Two decades of women in prehistory and in archaeology in Norway. A review

Dommasnes, Liv Helga

doi:10.1080/00293652.1992.9965541

Cited by 51 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(Dommasnes 1992;Engelstad in press). In Britain it struggled valiantly amidst resistance (Gilchrist 1991;Sørensen 2005).…”

Section: Feminist Archaeology: the Politics Of Impuritymentioning

confidence: 95%

“…This made for strange bedfellows, radical voices both calling for the acknowledgment of politics, yet one ignoring the baseline of standpoint and personal politics of gender. Except perhaps in Scandinavia (Dommasnes 1992;Engelstad 1991; in press), feminist archaeology had a long way to go before achieving greater visibility or recognition on the central maps of theory (Conkey & Gero 1997;Conkey 2003). Although much work has been done, the trajectory has not quite been what members of my generation initially imagined it might be.…”

Section: The Good the Bad And The Red And The Blackmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

“…(Dommasnes 1992;Engelstad in press). In Britain it struggled valiantly amidst resistance (Gilchrist 1991;Sørensen 2005).…”

Section: Feminist Archaeology: the Politics Of Impuritymentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: The Good the Bad And The Red And The Blackmentioning

confidence: 97%

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

show abstract

“…As Dommasnes (1992:6) puts it, comments such us 'you may find enough for a short article' were not uncommon. However, these first attempts demonstrated that the lack of evidence and the problem of attribution were in fact weak assumptions unconsciously based on androcentric principles, rather than statements based on observation (Dommasnes 1992); here was a 'bad practice' to be corrected.…”

Section: The Origins Of Gender Archaeologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Thinking in the Making: Feminist Epistemology and Gender Archaeology

Rubio

2011

Norwegian Archaeological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper I suggest that gender archaeology has followed the three main feminist epistemologies as described by Sandra Harding (1986): feminist empiricism, standpoint theory, and feminist postmodernism. I explore the main principles of these orientations and discuss their use in gender archaeology, offering examples from Norwegian, Spanish and North American contexts. My purpose is to trace a genealogy of gender archaeology from the point of view of epistemology that will reveal its feminist character. Even though it has been developed within the processual and post-processual contexts of archaeology, a review of its epistemological principles will show that gender archaeology must be situated within a wider feminist framework.

show abstract

“…It went hand in hand with contemporary concerns over the position of women as practitioners and academics within the discipline (Claassen 1994;Claassen and Joyce 1997;Diaz-Andreu and Sørensen 1998;Dommasnes 1992;Nelson, Nelson, and Wylie 1994). Gender studies in archaeology suffered from being considered the domain of women, rather than the more dialogic or holistic study of gendered relations that considered men as gendered beings with a concomitant construction of sexed identity (Knapp 1998;Knapp and Meskell 1997;Meskell 1996).…”

Section: Gender and Feminismmentioning

confidence: 99%