Mapping collaborations: working in the contact zone of posthumanism and gender archaeology

Posthumanist thinking has been among the most controversial new departures in archaeological theory. It is particularly contentious as a perspective on “social” questions such as gender and colonialism. Debate has centred on the objectives of posthumanist (and humanist) archaeology, with archaeologists on one side accused of “losing sight of humans”, “ignoring politics”, and on the other, “imposing androcentric definitions of humanity” and “losing sight of things”. We explore the contact zone between posthumanism and humanist gender archaeology, not to declare a single best approach but to identify productive tensions that might enrich a heterodox gender archaeology. In particular we identify shared interest in exploring gender as multiplicity: a set of intersecting but contradictory social (and material) dynamics, with implications stretching far beyond conventional “gender topics”. Mapping is scholarly practice tailored to multiplicity. It invites flexible and undisciplined knowledge work, in which terms of analysis, definitions of scope and empirical tools are relentlessly tweaked and swapped. Mapping multiplicities grows out of conversations between feminist and posthumanist philosophy of knowledge, and represents a workable best practice for exploring gender in more-than-human worlds (without surrendering our commitments to people).