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

The Mashoga of Eastern Africa

Homosexuality is both taboo and illegal in various African countries, but this was not always the case.  Same sex activities existed in many traditional African societies, including homosexuality, but these were understood and viewed differently from how they are today.  There are arguments that same sex activities allowed individuals to swap gendered roles as necessary to fulfill social and individual needs within society.  Others claim that homosexuality always existed but was never opening discussed because to do so was disrespectful.  The effects of colonization and globalization have drastically changed the social landscapes of African groups, morphing traditional ideals and values that continue to exist today, albeit in altered forms.  This blog post will explore one such traditional cultural trait that has and continues to exist in Eastern Africa: the role of the mashoga.

 

The term mashoga refers to passive homosexual males who exist within Swahili Muslim communities throughout Eastern Africa, specifically Kenya, Zanzibar, and Tanzania.  They are also referred to as makhanith, misenge, or mahanisi, all of which are reflections of the dialect of Swahili spoken throughout the region.  Mashoga are characterized as effeminate males who take on feminine speech, behaviors, and occupational roles.  Mashoga are able to enter into female dominated spaces that non-mashoga men are excluded from, simply because mashoga occupy both male and feminine roles.  They were traditionally performers and entertainers who would work in weddings or as traditional healers, but today they can be found working in forms of employment deemed more feminine, such as beauticians or interior designers.  Some even work as sex workers, largely due to few economic opportunities available to them.  Mashoga are indirectly open or “out” within their communities, being identified by their specific behaviors and manners of speech.  They will take on feminine behaviors and speech patterns when interacting with cis-gendered men and women.  They will oftentimes wear feminine clothing exclusively or a mixture of men’s and women’s clothing in styles not typically seen among cis-gendered men and women.

 

The mashoga exist in conjunction with their dominant male partners, referred to as mabasha.  These are dominant homosexual men who are viewed as “real men” because they do not take on feminine traits.  They are also often older and richer compared to their mashoga partners.  This also lends itself to their dominance in the relationship.  The biggest defining factor that defines a mashoga from a mabasha is position each takes in anal sexual intercourse.  The mashoga is the receiver (or “bottom”) in the sexual intercourse, whereas the mabasha is the giver (or “top”).  This reinforces the mashoga’s feminine role in the relationship, whether their partnership be short or long term.

 

It is unclear if the mashoga role existed prior to colonization or was an effect of it.  It is believed that the mashoga role may have developed out of financial need among men who could not otherwise financially support themselves, particularly as homosexuality and same sex behaviors were regarded as sinful (taboo) under colonial influence.  Today, while the mashoga exist freely within their communities they are often sanctioned or censured by members of their communities who refuse to interact with them.  Largely, though, many acknowledge the naturalness of homosexuality and let them live their lives as they deem fit.

 

Works Cited

Amory, D. P. (2021.). Mashoga, Mabasha, and Magei: “Homosexuality” on the East African Coast. In S. O. Murray, Boy-Wives and Female Husbands: Studies in African Homosexualities. . Albany: State University of New York Press.

Gathogo, J., & Phiri, I. A. (2011). Iweto, Lelemama, Mashoga and Nguiko: Same-sex Sexuality in Kenya from an African Spirituality and Ethics Perspective. Journal of Gender and Religion in Africa, 143-159.

Ndzovu, H. J. (2019). Islam in Africa South of the Sahara. In H. e. Chiang, The Global Encyclopedia of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) History. Farmington Hills, MI: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Identifying Transgendered Individuals in Forensic Contexts

The role of the forensic anthropologist is to identify a victim when such an identification cannot be made by a medical examiner or otherwise.  Forensic anthropologists are trained to meticulously examine individuals who are in stages of advanced decomposition and/or completely skeletonized, thereby producing a biological profile of the victim that includes their age at death, stature, ancestry, and sex.  This latter aspect of a victim’s identity focuses exclusively on biological characteristics, neglecting the social aspects of the victim’s gender that may not match their biology.  This acknowledgement has led forensic anthropologists to identify a need to broaden the current methods regarding sex determinations to include and recognize biocultural modifications of the body related to transgender identities.  Today’s blog post will explore the latest advancements within the field of forensic anthropology that seek to create and facilitate better identification of any potential transgender victims.

 

Before such a discussion can begin it is imperative to define what sex and gender mean.  Sex is defined as the biological characteristics that establish an individual as either male or female, whereas gender is defined as the social and cultural characteristics associated with one's sex.  Many people believe there are two sexes with two corresponding genders, but recent evidence demonstrates this idea is based on ideal conditions and not biological and social realities of sex.  The reality is that individuals’ biology rests on a spectrum, meaning their bodies are not 100% male or female.  It should come to no surprise then that gender also exists on a spectrum with individual not identifying as the “perfect male” or “perfect female” or rejecting the gender identity and roles associated with their sex.  When this occurs the individual identifies as transgender, or simply trans.  Transgender identities have recently come to the American public’s attention due to sociopolitical conversations, but transgender identities have existed cross culturally for millennia and more than likely will continue into the future. 

 

The fact that transgender individuals have and will continue to exist necessitates advancements in current forensic anthropological methods that continue to acknowledge and assess for only two sexes.  Some biological and forensic anthropologists state that gender is beyond the bounds of what should be analyzed since gender is a sociocultural construct that is separate from biological sex.  Transgender individuals, however, may elect to undergo biocultural modifications to alter the natural form of their bodies to match their gender.  These medical interventions include hormone therapies or cosmetic surgeries, and while not all modifications will affect the skeleton there is evidence that demonstrates some definitively do.  Gender Affirming Hormone Therapies (GAHT) are treatment options that transgender individuals may either opt or be required to take, and there is conflicting evidence regarding how these therapies alter bone density, which can complicate sex assessments. It is well documented that several cosmetic procedures, such as facial feminization surgeries (FFS), which alter the natural form of the face in order to produce a more “feminine” look, and genioplasty, modification of the chin, do transform the natural form of the body, altering the characteristics assessed by forensic anthropologists for sex determinations.  This means that specific analytical methods are necessary to take into account how these physical modifications may alter a body in order to more accurately and precisely identify transgender individuals when such need arises.

 

There are various methods for identifying sex through skeletal analyses.  These include nonmetric analyses that examine and score the morphological characteristics of the skull or pelvis and metric analyses, which utilize measurements of bones, such as the face, to differentiate between males and females.  Forensic anthropologists are currently working to reassess these current methods and considering the establishment of new methods to account for transgender individuals.  While these studies are just beginning previously established methods for identifying a victim’s gender, which focus on the material cultural remains associated with the victim, will be continued to be relied upon for gender identity purposes.  There are known limitations with these methods, which include but not limited to missing evidence or the presence of evidence unrelated to the victim, resulting in an urgency in need for establishing better methods for identifying and acknowledging transgender individuals so that justice is provided to all victims.

 

It was this urgency in need that partially led to the latest research by Schall et al. (2020), who examined morphological changes to the face after individuals underwent FFS procedures in order to determine how FFS affects metric analyses.  Their research noted that FFS has no significant affect on metric analyses, leading forensic anthropologists to conclude the individual’s biological sex.  These disregards the surgical modifications meant to match one’s gender identity, and therefore is not an appropriate means of identifying transgender individuals.  They did, however, note that FFS may impact nonmetric analyses, and that new methods concerning FFS and nonmetric analyzes of sex would need to be created.  Their work also brought to light a need to better understand various other surgical interventions and procedures that may obscure or confuse victim identification, particularly as it relates to transgender identities, as these may be misidentified as other types of medical procedures.   While their research led to more avenues to research than definitive conclusions it is a step forward in establishing the methods necessary for transgender identifications within forensic contexts.

 

Bibliography

Gezon, L., & Kottak, C. (2011). Culture. McGraw-Hill.

Schall, J. L., Rogers, T. L., & Deschamps-Braly, J. C. (2020). Breaking the binary: The identification of trans-women in forensic anthropology. Forensic Science Journal, 309, 1-10.

Schulz, E. M. (2021). Sex vs Gender in a Forensic Anthropological Analysis. Nebraska Anthropologist, 5-19.

Tallman, S. D., Kincer, C. D., & Plemons, E. D. (2021). Centering Transgender Individuals in Forensic Anthropology and Expanding Binary Sex Estimation in Casework and Research. Forensic Anthropology, 1-20.