| Soren Blau (Australian National
University) soren@coombs.anu.edu.au
…a widely influential model of the Oriental
woman; she never spoke of herself, never
represented her emotions, presence, or history.
He spoke for and represented her... (Said
1978:6)
Over the last 20 years the definition of
archaeology as being merely “the study of
remains of the prehistoric period, a systematic
description or study of antiquities” (The
Shorter Oxford Dictionary) has come
to be regarded as increasingly minimalist
and outdated. Archaeological interpretation
has been seen as subjective and potentially
political (for example, the use of archaeology
in Nazi Germany and Zimbabwe: Trigger 1984;
Spain: Diaz-Andreu 1993; and Southeast Asia:
Anderson 1991:178-185). Consequently, archaeologists
are now encouraged not only to study material
culture, but also incorporate a study of
attitudes towards these remains (Blau 1995).
Because the past, including archaeological
remains which represent the past, encompasses
common aspects of the inheritance which
groups of people may draw on in order to
maintain a sense of belonging, archaeology
is no longer used purely in a search for
historical roots (Kristiansen 1989:24),
but is often part of a struggle to (re)capture
a cultural identity. Archaeology has been
used to undermine peoples (Ucko 1983), as
was the case with the general lack of concern
with change in prehistoric archaeology in
the United States during the nineteenth
century, and in Australia during the early
decades of the twentieth century. This contributed
to both the Native Americans and Aboriginal
Australians being viewed by the general
public as ‘primitive’, and “incapable either
of initiating progressive cultural development
or of benefiting from it” (Trigger 1981:135).
Archaeology can also legitimate new national
identities by the creation of a unique past
(Layton 1989; Silberman 1989; Trigger 1984;
Kohl and Fawcett 1995) and thus may contribute
to the creation of nations.
With an acknowledgement that there is no
monolithic understanding of the past, an
awareness of the ramifications of interpretations
made by different peoples is important.
In this paper, the foundations and tenets
of feminist theories will be summarized
to highlight questions which need to be
considered if such theories are to be used
in developing archaeological interpretations
in non-Western countries. While such concepts
are discussed with reference to the archaeology
of southwest Asia, in particular the United
Arab Emirates, questions raised have obvious
relevance to other, quite different cultural
contexts, such as Aboriginal Australia.
Many of the questions directing archaeological
research in areas such as modern day Jordan,
Iran, Iraq or Arabia (traditionally referred
to as the ‘Middle East, a term now regarded
as Eurocentric; Heard-Bey 1982:6), have
often been considered antiquated. Interpretation
is often lacking, with emphasis being placed
on description and typology (Trigger 1989:197-200).
Despite vibrant debates concerning methods
of archaeological interpretation, approaches
to explaining southwest Asian archaeology
remain predominantly culture-historical.
While the origins for such an approach may
be understood in terms of the history of
European exploration in southwest Asia,
that is, predominantly deep-seated, antiquarian
interests leading to exploration and colonization,
it is interesting to question the cultural-historical
approach in the light of the postmodern
promotion of multiple voices. Consideration
should be given to interpretations provided
by both Western archaeologists and indigenous
peoples in an attempt to disband the ‘colonial’
nature of much of the archaeological investigation
in the region (see for example Blau 1995).
Further, acknowledging multiple explanations
about the past may confront the culture-historical
nature of the interpretations which helps
perpetuate the peripheral nature of archaeology
in this region.
Often seen as a consequence of the current
postmodern phase or condition (Kourany et
al. 1993; Rosenau 1992:119-121 cf. Knapp
1996:130-135), plurality within postprocessual
archaeological interpretation (see for example,
Englestad 1991; Hodder 1991; Shanks and
Tilley 1987) has been encouraged, not only
to incite varied ways of viewing the past,
but also as an attempt to acknowledge and
accept difference. Some of the voices which
have gained a wider hearing in the last
two decades are those of women, especially
in attempts to incorporate feminist theories
into archaeological interpretation. Because
feminist theories have radically shaken
the way we think about many issues in language,
education, personal interaction, status
and so on, their potential in developing
new approaches to archaeological interpretation
in non-Western countries or settled/colonized
nations, needs to be considered.
Emerging out of the French Revolution,
but with a background in the Enlightenment
(Rendall 1985:2), the feminist movement
has gained a wide following, influencing
many disciplines including anthropology,
sociology, and history. This following has
arisen mainly in response to the growing
awareness that accounts of human behaviour
are predominantly accounts of male actions
(Roberts 1993:16). From a background of
20 years of explicitly feminist scholarship
(Conkey 1993:8), feminist archaeological
inquiries were inspired by Conkey and Spector
in an attempt to formulate an ‘archaeology
of gender’ (Conkey and Spector 1984). A
relatively recent recognition of a one-sided
telling of the stories of the past has resulted
in an increasing reassessment by archaeologists
involved with gender of the ways the past
is interpreted and who controls these interpretations.
Having their origins in a long-standing
Western tradition, feminist interpretations
begin with a critical stance and a strong
commitment to that tradition and the theoretical
knowledge that accompanies it. Feminists
challenge and continue to question history,
authority, language and the entire Western
intellectual view that places women in a
subordinate position. Feminist scholarship
involves a scrutiny of Western concepts
(Conkey 1993:4), and in this questioning,
with its critical self-positioning, helps
provide the means by which women can take
apart the givens and simultaneously generate
not just alternatives but replacements (ibid:7).
Present-day problems in society, such as
gender inequalities, oppression, control,
and male domination or biases which confront
women, have resulted in people (mainly women)
involved with archaeology attempting to
investigate these issues in the past. Similarly,
ideas about inequality in the past provoke
women to strive more for equality in the
present and reject the notion that inequalities
can continue. For this reason, feminist
interests in archaeological research must
be seen to be carried out, not purely to
investigate ‘women in the past’, but also
as a political tool in the present. Further,
feminist thinking implies that the past
is relevant not just because it explains
the present, but because it challenges the
present, just as feminism itself challenges
history, authority and language (Conroy
1993:11). In sum, the aim of considering
gender in archaeological interpretations
should not be limited to a search for evidence
of gender concerns in the past (Roberts
1993:20), but should also consider what
we are saying about these issues in the
present.
A major concern of archaeologists confronting
gender is to “problematise underlying assumptions
about gender and difference” (Conkey and
Gero 1991:5). Based on feminist writings
regarding assessments and critiques of issues
such as family, kinship and labour divisions
(Conkey 1993:5), archaeologists who deal
with gender in antiquity have investigated
long-standing concerns of archaeology including
the formation of states, trade and exchange,
lithic production, and food production,
to name a few, refuting stereotypes such
as “man the hunter”, “man the toolmaker”
and “man the artist” (ibid:15; Moser 1993:75).
In addressing nearly all aspects of archaeological
inquiry, feminist theory contests traditional
phallologocentric Western paradigms and
philosophies (Meskell 1996:2). However,
feminist scholarship is very much a product
of the European intellectual tradition of
containing knowledge, and thus a product
of European philosophy and science (Balme
and Beck 1993:62). Feminists began with
a commitment to the development of theory.
Although gender theory has been seen to
provide a way to enter into “archaeological
analysis independent from the empiricist
and positivist epistemologies and procedures
that have had such a problematic (and limiting)
effect on archaeological interpretation”
(Conkey and Gero 1991:8), the development
of a body of explanation known as ‘theory’
has been seen to function as the attempt
to turn knowledge into a truth or science
(Gunew 1990:16). Theory may thus represent
an attempt to move beyond the chaos and
abstractions of individual experience to
objective and universal truth; to transcend
the particular (ibid:16), a very Western
(if not male) intellectual pursuit. Theorists
and philosophers who have influenced poststructural/postmodern
ideas, including Lacan, Derrida, Foucault,
Ricoeur, Bourdieu and Giddens (note they
are all men!), have also had a prominent
influence on feminist post-modernists (Engelstad
1991:503). Like all other forms of theory,
including gender-based ones, feminist theories
are dependent upon and reflect a certain
set of social experiences (Flax 1987:628).
Feminist philosophizing has stemmed almost
completely from Western foundations.
There is no doubt that the early stages
of feminist theory placed considerable emphasis
on maintaining an image of unity among women
(Kaplan 1996 quoted in Neill 1996:11; see
also Scheper-Hughes 1983:109, 111-112).
By the 1980s however, White feminist women
could no longer ignore “the critique of
white feminist racism by feminist/radical
women of colour” (Frankenberg 1993:2; see
also Ang 1995:58-65; Brooks 1995:292-293).
Thus, many feminist writers have recognized
that a ‘universal woman’ does not exist
and that women’s experiences vary depending
upon ethnicity, class, history and culture
(Engelstad 1991:504; Kourany et al.
1993:25). In engendering the past, a central
concern must therefore be to take into account
what gender means in non-Western countries
and how this will affect archaeological
interpretations which consider gender (Lesick
1993).
Although Western cultures tend to define
a person’s gender “primarily through their
biology which is seen as invariant throughout
life” (Herdt 1990:435), other cultures may
have very different views of what gender
is and how it develops and changes. Thus,
while “sex is a result of biological phylogeny...gender
is a result of the human enculturation of
sexual identity” (Balme and Beck 1993:61),
and will differ depending on the society.
That is, gender is both culturally and socially
constructed, with gender roles being given
meaning in historically and culturally specific
ways (Conkey and Gero 1991:8; Flax 1987:629).
Thus, “knowing whether a child is a ‘boy’
or ‘girl’ acts as an organizing focus for
perception of its physical and emotional
attributes, even its future potential” (Conroy
1993:153). There is no universal distinction
between sex and gender in recent human societies.
Further, if, as it has been argued, “language
and the use of symbols are fundamental to
the construction and maintenance of gender”
(ibid:154), the diversity of linguistic
and symbolic meaning in non-Western countries
means the potential for differing concepts
of gender is vast. There is, therefore,
no simple single definition of gender. We
cannot assume that gender is a global idea,
because gender as developed by feminists
is a European concept (Gunew 1990:29).
The fact remains that the main intellectual
resources for feminist theories are all
Western in origin, created to question and
deal with specific conditions and interests.
With such an obvious load of Western intellectual
baggage, how then is it possible for feminist
archaeologists working in non-Western countries
to engender the pasts of those societies?
Although many feminists have called into
question the very concept of objectivity,
to what extent can feminist theory move
beyond the gender-biased theories it critiques
(Flax cited in Englestad 1991:504), especially
with regard to work and interpretation of
non-Western ideas? Many feminists take “gender
as a central analytical and conceptual category,
as a socially constructed historical and
dynamic process, as embedded in other cultural
experiences, ideologies, and material social
institutions” (Conkey 1993:5). If this is
the case, how can Western archaeologists
who work in foreign countries, and who adopt
feminist perspectives, hope to engender
the past as well as retain awareness of
and respect for indigenous perspectives?
Will not Western feminist archaeologists
impose their own cultural categories onto
the indigenous world (as seen in feminist
anthropological studies; see for example,
Nelson 1993:95)?
While postmodern feminist theorists attempt
to articulate feminist diversities, when
feminist archaeologists make use of such
theories to interpret the past, will the
indigenous community agree with, or support
such interpretations? For example, gender
is one of the major forms of constituting
subjectivity in contemporary Western society.
For this reason, assumptions are continually
made about prehistoric societies by Western
archaeologists. If gender is considered
when interpreting the archaeology from southwest
Asia, a predominantly Islamic region, how
will Western feminist theories be accepted
by local people, especially if the reader
is male (which is more than likely considering
the structure of societies in countries
such as the United Arab Emirates, where
66.5% of the population is male; Anon 1997:1045)?
Although interpretations of archaeological
remains recovered from the United Arab Emirates
are beginning to move away from being predominantly
descriptive, recent publications concerning
activities undertaken in the past perpetuate
simplistic and sexist interpretations. Thus,
for example, skeletal remains exhibiting
large muscle attachments are attributed
to men who developed these muscles through
the “demands of lifestyles such as navigation,
hunting at sea, fishing, [and] making tools”
(Kunter 1996:49). Alterations on the bones
attributed to conflict are interpreted as
belonging to men, while pathological defects
indicating anaemia are attributed to women
(ibid:50). Such interpretations of course
invite questions about the attitudes of
those people (who are predominantly Western)
positing renditions of the past in the United
Arab Emirates. However, given that the majority
of archaeological research is carried out
by foreign scholars, an equally important
inquiry would be to examine the extent to
which local people adopt and utilize such
interpretations (Blau 1995:126).
While work is in progress to question and
refute the sexist interpretations outlined
above (see for example, Blau 1999), it is
debatable whether suggestions that perhaps
both men and women undertook such activities
in the past will be tolerated, especially
considering contemporary attitudes towards
women in the workforce of the United Arab
Emirates. Given that contemporary politics
plays a significant part in the ways in
which interpretations of the past are accepted,
it is interesting to note that social attitudes
in the Gulf (which includes the United Arab
Emirates) are more conservative than anywhere
else in the Arab world. The great speed
with which ‘modernization’ took place in
the Gulf as a result of the discovery of
oil resulted in a tightening of customs
and traditions, including the low participation
of women in the work force (Hijab 1988:123).
Problems which may occur when attempts
to engender the interpretations of the archaeology
from Islamic countries are made include
the “well established tradition to discuss
Muslim women by comparing them implicitly
and explicitly to Western women, which reflects
the underlying concern about who is more
civilized than whom” (Mernissi 1985:7).
In some cases, non-Western critical intellectuals
align themselves with feminists because
they identify a parallel struggle, that
is, both groups confront the dominant, predominantly
male-powered West (Sharabi 1990:44-48).
However, it is necessary to consider how
the public, as opposed to ‘educated’ intellectuals
will react when viewing, for example, museum
displays which, written from a feminist
perspective, might suggest that in pre-Islamic
nomadic society women were not separated
from men, were treated with esteem, and
played a significant part in public life
(as suggested by Lichtenstädter in a study
of written sources; Lichtenstädter quoted
in Nelson 1993:97-98).
Reflecting on these issues in terms of
Aboriginal archaeology in Australia, it
is equally possible to see the ‘needs’ of
White academics advocating engendered interpretations
of the past dictating to Aboriginal people.
“As feminist research [increasingly] settles
into academia” (extract from Kaplan 1996
quoted in Neill 1996), interpretations of
archaeological meaning focusing on women,
or at least seeing the role of men and women
as equal, are more evident in the literature.
While many White Australian women working
in Australian archaeology have benefited
from such studies, there has been little
interest in the ways in which gender-specific
studies affect Aboriginal people. Such considerations
are worthwhile especially, given the recent
acknowledgement in Australia that Indigenous
people need to regain control of their knowledge
and resources in order to avoid further
exploitation (Fourmile 1989; Tjamiwa 1992;
see also Anon 1996).
Working out how feminist interpretations
of archaeology in non-Western countries
can be carried out or whether they are possible
at all is difficult to resolve, as such
work in foreign countries is often seen
as a threat to accepted norms. Archaeological
teams working in non-Western countries surely
contribute to Western domination in academic
research, and can therefore be seen as political
(Shennan 1989:66). If people work in foreign
countries and wish to carry out feminist
interpretations of the material culture,
is this not yet another ruling ideology
being written for the indigenous person?
Feminism may, for example, become to Muslim
peoples what male biases have become to
feminists, that is, yet another oppressing
presence (for differences in perceptions
see Sharabi 1990:45). In a country such
as the United Arab Emirates, where relatively
little archaeological investigation has
been carried out by indigenous people, a
danger exists where by interpretations of
material culture by foreign archaeologists,
feminist or otherwise, become the dominant
understanding of the past.
Feminists necessarily argue for the superiority
of their own point of view (Rosenau 1992:86)
and although postprocessual theory in archaeology
and postmodern theory more generally may
advocate pluralism, deciding on who hears
a particular voice appears to be a matter
of relative power (Englestad 1991:505; Rosenau
1992:86). Given that since its beginning
archaeology has been associated with aspects
of colonialism (Kohl and Fawcett 1995:9),
it will more than likely be the Western
voice (feminist or otherwise) which will
be heard in the interpretation of indigenous
archaeology. Will feminist interpretations
in a non-Western country therefore continue
Western domination, keeping ideological
information and interpretation firmly in
the hands of the ruling ideology? (Gidiri
1974:449-451).
While many questions have been raised in
this discussion on the use of feminist interpretations
of archaeology in non-Western countries,
“gender does matter” (Conkey and Gero 1991:17),
because investigations into gender have
challenged the dominant ideology and made
people question their assumptions (which
surely must be good for archaeologists who
need to continually re-evaluate interpretations).
But caution is needed in seeing that the
archaeology of gender does not create a
situation where one cannot talk about difference
without implying hierarchy, as has so often
happened in anthropological studies of different
cultures (cf. Moore 1993).
If, however, Western archaeologists are
going to continue excavating in foreign
countries (as they will undoubtedly do),
and people incorporate feminist theories
into their interpretations of the material
culture, then consideration needs to be
given to both the social and political effects
of these interpretations, and whether they
can in fact be accepted at all by the indigenous
people. More to the point, indigenous people
need to be able to speak on their own behalf.
Perhaps, therefore, the real challenge to
feminist archaeologists is how to theorize
the experiences and views of indigenous
people about archaeology. Should feminist
archaeologists be striving for the goal
of autonomy, rather than equality, which
would include both women and indigenous
cultures (Sharabi 1990:46), or would that
too be a Western imposition? There is clearly
much work to be done in utilizing feminist
theories in engendering the past outside
of the West.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Ian Lilley for providing
me with the opportunity to present a version
of this paper at the 1996 Australian Archaeological
Association Conference. Thanks must also
go to Ian Lilley, Paul Rainbird, Penelope
Allison, Jane Lydon and Meredith Wilson
for their comments on earlier drafts. Kurtis
Lesick sent me a copy of the paper he delivered
in Calgary, which I greatly appreciate.
Unless otherwise referenced all views expressed
are my own.
References
Anderson, B. 1991 Imagined
Communities: Reflections on the Origins
and Spread of Nationalism. London:
Verso.
Ang, I. 1995 I’m a Feminist
but: ‘Other’ Women and Postnational Feminism.
In B. Caine and R. Pringle (eds.) Transitions:
New Australian Feminisms, pp. 57-73.
Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Anonymous 1996 Indigenous Culture
Exploited: Professor. The Canberra
Times, September 28:4.
Anonymous 1997 The Middle
East and North Africa 1997 (43rd
ed.). London: Europa Publications
Limited.
Balme, J. and W. Beck 1993
Archaeology and Feminism - Views on the
Origins of the Division of Labour.
In H. du Cros and L. Smith (eds.) Women
in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique,
pp. 61-74. Canberra: The Australian
National University.
Blau, S. 1995 Observing the
Present - Reflecting the Past: Attitudes
Towards Archaeology in the United Arab Emirates.
Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy
6 (2):116-28.
Blau, S. 1999 Studies of Human
Skeletal Remains in the United Arab Emirates:
Where are We Now? Proceedings of the
Seminar for Arabian Studies 28:7-13.
Brooks, A. 1995 Feminism, ‘Power-Knowledge’
and the Academy. Feminist Politics or Pluralism
in the 1990s. In A. Payne, and L.
Shoemark (eds.) Women, Culture and Universities:
A Chilly Climate?, pp. 290-302.
Sydney: University of Technology.
Conkey, M. and J. Spector 1984
Archaeology and the Study of Gender,
Advances in Archaeological Method and
Theory 7:1-38.
Conkey, M. and J. Gero 1991
Tensions and Pluralities, and Engendering
Archaeology: An Introduction to Women and
Prehistory. In J. M. Gero and M. W.
Conkey (eds.) Engendering Archaeology:
Women and Prehistory, pp. 3-30.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Conkey, M. 1993 Making the
Connections: Feminist Theory and Archaeologies
of Gender. In H. du Cros and L. Smith
(eds.) Women in Archaeology: A Feminist
Critique, pp. 3-15. Canberra:
The Australian National University.
Conroy, L. 1993 Female Figurines
of the Upper Palaeolithic and the Emergence
of Gender. In H. du Cros and L. Smith
(eds.) Women in Archaeology: A Feminist
Critique, pp. 153-60. Canberra: The
Australian National University.
Diaz-Andreu, M. 1993 Theory
and Ideology in Archaeology: Spanish Archaeology
Under the Franco Régime. Antiquity
67:67-82.
Englestad, E. 1991 Images of
Power and Contradiction: Feminist Theory
and Post-Processual Archaeology. Antiquity
65:502-14.
Flax, J. 1987 Postmodernism
and Gender Relations in Feminist Theory.
Signs: Journal of Women in Culture
and Society 12 (4):621-43.
Fourmile, H. 1989 Who Owns
the Past? Aborigines as Captives of the
Archives. Aboriginal History
13 (1):1-8.
Frankel, D. and P. Edwards 1995
Archaeology Asunder Downunder: Introduction
to Papers on ‘Australian Archaeology Abroad’.
The Artefact 18:45-8.
Frankenberg, R. 1993 White
Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction
of Whiteness. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Gidiri, A. 1979 Imperialism
and Archaeology. Race 15:431-459.
Gorman, A. 1993 Theories of
Prehistoric Inequality: Hobbes, Freud and
Engels. In H. du Cros and L. Smith
(eds.) Women in Archaeology: A Feminist
Critique, pp. 46-50. Canberra: The Australian
National University.
Gunew, S. 1990 Feminist Knowledge:
Critique and Construct. In S. Gunew
(ed.) Feminist Knowledge: Critique and
Construct, pp. 13-35. London:
Routledge.
Heard-Bey, F. 1982 From
Trucial States to United Arab Emirates:
A Society in Transition. London:
Longman.
Hijab, N. 1988 Womenpower:
The Arab Debate on Women a Work. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hodder, I. 1991 Postprocessual
Archaeology and the Current Debate.
In R. W. Preucel (ed.) Processual and
Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways
of Knowing the Past, pp. 30-41.
Center for Archaeological Investigations:
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
Herdt, G 1990 Mistaken Gender:
5-Alpha Reductase Hermaphroditism and Biological
Reductionism in Sexual Identity Reconsidered.
American Anthropologist 92:433-46.
Knapp, A. B. 1996 Archaeology
Without Gravity: Postmodernism and the Past.
Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory 3 (2): 127-58.
Kohl, P. L. and Fawcett, C. 1995
Archaeology in the Service of the State:
Theoretical Considerations. In P.
Kohl. and C. Fawcett (eds.) Nationalism,
Politics and the Practice of Archaeology,
pp. 3-18. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kourany, J. A., Sterba, J. P. and R. Tong
1993 Introduction. In J. A.
Kourany, J. P. Sterba and R. Tong (eds.)
Feminist Philosophies: Problems, Theories
and Applications, pp. 1-29. London:
Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Kristiansen, K. 1989 Perspectives
on the Archaeological Heritage: History
and Future. In H. Cleere (ed.) Archaeological
Heritage Management in the Modern World,
pp. 23-37. London: Unwin Hyman.
Kunter, M. 1996. Menschlichen skelettreste
des 4. bis 2. jahrtausend v. Chr. von der
Omanischen halbinsel. ein Überblick.
Homo 47(1-3):43-60. (English Trans.
by E. J. Blau, MS in possession of author).
Layton, R. 1989 Forward.
In R. Layton (ed.) Conflict in
the Archaeology of Living Traditions,
pp. ix-xvii. London: Unwin Hyman.
Lesick, K.. S. 1993 A New Imperialism:
Undertones of a Political Motivated, Western
Feminism in an African Context. Paper
presented at Dialogica: The University of
Calgary Interdisciplinary Social Theory
Seminars.
Mernissi, F. 1985 Beyond
the Veil: Male-Female Dynamics in Modern
Muslim Society. London: Al Saqi
Books.
Meskell, L. 1996 The Somatization
of Archaeology: Institutions, Discourse,
Corporeality. Norwegian Archaeological
Review 29 (1):1-16.
Moore, H. 1993 The Differences
Within and the Differences Between.
In T. del Valle (ed.) Gendered Anthropology,
pp. 193-219. London: Routledge.
Moser, S. 1993 Gender Stereotyping
in Pictorial Reconstructions of Human Origins.
In H. du Cros and L. Smith (eds.) Women
in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique,
pp. 75-92. Canberra: The Australian National
University.
Neill, R. 1996 Sisters doing
it for Themselves. The Australian,
September 11:11.
Nelson, C. 1993 Public and
Private Politics: Women in the Middle East.
In C. B. Brettell and C. F. Sargent (eds.)
Gender in Cross Cultural Perspective,
pp. 94-106. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Rendall, J. 1985 The Origins
of Modern Feminism: Women in Britain, France
and the United States of America 1780-1860.
Hampshire: Macmillan.
Roberts, C. 1993 A Critical
Approach to Gender as a Category of Analysis
in Archaeology. In H. du Cros and
L. Smith (eds.) Women in Archaeology:
A Feminist Critique, pp. 16-21.
Canberra: The Australian National University.
Rosenau, P. M. 1992 Post-Modernism
and the Social Sciences: Insight, Inroads
and Intrusions. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Said, E. W. 1978 Orientalism:
Western Conceptions of the Orient.
London: Penguin.
Salibi, K. 1980 A History
of Arabia. New York: Caravan Books.
Scheper-Hughes, N. 1983 Introduction:
The Problem of Bias in Androcentric and
Feminist Anthropology. Women’s Studies
10:109-16.
Shanks, M. and Tilley, C. 1992
Re-Constructing Archaeology: Theory and
Practice. (2nd ed.).
Routledge: London.
Sharabi, H. 1990 The Scholarly
Point of View: Politics, Perspective, Paradigm.
In H. Sharabi (ed.) Theory, Politics
and the Arab World: Critical Responses,
pp. 1-51. London: Routledge.
Shennan, S. 1989 Introduction:
Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity.
In S. J. Shennan (ed.) Archaeological
Approaches to Cultural Identity, pp.
1-32. London: Unwin Hyman.
Silberman, N. S. 1989 Between
the Past and the Present: Archaeology, Ideology,
and Nationalism in the Modern Middle East.
New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Tjamiwa, T. 1992 Tjunguringkula
Waakaripai: Joint Management of Uluru National
Park. In Birckhead, J., de Lacy, T.
and Smith, L. (eds.) Aboriginal Involvement
in Parks and Protected Areas, pp.
7-11. Canberra. Aboriginal Studies
Press.
Trigger, B. 1981 Editorial.
World Archaeology 13: 133-37.
Trigger, B. G. 1984 Alternative
Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist,
Imperialist. Man 19:355-70.
Trigger, B. G. 1989 A History
of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge.
Cambridge University Press.
Tringham, R. E. 1991 Households
With Faces: The Challenge of Gender in Prehistoric
Architectural Remains. In J. M. Gero
and M. W. Conkey (eds.) Engendering Archaeology:
Women and Prehistory, pp. 93-131.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Ucko, P. J. 1983 The Politics
of the Indigenous Minority”, Journal
of Biosocial Science - Supplement 8:25-40.
|
World
Archaeological Bulletin