Sistemas de acondicionamiento e instalaciones

‘The archaeology of gender is the study of the roles, activities, ideologies and identities of men and women, and the differences between them’ (Nelson 2005, 127). The concept of gender is important to take into account, because it makes its way into all parts of this study. I will make use of this concept as a framework by looking at expressions of gender constructions and relations in jewellery finds and representations of women and jewellery. What is taken as starting point here is the broad description that ‘gender’ is concerned with constructs of the ‘male’ and ‘female’. Differently formulated: what in a certain social and cultural context is perceived as being ‘male’ (masculine) or ‘female’ (feminine). This is worth being considered as it complements the observation of basic biological differences between men and women, usually indicated with the term ‘sex’ as opposed to gender. There is thus a difference between the fixed, objective category of biological sex and the ever changing gender roles ascribed to men and women, as the latter - though related to the first - will vary in time and per society (Huskinson 2000, 154; Renfrew and Bahn 2004, 220). Gender is part of a broader social framework and always exists in a context next to other social categories, which intersect and influence each other, like age, status and ethnicity (Clark and Wilkie 2006, 333; Kampen 1996, 14; Renfrew and Bahn 2004, 226-7).

13 _{It is not the goal of this paragraph to give an elaborate overview of the history and evolution of gender studies}

in general and in (classical) archaeology, and thereby will not do justice to the complexities of the concept. A range of volumes has appeared over the years (the interest in gender as research focus has grown vastly since the 1970s) that can be consulted for more information, see e.g. McClure’s Sexuality and gender in the classical world (2002), Nelson’s Handbook of gender in archaeology (2006) or Kampen’s ‘Gender theory in Roman art’ (1996).

33 The concept of gender can be used to interpret material remains, since social constructs will become visible in the archaeological record in a material form (Renfrew and Bahn 2004, 221; Sørensen 2007). Different contexts, from burials to art presentations, will provide evidence for the archaeologist as they are reflecting gender ideologies and activities (Brumfiel 2007, 8- 11). Thus, not only through social practice and discourse, but as well in art and artefacts gender constructions are visually represented, perceived and communicated (Kampen 1996, 17). For example via the ‘symbolic meanings and social inferences [...] embedded in the iconographical attributes of [e.g.] dress, body ornament and personal possessions’ (Koloski- Ostrow and Lyons 1997, 1).

Gender and the body

Always on the foreground in the discussion on the visualisation and communication of gender is the ‘body’. The body is where gender ‘specific-ness’ is conveyed and gender differences and boundaries are articulated and confirmed. The body is concerned with external appearance, making ‘the representation and manipulation of the body is the most visual way to construct identity’ (Fisher and Loren 2003, 225). This in turn makes the body an ideal ‘marker of the difference between male and female’ as ‘the surface of the body is a site for the display of difference’ (Wyke 1994, 134-5). The female body can be presented as gender specific by for example body type, hair, clothing and attributes. These are socially constructed signs of the female gender.

Adornment, combined with dress, is a visible marker of the body, and, complemented with pose and gestures, plays a role in expressing social categories, identities and constructions such as gender, rank, wealth and age (Bartman 1999, 32; Colburn and Heyn 2008, 1; Fisher and Loren 2003, 225). Thus, investigating with what the body is covered, can inform us among other things about constructions of gender. Jewellery can be considered as an indicator of gender, and therefore comes to play an important role in the representation and symbolic expression of female identity.

The importance of the body in establishing gender relations is what jewellery finds have in common with jewellery representations. Both centre around bodily adornment, though in different circumstances: on the one hand the material remains of personal adornment and on the other hand the visual representations of adornment on a body.

34

Jewellery as attribute of gender: finds versus representations

Jewellery can be seen as symbolic marker of gender in both finds and representations. In other words, jewellery can be seen as a gendered form of material culture (Huskinson 2000, 167). As has been established in the previous chapter, this was also the case in the Roman period. First, the relation between the concept of gender and jewellery finds will be discussed. Specific objects can turn out to be gendered, i.e. to be associated with either the male or female gender (masculinity versus femininity). Objects of adornment are considered ‘attributes of the female gender’ and a ‘means of gender differentiation’ (Fejfer 2008, 350- 351).14 In that way, jewellery finds can tell us something about gender constructions and relations in Roman society. The results of this study will illustrate if the selection of jewellery finds can indeed be traced belonging to women. Following the ancient literary sources, which argue that jewellery in itself is concerned with the female gender (see the previous chapter), it will be likely that for example in burials jewellery finds can confirm female presence.

In linking artefacts to gender, we need to remember that we are in a lot of cases dealing with (historical and modern) ideologies. For example, relating grave goods from a burial to a certain gender may point to a cultural ideal, not reality (Brumfiel 2007, 12). The most complete picture with regard to gender attribution will emerge in the combination of different types of evidence, from texts to finds to representational art to context information, e.g. burial data (Brumfiel 2007, 12).

The other part of the material of this thesis is formed by sculptural representations of women and jewellery. It is possible to see how gender constructions and relations are visualised in these representations. Portrait statues can reflect male and female (i.e. constructed gender) roles in society, focusing especially on body language (Davies 2008). For women the range of social roles available to them in statues seems more limited than is the case with men, perhaps reflecting their limited participation possibilities and thereby the behaviour that was considered appropriate for them (Davies 2008, 208). Whereas for men representations would reflect their various public roles in society, e.g. performing a military or civic function, the emphasis with female representations was on ideal and exemplary behaviour, appearance, values and virtues (Davies 2008, 208-211). In that sense, statues of men and women are a manifestation of certain gender constructions in Roman society. As was indicated above, in this study female identity and female social role are seen as converging, both being social constructions, expressed for example in an image.

14 _{In Late Antiquity (not included in this thesis) more men, especially emperors, started to wear jewellery like}

diadems and brooches, turning it into a means of status differentiation (Fejfer 2008, 351). See also Stout (1994) on imperial jewellery in the late Empire.

35 Sculptures can offer us insights in what was constructed as being feminine. Female statues represent an ideal (Davies 2008, 217). Although over time the amount of public statues of women increased, the particular expressions of gender would still confirm and assure men of the preferred woman’s place in society (Davies 2008, 209, 218).