Gesture, Gender, Ethnicity: The lnstantiated Communities of Bronze Age Europe Steven G. Matthews School of Art History and Archaeology. University of Manchester Introduction This paper is concerned with addressing ethnicity and identity as instantiated processes, being the corporeal experience of something as temporally immediate and spatially co-present. Whilst the role of the body has become a significant point of discussion in archaeology over the past decade, this intimacy and immediacy of the body’s corporeal and intercorporeal experience has only recently begun to be critically discussed (eg. Hamilakis I999; and papers in Hamilakis, Pluciennik and Tarlow 2002). This active social construction of ethnic identities by people received significant attention in the debate regarding style (e.g. Sackett 1986; Wiessner I983). The ethnic component inherent in style however. has been considered primarily in terms of a representative practice (i.e. the finished artefact or system of styles) linked to accepted social norms of symbols or meaning. The physical and technological strategies by which ethnicity can be variously communicated through material mediums however, has received little attention.1 A corporeal or ‘embodied’ approach to the subject of ethnicity is therefore long overdue. Drawing upon evidence for female dress ornamentation from the European Middle Bronze Age, 1 will discuss this relationship of the body to the study of ethnicity by focussing upon one very specific aspect of corporeality—that of ‘gesture’. The role that gesture plays in social relationships and in the maintenance of particular identities is important. But of what benefit is such an observation to archaeology when such corporeal articulations cannot be observed in the same way that anthropologists, sociologists or psychologists can observe them? A significant aspect in the study of gestures and bodily compartment that is often overlooked and has therefore not been fully developed by other disciplines is the human utilisation of its material environment. Whilst the construction of the social being through movement is integral to both the experience of the lived body and a sense of personal identity, it is also one that is significantly negotiated through relations with things as well as other persons. Through examining female decorative omamental objects from the northern Central European Bronze Age this paper will discuss ways in Archaeological Review from Cambridge 19.2 2004 Gesture, Gender, Ethnicity 58 which they might explicitly communicate. This does not however, mean that gestures play no part in wider fields of relations. On the contrary, bodily gestures transform at various scales of relations, and though they may lose some of the explicit conscious readings of their form and articulation that are available to intimate familiars, such as kin or clan. the power they have to impart knowledge about Self and Other in their articulation is no less significant. THE STRANGE WORLD THE WORLD or OTHERNESS THE COMMUNAL WORLD "W9“ “m" ""“nw’” ”WW“ and their occupants same culture Community and community area GLOBAL EFFECTIVE INTIMATE NETWORK Up to 5 people Up ‘0 20; Circle of EXTENDED . 10%:‘335- of friends 2500 PLUS: "0m casual acqualntance lo total strangers daily life Figure l. The scales of differing networks of social interaction (after Whittle 2003). Gesture and gender By ‘gestures’, it is commonly meant voluntary bodily actions that are intended to communicate (Argyle 1988: l88).2 Many bodily gestures, such as head-nods, beckoning and pointing, are universal and can be found amongst societies throughout the world. These shared gestures might be considered ‘natural symbols’ (Kendon 1984; after Argyle 1988: 53), arising from the human body’s limited physiological propensity to certain forms of movement. The anthropologist Hewes (1957; after Argyle 1988: 6]) has argued that the stable range of human postures numbers perhaps a thousand. Whilst the number and range of gestures may therefore be limited by the Steven Matthews 59 medium of the human body, the ability of these gestures to impart specific meaning is not similarly restricted. As historically-situated systems of symbolic meaning, gestures are predominantly culturally exclusive. Studies that have demonstrated the extent of inter— and intra-regional variation within modern nation states (Argyle 1988:52-3) suggest that gestures are differentiated along historically derived ethnic boundaries, rather than being related to the boundaries of modern nation states. Moreover, there is also no clear or unambiguous relationship between these gestures and speech, since many gestures cross such modern language barriers (ibid.: 193). Whilst some gestures are explicitly related to speech and the communication of structured syntax, primarily through the movement of the hands and head (Kendon 1997), other gestures are less specifically related to language use and consist of more generalised bodily dispositions or ‘techniques of the body‘, which are concemed with spatial and material practice rather than linguistic communication (Mauss 1973). It is the latter of the two that concerns us in this discussion. Gestures are also power relations. As well as representing significant cultural differences, gestures also differentiate within societies, such as across age, gender and status. For example, there is a significant degree of difference observed amongst contemporary societies in how close one stands when communicating: Arabs, South Americans and Greeks stand closer than the British or Americans, who stand closer than most Africans or the Japanese (Argyle 1988: 67). Moreover, class differentiation demonstrates the same form of distinction, with the American lower—class standing closer than the upper-classes, as well as in more direct power relations such as in the stance adopted between authority figures and subordinates (ibid.: 6|). Similarly, there are significant differences in the way that gendered persons utilise gestures. Men have been shown to be more spatially expansive, using larger and more generalised gestures, whereas women tend to be more spatially restrictive, more expressive, and utilise more but finer gestures (ibid.: 384). Men and women have also been shown to walk differently, with women keeping their legs closer together and their arms by their sides, whereas men are again more spatially gregarious (Eakins and Eakins I978; after Argyle I988: 285). Gender and ethnicity The organisation of the body and its movements is clearly important to the maintenance of relationships within societies and in its dealings with other groups. Similarly, ethnicity also serves various functions within a society, 60 Gesture, Gender, Ethnicity not just in terms of its external relations with other groups but also in the structuring of its internal relations. Despite this, there has been no attempt to date to integrate the study of gender and ethnicity in archaeology. Such a combined approach has also received little attention in anthropology, with many earlier discussions of ethnicity being effectively ”gender blind” (Banks 1996: 102). Nonetheless, a significant gender dimension is clearly related to the development of ethnic identities. Shaw (1988: 49; after Banks 1996: 102) has noted that amongst the contemporary British Asian population it is the presence and cultural activity of women, such as in maintaining the traditional household environment, that provides much of the “cultural stuff” of ethnicity. Similarly, beyond the domestic sphere, Westwood (1988; after Banks 1996: 1 1 1) has demonstrated instances where women labourers can be understood to share a common ‘culture’ or at least to employ and agree upon common cultural symbols within a particular context (such as the factory), regardless of individual ethnicity. Across diverse contexts, Westwood argues that ‘the insertion of reproductive roles and “femininity” into the heart of the production process is both an act of resistance and, simultaneously, one of collusion because the models which inspired this femininity were located in patriarchal definitions of women’s roles as wives, mothers, and sex objects” (ibid.: 1 16). Sexual stereotyping is also closely related to ethnicity (Eriksen 1993: 155). For example, amongst mixed communities some ethnic categories of men, such as Blacks in the United States, have a reputation for greater sexual prowess and similarly some categories of women may have reputations as prudish or wanton. Furthermore, gender imagery is often used to characterise ethnic groups as a whole: ‘the X's are effeminate’; ‘the Y's are crude and brutes with no manners”, and so on. Clearly, ethnic ideologies can be used to justify certain social hierarchies (ibid.: 50). It is this relationship between gesture and gender that I believe is crucial to understanding the nature of ethnicity during the Bronze Age. We will therefore explore this relationship further by examining the local and regional context of certain gendered traditions with reference to the archaeological evidence for bodily decoration from the Tumulus tradition of northern Central Europe, as well as drawing upon certain bodily practices described in Homer’s epic poem The Iliad.3 Ethnicity and the Bronze Age During the Neolithic most raw materials were available locally (although this did by no means circumscribe long-distance exchange), however, the 61 Steven Matthews demand for certain materials during the Bronze Age necessitated that these societies had to break through local and regional barriers of social interaction, thereby defining a new framework for the spread of social and ideological value systems, technological advances, and new techniques on warfare (Kristiansen 1998: 56). Within this movement of material culture, we find the movement of people, but it is a dialogue that has focussed primarily upon the practices of elites amongst Bronze Age society, such as the movements of chiefs and their retinues (ibid.: 379), upon the intra- and inter-regional exchange of brides (Wels—Weyrauch 1989; Jockenhfivel 199]), and more recently in relation to notion of the charioted warrior (Treherne l995; Kristiansen 200]). I of. v . o POTTERY I METALWORK I FNENCE BEADS El SPIRALLY DECORATED BONE AND ANTLER ‘3 I, M] PM '. ' ‘ :1 $1,211}? "I, 1’ I:"um” / iii/A Figure 2. Distribution map of objects of Mycenaean origin or inspiration in Europe (after Harding I984). This movement is inferred not only from the wide geographical exchange and distribution of certain categories of material culture (Fig. 2) but also 62 Gesture, Gender, Ethnicity that of certain shared beliefs based upon recurring decorative motifs, social institutions and roles, such as the Sun God (e.g. Ceiling and Davidson 1969) and the warrior ideology (e.g. Treherne 1995), as well as more regional traditions such as boats (e.g. Flemming 1998) and water (e.g. Bradley 1998). These “symbolic worlds’, shared across such widely separated parts of Europe (Harding 2000: 342), suggest an incredibly complex network of not only contacts but also of interdependent relationships and intertwined identities, underpinned by the exchange of goods. The archaeology of the first and second millennium BC in Europe is therefore characterised by a Bronze Age ‘World System” (Kristiansen 1994, I998), populated by powerful and distinct local and regional ethnicities and traditions, operating within a wider shared cosmology. Trade and exchange was a fundamental dimension of Bronze Age society. The demand for certain goods, notably metal objects, across the whole of Europe, and the paucity of natural resources from which to create such objects resulted in the emergence of a fluid and complex web of relationships. Whereas in the proceeding Neolithic period trade patterns took the form of multiple step ‘down the line’ exchanges, Bronze Age trade patterns demonstrate an increasing emphasis upon directional trade (Fig. 3) (Sherratt and Sherratt 1995: 481). Whilst Neolithic exchanges could be handled by bilingual speakers at each step in the chain, the consequence of directional trade during the Bronze Age is that more direct forms of contact would likely have required a common language, possibly a special trade or elite language, used specifically in communicating within the context of these extra-territorial exchanges. Such a position agrees with the argument that movement was primarily the province of a selected elite (Kristiansen (I998: 379), and if it did involve the use of a restricted language (Sherratt and Sherratt 1995: 481) then any discussion regarding Bronze Age ethnicity must most importantly be a discussion about power. When studying ethnicity it is important to understand the nature of political and social organisation (Kristiansen 1998: 404). The Bronze Age saw the conspicuous emergence of elite sections of society, the widespread consumption of prestige goods, and the explicit display of gendered and class distinctions (Gilman 1981). Whose ethnicity are we seeing represented through certain categories of material culture, that of elites or of commoners? it is to such distinctions as these, and to the contribution of gesture to Bronze Age ethnicity, that I wish now to turn the attention of this discussion. Steven Matthews A. 63 THE ‘NEOLITHlC' PATTERN speech communities t .- A _, 'Down the line’ trade \Bilingualism Typical artefaet ,/, ”CV/‘1 / _ gi/p « .. 75'1‘14‘4 distribution: 1,2”), 31;? ”f... e.g.stone axes “ 1.#$4_1_._._._4_._.r_._e._' origin B. THE ‘BRONZE AGE' PATTERN / Directional trade Trade language Typical artetact distribution: /h/;{;’l,f/ J _ e.g.bronze swords I ' r I " '/'/ . A .-.....p. .4.zA//x././.:A.[mane/JIM a; . («J/i 1/ ",- 1 . —r - I”. t" 3‘ ‘ I origin Figure 3. Contrasting patterns of language and trade: a) Neolithic ”down the line‘ trade chain in many short steps. accompanied by bilingualism; b) Bronze Age directional trade necessitating a special trade language (after Sherratt and Sherratt I997). Gesture, Gender, Ethnicity 64 The Bronze Age and bodily ornamentation Throughout much of Europe during the Middle Bronze Age we see the development of a sophisticated metallurgical tradition of body ornamentation, including arm and leg spirals or rings, various tunics, pins. fibulae and other items such as for hair decoration (Fig. 4). The most extensive assemblages of this material have been found amongst the various groups of the Tumulus tradition in the Alsace region of north Central Europe. on the modern day r-a. . border between France and 1m. 2' / . . traditional Germany. The 1/ g \ _ ' ‘ . . . I‘t typological study of this sort \. ',:'\ . ‘ of material culture usually AW? .. .~‘_.-' Lg]; focuses upon the changing ‘3‘ single characteristics of ; ‘1' _.; {ii . I _l \ I ii 2 their such as ii ,9" ii i objects, Ji .J It. . * i development morphological ,i i x 1 and elaboration across time 1/"! i l l/ \i I ' Fr‘ ": \i-«s' ‘l . '. :5" . it“ ' i l i i i i i i I a"; r. ," Misfit i . v.4) 3 ornamentation however, has instead focussed upon the i gendered production of identities through appearance l .. t._ _ s *1: . his; _3 i '5 l' . and space. The analysrs of this V Figure 4. An example ofMiddle Bronze Age female ornamentation from the Hagenau Group of the southern German Tumulus tradition (after Wels-Weyrauch I989). within these regional groups (e.g. Wels-Weyrauch I989; This 1997). Sorensen ornamentation has therefore been studied collectively. However. a thorough analysis and of a person’s corporeal inter-corporeal experience as a consequence of the materiality of such costume and omamentation has up until recently been overlooked (Matthews. forthcoming). Despite this, from these studies it is clear that certain combinations of objects exist, occurring as either pairs of similar objects. such as arm or leg rings, or as associations of particular types (Serensen 1997: 99). Certain items were clearly related to particular bodily locales, for example the arms or legs, and more specifically as in the lower or upper arm, such as in the case or certain types of arms rings (e.g. Paszthory 1985: 33, 56; after Sorensen 1997: 99). Steven Matthews 65 These combinations are oflen associated with particular groups. As well as functioning as composite sets, each single item of ornamentation was also clearly governed by specific social rules that included gender, age, and possibly lineage or group affiliation that mediated between certain associations of persons and things. For example, in Lt'meburg, North Germany, young women only possess arm and ankle rings, whilst older women also wore certain types of pins and fibulae (Bergmann 1987: 45f; after Sorensen 1997: 99). During the Middle Bronze Age more such objects become permanent attachments to the body (Serensen 1997: 101). Serensen describes these as providing “fixed” identities that could be added to but not erased. However, the removal or fear of removal of such items is overlooked, and may have provided the means for a powerful medium of social stability and subjugation. The appearance in burials of certain types of ornamentation that was indicative of other areas has been explained as a consequence of marriage. Dynastic marriages over long distances, such as between the Lijneburg area in southern Germany and Zealand in southern Scandinavia, are clearly evident (Kristiansen I998: 379). On the whole however, the geographic distribution of ornaments suggest a more localised marriage pattern. Wels-Weyrauch (1989) and Jockenhovel (I991) have attempted to reconstruct these patterns of exchange and marriage alliances in southern Germany, suggesting that local variations in burial and dress may constitute local interaction groups, and may explain the presence of the burial of ‘foreign women’ that have been identified by the presence of ornamentation from these other areas (Fig. 5). Across different regional groups in southern Germany, Wels-Weyrauch (1989; after Sorensen 1997: 99) has demonstrated the presence of strict rules concerning the combination of objects and where they might be worn. In this particular area a visual distinction between a material emphasis on either the waist or the chest is evident amongst females, in contrast to Bronze Age males whose status appears to have been more widely competitive based upon their degree of wealth, possession, access to prestige objects or possibly physical age (Sorensen 1997: 99-100). What we see are different groups that in certain aspects of social organisation are using the same rules, but in subtly different ways so as to maintain a distinct identity. Within these rules, males and females appear to Gesture, Gender, Ethnicity 66 .‘- ‘\\\§‘\§§\‘ \\\\‘~ \‘:1\\\\\\\‘\ \ \\ ““ \\ 2} - ._ “ h/ $1111“ \x.\‘\ \ \‘é \\\\.l m1 , \ z \ m \ \w\\\\\ \ ‘\\‘C‘\ \\ \‘\‘\ \\,\\\\'1‘\ \\\3 i -‘ ~.., ‘ .r '. J‘ i_ ”K i , '1 ‘ t _ ,«" "4.4:, “V ' '1 1.- Dix”; HRGENAUB‘; .“ \ .IUOIOOOIOIQbIOOIOIOI000:0:130 GROUPING\.\ ‘x (11%” \ 1.111 \ \\'u ’9ALPINE 0R0 oping Figure 5. The origin of items of female ornamentation found in burials of the Ilagenau Group that suggest ”foreign women‘ (after Wels-crauch 1989). have been differentiated through different criteria, as opposed to a simple binary opposition based on sexual difference. in parts of Central Europe, as an addition to these assemblages of female ornamentation, we find pairs of large leg rings or leg spirals, some of which were connected in the middle by a chain (Fig. 6). These items would obviously have drastically impaired movement when worn and perhaps have created a distinct rhythm of walking (Sorensen I997: 108). Whilst the social significance of such items of ‘bondage’ or their geographical extent has yet to be fully researched, for Steven Matthews 67 the purposes of this discussion they nonetheless serve to highlight a very particular and much more Straightforward gendered phenomenon: walking. Bodily ornamentation and walking A gendered distinction between the way that males and females may have walked during the Bronze Age has been suggested by Bremmer (1991), based upon Homer’s epic poem, The Iliad. Homer was much concerned to illustrate the stride and gait of male warriors, such as Paris and Ajax. For example, when the Trojan Prince, Paris, has to face Menelaus he approaches ”with long strides’ (Iliad 3.22), seeking to impress the Greek enemy with powerful bodily movements. During the ensuing battle between the Trojans and the Greeks, when the warrior Ajax advanced “he went with long strides... \And the Greeks rejoiced when they saw him’ (Iliad 7.21 1-4). The warrior ideology that we find throughout Bronze Age Europe (Treheme 1995), with its various manifestations of burial rite, weapon types and status symbols apparently derive from these Mycenaean traditions (Kristiansen 1998: 383; Harding 1984) evident throughout Homer‘s epic. As is so often the case with the portrayal of men and women in ancient Greece, the way that females walked is portrayed very differently by Homer from that of the ‘striding hero’s”, walking instead with very small steps (Bremmer 1991: 20). With their appearance before the city of Troy to help the Greeks against the Trojans, the Goddesses Hera and Athena ‘resembled in their steps the timorous doves’ (Iliad 5.778). There is a significant correlation between these gendered practices and the material we find in Central Europe Figure 6. An example of the large leg rings or leg spirals connected by a where, compared to female burials chain, from the Alpine Group ofthe the and ornamentation, legs of men were unencumbered such by southern German Tumulus tradition (after Wels-crauch 1989). elaborate or permanent decoration. Mauss (1973), in his seminal paper on ‘techniques of the body’, argued that walking was a technique that was not only culturally variable but also expressive of different social statuses. Different social groups assumed 68 Gesture, Gender, Ethnicity different postures and gait, and such differences, and their symbolic significance, are the key to the socialness of walking and to its technical (as opposed to natural) status (Crossley 1995: I34). This is certainly clear in ancient Greek society, where the body served as an important location for both self-identification and the demonstration of authority (Bremmer l99l: 27). By its gait, the Greek upper class was not only able to distinguish itself from what were regarded as other more effeminate peoples such as the Persians and Lydians, but was also able to express its domination over other sections of society such as females and the young. It is not my intention to disagree with the observations made by Mauss. However, as well as forming an exclusive symbolic code of both differentiation and dominance, the similarities of certain practices and themes related to the notion of the warrior across Europe during the Bronze Age and the existence of similarly distributed exchange, marriage, and alliance networks suggest that such codes may have also acted to bridge ethnic divides by acknowledging and identifying the shared values and interests of certain select groups. Where Sherratt and Sherratt (I997: 48]) recognise the necessity for a shared language across Bronze Age Europe, I suggest the similar existence of a shared idea of the body. linked not just to the warrior but to the entire social context within which it existed (class, age and gender), and the importance linked to the way that the body moved, its gestures. postures and comportment. Conclusion The symbolic and social meanings of particular gestures, bodily comportment and posture clearly enable cultural or ethnic differentiation between different groups. Conversely however, a symbolic system of bodily movements may also have worked to identify shared similarities and values that would have facilitated the networks that spread across Europe during the Bronze Age, a system of gendered and class based bodily gestures utilised by elite groups to identify amongst themselves, despite any ethnic and cultural differences that may have existed between them. Moreover, these practices would also have functioned to differentiate themselves from non-elites amongst their own ethnic group. By developing a discussion of ethnicity through vertical systems of relations (i.e. power), as opposed to more traditional horizontal relations (i.e. inter-group) this short study has attempted to transcend traditional ethnically distinct gestural repertoires that are normally discussed. Instead, by focusing upon power relations 1 have attempted to illustrate what may have been the development of gestural Steven Matthews 69 repertoires, based upon gender roles and class distinctions that actually cut across ethnic differences in order to facilitate contact during this period. It should of course be understood that this has been a discussion painted in the broadest strokes. Movement during the Bronze Age was by no means likely to have been restricted to, nor the exclusive domain, of elite persons, nor any language, benefit, or social obligation involved therein. Similarly, ethnic processes are also likely to have been far more complex than space has allowed me to elaborate upon. Nonetheless, these tentative notes have illustrated how the study of gesture might significantly contribute to our understanding of ethnicity, communication, and power relations. With regards to the Bronze Age, further study is required to learn more about the role and significance of bodily communication amongst pre—literate, prestate societies. ln focussing on technologies of the body, such as costume and ornamentation, detailed studies of the limits of both human physiology and the material properties of objects are required if further discussions of gesture in archaeology are to be fruitful and worthy of attention. Acknowledgements l have benefited from the open doors and kind discussion of both Chris Fowler and Stephanie Koerner, and special thanks must also go to Chris for his comments upon my MA dissertation from which this paper has in some small part been developed. 1 also wish to thank Marcus Brittain for reading and commenting on an earlier draft of this paper. I gratefully acknowledge the contribution of The Access to Learning Fund, at the University of Manchester, which has enabled me to continue my studies. It is with great sorrow that I respectfully dedicate this paper to the memory of my Nan. Bibliography Argyle. M. I988. Bodily Communication. London: Routledge. Second edition. Banks. M. [996. Ethnicity: Anthropological Constructions. London: Routledgc. Bergmann. J. I987. Die metal/zeit/iche Revolution: Zur Entstelmng von llerrscltafl. Krieg and Umweltzersto'rlmg. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. Bradley. R. I998. The Passage ofArms: An Archaeological Analysis ofPreltistoric Hoard and l ’otive Deposits. Oxford: Oxbow. Second edition. Brcmmcr. J. I991. Walking. standing. and sitting in ancient Greek culture. In A Cultural History ofGesture: From Antiquity to the Present Day (eds .l. Brcmmer and II. Roodenburg). Cambridge: Polity Press. pp. 15-35. 7O Gesture, Gender, Ethnicity Crossley. N. I995. Body techniques. agency and intercorporeality. Sociology. I( I ): 133-50. Dobres. M-A. I995. Gender and prehistoric technology: on the social agency of technical strategies. World Archaeology. 27(1): 25-49. Dobres. M-A. 2000. Technology and Social Agency: Outlining a Practice Framework for Archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell. Eakins. B. W. and Eakins. R. G. I978. Sex Differences in Human ('ommtmication. Boston: IIoughton Mifflin. Eriksen. T. H. I993. Ethnicity and Nationalism: Anthropological Perspectives. London: Pluto Press. Finley. M. I. I956. The World ofOdysseus. llarmondsworth: Penguin. Second edition. Flemming. K. [998. Ships on Bronzes: A Study in Bronze Age Religion and Iconography. Copenhagen: National Museum Studies in Archaeology. Gamble. C. 1998. Palaeolithic society and the release from proximity: a network approach to intimate relations. World Archaeology. 29: 426-49. Gelling. P. and Davidson. II. E. I969. The Chariot oft/3e Sun and Other Rites and Symbols ofthe Northern Bronze Age. London: Dent. Gilman. A. I981. The development of social stratification in Bronze Age Europe. Current Anthropology. 22( I ): I-23. Hamilakis. Y. I999. Food technologies/techno]ogics of the body: the social context of wine and oil production and consumption in Bronze Age Crete. World Archaeology. 3I(l): 38-54. I-Iamilakis. Y.. Pluciennik. M. and Tarlow. S. (eds). 2002. Thinking Through the Body: Archaeologies ofCorporeality. London: Kluwer/Academic Press. Harding. A. F. I984. The Mycenaeans and Europe. London: Academic Press. Harding, A. F. 2000. European Societies in the Emma Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Iiewes. G. 1957. The anthropology of posture. Scientific American. [96: I23-32. Iakovidis. S. 1999. Homer. Troy and the Trojan War. In Gods and Heroes ofthe European Bronze Age (eds K. Demakopoulou. C. Eluere. .l. Jensen. A. Jockenhovel and .l-P. Mohen). London: Thames and Hudson. pp. 203-6. Joekenhovel. A. I99]. Rfiumliche mobilitat von personen in der mittleren Bronzezeit des westlichen Mitteleuropa. Germania. 69: 49-62. Kendon, A. 1983. Gesture and speech: how they interact. In Nonverbal Interaction (eds .I. M. Wiemann and R. P. Harrison). Beverley Hills: Sage. pp. 13—45. Steven Matthews 71 Kendon. A. 1984. Did gesture have the happiness to escape the curse at the confusion of Babel? In Nonverbal Behaviour (ed. A. Wolfgang). Lewiston. New York: C. J. Ilofgrefe. pp. 75-1 14. Kendon. A. 1997. Gesture. Annual Review ofAnthropologv. 26: 109-28. Kristiansen. K. 1994. The emergence of the European World System in the Bronze Age: divergence. convergence. and social evolution during the first and second millennium BC in Europe. In Europe in the First Millennium BC (eds K. Kristiansen and J. Jensen). Sheffield: J. R. Collis. pp. 7-30. Kristiansen. K. 1998. Europe Before History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kristianscn. K. 2001. Rulers and warriors: symbolic transmission and social transformation in Bronze Age Europe. In From Leaders to Rulers (ed J. I-Iaas). New York: KIuwer/Plenum. pp. 85-104. Matthews. S. G. 2004. Instantiation and social scale: the study of gesture and material culture in prehistory. Unpublished paper presented to the "lime. Human Agency. and the Materiality ofIIistoricaI Identity‘ session. Annual Meeting ofthe European Association ofArchaeoIogists conference. Lyon. France. Matthews. S. G. Forthcoming. Gesture and l1«lateriality: Approaching cultural identity and gender through the boafv in Bronze Age North Central Europe. Unpublished doctoral thesis. School ofArt History and Archaeology. University of Manchester. Mauss. M. 1973. Techniques ol‘the body. Economy and Society. 2: 70-88. Paszthory. K. 1985. Der Bronzezeitliche Arm» und Beinschmuck in der Schweiz. Praehislorische Bronzefunde. Abt. X. Band 3. Mtinchen: C.H. Beck. Sacketl. J. A. 1986. lsochrestism and style: a clarification. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 5(3): 266-77. Shaw. A. 1988. A Pakistani Community in Britain. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Sherratt. A. and Sherratt. E. S. 1997. The archaeology of lndo-European: an alternative View. In Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe: Changing Perspectives (ed. A. Sherratt). Princeton. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. pp. 471-85. Sofaer Derevenski. J. and Sorensen. M. L. S. 2002. Becoming cultural: society and the incorporation of bronze. In Metals and Society: Papersfrom a session held at the European Association ofArchaeologists Sixth Annual Meeting in Lisbon 2000 (eds B.S. Ottaway and E. C. Wager). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. International Series 1061. pp. 117-21. Sorensen. M. 1,. S. 1997. Reading dress: the construction of social categories and identities in Bronze Age Europe. Journal ofEuropean Archaeologv. 5(1): 93—1 14. 72 Gesture, Gender, Ethnicity Thomas. J. 1999. An economy ofsubstances in earlier Neolithic Britain. In Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory (ed. .|. E. Robb). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. pp. 70-89. Treherne. P. 1995. The warrior‘s beauty: the masculine body and self-identity in Bronze-Age Europe. Journal ofEuropean Archaeology. 3( l ): 105-44. Wels-Weyraueh. V. U. 1989. Mittelbronzezeitliche frauentrachten in Stiddeutschland (Beziehungen zur Hagenauer Gruppierung). Dynamique de Bronze Moyen en Europe Occidentole. Strasbourg: Actes du I Be Congres national dcs Soeiétés savantes. pp. l l7-34. Westwood. S. 1988. Workers and wives: discontinuities in the lives ol'Gujarati women. In Enterprising l-l’omen: Ethnicity. [Economy and Gender Relations (eds S. Westwood and P. Bhachu). London: Routledge. Weissncr. P. [983. Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points. American Antiquity. 48: 253-76. Whittle. A. 2003. The Archaeology ofPeOp/e: Dimensions OfNeolithic Life. London: Routledge. Notes I The notable exception to this oversight has been in the study ol‘the Palaeolithic. where technological strategies of stone tool manufacture have been conceived of as being significantly ‘social‘ (e.g. Dobres 1995. 2000). 2 Emotional expressions. such as gripping one's hands together in times of anxiety. are considered something quite different (Kendon I983: after Argyle 1988: 188). 3 The relationship of Homer to the Mycenacans (e.g. Finley I956). and of the Mycenacans to the European Bronze Age (eg. Harding I984) has been much debated. For the practical purposes of this discussion. it is accepted that Homer. whilst writing sometime around c. 800 BC was referring back to c. I400 BC. the period of Mycenaean Greece (cf. lakovidis I999). The distribution of material culture of Mycenaean origin across Europe during the Bronze Age is extensive. as was their replication. and similarly many European materials found their way to the Aegean. Given such materials. and the numerous instances of shared motifs. institutions and roles. such as the warrior. this relationship between the Mycenacans and the Tumulus tradition is in the instance ofthis short discussion also taken at face value. Archaeological Review from Cambridge Reconsidering Ethnicity Material Culture and Identity in the Past Edited by Susanne E. Hakenbeck and Steven G. Matthews Archaeological Review from Cambridge Volume 19.2 November 2004