Advertisement

Men–Women and Children: Gender and the Structuring of Historical Archaeology

  • Andrea C. Vermeer
Chapter

The integration of gender into archaeology as a “structuring principle fundamental to interpreting past societies” (Gilchrist, 1991:499) is still incredibly new to the field. Archaeologists may have become more attentive to their assumptions regarding gender in the years since Conkey and Spector’s (1984) important treatise, “Archaeology and the Study of Gender,” but only 18 years ago, Alison Wylie (1991) still had cause to ask, “Why is there no archaeology of gender?” While historical archaeologists had a timely response to her plea with the publication of Gender in Historical Archaeology (Seifert, 1991a), the newness of the consideration of gender made this response varied with regard to what constituted appropriate goals, stemming from differences in the conceptualization of gender and resulting in differences in the methodological approaches to its archaeological study.

Keywords

Gender Role Gender Identity Material Culture Archaeological Record Gender Group 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bell, A., 1995, Widows, “Free Sisters,” and “Independent Girls”: Historic Models and an Archaeology of Post-Medieval English Gender Systems. In The Written and the Wrought: Complementary Sources in Historical Anthropology. Essays in Honor of James Deetz, edited by M.E. D’Agostino, E. Prine, E. Casella, and M. Winer, pp. 17–32. Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers, No. 79.Google Scholar
  2. Blee, C.H., 1991, Sorting Functionally-Mixed Artifact Assemblages with Multiple Regression: A Comparative Study in Historical Archaeology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  3. Casella, E.C., 1995, “A Woman Doesn’t Represent Business Here”: Negotiating Femininity in Nineteenth-Century Colonial Australia. In The Written and the Wrought: Complementary Sources in Historical Anthropology. Essays in Honor of James Deetz, edited by M.E. D’Agostino, E. Prine, E. Casella, and M. Winer, pp. 33–43. Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers, No. 79.Google Scholar
  4. Conkey, M.W., and Spector, J.D., 1984, Archaeology and the Study of Gender. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 7, edited by M.B. Schiffer, pp. 1–38. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar
  5. Delle, J.A., 2000, Gender, Power, and Space: Negotiating Social Relations under Slavery on Coffee Plantations in Jamaica, 1790–1834. In Lines That Divide: Historical Archaeologies of Race, Class, and Gender, edited by J.A. Delle, S.A Mrozowski, and R. Paynter, pp. 168–201. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Google Scholar
  6. Delle, J.A., Mrozowski, S.A., and Paynter, R., editors, 2000, Lines That Divide: Historical Archaeologies of Race, Class, and Gender. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Google Scholar
  7. Engelstad, E., 2007, Much More than Gender. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14:217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gibb, J.G., and King, J.A., 1991, Gender, Activity Areas, and Homelots in the 17th-Century Chesapeake Region. Historical Archaeology 25(4):109–131.Google Scholar
  9. Gilchrist, R., 1991, Women’s Archaeology? Political Feminism, Gender Theory, and Historical Revision. Antiquity 65:495–501.Google Scholar
  10. Gilchrist, R., 1994, Gender and Material Culture: The Archaeology of Religious Women. Routledge, London and New York.Google Scholar
  11. Glenn, E.N., 1992, From Servitude to Service Work: Historical Continuities in the Racial Division of Paid Reproductive Labor. Signs: Journal of Women and Culture in Society 18(1):1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodwin, L.B.R., 1999, An Archaeology of Manners: The Polite World of the Merchant Elite of Colonial Massachusetts. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Griggs, H.J., 2001, “By Virtue of Reason and Nature”: Competition and Economic Strategy in the Needletrades at New York’s Five Points, 1855–1880. Historical Archaeology 35(3):76–88.Google Scholar
  14. Hardesty, D.L., 1994, Class, Gender Strategies, and Material Culture in the Mining West. In Those of Little Note: Gender, Race, and Class in Historical Archaeology, edited by E.M. Scott, pp. 129–145. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
  15. Hill, M.W., 1993, Their Sisters’ Keepers: Prostitution in New York City, 1830–1870. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  16. Jackson, L.M., 1994, Cloth, Clothing and Related Paraphernalia: A Key to Gender Visibility in the Archaeological Record of Russian America. In Those of Little Note: Gender, Race, and Class in Historical Archaeology, edited by E.M. Scott, pp. 27–53. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
  17. Kerber, L.K., 1988, Separate Spheres, Female Worlds, Woman’s Place: The Rhetoric of Women’s History. The Journal of American History 75(1):9–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kruczek-Aaron, H., 2002, Choice Flowers and Well-Ordered Tables: Struggling Over Gender in a Nineteenth-Century Household. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 6:173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kryder-Reid, E., 1994, “With Manly Courage”: Reading the Construction of Gender in a Nineteenth-Century Religious Community. In Those of Little Note: Gender, Race, and Class in Historical Archaeology, edited by E.M. Scott, pp. 97–114. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
  20. McEwan, B.G., 1991, The Archaeology of Women in the Spanish New World. Historical Archaeology 25(4):33–41.Google Scholar
  21. McGirr, P.L., 2003, The Vietnam Veterans Memorial: Landscape and Gender in the Twentieth Century. In Shared Spaces and Divided Places: Material Dimensions of Gender Relations and the American Historical Landscape, edited by D.L. Rotman and E. Savulis, pp. 62–85. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Google Scholar
  22. McGuire, R.H., and Reckner, P., 2002, The Unromantic West: Labor, Capital, and Struggle. Historical Archaeology 36(3):44–58.Google Scholar
  23. Purser, M., 1991, “Several Paradise Ladies are Visiting in Town”: Gender Strategies in the Early Industrial West. Historical Archaeology 25(4):42–53.Google Scholar
  24. Rotman, D.L., and Savulis, E., editors, 2003, Shared Spaces and Divided Places: Material Dimensions of Gender Relations and the American Historical Landscape. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Google Scholar
  25. Savulis, E., 2003, Zion’s Zeal: Negotiating Identity in Shaker Communities. In Shared Spaces and Divided Places: Material Dimensions of Gender Relations and the American Historical Landscape, edited by D.L. Rotman and E. Savulis, pp. 160–189. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Google Scholar
  26. Scott, E.M., 1994a, Through the Lens of Gender: Archaeology, Inequality, and Those “of Little Note.” In Those of Little Note: Gender, Race, and Class in Historical Archaeology, edited by E.M. Scott, pp. 3–24. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
  27. Scott, E.M., editor, 1994b, Those of Little Note: Gender, Race, and Class in Historical Archaeology. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
  28. Seifert, D.J., editor, 1991a, Gender in Historical Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 25(4).Google Scholar
  29. Seifert, D.J., 1991b, Introduction. In Gender in Historical Archaeology, edited by E.M. Scott, pp. 1–5. Historical Archaeology 25(4).Google Scholar
  30. Spencer-Wood, S., 1991, Towards an Historical Archaeology of the Construction of Gender. In The Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings of the 22 nd [1989] Annual Chacmool Conference, edited by D. Walde and N.D. Willows, pp. 234–244. University of Calgary Archaeological Association, Calgary.Google Scholar
  31. Spencer-Wood, S., 2001, Views and Commentaries: What Difference Does Feminist Theory Make? International Journal of Historical Archaeology 5:97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Spencer-Wood, S., 2006, A Feminist Theoretical Approach to the Historical Archaeology of Utopian Communities. Historical Archaeology 40(1):152–185.Google Scholar
  33. Spude, C.H., 2005, Brothels and Saloons: An Archaeology of Gender in the American West. Historical Archaeology 39(1):89–106.Google Scholar
  34. Starbuck, D.R., 1994, The Identification of Gender at Northern Military Sites of the Late Eighteenth Century. In Those of Little Note: Gender, Race, and Class in Historical Archaeology, edited by E.M. Scott, pp. 115–128. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
  35. Thomas, B.W. and Thomas, L., 2004, Gender and the Presentation of the Self: An Example from the Hermitage. In Engendering African American Archaeology: A Southern Perspective, edited by J.E. Galle and A.L. Young, pp. 101–131. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Google Scholar
  36. Vermeer, A.C., 2006, Making the West: Approaches to the Archaeology of Prostitution on the 19 th -Century Mining Frontier. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  37. Voss, B.L., 2006, Engendered Archaeology: Men, Women, and Others. In Historical Archaeology, edited by M. Hall and S.W. Silliman, pp. 107–127. Blackwell, Malden, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  38. Wall, D.d., 1994, The Archaeology of Gender: Separating the Spheres in Urban America. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  39. Wall, D.d., 1999, Examining Gender, Class, and Ethnicity in Nineteenth-Century New York City. Historical Archaeology 33(1):102–117.Google Scholar
  40. Whelan, M.K., 1991, Gender and Historical Archaeology: Eastern Dakota Patterns in the 19th Century. Historical Archaeology 25(4):17–32.Google Scholar
  41. Wurst, L., 1999, Internalizing Class in Historical Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 33(1):7–21.Google Scholar
  42. Wurst, L., 2003, The Legacy of Separate Spheres. In Shared Spaces and Divided Places: Material Dimensions of Gender Relations and the American Historical Landscape, edited by D.L. Rotman and E. Savulis, pp. 225–238. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Google Scholar
  43. Wylie, A., 1991, Gender Theory and the Archaeological Record: Why is There No Archaeology of Gender? In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited by J.M. Gero and M.W. Conkey, pp. 31–54. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  44. Wylie, A., 1994, Pragmatism and Politics: Understanding the Emergence of Gender Research in Archaeology. The David Skomp Distinguished Lectures in Anthropology. Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  45. Wylie, A., 2007, Doing Archaeology as a Feminist: Introduction. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14:209–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Summit Envirosolutions, Inc.USA

Personalised recommendations