Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Qu(e)erying Sex and Gender in Archaeology: a Critique of the “Third” and Other Sexual Categories

  • Published:
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, I will recover the issue of the “third gender” in archaeological analysis in order to argue that the use of a “third,” despite what it may appear at first sight, does not challenge the logic inherent in gender and sexual binaries, that is, the use of universal, ahistorical, and stagnated categories. As an alternative, I will rely on Almudena Hernando’s genealogical work on gender and identity, as well as on Lucía Moragón-Martínez’s arguments regarding corporeality, to state that in “oral societies” (like prehistoric ones), body and person cannot be ontologically distinguished and, as a consequence, the anatomical features that we categorize as “sex” can neither be thought nor defined abstractly. I will further examine the implications of this claim in relation to the sex–gender fluidity that can be seen in those oral societies, formerly pigeonholed into the third gender category. In addition, I will analyze current literature developed by gender archaeologists in order to show the strengths and limitations of my proposal in relation to recent works on the topic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price includes VAT (Hong Kong/P.R.China)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The notion of “somatheque” derives from Spanish biblioteca (from Greek biblíon, book, and théke, box), which means library.

  2. Original, in French: “L’esprit? Bah! Vous ne nous avez pas apporté l’esprit. Nous savions déjà l’existence de l’esprit. Nous procédions selon l’esprit. Mais ce que vous nous avez apporté, c’est le corps.” (Leenhardt 1947: 212).

  3. As I will further analyze bellow, in oral societies, the body cannot be “objectified,” that is, it cannot be thought as a property which belongs to an owner. Nevertheless, I will use some terms taken from this “language of property” (cf. Phillips 2013: 135) in order to make myself understood throughout the article.

  4. Original, in Spanish: “el único vector existencial de la persona o del sujeto en sociedades orales.”

References

  • Alberti, B. (2006). Archaeology, men, and masculinities. In S. M. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of gender in archaeology (pp. 401–434). New York: Altamira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alberti, B. (2005). Bodies in prehistory: beyond the sex/gender split. In P. P. Funari, A. Zarankin, & E. Stovel (Eds.), Global archaeology theory: contextual voices and contemporary thoughts (pp. 107–120). Boston: Kluger Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Alberti, B., Fowles, S., Holbraad, M., Marshall, Y., & Witmore, C. (2011). “Worlds otherwise”: archaeology, anthropology, and ontological difference. Current Anthropology, 52(6), 896–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, Bettina (2016): Belts vs. blades: the binary bind in iron age mortuary contexts in Southwest Germany. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 23 (3). doi:10.1007/s10816-016-9289-8.

  • Bourdieu, Pierre (2000) [1972]: Esquisse d’une Théorie de la Pratique. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.

  • Brookey, R. A., & Miller, D. H. (2004). Changing signs: the political pragmatism of poststructuralism. In M. S. Breen & W. J. Blumenfeld (Eds.), Butler matters: Judith Butler’s impact on feminist and queer studies (pp. 191–205). Burlington: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, Judith (2011 [1993]): Bodies that Matter. New York. Routledge.

  • Colomer, L., González-Marcén, P., & Montón-Subías, S. (1998). Maintenance activities, technological knowledge and consumption patterns: a view of Northeast Iberia (2000–500 Cal BC). Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 11, 53–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conkey, M. W., & Gero, J. M. (1997). Programme to practice: gender and feminism in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, 411–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conkey, M. W., & Spector, J. (1984). Archaeology and the study of gender. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 7, 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19(6), 829–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowson, T. (2000). Why queer archaeology? An introduction. World Archaeology, 32(2), 161–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowson, T. A. (1998). Homosexualitat, Teoria Queer i Arqueologia. Cota Zero, 14, 81–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckert, Lena (2006): ‘The third’. A hindrance to diversity? UK Postgraduate Conference in Gender Studies, University of Leeds. E-paper no. 31. http://www.gender-studies.leeds.ac.uk/assets/files/epapers/epaper31-lena-eckert.pdf. Accessed June 30, 2014.

  • Epple, C. (1998). Coming to terms with Navajo Nadleehi: a critique of Berdache “gay,” “alternate gender,” and “two-spirit.”. American Ethnologist, 2, 267–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body, gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuglestvedt, I. (2014). Declaration on behalf of an archaeology of sexe. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 21, 46–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geller, P. L. (2009). Bodyscapes, biology, and heteronormativity. American Anthropologist, 111(4), 504–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilchrist, R. (1999). Gender and archaeology: contesting the past. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosz, E. (1994). Volatile bodies. Toward a corporeal feminism. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs and women. The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Havelock, Eric (1982 [1963]): Preface to Plato. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • Hekma, G. (1996). A female soul in a male body: sexual inversion as gender inversion in nineteenth-century sexology. In G. Herdt (Ed.), Third sex, third gender: beyond sexual dimorphism in culture and history (pp. 213–239). New York: Zone Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herdt, G. (Ed.) (1996). Third sex, third gender: beyond sexual dimorphism in culture and history. New York: Zone Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernando, A. (2002). Arqueología de la Identidad. Madrid: Akal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernando, Almudena (2008): Why has history not appreciated maintenance activities?. In S. Montón-Subías & M. Sánchez-Romero (eds.): Engendering social dynamics: the archaeology of maintenance activities. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1862. Oxford. Archaeopress: 9–15.

  • Hernando, A. (2010). Gender, individualization and affine/consanguineal relations in “egalitarian societies.”. In L. H. Dommasnes, T. Hjorundthal, S. Montón-Subías, M. Sánchez-Romero, & N. Wicker (Eds.), Situating gender in European archaeology (pp. 283–306). Budapest: Archaeolingua.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernando, A. (2012). La fantasia de la Individualidad. Madrid: Katz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernando, A. (2013). Change, individuality and reason, or how archaeology has legitimized a patriarchal modernity. In A. G. Ruibal (Ed.), Reclamining archaeology; beyond the tropes of modernity (pp. 155–167). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollimon, S. E. (1996). Sex, gender and health among the Chumash: an archaeological examination of prehistoric gender roles. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology, 9, 205–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollimon, S. E. (1997). The third gender in native California: two-spirit undertakers among the Chumash and their neighbors. In C. Claassen & R. A. Joyce (Eds.), Women in prehistory: North America and Mesoamerica (pp. 173–188). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollimon, S. E. (2000). Archaeology of the ‘aqi: gender and sexuality in prehistoric Chumash society. In B. L. Voss & R. A. Schmidt (Eds.), Archaeologies of sexuality (pp. 179–196). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollimon, S. E. (2006). The archaeology of nonbinary genders in native North American societies. In S. M. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of gender in archaeology (pp. 435–450). New York: Altamira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horswell, M. J. (2003). Toward and Andean theory of ritual same-sex sexuality and third-gender subjectivity. In P. Sigal (Ed.), Infamous desire. Male homosexuality in colonial Latin America (pp. 25–69). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, R. (1996). Gender and genitals: constructs of sex and gender. Social Text, 46/47, 157–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyce, R. A. (2007). Embodied subjectivity: gender, femininity, masculinity, sexuality. In L. Meskell & R. W. Preucel (Eds.), A companion to social archaeology (pp. 82–95). Malden: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Joyce, R. A. (2008). Ancient bodies, ancient lives. Sex, gender, and archaeology. London: Thames & Hudson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knapp, B. (1998). Who’s come a long way, baby? Masculinist approaches to a gendered archaeology. Archaeological Dialogues, 5, 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laqueur, T. (1990). Making sex: body and gender from the Greeks to Freud. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Lauretis, T. (1989). Technologies of gender. Essays on Theory, Film and Fiction. London: Macmillan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Lauretis, T. (1991). Queer theory: lesbian and gay sexualities. Differences., 3(2), iii–xviii.

  • Leacock, E. B. (1992). Women’ status in egalitarian society. Implications for social evolution. Current Anthropology, 33(1), 225–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leenhardt, M. (1947). Do Kamo. La Personne et le Mythe dans le Monde Mélanésien. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lozano-Rubio, S. (2011a). Gender thinking in the making: feminist epistemology and gender archaeology. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 44(1), 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lozano-Rubio, Sandra (2011b): Interseccionalidad: ¿Una Nueva Herramienta Teórica para la Arqueología? In OrJIA (eds.): Actas de las II Jornadas de Jóvenes en Investigación Arqueológica, Tomo II. Madrid. Libros Pórtico: 789–794.

  • Marshall, Y., & Alberti, B. (2014). A matter of difference: Karen Barad, ontology and archaeological bodies. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 24, 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, M. K., & Voorhies, B. (1975). Female of the species. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matić, Uroš (2016): (De)queering Hatshepsut: binary bind in archaeology of Egypt and kingship beyond the corporeal. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 23 (3). doi:10.1007/s10816-016-9288-9.

  • Meer, T. v. d. (1996). Sodomy and the pursuit of a third sex in the early modern period. In G. Herdt (Ed.), Third sex, third gender: beyond sexual dimorphism in culture and history (pp. 137–212). New York: Zone Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meskell, L. (2002). The intersections of identity and politics in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 279–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montón-Subías, S., & Meyer, W. (2014). Engendered archaeologies. In C. Smith (Ed.), Encyclopedia of global archaeology (pp. 2372–2381). New York, Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London.: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Montón-Subías, S., & Sánchez-Romero, M. (Eds.) (2008). Engendering social dynamics. The archaeology of maintenance activities. Oxford: Archaeopress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moragón-Martínez, Lucía (2013): Cuerpo y Sociedades Orales. Una Reflexión sobre la Concepción del Cuerpo y sus Implicaciones en el Estudio de la Prehistoria. Ph.D. Thesis. Reading University: Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

  • Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper. The conceptual and cognitive implications of reading and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, D. R., & Torrance, N. (Eds.) (1991). Literacy and orality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ong, Walter (2002 [1982]) Orality and literacy: the technologizing of the word. New York: Routledge.

  • Oyěwùmí, Oyèrónkẹ́ (1997). The invention of women. Making an African sense of western gender discourses. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, E. M., & Joyce, R. A. (2004). Past performance: the archaeology of gender as influenced by the work of Judith Butler. In M. S. Breen & W. J. Blumenfeld (Eds.), Butler matters: Judith Butler’s impact on feminist and queer studies (pp. 113–126). Burlington: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, A. (2013). Our bodies: whose property? Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preciado, B. (2002). Manifiesto contra-sexual. Madrid: Opera Prima.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prine, E. (2000). Searching for third genders: towards a prehistory of domestic space in middle Missouri villages. In B. L. Voss & R. A. Schmidt (Eds.), Archaeologies of sexuality (pp. 197–219). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, G. (1984). Thinking sex: notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In C. S. Vance (Ed.), Pleasure and danger: exploring female sexuality (pp. 267–319). Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanday, P. R. (1981). Female power and male dominance. On the Origins of Sexual Inequality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiebinger, L. (1986). Skeletons in the closet: the first illustrations of the female skeleton in eighteenth-century anatomy. Representations, 14, 42–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. A. (2000). Shamans and northern cosmology: the direct historical approach to Mesolithic sexuality. In B. L. Voss & R. A. Schmidt (Eds.), Archaeologies of sexuality (pp. 220–235). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. A. (2004). The contribution of gender to personal identity in the Southern Scandinavian Mesolithic. In E. Casella & C. Fowler (Eds.), The archaeology of plural and changing identities (pp. 79–108). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skogstrand, L. (2010). Is androcentric archaeology really about men? Archaeologies, 7(1), 56–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sofaer, J. R. (2006). The body as material culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stryker, S., Currah, P., & Moore, L. J. (2008). Introduction: trans-, trans, or transgender? Women’s Studies Quarterly, 36(3/4), 11–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Towle, E. B., & Morgan, L. M. (2002). Romancing the transgender native: rethinking the use of the “third gender” concept. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 8(4), 469–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treherne, P. (1995). The warrior’s beauty: the masculine body and self-identity in Bronze-Age Europe. Journal of European Archaeology, 3(1), 105–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voss, B. L. (2000). Feminisms, queer theories, and the archaeological study of past sexualities. World Archaeology, 32(2), 180–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voss, B. L. (2005). Sexual subjects. Identity and taxonomy in archaeological research. In E. Casella & C. Fowler (Eds.), The archaeology of plural and changing identities (pp. 55–77). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Voss, B. L. (2006). Engendered archaeology: men, women, and others. In M. Hall & S. W. Silliman (Eds.), Historical archaeology (pp. 107–127). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss, B. L., & Schmidt, R. A. (2000). Archaeologies of sexuality: an introduction. In B. L. Voss & R. A. Schmidt (Eds.), Archaeologies of sexuality (pp. 1–32). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weismantel, M. (2013). Towards a transgender archaeology: a queer rampage through prehistory. In S. Stryker & A. Z. Aizura (Eds.), The transgender studies reader 2 (pp. 319–334). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates, T. (1993). Frameworks for an archaeology of the body. In C. Tilley (Ed.), Interpretative archaeology (pp. 31–73). Oxford: Berg.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Lara A. Ghisleni, Alexis M. Jordan, and Emily Fioccoprile, editors of this volume, for accepting my contribution to the session “Binary Bind: Deconstructing Sex and Gender Dichotomies in Archaeological Practice” at the 20th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists, held in Istanbul, 2014, as well as for the comments they did on the first draft of this paper. I am also very thankful to professors Almudena Hernando and Sandra Montón-Subías for the encouragement and support they have given to me in relation to the archaeological study of sex, gender, and sexuality.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain

    Enrique Moral

Authors
  1. Enrique Moral
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Enrique Moral.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moral, E. Qu(e)erying Sex and Gender in Archaeology: a Critique of the “Third” and Other Sexual Categories. J Archaeol Method Theory 23, 788–809 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-016-9294-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-016-9294-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation