Convened By
\nLisa Frink (USA), Agni Klintuni Boedhihartono (Indonesia) and Louise Strobeck (Sweden)<\/p>\n
Theme Details
\nThis theme examines what archaeologists know about power and gender relations in past societies, how they know it and how this knowledge is used in the present. It also considers how these issues inform professional archaeological practice as well as how a politically and socially aware archaeology might differ from, and link to, other forms of archaeology.<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nLisa Frink (USA) and Kathryn Weedman (USA)<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nOrganisers
\nLisa Frink
\n244 Elkins Circle
\nHenderson, NV 89074
\nlmfrink@earthlink.net<\/p>\n
Dr Kathryn Weedman,
\nVisiting Assistant Professor,
\nDepartment of Anthropology,
\nUniversity of Florida,
\n1112 Turlington Hall, Gainsville,
\nFlorida 32611.
\nPh: 3523922253,
\nFax: 3523926929<\/p>\n
Hide production is an activity that geographically, temporally, and behaviorally spans the scale of human communities. Production of skins, whether dik-dik, fish, or fox is an activity that is found among mobile foragers, semi-sedentary hunter-fisher-gatherers, and people on farmsteads. Further, the activity of hide production is often a highly sexed activity, whether female or male, often the perceived gender of the individual dictates the type of processing, when and where the processing is accomplished, and even what this activity and outcome may mean.<\/p>\n
This session will seek to illuminate the complexities of hide production, highlighting the gendered nature of this economic and social contribution, share the comparative potential of international research, magnify the lived indigenous knowledge concerning hide production, and explore the methodological and theoretical possibilities of fully comprehending the spectrum of skin preparation and production. In addition this session seeks to elongate the definition of hide production to include not only the preparation and production of a skin but to the social, economic, political, and economic contexts that surround the productive activity: from the kill to the family dinner pot, the opportunistic hyena or the 19th century Russian parka, and the ground.<\/p>\n
We are looking for papers that approach all facets of skin preparation: lithic, bone, and site arrangement analysis, experimental studies, indigenous knowledge, theoretical and methodological offerings, and ethnographic and ethnohistoric contributions are all welcome. For instance:<\/p>\n
Native\/Indigenous views of hide preparation
\n\u00b7 women as experts
\n\u00b7 incorporation of indigenous perspectives into interpretive models
\n\u00b7 the multivocality of the meanings of hide production<\/p>\n
Hide Production and Archaeological Method and Theory Building
\n\u00b7 importing women as producers into theoretical models of technological change and site formation
\n\u00b7 using gendered hide production to further understand and question site use interpretations
\n\u00b7 archaeological labeling and the masking of gendered activity<\/p>\n
Bone, Lithic, and Spatial Use Studies
\n\u00b7 utilizing gendered activity patterns of production in bone analysis
\n\u00b7 women and tools; can we “see” women through tools?
\n\u00b7 women and the production and curation of skinning tools
\n\u00b7 can we demonstrate gendered tool use
\n\u00b7 recognizing (gendered) site use patterns and activity areas<\/p>\n
Ethnographic, Ethnohistoric, and Ethnoarchaeological and Experimental Approaches
\n\u00b7 noticing and documenting the continued activities of women and hide production (where, when, how, who, why)
\n\u00b7 what modern studies can offer analogical models
\n\u00b7 women’s productive labor (furs\/hides) and colonial expansion
\n\u00b7 how women have engaged with and effected changing technology
\n\u00b7 repercussions of changing technologies
\n\u00b7 reconstruction of past productive technologies and activities<\/p>\n
Sexual Division of Labor and Economics
\n\u00b7 analyzing the political, economic, religious, and social context of gendered hide production
\n\u00b7 gendered tools: their use and meaning
\n\u00b7 the retention, rejection, or integration of “traditional” skinning technologies (who uses what and when\/why)
\n\u00b7 technological change and access to “new” productive materials (who gets what and when\/why)<\/p>\n
Participants and Perspectives
\nWe will both invite and consider submitted papers from participants. The session organizers will seek a broad range of perspectives (academic, non-academic, and Indigenous) using various theoretical (processual, post-processual, queer theory) and methodological approaches (qualitative, quantitative, reconstructive) concerning the gendered nature of hide production.<\/p>\n
Format
\nDiscussants will have 10-15 minutes to present a paper – after each paper there will be time for questions and discussion by the other participants and the attending audience. Further this session will have at least one discussant that will engage with the participants and audience throughout the session and will offer a synthesis of the program and individual papers
\nPresentations
\nThese Boots Were Made For Walking: Moccasin Production, Gender And The Late Prehistoric Hide Working Sequence On The High Plains Of Colorado.
\nKevin Gilmore (University of Denver Archaeological Research Institute) The Ubiquitous Tanged Endscraper
\nAlice B. Kehoe (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee)
\nTrading Identity: Gender, Change, And Production In Western Alaska
\nLisa Frink (University of Wisconsin, Madison) The Shifting Role of Women and Women\u2019s Labor on the Protohistoric Southern High Plains
\nJudith A. Habicht-Mauche (University of California, Santa Cruz)
\nHide-working Amongst Descendants Of Khoekhoen Pastoralists In The Northern Cape, South Africa
\nLita Webley (Albany Museum, South Africa) It’s All In The Move: Virilocal Residence Patterns, Hideworking Learning Systems, and Stone-Tool Morphology in Two Southern Ethiopian Societies
\nKathryn Weedman (University of Florida)
\nChewing Hides In Clothing Manufacture Not A Universal Among Alaskan Eskim
\nSusan L. Steen (University of Alberta) Hide Tanning, The Act of Reviving
\nMorgan Baillargeon (Curator of Plains Ethnology at the Canadian Museum of Civilization)
\nGender And The Organization Of Lithic Technology Among Contemporary Women Hideworkers Of Konso, Ethiopia
\nSteven A. Brandt (University of Florida) Bison Hide Production and Forager Identities on the North American Plains
\nLaura L. Scheiber (Archaeological Research Facility, University of California-Berkeley)
\nGender Visibility And Division Of Inupiat Labor In An Arctic Industrial Enterprise
\nMark S. Cassell (National Park Service)<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Monday Date 23rd June
\nTime 9AM-1PM Room Pryzbyla Center C<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nLouise Strobeck (Sweden) and Barbara Voss (USA)<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nOrganizers: Louise Strobeck
\nDepartment of Archaeology and Ancient History
\nLund University
\nSandgatan 1 223 50
\nLund, SWEDEN
\nEmail: Louise.Strobeck@ark.lu.se<\/p>\n
Barbara L. Voss
\nDepartment of Cultural and Social Anthropology
\nStanford University
\nStanford, CA 94305 USA
\nEmail: bvoss@stanford.edu<\/p>\n
For several decades, feminist theories of gender and sexuality have relied implicitly or explicitly on global, cross-cultural comparisons to substantiate theories of gender and sexuality. In the 1970s, international studies were used to postulate general aspects of sex\/gender systems. In 1980s and the 1990s, comparisons were performed between different cultures to demonstrate variability and multiplicity in gender formations and in gender and sexual relations. Whether universalizing or particularizing, global perspectives have been integral to theories of gender and sexuality.<\/p>\n
The purpose of this session is to encourage further development of research on gender and sexuality by fostering international dialogue and comparisons between studies undertaken throughout the world. What is the role of the global context in archaeological theories of gender, sex, sexuality, and the body? How has gender-focused archaeological research been shaped by regional\/national histories of gender politics, and by cultural differences in gender and sexual norms, practices, and ideologies? For archaeologists who conduct research outside their home country or culture, how has the resulting intercultural dialogue transformed and challenged theories of gender in the past? How do different theoretical schools shape the archaeological study of gender? We are particularly interested in how our theoretical, regional, and social positioning regarding gender shapes specific aspects of archaeological research, including research questions, terminologies, methodologies, field and laboratory techniques, source materials, and interpretations.
\nProposed Format:
\nAs we have discussed with WAC5 program organizers, we propose that this session occur in two parts, both to be held in one morning. The first part of the session, to be held during a 9-11am slot, will be a conventional panel session. Following a short introduction by the session chairs, session participants will each present a 10-minute position paper or other presentation. The second part of the session, to be held during a 11:30am-1:30pm slot on the same day, will be a roundtable discussion of the issues raised during the panel presentations. The session organizers will moderate the discussion, which will allow both for interchange between the presenters and for audience participation.<\/p>\n
For the first part of the session, we suggest the following order for the 10-minute presentations:
\nBrief Introduction (Voss and Strobeck)
\n1. Strobeck
\n2. Mina
\n3. Wicker
\n4. Marton
\n5. Smith
\n6. Welinder
\n7. Matsumoto
\n8. Sterling
\n9. Barnes
\n10. Hollimon
\n11. Nelson
\n12. Voss<\/p>\n
Audiovisual equipment required:<\/p>\n
Powerpoint projection equipment
\nSlide projector
\nOverhead projector<\/p>\n
Presentations
\nGender In Southeastern Archaeology: Its Past And Its Future
\nJodi Barnes (American University, USA) The Archaeology of Gender in Prehistoric North America: Global and Local Perspectives
\nSandra Hollimon (Sonoma State University, USA)
\nThe Shrewd Princess And The Looms: The Rise And Structural Change Of Prehistoric Textile Production As A Typical Women\u2019s Housework In Eastern Europe, Highlighting The Territory Of Hungary
\nErzs\u00e9bet Marton (National Office of the Cultural Heritage, Hungary) Time for Reconciliation: Gender Archaeology and its mediator role for the
\nstudy of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines from the Aegean
\nMaria Mina (Institute of Archaeology, University College London, Great Britain)
\nObservations From A Global Conference On Gender
\nSarah M. Nelson (University of Denver, USA) Gendered analysis of Dorothy Garrod’s field and academic career
\nPamela Smith (Cambridge University, United Kingdom)
\nA Black Feminist Here And Abroad
\nKathleen Sterling (University of California, Berkeley, USA) The Interdisciplinary Twist in Gender Archaeology
\nLouise Strobeck (Lund University, Sweden)
\nSexology, The Sex\/gender System, And Performativity: Theoretical Paradigms In Anglo-American Sexuality Studies And Their Implications For Archaeological Research
\nBarbara Voss (Stanford University, USA) Children, men, and old folks within the gender perspective
\nStig Welinder (Mid Sweden University, Sweden)
\nThe Deleterious Effect Of Typological Classification On The Search For Agency In Gendered Archaeology
\nNancy Wicker (University of Mississippi, USA) The Corporeality of Birthing in Prehistory
\nEmer O’Donnell (Department of Archaeology, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia)
\nTheory, Society And Politics: Intertwined Factors Influencing The Practice Of Gender Archaeology In Japan
\nNaoko Matsumoto (Department of Archaeology, Okayama University)<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Sunday Date 22nd June
\nTime 9AM-1PM Room Pryzbyla Center C<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nSuzanne Spencer-Wood (USA)<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nPapers in this session take feminist approaches to the interpretation of archaeological remains. The session as a whole demonstrates how post-modern feminist approaches ask about and analyze historic diversity in gender roles, voices, identities, ideologies, and relationships. Material embodiments of gender power dynamics are highlighted, especially women’s active social agency, even in male dominated cultural situations. Many papers relate expressions of gender systems in historic built environments and cultural landscapes to artifacts.
\nPresentations
\nFeminist Historical Archaeologies
\nSuzanne M. Spencer-Wood (Oakland University and Harvard University, USA) Remaking the landscape – archaeology, landscape and gender at Sydney Cove
\nMary Casey (University of Sydney, Australia)
\nArchaeologies Of Engendering Institutions
\nLu Ann De Cunzo (University of Delaware, USA) Classical Greek Women’s Ritual Processions: Manifestations of Women’s Power
\nMarilyn Goldberg (Chair of the dept. of classics, University of Maryland, Baltimore County)
\nSearching For Women’s Lives In The Archaeology Of The Interior Plateau, Western North America
\nCelia Nord (Chase and District Museum and Archives, Chase, B.C., Canada) and Simon Fraser (University-Secwepemc Education Institute, Kamloops, B.C. Canada) Domestic and public production and use of chipped-stone tools in Bronze Age eastern Balkans
\nDr. Svoboda Sirakova (Institute of Archaeology and Museum, 2 Saborns St., 1000 Sofia, Bulgaria)<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Monday Date 23rd June
\nTime 4-6PM Room Pryzbyla Center C<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Convened By Lisa Frink (USA), Agni Klintuni Boedhihartono (Indonesia) and Louise Strobeck (Sweden) Theme Details This theme examines what archaeologists know about power and gender relations in past societies, how they know it and how this knowledge is used in the present. It also considers how these issues inform professional archaeological practice as well as … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":2159,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2178","page","type-page","status-publish"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2178","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2178"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2178\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2776,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2178\/revisions\/2776"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2159"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2178"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}