Toby F. Martin
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IDENTITY AND THE CRUCIFORM BROOCH IN EARLY ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND: AN INVESTIGATION OF STYLE, MORTUARY CONTEXT, AND USE Toby F. Martin The results, discussions and conclusions presented herein are identical to those in the printed version. This electronic version of the thesis has been edited solely to ensure conformance with copyright legislation and all excisions are noted in the text. The final, awarded and examined version is available for consultation via the University Library. A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Sheffield, Department of Archaeology, December 2011 VOLUME I Abstract This thesis uses the cruciform brooch, a well-represented and highly decorative dress- fastener, as an entry point for looking at the construction of identities relating to ethnicity, gender, age, and power in the early Anglo-Saxon period. The examination of this artefact is holistic and multi-dimensional, and the major topics of consideration are: (a) typology and stylistic variability, (b) chronology, (c) distribution, (d) mortuary context, (e) use, repair and costume, and finally (f) iconography and symbolism. These threads come together to provide an understanding of why and how the cruciform brooch evolved as it did, how it was used in life and death (and by whom), and the complex social identity the artefact was used to construct and display. i Acknowledgements This thesis would not have been possible without the support and aid, both intellectual and practical, of many others. The members of museum staff that made archaeological material available, as well as donated generous amounts of time to me, are (in no particular order): Deborah Bircham (Grantham Museum); Rose Nicholson (North Lincolnshire Museums Service); Geoff Hill (Louth Museum); Eleanor Standley (Ashmolean Museum); Sonja Marzinzik and Virginia Smithson (British Museum); Laura Hadland (Jewry Wall Museum); Paula Gentil (Hull and East Riding Museum); Richard Pollard (Leicestershire Museums Archaeological Collection); Rachel Atherton (Derby Museum and Art Gallery); Bryan Sitch and Phyllis Stoddart (Manchester Museum); Antony Lee (Lincoln Collection); Ann Inscker (Brewhouse Yard Museum); Lloyd Laing and Claire Pickersgill (University of Nottingham Museum of Archaeology); John Beeley (Preston Hall Museum and Park); Lorraine Cornwell (Rutland County Museum); Dorothy Thompson (Girton College Lawrence Room); Anne Taylor (Cambridge University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology); Paul Thompson (The Herbert Museum and Art Gallery); Deborah Fox (Worcester City Museum and Art Gallery); Tonia Byrd (Almonry Museum); Sara Wear (Warwickshire County Museum); Paul Robinson (Northampton Museum); Clare Bowyer (Kettering Manor House Museum); Chris Mycock (West Stow Museum); Richenda Giffon (Suffolk Archaeology Service); Steph Gillet (West Berkshire Museum); Tim Vickers (Stockwood Discovery Centre); Quinton Carrol (Cambridge Archaeological Store); Esther Cameron (Oxford Museums Services); and finally Ruth Howard (Vale and Downland Museum). In addition to this list, many more museums were contacted, and some were kind enough to send me information and even images without my visiting them. For this, gratitude is owed to Brett Thorn (Buckingham Museum), Sara Taylor (Hertford Museum), Georgina Muskett (Liverpool Museum), Giles Guthrie (Maidstone Museum), Bob Burn-Murdoch (Norris Museum), Margaret Poulter (Orford Museum), Sarah Wilson (Peterborough Museum), and David Burnett (Sudbury Museum). Many more museums and all the Heritage Environment Record offices in England have contributed information to this project, and their staff took considerable amounts of time to send me information pertaining to my research. These individuals provide the foundations of this study, and their efficiency and generosity should not go without praise. ii Many others have provided intellectual insight, and conversations with Doctor Catherine Mortimer at the very start of this project were particularly useful in formulating an approach and an idea of what needed to be done. I was also lucky enough to meet with Professor John Hines and Doctor Kevin Leahy during my research trips to museums, both of whom were generous in their advice to me. Professor Glynis Jones provided some much-needed aid with the statistical analyses that form such an important part of this project, while Diane Palmer and Peter Townend contributed invaluable help to my battles with Geographical Information Systems. The research community at Sheffield University in general has provided an enormously valuable and supportive atmosphere, in particular my archaeological doctoral student colleagues who have patiently listened to my (at times I imagine tedious, sometimes even tortuous) deliberations over Anglo-Saxon brooches. In particular I owe thanks to Kirsty Squires who has perhaps listened to more of this than anyone else, and has provided unyielding support as well as knowledge of all things osteological. I must also thank my parents Lynne and Philip Martin for their support (pastoral and financial, as well as some help with proof-reading) over the course of this project, especially over its closing months when the funding pool ran dry. The funding itself was generously supplied by the award of a scholarship from the University of Sheffield, for which I am immeasurably grateful and without which this research simply would not have been done. In addition Jack Hanson, David Allcock, Kengo Kasai, Minami Ito, and Mei Murakami were all kind enough to provide hospitality during my travels on museums-based research trips, and to them I also owe considerable gratitude. Foremost thanks must of course go to my joint supervisors Professor Dawn Hadley and Professor John Moreland. Both welcomed me to Sheffield and have provided invaluable intellectual insight into the project as well as inestimable guidance and support over the last three years. In addition, this has all been at a level of efficiency for which one can only dare to hope. The roots of my interest in Anglo-Saxon England and gender are owed to the supervisors of my archaeological and anthropological undergraduate- and masters- level research: Professor Helena Hamerow and Doctor Renée Hirschon. Both instilled in me an enduring enthusiasm for the subjects this thesis addresses, as well as the pragmatic and positive approach for which I have striven. iii Contents VOLUME I List of Figures viii List of Tables xiii 1: Introduction 1 Background 2 Outline of the Thesis 4 Theoretical Basis 6 Data and Methodological Basis 8 Terminology 10 Summary 12 2: Typology and the Structure of Cruciform Brooch Design 14 Past Typological Work on the Cruciform Brooch 15 Typology and Early Anglo-Saxon Material Culture 19 Aims, Theory and Methodology 21 A Progressive Methodology 23 The Statistical Techniques 26 The Primary Division between Groups 28 Group 1 Cruciform Brooches 30 A Statistical Exploration of Group 1 33 Group 2 Cruciform Brooches 40 A Statistical Exploration of Group 2 47 Group 3 Cruciform Brooches 54 A Statistical Exploration of Group 3 72 Group 4 Cruciform Brooches 77 A Statistical Exploration of Group 4 92 A Note on Kentish Cruciform Brooches 96 Discussion 97 3: Relative and Absolute Chronology 101 Past Work on Cruciform Brooch Chronology 102 iv The Broader Context of Migration Period Chronology 106 A New Analysis of the Relative Chronology of Cruciform Brooches 109 Relative Chronology I: An Internal Stylistic Seriation 109 Relative Chronology II: Types Associated by Grave Context 116 Relative Chronology III: Associated Dress Accessories 120 Adapting a Continuum of Development into Delineated Phases 128 Kentish Cruciform Brooches and Relative Chronology 135 Absolute Chronology 136 Absolute Chronology I: Independently Datable Grave Associations 136 Absolute Chronology II: Association with Pan-European Seriations 145 Summary and Conclusion 149 4: Chronological Distribution and the Development of Anglian Identity 152 Cruciform Brooches and Anglian Identity 153 The Parameters of Cruciform Brooch Distribution 156 Comparing Metal-Detected and Archaeological Data 160 Chronological Development 162 Phase A Cruciform Brooches and Migration 165 Phase B Cruciform Brooches and the Formation of Anglian Identity 173 Phase C Cruciform Brooches and the Rise of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms 184 Conclusion 190 VOLUME II 5: Gender, the Lifecycle, and the Cruciform Brooch 192 Approaches to Mortuary Archaeology 193 Approaches to Anglo-Saxon Burial Evidence 194 Contemporary Approaches to Anglo-Saxon Burial 196 Sex and Age, Gender and Life-Phase 200 Gender, Archaeology and Anthropology 202 Gender and Anglo-Saxon Archaeology 204 The Lifecycle and Anglo-Saxon Archaeology 207 Inhumation and Cremation: Different Rituals, Different Meanings 209 Methodology and Osteological Data 209 The Sample 213 Sex, Gender and the Cruciform Brooch 215 v Age, the Lifecycle and the Cruciform Brooch 221 Discussion 232 Conclusion 248 6: The Cruciform Brooch, Dress and the Body 250 Early Anglo-Saxon Textiles and Dress 251 Evidence and Methodology for Costume Reconstruction 256 The Types of Dress Associated with the Cruciform Brooch 260 The Single Cruciform Brooch as a Cloak Fastener 261 Pairs of Cruciform Brooches Dual-Fastening an Outer Cloak 268 Pairs of Cruciform Brooches as Peplos Fasteners 270 Non-Matching Pairs of Brooches 272 The Cruciform Brooch Worn Alone 279 Summary and Chronological Development 280 (Ad)Dressing the Anglo-Saxon Body 284 7: The Biographies of Cruciform Brooches 292 The Social Implications of Repair,