Search Results

CW: transphobia Archaeology needs to adapt to the changes in society, or risk being completely irrelevant. We cannot carry on with interpretations limited by whiteness, colonialism, racism, heteronormativity, political ideologies, and binary ideas of sex and gender. Archaeology of the Future is a thought experiment to consider what the future of the discipline may look like in a range of areas, beginning with interpreting trans burials. As a person who (sadly) uses Twitter I have noticed a recurring comment being made that uses archaeology to justify transphobia. These commenters do not seem to be archaeologists, but the discipline is often referenced in transphobic conversations for reasons that are, to be honest, baffling. At what point did archaeology become weaponised in this way, and who decided that archaeological ideas of sex and gender should be seen as more important than medical ones- or most significantly the ideas of the people who are themselves trans? Archaeology is a discipline that aims to respect the difference between sex and gender, uses a scaled system of characteristics to attribute sex, and values the significance of items interred with individuals as indicators of gender. On the other hand, it is a practice where modern methodologies derive from extremely problematic individuals (looking at you Calvin Wells) and allows sexist and heteronormative narratives to persist into our current interpretations. The relationship between sex and gender in archaeology is improving, but not perfect. The point of this blog is to consider the public misuse of archaeological understanding of gender- namely this sort of hate being directed at transgender (including non-binary) people: Small sample of tweets referencing archaeologists identifying gender, identifiable information has been removed. Firstly, it is worth saying that this is nowhere near the worst thing that is said to trans people. Most will sadly see this as a minor act of hatred, a ridiculous scenario that does not concern them. But as an archaeologist, queer person, and trans-ally these sorts of comment makes me both sad and angry. Our profession cannot be used to spread this intolerance and hatred- especially when it is not true. It only takes a brief scroll through Twitter to see that there will be at least one transphobe posting something similar every single day, showing how pervasive these myths are. Archaeologists need to be better allies, and we can do so through sharing our processes and clarifying that we KNOW sex and gender are different. No, we don’t only find ‘male’ and ‘female’ skeletons, everything is rated on a scale and we often come up with no answer or only ‘probable’ because sex is not a strict set of biological traits that happen to form a binary. We have already begun to shed the belief in big, robust men and small, gracile women as these ideas were rooted in sexism and did not translate to the archaeological record. As trans rights come to the forefront of modern society, I believe that our current sexing techniques will one day be looked back on with the same level of disbelief as these old, sexist methods for reinforcing binary ideas. To this end I have thought about the future of sex determination in archaeology, beyond our current osteological and funerary evaluations, and what might influence our understanding of trans people: Hormone treatment’s effect on bones Whilst HRT is difficult to obtain, with long waiting lists and a series of unfair restrictive hoops to jump through before access is allowed, many transgender people choose to take hormone treatments. As mentioned, sex determination from bones is already a matter of likeliness rather than certainty and we see different factors influencing our ability to sex an individual. The medical community have shown that the density of bones change in transgender women who take oestrogen, but little substantial research has been undertaken into long-term effects on bones when hormones are altered. Puberty blockers and hormone therapy from a young age should make this simple. As puberty is the point in which skeletons begin to show sexual dimorphism it stands to reason that an individual who undergoes puberty as their gender will develop a skeleton that reflects this. Excitingly, early medical studies seem to be confirming this! As HRT becomes more common and more young transgender people have access to gender affirming hormones from a young age, it is more likely that osteological evaluations will align with the gender of an individual. In older women, menopause and the drop in oestrogen means that the features we examine on the skull change into more typically ‘masculine’ forms, so archaeologists are no strangers to the influence of hormones on the body. This is an area that archaeologists should pay particular interest to when considering the future of transgender archaeology, as early introduction and sustained use of hormones may have a significant impact on the physiology of bones. Plastic surgery Plastic surgery is not accessible to all, but there are some members of the trans community who are willing and able to physically alter their appearance for gender affirmation. When excavating in the future, it would be bizarre to dismiss obvious remnants of plastic surgery and falsely identifying someone as a certain sex based on their bone structure. ‘Plastic’ here is the operative word, the vinyl sacks that are used in procedures such as breast and bum implants will last long after flesh has gone. Limitations to this of course exist, but in the cases where plastic has been used for gendered features, such as creating breasts, an archaeologist will be aware that an individual’s concept of gender and their own gender identity were not necessarily what their bones will say. Digital Records Hormone treatments and plastic surgery are two ways in which future archaeologists may be able to identify trans individuals, but these are not necessary for a person to identify as trans and many people may not choose to alter their bodies in any way. This is where the documentation of the 21st century will be useful. From surveillance states to social media, doctors records to the census, our data is recorded constantly. You cannot log in to a wifi network without providing your name, gender, date of birth, home address, soul of your firstborn, etc. etc. This information will be available to future researchers, enabling self-identification in a completely revolutionary way for bioarchaeology. This extends beyond the historical record, which largely focused on prominent (rich) individuals, and gives a voice to anyone recorded as living within our society. As technology develops, we might see even more personal tech that will end up with our remains. It might seem dystopic, but human enhancements are moving from sci-fi into the real world and it seems incredibly likely that we will end up chipped and roboticised, on our way to cyborgs in no time. This information would reside with us after death and would be as readable, if not more so, than the stories that archaeologists can take from bones. Acceptance of sex and gender divides Finally, it is important to remember that archaeologists are trying to do good. Whilst there will inevitably be some transphobic people within the discipline, in general the differences between sex and gender are recognised by those in the field and attempts are made at being as inclusive as possible. Excellent networks such as Queer Archaeology are supporting LGBTQ+ people and promoting the inclusion of queer interpretations in our work. Recent publications about trans, non-binary, and intersex burials are beginning to shine a light on the lack of nuance within interpretations and the influences of modern, binary thinking on our understanding of the past. The thought that archaeology upholds transphobia is alarming, and more action needs to be taken by archaeologists to communicate the realities of our research and stand in solidarity with the trans community. As trans people are increasingly targeted, online and in-person, it is our responsibility to not allow this false information to be promoted and to support trans people where we can. Archaeology really makes up an insignificant portion of the hatred that trans people receive, but as archaeologists we need to be involved in making that even smaller. For other ways to help, why not support one of the excellent LGBT+ charities below: The Proud Trust - home of LGBT+ youth Stonewall - fighting for all LGBT+ people Mermaids - helping gender diverse kids Switchboard - LGBT+ helpline

Now that I’ve been through my current work, I thought it would be relevant to show how I got here- why bioarchaeology? Why do I care about the social implications of research? To answer these questions, I’m going to revisit the study that I undertook at Masters level and admit something that seems to be rare in archaeology- I don’t like my research. I think it was pointless at best and ethically unsound at worst- and that it is important to be honest about that. This is not to discredit the amazing people who supported my research or any of their own outputs which relate to this field. My supervisor was wonderfully intelligent and kind- a combination that you don’t always find in academics- and has produced insightful and valuable work on this topic. But would I do the research again? Absolutely not, and here is why… The Masters I became interested in bioarchaeology during my undergraduate and when I found a Masters course that let me specialise in it, I was elated. I knew that I wasn’t done learning about archaeology and I had so much more that I wanted to experience before entering the terrifying world of full time work. My undergraduate dissertation (which I will regale this blog with soon) focused on Romano-British burials and osteological evaluations of sex, and I was keen to expand my horizons within the field and learn more about different time periods, study new archaeological practices, and learn from even more discipline-leading academics. So, I packed up my life and moved to York, which coincidentally has one of the most beautiful medieval backdrops for an archaeology student to mooch about in, to start a Masters in Bioarchaeology. The course was incredibly interesting and crushingly difficult in equal parts, not helped by working part-time and still struggling to make ends meet. I was fortunate enough to tailor my studies to cover my broad range of interests and was able to learn more about everything from ethnography to community archaeology, heritage film-making to ancient biomolecules. I can genuinely say that I use the skills that I learnt during my year at York in my everyday life, not just my PhD or museum work but in my volunteering and social life too. It was a very valuable experience and one that on the whole I think helped shape my understanding of archaeology, and in some ways my view of the world. The Study The typical culmination of any degree programme is for a student to undertake their own independent research project. At York, whilst you could propose your own research it was common for Bioarchaeology students to become involved with a pre-existing project. Lecturers would put together a handful of projects and present students with the options available to them, leaving it up to us to select a project and contact a potential supervisor in order to get involved. There was an element of risk in this, and after a long and tedious story that I will not go into here I was unable to undertake the research that I was most interested in, so was left looking at what was remaining. I knew that I wanted to undertake stable isotope research but that was my only criteria at that time. Looking back, that was my first mistake. After being delayed with my first choice, I was late to the game and left with one other stable isotope option. Comparing the diets between rural and urban populations in Islamic Portugal as we can view them through stable isotope analysis of rib bones. This gave me the stable isotope lab experience that I needed, so I didn’t mind that the time period was completely alien to me or that I wasn’t hugely passionate about the research aims. I did the project and I was happy with my finished dissertation. I learnt how to take a bone and turn it into collagen, despite terrible preservation conditions. I was able to produce my own results, my own completely original research. I wrote 18,000 words on it all. I got a good mark. But with the advantage of time I have fundamental issues with my project. Firstly, I am not convinced that I have contributed any understanding to the wider discipline or benefited anyone with my work. As I develop my archaeological career I struggle with the idea of knowledge for knowledge’s sake, something that I see as both a privilege to aim for and something that we cannot justify in modern society. I love archaeology, but sometimes I see a study- for example understanding what a small group of rural Portuguese muslims ate 1,000 years ago- and think: ‘Do we not remember we’re in a climate crisis!’ ‘Children are being enslaved!’ ‘The world is shit we can’t waste our time on this!’ Archaeology can absolutely make our world a better place and provide meaningful knowledge to improve society. It’s also just very interesting, which is no bad thing. But was my research any of that? Personally, I don’t think so. Secondly, and maybe more importantly in light of my previous point, I have ethical issues with my research. In order to understand the society of the people I was studying I investigated Islamic funerary beliefs, diets, and social customs. I was happy that I had contextualised my research, but I conveniently omitted the key belief that bodies belong to Allah, not people, and that mutilation of a corpse is strictly prohibited. The dignity of the deceased is prioritised and preservation of the body is seen as highly important to achieve this. I am not aware of the excavation of the remains that I was provided to study, although I have full faith that these followed appropriate legal and ethical protocols. The religious and spiritual beliefs of the people we study are often a consideration, but without a vocal descendent community (like the modern druids in the UK) or strict legal protection (such as NAGPRA in the US) researchers often continue with their work. As I have developed my own understanding of archaeological ethics I now have serious concerns with destructive analysis that goes against the beliefs of the individual. As an atheist it is easy to dismiss this as superstition or irrelevant due to the passing of time, but to dismiss someone’s beliefs and undertake research that would have distressed a person during their life is ethically fraught. My current thesis speaks of giving a ‘voice for the voiceless’, a phrase that is often used across the discipline. In this case, there was no opposition to the research so it went ahead. If these people had a ‘voice’ - take for example the excavations at Jewbury in which the Chief Rabbi halted any destructive analysis on religious grounds- I do not believe that I would have completed this project. Should we wait for opposition, or are these ethical considerations researchers need to be willing to accept on their own? Is the pursuit of knowledge greater than the tolerance and respect for other cultures? Science should have its limits, as should archaeology. Robust research aims that go beyond undertaking a study because it can provide knowledge and consider the wider social attributes of archaeological research are necessary to limit the number of regrets that we have. I am grateful for my Masters, but I would not do the same project again. From this experience, I will think more carefully about my own feelings towards a project and consider where it sits with my moral compass. Accepting this regret is not a failure but a lesson, and I hope that honest public reflections on mistakes become more commonplace amongst our discipline. We all know archaeology is riddled with the mistakes of our past and present, self-reflection is important in changing this for the future.

As the first post on this blog, it makes sense to explain what my main PhD research involves and why I think that it is worth spending 3+ years of my life on it... Archaeology is a part of pop culture and a person's understanding of the past can be a very strong part of their identity. Due to this, and the many examples that we have of belief in heritage leading to false beliefs in superiority, I believe that we have a responsibility to make sure that our research is being accurately communicated to the world, especially through news outlets as they have the potential to reach exponentially more people than direct forms of outreach. Alongside this, we must consider that with the explosion of online news media in recent years, the public’s relationship with the news has changed dramatically. In general, people read more and trust less. Often, news stories can become sensationalised or exaggerated; at best to grab the reader’s attention in an online market saturated with content and at worst to promote the ideology of the organisation. It is important to note that this may not be an active decision, journalists writing these stories have their own biases which can be transferred onto studies that they may have no background in. The audience ends up reading an interpretation of a press release or interview and then draws their own conclusions guided by this information. In some cases people naturally agree if the narrative suits their world-view; but they are likely to disagree with something that challenges their opinions rather than be convinced of an opposing argument as evidence is presented to them. My research will look into how bioarchaeological studies are used by the media, especially when the study is ‘controversial’, and how this impacts the general public. ‘Controversial’ studies can cover a range of topics, however my research will focus on bioarchaeological studies that can be appropriated in relation to modern, political notions of identity. For example; Cheddar Man being called the ‘First Briton’ and having the genetic signatures of dark skin, or the migration of past groups being set in a modern context of ‘Britain vs Europe’. Archaeology is a discipline that can provide evidence to counteract the bigotry that stems from manipulation of the past and the colonial education system that persists to this day. However, it can also be used to further justify these ideas and the way it is presented to the public is key in determining the impact these studies have. One thing that I’m conscious of avoiding is glorifying the news sites that I enjoy and vilifying those that I don’t. I think that the Daily Mail is a hateful news outlet that promotes racism and xenophobia, but I have to admit that they report archaeology in an informative and generally appropriate way in the first instance. This often descends into its usual nationalist racism in subsequent stories, and commentators usually situate even the most accurate reporting against the Mail’s other hateful content, but they do occasionally offer some decent reporting. In the same way, The Guardian relies on clickbait as much as any other outlet, and came up with the anti-European ‘Dutch Hordes’ headline shown above. As academics there is a responsibility to use our work to improve society and help educate and empower members of the public. Personally, I feel that it is as harmful to be passive as it is to promote the improper dissemination of stories that can provoke extreme reactions and reinforce dangerous ideologies. Archaeology is as political as it is interesting to the public, and we cannot allow it to be misused on the vast platform of the mainstream media. Daily Mail comment advocating violence towards museum workers due to ideological differences. There are plenty of examples of where this extremism is related to archaeology and heritage, and I hope to explore them more in my research. For now, I will end this blog with a recent example of the dangers of the mainstream media taken from this Daily Mail article criticising museums for being too ‘woke’ and ‘ashamed of our culture’. This has been allowed to stay up for 2 weeks, with 20 shows of support and no public condemnation of the threat of violence. How long before such threats are taken seriously? Are we in danger, simply for expanding our knowledge of the past and working towards an anti-racist practice? Is the inflammatory press to blame for stoking such hatred, or is there a responsibility for archaeologists and heritage professionals to engage with those who "hate" us and find a peaceful strategy? If nothing else, it highlights the dangerous culture that is developing as we move towards decolonisation and inclusivity. This will impact the entire sector, but as a white researcher I am conscious that we need to be mindful that such anger will be directed at our colleagues of colour first, regardless of who is actually undertaking such work. In building allyship through heritage we need to be prepared to experience the abuse that global majority scholars have faced for years (whilst theirs inevitably also increases). At the moment, we are producing research and changing practises that, with the best intentions, are angering the alt-right. This work is absolutely necessary, but we are naively underestimating the anger that is being stirred up in a public led by the mainstream press. We need better systems to tackle this, and we need them soon.