TUTORIAL – 1

“GENDER AS A CATEGORY OF ANALYSIS HAS COMPLICATED OUR

UNDERSTANDING OF ANCIENT SOCIETIES”

MONSOON SEMESTER 2023

SUBMITTED TO: PROFESSOR R. MAHALAKSHMI

COURSE: ANCIENT SOCIETY (M 11401)

NAME: PARISMITA SHARMA

MA (MODERN HISTORY), 1ST SEMESTER

 1

INTRODUCTION
Gender, as we know, isn’t entirely determined by one’s biological traits. Social institutions,
prevailing cultural norms, familial settings and a range of other factors affect gender. Gender
identities go beyond the conventional binary constructs. These identities each have distinct
physical expressions and manifestations. Gender as a category of analysis has thus become an
essential tool in determining the complexities of old social orders. It has allowed us to look at
the past from a different perspective and has challenged the traditional narratives around
gender roles.
It is also interesting to note that gender roles vary across cultures. What may be deemed
appropriate for a particular gender in one culture might not be considered acceptable for the
same gender in another culture. Hence, it is also important to be aware of the fact that a
variety of rules govern such notions of gender. There is no universal rule of assigning gender
roles in different societies and such ideas normally evolve with time.
Patriarchal attitudes and preconceived notions often cloud our understanding of gender
expressions in ancient societies. Over the years, feminist scholars, historians, and
archaeologists have worked hard to move away from such ideas and have led their research
with a progressive agenda.

GENDER-BASED ANALYSIS OF ANCIENT SOCIETIES

“For the present enshrines the past – and in the past all history has been made by men.”1
More often than not, a bulk of the historical narratives we know about tend to surround one
particular gender and ignore all others. It is also evident that most of these accounts of the
past were written almost exclusively by men which makes it even more important to examine
the past through the lens of gender.
The gradual subjugation of women is visible not only in the histories of the past but also in
the literature of that period. Literature often reflects the general attitudes, opinions, mindsets,
and viewpoints of the people who lived then. As Simone de Beauvoir continues to elaborate
on the constant degradation of women throughout French literature, it only confirms the fact
that women have been taken for granted for a very long time in history. Moreover, our social
conditioning also plays a major role in shaping our views and opinions. We often assume that
prehistoric societies had the same set of values and morals as we do today. The concept of
‘othering’ is also a part of this social training. Beauvoir writes, “Otherness is a fundamental
category of human thought”.2 Thus, the ‘othering’ of women actually takes place in the
society rather than the nature. Women are not born as the ‘other’, but it is our internalised
misogyny and bias that makes us believe that they are. Such othering also takes place in
academia. The elimination of such biases while conducting research is therefore crucial.
The concept of using gender as a tool of analysis in disciplines like anthropology, history and
archaeology, sociology, etc. is fairly new. However, with the help of these studies, a great
deal of information has been uncovered which has given rise to several unique interpretations
and discourses around the concept of gender.

1
Simone de Beauvoir, “The Second Sex”, 1949: 8,
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/introduction.htm .
2
Ibid., 4.
 2

It was only in the late 1980s that looking at history through a feminist lens gained relevance
with the help of various studies, research, seminars, etc. that centred around feminist theories
and women’s studies.3 Growing discontentment with the dominance of androcentrism in
history, archaeology and other disciplines added fuel to the movement. This feminist
approach encouraged a new way of historical reconstruction. It promoted inclusivity and
raised important questions on the validity of previously established assumptions regarding
gender roles, norms and relations in the ancient societies. Voss further questions whether or
not these feminist historians or archaeologists considered queer relations or the matter of
sexuality in their research apart from gender. What she does learn is that they did, in fact,
highlight themes related to sexuality in their work. Many of the feminist archaeologists also
took up activism and paid attention to the portrayals of gender and sexuality not only in the
past but in the present as well.4 Even though their primary concern was gender, sexuality as a
subject matter naturally accompanied their studies.
Androcentrism in archaeology is often also considered by scholars to be a consequence of
biased anthropological data.5 The utter disregard for other genders in archaeological research
stems from the careless use of ethnographical information which frequently propagates
gender stereotypes. Typically, a culture is represented by its men and the contributions of
women are considered to be mere supplements. Women are repeatedly portrayed to be
confined within the limits of the household whereas men are seen as masters of the public
sphere. While men are believed to be the only ones who are capable of performing tasks that
require greater muscular strength, women are perceived to be soft beings whose primary role
in this world is to have and raise children.
The same stereotypes are often carried by researchers who study ancient societies. Why is it
that we always assume men to be hunters and women to be gatherers when we think of the
hunters and gatherers? Scholars like Washburn, Lancaster and Laughlin contributed to the
development of the ‘Man-the-Hunter’ model which eventually became a popular concept in
this field.6 This model involves numerous assumptions about how tasks associated with
gender were carried out in prehistoric societies and further reinforces biased notions.
Feminist scholars who study the period have frequently critiqued this model. Our stereotypes
often shape our understanding of ancient societies. The tendency to project contemporary
notions of gender roles on the societies of the past often contradicts the actual experiences
and realities of those societies. While it is possible that some men exclusively hunted or some
women only performed the task of gathering and vice versa, it is in no way certain that the
‘hunter-gatherer’ societies had such rigid gender-based divisions of labour.
Stereotypical and sexist interpretations of artifacts from the past are other problems that
plague the disciplines of history and archaeology. Regardless of whether such items relate to
the mundane activities of life or war-related situations, gendered interpretations are common.
While weapons are typically associated with men, pots are identified to be linked with
women.7 Such is also the case with articles recovered from burials. This further adds to our
preconceived notions of tasks associated with gender. Men are viewed to be the ones who
engage in wars. It’s the women who undertake recreational activities.

3
Barbara L. Voss, “Feminisms, Queer Theories, and the Archaeological Study of Past Sexualities”, World
Archaeology 32, no. 2 (2000): 181.
4
Ibid., 185.
5
Margaret W. Conkey and Janet D. Spector, “Archaeology and the Study of Gender”, Advances in
Archaeological Method and Theory 7, (1984): 3.
6
Ibid., 7.
7
Ibid., 10.
 3

One way of reconstructing gender roles of the period is by looking at the burials which not
only convey the status of the ones buried, but also their gender profiles.8 The kind of artifacts
present in the burials enable us to draw our own conclusions about the utility of these
materials in the broader context of gender. Speculations around the various roles that
predynastic Egyptian women played are common based on the kind of items found in their
burials as Savage notes that these items often indicate that women had the freedom to take up
multiple roles.9 Scholars have also pointed out how a grinding pestle, when found in female
burials, is quickly associated with activities like preparing food but when found in male
burials, it is assumed that these men might have been the manufacturers of such items.10 This
is another example of how our preconceived notions limit our ability to use our imagination
when we interpret such articles.
Another problem that we encounter while looking at societies through the perspective of
gender is that our view of gender is strongly heteronormative. This binary understanding of
gender proves to be invalid when we study this subject. It is apparent that gender was in no
way rigid in the ancient societies. Images devoid of gender markers complicate our
understanding of the prevailing notions of gender. Such works of art often display
characteristics that are not exclusive to one specific gender or sex. Depictions of goddesses
with beards or male genitalia in ancient Egypt as well as the male iconography of the female
pharaoh Hatshepsut are a few such examples.11 Matic is of the view that these depictions
merely reinforce the binary conceptions of gender as the acquisition of male characteristics is
often equated with having more power and authority. However, religious art, illustrations and
portrayals often also reflect the realities of the society and hence, it is possible that there
might have been a spectrum of gender identities in existence.
The study of ancient cultures would be incomplete without discussing Morgan’s work.
Morgan’s classification of prehistoric cultures under three major heads – savagery, barbarism
and civilisation – provides a vital understanding of the stages of development undergone by
the primitive societies.12 Even though gender-specific roles are not particularly highlighted in
Morgan’s writings, it is interesting to note how his study on kinship, social structures and
lines of descent provides some clues on what was expected from the sexes in past societies.
His study reveals how women had access to unrestricted sexual freedom in the primitive
stages of society.13 Gradually, with the adoption of “pairing” marriage, the notions around
gender roles and sexual freedom also changed. “By the side of the natural mother of the child
it placed its natural and attested father, with a better warrant of paternity” – the father now
exercised more authority over his offspring than ever before as he was the owner of precious
property in the form of cattle and slaves.14
In terms of determining descent, there was also a gradual shift from tracing it through the
female line to the male line. As a man’s resources increased, so did his authority inside the
household. The question of inheritance now took the centre stage and the man was seen as a
key figure in the matter of tracing descent. “The overthrow of the ‘mother-right’ was the

8
Alison E. Rautman, Reading the body: Representations and Remains in Archaeological Record (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000): 4.
9
Ibid., 4.
10
Conkey and Spector, “Archaeology and the Study of Gender”: 11.
11
Uros Matic, “Gender in Ancient Egypt: Norms, Ambiguities, and Sensualities”, Near Eastern Archaeology 79,
no. 3 (2016): 177.
12
Friedrich Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, 1884: 17
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm .
13
Ibid., 18.
14
Ibid., 29,30.
 4

world historic defeat of the female sex.”15 The supremacy of man was thus established with
further transition to monogamy as it was a more advanced and stronger version of a pairing
marriage and was also a characteristic of ‘civilisation’. However, even in the case of
monogamy, unwavering loyalty was expected from the woman but not the man.
Engel further elaborates on the origins of the term ‘family’. He says it has been derived from
the word ‘familia’ which referred to the number of slaves owned by a man. The term ‘familia’
is further related to the word ‘famulus’ which is another name for a domestic slave. Hence,
while the man of the household enjoyed the status of a master, the rest of the members of the
family, women in particular, were treated as his slaves. This was thus the beginning of the
patriarchal set up which gradually began dominating family structures across different
cultures.
Eventually, the subordination of women became a common feature of societies in the past.
Women, along with cattle and slaves, were now considered to be the property of men. Their
objectification continued as patriarchy progressed further. This oppression was further
emboldened when religious ideas began to develop. It is interesting to note that looking at
these aspects through the lens of gender enables us to recognise the belief systems and
ideologies that guided the notions around gender in ancient societies. It has allowed us to be
critical of the conventional historical narratives that hardly account for gender.

CONCLUSION
The idea of using gender perspectives to evaluate ancient societies is undeniably ground-
breaking. It allows us to explore even those stories that would otherwise remain untold. A lot
of these narratives remain hidden and never come to light. Stories of underprivileged women,
sexual minorities, queer communities, etc. are seldom given a chance to be documented in
history. Gender, as an instrument of analysis, takes into account all these aspects while
examining the societies of the past as well as the present. It helps us record those events and
experiences which are often overlooked in traditional history writing. Thus, it enables us to
go beyond the simplistic notions of history and complicates our understanding of ancient
societies.

15
Ibid., 30.
 5

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.Beauvoir, Simone de, “The Second Sex.”, 1949.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/introduction.htm .
2. Conkey, Margaret W., and Janet D. Spector. “Archaeology and the Study of Gender.”
Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 7, (1984): 1-38.
3. Engels, Friedrich. Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. Hottingen-Zurich,
1884.
4. Matic, Uros. “Gender in Ancient Egypt: Norms, Ambiguities, and Sensualities.” Near
Eastern Archaeology 79, no. 3 (2016): 174-183.
5. Rautman, Alison. Reading the Body: Representations and Remains in the Archaeological
Record. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000.
6. Voss, Barbara L. “Feminisms, Queer Theories, and the Archaeological Study of Past
Sexualities.” World Archaeology 32, no. 2 (2000): 180-92