Transgender archaeology explained

Transgender archaeology is an approach to archaeology that encompasses how transgender studies and its theoretical approaches can be a tool to understand past cultures and communities around the world.[1] This approach diversifies cisgender approaches to archaeological practice. In 2016, a special issue of the Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory was dedicated to papers that challenged a binary approach to gender.[2] Researchers such as Mary Weismantel have discussed how understanding past gender diversity can support contemporary transgender rights, but have called for transgender archaeology to "not re-populate the ancient past ... but to offer a subtler appreciation of cultural variation". Jan Turek, writing in 2016, described how archaeological interpretation can be limited since "current gender categories do not always correspond with those of a former reality".[3]

This approach draws on and can be applied to a range of disciplines in the field, including figurative analysis,[4] [5] bioarchaeology,[6] [7] and others.[8] For figurines from coastal Ecuador, many of these objects combine both masculine and feminine attributes through either physical characteristics or dress.[9] These figures, interpreted as potentially non-binary or transgender, are found in the Tumaco-La Tolita culture, as well as from Bahía and Jama Coaque cultures. Similarly, analysis of late Bronze Age figurines from Knossos demonstrated that for both faience figurines and ivory bull-leaper figurines, "sexed differences are not clearly marked in a binary fashion".[10] Alberti argues that any sexed differences are highly dependent on the socio-religious context of the figurines, rather than specifically gendered identities. The importance of context is also echoed in work on non-binary and intersex visibility in Roman archaeology.[11]

Bioarchaeological estimates of sex are based on identification of potentially dimorphic features, yet neither gender nor biological sex are entirely binary categories. However, some characteristics that are often viewed as sexually dimorphic may not, depending on the age of the individual whose body is being analysed.[12] For example, cranial robustness tends to be associated as a male characteristic, yet it can also be considered a female characteristic because the effects of menopause can produce the same. Additionally, the categorisation of sex uses a spectrum of female, probable female, ambiguous sex, male and probable male. This is dependent on the confidence of the researcher in the estimation, rather than focus on the possibility of "sex-gender fluidity" in the past.

Studies that support interpretations of gender fluidity include ones on pre-Columbian Maya burial practices, multiple Hidatsa genders during the pre-Columbian era,[13] mortuary practices in Chumash communities,[14] communities during the Copper Age on the Black Sea coast in Bulgaria,[15] the excavation and interpretation of a 5,000-year-old person by the Czech Archaeological Society,[16] the reassessment of grave Bj.581 at Birka,[17] non-binary gender expression in Inuit cultures,[18] Roman Galli,[19] [20] a 1,000-year-old person who likely had Klinefelter syndrome from Finland,[21] the life of Elagabalus,[22] prehistoric burials in Europe,[23] historical archaeology around the Engabao community in Ecuador,[24] material cultures in medieval England,[25] [26] dress in eighteenth-century Ireland,[27] and many others.[28]

See also

References

  1. Web site: Hartemann . Gabby Omoni . 2021-03-31 . Stop Erasing Transgender Stories From History . 2024-04-13 . SAPIENS . en-US.
  2. Ghisleni . Lara . Jordan . Alexis M. . Fioccoprile . Emily . 2016 . Introduction to "Binary Binds": Deconstructing Sex and Gender Dichotomies in Archaeological Practice . Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory . 23 . 3 . 765–787 . 10.1007/s10816-016-9296-9 . 43967040 . 10454/9906 . 1072-5369. free .
  3. Turek . Jan . 2016 . Sex, Transsexuality and Archaeological Perception of Gender Identities . Archaeologies . en . 12 . 3 . 340–358 . 10.1007/s11759-017-9303-0 . 1555-8622.
  4. Ugalde . María Fernanda . 2019 . Las alfareras rebeldes: una mirada desde la arqueología ecuatoriana a las relaciones de género, la opresión femenina y el patriarcado . Antípoda. Revista de Antropología y Arqueología . es . 36 . 33–56 . 10.7440/antipoda36.2019.03 . 1900-5407.
  5. Book: Alberti, Benjamin . Labyrinth revisited: rethinking "Minoan" archaeology . 2002 . Oxbow Books . 978-1-84217-061-8 . Hamilakis . Yannis . Oxford . 98–117 . Gender and the Figurative Art of Late Bronze Age Knossos.
  6. Geller . Pamela L. . 2005 . Skeletal Analysis and Theoretical Complications . World Archaeology . 37 . 4 . 597–609 . 10.1080/00438240500404391 . 40025095 . 0043-8243.
  7. Geller . Pamela L. . 2009 . Identity and Difference: Complicating Gender in Archaeology . Annual Review of Anthropology . 38 . 65–81 . 10.1146/annurev-anthro-091908-164414 . 20622641 . 0084-6570.
  8. Web site: 2021-08-06 . Archaeologists for Trans Liberation . 2024-04-13 . anthro . en-US.
  9. Web site: Sapiens . 2020-07-09 . What Ancient Gender Fluidity Taught Me About Modern Patriarchy . 2024-04-13 . SAPIENS . en-US.
  10. Alberti . Benjamin . 2001 . Faience goddesses and ivory bull-leapers: The aesthetics of sexual difference at Late Bronze Age Knossos . World Archaeology . en . 33 . 2 . 189–205 . 10.1080/00438240120079244 . 0043-8243.
  11. Power . Miller . 2020-12-18 . Non-Binary and Intersex Visibility and Erasure in Roman Archaeology . Theoretical Roman Archaeology Journal . en . 3 . 1 . 10.16995/traj.422 . free . 2515-2289.
  12. Schall . Jenna L. . Rogers . Tracy L. . Deschamps-Braly . Jordan C. . 2020 . Breaking the binary: The identification of trans-women in forensic anthropology . Forensic Science International . 309 . 110220 . 10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110220 . 1872-6283 . 32200173.
  13. Prine, E. 2000. Searching for third genders: towards a prehistory of domestic space in Middle Missouri villages. In Voss, B. and Schmidt R. Archaeologies of Sexuality. Routledge, London, UK. pp 197–219.
  14. Hollimon, S. E. 2000: Archaeology of the 'aqi: gender and sexuality in prehistoric Chumash society, in Archaeologies of Sexuality, pp. 179–196.
  15. Stratton . Susan . 2016 . "Seek and you Shall Find." How the Analysis of Gendered Patterns in Archaeology can Create False Binaries: a Case Study from Durankulak . Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory . 23 . 3 . 854–869 . 10.1007/s10816-016-9290-2 . 43967044 . 1072-5369.
  16. Everhart . Avery Rose . 2022 . Bones without Flesh and (Trans)Gender without Bodies: Querying Desires for Trans Historicity . Hypatia . en . 37 . 4 . 601–618 . 10.1017/hyp.2022.50 . 0887-5367.
  17. Price . Neil . Hedenstierna-Jonson . Charlotte . Zachrisson . Torun . Kjellström . Anna . Storå . Jan . Krzewińska . Maja . Günther . Torsten . Sobrado . Verónica . Jakobsson . Mattias . Götherström . Anders . 2019 . Viking warrior women? Reassessing Birka chamber grave Bj.581 . Antiquity . en . 93 . 367 . 181–198 . 10.15184/aqy.2018.258 . 0003-598X.
  18. Walley . Meghan . 2018 . Exploring Potential Archaeological Expressions of Nonbinary Gender in Pre-Contact Inuit Contexts . Études/Inuit/Studies . 42 . 1 . 269–289 . 10.7202/1064504ar . 26775769 . 0701-1008. free .
  19. Pinto . Renato . Pinto . Luciano C. G. . 2013-03-27 . Transgendered Archaeology: The Galli and the Catterick Transvestite . Theoretical Roman Archaeology Journal . en . 2012 . 169 . 10.16995/TRAC2012_169_181 . free . 2515-2289.
  20. Web site: 2023-12-10 . International Transgender Day of Visibility: The Galli in Yorkshire - York Archaeology . 2024-04-13 . https://web.archive.org/web/20231210163553/https://yorkarchaeology.co.uk/international-transgender-day-of-visibility-the-galli-in-yorkshire/ . 2023-12-10 .
  21. Moilanen . Ulla . Kirkinen . Tuija . Saari . Nelli-Johanna . Rohrlach . Adam B. . Krause . Johannes . Onkamo . Päivi . Salmela . Elina . 2022 . A Woman with a Sword? – Weapon Grave at Suontaka Vesitorninmäki, Finland . European Journal of Archaeology . en . 25 . 1 . 42–60 . 10.1017/eaa.2021.30 . 1461-9571. free .
  22. Web site: Elagabalus: A Transgender Roman Emperor? . 2024-04-13 . North Lincolnshire Museum . en-GB.
  23. Pape . Eleonore . Ialongo . Nicola . 2024 . Error or Minority? The Identification of Non-binary Gender in Prehistoric Burials in Central Europe . Cambridge Archaeological Journal . en . 34 . 1 . 43–63 . 10.1017/S0959774323000082 . 0959-7743.
  24. Benavides . Oswaldo Hugo . 2024 . Cracking the Capitalist Code: Archaeology, Resistance and the Historical Present in Ecuador . International Journal of Historical Archaeology . en . 28 . 1 . 33–44 . 10.1007/s10761-022-00692-1 . 1092-7697.
  25. Tess Wingard, The Trans Middle Ages: Incorporating Transgender and Intersex Studies into the History of Medieval Sexuality, The English Historical Review, Volume 138, Issue 593, August 2023, Pages 933–951.
  26. Bennett . Judith M. . 2008 . Two Women and their Monumental Brass, c. 1480 . Journal of the British Archaeological Association . en . 161 . 1 . 163–184 . 10.1179/174767008x330572 . 0068-1288.
  27. Calvert . Leanne . 2024-01-02 . 'Came to her dressed in mans cloaths': transgender histories and queer approaches to the family in eighteenth-century Ireland . The History of the Family . en . 29 . 1 . 109–130 . 10.1080/1081602X.2024.2310546 . 1081-602X. free . 2299/27548 . free .
  28. Web site: Vol. 23, No. 3, September 2016 of Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory on JSTOR . 2024-04-13 . www.jstor.org . en.

Further reading

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Transgender archaeology".

Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is © Copyright 2009-2024, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. Cookie policy.