CHAPTER? MAN THE HUNTER, WOMAN THE GATHERER? THE IMPACT OF GENDER STUDIES ON HUNTER-GATHERER RESEARCH (A RETROSPECTIVE) KATHLEEN STERLING INTRODUCTION ‘Genet isan unusual categoryin that whether itis dealt with directly or not dealt with at all, Stappears tn he one of the fow universals of modest human culture. Brumbach and larvenpa ‘write *...[gender] may be the oldest and mest fundamental distinction shaping, human experience’ {Brumbach and [arvenpa 2008, 503). If this is indeed the ease, every anthropa- logical study should adicess gender in a substantial way. The narratives of hunter- gatherers area fundamental part of the narcative we have constructed of humanity, and this story has Jong held that woenen are sot the insowators or drivers of progress, but bit players. This remains the popular netion, but jt has changed within academia, with inereasing attention paid to women’s lives and activities and ta the cultural construction of gender throughout ‘tame and space. This is particularly truein studies of Living populations, and in archaeology ‘where historic information |s available through visual representations of sexed individuals ‘ora significant sample of skeletal remains. Outside these situations, penser analysis requires: yy, and many researchers have risen ta the challenge. However, given the rela- sively law number of fivinng hunter-gatherer sacietics and the comparatively smallamount of snore crea! material culture they leave be ind, has there been ax much development of gender studies ‘within hunter-gatherer studies? It would be impossible ta survey all of anthropaligy, bat a focus on one area~ the Conferences on Hunting and Gathering Studies (CHAGS)—muay be agood vector te see how gender studies may or sub-fields of anthropology concerned with hunter-gatherer groups ay nat have made inzoads inte the various152 RATHLEEN STERLING GENDER STUDIES Gender and ferninist studies have certainly had an impact on hunter-gatherer studies, but what has the extent of that iespact been? First, it would be useful to deseribe the goals af the practitioners of gender studies. This is not easy to do: no one persoeis ideas o¢ standpoints can be taken as representative of the whole, or even af a large group of people. Any state- ment about the goals of gender studies would necessarily leave out points that same prac- titiencrs would consider essential, The simplest, most inclusive statement I can come up with ts define gender studies for the purposes of this discussion is this: gender studies takes gender asa centval part of people’ identities and practices, and it thus is wisible acid tant stall scales of cultues from the individual to larger saciety, Ne broad cultural study can thus be caryplete without cansideration of gencler. My own positian is that gender should be a norma), but not narmativized aspect of cultural analysis, and should be integrated rather than considered separately, This ls not to say that gender should not be the focus of certain studies, but that gender should mot always or nearly always be considered as a separate issue within broader analysis, ‘Ghe of the most enduring debates about gender is between supporters of the view that gender roles are natural, and those whe see gender as cultural. This isa samewhat simplistic pictues, since fow people believe that the contributions of nature versus nuctuce in human behaviour fall 100 per centon one side or the other, However, gender is often conflated with sex.and differences are thus framed as natucal and important in ways that other differences such as race-are nat, There are indeed important sex-based differences, bul normative ideas af gender go far beyond these differences. The reason this mattersto hunter-gatherer stu is that hunter-yatherers are seen as natural people (Sterling 2011), and therefore their gen dee systems should eeflect something that is natural sbout all people, Thisis problematic for a number af reasens. For one, there isa great deal of diversity ia all aspects of hunting and gathering peoples past and present. This diversity is last when we assume that they behave Jn ways that are natural, and for gender siidies, what is seen as natural’ is more likely to be what we see in our own lives. In addition, there are so few bunting and gathering groups living todoy, and gonder was not an important category of analysis to cthnogeaphers before the second wave of feminism began to inluence anthropology. Lastly, itis very dificult tw analyse gonder in past groups. Early ethaographies are ditfieult enough (see Callaway 1992 about analysing carly ethnographersh, but archacological analyses of past groups have their obvious limitations. The result is often circular, where we assume certain (modern, ‘Western things about geadered behaviours among hunter-gatherers because those fours are natueal, and we then confirm the naturalness of these behaviours by finding them among hunting and gathering groups, past and present Whitehouse (2006) points out that much of the writing on gender in European prehistory has been in English, evens when the author's first language is not English. [twould not be sur. prising if this were the case in other parts of the world and during different time periods at well. This nat only reflects the Largest audience for this type of scholarships it may also-reflect something about gender in the Anglophone workd. If addressing gender results in replicat ing Anglo-American men, women, and children in other tines and plices, nothing is added to our understanding of hunter-gatherer lives. The key thing to remember about gender is(MAN THEHUNTER, WOMAN THEGATHERERF 155 that it is not only about adult wamen, it is not always binary, and while it may exist every: ‘wherg its anifestation is not universal ‘The field of ‘hunter-gatherer studies’ is alse not easily defined. [t straddles a number of fickls, primarily those that are included in the Anglo-American idea af anthropology’as a discipline that includes several subfields, [1 would be impossible to lnvestigate all of the publications thar could be considered part of hunter-gatherer studies. Instead of making. this attempt, I focus on the volume Min the huciter, om a few key publications that came as immediate reactions to this volume, and on the publications resulting from the Conferences an Efunting and Gathering Societies (CHAGS), inspired by the ‘Man the Hunter’ canfer~ ‘nse; The participants ot these conferences include people who haveidentified themselves as practitionersof hunter-gatherer studies, although the conferences and the resulting publiea- tions should also aot bes Because there is 19 one central enganization in charge af CHAGS, the early programmes are not published, nar is there always a good-sized bady of materials that can be identified as research resulting fran these conferences. The more recent CHAGS consistently have edited volumes that arv identified as resulting from the conferences, Although I have made-cvery attempt to track dosen the publications from these conferences, there are certainly gaps. eras uxbaw MAN THE HUNTER AND REACTION ‘The ‘Man the Hunter’ conference and subsequent volume marks a good place to begin, as it marks the beginning of hunter-gatherer studies asa discrete apea of study that encompasses the cub-fields of anthropology. Gne af the key premises of Mian the hunter was that since: aver 99 per cent of human history has heen sperit hunting and. gathering, st was essential to document this way of Life as fully as possible before the last of the cultures disappear Implicit in this premise is the idea that there are enough commonalities between these cul- tures beyond broader subsistence peactices, ‘The conference occurred during the rise of second-wave feminism in the West, a mave- ment that was prirarily political and kad not yet had s major impact on academia. Though the tile Man the Hunter’ was meant to be pithy and not to focus on men and only on hunt ing, this title demonstrated the biases of anthropology at the time: that mers activities were the most important and illustrative of'a culture, and that bunting the most important subs sistence activity of these societies. The fact that a diversity of subsistence practices and other cultural practices was essentially summed up in a single werd—‘hunting’—that everyone understands shows the extent to whieh this was and is entrenched in anthropological prac tice. The editors explain that man’ refersto all humans and “hunter” kxshorthand for hunting, and gathering (Lee and DeVore 1968), though throughout the volume there is very little consideration ef humans whe are not men, aad litle value given to gathering, A good oxam- ple of this can be found in the second discussion section. There is a sub-section entitled “Hunting vs. gathering as factors in subsistence, which addresses callories, technology, and «colaagy. and the only person to adress any soctal factors in gathering was Loma Marshall, who bypothesized why Kung womendo not gather more vegetable foods than they da (Lee and DeVore 1ysi8a, 94). 8 quick glinee at the list of participants shows that, as was the case acreas academia at the time, the vast majority of the participants were men. Knowledge1S4 KATHLEEN STERLING production in anthropology, as in other fields, is sacially situated. A braader range of research questions is posed when there is a broader range of eesearchers (Harding 1987 Longino 190}. In the discussion section that compared hunting and gathering, the only person who did aot ignore the peaple engaged in these tasks was the sole woman who was participating, While itis incorrect to associate gender stusies only with. female research- ers, the study of gender only became a priority in anthropology when female researchers centered the field in greater numbers and started studying woe ‘The normative approach te menis and womeris roles in hunter-gatherer graups is evident throughout the volume, In Lee and DeVore’ brief discussioa in the introduction ta the vel- ume of the paltiloeal band, which Servise onee proposed was the basic form for all past hunter-gatherer banal (Service 1963, 1), with other forms of band organization seen as“arte- facts of recent acculturation and breakdowa {Levand DeVore 1988a,7),it would be obvious jo the pender-sensitive researcher today that this deseriptian of the patrilocal band was a result of writing current Western ideas of what is iatural into the past. For Lee and DeVare, the lack of universality of the patrilocal band is an error outweighed by Service's highlight ingthe <#fects of contact with hunter-gatherer groups, arriage and models in Australia, seems a natural place to discuss men, as social beings, though there is often a lack of recognizable peaple. latt’s chapter "Gidjingall marriage arrangements’ hasa list of rules which is illustrated tus kinship charts, and a lengthy critique of Lévi-Strauss, No practices associated with marriage are described, and while Hiatt mentions in a footnote that there are seme- times contlicts between women and their families in marriage arrangements, he declines to discuss these situations {Hiatt 1988). Meggitt discusses the origins of ‘marriage elasses and what this means for the potential availablity of mates acrass Australia (Meggitt 1968), and Yengoyan adds the factors af environment and resaurce availability (Yengoyan 1968). Despite the tile of his chapter, Rose ives litle attention to initiation, and his interest is mot in what goes on during male initiation, bat what It means for nearrioggability (Bese 1968), ‘The discussion at the end of ection focuses on models, statistics, and Lévi-Strauss, In 4 geeat many contributions throughout the volume the authors do not use any words that make you think af actual people. The use of ‘men’ and ‘women is rare, but typically sensu stricto, unlike in the tille of the wolume, Mae the hunter was not particularly sist yiist; men’ activithes were privileged, but people seem to be litle more than cogs in. an ecological machine. It is clear that the concept of gender was all ust unknown ts the partici- pants, and in general, the social lives of hunter-gatherers were not addressed in this volume. WOMAN THE GATHERER ‘The tile Mar she hunter at this bistorical moment sparked reactions. This conference and volume was not the first major anthropological wark to present an unbalanced picture of humans, but it appeared at the same tine as weuneris representation increased in anthropel- agy and as political feminism was very visible, A few articles appeared shortly after Mian the furnter that dicectly addressed the lack of samen, though few of these articles chal lenged normative gender rales. In her 1974 article ‘Woman the gatherer’ Betty the Lee and DeVore shorthand of hunting’ to mean “hunting. gathering, and fishing’ She usesMAN THE HUNTER, WOMAN THE GATHERER? 155 accepts a natural, biological link between women and family that does not exist between men and family. which leads to separate sex-linked rales, Her emphasis is om the point that gathering activities are more relizble means to get food, s0 that in places where veg table foods are widely available, wornen’s economic activity is more important to the diets of hunter-gatherers. She does not question the idea that women’s childbearing and child- rearing make them unsuited to hunting in the strictest sense of the word, Her definition caf hunting is sometimes expansive, however, 3 she ates that [sf Tasmania, it historic times, women gathered shellfish, vegetables, small animals and seals” (Flatt 1y74. 7}. While many authors! definitions of gathering will include shelllish because they da nat mave,and sometimes small animals for varying reasons seals are aot typically considerec! a gathered resource, Despite shifting the focus from "Man the Hunter, Miatts article does not represent an carly study of gender among hunter-gatherers. Sally (Linton) Slocum article ‘Woman the gatherer, published in Wawier int perspec- tives a guide far cross-cultural studies and Tour an anthropology af wensca, and based an an earlier conference paper, addressed the androcentric bias of ‘man-the-hunter'-focused models of human evolution by turning them on thelr heads, Beyond merely polnting ut male bias, she rewrites the then-common narrative af human evolution as driven by meri hunting activities as instead driven by women’s gathering activities. She presents this tongue-in-check alternative not as a better story, but as an equally plausible one that paints out the inadequacies af any model of the kuman past that leaves out more than half of humanity (Slocum 977), At about the same time (1974), the faculty at Colarade Womens College proposed a course on contemporary hunter-gatherers, After considering calling the course “Man the Hunter; Sally Gets, the chair at the time, suggested thinking about what women did while men hunted. A review of the literature found very few publications that addressed this directly: Frances Dahlberg edited a volume called Woman the gutherer, consisting, of x papers that were inspired by the course, by Maw the hunter, by Slocumys "Woman the gath- erer, and by other feminist-inspired anthropology of the late 1970s, This volume is in the same spirit at enost feminist anthropology of this tinw: the papers point out andeoventsie bias in studies af human evolution, primatology, and contemporary hunter-gatherer stud ies, and they look for the missing fermalesin these fiekls, The focus is en womeris contribu- tions to society, and the conception of women bs still fairly essentialized, even as Dahlberg paints out thal contemporary concepts of the sexes cannot be applied to the past (Dahlberg tai). Like much of the scholarship of this perivd that addresses sex roles and facuses oa women's cantributions, this valume contains no papers that investigate gender a3 we now conceive af it. This is still very much the corrective phase of feminist anthropelogy, painting out androcentrie bias and seeking the ‘misting waren Tannerand Zihbman also weote a paper in the corrective mode, placing gatheving of plant foods at the centre of hominin evolution, extending Slocum argument. Theie premise fol- i Washburn and Lancaster, is that subsistence patterns were interrelated with sactal patteras. Thus, starting from the premise that hunting evolved frstand drewe human evola- jon leads to very different conclusions about Ausiralopitiecus than Tanner and Zihiman’s peemise, that gathering evolved first, Tanner and Zibhman looked at early hominid den- fition, frunal remains, ethnographic data, and chimpanzee behaviour to conclude that gsthered plant foods wore the primary source of nutrition for early hominis, and they discuss what types of simple, mostly perishable tools may have aided Australopithecines in16 EATHLEEN STERLING gathering. Certain assumptions about male and female behaviour are taken a5 natural, such a that males would not care for young, They end their paper with a warning against looking, at contemporary societies, particularly Western socicties, ta understand what is natural for humans (Tanner and Ziblmar 1976). FEMINIST INSPIRATION “The late 1970s oarks the beginning of Feminist anthropology. Women’s politieal move- ments in the West were strong, and many women laoked to anthrapalogy seeking the ori- sins of womens lower status (Reiter 19752), However, the anthropological literature could rot provide answers, Womed’s tasks were considered inaceessible in the archovological/ palaeoanthropalogical record er to male ethnographers and their roles were considered connected to their reproductive capacities (or limitations). Am increasing number of pub Ticatians focused an not anly critiquing male blas tn anthropologysbut developing research ‘on women and female primates. I isin these publications, such as Toward an anthrapolagy ‘of momen (Reiter 1975b) that questions of gender, although enly women’s gender, are first investigated, Archaeology, notably, was much later than the other sub-fields of anthropalogy in developing feminist approaches and theoriring about yender (Conkey and Spector 1984). In poper that was originally prosented at both the American Antheopological Astaciation mectings in 1975 and CHAGS in 1978, Collier and Rosaldo (1981) investigated gender through societal structures, and particularly among hunter-gatheress and gan srs, Comparing such geoups from allover the world, they write themes of motherhood ans sexual reproduction are far less central to such peoples’ conceptions of “woman than we had assumed? (Collier and Resabo wat, 276). They abo note"... Man the Hunter, which we ‘thought to be our myth, turned out to characterize their conception of maleness' (Collier and Rosalso 981, 275). In other words, while we tend to focus on women when we think ‘of gonder, in these cases, itis the construction of men’s identities that was emphasized in ‘the societies Collier and Rosaldo looked at. Also, where we tend to juxtapase binaries, they found no particular opposite or complementary role to "Man the Hunter, nor were “ment associated with ‘culture’ and ‘women’ with ‘nature, nor any of the ather structuralist cat- ‘gories commonty used al the time, They noted that bunter-gatherers have been used as models of what is natural for human behaviour, and that feminists have hoped to find evi- dence for a natural egalitarianism, while othces find the universality of male dominance, ‘Their approach to inequality among these groups waste lok at ritualized ideas and bekav- jours, their place in everyday social relations, and how this leads to ditferences in status ‘Collier and Resaldo foun that mareiage was the best entry point for the analysis of gender in non-elass societies. Marriage was connected to social relations throughout the group, food sharing, autonomy or lack thereof, and politics—abligations, They find that with a few: exceptions, women gain new duties and lase status and personal freedom, while men see very litle change in their duties and they gain greater sacial status upon marriage. Mens greater need for marriage leads to developing ways to reduce this power that women migitt stherwise have or the conflicts that right arise. This necd of marriage is to have samecae ‘tw provide them and their fantilies with food, since the food they hunt is shared among the ‘group: this provider is also the means by which men become adults, Marriage makes menMAW THE HUNTER, WOMAN THEGATHERER? 157 independent, though obliged to in-laws, bul provides fewer benefits to women {Collier and Rosilsa 8s). ‘Archaeology and the study of gender” {Conkey and Spector 1984) was a groundbreak- ing paper in archaeology, and marks the beginning of serious consideration of gender in archaeological scholarship, Conkey and Spector note that the liteeatuee is "permeated with assumptions, axscetions, and purported statements of “fact™ about gender’ (Coney and Spector 1984, 2), although gender was nat considered a topic of analysis, While there were a few publications that preceded Conkey and Spector, this article is probably the earliest attempt by archaeologists, one of wehom specializes in prehistoric hunter-gatherers, to think seriously about gender in archacologically known groups, CONFERENCES ON HUNTING AND GATHERING Societies (CHAGS) CHAGS Tand II The first CHAGS was held im 1g78 in Paris, to commenserate the tenth anniversary af Man the hienter, Another conference followed in Quebec in 1980, and this conference involved scholars fram hunter-gatherer groups. These conferences were apen ta anyone wha caulk get to them (Lee and Daly 2004). There is ro central administration of CHAGS; nonetheless, conferences were held around the world except in Aftica every two to five years until 2002, and with the exception of the Quebec conference, edited volumes ave available Eleanar Li ck and Richard Lee edited Pulifies and history in band societies shortly after the first CHAGS (Leacock and Lee 1981b), Given the title of the volume are Leacock’s renown as a feminist anthropalegist, we can expect that gender should appear ia at least some of the contrifutions. In their introduction, Leacock and Lee mention relations between the-sexesand the concept of “human nature in the very first pages, then praise Mit the hurater while noting that the ttle “Woman the Gatherer? would have been equally accu- rate (Leacock and Lee ig82a, 2-3), “The volume is divided into: three parts. In the frst part,"Thynamies of egalitar societies. a Few authors addeess differences between men, women, and children. Wl chapters have no explicit discussion of gender, the authors cla use inclusive pronouns, which is a departure from easlier anthrapologicel writing and aware of the feminist critiques of anthropology. ‘the conteibutions also point out the com- plications and the euitiers rather than trying to shochorn them into thelr hypotheses. This, may be in part due to the fact that allofthe authorsaze writing about living or recent groups, not archagological ones, The feminist critique ef anthropology had not reached archaeology at this point, and the past-processual critique was just beginning. [tis wotikely that at this point anarckseologist would have participated in a volume titled Politics. and history in banal societies Lees contribution, ‘Politics, setual and non-sexual, in an egalitarian society, makes clear through the title that gender will not disappear, Lee looks at the degree of equality between ‘Kung men and wamen, haw they reconcile leacership with egalitarianism, and foraging, most idence that the authors were1g8 KATHLEEN STERLING connections between economics and politics. He creates a complicated picture of the peo- ple he knew, where rules seem ta be suggestions rather than constraints, There is sill na analysis of gender, however, While the men and women he presents are individuals, Lee still presents limited ways of being men and women (Lee 1983). In another contribution, Hamilton critiques the ways in which Westem researchers have considered Aboriginal connections te land and divisions hetween econamic and ritual life. er comclesion is that Patrilineality and patrilacality is not the norm it has been assumed to be, though again, gender isnotan explicit area of analysis (Hamilten 1942). Turnbull's chapéer, "The ritwaliea- bonof potential conilict between the sexes among the Mbuti looks at ways in which adults defuse possible violence and how children imitate and elaborate on the confit they wit- ness. Sexuality plays a promtinent role, and this sexuality is not necessarily reproductive or indeed heterosexual, Turnbull also addresses the ways in which children Jearn to behave as aslults through observation and instruction, which is gendered, By lookingat haw identity istransformed through life and what men and women can, may, and may not do, Turnbull's contribution addresses gender in a similar way as researchers da today, even ifhe does not use the word ‘gender’ (Turnbull 1982). In the other two parts, Foeager-farmer relaticay’ and ‘Contemporary palitical strug. glue) gender is not a major component of the analysis, although it is not ignored. Many of the chapters in these sections describe a wide variety of aspects of identity and interactions between people, including gender, race, ethnicity, class, and how they relate te different gfoups impact on one another, In short pieces, there is lithe room to analyse all of these: aspects, and though some aspects get little attention, they arestill inckuded. The exception is Lescack’s chapter, ‘Relations of praduction in band society’ the only contribution that acta- ally uses the word gender’ Leacock discusses a number of cases in which relations between men and women changed quickly and drastically upon contact with Europeans (Leacock 192). The focus on the fluidity of rolesand interactions, the fact that these things. can change with timeand clecumstance, ts what separates gender" from ‘sex: CHAGS IIT CHAGS III was held in Bad Homberg. Germany, in 1943 as a small gathering of invited scholars. This conference was centred on the theme of sociology and land use among, Iwunter- gatherers. The resulting volume is Past aid present in ievnter-gatherer studies, edited bby Carmel Schrire (1oilga). Six of the chaptersin the book are from canference participants, and three were invited to contribute alter. At this point in hunter gatherer studies it seems unlikely that amjeone could ignore women, even if gender ix not yet being widely prob- ematizesl Nevertheless, Schrire and others afien use ‘men’ to mean ‘people's but Schrire addresses the stereotypes af hunter gatherer life and the harm they do, and many af these stereotypes are of womeris and girls’ value (Sebrire 1984b]. Jones specifically writes about the toals men and women use for subsistence activities (Jones 1984), and Gordon makes mention of violent interactions between the [Kung and others, oflers following, interfering, with Bushmen women’ (Gordon 1984, 203). Lewis-Williams discusses sexual division of labour among the San, particularly among medicine people, though he also notes that men's and women's work is cooperative in both symbolic and daily labour (Lewis-Williams 1984}. Griffin vwerites about the Agen of the Philippines, a group that is well known for women'sMAN UNTE, WOMAN THEGATHERER? 159 hunting. Griffin describes the similarities and differences between men's and women's hunt- ing. and deseeilws the envirunment and technologies used, but avoids discussion of the fact that women regularly hunt in this group (Griffin 1984). I seems lke a missed! eppor- tunity to analyse why this group behaves iat s way that seems te be wnique amany living, hunter-gatherers. In the other soneibutions, gender isnot explicitly addressed, but these ore nat necessarily androcentric chapters cither. Many ofthe authors take a critical approach to hunter-gatherer studies, which hints ata ehinate’ that would allow far the analysis of gender, even if that does not happen here, One difference between this volume and the one edited! by Leacock and Lee is that Sehried’s volume mizes different sub- fields af anthropalogy, just before archaeology bogins to engage with gender following Conkey and Spector's ground breaking article. CHAGS IV CHAGS [¥ was held in London in 198, and was again open to all wha wished to and could alford te participate (Lee and Daly 2004). The resulting volumes, Mialers and gath erers, volume I> history, evaluiion and social change (Ingold et al. ag8Bab and HMianters anal gatherers, volume Ih praperty, power and idealagy (Ingold ct a. 1886) are a selection of ‘ihe seventy-four papers presented at the conference (Ingold 1988). ‘The titles indicate a high degree of critical and political engagement, some of which extends to gender stud- jes. Volume I primarily focuses on histories ef hunter-gatherer groups, These histaries are ‘heavily descriptive rather than analytical, Gilling in details of peoples wha are often seen as ‘timeless, Marriage Is occaslonally described, and in most papers adult men and women are the key actors, with the very young and very old playing smaller roles. A few chap- ‘ers explicitly address gender: Gardner has a section in his contribution about gender relations and husband-wife relations. In particulas, Pallyan have qulie dliforent ieleas of proper behaviour for women than the Tamils with whom theyinteract, and they are subject ‘a pressures to change (Gardner 1988). This section is separate from atlser sections in the paper that address marriage and remarriage. Sandbuk chapter contains the word ender’ in the tithe, About half the chapter discusses what females and children must avoid and ‘haw males have power over their livesand labour, These strict rules exist mare as idealogy than practice, and the reality of people's lives is quite variable (Sandbukt wt). In the end, a pattern emerges. Like previous edited volumes resulting from CHAGS, the researchers ‘working with living or recent hunter-gatherers are the most likely to address gender. This volume is focused om history, and the deeper in time the author investigates, the les likely he orsheis to consider gender, though the nguage typically remains inclusive, The excep- ‘ion Is the palacoanthropotogical article, which uses ‘mar’ to refer to people except when discussing sexual dimorphism (Foley 1988). While ferninism and gender studies in anthra- pology were ao longer restricted to socio-cultural anthropology at the tine of this conter- sence, i remained difficult for researchers to address gender in the deep past. The second ‘volume follows the same pattern. The section called "Equality and dominatinr’ (Sharp 188) Js primarily composed of ethnographic accounts, andl these articles pay attention to gen der. One chapter has the word ‘gender in the title (Cooper 199)—again an ethnographic account, Many of the chapters touch on gender, even ify briefly, but all of the contribu ‘tions are ethnographic.160 KATHLEEN STERLING CHAGSV “CHAGS ¥, held in Darwin, Australia i. 1988 addressed development, cultural ielentity and political processes, changing social and economic inequality in the present, and the place of ‘hunters and gatherers in Western shought ane anthropology, and the volume that collects ‘the papers on prehistoric demography (Ken. and Yamada 2ama, 1} addresses demography in ‘the most narrow sense, almost to the exclusion of the other themes of the conference, There are only the briefest mentions of feetity and birth spacing (Shnicelman ago) ancl marriage. ‘Only one paper mentions mens and women's economic roles (Burch and Ellanna sgggb), ‘though without any analysis, AIL of the studies in this volume employ either the direct bis- ‘torical approach er ethnographic analogy far archaeological data, or they are ethnographic studies themselves, This makes the lack of discussion of genderin demographic processes all ‘the more curious, and thisis adramatic departure from earl LAGS publications. ‘Theather volume published from this conference comes From a session called ‘Emergent social and economic inequalities among contemporary hunters and gatherers, and was pub- lished in a volume called Emergent inequalities in Aboriginal Austen. There is a good deal ‘of variation in havw the authors address or ignore gender. Keen writes that worent lack of power is due to patrilacality, but that this issamething that changes as wamen age. However, ‘various societal structures maintain women's inferior position in gowernance, limiting their ‘Power to their own reproduction and certain domestic affairs, In Kolig’s contribution, he deliberately avoids extensive discussion of gear, whicl he 400s a8 tangential to his discus- sion of power, and as concerning aly women: ‘...ane would have to say, that women if ‘they are to ke exchanged between clans, as seems ta have traditionally been the ease, can- not have the same powers as those wha control the exchange. However, I do not wish to enter into a detailed debate an the traditianal or post-contact gender situation with regard to power, Doing so Would lead us too far from our main theme” (Kolig 19fy, 64). Burbank and Chisholm discuss changes in family structure that have implications for geader rela- ‘ons and maternal and child health, They note that ‘the emergence af greater sccivesemual equality between elder and younger south-east Arnhem Land men has, paradoxically, contributed ta the emergence of a new inequality between older and younger women, of smarried and unmarried women and their children! (Burbank and Chisholm i983, $5) [ulie Finlayson looks at the effects af the dispropartionate Aboriginal reliance on welfare as com- pared to European.descended populations and how government palicies relating bo who gels pid what has led co changes in gender relations. This has happened because unem- ‘ployed men move to the domestic sphere, which has not traditionally been thelr place, while women receiving cash benefits are less economically dependent on men and simultane- ously have mare claims made upon them by men through the appeopeiation of their pay- ments and their labour, Overall, this volume has a great diversity of authors’ opinions on the importance af gender when looking at inequality, thaugh most give at least some attention ‘to the subject, ‘CHAGS VI CHAGS VI, held in Fairbanks, Alaska, in 1990 resulted in the edited volume Key iasees i hunter-gatherer research (Iurch and Ellanna 1994). This was the first CHAGS held afterMaw THE HUNTE WCOMAN THEGATHERER? 161 ‘the dall of the Soviet Union, and thus was the first with a considerable comtingent from Russia. As the tithe suggests, key issues are identified and addressed. The very first of these issues is gender, marking the first appearance of gender as 4 separate, important section withina CHAGS publication, Two chapters and an editorial comprise this section; most sec- ‘ions comprise two of thrve chapters and an editorial, indicating that this subject was given equal weight with others, though some sections contain mare or fewer papers. The editors point out two areas they do not include in this volume: revisionism and optimal foraging ‘theory: They explain that these debates are very active and resulting. in many publications, and.so there is little reason for them to devote space to these issues. The implication is that ‘the editors view the subjects they did include as important, but understudied. The brief edi- vorial intraducing the gender sectian illustrates seme interesting issues in thinking about gender ariong hunter-gatherer, The editors decry the historical emphasis on hunting to the detriment of gathering, and point outs aumnber of publications that demonstrate the impor ‘ance in caloric teres of womens gathering activities. Immediately after that, the authors point out cases of women bunting and fishing, with men’s gathering activities relegated to a parenthetical comment, in a way that continues to valoriae hunting as the more prestigious activity. They do, however, make an essential point at the end of the ediloria:*...gender issues are anly analytically distinct from many othee tssues. One cannot really make sense of ‘the division of labour along gender lines in a given saciety withaut reference to the alloca. ‘ion of power and responsibility ritwal,syrmbolism, communication, and emotional expees- sion, The straightforward focus of many curly gender studies on the amount of time males and formales spent in different activities is no longer sulficient’ (Burch and Ellana rp94h, 13). ‘They emphasize the necessity af integrating gender into wider analysis, ever if their coneep- ‘thon of gender is presented in terms of differences between adult women’s and men's lives, ‘The two research articles in this section are ethnographic. The articles focus an wery dif: ferent people whe live gender in different ways, but what they have i commson is that both describe the kleology of gender and the waysin which daily practice coinckees with, conflicts owith, and reinfrces these ideologies. Women’s exercise of power isalso key here, and the two aarticlas illustrate very different kinds of power for women, Both chapters focus on the inter- actions between adult men and wamen, though Sharp's chapier includes some Chipewyan ‘opinion of children and the elderly, who are seen as dependants, and the ways in which eomen are offen equated with these groups, Sharp also situates his thoovetical approach within the broader issues of gender and politicsin North American cultures (Sharp 1994). Outside the gender seetion of this volume, the papers achieve wariable suceessin integrat- ing gender into their analyses, Gender israrely seen atan intersection with ather issues such as territory, place, or government intervention. Women are not ignored, but by this point the study of gender has progressed well beyond merely including women, Again, archaca- Jogical research has less discussion of gender, even though there are cases in which mul- ‘ple burials are available (eg. Andrews iy94: Yesner tyg4) and this is ane of the areas of archacology where gender is typically sten as being move 'sceessible: Another contribution (Jones et al. 1994), 0 camparison of ethnographies that focuses on children’s faod produc- ‘ion work and the reproductive advantages this work can bring to their mothers, discusses men, women, boys, and girls, but still manages largely to avoid discussing gender, Gonder reappears in the section on culture contact, most natably in Mearns’ (1994) chapter about Aboriginal women's responsibilities to continue traditions in a changing world, Mearns discusses change and continuity in the Dreaming in the Northern Territory in Austratia,162 KATHLEEN STEREING ‘with particular altention to the waysin which interaction with Australian authorities led to ‘ihreais to women’s sacred sites in the interests of protecting men’s ritual business: Women hhad to negotiate both the gender norms af their culture with those of the state (Schweitzer st al 2000), Overall, gender gets more altention in this volume than in previous CHAGS publications, though that attention is primarily cthnogeaphic, ‘The volume ends with a section addressing future disections far hunter-gatherer research. “There is some attention to topics of future research, but most attention is given. to how that research may be conducted, The future of modern hunter-gatherersand their descendantsis in question, In terms of the topics suggested. they are primarily present-orieated—relations between hunter-gatherers and siates, land and resource use, and social relations, Neither archaeological, historical, linguistic, nor biomedical approaches are suggested by the con tributors here, These prose certainly allow for analysis of gender, thowy ited aspects af hunter-gatherer studies, ‘CHAGS VII CHAGS VIL was held in Moscaw in 1ggs. Hunters arid gatherers in the mudern world resulted, though the editors of this velume make no mention of any other publications that may have resulted, for example from their Russian colleagues whe convened the conference, ‘or presenters who did not address the situation of modegn hunter-gatherer peoples, The dominant theme of the volume isstruggle. That struggle is manifested and revealed in differs ‘ent ways, but thet mentat engagement with Russian anthropologists and their (mostly) Siberian case studies ‘There are five sections of the volume, one af which is called ‘Gender and representation Although the other sections address areas in which gender could potentially be analysed, ‘the attention to gender outside the section specifically designated for tis often qpalte mini- ‘mal, if present. The chapter about interpersonal violence (Goulet zoaq), often under the influence of alcohol, gives the impression that wornen do not get drunk and involved in vio- Jence as aflen as men, though this is not expressly stated. The Focus is om mes.and women and children appear on the side. ‘Ihe author could have taken the opparlunily ta investigate men’s gender, am approach we have not yet seen through the CHAGS publications. Chindina (2009) identifies potentially interesting ethnic differences between meris and women's graves in Bronge Age cemeteries in south-western Sibersa, though there isi further analy- sis, Ratianova discusses ritual violence in two groups in Siberia, Most of what she discusses is murder and suicide (often achieved byasking samcone to kill him or her), though she also touches oa infanticide and. cuthanasia, Most of this violence is deadly violence, or poten ‘ially so, The last part of her chapter adkiresses violence against women, including abduction Jar marriage, intense games hetween the sexes, and rape (althaugh Batianova dss aot use ‘this word), All of these forms of violence arise in predictable situations and the reactions are also predictable (Batianeva 2000). Kim writes about Sel’kup world view, where gender plays a role in some aspects, She discusses the idea of male souls, how dedicieney in the ‘male soured’ fs thought to result in defective people or wamen, ans! the eennection to certain ani- mals (Rim zono). ‘The section on gender and representation has five articles, about the same number ax the ‘other sections. In "Gender rale transformation among Australian Aborigines, Tonkinsaa isan air of doors here. The other notable commonality isa sense of excite-MAN THE HUNTER, WOMAN THEGATHLERES? 163, (2000) begins not by deseribing the changes in gender roles, but im anthropology’s ideas about these roles among Australian Aborigines, He next moves to the problem of recone structing gender roles before Furopean cantact while relying on oral histories and colanial accounts that ignored women ax unimpsrtanls but more importantly, the ways in which ‘Westerners typically think about gender roles as connected to structures ef dominance: obscures features such ax complementarity. A major problem far anthropologists is haw tw account for what appears tu be high degrees of female autonomy coesisting with high levels of inequality berween the sexcs that heavily favours men. Tonkinson also points cut that mast scholars interested in gender in Aboriginal society have been women, though the conclusions they have drawn have been quite different, including relative equality, com plete male domination, and. separate spheres. There are also intersections that relate bo power, such as age and contest. These and other factors are important both before and alter European contact, though the results are quite diferent, Post-contact, Aboriginal women were more likely to adopt European lifestyles than men, perhaps hecause worsen found a wider range of possibilities while men found more restrictions, Women offen acted as inter- mediariss between Europeans and other Aborigines, giving them a level ef power that ic nat exist before. Women were nat just given pawer by Europeans they argued for it, at times in ways that could be considered deceptive. Tonkinsan primarily discusses ehangesin wom- ericates, but healso addresses changes for men. [was sill rare at this point to think about the fact that men have gender toa, and Tonkinson’s chapter is wonderfully complex. Federova writes about women's tasks in Mansi society, particularly in subsistence activie ties, While she does note that these roles can vary from family te family, t the presence o¢ absence of men than any tension between idevlogy and practice. Federwva chapter is more like same of the early works that resulted frem the feminist critique of anthropology, describing, wamen's and ta a lesser extent children’ lives, but not analysing. gender (Fedorova 200). Staniukovich looks at oral literature, in particular an epic about a female peacemaker, Its a story that has been described by Western publishers asa piece of entertainment that was not part of traditional belief systems, but Staniukovich finds this to be untrue. She finds that as 4 general rule, wortenis epics emphasize peace and men’ epics emphasize violence and vengeance. However, these epics are often complementary, telling, two sides of the same story that olen end with peace prevailing (Stamiukuvich 2000). Not all of the papers in ‘Gender and representation’ address gender, and fat all of the papers on gender presented at the conference are included in this volume. Ohne of the pubs lished contributions addresses the ideology and power of naming, as dene by Bushmen and by Furapeans (naming Bushmen: Widlak 2000). Anather knoks at government and Foreign NGD attempts to move the Baka to a sedentary life (Hewlett 2000). These are very interest ing volume, whilea quick glance at the table of contents gives the impression that gender accu pics roughly equal space with other concerns. Among the unpublished papers for which Twas only able to find titles sere peescatations called Is self-determination a gendered co cept?! presented by Diane Bell, “Women life histories from northern Canada: explaining new changes with old stories; presented by Julie Cruikshank, “The choice of widowhood among Walpiri women’, peescnted by Frangoise ussari, Redefining place: Aboriginal women and change! presented by Mary Edmunds, and ‘Land-use rights af Ojibwa.Cree ‘women, presented by Krystyna Sieeiechowice. These papers were part of a session called "Gender in hunter-gatherer societies in a changing and contemporary world, ef which only. more about cles, but it means that there are in fact only two articles that focus om gender in the164 KATHLEEN STERLING Mears’: contribution was published. There was ancther gender symposium, Eeonamic, political and ideological dimensions of gender, foe which [ was unable to find list of par- ticipants or tiles (University af Alaska Fairbanks i990). CHAGS VII CHAGS VII, held in Osaka, Japan, in 1998 had one of the twenty-one sessions devoted to gender. Papers from this sexsion. titled ‘Gender and the dyruamics of culture, were pub lished together with sessions titled “Ethnicity, church and state’ and ‘Léentity; transformation and performance in a volume titled faentity and gonster ix tuenting and gathering societies {Keen and Yamada sooib). The volume is divided inte twa parts: Part 1, ‘Changing iden- tity in post-foraging societies; combines the papers from ‘Ethnicity, cluarch and state’ ancl ‘Identity, transfarmation and performance’; Part (‘Gender and the dynamics of culture’ Jn their general introduction, Keemand Yamada note that [while the two parts are discrete, there are connecting themes... Part! focuses.on questions of identity in the cantext of rela- ‘ions with the state and the wider society, including the elfects of assirailationist policies, symbols of identity, indigenous and anthropological constructions af identity’ (Yamada 2061, 238). (One of the lessons of gender studies is that gender is an integral part of culture, and par ticularly of identity. Yer the authors in Part I choose mot to address gender, despite several abvious openings. In the section of Part | called ‘Performance, symbels and narrative styles’ Hiwasaki points to the fact that the concept of identity as performance comes from fuslith Butler (Hivasaki 2001), whe was writing specifically about gender, Only Shnitelman, in his paper about Tlingit acculturation, touches on the subject of gender, and he dies this outside of section dedicated to marriage and adoption (which, strangely, does not discuss ger det at all, He does not attempt any in-depth analysis, simply noting that certain roles have changed in receat years, with women taking on teaching and cralt production that wax tra- ditionally the realm of men (Shnirelman 2001), ‘The title of Inowe's article begins “Hunting as a symbal of cubtural tradition, and the very first sentence starts “Ihis chapter facuses an the cultural aspects of hunting, trapping, fish- ing and gatheting activities... {Inoue 2001, 89), which repeats the now quite old eliston sex! in Man the iumer to refer to a range of subsistence activities. Munting is indeed the focus here, although there is mention of traditional ceaftwork, particularly traditional clothing. as well as food-sharing, The perception of these practices amang the Gwrich'in is contrasted with Western practices, bul there is no discussion of gender despite the fact that this ix one cof the areas in which gender typically gets attention in hunter-gatherer studies. In Part I the section specifically devoted to gender, It is not always clear that the papers address their topics through the lens af gender studies. In one case, for example, it seems that 4 paper was part of this session and this part of the wolume because it adeeesses enar- riage, repraduction, and extra-marital sex. Imamura’s paper discusses relations between men, women, and children, but itis facused on heterosexual relationships in and around marriage, and the word ‘sex’ could accurately have been used in place of gener” {Imamura sai). In conteast, Quraishy’s contribution addresses evolving gender relations and increas ing inequality between men and women as the Alu Kurumba foragers moved from hunt- ing and gathering ta broader subsistence strategies that included carlicr strategies as wellMAN THEHUNTER, WOMAN THE GATHERER? 155 as agriculture and wage labour. Considering different examples of gendered division of labour, Quraishy concludes that market economies lead to high levels of inequality, Even when the division of labour is strict and the work done by one sex is valued more than that done by the other (Iypically, men’ hunting being most highly valued), inequality remains low (Curaishy aon}, Venkateswar alse looks at gender among hunter-gatherer groups in India, addressing the elfects of colonialisen, first by the British, then by India. She studies thva groups and, refreshingly, she adclresses her own gender and ethnic presentation, and what it means for her relationships with the people she interviews, Far ane group, the Onge, Venkateswar describes how women are actively resisting deliberate efforls by the [ndian state, often with the complicity of Cinge een, to suberdinate women 48 part of & campaign af acculturation, She is made very aware of her outsider status by the women, when she expected (o find greaier cooperation due to their shared gender. Among the Andamanese, the same gender and ethnic presentation provokes a much nore sympathetic response than ‘Venkateswar received amang the Onge. In this case, being an outsider means that she will not judge their behaviour the way other Indian women might, Venkateswar presents a very complicated picture of gender relations that exptictily draws on a brad range of feminist anthropological approaches (Venkateswar sont, 28). Fedorova addresses etiquette among the Mansi, a Siberian ethnic group. The rules of etiquette for wemen mostly concern mar- ried women of childbearing ages and most women are basically autonomous and have been dstorically, in terms of providing for themselves and their children. In this cave. women's gender ovalwes with age, with prepubescent girls and older women able to de certain things that other women may nol. Many of the taboos related to: women were rarely abserved during the Savéet period, especially in mare dlensely-papulated areas. Rederova deseribes the etiquette that women must obey, but there is no analysis of it, litle discussion af how culture: contact impacted oa these taboos, and there is practically no mention of menis gen dered behaviour (Fedareva z601) Lastly, Yamada opens her discussion of gender among the Ainu with a brief discus- sion of the critique of the asumption of the universality of the gendered division of labour, pointing out that the idea of binary gender roles cannot even be supported by the supposed binary existence of sex. Yet, despite her critique of the madern industrialized anthropologists view of geewder, it appears that the Ainu express their ideas about gender in ways that soand very familiar. Mate deities hunt ans build, fernale deities embroider and serve food, Yamada weaves her discussion of gender into a broader disct: cultural-revitalization movements, in terms of reclaiming and transmitting traditional lan gage and rituals, Yamada has put gender squarely where it belongs—as an inseparable part of daily life, practised, interpreted, and observed in every aspect of behaviour. She also nates that women have expressed more interest and pride im their Ainw identity, while men have been more content to Mentify themselves as Japanese, Older women have been the repost tories of much af the knowledge about Ainu culture, and it has increased their importance as younger wemen in particular want to learn about Ainu culture. The traditional gender roles ofthe Ainu give women greater power and autonamy, yet they take nothing from men (Yamada sos) ‘Very few of the other publications from CHAGS VILL address gender, Anderson and Tkeya's wolume (s001), Parks, property, and power: managing inunting practize and iden of Ainu within state policy regimes, has very hittle mention of worten and children and.no analysis of gender, which is unsurprising since the primary subjects are hunting and mining. activities1ed with women and children, tt ears repeating that gender is nat only about women, but itseems tobe thease that when women are nota primury sulsject gender is more easily ignored, Social econouny of madern hunter-gatherers cues mostly on hunt- ing and meat-sharing, although vegetable foods are mentioned, so wormen’s lasks in prepa- ration of taoksand processing of animals is.a frequently discussed subject, but there is lithe analysisaf gender beyond comparing tasks [Wenzel etal. 2a00). The volume tilled Self: areal other-images of hunter-gatherers has a few articles that address gender. Most have just brief mention of gender, but Kaare’s (2002) contribution goes extensively inta the subject. Kaare “writes, (Nhe metaphoes of Kinship and gender are key to our understanding of the broader context of their understanding of their cosmology and centeal ideas about fertility, sacial {re)production, procreation and the continuity of meaningful life (Kaare 2003, 28). Kaare describes how the Akie beliewe gender roles and subsistence activities were chosen in the past and their importance to daily life and interaction with their neighbours, Symbolism is everywhere in the warld, and everyday objects have meaning connected to gender and ‘kinship. This isthe enly paper outside of the gender sessionyvoluane that takes ger central part of lis analysts, ‘The sexsion convened by Habu et al. was held in Aomori, the lacation of the Jarmoa site Sanat Muryama, before the main sessions im Osaka (Habu 2003), The rare mention of gen- der is found in Hudson's paper discussing fetishism of foragers, where he notes that women played aa important zele in the le’ all raget at Sannai Muryama’ event, but that he does nat have the space to go inie the rather impostant aspects of gender, which be recognizes.as needing a sophisticated” analysis He does write a bit about women and matriarchical versus ppatriarchical societies, and that the importance of waren in these eventsis nat ‘un e feminism bust a way to link to » past that is imagined as being matriarchal. However, this article is not about hunter-gatherers but about how modern Japanese feel about them {Hudson 200) CHAGS IX CHAGS 1X was the last CHAGS (so far}, held in Edinburgh in 2002, One session, “Hunting and gathering asa theme in the history of anthropology’ resulted in the volume Munter.gatherers in history, arckacology and anthropalogy (Barnard soa4b). The articles in this book mostly look at the study of hunter-gatherers, some authors look at the bis- tories of the study of hunter-gatherers in general (e.g. Barnard 20048; Pluciennik 2004; Yengoyan 2004} others describe the histories of research by scholars of different nationali- lies (e.g. Artemova 200g; Ichikawa 204; Ingold soo4: Schweitzer 2004); and reinterpreting hunter-gatherer archacology, anthropology, and history of the hunter-gatherer studies [eg ‘Lane and Sechadla. Hall 2064: Myers 2003). There is, however, almost na discussion af gen der, although the gender of practitioners and the use of theories of gender have both been important to the evolution af hunter-gatherer studies. The other volume published from this conference was Hewlett and Lambs (soesh) Hunter-gatherer childhoods: evolutionary, devoloporental and cultural perspectives, Most, but nat all of the participants were young scholars themselves. Given the main title, ome might expect that gender would be an integral part of many, if not all, of the papers, In fact, the subtitle is more telling. All of the papers use ethnagraphic data; evelutionary approaches‘MAN THE HUNTER, WOMAN THE aT 67 are the most common and focus oa bow adults and children ‘try to enhance their repra: ductive fitness (Le. adaptation} in particular social, ecological, and demographic settings’ (Hewlett and Lamb 20050, 11), All of the papers use developmental approaches as well, which the editors describe as analysis that is age-specific, and cultural approaches empha- size children’ points of view, Thists the volume that brings together more biological anthro- polagists than all of the peevious CHIAGS publications, and it happens to be the one that is st concerned with issues of gender The editors cghtly observe that childhood has bce an ignored aspect of hunter-gatherer studies {Hewlett and Lamb 2005a), much as gender was. Every author talks specifically about mathers, fathers, children, sex, ete., but in a way that implies that various practices exist primarily because they are adaptive, Those who take ‘culturalist” approaches are the exception. Hird-David suggests several reasons why the his- tory of hunter-gatherer studies would make scholars uneasy studying chikdsen, She alse notes that childdood isnot a clearly defined state, but juxtaposes ‘hil’ andl ‘adult? Children are considered as a single category, but when they become adults they arc men and women, {Bird-David 2005). Bonnie Hewlett looks at expressions of grief among older children, and finds that among ather factors, there are gendered aspects ta that expression, Ngandu men are not supposed to ery—only women and children may—although men insisted that their grief Was equal to women's. For a ntale child to remain stoical is to appear more like 4 nan, ‘Thisismot at all the case for the Aka, though probonged crying is discouraged as it may cause sickness. Hewlett alsa investigated how many deaths the children remembered, and found that they remembered more male deaths than female deaths, and male deaths caused more grief {B. L Hewlett 2005), Kamei loaks at Baka childrens play, noting that the gendered divi- sion of Labour observed amoag adults is reflected in some of the games that children play, although there are lot of activities in which bath bays and girls participste equally (Kamel 2005). Given that childhood is a time af socialization and mot just physical ancl mental development, it must be a time during which children learn to be adults of'a certain gender, [find i¢ puzzling that so many of the bssues ssrrounding chiléltood, such as learning and socialization, sex, marriage, family life, ete. are gendered experiences, yet there is very little attention to this aspect of gender in this volume with the exception of Kamei woek, CONCLUSIONS Lookinygat the publications from CHAGS, there canbe ne doubt that gender studies has had an impact on hunter-gatherer studies, but that impact has been uneven, In socio-cultural anthrapol itique began at about the same time as the publication of Mun ‘the Faunéer, and the reaction was swifi and cutting. Since the publication of far the duanter, there has been an increase in scholarly altentian to gender in hunter-gatherer studies, par- ticularly in ethnographic work, and this increase happened early and quickly. Other sub- fiekls of anthropology were much slower to address gender, andl there still appears tebe a lot ‘of ground to be made up. It may be the ease that archacologisis and biological anthrapola- glsts who study gender among hunter-gatherers are not the same scholars who participate in CHIAGS, but there is no evidence for this, nar any clear reason why this would be se. Since the last CHAGS was held in 2002, 10 doubt we would see an increase across sub-fields of attention to gender were another conference held today. Beyond the CHAGS publications, the feminist168 KATE STERLING archacologists have published a number of works addressing gender and huntersgatherer groups, some of which are book-length, such as Owens (2005) Distorting dhe past, which combines ethnographic and archaeological evidence of the late Upper Palacoli Germany, and Adovasia, Soller, and Pages (2007) The invisible sex, which addresses women in both Old World and North American carly prehistory. As the dates of these publications indicate, hunter-gatherer archaeology has lagged in terms of addressing gender, but these and other publications indicate that rapid progress it being made, progress that will prob ably continue. Li hunter-gatherer studies continue ts change in similar ways to the rest of anthropol- ogy. in the future we should expect to see increasing attention to menk (&.g Mansur and Piqué 2007) and childrens genders, third (or fourth, fifth, etc.] genders, sexuality, the use of queer thearies (e.g. Cobb spas), and anlerseetionalities between gender studies and otherareas of social theory, Theories of agency and attention to the body (eg, Sneider 2012) as a unit of analysis alsa have great potential ta contribute to the study of gender among, Imunter- gatherers. Ethnoarchaeological studies, such as Jarvenpa and Bzumbachls (2008) Circumpolar Hives and livelihood, are another example ofa direction in which future archae- ological contributions may go. Gender may continue ta be treated in separate sections of publications, or even in separate books, but hunter-gatherer studies, ike the rest of anthra- pology: have reached a point where it is increasingly difficult to ignore gender. Since we still have difficulty separating hunter-gatherer cultures from an idea of ‘natural’ humans, the study of gender and related topics in hunter-gatherer groups will have an impact that reaches well beyond these groups. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1 would bike ta thank the editors for inviting me to contribute to this volume, and Meg Conkoy and an anonymous reviewer for suggestions. Any mistakes rentain mine. REFERENCES Adovasi, JM. Soffer,0,,and Page|. 209. The invisible sex: ancowering the true rales of women in prehistory. Washington, DC: Smithsonian [nstitutiae, Anslerson, D.G.and Ikeya, K. 2001. Porks, property ond power: managing hunting practice anid dileatty within state policy regimes: papers presented a! the Lighth International Conference on ‘Hunting aval Gathering Societies (CHAGS 8), National Muscurm of Ethology, Osaka, Octuber 1998. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology. Andrews, E, E 1gg4, Territoriality and land use among the Akwhrsiat of Western Allaskes. Im “ES, Burch apa {J Ellanmna (els, Key ines fa hionter-gatherer research, 6-3. Oxord: Berg. Artertowa, O: ¥, 2004, Eunter-gatherer studies in Russia and the Saviet Union. In A. Barnaze {ed.), Hunter gatherers in history, archaeology and anthrapolagy, 77-88. Oxford: Berg. Barnard, 8. s0044. Funter-gatheress in history, archaeology and anthrepology: intreductory essay: In \- Barnant (ed), Hunier-gatherers in history, archarolagy ard antirapalagy, (13. ‘Orford: Berg,