Girdle-hangers in 5th- and 6th-century England. A Key to Early Anglo-Saxon Identities Kathrin Felder St Catharine’s College In two volumes Volume I: Text (Volume II to be found at the end of this copy) This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Division of Archaeology University of Cambridge 2014 Preface This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except where specifically indicated in the text. This dissertation does not exceed the word limit set by the Archaeology and Anthropology Degree Committee. The application to extend the thesis word length to 86,000 words has been approved by the Archaeology and Anthropology Degree Committee and the Board of Graduate Studies at the University of Cambridge. Kathrin Felder St Catharine’s College, Cambridge September 2014 i Abstract This is a study of early Anglo-Saxon girdle-hangers, a type of stylised decorated key imitations found in a small number of adult women’s graves of the 5th and 6th centuries AD. As translations into entirely symbolic form of an originally functional object, it is believed that they were worn to signify a certain identity these women shared. Functional keys in Anglo-Saxon contexts have been described as symbolising female domestic authority, analogous to symbolic uses of keys in domestic contexts known from Roman sources. It has become a well-established view in Anglo-Saxon cemetery literature to subsume girdlehangers under the same interpretation. In addition, they are suggested as symbols of high status. The artefact group, however, has never been subject to archaeological analysis. My PhD research takes the assumed significance of girdle-hangers as an early Anglo-Saxon female symbol as a starting point to approach this question from an archaeological, material record based viewpoint. Current theoretical discourses within archaeology which are increasingly centring on the relationships between people and things provide a fruitful ground for studies of artefacts and their link with identity. My study aims to better understand girdlehangers as embedded within this theme complex. A central line of enquiry focuses on where in the material record active uses of girdle-hangers as meaningful objects become tangible and available for archaeological investigation. Conceptually, I am considering different social settings where identity, both as an embedded cultural understanding and as a matter of personhood, drives human material engagement and undergoes dynamic change. In the context of this study I am interested in how individual and collective agency intersect in the artefactual and burial evidence of girdle-hangers – where makers, wearers, and burying communities have left varying material traces that allow access to Anglo-Saxon perceptions of girdle-hangers as objects of significance. A second focus of this study is to explore the potential for new interpretive approaches to the concrete meaning(s) of girdle-hangers as symbols of a specific female identity. A central element is the discussion of potential pathways to the meaning of girdle-hangers via analogical inferences. In contrast to analogical approaches previously taken, the role of analogical reasoning within archaeological knowledge-building and its potential for accessing encoded meanings in early Anglo-Saxon objects will be critical re-evaluated. The detailed analysis of the material evidence of girdle-hangers will allow this approach to be based on a comprehensive archaeological dataset against which interdisciplinary sources can be reexplored. The aim is to arrive at a current, methodologically reflected, interpretation of the girdle-hanger as a significant material symbolisation of a distinct dimension of the early Anglo-Saxon female life sphere. ii Table of contents Volume I LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... VI ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ XIII 1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 A REWARDING TOPIC ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 OUTLINE OF THE THESIS .......................................................................................................... 2 2 APPROACHING EARLY ANGLO-SAXON IDENTITY THROUGH THE GIRDLEHANGER: HISTORY, CONCEPTS AND METHODS ................................................................. 4 2.1 SHAPING IDEAS ABOUT GIRDLE-HANGERS AS A SYMBOL OF FEMALE IDENTITY ..................... 4 2.2 IDENTITY, MATERIAL MEANINGS, SOCIAL COMMUNICATION AND THE BURIAL RECORD: CURRENT THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES .......................................................................................... 8 2.2.1 IDENTITY IN EARLY MEDIEVAL AND EARLY ANGLO-SAXON SCHOLARSHIP .............................10 2.2.2 IDENTITY CREATED IN INTERACTION—A MORE HOLISTIC VIEW ..............................................12 2.2.3 AN INTERACTION-BASED APPROACH TO GIRDLE-HANGERS.....................................................14 2.3 THE AIMS OF THIS STUDY ........................................................................................................18 2.4 STRANDS OF ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................19 2.4.1 IDENTITY IN THE PRACTICE OF DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE ...................................................20 2.4.2 IDENTITY IN THE PRACTICE OF DRESSING ...............................................................................21 2.4.3 IDENTITY IN THE PRACTICE OF BURYING ................................................................................22 2.4.4 GIRDLE-HANGER MEANING OVER SPACE AND TIME ................................................................24 2.4.5 GIRDLE-HANGER SEMIOTICS ..................................................................................................24 2.5 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA ................................................................................................26 2.6 FORMAL CONVENTIONS, SYSTEMS OF REFERENCE AND USED SOFTWARE .............................31 3 GIRDLE-HANGER TECHNOLOGY, DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND USAGE ............33 3.1 CRAFTING GIRDLE-HANGERS .................................................................................................33 3.1.1 DEFINING GIRDLE-HANGERS: FORM, MATERIAL, FUNCTION AND TERMINOLOGY ....................33 3.1.2 CONSTRUCTIONAL FEATURES ................................................................................................40 3.1.3 MANUFACTURE .....................................................................................................................43 3.1.3.1 Casting early Anglo-Saxon copper-alloy jewellery ..............................................................43 3.1.3.2 Casting pairs of objects – Numbers and materials of models ...............................................45 3.1.3.3 Girdle-hanger manufacture .................................................................................................47 iii 3.2 DESIGNING GIRDLE-HANGERS ................................................................................................ 65 3.2.1 TYPOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION ............................................................................................. 67 3.2.1.1 Terminals ........................................................................................................................... 68 3.2.1.2 Shank necks ....................................................................................................................... 86 3.2.2 OTHER DECORATIVE FEATURES ............................................................................................. 93 3.2.2.1 Features cast with the object ............................................................................................... 94 3.2.2.2 Surface decoration .............................................................................................................. 96 3.2.3 GIRDLE-HANGER DESIGN AND DECORATION: INTERNAL STYLISTIC LINKS ............................ 102 3.2.4 AN EXPLORATION OF GIRDLE-HANGER DESIGN THROUGH MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS............ 106 3.3 WEARING GIRDLE-HANGERS ................................................................................................ 119 4 GIRDLE-HANGERS IN EARLY ANGLO-SAXON CEMETERIES .................................. 129 4.1 AIMS AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 129 4.2 SITE SELECTION .................................................................................................................... 132 4.3 GRAVE ASSEMBLAGES WITH GIRDLE-HANGERS: THE DATING EVIDENCE ........................... 137 4.3.1 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EARLY ANGLO-SAXON CHRONOLOGY ....................................... 137 4.3.2 THE CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE PRESENT STUDY ............................................... 140 4.3.3 CURRENT GIRDLE-HANGER CHRONOLOGY AND THE QUESTIONS ARISING ............................. 145 4.4 CEMETERY ANALYSES .......................................................................................................... 147 4.4.1 BROUGHTON LODGE, WILLOUGHBY-ON-THE-WOLDS, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ......................... 149 4.4.1.1 Site chronology and organisation ...................................................................................... 149 4.4.1.2 Graves with girdle-hangers at Broughton Lodge ............................................................... 151 4.4.1.3 Summary: Broughton Lodge............................................................................................. 156 4.4.2 EMPINGHAM, LEICS. ............................................................................................................ 157 4.4.2.1 Site chronology and organisation ...................................................................................... 157 4.4.2.2 Graves with girdle-hangers at Empingham........................................................................ 159 4.4.2.3 Summary: Empingham ..................................................................................................... 162 4.4.3 MORNINGTHORPE, NORFOLK ............................................................................................... 163 4.4.3.1 Site chronology and organisation ...................................................................................... 163 4.4.3.2 Graves with girdle-hangers at Morningthorpe ................................................................... 166 4.4.3.3 Summary: Morningthorpe................................................................................................. 172 4.4.4 SEWERBY, YORKSHIRE ........................................................................................................ 173 4.4.4.1 Site chronology and organisation ...................................................................................... 173 4.4.4.2 Graves with girdle-hangers at Sewerby ............................................................................. 174 4.4.4.3 Summary: Sewerby .......................................................................................................... 178 4.4.5 WAKERLEY, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE ...................................................................................... 179 4.4.5.1 Site chronology and organisation ...................................................................................... 179 4.4.5.2 Graves with girdle-hangers at Wakerley ........................................................................... 181 4.4.5.3 Summary: Wakerley ......................................................................................................... 186 4.4.6 WEST HESLERTON, NORTH YORKSHIRE............................................................................... 187 4.4.6.1 Site chronology and organisation ...................................................................................... 187 4.4.6.2 Graves with girdle-hangers at West Heslerton................................................................... 188 4.4.6.3 Summary: West Heslerton ................................................................................................ 194 4.4.7 GIRDLE-HANGERS FROM OTHER EARLY ANGLO-S AXON CEMETERIES AND SINGLE BURIALS . 206 4.4.7.1 Modes of wearing and grave deposition ............................................................................ 206 4.4.7.2 Burial practice, grave assemblage and status ..................................................................... 212 4.4.7.3 Graves with girdle-hangers within local cemetery contexts ............................................... 217 iv 4.5 GIRDLE-HANGERS IN INHUMATION BURIALS – CONCLUDING EVALUATION......................... 233 5 GIRDLE-HANGERS IN CHRONOLOGICAL AND SPATIAL PERSPECTIVE: QUESTIONS OF ORIGIN, DEVELOPMENT AND THE END OF THE CUSTOM ............... 252 5.1 ESTABLISHING AN ARTEFACT CHRONOLOGY ....................................................................... 252 5.2 EMERGENCE, SPREAD AND ABANDONMENT OF GIRDLE-HANGERS ....................................... 260 5.2.1 OVERALL DISTRIBUTION ...................................................................................................... 260 5.2.2 REGIONAL VARIATION IN THE CURRENCY OF GIRDLE-HANGERS ........................................... 262 5.2.3 DIVERSIFICATION, LOCAL SCHOOLS OF STYLE, AND MECHANISMS OF TRANSMISSION ........... 265 5.2.4 GIRDLE-HANGERS AS MARKERS OF ANGLIAN IDENTITY?...................................................... 270 5.2.5 ORIGINS AND POSSIBLE SUCCESSORS ................................................................................... 271 5.2.6 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 277 6 GIRDLE-HANGERS AND FEMALE IDENTITY: ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE, ANALOGIES, SYMBOLISM AND SOCIAL MEANINGS........................................................ 301 6.1 EXISTING INTERPRETATIONS OF GIRDLE-HANGERS AND THEIR RELATION TO THE MATERIAL RECORD.......................................................................................................................................... 301 6.2 NEW ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL AND ANTHROPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE EARLY ANGLO-SAXON GIRDLE-HANGER....................................................................................... 306 6.2.1 USING ANALOGIES IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION .................................................. 306 6.2.1.1 General considerations ...................................................................................................... 306 6.2.1.2 Analogies and the early medieval thought-world ............................................................... 309 6.2.1.3 Analogies and the material culture of folk belief ............................................................... 312 6.2.2 A NEW ANALOGICAL APPROACH TO GIRDLE-HANGER MEANING ........................................... 314 6.2.2.1 Girdle-hanger wearers: A recognisable group of women ................................................... 315 6.2.2.2 Analogous archaeological contexts from the European early medieval record ................... 317 6.2.2.3 Defining a new female role in early Anglo-Saxon communities ........................................ 320 6.2.2.4 Girdle-hangers as amulets ................................................................................................. 322 6.2.2.5 Functions and metaphorical contexts of keys as amulets and symbols ............................... 326 6.2.2.6 Amulets to protect the female body ................................................................................... 329 6.2.2.7 Amulet use, healing magic and midwifery ........................................................................ 332 6.2.2.8 Healers, midwives and ritual specialists of the early Anglo-Saxon family.......................... 334 7 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 339 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 348 v 1. Introduction 1.1 A rewarding topic Last year it was 200 years since the first early Anglo-Saxon girdle-hanger was discovered, in a barrow at Sporle, Norfolk. It was in the same county that the current study was conceived, in summer 2006 when I asked Dr Tim Pestell, curator at Norwich Castle Museum and at the time my supervisor during a museum internship, for ideas for an MA thesis topic. My decision to follow his suggestion to study girdle-hangers from Norfolk and Suffolk for my MA back then turned into an eight-year-long relationship with what I consider to be one of the most enigmatic and fascinating types of early Anglo-Saxon artefact. These objects that look like keys but are not, that are found with some women but not others, have inspired the imagination of archaeologists for over 150 years. Yet many questions long remained unanswered. Where exactly did early Anglo-Saxon women practice this custom of wearing key symbolisations, and where not? Were they members of a specific cultural group? Where did this custom come from and how long did it last? And, most of all, what did this symbolic object mean for a woman in early Anglo-Saxon society, and for her community? The investigation of the early Anglo-Saxon girdle-hanger record presented below is my attempt to find answers to these questions. On my journey through this topic, I have discovered early Anglo-Saxon artefacts to allow me to venture into immensely rich and exciting lines of archaeological and anthropological enquiry. This is not to a little extent influenced by the academic circles which I have been fortunate to be part of during my PhD research. Without these my views on girdle-hangers, and indeed the early Anglo-Saxon period in general, would be much poorer. The last years have been good times for the social-archaeological study of girdle-hangers. Today, we can explore early Anglo-Saxon communities in ways which would not have been possible without the achievements of scholars of the past 20 years. Archaeologists studying 1 early Anglo-Saxon artefacts from burials can draw from an unparalleled corpus of rich new data and sophisticated multivariate methods of analysis. Moreover, today early Anglo-Saxon archaeology has the opportunity to join, and contribute to, theoretical debates on burial ritual as an arena of social performance, identity as a fluid, daily contested and renegotiated concept of being, the intimate relationships of the living with the dead, and of people with their objects. Girdle-hangers are a truly rewarding topic. I hope that the following will be able to convey some of the fascination that this artefact group has exerted on me throughout my research, and continues to do so. The girdle-hanger, as a contextually, temporally and geographically specific item of female dress, is an object in which multiple dimensions of identity intersect— gender identity, social identity and cultural identity. This is how the title of this work is conceived—to provide a key to early Anglo-Saxon identities by looking at them through the lens of one artefact. However, this study is also about identity as a universal human experience. It thus hopes to serve as a key to enhancing our general understanding of how identity is shaped by people and things, by social practices and material symbols, during ritual events and in daily life— taking us from the living to the dead and back to the living, those of the past and ourselves in the present. 1.2 Outline of the thesis The following Chapter 2 will outline previous scholarship on the meaning of early AngloSaxon girdle-hangers, and provide an overview of the anthropological debates on material culture and identity on which the conceptual and analytical approach of this study is founded. 2 Chapter 3 is dedicated to the archaeological analysis of the artefactual evidence of girdlehangers. It will characterise the artefact group in terms of definition, construction, techniques of manufacture, typology and aspects of material wear and repair. Chapter 4 will deal with the archaeological evidence of graves with girdle-hangers. Girdlehanger graves from six early Anglo-Saxon cemeteries will be analysed in detail. The remaining known graves with girdle-hangers are examined in an overview. The chapter will conclude with a quantitative evaluation of the entire sample of girdle-hanger graves. Chapter 5 will establish a girdle-hanger chronology based on relative- and absolutechronological data gained in Chapters 3 and 4. Based on distribution maps of different data subsets, the origins, emergence, spread and abandonment of girdle-hangers as an early AngloSaxon female dress custom will be established. In Chapter 6 the traditional notion of the girdle-hanger as a symbol of the female keeper of the household, and its alleged connection to higher status will be reassessed against the archaeological evidence. Based on a critical reflection of the potentials and limitations of social inference by analogy, previously unexplored analogous archaeological, historical and folklore sources will be discussed to enable an alternative interpretation of girdle-hangers. Chapter 7 will summarize the analytical results of the study and provide a perspective on how the custom of wearing girdle-hangers is embedded within the broader context of the social transformation of early Anglo-Saxon society over the 5th and 6th centuries AD, both in its role as an object linked with female identity and as an assumed component of so-called Anglian identity. It will conclude with drawing out the implications of this investigation for new studies of early Anglo-Saxon artefacts, cemeteries, and female roles in wider European early medieval perspective. […] 3 3 Girdle-hanger technology, design, construction and usage In order to understand girdle-hangers through the eyes of craftspeople and the women that owned them the girdle-hanger material must be examined under the aspects of design, manufacture and usage. Techniques and levels of artistry applied in girdle-hanger manufacture (3.1) can tell us about the choices made in designing, casting and decorating girdle-hangers, and about the possible social and economic environments in which the manufacturers operated. Typological and stylistic analysis (3.2) helps to reveal the wideragreed formal conventions that informed such choices and allows us to understand the specific language of girdle-hanger design. Finally, the analysis of material wear, damage and forms of artefact manipulation and repair (3.3) illuminates those traces left directly on the objects that reflect how wearers used, treated and curated girdle-hangers. All observations on technology and style described in Chapter 3 are based on examinations of original finds material with the naked eye, including the use of low magnification, and on photographs or illustrations where originals were not accessible. In a few cases X-ray images could be consulted. No additional methods such as high-magnification, silicon/rubber casts or non-invasive techniques of metal analysis were applied. 3.1 Crafting girdle-hangers 3.1.1 Defining girdle-hangers: Form, material, function and terminology Most early Anglo-Saxon archaeologists understand girdle-hangers as flat-sectioned pendants cast from copper alloy and typically carrying punched, incised and notched decoration on the front surface (see below and 3.2.2.2). Their basic frame has a long shank with a horizontal base segment sitting at right angles at its lower end (Figure 3.1). Its ends bend upward to form two prongs running broadly parallel to the shank, which are sometimes connected with the shank by additional cast segments. At the upper end girdle-hangers have a transverse 33 suspension loop. In most cases a short section below this loop is decorated with a moulded element, here termed the shank neck. There is a common consensus that the double-pronged shape imitates iron keys with W- or Tshaped terminals (first discussed by Baldwin-Brown 1915: 395; see also 2.1). In the German literature, these are sometimes called anchor keys (‘Ankerschlüssel’; Arends 1978: 3; Manning 1985: 90). In this study they will be specified as T-keys (Hines & Bayliss 2013: 228), bearing in mind that this often includes specimens with W-shaped terminals (Figure 3.2). The majority of girdle-hangers have a T-shaped terminal (see 3.2.1.1). T-keys date back to the Iron Age (Black 1986: 222; Heinsius 1945: 114, 273; Manning 1985: 90) and are widely known from Roman contexts (Birley 1997; Black 1986: 222). In 5th- and 6th-century Anglo-Saxon contexts they are not as frequent as latch-lifters (Figure 3.2), which are simpler picklock-type keys with C- or U-shaped terminals and a common item in female graves (Chapter 4). Figure 3.1 Technical terms used in the description of girdle-hangers. 34 Figure 3.2 Iron T-key: Wakerley grave 42, T- and E-key: Empingham G98B (after Timby 1996: fig. 149); Latchlifter: Sleaford G151 (length from left to right: 18cm, 22cm [E-key], 16cm). The term girdle-hanger, coined in 1853 by Samuel Tymms (see 2.1), was gradually established as a technical term for the copper-alloy objects in the late 19th and early 20th century (deBaye 1889; Baldwin-Brown 1915; Fox 1923; Thomas 1882). In modern early Anglo-Saxon studies the term is mostly used consistently to describe the artefact studied here. However, girdle-hanger has also been used to describe a number of different types of artefact, or an incorrect term is used to describe a girdle-hanger. Undeniably there is still uncertainty among early Anglo-Saxon scholars over what a girdle-hanger is or is not, most likely for two reasons. First, girdle-hanger is a slightly unlucky, because vague and in principle universally applicable, term to describe a very specific object. Second, the sometimes indiscriminate use of the term for different artefact groups by authors across the 20th century has resulted in confusion over the correct definition of a girdle-hanger in relation to other categories of girdle items. A reappraisal of the problems of definition and terminology in the classification of girdle items is clearly overdue. 35 I saw no necessity to establish a new definition or even invent a new term. In a broader view, girdle-hanger is too well-established for this artefact group and, in the end, the term that was originally created for it. The following discussion rather hopes to contribute to more clarity and consistency in applying the term, in classifying and describing new girdle-hanger material in the future and in avoiding cross-classifications. The existing definition of the girdle-hanger, as described above, is based on suitable, clearly set and easily applicable criteria. The present discussion can therefore only amend it by setting up equally clear criteria of exclusion. This is motivated by the following observation. The most common problem that I have frequently encountered in the literature is the equation of girdle-hangers with iron T-keys, in rare cases even with latch-lifters, and also with other types of ornaments known as part of the female girdle costume like openwork discs (Lethbridge 1931: 5, 49, 55, 59; Matthews 1962: 39). Terms for girdle-hangers, keys and other girdle ornaments are thus used inconsistently, if not even interchangeably, within one and the same work (Chadwick Hawkes 2003: 27, fig. 2.23; Haughton & Powlesland 1999a: 235, 237, 268; Richardson 2005: 152). This problem cannot be underestimated. Whether an object in a grave is described as a copper-alloy girdle-hanger, an iron T-key, a latch-lifter or an openwork disc makes a significant difference in terms of regional, chronological and social implications (see Chapters 4, 5 and 7; Hills & Lucy 2013: 61). It is therefore essential to strictly distinguish between these types of artefacts, potential symbolic functions or meanings of any of these objects notwithstanding. Recalling the descriptions of both artefact groups from above, the primary criterion for a distinction concerns material and build-up. early Anglo-Saxon keys of any shape are usually formed from a round- or rectangular-sectioned iron rod bent or hammered into shape. The defining characteristic of girdle-hangers is a flat-sectioned cast copper-alloy frame which is used as a surface for decoration. A second criterion is one of functionality, namely a distinction between keys as functional implements or tools, and girdle-hangers as non36 functional decorative objects. Undeniably this aspect of the definition enters a grey area if it cannot be excluded with absolute certainty that a specific girdle-hanger specimen was also used as a key (see discussion below). Overall, however, girdle-hangers are not in principle suited for use as a tool or device, but instead much more related to copper-alloy jewellery. The non-functional nature of girdle-hangers becomes clearer when their material and build are considered against the ways in which T-keys were used to operate locks. Slotted metal plates known from Roman and Viking contexts (Birley 1997: fig. 15; Tomtlund 1978: 7; Faussett 1856: 133 for one early Anglo-Saxon example) most likely functioned as key hole fittings on T-key-operated locks. If such locks involved no springs but only bolts and bars most, if not all of the construction can have been made of wood (Figure 3.3). The prongs of the key may be used to lift two vertical bolts which, concealed to the user, hold a horizontal bar in place that locks a door. I have been fortunate and was able to operate a modern replica built into a church door at the reconstructed Stöng farmstead at Þjóðveldisbærinn, Iceland (Figure 3.4). Figure 3.3 Reconstructions for lock mechanisms associated with T-keys. 1) Lock with vertical bolts operated by lifting the key. 2) Locks with horizontal bar or spring operated by sliding the key. (Pitt-Rivers 1883: pl. 4; Steuer 2007: fig. 49). 37 Figure 3.4 Modern reconstruction of lock operated by T-key at Þjóðveldisbærinn, Iceland. Photos by author. a Iron T-key b Lock as seen from outside; T-key inserted into vertical key slot c the key is turned by 90° and pulled back, the two prongs inserted into recesses in two vertical bolts which are moved by lifting the key from outside; this releases a horizontal bar which can be slid aside by a handle from outside (b left centre). Lock mechanisms for this type of key could also be operated horizontally, as reconstructed in locks which incorporate a type of latch spring to be pulled back to release a bolt (Figure 3.3, 2b). Accordingly, both descriptions of T-keys as lift keys (Hamerow 1993: 69; Manning 1985: 90) and slide keys can be correct. The length of girdle-hangers (between 10 and 15 cm; see 3.1.2) is similar to that of keys which could operate door or closet locks (Arends 1978: 39–40, 46–51, 61). However, both vertical and horizontal lock constructions required the exaction of considerable force on the implement used. It is hard to see how girdle-hangers whose lower shanks and terminals were rarely thicker than 2mm would have withstood the continued strain on the material had they been regularly used to lift lock bolts. The girdle-hanger material shows evidence for breakage 38 but not the kind of wear to be expected had girdle-hangers commonly been used as keys, such as excess shank wear from repeated handling or scratch marks on the terminal (see 3.3). Besides, girdle-hangers with prongs with decorated extended lobes or even closed terminals (see 3.2.1.1) would have rendered them unusable for the lock mechanisms described. Overall, it is difficult to justify the description of T-keys as girdle-hangers since there seems to be no reason not to describe them as keys. There are clear criteria and appropriate technical terms for keys available and the term T-key is sufficiently concise (descriptions in BaldwinBrown 1915: 394–395; Hines & Bayliss 2013; Malim & Hines 1998: 218). The same consistency in terminology is necessary in the case of iron latch-lifters which are unforked rods with angled ends (Figure 3.2; cf. Meaney’s (1998: 218, 269) description as “fingercrooked”). The important point made here is that in none of these cases would it be more accurate to describe these implements as iron girdle-hangers. A related girdle item with its own problems of terminology and a common cause for confusion in connection with girdle-hangers is the so-called chatelaine. In Anglo-Saxon contexts a chatelaine has been defined as “one or more chains or rings hanging from the waist and carrying a collection of objects” (Geake 1997: 57). The term thus describes a suspended ensemble of objects linked to each other by additional devices. If well-preserved and recorded in-situ evidence exists, but only then, it may be appropriate to describe the groups of girdle items found in 5th- and 6th-century assemblages suspended from one or more rings as chatelaines. A girdle-hanger within such a group would be part of a chatelaine. However, to use the terms girdle-hanger and chatelaine interchangeably (Stoodley 1999: 22) is certainly misleading. The above definition of the chatelaine was formulated in a study of Anglo-Saxon grave goods of the 7th and 8th centuries. At this time girdle-hangers are already out of use (Chapter 5) and a type of girdle costume becomes characteristic that is mostly iron-based and consists of long suspended complexes with several rings, wire or rod links (Figure 3.5). This group of objects 39 is distinctly different from girdle groups in the 5th and 6th centuries when collections of girdle items are also often worn contained inside bags (Geake 1997: 57–58). Brush (1993: 104) suggests the consistent use of chatelaine for later and girdle group for earlier girdle costumes, which will contribute to much more clarity. Figure 3.5 7th-century chatelaines. Left: Buttermarket grave 2962 (original length of X-ray drawing 40cm; Scull 2009: fig. 3.50); right: Harford Farm grave 22 (original length 34cm; Penn 2000: fig. 91). [……] 40 PLATE 5 Type A2a: 1 Norfolk, unknown findspot; 2 Morningthorpe G18. Scale 1:1. PLATE 7 Type A2b: 1 Norfolk, findspot unknown; 2 Great Walsingham; 3 Great Walsingham. Type A2c: 4 Empingham G22; 5 Spong Hill G38. Scale 1:1. PLATE 22 Type A2f: Morningthorpe G393. Scale 1:1. References ÅBERG, N. 1926. The Anglo-Saxons in England During the Early Centuries After the Invasion. Cambridge. — 1956. Den Historiska Relationen Mellan Folkvandringstid Och Vendeltid. Handlingar 5. Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets historie och antikvitets akademien. ADAMS, A.W., T.H. CLOUGH, M.S. GORIN, N.M. REYNOLDS & M. TODD. 1982. Archaeological Discoveries at Rutland Water Hydrobiologica 88: 57–66. ADAMS, B., D. JACKSON & L. BADENOCH. 1989. The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Wakerley, Northamptonshire: Excavations by Mr D Jackson, 1968-9 Northamptonshire Archaeology 22: 69–178. AKERMAN, J.Y. 1855. Remains of Pagan Saxondom. London: J.R. Smith. ANDRÉN, A., K. JENNBERT & C. RAUDVERE. (ed.) 2006. Old Norse Religion in Long-Term Perspectives: Origins, Changes, and Interactions: An International Conference in Lund, Sweden, June 3-7, 2004. Vägar till Midgård 8. Lund: Nordic Academic. APPLEYARD, H.M. & J. JONES. 1984. The Textiles. Fibre analysis, in C. Hills, K. Penn, & R. Rickett The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Spong Hill, North Elmham. Part III: Catalogue of Inhumations: 21–28. Gressenhall, Norfolk: The Norfolk Archaeological Unit. ARENDS, U. 1978. Ausgewählte Gegenstände Des Frühmittelalters Mit Amulettcharakter. Heidelberg. ARNOLD, C.J. 1980. Wealth and social structure: A matter of life and death, in P.A. Rahtz, T. Dickinson, & L. Watts (ed.) Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries 1979. The Fourth Anglo-Saxon Symposium at Oxford: 131–39. BAR British Series 82. Oxford: B.A.R. — 1988. An Archaeology of the Early Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. London: Routledge. — 1997. An Archaeology of the Early Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. ASHLEY, S. & K. PENN. 2003. Two Early Saxon cemeteries in south Norfolk Norfolk Archaeology 44: 304–15. — 2012. ‘Contained the bones of horses’: An early Anglo-Saxon cemeterey at Sporle with Palgrave Norfolk Archaeology 46: 281–310. AUDOUY, M. & A. CHAPMAN. (ed.) 2009. Raunds: The Origin and Growth of a Midland Village, Ad450-1500: Excavations in North Raunds, Northamptonshire 1977-87. Oxford: Oxbow. AVENT, R. 1975. Anglo-Saxon Garnet Inlaid Disc and Composite Brooches. Part I: Discussion. BAR British Series 11. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. BÄCHTOLD-STÄUBLI, H. & E. HOFFMANN-KRAYER. (ed.) 1927. Handwörterbuch Des Deutschen Aberglaubens. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 348 BAKKA, E. 1973. Goldbrakteaten in norwegischen Grabfunden Frühmittelalterliche Studien 7: 53–87. BALDWIN-BROWN, G. 1915. The Arts in Early England. 3+4: Saxon Art and Industry in the Pagan Period. London. BAXTER, M.J. 1994. Exploratory Multivariate Analysis in Archaeology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. BEMMANN, G. & J. BEMMANN. 1998. Der Opferplatz Von Nydam: Die Funde Aus Den Älteren Grabungen, Nydam-I Und Nydam-Ii. Schriften Des Archäologischen Landesmuseums 4. Neumünster: Wachholtz. BEMMANN, J. 1993. Die Nydamfibeln. Eine Fibelform der Stufe C3? Germania 71: 139–82. — 2001. Die Niemberger Fibeln und die Chronologie der Völkerwanderungszeit in Mitteldeutschland Slovenska Archaeologia 49: 59–101. BERNBECK, R. 2000. Towards a gendered past - The heuristic value of analogies, in A. Gramsch (ed.) Vergleichen Als Archäologische Methode. Analogien in Den Archäologien. Mit Beiträgen Einer Tagung Der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Theorie (T-AG) Und Einer Kommentierten Bibliographie.: 143–50. BAR International Series 825. Oxford: Archaeopress. BIEHL, P. 2000. Kontextuelle Archäologie. Zur Neubestimmung von Kontext und Analogie in der Vor- und Frühgeschichtsforschung, in A. Gramsch (ed.) Vergleichen Als Archäologische Methode. Analogien in Den Archäologien. Mit Beiträgen Einer Tagung Der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Theorie (T-AG) Und Einer Kommentierten Bibliographie.: 101–12. BAR International Series 825. Oxford: Archaeopress. BIERING, T.J. 2006. The concept of shamanism in Old Norse religion from a sociological point of view, in A. Andrén, K. Jennbert, & C. Raudvere (ed.) Old Norse Religion in Long-Term Perspectives: Origins, Changes, and Interactions: An International Conference in Lund, Sweden, June 3-7, 2004: 171–78. Lund: Nordic Academic. BIRLEY, A. 1997. Vindolanda Volume IV. The Small Finds: Fascicule II - Security: The Keys and Locks. Greenhead: Roman Army Museum Publications. BLACK, E.W. 1986. Romano-British burial customs and religious beliefs in south-east England Archaeological Journal 143: 201–39. BLACK, G.W. 1893. Scottish charms and amulets Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland 8: 433–526. BLADES, N. 1996. Preliminary report on analyses of copper alloys, in J. Timby The AngloSaxon Cemetery at Empingham II, Rutland: Excavations Carried out between 19741975: 71–76. Oxbow Monograph 70. Oxford: Oxbow. BOELES, P.C.J.A. 1951. Friesland Tot De Elfde Eeuw, Zijn Vóór- En Vroege Geschiedenis. 2. ed. ’s-Gravenhage: M. Nijhoff. BÖHME, H.W. 1974. Germanische Grabfunde Des 4. [i.e. Vierten] Bis 5. [i.e. Fünften] Jahrhunderts Zwischen Unterer Elbe Und Loire: Studien Zur Chronologie Und 349 Bevölkerungsgeschichte. Münchner Beiträge Zur Vor- Und Frühgeschichte 19. München: Beck. BÖHNER, K. 1958. Die Fränkischen Altertümer Des Trierer Landes. Germanische Denkmäler Der Völkerwanderungszeit. Serie B 1. Berlin: Mann. BÓNA, I. 1976. The Dawn of the Dark Ages: The Gepids and the Lombards in the Carpathian Basin. Hereditas. Budapest: Corvina Press. BONNER, C. 1950. Studies In Magical Amulets. University of Michigan Press. BOYLE, A., A. BARCLAY, D. JENNINGS & N. ADAMS. 1998. The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Butler’s Field, Lechlade, Gloucestershire. Thames Valley Landscapes Monograph. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. BRATHER, S. 2004. Ethnische Interpretationen in Der Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie. Geschichte, Grundlagen Und Alternativen. Reallexikon Der Germanischen Altertumskunde, Ergänzungsband 42. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. BREWSTER, T.C.H. 1958. Anglian Cemetery Staxton. Unpublished report, North Yorkshire HER. BRICKLEY, M. & J.I. MCKINLEY. (ed.) 2004. Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains. Institute of Field Archaeologists Paper. Southampton, Reading: BABAO and the Institute of Field Archaeologists. BRIESKE, V. 2001. Schmuck Und Trachtbestandteile Des Gräberfeldes von Liebenau, Kr. Nienburg/Weser: Vergleichende Studien Zur Gesellschaft Der Frühmittelalterlichen Sachsen Im Spannungsfeld Zwischen Nord Und Süd. Studien Zur Sachsenforschung 5.6. Oldenburg: Isensee. BROWN, D. 1977. The significance of the Londesborough ring brooch The Antiquaries Journal 57: 95–97. BROWN, K.B. 1999. Metalworking, in M. Lapidge, J. Blair, S. Keynes, & D.G. Scragg (ed.) The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England: 309–10. Oxford: Blackwell. BRUGHMANS, T. 2013. Thinking through networks: A review of formal network methods in archaeology Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20: 623–62. BRUGMANN, B. 2004. Glass Beads from Anglo-Saxon Graves: A Study on the Provenance and Chronology of Glass Beads from Anglo-Saxon Graves Based on Visual Examination. Oxford: Oxbow. — 2012. Beads, in K. Parfitt & T. Anderson Buckland Anglo-Saxon Cemetery, Dover: Excavations 1994: 92–119. Canterbury: Canterbury Archaeological Trust. BRUNNING, S. 2013a. The ‘Living’ Sword in Early Medieval Northern Europe: An Interdisciplinary Study. Unpublished PhD thesis, University College London. — 2013b. A possible staff of divination at The British Museum. Poster. 350 BRUSH, K.A. 1993. Adorning the Dead: The Social Significance of Early Anglo-Saxon Funerary Dress in England (fifth to Sixth Centuries A.d.). Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge. BURRISS, E.E. (Eli E. 1931. Taboo, Magic, Spirits: A Study of Primitive Elements in Roman Religion. New York cmillan Company,. CAPELLE, T., H. JANKUHN, W. KRAUSE, K. RANKE & H. THRANE. 1973. Amulett Hoops’ Reallexikon Der Germanischen Altertumskunde 1: 269–74. CARUTH, J. & S. ANDERSON. 2005. RAF Lakenheath, Anglo-Saxon cemeteries ERL 104, ERL 046 and ERL 114. A Report on the Archaeological Excavations, 1997-2002. Bury St Edmunds: Suffolk C. C. Archaeological Service. CARVER, M. 2010. Agency, intellect and the archaeological agenda, in M. Carver, A. Sandmark, & S. Semple (ed.) Signals of Belief in Early England: 1–20. Oxford: Oxbow. CARVER, M., C. HILLS & J. SCHESCHKEWITZ. (ed.) 2009. Wasperton: A Roman, British and Anglo-Saxon Community in Central England. Anglo-Saxon Studies 11. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer. CHADWICK HAWKES, S. 2000. The Anglo-Saxon cemetery of Bifrons, in the parish of Patrixbourne, East Kent Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 11: 1–94. — 2003. The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Worthy Park, Kingsworthy, near Winchester, Hampshire. Oxford University School of Archaeology Monograph 59. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology. CHADWICK HAWKES, S. & B. PHILP. 1973. The Dating and Social significance of the burials in the Polhill Cemetery, in Excavations in West Kent 1960-70: The Excavation of 30 Prehistoric Roman, Saxon and Medieval Sites Mostly in the Bromley Area and in the Darent Valley,: 186–201. Dover: Kent Archaeological Rescue Unit. CHAMBERLAIN, M. 2006. Old Wives’ Tales: The History of Remedies, Charms and Spells. Stroud: Tempus. CHESTER-KADWELL, M. 2009. Early Anglo-Saxon Communities in the Landscape of Norfolk. BAR British Series 481. Oxford: Archaeopress. CHRISTLEIN, R. 1973. Besitzabstufungen zur Merowingerzeit im Spiegel reicher Grabfunde aus West- und Südwestdeutschland Jahrbuch Des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 20: 147–80. CLARK, A. 2010. Material surrogacy and the supernatural: reflections on the role of artefacts in ‘off-line’ cognition, in L. Malafouris & C. Renfrew (ed.) The Cognitive Life of Things: Recasting the Boundaries of the Mind: 23–28. McDonald Institute Monographs. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. COATSWORTH, E. & M. PINDER. 2002. The Art of the Anglo-Saxon Goldsmith: Fine Metalwork in Anglo-Saxon England: Its Practice and Practitioners. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. 351 COOK, A.M. 1981. The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Fonaby, Lincolnshire. Occasional Papers in Lincolnshire History and Archaeology 6. Sleaford: Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology. COOPER, J.C. 1978. An Illustrated Encyclopaedia of Traditional Symbols. London: Thames and Hudson. COSACK, E. 1979. Die Fibeln Der Älteren Römischen Kaiserzeit in Der Germania Libera (Dänemark, DDR, BRD, Niederlande, CSSR): Eine Technologisch-Archäologische Analyse. Göttinger Schriften Zur Vor- Und Frühgeschichte 19. Neumünster: Wachholtz. COWGILL, J. 2009. The crucibles and moulds, in S. Lucy, J. Tipper, & A. Dickens (ed.) The Anglo-Saxon Settlement and Cemetery at Bloodmoor Hill, Carlton Colville, Suffolk: 259–65. East Anglian Archaeology 131. Cambridge: Cambridge Archaeological Unit in conjunction with ALGAO East. CROWFOOT, E. 1985. The textiles, in S. Hirst An Anglo-Saxon Inhumation Cemetery at Sewerby, East Yorkshire: 48–54. York: Department of Archaeology, University of York. — 1987. Textiles, in B. Green, A. Rogerson, & S.G. White The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Morning Thorpe, Norfolk: 171–88. East Anglian Archaeology 36. Dereham: Norfolk Archaeological Unit, Norfolk Museums Service. CROWFOOT, E. & J. JONES. 1984. The textiles. Fibre and spinning, in C. Hills, K. Penn, & R. Rickett The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Spong Hill, North Elmham. Part III: Catalogue of Inhumations: 17–21. Gressenhall, Norfolk: The Norfolk Archaeological Unit. CURLE, C.L. 1982. Pictish and Norse Finds from the Brough of Birsay 1934-74. Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Monograph Series 1. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. DEBAYE, J. 1889. Industrie Anglo-Saxonne. Études Archéologiques. Librairie Nilsson. DEMARRAIS, E. 2004. The materialization of culture, in E. DeMarrais, C. Gosden, & C. Renfrew (ed.) Rethinking Materiality: The Engagement of Mind with the Material World: 11–22. McDonald Institute Monographs. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. DÍAZ-ANDREU GARCÍA, M., S. LUCY, S. BABIC & D. EDWARDS. 2005. Archaeology of Identity: Approaches to Gender, Age, Status, Ethnicity and Religion. London: Routledge. DICKINSON, T. 1979. On the origin and chronology of the disc brooch Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 1: 39–80. — 1993a. Early Saxon saucer brooches: a preliminary overview Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 6: 11–44. — 1993b. An Anglo-Saxon cunning woman from Bidford-on-Avon, in M. Carver (ed.) In Search of Cult: Archaeological Investigations in Honour of Philip Rahtz: 45–54. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. 352 — 1999. An Anglo Saxon ‘cunning woman’ from Bidford on Avon, in C. Karkov (ed.) The Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England: Basic Readings: 359–73. London: Garland Publishing. DICKINSON, T. & H. HÄRKE. 1992. Early Anglo-Saxon Shields. Archaeologia Volume 110. London: Society of Antiquaries. DOBRES, M.A. 1999. Of paradigms and ways of seeing: archaeological variability as if people mattered, in E. Chilton (ed.) Material Meanings: Critical Approaches to the Interpretation of Material Culture: 7–23. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. DOBRES, M.A. & J.E. ROBB. 2005. ‘Doing’ agency: introductory remarks on methodology Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12: 159–66. DRINKALL, G. & M. FOREMAN. 1998. The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Castledyke South, Barton-on-Humber. Sheffield Excavation Reports 6. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. EAGLES, B.N. 1979. The Anglo-Saxon Settlement of Humberside. BAR British Series 68. Oxford: B.A.R. ENGEVIK, A. 2008. Bucket-Shaped Pots: Style, Chronology and Regional Diversity in Norway in the Late Roman and Migration Periods. BAR International Series 1816. Oxford: Archaeopress. EVISON, V.I. 1955. Anglo-Saxon finds near Rainham, Essex, with a study of glass drinkinghorns Archaeologia 96: 159–95. — 1987. Dover: The Buckland Anglo-Saxon Cemetery. London: Historic Buildings and Monuments. — 1994. An Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Great Chesterford, Essex. Research Report / Council for British Archaeology 91. York: CBA. FAHLANDER, F. 2004. Archaeology and Anthropology: Brothers in Arms? - On Analogies in 21st Century Archaeology, in F. Fahlander & T. Oestigaard (ed.) Material Culture and Other Things Post-Disciplinary Studies in the 21st Century: 185–212. Gothenburg: Department of Archaeology, University of Gothenburg. FALYS, C. 2011. Proposing a way forward: a review of standardisation in the use of age categories and ageing techniques in osteological analysis (2004-2009) International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 21: 704–16. FAUSSETT, B. 1856. Inventorium Sepulchrale: An Account of Some Antiquities Dug up at Gilton, Kingston, Sibertswold, Barfriston, Beakesbourne, Chartham, and Crundale, in the County of Kent, from A.D. 1757 to A.D. 1773. London: Printed for the subscribers only. FELDER, K. 2009. Frühangelsächsische ankerförmige Zierschlüssel in Norfolk und Suffolk (GB). Unpublished MA thesis, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin. FELL, C. 1984a. A friwif locbore revisited Anglo-Saxon England 13: 157–65. 353 — 1984b. Women in Anglo-Saxon England and the Impact of 1066. London: British Museum Publications. FORBES, T.R. 1966. The Midwife and the Witch. New Haven: Yale University Press. FOWLER, C. 2004. The Archaeology of Personhood: An Anthropological Approach. London: Routledge. FOX, C. 1923. The Archaeology of the Cambridge Region: A Topographical Study of the Bronze, Early Iron, Roman, and Anglo-Saxon Ages. Cambridge: University Press. FREUDENTHAL. 1935. Schloß. (ed.)H. Bächtold-Stäubli & E. Hoffmann-Krayer Handwörterbuch Des Deutschen Aberglaubens, 1215–23. FULMINANTE, F. 2012. Social network analysis and the emergence of central places. a case study from central italy (latium vetus) Babesch 87: 27–53. GARDELA, L. 2009. A Biography of the Seiðr-Staffs. Towards an Archaeology of Emotions, Between Paganism and Christianity in the North: 190–219. Rzeszów: Rzeszów University. — 2012. Entangled worlds. Archaeologies of ambivalence in the Viking Age - PhD thesis summary Retrospective Methods Network Newsletter 4: 229–33. GAZIN-SCHWARTZ, A. & C. HOLTORF. (ed.) 1999a. Archaeology and Folklore. London: Routledge. — 1999b. ‘As long as ever I’ve known it...’: On folklore and archaeology, in A. GazinSchwartz & C. Holtorf (ed.) Archaeology and Folklore: 2–23. London: Routledge. GEAKE, H. 1997. The Use of Grave-Goods in Conversion-Period England, C.600-C.850. BAR British Series 261. Oxford: John and Erica Hedges. — 2003. The Control of Burial Practice in Anglo-Saxon England, in M. Carver (ed.) The Cross Goes North. Processes of Conversion in Northern Europe, AD 300-1300: 259– 69. York: University. — 2011. Accidental losses, plough-damaged cemeteries and the occasional hoard: the Portable Antiquities Scheme and early Anglo-Saxon archaeology, in S. Brookes, S. Harrington, A. Reynolds, & M.G. Welch (ed.) Studies in Early Anglo-Saxon Art and Archaeology: Papers in Honour of Martin G. Welch, 527: 33–39. BAR British Series. Oxford: Archaeopress. GELL, A. 1998. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Clarendon. GENRICH, A. 1954. Formenkreise Und Stammesgruppen in Schleswig-Holstein Nach Geschlossenen Funden Des 3. Bis 6. Jahrhunderts. Offa Bücher 10. Neumünster: K. Wachholtz. GIBSON, C. 2007. Minerva: A bi-ritual Early Saxon cemetery in Alwalton, Cambridgeshire Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 14: 238–50. 354 GILCHRIST, R. 1997. Ambivalent bodies: gender and medieval archaeology, in J. Moore & E. Scott (ed.) Invisible People and Processes: Writing Gender and Childhood into European Archaeology: 42–58. London: Leicester University Press. — 1999. Gender and Archaeology: Contesting the Past. London: Routledge. — 2008a. Magic for the Dead? The Archaeology of Magic in Later Medieval Burials Medieval Archaeology 52: 119–59. — 2008b. Nurturing the dead: medieval women as family undertakers, in S. Montón-Subías & M. Sánchez Romero (ed.) Engendering Social Dynamics: The Archaeology of Maintenance Activities: 41–47. BAR International Series 1862. Oxford: Archaeopress. — 2012. Medieval Life: Archaeology and the Life Course. Woodbridge: Boydell. GOLDMANN, E. 1935. Schlüssel. (ed.)H. Bächtold-Stäubli & E. Hoffmann-Krayer Handwörterbuch Des Deutschen Aberglaubens 7: 1224–28. GOSDEN, C. 2005. What do objects want? Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12: 193–211. GOSDEN, C. & Y. MARSHALL. 1999. The cultural biography of objects World Archaeology 31: 169–78. GRAMSCH, A. 2000a. Braucht Prähistorie Vergleiche?, in A. Gramsch (ed.) Vergleichen Als Archäologische Methode. Analogien in Den Archäologien. Mit Beiträgen Einer Tagung Der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Theorie (T-AG) Und Einer Kommentierten Bibliographie.: 151–64. BAR International Series 825. Oxford: Archaeopress. — 2000b. Vom Vergleichen in der Archäologie - Zur Einführung, in A. Gramsch (ed.) Vergleichen Als Archäologische Methode. Analogien in Den Archäologien. Mit Beiträgen Einer Tagung Der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Theorie (T-AG) Und Einer Kommentierten Bibliographie.: 3–18. BAR International Series 825. Oxford: Archaeopress. —. (ed.) 2000c. Vergleichen Als Archäologische Methode. Analogien in Den Archäologien. Mit Beiträgen Einer Tagung Der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Theorie (T-AG) Und Einer Kommentierten Bibliographie. BAR International Series 825. Oxford: Archaeopress. GRÄSLUND, A.-S. 1999. Is there an evidence of powerful women in late iron age svealand?, in U. Freeden, U. Koch, & A. Wieczorek (ed.) Völker an Nord- Und Ostsee Und Die Franken, 3: 91–98. Kolloquien Zur Vor- Und Frühgeschichte. Bonn: Habelt. GREEN, B. & A. ROGERSON. 1978. The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Bergh Apton, Norfolk. East Anglian Archaeology 7. Gressenhall, Norfolk. GREEN, B., A. ROGERSON & S.G. WHITE. 1987. The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Morning Thorpe, Norfolk. East Anglian Archaeology 36. Dereham: Norfolk Archaeological Unit, Norfolk Museums Service. HAKENBECK, S. 2007. Situational ethnicity and nested identities: New approaches to an old problem Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 14: 21–34. 355 — 2011. Local, Regional and Ethnic Identities in Early Medieval Cemeteries in Bavaria. Contributi Di Archeologia Medievale 5. Borgo S. Lorenzo (FI) [i.e. Florence, Italy]: All’insegna del giglio. — 2013. Correspondence analysis of the cremation urns, in C.M. Hills & S. Lucy (ed.) Spong Hill IX, Chronology and Synthesis: 168–95. Cambridge: McDonald Institute. HAMEROW, H. 1993. Excavations at Mucking. Vol.2, The Anglo-Saxon Settlement. Archaeological Report / Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England no.21. London: English Heritage in association with British Museum Press. HAND, W.D. 1980. Magical Medicine: The Folkloric Component of Medicine in the Folk Belief, Custom and Ritual of the Peoples of Europe and America: Selected Essays. Berkeley HÄRKE, H. 1992. Angelsächsische Waffengräber Des 5. Bis 7. Jahrhunderts. Zeitschrift Für Archäologie Des Mittelalters 6. Köln-Bonn: Rheinland-Verlag; In Kommission bei Rudolf Habelt. HATTATT, R. 1989. Ancient Brooches and Other Artefacts: A Fourth Selection of Brooches Together with Some Other Antiquities from the Author’s Collection. Oxford: Oxbow Books. HAUGHTON, C. & D. POWLESLAND. 1999a. West Heslerton: The Anglian Cemetery. Vol. 1. The Excavation and Discussion of the Evidence. Yedingham: Landscape Research Centre. — 1999b. West Heslerton: The Anglian Cemetery. Vol. 2. Catalogue of the Anglian Graves and Associated Assemblages. Yedingham: Landscape Research Centre. HEINSIUS, E. 1945. Schlüssel und Schloss im vorgeschichtlichen Europa. Unpublished PhD thesis, Berlin: Humboldt Universität zu Berlin. HILLS, C. forthcoming. Work boxes or reliquaries? Small copper alloy containers in seventh century Anglo-Saxon graves, in Dying Gods - Traditional Beliefs in Northern and Eastern Europe in the Time of Christianisation. Proceedings of the 64th International Sachsensymposion. Neue Studien Zur Sachsenforschung. — 2003. The Origins of the English. London: Duckworth. HILLS, C. & S. LUCY. (ed.) 2013. Spong Hill IX, Chronology and Synthesis. Cambridge: McDonald Institute. HILLS, C., K. PENN & R. RICKETT. (ed.) 1984. The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Spong Hill, North Elmham. Part III: Catalogue of Inhumations. Gressenhall, Norfolk: The Norfolk Archaeological Unit. HINES, J. 1984. The Scandinavian Character of Anglian England in the Pre-Viking Period. BAR British Series 124. Oxford: B.A.R. — 1992. The Seriation and Chronology of Anglian English Women´s Graves: A Critical Assessment, in L. Jørgensen (ed.) Chronological Studies of Anglo-Saxon England, Lombard Italy and Vendel Period Sweden, 5: 81–93. Arkæologiske Skrifter. Kopenhagen: Institute of Prehistoric and Classical Archaeology. 356 — 1993. Clasps = Hektespenner = Agraffen: Anglo-Scandinavian Clasps of Classes a-C of the 3rd to 6th Centuries A.d.: Typology, Diffusion and Function. Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets historie och antikvitets akademien. — 1997. A New Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Great Square-Headed Brooches. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. — 1999a. Angelsächsische Chronologie: Probleme und Aussichten, in U. von Freeden, U. Koch, & A. Wieczorek (ed.) Völker an Nord- Und Ostsee Und Die Franken: 19–30. Mannheimer Geschichtsblätter 2. Bonn: Habelt. — 1999b. The Anglo-Saxon archaeology of the Cambridge region and the Middle Anglian kingdom Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 10: 135–49. — 2003. Society, community and identity, in T. Charles-Edwards (ed.) After Rome: 61–102. Oxford: Oxford University Press. HINES, J. & A. BAYLISS. (ed.) 2013. Anglo-Saxon Graves and Grave Goods of the 6th and 7th Centuries AD: A Chronological Framework. The Society for Medieval Archaeology Monograph 33. London: Society for Medieval Archaeology. HINTON, D.A. 2000. A Smith in Lindsey: The Anglo-Saxon Grave at Tattershall Thorpe, Lincolnshire. Society for Medieval Archaeology Monograph 16. London: Society for Medieval Archaeology. HIRST, S. 1985. An Anglo-Saxon Inhumation Cemetery at Sewerby, East Yorkshire. York University Archaeological Publications 4. York: Department of Archaeology, University of York. — 1993. Death and the archaeologist, in M. Carver (ed.) In Search of Cult: Archaeological Investigations in Honour of Philip Rahtz: 41–43. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. HIRST, S. & D. CLARK. 2009a. Excavations at Mucking. Volume 3, the Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries. Part 1. Introduction, Catalogues and Specialist Reports. London: Museum of London Archaeology. — 2009b. Excavations at Mucking. Volume 3, the Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries. Part 2. Analysis and Discussion. London: Museum of London Archaeology. HODDER, I. 1982. The Present Past: An Introduction to Anthropology for Archaeologists. London: B.T. Batsford Ltd. HØILUND NIELSEN, K. 1997. The schism of Anglo-Saxon chronology, in C.K. Jensen & K. Høilund Nielsen (ed.) Burial & Society: The Chronological and Social Analysis of Archaeological Burial Data: 71–99. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. — 2009. The real thing or just wannabes? Scandinavian-style brooches in the fifth and sixth centuries, in D. Quast (ed.) Foreigners in Early Medieval Europe. Thirteen International Studies on Early Medieval Mobility: 51–112. Mainz: RömischGermanisches Zentralmuseum. HOLLINGWORTH, E.J. & M.M. O’REILLY. 1925. The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Girton College, Cambridge: A Report Based on the Ms. Notes of the Excavations Made by the Late F. J. H. Jenkinson. Cambridge: At the University Press. 357 HOLTORF, C. 2000. Making sense of the past beyond analogies, in A. Gramsch (ed.) Vergleichen Als Archäologische Methode. Analogien in Den Archäologien. Mit Beiträgen Einer Tagung Der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Theorie (T-AG) Und Einer Kommentierten Bibliographie.: 165–77. BAR International Series 825. Oxford: Archaeopress. HOSKINS, J. 2006. Agency, biography and objects, in C. Tilley, W. Keane, S. Kuechler, M. Rowlands, & Spyer, Patricia (ed.) Sage Handbook of Material Culture: 74–84. London: Routledge. HÜNNERKOPF, R. 1929. Eisen, in H. Bächtold-Stäubli & E. Hoffmann-Krayer (ed.) Handwörterbuch Des Deutschen Aberglaubens: 718–31. Handwörterbücher Zur Deutschen Volkskunde 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ICKERODT, U. 2010. Einführung in Das Grundproblem Des Archäologisch-Kulturhistorischen Vergleichens Und Deutens. Analogien-Bildung in Der Archäologischen Forschung. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. INKER, P.A. 2000. Technology as active material culture: the Quoit-brooch style Medieval Archaeology 44: 25–52. INSOLL, T. (ed.) 2007. The Archaeology of Identities: A Reader. London: Routledge. ISAKSEN, L. 2013. ‘O what a tangled web we weave’ – towards a practice that does not deceive, in C. Knappett (ed.) Network Analysis in Archaeology: New Approaches to Regional Interaction: 43–70. Oxford: Oxford University Press. JENSEN, C.K. & K. HØILUND NIELSEN. 1997. Burial Data and CA, in C.K. Jensen & K. Høilund Nielsen (ed.) Burial & Society: The Chronological and Social Analysis of Archaeological Burial Data: 29–61. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. JERVIS, B. & A. KYLE. (ed.) 2012. Make-Do and Mend: Archaeologies of Compromise, Repair and Reuse. BAR International Series 2408. Oxford, England: British Archaeological Association. JOBES, G. 1962. Dictionary of Mythology, Folklore and Symbols. New York: Scarecrow. JOY, J. 2009. Reinvigorating object biography: reproducing the drama of object lives World Archaeology 41: 540–56. — 2010. Iron Age Mirrors: A Biographical Approach. BAR British Series 518. Oxford: Archaeopress. JUNGWIRTH, A. 1935. Ring. (ed.)H. Bächtold-Stäubli & E. Hoffmann-Krayer Handwörterbuch Des Deutschen Aberglaubens. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. KELLER, E. 1971. Die Spätrömischen Grabfunde in Südbayern. Veröffentlichungen Der Kommission Zur Archäologischen Erforschung Des Spätrömischen Raetien Bei Der Bayerischen Akademie Der Wissenschaften 8. München: Beck. KERR, B. 2008. To what extent can a comparative study of early Anglo-Saxon cemetaries shed light on the use and meaning of girdle-hangers? Unpublished BA thesis, University of Cambridge. 358 KINSLEY, A.G. 1993. Broughton Lodge: Excavations on the Romano-British Settlement and Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Broughton Lodge, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, Nottinghamshire, 1964-8: Excavations by M.j. Dean. Nottingham Archaeological Monographs 4. Nottingham: Department of Classical and Archaeological Studies (Archaeology Section), University of Nottingham. KNAPPETT, C. 2004. The affordances of things: a post-Gibsonian perspective on the …, in E. DeMarrais, C. Gosden, & C. Renfrew (ed.) Rethinking Materiality: The Engagement of Mind with the Material World: 43–51. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. — 2011. An Archaeology of Interaction: Network Perspectives on Material Culture and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. — 2012. Meaning in Miniature: Semiotic Networks in Material Culture, in M. Johannsen, J. Jessen, & H.J. Jensen (ed.) Excavating the Mind: Cross-Sections Through Culture, Cognition and Materiality: 87–109. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. —. (ed.) 2013a. Network Analysis in Archaeology: New Approaches to Regional Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. — 2013b. Introduction: Why networks?, in C. Knappett (ed.) Network Analysis in Archaeology: New Approaches to Regional Interaction: 3–15. Oxford: Oxford University Press. KNAPPETT, C., T. EVANS & R. RIVERS. 2008. Modelling maritime interaction in the Aegean Bronze Age Antiquity 82: 1009–24. KNAPPETT, C. & L. MALAFOURIS. (ed.) 2008. Material Agency: Towards a NonAnthropocentric Approach. New York: Springer. KNAUT, M. 1993. Die Alamannischen Gräberfelder Vvn Neresheim Und Kösingen, Ostalbkreis. Forschungen Und Berichte Zur Vor- Und Frühgeschichte in BadenWürttemberg 48. Stuttgart: Kommissionsverlag K. Theiss. KNOX, H., M. SAVAGE & P. HARVEY. 2006. Social networks and the study of relations: networks as method, metaphor and form Economy and Society 35: 113–40. KOCH, U. 1977. Das Reihengräberfeld Bei Schretzheim. Germanische Denkmäler Der Völkerwanderungszeit 13. Berlin: Mann. KOPITOFF, I. 1986. The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process, in A. Appadurai (ed.) The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective: 64– 91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. KUHN, H. 1965. Die Germanischen Bügelfibeln Der Völkerwanderungszeit in Der Rheinprovinz. 2. verb. Aufl. Die Germanischen Bügelfibeln Der Völkerwanderungszeit Teil 1. Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt. LA BAUME, P. 1967. Das Fränkische Gräberfeld Von Junkersdorf Bei Köln. Germanische Denkmäler Der Völkerwanderungszeit B3. Berlin. LAMM, K. 1980. Early Medieval metalworking on Helgö in Central Sweden, in W.A. Oddy (ed.) Aspects of Early Metallurgy. Proceedings of a Symposium Held at the British 359 Museum on 22 and 23 April 1979: 97–116. British Museum Occasional Papers 17. London: British Museum. LANE, A. & E. CAMPBELL. 2000. Dunadd: An Early Dalriadic Capital. Cardiff Studies in Archaeology 4. Oxford: Oxbow Books. LATOUR, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. LAYTON, R. 1999. Folklore and worldview, in A. Gazin-Schwartz & C. Holtorf (ed.) Archaeology and Folklore: 24–32. London: Routledge. LEAHY, K. 2003. Anglo-Saxon Crafts. Stroud: Tempus. — 2005. West Rasen Medieval Archaeology 49: 337–41. — 2007. Interrupting the Pots: The Excavation of Cleatham Anglo-Saxon Cemetery. Research Report (Council for British Archaeology) 155. York: Council for British Archaeology. LEEDS, E.T. 1945. The Distribution of the Angles and Saxons Archaeologically Considered Archaeologia (Second Series) 91: 1–106. LETHBRIDGE, T.C. 1931. Recent Excavations in Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries in Cambridgeshire and Suffolk, Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society Quarto Publications 3. — 1933. Anglo-Saxon Burials at Soham Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society 33: 152–63. LETHBRIDGE, T.C., M.M. O’REILLY & C.S. LEAF. 1935. Archaeological notes Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society 35: 141–46. LIDDLE, P. & S. MIDDLETON. 1994. An Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Wigston Magna, Leicestershire Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society 68: 64–86. LOHRKE, B. 2004. Kinder in Der Merowingerzeit: Gräber von Mädchen Und Jungen in Der Alemannia. Freiburger Beiträge Zur Archäologie Und Geschichte Des Ersten Jahrtausends 9. Rahden/Westf: Leidorf. LUCY, S. 1997. Housewives, warriors and slaves? Sex and gender in Anglo-Saxon burials, in J. Moore & E. Scott (ed.) Invisible People and Processes: Writing Gender and Childhood into European Archaeology: 150–68. London: Leicester University Press. — 1998. The Early Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries of East Yorkshire: An Analysis and Reinterpretation. BAR British Series 272. Oxford: J. and E. Hedges. — 2000. The Anglo-Saxon Way of Death: Burial Rites in Early England. Stroud: Sutton. — 2005. The archaeology of age, in M. Díaz-Andreu García, S. Lucy, S. Babic, & D. Edwards Archaeology of Identity: Approaches to Gender, Age, Status, Ethnicity and Religion: 43–66. London: Routledge. 360 LUCY, S., R. NEWMAN, N. DODWELL, C. HILLS, M. DEKKER, T. O’CONNELL, I. RIDDLER & P. WALTON ROGERS. 2009a. The Burial of A Princess? The Later seventh-Century Cemetery At Westfoeld Farm, Ely The Antiquaries Journal 89: 81–141. LUCY, S., J. TIPPER & A. DICKENS. 2009b. The Anglo-Saxon Settlement and Cemetery at Bloodmoor Hill, Carlton Colville, Suffolk. East Anglian Archaeology 131. Cambridge: Cambridge Archaeological Unit in conjunction with ALGAO East. MACGREGOR, A. & E. BOLICK. 1993. A Summary Catalogue of the Anglo-Saxon Collections (non-Ferrous Metals). (ed.)C. Mortimer & N. Pollard. British Archaeological Reports 230. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum in association with the Ashmolean Museum. MALAFOURIS, L. & C. RENFREW. (ed.) 2010a. The Cognitive Life of Things: Recasting the Boundaries of the Mind. McDonald Institute Monographs. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. — 2010b. The cognitive life of things: archaeology, material engagement and the extended mind, in L. Malafouris & C. Renfrew (ed.) The Cognitive Life of Things: Recasting the Boundaries of the Mind: 1–12. McDonald Institute Monographs. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. MALIM, T. & J. HINES. 1998. The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Edix Hill (Barrington A), Cambridgeshire. York MANNING, W.H. 1985. Catalogue of the Romano-British Iron Tools, Fittings and Weapons in the British Museum. London: Published for the Trustees of the British Museum by British Museum Publications. MARTIN, T. 2011. Identity and the Cruciform Brooch in Early Anglo-Saxon England: An Investigation of Style, Mortuary Context, and Use. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sheffield. — 2012. Riveting biographies: the theoretical implications of early Anglo-Saxon brooch repair, customisation and use-adaptation, in Make-Do and Mend: Archaeologies of Compromise, Repair and Reuse: 53–65. BAR International Series 2408. Oxford: British Archaeological Association. MARZINZIK, S. 2003. Early Anglo-Saxon Belt Buckles (late 5th to Early 8th Centuries A.d.): Their Classification and Context. BAR British Series 357. Oxford: Archaeopress. MATTHEWS, C.L. 1962. Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Marina Drive, Dunstable Bedfordshire Archaeological Journal 1: 25–47. May 28th, 1866 1872 Transactions of the Leicestershire Architectural and Archaeological Society 3: 120–33. MAYS, S. 1996. Human skeletal remains, in J. Timby The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Empingham II, Rutland: Excavations Carried out between 1974-1975: 21–33. Oxford: Oxbow. MCCLEAN, L. & A. RICHARDSON. 2010. Early Anglo-Saxon brooches in southern England: The contribution of the Portable Antiquities Scheme’, in S. Worrall, G. Egan, & J. Naylor (ed.) A Decade of Discovery: Proceedings of the Portable Antiquities Scheme 361 Conference 2007: 161–71. BAR British Series 520. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. MEANEY, A.L. 1964. A Gazetteer of Early Anglo-Saxon Burial Sites. London: Allen & Unwin. — 1981. Anglo-Saxon Amulets and Curing Stones. BAR British Series 96. Oxford: B.A.R. — 1989. Women, Witchcraft and Magic in Anglo-Saxon England, in D.G. Scragg (ed.) Superstition and Popular Medicine in Anglo-Saxon England: 9–40. Manchester: University. — 1998. Girdle groups: reconstruction and comparative study, in T. Malim & J. Hines The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Edix Hill (Barrington A), Cambridgeshire.: 268–75. CBA Research Report 112. York: Council for British Archaeology. MESKELL, L. 2007. Archaeologies of identity, in T. Insoll (ed.) The Archaeology of Identities: A Reader: 23–43. London: Routledge. MITTERMEIER, I. 2003. Die Deutung von Grabbeigaben des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit - eine Interpretationshilfe für das frühe Mittelalter?, in J. Jarnut & M. Wemhoff (ed.) Erinnerungskultur Im Bestattungsritual: 219–35. München: Wilhelm Fink. MORTIMER, C. 1990. Some aspects of early medieval copper-alloy technology, as illustrated by a study of the Anglian cruciform brooch. Unpublished DPhil thesis, University of Oxford. — 1994. Lead-alloy models for three early Anglo-Saxon brooches Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 7: 27–33. — 1999. Technical analysis of the cruciform brooch, in U. von Freeden, U. Koch, & A. Wieczorek (ed.) Völker an Nord- Und Ostsee Und Die Franken: 83–90. Mannheimer Geschichtsblätter 2. Bonn: Habelt. MORTIMER, C. & K. ANHEUSER. 1998. Non-ferrous metalwork, in T. Malim & J. Hines (ed.) The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Edix Hill (Barrington A), Cambridgeshire.: 247–52. CBA Research Report 112. York: Council for British Archaeology. MYRES, J.N.L. 1969. Anglo-Saxon Pottery and the Settlement of England. Oxford: Clarendon Press. — 1978. Amulets or small change? The Antiquaries Journal 58: 352. MYRES, J.N.L. & W.H. SOUTHERN. 1973. The Anglo-Saxon Cremation Cemetery at Sancton, East Yorkshire. Hull Museum Publication no. 218. Hull: Hull Museums. NERMAN, B. 1958. Grobin-Seeburg: Ausgrabungen Und Funde. Monografi 41. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. NEVILLE, R.C. 1852. Saxon Obsequies Illustrated by Ornaments and Weapons: Discovered ... in a Cemetery near Little Wilbraham, Cambridgeshire, during the Autumn of 1851. London: John Murray. 362 ØRSNES, M. 1969. Südskandinavische Ornamentik in der jüngeren Germanischen Eisenzeit Acta Archaeologica 40: 1–121. PADER, E.-J. 1982. Symbolism, Social Relations and the Interpretation of Mortuary Remains. BAR International Series 130. Oxford: B.A.R. PALM, M. & J. PIND. 1992. Anglian English Women´s Graves in the Fifth to Seventh Centuries A.D. – A Chronological Analysis, in L. Jørgensen (ed.) Chronological Studies of Anglo-Saxon England, Lombard Italy and Vendel Period Sweden, 5: 50–80. Arkæologiske Skrifter. Kopenhagen: Institute of Prehistoric and Classical Archaeology. PAPHITIS, T. 2013. ‘Have you come to take the king away?’: A survey of archaeology and folklore in context Papers of the Institue of Archaeology 23: 1–23. PARKER-PEARSON, M. 2006. The origins of Old Norse ritual and religion in European perspective, in A. Andrén, K. Jennbert, & C. Raudvere (ed.) Old Norse Religion in Long-Term Perspectives: Origins, Changes, and Interactions: An International Conference in Lund, Sweden, June 3-7, 2004: 86–91. Lund: Nordic Academic. PAULI, L. 1975. Keltischer Volksglaube: Amulette U. Sonderbestattungen Am Dürrnberg Bei Hallein U. Im Eisenzeitl. Mitteleuropa. Münchner Beiträge Zur Vor- Und Frühgeschichte 28. München: Beck. PENN, K. 1998. An Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Oxborough, West Norfolk: Excavations in 1990. East Anglian Archaeology Occasional Papers 5. Dereham: Field Archaeology Division, Norfolk Museums Service. — 2000. Excavations on the Norwich Southern Bypass, 1989-91. Part II, The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Harford Farm, Caistor St Edmund, Norfolk. East Anglian Archaeology 92. Dereham: Archaeology and Environment Division, Norfolk Museum Service. — 2011. The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Shrubland Hall Quarry, Coddenham, Suffolk. East Anglian Archaeology 139. Bury St. Edmunds: Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service. PENN, K. & B. BRUGMANN. 2007. Aspects of Anglo-Saxon Inhumation Burial: Morning Thorpe, Spong Hill, Bergh Apton and Westgarth Gardens. East Anglian Archaeology 119. Dereham: Historic Environment, Norfolk Museums and Archaeology Service. PEREGO, E. 2010. Magic and Ritual in Iron Age Veneto, Italy Papers of the Institue of Archaeology 20: 67–96. PETRESCU, P. & E. S House. AN. 1985. Romanian Folk Costume. Bucharest: Meridiane Pub. PITT-RIVERS, A.H.L.F. 1883. On the Development and Distribution of Primitive Locks and Keys: Illustrated by Specimens in the Pitt-Rivers Collection. London: Chatto. POWERS, N. (ed.) 2012. Human Osteology Method Statement. Museum of London Archaeology Service. POWNALL, A. 1866. Anglo-Saxon antiquities discovered at Glen Parva in Leicestershire Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries 3: 344–46. 363 PRICE, N.S. 2002. The Viking Way: Religion and War in Late Iron Age Scandinavia. AUN 31. Uppsala: Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University. — 2006. What’s in a name? An archaeological identity crisis for the Norse gods (and some of their friends), in A. Andrén, K. Jennbert, & C. Raudvere (ed.) Old Norse Religion in Long-Term Perspectives: Origins, Changes, and Interactions: An International Conference in Lund, Sweden, June 3-7, 2004: 179–83. Lund: Nordic Academic. RATKE, S. & R. SIMEK. 2006. Guldgubber. Relics of pre-Christion law rituals?, in K. Andren, K. Jennbert, & C. Raudvere (ed.) Old Norse Religion in Long-Term Perspectives: Origins, Changes, and Interactions: An International Conference in Lund, Sweden, June 3-7, 2004: 259–66. Lund: Nordic Academic. RAVN, M. 2003. Death Ritual and Germanic Social Structure (c. AD 200-600). BAR International Series 1164. Oxford: Archaeopress. REICHSTEIN, J. 1975. Die Kreuzförmige Fibel: Zur Chronologie Der Späten Römischen Kaiserzeit Und Der Völkerwanderungszeit in Skandinavien, Auf Dem Kontinent Und in England. Offa-Bücher 34. Neumünster: K. Wachholtz. RENFREW, C. 2001. Symbol before concept: material engagement and the early development of society, in I. Hodder (ed.) Archaeological Theory Today: 122–40. London: Polity Press. — 2004. Towards a theory of material engagement, in E. DeMarrais, C. Gosden, & C. Renfrew (ed.) Rethinking Materiality: The Engagement of Mind with the Material World: 23–32. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. REYNOLDS, A. 2009. Anglo-Saxon Deviant Burial Customs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. RHOUSANNAFAS, T. 2012. A Bronze Openwork Disc at Willoughby-on-the-Wolds. Unpiblished BA project paper. RICHARDSON, A. 2005. The Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries of Kent. BAR British Series 391. Oxford: John and Erica Hedges. RIDER, C. 2011. Medical Magic and the Church in Thirteenth- Century England Social History of Medicine 24: 92–107. RIEDE, F. 2014. Eruptions and ruptures – a social network perspective on the societal effects of the Laacher See-eruption (12920 BP) on Late Glacial hunter-gatherers in northern Europe, in S. Evans & K. Felder (ed.) Social Network Perspectives in Archaeology: 67–102. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 29.1. Cambridge. ROBBINS, K.J. 2013. Balancing the Scales: Exploring the Variable Effects of Collection Bias on Data Collected by the Portable Antiquities Scheme Landscapes 14: 54–72. ROBB, J.E. 2010. Beyond agency World Archaeology 42: 493–520. ROSS, A. 1992. Pagan Celtic Britain. Studies in Iconography and Tradition. 2nd ed. London: Constable and Company Ltd. ROWLAND, B. (ed.) 1981. Medieval Woman’s Guide to Health: The First English Gynecological Handbook. London: Croom Helm. 364 SAGGAU, H.E. 1986. Bordesholm: Der Urnenfriedhof Am Brautberg Bei Bordesholm in Holstein. Offa-Bücher 60. Neumünster: Wachholtz. SAYER, D. 2007. Drei südenglische Gräberfelder aus angelsächsischer Zeit und ihre Organisation, in C. Grünewald & T. Capelle (ed.) Innere Strukturen von Siedlungen Und Gräberfeldern Als Spiegel Gesellschaftlicher Wirklichkeit? Akten Des 57. Internationalen Sachsensymposiums: 79–84. Veröffentlichungen Der Altertumskommission Für Westfalen XVII. Münster: Aschendorff. — 2009. The 7th century Kentish family: considering the evidence from the legal codes and cemetery organisation, in H. Williams & D. Sayer (ed.) Mortuary Practice and Social Identities in the Middle Ages: 141–66. Exeter: Exeter University Press. — 2010. Death and the family: Developing a generational chronology Journal of Social Archaeology 10: 59–91. — 2013. Investigating the Social Aspects of Early Medieval Mortuary Practice History Compass 11: 147–62. SAYER, D., R. MORTIMER, F. SAYER, S. DICKINSON & J. MORRIS. forthcoming. The Archaeology of Community: Excavations at Oakington early Anglo-Saxon Cemetery, in S. Semple & C. Orsini (ed.) Life on the Edge: Social, Political and Religious Frontiers in Early Medieval Europe. 63th International Sachsensymposium Proceedings. SAYER, D. & M. WIENHOLD. 2013. A GIS-investigation of four early anglo-saxon cemeteries: Ripley’s K-Function analysis of spatial groupings amongst graves Social Science Computer Review 31: 71–89. SCHEUER, L. & S.M. BLACK. 2000. Developmental Juvenile Osteology. San Diego, Calif. London: Academic. SCHIENERL, P.W. 1981. The protective power of Romanian key-shaped pendants Ornament 5: 10–11. — 1985. Major trends in the historical development of amulets Ornament 9: 19–25. SCHMIDT, B. 1961. Die Späte Völkerwanderungszeit in Mitteldeutschland. Textteil. Veröffentlichungen Des Landesmuseums Für Vorgeschichte in Halle 18. Halle (Saale): M. Niemeyer. SCHNURBEIN, A. von. 1987. Der Alamannische Friedhof Bei Fridingen an Der Donau (Kreis Tuttlingen). Forschungen Und Berichte Zur Vor- Und Frühgeschichte in BadenWürttemberg 21. Stuttgart: Theiss. SCULL, C. 2009. Early Medieval (late 5th-Early 8th Centuries AD) Cemeteries at Boss Hall and Buttermarket, Ipswich, Suffolk. Society for Medieval Archaeology Monograph 27. Leeds: Society for Medieval Archaeology. SCULL, C. & A. BAYLISS. 1999. Dating Burials of the Seventh and Eighth Centuries: A Case Study from Ipswich, Suffolk, in J. Hines, K. Høilund Nielsen, & F. Siegmund (ed.) A Pace of Change. Studies in Early Medieval Chronology: 80–88. Oxford: Oxbow. 365 SEIDENSPINNER, W. 1986. Mittelalterarchäologie und Volkskunde. ein Beitrag zur Öffnung und zur Theoriebildung archäologischer Mittelalterforschung Zeitschrift Für Archäologie Des Mittelalters 14/15: 9–48. SHELLEY, C. 2003. Multiple Analogies in Science and Philosophy. Human Cognitive Processing 11. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. SHENNAN, S. 1997. Quantifying Archaeology. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. SHEPPARD, T. 1938. Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries in East Yorkshire (Staxton). Hull Museum Publications. Hull. SHERLOCK, S.J. & M.G. WELCH. 1992. An Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Norton, Cleveland. Research Report / Council for British Archaeology 82. London: CBA. SHERMAN, D. 2010. Unlocking Early Anglo-Saxon Girdle-Hangers. Unpublished BA thesis, Harvard University. SIEGMUND, F. 1998. Merowingerzeit Am Niederrhein: Die Frühmittelalterlichen Funde Aus Dem Regierungsbezirk Düsseldorf Und Dem Kreis Heinsberg. Rheinische Ausgrabungen 34. : Bonn: Rheinland-Verlag n bei R. Habelt. SINDBAEK, S. 2007. Networks and nodal points: the emergence of towns in early Viking age scandinavia Antiquity 81: 119–32. SMITH, C.R. 1852. Collectanea Antiqua: Etchings and Notices of Ancient Remains, Illustrative of the Habits, Customs and History of Past Ages. London. — 1856. Introduction, in Faussett 1856: ix – lvi. SOFAER, J.R. 2007a. Introduction: Materiality and identity, in J.R. Sofaer (ed.) Material Identities: 1–9. Malden, MA —. (ed.) 2007b. Material Identities. New Interventions in Art History. Malden, MA Blackwell Pub. SOLBAKK, A. 2011. Sami Mythology and Folk Medicine. Kárášjohka: Samikopija, The Saami Reproduction Rights Organisation. STENBERGER, M.K.H. 1977. Vorgeschichte Schwedens. Nordische Vorzeit 4. Neumünster: K. Wachholtz. STEUER, H. 1982. Schlüsselpaare in frühgeschichtlichen Gräbern: zur Deutung einer AmulettBeigabe Studien zur Sachsenforschung 3: 185–247. — 2007. Verschlüsse (Schloß und Schlüssel) Reallexikon Der Germanischen Altertumskunde. 35. STOODLEY, N. 1999. The Spindle and the Spear: A Critical Enquiry into the Construction and Meaning of Gender in the Early Anglo-Saxon Burial Rite. BAR British Series 288. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 366 — 2000. From the cradle to the grave: Age organization and the early Anglo-Saxon burial rite World Archaeology 31: 456–72. — 2002. Multiple burials, multiple meanings? Interpreting the early Anglo-Saxon multiple interment, in S. Lucy & A. Reynolds (ed.) Burial in Early Medieval England and Wales: 103–21. Society for Medieval Archaeology Monograph 17. London: The Society for Medieval Archaeology. STRAUSS, C. & N. QUINN. 1997. A Cognitive Theory of Cultural Meaning. Publications of the Society for Psychological Anthropology 9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SUZUKI, S. 2008. Anglo-Saxon Button Brooches: Typology, Genealogy, Chronology. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. SWANTON, M. 1964. An Anglian cemetery at Londesborough in East Yorkshire Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 41: 262–85. THEUNE, C. 1997. Nützliches und Unnützliches am langen Band. Bemerkungen zu einer germanischen Trachtsitte der Merowingerzeit, in H. Brandt & J. Koch (ed.) Königin, Klosterfrau, Bäuerin: Frauen Im Frühmittelalter: 55–72. Münster: Agenda Verlag. THEUWS, F. 2009. Grave goods, ethnicity, and the rhetoric of burial rites in Late Antique Northern Gaul, in T. Derks & N. Roymans (ed.) Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity. The Role of Power and Tradition: 283–320. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. THOMAS, G.W. 1882. On Excavations in an Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Sleaford, in Lincolnshire Archaeologia 50: 383–406. TIMBY, J. 1996. The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Empingham II, Rutland: Excavations Carried out between 1974-1975. Oxbow Monograph 70. Oxford: Oxbow. TOMTLUND, J.-E. 1978. Locks and keys, in K. Lamm & A. Lundström (ed.) Excavations at Helgö V:l. Workshop Part II: 3–14. Stockholm: KVHAA/Almqvist & Wiksell. TYMMS, S. 1853. Anglo-Saxon Relics from West Stow Heath Proceedings of the Bury & West Suffolk Archaeological Institute 1: 315–28. VAN ES, W.A., R.P. SCHOEN, W.A. VAN BOMMEL-VAN DER SLUIJS & L. SMITS. 2008. Het vroegmiddeleeuwse grafveld van Zweeloo Palaeohistoria 50: 795–935. VAN ES, W.A. & J. YPEY. 1977. Das Grab der Prinzessin von Zweeloo und seine Bedeutung im Rahmen des Gräberfeldes Studien Zur Sachsenforschung 1: 97–126. VIERCK, H. 1970. Zum Fernverkehr über See im 6. Jahrhundert angesichts angelsächsischer Fibelsätze in Thüringen. Eine Problemskizze, in K. Hauck Goldbrakteaten Aus Sievern: 355–95. München: Wilhelm Fink. — 1977. Zur relativen und absoluten Chronologie der anglischen Grabfunde in England, in G. Kossack & J. Reichstein (ed.) Archäologische Beiträge Zur Chronologie Der Völkerwanderungszeit: 42–52. Antiquitas 20. Bonn: Habelt. WALLER, K. 1961. Der Urnenfriedhof in Wehden. Hildesheim. 367 WALTON ROGERS, P. 1999. The textiles, in C. Haughton & D. Powlesland West Heslerton: The Anglian Cemetery. Vol. 1. The Excavation and Discussion of the Evidence: 143– 71. Yedingham: Landscape Research Centre. — 2007. Cloth and Clothing in Early Anglo-Saxon England: Ad 450-700. CBA Research Report 145. York: Council for British Archaeology. WERNER, J. 1935. Münzdatierte Austrasische Grabfunde. Germanische Denkmäler Der Völkerwanderungszeit 3. Berlin, Leipzig: W. de Gruyter. — 1950. Zur Entstehung der Reihengräberzivilisation Archaeologia Geographica 1: 23–32. WEST, S. 1985. West Stow: The Anglo-Saxon Village. East Anglian Archaeology 24. Ipswich: Suffolk County Council Planning Department. — 1988. The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Westgarth Gardens, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk: Catalogue. East Anglian Archaeology 38. Bury St Edmunds: Suffolk County Planning Dept. — 1998. A Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Material From Suffolk. East Anglian Archaeology 84. England: Suffolk County Council Archaeology Service. WHITE, R. 1989. Towards a contextual understanding of the earliest body ornaments, in E. Trinkaus (ed.) The Emergence of Modern Humans: Biocultural Adaptations in the Later Pleistocene: 211–31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. WHITE, T.D., M.T. BLACK & P.A. FOLKENS. 2012. Human Osteology. 3rd ed. Amsterdam London: Elsevier/Academic Press. WIESSNER, P. 1990. Is there a unity to style?, in M.W. Conkey & C.A. Hastorf (ed.) The Uses of Style in Archaeology: 105–12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. WILLIAMS, H. 2006. Death and Memory in Early Medieval Britain. Cambridge Studies in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. WOBST, M. 1999. Style in Archaeology or Archaeologists in Style, in E. Chilton (ed.) Material Meanings: Critical Approaches to the Interpretation of Material Culture: 118–32. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. WRIGHT, J., M. LEIVERS, R. SEIGER SMITH & C.J. STEVENS. 2009. Cambourne New Settlement: Iron Age and Romano-British Settlement on the Clay Uplands of West Cambridgeshire. Wessex Archaeology Report no. 23. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology. WRIGHT, R.P. 1964. A Graeco-Egyptian amulet from a Romano-British site at Welwyn, Herts The Antiquaries Journal 44: 143–46. WRIGHT, T. 1875. The Celt, the Roman, and the Saxon: A History of the Early Inhabitants of Britain, down to the Conversion of the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity: Illustrated by the Ancient Remains Brought to Light by Recent Research. 3rd ed., carefully rev., with additions. London: Trübner. WYLIE, A. 1982. An analogy by any other name is just as analogical - A commentary on the Gould - Watson debate Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1: 382–401. 368 — 1985. The reaction against analogy Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8: 63– 111. YPEY, J. 1969. Zur Tragweise fränkischer Gürtelgarnituren auf Grund niederländischer Befunde Berichten van de Rijksdienst Voor Het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 19: 89–128. 369