Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T11:39:44.912Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Our own engendered species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Linda Hurcombe
Linda Hurcombe*
Affiliation:
Teaching & Learning Development, University of Sheffied, 65 Wilkinson Street, Sheffield S10 2HN, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The study of gender in ancient societies seems inseparable from the place of gender in our own society–and therefore inseparable from the particular attitudes and expectations those contemporary manners create. This BIG problem is explored, and some approaches to its resolution are developed.

Information

Type
Papers
Information
Antiquity , Volume 69 , Issue 262 , March 1995 , pp. 87 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 1995 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allason-Jones, L. 1989. Women in Roman Britain. London: British Museum Publications.Google Scholar
Andrews, P. & Stringer, C.. 1989. Human evolution: an illustrated guide, with paintings by Maurice Wilson. London: British Museum (Natural History).Google Scholar
Barrett, J.C. 1989. Food, gender and metal: questions of social reproduction, in Stig SØrensen, M.-L. &Thomas, R. (ed.), The Bronze Age-Iron Age transition in Europe: 304–20. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. International series S483(ii).Google Scholar
Bar-Yosef, O. & Vandermeersch, B.. 1993. Modern humans in the Levant, Scientific American 264(4): 64–70.Google Scholar
Bedlow, R. 1991. 20,000 went to Bronze Age orgy, The Daily Telegraph 14 October.Google Scholar
Bell, D., Caplan, P. & Karim, W.J. (ed.). 1993. Gendered fields: women, men and ethnography. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bender, B. 1978. Gatherer-hunter to farmer: a social perspective, World Archaeology 10: 204–22.Google Scholar
Blumenschine, R.J. & Cavallo, J.A.. 1992. Scavenging and human evolution, Scientific American 267(4): 90–96.Google Scholar
Boxer, M.J. & Quataert, J.H. (Ed.). 1987. Connecting spheres: women in the western world, 1500 to the present. New York (NY): Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burtt, F. 1987. ‘Man the hunter’: bias in children’s archaeology books, Archaeological Review from Cambridge 6(2): 157–74.Google Scholar
Bush, H. & Zvelebil, M. (ed.). 1991. Health in past societies: hiocultural interpretation of human skeletal remains in archaeological contexts. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. International series S567.Google Scholar
Chippindale, C. 1991. Sexist language in archaeological discourse: a reply, Archaeological Review from Cambridge 10(1): 102–4.Google Scholar
Claassen, C. (ed.). 1992. Exploring gender through archaeology. Madison (WI): Prehistory Press.Google Scholar
Claassen, C. In press. Feminism and CRM. Boone (NC): Appalachian State University.Google Scholar
Coles, B. 1990. Anthropomorphic wooden figurines from Britain and Ireland, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 56: 315–33.Google Scholar
Coles, B. Concise Oxford Dictionary of current English. 1990. 8th edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Conkey, M.W. & Spector, J.. 1984. Archaeology and the study of gender, in Schiffer, M.B. (ed.), Advances in archaeological method and theory 7: 1–38. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dahlberg, F. (ed.). 1981. Woman the gatherer. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. & Foley, R.. 1989. Beyond the bones of contention, New Scientist 124 (1686) (14 October 1989): 37–40.Google Scholar
Ehrenberg, M. 1989. Women in prehistory. London: British Museum.Google Scholar
Engelstad, E. 1991. Images of power and contradiction: feminist theory and post-processual archaeology, Antiquity 65: 502–14.Google Scholar
Epstein, C.F. 1988. Deceptive distinctions: sex, gender, and the social order. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, K. 1990. Sexist language in archaeological discourse, Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9(2): 252–61.Google Scholar
Fell, C. 1984. Women in Anglo-Saxon England. London: British Museum Publications.Google Scholar
Gero, J.M. 1985. Socio-politics and the woman-at-home ideology, American Antiquity 50: 342–50.Google Scholar
Gero, J.M. & Conkey, M.W. (ed.). 1991. Engendering archaeology: women and prehistory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gilchrist, R. 1991. Women’s archaeology? Political feminism, gender theory and historical revision, Antiquity 65: 495–501.Google Scholar
Gilchrist, R. 1993. Gender and material culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gould, S.J. 1989. Wonderful life: the Burgess Shale and the nature of history. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. (Ed.). 1989. Primate visions: gender, race and nature in the world of modern science. New York (NY): Routledge.Google Scholar
Hayden, B. 1986. Ecological determinants of womens’ status among hunter-gatherers, Human Evolution 1: 449–73.Google Scholar
Hayden, B. 1992. Observing prehistoric women, in Claassen (ed.): 33–47.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. 1989. Pagan Saxon cemeteries: a study of the problem of sexing by grave goods and bones, in Roberts et al. (ed.): 77–83.Google Scholar
Higham, C. & Bannanurag, R.. 1990. The princess and the pots, New Scientist 126(1718) (26 May): 50–55.Google Scholar
Highfield, R. 1992. Why toolmakers looked so happy, Daily Telegraph 15 June: 12.Google Scholar
Holliman, S.E. 1992. Health consequences of sexual division of labor among native Americans: the Chumash of California and the Arikara of the Northern Plains, in Claassen (ed.): 81–88.Google Scholar
INSTITUTE OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGISTS. 1991. Women in British archaeology — the equal opportunities in archaeology working party report 1991, The Field Archaeologist 15: 280–82.Google Scholar
Jennbert, K. In press. ‘From the inside’: a contribution to the debate about the introduction of agriculture, in Domanska, L., Dennell, R. & Zvelebil, M. (ed.), The transition to farming in the Baltic region. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Jones, S. & Pay, S.. 1990. The legacy of Eve, in Gathercole, P. & Lowenthal, D. (ed.), The politics of the past: 160–71. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Kehoe, A.B. 1991. No possible, probable shadow of doubt, Antiquity 65: 129–31.Google Scholar
Klapisch-Zuber, C. (ed.). 1992. A history of women in the West 2: Silences of the Middle Ages. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lambert, D. 1987. The Cambridge guide to prehistoric man. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, R.B. & De Vore, I. (Ed.). 1968. Man the hunter. Chicago (IL): Aldine.Google Scholar
Levick, C. & Spencer, B.. 1993. Windows on the world: prehistory. London: Dorling Kindersley.Google Scholar
Maccormack, C. & Strathern, M. (ed.). 1980. Nature, culture and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meiklejohn, C. & Zvelebil, M.. 1991. Health status of European populations at the agricultural transition and the implications for the adoption of farming, in Bush&Zvelebil (ed.): 129–45.Google Scholar
Moser, S. 1992a. The visual language of archaeology: a case study of the Neanderthals, Antiquity 66: 831–44.Google Scholar
Moser, S. 1992b. Visions of the Australian Pleistocene: prehistoric life at Lake Mungo and Kutikina, Australian Archaeology 5: 1–10.Google Scholar
Moser, S.In press. Gender stereotyping in pictorial reconstructions of human origins, in Smith&Du Cros (ed.).Google Scholar
Oakley, K. 1972. Man the toolmaker. 6th edition. London: British Museum (Natural History).Google Scholar
Ortner, S.B. & Whitehead, H. (ed.). 1981. Sexual meanings: the cultural construction of gender and sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Google Scholar
øvrevik, S.E. 1991. Feminist research on archaeology in Norway, Kvinner i Arkeologi i Norge 11: 27–63.Google Scholar
Parker Pearson, M. 1982. Mortuary practices, societies and ideology: an ethnoarchaeological study, in Hodder, I. (ed.), Symbolic and structural archaeology: 99–114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pearson, R., Lee, J.-W., Koh, W. & Underhill, A.. 1989. Social ranking in the kingdom of Old Silla, Korea: analysis of burials, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8: 1–50.Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, J.E. 1970. The emergence of man. London: Nelson.Google Scholar
Rice, P. 1981. Prehistoric venuses: symbols of motherhood or womanhood, Journal of Anthropological Research 37: 402–14.Google Scholar
Roberts, C, Lee, F. & Bintliff, J. (ed.). 1989. Burial archaeology: current research, methods and developments. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. British series 211.Google Scholar
Seward, J. & Seward, G.H.. 1980. Sex differences: mental and temperamental. Lexington (KY): Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Shaver, P. & Hendrick, C. (ed.). 1987. Sex and gender. Newbury Park (CA): Sage.Google Scholar
Smith, L. In press. Cultural resource management and the rise of feminist expression in Australian archaeology, in Ciaassen (ed.).Google Scholar
Smith, L. & Du Cros, H.. In press. Women in archaeology: a feminist critique. Canberra: Australian National University Press.Google Scholar
Spender, D. 1980. Man made language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Stringer, C. & Gamble, C.. 1993. In search of the Neanderthals. London: Thames & Hudson. Google Scholar
Tanner, N. 1981. On becoming human. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tattersall, I. 1992. Evolution comes to life, Scientific American 267(2): 62–9.Google Scholar
Tringham, R.E. 1991. Households with faces: the challenge of gender in prehistoric architectural remains, in Gero & Conkey (ed.): 93–131.Google Scholar
Trinkaus, E. 1983. The Shanidar Neandertals. New York (NY): Academic Press.Google Scholar
Trinkaus, E. & Shipman, P.. 1993. The Neandertals, changing the image of mankind. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
Ucko, P. 1969. Ethnography and archaeological interpretation of funerary remains, World Archaeology 1: 262–80.Google Scholar
Walcott, C.D. 1912. Middle Cambrian Branchiapoda, Malacostraca, Trilobita and Merostomata: Cambrian geology and paleontology, II, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 57: 145–228.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1991. Gender theory and the archaeological record: why is there no archaeology of gender, in Gero&Conkey (ed.): 31–54 Google Scholar
WORKSHOP OF EUROPEAN ANTHROPOLOGISTS. 1980. Recommendations for age and sex diagnoses of skeletons, Journal of Human Evolution 9: 517–49.Google Scholar