GENDER IN ARCHAEOLOGY: Introduction, Concept, Theories, Significance, Methods, feminist

The Concept and theories of Gender in Archaeology  

Gender is the information that archaeologists have not been able to recover due to a lack of a theoretical and methodological framework to do so; yet, gender statements have not been absent from archaeological interpretation. Many archaeologists have included assumptions about roles and relationships despite methodological obstacles. Most other features of historical cultural systems in which archaeologists have always been interested are related to and are a part of gender behavior organization. To continue to pursue some research objectives set out for: site functions and uses; task-based subsistence systems; inter- and intra-site spatial phenomena; the power and role of material culture; mechanisms of cultural solidarity and integration; extra-domestic trade and exchange system; and the course of culture change, archaeologists must understand gender dynamics at some level. This chapter raises awareness of archaeologists' role in utilizing and propagating gender stereotypes and androcentric viewpoints. Archaeologists should also be able to see how two connected areas are at the root of the difficulties to understanding previous gender arrangements and ideology. 

However, the rise of the global Women's Movement, the necessity for a gender anthropology became evident, but the concept of a gender archaeology took longer to catch on. The idea was sparked by a rising number of female archaeologists who realized that they did not have the same access to training, jobs, and advancements as their male counterparts. Some women began to question how women in the past were disregarded or trivialized in archaeological reports, or thrown together into an undifferentiated mass, in the process of trying to comprehend the situation and seeking solutions to achieve equity in these concerns. Although archaeologists as a whole did not take gender in archaeology seriously at first, gendered issues were addressed in several allied professions. Women who researched early human fossils proposed the concept of "Woman the Gatherer" to counter the "Man the Hunter" paradigm of humanity's origin. This line of research was started in the 1970s by Adrienne Zihlman and Nancy Tanner, both of the University of California in Santa Cruz. However, they were more interested in human fossils than archaeology. Sarah Pomeroy, a classicist and art historian, wrote the first book on women in the ancient Mediterranean civilization (Goddess, Whores, Wives, and Slaves, 1975). Myths, records, painted images, and statues were among her sources, but not archaeological sites. Historic archaeologists have the resources to discuss gender issues as soon as the question was brought up, thanks to a variety of written materials such as diaries, wills, and deeds, as well as artefacts and features. Suzanne Spencer-Wood, an American historical archaeologist, organized the first session on gender at a historic archaeology convention in 1986. With no images or texts to work with, women in prehistoric archaeology did not immediately follow suit. 

Interest in gender in prehistoric archaeology began to emerge in Europe, the Americas, and Australia as early as the 1970s. The first meeting to focus emphasis on women as archaeology subjects was held in Norway in 1979, and the feedback were published in 1987 under the title "Were They All Men?" Joan Gero and Alison Wylie published articles in 1983 in a departmental journal that was not well known but significant nonetheless, focusing on the subject of the organization of archaeological practice. In May 1991, women in Germany created the Netzwerk der Archaeologishe Arbeitsde Frauen, which includes a newsletter (which is still active). 

Their argument was bolstered by archaeology. This article explains why gender archaeology is important and gives instances of how gender considerations without androcentrism would have enhanced the published conclusions concerning some well-known sites.

There were a lot of meetings and conferences. Engendering Archaeology: Women in Prehistory was published as a consequence of an invitational symposium organized by Joan Gero and Margaret Conkey. Margaret Ehrenberg, a European archaeologist, released Women in Prehistory about the same period, drawing on all known material but primarily from European archaeology. We have created a CD. At the Chacmool Conference in Calgary, Canada, in 1989, the largest gathering of archaeologists concerned in gender got together. The introduction of the gender theme resulted in a flood of papers from English-speaking women around the world. The Archaeology of Gender was first published in 1991. The inaugural Boone Conference, organized by Cheryl Claassen, an archaeologist specializing in the American southeast, took place in 1992, followed by others in succeeding years. This conference is now known as the Gender in Archaeology Conference, and it takes place every two years at different colleges around the United States. Archaeologists from all over the world are frequently present. The Australian Women in Archaeology conferences are similar in this regard. In the 1980s, papers on gender in archaeology were heard by the Theoretical Archaeology Group in the United Kingdom.

Meaning of Gender in Archeology 

Gender archaeology is the study of men and women's roles, actions, philosophies, and identities, as well as the contrasts between them. This topic is crucial in reversing a number of prior trends. These include seeing everything in archaeology through the eyes of men (androcentrism), only comprehending women in biological roles such as mother and sexual partner, and characterizing men and women's differences as polar opposites. While men are thought to be stronger than women in some societies, there are probably none where all men are thought to be stronger than all women (but there are cultures in which women are believed to be stronger than men). As a result, the archaeology of gender was created to help balance archaeological interest in men and women by directing as much attention to women's activities as men's, to demonstrate that women are not the same in all cultures and that their activities are therefore of interest for comparative studies, and to help turn archaeology into a discipline that is concerned with people rather than just artefacts. 

Gender and the Feminist Movement in archaeology been

This trend of deepening critique may be found in feminist study in a variety of domains. Dorothy Smith, who articulated the rationale for feminist standpoint theory with Nancy Hartsock (1983), intended to expose the patriarchal, elitist "ruling practices" that structured sociology at the time as patriarchal, elitist "ruling practices," whatever their pretensions to neutral and inevitability (1974, 1978). Hers was a razor-sharp ironic and revolutionary form of constructionism aimed not only at countering the descriptive and theoretical "eclipse" of women and other marginalized subjects of sociological inquiry (1987: 17), but also at challenging the influence of the aperspectival ideals of objectivity associated with positivist commitments that gave these accounts authority. She was far from alone in this, as a large number of other feminist scholars distanced themselves from any questioning of the standards that define what it means to conduct respectable research in their fields.  

In a practice that Sandra Harding described as "spontaneous or naive feminist empiricism" in the mid-1980s, they used traditional modes of inquiry to correct androcentric errors, fill lacunae, and open up new lines of inquiry (1986: 161-2; Hundleby 2007: 31-2). Even when their motive is openly political – to combat existing research traditions' androcentrism and sexism; to better comprehend oppressive conditions in order to effectively alter them - they staunchly maintain traditional objectivity principles.  Despite this, the rehabilitation process itself has the potential to erode trust in these ideals. If neutral, aperspectival science as usual is self-correcting, why were prevalent androcentric and sexist omissions and distortions uncovered only after a critical mass of women entered their respective professions, bringing a gendered and, in some cases, overtly feminist perspective to bear? The critical and constructive successes of these research initiatives highlighted the situated interests entrenched in framework assumptions and brought into question the justification standards that had permitted them to continue unchecked. In short, constructionist analyses have a tendency to spread; it is impossible to limit their reach by aim or commitment level. 

Gender as a subject of archaeology has clearly elicited serious concern for much-needed changes of archaeological accounts that have systematically overlooked, discounted, or underestimated women's roles, activities, contributions, and innovations. Gender relations, gender dynamics, and explicitly engendered past human societies, as well as the roles and impacts of gender (in its broadest senses) in human life, cultural change, and human histories, are all of interest. Gender as a subject of archaeology has clearly elicited serious concern for much-needed changes of archaeological accounts that have systematically overlooked, discounted, or underestimated women's roles, activities, contributions, and innovations. Gender relations, gender dynamics, and explicitly engendered past human societies, as well as the roles and impacts of gender (in its broadest senses) in human life, cultural change, and human histories, are all of interest. Certain extra issues are immediately implicated as a result of these genuine concerns with a freshly gendered and peopled past. From the start, it was clear that the interpretations of earlier human cultures were riddled with biases—where were the women? Others critiques raised by investigators like Leone (1973, 1982), Trigger (1984), or Gero et al. clearly fed on and were fed by other critiques raised by investigators like Leone (1973, 1982), Trigger (1984), or Gero et al (1983). However, subsequent archaeological studies of gender and more general critiques of the discipline have not always taken advantage of the well-established literature on gender theory and feminist critiques of science, particularly when it comes to issues of interpreting human cultures and scientific practice organization. While Bergman (1995, p. 235) can confidently assert that interconnected critiques of essentialism and scientific authority have informed feminist anthropology, we are not so convinced the same can be said for anthropological archaeology. 

We now see feminist resources as critical to comprehending the production of archaeological knowledge, as well as the sociology of the discipline in general and the possibilities of gender study in particular. These viewpoints are important not only for gender studies in archaeology, but also for archaeology as a whole. Essentialism, inequality and power relationships, social categorization, political economy, rationality and ways of knowing, ideology, meaning and symbol formation, materiality and agency are all topics covered in feminist literature. Whether or whether they are centered on gender, most or all of these are critical to the archaeological endeavor, and they frequently offer profoundly novel twists and challenges to the manner in which our traditional categories operate.

Patai & Koertge (1994), in a recent and harshly critical attack on women's studies, suggested that while learning about women is useful, engaging in a "fundamental reconsideration of all the assumptions and ideals contained in traditional study" is simply harmful. Sternhill's (1994) critical critique of Patai & Koertge (and also Sommers 1994) holds a lot of water for us, asserting that feminist philosophy is "intended to be dangerous" and that "radical reappraisal—rigorous, scholarly, informed—is required."

It is simply "bad research" to disregard a broad and diverse body of theoretical, analytical, and conceptual alternatives that connect directly to and substantively inform the concerns at hand if we want to investigate a reconfiguration of contemporary archaeology. Gender theory literature, archaeological feminism readings (e.g. biographies of women and equity studies), and nonarchaeological feminist criticisms of science are also included. "Do the readings have to be done by me?" Yes, we believe the answer is "yes." 

The Significance of Gender in archaeology

In archaeological research, the terms "sex" and "gender" are frequently interchanged. By linking gender to the biological perspective of sex, this denies gender's cultural constructiveness. Gender can be found in material culture and can reveal how a culture was built socially. Gender archaeology is a method of exploring the social development of gender identities and relationships in previous societies through their material culture. 

Gender archaeologists analyze men, women, and children's relative places in society by identifying and examining the inequalities in power and authority they had as expressed in material (and skeletal) remains. These distinctions can be preserved in the physical record, albeit they are not always obvious and are frequently open to interpretation. Gender interactions can also influence ties among other social groups, such as families, different classes, ages, and religions. 

In gender archaeology, feminist theory has added fresh perspectives and biases to the general archaeological theory. This new feminist perspective in archaeology was sparked by the fast transformation of Western societies' vision and understanding of gender in the twentieth century. The feminist movement in the late 1960s was the catalyst for the formation of this viewpoint. 

Gender archaeology differs from other variants of the discipline that emerged around the same time, such as working-class archaeology, indigenous archaeology, and community archaeology, in that "rather than simply representing an alternate focus of research, it has established itself as a necessary and integral part of all other archaeologies," according to archaeologist Bruce Trigger. 

Methods  for  analyzing  and  interpreting  gender  in  archaeology 

What is gender analysis and how does it work?

Gender analysis refers to a set of techniques for analyzing men and women's interactions, including their access to resources, their behaviors, and the constraints they confront in relation to one another. Gender analysis provides data that recognizes that gender, as well as its relationship to race, ethnicity, culture, class, age, disability, and/or other status, is important in understanding the different patterns of involvement, behavior, and activities that women and men have in economic, social, and legal structures.

Gender analysis is an important part of socioeconomic research. Gender relations are a factor in all social and economic relationships, therefore a thorough socioeconomic analysis would include them. Gender relations analysis gives information on the various conditions that women and men confront, as well as the various consequences that policies and programs may have on them as a result of their circumstances. Such data can help to inform and enhance policies and initiatives, and it's critical for meeting the needs of both men and women. 

Gender analysis at the local level highlights the many roles that women, men, girls, and boys play in the family, community, and economic, legal, and political structures. The causes behind the existing allocation of responsibilities and benefits, as well as their impact on the distribution of rewards and incentives, are examined from a gender perspective. 

Gender Analysis in Development Cooperation

Understanding socioeconomic relations, particularly gender interactions, is critical for creating and implementing effective development cooperation projects. Analyzing the different conditions of men and women can help us understand the various affects that legislation, cultural norms, policies, and programs can have on women and men.

Gender analysis provides data on women's and men's access to and control over resources, which can be utilized to reduce gaps, challenge systemic inequities (which disproportionately affect women), and develop efficient and equitable solutions. The data collected during the research stage of the study should make the inequalities between men and women explicit (using sex-disaggregated data) so that policies, programs, and initiatives can develop effective activities that promote equality. Because gender relations evolve over time and in different contexts, any development endeavor should include a gender analysis. 

Gender analysis can also reveal ways to promote gender equality as part of efforts for long-term development, ensuring maximum efficiency in achieving development goals. It must be a part of every step of a development program, from idea and design through implementation and assessment, to be most effective. Gender analysis has already led to adjustments in development cooperation plans that previously did not fulfill the demands of women as a result of being a part of this process. 

What can gender analysis tell us?

Examination of gender relations can reveal who has access, who has control, who will profit from a new project, and who will lose out. Gender analysis asks some questions that can lead us to knowledge that will help us understand why a situation has evolved the way it has. It can also prompt us to question our preconceptions about topics like resource distribution and the influence of culture and tradition. It can provide information on how a development initiative may benefit women and men directly or indirectly, on some relevant entry points for policies that promote equality in a specific environment, and on how a development project may challenge or sustain the present gender division of labor. Measures of equity can be established using this data to address inequities and promote equality.

In the instance of elementary education, gender analysis can reveal that there is a gender gap in most nations, i.e., a difference in the enrolment and retention of girls and boys in school. In the majority of countries with gender disparities, the disparity favors girls, whereas in others, it favors boys. In India, a six-year-old girl can expect to attend school for six years, three years less than a six-year-old boy. Girls in rural regions are even worse off: their chances of dropping out of school are three times higher than boys'. Boys, on the other hand, are more likely to drop out of school in Jamaica. Governments are increasingly adopting gender analysis to study the origins of the gap and what actions may be taken to decrease educational system distortions in their efforts to balance the need to address the needs of both girls and boys. 

Gender Analysis Elements

Resources and a commitment to putting the findings of the gender analysis into action are required for a successful gender analysis. Consider the following two key points:

• It necessitates the use of qualified personnel with sufficient resources.
• It benefits from the utilization of local experience; however, the findings must be used to shape policy, program, and project design.  

Gender Research Instruments 

There have been a number of tools developed to aid people in asking these questions. Each tool has its own set of benefits and drawbacks; some are better at accounting for other social features and circumstances, while others are more interactive. Here are a few instances.

The Harvard Analytical Framework is a technique for gathering data from communities and households. An activity profile ('who does what?'), an access and control profile 'who has access and who controls what?', and an analysis of influencing factors ('how does gender effect the profiles?') are the three basic components. 

Information should account for differences between men and women, boys and girls, and should ask questions about the reasons for these differences, regardless of the tool or method used. Without it, development projects will fall short of their goals of promoting long-term development.