Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T16:37:12.363Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who's come a long way, baby?

Masculinist approaches to a gendered archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

A. Bernard Knapp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How ‘progressive’ have archaeologists been in the progress made on gender studies during the 1990s? All archaeologists, male and female, must accept the need to theorize gender, and to rethink accordingly their traditional research priorities. Feminist theory is essential for the study of gender in archaeology because it has paid closer attention to gender as an analytical category than any other body of theory, and at the same time made important links within and between disciplines. Most male archaeologists have been recalcitrant if not loathe to focus on gender as a key concept in archaeological theory, even though writers treating ‘masculinity’ in the social sciences and literary theory have been active in this field for over a decade. This study discusses masculinist reactions to feminism and suggests that ‘masculinist’ approaches are derivative of feminist scholarship. Perhaps the most important contribution of masculinist scholarship has been to insist upon the existence of divergent, multiple masculinities, and by extension femininities, as opposed to binary oppositions or ideal types. The study of men and masculinities, of women and femininities, involves consideration of social and gender issues that should not become the exclusive domain of either women or men – the goal is an archaeology informed by feminism, one that looks critically at theories of human action and allows archaeological data to challenge existing social theory.

Keywords

masculinistfeministgenderarchaeological theorypostmodernist
Type
Discussion Article
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , December 1998 , pp. 91 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 1998

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

Alcoff, L., and Potter, E. (eds), 1993: Feminist epistemologies, New York and London.Google Scholar
Archer, L.J., Fischler, S. and Wyke, M. (eds), 1994: Women in ancient societies. An illusion of the night, New York and London.Google Scholar
Bacus, E., Barker, A. W., Bonevich, J.D., Dunavan, S.L., Fitzhugh, J.B., Gold, D.L., Goldman-Finn, N.S., Griffin, W. and Mundar, K.M. (eds), 1993: A gendered past. A critical bibliography of gender in archaeology, Ann Arbor (University of Michigan, Museum of anthropology, technical report 25).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, D.W., 1994: Reading prehistoric figurines as individuals, World archaeology 25, 321–331.Google Scholar
Balme, J., and Beck, W. (eds), 1995: Gendered archaeology. Proceedings of the second Australian women in archaeology conference,Canberra (Research papers in archaeology and natural history 26).Google Scholar
Barrett, J.C., 1988: Fields of discourse. Reconstituting a social archaeology, Critique of anthropology 7 (3), 5–16.Google Scholar
Beck, W., and Balme, J., 1994: Gender in aboriginal archaeology. Recent research, Australian archaeology 39, 39–46.Google Scholar
Bender, B., 1997: Commentary. Writing gender, in Moore, J. and Scott, E. (eds), Invisible people and processes. Writing gender and childhood into European archaeology, Leicester, 178–180.Google Scholar
Benhabib, S., 1994: Feminism and the question of postmodernism, in Polity reader in gender studies, Cambridge, 76–92.Google Scholar
Bly, R., 1990: Iron John. A book about men, Rockport.Google Scholar
Boyd, B., 1997: The power of gender archaeology, in Moore, J. and Scott, E. (eds), Invisible people and processes. Writing gender and childhood into European archaeology, Leicester, 25–30.Google Scholar
Bradley, R., 1984: The social foundations of prehistoric Britain. Themes and variations in the archaeology of power, London and New York.Google Scholar
Braidotti, R., 1994: Radical philosophies of sexual difference. Luce Irigaray, in Polity reader in gender studies, Cambridge, 62–70.Google Scholar
Brod, H., and Kaufmann, M. (eds), 1994: Theorizing masculinities, London (Research on men and masculinities 5).Google Scholar
Brown, S., 1993: Feminist research in archaeology. What does it mean? Why is it taking so long?, in Rabinowitz, N.S. and Richlin, A. (eds), Feminist theory and the classics, London and New York, 238–271.Google Scholar
Bruner, E.M., 1994: Abraham Lincoln as authentic reproduction. A critique of postmodernism, American anthropologist 96, 397–415.Google Scholar
Butler, J., 1990: Gender trouble. Feminism and the subversion of identity, London and New York.Google Scholar
Canaan, J.E., and Griffen, C., 1990: The new men's studies. Part of the problem or part of the solution?, in Hearn, J. and Morgan, D.H.J. (eds), Men, masculinities and social theory, London, 206–214.Google Scholar
Carrigan, T., Connell, R.W. and Lee, J., 1985: Towards a new sociology of masculinity, Theory and society 14, 551–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christian, B., 1988: The race for theory, Feminist studies 14, 67–69.Google Scholar
Claassen, C. (ed.), 1992: Exploring gender through archaeology. Selected papers from the Boon conference, Madison, (Monographs in world archaeology 11).Google Scholar
Claassen, C. (ed.), 1994: Women in archaeology, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Claassen, C., and Joyce, R. (eds), 1997: Women in prehistory, Philadelphia (Regendering the past 1).Google Scholar
Coltrane, S., 1994: Theorizing masculinities in contemporary social science, in Brod, H. and Kaufmann, M. (eds), Theorizing masculinities, London (Research on men and masculinities 5), 39–60.Google Scholar
Conkey, M.W., 1991: Does it make a difference. Feminist thinking and archaeologies of gender, in Walde, D. and Willows, N.D. (eds), The archaeology of gender, Calgary, 24–33.Google Scholar
Conkey, M.W., with, Williams, S.H., 1991: Original narratives. The political economy of gender in archaeology, in Leonardo, M. di (ed.), Gender at the crossroads of knowledge. Feminist anthropology in the postmodern era, Berkeley, 102–139.Google Scholar
Conkey, M.W., and Gero, J.W., 1991: Tensions, pluralities, and engendering archaeology. An introduction to women in prehistory, in Gero, J.W. and Conkey, M.W. (eds), Engendering archaeology. Women and prehistory, Oxford, 3–30.Google Scholar
Conkey, M.W. and Gero, J.W., 1997: Program to practice: gender and feminism in archaeology, Annual review of anthropology 26, 411–437.Google Scholar
Conkey, M.W. and Spector, J.D., 1984: Archaeology and the study of gender, in Schiffer, M.B. (ed.), Advances in archaeological method and theory 7, New York, 1–38.Google Scholar
Conkey, M.W., and Tringham, R.E., 1995: Archaeology and the goddess. Exploring the contours of feminist archaeology, in Steward, A. and Stanton, D. (eds), Feminisms in the academy. Rethinking the disciplines, Ann Arbor, 199–247.Google Scholar
Connell, R.W., 1987: Gender and power. Society, the person, and sexual politics, Oxford.Google Scholar
Connell, R.W., 1994: Psychoanalysis on masculinity, in Brod, H. and Kaufmann, M. (eds), Theorizing masculinities, London (Research on men and masculinities 5), 11–38.Google Scholar
Connell, R.W, 1995: Masculinities, London.Google Scholar
Connor, S., 1992: Theory and cultural value, Oxford.Google Scholar
Conway-Long, D., 1994: Ethnographies and masculinities, in Brod, H. and Kaufmann, M. (eds), Theorizing masculinities, London (Research on men and masculinities 5), 61–81.Google Scholar
Cornwall, A., and Lindisfarne, N., 1994a: Introduction, in Cornwall, A. and Lindisfarne, N. (eds), Dislocating masculinities. Comparative ethnographies, London and New York, 1–10.Google Scholar
Cornwall, A., and Lindisfarne, N., 1994b: Dislocating masculinity. Gender, power and anthropology, in Cornwall, A. and Lindisfarne, N. (eds), Dislocating masculinities. Comparative ethnographies, London and New York, 11–47.Google Scholar
Cornwall, A., and Lindisfarne, N. (eds), 1994c: Dislocating masculinities. Comparative ethnographies, London and New York.Google Scholar
de Lauretis, T. (ed.), 1986: Feminist studies/critical studies, Bloomington.Google Scholar
de Lauretis, T., 1990: Eccentric subjects. Feminist theory and historical consciousness, Feminist studies 16, 115–150.Google Scholar
Derrida, J., 1974: Of grammatology, Baltimore.Google Scholar
di Leonardo, M. (ed.), 1991: Gender at the crossroads of knowledge. Feminist anthropology in the postmodern era, Berkeley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobres, M.-A., 1988: Feminist archaeology and inquiries into gender relations. Some thoughts on universals, origins stories and alternating paradigms, Archaeological review from Cambridge 7, 30–44.Google Scholar
Dobres, M.-A., 1995a: Beyond gender attribution. Some methodological issue for engendering the past, in Balme, J. and Beck, W. (eds), Gendered archaeology. Proceedings of the second Australian women in archaeology conference, Canberra (Research papers in archaeology and natural history 26), 51–66.Google Scholar
Dobres, M.-A., 1995b: On gender archaeology. Males?, Arch-theory bulletin board (), 23 January 1995.Google Scholar
Dommasnes, L.H., 1990: Feminist archaeology. Critique or theory building?, in Baker, F. and Thomas, J. (eds), Writing the past in the present, Lampeter, 24–31.Google Scholar
Duby, G., and Perrot, M. (eds), 1992: A history of women in the west 1–5, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
du Cros, H., and Smith, L.J. (eds), 1993: Women in archaeology: a feminist critique, Canberra (Occasional papers in prehistory 23).Google Scholar
Engelstad, E., 1991: Images of power and contradiction. Feminist theory and postprocessual archaeology, Antiquity 65, 502–514.Google Scholar
Farrell, W., 1993: The myth of male power, New York.Google Scholar
Fedigan, L.M., 1986: The changing role of women in models of human evolution, Annual review of anthropology 15, 25–66.Google Scholar
Flax, J., 1987: Postmodernism and gender relations in feminist theory, Signs 12: 621–643.Google Scholar
Flax, J., 1990: Postmodernism and gender relations in feminist theory, in Nicholson, L.J. (ed.) Feminism/postmodernism, London and New York, 39–62.Google Scholar
Forrest, D., 1994: We're here, we're queer, and we're not going shopping. Changing gay male identities in contemporary Britain, in Cornwall, A. and Lindisfarne, N. (eds), Dislocating masculinities. Comparative ethnographies, London and New York, 97–110.Google Scholar
Fotiadis, M., 1994: What is archaeology's ‘mitigated objectivism’ mitigated by? Comments on Wylie, American antiquity 59, 545–555.Google Scholar
Foucault, M., 1976: The history of sexuality, Paris.Google Scholar
Foucault, M., 1980: Power/knowledge, Brighton.Google Scholar
Foxhall, L., 1994: Pandora unbound. A feminist critique of Foucault's History of sexuality, in Cornwall, A. and Lindisfarne, N. (eds), Dislocating masculinities. Comparative ethnographies, London and New York, 133–146.Google Scholar
Frankel, D., 1993: Is this a trivial observation? Gender in prehistoric Bronze Age Cyprus, in Du Cros, H. and Smith, L. (eds), Women in archaeology. A feminist critique, Canberra (Occasional papers in prehistory 23), 138–142.Google Scholar
Freeman, J., 1973: The origins of the women's liberation movement, in Huber, J. (ed.), Changing women in a changing society, Chicago, 30–49.Google Scholar
Fullbrook, K., 1990: Free women. Ethics and aesthetics in twentieth-century women's fiction, London.Google Scholar
Gero, J.M., and Conkey, M.W. (eds), 1991: Engendering archaeology: women and prehistory, Oxford.Google Scholar
Gilchrist, R., 1991: Women's archaeology? Political feminism, gender theory, and historical revision, Antiquity 65, 495–501.Google Scholar
Gilchrist, R., 1994: Gender and material culture. The archaeology of religious women, London.Google Scholar
Gilchrist, R., 1997: Ambivalent bodies. Gender and medieval archaeology, in Moore, J. and Scott, E. (eds), Invisible people and processes. Writing gender and childhood into European archaeology, Leicester, 42–58.Google Scholar
Gosden, C., 1994: Social being and time, Oxford.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J., 1986: Philosophy and feminist thinking, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Grosz, E., 1994: Volatile bodies, Sydney.Google Scholar
Gutmann, M.C., 1997: Trafficking in men: the anthropology of masculinity, Annual review of anthropology 26, 385–409.Google Scholar
Gutterman, D.S., 1994: Postmodernism and the interrogation of masculinity, in Brod, H. and Kaufmann, M. (eds), Theorizing masculinities, London (Research on men and masculinities 5), 219–38.Google Scholar
Handsman, R.G., 1991: Whose art was found at Lipinski Vir? Gender relations and power in archaeology, in Gero, J.M. and Conkey, M.W. (eds), Engendering archaeology. Women and prehistory, Oxford, 329–365.Google Scholar
Hanmer, J., 1990: Men, power and the exploitation of women, in Hearn, J. and Morgan, D.H.J. (eds), Men, masculinities and social theory, London, 21–42.Google Scholar
Harding, S., 1987: Feminism and methodology. Social science issues, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Harding, S., 1990: Feminism, science, and the anti-enlightenment critiques, in Nicholson, L.J. (ed.), Feminism/postmodernism, London and New York, 83–106.Google Scholar
Hartsock, N., 1990: Foucault on power. A theory for women?, in Nicholson, L.J. (ed.), Feminism/postmodernism, London and New York, 157–175.Google Scholar
Hesse, M., 1994: How to be postmodern without being a feminist, The monist 77, 445.Google Scholar
Hochschild, A, 1989: The second shift, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Hodder, I.A., 1991a: Interpretive archaeology and its role, American antiquity 56, 7–18.Google Scholar
Hodder, I.A., 1991b: Gender representation and social reality, in Walde, D. and Willows, N.D. (eds), The archaeology of gender, Calgary, 11–16.Google Scholar
Hodder, I.A., 1997: Commentary. The gender screen, in Moore, J. and Scott, E. (eds), Invisible people and processes. Writing gender and childhood into European archaeology, Leicester, 75–78.Google Scholar
Hodder, I.A., Shanks, M., Alexandri, A., Buchli, V., Carman, J., Last, J. and Lucas, G. (eds), 1995: Interpreting archaeology. Finding meaning in the past, London and New York.Google Scholar
Jacobs, S.-E., 1994: Native American two-spirits, Anthropology newsletter 7 (November), 7.Google Scholar
Jaggar, A.M., 1983: Feminist politics and human nature, Totowa.Google Scholar
Kandiyoti, D., 1994: The paradoxes of masculinity: some thoughts on segregated societies, in Cornwall, A. and Lindisfarne, N. (eds), Dislocating masculinities. Comparative ethnographies, London, 197–213.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, M., 1994: Men, feminism, and men's contradictory experiences of power, in Brod, H. and Kaufmann, M. (eds), Theorizing masculinities, London (Research on men and masculinities 5), 142–163.Google Scholar
Kimmel, M.S., and Kaufmann, M., 1994: Weekend warriors. The new men's movement, in Brod, H. and Kaufmann, M. (eds), Theorizing masculinities, London (Research on men and masculinities 5), 259–88.Google Scholar
Knapp, A.B., 1996: Archaeology without gravity. Postmodernism and the past, Journal of archaeological method and theory 3, 127–158.Google Scholar
Knapp, A.B., and Meskell, L.M., 1997: Bodies of evidence on prehistoric Cyprus, Cambridge archaeological journal 7, 183–204.Google Scholar
Kokkinidou, D., and Nikolaidou, M., 1993: I Arheoloyia ke i Kinoniki Taftotita tu Filu: Prosengisis stin Eyeaki Proistoria, Thessaloniki (with English summary).Google Scholar
Lake, M., 1993: The politics of respectability. Identifying the masculinist context, in Magarey, S., Rowley, S. and Sheridan, S. (eds), Debutante nation. Feminism contests the 1890s, Sydney, 1–15.Google Scholar
Lesick, K.S., 1997: Re-engendering gender. Some theoretical and methodological concerns on a burgeoning archaeological pursuit, in Moore, J. and Scott, E. (eds), Invisible people and processes. Writing gender and childhood into European archaeology, Leicester, 31–41.Google Scholar
Lindisfarne, N., 1994: Variant masculinities, variant virginities. Rethinking ‘honour and shame’, in Cornwall, A. and Lindisfarne, N. (eds), Dislocating masculinities. Comparative ethnographies, London and New York, 82–96.Google Scholar
Little, B.J., 1994: Consider the hermaphroditic mind. Comments on ‘The interplay of evidential constraints and political interests: recent archaeological research on gender’, American antiquity 59, 539–544.Google Scholar
Longino, H., 1987: Can there be a feminist science?, Hypatia 2, 51–64.Google Scholar
Longino, H., 1994: In search of feminist epistemology, The monist 77, 472–485.Google Scholar
Loizos, P., 1994: A broken mirror: masculine sexuality in Greek ethnography, in Cornwall, A. and Lindisfarne, N. (eds), Dislocating masculinities. Comparative ethnographies, London and New York, 66–81.Google Scholar
Lorber, J., 1986: Dismantling Noah's ark, Sex roles 14, 567–580.Google Scholar
Lorber, J., 1994: Paradoxes of gender, New Haven and London.Google Scholar
Lovibond, S., 1989: Feminism and postmodernism, New left review 178, 5–28.Google Scholar
Mascia-Lees, F.,Sharpe, P. and Cohen, C.B., 1989: The postmodernist turn in anthropology, Signs 15, 7–33.Google Scholar
Meskell, L., 1995: Goddesses, Gimbutas and New Age archaeology, Antiquity 69, 74–86.Google Scholar
Meskell, L., 1996: The somatisation of archaeology: discoveries, institutions, corporeality, Norwegian archaeological review 29, 1–16.Google Scholar
Moi, T. (ed.), 1987: French feminist thought. A reader, Oxford.Google Scholar
Moore, H.L., 1988: Feminism and anthropology, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Moore, H.L., 1994: A passion for difference, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Moore, H.L. (ed.), 1995: The future of anthropological thought, London and New York.Google Scholar
Moore, J., and Scott, E. (eds), 1997: Invisible people and processes. Writing gender and childhood into european archaeology, LeicesterGoogle Scholar
Moore, J., 1997: Conclusion. The visibility of the invisible, in Moore, J. and Scott, E. (eds), Invisible people and processes. Writing gender and childhood into European archaeology, Leicester, 251–257.Google Scholar
Morris, R.C., 1995: ALL MADE UP. Performance theory and the new anthropology of sex and gender, Annual review of anthropology 24, 567–592.Google Scholar
Nelson, S.M., 1997: Gender in archaeology: analyzing power and prestige, Walnut Creek.Google Scholar
Nelson, M.C., Nelson, S.M. and Wylie, A. (eds), 1995: Equity issues for women in archaeology, Arlington, (American anthropological association, archaeological paper 5).Google Scholar
Nicholson, L.J., 1984: Feminist theory. The private and the public, in Gould, L. (ed.), Beyond domination, Totowa, 221–232.Google Scholar
Nicholson, L.J. (ed.), 1990: Feminism/postmodernism, New York and London.Google Scholar
Ortner, S., 1978: The virgin and the state, Feminist studies 4 (3), 19–35.Google Scholar
Øvrevik, S.E., 1991: Review of Engendering archaeology. Women and prehistory (Gero, J.M. and Conkey, M.W., eds), Antiquity 65, 738–741.Google Scholar
Preucel, R.W., 1995: The postprocessual condition, Journal of archaeological research 3, 147–175.Google Scholar
Reiter, R. (ed.), 1975: Toward an anthropology of women, New York.Google Scholar
Rich, A., 1980: Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence, Signs 5, 631–660.Google Scholar
Robb, J., 1994: Gender contradictions, moral coalitions and inequality in prehistoric Italy, Journal of European archaeology 2, 20–49.Google Scholar
Roberts, C., 1993: A critical approach to gender as a category of analysis in archaeology, in du Cros, H. and Smith, L. (eds), Women in archaeology. A feminist critique, Canberra (Occasional papers in prehistory 23), 16–21.Google Scholar
Roper, M., and Tosh, J. (eds), 1991: Introduction. Historians and the politics of masculinity, in Roper, M. and Tosh, J. (eds), Manful assertions. Masculinities in Britain since 1800, London and New York, 1–24.Google Scholar
Rosaldo, M.Z., 1980: The use and abuse of anthropology. Reflections on feminism and crosscultural understanding, Signs 5, 389–417.Google Scholar
Rosaldo, M.Z., and Lamphere, L. (eds), 1974: Women, culture and society, Stanford.Google Scholar
Salleh, A., 1984: Contribution to the critique of political epistemology, Thesis eleven 8, 23–43.Google Scholar
Sanday, P.R., and Goodenough, R.G. (eds), 1990: Beyond the second sex. New directions in the anthropology of gender, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Scott, E., 1997: Introduction. On the incompleteness of archaeological narratives, in Moore, J. and Scott, E. (eds), Invisible people and processes. Writing gender and childhood into European archaeology, London and New York, 1–12.Google Scholar
Scott, J., 1991: Women's history, in Burke, P. (ed.), New perspectives on historical writing, Cambridge, 24–41.Google Scholar
Segal, L., 1990: Slow motion. Changing masculinities, changing men, London.Google Scholar
Seidler, V.J., 1989: Rediscovering masculinity, London and New York.Google Scholar
Seidler, V.J., 1990: Men, feminism and power, in Hearn, J. and Morgan, D.H.J. (eds). Men, masculinities and social theory, London, 215–228.Google Scholar
Seidler, V.J., 1997: Man enough. Embodying masculinities, London.Google Scholar
Shennan, S., 1986: Towards a critical archaeology?, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 52, 327–338.Google Scholar
Shennan, S., 1993: Settlement and social change in central Europe, 3500–1500 BC, Journal of world prehistory 7, 121–161.Google Scholar
Smith, L., 1995: Gender as ‘other’ in postprocessual archaeology, in Balme, J. and Beck, W. (eds), Gendered archaeology. Proceedings of the second Australian women in archaeology conference, Canberra (Research papers in archaeology and natural history 26), 67–71.Google Scholar
Spector, J., 1993: What this awl means. Feminist archaeology at a Wahpeton Dakota village, St Paul.Google Scholar
Spriggs, M., 1993: Quantifying women's oppression in prehistory. The Aneityum (Vanuatu) case, in du Cros, H. and Smith, L. (eds), Women in archaeology. A feminist critique, Canberra (Occasional papers in prehistory 23), 143–150.Google Scholar
Stoltenberg, J., 1989: Refusing to be a man. Essays on sex and justice, Boulder and Oxford.Google Scholar
Strathern, M., 1972: Women in between. Female roles in a male world. Mount Hagen, New Guinea, London.Google Scholar
Strathern, M., 1988: The gender of the gift. Problems with women and problems with society in Melanesia, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Taylor, S., 1990: ‘Brothers’ in arms? Feminism, post-structuralism, and the ‘rise of civilization’, in Baker, F. and Thomas, J. (eds), Writing the past in the present, Lampeter, 32–41.Google Scholar
Thomas, J., 1993: After essentialism. Archaeology, geography and post-modernity, Archaeological review from Cambridge 12, 3–27.Google Scholar
Threadgold, T., and Cranny-Francis, A. (eds), 1990: Feminine, masculine and representation, London.Google Scholar
Tilley, C., 1993: Introduction: interpretation and a poetics of the past, in Tilley, C. (ed.), Interpretative archaeology, Oxford, 1–27.Google Scholar
Tong, R., 1989: Feminist thought. A comprehensive introduction, London.Google Scholar
Walde, D., and Willows, N.D. (eds), 1991: The archaeology of gender. Proceedings of the twenty-second annual Chacmool conference, Calgary.Google Scholar
Weedon, C., 1987: Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory, Oxford.Google Scholar
Weiner, A., 1976: Women of value, men of renown, Austin.Google Scholar
Williams, M.B., 1995: Gender and feminism, Arch-theory bulletin board (), 25 January 1995.Google Scholar
Worthman, C.M., 1995: Hormones, sex, and gender, Annual review of anthropology 24, 593–616.Google Scholar
Wright, R. (ed.), 1996: Gender and archaeology, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Wylie, A., 1991a: Feminist critiques and archaeological challenges, in Walde, D. and Willows, N.D. (eds), The archaeology of gender, Calgary, 17–23.Google Scholar
Wylie, A., 1991b: Gender theory and the archaeological record. Why is there no archaeology of gender?, in Gero, J.W. and Conkey, M.W. (eds), Engendering archaeology. Women and prehistory, Oxford, 31–54.Google Scholar
Wylie, A., 1992a: Feminist theories of social power. Some implications for a processual archaeology, Norwegian archaeological review 25, 51–68.Google Scholar
Wylie, A., 1992b: On ‘heavily decomposing red herrings’. Scientific method in archaeology and the ladening of evidence with theory, in Embree, L. (ed.), Metaarchaeology. Reflections by archaeologists and philosophers, Dordrecht, Boston and London, 269–288.Google Scholar
Wylie, A., 1995: Doing philosophy as a feminist. Longino on the search for a feminist epistemology, Philosophical topics 23, 345–358.Google Scholar
Wylie, A., 1997: Good science, bad science, or science as usual? Feminist critiques of science, in Hager, L.D. (ed.), Women in human evolution, London.Google Scholar