☛ Cette chronique est aussi disponible en français [➦].
Translated by Gabrielle Baillargeon-Michaud. 

To know more about Les 3 sex*’s editorial policy and text selection process, click here. 

 This is the first in a series of three articles entitled Queering the Present, Queering the Past? Sex and Gender of Skeletons in (Queer) (Bio)Archaeology. 

Last February, after reading various texts on gender theories, particularly those by Thomas Laqueur (1992), Anne Fausto-Sterling (2000), and Suzanne J. Kessler and Wendy McKenna (1978a, 1978b), I spent several days deeply immersed in thought. Inspired by queer theories, I began to question the importance and relevance for archaeologists to identify the sex or gender of human skeletons.

Birka Viking Grave: She, he, they?

Grave BJ 581 at Birka was long considered the grave of a male warrior. However, in 2017, DNA analyses revealed that the skeleton belonged to an individual with XX chromosomes—theoretically, a chromosomally female skeleton. A 2019 video by a Cambridge archaeologist raises a compelling question: “Was this individual transgender and therefore assumed a male role in society, or was it a woman who challenged established gender norms?” This inquiry highlights the complexities surrounding our modern understanding of gender and its various implications. The question gains further significance against the backdrop of the binary gender model’s limitations, particularly when exploring the concept of gender across different historical periods.

If the way we apply the notions of sex and gender has changed significantly over the course of history (Laqueur, 1992);

If our understanding of these concepts impacts how we perceive history (Laqueur, 1992);

If the assignment of gender comes before its social construct (Kessler & McKenna, 1978a);

If gender identity is formed and regulated by societal norms and performances (Butler, 2001); and

If human nature extends beyond the traditional binary of male and female (Fausto-Sterling, 2000)

...then why does archaeology primarily rely on a two-sex, two-gender model?

Driven by curiosity, I consulted a friend who specializes in bioarchaeology. She explained:

“We analyze an individual’s sex to better understand their societal role and to identify any gender-specific activities. By studying the items found in graves, we also attempt to discern whether certain objects correlate with specific genders or social classes. This insight is helpful for interpreting artifacts in skeleton-free contexts.”

Her insights deepened my reflections. Before parting, she shared a piece of information that ultimately convinced me that exploring sex and gender in an archaeological context would be central to my approach: “Young archaeologists are increasingly engaging in what is known as queer archaeology.” 

PART 1 — From Natural Sex to Cultural Sex in (Queer) (Bio)Archaeology

This article is the first in a trilogy exploring the influence of sex and gender in (bio)archaeology, particularly from a queer perspective. It aims to shed light on the ongoing debates within archaeology regarding the inherent cultural or biological nature of these concepts.

A key distinction is made between general archaeology and bioarchaeology, as the discussion spans various paradigms—essentialist and constructivist—that also permeate other fields of study. The discourse will tackle questions such as “Is sex inherently binary?”, “Are sexual bodies inherently dimorphic?” and “How does gender integrate within these contexts?” These inquiries illuminate the ongoing conflict between paradigms and set the stage for a new, significant question: “Why are only two sex categories typically recognized in the study of ancient human remains?” This question serves as a gateway to explore constructivist critiques of conventional archaeological assumptions.

Archaeology and bioarchaeology: what are they?

Archaeology is a discipline focused on materials, utilizing the remnants of human activities to decode past representations, cultural identities, and social structures (Perry & Joyce, 2001). Bioarchaeology, a subfield of archaeology, specifically examines human remains like bones, skeletons, and DNA to bridge the gap between biology and culture in ancient societies (Larsen, 2014). Its goal is to unravel the social, behavioural, and economic factors that shaped human health, well-being, lifestyle, and overall quality of life through time.

“It is fundamentally about understanding the human experience through the lens of physical remains” (Larsen, 2014).

Paradigmatic shift in the (bio)archaeology of sex

Initially entrenched in an essentialist framework, (bio)archaeology is increasingly influenced by the constructivist paradigm, particularly through the lens of queer theories (Claassen, 1992). These two perspectives often approach each other with skepticism and resilience. However, current research is exploring how queer theories can enrich (bio)archaeological methods by introducing nuanced, inclusive, and critical approaches to the study of sex and gender. This article outlines the significant insights gained from integrating these diverse theoretical perspectives.

Essentialism, sexual dimorphism, and sex/gender binary… in life and death?

“Many analysts, often inadvertently, reinforce contemporary cultural norms that are themselves problematic. They emphasize sexual dimorphism as the primary biological marker for social differences, while also assuming that socio-economic structures predominantly consist of monogamy, heterosexuality, sexual division of labour, and patriarchal nuclear families” (Geller, 2009, p. 512).

Bioarchaeology originated from the belief in an immutable essence that categorizes humans into one of two distinct sex categories: male or female. This perspective is known as sexual essentialism (Brumfiel & Robin, 2008). These two sex categories are considered mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, presenting human morphology in typically female forms (e.g., wide pelvis and hips, breasts, vagina, uterus) or male forms (e.g., broad shoulders, square jaw, penis, testicles). This delineation is described under the concept of sexual dimorphism (Fausto-Sterling, 2000; Kessler & McKenna, 1978a).

This concept of sex is linked to the idea of complementary bodies involved in human reproductive processes (Kessler & McKenna, 1978a). Traditionally, females are recognized for their role in carrying and giving birth to children, as well as breastfeeding, while males are noted for providing sperm. However, numerous variations complicate this traditional view: 

• Individuals with XY chromosomes who have a vagina (Kessler & McKenna, 1978a);
• Individuals with a penis who engage in sexual relations exclusively with others who also have a penis (Weeks, 2014);
• Individuals possessing two X chromosomes, fallopian tubes, ovaries, a uterus, as well as a penis and scrotum (Fausto-Sterling, 2000);
• Individuals who are infertile;
• And other variations.

Therefore, reproductive bodies may be complementary and mutually exclusive, but outside purely reproductive activities, bodies have an existence that does not depend on their generative functions.

But body categorization still relies on reproductive functions, despite the inconsistencies often encountered by the binary model of two sexes and two genders, and despite reproductive organs sometimes being absent or non-functional (Kessler & McKenna, 1978a). 

From a perspective of sexual dimorphism, the physical attributes of an individual’s body are used to determine which of the two sex categories it belongs to. However, the implications extend beyond mere biological classification. Being categorized as male or female typically assigns a person a distinct social place and role, a concept referred to as gender (Kessler & McKenna, 1978a). Consequently, a male is generally associated with a masculine gender and identified as a man, while a female is linked to a feminine gender and recognized as a woman. Therefore, sex is perceived as natural, corporeal, and innate, whereas gender is viewed as social, cultural, and constructed. This perspective adheres to a binary understanding between sex and gender, encapsulating the formula sex => gender, where gender is seen as a direct outcome of sex (Claassen, 1992).

Critiques of essentialism in traditional gender bioarchaeology

In bioarchaeology, the materialist approach posits—or at least promotes the notion—that human remains can reliably indicate social categories within ancient civilizations (Brumfiel & Robin, 2008). Traditionally, archaeology has treated gender as a term creating a clear categorical division within societies (Lazzari, 2003). This line of thought suggests that if we can identify a sex based on human remains, then gender must have functioned as a significant social divider in the sociohistorical contexts of these findings (Perry & Joyce, 2001). In essence, the ability to differentiate male from female skeletons is interpreted as evidence that bodies were inherently gendered, supporting the notion that sex => gender.

The assumption that gender is inherently binary stifles critical reflection on gender representations and their role in reconstructing historical narratives. It promotes an ahistorical and static view of gender as naturally binary (Laqueur, 1992; Perry & Joyce, 2001). This stance has faced criticism for its inherent biases, notably by Claassen (1992), who highlighted these biases in the identification of the gender of skeletons. She argued that sex and gender are cultural constructs, making the attribution of sex (or gender) to a skeleton a cultural act.

Kessler and McKenna (1978a) further support this perspective by asserting that no single characteristic or set of characteristics can consistently and universally determine a person’s gender, with no exception. 

Gender must exist for sex to have meaning (Kessler & McKenna, 1978a).

Given this reality, how can we explain the determination of only two sex categories?

Historically, as Laqueur (1992) points out, the prevailing model until the late 13th century was not two distinct sexes but one sex and two genders, with females perceived as undeveloped males. This view held that women’s reproductive organs, like ovaries (equivalent to testicles) and vaginas (equivalent to penises), were internal due to a lack of heat. Additionally, Hollimon (1997) discusses how the binary male/female view might limit archaeological interpretations in cultures that recognized more than two genders.

Despite the aforementioned considerations, using gender as a system of social classification isn’t necessarily misguided in the interpretative practices of bioarchaeological materials. After all, sexual dimorphism and the two-sex, two-gender system are classifications for bodies, identities, and individuals that have been—and continue to be—relevant in certain sociohistorical and geopolitical contexts, even though they are subject to debate (Ghisleni et al., 2016). However, applying them without careful thought and critique is not insignificant.

While recognizing this classification system as a potential variation among many, it is crucial not to restrict ourselves to it. Otherwise, we may reinforce confirmation biases and miss the complexities and contradictions inherent in the human experience (Ghisleni et al., 2016).

Lazzari (2003) points out that a lack of critical approach in archaeological practices concerning sex and gender has often led to women being invisible as active social agents in history. They have been depicted, through an androcentric lens, as passive and as victims of their own flawed physical nature or even victims of male social power. For instance, archaeologists have historically focused on studying activities traditionally seen as masculine in Western culture, such as hunting, warfare, and toolmaking, while neglecting those deemed feminine, like gathering, food processing, and childcare and education (Brumfiel & Robin, 2008). Laqueur (1992) mentions that it wasn’t until 1759 that the first detailed reproduction of a female skeleton appeared in an anatomical publication. Before this, only male skeletons were used as the foundational models for understanding human bone structures (Laqueur, 1992).

Finally, uncritical archaeological practices have also led to the emphasis on elements that serve the interests of contemporary political movements (such as trans-exclusionary radical feminism)—sometimes to the detriment of scientific accuracy or other activist movements, including those advocating for trans and intersex individuals. This approach often results in biased deductive assumptions rather than inductive explorations of social contexts distinct from those of the archaeologists (Lazzari, 2003).

From traditional bioarchaeology to queer bioarchaeology

While bioarchaeology seeks to uncover the lived experiences of ancient civilizations through what their artifactual biomaterials might disclose, this task is daunting: it still requires that these materials “reveal” truths, realities that are uninterpreted or uninterpretable. This notion underpins the constructivist paradigm, which critiques the essentialist assumptions of traditional archaeology about the sex or gender of human remains. Before relying on essentialist bases to interpret biomaterials, it is crucial to address lingering questions such as “Do sex and gender reflect the same reality?”, “Does a skeleton have a sex or a gender?”, and “Whom and what would benefit from knowing a skeleton’s sex or gender?” These are the issues that the second part of this series aims to explore, drawing on archaeological work and feminist and queer theories. Two pivotal questions cannot be overlooked in this exploration: “What exactly constitutes queer archaeology?” and “How can its utility in studying the sex of human remains be justified?”