Our own engendered species.

Hurcombe, Linda

The study of gender in ancient societies seems inseparable from the place of gender in our own society - and therefore inseparable from the particular attitudes and expectations those contemporary manners create. This 'BIG' problem is explored, and some approaches to its resolution are developed.

Walcott, following our primal biases of gender, found two specimens that appeared to lack the frontal nozzle. ... On one specimen, Walcott found a slender, two-pronged structure in the same location as the nozzle. Walcott therefore concluded that he had discovered sexual dimorphism in Opabinia: the strong and stout nozzle belonging to the male (naturally), and the slender structure to the more delicate female. He wrote that these supposed females 'differ from the male... in having a slender, bifid frontal appendage instead of the strong appendage of the male'. He even foisted the stereotypes of active and passive upon his fictitious distinctions, arguing that the nozzle 'was probably used by the male to seize the female'.

GOULD (1989: 128) writing about Walcott (1912: 169)

Viable human populations need at least two biological sexes, sufficient numbers of both, and their interaction. The archaeological literature shows a past peopled mainly by men (e.g. 'Early man', 'Neolithic man', 'craftsmen', 'big men') and with little consideration for the interaction between genders. As it is represented, the human species simply does not have a viable prehistoric population. The reasons are rooted in the notions of gender prevailing in the time and society in which the authors wrote, and write, the archaeological accounts. The more ancient the period under discussion, the more fragmentary the evidence and the more open the interpretation of the scant fossil and cultural remains. Walcott's view, quoted at the start of this article, refers to the fossil remains of Opabinia, a 530 million-year-old worm with five eyes and tail fins! If 1912 perceptions of contemporary human gender roles have been imposed on that early invertebrate, how much more have contemporary attitudes to gender coloured academic discussions on human evolution and the history of our own species!

The gender roles prevailing in the archaeologist's time have pervaded so much of the body of 'knowledge' of prehistoric people that it is difficult to see how such an unhealthy past could have gone unnoticed for so long. As the evidence for gender roles is woefully incomplete, contemporary social influences push 'comfortable' interpretations. In academic writing to discuss new evidence and theories, and in museum displays and reconstruction drawings, the present is re-created for the past. There are thus two key areas: the present attitudes to gender (a problem affecting all our society, and hence not an archaeological concern per se), and the reflection of our own society back on the past. This second aspect is clearly a concern for archaeologists who need to discern and combat the problem. As the past is used to explain the present, a tautology develops which leads to a legitimization of the present by the past. The issue can be termed the BIG (Biased Interpretation of Gender) problem in archaeology. This article does not claim the discovery of the problem, as many people have drawn attention to the invisibility of women and how we judge the past by the contemporary present (e.g. Burtt 1987; Conkey & Spector 1984; Engelstad 1991; Gilchrist 1991; Jones & Pay 1990; Moser 1992a; 1992b). Instead, this article aims to present the BIG problem clearly, to group responses to it and to suggest ways of counteracting gender bias. Medical metaphors show the complexity of the problem, its propagation and the effectiveness of potential responses.

The disease - the BIG problem

Academic reactions to gender theory vary widely. One is that no action is necessary because now that the problem has been recognized, there is no longer any gender bias. The examples are mostly drawn from the last five years in order to show that this complacency is completely wrong. Gender roles are too crucial to the design of the social fabric to be assumed, rather than critically interpreted. There are at least two sexes in our past, and I am more interested in how these interact than in favouring either one. There are sex differences which could enable one sex to perform certain tasks or roles more efficiently, yet the relative value attached to activities is a completely different issue. Difference is not synonymous with inequality. It is the contemporary value placed on activities which has caused most of the BIG problem. As with the medical analogy, the symptoms are the first indication of a problem. Once the disease has been discovered, more subtle indications may become apparent and a study of cause, effect and propagation will follow. For the BIG problem there are two main sets of symptoms: visual and written.

Visual symptoms

Archaeology is not often taught in schools, so most people gain their impressions of the subject from popular accounts, exhibitions and television programmes. These media feature visual reconstructions giving an immediate and influential impression of male and female roles in the past, namely that women are less numerous in the past than men; that males define the species and changes of evolutionary history; and that throughout prehistory, males and females fulfilled the same roles as they commonly do now.

Reconstructions, both 2D and 3D, often show more men (e.g. see TABLES 1 & 3). Women seem particularly disadvantaged where the evidence is most fragmentary, and the developments portrayed are the most crucial in defining our human qualities (Moser 1992a; 1992b; in press; Tanner 1981). The illustrations of different species of Australopithecus and Homo are almost always male (e.g. Lambert 1987; Dunbar & Foley 1989:39 & 40). When these illustrations are strung together to show our evolutionary development, the absence of one half of our species has no justification. Sexual dimorphism is an evolutionary development, so species should be defined by both sexes. Instead, we are left with the impression of immaculate conception or hermaphrodite qualities! The problem of gender bias is not solved simply by putting more females in illustrations because where women are portrayed, their position, expression and activity are often different from that of males, giving visual impressions of gender roles. Gender bias has been recognized in reconstruction drawings and museum displays (Jones & Pay 1990; Moser 1992a; 1992b; Stringer & Gamble 1993: chapter 1). The two examples that follow show how very recent reconstructions perpetuate the BIG problem. In the first, great care has been taken to base the museum tableaux on firm evidence, and to include both sexes. Despite this, stereotyped views of male and female roles are chosen again.

Tattersall (1992) describes problems and choices in creating figures for an exhibition on Human Biology and Evolution in the American Museum of Natural History in 1993. Three figures were to depict the Neanderthal scene (1992: 65):

The first choice to be made - what the three individuals in the scene should be doing - was the easiest because archaeologists have learned a fair amount about how Neanderthals lived. For example, the characteristic wear on their stone tools tells us that Neanderthals used flints to cut wood and scrape hides. We settled on showing a male sharpening a wooden spear while a young female scraped a hide and an older female offered advice. Because Neanderthal front teeth are usually very heavily worn we felt safe showing the young woman with one end of the hide held in her teeth.

From the evidence, it would be equally valid to have shown the female sharpening the spear and the male working the skin; the wear on the teeth of Neanderthals occurs for males and females (Trinkaus 1983), and there is no way of knowing if both sexes, or one, made and used pointed sticks. Reconstructions and illustrations are limited by expense and speculative in many respects. My quarrel is not that they are individually inaccurate, but that these speculative reconstructions usually portray gender roles according to contemporary attitudes: he makes weapons, she makes clothes. Tattersall (1992) is aware of gender activity and image, and one of the exhibition's female figures is depicted warding off a scavenging bird, but his comments on the figures relating to the closely-spaced Laetoli footprints reveal the commercial attraction of an image which is easily understood by modern society (Tattersall 1992: 67):

For visual interest we opted once more for an adult male and female, the male with one arm draped over the female's shoulder. Perhaps that pose is too anthropomorphic for some tastes, but the gifted English sculptor John Holmes produced such a vivacious result for us in his finished Laetoli figures that we frankly didn't care.

Thus this recent exhibition reconstruction - despite an awareness of the BIG problem - shows some very stereotyped gender roles for our remote past for which there is no archaeological basis.

The recent publication by the British Museum (Natural History) is a good case to demonstrate similar collective impressions in 2D illustrations. The text (which is discussed later) is by Andrews & Stringer (1989) with an illustration on each facing page. These paintings are as educational as the authors' words. Indeed, the back cover states their validity:

Each description is brought to life with a beautiful painting by Maurice Wilson reconstructed from fossil evidence not only of the group concerned but also of the plants and other animals alive at that time. Written by two of the leading scientists in the field, this book will appeal to anyone interested in learning more about the fascinating origins of our own species.

The illustrations are all by Maurice Wilson and, indeed, are striking images. An analysis of the numbers of males and females and the tasks being performed was conducted using the scene illustrations from Australopithecus afarensis (1989: 29) onwards [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 1 OMITTED]. The BIG problem stands out clearly. TABLE 1 compares the number of female, male and indeterminate figures in each scene. Of the 56 figures, 24 are male whilst only 10 are female. This would not make a viable population. Turning to the activities of the gender-specific figures, TEBLE 2 shows the female activities are digging and eating plants, putting sticks on the fire, scraping skins and running in a hunt,whilst males are portrayed holding and making stone tools, carrying sticks and spears, using sticks as weapons and killing game. Four out of 10 females are inactive, but for males this drops to only 3 out of 24. In the scene of Homo labilis gathering [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 1G OMITTED], the female:male ratio is nearly equal, whilst the scenes of confrontation or hunting had the worst ratios, i.e. females are only adequately represented when 'female activities' are the purpose of the scene. The illustrations show aspects of changing lifestyles through our evolutionary past: collectively they imply that these changes were in male, not female, activities. There is a further difference in the position of female and male figures. In all except one scene [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 1I OMITTED], the foremost figure is male. The collective impression gained from the illustrations in this introductory view of human evolution is that males are active, to the fore and they make and use stone tools to hunt, while females are passive, look after the children, make the clothes and tend the hearth. There is no direct archaeological evidence whatsoever for such sharp division of gender roles.

With these examples from 1992 and 1989, both created by national museums, it is obvious that the visual symptoms of gender bias are very much in evidence.

Written symptoms

The gender imagery of archaeological reports in the popular press is often appalling, a written symptom of the BIG problem. Bedlow's account of the Bronze Age burial at Irthlingborough with the remains of slaughtered bulls is particularly telling (Daily Telegraph 14 October 1991):

Instead of taking a bottle of wine to the rave-up some 4,000 years ago on the banks of the river Nene .... Bronze Age man [sic] was asked to bring his own beef, on the hoof. ... That meant leading young, sexually active bulls to the party. ... 'What they did to the bulls before they were eaten is pure conjecture, Women would have been there to play their part in the feasting.' ... It is thought that cattle skulls were part of an ancient British burial ritual with sexual overtones.

The collective terms are male, the beasts are male, the overtones are all sexual and the impression left by the article is that the female role in the feasting may well have been sexual. Indeed, the title of the piece is '20,000 went to Bronze Age Orgy'! The title and language are presumably used to draw the readers' attention and hold their interest. It is no comfort to know that such an unsubstantiated view of gender roles in a Bronze Age ritual has reached a wider audience than would a more considered one! One further example just reads as nonsense (Highfield 1992: 12):

The first tool-making is thought to have started about 2.5 million years ago. Primitive implements not only helped Neanderthals and early man [sic] to remove more flesh from a carcass and allow larger shares all round; but also, by helping females to look after their young, gave everybody more access to sex.

This comes from a section entitled 'Why toolmakers looked so happy'! Sex is again being used to make archaeological stories 'interesting'!! Happily, most modern academic writing is more circumspect, but there are still three basic issues: gender-specific terms, the means of interpretation of gender roles and the tone of the language.

Many authors and publishers use language very carefully to avoid specifying the sex of [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 2 OMITTED] the scavenger, gatherer, toolmaker. A 1992 Scientific American article has phrases such as 'The earliest hominids probably scavenged and took small prey with their hands ... they began to use tools to butcher large carcasses' (Blumenschine & Cavallo 1992: 94). Elsewhere 'mankind' and 'man' are used to refer generically to both sexes according to a dictionary definition of 'man'. However, there are two contradictory dictionary definitions of the word 'man' as on the one hand 'an adult human male, especially as distinct from a woman or boy' and on the other hand 'human beings in general: the human race' (Concise Oxford Dictionary 1990: 719). The 'males only' definition inevitably spills over on to the 'neutral' generic usage of 'man' in compound phrases. In addition, phrases such as 'man the hunter' are still used even when the purpose is to challenge the assumptions made, because to avoid these terms when discussing their origins and Validity would be to alter history and deny that they were ever used (see also Chippindale 1991: 103). The order of words can imply importance too: Bender (1978) used the term gatherer-hunter rather than hunter-gatherer to point out that gathering was probably a more important part of subsistence than hunting.

TABLE 1. Gender portrayal in the nine hominid illustrations by
Maurice Wilson in Andrews & Stringer (1989: 29, 31, 35, 37, 39,
41, 43, 45, 46) and scematically represented in FIGURE 1. The
assignment of male/female was made on the basis of genitalia,
breasts and beards. C denotes child.

scene FIGURE 1 female male either sex total

page
29 d 1 1 1C 3
31 a 0 1 9 10
35 g 4 3 3C 10
37 b 0 2 0 2
39 e 1 2 0 3
41 c 1 1+1C 0 3
43 h 1 7 3 11
45 f 1 1 2C+2 6
47 l 1 5 1C+1 8

totals 10 24 7C+15 56

p. 35. The far right figure has been interpreted as female on the
grounds of full size but no facial hair.

p. 43. The first figure in the water has been interpreted as either
sex, as have the two beardless smaller figures in the top of the
scene as they could be women or children.

p. 45. There are two very small figures leaving the caves in the
background.

p. 47. The artist has been interpreted as either sex because the
hair/beard is unclear.

Moving on to the issue of written interpretations of gender roles, Conkey & Spector (1984) showed how contemporary expectations colour interpretations with no explicit discussion or supporting arguments. Unsubstantiated statements and disparity of treatment persist. Andrews & Stringer (1989) suggest the nuclear family existed in the Palaeolithic: for the Zhoukoudian cave - 'they represent the remains of hunters and their families' (1989: 38), and as the caption$to an illustration of a female, child and man [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 1C OMITTED] 'an African family of about 200,000 years ago' (1989: 40). Yet noone has ever excavated proof of a Lower Palaeolithic nuclear family! Interpreting graves and grave-goods can be problematic (e.g. Parker Pearson 1982; Ucko 1969), but where indicators of wealth and status are defined, they are not interpreted equally for both sexes. Pearson et el. (1989) chose to use the number of non-ceramic grave good types and the size of the grave pit as measures of wealth. When some female graves are, by their chosen measures, wealthier than male graves, the assessment is 'females are not inferior to males on present evidence' (Pearson et el. 1989: 18-22).

No measure can overturn the assumption that the males 'should' show more wealth!

Expectations of relative gender status are again the crux in a last example where female status is defined as the wealthiest using the grave-goods and skeletal evidence, but explained (and isolated) as an environmental anomaly and discussed in a surprised tone (Higham & Bannanurag 1990: 55):

A society of 'Big Women'

This in essence is the 'Big Man' system. But at Khok Phanom Di we find that the later generations were dominated numerically, and in terms of wealth, by women. We believe that a closer examination of the environment and the graves holds the key to understanding this most unusual situation.

It is scarcely surprising that despite warnings against gender bias from the present, and the careful use of terms (e.g. the replacement of 'early man' by 'human evolution' or 'early hominids'), student essays often reflect the unsubstantiated gender roles pervading so much of their sources for the human past. Lectures may discuss Palaeolithic people, artefacts and tools, gathering and scavenging - but the essays come back with Stone Age man using weapons and hunting. The BIG problem is endemic and self-propagating.

To follow again the medical analogy, there are various possible responses, ranging from treating the symptoms to antidotes, vaccines, surgery or attacking the vectors of disease. Prevention is better than cure, and the simple solutions may prove the most cost-effective. The first step has to be isolating cause and effect, and understanding the life-cycle of the disease.

Spread of the disease

Time plays an important part in the spread of the BIG problem due to the reliance on and re-use of material and images. We have seen how little has changed since the modern appreciation of gender issues. Complacency over dated sources continues to spread the disease.

The illustrations by Maurice Wilson studied above were mostly painted in the 1950s, yet they feature in a 1989 book and the gender roles they depict influence perceptions today. Individual illustrations have been re-used since the 1950s. The Neanderthal scene, dated 1950, has often been reproduced, e.g. for a newspaper article in 1992, 42 years after it was painted (Highfield 1992: 12). Archaeologists would not use written sources from 40 years ago as uncritically as they do the illustrations.

A more modern set (1990) of visually striking illustrations by Benoit Clarys has been produced as postcards and they will influence present-day perceptions; I have seen them in four European countries and on display in some museums. Analysis of gender representations by number (TABLE 3) and by activity (TABLE 4) allows comparisons with Wilson's illustrations (the four scenes are schematized in [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 2 OMITTED]). The ratio of recognizable images of women to men is only 1:7, and the females are less active than the males. Again the key reason is the selection of an activity deemed important; the four scenes portrayed are of different types of hunting, presented as a male activity. Progress has not been made in visual gender representations!

Written academic sources show an increased modern avoidance of gender-specific terms, e.g. 'modern humans' not 'modern man' (Bar-Yosef & Vandermeersch 1993), and some books have chosen to avoid the use of 'man' as a generic term for humans of both sexes (e.g. Stringer & Gamble 1993). Elsewhere 'mankind' survives (Trinkaus & Shipman 1993). There is some improvement here; some journals and publishers are aware of the problem, although they weigh it against freedom of expression (see Evans 1990 and Chippindale 1991).

Cause and effect

The BIG problem is caused by three factors:

1 the present notions of gender roles affecting interpretations being made today;

2 past notions of gender roles as they have affected previous interpretations;

3 the lack of rigour in archaeological theory governing interpretive frameworks.

Since the real gender bias lies with society rather than archaeology, is archaeology to blame? Archaeologists inherit data excavated and interpreted by the previous generation. If women did not achieve full suffrage in Britain until 1929, it is not surprising that earlier accounts reflect a society in which women had less power and status than men. Archaeology and history are used to legitimize the present. Gender bias should be taken seriously, not just for the sake of the past, but for the political use that is made of the past in the present.

When interpreting the past we need to:

1 recognize explicitly our own notions of gender;

2 when reading, allow for the authors' contemporary notions of gender;

3 be clear about our own interpretive processes linking gender and behaviour/status.

These are by no means easy. In looking at the archaeology of gender the first requirement is to identify biological sex, before analysing the social construct of gender (Epstein 1988: 5-7; Gilchrist 1991). We can bring clearer definitions of male/female via scientific techniques (e.g. DNA on a cemetery population) to look at genetic relationships of offspring and parents, but this evidence alone cannot provide an understanding of male/female relationships. In particular, biological notions of gender roles are allowed to 'explain' too much, given that biologists and others debate the extent to which biological sex or social learning create differences (Epstein 1988; Haraway 1989; MacCormack & Strathern 1980; Ortner & Whitehead 1981; Seward & Seward 1980; Shaver & Hendrick 1987). The means of observing women in prehistory include ethnographic generalizations, skeletal and mortuary studies, texts, art and mythology, physiology and comparative zoology (Hayden 1992): my assessment has focussed more narrowly on solely archaeological criteria. There are very limited circumstances where archaeology can provide direct evidence of biological sex and gender roles in prehistory. These are summarized below:

1 Skeletons

These can only be sexed in older individuals with sufficient preservation to define sex via morphology of pelvis, skull, or long bones (Workshop of European Anthropologists 1980), or some other tests such as citrate presence (unreliable) or DNA analysis. There are periods and regions in pro-history where the prevailing mortuary practices, or lack of any, make the survival of whole skeletons very rare. On the positive side, it is possible to look at nutritional differences, genetic inheritance, trauma or other pathological evidence (e.g. Bush & Zvelebil 1991 especially Meiklejohn & Zvelebil 1991; Holiman 1992; Roberts et al. 1989, especially Henderson 1989).

2 Contexts

The treatment of sexed skeletons and any objects placed with bodies should offer useful [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 3 OMITTED] information. Again, there are periods and regions where the funerary rite gives poor sexing information and where no grave goods are used; where evidence occurs there follows the classic problem of whether what goes into a grave, accurately reflects life (Parker Pearson 1982).

3 Anthropomorphic images

Any differences in the means of depiction, activities depicted, frequency or distribution between the sexes could be useful. Again, the images may not be direct reflections of activities in life, and there is the problem of how to sex images. Beards, breasts and genitals, the only means of independently establishing male and female images, are often unclear or masked by clothes. Where long hair, clothes or weapons are utilized as the sexing evidence, the interpretations yet again reflect contemporary social attitudes to gender. If genitalia are shown, it is sometimes easier to identify male figures than female. Much imagery is stylized so that the intellectual leap to understand that a scratched triangle indicates a vulva may require a chronological and regional knowledge. If the sex is not indicated, it could imply this is not an important issue in the image context, and in some instances there may be deliberate sexual ambiguity (e.g. Coles 1990; Kehoe 1991). These points are of great interest in understanding gender roles and gender identity.

There is a dearth of evidence directly relating gender to objects or activities, so the basis of any comments about gender should be explicitly stated (see below). Even so, the caveats in a report are unlikely to be repeated in the general or popular accounts which are most read and provide the first references for students. By the time students are reading the reports, they already have expectations. The disease of gender bias is self-propagating.

male

1 holds handaxe 1 holds retouched stone tool 1 holds spear near dead elephant 2 hold spears while searching 2 using spears and spearthrowers

TABLE 4. Activities for each figure whose gender was interpretable according to TABLE 3.

Countermeasures

It is poor archaeological methodology that allows contemporary social bias to be so uncritically reflected back on the past. Prevention is better than cure but time, costs and perceptions affect the countermeasures' success, This section analyses and advocates responses to the BIG problem.

Antidotes - womens' books

There are now books focussing on women (Allason-Jones 1989; Boxer & Quataert 1987; Ehrenberg 1989; Fell 1984; Klapisch-Zuber 1992). Many females, and males, have eagerly read these as they redress the imbalance. They are antidotes to the BIG problem, applied after the event and neutralizing the symptoms. Books were produced with titles such as The emergence of man (Pfeiffer 1970), Man the tool-maker (Oakley 1972); hunting or food-sharing and carrying were put forward as factors in human evolution. On becoming human (Tanner 1981) was written as one of many measured replies, Man the hunter (Lee & De Vore 1968) was a useful conference volume whose title phrase became a cliche and indirectly led to Woman the gatherer (Dahlberg 1981: xi), now also a cliche.

Antibiotics - breaking down and attacking the disease by analysis

Conkey & Spector (1984) offered a critique of research choices and values. Gilchrist (1991) and Engelstadt (1991) have both presented feminist critiques of gender in archaeology. This kind of response attacks not just the symptoms of the disease, but analyses the components and build-up of the problem. Recent research has focussed on the interaction of the gendering of archaeology as it is written and as it is practised (Gero 1985; Claassen in press; Smith in press; Smith & Du Cros in press). There are terms to describe different aspects of gender (e.g. gender role, identity and ideology), and examples of the problems arising from androcentric interpretations (e.g. Conkey & Spector 1984: 15; Wylie 1991). More concern is also being shown by organizations such as the Institute of Field Archaeologists (1991), and by conferences such as the second 'Women in archaeology' conference in Australia in July 1993. Analysing gender bias in field data collection, interpretation and research question selection (e.g Bell et al. 1993; Gero 1985; Gero & Conkey 1984; Ovrevik 1991) highlights weak theoretical links and naive assumptions. More specific-case-studies of interpretation and analysis include Rice (1981) and Gilchrist (1993). These responses are antibiotics attacking the causes of the BIG problem via analysis.

There is a problem with some feminist critiques: there is no reason to suppose that women of the past million years shared the cultural values of women in 1990s western societies. We will simply continue to create the present in the past if we take this view, repeating the bias pitfalls, but with the other sex emphasized. Biases in gender issues need to be analytically countered rather than emotively rejected. In a seminar discussion on hunter-gatherer societies (in which females are more often the plant-collectors - a nutritionally and quantitatively important aspect of the economy), some female students pointed out that women could hunt; they thought to see women as plant-gatherers was sexist. In arguing this, they denied some good reasons for this generalized strategy; women breast-feeding children cannot leave offspring for long periods, children can more easily contribute to their own food-getting requirements if they collect static and usually non-threatening plant resources, on a hunt children may not be able to be kept quiet, to move quickly enough, or may slow down an adult too much if they are carried. The age of children can affect a woman's role in the food-getting strategy; the children may be left in the care of elders of both sexes while younger and fitter community members go off on longer trips. The variations are endless, based on age and sex divisions within the community as a complex interweave of factors. To say that such ideas are sexist is to miss the point of sexual dimorphism as an evolutionary strategy and to be biased by our own cultural experience of the status of activities. The female students wanted women to be seen as hunters because this was the task they valued more. I would argue that these female students over-valued the hunting contribution and, in doing so, tried to deny generalized strategies which are well documented (e.g. Hayden et al. 1986).

Clearly, what is needed are methods by which preconceived notions of gender roles and status can separate evidence from interpretation, and distinguish evidence of different roles from evidence of value. The rest of this paper offers three approaches to challenge all gender interpretations.

The sex-change operation - a mental gender switch

Unlike the medical analogue, this theoretical device is quick, painless and reversible, so it could be one of the most effective measures against gender bias. When an archaeologist makes an interpretive statement$about a person or group of one sex and their relationship to objects or society, they mentally switch the sex around and examine whether their interpretation changes. If it does, then further justification for the interpretation is needed. If the difference cannot be justified, then it cannot be made!

A short example from a conference shows the value of a gender switch. A study of skeletal data showed that evidence for bone breaks and depressed skull fractures were more frequent in female skeletal remains. The presented interpretation was that women had lesser status and were dominated, and maltreated, by males. In subsequent conversation, the mental sex-change operation was suggested. There is now a group of males with more frequent breakages and depressed skull fractures, and the hypothetical new interpretation was frankly stated - the men were warriors and the traumas were the results of fighting! The type of archaeological evidence has not changed, but cultural notions of male and female directed the differing interpretations. In this example, the palaeopathologist then offered further justification for the original interpretation. The gender switch forced an awareness of other possibilities and the citing of further information. It served to challenge$preconceptions.

Hygiene education - destroying the breeding grounds

Terminology has a large role to play in re-educating our thoughts. As Spender (1980) has pointed out, language is 'man made'. One of the worst language problems is the use of the term 'man' as a generic term for both sexes within our species. How can one word convey either 'men and women' or 'men, not women'? The two current meanings in the English language are contradictory and form a persuasive argument for changing the accepted English usage of this word. We make language, and word meanings can become obsolete. Alternatives to the modern use of the generic term 'man' exist, and they are less confusing. For 'early man' there are 'early hominids', 'human origins' or 'human evolution'; for 'modern man', 'modern humans'; for 'Neolithic man' etc., 'people', 'folk', 'communities' or 'society', and for 'man', 'humankind', 'humanity' or 'people'. With the increasing awareness of gender issues in children's publications (e.g. Levick & Spencer 1993), the academic world already seems slow to address gender-biased language. However, the journal Man is, thankfully, changing its name. I am not advocating the rewording of historical quotes (Chippindale 1991: 103), nor compulsion. The use of terms should be a matter of choice, but choices can be judged.

I would also suggest that many of our terms for social status, or social relationships, are so laden with present-day perceptions of those terms that we should find alternatives. Archaeologists would not call a religious building a 'church' unless they thought the building was being used to practise Christianity. 'Shrine' or 'temple' would be more appropriate terms because they would not imply a particular religion, or character of ritual usage. In the same way we should seek to use neutral terms for some social and gender relationships, e.g. 'Big men' could become 'charismatic leaders' or 'big' leaders. Many power terms have gender-specified endings. 'Chieftain/chieftess' indicate gender, but the term 'chieftess' can imply that the woman was important because of her relationship to a chieftain, not in her own right. The same holds true for 'Princess', and 'Queen'. Such terms are not gender equivalents to 'Prince' and 'King'. 'Ascribed' or 'achieved' leaders might convey a more open attitude to those societies where women had political power. Other words such as 'principals' for small-state leaders might be appropriate. 'Wife' and 'husband' have so many cultural implications in our own society that they cannot be used in a fresh way in prehistory. Where female-male relationships are being discussed, it may be wiser to use more neutral terms such as 'consort', which refers to either sex and implies no concept of which sex might be seen as the more important, nor any notion of the durability or number of relationships an individual might have.

Many of the words which are gender-biased are so common in our own social milieu that it is sometimes difficult to 'see' the way we use gender-specific terms. We are as susceptible to cultural indoctrination as anyone else. However, there are simple means to develop a self-critical approach. Word-processors could be used to examine the use of he/she, his/her, male/ female, man etc. via 'search' commands. Once identified systematically, such terms could be individually examined to assess whether the text is a true gender reflection, or whether there is a pattern of difference between male/female nouns and the style of verbs or statements. This would increase awareness of the problem and be a check on any unintentional bias.

Visual sources - whether they involve the re-use of images or the creation of new models - could be assessed as individual pieces and, as importantly, as part of any set of images. The number of each sex, their tasks and relative position and facial expression could all be analysed. It would be a step forward to show where interpretations rather than facts are being portrayed. A child skeleton on display at Avebury museum is labelled 'Charlie or Charlotte', and at this museum there is also a figure (male) with two opposing versions of dress and sophistication. Both are examples of simple but effective devices to show questions and to engage the viewer in the interpreting process. By such means, the visual depictions of gender roles could be presented as a matter for debate.

Vaccines - improving resistance by theory

Lastly, but by no means least, the underlying theoretical problem is one of separating evidence from interpretation and in applying devices to measure wealth, status and activities independently of our expectations. This is where some theory developments in gender archaeology would strengthen the whole discipline. In particular, archaeologists of both sexes should realize that a difference in gender roles is not synonymous with inequality. As archaeologists we should look at roles and indicate differences where they occur, but also realize that to attempt to give the societies' perceptions of the status of these roles is a further step. It is in the perceived status of different gender roles that bias can also occur against women. Some of the reactions against androcentric interpretations are biasing the evidence in favour of how some women would like to see the past. Like it or not, there are fundamental biological and behavioural differences in many societies between the sexes and at different age stages. To deny or neglect that this might also have occurred in the past is to subvert the discipline and undervalue the role of two sexes. It is the interaction between sexes and the social creation of gender roles which are the basic social division of human society. If this is not a fundamental concern of archaeology, there is little point to the more often studied technological, ritual, and political interactions within society. Gender should be considered as an aspect of many of the key developments and interpretations of society, but this is only recently beginning to happen (e. g. the transition to farming, Jennbert in press; metal-working, Barrett 1989; and households, Tringham 1991).

Conclusion - physician, heal thyself

The relationship between gender groups is ultimately what propagates society, and our species. Gender studies are thus perVasive and should be critical aspects of archaeological research. It is not sufficient to say that now we know of the BIG problem it will disappear. The recent examples quoted show this is not the case. Many of the gender concepts we have are a product of personal upbringing, popular accounts and dated academic discussion. These influences cannot suddenly be overturned by a few academic articles, even if we accept them. To argue against accepted cultural norms requires self-criticism at a conscious level in order to re-frame concepts and the discipline. The BIG problem exists because of fundamental flaws in archaeology. The separation of evidence from interpretation; the distinction of difference from relative status; the use of clear and neutral terms and the questioning of our preconceptions are all reasoned objectives for the discipline; not dismissable as fashionable PC hype. The theoretical devices I have put forward are aids to self-criticism within archaeology. Physician heal thyself!

Finally, interpretations of genders need justification but they do need to be made. One neuter category does not give a viable past any more than does an imbalance between genders. At the moment the archaeological past has too few women to form a viable population. Time, ladies and gentlemen please, for the creation of a viable population of the archaeological past to save our own engendered species.

Acknowledgements. This paper had a long gestation period; thanks go to Sue Rouillard at Exeter for producing the illustrations, Jackie Mulville, Barbara Brayshay, Andrew Chamberlain, Robin Dennell, Marek Zvelebil and Bert Sinclair for discussion, Laurajane Smith and Stephanie Moser for references. Its present format owes much to my experiences of teaching gender issues to students and to the person who referred to gender issues as 'babble'. My purpose in writing this paper with so many examples was to clarify the issues of our engendered past for these students and sceptics.

References

ALLASON-JONES, L. 1989. Women in Roman Britain. London: British Museum Publications.

ANDREWS, P. & C. STRINGER. 1989. Human evolution: an illustrated guide, with paintings by Maurice Wilson. London: British Museum (Natural History).

BARRETT, J.C. 1989. Food, gender and metal: questions of social reproduction, in M.-L. Stig Sorensen & R. Thomas (ed.), The Bronze Age-Iron Age transition in Europe: 304-20. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. International series S483(ii).

BAR-YOSEF, O. & B. VANDERMEERSCH. 1993. Modern humans in the Levant, Scientific American 264(4): 64-70.

BEDLOW, R. 1991. 20,000 went to Bronze Age orgy, The Daily Telegraph 14 October.

BELL, D., P. CAPLAN & W.J. KARIM (ed.). 1993. Gendered fields: women, men and ethnography. London: Routledge.

BENDER, B. 1978. Gatherer-hunter to farmer: a social perspective, World Archaeology 10: 204-22.

BLUMENSCHINE, R.J. & J.A. CAVALLO, 1992, Scavenging and human evolution, Scientific American 267(4): 90-96.

BOXER, M,J. & J.H. QUATAERT (Ed.). 1987, Connecting spheres: women in the western world, 1500 to the present. New York (NY): Oxford University Press.

BURTT, F. 1987. 'Man the hunter': bias in children's archaeology books, Archaeological Review from Cambridge 6(2): 157-74.

BUSH, H. & M, ZVELEBIL (ed.). 1991. Health in past societies: biocultural interpretation of human skeletal remains in archaeological contexts. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. International series S567.

CHIPPINDALE, C. 1991. Sexist language in archaeological discourse: a reply, Archaeological Review from Cambridge 10(1): 102-4.

CLAASSEN, C. (ed,). 1992. Exploring gender through archaeology. Madison (WI): Prehistory Press.

In press. Feminism and CRM. Boone (NC): Appalachian State University.

COLES, B. 1990. Anthropomorphic wooden figurines from Britain and Ireland, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 56: 315-33.

Concise Oxford Dictionary of current English. 1990. 8th edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

CONKEY, M.W. & J. SPECTOR. 1984. Archaeology and the study of gender, in M.B. Schiffer (ed.), Advances in archaeological method and theory 7: 1-38. London: Academic Press.

DAHLBERG, F. (ed.). 1981. Woman the gatherer. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press.

DUNBAR, R. & R. FOLEY. 1989. Beyond the bones of contention, New Scientist 124 (1686) (14 October 1989): 37-40.

EHRENBERG, M. 1989. Women in prehistory, London: British Museum.

ENGELSTAD, E. 1991. Images of power and contradiction: feminist theory and post-processual archaeology, Antiquity 65: 502-14.

EPSTEIN, C.F. 1988. Deceptive distinctions: sex, gender, and the social order. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press.

EVANS, K. 1990. Sexist language in archaeological discourse, Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9(2): 252-61.

FELL, C. 1984. Women in Anglo-Saxon England. London: British Museum Publications.

GERO, J.M. 1985. Socio-politics and the woman-at-home ideology, American Antiquity 50: 342-50.

GERO, J.M. & M.W. CONKEY (ed). 1991. Engendering archaeology: women and prehistory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

GILCHRIST, R. 1991. Women's archaeology? Political feminism, gender theory and historical revision, Antiquity 65: 495-501.

1993. Gender and material culture. London: Routledge.

GOULD, S.J. 1989. Wonderful life: the Burgess Shale and the nature of history. London: Penguin.

HARAWAY, D. (Ed.). 1989. Primate visions: gender, race and nature in the world of modern science. New York (NY): Routledge.

HAYDEN, B. 1986. Ecological determinants of womens' status among hunter-gatherers, Human Evolution 1: 449-73.

1992. Observing prehistoric women, in Claassen (ed.): 33-47.

HENDERSON, J. 1989. Pagan Saxon cemeteries: a study of the problem of sexing by grave goods and bones, in Roberts et al. (ed.): 77-83.

HIGHAM, C. & R. BANNANURAG. 1990. The princess and the pots, New Scientist 126(1718) (26 May): 50-55.

HIGHFIELD, R. 1992. Why toolmakers looked so happy, Daily Telegraph 15 June: 12.

HOLLIMAN, S.E. 1992. Health consequences of sexual division of labor among native Americans: the Chumash of California and the Arikara of the Northern Plains, in Claassen (ed.): 81-88.

INSTITUTE OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGISTS. 1991. Women in British archaeology - the equal opportunities in archaeology working party report 1991, The Field Archaeologist 15: 280-82.

JENNBERT, K. In press. 'From the inside': a contribution to the debate about the introduction of agriculture, in L. Domanska, R. Dennell & M. Zvelebil (ed.), The transition to farming in the Baltic region. Oxford: Oxbow.

JONES, S. & S. PAY. 1990. The legacy of Eve, in P. Gathercole & D. Lowenthal (ed.), The politics of the past: 160-71. London: Unwin Hyman.

KEHOE, A.B. 1991. No possible, probable shadow of doubt, Antiquity 65: 129-31.

KLAPISCH-ZUBER, C. (ed.). 1992. A history of women in the West 2: Silences of the Middle Ages. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.

LAMBERT, D. 1987. The Cambridge guide to prehistoric man, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

LEE, R.B. & I. DE VORE (Ed.). 1968. Man the hunter. Chicago (IL): Aldine.

LEVICK, C. & B. SPENCER. 1993, Windows on the world: prehistory. London: Dorling Kindersley.

MACCORMACK, C. & M. STRATHERN (ed.). 1980. Nature, culture and gender, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

MEIKLEJOHN, C. & M. ZVELEBIL. 1991. Health status of European populations at the agricultural transition and the implications for the adoption of farming, in Bush & Zvelebil (ed.): 129-45.

MOSER, S. 1992a. The visual language of archaeology: a case study of the Neanderthals, Antiquity 66: 83144.

1992b. Visions of the Australian Pleistocene: prehistoric life at Lake Mungo and Kutikina, Australian Archaeology 5: 1-10.

In press. Gender stereotyping in pictorial reconstructions of human origins, in Smith & Du Cros (ed.).

OAKLEY, K. 1972. Man the toolmaker. 6th edition. London: British Museum (Natural History).

ORTNER, S.B. & H. WHITEHEAD (ed.). 1981. Sexual meanings: the cultural construction of gender and sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

OVREVIK, S.E. 1991. Feminist research on archaeology in Norway, Kvinner i Arkeologi i Norge 11: 27-63.

PARKER PEARSON, M. 1982. Mortuary practices, societies and ideology: an ethnoarchaeological study, in I. Hodder (ed.), Symbolic and structural archaeology: 99-114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

PEARSON, R., J.-W. LEE, W. KOH & A. UNDERHILL. 1989, Social ranking in the kingdom of Old Silla, Korea: analysis of burials, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8: 1-50.

PFEIFFER, J.E. 1970. The emergence of man. London: Nelson.

RICE, P. 1981. Prehistoric venuses: symbols of motherhood or womanhood, Journal of Anthropological Research 37: 402-14.

ROBERTS, C., F. LEE & J. BINTLIFF (ed.). 1989, Burial archaeology: current research. methods and developments. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. British series 211.

SEWARD, J. & G.H. SEWARD. 1980. Sex differences: mental and temperamental. Lexington (KY): Lexington Books.

SHAVER, P. & C. HENDRICK (ed.). 1987, Sex and gender. Newbury Park (CA): Sage.

SMITH, L. In press. Cultural resource management and the rise of feminist expression in Australian archaeology, in Claassen (ed.).

SMITH, L. & H. DU CROS. In press. Women in archaeology: a feminist critique. Canberra: Australian National University Press.

SPENDER, D. 1980. Man made language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

STRINGER, C. & C. GAMBLE. 1993. In search of the Neanderthals. London: Thames & Hudson.

TANNER, N. 1981. On becoming human. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

TATTERSALL, I. 1992. Evolution comes to life, Scientific American 267(2): 62-9.

TRINGHAM, R.E. 1991. Households with faces: the challenge of gender in prehistoric architectural remains, in Gero & Conkey (ed.): 93-131.

TRINKAUS, E. 1983. The Shanidar Neandertals. New York (NY): Academic Press.

TRINKAUS, E. & P. SHIPMAN. 1993. The Neandertals, changing the image of mankind. London: Jonathan Cape.

UCKO, P. 1969. Ethnography and archaeological interpretation of funerary remains, World Archaeology 1: 262-80.

WALCOTT, C.D. 1912. Middle Cambrian Branchiapoda, Malacostraca, Trilobita and Merostomata: Cambrian geology and paleontology, II, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 57: 145-228.

WYLIE, A. 1991. Gender theory and the archaeological record: why is there no archaeology of gender, in Gero & Conkey (ed.): 31-54

WORKSHOP OF EUROPEAN ANTHROPOLOGISTS. 1980. Recommendations for age and sex diagnoses of skeletons, Journal of Human Evolution 9: 517-49.