Gender Roles in Aztec Culture – Social Constructs Through the Eyes of Radical Archaeologists

Radical archaeology uses artifacts and sites to disprove contemporary social systems and acts against “class and gender oppression, racism, and discrimination,” according to Elizabeth Brumfiel, an American radical archaeologist and professor and at one point president of the American Anthropological Association. Radical archaeologists’ findings can show alternative ways of life from our current views.

Gender roles are something we see ingrained in everyday life – such as gender-specific bathrooms and more stay-at-home moms than stay-at-home dads. However, these modern American gender roles aren’t the only gender roles possible. Different societies have different ways of thinking about the similarities and differences between the genders, as specifically evidenced in Aztec archaeological findings.

Statue of Aztec earth goddess Cihuacoatl

Statue of Aztec earth goddess Cihuacoatl

Gender complementarity was a prominent aspect of Aztec culture – considering women and men to be different but equally important to the whole of society. Both genders could hold authoritative position within the market – as evidenced by artwork showing women as specialized retailers administrators who controlled wealth and assets. Deities were not exclusively male. Women were depicted as goddesses in sculpture and artwork as well.

Archaeological artifacts also support gender roles in terms of childcare. Women raised the girls, and men raised the boys. From this came a strong binary in the gender roles – although considered complementary, boys and girls were taught different tasks. Spindle whorls, for example, were found in areas in homes where women and girls primarily resided, emphasizing their roles are spinners and weavers.

Radical archaeologists take this information and analyze it to question our own society today – connecting the lives of the ancient past to our cultures today. Did the Aztecs live with exactly the same gender roles as we do today? No. So are gender roles at least partly socially constructed? Yes. Although there was sexism in Aztec gender roles as there is today (women doing indoor work, men doing outdoor), the differences in child-rearing, power structures, and deities are important to note as they are shown to be socially constructed in both contexts.

Ceramic spindle whorl buried with an Aztec woman’s body

Ceramic spindle whorl buried with an Aztec woman’s body

With this we can question and potentially bring about change in our current social structures. We can ask ourselves about whether what we determine “feminine” and “masculine” are biologically or socially constructed, and then adjust our societies to be more accepting and open. Radical archaeology’s creative and thoughtful analysis takes (somewhat) objective findings about cultures common in post-processual archaeology and works on using that information to aim to create a world with less discrimination.

Links for Further Reading on Aztec gender roles and Radical archaeology:

https://umdearborn.edu/casl/fileadmin/template/casl/files/MeetingOfMinds/files/MOM_2012/Medieval/White_paper_-_mr7.pdf

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/theresa-kintz-radical-archaeology-as-dissent

References:

http://www.doaks.org/resources/publications/doaks-online-publications/gender/asking-about-aztec-gender-the-historical-and-archaeological-evidence

http://www.mexicolore.co.uk/aztecs/home/aztec-women

The Creation and Discovery of Skara Brae – The Power of Storms

The now-archaeological-site, once-village of Skara Brae on the coast of the Orkney Islands of Scotland was subjected to huge storm during the late Neolithic period – burying its structures deep under a layer of sand, which acted as a preservative for the buildings and their contents for multiple millennia – four to be exact. The protective quality of the sand kept the structures and everything within them shockingly intact since around 3200 – 2200 BC. The very gradual drift of sand after the storm embedded the village of Skara Brae into the earth, making it uninhabitable for the original Stone Age villagers.

So, was it the storm alone that drove away the native inhabitants of Skara Brae? Not exactly. “The fall” of Skara Brae as a society and abandonment of it as a geographical location was actually due to long term erosion along the coast and changes in the society’s needs, not only the single event of the storm (though the storm did intensify and speed up erosion) (Orkneyjar). Even before the major storm, island conditions such as the spray of salt water and sand probably made the land virtually unworkable and unfit for food production. While that may have been okay for a while, eventually people moved away to more productive areas where they could get a more constant supply of food. The few who remained most likely finished out their lives in Skara Brae without repopulating the area.

Outside view of a Skara Brae building, separated from others by a passage.

But how was Skara Brae found if it was under a massive layer of sand? Well, another natural disaster occurred 4,000 year later in 1850, a violent storm “whose winds and extremely high tides” ripped up the earth and grass from Skerrabra – a large mound on the island (Orkneyjar). Foundations, walls, and remains of stone buildings and houses were discovered underneath the mound, to the surprise of those living there at the time. But 75 years later, in 1925, another storm came around, damaging the excavated ancient structures. Accordingly, preservation efforts were put in place through the construction of a sea wall (an embankment erected to prevent the sea from encroaching on an area of land), which actually exposed even more stone buildings! During this time period, most archaeologists believed the settlement to be from the Iron Age – around 500 BC. But finally, as we know now thanks to radiocarbon dating in the 1970s, the buildings were proved to be from the late Neolithic period and inhabited for 600 years.

Excavation of a Skara Brae home, complete with artifacts and features such as furniture and drains.

Excavation of a Skara Brae home, complete with artifacts and features such as furniture and drains.

While so far storms seem to have acted in an oddly beneficial way for the archaeological preservation and exposure of Skara Brae’s long-hidden cultural artifacts and features, an increase in erosion rates have posed an environmental and archaeological threat. Steps are being taken to minimize the effects of this accelerated erosion due to natural and human causes.

For Further Reading on Skara Brae:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2014/08/neolithic-orkney/smith-text

http://www.ancient.eu/Skara_Brae/

References:

http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/skarabrae/

Renfrew, Colin, and Paul G. Bahn. Archaeology Essentials: Theories, Methods, and Practice. New York, NY: Thames & Hudson, 2010. Print.

http://www.culture24.org.uk/am15888

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1298318/Ten-greatest-British-heritage-sites.html