On Gender Negotiation and Its Materiality

This essay will attempt to discuss the archaeological framework questioning the function played by gender in past societies and its influence in shaping contemporary ideologies on sex differences and gender roles. Being gender a cultural construct, it may be misleading to assume it always had the same implications. Different cultures had indeed considerably different understandings of gender categories and followed therefore disparate patterns in terms of gender relation arrangements. However, past societies are no longer here cavorting the earth for us to analyse and have a face-to-face discourse about their diverse approaches to social differences and this is where archaeology comes into play. For instance, by looking at the archaeological data it is possible to notice that gender interplays were often clearly displayed by means of material culture such as individual costumes, iconography and art, or in circumstances that involved burial activities (Sørensen, 2000: 8). To this extent, archaeology is a precious resource in order to broaden our picture of sex and gender interpretation in that “material culture becomes partner in the structuring of social relations” (Sørensen, 2000: 9). Insofar as it can be ascertained, material culture mirrors the way in which a particular society was organized and sheds therefore a light upon its social relations. This ideological framework weas enacted by the members of society who passed it on the subsequent generations through objects and symbols, carriers of and imbued with cultural meaning. Hence, material culture “serves as a bridge” (Sørensen, 2000: 9), it underpins the present theoretical discourse surrounding the legitimization of a gendered critique of the past with empirical and tangible objects. Especially when studying past non-literate societies, the artefacts unearthed in proximity of female or male skeletons can recount the distinct tasks carried out by the former and the latter; nonetheless, sex and gender differences ought to be critically considered also in terms of health, nutrition, violence, and labour distinctions (Hays-Gilpin and Whitley, 1998: 4). It is of the utmost importance to systematically discern these factors, and once a judicious observation has been made, they must be recorded accordingly rather than just taken for granted in line with gendered stereotypes (Hays-Gilpin and Whitley, 1998: 5), for archaeology can offer a “historical perspective on the social construction and changing nature and forms of ʻdifferenceʼ” (Conkey, 1993: 12).

In Pursuit of Gender, edited by Sarah Nelson and Myriam Rosen-Ayalon, pp 155-171. Altamira., 2002

2013

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 conta...

This course is a survey of the archaeology of gender; that is how cultural norms, ideals, rules, and expectations about gender shaped personal identity, experience, and relationships in the past. People in the past and present configure gender roles and relations in a multitude of ways, which has led to great diversity in cultures around the world and throughout time. Students will be introduced to the development of the archaeology of gender such as the theories and methods applied to studies of gender in the past. In this course we will also address thematic topics including gender performance, masculinity, femininity, and non-binary identities, gendered labor, status and power, as well as sexuality and reproduction.

2012

Almost thirty years have passed since gender studies entered archaeological discourse in earnest. What is the current status of gender research? One of the aims of this book is to contribute to answer this and other related questions. Another is to shed some light on the pasts and possible futures of gender research. Contributions deal with publications statistics in journals over the last thirty years, neo-realist discussions of Mayan body-politic, intersectional analyses of current Swedish museum exhibitions and Viking Period bos brooches, masculinities in practice at a cultural heritage site, Viking period bodily abilities and disabilities and experiments regarding how once-lived bodies and lives may be materialized.

Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology , 2024

After the infusion of "New Archaeology", the study of the past has witnessed several considerable alterations that emerged by analysing the remnants of the ancient world through multiple perspectives. This diathesis made revulsion in World Archaeology, and the way toward a more nuanced interpretation of the past laid the mainspring for Gender Archaeology. Ever since, archaeologists from all over the world started making great efforts to refuse androcentrism which prevailed in portraying humanity's deep past. There is a rich and varied body of work for uncovering the women's role in that era, where the contribution of men was only taken into account in mainstream research. Hence, in this review, we make an effort to integrate and elucidate much of the existing work which made it possible to recognise and magnifies the true role of women alongside men in prehistoric time.

Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 2018

This article is intended to provide a brief introduction to, and overview of, gender archaeology, including its history and terminology. I will present the common methods of identifying gender using evidence from settlements, burials, and ethnographic research to provide context for the discussion of gender variance. Then, I will compare the evidence of socially acceptable gender variance to unacceptable gender variance, drawing on methods and theories previously discussed. Finally, I will review the difficulties faced in the field and potential developments that could provide a greater insight into the gender identities of the past.

As a discipline rooted in humanities, archaeology has a duty to recreate past culture and society as faithfully as possible. “Role, status, ethnicity, and indeed gender […] are social constructs,” (Renfrew & Bahn, p. 223) and as such, applying binary gender roles to cultures and societies, both past and present, is applying bias that can lead to misinterpretation of the archaeological record. An awareness of the limitations of androcentric bias within the sciences, and within Western society, has led to the formation of feminist and gender study approaches to the interpretation of the archaeological record. (Darvill, p. 169) The trend of introducing feminist archaeology and gender studies as increasingly important tools in our repertoire of methods and theories for understanding the past is intrinsically tied to our present social and political climate. (Renfrew & Bahn, p. 45) From its inception in women’s suffrage movements, feminist studies have entered the academic arena through humanistic disciplines and have paved the way for gender studies to re-evaluate the way we assign gender roles through archaeological data.

Scales of transformations in prehistoric and archaic societies, 2019

In which chronological, spatial, and social contexts is gender a relevant social category that is noticeable in the archaeological material? How can transformations in social gender relations and identity be recognized archaeologically? Is the identity of prehistoric people defined by gender? If so, what is the accompanying cultural context? What about gender equality among the scientists working in archaeology? In what degree are research teams, as well as their scientific approaches, biased today? These and other burning questions are intensively discussed in this volume, which comprises 25 contributions presented at the international workshop 'Gender Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies', organised by the Collaborative Research Centre 1266 of Kiel University funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). The workshop offered a platform to discuss a broad range of approaches on the inter-dependencies between gender relations and socio-environmental transformation processes. Beyond a focus on the archaeology of women, gender archaeology offers a variety of possibilities to reconstruct the contribution of social groups differentiated e.g. by age, gender, and activities related to cultural transformation, based on the archaeological material. Thus, this volume includes papers dealing with different socioeconomic units, from southwestern Europe to Central Asia, between 15,000 and 1 BCE, paying particular attention to the scale of social reach. Since gender archaeology, and in particular feminist archaeology, also addresses the issue of scientific objectivity or bias, parts of this volume are dedicated to equal opportunity matters in archaeological academia across the globe. This is realised by bringing together feminist and female experiences from a range of countries, each with its own specific individual, cultural, and social perspectives and traditions. The papers are organised along three central topics: 'Gendering fieldwork', 'Tracing gender transformations', and 'Gendering and shaping the environment'. By gendering the archaeological discussion on transformation processes, the contributions aim to more firmly embed gender-sensitive research in the archaeological agenda, not just in Europe, but worldwide .