Skip to main content

Much More than Gender

Abstract

Numerous publications on gender archaeology present case studies that incorporate gender in their analyses, but make little use of feminist theory and critique, and are ambivalent or negative to feminism. Aspects of Norwegian, British and American gender archaeology are discussed in relation to a desire for the ‘mainstream.’ The reasons for, and consequences of, a lack of feminist theorizing and engagement are related to Donna Haraway’s concept of situated knowledges.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. For those interested in learning more about Nordic feminism in general I recommend the web page of the Nordic Institute for Women’s and Gender Studies (NIKK) at: http://www.nikk.uio.no/index.html.

References

  • Alcoff, L. M. (2000). On judging epistemic credibility: Is social identity relevant? In N. Zack (Ed.), Women of color and philosophy: A critical reader (pp. 235–262). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alcoff, L. M. (2006). Visible identities: Race, gender, and the self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alcoff, L. M., & Potter, E. (1993). Feminist epistemologies. New York, Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, K., Gilchrist, R., Graves, P., Taylor, S. (1988). Women in archaeology. Archaeological review from Cambridge, 7(1), 2–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arwill-Nordbladh, E. (1998). Genuskonstruktioner i nordisk vikingtid: förr og nu. GOTARC, Series B, Gothenburg archaeological theses No 9. Göteborg University.

  • Arwill-Nordbladh, E. (2001). Genusforskning inom arkeologin. Högskoleverket±National Agency for Higher Education, Stockholm.

  • Barndon, R., Dommasnes, L. H., Kleppe, E. J., & Mandt, G. (Eds.) (2005). Editorial. K.A.N. Kvinner I arkeologi i Norge, 24, 1–2.

  • Barndon, R., Innselset, S. M., Kristoffersen, K. K., Lødøen, T. K. (Eds.) (2006). Samfunn, symboler, og identitet. UBAS—Universitetet I Bergen Arkeologiske Skrifter. Nordisk 3.

  • Barrett, J. (2001). Agency, the duality of structure, and the problem of the archaeological record. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Archaeological theory today (pp. 141–164). Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beausang, E. (2005). Childbirth and mothering in archaeology. GotArk Series B, No. 37. Göteborg: Göteborg University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bender, B. (1997). Commentary: writing gender. In J. Moore & E. Scott (Eds.), Invisible people and processes: writing gender and children into european archaeology (pp. 178–180). London: Leicester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caesar, C., Gustin, I., Iregren, E. Petersson, B., Rudebeck, E., Räf, E., et al. (1999). Han, Hon, Den, DetAtt integrera genus och kön i arkeologi. University of Lund, Institute of Archaeology, Report Series No. 65.

  • Code, L. (1991). What can she know? Feminist theory and the construction of knowledge. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conkey, M. (2003). Has feminism changed archaeology? Signs, 28(3), 867–880.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conkey, M. W., & Gero, J. (1997). Programme to practice: gender and feminism in archaeology. Annual review of anthropology, 26, 411–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conkey, M., & Spector, J. (1984). Archaeology and the study of gender. Advances in archaeological method and theory, 7, 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlerup, D. (2004). Continuity and waves in the feminist movement. In H. R. Christiansen, B. Halsaa, & A. Saarinen (Eds.), Crossing borders: Re-mapping woen’s movements at the turn of the 21st Century (pp. 59–78). Southern Denmark: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damm, C. (2000). Time, gender and production: A critical evaluation of archaeological time concepts. In M. Donald & L. Hurcombe (Eds.), Gender and material culture in archaeological perspective (pp. 110–122). Houndmills: McMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dommasnes, L. H. (1985). Analyse av faktorer som virker inn på fagets innhold. K.A.N. Kvinner i arkeologi i Norge, 1, 25–37.

  • Dommasnes, L. H. (1991). Two decades of women in prehistory and in archaeology: A review. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 25 (1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dommasnes, L. H. (1999). Some reflections anno 1999. K.A.N. Kvinner i arkeologi i Norge, 22, 133–140.

  • Dommasnes, L. H. (2005). K.A.N. 1985–2005. K.A.N. Kvinner i arkeologi i Norge, 24, 93–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dommasnes, L. H. (2006). Vestnorsk forhistorie: et personlig perspektiv. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget Vigmostad & Bjørke.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dommasnes, L. H., & Kleppe, E. J. (Eds.) (1985). K.A.N. Kvinner i arkeologi i Norge 1. University of Bergen.

  • Egeland, d. (2004). Contentions: What’s feminist in feminist theory? European Journal of Women’s Studies, 11(2), 177–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engberg, C., & Welinder, S. (2003). Manlig ordning genom det kvinnliga. In Welinder, S. (Ed.) Män och manligheter från vikingar til Kalle Anka (pp. 25–47). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell Intenational.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelstad, E. (1991). Images of power and contradiction: feminist theory and post processual archaeology. Antiquity, 65, 502–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelstad, E. (1999). Situating the archaeology of gender and feminist theory. Paper read at the gender and material culture conference in Sydney, July 1999.

  • Engelstad, E. (2001). Gender, feminism, and sexuality in archaeological studies. In N. Smelser & P. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 6002–6006). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelstad, E. (2002). Situated knowledges as a basis for an ethic of interpretation. Paper presented at the conference on “Challenging Situatedness — Gender, Culture and the Production of Knowledge”. Tromsø, February 21–23, 2002.

  • Engelstad, E. (2004a). Another F word? Feminist gender archaeology. In T. Oestigaard, N. Anfinset, & T. Saetersdal (Eds.), Combining the past and the present: Archaeological perspectives on society, BAR international series 1210 (pp. 39–45). Oxford: Archaeo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelstad, E. (2004b). Feminist (gender) archaeology: Another F-word. Paper given at the society for american archaeology meeting 2004. Montreal.

  • Engelstad, E., & Gerrard, S. (Eds.) (2005a). Challenging situatedness: Gender, culture and the production of knowledge. Delft: Eburon.

  • Engelstad, E., & Gerrard, S. (2005b). Challenging situatedness. In E. Engelstad & S. Gerrard (Eds.), Challenging situatedness: Gender, culture and the production of knowledge (pp. 1–26). Delft: Eburon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelstad, E., Mandt, G., & Næss, J.-R. (1994). Equity issues in Norwegian archaeology. In M. Nelson, S. Nelson, & A. Wylie (Eds.), Equity issues for women in archaeology (pp. 139–146). Archaeological papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 5.

  • Franklin, M. (2001). A Black feminist-inspired archaeology? Journal of Social Archaeology, 1(1), 108–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Ramon, M.-D. (2003). Globalization and international geography: the questions of languages and scholarly traditions. Progress in human geography, 27(1), 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Ramon, M.-D., Simonsen, K., & Vaiou, D. (2006). Does anglophone hegemony permeate Gender, place and culture? Gender, Place and Culture, 13(1), 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geller, P. L., & Stockett, M. K. (2006). Feminist anthropology: Past, Present, and Future. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilchrist, R. (1988). The spatial archaeology of gender domains: a case study of medieval English nunneries. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 7(1), 21–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilchrist, R. (1999). Gender and Archaeology: Contesting the past. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosden, C. (2001). Postcolonial archaeology: Issues of culture, identity, and knowledge. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Archaeological theory today (pp. 241–261). Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, G., & Braidotti, R. (2002). Introduction: Configuring european women’s studies. In G. Griffin & R. Braidotti (Eds.), Thinking differently: A reader in european women’s studies, London: Zed books, pp. 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14, 575–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (1991). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature (pp. 183–201). New York: Routledge.

  • Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s Lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (1993). Rethinking feminist epistemology: “What is strong objectivity”? In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist Epistemologies (pp. 49–82). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hays-Gilpin, K. (2000). Feminist scholarship in archaeology. Annals of the american academy of political and social science, 571, 89–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernes, H. (1987). Welfare state and woman power: Essays in state feminism. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(1), 99–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hjørungdal, T. (1994). Poles apart: have there been any male and female graves? Current swedish archaeology, 2, 141–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hjørungdal, T. (1995). Gender-Critical archaeology in Sweden: A review. Current Swedish Archaeology, 3, 105–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hjørungdal, T. (Ed.) (2005). Gender locales and local genders in archaeology, BAR international series 1425. Oxford: Archaeopress.

  • Hodder, I. (Ed.) (1982a). Symbolic and structural archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Hodder, I. (1982b). Symbols in action: Ethnoarchaeological studies of material culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodder, I. (1982c). Theoretical archaeology: a reactionary view. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Symbolic and structural archaeology (pp. 1–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodder, I. (1997). Commentary: The gender screen. In J. Moore & E. Scott (Eds.), Invisible People and Processes: Writing Gender and childhood into European Archaeology (pp. 75–78). London: Leicester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodder, I. (Ed.) (2001a). Archaeological Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity.

  • Hodder, I. (2001b). Introduction: A review of contemporary theoretical debates in archaeology. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Archaeological Theory Today (pp. 1–13). Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Källén, A. (2004). And through flows the river: Archaeology and the past in Lao Pak. Studies in Global Archaeology 6. Uppsala University, Uppsala.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaMotta, V. M., & Schiffer, M. (2001). Behavioral Archaeology: Toward a new synthesis. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Archaeological Theory Today (pp. 14–64). Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, R., & Mills, S. (2003). Feminist postcolonial theory: A reader. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E. (2002). Does the structure of scientific revolutions permit a feminist revolution in science? In T. Nickles (Ed.), Thomas Kuhn (pp. 261–281). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lønnå, E. (2004). Waves in the history of feminism. In H. R. Christiansen, B. Halsaa, & A. Saarinen (Eds.). Crossing borders: Re-mapping women’s movements at the turn of the 21st Century (pp. 41–58). Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundø, S.-A. (2004). Representasjon av kjønn i populærvitenskapelig formidling. Primitive Tider, 7, 115–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lutz, C. (1995). The gender of theory. In R. Behar & D. A. Gordon (Eds.), Women Writing Culture (pp. 249–266). Berkeley: University of California Press.

  • Mandt, G., & Næss, J.-R. (1986). Hvem skapte of gjenskaper vår fjerne fortid? Struktur og innhold i norsk arkeologi i perspektivet: “Hvor mannlig er vitenskap?” K.A.N. Kvinner i arkeologi i Norge, 3, 3–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meskell, L. (1999). Archaeologies of Social Life: Age, Sex, Class et cetera in Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meskell, L. (2001a). Feminism in archaeology. In L. Code (Ed.), Encyclopedia of feminist theories (pp. 26–27). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meskell, L. (2001b). Archaeologies of identity. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Archaeological Theory Today (pp. 187–213). Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meskell, L., & Preucel, R. (Eds.) (2004). A companion to social archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Moore, J. (1997). Conclusion: The visibility of the invisible. In J. Moore & E. Scott (Eds.), Invisible People and Processes: Writing Gender and Children into European Archaeology (pp. 251–257). London: Leicester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, H. (2006). The future of gender or the end of a brilliant career? In P. L. Geller & M. K. Stockett (Eds.), Feminist anthropology: Past, present, and future (pp. 23–42). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, J., & Scott, E. (Eds.) (1997). Invisible people and processes: Writing gender and children into european archaeology. London: Leicester University Press.

  • Næss, J-R. (1985). Tenkegruppens bakgrunn og perspektiv. K.A.N. Kvinner i arkeologi i Norge, 1, 6–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J., & Nørgaard, B. (1987). For meget følelse, for lidt intellekt? — et forsøg på arkæologisk kvindeforskning. K.A.N., 4, 3–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social constructiom. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preucel, R., & Hodder, I. (1996). Contemporary archaeology in theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prins, B. (1997). The standpoint in question: Situated knowledges and the dutch minorities discourse. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Utrecht, Utrecht.

  • Scott, J. W. (1986). Gender: A useful category in historical analysis. American Historical Review, 91(5), 1053–1075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, E. (1997). Introduction: On the incompleteness of archaeological narratives. In J. Moore & E. Scott (Eds.), Invisible people and processes: Writing gender and children into european archaeology (pp. 1–12). London: Leicester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selsing, L. (Ed.). (2005). Feministisk teori, kvinne- og kjønnsforskning i Rogaland. Stavanger: Arkeologisk Museum I Stavanger, AmS-NETT 4.

  • Shanks, M. (2001). Cultural archaeology: The dispersion of a discipline and its objects. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Archaeological theory today (pp. 284–305). Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanks, M., & Tilley, C. (1987a). Reconstructing archaeology: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanks, M., & Tilley, C. (1987b). Social theory and archaeology. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skogstrand, L. (2005). Situated knowledge-an archaeological use of Donna Haraway. K.A.N., 67–79.

  • Sørensen, M. L. S. (1988). Is there a feminist contribution to archaeology? Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 7(1), 9–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, M. L. S. (2000). Gender archaeology. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer-Wood, S. M. (2001). Views and Ccmmentaries: What difference does feminist theory make? International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 5(1), 97–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Springer, K. (2002). Third wave black feminism? Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 27(4), 1059–1082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J. (2001). Archaeologies of place and landscape. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Archaeological Theory Today (pp. 165–186). Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilley, C. (1989). Discourse and Power: the genre of the Cambridge inaugural lecture. In D. Miller, M. Rowlands, & C. Tilley (Eds.), Domination and Resistance. London: Unwin Hyman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widerberg, K. (1998). Translating Gender. NORA: Nordic Journal of Women’s Studies, 6(2), 133–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkie, L. A., & Hayes, K. H. (2006). Engendered and feminist archaelogies of the recent and documented past. Journal of Social Archaeology, 14, 243–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, A. (1990). Feminist critiques and archaeological challenges. In D. Walde, & N. Willows (Eds.), The Archaeology of Gender (pp. 18–27). Calgary: University of Calgary Archaeological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, A. (1991). Gender theory and the archaeological record: Why is there no archaeology of gender? In J. M. Gero & M. W. Conkey (Eds.), Engendering Archaeology: Women in Prehistory (pp. 31–54). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, A. (1995). Pragmatism and politics: Understanding the emergence of gender research in archaeology. Paper presented as the 1994 Skomp Lecture (Indiana University).

  • Wylie, A. (1997). The Engendering of archaeology: Refiguring feminist science studies. Osiris, 12, 80–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, A. (2002). The Constitution of archaeological evidence: Gender politics and science. In A. Wylie (Ed.), Thinking from things: Essays in the philosophy of archaeology (pp. 185–199). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, A. (2003). Why standpoint matters. In R. Figueroa & S. Harding (Eds.), Science and Other Cultures: Issues in philosophies of Science and Technology (pp. 26–48).

  • Wylie, A., Okruhlik, K., Thielen-Wilson, L., & Morton, S. (1989). Feminist critiques of Science: The epistomological and methodological literature. Women’s studies international forum, 12(3), 379–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Alison Wylie for inviting me to participate in this volume. I would also like to thank Liv Helga Dommasnes, Ingrid Fuglestvedt, Knut Helskog, and Bryan Hood for comments on an earlier version of this paper; and the participants of seminars at Uppsala University, where I presented some of the ideas in this paper, especially Anne-Sofie Gräslund, Bo Gräslund, Fredrik Hallgren, Cia Lidström Holmberg, and Åsa Larsson. I thank Elisabeth Arwill-Nordbladh, Charlotte Damm and Marie Louise Stig Sørensen for last minute conversations on aspects of Nordic feminism and feminist archaeology. I also want to thank Roberta Gilchrist, Madonna L. Moss and three anonymous referees for insightful comments. Finally, I especially want to thank Alison Wylie for comments and constant support while working on this article. Needless to say, the final version is my responsibility. Some of the text is reworked from an earlier article and papers given at the Gender and Material Culture Conference in Sydney in 1999 and at the SAA meetings in Montreal in 2004 (Engelstad 1999, 2004a, b). All translations from Norwegian are my own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ericka Engelstad.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Engelstad, E. Much More than Gender. J Archaeol Method Theory 14, 217–234 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-007-9035-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-007-9035-3

Keywords

  • Feminism
  • Gender /feminist archaeology
  • Feminist theory
  • Situated knowledges