What is queer archaeology?
Queer archaeology consists of several different
aspects under one umbrella.
It is not necessarily just the study of LGBT+
people in the past, although it can be used
to help identify them.
Queer theory is used in archaeology to challenge
heteronormativity, which is the assumption
that relationships and society are heterosexual
in nature.
This includes breaking down harmful concepts
like the nuclear family, binary gender and
female inferiority.
It also provides fresh perspectives on art,
identity, representation and the body for
archaeologists to broaden their understanding
of the past.
Queer archaeology does not concern itself
with the origins of homosexuality, nor is
it a manifesto for promoting homosexuality
above heterosexuality.
The history of queer theory
Queer theory in general has its roots in feminist
theory and has somewhat taken up the mantle
of being the critical perspective in many
social sciences. Being queer is defined by
its opposition to the heterosexual norm, whether
that is sexual preference, gender, biological
sex or asexuality. This is because queer is
an inclusive term that aims to incorporate
every identity that may be marginalised by
a normative society. This is also because
queer theory didn’t rise to popularity until
the late 1990s, meaning that it is still a
young school of thought. Often, when different
perspectives are brought into social sciences,
they begin by establishing exactly why they
are different from what came before, which
is exactly what happened with feminist theory.
In the 1960s, second-wave feminists wanted
to bring female perspectives into disciplines
like politics, sociology, anthropology and
of course, archaeology, since the experiences
of women had been massively neglected in these
fields. This broadened the disciplines and
improved our understanding of the past by
presenting a different outlook and providing
ways for archaeologists to study more people
in society.
Pioneering works such as Elizabeth Brumfiel’s
study of Aztec figurines showed us how women
acted as free agents in the past, who often
defied established conventions or political
stances that they disagreed with. Application
of feminist theory to these disciplines resulted
in a long-overdue celebration of what women
did in society and mirrored the incursion
of modern women into academia and other traditionally
male professions.
Over the years, the focus moved from feminism
to gender more generally, as more and more
assumptions were challenged. Nowadays, gender
is a widely studied topic in the social sciences
that is not limited to women. This predicts
a similar trajectory for queer theory as it
matures as a field.
How can queer theory help archaeology?
The most obvious benefit to incorporating
queer theory into archaeology is being able
to consider queer identities in the past.
This means we can challenge inaccuracies that
have been imposed on archaeological evidence
from a heteronormative perspective.
An example of this is the Manicurists’ Tomb
from the 5th dynasty of Old Kingdom Egypt,
in which two high-status men were buried in
an elaborate tomb. There has been a lot of
debate over the depictions found on the inside
walls of the tomb, in particular, this image
at the entrance to the offering chamber. This
embrace is usually only seen in heterosexual
married couples in ancient Egyptian art, so from a queer perspective
we might assume that these two men were in
a long-term relationship of some sort. Previous
interpretations have suggested that they were
brothers or twins, which seems unlikely given
the intimacy of the depiction. Queer theory
has therefore helped in this case to improve
the accuracy of our interpretations by correcting
prior heteronormative assumptions and has
many more applications to other archaeological
evidence.
We can also think about queerness in the past
through the lens of performativity. This is
a concept originating from feminist theory
which suggests that parts of your identity
such as gender, sexuality, ethnicity, etc.
are performed using material means, like the
clothes you wear and the objects you own.
In using and displaying these objects, you
not only express yourself to others but relive
your identity. This forces you to reassess
how you feel about it and how you perceive
yourself from within society, thus ensuring that
your identity is forefront in your mind.
We can develop ways of analysing a person’s
belongings that allow us to suggest what their
identity might have been, according to cultural
styles. We can define the gender “norms”
for a given society by examining associated
grave goods found with skeletal remains, as
we can determine biological sex from these
remains. If specific objects are frequently
found with female remains, for instance, we
might conclude that these are used in the
construction of womanhood. A mixing of differently
gendered objects might suggest that this individual
laid somewhere between the gender binary or
adopted different gender identities at different
times. Material culture would therefore be
integral in these cases for allowing the individual
and society to distinguish between their gender
identities.
Queer theory has also provided the idea of
fluidity in archaeological investigations,
which is often useful when studying prehistoric
populations. It is widely believed by European
Prehistorians that gender was more fluid in
the Neolithic for instance, with people adopting
different gender identities based on situation,
whether this is during a ritual or more long-term
in order to fulfil a different role.
Sexuality can also be fluid, which is important
to remember as this likely took place in the
past too. In hunter-gatherer societies, people
might have been polyamorous as a way of managing
risk, since having more adults in a household
allows you to obtain more food and care for
children better. This suggests that bisexuality
and pansexuality might have been more normalised
in these societies, as a way to form stronger
familial units and ensure survival. Of course,
fluidity in gender and sexuality doesn’t
have to have a rational reason for its existence;
sometimes people in the past would have just
had queer identities because they were born
that way just like in the present, but it is easier to see causes and impacts
via archaeology than to investigate random variation.
How can queer archaeology help modern LGBT+
issues?
By presenting queer identities in the past,
archaeologists can legitimise their validity
as a historic phenomenon rather than a modern
invention, as some queerphobic rhetoric might
suggest. This helps to combat the false assertion
that being queer is unnatural, since if these
identities were present in the past without
the proper vocabulary to describe them, then
they are part of natural human variation.
It also helps to prove that modern queer labels
are just to identify already familiar identities
rather than constructing new ones.
Studying queer identities in the past also
makes archaeology as a field more accessible
to queer academics and students, since many
will choose this as a field of interest for
research. This also exposes non-queer people
to a wider variety of different identities
and perspectives, which not only improves
their understanding of past societies but
also makes them more likely to respect their
queer colleagues and having queer representation
in the past promotes a more collaborative
working environment within archaeology departments
at universities.
This is true for other types of representation
as well, with the insurgence of queer theory
into archaeology occurring alongside feminist
and post-colonial viewpoints. This re-frames
considerations of sexuality, gender and ethnicity
as a celebration of difference rather than
emphasising separateness. This expression
of solidarity is really important for marginalised
groups.
Issues with queer archaeology
As archaeologists, we have to remain careful.
It is very difficult to apply modern LGBT+
identities to people in the past. We have
to remember that even though a past individual
might identify with one of our modern labels,
they probably didn’t think of themselves
that way at the time.
Adopting a definite stance can have other
unintended consequences too, an example being
the Birka Viking burial, which is a warrior
burial that was once considered to be a male
but was confirmed by DNA analysis in 2017
to be chromosomally female. Was this individual
transgender and therefore adopted a male role
in society to match their gender identity?
Or were they a woman who simply subverted
established gender norms? If we assert that
they were transgender, this might devalue
the feminist argument and reinforce gender
binaries in the process – since we are suggesting
that only those who acted as males could have
been warriors. On the other hand, if we emphasise
their biological sex, this ignores the gendering
of the grave with weapons that would suggest
a male gender identity. The handling of this
case is still very contested, and it is unclear
what approach is the best to take.
Another problematic part of the field is the
tendency to ignore intersectionality. This
is the idea that individuals who belong to
multiple marginalised groups experience unique
forms of discrimination, often due to several
different prejudices being imposed at once.
For instance, a queer black woman would experience
three disparate sources of prejudice at once,
which combine to form a unique experience
of oppression. This is difficult to access
in many archaeological cases but is certainly
possible for historical archaeology, probably
in conjunction with post-colonial theory.
Intersectionality between gender and sexuality
might even be accessible in prehistoric contexts,
but the theory has been poorly engaged with
so far.
Ultimately, the biggest problem with queer
archaeology is that it isn’t prevalent enough
in the discipline yet, but with more interest
and encouragement for queer people to move
into academia, this may be about to change.
More engagement with queer theory from academics
regardless of sexual orientation would also
be beneficial for the field and for wider
LGBT+ issues, as this video has demonstrated.
Overall, the benefits of queer theory outweigh
the problems with it, so the future looks
bright for queer archaeology.
