{"id":7078,"date":"2025-04-24T08:05:32","date_gmt":"2025-04-24T08:05:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac10\/?page_id=7078"},"modified":"2025-04-25T04:10:08","modified_gmt":"2025-04-25T04:10:08","slug":"t26-s01-papers","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac10\/t26-s01-papers\/","title":{"rendered":"T26\/S01: Gender and the Revolution in Archaeology"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Format: Paper presentations with discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Convenors:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

K. Anne Pyburn, Dept of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington Indiana, USA<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sandra L. L\u00f3pez Varela, Universidad Nacional Aut\u00f3noma de M\u00e9xico, Mexico<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nicole Boivin, Max Planck Institute for Geoanthropology, Germany<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nearly 35 years ago, Meg Conkey and Joan Gero published Engendering Archaeology,<\/em> a groundbreaking volume that challenged the deep sexism embedded in archaeological interpretation. This session interrogates the enduring impact of gendered assumptions in biological anthropology and archaeology, highlighting how feminist perspectives continue to reshape foundational questions in human evolution, material culture, and pedagogy. From the re-evaluation of early hominin reconstructions to the inclusion of caregiving and collaborative behaviors in evolutionary models, presenters explore how female scholars challenge traditional narratives and redefine the field\u2019s epistemological boundaries. The session examines how women’s participation has transformed biological anthropology, followed by case studies that critique male-centric interpretations of tool use and social organization in both human and non-human primates. A bibliographic review and an analysis of the role of liberal arts in elevating the archaeology of ancient women expand the discussion to pedagogical and institutional dimensions. The session concludes with a provocative discussion inviting participants to reflect on the meanings, challenges, and future directions of feminist scholarship in anthropology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Papers:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

How the Female Perspective has Changed Biological Anthropology<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Leslea J. Hlusko, Spanish National Research Center on Human Evolution (CENIEH), Burgos, Spain<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

With the founding of the journal American Journal of Physical Anthropology<\/em> in 1918 and establishment of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists ten years later, a small group of physicians and anthropologists launched one of the major subdisciplines investigating the human past. Over the century there have been numerous shifts in the science, and in 2021, the application of a biological rather than typological approach was cemented when the Association and Journal formally changed the word \u2018physical\u2019 to \u2018biological\u2019 in their titles. This one-word reflects an enormous sea-change: the discipline that began with a focus on human populations, over a century morphed into a transdisciplinary approach to human evolutionary biology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this presentation, I explore the history of female perspectives within physical, now biological anthropology. We first look at gender in leadership, from the first woman President of AAPA in 1955 to my service as the most recent President of AABA. We survey research topics, noting how gender as an investigative focus has grown and shifted. And lastly, I share anecdotes to demonstrate how the female perspective broadens the types of research questions asked, and the manner in which the science is done.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Evolutionary Insights into Gendered Roles: Tool Use, Caregiving and Resource Allocation in Humans and Non-human Primates<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jayashree Mazumder, Postdoctoral fellow, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The evolution of gender roles in human societies has been shaped by ecological and social pressures, leading to sex-based labour divisions. Women have traditionally been associated with caregiving, while men often take on competitive tasks like hunting and resource acquisition. This division has influenced social-organisation and established gender hierarchies, with certain roles valued more highly. A key question arises: could these divisions have been strategically used by one sex to assert dominance, reinforcing power structures that persist today? In hunter-gatherer societies, hunting was highly valued for its role in group survival, granting men authority and social capital, while women\u2019s essential roles in gathering and caregiving were often undervalued, perpetuating inequalities. In more egalitarian societies, where labour divisions were balanced, gender roles were flexible, and contributions were equally valued. Similar patterns emerge in non-human primates like Macaca fascicularis umbrosus<\/em> on the Nicobar Islands. Males are proficient tool users, but caregiving disrupts this behaviour. Females caring for offspring similarly avoid competitive tasks, showing how caregiving influences resource allocation. These patterns suggest that gendered behaviours evolved as adaptive strategies, later manipulated to reinforce dominance. Understanding these dynamics across species reveals how ecological and social pressures shaped gender roles and their lasting societal impacts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rethinking the \u2018Handy Man\u2019: Male Bias in Reconstructions of the Early Stone Age<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Emma M. Finestone, Cleveland Museum of Natural History, USA<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ability to make flaked stone tools marked a fundamental adaptive shift in the human lineage. Research on our closest living relatives in the genus Pan indicates that female chimpanzees and bonobos use a broader variety of tools, engage in tool-related behaviours more frequently, demonstrate greater proficiency, and play a key role in transmitting material culture to the next generation. Hominin tool behaviour may have reflected similar patterns. However, the historical narrative around hominin toolmaking has often been male-biased, reinforced by the first definitive tool-user, Homo habilis<\/em>, named for the term \u2018handy man\u2019. Popular portrayals of the Early Stone Age often depict exclusively male (n=18) or predominantly male (n=16) hominin groups making and using tools, while females (n=1) and female-majority groups (n=2) are underrepresented. These depictions are disproportionately widespread, with images of male-dominated toolmakers appearing on 6,471 webpages, compared to just 402 webpages showing images of majority female toolmakers. These representations shape both scientific and public perceptions of tool technology. A more nuanced approach to understanding the evolution of stone tool behaviour, grounded in scientific evidence rather than cultural assumptions, will lead to a more accurate and less biased framework for interpreting the origins of technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thinking Archaeology Through a Feminist Gaze, A Bibliographic Revision<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Francisca Lobos Sanzana, Universidad de Chile<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is not usually thought that the field of study of archaeology is governed by bodies, bodies that\u2014at one time or another\u2014decided to generate materialities (ceramics, textiles, lithic artifacts, etc.). Therefore, throughout the entire process of learning, creation, circulation, and disposal of these objects, the body is present, so it cannot be set aside. However, problems arise precisely when the body is neither considered nor defined, which generates an assumption about what is meant by the \u2018body\u2019. Given this, it is essential to engage in an internal critique to advance in these matters and to enable archaeological reflections and interpretations to acquire greater complexity of the societies under study. To this end, feminist criticism allows us to dismantle categories as signs by analysing the discourses and myths that have been constructed around them. For all of the above reasons, this research seeks to conduct an analysis of archaeology through the postulates of different authors (Judith Butler, Nelly Richard, Rita Segato, Mar\u00eda Galindo, among others), in order to understand and propose new perspectives on how to understand the corporalities we are dealing with. That is, bodies that go beyond flesh and bone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Relevancy of the Archaeology of Ancient Women: The Value of Liberal Arts in a University Curriculum<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Peyton Foti and Sarah Muckerheide, Anthropology, Indiana University, USA<\/em>
Kylie Dannatt, Indiana University, USA<\/em>
Taylor Nasim Stone, Central Eurasian Studies, Indiana University, USA<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Does the archaeology of ancient women belong in university curriculum? Indiana University\u2019s \u2018Ancient Women\u2019 course hopes to uncover the relevancy of liberal arts curriculum in a university setting. With a focus on revealing the often hidden and misrepresented place of women in the archaeological record, course themes include not only understanding broader ideas about sex and gender in ancient and contemporary humans, but developing critical thinking skills to challenge misinformation and addressing biases in perspectives in order to challenge assumptions made in interpretations of the past. Undergraduate students\u2019 anonymous responses will be interpreted and organised into a paper that provides insights into how liberal arts classes with these themes are perceived as useful or relevant within university settings. The students have diverse backgrounds ranging from history and anthropology to human biology and political science. Preliminary discussions revealed themes surrounding challenging stereotypes and misinterpretations, along with normative views surrounding women and their role in history, and developing critical thinking skills to evaluate both one\u2019s own and others\u2019 beliefs. These topics were noted to be absent in previous courses, indicating a critical gap in curriculum. Initial feedback from the undergraduates indicates a positive perception of liberal arts impact on university curriculum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Discussion: What Do You Mean by That?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

K. Anne Pyburn, Dept of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington Indiana, USA<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Defining our terms is a very simple way to begin to decolonise archaeology and engender new perspectives, because undefined terms lean into the received wisdom of ancestral academia, most of which is gendered, white and colonial. Words like \u2018collapse\u2019, \u2018sacrifice\u2019, \u2018warfare\u2019, and \u2018migration\u2019, actually have many meanings and ripped from context may create a false picture of ubiquity. The power to name is the power to define, to \u2018control the narrative\u2019, to establish (or disrupt) relationality. Undefined terms are hard to challenge, and scientific terms can be a tool of domination, but when we define our terms we accept responsibility for them and provoke healthy challenges to traditional reasoning. In this paper I will consider what terms are in particular need of definition and what consequences follow from continuing to treat vague concepts as general knowledge.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Format: Paper presentations with discussion Convenors:\u00a0 K. Anne Pyburn, Dept of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington Indiana, USA Sandra L. L\u00f3pez Varela, Universidad Nacional Aut\u00f3noma de M\u00e9xico, Mexico Nicole Boivin, Max Planck Institute for Geoanthropology, Germany Nearly 35 years ago, Meg Conkey and Joan Gero published Engendering Archaeology, a groundbreaking volume that challenged the deep sexism embedded in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1157,"featured_media":276,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"pmpro_default_level":"","ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"class_list":{"0":"post-7078","1":"page","2":"type-page","3":"status-publish","4":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"pmpro-has-access","7":"czr-hentry"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac10\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/7078","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac10\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac10\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac10\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1157"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac10\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7078"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac10\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/7078\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7594,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac10\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/7078\/revisions\/7594"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac10\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/276"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac10\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7078"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}