Skeletal analysis and theoretical complications

Abstract

Archaeologists – feminist or otherwise – use biologically sexed human remains to make inferences about cultures' conceptions of gender. Creating an easy link between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’, however, is not without problems. Recent debates within the social sciences have centered on the evolving, historical definition and cultural relevance of both of these terms. Interestingly, skeletal analysts' voices tend to remain silent in this debate. What do paradigmatic twists and turns in feminist and queer theorizing mean for burial analysis? To answer this question, I advocate a bioarchaeological approach that facilitates reconciliation of biological classifications, cultural constructions of gender and feminist theories that complicate ‘sex’ and ‘gender’. As an example, I look to the pre-Columbian Maya.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 94 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.