Identity and Difference: Complicating Gender in Archaeology

Geller, Pamela L.

doi:10.1146/annurev-anthro-091908-164414

Cited by 59 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 80 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Preserved skeletonized bodies/body parts can be analyzed as biological specimens, as artifacts, and as symbols. The body is biomechanically and culturally shaped, historically situated, and subject to varying social processes (Joyce, ; Sofaer, ; Geller, ). Reading traumatic injuries on the bones, whether the researcher is a bioarchaeologist, paleopathologist, or forensic anthropologist, can offer insights into violent encounters and provide a unique contribution to understanding the meaning of violence among past human groups (Walker, ; Martin and Harrod, ).…”

Section: The Study Of Human Skeletal Remains – Bioarchaeology Paleopmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bioarchaeological contributions to the study of violence

Martin

Harrod

2014

American J Phys Anthropol

138

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The bioarchaeological record has an abundance of scientific evidence based on skeletal indicators of trauma to argue for a long history of internal and external group conflict. However, the findings also suggest variability, nuance, and unevenness in the type, use, and meaning of violence across time and space and therefore defy generalizations or easy quantification. Documenting violence-related behaviors provides an overview of the often unique and sometimes patterned cultural use of violence. Violence (lethal and nonlethal) is often associated with social spheres of influence and power connected to daily life such as subsistence intensification, specialization, competition for scarce resources, climate, population density, territorial protection and presence of immigrants, to name just a few. By using fine-grained biocultural analyses that interrogate trauma data in particular places at particular times in reconstructed archaeological contexts, a more comprehensive view into the histories and experiences of violence emerges. Moreover, identifying culturally specific patterns related to age, sex, and social status provide an increasingly complex picture of early small-scale groups. Some forms of ritual violence also have restorative and regenerative aspects that strengthen community identity. Bioarchaeological data can shed light on the ways that violence becomes part of a given cultural landscape. Viewed in a biocultural context, evidence of osteological trauma provides rich insights into social relationships and the many ways that violence is embedded within those relation- This review provides a broad perspective on violence from studies looking at human skeletal remains (e.g., bioarchaeology, paleopathology, and forensic anthropology). Violence is a phenomenon that is found in varying expressions in all cultures stretching back to the Paleolithic (Bocquentin and Bar-Yosef, 2004;Estabrook and Frayer, 2014) and possibly farther (Ant on, 2003;Kimbel and Delezene, 2009). Having worked in the area of ancient violence for a number of years we approached this review as a way to offer new frameworks for thinking about violence in the past from the perspective of biological or physical anthropology, which like all other fields of study in anthropology, is scientific, comparative, and cross-cultural in approach.Many researchers use a variety of terms interchangeably such as violence, conflict, and aggression. Our own personal preference is to avoid using the term aggression for humans because it is often used in animal studies and does not imply a connection to culture or to meaning. This is an important distinction because aggression does not always translate into violent behavior. Definitions of violence often imply intentionality, motivation, and culturally defined meaning. What is considered violence in one culture may not be in others. Violence is often socially sanctioned and organized but aggression need not be. Violence can be individual or collective but aggression more often is analyzed at the indi...

show abstract

Section: The Study Of Human Skeletal Remains – Bioarchaeology Paleopmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bioarchaeological contributions to the study of violence

Martin

Harrod

2014

American J Phys Anthropol

138

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A autora alerta para o perigo de se projetar no passado as ansiedades ocidentais atuais quanto à reprodução, à monogamia, à família, ao dimorfismo sexual e ao binarismo de gênero, ao examinar a maneira como se constituiu pejorativamente, em arqueologia e em antropologia, a primazia da caça sobre a coleta, sendo a primeira considerada como masculina e superior, e a segunda, feminina e inferior (DAHLBERG, 1981;LEE & DeVORE, 1968). Enfim, conclui-se que os métodos de determinação sexual são culturalmente elaborados e não estão imunes aos juízos de valor vigentes, o que influencia a interpretação dos dados bioarqueólogicos, em particular no que diz respeito às definições, considerações ou caracterizações de sexo, gênero e sexualidade (GELLER, 2008(GELLER, , 2009HOLLIMON, 2011;SOFAER, 2006) 5 . A partir da teoria queer, não se trata mais de questionar, assim, "se" existem outras formas de expressões sexuais para além do dimorfismo sexual e do binarismo de gênero.…”

Section: A Crítica Feminista a Teoria Queer E Algumas Considerações unclassified

Sexualidade e Teoria Queer

Gontijo

Schaan

2017

rsab

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Este artigo parte de várias perguntas e inquietações que dizem respeito ao lugar dos estudos sobre sexualidade na arqueologia brasileira. Iniciamos apresentando a relação entre os estudos de gênero e os estudos de sexualidade, um pouco do legado da crítica feminista na formação da teoria queer e da perspectiva construtivista em bioarqueologia no que diz respeito às (re)considerações de sexo, sexualidade e gênero. Em seguida, mostramos como se instituiu, ao longo da década de 2000, nos Estados Unidos e nos países de língua inglesa em geral, o que vem se convencionando chamar de queer archaeology ou uma arqueologia informada pela teoria queer. Por fim, terminamos com a análise da exígua produção brasileira sobre sexualidade no âmbito da arqueologia e exortamos para que um campo de estudos de sexualidade comum à arqueologia e à antropologia seja constituído no Brasil. Palavras-chave: Arqueologia; Sexualidade; Teoria Queer. ABSTRACTThis article is based on several questions and concerns related to the place of sexuality studies in Brazilian archaeology. We begin by presenting the relationship between gender studies and sexuality studies, a little bit on the legacy of feminist critique in the formation of queer theory, and the constructivist perspective in bioarchaeology with regard to (re) considerations of sex, sexuality and gender. We then show how, throughout the United States and English-speaking countries, what has come to be known as queer archaeology or an archaeology informed by Queer theory was instituted throughout the 2000s. Finally, we end with the analysis of the limited Brazilian production on sexuality in the field of archaeology and we urge that a field of sexuality studies common to archaeology and anthropology be constituted in Brazil.

show abstract

“…Thomas Laqueur (1990: 13) Whether or not archaeologists have followed the challenge posed by Butler and others to the social constructionist position of the sex/gender system (see Bolger 2013b: 6, 13), appealing to the contingence of both concepts has shifted focus to plurality, fluidity, and the regulatory practices that constitute difference (Geller 2009b). Many scholars now approach sex and gender as a continuum (Arnold 2002: 239;Fausto-Sterling 1993Geller 2005: 598), emergent in practice (Gilchrist 1999;Sørensen 2000), and potentially variable throughout the life course (Gilchrist 2004;Hollimon 2000;Sofaer 2006).…”

Section: Destabilizing the Binary Binds: Approaches To Differencementioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction to “Binary Binds”: Deconstructing Sex and Gender Dichotomies in Archaeological Practice

Ghisleni

Jordan

Fioccoprile

2016

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gender archaeology has made significant strides toward deconstructing the hegemony of binary categorizations. Challenging dichotomies such as man/woman, sex/gender, and biology/culture, approaches informed by poststructuralist, feminist, and queer theories have moved beyond essentialist and universalist identity constructs to more nuanced configurations. Despite the theoretical emphasis on context, multiplicity, and fluidity, binary starting points continue to streamline the spectrum of variability that is recognized, often reproducing normative assumptions in the evidence. The contributors to this special issue confront how sex, gender, and sexuality categories condition analytical visibility, aiming to develop approaches that respond to the complexity of theory in archaeological practice. The papers push the ontological and epistemological boundaries of bodies, personhood, and archaeological possibility, challenging a priori assumptions that contain how sex, gender, and sexuality categories are constituted and related to each other. Foregrounding intersectional approaches that engage with ambiguity, variability, and difference, this special issue seeks to "de-contain" categories, assumptions, and practices from "binding" our analytical gaze toward only certain kinds of persons and knowledges, in interpretations of the past and practices in the present.The interpretation of sex and gender in archaeology has long been contained by the social polarity of "man" and "woman" as well as the confinement of sex in biology and gender in culture (Joyce 2008;Sofaer 2006;Yates 1993)-what we term the "binary binds." The aim of this special issue is to critically engage with and move beyond the limitations of sex and gender dichotomies in archaeological narratives, with an emphasis on developing approaches that respond to the complexity of theory in practices. The 2 articles emerged from the Archaeology and Gender in Europe 1 (Dommasnes and Montón-Subías 2012: 374, 382) sponsored session at the 2014 Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists in Istanbul, Turkey. Contributors were challenged to rethink the analytical categories that frame archaeological reconstructions of sex, gender, and sexuality, exploring how binary starting points and methodological practices condition and constrain interpretations of sex and gender variability.We recognize that a call to critically interrogate sex and gender dichotomies is not new. The binary binds and their hierarchical confinement of biological and social difference have been loci of contestation since the emergence of gender as an analytical category in archaeology (e.g., Claassen ). In the past three decades, gender archaeology has made significant strides toward deconstructing the imperatives of these dichotomies, informed by poststructuralist, feminist, and queer

show abstract

Identity and Difference: Complicating Gender in Archaeology

Cited by 59 publications

References 80 publications

Bioarchaeological contributions to the study of violence

Bioarchaeological contributions to the study of violence

Sexualidade e Teoria Queer

Introduction to “Binary Binds”: Deconstructing Sex and Gender Dichotomies in Archaeological Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About