Through a Glass, Darkly: up much of the confusion caused by

the semantics of language and

Clouded Perceptions of terminology, which have served to
Feminist and Gender mask the true definitions of these
Archaeology archaeologies. To understand the
intricate complexities between the
two movements, an examination of
Yasmin Carter the origins and history of both is
University of Manitoba required. A discussion of the
development of feminism both outside
"The latest outbreak - which bears a and within archaeology will be
great resemblance to the good old discussed, as well as the subsequent
days of New Archaeology (primarily a development of an archaeology of
racket for the boys) - is gender gender. The future path for both of
archaeology which is actually feminist these archaeologies will be examined
archaeology (a new racket for the and suggested directions for the
girls). Yes folks, sisters are doing it for future will be given.
themselves ... Hardly a month goes by
without another conference of 'gender Definitions
archaeology' being held somewhere Central to any discussion of feminist
by a host of female archaeologists or gender archaeology is a definition
(plus a few brave or trendy males who of gender. In the division and
aspire to political correctness) Some structuring of modern human
of its aims are laudable, but the societies, there are a number of near-
bandwagon shouldn't be allowed to universal categories, notably: age,
roll too far, as the New Archaeology gender, class, and race (Scott 1997).
did, before the Empress's lack of Gender is usually defined as an
clothes is pointed out by gleeful individual's self-identification and
cynics." - P. Bahn (1992:321) identification by others with a specific
gender category on the basis of their
This quote by Paul Bahn echoes the culturally perceived sexual difference
sentiments and confusion of (Voss and Schmidt 2000). Gender and
archaeologists the world over, that is, sex categories may coincide but this is
that feminist archaeology and the not always the case.
archaeology of gender are the same The problem with projecting these
movement. It also demonstrates three categories into the past is that they do
of the main issues faced by feminist not manifest universally throughout
archaeologists: sexism in the field the world or across time (Scott 1997).
(there are sure to be a number of In fact, social scientists agree that,
female new-archaeologists who would given the cultural basis of gender,
take issue with Bahn's first comment), there is no limit to the number of
the marginalisation of feminist theory, possible genders in each society (Voss
and, of course, the confusion as to and Schmidt 2000).
differences between feminist
archaeology and gender archaeology.
The purpose of this paper is to clear

Volum e 28, 2009

94
 The Feminist Movement contemporaries and the recognition of
The history of the feminist movement the role of women in prehistory
outside of archaeology is closely tied (Gilchrist 1999). The strongest
to the development of both feminist influence of feminist thought on
and gendered archaeologies. The archaeological theory, however,
feminist movement is characterised occurred during the latter part of the
by a political commitment to change second wave, although it took at least
existing power relations between men a decade to gain momentum. In North
and women (Engelstad 2007). America, cultural anthropologists led
Feminist thought and scholarship, the way. During the 1970's and early
however, is generally accepted to have 1980's, while anthropologists
advanced in three waves. Although published seminal works of feminist
there is some disagreement regarding scholarship, archaeologists, for the
the exact breakdown of these stages, a most part, remained silent (Nelson
general outline can be given (Gilchrist 2002).
1999).
By the 1970's, a small group of
Represented by the suffrage archaeologists had begun to theorise
movements, between 1880 and 1920, about the more active role that
the first wave saw women seek women had played in prehistory
emancipation and greater rights in (Gilchrist 1999). In November 1979, a
employment, education, and politics workshop on gender bias entitled
(Hooks 2000). The second wave of 'Were They All Men?' was held at
feminism emerged in the 1960's and Utstein Kloster for Norwegian
focussed on individual issues, archaeologists. Due to financial
particularly those of inequality in difficulties, however, publication of
terms of sexuality, reproduction, and the results in English took almost
personal fulfilment. The most recent seven years, reducing its impact on
era of feminism is considered the third the field (Bertelsen et aI, 1986).
wave and has occurred over the last The first paper to receive widespread
twenty years. Feminist scholars attention was the seminal work of
embraced elements of postmodernist Margaret Conkey and Janet Spector,
theory and shifted their emphasis to Archaeology and the Study of Gender
more symbolic and cultural studies (1984). It is interesting to note that
and differences in gendered the manuscript for this paper had
experience (Hooks 2000). been circulating for several years
before finally being accepted for
The Path of Feminist Archaeology publication (Boyd 1997). The degree
The first wave of feminism was not to which the article stimulated
entirely lost on archaeologists, with subsequent work is debated, as it was
prominent women emerging in one of a few to appear in print before
archaeology, such as Amelia Edwards 1988, but it is generally accepted as
and Margaret Mead in Britain and the catalyst for future studies
Hannah Rydh in Sweden, all notable (Claassen 1992).
for their concern both with the
emancipation of their female

95 Journ al of the Manitoba Anthropology Students ' Association

 In their article, Conkey and Spector solely on women. As it was, in essence,
expressed dismay that the field was the founding publication of feminist
not taking advantage of the insights archaeology, its title is very much at
available from feminist studies. They the root of the current confusion
argued that despite their claims of regarding feminist versus gender
objectivity, archaeologists were terminology. Despite the promising
perpetuating a 'gender-mythology' by beginning of the publication of the
uncritically employing gender Conkey and Spector article in a
stereotypes in their interpretations of prestigious American archaeological
the past and failing to consider method and theory series,
historical variation and cultural investigations into questions of
diversity in gender relations. They feminism and the role of women
describe this male-centred view as proceeded more rapidly in Britain and
androcentrism, the belief that men are Scandinavia (Hays-Gilpin and Whitley
at the centre of society with women 1998).
not involved at all or living in the
margins of society (Johnson 1999). For several subsequent years, few
Although critics have suggested that other archaeological studies in North
feminist archaeology is simply America used gender as an explicit
swapping an androcentric bias for analytical category (Hays-Gilpin and
another gynocentric, or female-based Whitley 1998). Spector's 1983 article
one (Hodder 1997), feminist on gender task differentiation among
archaeologists argue that in order to the Hidatsa provided one of the
restore the balance, a concentration earliest case studies applying feminist
must first be made on finding women. archaeological theory.
They also argue that by exclusively Momentum began to pick up again in
applying contemporary gender 1987 with a session dedicated to
stereotypes, archaeologists were gender at the Plains Conference and a
implying that patriarchal systems symposium at the American
dominated in the past as they do now Anthropological Association's annual
and are more a reflection of biological meeting (Claassen 1992). 1988 was to
imperatives such as sex, aggression be a turning point in feminist
and strength, than they are the archaeological scholarship. The
product of cultural influences. This is publication of Miller's The Role of
strongly tied to the universalist and Gender in Pre-Columbian Art and
essentialist narratives of second wave Architecture (1988) was followed by
feminism, which were concerned with an entire issue of the Archaeological
identifying the root causes of the Reviews from Cambridge, a student-
oppression of women and, in run journal, dedicated to feminist
particular, patriarchy as a theoretical theory. In April 1988, Joan Gero and
framework (Arnold and Wicker 2001). Margaret Conkey brought together
Although the paper by Conkey and twelve anthropologists and
Spector uses 'gender' in its title, it archaeologists from North America,
encompasses many of the ideals of Britain, and Australia to discuss
second wave feminism. At the time the gender issues in archaeology at the
paper was written, the focus was Wedge Conference, a small gathering

Volum e 28,2009 96
 of only about twenty people (Claassen rigor. Diaz-Andreu (200S) suggests
1992). that the late acceptance of feminist
issues was in large part due to the
]n 1989, several of the Wedge emphasis on macro-scale analyses and
participants repeated their papers at the reluctance of archaeologists to
the Society for American Archaeology "'reduce' objectivity.
meetings in Atlanta, where there was
also the first ever session looking at The Early Work
the history of women in North As feminist theories developed so did
American archaeology (Claassen feminist archaeology. Early work in
1992). ]n keeping with the second the field was often in search of the
wave focus, feminist scholars began to 'lost' or 'invisible' women of the past
look into their own disciplines to and took an 'add woman and stir'
examine the internal impact of approach. ]n order to rectify these
androcentric bias and inequality, a losses, however, it was necessary to
theme that eventually would be taken first identify the mechanisms by which
up strongly by later feminist biases were originally introduced into
archaeologists (Claassen 1992). 1989 archaeological inquiry and
also saw the annual Chacmool interpretation (Wylie 1992).
Conference in Calgary, Canada focus Within North American archaeology,
on the archaeology of gender (Walde the search for universals to explain
and Willows 1991). ]n 1991, Gero and the subordination of women
Conkey published their landmark prompted a radical critique of the
volume Engendering Archaeology: traditional approaches to the
Women and Prehistory, based on the gendered division of labour in specific
papers presented at the Wedge historical contexts, particularly with
Conference. At the same time, courses regard to the role of reproduction and
on the topic became more common in child rearing (e.g. Claassen and Joyce,
American universities (Claassen 1997; Gero and Conkey, 1991; Kent,
1992). 1998; Wright 1996). Until this point,
women's labour roles had included
Feminist and gender studies took inherent propositions, such as the idea
quite a time to gain a foothold in that women gathered, cooked, potted,
archaeological theory, even though and wove but did not hunt or make
they had flourished as a subject of tools (Nelson 1997).
inquiry in many other disciplines in
the 1960's and 1970's. The question of Early case studies demonstrated the
why this occurred has been widely variability and flexibility of gender
discussed and debated (Engelstad roles of labour (e.g. Javenpha and
2007; Gilchrist 1999; Nelson 1997; Brumbach 2006; Lee and DeVore
Wylie 1992). Alison Wylie (1992) 1968). This research also
found that the archaeological demonstrated that 'women's work,' is
scholarly-paradigm hindered a focus shaped by the same range of factors
on gender because cultural factors are as'men's work' - from political and
deemed to be less useful as evidence economic to ecological (Wright 1996).
due to a perceived insufficiency of As well as elucidating the androcentric

97 Journal o/the Manitoba Anthropology Students ' Association

 biases of the discipline, early feminist American and European traditions
contributors to archaeological theory resulted from several factors,
examined the use of language in including the greater impact of second
ingrained structural sexism, including wave feminist theory on the American
the use of terms like, 'mankind' and academy (Gilchrist 1999).
'stone-age' (Wright 1996). Some If the development of gender
researchers argue that this emphasis archaeology can be seen to have
on 'male' terms encourages occurred first in Europe, then its
androcentrism in the field and that growing pains were felt strongly in
what is needed is a new way of writing North America. Out of and alongside
and presenting information and feminist approaches grew true gender
results (Johnson 1999). An excellent studies in archaeology (Scott 1997). In
example of this new type of academic the late 1990's a transition occurred
writing comes from Janet Spector's within feminist archaeology, as the
work at a Wahpeton Village. The focus of some researchers gradually
resulting book and articles (Spector moved away from 'invisible women'
1991) focused on an attempt to write and 'women's work' to gender
an original and emotive report rather construction and variability in past
than the tradition dry detached societies (Voss and Schmidt 2000).
version. The author began by The feminist archaeological
examining her own experiences and movement had demonstrated that it
biases. She used stories and first-hand was possible for transitions in gender
accounts to describe the excavation, relations to occur, even within a brief
and then went on to use a fictionalised time-span. At the same time,
account to describe the life-history of anthropologists and historians were
a single artefact, an awl. Although an providing insights into the cultural
interesting and enjoyable way of components of gender and the way in
presenting data, it has yet to be which relations between men and
adopted by mainstream archaeology women, division of labour, and
as an acceptable tone of academic attitudes towards biological sex and
discourse. gender varied between cultures. This
led some feminist archaeologists to
Although exceptions can, of course, be seek a more explicit and inclusive way
found, this type of feminist to study gender in the past (Voss and
archaeology predominated in North Schmidt 2000).
American archaeology (Engelstad
2007). Feminist archaeology in An Archaeology of Gender
Europe developed early on to a more Academic publications addressing the
'gender-based' archaeological archaeology of gender currently
approach, with a focus less on gender number in the hundreds, with more
roles and the division of labour and added every year. It is therefore both
more generally on the symbolic and impractical and unreasonable to
cultural manifestations of gender, expect theoretical and methodological
marked by a greater concern for the homogeneity amongst all authors.
individual (e.g. Moore and Scott 1997). However, a general outline of the
These distinctions between North history and main themes is possible.

Volume 28, 2009 98

 Gender first appeared in the literature individuals over time, as it intersects
as a concept in the late 1960's. It came with other cultural practices and
out of the burgeoning field of concepts such as class and race
psychoanalysis, and spread to the (Meskell 2001). One of the most
social sciences, reaching anthropology significant achievements of gender
in the 1970's (Engelstad 1991). Its archaeology is not only the
early applications in archaeology recognition of gender constructs as
found it incorrectly applied to feminist part of a much larger process, but also
themes. the recognition of human agency
(Scott 1997). As one of the
While feminist archaeology was fundamental identities and categories
heavily influenced by the second wave in the structure of a social group,
of feminism, gender archaeology can gender is a vital factor to be
be seen to have grown out of the third considered when studying agency
wave, where the emphasis on (Fowler 2004).
addressing inequality was superseded
by an imperative to understand Feminist or Gendered?
gender difference between and among A quick search of the archaeological
men and women (Gilchrist 1999). As a literature based on titles would give
part of this, third wave theory rejects the impression that the study of
the idea of an essential character or gender in archaeology has been going
experience that typifies a specific on for quite some time, but a closer
gender (Gilchrist 1999). The look reveals that the 'gender
difference, upon which gender revolution' has only just begun. Whilst
archaeology focuses, is a fluid concept the archaeology of gender can be seen
and does not result from essential to have developed out of feminist
biology but from cultural experience archaeology, they should not be seen
and conditioning (Gilchrist 1999) as successive stages or a progression
Gender can change temporally and where one step is better or more
spatially across and through cultures. important than the other. They are
Some research has even suggested two separate schools of thought and
that gender, as we know it today, may theory with aims and ideals that may
not have existed in all cultures at all overlap at times but are essentially
times (Conkey and Spector 1991). different. The greatest problems arise
By the end of the 1990's, gender from confusion in terminology;
scholars were concerned with 'gender' is used frequently and
examining gender by interpolating inaccurately in feminist studies. If we,
factors such as age, sexual orientation, as a field, do not revise our theoretical
and ethnicity (e.g. Claassen and Joyce terminology, the resulting disorder
1997; Gilchrist 1997; Lesick 1997). will stifle the development of both
The overall gender of a person might movements.
contain a balance of many influences
(Fowler 2004). Gender has come to be Feminist archaeology has continued
viewed as an aspect of identity, part of on separate from gender archaeology,
a complex assortment of networks but it is still possible to justify this
varying between individuals and for divergent existence of feminist studies

99 Journal o/the Manitoba Anthropology Students' Association

 on the grounds that, as a discipline, we Plurality
are a long way from redressing more Perhaps the greatest path for the
than two centuries of androcentric future for gender archaeology lies in
bias and by leaving women out of such the theoretical influence it has exerted
discourses for such a long period, within the discipline. Outside of these
intentionally or not, means that any two movements, in the wider body of
attempt to 'put them back in' will archaeological theory, their effect can
involve much work, re-examination, be found in the proliferation of multi-
and revision of accepted terminology, faceted post-processual approaches
interpretations, and histories (Arnold (Engelstad 1991). Many new fields of
and Wicker 2001). archaeological thought grew out of the
feminist and gender studies
Where to From Here? movement, including: the archaeology
In academic circles, debate rages over of identity (Diaz-Andreu 2005),
what the ultimate goal should be for masculinist theory (Knapp 1998),
the future of feminist and gender archaeology of age (Baxter 2005),
archaeologies. To date, both feminist studies of socialisation, learning and
and gender studies have tended to be aptitude (Diaz-Andreu and Lucy
marginalised in importance and 2005), archaeology of sexuality and
viewed as an area of 'special' inquiry so-called queer archaeology (Schmidt
(Engelstad 2007). In some cases, this and Voss 2000). Feminist and gender
has been a product of choice, with methodologies have also heavily
women-only groups flourishing informed other fields of inquiry, such
because they are thought to be more as the archaeologies of household and
supportive (Wylie 1992). Some feel landscape. Both archaeological and
that they should be incorporated into anthropological analyses have shown
the 'mainstream', with gender that the socially sanctioned use of land
categories acting as an integral part of and space is often divided along
all archaeological research, from gendered lines (Diaz-Andreu 2005).
question design, excavation, and
interpretation to the presentation of A reaction against feminist
results in the academic and public archaeology that is consistent with the
discourse (Gilchrist 1991); whereas ideals of gender archaeology is the
some other feminist-leaning gender new masculinist perspective (Knapp
scholars have discouraged integration 1998). Tied in with third wave
with the establishment as they feel it feminism and its focus on difference,
would compromise the central tenets the concept of masculinity and what it
of feminism (Wylie 1992). Criticisms means to be 'a man' is being re-
have been made that feminist examined. Masculinist theory
scholars, on occasion, have shown challenges the common essentialist
loyalty so strong as to be exclusive views of the male, which are as biased
and, although the need for solidarity is as the original views of women. For
important, this exclusivity tends to instance, there is the assumption that
exclude critique, even from within the all males, in all societies are
field (Wright 1996). aggressive, competitive, or
uninterested in raising children. Some

Volum e 28, 2009 100

 researchers suggest that the concept a relationship that is bound to be
of masculinity is a multidimensional reciprocal.
quality selectively adopted by men
and occasionally women (Knapp As much as these new archaeologies
1998). In archaeology, this masculinist formed out of gender and feminist
perspective is being used by some studies, they are still in the shadows,
researchers to redress the perceived stunting their growth. Seeking to place
feminist focus of gender archaeology, women and gender at the forefront of
which they suggest masks the actual archaeological thought only serves to
contributions and life histories of both further marginalise other groups
males and females in the past (Hodder 1997).
(Gilchrist 1999).
'Equal Emphasis'
An awareness of the importance of However sensitive we are to gender
studies of age and infirmity also issues, biases remain. They are an
resulted from gender archaeology unavoidable and essential aspect of
(Moore and Scott 1997). In order to archaeological interpretation. As
understand how gender relations researchers, we need a perspective
operated in the past, particularly for through which to view the
women, whose primary function is archaeological record. What is needed
often viewed as care-providers, is an acceptance of these individual
research into those who needed care biases and an adoption of a self-
is fundamental (Diaz-Andreu and Lucy reflexive approach, where the
2005). Although archaeological researcher's bias is reviewed and
studies of the elderly and disabled discussed as an integral part of the
have not progressed as far as many interpretation.
would like, the recent development of Feminist and gender studies are vital
a substantial discourse ofthe to archaeology. However, rather than
archaeology of childhood has become focusing on their differences, I would
a vital component of archaeological argue that they are both the link in a
theory (Baxter 1995; Finlay 1997; chain to a wider theoretical
Derevenski 1997). perspective. A new movement is
needed where the focus is placed on
Archaeologies of childhood can inform 'equal-emphasis', in order to move
gender studies in two main areas. away from androcentric and
Firstly, gender roles and boundaries gynocentric dichotomies to a practical
can differ over time and with age, so and theoretical model which
the study of children and their encompasses gender, sex, bodies, age,
experiences is highly informative. self-identity, aptitude, and talent, all of
Secondly, studying socialisation -, that which are precepts of the basic
is the study of how gender is 'taught' divisions constructed, taught, and
and 'learned' during childhood - is lived in human society.
useful (Baxter 1995). Both of these
areas will provide many insights for Conclusion
gender archaeologists in the future in Although gender and feminist
archaeologies have very different

101 Journal o/the Manitoba Anthropology Students' Association

 ideals, goals, and theories, the The avowed aim is to focus on gender
confusion that surrounds the two is (in the sense of social and cultural,
closely linked to the terminology used rather than biological distinctions
in early feminist archaeology between the sexes) in the
publications. Although at first glance archaeological record. But despite
the two seem inextricably intertwined, assurances to the contrary it is clear
they can in fact be carefully drawn that the major aim is not so much to
apart and viewed as two separate reclaim women and men in non-sexist
schools of thought. The archaeology of ways in prehistory, as to make women
gender looks at the archaeological visible in the past. A perfectly laudable
record to infer the role and life aim, and one that is highly fashionable
histories of persons who are ascribed at present ... The very word 'gender',
these 'gender roles', usually on the therefore is in serious danger of being
basis of biological characteristics that hijacked, like the word 'gay' before it."
are seen as significant by their culture. - P. Bahn (2000:83-85)
Feminist archaeology, in contrast, is
unavoidably involved in political It would seem that, as theoretical
questions of the life experiences of movements, feminist and gender
women, both in the past and within archaeology have come a long way,
the discipline. but there is still quite a way to go yet,
baby.
Given the recent developments in
feminist and gender archaeologies and References
the degree of acceptance by the
mainstream of their goals and Arnold, B. and N.L. Wicker. 2001
theories, are comments like Paul Introduction. In Gender and the
Bahn's (1992) outdated? Can it be said Archaeology of Death, B. Arnold and
that he has learned from these N.L. Wicker, eds. Alta Mira, Walnut
developments? It seems not - in a Creek, Calif. vii-xxi.
recent book (Bahn 2000), he stated:
Bahn, P. 1992 Bores, Bluffers and
"The explicit emphasis now being Wankas: Some Thoughts on
placed on gender studies is therefore Archaeology and Humour.
welcome, not only for its attempt to Archaeological Review From
create a much greater awareness of Cambridge 11: 315-322.
the need to extend gender equality
into all aspects of contemporary life, Bahn, P. 1996 Archaeology: a Very
including academia, but also for the Short Introduction. Oxford University
substantial contribution that it is Press, Oxford.
making to our understanding of how
ancient societies may have worked.
However, what is called 'Gender
Archaeology' is actually feminist
archaeology - sisters are doing it for
themselves.

Volum e 28, 2009 102

 Baker, M. 1997 Invisibility as a European Archaeology, J. Moore and E.
Symptom of Gender Categories in Scott, eds. Leicester University Press,
Archaeology. In Invisible People and London,pp.192-202.
Processes: Writing Gender into
European Archaeology, J. Moore and E. Diaz-Andreu, M. 2005 Gender Identity.
Scott, eds. Leicester University Press, In The Archaeology of Identity:
London, pp. 183-191. Approaches to Gender, Age, Status,
Ethnicity and Religion, M. Diaz-Andreu,
Baxter, J.E. 2005 The Archaeology of S. Lucy, S. Babic, and D.N. Edwards,
Childhood: Children Gender and eds. Routledge, London, pp. 13-42.
Material Culture. Alta Mira, Walnut
Creek, Calif. Diaz-Andreu, M.and S. Lucy. 2005
Introduction. In The Archaeology of
Bertelsen, R. 1986 Introduction. In Identity: Approaches to Gender, Age,
Were They All Men? An Examination of Status, Ethnicity and Religion, M. Diaz-
Sex Roles in Prehistoric Society, R. Andreu, S. Lucy, S. Babic, and D.N.
Bertelsen, A. Lillehammer and J. Naess, Edwards, eds. Routledge, London, pp.
eds. Stavanger, Norway, pp. 31-41. 1-12.

Boyd, B. 1997 The Power of Gender Engelstad, E. 1991 Images of Power

Archaeology. In Invisible People and and Contradiction: Feminist Theory
Processes: Writing Gender into and
European Archaeology, J. Moore and E. Post-processual Archaeology.
Scott, eds. Leicester University Press, Antiquity 65: 502-514.
London, pp. 25-30.
Engelstad, E. 2007 Much More Than
Claassen, C. 1992 Questioning Gender: Gender.Journal ofArchaeological
an Introduction. In Exploring Gender method and Theory 14: 217-234.
Through Archaeology, C. Claassen, ed.
Prehistory Press, Wisconsin, pp. 1-10. Finlay, N. 1997 Kid Knapping: the
Missing Children in Lithic Analysis. In
Claassen, C. and R.A. Joyce, eds. 1997 Invisible People and Processes: Writing
Women in Prehistory: North America Gender into European Archaeology, J.
and Mesoamerica. University of Moore and E. Scott, eds. Leicester
Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. University Press, London, pp. 203-212.

Conkey, M.W. and J. Spector. 1984 Fowler, C. 2004 The Archaeology of

Archaeology and the Study of Gender. Personhood: an Anthropological
In Advances in Archaeological Method Approach. Routledge, London.
and Theory Vol. 7, M. Schiffer, ed.
Academic Press, New York, pp. 1-38. Gero, J.M. and M. Conkey, eds. 1991
Engendering Archaeology: Women and
Derevenski, J. Sofaer. 1997 Prehistory. Blackwell. Oxford.
Engendering Children, Engendering
Archaeology. In Invisible People and
Processes: Writing Gender into

103 Journal o/the Manitoba Anthropology Students' Association

 Gilchrist, R. 1991 Women's Knapp, A.B. 1998 Boys Will Be Boys:
Archaeology? Political Feminism, Masculinist Approaches to a Gendered
Gender Theory, and Historical Archaeology. In Reader in Gender
Revision. Antiquity 65: 495-501. Archaeology, K Hays-Gilpin and D.S.
Whitley, eds. Routledge, London, pp.
Gilchrist, R. 1999 Gender and 365-373.
Archaeology: Contesting the Past.
Routledge, London. Lee, R.B. and I. DeVore, eds. 1968 Man
the Hunter. Aldine, Chicago
Hays-Gilpin, K and D.S. Whitley. 1998
Introduction: Gendering the Past. In Lesick, KS. 1997 Re-engendering
Reader in Gender Archaeology, K Hays- Gender: Some Theoretical and
Gilpin and D.s. Whitley, eds. Methodological Concerns on a
Routledge, London, pp. 3-10. Burgeoning Archaeological Pursuit. In
Invisible People and Processes: Writing
Hodder, I. 1997 Commentary: the Gender into European Archaeology, J.
Gender Screen. In Invisible People and Moore and E. Scott, eds. Leicester
Processes: Writing Gender into University Press, London, pp. 31-41.
European Archaeology, J. Moore and E.
Scott, eds. Leicester University Press, Meskell, L. 2001 Archaeologies of
London, pp. 75-78. Identity. In Archaeological Theory
Today, I. Hodder, ed. Polity, London,
Hooks, B. 2000 Feminism isfor pp.31-41.
Everybody. South End Press,
Cambridge, MA. Moore, J. and E. Scott, eds. 1997
Invisible People and Processes: Writing
Jarvenpa, R. and H.J. Brumbach. 2006 Gender into European Archaeology.
revisiting the Sexual Division of Leicester University Press, London.
Labour: Thoughts on
Ethnoarchaeo]ogy and Gender. Nelson, S.M. 1997 Gender in
Archaeological Papers of the American Archaeology: Analyzing Power and
Anthropology Association 16: 97-107. Prestige. Alta Mira, Walnut Creek,
Calif.
Johnson, M. 1999 Archaeological
Theory: an Introduction. BlackwelIs, Nelson, S.M. 2002 Gender Ideology. In
Oxford. In Pursuit of Gender: Worldwide
Archaeological, S.M. Nelson and M.
Kent, S. 1998 Gender and Prehistory in Rosen-Ayalon, eds. Alta Mira, Walnut
Africa. In Gender in African Prehistory, Creek, Calif., pp. 9-14.
S. Kent, ed. Alta Mira, Walnut Creek,
Calif., pp. 9-21.

Volum e 28, 2009 104

 Scott, E. 1997 Introduction: on the
Completeness of Archaeological
Narratives. In Invisible People and
Processes: Writing Gender into
European Archaeology, J. Moore and E.
Scott, eds. Leicester University Press,
London, pp. 1-13.

Spector, J. 1983 Male/Female task

Differentiation Among the Hidatsa:
Toward the Development of an
Arch aeological Approach to the Study
of Gender. In The Hidden Half, P.
Albers and 8. Medicine, eds. University
of America, Washington, pp. 77-99.

Spector, J. 1991 What this Awl Means:

Toward a Feminist Archaeology. In
Engendering Archaeology: Women and
Prehistory, J.M. Gero and M.W. Conkey,
eds. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 388-406.

Voss, 8.L. and RA. Schmidt. 2000

Archaeologies of Sexuality: an
Introduction. In Archaeologies of
Sexuality, RA. Schmidt and 8.L. Voss,
eds. Routledge, London, pp. 1-32.

Walde, D. and N.D. Willows. 1991 The

Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings of
the 22 nd Annual Chacmool Conference.
University Press, Calgary.

Wylie, A. 1992 The Interplay of

Evidential Constraints and Political
Interests: recent Archaeological
Research on Gender. American
Antiquity 57: 15-35.

Wright, RP., ed. 1996 Gender and

Archaeology of Gender. University of
Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

105 Journ al o/the Manitoba Anthropology Students' Association