Ireland:

​

 

               It is very difficult to determine whether or not these Irish burials were criminal or not. The decapitations may be a punishment or they may be connected to the pagan severed head cults that were still practiced throughout Ireland in this period (Geber 2012). The decapitations may have also been a means of keeping the dead from rising again and threatening the living (Farrell 2011). Evidence of amputation is rare and the one body that does show it is almost completely dismembered. This sort of dismemberment may be connected to ritual regicide rather than punishment of a criminal (Geber 2012).Stones in burials are often seen as a means of keeping the deceased (or their spirits pinned down) and preventing them from returning to plague the living (Farrell 2011). In areas where this practice is uncommon, the fear of the dead may stem from a fear of the living thus suggesting criminality. However, the stone lined burials at Owenbristy do not really fall into this category and are more likely just a method of grave construction (rather like a casket). From this evidence we cannot say for certain if any of the burials are criminal, they are certainly out of the ordinary but this is as far as we can go with it.

                Given the higher frequency of weapons trauma at Owenbristy and the fact that the burials all occurred at roughly the same time (Geber 2012) it seems more likely that this damage was the result of a massacre or raid rather than criminal burials or executions. The decapitations at Mount Gamble on the other hand may have more of a punishment aspect to them. Given the close proximity of the Christian monastery it seems likely that decapitation would hold some of the negative Christian connotations associated with this form of death. Furthermore, given that weapons trauma is significantly less common at Mount Gamble it seems less likely that it is the result of warfare.

                Geber does not voice an opinion on whether or not the skeletons at at either site should be considered criminal or not and merely suggests that the less frequent damage at Mount Gamble indicates a population that was either better suited to defending themselves or were attacked less frequently than those at Owenbristy (Geber 2012). Farrell does not explicitly state whether any of the burials in the cemeteries are criminal either. However, she does look more at the deviant nature of the burials themselves. Unfortunately, this case study reveals the severe gaps in our understanding of deviancy and criminality in the archaeological record. We can make interpretations and assumptions until we are blue in the face but ultimately textual sources with names and associated crimes and execution details are the only sure measures of criminality in the distant past. Sadly, no such documents exist for the cemeteries at Owenbristy and Mount Gamble in Ireland.

 

               

​

England:

​​​​​​​​​​​​

​The site of Walkington Wold has been interpreted by archaeologists in three different ways:

​

     1) The site was originally interpreted by the excavators as a series of executions or a massacre  dating to the 5th century AD; associated with a violent end to a Roman signal station (Buckberry and Hadley 2007:310). This interpretation was based on the skeletal trauma, site location on an elevated area, and associated finds such as coins and post-roman bronze objects which were used to date the site (Buckberry and Hadley 2007:310; 1973:10).​

    

    2) The site was re-examined in 1985 by GB Bailey because he felt the numismatic (coins) evidence did not accurately fit the Roman signal station interpretation (Bailey 1985:11-12, as seen in Buckberry and Hadley 2007:311). He alternately interpreted the site as a small shrine associated with a ‘Celtic’ head cult which reflected a tradition that survived into the Roman period in East Yorkshire (Bailey 1985:13, as seen in Buckberry and Hadley 2007:312). His interpretation was based on the damage reflected in the metalwork present at the site which he concluded as being ‘ritually damaged’ and therefore associated with a temple site of some kind (Bailey 1985:11-12, as seen in Buckberry and Hadley 2007:311). He also felt that the skeletal remains did not fit Roman practices based on the location of the crania in relation to post-cranial remains as well as the location of these ‘deviant’ burials in relation to other burials (Bailey 1985:13, as seen in Buckberry and Hadley 2007:311). Decapitated individuals in Roman cemeteries were usually found in the context of larger cemeteries with ‘normal’ burials, not in separate cemeteries and the crania were usually placed in association with the body, often below the legs (Bailey 1985:13 as seen in Buckberry and Hadley 2007:311).

  

   3) In the late 1990’s Andrew Reynolds proposed the site could be an Anglo-Saxon execution cemetery based on the many characteristics the site shared with other execution sites (Reynolds 1997:36, as seen in Buckberry and Hadley 2007:312; Reynolds 2009). Buckberry and Hadley (2007) tested this interpretation by re-examining the archaeological evidence from the site in light of Reynolds work. One of the new lines of evidence proposed by Buckberry and Hadley was the affirmation of an Anglo-Saxon date for the skeletons present at the site. Radiocarbon dating from skeletons 8, 11, and the humerus (arm bone) associated with skeleton 13 produced dates of AD 900-1030, AD 775-980 and, AD 640-775 and respectively (Buckberry and Hadley 2007:312). This new dating assigned to the site argues against the early interpretations of the site based on late or sub-Roman dates and agrees with the timeline suggested by Reynolds (return to case-study).