# Perceiving the Women of the Linearbandkeramik Culture (LBK).

Anne Augereau

► To cite this version:

Anne Augereau. Perceiving the Women of the Linearbandkeramik Culture (LBK). Hiatus, lacunes et absences: identifier et interpréter les vides archéologiques, Actes du 29e Congrès préhistorique de France, 31 mai-4 juin 2021, Toulouse, Session Où sont les femmes? Archéologie du genre dans la Préhistoire et la Protohistoire: la France à l'écart des gender studies?, Société préhistorique française, pp.9-28, 2024. hal-04645460

HAL Id: hal-04645460

https://hal.science/hal-04645460v1

Submitted on 11 Jul 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
Hiatus, lacunes et absences: identifier et interpréter les vides archéologiques
Hiatus, lacuna and absences: identifying and interpreting archaeological gaps
Actes du 29e Congrès préhistorique de France
31 mai-4 juin 2021, Toulouse

Où sont les femmes ? Archéologie du genre dans la Préhistoire et la Protohistoire :
la France à l'écart des gender studies ?

Session publiée sous la direction de Anne Augereau, Caroline Trémeaud
Paris, Société préhistorique française, 2023

p. 9-28

Perceiving the Women
of the Linearbandkeramik Culture (LBK).
Contributions and Limits of a Gender Approach
in Neolithic Archaeology

*Percevoir les femmes de la culture rubanée*
*Apports et limites d'une approche de genre*
*en archéologie néolithique*

Anne AUGEREAU

**Abstract:** The invisibility of women in history and archaeology is frequently emphasised. Studying gender is one of the ways to go beyond this observation as social sciences regularly state that gender systems shape the entire social body. Indeed, roles and gender relations between men and women and social groups are regulated by norms transmitted by educative systems and religious doctrines. These norms and rules permit the functioning of the political systems and are transcribed in institutions and deployed in social organisation. Thus, the study of gender leads to the study of society as a whole. Moreover, the existence of gender is mainly material. The differences between women and men are substantiated by clothing and jewellery, division of labour, places and spaces, bodily postures, technical tools and process, etc. Based on this framework, a methodology is proposed to investigate gender in archaeology and, in particular, Neolithic women from the Linearbandkeramik culture. It consists in defining the aspects of gender perceptible in the archaeological data, then to confront them with the manifestations of gender reported by the social sciences and thus to evaluate the gaps between the “living” gender and the gender as it appears in the archaeological data. The results allow us to highlight several women groups, by comparing with other social groups, notably the group of men with adze. The latter is the most cohesive with its own traits in terms of diet, local origin and roles. Women are more diverse and further study is needed to identify the diversity of the LBK women. In addition, this study shows that archaeology gives only a very incomplete picture of gender. In terms of the division of labour by sex, only a few tasks have been highlighted. Many other aspects, such as sexual rights and lineage systems, the gender of spaces, religion, cult, myths, narratives and cosmogony, which are central elements of gender regimes, will likely remain unknown. However, there is room for improvement as archaeological gender studies are not just a binary study of men and women. In this respect, there is a need to explore the social variability in terms of identity, roles and status of the LBK population as a whole, particularly of groups of women.

**Keywords:** gender studies, Linearbandkeramik culture, Central Europe, Paris Basin, woman, social identity, division of labour, diet, health, mobility.

**Résumé :** L'invisibilité des femmes du passé, qu'il soit historique ou archéologique, a été maintes fois soulignée. La mise en œuvre d'une étude du genre est un des moyens de dépasser ce constat. En effet, dans les sciences humaines, les régimes de genre sont parfois considérés comme étant au fondement du corps social. Les rôles et les rapports entre les hommes et les femmes et, plus largement, entre les différents groupes sociaux sont réglés par des normes transmises par les systèmes éducatifs et les doctrines religieuses ; ces normes et ces règles sont transposées dans le système politique, transcrites dans les institutions et déployées dans l'organisation sociale. Étudier le genre, c'est étudier la société dans sa globalité. De plus, le genre a une existence matérielle : il s'exprime dans les vêtements, dans les activités techniques et économiques, dans l'espace, dans les objets et les outils. Il laisse également son empreinte dans les corps. Aussi, si on admet que la démarche archéologique repose sur l'étude de la culture matérielle, c'est-à-dire l'ensemble des objets, techniques et
moyens matériels mis en œuvre et utilisés par un groupe humain, notre discipline est fondée à explorer ce champ. Néanmoins, aborder le genre et la place des femmes durant la Préhistoire reste complexe. Pour ce faire, une méthodologie est ici proposée afin de mettre en évidence les apports et les limites de l'archéologie à la connaissance du genre et des femmes. Elle consiste à définir les aspects du genre perceptibles dans les données archéologiques, puis à les confronter avec les manifestations du genre rapportées dans les sciences sociales. Son objectif est d'évaluer les écarts entre le genre « vivant » et le genre tel qu'il apparaît dans les données archéologiques, notamment pour en apprécier les apports et les limites. Cinq aspects matériels du genre – l'identité de genre ; les rôles de genre ; les différences de genre dans l'alimentation, la santé et la mobilité ; l'acquisition du genre ; le pouvoir – sont abordés à l'aide d'une grille de lecture qui combine différentes données : distribution des biens funéraires selon le sexe et selon l'âge ; iconographies ; éléments du costume pour approcher les identités sociales ; résultats des isotopes stables (strontium, azote et carbone) et autres analyses chimiques pour appréhender la mobilité et l'alimentation ; ostéologie, études des marqueurs osseux d'activité et tracéologie pour restituer les tâches et la santé des individus ; étude des immatures pour apprécier la construction du genre ; valeur des mobiliers dans les tombes pour repérer les élites sociales ; etc.

Appliquée au Rubané occidental, cette grille de lecture permet de mettre en évidence quelques tendances. Tout d'abord, certains hommes, ceux détenant des herminettes dans leur tombe, ressortent facilement des données. Ils se caractérisent en effet par plusieurs aspects qui leur sont propres. D'abord, ils sont tous d'origine locale et, dans certains cas, ils ont une alimentation plus riche en protéines animales que le reste de la population. Ils semblent avoir aussi des rôles et des activités spécifiques. En effet, de récentes études de tracéologie lithique montrent que les herminettes sont impliquées dans le travail du bois et dans des activités de boucherie. La violence interpersonnelle est aussi dans leurs attributions ainsi que, probablement, la chasse au grand gibier.

Les femmes se distinguent surtout par effet de contraste avec ces hommes. Cependant, la population féminine n'est pas homogène. La parure, les éléments des vêtements, les broderies, qui sont les principaux biens funéraires affectés aux femmes, font ressortir plusieurs catégories selon leur présence et leur abondance. De plus, les femmes ont des régimes alimentaires variés et peuvent être d'origine locale ou non locale. Quant à leurs activités, la tracéologie et l'étude des marqueurs d'activités indiquent qu'elles sont impliquées dans le travail des matières souples, comme la peau ou les tissus, dans le filage et peut-être dans la mouture à l'aide de meules dormantes. Cependant, on ignore si des activités spécifiques caractérisent les différents groupes de femmes, celles sans parures, celles avec parures, celles d'origine locale ou extra-locale. Par ailleurs, des individus « déviants » semblent remettre en cause l'équation herminette/ homme. En effet, une dizaine de femmes, dont la diagnose sexuelle n'est cependant pas totalement assurée, sont accompagnées d'her- minettes. Si elle se confirme, cette donnée montrerait que le genre n'était pas un état stable, acquis une fois pour toutes.

En matière de bilan des connaissances sur le genre et les femmes au Rubané, force est de constater que l'archéologie ne donne qu'une image très parcellaire. En ce qui concerne la division du travail par sexe, seulement quelques tâches ont été identifiées. De nombreuses activités productives – telles que la cueillette, le gardiennage des troupeaux, l'élevage – ne peuvent être attribuées à un groupe. Bien d'autres aspects du genre, en particulier ceux qui ne laissent pas de traces matérielles, sont insaisissables. Si la mobilité des femmes permet d'envisager, au moins partiellement, un schéma matrimonial patrilocal, les droits sexuels et les systèmes lignagers resteront probablement inconnus. Ces aspects sont cependant fondamentaux dans les relations entre les sexes, car ils constituent, selon les anthropologues, l'un des moyens par lesquels les hommes dominent les femmes. Le genre des espaces est également une question irrésolue, ainsi que la religion et le culte, qui sont pourtant des éléments centraux des régimes de genre. De plus, notre compréhension du genre est d'autant plus partielle que nous n'avons pas accès aux mythes, aux récits et à la cosmogonie qui sont le ciment de toutes les sociétés humaines. Cependant, une marge de progression existe, car les études archéologiques sur le genre ne se résument pas à une étude binaire des hommes et des femmes. Il est nécessaire d'explorer la variabilité sociale de la population rubanée dans son ensemble. En particulier, l'étude des femmes rubanées en matière d'identité, de rôles et de statut doit être approfondie.

**Mots-clés** : étude de genre, Rubané, Europe centrale, Bassin parisien, femme, identité sociale, division du travail, alimentation, santé, mobilité.

## INTRODUCTION

The invisibility of women is a commonplace in almost all the human sciences: history, sociology, ethnology, anthropology and of course archaeology.

Gender archaeology is rooted in the feminist critique of archaeology, the starting point of which was the Sta- vanger Round Table “Were they all men?”, where the relevance of male-dominated archaeology was ques- tioned and the need to bring women and children out of the darkness of the past was affirmed (Bertelsen et al., 1987). Gender archaeology first developed in Anglo- Saxon and Northern European countries with authors such as Margaret Conkey, Jane Spector, Joan Gero and

Marie-Louise Stig Sørensen. In this regard, M. Conkey and J. Spector published an article in 1984 arguing that the archaeological record and interpretation were rooted in androcentric biases – such as the essentialist and binary conception of being male or female – that governed mod- ern social organisation and thought (Conkey and Spec- tor, 1984). They called for the correction of male bias in archaeological studies, the promotion of women archae- ologists, the reconstruction of women's prehistory, and the development of methodologies and theories of gender archaeology.

However, emphasizing the activities, roles or status of prehistoric women is not an easy task. One way is to state that certain tasks are female, as they have been observed in recent societies. This is the case for cooking,
grinding, caretaking, pottery making or gathering, which are traditionally carried out by women (Colomer et al., 1998; Gonzáles-Marcén et al., 2008). However, the ethnographic literature has shown that the division of labour does not always follow this pattern and this issue needs to be examined case by case. For example, following Alain Testart (2014), flint knapping is often considered to be a male activity. In contrast, Caroline Bird detected a great variability in the manufacture and use of stone tools in Australia: men certainly play an essential role, but women participate by transporting raw materials or using men's tools in certain circumstances (Bird, 1993). This example, and many others, shows that gender analysis should not be preconceived. As C. Bird states, "the distribution of economic and social roles by gender should not be assumed, but rather seen as a problem worthy of exploration in its own right" (Bird, 1993, p. 22).

In this paper, we aim to propose a methodology to evidence gender in archaeology data, and in particular Linearbandkeramik (LBK) women. The results will be compared to the multiple dimensions of gender observed in living societies. The aim is to assess the distance between living gender and material gender as it appears in archaeological data, and the capacity of this approach to highlight women. In sum, we seek to appreciate the contributions and limitations of gender as it is perceived in archaeology.

# 1. FROM GENDER TO GENDER ARCHAEOLOGY: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Academically, gender studies are mainly the study of the relations of power between women and men (Bereni et al., 2020). According to various authors, gender constitutes the foundation of the social body as it produces standardised behaviours by education systems and religious doctrines (Oakley, 1972; Tabet, 1979; Scott, 1988; Auslander et al., 2014; Monjaret, 2014). These behaviours structure the social life of individuals and are both the expression of a social identity and a means of reproducing and maintaining social rules and institutions (Scott, 1988; Héritier, 1996). They govern the division of labour and activities assigned to men, women and children (Oakley, 1972; Tabet, 1979; Testart, 1986). In this respect, the body and bodily attitudes can be impacted by gender norms and activities (Mauss, 1926; Bourdieu, 1972 and 1998) and can have consequences for health and physiology. Finally, gender behaviours are based on relations of domination, particularly by men over women, and can be exercised through physical, social or ideal violence (Mathieu, 1985; Darmangeat, 2012). However, domination is not limited to men and women relations but can be combined with social class, historical context, race, age, sexual orientation, disability, etc. (Crenshaw, 1989; Butler, 1990) and can result in discrimination (Scott, 1988; Mathieu, 1985; Héritier, 1996; Bourdieu,

1998). These include dietary discrimination, sexual and marital rights, differential access to activities and means of production, political power, etc. These behaviours are transcended by systems of representations and values as well as by ideologies, symbols and doctrines and are often established during rites (Bourdieu, 1982; Godelier, 1985; Testart, 1986; Scott, 1988). Finally, these norms, rules and behaviours enable the functioning of the political systems and are transcribed into institutions and deployed in social organization (Scott, 1988). Furthermore, as Judith Butler (1990) states, gender is performative, i.e. in order to be operative, it has to be materialised in clothing, in bodily postures, in social roles and activities, in spaces, in objects and tools, etc. which are, in almost all human societies, assigned in different ways to women, men, children, the elderly.

## 1.1 Gender archaeology

On this basis, many attempts to theorize gender archaeology have relied on various concepts (for an overview see Bolger, 2013). These include heterarchy and complementarity (Brumfiel, 1995), agency (Dobres, 1995), the Deleuzian "difference-within-itself" (Bickle, 2019), or intersectionality theory, which considers the multiplicity of social relations and leads to a perception of gender diversity.

In concrete terms, funerary data are frequently the starting point of gender archaeology. The treatment of the individual, the position of skeletons, the grave's location, the layout of the tomb, the position of the body, the spatial distribution of the grave goods, all together can be the result of gendered practices (Spector and Whelan, 1989; Sørensen, 2000; Arnold and Wicker, 2001; Arnold, 2006). However, the burial process is not the only gateway to gender. Sørensen defined gender archaeology as the archaeology of differences (Sørensen, 2000 and 2013), in particular material differences: products, productions, costumes, treatments reserved for the living and the dead (food, health, funerary treatments, etc.), all of which can be discerned, for the most part, through various studies of buried individuals. According to her, the diversity in materiality, which is "a medium for gender to operate", is an opportunity for archaeologists to explore gender differences (Sørensen, 2000, p. 96). These material differences are perceptible through study of the buried individuals and further studies.

## 1.2 Five material aspects of gender

Five material aspects of gender will be examined in order to highlight the contributions and limitations of archaeology to the knowledge of gender and women in past societies. Gender identity, gender roles, gender differences in food, health, mobility and origin, the acquisition of gender, and power and gender will be addressed using a reading grid (table 1). We have detailed this method in a previous work (Augereau, 2021a and 2022), which is summarised here.
<table><caption>Table 1 – Materiality of gender and archaeological correspondences.</caption><thead><tr><th>Gender aspects</th><th>Material expression</th><th>Archaeologically perceptible in:</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Gender identities</td><td>Clothes, ornaments, jewellery, etc.<br>Body norms<br>Gender attributes</td><td><ul><li>grave goods distribution by age and sex;</li><li>iconography: figurines, mural paintings, etc.;</li><li>nature of grave goods by sex and age.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Gender roles</td><td>Division of labour</td><td><ul><li>levels of know-how by raw material;</li><li>tools and utensils distribution by sex, functional analysis;</li><li>bone activity markers, pathologies, injuries and trauma;</li><li>spatial distribution of activities.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Gender acquisition and construction</td><td>Apprenticeship, childhood</td><td><ul><li>tools and utensils distribution by age and sex;</li><li>levels of expertise and know-how for a single production.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Gender differences and inequalities</td><td>In spaces use and organisation</td><td><ul><li>spatial analysis.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>In diet, commensality, health and mobility</td><td><ul><li>bone stress indicators, dental calculus, stable isotope analysis, sulfur, palaeogenetic data.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>In funerary treatments</td><td><ul><li>funerary treatments by sex and age: burial access;</li><li>preparation of the corpse;</li><li>location and architecture of the burials, body position, good deposits, etc.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Gender and power</td><td>Social elites, symbols and insignias of power</td><td><ul><li>value of the grave goods: scarcity, raw material origin, complexity of the fabrication, etc.;</li><li>burial location and architecture, etc.</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>

<caption>Tabl. 1 – Matérialité du genre et correspondances archéologiques.</caption>

Gender identity is of two types: the subjective identity and the social identity. The first is inaccessible to archaeology and refers to the way in which one perceives oneself. However, archaeology can partially address social identity, which consists of displaying specific attributes in order to be recognised as a gendered individual or as a member of a community. It can be shown in the clothing, fabrics, fastenings and ornaments. Archaeologically, iconography and figurative representations of the human body (figurines, mural painting), can provide information on body canons, jewellery, hairstyles, clothing (Mina, 2008; López-Montalvo, 2018). Pieces of costume and ornaments are also present in graves. It is postulated here that grave goods echo the lives of the buried individuals. Lewis Binford, among other authors, has provided some evidence for this by pointing out that in many traditional sedentary agricultural societies, age, gender, social position and affiliation are marked in mortuary practices, funerary objects, preparation of the corpse, architecture and location of the grave, etc. (Binford, 1971; see also Testart, 2004).

Gender roles and the sexual division of labour are frequently addressed in relation to subsistence activities (fishing, hunting, gathering, animal husbandry, caretaking, etc.) and the production of tools, utensils and objects (ceramics, stone knapping, bone industry, wooden objects, esparto work, etc.). Bone activity markers and bioarchaeological approaches (Agarwal and Glencroos, 2011; Agarwal, 2012; Baker and Agarwal, 2017) provide first information about the task sharing at a general level, but variations in activities over the life course are rarely addressed. The diversity in typology, technique and know-how in craft productions may also indicate produc-

ers differing in age and sex. In this respect, J. Spector, Mary Whelan (1989) and J. Gero (1991) detailed the characteristics to be taken into account in order to perceive gender in craft productions. In the case of lithic industry, these characteristics are the variability of the raw materials, the differential know-how, the degree of retouching of the tools, the contexts of preparation and use (dwelling, workshop, specialised area, funerary sites, etc.). Prehistorians have already identified in lithic assemblages different productions that could be made by different producers: adults, children (Pigeot, 1987). Finally, the distribution of tools by sex and in the use-wear analysis of these objects can give some details on the division of labour (Masclans et al., 2019 and 2021). Here again, it is assumed that funerary objects are manifestations of people's lives. However, in the very well-preserved necropolis at Windover Pond in Florida, the distribution of tools and weapons shows that, while men are involved in hunting large game and women in plant preparations, some tasks, such as fishing or textile manufacture, seem to have been shared by both sexes (Hamlin, 2001). In addition to confirming the relevance of funerary objects as gender markers, this study shows that the sexual division of labour appears to be a nuanced process and argues for the exploration of gender roles with no preconceived schemes.

Like the division of labour, the acquisition of gender can be approached from the perspective of the levels of know-how, in particular in craft productions. As mentioned above, several technical levels for the same production are clues to identify apprenticeship (Pigeot, 1987; Sánchez Romero, 2008; Augereau, 2012; Klaric et al., 2018). The study of grave goods according to age
(and sex when available) is another source of information (Sørensen, 1997 and 2000). Human figurative representations can also shed light on the construction of gender. For example, in the Aegean Neolithic, jewellery and clothing are discernible on female figurines, and on others of “neutral” gender or with less pronounced female forms (Mina, 2008). According to Maria Mina, the degrees of marking of female physical attributes could correspond to different stages of the acquisition of the female gender (Mina, 2007 and 2008).

Gender can manifest itself through differences, inequalities and discriminations that are perceptible in the use of space, food, health, origins and mobility, funerary treatments, etc. Regarding space, Pierre Bourdieu, in his studies of Kabyle ethnology (1972), has clearly shown that space, whether internal or external, has a gendered meaning. For example, the wall of the house where the door is located, which is the least lit, is said to be the “girl’s wall”, or the “wall of darkness” or the “wall of the tomb”. The opposite wall, in full light, is where guests are seated and where the properties of the master of the house are displayed. According to Roberta Gilchrist, the layout, arrangement and components of spaces are metaphors for the social order and “space serves as a stage for gendered performance…” (Gilchrist, 1999, p. 100). In addition, space can also be an instrument of differentiation, discrimination and segregation, such as in the case of the Greek Orthodox Church with women-only spaces, away from the worship leader and the sacred instruments of the liturgy. Archaeologically, spatial analysis identifies the location of natural resources, exchange networks, activity zones, dwellings, specialised spaces, architecture evolution that can reveal important sociological and economic developments (Hastorf, 1991; Tringham, 1991; Coudart, 1998; Robb, 2007; Coudart, 2009). However, while spatial diversity constitutes an essential material trace of social order, the individuals who occupied these places remains unknown and their social relationships are inaccessible.

Food has an undisputable social and ideological dimension (Douglas, 1975; Sørensen, 2000). Indeed, from production to consumption, including the sharing and distribution of foodstuffs, food patterns are potentially difference-making (Sørensen, 2000). Firstly, differential diets and access to certain preparations can characterise individuals and groups. Human bone material can provide information through dental pathologies (caries), markers of dietary stress (Cribra orbitalia, enamel hypoplasia, Harris lines, etc.), and DNA analysis of dental calculus (Weyrich et al., 2017). Moreover, stable isotopes analysis evidence the diet of different populations (see for example Rey et al., 2021; Cheung et al., 2021). Furthermore, commensality is often governed by gender constraints, which leads to discrimination and segregation in food consumption. However, even if pottery shapes, decorations, manufacturing methods are linked to eating habits and economic and dietary evolution (Sørensen, 2000), the commensality rules remain archaeologically difficult to perceive.

Health conditions, which are partly related to diet, are one of the most significant markers of gender disparities. In archaeology, osteology and bioarchaeology are the main ways to document, partially, this question (see for example Bickle and Whittle, 2013). The mobility of male and female populations, insofar as it is related to the marriage pattern, and mobility and origin of individuals and groups, must also be examined from a gender perspective. DNA analysis, sulphur analysis and strontium measurement, the latter only indicating a degree of correspondence between the individual analysed and local level measurements, can address this issue (see Price et al., 2001; Zvelebil and Pettitt, 2008; Bentley et al., 2008 and 2012; Bickle and Whittle, 2013; Rasteiro and Chikhi, 2013; Szécsényi-Nagy et al., 2015; Knipper et al., 2017; etc.).

Finally, gender as a manifestation of domination leads to the issue of power. Power is diverse, whether it is coercive, economic, financial, spiritual, religious, social, intellectual, moral, or prestigious. It can be inherited and, in order to maintain it, it must be asserted through speech, violence, ideology, law, myth, wealth, magic, etc. In addition, power must be demonstrated and displayed, including through insignia (Testart, 2004). Powerful individuals can be identified by the wealth of their grave goods, both in quality and quantity. The value of objects is expressed in raw material scarcity and origin, the complexity of their acquisition, and their novelty. This quality is transposed to the individuals who own them or display them. By using an index of wealth, this approach has shown fluctuation in the levels of wealth, possibly in favour of women of the Bronze Age in the Northern-Alpine area (Trémeaud, 2018). Finally, power can be seen in the occupation and organisation of spaces, whether funerary (more or less complex layout of funerary structures, spaces reserved for the elites, etc.), domestic or village (buildings reserved for the elites, shrines, etc.), with the limitations outlined above.

## 2. APPROACHING LBK WOMEN

Given this framework, what can we learn about women through the archaeology of gender? The example below is the result of a previous work (Augereau, 2021a and 2022) summarised as follows with a focus on women (table 2). Of course, the conclusions presented here are valid only for the LBK culture and other Neolithic cultures may have had different gender systems.

The analysis is based on about 3,000 LBK individuals from cemeteries, isolated burials or small groups of graves (fig. 1; table 3). While left-sided crouched inhumations dominate, right-sided crouched positions, cremations, double antipodal graves, prone and supine positions are present; partial burials, disarticulated bodies, cenotaphs, and corpse manipulations are sometimes documented. Some individuals are buried with relatively diverse grave goods: pottery vessels, dyes, faunal remains,
<table><caption>**Table 2** – Main findings on gender in the Western Linearbandkeramik culture. Data on bone activity markers and health after Villotte and Knüsel (2014); Macintosh et al. (2016 and 2017). Stable isotope data after Zvelebil and Pettitt (2008); Richard et al. (2008); Bickle and Whittle (2013); Münster et al. (2017). Use-wear analysis of lithic artefacts after Masclans et al. (2021).</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Origin /mobility</th><th>Productive tasks</th><th>Diet</th><th>Health</th><th>Social roles</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Women with numerous ornaments</td><td>Local/ non-local</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>?</td></tr><tr><td>Women with few ornaments</td><td>Local/ non-local</td><td>Fibre working? Hide working Grinding?</td><td>Higher intake of plants and starchy foods, lower rates of animal protein</td><td>Higher rates of caries and of nutritional stress indicators?</td><td>?</td></tr><tr><td>Women with no ornaments</td><td>Local/ non-local</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>?</td></tr><tr><td>Women with adzes</td><td>Local/ non-local</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>?</td></tr><tr><td>Men with male equipment including adzes</td><td>local</td><td>Woodworking, butchery, warfare, hunting</td><td>Higher intake of animal protein</td><td>Lower rates of caries and of nutritional stress indicators?</td><td>Patriarch?</td></tr><tr><td>Men with arrows and no adze</td><td>Local/ non-local</td><td>?</td><td>?</td><td></td><td>?</td></tr><tr><td>Men with no male equipment</td><td>Local/ non-local</td><td>?</td><td>?</td><td></td><td>?</td></tr><tr><td>Children with male equipment including adzes</td><td>local</td><td>?</td><td>Higher intake of animal protein?</td><td>?</td><td>?</td></tr><tr><td>Children with ornaments</td><td>local?</td><td>?</td><td>Higher intake of plants and starchy foods, lower rates of animal protein</td><td>?</td><td>?</td></tr><tr><td>Children with no grave goods</td><td>Local/ non-local</td><td>?</td><td></td><td>Higher frequency of caries?</td><td>?</td></tr></tbody></table>

<caption>**Tabl. 2** – Principaux résultats sur le genre dans la culture Linearbandkeramik occidentale. Données sur les marqueurs d'activité osseuse et la santé d'après Villotte et Knüsel (2014) ; Macintosh et al. (2016 et 2017). Données sur les isotopes stables d'après Zvelebil et Pettitt (2008) ; Richard et al. (2008) ; Bickle et Whittle (2013) ; Münster et al. (2017). Analyse tracéologique des artefacts lithiques d'après Masclans et al. (2021).</caption>

tools, weapons, clothing and jewelry. Within this general framework, many regional patterns influence the composition of funerary objects (for more details, see Augereau, 2022). The sites are located from the Carpathian Basin to the Paris Basin. However, the methods used for determining sex vary and the entire sample is not sufficiently representative for a relevant gender study that requires reliable sex and age determination. Therefore, the study is based on a reliable dataset of 378 LBK individuals (109 men, 106 women and 163 children) for whom sex and age were determined using the most reliable method (measurements of coxal bones compared to a current population; Bruzek, 2002; Murail et al., 2005). They are located in the Paris Basin, in Alsace and in Germany and notably from the site of Schwetzingen, which accounts for approximately 39% of the data (Gerling, 2012). However, data from other archaeological sites seem to be consistent when looking at the correlation between sex and funerary goods: indeed, this group of hypothetical men and women follows the same pattern as the reliable dataset. In addition, the reliable dataset as well as the entire sample are representative of a well-balanced population, with an equal number of men and women and the proportion of immatures consistent with an archaic population (Crubézy et al., 1997; Thévenet, 2010).

## 2.1 Identity

For many reasons explained elsewhere, pottery, dyes and fauna are excluded from the analysis of social identity (Augereau, 2021a, 2021b and 2022). Indeed, the status of these objects is not clear from a functional point of view and from an identity perspective. Only goods deposited close to or worn on the body testify to the deceased's identity. These objects are on the one hand jewellery and ornaments, which were a part of the deceased clothing, and on the other hand tools and weapons.

Regarding women, ornaments, items of clothing and embroidery are the main funerary goods. The distribution of ornaments highlights several categories among the 106 female burials from the reliable dataset (table 2). A minority of women (around 4% of the reliable dataset) have three up to eight ornaments such as necklaces, bracelets, embroidered belts and belt buckles, plastrons, embroidered garments, etc. (determination: see Bonnardin, 2009). Other groups, larger than the previous one, comprise of women with one up to three ornaments. However, a large majority of female burials has no ornaments (73%). There are thus various categories of women depending on the presence or abundance of ornaments, although there are temporal and geographical variations.
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** – Main sites with human bone remains of the Western LBK culture in Europe. Circles: funerary sites (cemeteries, isolated burials, small groups of graves); stars: others sites with human remains (massacres sites and others); in black: selected sites used for the study (reliable determination of sex and age); site numbers with circle: availability of isotopic, osteological or functional (stone tools) data.
For the site names, see table 3 (map: M. Ilett and F. Giligny, UMR 8215 Trajectoires).</figcaption></figure>

**Fig. 1** – Principaux sites contenant des restes osseux humains de la culture LBK occidentale en Europe.
Cercles : sites funéraires (cimetières, sépultures isolées, petits groupes de tombes) ; étoiles : autres sites avec restes humains (sites de massacres et autres) ; en noir : sites sélectionnés utilisés pour l'étude (détermination fiable du sexe et de l'âge) ; numéros de sites avec cercle : disponibilité de données isotopiques, ostéologiques ou fonctionnelles (outils en pierre).
Pour les noms des sites, voir le tableau 3 (carte : M. Ilett et F. Giligny, UMR 8215 Trajectoires).

Indeed, women with very embellished dress are specific to Alsace and the Paris Basin, at the end of the LBK culture (fig. 2). In the other regions, women with ornaments are present but their adornments are less spectacular. At this point, it should also be noted that a large majority of these ornaments are also present in the male burials, but in a smaller proportion. Finally, female burials contain everyday tools (flint flake, bone awl or needle, grinding tools).

Weapons and tools are the main funerary goods of men (fig. 3). Like women, several categories of men can be distinguished according to the nature and abundance of these goods. A minority accumulate several types of tools and weapons (6% of the reliable dataset). A majority have none of these items (52%). However, unlike women, men have specific equipment that is totally absent from female contexts. It is made up of adzes and axes, regular blades, arrows, deer antler objects, percussion set lighters (the association of ferrous nodules and flint flakes bearing traces of percussion; Nieszery, 1995). These objects constitute the male equipment and are gender markers (Bickle, 2019; Müller-Scheeßel, 2019). Some of these goods, such as adzes from amphibolite outcrops situated in the Izera Mountains in the northern Czech Republic (Ramminger, 2009), are likely to be prestige or status goods.

This pattern is recognisable throughout the LBK territory, from Slovakia to Alsace. However, it is worth noting that a dozen burials that are identified as female contain adzes or arrows, in Nitra, Vedrovice, Aiterhofen and Schwetzingen. It is noticeable that the adzes with the female skeletons have a flat or oval section, a type very rarely present in the male graves. The reliability of sex determination can be questioned, but it is insufficient to explain the phenomenon. If the sex of these “deviant” individuals must be verified before any definitive conclusion can be drawn, the possibility of their existence must be taken into account and hypothesis proposed to explain it.

Concerning women, there is no specifically female ornament, as men have almost the same. Furthermore, some of the tools such as grinding stones, bone needles and flint flakes are represented in the graves of both sexes. At this point, two conclusions can be made. The male objects, and in particular the adze, seem to function as markers of the male gender, while there are no specifically female grave goods. Apart from the abundance of ornaments, the female gender is thus not clearly marked in graves. On the other hand, while some men have a very marked funerary identity, numerous others lack the male kit. Likewise, women can be highly adorned, less adorned
<table><thead><tr><th>N°</th><th>Town</th><th>Dating</th><th>Country</th><th>Origin data</th><th>Diet data</th><th>Osteo. data</th><th>Functional data (stone tools)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Polgár-Ferenci-hát</td><td>Alföld Linear Pottery</td><td>Hungary</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Mezőkövesd-Mocsolyás</td><td>Alföld Linear Pottery (Early)</td><td>Hungary</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Füzesabony-Gubakút</td><td>Alföld Linear Pottery</td><td>Hungary</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Balatonszárszó</td><td>Transdanubian Linear Pottery</td><td>Hungary</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Nitra</td><td>Early LBK</td><td>Slovakia</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Vedrovice</td><td>Early LBK</td><td>Czech Republic</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Těšetice-Kyjovice</td><td>Early LBK?</td><td>Czech Republic</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Brno-Starý-Liskovec</td><td>Early/Middle LBK?</td><td>Czech Republic</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Asparn an der Zaya/Schletz</td><td>Late/Final LBK</td><td>Austria</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Kleinhadersdorf</td><td>Early/Middle LBK</td><td>Austria</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Rutzing</td><td>Middle LBK</td><td>Austria</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Mittendorf</td><td>Early/Middle LBK</td><td>Austria</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>Aiterhofen</td><td>Early/Middle LBK</td><td>Germany</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Mangolding</td><td>Early/Middle LBK</td><td>Germany</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>Sengkofen</td><td>Early LBK</td><td>Germany</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>Dillingen</td><td>Early/Middle LBK</td><td>Germany</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>Essenbach-Ammerbreite</td><td>Middle/Late LBK</td><td>Germany</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>Otzing</td><td>Middle LBK</td><td>Germany</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>Sondershausen</td><td>Early/Middle LBK</td><td>Germany</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>Bruchstedt</td><td>Early/Middle LBK</td><td>Germany</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>Wandersleben-Gotha</td><td>Early/Middle LBK?</td><td>Germany</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>Derenburg</td><td>Early to Late LBK</td><td>Germany</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>Halberstadt</td><td>Early to Late LBK</td><td>Germany</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>Flomborn</td><td>Early LBK</td><td>Germany</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td>Schwetzingen</td><td>Middle/Late LBK</td><td>Germany</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td>Herxheim</td><td>Final LBK</td><td>Germany</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>27</td><td>Stuttgart-Mühlhausen</td><td>Middle LBK</td><td>Germany</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>28</td><td>Talheim</td><td>Final LBK</td><td>Germany</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>Elsloo (Limburg)</td><td>Late LBK</td><td>Netherlands</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>30</td><td>Niedermerz (Aldenhoven pl.)</td><td>Late LBK</td><td>Germany</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>31</td><td>Schöneck-Kilianstädten</td><td>Final LBK</td><td>Germany</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>Ensisheim</td><td>Late LBK</td><td>France</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>Mulhouse-est (Rixheim)</td><td>Middle LBK</td><td>France</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>34</td><td>Vendenheim</td><td>Late LBK</td><td>France</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>35</td><td>Souffelweyersheim</td><td>Late LBK</td><td>France</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>36</td><td>Quatzenheim</td><td>Late LBK</td><td>France</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>37</td><td>Marainville-sur-Madon</td><td>Late LBK</td><td>France</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>38</td><td>Larzicourt</td><td>Middle LBK</td><td>France</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>39</td><td>Orconte</td><td>Middle LBK</td><td>France</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>40</td><td>Écriennes</td><td>Late LBK</td><td>France</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>41</td><td>Plichancourt</td><td>Final LBK</td><td>France</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td>Vert-la-Gravelle</td><td>Final LBK</td><td>France</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>43</td><td>La Saulsotte</td><td>Final LBK</td><td>France</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>44</td><td>Escolives-Sainte-Camille</td><td>Final LBK</td><td>France</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>45</td><td>Charmoy</td><td>Final LBK</td><td>France</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td>Gron</td><td>Final LBK</td><td>France</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 3** – List of the main sites with human bone remains in the Western Linearbandkeramik culture.</caption><thead><tr><td>N°</td><td>Town</td><td>Dating</td><td>Country</td><td>Origin data</td><td>Diet data</td><td>Osteo. data</td><td>Functional data (stone tools)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>47</td><td>Vinneuf</td><td>Final LBK</td><td>France</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td>Villeneuve-la-Guyard</td><td>Final LBK</td><td>France</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>49</td><td>Barbey</td><td>Final LBK</td><td>France</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>50</td><td>Marolles-sur-Seine</td><td>Final LBK</td><td>France</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>51</td><td>Balloy</td><td>Final LBK</td><td>France</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>52</td><td>Pontpoint</td><td>Final LBK</td><td>France</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>53</td><td>Bucy-le-Long</td><td>Final LBK</td><td>France</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>54</td><td>Missy-sur-Aisne</td><td>Final LBK</td><td>France</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>55</td><td>Pontavert</td><td>Final LBK</td><td>France</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>56</td><td>Berry-au-Bac</td><td>Final LBK</td><td>France</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>57</td><td>Cuiry-les-Chaudardes</td><td>Final LBK</td><td>France</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>58</td><td>Menneville</td><td>Final LBK</td><td>France</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>59</td><td>Chassemy</td><td>Final LBK</td><td>France</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>60</td><td>Cys-la-Commune</td><td>Final LBK</td><td>France</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>61</td><td>Maizy</td><td>Final LBK</td><td>France</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** – Mulhouse-Est (Upper Alsace), burial 14 (female). 1: map of the burial (after Schweitzer and Schweitzer, 1977);</figcaption></figure>

<caption>2: excavation photograph; 3: grouping of shell beads to the left of the skull; 4: reconstruction of the grave's ornaments.</caption>

<caption>Nos. 3 and 4: photos from the musée historique de Mulhouse (photo montage after Bonnardin, 2009).</caption>

<caption>**Fig. 2** – Mulhouse-est (Haut-Rhin) sépulture 14 (femme). 1: plan de la tombe (d'après Schweitzer et Schweitzer, 1977);</caption>

<caption>2: cliché de fouille ; 3: paquets de perles en coquillage à gauche du crâne ; 4: reconstitutions des parures de la tombe.</caption>

<caption>Nos 3 et 4: clichés musée historique de Mulhouse (montage photo d'après Bonnardin, 2009).</caption>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Fig. 3 – Ensisheim/Les Octrois (Haut-Rhin), burial 19 (male). 1: adze; 2: flint scraper; 3: deer antler swab; 4: group of four arrowheads; 5: ceramic sherd (after Jeunesse et al., 1993).

Fig. 3 – Ensisheim/Les Octrois (Haut-Rhin), sépulture 19 (homme). 1 : herminette ; 2 : grattoir en silex ; 3 : andouiller en bois de cerf ; 4 : groupe de quatre armatures de flèches ; 5 : tesson de céramique (d'après Jeunesse et al., 1993).
or without adornment. In the present state of the data, the men with adzes therefore stand out from the other groups in terms of social identity. In addition, other aspects are specific to them.

## 2.2 Mobility, food and health

Firstly, men with adzes are of local origin. Indeed, in the sites analysed by Penny Bickle and Alasdair Whittle (2013), strontium analysis shows that 96% of individuals with adzes are of local origin, whereas the other groups have a greater proportion of non-locals: 18% amongst individuals bearing only ornaments who are mainly women, 29% of individuals with only arrowheads and 15% of individuals with no specific grave goods. In addition, it can be seen that women with or without ornaments are indifferently of local or non-local origin and that there is therefore no correlation between the quantity of funerary objects deposited in their graves and mobility. Secondly, in many cases, men with adzes also have a diet that differs slightly from that of the rest of the population. In this respect, recent study shows a clear correlation between men with adzes and higher nitrogen levels from the data collected in six cemeteries from Slovakia to Alsace (Nitra, Vedrovice, Kleinhadersdorf, Airterhofen-Ödmühle, Schwetzingen, and Vendenheim; Masclans et al., 2021). This would indicate a higher proportion of animal protein in their diet, in contrast to other categories such as the women. It is also noteworthy that the most adorned woman from Mulhouse had no specific diet. On the large scale, data on oral health, mean stature and body mass, and bone stress indicators emphasize on average poorer female health, a condition may be due to a richer intake of plants and starchy food and a lower rate of animal protein (Bickle and Whittle, 2013; Macintosh et al., 2016).

## 2.3 Gender roles and the division of labour

In addition, men with adzes seem to have specific activities. Micro-wear studies show that the adzes have been used in woodworking and butchery activities (Masclans et al., 2021). Furthermore, osteological activity markers highlight pathologies of the right elbow specific to men, which can be compatible with the handling of the adze (Villotte and Knüsel, 2014). Adzes were also probably used as weapon as wounds on skulls from the Talheim massacre could attest (Wahl and König, 1987; Wahl and Strien, 2007). Interpersonal violence was also practiced with arrows, as shown by an arrowhead embedded between a man's ribs at Mulhouse in Alsace (Jeunesse et al., 2014). It is likely that arrows were also involved in the hunting of big game, the bone remains of which are represented in small quantities in faunal assemblages of Western LBK villages (Jeunesse and Arbogast, 1997; Arbogast, 2001; Bedault and Hachem, 2008; Hachem, 2011; Bogaard et al., 2016). In sum, interpersonal violence, large game hunting, butchering, woodworking and probably also flint knapping (Augereau, 2019) are male

activities predominantly practiced by men with adzes. Ethnological data indicate that hunting and warfare are prestigious activities in both hunter-gatherer and farmer societies, reserved for men (Tabet, 1979; Godelier, 1985; Testart, 1986 and 2014; Brightman, 1996). Thus, hunting and warfare, or the symbols of these activities in death may have been for this small group of men an expression of power, either political or religious, or linked to social prestige.

As far as women are concerned, data exist on their roles and activities, but it is difficult to go beyond generalities. The study of bones carried out on a significant sample of LBK individuals highlights markers on their upper limbs that are compatible with very repetitive activities such as grinding with dormant querns (Macintosh et al., 2017). However, to date, no evidence of osteoarthritis in the knees and big toes due to kneeling for grinding has been described, but it can be argued that this activity may have been performed on a bench or a table, in sitting or standing position. In the Eastern LBK, at Polgár-Ferenci-hát, Vedrovice and Nitra, grooves on the inner surface of the incisors of some women are interpreted as the result of the repeated passage of a thread made of plant material, perhaps as part of spinning activities (Frayer, 2004; Schulting, 2007). Finally, recent use-wear studies show that the working of skins and soft materials was carried out with the tools included in the women's graves (Masclans et al., 2021).

## 2.4 Gender acquisition

As with the adults, several groups of immatures can be identified according to their funerary goods. Individuals with no specific goods are the most numerous (60% of the total); those characterised on the one hand by ornaments, and on the other hand by equipment goods (adze, arrow, lighter set but no deer antler) are in equal proportion. Age determination shows that the allocation of these attributes takes place before the age of 6. In addition, four bone figurines have been found in three children graves, at Ensisheim and at Berry-au-Bac. The eyes, mouth or nose are represented by pieces of shells. By analogy with African archaeological and ethnological examples, these objects have been interpreted by Isabelle Sidéra and Pierre de Maret as dolls (Sidéra and Maret, 2016). In Africa, they are one of the tools for educating girls through play.

With regard to diet and mobility, there is scarce evidence that children with adzes have higher levels of animal protein in their diet and are of local origin. It is impossible to say, however, whether these individuals are boys, or whether those with ornaments are girls. Nevertheless, Linda Fibiger and P. Bickle observed that *cribra orbitalia* affects women more than men, perhaps due to a gradual dissociation in diet occurring in mid-childhood (Bickle and Fibiger, 2014). Finally, although data are scarce, L. Fibiger believes that injuries due to interpersonal violence are more prevalent between the ages of 8 and 13 up to 17 (Fibiger, 2014). According to this author,
this could be the result of combat training sessions taking place in late childhood. However, child abuse may also explain these injuries.

## 2.5 Power and domination

The identification of power can be seen as a synthesis of the previous results. In the LBK, the funerary identity of some men is marked by specific goods (polished adzes, antlers, arrows, lighter sets). These men are linked to the territory where they were born and died and their diet includes a higher intake of animal protein. Woodworking, hunting and warfare are part of their activities. In addition, they probably knapped regular blades. It should also be noted that they are often buried in the centre of groups of graves in cemeteries. All these characteristics lead to the hypothesis that they could be dominant men and that a certain amount of inequality characterised the LBK culture (Jeunesse, 1997 and 2018).

## 3. LBK WOMEN AND GENDER: CONTRIBUTIONS AND LIMITS

Finally, what does this study teach us about Neolithic women and gender in the LBK context? By comparing the results with the reading grid previously exposed, the contributions and limits of this archaeological gender approach will be outlined (table 4).

Firstly, certain men, those with adzes who could be powerful individuals whatever the kind of power, emerge from the data. Indeed, this group of men has the most cohesive pattern in terms of funerary identity, local origin,

diet and activities. Regarding women, they stand out mainly by contrast with the latter, such as other groups. However, it is probably an artifice of the current stage of research, as the female population is not homogeneous: women with or without adornments, with various diet, of local origin or not, etc. There are also chronological and geographical variations, since the women very adorned are specific to the end of the LBK period, in Alsace and in the Paris Basin (Augereau, 2021a and 2022). It is clear that further analysis is needed to identify the diversity of women.

Secondly, clothing, ornaments and tools can be seen as gender attributes. However, this is only a partial identity, because nothing is currently known about subjective identity (that is to say the way a person perceives and feels themselves), which is a central aspect of gender as it can change gender norms and relations. In addition, the perceptible social identity is truncated, as objects made of perishable materials are rarely recognised (feathers, flowers, fabrics, hides and furs, wooden objects, corporal painting, etc.). Furthermore, individuals who deviate from the pattern with men with adze exist. This is the case of some women with adzes or arrows previously evocated, at Nitra, Vedrovice, Aiterhofen and Schwetzinogen. Although the determination of sex is not optimal, in particular at Aiterhofen where four anthropologists worked with somewhat different results, these data cannot be completely ignored. As ethnology shows, biological sex may be manipulated and social and funerary identities may not be strictly overlapping. For example, among the Inuit of Canada or the Chumash of California, individuals of either sex sometimes have in their graves objects or tools reserved for the opposite sex in life (Hollimon, 1996; Crass, 2001). In addition, Bernard

<table><caption>Table 4 – Contributions and limits of a gender approach on the Western Linearbandkeramik culture.</caption><thead><tr><td>Gender aspects</td><td>Contributions</td><td>Missing/limits/questions</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Gender identities</td><td>• Social identity (partially): clothes, ornaments, tools, etc.</td><td>• Objects in perishable material?<br/>• Subjective identity?</td></tr><tr><td>Gender roles</td><td>• Division of labour (partially)</td><td>• Other productive activities?<br/>• Roles of women and men with no grave goods?<br/>• Political and religious roles?</td></tr><tr><td>Gender acquisition and construction</td><td>• Gender attributes in burial from the age of 5 onwards</td><td>• Passage rites? Ceremonies?<br/>• Children education activities?<br/>• Diet and health of girls and boys?</td></tr><tr><td>Gender differences/ inequalities</td><td>• Mobility (variable vs men with adze)<br/>• Diet (protein men with adze vs others)<br/>• Funerary treatments by sex and age (location, grave goods, etc.)</td><td>• Mobility, displacements and marriage patterns?<br/>• Cultural habits or real inequalities?<br/>• Characterising further diet and health of women and men with no adze<br/>• Gender in domestic spaces?</td></tr><tr><td>Gender and power</td><td>• Dominant men and women in embellished dress</td><td>• Nature of power: chiefs? Big Men?<br/>• Segmented/hierarchical society?<br/>• Role of the women in power?<br/>• Other domains of power (religion, etc.)?</td></tr></tbody></table>

<caption>Tabl. 4 – Apports et limites d'une approche de genre sur le Rubané occidental.</caption>
Saladin d'Anglure (2004 and 2006) showed that a male Inuit child can be raised as a girl and inversely, depending on the sex of the ancestor who appeared in the parents' dreams during pregnancy. In certain societies, such as the Nuer of East Africa, children are considered as female until they reach puberty, and marriage between women is legal. In this case, one of the women is seen as a man, and becomes the "husband" of the second woman and the father of her children (Evans-Pritchard, 1968). Social identity in archaeology is therefore truncated, but it can also be distorted. These anthropological examples indicate that gender is not a stable state acquired once and for all, but that it can fluctuate over the course of a lifetime. There is no reason to believe that this phenomenon did not exist in the Neolithic period, especially when the question emerges from concrete data. Further research is therefore needed to better understand these "deviant", maybe female, individuals.

The division of labour is also very partially documented. The little data available indicate that the division of labour between men and women is classical, with certain men hunting, woodworking, fighting and women doing fibre and hide work and possibly grinding. However, it is not yet known whether specific activities characterise the different groups of women, those with no ornaments, those with few ornaments, those of local or extra local origin. Moreover, this finding is not specific to this population group and the same observation can be made for men without the male kit, those with only arrows, and for the cohort of women and men without preserved funerary goods, who are the most numerous. Thus, many questions remain about productive activities such as animal husbandry, cultivation, gathering, other crafts, care, etc. Based on the constants in the division of labour in traditional societies as described by George P. Murdock and Caterina Provost (1973), Paola Tabet (1979) and Alain Testart (2014), we could assign to Neolithic women various activities that have been observed as female tasks: caring for livestock, making pottery, preparing meals, making fabrics and clothes, bringing up children, tending gardens, etc. However, a serious approach to gender must be grounded on archaeological data and observations; on the one hand because it is a scientific approach; on the other hand because gender norms vary across culture and time. The challenge of a gender study is therefore to highlight such variability. Additional studies on bone activity markers correlated with the distribution of grave goods should provide information in the diversity of the roles of LBK women and other groups.

From the perspective of political role, dominant men with adzes could endorse such responsibility, at least on the household level. Many theories have been put forward about hierarchy and social organisation in the LBK culture. On the one hand an egalitarian system (Coudart, 1998 and 2015) is favoured, but seems to be inconsistent with the data. On the other hand hypothesis range from a society with "Big Men" with high prestige, but no power (Pechtl, 2009; Demoule, 2018) to a hierarchical society dominated by men (Jeunesse, 1996, 1997 and 2018;

Gronenborn, 2016; Gronenborn et al., 2018). However, women role in this organisation is rarely discussed. In the cemeteries of Central Europe, the burials of adorned women are never far from the men's burials with the male kit. Do they represent the female equivalent of the dominant men? On the current state of research, nothing seems to differentiate them from the other women. In addition, women from Alsace and the Paris Basin with very elaborate dress indicate a hitherto unknown funerary valorization with a focus on women. Did these particular women have a special role in the exercise of power? Here again, answers are pending, not least because of the difficulty of addressing the issue archaeologically. However, it is a central question and the refined study of the correlation between gender, health data, mobility, diet and costume could provide clues.

Another role that cannot be addressed is that of religion: who performed the religious functions? Were there any consequences to being male or female to perform them? The material traces of religion are difficult to perceive. For the Central European LBK, could the human-shaped figurines (mostly female) or anthropomorphic vessels be an expression of religion? To explain the female figurines, the hypothesis of the Great Goddess in a female-dominated society developed by Marija Gimbutas (Gimbutas, 1989 and 1991) is no longer tenable (Tringham and Conkey, 1998). However, as they come from houses or pits alongside houses, it is likely that they testify to a domestic cult practiced in a corner of the dwelling (Bánffy, 2017). Nevertheless, the material traces of religion and beliefs are not always representative of religion: A. Testart gave the example of the Roman art, which never represents the crucifixion (Testart, 2012). Following A. Testart, there is currently no way to address this issue, which is yet crucial for the maintenance of the social order, as it provides narratives for gender roles and behaviour.

As far as gender acquisition is concerned, gender attributes are introduced in the burials from the age of 5 onwards. Adzes, arrows, ornaments, blades and grinding tools, but also rare bone dolls (Sidéra and Maret, 2016) were either vectors of gender acquisition or marked a future gender. However, as the sex of the children is unknown to date, it is impossible to say whether there was a strict correspondence between gender and grave attributes or whether there was sex manipulation. In addition, we know nothing about passage rites and ceremonies and the children education activities, nor do we know whether combat training or violence against them caused the wounds on their bones. In addition, little is currently known about the diet and health of girls and boys of the LBK culture, knowing that such studies have been successfully conducted on other Neolithic contexts (for example, see Rey et al., 2021). Children, being socially immature, should be an important focus of gender study, even though data on them are scarce. Above all, in a gender perspective, the sex determination of children is necessary and two recent methods (cochlea and teeth peptides analysis, Braga et al., 2019; Rebay-Salisbury
et al., 2022) are promising for this purpose. In addition, dietary practices in childhood can be derived from adult dental calculus, which records previous diets.

From the point of view of differences and inequalities, variable origin characterises a part of the women and other groups, thus contrasting with men with adze. The greater mobility of women and the higher diversity of maternal lineages, consistent with females' mobility, evidenced by strontium data and DNA analysis, led some researchers to propose a patrilocal marriage pattern (Bentley et al., 2002 and 2012; Bickle and Whittle, 2013; Rasteiro and Chikhi, 2013; Szécsényi-Nagy et al., 2015). However, not all women are of extra local origin and some men are also in this situation. Furthermore, sexual rights, i.e. how women have a choice of partners, and marriage rules in terms of matrilineality or patrilineality, which do not leave any material traces, remain unknown. Regarding diet, the variations are slight but constant, with men with adzes showing a more meat-based diet and women with more plant-based foods. However, it is not yet clear if they are the result of cultural habits or real inequalities. In other Neolithic contexts, there is little or no obvious sex-related diet pattern (see for example Rey et al., 2019; Cheung et al., 2021).

Finally, what about gendered spaces in the domestic or outdoor areas? Did women regularly leave the village? Were there female or male spaces, more or less distant from the village, as John Robb believes for the Italian Neolithic (Robb, 2007)? The limitations of spatial analysis outlined above preclude addressing this issue and the sex of the individuals who occupied these places will probably never be accessible. However, the foreign individuals, both women and men, provide evidence that LBK people moved and that local and regional territories need to be better understood in their diversity (Hofmann, 2020).

## CONCLUSION

In the LBK culture, we have identified several groups of individuals on the base of their funerary goods. Men with male kit and women in very embellished dress stand out and identity of other groups without these assemblages is unclear. The men with adzes appear to be the most cohesive group, being of local origin, with a diet richer in animal protein and carrying out specific activities. They were probably dominant individuals holding power. Nevertheless, the nature of power is still in debate: were the dominant men “Big Men” or chiefs? In addition, did the women have a role in power? Finally, were there other prestigious functions, for example related to the religious domain? What was the status of individuals without perceptible grave goods?

Regarding the division of labour by sex, a few of tasks have been identified. In addition, information on women's tasks is very general and the roles of individuals without discernible grave goods are indeterminate. Many productive activities, such as harvesting, gathering, caretaking, animal husbandry cannot be attributed to a group. The gendered-sharing of these tasks is therefore not ensured, except by appealing to the regularities observed in sub-actual societies, with the risk of asserting an organisation of labour that is not archaeologically based. Children before the age of 6 follow the same pattern as adults with regard to the allocation of ornaments on the one hand, and tools and weapons on the other. As the sex of the children is currently not available, it is impossible to determine whether this differential allocation is related to their sex. This question is important because some individuals seem to deviate from the male and adze equation. This is the case of women with a polished adze found in several Central European cemeteries.

Many others aspects of gender, in particular those which leave no material traces, remain unknown. While women's mobility makes it possible to envisage a patrilocal marriage pattern, at least partially, sexual rights and lineage systems will probably continue to be unknown for a long time. These aspects are fundamental in gender relations as they are, according to anthropologists, one of the ways in which men dominate women. Gender of the spaces is also an elusive issue, as are religion and cult, all of which are central features of gender regimes. All these pending issues show that the archaeological data from the LBK culture only provide a partial understanding of gender. Furthermore, this understanding is all the more partial because we do not have access to myths, narratives and cosmogony, which are the cement of all human societies. However, there is significant room for improvement as gender archaeological studies are not simply a binary study of men and women. There is a need to explore the social variability of the LBK population as a whole. In particular, the exploration of the variability of LBK women in terms of identity, roles and status requires further exploration. Finally, these results show that in order to highlight gender variability in the Neolithic, it is first necessary to identify gender norms by sex. It is then possible to characterize individuals who do not correspond to the norms, or who present variations, which will allow a better understanding of gender diversity, or even the existence of a third gender, in Neolithic societies.

Anne AUGEREAU

Inrap, centre archéologique
de Marne-la-Vallée,
Croissy-Beaubourg, France
UMR 8068 TEMPS
REFERENCES

AGARWAL S. C. (2012) – A Bioarchaeology of Social Identity, *The SAArchaeological record. Magazine of the Society for American Archaeology*, 12, 3, p. 29-31.

AGARWAL S. C., GLENCROSS B. A. (2011) – Building a Social Bioarchaeology, in S. C. Agarwal and B. A. Glencross (eds.), *Social Bioarchaeology*, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, p. 1-11.

ARBOGAST R.-M. (2001) – Variabilité de la représentation des animaux sauvages et statut de la chasse sur les sites du Rubané du nord de la France, in C. Jeunesse and J. Schibler (eds.), *Rolle und Bedeutung der Jagd während des Frühneolithikums Mitteleuropas (Linearbandkeramik 5500-4900 v. Chr.)*, actes de la 1re Rencontre danubienne (Strasbourg, 1996), Rahden, Marie Leidorf (Internationale Archäologie, 1), p. 77-90.

ARNOLD B. (2006) – Gender and Archaeological Mortuary Analysis, in S. M. Nelson (ed.), *Handbook of Gender in Archaeology*, Berkeley, Oxford, Altamira Press, p. 137-170.

ARNOLD B., WICKER N. L. (2001) – *Gender and the Archaeology of Death*, Walnut Creek, Altamira Press, 199 p.

AUGEREAU A. (2012) – Produire des haches en silex dans le sud-est du Bassin parisien au Néolithique : les minières à silex de l’autoroute A5, in P.-A. de Labriffe et É. Thirault (eds.), *Produire des haches au Néolithique, de la matière première à l’abandon*, actes de table ronde de la SPF (Saint-Germain-en-Laye, 2007), Paris, Société préhistorique française (Séance de la SPF, 1), p. 147-152.

AUGEREAU A. (2019) – Change and Continuity. Gender and Flint Knapping Activities during the Neolithic in the Paris basin, in J. K. Koch and W. Kirleis (eds.), *Gender Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies, Proceedings of the round table (Kiel, 2018)*, Leiden, Sidestone Press, p. 435-458.

AUGEREAU A. (2021a) – *Femmes néolithiques. Le genre dans les premières sociétés agricoles*, Paris, CNRS Éditions, 304 p.

AUGEREAU A. (2021b) – Funerary Practices as a Testimony of Ideology in Western Linearbandkeramik Culture (LBK), in F. Borrell, I. Clemente, M. Cubas, J. J. Ibáñez, N. Mazucco, A. Nieto-Espinet, M. Portillo, S. Valenzuela-Lamas, and X. Terradas (eds.), *The Early Neolithic of Europe, Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the First Conference on the Early Neolithic of Europe (Barcelona, 2019), Open Archaeology*, 7, 1, p. 953-971, https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2020-0184

AUGEREAU A. (2022) – In Search of the Origin of Inequalities: Gender Study and Variability of Social Organization in the First Farmers Societies of Western Europe (Linearbandkeramik Culture), *Journal of Anthropological Archaeology*, 66, 101413, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2022.101413.

AUSLANDER L., ROGERS R., ZANCARANI M. (2014) – *Objets et fabrication du genre*, Paris, Belin (Revue Clio. Femmes, Genre, Histoire, 40), 451 p.

BAKER B. J., AGARWAL S. C. (2017) – Stronger Together: Advancing a Global Bioarchaeology, *Bioarchaeology International*, 1, 1-2, p. 1-18.

BANFFY E. (2017) – Eastern and Central Europe, in T. Insoll (ed.), *The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Figurines*, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 709-728.

BEDAULT L., HACHEM L. (2008) – Recherches sur les sociétés du Néolithique danubien à partir du Bassin parisien : approche structurelle des données archéozoologiques, in L. Burnez-Lanotte, M. Ilett, M. and P. Allard (eds.), *Fin des traditions danubiennes dans le Néolithique du Bassin parisien et de la Belgique (5100-4700 av. J.-C.). Autour des recherches de Claude Constantin*, actes de table ronde SPF (Namur, novembre 2007), Paris, Société préhistorique française (Mémoire, 44), p. 221-243.

BENTLEY A., PRICE D., LÜNING J., GRONENBORN D., WAHL J., FULLAGAR P. D. (2002) – Prehistoric Migration in Europe: Strontium Isotope Analysis of Early Neolithic Skeletons, *Current Anthropology*, 43, 5, p. 799-804.

BENTLEY A., WAHL J., PRICE D., ATKINSON T. C. (2008) – Isotopic Signatures and Hereditary Traits: Snapshot of a Neolithic Community in Germany, *Antiquity*, 82, p. 290-304.

BENTLEY R. A., BICKLE P., FIBIGER L., NOWELL G. M., DALE C. W., HEDGES R. E. M., HAMILTON J., WAHL J., FRANCKEN M., GRUPE G., LENNEIS E., TESCHLER-NICOLA M., ARBOGAST R.-M., HOFMANN D., WHITTLE A. (2012) – Community Differentiation and Kinship among Europe’s First Farmers, *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America*, 109, p. 9326-9330.

BERENI L., CHAUVIN S., JAUNAIT A., REVILLARD A. (2020) – *Introduction aux études sur le genre, Louvain-la-Neuve, De Boeck supérieur*, 431 p.

BERTELSEN R., LILLEHAMMER A., NÆSS J.-R. (1987) – *Were They all Men? An Examination of Sex Roles in Prehistoric Society, Proceedings from a workshop held at Utstein Klosster (Rogaland, November 1979)*, Stavanger, Arkeologisk museum (AmSi, 17), 101 p.

BICKLE P. (2019) – Thinking Gender Differently: New Approaches to Identity. Difference in the Central European Neolithic, *Cambridge Archaeological Journal*, 30, 2, p. 201-218.

BICKLE P., FIBIGER L. (2014) – Ageing, Childhood and Social Identity in the Early Neolithic of Central Europe, *European Journal of Archaeology*, 17, 2, p. 208-228.

BICKLE P., WHITTLE A. (2013) – *The First Farmers of central Europe: Diversity in LBK Lifeways*, Oxford, Oxbow Books [Electronic Edition].

BINFORD L. (1971) – Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, *Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology*, 25, p. 6-29.

BIRD C. (1993) – Woman the Toolmaker: Evidence for Women’s Use and Manufacture of Flaked Stone Tools in Australia and New Guinea, in H. Ducros and L. Smith (eds.), *Women in Archaeology. A Feminist Critique*, Canberra, The Australian National University, p. 22-30.

BOGAARD A. ARBOGAST R.-M., EBERSBACH R., FRASER R. A., KNIPPER C., KRAHN C., SCHÄFER M., STYRING A., KRAUSE R. (2016) – The Bandkeramik Settlement of Vaihingen an der
Enz, Kreis Ludwigsburg (Baden-Württemberg): An Integrated Perspective on Land Use, Economy and Diet, *Germany*, 94, p. 1-60.

BOLGER D. (2013) – Introduction: Gender Prehistory. The Story so Far, in D. Bolger (ed.), *A Companion to Gender Prehistory*, Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell, p. 1-20.

BONNARDIN S. (2009) – *La parure funéraire au Néolithique ancien dans les Bassins parisien et rhénan. Rubané, Hinkelstein et Villeneuve-Saint-Germain*, Paris, Société préhistorique française (Mémoire, 49), 322 p.

BOURDIEU P. (1972) – *Esquisse d’une théorie de la pratique, précédé de trois essais d’ethnologie kabyle*, Genève, Librairie Droz, 409 p.

BOURDIEU P. (1982) – Les rites comme actes d’institution, *Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales*, 43 « Rites et fétiches », p. 58-63.

BOURDIEU P. (1998) – *La domination masculine*, Paris, Seuil [Electronic Edition].

BRAGA J., SAMIR C., RISSER L., DUMONCEL J., DESCOENS D., THACKERAY J. F., BALARESQUE P., OETTLÉ A. C., LOUBES J.-M., FRADI A. (2019) – Cochlear Shape Reveals That the Human Organ of Hearing is Sextyped from Birth, *Scientific Reports*, 9, 10889, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47433-9

BRIGHTMAN R. (1996) – The Sexual Division of Foraging Labor: Biology, Taboo and Gender Politics, *Comparative Studies in Society and History*, 384, p. 687-729.

BRUMFIEL E. M. (1995) – Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies: Comments, in R. M. Ehrenreich, C. L. Cru-mley and J. E. Levy (eds), *Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies*, Arlington, American Anthropological Association, p. 125-131.

BRUZEK J. (2002) – A Method for Visual Determination of Sex, Using the Human Hip Bone, *American Journal of Physical Anthropology*, 117, p. 157-168.

BUTLER J. (1990) – *Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity*, London, New York, Routledge [traduction française : *Trouble dans le genre : pour un féminisme de la subversion**, Paris, La Découverte, 2005, 284 p.].

CHEUNG C., HERRSCHER G., ANDRE G., BEDAULT L., HACHEM L., BINOIS-ROMAN A., SIMONIN D., THOMAS A. (2021) – The Grandeur of Death: Monuments, Societies, and Diets in Middle Neolithic Paris Basin, *Journal of Anthropological Archaeology*, 63, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2021.101332

COLOMER I, SOLSONAL L., GONZÁLEZ MARCÉNZ P., MONTÓN SUBÍAS S. (1998) – Maintenance Activities, Technological Knowledge and Consumption Patterns: A View of Northeast Iberia (2000-500 Cal BC), *Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology*, 11, 1, p. 53-80.

CONKEY M., SPECTOR J. (1984) – Archaeology and the Study of Gender, in M. Schiffer (ed.), *Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory*, vol. 7, New York, Academic Press, p. 1-38.

COUDART A. (1998) – *Architecture et société. L’unité et la variance de la maison danubienne*, Paris, éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme (Documents d’archéologie française, 67), 239 p.

COUDART A. (2009) – La maison néolithique : métaphore matérielle, sociale et mentale des petites sociétés sédentaires, in J.-P. Demoule (ed.), *La révolution néolithique dans le monde*, Paris, CNRS Éditions, p. 219-239.

COUDART A. (2015) – The Bandkeramik Longhouses. A Material, Social, and Mental Metaphor for Small-Scale Sedentary Societies, in C. Fowler, J. Harding and D. Hofmann (eds.), *The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe*, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 309-325.

CRASS B. A. (2001) – Gender and Mortuary Analysis: What Can Grave Goods Really Tell Us?, in B. Arnold and N. L. Wicker (eds.), *Gender and the Archaeology of Death*, Walnut Creek, Altamira Press, p. 105-119.

CRENSHAW K. (1989) – Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex. A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics, *University of Chicago Legal Forum*, 1, 8, p. 139-167.

CRUBÉZY É., MURAIL P., BRUZEK J., JELINEK J., ONDRUS V., PAVUK J., TESCHLER-NICOLA M. (1997) – Sample Characterization of Danubian Cemeteries in Central Europe : The Examples of Vedrovice (Moravia) and Nitra-Horne (Slovakia), in C. Jeunesse (ed.), *Le Néolithique danubien et ses marges entre Rhin et Seine*, actes du 28ᵉ colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique (Strasbourg, 1995), Strasbourg, Association pour la promotion de la recherche archéologique en Alsace (Monographies d’archéologie alsacienne, 3), p. 9-13.

DARMANGEAT C. (2012) – *Le communisme primitif n’est plus ce qu’il était. Aux origines de l’oppression des femmes*, Toulouse, Smolny, 471 p.

DEMOULE J.-P. (2018) – Soziale Komplexität im französischen Neolithikum, in H. H. Meller D. Gronenborn and R. Risch (eds.), *Überschuss ohne Staat – Politische Formen in der Vorgeschichte. Surplus without the State – Political Forms in Prehistory*, 10. Mittledeutscher Archäologentag (Halle, 19-21. Oktober 2017), Halle, Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt (Tagungen des Landesmu-seums für Vorgeschichte Halle, 18), p. 287-309.

DOBRES A. M. (1995) – Beyond Gender Attribution: Some Methodological Issues for Engendering the Past, in J. Balme and W. Beck (eds.), *Gendered Archaeology: The Second Australian Women in Archaeology Conference*, Canberra, Australian National University, p. 51-66.

DOUGLAS M. (1975) – *Implicit Meanings. Selected Essays in Anthropology*, London, Routledge, 312 p.

EVANS-PRITCHARD E. (1968) – *The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People. Les Nuer : description des modes de vie et des institutions politiques d'un peuple nilote*, Paris, Gallimard, 336 p.

FIBIGER L. (2014) – Misplaced Childhood? Interpersonal Violence and Children in Neolithic Europe, in M. Smith and C. Knüsel (eds.), *The Routledge Handbook of the Bioarchaeology of Human Conflict*, Abingdon, Routledge, p. 127-145.

FRAYER D. W. (2004) – The Dental Remains from Krškany (Slovakia) and Vedrovice (Czech Republic), *Anthropologie*, 42, p. 71-103.
GERLING C. (2012) – Das linearbandkeramische Gräberfeld von Schwetzingen, Rhein-Neckar-Kreis, *Fundberichte aus Baden-Württemberg*, 32, 1, p. 7-263.

GERO J. M. (1991) – Genderlithics: Women’s Roles in Stone Tool Production, in J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey (eds.), *Engenderig Archaeology. Women and Prehistory*, Oxford, Blackwell, p. 163-193.

GILCHRIST R. (1999) – *Gender and Archaeology: Contesting the Past*, London and New York, Routledge, 199 p.

GIMBUTAS M. (1989) – *The Language of the Goddess: Unearthing the Hidden Symbols of Western Civilization*, San Francisco, Harper & Row, 388 p.

GIMBUTAS M. (1991) – *The Civilization of the Goddess: The World of Old Europe*, San Francisco, Harper, 542 p.

GODELIER M. (1985) – *La production des grands hommes. Pouvoir et domination masculine chez les Baruya de Nouvelle-Guinée*, Paris, Fayard, 373 p.

GONZÁLEZ-MARCÉN P., MONTÓN-SUBÍAS S., PICAZO M. (2008) – Towards an Archaeology of Maintenance Activities, in S. Montón-Subías and M. Sánchez-Romero, *Engendering Social Dynamics: The Archaeology of Maintenance Activities*, Oxford, BAR (International Series, 1862), p. 3-8.

GRONENBORN D. (2016) – Some Thoughts on Political Differentiation in Early to Young Neolithic Societies in Western Central Europe, in H. H. Meller, H. P. Hahn, R. Jung and R. Risch (eds.), *Arm und Reich. Zur Ressourcenverteilung in prähistorischen Gesellschaften. Rich and Poor. Competing for resources in prehistoric societies*, 8. Mittledeutscher Archälogentag (Halle, Oktober 2015), Halle, Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt (Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle, 14), p. 61-75.

GRONENBORN D., STRIEN H.-C., VAN DICK R., TURCHIN P. (2018) – Social Diversity, Social Identity, and the Emergence of Surplus in the Western Central European Neolithic, in H. H. Meller, D. Gronenborn and R. Risch (eds.), *Überschuss ohne Staat – Politische Formen in der Vorgeschichte. Surplus without the State – Political Forms in Prehistory*, 10. Mittledeutscher Archälogentag (Halle, 19-21 Oktober 2017), Halle, Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt (Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle, 18), p. 201-220.

HACHEM L. (2011) – *Le site néolithique de Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes, vol. 1 De l’analyse de la faune à la structuration sociale*, Rahden, Marie Leidorf (Internationale Archäologie, 120), 552 p.

HAMLIN C. (2001) – Sharing the Load: Gender and Task Division at the Windover Site, in B. Arnold and N. L. Wicker (eds.), *Gender and the Archaeology of Death*, Walnut Creek, Altamira Press, p. 119-134.

HASTORF C. A. (1991) – Gender, Space and Food in Prehistory, in J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey (eds.), *Engenderig Archaeology. Women and Prehistory*, Oxford, Blackwell, p. 132-159.

HÉRITIER F. (1996) – *Masculin/féminin. La pensée de la différence*, Paris, Odile Jacob, 332 p.

HOFMANN D. (2020) – Not Going Anywhere? Migration as a Social Practice in the Early Neolithic Linearbandkeramik, *Quaternary International*, 560-561, p. 228-239.

HOLLIMON S. E. (1996) – Sex, Gender and Health among the Chumash: An Archaeological Examination of Prehistoric Gender Roles, *Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology*, 9, p. 205-208.

JEUNESSE C. (1996) – Variabilité des pratiques funéraires et différenciation sociale dans le Néolithique ancien danubien, *Gallia préhistoire*, 38, p. 249-286.

JEUNESSE C. (1997) – *Pratiques funéraires au Néolithique ancien. Sépultures et nécropoles danubiennes, 5500-4900 av. J. C.*, Paris, Errance, 168 p.

JEUNESSE C. (2018) – « Big Men », chefferies ou démocratie primitive ? Quels types de sociétés dans le Néolithique de la France, in J. Guilaine and D. García (eds.), *La Protohistoire de la France*, Paris, Hermann (Histoire et archéologie), p. 171-185.

JEUNESSE C., ARBOGAST R.-M. (1997) – À propos du statut de la chasse au Néolithique moyen. La faune sauvage dans les déchets domestiques et dans les mobiliers funéraires, in C. Jeunesse (ed.), *Le Néolithique danubien et ses marges entre Rhin et Seine*, actes du 28ᵉ colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique (Strasbourg, 1995), Strasbourg, Association pour la promotion de la recherche archéologique en Alsace (Monographies d’archéologie alsacienne, 3), p. 81-102.

JEUNESSE C., LAMBACH F., MATHIEU G., MAUVILLY M. (1993) – Ensisheim « les Octrois » (Haut-Rhin), une nécropole rubanée de Haute-Alsace, *Cahiers de l'Association pour la promotion de la recherche archéologique en Alsace*, 9, p. 1-88.

JEUNESSE C., BARRAND-EMAM H., DENAIRE A., CHENAL F. (2014) – Unusual Funeral Practices and Violence in Early Neolithic Central Europe: New Discoveries at the Mulhouse-Est Linearbandkeramik, *Antiquity Project Gallery*, 342, 88, https://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/jeunesse342

KLARIC L., BERTRAN P., DUMARÇAY G., LIARD M. (2018) – A Long and Winding Road: Towards a Palethnographic Interpretation of the Middle-Gravettian Site of the Picardie (Indre-et-Loire, France), *Quaternary International*, 498, p. 51-68.

KNIPPER C., MITTNIK A., MASSY K., KOCIUMAKA C., KUCUKKALIPI I., MAUS M., WITTENBORN F., METZ S. E., STASKIEWICZ A., KRAUSE J., STOCKHAMMER P. W. (2017) – Female Exogamy and Gene Pool Diversification at the Transition from the Final Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age in central Europe, *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 114, 38, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1706355114

LÓPEZ-MONTALVO E. (2018) – Spanish Levantine Rock Art: A Graphic Trace of Violence and Warfare in Iberian Prehistory, in M. Fernández-Götz and N. Roymans (eds.), *Conflict Archaeology Materialities of Collective Violence from Prehistory to Late Antiquity*, London, Routledge (Themes in Contemporary Europe Archaeology, 5), p. 23-33.

MACINTOSH A. PINHASI R., STOCK J. T. (2016) – Early Life Conditions and Physiological Stress Following the Transition to Farming in Central/Southeast Europe: Skeletal Growth Impairment and 6000 Years of Gradual Recovery, *PLoS One*, 11, 2, 0148468, https://doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148468
MACINTOSH A. A., PINHASI R., STOCK J. T. (2017) – Prehistoric Women’s Manual Labor Exceeded That of Athletes through the First 5500 Years of Farming in Central Europe, *Science Advances*, 3, http://advances.sciencesmag.org/eaao3893

MASCLANS A., DUBOSCQ S., ACHINO K. F., MORELL B., GIBAJA J. F. (2019) – Looking for Sexual Differences during the Middle Neolithic in the Northeast of the Iberian Peninsula, *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports*, 26, 101858, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352409X18308022?via%3Dihub

MASCLANS A., BICKLE P., HAMON C., JEUNESSE C., BICKLE P. (2021) – A Sexual Division of Labour at the Start of Agriculture? A Multi-Proxy Comparison through Grave Good Stone Tool Technological and Use-Wear Analysis, *Plos One*, 14, 1, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249130

MATHIEU N.-C. (1985) – Quand céder n’est pas consentir, Des déterminants matériels et psychiques de la conscience dominée des femmes et de quelques-unes de leurs interprétations en ethnologie, in N.-C. MATHIEU (ed.), *L’arraisonnement des femmes. Essais en anthropologie des sexes*, Paris, Editions de l’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, p. 231-346.

MAUSS M. (1926) – *Manuel d'ethnographie*, Paris, Payot, 190 p.

MINA M. (2007) – Figurines without Sex: People without Gender?, in S. Hamilton, R. Whitehouse and K. Wright (eds.), *Archaeology and Women: Ancient and Modern Issues*, Walnut Creek (California), Left Coast Press, p. 263-282.

MINA M. (2008) – Carving Out Gender in the Prehistoric Aegean: Anthropomorphic Figurines of the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, *Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology*, 21, 2, p. 213-239.

MONJARET A. (2014) – Objets du genre et genre des objets en ethnologie et sociologie françaises, in L. Auslander, R. Rogers and M. Zancarani (eds.), *Objets et fabrication du genre*, Paris, Belin (Revue Clio. Femmes, Genre, Histoire, 40), p. 153-170.

MÜLLER-SCHEESSEL N. (2019) – Gender in Linearbandkeramik research.Traditional Approaches and New Avenues, in J. K. Koch and W. Kirleis (eds.), *Gender Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies*, Proceedings of the round table (Kiel, 2018), Leiden, Sidestone Press, p. 133-152.

MÜNSTER A., KNIPPER C., OELZE V. M., NICKLISCH N., STECHER M., SCHLENKER B., GANSLMEIER R., FRAGATA M., FRIEDERICH S., DRESELY V., HUBENSACK V., BRANDT G., DÖHLE H.-J., VACH W., SCHWARZ R., METZNER-NEBELSICK C., MELLER H. & ALT W. A. (2017). – 4000 years of human dietary evolution in central Germany, from the first farmers to the first elites, *PLoS One*, 13, e0194862. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194862

MURAIL P., BRUZEK J., HOUËT F., CUNHA E. (2005) – DSP: A Probabilistic Sex Diagnosis Tool Using Worldwide Variability in Hip Bone Measurements, *Bulletin et mémoires de la Société anthropologique de Paris*, 17, 3-4, p. 167-176, https://doi.org/10.4000/bmsap.1157

MURDOCK G. P., PROVOST C. (1973) – Factors in the Division of Labor by Sex. A Cross-Cultural Analysis, *Ethnology*, 12, 2, p. 203-225.

NIESZERY N. (1995) – *Linearbandkeramische Gräberfelder in Bayern, Espelkamp, Marie L. Leidorf (Internationale Archaeologie, 16)*, 317 p.

OAKLEY A. (1972) – *Sex, Gender and Society*. London, Temple Smith, 172 p.

PECHTL J. (2009) – A Monumental prestige patchwork, in D. Hofmann and P. Bickle (eds.), *Creating Communities. New Advances in Central European Neolithic Research*, Oxford, Oxbow Book, p. 186-201.

PIGEOT N. (1987) – *Magdaléniens d’Étiolles, Économie de débitage et organisation spatiale (l’unité d’habitation U5)*, Paris, CNRS Éditions (Supplément à *Gallia Préhistoire*, 15), 168 p.

PRICE T. D., BENTLEY R. A., LÜNING J., GRONENBORN D., WAHL J. (2001) – Prehistoric Human Migration in the Linearbandkeramik of Central Europe, *Antiquity* 75, p. 593-603.

RAMMINGER B. (2009) – The exchange of LBK Adze Blades in Central Europe: An Example for Economic Investigations in Archaeology, in D. Hofmann and P. Bickle (eds.), *Creating Communities. New Advances in Central Neolithic Research*, Oxford, Oxbow Books [Electronic Edition].

RASTEIRO R., CHIKHI L. (2013) – Female and Male Perspectives on the Neolithic Transition in Europe: Clues from Ancient and Modern Genetic Data, *PLoS One*, 8, 4, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060944

REBAY-SALISBURY K., BORTEL P., JANKER L., BAS M., PANY-CUCERA D., SALISBURY R. B., GERNER C., KANZ F. (2022) – Gendered Burial Practices of Early Bronze Age Children Align with Peptide-Based Sex Identification: A case Study from Franzhausen I, Austria, *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 139, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2022.105549

REY L., ROTTIER S., SANTOS F., GOUDE G. (2021) – Sex and Age-Related Social Organization in the Neolithic: A Promising Survey from the Paris Basin, *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports*, 38, 103092, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103092

REY L., SALAZAR-GARCÍA D. C., CHAMBON P., SANTOS F., ROTTIER S., GOUDE G. (2019) – A Multi-Isotope Analysis of Neolithic Human Groups in the Yonne Valley, Northern France: Insights into Dietary Patterns and Social Structure, *Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences*, 11, p. 5591-5616.

RICHARD M. P., MONTGOMERY J., NEHLICH O., GRIMES V. (2008). Isotopic Analysis of Humans and Animals from Vedrovice, *Anthropologie*, 46, 2-3, p. 185-194.

ROBB J. (2007) – *The Early Mediterranean Village: Agency, Material Culture and Social in Neolithic Italy*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press [Electronic Edition].

SALADIN D'ANGLURE B. (2004) – Le troisième sexe social des Inuit, *Diogène*, 208, 4, p. 157-168.

SALADIN D'ANGLURE B. (2006) – *Être et renaitre inuit, homme, femme ou chamane*, Paris, Gallimard, 432 p.

SÁNCHEZ ROMERO M. (2008) – Childhood and the Construction of Gender Identities through Material Culture, *Childhood in the Past*, 1, p. 17-37.

SCHULTING R. J. (2007) – Non-Dietary Occlusal Grooves on Anterior Maxillary Dentition in the Hungarian Neolithic, in
A. Whittle (ed.), *The Early Neolithic of the Great Hungarian Plain, Investigations of the Körös Culture Site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés*, Budapest, Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (Varia Archaeologicalica Hungarica, 21), p. 469-480.

SCHWEITZER R., SCHWEITZER J. (1977) – La nécropole danubienne de Mulhouse-Est, *Bulletin du Musée historique de Mulhouse*, 8, p. 11-63.

SCOTT J. (1988) – Genre : une catégorie utile d'analyse historique, *Les Cahiers du GRIF*, 37-38 « Le genre de l'histoire », p. 125-153.

SIDÉRA I., MARET P. de (2016) – An Ideal Bone for Traditional Dolls. Ruminants Metapodia Figurines: Archaeological and Ethnologiocal Examples from Africa and Europe, in S. Vitezović (ed.), *Close to the Bone. Current Studies in Bone Technologies*, Belgrade, Institute of Archaeology, p. 315-323.

SØRENSEN M. L. S. (1997) – Reading Dress: The Construction of Social Categories and Identities in Bronze Age Europe, *Journal of European Archaeology*, 5,1, p. 93-114.

SØRENSEN M. L. S. (2000) – *Gender Archaeology*, Cambridge, Polity Press, 248 p.

SØRENSEN M. L. S. (2013) – The History of Gender Archaeology in Northern Europe, in D. Bolger (ed.), *A Companion to Gender Prehistory*, Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell, p. 407-422.

SPECTOR J., WHELAN M. (1989) – Incorporating Gender into Archaeology Courses, in S. Morgan (ed.), *Gender and Anthropology: Critical Review for Research and Teaching*, Arlington, American Anthropological Association, p. 65-94.

SZÉCSÉNYI-NAGY A., BRANDT G., HAAK W., KEERL V., JAKUCS J., MÖLLER-RIEKER S., KÖHLER K., BALÁZS GUSZTÁV MENDE B., OROSS K., MARTON T., OSZTÁS A., KISS V., FECHER M., PÁLFI G., MOLNÁR E., SEBÖK K., CZENE A., PALUCH T., ŠLAUS M., NOVAK M., PECINA-ŠLAUS N., ŐSZ B., VOICSEK V., SOMOGYI K., TÓTH G., KROMER B., BÁNFFY E., ALT K. W. (2015) – Tracing the Genetic Origin of Europe’s First Farmers Reveals Insights into Their Social Organization, *Proceedings of the Royal Society*, 282, http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.0339

TABET P. (1979) – Les mains, les outils, les armes, *L'Homme*, 19, 3-4 « Les catégories de sexe en anthropologie sociale », p. 5-61.

TESTART A. (1986) – *Essai sur les fondements de la division sexuelle du travail chez les chasseurs-cueilleurs*, Paris, École des hautes études en sciences sociales (Cahiers de L'Homme, nouvelle série, 25), 102 p.

TESTART A. (2004) – Deux politiques funéraires. Dépôt ou distribution, in L. Baray (ed.), *Archéologie des pratiques funéraires. Approches critiques*, actes de table ronde (Glux-en-Glenne, juin 2001), Glux-en-Glenne, Bibracte. Centre archéologique européen (Bibracte, 9), p. 303-316.

TESTART A. (2012) – Avant l'histoire. L'évolution des sociétés de Lascaux à Carnac, Paris, Gallimard (Bibliothèque des sciences humaines), 549 p.

TESTART A. (2014) – *L'amazone et la cuisinière. Anthropologie de la division sexuelle du travail*, Paris, Gallimard (Bibliothèque des Sciences humaines), 192 p.

THÉVENET C. (2010) – *Des faits aux gestes. Des gestes aux sens ? Pratiques funéraires et société durant le Néolithique ancien en Bassin parisien*, doctoral thesis, Université de Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris, 3 volumes, 677 p.

TRÉMEAUD C. (2018) – *Genre et hiérarchisation dans le monde nord-alpin, aux âges du Bronze et du Fer*, Oxford, BAR (International Series, S2912), 251 p.

TRINGHAM R. (1991) – Household with Faces: The Challenge of Gender in Prehistoric Architectural Remains, in J. Gero and M. W. Conkey (eds.), *Engendering Archaeology. Women and Prehistory*, Oxford, Blackwell, p. 93-131.

TRINGHAM R., CONKEY M. (1998) – Rethinking Figurines. A Critical View from Archaeology of Gimbutas, the ‘Goddess’ and Popular Culture, in L. Goodison and C. Morris (eds.), *Ancient Goddesses. The myths and the Evidence*, London, British Museum Press, p. 22-45.

VILLOTTE S., KNÜSEL C. (2014) – “I Sing of Arms and of a Man...”: Medial Epicondylosis and the Sexual Division of Labour in Prehistoric Europe, *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 43, p. 168-174.

WAHL J., KÖNIG H. G. (1987) – Anthropologisch-traumatologische Untersuchung des menschlichen Skelettreste aus dem bandkeramischen Massengrad bei Talheim, Kr. Heilbronn, *Fundberichte Baden-Württemberg*, 12, p. 65-186.

WAHL J., STRIEN H.-C. (2007) – *Tatort Talheim. 7000 Jahre später. Archäologen und Gerichtsmediziner ermitteln*, Katalog zur Ausstellung (Heilbronn, 22 Sept. 2007-27 Jan. 2008), Heilbronn, Archäologie-Museum Heilbronn (Museo, 23).

WEYRICH L. S., DUCHENE S., SOUBRIER J., ARRIOLA L., LLAMAS B., BREEN J., MORRIS A. G., ALT K. W., CARAMELLI D., DRESELY V., FARRELL M., FARRER A. G., FRANCKEN M., GULLY N., HAAK W., HARDY K., HARVATI K., PETRA HELD P., HOLMES E. C., KAI-DONIS J., LALUEZA-FOX C., DE LA RASILLA M., ROSAS A., SEMAL P., SOLTYSIAK A., TOWNSEND G., USAI D., WAHL J., HUSON D. H., DOBNEY K., COOPER A. (2017) – Neanderthal Behaviour, Diet, and Disease Inferred from Ancient DNA in Dental Calculus, *Nature*, 544, p. 357-362, https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21674

ZVELEBIL M., PETTITT P. (2008) – Human Condition, Life and Death at an Early Neolithic Settlement: Bioarchaeological Analyses of the Vedrovice Cemetery and Their Biological Implications for the Spread of Agriculture in Central Europe, *Anthropologie*, 6, 2-3, p. 195-218.
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>