<i>A Gendered Past: A Critical Bibliography of Gender in Archaeology</i>. By Elisabeth A. Bacus, Alex W. Barker, Jeffrey D. Bonevich, Sandra L. Dunavan, J. Benjamin Fitzhugh, Debra L. Gold, Nurit S. Goldman-Finn, William Griffin, and Karen M. Mudar.

Zarmati, Louise; Bacus, Elisabeth A.; Barker, Alex W.; Bonevich, Jeffrey D.; Dunavan, Sandra L.; Fitzhugh, J. Benjamin; Gold, Debra L.; Goldman-Finn, Nurit S.; Griffin, William; Mudar, Karen M.

doi:10.2307/506554

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For further discussion, see Allasonjones 1995, 2009 27Whitehouse (1998) did not include any Roman studies because, she argued, few of the works from the 1990s are "ex plicitly archaeological studies" (1). There were no contribu tions from the classical world in Bacus et al (1993), let alone from Roman archaeology; see also Zarmati 1994. The only chapters on the Roman world in Moore and Scott (1997) con cern analyses of documentary sources (e.g., Harlow 1997). and their symbolic significance.28 However, much of this research might still be considered empirical and ungendered given that it regards funerary reliefs as akin to photography and subsumes women in terms of the familia.29…”

Section: [For Bibliography])mentioning

confidence: 96%

Characterizing Roman Artifacts to Investigate Gendered Practices in Contexts Without Sexed Bodies

Allison

2015

American Journal of Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article concerns the characterization of Roman artifacts so that they can play a greater role in gendered approaches to Roman sites-sites that constitute lived spaces but lack actual references to sexed bodies. It commences with a brief discussion on gendered approaches in the two main strands of Roman archaeology-classical and provincial. Within the differing frameworks of the wider disciplines of classics and archaeology, both strands focus on contexts with sexed bodies-burials, figurative representation, and inscriptions. The discussion serves as a background for more integrated and more interrogative approaches to relationships between Roman ar tifacts and gendered practices, approaches that aim to develop interpretative tools for investigating social practice in contexts where no representational or biologi cally sexed bodies are evident. Three types of artifacts-brooches, glass bottles, and needles-are used to demonstrate how differing degrees of gender associations of artifacts and artifact assemblages can provide insights into gender relationships in settlement contexts. These insights in turn contribute to better understandings of gendered sociospatial practices across the Roman world.*

show abstract

Section: [For Bibliography])mentioning

confidence: 96%

Characterizing Roman Artifacts to Investigate Gendered Practices in Contexts Without Sexed Bodies

Allison

2015

American Journal of Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Thinking from Things: Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology

Evasdottir¹,

Wylie²

2004

Anthropologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite earthbound appearances, archaeology is a deeply philosophical discipline; in the course of their work archaeologists routinely confront provocative questions about how they know what they know. Their fragmentary data stand as evidence of the cultural past only given rich interpretation, which raises skeptical questions about whether it is ever possible to escape the trap of constructing the past in the image of a familiar present, or of an 'other' necessary to our own self-understanding. I argue that promising methodological responses to this conundrum have been obscured by polarized debate; although archaeological evidence is always an interpretive construct, it nonetheless has a striking capacity to subvert even our most strongly held convictions about the cultural past. The challenge is to give a systematic account of this perplexing epistemic duality; this is the task I take up, in various forms, in the essays that make up this book. In the process I argue the case for amphibious philosophy of science: conceptual analysis located at the interface between analytic philosophy of science and philosophically sophisticated archaeology, and motivated as much by problems that concern practitioners as by those that are canonical in philosophy, and that draws on the resources of the sciences themselves.

show abstract

Archaeology: The Key Concepts

Renfrew¹,

Bahn²

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Gendered Past: A Critical Bibliography of Gender in Archaeology. By Elisabeth A. Bacus, Alex W. Barker, Jeffrey D. Bonevich, Sandra L. Dunavan, J. Benjamin Fitzhugh, Debra L. Gold, Nurit S. Goldman-Finn, William Griffin, and Karen M. Mudar.

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Characterizing Roman Artifacts to Investigate Gendered Practices in Contexts Without Sexed Bodies

Characterizing Roman Artifacts to Investigate Gendered Practices in Contexts Without Sexed Bodies

Thinking from Things: Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology

Archaeology: The Key Concepts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About