Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T14:09:13.736Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Images of power and contradiction: feminist theory and post-processual archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Ericka Engelstad
Ericka Engelstad*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, Institute of Social Science, University of Tromsø, 9000 Tromsø, Norway
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Archaeology, like many of the sciences, works to a masculine metaphor, the (male) archaeologist as hero explores and tames the mysteries of his (female) subject. Feminist theory has made important criticism of positivist science on these grounds, drawing on much the same postmodern theory as ‘post-processual’ archaeology. How do the ‘post-processuals’ appear, seen in the feminist light?

Type
Papers
Information
Antiquity , Volume 65 , Issue 248 , September 1991 , pp. 502 - 514
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1991

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.)

References

Alcoff, L. 1988. Cultural feminism versus poststruc-turalism: the identity crisis in feminist theory, Signs 13(3): 405–36.Google Scholar
Assiter, A. 1988. Autonomy and pornography, in Griffiths, & Whitford, 1988: 58–71.Google Scholar
Bernstein, R. 1983. Beyond objectivism and relativism: science, hermeneutics, and praxis. Philadelphia (PA): University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Binford, L. 1987. Data, relativism and archaeological science, Man 22: 391–404.Google Scholar
Binford, L. 1988. Review of Ian Hodder: Reading the past: current approaches to interpretation in archaeology, American Antiquity 53(4): 875–6.Google Scholar
Binford, L. 1989. Science to sceance, or processual to ‘post-processual’ archaeology, in Binford, L, Debating archaeology: 27–40. San Diego (CA): Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bleier, R. 1984. Science and gender: a critique of biology and its theories on women. New York (NY): Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Binford, R. 1986 (ed.). Feminist approaches to science. New York (NY): Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Binford, R. 1988. A decade of feminist critiques in the natural sciences, Signs 14(1): 186–96.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bowie, M. 1979. Jacques Lacan, in Strrock, J. (ed.), Structuralism and since: from Levi Strauss to Derrida: 116–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Caplan, P. 1988. Engendering knowledge: the politics of ethnography (parts 1 and 2), Anthropology Today 4(5): 8–12; 4(6): 14–17.Google Scholar
Clifford, J. & Marcus, G. (ed.). 1986. Writing culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conkey, M. & Spector., J. 1984. Archaeology and the study of gender, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 1–38.Google Scholar
Culler, J. 1983. On deconstruction: theory and criticism after structuralism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Google Scholar
Diamond, I. & Quinby., L. 1988a. Introduction, in Diamond & Quinby 1988b: ix-xx.Google Scholar
Diamond, I. & Quinby., L. 1988b (ed.). Feminism and Foucault: reflections on resistance. Boston (MA): Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Engelstad, E. In press. The symbolism of everyday life in prehistory, Archaeology and Environment.Google Scholar
Fausto-Sterling, A. 1985. Myths of gender: biological theories about women and men. New York (NY): Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fedigan, L. 1982. Primate paradigms: sex roles and social bonds. Montreal: Eden Press.Google Scholar
Flax, J. 1987. Postmodernism and gender relations in feminist theory, Signs 12(4): 621–43.Google Scholar
Flax, J. 1988. Reply to Tress, Signs 14(1): 201–3.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1980. Power/knowledge. New York (NY): Pantheon.Google Scholar
Gero, J. 1985. Socio-politics and the woman at hme ideology, American Antiquity 50: 342–50.Google Scholar
Glddens, A. 1979. Central problems in social theory. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Glddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Griffiths, M. & Whitford, M. (ed.). 1988. Feminist perspectives in philosophy. London: Macmillan Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. 1988. Feminist philosophers: women’s perspectives on philosophical traditions. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 1986. Primatology is politics by other means, in Bleier (1986): 77–118.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 1988. Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective, Feminist Studies 14(3): 575–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, D. 1989. Primate visions: gender, race, and nature in the world of modern science. New York (NY): Routledge.Google Scholar
Harding, S. 1983. Common causes: toward a reflexive feminist theory, Women & Politics 3(4): 27–42.Google Scholar
Harding, S. 1986. The science question in feminism. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, S. & Hintikka, M. (ed.). 1983. Discovering reality: feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology and philosophy of science. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1982. Symbols in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1985. Postprocessual archaeology, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8: 1–25.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1986. Reading the past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1987a. Contextual archaeology, an interpretation of Catal Huyuk and a discussion of the origins of agriculture, Institute of Archaeology Bulletin 24: 43–56.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1987b. The contextual analysis of symbolic meanings, in Hodder, I. (ed.), The archaeology of contextual meanings: 1–10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1989a. Post-modernism, post-structuralism, and post-processual archaeology, in Hodder, 1989b: 64–78.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1989b (ed.). The meanings of things: material culture and symbolic expression. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1989c. This is not an article about material culture as text, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8(3): 250–69.Google Scholar
Imber, B. & Tuana., N. 1988. Feminist perspectives on science, Hypatia 3(1): 139–55.Google Scholar
Keesing, R. 1987. Anthropology as interpretive quest, Current Anthropology 28(2): 161–76.Google Scholar
Keller, E.F. 1984. Reflections on gender and science. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lacan, J. 1985. Det symbolsk: skrifter i utvalg. Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag.Google Scholar
Lamphere, L. 1987. Feminism and anthropology: the struggle to reshape our thinking about gender, in Farnham, C. (ed.), The impact of feminist research in the academy: 11–33. Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Mandt, G. & Næss., J.-R. 1986. Hvem skapte og gjenskaper vår fjerne fortid?, Kvinner i Arkeologi i Norge 3: 3–28.Google Scholar
Marcus, G. & Cushman., D. 1982. Ethnographies as texts, Annual Review of Anthropology 11: 25–69.Google Scholar
Merchant, C. 1980. The death of nature: women, ecology, and the scientific revolution. San Francisco (CA): Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Miller, J.-A. 1988. The seminar of Jacques Lacan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moi, T. 1985. Sexual/textual politics: feminist literary theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Moi, T. 1986 (ed.). The Kristeva reader. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Moi, T. 1987 (ed.). French feminist thought: a reader. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Moore, H. 1988. Feminism and anthropoiogy. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Nye, A. 1987. Woman clothed with the sun: Julia Kristeva and the escape from/to language, Signs 12(4): 664–86.Google Scholar
Nye, A. 1988. Feminist theory and the philosophies of man. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Ortner, S. 1984. Theory in anthropology since the sixties, Comparative Studies in Society and History 26(1): 126–66.Google Scholar
Rabinow, P. 1986. The Foucault reader. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. 1989. Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosaldo, M. 1980. The uses and abuses of anthropology, Signs 5(3): 389–417.Google Scholar
Rosaldo, M. & Lamphere, L. (ed.). 1974. Woman, culture and society. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Said, E. 1978. Orientalism. New York (NY): Pantheon.Google Scholar
Scheper-Hughes, N. 1983. Introduction: the problem of bias in androcentric and feminist anthropology, Women’s Studies 10: 109–16.Google Scholar
Scholte, B. 1988. The literary turn in contemporary anthropology, Critique of Anthropology 7(1): 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seller, A. 1988. Realism versus relativism: towards a politically adequate epistemology, in Griffiths & Whitford, 1988: 169–86.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
Shanks, M. & Tilley., C. 1989. Archaeology into the 1990s, Norwegian Archaeological Review 22(1): 1–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strathern, M. 1987a. An awkward relationship: the case of feminism and anthropology, Signs 12(2): 276–92.Google Scholar
Strathern, M. 1987b. Comments on R. Keesing: Anthropology as interpretive quest, Current Anthropology 28(2): 173–4.Google Scholar
Tilley, C. 1989a. Interpreting material culture, in Hodder, 1989a: 185–94 Google Scholar
Tilley, C. 1989b. Discourse and power: the genre of the Cambridge inaugural lecture, in Miller, D., Rowlands, M & Tilley, C. (ed.), Domination and resistance.Google Scholar
Tress, D. 1988. Comments on Flax: Postmodernism and gender relations in feminist theory, Signs 14(1): 196–200.Google Scholar
Trigger, B. 1989. Comments on Archaeology into the 1990s, Norwegian Archaeological Review 22(1): 28–31.Google Scholar
Weedon, C. 1987. Feminist practice and poststruc-turalist theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1991. Gender theory and the archaeological record: why is there no archaeology of gender? in Gero, J & Conkey, M., Engendering archaeology.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. In press. A proliferation of New Archaeologies: ‘beyond objectivism and realism’. Paper given at the 1988 Theoretical Archaeology Group Conference, Sheffield.Google Scholar
Wylie, A., Okruhlik, K., Morton, S. & Thielan-Wilson., L 1989. Feminist critiques of science: the epistemological and methodological literature, Women’s Studies International Forum 12(3): 379–88.Google Scholar
Zita, J.N., 1988. Review essay/a critical analysis of Sandra Harding’s The science question in feminism, Hypatia 3(1): 157–68.Google Scholar