Questioning theory: Is there a gender of theory in archaeology?

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 285-310

  Conkey, Margaret W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Archaeological practice; Feminism; Gender; Theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548512816     PISSN: 10725369     EISSN: 15737764     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10816-007-9039-z     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. Anzaldúa, G. (1990). Haciendo caras, una entrada. In G. Anzald-a (Ed.), Making face, making soul, Haciendo Caras. Creative and critical perspectives by women of color (pp. xv-xxvii). San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books.
2. Ascher, R.(1960). Archaeology and the public image. American Antiquity, 25(3), 402-403.
3. Barrett, M. & Phillips, A. (Eds.) (1992). Destabilizing theory: Contemporary feminist debates. Stanford, CA: Stanford. University Press.
4. Bawden, G. (Ed.) (2003). Readings in American archaeological theory. Selections from American antiquity, 1962-2002. Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology Press.
5. Behar, R. (1995). Introduction: Out of exile. In R. Behar & D. Gordon (Eds.), Women writing culture (pp. 1-32). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
6. Bergrren, A., & Hodder, I. (2003). Social practice, method, and some problems of field archaeology. American Antiquity, 68(3), 421-434.
7. Binford, L. R. (1981). Bones: Ancient men and modern myths. New York: Academic Press.
8. Binford, L. R. (2001). Where do research problems come from? American Antiquity, 66(4), 669-678.
9. Brumfiel, E. (1992). Breaking and entering the ecosystem.: Gender, class and faction steal the show. American Anthropologist, 94(3), 551-567.
10. Brumfiel, E. (1993). Review of ideology and pre-Columbian civilization. In A. Demarest & G. Conrad (Eds.). Journal of Anthropological Research, 49(4), 412-414.
11. Cantor, N., & Lavine, S. (2006). Taking public scholarship seriously. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52 (40), B20.
12. Carroll, B. (1990). The politics of'originality': Women and the class system of the intellectual. Journal of Women's History, 2(2), 136-163.
13. Chamblee, J., & Mills, B. (2001). Archaeology in 2001: Current research based on the annual meeting program of the Society for American Archaeology. SAA Record, 1(5), 24-28.
14. Christian, B. (1990).The race for theory. In G. Anzaldua (Ed.), Making face, making soul, Haciendo Caras. Creative and critical perspectives by women of color (pp. 335-345). San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books.
15. Collins, P. H. (1999). Moving beyond, gender: Intersectionality and scientific knowledge. In M. M. Ferree, J. Lorber, & B. B. Hess (Eds.), Revisioning gender (pp. 261-284). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16. Coudart, A. (1999). Why is there no post-processual archaeology in France? Antiquity, 73(279), 161-167.
17. Culler, J. (1992). Literary theory. In J. Garibaldi (Ed.), Introduction to scholarship in modern languages and literatures (pp. 201-235). New York: The Modem Language Association.
18. Culler, J. (1994). Introduction.: What's the point? In M. Bal & I. Boer (Eds.), The point of theory: Practices of cultural analysis (pp. 13-17). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
19. Daly, M. (1978). Gyn/Ecology. Boston: Beacon.
20. Dobres, M.-A. (2000). Technology and social agency. Oxford: Blackwell.
21. Dobres, M.-A., & Robb, J. (2000). Archaeology and agency. London and New York: Routledge.
22. Engelstad, E. (1991). Images of power and contradiction: Feminist theory and post-processual archaeology. Antiquity, 65(248), 502-514.
23. Enloe, C. (2004). The curious feminist. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
24. Evans, M. (1995). Ivory towers: Life in the mind. In L. Morley & V. Walsh (Eds.), Feminist academics: Creative agents for change (pp. 73-85). London: Taylor and Francis.
25. Gero, J. (1985). Socio-politics and the woman-at-home ideology. American Antiquity, 50, 342-350.
26. Goldstein, L. (1998). Editor's corner. American Antiquity, 63(1), 5-6.
27. Gupta, A., & Ferguson, J. (1998). Discipline and practice: "The field" as site, method, and location in anthropology. In A. Gupta & J. Ferguson (Eds.), Anthropological locations. Boundaries and grounds of a field science (pp. 1-46). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
28. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism as a site of discourse on the privilege of the partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575-599.
29. Hegmon, M. (2003). Setting theoretical egos aside: issues and theory in North American archaeology. American Antiquity, 68(2), 213-243.
30. Hegmon, M. (2005). No more theory wars: A response to Moss. American Antiquity, 70(3), 588-590.
31. Hirsch, M., & Keller, E. F. (1990). Conflicts in feminism. London and New York: Routledge.
32. Hodder, I. (1987). The archaeology of contextual meanings. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.
33. Hodder, I. (1991). The domestication of Europe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
34. Hodder, I. (2001). Archaeological theory today. Oxford and Maiden, MA: Polity Press and Blackwell.
35. Hutson, S. (2002). Gendered citation practices in American Antiquity and other journals. American Antiquity, 68(2), 213-243.
36. Joyce, R. (2002). The languages of archaeology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
37. Joyce, R., & Gillespie, S. (2000). Beyond kinship: Social and material reproduction, in house societies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
38. Joyce, R. with Preucel, R. (2002). Writing the field of archaeology. In R. Joyce (Ed.), The languages of archaeology (pp. 18-38). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
39. Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
40. Kleindienst, M., & Watson, P. J. (1956). Action archaeology: The archaeological, inventory of a living community. Anthropology Tomorrow, 5, 75-78.
41. Kluckhohn, C. (1939). The place of theory in anthropological studies. Philosophy of Science, 6, 328-344.
42. Lâm, M. C. (1994). Feeling foreign in feminism. SIGNS: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 19(4), 865-893.
43. Leone, M. (1972). Issues in contemporary archaeology. In M. Leone (Ed.), Contemporary archaeology (pp. 14-27). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
44. Le Roy Ladurie, E. (1975). Montaillou: The promised land of error. New York: George Brazillier (English version, 1978).
45. Levine, M. (1994). Presenting the past: A review of research on women in archaeology. In M. Nelson, S. Nelson, & A. Wylie (Eds.), Equity issues for women in archaeology. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 5. American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 23-36.
46. Lloyd, E. (1995). Feminism as method: What scientists get that philosophers don't. Philosophical Topics, 23(2), 37-68.
47. Longino, H. (1994). In search of feminist epistemology. The Monist, 77(4), 472-485.
48. Lugones, M., & Spelman, E. (1983). Have we got a theory for you! Feminist theory, cultural imperialism and the demand for the 'woman's voice'. Women's Studies International Forum, 6(6), 573-581.
49. Lutz, C. (1990). The erasure of women's writing in socio-cultural anthropology. American Ethnologist, 17, 611-627.
50. Lutz, C. (1995a). The gender of theory. In R. Behar & D. Gordon (Eds.), Women writing culture (pp. 249-266). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
51. Lutz, C. (1995b). Discussant's commentary: Ungendering theory. Paper presented, at the Annual Meetings of the American Anthropological Association. Washington, DC.
52. Mihesuah, D. A. (2003). Indigenous American women: Decolonization, empowerment, activism. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press.
53. Minow, M. (1988). Feminist reason: Getting it and losing it. Journal of Legal Education, 38, 47-60.
54. Moore, H. (1994). The feminist anthropologist and the passion(s) of New Eve. In H. Moore (Ed.), A passion for difference (pp. 129-150). Cambridge: Polity Press.
55. Moser, S. (1996). Science, stratigraphy, and the deep sequence: Excavation vs regional survey and the question of gendered practice in archaeology. Antiquity, 70, 813-823.
56. Moser, S. (1998). Ancestral images: The iconography of human evolution. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
57. Moss, M. (1999). Engendering archaeology in the Pacific Northwest. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes, 33(2), 245-262.
58. Moss, M. (2005). Rifts in the theoretical landscape of archaeology in the United. States: A comment on Hegmon and Watkins. American Antiquity, 70(3), 581-587.
59. Moulton, J. (1980). Duelism in philosophy. Teaching Philosophy, 3(4), 419-433.
60. Moulton, J. (1983). A paradigm of philosophy: The adversary method. In S. Harding & M. B. Hintikka (Eds.), Discovering reality: Feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology, and philosophy of science (pp.149-164). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
61. Nieman, F. (1995). Stylistic variation in evolutionary perspective: Inferences from decorative diversity and inter-assemblage distance in Illinois Woodland ceramics. American Antiquity, 60(1), 7-36.
62. O'Brien, M., Lyman, R. L., & Leonard, R. (2003). What is evolution, A reply to Bamfortli. American Antiquity, 68(3), 573-580.
63. O'Connell, J. (1995). Ethnoarchaeology needs a general theory of behavior. Journal of Archaeological Research, 3(3), 205-255.
64. Odell, G. (2001) Research problems r us. American Antiquity, 66(4), 679-685.
65. O'Rand, A. M. (1989). Scientific thought styles and the construction of gender inequality. In J. F. O'Barr (Ed.), Women and a new academy: Gender and cultural contexts (pp. 103-121). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
66. Patterson, T. (1995). Toward a social history of archaeology in the United States. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace College Publishers.
67. Pauketat, T. (2001). The archaeology of traditions: Agency and history before and after Columbus. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press.
68. Preucel, R. (1995). The post-processual condition. Journal of Archaeological Research, 3(2), 147-175.
69. Preucel, R., & Hodder, I. (1996). Contemporary archaeology' in theory. Oxford: Basil, Blackwell.
70. Pyburn, K. A. (2003). Introduction, in K. A. Pyburn (Ed.), Ungendering civilization: Rethinking the archaeological record (pp. 1-46). London: Routledge.
71. Raab, M., & Goodyear, A. (1984). Middle-range theory in archaeology: A. critical review of origins and applications. American Antiquity, 49, 255-268.
72. Shanks, M. (1992). Experiencing the past. London and New York: Routledge.
73. Smith, D. (1999). Writing the social: Critique, theory, and investigations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
74. Sorenson, M. L. S. (2000). The archaeology of gender. Cambridge: Polity Press.
75. Spurling, A. (1990). Report of the women in higher education research project. Cambridge: King's College, Cambridge University.
76. Stahl, A. (2002). Colonial entanglements and the practices of taste: An alternative to logocentric approaches. American Anthropologist, 1.04(3), 827-845.
77. Suchman, L. (2007). Agencies in technology design: Feminist reconfigurations. In L. Schiebinger (Ed.), Gendered innovations in science and engineering. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
78. Thomas, J. (Ed.) (2000). Interpretive archaeology: A reader. London and New York: Leicester University Press.
79. Trigger, B. (2003). Archaeological theory: The big picture. Grace Elizabeth Shallit Lecture, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Salt Lake City, UT.
80. Whitley, D. (Ed.) (1998). Reader in archaeological theory. London and New York: Routledge.
81. Wobst, H. M., & Keene, A. (1983). Archaeological explanation as political economy. In J. Gero, D. Lacey, & M. Blakey (Eds.), The sociopolitics of archaeology, research reports 23 (pp. 59-65). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.
82. Wylie, A. (1981). Positivism and the new archaeology. Ph D dissertation, Department of Philosophy, State University of New York, Binghamton.
83. Wylie, A. (1991). Gender theory and the archaeological record.: Why is there no archaeology of gender? in J. Gero & M. Conkey (Eds.), Engendering archaeology: Women and prehistory (pp. 31-56). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
84. Wylie, A. (1995). Doing philosophy as a feminist: Longino on the search for a feminist epistemology. Philosophical Topics, 23(2), 345-358.
85. Wylie, A. (1997). The engendering of archaeology: Refiguring feminist science studies. Osiris, 12, 80-99.
86. Wylie, A. (2002). Thinking with things. Essays in the philosophy of archaeology. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
87. Znaniecki, F. (1968). The social role of the man of knowledge. New York: Harper Row.