Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T19:27:29.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Skeletal sex and gender in Merovingian mortuary archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Bonnie Effros
Bonnie Effros*
Affiliation:
Department of Historical Studies, Peck Hall, Box 1454, Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, Edwardsville IL 62026, USA. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

Merovingian archaeologygenderDNA analysisosteologycemeteries
Type
Papers
Information
Antiquity , Volume 74 , Issue 285 , September 2000 , pp. 632 - 639
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boulanger, C. 1902–5. Le mobilier funéraire gallo-romain et franc en Picardie et en Artois. Paris: Charles Foulard, Libraire.Google Scholar
Boulanger, C. 1908. Le cimetière mérovingien de Monceaux (Oise), Bulletin archéologique du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques: 328–43.Google Scholar
Brandt, H., Owen, L.R. & Röder, B.. 1998. Frauen und Geschlechterforschung in der Ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie, in Auffermann, B. & Weniger, G.-C. (ed.), Frauen — Zeiten — Spuren: 15–42. Mettmann: Neanderthal-Museum.Google Scholar
Brown, T.A. & Brown, K.A.. 1992. Ancient DNA and the archaeologist, Antiquity 66: 10–23.Google Scholar
Brulet, R. & Moureau, G., 1979. La nécropole mérovingienne ‘En village’ à Braives. Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut Supérieur d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’Art. Publications d’histoire de l’art et d’archéologie de l’Université Catholique de Louvain 18.Google Scholar
Brunner, H. 1898. Der Todtentheil in germanischen Rechten, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fur Rechtsgeschichte, germanistische Abteilung 19: 107–39.Google Scholar
Bruzek, J. 1992. Fiabilité des fonctions discriminantes dans la détermination sexuelle de l’os coxal. Critiques et propositions, Bulletins et mémoires de la Société d’anthropologie de Paris n.s. 4: 67–104.Google Scholar
Buchet, L. 1995–6. Les habitants de la Gaule du I” au VIII” siècle: Apports de l’anthropologie physique 1. Unpublished Mémoire pour l’Habilitation à diriger des recherches, Université de Paris I.Google Scholar
Chiflet, J.-J. 1655. Anastasis Childerici I, Francorum regis, sive thesaurus sepulchralis, Tornaci Nerviorum effosus et commentario illustratus. Antwerp: Ex Officina Plantaniana Balthasaris Moreti.Google Scholar
Cochet, J.-B.-D. 1859. Le tombeau de Childéric Ier. Restitué à l’aide de l’archéologie et des découvertes récentes. Paris: Deranhe.Google Scholar
Conkey, M.W. & Spector, J.D.. 1984. Archaeology and the study of gender, Advances in archaeological method and theory 7: 1–38.Google Scholar
Cox, M. 1996. Life and death in Spitalfields 1700 to 1850. York: Council for British Archaeology.Google Scholar
Delort, É. 1947. Le cimetière franc d’Ennery, Gallia 5: 351–403.Google Scholar
Duhig, C. 1998. The human skeletal matter, in Malim, T. & Hines, J. (ed.), The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Edix Hill (Barrington A), Cambridgeshire: 154–99. York: Council for British Archaeology. CBA Research Report 112.Google Scholar
Eisner, W.R. 1991. The consequences of gender bias in mortuary analysis: a case study, in Walde, & Willows, (ed.): 352–7.Google Scholar
Ferembach, D., Schwidetsky, I. & Stloukal, M.. 1980. Recommendations of age and sex diagnoses of skeletons, Journal of Human Evolution 9: 517–49.Google Scholar
Fremersdork, F. 1955. Das fränkische Reihengräberfeld Köln-Müngersdorf 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co. Germanische Denkmäler der Völkerwanderungszeit 6.Google Scholar
Gilchrist, R. 1993. Gender and material culture: the archaeology of religious women. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gilchrist, R. 1997. Ambivalent bodies: gender and medieval archaeology, in Moore, & Scott, (ed.): 42–58.Google Scholar
Giles, E. & Elliot, O.. 1963. Sex determinations by discriminant function analysis of crania, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 21: 53–68.Google Scholar
Goury, G. 1908. Le cimetière franc de La Justice de Hans (Marne). Nancy: Imprimerie J. Coubé. Les études de l’humanité 1,3.Google Scholar
Guillon, M. 1997. Anthropologie de terrain et paléodémographie: Études méthodologiques sur les grands ensembles funéraires. Applications au cimetière médiévale de Tournedos-Portejoie (Eure). Unpublished doctoral thesis, Bordeaux: Université Bordeaux I.Google Scholar
Härke, H. 1992. Angelsächsische Waffengräber des 5. bis 7. Jahrhunderts. Cologne: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters 6.Google Scholar
Härke, H. 1997. Early Anglo-Saxon social structure, in Hines, J. (ed.), The Anglo-Saxons from the Migration period to the eighth century: an ethnographic perspective: 125–70. Woodbridge: Boydell Press.Google Scholar
Halsall, G. 1995. Settlement and social organization: the Merovingian region of Metz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. 1989. Pagan Saxon cemeteries: a study of the problems of sexing by grave goods and bones, in Roberts, C.A. Lee, F. & Bintliff, J. (ed.), Burial archaeology: current research methods and developments: 77–83. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. British series 211.Google Scholar
Heuertz, M. 1957. Étude des squelettes du cimetière franc d’Ennery, Bulletin et Mémoire de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris 8: 81–141.Google Scholar
Hummel, S. & Hermann, B.. 1991. Y-chromosome-specific DNA amplified in ancient human bone, Naturwissenschaften 78: 266–7.Google Scholar
Lindenschmit, L. 1880–1889. Handbuch der deutschen Alterthumskunde, 1 : Die Alterthümer der merovingischen Zeit. Braunschweig: Druck und Verlag von Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn.Google Scholar
Lovell, N.C. 1989. Test of Phenice’s technique for determining sex from the os pubis, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 79: 117–20.Google Scholar
Lucy, S.J. 1997. Housewives, warriors and slaves? Sex and gender in Anglo-Saxon burials, in Moore, & Scott, (ed.): 150–68.Google Scholar
Lucy, S.J. 1998. The early Anglo-Saxon cemeteries of East Yorkshire: an analysis and reinterpretation. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. British Series 272.Google Scholar
Mays, S. 1998. The archaeology of human bones. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Meaney, A.L. 1981. Anglo-Saxon amulets and curing stones. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. British Series 96.Google Scholar
Meindl, R.S., Loveioy, C.O. Mensforth, R.P. & Don Carlos, L.. 1985. Accuracy and direction of error in the sexing of the skeleton: implications for paleodemography, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 68: 79–85.Google Scholar
Molleson, T. 1994. Can the degree of sexual dimorphism provide an insight into the position of women in past populations?, in Buchet, L. (ed.), La femme pendant le moyen âge et l’époque moderne. Actes des Sixièmes Journées Anthropologiques de Valbonne 9–10-11 juin 1992: 51–67. Paris: CNRS Éditions. Dossier et documentation archéologique 17.Google Scholar
Molleson, T. & Cox, M.. 1993. The Spitalfields Project 2. York: Council for British Archaeology. CBA Research Report 86.Google Scholar
Moore, J. & Scott, E. (ed.). 1997. Invisible people and processes: writing gender and sexuality into European archaeology. London: Leicester University Press.Google Scholar
Peyre, E. 1979. La population mérovingienne de la nécropole de Maule (France, Yvelines): Analyse anthropologique univariée qualitative et quantitative des crania. Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris série 13, 6: 47–84.Google Scholar
Peyre, E. & Menin, C.. 1976–77. Étude anthropologique des restes humains de la nécropole de Maule (Yvelines): Presentation du gisement et méthode d’étude (age et sexe), Bulletin archéologique du Vezin Français 12–13: 217–26.Google Scholar
Phenice, T.W. 1969. A newly developed visual method of sexing the os pubis, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 30: 297–301.Google Scholar
Pilet, C. 1994. La nécropole de Saint-Martin de Fontenay (Calvados). Recherches sur ¡e peuplement de la plaine de Caen du Ve s. avant J.-C. au VIIe siècle après J.-C. Paris: CNRS Éditions. 54e supplément à Gallia.Google Scholar
Pilloy, J. 1899. Nouvelles recherches sur le tombeau de Childéric Ier , in Pilloy, J., Études sur d’anciens lieux de sépultures dans l’Aisne 3: 6–66. Saint-Quentin: P. Dupré.Google Scholar
Piton, D. 1985. La nécropole de Nouvion-en-Ponthieu. Bercksur-Mer: Imprimerie du Moulin. Dossiers archéologiques, historiques et culturels du Nord et du Pas-de-Calais 20.Google Scholar
Reeve, J. & Adams, M.. 1993. The Spitalfields Project 1. York: Council for British Archaeology. CBA Research report 85.Google Scholar
Richards, M., Smalley, K. Sykes, B. & Hedges, R.. 1993. Archaeology and genetics: analysing DNA from skeletal remains, World Archaeology 25: 18–28.Google Scholar
Richards, M., Sykes, B. & Hedges, R.. 1995. Authenticating DNA extracted from ancient skeletal remains, Journal of Archaeological Science 22: 291–9.Google Scholar
Rosaldo, M.Z. 1980. The use and abuse of anthropology: reflections on feminism and cross-cultural understanding, Signs 5: 389–417.Google Scholar
Sauter, M.R. & Privat, F.. 1954–55. Sur un nouveau procédé métrique de détermination sexuelle du bassin osseux, Bulletin der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft fur Anthropologie und Ethnologie 31: 60–84.Google Scholar
Schutkowski, H. 1993. Sex determination of infant and juvenile skeletons: 1. morphognostic features, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 90: 199–205.Google Scholar
Simmer, A. 1988. Le cimetière mérovingien d’Audun-le-Tiche (Moselle). Paris: Éditions Errance. Association Française d’Archéologie Mérovingienne, Mémoire 2.Google Scholar
Simon, C., Gerbore, R. Passard, F. Manfredi-Gizard, S. & Urlacher, J.-P.. 1996. La population de La Grande Oye à Doubs (Doubs). Analyse anthropologique et données culturelles: concordances et contrastes dans l’étude du peuplement romano-burgonde de la seconde moitié du VIe s. à la fin du VIIe s. ap. J.-C., in L’identité des populations archéologiques. XVIe Rencontres Internationales d’Archéologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes: 351–66. Sophia Antipolis: Editions APDCA.Google Scholar
Stig Sørensen, M.L. 1991. The construction of gender through appearance, in Walde, & Willows, (ed.): 121–9.Google Scholar
Stone, A.C., Milner, G.R. Pääbo, S. & Stoneking, M.. 1996. Sex determination of ancient human skeletons using DNA, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 99: 231–8.Google Scholar
Stoneking, M. 1995. Ancient DNA: how do you know when you have it and what can you do with it? American Journal of Human Genetics 57: 1259–62.Google Scholar
Sykes, B. 1991. The past comes alive, Nature 352: 381–2.Google Scholar
Taylor, J.V. & Dibennardo, R.. 1984. Discriminant function analysis of the central portion of the innominate, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 64: 315–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walde, D. & Willows, N.D. (ed.). 1991. The archaeology of gender. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Chacmool Conference. Calgary: University of Calgary Archaeological Association.Google Scholar
Walker, P.L., Johnson, J.R. & Lambert, P.M.. 1988. Age and sex biases in the preservation of human skeletal remains, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 76: 183–8.Google Scholar
Washburn, S.L. 1948. Sex differences in the pubic bone, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 6: 199–207.Google Scholar
Weiss, K.M. 1972. On the systematic bias in skeletal sexing, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 37: 239–50.Google Scholar
Wenzel, A. 1997. Das Individuum Frau in merowingischer Zeit: Bemerkungen zum Stand der frühgeschichtlichen Frauenforschung, in Brandt, H. & Koch, J.K. (ed.), Königin, Klosterfrau, Bauerin: Frauen im Frühmittelalter: 8–28. Munster: Agenda Verlag.Google Scholar
White, T.D. 1991. Human osteology. San Diego (CA): Academic Press.Google Scholar