The Suontaka Grave: Evidence of Nonbinary Individual in Late Iron Age/Early Medieval Finland

Figure 1: Artist depiction of the individual buried in the Suontaka grave

 

Traditionally in archaeology gender has been interpreted based on material cultural evidence, specifically based in the notion that there were only two genders within the ancient world and cultures, but advancements in ancient DNA studies have allowed for an expansion of study of this concept.  New areas of study related to the presence and existence of nonbinary or third gender categories that definitively did exist in the past (just as they do today) but are imprecisely known can now be completed by assessing biological sex and comparing those data with the associated gendered artifacts among buried individuals.  This blog post will discuss new evidence related to the existence of a nonbinary burial from the Late Iron Age/early Medieval period located in Finland: the Suontaka grave (Figure 1).

 

The Suontaka grave was discovered in 1968 and excavated in 1969.  It contained the burial of one individual who was buried between A.D. 1050 and 1300 and interred with a series of gendered artifacts.  These included artifacts typically associated with males, which included two ornate swords (one bronze hilted and one without a hilt), as well as three brooches, which are typically associated with females.  There were also several gender-neutral artifacts, including a knife and sickle.  At the time of initial discovery the original researchers hypothesized that there must have been an additional individual interred in the burial based on the presence of masculine and feminine grave goods, but the features of the initial grave demonstrated it was too small for more than one individual and there was no evidence of another individual being buried above or below the deceased.  This later led scholars to conclude that the deceased was either a female warrior or a powerful female leader. 

 

Reanalysis of the grave goods, including previously unanalyzed evidence, and the individual interred in the burial have, however, produced new information concerning who was interred and how gender was defined in the Late Iron Age/early Medieval period.  The reanalysis of the grave goods found that there was evidence of the individual being buried in fine linens, demonstrating potential high status of the individual, and that the hilted sword may not have been part of the initial burial.  It may have been buried after the individual’s initial burial, possibly to hide the sword or add it to the grave good assemblage after the fact.  What was more interesting, though, was the ancient DNA analysis completed on the remains, which demonstrated that the individual was chromosomally XXY, meaning they were born and lived with Klinefelter syndrome.  Many people born with Klinefelter syndrome may not realize they have an additional X chromosome, thereby resembling physically as a male, but in some cases individuals can exhibit physical characteristics of both a male and a female, including small testicles and penis, hypospadias (wherein the urethra’s opening under the penis), and exhibit breast growth.  The combination of the Klinefelter syndrome and the mixed gender artifacts found in associated with the individual led the researchers to conclude that they were nonbinary, meaning someone who was neither gendered as male or female.

 

While this may be a shocking revelation to people today this conclusion is actually in line with how Medieval people defined gender.  Gender was defined differently than it is today, providing greater latitude in what was considered masculine and feminine.  More importantly, however, this study provides a cautionary note to archaeologists when it comes to the study of gender in the past.  It is important to recognize and interpret gender based on the views and beliefs of the people of the past, not based in the notions and norms of contemporary people today.  Additionally, gender should not be based solely on the interpretation of grave goods.  This is because the inclusion and exclusion of grave goods is the responsibility of the living, and the grave goods may more accurately reflect the perceptions of the deceased by the living who buried and memorialized the deceased than how the deceased viewed themselves.  Additionally, artifacts may have held different meaning in the past than they do today, specifically in that they may hold no messages related to gender.  Therefore multiple lines of evidence are required to firm up conclusion related to gender or any identity factors when interpreting the cultures and peoples of the past, which this case study firmly demonstrates.

 

References

Moilanen, U., Kirkinen, T., Saari, N., Rohrlach, A., Krause, J., Onkamo, P., & Salmela, E. (2022). A Woman with a Sword? – Weapon Grave at Suontaka Vesitorninmäki, Finland. European Journal of Archaeology, 25(1), 42-60. doi:10.1017/eaa.2021.30