Grave goods found inside Early Medieval tombs have aroused the interest of many since the moment they were buried in the ground. These artifacts continued to play different roles, even after the end of the Middle Ages; as they were present in the memories of those who attended the funerals, but also targets for looters because of their economic value, and at times raised to the status of relics. In the modern period, they could be used as symbols of royal authority and continuity. With the foundation of the nation states, the practice of placing grave goods was interpreted as an inheritance of Germanic groups and the objects themselves were seen as markers of the ethnic identities of the buried individuals, which were assumed to be the ancestors of contemporary Europeans.¹ Recent studies derived mainly from rescue archaeology point to the complexity and the variety of funerary practices, and emphasize their place within the social dynamics of societies of the Early Middle Ages.²

The deposition of objects was practiced mainly between the 5th and 7th centuries but varied greatly between the regions of the continent: very numerous in northern regions, less so in southern ones. During these centuries, the amount of grave goods and, consequently, the level of funerary lavishness, are substantially higher than in subsequent centuries. Famous examples are the tombs in the north of the Frankish Kingdom, dating from the end of the 5th century to the beginning of the 6th century, which are known for their sets of weapons and for the variety of ornaments and tableware buried with the deceased.³

However, even with the spread of this practice in the beginning of the Early Middle Ages, only a minority of individuals were buried with many artifacts. Tableware, as well as belt buckles, beads, and spearheads, were the most common grave goods. In the most exceptional tombs, the selection of objects was apparently strongly gendered: weapons for the men, jewelry, and clothing adornments for the women. Tableware was considered to be “gender-neutral”. The age of the deceased also seems to have influenced the level of funerary expenses, as younger women and mature men are found with more objects than individuals in other age groups.⁴

Objects were actively used to define social and political roles, especially in public occasions, such as these funerary ceremonies. Different sets of objects could be mobilized to emphasize a certain type of identity and to downplay others according to the image that family members wanted to convey about the deceased and about themselves.⁵ This perception of funerals’ dynamics allows us to criticize the interpretation of these findings as “a mirror of the living,” as if the objects and clothing accompanying the buried were mere reflections of their daily lives, thus needing no further interpretation.

Ancient objects and objects with restoration marks had great memorial value by carrying the memory of their former owners and through their status as an inherited patrimony.⁶ Depositing these objects on graves strengthened the bond between one and one’s rich ancestors and contributed to the representation of a prestigious familial memory. Weapons were known symbols of authority, and their deposit was more connected with the expression of power and social status than actual warring activities, especially when found in children’s or women’s tombs.⁷ Ceremonies could be organized in ways that emphasized positions of power within the communities, that strengthened family bonds and that constructed representations of continuity and ancestry. Therefore, this custom of deposing grave goods can be inscribed not only in strategies of power and representation of the elites, but also in practices of wealth management and transmission of patrimony in the Early Middle Ages.⁸

Grave goods did not disappear after the end of the 7th century but their amount diminished considerably. The deposition of ceramics and glassware remained common throughout the Middle Ages, as did individuals continue to be buried dressed, even with the gradual adoption of shrouds from the Carolingian period onwards in the Frankish Kingdom.⁹ Analyzing the objects used in funerary ceremonies is, thus, a way of understanding the social dynamics of the societies that organized them. That being said, it is always necessary to have in mind that the objects and tombs we find and study today are but a partial image both of the complete content deposited in that grave and of the total population buried in that period. Moreover, the exhibition of individuals with their objects is only a stage of a chain of practices¹⁰ that structure funerary ceremonies. Many of these gestures do not leave material records and might therefore be lost forever to our analyses.

Read more

References

• Barbiera, I., 2009: “Memory of a better death: conventional and exceptional burial rites in central european cemeteries of the AD 6th and 7th centuries”, in: Materializing Memory: Archaeological material culture and the semantics of the past, p. 65‑76.
• Cartron, I., 2018: “Ostentation ou humilité? Réflexions autour du vêtement du défunt et du dépôt d’objets dans les tombes au cours du haut Moyen Âge”, in: Les vivants et les morts dans les sociétés médiévales : XLVIII^e Congrès de la SHMESP (Jérusalem, 2017), p. 205‑215.
• Effros, B., 2003: Merovingian Mortuary Archaeology and the Making of the Early Middle Ages, Los Angeles.
• Halsall, G., 2010: Cemeteries and Society in Merovingian Gaul: Selected Studies in History and Archaeology, 1992–2009, Leiden.
• Halsall, G., 2018: “Classical gender in deconstruction”, in: Joye, S. & Le Jan, R. (dir.), Genre et compétition dans les sociétés occidentales du haut Moyen Âge (IV^e-XI^e siècle), Turnhout, p. 27‑42.
• Pereira, G., 2013: “Introduction”, Une archéologie des temps funéraires?, Les nouvelles de l’archéologie, 132, p. 3‑7, URL: https://journals.openedition.org/nda/2064.
• Poignant,S. & Renou, J., 2022: “Des bijoux brisés, trajectoires d’objets précieux durant le haut Moyen Âge: le cas de la sépulture 87 de la nécropole de Chasseneuil-sur-Bonnieure (Charente)”, in: Bernasconi,G., Carnino, G., Hilaire-Pérez, L. & Raveux, O. (dir.), Les Réparations dans l’Histoire. Cultures techniques et savoir-faire dans la longue durée. Paris, p. 450-461.
• Treffort, C. 2010: “Une archéologie très ‘humaine’ : regard sur trente ans d’étude des sépultures médiévales en France”, in: Chapelot, J. (dir.), Trente ans d’archéologie médiévale en France. Un bilan pour un avenir. IX^e Congrès international de la Société d’archéologie médiévale, Publications du CRAHM, Caen, p. 213‑226.

Notes

1. Effros 2003.
2. Treffort 2010.
3. Halsall 2010.
4. Barbiera 2009; Halsall 2010.
5. Barbiera 2009.
6. Poignant & Renou 2022.
7. Halsall 2018.
8. Cartron 2018.
9. Cartron 2018.
10. Pereira 2013.