Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:23:38.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Age and gender at the site of Tiszapolgár-Basatanya, Hungary

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Joanna Sofaer Derevenski
Joanna Sofaer Derevenski*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, England. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two fundamentals for the place of the individual in society are age and gender; well-studied cemeteries can provide an good archaeological base for their study. This examination of the Copper Age site of Tiszapolgár-Basatanya, Hungary, explores the relationship between age and gender though the course of prehistoric lives and how it might be possible to distinguish sex from gender in archaeological contexts.

Type
Papers
Information
Antiquity , Volume 71 , Issue 274 , December 1997 , pp. 875 - 889
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 1997

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

Acsadi, G. & Nemeskeri, J. 1970. History of the human life span and mortality. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadé.Google Scholar
Benkö, L., Horváth, F. Horvatinčić, N. & Obelic, B. 1989. Radiocarbon and thermoluminescence dating of prehistoric sites in Hungary and Yugoslavia, Radiocarbon 31(3): 992–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertelsen, R., Lillehammer, A. & Naess, J.-R. 1987. Were they all men? An examination of sex roles in prehistoric society. Stavanger: Arkeologisk Museum I Stavanger.Google Scholar
Bognár-Kutzián, I. 1963. The Copper Age cemetery of Tiszapolgár-Basatanya . Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Archueologia Hungarica 42.Google Scholar
Cain, M. 1977. The economic activities of children in a village in Bangladesh, Population and Development Review 3: 201–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, J. 1997. Changing gender relations in Hungarian prehistory, in Moore, & Scott, (ed.): 131–49.Google Scholar
Conkey, M.W. & Gero, L.M. 1991. Tensions, pluralities and engendering archaeology: an introduction to women and prehistory, in Gero, J.M. & Conkey, M.W. (ed.), Engendering archaeology: Women and prehistory: 3–30. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Conkey, M.W. & Spector, J.D. 1984. Archaeology and the study of gender, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 1–38.Google Scholar
Fausto-Sterling, A. 1985. Myths of gender: biological theories about women and men. New York (NY): Basic Books.Google Scholar
Ferembach, D., Schwidetzdy, I. & Stroukal, M. 1980. Recommendations for age and sex diagnoses of skeletons, Journal of Human Evolution 9: 517–49.Google Scholar
Finlay, N. 1997. Kid knapping: children in lithic analysis, in Moore, & Scott, (ed.): 203–12Google Scholar
Forenbaher, S. 1993. Radiocarbon dates and absolute chronology of the central European Early Bronze Age, Antiquity 67: 235–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedl, F. 1975. Women and men: an anthropologist’s view. New York (NY): Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Ginn, J. & Arber, S. 1995. ‘Only Connect’: gender relations and ageing, in Arber, S. & Ginn, J. (ed.), Connecting gender and ageing: a sociological approach: 1–14. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Hjørungdal, T. 1994. Poles apart. Have there been any male and female graves? Current Swedish Archaeology 2: 141–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. 1982. Symbols in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kessen, W. 1983. The child and other cultural inventions, in Kessel, F.S. & Siegel, A.W. (ed.), The child and other cultural inventions: 26–39. New York (NY): Praeger. Houston Symposium 4 (1981).Google Scholar
La Fontaine, J.S. (ed.) 1978. Sex and age as principles of social differentiation. New York (NY): Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorber, J. 1994. Paradoxes of gender. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Maccormack, C.P. 1980. Proto-social to adult: a Sherbro transformation, in Maccormack, C.P. & Strathern, M. (ed.), Nature, culture and gender. 95–118 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meisenheimer, M. 1989. Das Totenritual, geprägt durch jenseitsvorstellungen und Gesellschaftsrealität: Theorie des Totenrituals eines Kupferzeitlichen Friedhofs zu Tiszapolgár-Basatanya (Ungarn). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International series 475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moogk, S, 1991, The construction of ‘woman’ in the Nuu-chah-nulth girls’ puberty ceremony in 1910, in Walde, & Willows, (ed.): 103–7.Google Scholar
Moore, H. 1994. A passion for difference: essays in anthropology and gender. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Moore, J. & Scott, E. (ED.). 1997. Invisible people and processes: writing gender and childhood into European archaeology. London: Leicester University Press.Google Scholar
Nordbladh, J. & Yates, T. 1990. This perfect body this virgin text: between sex and gender in archaeology in Bapty, I. & Yates, T. (ed.) Archaeology after structuralism: 222–37. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ortner, S.B. & Whitehead, H. (ed.). 1981. Sexual meanings: the cultural construction of gender and sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Qvortrup, J, Bardy, M. Sgritta, G. & Wintersberger, H. (ed.). 1994. Childhood matters . Social theory, practice and politics. Avebury: Aldershot.Google Scholar
Skomal, S.N. 1980. The social organisation of the Tiszapolgár Group at Basatanya – Carpathian Basin Copper Age, Journal Of Indo-European Studies 8(1): 75–91.Google Scholar
Sofaer Derevenski, J. 1997, Engendering children, engendering archaeology, in Moore, & Scott, (ed.): 192–202.Google Scholar
Sø Rensen, M.L.S. 1991. The construction of gender through appearance, in Walde, & Willows, (ed.): 121–9.Google Scholar
Walde, D. & Willows, D.E. (ed.) 1991. The archaeology of gender . Proceedings of the 22nd annual Chacmool conference. Calgary: Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary.Google Scholar