Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:20:16.846Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

European Gender Archaeologies in Historical Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Liv Helga Dommasnes  and
Sandra Montón-Subías
Liv Helga Dommasnes
Affiliation:
University Museum of Bergen, Norway
Sandra Montón-Subías
Affiliation:
ICREA, Departament d'Humanitats, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Cet article présente une vue d'ensemble du développement des archéologies du genre/sexe dans les académies nationales à travers l'Europe; des efforts initiaux en Norvège au début des années 1970 jusqu'à la fondation du groupe de travail multinational AGE (Archéologie et Genre en Europe) en 2009. De plus, on essaie de montrer l'envergure de l'archéologie du genre à partir du moment où on tient compte des contributions de differentes traditions et dans des langues differentes, et de fournir des historiographies comparatives pour les pays européens où l'archéologie du genre représente aujourd'hui un des principaux courants de la recherche. Nous espérons voir apparaître dans un proche futur des approches innovatrices aux études du genre dans le passé, grâce aux rencontres fructueuses entre tendances et développements régionaux. Translation by Isabelle Gerges.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Beitrag präsentiert einen Überblick über die Entwicklungen der Gender-Archäologien an lokalen Hochschulen in Europa, ausgehend von den anfänglichen Bemühungen in Norwegen in den frühen 1970er Jahren bis zur Gründung der multinationalen Archaeology and Gender in Europe (AGE)-Arbeitsgruppe im Jahr 2009. Weiterhin versucht die Studie, die Spannweite von Gender-Archäologie aufzuzeigen, was Beiträge aus verschiedenen Traditionen in unterschiedlichen Sprachen umfasst, und vergleichende Historiographien für die europäischen Staaten aufzuzeigen, in denen Gender-Archäologie heute ein wichtiges Forschungsfeld darstellt. Wir hoffen, dass die innovativen Ansätze zu Gender-Studien der Vergangenheit zukünftig in fruchtbare Verbindungen zwischen regionalen Trends und Entwicklungen münden werden. Translation by Heiner Schwarzberg.

Keywords

gender archaeologiesfeminist archaeologiesAGEnational academic traditionsarchéologies du genre/sexearchéologie féministearchéologie du genreAGEtraditions académiques nationalesgender-archäologienfeministische archäologiearchäologie des sozialen geschlechtsAGEnationale archäologische traditionen
Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , 2012 , pp. 367 - 391
Copyright
Copyright © European Association of Archaeologists 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AGE. n.d. AGE: Archaeology and Gender in Europe [online]. [accessed 25 April 2012]. Available at: <http://www.upf.edu/materials/fhuma/age/>..>Google Scholar
Andersson, A.C. 1998. Feminine – Masculine and the ‘Problematic’ Other: Some Reflections upon a Critical Gender Discourse. In: Andersson, A.C., Gillberg, Å., Jensen, O.W., Karlsson, H., Rolöf, M.V., eds. The Kaleidoscopic Past. Göteborg: Göteborg University, Department of Archaeology, pp. 183–9.Google Scholar
Aranda, G., Montón-Subías, S., Jiménez-Brobeil, S. 2009a. Conflicting Evidence? Weapons and Skeletons in the Bronze Age of South-East Iberia. Antiquity, 83: 1038–51.Google Scholar
Aranda, G., Montón-Subías, S., Sánchez-Romero, M., Alarcón, E. 2009b. Death and Everyday Life: The Argaric Societies from Southeast Iberia. Journal of Social Archaeology, 9 (2): 139–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, K., Gilchrist, R., Graves, P., Taylor, S. 1988. Women and Archaeology. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 7 (1): 2–8.Google Scholar
Arwill-Nordbladh, E. 1989. Oscar Montelius and the Liberation of Women: An Example of Archaeology, Ideology and the Early Swedish Women's Movement. In: Larson, T.B., Lundmark, H., eds. Approaches to Swedish Prehistory: A Spectrum of Problems and Perspectives in Contemporary Research. BAR International Series 500. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 131–42.Google Scholar
Arwill-Nordbladh, E. 1998. Genuskonstruktioner i nordisk vikingatid. Förr och nu. Göteborg: Göteborg University.Google Scholar
Arwill-Nordbladh, E. 2001. Genusforskning inom arkeologin. Stockholm: Högskoleverket.Google Scholar
Audouze, F., Janny, F. 2009. Can we Hope to Identify Children's Activities in Upper Palaeolithic Settlements? In: Kopaka, K., ed. FYLO: Engendering Prehistoric ‘Stratigraphies’ in the Aegean and the Mediterranean. Aegaeum 30. Liege: University of Liege, pp. 167–74.Google Scholar
Beilke-Voigt, I. 2001. Kritische Bemerkungen zu den sogenannten Bauopfern in frühgeschichtlichen Siedlungen Norddeutschlands und Dänemarks. In: Meyer, M., ed. ‘ … trans Albium fluvium’. Forschungen zur vorrömischen, kaiserzeitlichen und mittelalterlichen Archäologie. Studia Honoraria 10. Rahden/Westfalen: Leidorf Verlag, pp. 177–91.Google Scholar
Berseneva, N. 2008. Women and Children in the Sargat Culture. In: Linduff, K.M., Rubison, K.S., eds. Are All Warriors Male? Gender Roles on the Ancient Eurasian Steppe. Lanham: AltaMira Press, pp. 131–51.Google Scholar
Bertelsen, R., Lillehammer, A., Naess, J.R. eds. 1987. Were They All Men? An Examination of Sex Roles in Prehistoric Society. Stavanger: Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger.Google Scholar
Bietti Sestieri, A.M. 2008. Domi mansit, lanam fecit: Was That All? Women's Social Status and Roles in the Early Latial Communities (11th–9th Centuries BC). Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 21 (1): 133–59.Google Scholar
Boaventura, R. 2011. Bodies in Motion. Implications of Gender in Long-Distance Exchange between the Lisbon and Alentejo Regions of Portugal in the Late Neolithic. In: Lillios, K., ed. Comparative Archaeologies: The American Southwest (AD 900–1600) and the Iberian Peninsula (3000–1500 BC). Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 207–19.Google Scholar
Bolger, D.L. 2003. Gender in Ancient Cyprus: Narratives of Social Change on a Mediterranean Island. Walnut Creek: Rowman Altamira.Google Scholar
Brandt, H. 1996. Frauen und feministische Forschung in der Ur- und Frühgeschichte. Ein Beitrag zur archäologischen Theoriediskussion. Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift, 37: 59–85.Google Scholar
Brandt, H., Koch, J.K. eds. 1996. Königin, Klosterfrau, Baüerin. Frauen im Frühmittelalter. Münster: Agenda Verlag.Google Scholar
Brück, J. 2009. Women, Death and Social Change in the British Bronze Age. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 42 (1): 1–23.Google Scholar
BWA. n.d. British Women Archaeologists [online]. [accessed 26 April 2012]. Available at: <http://britishwomenarchaeologists.org.uk/>..>Google Scholar
Caesar, C. 1999. The Construction of Masculinity – The Driving Force of History: A New Way of Understanding Change in the Past. Lund Archaeological Review, 5: 17–36.Google Scholar
Cantarella, E. 1981. L'Ambiguo Malanno: Condizione e Imagine della Donna nell'Antichità Greca e Romana. Roma: Editori Riuniti.Google Scholar
Casella, E. 2000. Bulldaggers and Gentle Ladies: Archaeological Approaches to Female Homosexuality in Convict-Era Australia. In: Schmidt, R., Voss, B., eds. Archaeologies of Sexuality. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 143–59.Google Scholar
Chapman, J. 1997. Changing Gender Relations in the Later Prehistory of Eastern Hungary. In: Moore, J., Scott, E., eds. Invisible People and Processes. Writing Gender and Childhood into European Prehistory. London & New York: Leicester University Press, pp. 131–49.Google Scholar
Cobb, H.L. 2005. Straight Down the Line? A Queer Consideration of Hunter-Gatherer Studies in North-Western Europe. World Archaeology, 37 (4): 630–36.Google Scholar
Colomer, L., González Marcén, P., Montón-Subías, S. 1998. Maintenance Activities, Technological Knowledge and Consumption Patterns: A View from a Prehistoric Iberian Site (Can Roqueta, 1200–500 cal BC). Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 11: 53–80.Google Scholar
Conkey, M.W., Spector, J.D. 1984. Archaeology and the Study of Gender. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 7: 1–38.Google Scholar
Coudart, A. 1998. Archaeology of French Women and French Women in Archaeology. In: Díaz-Andreu, M., Sorensen, M.L., eds. Excavating Women: A History of Women in European Archaeology. London: Routledge, pp. 61–85.Google Scholar
Cruz Berrocal, M. 2009. Feminismo, Teoría y Práctica de una Arqueología Científica. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 66 (2): 25–43.Google Scholar
Cuozzo, M.A. 2008. Interpretazione delle Necropoli e Questioni di Genere nell'Archeologia Italiana: Il Caso di Pontecagnano. In: Prados, L., Ruiz, C., eds. Arqueología del Género. Primer Encuentro Internacional en la UAM. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, pp. 105–33.Google Scholar
Curià, E., Picazo, M. 2000. Cambios del Poblamiento Rural en el Empordà durante la Etapa de Transición a la Romanización. In: Buxó, R., Pons, E., eds. Els Productes Alimentaris d'Origen Vegetal a l'Edat del Ferro de l'Europa Occidental: De la Producció al Consum (Girona, 21–24 Maig 1998). Girona: Museu d'Arqueologia de Catalunya, pp. 87–94.Google Scholar
Damm, C. 2000. Time, Gender and Production. In: Donald, M., Hurcombe, L., eds. Gender and Material Culture in Archaeological Perspective. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 110–22.Google Scholar
Díaz-Andreu, M. 2003. Rock Art and Ritual Landscape in Central Spain: The Rock Carvings of La Hinojosa (Cuenca). Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 59: 35–51.Google Scholar
Díaz-Andreu, M., Montón-Subías, S. in press. Feminist and Gender Studies in Southwestern Europe: Spanish, Portuguese and French Prehistoric Archaeologies. In: Bolger, D., ed. A Companion to Gender Prehistory. Willey-Blackwell. Google Scholar
Díaz-Andreu, M., Sørensen, M.L. eds. 1998. Excavating Women: A History of Women in European Archaeology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Diotima, 1987. Il Pensiero della Differenza Sessuale. Milano: La Tartaruga.Google Scholar
Dommasnes, L.H. 1976. Yngre jernalder i Sogn – forsøk på sosial rekonstruksjon. , University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Dommasnes, L.H. 1982. Late Iron Age in Western Norway. Female Roles and Ranks as Deduced from an Analysis of Burial Customs. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 15 (1–2): 70–84.Google Scholar
Dommasnes, L.H. 1985. Analyse av faktorer som virker inn på fagets innhold. Kvinner i Arkeologi i Norge, 1: 25–38.Google Scholar
Dommasnes, L.H. 1987. Tanker rundt et program for arkeologisk kvinneforskning. Kvinner i Arkeologi i Norge, 5: 3–27.Google Scholar
Dommasnes, L.H. 1992. Two Decades of Women in Prehistory and in Archaeology in Norway: A Review. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 1: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dommasnes, L.H. 2008. Introduction: The Past – Worlds of Children and for Children? In: Dommasnes, L.H., Wrigglesworth, M., eds. Children, Identity and the Past. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars, pp. xi–xxx.Google Scholar
Dommasnes, L.H. in press. The Development of Gender and Queer Archaeologies (European Perspective). In: Smith, C., ed. Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. New York: Springer. Google Scholar
Dommasnes, L.H., Wicker, N.L. 2010. Situating Gender in European Archaeologies: Introduction. In: Dommasnes, L.H., Hjørungdal, T., Montón-Subías, S., Sánchez Romero, M., Wicker, N.L., eds. Situating Gender in European Archaeologies. Budapest: Archaeolingua, pp. 11–22.Google Scholar
Dowson, T.A. 2000. Why Queer Archaeology? An Introduction. World Archaeology, 32 (2): 161–5.Google Scholar
Ehrenberg, M. 1989. Women in Prehistory. London: British Museum Publications.Google Scholar
Eisenhauer, U. 2003. Jüngerbandkeramische Residenzregeln: Patrilokalität in Thalheim. In: Eckert, J., Eisenhauer, U., Zimmermann, A., eds. Archäologische Perspektiven. Analysen und Interpretationen im Wandel. Studia Honoraria 20. Rahden/Westfalen: Leidorf, pp. 561–73.Google Scholar
Engelstad, E. 1991. Images of Power and Contradiction: Feminist Theory and Post-Processual Archaeology. Antiquity, 65: 502–14.Google Scholar
Engelstad, E. 1998. Desire and Body Maps: All the Women are Pregnant, All the Men are Virile, but …. In: Helskog, K., ed. Theoretical Perspectives in Rock Art Research. Oslo: Instituttet for sammenlignende kulturforskning, pp. 263–89.Google Scholar
Engelstad, E. 2007. Much More than Gender. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 14: 217–34.Google Scholar
Escoriza, T. 2002. Representations of Women in Spanish Levantine Rock Art: An Intentional Fragmentation. Journal of Social Archaeology, 2: 81–108.Google Scholar
FemArc. n.d. FemArc – Netzwerk archäologisch arbeitender Frauen e.V. [online] [accessed 25 April 2012]. Available at: <http://www.femarc.de/>..>Google Scholar
Foxhall, L. 2000. The Running Sands of Time: Archaeology and the Short Term. World Archaeology, 31 (3): 484–98.Google Scholar
Fuglestvedt, I. 2009. Phenomenology and the Pioneer Settlement on the Western Scandinavian Peninsula. Lindome: Bricoleur Press.Google Scholar
García Luque, A., Rísquez, C. 2008. Maintenance Activities in the Funerary Record: The Case of Iberian Cemeteries. In: Montón-Subías, S., Sánchez Romero, M., eds. Engendering Social Dynamics: The Archaeology of Maintenance Activities. BAR International Series 1862. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 49–56.Google Scholar
Gilchrist, R. 1994. Gender and Material Culture: The Archaeology of Religious Women. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gilchrist, R. 1999. Gender and Archaeology: Contesting the Past. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gilchrist, R. 2009. Rethinking Later Medieval Masculinity: The Male Body in Death. In: Sayer, D., Williams, H., eds. Mortuary Practices and Social Identities in the Middle Ages: Essays in Burial Archaeology in Honour of Heinrich Härke. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, pp. 236–52.Google Scholar
González Marcén, P. ed. 2000. Espacios de Género en Arqueología. Arqueología Espacial 22. Teruel: Seminario de Arqueología y Etnología Turolense.Google Scholar
González Marcén, P., Montón-Subías, S., Picazo, M. 2008. Towards an Archaeology of Maintenance Activities. In: Montón-Subías, S., Sánchez Romero, M., eds. Engendering Social Dynamics: The Archaeology of Maintenance Activities. BAR International Series 1862. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 3–8.Google Scholar
Gräslund, A.S. 1973. Barn i Birka. Tor, 15: 161–79.Google Scholar
Göransson, E.-M.Y. 1999. Bilder av kvinnor och kvinnlighet. Genus och kroppsspråk under övergången till kristendommen. Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 18. Stockholm: Stockholm Universitet.Google Scholar
Harding, S. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, S. 1993. Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What is Strong Objectivity? In: Alcoff, L., Potter, E., eds. Feminist Epistemologies. New York: Routledge, pp. 49–82.Google Scholar
Heidefrau, E. 2004. Kontinuität der Subjektivität oder ‘Matriachatsforscherinnen arbeiten schlampig! Die archäologische Fachwelt dagegen arbeitet immer korrekt.’ Versuch einer Richtigstellung. In: Bergmann, S., Kästner, S., Mertens, E.M., eds. Göttinnen, Gräberinnen und gelehrte Frauen. Frauen-Forschung-Archäologie 5. Münster, New York, München, Berlin: Waxmann Verlag, pp. 141–5.Google Scholar
Hernando, A. 2002. Arqueología de la Identidad. Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar
Hernando, A. 2010. Gender, Individual, and Assine/Consanguineal Relationships in ‘Egalitarian Societies': The Awà-Guajá Case. In: Dommasnes, L.H., Hjørungdal, T., Montón-Subías, S., Sánchez Romero, M., Wicker, N.L., eds. Situating Gender in European Archaeologies. Budapest: Archaeolingua, pp. 283–306.Google Scholar
Hernando, A. 2011. Gender, Power and Mobility among the Awá-Guajá (Maranhão, Brasil). Journal of Anthropological Research, 67 (2): 189–211.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, L., Nikolaidou, M. in press. Gender in Greek and Aegean Prehistory. In: Bolger, D., ed. A Companion to Gender Prehistory. Willey-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hjørungdal, T. 1991. Det skjulte kjønn. Patriarkal tradisjon og feministisk visjon i arkeologien belyst med fokus på en jernalders kontekst. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia Series in 8˚ nr. 19. Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Holand, I. 1989. Graver og samfunn. Samfunnsutvikling og organisasjon i Nord-Hålogaland i jernalderen, basert på endringer og variasjon i gravskikk. Unpublished Magister Artium dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Hurcombe, L. 2000. Time, Skill and Craft Specialization as Gender Relations. In: Donald, M., Hurcombe, L., eds. Gender and Material Culture in Archaeological Perspective. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 88–109.Google Scholar
Høgestøl, M. 1983. Gravskikk og kjønnsrelasjoner. Unpublished Mag. Art. dissertation, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Karlisch, S.M., Kästner, S., Mertens, E.-M. eds. 1997. Vom Knochenmann zur Menschenfrau. Feministische Theorie und archäologische Praxis. Münster: Agenda Verlag.Google Scholar
Kästner, S., Karlisch, S.M. 1991. Feminismus und Archäologie? Tübingen: Kästner & Karlisch.Google Scholar
Knapp, B. 1998. Who's Come a Long Way, Baby? Masculinist Approaches to a Gendered Archaeology. Archaeological Dialogues, 5 (2): 91–125.Google Scholar
Koch, J.K. 2007. Främde Bräute und Wanderhandwerker. Zum Rollenverständnis mobiler Individuen in der archäologischen Fachliteratur. In: Benedix, M., Bietz, S., eds. Leipziger Studien zur Frauen- und Geschlecterforschung, Reihe A, Band 5. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, pp. 9–28.Google Scholar
Koch, U. 1997. Die Hierarchie der Frauen in merowingischer Zeit, beobachtet in Pleidelsheim (Kr. Ludwigsburg) und Klepsau (Hohenlohekreis). In: Brandt, H., Koch, J.K., eds. Köningin, Klosterfrau, Bäuerin. Frauen im Frühmittelalter. Frauen-Forschumg-Archäologie 2. Münster: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, pp. 9–28.Google Scholar
Kokkinidou, D., Nikolaidou, M. 1993. Η αρχαιολογία και η κοινωνική ταυτότητα του φύλου. Προσεγγίσεις στην αιγαιακή προϊστορία. Thessaloniki: Vanias.Google Scholar
Kokkinidou, D., Nikolaidou, M. 2009. Feminism and Greek Archaeology: An Encounter Long Over-Due. In: Kopaka, K., ed. FYLO: Engendering Prehistoric ‘Stratigraphies’ in the Aegean and the Mediterranean. Aegaeum 30. Liege: University of Liege, pp. 25–37.Google Scholar
Kopaka, K. ed. 2009. FYLO: Engendering Prehistoric ‘Stratigraphies’ in the Aegean and the Mediterranean. Aegaeum 30. Liege: University of Liege.Google Scholar
Kristoffersen, K.K. 1991. Transition rites in Western Norway during the Early Iron Age – a study of mortuary treatment and behaviour. , University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Lillehammer, G. 1985. Arkeologisk kvinneforskning: Nye problemstillinger og innfallsvinkler. Kvinner i Arkeologi i Norge, 1: 38–45.Google Scholar
Lillehammer, G. 1986. Barna i Nordens forhistorie. Drøft metodegrunnlaget og kildenes bærekraft. Kvinner i Arkeologi i Norge, 2: 3–21.Google Scholar
Lillehammer, G. 1989. A Child is Born: The Child's World in an Archaeological Perspective. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 22 (2): 89–105.Google Scholar
Lillehammer, G. ed. 2010. Socialisation: Recent Research on Childhood and Children in the Past. AmS Skrifter 23. Stavanger: Arkeologisk Museum Stavanger, Universitetet i Stavanger.Google Scholar
Lozano, S. 2011. Gender Thinking in the Making: Feminist Epistemology and Gender Archaeology. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 44 (1): 21–39.Google Scholar
Magnus, B., Morger, K. 1994. Kön och kulturarv. Studier till kulturmiljöprogram för Sverige. Stockholm: Riksantikvarieämbetet.Google Scholar
Mandt, G. 1998. Vingen Revisited: A Gendered Perspective on ‘Hunters’ Rock Art. KVHAA Konferenser, 40: 201–24.Google Scholar
Marangou, C. 2009. Gendered/Sexed and Sexless Beings in Prehistory: Readings of the Invisible Gender. In: Kopaka, K., ed. FYLO: Engendering Prehistoric ‘Stratigraphies’ in the Aegean and the Mediterranean. Aegaeum 30. Liège: University of Liège, pp. 82–95.Google Scholar
Mathews, K. 2000. The Material Culture of the Homosexual Male: A Case for Archaeological Exploration. In: Donald, M., Hurcombe, L., eds. Gender and Material Culture in Archaeological Perspective. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 3–19.Google Scholar
Matić, U. 2009. Power over the body in a hybrid reality: anthropomorphic figurines of Bubanj-Salcuţa-Krivodol complex on the Central Balkans. Unpublished paper presented at the 15th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists in Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy), 15th–20th September 2009.Google Scholar
Merc, V. 2010. Looking Behind the Dead Objects: Gender and Archaeology in Slovenia. In: Dommasnes, L.H., Hjørungdal, T., Montón-Subías, S., Sánchez Romero, M., Wicker, N.L., eds. Situating Gender in European Archaeologies. Budapest: Archaeolingua, pp. 117–35.Google Scholar
Mertens, E.M. 2002. Das netzwerk archäologisch arbeitender Frauen. Archäologische Informationen, 25 (1–2): 45–54.Google Scholar
Mertens, E.M., Koch, J.K. 2005. Jenseits von ‘weiblichen Kammern und Särgen’ Entwicklung der archäologischen geschlechterforschung in Deutschland. In: Fries, J.E., Koch, J.K., eds. Ausgraben zwischen Materialclustern und Zeitscheiben. Perspektiven zur archäologischen Geschlechterforschung. Frauen – Forschung – Archäologie 6. Münster, New York, München, Berlin: Waxmann Verlag, pp. 25–56.Google Scholar
Meskell, L. 1996. The Somatisation of Archaeology: Discourses, Institutions, Corporeality. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 29 (1): 1–16.Google Scholar
Mina, M. 2007. Figurines Without Sex: People Without Gender? In: Hamilton, S., Whitehouse, R., eds. Archaeology and Women: Ancient and Modern Issues. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, pp. 263–82.Google Scholar
Montelius, O. 1898. Huru lânge har kvinnan betraktats som mannens egendom? ett blad ur kvinnans historia. Del I & II. Nordisk tidskrift för vetenskap, konst och industri, pp. 1–30, 95–122.Google Scholar
Montón-Subías, S. 2007. Interpreting Archaeological Continuities: An Approach to Transversal Equality in the Argaric Bronze Age of South-east Iberia. World Archaeology, 39 (2): 246–62.Google Scholar
Montón-Subías, S. 2010a. Black Swans and Archaeological Interpretation. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 43 (1): 1–11.Google Scholar
Montón-Subías, S. 2010b. Reply to Comments from Liv Helga Dommasnes and John Robb. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 43 (2): 176–78.Google Scholar
Montón-Subías, S. in press. The Development of Feminist, Gender and Queer Archaeologies: A Spanish Perspective. In: Smith, C., ed. Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Montón-Subías, S., Meyer, W. in press. Engendered Archaeologies. In: Smith, C., ed. Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Montserrat, D. ed. 1998. Changing Bodies, Changing Meanings: Studies on the Human Body in Antiquity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Moore, J., Scott, E. eds. 1997. Invisible People and Processes. Writing Gender and Childhood into European Archaeologies. London & New York: Leicester University Press.Google Scholar
Moraw, S. 1998. Die Schöne und das Biest. Weibliche Mischwesen in der Spâtantike. In: Alexandris, A., Wild, M., Winckler-Horack, L., eds. Mensch und Tier in der Antike. Grenzziehung und Grenzüberschreitung. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, pp. 465–79.Google Scholar
Naess, J.R. 1985. Tenkegruppens bakgrunn og perspektiv. Kvinner i Arkeologi i Norge, 1: 6–16.Google Scholar
Nevett, L. 1995. Gender Relations in the Classical Greek Household: The Archaeological Evidence. Annual of the British School at Athens, 90: 363–81.Google Scholar
Nordbladh, J., Yates, T. 1990. This Perfect Body, this Virgin Text: Between Sex and Gender in Archaeology. In: Bapty, I., Yates, T., eds. Archaeology after Structuralism. London: Routledge, pp. 222–37.Google Scholar
Norderval, L.W. 2006. Skandinaviske jomfruer eller andre skeivinger? et blikk på kjønn i vikingtid. , University of Trondheim.Google Scholar
Oliveira, J.V., Oliveira, S. 1996. Women in Portuguese Archaeology. Trabalhos de Antropologia e Etnologia, 36: 159–67.Google Scholar
Olsen, B. 1991. Metropolises and Satelites in Archaeology. In: Preucel, R., ed. Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, pp. 211–24.Google Scholar
Palincas, N. 2010. Living for the Others: Gender Relations in Prehistoric and Contemporary Archaeology of Romania. In: Dommasnes, L.H., Hjørungdal, T., Montón-Subías, S., Sánchez Romero, M., Wicker, N., eds. Situating Gender in European Archaeologies. Budapest: Archaeolingua, pp. 93–116.Google Scholar
Perego, E. 2011. Engendered Actions: Agency and Ritual in Pre-Roman Veneto. In: Chaniotis, A., ed. Ritual Dynamics in the Ancient Mediterranean: Changes and Agents. Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag, pp. 11–34.Google Scholar
Picazo, M. 1997. Hearth and Home: The Timing of Maintenance Activities. In: Moore, J., Scott, E., eds. Invisible People and Processes. Writing Gender and Childhood into European Archaeology. London & New York: Leicester University Press, pp. 59–67.Google Scholar
Pomadère, M. 2009. Où sont les Mères? Représentations et Réalités de la Maternité dans le Monde Égéen Protohistorique. In: Kopaka, K., ed. Engendering Prehistoric ‘Stratigraphies’ in the Aegean and the Mediterranean. Aegaeum 30. Liege: University of Liege, pp. 197–207.Google Scholar
Prados, L. 2008. Y la Mujer se Hace Visible: Estudios de Género en la Arqueología Ibérica. In: Prados, L., Ruiz, C., eds. Arqueología del Género. Primer Encuentro Internacional. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, pp. 225–50.Google Scholar
Prados, L., Izquierdo, I. 2006. The Image of Women in Iberian Culture (6th–1st Century B.C.). In: Carol, C., Mattusch, A., Donohue, A., Bahuer, A., eds. Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Classical Archaeology (Boston)/Associazione Internazionale di Archaeologia Classica. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 490–95.Google Scholar
Querol, M.A., Triviño, C. 2004. La Mujer en ‘el Origen del Hombre’. Barcelona: Bellaterra.Google Scholar
Ransley, J. 2005. Boats are for Boys: Queering Maritime Archaeology. World Archaeology, 37 (4): 621–29.Google Scholar
Remišová-Věšínová, K. 2010. Genderová analýza v interpretaci neolitických sociokulturních jevu. , Univerzita Karlova v Praze.Google Scholar
Rihuete, C. 2002. Esqueletos Humanos en la Investigación Arqueológica de la Diferencia Sexual. In: Molas, D., Guerra, S., eds. Morir en Femenino. Mujeres, Ideología y Prácticas Funerarias desde la Prehistoria hasta la Edad Media. Barcelona: Edicions Universitat de Barcelona, pp. 19–50.Google Scholar
Rísquez, C., Hornos, F. 2005. Mujeres Iberas: Un Estado de la Cuestión. In: Sánchez Romero, M., ed. Arqueología y Género. Granada: Universidad de Granada, pp. 283–334.Google Scholar
Robb, J. 1994. Gender Contradictions, Moral Coalitions, and Inequality in Prehistoric Italy. Journal of European Archaeology, 2 (1): 2–49.Google Scholar
Röder, B. 2008. Archaeological Childhood Research as Interdisciplinary Analysis. In: Dommasnes, L.H., Wrigglesworth, M., eds. Children, Identity and the Past. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 68–82.Google Scholar
Röder, B., Hummel, J., Kunz, B. 2001. Göttinnendämmerung: Das Matriarchat aus Archäologischer Sicht. Königsförde: Königsfurt Verlag.Google Scholar
Sanahuja, M.E. 2002. Cuerpos Sexuados, Objetos y Prehistoria. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
Sanahuja, M.E. 2006. Dones, Homes i Aixovars Funeraris. In: Soler, B., ed. Les Dones en la Prehistòria. València: Museu de Prehistòria de València, pp. 79–89.Google Scholar
Sanahuja, M.E., Picazo, M. 1989. Los Estudios de las Mujeres a lo Largo de la Prehistoria y en la Antigüedad Griega: Estado de la Cuestión. Arqueocrítica, 1: 32–37.Google Scholar
Sánchez Romero, M. 2008. Childhood and the Construction of Gender Identities through Material Culture. Childhood in the Past, 1: 17–37.Google Scholar
Sánchez Romero, M., Moreno, A. 2005. Mujeres y Producción Metalúrgica en la Prehistoria: El Caso de Peñalosa (Baños de la Encina, Jaén). In: Sánchez Romero, M., ed. Arqueología y Género. Granada: Universidad de Granada, pp. 261–81.Google Scholar
Sánchez Romero, M., Aranda, G. 2008. Changing Foodways: New Strategies in Food Preparation, Serving and Consumption in the Bronze Age of the Iberian Peninsula. In: Montón-Subías, S., Sánchez Romero, M., eds. Engendering Social Dynamics: The Archaeology of Maintenance Activities. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1862. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 75–85.Google Scholar
Scott, E. 1991. Animal and Infant Burials in Romano-British Villas: A Revitalisation Movement. In: Garwood, P., Jennings, D., Skeates, R., Toms, J., eds. Sacred and Profane. Oxford: Oxford University, Committee for Archaeology, pp. 115–21.Google Scholar
Skogstrand, L. 2006. I krig og evighet. Kjønnsideologiske forestillinger i yngre bronsealder og førromersk jernalder belyst gjennom graver og helleristninger i Østfold. In: Prescott, C., ed. Kjønnsideologi og kosmografi i den østnorske bronsealder? Oslo Archaeological Series, vol. 6. Oslo: Unipub/Oslo Academic Press, pp. 7–168.Google Scholar
Skogstrand, L. 2010. Prehistoric Hegemonic Masculinities. In: Dommasnes, L.H., Hjørungdal, T., Montón-Subías, S., Sánchez Romero, M., Wicker, N.L., eds. Situating Gender in European Archaeologies. Budapest: Archaeolingua, pp. 35–51.Google Scholar
Sofaer-Derevenski, J. 1997. Age and Gender at the Site of Tiszapolgár-Basatanya, Hungary. Antiquity, 71: 875–79.Google Scholar
Soler, B. ed. 2006. Les Dones en la Prehistòria. València: Museu de Prehistòria de València.Google Scholar
Solli, B. 2002. Seid. Myter, sjamanisme og kjønn i vikingenes tid. Oslo: Pax forlag.Google Scholar
Solli, B. 2004. Det norrøne verdensbildet og ethos. Om kompleksitet, kjønn og kontradiksjoner. In: Andrén, A., Jennbert, K., Raudvere, C., eds. Ordning mot kaos – studier av nordisk förkristen kosmologi. Lund: Nordic Academic Press, pp. 253–91.Google Scholar
Sørensen, M.L. 1991. The Construction of Gender through Appearance. In: Walde, D., Willows, N.D., eds. The Archaeology of Gender. Calgary: University of Calgary Archaeological Association, pp. 121–29.Google Scholar
Sørensen, M.L. 2000. Gender Archaeology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Sosna, D., Galeta, P., Sládek, V. 2008. A Resampling Approach to Gender Relations: The Rebešovice Cemetery. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35 (2): 342–54.Google Scholar
Specht, E. 1989. Schön zu sein und gut zu sein. Mädchenbildung und Frauensozialition im antiken Griechenland. Reihe Frauenforschung band 9. Wien: Wiener Frauenverlag.Google Scholar
Specht, E. ed. 1994. Frauenreichtum. Die Frau als Wirtschaftsfaktor in Altertum. Reihe Frauenforschung band 27. Wien: Wiener Frauenverlag.Google Scholar
Specht, E. ed. 1998. Alltägliches Altertum. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
SSCIP. n.d. The Society for the Study of Childhood in the Past [online]. [accessed 25 April 2012]. Available at: <http://www.sscip.org.uk/>..>Google Scholar
Talalay, L.E. 1994. A Feminist Boomerang: The Great Goddess of Greek Prehistory. Gender and History, 6 (2): 165–83.Google Scholar
Tomášková, S. 2006. On Being Heard. Theory as an Archaeological Practice. Archaeological Dialogues, 13 (2): 47–51.Google Scholar
Treherne, P. 1995. The Warrior's Beauty: The Masculine Body and Self-Identity in Bronze-Age Europe. Journal of European Archaeology, 3 (1): 105–44.Google Scholar
Vale, A. 2010. Translating Materials into Activities and Activities into Persons: The Persistence of Gender Prejudices in Past Narratives in the Iberian Peninsula. In: Dommasnes, L.H., Hjørungdal, T., Montón-Subías, S., Sánchez Romero, M., Wicker, N.L., eds. Situating Gender in European Archaeologies. Budapest: Archaeolingua, pp. 137–58.Google Scholar
Vargas, I. 2004. Hacia una Teoría Feminista en Arqueología. Otras Miradas, 4 (2): 62–75.Google Scholar
Vella Gregory, I. 2006. The Human Form in Pre-Nuragic Sardinia. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 21 (2): 9–31.Google Scholar
Vicent, J. 1994. Perspectivas de la Teoría Arqueológica en España. In: Sexto Coloquio Hispano-Ruso de Historia. Madrid: Fundación Cultural Banesto, pp. 215–22.Google Scholar
Vida, M.C. 1998. The Italian Scene: Approaches to the Study of Gender. In: Whitehouse, R., ed. Gender and Italian Archaeology. London: Accordia Research Institute, pp. 15–22.Google Scholar
Welinder, S. 1999. Mansarkeologi inom et genderperspektiv. Caesar, 1999: 126–73.Google Scholar
Welinder, S. 2003. Mãn och manligheter från vikingar til Kalle Anka. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Whitehouse, R. ed. 1998. Gender and Italian Archaeology. London: Accordia Research Institute.Google Scholar
Whitehouse, R. 2006. Gender Archaeology in Europe. In: Nelsson, S.M., ed. Handbook of Gender in Archaeology. Lanham: AltaMira Press, pp. 733–83.Google Scholar
Yates, T. 1993. Frameworks for an Archaeology of the Body. In: Tilley, C., ed. Interpretative Archaeology. Oxford: Berg, pp. 31–72.Google Scholar
Zarzalejos, M. 2008. Los Estudios de Arqueología del Género en la Hispania Romana. In: Prados, L., Ruiz, C., eds. Arqueología del Género. Primer Encuentro Internacional. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, pp. 297–326.Google Scholar