sign in sign up
<<
Home , Feminist anthropology, Feminist archaeology, Gender archaeology, Women in archaeology

, Theories, and the Archaeological Study of Past Sexualities Author(s): Barbara L. Voss Source: World , Vol. 32, No. 2, Queer Archaeologies (Oct., 2000), pp. 180-192 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/827864 Accessed: 23-08-2015 06:25 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Feminisms,queer theories,and the archaeologicalstudy of past sexualities

Barbara L. Voss

Abstract

Archaeologyfaces the unique challenge of stretchingsocial theories of sexuality in newchrono- logicaland methodological directions. This essay uses an analysisof citational practices to consider how feministand queertheories articulate with archaeological investigations of sexuality.Both queertheories and feminist archaeological practices are shown to be powerfultools that can be used to expandarchaeological interpretations ofgender and sexuality.

Keywords

Sexuality;; ; ; .

There is another social functionof gender to be considered and that is the social markingof sexuallyappropriate partners.... If the accepts thissocial function of gender,then an archaeologyof genderis an archaeologyof sexuality. (Claassen 1992b) Gender is out - is in. (dig house graffiti,Catalhoytik, Turkey, 1998) It has been eightyears since Claassen observedthat sexuality is intrinsicallylinked to the archaeologicalstudy of genderin the past, but untilrecently only a few archaeologists have seriouslyconsidered how the archaeologicalrecord can be used to produce know- ledge about past sexualities.Fortunately, in the last threeyears this situation has signifi- cantlychanged. There is now emerginga significantcorpus of discourseabout sexuality and the archaeological record, a constellationof recent publicationsand theses that demonstratethat an ever-increasingrange of sexual topicscan be investigatedand inter- rogatedthrough archaeological research. A reviewof archaeologicalstudies of sexualityis in some wayspremature, for (despite an anonymousarchaeologist's glib assertionthat 'sex is in') the undertakingis stillcontro- versialand contested.Yet even at thisearly date itis clearthat archaeological investigations

WorldArchaeology Vol. 32(2): 180-192 Queer Archaeologies ? 2000 Taylor& FrancisLtd ISSN 0043-8243print/1470-1375 online

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Feminisms,queer theories,past sexualities 181 of sexualityare being informedand influencedby severaldistinct - and at timescompet- ing- intellectualtraditions. In thisessay, I particularlyconsider how feministarchaeology and queer theoryarticulate with archaeological investigations of sexuality.To do so I step back in time,as archaeologistsare wont to do, and discussthe genesisof both feminist archaeologyand queer theoryin the 1980sand 1990s,examining their relationship to each otherthrough an analysisof citationalpractices in archaeology.This discussionnot only contributesto a reviewof archaeologicalresearch on sexualitybut also towardsdiscussions on the sociologyof knowledgein archaeology.

Feministarchaeologies: gender, status, and the division of labour

The emergenceof feministarchaeology is generallyattributed to the 1984 publication 'Archaeologyand the studyof gender' (Conkey and Spector 1984). By the late 1980s, symposia,workshops, and dedicatedconferences brought together researchers interested in integratingarchaeology, , women's studies,and the interpretationof a genderedpast. A bloom of publicationsfollowed, including the edited volume Engen- deringArchaeology (Gero and Conkey 1991), fiveconference proceedings (Balme and Beck 1995; Claassen 1992a; du Cros and Smith 1993; Miller 1988; Walde and Willows 1991), a special issue of HistoricalArchaeology (Seifert 1991), and severaltopical mono- graphs (e.g. Ehrenberg 1989; Gilchrist1994; Spector 1993; Wall 1994). Not all the researchersinvolved in these projectsnecessarily identified themselves or theirwork as 'feminist'(Wylie 1997b). Recent commentarieshave thusreferred to thisbody of litera- tureas 'womanist'or 'gender'archaeology (e.g., Joyceand Claassen 1997; Gilchrist1999; Nelson 1997; Wright2000). These commentatorsand othersare correctin emphasizing thatresearch on women or genderis not automatically'feminist'. Nonetheless, I believe that most of the works listed above can be accuratelydescribed as 'feminist-inspired', informedby popular,political, and/or academic feministthought. Additionally, feminist practicein archaeologycertainly has not been limitedto researchon women or gender (Conkey and Wylie 1999; Wyliein press). Because of this,for the purposesof thisessay I have chosen to referto thisbody of workas 'feministarchaeology'. The developmentof thisdiverse body of 'feminist'and 'feminist-inspired'archaeolo- gies occurredat a timewhen feministtheory and politicsin the United States and else- wherewere at a crossroads.In the late 1970s and early1980s, when Conkey and Spector were authoringtheir 1984 manifesto,North American feminist politics were focusedon whatthen appeared to be theuniversal oppression of womenby . Although the exact nature and mechanismsof patriarchaloppression were debated, this focus was generally(but of course not completely)shared by Marxist,socialist, radical, liberal, and culturalfeminisms of thetime (Jagger 1983: 5-8). In boththe humanities and sciences,the omission of women's experiences and accomplishmentsin academic and popular discoursewas identifiedas one mechanismby whichpatriarchal ideology replicated itself by privilegingmale experience.Feminist scholars in anthropologyand otherdisciplines thusprioritized research that documented women's experiencescross-culturally, especi- allyregarding gender roles and theways that patriarchy acted on women'slives (Rosaldo and Lamphere 1974; Rubin 1975; Reiter 1975).

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 182 Barbara L. Voss

Informedby this political and academic climate,Conkey and Spector's 1984 article presenteda substantialcritique of androcentrismin archaeology.They called for new approachesto archaeologicalinterpretation that would promotegender-inclusive models of thepast, question the universality of a rigidsexual divisionof labour,and challengethe waysthat men's purported activities are valued morethan those believed to be performed bywomen. In thisway feminist theory would be used in archaeologyto combatthe effects ofpresent-day on archaeologicalinterpretations. Simultaneously, the critical study of gender in the past would provide new informationabout the long-termhistory of genderrelations. This core agenda was laterreiterated by Conkeyand Gero in their1991 edited volume EngenderingArchaeology with the added aim of problematizing'under- lyingassumptions about genderand difference'(Conkey and Gero 1991: 5). Throughout the late 1980s and early1990s, these goals were largelyadopted by mostresearchers who identifiedtheir research as feministarchaeology, , or the archaeology of women.It is perhapsworth noting that these generalaims of feministarchaeology are broadlycongruent with feminist interventions into the social sciencesin general(Harding 1986, 1987; Wylie1992, 1997a). Because Conkeyand Spector's1984 articlewas widelyadopted as a centralagenda for feministarchaeological studies for the decade to come, the political and intellectual climate withinwhich they wrote significantlyaffected the way that sexualityhas been addressedwithin archaeological interpretations. Most of the earlystudies in archaeology that consciouslyadopted a feministapproach emphasized the sexual (or gendered) divisionof labour and indices of gender status,an emphasistypified by Spector's task differentiationframework (Conkey and Spector1984; Spector 1991). There was a particu- lar emphasison 'finding'women in the archaeologicalrecord by debunkinganrdocentric methodsand interpretations,and on highlightingthe contributionsof womento the past (e.g. Brumfiel1991; Gero 1991; Wright1991). At the same time many studiesused a materialistapproach that viewed women as a gender class, tryingto understandhow archaeologicallyidentified conditions such as environmentalchange, state formation, or the introductionof agricultureintensified or changedwomen's status (e.g. Claassen 1991; Hastorf1991; Watsonand Kennedy1991). The prominenceof materialistand empiricist research in North American feministarchaeology has been discussed elsewhere (e.g. Gilchrist1999: ch. 3; Nelson 1997:ch. 5; Wylie1996: 320-5) and is attributableto boththe then-dominant'New Archaeology'paradigm and also the emphasison socialistpolitical theoryin NorthAmerican feminism in the 1970s and early1980s. These shared emphases in earlyfeminist archaeological studies had significantimpli- cations for the ways that issues of sexualitybegan to be discussed in archaeological interpretation.Feminist archaeologists usually adopted the sex/gendersystem model, in whichgender is takento be thecultural expression of biologicalsex (Rubin 1975). Within thisframework, sexuality is generallyseen as derivativeof gender,one of manyaspects of social lifethat is structuredby sex/gendersystems. As a result,to paraphraseBrumfiel (1992), duringthe firstdecade of feministarchaeological practice, 'Gender ... [stole]the show'. Feministarchaeological research rarely addressed the topic of sexuality,instead treatingsexuality predominantly as a functionof genderrather than as a distinctaspect ofsocial relations(see Rubin 1984:309 fora generaldiscussion of this point). For example, heterosexualmarriage has been examinedby manyfeminist archaeologists as a locus for

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Feminisms,queer theories,past sexualities 183 the genderedorganization of labour (which,of course,it oftenis) but onlyrarely with a considerationof how marriagerelates to the regulationand expressionof sexuality(e.g. Deagan 1983; Gibb and King 1991; Jackson1991; Wall 1994; Wright1991). In notingthese trends,I am not suggestingthat the initialgoals of feminist-inspired archaeologicalprojects negatively affected archaeological interpretations of sexuality. On the contrary,by highlightinggender as a subjectof archaeologicalresearch, and by fore- groundinginterpersonal relationships as an arena of social action,feminist interventions in archaeologycreated an intellectualclimate within which research on sexualitybecame increasinglyviable. Exactlyhow the prioritiesand conventionsof feministarchaeological practicescame to influencearchaeological investigations of sexualityis, however,of great interest,and is a topic thatI returnto laterin thisessay.

The Sex Wars,AIDS, and queer theory:sexuality moves front and centre

During the emergenceof feministarchaeologies in the 1980s and early 1990s, North Americanfeminist politics negotiated a seriesof epistemologicalcrises that shifted femin- ist attentiontowards an examinationof differencesbetween women. Among otherissues such as race and class, feministscholars and activistsundertook projects that theorized sexualityin ways markedlydifferent from previous treatments of sexualityas some sort of an extensionof gender.In the late 1970s worksby and scholars(e.g. Katz 1976; Rowbotham and Weeks 1977; Smith-Rosenberg1979; Weeks 1977), the English translationof Foucault's Historyof Sexuality(1978), and, in ,Ortner and Whitehead'sSexual Meanings(1981) challengedconventional feminist wisdom about the primacyof genderas a vectorof oppression.By the early1980s sexualityhad become a flashpointof feministdebate (the so-called 'Sex Wars'), and the relationshipof sexuality to patriarchyand liberationwas hotlycontested (Rubin 1984; Vance 1984; Duggan and Hunter 1995). ,pornography, sadomasochism, prostitution, , , promiscuity,butch-femme relationships, interracial and intergenerationalsex - these and othersexual practicesbecame prominenttopics of oftenacrimonious public forumsand writtendiscourse. Concurrently,the emergingAIDS pandemic propelled male same-sexsexual practicesand commercialsex intoexplicit public discussion through medical,public health, and activistmovements, bringing coverage of condom distribution, prostitution,anal and oral sex,and publicsex intomainstream print and televisionmedia.1 Discussionsabout thepolitics of sexualityduring the earlyand mid-1980swere at times bitter(see, for example, Vance's discussion of the 1982 Barnard College conference (Vance 1984) or Crimp and Roston's pictorialhistory of ACT UP (Crimp and Rolston 1990)), butit would be a mistaketo characterizethis period solely as an era ofcontentious debate. As Rubin urged,'The timehas come to thinkabout sex' (1984: 267) and thinking about sex was preciselywhat manyfeminist, lesbian, and gay researchers,writers, and activistsdid. What emergedwas a sense thattheories of genderwere not fullyadequate to addresssexuality, either as a social practiceor as a vectorof oppression(Vance 1984: 10): that 'it is essentialto separate genderand sexualityanalytically to more accurately reflecttheir separate social existence'(Rubin 1984:308). By thelate 1980sand early1990s, the call to develop theoriesof sexualitywas being answeredby an expandingbody of

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 184 Barbara L. Voss literaturethat addressed the politicaland culturalpositions of gays,, bisexuals, ,sex workers,sadomasochists, and others- a diverse conglomerationof sexual 'minorities'who wereincreasingly identified as 'queer' (de Lauretis1991: v). Sedg- wick'sEpistemology of theCloset (1990), Butler'sGender Trouble (1990) and Bodies that Matter(1993a), Warner'sFear of a Queer Planet (1993) and two special issues of differ- ences (Vol. 5 No. 2 and Vol. 6 Nos. 2 + 3) all signalledthe consolidationof an approach to theorizingsexuality that crossed genderlines, integrating (but not collapsing)sexual theoriesrelated to masculinityand femininityand to heterosexualityand homosexuality. Most importantly,the emergenceof queer theorywithin academia markeda radical shifttowards positioning abject and stigmatizedsexual identitiesas importantentry points to the productionof knowledge(Butler 1993b). A move to destabilizesexual and gender categorieswas and stillis an integralpart of thisprocess. The adoptionof the inclusive moniker'queer' reflectedthe rejectionof taxonomicsexual categories(e.g. homosexual, heterosexual,fetishist, pederast) thatinitially had been establishedthrough sexological discoursein the late 1800s and early1900s (see Bland and Doan (1998) fora discussion of sexologyand sexual taxonomies).Instead, the term'queer' reflectsan inclusivestand- point based on differencefrom or opposition to the ideology of heteronormativity (Warner1993: xxiii).Thus queer theoryand queer politicsrepresent a criticalmoment in the historyof Westernsexuality in whichsexual minoritiesand deviantswho were previ- ously definedby legal statutesand medical/psychologicaldiagnoses are insteadcreating an always-contestedand re-negotiatedgroup identity based on differencefrom the norm - in otherwords, a postmodernversion of identitypolitics (see Butler1993a: 21). Essen- tial to thispost-structuralist deployment of oppositionis the tenetthat what is 'norma- tive' is actuallyconstructed through reference to deviance. Thus it is 'deviance' thatis foundationaland the 'normative'that is unstable(Butler 1993b). This emphasis on 'opposition to the normative'(a positionrepeated in the call for papers for this volume) and on the simultaneousdestabilization of the normativeare aspects of queer theorythat allow greatinterdisciplinary mobility, as theypermit theor- etical conceptsinitially applied to issues of sexual identityand the oppressionof sexual minoritiesto be deployedin studiesof othersocial subgroupsas well as in studiesof the writtenand spoken word,the builtenvironment, material objects, and otherproducts of .It is, I argue below, preciselythis emphasis on normativityand oppositionthat poses both opportunitiesand challengesfor archaeologistsengaging in studies of past sexualities.

Intersections:connections between archaeology and feministtheories of sexuality

These briefhistories reveal that feministarchaeology and queer theoryshare certain temporalmarkers: both were founded on thepolitical and academicfeminisms of thelate 1970s and early 1980s, emergedin oppositionto the dominantpolitical and academic climateof the earlyand mid-1980s,and, aftera period of uncertainexploration, achieved a degreeof academiclegitimacy and popularityin theearly 1990s. Of coursethis historical narrativemay be undulyinfluenced by the archaeologicaltendency to interpretcultural developmentsthrough the 'formative/pre-classic/classic/post-classic'model. Nonetheless,

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Feminisms,queer theories,past sexualities 185

I suggestthat queer theoryand feministarchaeology shared somewhatparallel chrono- logical developments. Despite theirparallel trajectories,queer theoryand feministarchaeology were rarely in dialoguewith each other.Queer theory,grounded in grass-rootspolitical activist move- mentssuch as Queer Nation (Berlant and Freeman 1993), arose to meet the particular challengesof sexual politicsduring the neo-conservative1980s, while feministarchae- ology emergedprimarily within academia as a critiqueof androcentricarchaeological practicesand interpretations.However, many of the archaeologists involved in thegenesis of feministarchaeology were (and stillare) themselvesfeminist activists, concerned not only withrepresentations of genderin the past but also withthe politicsof genderand sexualityin thepresent (Hanen and Kelley 1992;Wylie 1991). What,then, were theinter- sectionsbetween the growing feminist theorization of sexuality in the 1980sand theemer- gence of feministarchaeology? To what extent has queer theoryinformed feminist archaeologiesin recentyears?2 To consider these questions, I reviewed bibliographiesof feministarchaeological studies publishedthroughout the 1980s and 1990s. Citationalpractices are one way in whichscholars acknowledge their intellectual influences and positionthemselves within the largerfield of academia, and thusbibliographies provide one imperfectmeasure of the extentto whichparticular schools of thoughtare being consultedand invoked by scholarsin differentsubfields. My reviewfocused primarily on nine edited volumesand proceedingswhich had been generatedthrough conferences, conference symposia, and lectureseries (Balme and Beck 1995; Claassen 1992a; Claassen and Joyce1997; du Cros and Smith1993; Gero and Conkey 1991; Miller 1988; Moore and Scott 1997; Walde and Willows1991; Wright1996). Because several of these volumeswere limitedto studiesof ,I also reviewedthe 'gender'issue of HistoricalArchaeology (vol. 25 no. 4) and two monographs(Spector 1993; Wall 1994) to increase the representationof historical archaeologywithin the sample. Finally,I includedConkey and Spector's 1984 articleas well as three recentlypublished synthesesof feministarchaeology (Conkey and Gero 1997; Gilchrist1999; Nelson 1997). Togetherthese sourcesrepresent 220 papers,articles, or monographsby authorswho identifytheir work as feministand/or gender archaeology. Althoughsuch a sample is not meantto be exhaustiveor even statisticallyrepresentative (for example, few journal articlesare included), it does include papers froma broad geographicand temporaldistribution, spanning 1984 to 1999 and includingauthors from theUnited States,Australia, Canada, and Great Britain.In reviewingthese works I noted citationsbelonging to threecategories: first, early works about sexualityby feministand gay and lesbian scholars dating to the 1970s and early 1980s; second, the literature surroundingthe 'Sex Wars' of themid-1980s; and, third,the emergentqueer theorycanon whose benchmarksinclude publicationssuch as Sedgwick'sEpistemology of the Closet (1990) and Butler's GenderTrouble (1990).3 Before beginningthis exercise I expected to identifytwo trends:first, that feminist archaeologistshave rarely,if at all, engaged withnon-archaeological works on sexuality, and second, that it is only in the last few years that queer theoryhas enteredfeminist archaeologicaldiscourse at all. My suppositionswere wrongon both counts.I foundthat 18 per cent of the 220 worksreviewed cited one or more worksthat fall into one of the threecategories described above. This percentagedid not increaseor decrease markedly

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 186 Barbara L. Voss withtime, but vacillated within a fairlystable range of 10 per centto 35 per centfrom year to year.This suggeststhat, while sexuality has not been a centraltopic of archaeological interpretation(Voss and Schmidt2000), archaeologistshave, over the last fifteenyears, consistentlyconsidered sexuality to be one importantaspect of gender-focusedresearch. Second, I foundthat the relationshipbetween queer theoryand feministarchaeology is, while uneven,by no means absent. Althoughalmost none of the worksI reviewed referencedpublications generated during the 'Sex Wars' of themid-1980s, 'queer theory' publicationsby Foucault (especially Historyof Sexuality[1978]), Butler (both Gender Trouble[1990] and Bodies thatMatter [1993a]) and Grosz (Sexual Subversions[1989] and SexyBodies [1995,with Probyn]) were citedwith regularity. Queer theorycitations were especiallycommon in introductionsto edited volumes and conferenceproceedings and rare in archaeologicalcase studies,suggesting that queer theoryhas been used predomi- nantlyto theorizethe feministarchaeological project as a whole ratherthan to interpret archaeologicalevidence. Finally,the papers and monographsthat I reviewed relied overwhelminglyon one source,Ortner and Whitehead'sSexual Meanings(1981), whichaccounted for over 30 per cent of all noted citationsabout sexuality.An edited volume of anthropologicalcase studiesgenerated in themid-1970s, most (but not all) contributedpapers in Sexual Mean- ingsare focusedon band,tribe, or chiefdomsocieties (1981: x), interpretgender and sexu- alitythrough a focuson symbolicconstructs and thesex/gender system model (1981: 1-9), and emphasize 'considerationsof hierarchicalpower and differentialprestige between men and women' (Gilchrist1999: 8). The prominenceof Sexual Meanings as a source about sexualityfor feminist-inspiredarchaeological research has not diminishedwith time,but appears to be as strongin the late 1990s as it was in the firstdecade of feminist archaeologicalinquiry. The persistentcitations of Sexual Meaningsmay indicate a degree of theoreticalconservatism in feministarchaeology with regard to conceptionsof sexu- alityand itsrelationship to gender.As Robertshas noted,'The paradoxis thatthose inter- ested in an archaeologyof gendercannot afford to challengethe frameworkassumptions and paradigmsof researchpractice' (1993: 18). In otherwords, it is difficultfor those feministarchaeologists who are occupiedwith legitimizing and developinggender studies simultaneouslyto embrace queer theoriesthat deconstructgender and sexuality.For example,Butler's position that 'biological sex' is a discursiveregulatory practice (Butler 1993a: 1) could be seen to challenge archaeologicalstudies of genderthat use physical indices to assign a 'sex' to human skeletal remains. of sex and gender destabilizeprecisely those categories (e.g. male,, , ) thatare necessarily invokedto model engenderedsocial worldsof the past.4The fearof erasingor compro- mising'gender' as a categoryof archaeologicalanalysis may account for the apparent reluctanceof manyarchaeological researchers consistently and criticallyto engage with queer theory. At the same time,there are also aspectsof queer theorythat resist its wholesale impor- tation into archaeology.The feministtheories of sexualitythat emerged duringthe particularsexual politicsof the 1980s and 1990s addressed the conditionsof modern, Western,and predominantlyurban sexual subcultures.Rubin particularlynotes thatthe organizationof genderand sexuality'as two distinctarenas of social practice'(1984: 308) may be specificto Westernindustrial . The enduringappeal of the sex/gender

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Feminisms,queer theories,past sexualities 187 systemmodel withinfeminist archaeology may be because it is sometimesa more appro- priate,if imperfect,approach to consideringsexuality and genderin pre-industrialand -basedcultures (Rubin 1975). Likewise,queer theoriststend to emphasizeanaly- ses of fictionaltexts, cinema, and other representationsat the expense of historicalor social science research(Rubin 1994: 93) - what historianDuggan has termed'the disci- pline problem' (1995).5 Broken pots, faunal remains,collapsed structures,burials, soil residues,and otherevidentiary sources in archaeologyrarely resemble the literaryworks or filmsthat often form the basis of queer theoryanalyses (e.g. Butler 1993a). It is not alwaysimmediately apparent how to applyreading methodologies developed formodern culturaltexts to the archaeologicalrecord. Because ofthe temporal and geographicspecificity of queer theory,archaeologists have importantcontributions to make in developingtheories of genderand sexualitythat can be applied to materialevidence and thatare appropriatefor analysis of non-'Western' and non-'modern'. Archaeology faces the unique challengeof stretchingtheories of sexualityin new chronologicaland culturaldirections and in probingthe culturaland representationallimits of distinctionsbetween gender and sexuality.While neither femin- istnor queer theoriesshould be appliedunquestioningly to thepast, together they provide powerfultools thatcan broaden archaeologicalinterpretations of past sexualities.

Acknowledgements

This materialis based upon worksupported under a National Science FoundationGradu- ate Fellowship.My thanksto Meg Conkey,Alison Wylie,Liz Perry,Rob Schmidt,El Casella, Masha Raskolnikov,Deb Cohler,and Amy Ramsay,whose insightfulcomments and supportgreatly improved this essay.

Departmentof Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley,California, 94720

Notes

1 These debates are perhaps best exemplifiedby two contradictorypublications on lesbian sadomasochism, Coming to Power (SAMOIS 1982) and Against Sado- masochism(Linden et al. 1982), and bythe controversies over the role ofgay male bath- houses in safersex campaignsand AIDS transmission(e.g. Bayer 1989: ch. 2; Berube 1996; Dangerous Bedfellows1996). Excellentresources on thisperiod include Pleasure and Danger: ExploringFemale Sexuality(Vance 1984), Powers of Desire: The Politics of Sexuality(Snitow et al. 1983), and Sex Wars: Sexual Dissent and Political Culture (Duggan and Hunter1995). 2 One could also, of course, ask the extentto whichfeminist archaeology affected the growingfeminist theorizations of sexuality.However, my readings suggest that feminist scholarsoutside archaeologyare not familiarwith feminist archaeological projects, a point also noted by Conkey and Gero (1997: 424-5 - but see Rubin [2000] fora rare

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 188 Barbara L. Voss

exception).In partthis is because it is onlyrecently that feminist archaeological work is becomingvisible to cross-disciplinaryaudiences throughtopical monographs(e.g. Gilchrist1994; Spector 1993; Wall 1994) and the appearance of archaeologicalcase studiesand reviewsin multi-disciplinaryedited volumesand journals (e.g. Bahn 1992; Conkey and Tringham1995; Conkeywith Williams 1991; Gero 1988; Wright2000). 3 Data and tabulationsfrom this bibliographic review are on filewith the author. 4 Note, however,that some feministarchaeologists (e.g. Joyce1996, 2000) have found thatmodels of genderperformativity and otherdeconstructive approaches to gender actuallyenhance the archaeological'visibility' of prehistoricgendered identities and practices. 5 Withthis in mindit is notsurprising that one ofthe most prominent uses ofqueer theory in archaeologyat presentis foundin the interpretationof archaeologicallyrecovered representationalimagery, as in the worksof Joyce(1996, 2000), Meskell (1996, 1998, 2000), and Vasey (1998) on imageryof thebody in prehistoricMesoamerica, Egypt and Europe, respectively.

References

Bahn,P. G. 1992.Review of engendering archaeology. Journal of , 1: 338-44. Balme,J. and Beck,W. (eds) 1995.Gendered Archaeology: The SecondAustralian Women in ArchaeologyConference. Canberra: Australian National University Publications. Bayer,R. 1989.Private Acts, Social Consequences:AIDS and thePolitics of PublicHealth. New York:The FreePress. Berlant,L. andFreeman, E. 1993.Queer nationality. In Fearof a QueerPlanet: Queer Politics and Social Theory(ed. M. Warner).Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 193-229. Berube,A. 1996.The history of gay bathhouses. In PolicingPublic Sex (ed. D. Bedfellows).Boston, MA: SouthEnd Press,pp. 187-221. Bland,L. and Doan, L. (eds) 1998.Sexology in Culture:Labeling Bodies and Desires.Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. Brumfiel,E. M. 1991.Weaving and cooking: women's production in Aztec Mexico. In Engendering Archaeology:Women and Prehistory(eds J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey).Cambridge, MA: Blackwell,pp. 224-54. Brumfiel,E. 1992.Distinguished lecture in archaeology:breaking and enteringthe ecosystem - gender,class, and faction steal the show. , 91:551-67. Butler,J. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and theSubversion of Identity. New York: Routledge. Butler,J. 1993a. Bodies that Matter: On theDiscursive Limits of 'Sex'.London: Routledge. Butler,J. 1993b. Imitation and gender insubordination. In The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader (eds H. Abelove,M. A. Baraleand D. Halperin).New York: Routledge, pp. 307-20. Claassen,C. P. 1991.Gender, shellfishing, and theshell mound archaic. In EngenderingArchae- ology:Women and Prehistory (eds J. M. Geroand M. W. Conkey).Cambridge, MA: Blackwell,pp. 276-300. Claassen,C. (ed.) 1992a.Exploring Gender through Archaeology: Selected Papers from the 1991 Boone Conference.Madison, WI: PrehistoryPress. Claassen,C. 1992b.Questioning gender: an introduction.In Exploring Gender through Archaeology:

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Feminisms,queer theories,past sexualities 189

SelectedPapers from the 1991 Boone Conference(ed. C. Claassen). Madison,WI: PrehistoryPress, pp. 1-10. Claassen, C. and Joyce,R. A. (eds) 1997. Womenin Prehistory:North America and Mesoamerica. Philadelphia:University of PennsylvaniaPress. Conkey,M. W. and Gero, J.1991. Tensions,pluralities, and engenderingarchaeology: an introduc- tionto womenand prehistory.In EngenderingArchaeology: Women and Prehistory(eds J.M. Gero and M. W. Conkey). Cambridge,MA: Blackwell,pp. 3-30. Conkey,M. W. and Gero, J. 1997. From programmeto practice:gender and feminismin archae- ology.Annual Reviewof Anthropology,26: 411-37. Conkey,M. W. and Spector,J. D. 1984.Archaeology and thestudy of gender.Advances in Archaeo- logical Methodand Theory,7: 1-32. Conkey,M. W. and Tringham,R. E. 1995. Archaeologyand the goddess:exploring the contoursof feministarchaeology. In Feminismsin theAcademy (eds D. C. Stantonand A. J. Stewart).Ann Arbor:University of MichiganPress, pp. 199-247. Conkey,M. W. withWilliams, S. H. 1991. Originalnarratives: the politicaleconomy of genderin archaeology.In Genderat theCrossroads of Knowledge: in thePostmodern Era (ed. M. d. Leonardo). Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress, pp. 102-39. Conkey,M. W. and Wylie,A. 1999. Summaryof 'Doing archaeologyas a feminist:moving from theoryto practice'.Newsletter of the Womenin ArchaeologyInterest Group, for American Archaeology,1(2): 3-4. Crimp,D. and Rolston,A. 1990.AIDS Demo Graphics.Seattle: Bay Press. Dangerous Bedfellows (eds) 1996. Policing Public Sex: Queer Politics and the Futureof AIDS Activism.Boston, MA: South End Press. de Lauretis,T. 1991. Queer theory:lesbian and gay sexualities:an introduction.Differences, 3(2): iii-xviii. Deagan, K. (ed.) 1983. Spanish St. Augustine:The Archaeologyof a Colonial Creole Community. New York: Academic Press. du Cros, H. and Smith,L. (eds) 1993. :A FeministCritique. Canberra: Departmentof Prehistory,The AustralianNational University. Duggan, L. 1995. The disciplineproblem: queer theorymeets lesbian and gay history.GLQ: A Journalof Lesbian and Gay Studies,2(3): 179-92. Duggan,L. and Hunter,N. D. (eds) 1995.Sex Wars:Sexual Dissentand PoliticalCulture. New York: Routledge. Ehrenberg,M. 1989. Womenin Prehistory.London: BritishMuseum Publications. Foucault,M. 1978. The Historyof Sexuality,Vol. I: An Introduction(trans. Robert Hurley). New York: Pantheon. Gero, J.M. 1988. Gender bias in archaeology:here, then, and now. In Feminismwithin the Science and HealthCare Professions:Overcoming Resistance (ed. S. V. Rosser). New York:Pergamon Press, pp. 33-43. Gero, J.1991. Genderlithics:women's roles in production.In EngenderingArchaeology: Womenand Prehistory(eds J.M. Gero and M. W. Conkey). Cambridge,MA: Blackwell,pp. 163-93. Gero, J. M. and Conkey,M. W. (eds) 1991. EngenderingArchaeology: Women and Prehistory. Cambridge,MA: Blackwell. Gibb, J. G. and King,J. A. 1991. Gender,activity areas, and homelotsin the 17thcentury Chesa- peake region., 25(4): 109-31.

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 190 Barbara L. Voss

Gilchrist,R. 1994. Genderand MaterialCulture: The Archaeologyof ReligiousWomen. New York: Routledge. Gilchrist,R. 1999. Genderand Archaeology:Contesting the Past. London: Routledge. Grosz, E. A. 1989. Sexual Subversions:Three French Feminists. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Grosz,E. A. and Probyn,E. (eds) 1995. SexyBodies: The StrangeCarnalities of Feminism.London: Routledge. Hanen, M. P. and J.Kelley 1992. Gender and archaeologicalknowledge. In Metaarchaeology(ed. L. Embree). Boston,MA: Reidel, pp. 195-227. Harding,S. 1986. The Science Questionin Feminism.Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press. Harding,S. 1987. Introduction:is therea feministmethod? In Feminismand Methodology:Social ScienceIssues (ed. S. Harding).Bloomington: Indiana UniversityPress, pp. 1-14. Hastorf,C. A. 1991. Gender,space, and food in prehistory.In EngenderingArchaeology: Women and Prehistory(eds J.M. Gero and M. W. Conkey). Cambridge,MA: Blackwell,pp. 132-62. Jackson,T. L. 1991. Poundingacorn: women's production as social and economicfocus. In Engen- deringArchaeology: Women and Prehistory(eds J.M. Gero and M. W. Conkey). Cambridge,MA: Blackwell,pp. 301-28. Jagger,A. M. 1983. FeministPolitics and Human Nature.Sussex: Rowman & Allanheld. Joyce,R. A. 1996. The constructionof genderin classicMaya monuments.In Genderand Archae- ology (ed. R. P. Wright).Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress, pp. 167-98. Joyce,R. 2000. A Precolumbiangaze: male sexualityamong the AncientMaya. In Archaeologies of Sexuality(eds R. A. Schmidtand B. L. Voss). London: Routledge,in press. Joyce,R. A. and Claassen, C. 1997. Women in the ancientAmericas: archaeologists, gender, and the making of prehistory.In Women in Prehistory:North America and Mesoamerica (eds C. Claassen and R. A. Joyce).Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress, pp. 1-14. Katz, J. 1976. Gay AmericanHistory: Lesbians and in the U.S.A. New York: Thomas Crowell. Linden,R. R., Pagano, D. R., Russell,D. E. H. and Star,S. L. (eds) 1982.Against Sadomasochism: A Radical FeministAnalysis. East Palo Alto, CA: Frog In The Well Press. Meskell,L. 1996.The somatizationof archaeology: institutions, discourses, corporeality. Norwegian ArchaeologicalReview, 29(1): 2-16. Meskell, L. 1998. An archaeologyof social relationsin an Egyptianvillage. Journal of Archaeo- logical Methodand Theory,5(3): 209-43. Meskell,L. 2000. Re-em(bed)ingsex: domesticity,sexuality, and ritualin New KingdomEgypt. In Archaeologiesof Sexuality(eds R. A. Schmidtand B. L. Voss). London: Routledge,in press. Miller,V. E. (ed.) 1988. The Role of Genderin PrecolumbianArt and Architecture.Washington, DC: UniversityPress of America. Moore, J.and Scott,E. (eds) 1997. InvisiblePeople and Processes:Writing Gender and Childhood intoEuropean Archaeology.London: LeicesterUniversity Press. Nelson, S. M. 1997. Gender In Archaeology:Analyzing Power and Prestige.Walnut Creek, CA: AltamiraPress. Ortner,S. B. and Whitehead,H. (eds) 1981. Sexual Meanings:The CulturalConstruction of Gender and Sexuality.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reiter,R. R. (ed.) 1975. Towardan Anthropologyof Women.New York: MonthlyReview Press. Roberts,C. 1993. A criticalapproach to genderas a categoryof analysisin archaeology.In Women

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Feminisms,queer theories,past sexualities 191 in Archaeology:A FeministCritique (eds H. du Cros and L. Smith). Canberra: Departmentof Prehistory,The AustralianNational University,pp. 16-21. Rosaldo, M. Z. and Lamphere,L. (eds) 1974. Women,Culture, and Society.Stanford, CA: Stanford UniversityPress. Rowbotham,S. and Weeks,J. 1977. Socialismand theNew Life: The Personaland Sexual Politicsof Edward Carpenterand Havelock Ellis. London: Pluto Press. Rubin,G. 1975.The trafficin women:notes on the 'PoliticalEconomy' ofsex. In Towardan Anthro- pology of Women(ed. R. R. Reiter). New York: MonthlyReview Press,pp. 157-210. Rubin,G. 1984. Thinkingsex: notes fora radicaltheory of the politicsof sexuality.In Pleasure and Danger: ExploringFemale Sexuality(ed. C. S. Vance). London: Pandora, pp. 267-319. Rubin, G. 1994. Sexual traffic:an interviewwith . differences: A Journalof Feminist CulturalStudies, 6(2 + 3): 62-99. Rubin,G. 2000. Sites,settlements, and urban sex: archaeologyand the studyof gay leathermenin San Francisco, 1955-1995. In Archaeologiesof Sexuality(eds R. A. Schmidtand B. L. Voss). London: Routledge,in press. SAMOIS (ed.) 1982. Comingto Power: Writings and Graphicson Lesbian SIM. Boston,MA: Alyson Publications. Schmidt,R. A. and Voss, B. L. (eds) 2000. Archaeologiesof Sexuality.London: Routledge. Sedgwick,E. K. 1990. Epistemologyof theCloset. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress. Seifert,D. J. (ed.) 1991. HistoricalArchaeology: Gender in HistoricalArchaeology, 25(4). Smith-Rosenberg,C. 1979. The femaleworld of love and ritual:relations between women in nine- teenth-centuryAmerica. In A Heritageof Her Own (eds N. F. Cott and E. H. Pleck). New York: Simon & Schuster,Touchstone, pp. 311-42. Snitow,A., Stansell,C. and Thompson,S. (eds) 1983. Powers of Desire: The Politicsof Sexuality. New York: MonthlyReview Press. Spector,J. D. 1991. What thisawl means: towarda feministarchaeology. In EngenderingArchae- ology:Women and Prehistory(eds J.M. Gero and M. W. Conkey). Cambridge,MA: Blackwell,pp. 388-406. Spector,J. D. 1993. WhatThis Awl Means: FeministArchaeology at a WahpetonDakota Village.St. Paul, Minnesota:Minnesota Historical Society Press. Vance, C. S. (ed.) 1984. Pleasureand Danger: ExploringFemale Sexuality.New York: Routledge& Kegan Paul. Vasey, P. L. 1998. Intimatesexual relationsin prehistory:lessons fromthe Japanese Macaques. WorldArchaeology, 29(3): 407-25. Voss, B. L. and Schmidt,R. A. 2000. Archaeologiesof sexuality:an introduction.In Archaeologies of Sexuality(eds R. A. Schmidtand B. L. Voss). London: Routledge,in press. Walde, D. and Willows,N. D. (eds) 1991. The Archaeologyof Gender:Proceedings of the Twenty- Second Annual Conferenceof theArchaeological Association of theUniversity of Calgary.Calgary: ArchaeologicalAssociation of the Universityof Calgary. Wall,D. de 1994. TheArchaeology of Gender:Separating the Spheres in UrbanAmerica. New York: PlenumPress. Warner,M. (ed.) 1993. Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politicsand Social Theory.Minneapolis: Universityof MinnesotaPress. Watson,P. J.and Kennedy,M. C. 1991. The developmentof horticulturein the easternwoodlands:

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 192 Barbara L. Voss women's role. In EngenderingArchaeology: Women and Prehistory(eds J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey). Cambridge,MA: Blackwell,pp. 255-75. Weeks, J. 1977. Coming Out: Homosexual Politicsin Britainfrom the NineteenthCentury to the Present.London: Quartet. Wright,R. P. 1991. Women's labor and potteryproduction in prehistory.In EngenderingArchae- ology:Women and Prehistory(eds J.M. Gero and M. W. Conkey). Cambridge,MA: Blackwell,pp. 194-223. Wright,R. P. (ed.) 1996. Genderand Archaeology.Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress. Wright,R. P. 2000.Digging women: feminism comes to archaeology.The Women'sReview of Books, 17(5): 18-19. Wylie,A. 1991. Feministcritiques and archaeologicalchallenges. In The Archaeologyof Gender: Proceedingsof the Twenty-SecondAnnual Conferenceof the ArchaeologicalAssociation of the Universityof Calgary(eds D. Walde and N. D. Willows). Calgary:Archaeological Association of the Universityof Calgary,pp. 17-23. Wylie,A. 1992. Reasoningabout ourselves:feminist methodology in the social sciences.In Women and Reason (eds E. Harveyand K. Okruhlik).Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press, pp. 225-44. Wylie,A. 1996. The constitutionof archaeologicalevidence: genderpolitics and science. In The Disunityof Science:Boundaries, Contexts, Power (eds P. Galison and D. J.Stump). Stanford,CA: StanfordUniversity Press, pp. 311-43. Wylie,A. 1997a. Good science,bad science,or science as usual? Feministcritiques of science. In Womenand Human (ed. L. D. Hager). London: Routledge,pp. 29-55. Wylie,A. 1997b. The engenderingof archaeology:refiguring feminist science studies.Osiris, 12: 80-99. Wylie,A. in press.Doing social science as a feminist:the engenderingof archaeology.In Science, Medicine,Technology: The DifferenceFeminism Has Made (eds A. N. H. Creager,E. Lunbeck,and L. Schiebinger).Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press,in press.

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions