Gender

Edited by Laura Coltofean-Arizancu, Bisserka Gaydarska

& Uroš Matić Illustrations by Nikola Radosavljević

stereotypes
A short
Gender stereotypes in archaeology reflection
in image

Gender stereotypes in archaeology

Were men the only hunters and producers of tools, art and innovation in prehistory? Were women
and text

in archaeology
the only gatherers, home-bound breeders and caregivers? Are all prehistoric female depictions
mother goddesses? And do women and men have equal career chances in archaeology? To put it
short, no. However, these are some of the gender stereotypes that we still encounter on a daily basis
in archaeology from the way archaeologists interpret the past and present it to the general public to
how they practice it as a profession.

This booklet is a short but informative and critical response by archaeologists to various gender
stereotypes that exist in the archaeological explanation of the past, as well as in the contemporary
disciplinary practice. Gender and feminist archaeologists have fought for decades against gender
stereotypes through academic writing, museum exhibitions and popular literature, among others.
Despite their efforts, many of these stereotypes continue to live and even flourish, both in academic
and non-academic settings, especially in countries where gender archaeology does not exist or
where gender in archaeology is barely discussed. Given this context and the rise of far right or
ultraconservative ideologies and beliefs across the globe, this booklet is a timely and thought-
provoking contribution that openly addresses often uncomfortable topics concerning gender in
archaeology, in an attempt to raise awareness both among the professionals and others interested in
the discipline.

The booklet includes 24 commonly encountered gender stereotypes in archaeology, explained

and deconstructed in 250 words by archaeologists with expertise on gender in the past and in
contemporary archaeology, most of them being members of the Archaeology and Gender in Europe
(AGE) Community of the European Association of Archaeologists. In addition, the stereotypes are
beautifully illustrated by Serbian award-winning artist Nikola Radosavljević.

ISBN 978-94-6426-025-0
ISBN: 978-94-6426-025-0

9 789464 260250
Gender
stereotypes
A short
reflection
in image
and text

in archaeology
Edited by Laura Coltofean-Arizancu,
Bisserka Gaydarska & Uroš Matić
Illustrations by Nikola Radosavljević
Contents
Challenging the status quo: deconstructing gender stereotypes in archaeology 6
Bisserka Gaydarska, Laura Coltofean-Arizancu and Uroš Matić

Stereotype 1 Man, the hunter and field archaeologist vs. woman, 10

the gatherer and laboratory analyst Bettina Arnold

Stereotype 2 Only women cooked in past societies 12

Marga Sánchez Romero

Stereotype 3 Active men – passive women 14

Bettina Arnold

Stereotype 4 Only women took care of the old 16

and sick in past societies Marga Sánchez Romero

Stereotype 5 Only women cared about children 18

in past societies Katharina Rebay-Salisbury

Stereotype 6 All women were young, slim and beautiful in the 20

past, while all men were young, tall and athletic Brigitte Röder

Stereotype 7 Only men were violent 22

in past societies Uroš Matić

Stereotype 8 Only high-ranking men were literate 24

in the past Agnès Garcia-Ventura

Stereotype 9 Prehistoric societies were either matriarchal 26

or patriarchal Julia K. Koch

Stereotype 10 Prehistoric female images 28

are Mother Goddesses Bisserka Gaydarska

Stereotype 11 Families always consisted of a father, 30

a mother and children Julia K. Koch

Stereotype 12 Two adult women buried together 32

are the lady and her chambermaid Julia K. Koch
 Stereotype 13 Sex and gender are the same 34
Katharina Rebay-Salisbury

Stereotype 14 Binary sex and gender systems 36

are natural Sandra Montón-Subías

Stereotype 15 There are only two genders 38

Pamela L. Geller

Stereotype 16 Gender is universal 40

Alice B. Kehoe

Stereotype 17 Gender as studied by gender archaeologists 42

is an ideology Uroš Matić

Stereotype 18 Gender archaeology is practiced only 44

by women and gay men Rachel Pope

Stereotype 19 Gender archaeology is only about women 46

Doris Gutsmiedl-Schümann

Stereotype 20 There is no longer a need for dedicated 48

gender archaeology Nils Müller-Scheeßel

Stereotype 21 Same-sex practices are a “modern” invention 50

or a disorder Uroš Matić

Stereotype 22 Queer archaeology is just LGBTQIA+ researchers 52

imagining past LGBTQIA+ people Bo Jensen

Stereotype 23 Women have equal career chances 54

in archaeology as men Maria Mina

Stereotype 24 Archaeology is free of harassment, assault, bullying 56

and intimidation Laura Coltofean-Arizancu and Bisserka Gaydarska

Selected bibliography 58
List of authors 62
6

Challenging the status quo:

deconstructing gender
stereotypes in archaeology
This booklet is a short but informative al practice. Our next step was to reach
and critical response by archaeologists to out to other colleagues and ask them to
various gender stereotypes that exist in share their experiences. The immediate
archaeological explanation and represen- spontaneous replies borne out of years of
tations of the past, as well as in contempo- frustration and constant battles further
rary disciplinary practice. The idea for such convinced us to proceed and form a team
a project was proposed for the first time at of authors aiming to deconstruct gender
the 26th Annual Meeting of the European stereotypes as they witnessed and under-
Association of Archaeologists (EAA), which stood them.
was held virtually at the end of August
2020 in the context of the COVID-19 pan- The booklet includes 24 common gender
demic. During the annual meeting of the stereotypes in archaeology, from the clas-
Archaeology and Gender in Europe (AGE) sical stereotyped roles of male and female
Community, Egyptologist and former and their social organisation in the past
AGE co-chair Uroš Matić shared his idea to relatively more recent oversimplified
of creating an illustrated booklet on gen- ideas concerning sex and gender, gen-
der stereotypes in archaeology. After the der archaeology along with its scope and
meeting, the discussion continued with practitioners, as well as the practice of ar-
AGE co-chairs Bisserka Gaydarska, Laura chaeology in general. Gender and feminist
Coltofean-Arizancu and Ana Cristina Mar- archaeologists have fought for decades
tins. Uroš, Bisserka and Laura then started against gender stereotypes through critical
sketching the outline of this booklet. May- discussions in academic writing (e.g. Dom-
be not by coincidence, earlier that summer masnes 1982; Conkey and Spector 1984;
we had been members of the Task Force Gero and Conkey 1991; Dommasnes 1992;
developing the EAA’s first Statement on Du Cros and Smith 1993; Claassen 1994;
Gender and Archaeology which pleaded Nelson, Nelson and Wylie 1994; Treherne
for a more diverse, inclusive, equal, and 1995; Díaz-Andreu and Sørensen 1998;
safer archaeology. Gender stereotypes Dommasnes 1998; Sørensen 2000; Palin-
were therefore very fresh in our minds. We caș 2004‑2005; Sánchez Romero 2005;
were brought up in very similar archaeo- Jensen 2007; Montón-Subías and Sánchez
logical traditions in the Balkans, we are of Romero 2008; Sánchez Romero 2008;
different gender, we live in three different Dommasnes et al. 2010; Matić 2012; Bolger
(non-home) countries and we have very 2013; Fries et al. 2017; also see concluding
different expertise. Yet we encountered selected bibliography), museum exhibi-
very similar biases and stereotypes in tions (e.g. “Ich Mann. Du Frau. Feste rolle
approaches to the past and in profession- seit Urzeiten” at Colombischlössle Museum
 7

in Freiburg, 2014‑2015; “Enfrentándose a la gender archaeology and why. The choice

vida” at Museo de Arte Ibérico ‘El Cigarrale- of these particular stereotypes is a mixture
jo’ in Mula, 2015), projects (e.g. PastWomen of ‘top-down’ ideas from the editors and
in Spain; VAMOS in Austria) and popular ‘bottom-up’ suggestions of authors with
culture (e.g. Evaristo 2019), among others. expertise on gender in the past and con-
Despite their efforts, many of these stereo- temporary archaeology, most of whom are
types continue to live and even flourish, members of AGE. This has inevitably result-
both in academic and non-academic set- ed in some overlap between the entries,
tings, especially in countries where gen- exactly as in real life. Archaeologists tend
der archaeology does not exist or where to separate the past into themes such as
gender in archaeology is barely discussed. subsistence, religion, burial or settlement,
These stereotypes reflect essentialist inter- to mention just a few, while in fact most
pretations and (visual) representations of humans do not consciously divide up their
the past, which often replicate contempo- life like that. If there is one message that
rary ontologies, perceptions and dichot- this booklet wants to convey, it is – do not
omies. Given this context and the rise of assume anything about the past and the
radical right and ultra-conservative ide- people who study the past.
ologies and beliefs across the globe, this
booklet is a timely and thought-provoking From the very beginning, illustrations were
contribution that openly addresses often conceived as a key component and the
uncomfortable topics concerning gen- award-winning Serbian artist Nikola Ra-
der in archaeology, in an attempt to raise dosavljević agreed to be part of the pro­
awareness both among the professionals ject. Many of the images are deliberately
and others interested in the discipline. provocative. Although they use particular
archaeological objects and past societies
The number of entries is a pragmatic as inspirations, these depictions are not
choice – we aimed at short, if uncomfort- representations of a stereotypical view of
able, unveilings of persistent archaeo- a particular past society. Rather, they are
logical myths and practices, rather than generic, stereotypic portrayals of gender
an exhaustive list of easy short-cuts to one can find in archaeological writings
explaining the past. In 250 words, each on different societies. The front cover, for
author explains and deconstructs a stereo- example, shows a state of affairs that we
type, while briefly pointing to their origin cannot be sure has happened in the past.
and uncritical proliferation and ultimately The same is true of the situations depicted
insisting on a more nuanced view not only in other illustrations of this booklet (e.g.
of the past, but also about who is doing stereotypes 3, 8 and 11). However, contrary
8

to the cover image, they are repeatedly re- visual representations of both the past and
produced as ‘reality’ in pictures in academ- the present, by enriching them with char-
ic texts, museum reconstructions, archae- acters other than white middle-aged men.
ological texts and various forms of mass Some of the images further develop ste-
media. In this context, the front cover has reotypes and ghosts of disciplinary history,
as much credibility as these depictions. such as white male archaeologists imag-
Perhaps counter-intuitively then, one of ining past communities as white, while
the aims of this booklet is to deconstruct believing that technology and culture
the ideas underpinning these images. The could not be produced by black people
illustrations are not simply accompanying (see stereotype 19). To counter these un-
the texts – they are vital for the key ques- founded presumptions, the tactic of the
tions we want to raise. Some of them ask – exact opposite was utilized to illustrate the
‘was this situation valid for every society, stereotype that gender is an ideology and
everywhere in the world through time?’ to explain the particular understanding of
either by literate scenes that far too often the word ‘ideology’. A black woman who
find place in museums and popular recon- can get the same pay cheque as her white
structions (e.g. stereotypes 2 and 4) or by male colleagues, or even be their boss,
mocking an ill-thought re-enactment (e.g. should not be unimaginable. However,
stereotype 6). Others offer an invitation to imagining her as a threatening giant, a fig-
think ‘what is wrong with this image?’ (e.g. ure of gender ideology, is wrong! Thus, all
stereotypes 20 and 24). Yet a third group 24 images sum up the underlying concept
is aspirational (e.g. stereotype 18). This of this booklet – to insist on non-essential-
straightforward and challenging combina- ist interpretations of the past, together
tion of text and image is the approach that with demonstrating the non-conformist
we developed to question the assumptions but also inclusive nature of gender archae-
that stubbornly continue to dominate ology and its practitioners.
the imaginations of many archaeologists
about the past and reveal the core of gen- The project which this booklet is the result
der archaeology. of was entirely financed through an unex-
pectedly successful 30-day, all or nothing,
One word that often appears in the differ- crowdfunding campaign (http://kck.st/3m-
ent entries is ‘diversity’. The past was prob- lg79o) on the Kickstarter platform. The
ably just as varied as our contemporary campaign reached its minimum funding
reality. This is also reflected in the scenes goal in just six days and continued to re-
depicted in the booklet. We have therefore ceive generous backings until its end. The
tried to create more diverse and inclusive project was very well received and widely
 9

disseminated, confirming that crowdfund-

ing can be an alternative, faster and more
easily accessible funding path for archae-
ologists compared to traditional academ-
ic funding with its complex application
procedures.

We should like to express our enormous

gratitude to all our backers on Kickstarter,
the EAA’s Officers, Executive Board and
Staff, AGE co-chair Ana Cristina Martins,
archaeologists Karsten Wentink, Bettina
Arnold, Alice Kehoe and Natasha Billson
(Behind the Trowel), designer Marta Kle-
ment, as well as to our families and friends.
Without their support, under the form of
backings and/or dissemination, this book-
let would not have been brought to life.
We would like to especially thank archae-
ologist John Chapman for carefully revis-
ing the English, as well as for his contin-
uous and friendly encouragement of this
project. Ultimately, this is a project that
has resulted from the joint efforts and the
solidarity of archaeologists and the pub-
lic. We therefore dedicate this booklet to
them, in hope for a better and more inclu-
sive past, present and future for all of us.
“...A black woman
who can get the
same pay cheque
Bisserka Gaydarska, as her white male
Laura Coltofean-Arizancu colleagues, or
and Uroš Matić even be their boss,
should not be
unimaginable...”
stereotype 1

10
Man, the hunter and
field archaeologist vs.
woman, the gatherer
and laboratory analyst
Bettina Arnold
Popular ideas about the di- often presented as biolog-
vision of labor in prehistoric ically predetermined as
societies are reinforced by well as hierarchically orga-
illustrations and museum nized, with men portrayed
exibits that often present as “naturally” aggressive
gender stereotypes. Men leaders while women are
are typically represented represented as “natural-
in dynamic poses in the ly” nurturing followers. In
foreground, leaving on or fact, the archaeological
returning from hunting as well as ethnographic
expeditions, while women records show that gender
are usually depicted more differentiation does not
statically, in close proximity automatically imply gender
to children, often seated inequality. Rather, gender
or kneeling, and closely complementarity, in which
associated with domestic men and women are seen
structures and tasks. These as contributing equally to
stereotypes are echoed the survival of the group,
in the way archaeologists means that opportunistic
are viewed by the general hunting by women and
public: men “hunt” the data plant food gathering by
in the field while women men, or fieldwork and lab
“cook” the data in the lab. work conducted by either
Men’s greater physical gender, is a more accurate
strength is assumed to reflection of actual practice.
make them superior field
archaeologists while wom-
en, viewed as weaker and
less able to withstand the
rigors of outdoor labour,
are thought to be natural-
ly suited to less physically
tasking activities like pro-
cessing and analysing finds.
These views of what men
do and what women do are
 11

“… the archaeological as well as

ethnographic records show that gender
differentiation does not automatically
imply gender inequality.”
stereotype 2

12
Only women cooked
in past societies
Marga Sánchez Romero
 13

“While in most ethnographically

documented societies, women are
often in charge of food processes,
this sexual division of labour shows
different flexibility levels…”

Cooking practices – that is such as food. This refers to

the set of procedures ap- men and women’s capacity
plied to plants and animals to produce, provide, dis-
either to transform them tribute and consume food,
into suitable products for depending on factors such
consumption or to preserve as class or ‘family’ organiza-
them for future use – play tion. Gender relations may
an essential role in any mark food production and
community. These activ- consumption in different
ities have been generally ways, such as spatial divi-
associated with women sion (distinct locations for
without critical analysis. men and women), tempo-
There is no scientific data ral variations (when food
which unequivocally proves is produced, served and
that this was the case at eaten), and qualitative and
all times and places in the quantitative differentiations
past. While in most ethno- (type of vessels, and food or
graphically documented drink given to each person).
societies, women are often Cooking is a complex tech-
in charge of food process- nological process requiring
es, this sexual division of knowledge and learning,
labour shows different tradition and innovation,
flexibility levels, as is the all linked to identity and
case of the Aka pygmies in memory. Understanding
central Africa, where male its technological and social
and female roles are inter- implications should be im-
changeable in taking care plicit in any archaeological
of children, cooking, hunt- enquiry.
ing and setting up camps.
Gender relations can be
established through food
practices. Societies can
grant or withhold pow-
er from men and women
regarding access to and
control of basic resources
stereotype 3

14
Active men
– passive women
Bettina Arnold

Images in books, films and tend to be represented as

museum exhibits that show primarily carried out by
the production of stone women. While cross-cul-
tools or artwork tend to tural ethnographic analy-
reinforce the idea that men ses have identified some
were the main drivers of gender-specific patterns
human cultural and tech- in production activities,
nological evolution and there are always exceptions
innovation, while women and these are rarely if ever
were primarily necessary depicted. In fact, there is
to produce offspring and no reason to assume that
were the passive benefi- women were any less cre-
ciaries of male ingenuity. ative or innovative than
Representations of Upper men and, in the case of one
Palaeolithic art, for exam- of the most important tran-
ple, frequently portray the sitions humankind has ever
artists as exclusively adult experienced – from foraging
males, even though archae- to farming – it is likely that
ological evidence, including women, working together
foot- and handprints, clear- with men, were instrumen-
ly shows that women and tal in the experimentation
children were also present that changed our relation-
in the caves. In images ship to plant foods, and the
showing the production of natural world in general,
stone tools, the producers forever.
are virtually always male
and in general women are
more likely to be depicted
using rather than making
tools. The hard and hot
technologies (stone tool
production, metal-working)
are generally depicted as
male activities, while the
soft and cool technologies
(fibre arts and ceramics)
 15

“… it is likely that women, working

together with men, were instrumental
in the experimentation that changed our
relationship to plant foods, and the natural
world in general, forever.”
stereotype 4

16
Only women took
care of the old and sick
in past societies
Marga Sánchez Romero
 17

“The systematic association of

such activities with women only
results in the perception that
care does not need technology,
knowledge or experience.”

Care encompasses activities results in the perception

related to the well-being of that care does not need
individuals, whether babies, technology, knowledge or
the elderly or the sick, for experience. In archaeology,
whom total or partial help specific material culture
is essential for survival and (e.g. bowls, tissues in cer-
community integration. tain contexts), along with
Such care includes basic organic and anthropologi-
needs regarding hygiene, cal remains related to cure
health, shelter, food, and af- and treatment of diseases,
fection. Traditionally, these demonstrates the fallacy
activities have been as- of such a perception. His-
cribed to women, although torical and anthropolog-
there is no unequivocal ev- ical sources indeed show
idence for that in the past. that women had a greater
This attribution originates involvement in care-giving
from the idea that mainte- but also that such activities
nance activities are biolog- and their practitioners were
ically linked to women and diverse across time and
that only they can perform space. The culturally and
them. Care in past societies socially influenced sexual
involved not only the social division of labour and the
and economic conditions amount of activities related
causing diseases or injuries to this should enable us to
(e.g. nutritional crises, infec- acknowledge care-giving as
tions, violence, accidental a community effort. Rec-
falls) but also the social ognition of its social value
conditions that facilitat- allows the reconsideration
ed the development of of everybody’s knowledge,
care-giving, which ensured work and role in society.
individuals’ survival. Just
like today, all community
members were involved in
these processes. The sys-
tematic association of such
activities with women only
stereotype 5

18
Only women cared about
children in past societies
Katharina Rebay-Salisbury

A common misperception of men to the education of

about societies in the past adolescent boys, the contri-
is that the sole responsi- bution of fathers to raising
bility of caring about and children is difficult to trace
for children rested on the archaeologically. However,
shoulders of women. Rais- the involvement of men in
ing children is fundamental education is occasionally
to the successful reproduc- attested in written sources.
tion and continuation of More recently, kinship anal-
any society. Motherhood ysis through ancient DNA
has both a biological and a has brought insights into
social component. Whilst the importance of pater-
women give birth to and nal lineages. The range of
often breastfeed their own kinship extension to mem-
children, many people bers of the household that
contribute to childcare. The are not biologically related
whole community must is subject to investigation
work together to provide a in each specific cultural
safe and healthy environ- context. Prehistoric baby
ment for children to grow bottles offer archaeologi-
and learn. Frequently over- cal evidence that feeding
looked is the contribution babies can be taken over by
of siblings, who may take caretakers other than the
on responsibilities from an mother. Elderly relatives
early age in carrying in- such as grandparents make
fants and keeping younger particular contributions by
siblings safe. Bio-archae- providing resources as well
ological evidence such as teaching, storytelling
as changes in joints and and passing on traditions.
vertebral facets in adoles- Indeed, it takes a village to
cents may point to early raise a child.
mechanical loading. As
masculine gender con-
struction does not neces-
sarily encompass childcare
or limits the involvement
 19

“It takes a village

to raise a child.”
stereotype 6

20
All women were young,
slim and beautiful in the
past, while all men were
young, tall and athletic
Brigitte Röder
 21

“These clichéd representations

reflect gender stereotypes
that have been present in our
societies for decades.”

Representations of every- ical fitness. Women are

day scenes from prehistory therefore portrayed in such
often look as if they had a way that they appear
been taken from Western attractive to heterosexual
commercials: women are men. Women have internal-
young, slim and beautiful, ised this male gaze and try
while men are young, tall to meet the expectations
and athletic. Women are with a pleasing appear-
portrayed as catwalk mod- ance. Such depictions can
els performing their tasks lead to the misconcep-
with grace and elegance, tion that today’s idealistic
as if taking part in a beauty Western female and male
contest. Men are muscular attractiveness is primordial
and strong and therefore and generally human. That
able to handle any chal- this idea is absurd is shown,
lenge. These clichéd repre- for example, by 120 cm
sentations reflect gender long Iron Age bronze belts
stereotypes that have been and manifold representa-
present in our societies for tions such as Palaeolithic
decades. They reinforce figurines and the so-called
traditional, stereotypical “fat ladies” (maybe also “fat
norms of masculinity and gentlemen”) from Neolithic
femininity. According to Malta. Archaeology urgent-
these, all men have the role ly needs new images that
of breadwinners and family show the physical diversity
heads who are expected of humans.
to be strong and proactive,
so that they can feed and
protect their families. More-
over, all women are des-
tined to be housewives and
mothers who please their
husbands and are confined
to the protected private
and domestic sphere that
requires no special phys-
stereotype 7

22
Only men were violent
in past societies
Uroš Matić

One of the most common those too if we find them.

gender stereotypes about To gender violence in the
past and present violence past means to explore the
is that men are more vio- complex entanglement
lent than women. This is of the two. For example,
often argued on the basis of violence can be structured
the assumed evolutionary by gender (e.g. feminiza-
background of the violent tion of male enemies) and
predatory nature of men. gender can be structured
However, although violence by violence, as through
has some evolutionary the societal judgement or
background, it is not less physical punishment of
cultural than preparing those who do not comply
food or burying the dead. to the expectations of their
Peaceful Palaeolithic to gender. The bioarchaeolo-
Neolithic women-run soci- gy of human remains can
eties destroyed by Bronze inform us much about the
Age violent societies run gender patterns of violence
by men are a fiction rather when victims of violence
than fact. Men and women are concerned. However,
of different backgrounds gender patterns of violent
populated the past and behaviour in prehistory are
their violent behaviours or a challenge in studying so-
the gender patterns behind cieties for which we do not
these should be explored have rich textual or visual
rather than assumed. sources.
Female rulership in any
society is not necessarily
pacifist and male rulership
in any society is not a priori
violent. Gendering violence
in the past also does not
mean searching for war-
rior women like mythical
Amazons or Viking shield
maidens. We shall study
 23

“Female rulership in any society is not

necessarily pacifist and male rulership in
any society is not a priori violent.”
stereotype 8

24
Only high-ranking men
were literate in the past
Agnès Garcia-Ventura
 25

“There were, as there are now,

varied levels of literacy and
numeracy mastered by both women
and men of diverse age, status,
profession and class.”

The emergence of writing Current reconstructions of

is a milestone widely dis- these schools only portray
cussed in studies on the young boys learning and
past. Early examples are adult males teaching. How-
cuneiform writing in an- ever, some school exercises
cient Mesopotamia and include the following sen-
hieroglyphic writing in tence at the end: “written
Egypt. Both are attested by a female scribe”. Thus,
since the end of the fourth women also have to be in-
millennium BC and have cluded in the scenario! The
been mostly linked to second assumption which
high-ranking men. Thus, it needs to be challenged is
is assumed that, regardless that literacy was the ex-
of rank and gender, women clusive skill of professional
and all those outside the scribes. There were, as there
highest echelons of society are now, varied levels of
were completely illiterate. literacy and numeracy mas-
This is a stereotype based tered by both women and
on two main assumptions. men of diverse age, status,
The first is that only men profession and class. Letters
were professional scribes in and accounting documents
ancient Egypt and Mesopo- of different complexity and
tamia. Indeed, statues, re- with spelling mistakes re-
liefs and paintings seem to flect these realities well.
indicate that most scribes
were men. Furthermore,
some written records de-
tail their names, duties and
salaries. Several women are
also attested as profession-
al scribes in these records,
but they have been often
overlooked by modern
scholars who presumed
that only men were educat-
ed in specialized schools.
stereotype 9

26
Prehistoric societies
were either matriarchal
or patriarchal
Julia K. Koch

In archaeology, the devel- Equally, significant cultural

opment of social and power and social changes in Euro-
structures over time is often pean prehistory have fre-
considered to be linear. In quently been attributed to
short, primal societies rep- the transition from matriar-
resented by matriarchies chy to patriarchy, whether
were violently disrupted occurring at the beginning
and replaced by patriar- of sedentism, during the
chies. Matriarchy and patri- Neolithic through the shift
archy are understood as a from collective to individ-
pair of opposites which ex- ual burials combined with
clude other forms of social the invasion of equestri-
systems. On the one hand, an nomads, or during the
matriarchies are perceived Bronze Age with the de-
as egalitarian and peaceful cline of the Minoan culture.
groups that are close to na- However, what all these
ture, led by wise maternal views overlook is that the
women and protected by history of humankind was
the Great Goddess. On the neither linear nor globally
other hand, patriarchies are uniform. As archaeologists,
seen as strongly hierarchi- we should strive to look for
cal warlike groups built on a diversity of power struc-
inequality and oppression, tures, with and without
which plunder nature, are “gender”, which is a much
ruled by a few men and are more balanced approach to
at the mercy of aggressive (pre)historical realities.
gods. These are ideas that
emerged in the nineteenth
century and have survived
until today. Proponents
of matriarchies sought
archaeological and ethno-
graphic evidence for matri-
archal societies to uphold
such systems as political
utopias for a better future.
 27

“Matriarchy and patriarchy are understood

as a pair of opposites which exclude other
forms of social systems.”
stereotype 10

28
Prehistoric female
images are Mother
Goddesses
Bisserka Gaydarska
 29

“Let’s be clear – there is no

evidence for such an essentialist
link in prehistory!”

This image is underpinned a main component of the

by a series of assump- ritual calendar. And mak-
tions and uncritical links. ing durable human images
It is assumed that people gained importance in some
in prehistory believed in societies, although not in
supernatural forces. Such others. Are we to say, then,
beliefs are then equated that societies not relying
to religion practice and on human depictions were
thus to gods and goddess- not concerned with super-
es. In turn, such deities are natural beings or their next
anthropomorphized and crop? Or maybe they just
more often than not linked expressed their existential
to human depictions in the concerns in a different way?
archaeological record. And Such questions compro-
in cultural contexts with mise the simplistic chain of
more female than male links between natural forc-
depictions, such images es – religion – anthropomor-
become the (Mother) God- phic deities – human de-
dess. Finally, to spice up the piction. They call for more
narrative, fecundity, fertility nuanced approaches to the
and even the matriarchate ingenuity of our prehistoric
are thrown into the pot ancestors.
to create a staple premise
in archaeology. Let’s be
clear – there is no evidence
for such an essentialist link
in prehistory! There are, of
course, images of deities –
for instance, Ishtar – but
these are well-document-
ed historical examples.
Conceptualizing fire, wind
and rain was probably a
part of making sense of
the natural world. Ensur-
ing fertility was probably
stereotype 11

30
Families always consist-
ed of a father, a mother
and children
Julia K. Koch

The nuclear family consist- bers’ departure or death.

ing of two adults and up to Whether children grew up
four children and the ex- with biological or social
tended family counting up parents, how long they
to ten individuals comprise stayed with them, and
standard demographic whether they were raised
models based on cross-cul- by a man and a woman are
tural studies of agricultural questions that can no lon-
societies. However, these ger be answered without
studies are based on eth- written and pictorial sourc-
nographic and historical es. The definition of “fam-
data which often exclude ily” is dependent on time,
non-agricultural and nu- region, social and cultural
merous other past societies. contexts, while its under-
Typically, the modern Euro- standing can change within
pean bourgeois family ideal just a few decades. Thus,
is transferred to the past focusing only on one family
with little reflection. In the type in the reconstructions
absence of written sources, of the past is not justified. It
it is difficult to reconstruct is important to remember
family structures based that the ‘happy prehistoric
on material culture alone. nuclear family with many
Many normative variations children’ is just one of the
are possible in the orga- many family structures that
nization of family life and could have existed in the
many events can influence past.
it. For example, the number
of simultaneous spouses is
just as variable as the so-
cially regulated duration of
a marriage. Standardized
marriage constellations can
be disturbed by external
events (e.g. accidents, war,
catastrophes, epidemics),
as well as by family mem-
 31

“Many normative variations are possible

in the organization of family life and many
events can influence it.”
stereotype 12

32
Two adult women buried
together are the lady and
her chambermaid
Julia K. Koch
 33

“… there is an uncritical
assumption that people buried
together in the same pit must
have been somehow related…”

When examining cemeter- that people buried together

ies, stereotypical interpre- in the same pit must have
tations are often used to been somehow related in
explain double and multi- life and that the position
ple burials. If there is a child of their skeletons (e.g. an
in the grave, it is assumed embrace in contemporary
that the adult person is the interpretation) in relation to
parent. A man and a wom- each other is indicative of
an are considered a mar- the relationship type they
ried couple, while two men once had (e.g. romantic).
are often considered to be Stereotypical interpreta-
brothers-in-arms. What tions of such graves hinder
about two adult women new insights based on a
buried in the same grave? thorough analysis. Current
Such burials, even dating as archaeological science rou-
early as the 2nd millenni- tinely traces relationships
um BC, are often interpret- between individuals and
ed as the mistress and her their potential geograph-
chambermaid, in reference ical origin and mobility.
to ancient Mediterranean These are of great impor-
or even medieval societies. tance, next to grave goods,
The ideal scenario for such when analysing double or
interpretations is when one multiple burials and help
of the women in the grave preventing one-sided spec-
was older and more richly ulations.
equipped than the other.
Conversely, if the young
woman had more elaborate
grave goods, then it is sug-
gested that they could be
the young mistress and her
housekeeper. Double and
multiple burials are invalu-
able for the study of social
structures. However, there
is an uncritical assumption
stereotype 13

34
Sex and gender
are the same
Katharina Rebay-Salisbury

Sex and gender are often ascribed at birth, learned

used interchangeably when during ado­lescence and
differentiating between individuals may change
boys and girls or men and their gender over their
women (gender medicine, life-course. Roles, identities
gender reveal parties). In and material culture may
archaeology, it is import- be gendered. Thus, dress
ant to distinguish between and jewellery may appear
them. Sex is a biological masculine or feminine, but
classification based on our only in a specific cultural
reproductive system requir- context. Societies create
ing one sperm and one egg and tend to perpetuate
to form new life. Through gender norms, but vary in
various developmental how fixed they are and in
processes in which hor- the way they interrelate
mones play a decisive role, with the distribution of
genetic or chromosomal power and wealth. In its
sex (XX, XY) expresses in a fluidity, gender is not a
female or male body. Whilst strictly binary concept and
sex is usually categorized often intersects with other
as female or male, there identity categories such
are also intersex variations as age and status. Sexual
and idiosyncrasies of sex orientation may contrib-
development. Sexual di- ute to gender identity, but
morphism of the skeleton, differs from both concepts.
for example, manifests We can learn about gender
most clearly in body height construction in the past by
and the morphology of the investigating this interface.
skull and pelvis. Gender
is a cultural classification
and elaboration of sexu-
al differences, referring
to distinctions between
boys and girls or men and
women that are cultural-
ly constructed. It may be
 35

“Societies create and tend to perpetuate

gender norms, but vary in how fixed they
are and in the way they interrelate with the
distribution of power and wealth.”
stereotype 14

36
Binary sex and gender
systems are natural
Sandra Montón-Subías
 37

“Far from being natural, what

is considered to be a man and a
woman is a product of social and
cultural processes.”

The dominant heteronor- ground them (e.g. intersex-

mative sex/gender system es). Moreover, in different
binarizes human beings places worldwide, people
into men and women, like kwolu-aatmawols (Pap-
tries to pass for natural, ua New Guinea), güeved-
prescribes specific di- oces (Dominican Republic),
chotomous selfways and hijras (India), burrneshas
proscribes what does not (Albania) or chibados (An-
fall within them. Far from gola), amongst other, em-
being natural, what is con- body gender categories
sidered to be a man and outside from the heteronor-
a woman is a product of mative. Whether this chal-
social and cultural process- lenges or reinforces bina-
es. These often occur within rism needs to be carefully
a social matrix of unequal analysed in each specific
power relations where case. The present Western
men are ascribed higher binary sex/gender system is
social value. As part of this a product of history, and we
rationale, investigations cannot take it for granted.
and discourses concern- Assuming without evidence
ing the past have usually that past societies shared it
overestimated what have is not only methodological-
been considered masculine ly flawed but also sustains
roles, behaviours, attitudes and strengthens modern
and values in the making structural inequalities be-
of history, and assumed tween men and women. It
a universal binary system also renders invisible those
of gender/sex. Needless to people and behaviours that
say, the past was probably do not conform.
richer than this scheme, as
indeed is our present. Many
people today dismiss nor-
mative ways of being men
and women and/or do not
biologically fit into the two
sexes that supposedly fore-
stereotype 15

38
There are only
two genders
Pamela L. Geller

Analysis of human remains rather than recognized as

in archaeological contexts, the outcome of cultural
or bioarchaeology, often and historic circumstanc-
begins by estimating the es. They arose in Western
sex of an individual. Sex society at the end of the
is regarded as a biologi- eighteenth century due to
cal truth that is objective, social, economic, political,
observable, and strictly and religious changes. The
dimorphic (an understand- universalising, heteronor-
ing of bodily difference that mative presumptions that
bioarchaeology inherits underpin studies of bodies –
from Darwinism and bio- that sex and gender are
medicine). An individual is interchangeable and bina-
deemed “female” or “male” ry – may be why research-
based on an analysis of ers are hard-pressed to
overall robusticity, pelvic explain burials containing
morphology, or sex chro- female-bodied individuals
mosomes. “Indeterminate” with weapons and hunting
sex assessment results toolkits or male-bodied
more from inadequate ones with weaving imple-
preservation or analysts’ ments. It is possible that
skills rather than human these individuals represent
variation. Researchers then a third (or fourth) gender
presume that sex tells us within a culture. More im-
something about gender. portantly, they point to the
An individual’s biology culturally specific ways in
makes for a social destiny in which gender can be dis-
which only two genders ex- tinct from biological sex,
ist. Men perform masculini- change throughout a life-
ty; they explore, hunt, wage course, and intersect with
war, and govern. Women’s other aspects of identity
femininity constrains their like class, ethnicity (or race),
activities to care-giving and and sexuality.
house-keeping. These gen-
dered divisions of labour
are believed to be natural
 39

“…gender can be distinct from biological

sex, change throughout a lifecourse, and
intersect with other aspects of identity like
class, ethnicity (or race), and sexuality.”
stereotype 16

40
Gender is universal
Alice B. Kehoe
 41

“… caution is needed before

imposing present Western cultural
beliefs, cosmologies, and even
syntax (e.g. Indo-European) in
understanding the past.”

Since the 1970s, “gender” seek to recognize clues to

is used to mean sex-based activities in the archaeo-
social roles. This is illus- logical record as performed
trated by United States by men, women, boys, girls
Supreme Court Justice and different social and
Ruth Ginsburg, who sub- occupational classes. For
stituted “gender” for “sex” scientific observation, they
to emphasize cultural, not use associations of artifacts
biological, factors. She and features, such as house
could do so because En- posts, hearths, knives and
glish, as an Indo-European pots. Based on these, they
language, classifies nouns infer past activities and,
as masculine, feminine, very often, also make as-
or neuter (even if not an sumptions regarding the
organism), and the syntax identity of those who per-
rule that modifiers agree formed them. This is a step
with noun class is called beyond such material data,
gender. Therefore, “gender” so caution is needed before
is technically a linguistic imposing present Western
term. Few language stocks, cultural beliefs, cosmolo-
ancient or modern, have gies, and even syntax (e.g.
gender syntax, and it need Indo-European) in under-
not refer to sex. Indo-Euro- standing the past. Such
pean, Semitic, some an- colonialist attitudes could
cient Egyptian and Nilotic be balanced by acknowl-
languages are examples edging that the past, just as
that do. There are language the present, probably had
families, such as Uralic and diverse ontologies.
Turkic, that lack grammat-
ical gender. Communities
speaking these languages
may socially and culturally
stereotype identities and
roles, obviously not “gen-
der” them in modern West-
ern terms. Archaeologists
stereotype 17

42
Gender as studied
by gender archaeologists
is an ideology
Uroš Matić

“Gender ideology” (also the of a classical Marxist defi-

“gender, feminist or gay lob- nition of ideology which is
by”; “gender mainstream- seen as a promotion of false
ing”) is a populist term used ideas about the political
in far-right discourses to regimes to subjects under
label ideas, concepts and their control, in order to
debates in feminist theory. reproduce the status quo.
It supposedly endangers An alternative proposed
the family, morality and by Slavoj Žižek is that, in
even the nation. Far-right order to work, ideology
resistance to freedom and should be presented as
equality propagated by non-ideological (e.g. natu-
feminism is justified with ral and/or God-given het-
superficial political, cultural eropatriarchy). Contrary to
and religious explanations. unfounded accusations of
Even during the fund-rais- “trendiness”, gender archae-
ing campaign for this book- ology has been reflective
let, some have criticized it about the way past gender
as being a “trendy” pursuit. has been studied since the
Behind this is the notion 1970s. It has demonstrat-
that gender studies in ed that archaeology often
archaeology are based on lacked this reflectiveness
ideas from feminist theory through imposing the con-
which are “trendily” applied cept of modern heteropa-
to past societies. This ste- triarchy (i.e. ideology pre-
reotype is entangled with sented as natural state) to
several different complex all past societies with little
themes. The word ‘ideolo- evidence.
gy’ is used as a lie imposed
on the natural or even
God-given state of nature
by interest groups (the
usual suspects being the
above-mentioned lobbyists
or the “West” in general). In
fact, this is a simplification
 43

“Contrary to unfounded accusations of

‘trendiness’, gender archaeology has been
reflective about the way past gender has
been studied since the 1970s.”
stereotype 18

44
Gender archaeology
is practiced only by
women and gay men
Rachel Pope
 45

“… all men and women in

archaeology deal with gender,
although not always explicitly.”

That only women or gay introducing self-reflection

men practice gender ar- and avoiding assumptions
chaeology is a stereotype based on common sense,
that sadly does have some often rooted in a strictly
basis in fact. Gender ar- historically contingent gen-
chaeology as a field grew der experience. As a new
out of the notable absence generation of young re-
of women in twentieth-cen- searchers inherited gender
tury narratives of the past. archaeology, they became
As more young women concerned not only to ‘find
entered a male-dominated women’ but to move the
field in the United States field on from inherited
in the 1970s, they became stereotypes of what makes
concerned at the tenden- a man or a woman. The
cy to write histories only shift is from a ascientif-
about men, with women’s ic narrative about men and
roles confined to domes- women in the past, based
ticity. Thus, the origins of on gender stereotypes, to
gender archaeology were revealing culture-specif-
very much tied to feminist ic gender norms for each
thinking, meaning that, society based on scientific
at this point, most practi- method (factoring in age,
tioners were indeed wom- gender beyond binary, etc.).
en. The aim of early gender Increasingly, men are now
archaeology was predomi- also taking up this chal-
nantly to ‘find the women’ lenge.
excluded from earlier work.
Over the years, another ste-
reotype appeared associ-
ating gay men with gender
archaeology. However, all
men and women in archae-
ology deal with gender,
although not always ex-
plicitly. Gender archaeol-
ogy made a difference by
stereotype 19

46
Gender archaeology
is only about women
Doris Gutsmiedl-Schümann

A common misconception ity, including factors such

is that gender archaeology as age, ethnicity, religion,
is only about women. It is class or sexuality. By con-
not. Gender archaeology sidering gender in con-
focuses on people, both nection with various other
past individuals and societ- social aspects, past people
ies, as well as contemporary become visible, where
archaeologists. It aims to previously only finds and
give voice again to those features were investigated.
who were marginalized, Nowadays, gender archae-
and to show diversity in ology explores the lives of
the past, along with the past individuals, bearing
diversity of archaeology in mind that modern and
practitioners. In the begin- meaningful concepts of
ning, feminist and gender men and women, queer,
archaeologists were indeed trans and cis, children and
women who argued that elderly, people of colour,
females were under-repre- and disabled, among oth-
sented in interpretations ers, could be, but are not
of the past. Thus, the first necessarily, meaningful for
challenge of gender ar- past societies. It is essential
chaeology in the 1970s was also to consider other forms
to overcome traditional of genderness. Gender ar-
androcentric archaeolog- chaeology, thus, claims to
ical interpretations and to improve our discipline by
envisage women as present offering a less essentialist
and active agents. Howev- understanding of the past
er, this was only a starting and by seeing and acknowl-
point. As gender was more edging diversity in general.
and more understood as a
social construct, which can
develop or even change
during lifetime, archaeolog-
ical gender studies became
aware of further differenti-
ations and intersectional-
 47

“Gender archaeology focuses on people,

both past individuals and societies, as well
as contemporary archaeologists.”
stereotype 20

48
There is no longer
a need for dedicated
gender archaeology
Nils Müller-Scheeßel
 49

“Abandoning gender topics in the past

would also mean less awareness of
gender problems in the present.”

The sentiment that a dedi- isotope analyses). Unfortu-

cated gender archaeology nately, such methodolog-
is no longer required is ical advances are rarely
relatively recent. While it linked to social theory and,
admits that gender was therefore, old narratives
a neglected topic among based on biological, not so-
preceding generations cial, categories appeared in
of archaeologists, it pur- their wake. A discussion on
ports that gender is fully how the new methods and
acknowledged in main- results could be reconciled
stream archaeology today with a dedicated gender
and, therefore, a dedicated approach has barely be-
gender archaeology is su- gun. Finally, archaeology is
perfluous. This is false on at the study of the past in the
least three grounds. First, it present. Therefore, our re-
is certainly true that gender search is inextricably linked
topics are discussed more to current discourses. Aban-
frequently than, for exam- doning gender topics in
ple, 30 years ago. However, the past would also mean
even in academic writing, less awareness of gender
sex and gender are often problems in the present. As
still conflated and objects critical participants in our
are gendered without own society, we are obliged
evidence and justification. to offer socially relevant
Therefore, when it comes research, which does not
to the implementation of send the wrong signals.
an archaeology of gender, These are three reasons
there is still much educa- why a dedicated gender
tional work to be done. archaeology is still needed.
Secondly, recent decades
saw enormous advances
in scientific methods that
possess immediate rele-
vance for social identities
and individuals’ biogra-
phies (e.g. aDNA and stable
stereotype 21

50
Same-sex practices
are a ‘modern’ invention
or a disorder
Uroš Matić

This stereotype has no Roman, and Viking. There

foundation in archaeolo- is no reason to exclude the
gy and history but stems possibility that same-sex
from homophobic political practices were also part of
agendas of state and reli- prehistoric people’s sensual
gious institutions aiming experiences, as is suggested
to ban all sexual identities by Natufian stone figurines,
and practices which do Mesolithic Cuevas de la Vie-
not conform to today’s ja panel, Albacete or Bronze
heteronormative society. Age Scandinavian rock art.
Non-normative sexual prac- Some same-sex sexual roles
tices, including same-sex (e.g. active and penetra-
intercourse, are argued to tive) are sometimes more
be unnatural and a prod- tolerated by society than
uct of modern ideology others (e.g. passive). Often
rather than existing since lying behind such attitudes
prehistory. These claims are gender power relations
give state and religious and attribution of passiv-
institutions legitimacy to ity to women, immature
their sanctions. Same-sex men (e.g. adolescents) and
practices are known both political enemies. Although
in human and other spe- modern archaeology and
cies. Whereas there is no history do not deny the
attested sanction of such existence of same-sex prac-
practices outside human tices in the past, they insist
cultures, they have ac- that the identities formed
quired various meanings in around them were not the
different societies. In some same as today.
non-western societies,
certain same-sex practices
are more tolerated than
others. There are numerous
past societies with written
and visual records of same-
sex practices, including
ancient Egyptian, Greek,
 51

“Same-sex practices are known

both in human and other species.”
stereotype 22

52
Queer archaeology
is just LGBTQIA+
researchers imagining
past LGBTQIA+ people
Bo Jensen
 53

“Indeed, every difference

is potentially queer.”

This prejudice stems from minorities existed in the

a poor understanding of past (of course they did!),
queer theory. Queer people but more about the ways
do imagine the past in their past societies included and
own image, but they are excluded groups, accepted
hardly alone – compare, for or ostracized difference, or
example, those past male made it invisible. As pres-
elites imagined by modern ent and past realities differ,
elite men. Queer identity present and past ideals
does not make you any kind may well have differed,
of a theorist, or any kind of too. More abstractly, queer
an archaeologist. Being a archaeology deals with
woman does not make you affect and unsettlement:
a feminist archaeologist, today, queer differences
either. Experience is a start- challenge the mainstream
ing point, but theory de- order. These challenges can
mands more work from ev- only ever be resolved locally
eryone. Straight readers can and temporarily. Queer ar-
benefit from queer theory chaeology investigates how
too, just as men can benefit past societies reacted to,
from feminist perspectives. accommodated, rejected
Queer archaeology is an- or circumscribed all sorts
ti-essentialist. It acknowl- of differences – between
edges that the real lives of lay and secular, locals and
any group – whether wom- outsiders, urban and rural
en, men and children or communities, among oth-
sexual, religious and ethnic ers. Indeed, every difference
majorities and minorities – is potentially queer.
are historically and cultur-
ally contingent, hedged by
local social understandings.
It acknowledges that di-
versity and discrimination
exist today, and discusses
how this influences archae-
ology. It asks less if sexual
stereotype 23

54
Women have equal
career chances in
archaeology as men
Maria Mina

The false assumption that inequality in archaeology is

women enjoy equal career best described by the term
prospects in archaeolo- ‘glass escalator’, whereby
gy is largely based on the predominantly heterosex-
neo-liberalist ideology that ual white men are placed
professional success is open on a fast track to senior
to anyone competent and positions when entering
talented enough, and that a female-dominated pro-
gender inequality is not fession. Women’s unequal
the result of deeply em- position in archaeology
bedded structural power largely relates to widely
relations. However, recent held perceptions regard-
surveys in Europe and the ing women’s ‘natural’ skills,
United States have exposed such as multi-tasking and
how far women’s prospects their avoidance of conflicts
lag behind those of male or risk-taking which ren-
archaeologists. Although ders them ‘ideal’ for organ-
women tend to outnumber ising, working as members
men in archaeology, only a of teams, or serving in less
small minority reach senior demanding domains. Social
and influential positions, expectations for women’s
further contributing to child-rearing and care-giv-
various gaps. In academ- ing duties also lead to lower
ic research, women are research hours and limited
also under-represented in fieldwork opportunities.
peer-reviewed journals – The prejudices against
possibly a result of the women are informed by
reviewers’ or the editorial gender stereotypes, high-
board’s inherent bias. More lighting the fact that gen-
publications, combined der inequality will be rem-
with increased experience edied in archaeology only
acquired by men through if we openly address the
positions with higher re- structural power relations
sponsibility, subsequently that negatively impact
leads to unequal career women’s professional op-
advancements. Gender portunities.
 55

“… predominantly heterosexual
white men are placed on a fast track
to senior positions when entering a
female-dominated profession.”
stereotype 24

56
Archaeology is free
of harassment, assault,
bullying and intimidation
Laura Coltofean-Arizancu
and Bisserka Gaydarska
 57

“They can force victims to

renounce their jobs or abandon
archaeology forever, while their
perpetrators continue living,
researching and oppressing
undisturbed.”

It is a common misconcep- within the hierarchies of

tion that archaeology is free given settings. Anybody
of harassment and assault, could be a perpetrator –
especially sexual. In fact, from a fellow colleague
recent surveys have shown to a professor of any sex
that archaeology suffers or gender – but usually
from just such a culture of these are white men in
harassment, assault, bully- positions of power. Harass-
ing and intimidation. They ment, assault, bullying and
also revealed that harass- intimidation frequently
ment is not “just” sexual but generate deep emotional
comes under various forms, and psychological wounds
including power and psy- and traumas. They can lead
chological to gender and to insecurity, anxiety, and
religious. The phrases in the even depression. They can
image are a few examples force victims to renounce
of what perpetrators and their jobs or abandon
even witnesses tell victims archaeology forever, while
to justify, defend and deny their perpetrators contin-
these misconducts. Such ue living, researching and
phrases lead to the accep- oppressing undisturbed.
tance and perpetuation of Preventing and combat-
these offensive behaviours, ting these misconducts is
to the extent where they a common responsibility
become normalized and and we can only succeed
not recognized anymore. together through creating
You can hear these phras- safe and empowering study
es in various settings, from and work environments,
fieldwork and university implementing adequate
classes to laboratories, reporting mechanisms and
museum storerooms and sanctions, and encouraging
scientific events. Anybody victims and witnesses to
could be a victim but most disclosure.
often these are people
of disadvantaged back-
grounds or with no power
58

Selected bibliography
Challenging the status quo: Romero, M. and Wicker, N.L. (eds.) Montón-Subías, S. and Sán-
deconstructing gender (2010) Situating Gender in Euro‑ chez-Romero, M. (eds.) (2008)
stereotypes in archaeology pean Archaeologies. Budapest: Engendering Social Dynamics:
Bolger, D. (ed.) (2013) A Companion Archaeolingua. The Archaeology of Maintenance
to Gender Prehistory. Malden Du Cros, H. and Smith, L.J. (eds.) Activities. BAR International Se-
and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. (1993) Women in Archaeology. A ries 1862. Oxford: BAR Publishing.
Claassen, C. (ed.) (1994) Women in Feminist Critique. Canberra: The Nelson, M.C., Nelson, S.M. and
Archaeology. Philadelphia: Uni- Australian National University. Wylie, A. (eds.) (1994) Equity
versity of Pennsylvania Press. Evaristo, B. (2019) Girl, Woman, Oth‑ Issues for Women in Archeology.
Conkey, M. and Spector, J.D. (1984) er. London: Hamish Hamilton. Special issue of Archaeological
‘Archaeology and the Study of Fries, J.E., Gutsmiedl-Schümann, D., Papers of the American Anthro‑
Gender’, Advances in Archae‑ Matias, J.Z. and Rambuscheck, U. pological Association, 5(1).
ological Method and Theory, 7, (eds.) (2017) Images of the Past. Palincaș, N. (2004‑2005) ‘Social
1‑38. Gender and its Representations. Status and Gender Relations in
Díaz-Andreu, M. and Sørensen, Series Frauen – Forschung – Late Bronze Age Popești. A Plea
M.L.S. (eds.). (1998) Excavating Archäologie, vol. 12. Münster: for the Introduction of New Ap-
Women. A history of women in Waxmann Verlag. proaches in Romanian Archaeol-
European archaeology. London Gero, J.M. and Conkey, M.W. (eds.) ogy’, Dacia N.S., XLVIII-XLIX, 39‑53.
and New York: Routledge. (1991) Engendering Archaeology: Sánchez Romero, M. (ed.) (2005) Ar‑
Dommasnes, L.H. (1982) ‘Late Iron Women and Prehistory. Oxford queología y género. Monografías
Age in Western Norway. Female and Cambridge: Basil Blackwell. de Arte y Arqueología, no. 64.
roles and ranks as deduced from Jensen, B. (2007) ‘Queer Bedfel- Granada: Universidad de Granada.
an analysis of burial customs’, lows: Gender Ambiguity, Sha- Sánchez Romero, M. (ed.) (2008)
Norwegian Archaeological Re‑ mans, Hijras, “Berdache” and the Imágenes de mujeres de la
view, 15(1), 70‑84. Problems of Using Ethnographic Prehistoria: desde las manifesta‑
Dommasnes, L.H. (1992) ‘Two Record’ in Jensen, P., Sindbæk, S. ciones de la identidad femenina
decades of women in prehistory and Vandkilde, H. (eds.), IX Nor‑ en el pasado a los estereotipos
and in archaeology in Norway. dic TAG, Århus 10‑12 May 2007, actuales. Dossier in Arenal, 15(1).
A review’, Norwegian Archaeo‑ Globalization, identity, material Sørensen, M.L.S. (2000) Gender
logical Review, 25(1), 1‑14. culture and archaeology. Århus: Archaeology. Cambridge and
Dommasnes, L.H. (1998) ‘Gender as Århus Universitet, pp. 25‑32. Maldon: Polity Press.
a factor in the study of prehistor- Matić, U. (2012) ‘To queer or not to Treherne, P. (1995) ‘The Warrior’s
ic societies’, Archaeologia Baltica, queer? That is the question: Sex/ Beauty: The Masculine Body
3, 187‑193. gender, prestige and burial no. 10 and Self-Identity in Bronze-Age
Dommasnes, L.H., Hjørungdal, on the Mokrin necropolis’, Dacia Europe’, Journal of European
T., Montón-Subías, S., Sánchez N.S., LVI, 169‑185. Archaeology, 3(1), 105‑144.
 59

Stereotype 1 Pate, L. (2004) ‘The use and abuse schlechterklischees bei der
Gero, J. and Root, D. (1990) ‘Public of ethnographic analogies in in- Interpretation eisenzeitlicher
presentation and private con- terpretations of gender systems Prunkgräber’ in Stockhammer,
cerns: archaeology in the pages at Cahokia’ in Pyburn, K.A. (ed.) P.W. and Fries-Knoblach, J. (eds.) In
of National Geographic’ in Gath- Ungendering Civilization. London die Töpfe geschaut. Biochemische
ercole, P. and Lowenthal, D. (eds.) and New York: Routledge, pp. und kulturgeschichtliche Studien
The Politics of the Past. New York: 71‑93. zum früheisenzeitlichen Essen
Routledge, pp. 19‑37. Stereotype 4 und Trinken. Series BEFIM (Bedeu-
Reyman, J. (1994) ‘Gender and class Montón-Subias, S. (2010) ‘Mainte- tungen und Funktionen mediter-
in archaeology: then and now’ nance Activities and the Ethics raner Importe im früheisenzeitli-
in Nelson, M.C., Nelson, S.M. and of Care’ in Dommasnes, L.H., chen Mitteleuropa), vol. 2. Leiden:
Wylie, A. (eds.) Equity Issues for Hjørungdal, T., Montón-Subías, S., Sidestone Press, pp. 365‑387.
Women in Archaeology. Archae- Sánchez Romero, M., and Wicker, Stereotype 7
ological Papers of the American N.L. (eds.) Situating Gender in Eu‑ Matić, U. and Jensen, B. (eds.)
Anthropological Association 5, ropean Archaeologies. Budapest: (2017) Archaeologies of Gender
pp. 83‑90. Archaeolingua, pp. 23‑33. and Violence. Oxford: Oxbow.
Stereotype 2 Powell, L., Southwell-Wright, W. Matić, U. (2021) Violence and Gen‑
Hastorf, C.A. (1991) ‘Gender, Space and Gowland, R. (2017) Care in der in Ancient Egypt. London and
and Food in Prehistory’ in Gero, the Past: Archaeological and New York: Routledge.
J.M. and Conkey, M.W. (eds.) En‑ Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Stereotype 8
gendering Archaeology: Wom‑ Oxford and Philadelphia: Oxbow. Lion, B. (2011) ‘Literacy and Gen-
en and Prehistory. Oxford and Stereotype 5 der’ in Radner, K. and Robson, E.
Cambridge: Basil Blackwell, pp. Cooper, D. and Phelan, C. (eds.) (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of
132‑159. (2017) Motherhood in Antiquity. Cuneiform Culture. Oxford: Oxford
White, C. (2005) ‘Gendered food New York: Palgrave Macmillan. University Press, pp. 90‑116.
behaviour among the Maya’, Rebay-Salisbury, K., Pany-Kucera, Zinn, K. (2013) ‘Literacy, Pharaonic
Journal of Social Archaeology, D., Spannagl-Steiner, M., Kanz, Egypt’ in Bagnall, R.S., Brodersen,
5(3), 356‑382. F., Galeta, P., Teschler-Nicola, M. K., Champion, C.B., Erskine, A. and
Stereotype 3 and Salisbury, R.B. (2018) ‘Moth- Huebner, S.R. (eds.) The Encyclo‑
Gero, J. (1991) ‘Genderlithics: wom- erhood at early Bronze Age pedia of Ancient History. Malden:
en’s role in stone tool production’ Unterhautzenthal, Lower Austria’, Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, pp.
in Gero, J.M. and Conkey, M.W. Archaeologia Austriaca, 102, 4100‑4104.
(eds.) Engendering Archaeology: 71‑134. Stereotype 9
Women and Prehistory. Oxford Stereotype 6 Lerner, G. (1986) The creation of pa‑
and Cambridge: Basil Blackwell, Röder, B. (2019) ‘Zweierlei Maß – triarchy. Oxford: Oxford University
pp. 163‑193. nicht nur beim Alkohol. Ge­ Press.
60

Wagner-Hasel, B. (ed.) (1992) Stereotype 12 Critique of the “Third” and Other

Matriarchatstheorien der Alter‑ Hess, M.S. (2013) Mehrfachbestat‑ Sexual Categories’, Journal of Ar‑
tumswissenschaft. Series Wege tungen von der späten Bronze- chaeological Method and Theory,
der Forschung, vol. 651. Darm- bis zur frühen Eisenzeit. Series 23(3), 788‑809.
stadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchge- Freiburger archäologische Studi- Stereotype 15
sellschaft. en, vol. 6. Rahden/Westf.: Leidorf. Geller, P.L. (2017) The Bioarchaeol‑
Stereotype 10 Schneider, T.G. (2016) ‘Sepultures ogy of Socio-Sexual Lives: Queer‑
Hutton, R. (1997) ‘The Neolithic multiples masculines dans les ing Common Sense about Sex,
great goddess: a study in mod- nécropoles mérovingiennes en Gender, and Sexuality. New York:
ern tradition’, Antiquity, 71, 91‑99. Europe’ in Peytremann, É. (ed.) Springer.
Meskell, L. (1995) ‘Goddesses, Gim- Des fleuves et des hommes Hollimon, S. (2017) ‘Bioarchaeolog-
butas and New Age archaeology’, à l’époque mérovingienne : ical Approaches to Nonbinary
Antiquity, 69(262), 74-86. territoire fluvial et société au Gender: Case Studies from Na-
Stereotype 11 premier Moyen Âge (Ve-XIIe tive North America’ in Agarwal,
Röder, B. (2010) ‘Verräterische Idyl- siècle). Actes des XXXIIIèmes S. and Wesp, J. (eds.) Exploring
len: Urgeschichtliche Sozialver- Journées internationales Sex and Gender in Bioarchaeol‑
hältnisse auf archäologischen d’Archéologie mérovingienne, ogy. Albuquerque: University of
Lebensbildern’ in Claßen, E., Strasbourg, 28‑30 septembre New Mexico Press, pp. 51‑70.
Doppler, T. and Ramminger, B. 2012. Series Mémoires de l’Asso- Stereotype 16
(eds.) Familie – Verwandtschaft – ciation française d’Archéologie Corbett, G. (1991) Gender. Cam-
Sozialstrukturen. Sozialarchäolo‑ mérovingienne, vol. 32. Dijon, pp. bridge: Cambridge University
gische Forschungen zu neolith‑ 351‑363. Press.
ischen Befunden. Series Fokus Stereotype 13 Kehoe, A.B. (2016) ‘Gendered Land-
Jungsteinzeit – Berichte der AG Bolger, D. (ed.) (2013) A Companion scapes? If You Speak an Algonki-
Neolithikum, vol. 1. Loogh: Welt to Gender Prehistory. Chichester: an Language’ in Claassen, C. (ed)
und Erde, pp. 13‑30. Wiley-Blackwell. Native American Landscapes:
Possinger, J. (2019) ‘Familie: Sørensen, M.L.S. (2000). Gender An Engendered Perspective.
Wandel und Persistenz von Archaeology. Cambridge and Knoxville: University of Tennessee
Geschlecht in der Institution Maldon: Polity Press. Press, pp. 177‑189.
Geschlecht’ in Kortendiek, B., Stereotype 14 Stereotype 17
Riegraf, B., and Sabisch, K. (eds.) Geller, P.L. (2009) ‘Identity and Bernbeck, R. and McGuire, R.H.
Handbuch Interdisziplinäre Difference: Complicating Gender (2011) ‘A Conceptual History of
Geschlechterforschung. Series in Archaeology’, Annual Review Ideology and Its Place in Ar-
Geschlecht und Gesellschaft, vol. of Anthropology, 38, 65‑81. chaeology’ in Bernbeck, R. and
65. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. Moral, E. (2016) ‘Qu(e)erying Sex McGuire, R.H. (eds.) Ideologies in
1281‑1290. and Gender in Archaeology: a Archaeology. Tucson: The Univer-
 61

sity of Arizona Press, pp. 15‑59. wegian Archaeological Review, archaeologists.eu/national_re-

Zaharijević, A. (2019) ‘Burning in the 52, 148‑169. ports/2014/transnational_report.
21st Century. What lies behind Geller, P.L. (2017) ‘Brave old world: pdf
“gender ideology”’, Kultura, 163, ancient DNA testing and sex de- Fulkerson, T. and Tushingham,
28‑45 (in Serbian). termination’ in Agarwal S.C. and S. (2019) ‘Who dominates the
Stereotype 18 Wesp, J.K. (eds.) Exploring sex discourses of the past? Gender,
Gero, J.M. (1983) ‘Gender bias in ar- and gender in bioarchaeology. occupational affiliation, and
chaeology: a cross-cultural Albuquerque: University of New multivocality in North American
perspective’ in Gero, J.M., Lacy, Mexico Press, pp. 68‑106. Archaeology publishing’, Ameri‑
D.M. and Blakey, M.L. (eds.) Stereotype 21 can Antiquity, 84(3), 379‑399.
The Socio-Politics of Archaeolo‑ Roughgarden, J. (2013) Evolution’s Stereotype 24
gy. Amherst: University of Massa- Rainbow. Diversity, Gender, and Coltofean-Arizancu, L., Gaydarska,
chusetts, pp. 51‑57. Sexuality in Nature and People. B. and Plutniak, S. (2020) ‘Break-
Ehrenberg, M. (1989) Women in Tenth Anniversary Edition. Berke- ing the taboo: harassment and
Prehistory. London: British Muse- ley: University of California Press. assault in Central-East and
um Press. Schmidt, R.A. and Voss, B.L. (eds.) South-East European archaeolo-
Stereotype 19 (2000) Archaeologies of Sex‑ gy’. 26th Virtual Annual Meeting
Engelstad, E. (2007) ‘Much More uality. London and New York: of the European Association of
than Gender’, Journal of Archae‑ Routledge. Archaeologists. Budapest, 24‑30
ological Method and Theory, Stereotype 22 August (https://www.e-a-a.org/
14(3), 217‑234. Dowson, T. (ed.) (2000) Queer EAA2020virtual).
Fries, J.E. and Gutsmiedl- Archaeologies. Special issue of Meyers, M.S., Horton, E.T., Bou-
Schümann, D. (2020) ‘Feminist World Archaeology, 32(2). dreaux, E.A., Carmody, S.B.,
archaeologies and gender Rutecki, D.M. and Blackmore, C. Wright, A.P. and Dekle, V.G. (2018)
studies’ in Gardner, A., Lake, (2016) ‘Towards an Inclusive ‘The Context and Consequences
M. and Sommer, U. (eds.) Queer Archaeology: An Overview of Sexual Harassment in South-
The Oxford Handbook of and Introduction’, The SAA Ar‑ eastern Archaeology’, Advances
Archaeological Theory. Oxford chaeological Record, 16(1), 9‑11. in Archaeological Practice, 6(4),
University Press. DOI: 10.1093/ Stereotype 23 275‑287.
oxfordhb/9780199567942.013.037. Discovering the Archaeologists of
Stereotype 20 Europe 2012‑2014: Transnational
Frieman, C.J., Teather, A. and Mor- Report. (2014) York Archaeolog-
gan, C. (2019) ‘Bodies in Motion: ical Trust & Lifelong Learning
Narratives and Counter Narra- Programme (European Commis-
tives of Gendered Mobility in sion). Accessed 20th November
European Later Prehistory’, Nor‑ 2020. https://www.discovering-
62

List of authors
Bettina Arnold
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, United States of America
barnold@uwm.edu

Laura Coltofean-Arizancu
DAAD Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Römisch-Germanische
Kommission des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Frankfurt, Germany
laura.coltofean@gmail.com

Agnès Garcia-Ventura
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
agnes.garcia.ventura@uab.cat

Bisserka Gaydarska
Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom
b_gaydarska@yahoo.co.uk

Pamela L. Geller
University of Miami, Coral Gables, United States of America
p.geller@miami.edu

Doris Gutsmiedl-Schümann
Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
doris.gutsmiedl@fu-berlin.de

Bo Jensen
Kroppedal Museum, Vridsløsemagle, Denmark
bojensen_dk@yahoo.dk

Alice B. Kehoe
Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, United States of America
akehoe@uwm.edu

Julia K. Koch
Archäologisches Landesmuseum Hessen, Hessen, Germany
julia.koch@keltenwelt-glauberg.de
 63

Uroš Matić
Austrian Archaeological Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria
uros.matic@oeaw.ac.at

Maria Mina
University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece
m.mina@aegean.gr

Sandra Montón-Subías
ICREA/Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain
sandra.monton@upf.edu

Nils Müller-Scheeßel
Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Institute of Pre- and Protohistoric Archaeology, Kiel, Germany
nils.mueller-scheessel@ufg.uni-kiel.de

Rachel Pope
University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
rachel.pope@liverpool.ac.uk

Katharina Rebay-Salisbury
Austrian Archaeological Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria
katharina.rebay-salisbury@oeaw.ac.at

Brigitte Röder
University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
brigitte.roeder@unibas.ch

Marga Sánchez Romero

University of Granada, Granada, Spain
marsanch@ugr.es
64

Colophon
© 2021 Individual authors
Published by Sidestone Press, Leiden
www.sidestone.com

Archaeology and Gender in Europe (AGE) is a community within the

European Association of Archaeologists. Its area of concern is the
discussion of gender issues in European archaeology, where gender is
considered both as a structural element to be studied in the past and as
influencing research in the present. Thus, AGE addresses the study and
understanding of gender arrangements in the past and of how current
gender systems affect archaeology as an academic and professional
practice. Website: https://www.archaeology-gender-europe.org/

Layout & cover design: Marta Klement | Hart Voor De Zaak

Illustrations: Nikola Radosavljević 
ISBN 978-94-6426-025-0 (paperback)
ISBN 978-94-6426-026-7 (PDF e-book)

This project was supported by:

 Gender
Edited by Laura Coltofean-Arizancu, Bisserka Gaydarska
& Uroš Matić Illustrations by Nikola Radosavljević

stereotypes
A short
Gender stereotypes in archaeology reflection
in image

Gender stereotypes in archaeology

Were men the only hunters and producers of tools, art and innovation in prehistory? Were women
and text

in archaeology
the only gatherers, home-bound breeders and caregivers? Are all prehistoric female depictions
mother goddesses? And do women and men have equal career chances in archaeology? To put it
short, no. However, these are some of the gender stereotypes that we still encounter on a daily basis
in archaeology from the way archaeologists interpret the past and present it to the general public to
how they practice it as a profession.

This booklet is a short but informative and critical response by archaeologists to various gender
stereotypes that exist in the archaeological explanation of the past, as well as in the contemporary
disciplinary practice. Gender and feminist archaeologists have fought for decades against gender
stereotypes through academic writing, museum exhibitions and popular literature, among others.
Despite their efforts, many of these stereotypes continue to live and even flourish, both in academic
and non-academic settings, especially in countries where gender archaeology does not exist or
where gender in archaeology is barely discussed. Given this context and the rise of far right or
ultraconservative ideologies and beliefs across the globe, this booklet is a timely and thought-
provoking contribution that openly addresses often uncomfortable topics concerning gender in
archaeology, in an attempt to raise awareness both among the professionals and others interested in
the discipline.

The booklet includes 24 commonly encountered gender stereotypes in archaeology, explained

and deconstructed in 250 words by archaeologists with expertise on gender in the past and in
contemporary archaeology, most of them being members of the Archaeology and Gender in Europe
(AGE) Community of the European Association of Archaeologists. In addition, the stereotypes are
beautifully illustrated by Serbian award-winning artist Nikola Radosavljević.

ISBN 978-94-6426-025-0
ISBN: 978-94-6426-025-0

9 789464 260250