Straight down the line? A queer consideration of hunter-gatherer studies in north-west Europe

Cobb, Hannah

doi:10.1080/00438240500395862

Cited by 22 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moving away from hierarchical trajectories and fixed biological starting points, research has trended toward approaches that examine the intersection of sex and gender with other aspects of social identity (Bolger 2013b: 10-11; see Sterling 2015)-such as age, status, class, and race-prompting more nuanced insights into the organization of labor, mortuary analysis, and the body. Problematizing the androcentric narratives of man the toolmaker (Bird 1993;Gero 1991;Owen 2005: 37-39;Sassaman 1998), man the hunter (Doucette 2001;Brumbach2006a, b, 2009), and man the farmer (Robin 2002(Robin , 2006Watson and Kennedy 1991), various studies of the division of labor have demonstrated that task division does not inevitably align with sex or gender, potentially exhibiting complementary, non-dichotomous, fluid, or intersectional arrangements (Brumfiel and Robin 2008;Cobb 2005;Crass 2001: 109;Geller2008: 122-124, 2009aGero and Scattolin 2002;Hendon 2002;Hollimon 2000;Brumbach 2006a, b, 2009;Joyce 1992;Levy 2006;Preston-Werner 2008;Rotman 2006;Stockett 2005). Rather than hierarchizing contexts of action and domains of inquiry according to value-laden assumptions about gender, researchers are placing greater emphasis on how such spheres intersect in multidimensional and multiscalar ways (Cobb and Croucher 2016;Ferrer 2016;Spencer-Wood 2013).…”

Section: Destabilizing the Binary Binds: Approaches To Differencementioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction to “Binary Binds”: Deconstructing Sex and Gender Dichotomies in Archaeological Practice

Ghisleni

Jordan

Fioccoprile

2016

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gender archaeology has made significant strides toward deconstructing the hegemony of binary categorizations. Challenging dichotomies such as man/woman, sex/gender, and biology/culture, approaches informed by poststructuralist, feminist, and queer theories have moved beyond essentialist and universalist identity constructs to more nuanced configurations. Despite the theoretical emphasis on context, multiplicity, and fluidity, binary starting points continue to streamline the spectrum of variability that is recognized, often reproducing normative assumptions in the evidence. The contributors to this special issue confront how sex, gender, and sexuality categories condition analytical visibility, aiming to develop approaches that respond to the complexity of theory in archaeological practice. The papers push the ontological and epistemological boundaries of bodies, personhood, and archaeological possibility, challenging a priori assumptions that contain how sex, gender, and sexuality categories are constituted and related to each other. Foregrounding intersectional approaches that engage with ambiguity, variability, and difference, this special issue seeks to "de-contain" categories, assumptions, and practices from "binding" our analytical gaze toward only certain kinds of persons and knowledges, in interpretations of the past and practices in the present.The interpretation of sex and gender in archaeology has long been contained by the social polarity of "man" and "woman" as well as the confinement of sex in biology and gender in culture (Joyce 2008;Sofaer 2006;Yates 1993)-what we term the "binary binds." The aim of this special issue is to critically engage with and move beyond the limitations of sex and gender dichotomies in archaeological narratives, with an emphasis on developing approaches that respond to the complexity of theory in practices. The 2 articles emerged from the Archaeology and Gender in Europe 1 (Dommasnes and Montón-Subías 2012: 374, 382) sponsored session at the 2014 Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists in Istanbul, Turkey. Contributors were challenged to rethink the analytical categories that frame archaeological reconstructions of sex, gender, and sexuality, exploring how binary starting points and methodological practices condition and constrain interpretations of sex and gender variability.We recognize that a call to critically interrogate sex and gender dichotomies is not new. The binary binds and their hierarchical confinement of biological and social difference have been loci of contestation since the emergence of gender as an analytical category in archaeology (e.g., Claassen ). In the past three decades, gender archaeology has made significant strides toward deconstructing the imperatives of these dichotomies, informed by poststructuralist, feminist, and queer

show abstract

Section: Destabilizing the Binary Binds: Approaches To Differencementioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction to “Binary Binds”: Deconstructing Sex and Gender Dichotomies in Archaeological Practice

Ghisleni

Jordan

Fioccoprile

2016

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The influence of post-structuralist theory on archaeology is perhaps best seen in studies questioning the idea that a stable gender is constructed upon a stable sex, and highlighting the remarkable variation in human sex-gender systems (Yates, 1993). In this context we cannot fail to mention that, unlike in Southern and Central Europe, archaeological work inspired by queer theory in the USA (Dowson, 2000) has had a certain impact on engendered archaeologies in Britain (Casella, 2000;Mathews, 2000;Ransley, 2005;Cobb, 2005).…”

Section: The 1990s and Onwards: Specialization And Internationalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

European Gender Archaeologies in Historical Perspective

Dommasnes

Montón-Subías

2012

Eur. j. archaeol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study presents an overview of the development of gender archaeologies in local academies across Europe, from the initial efforts in Norway in the early 1970s, to the founding of the multinational Archaeology and Gender in Europe (AGE) working group in 2009. In addition, the study seeks to show the scope of gender archaeology once contributions from different traditions in different languages are included, and to provide comparative historiographies for those European countries where gender archaeology is now a major strand of research. We hope that innovative approaches to the study of gender in the past will emerge in the future thanks to fruitful encounters between regional trends and developments.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, where dietary differentiations have been identified, interpretations of exogamous marriage practices (e.g. Schulting and Richards 2001) further reinforce notions of normative heterosexual practices and identities (Cobb 2005).…”

Section: Introduction: What Is Identity?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dahlberg 1981), and in specific relation to the Mesolithic of Britain and Ireland (Cobb 2005;Finlay 2006), Mesolithic research has continued to reproduce Westernised concepts of normalised heterosexual identity and nuclear familial relationships into the twenty-first century. For example, where gendered spaces are suggested, based on tool-use, this in turn leads to interpretations which uncritically assume the modern Western heterosexual family unit as norm (e.g.…”

Section: Introduction: What Is Identity?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conneller 2006;Strassburg 2000); interpretations of faunal data and human/animal relationships (e.g. Conneller 2004;Overton 2014); interpretations of sexual and gendered identities (Cobb 2005;Schmidt 2005;Strassburg 2000); and interpretations of the formation of identity through everyday material culture use and skilled technical practice (Cobb 2014;Conneller 2005;Finlay 2003Finlay , 2006Finlay , 2014Warren 2006). What is important in these approaches is that their stance on materials, bodies, and the relationship between the two is radically different to a standard empiricist account.…”

Section: Introduction: What Is Identity?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Being Mesolithic in Life and Death

Cobb

Jones

2018

J World Prehist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fifty years ago, approaches to Mesolithic identity were limited to ideas of 'Man the Hunter' and 'Woman the Gatherer', while evidence of non-normative practice was ascribed to 'shamans' and to 'ritual', and that was that. As post-processual critiques have touched Mesolithic studies, however, this has changed. In the first decade of the 21st century a strong body of work on Mesolithic identity in life, as well as death, has enabled us to think beyond modern Western categories to interpret identity in the Mesolithic. These studies have addressed the nature of personhood and relational identities, the body, and the relationship between human and otherthan-human persons. Our paper reviews these changing approaches, offering a series of case studies from a range of different sites that illustrate how identity is formed and transformed through engagements with landscapes, materials, and both living and dead persons. These are then developed to advocate an assemblage approach to identity in the Mesolithic.

show abstract

Straight down the line? A queer consideration of hunter-gatherer studies in north-west Europe

Cited by 22 publications

References 6 publications

Introduction to “Binary Binds”: Deconstructing Sex and Gender Dichotomies in Archaeological Practice

Introduction to “Binary Binds”: Deconstructing Sex and Gender Dichotomies in Archaeological Practice

European Gender Archaeologies in Historical Perspective

Being Mesolithic in Life and Death

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About