Gender Archaeology

Marie Louise Stig Sørensen

• Publisher: Polity
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9780745620152, 9780745620145
• eBook ISBN: 9780745668642
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Archaeology
• Index: Social Sciences

This major new textbook explores the relations between gender and archaeology, providing an innovative and important account of how material culture is used in the construction of gender. Throughout this lively and accessible text, Sorensen engages with the question of how gender is materially constituted, and examines the intersection of social and material concerns from the Palaeolithic Age to the present day.

Part One discusses a range of important general issues, beginning with an overview of the recent role of gender and gender relations in our appropriation of past societies. After introducing the debate about feminist or gender archaeology, Sorensen examines archaeology's concern with the sex/gender distinction, the nature of negotiation, and feminist epistemological claims in relation to archaeology. In Part Two, the author focuses on the materiality of gender, exploring it through case studies ranging from prehistory to contemporary society. Food, dress, space and contact are examined in turn, to show how they express and negotiate gender roles.

This illustrated textbook will be essential reading for students and scholars in archaeology, anthropology, material culture studies and women's studies.

Part I

1

Gender into the Past

I was sixteen when, for the first time, it was pointed out to me how gender becomes associated with other categories. It was my chemistry teacher who told me that the sign for copper was also the astronomical sign for the planet Venus, who was also the goddess of love. And this was also the sign for Woman. The sign for Man was also the sign for iron, for the planet Mars and for Mars the god of war. The links intrigued me, they were neat and obvious, of no apparent relevance to life, but I nonetheless never forgot them.

Gender and archaeology: an introduction

Gender archaeology has finally become a well-established part of the discipline, but still a sense of marginality lingers. This affects our understanding and attitudes to gender as an aspect of both our profession and interpretations of past societies. It is, therefore, timely to acknowledge that the problems encountered within this field are not primarily political; nor can its potentials be explored from a presentist standpoint alone. The problems that we face are rather about the maturing of this research area; it is about learning to think with gender when investigating the past and appreciating how it also affects us. So far our attempts at engendering prehistoric communities have been curiously constrained both in insight and implication, or alternatively little rooted in any of the evidence from these societies. The problem consistently encountered is how to translate theoretical and political convictions about the importance of gender into practical application when investigating strange and unfamiliar societies. In addition, the intellectual and political reasons for studying gender have become set rather than themselves critically involved in the research process. Gender archaeology is therefore now at an interesting juncture where revision and reflection upon its reasons and potentials are needed and could have major impact on its next stage.

The problems suggested by these constraints are further confirmed by the content of the few regular publications on gender archaeology, such as the Norwegian journal K.A.N., and the many conference proceedings and edited volumes (e.g. Casey et al. 1998, Claassen 1992a, Du Cros and Smith 1993, Gero and Conkey 1991, Kent 1998, Moore and Scott 1997, Wadley 1997, Walde and Willows 1991, Wright 1996a). They clearly demonstrate the no more than partial success of our efforts to develop gender archaeology, as certain issues and topics are much better covered than others. This is of concern as it produces a limiting notion of what gender archaeology is and affects our perceived abilities to engage analytically with this dimension of prehistoric societies. The recurrent issues debated in the literature have typically focused on contemporary concerns such as work conditions and membership of the profession – the so-called equity issues – or they concentrate upon the role of women in early historic periods and other societies for which text-aided archaeology is possible. Although of great importance, such work has been either basically sociological (i.e. the study of contemporary social relations) or an archaeology strongly guided by textual information. Substantial understanding of gender relations as part of a past that represents other, unfamiliar cultures is rarely obtained. (See also Claassen (1992b: 5) for a similar comment upon the situation in America.)

It does not follow from this observation that gender archaeology cannot be undertaken. Its progress and the debates it has generated within archaeology have clearly demonstrated its potential. Therefore, rather than a brake upon further involvement with the project of engendering archaeology, the previous limitations are a challenge to our understanding of gender generally and the further development of gender archaeology specifically. At the same time the limitations in our practice so far demonstrate something about how immensely complex the task is. There are, of course, other aspects of past societies, such as age, kin or ethnicity, which are also socially complex and difficult to access through material objects or physical actions. We are, however, used to recognizing the complexity of such variables and we accept them as a routine part of our engagement with the past, not letting the problems of identifying, for example, ethnicity prevent us from including it in analysis. The discovery of gender as a necessary but difficult aspect of our understanding of past societies is, however, new, and with it has followed a degree of critique, scepticism and antagonism that has made the discipline differently aware of what is involved when interpreting this social structure in past societies.

These constraints can be contextualized within the history of gender archaeology itself, and in particular its embedded assumption that it should produce a radical and distinctly different feminist past. This view has been necessary for gender archaeology to find a voice, but it has also been burdensome and it should now be replaced by more complex agendas. The interest in gender arose within archaeology, as will be discussed in chapter 2, primarily in response to contemporary social changes during the 1960s. The call was for women to become visible: in the profession, in the museums and in the past. But such visibility was easier to comprehend and obtain by stressing women as being different, as separate. The aim, furthermore, was explicitly to demonstrate and demand the presence of women, as half of the world, underlined and distinct, but neither as partners to social complexity nor as individual beings. The collective presence of women was not to be circumvented or silenced again, and the compromises suggested by emphasis upon negotiation, analysis of details or attention towards variance and nuances were not desired. This basically political manifesto was effective, but due to its political overtones and associations it also caused established structures to view the claims with suspicion, and gender archaeology was marginalized. The birth of gender archaeology was thus politically and socially revolutionary, but theoretically and analytically it tended to be passive and merely reactionary in terms of existing interpretations. The basic premises used for thinking about men and women in the past were not changing during this phase; role-assignment was merely challenged. ‘Merely’ may, however, have been much at the time, and the importance of this phase for changing attitudes cannot be overestimated. The foundation was laid, but building upon it so as to reassess and demonstrate more fully its potentials and aims is now needed.

Gender archaeology has increasingly come to see its aim as being to explore variations in prehistoric gender relations as well as the analysis of their generation and maintenance. The second part of this volume explores what this means for archaeology, and how it may be accomplished. It does this by arguing that gender relations are not reproduced but continuously made. This making of gender relations happens in part through the negotiations of rights and obligations which involve and utilize material resources as a medium through which the gender contract can be both expressed and experienced. I have suggested elsewhere that the development of an explorative gender archaeology may result in gender studies becoming less distinct as a sub-discipline of archaeology as it becomes interwoven with all aspects of the discipline and integrated with its social theories (Sørensen 1992: 31). At the same time we also now, for the first time, see gender archaeology being differently and somewhat contrastingly interpreted, as varied interests, different theoretical approaches, political views and the potential split between academic and practical archaeology affect its declared reasons and objectives (see also Wylie 1997). As an illustration of such tension one may look at museums as an example of how institutional context affects the objectives of our practice. The current tendency to contextualize and deconstruct gender roles has made it extremely hard for museum designers to present gender and related issues in an educational and visually powerful way without being subjected to severe critique of simplification. The engendering of museum exhibitions has therefore become difficult. In particular, the designers have not been able to take discussions within archaeology as a guide for their activities, and it has proved necessary for museums to develop their own separate field of debate (e.g. Devonshire and Wood 1996, Porter 1996, Sandahl 1995). This, however, is a meaningful and challenging conflict. It should not be seen as negating the importance of gender archaeology in any of its many expressions. It is rather a sign of ‘coming of age’ and in that sense part of a positive and necessary growth. It should, however, also be recognized that embedded in this change of status, where gender is accepted as a central issue within any field and relevant to the full range of our practices, is an appropriation and legitimization by the establishment. This will necessarily change the challenge of gender archaeology; it blunts its edge. It is, however, only in this capacity that gender concerns can become a disciplinary challenge permeating more than obvious feminist issues.

The conflict arising from recognizing the complexity and the slipperiness of gender as a basic structure of society is at the same time a tremendous challenge. It shows us the limitations of our knowledge and understanding. This, to me, was graphically illustrated by a display case in Schloß Gottorp, the regional museum of north Germany. It was part of the display of the extraordinary Iron Age deposits of boats and weapons from Nydam, southern Denmark, now housed and exhibited at the museum (see also Sørensen 1999). In addition to one of the large wooden boats the exhibition shows, in several glass cases along the walls and standing in rows on the floor, a large amount of beautifully crafted and often exquisitely decorated items of war. Through their associative relations to men and warriors the objects provide an overwhelming impression of masculinity. A number of cases were used to show the appearance of men: their different uniforms, the attachments to their clothing, personal equipment, the position and combination of weapons and suggestions of regional and status differences in their dress. And then there was a big glass case showing the appearance of the contemporary women. It was left empty! There was just a small notice stating that the archaeological material did not provide sufficient data to show how the women would have been dressed. The impact was striking: it made one aware of the partial nature of the exhibition; and it expressed an explicit challenge to archaeology. This book aims to take up part of this challenge by engaging explicitly with the question of how we can think about gender in the past and engage with it as materiality.

Arguing for gender archaeology

Gender is now recognized as a necessary part of any theory of social relations, and the negotiation of gender relations is seen as one of the dynamics reproducing and maintaining social systems. Gender is therefore deeply ingrained in the particular form societies take and it provides an essential structure of meaning. Appreciating gender as a construction (Conkey and Spector 1984: 1) means understanding that it must be continuously confirmed and constructed by society and that individuals have to obtain and maintain it. ‘Gender is not just women and men – it is a result of the ways we live together and construct a universe around us. Gender is an inconsistent but permanent part of history and life’ (Sørensen 1988: 17). Gender, while a basic structure of society, is not stable. Any study of society and, in particular, studies of societal change must therefore incorporate gender. It is the realization of these qualities, rather than the emphasis upon ‘making women visible’, which constitutes the most essential departure of recent gender archaeology from earlier views. It radically rejects the naturalized gender roles established over the last centuries, opening a whole new understanding of culture and history.

The important difference introduced with gender archaeology lies in the way women – and the relationship between women and men – are conceptualized: their recognition as subjects of study and the range of issues associated with this. The appreciation of the active dynamic nature of gender and its role in the historical process has meant that gender construction and relations have become issues of archaeological concern. Gender, furthermore, is becoming recognized as an intimate part of the process of social reproduction, rather than just being an element in the formation of society. Our understanding of gender is, however, still limited, and we have only just begun to appreciate the spatial and temporal variations and some of the mechanisms behind such variability. Meanwhile, as the organization of gender increasingly has been shown to relate and be integral to most other aspects of past cultural systems, archaeologists should examine

factors that seem to influence the nature of relations between men and women, the circumstances in which women and men exert power and influence, and the ways that gender arrangements affect or structure group responses to various conditions in their social or natural environments. (Conkey and Spector 1984: 19)

Gender, furthermore, is a situated difference, and its investigation is essential for both the understanding of particular contexts and historical trajectories. Moreover, engendered individuals are social agents and their actions form society. Their activities are, however, influenced both by self-identity and by their socially constructed identities (i.e. the difference between ‘I am a woman, and I should do this but not that’ and ‘women are like this and behave in certain ways’). Such distinctions between gender identity and gender ideology are important for understanding the continuous interaction between self and society which lies behind normative behaviour.

Thus, gender relations of past societies constitute particular problems or areas of concern which not only merit but necessitate specific theories and methodologies. We must construct, therefore, an archaeological framework for investigating gender and the effect of gender. For this it is not sufficient to question previous assumptions like ‘man the hunter’, or to replace one absolute and static interpretation with another (so-called his- and her-stories). Such assumptions and universal generalizations can be debated, but beyond such exchanges the factors structuring relationships between differently gendered people and groups must be analysed and the mediation and transformation of those relationships investigated. One of the unique tasks of archaeology is then to encourage questioning and clarification of whether gender is always relevant, at what levels and in which form. The feminist debate takes gender as existing; but the time span of archaeology includes societies in which the conceptualization of difference may for the first time have been constructed as gender. It also routinely investigates communities whose construction of gender varied considerably and who apparently assigned it different kinds of importance and certainly gave it particular forms. Out of this, however, does not come a gender archaeology that aims at ‘origins stories’; rather archaeology can be seen as a discipline that aims to trace and analyse some of the diverse social and cultural reaction to difference and how this is resolved in a variety of gender arrangements. Archaeology should also use its vast data to investigate in what situations gender relations become particularly expressive, i.e. situations where gender relations are made explicit through material culture. Can such situations be detected and characterized? At present we have neither the theoretical nor methodological means to study such obvious questions systematically. A few distinct activities are, however, easily isolated as commonly involved in communicating gender categories. These include burial activities, individual appearance through costumes, iconography and some types of art. It is, however, equally obvious that gender is also played out in other spheres of action and in different media, and some of these will be explored in the second part of this volume.

Finally, one of the most important potential contributions from archaeology to gender studies generally is its insights into the manner in which material culture becomes partner in the structuring of social relations. In order to understand gender organization and ideology as part of society and its historical transformation it is essential to look at social norms, institutions and relations, and to trace how they are reproduced over time. Material culture plays a special role in such social reproduction, since objects link generations and are fundamental for mediating tradition. Members of society inhabit historic structures coded with meaning, and links are made both from objects to symbols and from symbols to values. In this chain material culture comes to carry socially negotiated meaning; it transforms modes of expression and serves as a bridge between generations and events. Through these linkages material culture participates in assigning gender to individuals and in presenting and preserving gender ideologies, which means that long-term structures develop rather than each generation inventing the world anew.

These characteristics – unique data and the analysis of material culture as partner in social life – are the special aspects of archaeology from which its distinct contribution to gender studies and its analysis of gender in prehistory must develop. Meanwhile, the theoretical framework of gender archaeology does not as yet clearly reflect these strengths. In the urge to create a gender archaeology and strongly influenced by feminism (and probably also by a political desire for solidarity amongst those involved in this ‘struggle’), this field has until recently been allowed to develop without explicit and constructive self-reflection. Its critical responses have therefore mainly taken the form of self-defence or arguing for its relevance rather than focusing upon clarification and discussion of subject matter. Certain concepts have therefore become embedded in our expectation of gender archaeology without critical discussion. In particular, concepts have not been adapted to the field in which they are employed, leaving archaeologists with the apparent dilemma of not being able to observe the issues they talk about. Methodology has accordingly gained a prominent position which is neither deserved nor – given its theoretical isolation – particularly productive (e.g. Gibbs 1987). I have previously pointed out that gender archaeology therefore makes basic statements, such as ‘gender is a social construct’, that have not been properly ‘translated’ into some correspondence to the discipline’s conceptual and analytical language; but nonetheless they still dictate what gender archaeology looks for and how it is being looked at (Sørensen 1992: 32). In response to this lack of theoretical development one can now begin to discern the emergence of approaches that are explicitly concerned with making gender archaeology archaeological in its thinking and practice (e.g. Arwill-Nordbladh 1998, Lesick 1997, Sofaer-Derevenski 1997, 1998). Archaeology can and must frame its own gender problems, not detached and isolated from questions asked by other subjects, but nonetheless dictated by its own concerns and potentials. A further limitation to overcome is the way in which gender archaeology has tended to be partial – both in terms of its interpretative interests and its approach to data. Again, there are various political and theoretical reasons for this; but the overall results have often been detrimental, as gender archaeology appears unable to engage with the totality of the archaeological record and inadvertently appears to isolate only selected bits as relevant – and relevant only – to women’s experiences and roles.

The need for theorizing

In the literature, certain general statements which encapsulate the rationale for a gender archaeology can be found. Many of these statements originally arose from empirical studies by various disciplines within the social sciences but by now they often appear in the form of a theoretical stratagem or even as ‘truth’. It is commonly stated, for example, that gender is a fundamental principle or basic structure of most, if not all, human societies. Gender is thus a significant element of society’s organization, and it is used as a basis for further divisions and categories. The implicit argument is that to know and understand society, we must understand its gender structure. Furthermore, to understand historical processes it is necessary to understand the way in which people/individuals operate, and that their gender identity plays an important role in their actions. These statements make understanding gender significant at the level both of the individual actor and historical processes. In addition to such claims, it is also commonly agreed that gender is politically, socially, culturally and symbolically constituted, rather than biologically given. This means that gender is not predictable, stable or static, and through inference gender as an objective structure is rejected. In combination, the various assumptions and statements found in the literature argue that this structure, which is essential for understanding society and history, in itself must be the object of analysis. Gender is constructed by society at the same time as it is a primary structure of society. The dialectic to which this refers is entirely possible, but in praxis it challenges and undermines many existing analytical procedures inasmuch as causal primacy cannot be as...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Illustrations
• Acknowledgements
• Part I
• Part II
• References
• Index