Chapter 6 The benefits of an archaeology of gender for predynastic Egypt Gabriel D. Wrobel Introduction In the study of ancient cultures, researchers often ignore me role of women in meir analyses, simply subsuming women's experiences wimin a larger theoretical framework in which questions have conventionally been considered only for men. Wylie (1991) feels that the focus on large-scale systems of social and economic development, or "systemic analysis," has unnecessarily excluded gender issues. According to Wylie, proponents of ecologically based evolutionary models of culture change such as Binford (1971) and oilier New Archaeologists tend to "rule out any consideration of what he refers to as internal 'ethnographic' variables." Gender issues certainly fall under this broad category of ideas. Binford believes "mat it is self- defeating to take ['soft' variables] as d1e object of archaeological analysis because mey are notoriously difficult to reconstruct wim any reliability on the basis of archaeological data" (Wylie 1991: 36). However, it is quite obvious mat many of rl1e facts proposed by archaeologists focusing on "traditional models of encompassing social systems" are based on assun1ptions engrained within me essentialist rhetoric of iliese models instead of on objective scientific analysis of meir data. Wheilier a variable is "soft'' is itself a "soft" determination. Therefore, it is important to view me data once again, objectively; to see whether current models are indeed adequate, or whether iliey are truly tainted by current androgenized notions of social order. Wylie does not propose a new, fully developed gender theory; but instead calls for "a conceptual framework mat raises the relevant questions, directing attention to gender and providing the impetus to study women's activities and experiences." The use of cross-cultural models of social change includes essentialist notions of gender roles within societies, which are often based on biological models. "Attention may be systematically directed away from gender and women, not because of any explicit beliefs about their status or (ir)relevance, sexist or oilierwise, but as a secondary consequence of commitment to ilieories which focus on oilier classes of variables as the primary determinants of cultural behavior" (Wylie 1991: 34). In me absence of data, many An archaeology of gender for predynastic Egypt 157 researchers in many areas of the world have been forced to extrapolate information from their limited resources. This has in essence given us d1e ability to fill in the blanks with other data from other cultures as necessary. In order to accomplish this, we would first have to identify consistent, discrete, cross-cultural trends that will necessarily be found in all societies undergoing cultural change. This was the aim of the New Archaeology and the proponents of cultural evolutionism (see Salilins and Service 1960). The search for a good template to accommodate small amounts of data in order to answer questions about ancient societies does not really produce new information. If we already know how it must have happened, why dig at all? Unfortunately; scholars have rarely asked the questions pertaining to these issues such as gender, but instead have focused on the search for evidence of preconceived models assuming that we might eventually know enough to "fine-tune" our knowledge later. This is tantamount to waiting for the data to speak for themselves; not a likely eventuality. In finding the answers to the "big questions" pertaining to evolutionary processes, we have lost sight of more central issues in which actual people are involved. Cultures are viewed as the integrated functioning organisms instead of an amalgam of fallible but creative hun1an beings with drives and desires. Cultures are spoken of as evolving, adapting, growing, co-mingling, and dying, leaving artifacts as unconscious evidence of all these processes. Instead of viewing artifacts as complete evidence of culture, we must view them as the products of people who made up a culture; sometin1es created as intentional messages about themselves, other times encoding unconscious beliefs, but always with limited scope and accuracy: Culture as the interaction between people who are involved in that culture is really the important issue. Central to mat notion lies me importance of gender roles. Egypt as a topic of conversation Egypt was one of me first areas of study for Western archaeologists. However, despite its longevity; much of the discussion about the culture has historically been subsllll1ed in me interpretation of papyrii and oilier texts including historic accounts made by travelers such as Herodotus. "The primacy of texts and concern wim their historical interpretation and veracity in Egyptology have etiectively excluded more holistic theoretical considerations which have been developed in the sciences" (Armelagos and Mills 1993: 5). Information about the predynastic period is then even more limited given the sparsity of written texts prior to the Old Kingdom. Analysis of predynastic sites has generally focused on typology and seriation of pottery and oilier artifacts. While this emphasis has proven valuable for ceramicists and antiquities traders alike, it tends to limit insight into the lives of ancient Egyptians. Only recendy have simple models of state formation based on changing pottery types and monun1ents given way to more complex