Some Finds from Lindisfarne: Holy Island Archaeology Project

[@NebbieNZ]

I went to a school boys only boarding in New Zealand Lindisfarne college, Iona is the Sister school I was wondering where the connection was.

[@stuartnelson3232]

Quartz stones seem to be carried on from many pre Christian sites too. It may have been a throw back to those times?

[@xXDeathbysnusnuXx]

Would like to see a LiDAR survey of this area.

[@kirstenwhitworth8079]

Very interesting. Why are there so fewer remains from Anglo-Saxon sites than from earlier Roman or later Medieval sites? Could there not have been a single Scottish or Irish stone carver at the site? As many lay people are, I am fascinated by stone carvings. I would very much like to see a discussion about the classification system for stone carvings, especially for Pictish carvings.

[@Archaeos0up]

Hello Kirsten. Thanks for your comment. There are many factors which have an impact on the statistical (and real world) likelihood of artefacts and objects surviving less well on a Saxon site than a Roman site. These include materials used in manufacture and building - The Romans were more likely to use durable materials such as pottery, roof tiles, bricks, mosaics, wall plaster etc than the Saxons. This in turn impacts the 'in ground' context and environment for organic remains and the possibilities for happy accidents of survival. There is also the irony that because the Saxons are closer to modern Britain in time and also in culture, relics such as books, metal objects and treasures may have been taken, used and repurposed over time. This is a factor in favour of their survival in the case of books but metal items can be melted down and reused etc etc. There is also the fact that Romans and Saxons routinely settled and lived in different locations. Sometimes one on top of the other but often small Saxon settlements were hard to access and less likely to have elements such as formal drainage and waste management... For all of these reasons and more, in big and small ways Saxon settlements tend to be more ephemeral in the archaeological record. There are also differences in burial grounds, culture and preferences which affect the number of graves and graveyards which are identified etc etc. There certainly could have been a single Scottish or Irish stone mason on site but even if that were the case, they would have been there because of the strong connections with Iona etc via figures such as Saint Aiden and the Lindisfarne community of monks. I have just reached out to an expert in Pictish carvings for an interview... Watch this space :D

[@kirstenwhitworth8079]

Thank you so much for your quick reply and for taking the time to educate me! I do appreciate it! I suspected that the type of materials used by Anglo Saxons was the primary factor, but the other factors were things I had not considered. I would imagine that all of the monasteries were connected to some degree or another. I think of the distances involved, and the modes of travel available at the time, so the connections to the closest (in both space and ideology) monasteries do not surprise me. Thank you for reaching out to someone about Pictish carvings! Of course I will stay tuned. :)

[@Archaeos0up]

Kirsten Whitworth As promised, here's that interview : kzbin.info/www/bejne/aXW0gpKNrsyhf8k

[@kirstenwhitworth8079]

Thank you so very much! I'm watching it as soon as I finish this note.

[@22grena]

How is a religious community created by Irish monks an Anglo-Saxon monastery?

[@annazaman9657]

Anglo saxon here means the time period, not actual Angles or Saxons.

[@phoule76]

crosslets