Reassessing Bioarchaeological Sex Determination and Research Into Gender at the Early Anglo-Saxon Worthy Park Burial Ground in Hampshire, England

REASSESSING BIOARCHAEOLOGICAL SEX DETERMINATION AND RESEARCH INTO GENDER AT THE EARLY ANGLO-SAXON WORTHY PARK BURIAL GROUND IN HAMPSHIRE, ENGLAND

A Thesis submitted to the Committee on Graduate Studies

in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

in the Faculty of Arts and Science

TRENT UNIVERSITY Peterborough, Ontario

Anthropology M.A. Graduate Program

May 2015

Abstract

REASSESSING BIOARCHAEOLOGICAL SEX DETERMINATION AND RESEARCH INTO GENDER AT THE EARLY ANGLO-SAXON WORTHY PARK BURIAL GROUND IN HAMPSHIRE, ENGLAND Abigail C. Górkiewicz Downer

When bioarchaeologists investigate past gender identity, they typically place skeletal remains into one of six sex assessment categories: male, female, possible male, possible female, ambiguous, and indeterminate. However, the study samples are often reduced to male/female reproducing a male/female gender/sex binary prevalent in the “Western” cultural milieu and bioarchaeology when inferences are made about gender in the past.

In order to allow for the existence of non-binary cultural genders/biological sexes, this thesis: 1) demonstrates the multitude of ethnographic, ethnohistoric, historic, and medical evidence relating to non-binary sex/gender expression; 2) tests a method inspired by

Whelan (1991) that looks at gender as an identity not fully inspired by biological sex; 3) keeps all sex assessment categories used by bioarchaeologists separate in analysis and interpretation; and 4) analyses patterns relating to all available material culture and biological attributes in a mortuary sample to investigate gender identity.

This thesis used the Early Anglo-Saxon (470-600 AD) burial ground at Worthy Park,

Hampshire to achieve these objectives. This thesis found that when examining all sex assessment categories among all mortuary variables, only the male sex was clearly defined by its mortuary assemblage. This suggests a one gender structure corresponding to linguistic evidence for one gender in Old English.

Keywords: Bioarchaeology, Gender identity, Third gender, Anglo-Saxon, Sex assessment

Acknowledgements

I would like to give a special thanks to my supervisor, Dr. Jocelyn Williams, for her continued guidance, encouragement, and support with research design, as well as her perseverance in revising my many drafts. I thank my committee members: Dr. Marit

Munson, Dr. James Conolly (first year), and Dr. Anne Keenleyside (second year) for their support, patience, and guidance in this journey. I give acknowledgement and thanks to

Dr. James Conolly for aiding me with correspondence and hierarchical cluster analysis in archaeological research, and his time and aid with Canoco 5 (on his own laptop) and

Trent University’s WebStatistica statistics software in my analysis.

I would also not have been able to beautify the final draft’s Appendices tables without the help of the “Excel Guru” Elmer Horst at Hewlitt-Packard who helped me master

Microsoft Excel’s many functions, and Debbie Harriet at Hewlitt-Packard who reviewed my Appendices’ tables, and Daniel Martin at Microsoft who aided me in formatting the final product. I also thank Dana Capell for reviewing parts of this thesis.

I would not be where I am today without the care and support of my parents, Wayne and Debbie Downer, and family who encouraged me financially and emotionally to pursue my passion in Anthropology. And I would not be where I am without the guidance of Jesus Christ, and the support of my friends and colleagues at Trent University’s

Anthropology Department and beyond.

I would finally like to thank that steamy-hot beverage, tea, which has kept me invigorated during Grad school.

iii

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii Acknowledgements ...... iii List of Figures ...... vi List of Tables ...... vii Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 13 2.1 Pre-feminist Understandings of Gender ...... 15 2.2 Feminism ...... 17 2.3 Queer Theory ...... 19 2.4 Contributions of Feminism and Queer theory to Archaeology and Bioarchaeology ...... 23 2.5 Evidence Challenging the Cultural Gender Binary ...... 29 2.6 Performance Theory and Marxism and their Importance in Understanding Gender ...... 34 Chapter 3: Assessing Sex in Bioarchaeology ...... 38 3.1 Historical Development of Sexing in Bioarchaeology ...... 39 3.2 Skeletal Sex Assessment in Bioarchaeology ...... 42 3.2.1 Osteological Sexing Categories ...... 43 3.3 Contemporary Bioarchaeological Research Patterns in dealing with Sex ...... 44 3.4 Whelan’s (1991) Research on the Santee Siouan Blackdog burial ground ...... 48 Chapter 4: Research Design, Sample, and Methods ...... 53 4.1 Mortuary analysis ...... 54 4.2 Research Design ...... 56 4.3 The Anglo-Saxon burial ground at Worthy Park, Hampshire ...... 57 4.5 Worthy Park Sample ...... 61 4.5 Correspondence Analysis, De-trended Correspondence Analysis, and Hierarchical Cluster Analysis ...... 64 4.7 Summary ...... 73 Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion ...... 74 5.1 Analysis 1: All Variables Intact ...... 74

5.2 Analysis 2: Sexing categories removed...... 78 5.3 Analysis 3: All biological variables removed ...... 82 5.4 Analysis 4: Material Culture variables only ...... 86 5.5 Analysis 5: Age variables removed ...... 90 5.6 Discussion ...... 94 Chapter 6: Conclusion ...... 105 References Cited ...... 112 Appendix A ...... 143 A.1 Grave description ...... 143 A.2 Biological description ...... 146 A.3 Artefact classes ...... 148 Appendix B ...... 150 Appendix C ...... 161

List of Figures

Figure 1 Location of Hampshire County in England ...... 58

Figure 2 Location of Kingsworthy within Hampshire ...... 59

Figure 3 Map of the Worthy Park burial ground...... 60

Figure 4 CA scatterplot graph of Table 1 ...... 66

Figure 5 Example of unmodified DCA scatterplot ...... 70

Figure 6 Example of modified DCA scatterplot ...... 71

Figure 7 DCA with all variables intact ...... 75

Figure 8 HCLA of Worthy Park data with all variables intact ...... 77

Figure 9 DCA with Sex assessment categories removed from dataset ...... 79

Figure 10 HCLA with Sex assessment categories removed ...... 81

Figure 11 DCA with all Biological variables removed from dataset...... 83

Figure 12 HCLA with all Biological variables removed ...... 85

Figure 13 DCA with Material Culture variables only ...... 87

Figure 14 HCLA with Material Culture variables only ...... 89

Figure 15 DCA with Age variables removed ...... 92

Figure 16 HCLA with Age variables removed ...... 93

List of Tables

Table 1 Basic dataset composed of numerical data showing the relationship between car manufacturers and social attributes ...... 65

vii

Chapter 1

Introduction

A feature of bioarchaeological research into sex involves placing skeletal remains into one of six sex assessment categories: male, female, possible/probable male, possible/probable female, ambiguous, or indeterminate (Arizona State Museum 2009;

Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994; Ferembach et al. 1979; Hrdlička 1920). Although these categories are listed as distinct in the handbooks and guidelines established for osteological analysis, they are often modified when interpretations about gender and sex in the past are made by bioarchaeologists dealing with remains. Biologically ambiguous- sexed skeletal remains are often left out of osteological reports while the probable/possible males and probable/possible females are incorporated into the male and female categories respectively. These categories represent the diversity of sexual expression in the human skeleton, as well as merit the existence of different cultural gender and sex systems both historically and contemporary but are rarely kept distinct.

Language and therefore culture have been shown to impact the way speakers and performers of different cultures see the world around them; this is known as the Whorfian hypothesis (Lu et al. 2012; Roberson et al. 2008; Whorf 1956[1937]; Whorf 1956[1941];

Whorf 1956[1950]; Winawer et al. 2007). Recently, psychological researchers have further validated the Whorfian hypothesis by examining the way in which native speakers of languages interpret and distinguish colour (e.g. Goldstein et al. 2009; Lu et al. 2012;

Roberson et al. 2008; Tan et al. 2008; Winawer et al. 2007). These experiments

2 demonstrated that language has a considerable impact on how we recognise and therefore see the world around us.

Bioarchaeologists are not exempt from these linguistic and cultural paradigms. As it stands, the English language only contains two grammatical genders (masculine and feminine) with two corresponding sexes (male and female). This limits the way in which

English-speakers, whose works are reviewed in this thesis and influenced the development of archaeology and bioarchaeology (see Chapman 2004:6), visualise the world around them. It is therefore difficult for many bioarchaeologists to avoid recreating the contemporary Western world in the past through the placement of binary gender and sex models into past societies. However, it is an issue that needs to be addressed due to the misinterpretation of past social systems in a way that clouds our image of the past.

This thesis demonstrates that by placing our modern perspectives and worldviews on the past can inhibit the ability to see the entirety of past societies. It also illustrates the impact culture and language have on our interpretations of the past with regards to sex and gender. This thesis provides ethnographic, ethnohistoric, historic, and medical evidence that challenges the application of a cultural gender and biological sex binary model in bioarchaeological research into gender identity. In response to this recurring dilemma, this thesis examines a mortuary sample of 96 individuals in 104 inhumations through a theoretical lens incorporating queer theory, performance theory, and Marxism to allow for non-binary gender structures in ancient cultural worldviews. This thesis was further inspired by Whelan’s (1991) research into gender identity in a historic Santee

Siouan community in modern-day Minnesota. In her research, she treated both biological

(age and sex) and cultural (material culture) variables as influencing gender categories.

Although Whelan (1991) moves beyond the majority of bioarchaeological research

(reviewed in Chapter Three) by looking at material culture as defining cultural gender identity, her research only used two of the five available biological sex categories in skeletal sex assessment/determination and examined the frequency of biological sex and age in relation to grave offerings through factor analysis. This thesis employs a set of five de-trended correspondence analyses and five hierarchical cluster analyses to investigate patterns in the distribution of individuals relating to biological, material culture, and grave description variables as well as keeping biological sex determination categories distinct to allow for sex diversity.

Mortuary archaeology has been a source of social archaeological research since the nineteenth century, and has been used to investigate identities associated with gender, ethnic, age, and status from the past (Fisher 2008:87; Geake 2003; Hadley 2004; Härke

1997b, 1997d:193; Knüsel 2002; Lucy 1999; Sofaer Derevenski 2000; Williams 2002).

There has been intense debate as to whether mortuary remains can be used to directly infer social structures like status and ethnicity as proposed by processual archaeologists in the mid-twentieth century or can only provide insight into religious/spiritual practises, or ideology, related to mortuary ritual and identity (Ravn 1999:41-42). Nevertheless, this thesis takes the stance that mortuary remains can indeed inform researchers of social identities in the past because mortuary remains in general are deliberate and calculated acts rather than acts of necessity (Geake 1997:3-4; 2003; Williams 2002).

Research into Anglo-Saxon mortuary sites have followed suit with these theoretical developments. For instance, the use of mortuary data to investigate ethnicity or cultural identity (Effros 2004; Härke 1997c:122-123; Lucy 1999:35; Symonds 2009),

4 status (Fisher 2008; Härke 2000), and gender identities (Fisher 2008; Hadley 2004;

Knüsel and Ripley 2000) are mainstay features of modern Anglo-Saxon social archaeologies.

Anglo-Saxon burial grounds are important to test the applicability of this thesis’ method for several reasons. These burial grounds represent the remains of the cultural ancestors of contemporary English-speaking populations throughout the world. Another reason is that although research into the Anglo-Saxon period has occupied the minds of academics since at least the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Geake 1997:1-2; Härke

2014; Lucy 2000:15), much still remains to be uncovered about Early Anglo-Saxon society which was prehistoric prior to the adoption of the Latin alphabet via the introduction of Christianity in the early seventh century AD (Härke 2011; Hawkes

1997:312-313; Hines 1997:378-379; Leeds 1970[1936]:xi; Pollington 2003; Quennell and

Quennell 1959:156; Symonds 2009).

Although there has been considerable research into Early Anglo-Saxon society prior to the “official” adoption of Christianity, this cultural group remains shrouded in mystery.

It has been debated as to whether the Anglo-Saxons were immigrants to the British Isles, or whether they are comprised of native Britons who had adopted a Continental Germanic culture. The dominant theory that was purported by most scholars since the nineteenth century was that Anglo-Saxons came to the British Isles in large numbers from northwestern Continental Europe in the areas of the modern Netherlands, Frisia, northwest Germany, and Denmark; this population comprised of Angles, Saxons, and

Jutes (Geake 1997; Härke 1997c, 2011; Hassall 1965:14; Herbert 1994:10-11; Higham

2004; Hines 1997:378; J. M. Dent & Sons 1963[1910]:23; Laker 2008; Leeds

1970[1936]:xi, 3; Lucy 1999; Owen-Crocker 2004:12-15; Page 1970; Quennell and

Quennell 1959:123-124; Robinson 1992; Wood 1997). This was based on primary documents written in the Middle and Late Saxon periods dating to between 650 and 1066

AD by Christian monks like Bæda1, a couple of centuries after the Anglo-Saxons were said to have migrated to the British Isles displacing the indigenous Britons (Härke 1997c,

2011; J. M. Dent & Sons 1963[1910]; Robinson 1992).

What has been gathered from archaeology and the primary historical record from the post-Christian period is that there was a complex integration of ethnic Germanic and indigenous Britonic peoples with additional cultural influence from Vandals, Goths,

Geats, Suebi, Danes, Swedes, and other Germanic-speaking peoples (reviewed in Fell

1984; Härke 2011; Hawkes 1997; Herbert 1994:10-11; Higham 2004; Laker 2008; Owen-

Crocker 2004:21-22). This view maintains the early-mid twentieth-century theoretical perspective of indigenous Briton continuity; this view challenges the Germanic migration theory heralded in the nineteenth century (Lucy 1998:102; 1999:33-34). Furthermore,

Lucy (1998:107) argues that there is not much evidence to conclude that there was a

Briton or an Anglo-Saxon mortuary ritual; instead, they may have just been local or temporal variations practiced by a single community over time with ever- changing/fluctuating identities within the community. Nevertheless, much of what is gleaned about pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon culture is from archaeology, mortuary archaeology, and post-Roman and Early Medieval ethnographies and historical records

(Fell 1984; Lucy 1998, 1999; Owen-Crocker 2004).

1 All Anglo-Saxon names and terms are written in Old English orthography in order to keep as close to the original script as possible. These terms and names are based either on the references used or from the Old English Translator at www.oldenglishtranslator.co.uk.

Anglo-Saxon culture had passed down not just the language that is spoken throughout the world, but also remnants of these early pre-Christian beliefs. One example comes from the English days of the week which are named after some of these deities: Tuesday for Tiw, Wednesday for Wóden, Thursday for Þunor, and Friday for Frey (reviewed in

Fell 1984). The early Anglo-Saxon religion survived the impact of Christianity in the seventh century AD, and the early Anglo-Saxons remained “pagan” despite their continued contact with their Christian Germanic relatives in Continental Europe, the

Franks and their Christian neighbours, the Britons (reviewed in Hines 1997). Thus, its descendant, modern English, has become a major language spoken throughout the world and in academia.

Gender roles in Anglo-Saxon England have been interpreted by the majority of historians, archaeologists, and bioarchaeologists since the turn of the twentieth century as being strictly binary. This is due to the seemingly gender-distinct burial rites performed by Early pre-Christian Anglo-Saxons (Fell 1984:40; Härke 1990, 1997a:130-131,

2014:54; Leeds 1970[1936]:28; Leyser 1995:5-7; Lucy 2000:15; Meaney 2003:239-240;

Owen-Crocker 2004; Page 1970:67-68; Pollington 2004:167; Sayer 2013; Wilson 1992).

However, some primary documents and the work of some modern researchers have suggested “third genders” (Härke 2014:54; Hinton 1990:13; Knüsel and Ripley 2000;

Leyser 1995:18; Lucy 2000; Owen-Crocker 2004:6-7; Sayer 2010:73; Stoodley 2000;

Wilson 1992:96-97), women in typically-masculine social positions (Härke 1997a:131;

Herbert 1997:13, 18, 20-21; Knüsel and Ripley 2000), and males occupying typically- feminine social identities (Knüsel and Ripley 2000). For instance, gender and sex are rarely referred to in primary Middle-Late Anglo-Saxon documents, but when they are

7 they usually refer to as weras, wepmen, and wæpenedmenn (“male,” weapon-men) and wifas and wifmenn (“female,” weaving-men) which are often associated with men and women respectively (Fell 1984:19; Herbert 1997:14).

The primary source for investigating gender in Anglo-Saxon England has been mortuary archaeology (Effros 2004:167; Geake 1997:26; Hadley 2004:304-305; Härke

1997c, 2000:395; Lucy 1998; Meaney 2003). This is due to the rich burial offerings that are associated with the Early Anglo-Saxon mortuary ritual, as opposed to later Anglo-

Saxon periods which saw a decrease in the furnished burial ritual after 600/650AD

(Geake 1997:1). Around the beginning of this period, Geake (1997:121-122) argues that there was a shift in mortuary practise that moved away from Germanic-burial offerings of the fifth and sixth centuries AD towards burial offerings reminiscent of ancient and contemporary Roman culture. She suggests that this shift may have been due to the drive towards a unified England where kings developed a Romanised ideology to legitimise their rule over what was once Roman Britannia (Geake 1997:135-136). Shortly after this change in mortuary ritual, Krüger (1971) in Geake (1997:130) proposes that the early furnished burial fell out of practise, moving from outside villages to churchyards in the

Late Anglo-Saxon period. However, this thesis focused on the pre-Christian burial ground at Worthy Park which fell out of use around the time of these changes in mortuary ritual occurred in the seventh century AD.

Although the focus of nineteenth and early-mid twentieth-century has been on the male burial ritual of the pre-Christian and pre-Romanisation period (Jones-Bley 2008), researchers have focused their efforts in discerning the experience of women in Early

Anglo-Saxon societies as a result of feminist movements in the mid-twentieth century

(Symonds 2009:61-62). This has resulted in a lack of research dedicated to masculinity and non-binary genders in Anglo-Saxon archaeology (Effros 2004:175; Symonds

2009:61-62), which this thesis also attempts to fill.

Knüsel and Ripley (2000) have looked into the possible existence of non-binary genders in pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon societies. They apply the categories Male/Male?,

Female/Female?, Male/Female, and Female/Male to their mortuary dataset, and look at how these sex categories relate to artefact frequencies in Early Anglo-Saxon burials.

Although their research is similar to this thesis by investigating whether or not non-binary gender identities can be discerned through mortuary data, it is ultimately different. Knüsel and Ripley’s (2000) sex categories are a combination of cultural (material culture) and osteological (sex assessment) traits; however, this thesis has removed cultural accoutrements from the sex categories prior to analysis and are strictly based on osteological sex assessment categories. Furthermore, this thesis treats possible males

(Male?) and possible females (Female?) as distinct categories, separate from males and females.

Another source for insight into Early Anglo-Saxon gender identity is through Old

English literature. The Old English term used to describe humankind was mann, which is of the third neuter declension (Herbert 1997:13). Therefore, it is not restricted to masculinity as it is often in Modern English. In total, the Old English language has three genders: neuter, masculine, and feminine (Davis 1961:10-13). Gender-specific terms like wifas and wæpenedmenn were not exclusive and show a great deal of flexibility as is the case where women are known to have commanded armies and were described as wæpenedmenn, eorlic (warrior-like), and hláfordas (bread-givers), terms that were often

9 used to describe men (Fell 1984:15, 48; Härke 1997a:131). A possible explanation for females occupying typically-masculine roles may have been connected to a Scandinavian, and likely more Germanic practise of female infanticide (Clover 1990:105-107). This may have made females scarcer, allowing females to occupy positions normally ascribed to males (Clover 1990).

However, the fact that there is little gender distinction in the literary evidence overall (Fell 1984:16-19; Herbert 1997), and only one clear association between biological sex and material culture at Worthy Park suggests a complex one-gender and sex model as proposed by Laqueur (1990). Laqueur (1990:96) argued that prior to the

Enlightenment in the seventeenth century, Western European ideas of gender and sex were that males and females were essentially the same: a vagina was an inverted form of a penis. He further argued that human sexual variation was placed on a hierarchy with males at the top under God, and females as a lesser form of males. The difficulty with this explanation is that Laqueur (1990) relates this to the Classical Greek and Roman influence of the High Middle Ages in the understanding of sex rather than the knowledge known to predominantly pre-Christian Anglo-Saxons (personal communication Leigh

Symonds).

An alternative explanation for the patterning at Worthy Park is that these biological and cultural divisions could pertain to 4 genders: males, subadults, females and possible males, and individuals with little or no burial offerings (including 6 females, 4 males, 3 possible females, and 1 infant) (see Figure 8). This interpretation is based on the etymological root of the term gender from the Old and Middle French gendre meaning

“kind, or sort” (OED Online); a term that is broad enough to include any category. The

10 first two would be biologically-based given that the mortuary ritual is based on biological sex (for males) and biological age (for subadults). The third gender would also correspond well with the biological sexes, female and possible male, while the final gender consists of those who were buried with few or no burial offerings (Graves 17a, 12,

34, 21A, 3, 18c, 93, 18a, 38, 26A, 2, 69, 57, and 1) (see Figure 8). This category may have been economic and representative of a slave or servant population (Fisher 2008:89-

90; Hadley 2004:302; Härke 1997a:139), and/or Britons (Härke 1997a:151, 1997c:120).

Another feature of Anglo-Saxon gender and sex structure was the fluidity of the roles which were established mainly by performance, as is the case with wæpenedmenn and wifmenn in primary documents. The burial ground at Worthy Park also suggests this one-gender and sex structure due to the remarkably strong clustering of male burials and the lack of clustering of females, possible females, and possible males (see Chapter Five).

In a mortuary context, the only strict association between mortuary ritual and sex or age is among males. This is in agreement with some other recent Anglo-Saxon mortuary research (Härke 1997a:135; Stoodley 2000), which suggested a more static role ascribed to males. However, they do not suggest that some areas of Early Anglo-Saxon society followed a one-gender and sex model, but continue to apply the sex and gender binary.

This thesis is divided into six chapters and three appendices. The goal of the literature review in Chapter Two is to summarise the main theoretical perspectives used in this thesis: performance theory, Queer theory, and Marxism. In this chapter, I also introduce the various ethnographic, ethnohistoric, historical, and medical literature relating non-binary gender and sex systems and the diversity in biological sexual expression. These systems are not easily relatable to the male/female, men/women

11 division which is commonly adhered to in the modern Western English-speaking world, but are composed of many different identity categories that encompass a member of a culture’s biological make-up and social identity. Examples of cultures that adhere to and adhered to biological sex and cultural gender structures that are not male/female, or men/women include ethnographic accounts of Inuit sex/gender structure, ethnohistoric evidence of ’aqi of the historical and contemporary Chumash of coastal California, the historic galli of Ancient Rome and the ancient Mediterranean, and the evidence of intersex variations (biological sexes encompassing a neither male nor female expression) found in the medical record.

The focus of Chapter Three, Sexing in Bioarchaeology, is a review of current practises and research in bioarchaeology which serve to recreate a sex and gender binary in the archaeological record. Chapter Four sets up the test case: it reviews an alternate way of investigating gender (Whelan 1991), reviews how I modified Whelan’s approach, outlines the site and sample used for the test case, and reviews the methods. Chapter Five summarises the results of the exploratory analyses, and relates these data to early Anglo-

Saxon culture and bioarchaeological research on sex and gender. The final chapter summarises the thesis and presents recommendations for future research.

The vast majority of bioarchaeological research adheres to and applies a sex and gender binary to inferences on past biological and cultural traits. One of the reasons for this is that language has influenced our interpretations. The English language in particular only acknowledges two genders (masculine and feminine). In order to move past this obstacle, I adopted a theoretical perspective that combines queer theory, performance theory, and Marxism. To demonstrate the futility of interpreting past societies as enacting

12 a gender and sex binary, I listed the large amount of ethnographic, ethnohistoric, historical, and medical evidence of societies through space and time that did or do possess a non-binary gender and sex structure, and the complexity of biology with regards to sex.

Chapter 2

Literature Review

“But that this form occurs so well pronounced in heads which we designate beautiful and

womanly, proves that this form is typical for the female sex.” (Ecker 1868:355)

“A few years ago an Indian agent endeavoured to compel these people, under threat of

punishment, to wear men's clothing, but his efforts were unsuccessful.” (Simms

1903:581)

Alexander Ecker, a nineteenth-century anatomist, wrote his 1868 article, On a

Characteristic Peculiarity in the Form of the Female Skull, and Its Significance for

Comparative Anthropology arguing that some skull features that are mistaken for racial characteristics could be instead the result of age and sex. In this article, he describes that there are natural characteristics which are “typical for the female sex,” and those that are

“naturally” male (p. 355). Writing 35 years later, Stephen C. Simms, a North American anthropologist, wrote his brief article Crow Indian Hermaphrodites (1903) in American

Anthropologist in which he gave a brief overview of Crow two-spirits, and the manner in which they live. He described how the Indian agent who had visited the Crow reservation went and tried to force the two-spirit individuals to obey the ideals of American culture by forcing these “men” to wear men’s clothing.

What both of these quotations have in common is that they both illustrate a gender binary, the idea that there are only two genders and that they are static and derived from biological sex. Whereas Ecker (1868) makes a distinctive match between “feminine” and

14 the “female” sex, which is prevalent in academic thought, Simms (1903) shows that the gender binary is also prevalent in secular culture, and has been used to oppress individuals of other cultures who did not fit that perspective. Although the gender binary is the dominant conception of gender in contemporary Western societies, gender was not always conceived as a binary.

In this chapter, I will first look at the Pre-feminist understandings of gender which had recently become a binary. I will then move on to examine the origins of feminism and the feminist conceptions of gender, and how this theoretical paradigm changed the way in which we perceive gendered relations in society. I will finally examine the origins of queer theory and the changes in the dominant perceptions of gender in academia, and how queer theory will be a useful tool in understanding cross-cultural conceptions of gender.

Demonstrating the change in academic and societal ideas on gender, I will show how these changes occurred in archaeology and bioarchaeology. To illustrate further changes that were brought about by these theories, I will introduce Whelan’s 1991 article Gender and Historical Archaeology: Eastern Dakota Patterns in the 19th Century, and how this article’s examination of gender patterns in a nineteenth-century Dakota mortuary record is integral in trying to understand gender in past societies. In order to illustrate how a gender binary is not suitable for understanding cross-cultural notions of gender and identity, I will present ethnographic, ethnohistoric, historic, and medical evidence. I will end this chapter by looking at the origins of performance theory and Marxism, and how these perspectives are important in trying to understand gender cross-culturally and through time.

2.1 Pre-feminist Understandings of Gender

Even though contemporary Western societies observe a gender binary, where two distinct sexes are the basis of two distinct genders, Western societies have not always adhered to a gender binary. Laqueur (1990) argues that prior to the eighteenth century, masculine and feminine genders were not seen as distinct, but were seen as hierarchical, where the masculine was the dominant human form and the feminine was an inversion of this form. He further describes the current gender paradigm as being the “two-sex model,” and the previous one the “one-sex model” (Laqueur 1990). As early as the ancient Greeks, the one-sex model was understood to be the basis of gender. A distinction between the sexual organs of males and females did not exist in this model, where female organs were perceived as being the same organs as those found in males, but in different positions. Aristotle, for instance, describes females as possessing introverted organs of males, where the womb is akin to the testes (Laqueur 1990:33). Females were therefore only different from males in that they did not express their genitals on the outside, but instead were in the same form on the inside of the body.

Writing several centuries later, the Roman physician Galen shared similar views to that of Aristotle. In his writings on the human orgasm, he describes in a similar manner to Aristotle that both men and women possess seeds, which are activated by heat during copulation to form new life (pp. 43-45). Laqueur argues that this early model did not see females as being a completely separate sex from males, but a lesser form of male. This model, Laqueur argues, was the dominant gender paradigm that endured in the Western world up until the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. During the Middle Ages,

Avicenna, an Arabic physician whose writings were important to the development of

European medicine, argued that when males and females are full with sperm, they become “irritated” and subsequently experience erections (Laqueur 1990:45). The fact that it was perceived that both males and females experienced erections and had sperm shows that they were not conceived as separate beings, but variations of the human form.

The current gender paradigm that is observed has only become the dominant way of conceiving gender in the last couple of centuries. According to Laqueur (1990:10-11), the Enlightenment saw the distinction between the physical and the cultural, sex and gender, eroding. He argues that sex started to become the base of gender as a result of both epistemology and politics. This led to the gender binary we observe in modern

Western societies where there is a direct relation between biological sex and cultural gender. The biology of sex was therefore becoming institutionalised and used as a force to solidify the behaviours of men and women in order to control population and reproduction (Foucault 1980:36). Distinctions between sexual organs were beginning to appear during the Age of Enlightenment. For instance, what was previously seen as being testicles were described as ovaries and testicles, while parts of the body that were not named before were given names, as was the case with the “vagina” (Laqueur 1990:149).

This transformation had a tremendous effect on cultural perceptions of gender in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, where cultural ideas of gender were being described through biology (Bowden and Mummery 2009). It impacted the lives of both men and women where their different culturally-perceived roles were now being enforced through sex, which was seen as static and therefore preventing people from crossing over the gender divide. This demonstrates that ideas surrounding gender and sex have never been static in Western societies.

2.2 Feminism

Feminist theory developed over a long period of time and was a product of the oppression that women were constantly facing in Western societies. Before the eighteenth century, women were seen as a form of men on the lower end of the human hierarchy; however, around the eighteenth century this perspective was being solidified in biology where the distance between men and women was growing (Laqueur 1990). Biological sex was therefore seen as being fixed, where the possibility of transgressing gendered practises was becoming more difficult. Women were still being oppressed prior to the eighteenth century, since they were seen as a lesser form of man (Laqueur 1990), and were mainly dependent upon men in order to access necessities and where they did not have a lot of autonomy (Branca 1978); however the division between the sexes exemplified this oppression, since gendered norms and practises were being justified through biological differences between the sexes.

It was precisely out of this growing divide between men and women and the establishment of the female sex that feminism had formed. Since the Declaration of the

Rights of Man which was published after the French Revolution spoke for men’s suffrage rights, the first women’s movement began through writers like Mary Wollstonecraft who wrote a Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792) and Olympe de Georges who wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Women (1791) (Branca 1978:152). Although these late- eighteenth century movements were important in igniting the push for women’s rights, it was not until much later when progress was really being made. Larger women’s movements had appeared by the mid-nineteenth century and had successes in giving

18 property, education, and employment rights to women (Branca 1978). Women were thus gaining a larger role in society than they had ever had before in Europe.

Feminist thought also derives from other nineteenth-century political movements.

These “minority political movements,” including Saint Simonians, Fourierists, and

French Socialists argued for women’s rights on an array of different fronts like suffrage, education, and general equality (Branca 1978:154). Integral to feminist theory were the

Utopian socialists like Charles Fourier who believed that society could not progress to a state of equality until it has accepted the rights of women (pp. 152-153). Out of these earlier movements, gender was starting to be seen as a cultural phenomenon, and not biologically derived (Bowden and Mummery 2009:2-3). All of these forces helped to establish the women’s movements in the late-eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and feminist theory of the twentieth century.

Much of contemporary feminist thought derives mainly from a much later women’s movement and the philosophy of twentieth-century feminists. Second-wave feminism was brought about by Simone de Beauvoir and Betty Friedan, scholars and activists, who believed that gender was cultural and not biological (Bowden and

Mummery 2009). Simone de Beauvoir is credited with writing The Second Sex in 1949, where she argued that women are not born women but are made into women (Bowden and Mummery 2009). Simone de Beauvoir was exposing the cultural nature of gender in this book. Another influential work was Betty Freidan’s The Feminine Mystique (1963), where she argued that women’s subjugation by men is preventing women from achieving their full potential (Bowden and Mummery 2009). Freidan’s book argues that women are therefore equally capable in performing the tasks that were deemed masculine. The ideas

19 that gender is cultural and that women and men are equal were the foundations of current feminist theory.

Despite the fact that feminism had made progress for women in society through activism and the philosophy of gender equality, they did not eradicate the gender binary, two genders derived from two sexes, prevalent in Western societies. Feminism had not only kept the gender binary intact, but it also advocated the idea of a “universal woman,” which does not take into consideration the cross-cultural experiences of “women” worldwide (Butler 2006). However, it was the realisation that gender was a cultural phenomenon unrelated to sex, and that both genders are equal that led to the development of queer theory.

2.3 Queer Theory

Arising out of a critique of feminist thought which universalised culturally- specific gender categories, like “women” and the gender binary (Butler 2006), queer theory illuminated social structures as being creations of culture and not nature. It critiques the social standards that are seen as being commonsensible and taken for granted

(Jagose 1996). In terms of sexuality and gender, queer theory has been useful in demonstrating the social and cultural origins of these forms of identity, which have been taken as natural, static categories in contemporary society (Bowden and Mummery 2009;

Seidman 1994). Like the focus on sexuality and gender identities, queer theory also exposes the gender binary as a cultural phenomenon. The gender binary according to queer theory derives from culture, and gender identity is a part of a complex web of different identities that are inherent in societies worldwide (Valocchi 2005). Hence, all

20 identities are interconnected and cannot be viewed independently from one another. Aside from stemming out of feminist critique, queer theory derives from mid-twentieth century human rights activism, post-structuralism, psychoanalysis, and the work of Judith Butler.

Queer theory, much like feminism, arose out of activism for human rights and a myriad of different theoretical orientations. The most influential of the activist movements was the gay liberation movement of the mid-twentieth century. During the

1960s, gay liberation activists were keen on questioning the basis for terms like heterosexuality and gender roles which were taken by the public as common sense, as well as proclaiming their uniqueness as gays and opposing the “status quo” (Jagose

1996:31). The gay liberation movement provided one of the basic tenets of queer theory which is critiquing accepted social norms and structures. Another activist movement which contributed to the development of queer theory was the counter-culture movement of the 1960s, which fought against various forms of oppression and discrimination faced by ethnic minorities and other groups; this movement forced gay liberationists to reconsider the effectiveness of their original cause of challenging discrimination of homosexuals (Jagose 1996:33-34). These activist movements eventually moved into academia developing into gay and lesbian studies.

Queer theory and its understandings of gender have been influenced by different theoretical orientations including post-structuralism, psychoanalysis, and performance theory. Michel Foucault’s (1980) A History of Sexuality has had an important impact on the conception of sex and gender in Western societies. He argues that sex was continuously repressed to a point where it had become a “discursive topic” that had to be repetitively discussed; it was through this repetitive discussion and forceful repression

21 that spawned multiple sexual identities which were brought to the forefront of discussion and subsequently suppressed (Foucault 1980). He suggests that there were multiple sources of powers that were at work in both creating this obsession for suppressing sex and looking for different sexual identities which were created from this obsession.

Foucault’s ideas on the creation of sex and multiple sexual identities illustrate the power that sex holds in contemporary Western societies, which is responsible for creating

“deviant” sexualities and sexes, and at the same time oppressing and suppressing them.

Another theoretical influence came from Jacques Lacan, a post-structuralist psychoanalyst, who studied the impact of language on the formation of identity. In 1968,

Lacan wrote The Language of the Self where he further discussed his ideas on the importance of language. For Lacan, language is a medium through which a psychoanalyst works with a patient, and a barrier impacting communication. Since language is a medium through which thoughts are formed and articulated, Lacan (1968) argued that an individual’s sense of self was “imaginary,” situational and temporary, as opposed to

Georg Hegel and Socrates who argued that the sense of self was static and real. Language was therefore seen as the creator of the sense of self as well as identity. He further argued that an individual’s identity did not come from within, but was imposed on him or her from the outside (Lacan 1968). In his book, Lacan illustrates how people are not in complete control of their own persons but are products of their socio-cultural environment or structure.

All of the above works were synthesised by the work of Judith Butler, who can be seen as a reference in many works of queer theory (see Abes and Kasch 2007; Green

2010; Jagose 1996, 2009; Seidman 1994; Valocchi 2005). Butler is seen as a progenitor

22 of queer theoretical thought, combining perspectives from post-structuralism, psychoanalysis, and aspects of performance theory (Butler 2006). Although Butler was important in synthesising the work of Foucault and Lacan, along with others like

Laqueur, her work derived mainly from critiquing feminist thought. Butler did not agree with the universalising ideals of feminism, such as the concept of “women” and the gender binary; she argued that feminism failed in recognising the cultural basis of gender by universalising the concept of “women,” their experiences, and the gender binary that is still prevalent in many of today’s Western societies (Butler 2006). To her, the gender binary along with gender identities and sexuality are not experienced in the same way cross-culturally, but are temporally and spatially-specific.

The gender binary effectively maintains a direct relation between sex and gender, where gender is explained through sex (Butler 2006:9). However, Butler (2006) argues that gender informs sex, which not only illustrates the cultural origins of gender, but shows that sex is also informed by gender, and is therefore a cultural phenomenon itself.

The idea that sex is cultural was argued earlier by Jacques Lacan (1968:152-153), who stated that neither the “one-sex model” nor the “two-sex model” can be explained solely through the use of biological observation, but are informed by social, cultural, and political thought. The ideas that gender identities, the gender binary, and sex are informed by culture are important ideas that were never fully achieved through feminist thought, and are important in trying to understand gender and other forms of identity in other cultures. This makes queer theory an important theoretical contribution to understanding variations of gender and identity systems across space and time. Queer theory therefore

23 provides the main theoretical framework that informs this research in gender and sex in the mortuary record.

2.4 Contributions of Feminism and Queer theory to Archaeology and Bioarchaeology

Both feminism and queer theory have provided new ways of looking at and understanding past societies and cultures. Feminism has not only been important in promoting the study of women in past cultures and societies in both archaeology and bioarchaeology, it has also promoted the study of gender and identity, and their utility in understanding past societies. Queer theory, following in feminism’s footsteps, had advocated for looking at identities and institutions that had previously been ignored, such as multiple gender systems and a variety of sexual expressions.

Before feminism, however, gender was barely acknowledged or addressed in archaeological studies. Archaeologists were originally interested in “site functions,” subsistence systems, cultural diffusion, migration, and economics in past cultures before the introduction of gender studies in archaeology by feminist-inspired archaeologists

(Conkey and Spector 1984). Anglo-American archaeologists of the early-twentieth century were mainly advocates of cultural-historic archaeology, which focuses on the creation of artefact taxonomies for establishing prehistoric cultural boundaries and intercultural interaction, the use of analogy in understanding past human societies, and culture change occurring though population migrations (Ascher 1961; McKern 1939). At the time of the introduction of feminism in the mid-late twentieth century, the processual approach was popular among archaeologists.

This approach focused on a move away from migration as an explanation for culture change and instead sees cultures as being dependent on the environment for their existence; a change in the environment therefore results in a change in cultural practise or technology (Binford 1962, 1972; Clarke 1968). Processualism, however, did not allow for human agency, and instead saw human actions as natural and predictable behaviours that can be discerned through contextual and artefact analysis (Brumfiel 1992; Conkey and

Spector 1984; Schiffer 1972). Both culture-historic archaeology and processual archaeology were heavily androcentric in their orientation, and did not question the

Western-specific gender roles that they were applying to studies of past cultures (Conkey and Spector 1984). These approaches to studying the past demanded a change.

Feminism had been introduced to archaeology through feminist-influenced scholars, such as Margaret Conkey and Janet Spector. In 1984, Conkey and Spector wrote their Archaeology and the Study of Gender, in which they challenged the contemporary archaeology for being androcentric and anachronistic in its approach. They argued that archaeology was lagging behind anthropology in research on women and gender, and they criticised processual archaeology, because it removed human agency from analysis with its focus on systems and the environment (Conkey and Spector 1984). What they were advocating for was an inclusive discipline that acknowledged the roles of women in past societies and cultures, and the fact that gender roles can vary cross-culturally

(Conkey and Spector 1984). This paper brought in a new era in archaeological theory, where more archaeologists began to research gender and note the importance of gender in trying to understand past societies holistically. This change can be seen in the archaeological work of Elizabeth Brumfiel, who challenged processual archaeology for

25 removing human agency from research and the importance of gender and women in past cultures (1992). Although feminists like Conkey, Spector, and Brumfiel advocated for an inclusive archaeology that recognised women and gender systems, they failed to move away from a gender binary, where only two genders were acknowledged in past societies.

Queer theory had played a prominent role in archaeological thought in recent years and was important for challenging the social structures that had infiltrated what was supposed to be an objective science. Much of the work queer-oriented archaeologists have done has been influenced by the work of Judith Butler who argues that sex is informed by gender, and that the idea of a gender binary, and the concepts of men and women could not be applied across space and time (Butler 2006). Some of the more prominent figures in queer archaeology are Rosemary Joyce, Roberta Gilchrist, Barbara

Voss, and Lynn Meskell. Queer archaeology has been applied to cultures throughout time and space, and has not only focused on gender. Queer theory in archaeology has been important for recognising the interconnectedness of all forms of identity. This can be seen in Joyce’s (2006) study on gender as it relates to age, using both ethnohistoric and archaeological data. Joyce (2006) argues that gender in Aztec society was not static, but could change as an individual ages. She also proposed, like Butler, that gender is performed through repetitive actions and display, as through costume, hairstyles, and earspools, which reinforced the identity of the actor (Joyce 2006). These observations allow for the possibility of observing gender and identity systems that cannot be seen through a Western gender binary, making way for a more inclusive archaeology.

In a similar manner, bioarchaeology too was heavily influenced by both feminist thought and later queer theory. Prior to the permeation of feminism, bioarchaeological

26 and mortuary research did not focus on gender or identity. This can be seen in MacLeod’s

(1925) work on “suttee” burial practises among the North American Northwest Coast indigenous groups, which focuses on cultural diffusion rather than gender. Although there is this focus on cultural diffusion among Northwest Coast groups, he mentions gender as an aside while maintaining the gender binary, which was also seen in archaeological research before feminism (Conkey and Spector 1984). Another focus of pre-feminist bioarchaeological research was on the use of ethnographic analogy in trying to understand cross-cultural and ancient burial patterns. Ucko (1969) argues that mortuary archaeologists of the mid-twentieth century mainly saw the mortuary record as being static and unchanging, in that places and practises of burial remained unchanged through time. He advocated for the use of ethnographic analogy as a way of trying to understand the various ways in which burial practises have changed over time (Ucko 1969). Even though this work has been influential for changing the view of the mortuary record as static, he did not argue for the importance of gender and identity research in bioarchaeology in trying to understand a multi-dimensional past.

Feminism had influenced bioarchaeological research in a variety of ways, but most importantly by bringing attention to the importance of gender, identity, and human agency. Joyce (2005) argues that post-processualism, including feminism, had made great headway in challenging the processualist focus on economics and environmental determinism. Post-processualism advocated for a focus on human subjectivity or identity and human agency in bioarchaeological research; a move to where the human body is seen as a medium where individual and cultural subjectivities are displayed as opposed to the view where the human body is a text where culture is “inscribed” upon its surface

(Joyce 2005). Therefore, post-processualism and feminism had advocated for a more complicated reality in which the body is influenced by multiple different sources, both individual and societal, and the importance of gender in the study of past human remains

(see Gillespie 2001).

Feminism had also played a big part in critiquing the androcentric focus which was also prevalent in bioarchaeology. Geller (2009) argues that it is the “biomedic bodyscape” from which bioarchaeologists derive their sexing techniques and understandings of gender which prevents researchers from looking at other forms of subjectivities in the past. She further argues that it is this “biomedic bodyscape” that marginalises women by idealising the female body type (Geller 2009). What she does not address however is how she and bioarchaeology continually work from a gender binary where biological sex equals cultural gender. Although post-processualism and feminism had provided these insights into understanding past human mortuary remains, they had not brought attention to the gender binary which was still heavily used.

Queer theory was also influential to bioarchaeological research, but not to the same extent as feminism. Feminism had advocated for the observance of human subjectivity and agency in past mortuary assemblages, but did not critique the Western- specific gender binary; queer theory, however, had brought attention to the gender binary in bioarchaeological research. Geller (2005) and (2008) recognise the application of not only Western-specific notions of sex and gender to the past in bioarchaeology, but also the use of the gender binary, where alternative gender systems are ignored. She also states that bioarchaeology fails to recognise that identities are intertwined with other aspects of society, and that bioarchaeology does not see past a biological sex binary of males and

28 females, which is challenged by the medical recognition of intersexuality (Geller 2005).

Queer theory had therefore brought attention not only to the use of the gender binary in the past but also the fact that forms of identity cannot be observed apart from one another and that they are interconnected to other aspects of society.

Queer theory had also brought attention to the separation of sex as biological and gender as cultural in bioarchaeology, since it is dangerous to view sex and gender as one in the same which can obscure researchers’ vision of the past in being anachronistic and

Western-specific (Sofaer 2006a). This separation is important because it can prevent researchers from arriving at cultural details through sex attribution. Sofaer (2006a), however, still fails to move away from a gender binary by dividing her sample into males and females only, not recognising other possible variation in between. Despite this awareness of the gender binary and its application, queer-influenced bioarchaeologists fail to avoid using the gender binary in interpreting the past (see Sofaer 2006a, 2006b;

Hollimon 2006).

Although queer theory failed in trying to move bioarchaeologists away from applying a gender binary in research, both feminism and queer theory have made bioarchaeologists aware of the problems inherent in applying a gender binary to past societies and cultures. Whelan (1991) presents bioarchaeology with a promising way of accounting for non-binary gender systems when looking at ancient human remains. Voss

(2006) argues that Whelan’s research into non-Western gender systems may be useful in trying to move away from applying the gender binary to the past. In looking at a nineteenth-century Eastern Dakota burial ground, Whelan (1991) attempts to get at gender structure by first looking for patterns in material culture and then incorporating

29 sex into her analysis to see if the patterns correspond. As a result, she found that sex was not heavily distinguished in the mortuary data. Although Whelan adheres to a gender binary, by dividing her sample into males and females for analysis, she makes biological sex a secondary goal in her research, preventing her from making inferences about gender in the past through the sex binary. She therefore provides a way for researchers to look at gender in the mortuary record by removing sex from the initial analysis. This is the method from which I am basing my own methods for research on gender in the Anglo-

Saxon mortuary record.

2.5 Evidence Challenging the Cultural Gender Binary

The cultural gender binary is a Western-specific construction that is difficult to apply cross-culturally. Much of the work of feminists and feminist archaeologists and bioarchaeologists has universalised this binary in investigating cultural examples of gender systems. Even in the case of queer theory, archaeologists and bioarchaeologists inspired by this theoretical orientation have not been able to escape the gender binary in their analyses. Sofaer (2006a; 2006b), a queer bioarchaeologist, adheres to the existence of two biological sexes that do not necessarily correspond to two genders. This is problematic in the fact that she does not acknowledge the existence of multiple sexes from which gender could possibly be understood. There is a considerable amount of evidence that contests the universal application of a gender binary model where two sexes directly correlate to two genders. Non-binary gender models can be seen in the ethnographic record among the Inuit, the ethnohistoric record among the Chumash of contemporary coastal California, the historic record with the ancient Mediterranean galli, and the medical record which argues for the existence of more than two sexes.

Ethnographic studies have provided a tremendous amount of evidence of non- binary gender models among contemporary cultures, and cultures in the recent past.

Anthropologists and ethnographers have noted the existence of multiple genders among

Inuit groups in the North American and northeastern Siberian Arctic. A non-binary gender system can be seen among the Inuit of the Arctic, where transgressing gender boundaries is revered and respected; the Inuit name for those who change genders is sipiniit (d’Anglure 2005:143). Changing genders has been noted among the Yupiik of

Alaska and other related Inuit groups as indicative of a future “shaman” (d’Anglure

2005). The fact that there is a connection between cosmology and gender identity shows that gender identity plays an integral role in trying to understand social and religious practises of human groups.

The changing of cultural gender and biological sex can occur at birth as well as in infancy, when a child who is named after an ancestor turns out to be of the opposite gender of that ancestor; the child is then dressed as and grows up in the gender of that ancestor (d’Anglure 2005). An individual’s gender and sex is never seen as being static and can change at points in one’s lifetime. For instance, d’Anglure (2005) provides another example of an Inuit practise that sees children who have changed genders as compatible, and once these children reach puberty or their first menses, they usually reclaim their original genders for marriage. Overall, this non-binary gender system demonstrates the complexity of gender in societies around the world, and how this form of identity cannot be separated from cosmology or other identities, like age.

There is also convincing ethnohistoric evidence that cannot be viewed within a gender binary. During the colonial expansion of European empires, European explorers

31 set out to survey the landscape of the Americas and noted the non-binary gender systems among aboriginal populations. When venturing along the Californian coast, Spanish explorers noted the existence of a non-binary gender system among the local indigenous groups. Both Miguel Constanso and Pedro Fages, Spanish soldiers and explorers, came to communities of Chumash living on the southern coast of modern-day California in the late-eighteenth century and documented a “class” of men who dressed in women’s clothing, and who were respected by members of the community; Fages had referred to them joyas (Hollimon 1997).

Although Constanso and Fages did not have anthropological training, the joyas were later studied by the American anthropologist John P. Harrington in the early- twentieth century who documented them as ’aqi in the Chumash language (Hollimon

2000). Hollimon (2000) argues that the ’aqi not only represent another gender identity, they are tied to a specific occupation of communicating and dealing with the deceased, comparable to the Western occupation of an undertaker. This ethnohistoric evidence demonstrates that non-binary gender systems have been noted by Europeans for several centuries, and that gender cannot be seen independently from other forms of identity and that identity is integral to the function of societies both in the present and in the past.

The historic record also provides evidence for the existence of non-binary gender systems in the ancient world. In ancient Rome, ancient Greece, and Anatolia, there was a cult dedicated to the goddess Cybele that was comprised of individuals who were neither masculine nor feminine. The cult surrounding the goddess of Cybele has been noted since antiquity, where images akin to her depiction, a seated woman with leopards at her side, have been found dating to the Neolithic (Roscoe 1996). Although it is possible that this

32 cult extends far back into the Neolithic, the galli, or “priests” of Cybele have only been addressed since the Hellenistic era in Greece (Roscoe 1996). What is important to note is that the galli occupied a place that does not conform to the contemporary Western gender binary. Roscoe (1996) states that contemporary writers, like the Roman Tertullian and

Prudentius, noted that the galli were neither men nor women, but were a part of a tertium sexus or medium genus, a third sex or middle gender (p. 203).

Apart from their recognised gender, galli were at times representative of an important religion in the Roman Empire. A religious holiday, called megalensia, was dedicated to Cybele in April where rites dedicated to this goddess were practised (Roscoe

1996:201). The galli also had a role to play in society while wandering the cities and countryside. Galli were seen by Romans as healers and beggar “priests,” who possessed the ability to cure those who had psychological illnesses through rituals that involved screaming and singing to pipe music (Roscoe 1996:201-202). All in all, the galli were revered at times in ancient Rome, and maintained an active role within Roman society at large (Lieber 2003:367). This historic evidence demonstrates the interconnectedness between gender and other forms of identity, and the intersected nature of gender identity with social and economic roles, as well as the existence of non-binary gender systems in past societies noted in the historic record, given that gender is seen as important in some past societies.

Aside from ethnographic, ethnohistoric, and historic evidence that goes against the universal existence of a gender binary, there is also medical evidence. It has been recognised for some time that there are individuals who are designated by the medical community as intersex. Intersex individuals are individuals who cannot be placed in

33 either male or female categories based on ambiguous external genitalia, internal genitalia, hormones, or chromosomal makeup and their interaction with the environment (Hird

2000:251; Rosario 2009:279). Dreger in Morland (2001:537) notes that the use of sexual organs as an attribution of intersex was extensively used since 1896 to limit the number of intersex individuals that exist in nature, ignoring the internal sexual organs as well as the possibility for other forms of intersex. Apart from this linguistic manner of suppressing the number of intersex individuals that occur naturally which is still used to diagnose intersex “conditions” (Marino 2010), Western medicine has also used other means of intervention in trying to maintain the gender binary. When confronted with infants who cannot be assigned a sex, doctors in the West have often resorted to surgery or hormonal replacement therapy without the consult of parents, after trying to decide the

“proper” sex of an infant based on chromosomal evidence (Dreger 1998; Hird 2000;

Karkazis 2008: 42-43; Morland 2001; Topp 2012:182). Feder (2009:230) argues that these surgeries were performed for aesthetic reasons and were not performed for the benefit of the individual’s health.

Another means of “sexing” individuals is through the use of hormonal treatment, where physicians administer sex hormones according to their perceptions of an individual’s sex (Hird 2000). These attempts to sex the “unsexed” have left many intersex individuals distressed in having no opportunity to express themselves on their own behalf

(Feder 2009; Karkazis 2008; Morland 2001). According to Morland (2001:528), intersex individuals are not unsexed but ambiguity is their sex. These efforts to eradicate intersex not only show the power sex has over contemporary Western society, they also show how influential and naturalised the gender binary is in the sciences. The existence of intersex

34 individuals also demonstrates how the use of a “two-sex” system is flawed, since there are more than two sexes that exist which can subsequently inform gender.

2.6 Performance Theory and Marxism and their Importance in Understanding Gender

Both performance theory and Marxism are two perspectives that are essential in trying to understand the formation of gender cross-culturally. They both argue for the importance of human agency in culture change and maintenance, but also the constraints within which humans must operate. Performance theory is important in that it shows how identities are maintained within a cultural milieu through repetitive performance of those identities by individuals, meanwhile Marxism demonstrates the overall historical constraints from which people can act while maintaining individual agency. Since both perspectives are particularly useful in understanding gender and identity, as well as cultural norms, I will also be using these orientations alongside queer theory.

Performance theory is an important theoretical perspective that not only emphasises human action and agency, but also the way in which identities and beliefs can be instilled in a specific cultural milieu. It is a theoretical orientation that is valuable in trying to understand the formation of identities, including gender identity. Performance theory originally developed out of the work of Richard Schechner and Victor Turner in the mid-late twentieth century. This perspective developed out of Schechner’s experience with ethnographies and theatre, where he noted a common trait of performance through display (Schechner 2003). He further argues that humans create their theatres in everyday life through “lore” and cosmology which sanctifies their spaces of performance

(Schechner 2003). Turner however, suggests that general human activity can be seen as

35 performance. Turner (1969) argues that everything humans do is encoded within culture; rituals which therefore have meaning. In order to understand a certain act or behaviour, one must understand the meaning of the ritual behind the behaviour or act (Turner 1969).

Both of these theoretical perspectives are important because they demonstrate the significance of the culture behind the social structure from which people act. As is the case with Marxism, humans act within a historically-determined milieu (Marx and Engels

1965); a social structure that serves to “constrain” their performances (Cossu 2010:37).

Another important aspect of performance theory is its explanation for the maintenance of cultural beliefs and structures through human agency. Performance theory argues that not only are human agents “constrained” by their respective social structures, but their beliefs and identities are also subject to change depending on the circumstances in which individuals find themselves (Day 2010). This suggests that humans are not only able to create their own identities within a cultural and social milieu or boundary, but that they can change depending upon the situation. This idea of contextually-specific identities relates well to queer theory where one form of identity cannot be separated from other forms of identity. Giesen (2006) argues on the other hand that it is not only individual identities and beliefs that are maintained through everyday performances, but overall cultural beliefs and mores are reinforced through repetitive action. According to Giesen

(2006), it is the repetitive performance within a certain set of cultural rules which maintains these rules and beliefs to the audience around the actors. Therefore, performance theory is not restricted to special events practised within a culture, but is applied to everyday activities that maintain the beliefs of the culture through their performance.

Another important and related theoretical orientation that can be used to understand how gender is formed and interacts with society is Marxism. This theory developed out of the combined revolutionary efforts of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels during the mid-nineteenth century that challenged the bourgeoisie and the Hegelian idealism which saw religion as the basis of human action, and where humans were enslaved by their consciousness (Marx 1965). In the 1840s, Marx and Engels wrote The

German Ideology to confront this Hegelian point of view. Marx and Engels argued that the “material” that people use is inherited from one generation to the next where these descendants are responsible for using that material from which they recreate their inherited society (Marx 1965). This perspective is integral to understanding the formation of identity, because it argues that although individuals can act independently, they can only act within a historically-determined ideology, which is the inescapable commonsensical concepts and beliefs of a culture that they inherit from their predecessors

(Leone 1984). Therefore, identity and thus gender can only be formed within the social structure that the individuals have inherited from their forerunners.

In trying to bring this theoretical perspective into archaeology, Randall McGuire uses Marxist thought to promote the study of human agency as a proponent of culture change. In contrast with the dominant processual archaeology which saw culture change as the product of environmental change, McGuire (1992) argues that human agency is a lot more imperative to culture change. Hodder and Hutson (2003) argue that processual archaeology also failed to represent human agency because it overgeneralised human behaviour which could be predicted through the analysis of the archaeological record and statistics. In contrast to processualism, but in line with Marx and Engels, McGuire (1992)

37 puts emphasis on how societal and culture change occurs not through the action of authoritarian power, but through the common folk (p. 34). In this sense Marxism is important not only in trying to understand culture change, but also the development or formation of an individual’s identity through a historically-determined set of beliefs and norms which an individual can either accept or reject. In the same way, gender identity is formed through historically-determined choices an individual makes.

Chapter 3

Assessing Sex in Bioarchaeology

The assessment of sex is an important feature of composing biological profiles in both archaeological and forensic research. Sex is often assessed by scoring morphological differences observed on the os coxae and cranium (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994;

Ferembach et al. 1979), although other areas of the skeleton are examined using other metric and non-metric techniques when these are absent or extensively damaged. A standard set of categories are used by bioarchaeologists to assign sex based on a level of certainty of the remains belonging to a male or a female. Three other categories that demonstrate this range of variation include possible or probable male/female, and ambiguous (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994; Ferembach et al. 1979; Hrdlička 1920).

However, if the remains are too fragmentary or limited, bioarchaeologists describe the remains as being indeterminate (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994).

Although the categories and approach of osteological sexing methods allow for variation, bioarchaeologists’ ultimate objective is to assign the remains to either male or female categories. This objective does not allow for the possibility that gender could be expressed in the past through varieties and in variation of biological sex. These practises further assume that all populations regardless of cultural beliefs and practises, only recognised two sexes and corresponding genders in spite of the amount of contradictory ethnographic, historical, ethnohistoric, and medical literature that documents non-binary gender and sex systems worldwide (referred to in Section 2.5). The research design and analytical framework often used by bioarchaeologists assumes that sex is binary and not a

39 continuum, even though the methods themselves are built to identify this continuum (e.g. possible/probable male/female, and ambiguous), and medical and ethnohistorical evidence document many forms of intersex variations (reviewed in Chapter Two).

This chapter will begin with a discussion of the beginnings of sex assessment in osteology and its purpose, the beginning of osteological analysis of human remains in an archaeological context, and the criteria used in assessing a skeleton’s sex and its relationship to the sex and gender binary. This chapter will then turn toward an examination of how contemporary studies in bioarchaeology utilise sex assessments to investigate questions relating to sex and gender expression. I will end the chapter by discussing how these practises hinder our understanding of sex and gender in past societies.

3.1 Historical Development of Sexing in Bioarchaeology

Sex assessment techniques were developed prior to the establishment of physical anthropology as an official discipline in the late nineteenth century (Giles and Elliot

1963; Leguebe 1982; Shapiro 1959). Physical anthropology grew out of the burgeoning interest in the origins of humankind after humans had started to be seen more as creatures of the natural world as opposed to divinely-inspired, and separate from animals.

Seventeenth-century scholars like the French and English naturalists Isaac La Peyrère and

Edward Tyson, along with the eighteenth-century Swedish naturalist Carl Linnæus saw the similarities shared among humans and apes and rejected the dominant notion that humans were separate from the natural world (Hrdlička 1908:34; Shapiro 1959:372-373).

According to Hrdlička (1908:373-374), physical anthropology was a combination of

40 ethnology and anatomy where the main interests of these early researchers were in the origins of human society.

It was not until the late-nineteenth century, however, when physical anthropology came unto its own as a distinguished academic field through figures like Franz Boas and

Aleš Hrdlička (Armelagos 2011; Krogman 1976; Leguebe 1982; Shapiro 1959), and Sir

Arthur Keith who helped to establish the field in Great Britain (Shapiro 1959:378). These figures were responsible for encouraging the collection of human skeletal remains and helping to build anthropological collections from archaeological sites throughout North

America, and bringing the discipline to North American universities (Hrdlička 1918;

Krogman 1976; Shapiro 1959). Much of the work of these early physical anthropologists involved the creation of racial taxonomies and the comparison of ancient populations with contemporary populations throughout the world in order to learn about human origins

(Allen 1896; Angel 1945, 1946; Garson 1884; Gilder 1909; Hawkes 1916; Hrdlička 1908,

1918, 1920; Krogman 1948; Leguebe 1982; Meigs 1866; Mulloy 1954; Owen 1863;

Parsons and Keene 1919; Risdon 1939; Rolleston 1876; Shapiro 1959; Ten Kate 1916;

Warren 1897). Sex assessment at this time was focused on how sexual dimorphism varied among different populations, and how that related to human origins.

Skeletal remains were not highly valued throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. When skeletal remains were examined, the analysis focused on basic demographic data such as age, sex, and sometimes disease, and generally appeared as appendices in archaeological reports (e.g., Angel 1945; Hewes 1949; Mulloy 1954;

Risdon 1939; Rolleston 1876; Warren 1897). Over time, researchers began to further appreciate skeletal remains for their worth in investigating the social lives of past

41 populations, especially when analysed with associated material culture (e.g., Angel 1952;

Buikstra et al. 2003; Bumsted et al. 1990; Crawford 1999; Hammond 1975; Härke 1990;

Meindl et al. 1985; Meindl and Russell 1998; Pettitt 2006; Sayer 2010, 2013). These changes to research direction and approach culminated in the subfield of bioarchaeology

(Buikstra 1977; Buikstra et al. 2003). This period is also characterised by an increasing focus on gender and gender identity (Bumsted et al. 1990; Geller 2005, 2008, 2009;

Gilchrist 2004; Herbst 2009; Joyce 2005, 2006; Meskell 2002; Reynolds 2009; Sofaer

2006a, 2006b; Stone and Walrath 2006; Voss 2006), often with osteological sex assessment as a basis for interpretation.

Even though there was a growing cooperation between physical anthropologists and archaeologists leading up to the formation of bioarchaeology (Buikstra 1977;

Krogman 1935; Meindl et al. 1985; Walker et al. 1988; Weiss 1972), bioarchaeologists remained distant from the archaeological record and archaeological theoretical viewpoints and instead maintained the influence of medicine and the cultural integrity of the sex and gender binary due to the early physical anthropologists coming from the field of medicine

(see Bowman and Engle 1960; Leguebe 1982; Shapiro 1959). This is particularly evident in the studies pertaining to sex and gender in the past, where a gender and sex binary is implicit in the research of most bioarchaeologists but is openly questioned in the research of many archaeologists (see Boellstorff 2007; Cobb 2005; Geller 2009; Gilchrist 2004;

Joyce 2006; Meskell 2002; Peterson 2010; Stockett 2005; Voss 2006). Although there has been a move to make room for the possibility of non-binary sex and gender systems in the past (e.g., Cobb 2005; Geller 2005, 2008, 2009; Gero 2007; Hollimon 1997, 2000, 2006;

Knüsel and Ripley 2000; Sofaer 2006a; Stockett 2005), this research has had little influence on how bioarchaeologists undertake their research on gender.

3.2 Skeletal Sex Assessment in Bioarchaeology

Sex, age at death, stature, disease, and trauma are the variables used to assemble biological profiles for skeletal remains (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:15). In forensic medico-legal contexts, sex and age at death are some of the most important aspects in identifying individuals; hence, there has been much focus on testing and refining the efficiency and accuracy of sex and age determination (e.g., Akhlaghi et al. 2012; Cardoso and Saunders 2008; Celbis and Agritmis 2006; Ferembach et al. 1979; Giles and Elliot

1963; Kemkes-Grottenthaler 2005; Masotti et al. 2013; Phenice 1969; Poulhés 1948;

Rogers 2009; Stewart 1954; Steyn and Patriquin 2009; Vance et al. 2011; Vlak et al.

2008; Washburn 1948; Williams and Rogers 2006; Zech et al. 2012). Despite this continuing research, the skeletal elements, and to a lesser degree the methods used to assess sex, have remained fundamentally unaltered since the late nineteenth century.

The morphological examination of the pelvis is accepted as the most accurate element and method for sex determination (see Betti 2014; Bruzek 2002; Buikstra and

Ubelaker 1994; Correia et al. 2005; Davivongs 1963; Drew 2013; Hawkes 1916; Hrdlička

1920; Lovell 1989; Phenice 1969; Poulhés 1948; Soni et al. 2013; Steyn and Patriquin

2009; Topinard 1885; Washburn 1948). The second-best skeletal element for sex assessment is the skull (Ferembach et al. 1979; Hrdlička 1920; Spradley and Jantz 2011).

In the case where the pelvis and the skull are absent or fragmentary, sex can be determined using the long bones (Asala 2001; Berrizbeeitia 1989; Holman and Bennett

1991; Hrdlička 1920; Pearson and Bell 1919; Rogers 2009; Soni et al. 2013; Srivastava et al. 2013; Walker et al. 1988), and metric analyses (Albanese et al. 2008; Chapman et al.

2014; Giles and Elliot 1963; Gonzalez et al. 2009; Holman and Bennett 1991; Srivastava et al. 2013; Washburn 1948, 1949). The accuracy or efficiency of these methods is not debated or reviewed in this thesis (see Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994; Ferembach et al.

1979; Hrdlička 1920 for overview); rather, this thesis examines the manner in which bioarchaeologists use osteological sex data to investigate gender and other biological and cultural traits in the past.

3.2.1 Osteological Sexing Categories

Osteologists have long recognised variation in skeletal morphology across different populations and according to sex. For instance, Hrdlička (1920:92-93) developed a categorical system to classify the observed variations in some of the more sexually-diagnostic features of human crania from the “most female” to the “most male” with specific categories for specific traits as with the supraorbital ridge’s categories of

“traces,” “slight,” “medium,” “pronounced,” and “excessive.”

Standards or guidelines developed for morphological sex assessment generally recommend the use of five categories. In Europe, Ferembach et al. (1979:9) refer to

Ascádi and Nemeskéri (1970) for their guidelines in the sex assessment of the pelvis, and suggest five sexing categories: hyperfeminine, feminine, intermediate, masculine, and hypermasculine. Similarly, Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994:21) endorse five sexing categories: 1 for female, 2 for probable female, 3 for ambiguous sex, 4 for probable male,

44 and 5 for male. The use of a scale for morphological sex assessment is consistent with the understanding of sex as a continuum rather than binary or dichotomous.

3.3 Contemporary Bioarchaeological Research Patterns in dealing with Sex

Even though this scale informs us that the morphological expression of sex occurs as a continuum, researchers often use these data in a manner that suggests a continual adherence to a sex binary. Researchers do not generally treat the five sexing categories as meaningful in and of itself; instead, researchers see the sexing categories as a level of certainty as opposed to a measure of biological variation. This is why researchers often utilise the “certain” categories (i.e., male/female), or collapse the probable males/females into the male/female categories. When I examined the literature, it was apparent that most bioarchaeological research is designed in a way that accepts and recreates the sex and gender binary. This literature review was focused on bioarchaeological research investigating biological and cultural traits primarily from 2005 to 2014, although some examples predating this time frame were cited in order to show that this research approach is longstanding. The cited journal articles were found by searching online journal databases and E-journals using the keywords “bioarchaeology,” “sex assessment,”

“sex,” “gender,” and “biological anthropology”. My literature review was focused on journals specific to biological anthropology (e.g., the American Journal of Human

Biology, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, International Journal of

Osteoarchaeology, the International Journal of Paleopathology), and journals outside this discipline (e.g., American Antiquity, the Journal of Anthropological Research, the

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, the Journal of Archaeological Science,

Archaeology, Ethnology, and Anthropology of Eurasia, the Cambridge Archaeological

Journal, Asian Perspectives, Social Science History, Norwegian Archaeological Review,

Journal of Social Archaeology, Arctic Anthropology, Ancient Mesoamerica, Latin

American Antiquity, and the European Journal of Archaeology).

After examining the literature, I identified three widespread practises in bioarchaeological research using sex categories to explore features of biological demography in past populations: 1) only individuals positively identified as male or female were selected from a pre-existing dataset; 2) individuals sexed as ambiguous were either not mentioned in the research or were not included in interpretation; and 3) individuals sexed as possible male and possible female were collapsed into male and female categories. Although I separate these into distinct practices, most bioarchaeological research into gender exhibits more than one of these performances.

Bioarchaeologists commonly utilise data from previously excavated and analysed skeletal collections to test hypotheses relating to gender and other variables such as status and diet. A sex and gender binary is easily maintained in this form of research since researchers often select individuals based upon whether or not they are sexed as male or female (see Agarwal et al. 2004; Al-Oumaoui et al. 2004; Bentley et al. 2009; Clark et al.

2014; Dabbs 2011; Dlamini and Morris 2005; Eerkens and Bartelink 2013; Havelková et al. 2011; Holck 2007; Keenleyside 2003; Kovtun 2010; Maggiano et al. 2008; Marchi et al. 2006; Mays 1999, 2012; Molnar 2008, 2010; Novak 2006; Pechenkina and Delgado

2006; Peterson 2010; Pomeroy and Zakrzewski 2009; Porčić and Stefanović 2009;

Redfern 2010; Robb et al. 2001; Rothschild 1979; Saunders and Keenleyside 1999;

Sládek et al. 2007; Stone 2012; Weiss 2007, 2009; Williams and White 2006; Woo and

Sciulli 2013; Zaki et al. 2009). This research design is established on the assumption of a

46 sex binary, and that biological sex is the basis of gender and identity. This assumption is problematic because it does not make room for the possibility that diversity in biological sex was present and/or recognised by past cultures and thereby recreates the modern

Western gender binary in the study population.

The category of ambiguous is generally assigned to skeletal material where the features are contradictory or are not pronounced enough to allow for an identification as male or female. Often, bioarchaeologists do not report remains as ambiguous; as such it is often difficult to know whether or not ambiguous remains are present in a sample.

However, there are instances when the category indeterminate is incorrectly used to include ambiguous remains (Papathanasiou 2005:381; Sládek et al. 2007:672). It is also unclear as to whether this pooling of indeterminate and ambiguous remains into a single category had occurred in the majority of bioarchaeological sex and gender research.

When individuals sexed as indeterminate are included in the inventory, they are generally not part of the dataset used by researchers to investigate gender and sex in the past; instead, only individuals assigned to the male and female categories are used (see

Ambrose et al. 2003; Arnold 2012; Barrett and Richards 2004; Berseneva 2010;

Buonasera 2013; Burchell 2006; Clayton 2011; Cucina et al. 2011; Djurić et al. 2006;

Domett and Tayles 2006; Eshed et al. 2004; Gamza and Irish 2012; Gibbon et al. 2014;

Howell 1995; Jiménez-Brobeil et al. 2009; Jørkov et al. 2010; Keenleyside 2008;

Keenleyside and Panayotova 2006; Kinaston et al. 2013; Le Huray and Schutkowski

2005; Liebe-Harkort 2012; Masnicová and Beňuš 2003; Nystrom 2013; Owens 2007;

Potter and Perry 2011; Quintelier et al. 2014; Redfern and DeWitte 2011; Shelach 2008;

Sundman and Kjellström 2013; Torres-Rouff et al. 2012; Üstündağ 2009; Weiss 2009;

Williams et al. 2009; Williams and Murphy 2013). The reluctance to use the ambiguous sex category in the investigation of gender in the past shows the strong adherence to a sex and gender binary theoretical framework that drives bioarchaeological research. The exclusion of this category from research and interpretation limits the ability for researchers to observe possible patterns of gender and sex diversity in the past.

Possible male and possible female are sex assessment categories that have been employed in many human osteology guidelines since the early-twentieth century in

Europe and North America (Ferembach et al. 1979; Hrdlička 1918, 1920; Krogman and

İşcan 1986; Mays and Cox 2000; Pearson and Bell 1919; Ubelaker 1984). However, instead of treating these categories as discrete and meaningful biological categories, many bioarchaeologists pool individuals sexed as possible male/female with individuals sexed as male/female (see Brück 2009; Coltrain and Janetski 2013; DeWitte 2012; Gagnon and

Wiesen 2013; Gómez Otero and Novellino 2011; Hakenbeck et al. 2010; Jurmain et al.

2009; Keenleyside et al. 2009; Nicklisch et al. 2012; Papathanasiou 2005; Papathanasiou et al. 2013; Rodning 2011; Sullivan 2005). There are certainly more examples of this practise since there are many studies that do not mention whether or not there are individuals in the samples sexed as possible male/female at the outset. The decision to combine categories reduces variability, re-establishes the sex binary, and ensures that all subsequent analyses are firmly rooted in the sex binary.

Although it is much less common than these previous practises, some bioarchaeological research makes use of adjacent grave offerings, such as jewellery and weaponry as the basis for biological sex determination (Arnold 2012; Coltrain and

Janetski 2013; Howell 1995; Lucy 1998:107; Robb et al. 2001). This is problematic on

48 several levels, not only because it relies on and perpetuates the idea that objects reflect roles that are either masculine or feminine; it also perpetuates the existence of a binary sex/gender system. For example, Torres-Rouff et al. (2012:207) demonstrated that assumptions about associating objects with gender (“toilet kits”=female and “daggers and axes”=male) was not supported by osteological analysis.

The majority of bioarchaeological research investigating gender in past populations utilises the morphological determination of biological sex as its starting point.

Although the categories of biological sex assessment allow for a continuum of sex expression, researchers normally treat the data in a way that does not allow for the existence of a non-binary cultural gender or biological sex system. Researchers treat the data in a way that reduces variability: criteria are restricted (males and females only), categories are collapsed (ambiguous/indeterminate or possible male/female with male/female), or excluded (ambiguous). These practises leave the sample devoid of any ambiguity and variability, and ensure that the male and female binary is perpetuated. All of these practises limit the possibility of identifying or understanding any diversity of biological sex and cultural gender expression in past populations. This ultimately inhibits researchers from accessing a more acute and in-depth view of the human past.

3.4 Whelan’s (1991) Research on the Santee Siouan Blackdog burial ground

Whelan’s (1991) research stands out as an important example of a research approach with the primary goal of investigating the presence or absence of a non-binary gender system. Whelan (1991) examined the nineteenth-century Santee Siouan Blackdog burial ground on the banks of the Minnesota River in Dakota County, Minnesota, which

49 consisted of 39-41 individuals from 24 graves. Unlike other researchers, Whelan

(1991:24) did not use osteological sex as a means of verifying the gender identity of individuals, but treated it as a variable equivalent to grave offerings. She argued that gender was not always based upon biological sex ethnographically (Whelan 1991:23).

Her research focused on material from this site because there is some secondary historical evidence that relates to Dakota culture (Whelan 1991:26). This is important because historical archaeology is a great tool for testing new archaeological methods (Whelan

1991:18-19).

Given that cultural gender is not entirely dependent upon biological sex in many cultures, she did not start looking for patterns of distribution and differential treatment with regards to osteological sex, but instead first looked for patterns in the mortuary record relating to mortuary treatment and grave offering distributions. Her research had three main objectives: 1) see if gender identity could be observed if patterns were observed first without correlating individuals with osteological sex, 2) discern whether or not there were patterns in the assemblage relating to gender and age, and 3) discern whether or not there were patterns relating to gender and status.

Whelan used factor analysis in order to see if a non-binary gender system was employed in this historic Santee Siouan burial ground. Whelan (1991:30) first looked for patterns in grave offering distribution between biological sex and artefacts, then looked at whether or not there were differences in grave offerings between subadults and adults, and lastly between biological sex and social status by quantity of associated burial offerings and ritual objects such as stone pipe-bowls, pouches, and mirrors. She found that osteological sex was not a significant trait observed by the Santee Sioux to define

50 cultural gender, but that behaviour, preference, and spiritual guidance were other criteria for defining possible cultural gender identities. For example, Whelan (1991:26) first looked for patterns in sex distribution and found nothing, but observed that only one set of grave offerings was consistent in a number of burials (“pipestone pipes, mirrors, and pouches”).

After looking at the osteological sex of these clustered individuals, Whelan

(1991:26) found that most of them were male with only one female. She concluded that this may indicate gender which was primarily associated with but not exclusive to males, which further suggested that gender was defined by behaviour and economic activities as opposed to biological sex (Whelan 1991:26). She also looked at patterns in the distribution of bead shapes relating to sex and the greater quantity of artefact types as being indicative of higher status. She found that 6/7 bead colours were strongly associated with females and that 5 colours were exclusive to females, and that 4 colours were strongly associated with males, with only 2 colours being exclusively associated with males (Whelan 1991:26-28).

This thesis took a different approach by looking at the individuals and their associated grave offerings, biology, and features in relation to one another through DCA and HCLA. This allowed all variables in the burial ground to be analysed and categorised at once, which is different than the one-on-one approach taken by Whelan (1991). She attempted to see whether or not there were any distinctions in mortuary treatment according to age, and found that subadults were largely unaccompanied by artefacts and that 26 out of 37 artefact types were exclusively associated with adults. This indicated that many activities became available to individuals once they reached a certain age

(Whelan 1991:28). She also looked for patterns in status, associating the quantity of artefact types with higher status, and found that equal numbers of males and females comprised the “higher” and “lower” status levels of this Dakotan community (Whelan

1991:29). Her research concluded that by treating sex and gender as distinct entities, and by looking for patterns in mortuary treatment instead of looking for patterns in sex distribution, non-binary gender systems may appear in the mortuary record.

Even though Whelan examined sex after looking for patterns through the distribution of material culture, she still operated from a sex and gender binary by acknowledging only males and females. The research in this thesis differs from Whelan’s

(1991) because it does not collapse or exclude any of the sex assessment categories used by bioarchaeologists when establishing biological profiles of human remains. Therefore, my method keeps the sexing categories male, female, possible male, possible female, and ambiguous separate, but retains Whelan’s idea of sex as a distinct variable in analysis related to recovered artefacts. Like Whelan (1991), this thesis also does not treat sex as the sole basis for inferences into gender constructions. Even though she argues that gender should be kept separate from the biological sex of the individual for gender is

“behavioural” and not a result of biology (Whelan 1991:23), Butler (2006) demonstrated that biological sex and gender are complexly intertwined where these biological distinctions can be used to define social categories like sex.

This thesis has kept biological/osteological sex separate from gender for analysis to allow for different forms of identity to emerge regardless of biological sex determinations and to challenge the idea that sex always informs gender (see Section 3.3 for more on bioarchaeological research on sex and gender). There are many examples that

52 show that gender can be informed by occupation, behaviour, preference, age, as well as biology (for ethnographic, historic, and ethnohistoric examples, see Section 2.5).

Despite the multitude of ethnographic and medical evidence that exists on non- binary gender and sex systems as well as intersex variations, many bioarchaeologists still frame their research within a sex and gender binary. It is apparent that beginning analyses of mortuary samples with individuals representing only males and females can lead to interpretations only involving these categories. This leaves out the possibility that other non-binary gender and sex categories could have been present in past populations and observable in the archaeological record or mortuary context.

Although intersex individuals may not be identifiable from skeletal remains, surely at least some of the morphological variation in sex characteristics can be accepted as a true representation of biological variability. This variability may have influenced individual appearance and/or biology (e.g. sex expression) in a manner that might have influenced their gender or sex identity, social role, nutritional status, social status, and much more. If researchers do not design their research in a way that allows for variability or acknowledges variability, researchers will only continue to recreate the binary. This is why it is integral to keep these sexing categories distinct in case we do observe cultural patterns of diverse burials and their grave offerings.

Chapter 4

Research Design, Sample, and Methods

This chapter presents an alternative approach to investigating gender in past populations, following the work of Whelan (1991), and tests this approach on an existing skeletal assemblage. This alternative approach is situated first with an overview of mortuary analysis writ large as a tool to investigate gender. Following this, I will describe how I have modified her research design, then introduce and describe the sample I used as a test case. The remainder of the chapter will be devoted to methods with a particular focus on explaining the two main analytical tools: correspondence analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis.

This thesis used this method inspired by Whelan (1991) at the early Anglo-Saxon burial ground at Worthy Park in Hampshire, southern England to test whether or not non- binary gender and sex systems can be gleaned from mortuary sites. Anglo-Saxon mortuary archaeology in particular represents a much-studied topic of archaeological and historical research for reconstructing Early Anglo-Saxon society (see Crawford 1999,

2004; Dickinson 1999; Fairholt 1968; Härke 1990, 1997a:151, 2011, 2014; Hinton 1990;

King 2004; Knüsel and Ripley 2000; Leeds 1970[1936]; Lucy 2000; Owen-Crocker

2004:318-319; Pollington 2003, 2011:27; Reynolds 2009; Robinson 1992:117-118; Sayer

2010, 2013; Sayer and Wienhold 2012; Stoodley 2000; Symonds 2009; Williams 2003,

2005; Wilson 1992). The statistical analyses that I used to investigate patterning in the data were correspondence analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis. Although Whelan conducted her research in the early 1990s, and was in many ways a feminist, her ideas on

54 how to illuminate possible non-binary gender systems in the past to eliminate Western sex and gender binary bias was ahead of its time.

4.1 Mortuary analysis

Mortuary data are a valuable source of information about individual and group identity. Mortuary analyses have shifted in focus over time from investigating belief systems and chronology using mortuary practises and grave offerings alone (e.g., Binford

1971:6-7; Davidson 1935; Gardiner 1917; Nock 1932; Wright 1886) to making inferences about social organisation and status through mortuary remains (e.g., Bartel 1982:38;

Binford 1971; Howell and Kintigh 1996; Maurer Trinkaus 1984; Morris 1991; Saxe 1971;

Saxe and Gall 1977; Tainter 1975) to making inferences about cultural traits and worldviews through expressions of the dead as active members of the community (e.g.,

Budja 2010; Cannon 2002; Cannon et al. 1989; Carr 1995; Chapman 2004; Parker

Pearson 1993; Symonds 2009).

Although researchers like Parker Pearson (1982) argue that the deceased should be looked at as “members of the dead” and not as “members of the living,” the material culture associated with burials is indeed reflective of the living in the sense that they are usually the same objects used by the living (though they may serve a different function among the living) (Cannon et al. 1989). The way these artefacts are used can often be different in a burial context; therefore, mortuary material culture may reflect beliefs and ideals held by the deceased individual in life. Ucko (1969), in agreement with Parker

Pearson (1982), argues that burial grounds represent a completely different context separate from the living, and must be viewed in that light, but are very particular to a

55 community since there are many ways in which humans observe the deceased and treat their remains. Mortuary remains are thus connected to the cultural milieu of their society

(Binford 1971; Budja 2010; Carr 1995:119-121; Howell and Kintigh 1996; Parker

Pearson 1993). Although there is emphasis on the individual and separating the deceased population from the living community, mortuary sites are useful in that they reflect the belief systems and social structure of the living community.

Gillespie (2001) argues that mortuary remains represent an individual’s sense of self in life, but representing the individual’s self also reflects the ideals upheld by the surviving community. Similarly, Strathern (1988:57) states that humans are not autonomous creatures, but are composite social beings that are made up of different components created through social relationships and obligations. Lull (2000:578) argues that the mortuary record is made up through the actions of social groups and the community’s means of production which are reflected in burial rites. Therefore, people are not necessarily individuals on their own, but are multifaceted persons identifying and belonging to social groups (Budja 2010:48-49). This is a reason why mortuary sites are important areas for learning about social structure and identities in the past because an individual’s sense of self can only be informed by the standards established by one’s community. However, it is not only through the individual’s remains that the social identities of the community can be seen, but also through the material culture associated with human remains.

Because “the dead do not bury themselves” (Parker Pearson 1982:110, 1993:203), the associated artefacts do not always represent how the dead saw themselves in life.

Instead, they often reflect the ideals of the community imposed upon the deceased (Budja

2010:48-49; Cannon 2002:194; Carr 1995:111; Lucy 1998:107; Maurer Trinkaus

1984:675). This argument is supported by King (2004) who states that many bioarchaeologists look at mortuary sites and burials as “life-mirrors” through which the living community can be examined. Likewise, Brown (1995) in Chapman (2004:4) argues that the mortuary record is manipulated by the living community for political, economic, and social means. This is important because not only can the mortuary record reflect the individual who died, but also the community through the material culture given to the deceased. The fact that the mortuary record reflects the beliefs and social organisation of the surviving community makes these sorts of archaeological sites essential in looking at social identities in ancient communities. Hence, they are areas of archaeological research that can provide a wealth of information on the social identities of individuals and the community as a whole.

4.2 Research Design

In addition to a review and critique of how bioarchaeology investigates sex and gender, this thesis is also focused on presenting an alternative or a way forward. To that end, I have designed a research project investigating sex and gender following the approach utilised by Whelan (1991). Like Whelan, I have used material culture (e.g., grave offerings/artefacts, and grave inclusions) and biology (e.g., osteological sex and age) as a means to investigate gender identity in the past. In contrast to Whelan, I have also used features (e.g. grave fill, grave orientation) as mortuary treatment to investigate gender identity. In order to investigate patterning among biology, material culture, and features, this thesis used both de-trended correspondence analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis as exploratory techniques (reviewed in Section 4.5) whereas Whelan (1991)

57 utilised factor analysis to analyse the relationship between grave offerings and the individuals’ age and sex without including features.

Unlike Whelan (1991) and many other bioarchaeologists, the research design used in this thesis does not allow for the collapse/exclusion of any individuals assigned to the sex categories of male, female, possible male/female. Although this thesis retained

Whelan’s idea of sex as a distinct variable in the analysis, it did not use sex as the sole basis for inferences into gender constructions. This thesis treated osteological sex as an attribute/variable equal to material culture and features to investigate gender but not as the sole attribute/variable that informs particular gender identities. Even though Whelan

(1991:23) argues that gender should be kept separate from the biological sex of the individual for gender is “behavioural” and not a result of biology, Butler (2006) demonstrates that biological sex and gender are complexly intertwined. These biological distinctions can be used to define and inform social categories like sex.

This research design was applied to an early Anglo-Saxon burial ground at

Worthy Park to investigate whether or not non-binary genders can be inferred from mortuary data.

4.3 The Anglo-Saxon burial ground at Worthy Park, Hampshire

Much like indigenous North American societies, the early medieval societies of

Germanic England relied upon the tongue for passing down histories and traditions. It was not until the Christian period when was writing was used to convey these histories and legends (Crawford 2004; Härke 2011; Hawkes 1997; Hines 1997; Jolly 1996; Leyser

1995; Owen-Crocker 2004; Page 1970; Pollington 2011; Quennell and Quennell 1959;

Symonds 2009; Wood 1997). Worthy Park in Kingsworthy, Hampshire (Figures 1 and 2) is an important archaeological site that represents one of these early Anglo-Saxon communities where documentary evidence is lacking. This is why archaeology is argued to be crucial in aiding our understanding of the early Anglo-Saxon past (Crawford 2004;

Härke 1997a, 2011; Higham 2004; Leeds 1970[1936]; Leyser 1995; Pollington 2003,

2011; Robinson 1992; Symonds 2009). Despite this lack of documentary evidence,

Worthy Park is ideal for testing this alternative approach to investigating gender identity in the past because pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon burial grounds tend to contain a lot of associated material culture, as opposed to Christian Anglo-Saxon burial grounds after around 600 AD (King 2004).

Figure 1 Location of Hampshire County in England (www.barbsnow.net/England.htm).

Figure 2 Location of Kingsworthy (marked with a star) within Hampshire

(www.uksuperweb.co.uk/hampshire.html).

Even though this mortuary site would not qualify as historical archaeology, it is nonetheless important for this study on gender and identity in the past because it is

“prehistoric.” Whelan (1991:18) argues that material culture uncovered at North

American aboriginal archaeological sites counts as a primary text written by its occupants; likewise, Worthy Park represents a primary text which needs to be read in order to understand the lives of Early Anglo-Saxons in central Hampshire. The fact that there is little documentary evidence to aid in interpreting gender and sex in this society means that Worthy Park is therefore separate from biases found in historical documents regarding early Anglo-Saxon society when examined on its own. This allowed for a more focused interpretation of the artefacts based on the material culture and burial features as opposed to recorded histories.

Figure 3 Map of the Worthy Park burial ground indicating the layout of the burials along with the modern driveway, the pipe-trench from 1944, as well as thick copses to the

North-West and South-West of the site (Chadwick Hawkes and Wells 1983:5).

The Worthy Park burial ground was in use from the late fifth to the mid-seventh centuries AD by a community of mostly native Britons from the southern coast of

England, and folk of probable Saxon and Frankish descent (Chadwick Hawkes and Wells

1983:5-6). It is certain that the interred belonged to a community, regardless of its likely indigenous insular origins, that maintained a Continental European Germanic culture. It first became a site of interest for the archaeological community since its partial damage

61 due to construction in the mid-1940s. During the excavation of a trench for the construction of a water pipeline for American soldiers in the Second World War, several burials were disturbed and the local Hampshire Field Club was notified (Chadwick

Hawkes and Grainger 2003:5) (see Figure 3). This archaeological organisation was at the time headed by Frank Warren (reviewed in Chadwick Hawkes and Grainger 2003), who during a brief period of salvage excavation at the site uncovered five graves.

Because the war had not yet ended, a full-scale excavation was unable to be performed. Full-scale excavations of the site were initiated in the early 1960s by

Chadwick Hawkes after hearing of the imminent threat of destruction by the owner of the property’s plan to “bulldoze” the site to start a farm (Chadwick Hawkes and Grainger

2003:5). After a second threat to the archaeological mortuary site at Worthy Park, an archaeological team headed by Chadwick Hawkes uncovered many more burials. In addition to the five inhumations uncovered in 1944, Chadwick Hawkes’ team found 98 inhumations with a total of 99 individuals and 34 cremation burials (Chadwick Hawkes and Wells 1983:6). This thesis utilised only the 99 individuals found during the 1961-

1962 field seasons; cremated remains were too fragmentary to identify sex and the diversity of grave offerings was limited. Furthermore, I examined only those graves found under the direction of Chadwick Hawkes in order to limit interpretative differences among researchers.

4.5 Worthy Park Sample

All of the data gathered for this thesis research comes from Chadwick Hawkes and Grainger (2003) and Chadwick Hawkes and Wells (1983). This monograph and

62 article detail all of the 104 inhumations containing 99 individual remains used in this research along with all of the accompanying material culture, soil types, biological profiles, grave orientation given in degrees, as well as associated sketches of each burial with positions of associated grave offerings. See Appendix A for a description of how the variables were identified and how the textual descriptions from the monograph were interpreted. The sample included six inhumations (Graves 18a, 21, 26, 42, 64, and 94).

Grave 21 was unique in that it contained the inhumation of an individual with a foetus still within the pelvic girdle. Five inhumations did not contain any skeletal remains

(Graves 6, 66, 67, 86, and 89); because these inhumations are representative of a mortuary event and still contained information on variables other than age and sex (i.e., grave description and material culture), they were incorporated in the analysis. The textual descriptions and data from all 104 inhumations/99 individuals were entered into an Excel spreadsheet; each column of the spreadsheet listed a variable (e.g., age/sex/material culture/feature) and presence/quantity of variables was listed for each individual (see Appendix B).

In total, there were 42 individual variables under the categories of Grave

Description, Biological Description, and Material Culture; this master dataset is included in Appendix B. In order to complete the statistical analysis (explained in Section 4.6), the textual data had to be transformed into presence/absence; this transformed data is presented in Appendix C. Some of the Material Culture variables (e.g., pins, rods) present in Appendix B were left out of Appendix C since they were deemed too generic and non- descriptive to be used in the analysis. This reduced the number of variables to 30 in

Appendix C. Two additional variables (e.g., Body Present and Offerings) were included

63 in Appendix C accounting for the presence or absence of grave offerings or persons in each individual inhumation.

The preservation of the human remains and archaeological material at Worthy

Park was superb despite its location within a temperate environment which tends to quickly destroy organic remains. Walker (1995:41) argues that a sex bias can be apparent in a burial ground indicating poor preservation when there are more male skeletons present than female ones since female skeletons are more prone to decay because of their gracility. However, Worthy Park’s preservation is exceptional in that leather and some textiles have survived in the soil for over 1500 years; furthermore, there are more female- sexed individuals present than males indicating excellent preservation. Aside from its notable state of preservation, this burial ground has recently been published and has yet to be fully examined.

Out of the 99 individuals, Chadwick Hawkes and Wells (1983:31) listed the sex for 67 individuals. One adult could not be sexed and the remaining individuals were subadults. Therefore, sample includes 29 males, 33 females, two possible males, and three possible females; for a detailed overview of their methods, see Chadwick Hawkes and Grainger (2003:12-90) and Chadwick Hawkes and Wells (1983:31-32). Chadwick

Hawkes and Grainger (2003:12-90, 154-157) identify age for 96 individuals: 69 adults

(16 years of age and over), 19 subadults (between ages 3 and 15), and eight infants (aged between 0 and 2 years). Three individuals in the monograph had question marks after their estimated ages so their ages were not counted in the analysis.

4.5 Correspondence Analysis, De-trended Correspondence Analysis, and Hierarchical Cluster Analysis

This thesis uses two different statistical techniques to investigate whether or not it is possible to see patterning among sex category, biological traits, artefact assemblages, and features; the ultimate goal was to investigate whether keeping the sex assessment categories distinct would produce any new insight into identity and gender. The first form of statistical analysis used was de-trended correspondence analysis (DCA), a form of correspondence analysis (CA), followed by hierarchical cluster analysis (HCLA). This thesis generated DCAs using Canoco 5 and HCLAs using WebStatistica. Both of these forms of analysis complement one another by displaying the distribution and relationship between the different graves according to their composition in two platforms: scatterplot graphs for DCA, and dendrograms for HCLA. This section also provides a simplified example of a CA table (see Table 1) and graph (Figure 4) borrowed from Higgs (1991) to further explain how the data is interpreted. Since HCLA is a much more straightforward exploratory technique than CA, no overview for interpreting HCLA is provided in this thesis.

CA is a form of multivariate analysis that was originally developed in the early- mid twentieth century (reviewed in Falconer 2014; Hill 1974); however, it was not until the 1960s when this technique was widely used by ecologists and environmental scientists investigating plant species and their relation to soil-types and environments (Clouse 1999;

Groenewoud 1992; Hill 1974:340-341). Even though it was adopted for ecological research, it was not long before it was also employed by archaeologists in Scandinavia

65 and France in the 1970s and 1980s (see Baxter and Cool 2010:212; Bølviken et al. 1982;

Clouse 1999; Falconer 2014; Shennan 1988).

Whether it is in ecology or in archaeology, CA operates in a similar form to determine the relationship between different sets of cases (rows) and variables (columns) on a numerical dataset of numerical values expressed as quantities or presence/absence

(e.g., Clouse 1999:97-98; Falconer 2014:65; Pack and Joliffe 1992:378). CA is particularly useful in large datasets with a variety of different cases and variables

(Bølviken et al. 1982:56). It simplifies the common complexity of numerical data into a scatterplot graph that shows the relationship between cases and variables (often contexts and different material culture in an archaeological context) (Bølviken et al. 1982:44), ready for interpretation. The following table (Table 1) was taken from Higgs (1991) examining the relationship between car manufacturers (columns/variables) and attributes

(rows/cases) commonly associated with certain companies.

Table 1 Basic dataset composed of numerical data showing the relationship between car manufacturers (i.e. Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Ford Sierra) and social attributes (i.e. prestigious, good resale value, good looks, sporty, for young people, old man’s car, does not rust easily, aerodynamic) (Higgs 1991:185).

The data take the form of percentages; how many people out of the sample associate certain car-makers (variables) with certain attributes (cases) (Higgs 1991). In a tabular form, it is difficult to understand the relationships between and among the variables and cases; a CA scatterplot makes these relationships more accessible and interpretable (shown below in Figure 4).

Figure 4 CA scatterplot graph of Table 1 showing the distribution and relationship between car-makers and a list of social attributes (Higgs 1991:186).

The CA scatterplot graph in Figure 4 shows the distribution and relationship between the car-makers/variables and attributes/cases. As is demonstrated from the dataset, BMWs are more associated with “young people,” and are more “sporty” and have

“good looks” whereas Sierras are more associated with being “aerodynamic.” Another important feature of the scatterplot is that you can see the relationship between the various attributes/cases, as well as with the variables. Audis and Mercedes are much more

67 closely related in terms of their particular attributes/cases than Sierras and BMWs. Sierras and BMWs are outliers since they are distant in their position within the graph to one another and Audis and Mercedes.

Looking at the relationship and distribution of the attributes/cases, those cars which are associated with young people are also closely related to those with good looks and are considered sporty. However, those that are “aerodynamic” are outliers since they are not closely associated with any of the other attributes/cases. Each axis of the CA scatterplot is associated with a percentage. This percentage describes how much of the variation among attributes/cases and car manufacturers/variables is distributed along that axis. These percentages show the strength in the relationship among variables/cases along each of the axes. The closer the value is to 100%, the stronger the relationship among variables/cases. In Figure 4, the Y-axis contains 29% of the total variation while the X- axis contains 68% of the total variation. This means that the majority of the distribution between cases and variables occurs along the X axis. The value on the top left of the CA scatterplot shows the inertia or total variation (in Figure 4, it is 0.0578%). The total variation means that the closest distance from the centre of the axes, or the average of all variables is 0.0578% (Higgs 1991:186). The percentages of inertia/total variation and of the X and Y axes given in the analyses are for future research and have not been used in this thesis. Nevertheless, this thesis looks at the distal relationship between the attributes and cases in the DCA scatterplots.

For this thesis, the graves (i.e., individual inhumations) are the “cases” and the various features of the mortuary context (i.e., grave description, biological description, and material culture) are the “variables.” Since the data from Worthy Park contain a large

68 number of different variables (43 in total), the data were transformed into presence or absence. The presence of a variable was indicated with a “1” and the absence of a variable was indicated with a “0” (see Appendix C). Canoco 5 has two separate forms of

CA available: De-trended Correspondence Analysis (DCA) and Principal Components

Analysis. This thesis utilised DCA because it is a unimodal method that works with presence/absence data; PCA is a linear method used with quantity-based data. Organising the data into presence/absence form was important in this research because quantitative amounts of each variable would have skewed the results. This would distinguish graves that possess larger quantities of a certain variable from others that possess smaller quantities. For instance, Grave 30 was found with nine Roman coins whereas Grave 9 contained two. A CA representing a quantity of variables such as PCA would distinguish these graves as separate unrelated species; in a presence/absence form, both Graves 30 and 9 are interpreted as sharing the same variable. This makes it easier to determine if there are categories based upon the type of artefact or other variable that is represented in a number of graves as opposed to distinguishing them based upon the quantity of each variable.

A feature of DCA that differs from CA is that it removes the arching effect of the gradients that occurs in CA (Van Groenewoud 1992:244); hence, it is called “de-trended.”

DCA has been used extensively by ecologists to discern patterns among plant species and particular environments for some time (Peet et al. 1988; Van Groenewoud 1992). The effectiveness of this technique is to remove the confusion that can be caused by the intersecting gradients; this intersection makes variables apparent at the ends of the gradients seem related to one another due to their close proximity (Peet et al. 1988:924-

925). Peet et al. (1988:929-930) also argue that DCA rescales the axes to further diminish the length and compression of the arch to make the species more visible. Because of this rescaling of the axes, the cases are restricted to one quadrant of the scatterplot. This makes the clustering more difficult to interpret (see Figure 5). The DCA scatterplot in

Figure 5 is an example of a DCA taken with a sample of the second analysis’ dataset. All of the cases (graves in this example) are restricted to the top-right quadrant. In order to better associate the patterning of the graves with the attributes, I have removed graves from attributes. Attributes are placed in Graph A and graves are placed in Graph B (see

Figure 6). This format is used for all of the DCAs analysed in this thesis. To illustrate the magnification of the graves in Graph B, the X and Y-axes of Graph B are also smaller in scale than those of the corresponding Graph A (see Figure 6).

Figure 5 Example of unmodified DCA scatterplot showing the congestion of variables; graves and attributes are in the same graph.

Figure 6 Example of modified DCA scatterplot; attributes in Graph A and graves in

Graph B are uncongested unlike in Figure 5.

A total of five separate DCA analyses was performed in order to explore the amount of influence biological, sexing categories, age categories, material culture, and grave description variables had on the distribution and nature of the grave and variable clustering. These five datasets/analyses included: 1) all cases and all variables; 2) all cases, sexing variables removed (e.g., male, female, possible male, and possible female);

3) all cases, biological variables removed (e.g., infant, subadult, adult, male, female, possible male, and possible female); 4) all cases, material culture variables only (e.g., grave description and biological description variables were removed); and 5) all cases, age variables removed (e.g., infant, subadult, and adult). The patterns that emerged from these analyses informed my interpretation as to how identity, and particularly gender identity was used by this Early Anglo-Saxon community.

To better observe the relationships among all of the cases and attributes, I wrote the sex assessment of each individual on printed-out DCA and HCLA graphs. This allowed me to not only gauge the impact sex and age assessment categories had on the analyses when present in the dataset, but also illustrated the degree to which the Early

Anglo-Saxons at Worthy Park used biological sex as indicators of social gender identity when biological attributes were removed from some of the analyses’ datasets. These written sex and age assessment categories correspond to the coloured circles in the DCA scatterplots and the coloured letters in the HCLA dendrograms. Coloured letters have been used to indicate the sex/age of individuals where individual remains overlap in the

DCA scatterplot since an overlap does not indicate shared sex/age designation.

WebStatistica was used for the HCLAs of the Worthy Park sample. The generated dendrograms correspond to the exact same datasets that were used for the five different

DCAs. Different groups are represented in a hierarchical cluster analysis on a dendrogram, which consists of a series of branches demonstrating the relatedness of each

“species” or grave to one another until they are all grouped together in one large group.

This in turn demonstrates the significance of the relationship between different graves, grouping them according to their associated variables. The HCLAs used in this thesis have a vertical orientation as opposed to a horizontal one so that the cases/graves are more distinguishable on the X-axis.

The five datasets analysed using DCA were also analysed using HCLA in order to achieve a more comprehensive view of similarities and differences.

4.7 Summary

Mortuary assemblages have often been used by archaeologists and bioarchaeologists to investigate the lives and social organisation of people in the past because they not only often contain the material culture but the individuals as well.

Whelan’s (1991) research using the Santee Dakota Blackdog burial ground provided the baseline for this research by treating osteological sex not as a defining variable, but one like other burial offerings and assemblages. Because the site is exceptionally well preserved, the sample is large, and the data is so thoroughly published, the Anglo-Saxon burial ground at Worthy Park was chosen as a test case for this thesis. The data for this thesis were analysed for patterning using DCA and HCLA. The following chapter details the results of this analysis.

Chapter 5

Analysis and Discussion

A total of 99 individuals from 104 inhumations and their mortuary context were analysed using both DCA and HCLA in order to identify and investigate patterns related to mortuary treatment. Five separate datasets were analysed in order to better understand how and if the removal of certain variables (such as biological sex and age) influenced grave and variable clustering. Both DCA and HCLA were used to analyse each of the datasets to better visualise and comprehend the distribution and relationship among and between clusters. In this chapter, I present and discuss the results of the DCA and HCLA for each dataset.

5.1 Analysis 1: All Variables Intact

The first DCA with all variables and all cases is presented in Figure 7. Both males and females appeared to have the strongest clusters in the first DCA with outlying graves intact (see Figure 7). In comparing individuals belonging to all sex assessment categories, males appeared to be slightly more clustered than females, possible males/females, subadults, and infants. In comparing the patterning of individuals in Figure 7-B with the patterning of material culture, features, grave description, and age categories in Figure 7-

A, females, 2 possible males (Graves 40 and 13), 2 subadults (Graves 17c and 52), 2 infants (Graves 4 and 17a), and 1 possible female (Grave 34) that appear in Figure 7-B are more strongly associated with a more diverse mortuary assemblage and grave

75 description than all of the males (18/18) who are located on the far right of the scatterplot graph in Figure 7-B.

Figure 7 DCA with All Variables Intact. X-axis variation 11.21%, Y-axis variation

9.20%, total variation: 2.66%. A) Graph showing the distribution of the variables

(triangles) in relation to one another and to the centroid (the average grave composition);

B) Magnified section removed from Graph A showing the distribution of the graves

(coloured circles/letters). The circles for some graves/individuals overlap (e.g. 13, 20,

29); in those instances, a coloured letter is included beside the grave number to identify sex.

Although individuals identified as female and possible male/female were loosely clustered, they exhibited a wider spatial distribution than individuals identified as male.

The clusters with regards to sexing category suggest that this variable influenced the

DCA analyses; that is, the DCA distributed the graves according to the sex assigned to different individuals. However, the fact that there is a clustering of graves containing individuals identified as male (e.g., Graves 33, 44, 87, 81, 24, 45, 50, 41, 84, 14, 1, 57,

69, 46, and 32) relative to female and possible male/female suggests that the individuals identified as male were perhaps more restricted or defined in their identity (as expressed in the Anglo-Saxon mortuary context). This diverse mortuary assemblage directly corresponds to the loose cluster of female individuals on the left side of Figure 7-B.

The first analysis’ HCLA (see Figure 8) of the intact dataset exhibited similar patterns to its corresponding DCA (Figure 7). The vast majority of the males are on the left-hand side of the dendrogram and demonstrate the strongest relationship with a linkage distance of 11. The second strongest cluster is that of individuals identified as subadult with a linkage distance of 13. The linkage distance of those classified as female, possible male, and possible female is 25, suggesting more variability in their mortuary expression. The possible males and possible females are grouped quite close together while there are four male individuals (Graves 38, 69, 57, and 1) which are outside of the large cluster of males.

All subadults cluster closely together with a linkage distance of ~14. Even though they are strongly related to one another in terms of age, grave offerings, features, and body description (i.e., body position and grave orientation), they are also closely related to 1 possible female and 1 infant. This suggests a relatively common mortuary assemblage and treatment for these individuals.

Figure 8 HCLA of Worthy Park data with all variables intact. Key for abbreviations: M

(male), S (subadult), I (infant), F (female), M? (possible male), F? (possible female).

It is clear from the dendrogram that sex and age variables strongly influenced data clustering. This is because this analysis had all variables intact so individuals had been selected and pulled into their final distribution and relationships with regards to their sex and age attributes. Therefore, individuals of the same biological sex and age determination tended to cluster with one another in both the first DCA and HCLA. This made it more difficult to get a clear picture as to whether there was a strong relationship among the material culture, features, and individuals with regards to sex and age

78 categories. Nonetheless, females and possible females showed the most variability of mortuary expression in terms of all available attributes/variables.

5.2 Analysis 2: Sexing categories removed

Although the sex assessment categories were removed for the second analysis, the patterning remained consistent with that of the first analysis. However, the second analysis’ DCA (see Figure 9) did not display a strong sex bias as was present in the first analysis. When comparing to the other individuals in the same scatterplot, the individuals sexed as female, possible male, and possible female were more variable in their distribution than male individuals. For instance, most individuals determined as female

(12/19) are not close together and stretch from the top left of Figure 9B to the bottom right with a good amount of distance between them. Only 8/19 females are clustered tightly together (i.e., graves 20, 29, 13, 8, 39, 62, 21(IndA), and 26(IndA)). Graves

21(IndA) and 57, both possible females are clustered close together whereas the final possible female is very closely clustered with graves 24 and 13, a female and possible male.

Figure 9 DCA with Sex assessment categories removed from dataset. X-axis variation:

11.60%, Y-axis variation: 8.71%, total variation: 2.50%. A) Graph showing the distribution of the variables. B) Magnified portion removed from Graph A showing the distribution of the graves (coloured circles/letters). The circles for some graves/individuals overlap; in those instances, a coloured letter is included beside the grave number to identify sex. Individuals sexed as indeterminate (e.g. Grave 58) are given neither a coloured letter nor circle.

Another distinguishing feature of Analysis 2’s DCA scatterplot is that the distribution of subadults and infants seems to be very distinct from adults. This indicates a strong age bias in the distribution of the data. When looking at the corresponding

80 scatterplot of the different variables that include age, material culture, and features, there is a strong association between the male category, spears, shields, and tweezers (see

Figure 9). This suggests that individuals identified as males are associated with a particular group of artefacts.

The HCLA of the dataset with sexing variables removed (Figure 10) were consistent with the DCA (Figures 9). There is a strong cluster of individuals that include the majority of males (12/18 all present males) with a linkage distance of 18; this cluster also includes seven (7/18 all present females) individuals identified as female and one

(1/3 all present possible females) possible female (see Figure 10). The other main cluster with a linkage distance of 30 includes all the subadults (11/11), all the possible males

(2/2), the majority of females (12/19), and the majority of possible females (2/3). The

HCLA demonstrates the variability in the mortuary treatment of individuals identified as female, possible female/male. The closer clustering of a majority of males could be interpreted as a restriction/consistency in mortuary offerings/rituals for males. Subadults exhibited the closest clustering, with a linkage distance of 11. However, since age categories remained in this second dataset, the distribution and relatedness of the graves is affected by their attributed age.

Figure 10 HCLA with Sex assessment categories removed. Key for abbreviations: M

(male), S (subadult), I (infant), F (female), M? (possible male), F? (possible female).

Therefore, many of the individuals determined to be female were much more variable in their mortuary treatment than males. Possible females/males and infants were not grouped closely together in tight clusters of the same biological sex or age determination suggesting much less commonality in burial treatment than those of subadults, males, and females.

5.3 Analysis 3: All biological variables removed

The third analysis included all graves and all variables with the exception of biological variables (e.g. age and sex) (Figure 11). This analysis was designed to investigate if the overall patterning of graves observed in Analyses 1 and 2 would change as a result of the removal of these biological variables; in other words, did the biological variables affect the patterning of graves in the previous two DCAs?

Males are the only clearly distinguished cluster when the sex categories are applied to the data points post-analysis (Figures 11). Females, possible males, and possible females are scattered throughout, and are therefore not as strongly associated with any form of feature or artefact assemblage.

In terms of age-related distributions, subadults are treated much more uniformly than other biological age categories. Adults (and thereby all sexed individuals) in their mortuary treatment are also clearly defined; however, there is a lot more variability in their grave offerings than with subadults. The least clearly defined age category is that of infants (those aged between 0 and 2 years). Yet, there are not many infant remains to be certain if this is a significant pattern. The artefacts that are most associated with the male individuals are spears and shields, with knives, and tweezers.

Figure 11 DCA with all Biological variables removed from dataset. X-axis variation:

11.60%, Y-axis variation: 9.38%, total variation: 2.68%. A) Graph showing the distribution of the variables (triangles) in relation to one another and to the centroid (the average grave composition). B) Magnified section removed from Graph A showing the distribution of the graves (coloured circles/letters). The circles for some graves/individuals overlap; in those instances, a coloured letter is included beside the grave number to identify sex. Individuals sexed as indeterminate are given neither a coloured letter nor circle.

The equivalent HCLA for Analysis 3 demonstrates a similarly strong cluster of individuals identified as males towards the left-hand side of the diagram and a lack of consistency among the remaining individuals according to sex or age variables (see

Figure 12). The majority (13/19) of individuals identified as males are clustered together with a linkage distance of 18; however, this cluster also contains seven (7/19) of all present females, three (3/11) of all present subadults, and one (1/3) of all present possible females. The other large cluster has a linkage distance of ~34 and contains 13/19 females,

6/19 males, 8/11 subadults, 2/2 infants, 2/3 possible females, and 2/2 possible males. In this analysis, subadults are less clearly clustered than in Analyses 1 or 2 suggesting that biological age variables influenced the patterns observed in Analyses 1 and 2.

Figure 12 HCLA with all Biological variables removed. Key for abbreviations: M (male),

S (subadult), I (infant), F (female), M? (possible male), F? (possible female). There is therefore much more regularity in mortuary treatment with only a few grave offerings with possible females/males, subadults, and infants in comparison to females and males.

5.4 Analysis 4: Material Culture variables only

The fourth CA included all graves but only included the material culture variables

(e.g., body present, offerings, coffin, man-made beads, natural material beads, knives, finger rings, pendants, organic vessels, ceramic vessels, Roman coins, spears, brooches, shields, flints in grave, chatelaines, keys, tweezers, fossils, combs, seaxes, toilet spoons, necklaces, waist belts, and purses). When only material culture variables were left in the dataset, the associations among different biological sex assessment categories are more striking (see Figure 13). This may be because biological age categories were not present to pull the individual graves in different directions corresponding to their biological age designations. This analysis suggests that males (11/12) are the only ones that are clearly defined since they are tightly grouped together. There is a lot more variability among those that are designated as female, as well as possible males and possible females. It must be noted that Grave 88 contains an adult; however, the remains were too fragmentary to assess their sex.

Both possible males and possible females appeared not to be closely related to one another in terms of their material culture assemblages. However, infants and subadults were both tightly clustered into several groups, albeit with consistent variation in terms of their overlapping in small groups in Figure 13.

Figure 8 DCA with Material Culture variables only. X-axis variation: 12.12%, Y-axis variation: 8.65%, total variation: 3.79%. A) Graph showing the distribution of the variables (triangles) in relation to one another and to the centroid (the average grave composition). B) Magnified section removed from Graph A showing the distribution of the graves (coloured circles/letters). The circles for some graves/individuals overlap; in those instances, a coloured letter is included beside the grave number to identify sex.

Individuals sexed as indeterminate are given neither a coloured letter nor circle.

When the Worthy Park data table with only material culture variables was used to perform HCLA 4, the data was too jumbled to distinguish between different individuals.

Therefore, the X-axis’ scale (shown in Figure 13 as the X-axis listing the cases/graves) was reduced from 100 to 71 in order to clearly distinguish the cases/graves (see Figure

14). Even though some of the cases were cropped out of the dendrogram, the overall patterning remained unchanged.

The HCLA dendrogram for Analysis four (see Figure 14) also shows a cluster of the majority of the males (15/21) which are closely related to one another in material culture composition. The remaining males (6/21) are scattered throughout the dendrogram in no close relation to one another aside from graves 71 and 33 which cluster at a linkage distance of ~2 (Figure 14). The four remaining males are related to one another but are also closely related to individuals with other biological sex and age determinations (e.g., females, subadults, possible females, possible males, and infants). There are two strong clusters composed solely of females (e.g., graves 63, 75, 68, 47, and 10, and graves 53,

61, 42A, and 80) with a linkage distance of ~9 and ~4 respectively. The majority of present females (17/26) do closely relate to one another but are also clustered closely with individuals of other biological sex and age determinations (e.g., subadults, males, possible females, possible males, and infants).

Figure 14 HCLA with Material Culture variables only. Key for abbreviations: M (male),

S (subadult), I (infant), F (female), M? (possible male), F? (possible female).

There are no clusters composed solely of possible males/females, or subadults; instead, the majority of possible females (3/4) are clustered with a linkage distance of ~7 while possible males (2/2) are much more closely related to 10/25 females, 3/4 possible females, 1/11 subadults, and 1/2 infants (see Figure 14). Subadults, like possible males/females, are clustered closely with individuals that are of other biological sex and age designations. The only two possible males (graves 40 and 13) present in the dendrogram are clustered together at a linkage distance of ~10, but are much more closely

90 related to some females, infants, and subadults (Figure 14). For instance grave 40 is closely related to four females and one infant at a linkage distance of ~4 while grave 13 is similarly composed of material culture types with six females, three possible females, and one subadult at a linkage distance of ~7 (Figure 14). This suggests that with regards to grave offerings/material culture, males are the most clearly defined biological sex, whereas females show much more variation along with possible males/females. This was observed as well in the DCA scatterplot in Figure 13.

5.5 Analysis 5: Age variables removed

For the final analysis, all graves and variables were included with the exception of biological age variables (e.g., Infant (0-2 years), Subadult, and Adult). In the fifth DCA

(Figure 15), individuals were grouped together according to their sex categories. This was due to the fact that sex variables were left in the dataset, indicating a strong bias in clustering individuals. Despite this, males were more tightly clustered whilst females were much more dispersed throughout the DCA (Figure 15-B). Possible males (Graves 13 and 40) were not as tightly clustered, but were closer in their composition to females and subadults. Possible females (Graves 3 and 34) were much more tightly clustered whereas the possible female in Grave 12 was by far the most distant individual from the rest of the sample. Even though age categories were removed, subadults remained closely clustered aside from Graves 17c, 19, 23, and 52 (Figure 15-B). Infants were not closely associated with each other, since one (Grave 17a) was grouped closer to the upper-left corner of the scatterplot with female individuals whilst the other (Grave 4) was more closely associated with subadult individuals (Figure 15-B).

As with the previous DCAs, female individuals tended to be much more dispersed in their grouping with one another while male individuals were much more tightly clustered. Comparing the position of female individuals in Figure 15-B to their approximate distribution in Figure 15-A, females were more closely associated with a much more diverse array of biological, material culture, and grave description variables.

Males, which are very much concentrated on the right-hand side (see Figure 15-B), were more closely associated with a smaller group of variables: spears, shields, and seaxes (see

Figure 15-A). In terms of their grave orientation, males were much more likely to be buried facing west while females were more closely associated with north, west, and south. Possible females were more closely associated with a southern orientation while possible males were shown to be equally likely to be west, south, and north-facing due to their consistent distance from all the directions (Figure 15-A).

Figure 16 DCA with Age variables removed. X-axis variation: 11.34%, Y-axis variation:

8.73%, total variation: 2.80%. A) Graph showing the distribution of the variables

(triangles) in relation to one another and to the centroid (the average grave composition).

B) Magnified section removed from Graph A showing the distribution of the graves

(coloured circles/letters). The circles for some graves/individuals overlap; in those instances, a coloured letter is included beside the grave number to identify sex.

Individuals sexed as indeterminate are given neither a coloured letter nor circle.

The fifth HCLA showed a lack of consistency when it came to biological age categories since all of the biological age categories are well-dispersed into different smaller clusters (see Figure 16). Interestingly, subadults are not as clearly defined in the fifth HCLA analysis as they were in the fifth DCA analysis. However, individuals identified as males continued to show the strongest clustering out of all of the biological

93 sexing variables with a linkage distance of nine (Figure 16). This grouping is composed of the majority of the males in both Figures 16 (13/19). It is grouped with the other cases/graves at a linkage distance of 57 (Figure 16). Based on all variables excluding biological age categories, this large group of males are peripheral cases/graves.

Figure 16 HCLA with Age variables removed. Key for abbreviations: M (male), S

(subadult), I (infant), F (female), M? (possible male), F? (possible female).

The next major linkage further down is at ~33 (Figure 16) which is composed of individuals designated as female, subadult, male, possible female, possible male, and infant. The other grouping of individuals composed mainly of individuals of one

94 biological sex or age is with females (4/19) at a linkage distance of 14 (Figure 16).

Another group of females (5/19) with one subadult (1/9) are linked together at a distance of ~9 (Figure 16). Similar to this cluster of five females and one subadult, the majority of the other clusters (3/4) are composed of individuals of different biological sex and age designations (see Figure 16).

5.6 Discussion

Both DCA and HCLA consistently demonstrated a clustering of individuals identified as males regardless of what other variables were removed. This strongly suggests that there is a relationship between biological maleness and a particular mortuary treatment and practise. There was a strong association among males, spears, shields, and tweezers. Similarly, both DCA and HCLA consistently demonstrated a clustering of subadults relative to adults. Less than half (37%) were buried with knives (compared to

52% of adults) and only one subadult was found with a chatelaine and another was found with a waist-belt. If cultural gender is directly informed by biological sex and related to it as suggested by Butler (2006), then there exists only one strong correlation between grave offerings and biological sex, and that is “male” with spears, shields, and tweezers. On the other hand, if we look beyond the close clustering of males with weapons, there are three distinguishable identities that are expressed in the Worthy Park mortuary assemblage according to biological sex and age assessment categories: “those with weapons,” “those without weapons,” and subadults. A fourth category can also be seen when looking at the mortuary data and the HCLAs; this category is composed of individuals who were buried with few or no burial offerings.

Among females and possible males/females, there are no clear patterns in the

DCA scatterplots or HCLA dendrograms that would indicate strong correlations between these biological sex categories and grave offerings, features, and/or other biological attributes. This suggests that there is a lot more fluidity in their mortuary expression relative to individuals identified as males, even though there is also some variability among individuals identified as males (e.g., see Figure 10). This pattern may represent a large defined cultural gender with multiple expressions separate from “individuals with weapons” without being directly related to any particular biological sex category.

Interestingly, “individuals with weapons” corresponds only with males in this burial ground.

The vast majority of males (68% of males) in the burial ground are represented in these few groupings (see Figure 8). If this was to be associated with cultural gender as

Butler (2006) suggests, this means that this burial ground has one identifiable cultural gender which could have been recognised by those within this Anglo-Saxon community.

This is consistent with Stoodley (2000) who argues that graves containing individuals identified as male exhibit much less diversity relative to the graves of females. However,

Stoodley’s (2000:465-468) analysis of 43 different Anglo-Saxon burial grounds argues that cultural masculinity (which he equates with biological males) is based upon markers of social status and less upon changes in biology than femininity (which he equates with biological females).

The Worthy Park data demonstrate that masculinity (as it relates to those identified as males) is much more dependent upon a less diverse assemblage and femininity (as it related to those identified as females) exhibited a much more diverse

96 range of mortuary expression as was apparent in the third set of DCA and HCLA after all biological variables were removed from the dataset (see Figures 11 and 12). Due to the influence of feminism, Symonds (2009:61-62) argues that research into Anglo-Saxon masculinity and non-binary genders is limited. The Worthy Park sample demonstrates that males are the only biological sex consistently associated with a particular, restricted group of grave offerings; the other biological sex categories used in this thesis were much more complex in their relation to distinctive identities in mortuary expression. This shows the necessity for examination on Anglo-Saxon masculinity, and non-feminine genders.

Another possible explanation for this pattern is that there could have been four genders which corresponded with the four clusters observed in Figure 8. The use of

“gender” in this fashion takes into account the term’s origin from the Old French gendre, meaning “type” or “form” (OED Online). The first cluster was exclusively comprised of males (Graves 87 through to 14); the second was primarily composed of subadults with one infant (Grave 4); the third cluster included mainly females with one subcluster comprised of only females (Graves 10 through to 9), with the second subcluster including mostly females (42A through to 16, and Graves 62 through to 8), and two closely-tied possible males (Graves 40 and 13). The fourth and final cluster is composed of an assortment of individuals with one subcluster comprised of three possible females

(Graves 12, 34, and 3), one female (Grave 21A), and one infant (Grave 17a), and another subcluster comprised of five females (Graves 18c, 93, 18a, 26A, and 2), and four males

(Graves 38, 69, 57, and 1).

The four “genders” observed in Figure 8 are males, mostly subadults, females and possible males, and individuals with little or no burial offerings. The final category

97 includes Graves 17a through to 1 (see Figure 8). The individual with the most offerings was Grave 17a with three associated artefacts. Seven of the 14 individuals in this last final group were buried without any offerings (Graves 18c, 38, 26A, 2, 69, 57, and 1) (see

Figure 8). Since the individuals in this cluster were comprised of different biological age and sex categories, it is likely that they were of a social identity not restricted to biological sex and age. Fisher (2008:89-90), Härke (1997) and Stoodley (1999) in Hadley

(2004:302), and Symonds (personal communication), argue that burials without burial offerings in Early Anglo-Saxon burial grounds may have belonged to individuals of a lower class, or slaves. Therefore, it seems likely that they belonged to a lower social class in the community. However, there must have been variation within this identity since half of these individuals (7/14) were buried with offerings, and many of these individuals have been further grouped into subclusters based on their osteological sex categories, and age categories (see Figure 8). However, it is also likely that this HCLA’s distribution of graves was influenced by sex categories because sexing categories were left intact along with all variables found in Appendix C.

Although there is an apparent clustering of individuals according to mortuary assemblage aside from biological/osteological categories, the restricted distribution of graves with individuals sexed as male and aged as subadult cannot be overlooked. This is because they continuously show a defined and relatively constricted mortuary assemblage. Taking the above observation into account, it is possible that the rigid male mortuary assemblages may have been restricted to individuals sexed as male who belonged to a high social class with a higher number of accompanied burial offerings.

The features and grave description used in these analyses did not show a lot of differentiation in terms of biological sex and age categories. Twenty-two graves were filled with earthy fill and chalky fill independently, while 24 graves were of mixed chalk and earth fill. Therefore, there was an equal number of graves with chalky and earthy fill with a mixed chalk and earth fill being the most common among graves. Among the earthy-fill graves, there were six males, five females, one possible male, one possible female, (13 adults), six subadults, and one infant. Among the chalky-fill graves, there were eight females, seven males, one possible female, (16 adults), four subadults, two infants. Among the mixed-fill graves, there were eight males, seven females, one possible male, one possible female, (17 adults), three subadults, and three infants.

There were slightly more males among the mixed-fill graves than the chalky and earthy-fill graves, whilst females were more often buried in chalky-fill graves. The possible males (2/2 possible males) were only buried in mixed-fill and earthy-fill graves, while one possible female each (3/4 possible females) was buried in earthy, chalky, and mixed-fill graves. There were also slightly more subadults in earthy-fill graves, than chalky or mixed, and infants were only a little more frequent in mixed-fill graves. In terms of grave fill, there was very little differentiation among individuals of biological sex and age categories.

Out of the 4 possible cardinal directions (North, South, East, and West), only three

(North, South, and West) were represented in the sample. The most common direction in which individuals’ heads were placed in the grave (grave orientation) was West with a total of 59/89 individuals. The second-most common was South with 24/89 individuals and only 6/89 individuals were oriented towards the North. The grave orientation of 10

99 individuals was not recorded while five burials did not contain human remains for a total of 15/104 burials; therefore, only 89 graves were recorded with a single grave orientation.

Out of the 59 individuals buried with the head of their graves to the West there were 21 females, 20 males, two possible males, one possible female, (44 adults), 10 subadults, and four infants. Out of 24 individuals oriented South, there were seven males, six females, three possible females, (16 adults), four subadults, and one infant. Out of six individuals oriented North, there were four females, one male, (five adults), and one subadult.

Slightly more males were oriented to the South while there was one more female than males oriented to the West.

The most distinctive orientation in terms of biological sex was North since four females were buried in graves with heads in this direction. Out of all other sex assessment categories, only one male was found oriented to the North. Possible males were more commonly oriented to the West while most possible females (3/4) were oriented to the

South. In terms of age categories, 10/15 subadults in all grave orientation directions were buried oriented to the West, while four were oriented to the South and one to the North.

Infants were only found in West and South-oriented graves with the majority (4/5 infants in all grave orientation directions) found in West-oriented graves.

There were four body orientations represented in the Worthy Park sample (supine, extended, flexed, and prone). Most individuals (73/90 individuals with recorded body orientation) were both supine/extended. A few individuals (2/90) were supine/flexed, 1/90 was prone/extended, and 1/90 was prone/flexed. Some individuals (11/90) were only recorded as being in one body position when found: 6/90 were flexed, 4/90 were supine, and 1/90 was extended. Of those who were supine/extended, there were 25 males, 24

100 females, three possible females, two possible males, (57 adults), 13 subadults, and two infants. Those who were supine/flexed were female (2/2). The individual found who was prone/flexed was female (1/1), and the individual who was prone/extended (1/1) was an adult of indeterminate biological sex. Out of the individuals who were recorded as being buried only as flexed, there was one male, one female, one possible male, (three adults), two infants, and one subadult. Out of those who were buried only as supine, there was one male, one female, (two adults), one subadult, and one infant. The only one who laid extended was female (1/1).

There was not much differentiation in terms of biological sex with those buried supine/extended since there was roughly half of each biological sex assessment category.

Adults were by far the most common in the supine/extended category (57/73). Only females were found among those who were buried in both supine/flexed (2/2) and prone/flexed (1/2) positions. Aside from males and females, only one possible male was recorded as flexed, out of those who were recorded either supine, flexed, or extended.

Only one female was found to be in an extended position.

The final features/grave description variables included in the analyses were coffins and flints in graves. Some of these graves (2/6) contained both flints in grave and traces of coffins. However, only 3/104 individual graves contain flints in graves and coffins each. All graves containing coffins and/or flints in the grave were associated with adults. Two out of three individuals buried with flints in their graves were female and one was male. Another 2/3 individuals buried in coffins were female and only 1/3 was male.

The 2/6 individuals (Graves 9 and 22) buried with both flints and in coffins were female and male. Both of these individuals were buried in a chalky grave fill and were closely

101 related to other individuals of the same biological sex designation. However, they were much more distantly distributed from the majority of clusters in all five DCAs.

The idea that one cultural gender identity existed in this Anglo-Saxon community is plausible given that Laqueur (1990:5) argues that pre-industrialist Western European societies conceived a cultural one-sex model where females were seen as males with inverted penises. According to Lacqueur (1990), the gender and sex binary only emerged in the early nineteenth century with medical professionals trying to establish differences among only these two forms of men. However, Lacqueur’s (1990) hypothesis is mainly attributable to the High Middle Ages and later Greco-Roman-influenced world (Leigh

Symonds, personal communication). The HCLA’s and DCA’s distributions are also compatible with Late Saxon laws and histories where there was rarely a distinction between individuals according to cultural gender, along with other mortuary analyses’ conclusions. Fell (1984:16-19) and Herbert (1997:13) argue that the Old English texts often refer to individuals of any cultural gender or identity as (-)menn, a gender-neutral term unlike its derivative, “men,” in Modern English. Although these texts are representative of the cultural descendants of those who were interred at Worthy Park several centuries earlier, it is possible that this was a cultural trait that was maintained at least through the predominantly Christian Middle and Late Saxon periods.

Hadley (2004:304-305), Härke (1997a:134), and Stoodley (2000) maintain that

Early Anglo-Saxon male burials were much more rigid in their assemblages than those of females. This is consistent with the mortuary data from Worthy Park. However, this restriction may have been reserved for those who may have belonged to a higher social class, or professed/acknowledged and performed a Germanic cultural identity that was

102 linked with weaponry and tweezers, as opposed to all other sex, age, and social identities.

This professed cultural identity may have been to differentiate themselves from the native

Britons (Härke 1997a:151, 1997c:120), who were noted as being generally of the lower class in the late-seventh century AD Laws of King Ine of Wessex (Härke 1997c:123).

Another possibility is that the Anglo-Saxons at Worthy Park may have recognised the existence of a category that was representative of biological females given that they are dispersed among biologically possible males and possible females, with a few males.

“Non-weapon-bearers” could therefore have possessed more freedom in expression than those classified as “weapon-bearers.” Herbert (1997:13) argues that those who are designated as wæpnedmenn, or “weapon-men,” an identity often associated with men (as in the modern men/male binary) in the modern histories on the scanty primary

Middle/Late Saxon Christian records, are more restricted in their social roles than those who are classified as wifmenn (a term which is often attached to women). The word wif may be associated with the word wefan, or “to weave” (Herbert 1997:14), an occupation that was also predominantly attributed to females in contemporary Anglo interpretations of Old English texts (Fell 1984:39-40; Herbert 1997; Herlihy 1990:32-33; Pollington

2003:167).

Herbert (1997) describes the story of Æthelflæd, wife of the late Mercian King

Æthelred, who took control of the Mercian army to take back stolen territory from the

Danes. She argues that not only was Æthelflæd a wifmann, a term commonly interpreted as describing a “woman” hlæfdige, or “lady,” she was also a wæpnedmann, eorl

“warrior”, and friðuwebbe “peace-weaver,” demonstrating a variety of roles in Anglo-

Saxon society which are seen as culturally gender-specific by modern Western observers

103

(Herbert 1997:20-21). Other examples of hlæfdigan who performed in society as eorlas and wæpnedmenn commanding armies were the late-seventh century Queen Seaxburh of

Wessex and the early-mid eighth-century Queen Æthelburh of Wessex, wife to King Ine

(Härke 1997a:131). Even though these examples are taken from historical events that occurred years after the Worthy Park burial ground fell out of use, it is ultimately a story that descends from Early Saxon culture. However, what contrasts with this narrative is that the larger, more dispersed group of those who were not buried with weapons is not all of one biological sex, whereas the group that I had referred to as “individuals with weapons” is exclusively biologically/osteologically male at Worthy Park. “Non-weapon bearers” could be biologically/osteologically female, male, possible male, and/or possible female. This cultural identity is therefore more dependent upon other personal attributes than just biological sex.

This argument is in contrast to the majority of historical, archaeological, and bioarchaeological research into cultural gender in early English societies which argues for the existence of a gender and sex binary (Fell 1984; Leeds 1970[1936]; Härke 1990,

1997a; Herbert 1997; King 2004; Leyser 1995; Owen-Crocker 2004; Pollington 2003;

Quennell and Quennell 1959; Sayer 2013; Sayer and Wienhold 2012; Stoodley 2000;

Symonds 2009; Wilson 1992). Even though some research into Anglo-Saxon gender and sex identity does argue for the possible existence of non-binary gender and sex systems

(Hinton 1990; Leyser 1995; Lucy 2000; Owen-Crocker 2004), it does not allow for the possibility that biological sex ambiguity was recognised by Early Saxon communities by not maintaining all biological sex assessment categories originally developed to allow for existing variation: males, females, possible males, possible females, and ambiguous. By

104 looking at the data in all of its entirety, separate from just the later historical documentation, it is possible to access aspects of cultural identity as they were understood by those who lived in past societies.

105

Chapter 6

Conclusion

This thesis investigated and tested whether or not it was possible to learn more about Early Anglo-Saxon conceptions of gender outside a gender and sex binary by: 1) showing that the dominant view of a cultural gender and biological sex binary among bioarchaeologists and Western academia contradicts the large amount of historic, ethnographic, ethnohistoric, and medical evidence for non-binary cultural gender and biological sex structures; 2) treating biological sex assessment categories used by bioarchaeologists (male, female, possible male/female, and ambiguous) as separate and distinct categories in analysis and interpretation; 3) not treating biological sex assessment categories as the sole variable to infer cultural gender; 4) looking for patterns using DCA and HCLA with all available biological, material culture, and grave description variables; and 5) performing a total of five separate analyses with different variables removed to limit statistical bias in grave distribution in DCAs and HCLAs.

Bioarchaeologists regularly fall into some common traps when investigating and interpreting gender and sex in the past which do not allow for the existence of non-binary gender and sex systems. Common practises in bioarchaeological research on ancient biological human traits including gender and sex that reproduce the binary include: 1) utilising only individuals who have been sexed as male and female in pre-existing research, 2) excluding individuals sexed as ambiguous either from interpretation or the research altogether, and 3) collapsing those remains sexed as possible/probable male and possible/probable female into the male and female categories (see Section 3.3).

106

These practises are not necessarily due to intentional dismissal of these alternative views, but may be caused by the restrictions language has on perception. Whorf (1956

[1937]; 1956[1941]; 1956[1950]) investigated differences between Hopi and English and found that their linguistic structures impacted their worldviews. For instance, Whorf

(1956[1950]:59-60) observed that the Hopi language only perceives two distinguishable forms of time: the objective or “manifested” and subjective or “un-manifested.” English on the other hand, conceives three distinct and non-negotiable divisions: past, present, and future. Whereas English-speakers like to convey the concept of time as a river which flows in one direction from the past to the present and off into the future, Hopi-speakers see the world as what has already been revealed and what has not yet been fully revealed

(Whorf 1956[1950]:59-60).

What this means is that both realms exist at the same time. Dreams and thoughts are present even though they have not fully manifested in the physical world. This does not imply that different speakers can only access certain information which is only permitted through their native language, but these linguistic limitations make it easier to overlook other ways of perceiving the world. The impact of language on worldview has been further validated in recent decades through the investigation of colour categories and their perception by speakers of different languages (e.g. Goldstein et al. 2009; Lu et al.

2012; Roberson et al. 2008; Tan et al. 2008; Winawer et al. 2007).

Whorf’s hypothesis does well in demonstrating the impact of the English language on bioarchaeological research into gender and sex in the past, because not only is English the most widely-used language today in the field of anthropology (Chapman 2004:6), it is only one of a number of languages that acknowledges only two genders and two

107 corresponding sexes. This linguistic restriction, along with continual recognition of only two sexes and two genders through performance in publications, reinforces its use. This is equivalent to the way actors perform a set of scripts on stage (see Goffman 1959;

Schechner 2003; Tuan 1990; Turner 1969, 1974, 1992; Wilshire 1982).

To avoid falling into this performative binary trap, this thesis modified an approach incorporating queer, performance, and Marxist theory. This modification was further inspired by Whelan’s (1991) methodology of looking at relationships between graves and material culture without making overall conclusions based on biological sex.

Although she applies this sort of approach to interpreting gender in the past, she resorts to defining only males and females, leaving out other recognised sex assessment categories.

Another difference between Whelan’s work and this thesis is that this research employed

DCA and HCLA to look at all the burials together at once with the majority of the burial features and material culture, whereas Whelan (1991) used factor analysis to independently compare the relationship between different individuals and a select compendium of artefacts.

This approach has shown that when a burial ground is looked at with all of the available burials, features, and material culture with all sex assessment categories and other biological variables, non-binary gender and sex systems are accessible in the mortuary record. Early Anglo-Saxon society has often been interpreted as being strictly binary (Fell 1984:40; Härke 1990, Härke 1997a:130-131, Härke 2014:54; Leeds

1970[1936]:28; Leyser 1995:5-7; Lucy 2000:15; Owen-Crocker 2004; Page 1970:67-68;

Pollington 2003:167; Sayer 2013; Wilson 1992). Although this is how most research over the last century has observed gender and sex in Anglo-Saxon society, recent research into

108 gender in Anglo-Saxon mortuary archaeology has acknowledged the possibility of “third genders” (Härke 2014:54; Hinton 1990:13; Knüsel and Ripley 2000; Leyser 1995:18;

Lucy 2000; Owen-Crocker 2004:6-7; Sayer 2010:73; Stoodley 2000; Wilson 1992:96-

97), and gender fluidity (Härke 1997a:131; Herbert 1997:13, 18, 20-21). However, it has not been a primary focus, and much of it has resorted back to comparisons between men and women, males and females.

The Anglo-Saxon burial ground at Worthy Park consisted of 96 individuals in 104 burials, supporting a wide array of different mortuary rituals. Although there were many ways in which the Early Anglo-Saxons buried their dead (Crawford 1999; Dickinson

1999; Lucy 2000; Reynolds 2009; Sayer 2013; Wilson 1992), there were many identifiable patterns between mortuary treatment and identity (Härke 1997a; Sayer 2010;

Sayer and Wienhold 2012; Stoodley 2000). This thesis instead found the possible existence of a one-sex and gender system practised at Worthy Park which was further supported by post-Christian linguistic and historical evidence. The observed clustering was associated with males and subadults/juveniles (see Chapter Five). However, all of the five separate CAs and HCAs showed a strong association between males and spears, shields, seaxes, and tweezers whereas subadults/juveniles were often not buried with anything or only knives. Females, possible/probable females, possible/probable males, and infants did not cluster as clearly as these other groups showing no strict association between mortuary treatment and these biological traits. This is consistent with the Old

English documentation and Middle-Late Anglo-Saxon history (circa 650 to 1066 AD) which hints at a gender and sex system contrary to the majority of current research.

109

Another interpretation of this thesis’ DCA and HCLA results is that there were four “genders” at Worthy Park including males, subadults, females and possible males, and the lower-class/slaves (see Section 5.6). This final category was markedly different from the other genders because it was not restricted to individuals of one biological/osteological sex or age category, but included females, males, possible females, and an infant (see Figure 8). Since the category was composed of all individuals who were either buried with little or no burial offerings, it is likely that they belonged to a lower social or slave class (Fisher 2008:89-90; Hadley 2004:302; Härke 1997c:139;

Leigh Symonds, personal communication). It is also possible that these individuals were not seen as ethnically Anglo-Saxon, but Briton (Härke 1997a:151, 1997c:120).

Documents from the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods mention female leaders and nobles in different Anglo-Saxon kingdoms as commanding armies and adopting “masculine” personae. Some examples taken from historical sources include

Queen Athelflæd of Mercia (Herbert 1997:20-21), Queen Seaxburh of Wessex, and Queen

Athelburh of Wessex (Härke 1997a:131). Aside from occupying the attributed feminine identity of wifmenn “weaving-men” and hlæfdigan “ladies,” these “women” were also described in terms often associated with masculinity: eorlic “warrior-like”, wæpenedmenn

“weapon-men,” and hlafordas “lords” (Herbert 1997). Another feature of the Old English language that speaks to a more complex social gender and sex system is that gender is rarely mentioned in surviving Old English texts (Fell 1984:34; Herbert 1997:13). People were instead referred to as menn, which is equivalent to “humans” in Modern English

(Fell 1984:34; Herbert 1997:13).

110

These references to historical accounts of individuals in Middle and Late Anglo-

Saxon England, as well as aspects of the Old English language correspond nicely to what is observed at Worthy Park: a complex non-binary gender and sex structure. The strong correlation between males and spears, shields, tweezers, and seaxes, and the lack of consistent clustering among females, possible males, and possible females show that only one sex correlates to a specific culturally-recognised identity as associated through material culture, burial position, and features. It also shows, as Dietrich (1980) in Härke

(1997a:135) observed, that non-male individuals had a much more fluid identity that was not strictly associated with a particular ensemble. This further distinguishes weapon- bearers from non-weapon bearers.

It must be kept in mind that this does not describe all Early Anglo-Saxon communities, but it is certainly the case with the Saxon folk at Worthy Park who used this burial ground from 450 to 700 AD. It also does not mean that the living community completely followed this pattern since mortuary identity, even if linked to a cultural milieu (Budja 2010:48-49; Cannon 2002:192; Carr 1995:118-119), can be starkly different from living identity (Maurer Trinkaus 1984:675; Ucko 1969). Therefore, it is possible that a completely different social gender system could have been performed by the community at Worthy Park that cannot be easily discerned through the mortuary record.

A more extensive burial ground is needed in order to see how this method fares in being able to avoid attachment to a binary gender and sex interpretation with more burials and better preservation for future research. Although Worthy Park is exceptional in its preservation since even textiles have preserved (Chadwick Hawkes and Grainger 2003;

111

Chadwick Hawkes and Wells 1983), and contains 96 individuals, a sample should be tested with a larger quantity of burials that also has more possible males and possible females, and a number of ambiguous individuals. Although Worthy Park was deficient in the number of possible males and possible females, and did not contain any ambiguous individuals, it was a good representation of a typical burial ground encountered archaeologically in size and scale.

Even though researchers cannot avoid the way in which their language limits their ability to interpret the world around them, this thesis shows that there is a way forward and that our ability to translate ancient social systems and identity from past cultures can circumvent a continued performance of recreating one’s own cultural milieu in the past.

Even if it is currently impossible to be able to observe intersex individuals osteologically, there are ways in which they may also be observed culturally through sex assessment in a mortuary context. This research further demonstrates that researchers do not have to be confined to their cultural worldviews, but can look past them to observe a more diverse and accurate picture of the past.

112

References Cited2

Abes, Elisa S. and David Kasch 2007 Using Queer Theory to Explore Lesbian College Students’ Multiple Dimensions of Identity. Journal of College Student Development 48(6):619-639.

Agarwall, S. C., M. Dumitriu, G. A. Tomlinson, and M. D. Grynpas 2004 Medieval Trabecular Bone Architecture: The Influence of Age, Sex, and Lifestyle. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 124:33-44.

Akhlaghi, Mitra, Behzad Moradi, and Marzieh Hajibeygi 2012 Sex determination using anthropometric dimensions of the clavicle in Iranian population. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine 19:381-385.

Al-Oumaoui, I., S. Jiménez-Brobeil, and P. du Souich 2004 Markers of Activity Patterns in Some Populations of the Iberian Peninsula. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 14:343-359.

Albanese, John, Greg Eklics, and Andrew Tuck 2008 A Metric Method for Sex Determination Using the Proximal Femur and Fragmentary Hipbone. Journal of Forensic Sciences 53(6):1283-1288.

Allen, Harrison 1896 Note on a Uniform Plan of Describing the Human Skull. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 48:170-174.

Ambrose, Stanley H., Jane Buikstra, and Harold W. Krueger 2003 Status and gender differences in diet at Mound 72, Cahokia, revealed by isotopic analysis of bone. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22:217-226.

Angel, J. Lawrence 1945 Skeletal Material from Attica. Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 14(4):279-363.

1946 Social Biology of Greek Culture Growth. American Anthropologist 48(4):493- 533.

1952 The Human Skeletal Remains from Hotu Cave, Iran. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96(3):258-269.

2 Some references do not include full given names where given names were not provided. For these references, a given name’s initial is used.

113

Arizona State Museum 2009 Guidelines for Documentation of Human Remains. Electronic document, http://www.statemuseum.arizona.edu/crservices/forms.shtml, accessed September 4, 2013.

Armelagos, George J. 2011 Histories of Scholars, Ideas, and Disciplines of Biological Anthropology and Archaeology. Reviews in Anthropology 40:107-133.

Arnold, Bettina 2012 Gender, Temporalities, and Periodization in Early Iron Age West-Central Europe. Social Science History 36(1):85-112.

Asala, S. A. 2001 Sex determination from the head of the femur of South African whites and blacks. Forensic Science International 117:15-22.

Ascádi, Gy. and J. Nemeskéri 1970 History of Human Life Span and Mortality, translated by K. Balás. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.

Ascher, Robert 1961 Analogy in Archaeological Interpretation. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 17(4):317-325.

Barrett, James H. and Michael P. Richards 2004 Identity, gender, religion and economy: new isotope and radiocarbon evidence for marine resource intensification in early historic Orkney, Scotland, UK. European Journal of Archaeology 7(3):249-271.

Baxter, Michael J. 1994 Exploratory Multivariate Analysis in Archaeology. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh

Baxter, Michael J. and Hilary E. M. Cool 2010 Correspondence Analysis in R for archaeologists: an educational account. Archeologia e Calcolatori 21:211-228.

Bentley, R. Alexander, Katharine Cox, Nancy Tayles, Charles Higham, Colin Macpherson, Geoff Nowell, Matthew Cooper, and Tina E. F. Hayes 2009 Community Diversity at Ban Lum Khao, Thailand: Isotopic Evidence from the Skeletons. Asian Perspectives 48(1):79-97.

Benzécri, J.-P. 1969 Statistical Analysis as a Tool to Make Patterns Emerge from Data. In Methodologies of Pattern Recognition, edited by S. Watanabe, pp. 35-74. Academic Press, New York.

114

Berrizbeeitia, Emily L. 1989 Sex determination with the head of the radius. Journal of Forensic Sciences 34(5):1206-1213.

Berseneva N. A. 2010 Sargat burial sites in the Middle Irtysh Area: A gender analysis. Archaeology, Ethnology, and Anthropology of Eurasia 38(3):72-81.

Betti, Lia 2014 Sexual Dimorphism in the Size and Shape of the Os Coxae and the Effects of Microevolutionary Processes. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 153:167- 177.

Binford, Lewis R. 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28(2):217-225.

1971 Mortuary practices: their study and their potential. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 25:6-29.

1972 An Archaeological Perspective. Seminar Press Inc., New York.

Boellstorff, Tom 2007 Queer Studies in the House of Anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology 36:17-35.

Bølviken, Erik, Erika Helskog, Knut Helskog, Inger Marie Holm-Olsen, Leive Solheim, and Reidar Bertelsen 1982 Correspondence Analysis: An Alternative to Principle Components. World Archaeology 14:41-60.

Bowden, Peta and Jane Mummery 2009 Understanding Feminism. Acumen, Stocksfield.

Bowman, Karl M. and Bernice Engle 1960 Sex Offences: The Medical and Legal Implications of Sex Variations. Law and Contemporary Problems 25(2):292-308.

Branca, Patricia 1978 Women in Europe since 1750. Croom Helm Ltd., London.

Brück, Joanna 2009 Women, Death and Social Change in the British Bronze Age. Norwegian Archaeological Review 42(1):1-23.

115

Brumfiel, Elizabeth M. 1992 Distinguished Lecture in Anthropology: Breaking and Entering the Ecosystem – Gender, Class, and Faction Steal the Show. American Anthropologist 94(3):551-567.

Bruzek, Jaroslav 2002 A Method for Visual Determination of Sex, Using the Human Hip Bone. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 117:157-168.

Budja, Mihael 2010 The archaeology of death: from ‘social personae’ to ‘relational personhood’. Documenta Praehistorica 37:43-54.

Buikstra, Jane E. 1977 Biocultural Dimensions of Archaeological Study: A Regional Perspective. In Biocultural Adaptation in Prehistoric America, edited by R. L. Blakely, pp. 67-84. University of Georgia Press, Atlanta.

Buikstra, Jane E. and Douglas H. Ubelaker (editors) 1994 Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains: Proceedings of a Seminar at The Field Museum of Natural History Organised By Jonathan Haas. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series No. 44, Fayetteville.

Buikstra, Jane E., Jason L. King, and Kenneth C. Nystrom 2003 Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology in the American Anthropologist: Rare but Exquisite Gems. American Anthropologist 105(1):38-52.

Bumsted, M. Pamela, Jane E. Booker, Ramon M. Barnes, Thomas W. Boutton, George J. Armelagos, Juan Carlos Lerman, and Klaus Brendel 1990 Recognising Women in the Archeological Record. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association. Special Issue: Powers of Observation: Alternative Views in Archeology 2:89-101.

Buonasera, Tammy Y. 2013 More than acorns and small seeds: A diachronic analysis of mortuary associated ground stone from the south San Francisco Bay area. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32:190-211.

Burchell, Meghan 2006 Gender, Grave Goods and Status in British Columbia Burials. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 30:251-271.

Butler, Judith 2006 Gender Trouble. Routledge, New York.

116

Cannon, Aubrey 2002 Spatial Narratives of Death, Memory, and Transcendence. In The Space and Place of Death, edited by Helaine Silverman and David B. Small, pp. 191-199. American Anthropological Association, Arlington.

Cannon, Aubrey, Brad Bartel, Richard Bradley, R. W. Chapman, Mary Lou Curran, David W. J. Gill, S. C. Humphreys, Cl. Masset, Ian Morris, Jeffrey Quilter, Nan A. Rothschild, and Curtis Runnels 1989 The Historical Dimension in Mortuary Expressions of Status and Sentiment [and Comments and Reply]. Current Anthropology 30(4):437-458.

Cardoso, Hugo F. V., and Shelley R. Saunders 2008 Two arch criteria of the ilium for sex determination of immature skeletal remains: A test of their accuracy and an assessment of intra- and inter-observer error. Forensic Science International 178:24-29.

Carr, Christopher 1995 Mortuary Practices: Their Social, Philosophical-Religious, Circumstantial, and Physical Determinants. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2(2):105-200.

Celbis, Osman and Hasan Agritmis 2006 Estimation of stature and determination of sex from radial and ulnar bone lengths in a Turkish corpse sample. Forensic Science International 158:135-139.

Chadwick Hawkes, Sonia and Guy Grainger 2003 The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Worth Park, Kingsworthy near Winchester, Hampshire. Oxford University School of Archaeology, Oxford.

Chadwick Hawkes, Sonia and Calvin Wells 1983 The inhumed skeletal material from an early Anglo-Saxon Cemetery in Worthy Park, Kingsworthy, Hampshire, South England. Paleobios 1(1-2):3-36.

Chapman, Robert 2004 Beyond the Archaeology of Death? Historiae 1:1-15.

Chapman, Tara, Philippe Lefevre, Patrick Semal, Fedor Moiseev, Victor Sholukha, Stéphane Louryan, Marcel Rooze, and Serge Van Sint Jan 2014 Sex determination using the Probabilistic Sex Diagnosis (DSP: Diagnose Sexuelle Probabiliste) tool in a virtual environment. Forensic Science International 234:189.e1-189.e8.

Chou, Rouh-Jane 1994 Correspondence Analysis and Seriation. Lecture Notes-Monograph Series 24:195-210.

117

Clark, Angela L., Nancy Tayles, and Siân E. Halcrow 2014 Aspects of Health in Prehistoric Mainland Southeast Asia: Indicators of Stress in Response to the Intensification of Rice Agriculture. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 153:484-495.

Clarke, D. L. 1968 Analytical Archaeology. Methuen, London.

Clayton, Sarah C. 2011 Gender and Mortuary Ritual at Ancient Teotihuacan, Mexico: a Study of Intrasocietal Diversity. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 21(1):31-52.

Clouse, Robert Alan 1999 Interpreting Archaeological Data Through Correspondence Analysis. Historical Archaeology 33(2):90-107.

Clover, Carol J. 1990 The Politics of Scarcity: Notes on the Sex Ratio in Early Scandinavia. In New Readings on Women in Old English Literature, edited by Helen Damico and Alexandra Hennessey Olsen, pp. 100-136. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Cobb, Hannah 2005 Straight down the line? A queer consideration of hunter-gatherer studies in northwest Europe. World Archaeology 37(4):630-636.

Coltrain, Joan Brenner and Joel C. Janetski 2013 The stable and radio-isotope chemistry of southeastern Utah Basketmaker II burials: dietary analysis using the linear mixing model SISUS, age and sex patterning, geolocation and temporal patterning. Journal of Archaeological Science 40:4711- 4730.

Conkey, Margaret W. and Janet D. Spector 1984 Archaeology and the Study of Gender. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 7:1-38.

Correia, H., S. Balseiro, and M. de Areia 2005 Sexual dimorphism in the human pelvis: Testing a new hypothesis. HOMO 56:153-160.

Cossu, Andrea 2010 Durkheim’s argument on ritual, commemoration and aesthetic life: A classical legacy for performance theory? Journal of Classical Sociology 10(1):33-49.

118

Crawford, Sally 1999 Children, Death and the Afterlife in Anglo-Saxon England. In The Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England: Basic Readings, edited by Catherine E. Karkov, pp. 339- 358. Garland Publishing, New York.

2004 Votive deposition, religion and the Anglo-Saxon furnished burial ritual. World Archaeology 36(1):87-102.

Cucina, Andrea, Cristina Perera Cantillo, Thelma Sierra Sosa, and Vera Tiesler 2011 Carious Lesions and Maize Consumption Among the Prehispanic Maya: An Analysis of a Coastal Community in Northern Yucatan. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 145:560-567. d’Anglure, Bernard Saladin 2005 The ‘Third Gender’ of the Inuit. Diogenes 208:134-144.

Dabbs, Gretchen R. 2011 Health Status Among Prehistoric Eskimos from Point Hope, Alaska. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 146:94-103.

Davidson, D. S. 1935 Burial Customs in the Delmarva Peninsula and the Question of their Chronology. American Antiquity 1(2):84-97.

Davis, Norman 1961 Sweet’s Anglo-Saxon Primer. Ninth Edition. Reprinted. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Originally published 1953, Oxford University Press, London.

Davivongs, V. 1963 The Pelvic Girdle of the Australian Aborigine; Sex Differences and Sex Determination. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 21(4):443-455.

Day, Abby 2010 Propositions and performativity: Relocating belief to the social. Culture and Religion 11(1):9-30.

DeWitte, Sharon N. 2012 Sex Differences in Periodontal Disease in Catastrophic and Attritional Assemblages from Medieval London. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 149:405-416.

Dickinson, Tania M. 1999 An Anglo-Saxon “Cunning Woman” from Bidford-on-Avon. In The Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England: Basic Readings, edited by Catherine E. Karkov, pp. 359- 373. Garland Publishing, New York.

119

Djurić, Marija P., Charlotte A. Roberts, Zoran B. Rakočević, Danijela D. Djonić, and Aleksandar R. Lešić 2006 Fractures in Late Medieval Skeletal Populations from Serbia. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 130:167-178.

Dlamini, N. and A. G. Morris 2005 An Investigation of the Frequency of Squatting Facets in Later Stone Age Foragers from South Africa. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 15:371-376.

Domett, K. M. and N. Tayles 2006 Adult Fracture Patterns in Prehistoric Thailand: A Biocultural Interpretation. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 16:185-199.

Dreger, Alice Domurat 1998 Hermaphrodites and the Medical Invention of Sex. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Drew, Rose 2013 A Review of the Ischium-Pubic Index: Accuracy, Reliability, and Common Errors. Human Biology 85(4):579-596.

Ecker, Alexander 1868 On a Characteristic Peculiarity in the Form of the Female Skull, and Its Significance for Comparative Anthropology. Anthropological Review 6(23):350-356.

Eerkens, Jelmer W. and Eric J. Bartelink 2013 Sex-Biased Weaning and Early Childhood Diet Among Middle-Holocene Hunter-Gatherers in Central California. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 152:471-483.

Effros, Bonnie 2004 Dressing conservatively: women’s brooches as markers of ethnic identity? In Gender in the Early Medieval World, edited by Leslie Brubaker and Julia M. H. Smith, pp. 165-184. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Eshed, Vered, Avi Gopher, Timothy B. Gage, and Israel Hershkovitz 2004 Has the Transition to Agriculture Reshaped the Demographic Structure of Prehistoric Populations? New Evidence From the Levant. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 124:315-329.

Fairholt, F. W. 1968 Costume in England: A History of Dress to the End of the Eighteenth Century. Reprinted. Singing Tree Press, Detroit. Originally published 1885, George Bell and Sons, London.

120

Falconer, Christa 2014 An Examination of the Funerary Offerings placed in Mycenaean Chamber Tombs during the Palatial and Postpalatial periods in the Aegean. Unpublished M. A. Thesis, Anthropology M. A. Graduate Program, Trent University, Peterborough.

Feder, Ellen K. 2009 Imperatives of normality: From “Intersex” to “Disorders of Sex Development.” Gay and Lesbian Quarterly 15(2):225-248.

Fell, Christine 1984 Women in Anglo-Saxon England. British Museum Publications Ltd., London.

Ferembach, Denise, Ilse Schwidetzky, and Milan Stloukal 1979 Recommandations pour déterminer l’âge et le sexe sur le squelette. Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’anthropologie de Paris 6(1):7-45.

Fisher, Verity 2008 ‘Beowulf and the Sutton Hoo Syndrome’: integrating text and material culture in the study of the past. Journal of the Australian Early Medieval Association 4:83-97.

Foucault, Michel 1980 The History of Sexuality: Volume I: An Introduction. Vintage Books, New York.

Gagnon, C. M. and C. Wiesen 2013 Using General Estimating Equations to Analyse Oral Health in the Moche Valley of Perú. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 23:557-572.

Gamza, T. and J. Irish 2012 A Comparison of Archaeological and Dental Evidence to Determine Diet at a Predynastic Egyptian Site. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 22:398-408.

Gardiner, Alan H. 1917 The Tomb of a Much-Travelled Theban Official. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 4(1):28-38.

Garson, J. G. 1884 On the Osteology of the Ancient Inhabitants of the Orkney Islands. The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 13:54-86.

Geake, Helen 1997 The Use of Grave-Goods in Conversion-Period England, c.600-c.850. BAR British Series 261. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

2003 The Control of Burial Practice in middle Anglo-Saxon England. In The Cross Goes North: Processes of Conversion in Northern Europe, AD 300-1300, edited by Martin Carver, pp. 259-269. York Medieval Press, Woodbridge.

121

Geller, Pamela L. 2005 Skeletal analysis and theoretical complications. World Archaeology 37(4):597- 609.

2008 Conceiving Sex: Fomenting a feminist bioarchaeology. Journal of Social Archaeology 8(1):113-138.

2009 Bodyscapes, Biology, and Heteronormativity. American Anthropologist 111(4):504-516.

Gero, Joan M. 2007 Honoring Ambiguity/Problematizing Certitude. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14:311-327.

Gibbon, Victoria E., Andrew Gallagher, and Thomas N. Huffman 2014 Bioarchaeological Analysis of Iron Age Human Skeletons from Zambia. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 24:100-110.

Giesen, Bernhard 2006 Performing the sacred: a Durkheimian perspective on the performative turn in the social sciences. In Social Performance: Symbolic Action, Cultural Pragmatics, and Ritual, edited by Jeffrey C. Alexander, Bernhard Giesen, and Jason L. Mast, pp. 325- 367. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Gilchrist, Roberta 2004 Archaeology and the Life Course: A Time and Age for Gender. In A Companion to Social Archaeology, edited by Lynn Meskel and Robert Preucel, pp. 142-160. Blackwell, Oxford.

Gilder, Robert F. 1909 Excavation of Earth-Lodge Ruins in Eastern Nebraska. American Anthropologist 11(1):56-84.

Giles, Eugene and Orville Elliot 1963 Sex Determination by Discriminant Function Analysis of Crania. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 21(1):53-68.

Gillespie, Susan D. 2001 Personhood, Agency, and Mortuary Ritual: A Case Study from the Ancient Maya. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20:73-112.

Goffman, Erving 1959 The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Double Day Anchor Books, Garden City.

122

Goldstein, Julie, Jules Davidoff, and Debi Roberson 2009 Knowing colour terms enhances recognition: Further evidence from English and Himba. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 102:219-238.

Gómez Otero, Julieta and Paula Novellino 2011 Diet, Nutritional Status and Oral Health in Hunter-Gatherers from the Central- Northern Coast of Patagonia and the Chubut River Lower Valley, Argentina. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 21:643-659.

Gonzalez, Paula N., Valeria Bernal, and S. Ivan Perez 2009 Geometric morphometric approach to sex estimation of human pelvis. Forensic Science International 189:68-74.

Green, Adam Isaiah 2010 Remembering Foucault: Queer Theory and Disciplinary Power. Sexualities 13(3):316-337.

Greenacre, Michael J. 1982 Theory and Applications of Correspondence Analysis. Academic Press, London.

Greenacre, Michael J. and Jörg Blasius 1994 Correspondence Analysis in the Social Sciences: Recent Developments and Applications. Academic Press, London.

Groenewoud, H. 1992 The Robustness of Correspondence, Detrended Correspondence, and TWINSPAN Analysis. Journal of Vegetation Science 3(2):239-246.

Hadley, Dawn 2004 Negotiating gender, family and status in Anglo-Saxon burial practices, c. 600- 950. In Gender in the Early Medieval World, edited by Leslie Brubaker and Julia M. H. Smith, pp. 301-323. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hakenbeck, Susanne, Ellen McManus, Hans Geisler, Gisela Grupe, and Tamsin O’Connell 2010 Diet and Mobility in Early Medieval Bavaria: A Study of Carbon and Nitrogen Stable Isotopes. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 143:235-249.

Hammond, Norman, Kate Pretty, and Frank P. Saul 1975 A Classic Maya Family Tomb. World Archaeology 7(1):57-78.

Härke, Heinrich 1990 “Warrior Graves”? The Background of the Anglo-Saxon Weapon Burial Rite. Past & Present 126:22-43.

123

1997a Early Anglo-Saxon Social Structure. In The Anglo-Saxons from the Migration Period to the Eighth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective, edited by John Hines, pp. 125-170. Studies in Historical Archaeoethnology, Vol. 2, Giorgio Ausenda, series editor, Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Social Stress, San Marino.

1997b The Nature of Burial Data. In Burial & Society: The Chronological and Social Analysis of Archaeological Burial Data, edited by Claus Kjeld Jensen and Karen Høilund Nielsen, pp. 19-27. Aarhus University Press, Oxford.

1997c Material Culture as Myth: Weapons in Anglo-Saxon Graves. In Burial & Society: The Chronological and Social Analysis of Archaeological Burial Data, edited by Claus Kjeld Jensen and Karen Høilund Nielsen, pp.119-128. Aarhus University Press, Oxford.

1997d Final Comments: Ritual, Symbolism and Social Inference. In Burial & Society: The Chronological and Social Analysis of Archaeological Burial Data, edited by Claus Kjeld Jensen and Karen Høilund Nielsen, pp. 191-196. Aarhus University Press, Oxford.

2000 The Circulation of Weapons in Anglo-Saxon Society. In Rituals of Power: From Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, edited by Frans Theuws and Janet L. Nelson, pp. 377-399. Brill, Leiden.

2011 Anglo-Saxon Immigration and Ethnogenesis. Medieval Archaeology 55:1-28.

2014 Grave goods in early medieval burials: messages and meanings. Mortality 19(1):41-60.

Hassall, W. O. 1965 Medieval England: As Viewed by Contemporaries. Harper and Row, New York.

Havelková, P., S. Villotte, P. Velemínský, L. Poláček, and M. Dobisíková 2011 Enthesopathies and Activity Patterns in the Early Medieval Great Moravian Population: Evidence of Division of Labour. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 21:487-504.

Hawkes, A. Jane 1997 Symbolic Lives: The Visual Evidence. In The Anglo-Saxons from the Migration Period to the Eighth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective, edited by John Hines, pp. 311-344. Studies in Historical Archaeoethnology, Vol. 2, Giorgio Ausenda, series editor, Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Social Stress, San Marino.

Hawkes, Ernest William 1916 Skeletal Measurements and Observations of the Point Barrow Eskimo with Comparisons with Other Eskimo Groups. American Anthropologist 18(2):203-244.

124

Herbert, Kathleen 1994 Looking for the Lost Gods of England. Anglo-Saxon Books, Pinner.

1997 Peace-Weavers and Shield-Maidens: Women in Early English Society. Anglo- Saxon Books, Hockwold-cum-Wilton.

Herbst, Lorraine E. 2009 Imagined, Desired: Coming of Age with Queer Ethnographies. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 15(4):627-641.

Herlihy, David 1990 Opera Muliebria: Women and Work in Medieval Europe. McGraw-Hill Publishing, New York.

Hewes, Gordon W. 1949 Burial Mounds in the Baldhill Area, North Dakota. American Antiquity 14(4):322-328.

Higgs, N. T. 1991 Practical and Innovative Uses of Correspondence Analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 40(2):183-194.

Higham, Nick 2004 From sub-Roman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England: Debating the Insular Dark Ages. History Compass 2:1-29.

Hill, M. O. 1974 Correspondence Analysis: A Neglected Multivariate Method. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 23(3):340-354.

Hines, John 1997 Religion: The Limits of Knowledge. In The Anglo-Saxons from the Migration Period to the Eighth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective, edited by John Hines, pp. 375-410. Studies in Historical Archaeoethnology, Vol. 2, Giorgio Ausenda, series editor, Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Social Stress, San Marino.

Hinton, David A. 1990 Archaeology, Economy and Society: England from the fifth to the fifteenth century. Seaby, London.

Hird, Myra 2000 Gender's nature: Intersexuality, transsexualism and the ‘sex’/’gender’ binary. Feminist Theory 1(3):347-364.

Hodder, Ian and Scott Hutson 2003 Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

125

Holck, Per 2007 Bone Mineral Densities in the Prehistoric, Viking-Age and Medieval Populations of Norway. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 17:199-206.

Hollimon, Sandra E. 1997 The Third Gender in Native California: Two-Spirit Undertakers Among the Chumash and Their Neighbors. In Women in prehistory: North America and Mesoamerica, edited by Cheryl Claassen and Rosemary A. Joyce, pp. 173-188. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

2000 Archaeology of the ’Aqi: gender and sexuality in prehistoric Chumash society. In Archaeologies of Sexuality, edited by Robert A. Schmidt and Barbara L. Voss, pp. 179-196. Routledge, London.

2006 The Archaeology of Nonbinary Genders in Native North American Societies. In Handbook of Gender in Archaeology, edited by Sarah Milledge Nelson, pp. 435-450. AltaMira Press, Lanham.

Holman, Darryl J. and Kenneth A. Bennett 1991 Determination of Sex from Arm Bone Measurements. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 84(4):421-426.

Howell, Todd L. 1995 Tracking Zuni Gender and Leadership Roles across the Contact Period. Journal of Anthropological Research 51(2):125-147.

Howell, Todd L. and Keith W. Kintigh 1996 Archaeological Identification of Kin Groups Using Mortuary and Biological Data: An Example from the American Southwest. American Antiquity 61(3):537-554.

Hrdlička, Aleš 1908 Physical Anthropology and Its Aims. Science 28(706):33-43.

1918 Physical anthropology: Its scope and aims; its history and present status in America. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 1(4):377-413.

1920 Anthropometry. The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, Philadelphia.

J. M. Dent and Sons Ltd. 1963 Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation. Reprinted. J. M. Dent and Sons Ltd., Letchworth. Originally published 1910, Everyman’s Library, London.

Jagose, Annamarie Rustom 1996 Queer Theory: An Introduction. New York University Press, New York.

2009 Feminism’s Queer Theory. Feminism & Psychology 19(2):157-174.

126

Jiménez-Brobeil, S. A., Ph. du Souich, and I. Al Oumaoui 2009 Possible Relationship of Cranial Traumatic Injuries With Violence in the South- East Iberian Peninsula From the Neolithic to the Bronze Age. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 140:465-475.

Jolly, Karen Louise 1996 Popular Religion in Late Saxon England: Elf Charms in Context. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Jones-Bley, Karlene 2008 Arma Feminamque Cano: Warrior-Women in the Indo-European World. In Are All Warriors Male?, edited by Katheryn M. Linduff and Karen S. Rubinson, pp. 35- 50. AltaMira Press, Lanham.

Jørkov, Marie Louise S., Lars Jørgensen, and Niels Lynnerup 2010 Uniform Diet in a Diverse Society. Revealing New Dietary Evidence of the Danish Roman Iron Age Based on Stable Isotope Analysis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 143:523-533.

Joyce, Rosemary A. 2005 Archaeology of the Body. Annual Review of Anthropology 34:139-58.

2006 Girling the girl and boying the boy: The production of adulthood in ancient Mesoamerica. In The Archaeology of Identities: a reader, edited by Timothy Insoll, pp. 77-86. Routledge, Florence.

Jurmain, Robert, Eric J. Bartelink, Alan Leventhal, Viviana Bellifemine, Irina Nechayev, Melynda Atwood, and Diane DiGiuseppe 2009 Paleoepidemiological Patterns of Interpersonal Aggression in a Prehistoric Central California Population From CA-ALA-329. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 139:462-473.

Karkazis, Katrina Alicia 2008 Fixing Sex: Intersex, Medical Authority, and Lived Experience. Duke University Press, Durham.

Keenleyside, Anne 2003 Changing Patterns of Health and Disease Among the Aleuts. Arctic Anthropology 40(1):48-69.

2008 Dental Pathology and Diet at Apollonia, a Greek Colony on the Black Sea. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 18:262-279.

127

Keenleyside, A. and K. Panayotova 2006 Cribra Orbitalia and Porotic Hyperostosis in a Greek Colonial Population (5th to 3rd Centuries BC) from the Black Sea. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 16:373-384.

Keenleyside, Anne, Henry Schwarcz, Lea Stirling, and Nejib Ben Lazreg 2009 Stable isotopic evidence for diet in a Roman and Late Roman population from Leptiminus, Tunisia. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:51-63.

Kemkes-Grottenthaler, Ariane 2005 Sex determination by discriminant analysis: an evaluation of the reliability of patella measurements. Forensic Science International 147:129-133.

Kim, Deog-Im, U-Young Lee, Dae-Kyoon Park, Yi-Suk Kim, Ki-Hwan Han, Kwang- Hoon Kim, and Seung-Ho Han 2006 Morphometrics of the Hyoid Bone for Human Sex Determination from Digital Photographs. Journal of Forensic Sciences 51(5):979-984.

Kinaston, Rebecca L., Hallie R. Buckley, and Andrew Grey 2013 Diet and Social Status on Taumako, a Polynesian Outlier in the Southeastern Solomon Islands. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 151:589-603.

King, John M. 2004 Grave-goods as gifts in Early Saxon burials (ca. 450-600). Journal of Social Archaeology 4(2):214-238.

Knüsel, Christopher J. 2002 More Circe than Cassandra: The Princess of Vix in ritualized social context. European Journal of Archaeology 5(3):275-308.

Knüsel, Christopher and Kathryn Ripley 2000 The Berdache or Man-woman in Anglo-Saxon England and Early Medieval Europe. In Social Identity in Early Medieval Britain, edited by William O. Frazer and Andrew Tyrrell, pp. 157-191. Leicester University Press, New York.

Kovtun, S. P. 2010 Social structure of the early medieval population in the Upper Kama region (based on evidence from the Nevolino burial sites of the 4th-9th centuries). Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38(1):44-52.

Krogman, Wilton Marion 1935 Life Histories Recorded in Skeletons. American Anthropologist 37(1):92-103.

1948 Physical Anthropology and Race Relations: A Biosocial Evaluation. The Scientific Monthly 66(4):317-321.

128

1976 Fifty Years of Physical Anthropology: The Men, The Material, The Concepts, The Methods. Annual Review of Anthropology 5:1-14.

Krogman, Wilton Marion and Yaşar İşcan 1986 The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine. 2nd edition. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield.

Lacan, Jacques 1968 The Language of the Self: The Function of Language in Psychoanalysis. Dell Publishing Co., New York.

Laker, Stephen 2008 Changing views about Anglo-Saxons and Britons. In Six Papers from the 28th Symposium on Medieval Studies held at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on 15 December 2006, edited by Henk Aertsen and Bart Veldhoen, pp. 1-38. Leiden University, Leiden.

Laqueur, Thomas Walter 1990 Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Le Huray, Jonathan D. and Holger Schutkowski 2005 Diet and social status during the La Tène period in Bohemia: Carbon and nitrogen stable isotope analysis of bone collagen from Kutná Hora-Karlov and Radovesice. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24:135-147.

Leeds, E. T. 1970[1936] Early Anglo-Saxon Art and Archaeology. 1st reprinting. Greenwood Press, Westport.

Leguebe, A. 1982 The dawn of anthropology in France. Man 17(2):348-350.

Leone, Mark P. 1984 Interpreting ideology in historical archaeology: using the rules of perspective in the William Paca Garden in Annapolis, Maryland. In Ideology, Power, and Prehistory, edited by D. Miller and C. Tilley, pp. 25-35. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Leyser, Henrietta 1995 Medieval Women: A Social History of Women in England 450-1500. St. Martin’s Press, New York.

Liebe-Harkort, C. 2012 Cribra Orbitalia, Sinusitis and Linear Enamel Hypoplasia in Swedish Roman Iron Age Adults and Subadults. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 22:387-397.

129

Lieber, Elinor 2003 The Hippocratic “Airs, Waters, Places” on Cross-Dressing Eunuchs: “Natural” yet also “Divine”†. In Sex and Difference in Ancient Greece and Rome, edited by Mark Golden and Peter Toohey, pp. 352-370. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Lovell, Nancy C. 1989 Test of Phenice’s Technique for Determining Sex From the Os Pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 79:117-120.

Lu, Aitao, Bert H. Hodges, Jijia Zhang, and Xiaoqing Wang 2012 A Whorfian speed bump? Effects of Chinese colour names on recognition across hemispheres. Language Sciences 34:591-603.

Lucy, Sam 1998 The Early Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries of East Yorkshire: An analysis and reinterpretation. BAR British Series 272. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

1999 The Early Anglo-Saxon burial rite: moving towards a contextual understanding. In Grave Matters: Eight studies of First Millennium AD burials in Crimea, England and southern Scandinavia, edited by Martin Rundkvist, pp. 33-40. BAR International Series 781. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

2000 The Anglo-Saxon Way of Death: Burial Rites in Early England. Sutton Publishing, Phoenix Mill.

Lull, Vincente 2000 Death and society: a Marxist approach. Antiquity 74:576-580.

Madsen, Torsten 1988 Multivariate Archaeology: Numerical Approaches in Scandinavian Archaeology. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus.

Maggiano, Isabel S., Michael Schultz, Horst Kierdorf, Thelma Sierra Sosa, Corey M. Maggiano, and Vera Tiesler Blos 2008 Cross-Sectional Analysis of Long Bones, Occupational Activities and Long- Distance Trade of the Classic Maya From Xcambó – Archaeological and Osteological Evidence. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 136:470-477.

Marchi, Damiano, Vitale S. Sparacello, Brigitte M. Holt, and Vincenzo Formicola 2006 Biomechanical Approach to the Reconstruction of Activity Patterns in Neolithic Western Liguria, Italy. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 131:447-455.

Marino, Thomas A. 2010 Embryology and Disorders of Sexual Development. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 53(4):481-490.

130

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels 1965 The German Ideology. Lawrence and Wishart, London.

Masnicová, S. and R. Beňuš 2003 Developmental Anomalies in Skeletal Remains from the Great Moravia and Middle Ages Cemeteries at Devín (Slovakia). International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 13:266-274.

Masotti, Sabrina, Elisa Succi-Leonelli, and Emanuela Gualdi-Russo 2013 Cremated human remains: is measurement of the lateral angle of the meatus acusticus internis a reliable method of sex determination? International Journal of Legal Medicine 127:1039-1044.

Maurer Trinkaus, K. 1984 Mortuary Ritual and Mortuary Remains. Current Anthropology 25(5):674-679.

Mays, Simon 1999 A Biomechanical Study of Activity Patterns in a Medieval Human Skeletal Assemblage. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 9:68-73.

2012 An Investigation of Age-Related Changes at the Acetabulum in 18th-19th Century AD Adult Skeletons From Christ Church Spitalfields, London. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 149:485-492.

Mays, Simon and Margaret Cox 2000 Sex Determination in Skeletal Remains. In Human Osteology: In Archaeology and Forensic Science, edited by Simon Mays and Margaret Cox, pp. 117-130. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

MacLeod, William Christie 1925 Certain Mortuary Aspects of Northwest Coast Culture. American Anthropologist 27(1):122-148.

McGuire, Randall H. 1992 A Marxist Archaeology. Academic Press Inc., San Diego.

McKern, Will C. 1939 The Midwestern Taxonomic Method as an Aid to Archaeological Cultural Study. American Antiquity 4(4):301-313.

Meaney, Audrey L. 2003 Anglo-Saxon Pagan and Early Christian Attitudes to the Dead. In The Cross Goes North: Processes of Conversion in Northern Europe, AD 300-1300, edited by Martin Carver, pp. 259-269. York Medieval Press, Woodbridge.

131

Meigs, J. Aitken 1866 Observations upon the Cranial Forms of the American Aborigines, Based upon Specimens Contained in the Collection of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 18:197-235.

Meindl, Richard S., C. Owen Lovejoy, Robert P. Mensforth, and Lydia Don Carlos 1985 Accuracy and Direction of Error in the Sexing of the Skeleton: Implications for Paleodemography. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 68:79-85.

Meindl, Richard S. and Katherine F. Russell 1998 Recent advances in method and theory in paleodemography. Annual Review of Anthropology 27:375-399.

Meskell, Lynn 2002 The Intersections of Identity and Politics in Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 31:279-301.

Molnar, Petra 2008 Dental Wear and Oral Pathology: Possible Evidence and Consequences of Habitual Use of Teeth in a Swedish Neolithic Sample. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 136:423-431.

2010 Patterns of Physical Activity and Material Culture on Gotland, Sweden, During the Middle Neolithic. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 20:1-14.

Morland, Iain 2001 Is intersexuality real? Textual Practice 15(3):527–547.

Morris, Ian 1991 The Archaeology of Ancestors: The Saxe/Goldstein Hypothesis Revisited. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1(2):147-169.

Mulloy, William 1954 The McKean Site in Northeastern Wyoming. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10(4):432-460.

Nicklisch, Nicole, Frank Maixner, Robert Ganslmeier, Susanne Friederich, Veit Dresely, Harald Meller, Albert Zink, and Kurt W. Alt 2012 Rib Lesions in Skeletons From Early Neolithic Sites in Central Germany: On the Trail of Tuberculosis at the Onset of Agriculture. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 149:391-404.

Nock, Arthur Darby 1932 Cremation and Burial in the Roman Empire. The Harvard Theological Review 25(4):321-359.

132

Novak, Shannon A. 2006 Beneath the façade: a skeletal model of domestic violence. In The Social Archaeology of Human Remains, edited by Rebecca Gowland and Christopher Knüsel, pp. 238-252. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Nystrom, K. C. 2013 Dental Health of Free Blacks in New York State during the Mid-19th Century. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 23:505-528.

Owen, Richard 1863 On the Osteology and Dentition of the Aborigines of the Andaman Islands, and the Relations Thereby Indicated to Other Races of Mankind. Transactions of the Ethnological Society of London 2:34-49.

Owens, L. S. 2007 Craniofacial Trauma in the Prehispanic Canary Islands. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 17:465-478.

Owen-Crocker, Gale R. 2004 Dress in Anglo-Saxon England. The Boydell Press, Woodbridge.

Oxford English Dictionary Online 2014 Oxford University Press. Electronic document, http://www.oed.com, accessed February 2, 2015.

Pack, P and I. T. Joliffe 1992 Influence in Correspondence Analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 41(2):365-380.

Page, R. I. 1970 Life in Anglo-Saxon England. B. T. Batsford Ltd, London.

Papathanasiou, Anastasia 2005 Health Status of the Neolithic Population of Alepotrypa Cave, Greece. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 126:377-390.

Papathanasiou, Anastasia, Eleni Panagiotopoulou, Konstantinos Beltsios, Maria-Foteini Papakonstantinou, and Maria Sipsi 2013 Inferences from the human skeletal material of the Early Iron Age cemetery at Agios Dimitrios, Fthiotis, Central Greece. Journal of Archaeological Science 40:2924-2933.

Parker Pearson, Michael 1982 Mortuary practices, society and ideology: an ethnoarchaeological study. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 99-113. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

133

1993 The Powerful Dead: Archaeological Relationships between the Living and the Dead. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 3(2):203-229.

Parsons, F. G. and Mary Frances Lucas Keene 1919 Sexual differences in the skull. Journal of Anatomy 54:58-65.

Pearson, Karl and Julia Bell 1919 A study of the long bones of the English skeleton. Cambridge University Press, London.

Pechenkina, Ekaterina A. and Mercedes Delgado 2006 Dimensions of Health and Social Structure in the Early Intermediate Period Cemetery at Villa El Salvador, Peru. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 131:218-235.

Peet, Robert K., Robert G. Knox, J. Stephen Case, and R. B. Allen 1988 Putting things in order: The Advantages of Detrended Correspondence Analysis. The American Naturalist 131(6):924-934.

Peterson, Jane 2010 Domesticating gender: Neolithic patterns from the southern Levant. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29:249-264.

Pettitt, Paul B. 2006 The Living Dead and the Dead Living: Burials, Figurines and Social Performance in the European Mid Upper Paleolithic. In The Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains, edited by Rebecca Gowland and Christopher Knüsel, pp. 292-308. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Phenice, T. W. 1969 A Newly Developed Visual Method of Sexing the Os Pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 30:297-302.

Pollington, Stephen 2003 The Mead Hall: The Feasting Tradition in Anglo-Saxon England. Anglo-Saxon Books, Hockwold-cum-Wilton.

2011 The Elder Gods: The Otherworld of Early England. Anglo-Saxon Books, Little Downham.

Pomeroy, E. and S. R. Zakrzewski 2009 Sexual Dimorphism in Diaphyseal Cross-sectional Shape in the Medieval Muslim population of Écija, Spain, and Anglo-Saxon Great Chesterford, UK. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 19:50-65.

134

Porčić, Marko and Sofija Stefanović 2009 Physical activity and social status in Early Bronze Age society: The Mokrin necropolis. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28:259-273.

Potter, James M. and Elizabeth M. Perry 2011 Mortuary Features and Identity Construction in an Early Village Community in the American Southwest. American Antiquity 76(3):529-546.

Poulhés, M. J. 1948 La branche ischio-pubienne ; ses caractères sexuels. Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’anthropologie de Paris 9 :191-209.

Quennell, Marjorie and C. H. B. Quennell 1959 Everyday Life in Roman and Anglo-Saxon Times: Including Viking and Normal Times. Dorset Press, New York.

Quintelier, Kim, Anton Ervynck, Gundula Müldner, Wim Van Neer, Michael P. Richards, and Benjamin T. Fuller 2014 Isotopic Examination of Links Between Diet, Social Differentiation, and DISH at the Post-Medieval Carmelite Friary of Aalst, Belgium. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 153:203-213.

Ravn, Mads 1999 Theoretical and methodological approaches to Migration Period burials. In Grave Matters: Eight studies of First Millennium AD burials in Crimea, England and southern Scandinavia, edited by Martin Rundkvist, pp. 41-56. BAR International Series 781. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Redfern, Rebecca 2010 A Regional Examination of Surgery and Fracture Treatment in Iron Age and Roman Britain. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 20:443-471.

Redfern, Rebecca C. and Sharon N. DeWitte 2011 Status and Health in Roman Dorset: The Effect of Status on Risk of Mortality in Post-Conquest Populations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 146:197- 208.

Reynolds, Andrew 2009 Anglo-Saxon Deviant Burial Customs. Oxford University Press, New York.

Risdon, D. L. 1939 A Study of the Cranial and Other Human Remains From Palestine Excavated at Tell Duweir (Lachish) by the Wellcome-Marston Archaeological Research Expedition. Biometrika 31(1/2):99-166.

135

Robb, John, Renzo Bigazzi, Luca Lazzarini, Caterina Scarsini, and Fiorenza Sonego 2001 Social “Status” and Biological “Status”: A Comparison of Grave Goods and Skeletal Indicators from Pontecagnano. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 115:213-222.

Roberson, Debi, Hyensou Pak, and J. Richard Hanley 2008 Categorical perception of colour in the left and right visual field is verbally mediated: Evidence from Korean. Cognition 107:752-762.

Robinson, Orrin W. 1992 Old English and Its Closest Relatives: A Survey of the Earliest Germanic Languages. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Rodning, Christopher B. 2011 Mortuary practices, gender ideology, and the Cherokee town at the Coweeta Creek site. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30:145-173.

Rogers, Tracy L. 2009 Sex Determination of Adolescent Skeletons Using the Distal Humerus. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 140:143-148.

Rolleston, George 1876 On the People of the Long Barrow Period. The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 5:120-173.

Rosario, Vernon A. 2009 Quantum sex: Intersex and the molecular deconstruction of sex. Gay and Lesbian Quarterly 15(2):267-284.

Roscoe, Will 1996 Priests of the Goddess: Gender Transgression in Ancient Religion. History of Religions 35(3):195-230.

Rothschild, Nan. A. 1979 Mortuary Behavior and Social Organization at Indian Knoll and Dickson Mounds. American Antiquity 44(4):658-675.

Saunders, Shelley R. and Anne Keenleyside 1999 Enamel Hypoplasia in a Canadian Historic Sample. American Journal of Human Biology 11:513-524.

Saxe, Arthur A. 1971 Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practises in a Mesolithic Population from Wadi Halfa, Sudan. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 25:39-57.

136

Saxe, Arthur A. and Patricia L. Gall 1977 Ecological Determinants of Mortuary Practices: The Temuan of Malaysia. In Cultural-Ecological Perspectives on Southeast Asia, edited by William Wood, pp. 74-82. Ohio University Centre for International Studies, Athens.

Sayer, Duncan 2010 Death and the family: Developing generational chronologies. Journal of Social Archaeology 10(1):59-91.

2013 Investigating the Social Aspects Early Medieval Mortuary Practise. History Compass 11(2):147-162.

Sayer, Duncan and Michelle Wienhold 2012 A GIS-Investigation of Four Early Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries: Ripley’s K-function Analysis of Spatial Groupings Amongst Graves. Social Science Computer Review 00(0):1-19.

Schechner, Richard 2003 Performance Theory. Routledge, New York.

Schiffer, Michael B. 1972 Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. American Antiquity 37(2):156- 165.

Seidman, Steven 1994 Queer-Ing Sociology, Sociologizing Queer Theory: An Introduction. Sociological Theory 12(2):166-177.

Shapiro, Harry L. 1959 The History and Development of Physical Anthropology. American Anthropologist 61(3):371-379.

Shaw, Philip A. 2011 Pagan Goddesses in the Early Germanic World: Eostre, Hreda and the Cult of Matrons. Bristol Classical Press, London.

Shelach, Gideon 2008 He Who Eats the Horse, She Who Rides It? Symbols of Gender Identity on the Eastern Edges of the Eurasian Steppe. In Are All Warriors Male?, edited by Katheryn M. Linduff and Karen S. Rubinson, pp. 93-109. AltaMira Press, Lanham.

Shennan, Steven 1988 Quantifying Archaeology. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

137

Simms, Stephen C. 1903 Anthropologic Miscellanea: Crow Indian Hermaphrodites. American Anthropologist 5(3):580-581.

Sládek, Vladimír, Margit Berner, Daniel Sosna, and Robert Sailer 2007 Human Manipulative Behaviour in the Central European Late Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age: Humeral Bilateral Asymmetry. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 133:669-681.

Sofaer, Joanna R. 2006a Gender, Bioarchaeology and Human Ontogeny. In The Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains, edited by Rebecca Gowland and Christopher Knüsel, pp. 155- 167. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

2006b Sex and Gender. In The Body as Material Culture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Sofaer Derevenski, Joanna R. 2000 Rings of life: the role of early metalwork in mediating the gendered life course. World Archaeology 31(3):389-406.

Soni, Gargi, Usha Dhall, and Sudha Chhabra 2013 Determination of sex from humerus: discriminant analysis. American Journal of Forensic Sciences 45(2):147-152.

Spradley, Katherine M. and Richard L. Jantz 2011 Sex Estimation in Forensic Anthropology: Skull Versus Postcranial Elements. Journal of Forensic Sciences 56(2):289-296.

Srivastava, Rashmi, Vineeta Saini, Rajesh Kumar Rai, Shashikant Pandey, Tei Bahadur Singh, Sunil Kumar Tripathi, and Abhay Kumar Pandey 2013 Sexual Dimorphism in Ulna: An Osteometric Study from India. Journal of Forensic Sciences 58(5):1251-1256.

Stewart, T. D. 1954 Sex Determination of the Skeleton by Guess and by Measurement. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 12(3):385-392.

Steyn, M and M. L. Patriquin 2009 Osteometric sex determination from the pelvis – Does population specificity matter? Forensic Science International 191:113.e1-113.e5.

Stockett, Miranda K. 2005 On the importance of difference: re-envisioning sex and gender in ancient Mesoamerica. World Archaeology 37(4):566-578.

138

Stone, Pamela K. 2012 Binding women: Ethnology, skeletal deformations, and violence against women. International Journal of Paleopathology 2:53-60.

Stone, Pamela K., and Dana Walrath 2006 The Gendered Skeleton: Anthropological Interpretations of the Bony Pelvis. In The Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains, edited by Rebecca Gowland and Christopher Knüsel, pp. 168-178. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Stoodley, Nick 2000 From the cradle to the grave: age organisation and the early Anglo-Saxon burial rite. World Archaeology 31(3):456-472.

Strathern, Marilyn 1988 The Gender of the Gift: Problems with Women and Problems with Society in Melanesia. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Sullivan, Amy 2005 Prevalence and Etiology of Acquired Anemia in Medieval York, England. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 128:252-272.

Sundman, Elin Ahlin and Anna Kjellström 2013 Signs of sinusitis in times of urbanisation in Viking Age-Early Medieval Sweden. Journal of Archaeological Science 40:4457-4465.

Symonds, Leigh 2009 Death as a Window to Life: Anthropological Approaches to Early Medieval Mortuary Ritual. Reviews in Anthropology 38:48-87.

Tainter, Joseph A. 1975 Social inference and mortuary practices: an experiment in numerical classification. World Archaeology 7(1):1-15.

Tan, Li Hai, Alice H. D. Chan, Paul Kay, Pek-Lan Khong, Lawrence K. C. Yip, and Kang-Kwong Luke 2008 Language affects patterns of brain activation associated with perceptual decision. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105(10):4004-4009.

Ten Kate, Herman Frederik Carel 1916 Dynamometric Observations among Various Peoples. American Anthropologist 18(1):10-18.

Topinard, Paul 1885 Éléments d’Anthropologie Générale. Adrien Delahaye & Émile Lecrosnier, Paris.

139

Topp, Sarah S. 2012 Against the quiet revolution: The rhetorical construction of intersex individuals as disordered. Sexualities 16(1/2):180-194.

Torres-Rouff, Christina, William J. Pestle, and Blair M. Daverman 2012 Commemorating bodies and lives at Kish’s ‘A Cemetery’: (Re)presenting social memory. Journal of Social Archaeology 12(2):193-219.

Tuan, Yi-Fu 1990 Space and context. In By Means of Performance: Intercultural studies of theatre and ritual, edited by Richard Schechner and Willa Appel, pp. 236-244. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Turner, Victor W. 1969 The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

1974 Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. Cornell University Press, London.

1992 The Anthropology of Performance. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Ubelaker, Douglas H. 1984 Human Skeletal Remains: Excavation, Analysis, Interpretation. Taraxacum, Washington.

Ucko, Peter J. 1969 Ethnography and Archaeological Interpretation of Funerary Remains. World Archaeology 1(2):262-280.

Üstündağ, H. 2009 Schmorl’s Nodes in a Post-Medieval Skeletal Sample from Klostermarienberg, Austria. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 19:695-710.

Valocchi, Stephen 2005 NOT YET QUEER ENOUGH: The Lessons of Queer Theory for the Sociology of Gender and Sexuality. Gender & Society 19(6):750-770.

Van Groenewoud, H. 1992 The Robustness of Correspondence, Detrended Correspondence, and TWINSPAN Analysis. Journal of Vegetation Science 3(2):239-246.

Vance, Veronica L., Maryna Steyn, and Ericka N. L’Abbé 2011 Nonmetric Sex Determination from the Distal and Posterior Humerus in Black and White South Africans. Journal of Forensic Sciences 56(3):710-714.

Vlak, Dejana, Mirjana Roksandic, and Michael A. Schillaci

140

2008 Greater Sciatic Notch as a Sex Indicator in Juveniles. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 137:309-315.

Voss, Barbara 2006 Engendering Archaeology: Men, Women, and Others. In Historical Archaeology, edited by Martin Hall and Stephen W. Silliman, pp. 107-127. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

Walker, Philip L. 1995 Problems of Preservation and Sexism in Sexing: Some Lessons from Historical Collections for Palaeodemographers. In Grave Reflections: Portraying the Past through Cemetery Studies, edited by Shelley R. Saunders and Ann Herring, pp. 31-47. Canadian Scholars’ Press: Toronto.

Walker, Phillip L., John R. Johnson and Patricia M. Lambert 1988 Age and Sex Biases in the Preservation of Human Skeletal Remains. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 76:183-188.

Warren, Ernest 1897 An Investigation on the Variability of the Human Skeleton: With Especial Reference to the Naqada Race Discovered by Professor Flinders Petrie in His Explorations in Egypt. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 189:135-227.

Washburn, Sherwood L. 1948 Sex differences in the pubic bone. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 6(2):199-208.

1949 Sex Differences in the Pubic Bone of Bantu and Bushman. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 7(3):425-432.

Weiss, Elizabeth 2007 Muscle Markers Revisited: Activity Pattern Reconstruction With Controls in a Central California Amerind Population. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 133:931-940.

2009 Spondylolysis in a Pre-Contact San Francisco Bay Population: Behavioural and Anatomical Sex Differences. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 19:375-385.

Weiss, Kenneth M. 1972 On the Systematic Bias in Skeletal Sexing. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 37:239-250.

Whelan, Mary K. 1991 Gender and Historical Archaeology: Eastern Dakota Patterns in the 19th Century. Historical Archaeology 25(4):17-32.

141

Whorf, Benjamin Lee 1956[1937] A Linguistic Consideration of Thinking in Primitive Communities. In Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, edited by John B. Carroll, pp. 65-86. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge.

1956[1941] Languages and Logic. In Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, edited by John B. Carroll, pp. 233-245. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge.

1956[1950] An American Indian Model of the Universe. In Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, edited by John B. Carroll, pp. 57- 64. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge.

Williams, Howard 2002 Cemeteries as Central Places - Place and Identity in Migration Period Eastern England. In Central Places in the Migration and Merovingian Periods: Papers from the 52nd Sachsensymposium Lund, August 2001, Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series in 8˚, No. 39, edited by Birgitta Hårdh and Lars Larsson, pp. 341-362. Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm.

2003 Material culture as memory: combs and cremation in early medieval Britain. Early Medieval Europe 12(2):89-128.

2005 Keeping the dead at arm’s length: Memory, weaponry and early medieval mortuary technologies. Journal of Social Archaeology 5(2):253-275.

Williams, Brenda A. and Tracy L. Rogers 2006 Evaluating the Accuracy and Precision of Cranial Morphological Traits for Sex Determination. Journal of Forensic Sciences 51(4):729-735.

Williams, Jocelyn S. and Melissa S. Murphy 2013 Living and dying as subjects of the Inca Empire: Adult diet and health at Puruchuco-Huaquerones, Peru. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32:165-179.

Williams, Jocelyn S. and Christine D. White 2006 Dental Modification in the Postclassic Population from Lamanai, Belize. Ancient Mesoamerica 17:139-151.

Williams, Jocelyn S., Christine D. White, and Fred J. Longstaffe 2009 Maya Marine Subsistence: Isotopic Evidence from Marco Gonzalez and San Pedro, Belize. Latin American Antiquity 20(1):37-56.

142

Wilshire, Bruce 1982 Role Playing and Identity: The Limits of Theatre as Metaphor. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Wilson, David R. 1992 The Archaeological Evidence 2: Inhumation Rites. In Anglo-Saxon Paganism, pp. 67-130. Routledge, New York.

Winawer, Jonathan, Nathan Witthoft, Michael C. Frank, Lisa Wu, Alex R. Wade, and Lera Boroditsky 2007 Russian blues reveal effects of language on colour discrimination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(19):7780- 7785.

Woo, Eun Jin and Paul W. Sciulli 2013 Degenerative Joint Disease and Social Status in the Terminal Late Archaic Period (1000-500B.C.) of Ohio. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 23:529-544.

Wood, Ian 1997 Before and After the Migration to Britain. In The Anglo-Saxons from the Migration Period to the Eighth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective, edited by John Hines, pp. 41-64. Studies in Historical Archaeoethnology, Vol. 2, Giorgio Ausenda, series editor, Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Social Stress, San Marino.

Wright, John Henry 1886 Unpublished White Lekythoi from Attika. The American Journal of Archaeology and of the History of the Fine Arts 2(4):385-407.

Zaki, M. E., F. H. Hussein, and R. Abd El-Shafy El Banna 2009 Osteoporosis Among Ancient Egyptians. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 19:78-89.

Zech, Wolf-Dieter, Gary Hatch, Lea Siegenthaler, Michael J. Thali, and Sandra Lösch 2012 Sex determination from os sacrum by postmortem CT. Forensic Science International 221:39-43.

143

Appendix A

The data that are used in this thesis have been taken from the descriptions found in

Chapter Two of Chadwick Hawkes and Grainger’s (2003:12-152) Worthy Park monograph published by Oxford University’s School of Archaeology. The descriptions below clearly describe how each category was used in this thesis. The term “researchers” is used to replace the names of the researchers of this publication. Some of the artefacts described in Chapter Two of this publication, such as pins, nails, rivets, and rings, were not included in this research because their descriptions were too vague or not clear. For the data analysis tables, the variables are expressed as presence/absence whereas in the main reference data table, the individual quantities of each variable are given.

Subcategories of the main variable categories are only present in the data analysis tables

(Appendix C) and are not given in the main reference data table (Appendix B) for the

Worthy Park sample. Subcategory titles are indicated in bold italics for ease of reference whereas the main categories that are present in both data analysis tables and the main reference table are in bold.

A.1 Grave description

Grave Orientation

The researchers indicated the grave orientation for each of the graves. The grave orientation indicated by the researchers refers to the long axis of the grave. For the analysis tables, the directions given in degrees were translated into one of the four cardinal directions. This group is comprised of four subgroups which are listed separately in the data table.

144

North

Burials between 136° and 225° are considered North-oriented in the analysis

dataset.

East

Burials between 226° and 315° are considered East-oriented in the analysis

dataset.

South

Burials less than 45° and greater than 314° are considered South-oriented in the

analysis dataset.

West

Burials between 46° and 135° are considered West-oriented in the analysis data

table.

Body Position

The researchers give a detailed textual and visual description of the positions of the bodies in the grave descriptions and burial diagrams. The general body position (e.g. extended, supine) of the individual was indicated in the textual descriptions by the researchers, and only this will be used in this thesis. When the general body position had not been given or when the general body position was unclear and not used in Appendix

C, text description is provided in Appendix B in square brackets when available. This grouping is further subdivided into four separate subcategories in the analysis data table.

Supine

This subcategory includes those individuals buried in a supine position.

Flexed

This subcategory includes those individuals buried in a flexed position.

145

Extended

This subcategory includes those individuals buried in an extended position.

Prone

This subcategory includes those individuals buried in a prone position.

Coffins

For some graves, the researchers clearly indicated the presence of coffins. Where the researchers indicated the presence of a coffin with the term “coffin,” it will be recorded as present in this research. Where the researchers remained ambivalent about the presence of a coffin, (e.g. “possible traces of a coffin, or as a “coffin or a chamber”) this thesis has indicated an absence of coffins.

Fill

The researchers have included detailed descriptions of the fill for most of the graves. The fill type when given by the researchers is condensed into three categories: earthy, chalky, and mixed in the main data reference table (Appendix B). The fill is further subdivided into two subcategories in the data analyses tables. Those graves that possess mixed earth and chalk fills are given the presence “1” value in both subcategories.

Chalky Fill This subcategory includes graves that have been dug in chalky soil (mainly

comprised of chalk).

Earthy Fill This subcategory includes graves that have been dug in earthy soil (mainly

comprised of soil).

146

A.2 Biological description

Age

The researchers indicated the age for every individual in the grave descriptions.

The ages were indicated in years for the majority of the individuals, and the ages were given in months for infants. For some individuals, the researchers designate ages in categories (stillborn infant, sub-adult, or adult). This information, where provided by the researchers has been included in this research. Where details have been given in the monograph, estimated ages are given in square brackets in Appendix B. The ages used in this thesis have not been modified in any way. The age category is further divided into three subcategories indicated in the data analysis table.

Adult This subcategory includes those individuals that were deemed “Adults,” or were

16 years of age or over.

Subadult This subcategory includes those individuals that were between the ages of 3 and

15.

Infant (0-2 years) This subcategory includes those individuals that were between the ages of 0 and 2

years (this includes the remains of foetuses).

Sex

The sex designations indicated by the researchers make up the designations that are used in this research. The sex of the majority of the sub-adult skeletons was designated by the researchers as “unknown,” which has been indicated in this research.

Adult skeletal remains that were too fragmentary for sex determination (e.g. no skull, no pelvis, or few remaining skeletal elements) were also identified by the researchers as

147

“unknown.” The fragmentary adult skeletal remains have been listed in this thesis as

“indeterminate” for the sake of clarity. Some adult individuals were indicated as

“probable male” or “probable female” by the researchers; these designations have been retained in this thesis. This category has been further divided into four subcategories that are only indicated as separate variables in the data analysis table: Male, Female, Possible

Male, and Possible Female. Those remains that have not been sexed are given 0 values in all subcategories.

Male

This subcategory includes those individuals that were designated male.

Female

This subcategory includes those individuals that were designated female.

Possible Male

This subcategory includes those individuals that were designated as

possible/probable male, or “M?,” and those that were indicated by the researchers

as being difficult to sex on page 153 but were listed in the monograph as male.

Possible Female

This subcategory includes those individuals that were designated as

possible/probable female, or “F?”, and those that were indicated by the

researchers as being difficult to sex on page 153 but were listed in the monograph

as female.

148

A.3 Artefact classes

Man-made material Beads

This category includes beads that were made from anthropogenic materials

including “glass” and “metal.”

Natural material Beads

This category includes beads that were made from natural materials including

“amber,” “quartz,” and “crystal.”

Knives

This category includes all artefacts that were described as “knives” or “knife

fragments.”

Finger Rings

This category includes all artefacts that were described as “finger rings.” Artefacts

that were simply described as “rings” in the text were not included in this category

in this thesis.

Pendants

This category includes all artefacts that were described as “pendants” regardless

of metal composition.

Organic Vessels

This category includes all artefacts that were described as vessels (buckets, cups,

and bowls) made out of organic materials including “wood” and “leather.”

Ceramic Vessels

This category includes all artefacts that were described as vessels (bowls and jars)

made out of “pottery” or “ceramic.”

149

Roman Coins

This category includes all artefacts that were described as Roman coins regardless

of their denomination (e.g. antoninianus, denarius, AE3), metal composition (e.g.

billon, silver), mint of origin, or whether or not they were perforated.

Spears

This category includes all artefacts that were described as either “spearheads” or

“ferrules” (pointed metal bases of spears) regardless of their metal composition.

Waist belts

This category includes all artefacts that were described as “waist-belt buckles,”

“waist-belt,” “waist-belt fittings,” or “strapends” regardless of metal composition

(e.g. copper, iron, copper-iron alloy).

Purses

This category includes all artefacts that were described as “purse-mounts”

regardless of metal composition.

The remaining categories of artefacts were described using their specific name and include: brooches, shields, flints in grave, chatelaines, keys, tweezers, fossils, combs, seaxes, toilet spoons, and necklaces. The artefacts acknowledged as present in a grave by the researchers have been included in this research. They are included in Appendix B for additional information on the Worthy Park burials uncovered by Chadwick Hawkes in the

1960s.

Appendix B

Master Dataset

This Appendix includes the master dataset used in this thesis. This table includes all of the raw information from Chadwick Hawkes and

Grainger’s 2003 monograph on the Worthy Park burial ground, and Chadwick Hawkes and Wells 1983 report on Worthy Park. The first row identifies the broad category (Grave description, Biological description, and Material culture). The second row identifies the variable category, and the third row lists the variables (48 in total). Blank cells indicate the absence of a variable, while “n/a” indicates missing data. Appendix B also includes a “NOTES” section where additional information on each of the graves is included. The master dataset table follows on the succeeding pages.

150

Grave description Biological Material culture/Artefact classes Grave Grave Man-made Natural Material Finger Vessels Vessels Roman Body Position Coffin Fill Age Sex Knives Pendants Spears Waist belts Purses Brooches Shields Number Orientation Beads Beads rings (Organic) (Ceramic) Coins Grave Grave Orientation Amber Quartz Crystal Knife Finger Vessels Vessels Roman Number [in degrees] Body Position Coffin Fill Age Sex Glass Beads Beads Beads Beads Knives handles rings Pendants (Organic) (Ceramic) Coins Spears Buckles Strapend Pursemounts Purse fittings Brooches [Style] Shields 1 W [86] Supine/Extended Chalky Adult M 2 S [12] Supine Earthy Adult F [50+] 3 S [10] Supine/Extended Mixed Adult F? 1 (Wood) [50+] 4 W [88] Supine/Extended Mixed Infant [2] n/a 5 W [93] Supine/Extended Earthy Subadult n/a 1 (Fe) [10] 6 n/a No remains recovered, Earthy possible subadult 7 W [85] Supine/Extended Mixed Subadult n/a [8] 8 W [90] Supine/Extended Mixed Adult F 1 (Fe)

9 W [94] Supine/Extended 1 Chalky Adult F 1 (Fe) 1 (Wood) 2 1 (Fe) [30+] 10 W [92] Supine/Extended Earthy Adult F 93 57 2 1 (Fe) 2 (Ag) 1 (Cu+Fe) 1 (Fe) 11 W [90] Supine/Extended Mixed Adult F 1 (Fe) 1 (Fe) 12 S [5] Flexed Earthy Adult F? 1 (Fe) [50+] 13 W [94] Supine/Extended Mixed Adult M? 1 1 (Fe) [30+] (Leather/Wood) ?

14 [95] Supine/Extended Chalky Adult M 1 (Fe) [40+] 15 W [98] [On right side, head lolling Earthy Infant [c 18 n/a back, spine curved] months] 16 W [92] Supine/Extended Chalky Adult [40- F 1 50] 17a S [34] Supine/Extended Chalky Infant [15- n/a 1 1 18 months] 17b S [33] [Upper body to right, head Earthy Adult [30- M 1 (Fe) 1 to right] 40]

17c N [213] Supine/Extended Disturbed by 17b Subadult [6 n/a to 7] 18a (Individual A) N [180] Supine/Extended Mixed Adult [21- F 1 25]

18a (Individual B) n/a Flexed Mixed Infant [0-2] n/a

18c N [180] Extended Earthy Adult [40- F 50] 19 S [17] Supine/Extended Earthy Subadult n/a 1 (Fe) [10] Columns for Graves 1-19 continue on next page 151

3 1 (Cu) 1 (Cu) Noted on pg 153 as being difficult to assess sex. 4 1 (Fe) 5

8 Right of lower Hawkes and Grainger mention what they leg describe as a "bone object (?)," possibly an Aves rib; however, since the description is followed by a question mark, it will not be included in the analysis. 9 6 (2 left, 4 1 1 (Fe) 2 (Fe) 5 (U-shaped) Possibly a latchlifter but the object's right) function is not clearly indicated. 10 1 (Cu+Fe) 1 (echinoid) 1 5 (Fe) 11 12 1 (Bone) 1 (Fe) Noted on pg 153 as being difficult to assess sex. 13 In the text, only a Bronze mount for the "wooden/leather vessel" was found; however, the researchers did not put a question mark at the end of their description of the proposed object. 14

17a 1 Necklace indicated because the report states "bead, necklace fitting." 17b 1 (Fe) Hawkes and Grainger describe what they believe is either a key or girdle-hanger, however because this artefacts is not clearly designated as a key or girdle- hanger, it will not be included in the analysis. 17c

18a (Individual A) Orange translucent glass bead suspended on (Cu) ring found left of temporal area of skull may be an earring. 18a (Individual B)

18c

Graves 20-37 on next page 152

Grave Grave Orientation Amber Quartz Crystal Knife Finger Vessels Vessels Roman Number [in degrees] Body Position Coffin Fill Age Sex Glass Beads Beads Beads Beads Knives handles rings Pendants (Organic) (Ceramic) Coins Spears Buckles Strapend Pursemounts Purse fittings Brooches [Style] Shields 20 W [89] Supine/Extended Chalky Adult F [50+] 21 (Individual A) S [0] Supine/Extended Chalky Adult F 1 (Fe) [50+] 21 (Individual B) n/a Chalky Infant [0] n/a 22 W [90] Supine/Extended 1 Chalky Adult [25- M 1 (Fe) 1 (Fe) 1 30] 23 S [19] Supine/Extended Subadult [3 n/a 1 (Fe) to 4] 24 S [0] Supine/Extended Mixed Adult [35- M 1 (Fe) 1 (Fe) 1 45] 25a S [11] [Legs bent to left] Chalky Adult M 25b S [11] [Legs bent to left] Earthy Subadult [8 n/a to 10] 26 (Individual A) S [352] Supine/Extended Mixed Adult [18- F 30]

26i (Individual A) n/a n/a Infant n/a [Stillborn]

27 S [357] Supine/Extended Adult F? 1 (Cu) [Romano- [50+] British Penannular]

28 W [93] Supine/Extended Chalky Subadult [6 n/a 1 (Fe) to 8] 29 W [91] Supine/Extended Chalky Adult F 30 W [92] Supine/Extended 1 Chalky Adult F 46 58 1 (Fe) 2 (Cu) 1 (Cu) 9 1 (Cu) 1 (Cu) [Button] Tinned

31 S [347] Supine Earthy Subadult n/a [5] 32 S [7] Supine/Extended Earthy Adult M 1 (Fe) [50+] 33 W [81] Supine/Extended Earthy Adult [30- M 1 (Fe) 1 (Fe) 1 (Cu+Fe) 1 40] 34 W [90] Supine/Extended Chalky Adult [30- F? 1 (Fe) 1 (Fe)? 40]

35 W [96] Supine/Extended Chalky Subadult n/a 1 (Fe) [10 to 12 36 W [85] Supine/Extended Adult [30- M 1 (Fe) 1 40]

37 n/a [c 272] Flexed Earthy Subadult n/a [6] Columns for Graves 20-37 continue on next page 153

21 (Individual A)

21 (Individual B) 22 Both sides of 1 (Cu) coffin 23 1 (Fe) or nail 24 The text states that there is a "possible coffin" but that it is "not measureable". 25a 25b

26 (Individual A) Text suggests that this individual may have been buried with what they guessed to have been an "iron steel;" since it is followed by a question mark, it will not be included in the analysis. 26i (Individual A)

29 30 1 or festoon 7 (Cu) + 1 (Fe) 1 (Fe) 1 (Cu) 1 1? 1 (fragment) 6 (Fe) +7 (Suspended (N/A) by two rings)

33 1 (Fe) The text mentions that there are "possible traces of a wooden coffin." 34 1 (Cu+Fe) 1 (Cu) + 6 (Fe) The text mentions that there are "possible 3 (Fe) traces of a wooden coffin" with which the flints were laid outside of. The text states that there is a possibility that this individual may have been buried with "waist-belt fittings?," however only a Cu belt plate is noted without a question mark.

36 Not illustrated in the text was an (Fe) knife blade fragment, and an (Fe) "plate fragment," the latter of which was left out of analysis. The text also notes the possible presence of a coffin. 37

Graves 38-57 on next page 154

Grave description Biological Material culture/Artefact classes Grave Grave Man-made Natural Material Finger Vessels Vessels Roman Body Position Coffin Fill Age Sex Knives Pendants Spears Waist belts Purses Brooches Shields Number Orientation Beads Beads rings (Organic) (Ceramic) Coins Grave Grave Orientation Amber Quartz Crystal Knife Finger Vessels Vessels Roman Number [in degrees] Body Position Coffin Fill Age Sex Glass Beads Beads Beads Beads Knives handles rings Pendants (Organic) (Ceramic) Coins Spears Buckles Strapend Pursemounts Purse fittings Brooches [Style] Shields 38 S [13] Supine/Extended Mixed Adult [25- M 35] 39 W [96] Supine/Extended Mixed Adult [40- F 1 (Fe) 50]

40 W [100] Supine (extended) head to Earthy Adult [35- M? 1 front 40] 41 W [95] Supine/Extended Mixed Adult M 1 (Fe) 1 (Fe) w Cu [50+] repoussé panel on plate 42 (Individual A) W [106] Supine/Flexed Chalky Adult F 1 [40+] 42 (Individual B) n/a n/a Chalky Subadult n/a 43 W [96] Prone/Flexed Mixed n/a F

44 W [102] Supine/Extended Earthy Adult [35- M 1 (Fe) 1 (Fe) 1 45] 45 W [89] Supine/Extended Mixed Adult [18- M 1 (Fe) 1 (Fe) 30] with ferrule 46 W [95] Supine/Extended Mixed 20-30 M 1 (Fe) 1 (Fe) 47 W [93] Supine/Extended Mixed Adult F 3 1 (Fe) 1 (Cu) 3 1 (Cu) belt 1 (Cu) ["Tutulus- fitting buckle like" Disc brooch] loop + 1 (Cu) [Roman Bow brooch] 48 W [89] Supine/Extended Mixed Subadult [2 n/a to 3] 49 W [87] Supine/Extended Chalky Adult M 1 (Fe) 1 (Wooden) 1 (Fe) 1 [50+] bucket gunmetal bound 50 W [108] Supine/Extended Mixed Adult [40- M 1 (Fe) 1 (Fe) 50] with conical ferrule

51 W [86] Supine/Extended Earthy Subadult [2 n/a to 4] 52 W [83] Supine/Extended Earthy Subadult n/a [4]

53 W [98] Supine/Extended Adult [c25] F 1 1 1 (Fe)

54 W [95] Supine Infant [2] n/a 55 W [94] Supine/Extended Adult [40- F 1 (Fe) 50] 56 S [0] Flexed Adult F 1 (Fe) with (Cu) plate rivets 57 W [95] Supine/Extended Mixed Adult M [50+] Columns for Graves 38-57 continue on next page 155

Material culture/Artefact classes Metal Grave Flints in Toilet Rim- Bone (non- Bags/ Metal Key/Girdle- Chatelaines Keys Tweezers Fossils Combs Seaxes Necklaces Rings Pins Staples Nails sheet Rods Mounts Leather Glass NOTES Number Grave Spoons mounts human) Pouches Vessels hangers fragments Grave Toilet Rim- Bone (non- Metal sheet Bags/ Key/Girdle- Number Flints in Grave Chatelaines Keys Latchlifters Tweezers Fossils Combs Seaxes Spoons Necklaces Rings Pins Staples mounts Nails human) fragments Rods Mounts Leather Pouches Glass Metal Vessels hangers NOTES 38 The text states that the head was raised on an earthen "pillow." 39 1 (Fe) 1 Was buried with what the authors note (Bronze) was a pair of "fragmentary iron tweezers Sn or (?) suspended from an iron ring." Sn+Pb plating 40 Noted on pg 153 as being difficult to assess sex. 41 1 (Cu) on Cu ring 1 (Cu) The text states that the belt fittings may be baldric fittings.

42 (Individual A)

42 (Individual B) 43 The estimated age for this individual is followed by a question mark in the text. 44

46 47 1 3 (Cu)+2 1 (trapezoid 1 (Fe) 1 The authors state that this individual was (Fe) object) loop- either buried with a bag or pouch, or an headed string from which artefacts 4-17 were strung. 48

49 1 (Cu) 1 (Fe) This individual is buried with an iron seax and the individual's head was raised on a chalk rubble pillow. 50 1 (Cu) The authors note that this individual was also buried with a "fragmentary iron buckle plate, waist-belt fitting?"; since this description title is followed by a question mark, this artefact will be left out of analysis. 51

52 1 3 (Fe) 1 (Cu) loop- headed 53 1 (Cu)

54 55

Graves 58-74 on next page 156

59 W [78] Supine/Extended Chalky Subadult n/a [10] 60 W [83] Supine/Extended Adult [24- F 25] 61 W [85] Supine/Flexed Adult [30- F 4 1 1 (Fe) 35]

62 W [73] Supine/Extended Earthy Adult [35- F 1 (Fe) 45]

63 W [99] Supine/Extended Chalky Adult [c45] F 1 (Fe) 1 (handmade jar) 2 1 (Fe) 1 (Fe) [Annular/Penannul ar brooch]

64 (Individual A) n/a [Disturbed post-cranial Subadult [7 n/a bones thrown back into to 8] grave with skull placed at head end of grave beyond Individual B] 64 (Individual B) W [89] Supine/Extended Adult F? [30+]

65 W [108] Flexed Infant [0-1] n/a

66 n/a [No skeletal remains but a small child] 67 n/a [No skeletal remains but a small child] 68 S [355] Supine/Extended Adult [25- F 2 41 1 (Fe) 1 (Cu) 1 (Gilt Cu) 30] [Saucer brooch]

69 W [87] Supine/Extended Earthy Adult [c20] M

70 n/a Supine/Extended Adult [40- M 50]

71 W [83] Supine/Extended Chalky n/a [16-17] M 1 (Fe) 1 (Fe) 1 (Fe)

72 S [357] Supine/Extended Adult [45- F 1 (Fe) 1 (Cu+Fe) 55] 73 W [99] Supine/Extended Adult [35- M 45] 74 W [86] Supine/Extended Subadult n/a 1 (Fe) [11 to 12] Columns for Graves 58-74 continue on next page 157

61 2 (Ag)+1 This individual was buried with what the (Cu) authors note as either a necklet or armlet which had a crystal bead on it. 62 2 (Cu) spiral- headed 63 1 (Cu) 1 (Fe) 1 (Fe) 1 (Fe) 1 (Cu) Roman A perforated spoon bowl fragment along spoon bowl with two Roman coins were found in the fragment, ceramic jar. possibly tinned 64 (Individual A) Authors note that Individual A's skull was placed at the head of Grave 64 above Individual B's head, while the "post- cranial bones were" tossed "back into the grave during backfilling. 64 (Individual B) Noted on pg 153 as being difficult to assess sex; however, the remains look to be in very poor condition based on the grave's illustration on pg 66. 65

68 1 This individual was buried with one more bead which the authors suspect are from a pouch, but it was not included in my analysis on the basis that its substance was not indicated in the report. 69

70 1(Fe) This individual had an iron nail found on the right side of the left thigh with remains of wood; however, there was no structure such as a coffin recorded. 71

72 1 (Fe)

Graves 75-94 (Individual B) on next page 158

76 W [85] Supine/Extended Adult F 1 19 1 (Fe) 1 1 (Fe)

77 W [77] Supine/Extended Adult [40- F 13 1 (Cu) scutiform 1 (Fe) 1? (Cu) or belt 1 (Cu) [Quoit 50] fitting brooch]

78 S [0] Prone/Extended Subadult F [13-15] 79 S [0] Supine/Extended Adult [30- M 1 (Fe) 35] 80 W [93] [Head partly to right] Adult [c50] F 2 (Gilt Cu) [Button brooch] 81 W [101] Supine/Extended Mixed Adult [18- M 1 (Fe) 1 (Fe) 1 30]

82 W [108] Supine/Extended Adult [40- F 50]

83 S [8] Supine/Extended Adult [40- M 1 (Fe) 1 (Fe) 50] 84 W [85] Supine/Extended Chalky Adult [18- M 1 (Fe) 1 (Wood) 1 (Fe) 1 (Fe) 20] cup/bowl

85 N [190] [Partly on left side and head Adult [25- F 1 (Fe) to left] 35] 86 n/a [No skeletal remains but Earthy likely a small child or infant] 87 W [100] Supine/Extended Earthy Adult M 1 (Fe) 1 (Fe) 1 [40+] 88 W [91] Supine/Extended Adult [c18] I 1 (Fe)

89 n/a [No skeletal remains survived] 90 W [80] Supine/Extended Adult [35- M 45] 91 W [86] Supine/Extended Subadult [6 n/a 1 (Fe) 1 (Fe) to 7] 92 W [106] Flexed Adult M [40+] 93 N [210] Supine/Extended Earthy Adult F 1 1 (Au) [30+] 94 (Individual A) N [170] Supine Adult [30- M 1 (Fe) 40] 94 (Individual B) n/a n/a Subadult [4 n/a to 6]

Columns for Graves 75-94 (Individual B) continue on next page 159

Material culture/Artefact classes Metal Grave Flints in Toilet Rim- Bone (non- Bags/ Metal Key/Girdle- Chatelaines Keys Tweezers Fossils Combs Seaxes Necklaces Rings Pins Staples Nails sheet Rods Mounts Leather Glass NOTES Number Grave Spoons mounts human) Pouches Vessels hangers fragments Grave Toilet Rim- Bone (non- Metal sheet Bags/ Key/Girdle- Number Flints in Grave Chatelaines Keys Latchlifters Tweezers Fossils Combs Seaxes Spoons Necklaces Rings Pins Staples mounts Nails human) fragments Rods Mounts Leather Pouches Glass Metal Vessels hangers NOTES 75 This individual's sex was stated in the text as being unknown. Furthermore, the individual was an adult, however only skull fragments and some long bone shafts remained. 76 1 3 (Fe) 1 (Fe) 1 (Fe) This individual was buried with what the authors have noted as a "chatelaine?" Therefore, this artefact will not be included in my analysis. 77 1 2 (Fe) 1 (Fe) The authors note that this individual was buried with a bronze disc, which they guess was "possibly an annular brooch." Since their analysis remains uncertain, I will not be including this in my own analysis. 78

81 The authors indicate that this individual was either buried in a coffin or a chamber, since they had found packed chalk rubble along the northern side of the grave.

82 This individual was sexed as female, however only a "crushed skull and long bone fragments" remained. 83

84 This individual was buried with what the authors state are "iron pursemount (?) fragments;" therefore this artefact will not be used in my analysis on the basis that the authors used a question mark. 85 1 (Bone)

87 1 (Fe)

88 1 (Fe) 5 (Fe) This individual was sexed as "unknown," with one however "ribs and pelvic fragments" L- remained along with some hand and foot shaped bones. 89

91 1 (Fe)

93 2 (Ag) This individual was buried with a gold pendant. 94 (Individual A)

94 (Individual B) This individual was only discovered in the laboratory, however only post-cranial remains have been uncovered. They are not indicated in the diagram section. 160

Appendix C

Dataset for Analyses

This Appendix presents the presence/absence dataset with all variables intact. These data formed the basis of the DCA and HCLA analyses. Data in the columns represent the variables and data in the rows represent the cases. Zero indicates absence, one indicates presence, and a blank cell indicates missing or unavailable data.

Artefact categories that are included in Appendix B, but not included in Appendix C (analysis dataset) include: rings, pins, staples, rim-mounts, nails, bone (non-human), metal sheet fragments, rods, mounts, leather, bags/pouches, glass, metal vessels, and key/girdle hangers. These artefact categories were not included in Appendix C because they were either followed by a question mark in the monograph, or were too generalised (un- diagnostic) to be informative. A table for the analysis’ dataset is on the succeeding pages.

161

Grave description Biological description Grave Body Offerings Grave Orientation Body Position Coffin Fill Age Sex Numbers Present Infant Grave Body Chalky Earthy 0-2 Possible Possible Numbers Present Offerings North South East West Supine Flexed Extended Prone Coffin Fill Fill Adult Subadult years Male Female Male Female Ambiguous 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 10 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 12 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 13 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 14 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 15 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 16 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 17a 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 17b 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 17c 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 18a (Individual A) 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 18a (Individual B) 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 18c 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 19 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 21 (Individual A) 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 21 (Individual B) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Columns for Graves 1-21 (Individual B) continue on next page 162

Material culture/Artefact classes Natural Grave Man-made Finger Vessels Vessels Roman Waist Flints in Toilet Material Knives Pendants Spears Purses Brooches Shields Chatelaines Keys Tweezers Fossils Combs Seaxes Necklaces Numbers Beads rings (Organic) (Ceramic) Coins belts Grave Spoons Beads Natural Grave Man-made Material Finger Vessels Vessels Roman Waist Flints Toilet Numbers Beads Beads Knives rings Pendants (Organic) (Ceramic) Coins Spears belts Purses Brooches Shields in Grave Chatelaines Keys Tweezers Fossils Combs Seaxes Spoons Necklaces 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17a 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 17b 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18a (Individual A) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18a (Individual B) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 (Individual A) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 (Individual B) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Graves 22-45 on next page 163

Grave description Biological description Grave Body Offerings Grave Orientation Body Position Coffin Fill Age Sex Numbers Present Infant Grave Body Chalky Earthy 0-2 Possible Possible Numbers Present Offerings North South East West Supine Flexed Extended Prone Coffin Fill Fill Adult Subadult years Male Female Male Female Ambiguous 22 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 23 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 25a 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 25b 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 (Individual A) 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 26i (Individual A) 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 27 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 28 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 30 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 31 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 33 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 34 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 35 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 37 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 39 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 40 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 41 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 42 (Individual A) 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 42 (Individual B) 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 44 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 45 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Columns for Graves 22-45 continue on next page 164

Material culture/Artefact classes Natural Grave Man-made Finger Vessels Vessels Roman Waist Flints in Toilet Material Knives Pendants Spears Purses Brooches Shields Chatelaines Keys Tweezers Fossils Combs Seaxes Necklaces Numbers Beads rings (Organic) (Ceramic) Coins belts Grave Spoons Beads Natural Grave Man-made Material Finger Vessels Vessels Roman Waist Flints Toilet Numbers Beads Beads Knives rings Pendants (Organic) (Ceramic) Coins Spears belts Purses Brooches Shields in Grave Chatelaines Keys Tweezers Fossils Combs Seaxes Spoons Necklaces 22 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 (Individual A) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26i (Individual A) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 42 (Individual A) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 (Individual B) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Graves 46-70 on next page 165

Grave description Biological description Grave Body Offerings Grave Orientation Body Position Coffin Fill Age Sex Numbers Present Infant Grave Body Chalky Earthy 0-2 Possible Possible Numbers Present Offerings North South East West Supine Flexed Extended Prone Coffin Fill Fill Adult Subadult years Male Female Male Female Ambiguous 46 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 47 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 48 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 50 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 51 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 54 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 55 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 56 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 57 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 58 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 59 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 61 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 62 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 63 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 64 (Individual A) 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 (Individual B) 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 65 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 69 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 70 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Columns for Graves 46-70 continue on next page 166

Material culture/Artefact classes Natural Grave Man-made Finger Vessels Vessels Roman Waist Flints in Toilet Material Knives Pendants Spears Purses Brooches Shields Chatelaines Keys Tweezers Fossils Combs Seaxes Necklaces Numbers Beads rings (Organic) (Ceramic) Coins belts Grave Spoons Beads Natural Grave Man-made Material Finger Vessels Vessels Roman Waist Flints Toilet Numbers Beads Beads Knives rings Pendants (Organic) (Ceramic) Coins Spears belts Purses Brooches Shields in Grave Chatelaines Keys Tweezers Fossils Combs Seaxes Spoons Necklaces 46 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 50 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 64 (Individual A) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 (Individual B) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Graves 71-94 (Individual B) on next page 167

Grave description Biological description Grave Body Offerings Grave Orientation Body Position Coffin Fill Age Sex Numbers Present Infant Grave Body Chalky Earthy 0-2 Possible Possible Numbers Present Offerings North South East West Supine Flexed Extended Prone Coffin Fill Fill Adult Subadult years Male Female Male Female Ambiguous 71 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 72 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 73 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 74 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 76 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 77 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 78 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 79 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 80 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 81 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 82 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 83 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 84 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 85 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 86 0 0 0 0 1 87 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 88 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 89 0 0 90 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 91 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 93 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 94 (Individual A) 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 94 (Individual B) 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Columns for Graves 71-94 (Individual B) continue on next page 168

Material culture/Artefact classes Natural Grave Man-made Finger Vessels Vessels Roman Waist Flints in Toilet Material Knives Pendants Spears Purses Brooches Shields Chatelaines Keys Tweezers Fossils Combs Seaxes Necklaces Numbers Beads rings (Organic) (Ceramic) Coins belts Grave Spoons Beads Natural Grave Man-made Material Finger Vessels Vessels Roman Waist Flints Toilet Numbers Beads Beads Knives rings Pendants (Organic) (Ceramic) Coins Spears belts Purses Brooches Shields in Grave Chatelaines Keys Tweezers Fossils Combs Seaxes Spoons Necklaces 71 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 77 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 (Individual A) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 (Individual B) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 169

170