As you will probably know, finding and identifying textile tools in the archaeological record can be tricky - especially things that are not as blatant as spindle whorls or maybe a rigid heddle. 

So it's rather a sensational find that remains of a Bronze Age loom could be identified - including some carbonised wood. Wood, people! Of a loom, and clearly belonging to the loom as it was found right next to an assembly of loom weights.

I will say no more, but send you on to the open access article itself, so you can get it straight from the horse's mouth: 

Evidence of a warp-weighted loom in the Bronze Age settlement of Cabezo Redondo (south-east Spain), published online by Cambridge University Press. 

Archaeology content yesterday, archaeology content today: Otto the Great's grave in Magdeburg cathedral will be opened. That's a necessary procedure as there's been damage to the sarcophagus, and an intervention is needed.

Since the grave contains textiles, this is of course a big thing - and I hope that there will be updates on what is happening. For now, you can read the German articles here and here about it. 

If you're following the news about archaeology at least a little bit, you'll have seen the Big News about the Viking burial with weapons and a woman in it. There were big speculations regarding that woman's role as a warrior or possibly even as a war leader.

Well.

Sex and gender are a difficult topic in archaeology, and have always been. Why? Because even if you find human remains, finding out what the person's biological sex was is not always easy. You can see some hints in the bone structure, in the attachment points of muscles to the bone, in the pelvis shape and also in the angle of the ear canal (yes, insert joke about why women are the better listeners here). However, that all requires a) good bone conservation and b) somebody knowing what they are looking at, with sufficient experience and c) not having a body that, due to some reason, appears more androgyneous.

So, back in the past, a lot of archaeologists mostly relied on the grave goods where the burial customs were distinctively gendered. The inconclusive, mixed-message burials posed a problem here. As time passed, it became more of a best practice to have an anthropologist look at the bones to help find out whether the gendering was as strictly correct as assumed before, or whether there was some mix-up in some graves.

Now we get to the interesting bit. We have a history of abuse of history (or, to put it more correctly, the interpretation of historic events) and of archaeology (or, again, the interpretation of archaeological finds) to support messages or agendas of contemporary political or sociological groups. (The abuse of archaeology during the Third Reich is one of the reasons why German archaeology is still more leery to venture forth with interpretations, and prefers just stating the number of axes and spindle-whorls found instead, by the way.) 

Which means that I tend to get suspicious when we suddenly find Woman Generals!!1!! Gender Fluitidy in prehistoric societies!!1!! or similar things today, when gender fluitidy and gender equality are big topics. Don't get me wrong, I would like it very much if women today were finally given equal standing with all others (especially men); if nobody were attacked or disadvantaged due to their sexual orientation; if nobody cared who is wearing the dress and who is painting their nails. I also think that we may have an image of gender equality or inequality that in some cases does not match the historical reality - otherwise it would have been quite weird that some medieval wives took over the craft workshop after their husband's death in the role of master. 

However, I am also of the opinion that even if non-binary people are fully accepted and fully integrated, we will still have the heterosexual couple as the norm. Because of, you know, biology. Again, that does not mean I think that there were only two genders, or that only two genders were accepted by the group/society - but that the heterosexual orientation would have been that of the majority of humans.

So I'm kind of feeling validated that a recent study has found that gendered burial practices in two large Bronze Age burial sites do align very well with sex identification - and the latter was based on a new method of searching for sex-specific peptides in the teeth. This newer method does not rely on the good preservation of the skeleton and it having good indicators, so it's a really good possibility to double-check previous interpretation. And in the case of the two Austrian cemeteries that were analysed in the paper, there was an almost complete match between sex and gendered burial style, with a few mixed-message burials (but none clearly contrary in gendered burial and sex of the skeleton). You can read the full article here.

I've been battling the yearly end-of-year book-keeping - with some extra excitement this year as I was able to enjoy a few (minor, but still nerve-wracking) glitches in the programme.

Finally, all the numbers on the screen lined up with all the printed numbers or those on the other screen, and it's time to finally put 2024 to bed after it's zombied on for a bit. Well, there will be a short resurrection at some point between March and June when the tax paperwork will be done, but until then, it can rest in peace.

While this is seeing its wrap-up today, plus some exciting prep-and-pack work for the winter school in Padova later this week, you might enjoy to read a bit about metallurgy analyses done on the famous, fabulous Nebra Sky Disc.

If you're an archaeologist and you are digging somewhere else, or reading about a dig somewhere else, you might also find yourself digging for words in your brain. After all, you might know what a "Brandhorizont" is, but how do you say that in English?

In case you need some help with archaeological terms, you might find it here at the Grabungswörterbuch. There's translations between German and a number of different other languages (of course including English). If you're looking for a slightly larger one for English and German only, available as .pdf, you can find it here.

Apparently the planned blog post for both Friday and yesterday never got through - if you can rely on anything, it's modern technology doing weird things once in a while.

To make it up for you, I have something very special today: A mystery! This piece of bone was found in a dig in Austria. It's rib bone of either horse or cow, with sawed-off sides (not polished or smoothed). Both lengthwise edges are worn smooth or wear-polished.

If you've seen anything like this before, or have an idea for what it could have been used, please let me know!  

The Skjoldehamn find is a set of clothes (two pieces for the upper body, usually referred to as shirt and tunic, and a pair of trousers, plus some bands and a hood) dated to the 11th century. There's been quite a bit of debate about this find, as it's probably from the Sami culture, and oh, modern politics came into who might or might not research this. It's also apparently not clear whether it was a man's or a woman's clothing.

No matter who these pieces belonged to, however, it's an absolutely fascinating find in a quite good condition, with even some of the colour still visible.

Dan Halvard Løvlid, who has studied the Skjoldehamn textile find and has written his Master's thesis about it, has a website with photos and some newer articles about that find. The articles include a reconstruction of the starting border of the blanket and of the warp setup of the ankle bands. The photos were taken by Dan, and he has put them online in full resolution. Go and enjoy some old textile porn - and thank you, Dan, for putting this online!