How have archaeologists' attempts to interpret sex and gender relations in the past changed over the last thirty years - Essay Example

? Interpreting sex and gender relations through archeology in the last thirty years Introduction Gender, as a topic of inquiry in the study of archeology, has not been of primary interest until recent history. It has only been in the last thirty years that the study of sex and gender as it relates to archeological discovery has been a topic that has been seriously pursued. The topic is still not explored to the extent that perhaps it could be, the sub-themes considered a detail of exploration rather than the focus. One cause of the recalcitrant opinions on this topic is because it is generally assumed that the patriarchal society has been the dominant social structure throughout the existing cultures, thus to study gender relations is to evoke the same result through multiple societies (Bettina and Wicker 2001, p. vii). However, this is the core problem with the way in which cultures have been framed through Western belief systems, thus making assumptions about the way that sex and gender are considered within those societies subject to modern standards of understanding. It is important to re-examine the nature of social structures that have been determined through biased assumptions in order to better construct a picture of an ancient societies. Studying Gender through Archaeological Inquiry In studying gender, Gilchrist states (1999, p. x), “gender is revealed as a metaphor for relations between men and women: gender is an expression of social practice and beliefs about sexual difference”. The nature of defining social structures through gender relations provides for a depth of context that is not often discovered in archaeological pursuit. The nature of interrelationships between men and women is such that it defines family, political structures, social class structures, and all aspects of society that must be framed to understand how a culture lived. Gosden (1999, p. 135) points out that in the continual creation of gender as it exists within society, the nature of people can be seen for their ’composite’ as it is a creation of sets of relationships that define social roles and identities. In studying gender, a central part of that concept can become understood. Joyce (2000, p. 177) states that “Gender and power are completely intertwined because the social control of individual experience of the body is the most intimate level of discipline practiced by authorities”. In defining the roles that exist within the genders, it is clear that these roles are defined differently depending on location. Settings define the nature of a gender role, whether it be within a public sphere or in a private sphere (Joyce 2000, p. 182). In creating a discussion of gender, the relationships as they are defined by location creates a textually deeper understanding of how a culture interacted. In putting the domestic roles in context with the public roles, a defined space begins to emerge in which male and female participation in cultural life is spatially recognizable. The nature of social order and discipline becomes defined for the way in which it is practiced within relationships of importance, many of which are specified as roles of gender. Studying gender through feminist referencing in archaeology did not being until the 1980s, and more specifically with the first published paper was in 1984 through Conkey and Spector, with the first real collection of essays published in 1991 in reference to a conference that took place in 1988. This collection was published by Conkey and Gero and is titled Engendering archaeology: Women and prehistory. In the process of trying to spark interest in the topic, Conkey and Gero set up a series of projects associated with gender to create paths of inquiry and to frame feminism within the archaeological discipline (Wylie 1992, p. 15). There are two primary trends in the study of gender through archaeological approach. The first is to use written records as a comparison against archaeological finds. The primary problem with this, of course, is that not all civilizations have written records. This makes correlating the issue very difficult. Gender and sex issues fall under the category of cognitive archaeology which uses the combination of written records and finds to assist in discovery. Pre-state civilizations are particularly hard to study for these topics as the records are non-existent. The second trend in studying gender is through mortuary contexts (Bettina and Wicker 2001, p. viii). Studying burials and all things associated with death and burials allows for gender to be examined in a context of social ritual. The development of the study of sex and gender Ultimately, the study of gender within a society is the study of power (Joyce 2000, p. 3). In understanding the way in which the materialism of sex is manifested, however, it must be understood that power denotes the way in which the body is related to that manifestation. Nature has often been used as a way to explain the dominant position of the male over the female, however, this balance is quite likely a construction of social imposition. Sex is the way in which gender is applied, the biological identity of an individual through which gender becomes imposed. However, Butler (1993, p. 5) suggests that the what is used to determine sex should be re-evaluated, the concept of nature having been defined by social constructions rather than through scientific means. She states that “If gender consists of the social meanings that sex assumes, then sex does not accrue social meanings as addictive properties but, rather, is replaced by the social meanings it takes on; sex is relinquished in the course of that assumption and gender emerges” (Butler 1993, p. 5). Gero (1984, p. 343) makes an approach at the discussion of understanding the way in which the present informs the past has limited the point of view that has been made on the way that sex and gender have been understood for past societies. She mentions that it has been a habit of the present to be used to inform on the past and this means that the nature of present society is given context and justification as being run the way that it should be run. In other words, the present exists the way that it does because social order has always been framed within the same means, thus it is given credibility. How Western Assumptions Fail The concern is that in studying sex and gender in reference to the present, the past is being framed in ways that are inaccurate, the power balance not being seen for its true construction. This comes from gender biased conclusions. As an example, Gero (1984, p. 344) uses the mortar and pestle. When a mortar and pestle are found in the grave of a female, it is assumed it was put there to give a domestic note to her passing as the item was used in cooking. When it is found in a male grave, it is assumed that it is because he was a maker of mortars and pestles. This differentiation in interpretation is assumed because of the way in which the modern social order is constructed, using bias to make assumptions based upon gender connotations upon objects. Stockett (2005, p. 566) argues that in trying to define Ancient Mesoamerican identities, the use of modern methods of gender implication has created a biased view of the culture. Through quantified methods of research, variables that are associated with modern viewpoints have caused inaccuracies in discovery and must be changed in order to better assess the nature of cultural identities at the time. Stockett (2005, p. 566) states that archaeologists tend to use to models to approach the effect of gender: gender hierarchy and gender complimentarity. Both of these models are based upon Western ideas of gender relations, thus creating a difficulty in assessing how they relate specifically to a culture a that may have had a very different means of establishing gender. There has been a shift in the way in which sex and sexuality have been studied where Mesoamerica is concerned, based upon the knowledge of the bias that has exited in researching the topic. Gender hierarchy has been the model that has most often been applied to the study of the culture. This model suggests that the genders are not at an equal power level and that women are defined by their position as it relates to the male figure. Stockertt (2005, p. 568) argues that recent trends have been to apply gender complimentarity in order to provide for a culture in which both genders had equity in their power. However, neither model may be a true reflection as pictorial evidence reveals a great deal of androgyny, of interchanges of sexual organs between genders, thus defining sex from a variety of viewpoints. These appreciatable differences from Western cultural norms may mean that neither model provides a true structure from which to frame the cultural relationships where sex and gender are concerned. An example can be seen through the way in which South India compares to Melanesia in regard to sex and gender. In South India, sex is related to procreative capacities, thus the roles of the genders are then fixed and immutable. Kinship in South India is defined differently than in Western culture, as sex is a determinant in relatedness. Males are related to sons through blood and semen, while females are related to their daughters through blood, womb, an milk. Therefore, the children of two sisters would not be able to marry, nor the children of two brothers, but the children of a brother and a sister would be considered suitable. Sex is a defining element in the way in which people are related to one another (Busby 1997, p. 262). Melanesia, similarly believes that the male and female fluids create the child, however, according to Busby (1997, p. 263), there is one crucial difference. In South India, the determining factors create a whole sex for the individual. In other words, the presence of the parts makes the whole. In Melanesia, the body is a mosaic of gendered parts, thus there is an equality between the divisions of sex. In this society, the nature of the gender is positioned in such a way that it is flexible, responding to the social need and flexing from one gender to the other in response where needed. In ritual, they must specify gender and designate the body as one gender or another, rather than a life-long assumption of this state. A study of the figural art from Knossos and Akrotiri provide a context for studying the similarities in the body representations of the Bronze Age of the Aegean to that of Western aesthetics. In looking at two sets of figurines, the Faience goddesses and the ivory bull-leapers, the sex connotations can be seen as represented by specific materializations of sex identifiers. On the goddesses, there is an indication of breasts, but not always, thus sex is more indicated through the type of dress that is used can be seen to be either gender. The bull-leapers have lithe, masculine body frames, although there is no sign of genitalia. The bodies of many of the figurines, however, do not necessarily depict the assumed genders. Alberti (2001, p. 203) states that the differences are contextual and that the sexed body is only relevant to “specific performative instances and in association with specific types of clothing and adornment”. In creating aesthetic responses that were specific to occasion, social relationships can be seen relative to the sexed bodies of the figurines. Conclusion The nature of looking at these different cultures and the way in which gender has been made standardized in previous literature on the topic, suggests that an evolution in thinking is expanding the assumptions that are being made about sexed bodies and gender positions within ancient societies. Much of what has been done previous to 1990 suggested that the status quo of the gender relationships within a patriarchal society was a familiar type of structure throughout the history of most cultures. However, present day Melanesia and South India provide context for how these assumptions are faulty. The way in which cultures ‘sex’ the body and materialize gender through the aspects that are assigned creates a social structure that defines relationships and interactions. Without the key to understanding these aspects of a culture, a Western model will fail to provide a true picture of the nature of a society. In the 1980s, inquiry into archaeological topics through discussions of gender began to emerge. Taken from a feminist perspective, archaeological inquiry shifted towards gender discussions in creating assumptions about social structures as they related to the power and influence of both genders. However, by the turn of the century 20th century to the 21st , it became clear that archaeological inquiry was biased towards the Western view and that a re-examination of how different and extinct cultures have been assessed is necessary. The nature of archeological inquiry must be re-evaluated and structured so that gender and sex biases no longer inform discovery about the social structures of the past. (word count 2175) References Alberti, Benjamin. (October 2001). Faience goddesses and ivory bull-leapers: The aesthetics of sexual difference at late bronze age. World Archaeology. Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 189-205. Arnold, Bettina, and Nancy L. Wicker. (2001). Gender and the archaeology of death. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Busby, Cecilia. (June 1997). Permeable and partible persons: A comparative analysis of gender and body in South India and Melanesia. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 261-278. Butler, Judith. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of ‘sex’. London: Routledge. Gero, Joan M. (April 1984). Socio-politics and the woman-at-home ideology. American Antiquity. Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 342-350. Gilchrist, Roberta. (1999). Gender and archaeology: Contesting the past. London: Routledge. Gosden, Chris. (1999). Anthropology and archaeology: A changing relationship. London: Routledge. Joyce, Rosemary A. 2000. Gender and power in Prehispanic Mesoamerica. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press. Stockett, Miranda K. (December 2005). On the importance of re-envisioning sex and gender in Ancient Mesoamerica. World Archaeology. Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 566-578). Wylie, Alison. (January 1992). The interplay of evidential constraints and political interests: Recent archaeological research on gender. American Antiquity. Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 15-35. Read More