Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
The assumption of gender and the required role has remained the same for many centuries. The expectations of a certain gender whether it is male, or female determine their role in society. Studying gender in past and present times compares in terms of the roles and actions of males and females. This would include feminine, masculine, cultural beliefs, and power relations. The lack of women’s input and actions in history towards life, in general, went unnoticed and ignored for centuries. Throughout history, it has been much inequality between men and women where laws were processed to protect men and their rights. With the gathered evidence, I will compare and contrast the theories and points of view of men and women. It is understood that the man is the one who is superior and holds power while women are inferior and submissive. In order to do and complete archaeology studies, ethnography is needed. In the course, we have learned that ethnographic interpretations are invoked as analogies or parallels to better interpret archaeological data. Also, covered in the course, androcentrism plays a major role in history because it was a norm for heterosexual male behavior. It was also believed that men are the bias toward history and culture while there was no room for those who do not follow expected gender stereotypes. It is commonly known that men had all the power and control over everything such as financials, making rules, fighting in the war, hunting/gathering for food and etc. While men were mostly in control, women were often submissive only to take care of children and cook/clean. According to Nelson, “Not only is there inequality but there are missing gaps of why there is inequality. From the perspectives of archaeologists, it is understood that women were not important and not taken seriously” (2012). Archaeology such as anthropology was a field dominated by white upper-class men. Unfortunately, there are proven facts showing that gender gaps and inequalities persist, even in the face of startling social and economic transformations and concerted movements to challenge women’s subordination. Characteristics, emotions, and behaviors that people generally associate with being male or female are learned through socialization and are commonly referred to as “masculinity” and “femininity”. Masculinity and femininity are often seen as being completely different from and opposed to one another. For example, “In many Western societies, traditional male gender roles promote being active, aggressive and expressive of anger but not sadness while feminine gender roles promote being passive, compliant and expressive of sadness but not anger” (Nelson 2012). With the help and research from archaeologists, they will be better explained and understood of Gender roles.
The most obvious case of androcentrism in archaeology both in conceptualization and mode of presentation occurs in the reconstructions of earliest hominid life (Isaac 1978:102). One principal feature is the imposition of ethnocentric assumptions about the nature, roles, and social significance of males and females derived from our own culture on the analysis of other groups. Some archaeologists such as Hutson and Bardolph, presume certain essential or natural gender characteristics. It was discovered that males typically portray themselves as stronger, more aggressive, dominant, more active, and in general more important than females. Females, in contrast, are presented as weak, passive, and dependent. There is no surprise that anthropologists saw biological differences were structuring and in the case of females, limiting social roles and social positions. This shows that women do not do certain things that men do, or they do not hold certain beliefs or participate in certain social networks that men do. Sources state that “Women who were studied in many ethnographies are described relative to men or primarily in terms of their relationships to men, for example, as sisters, wives, and mothers. The emphasis on the native male view of culture is associated with the fact that until recently most ethnographers were men and had greater access to male than to female informants” (Conkey and Spector 1984: 04). This contributes to another dimension of androcentrism and most anthropologists have been western, white, and middle- or upper-class men, and their own position within a race, class, and gender system has shaped their perspective on research, particularly in the selection of research problems. According to a source, “Emphasis on topics like leadership, power, warfare, exchange of women, rights of inheritance, and notions of property can all be cited as issues of special interest to males in particular historical contexts and sociopolitical structures” (Sacks 1976; Van Allen 1972). The research problems that have been emphasized are not inherently more important than others nor are they necessarily relevant in many of the cultural contexts examined. They do reflect the perspective of the dominant gender, race, and class of the researchers. All the androcentric problems outlined above are found in archaeological work, but in archaeology, the problems are in some ways even more insidious than in sociocultural anthropology. The sources that archaeologists draw upon to derive their notions about past gender arrangements are rarely made explicit. As some case studies discussed here show, “it is probable that most derive from androcentric ethnographies. That is, they do not draw upon nor create a body of theory of social life, or of gender arrangements. When archaeologists employ a set of Stereotype assumptions about gender, they consider how it is structured and what it means?” (Butterfield 1965; Stocking 1965). Although most American archeologists research human life after the establishment of modern Homo sapiens, these archaeologists inherit a picture of human social life and gender structures that appear to have been established several million years. One other important implication of the implicit, presentist gender paradigm is what can be called the false notion of objectivity. Archaeologists appear to be objective about what someone can know about the past. Hoffman recently stated that “it was discovered that during prehistoric times, female hominid was examined just as well as male hominids. Without the study and discovery of female hominids, there would be “invisibility” of how a woman was constructed from bone structure down to the way of lifestyle”. For example, Archaeologists appear to be objective about what we can know about the past. It was stated that ‘we have no idea how prehistoric human groups were socially partitioned’ (Binford and Binford 1968:70). Yet, during lecture 5/6 “Archaeology, gender and evidence for human origins” we read about casually made stone tools that indicate presumed occupation by women engaged in plant processing. With given little information, it already points out that women were some source and a part of history. It has been said that ‘as long as we do not correct for the imbalance created by the durability of bone as compared with that of plant residues, studies of human evolution will always have a male bias’ (Issac 1978: 102). Female roles differential preservation of bones compared to plant remains is not the problem, only a diversion. One can claim that female-related data in the archaeological record are invisible only if one makes some clearly questionable assumptions, such as the existence of an exclusive sexual division of labor. It is important to see how these general notions of androcentrism in archaeology can actually be substantiated in archaeological studies. Androcentrism in archaeology both in conceptualization and presentation occurs in the reconstructions of earliest hominid life. The Man-the-Hunter model was crystallized by Washburn and Lancaster and elaborated by Laughlin. It was popularized by numerous writers that this model includes a set of assumptions about males and females and their activities, capabilities, relations to one another, social position, and value relative to one another, that epitomize the problems of androcentrism (1968). The Man-the-Hunter model is here for several reasons. First, as has been noted above, the gender arrangements assumed to characterize the earliest human populations often serve as a baseline for archaeologists. “These issues are to be considered in the review of archaeology and the study of gender. These major issues include the prevalence of gender-specific models that result in gender-exclusive rather than gender-inclusive reconstructions of past human behavior; the common assumption of a relatively rigid sexual division of labor that results in the sex linking of activities with one sex or the other, which in archaeology is often compounded by assuming sex linkages artifactually (projectile points as male, ceramics as female); and the differential values placed on the different (usually sex-linked) activities, such that there is a prevailing overemphasis on those activities or roles presumed to be male associated” (Conkey and Spector 1984:7). What Archaeologists find lacking in the Man-the-Hunter model is an explicit theory of human social life and, by implication, the lack of a specific paradigm for the study of gender. Without such theory it is precisely in the attempts to reconstruct prehistoric social life that is culturally derived from our own culture (American), implicit notions about gender serve as the basis for reconstruction. The study of early hominid social life is one of the obvious domains of archaeological research in which the lack of archaeological theory illuminates past human life. The study of gender an archaeological aspect shows the division of women and men, but most importantly it shows inequality and misogyny.
Gender bias has caused a disturbance between men and women. For many centuries, women were not able to work jobs besides caring for the household and children. The importance of archaeology helps discover and interpret roles that were actually held by men and women. There were women in history who fought alongside their husbands dressed as a male for convenience and less trouble. According to Dr. Nelson, “Ancient Chinese warrior queens wore male clothing and carried swords which balanced power between the king. The roles of women went unnoticed and were purposely left out because women were not considered important. Gender is a symbolic system that structures social and economic relations within the household and the larger community” (2012:42). Among the challenges faced by this research is needed to extricate conceptually gender from biological sex to deal with gender as a social construct. Another challenge is to consider how genders, like other social constructs such as rank or wealth, may be reflected in and constructed through material culture (Hendon 1996:48). According to the lifestyle of Ancient Asia, rulers were often men and followed a system of hierarchy where power is passed down through bloodlines. There became a change in gender ruling once there were no more males to accept the throne which lead to the daughters of a ruler taking the throne. Queen Seondeok ruled the ancient kingdom of Silla from 632 to 647 CE and was the first female sovereign in ancient Korea. According to Korean Studies, “Seondeok gained the throne because her father, king Jinpyeong (Chinpyong, r. 579-632 CE) who had reigned for 53 years, had no male heir. The fact that a queen could rule alone is testimony to the traditional high status of women in the royal lineage and illustrates the rigidity of the Silla social class system. The latter was based on the bone rank system, which dictated all manner of privileges and obligations based on one’s birth and bloodline” (Cartwright 2016:20). The highest social level was the sacred bone class which was only held by members of the royal house of Kim. When Jinpyeong died there were no living males of sacred bone rank and so one of two things had to happen: either the whole social class system had to be restructured or a queen was permitted to rule. Furthermore, the latter choice was taken, as it was again for the same reasons as Seondeok’s successor. The Kingdom of Silla (57 BC – 935 AD) granted women considerable rights. Females were not solely viewed as secondary citizens, and many women made considerable political and domestic contributions. “Unlike later periods, Silla women were not confined to their homes; they largely contributed to the tax and labor force, and lower- and middle-class women, regardless of marital status, often worked in agriculture and assisted their male relatives in learning trades” (Maynes 2012:14). The importance of knowing that women once ruled a kingdom shows that women did contribute and help during history. Seondeok’s domestic policies were more successful than her foreign policy, and Silla saw a flourishing of the arts and sciences. The state became more centralized, and Buddhism was further encouraged, especially as it enhanced “the aura of power enjoyed by Silla’s ruling class and endorsed the monarch as an incarnation of the Buddha” (Hendon 1996:50). There was no surprise that the queen also oversaw an extensive rebuilding programmed, especially of Buddhist temples.
Women’s roles have not changed or had much progress until 1942 when women gained the right to vote. These roles remained the same in many societies such as Korea where women only cooked and cleaned to care for children. In traditional Korean society, women’s roles were confined to the home. From a young age, women were taught the virtues of subordination and endurance to prepare for their future roles as wives and mothers. Women, in general, could not participate in society as men did, and their role was limited to household matters. In South Korea, gender has been commonly considered a manifestation of an unquestioned separation between male and female domains, reflecting the views of male and female as inherently separate and unequal statuses. The history and role of women in Korean society have been studied, but women’s organizations and their role in effecting changes in female expectations and attitudes and toward women have not yet been considered seriously by observers of Korean politics. Many socially conscious Korean women perceive that they have not yet achieved equal status with Korean men. They believe that if there is to be any change in this relationship then the leadership must be in place to help facilitate an expanded awareness among women regarding their situation; to alter male attitudes about women and their appropriate roles in the family. In traditional Korean society, women have long been in a disadvantaged position. ‘Korean social structure consisted of a royal monarch, strong class consciousness, and a patriarchal dominated, extended family system that emphasized the maintenance of family lines. This structure tended to maintain separate and unequal roles for women from those of men” (Maynes 2012:15). These activities are less visible than those of their male associates, despite the fact that one doesn’t know how adaptive behavior was organized. Despite centuries of inequality between the sexes and the inferior position of women in traditional Korean society, industrialization, and modernization have brought some changes in female lives. But, a gap exists between industrial development and cultural response or, in other terms, material and behavioral culture because of the wrong socialization process in our society which has continued for too long, not only men but also women themselves tend to recognize the inferiority of women, at least unconsciously” (Maynes 2012:12). This is what remains as the major obstacle to achieving equality between men and women. Similar to western societies, it is predictable that women will not have the same equal work opportunities as men in most workplaces/societies. Men often are in control of relationships, the workforce, and the household. The gender roles held by men remain the same in terms of how society is constructed and what activities/duties are expected of each gender role.
In the archaeological aspect of gender, it is understood that there were many differences and inequality between males and females. For many years it has been proven over time that males held higher roles in society while women were often submissive and did household duties. Studies also show that women contributed much to history just as much as males. After analyzing similarities of inequality among different societies, it is well interpreted that gender could be identified archaeologically. Gender inequality affected women’s social status and ability to gain equal rights (suffrage). Example of transition in Korea where there were only male rulers until the monarchy allowed inheritance to become a factor of royalty. The queens of Silla give a good representation of gender roles between men and women and what is expected. The research I have gathered throughout the semester has allowed me to understand and analyze how the study of archaeology could help determine and view key points of history. Archaeology is the study to better help analyze gaps and missing pieces of history that better connect and interpret the meaning of life, people, and history.
Works Cited
- Adovasio, J. M., The Invisible Sex: Uncovering the True Roles of Women in Prehistory. Left Coast Press, 2007.
- Anderson, Patricia. “Anth/WS 330 Sex and Gender in Archaeology.” 2017.
- Conkey, Margaret W., and Janet D. Spector. “Archaeology and the Study of Gender.” Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 1984, pp. 1–38., doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-003107-8.50006-2.
- Greenhalgh, Susan, and Barbara Diane Miller. “Sex and Gender Hierarchies.” Population and Development Review, vol. 19, no. 4, 1993, p. 875., doi:10.2307/2938427.
- Hendon, Julia A. Archaeological Approaches to the Organization of Domestic Labor: Household Practice and Domestic Relations. Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 25, no. 1, 1996, pp. 45–61., doi:10.1146/annual.anthro.25.1.45.
- Hoffman, Diane M. “Blurred Genders: The Cultural Construction of Male and Female in South Korea.” Korean Studies, vol. 19, no. 1, 1995, pp. 112–138.
- Joyce. “Saro/Silla and the Historical Record.” Gyeongju, 2017, pp. 18–34., doi:10.4324/9781315627403-2.
- Nelson, Sarah Milledge. Gender in Archaeology Analyzing Power and Prestige. Altamira Press, 2004.
- NELSON, SARAH MILLEDGE. SPIRIT BIRD JOURNEY. ROUTLEDGE, 2017.
- Shin, Hye-Sook, and Dong-Soo Shin. “Korean Women’s Causal Perceptions of Hwabyung.” Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing, vol. 10, no. 4, 2004, p. 283.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.