Archaeologies of sex and gender are key locations for contesting the body as they are arenas in which the relationship between bodies differently regarded as biological or social comes to the fore. Here, the divide between osteoarchaeology and interpretative archaeology has almost inevitably led to tensions arising primarily from the practice of associating artefacts with bodies, and the consequent superimposition of cultural gender on to biological sex. This chapter examines the implications of these tensions in terms of the relationship between method and theory, and the potential for integrating the study of the skeletal body into the study of gender without falling back on biological determinism. It explores how the idea of the body as material culture may be useful in helping to resolve the tensions between method and theory in the archaeology of gender.

Sex, gender and the skeletal body

The body has a pivotal role in the archaeology of gender as its ontological status is debated through contrasting and varied theoretical notions of the relationship between sex and gender, and the ways that these may, or may not, be linked to the physical body (Sørensen 2000; Meskell 1996, 1998a, 2001, 2002a and b; Joyce 2000a and b, 2002b; Gilchrist 1999; Conkey and Gero 1997; Gibbs 1987; Nordbladh and Yates 1990; Knapp and Meskell 1997).