays can be traced in these values (for example, the anatomical drawings of Leonardo da Vinci and the public anatomy demonstrations of the nascent Royal Society in London) and in the Christian European culture from which this derived (for example, the display in churches of saints’ relics: Weiss-Krejci this volume).

In the past the study of early medieval kingdoms has mostly been a singledisciplinary activity based upon the extremely limited documentary sources, with boundaries back-projected from much later evidence (e.g. Bailey 1989, fig. 8.1). What is presented in this study, in contrast, is an attempt to have a more archaeologically and landscape-based discussion that includes using the distributions of cultural indicators such as artefact types, architectural forms, burial practices, and the locations of particular sites that appear to have been positioned in liminal locations. Three phases in the development of these kingdoms can be distinguished: • The fifth to sixth centuries (emergent kingdoms): the period of Grubenhäuser and Anglo-Saxon burials associated with a suite of material culture showing marked regional affinities. Anglo-Saxon kingdoms existed by the end of this period, and a broad consensus has emerged that they were formed through the amalgamation of a series of smaller regiones (e.g. Arnold 1988; Bassett 1989a; Yorke 1990; Scull 1993; 1999; Harrington and Welch 2014). This model—which Bassett (1989b) has compared to a football knock-out competition—is, however, based largely upon the fragmentary and very partial documentary record (see Chapter 7), and it does not explain the close correspondence of the boundaries between the fifth- to sixth-century socio-economic zones spheres identified here and those of the Iron Age and Roman periods. • The seventh and eighth centuries (mature kingdoms): a new suite of material culture (e.g. East Anglian and East Saxon coinage, and Ipswich Ware) whose circulation in part appears to have been restricted to the polities within which they were produced. The authority of the East Saxon kings had started to decline during the latter part of this period, although East Anglia survived. • The ninth century (the declining kingdoms): the East Saxon kingdom virtually disappeared and become a territory within Wessex. The distributions of later eighth- and ninth-century inscribed coinage, and distinctive artefact types such as silver wire inlaid strap ends, suggest that the East Anglian socio-economic sphere, and the kingdom that was based upon it, survived within the same boundaries that had emerged by the fifth and sixth centuries until it was overrun by the Danes in the 870s.

This chapter describes the historical and national framework in which the studied universities operate. The chapter finds that the universities had different relationships with industry in the two countries. US higher education institutions had strong industrial ties from inception, whereas in the United Kingdom such institutions started to develop ties with industry only in the past two decades. Importantly, regional economic contribution has been an inseparable part of American universities, a part that UK universities have just started to grapple with in the past decade.

The chapter investigates the comments on regional variation in English made by the unknown compiler of the Promptorium parvulorum, John Palsgrave in Lesclarcissement de la langue francoyse and Thomas Elyot in his Dictionary. The author of the Promptorium draws attention to his ‘Norfolk speech’, Palsgrave identifies ‘Northernisms’, and ‘Far Northernisms’, and Elyot explains and exemplifies how the English ‘manner of speech’ (dialectus) varies between ‘Southern’, ‘Northern’, ‘Kentish’, and ‘Devenish’, providing in addition regionalisms used in Cambridgeshire, Wiltshire, and Cornwall.