Feminisms, Queer Theories, and the Archaeological Study of Past Sexualities

Author(s): Barbara L. Voss

Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 32, No. 2, Queer Archaeologies (Oct., 2000), pp. 180-192
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/827864
Accessed: 23-08-2015 06:25 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Feminisms,queer theories,and the
archaeologicalstudyofpast
sexualities
BarbaraL. Voss

Abstract

Archaeologyfacestheuniquechallengeofstretching socialtheoriesofsexuality
in newchrono-
logicalandmethodological
directions.
Thisessayusesan analysisofcitational
practices
toconsider
howfeminist and queertheoriesarticulate
witharchaeologicalinvestigations
of sexuality.
Both
queertheoriesandfeminist
archaeological
practices
areshowntobe powerful toolsthatcanbe used
to expandarchaeological
interpretations
ofgenderandsexuality.

Keywords

Sexuality;
gender;queertheory;
feminism; ofarchaeology.
history

There is anothersocial functionof gender to be consideredand that is the social

markingof sexuallyappropriatepartners.... If the readeracceptsthissocial function
of gender,thenan archaeologyof genderis an archaeologyofsexuality.
(Claassen 1992b)
Gender is out - sex is in.
(dig house graffiti,
Catalhoytik,
Turkey,1998)
It has been eightyearssinceClaassen observedthatsexualityis intrinsically linkedto the
archaeologicalstudyof genderin the past, but untilrecentlyonly a few archaeologists
have seriouslyconsideredhow the archaeologicalrecordcan be used to produceknow-
ledge about past sexualities.Fortunately,in the last threeyearsthissituationhas signifi-
cantlychanged.There is now emerginga significant corpusof discourseabout sexuality
and the archaeologicalrecord,a constellationof recent publicationsand theses that
demonstratethatan ever-increasing rangeof sexual topicscan be investigatedand inter-
rogatedthrougharchaeologicalresearch.
A reviewof archaeologicalstudiesof sexualityis in some wayspremature,for(despite
an anonymousarchaeologist'sglibassertionthat'sex is in') theundertaking is stillcontro-
versialand contested.Yet evenat thisearlydate itis clearthatarchaeologicalinvestigations

WorldArchaeology Vol. 32(2): 180-192 QueerArchaeologies

? 2000 Taylor& FrancisLtd ISSN 0043-8243print/1470-1375
online

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Feminisms,
queer theories,
past sexualities 181

of sexualityare beinginformedand influencedby severaldistinct- and at timescompet-

ing- intellectualtraditions.
In thisessay,I particularly
considerhow feminist archaeology
and queer theoryarticulatewitharchaeologicalinvestigationsof sexuality.To do so I step
back in time,as archaeologistsare wontto do, and discussthe genesisof both feminist
archaeologyand queer theoryin the 1980sand 1990s,examiningtheirrelationshipto each
otherthroughan analysisof citationalpracticesin archaeology.This discussionnot only
contributesto a reviewofarchaeologicalresearchon sexualitybutalso towardsdiscussions
on thesociologyof knowledgein archaeology.

Feminist
archaeologies:
gender, andthedivision
status, oflabour

The emergenceof feministarchaeologyis generallyattributedto the 1984 publication

'Archaeologyand the studyof gender' (Conkey and Spector 1984). By the late 1980s,
symposia,workshops,and dedicatedconferencesbroughttogetherresearchersinterested
in integratingarchaeology,feministtheory,women'sstudies,and the interpretation of a
genderedpast. A bloom of publicationsfollowed,includingthe edited volume Engen-
deringArchaeology(Gero and Conkey 1991), fiveconferenceproceedings(Balme and
Beck 1995; Claassen 1992a; du Cros and Smith1993; Miller 1988; Walde and Willows
1991), a special issue of HistoricalArchaeology(Seifert1991), and severaltopicalmono-
graphs (e.g. Ehrenberg 1989; Gilchrist1994; Spector 1993; Wall 1994). Not all the
researchersinvolvedin these projectsnecessarilyidentifiedthemselvesor theirworkas
'feminist'(Wylie 1997b). Recent commentarieshave thusreferredto thisbody of litera-
tureas 'womanist'or 'gender'archaeology(e.g.,Joyceand Claassen 1997; Gilchrist1999;
Nelson 1997; Wright2000). These commentatorsand othersare correctin emphasizing
thatresearchon womenor genderis not automatically'feminist'.Nonetheless,I believe
thatmost of the workslisted above can be accuratelydescribedas 'feminist-inspired',
informedby popular,political,and/oracademic feministthought.Additionally,feminist
practicein archaeologycertainlyhas not been limitedto researchon women or gender
(Conkey and Wylie1999; Wyliein press). Because of this,forthe purposesof thisessay
I have chosen to referto thisbody of workas 'feministarchaeology'.
The developmentof thisdiversebody of 'feminist'and 'feminist-inspired' archaeolo-
gies occurredat a timewhen feministtheoryand politicsin the United States and else-
wherewere at a crossroads.In the late 1970s and early1980s,whenConkeyand Spector
were authoringtheir1984 manifesto,NorthAmericanfeministpoliticswere focusedon
whatthenappeared to be theuniversaloppressionofwomenbypatriarchy. Althoughthe
exact nature and mechanismsof patriarchaloppressionwere debated, this focus was
generally(but of course not completely)sharedby Marxist,socialist,radical,liberal,and
culturalfeminisms ofthetime(Jagger1983:5-8). In boththehumanitiesand sciences,the
omission of women's experiences and accomplishmentsin academic and popular
discoursewas identifiedas one mechanismbywhichpatriarchalideologyreplicateditself
by privilegingmale experience.Feministscholarsin anthropologyand otherdisciplines
thusprioritizedresearchthatdocumentedwomen's experiencescross-culturally, especi-
allyregardinggenderroles and thewaysthatpatriarchy acted on women'slives(Rosaldo
and Lamphere 1974; Rubin 1975; Reiter 1975).

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
182 Barbara L. Voss

Informedby this politicaland academic climate,Conkey and Spector's 1984 article

presenteda substantialcritiqueof androcentrism in archaeology.They called for new
approachesto archaeologicalinterpretation thatwouldpromotegender-inclusive models
ofthepast,questiontheuniversality of a rigidsexual divisionoflabour,and challengethe
waysthatmen'spurportedactivitiesare valued morethanthosebelievedto be performed
bywomen.In thiswayfeminist theorywouldbe used in archaeologyto combattheeffects
ofpresent-day sexismon archaeologicalinterpretations. Simultaneously, thecriticalstudy
of gender in the past would provide new informationabout the long-termhistoryof
genderrelations.This core agenda was laterreiteratedby Conkeyand Gero in their1991
edited volume EngenderingArchaeologywiththe added aim of problematizing'under-
lyingassumptionsabout genderand difference'(Conkey and Gero 1991:5). Throughout
thelate 1980sand early1990s,thesegoals were largelyadoptedbymostresearcherswho
identified theirresearchas feministarchaeology,genderarchaeology,or the archaeology
of women.It is perhapsworthnotingthatthesegeneralaims of feministarchaeologyare
broadlycongruentwithfeminist interventions intothesocial sciencesin general(Harding
1986,1987; Wylie1992,1997a).
Because Conkeyand Spector's1984 articlewas widelyadopted as a centralagenda for
feministarchaeologicalstudies for the decade to come, the political and intellectual
climatewithinwhichtheywrote significantly affectedthe way that sexualityhas been
addressedwithinarchaeologicalinterpretations. Most of the earlystudiesin archaeology
that consciouslyadopted a feministapproach emphasized the sexual (or gendered)
divisionof labour and indices of genderstatus,an emphasistypifiedby Spector's task
differentiation framework (Conkeyand Spector1984;Spector1991). Therewas a particu-
lar emphasison 'finding'womenin the archaeologicalrecordby debunkinganrdocentric
methodsand interpretations, and on highlighting thecontributions of womento thepast
(e.g. Brumfiel1991; Gero 1991; Wright1991). At the same time many studiesused a
materialistapproach that viewed women as a gender class, tryingto understandhow
archaeologicallyidentifiedconditionssuch as environmental change,stateformation, or
theintroduction of agricultureintensified or changedwomen'sstatus(e.g. Claassen 1991;
Hastorf1991; Watsonand Kennedy1991). The prominenceof materialistand empiricist
researchin North American feministarchaeologyhas been discussed elsewhere (e.g.
Gilchrist1999:ch. 3; Nelson 1997:ch. 5; Wylie1996:320-5) and is attributable to boththe
then-dominant 'New Archaeology'paradigmand also the emphasison socialistpolitical
theoryin NorthAmericanfeminismin the 1970s and early1980s.
These shared emphasesin earlyfeministarchaeologicalstudieshad significant impli-
cations for the ways that issues of sexualitybegan to be discussed in archaeological
interpretation. Feministarchaeologistsusuallyadopted the sex/gender systemmodel,in
whichgenderis takento be theculturalexpressionofbiologicalsex (Rubin 1975). Within
thisframework, sexualityis generallyseen as derivativeof gender,one of manyaspects
of social lifethatis structured by sex/gender systems.As a result,to paraphraseBrumfiel
(1992), duringthefirstdecade offeministarchaeologicalpractice,'Gender ... [stole]the
show'. Feministarchaeologicalresearchrarelyaddressedthe topic of sexuality,instead
treatingsexualitypredominantly as a functionof genderratherthanas a distinctaspect
ofsocial relations(see Rubin 1984:309 fora generaldiscussionofthispoint).For example,
heterosexualmarriagehas been examinedby manyfeministarchaeologistsas a locus for

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Feminisms,
queer theories,
past sexualities 183

the genderedorganizationof labour (which,of course,it oftenis) but onlyrarelywitha

considerationof how marriagerelatesto the regulationand expressionof sexuality(e.g.
Deagan 1983; Gibb and King 1991;Jackson1991; Wall 1994; Wright1991).
In notingthese trends,I am not suggestingthatthe initialgoals of feminist-inspired
archaeologicalprojectsnegativelyaffectedarchaeologicalinterpretations ofsexuality.On
the contrary,by highlighting genderas a subjectof archaeologicalresearch,and by fore-
groundinginterpersonalrelationshipsas an arena of social action,feministinterventions
in archaeologycreatedan intellectualclimatewithinwhichresearchon sexualitybecame
increasinglyviable.Exactlyhow theprioritiesand conventionsoffeminist archaeological
practicescame to influencearchaeologicalinvestigations ofsexualityis,however,ofgreat
interest,and is a topicthatI returnto laterin thisessay.

The Sex Wars,AIDS, and queer theory:sexualitymovesfrontand centre

During the emergenceof feministarchaeologies in the 1980s and early 1990s, North
Americanfeminist politicsnegotiateda seriesofepistemologicalcrisesthatshiftedfemin-
ist attentiontowardsan examinationof differences betweenwomen.Among otherissues
such as race and class, feministscholarsand activistsundertookprojectsthattheorized
sexualityin waysmarkedlydifferent fromprevioustreatmentsof sexualityas some sort
of
of an extension gender. In the late 1970sworksby lesbian and gay scholars(e.g. Katz
1976; Rowbothamand Weeks 1977; Smith-Rosenberg1979; Weeks 1977), the English
translationof Foucault's Historyof Sexuality(1978), and, in anthropology, Ortnerand
Whitehead'sSexual Meanings(1981) challengedconventionalfeminist wisdomabout the
primacyof genderas a vectorof oppression.By the early1980s sexualityhad become a
flashpointof feministdebate (the so-called 'Sex Wars'), and the relationshipof sexuality
to patriarchyand liberationwas hotlycontested(Rubin 1984; Vance 1984; Duggan and
Hunter 1995). Homosexuality,pornography,sadomasochism,prostitution, monogamy,
rape, promiscuity, butch-femmerelationships,interracialand intergenerational sex -
these and othersexual practicesbecame prominenttopics of oftenacrimoniouspublic
forumsand writtendiscourse.Concurrently, the emergingAIDS pandemic propelled
male same-sexsexual practicesand commercialsex intoexplicitpublicdiscussionthrough
medical,publichealth,and activistmovements, bringing coverageofcondomdistribution,
prostitution, anal and oral sex,and publicsex intomainstreamprintand televisionmedia.1
Discussionsabout thepoliticsofsexualityduringtheearlyand mid-1980swere at times
bitter(see, for example, Vance's discussionof the 1982 Barnard College conference
(Vance 1984) or Crimpand Roston's pictorialhistoryof ACT UP (Crimp and Rolston
1990)), butitwouldbe a mistaketo characterizethisperiodsolelyas an era ofcontentious
debate. As Rubin urged,'The timehas come to thinkabout sex' (1984: 267) and thinking
about sex was preciselywhat manyfeminist, lesbian, and gay researchers,writers,and
activistsdid. What emergedwas a sense thattheoriesof genderwere not fullyadequate
to addresssexuality,eitheras a social practiceor as a vectorof oppression(Vance 1984:
10): that'it is essentialto separate genderand sexualityanalyticallyto more accurately
reflecttheirseparatesocial existence'(Rubin 1984:308). By thelate 1980sand early1990s,
the call to develop theoriesof sexualitywas being answeredby an expandingbody of

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
184 Barbara L. Voss

literaturethataddressedthe politicaland culturalpositionsof gays,lesbians,bisexuals,

transsexuals,sex workers,sadomasochists,and others- a diverse conglomerationof
sexual 'minorities'who wereincreasingly identifiedas 'queer' (de Lauretis1991:v). Sedg-
wick'sEpistemologyof theCloset(1990), Butler'sGenderTrouble(1990) and Bodies that
Matter(1993a), Warner'sFear of a Queer Planet (1993) and two special issues of differ-
ences (Vol. 5 No. 2 and Vol. 6 Nos. 2 + 3) all signalledthe consolidationof an approach
to theorizingsexualitythatcrossedgenderlines,integrating (but not collapsing)sexual
theoriesrelatedto masculinity and femininity and to heterosexuality and homosexuality.
Most importantly, the emergenceof queer theorywithinacademia markeda radical
shifttowardspositioningabjectand stigmatized sexualidentitiesas important entrypoints
to theproductionof knowledge(Butler1993b). A move to destabilizesexual and gender
categorieswas and stillis an integralpartof thisprocess.The adoptionof the inclusive
moniker'queer' reflectedthe rejectionof taxonomicsexual categories(e.g. homosexual,
heterosexual,fetishist, pederast) thatinitiallyhad been establishedthroughsexological
discoursein the late 1800s and early1900s (see Bland and Doan (1998) fora discussion
of sexologyand sexual taxonomies).Instead,theterm'queer' reflectsan inclusivestand-
point based on differencefrom or opposition to the ideology of heteronormativity
(Warner1993:xxiii).Thus queer theoryand queer politicsrepresenta criticalmomentin
thehistoryof Westernsexualityin whichsexual minoritiesand deviantswho wereprevi-
ouslydefinedby legal statutesand medical/psychological diagnosesare insteadcreating
an always-contested and re-negotiatedgroupidentitybased on difference fromthenorm
- in otherwords,a postmodernversionof identitypolitics(see Butler1993a: 21). Essen-
tial to thispost-structuralist
deploymentof oppositionis the tenetthatwhatis 'norma-
tive' is actuallyconstructedthroughreferenceto deviance.Thus it is 'deviance' thatis
foundationaland the 'normative'thatis unstable(Butler1993b).
This emphasison 'oppositionto the normative'(a positionrepeated in the call for
papers forthis volume) and on the simultaneousdestabilizationof the normativeare
aspectsof queer theorythatallow greatinterdisciplinary mobility,as theypermittheor-
etical conceptsinitiallyapplied to issues of sexual identityand the oppressionof sexual
minoritiesto be deployedin studiesof othersocial subgroupsas well as in studiesof the
writtenand spokenword,the builtenvironment, materialobjects,and otherproductsof
culture.It is, I argue below,preciselythisemphasison normativity and oppositionthat
poses both opportunitiesand challengesfor archaeologistsengagingin studiesof past
sexualities.

theoriesofsexuality
connectionsbetweenarchaeologyand feminist
Intersections:

These briefhistoriesreveal that feministarchaeologyand queer theoryshare certain

temporalmarkers:bothwerefoundedon thepoliticaland academicfeminisms ofthelate
1970s and early 1980s, emergedin oppositionto the dominantpoliticaland academic
climateoftheearlyand mid-1980s,and, aftera periodof uncertainexploration,achieved
a degreeofacademiclegitimacyand popularityin theearly1990s.Of coursethishistorical
narrativemay be undulyinfluencedby the archaeologicaltendencyto interpretcultural
model.Nonetheless,
developmentsthroughthe 'formative/pre-classic/classic/post-classic'

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Feminisms,
queer theories,
past sexualities 185

I suggestthatqueer theoryand feministarchaeologyshared somewhatparallel chrono-

logical developments.
Despite theirparallel trajectories,queer theoryand feministarchaeologywere rarely
in dialoguewitheach other.Queer theory,groundedin grass-roots politicalactivistmove-
mentssuch as Queer Nation (Berlant and Freeman 1993), arose to meet the particular
challengesof sexual politicsduringthe neo-conservative1980s,while feministarchae-
ology emergedprimarilywithinacademia as a critiqueof androcentricarchaeological
practicesand interpretations. However,manyofthearchaeologistsinvolvedin thegenesis
of feministarchaeologywere (and stillare) themselvesfeministactivists,concernednot
onlywithrepresentations of genderin the past but also withthe politicsof genderand
sexualityin thepresent(Hanen and Kelley 1992;Wylie1991). What,then,weretheinter-
sectionsbetweenthegrowingfeminist theorizationofsexualityin the1980sand theemer-
gence of feminist archaeology? To what extenthas queer theoryinformedfeminist
archaeologiesin recentyears?2
To consider these questions, I reviewed bibliographiesof feministarchaeological
studiespublishedthroughoutthe 1980s and 1990s. Citationalpracticesare one way in
whichscholarsacknowledgetheirintellectualinfluencesand positionthemselveswithin
the largerfieldof academia, and thusbibliographiesprovideone imperfectmeasure of
the extentto whichparticularschools of thoughtare being consultedand invoked by
scholarsin different subfields.My reviewfocusedprimarilyon nine editedvolumesand
proceedingswhichhad been generatedthroughconferences,conferencesymposia,and
lectureseries (Balme and Beck 1995; Claassen 1992a; Claassen and Joyce1997; du Cros
and Smith1993; Gero and Conkey 1991; Miller 1988; Moore and Scott 1997; Walde and
Willows1991; Wright1996). Because severalof thesevolumeswere limitedto studiesof
prehistory, I also reviewedthe 'gender'issue of HistoricalArchaeology(vol. 25 no. 4) and
two monographs(Spector 1993; Wall 1994) to increasethe representationof historical
archaeologywithinthe sample. Finally,I includedConkey and Spector's1984 articleas
well as threerecentlypublishedsynthesesof feministarchaeology(Conkey and Gero
1997; Gilchrist1999;Nelson 1997). Togetherthesesourcesrepresent220 papers,articles,
or monographsbyauthorswho identify theirworkas feminist and/orgenderarchaeology.
Althoughsuch a sampleis not meantto be exhaustiveor even statistically representative
(for example, few journal articlesare included),it does include papers froma broad
geographicand temporaldistribution, spanning1984 to 1999 and includingauthorsfrom
theUnitedStates,Australia,Canada, and GreatBritain.In reviewingtheseworksI noted
citationsbelongingto threecategories:first, earlyworksabout sexualityby feministand
gay and lesbian scholars to
dating the 1970s and early 1980s; second, the literature
surrounding the'Sex Wars'ofthemid-1980s;and,third,theemergentqueer theorycanon
whose benchmarksinclude publicationssuch as Sedgwick'sEpistemologyof the Closet
(1990) and Butler'sGenderTrouble(1990).3
Before beginningthis exercise I expected to identifytwo trends:first,that feminist
archaeologistshave rarely,ifat all, engagedwithnon-archaeologicalworkson sexuality,
and second, thatit is only in the last few years thatqueer theoryhas enteredfeminist
archaeologicaldiscourseat all. My suppositionswere wrongon bothcounts.I foundthat
18 per cent of the 220 worksreviewedcited one or more worksthatfallinto one of the
threecategoriesdescribedabove. This percentagedid not increaseor decrease markedly

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
186 Barbara L. Voss

withtime,butvacillatedwithina fairlystablerangeof10 percentto 35 percentfromyear

to year.This suggeststhat,whilesexualityhas not been a centraltopicof archaeological
interpretation (Voss and Schmidt2000), archaeologistshave, over the last fifteenyears,
consistently consideredsexualityto be one importantaspect of gender-focused research.
Second, I foundthatthe relationshipbetweenqueer theoryand feministarchaeology
is, while uneven,by no means absent. Althoughalmostnone of the worksI reviewed
referencedpublicationsgeneratedduringthe 'Sex Wars' of themid-1980s,'queer theory'
publicationsby Foucault (especially Historyof Sexuality[1978]), Butler (both Gender
Trouble[1990]and Bodies thatMatter[1993a]) and Grosz (Sexual Subversions[1989]and
SexyBodies [1995,withProbyn])were citedwithregularity. Queer theorycitationswere
especiallycommonin introductions to edited volumesand conferenceproceedingsand
rarein archaeologicalcase studies,suggestingthatqueer theoryhas been used predomi-
nantlyto theorizethe feministarchaeologicalprojectas a whole ratherthanto interpret
archaeologicalevidence.
Finally,the papers and monographsthat I reviewedrelied overwhelmingly on one
source,Ortnerand Whitehead'sSexual Meanings(1981), whichaccountedforover30 per
cent of all noted citationsabout sexuality.An edited volume of anthropologicalcase
studiesgeneratedin themid-1970s,most(butnot all) contributed papersin Sexual Mean-
ingsare focusedon band,tribe,or chiefdomsocieties(1981: x), interpret genderand sexu-
alitythrougha focuson symbolicconstructs and thesex/gender systemmodel (1981: 1-9),
and emphasize 'considerationsof hierarchicalpower and differential prestigebetween
men and women' (Gilchrist1999: 8). The prominence of Sexual Meanings as a source
about sexualityfor feminist-inspired archaeologicalresearchhas not diminishedwith
time,but appears to be as strongin thelate 1990s as it was in thefirstdecade of feminist
archaeologicalinquiry.The persistentcitationsofSexual Meaningsmayindicatea degree
of theoreticalconservatismin feministarchaeologywithregardto conceptionsof sexu-
alityand itsrelationshipto gender.As Robertshas noted,'The paradoxis thatthoseinter-
estedin an archaeologyofgendercannotaffordto challengetheframework assumptions
and paradigmsof researchpractice' (1993: 18). In otherwords,it is difficult forthose
feminist archaeologistswho are occupiedwithlegitimizing and developinggenderstudies
simultaneouslyto embrace queer theoriesthat deconstructgender and sexuality.For
example,Butler'spositionthat'biologicalsex' is a discursiveregulatorypractice(Butler
1993a: 1) could be seen to challengearchaeologicalstudiesof genderthatuse physical
indicesto assign a 'sex' to humanskeletalremains.Deconstructionsof sex and gender
destabilizepreciselythosecategories(e.g. male,female,woman,man) thatare necessarily
invokedto model engenderedsocial worldsof the past.4The fearof erasingor compro-
mising'gender' as a categoryof archaeologicalanalysismay account forthe apparent
reluctanceof manyarchaeologicalresearchersconsistently and criticallyto engage with
queer theory.
At thesame time,thereare also aspectsofqueer theorythatresistitswholesaleimpor-
tation into archaeology.The feministtheories of sexualitythat emerged duringthe
particularsexual politicsof the 1980s and 1990s addressed the conditionsof modern,
Western,and predominantly urbansexual subcultures.Rubin particularly notes thatthe
organizationof genderand sexuality'as twodistinctarenas of social practice'(1984: 308)
may be specificto Westernindustrialsocieties.The enduringappeal of the sex/gender

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 past sexualities 187
queer theories,
Feminisms,

systemmodel withinfeministarchaeologymaybe because it is sometimesa more appro-

priate,if imperfect, approach to consideringsexualityand genderin pre-industrial and
kinship-basedcultures(Rubin 1975). Likewise,queer theoriststendto emphasizeanaly-
ses of fictionaltexts,cinema,and otherrepresentationsat the expense of historicalor
social science research(Rubin 1994: 93) - whathistorianDuggan has termed'the disci-
pline problem' (1995).5 Broken pots, faunal remains,collapsed structures,burials,soil
residues,and otherevidentiary sourcesin archaeologyrarelyresembletheliteraryworks
or filmsthatoftenformthe basis of queer theoryanalyses(e.g. Butler 1993a). It is not
alwaysimmediatelyapparenthow to applyreadingmethodologiesdevelopedformodern
culturaltextsto the archaeologicalrecord.
Because ofthetemporaland geographicspecificity ofqueer theory,archaeologistshave
importantcontributions to make in developingtheoriesof genderand sexualitythatcan
be appliedto materialevidenceand thatare appropriateforanalysisofnon-'Western'and
non-'modern'cultures.Archaeologyfaces the unique challengeof stretching theoriesof
sexualityin new chronologicaland culturaldirectionsand in probingthe culturaland
representational limitsofdistinctionsbetweengenderand sexuality.Whileneitherfemin-
istnorqueer theoriesshouldbe appliedunquestioningly to thepast,togethertheyprovide
powerfultools thatcan broaden archaeologicalinterpretations of past sexualities.

Acknowledgements

This materialis based upon worksupportedundera NationalScienceFoundationGradu-

ate Fellowship.My thanksto Meg Conkey,Alison Wylie,Liz Perry,Rob Schmidt,El
Casella, Masha Raskolnikov,Deb Cohler,and AmyRamsay,whose insightful comments
and supportgreatlyimprovedthisessay.

University
DepartmentofAnthropology, of California,
Berkeley,California,94720

Notes

1 These debates are perhaps best exemplifiedby two contradictorypublicationson

lesbian sadomasochism, Coming to Power (SAMOIS 1982) and Against Sado-
masochism(Linden et al. 1982),and bythecontroversies overtheroleofgaymale bath-
houses in safersex campaignsand AIDS transmission(e.g. Bayer 1989: ch. 2; Berube
1996;Dangerous Bedfellows1996). Excellentresourceson thisperiodincludePleasure
and Danger: ExploringFemale Sexuality(Vance 1984), Powersof Desire: The Politics
of Sexuality(Snitow et al. 1983), and Sex Wars:Sexual Dissent and Political Culture
(Duggan and Hunter1995).
2 One could also, of course,ask the extentto whichfeministarchaeologyaffectedthe
growingfeminist theorizationsofsexuality.However,myreadingssuggestthatfeminist
scholarsoutside archaeologyare not familiarwithfeministarchaeologicalprojects,a
point also noted by Conkey and Gero (1997: 424-5 - but see Rubin [2000] fora rare

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
188 Barbara L. Voss

exception).In partthisis because it is onlyrecentlythatfeministarchaeologicalwork

is becomingvisible to cross-disciplinary audiences throughtopical monographs(e.g.
Gilchrist1994; Spector 1993; Wall 1994) and the appearance of archaeologicalcase
studiesand reviewsin multi-disciplinary editedvolumesand journals(e.g. Bahn 1992;
Conkeyand Tringham1995; ConkeywithWilliams1991; Gero 1988;Wright2000).
3 Data and tabulationsfromthisbibliographicrevieware on filewiththe author.
4 Note, however,thatsome feministarchaeologists(e.g. Joyce1996, 2000) have found
thatmodels of genderperformativity and otherdeconstructive approachesto gender
actuallyenhance the archaeological'visibility'of prehistoricgenderedidentitiesand
practices.
5 Withthisin minditis notsurprising thatone ofthemostprominent uses ofqueer theory
in archaeologyat presentis foundin the interpretation of archaeologicallyrecovered
representationalimagery,as in the worksof Joyce(1996, 2000), Meskell (1996, 1998,
2000), and Vasey (1998) on imageryofthebodyin prehistoric Mesoamerica,Egyptand
Europe, respectively.

References

Bahn,P. G. 1992.Reviewofengendering archaeology.

Journal ofGenderStudies, 1: 338-44.
Balme,J.and Beck,W. (eds) 1995.Gendered Archaeology: The SecondAustralian Womenin
Archaeology Conference. Canberra: Australian NationalUniversityPublications.
Bayer,R. 1989.PrivateActs,Social Consequences: AIDS and thePoliticsofPublicHealth.New
York:TheFreePress.
Berlant, L. andFreeman, E. 1993.Queernationality. In Fearofa QueerPlanet:QueerPolitics and
Social Theory (ed. M. Warner).Minneapolis: UniversityofMinnesota Press,pp. 193-229.
Berube,A. 1996.Thehistory ofgaybathhouses. InPolicingPublicSex(ed.D. Bedfellows). Boston,
MA: SouthEnd Press,pp. 187-221.
Bland,L. and Doan, L. (eds) 1998.Sexologyin Culture: LabelingBodiesand Desires.Chicago:
University ofChicagoPress.
Brumfiel, E. M. 1991.Weaving andcooking: women'sproduction inAztecMexico.In Engendering
Archaeology: Womenand Prehistory (eds J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey).Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell, pp.224-54.
Brumfiel, E. 1992.Distinguished lecturein archaeology:breaking and entering theecosystem -
gender, class,andfaction stealtheshow.American Anthropologist,91:551-67.
Butler,J.1990.GenderTrouble: Feminism andtheSubversion NewYork:Routledge.
ofIdentity.
Butler,J.1993a.BodiesthatMatter: On theDiscursive Limitsof 'Sex'.London:Routledge.
Butler,J.1993b.Imitation andgenderinsubordination. In TheLesbianandGayStudies Reader(eds
H. Abelove,M. A. BaraleandD. Halperin).NewYork:Routledge, pp.307-20.
Claassen,C. P. 1991.Gender,shellfishing, and theshellmoundarchaic.In Engendering Archae-
ology:Women andPrehistory (edsJ.M. GeroandM. W.Conkey).Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, pp.
276-300.
Claassen,C. (ed.) 1992a.Exploring Genderthrough Archaeology: SelectedPapersfromthe1991
BooneConference. Madison,WI: Prehistory Press.
Claassen,C. 1992b.Questioning gender: In Exploring
anintroduction. Gender through Archaeology:

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 past sexualities 189
queer theories,
Feminisms,

Press,
SelectedPapersfromthe1991 Boone Conference(ed. C. Claassen). Madison,WI: Prehistory
pp. 1-10.
NorthAmericaand Mesoamerica.
Claassen, C. and Joyce,R. A. (eds) 1997. Womenin Prehistory:
Philadelphia:Universityof PennsylvaniaPress.
Conkey,M. W. and Gero, J.1991.Tensions,pluralities,and engenderingarchaeology:an introduc-
In Engendering
tionto womenand prehistory. Archaeology:Womenand Prehistory (eds J.M. Gero
and M. W. Conkey). Cambridge,MA: Blackwell,pp. 3-30.
Conkey,M. W. and Gero, J. 1997. From programmeto practice:genderand feminismin archae-
ology.Annual ReviewofAnthropology, 26: 411-37.
Conkey,M. W. and Spector,J.D. 1984.Archaeologyand thestudyofgender.AdvancesinArchaeo-
logicalMethodand Theory,7: 1-32.
Conkey,M. W. and Tringham,R. E. 1995.Archaeologyand the goddess:exploringthecontoursof
feministarchaeology.In Feminismsin theAcademy (eds D. C. Stantonand A. J. Stewart).Ann
Arbor:Universityof MichiganPress,pp. 199-247.
Conkey,M. W. withWilliams,S. H. 1991. Originalnarratives:the politicaleconomyof genderin
archaeology.In Genderat theCrossroadsof Knowledge:FeministAnthropologyin thePostmodern
Era (ed. M. d. Leonardo). Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress,pp. 102-39.
Conkey,M. W. and Wylie,A. 1999. Summaryof 'Doing archaeologyas a feminist:movingfrom
of theWomenin ArchaeologyInterestGroup,SocietyforAmerican
theoryto practice'.Newsletter
Archaeology,1(2): 3-4.
Crimp,D. and Rolston,A. 1990.AIDS Demo Graphics.Seattle:Bay Press.
Dangerous Bedfellows (eds) 1996. Policing Public Sex: Queer Politicsand the Futureof AIDS
Activism.Boston,MA: South End Press.
de Lauretis,T. 1991. Queer theory:lesbian and gay sexualities:an introduction. 3(2):
Differences,
iii-xviii.
Deagan, K. (ed.) 1983. Spanish St. Augustine:The Archaeologyof a Colonial Creole Community.
New York: Academic Press.
du Cros, H. and Smith,L. (eds) 1993. Womenin Archaeology:A FeministCritique.Canberra:
The AustralianNational University.
Departmentof Prehistory,
Duggan, L. 1995. The disciplineproblem:queer theorymeets lesbian and gay history.GLQ: A
Journalof Lesbian and Gay Studies,2(3): 179-92.
Duggan,L. and Hunter,N. D. (eds) 1995.Sex Wars:Sexual Dissentand PoliticalCulture.New York:
Routledge.
London: BritishMuseum Publications.
Ehrenberg,M. 1989. Womenin Prehistory.
Foucault,M. 1978. The Historyof Sexuality,Vol. I: An Introduction(trans.Robert Hurley). New
York: Pantheon.
Gero, J.M. 1988. Gender bias in archaeology:here,then,and now. In FeminismwithintheScience
and HealthCare Professions:OvercomingResistance(ed. S. V. Rosser). New York:PergamonPress,
pp. 33-43.
Archaeology:
women'sroles in stonetool production.In Engendering
Gero, J.1991. Genderlithics:
Womenand Prehistory (eds J.M. Gero and M. W. Conkey).Cambridge,MA: Blackwell,pp. 163-93.
Gero, J. M. and Conkey,M. W. (eds) 1991. EngenderingArchaeology:Womenand Prehistory.
Cambridge,MA: Blackwell.
Gibb, J.G. and King,J.A. 1991. Gender,activityareas, and homelotsin the 17thcenturyChesa-
peake region.HistoricalArchaeology,25(4): 109-31.

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
190 Barbara L. Voss

Gilchrist,R. 1994. Genderand MaterialCulture:TheArchaeologyof ReligiousWomen.New York:

Routledge.
thePast. London: Routledge.
Gilchrist,R. 1999. Genderand Archaeology:Contesting
Grosz,E. A. 1989. Sexual Subversions:ThreeFrenchFeminists.Sydney:Allen & Unwin.
Grosz,E. A. and Probyn,E. (eds) 1995.SexyBodies: TheStrangeCarnalitiesofFeminism.London:
Routledge.
Hanen, M. P. and J.Kelley 1992. Gender and archaeologicalknowledge.In Metaarchaeology(ed.
L. Embree). Boston,MA: Reidel, pp. 195-227.
Harding,S. 1986. The Science Questionin Feminism.Ithaca,NY: CornellUniversityPress.
Harding,S. 1987. Introduction:is therea feministmethod?In Feminismand Methodology:Social
ScienceIssues (ed. S. Harding).Bloomington:Indiana UniversityPress,pp. 1-14.
Archaeology:Women
In Engendering
Hastorf,C. A. 1991. Gender,space, and food in prehistory.
and Prehistory(eds J.M. Gero and M. W. Conkey). Cambridge,MA: Blackwell,pp. 132-62.
Jackson,T. L. 1991. Poundingacorn:women'sproductionas social and economicfocus.In Engen-
deringArchaeology:Womenand Prehistory (eds J.M. Gero and M. W. Conkey). Cambridge,MA:
Blackwell,pp. 301-28.
Jagger,A. M. 1983. FeministPoliticsand Human Nature.Sussex: Rowman & Allanheld.
Joyce,R. A. 1996.The construction of genderin classicMaya monuments.In Genderand Archae-
ology (ed. R. P. Wright).Philadelphia:Universityof PennsylvaniaPress,pp. 167-98.
Joyce,R. 2000. A Precolumbiangaze: male sexualityamong the AncientMaya. In Archaeologies
of Sexuality(eds R. A. Schmidtand B. L. Voss). London: Routledge,in press.
Joyce,R. A. and Claassen, C. 1997. Womenin the ancientAmericas:archaeologists,gender,and
the making of prehistory.In Women in Prehistory:NorthAmerica and Mesoamerica (eds C.
Claassen and R. A. Joyce).Philadelphia:Universityof PennsylvaniaPress,pp. 1-14.
Katz, J. 1976. Gay AmericanHistory:Lesbians and Gay Men in the U.S.A. New York: Thomas
Crowell.
Linden,R. R., Pagano, D. R., Russell,D. E. H. and Star,S. L. (eds) 1982.AgainstSadomasochism:
A Radical FeministAnalysis.East Palo Alto, CA: Frog In The Well Press.
Meskell,L. 1996.The somatizationofarchaeology:institutions, Norwegian
discourses,corporeality.
ArchaeologicalReview,29(1): 2-16.
Meskell, L. 1998. An archaeologyof social relationsin an Egyptianvillage.Journalof Archaeo-
logicalMethodand Theory,5(3): 209-43.
sexuality,and ritualin New KingdomEgypt.In
Meskell,L. 2000. Re-em(bed)ingsex: domesticity,
Archaeologiesof Sexuality(eds R. A. Schmidtand B. L. Voss). London: Routledge,in press.
Miller,V. E. (ed.) 1988. The Role of Genderin PrecolumbianArt and Architecture.
Washington,
DC: UniversityPress of America.
Moore, J.and Scott,E. (eds) 1997. InvisiblePeople and Processes:WritingGenderand Childhood
intoEuropeanArchaeology.London: LeicesterUniversityPress.
Nelson, S. M. 1997. GenderIn Archaeology:AnalyzingPower and Prestige.WalnutCreek, CA:
AltamiraPress.
of Gender
Ortner,S. B. and Whitehead,H. (eds) 1981.Sexual Meanings:The CulturalConstruction
and Sexuality.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Reiter,R. R. (ed.) 1975. Towardan Anthropology of Women.New York: MonthlyReview Press.
Roberts,C. 1993.A criticalapproachto genderas a categoryof analysisin archaeology.In Women

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Feminisms, past sexualities 191
queer theories,

in Archaeology:A FeministCritique(eds H. du Cros and L. Smith). Canberra: Departmentof

The AustralianNational University,
Prehistory, pp. 16-21.
Rosaldo, M. Z. and Lamphere,L. (eds) 1974. Women,Culture,and Society.Stanford,CA: Stanford
UniversityPress.
Rowbotham,S. and Weeks,J.1977.Socialismand theNew Life: The Personaland Sexual Politicsof
Edward Carpenterand Havelock Ellis. London: Pluto Press.
in women:noteson the'PoliticalEconomy'ofsex. In Towardan Anthro-
Rubin,G. 1975.The traffic
pology of Women(ed. R. R. Reiter). New York: MonthlyReview Press,pp. 157-210.
Rubin,G. 1984.Thinkingsex: notesfora radicaltheoryof thepoliticsof sexuality.In Pleasureand
Danger: ExploringFemale Sexuality(ed. C. S. Vance). London: Pandora,pp. 267-319.
A Journalof Feminist
an interviewwithJudithButler.differences:
Rubin, G. 1994. Sexual traffic:
CulturalStudies,6(2 + 3): 62-99.
and urbansex: archaeologyand the studyof gay leathermenin
Rubin,G. 2000. Sites,settlements,
San Francisco, 1955-1995. In Archaeologiesof Sexuality(eds R. A. Schmidtand B. L. Voss).
London: Routledge,in press.
and Graphicson Lesbian SIM. Boston,MA: Alyson
SAMOIS (ed.) 1982.ComingtoPower:Writings
Publications.
Schmidt,R. A. and Voss, B. L. (eds) 2000.Archaeologiesof Sexuality.London: Routledge.
Sedgwick,E. K. 1990. Epistemologyof theCloset.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Seifert,D. J.(ed.) 1991. HistoricalArchaeology:Genderin HistoricalArchaeology,25(4).
Smith-Rosenberg,C. 1979.The femaleworldof love and ritual:relationsbetweenwomenin nine-
America. In A Heritageof Her Own (eds N. F. Cott and E. H. Pleck). New York:
teenth-century
Simon & Schuster,Touchstone,pp. 311-42.
Snitow,A., Stansell,C. and Thompson,S. (eds) 1983. Powersof Desire: The Politicsof Sexuality.
New York: MonthlyReview Press.
Spector,J.D. 1991. What thisawl means: towarda feministarchaeology.In EngenderingArchae-
ology:Womenand Prehistory (eds J.M. Gero and M. W. Conkey). Cambridge,MA: Blackwell,pp.
388-406.
Spector,J.D. 1993. WhatThisAwl Means: FeministArchaeologyat a WahpetonDakota Village.St.
Paul, Minnesota:MinnesotaHistoricalSocietyPress.
Vance, C. S. (ed.) 1984.Pleasureand Danger: ExploringFemaleSexuality.New York: Routledge&
Kegan Paul.
Vasey,P. L. 1998. Intimatesexual relationsin prehistory:lessons fromthe JapaneseMacaques.
WorldArchaeology,29(3): 407-25.
Voss, B. L. and Schmidt,R. A. 2000. Archaeologiesof sexuality:an introduction.
In Archaeologies
of Sexuality(eds R. A. Schmidtand B. L. Voss). London: Routledge,in press.
Walde, D. and Willows,N. D. (eds) 1991. The Archaeologyof Gender:Proceedingsof theTwenty-
Second Annual Conferenceof theArchaeologicalAssociationof theUniversityof Calgary.Calgary:
ArchaeologicalAssociationof the Universityof Calgary.
Wall,D. de 1994. TheArchaeologyof Gender:SeparatingtheSpheresin UrbanAmerica.New York:
PlenumPress.
Warner,M. (ed.) 1993. Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politicsand Social Theory.Minneapolis:
Universityof MinnesotaPress.
Watson,P. J.and Kennedy,M. C. 1991.The developmentof horticulture
in theeasternwoodlands:

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
192 Barbara L. Voss

women's role. In EngenderingArchaeology:Womenand Prehistory(eds J. M. Gero and M. W.

Conkey). Cambridge,MA: Blackwell,pp. 255-75.
Weeks, J. 1977. Coming Out: Homosexual Politicsin BritainfromtheNineteenthCenturyto the
Present.London: Quartet.
Wright,R. P. 1991. Women'slabor and potteryproductionin prehistory.
In Engendering
Archae-
ology:Womenand Prehistory (eds J.M. Gero and M. W. Conkey).Cambridge,MA: Blackwell,pp.
194-223.
Wright,R. P. (ed.) 1996. Genderand Archaeology.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.
Wright, R. P. 2000.Diggingwomen:feminism
comesto archaeology.The Women'sReviewofBooks,
17(5): 18-19.
Wylie,A. 1991. Feministcritiquesand archaeologicalchallenges.In The Archaeologyof Gender:
Proceedingsof the Twenty-Second Annual Conferenceof theArchaeologicalAssociation of the
of Calgary(eds D. Walde and N. D. Willows). Calgary:ArchaeologicalAssociationof
University
the Universityof Calgary,pp. 17-23.
Wylie,A. 1992.Reasoningabout ourselves:feministmethodologyin thesocial sciences.In Women
and Reason (eds E. Harveyand K. Okruhlik).Ann Arbor:University
ofMichiganPress,pp. 225-44.
Wylie,A. 1996. The constitutionof archaeologicalevidence:genderpoliticsand science. In The
Disunityof Science:Boundaries,Contexts,Power (eds P. Galison and D. J.Stump).Stanford,CA:
StanfordUniversityPress,pp. 311-43.
Wylie,A. 1997a. Good science,bad science,or science as usual? Feministcritiquesof science. In
Womenand Human Evolution(ed. L. D. Hager). London: Routledge,pp. 29-55.
Wylie,A. 1997b. The engenderingof archaeology:refiguring
feministscience studies.Osiris,12:
80-99.
Wylie,A. in press.Doing social science as a feminist:the engenderingof archaeology.In Science,
Medicine,Technology:TheDifference FeminismHas Made (eds A. N. H. Creager,E. Lunbeck,and
L. Schiebinger).Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press,in press.

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions