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

Abstract

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

Becoming Gendered in European Prehistory: Was Neolithic Gender Fundamentally Different?

“…Was Bronze Age gender binary? The assumption that gender is inherently binary has come under broad, well-considered critique (e.g., Arnold 2016; Ghisleni et al 2016; Joyce 2008; Schmidt 2005; Voss 2005), building strongly on Butler (1990). As Weismantel (2013:322) points out, most gender archaeologies have problematically assumed that gender is fundamentally binary.…”

Gender and medieval archaeology: storming the castle

“…Gilchrist 2012; Robb & Harris 2013), archaeologies of the life course and the body have largely been neglected. Studies that include Queer theory (Dowson 2000; Voss 2000; Ghisleni et al 2016) are absent. Gendered interpretations that explore LGBTQ+ perspectives are non-existent and very rare across archaeology more generally.…”

Beyond the martial façade: gender, heritage and medieval castles

“…'Things' allow for evidence-based, people-centred narratives that account for daily life and lived experience. We must read the archaeological record beyond the 'binary bind' (Ghisleni et al 2016): objects can, do and did transmit and embody coded messages, including same-sex desire and expressions of gendered identities. Castle-studies has rich potential to create multi-vocal accounts of the medieval past to inform heritage interpretation at castle sites.…”