Variable “Pago de impuestos”

That burial may have been conspicuously sited in many cases in order to take advantage of highly visible locations has been discussed ever since Baldwin Brown’s published suggestion in 1915 (III, 142-6) (4.11). Despite some supporting evidence from Beowulf, wherein the siting of Biowulfes hiorh (2802-3) is discussed, Shephard’s assertion that barrow siting was determined by the economic forces of land-use (1979, 3.9-10) has generally held sway however. His analysis of a large number of Anglo-Saxon barrow burials throughout England, and Kentish Type 4 barrow cemeteries in particular, led him to stress that the apparent correlation of elevated topography and burial citing was a by-product of their position on marginal land (ibidl). Thus, a distinction was drawn between the position of flat-grave cemeteries such as Bifrons (BIF) and Howletts (HOW) on arable Head Brickearth drift, and barrow cemeteries such as the nearby Bishopsbourne and Kingston cemeteries, on Upper Chalk soils less suitable for agriculture {ibid., 3.10). Though underlying soils may indeed determine the form that cemeteries, or individual burials, take, such typological sub-division glosses over the key characteristics of Kentish mortuary

argued that the concept of a ‘flat-grave’ cemetery itself may not be particularly meaningful. The demonstrated close association of burial throughout the period with the prevalent routes of communication suggests a deliberate rite, determined in the first instance by places in the landscape visible from the patterns of movement by the living.

Viewshed analysis offers an important additional test of the asserted spatial significance of the Anglo-Saxon mortuary landscape. Despite a sizeable body of criticism regarding the application of computer-generated patterns of visibility (e.g. van Leusen 1999; Wheatley & GiUings 2000; Wheatley & Gillings 2001 etc.) the importance of attempting to model past perception as a necessary cognitive element of the spatial ordering of landscape, is well established (Tilley 1994, 1996; Bradley 1998, 116-131; Thomas 1993; Chapman 2000 etc.). With regards to Anglo-Saxon archaeology, relatively little work has been attempted to assess the deliberate symbolic placement of mortuary structures within the landscape. It has only been in relatively recent works that the significance of ritual sites and monuments has been investigated with regards to their topographical and cognitive setting (e.g. Bonney 1966, 1976; Reynolds 1997, 1998; Williams 1997, 1999; Lucy 1998; Semple 1998).

Of these works, only Williams (1999) has deliberately attempted to demonstrate the importance of visibility for the placement of Anglo-Saxon burials. His micro-scale analysis of the Lowbury Hill barrow (Ox) in its environs usefully draws several instructive conclusions. The late seventh-century, high-status barrow burial investigated, was seen to be closely associated with a probable Romano-Celtic temple enclosure, it afforded extensive views of the surrounding area and itself was far more visible from the nearby Ridge Way than other prehistoric barrows in the vicinity {ibid., 62-74). Perhaps significantly, at the expense of visibility from the Thames valley to the east, the Lowbury HiU barrow appears also to be positioned in order to maximise the visual dominance over routes of movement approaching through the Berkshire Downs to the west {ibid., 66). Perceptual variables such as the ‘openness’ or ‘enclosedness’ of the visible landscape may be indicative of other political features within a region (cf. van Leusen 1999, 5) and it seems, therefore, significant that the barrow is located at some distance from, and is not intervisible with, the concentrations of settlement and political authority within the Thames basin. Instead, the marginal location of the barrow at the political and social extent of the upper Thames region within clear view of routeways approaching the boundary, may weU indicate the deliberate demarcation of a territory to inbound traveUers.

A similar pattern presents itself in East Kent. Multiple viewsheds produced for a hypothetical maritime route leading from Boulogne up the East Kent coast and through the Wantsum Channel into the Thames estuary reveals a number of significant trends (Fig. 4.12). Given the relative harness of the Kentish landscape, the produced viewshed is typically large, with some inland parts apparently visible from over 12kms distance. Such points would clearly not be easily recognisable in reality, and in order to compensate, a corridor of 6km distance from the observation points has been selected based on empirical experience of walking the Wantsum Channel in various atmospheric conditions. From the subset of 60 cemeteries and possible isolated burials known to fall within this 6km corridor of maximum visibility, 90% are visible from the 16 selected sea-points. Importantly, many of these are located at the edges of the produced viewsheds, indicating that any above­ ground mortuary strucmre, such as a barrow, would have been silhouetted on the skyline of the hiU-top. This phenomenon is particularly apparent for cemeteries such as Mill Hül Deal (MHD) or Ozengell (OZE), whose interments centred on Bronze Age barrows that would have dominated the hill-top skyline for ships approaching the southern Wantsum entrance. Similarly, some of the burials known to fall just outside of the produced viewshed, such as those found at St. Margaret’s Bay, Cliffe (SMC; Meaney 1964, 13) may well have been visibly sky-Ht before truncation denuded the original height of the Bronze Age and Anglo- Saxon barrows covering the (possibly) 1.5 acre large cemetery (SMR TR 34 SE 6). O f the remaining burials to fall outside the produced viewshed, those from Great Mongeham (GMH; SMR. TR 35 SE 48) and Wingham-2 (WGH-2; SMR TR 25 NW 57) have been sited imprecisely to the locality of the place-name only, whilst those from Wickhambreux (WHB - ibid., 140; WHB-2 (Church)'^ - TR 25 NW 35) and Ramsgate-3 (RAM-IB3; ibid., 132) are in close association with known terrestrial routeways and may well have been visible from other sea-points not used in the computation excercise. In keeping with this pattern of visibHty the two 6ra place-names identified in the Wantsum Channel (pp.18) are also found at the edges of the produced viewshed. The Stonar spur is visible above the Shellness Spit for ships off the coast at Deal, who on entering the Wantsum proper are confronted with a southern skyline dominated by the barrows at Woodnesborough (WNB- 2; ibid., 141), Coombe (CWN; ibid., 115) and possibly Guilton (GIL; ibid., 121). On passing the Ebbsfleet peninsular, the western Thanet skyline is commanded by the barrows of Minster (MTS-1; ibid., 129) and Sarre (SAR; ibid., 135), with the Oar Farm spur and possibly the burial at Hoath (HOA-IBl; ibid., 125) beyond. Similarly, the entry into the Wantsum

Channel from the Thames estuary is marked on all sides by visible barrows at Brooksend (BRO; Kent SMR TR 26 NE 38); Crispe Road (CSP; Kent SMR TR 36 NW 216); Sarre, as well as the topographic feature Oar Farm.

The impression of a territory bounded by burials can also be gained from inland contexts. A multiple viewshed produced from seven points roughly 2.5 kms apart along the Roman road (Margary 130) and the Pilgrim’s Way near Wye produces a territory demarcated by the visible mormary landscape (Fig. 4.13). Isolated burials enclose the presumably deforested Upper Stour valley, occupying visible spurs of the Wye Down and North Down slopes as well as prominent positions to the south at Westwell, Ashford, Brabourne and amongst the Roman ruins at Little Chart. Movement eastwards along the Pilgrim’s Way encounters a valley dominated by the Stowting cemetery, followed by that of Lyminge, and to the south, Saltwood. By comparison, the medieval manor of Wye encompasses the same Great Stour valley, and with the dependant holdings of Boughton Aluph, Westwell, Pluckley, and further inland at Kingsnoth JoUiffe 1933, MAP 1) roughly corresponds with the viewshed produced from around Wye. Although this area could equaUy be argued to represent that of a natural geographical unit, with no direct evidence to suggest that the mortuary structures bounding it were necessarily visible from some distance, the correlation of ‘islands of visibUity’ such as those around the Roman ruins of Little Chart with the dependant tenure of Pluckley remain somewhat incongruous. Pluckley to the south-west and Kingsnorth to the south, along with the parcel holdings in Woodchurch and Biddenden parishes already mentioned (4.3) remained the only parts of the Weald potentiaUy visible from Wye, and it is these same areas that remain in royal and then ecclesiastical hands until the thirteenth century {ibid).

Given such a pattern, it is tempting, if speculative, to suggest that poUtical territories were already being demarcated by the mortuary structures of the sixth and seventh centuries. The concept of bounding the landscape, its division and demarcation can be construed within a view of claimancy and domination; concepts much voiced in discussions of mortuary mounds in NeoUthic and Bronze Age Europe (e.g. MeiUassoux 1972; Renfrew 1976; Chapman 1981; Bradley 1984, 1998). In keeping with many of these prehistoric contexts, the placing of burial sites in Early Anglo-Saxon Kent indicates a spatial manifestation of an ideaUsed landscape. Most of the more recently-excavated cemeteries (e.g. DBU, MHD, OZE, SET, BBS, GRP) have revealed fifth- and sixth-century nuclei associated with prehistoric or Roman monuments (Shephard 1979 - Type V & VI), indicating the Ukely proUferation of simUar cases of monument reuse amongst the

cemeteries excavated in antiquity (e.g. HOL, LYM, etc). Such clear symbolic associations could be interpreted in terms of territorial claims, physically legitimised by the linking of a supernatural past and social present {ibidr, Williams 1998). Perhaps significantly, by the seventh century, equally visible Anglo-Saxon mortuary monuments appear to replace former relationships with the prehistoric past (e.g. KGD, BRO, CSP, BAR, BAD, FGL, BSP, CHD, CHL, BRD, BRH, BSB etc.: Shephard 1979 - Type IV): a phenomenon Shephard links with joint ownership and developing forms of inheritance {ibid., 8.3).

Intra-cemetery analyses, such as Shephard’s interpretation are well developed in the context of Anglo-Saxon archaeology, however such a view does little to illuminate either how such, undeniably visible, monuments related to personal experience, why particular locales where chosen for active display, nor for whom such ritual demonstration was intended.