Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T19:17:38.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Representation of Gender: Homology or Propaganda

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Douglass W. Bailey
Douglass W. Bailey*
Affiliation:
School of History and Archaeology, University of Wales, College of Cardiff, Cardiff CF1 3XU, Great Britain
Get access

Abstract

This paper ‘engenders’ the prehistory of south-eastern Europe for the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods. It discusses theoretical aspects of a gender archaeology, including three prehistoric case studies, and applies the ‘theory of mutedness’ and the ‘theory of sexual insult’ - subordinate groups using alternative methods of expression - to the female figurines of the fifth-millennium south-eastern Europe. Archaeology reveals that males were dominant in the public sphere of funerary ritual, expressed in the amount and types of grave-goods; females dominated the domestic sphere, where figurines abound. An engendered tension existed between domestic and mortuary spaces. A third, asexual gender also existed at this time (documented by asexual figurines and cenotaph burials). The third gender transcended the existing bi-gender tension and strategies of spatial restriction. The sexual imagery in the figurines is interpreted as evidence of gender tensions, rather than as evidence of matriarchical societies.

Cet article essaie d”engendrer' l'histoire de l'Europe du sud-est à l'époque néolithique/chalcolithique. Il discute les aspects théoriques d'une archéologie de genres qui comprend trois études de cas préhistoriques, et applique la ‘théorie du mutisme’ et la théorie de l'insulte sexuelle’ – de groupe subordonnés utilisant des méthodes d'expression alternatives - aux statuettes féminines du cinquième millénaire du sud-est de l'Europe. L'archéologie révèle que les mâles dominaient la sphère publique des rituels funéraires, qui s'exprime dans la quantité et les types d'offrandes; les femmes, elles, dominaient la sphère domestique où abondent les figurines. L'imagerie sexuelle des figurines est interprétée comme preuve de tensions entre les genres plutôt que la preuve de sociétés matriarcales.

Dieser Beitrag versucht, die Geschichte Südosteuropas im Neolithikum/Chalkolithikum zu ‘vergeschlechtlichen’. Diskutiert werden theoretische Aspekte einer Geschlechts-Archäologie sowie drei vorgeschichtliche Fallstudien; die ‘Theorie der Sprachlosigkeit (mutedness)’ und die ‘Theorie sexueller Beleidigung’ - untergeordnete Gruppen benutzen verschiedene Ausdrucksweisen - werden auf die weiblichen Figurinen des fünften Jahrtausends in Südosteuropa angewandt Die Archäologie zeigt, daß Männer in der öffentlichen Sphäre des Bestattungsrituals dominieren, was sich in der Menge und in den Typen der Grabbeigaben äußert; Frauen dominieren in der häuslichen Sphäre, in der Figurinen reichlich vorhanden sind. Die sexuelle Bildersprache der Figurinen wird interpretiert als Anzeichen für Spannungen zwischen den Geschlechtern und nicht für matriarchale Gesellschaften.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of European Archaeology , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , Autumn 1994 , pp. 215 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © European Association of Archaeologists 

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

Angelova, I. 1982. Tell Targovishte. In Todorova, Henrietta (ed.), Die Kupferzeitliche Siedlungen in Nordostbulgarien: 175–180. C. H. Beck, München (Materialien zur allgemeinen und vergleichenden Archäologie vol. 13).Google Scholar
Ardener, Edwin, 1975a. Belief and the problem of women. In Ardener, Shirley (ed.), Perceiving Women: 1–18. London: Malaby.Google Scholar
Ardener, Edwin, 1975b. The ‘problem’ revisited. In Ardener, Shirley (ed.), Perceiving Women: 19–28. London: Malaby.Google Scholar
Ardener, Shirley, 1973. Sexual insult and female militancy. Man 8 (3): 422–449.Google Scholar
Ardener, Shirley (ed.), 1975a. Perceiving Women. London: Malaby.Google Scholar
Ardener, Shirley, 1975b. Introduction. In Ardener, Shirley (ed.), Perceiving Women: vii–xxiii. London: Malaby.Google Scholar
Ardener, Shirley, 1975c. Sexual insult and female militancy. In Ardener, Shirley (ed.), Perceiving Women: 29–54. London: Malaby.Google Scholar
Ardener, Shirley, 1978a. Introduction: the nature of women in society. In Ardener, Shirley (ed.), Defining Females: the Nature of Women in Society: 9–48. London: Coom Helm.Google Scholar
Ardener, Shirley (ed.), 1978b. Defining Females: the Nature of Women in Society. London: Coom Helm.Google Scholar
Bailey, Douglass W., 1990. The living house: legitimating continuity. In Samson, Ross (ed.), The Social Archaeology of Houses: 19–48. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Bailey, Douglass W., 1991. The Social Reality of Figurines from the Chalcolithic of Northeastern Bulgaria. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bailey, Douglass W., 1993. Chronotypic tension in Bulgarian prehistory: 6500–3500 BC. World Archaeology 25 (2): 204–222.Google Scholar
Bailey, Douglass W., 1994. Reading prehistoric figurines as individuals. World Archaeology 25 (3): 321–331.Google Scholar
Bailey, Douglass W., 1995. The life, times and works of house 59. In Thomas, J. and Darvil, T. (eds), The Neolithic House. Oxford: Oxbow, in press.Google Scholar
Bleie, Tone, 1993. Aspects of androgyny. In Broch-Due, Vigdis, Rudie, Ingrid, and Bleie, Tone (eds), Carved Flesh/Cast Selves: Gendered Symbols and Social Practices: 257–278. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Broch-Due, Vigdis and Rudie, Ingrid, 1993. Carved flesh - cast selves: an introduction. In Broch-Due, Vigdis, Rudie, Ingrid, and Bleie, Tone (eds), Carved Flesh/Cast Selves: Gendered Symbols and Social Practices: 1–40. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Callaway, Hellen, 1978. ‘The most essentially female function of all’: giving birth. In Ardener, S. (ed.), Defining Females: the Nature of Women in Society: 163–185. London: Coom Helm.Google Scholar
Conkey, Margaret and Gero, Joan, 1991. Tensions, pluralities and engendering archaeology: an introduction to women and prehistory. In Gero, Joan and Conkey, Margaret (eds), Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory: 3–30. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Douglas, Mary 1966. Purity and Danger. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Gero, Joan and Conkey, Margaret (eds), 1991. Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Liv, 1987. Identifying gender representation in the archaeological record: a contextual study. In Hodder, Ian (ed.), The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings: 79–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gimbutas, Marija 1974. The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe 7000–3500 BC. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Gimbutas, Marija, 1980. The temples of Old Europe. Archaeology 33 (6): 41–50.Google Scholar
Gimbutas, Marija, 1989. The Language of the Goddess. San Francisco: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Gimbutas, Marija, 1991. The Civilization of the Goddess. San Francisco: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Gimbutas, Marija, Winn, Shaun and Shimabuku, Daniel, 1989. Achilleion: A Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece 6400–5000 BC. Los Angeles: UCLA Institute of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Handsman, Russell G., 1991. Whose art was found at Lepenski Vir? Gender relations and power in archaeology. In Gero, Joan and Conkey, Margaret (eds), Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory: 329–365. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hastrup, Kirsten, 1978. The semantics of biology: virginity. In Ardener, Shirley (ed.), Defining Females: the Nature of Women in Society: 49–65. London: Coom Helm.Google Scholar
Ivanov, T. G., 1982. Tell Radingrad. In Todorova, Henrietta (ed.), Die Kupferzeitliche Siedlungen in Nordostbulgarien: 166–174. München: C. H. Beck (Materialien zur allgemeinen und vergleichenden Archäologie vol. 13).Google Scholar
Kanogo, Tabitha, 1987. Kikuyu women and the politics of protest. Mau Mau. In Macdonald, Sharon, Holden, Pat, and Ardener, Shirley (eds), Images of Women in Peace and War: Cross-Cultural and Historical Perspectives: 78–99. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Macdonald, Sharon, 1987. Drawing the lines - gender, peace and war. an introduction. In Macdonald, Sharon, Holden, Pat, and Ardener, Shirley (eds), Images of Women in Peace and War: Cross-Cultural and Historical Perspectives: 1–26. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Moore, Henrietta, 1993. Epilogue. In Broch-Due, Vigdis, Rudie, Ingrid and Bleie, Tone (eds), Carved Flesh/Cast Selves: Gendered Symbols and Social Practices: 283–294. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Pollock, Susan, 1991. Women in a men's world: images of Sumerian women. In Gero, Joan and Conkey, Margaret (eds), Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory: 366–387. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sandborg, Kirsten, 1993. Malay dress symbolism. In Broch-Due, Vigdis, Rudie, Ingrid, and Bleie, Tone (eds), Carved Flesh/Cast Selves: Gendered Symbols and Social Practices: 195–206. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Todorova, Henrietta, 1978. The Eneolithic Period in Bulgaria. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (I.S. 49).Google Scholar
Todorova, Henrietta (ed.), 1982. Die Kupferzeitliche Siedlungen in Nordostbulgarien. München: C. H. Beck (Materialien zur allgemeinen und vergleichenden Archäologie vol. 13).Google Scholar
Todorova, Henrietta, 1986. Kamenno-mednata Epokha v Bulgariya. Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo.Google Scholar
Todorova, Henrietta, Ivanov, Stefan, Vasilev, Vasil, Hopf, Maria, Quitta, Hans, and Kohl, Günter, 1975. Golyamo Delchevo. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (Razkopki i Prouchvaniya vol. 5).Google Scholar
Todorova, Henrietta, Vasilev, Vasil, Janushevich, Zoja, Kovacheva, Mari, and Vulev, Petur, 1983. Ovcharovo. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (Razkopki i Prouchvaniya vol. 9).Google Scholar