Identifying Female in the Halaf: Prehistoric Agency and Modern Interpretations

Belcher, Ellen

doi:10.1007/s10816-016-9291-1

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another concept that has been addressed in prehistoric figurine studies is materiality. Researchers have examined figurines in relation to agency, embodiment, and representation, concepts that became inextricably linked to one another after the introduction of materiality (Belcher 2016;Clark 2009;Joyce 2003;Looper 2003;Meskell and Joyce 2003;Nanoglou 2009;Vella Gregory 2006). Materiality researchers do not really look for the one true meaning of these figurines.…”

Section: Later Criticisms and Current Viewpointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies

Kirleis¹

2019

Scales of Transformation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In which chronological, spatial, and social contexts is gender a relevant social category that is noticeable in the archaeological material? How can transformations in social gender relations and identity be recognized archaeologically? Is the identity of prehistoric people defined by gender? If so, what is the accompanying cultural context? What about gender equality among the scientists working in archaeology? In what degree are research teams, as well as their scientific approaches, biased today? These and other burning questions are intensively discussed in this volume, which comprises 25 contributions presented at the international workshop ‘Gender Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies’, organised by the Collaborative Research Centre 1266 of Kiel University funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). The workshop offered a platform to discuss a broad range of approaches on the inter-dependencies between gender relations and socio-environmental transformation processes. Beyond a focus on the archaeology of women, gender archaeology offers a variety of possibilities to reconstruct the contribution of social groups differentiated e.g. by age, gender, and activities related to cultural transformation, based on the archaeological material. Thus, this volume includes papers dealing with different socio-economic units, from south-western Europe to Central Asia, between 15,000 and 1 BCE, paying particular attention to the scale of social reach. Since gender archaeology, and in particular feminist archaeology, also addresses the issue of scientific objectivity or bias, parts of this volume are dedicated to equal opportunity matters in archaeological academia across the globe. This is realised by bringing together feminist and female experiences from a range of countries, each with its own specific individual, cultural, and social perspectives and traditions. The papers are organised along three central topics: ‘Gendering fieldwork’, ‘Tracing gender transformations’, and ‘Gendering and shaping the environment’. By gendering the archaeological discussion on transformation processes, the contributions aim to more firmly embed gender-sensitive research in the archaeological agenda, not just in Europe, but world-wide.

show abstract

Section: Later Criticisms and Current Viewpointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies

Kirleis¹

2019

Scales of Transformation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the context of Butler-inspired approaches, the body's ontology has emerged in recent years as a domain of interrogation. A focus on embodied experience has dislodged the body as a neutral ontological fact, orienting inquiry to performative engagement, relational intersections, and "lived lives" throughout the life course (Alberti 2001(Alberti , 2005Belcher 2016;Borić and Robb 2008;Fuglestvedt 2014;Geller 2009a;Hamilakis et al 2002;Joyce 2000Joyce , 2004Joyce , 2005Joyce , 2008Meskell1996;Meskell and Joyce 2003;Rebay-Salisbury et al 2010;Sofaer 2006). Case studies have indicated that the anatomical configuration of the body does not guarantee a trajectory toward man/woman as either/or (Joyce 2008;Yates 1993), highlighting the contextual emergence of bodily difference, ability, and corporeal boundaries (Arwill-Nordbladh 2012;Matić 2016;Meskell and Joyce 2003) and disrupting the ontological stability of a naked "sexed" body in the absence of performative deployment (Alberti 2005).…”

Section: Destabilizing the Binary Binds: Approaches To Differencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ferrer's analysis of items often ignored in traditional accounts of communal celebrations carried out in Sicilian acropoleis considers the agency of some women as well as the continuity between the political, ritual, and everyday. Belcher's (2016) object-biography methodology traces the corporeal and affective interactions between Halaf figurines and the people who used them. The new figurine typology emergent from the evidence represents a spectrum of embodiments where preoccupation with gender binaries does not appear to have been the primary concern.…”

Section: Normative:non-normative Tensions In Practice-the Containmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction to “Binary Binds”: Deconstructing Sex and Gender Dichotomies in Archaeological Practice

Ghisleni

Jordan

Fioccoprile

2016

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gender archaeology has made significant strides toward deconstructing the hegemony of binary categorizations. Challenging dichotomies such as man/woman, sex/gender, and biology/culture, approaches informed by poststructuralist, feminist, and queer theories have moved beyond essentialist and universalist identity constructs to more nuanced configurations. Despite the theoretical emphasis on context, multiplicity, and fluidity, binary starting points continue to streamline the spectrum of variability that is recognized, often reproducing normative assumptions in the evidence. The contributors to this special issue confront how sex, gender, and sexuality categories condition analytical visibility, aiming to develop approaches that respond to the complexity of theory in archaeological practice. The papers push the ontological and epistemological boundaries of bodies, personhood, and archaeological possibility, challenging a priori assumptions that contain how sex, gender, and sexuality categories are constituted and related to each other. Foregrounding intersectional approaches that engage with ambiguity, variability, and difference, this special issue seeks to "de-contain" categories, assumptions, and practices from "binding" our analytical gaze toward only certain kinds of persons and knowledges, in interpretations of the past and practices in the present.The interpretation of sex and gender in archaeology has long been contained by the social polarity of "man" and "woman" as well as the confinement of sex in biology and gender in culture (Joyce 2008;Sofaer 2006;Yates 1993)-what we term the "binary binds." The aim of this special issue is to critically engage with and move beyond the limitations of sex and gender dichotomies in archaeological narratives, with an emphasis on developing approaches that respond to the complexity of theory in practices. The 2 articles emerged from the Archaeology and Gender in Europe 1 (Dommasnes and Montón-Subías 2012: 374, 382) sponsored session at the 2014 Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists in Istanbul, Turkey. Contributors were challenged to rethink the analytical categories that frame archaeological reconstructions of sex, gender, and sexuality, exploring how binary starting points and methodological practices condition and constrain interpretations of sex and gender variability.We recognize that a call to critically interrogate sex and gender dichotomies is not new. The binary binds and their hierarchical confinement of biological and social difference have been loci of contestation since the emergence of gender as an analytical category in archaeology (e.g., Claassen ). In the past three decades, gender archaeology has made significant strides toward deconstructing the imperatives of these dichotomies, informed by poststructuralist, feminist, and queer

show abstract

Personal, Political, Pedagogic: Challenging the Binary Bind in Archaeological Teaching, Learning and Fieldwork

Cobb

Croucher

2016

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we consider how we can undercut the various binaries of gender and sexuality in archaeological practice and particularly in our teaching. We argue that taking an assemblage theory approach enables us to look at the multiplicity of identities of those practicing archaeology as different and intersecting assemblages that bring one another into being through their connections at different scales. In particular, we examine how this approach can be applied to archaeological pedagogy and how this in turn enables us to move away from modern binary distinctions about sex and gender identities from the ‘bottom up’, fostering an approach in our students that will then go on to be developed in professional practice.

show abstract

Identifying Female in the Halaf: Prehistoric Agency and Modern Interpretations

Cited by 4 publications

References 46 publications

Gender Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies

Gender Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies

Introduction to “Binary Binds”: Deconstructing Sex and Gender Dichotomies in Archaeological Practice

Personal, Political, Pedagogic: Challenging the Binary Bind in Archaeological Teaching, Learning and Fieldwork

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About