Edited by Katina T. Lillios

ArchaeologiesComparative

The American Southwest (AD 900–1600)and the Iberian Peninsula (3000–1500 BC)

Comparative Archaeologies

The American Southwest (AD 900–1600)

and the Iberian Peninsula

(3000–1500 BC)

edited by Katina T. Lillios

Oxbow Books Oxford & Oakville

Published by Oxbow Books, Oxford, UK

This book is available direct from

Oxbow Books, Oxford, UK(Phone 01865-241249; Fax 01865-794449)

and

The David Brown Book CompanyPO Box 511, Oakville, CT 06779, USA(Phone 860-945-9329; Fax 860-945-9468)

or from our website

www.oxbowbooks.com

@ 2011 by Katina T. Lillios

ISBN: 978-1-935488-26-2

Cataloging data available from the Library of Congress.A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library.

Text type 11 pt Minion Pro

Display type Gill Sans

Printed in the United States on acid-free paper.

Contents

List of Illustrations viiList of Tables viiiPreface ix

1 Comparative Archaeology: Archaeology’s Responsibility 1 by Timothy Earle

2 Bridging Histories: The Archaeology of Chaco and Los Millares 21 by Stephen H. Lekson and Pedro Díaz-del-Río

3 The Southwest, Iberia, and their Worlds 25 by Stephen H. Lekson

4 Labor in the Making of Iberian Copper Age Lineages 37 by Pedro Díaz-del-Río

5 Bridging Landscapes 57 by Peter N. Peregrine and Leonardo García Sanjuán

6 The North American Postclassic Oikoumene: AD 900–1200 63 by Peter N. Peregrine

7 Transformations, Invocations, Echoes, Resistance: The Assimilation of the Past in Southern Iberia (5th to 1st Millennia BC) 81 by Leonardo García Sanjuán

8 Bridging Bodies 103 by Ventura R. Pérez and Estella Weiss-Krejci

9 Rethinking Violence: Behavioral and Cultural Implications for Ancestral Pueblo Populations (AD 900–1300) 121 by Ventura R. Pérez

10 Changing Perspectives on Mortuary Practices in Late Neolithic/ Copper Age and Early Bronze Age Iberia 153 by Estella Weiss-Krejci

vi

11 Bridging Gender 175 by Marit K. Munson and Rui Boaventura

12 Gender, Art, and Ritual Hierarchy in the Ancient Pueblos of the Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico 189 by Marit K. Munson

13 Bodies in Motion: Implications of Gender in Long-Distance Exchange between the Lisbon and Alentejo Regions of Portugal in the Late Neolithic 209 by Rui Boaventura

14 Bridging Art 221 by Jill E. Neitzel and Sara Fairén Jiménez

15 Mixed Messages: Art and Leadership in the Late Prehispanic Southwest 229 by Jill E. Neitzel

16 Sites, Practices, and the Social Landscape of Rock Art in Mediterranean Iberia during the Neolithic and Copper Age 257 by Sara Fairén Jiménez

17 Conclusions 277 by Katina T. Lillios

List of Contributors 293

vii

FIG. 1 Map of North America. xFIG. 2 Map of the Iberian Peninsula xii FIG. 4.1 Main Copper Age Iberian sites cited in text 38FIG. 4.2 Andarax valley survey. 42FIG. 4.3 Schematic occupation pattern at Los Millares. 44FIG. 4.4 Construction dynamics of the fi rst line of Los Millares. 46FIG. 4.5 House plans from Los Millares, to scale. 39FIG. 4.6 Relation between excavated square meters and total number of recovered faunal remains from Los Millares. 49FIG. 6.1 Plot showing the percent of archaeological traditions in the New World with settlements with more than 400 residents. 67FIG. 6.2 Strategies of containment. 69FIG. 6.3 The Distribution of selected artifacts in the Post-Classic Era. 72FIG. 6.4 The North American Postclassic oikoumene, ca. ad 1000. 74FIG. 6.5 The North American Postclassic oikoumene, ca. ad 1400. 75FIG. 7.1 Dolmen de Soto (Huelva, Spain). 84FIG. 7.2 Tholos de Las Canteras (Sevilla, Spain). 89FIG. 7.3 Stela from Talavera de la Reina (Toledo, Spain). 90FIG. 7.4 Tomb 14 at the megalithic necropolis of Las Peñas de los Gitanos (Granada, Spain). 95FIG. 7.5 Stela from Chillón (Ciudad Real, Spain). 96FIG. 10.1 Hypogeum Monte Canelas 1, Algarve. 159FIG. 10.2 Tholos xxi from Los Millares, Almería. 161FIG. 10.3 The “hut fl oor” of Cabaña xiii at Polideportivo de Martos. 162FIG. 10.4 Burial 80 at Fuente Álamo, Almería. 163FIG. 10.5 Cueva de Gobaederra in the Basque region. 165FIG. 12.1 Map of the northern Rio Grande Valley, showing major sites. 190FIG. 12.2 Classic period Rio Grande ceramics. 192FIG. 12.3 Large bear from San Cristobal Pueblo. 193FIG. 12.4 Kiva wall mural from the site of Kuaua. 194FIG. 12.5 Awanyu motif and horned serpent petroglyph. 195FIG. 15.1 Reconstruction of Cline Terrace Platform Mound, Tonto Basin, Arizona (ad 1320–1420). 232FIG. 15.2 Reconstruction of Pueblo Bonito Great House, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico (ad 1070–1115). 235FIG. 15.3 Hohokam man with shell and turquoise jewelry. 237

Illustrations

viii

FIG. 15.4 Turquoise inlaid cylinder basket from Pueblo Bonito, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. 239FIG. 15.5 Salado polychrome bowl. 242FIG. 16.1 Distribution of Neolithic rock art styles in the Iberian Peninsula. 259FIG. 16.2 Chronological sequence of development of the rock art styles. 260FIG. 16.3 Calculation of least-cost paths. 264FIG. 16.4 Cumulative visibility indexes along the optimal paths. 265FIG. 17.1 The relative sizes of the American Southwest and the Iberian Peninsula. 280

Tables

TABLE 4.1 Mammal remains following Peters and Driesch (1990). 48TABLE 14.1 Trial comparison of labor investment in different art forms. 226TABLE 16.1 Variables associated with the different kinds of rock art sites. 262

ix

Preface

Archaeology has become a fi eld of epistemological ice fl oes, which occasionally bump into each other, but more oft en than not, glide silently past each other. Th ere are many cleavages in archaeology, with the processual-postprocessual (or evolutionary-postprocessual) debate oft en used as a singular opposition to organize a range of theo-retical tensions. However, this framing not only masks an enormous range of hybrid-ity in actual archaeological practice, it refl ects a parochial vision of archaeology, as the debate has been primarily an Anglo-American concern. If archaeology is to become a truly global enterprise, archaeologists need to acknowledge and more actively engage with the diverse histories and practices of national and indigenous archaeologies. Th is volume contributes toward this end with a new approach to comparative archaeology that explicitly engages the distinctive archaeologies and archaeologists of two regions of the world — the Southwest and the Iberian Peninsula — in the common goal of explor-ing the dynamics and historical trajectories of complex societies.

Comparative Archaeologies is the product of an Obermann Summer Seminar held at the University of Iowa in June 2006. Th e seminar was organized and directed by William (Billy) Graves, a Southwest archaeologist and my former colleague in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Iowa, and myself, an anthropologically trained archaeologist who has studied the late prehistoric societies of the Iberian Peninsula since the mid-1980s. Over the period of the nine-day seminar, 15 archaeologists from the United States, Portugal, Spain, and Austria worked together to share research, to educate each other, and to vigorously debate new ideas. By the end of the seminar, intel-lectual blindspots were revealed, potentially fruitful research questions were illuminated, and — most importantly — a deeper understanding of the entanglement between history and knowledge production in North American and European archaeology emerged.

Th e idea for Comparative Archaeologies began in a chance conversation I had with Billy Graves one aft ernoon in the spring of 2005. For reasons now forgotten to me, we found ourselves talking about pottery design while walking to the Anthropology Department main offi ce to pick up our mail. As we talked, we recognized many parallels between the archaeological record of the Southwest and the Iberian Peninsula, but we also realized we were largely unfamiliar with the archaeology of each other’s area. Th is unfamiliarity left us with a lingering sense of unease. Despite our broad training in an-thropological archaeology in North American institutions, the scholarly communities with which we found ourselves primarily interacting — Southwest archaeologists and Europeanists — seemed to be largely unaware of the other’s work.

x

G r e at B

a si n

Gr e

a t

P la i

n s

Mississippi River

Rio Gr

ande

Colorado River

see

inse

t

Me

xic

o

Pa

cifi

cO

cea

nG

ulf

of

Me

xic

o

Un

it

ed

S

ta

te

s

of

A

me

ri

ca

Cultu

ral A

reas

Anas

azi

Hoho

kam

Mog

ollon

010

0

100

200

200

300

mi

300

km0

Pove

rty Po

int

Caho

kia

Tula

Teot

ihuac

án

Paqu

imé

Salt R

iver G

ila R

iver

Mes

a Ver

de

Chac

o Ca

nyon

San J

uan

Basin

Color

ado R

iver

Rio Grande

San

Juan

Basin

Salt R

iver G

ila R

iver

Mes

a Ver

de

Chac

o Ca

nyon

Color

ado R

iver

Rio Grande

San

Juan

Ba

sin

FIG. 1 Map of North America, with main sites and regions referred to throughout the book.

xi

At around the same time as this conversation, I was teaching a graduate seminar in Archaeological Th eory and Method for which, among other texts, I had assigned Timothy Earle’s 1997 book How Chiefs Comes to Power. Th e book provided an intel-lectual space in which students from the diff erent subfi elds of anthropology could react to and draw from. Aft er our discussion of Earle’s book ended, however, I found myself increasingly wondering how our understanding of intermediate-level societies would be diff erent if the ethnographies of the Pacifi c, North and South America, and Africa had not been available to serve as comparative models for our thinking about diverse cultural phenomena, such as material culture and exchange, power and inequality, and social evolution. While comparisons between, specifi cally, Pacifi c societies and ancient complex societies have generated a wealth of productive literature, the particular condi-tions of the Pacifi c — its island ecosystems, regular long-distance navigation and island colonization, and the ruptures associated with European colonialism — structure these ethnographic accounts and, surely, those archaeological analyses articulated to them.

In subsequent conversations, Billy and I discussed how historical contingencies, such as nineteenth- and twentieth-century European colonialism, have played into archaeo-logical understandings of complex societies, and we began to contemplate the insights that might be gained by creating new comparative points of reference in archaeology. Th inking back to our original exchange, we wondered how we might engage the in-sights of anthropologically trained Southwest archaeologists with historically trained Iberianists toward better understanding the dynamics of complex, non-state societ-ies. We put together a proposal for a seminar and — to our delight — we were awarded funds from the University of Iowa Obermann Center for Advanced Studies to orga-nize Comparative Archaeologies: Th e American Southwest (ad 900–1600) and the Iberian Peninsula (3000–1500 bc).

Th is volume, based on the revised and expanded papers written for the seminar, is comparative at two levels: empirical and epistemological. At the empirical level, there are many parallels between the archaeologies of the Southwest between ad 900–1600 and the Iberian Peninsula between 3000–1500 bc that make their comparison ap-propriate. Human populations in both areas were engaged in a common set of social and political behaviors, including social diff erentiation, long-distance exchange, craft production, population aggregation, agricultural intensifi cation, and the construction of monumental ritual spaces. Some of these parallels are likely due to similar environ-mental regimes, particularly the constraints imposed by the arid landscapes found in both regions. Th e common need to access key raw materials and fi nished goods while maintaining a relatively stable agricultural community may also account for some of the similarities. Recently, Stephen Lekson wrote, “Southwestern archaeology sometimes appears obsessed with complexity” (Lekson 2005: 236); Iberian archaeology could well be accused of the same (see Chapter 5). Th ere are also historical parallels between these two areas: aft er an enduring tradition of decentralized political organization, ancient populations in both regions were subjected to colonial rule — in the Southwest by the Spaniards in the sixteenth century ad, and in the Iberian Peninsula by Rome in the third century bc. As subjects of archaeological inquiry, both regions have long and distin-guished pedigrees, beginning in the nineteenth century.

xii

Ebro

River

Dour

o R i

ver

Tagu

s Riv

er

Guad

iana

Riv

er

Guad

alqu

ivir

Rive

r

Sado RiverSer

ra d

aAr

rábi

da

Serra

de

São

Mam

ede

S

ie

rr

a

M

or

en

a

Me

dit

err

an

ea

nS

ea

Atl

an

tic

Oce

an

Ba

y o

f B

isca

y(A

tla

nti

c O

cea

n)

Sp

ai

nPo

rtug

al

Alen

tejo

Alga

rve

Estrem

adura

Cast

ile –

La M

anch

a

Anda

lusia

Extre

mad

ura

0 0

50

50

100

100

mi

km

Perd

igões

Lece

ia

Zam

bujal

Vila N

ova d

eSã

o Ped

ro

La Pi

jotilla

Terre

ra Ve

ntur

aLo

s Milla

res

El Ar

gar

Valen

cina d

e la

Conc

epció

n

Mar

roqu

íesBa

jos

FIG. 2 Map of the Iberian Peninsula, with main sites and regions referred to throughout the book.

xiii

In addition to this empirical comparison and in contrast to many comparative en-terprises in archaeology, Billy and I also sought to engage diff erent epistemologies and national traditions of archaeological research in our seminar. We were particularly keen on highlighting their diff erences and on fi nding common agendas for future research.

Distinctive archaeologies in the Iberian Peninsula and the Southwest have emerged not only owing to diff erences in the material record, but also because of the more recent political histories of Iberia and the Southwest. Archaeologists of the Southwest have played a key role in American anthropology for generating broad insights into social evolution. Th e ability of Southwest archaeologists to make historical connections to ethnohistoric and ethnographically documented human groups, to employ a range of fi ne-grained dating techniques, such as dendrochronology and ceramic seriation, and to reconstruct detailed environmental histories, through dendrochronology and packrat midden analysis, have also facilitated a nuanced narrative for the ancient Southwest. Archaeologists of late prehistoric Iberia, by virtue of the rich and highly varied archae-ology of the Peninsula, have also made key contributions to more historically-oriented debates in Europe on the emergence of social inequality, politics and archaeology, mega-liths, rock art, metallurgy, and the beaker phenomenon. Chronological control, how-ever, is not as fi ne-grained as for the Southwest, and Iberianists must work with more expansive periodizations of a few hundred years. Th ere are also no closely related living peoples with whom the archaeological populations of the third and second millennia bc might be compared.

Comparative Archaeologies is, therefore, not only about archaeologies, but also about archaeologists, who, while committed to a common set of problems, draw from diff erent national traditions. It represents a complementary form of comparative archaeology that recognizes and embraces the totalities and historicities of past societies of similar forms, while refl exively focusing on in-depth and nuanced comparisons of multiple themes.

Th is volume is organized around fi ve themes — Histories, Landscapes, Bodies, Gender, and Art. Th ese themes were selected because they provide broad intellectual canvases on which a range of theoretical perspectives from both Americanist and Europeanist traditions had contributed and which, together, would generate a relatively coherent understanding of current research on our two culture areas. For each theme, two chap-ters — one written by a Southwest archaeologist and one by an Iberianist — are included. Each pair of chapters is introduced by a bridging chapter, coauthored by the two scholars who wrote the chapters on that theme. Th ese bridging chapters were written aft er the seminar was completed, and in addition to providing an introduction to the subsequent chapters, they refl ect emergent engagements that developed between the two regional approaches to archaeology as a result of the seminar.

Timothy Earle, an archaeologist long dedicated to comparative archaeology, intro-duces this volume. His chapter provides a historical context to our project and identifi es some of its strengths and weaknesses. In the Conclusion (Chapter 17), I expand on the volume’s goals, discuss the benefi ts and pitfalls of comparative research, and explore how this volume has contributed to the comparative enterprise and to the study of complex societies.

xiv

Th is volume — and the seminar on which it is based — are, in various ways, experi-mental. For example, the order of the chapters diff ers from the sequence in which they were delivered at the seminar. At the seminar, Billy and I wanted to experiment with the usual structure of archaeological narrative, which generally begins with (and implicitly privileges) the material conditions of a culture, such as environment and economics, and concludes with those aspects of culture more closely tied to ideology and cognition, such as art and religion. Th us, the seminar itself began with the papers on Art, then pro-ceeded to Gender, Bodies, Landscapes, and Histories. At the conclusion of the seminar, when the structure for this book was discussed, the participants felt that the traditional materialist-idealist narrative sequence would work better for the publication. Billy and I felt that the experimental order had served its purpose, and we were willing to shift the themes back to a more conventional order for this book.

Th e contributors of this volume were all seminar participants and were selected through a competitive process involving an international call-for-papers. Billy and I sought scholars who had a demonstrated expertise in their thematic topic and a proven interest in comparative research. We also invited three keynote speakers to present pa-pers. Tim Earle provided a historical refl ection on comparative archaeology, and Barbara Mills and Antonio Gilman provided summary culture histories for the Southwest and Iberian Peninsula, respectively, in order to orient the seminar participants. For this vol-ume, however, we felt that the two area summaries were less critical and would have lengthened the book considerably; thus, they were not included. Th e presence and par-ticipation of Barbara and Antonio, however, were central to the success of the semi-nar — and their thoughtful provocations are indirectly refl ected in all the papers in this volume.

Th ree meta-themes emerge as central to this volume — and could well be taken as key leitmotifs in archaeological research on middle-range societies: History, Scale, and Power. I briefl y introduce them here; in the Conclusion, I discuss them in greater depth.

History is entangled with archaeology at a number of analytical levels — and it be-came increasingly clear, as the seminar progressed, that archaeologists need to consider history at all these levels. First, histories of nations and regions shape the institutional structures that create and legitimate archaeological knowledge. Th e histories of research in diff erent areas of the world are also central to understanding trajectories of thought. In the bridging chapters, the authors of this volume outline the history of research on their particular topics in order to better frame and contextualize their chapters (as well as to suggest areas of future research). Finally, the role of history — or the historical an-tecedents — to the archaeological peoples we study is increasingly being recognized as an explanatory variable to consider. Sometimes linked to memory studies, historical ap-proaches to ancient societies have an important role to play in understanding emerging social inequalities — specifi cally, with respect to how people invoke their histories to le-gitimate actions, create ancestral genealogies, construct identities, or to claim territory.

Scale — both temporal and spatial — and determining appropriate and productive scales of analysis emerged as another critical dimension in our analyses. While com-parative analyses in archaeology tend to focus on the level of the settlement system or culture area, comparisons between individual sites in diff erent culture areas may also

xv

draw out key insights to distinctive cultural particularities (as Lekson and Díaz-del-Río illustrate in Chapters 4 and 5).

Finally, power — in its diverse forms and materializations — was, not surprisingly, a common thread throughout the papers. Although focused on the exploration of histo-ries, landscapes, gendered behaviors and artifacts, the treatment of bodies, and art in the ancient Southwest and Iberian Peninsula, the authors of this volume also grapple with the central issue of how power was created, legitimated, and resisted.

Th is book is the fi nal product of an extended project that began in 2005 with the planning of the 2006 seminar, and it has benefi ted from the energies and commitment of many individuals and institutions. I wish to thank Billy Graves, the seminar’s co-di-rector, for his invaluable insights and collaboration during the seminar. Th e Obermann Center for Advanced Studies provided not only the generous funding but the adminis-trative support that made the seminar and this resulting volume possible. I am deeply grateful to Jay Semel, Director of the Obermann Center for Advanced Studies, and the Obermann Center staff , particularly Carolyn Frisbie, Jennifer New, and Karla Tonella for all their help. I wish to thank University of Iowa students Anna Waterman, Jonathan T. Th omas, John Willman, and Jody Hepperly for all their assistance during the seminar. Jonathan Th omas also aided in the preparation of this volume. I am grateful to Tim Earle, Leonardo García Sanjuán, Antonio Gilman, and Barbara Mills for their sage input and critical feedback on this volume. Jill Neitzel provided the perfect balance of constructive advice, counsel, and moral support in the fi nal stages of this book’s production. Finally, I wish to thank all the seminar participants for their enthusiasm, their goodwill, and their contributions.

References

Earle, T.1997 How Chiefs Come to Power: Th e Po-

litical Economy in Prehistory. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto.

Lekson, S. H. 2005 Chaco and Paquimé: Complexity, His-

tory, Landscape. Pp. 235–72 in North American Archaeology, edited by T. R. Pauketat and D. D. Loren. Blackwell, Oxford.

175

Gendered research in archaeology began largely as a political act, as part of an agenda that a relatively small number of individuals pursued out of the conviction that critical examination of gender in an archaeological context could expose and perhaps help alleviate gender inequity in the present. Because the research was, in many ways, both personal and political, the early reach of engendered archaeology was idiosyncratic, based on individual researchers’ interest and expertise. In some parts of the world and some time periods, as in the US Southwest, gender has become a part of mainstream archaeology; in other areas, such as in parts of the Iberian Peninsula, it is just beginning to be studied. Th is chapter outlines the history of gendered archaeology in these two areas, considers diff erences in goals and approaches on both sides of the Atlantic, and identifi es some areas of common interest that have considerable potential for comparative work in the future.

Histories of Research

Gender research in the Americas exploded in the 1990s, prompted in part by infl uen-tial early work by Conkey (1984) and Gero (1989). Edited volumes on gender in the archaeological record of the Americas proliferated (for example, Claassen and Joyce 1997; Wright 1996), while archaeologists working in Europe began to link gender and age as seldom-discussed “invisible” aspects of ancient lives (Moore and Scott 1997). Th is increasing focus on gender in archaeology was part of an openly feminist program of research, which began partly as a reaction to male bias in previous generations: women (and they were almost entirely women) began documenting gender inequality in rep-resentations of the past (that is, textbooks, magazine articles, museum exhibits) and inequity within the profession.

Bridging Gender

Marit K. Munson and Rui Boaventura

Chapter 11

176 11. BRIDGING GENDER

When archaeologists turned to gender in the past, they struggled to justify the topic and to create the methods needed for studying a subject that was perceived as either unimportant or unknowable. Drawing on other disciplines, archaeologists adopted defi -nitions of sex and gender that distinguished between biological and cultural defi nitions of individuals (Herdt 1994). Gender, in this view, is performative; individuals construct their own gender through means such as dress, hairstyle, makeup, posture, tone of voice, and other qualities (Butler 1993; Lorber 1994; Morric 1995). Th is defi nition, combined with cross-cultural analogy, opened the door for gendered research, resulting in a con-siderable body of research that identifi ed females or women in prehistory, an approach that has since been characterized as “add women and stir.”

As researchers began to consider the implications of gender as performative, they be-gan to shift their focus from documenting gender roles and activities to the consider-ation of status hierarchies and gender ideologies. Th is recent research combines multiple lines of evidence to consider the lived experiences of both women and men, and to examine the beliefs of diff erent peoples about the nature and signifi cance of gender (for example, Crown 2000b). Th e process of engendering archaeology has since become part of a larger particularistic movement to consider the individual in the past. Such research focuses on multiple aspects of diff erence among individuals, such as gender, life-cycle, class, ethnicity, and sexuality.

Archaeologists in the US Southwest became engaged in gendered research early on, amassing an impressive array of literature by the mid-1990s (see Crown 2000a for ex-amples). Most of this research, however, circulated primarily within the Southwest, with relatively little notice by archaeologists working in other portions of the Americas (Rautman 1997 is a notable exception). Th is situation changed dramatically with the publication of Patricia Crown’s Women and Men in the Prehispanic Southwest (2000b). Based on a 1997 Advanced Seminar at the School of American Research, this edited vol-ume systematically and thoroughly examines gender through time and across space in the Southwest. It quickly became the defi nitive volume on gendered archaeology in the Southwest, to the extent that much of the archaeological research in the Southwest now takes gender into account at a certain level. More recent volumes have examined gender in concert with other aspects of “diff erence,” such as childhood (Kamp 2002).

Studies from the US and the UK ultimately infl uenced gender research in Portugal and Spain. Towards the end of the twentieth century, a few meetings and publications focused on gender (Alarcão et al. 2000; Díaz-Andreu and Sorensen 1998; González Marcen 2000a, 2000b) and pointed out how biased research had been in Iberia until then (Jorge 1997; Querol et al. 2000; Sánchez Liranzo 2000). However, the spread of gender studies is not even throghout Iberia. In fact, these studies on the periods dis-cussed in this book have mostly been developed in several regions of Spain, namely the southeastern and eastern regions of Iberia (Castro Martinez et al. 1993–1994; Castro Martinez et al. 2006; Sanahuja Yll 2002; Sánchez Romero 2005a; Soler Mayor 2006) and keep fl orishing (Escoriza Mateu et al. 2008; González Marcén et al. 2007; Sanahuja Yll 2007; Diaz-Andreu and Montón Subias, forthcoming). Regarding Portugal, despite the Th ird Peninsular Conference in 1999 (Alarcão et al. 2000), held in Portugal, where some papers on gender studies were presented (by Spanish researchers), gender in the ancient

11. BRIDGING GENDER 177

past has not been addressed as of yet. One notable exception, prior to the 1999 meet-ing, is that of V. Jorge and S. Jorge (S. Jorge 1996; 1997; 2005; V. Jorge 1997), who have approached the subject from an epistemological point of view. More recently, M. Diniz (2006) discussed this subject in general terms.

One explanation for the rarity of these studies in Portugal, and in other parts of Iberia in general, can be related to the few decades of democracy — just a generation removed from dictatorships. In Portugal, the Estado Novo, incarnated by António Salazar, lasted from 1926 until 1974, and in Spain Francisco Franco ruled from 1939 until 1975. Neither political regime was keen on adopting new ideas, especially if they contradicted the tra-ditional models of “submissive woman” and “provider man,” as prescribed for example by Salazar’s trilogy Deus, Pátria e Família — God, Fatherland and Family (Medina 1993). Th ese ideas were so imbedded in people’s minds (and in academia too) that they have only been changing slowly.

Th e incipient theoretical concerns and a persistent cultural historicism and material-ism in approaches to archaeology, more frequent in Portuguese researchers, have also conditioned the adoption of new frames of reference. Nevertheless, some Marxist ar-chaeologists have attempted to merge such theoretical approaches with gender (Castro Martinez et al. 1993–1994; Castro Martinez et al. 2006; Sanahuja Yll 1997; Sánchez Liranzo 2005).

Another explanation for the lack of studies on gender can be explained in the data itself. It is very diffi cult to sex or gender activities from the past based on the archaeo-logical record. In fact, for a considerable portion of the Iberian Peninsula, there is no skeletal information due to taphonomic processes that prevent the preservation of those remains. Where they exist, such studies have been conducted and some results are com-ing to light (De Miguel 2006). A few archaeologists from the southeastern and eastern areas of Iberia have engaged in these studies, such as the ones mentioned in this volume (see Boaventura in this volume). In some regions of Portugal (Algarve and Estremadura), certain areas have a better preservation rate of bones due to soil alkalinity, which has made it possible to sex human remains (Silva 1996a, 1996b, 2002, 2003). However, de-spite this potential for information, these studies have not incorporated any analyses of gender. One explanation for this is the diffi culty of associating individuals with specifi c artifacts in the collective burials typical of the Iberian Late Neolithic.

Another reason why gender has not been dealt with is also epistemological: archaeol-ogy in Portugal (and Spain) is less a social science (interested in social structures, ex-planations for inequalities, etc.) than a humanistic discipline. In addition, the new gen-eration of archaeologists has more oft en become ‘dirt archaeologists’ than researchers concerned with theoretical approaches.

But there were/are other manifestations of ‘gender’ than through skeletal remains. Indeed, the discussions of a Mother Goddess cult in Iberia (and Europe) (Gimbutas 1974, 1989, 1991, 2001) are based on representational art (see below). Also, weaving technolo-gies and its social implications were by tradition addressed as a female task (Alfaro Giner 1984). So, it is not as though some Iberian researchers have failed to deal with gender at all; rather, they have not problematized gender, rendering it invisible.

178 11. BRIDGING GENDER

Major Themes for Comparison

Depictions

Engendered research in Iberia and the Southwest relies most heavily on cross-cultural regularities and ethnographic analogy, with supporting evidence from the archaeologi-cal record. Th e most direct lines of evidence regarding sex and gender are twofold: the bodies of individuals and depictions of individuals. Bodies can oft en be sexed based on dimorphic characteristics; unless there is evidence to the contrary, most researchers as-sume that the sex and gender of individuals coincides, such that males are assumed to be masculine in gender and females are assumed to be feminine in gender. Knowing the sex of bodies can provide direct insight into the treatment of individuals during life, through studies of health, nutrition, and trauma (Martin 2000). Studies of mortuary treatment provide additional information about gender ideologies and treatment of individuals at death (Neitzel 2000; Sanahuja Yll 2006). Th ese subjects are treated at greater length in Pérez and Weiss-Krejci’s chapters in this volume.

Images of people are the second important line of direct evidence regarding sex and gender in the past. Representations of the human fi gure are common in the Southwest, particularly in the rock art and fi gurines of most time periods, in ceramics from the Mimbres, Hohokam, and Paquimé areas, and in kiva murals from the Ancient Pueblos of the 14th–16th centuries ad (see Hays-Gilpin 2000 for an overview). Some of these human fi gures are depicted in ways that suggest biological sex, such as images including geni-tals, breasts, or beards. Th e proportion of sexed images varies considerably through time and space; Hohokam ceramics seldom indicate sex, while about one third of humans on Classic Mimbres ceramics are clearly male or female. Many individuals who are not depicted with sexual indicators were almost certainly gendered through their postures, accoutrements, hairstyles, or other elements that would have made the indication of sex unnecessary. Although we do not know, in most cases, how gender was indicated, a few studies have uncovered gendered principles in representation, as in Hays-Gilpin’s (2002) identifi cation of hair whorls as gendered feminine over long time periods and great spaces in the Southwest, or Munson’s (2000) study of gender indicators on Mimbres ceramics.

In Iberia, images of genders in material culture can be found mostly in rock art (see Fairén Jiménez, this volume). Besides these, another possible depiction of gender could be found in the representation of slate, limestone, bone, and clay fi gurines normally at-tributed to the Mother Goddess (Gimbutas 1974, 1989, 1991, 2001; Gonçalves 1995, 1999), based on interpretations of some of their characteristics as “breasts” and “pudenda,” or some other less evident as “facial tattooing.” Found within agricultural societies, these fi gurines were interpreted as related with fertility cults.

Male statuettes made out of bone and limestone, presenting what it seems to be a phallus, have been found in southern regions of Iberia, namely in Badajoz (Hurtado Perez 1981; Hurtado Perez and Perdigones 1984) and in the Guadalquivir River basin, such as in Seville (Fernández Gómez and Oliva Alonso 1980), but they are absent from the regions in study. However, their chronology seems to be attributed mostly to the second half of the third millennia bc (Hurtado Perez 1995).

11. BRIDGING GENDER 179

During the Bronze Age of Iberia, visual culture is largely aniconic and, thus, depic-tions of males and females are rare.

Division of Labor

Th e division of labor between men and women is oft en one of the fi rst topics that archae-ologists consider when engendering the past. Researchers in Iberia and the Southwest, for example, are interested in understanding the degree to which labor was divided by gender, as is typical in virtually every known culture. What were the specifi cs of that division?

In the Southwest, the division of labor has been the subject of considerable research, and there is general consensus about the involvement of the genders in major tasks. Evidence from bodies, burial assemblages, and depictions indicates that women through the Southwest probably had primary responsibility for producing ceramics and for pre-paring food, including grinding corn and cooking. Activities that were likely the prov-ince of men included hunting large game and weaving (especially in kivas, or religious structures; see papers in Crown 2000b). Most of these tasks fall along expected cross-cultural variation, although the fact that men were primarily the weavers is unusual in comparison to other parts of the world. Although child care is oft en assumed to be a women’s task and tending crops is commonly thought to be men’s work, there is little evidence to confi rm either assumption. Some tasks, such as making stone tools, were probably practiced by both genders, with some diff erences in the specifi c kinds of tools that men and women produced (Szuter 2000). Of course, complex tasks with multiple steps may have involved individuals of many diff erent ages and genders, even if the ac-tivity was thought of as primarily masculine or feminine (Crown 2000a).

Th e evaluation of evidence for the division of labor during the Late Neolithic in Iberia is rare, although recent studies in Catalonia seem to suggest that certain tasks were asso-ciated with women or men (Castro Martinez et al. 2006; Gibaja Bao 2002, 2003a, 2003b; Sanahuja Yll 2006). Th e same can be said about the El Argar Bronze Age culture, for which studies support the idea that men were more active outside of settlements and women oc-cupied a more important role in the domestic realm (Jiménez-Brobeil et al. 2004).

Th e division of labor by gender has major implications for many other facets of life in the ancient Southwest and Iberia, from men’s and women’s access to goods to their participation in community life and, ultimately, to their potential prestige, power, and authority. For example, association of one gender with ritually important items may im-ply infl uence over ceremonies or higher status based on roles critical to an entire com-munity (Crown and Fish 1996). Such may be the case with women’s production of labor-intensive feast foods, such as tortillas or other foods using ground corn in the 14th–17th-century Pueblo Southwest (Crown 2000c). Determining whether or not women had similar roles in feasting in Iberia awaits additional information.

Mobility

Th e movement of individuals through the landscape holds considerable promise as an area of comparison between Iberia and the Southwest. Th e distances that men and

180 11. BRIDGING GENDER

women commonly traveled have signifi cant implications for the procurement of raw materials, for trade and exchange, and for establishing social relationships with distant groups. Discussions of men’s and women’s travel have usually combined cross-cultural analogy and the association of certain raw materials or exotic goods with one gender or the other. On this basis, long-distance travel, particularly to obtain valuables, is oft en as-signed to men, while shorter trips that do not require long absences from the village are considered more typical of women.

Recent research in the Southwest, however, has added additional detail to this picture, considering how a variety of tasks may be embedded in other travel schedules, such as procuring tool stone or pigments during hunting trips (Szuter 2000). Sourcing of artifacts and raw material sources, such as ceramics and obsidian, has also complicated the picture, for the distribution of these two diff erent materials suggests exchange on a similar scale; if indeed women made pots and men made formal stone tools, this implies that both genders had similar trade networks (Spielmann 2000). Th ese studies are espe-cially exciting because they push researchers to consider the social implications of trade and travel.

In the Iberian Late Neolithic, local mobility related to daily activities seems to not be gender defi ned. However, mid-range mobility may have been more male associated, as much as long distance would relate to herding animals, the procurement of raw materi-als, and the exchange of products (see Boaventura in this volume).

Although not too many studies exist, in the Bronze Age of El Argar culture the move-ment of women seems to be more related to domestic work, while men appear to have spent more time moving up and down the mountainous region. Th is is supported/sug-gested by the study of stress markers on individual skeletons where sex could be deter-mined (Jiménez-Brobeil et al. 2004).

Knowledge Transmission / Learning

Archaeologists working on gender in the Southwest have begun to consider children in their research, recognizing the potential signifi cance of children’s labor (for example, Fish 2000) and the importance of children learning the skills that they will need to be contributing adults (Kamp 2001). As with other topics in gendered archaeology, research on learning and the transmission of knowledge initially leaned heavily on ethnographic analogy; more recent studies have begun to consider the range of teaching strategies known ethnographically and to assess which strategies were used under diff erent cir-cumstances. Crown (2002), for example, has examined variation in the form and decora-tion of ceramic vessels as evidence of the interaction between skilled adult potters and unskilled learners, who were likely children.

In Iberia there is no irrefutable evidence of gender knowledge transmission during the Late Neolithic. However, the situation presented in the regions of Lisbon and Alentejo (see Boaventura in this volume) may suggest a certain degree of sharing/teaching gender practices or knowledge, namely on travel knowledge among men and ceramic produc-tion and weaving techniques between females. Nevertheless, there is a need for more data to better understand the degree of such transmissions.

11. BRIDGING GENDER 181

For the Bronze Age culture of El Argar, ceramic studies have attempted to understand technology transmission of pot-making among women (Colomer i Solsona 2005).

Food and Cuisine

Cross-culturally, women in non-state societies are most closely associated with the pro-curement of certain kinds of food and with cuisine, or the preparation of food. One major area of potential for comparison between Iberia and the Southwest centers on changing cuisine and its impact on women’s labor and status, as well as the health and nutrition of men, women, and children. In particular, changes in the form and dimen-sions of pottery (storage, cooking, and serving vessels) and of grinding stones through time have implications for the nature of the food being produced and served. Ortman (1998), for example, has documented changes in women’s grinding facilities in the north-ern Southwest, while others consider the implications for women’s labor of adopting increasingly labor-intensive foods such as tortillas and piki bread (Crown 2000c) and for men’s scheduling when hunting required increased travel time (Szuter 2000).

Although certain studies on food types and preparation may be found in the literature on Iberian archaeology, it is normally associated by default with stereotypes such as woman the cook, man the hunter, etc., refl ecting the continued lack of critical approach-es that, with the exceptions mentioned here, are still common in gendered archaeology. However, there is a common consensus that women in general were associated with this daily crucial activity (Montón Subias 2005).

Status Hierarchies

All of the topics discussed thus far have social implications for individuals of diff erent genders, as the various activities in which men and women engage have implications for status hierarchies. Status or prestige can be seen as incorporating three major dimen-sions — power, authority, and autonomy (Crown 2000a) — that change continuously throughout an individual’s lifetime. Initial research into gender and status originally focused on the implications of activities in public and private contexts, under the as-sumption that the public sphere was associated with men and the private (or domestic) with women. Although the public/domestic dichotomy is problematic in some respects, Hegmon (2000) and other researchers in the Southwest have examined spatial organiza-tion in diff erent time periods, discussing the implications of various degrees of seclusion or public visibility for gender and status. Archaeologists have also used other lines of evidence, such as possession of valuables, access to high-quality food resources, and participation in rituals, as indicators of status. For example, Mills (2000) considers the implications of craft production and specialization for women’s and men’s status, while Crown and Fish’s (1996) study of the Hohokam combines multiple lines of evidence to examine changes in gender and status among the Hohokam.

In the Iberian Peninsula, several studies on gender have been approached from an epis-temological point of view, calling attention to the traditional and stereotyped interpre-tations of archaeological data. Rather than “add women and stir,” in Iberia the mode is

182 11. BRIDGING GENDER

“where are the women?” With that objective in mind, several works have focused their attention on household archaeology and specifi c contexts where women are expected to be or not be present, such as studies on ceramic, lithics, and metallurgy (Sanchez Romero 2005a, 2005b). In that sense, these studies fall in microscale perspectives, as pointed out by Conkey (2003). On the other hand, with accumulated data (although limited), sev-eral authors have tried to approach the macroscale, focusing on status hierarchies (Castro Martinez et al. 2006; Escoriza Mateu and Sanahuja Yll 2005; Hernando Gonzalo 2005; Sanahuja Yll 2002). However, the lack of research in several fi elds from a gender perspec-tive makes it diffi cult to build a case for the entire Iberian Peninsula.

Future Research

Research on gender in the Southwest is a well-established tradition with a solid founda-tion of research, described in the chapters in Crown’s recent volume (2000b). Beyond these excellent overviews, however, there are many possibilities for systematic detailed comparisons that would provide additional insight into diff ering gender ideologies and status hierarchies across the Southwest. In particular, additional study and quantifi cation of the frequency and nature of depictions of men and women would be useful, as would more systematic study of engendered objects, such as feminine-gendered string aprons. In addition, now that researchers have an understanding of the correspondence between cross-cultural generalities and gender in the ancient Southwest, it would be interesting to consider the implications of cross-cultural irregularities, such as men’s weaving.

In the Iberian Peninsula, the challenge for gender studies is much greater than in the Southwest US. Although studies on gender have occurred along the Mediterranean coast, for other areas there is still the need to call attention to how bias and andocentric stereotypes have been and continue to be maintained.

Th erefore, one can only wish that the example of those already committed to such studies in Iberia (Castro Martinez et al. 2006; Diaz-Andreu 2005; Escoriza Mateu and Sanahuja Yll 2005; González Marcén 2006; Soler Mayor 2006;) and other areas, such as the Southwest, is replicated and discussed.

Alfaro Giner, C.1984 Tejido y cestería en la Península Ibérica:

Historia de su técnica e industrias desde la Prehistoria hasta la Romanización. C.S.I.C., Madrid, Spain.

Alarcão, J., A. Barbero, E. Carbonell, J. Cortadella, M. Díaz-Andreu, A. Figueiredo, V.O. Jorge, J. Maier, G. Mora, L. Oosterbeek, M.P. Reis, C. Stockler, and G. Velho (eds.)2000 Actas 3º Congresso de Arqueologia Pen-

insular, UTAD, Vila Real, Portugal, Set-

embro de 1999, Vol. 1: Arqueologia Pen-insular História, Teoria e Prática. Porto, Portugal.

Anthony, D.1992 Th e Bath Refi lled: Migration in Archae-

ology Again. American Anthropologist 94: 174–76.

Brown, J.K.1970 A Note on the Division of Labor by Sex.

American Anthropologist 72: 1073–78.

References

11. BRIDGING GENDER 183

Butler, J.1993 Bodies Th at Matter: On the Discursive

Limits of Sex. Routledge, New York.

Castro Martinez, P.V., T. Escoriza Mateu, M.I. Fregeiro Morador, J. Oltra Puigdomenech, M. Otero Vidal, and M.E. Sanahuja Yll2006 Contra la falsifi cación del pasado prehis-

tórico: Buscando la realidad de las muje-res y los hombres detrás los estereotipos. Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona.

Castro, P., R. Chapman, T. Escoriza Mateu, S. Gili, V. Lull, R. Micó, C. Rihuete, R. Risch, and M.E. Sanahuja Yll1993–1994 Tiempos sociales de los contextos

funerarios argáricos. Anales de Prehisto-ria y Arqueologia de Murcia 9–10: 75–105.

Claassen, C., and R.A. Joyce (eds.)1997 Women in Prehistory: North America

and Mesoamerica. University of Penn-sylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Colomer i Solsona, L.2005 Cerámica prehistorica y trabajo feme-

nino en El Argar: Una aproximación desde el estúdio de la tecnologia cerâ-mica. Pp. 177–217 in Arqueologia y Gé-nero, ed. M. Sánchez Romero. Universi-dad de Granada, Granada, Spain.

Conkey, M.W., and J.D. Spector1984 Archaeology and the study of Gender.

Pp. 1–38 in Advances in Archaeologi-cal Method and Th eory, Vol. 7, ed. M. Schiff er. Academic Press, New York.

Crown, P.L.2000a Gendered tasks, power, and prestige

in the prehispanic Southwest. Pp. 3–41 in Women and Men in the Prehispanic Southwest: Labor, Power, and Prestige, ed. P.L. Crown. School of American Re-search Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Crown, P.L. (ed.)2000b Women and Men in the Prehispanic

Southwest: Labor, Power, and Prestige. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

2000c Women’s role in changing cuisine. Pp. 221–66 in Women and Men in the Prehis-panic Southwest: Labor, Power, and Pres-tige, ed. P.L. Crown. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM.

2002 Learning and teaching in the prehis-panic American Southwest. Pp. 108–24 in Children in the Prehistoric Puebloan Southwest, ed. K.A. Kamp. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Crown, P.L., and S.K. Fish1996 Gender and status in the Hohokam pre-

Classic to Classic transition. American Anthropologist 98 (4): 803–17.

De Miguel, M.P.2006 Las Mujeres en los Contextos Funerá-

rios Prehistoricos. Aportaciones desde la Osteoarqueologia. Pp. 91–104 in Las Mujeres en la Prehistoria. Museu de Pre-història de València, València, Spain.

Díaz-Andreu, M.2005 Género y Arqueologia: Una Nueva Sín-

tesis. Pp. 13–51 in Arqueologia y Género, ed. M. Sánchez Romero. Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain.

Díaz-Andreu, M., and S. Montón Subiasforthcoming Feminist and Gender Issues in

Southwestern Europe: Spanish, Portu-guese and French Prehistoric Archae-ologies. In A Companion to Gender Pre-history, ed. D. L. Bolger. Wiley-Black-well, Malden, MA.

Díaz-Andreu, M., and M.L. Sorensen1998 Excavating Women. A History of Wom-

en in European Archaeology. Routledge, London.

Diniz, M.2006 Para a história das mulheres na Pré-

História: em torno de alguns atributos do discurso. Promontoria 4: 37–51.

Escoriza Mateu, T., M. J. López, and A. Navarro Ortega (eds.) 2008 Mujeres y Arqueologia. Nuevas aporta-

ciones desde el materialismo histórico. Homenaje al Professor Manuel Carrilero Millán. Sevilla, Junta de Andalucía.

184 11. BRIDGING GENDER

Escoriza Mateu, T., and M.E. Sanahuja Yll2005 La prehistoria de la autoridad y la re-

lación. Nuevas perspectivas de análi-sis para las sociedades del pasado. Pp. 109–40 in Arqueologia y Género, ed. M. Sánchez Romero. Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain.

Fish, S.K.2000 Farming, foraging, and gender. Pp. 169–

96 in Women and Men in the Prehispan-ic Southwest: Labor, Power, and Prestige, ed. P.L. Crown. School of American Re-search Press, Santa Fe, NM.

Gero, J.M. and M.W. Conkey (eds.)1991 Engendering Archaeology: Women and

Prehistory. Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.

Gibaja Bao, J.F.2002 La Función de los Instrumentos Líticos

como Medio de Aproximación Socio-Económica: Comunidades neolíticas del V-IV milénio Cal BC e el noreste de la Península Ibérica. Ph.D. dissertation, Facultat de Lletres, Universitat Autòno-ma de Barcelona, Spain.

2003a Comunidades neolíticas del noreste de la Península Ibérica: una aproximación socio-económica a partir del estúdio de la función de los útiles líticos. BAR International Series 1140. Oxford, Archaeopress.

2003b Instrumentos líticos de las necrópolis neolíticas catalanas. Comunidades del inicio del IV milénio Cal BC. Complu-tum 14: 55–71.

Gimbutas, M.1974 Th e Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe:

7000–3500 B.C. Th ames and Hudson, London, United Kingdom.

1989 Th e Language of the Goddess. Harper and Row, San Francisco, California.

1991 Th e Civilization of the Goddess: Th e World of Old Europe. Harper, San Fran-cisco, California.

2001 Th e Living Goddesses. Edited and suple-mented by M.R. Dexter. University of California, Berkeley, California.

Gonçalves, V.S.1995 Sítios, “Horizontes” e Artefactos: Leituras

Críticas de Realidades Perdidas. Câmara Municipal de Cascais, Cascais, Portugal.

1999 Reguengos de Monsaraz territórios me-galíticos. Câmara Municipal, Reguen-gos de Monsaraz, Portugal.

González Marcén, P. (ed.)2000a Espacios de Género en Arqueologia. Ar-

queologia Espacial, 22. Teruel, Spain.

González Marcén, P.2000b Mujeres, espacio y arqueología: una

primera aproximación desde la inves-tigación española. Pp. 11–21 in Espacios de Género en Arqueologia, ed. P. Gon-zález Marcén. Arqueologia Espacial, 22. Teruel, Spain.

2006 Mujeres y Prehistoria: Vivir el Presente, Pensar el Pasado. Pp. 15–26 in Las Mu-jeres en la Prehistoria. Museu de Pre-història de València , València.

González Marcén, P., C. Masvidal, S. Montón Subias, and M. Picazo Gurina (eds.)

2007 Interpeting Household Practices: Refl ec-tions on the Social and Cultural Roles of Maintenance Activities. Treballs d’Arqueologia 13. Barcelona, Centre d’Etudis del Patrimoni Arqueològic de la Prehistòria.

Hays-Gilpin, K.2000 Gender ideology and ritual activities. Pp.

91–135 in Women and Men in the Prehis-panic Southwest: Labor, Power, and Pres-tige, ed. P.L. Crown. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM.

2002 Wearing a butterfl y, coming of age: A 1500 year old Pueblo tradition. Pp. 196–210 in Children in the Prehistoric Puebloan Southwest, ed. K.A. Kamp. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Hegmon, M., S.G. Ortman, and J.L. Mobley-Tanaka2000 Women, men, and the organization of

space. Pp. 43–90 in Women and Men in the Prehispanic Southwest: Labor, Power, and Prestige, ed. P.L. Crown. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM.

11. BRIDGING GENDER 185

Herdt, G. (ed.)1994 Th ird Sex, Th ird Gender: Beyond Sexual

Dimorphism in Culture and History. Zone Books, New York.

Hernando Gonzalo, A.2005 Mujeres y Prehistoria. En torno a la

questión del origen del patriarcado. Pp. 73–108 in Arqueologia y Género, ed. M. Sánchez Romero. Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain.

Hurtado Perez, V.1981 Las Figuras Humanas del Yacimiento

de La Pijotilla (Badajoz). Madrider Mit-teilungen 22: 78–88.

1995 Interpretación sobre la dinámica cul-tural en la cuenca media del Guadiana (IV–II milénios A.N.E.). Extremadura Arqueológica 5: 53–80.

Hurtado Perez, V., and L. Perdigones1984 Ídolos Inéditos del Calcolítico del

Sudeste Hispano. Madrider Mitteilun-gen 24: 46–57.

Jiménez-Brobeil, S.A., I. Al Oumaoui, and J.A. Esquivel2004 Actividad Física Según Sexo en la

Cultura Argárica. Una Aproximación desde las Restos Humanos. Trabajos de Prehistoria 61 (2): 141–53.

Jorge, V.O.1997 Ideias prévias a uma Pré-História do

Género. Pp. 21–42 in Actas dos 3ºs Cur-sos de Verão de Cascais (1 a 6 de Julho de 1996), Vol. 1. Câmara Municipal de Cascais, Cascais, Portugal

Jorge, S.O., and V.O. Jorge1996 Women in Portuguese Archaeology.

Trabalhos de Antropologia e Etnologia 36: 159–67.

2005 El saber proviene más de descartar que de aproximar: Imágenes de la mujer en la Prehistoria recientes que se tornarán in-verosímiles. In Seminário El Conocimien-to del Pasado V: Mujeres Marginales y Marginadas. Facultad de Geografi a e His-toria, Universidad de Salamanca, Spain.

Kamp, K.A.2001 Prehistoric children working and play-

ing: A Southwestern case study in learn-ing ceramics. Journal of Anthropological Research 57 (4): 407–25.

2002 Children in the Prehistoric Puebloan Southwest. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Lorber, J.1994 Paradoxes of Gender. Yale University

Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Martin, D.L.2000 Bodies and lives: biological indicators

of health diff erentials and division of labor by sex. Pp. 267–300 in Women and Men in the Prehispanic Southwest: Labor, Power, and Prestige, ed. P.L. Crown. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM.

Medina, J.1993 Deus, Pátria e Família: Ideologia e men-

talidade do Salazarismo. Pp. 11–142 in História de Portugal dos Tempos Pré-Históricos aos Nossos Dias, ed. J. Medina, Vol. XII. Ediclube, Amadora, Portugal.

Mills, B.J.2000 Gender, craft production, and inequal-

ity. Pp. 301–43 in Women and Men in the Prehispanic Southwest: Labor, Power, and Prestige, ed. P.L. Crown. School of Amer-ican Research Press, Santa Fe, NM.

Moore, J., and E. Scott (eds.)1997 Invisible People and Processes: Writing

Gender and Childhood into European Archaeology. Leicester University Press, New York.

Morric, R.C.1995 All made up: Performance theory and

the new anthropology of sex and gen-der. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 567–92.

Munson, M.K.2000 Sex, gender, and status: human images

from the Classic Mimbres. American Antiquity 65: 127–43.

186 11. BRIDGING GENDER

Neitzel, J.2000 Gender hierarchies: a comparative

analysis of mortuary data. Pp. 137–68 in Women and Men in the Prehispanic Southwest: Labor, Power, and Prestige, ed. P.L. Crown. School of American Re-search Press, Santa Fe, NM.

Ortman, S.G.1998 Corn grinding and community orga-

nization in the Pueblo Southwest, A.D. 1150–1550. Pp. 165–92 in Migration and Reorganization: Th e Pueblo IV Period in the American Southwest, ed. K.A. Spiel-mann. Anthropological Research Pa-pers. vol. 51. Arizona State University.

Querol, M.A., M. Domínguez-Rodrigo, A.M. Fernández, C. Lavín, C. Triviño, and A. Yánez2000 Sobre palabras e ideas: El proyecto de

investigación “La mujer en el origen del hombre.” Pp. 337–44 in Actas 3º Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular, UTAD, Vila Real, Portugal, Setembro de 1999, eds. J. Alarcão et al., Vol. 1: Ar-queologia Peninsular História, Teoria e Prática. Porto, Portugal.

Rautman, A.E.1997 Changes in regional exchange relation-

ships during the pithouse-to-pueblo transition in the American Southwest: implications for gender roles. Pp. 110–18 in Women in Prehistory: North America and Mesoamerica, eds. C. Claassen and R.A. Joyce. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Sanahuja Yll, M.E.1997 Marxismo y Feminismo. Boletín de An-

tropologia Americana 31: 7–14.2002 Cuerpos sexuados, objetos y prehistoria.

Cátedra, Madrid, Spain.2006 Mujeres, Hombres y Ajuares Fune-

rarios. Pp. 79–89 in Las Mujeres en la Prehistoria. Museu de Prehistòria de València, València.

2007 La cotidianeidad en la Prehistoria. Barcelona, Icaria.

Sánchez Romero, M. (ed.)2005a Arqueología y Género. Universidad de

Granada, Granada, Spain.

Sánchez Romero, M.2005b Cultura Material y Actitudes de Géne-

ro: El Utillaje Lítico Tallado. Pp. 219–43 in Arqueologia y Género, ed. M. Sán-chez Romero. Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain.

Sánchez Liranzo, O.2000 La prehistoria en Andalucía durante el

primer tercio del siglo XX. Las mujeres y el historicismo cultural. Pp. 397–406 in Actas 3º Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular, UTAD, Vila Real, Portugal, Setembro de 1999, eds. J. Alarcão et al., Vol. 1: Arqueologia Peninsular História, Teoria e Prática. Porto, Portugal.

2005 Hacia una Arqueología más “Social.” Pp. 53–72 in Arqueologia y Género, ed. M. Sánchez Romero. Universidad de Granada Granada, Spain.

Silva, A.M.1996a Paleobiology of the population inuma-

ted in the Hipogeu of Monte Canelas I (Alcalar-Portugal). Pp. 437–46 in XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Forlì, Italy, 8-14 September. Vol. 3.

1996b O Hipogeu de Monte Canelas I: con-tribuição da Antropologia de campo e da Paleobiologia na interpretação dos gestos funerários do IV e III milénios a.C. Pp. 241–48 in Actas do II Congreso Peninsular de Arqueologia, Zamora, Espanha 24-27 de Setembro, eds. R. Behrman and P. Bueno Ramirez, Vol. 2.

2002 Antropologia Funerária e Paleobiologia das Populações Portuguesas (Litorais) do Neolítico Final / Calcolítico. Unpub-lished Ph.D. dissertation, Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.

2003 Portuguese populations of Late Neolith-ic and Chalcolithic periods exhumed from collective burials: An overview. Anthropologie 41 (1–2): 55–64.

11. BRIDGING GENDER 187

Soler Mayor, B. (ed.)2006 Las Mujeres en la Prehistoria. Museu

de Prehistòria de València, València, Spain.

Soler Mayor, B., and J.L. Pascual Benito2006 Mujeres, Hombres y objetos de ador-

no. Pp. 63–78 in Las Mujeres en la Prehistoria, ed. B. Soler Mayor. Museu de Prehistòria de València, València, Spain.

Spielmann, K.A.2000 Gender and exchange. Pp. 345–77 in

Women and Men in the Prehispanic Southwest: Labor, Power, and Prestige, ed. P.L. Crown. School of American Re-search Press, Santa Fe, NM.

Szuter, C.R.2000 Gender and animals: hunting technol-

ogy, ritual, and subsistence. Pp. 197–220 in Women and Men in the Prehispanic Southwest: Labor, Power, and Prestige, ed. P.L. Crown. School of American Re-search Press, Santa Fe, NM.

Wright, R.P. (ed.)1996 Gender and Archaeology. University of

Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.