Northeast Historical Volume 31 Special Issue: Historic Preservation and the Archaeology of Nineteenth-Century Farmsteads in the Article 14 Northeast

2001 Review Essay: Reading the Reading of in Archaeology Katherine Howlett

Follow this and additional works at: http://orb.binghamton.edu/neha Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons

Recommended Citation Howlett, Katherine (2001) "Review Essay: Reading the Reading of Gender in Archaeology," Northeast : Vol. 30-31 31, Article 14. https://doi.org/10.22191/neha/vol31/iss1/14 Available at: http://orb.binghamton.edu/neha/vol31/iss1/14

This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). It has been accepted for inclusion in Northeast Historical Archaeology by an authorized editor of The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). For more information, please contact [email protected]. Northeast Historical Archaeology/Val. 30-31, 2001-2002 181

Review Essay

Reading the Reading of Gender in Archaeology

Katherine Howlett

IN PURSUIT OF GENDER: WORLDWIDE ARCHAEOLOGICAL APPROACHES edited by Sarah Milledge Nelson and Myriam Rosen-Ayalon 2001, Gender and Archaeology Series 1, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek California. 416 pages, ill., maps, $34.95 (paper); $85.00 (cloth).

GENDER AND THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF DEATH edited by Bettina Arnold and Nancy L. Wicker 2001, Gender and Archaeology Series 2, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek California. 198 pages, ill., maps, $26.95 (paper); $69.00 (cloth).

When reviewing the literature on gendered tents and select specific articles to read. If you archaeological research, one finds few mono­ are looking for the bigger picture on gender graph-length case studies using gender as a studies, read all of them, because the two vol­ primary or integrated focus. Instead, most of umes represent different ways of "packaging" the studies are found in edited volumes of arti­ or conceptualizing the way to read gender cles or papers, often drawn from thematic con_. archaeologically. ference sessions. As a consequence of the The current status of is prevalent format, most case studies or critical neatly summed up in Nelson and Rosen­ analyses are either brief, generalized Ayalon's introduction to In Pursuit of Gender as overviews or very narrowly focused interpre­ "experiencing growing pains." There is a sur­ tations of isolated datasets. These formats are prising level of discomfort evident in this very limiting for the treatment of a cultural overview. Ordinarily an editor's job in intro­ concept as large and complex as gender. ducing a published group of papers is to stress This past year, AltaMira has produced not continuity, complementarity, cohesion. Here, one but two books in their Gender and the diversity of methods and frank disagree­ Archaeology series, both edited volumes of ment of interpretation are quite apparent. papers presented at thematic conferences. While initially hard to take, I came to under­ This format is unlikely to draw in those skep­ stand that multiplicity is a characteristic of a tical of the utility of gender studies. For those growing discourse, and the disagreement is, who are already drawn in, the brevity and well, honest. We just do not often see it in contradictory interpretations presented can be print in this fashion. For example, in a section very frustrating. At the same time, these pub­ summary Nelson discusses John Parkington's lications make a positive contribution by interpretation of South African rock art, adding to the corpus of work and existing "While it is somewhat troublesome ... it is not dialog on gender. Furthermore, the two vol­ a requirement of gender archaeology that our umes are enormously informative when read results be politically correct-they do need to from a historiographic perspective. Together consider possible alternative explanations and they provide a good sense for where gender to demonstrate that even given androcentric studies in archaeology originated, how that ethnographies in the past, the proposed expla­ starting point has affected current research tra­ nation is the best available" (p. 13). Ouch. Do jectories, and the strengths and weaknesses of you think she liked his paper? existing approaches. If you are looking for a With eighteen articles and twenty-four single methodological model or a supportive authors from around the world, it is inevitable bit of evidence, go straight to the table of con- that there will be disagreement, although it is 182 Reading the Reading of Gender /Howlett

indirectly expressed, as these authors are not lation. I am also a little uneasy with the actually engaging one another. The articles implied hypothesis. If they are testing the cover a fairly wide geographic range, with proposition that women become more visible slightly more Asiail studies, but coverage also in worsening conditions, does this mean that of Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, conversely, under the best of conditions, North America, and one lonely entry from women are invisible? And why are they only South Africa. The authors' origins are less considering the utilization of cash potential to varied with fully half of them from the United be meaningful? I am sure that it was not the States. intention of the authors to suggest such a The disparity among the papers is most model, however it is easy to lose that level of evident in methodology. A fair number of meaning when asking your multivariate statis­ studies rely very heavily on an empirical, sta­ tical analyses to show you the answer. "Even tistical basis, which I started to think of as the efforts to classify 'objectively' by searching for Feminist New Archaeology. Like the New 'natural' clusters of attributes within large Archaeology of the 1960s and 1970s, which data matrices are subjective to the extent that sought to define broad patterns of human the listing of attributes is based on the archae­ behavior (Trigger 1989), these studies would ologists' knowledge and sense of the signifi­ like to find mathematically predictable, formu­ cance of the material they are analyzing" laic means for identifying gender. It is in part (Trigger 1989: 383). Notably, no significant a reactionary response to the criticism that correlations between increased craft produc­ gendered archaeology stems from a political tion and spatially distinct working areas could agenda and as such is not evidence-based be discerned. The distressing conclusion of (Wylie 1992). While it is rather important to the authors is not that they need to revise their assure that these case studies are actually study or questions, but rather that gendered grounded in evidence, often they run into the household production is all but invisible mate­ same difficulties of the broader New rially. Archaeology movement and are decontextual­ In contrast, Gero and Scattolin, "Beyond ized, dehumanized, long on technique and Complementarity and Hierarchy: New short on meaning. For example, Nelson et al., Definitions for Archaeological Gender "The Impact of Women on Household Relations," present their case study of house­ Economies: A Maya Case Study," conducted hold production using a contextualized inter­ statistical analyses of ethnoarchaeological pretive approach. The first section of this observations collected in San Mateo, paper is a critical review of genderedinterpre­ Guatemala, coding contributions to household tations. The authors warn against the use of economy, markers of wealth, wage income, simplistic, nearly Boolean or binary frame­ and evidence of spatially discrete work areas. works, suggesting that the complex construc­ The idea was to assess if any correlations tion of gender at both the level of individual existed between poverty and women's contri­ social identity and broader social interaction butions to household economy through craft cannot be encapsulated under generalized sys­ production and/ or wage labor, and if craft tems of inequality versus complementarity or production in the home by women meant evi­ egalitarianism. Next the authors present a dent separate (read: gendered) workspaces. case summary of features, artifacts, and trace While conceptually the authors are onto some element analyses from several excavated interesting ideas, especially tracking ties of house floors in northern Argentina from the gender to class and material signals of gender, early Formative period. These data show that the execution is overwhelmed. For as many in at least two of the households there is evi­ variables as were collected (an exhaustive dence of copper working occurring in the coded list was included), nothing in the study same space as major food preparation activi­ design spoke to men's economic contributions. ties. Using this evidence as an example, they I think it is difficult to fully interpret gendered discuss the implications for gendered produc­ response to economic conditions when we do tion on material and spatial levels, rejecting not know anything about half the adult popu- dichotomous interpretive strategies including Northeast Historical Archaeology/Vol. 30-31, 2001-2002 183

hierarchy versus complementarity and alternative makes for a fairly weak interpreta­ domestic versus specialized labor. Their argu­ tion. Consider Shoocongdej, "Gender Roles ment is similar to the ideas of hegemonic dis­ Depicted in Rock Art: A Case from Western course used primarily in assessing expressions Thailand," whose method for determining of socioeconomic class (e.g., Beaudry, Cook gender is never defined, though given the fre­ and Mrozowski 1991) but also as applied to quency of the word "possibly" one may sus­ gender as negotiated power (Nelson 1997). It pect that possibly the author is not quite sure. emphasizes the fluid nature of On the other hand, Parkington, "Men, Women, by representing the complex ties to intra- and and Eland: Hunting and Gender among the extra-household production without isolating San of Southern Africa," presents a detailed a single group of producers or measures of description of representational human ele­ productive capabilities. ments and their correlation with the depicted These two articles are good examples of activities in rock paintings. He compares these the range of methods you will find in In depicted gender roles to ethnographic records Pursuit of Gender. Some studies draw on huge of San cosmological myths and social prac­ datasets with conclusions benchmarked on chi­ tices. Despite the warning in Nelson's intro­ squared tests. Others have rather limited evi­ duction and the offending suggestion of male dence and are highly speculative, interpretive dominance, I found this to be a thought-pro­ accounts. But this is not an either-or proposi­ voking study of cognitive structures expressed tion. Hassan and Smith, "Soul Birds and in rock art. Heavenly Cows: Transforming Gender in Burials and iconography are popular Predynastic Egypt," combine quantitative sources of information about gender because analysis of graves with an extensive interpre­ we believe them to be conscious expressions of tation of mythology. Furthermore, they spend identity, which in theory make them easily much of their introduction describing and read. The performance of gender, the ways in qualifying the nature of the data, defining and which our daily activity is affected by this relating and gender, and anticipating what identification (often thoughtlessly), is encoded the data can and cannot tell us. It is wonderful in other types of contexts, integrated with all to see research drawing on such a broad range the other strands of cultural directive. Seeking of evidence and interpretive strategies, though this information in habitation or workplace the imperative to include so much nearly over­ sites (and sometimes these are the same) we loads the presentation. have to deal with a less conscious (re)presenta­ Another point of diversity to consider is tion of these identities. Several authors under­ data source. Quite a few studies make use of take this investigation of gender-as-lived, for mortuary contexts with other lines of evi­ example in the household analyses discussed dence. The combination allows for a more earlier. Other contributions utilize middens contextualized approach than simple associa­ (Cooper, "The Enigma of Gender in the tions of grave goods with biologically sexed Archaeological Record of the Andaman skeletons, and burials are mostly used as sec­ Islands"), ethnohistoric documentation of ondary, mitigating or comparative evidence. trade (Bacus, "Accessing Prestige and Power: For example, Rubinson, "Through the Looking Women in the Political Economy of Glass: Reflections on Mirrors, Gender, and Use Protohistoric and Early Historic Visayan among Nomads," challenges prior interpreta­ Polities"), and evidence of health, diet, and tions of gendered use and meaning of mirrors musculoskeletal wear (Claassen, "Mothers' in non-mortuary contexts by comparing them Workloads and Children's Labor during the to the occurrence of these items in burials. Woodland Period"). Another popular data source is various forms Interestingly, when one considers the inter­ of iconography, including rock art, figurines pretive frameworks used in these studies some both inside and outside of burials, and archi­ common elements are evident. Most assume tectural art. Discerning gendered representa­ some critical stance, wherein the results of the tions sometimes leads to explicit description case study are set against precedent studies of and quantification of anatomy, though the either gender in general or the context type in 184 Reading the Reading of Gender (Howlett particular. Quite a few include a justification arately. While the quality of the cases ranges, for the examination of gender and discussion it is oddly refreshing to have the disagree­ of gender bias in archaeology in an introduc­ ment, the uncertai.'lty, and t.~e process, if you tion. The American and western European will, open to public scrutiny. researchers seem less defensive and more com­ The second volume under review here, fortable with the gender focus. In contrast, Gender and the Archaeology of Death, has many some researchers from other regions include of the same issues at stake. While it is also an research backgrounds in which the influence edited volume, encompassing a wide geo­ of national history and politics clearly set the graphic range, and using a diversity of agenda, or where the issue of gender never methods and analytical foci, the common use made it to the table. Even among western of mortuary contexts makes this volume more researchers, there are still some in the stages of coherent. The introduction by its editors, recognizing and/ or acknowledging women in Arnold and Wicker, acknowledges that the archaeological record. It is promising, "emerging awareness of the importance of though, to see that many have also moved for­ gender as a component of archaeological inter­ ward to look at complex cognitive perspec­ pretation has so far tended to ghettoize its tives on gender, or the intersection and inte­ practitioners, a trend to which this volume gration of gender with class, age, and eth­ regrettably contributes by singling out gender nicity. Claassen, for example, makes a very as a 'special' area of inquiry" (p. vii). Further good case for age being an influential factor in implied in their discussion is the notion that the division of labor in emergent agricultural mortuary studies are also ghettoized, at least . Lindruff, "Women's Lives in the United States. Just as gender studies are Memorialized in Burial in Ancient China at incomplete when only used to see isolated, Anyang," presents a great case study for previously underrepresented groups, mor­ looking at class and gender in Anyang elite tuary data alone provide an incomplete and women who were valued for their skills as static portrait of social identity, and ought to military leaders. Another intriguing avenue is be routinely compared to other sources of the investigation of "third" or gender information whenever they are available. mutability; Arnold," 'Sein und Werden': Fortunately the authors in this volume demon­ Gender as Process in Mortuary Ritual," pro­ strate that while women, gender, and burials vides a well-supported argument against are the common elements, they are not the assuming ties between biological sex and only elements under discussion. gender in the mortuary record. She notes a As Arnold and Wicker note, the best number of ethnographic examples in which studies are those done in conjunction with such mutability of identity is expressed mate­ written records, though how those records are rially. Arnold is one of the editors of the other used varies considerably among the authors. book under review here, so it is not surprising Scott, "Killing the ? Archaeological that these ideas are more thoroughly incorpo­ Narratives of Infanticide," argues, for rated in Gender and the Archaeology of Death. example, that the widespread assumption that Overall, In Pursuit of Gender paints a por­ all infanticide seen in the mortuary context trait of the current state of gender studies in indicates selective preference of males is based archaeology. It is a family portrait. The lack of in part on a poor reading and inappropriate paradigmatic unity might make the family extrapolation of historical records. Stalsberg, look dysfunctional, but many new subfields in "Visible Women Made Invisible: Interpreting the social science look the same. In fact, the Varangian Women in Old Russia," also notes one bit of widely accepted gender theory the the failure or misuse of written documentation book tries to hold up-by having sections for on women. In these records, women are virtu­ Ideology, Roles, and Relations-fails, because ally absent, while in the burials they are not the studies cannot be neatly stuffed into these only present but possibly overrepresented, as categories. The point is made, albeit indirectly, women's markers of Varangian ethnicity that these categories cannot be addressed sep- (metal brooches) preserve well where no com- Northeast Historical Archaeology/Vol. 30-31, 2001-2002 185

parable marker of men's ethnicity survives. words, it is possible to imagine women as Stalsberg must balance both sources of incom­ atlatl hunters, and believe an atlatl in a plete information against one another. 's grave meant the same thing as an On the other hand, it is also fascinating to atlatl in a 's grave. Doucette handily see two readings of gender in burials with no deconstructs much of the gender bias built comparable historic or ethnographic informa­ into the archaeological knowledge and litera­ tion. These studies should encourage prehisto­ ture surrounding these weapons. rians not to ignore this facet of identity. The most interesting work in this volume Hamlin, "Sharing the Load: Gender and Task comes from those authors seeking to push us Division at the Windover Site," looks at a out of the two-gender rut. Of course it is Florida Early Archaic pond burial site to assess much simpler to be guided by the biological gender roles through distribution of grave evidence when looking at human remains; goods by functional category. The occurrence however, several authors point out that a sex­ of these categories was compared to the deter­ gender disjunction represented in a burial is mination of biological sex and. age (adult, far more common than you might believe. subadult, or infant/neonate) of the individual. Weglian, "Grave Goods Do Not a Gender While the functional groupings are subjec­ Make: A Case Study from Singen am tively defined, and therefore debatable, the Hohentwiel, Germany," compares biological model is an interesting one with some determination of sex to body positioning and provocative results. For example, subadults grave goods, and finds that there is a signifi­ tended to be associated with categorically cant degree of crossover in the physical sex "domestic" items and items associated exclu­ and cultural expressions of identity. Crass, sively with adult , suggesting that chil­ "Gender and Mortuary Analysis: What Can dren shared the workload of adult women. Grave Goods Really Tell Us?," discusses the Claassen's study, discussed earlier, reaches difficulties in using mortuary data to interpret these same conclusions. This is an exciting gender using Inuit burials as an example. The twist to the interpretation of socially organized ethnographic evidence of Inuit gender sys­ labor or production that has not been given tems, which have a high degree of mutability, enough attention. Perhaps because we are so suggests that neither grave goods nor biolog­ accustomed to looking for divisions of labor, in ical remains can be taken at face value when the classic terminology, we often overlook the assessing gender identity. Furthermore many relations of labor for which we can probably processes can alter the original context and all find modem analogs. skew interpretations, including differential Dianna Doucette's study, "Decoding the preservation, looting, historically poor excava­ Gender Bias: Inferences of Atlatls in Female tion and documentation, or even political pres­ Mortuary Contexts," also uses exclusively sures. She concludes that reading gender in mortuary data. She compares burials at the the mortuary context can only be done by Indian Knoll site, and the interpretation of using evidence of all these processes. Our atlatl inclusions, to a single burial at dynamic, lived gender identity does not Annasnappet Pond. Archaeologists at Indian become fixed in death, as external processes Knoll found that a significant number of indi­ continue to alter the portrait. One of the post­ viduals interred with atlatl components were mortem processes is our own reexamination female. They interpreted this, not as a sign the and reinterpretation of archaeological evi­ women used the weapons, but as an indication dence. This is demonstrated by Holliman's that the inclusion was a symbolic. The review of biological data, "Warfare and Annasnappet Pond remains contained the Gender in the Northern Plains: Osteological inorganic elements of two atlatls, positioned in Evidence of Trauma Reconsidered," in light of such a way that suggested that the entire ethnographic documentation of berdache or weapon shafts were buried. Whereas previous two-spirit individuals. estimates of the dart shaft's length were much So, where does this book leave us? The longer, these shafts were of a length usable by tighter theoretical and methodological focus individuals of varying physical size. In other gives this volume greater depth and sophisti- 186 Reading the Reading of Gender/How/ell cation, while In Pursuit of Gender has greater References breadth. Gender and the Archaeology of Death is a more coherent and unified volume that suc­ Beaudry, Mary C., Lauren J. Cook, Stephen A. Mrozowski cessfully increases our understanding of the possible uses of mortuary data. However, mor­ 1991 Artifacts and Active Voices: Material tuary contexts alone fail to adequately inform Culture as Social Discourse. In The us on gender. Once again, it is a reflection of Archaeology of Inequality, ed. by R. McGuire the current nature of social science that each and R. Paynter, 150-191. Blackwell answer often yields new questions. These Publishers, Oxford UK and Cambridge studies highlight the complex nature of gender USA. research and the need to consider intersecting identities, multiple lines of evidence, archaeo­ Nelson, Sarah Milledge logicnl formntion processes, and our own 1997 Gender in Archaeology: Analyzing Power and knowledge construction. Prestige. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, To return to the historiographic questions California. on the archaeology of gender, where did this line of research begin and where is it headed? Trigger, Bruce G. Researchers began by leveling critical charges 1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. of gender bias against mainstream archaeolog­ Cambridge University Press, Cambridge ical interpretation, and I believe that the legiti­ UK. macy of those charges has been well estab­ lished. Since then, we have sought to correct Wylie, Alison the imbalance of representation, exploring a 1992 The Interplay of Evidential Constraints range of methods, including exclusive focus on women, exclusive focus on burials, icono­ and Political Interests: Recent graphic representations, ethnohistory and Archaeological Reseatch on Gender. ethnographic analogy, statistical analyses, and American Antiquity 57: 15-35. biological data. We have found that none of these are sufficient in isolation. We have become increasingly adept at critically Katherine Howlett is a project archaeologist reviewing the work of others, which in tum with the Andrew Fiske Memorial Center for has made us more aware of the subtleties, Archaeological Research at University of exceptions, and mitigating factors evident in Massachusetts Boston. She recently completed the case studies we try to construct. Even the her M.A. in historical archaeology with a internal structure we have used to define gender (ideology, roles, and relations) is in fact thesis on gendered interpretations of lithics a set of mutually inclusive categories. It is from a Contact Period Native American site. increasingly apparent that if we are to discern Her current work focuses on the Sylvester gender we need to recognize that it is one part Manor site, a 17th-century provisioning plan­ of socially derived identity, embedded with tation on Shelter Island, New York. many others. This recognition must form the basis for future approaches. I hope, and most of these authors seem to see, that we will Katherine Howlett move towards more fully contextualized and integrated analyses of single or multiple Andrew Fiske Memorial Center for related sites, disseminated in a format that Archaeological Research allows the expression of this fuller picture. I University of Massachusetts Boston do not doubt that when this happens these 100 Morrissey Boulevard volumes will be cited as part of the ground­ Boston, MA 02125 work. [email protected]