Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 328–358 | Cite as

Feminist Adventures in Hypertext

  • Rosemary A. Joyce
  • Ruth E. TringhamEmail author


Through a discussion of the intentions behind two hypertext works, Ruth Tringham’s Chimera Web and Rosemary Joyce’s Sister Stories, we present an argument that the new digital media offer unique opportunities for feminist archaeology to realize some of its deepest values. Through the medium of hypermedia and hypertext (multilinear) narratives the complexities of the feminist practice of archaeology (including its multivocal interpretive process) can be grasped, enjoyed, and participated in by a non-archaeological audience more fluidly than in traditional linear texts. We draw attention to the way in which recent developments in digital technology, especially through the Internet, have transformed our ability to share freely the fruits of our creative thought with an ever-expanding audience.


Hypertext Multimedia Representation Feminist critique 


  1. Addison, A. (2000). Emerging trends in virtual heritage. IEEE Multimedia, 7(2), 22–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. AlSayyad, N. (1992). Modelling traditional Islamic cities. Heritage, 43, 26–33.Google Scholar
  3. AlSayyad, N. (1999). Virtual Cairo: An urban historian’s view of computer simulation. Leonardo, 32(2), 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, S. (2007). Past indiscretions: Digital archives and recombinant history. In M. Kinder & T. McPherson (Eds.), Interactive frictions. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Retrieved from (in press).
  5. Arizpe, L. (1999). Freedom to create: Women’s agenda for cyberspace. In W. Harcourt (Ed.), Women@Internet: creating new cultures in cyberspace (pp. xii–xvi). London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  6. Audouze, F., & Buchsenschutz, O. (1992). Towns, villages and countryside of Celtic Europe. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Berger, J. (1972). Ways of seeing. London: BBC and Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  8. Berger, J. (1980). About looking. London: Writers and Readers.Google Scholar
  9. Bolter, J., & Grusin, R. (1999). Remediation: Understanding new media. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Burnett, R., & Marshall, P. D. (2003). Web theory: An introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Carlson, D. E. A. (1998). Archaeologists in computerland. Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology, Public Education Committee.Google Scholar
  12. Chippindale, C., & Champion, S. (1997). Special review section: Electronic archaeology. Antiquity, 71, 1027–1038.Google Scholar
  13. Conkey, M. W., & Tringham, R. E. (1996). Cultivating thinking/challenging authority: Some experiments in feminist pedagogy in archaeology. In R. Wright (Ed.), Gender and Archaeology (pp. 224–225). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  14. Connerton, P. (1991). In R. Get (Ed.), How societies remember. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Consalvo, M. (2002). Selling the internet to women: The early years. In M. Consalvo & S. Paasonen (Eds.), Women and everyday uses of the Internet: Agency and identity (pp. 111–138). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  16. Crane, G. (1998). The Perseus project and beyond: How building a digital library challenges the humanities and technology. In D-Lib. Retrieved January 4, 2004, from
  17. Crumley, C. (1987). A dialectical critique of hierarchy. In T. Patterson & C. W. Gailey. Power relations and state formation (pp. 155–169). Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association, Archaeology Section.Google Scholar
  18. Downes, S. (2003). Design and reusability of learning objects in an academic context: A new economy of education? USDLA (US Distance Learning Association) Journal, 17(1).Google Scholar
  19. Eiteljorg, H. II (2000). The compelling computer image—a doubled-edged sword. Internet Archaeology, 8. Retrieved January 4, 2004, from
  20. Escobar, A. (1999). Gender, place and networks: A political ecology of cyberculture. In W. Harcourt (Ed.), Women@Internet: creating new cultures in Cyberspace (pp. 31–54). London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  21. Frischer, B. (2004). The digital roman forum project of the cultural virtual reality laboratory: Remediating the traditions of Roman topography. In 2nd ItalyUnited States workshop: The reconstruction of archaeological landscapes through digital technologies, Rome, Italy. Retrieved from
  22. Gould, S. J. (October 1993). Dinosaur deconstruction: How we understand life’s past is more a consequence of art than of science. New York, NY: Discover.Google Scholar
  23. Guyer, C. (1992). Buzz-daze jazz and the quotidian stream. In: Presented in the session “Hypertext, hypermedia: defining a fictional form” at the annual meeting of the Modern Language Association, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Guyer, C. (1996a). Along the Estuary. In S. Birkerts (Ed.), Tolstoy’s dictaphone: Technology and the muse. Graywolf Forum 1. St. Paul, MN: Graywolf Press.Google Scholar
  25. Guyer, C. (1996b). Fretwork: ReForming me. Readerly/Writerly Texts, Spring.Google Scholar
  26. Harcourt, W. (1999a). Conclusion: Local/global encounters: WoN weaving together the virtual and actual. In W. Harcourt (Ed.), Women@Internet: creating new cultures in cyberspace (pp. 219–225). London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  27. Harcourt, W. (Ed.) (1999b). Women@Internet: Creating new cultures in Cyberspace. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  28. Hawthorne, S., & Klein, R. (Eds.) (1999). CyberFeminism: Connectivity, critique and creativity. Melbourne: Spinifex Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hayles, N. K. (1995). Searching for common ground. In M. Soulé & G. Lease (Eds.), Reinventing nature? (pp. 47–64). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hobley, B. (1982). Roman military structures at ‘The Lunt’ Roman fort: experimental simulations. In P. J. Drury (Ed.), Structural reconstruction: approaches to the interpretation of the excavated remains of buildings (pp. 223–273). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, no. 110.Google Scholar
  31. Hodder, I. (1999). Archaeological process: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  32. Hodder, I. (2006). The Leopard’s tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük. London, UK: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
  33. Isomursu, M., Isomursu, P., Still, K., & Ijäs, J. (2003). Ponycom: The mobile future of a virtual community. In: 2nd smart objects conference, Grenoble, France. Retrieved July 21, 2007, from
  34. Joyce, M. (1995). Of two minds: Hypertext pedagogy and poetics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  35. Joyce, M. (2000). One story: Present tense spaces of the heart. In Othermindedness: The emergence of network culture (pp. 123–130). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  36. Joyce, R. A. (2002). The languages of archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. Joyce, R. A., Guyer, C., & Joyce, M. (2000). Sister stories. New York: New York University Press. Retrieved January 4, 2004, from
  38. Kaplan, N., & Farrell, E. (1994). Weavers of webs: A portrait of young women on the net. The Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture, 2(3). Retrieved July 21, 2007, from
  39. Kramarae, C. (Ed.) (1988). Technology and women’s voices: Keeping in touch. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  40. Landow, G. (1992). Hypertext: the convergence of contemporary critical theory and technology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Landow, G. (1997). Hypertext 2.0: The convergence of contemporary critical theory and technology. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lavine, S. D. (1991). Museum practices. In I. Karp & S. D. Lavine (Eds.), Exhibiting cultures: The poetics and politics of museum display (pp. 151–158). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
  43. Lavine, S. D. (1992). Audience, ownership, and authority: Designing relations between museums and communities. In I. Karp, C. M. Kreamer, & S. D. Lavine (Eds.), Museums and communities: The politics of public culture (pp. 137–157). Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
  44. Lopiparo, J., & Joyce, R. A. (2003). Crafting cosmos, telling sister stories, and exploring archaeological knowledge graphically in hypertext environments. In J. H. Jameson, Jr., C. Finn, & J. E. Ehrenhard (Eds.), Ancient muses: Archaeology and the arts (pp. 193–203). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  45. Nelson, T. (1981). Literary machines. Sausalito: Mindful Press.Google Scholar
  46. Oksman, V. (2002). So I got it into my head that I should set up my own stable...: Creating virtual stables on the internet as girls’ own computer culture. In M. Consalvo & S. Paasonen (Eds.), Women and everyday uses of the Internet: Agency and identity (pp. 211–229). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  47. Perin, C. (1992). The communicative circle: Museums as communities. In I. Karp, C. M. Kreamer, & S. D. Lavine (Eds.), Museums and communities: The politics of public culture (pp. 182–220). Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
  48. Petrequin, A.-M., & Petrequin, P. (1988). Les Néolithique des lacs: préhistoire des lacs de Chalain et de Clairvaux (40002000 av. JC). Paris: Errance.Google Scholar
  49. Richards, J. (2002). Digital preservation and access. European Journal of Archaeology, 5(3), 343–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shade, L. (2002). Gender and community in the social construction of the internet. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  51. Smith, B. C. (1994). A case study of applied feminist theories. In J. R. Glaser & A. A. Zenetou (Eds.), Gender perspectives: Essays on women in museums (pp. 137–146). Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
  52. Solman, G. (1993). 500 Nations: CGI’s future helps revive Native America’s past. Millimeter, 32–44 (July).Google Scholar
  53. Sontag, S. (1977). On photography. New York: Delta Books.Google Scholar
  54. Sorrell, A. (1965). Living history. London: Batsford Ltd.Google Scholar
  55. Sorrell, A. (1973). The artist and reconstruction. Current Archaeology, 41, 177–181.Google Scholar
  56. Spender, D. (1995). Nattering on the net: Women, power and cyberspace. Melbourne: Spinifex Press.Google Scholar
  57. Sundén, J. (2002). Material virtualities: Approaching online textual embodiment. In Linköping Studies in Arts and Science, No. 257. Linköping, Sweden: The Tema Institute, Department of Communication Studies, Linköping University.Google Scholar
  58. Tringham, R. (2000). The continuous house: A view from the deep past. In S. Gillespie & R. Joyce (Eds.), Beyond kinship: Social and material reproduction in house societies. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  59. Tringham, R. (2004). Interweaving digital narratives with dynamic archaeological databases for the public presentation of cultural heritage. In W. Börner & W. Stadtarcheologie (Eds.), Enter the past: The E-way into the four dimensions of Cultural heritageCAA2003 (pp. 196–200). (full version on accompanying CD-ROM). Oxford, UK: Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology; Archeopress; BAR International Series 1227.Google Scholar
  60. Tringham, R. (2005). Weaving house life and death into places: a blueprint for a hypermedia narrative. In D. Bailey, A. Whittle, & V. Cummings (Eds.), (Un)settling the Neolithic (pp. 98–111). Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
  61. Wolle, A.-C., & Tringham, R. (2000). Multiple Çatalhöyüks on the World Wide Web. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Towards a reflexive method in archaeology: The example at Çatalhöyük (pp. 207–217). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph No. 28.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations