Gender-informed archaeology: The priority of definition, the use of analogy, and the multivariate approach

Hill, Erica

doi:10.1007/bf02428417

Cited by 25 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…During the last ten years a similar set of reservations and shift in commitments is also evident in North American archaeology, as attested to by archaeologists who reiterate the need to rejuvenate feminist theoretical perspectives and a feminist engagement in/with archaeology (Conkey and Gero 1997;Conkey 2003;Franklin 2001;Geller and Stockett 2006;Hill 1998;Hays-Gilpin 2000;Meskell 1999;Wilkie and Hayes 2006;Spencer-Wood 2001). Anglo-American gender archaeology is a source of inspiration for much Scandinavian feminist archaeology and often also functions as an 'international' reference point, with the power to significantly influence Scandinavian archaeology.…”

Section: Situating Feminist Archaeologymentioning

confidence: 88%

Much More than Gender

Engelstad

2007

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous publications on gender archaeology present case studies that incorporate gender in their analyses, but make little use of feminist theory and critique, and are ambivalent or negative to feminism. Aspects of Norwegian, British and American gender archaeology are discussed in relation to a desire for the 'mainstream.' The reasons for, and consequences of, a lack of feminist theorizing and engagement are related to Donna Haraway's concept of situated knowledges.

show abstract

Section: Situating Feminist Archaeologymentioning

confidence: 88%

Much More than Gender

Engelstad

2007

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Britain it struggled valiantly amidst resistance (Gilchrist 1991;Sørensen 2005). In North America it met with both deafening silence and strong opposition (Hill 1998), but nonetheless gained some footing (Conkey 2003;Conkey & Spector 1984;Conkey & Gero 1997;Wylie 1997). To understand this radically different reception of feminism in archaeological theory and practice, we need to acknowledge the political origins of the movement.…”

Section: Feminist Archaeology: the Politics Of Impuritymentioning

confidence: 96%

Revolution Fulfilled? Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, a Generation On. Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by Ian Hodder. (New Directions in Archaeology Series.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007 (2nd edition); ISBN-13: 9780521035507 paperback, £18.99 & US$34.99, 196 pp.

Hodder

Leone

Bernbeck

et al. 2007

CAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is now 25 years since Symbolic and Structural Archaeology (henceforth SSA) was first published in 1982. Why run a review feature upon a book this old? Clearly not to let readers know about its now-familiar contents. One justification is historical. Very few works have had such an effect — in archaeology, the nearest parallel comes with works such as Binford and Binford's New Perspectives in Archaeology in 1968, which laid the basis for an entire agenda of New Archaeology. Like Binford and Binford's book, SSA marked a transformation of archaeology as much as, or more than, it actually transformed the field itself. It signalled the coming of age of a coherent cohort of young, energetic scholars with a strongly defined new agenda. It breached taken-for-granted limits with bold, even flagrant ambition; it consciously invoked new intellectual frames. As much as any particular publishing event can punctuate the scholarly process with the intimation of a new direction, the publication of SSA did so.And yet, a review feature on the book would perhaps not be entirely justified as purely a historical retrospective. It is clear from the trajectory of theoretical publication in Britain (and to some extent America) over the last decades, from the content of archaeological theory courses in universities, and the vocabulary bounced around at conferences such as TAG and the SAAs, that the agenda of SSA — often termed ‘post-processualism’ — has become the dominant voice in mainstream archaeological theory. The challenger has become the establishment; the once-unthinkable has become normal science. There are many other theoretical voices, of course, but even self-proclaimed alternative movements show signs of having absorbed, osmotically, much of the theoretical agenda set by post-processualism, even if their answers differ.Twenty-five is a human generation, and perhaps the closest approach to eternity in the rapidly fermenting world of theory; the current generation of students (future colleagues, really) will have known no other paradigm. Hence, we have asked our contributors not only to comment retrospectively upon the book itself, but also prospectively, on how well its agenda has weathered the years, on what roads remain untaken, and upon where they think the future might lie.

show abstract

“…These do not necessarily reflect homosexuality, nor simply cross-dressing. Rather, they are distinct categories of acceptable social interaction (Hill 1998). This is because different genders are often defined in relation to one another.…”

Section: Gender and Feminist Archaeologymentioning

confidence: 99%

A Spatial Analysis of Ceramics in Northwestern Alaska: Studying Pre-Contact Gendered Use of Space

Braymer-Hayes¹

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Activities and production among ethnographic Arctic peoples were primarily divided by gender. This gendered division of labor also extended to a spatial segregated pattern of the household in some Arctic cultures. Other cultures had a more gender-integrated spatial pattern of the household. There have been very few archaeological studies of gender in the Arctic, and even fewer studies of gendered use of space. In this thesis, I evaluated the existence of this gendered use of space in pre-contact Northwest Alaska. I also evaluated the existence of discrete activity spaces. I drew from both ethnoarchaeology and gender/feminist archaeology to both construct my hypotheses and interpret my results. I used ceramics, which were likely primarily made by and used by women, as a proxy for women's movement within the house. Ceramics are abundant and well-preserved in many Northwestern Alaskan sites, and are well suited for a robust spatial analysis. In addition to ceramics, I also evaluated the spatial density of other female artifacts, like ulus or scrapers, and male artifacts, like harpoon points or adzes, in order to further test the existence of gender specific use of space. I tested this using the HDBSCAN (Hierarchical Density Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise) algorithm in Python, a programming language. HDBSCAN identifies discrete clusters of artifacts, as well as the persistence, or stability, of the cluster. Birnirk and Thule era (1300-150 BP) house features from Cape Espenberg, Alaska, were used to test these expectations. Based on the results of my spatial analysis, I did not find any evidence of gender specific use of space, nor did I find specific activity areas within the house. My findings ii are not necessarily an indication that gender-segregated use of space does not exist among pre-contact Northwest Alaskan people: I just did not find evidence supporting it. This could be, in part, due to issues of sample size, house size, and the role of secondary and post deposition processes in shaping the ceramic assemblage and distribution. While ceramics did cluster, they mostly clustered in the entrance tunnel of the house. This is likely the result of cleaning, storage, or other depositional processes. When ceramics did cluster in the main rooms, clustering was idiosyncratic. Male and female artifacts were not spatially segregated. Female artifacts were slightly more likely to cluster than male artifacts. Both sets of artifacts were generally in the same area as the ceramic clusters. While this study did not find evidence of gendered use of space, it still is an important contribution of addressing questions of gender in the Arctic. In addition, it is a valuable methodological contribution, using a clustering algorithm that previously has not been frequently used by archaeologists. Choris 2750-2450 BP Large, oval structures with stone-paved central hearths

show abstract

Gender-informed archaeology: The priority of definition, the use of analogy, and the multivariate approach

Abstract: Despite recent efforts to construct gender theory in archaeology, I assert that no methodological or theoretical breakthroughs have occurrecL

Cited by 25 publications

References 72 publications

Much More than Gender

Much More than Gender

Revolution Fulfilled? Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, a Generation On. Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by Ian Hodder. (New Directions in Archaeology Series.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007 (2nd edition); ISBN-13: 9780521035507 paperback, £18.99 & US$34.99, 196 pp.

A Spatial Analysis of Ceramics in Northwestern Alaska: Studying Pre-Contact Gendered Use of Space

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About