Bibliography:
Brettell, C.B& Sargent, C.F. 1993 Gender in Cross Cultural Perspective. New York: Prentice Hall.
This edited volume offers a wide variety of research on the field of gender, with a cross-cultural perspective. The book is mainly an anthropological study, but offers engendered perspectives on evolution, maternity, prehistory as well as several aspects of gender( labor, class diision, politics, religion, colonialism) from today’s world, with contributions from both industrialized and industrializing countries.
Brumfiel, E.M. 1992 “ Distinguished Lecture in Archaeology: Breaking and Entering the Ecosystem- Gender, Class and Faction Steal the Show” American Anthropologist 94: 551-567.
The paper criticizes the Ecosystem approach that was prominent in the field of anthropology for longtime, for that it takes whole populations and whole systems as unit of analysis and underestimates the effect of singular agents on bringing about social change. the author explains first the Ecosystem approach, then studies the elements ignored by this method- gender, class and faction relationships.
Cameron, A. & Kuhrt, A. (eds.) 1983 Images of Women in Antiquity Sydney: Croom Helm.
This collection offers women’s studies within a broad spectrum of topics over a wide geography in historical times. There are eighteen articles compiled about household, female biology, economy and religion. The articles offer both textual and archaeological evidence and show women’s stiuation in Rome, Ancient Greece, Mesopotamia, Egypt and Byzantium.
Claassen, C. (ed) 1994 Women in Archaeology. Philadelpiha: University of Pennsylvania Press.
This collection includes two main discussions: the first chapters offer a historical outline of women’s contributions to archaeology in the 20th century. The second part is about present-day female archaeologists and examines their situation in terms of employment, salary, publications and citations. The book shows how women were gradually marginalized in archaeology and how it results as a bias in archaeological knowledge.
Conkey, M. & Gero, J. 1997 “ Programme to practice: Gender and Feminism in Archaeology” Annual Review of Anthropology 26: 411-437.
This paper gives a programme to gender archaeology, and seems to be one of the keystones for the beginner in this study. It studies different approaches to gender in different theoretical frameworks. The authors, while sticking on a feminist point of view, define gender archaeology as a feminist-inspired archaeology. The paper also offers a historical background and some comments on the current state of gender archaeology.
Dahlberg, F. (ed) 1981 Woman the Gatherer New Haven, London: Yale University Press.
As a response to the tradtional “man the hunter”, contributors to the book study women within and anthropological framework. Articles examine evolution in general, with case studies from Australia and Africa. This volume takes the question of “womanhood “to the very beginnings of human evolution.
Dahlberg, F. 1981 “Introduction” pp. 1-35 in Woman the Gatherer ed. by Dahlberg, F.New Haven, London: Yale University Press.
Di Leonardo, M. (ed) 1991 Gender at the Crossroads of Knowledge: Feminist Anthropology in the Post Modern Era. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
The book is presented as an introductory collection of essays about feminist anthropology. The book offers writings of many important contributors like Silberblatt, Sperling, Rapp, Conkey and covers main topics of the feminist anthropological discourse: history, politics, labor, gender and reproduction.
Engelstad, E. 1991“Images of power and Contradiction: Feminist Theory and Post Processual Archaeology” Antiquity 65: 502-514.
The article studies post-processual archaeology as seen by the feminists. The author treats the post-processualism as a reflection of post-modernism into archaeology, and offers a critique in terms of interpretation, gender and power relations. Last she criticizes post-processual archaeologists’ unawareness and lack of understanding of gender issues.
Fagan, B. 1992 “A Sexist View of Prehistory” Archaeology 45: 15-18 & 66.
Fagan attacks on Gimbutas and the followers of the goddess trend, by condemning their view as “ethnocentric and sexist”. He creates a link between Gimbutas’Old Europe and 19th century image of the Noble Savage. On the other hand, Fagan praises Hastorf’s essay in éengendered Archaeology” by Gero and Conkey, and states that this study shows that gender relations are too complex to be interpreted from clay pots and figurines.
Fotiadis, M. 1994 “What is Archaeology’s ‘Mitigated Objectivism’ Mitigated by: Comments on Wylie” American Antiquity 59: 545-555.
Fotiadis criticizes Wylie’s Mitigated objectivism and states that one cannot separate between politics and truth. Fotiadis uses the same bibliography than Wylie in his research, but comes to a different result and calls for the application of Foucault’s epistemology into gender archaeology.
Gero, J. & Conkey, M(eds.) 1991 Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory Oxford: Blackwell Ltd.
Being the bible of gender archaeology, this volume calls for and archaeology of gender using feminist theory. Most of the articles state the key tenets of this theory, and the book puts together some theoretical questions, as well as investigating the traces of gender in archaeological material, and in aspects of ancient social life, like economy, use of space, food production systems, and gender imagery. This volume was compiled after a conference on “Women abd Production in Prehistory” held at Georgetown in 1988.
Gero, J. 1985 “Socio-Politics and Women-at-Home Ideology” American Antiquity 50: 342-350.
The paper focuses on the sociology of archaeology. It basically asserts that, since archaeology is already value-laden, and because it is supported by current social-political interests of the state, it must also serve the ideology of th state. Gero states that archaeology misinterprets the past, s if it was a logical preceent of the present. Gero presents gender ideology in archaeology as a case study and gives a set of misinterpretation and implicit asumptions of male-oriented mentalities. How gender stereotypes affect archaeological research is another area of discussion in the paper: stereotypes of male vs female archaeologist as a reflection of woman-at-home ideology, with statistics of males and females on conducting field based, non-field based research, on acquiring research funds etc.
Gilchrist, R. 1991 “Women’s Archaeology? Political Feminism, Gender Theory and Historical Revision” Antiquity 65: 495-501.
Gilchrist first questions why gender archaeological theory remained unproductive for years, and hindered by the debate between archaeology, women, feminism and gender. The author approaches political feminism in archaeology from an “equal opportunities of profession” point of view. She studies gender theory with respect to processualism and structuralism, and concludes that gender is not a problem of methodology and that both feminists and non-feminists can conduct gender studies, within the current methodologies.
Gilchrist, R. 1999 Gender and Archaeology: Contesting the Past New York: Routledge.
This recent essay traces the development of gender archaeology over fifteen years. It studies major concepts like feminist critique of science, division of labor, gender identity and the methodology of gender archaeology. Gilchrist also offers an interesting case study about medieval gardens and women as well.
Gimbutas, M. 1991 The Civilization of the Goddess. San Fransisco: HarperCollins.
In this volume Gimbutas studies several aspects of what she calls “Old Europe”, like the spread of agriculture, Neolithic cultures of East-Central Europe, North Europe, West Europe, Mediterannean(of course only North coasts are meant), religion of the goddess, intrusion of steppe pastoralists from South Russia. Because Gimbutas takes a radical feminist standing in her chapter on the goddesses, this book is included in the bibliography.
Gimbutas, M. 2001 Living Goddesses LA: University of California Press.
This very recent book shows that the Gimbutas myth is not over. In his book Gimbutas claims again the patriarchal Mother-Goddess cult. Gimbutas studies a number of figurines found in different sites accross Europe and Anatolia, and deduces a number of Goddess versions in many pan-European religions, from Germanic to Greek. Here Gimbutas takes again a very eurocentric and a radical feminist standing.
Gimbutas, M. Winn, S. Shimabuku, D. 1989 Achilleion: A Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece 6400-5600 BC. LA: University of California Press.
This volume is mainly an excavation report of the site Achilleion, a settlement dating to Neolithic times in Greece. Several aspects of the site are discussed, but my concern will be on the chapter written by Gimbutas on the figurines and cult equipment.
Hager, L.D. 1997 Women in Human Evolution New York: Routledge.
This collection examines the gender issue with a paleoanthropological framework. The articles offer feminist critiques to the actual understanding of evolution, where women are ignored. There is also an article by Wylie commenting on the epistemology of paleoanthropology.
Hammel, A. Mason, C. Prater, A. Ludny, R. 1995 “Gender and the Academic Career in North American anthropology: Differentiating Intramarket from Extramarket Bias” Current Anthropology 36: 366-380.
This paper argues an explicit bias against female anthropologists in North America, in terms of finding a job as a researcher, and in terms of promoting. The paper offers some meticulous statistics, and graphs, showing that women are dramatically underemployed, underpromoted. The paper does not make any further discussion on how it effects anthropological study, but is a dramatic example of gender bias still lingering in anthropology.
Harding, S. 1986 The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
This volume written by Harding, one of the impostant feminist philosophers, covers a broad range of topics in social sciences from a feminist point of view. The book criticizes the androcentricism that is inherent in modern sciences. Harding constructs the epistemology of feminist empiricism, of feminism as a social event, and of feminist postmodernism, with a critical standing. The book stands against Western oriented, male-biased philosophies of science, and shows that even though knowledge is subjective, feminist theory can re-invent and re-theorize science.
Hays-Gilpin, K. & Whitley, D. 1998 Reader in Gender Archaeology. New York: Routledge.
This reader is a compilation of influential articles about gender archaeology, put together under main topics such as theory, origins and evolution, division of labor, gender iconography, religion and social hierarchy. The case studies are carefully chosen from different continents, and there are large number of intriguing articles. At the end of each part, a list of further readings is also offered.
Hill, E. 1998 “Gender Informed Archaeology: the Priority of Definition, the Use of Analogy, and the Multivariate Approach” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5: 99-128
The article states that, gender study in archaeology has not progressed for certain reasons like the misuse of terms like gender, sex, and theory, the politicization of gender studies by the feminist politics and studies the place of gender in theoretical frameworks. The author states that feminist theory is isolating the gender archaeology from mainstream research, and states that political archaeology is problematic. Gender archaeology is treated within existing frameworks, i.e. processualism and contextualism. The article also offers a broad critique of Brumfiel’s article in “Engendered Archaeology”. The main claim of the author is that feminist theory is influenced by politics, and gender studies do not require a political commitment to feminism. The author offers some research prospects on gender archaeology, calls for a multivariate approach and study of gender at several levels.
Hurcombe, L. 1995 “Our own Engendered Species” Antiquity 69: 87-100.
The article studies the ‘Biased Interpretation of Gender’ problem ( abbreviated by the author as BIG) in archaeology. The wrong visualisation of the gender, and reflection of present values into past societies are criticized, while pointing at many interesting aspects of the language and style used both by feminist and non-feminist archaeologists. The author offers some cures for overcoming this problem: construction of a robust theory, more emphasis on studies pursued by women, and cleansing the academic language from androcentric words.
Knapp, A.B 1988 “ Boys Will Be Boys: Masculinist Approaches to Gendered Archaeology” pp. 365-373 in Hays-Gilpin, K. & Whitley, D. 1998 Reader in Gender Archaeology. New York: Routledge.
Knapp, A.B. 1996 “Archaeology without Gravity: Postmodernism and the Past” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 3: 127-158.
Little, B.J. 1994 “Consider the Hermaphroditic Mind: Comment on ‘The Interplay of Evidential constraints and political Interests:Recent Archaeological Research on Gender’” American Antiquity 59: 539-544.
Little comments on Wylie (1992), who claims that feminist perspective will enhance objectivity in archaeology. According to Little, there is too much diversity in the feminist thought itself, and because feminism needs to defend and rationalize itself, it also brings a challenge. The author criticizes Wylie of being too radical and conservative, and states that feminism should bring integrity, not separatism.
Meskell, L. 1994 “ Goddesses, Gimbutas and ‘New Age’ Archaeology” Antiquity 69: 74-86.
The article basically criticizes Gimbutas, and states that the “gynocentric” approach uses the same sexist paradigms while reconstructing the past, so it doesn’t provide a positive contribution to gender studies. The author blames Gimbutas of leading gender archaeology into historical fiction, parapsychology and gynocentricism, and of actually harming the gender informed approach, even if Gimbutas was considered as an icon in the feminist movement.
Nelson, S.M. 1997 Gender in Archaeology: Analyzing Power and Prestige. California: Altamira Press.
This essay is a thorough study of gender as a field of research in archaeology. The author discusses first the concept and meaning of gender archaeology, then she studies gender within the field of anthropology. The idea of gender is explored through prehistoric technologies, household organizations and religious/ideologic bodies. The author alsoinvestigates women as archaeologists and offers insights toward a gender archaeology as a conclusion. The androcentric interpretations of evolution, division of labor and social structure are criticized.
Stig-Sorensen, M.L. 2000 Gender Archaeology Cambridge: Polity Press.
This essay aboutngender archaeology follows a different path from the precedents and divides the subject into two parts: a theoretical part is followed by an account on the aspects that identify gender differences, like food, dress, space, contact. A chapter on gender in evolution is also included.
Sweely, T.L. (ed) 1999 Manifesting Power: Gender and the Interpretation of power in Archaeology New York: Routledge.
This volume approaches the gender question by studying gender-power relationship in historic and prehistoric societies. The articles argue that values of the people in the past can be quite different from the current Western values, and that archaeological and ethnographical work sometimes show that there was no hierarchical gender relationship.
Talalay, L. 1987 “Rethinking the Function of Clay Figurine Legs from Neolithic Greece: An argument by Analogy” American Journal of Archaeology 91: 161-169.
Talalay comments on some Greek Neolithic figurines and offers alternative views to the Mother Goddess approach. The author offers some archaeological, ethnohistoric and socio-economic evidences to support his claim.
Talalay, L. 1991 “Body Imagery of the Ancient Aegean” Archaeology 44: 47-49.
In this short essay Talalay studies the clay figurines of Greece and outlines some weaknesses of the Mother Goddess explanation. He concludes that this view is no longer acceptable and proposes other purposes for the figurines- like tokens.
Wright, R. P. (ed.) 1996 Gender and Archaeology Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
This reader collects writings by prominent feminist archaeolgists under one volume. The chapters include gender and reproduction, gender and production, gender and representation, gender and prectice (being about gender archaeology pespectives today). Both theoretical, and practical issues are thoroughly examined in nine essays.
Wylie, A. 1994 “on Capturing Facts Alive in the Past (or present): Response to Fotiadis and to Little” American Antiquity 59: 556-560.
In this short article Wylie answers both Fotiadis and Little, who question the objectivity of archaeological science and defends her proposal for a “mitigated objectivism”.
Wylie,A. 1992 “The Interplay of Evidential constraints and political Interests: Recent Archaeological Research on Gender” American Antiquity 57: 15-35.
The paper claims that a feminist perspective on archaeology may improve the integrity of the archaeological knowledge, and that a set of questions should be asked and answered, like why gender archaeology emerges now, and how gender archaeology deals with recent theoretical frameworks like relativism, and post/anti processualism. Wylie also offers a tasteful discussion on the epistemology of gender archaeology.
No comments:
Post a Comment