Prehistoric Hegemonic Masculinities

BUDAPEST 2010

SITUATING GENDER IN EUROPEAN ARCHAEOLOGIES

Edited by

Liv Helga Dommasnes, Tove Hjørungdal, Sandra Montón-Subías, Margarita Sánchez Romero, and Nancy L. Wicker

Front Cover IllustrationGold foil from Rogaland in western Norway showing a man and a woman,

often interpreted as the Nordic Vanir god Freyr and his wife Gerd from the family of Giants. 7th–8th century AD.

(Photo: Svein Skare. © Bergen Museum, University of Bergen, Norway.)

Back Cover IllustrationDama Elche (Museo Arqueológico Nacional, Madrid)

ISBN 978-963-9911-15-4

HU-ISSN 1216-6847

© ARCHAEOLINGUA Foundation

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, digitised, photo copying,

recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.

2010

ARCHAEOLINGUA ALAPÍTVÁNYH-1250 Budapest, Úri u. 49

Copyediting by Nancy L. WickerDesktop editing and layout by Rita Kovács

Printed by Prime Rate Kft

Prehistoric Hegemonic Masculinities1

LISBETH SKOGSTRAND

For more than 30 years, gender archaeology has been mainly about women. The core issues have been the critique of androcentrism and making the lives of prehistoric women visible. Many have demonstrated and criticized how modern stereotypical female gender roles and values are simply projected onto past societies and thus shape our image of prehistoric women (e.g. CONKEY – SPECTOR 1984; ENGELSTAD 2001; VINSRYGG 1987; WYLIE 1991). A few have remarked that male gender stereotypes are also transferred from present to past and thus form our understanding of prehistoric men just as much as that of women (e.g. CONKEY – SPECTOR 1984; GILCHRIST 1999). Yet this is rarely discussed any further or even considered a problem. Some have actually expressed reluctance to study masculinity, since archaeologists always have studied men and they fear it may lead to a backlash against feminism, which may reprioritize the visibility of the male (see also GILCHRIST 1999, 148; KNAPP 1998a; WHITE 2000). Such a view does, however, build on an unexplored premise that archaeology already informs us about men. But does it? Do we really know more about prehistoric men than about prehistoric women? Does archaeology provide knowledge about men as gendered individuals and groups? I will argue that common archaeological understandings of prehistoric men and masculinity, although given more attention and higher visibility than women, have been – and still are – just as stereotyped as the traditional androcentric image of prehistoric women. Accordingly, we should study men as we have studied women, female roles, and identities in prehistory, as culturally dependent, socially constructed, and constantly changing.

In this article I will fi rst discuss the concept of gender. Then I will present an example which I consider representative of traditional and androcentric archaeology. I will discuss how men are presented and what knowledge this literature provides about prehistoric men and masculinity. Then I will turn to the concept of masculinity to account for and consider the theory of hegemonic masculinity and discuss its potential as a theoretical framework in archaeology.

1 This article is based on a PhD thesis-in-progress with the working title “Warriors and other men. Notions of masculinity from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age expressed through burials, 1100 BC–400 AD”.

36 Lisbeth Skogstrand

The conceptualization of gender

Gender has long been considered one of the most fundamental forms of social categorization we know, and as such it infl uences almost every aspect of human social life. Gender structures individual identity, expectations of behavior, and the organization of everyday life as well as religion and cosmology.

Essentially, gender is related to how cultures explain, understand, and legitimate why male and female bodies are experienced, appear, and develop differently through life, and how different categories, norms, notions, and identities are associated with the manifestation of gender (GILCHRIST 1999, 1; MOI 1999, 113–114; SØRENSEN 2000, 58). However, it is in no way a simple question of women and men. “Although human societies all over the world recognize biological differences between women and men, what they make of those differences is extraordinarily variable” (MOORE 1994, 71). In some societies all bodies are considered to have both male and female inherent qualities. Bodily differences only indicate a potential and are secondary to the understanding and explanation of gender. Gender may be considered something you grow into or become, not something you are born with (HERDT 1987; YATES 1993). For example, some even consider that homosexuals belong to a third gender category and do not have a dualistic understanding of gender (GILCHRIST 1999; HERDT 1994). In other societies, sex is believed to be decisive for a person’s capabilities and biological differences may thus legitimate gender inequality (BUTLER 1990, 1993).

Further, gender is intertwined with other social structures such as age, class, sexuality, and ethnicity, and the understanding of gender will always be related to other conditions. Thus men and women are heterogeneous categories dependent upon context and not necessarily understood in contrast or even mainly in relation to each other. For example, a Viking age mistress would probably have more in common with her husband than with her slave girl when it came to norms of behavior, identity, and access to power. Gender is also a question of perspective as it is both individual identity which is performed, lived, and experienced, and it encompasses social structures which are produced, reproduced, changed through social practice, and constantly renegotiated (BUTLER 1990; MOORE 1994; SØRENSEN 2000).

Material culture is an important arena in which to perform and negotiate the understanding of gender, and it becomes gendered through repeated actions in which gender is related to objects, clothing, burial monuments, architecture, etc. Through these repetitive associations, gender also becomes materialized and as

37Prehistoric Hegemonic Masculinities

such gender is not perceived as a changing social construction but something tangible and real (SØRENSEN 2000, 82). Material culture may be used not only to perform and reproduce gender roles and identities but also to actively legitimate gender inequality, negotiate, or even manipulate gendered roles, norms, or meaning (SØRENSEN 2000, 2006). Thus the archaeological record is potentially an inexhaustible source of information about prehistoric gender systems.

Is androcentric archaeology really about men?

The Prehistory of Denmark by Johannes BRØNDSTED (1960) is a respected and often-cited extensive culture-historical study with the purpose to describe the “whens” and “wheres” of Danish prehistory, from the Mesolithic until the end of the Viking Age. The overall focus is to describe and account for almost the entire Danish archaeological record and to identify culture groups in terms of their contacts and development. As such, I fi nd this work representative of a large body of established archaeological research, especially within the culture-historical tradition.

When reading Brøndsted’s section on the Early Iron Age, the most striking in his interpretations of objects, monuments, rituals, and developments, is the absence of gender – men as well as women. He never discusses whether different objects or tasks were male or female. However, by the use of male or female nouns (in Danish nouns are gendered) together with pronouns such as “he/she”, “him/her” and “his/hers” when writing about different activities, he gives the impression that farming, fi shing, pottery-making, metalworking, horse riding, house-building, road-construction, ditch-digging, and, essentially, all kinds of tasks were performed by men, with the exclusive exceptions of spinning, weaving, and the wearing of jewellery. In addition, words like “humans”, “people” or “Romans” are sometimes obviously used as synonymous with men. He also uses much more ink to account for objects such as weapons, boats, or even male clothing than to describe female clothing, jewellery, or tools for textile-working or food preparation. He even repeatedly comments on the lack of specifi c types of weapons in different contexts and areas. No other group of artefacts is considered to such an extent when it is absent.

One might state that if Brøndsted is correct that pottery production and house-building were performed by males, and that textile-work was carried out by females, then the latter work contributes more to our knowledge because he discusses male activities at a far greater length and with more details than


female activities. However, as he does not question, discuss, or raise a single argument but simply presumes, we actually do not know which activities really were performed by men or whether certain activities may have been carried out only by some men, by women, or perhaps by persons independent of gender. Instead, Brøndsted uncritically transfers modern gender stereotypes regarding domestic and public spheres as he assumes that men were responsible for all outdoor activities.

Even though Brøndsted is mainly concerned with what he considers male activities, they are, as feminist critique repeatedly has pointed out, generally presented as representing society as a whole (CONKEY – SPECTOR 1984; WYLIE 1991). Rarely are men are explicitly presented as men but, as already stated, as “humans” or “people”. By generalizing from the “manly” to the “humanly”, what is specifi cally masculine becomes invisible (HOLTER – AARSETH 1993, 243–44; EKENSTAM 1998, 19). As men seem to carry out almost everything, it is impossible to see what they were really doing.

Since masculinity is not questioned, the “prehistoric man” becomes a never-ending reproduction of male archetypes of the warrior, the farmer, the hunter, and the chief – in other words, the breadwinner and the man in charge fulfi lling 19th-century masculine ideals of head of household, decision-maker, and risk-taker (CAESAR 1999b ; HJØRUNDAL 1994; WELINDER 1997). He lives up to mythic ideals of an original, inborn, and natural masculinity, which explicitly contrast with peaceful femininity (BRØNDSTED 1960, 73). Therefore, he does not change even though the archaeological record – and thus society and cultural norms – obviously did change.

Androcentric literature is certainly not about women, but it really does not tell us much about men, either. As androcentric studies apply “man” and “masculinity” as universal norms, they blur the image of prehistoric men and it becomes even more diffi cult to explore masculinity. In some respects, there is an unfi nished task of fi nding and making prehistoric men visible as a heterogeneous group as well as individuals. To ignore masculinity is to leave the idea of this undifferentiated, universal “man” in place and neglect his complexity (CAESAR 1999b, 115). Studying prehistoric masculinity might even challenge androcentric studies as much as studying women in prehistory. By gendering prehistoric men, it becomes clear that they can only stand for themselves rather than represent the whole of humanity (ALBERTI 2006, 404; KNAPP 1998a).


Hegemonic masculinity

During the past 15–20 years there has been a rapid growth of studies in masculinity, but this development seems to have made relatively little impact in archaeology (ALBERTI 2006; CAESAR 1999b, 117; MESKELL 1999, 61). Compared to studies of prehistoric women, research on prehistoric men is nearly non-existent. Some have called attention to this lack (e.g. ALBERTI 2006; CAESAR 1999a; KNAPP 1998a, 1998b; MESKELL 1999; WELINDER 1997) but only a few researchers have explicitly studied and problematised masculinity as a concept in prehistoric archaeology (e.g. ALBERTI 1997; JOYCE 2000; SKOGSTRAND 2006) (for classical archaeology, e.g. FOXHALL – SALMON 1998a, 1998b).

Masculinity is simultaneously a place in gender relations, the practices through which masculinity is enacted, and the effects of these practices in bodily experience, identity, and culture (CONNELL [1995] 2005, 71). Masculinity may also be defi ned as what gives a man credit as a man in a particular social and historical context. Women may also act, appear, or have abilities considered masculine, but these will never give them recognition as men. Acknowledgment will depend on individual variables such as age, class, ancestry, or ethnicity as well as the social and historical context and may be given, for example, actions, appearance, or abilities. What is regarded as masculine will differ according to who is characterizing, identifying, or recognizing the masculine, and the social signifi cance will depend on their authority. Thus there may exist numbers of different masculinities depending on the context, and what is considered masculine in various contexts may even contradict. In addition, notions and ideals of masculinity are likely to remain, to some extent, idealized products, representative of both the social conditions of the time and dominant ideological or discursive “truths” (CONNELL 1995; WHITEHEAD 2002, 16).

A theoretical framework that has proven useful to study and understand the relations among different masculinities is Raewyn Connell’s theory of hegemonic masculinity (CONNELL 1987, 1995; CONNELL – MESSERSCHMIDT 2005). The theory is broadly used within a large range of different subject fi elds, and its impact on critical research on masculinity cannot be overstated (WHITEHEAD 2002, 89). Nevertheless, it has also met serious and extensive criticism. I will not give an outline of the different critiques (e.g. CONNELL – MESSERSCHMIDT 2005; DEMETRIOU 2001; EKENSTAM 2006; HOWSON 2006; JEFFERSON 2002; WETHERELL – EDLEY 1999; WHITEHEAD 2002), but I will focus instead on discussions that are most relevant for an archaeological approach.


The theory of hegemonic masculinity appeared in the 1980s as a convergence of ideas from women’s and gay men’s political experience and research on gender hierarchy, theorizing of oppression, and empirical research with boys and men (CARRIGAN et al. 1985; CONNELL 2002, 90; KESSLER et al. 1982). The theory stresses the interplay of practice and structure (WHITEHEAD 2002, 88–89) and consists of four interrelated concepts: hegemonic, complicit, marginalized, and subordinated masculinity (CONNELL 1995).

Hegemonic masculinity is the ideal conception of masculinity in a given historical context. It may also be defi ned as the confi guration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted legitimation of patriarchy and is taken to guarantee the dominant position of men and the subordination of women. As such, it is likely to be established only if there is some correspondence between cultural ideals and the dominating power structures, at least on a collective level. It is not a pattern of simple domination based on force but a result of cultural consent, institutionalization, and marginalization of alternatives. Hegemonic masculinity is not a fi xed character type but rather changing structures of practice. In modern Western society these practices and ideals tend to be most visible through fi lm stars or sportsmen and are, as such, symbols more than real human beings (CONNELL 1995, 77; CONNELL – MESSERSCHMIDT 2005).

Accordingly, the majority of men do not fully meet the normative standards of the hegemonic masculinity and their actual practice corresponds only partly with the ideals. In real life, men have to consider the cost-benefi t of following the hegemonic standards. They must make compromises with other men as well as with women if social life is going to run smoothly, and they have to consider whether it is worth the effort to live up to severe and diffi cult ideals. Still most men are complicit with the hegemonic project. They support and approve the hegemonic norms and ideals, and live, act, and construct their own masculinity in manners that enable them to benefi t from, but also reproduce, the patriarchal structures which the hegemonic masculinity legitimates (CONNELL [1995] 2005, 79–80). For example, we may question whether a handsome professional football player can live up to the ideals of hegemonic masculinity in practice, but the beer-drinking supporters of sport are perhaps even more important to confi rming and reproducing the ideal and its hegemony. Even though their abilities to play football and the state of their bodies may be rather poor, the supporters sustain the importance of playing or at least show interest in football the Western European understanding of masculinity.


Hegemonic masculinity relates to cultural dominance in society as a whole and interplays with structures such as class or race; in prehistoric societies, descent probably creates further relationships between masculinities. Men who are not members of the dominant group may be marginalized from the benefi ts and status or even the possibility to accomplish hegemonic ideals. CONNELL ([1995] 2005, 80–81) points to black Americans as an example. Even if single individuals may be exemplars of hegemonic masculinity, for instance as athletes, social authority is not imparted to black men in general. Thus the marginalization of masculinity will depend on, as mentioned before, the power and authority to defi ne.

Further, there are specifi c gender relations of dominance and subordination between groups of men. Specifi c categories of men may be defi ned as hierarchically subordinated or even unmanly. CONNELL ([1995] 2005, 78–79) argues that in Western society gayness is the repository of whatever is symbolically expelled from hegemonic masculinity. In other societies, subordinated masculinities are not necessarily linked to sexuality but may, for example, comprise men who do not pass tests of manhood (GOLDSTEIN 2004).

A major strength of the theory of hegemonic masculinity is that it shows how masculinities are interrelated with other social structures and with power in society. CONNELL (1995) provides a tool to explore how different masculinities are constructed, reproduced, negotiated, or changed in relation to each other through practice. Critique has been raised that the theory creates a dichotomy between hegemonic and non-hegemonic masculinities, where the subordinated or marginalized masculinities have no effect on the construction of the hegemonic (DEMETRIOU 2001; JEFFERSON 2002; WHITEHEAD 2002). In a reply to these critiques, Connell and James W. Messerschmidt (CONNELL – MESSERSCHMIDT 2005) stress that subordinated and marginalized groups should be recognized as active agents in negotiating the content of hegemonic masculinity. Some also speak of counter-hegemonic masculinities, when men or boys actively protest against or consciously adjust hegemonic ideals to fi t their own purpose. The impact on hegemonic ideals is however dependent on the authority of those counteracting and is most effective if they already hold a privileged position (e.g. FRANK et al. 2003; MAGNUSON 2005). In other words hegemonic ideals are constantly reproduced but also renegotiated and changed, and may even incorporate elements from subordinated and marginalized masculinities (CONNELL – MESSERSCHMIDT 2005; DEMETRIOU 2001; DONALDSON 1993).

CONNELL and MESSERSCHMIDT (2005, 848) further emphasize that patterns of masculinity are often (but not universally) defi ned in distinction from some


model of femininity; therefore women’s practices are also central in the process of constructing masculinities. Change may thus arise as a dialectic within gender relations themselves as well as result from external factors, like changes in economic or technological circumstances which may provoke adjustments of masculine ideals (CONNELL 1995; DONALDSON 1993).

As with other structuration theories, this one has also been criticized for making the individual subject passive and invisible (WETHERELL – EDLEY 1999; WHITEHEAD 2002). No theory is appropriate for considering all questions, and the theory of hegemonic masculinity has its main strength as practice theory, not explaining individual constructions of identity or psychoanalytical conditions (WETHERELL – EDLEY 1999; see also JEFFERSON 2002; WHITEHEAD 2002). The theory has proved particularly useful for understanding long-term structural change and broad social contexts of gender relations (CONNELL – MESSERSCHMIDT 2005; WETHERELL – EDLEY 1999). Hence it may very well suit an archaeological approach, to which I now turn.

Hegemonic masculinities in the past

The categories on which the theory of hegemonic masculinity and ensuing contemporary studies are founded are not necessarily universally signifi cant. Consequently, masculinity in Connell’s sense may not always be relevant in prehistoric contexts (ALBERTI 2006, 405) and the different concepts within the theory must not become ready-made static categories into which prehistoric men are divided. A suggested way out of this potential trap is to understand hegemonic masculinity as discourse (CONNELL – MESSERSCHMIDT 2005; WETHERELL – EDLEY 1999). Hegemonic masculinity is then emphasized as plural, inconsistent, and achieved through discursive practices – not a fi xed set of ruling ideas. In other words, hegemonic masculinity should be understood as something that predisposes and forms – but in no way determines – men’s actions, thoughts, and identities (NEUMANN 2001; WETHERELL – EDLEY 1999, 353).

The theory of hegemonic masculinity has been criticized for taking men’s power over women for granted since the very defi nition of hegemonic masculinity relies on the assumption that men are “the ruling class” and that there is a patriarchy in need of legitimation (WHITEHEAD 2002, 91). We can by no means take for granted that men have always inhabited the most prestigious or powerful positions in any society, and, in any case, most men have not been empowered. However, the theory provides a tool to explore the gendered practices of men and


the effects of these practices as well as the dynamics of how some men’s power – not necessarily over women but also over other groups of men – may legitimate and reproduce the social relationships that generate their dominance (CARRIGAN et al. 1985, 92; CONNELL [1995] 2005, 71).

In the archeological record, we may expect representations of hegemonic masculinity to be more pronounced than marginalized or subordinated masculinities in, for example, burials or depictions. Hegemonic masculinity is, as already stated, usually established in relation to dominating power structures. In societies in which empowered groups are buried or particular male burials are used to express and legitimate power and individual status, these burials will most likely also express aspects of hegemonic masculinity. Further, burials allow for the renegotiation of identity and do not necessarily refl ect who individuals actually were. In death, people may in fact become what they have not been in life (HODDER 1982, 146). That is not to say that all male burials refl ect hegemonic masculinity. Rather, we should explore how masculinities are performed in different contexts and discuss whether they may represent aspects of hegemonic ideals and notions, how they are negotiated, and how they change. What is interesting is not to pin down the hegemonic masculinity at any time but to consider how different concepts and ideals may have related to each other and to other social structures. What may have been considered masculine in specifi c contexts? Were competing understandings of masculinity expressed, and how may they have interplayed? Did notions of masculinity produce particular conditions for individual actions? Were specifi c understandings of masculinity promoted or even manipulated for the benefi t of particular groups? How may ideas of masculinity have responded to other changes in society? Did particular notions of masculinity infl uence other social developments? All these are questions that may generate interesting discussions and lead to new knowledge about how gender structured prehistoric societies.

The preceding discussions of Brøndsted’s presentation of men illustrates that when masculinity is not questioned, masculine archetypes that represent modern ideas about the original and genuine man rule the stage (BLY 1990; CAESAR 1999b). Prehistoric men are represented by a few stereotypical characters, and any heterogeneity among men disappears. The warrior, the farmer, and the chief are presented as static templates without any contact with their own community. Some of the stereotypes that Brøndsted presents, like the chief or the warrior, probably did exist as roles in some form during various periods in the past. Still, their form, content, and function have been related to other social structures in


society in general and thus varied greatly. They have most likely been associated with notions of masculinity which, through practice, they have generated as well as been formed by, and they may have worked as symbols of hegemonic masculinity. Some roles may not have been obtainable by any man but may have been conditioned by other social relationships. As the theory of hegemonic masculinity shows, this is not a simple question of the difference between the elite and “ordinary” people. Most men have probably related to the same hegemonic masculinity, whether in a complicit, marginalized, or subordinated way, and regardless of the actual access to specifi c roles or positions.

For example, various cultures develop concepts of masculinity that motivate and induce men to fi ght. Culture after culture features rites des passages from boyhood to manhood which include passing harsh tests bravely. Boys are trained and conditioned for a warrior role and identity, and masculinity is treated as something that must be achieved and sustained by individual and collective will against the force of nature. The test of manliness may be a challenge best met in war and under a constant threat of not being a man or becoming unmanly, which in many societies has been equal to lifelong shame, loss of rights, or even death (GOLDSTEIN 2004). Especially in stratifi ed societies, the warrior-role may only have been accessible to elite men (e.g. HARDING 2007; KRISTIANSEN 1998; TREHERNE 1995), but the ideals and concepts of masculinity producing and produced by the practice of warriors (mostly preparation rather than actual warfare) probably infl uenced the behavior, ideals, and understanding of all men (GOLDSTEIN 2004). A possible consequence was that only elite men could prove their manliness through being a warrior and thus be regarded as real men, something which in turn may have justifi ed why they belonged to and constituted an elite. This illustrates how hegemonic masculinity may legitimate power and inequality between men (and women) and even be manipulated to serve the interests of those in power.

In the light of this discussion, it is interesting that weapons appear in some but far from all male burials in the Danish Early Iron Age (BRØNDSTED 1960). Still Brøndsted repeatedly considers weapon-burials and consistently under-communicates the heterogeneity of male burials in general. With a few exceptions, he discusses neither the contents nor possible interpretations of male burials without weapons. He does not estimate the ratio between weapon burials and other burials and does not address whether this changes or anything that could challenge the importance of weapons and the warrior. The warrior-archetype seems to be considered as ever-present, and there is no room for discussing alternative and


possibly competing male roles or masculine ideals. In other words, the burials might have expressed various masculinities and been used in negotiations about the hegemonic masculinity, which may refl ect tensions in society on a whole. However, in Brøndsted’s interpretations and discussions, this possibility is totally overshadowed by the warrior.

Conclusion

The invisible people of the past (MOORE – SCOTT 1997) are not only women, children, and sexual minorities but also all the men who were not chiefs, kings, or warriors. In fact, androcentric archaeology, exemplifi ed by BRØNDSTED’S (1960) The Prehistory of Denmark, does not inform us much about prehistoric men and masculinity at all. On the contrary, he transfers male archetypes and modern stereotypes to the past, and consequently the study tells us thus mainly about the archaeologist’s ideas of men, masculinity, and gender. Accordingly, there is a need to challenge both the image of men presented in traditional and androcentric archaeological studies as well as explore prehistoric masculinities as changeable cultural and social constructions.

The theory of hegemonic masculinity might be a relevant theoretical framework and useful tool to study prehistoric men and masculinities. The theory emphasizes the heterogeneity of men and explores how various masculinities relate to each other, to other social structures, and to power. Masculinities may be understood as discursive long-term practices that are produced by and reproduce but also may renegotiate the very same gendered structures.

By focusing on men and masculinity in the past we might obtain new and interesting knowledge about the gendered practices of men and their social effects. Even kings, male chiefs, and warriors acted and presented themselves according to current gendered norms and notions of masculinity. Consequently, large-scale historical processes traditionally related to men may also be understood and explored as infl uenced by and results of gendered practices. Then we can really speak of gendering the past.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to Ericka Engelstad for all the good discussions and helpful and insightful comments on preceding drafts of this manuscript.


Works Cited

ALBERTI, B. 1997Archaeology and masculinity in Bronze Age Knossos. University of Southampton, Southampton.

ALBERTI, B. 2006Archaeology, Men, and Masculinities. In: Nelson, S. M. (ed.), Handbook of Gender in Archaeology. 401–434. AltaMira, Lanham.

BLY, R. 1990Iron John: a book about men. Element, Shaftesbury.

BRØNDSTED, J. 1960Danmarks oldtid, 3. Jernalderen. Gyldendal, Copenhagen.

BUTLER, J. 1990Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge, New York.

BUTLER, J. 1993Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex”. Routledge, New York.

CAESAR, C. 1999aThe Construction of Masculinity – The Driving Force of History: A New Way of Understanding Change in the Past. Lund Archaeological Review 5, 117–136.

CAESAR, C. 1999bUrmannen – den osynliga normen. Maskulinitetsforskning inom arkeologin. In: Caesar, C. – Gustin, I. – Iregren, E. – Petersson, B. – Rudebeck, E. – Räf, E. – Ströbeck, L. (eds), Han, hon den, det. Att integrera genus och kön i arkeologi. University of Lund, Institute of Archaeology, Report 65. 115–125. University of Lund, Lund.

CARRIGAN, T. – CONNELL, R. W. – LEE, J. 1985Toward a new sociology of masculinity. Theory and Society 14, 551–604.

CONKEY, M. W. – SPECTOR, J. D. 1984Archaeology and the Study of Gender. In: Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. 1–38. Academic Press, New York.

CONNELL, R. W. 1987Gender and power: society, the person and sexual politics. Polity Press, Cambridge.


CONNELL, R. W. 1995Masculinities. Polity Press, Cambridge.

CONNELL, R. W. 2002On Hegemonic Masculinity and Violence: Response to Jefferson and Hall. Theoretical Criminology 6, 89–99.

CONNELL, R. W. [1995] 2005Masculinities, 2nd ed. Polity Press, Cambridge.

CONNELL, R. W. – MESSERSCHMIDT, J. W. 2005Hegemonic masculinity: rethinking the Concept. Gender and Society 19, 829–859.

DEMETRIOU, D. Z. 2001Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity: a critique. Theory and Society 30, 337–361.

DONALDSON, M. 1993What is hegemonic masculinity? Theory and Society 22, 643–657.

EKENSTAM, C. 1998Historisk mannsforskning. In: Ekenstam, C. – Frykman, J. – Johansson, T. – Kousomanen, Ljunggren, J. – Nilsson, A. (eds), Rädd at falla. Studier i manlighet. 19–25. Gidlund, Hedemora.

EKENSTAM, C. 2006Inledning. In: Lorentzen, J. – Ekenstam, C. (eds), Män i Norden. Manlighet och modernitet 1840–1940. 9–12. Gidlund, Hedemora.

ENGELSTAD, E. 2001Desire and body maps: all the women are pregnant, all the men are virile, but … . In: Helskog, K. (ed.), Theoretical Perspectives in Rock Art Research. 263–289. Institutt for sammenliknende kulturforskning, Novus, Oslo.

FOXHALL, L. – SALMON, J. 1998aThinking men: masculinity and its self-representation in the classical tradition. Routledge, London.

FOXHALL, L. – SALMON, J. 1998bWhen men were men: masculinity, power and identity in classical antiquity. Routledge, London.

FRANK, B. – KEHLER, M. – LOVELL, T. – DAVISON, K. 2003A Tangle of Trouble: Boys, Masculinity and Schooling – Future Directions. Educational Review 55, 119–133.

GILCHRIST, R. 1999Gender and Archaeology: Contesting the past. Routledge, London.


GOLDSTEIN, J. S. 2004War and gender: how gender shapes the war system and vice versa. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

HARDING, A. 2007Warriors and Weapons in Bronze Age Europe. Archaeolingua, Budapest.

HERDT, G. H. 1987The Sambia: Ritual and Gender in New Guinea. Harcourt Brace, Fort Worth.

HERDT, G. H. 1994Third Sex, Third Gender: Beyond Sexual Dimorphism in Culture and History. Zone Books, New York.

HJØRUNGDAL, T. 1994Poles Apart: Have There Been Any Male and Female Graves? Current Swedish Archaeology 2, 141–150.

HODDER, I. 1982The Present Past: An Introduction to Anthropology for Archaeologists. Batsford, London.

HOLTER, Ø. G. – AARSETH, H. 1993Menns livssammenheng. Ad Notam Gyldendal, Oslo.

HOWSON, R. 2006Challenging hegemonic masculinity. Routledge, London.

JEFFERSON, T. 2002Subordinating hegemonic masculinity. Theoretical Criminology 6, 63–88.

JOYCE, R. A. 2000A Precolombian Gaze: Male Sexuality among the Ancient Maya. In: Voss, B. L. – Schmidt, R. A. (eds), Archaeologies of Sexuality. 263–283. Routledge, London.

KESSLER, S. J. – ASHENDEN, D. J. – CONNELL, R. W. – DOWSETT, G. W. 1982

Ockers and Disco-maniacs: A discussion of sex, gender and secondary schooling. Inner City Education Center, Sydney.

KNAPP, A. B. 1998aWho’s come a long way, baby? Masculinist approaches to a gendered archaeology. Archaeological dialogues 5, 91–104.


KNAPP, A. B. 1998bBoys Will Be Boys: Masculinist Approaches to a Gendered Archaeology. In: Hays-Gilpin, K. – Whitley, D. S. (eds), Reader in Gender Archaeology. 365–373. Routledge, London and New York.

KRISTIANSEN, K. 1998Europe before history. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

MAGNUSON, E. 2005Cultural Discourse in Action: Interactional Dynamics and Symbolic Meaning. Qualitative Sociology 28, 371–398.

MESKELL, L. 1999Archaeologies of social life: age, sex, class et cetera in ancient Egypt. Blackwell, Oxford.

MOI, T. 1999What is a woman? and other essays. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

MOORE, H. L. 1994A Passion for Difference: Essays in Anthropology and Gender. Polity Press, Cambridge.

MOORE, J. – SCOTT, E. M. (eds) 1997Invisible People and Processes: Writing Gender and Childhood into European Archaeology. Leicester University Press, London.

NEUMANN, I. B. 2001Mening, materialitet, makt: en innføring i diskursanalyse. Fagbokforlaget, Bergen.

SKOGSTRAND, L. 2006I krig og evighet? Kjønnsideologiske forestillinger i yngre bronsealder og eldre førromersk jernalder belyst gjennom graver og helleristninger i Østfold. In: Prescott, C. (ed.), Kjønnsideologi og kosmografi i den østnorske bronsealder. Oslo arkeologiske serie 6. 7–168. Unipub, Oslo.

SØRENSEN, M. L. S. 2000Gender Archaeology. Polity Press, Cambridge.

SØRENSEN, M. L. S. 2006Gender, Things, and Material Culture. In: Nelson, S. M. (ed.), Handbook of Gender in Archaeology. 105–135. AltaMira, Lanham.

TREHERNE, P. 1995The Warrior’s Beauty: The Masculine Body and Self Identity in Bronze Age Europe. Journal of European Archaeology 3, 105–144.


VINSRYGG, S. 1987Sex-roles and the division of labour in hunting-gathering societies. In: Bertelsen, R. – Lillehammer, A. – Næss, J.-R. (eds), Were they all men? An examination of sex roles in prehistoric society: Acts from a workshop held at Utstein kloster, Rogaland 2.–4. november 1979 (NAM-forskningsseminar 1). 23–32. Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger, Stavanger.

WELINDER, S. 1997Att väksa upp til man på stenåldern. In: Johnsen, B. – Welinder, S. (eds), Gender och arkeologi. 63–87. Mitthögskolan, Östersund.

WETHERELL, M. – EDLEY, N. 1999Negotiating Hegemonic Masculinity: Imaginary Positions and Psycho-Discursive Practices. Feminism and psychology 9, 335–356.

WHITE, S. 2000“Did the earth move?” The hazards of bringing men and masculinities into gender and development. IDA Bulletine 31, 33–41.

WHITEHEAD, S. M. 2002Men and masculinities: key themes and new directions. Polity Press, Cambridge.

WYLIE, A. 1991Gender Theory and the Archaeological Record: Why Is There No Archaeology of Gender? In: Gero, J. M. – Conkey, M. W. (eds), Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. 31–54. Blackwell, Oxford.

YATES, T. 1993Frameworks for an Archaeology of the Body. In: Tilley, C. (ed.), Interpret-ative Archaeology. 31–72. Berg Publishers, Oxford.

Contents

Preface ................................................................................................................ 7

PART ONE

LIV HELGA DOMMASNES – NANCY L. WICKERSituating Gender in European Archaeologies: Introduction ......................... 11

SANDRA MONTÓN-SUBÍASMaintenance Activities and the Ethics of Care ............................................ 23

LISBETH SKOGSTRANDPrehistoric Hegemonic Masculinities .......................................................... 35

LIV HELGA DOMMASNESSituating Standpoints: A Gendered Approach to Norwegian Research History .............................. 51

NANCY L. WICKERSituating Scandinavian Migration Period Bracteates: From Typology and Iconography to Gender, Agency, and Visual Culture ........................................................................................ 67

CHRISTINE MORRISThoroughly Modern Minoans: Women and Goddesses between Europe and the Orient ............................. 83

NONA PALINCAŞLiving for the Others: Gender Relations in Prehistoric and Contemporary Archaeology of Romania ..................................................... 93

VESNA MERCLooking behind the Dead Objects: Gender and Archaeology in Slovenia ......................................................... 117

ANA VALETranslating Materials into Activities and Activities into Persons: The Persistence of Gender Prejudices in Past Narratives in the Iberian Peninsula .............................................................................. 137

PART TWO

SANDRA MONTÓN-SUBÍAS – MARGARITA SÁNCHEZ ROMEROSituating Gender in European Archaeologies: Case Studies ..................... 157

NATALIA BERSENEVAChild Burial during the Middle Bronze Age of the South Urals (Sintashta Culture) ....................................................... 161

IRINA SHINGIRAYGender, Identity, and Display: Variations in Materiality among Different Groups of the North-Western Caspian Region during the Early Middle Ages .................................................................... 181

LOURDES PRADOSGender and Identity in Iberian Funerary Contexts (5th–3rd century BC) ... 205

MARIA MINAIn Search of the Cycladic Hunter-warrior: Evidence and Implications for the Understanding of Gender Construction and Roles in the Early Bronze Age Aegean ................................................................ 225

GITTE HANSENNew Pathways for Women in Twelfth-century Bergen, Norway? ............. 245

EVA ALARCÓN GARCÍA – MARGARITA SÁNCHEZ ROMEROMaintenance Activities as a Category for Analysing Prehistoric Societies ................................................................. 261

ALMUDENA HERNANDOGender, Individual, and Affi ne/Consanguineal Relationships in “Egalitarian Societies”: The Awá-Guajá Case ........................................... 283

Biographies .................................................................................................... 308

Prehistoric Hegemonic Masculinities

Documents

Transcript of Prehistoric Hegemonic Masculinities