Gender Representations and Realities in Roman Britain: A Critical Approach To Contextualising Grave Goods

GENDER REPRESENTATIONS AND
REALITIES IN ROMAN BRITAIN

A Critical Approach to Contextualising Grave
Goods
Durham University
Department of Archaeology
Master of Arts
Laura A. Wesolowski
Word Count: 18,879
26th of August 2016

ABSTRACT
The field of Roman archaeology has consistently circumvented, and consequently
neglected, the study of gender in favour of more broad, socio-political discussions on status
and identity. This is due to the belief that gender is too conceptually ambiguous and
materially intangible to warrant an extensive study. However, no previous study has
attempted to challenge this belief, indicating claims that gender is too difficult, illusive, or
irrelevant to demand a comprehensive study, are undue and ill-founded (Conkey & Spector,
1984). It is this study which will address this negligence of gender research in archaeology
by arguing such a discourse is formative to an individual’s social experience in Roman British
society.
In asserting the research value of gender in Roman British archaeologies this study must
first address how archaeologists can construct a formative and flexible framework for
interpreting sites where gendered bodies or objects may be present. It is necessary that this
interrogative framework does not commit to strict, conservative gender paradigms and is
conscious of the relationship between biological sex and culturally-constructed gender
(Søresnsen, 2000). This attempt to methodise archaeological approaches to gender will be
examined through Roman London burial contexts where grave goods are present, arguing
gender identities are visible in such contexts through varied grave good patterning and
association. Through this focus on the contingency between material culture and social
I
identity it will be stressed that gender is a formative experience of Roman identity, visible
within the material record.
By critically examining previous research on Roman gender and proposing a new, insightful
way of interpreting gendered contexts and remains, this study aims to encourage a
constructive dialogue and framework for understanding gender in antiquity. Through this
retrospective reflection on gender, archaeology may claim its value as a socially-relevant
discipline able to contribute to an understanding of contemporary gender concerns and
practices.
II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT............................................................................................
.........................................................I
TABLE OF
CONTENTS............................................................................................
......................................III
TABLE OF FIGURES &
TABLES................................................................................................
......................V
TABLES.........................................................................................
................................................V
FIGURES.......................................................................................
................................................V
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1. APPROACHING GENDER IN
ARCHAEOLOGY............................................................................
..1
1.2. RESEARCH AIMS &
OBJECTIVES................................................................................
................3
1.3. INTRODUCTION TO THE
STUDY........................................................................................
........4
1.3.1. Methodology
1.3.2. Limitations of Research
1.4. STRUCTURE OF THE
STUDY........................................................................................
..............6
CHAPTER TWO: GENDER IN ACADEMIC CONTEXT

2.1. REVISITING GENDER AND SEX
DISCOURSE...............................................................................8
2.1.1. Between Sex and Gender
2.1.2. Conceptualising Life-Course
2.2. CONTEXTUALISING GENDER IN ROMAN
BRITAIN...................................................................11
2.3. GENDERED INTERPRETATIONS OF BURIAL
PRACTICE.............................................................16
2.4. GRAVE GOODS AS
EVIDENCE...............................................................................
..................20
2.5 CHAPTER
CONCLUSION..........................................................................
................................23
CHAPTER THREE: THE METHODOLOGY
III
3.1. INTRODUCTION TO THE
METHODOLOGY.......................................................................
.......25
3.1.1 Location
3.1.2. Data Collection
3.1.3. Data Synthesis
3.2. DEMOGRAPHIC OF
STUDY....................................................................................
.................30
3.3. SEX DISTRIBUTION OF GRAVE
GOODS...................................................................................
31
3.3.1. Distribution of Grave Goods
3.4. AGE DISTRIBUTION OF GRAVE
GOODS..................................................................................
37
3.4.1. Distribution of Grave Goods
3.5. CHAPTER
CONCLUSION..........................................................................
...............................46
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS OF CHARACTERISING GRAVE GOODS

4.1. GRAVE GOOD
CATEGORIES...................................................................................
.................47
4.1.1. Attire
4.1.2. Coinage
4.1.3. Jewellery
4.1.4. Toilet Items
4.1.5. Vessels
4.2. GRAVE GOOD
MATERIALS.....................................................................................
.................61
4.2.1. Bronze
4.2.2. Jet & Shale
4.2.3. Silver & Gold
4.3. CHAPTER
CONCLUSION...................................................................................
......................64
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION

5.1. SUMMARY OF
STUDY............................................................................................
.................66
5.2. FUTURE
RESEARCH......................................................................................
..........................71
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Total Burial Data from
Study.....................................................................................74
IV
APPENDIX B: Grave Good Type
Distribution................................................................................10
6
APPENDIX C: Grave Good Material
Distribution...........................................................................108
BIBLOGRAPHY......................................................................................
....................................................109
V
TABLE OF TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLES
Table 1: List of Roman London Sites used in Study.................................................................28
Table 2: Key of Grave Good Codes and Descriptions used in Study........................................30
Table 3: Sex Distribution of Inhumations................................................................................35
Table 4: Sex Distribution of Cremations..................................................................................35
Table 5: Male Distribution of Grave Good Quantities.............................................................44
Table 6: Female Distribution of Grave Good Quantities.........................................................45
FIGURES
Figure 1: Gravestone of Regina...............................................................................................14
Figure 2: Ivory-handled Knife carved into leopard form.........................................................22
Figure 3: Map of Early Roman London....................................................................................26
Figure 4: Sex Distribution of Burials........................................................................................33
Figure 5: Grave Good Distribution Total.................................................................................34
Figure 6: Sex Distribution of Inhumation and Cremation Burials............................................35
Figure 7: Age Distribution of Burials.......................................................................................41
Figure 8: Age Distribution of Grave Goods..............................................................................42
Figure 9: Distribution of Grave Goods in Female Burial Contexts...........................................43
Figure 10: Distribution of Grave Good Categories..................................................................48
Figure 11: S29B11 Burial Outline............................................................................................52
Figure 12: Gold Earring found in Lant Street Burial................................................................54
Figure 13: Harper Road Torc...................................................................................................56
Figure 14: Illustration of Harper Road Torc.............................................................................56
Figure 15: Gladiator Lamp.......................................................................................................60
Figure 16: Anubis Lamp...........................................................................................................60
VI
Chapter One: Introduction
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1. APPROACHING GENDER IN ARCHAEOLOGY

In its nature, gender, like other socially-constructed discourses is experienced by individual
communities in unique ways through the it’s appropriation, adaption and interpretation. In
doing so, gender cannot be considered fixed nor static. Instead, gender is an abstract
concept experienced uniquely by society where it is interconnected with other “axes of
identity”, such as age, ethnicity, status and wealth (Hollimon, 2011, p.163). This
understanding asserts that studies on gender cannot be conceptualised in isolation from
other social practices and that an inter-related network of gender, sex, age, status, and
ethnicity allows for a more complex paradigm of identity (Gowland, 2002). Another feature
of identity, sex, is traditionally expressed as a biologically-informed categorisation, whereby
gender is given. However, this contingency between sex and gender assumes biological
informs cultural and such individuals or groups who do not follow this congruency must be
considered atypical (Sørensen, 2000). This also suggests that there is a strict gender
mythology where spaces, objects and individuals are categorised in terms of possessing
male or female properties (Nelson, 1997). This holds greater implications for the way in
which archaeologists may understand a society, particularly concerning domesticity, labour
and power dynamics (Wilkie & Hayes, 2006). However, this heteronormative gender
dichotomy, ascribed by biological sex, ignores the scope and variation of human practice
and culture.
1
In an attempt to resolve these gender-sex assumptions and stereotypes, feminist and
gender archaeologies claim the relationship between biological sex and socially-constructed
gender should not be considered with certain fixity and should involve other investigative
methods (Conkey & Spector, 1984). As archaeology relies heavily upon the analysis of
material culture, it is argued that artefactual interpretation should be employed as a
method to explore gender on multiple scales (Hollimon, 2011). Therefore, in using the
interpretation of material culture in conjunction with more traditional, scientific
assessments, archaeologists are able to aptly explore and critique the symbols,
characterisations, roles and ideologies related to gender. These interpretations must be
unbiased from conservative, patriarchal categories of male and female objects and should
allow for gender flexibility and negotiation (Donald & Hurcombe, 2000). This approach
acknowledges the fluid nature of gender and the interpretation of material culture, creating
an objective platform for the archaeological discussion of gender in antiquity.
The study of gender in past societies invokes greater insight into the current gender
systems of modern society; however, our contemporary context also inhibits an objective
translation of the past. It is difficult to observe unfamiliar and foreign societies outside of
their context, and even more so, to understand these societies in isolation of our own
contemporary perceptions (Conkey & Spector, 1984). Thus, in order to create a credible
study of gender there must be an acknowledgement of “the constructed character of
gender, as well as the constructed character of the past” (Nelson, 1997, p.22). This includes
an awareness that gender relations and ideologies are constantly shifting, and as thus,
cannot be considered stable, definable concepts (Nelson, 1997). In considering the flexibility
2
and negotiation of gender, it is the role of the archaeologist to theorise gender and account
for the conceptual change over time.
Therefore, not only must archaeology consider the obscurity of gender and the
interpretation of material culture but also the influence of our contemporary context.
Through the recognition and understanding of these discursive structures, the field of
archaeology can engage with an interrogative framework to study gender (Conkey &
Spector, 1984).
1.2. RESEARCH AIMS & OBJECTIVES

It is the aim of this research to insist the study of gender within the field of archaeology
should be seriously revised; claiming a greater focus on gender within the material record is
essential to a comprehensive understanding of past identities, spaces, hierarchies and
practices.
In addressing this aim, the focus of this research is threefold; first, to describe the extent to
which gender has been neglected in archaeological studies and to reassert its value as a
discursive method to understanding society in Roman Britain. Secondly, to investigate the
relevance and significance of the archaeological interpretation of grave goods in gendered
discourse. Thirdly, to establish an interrogative method using a comprehensive database, to
examine the visibility of gender and other forms of social identity within Roman London
burial contexts.
Through this examination the following research questions will be posed; is a consistent
relationship between social identities and material culture apparent in the archaeological
3
record? Can grave good characterisations be relied upon to inform and support research
into Roman British gender? And, are these characterisations and interpretations vulnerable
to social, cultural and contextual biases?
1.3. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY:

PURPOSE, METHODOLOGY & LIMITATIONS
In an attempt to conceptualise and methodise the archaeological study of gender this
research will promote material culture as instructive to the perception and portrayal of
social identities in Roman British burial contexts. This discussion is placed under the regional
context of Roman London, with reference made to how local gendered practices were
experienced and expressed in relation to Roman Britain and the greater Roman Empire
(Allison, 2015). The focus on burial contexts is particularly pertinent to this study, separating
itself from previous research on gender in lived Roman contexts such as military
communities and domestic spaces (Pearce, 2013). Instead of a lived context where
associated sex and gender must be speculated, the osteological sex assessment of burial
contexts encourages a more accurate, unbiased examination of the relationship between
sex, gender and material culture (Hollimon, 2011). Further, the burial context is a staged
setting; the individual is prone to a biased representation of their identity, adorned and
treated in the way in which society saw that individual (Allison, 2015). Associated grave
goods may be categorised and interpreted by gendered associations, creating a framework
for analysing gendered practices, beliefs and relationships within burial contexts (Philpott,
1991). Therefore, it is this imposed and constructed gender identity within the funerary
process that becomes illuminating to the reality and representation of Roman life in Britain.
4
1.3.1. METHODOLOGY
To support an archaeological framework for studying gender, this study utilises a
comparative database of Roman London sites to relate consistent trends and patterns of
gendered burials with associated grave goods. This database includes 50 Roman London
archaeological sites, with 1,299 burials containing 690 grave goods, which were selected
due to their accessibility, relevance and comprehensive documentation in site reports and
publications. The information collected from these sources has been separated into three
main categories; site information, burial information and artefact information. This
categorical method has enabled for interpretive links to be drawn between sites, burials and
artefacts, demonstrating multivariate and systematic results (Cool & Baxter, 2002).
Information on the age, sex, burial type and period of the burials has been extrapolated
from the sources, as well as grave good materials, type, location and position in the grave.
Further, the grave goods have been categorised into ten artefact types; Animal, Attire,
Coinage, Jewellery, Leisure, Spiritual, Toilet Items, Tools, Vessels, and Other, referencing
Nina Crummy’s categories for small finds in the Colchester Archaeological Report 2
(Crummy, 1983, p.5). In collecting, synthesising and interpreting Roman London sites that
feature sexed burials and associated grave goods it will become apparent whether grave
goods can be used to inform and support the interpretation of gendered identities in Roman
London.
1.3.2. LIMITATIONS OF RESEARCH

Apart from the time and resource limitations typical of a dissertation, my research is limited
by the scope, quantity and depth of Roman London sites used within my database. Due to
the lack of published relevant sources, limited number of sites containing grave goods and
time constraints, my database has been limited to a study of 50 Roman London sites. The
5
sites have been selected unbiasedly by only excluding sites with irrelevant, incomplete or
minimal archaeological investigation. Although this limits the range of my research, the
selection of 50 viable sites containing 1,299 burials ensures my database is consistent,
complex and comprehensive enough to gain an insightful interpretation.
1.4. STRUCTURE OF STUDY

The main goal of this study is to encourage a greater examination of gender in archaeology,
claiming it as a pertinent discourse to the studies of past populations, practices and
ideologies. In this study, Chapter Two refers to the historical background situating this
research within the context of previous archaeological, feminist and gender theories. This
chapter will further establish the social structures and cultural diversity within Roman
Britain, with particular reference to the way in which the province identified with Rome, and
as a result, identified with Roman social systems and traditions. The examination of gender
identity within a burial context will also be discussed in Chapter Two, investigating whether
the representation of gender in burials reflects the reality of gendered life in Roman Britain.
Finally, the chapter concludes with a literary treatment of grave goods proposing there
exists an intentional relationship between identity and associated grave goods.
Chapter Three introduces the materials and methods used for this study. This includes how
the sample was selected from Roman London sites, the methods adopted in data collection,
including Microsoft Access, and the comparative datasets used in this analysis. The results of
the data are also briefly introduced in this chapter with reference to sex distribution, age
distribution and burial type.
6
In Chapter Four, the results of the data are considered in closer examination with a
statistical analysis of grave good typologies, materials and adornment discussed. Utilising a
systemic evaluation of the results the relationship between gendered identities and grave
goods will be critically analysed. Lastly, Chapter Five summarises the conclusions of this
study and offers suggestions for future research.
7
Chapter Two: Gender in Academic Context
CHAPTER TWO: GENDER IN ACADEMIC CONTEXT
2.1. REVISITING GENDER AND SEX DISCOURSE

Past studies within the discipline of Roman archaeology have approached gender and sex
discourse in nuanced ways, relying upon a simplistic and essentialist division between male
and female (Hollimon, 2011). In doing so, archaeologists refer to interdisciplinary
investigations of gender and sex through visual culture, labour divisions, literary evidence
and public figures (Allison, 2015). However, this elicits an impartial and inaccurate account
of gender and sex paradigms, which does not account for the entire population and is
heavily reliant on modern gender stereotypes and sex categories. In order to implement a
heuristic and unbiased archaeological framework for the study of gender, social structures
and systems must be considered as adaptive, changing and culture-specific (Moore & Scott,
1997). Thus, in considering this study within the context of previous academic research this
chapter will inform a theoretical gender framework through examining the conceptual and
contextual complexities of gender and sex theory, Roman British society, burial practice and
artefactual interpretation.
2.1.1. BETWEEN SEX AND GENDER

Before implementing a contextually discursive framework for investigating gendered
practices in Roman Britain, the relationship between gender and sex needs to be accounted
for. Gender and sex pose a contextual and conceptual issue within the discipline of
archaeology hindered by a western, androcentric and reductionist model of masculine and
feminine (Nelson, 1997). The concept of sex is the product of ‘biological essentialism’,
traditionally accepted as the scientific categorisation of male and female binaries (Sørensen,
2000, p.54). Recent academic studies (Tarlow & Stutz, 2013; Butler, 2006; Sørensen, 2000)
contend there exists a history of sex through the way in which cultures, societies and
individuals have expressed and experienced sex. However, sex is more fundamentally rigid
and fixed than gender; it may allow for interpretation and deviation from fixed male and
female identities but it will always exist in relation to biological function, reproduction and
attributes. In contrast, gender is the product of ‘social constructionism’, imbued through a
complex arrangement of ideologies, roles and practices (Sørensen, 2000, p.54). The
characterisations of gender identities are far less rigid than sex identities and may change,
evolve, and amalgamate over time to exhibit multiple, inter-related gender discourses. This
would suggest that gender is neither inherent nor deterministic (Butler, 2006). Recent
research by Lindsay Allason-Jones (1995, 2011) and Penelope M. Allison (2015) have
proposed that the common misnomer of the existence of a consistent and contingent
relationship between sex and gender is problematic. They contend that whilst there may be
consistencies between the sex and gender characterisations of an individual, this is not
always the case and should not be treated as normative practice.
Then, it is important to note that within this study the use of burial sex assessment cannot
conclusively draw a relationship between the biological sex of the individual and their
gender identity within society. Instead, gender and sex discourse will be conceptualised and
contextualised with reference to the life-course model, as a complex system of

interconnected social, cultural and biological factors contributing to one’s identity
(Gowland, 2002).
2.1.2. CONCEPTUALISING LIFE-COURSE

In considering the interrelatedness of gender to other forms of social identity, the life-
course approach enables archaeologists to formulate a coherent socio-cultural narrative of
an individual. Life-course refers to the trajectory of an individual’s life, shaped and informed
by age-based life stages such as childhood, adulthood and old age (Moore, 2009). This life-
course paradigm also considers the relationship of age to gender and other social
discourses, mapping a complex network of culturally-influenced life stages. These life stages
invoke specific community expectations of the types of roles, practices and values the
individual participates (Wilkie & Hayes, 2006). Whether these social roles and identities are
self-imposed or communally enforced is dependant on the particular society and can be
difficult to differentiate. Further, these life stages are flexible and can overlap, shift and
change over time (Montserrat, 1999). Therefore, like gender, there should not be a fixed,
normative model for age-based life stages. Instead, there should be a flexible framework for
understanding the life-course of an individual, which should not be influenced by
contemporary contexts and conceptualisations of age (Rogers, 2014).
This life-course framework is considerably valuable to the study of Roman gender; it
acknowledges the broader network of social identities and enhances a more comprehensive
understanding of women’s history (Butler, 2006). The public lives of Roman men, often
informed through textual, visual and historical evidence, allows archaeologists to gain a
greater perspective of the expectations and realities of a male’s life in the Roman Empire
(Allison, 2015). However, the private, domestic lives of Roman women are not fully
accounted for by archaeologists. Limited archaeological and historical evidence confines
studies on Roman women to idealisations of womanhood as ascribed by literary or
mythological reference and public female figures of particular notoriety (Conkey & Spector,
1984). Rebecca Gowland (2002) states by incorporating the life-course approach to the
study of gender a more complex and insightful narrative of life for Roman women becomes
evident. Within her research Gowland (2002, p.11) uses the example of the transition of
adolescent females from childhood to adulthood signified through marriage, which results
in a change of gendered expectations, practices and roles. Therefore, this contingency
between age, gender, sex and other forms of social identity, enable the archaeologist to
examine beyond the traditional, patriarchal biases of material evidence and develop new
insights into the lives of Roman women.
Thus, in acknowledging the discursive network between age, gender and sex, archaeologists
may begin to formulate a socially-inclusive, theoretical framework for understanding the
lives of Roman British men and women. Differentiating between biological sex and socially-
informed gender is essential to this discussion, as is the value of implementing a life-course
approach to the study of gender. As a result, patriarchal biases of the normative male
experience and women as abject features of the Roman landscape will be deconstructed,
enabling a critically objective study on gender.
2.2. CONTEXTUALISING GENDER IN ROMAN BRITAIN

Roman British society has left little written evidence regarding social systems and practices,
so to evaluate the gendered context of Roman Britain we must first look to the evidence
from Rome and then judge how these ideologies, roles and structures would have been
adopted by it’s provinces (Allason-Jones, 1989). Ergo, the phallocentric focus of Roman
society influenced the social, political and legal spheres of the society, dictating a gender
specific life-course for an individual. Rigid social hierarchies informed by gender, sex, age,
ethnicity and status promoted the ideal Roman citizen archetype - the freeborn Roman male
(Montserrat, 1999). In academia the early stages of the Roman life-course are not
influenced by gender as the roles and expectations of a child had no relation to their
biological sex and social divisions of gender had not yet been imposed (Gowland, 2002). It is
until Roman males and females transitioned into adulthood that clear social distinctions are
evident. For males this is signified by the end of iuvenas at age 25, when they assume the
full responsibilities of Roman citizenry and are expected to pursue a military or political
career (Revell, 2005). In contrast, a Roman woman enters into adulthood much earlier,
signalled by marriage in her early teen years. Like Roman men, a Roman woman enters into
adulthood with new responsibilities and roles involving domestic duties and childrearing
(Allason-Jones, 1989). Despite their free status Roman women were confined to the private
sphere, they were unable to vote or hold political office and were limited to guardianship by
their father or husband their entire life (Allason-Jones, 1989). However, there are specific
examples of women who held significant political, religious and public influence, suggesting
the legal confinements of Roman women could be negotiated. The gendered dynamics of
Roman society were not limited to freeborn men and women as those on the periphery of
society, such as slaves and foreigners, were still expected to uphold the gendered paradigm
(Pearce, 2011). Therefore, in all levels of Roman society an androcentric power hierarchy
influenced the ideologies, practices and roles of Roman citizens.

Utilising the comprehensive literary evidence from Rome, this study can assemble an
understanding of how social discourses within Rome were adopted by it’s provinces, thus
providing a foundation to the practice of gendered structures within Roman Britain.
However, this can be difficult; assuming gender was experienced in the same way in Rome
as it was in it’s provinces neglects the pre-existing customs of a colony, the friction and
dissidence between coloniser and colony and the multi-cultural community prevalent in
Roman Britain during this period (Rogers, 2014). Therefore, Roman British ideologies and
practices should not be considered as a parallel to those of Rome but rather a unique
expression of indigenous tradition, migrant influence and Romanisation (Eckardt & Crummy,
2008).
In considering the archaeological evidence from Roman Britain, Iron Age sentiments were
still prevalent throughout Roman occupation; this is witnessed in adornment, fashion
trends, religious practices and burial treatment (Pearce, 2013). However, the influence of
Roman society increasingly developed from Britain’s invasion in 43 CE until it’s decline in
410 CE (Pearce, 2013). Following Britain’s annexation by the Roman Empire archaeologists
debate the extent to which Roman law and regulations were enforced within the province
with many contending traditional Roman laws would have had considerable influence from
pre-existing, local British customs (Allason-Jones, 1989). Further, the new rulership would
have impacted other social, economic and political structures through population growth,
urbanisation, craft specialisation and agricultural

Figure 1: Gravestone of Regina. Carroll,
2013, p.283.
innovation brought about by foreign migrants (Pearce,
2011). Moreover, the influx of foreign soldiers and
migrants into Roman British settlements would have influenced the experience of sex and
gender during this period. An example is the funerary
monument of Regina from Arbeia (South Shields), a
Palmyrene ex-slave and freedwoman (Carroll, 2013,
p.282). The tombstone portrait depicts Regina combining
ethnic clothing worn by populations on the Rhine and
Danube with indigenous British jewellery including a torc
(Carroll, 2013, p.287). This funerary monument
demonstrates the ability for ethnic affiliation to be
instrumental to the construction of the social persona of
a deceased individual. This multicultural environment
would demonstrate why ethnicity and cultural identity are crucial to the discussion of
Roman British gendered discourse. These influences and identity markers are essential to
considering the relationship of gender with other social discourses, indicating gender is a
societal experience shaped by factors of age, class, ethnicity and status. Using Roman
gendered traditions as a reference point and considering the way in which Roman practices
were experienced by their provinces, an understanding of Roman British social structures
has been contextualised.
By considering Roman gendered ideologies as the prototype for Roman British practice and
acknowledging the nature of the relationship between Rome and its province, an
understanding of gendered discourse in Roman Britain will have a strong contextual
founding. Within archaeological evidence it is suggested that the greatest amount of
ideological and practical change during this period occurred within female roles and family
structures (Rogers, 2014). In academia and popular culture, the lives of famous British
women eclipse other figures, where powerful female figures like Boudica and Catimandua
suggest there were greater opportunities for women to exercise power and control in
Britain than in Rome (Rogers, 2014). This may be reasoned as the result of pre-Roman
tribes, like the Brigantes, which allowed women to rule, lead armies into battle, divorce and
own property (Allason-Jones, 1989). This does not conclude women of Roman Britain were
excused from the strict gendered hierarchy in which the women of Rome faced but rather
there was an ideological disparity of gendered expectations between Rome and Roman
Britain (Pearce, 2011, p.38). However, there were also disparities between gendered
practice in Rome and Roman Britain, as demonstrated on funerary inscriptions. In Roman
law women were not considered citizens, however, there are examples from women’s
tombstone inscriptions in Roman Britain claiming them as citizens of the city (Carroll, 2013).
Such inscriptions also indicate Roman British women did not marry until their early to mid
twenties, opposed to Roman women who were married during early adolescence (Gowland,
2002). This may not necessarily signify a change in Roman tradition but rather an economic
choice for families who did not have a large enough dowry to attract a suitable husband at a
young age. Therefore, brides would be considerably older to allow for a greater dowry
(Allason-Jones, 2011). Further, Roman British couples produced smaller families than those
in Rome, where archaeological evidence indicates forms of contraception were used
(Rogers, 2014). Again, this may be seen as an economic decision where limiting the family
size ensured fewer heirs. Thus, the gendered experience within Roman Britain differed from
Rome, specifically regarding female roles and family structures, arguing against the belief
that Roman gender discourse was ubiquitous throughout the Roman empire.
In conclusion, by examining the context of gender in Roman Britain this study engages with
how the experience of being apart of the Roman empire altered, restructured and informed
local British gender identities. In promoting this awareness, this research looks beyond
assigning Roman British identity with a traditional, androcentric model of Roman discourse
and instead seeks out a new, syncretic gendered experience.
2.3. GENDERED INTERPRETATIONS OF BURIAL PRACTICE

As the focus of this study, the burial context is considered a visual representation of the
multitude of social identities and customs present in Roman British society (Tarlow, 2013). It
is the outcome of a set of symbolic and practical references to the life of the deceased as
imbued by the society burying the individual. In this sense, the identity represented within
the grave is not self-invoked but instead is the representation by others (Pearce, 2013). This
is important to consider when discussing the identity of Roman British burials as these
identities have been prescribed by others; whether these are realistic or idealistic
representations of the individuals is difficult to interpret (Philpott, 1991). If the latter is the
case, when considering gender practice in Roman British burials the focus is placed on
prevalent gender ideologies rather than gender realities. This affects the nature of this
discussion and the interpretation of the collected data from Roman London sites. Thus in
devising a methodical structure for interpreting the visibility of gender and the nature of this
representation within a burial context, there must first be a distinct understanding of burial
practice in Roman Britain.
In early Roman Britain cremation was the favoured burial treatment informed by local Iron-
Age and Roman tradition, where the body would be burnt on a pyre along with burial
furnishings (Cooke, 1998). The remains were then transferred from the pyre into a
containment jar or urn, although some cremated remains could be transferred directly into
an open pit and buried (Philpott, 1991). However, by the 2 nd Century CE inhumation
replaced cremation as the preferred burial rite in Rome and its provinces. Although in
Roman Britain cremation was still practiced until the 4 th Century CE, albeit to a significantly
lesser extent (Petts, 2009). This shift in tradition has been hypothesised by various
academics, where a changing belief in the afterlife, fashion trends and the few material and
skilled demands of inhumation rites are considered important factors (Collingwood &
Richmond, 1969). Regardless of the reasoning, the shift to inhumation is crucial to the study
of burial contexts as previous cremation rites destroy much of the osteological and
associated grave furnishings (Philpott, 1991). Also, the use of coffins for inhumed individuals
allows for a more conclusive assessment of associated grave furnishings, when pit
disturbance damages urns and places found grave goods in conjecture (Philpott, 1991).
Thus, inhumation is a far more informative ritual for burial interpretation and is why much
more is known about the lives and practices of inhumed individuals than cremated
individuals. In exploring the types of knowledge which can be gained from burial contexts it
is valuable to note that the rituals and processes associated with burials varied widely,
where regional, religious and ethnic differences invoked unique burial treatments
(Collingwood & Richmond, 1969). Therefore, in deconstructing this relationship between
identity and practice it will become apparent whether specific gendered burial trends can
support the argument that gender identities are visible within the burial record.
Through exploring the identity of the deceased using personal adornment, dress, body
treatment and position, the individual manifests a series of social, cultural and symbolic
meanings (Casella & Fowler, 2005). These meanings may invoke new insights into the status,
roles and values the individual played in society. However, this has not been fully explored
by previous research such as Robert Philpott’s 1991 Burial Practices in Roman Britain, which
offers a complex insight into Roman burial practices including burial furnishings and grave
treatment. Despite the value of Philpott’s research, the study hesitates to draw distinct
conclusions between burial rites, traditions and social identity (Allison, 2015). This negation
of gendered discourse within Roman London studies is further reflected within John
Pearce’s 2013 Contextual Archaeology of Burial Practice. Although Pearce (2013) does
extend upon Philpott’s previous research and makes some enlightening interpretations of
social identity and discourse through Roman London burial practice, there is a failure to
address gender in a more complete and investigatory way (Jenny, 2011). As discussed in the
previous sub-chapter, this avoidance of gendered discourse within archaeology is the result
of the difficulty in conceptualising social identity outside of its contemporary context
(Moore & Scott, 1997). Therefore, research by Philpott (1991) and Pearce (2013) has
preferred to focus upon other social discourses like status and ethnicity, which are more
conclusive and evident within the material record of burials (Allison, 2015).
Moreover, studies into burial practice emphasise that these contexts do not explicitly
express the realities of an individual’s identity and are typically conditioned by the
communities undertaking the burial rites (Philpott, 1991). Instead the burial context is a
staged setting, the funerary display is constructed and choreographed to embody the
normative, and even ideological, characterisations of Roman British society. Therefore, the
passive contingency between lived experience and its representation in death should be
disbanded, instead focusing on the unique social arena of the burial context which invokes a
more immediate understanding of representational and ideological identities in Roman
British society (Arnold & Wicker, 2001). Then the adopted framework when discussing the
social identities within a burial context must acknowledge the imposed, constructed
representation of identity (Casella & Fowler, 2005).
Lastly, burials are a primary source of sex attribution; then how does one distinguish
between the manifestation of sex and gender within a grave? This can be difficult to
determine as sex and gender within a burial context are not always exclusive of each other.
This notion has encouraged archaeologists to examine mortuary patterning alongside
osteological data to relate material culture with sex attribution (Wilkie & Hayes, 2006).
However, in cases where sex is not apparent archaeologists may be able to interpret
possible references to the individual’s gender. (Whelan, 1991). Not only does this argue that
there is not an exclusive contingency between sex and gender but that gendered discourse
can inform identity without relying on osteological sexing (Whelan, 1991). Therefore, an
interrogative discourse for assigning gendered attributions within burial contexts
independent of sex assessments has been established.
Ergo, the historical background of Roman British funerary rites has emphasised the link
between social context and burial practice. This link is invoked in all forms of burial practice,
throughout the interpretation of social and gendered identities, to demonstrate the
influence of social ideologies. Thus, this discussion has engaged with the social influence of
burial identity contending the experience of gender within graves is subject to significant
alteration, negotiation and intervention.

2.4. GRAVE GOODS AS EVIDENCE

Archaeological interpretations are based upon material culture as the physical remains of
past societies, which illustrate how individuals participated socially, culturally, politically and
economically within a community (Allison, 2015). Material evidence demonstrates how
societies adapted to their physical environment, gesturing evolutionary advances in
agriculture, tools and craft. As the focus of this research grave goods form a crucial
understanding of these societal practices and ideologies. Through practical and symbolic
offerings grave goods act as a final representation of the deceased, enacting what society
believed represented the identity of the individual (Pearce, 2013). Thus the ability to convey
“conversations between social and material traces of the past” becomes important to
understanding the change in grave good practice throughout the Roman British period
(Allison, 2015, p.117).
Prior to Roman occupation of Britain, the custom of offering grave goods was practiced
within the region. Grave goods usually consisted of modest assemblages including brooches,
pottery vessels and metalwork (Philpott, 1991). By the early 1 st Century CE the influence of
Rome within the region initiated a slow shift towards a greater quantity and variety of grave
good assemblages. This developed throughout the period of Roman occupation and
experienced regional variation in Britain reflective of local ethnic, religious and military
communities (Eckardt, 2005). Despite the variation in practice, the use of grave goods
signifies the resonant link between individuals and objects. It has been suggested that
individuals possessed a relationship with their belongings and that in the occasion of their
death the belongings would be imbued with a negative influence over any new owner. Thus
why particular objects are offered within the burial rather than being gifted to a living
member of the community (Barber & Bowsher, 2000). Further, the assemblage of shoes,
food and drink offerings, and equipment, may suggest that grave goods were used to act as
provisions in the afterlife. Also, the variation between burials in assemblage size and type
suggests there exists a pattern between grave good and identities (Allison, 2015). Through
the enabling role of material culture, this variation and patterning in grave good designation
may resonate with gendered identities implying there exists a relationship between grave
goods and gender (Sørensen, 2000).
Moreover, the importance of material culture to the formation and reflection of social
identity is hard to estimate in Roman British burials. The terms grave goods, offerings and
possessions used by archaeologists intentionally or unintentionally imbue the objects with
meaning, which engages with wider socio-cultural implications (Tarlow, 2013). Thus, the
archaeologist must avoid such assumptions by considering the structured deposition and
context of the grave good (Bradley, 2005). Another conceptual issue arises when
questioning whether grave goods are a casual assemblage of belongings, a practical display
of the individual’s societal role or a symbolic gesture to the complex system of identities
prevalent in Roman Britain (Garrow, 2012). In Penelope M. Allison’s formative piece,
Characterizing Roman Artifacts to Investigate Gendered Practices in Contexts Without Sexed
Bodies (2015), she suggests through the variation in burial furnishings in Roman British
burials graves good can be understood using all of these interpretations in multivariate and
interconnected ways (Allison, 2015, p.103). In assuming that at least some burials possess
symbolic grave goods which gesture to the individual’s identity, it is important to consider
the types of identities present. The most visible identity present is one of status, where
simplistic burials containing lower quality metal adornment, no coffin or containment urn
and typically a smaller quantity of grave goods, can be interpreted as belonging to a lower
status individual (Eckardt, 2005). However, more elaborate burials consisting of large
assemblages of expensive ornaments and vessels, contained within high-quality tombs,
coffins and urns, do not necessarily indicate a higher-status individual (Philpott, 1991). The
more atypical, extravagant burials with large quantities of grave goods are usually the result
of a combination of social factors such as age, sex, gender, ethnicity and religious affiliation.
For example, a young child’s grave may be lavishly adorned with grave goods belonging to
the family, which would have been given to the child when s/he had come of age (Gowland,
2002). Another fact of social identity is ethnicity, which becomes apparent when considering
the Lant Street burials (Ridgeway, Leary & Sudds, 2013). A number of buried individuals
were of African ancestry, which was first speculated on uncovering a North African leopard-
carved knife within one of the particular
burials and later confirmed following isotopic
analysis (Ridgeway, Leary & Sudds, 2013,
p.114). This demonstrates that although grave
goods can be used to reflect and construct an
aspect of identity such as status and ethnic
origin, it must not be considered in conceptual
isolation and should consider the multifaceted nature of social identities (Allison, 2015). This
approach is significant when studying gender using material culture within a burial context
as reflections on gender identity are also inclusive of other forms of identities present within
a burial.
Traditionally, in creating a comprehensive image of gendered life in Roman Britain using
grave goods archaeologists would characterise artefacts based upon a passive,
heteronormative model of masculine and feminine ideologies, roles and practices (Conkey &
Spector, 1984). This was heavily influenced by modern notions of conservative male and
female paradigms, defined by the division of power and labour. Although these patriarchal
sentiments are still present within the research of grave goods, more systematic approaches
aim to express the variety of gender experience embodied within material culture (Allison,
2015). This is primarily achieved through investigating mortuary patterning and trends
between grave goods, sex assessment and gender interpretations, linking material culture
with assigned gender identities (Sørensen, 2000). However, it is important to be aware of
the flexibility and ambiguity of material culture and grave good practice, understanding that
gender attributions are not fixed and grave goods can assume different social identities or
may have no bearing on the structuring of identities at all (Gero & Conkey, 1991). Thus,
although grave goods may be used to characterise gender within burials, archaeologists
must do so with caution (Allison, 2015). Then, through this discourse of grave good and
gender linkages this research encourages the archaeologist to examine the heterogeneity of
gender in Roman British society as expressed through society’s relationship with material
culture.
2.5. CHAPTER CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this chapter has dealt with the conceptual and contextual issues surrounding
sex and gender discourse, Roman British society, the burial context and the use of grave
good characterisation in gendered interpretations. Firstly, sex and gender have been
considered as related, yet independent discourses, suggesting an examination of gender
should reference sex and other social practices within a life-course framework. This
framework was considered within the contexts of the Roman Empire and the province of
Roman Britain, which also critiqued the way in which provinces identified with the Roman
Empire through social practice and identities. The burial context was proposed as an
adequate way to study the construction and reflection of identities with reference to the
interpretive framework of mortuary archaeology, where graves become a reflection of the
ideologies rather than the realities of Roman British society. Finally, the investigation of
material culture through grave good practice was introduced as a comprehensive approach
to sourcing gendered references within burial contexts. Therefore, this chapter has
introduced the concepts and contextual background of this research enacting a solid
foundation for the discussion and interpretation of the methodology in the following
chapter.
Chapter Three: The Methodology
CHAPTER THREE: THE METHODOLOGY –

ADVANCING GENDER DIALOGUES USING DATA
3.1. INTRODUCTION TO THE METHODOLOGY

By replacing the traditional reliance on textual sources to provide insightful discussions on
Roman British gender, the use of data as a quantitative methodology encourages a
contextually unbiased interpretation of gender through multivariate statistics and mortuary
patterning (Conkey & Spector, 1984). Through this data analysis gender is explored with
explicit reference to the way in which gender identity influenced and was influenced by
material culture within the spatial setting of a burial (Pearce, 2013). This methodology
widens the scope of archaeological interpretation, where past studies using textual and
epigraphic evidence tend to favour an androcentric, female-exclusive experience (Mattingly,
2006, p.14). In other words, the focus upon material culture throughout the graves of
Roman London men and women displays a significant neglect of women within the Roman
historical narrative. Thus this study aims to provide a more complete and inclusive
examination of the gendered experience within Roman Britain with a consideration of
underrepresented minorities within society. Moreover, in utilising the burial context to
source gendered patterns and trends such results enable an interpretive artefact framework
for future research of grave good assemblages and gender in Roman British lived
communities (Allison, 2015). Therefore, this sub-chapter will introduce the data
methodology and consequent framework for interpreting grave goods with reference to
gender, through first discussing the regional focus on London and the process of data
collection.
3.1.1. LOCATION
Roman London is the regional focus of this methodology due to its wealth of archaeological
sites pertaining to this topic and the lack of a gendered focus in previous academic research.
Therefore, before introducing the methodology, sites and results, it is essential to
understand the historical context and archaeological value of the city of London.
Apart from Roman London being a valuable case study due to its Roman settlement status
and extensive mercenary trade, the city possesses a variety of large cemeteries, smaller
cemeteries and isolated graves (Millett, 1996). The four major cemeteries, Western
Cemetery, Northern Cemetery, Eastern Cemetery and the Southern Cemetery, flank the
main roads leading out of the city and offer insight into normative burial practice and
cemetery structure (Clark, 2008). Smaller burial sites and isolated burials may be interpreted
as sites containing family plots, lower class burials or even deviant practice (Hall, 1996).
Figure 3: Map of Early Roman London (2nd Century CE). Clark, J. et al.,2008, p.29.
Therefore, the variety and quantity of archaeological burial contexts within Roman London
contends the city as a valuable regional focus for this study.
In considering the archaeological value of Roman London as the regional focus of this
research, gendered discourse has been seriously neglected by archaeology within the region
and should be adequately addressed. Previous research has circumvented gender and social
discourse in Roman London in favour of more prolific sites such as the Butt Road Cemetery
and Lankhills, where greater quantities of material evidence and skeletal analysis have
warranted more complete and definitive interpretations (Gowland, 2002). When
considering this past navigation of gendered discourse within the archaeological discussion
of Roman London, a study which addresses the value of Roman London to an understanding
of gender is overdue. Thus, Roman London has been selected as the regional study of this
research due to its historical significance and previous disregard by archaeological research.
3.1.2. DATA COLLECTION

The initial data collection, sourced from a variety of monographs, publications, grey
literature, field reports and online databases, consisted of 257 suitable burial sites within
the modern, Greater London region. These sites had been extrapolated using the criteria
that sites must contain the burials of osteologically sexed individuals, which have been
dated between 43 - 410 CE (Schofield & Maloney, 1998). After extensive further research
the list of sites was significantly reduced as the original site list contained sites which were
found to be inappropriate or not documented well enough to provide conclusive and
reliable interpretations. Cross-referencing the remaining sites with online databases
including the London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre Online Catalogue (LAARC),
the complete site list was resolved to a total of fifty Roman London burial sites (Table 1).
Using this complete list, which has been alphabetized by site code, relevant data about the
sites was collected and referenced using unique site and burial codes, such as S1B1 which
indicates the specific feature being discussed can be found within Site 1, Burial 1. This
information was then categorised into three separate tables; site table, burial table, and
grave good table, which were created into forms that were used to source the relevant
data. This was completed to ensure the data collected from each site met the criteria of this
study and to assist in the data synthesis and collation using a Microsoft Access database.
This step within the methodology process was essential to ensure the information sourced
was reliable, relevant and comprehensive enough to warrant investigatory results.
Table 1: List of Roman London Sites used in study
No. Site Code Site Name Reference

1 AR72 ARMAGH ROAD, OLD FORD SHELDON, 1972.
2 ATL89/ ATLANTIC HOUSE WATSON, 2003.
ATC97
3 BAA87 BARNARD’S INN, FURNIVAL LANE LONDON ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARCHIVE &
RESEARCH CENTRE (LAARC), 2015.
4 BAR79 ST BARTHOLOMEW’S HOSPITAL BENTLEY & PRITCHARD, 1982.
5 BDC03 6 BROAD STREET PLACE HARWARD, POWERS, & WATSON, 2015.
6 BGB98 201 BISHOPSGATE SWIFT, 2003.
7 CKA02 31-32, 35-37 COCK LANE BENTLEY & PRITCHARD, 1982.
8 COSE84 COURAGE BREWERY, PARK STREET, COWAN, 2003.
SOUTHWARK
9 CPN01 CRISPIN STREET, SPITALFIELDS SUDDS, DOUGLAS, & PHILPOTT, 2014.
10 CRODA86 CRODA GELATINE WORKS, SOUTHWARK COWAN, 2009.
PARK ROAD
11 ELD88 LIVERPOOL HOUSE, 15-17 ELDON STREET HARWARD, POWERS, & WATSON, 2015.
12 ENS03 16-18 FINSBURY CIRCUS, 18-31 ELDON HARWARD, POWERS, & WATSON, 2015.
STREET
13 ETN88 EAST TENTER STREET, SCARBOROUGH BARBER & BOWSHER, 2000.
STREET
14 FIB88 12-15 FINSBURY CIRCUS HARWARD, POWERS, & WATSON, 2015.
15 GDV96 165 GREAT DOVER STREET MACKINDER, 2000.
16 GM131 OLD BAILEY, WARWICK SQUARE GUILDHALL MUSEUM, 1969.
17 GM401 CO-OPERATIVE WHOLESALE COMPANY, COLLINGWOOD & TAYLOR, 1932.
LEMAN STREET
18 GM403 46 MANSELL STREET LAARC, 2015.
19 GM415 ST CLARE HOUSE, 28-35 MINORIES GUILDHALL MUSEUM, 1969.
20 GM165 SHOE LANE, 2 CHARTERHOUSE STREET LAARC, 2015.
21 HAY86 13 HAYDON STREET BARBER & BOWSHER, 2000.
22 HOO88 HOOPER STREET BARBER & BOWSHER, 2000.
23 HR77/79 HARPER ROAD COWAN, 2009.
24 LEK95 LEFEVRE WALK ESTATE REDEVELOPMENT BROWN, 2011.

95-96
25 LFR69 LEFEVRE ROAD BROWN, 2011.
26 LTU03 52-56 LANT STREET SAYER, 2005.
27 MNL88 65-73 MANSELL STREET BARBER & BOWSHER, 2000.
28 MS72/73 MOREVILLE STREET BROWN, 2011.
29 MSL87 49-59 MANSELL STREET, 2-8 ALLIE STREET, BARBER & BOWSHER, 2000.
29-31 WEST TENTER STREET
30 MST87 31-43 MANSELL STREET, 1-15 ALFIE STREET BARBER & BOWSHER, 2000.
31 NCZ07 1 NEW CHANGE LARC, 2015.
32 NGT00 NEWGATE TRIANGLE WATSON & HEARD, 2006.
33 PNS01 PATERNOSTER ROW WATSON & HEARD, 2006.
34 PPK93 PROSPECT PARK, HARMONSWORTH ANDREWS & CROCKETT, 1996.
35 PR70 PARNELL ROAD, OLD FORD SHELDON, 1971.
36 PRE89 53-66 PRESCOT STREET BARBER & BOWSHER, 2000.
37 REW92 REDCROSS WAY DRUMMOND-MURRAY & TOMPSON,
2002.
38 RIV87 RIVER PLATE HOUSE, 7-11 FINSBURY CIRCUS HARWARD, POWERS, & WATSON, 2015.
39 RWG94 GROUTING SHAFT, REDCROSS WAY DRUMMOND-MURRAY & TOMPSON,
2002.
40 SBK03 56 SOUTHWARK BRIDGE ROAD RIDGEWAY, LEARY, & SUDDS, 2013.
41 SCS83 ST CLARE STREET ELLIS, 1985.
42 SCU01 ST SEPULCHRE’S CHURCH BENTLEY & PRITCHARD, 1982.
43 SMT91 57A-59 WEST SMITHFIELD BENTLEY & PRITCHARD, 1982.
44 SQR00 5-13 SPITAL SQUARE LARC, 2015.
45 SS73 SWAN STREET GRAHAM, 1978.
46 SSZ05 STEWARD STREET, TOWER HAMLETS CASS & PRESTON, 2009.
47 SWH86 1-3 SNOW HILL BENTLEY & PRITCHARD, 1982.
48 UNN98 97-101 UNION STREET CAPON, 2006
49 WTN84 WEST TENTER STREET WHYTEHEAD, 1986.
50 15SKS80 15-23 SOUTHWARK STREET COWAN, 1992.
3.1.3. DATA SYNTHESIS

Before discussing the results of the research, it is essential to explain the grave good
categories adopted within this study as it has an obvious impact on the way in which the
methodology has drawn out results. As mentioned within Chapter 1, Nina Crummy’s
Colchester Archaeological Report 2 has been adapted in this study to create distinct
categories to characterise grave good types (Crummy, 1983, p.5). The categories used and
descriptions of the types of grave goods associated with each category are listed in Table 2.
Using this method of categorisation, the datasets involved within this study where able to
be organised and distributed accordingly to make the process of sourcing burial patterning
and grave good trends as visible as possible. By running queries using the tables assembled
in Microsoft Access, synthesis of the results was able to assess the demographic, ratios and
potential trends between grave goods and associated burials. Aspects of the collected data,
including burial location and containment, could easily be referenced with the age and sex
of the individual enabling this study to draw quantitative links between social factors, burial
practices and furnishings.
Table 2: Key of Grave Good Codes and Descriptions used in Study
Type Code Description

Animal ANIMAL Bone Fragments, Animal Burials
Attire ATTIRE Clothing Fasteners, Pins, Footwear, Brooches
Coinage COIN Coins
Jewellery JEWELL Jewellery, Pendants, Beads, and Associated Personal Ornaments
Leisure LEISUR Gaming Devices, Dice, Counters
Spiritual SPIRIT Votive or Religious Objects
Toilet Items TOILET Combs, Hair Pins, Toiletries, Items Used for Personal Hygiene and Beauty
Tools TOOL Knives, Handles, Weapons, Utensils
Vessels VESSEL Phials, Vases, Lamps, Pottery
Other OTHER Chalk, Coffin Nails, Flint, Unknown Finds
Thus, the remainder of this chapter will address the specific demographic and distribution
results drawn from this methodology. The complete index of the methodology’s results is
listed in Appendix A.
3.2. DEMOGRAPHIC OF STUDY

The demographic from the fifty Roman London burial sites consisted of a total of 1,299
burials, 141 of which are female and 243 are male. The remaining 915 graves are associated
with possible male, possible female and undetermined sex graves. As Davidson (2002,
p.231) purports within his study on gender imbalances in Roman British cemetery
populations, the demographic within this study reflects a trend towards a higher male
concentration in urban cemeteries. This is due to a culmination of reasons expressed within

Davidson’s study including a higher population of men due to their influx into urban centres
for military and economic purposes, higher rates of female infanticide and differential burial
treatment (Davidson, 2000, p.232). The first two reasons for a higher presence of males
within Roman London burials is clear, however, the differential burial treatment between
men and women is incredibly relevant to this research. Pearce (2013, p.19) contends
women were more commonly cremated, and as discussed in previous chapters, cremation is
far less likely to be archaeologically preserved. Therefore, it would suggest that the disparity
between male and female burial populations within the data reflects the absence of
material evidence from cremation sites. This differentiation and its implications on the way
in which this study considers grave goods will be discussed in further detail in sub-chapter
3.3.
Apart from the interpretive quality this demographic provides, it is also necessary to
consider how this effects the results within the methodology. To counter the potentially
biased results percentages have been drawn from each sex rather than the demographic
total. In concluding this sub-chapter, it is important to remember the greater male burial
population when evaluating the following data results as well as how this gender imbalance
reflects the reality of burial culture in Roman London.
3.3. SEX DISTRIBUTION OF GRAVE GOODS

The osteological methods used to determine the sex of skeletal remains in Roman British
burials are influenced by the expertise available, site conditions and the quality and
completeness of the remains (Brothwell, 1981). A full analysis of the osteological methods
used within these sites is beyond the scope of this research and will be limited to a brief
explanation of the variables and methods used in sex and age determination to provide the
study’s results context.
Traditionally, sex estimations draw upon the sexually dimorphic characteristics of the
skeleton, namely the pelvis and skull (Barber & Bowsher, 2000). In the absence or poor
quality of these features, measurements of the femur, humerus, atlas, scapula, clavicle and
sacrum can be useful (Gowland, 2002, p.138). Due to this variation in method and reliability,
sex assessments across different sites must consider which features and to what certainty
the remains are to be sexed. Another issue concerning the accuracy of sex assessments used
within this research is the variation between sites as a result of site excavation dates and
methodologies used. Thus, where sites have used outdated methods to sex burials or where
the sex is not apparent, this study has noted particular burials as ‘probable’ or ‘possible’
(Barber & Bowsher, 2000). For this study the categories of ‘Male’, ‘Possible Male’,
‘Unknown’, ‘Female’, and ‘Possible Female’ have been adopted to ensure there is flexibility
within the interpretation of results. Moreover, as sex assessments rely on visible, sexual
characteristics the sex assessment of children is problematic. The full sexual development of
an individual does not occur until around 18 years of age, thus any sex assessments of an
individual younger than this relies on inadequate and incomplete skeletal formation
(Gowland, 2002, p.87). To account for this within the research premature skeletons have
not been ascribed a sex. With a sound knowledge of the osteological methods used to sex
the remains within this study this discussion will now reference the sex distributions as
discussed earlier.
In support of the earlier demographic percentages Figure 4 demonstrates the various sex
biases within this study. The majority of the study is attributed to ‘Unknown’
interpretations, amounting for 57% of the study. This has a large effect on the study as it not
only limits the data pool for conclusions to be drawn between gender, sex and grave goods,
but it also demonstrates the necessity for a qualitative sex framework to assist when
osteological assessments are inconclusive. Further, 26% of the study encompasses the
‘Male’ and ‘Possible Male’ categories compared to the 17% of ‘Female’ and ‘Possible
Female’ categories. This suggests that the results of the data may favour ‘Male’ and
‘Possible Male’ interpretations due to the larger contributing data population. This is a
concern which has been addressed previously and will be considered throughout the
discussion and interpretation of the results. The total percentages of the sex demographic
are represented in the figure below.
Figure 4: Sex Distribution of Burials
7%
Unknown
19%
Female
Possible Female
Male
6% 58%
Possible Male
11%
3.3.1. DISTRIBUTION OF GRAVE GOODS

With reference to sex, grave good distribution primarily favoured the ‘Female’ category. In
other words, ‘Female’ burials contained the highest percentage of grave goods per grave at
about 39.72%. Amongst the ‘Possible Female’, ‘Male’, and ‘Possible Male’ groups it was
fairly equal with only 1.39% separating them. The lowest percentage of grave goods per
grave was attributed to the ‘Unknown’ category at 24.90%. In considering the biased-male
population and high ‘Female’ grave good percentage, it is evident that there is a strong
correlation between female burials and grave goods. This would confirm the statement that
the presence of grave goods is more likely to occur within Roman London female burials
(Philpott, 1991). The smaller percentages of the ‘Male’ and ‘Possible Male’ categories
indicate grave goods were not as commonly involved in the burial ritual. This may contend
that the incorporation of material culture within funerary rites was more valuable to a
female’s identity in death (Moore, 2009). This gender association will be discussed in greater
detail with reference to grave good typologies and materials in Chapter Four. Thus, the
distribution of grave goods according to sex are displayed in Figure 5 below.
Figure 5: Grave Good Distribution Total

45%
40%
35%
Percentage of Grave Goods
30%
25% Female
Possible Female
20% Male
Possible Male
15% Unknown
10%
5%
0%
Sex Categories
The above figure is illuminating to the gendered preference of grave goods amongst female
burials in Roman London contexts, however, it is valuable to recognise the different

treatment of inhumation and cremation burials. As discussed earlier in sub-chapter 2.3,
during the time of Rome’s occupation of Britain inhumation rites became the predominant
rite despite a long-standing Iron Age tradition of cremation burials (Tarlow, 2013, p.54).
With reference to the data, 84.22% of the burials were inhumations as opposed to the
minor 15.78% of cremation burials. Inhumation burials featured predominately ‘Unknown’
(55%) and ‘Male’ (21%) burials. In contrast, due to the difficulty of sexing cremation burials
72% of cremation burials were unable to be sexed. Despite both types of burials favouring
undetermined-sex burials the results of grave good distribution amongst inhumation and
cremation burials indicated a high percentage of ‘Female’ associations. This distribution of
grave goods amongst inhumation and cremation burials, with reference to sex, are listed in
Table 3 and 4 and visually displayed in Figure 6 below.
Figure 6: Sex Distribution of Inhumation and Cremation Burials
Inhumation Cremation
Sex No. of No. of Grave % of Grave Sex No. of No. of Grave % of Grave
Burials Goods Goods Burials Goods Goods
Female 126 48 38% Female 15 8 53%
Possible 56 17 30% Possible 20 6 30%
Female Female
Male 225 64 28% Male 18 7 38%
Possible 83 26 31% Possible 5 1 20%
Male Male
Unknow 604 146 24% Unknow 147 41 27%
n n
Table 4: Sex
Table 3: Sex Distribution ofDistribution
Inhumationsof Cremations
Sex Distribution
53.33%
60%
Female
Percentage of Grave Goods
50%
38.88%
38% Possible Female
40% 30% The inhumation burials used within
30.00% 27.89%
31.00%
30% 28.00% Male
20% 24.00%
this study show very little variation
20% Possible Male
10% between sex and grave good
Unknown
0%
-10%
distribution. The ‘Female’ category
holds the highest percentage at 38%,
with the lowest being the ‘Unknown’ category
at 24%. This imitates the previous totals chart due to the large percentage of inhumation
burials within this study which biasedly favours inhumation results. The average percentage
of grave goods contained with inhumation burials was 27.51%.
In contrast, the cremation burials analysed within this study display greater variation and a
higher concentration of ‘Female’ associated grave goods. Over half (53%) of ‘Female’
cremation burials contained grave goods suggesting there is a strong correlation between
cremation rites and grave good practice. The following categories depicted much lower
percentages, further suggesting the importance of ‘Female’ burials within grave good
distribution. Overall, the number of grave goods associated with cremation burials was not
that much higher than inhumation burials, as a total of 30.73% of cremations possessed
grave goods. By considering the different grave good practice within inhumation and
cremation burials, it is evident that the trend of female grave good possession was exhibited
by both burial rites. In accounting for the large increase in the percentage of grave goods
present within ‘Female’ cremations, this may the result of the cremation tradition. Cooke
(1998, p.19) suggests that due to the skilled persons and pyre technology necessary in
cremation rites, there may have been a greater opportunity or expectation for more
formalised, ceremonial offerings. Moreover, the process of cremation including the burning
of grave goods tends to preserve the offerings better than an inhumation burial, proposing
the higher percentage of grave good burials may be the result of formalised ritual and
preservation of goods. Despite this interpretation, it is clear that there is a distinct pattern
between ‘Female’ burials and grave good possession in both cremations and inhumations.
The purpose of this sub-chapter is to introduce the statistical results of grave good
distribution with reference to sex, so as to support the study’s further discussion of
gendered associations to material culture. As demonstrated, grave good distribution is more
concentrated within the ‘Female’ population of the study suggesting there is a strong
relationship between Roman British women and grave good practice. Whilst also
considering the smaller grave good associations in ‘Male’ and ‘Possible Male’ burials, this
female-focused patterning may imply “’female’ was a defining characteristic of identity”
(Moore, 2009, p.175). This gendered approach will be considered in greater detail within
Chapter Four, where profiling and characterising grave goods with reference to gender will
provide a more discursive and dynamic understanding of how material culture was used in
funerary contexts to ascribe social identity.
3.4. AGE DISTRIBUTION OF GRAVE GOODS

The osteological methods used to determine the age of skeletal remains in Roman British
burials vary widely. Alike sex estimations, this variation is attributed to the diverse scientific
expertise on-site, the methods in which they draw their age interpretations from and the
quality of the archaeological context (Gowland, 2002). Before discussing the scientific
methods adopted within this study, it is important to note that age estimations do not refer
to absolute, chronological age; instead such assessments refer to the developmental age of
an individual or age relative to the normative population standards (Barber & Bowsher,
2000). This belief reaffirms the importance of age estimations, alike sex estimations, as
heavily influenced by their context.
In referring back to the methods used in age assessments, immature and mature skeletons
involve different scientific processes (Brothwell, 1981). The assessment of an immature
skeleton, that is the skeleton of an individual who died before adulthood (approximately 17
years), involves a complex analysis of “dental development and eruption, long bone growth
and epiphyseal fusion” (Gowland, 2002, p.87). Typically, the age estimations of immature
skeletons are more conclusive than in mature skeletons, where a child’s progression
towards adulthood is signified by constant patterns of growth. It is the dental development
and level of eruption of the teeth, which is best used to support the age estimation of
immature skeletons as each significant child-stage is reflected in a change in dental growth
and development (Jenny, 2011). In the age estimation of mature skeletons, that is the
skeleton of an individual who died during adulthood (18 years old or more), scientific
assessment is far more speculative and flexible (Gowland, 2002). The age estimation of
mature skeletons relates to the level of degenerative changes visible, typically found on the
auricular surface, which is the commonly preserved anterior surface of the ilium (Jenny,
2011). In the occasion that the auricular surface is damaged or absent, the presence of
osteoarthritis, dental ware and cranial suture closure may be used to form an age
assessment (Buikstra & Ubelaker, 1994). The issue with conclusive age estimation of mature
skeletons is the variation within local populations, for example, osteoarthritis can affect an
individual at any age, at any degree, challenging previous conceptions that osteoarthritis is
exclusive to older adults (Gowland, 2002). This skeletal variation has been addressed by
archaeologists and osteologists by creating larger, more inclusive age categories based upon
the specific context. Finally, in considering the accuracy of age estimations within
archaeology sites, the condition and completeness of the skeleton is paramount. The more
skeletal features used to determine age present within the grave and the greater their
quality, ensures there is less uncertainty in making an estimation (Barber & Bowsher, 2000).
This is an essential consideration of the Roman British burial sites used within this research.
Thus, in briefly addressing the osteological methods used within the age estimations of
skeletal remains the following data results will be supported.
Before considering the age categories used within this study, it is valuable to assess the
diversity of resources and methods used to inform the research’s database. The sites within
this study vary in excavation date and consequently mean that the age assessment methods
are not standardised (Barber & Bowsher, 2000). Moreover, variation occurs within the sites
themselves as well as the archaeologists expertise and particular scientific method chosen.
As discussed previously, this study has dealt with this concern by creating broad age groups
in an attempt to counter the inaccuracies and variability of the different sites used
(Gowland,
2002). Thus, the categories used within this study are as follows:
Infant Under 2 Years of Age

Sub-Adult 2-17 Years Old
Young Adult 18-25 Years Old
Mature Adult 26-45 Years Old
Older Adult 46 + Years Old
Unspecified Adult Undetermined Adult Age (18 +)
Unknown Undetermined Age
As shown above, the age categories are relatively wide-ranging allowing for greater
flexibility and accuracy within their categories. These categories depict the typical scientific
distribution of age stages and rely on a combination of osteological development and social
rites particular to the context (Gowland, 2002). The ‘Unspecified Adult’ category reflects the
circumstances where skeletal remains were attributed as adult but were inconclusive about
the specific age of adulthood (Barber & Bowsher, 2000). Moreover, the ‘Unknown’ category
involves the skeletal remains where any form of age estimation was inconclusive. This
category was more commonly associated with heavily truncated or cremated burials
(Pearce, 2013). Thus, with the background of osteological age assessment and introduction
to the study’s age categories the interpretation of the data may be considered, firstly with
reference to the age demographics present within the study.
The age demographics within this study were sourced from a population of 1,299 burials,
with 249 immature skeletons, 758 mature skeletons and 292 age-unknown skeletons. The
‘Mature Adult’ age category was the largest with 351 attributed burials. This was expected
as the 26 to 45-year age bracket was the most populated age grouping in Roman Britain
(Pearce, 2013). This is due to various reasons including high infant mortality, low age
expectancies, high chance of death for women during childbirth and expected military duty
for men at the age of 18 (Revell, 2005). The smallest age category within this study was that
of the Infant burials contributing to 78 of the 1,299 total burials. Despite the high-rate of
infant mortality during within the Roman Empire, infant skeletal remains are more
vulnerable to disturbance and damage. Infantile bones are in the early stages of
development and are typically too small and weak to allow for natural preservation (Jenny,
2011). Therefore, the age distributions represented within this study demonstrate the
contextual and archaeological factors pertaining to the varied demographic. The total
percentages of the age demographic are represented in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Age Distribution of Burials
6%
22%
13% Infant
Sub-Adult
Young Adult
11% Mature Adult
13% Older Adult
Unspecified Adult
Unknown
7%
27%
3.4.1. DISTRIBUTION OF GRAVE GOODS

With reference to age, grave good distribution was fairly equal. The results were calculated
using the percentage of grave goods found within a particular age category. This enabled
the results of the study to not be influenced by the dominant percentage of mature adults
amongst the age distribution. The category of ‘Young Adult’ demonstrated the highest
percentage of grave goods per young adult grave, at 34.01%. In contrast, the lowest
percentage was found within the ‘Unspecified Adult’ category, where only 22.89% of
unspecified adult graves possessed grave goods. This minor 11.12% difference between the
highest grave good distribution age category and the lowest, suggest age alone does not
offer any distinctive patterning or favoured age groupings. The distribution of grave goods
according to age are displayed in Figure 8.
Figure 8: Age Distribution of Grave Goods

40.00%
Percentage of Grave Goods Per Age Group
35.00%
30.00% Infant
25.00% Sub-Adult
Young Adult
20.00%
Mature Adult
15.00%
Older Adult
10.00%
Unspecified Adult
5.00%
Unknown
0.00%
Age Categories
In interpreting these results, it would suggest that there exists very little age-determining
factor in the distribution of grave goods within Roman London burials. However, when used
in conjunction with sex categories, unique trends begin to emerge. With the male
populations of this study age did not play a crucial role. The grave good distribution
favoured mature adult male graves, however this is biased as mature adults contribute to
the majority of the study and encompass a much greater age group as discussed earlier
(Moore, 2009).
Within female populations age plays a greater role and becomes formative to an
understanding of the life-course trajectory of a woman in Roman London. With reference to
Figure 9, the development of grave good distribution increases from the 1 st Century CE to
the end of the Roman Period in the early 5 th Century CE. Previous academic research
supports this rise in grave good presence linking it to greater economic wealth, stronger
affiliations with the Roman Empire and a decline in Iron-Age traditions (Philpott, 1991). The
most prolific of these developments is amongst the ‘Young Adult’ age category for females.
This age category is commonly affiliated with grave good assemblages, relating to the
particular life-course of a woman aged between 18 to 25 years old (Jenny, 2011). As
discussed in Chapter Two, women in Roman Britain married later than women in Rome,
typically in their early to mid twenties (Gowland, 2002). This would mean that the death of a
woman within the ages prescribed by the ‘Young Adult’ categorisation would often be
before her marriage. As an unmarried young woman, she would ideally be a virgin and
possess a large dowry to attract a male suitor (Allason-Jones, 1995). Previous studies
(Allison, 2015; Puttock, 2002; Allason-Jones, 1995) speculate that on the event of a woman’s
death prior to marriage the unspent dowry could be symbolically offered within the grave.
Male versions of this type of offering are present within young male graves, signifying what
the child would have inherited had he not died before adulthood (Moore, 2009). Thus, this
offering within young adult female burials and few male burials imbues the grave good
presence with a more sentimental, intentional meaning.
Figure 9: Distribution of Grave Goods in Female Burial Contexts

5
No. of Burials with Grave Goods Present
0
1st C. 1st - 2nd C. 2nd C. 2nd - 3rd C. 3rd C. 3rd - 4th C. 4th C.
Timeline of Roman Occupation of Britain
Infant Sub-Adult Young Adult Mature Adult Older Adult Unspecified Adult Unknown
This practical, sentimental meaning is further emphasised when exploring the results of
grave good quantities amongst different age categories. With reference to Table 5 and
Table 6 below, the quantity of grave goods per burial differs significantly between males and
females. In first discussing the male distribution, grave good quantities are limited to 1 to 4
grave goods with the majority of the grave goods found within ‘Young Adult’ and ‘Mature
Adult’ burials. The burials which contained only 1 grave good are far less informative that
those burials which contained 2-4, as the greater the assemblage the more deliberate and
personal the burial rite appears. The focus on the distribution of grave goods for Roman
London males aged between 18 to 45 years old reflects the value of this age group to the
familial and communal structure (Moore, 2009). However, for a more complete
understanding of how these values where inscribed and influenced by gender, grave good
typologies and materials will be examined in the next chapter.
Table 5: Male Distribution of Grave Good Quantities

Age 1 Grave Good 2 – 4 Grave Goods 5 + Grave Goods

Infant 0 0 0
Sub-Adult 0 1 0
Young Adult 10 4 0
Mature Adult 26 12 0
Older Adult 8 3 0
Unspecified Adult 1 4 0
Unknown 1 1 0
Total: 71 Graves Containing Grave Goods
In contrast to the results in the grave good quantities present within male age groups,
Table 6 demonstrates a more balanced mortuary patterning which also includes large grave
good assemblages within the ‘Young Adult’ age category. The large concentration of grave
goods amongst females aged 18 to 25 years old, and to a lesser extent, females aged 26 to
45 years old, suggests they were the focus of the female life-course in Roman Britain
(Gowland, 2002). It also links back to the notion that large grave good assemblages within
the graves of young females are the result of a dowry. Further, Alison Moore (2009, p.180)
contends this grave good concentration amongst the female age group is aligned with the
onset of menarche, suggesting the ‘Young Adult’ and ‘Mature Adult’ categories within the
study are valued because of their fertility. This would further suggest that the decline in
grave goods found within females of the ‘Older Adult’ category is the result of the onset of
menopause, and accordingly, the decline of fertility (Philpott, 1991). This academic
interpretation of the data is valuable and will be explored in greater detail within the next
chapter on grave good characterisations.
Table 6: Female Distribution of Grave Good Quantities

Age 1 Grave Good 2 – 4 Grave Goods 5 + Grave Goods
Infant 0 0 0
Sub-Adult 1 3 0
Young Adult 3 8 5
Mature Adult 12 6 1
Older Adult 4 1 0
Unspecified Adult 5 3 0
Unknown 3 1 0
Total: 56 Graves Containing Grave Goods
In conclusion, this sub-chapter has examined the age distribution of grave goods within this
study. Sex was outlined as a contributing factor to this distribution, demonstrating the
importance of considering age and sex as related agents in the interpretation of mortuary
tradition. Moreover, the results of the data favoured female grave good distribution
contending gender was a defining feature in the attribution of grave good offerings (Puttock,
2002). In a broader sense, this assessment would argue that gender was an important factor
in social identity within Roman London, which was experienced through a complex and
evolving life-course model.

In conclusion, this chapter has introduced the research methodology with reference to why
Roman London was selected, what processes have been undertaken to facilitate the
methodology and what information we can expect to glean from the results. The regional
focus of Roman London has been resolved to be an important choice, as previous gender-
based research has neglected the region in favour of more comprehensive settlement sites.
Further, the process of data collection and synthesis has engaged with a complex,
multivariate demographic of Roman London. This demographic has been explored within
sub-chapters 3.3. and 3.4. where sex and age distribution of grave goods have produced
new insight into the gendered patterning involved within the burial context. Roman London
women hold the largest percentage of grave good possession with both inhumation and
cremation burials, with a particular focus on the ‘Young Adult’ age category. This juncture of
age and sex demonstrates the importance of the life-course model in investigating gendered
practice revealing females aged between 18-25 years old were considered to be the most
suitable for material grave good offerings (Philpott, 1991). Thus, this chapter has developed
a brief understanding of the gendered patterning already beginning to emerge, which
focuses on the female gender. Following within the next chapters this focus will be
examined with inference made between the specific relationship between grave good types,
materials, and associated genders.

Chapter Four: Results of Characterising Grave Goods
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS OF CHARACTERISING GRAVE

GOODS
4.1. GRAVE GOOD CATEGORIES

Before analysing the particular grave good categories and their potential gendered
associations, this chapter will offer a general overview of the distribution of grave goods.
As displayed in Figure 10, the percentage distribution of grave good categories was as
follows: Animal (5%), Attire (9%), Coinage (10%), Jewellery (18%), Leisure (1%), Spiritual
(1%), Toilet Items (3%), Tools (2%), and Vessels (43%). These results reflect a common trend
already discussed in past grave good studies (Philpott, 1991, p.181; Pearce, 2013, p.73)
where vessels were perceived as a popular burial furnishing used for containing offerings of
food and drink. Moreover, the large percentage of Jewellery and Coin grave goods
demonstrates a ritual patterning towards personal adornment and afterlife sentiments
(Gowland, 2002). The other grave good categories offer less of a comprehensive insight into
burial practice, which would suggest that grave goods of practical, utilitarian purpose were
not as popular as impractical, symbolic grave goods. Thus, this chapter will focus on the
categories, Attire, Coinage, Jewellery, Toilet Items and Vessels, as they offer greater
relevance to this discussion. The other categories of Animal, Leisure, Spiritual, Tools, and
Other, did not provide an adequate sample to enable any critical discussion of these grave
good categories in relation to burial practice and gender identity. Thus, the grave good
percentages can be viewed in Figure 10, whilst the gendered distribution of grave good
categories are shown in Appendix B.
Figure 10: Distribution of Grave Good Categories
8% 5%
10%
Animal Attire
10% Coinage Jewellery
Leisure Spiritual
43% Toilet Items Tools
18%
Vessels Other
1%1%
2% 3%
4.1.1. ATTIRE
The grave goods from the site data that reference the attire category are relatively equally
distributed between the ‘Female’, ‘Possible Female’, ‘Male’, ‘Possible Male’, and ‘Unknown’
categories. Such grave goods included boots, brooches, a buckle, a dress hook, hooks, pins,
shoes and studs. The total results of this figure are listed in Appendix B. It is particularly
important to note that only 11.59% of attire grave goods had contact with the body, where
they were either held, worn or placed intentionally on the body. This demonstrates that
despite the practicality of many of these grave goods types, such offerings were used as a
symbolic furnishing rather than as practical adornment (Eckhart & Crummy, 2008).
With reference to the specific grave good types, brooches showed very little variation
between female and male distribution, confirming past academic findings (Allason-Jones,
1995; Allison, 2015) that brooches were predominately sexless and worn to suit personal
taste. In contrast, a higher proportion of pins were found present amongst the ‘Female’ and
‘Possible Female’ categories, where 80% of pins within the study being attributed to these
sex groups. Pins were often used to hold together pieces of dress, as well as funerary
shrouds, which were particularly useful for female attire (Allison, 2015). This would assert
that the higher presence of pins found within female burials was the result of their
important practical purpose in positioning and pinning garments. Although a pin was found
in one ‘Possible Male’ burial, this type of grave good may be considered a female-oriented
grave good due to its conventional purpose used for female dress (Allason-Jones, 1995).
Further within this sample footwear dominates the attire category with a total of 23 boot
and shoe burial furnishings. This reflects the Roman tradition of providing a buried
individual with provisions which would assist with their travels on the journey to the
afterlife (Allason-Jones, 2011). The presence of footwear may also be concluded as a simple
form of dressing the body for burial, however, as only 20% of the footwear within the
sample was worn, it may suggest footwear offered a symbolic rather than practical use.
With reference to the sex categories, 4.26% of ‘Female’ burials contained some form of
footwear, whereas 6.61% of males contained footwear. The slightly higher proportion of
footwear found within male burials does not lead to any significant gendered trends. This is
because many lighter shoes and sandals typically worn by women would not have been
preserved as well as traditional hobnailed footwear. Thus, there may have existed an equal
distribution of footwear amongst men and women within this study, however, due to the
lack of surviving evidence of female footwear, such an interpretation is unknown (Barber &
Bowsher, 2000). Ergo, despite the high presence of footwear offering insight into potential
mortuary belief, this grave good type does not contribute any substantial insight into
gendered use or attribution.
Concluding this discussion of the attire category, the main understanding to be gained is
that often grave goods associated with this category were used for symbolic purposes,
referencing various Roman funerary beliefs (Barber & Bowsher, 2000). Also, as shown
through the example of pins, the gendered attribution of grave goods is far easier to assess
when there is an apparent practical use exclusive to a certain gender. Thus, attire grave
good types have demonstrated the presence of gender-neutral grave goods, as well as the
practical adornment of gender-oriented grave goods.
4.1.2. COINAGE
The results from the data in regards to coin grave goods offered unique insight into the
treatment of gender within a funerary context. As the quantity and quality of data regarding
coin description and material vary significantly between different sites, this discussion will
instead focus on the quantitative distribution of coins as grave goods. Of the 67 coins
present in graves, 23 were attributed to ‘Females’ (34.33%), whilst 11 were attributed to
‘Males’ (16.42%), with the other remaining 33 coins being attributed to the categories of
‘Possible Female’, ‘Possible Male’, and ‘Unknown’. The total distribution of this category are
shown in Appendix B.
Despite this disparity the same proportion of females and males had coins present within
their burial. This is the result of a higher proportion of female burials containing multiple
coins, whereas male burials typically exhibited single-coin offerings. With reference to single
coin grave goods, 90% of male burials and 70% of female burials which featured coins, only
exhibited singular coins. The offering of single coins in burial contexts could signify the belief
that such payment would ensure the deceased could pay the Roman god, Charon, to ferry
across the River Styx (Allason-Jones, 2011). Such coins would conventionally be placed
within the hands, mouth, or chest of the deceased, referring to this symbolism
(Hammerson, 1996). Thus, despite varying interpretations of coin grave good offerings, the
singularity of the coin offering suggests this is a figurative rather than status statement
(Philpott, 1991).
In contrast, the presence of multiple coin offerings within burials, where 30% of female
burials containing coins featured multiple coins as opposed to 10% of male burials, may be
an attempt to reflect the wealth and status of the individual. As discussed in earlier
chapters, the greater presence of grave goods within female burials has been linked with
notions of a dowry (Puttock, 2002). Thus, the higher proportion of multiple coins within
female burials could be the result of unpaid dowry, offered to the deceased as they died
before or just after marriage. The most convincing example of this notion is within the burial
of a young adult female (S29B11, Figure 11) found at the Mansell Street (MSL87)
excavations (Barber & Bowsher, 2000, p.165). This particular 3 rd to 4th Century CE burial
contains a large grave good assemblage including a hoard of 11 silver coins (Barber &
Bowsher, 2000, p.168). This hoard of coins was found at the feet of the female within the
coffin containment, indicating that this assemblage was intentionally associated with the
burial. Therefore, due to the young age of the female and elaborate burial furnishings and
coin hoard, it is justifiable to believe that such an offering is associated with her social
identity (Allason-Jones, 2011). Although a link with a form of dowry can only be speculative
with such limited inscription evidence, the large silver coin hoard strongly implies that this
young female came from a background in which her family could afford to offer valuable
grave goods. Such elaborate assemblages are rarely found within young male burials
implying these offerings could convincingly be linked with the exclusively female practice of
a dowry (Pearce, 2013). Another explanation could be the grave good offering by a spouse,
whereby a wealthy husband would furnish his bride’s burial with grave goods illustrating the
husband’s status, the wife’s role, and the harmonious marriage between the two (Allason-
Jones, 2011).
Figure 11: S29B11 Burial Outline. Barber & Bowsher, 2000, p.167-170
Utilising the results of this data, it would assert that there is no discernable gender
difference in regards to single coin grave goods. However, through the example of the
Mansell Street burial and higher percentage of multiple coins within female burials found
within the study, it may indicate there exists a greater focus on female rites of passage,
namely marriage.
Key:
1. Flagon
4.1.3.
2. Pair JEWELLERY
of Shoes, 11 Silver Coins, 3 Beads, 4 Bracelets, 2 Bone Dice, 3 Seals, 1 Fragment of Silver, 1
Wooden Box.
3. Lead-alloy Plate
4. Jet Bead
The results from the data referencing jewellery grave goods have offered this study the
most substantial opportunity for a thorough examination of gender identity as represented
through grave good assemblages. Jewellery grave goods present within the study included
anklets, an armlet, beads, bracelets, earrings, necklaces, pendants, finger-rings, a torc, and
other miscellaneous pieces of adornment. The full distribution of these grave goods is
shown in Appendix B. Within this category, grave goods were most commonly distributed
amongst the ‘Female’ and ‘Possible Female’ populations accounting for 36.22% of jewellery
grave goods, compared to the ‘Male’ and ‘Possible Male’ populations exhibiting only
11.02%. It is important to consider that, comparable with the previous artefact types,
jewellery was in direct contact with the buried individuals in only 29.13% of the sample.
Moreover, jewellery was often deposited with burial contexts in large assorted grave good
assemblages, denoting a representational rather than practical grave good offering (Lavan,
Swift & Putzeys, 2007). These larger assemblage offerings were more common amongst
‘Female’ and ‘Possible Female’ burials, suggesting there is a close alignment between
women’s social identity and personal ornaments (Philpott, 1991).
Before discussing the specific treatment of jewellery types amongst sites, a reflection of the
experience and reception of personal adornment in Roman Britain must be addressed. Pre-
Roman Britain exhibited the use of non-gendered personal ornaments, where brooches and
armlets were accepted as both male and female items (Johns, 1996). However, through
Rome’s growing influence in the province an emergence of gender-specific adornment
becomes apparent within textual and epigraphical Figure 12: Gold Earring found in Lant
Street Burial (LTU03). Ridgeway, Leary &
Sudds, 2013, p.95.
evidence (Allason-Jones, 2011). Increasingly, Roman
British women were visually represented wearing

elaborate jewellery in the fashion of Roman design
and trends (Philpott, 1991). Thus, not only did this
shifting personal ornament tradition help to represent
the way in which womanhood was expressed in
Roman Britain but also the way in which Roman
identity and inclusion was experienced (Johns, 1996). With reference to the results
discussed in Chapter Three, this assimilation of Roman identity, and by a result, influence on
female adornment would explain why grave goods were far more common in female burials
during the 3rd and 4th Century CE. It then may be possible to conclude that jewellery was
strongly associated with female identity, influenced by the prolonged exposure to Roman
culture (Johns, 1996). Further, the eastern tradition of male soldiers adorned with earrings,
despite local Roman British tradition that appears to have considered earrings as female-
specific ornaments, demonstrates the cultural difference with reference to gender (Allason-
Jones, 1989). This would suggest that Roman practice had an immense affect on social
identity and representation through the adornment of gender-specific jewellery. This will be
examined in greater depth using the specific grave good jewellery types of bracelets, finger-
rings and torcs.
Firstly, the closer examination of bracelets from this study will be considerably insightful to
the adoption of gender-specific jewellery within Roman Britain. Bracelets dominated the
grave good category of jewellery; previous studies comment this form of ornament was
common in pre-Roman Britain, however, its popularity increased throughout the Roman
period (Swift, 2003). In this study, bracelets were eight times more common in female burial
contexts than in male burial contexts asserting the belief that bracelets were female-
oriented adornments (Johns, 1996). However, bracelets should not be considered
exclusively female adornments, where examples of single bracelets found within male
burials could reference various symbolic and social functions. In female contexts bracelets
appear to be used more as a fashion statement or trend, where textual and epigraphical
evidence states Roman British women often wore multiple bracelets at a time (Carroll,
2013). This is reflected in the results of this research where the 24 total bracelets were
associated with 9 of the female burials (Allason-Jones, 1989). Despite this popular
adornment, only 38.67% of bracelets had contact with the buried individual, suggesting
bracelets were not traditionally used in funerary contexts as decoration or functional
adornment. Thus, the popularity of bracelets amongst Roman British women in textual and
representational evidence is supported within the results of this study, inciting bracelets as
a symbolic, female-oriented grave good.
In contrast to the results of the previous jewellery type, finger-rings proved to be far less
gender specific and do not provide any distinguishable information regarding differing
gender treatment and identity within a burial context. However, this example is crucial to
the study, addressing that not all grave good types hold an inherent gendered purpose.
Thus, finger-rings were newly adopted into Roman British culture following Roman
occupation and were widely considered as a decorative adornment and a convenient way of
carrying seals (Allason-Jones, 1989). The finger-rings within this study were equally
distributed amongst ‘Female’, ‘Possible Female’, ‘Male’, and ‘Possible Male’ categories,
suggesting that finger-rings were gender-neutral and cannot be accurately used to
determine the gender of an individual (Philpott, 1991). In some circumstances the material
or circumference of the finger-ring has been used to associate the object with a female or
male owner, however the results of this study have not offered any visible insight to support
this (Pearce, 2013).

Finally, the torc is another example from the study’s results which has provided some
unique insight into gendered burial practice and material offerings. A torc is a solid open-
ended neck-ring, which was used commonly throughout pre-Roman Britain as a symbol of
status and power (Carroll, 2013). During the early Roman period torcs were conventionally
associated with Roman males as they were often awarded to soldiers following acts of
bravery. However, this androcentric association dissipated over time and in the later Roman
period torcs were widely considered a gender-neutral adornment, adopted by both men
and women for their believed magico-religious significance (Allason-Jones, 1989). Within the
selected sites, only one torc was present attributed to a late-mature adult female (S23B2)
who was also buried with an accompanying mirror and flagon, located at the Harper Road
site (Clark, 2008, p.152). The bronze torc (Figure 14) was decorated with a funerary motif of
peacock feathers, which has often been related to the goddess Juno as the patron of female
fertility and marriage (Clark, 2008). Following closer examination archaeologists concluded
that due to the minimal wear and small size, the torc must have been fixed onto the
woman’s body after death (Clark, 2008). In considering the torc’s condition and funerary
Figure 13: Harper Road Torc Burial. Watson, 2003.

decoration, it is plausible to believe this piece
of jewellery was intended to be worn only in a funerary context. This burial offers a rare
example of torc adornment implying certain grave goods may have been explicitly crafted
for the purpose of burial furnishing. Torcs, although considered gender neutral objects, are
rarely found within female funerary contexts encouraging an interesting consideration of
the status, wealth and identity of this mature-adult female (Carroll, 2013).
With reference to the results of this data and the ensuing discussion, the grave good
category of jewellery has proposed an interpretive framework for understanding female and
male oriented grave goods. However, it has also been suggested that, despite apparent
normative gender associations between jewellery types and specific genders within the
study, this is not always certain and such a framework must allow for flexibility.
4.1.4. TOILET ITEMS

Figure 14: Illustration of Harper Road
Torc. Cowan, 2003.
The grave good category of toilet items consisted of
a small sample size accounting for 3% of the overall grave goods. Toilet item types included
combs, hairpins, a manicure set, mirrors, a perfume pot, and rod. The full distribution of
toilet items is displayed in Appendix B. Due to the small sample size, the variation of grave
goods amongst the gender categories was not significant enough to warrant explicit
gendered interpretations. The only exceptions to this were the grave good types of hairpins,
manicure sets and mirrors, which provided new insight into the deposition of practical grave
goods.
Within the results of the data hairpins were solely distributed amongst ‘Female’, ‘Possible
Female’ and ‘Unknown’ categories. This is not surprising considering the practical purpose
of hairpins, which were used to pin back long hair into popular styles and would only be a
necessity for Roman British women (Allason-Jones, 2011). Although there are examples
where hairpins have been found within male-sexed graves, it is apparent that these items
should be considered as female-oriented grave goods.
In regards to manicure sets, this grave good type offers a far less indicative interpretation.
Manicure sets included an array of hygiene items including tweezers, nail cleaners and
cosmetic spoons (Allason-Jones, 2011). The only example of such a manicure set from the
data is within a West Tenter burial (WTN84) belonging to a 2 nd to 3rd Century CE mature
adult male (S49B86), who had been inhumed in a coffin along with a miniature jar
(Whytehead, 1986). Despite modern conceptions of manicure and cosmetic maintenance as
a female exclusive practice, this was not the case in Roman Britain. Such manicure sets were
commonly used by both men and women, however amongst men it was more common with
elite male citizens (Pearce, 2013). This would contend that this practical cosmetic utensil
was not gender specific and its presence within a male burial context is not atypical.
Finally, the equally distributed grave good type of mirrors indicates that these grave good
objects were gender inclusive (Pearce, 2013). For example, the 31-43 Mansell Street
excavations (MST87) produced 4 copper alloy and glass mirrors, two attributed to females
and two attributed to probable males (Barber & Bowsher, 2000, p.353). In the Iron Age
mirrors were considered as “feminine instruments”, however through the development of
urban, Romanised practice, this belief changed over time (Eckardt & Crummy, 2008, p.31).
During the Roman period mirrors were found within both male and female burials, although
mirrors found in male contexts were attributed to elite male citizens (Barber & Bowsher,
2000). This has been argued using the late 3 rd Century CE Mansell Street burial (S30B15),
where a mature adult, ‘Probable Male’ was buried with an assortment of valuable grave
goods including two mirrors (Barber & Bowsher, 2000, p.154). This could indicate a changing
expression of elite, gendered identity emerging through the developing relationship
between the province and Rome (Allason-Jones, 2011). Thus, although this grave good type
does not explicitly support the understanding of gender identity in burial contexts, it does
indicate that during the process of Romanisation male citizens in provinces began to adopt
traditional female-oriented goods.
In conclusion, the results from the datasets regarding the toilet items category demonstrate
mixed interpretations about the adoption of grave goods as an indication of gendered
identity (Pearce, 2011). Objects like the hairpin offer a practical, feminine use, whilst the
adoption of manicure sets and mirrors exhibit no clear gender associations. The value of this
particular grave good discussion reiterates the gender neutrality of practical grave good
utensils, suggesting symbolic, impractical goods are far more useful to a gendered dialogue
about grave good practice.
4.1.5. VESSELS
Vessels accounted for the largest proportion of grave goods at 43% of the total grave
goods. The individual vessel types were numerous with over 25 different types, which are
listed in Appendix B. Generally, vessels were present in more male burials than female
burials, however there was an insignificant variance between the sexes which does not offer
a clear interpretation. There is, however, one exceptional burial from Great Dover Street
which has recently offered archaeologists a discursive understanding of gender with
reference to vessels (Mackinder, 2000).

The subject of this discussion is a mature adult ‘Female’ cremation (S15B1) found within the
165 Great Dover Street excavations (GDV96). The cremation was found with 10 associated
grave goods including four firmalampes, four ‘picture’ lamps, a tazza and a glass fragment
(Mackinder, 2000). These goods were uncharred indicating they were placed within the
context after the individual had been cremated. The lamps were all made from the same
Central Gaulish White ware and dated between the late 1st to 2nd Century CE (Mackinder,
2000). In recent years the identity of the cremated female has been reconsidered, due to
the atypical decorative motifs featured on these lamps. One of which depicts a fallen
gladiator (Figure 15); a traditional motif for the continent, although rarely found within a
female grave (Bateman, 2008). This has lead many
individuals to speculate that this subject matter could
indicate this burial was somehow associated with
gladiatorial combat. There has been no other similar
example to suggest this particular burial represents a
female gladiator, however it is likely that this grave
good was intentionally offered, and thus, had
particular significance to this individual. The other
three lamps show Anubis (Figure 16), the jackal-
headed Egyptian god who controlled entry into the underworld (Mackinder, 2000). These
Egyptian-influenced lamps are particularly unconventional for the region, but are, however,
well-suited to a funerary context.

Figure 15: Gladiator Lamp. Museum of London, 2003. Figure 16: Anubis Lamp. Museum of London, 2003.
Although the certain interpretations that can be gathered from the subject matter of these
grave good lamps cannot offer distinct, clear insight, it does contend that this female
cremation was adorned with grave goods in a way which was very atypical for her gender
and region (Bateman, 2008). This would argue that there are always variations in gendered
practice and that such a grave good framework for interpreting gendered identities must
remain flexible and receptive towards unconventional examples.
4.2. GRAVE GOOD MATERIALS

Aside from grave good categorisations, the use and variation of grave good materials can be
invaluable to an assessment of an individual’s life-course and social identity. In other words,
the use of a cheaper or more expensive material in the making of an object used as a grave
good incites a dimensional, complex understanding of the socially-inscribed value of the
individual (Pearce, 2013). A complete list of the material distribution can be viewed in the
Appendix C, however for the means of this study only materials which provide particularly
insightful interpretations will be discussed. Therefore, this chapter will reference the data of
the study through the use of grave good materials, bronze, jet, shale, silver and gold.
4.2.1. BRONZE
Traditionally bronze was considered a cheaper substitute for more precious materials,
usually used to create personal adornments and coins (Puttock, 2002). Due to its popularity
and low monetary value the presence of bronze in burial contexts may indicate the wealth
of the buried individual. Moreover, it could also contend that grave goods of symbolic,
rather than monetary value, were seen as important to grave good offerings (Puttock,
2002). With reference to the analysis of the data, a high quantity of bronze was associated
with female burials. However, the 14 bronze artefacts attributed to female burials were only
distributed amongst five graves. This means the occurrence of a bronze material grave good
was found within 3.55% of the female burial population within this study. This percentage is
slightly smaller in male burials, with associated bronze grave goods present amongst 1% of
the male population. This would argue that these symbolic associations were more crucial
for female burials than male burials, or perhaps bronze was more appropriate for female-
oriented grave goods (Allason-Jones, 1989). However, due to the limited sample size of
bronze grave goods and minimal difference between female and male distribution, this
interpretation can only remain speculative.
4.2.2. JET & SHALE
Previous academic research (Allason-Jones, 1995; Eckardt, 2014; Barber & Bowsher, 2000)
states the use of jet and shale in grave good materials exhibits the most revealing
interpretation on gender and social identity.

With reference to shale, it was the cheaper of the two materials used in a variety of
domestic and personal objects. Its rising consumption during the 3 rd and 4th Century CE was
the result of local manufacturing, with the closest manufacturing centre being located in
York (Barber & Bowsher, 2000). Shale could also be oiled to imitate the more expensive jet,
thus reasoning its widespread adoption throughout Roman Britain. This popularity is not
reflected within the study’s results, where shale was found in less than 1% of the male
population and was not present amongst any of the female population. Therefore, this
material cannot offer further insight towards the gendered discussion.
In contrast, the use of jet for grave goods within this study supports previous assumptions
that jet was more favourable amongst women (Allason-Jones, 1995). Jet was found in 4.26%
of the female population, most commonly used to create finger-rings, hairpins and other
items of female personal adornment. Jet was not found amongst the male population,
supporting the claim by Allason-Jones (1989, p.128) that the majority of jet items were for
female use. This is believed to be because jet is particularly significant for Roman women.
This is supported by the ancient historian, Pliny the Elder who states the fumes from
burning jet helped relieve women of various complaints and ailments (Pliny, Natural History
36.141-2). Although there is not a significant enough result to warrant a clear relationship
between jet use and female identity, it does convincingly support previous historical
research and textual evidence (Philpott, 1991). Thus although the results of this data
regarding jet does not provide comprehensive insight, it does suggest certain materials were
aimed at assisting with female-specific concerns.

Thus, the differing results amongst jet and shale support different gender treatment and
adoption. Both materials were believed to possess mystic qualities demonstrating their
value in funerary practice throughout Roman Britain.
4.2.3. SILVER & GOLD
The final discussion regarding material types used within this study are silver and gold;
materials which have maintained their high value and reputation throughout the centuries.
In Roman Britain “silver would have been worth a hundred times the value of copper”, with
gold being valued considerably more (Allason-Jones, 2011, p.206). More traditionally used in
forms of jewellery and personal ornament, silver and gold were considered to have been
common within the context of female burials. This is supported by the results of the data
where 16 silver and 1 gold grave goods are associated with female burials. This is contrasted
with the results from the male population where 1 silver grave good is associated with a
‘Possible Male’ burial, whilst there are no gold grave goods present amongst the ‘Male’
population. Despite the different gendered adoption of silver and gold, a particular female
burial (S29B11; See Figure 11) containing 14 out of the 16 silver grave goods from the study
indicates the offering of silver as a demonstration of economic and symbolic wealth (Carroll,
2013). This female burial from the Mansell Street excavations (MSL87) exhibits an elaborate
hoard suggestive of a considerable familial wealth and large dowry, as discussed in the
previous chapter (Barber & Bowsher, 2000). The adoption of silver and gold used within
higher-status female burials argues for the societal value of the female life-course and the
associated symbolism of material culture in representing a woman’s particular stage of life.


In conclusion to this chapter, the results of the data methodology have illustrated some
interesting concerns regarding grave good typology and material adoption.
The first section of this chapter focused upon the varying grave good types listed within the
study, suggesting more personal, symbolic artefacts like jewellery and attire may offer an
understanding into gender practice and consumption. Further, more practical objects like
manicure sets and footwear were shown to be gender-neutral grave goods, demonstrating
the importance of perceiving the context unbiased of modern conceptions of female and
male practice (Allison, 2015). The concluding assumption drawn from this discussion
suggests that although no artefact type has a conclusive or assured gender attribution, the
concentration of certain grave goods within female or male populations may be indicative of
normative customs and trends of use (Pearce, 2013). Therefore, there exists a value in
undertaking this type of quantitative research, so that the differential gender treatment of
grave goods can incite an understanding of gender reception in death and the expectations
the male or female individual would participate in life.
The second section of this chapter focused upon the use of different materials, commenting
on previous academic research which contends different materials offer insight into gender
usage and consumption (Allason-Jones, 2011). Cheaper grave good materials like bronze,
copper and iron were shown to hold very little differing treatment between genders. More
expensive objects like jet, silver and gold referred back to previous chapters which discussed
the value of potential dowry grave offerings and focus upon female offerings. This particular
discussion then concludes that more valuable grave goods were often associated with
female burials due to the clear relationship between Roman British women and material
culture.
This chapter, which has summarised the results of the methodology, has aided the
discussion of gender treatment and representation in burial contexts through material
culture. The results have demonstrated there exists an important relationship between a
Roman British woman’s life course and grave goods, arguing material offerings are of more
significance and value to a female in death (Allison, 2015).

Chapter Five: Conclusion
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION
5.1. SUMMARY OF STUDY

The primary focus of this research was to address the neglect of gender in archaeological
studies and propose a more complex, flexible framework for interpreting gendered
discourse in Roman Britain. In doing so, this research insists gender was a formative feature
of social identity, visible within the grave good materials found within Roman London burial
contexts (Allison, 2015). In a broader sense, this framework does not only support future
gender research in Roman Britain but also argues the significance of archaeological remains
in interpreting socio-cultural identities and ideologies.
Before constructing and implementing this framework, this study engaged with the issues
and discursive theories currently discussed in gender studies of the past. Primarily, the
importance of gender, as well as age, ethnicity, status and wealth, as “axes of identity” was
highlighted (Hollimon, 2011, p.163). Further, the value of context in understanding
gendered practices in past societies was emphasised, whilst the potential bias of our
contemporary conceptions of gender were noted. Both the interconnectedness of social
identities and the contextual awareness of Roman British society are paramount to this
study, referenced throughout the research to ensure the study of gender is framed by a
comprehensive conceptual and contextual understanding.

In addressing the research aims, the focus of this research is threefold; first, to describe the
extent to which gender has been neglected in archaeological studies and to reassert its
value as a method of understanding society in Roman Britain. This was considered by
introducing the traditional framework for understanding gender discourse in past societies
based on the static and essentialist division between male and female (Nelson, 1997). This
division is problematic in the discussion on gender in two ways; firstly, it proposes there are
two distinct terms of ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ which are exclusive of each other, and
secondly, that the biological sex of an individual informs their gender identity. The latter was
an issue discussed in-depth in Chapter Two, where despite the relationship between
biological sex and constructed gender, it was resolved that such an exclusive contingency
denies the variation between societies and ignores atypical individuals whose gender
identity is not informed by their biological sex (Sørensen, 2000). In rejecting this traditional
approach to gender studies, the concept of life-course was introduced as a way to study
gender as a dimension of social identity (Gowland, 2002). By synthesising age, gender, sex,
ethnicity and other forms of identity, the life-course model does not rely on the sex-gender
contingency and provides a more inclusive, comprehensive framework for understanding
gender in Roman Britain.
The second aim - to investigate the relevance and significance of funerary analysis and the
interpretation of grave goods to the understanding of gender in Roman Britain has been
discussed in Chapter Two. Before addressing this aim, the chapter provided historical
context for this research engaging with the interpretations of Roman gendered practice and
beliefs gathered from textual and epigraphic evidence. This historical discussion suggested
the multicultural diversity of Roman Britain, the relationship between Rome and its
provinces and the pre-Roman customs of Iron-Age Britain should all be considered as
contributing factors to the experience of gender in Roman Britain (Pearce, 2011).
Despite the value of textual and epigraphic evidence to an understanding of gender in
Roman Britain, these sources are primarily found in Rome and do not necessarily mean they
were completely adopted by Rome’s provinces. The potential bias of Roman sources was
countered by utilising the funerary analysis of Roman London burial sites, where the unique
adaption of Roman gendered practices and customs by Roman British communities
becomes apparent. An example of this was the childbearing and marriage age of Roman
British women which was proved to be marginally older than that of Roman women,
evidenced by the osteological assessment of Roman British female burials (Allason-Jones,
2011). This could potentially reflect the different economic conditions between Rome and
its provinces, whilst also suggesting the continuation of pre-Roman customs (Rogers, 2014).
Such an example argues the value of funerary analysis in the study of Roman Britain. This
significance is further alluded to when discussing grave goods, where the assemblage of
grave goods in accompaniment to an osteologically sexed burial can provide interesting
insight into the representation of gender. Thus, the final sub-chapter in Chapter Two
considers the staged setting of a burial context, where a burial is furnished with items that
hold sentimental value or purpose to the person’s identity within Roman British society. An
interpretation of these grave goods can inform archaeologists of the individual’s wealth and
status within society, whilst also referencing the individual’s age, sex and ethnicity (Philpott,
1991). Thus, this research has argued that gender may also be apparent within the burial
context, visible through the interpretation of deposited grave goods.

The third aim of this research has been to consider the visibility of gendered practice in
Roman London burial contexts through the collation of data from 50 Roman London sites.
This methodology has included 1,299 burials and 690 grave goods, where trends and
patterns between grave good deposition and the age and sex of the buried individuals has
been investigated. The results of the data provided unique insight into the difference
between male and female grave good offerings, whilst arguing the value of age, wealth and
ethnicity to the interpretation of Roman British identity. The most obvious interpretation of
the data suggested grave goods were more commonly associated with females usually
between the ages of 18-25. Grave goods were also deposited in much larger assemblages in
female burials than those in male burials. This was suggested to be the result of a dowry,
where young women who died before marriage would be buried with goods representative
of an unspent dowry (Allason-Jones, 1995). Mature adult females aged between 26-45 years
also exhibited large quantities of grave goods, whilst grave good prevalence in females aged
over 45 displayed significant decline. This apparent focus on women aged between 18-45
could potentially reference a woman’s fertility, where grave good offerings were more
common with women who had died prematurely, unable to fulfil the roles as a mother and
wife (Moore, 2009). This would also explain why grave good offerings decline in female
burials who are aged over 45, as the typical age stage when menopause occurs. In contrast,
the male population from this study display significantly less grave good associations, where
single grave goods were favoured over larger assemblages. Moreover, males show the same
focus on grave good offerings amongst the 18-45 age grouping as the female populations,
suggesting these stages in a person’s life-course were a major feature of Roman British
society. In conclusion to Chapter Three, the overview of grave good distribution amongst
male and female populations indicates womanhood, particularly the ages between 18-45
years, was a significant aspect of Roman British identity.
To further construct an understanding of the experience of gender in Roman British society,
Chapter Four utilised the grave good distributions from the previous chapter to inform a
comprehensive investigation of particular grave good types apparent in the data. Attire,
Coinage, Jewellery, Toilet Items, and Vessels were discussed in detail with particular
reference to whether these items were typically designated to a gender. Apart from
hairpins, attire was shown to be fairly equally distributed amongst males and females, whilst
coinage was more common with female burials, which refers back to the notion of a dowry.
Jewellery was the most obvious grave good type to be associated with female adornment
and use, however this varied amongst jewellery types. For example, whilst finger-rings were
commonly adorned by both men and women, bracelets and earrings were traditionally
confined to female adornment in Roman Britain, with the exception of eastern soldiers and
foreign settlers (Allason-Jones, 1989). The grave good type of jewellery not only provides
evidence for male and female-oriented adornment but also cautions of the potential
stereotyping which can occur when interpreting grave goods. Toilet items and vessels were
also considered and promoted a far more gender-inclusive and flexible interpretation of
material culture. Grave good materials, with reference to bronze, jet, shale, silver and gold,
were examined in sub-chapter 4.2, where more valuable materials such as gold and silver
were associated with female burial offerings. This would conclude that female burial
offerings were of a larger quantity and economic value, again insisting the relevance and
importance of womanhood in Roman London. Therefore, the third aim was addressed by
interpreting the data to show visible trends in the grave good distribution and association
amongst the male and female populations used in the study.
In conclusion to this study, the contextual background, data collection and grave good
interpretation has considered gender in Roman Britain as fundamental to the construction
and representation of identity in Roman Britain. Through material culture and the
assessment of grave goods, young females have become the visible focus of this research. It
is reasonable to conclude from the results of the data that grave goods were more valuable
to the representation of women in burial contexts, which could suggest their roles as
daughters, wives, and mothers, were central to Roman British communities. Moreover, the
atypical adornment of grave goods such as the Harper Road burial (S23B2) and the Mansell
Street burial (S30B15), argues the importance of interpreting grave goods with certain
flexibility and gender fluidity (Clark, 2008). Thus, this study would indicate grave goods
within the burial context can offer unique insights into gendered discourses, roles and
practices of Roman Britain.
5.2. FUTURE RESEARCH

This study has addressed the neglect by previous research of gender in Roman Britain by
addressing the main issues concerned with such studies: the conceptual ambiguity of
gender, the limited sources available, and the visibility of social identity in burial contexts.
By considering these issues and proposing a new, interrogative method for investigating
gender in Roman Britain future research will benefit.
Firstly, the conceptual ambiguity of gender has been referred to throughout this study,
where the notion of life-course has been considered as an appropriate way to consider the
influence and significance of gender in Roman British society. This life-course model allows
archaeologists to explore the social experience of gender without exclusively relying upon
an individual’s biological sex. Thus, this study should encourage future research to consider
gender as a feature of social identity, interconnected with other features including age, sex,
ethnicity, wealth and status.
Secondly, due to the limited provincial sources available past research into gendered
discourse in Roman Britain has focused primarily on textual and epigraphical evidence from
Rome. However, this neglects the different cultural, political and social settings present in
Roman Britain. This study has resolved this issue by utilising burial contexts and material
culture from Roman Britain, which ensures the interpretations from this research reference
the provincial setting. Thus, future research should focus on these forms of archaeological
evidence to provide regional-specific interpretations that do not solely rely on evidence
from Rome.
Thirdly, for the interpretation of grave goods to comprehensively inform archaeologists of
gender discourse in Roman Britain, future research must engage with large sample sizes of
burial contexts. A limitation of this study was the time and resource constraints which
reduced the sample size to 50 Roman London burial sites. Although the results of this data
did provide useful insight into the gender patterning of grave goods, a more complete and
thorough database of Roman British sites would enable greater evidence for grave good
trends.
Therefore, this study provides an interrogative framework for interpreting gender in Roman
Britain using grave goods from Roman London burial contexts. The results of the
methodology have provided interesting conclusions about the importance of grave good
offerings to female burial contexts. Future research using a larger sample size could further
enhance this interpretation, encouraging a new understanding of the experience of
womanhood and gender in Roman British society. On a larger scale, this study has
developed a foundation for future studies into the material culture of burial contexts,
endeavouring archaeologists to examine in greater depth the realities and representations
of gender identities in burial contexts.

Appendices
APPENDIX A: TOTAL BURIAL DATA FROM STUDY

Key:
GG Grave Goods Present

No. Number of Grave Goods
Contex Coffin or Urn Present
t
1C 1st Century CE F Female INF Infant

2C 2nd Century CE F? Possible Female SA Sub-Adult
3C 3rd Century CE ? Unknown Sex YA Young Adult
4C 4th Century CE M Male MA Mature Adult
5C 5th Century CE M? Possible Male OA Older Adult
1C5C 1st Century – 5th Century CE A Unspecified Adult
? Unknown Age
ID Site Code Burial ID Burial Type Period Sex Age GG No. Context
1 AR72 S1B1 INHUMATION 3C4C F MA YES 3 COFFIN
2 ATC97 S2B1 INHUMATION ? M OA NO 0 COFFIN
3 ATC97 S2B2 INHUMATION 2C ? SA NO 0 NO
4 ATC97 S2B3 INHUMATION ? M YA NO 0 NO
5 ATC97 S2B4 INHUMATION 2C M OA YES 2 NO
6 ATC97 S2B5 INHUMATION 1C2C M MA YES 1 COFFIN
7 ATC97 S2B6 INHUMATION 1C2C ? ? YES 1 NO
8 ATC97 S2B7 INHUMATION 1C2C M YA NO 0 NO
9 ATC97 S2B8 INHUMATION 1C M YA NO 0 NO
10 ATC97 S2B9 INHUMATION ? ? ? NO 0 NO
11 ATC97 S2B10 INHUMATION 1C F MA NO 0 NO
12 ATC97 S2B11 INHUMATION 2C ? SA YES 1 COFFIN
13 ATC97 S2B12 INHUMATION ? F MA YES 2 NO
14 ATC97 S2B13 INHUMATION 1C M YA NO 0 NO
15 ATC97 S2B14 INHUMATION ? F OA NO 0 NO
16 ATC97 S2B15 INHUMATION 1C2C F ? NO 0 NO
17 ATC97 S2B16 INHUMATION 1C2C ? INF NO 0 COFFIN
18 ATC97 S2B17 INHUMATION ? M ? YES 1 COFFIN
19 ATC97 S2B18 INHUMATION 2C ? SA YES 1 NO
20 ATC97 S2B19 INHUMATION ? F MA NO 0 NO
21 ATC97 S2B20 CREMATION 2C3C M OA NO 0 URN
22 ATC97 S2B21 CREMATION 2C F ? YES 1 NO
23 ATC97 S2B22 CREMATION 2C3C F ? YES 1 URN
24 ATC97 S2B23 CREMATION 2C3C ? ? NO 0 URN
Appendices
25 ATC97 S2B24 CREMATION 2C M ? NO 0 URN

26 ATC97 S2B25 CREMATION ? ? ? NO 0 NO
27 ATC97 S2B26 CREMATION 2C3C ? SA YES 2 URN
28 ATC97 S2B27 CREMATION 2C3C ? ? YES 1 NO
29 ATC97 S2B28 CREMATION 2C3C F ? YES 2 URN
30 ATC97 S2B29 CREMATION 3C F ? YES 1 NO
31 ATC97 S2B30 CREMATION 2C3C M ? YES 2 NO
32 ATC97 S2B31 CREMATION 2C3C M YA NO 0 URN
33 ATC97 S2B32 CREMATION 2C ? ? NO 0 URN
34 ATC97 S2B33 CREMATION 2C ? ? YES 2 NO
35 ATC97 S2B34 CREMATION 1C4C M OA NO 0 URN
36 ATC97 S2B35 CREMATION 2C3C ? ? YES 1 URN
39 ATC97 S2B38 CREMATION 2C3C ? SA NO 0 URN
40 ATC97 S2B39 CREMATION 2C M YA YES 2 NO
41 ATC97 S2B40 CREMATION 3C ? ? NO 0 URN
42 ATC97 S2B41 CREMATION 2C ? ? YES 1 URN
43 ATC97 S2B42 CREMATION 2C3C F ? NO 0 URN
45 ATC97 S2B44 CREMATION 2C3C ? SA NO 0 URN
46 ATC97 S2B45 CREMATION 2C M ? NO 0 NO
48 ATC97 S2B47 CREMATION 2C F ? NO 0 URN
49 ATC97 S2B48 CREMATION 2C3C ? ? NO 0 NO
50 BAA87 S3B1 INHUMATION 2C4C ? ? YES 3 NO
51 BAA87 S3B2 CREMATION 2C4C ? ? NO 0 URN
52 BAA87 S3B3 CREMATION 2C4C ? ? NO 0 NO
53 BAR79 S4B1 INHUMATION 3C4C ? ? NO 0 NO
54 BAR79 S4B2 INHUMATION 3C4C M MA NO 0 NO
55 BAR79 S4B3 INHUMATION 3C4C ? SA NO 0 NO
56 BAR79 S4B4 INHUMATION 3C4C ? SA YES 1 NO
57 BAR79 S4B5 INHUMATION 3C4C F SA YES 2 NO
58 BAR79 S4B6 INHUMATION 3C4C ? MA NO 0 NO
59 BAR79 S4B7 INHUMATION 3C4C ? ? NO 0 NO
60 BAR79 S4B8 INHUMATION 3C4C M YA NO 0 NO
61 BAR79 S4B9 INHUMATION 3C4C ? MA NO 0 NO
63 BAR79 S4B11 INHUMATION 3C4C M MA YES 2 NO
64 BAR79 S4B12 INHUMATION 3C4C F YA YES 11 NO
65 BAR79 S4B13 INHUMATION 3C4C F SA NO 0 NO
Appendices

69 BAR79 S4B17 INHUMATION 3C4C F YA NO 0 NO
70 BAR79 S4B18 INHUMATION 3C4C ? MA YES 1 NO
71 BAR79 S4B19 INHUMATION 3C4C M MA YES 1 NO
72 BAR79 S4B20 INHUMATION 3C4C M MA NO 0 NO
73 BDC03 S5B1 INHUMATION 1C2C M MA NO 0 NO
74 BDC03 S5B2 INHUMATION 1C2C M? ? NO 0 NO
75 BDC03 S5B3 INHUMATION 1C2C ? INF YES 1 COFFIN
76 BDC03 S5B4 INHUMATION 1C2C ? MA NO 0 NO
77 BDC03 S5B5 INHUMATION 1C2C ? INF NO 0 COFFIN
79 BDC03 S5B7 INHUMATION 1C2C ? SA NO 0 NO
80 BDC03 S5B8 INHUMATION 1C2C ? YA NO 0 COFFIN
84 BDC03 S5B12 INHUMATION 1C2C ? MA YES 1 NO
85 BDC03 S5B13 INHUMATION 1C2C M? MA NO 0 COFFIN
86 BDC03 S5B14 INHUMATION 1C2C M MA NO 0 COFFIN
87 BDC03 S5B15 INHUMATION 1C2C ? MA NO 0 COFFIN
88 BDC03 S5B16 INHUMATION 1C2C M? MA NO 0 NO
92 BDC03 S5B20 INHUMATION 1C2C ? SA YES 1 NO
95 BDC03 S5B23 INHUMATION 1C2C F? YA YES 1 NO
96 BDC03 S5B24 INHUMATION 1C2C F? MA NO 0 NO
97 BGB98 S6B1 INHUMATION 2C4C F YA NO 0 NO
98 BGB98 S6B2 INHUMATION 2C ? YA YES 1 NO
99 BGB98 S6B3 INHUMATION 2C ? SA YES 2 NO
100 BGB98 S6B4 INHUMATION 2C3C F MA NO 0 NO
101 BGB98 S6B5 INHUMATION 3C4C ? SA YES 3 COFFIN
102 BGB98 S6B6 INHUMATION 2C M MA YES 1 COFFIN
103 CKA02 S7B1 CREMATION 3C4C ? ? NO 0 NO
104 CKA02 S7B2 INHUMATION 3C4C F? ? YES 2 COFFIN
105 CKA02 S7B3 INHUMATION 3C4C ? ? YES 1 NO
106 COSE84 S8B1 INHUMATION 3C4C ? SA NO 0 NO
107 COSE84 S8B2 INHUMATION 3C4C ? YA NO 0 NO
108 COSE84 S8B3 INHUMATION 4C F MA NO 0 COFFIN
109 COSE84 S8B4 INHUMATION 4C M YA NO 0 COFFIN
110 COSE84 S8B5 INHUMATION 4C ? SA NO 0 COFFIN
Appendices
111 COSE84 S8B6 INHUMATION 4C M OA YES 2 COFFIN

112 COSE84 S8B7 INHUMATION 4C M MA YES 1 COFFIN
113 CPN01 S9B1 INHUMATION 2C3C F YA NO 0 NO
114 CPN01 S9B2 INHUMATION 2C3C ? YA NO 0 NO
115 CPN01 S9B3 INHUMATION 2C3C ? MA NO 0 NO
116 CPN01 S9B4 INHUMATION 2C3C ? MA YES 1 NO
117 CPN01 S9B5 INHUMATION 2C3C M? MA YES 2 NO
118 CPN01 S9B6 INHUMATION 2C3C ? MA YES 3 COFFIN
119 CPN01 S9B7 INHUMATION 2C3C M? YA NO 0 COFFIN
120 CPN01 S9B8 INHUMATION 2C3C ? ? NO 0 NO
121 CPN01 S9B9 INHUMATION 2C3C M? MA YES 2 NO
122 CPN01 S9B10 INHUMATION 2C3C M MA NO 0 NO
123 CPN01 S9B11 INHUMATION 2C3C M YA NO 0 NO
124 CPN01 S9B12 INHUMATION 2C3C F MA NO 0 NO
125 CPN01 S9B13 INHUMATION 2C3C ? YA NO 0 COFFIN
126 CPN01 S9B14 INHUMATION 2C3C F? YA YES 1 COFFIN
127 CPN01 S9B15 INHUMATION 2C3C F MA YES 1 NO
128 CPN01 S9B16 INHUMATION 2C3C M? MA NO 0 NO
129 CPN01 S9B17 INHUMATION 2C3C F MA NO 0 COFFIN
130 CPN01 S9B18 INHUMATION 2C3C M MA NO 0 COFFIN
132 CPN01 S9B20 INHUMATION 2C3C ? MA YES 2 COFFIN
133 CPN01 S9B21 INHUMATION 2C3C ? SA YES 1 NO
134 CPN01 S9B22 INHUMATION 2C3C M YA YES 1 COFFIN
136 CPN01 S9B24 INHUMATION 2C3C F YA NO 0 COFFIN
137 CPN01 S9B25 INHUMATION 2C3C ? YA NO 0 COFFIN
138 CPN01 S9B26 INHUMATION 2C3C F YA YES 1 NO
140 CPN01 S9B28 INHUMATION 2C3C M? MA NO 0 COFFIN
141 CPN01 S9B29 INHUMATION 2C3C ? SA YES 2 COFFIN
143 CPN01 S9B31 INHUMATION 2C3C ? SA NO 0 COFFIN
144 CPN01 S9B32 INHUMATION 2C3C ? ? NO 0 COFFIN
145 CPN01 S9B33 INHUMATION 2C3C M? MA NO 0 NO
146 CPN01 S9B34 INHUMATION 2C3C ? ? NO 0 NO
147 CPN01 S9B35 INHUMATION 2C3C ? SA NO 0 NO
148 CPN01 S9B36 INHUMATION 2C3C ? YA YES 1 NO
149 CRODA8 S10B1 INHUMATION 1C ? ? YES 2 COFFIN
6
150 ELD88 S11B1 INHUMATION 1C2C F? MA NO 0 NO
151 ELD88 S11B2 INHUMATION 1C2C M? MA NO 0 NO
152 ELD88 S11B3 INHUMATION 1C2C ? MA YES 1 NO
Appendices
153 ELD88 S11B4 INHUMATION 1C2C ? INF NO 0 COFFIN

154 ELD88 S11B5 INHUMATION 1C2C M YA NO 0 COFFIN
155 ELD88 S11B6 INHUMATION 1C2C M MA NO 0 COFFIN
156 ELD88 S11B7 INHUMATION 1C2C ? SA YES 1 COFFIN
157 ELD88 S11B8 INHUMATION 1C2C F MA NO 0 COFFIN
158 ELD88 S11B9 INHUMATION 1C2C ? MA YES 1 COFFIN
159 ELD88 S11B10 INHUMATION 1C2C F MA NO 0 COFFIN
160 ELD88 S11B11 INHUMATION 1C2C M YA NO 0 COFFIN
161 ELD88 S11B12 INHUMATION 1C2C ? MA YES 1 NO
162 ELD88 S11B13 INHUMATION 1C2C ? MA NO 0 NO
165 ELD88 S11B16 INHUMATION 1C2C M MA NO 0 NO
167 ELD88 S11B18 INHUMATION 1C2C F? MA NO 0 NO
169 ELD88 S11B20 INHUMATION 1C2C ? INF NO 0 NO
172 ELD88 S11B23 INHUMATION 1C2C ? SA NO 0 NO
173 ELD88 S11B24 INHUMATION 1C2C ? YA NO 0 NO
174 ENS03 S12B1 INHUMATION 1C2C ? MA NO 0 COFFIN
175 ENS03 S12B2 INHUMATION 1C2C F MA NO 0 NO
176 ENS03 S12B3 INHUMATION 1C2C M MA NO 0 NO
177 ENS03 S12B4 INHUMATION 1C2C F MA NO 0 NO
178 ENS03 S12B5 INHUMATION 1C2C ? MA YES 1 NO
179 ENS03 S12B6 INHUMATION 1C2C ? MA NO 0 NO
180 ENS03 S12B7 INHUMATION 1C2C F? MA YES 1 COFFIN
181 ENS03 S12B8 INHUMATION 1C2C ? YA NO 0 NO
183 ENS03 S12B10 INHUMATION 2C4C M YA NO 0 NO
184 ENS03 S12B11 INHUMATION 2C4C ? SA YES 1 NO
185 ENS03 S12B12 INHUMATION 1C2C ? YA YES 5 NO
186 ENS03 S12B13 INHUMATION 1C2C M? YA YES 2 NO
187 ENS03 S12B14 INHUMATION 1C2C ? SA NO 0 COFFIN
188 ENS03 S12B15 INHUMATION 1C2C ? INF NO 0 NO
191 ENS03 S12B18 INHUMATION 1C2C ? SA NO 0 NO
192 ENS03 S12B19 INHUMATION 1C2C M YA NO 0 NO
193 ENS03 S12B20 INHUMATION 1C2C M? MA NO 0 NO
194 ENS03 S12B21 INHUMATION 1C2C F? OA NO 0 NO
Appendices
196 ENS03 S12B23 INHUMATION 1C2C M? MA NO 0 COFFIN

198 ENS03 S12B25 INHUMATION 1C2C ? SA YES 1 NO
203 ENS03 S12B30 INHUMATION 1C2C ? OA NO 0 NO
218 ENS03 S12B45 CREMATION 1C2C M MA YES 1 NO
221 ENS03 S12B48 INHUMATION 1C2C M MA NO 0 COFFIN
223 ENS03 S12B50 INHUMATION 2C4C M MA YES 1 NO
226 ENS03 S12B53 INHUMATION 2C4C ? INF YES 3 NO
230 ENS03 S12B57 INHUMATION 2C4C M? YA NO 0 COFFIN
233 ENS03 S12B60 INHUMATION 2C4C F? MA NO 0 NO
234 ENS03 S12B61 INHUMATION 2C4C M? MA YES 1 COFFIN
236 ENS03 S12B63 INHUMATION 2C4C M? YA NO 0 NO
237 ENS03 S12B64 INHUMATION 2C4C F? MA YES 1 NO
238 ENS03 S12B65 INHUMATION 2C4C M MA NO 0 COFFIN
Appendices

240 ENS03 S12B67 INHUMATION 2C4C M? MA YES 1 COFFIN
241 ENS03 S12B68 INHUMATION 2C4C ? INF YES 2 COFFIN
242 ENS03 S12B69 CREMATION 2C4C ? MA YES 1 NO
243 ENS03 S12B70 CREMATION 2C4C ? ? NO 0 NO
244 ENS03 S12B71 CREMATION 2C4C ? MA YES 1 NO
245 ENS03 S12B72 CREMATION 2C4C ? A NO 0 NO
251 ENS03 S12B78 INHUMATION 2C4C F YA YES 6 COFFIN
252 ETN88 S13B1 INHUMATION 2C3C ? A YES 1 COFFIN
253 ETN88 S13B2 INHUMATION 1C4C F? A NO 0 COFFIN
254 ETN88 S13B3 INHUMATION 1C4C ? SA YES 1 COFFIN
255 ETN88 S13B4 INHUMATION 2C4C F A YES 1 COFFIN
256 ETN88 S13B5 INHUMATION 3C F MA YES 1 COFFIN
257 ETN88 S13B6 INHUMATION 2C3C M YA NO 0 COFFIN
258 ETN88 S13B7 INHUMATION 3C4C F? MA YES 3 COFFIN
259 ETN88 S13B8 INHUMATION 2C4C M MA NO 0 COFFIN
260 ETN88 S13B9 CREMATION 2C ? ? NO 0 NO
261 FIB88 S14B1 INHUMATION 1C M MA NO 0 NO
262 FIB88 S14B2 INHUMATION 1C2C ? MA NO 0 NO
263 FIB88 S14B3 INHUMATION 1C2C ? A NO 0 NO
264 FIB88 S14B4 INHUMATION 1C2C M MA NO 0 NO
265 FIB88 S14B5 INHUMATION 1C2C F? MA YES 2 COFFIN
266 FIB88 S14B6 INHUMATION 1C2C ? ? NO 0 NO
267 FIB88 S14B7 INHUMATION 1C2C M MA YES 1 NO
268 GDV96 S15B1 CREMATION 1C2C F MA YES 10 NO
269 GDV96 S15B2 INHUMATION 1C2C M YA YES 1 NO
270 GDV96 S15B3 INHUMATION 1C2C F? A NO 0 NO
271 GDV96 S15B4 INHUMATION 1C2C M MA NO 0 NO
272 GDV96 S15B5 INHUMATION 1C2C ? SA NO 0 NO
273 GDV96 S15B6 INHUMATION 1C2C ? ? NO 0 COFFIN
274 GDV96 S15B7 INHUMATION 1C2C ? A NO 0 NO
275 GDV96 S15B8 INHUMATION 2C M MA YES 4 COFFIN
276 GDV96 S15B9 INHUMATION 2C ? SA NO 0 COFFIN
279 GDV96 S15B12 INHUMATION 2C F MA NO 0 COFFIN
280 GDV96 S15B13 CREMATION 2C ? A NO 0 URN
Appendices

283 GDV96 S15B16 INHUMATION 2C F A YES 1 NO
284 GDV96 S15B17 INHUMATION 2C ? SA YES 1 COFFIN
285 GDV96 S15B18 INHUMATION 2C M MA YES 1 NO
286 GDV96 S15B19 INHUMATION 2C F YA YES 2 NO
287 GDV96 S15B20 INHUMATION 2C ? MA NO 0 NO
288 GDV96 S15B21 INHUMATION 2C ? A YES 3 COFFIN
289 GDV96 S15B22 INHUMATION 2C F YA YES 3 NO
290 GDV96 S15B23 INHUMATION 2C ? INF NO 0 NO
291 GDV96 S15B24 CREMATION 2C M A YES 1 URN
292 GDV96 S15B25 INHUMATION 2C3C M YA YES 2 COFFIN
293 GDV96 S15B26 INHUMATION 2C3C ? SA YES 3 COFFIN
294 GDV96 S15B27 INHUMATION 2C3C F MA NO 0 COFFIN
295 GDV96 S15B28 CREMATION 3C ? YA YES 12 NO
296 GDV96 S15B29 INHUMATION 3C ? SA YES 1 NO
297 GDV96 S15B30 CREMATION 3C M OA YES 1 URN
298 GM131 S16B1 CREMATION 1C ? SA YES 10 URN
299 GM131 S16B2 INHUMATION 1C2C ? A NO 0 NO
300 GM401 S17B1 CREMATION 2C ? ? YES 1 URN
301 GM401 S17B2 INHUMATION 2C F MA YES 1 NO
302 GM401 S17B3 INHUMATION 2C ? SA YES 1 NO
303 GM403 S18B1 CREMATION 2C ? ? NO 0 URN
304 GM403 S18B2 INHUMATION 2C ? ? YES 1 COFFIN
305 GM403 S18B3 INHUMATION 2C ? ? YES 1 NO
306 GM415 S19B1 INHUMATION 4C ? ? NO 0 COFFIN
307 GM415 S19B2 INHUMATION 3C4C ? ? YES 3 NO
308 GM415 S19B3 INHUMATION 3C4C ? ? YES 1 NO
309 GM415 S19B4 INHUMATION 3C4C ? SA YES 1 COFFIN
310 GM165 S20B1 CREMATION 1C4C ? A YES 1 URN
311 HAY86 S21B1 INHUMATION 2C3C M? MA NO 0 NO
312 HAY86 S21B2 INHUMATION 3C4C ? ? NO 0 NO
313 HAY86 S21B3 INHUMATION 2C4C ? OA NO 0 COFFIN
314 HAY86 S21B4 INHUMATION 2C4C ? A NO 0 COFFIN
315 HAY86 S21B5 INHUMATION 2C4C M MA NO 0 NO
316 HAY86 S21B6 INHUMATION 2C4C ? A NO 0 NO
317 HAY86 S21B7 INHUMATION 2C4C M MA NO 0 COFFIN
318 HAY86 S21B8 INHUMATION 2C4C M? OA NO 0 NO
319 HAY86 S21B9 INHUMATION 2C4C M OA NO 0 NO
320 HAY86 S21B10 INHUMATION 2C4C ? A NO 0 NO
321 HAY86 S21B11 INHUMATION 2C4C M OA NO 0 COFFIN
322 HAY86 S21B12 INHUMATION 2C4C F? MA NO 0 NO
324 HAY86 S21B14 INHUMATION 3C4C ? A YES 6 COFFIN
Appendices

326 HAY86 S21B16 INHUMATION 3C4C ? SA YES 4 COFFIN
327 HAY86 S21B17 INHUMATION 3C4C ? ? YES 1 COFFIN
329 HAY86 S21B19 INHUMATION 2C4C ? INF YES 1 COFFIN
330 HAY86 S21B20 CREMATION 2C4C ? ? NO 0 NO
331 HAY86 S21B21 CREMATION 1C4C ? ? NO 0 NO
332 HOO88 S22B1 INHUMATION 2C ? A NO 0 COFFIN
333 HOO88 S22B2 INHUMATION 2C4C F? A NO 0 COFFIN
334 HOO88 S22B3 INHUMATION 1C3C M YA NO 0 NO
335 HOO88 S22B4 INHUMATION 3C M MA YES 1 COFFIN
336 HOO88 S22B5 INHUMATION 1C4C ? A NO 0 NO
337 HOO88 S22B6 INHUMATION 3C4C M MA NO 0 COFFIN
338 HOO88 S22B7 INHUMATION 2C3C F MA NO 0 COFFIN
339 HOO88 S22B8 INHUMATION 2C4C F? OA NO 0 COFFIN
340 HOO88 S22B9 INHUMATION 2C3C ? A NO 0 COFFIN
342 HOO88 S22B11 INHUMATION 2C ? ? NO 0 NO
345 HOO88 S22B14 INHUMATION 1C3C F YA NO 0 COFFIN
346 HOO88 S22B15 INHUMATION 1C3C ? INF NO 0 NO
347 HOO88 S22B16 INHUMATION 1C ? ? NO 0 COFFIN
348 HOO88 S22B17 INHUMATION 2C3C F? MA NO 0 COFFIN
349 HOO88 S22B18 INHUMATION 2C ? SA NO 0 COFFIN
350 HOO88 S22B19 INHUMATION 1C2C ? SA NO 0 COFFIN
351 HOO88 S22B20 INHUMATION 1C4C M YA NO 0 COFFIN
354 HOO88 S22B23 INHUMATION 1C2C F A NO 0 COFFIN
355 HOO88 S22B24 INHUMATION 2C3C ? INF NO 0 COFFIN
356 HOO88 S22B25 INHUMATION 2C ? INF NO 0 NO
359 HOO88 S22B28 INHUMATION 3C M A NO 0 COFFIN
361 HOO88 S22B30 INHUMATION 3C4C F OA NO 0 COFFIN
362 HOO88 S22B31 INHUMATION 1C3C M? OA NO 0 COFFIN
364 HOO88 S22B33 INHUMATION 2C M? MA NO 0 COFFIN
365 HOO88 S22B34 INHUMATION 1C4C M OA NO 0 COFFIN
366 HOO88 S22B35 INHUMATION 1C4C ? ? YES 3 COFFIN
367 HOO88 S22B36 INHUMATION 2C4C F YA YES 2 COFFIN
Appendices
368 HOO88 S22B37 INHUMATION 2C4C ? MA NO 0 COFFIN

370 HOO88 S22B39 INHUMATION 2C4C M MA NO 0 NO
373 HOO88 S22B42 INHUMATION 1C4C M OA YES 1 NO
375 HOO88 S22B44 INHUMATION 2C4C M? A NO 0 COFFIN
379 HOO88 S22B48 INHUMATION 1C ? A NO 0 NO
380 HOO88 S22B49 INHUMATION 3C4C ? SA YES 1 COFFIN
381 HOO88 S22B50 INHUMATION 2C3C M MA YES 1 COFFIN
382 HOO88 S22B51 INHUMATION 2C3C M YA YES 2 NO
384 HOO88 S22B53 INHUMATION 2C4C M MA YES 1 NO
385 HOO88 S22B54 INHUMATION 2C ? OA NO 0 NO
386 HOO88 S22B55 INHUMATION 2C4C M YA NO 0 NO
387 HOO88 S22B56 INHUMATION 2C4C M OA YES 4 COFFIN
389 HOO88 S22B58 INHUMATION 2C4C ? INF YES 2 COFFIN
392 HOO88 S22B61 INHUMATION 1C2C ? A YES 2 COFFIN
396 HOO88 S22B65 INHUMATION 1C3C ? ? NO 0 NO
397 HOO88 S22B66 INHUMATION 2C3C F MA YES 1 NO
399 HOO88 S22B68 INHUMATION 2C ? SA NO 0 NO
400 HOO88 S22B69 INHUMATION 3C4C M MA YES 3 COFFIN
401 HOO88 S22B70 INHUMATION 2C3C ? SA YES 3 COFFIN
402 HOO88 S22B71 INHUMATION 2C3C ? ? NO 0 COFFIN
405 HOO88 S22B74 INHUMATION 2C ? A NO 0 NO
407 HOO88 S22B76 INHUMATION 2C ? SA NO 0 COFFIN
408 HOO88 S22B77 INHUMATION 3C4C M OA YES 1 COFFIN
Appendices

414 HOO88 S22B83 INHUMATION 3C4C M? A NO 0 COFFIN
416 HOO88 S22B85 INHUMATION 2C3C ? YA NO 0 COFFIN
418 HOO88 S22B87 INHUMATION 2C3C M? YA YES 3 COFFIN
420 HOO88 S22B89 INHUMATION 1C4C M? MA NO 0 NO
421 HOO88 S22B90 INHUMATION 1C4C ? YA YES 1 NO
423 HOO88 S22B92 INHUMATION 2C4C M? YA YES 7 COFFIN
425 HOO88 S22B94 INHUMATION 2C M YA YES 1 COFFIN
426 HOO88 S22B95 INHUMATION 2C M? OA YES 1 COFFIN
427 HOO88 S22B96 INHUMATION 2C3C ? ? YES 1 NO
430 HOO88 S22B99 INHUMATION 4C F? YA YES 1 NO
0
1
433 HOO88 S22B10 INHUMATION 3C4C M YA YES 1 COFFIN
2
434 HOO88 S22B10 INHUMATION 2C4C M OA NO 0 COFFIN
3
435 HOO88 S22B10 INHUMATION 2C4C ? MA NO 0 NO
4
436 HOO88 S22B10 INHUMATION 3C4C M MA NO 0 NO
5
437 HOO88 S22B10 INHUMATION 2C4C M? MA NO 0 COFFIN
6
7
439 HOO88 S22B10 INHUMATION 2C F MA NO 0 COFFIN
8
9
0
1
Appendices
2
3
4
5
447 HOO88 S22B11 INHUMATION 3C4C F YA YES 3 COFFIN
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
Appendices
5
467 HOO88 S22B13 INHUMATION 1C4C ? ? YES 1 NO
6
468 HOO88 S22B13 INHUMATION 1C2C ? ? NO 0 COFFIN
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
477 HOO88 S22B14 CREMATION 2C4C ? OA NO 0 URN
6
478 HOO88 S22B14 CREMATION 2C3C F? OA NO 0 URN
7
479 HOO88 S22B14 CREMATION 2C3C M OA NO 0 URN
8
480 HOO88 S22B14 CREMATION 2C4C ? A NO 0 NO
9
481 HOO88 S22B15 CREMATION 3C ? MA NO 0 NO
0
482 HOO88 S22B15 CREMATION 2C4C ? ? YES 1 NO
1
2
484 HOO88 S22B15 CREMATION 4C ? ? NO 0 NO
3
485 HOO88 S22B15 CREMATION 4C F? OA NO 0 URN
4
486 HOO88 S22B15 CREMATION 4C F A YES 1 URN
5
487 HOO88 S22B15 CREMATION 2C ? OA YES 1 NO
6
488 HOO88 S22B15 CREMATION 2C4C ? OA NO 0 URN
7
489 HOO88 S22B15 CREMATION 2C3C M? MA NO 0 URN
Appendices
8
490 HOO88 S22B15 CREMATION 2C ? SA NO 0 URN
9
491 HOO88 S22B16 CREMATION 2C3C F? MA NO 0 URN
0
492 HOO88 S22B16 CREMATION 2C3C ? MA NO 0 URN
1
2
494 HOO88 S22B16 CREMATION 1C F OA NO 0 NO
3
495 HOO88 S22B16 CREMATION 2C4C F? MA NO 0 URN
4
496 HOO88 S22B16 CREMATION 1C3C ? SA NO 0 NO
5
497 HOO88 S22B16 CREMATION 2C ? MA NO 0 URN
6
7
499 HOO88 S22B16 CREMATION 2C F MA NO 0 URN
8
500 HOO88 S22B16 CREMATION 2C M MA NO 0 URN
9
501 HOO88 S22B17 CREMATION 2C M MA NO 0 URN
0
502 HOO88 S22B17 CREMATION 1C2C M? OA NO 0 URN
1
503 HOO88 S22B17 CREMATION 2C3C ? A NO 0 URN
2
504 HOO88 S22B17 CREMATION 2C ? OA NO 0 URN
3
505 HOO88 S22B17 CREMATION 2C3C ? OA NO 0 NO
4
5
507 HOO88 S22B17 CREMATION 1C ? SA NO 0 NO
6
508 HOO88 S22B17 CREMATION 3C4C ? SA NO 0 NO
7
509 HOO88 S22B17 CREMATION 3C F? MA NO 0 NO
8
9
511 HOO88 S22B18 CREMATION 2C3C M? MA NO 0 URN
0
Appendices
1
513 HOO88 S22B18 CREMATION 2C4C F? MA NO 0 NO
2
3
515 HOO88 S22B18 CREMATION 2C4C ? ? NO 0 NO
4
5
6
518 HOO88 S22B18 CREMATION 2C3C F? OA YES 1 NO
7
519 HOO88 S22B18 CREMATION 2C3C M OA NO 0 URN
8
520 HOO88 S22B18 CREMATION 2C ? A NO 0 NO
9
521 HOO88 S22B19 CREMATION 1C2C F? OA NO 0 URN
0
522 HOO88 S22B19 CREMATION 2C3C ? A YES 1 NO
1
523 HOO88 S22B19 CREMATION 3C ? SA YES 1 NO
2
524 HOO88 S22B19 CREMATION 2C ? SA NO 0 URN
3
525 HOO88 S22B19 CREMATION 2C3C ? ? NO 0 URN
4
526 HOO88 S22B19 CREMATION 1C4C ? ? NO 0 URN
5
527 HOO88 S22B19 CREMATION 2C ? OA NO 0 URN
6
528 HOO88 S22B19 CREMATION 2C3C F MA NO 0 URN
7
529 HOO88 S22B19 CREMATION 1C2C ? INF NO 0 URN
8
530 HOO88 S22B19 CREMATION 1C2C ? SA NO 0 URN
9
531 HOO88 S22B20 CREMATION 1C2C ? A NO 0 URN
0
532 HOO88 S22B20 CREMATION 1C2C M? OA NO 0 URN
1
533 HOO88 S22B20 CREMATION 1C2C ? SA NO 0 URN
2
534 HOO88 S22B20 CREMATION 1C2C F OA NO 0 URN
3
535 HR79 S23B1 INHUMATION 1C M YA YES 1 COFFIN
Appendices
536 HR79 S23B2 INHUMATION 1C F MA YES 3 COFFIN

537 LEK95 S24B1 INHUMATION 3C4C ? YA YES 5 NO
538 LEK95 S24B2 INHUMATION 3C4C ? ? YES 3 COFFIN
539 LEK95 S24B3 INHUMATION 3C4C ? MA NO 0 NO
540 LEK95 S24B4 INHUMATION 4C ? MA YES 2 COFFIN
541 LEK95 S24B5 INHUMATION 3C4C ? A NO 0 NO
542 LEK95 S24B6 INHUMATION 3C4C ? ? NO 0 COFFIN
543 LEK95 S24B7 INHUMATION 3C4C ? A NO 0 NO
544 LFR69 S25B1 CREMATION 1C F? YA YES 2 URN
545 LTU03 S26B1 INHUMATION 2C F MA NO 0 NO
546 LTU03 S26B2 INHUMATION 2C M SA YES 3 NO
547 LTU03 S26B3 INHUMATION 2C M? YA NO 0 NO
548 LTU03 S26B4 INHUMATION 2C ? SA NO 0 NO
549 LTU03 S26B5 INHUMATION 2C F YA NO 0 NO
550 LTU03 S26B6 INHUMATION 2C M? YA NO 0 NO
551 LTU03 S26B7 INHUMATION 2C M YA NO 0 NO
554 LTU03 S26B10 INHUMATION 2C ? YA NO 0 NO
555 LTU03 S26B11 INHUMATION 2C ? INF YES 1 NO
556 LTU03 S26B12 INHUMATION 2C ? INF NO 0 NO
557 LTU03 S26B13 INHUMATION 4C F? YA NO 0 NO
558 LTU03 S26B14 INHUMATION 4C ? ? NO 0 NO
559 LTU03 S26B15 INHUMATION 4C ? SA YES 5 NO
560 LTU03 S26B16 INHUMATION 4C F? YA NO 0 COFFIN
561 LTU03 S26B17 INHUMATION 4C F YA NO 0 COFFIN
562 LTU03 S26B18 INHUMATION 4C M MA NO 0 COFFIN
563 LTU03 S26B19 INHUMATION 4C ? SA NO 0 COFFIN
564 LTU03 S26B20 INHUMATION 4C ? MA NO 0 NO
565 LTU03 S26B21 INHUMATION 4C F YA YES 1 NO
566 LTU03 S26B22 INHUMATION 4C ? OA NO 0 NO
568 LTU03 S26B24 INHUMATION 4C ? SA YES 2 COFFIN
573 LTU03 S26B29 INHUMATION 4C M MA NO 0 NO
574 LTU03 S26B30 INHUMATION 4C M MA YES 2 COFFIN
576 LTU03 S26B32 INHUMATION 4C ? ? YES 2 NO
577 LTU03 S26B33 INHUMATION 4C F YA YES 5 COFFIN
Appendices
579 LTU03 S26B35 INHUMATION 4C M MA YES 1 NO

580 LTU03 S26B36 INHUMATION 4C M A NO 0 COFFIN
581 LTU03 S26B37 INHUMATION 4C M YA NO 0 COFFIN
582 LTU03 S26B38 INHUMATION 4C F MA YES 1 COFFIN
583 LTU03 S26B39 INHUMATION 4C F YA YES 3 COFFIN
584 LTU03 S26B40 INHUMATION 4C M MA NO 0 COFFIN
585 LTU03 S26B41 INHUMATION 4C ? MA YES 1 NO
586 LTU03 S26B42 INHUMATION 4C M YA YES 2 NO
592 LTU03 S26B48 INHUMATION 4C F YA NO 0 COFFIN
595 LTU03 S26B51 INHUMATION 4C ? ? YES 1 NO
596 LTU03 S26B52 INHUMATION 4C ? MA NO 0 COFFIN
601 LTU03 S26B57 INHUMATION 4C M? MA YES 3 NO
602 LTU03 S26B58 INHUMATION 4C F? A NO 0 COFFIN
605 LTU03 S26B61 INHUMATION 4C F MA NO 0 COFFIN
606 LTU03 S26B62 INHUMATION 4C ? A NO 0 NO
609 LTU03 S26B65 INHUMATION 4C ? ? NO 0 COFFIN
611 LTU03 S26B67 INHUMATION 4C ? MA YES 1 COFFIN
612 LTU03 S26B68 INHUMATION 4C M? YA YES 1 NO
613 LTU03 S26B69 INHUMATION 4C M YA NO 0 COFFIN
616 LTU03 S26B72 INHUMATION 4C F SA YES 3 NO
618 LTU03 S26B74 INHUMATION 4C M? YA YES 1 NO
619 LTU03 S26B75 INHUMATION 4C ? MA NO 0 NO
Appendices

625 LTU03 S26B81 INHUMATION 4C M MA YES 1 NO
629 LTU03 S26B85 CREMATION 3C4C ? A YES 1 URN
630 LTU03 S26B86 CREMATION 3C4C ? ? NO 0 NO
631 MNL88 S27B1 INHUMATION 1C4C ? MA NO 0 NO
632 MNL88 S27B2 INHUMATION 2C4C M A NO 0 NO
633 MNL88 S27B3 INHUMATION 3C ? ? YES 4 COFFIN
634 MNL88 S27B4 INHUMATION 1C4C ? ? NO 0 NO
635 MNL88 S27B5 INHUMATION 1C4C ? ? NO 0 NO
636 MS73 S28B1 INHUMATION 3C4C F A YES 1 COFFIN
637 MS73 S28B2 INHUMATION 4C MM AAA YES 3 COFFIN
F
638 MS73 S28B3 INHUMATION 3C4C ? ? NO 0 COFFIN
641 MSL87 S29B1 INHUMATION 1C ? ? NO 0 NO
642 MSL87 S29B2 INHUMATION 1C2C ? MA NO 0 COFFIN
643 MSL87 S29B3 INHUMATION 1C2C F MA NO 0 COFFIN
644 MSL87 S29B4 INHUMATION 1C2C M YA NO 0 COFFIN
645 MSL87 S29B5 INHUMATION 2C4C M MA YES 1 COFFIN
646 MSL87 S29B6 INHUMATION 2C4C ? SA YES 1 COFFIN
647 MSL87 S29B7 INHUMATION 3C M A NO 0 NO
648 MSL87 S29B8 INHUMATION 2C ? ? NO 0 COFFIN
650 MSL87 S29B10 INHUMATION 1C4C ? ? NO 0 NO
651 MSL87 S29B11 INHUMATION 3C4C F YA YES 29 COFFIN
652 MSL87 S29B12 INHUMATION 1C4C M? MA NO 0 COFFIN
653 MSL87 S29B13 INHUMATION 1C3C F MA NO 0 NO
655 MSL87 S29B15 INHUMATION 1C5C ? INF NO 0 COFFIN
656 MSL87 S29B16 INHUMATION 1C5C ? A NO 0 COFFIN
658 MSL87 S29B18 INHUMATION 1C4C ? ? NO 0 COFFIN
659 MSL87 S29B19 INHUMATION 3C4C F MA YES 3 COFFIN
661 MSL87 S29B21 INHUMATION 2C F? MA NO 0 COFFIN
663 MSL87 S29B23 INHUMATION 2C4C M? MA NO 0 NO
Appendices
664 MSL87 S29B24 INHUMATION 2C4C ? ? YES 1 COFFIN

665 MSL87 S29B25 INHUMATION 2C4C M? MA NO 0 NO
666 MSL87 S29B26 INHUMATION 2C3C ? INF YES 2 COFFIN
668 MSL87 S29B28 INHUMATION 2C3C M OA NO 0 COFFIN
669 MSL87 S29B29 INHUMATION 2C4C M MA NO 0 NO
670 MSL87 S29B30 INHUMATION 2C4C ? SA NO 0 NO
671 MSL87 S29B31 INHUMATION 1C ? SA NO 0 NO
672 MSL87 S29B32 INHUMATION 3C ? A YES 2 COFFIN
675 MSL87 S29B35 INHUMATION 3C ? A NO 0 COFFIN
679 MSL87 S29B39 INHUMATION 3C4C F YA YES 2 COFFIN
682 MSL87 S29B42 INHUMATION 2C3C M? OA YES 2 NO
685 MSL87 S29B45 INHUMATION 1C4C F? OA NO 0 NO
687 MSL87 S29B47 INHUMATION 2C3C M YA YES 1 COFFIN
689 MSL87 S29B49 INHUMATION 3C F MA NO 0 NO
690 MSL87 S29B50 INHUMATION 2C4C F YA NO 0 COFFIN
692 MSL87 S29B52 INHUMATION 1C F MA NO 0 COFFIN
694 MSL87 S29B54 INHUMATION 1C5C ? SA NO 0 COFFIN
695 MSL87 S29B55 INHUMATION 1C2C M? MA YES 1 COFFIN
699 MSL87 S29B59 INHUMATION 2C3C F OA NO 0 COFFIN
Appendices

708 MSL87 S29B68 INHUMATION 2C3C F? MA NO 0 COFFIN
709 MSL87 S29B69 INHUMATION 2C4C M A NO 0 NO
719 MSL87 S29B79 INHUMATION 3C4C F A YES 4 COFFIN
720 MSL87 S29B80 INHUMATION 2C4C M? YA YES 1 COFFIN
725 MSL87 S29B85 INHUMATION 1C M? MA NO 0 COFFIN
728 MSL87 S29B88 INHUMATION 1C5C ? A YES 4 COFFIN
733 MSL87 S29B93 INHUMATION 3C M MA NO 0 COFFIN
0
1
2
743 MSL87 S29B10 INHUMATION 3C4C F? MA YES 1 COFFIN
3
744 MSL87 S29B10 INHUMATION 2C4C M OA NO 0 NO
4
745 MSL87 S29B10 INHUMATION 3C F MA YES 1 COFFIN
Appendices
5
6
7
748 MSL87 S29B10 INHUMATION 3C4C F A NO 0 COFFIN
8
749 MSL87 S29B10 INHUMATION 2C4C M? YA YES 1 COFFIN
9
750 MSL87 S29B11 INHUMATION 2C4C ? INF NO 0 NO
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
758 MSL87 S29B11 INHUMATION 2C3C ? INF NO 0 NO
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Appendices
8
9
0
1
772 MSL87 S29B13 INHUMATION 2C4C ? YA NO 0 COFFIN
2
3
774 MSL87 S29B13 INHUMATION 1C ? ? YES 2 NO
4
775 MSL87 S29B13 INHUMATION 1C5C ? A NO 0 NO
5
776 MSL87 S29B13 INHUMATION 2C ? MA YES 1 NO
6
777 MSL87 S29B13 INHUMATION 1C5C F A NO 0 NO
7
8
9
0
1
2
783 MSL87 S29B14 INHUMATION 2C F OA YES 2 COFFIN
3
4
785 MSL87 S29B14 INHUMATION 3C M OA NO 0 NO
5
6
7
788 MSL87 S29B14 INHUMATION 2C4C M MA NO 0 COFFIN
8
9
0
791 MSL87 S29B15 INHUMATION 2C4C F A YES 2 NO
Appendices
1
2
3
4
5
796 MSL87 S29B15 INHUMATION 2C4C M? A YES 1 NO
6
7
798 MSL87 S29B15 INHUMATION 2C M MA NO 0 NO
8
799 MSL87 S29B15 INHUMATION 3C4C ? ? YES 6 NO
9
0
801 MSL87 S29B16 INHUMATION 3C M YA NO 0 NO
1
2
803 MSL87 S29B16 INHUMATION 3C F MA NO 0 NO
3
804 MSL87 S29B16 INHUMATION 3C4C ? INF YES 1 NO
4
5
806 MSL87 S29B16 INHUMATION 3C ? A NO 0 NO
6
807 MSL87 S29B16 INHUMATION 3C ? A NO 0 NO
7
8
9
810 MSL87 S29B17 INHUMATION 3C4C F? YA NO 0 COFFIN
0
1
2
813 MSL87 S29B17 INHUMATION 3C F? MA NO 0 COFFIN
3
814 MSL87 S29B17 INHUMATION 3C4C ? MA NO 0 NO
Appendices
4
815 MSL87 S29B17 INHUMATION 3C M? MA YES 1 NO
5
6
817 MSL87 S29B17 INHUMATION 3C4C ? INF YES 2 NO
7
8
9
0
821 MSL87 S29B18 INHUMATION 2C ? YA NO 0 COFFIN
1
2
823 MSL87 S29B18 INHUMATION 1C5C M? A NO 0 COFFIN
3
824 MSL87 S29B18 INHUMATION 2C3C F? MA NO 0 NO
4
5
6
7
8
829 MSL87 S29B18 INHUMATION 2C M? A NO 0 NO
9
0
831 MSL87 S29B19 INHUMATION 3C F? YA YES 1 COFFIN
1
2
3
4
835 MSL87 S29B19 INHUMATION 3C4C F? OA NO 0 COFFIN
5
6
Appendices
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
851 MSL87 S29B21 INHUMATION 1C5C F MA NO 0 NO
1
2
3
854 MSL87 S29B21 INHUMATION 1C ? INF NO 0 COFFIN
4
5
6
7
858 MSL87 S29B21 INHUMATION 2C3C F A YES 2 COFFIN
8
9
860 MSL87 S29B22 INHUMATION 3C4C F OA NO 0 NO
Appendices
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
868 MSL87 S29B22 INHUMATION 3C M? YA NO 0 COFFIN
8
869 MSL87 S29B22 INHUMATION 2C3C M A NO 0 COFFIN
9
870 MSL87 S29B23 INHUMATION 2C ? SA NO 0 COFFIN
0
871 MSL87 S29B23 INHUMATION 3C4C M A YES 4 COFFIN
1
2
3
4
875 MSL87 S29B23 INHUMATION 2C3C F? MA YES 1 COFFIN
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
Appendices
3
884 MSL87 S29B24 INHUMATION 2C F MA NO 0 COFFIN
4
5
6
7
888 MSL87 S29B24 INHUMATION 3C4C F OA NO 0 NO
8
9
890 MSL87 S29B25 INHUMATION 2C3C ? YA NO 0 NO
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
Appendices
6
907 MSL87 S29B26 INHUMATION 2C4C M YA YES 1 NO
7
8
909 MSL87 S29B26 INHUMATION 2C ? ? YES 1 COFFIN
9
910 MSL87 S29B27 INHUMATION 2C3C F? YA NO 0 COFFIN
0
911 MSL87 S29B27 INHUMATION 2C F? A NO 0 COFFIN
1
2
3
4
5
916 MSL87 S29B27 INHUMATION 2C M MA NO 0 COFFIN
6
7
918 MSL87 S29B27 INHUMATION 1C3C ? ? YES 1 NO
8
9
0
1
2
923 MSL87 S29B28 CREMATION 1C2C F? MA NO 0 URN
3
924 MSL87 S29B28 CREMATION 2C3C ? MA NO 0 URN
4
925 MSL87 S29B28 CREMATION 2C3C ? ? NO 0 URN
5
926 MSL87 S29B28 CREMATION 1C2C ? ? NO 0 URN
6
927 MSL87 S29B28 CREMATION 1C2C ? SA NO 0 NO
7
928 MSL87 S29B28 CREMATION 1C5C ? INF NO 0 URN
8
929 MSL87 S29B28 CREMATION 2C ? SA NO 0 URN
Appendices
9
930 MSL87 S29B29 CREMATION 2C3C M MA YES 2 URN
0
931 MSL87 S29B29 CREMATION 3C4C M MA NO 0 URN
1
932 MSL87 S29B29 CREMATION 2C3C F? OA YES 1 URN
2
933 MSL87 S29B29 CREMATION 1C5C F? OA NO 0 URN
3
934 MSL87 S29B29 CREMATION 2C4C M? MA YES 1 URN
4
935 MSL87 S29B29 CREMATION 2C3C ? MA NO 0 URN
5
936 MSL87 S29B29 CREMATION 2C3C F? MA NO 0 URN
6
937 MSL87 S29B29 CREMATION 2C3C ? A NO 0 URN
7
938 MSL87 S29B29 CREMATION 1C3C ? OA YES 1 URN
8
939 MSL87 S29B29 CREMATION 1C3C ? YA NO 0 URN
9
940 MSL87 S29B30 CREMATION 2C3C ? OA YES 1 URN
0
941 MSL87 S29B30 CREMATION 2C3C F? OA YES 2 URN
1
942 MSL87 S29B30 CREMATION 2C ? ? NO 0 NO
2
943 MSL87 S29B30 CREMATION 2C3C ? INF YES 1 URN
3
944 MSL87 S29B30 CREMATION 2C3C ? OA NO 0 URN
4
945 MSL87 S29B30 CREMATION 1C4C ? ? NO 0 NO
5
946 MSL87 S29B30 CREMATION 3C F? OA NO 0 URN
6
947 MSL87 S29B30 CREMATION 2C3C ? OA NO 0 URN
7
948 MSL87 S29B30 CREMATION 2C3C ? A YES 3 URN
8
949 MSL87 S29B30 CREMATION 2C ? A NO 0 URN
9
0
1
Appendices
2
3
4
955 MSL87 S29B31 CREMATION 2C3C ? YA NO 0 URN
5
956 MSL87 S29B31 CREMATION 3C4C ? SA NO 0 NO
6
7
958 MSL87 S29B31 CREMATION 2C3C F? OA NO 0 NO
8
959 MSL87 S29B31 CREMATION 3C ? MA NO 0 URN
9
960 MSL87 S29B32 CREMATION 2C ? SA NO 0 NO
0
961 MSL87 S29B32 CREMATION 2C ? YA NO 0 URN
1
2
3
964 MSL87 S29B32 CREMATION 3C4C ? SA YES 1 URN
4
5
6
967 MSL87 S29B32 CREMATION 3C F? OA YES 1 URN
7
968 MSL87 S29B32 CREMATION 2C4C ? A NO 0 NO
8
969 MST87 S30B1 INHUMATION 1C5C ? ? NO 0 NO
972 MST87 S30B4 INHUMATION 2C4C ? A NO 0 COFFIN
973 MST87 S30B5 INHUMATION 1C2C ? INF NO 0 COFFIN
974 MST87 S30B6 INHUMATION 2C3C F A YES 1 COFFIN
975 MST87 S30B7 INHUMATION 3C4C ? ? YES 2 NO
976 MST87 S30B8 INHUMATION 3C M? A NO 0 COFFIN
977 MST87 S30B9 INHUMATION 2C4C M? A NO 0 NO
978 MST87 S30B10 INHUMATION 2C4C F YA NO 0 NO
979 MST87 S30B11 INHUMATION 1C5C ? MA YES 1 COFFIN
980 MST87 S30B12 INHUMATION 2C3C M? A NO 0 COFFIN
Appendices
981 MST87 S30B13 INHUMATION 1C2C ? SA NO 0 NO

982 MST87 S30B14 INHUMATION 2C4C M? A NO 0 COFFIN
983 MST87 S30B15 INHUMATION 2C3C M? MA YES 8 COFFIN
984 MST87 S30B16 INHUMATION 2C4C F? YA NO 0 COFFIN
985 MST87 S30B17 INHUMATION 2C3C ? ? NO 0 COFFIN
986 MST87 S30B18 INHUMATION 3C4C ? A NO 0 NO
988 MST87 S30B20 INHUMATION 3C M? YA YES 1 COFFIN
989 MST87 S30B21 INHUMATION 3C M MA YES 1 COFFIN
990 MST87 S30B22 INHUMATION 3C M? A NO 0 NO
991 MST87 S30B23 INHUMATION 3C4C F? MA YES 2 COFFIN
992 MST87 S30B24 INHUMATION 3C4C F? OA YES 1 COFFIN
994 MST87 S30B26 INHUMATION 3C4C M? ? NO 0 COFFIN
996 MST87 S30B28 INHUMATION 1C5C M? MA NO 0 NO
997 MST87 S30B29 INHUMATION 2C3C ? A YES 1 NO
999 MST87 S30B31 INHUMATION 1C5C M A NO 0 NO
100 MST87 S30B32 INHUMATION 3C ? A NO 0 NO
0
100 MST87 S30B33 INHUMATION 3C4C M? MA NO 0 COFFIN
1
100 MST87 S30B34 INHUMATION 3C ? SA NO 0 COFFIN
2
100 MST87 S30B35 INHUMATION 3C4C ? SA NO 0 COFFIN
3
100 MST87 S30B36 INHUMATION 3C4C ? MA NO 0 COFFIN
4
100 MST87 S30B37 INHUMATION 3C4C ? A NO 0 NO
5
100 MST87 S30B38 INHUMATION 2C3C M? YA NO 0 COFFIN
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
Appendices
101 MST87 S30B45 INHUMATION 2C ? ? NO 0 COFFIN

3
101 MST87 S30B46 INHUMATION 3C4C ? SA YES 1 COFFIN
4
5
101 MST87 S30B48 INHUMATION 3C M OA NO 0 COFFIN
6
101 MST87 S30B49 INHUMATION 3C4C M A NO 0 COFFIN
7
101 MST87 S30B50 INHUMATION 3C4C M? OA NO 0 COFFIN
8
101 MST87 S30B51 INHUMATION 3C4C M MA NO 0 COFFIN
9
102 MST87 S30B52 INHUMATION 3C4C F OA YES 1 COFFIN
0
102 MST87 S30B53 INHUMATION 2C4C M? MA YES 1 COFFIN
1
2
102 MST87 S30B55 INHUMATION 2C3C F? A NO 0 COFFIN
3
102 MST87 S30B56 INHUMATION 2C4C ? ? YES 1 COFFIN
4
5
6
7
102 MST87 S30B60 INHUMATION 2C3C ? YA NO 0 COFFIN
8
9
103 MST87 S30B62 INHUMATION 2C ? ? NO 0 NO
0
1
2
103 MST87 S30B65 INHUMATION 2C4C M A NO 0 NO
3
4
103 MST87 S30B67 INHUMATION 2C ? ? NO 0 NO
5
Appendices

6
7
103 MST87 S30B70 INHUMATION 2C M? A NO 0 COFFIN
8
9
0
104 MST87 S30B73 INHUMATION 3C4C M OA YES 1 COFFIN
1
104 MST87 S30B74 INHUMATION 4C ? A NO 0 COFFIN
2
3
4
104 MST87 S30B77 INHUMATION 2C3C M? MA NO 0 COFFIN
5
6
104 MST87 S30B79 INHUMATION 2C ? ? NO 0 COFFIN
7
104 MST87 S30B80 INHUMATION 2C3C M MA NO 0 COFFIN
8
9
105 MST87 S30B82 INHUMATION 2C3C ? INF NO 0 COFFIN
0
105 MST87 S30B83 INHUMATION 3C ? A NO 0 COFFIN
1
105 MST87 S30B84 INHUMATION 2C4C F MA NO 0 COFFIN
2
105 MST87 S30B85 INHUMATION 3C4C F? MA NO 0 COFFIN
3
105 MST87 S30B86 INHUMATION 3C M? OA NO 0 COFFIN
4
5
105 MST87 S30B88 INHUMATION 1C5C ? SA NO 0 NO
6
7
8
Appendices
105 MST87 S30B91 CREMATION 3C ? ? YES 1 NO

9
106 MST87 S30B92 CREMATION 2C3C ? ? YES 2 URN
0
106 MST87 S30B93 CREMATION 1C4C ? ? YES 1 NO
1
106 MST87 S30B94 CREMATION 2C3C F OA NO 0 URN
2
106 MST87 S30B95 CREMATION 1C2C ? INF NO 0 URN
3
106 MST87 S30B96 CREMATION 1C2C ? SA NO 0 URN
4
106 MST87 S30B97 CREMATION 2C3C F? INF NO 0 URN
5
6
7
106 MST87 S30B10 CREMATION 2C3C ? MA NO 0 URN
8 0
106 MST87 S30B10 CREMATION 3C4C F OA YES 1 URN
9 1
107 MST87 S30B10 CREMATION 3C4C M OA NO 0 URN
0 2
107 MST87 S30B10 CREMATION 3C ? ? NO 0 NO
1 3
107 MST87 S30B10 CREMATION 2C4C ? ? NO 0 NO
2 4
107 MST87 S30B10 CREMATION 1C5C ? ? NO 0 NO
3 5
107 MST87 S30B10 CREMATION 2C4C F MA YES 1 URN
4 6
107 MST87 S30B10 CREMATION 2C3C F? MA NO 0 URN
5 7
6 8
107 MST87 S30B10 CREMATION 2C3C ? A NO 0 URN
7 9
107 NCZ07 S31B1 CREMATION 1C ? A YES 2 NO
8
107 NGT00 S32B1 INHUMATION 1C M? SA YES 1 NO
9
108 NGT00 S32B2 INHUMATION 1C M YA NO 0 NO
0
108 PNS01 S33B1 INHUMATION 1C ? INF NO 0 NO
1
Appendices
108 PNS01 S33B2 INHUMATION 4C ? MA NO 0 NO

2
108 PNS01 S33B3 INHUMATION 4C ? SA YES 1 NO
3
108 PNS01 S33B4 INHUMATION 4C ? A NO 0 NO
4
108 PNS01 S33B5 INHUMATION 4C ? INF NO 0 NO
5
108 PNS01 S33B6 INHUMATION 4C ? SA YES 1 COFFIN
6
108 PPK93 S34B1 CREMATION 1C4C ? MA YES 1 NO
7
108 PR70 S35B1 INHUMATION 3C4C M? MA YES 2 COFFIN
8
108 PRE89 S36B1 INHUMATION 2C F? MA YES 1 COFFIN
9
109 PRE89 S36B2 INHUMATION 2C3C F? MA NO 0 COFFIN
0
109 PRE89 S36B3 INHUMATION 2C3C M MA YES 2 COFFIN
1
109 PRE89 S36B4 INHUMATION 2C M MA YES 1 COFFIN
2
109 REW92 S37B1 INHUMATION 4C M MA NO 0 COFFIN
3
109 REW92 S37B2 INHUMATION 4C M MA NO 0 COFFIN
4
109 REW92 S37B3 INHUMATION 4C ? SA YES 1 COFFIN
5
109 REW92 S37B4 INHUMATION 4C M YA NO 0 NO
6
109 REW92 S37B5 INHUMATION 4C ? ? NO 0 NO
7
109 REW92 S37B6 INHUMATION 4C ? INF YES 1 NO
8
109 RIV87 S38B1 INHUMATION 1C2C ? MA NO 0 NO
9
110 RIV87 S38B2 INHUMATION 1C2C M? MA YES 1 NO
0
110 RIV87 S38B3 INHUMATION 1C2C M MA NO 0 NO
1
110 RWG94 S39B1 INHUMATION 4C M MA YES 1 NO
2
110 RWG94 S39B2 INHUMATION 4C M YA YES 1 NO
3
110 SBK03 S40B1 INHUMATION 2C4C ? ? NO 0 NO
4
Appendices

5
110 SBK03 S40B3 INHUMATION 2C4C M SA NO 0 COFFIN
6
110 SBK03 S40B4 INHUMATION 2C4C ? SA NO 0 NO
7
110 SBK03 S40B5 INHUMATION 2C4C ? ? NO 0 COFFIN
8
110 SBK03 S40B6 INHUMATION 2C4C ? SA YES 1 COFFIN
9
0
111 SBK03 S40B8 INHUMATION 2C4C M MA NO 0 COFFIN
1
111 SBK03 S40B9 INHUMATION 2C4C M ? NO 0 NO
2
3
4
111 SBK03 S40B12 INHUMATION 2C4C ? ? YES 3 COFFIN
5
6
111 SBK03 S40B14 INHUMATION 3C4C ? ? YES 2 NO
7
8
111 SBK03 S40B16 INHUMATION 2C4C ? MA NO 0 NO
9
0
112 SBK03 S40B18 INHUMATION 3C4C M MA NO 0 COFFIN
1
112 SBK03 S40B19 INHUMATION 3C4C ? MA NO 0 COFFIN
2
112 SBK03 S40B20 INHUMATION 2C4C M YA NO 0 NO
3
4
112 SBK03 S40B22 INHUMATION 2C4C M MA NO 0 NO
5
112 SBK03 S40B23 INHUMATION 2C4C ? MA NO 0 NO
6
112 SBK03 S40B24 INHUMATION 2C4C ? SA NO 0 NO
7
Appendices

8
112 SBK03 S40B26 INHUMATION 2C4C F YA NO 0 COFFIN
9
113 SCS83 S41B1 INHUMATION 2C4C F? MA NO 0 NO
0
113 SCS83 S41B2 INHUMATION 2C M MA YES 2 COFFIN
1
113 SCS83 S41B3 INHUMATION 2C M MA YES 3 COFFIN
2
113 SCS83 S41B4 INHUMATION 1C M OA YES 1 COFFIN
3
113 SCS83 S41B5 CREMATION 2C ? ? NO 0 NO
4
113 SCU01 S42B1 CREMATION 1C2C ? ? NO 0 NO
5
113 SCU01 S42B2 CREMATION 1C2C ? ? YES 1 NO
6
113 SCU01 S42B3 CREMATION 1C2C ? ? YES 1 NO
7
113 SMT91 S43B1 CREMATION 2C3C ? ? YES 1 NO
8
113 SMT91 S43B2 CREMATION 2C3C F? YA YES 2 URN
9
114 SMT91 S43B3 CREMATION 2C3C M OA YES 1 NO
0
114 SMT91 S43B4 CREMATION 2C3C ? ? YES 1 NO
1
114 SQR00 S44B1 INHUMATION 2C F SA YES 2 COFFIN
2
114 SQR00 S44B2 INHUMATION 2C ? MA NO 0 COFFIN
3
114 SS73 S45B1 INHUMATION 3C4C M MA NO 0 NO
4
114 SS73 S45B2 INHUMATION 3C4C F MA YES 1 NO
5
114 SSZ05 S46B1 INHUMATION 1C2C M MA YES 1 NO
6
114 SSZ05 S46B2 INHUMATION 1C2C ? A NO 0 NO
7
114 SSZ05 S46B3 INHUMATION 3C4C M MA YES 1 NO
8
114 SSZ05 S46B4 INHUMATION 1C2C ? SA NO 0 COFFIN
9
115 SSZ05 S46B5 INHUMATION 1C2C M MA NO 0 COFFIN
0
Appendices
115 SWH86 S47B1 CREMATION 2C3C ? ? YES 9 NO

1
115 UNN98 S48B1 INHUMATION 2C3C ? A NO 0 COFFIN
2
115 WTN84 S49B1 CREMATION 2C ? ? NO 0 URN
3
115 WTN84 S49B2 CREMATION 2C ? A NO 0 URN
4
115 WTN84 S49B3 CREMATION 2C ? MA YES 2 URN
5
115 WTN84 S49B4 CREMATION 2C ? A YES 1 URN
6
115 WTN84 S49B5 CREMATION 2C ? ? NO 0 NO
7
8
115 WTN84 S49B7 CREMATION 2C3C ? A YES 2 URN
9
116 WTN84 S49B8 CREMATION 2C ? A NO 0 URN
0
116 WTN84 S49B9 CREMATION 2C ? ? NO 0 URN
1
116 WTN84 S49B10 CREMATION 2C ? SA YES 1 URN
2
3
116 WTN84 S49B12 CREMATION 2C3C ? ? NO 0 URN
4
116 WTN84 S49B13 CREMATION 2C3C ? ? NO 0 URN
5
116 WTN84 S49B14 CREMATION 1C3C ? ? NO 0 NO
6
116 WTN84 S49B15 INHUMATION 1C4C ? SA NO 0 COFFIN
7
116 WTN84 S49B16 INHUMATION 1C4C M MA NO 0 COFFIN
8
116 WTN84 S49B17 INHUMATION 1C4C F? A NO 0 NO
9
117 WTN84 S49B18 INHUMATION 4C F OA YES 1 COFFIN
0
117 WTN84 S49B19 INHUMATION 1C4C ? ? NO 0 COFFIN
1
117 WTN84 S49B20 INHUMATION 1C4C ? A YES 1 COFFIN
2
117 WTN84 S49B21 INHUMATION 4C ? ? YES 2 COFFIN
3
Appendices
117 WTN84 S49B22 INHUMATION 1C4C F MA NO 0 COFFIN

4
117 WTN84 S49B23 INHUMATION M A NO 0 COFFIN
5
117 WTN84 S49B24 INHUMATION 1C4C ? A NO 0 COFFIN
6
7
117 WTN84 S49B26 INHUMATION 1C4C ? ? NO 0 NO
8
117 WTN84 S49B27 INHUMATION 1C4C M? MA YES 1 COFFIN
9
118 WTN84 S49B28 INHUMATION 1C ? SA YES 1 COFFIN
0
118 WTN84 S49B29 INHUMATION 1C4C M? OA NO 0 COFFIN
1
118 WTN84 S49B30 INHUMATION 1C4C ? A NO 0 NO
2
118 WTN84 S49B31 INHUMATION 1C4C ? SA YES 2 COFFIN
3
4
118 WTN84 S49B33 INHUMATION 1C4C F? MA NO 0 NO
5
6
118 WTN84 S49B35 INHUMATION 1C4C F? MA NO 0 COFFIN
7
118 WTN84 S49B36 INHUMATION 1C4C F OA NO 0 NO
8
118 WTN84 S49B37 INHUMATION 1C4C ? INF YES 1 NO
9
119 WTN84 S49B38 INHUMATION 1C4C ? INF NO 0 COFFIN
0
119 WTN84 S49B39 INHUMATION 1C4C F SA NO 0 COFFIN
1
119 WTN84 S49B40 INHUMATION 1C4C M? YA NO 0 COFFIN
2
119 WTN84 S49B41 INHUMATION 1C4C F? YA NO 0 COFFIN
3
4
119 WTN84 S49B43 INHUMATION 2C M OA YES 1 COFFIN
5
6
Appendices

7
8
9
120 WTN84 S49B48 INHUMATION 1C4C ? SA NO 0 NO
0
120 WTN84 S49B49 INHUMATION 1C F MA YES 1 COFFIN
1
120 WTN84 S49B50 INHUMATION 1C4C M MA YES 1 COFFIN
2
120 WTN84 S49B51 INHUMATION 1C4C ? INF NO 0 NO
3
4
5
120 WTN84 S49B54 INHUMATION 3C ? INF YES 1 NO
6
120 WTN84 S49B55 INHUMATION 3C ? ? YES 2 COFFIN
7
8
120 WTN84 S49B57 INHUMATION 2C F? A YES 1 COFFIN
9
0
121 WTN84 S49B59 INHUMATION 3C M A YES 2 COFFIN
1
2
121 WTN84 S49B61 INHUMATION 1C4C M MA NO 0 NO
3
121 WTN84 S49B62 INHUMATION 1C4C M OA NO 0 COFFIN
4
121 WTN84 S49B63 INHUMATION 1C4C F MA YES 1 COFFIN
5
6
7
8
121 WTN84 S49B67 INHUMATION 1C4C M YA NO 0 COFFIN
9
Appendices
122 WTN84 S49B68 INHUMATION 3C F YA YES 3 COFFIN

0
122 WTN84 S49B69 INHUMATION 1C4C F SA YES 1 COFFIN
1
2
3
122 WTN84 S49B72 INHUMATION 2C F OA YES 1 COFFIN
4
5
6
7
122 WTN84 S49B76 INHUMATION 1C2C F? A YES 2 NO
8
9
123 WTN84 S49B78 INHUMATION 1C4C F A NO 0 NO
0
123 WTN84 S49B79 INHUMATION 2C M MA YES 2 COFFIN
1
2
123 WTN84 S49B81 INHUMATION 3C4C ? ? YES 3 COFFIN
3
4
5
6
123 WTN84 S49B85 INHUMATION 2C3C F? OA YES 1 COFFIN
7
8
9
0
124 WTN84 S49B89 INHUMATION 1C4C M SA NO 0 COFFIN
1
2
Appendices

3
4
124 WTN84 S49B93 INHUMATION 1C4C F? YA NO 0 COFFIN
5
124 WTN84 S49B94 INHUMATION 1C4C M A NO 0 NO
6
7
8
9
0
125 WTN84 S49B99 INHUMATION 1C4C F MA YES 1 COFFIN
1
2 0
3 1
4 2
125 WTN84 S49B10 INHUMATION 1C4C M OA YES 1 NO
5 3
6 4
7 5
8 6
9 7
126 WTN84 S49B10 INHUMATION 1C4C M OA NO 0 NO
0 8
1 9
126 WTN84 S49B11 INHUMATION 1C4C M A NO 0 COFFIN
2 0
3 1
4 2
126 WTN84 S49B11 INHUMATION 1C2C ? ? YES 4 COFFIN
5 3
Appendices

6 4
7 5
8 6
126 WTN84 S49B11 INHUMATION 1C4C F MA NO 0 NO
9 7
127 WTN84 S49B11 INHUMATION 2C3C M MA YES 1 NO
0 8
1 9
2 0
127 WTN84 S49B12 INHUMATION 3C M MA NO 0 NO
3 1
4 2
127 WTN84 S49B12 INHUMATION 1C4C F MA NO 0 NO
5 3
6 4
7 5
8 6
9 7
128 WTN84 S49B12 INHUMATION 1C4C M? A NO 0 COFFIN
0 8
1 9
2 0
3 1
128 WTN84 S49B13 INHUMATION 1C4C M? A NO 0 NO
4 2
128 WTN84 S49B13 INHUMATION 1C4C M? A NO 0 COFFIN
5 3
128 WTN84 S49B13 INHUMATION 2C3C M A YES 2 NO
6 4
128 15SKS80 S50B1 INHUMATION 3C F MA YES 3 COFFIN
7
128 15SKS80 S50B2 INHUMATION 3C4C ? ? YES 1 COFFIN
8
Appendices
128 15SKS80 S50B3 INHUMATION 3C4C ? ? NO 0 COFFIN

9
129 15SKS80 S50B4 INHUMATION 3C4C M MA NO 0 COFFIN
0
1
129 15SKS80 S50B6 INHUMATION 3C4C ? ? NO 0 NO
2
3
129 15SKS80 S50B8 INHUMATION 3C4C ? ? YES 1 NO
4
129 15SKS80 S50B9 INHUMATION 3C4C M MA YES 1 COFFIN
5
129 15SKS80 S50B10 INHUMATION 3C4C ? ? NO 0 COFFIN
6
129 15SKS80 S50B11 INHUMATION 3C4C F YA YES 11 COFFIN
7
129 15SKS80 S50B12 INHUMATION 3C4C ? ? NO 0 NO
8
129 15SKS80 S50B13 INHUMATION 3C4C M A NO 0 COFFIN
9
Appendices
APPENDIX B: GRAVE GOOD TYPE DISTRIBUTION

TOTAL Grave Good Distribution
Artefact Types Female Possible Female Mal Possible Unknown Total

e Male
Animal 4 2 5 7 16 34
Attire 15 5 16 5 25 66
Coinage 23 3 13 2 26 67
Jewellery 40 6 5 9 67 127
Leisure 3 0 0 0 4 7
Spiritual 1 0 0 0 5 6
Toilet Items 8 2 1 2 9 22
Tools 2 0 1 1 7 11
Vessels 47 13 52 18 164 294
Other 13 1 14 6 22 56
ATTIRE Grave Good Distribution
Artefact Types Female Possible Female Male Possible Male Unknown Total
Boot 0 0 0 0 1 1
Brooch 2 0 2 1 1 6
Buckle 0 0 2 0 0 2
Dress Hook 0 0 0 0 1 1
Hook 0 0 0 0 1 1
Pin 6 2 0 1 1 10
Shoe (Single) 0 1 5 1 5 12
Shoes (Pair) 6 3 11 4 20 32
Studs 1 0 0 0 0 1
COINAGE Grave Good Distribution
Coin 23 3 13 2 26 67
JEWELLERY Grave Good Distribution
Anklet 0 0 0 1 0 1
Armlet 1 0 0 0 0 1
Appendices
Beads 6 1 0 1 3 11
Bracelet 24 5 3 3 40 75
Earring 1 0 0 0 2 3
Necklace 3 0 0 1 9 13
Pendant 1 0 0 2 0 3
Finger-ring 3 0 2 1 12 18
Torc 1 0 0 0 0 1
Other 0 0 0 0 1 1
TOILET ITEMS Grave Good Distribution
Artefact Types Femal Possible Female Male Possible Male Unknow Total
e n
Comb 1 0 0 0 0 1
Hairpin 4 2 0 0 4 10
Manicure Set 0 0 1 0 0 1
Mirror 3 0 0 2 3 8
Perfume Pot 0 0 0 0 1 1
Rod 0 0 0 0 1 1
VESSEL Grave Good Distribution
Artefact Types Femal Possible Female Male Possible Male Unknown Total
e
Amphora 1 0 0 1 6 8
Base 0 0 0 0 1 1
Beaker 8 2 10 1 39 60
Bottle 4 1 3 2 6 16
Bowl 2 1 4 1 10 18
Box 1 0 0 0 1 2
Cup 0 0 1 0 5 6
Dish 2 0 0 2 9 13
Firmalampe 4 0 0 0 0 4
Flagon 5 1 6 3 14 29
Flask 3 0 0 1 8 12
Jar 7 7 18 6 33 71
Lamp 4 1 1 0 2 8
Lid 1 0 1 0 7 9
Mortarium 0 0 1 0 0 1
Olla Set 0 0 0 0 1 1
Phial 0 0 1 0 2 3
Plate 1 0 1 0 1 3
Platter 0 0 0 0 1 1
Pot 2 0 2 1 3 8
Pyxis 0 0 0 0 1 1
Appendices
Rim 1 0 0 0 0 1
Tazza 1 0 1 0 3 5
Tettina 0 0 1 0 1 2
Urn 0 0 0 0 1 1
Vase 0 0 0 0 1 1
Unknown 0 0 1 0 8 9
APPENDIX C: GRAVE GOOD MATERIAL DISTRIBUTION
Artefact Female Possible Female Male Possible Male Unknown Total

Materials
Animal Bone 13 4 6 9 27 59
Bronze 14 0 1 0 3 18
Ceramic 41 11 47 14 140 253
Chalcedony 1 0 0 0 0 1
Chalk 1 0 1 0 0 2
Clay 0 1 0 0 4 5
Copper 23 4 19 6 56 108
Emerald 1 0 0 0 0 1
Faience 0 0 0 0 1 1
Flint 0 0 0 1 2 3
Glass 17 2 12 6 38 75
Gold 1 0 0 0 3 4
Iron 12 3 14 8 31 68
Ivory 0 0 0 0 3 3
Jet 8 3 0 3 12 26
Lead 1 0 0 1 1 3
Leather 0 0 1 0 0 1
Quern 0 1 0 0 0 1
Samian 0 0 1 0 6 7
Shale 0 1 2 1 9 13
Silver 16 0 0 1 1 18
Stone 2 0 0 0 0 2
Tortoiseshell 0 0 0 0 1 1
Wire 0 0 0 0 2 2
Wood 1 0 0 0 2 3
Unknown 4 2 3 0 3 12
Appendices
Bibliography
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ALLASON-JONES, L. (2011) Artefacts in Roman Britain: Their Purpose and Use. London:
Cambridge University Press.
ALLASON-JONES, L. (1995) ‘Sexing’ Small Finds. In RUSH, P. (eds.). Theoretical Roman

Archaeology: Second Conference Proceedings. Worldwide Archaeology Series 14.
Aldershot: Avebury/Ashgate.
ALLASON-JONES, L. (1989) Women in Roman Britain. London: British Museum Publications.
ALLISON, P.M. (2015) Characterizing Roman Artifacts to Investigate Gendered Practices in

Contexts Without Sexed Bodies. American Journal of Archaeology 119 (1). p.103-123.
ANDREWS, P. & CROCKETT, A. (1996) Three Excavations Along the Thames and its
Tributaries 1994. Wessex Archaeology Report No.10. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology.
ARNOLD, B. & WICKER, N. (2001) Gender and the Archaeology of Death. California: AltaMira
Press.
BARBER, B. & BOWSHER, D. (2000) The Eastern Cemetery of Roman London: Excavations
1983-1990. Museum of London Archaeology Monograph 4. London: Museum of London
Archaeology.
BATEMAN, N. (2008) Death, Women, and the Afterlife: Some thoughts on a Burial in
Southwark. In CLARK, J. et al. (eds.) Londinium and Beyond: Essays on Roman London and
its Hinterland for Harvey Sheldon. London: Council for British Archaeology.
BENTLEY, D. & PRITCHARD, F. (1982) The Roman Cemetery at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital.
London & Middlesex Archaeological Society 33 (1). p.134-172.
Bibliography
BRADLEY, R. (2005) Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe. London: Routledge.
BROTHWELL, D.R. (1981) Digging Up Bones. 3rd Edition. London: British Museum
Publications.
BROWN, G. (2011) ‘The Graveyard Draws the Living Still, But Never Anymore than the Dead’:
150 Years of Roman Funerary Archaeology in Old Ford, Tower Hamlets. London &
Middlesex Archaeological Society 62 (1). p.31-55.
BUIKSTRA, J. & UBELAKER, D. (1994) Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal
Remains. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series No.44. Fayetteville: Arkansas
Archaeological Society.
BUTLER, J. (2006) Gender Trouble. London: Routledge.
CAPON, L. (2006) Excavations at 97-101 and 103 Union Street, Southwark. London
Archaeologist 11 (6). p.157-162.
CARROLL, M. (2013) ‘The Insignia of Women’: Dress, Gender, and Identity on the Roman
Funerary Monument of Regina from Arbeia. The Archaeological Journal 169 (1). p.281-311.
CASELLA, E. & FOWLER, C. (2005) The Archaeology of Plural and Changing Identities. New
York: Springer.
CASS, S. & PRESTON, S. (2009) Roman and Saxon Burials at Steward Street, Tower Hamlets.
London & Middlesex Archaeological Society 60 (1). p.53-71.
CLARK, J. et al. (2008) Londinium and Beyond: Essays on Roman London and its Hinterland
for Harvey Sheldon. London: Council for British Archaeology.
COLLINGWOOD, G. & RICHMOND, I. (1969) The Archaeology of Roman Britain. London:

Methuen & Co.
Bibliography
COLLINGWOOD, R. & TAYLOR, M. (1932) Roman Britain in 1931. The Journal of Roman
Studies 22 (2). p.198-229.
CONKEY, M. & SPECTOR, J. (1984) Archaeology and the Study of Gender. Advances in
Archaeological Method and Theory 7 (1). p.1-29.
COOKE, N. (1998) The Definition and Interpretation of Late Roman Burial Rites in the
Western Empire. PhD Thesis, University College London.
COOL, H.E.M., & BAXTER, M. (2002) Exploring Roman British Finds Assemblages. Oxford
Journal of Archaeology 21 (4). p.365-380.
COWAN, C. et al. (2009) Roman Southwark Settlement and Economy: Excavations in

Southwark 1973-1991. Museum of London Archaeology Monograph 42. London: Museum
of London Archaeology.
COWAN, C. (2003) Urban Development in North-West Roman Southwark. Museum of

London Archaeology Monograph 16. London: English Heritage.
COWAN, C. (1992) A Possible Mansio in Roman Southwark: Excavations at 15-23 Southwark

Street, 1980-86. London & Middlesex Archaeological Society 43 (1). p.3-192.
CRUMMY, N. (1983) Colchester Archaeological Report 2: The Roman Small Finds from
Excavations in Colchester 1971-9. Essex: Colchester Archaeological Trust Ltd.
DAVIDSON, C. (2000) Gender Imbalances in Roman British Cemetery Populations: A Re-

evaluation of the Evidence. In PEARCE, J., MILLET, M., & STRUCK, M. (eds.). Burial, Society,
and Context in the Roman World. London: Oxbow Books.
DONALD, M. & HURCOMBE, L. (2000) Gender and Material Culture in Archaeological

Perspective. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bibliography
DRUMMOND-MURRAY, J. & THOMPSON, P. (2002) Settlement in Roman Southwark:

Archaeological Excavations (1991-8) for the London Underground Jubilee Line Extension
Project. Museum of London Archaeology Monograph 12. London: Museum of London
Archaeology.
ECKARDT, H. & CRUMMY, N. (2008) Styling the Body in Late Iron Age and Roman Britain: A
Contextual Approach to Toilet Instruments. Instumentum Monograph 36. Montagnac:
Editions Monique Mergoil.
ECKARDT, H. (2005) The Social Distribution of Roman Artefacts: The Case of Nail-Cleaners
and Brooches in Britain. Journal of Roman Archaeology 18 (1). p.139-160.
ELLIS, R. (1985) Excavations at 9 St. Clare Street. London Archaeologist 5 (1). p.115-121.
GARROW, D. (2012) Odd Deposits and Average Practice: A Critical History of the Concept of
Structured Deposition. Archaeological Dialogues 19 (2). p.85-115.
GERO, J. & CONKEY, M. (1991) Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers.
GOWLAND, R. (2002) Age as an aspect of Social Identity in Fourth-to-Sixth Century AD

England: The Archaeological Funerary Evidence. PhD Thesis, Durham University.
GRAHAM, A. (1978) Swan Street/Great Dover Street. Southwark Excavations 1972-74 2 (1).
p.473-497.
GUILDHALL MUSEUM (1969) Archaeological Finds in the City of London 1966-68. London &
HALL, J. (1996) The Cemeteries of Roman London: A Review. In BIRD, J. et al. (eds.)
Interpreting Roman London: Papers in Memory of Hugh Chapman. Oxford: Oxbow.
Bibliography
HAMMERSON, M. (1996) Problems of Roman Coin Interpretation in Greater London. In

BIRD, J. et al. (eds.) Interpreting Roman London: Papers in Memory of Hugh Chapman.
Oxford: Oxbow.
HARWARD, C., POWERS, N., & WATSON, S. (2015) The Upper Walbrook Valley Cemetery of
Roman London: Excavations at Finsbury Circus, City of London, 1987-200. Museum of
London Archaeology Monograph 69. London: Museum of London Archaeology.
HOLLIMON, S. (2011) Sex and Gender in Bioarchaeological Research: Theory, Method, and
Interpretation. In AGARWAL, S. & GLENCROSS, B. (eds.). Social Bioarchaeology. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
JENNY, L. (2011) A Bioarchaeological Study of Local Roman Identity: Skeletal Stress and
Mortuary Treatment in the Butt Road Cemetery. PhD Thesis, Michigan State University.
JOHNS, C. (1996) The Jewellery of Roman Britain: Celtic and Classical Traditions. London: UCL
Press.
LAVAN, L., SWIFT, E., & PUTZEYS, T. (2007) Objects in Context, Objects in Use. Boston: Leiden
Press.
MACKINDER, A. (2000) A Roman British Cemetery on Watling Street: Excavations at 165

Great Dover Street, Southwark, London. MoLAS Archaeology Study Series 4. London:
Museum of London Archaeology Service.
MATTINGLY, D. (2006) An Imperial Possession: Britain in the Roman Empire 54 BC – AD 409.

London: Penguin Books Ltd.
MILLETT, M. (1996) Characterising Roman London. In BIRD, J. et al. (eds.) Interpreting

Roman London: Papers in Memory of Hugh Chapman. Oxford: Oxbow.
Bibliography
MONTSERRAT, D. (1999) Reading Gender in the Roman World: Interpreting and Studying
Roman Gender. In MILES, R. & HOPE, V. (eds.). Experiencing Rome: Culture, Identity and
Power in the Roman Empire. London: Routledge.
MOORE, A. (2009) Young and Old in Roman Britain: Aspects of Age Identity and Life-course
Transitions in Regional Burial Practice. PhD Thesis, University of Southampton.
MOORE, J. & SCOTT, E. (1997) Invisible People and Processes: Writing Gender and Childhood
into European Archaeology. London: Leicester University Press.
MUSEUM OF LONDON. (2015) Site Record BAA87. London Archaeological Archive and
Research Centre Online Catalogue. [Online]. Available from:
www.archive.museumoflondon.org.uk/laarc/catalogue/siteinfo.asp?
id=1699&code=BAA87&terms=baa87&search=simple&go=Go [Accessed: 6th of April, 2016]
MUSEUM OF LONDON. (2015) Site Record GM165. London Archaeological Archive and
id=3328&code=GM165&terms=gm165&search=simple&go=Go [Accessed: 11th of April,
2016]
MUSEUM OF LONDON. (2015) Site Record GM403. London Archaeological Archive and
id=4841&code=GM403&terms=gm403&search=simple&go=Go [Accessed: 14th of April,
2016]
MUSEUM OF LONDON. (2015) Site Record NCZ07. London Archaeological Archive and
id=19232&code=NCZ07&terms=ncz07&search=simple&go=Go [Accessed: 14th of April,
2016]
Bibliography
MUSEUM OF LONDON. (2015) Site Record SQR00. London Archaeological Archive and
id=4799&code=SQR00&terms=sqr00&search=simple&go=Go [Accessed: 16th of April,
2016]
MUSEUM OF LONDON. (2014) Harper Road Torc. Museum of London Collections Online
[Online]. Available from:
www.collections.museumoflondon.org.uk/online/object/717910.html [Accessed: 20th of
July, 2016]
MUSEUM OF LONDON. (2003) Oil Lamp Depicting a Fallen Gladiator. EJMAS [Online].
Available from:
www.ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_murray_0703.htm [Accessed: 25th of July, 2016]
MUSEUM OF LONDON. (2003) Oil Lamp Depicting Anubis. EJMAS [Online]. Available from:
www.ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_murray_0703.htm [Accessed: 25th of July, 2016]
NELSON, S. (1997) Gender in Archaeology: Analysing Power and Prestige. California:

AltaMira Press.
PEARCE, J. (2013) Contextual Archaeology of Burial Practice. BAR Series 588. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
PEARCE, J. (2011) Representations and Realities: Cemeteries as Evidence for Women in

Roman Britain. Journal of the History of Medicine 23 (1). p.227-254.
PETTS, D. (2009) Burial and Gender in Late and Sub-Roman Britain. Proceedings of the 7th
Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, University of Nottingham, April 1997.
Oxford: Oxbow.
Bibliography
PHILPOTT, R. (1991) Burial Practices in Roman Britain: A Survey of Grave Treatment and
Furnishing A.D. 43-410. BAR British Series 219. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.
PLINY THE ELDER. The Natural History, trans. John Bostock (1855). London: Taylor and
Francis.
PUTTOCK, S. (2002) Ritual Significance of Personal Ornament in Roman Britain. BAR Series
327. Oxford: Archaeopress.
REVELL, L. (2005) The Roman Life Course: A View from the Inscriptions. European Journal of
Archaeology 8 (1). p.43-63.
RIDGEWAY, V., LEARY, K., & SUDDS, B. (2013) Roman Burials in Southwark. Pre-Construct
Archaeology Monograph 17. Cambridge: Pre-Construct Archaeology.
ROGERS, A. (2014) The Archaeology of Roman Britain: Biography and Identity. London:
Routledge.
SAYER, K. (2005) An Assessment of an Archaeological Excavation at 52-56 Lant Street,

London Borough of Southwark, LTU 03. Pre-Construct Archaeology Assessment. London:
Pre-Construct Archaeology.
SCHOFIELD, J. & MALONEY, C. (1998) Archaeology in the City of London 1907-1999, The
Archaeological Gazetteer Series 1. London: Museum of London.
SHELDON, H. & OWEN, W.J. (1972) A Roman Burial from Armagh Road, Old Ford. London
Archaeologist 1 (15). p.348-353.
SHELDON, H. (1971) Excavations at Parnell Road and Appian Road, Old Ford, E3. London &
SØRENSEN, S. (2000) Gender Archaeology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bibliography
SUDDS, B., DOUGLAS, A., & PHILLPOTT, C. (2014) Excavations at Crispin Street, Spitalfields:
From Roman Cemetery to Post-Medieval Artillery Ground. London & Middlesex
Archaeological Society 65 (1). p.1-50.
SWIFT, D. (2003) Roman Burials, Medieval Tenements and Suburban Growth: 201
Bishopsgate, City of London. MoLAS Archaeology Studies Series 10. London: Museum of
London Archaeology Service.
TARLOW, S. & STUTZ, L. (2013) The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Death and
Burial. London: Oxford University Press.
WATSON, S. & HEARD, K. (2006) Development on Roman London’s Western Hill: Excavations
at Paternoster Square, City of London. Museum of London Archaeology Monograph 32.
London: Museum of London Archaeology.
WATSON, S. (2003) An Excavation in the Western Cemetery of Roman London. MoLAS

Archaeology Studies Series 7. London: Museum of London Archaeology Service.
WHELAN, M. (1991) Gender and Historical Archaeology: Eastern Dakota Patterns in the 19 th
Century. Society for Historical Archaeology 25 (4). p.17-32.
WHYTEHEAD, R. (1986) The Excavation of an Area within a Roman Cemetery at West Tenter
Street, London E1. London & Middlesex Archaeological Society 37 (1). p.23-126.
WILKIE, L. & HAYES, K. (2006) Engendered and Feminist Archaeologies of the Recent and
Documented Pasts. Journal of Archaeological Research 14 (1). p.243-264.

Gender Representations and Realities in Roman Britain: A Critical Approach To Contextualising Grave Goods

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gender Representations and Realities in Roman Britain: A Critical Approach To Contextualising Grave Goods

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GENDER REPRESENTATIONS AND

REALITIES IN ROMAN BRITAIN

Word Count: 18,879

26th of August 2016

The field of Roman archaeology has consistently circumvented, and consequently

materially intangible to warrant an extensive study. However, no previous study has

by arguing such a discourse is formative to an individual’s social experience in Roman British

conscious of the relationship between biological sex and culturally-constructed gender

(Søresnsen, 2000). This attempt to methodise archaeological approaches to gender will be

within the material record.

retrospective reflection on gender, archaeology may claim its value as a socially-relevant

discipline able to contribute to an understanding of contemporary gender concerns and

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER TWO: GENDER IN ACADEMIC CONTEXT

CHAPTER THREE: THE METHODOLOGY

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS OF CHARACTERISING GRAVE GOODS

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION

Table 2: Key of Grave Good Codes and Descriptions used in Study........................................30

Table 3: Sex Distribution of Inhumations................................................................................35

Table 4: Sex Distribution of Cremations..................................................................................35

Table 5: Male Distribution of Grave Good Quantities.............................................................44

Table 6: Female Distribution of Grave Good Quantities.........................................................45

Figure 2: Ivory-handled Knife carved into leopard form.........................................................22

Figure 3: Map of Early Roman London....................................................................................26

Figure 4: Sex Distribution of Burials........................................................................................33

Figure 5: Grave Good Distribution Total.................................................................................34

Figure 6: Sex Distribution of Inhumation and Cremation Burials............................................35

Figure 7: Age Distribution of Burials.......................................................................................41

Figure 8: Age Distribution of Grave Goods..............................................................................42

Figure 9: Distribution of Grave Goods in Female Burial Contexts...........................................43

Figure 10: Distribution of Grave Good Categories..................................................................48

Figure 11: S29B11 Burial Outline............................................................................................52

Figure 12: Gold Earring found in Lant Street Burial................................................................54

Figure 13: Harper Road Torc...................................................................................................56

Figure 14: Illustration of Harper Road Torc.............................................................................56

Figure 15: Gladiator Lamp.......................................................................................................60

Figure 16: Anubis Lamp...........................................................................................................60

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1. APPROACHING GENDER IN ARCHAEOLOGY

concept experienced uniquely by society where it is interconnected with other “axes of

understanding asserts that studies on gender cannot be conceptualised in isolation from

of identity, sex, is traditionally expressed as a biologically-informed categorisation, whereby

which archaeologists may understand a society, particularly concerning domesticity, labour

In an attempt to resolve these gender-sex assumptions and stereotypes, feminist and

material culture, it is argued that artefactual interpretation should be employed as a

interpretation of material culture in conjunction with more traditional, scientific

characterisations, roles and ideologies related to gender. These interpretations must be

an objective platform for the archaeological discussion of gender in antiquity.

study of gender there must be an acknowledgement of “the constructed character of

for the conceptual change over time.

1.2. RESEARCH AIMS & OBJECTIVES

essential to a comprehensive understanding of past identities, spaces, hierarchies and

discursive method to understanding society in Roman Britain. Secondly, to investigate the

relevance and significance of the archaeological interpretation of grave goods in gendered

discourse. Thirdly, to establish an interrogative method using a comprehensive database, to

to social, cultural and contextual biases?

1.3. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY:

contexts encourages a more accurate, unbiased examination of the relationship between

goods may be categorised and interpreted by gendered associations, creating a framework

1.3.2. LIMITATIONS OF RESEARCH

selection of 50 viable sites containing 1,299 burials ensures my database is consistent,

complex and comprehensive enough to gain an insightful interpretation.

1.4. STRUCTURE OF STUDY