The somatization of archaeology: Institutions, discourses, corporeality

Meskell, Lynn

doi:10.1080/00293652.1996.9965595

Cited by 136 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nós criamos a noção do sexo, pois são os seres humanos que escolhem quais aspectos biológicos ou anatômicos vão servir para dividir as pessoas em grupos e classificações. Trata-se, pois, mais de uma representação que uma verdade universal (NORDBLADH & YATES, 1990;MESKELL, 1996MESKELL, , 1998JOYCE, 2000;SOFAER, 2006, BUTLER, 2008VOSS, 2006). Então, pode-se dizer que sexo e gênero são socialmente construídos e por ser similarmente constituídos, isto não significa que eles são necessariamente a mesma coisa... Isto demonstra que os corpos são sexualmente diferentes e que a sociedade os reconhece como tal... Veem os corpos como variações de macho e fêmea (GATENS, 1996).…”

Section: Repensando As Dicotomiasunclassified

Pela materialidade dos gêneros

Sene

2017

rsab

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMOO presente artigo tem por objetivo apresentar reflexões sobre categorias analíticas importantes da arqueologia de gênero desde 1980, relacionadas à questão das dicotomias, identidades e sexualidades, tendo a materialidade humana como personagem principal desse cenário científico. Não vislumbramos esgotar o assunto e resolver polêmicas, mas, com base em diferentes autores, propor novos olhares, de modo especial com respeito à visão binária de gênero dentro da análise e interpretação arqueológica. Desconstruir a polaridade rígida dos gêneros implicaria observar que o polo masculino contém o feminino e vice-versa, além de perceber que cada um deles é internamente fragmentado, dividido. Palavras-chave: Dicotomias; Identidades; Cultura Material. ABSTRACTThe present article aims to reflections on the analytical categories of the important archaeology of the gender since 1980, related to the issue of the dichotomies, identities and sexualities, taking the materiality of the human as the main character of this scientific scenario. Do not expect to exhaust the subject, and resolve controversial, but based on different authors, to propose new perspectives, particularly with respect to the twofold vision of gender within the analysis and interpretation of archaeological. Deconstruct the polarity rigid of genders would observe that the polo masculine contains the feminine and vice-versa, in addition to realize that each of them is internally fragmented, divided.

show abstract

Section: Repensando As Dicotomiasunclassified

Pela materialidade dos gêneros

Sene

2017

rsab

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the latest revision of a now-classic textbook on theory and interpretation in archaeology, Hodder & Hutson (2003, 121-4) also recognize that the concept of the individual is complex, and discuss it in terms of embodiment and the relational self (see also Hodder 2000, 25). Meskell (1999, 8-36), developing arguments adumbrated in earlier studies (Meskell 1996;Knapp & Meskell 1997), discusses at length the concept of the individual, both in the social sciences generally and in archaeology specifically. She outlines the historical trajectories and ontological necessity in the study of the self and as they concern the emergence of individuals, social actors and social identities in the material and documentary records (Meskell 2001, 188-95).…”

Section: Individuals In Archaeologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…as a result of the ways they position themselves within networks of domination, resistance and knowledge (Thomas 2002a, 37-8;2004b, 24-5). Thomas thus situates himself squarely in the realm of a 'Foucauldian archaeology' that Meskell (1996;1999, 30-31) has criticized for its binary equation of oppressor vs oppressed, especially as this relates to issues of sex and class. Tarlow (1999, 175) also has excoriated the way that archaeologists (e.g.…”

Section: Individuals In Archaeology: Contours Of a Debatementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Past Practices: Rethinking Individuals and Agents in Archaeology

Knapp

Dommelen

2008

CAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Archaeologists who seek to examine people ' and 'postprocessual' (e.g. Shanks & Tilley 1987, 61-78; Meskell 1999, 8-36;Hodder 2000; Tarlow 2002, 26-7; Gosden 2004, 33-9; Kristiansen 2004, 83-5), archaeologists who want to open up windows onto the roles people played in past societies typically assume, consciously or unconsciously, the existence of individuals. Thomas (2004a, 147-8), however, challenges unqualified assumptions about the existence of individuals, at least in Europe prior to about 500 years ago: Past Practices: Rethinking Individuals and Agents in Archaeology A. Bernard Knapp & Peter van DommelenThe result [of recent work on agency] … has been to conflate agency with the actor … and thus to assume that evidence of agency is the same thing as evidence for individuals or subjects or selves. This confusion is an understandable one, and in archaeology its origins would seem to lie in the wholly necessary and laudable attempt to think about the concrete attributes of individuals in the past and their role in social and cultural change. (Moore 2000, 260)

show abstract

“…In recent years, there has been an interesting turn toward the body in archaeological approaches to mortuary practices. This new focus can probably be related to a more the general interest in body theory that has become manifest in archaeology over the past two decades or so (see Kus 1992;Meskell 1996;Rautman 2000;Hamilakis et al 2002;Joyce 2005, to only mention a few examples). While many of these approaches have contributed to putting a focus on the body and stressed the social and cultural dimensions of the body, they have tended to remain abstract (Hamilakis 2002.22; for a critique, see…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The way we bury our dead. Reflections on mortuary ritual, community and identity at the time of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition

Stutz

2010

Doc. praeh.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses how archaeologists can approach ways in which the ritual treatment of the dead body was a means of reproducing a sense of identity and community in the past. The approach combines a theoretical framework grounded in practice and body theory with a methodological approach based on taphonomic analysis. This framework is introduced to analyze the mortuary practices at the Mesolithic cemeteries of Skateholm I and II, Vedbæk, Bøgebakken and Zvejnieki. Beyond the immediate context, the study seeks to reflect on how similarities and differences noticeable over time and space may provide an insight into changing identity processes.

show abstract

The somatization of archaeology: Institutions, discourses, corporeality

Cited by 136 publications

References 13 publications

Pela materialidade dos gêneros

Pela materialidade dos gêneros

Past Practices: Rethinking Individuals and Agents in Archaeology

The way we bury our dead. Reflections on mortuary ritual, community and identity at the time of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About