Gender - Baja and California

Anthropological opinion has differed as to whether the hunter-gatherer stage of economic development should be envisioned as a lost Eden of sexual equality or as an early heyday of male chauvinism (Dahlberg 1981). In any case, sex and age seem generally to have been the two most significant criteria for role differentiation within hunter-gatherer societies.

The local ethnographic record suggests that the division of labor by sex was less pronounced in Late Prehistoric San Diego than in many regions, but that it was not negligible. Kelly R. McGuire and William R. Hildebrandt (1994) have argued that the California ethnographic record may be misleading when applied to earlier periods, and that labor during the Archaic Period may have been less differentiated as to gender than it was during later periods.

Following ethnographic cues, it may be hypothesized that some categories of archaeological sites were used exclusively by one sex or the other. Gender-specific site types might include hunting camps, blinds, observation posts, agave roasting areas, and boys’ puberty rites sites for males, and milling sites for females. If gender-specific sites are identified, it may be possible to analyze the associated artifact assemblages with two complementary objectives in view: to confirm the site type’s gender assignment, and to use the characteristics of the assemblage to distinguish gender signatures for analyzing assemblages at mixed-gender sites.

Various features and artifacts have been proposed as associated primarily or exclusively with a particular gender. Manos, metates, mortars, pestles, bone awls, shell necklaces, ceramic cooking pots, cooking hearths, pottery kilns, and warming pits for girls’ puberty rites and postpartem mothers may relate to women’s activities. Projectile points, arrowshaft straighteners, skin dressing tools, ceramic pipes, rattles, animal-claw and deer-hoof ornaments, shaman’s gear (in some areas), sweathouses, and residues from the manufacture of rabbitskit blankets may pertain to men.

Other significant differences may exist in the qualities or quantities of artifacts in classes that were common to both groups. There may have been differences in access to exotic goods and materials obtained through exchange or through extended procurement trips. Within the daily catchment of a habitation site, there may have been differences in the proportions of nearby and distant materials that were obtained by the two sexes. Differences may exist in the quality of workmanship on some tool types used by both men and women. The size of some tools (such as, perhaps, hammerstones and scraping tools) may have varied with the size and strength of their users. Because residence was primarily patrilineal, at least ethnographically, residues associated with women’s activities may show greater intrasite variability than residues associated with men’s activities.

Attempts have been made to distinguish activity areas within local habitation sites (e.g., Hector 1984, 1988). Seeking correlations between the distributions of gender-specific artifacts and features may be an effective way to identify activity areas, and also to isolate additional gender signatures.
Burials offer several possible approaches to reconstructing prehistoric gender differences:
The location and manner of disposal of human remains may have varied, either directly according to sex or indirectly through differences in status defined by other criteria.
Associated grave goods may help define the sex of the deceased. If the latter can be determined independently, grave goods may indicate sexual signatures in artifact assemblages. Specialized grave goods, such as shamanic gear, may indicate the roles played by individuals of known gender.
Osteological studies may indicate a number of sorts of gender differences, including nutrition, disease, trauma, and lifespan. Spencer L. Rogers (1963) discussed Archaic (La Jolla) human skulls from coastal sites in southern San Diego County and northwestern Baja California. Of 19 individuals (all but three of whom were adults), 11 were male, seven were female, and one was indeterminate. A chi-square test indicates that the difference in frequency by sex may merely reflect sampling error. If a larger sample were to find a significant male bias in the frequency of recovered remains, cultural explanations for the phenomenon could be proposed and explored. Rogers (1963, 1977) also discussed various estimates of average stature, by sex, for the La Jolla remains. In his earlier publication, he estimated the male/female stature ratio as 1.094, which was “markedly greater…than is true of…other groups analyzed” (Rogers 1963:28). However, a later study put the ratio at approximately 1.07, which was about average for aboriginal populations of the southwestern United States and northern Mexico (Rogers 1977). A strong sexual difference in stature might be a genetic characteristic of the population, or it might reflect differences in nutrition by gender.

PROSPECTS

Future archaeological investigations may be able to determine whether role differences were strongly or weakly defined by gender during various periods of prehistory, and whether specific classes of artifacts, features, and sites can be associated with one gender or the other. Physical anthropological studies of archaeological populations may be able to determine whether significant differences by gender existed in lifespan, stature, nutrition, disease, and trauma. Genetic studies may indicate patterns in postmarital residence. Burial locations and associations may indicate gender differences in role and status.