(I know, she's writing another blog post about gender... *sigh*)
After today's introductory lecture on gender archaeology, I would like to address a major problem I see with many traditional interpretations of gender when looking at past peoples. Throughout the history of archaeology, cyclical reasoning has prevailed in the determination of how artifacts are gendered, and only in the past thirty or so years have archaeologists begun to deconstruct this reasoning. This is particularly problematic in situations where sexing based on the skeletal remains is not possible. Using the "sword = male" assumption as an example, the reasoning basically goes as follows:
If you find a sword with an individual, one can safely determine that this individual is male.
But how does one know that swords indicate a masculine identity?
Because they are found with men.
But how does one know that swords are found only with men, if you cannot sex the skeleton?
Because swords indicate a male individual.
But how does one know that swords indicate a masculine identity?
Because they are found with men.
(and so on and so on)
This reasoning was used for a great span of archaeology's history, until researchers began to recognize the flaws with this thinking, to address the complexity of gender identity beyond "sword = man" and to recognize that gender identity is largely culture-determined, as well as individual-determined, and not universal.
Another aspect of gender interpretation that I find particularly troubling is the double standard that has existed for some time concerning the function and purpose of certain artifacts and what they say about identity. For example, using the "sword = man" assumption again:
One finds a sword in a grave and under examination, the body is determined to be of a male individual. Why is the sword there?
Because the individual was a warrior, hunter, chief, etc. and so it was appropriate for him to be buried with his sword.
One finds a sword in a grave and under examination, the body is determined to be of a female individual. Why is the sword there?
Because it was placed in the grave by a loving husband, father, or other patriarchal individual who was a warrior, hunter, chief, etc. and so the sword is his, and this is an indication of his love and generosity, and one can assume her faithfulness and dutifulness as a wife, daughter, or other typically female role that relates her to a male.
Why isn't it assumed that the sword is a gift to the man? Why do we assume that it is an indicator of an active behaviour on the part of the man, but of a relationship on the part of the woman? Perhaps the woman really liked to use swords. Perhaps she made swords. Perhaps the man's wife or sibling or other relation used swords and thought it an appropriate gift to give him in death. Perhaps the presence of the sword is not an indicator of gender, but rather an indicator of group identity.
The point of this post is to address the complexity of gendering an artifact and the importance of addressing one's own assumptions about gender roles before interpreting the gender roles of another people. It is refreshing to study the alternative explanations for the presence of grave goods beyond "sword = man" but these assumptions still exist in the literature today. One final point to consider is that identity itself is complex, and gender is one small piece of the identity pie. Other factors, such as age, ethnicity, occupation, religious affiliation, etc. affect how an individual perceives themself and how their larger community perceives them as well. The presence of a grave good may have very little to do with the deceased individual's gender. It may have something to do with the gender of the individual that placed it there, or perhaps it has to do with other aspects of identity. I am not simply female; there is much more to my identity beyond my gender, so why would we assume that gendering an individual is a cut-and-dry way to determine their identity and life story?
 |
| zzzzzzz... |
After today's introductory lecture on gender archaeology, I would like to address a major problem I see with many traditional interpretations of gender when looking at past peoples. Throughout the history of archaeology, cyclical reasoning has prevailed in the determination of how artifacts are gendered, and only in the past thirty or so years have archaeologists begun to deconstruct this reasoning. This is particularly problematic in situations where sexing based on the skeletal remains is not possible. Using the "sword = male" assumption as an example, the reasoning basically goes as follows:
If you find a sword with an individual, one can safely determine that this individual is male.
But how does one know that swords indicate a masculine identity?
Because they are found with men.
But how does one know that swords are found only with men, if you cannot sex the skeleton?
Because swords indicate a male individual.
But how does one know that swords indicate a masculine identity?
Because they are found with men.
(and so on and so on)
 |
| The wheels on the bus go round and round... |
This reasoning was used for a great span of archaeology's history, until researchers began to recognize the flaws with this thinking, to address the complexity of gender identity beyond "sword = man" and to recognize that gender identity is largely culture-determined, as well as individual-determined, and not universal.
Another aspect of gender interpretation that I find particularly troubling is the double standard that has existed for some time concerning the function and purpose of certain artifacts and what they say about identity. For example, using the "sword = man" assumption again:
One finds a sword in a grave and under examination, the body is determined to be of a male individual. Why is the sword there?
Because the individual was a warrior, hunter, chief, etc. and so it was appropriate for him to be buried with his sword.
One finds a sword in a grave and under examination, the body is determined to be of a female individual. Why is the sword there?
Because it was placed in the grave by a loving husband, father, or other patriarchal individual who was a warrior, hunter, chief, etc. and so the sword is his, and this is an indication of his love and generosity, and one can assume her faithfulness and dutifulness as a wife, daughter, or other typically female role that relates her to a male.
 |
| Relevant I think... |
Why isn't it assumed that the sword is a gift to the man? Why do we assume that it is an indicator of an active behaviour on the part of the man, but of a relationship on the part of the woman? Perhaps the woman really liked to use swords. Perhaps she made swords. Perhaps the man's wife or sibling or other relation used swords and thought it an appropriate gift to give him in death. Perhaps the presence of the sword is not an indicator of gender, but rather an indicator of group identity.
The point of this post is to address the complexity of gendering an artifact and the importance of addressing one's own assumptions about gender roles before interpreting the gender roles of another people. It is refreshing to study the alternative explanations for the presence of grave goods beyond "sword = man" but these assumptions still exist in the literature today. One final point to consider is that identity itself is complex, and gender is one small piece of the identity pie. Other factors, such as age, ethnicity, occupation, religious affiliation, etc. affect how an individual perceives themself and how their larger community perceives them as well. The presence of a grave good may have very little to do with the deceased individual's gender. It may have something to do with the gender of the individual that placed it there, or perhaps it has to do with other aspects of identity. I am not simply female; there is much more to my identity beyond my gender, so why would we assume that gendering an individual is a cut-and-dry way to determine their identity and life story?
 |
| Identity is complex, simple as that. |
No comments:
Post a Comment