Transgender archaeology

Transgender archaeology is an approach to archaeology that encompasses how transgender studies and its theoretical approaches can be a tool to understand past cultures and communities around the world.^[1] This approach diversifies cisgender approaches to archaeological practice.^[1] In 2016, a special issue of the Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory was dedicated to papers that challenged a binary approach to gender.^[2] Researchers such as Mary Weismantel have discussed how understanding past gender diversity can support contemporary transgender rights, but have called for transgender archaeology to "not re-populate the ancient past ... but to offer a subtler appreciation of cultural variation".^[3] Jan Turek, writing in 2016, described how archaeological interpretation can be limited since "current gender categories do not always correspond with those of a former reality".^[4]

This approach draws on and can be applied to a range of disciplines in the field, including figurative analysis,^[5][6] bioarchaeology,^[7][8] and others.^[9] For figurines from coastal Ecuador, many of these objects combine both masculine and feminine attributes through either physical characteristics or dress.^[10] These figures, interpreted as potentially non-binary or transgender, are found in the Tumaco-La Tolita culture, as well as from Bahía and Jama Coaque cultures.^[5] Similarly, analysis of late Bronze Age figurines from Knossos demonstrated that for both faience figurines and ivory bull-leaper figurines, "sexed differences are not clearly marked in a binary fashion".^[11] Alberti argues that any sexed differences are highly dependent on the socio-religious context of the figurines, rather than specifically gendered identities.^[11] The importance of context is also echoed in work on non-binary and intersex visibility in Roman archaeology.^[12]

Bioarchaeological estimates of sex are based on identification of potentially dimorphic features, yet neither gender nor biological sex are entirely binary categories.^[13][14] However, some characteristics that are often viewed as sexually dimorphic may not, depending on the age of the individual whose body is being analysed.^[7][15] For example, cranial robustness tends to be associated as a male characteristic, yet it can also be considered a female characteristic because the effects of menopause can produce the same.^[7] Additionally, the categorisation of sex uses a spectrum of female, probable female, ambiguous sex, male and probable male.^[7] This is dependent on the confidence of the researcher in the estimation, rather than focus on the possibility of "sex-gender fluidity" in the past.^[7]

Studies that support interpretations of gender fluidity include ones on pre-Columbian Maya burial practices,^[7] multiple Hidatsa genders during the pre-Columbian era,^[16] mortuary practices in Chumash communities,^[17] communities during the Copper Age on the Black Sea coast in Bulgaria,^[18] the excavation and interpretation of a 5,000-year-old person by the Czech Archaeological Society,^[19] the reassessment of grave Bj.581 at Birka,^[20] non-binary gender expression in Inuit cultures,^[21] Roman Galli,^[22][23] a 1,000-year-old person who likely had Klinefelter syndrome from Finland,^[24] the life of Elagabalus,^[25] prehistoric burials in Europe,^[26] historical archaeology around the Engabao community in Ecuador,^[27] material cultures in medieval England,^[28][29] dress in eighteenth-century Ireland,^[30] and many others.^[31]

• Queer archaeology
• Gender archaeology

• Weismantel, Mary (2013). "Towards a Transgender Archaeology: A Queer Rampage Through Prehistory". In Stryker, Susan; Aizura, Aren Z. (eds.). The Transgender Studies Reader 2. Routledge. pp. 319–335. doi:10.4324/9781003206255-40.
• Oxford Bibliographies: Trans Studies in Anthropology