The circularity runs as follows: if gold bracelets are associated with women, then individuals found with gold bracelets are women; if individuals found with gold bracelets are women, then gold bracelets are associated with women. The association between object type and identity category is both assumed and confirmed by the same interpretive move. The DNA finding at Pompeii — a genetically male individual with a gold bracelet — does not invalidate the general association between bracelets and feminine adornment in Roman material culture, but it demonstrates that the association is statistical rather than universal and cannot be applied mechanically in individual cases.
Gender archaeology has developed methods for studying gender in past societies that are more attentive to the complexity of the relationship between material culture and social identity. These methods emphasize the need to distinguish between biological sex (which the 2024 study assessed genetically), social gender (which is a cultural category that DNA cannot directly assess), and gendered material culture (the associations between objects and gender categories that can be documented in the archaeological and textual record). The Pompeii case illustrates exactly why these distinctions matter: the material culture (gold bracelet) was read as evidence of social gender (female), which was then conflated with biological sex (female assumed), all without recognizing the circularity or the gaps in the inference chain.
The 2024 study’s authors were careful to note this distinction in their public statements. Alissa Mittnik’s emphasis on the need to “integrate genetic analysis with archaeological and historical information” rather than to treat either source of evidence as self-sufficient reflects an awareness of the methodological complexities involved.