Women In Archaeology Meets The Men, A Fruitful Meeting?

Submitted by coldrum on Monday, 21 February 2011 Page Views: 1859

The study of gender and societal roles of both male and female is vital when attempting to understand past populations; however presumptions and common beliefs that were accepted about the nature of men and women in society in the early 20th century, impact heavily on site analysis around this time.

Subsequently, this influences our own interpretation of these excavation reports. The tendency to apply modern ideas to societies of the past is often most apparent when the role of sexes are typecast to fit ideals of what is believed to be ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ within a modern concept.

A particularly striking case is that of the ancient city of Ur and the excavations of its Royal cemeteries by Leonard Woolley in the early 20th century. Amongst the some 1,800 graves, Woolley identified several “royal burials” by the wealth of weaponry, expensive materials including gold and silver, and several ambiguously inscribed seals. A detailed re-analysis of the finds has been documented by Kathleen McCaffrey in her study “The female kings of Ur” (McCaffrey 2008:173) Burials were uncovered by Woolley in which the grave goods expected to be found alongside a male skeleton were discovered in the close vicinity of female reigns.

Pre-existing assumptions and connotations of gender allowed for only two distinctive categories to exist, “male” and “female”, and this binary classification left Woolley unable to understand the seemingly impossible cross-over he was presented with in the case of certain graves. By “feminising” some of the objects as McCaffery terms it, he “reframed these objects in relation to a female owner.” (McCaffrey 2008:182) What McCaffrey ultimately transmits is that when analysing the royal cemetery there can be a tendency to “project current assumptions about gender in the past when analysing mortuary remains.” (McCaffrey 2008:207)

Another important reassessment in the role of women is the work of Carol Ember, in understanding women’s roles in agricultural intensification in Cyprus in the Late Neolithic. Ember, in her study to understand the changes associated with agricultural intensity concludes that rather than it being a case of women physically being unable to carry out increasingly heavier agricultural work, it is “rather the division of labour along male/female lines was a cultural solution to the problem of increased workloads and accelerated birthrates that accompanied the adoption of more sophisticated agricultural techniques.” (Bolger 2003:39) Previous assumptions regarding the placement women put them in a domestic role because of their inability physically to perform the work of men and the “’natural’ role as mothers” (Bolger 2003:39) This reasoning has been disproved by looking beyond preconceived ideas about women in an agricultural role, and understanding exactly why they came to play the role they did.

There is evidence here that assumptions were made about gender in the past and how a clear bias existed as a result of contemporary ideas of gender roles. The research these archaeologists have undertaken are just two examples out of hundreds, in which modern preconceptions imposed onto the role gender played in the past have been misconceived.

Ultimately, what needs to be remembered is that “it may be ‘obvious’ to us what is male and female within our own cultural context, yet we must be careful not to extend these categories to other cultures.” (Nelson 1997:17)

For much more, see www.archnews.co.uk.

Note: Only in recent decades the importance of gender studies has gained momentum within the archaeological world.

Contributor Bio for coldrum: Based in Milkyway, contributing since 2002. Favourite site: Avebury.

<< Human bones found in Argentina more than 8,000 years old

News

Lost civilization under Persian Gulf? Destroyed by Canadian Attack? >>