105

Gender-Critical in . A Review

Tove Hjgrungdal

This paper summarizes feminist, gender-critical Swedish archaeology as well as some Swedish archaeological literature mentioning aspects of gender in general. The literature discussed was published primarily during the last decade or so. Attempts are made to deduce problems and to some extent to enlarge upon certain questions felt to be of urgency. One conclusion is however, that investigations and analyses have to be expanded on and conclusions and statements outlined, in order to understand why Swedish archaeology is depicted as it is by several different authors, seen in a gender-critical perspective.

Tove Hjetrungdal, Department of Atchaeology, University of Umeå, S- 90l 87 Umeå, Sweden.

In reviewing literature on gender and arch- by male and female archaeologists, many of aeology in Sweden, it feels urgent to try to whom have worked within Swedish discuss it in its social and intellectual con- archaeology for a long time. The conclusion text. I have as such thrown some light on is, however, not a surprise. It corresponds to educational factors as well as on general conclusions from analyses carried out in conditions of gender-critical, feminist per- archaeology (Engelstad et al. 1992; Wylie spectives. As a consequence of this, I have 1992) and in academia at large (Fiirst stressed the Present/Past relationship in my 1988). classification. It is a pleasure to note that I am going to list and briefly summarize the total number of publications on gender- recently published literature on gender-re- critical issues within Swedish archaeology is lated questions in Swedish archaeology. A much larger than I had expected before I review paper is not the medium for a tho- started my compilation of them for a survey. rough outline and explanation of conditions, However, after a systematic read through of statements and facts found in the scholarly this literature, one gets the general impres- publications in question. It will as such only sion that conditions for male and female be possible here to give a superficial im- archaeologists, respectively, still seem to be pression of the importance and necessity of far from equal. Statistical analyses as well gender-critical perspectives in Swedish as outlines of personal experiences reveal archaeology. The conditions of gendered that conditions are not beneficial to women, relations of power comprise the very point rather, they seem to be in favour of men. of departure for gender-critical, or feminist, This conclusion is drawn on the basis of research. If one had the ambitions to get a presentations in Swedish archaeological firm background to the conditions of en- publications during the last decade or so. gendered power in Swedish archaeology, it The critical analyses in question are made would not be sufficient to read the publis-

Current Swedish Archoeology. Vot. 3, l 995 106 To&:e Hj prungdal hed literature. There are too many circum- well as Swedish publications on prehistoric stances and facts that have to be taken se- source material from areas outside the riously; and too many points as well as gene- country, are defined as Swedish archaeology. ral conclusions in the literature listed here Another point in this respect is that some of are not enlarged upon. the works on gender are written by scholars In order to explain and discuss why there who have, or earlier had, a foot in Norwe- are unequal possibilities in Swedish archaeo- gian archaeology (Hjgrungdal; Johnsen; logy, and to get a closer look at how these Lundström; Magnus; Welinder). As a con- inequalities are maintained and questioned, sequence of this, it feels natural to start my I would prefer comprehensive analyses from outline with the mid-1980s, at the time of a sociological, current as well as a histori- the foundation of K.A.N. , "Kvinner i Arkeo- cal perspective. To complete a synthesis on logi i Norge" (= Women in Archaeology in gender-related power in archaeology, analy- Norway (1985)).It seems that this had some ses should also be conducted on the new impact on Swedish archaeology as well. university reform with its present changing Although issues like woman's position structures of power on a general level. The and equity were briefly debated in Swedish same kind of analysis should be carried out archaeology some years earlier, in connec- in connection with the so-called HUR-re- tion with the International Women's Year form, which represents aspects of a gene- of 1975, the debate did not immediately lay rally changing power structure within the firm ground for a feminist, gender-critical realms of archaeology in Sweden (cf. Pérez archaeology on a systematical level. The & Browall 1992).I think it is of vital impor- roots of Swedish modern archaeology to a tance to be aware of the fact that in the certain extent have also been characterized archaeologists' reply to the HUR-document, by a strong emancipatory tradition from no equity issues are touched upon. Oscar Montelius and Hanna Rydh (cf. Through the university reform program, Arwill-Nordbladh 1987; 1989;1990a; 1991a). on the contrary, equity issues are stressed. Swedish archaeology can take pride in Another important aspect of the matter is being able to trace its emancipatory roots that universities also have published pro- back to one of the real giants within Euro- grammes aiming at bringing such incon- pean archaeology. However, the tradition venient and shame-laden topics as sexual from Montelius has not been continuous. harassment to the surface — as well as aiming For example, there are not many Swedish at dispelling such ways of extreme and ex- gender-critical archaeological papers, if any, plicit gendered power relations in future. I during the period between the Internatio- am not going to discuss the above men- nal Women' s Year of 1975 and the time of tioned documents. Such an investigation the foundation of the Norwegian K.A.N. in would, in my opinion, be a natural part of a 1985. In Norway conditions were different, larger sociological investigation and would and the first theses were written during the demand extensive research resources with middle of the 1970s (cf. Dommasnes 1992). regard to both economy and time as well During the Women's Year, museums were as personnel. supposed to issue something on the topic of Swedish archaeological literature in the women. At the Museum of National Antiqui- present paper refers to works written by ties in an exhibition was pro- archaeologists usually living in Sweden and duced as well as a catalogue on this, made usually employed by Swedish museums, uni- up of papers written by well-known re- versities, antiquity boards, etc. Accordingly, searchers (Thålin-Bergman ed. 1975).At the papers in foreign books or periodicals, as University of Lund, female professors were

Current Sw edish Arehaeology, Vol. 3, l995 Gender-Critical Archaeolog& in Sweden 107 asked by the university staff to write paper is vitally important to discuss possible ways on women within their own subject. Profes- of labelling, just as it is important to state sor Berta Stjernquist fulfilled this task on the fact that through this very classification the behalf of archaeology, writing on famous a subdivision is already suggested. If we women in prehistory (Stjernquist 1975). take a look at a recent categorization of Shortly after, a report was written on the Norwegian gender-critical archaeology question of equity issues at the Museum of (Dommasnes 1992), we will instead find National Antiquities (Jämställd 1984/85). that a historical periodization is made. If we However, the report was unfortunately not look back some years we will, however, also published. find within Norwegian gender-critical arch- What gender is supposed to mean, is a aeology a subdivision that is similar in many very complicated matter. In Swedish arch- respects to the one referred to in Sweden. aeology several concepts are accepted, like According to the Norwegian scholar Dom- Women' s studies, Gender archaeology, Gen- masnes, roughly at that time there were der-critical archaeology and Feminist approaches focusing on women as groups archaeology, but there are only a few authors within social systems, approaches focusing who discuss the gender concept thoroughly on gender relations, as well as a more deeply (Nordbladh k Yates 1990; Wennstedt Edvin- rooted "her-story" approach (Dommasnes ger 1993). It is possible to discuss it from 1987). The question that arises then, is several aspects. whether it is too early to write a systemati- cal and analytical research history of Swe- ON SURVEYING THE LITERATURE- dish gender-critical archaeology that would HOW? make it possible to arrange the develop- I will then move to the literature I was asked ment into relatively clear defined phases, the to go through; and as a convenient point of way Dommasnes did in Norwegian archaeo- departure I have chosen K.A.N. No. 12 logy. I do not think it is. (1991), a special issue on gender perspec- To bring up another point of discussion, tive in Swedish archaeology. Here Swedish which is also a personal one, I am not"very archaeology is analysed in a gender-critical happy with the term "Kvinnoarkeologi, sug- light, statistically as well as historically. gested in K.A.N. 12. In English this cer- Some of the papers in this collection were tainly means "Women' s archaeology, "which No- first given at a conference in Uppsala in sounds rather good to my ears," as does the vember 1989, which was initiated by Stig notion of "Women' s history. In Swedish, Welinder. In K.A.N. 12, papers are grouped however, I have the feeling that "Kvinno- into three different themes: arkeologi" sounds very different. To be more precise, this label makes it sound as if there I. "Women's Archaeology" (Sw. Kvinnoar- ought to be two different archaeologies, one keologi) "different" or odd one for women exclu- II. "Swedish Archaeology from a Gender sively (cf. Welinder 1988; Tomasdotter-Hed Perspective" 1992) and one "normal" or real one for the III."Prehistoric Women" rest (i.e. men). All this makes me inclined to try to arr- Is this an adequate way, then, of categorizing ange a review in an alternative way. In my Swedish gender-related archaeology? opinion it would be a better idea to make I think it is worth posing this question for topics like Present and Past. By stressing several reasons. First and foremost, it is not the past/present relationship, I think we are the only obvious way. Accordingly, I think it able to get an impression of the researcher/

Current Swedish Archaeology, Voh 3, 7995 108 Tove Hj prungdal researched relation. In this way we have an than men leave or drop out. During the first opportunity to investigate the subject/object and the second term there are no clear distinction, and to treat this as a vital rela- differences between men and women drop- tion as well. This very point illustrates the ping out of courses. Norr asks several ques- heart of the matter of a gender-critical, or tions which might help to explain this situa- feminist, research, that is, to question and tion, but it is not possible to give any definite investigate traditional male-biassed bipola- answers. Wherever the core of the problem, rities and hierarchies, instead of treating it is in Norr' s opinion within education that them as natural and unbreakable relations of we have the best opportunity to change the power. circumstances (Norr 1991).I am inclined to Anyway, as long as gender-critical arch- agree with Norr, as due to a change of the aeology makes analyses of prehistory as well organization of education, conditiones have as of current scholarly context, I think the changed in Uppsala and female students do labelling of Present and Past will make usually not drop out of courses the way they sense, even though it might not be the only frequently did earlier. "correct" one. There is yet another dimen- Welinder's study of the undergraduate sion within a Present/Past relationship, and students of archaeology at Stockholm Uni- that is History of Archaeology, which should versity shows the same trend as Norr's be given more attention, and which certainly study of the Uppsala students. During the has an impact on both Present and Past. last years the number of female third-term students has decreased (Welinder 1991a). EVERYDAY LIVES IN A GENDERED Graduate students as well as doctors are REALITY discussed in a gender-critical perspective. It is still a good idea to try to visualize both Welinder continues with an exposé over doc- female archaeologists and women in pre- tors in Swedish archaeology during the pre- history, but this is certainly not the entire sent century. He reminds us of the fact that point of gender-critical archaeologies. The neither individual intellectual capacity nor point is rather to problematize cultural cate- endurance alone is a crucial factor in pur- gories of power, such as masculine/femi- suing graduate studies. Social factors like nine, culture/nature, public/private, and to family building and financial situation have try to open up new paths for understanding to be taken into consideration as well. One human identities, relationships, culture and of his general conclusions is that a change society. Thus, a critical focus on the Present/ in the educational policy in Sweden around Past bipolarity seems to be a necessary way 1970 seems to have furthered the possibili- of getting to the root of the matter of trajec- ties for women; unfortunately Welinder does tory interpretations. There already is a clear not elaborate on this point (Welinder focus on this area of problems in Swedish 1991b). Jarl Nordbladh, on the other hand, archaeology, especially through Elisabeth discusses men and women in archaeology Arwill-Nordbladh's investigations (e.g. Ar- from the point of view of academic struc- will-Nordbladh 1989; 1993). ture. One important conclusion is that men Let us take a closer look at the present, at hold the majority of attractive positions, e.g. our own lives. To start with the educational as professors and research fellows (Nord- aspects, undergraduare education in arch- bladh 1991a).Elsewhere Nordbladh takes up aeology in Uppsala is discussed by Svante similar questions with a clear focus on Norr. One of the most important conclu- power relations in academia at present as sions drawn by Norr is that during the third well as in a historical perspective (Nord- term (C-level) of study, women more often bladh 1991b).Welinder (1991b)mentions the

Current Swedish Arehaeology, Vol. 3, l995 Gender-Crincal A&chaeotogy in Sweden 109 pioneer female doctors in Swedish archaeo- are discussed by Sweden's first female logy. They have been a topic of discussion "Riksantikvarie" (Biörnstad 1990). in other publications as well. Dr. Hanna Field-survey has been one of the most Rydh (1891-1964)was the pupil of the pro- conservative bastions in Swedish archaeo- fessor and emancipation champion Oscar logy. Until 1961 women were denied work Montelius. In 1919 she became the first within this area, and were not employed on female doctor in Scandinavian archaeology. a permanent basis until 1983 (Magnusson Her long and multifaceted career has been 1991).A more thorough analysis of the con- discussed from different points of view. Ewa ditions within the Central Board of National Ryberg focusses on the fact that Rydh until Antiquities was carried out by Agneta La- recently seems to have been unappreciated gerlöf. She takes up the question of the and forgotten as a scholar. Rydh' s scientific number of men and women employed, the works are discussed, as well as her many division of work, and the possibilities of areas of activity within politics and charity. internal advancement, especially for women Hanna Rydh was a scientific author as well (Lagerlöf 1991).Questions within the same as an author of fiction, and not least an area of archaeology are discussed by Lager- author of popular books and children's löf in additional papers (Lagerlöf 1989; books (Ryberg 1986; 1990; cf. Arwill- 1990). Lena Thålin-Bergman discusses her Nordbladh 1987). Elisabeth Arwill-Nord- own generally unequal position as a female bladh has elsewhere (1987) discussed the antiquarian during the past 40 years (Thålin- ideological and emancipatory aspects of Bergman 1990). One of the most recent pa- Rydh's work, and in this way yielded an pers on women' s conditions in archaeology excellent picture of Dr. Rydh as a child of was written by Welinder. Not long ago he her own time and social context. was in China, where he took the time and Welinder (1991b) mentions two other fe- trouble to inform himself, and in tum us, male pioneers, Dr. Agnes Geijer and Dr. on women in Chinese archaeology. Two . The latter was the first facts are striking: first, conditions in China woman to be appointed a professor in Swe- seem to resemble those in Scandinavian dish archaeology. Since then there have archaeology about 60 years ago; second, been several others, one of whom is Profes- oppressive attitudes toward women may in sor Märta Strömberg, University of Lund. some cases be held by women themselves. In K.A.N. No. 12 she gives a brief charac- One example of this is the attitude toward terization of aspects of the changing acade- women expressed by the sole female pro- mic situation throughout her own career, fessor within Chinese archaeology, whom starting in the 1940s (M. Strömberg 1991). Welinder met for an interview. She did not Some glimpses into another kind of career want any more women within her profession are given by Barbro Johnsen. For many because there were so many problems with years Johnsen worked within several arch- them (Welinder 1993b). The fact that Chi- aeological institutions in Sweden and Nor- nese women live and work under far less way. She finally decided to devote herself equal conditions than we are used to in mainly to the study of language instead, Sweden, is, however, neither a comfort to us partly because there already is an archaeo- nor an excuse for relaxing work on equity logist career in her family (Johnsen 1991). issues. Museums and antiquity boards are also To conclude this paragraph, the majority analysed in K.A.N. No. 12 (Welinder 1991c; of investigations mentioned were carried 1991d; Lagerlöf 1991; Magnusson 1991), out some years ago. It would be important and in another context female antiquarians to continue investigations to see if, and

Carrent Swedieh Archaeolotty, Vol. 3, 1995 110 Tove Hj prungdal how, conditions have changed during the lithicum Stig Welinder's point of departure last few years. is a single but somewhat spectacular find, namely, the skeleton of the so-called "Fisher- PERIODS AND DISCIPLINES man from Barum —mother of several child- Concerning new knowledge and discus- ren" (Welinder 1987; cf. Gejvall 1970; cf. as sions about different prehistoric periods and well Stjernquist 1975).This burial has acquir- topics, a relatively small number of gender- ed the status of a signifier of archaeologists' critical papers are written by Swedish arch- prejudices when gender is concerned. The aeologists. A convenient way of classifying skeleton from Barum or Bäckaskog, was first themes is by period, i.e. , Bronze interpreted as a male because it was accom- Age, Iran Age, Medieval and Post Medieval panied by an arrow. Later on its pelvis was Period. Another way of classifying is by re-examined with the aid of new osteologi- discipline, and here I think also osteology is cal methods. The conclusion was that this to be listed. As we usually distinguish be- person must have been pregnant several tween the fields of archaeology and osteo- times, and accordingly it was a woman. This logy in Sweden, I would like to discuss is the content of the discussion. Welinder published works within each of them re- discusses, however, several aspects of the spectively. To these fields can be added questions related to the burial from Barum. some works within the area of museum Essential to this find is that its appearance exhibitions and public information (e.g. called into question our pre-suppositions Adolfsson & Lundström 1993; Pettersson about men always being the hunters. How- 1994; Welinder 1991e) as well as within the ever, the find is in fact difficult to interpret research history of archaeology (Hj@rung- anyhow. One suggestion has been that the dal 1994a; 1994b). There are certainly weapon in the grave killed the woman. Wo- additional areas such as archaeobotany and men in the Stone Age burial context is also envinanmental at chaeology, treated abroad in discussed by Gunborg O. Janzon (Janzon a gender-critical study by Christine A. Has- 1993). The examples given are three dif- torf (Hastorf 1991). No extensive gender- ferent Middle Gotlandic graves. critical works have however been written on The graves represent, respectively, a double this in Sweden, even though the questions grave with a young woman and a middle- are touched upon by Welinder (Welinder aged man, a woman with a child, and an old 1992; 1993d). So is as well the case with woman with an old man. One of Janzon's Ethnoarchaeology (Welinder 1994). Under- conclusions is that the three women had an water archaeology is another additional field, equal position as well as an individual but I do not know any gender-critical works importance and status in work and society. here. As underwater archaeology seems to Her conclusions are based on a contextual make up a context where gender roles are interpretation of the burials. Not much has preserved, gender-critical analyses would been written in Sweden on typical hunter be welcome. and gatherer societies from a gender-critical point of view. In her master's thesis Britta PREHISTORY Wennstedt Edvinger (Wennstedt Edvinger Which questions of the past are discussed 1993) addresses this problem explicitly and by archaeologists in a gender-critical per- questions several traditional notions on gen- spective? Which source materials are taken der in a hunter — gatherer context; and she into the discussion? I will give a general, and does so not least by asking the question not too detailed, discussion on this. whether or not there really has been gender In the paper Female and Male in Meso- in the context of her analysis. There is no

Current Svvedish Arehaeology, Vol. 3, l995 Gender-Cridcal Archaeology in Sw eden evidence of a bipolar sex-based organization fertility cults. Labyrinths might also repre- in Stone Age hunter - gatherer societies of sent phenomena in relation to aspects of life northern Sweden. Edvinger principally and death. The preference for one of these draws her conclusions on the basis of rock- interpretations does not exclude the carvings, in which there are no evident prin- possibilities of integrating aspects of the ciples of sex. other, according to Lundström (Lundström The introduction of cultivation has been 1993, with references). discussed on a wide scale within anthropo- Another area of investigation touched logy and archaeology. In Swedish archaeo- upon is the classical one of weapons and logy the question of women's roles in the jewellery, as well as tools, in the stage of initial cultivation is raised by context (Herner 1991).Herner throws some Kristina Jennbert (Jennbert 1991; 1984). critical light on the question of which cate- She stresses the relationship between diffe- gories of artefacts we usually ascribe to men rent Late Mesolithic/Early Neolithic socie- and women respectively. ties, and discusses the importance of mar- Swedish researchers have add- riage alliances to the introduction of cul- ressed questions on gender within the pre- tivated cereals. The principle of the Gift is historic period of the Iron Age as well. Both central to Jennbert's ideas on early cultiva- Swedish and foreign find materials are tion. discussed. Burials is a material category Other Stone Age themes are only mentio- which is frequently represented. ned and have not yet been discussed tho- Among foreign Iron Age source materials roughly. One issue worth mentioning is Pa- can be mentioned examples from Norway laeolithic depictions of women (Gustafsson (Hj@rungdal 1988; 1989a; 1990; 1991; 1993). 1992a; 1992c; n.d. 3), from Italy (Berggren The question of matriarchy is gi ven much 1993)and from Greece (A. Strömberg 1993). attention abroad, for example in German When gender is adressed in the Iron Age gender-critical archaeology (Fries 1993; context, ritual aspects are often integrated Kästner 1993). This is not the case in Swe- into the studies of burials and other cate- dish or in Scandinavian archaeology. Swe- gories of material culture (e.g. Andrén 1993; dish archaeologists have only touched upon Arwill-Nordbladh 1990b; Hjprungdal 1990; the matter of matriarchy in a popular ver- 1991; Magnus 1993; Welinder 1993a). The sion of discussions on old and recent question of how to understand Iron Age theories (Hjgrungdal 1985). societies, or communities, is briefly discus- Swedish Bronze Age researchers have sed (Hj~rungdal 1991; n.d. 3). As already discussed gender in relation to rock-carvings touched upon, Arwill-Nordbladh in her and figurines, but the total number of papers works has focused on the relation between is small (Coles 1991; Hedengran 1991; Past and Present, for instance, through a Lundström 1993; Ullén 1993a; 1993b). One critical review of images of Viking Age of the problems adressed by Hedengran in woman (Arwill-Nordbladh e.g. 1991c;1993). her studies of rock-carvings is that there are plenty of human beings represented in rock- MEDIEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL carvings, but there are problems with There seems to be only one earlier paper engendering them. Finding criteria to recog- addressing a gender-critical view within nize female figures or types of expressions Swedish medieval archaeology, written by has been especially difficult. Professor Hans Andersson (Andersson 1990; Lundström looks at the possibilities of but cf. Iregren 1988a; 1988b). While my pre- discussing prehistoric labyrinths in terms of sent paper was still in an embryonic stage, a

Cnrrent Swedish Archaeology, Vol. 3, 3995 112 Tove Hj prungdal

seminar on gender-critical medieval archaeo- thoroughly elsewhere (Hj11rungdal 1994b). logy was taking place in Lund (late autumn I think it is important to pay attention to 1993).Medieval archaeology in Sweden un- non-critical research areas of gender and til recently has been a typical male bastion, burial because, intentionally or not, they re- and very few women have aimed at acade- veal a traditionalist construction of gender mic positions through which it is possible to and perhaps of cultural universes in general. have an impact on the development of the This seems also to be the problem with subject. The meeting in Lund has thrown traditional theories referred to in discus- some light on the question of why these sions of exchange and scarce resources, as conditions have existed, and papers from e.g. in Mats Burström's paper on silver this seminar are published (META 94:I). hoards in Gotland, which he interpreted as With inspiration from the works of Roberta bridewealth (Burström 1993).What is bride- Gilchrist, topics concerning churches and wealth? gender are discussed (Gilchrist 1993; cf. I would like to stress the point that no- 1994a; 1994b;Wienberg 1993).Some themes tions like this should be discussed in a gen- related to post-medieval times have already der-critical light before we continue the been touched upon from a gender-critical application of them to archaeology. In point of view. These are, first, women and traditional theories senior men are usually the cultural landscape (Magnusson 1990; assigned the control over "scarce resources" Welinder 1990)and, second, women' s labour like bridewealth, and as such, women are in iron works (Magnusson 1991b). easily objectified, just "exchanged" or "bought. "As Henrietta Moore (Moore 1988 OSTEOLOGY :70 ff) points out, this question ought to be Through the approach of Historical osteo- outlined from women' s points of view as logy, osteology is a discipline which is in- well. However, some notions which must timately related to archaeology, especially at be seen as related to this theme, namely, the University of Lund. As such, the ques- the polarity of exchanger/exchanged, have tion of women in prehistoric and historical already been questioned by Gayle Rubin times is discussed by Swedish scholars of (Rubin 1975). human osteology. There are several works Another problem is astonishingly enough focusing on sex/gender differentiation, as connected with the visualization of prehis- seen in relation to biological as well as toric women. My reason for making this a social conditions (e.g. Iregren 1988a; 1988b; question here is, first, a statement made by 1992a; 1992b). Anne-Sofie Gräslund and, second, a con- clusion drawn by Arwill-Nordbladh on the CRITICAL POINTS basis of her analyses of the Gothic Revival. There are several themes that should be Gräslund states that women in old-fashioned enlarged upon when the application of no- archaeology were more visible than they are tions and theories is concerned. I will men- within certain more modern directions fo- tion only briefly some of the problems and cussing on power structures (Gräslund difficulties here. In the discussion of Iron 1989).This might be part of the truth. How- Age burials, there are several papers on gen- ever, Gräslund does not point to the ques- der in recent and current Swedish archaeo- tions of how images of women are represen- logy which are not gender critical, but rather ted, or to the ideologies behind representa- traditionalist, through their firm bipolar view tions, or to the consequences of uncritical of gender. This question is of an awkward images. The intention of making women nature, and I have tried to outline it more visible, has not always had emancipatory

Current Sn edish Arehaeology, Voh 3. l995 Gender-Crhieal Arehaeology in Sweden 113

grounds, but rather the contrary. The move- as they discuss the question of subjectivity ment of the Gothic Revival is, as pointed out with reference to Lacan. It is worth noting by Arwill-Nordbladh, an example of this that the Norwegian Professor Ericka Engel- circumstance (e.g. Arwill-Nordbladh 1991a; stad has later given a totally problematizing 1991c).To this I can add my own conclu- feminist critique of archaeological interpre- sions drawn on the basis of investigations of tations based on Lacan's theories of deve- early antiquarian classification of male/fe- lopment of the subject. The consequence of male burials, carried out in Mecklenburg- Lacan's theories on the subject, are that this Schwerin from the 1830s on. Antiquarians can only be a male subject, and the female of the Gothic Revival defined the theme of does not exist as a subject at all (Engelstad male/female in archaeology and constructed 1991 with references). The fact that post- this model of gender through oppositional processual archaeology discusses gender material criteria of e.g. weapon/sewing does not mean that it is non-androcentric. needle, respectively. Woman was indeed In Engelstad's view it rather seems to be made visible through this way of looking at the opposite, according to her critique of prehistoric sources. However, she was visible British post-processual archaeology. The exclusively within the private sphere, as the bottom line of her paper is that post-pro- eternally embroidering character shut up in cessualism should not continue in its pre- a doll's house and as such having no impact sent androcentric vein (Engelstad 1991:512). on the public and political spheres of society. I think the few problems addressed here are The material pair of weapon/sewing needle among those one also must face in further is a powerful metaphor for asymmetrical discussions of gender-critical archaeologies. gender relations (cf. e.g. Hj~rungdal 1994a). So might also be the case with other kinds PRESENT AND FUTURE of material items aiming at making gender I think we can state that at present a gender visible and explicit. The images through critical-perspective in archaeology is taught which prehistoric women (and men) are at all universities as well as at some regio- made visible are accordingly worthy of a nal colleges in Sweden. How to teach it, and critical stance. how to organize an education that is gen- An interesting point has been made der-critical all through, must be regarded as concerning questions of processual versus very vital questions as well as great challen- post-processual archaeology. In the paper ges. During lectures on gender-critical written by Nordbladh & Yates, it is argued issues, I have sometimes had the opportu- that gender was ignored by processual nity to notice something that might be of archaeologists (Nordbladh &Yates 1990:222). profound importance: I thought I was able to On this question there seems to be an oppo- observe that students were discovering site opinion within Norwegian archaeology, themselves as scientific subjects. He or she as expressed by Dommasnes. In her outline, realizes that they are among the creators of New Archaeology is treated as an important archaeology, of presents and pasts within point of departure for the first phase of wo- this realm of academia. The discovery of men's studies in Norwegian archaeology their own subject may express itself through (Dommasnes 1992). There are different discussions of themselves in a gendered views on processual archaeology and gen- reality, as private persons as well as scholars. der, but this is the case with post-processual There is no easy answer to the question of archaeology and gender as well. This is a how to enlarge upon a gender-critical per- topic which can be generated against the spective in archaeological educational background of the Nordbladh & Yates paper, programmes (cf. Hjgrungdal in prep. ). From

Cnn en( Ss:edi sh Ai ehaeology, Voh 3, 1995 114 Tove Hj prungdal archaeologists abroad we can get some in- ought to make it feel easier to start working spiration through published training pro- on gender-critical theses as well. This is a grammes and syllabae (Spector k Whelan vital point concerning the future of gender- 1988; Claassen 1992). There is, however, critical directions in archaeology. active work on the topic of gender and peda- gogy in archaeology in Sweden as well. A CONCLUSIONS seminar on how to teach archaeology gen- This rather brief review addresses issues of der critically took place during the autumn gender in Swedish archaeologcal literature. of 1994, but questions related to this were Instead of going into details, I have tried to already suggested and debated at an archaeo- generate some problems and topics which logical pedagogical seminar in the spring of ought to be more thoroughly investigated in 1993. The Department of Archaeology and future research. My attention has mainly the Department of History at the University focussed on explicitly gender-critical re- of Lund have in fact been collaborating al- search, but I have also mentioned some ready for a couple of years on issues of works treating aspects of gender without teaching a feminist perspective. questioning the meaning of this concept. I For more than a decade many seminar have made some critical remarks on con- papers have been written on questions like cepts, questions and definitions which seem woman's position in prehistory, male and to be of a problematic nature, or, alterna- female dress, burial, tools and division of tively, which have not been sufficiently out- work, as well as on engendered relations of lined. I have, however, hardly focussed on power (cf. reference list "Seminar papers"). all questions and problems relevant to gen- At most archaeology departments in the der-critical perspectives. Currently it seems country there are also some students who are like re-interpretations of material culture is currently working on gender-critical seminar developing into an important topic, in Swe- papers, and at most universities there are den as well as internationally. But taken to- graduate students working on theses on gen- gether, there seems to be a lot of urgent as der-critical archeology. One doctoral thesis well as interesting questions to be enlarged (Hjgrungdal 1991) and one master's thesis upon in future research, concerning both (Wennstedt Edvinger 1993) both of which past contexts and present scholarly milieus are gender-critical in their views, have al- as well as histories of archaeology. ready been published. Further development of gender-critical teaching and learning English revised by / aura Wrang.

REFERENCES

My ambition has boen to include the complete Adolfsson, G. ge Lundström, I. 1993.Den starka number of gender-critical works within all areas kvinnan. Från völva till häxa. Museiarkeologi of Swedish archaeology. This is why there are 6. SHM. Stockholm more references Iisted than one finds in the main Andersson, H, 1990.Försummat perspektiv, el- text. There may also be relevant works which I ler. ...? Kulturmijlö vård 3//990 unfortunately have overlooked. Foreign literature Andrén, A. 1993.Doors to other worlds: Scandi- of vital importance to Swedish archaeology, or navian death rituals in Gotlandic perspectives. to the discussion I have presented here, is also Journal of Eut opean Archaeology I/I 993 included in the reference list. Arwill Nordbladh, E. 1987. Det dubbla budskapet

Current Svvedish Arehaeotogy. Vo/. 3. /995 Gender-Critica/ Archoeology in Sweden

hos Hanna Rydh. K.A.N. 4 Vol. 25, No. I, 1992. — 1989.Oscar Montelius and the Liberation of Engelstad, E. 1991.Images of power and contra- Women. An Example of Archaeological Ideo- diction: feminist theory and postprocessual logy and Early Swedish Women's Movement. archaeology. Antiquity Vol. 65. No. 248. Sept. In: Larsson, T.B.& Lundmark, H. (eds) : App- 1991. roaches to Swedish Prehi story. A Spec/rum Engelstad, E. et al. 1992. Equity issues in Norwe- of Perspectives in Contempora&y Research. gian archaeology. K.A.N. 13-14. B.A.R. International Series 500. Oxford. Fries, J. 1993.Zum Verhältnis zwischen tradition- — 1990a. Oscar Montelius och kvinnans frigörelse. eller (deutscher) Archäologie und Matriar- Kulturmijlö vård 3/1990. chatsforschung. In: Bericht zu& Tagung der — 1990b. Nyckelsymbolik i järnålderns kvinno- A rchä ologinnen 1992i n Kiel. Kiel. gravar. Fornvä nnen. Fiirst, E. 1988.Kvinneri akademia - inntrengere i -1990c.The Swedish Image of Viking Age wo- en mannskultur? Oslo. man: Stereotype, Generalization and Beyond. Gejvall, N. G. 1970.The fisherman from Barum- In: R. Samson (ed): Social Approaches to Vi- mother of several children! Fornvä nnen. king studies. Cruithne Press. Glasgow. Gilchrist, R. 1993."The Empress's New Clothes? — 1991a. Det emancipatoriska arvet efter Oscar Medieval Archaeology and the feminist cri- Montelius. K.A.N. 12. tique: Gender in the medieval castle (paper in — 1991b.Review of Hjgrungdal 1991:Det skjulte print). kjol&nn. Tvä rtanten 1991:4. - 1994a.Gender and material culture. The archaeo- - 1993.Det förflutna en del av nuet. Historiska logy of religious women. Routledge. Nyheter Nr. 55. — 1994b. Gender as an analytical category: The - 1994a. Begriper vi begreppen? Om androcent- archaeology of medieval nunneries. META rismen i några vanliga analytiska begrepp. 1994/1. META 94:1. Gräslund, A. S. 1989. "Gud hjälpe nu väl hennes - in print. Om metaforens roll i en genderkon- själ". Om runstenskvinnorna, deras roll vid struktion. K.A.N. 17. kristnandet och deras plats i familj och sam- - in prep. Hanna Rydh. In: A Historiography of hälle. TOR Vol. 22, 1988-1989. Women in European Archaeology. The Theo- — 1993.Valkyria, sköldmö, husfru - om vikingatid- retical Archaeology group. University of Dur- ens kvinna. In: Sjöstedt, L. (red): Den osynliga ham. historien. Kvinnornas historia. FRN Rapport Berggren, K. 1993.Spindle Whorls: Their Symbo- 93 : 2. Stockholm. listn in the Villanovan Cemetery of Quattro Gustafsson, A. 1988. Kvinnliga avbildningar Fontanili, Veii. CurrentSwedishArchaeologyl. under överpaleolitikum. URD 1-2, 1988. Biörnstad, M. 1990.En riksantikvaries funderin- Gustin, I. & Sabo, K. 1994. Inledning. Kvinnor gar. Kulturmi jlö vå rd 3/90. inom medeltidsarkeologi. META 94:1. Burström, M. 1993. Silver as Bridewealth. An Göransson, E. M. 1993.Kroppens idé i den yngre Interpretation of Viking Silver Hoards on järnålderns bildkonst och gravskick. In: Bur- Gotland, Sweden. Current Swedish Archaeo- ström, M. (red) :På gå ende avhandling sarbe- logy 1. ten vid den A& keologiska institutionen, Claassen, C. 1992. Workshop 3: Teaching and unive& si tet, VT 1993.SAR. Stock- Seeing Gender. In: Claassen, C. (ed): Explor- holm Archaeological Reports Nr. 26, 1993. ing Gende& Through Archaeology. Selected -1994.The Virgin Mary and the Sacred Body. Papers from the 1991 Boone Conference. The Ideology of Gender Embodied in the Monographs in World Archaeology No. 11. Cistercian Church. Current Swedi sh Archaeo- Prehistory Press. Madison Wisconsin. logy 2. Coles, J. 1991.Sex on the rocks. Manligt, kvinn- Hastorf, Chr. A. 1991.Gender, Space and Food in ligt, mänskligt. FYND 2//991. Prehistory. In: Gero, J.M. & Conkey, M.W Dommasnes, L.H. 1987.Tanker rundt et program (eds): Engendering Archaeology. Women and for arkeologisk kvinneforskning. K.A.N. 5. Prehi story. Basil Blackwell. Oxford. — 1992.Two decades of Women in Prehistory and Hedelin, H. 1991.Några aspekter på innebörden in Archaeology in Norway. AReview. N.A.R. av kvinnoarkeologi. K.A.N. 12.

Current Swedish Archaeology, Vol. 3, 1995 116 Tove Hj t»'ungdal

Hedengran, I. 1991.Att synliggöra människor. logy 2. Figurer eller gestalter? Kring hällristnings- — 1994c.Genusperspektiv på arkeologins historia. forskningens förutsättningar. K.A.N. 12. Proj ektpresentation. Kvinnovet&1994 :1.Kvin- Herner, E. 1991.Kvinnligt och manligt i brons- novetenskapligt forum, Umeå. ålderssamhället. Smycken och vapen utförda - 1994d. Synålar som uttryck för naturlig och evig med skicklighet och skönhet. K.A.N. 12. kvinnlighet. Ett exempel från tysk 1800-tals Hje&rungdal, T. 1985.Matriarkatet - myt och vision, arkeologi. In: "Det dolda budskapet" . Arbetets begränsning och möjlighet. Populär Arkeologi Museum. Norrköping. 311985. - n.d. l.En gammal historia. Arkeologins mans- 1986a. Women in the Archaeological Past. Rap- och kvinnogravar. Forthcoming in Arkeologi i port från TAG i Glasgow 1985.K.A.N. 2. norr. Umeå. 1986b. Rapport från International Conference on -n.d. 2. Kj&t&nn og materiell kultur i arkeologien. Women's History, Amsterdam, mars 1986. Forthcoming in K.A.N. 17. Nytt om Kvinneforskning 411986. -n.d. 3. Early Iron Age in Western Norway. A 1986c. Presentation av "Kvinnenes Kultur- Gender Critical Perspective. Forthcoming in historie". Populär Arkeologi 2/1986. Hill. J.D. (ed): B.A.R. British Archaeological 1988. Kan man identifisere kvinners arbeid uti- Reports. fra graver? In: Iregren et al. (eds) : Gravskick —in prep. Genusperspektivet. En kvalité i arkeo- och g&.avdata. University of Lund, Institute of logiundervisningen. Forthcoming in Konfe- Archaeology. Report Series No. 32. rensrapport. Kvalitéeri studier och utbildning. 1989a. Noen aspekter på gravgods i eldre jern- Universitetspedagogisk konferens. Umeå alder. Kan gravgods belyse kult? In: Larsson 1995. &Wyszomirska (eds) :Arkeologi och Reli gi on. Hylén, H. 1993.Review of Hj1&&rungdal 1991:Det University of Lund, Institute of Archaeology. skjulte kj&ann. Folkets Historia A rg. 21 Nr. 4, Report Series No. 34. 1993. 1989b. Forhistoriens kvinner er blitt tydeligere. Iregren, E. 1988a. Människor i medeltid - historia Kvi nnej ournalen 111989. och biologi i ett samhällsperspektiv. Ett plane- 1990.Volva frå Os —forvaltar av ein lang tradi- rat projekt vid avdelningen för medeltidsar- sjon. Arkeo 1/1990 (also printed in the daily keologi vid Lunds universitet. In: Iregren et al newspaper Os dé Fusa-Posten, Ma&ch 7th, (eds): Gravskick och gravdata. University of 1992). Lund, Institute ofArchaeology. Report Series 1991.Det skj ulte kj tt&nn. Patriarkal tradi sj on og No. 32. feministisk visj on i a&. keologien belyst med fo- — 1988b. Avbruten amning blev barnens död? : ett kus på enj ernalderkontekst. Acta Archaeo- försök till tolkning av Västerhusmaterialet. logica Lundensia 8:19. Populär Arkeologi. 1992a. Mot ett nytt bilde av eldre jernalder, Nytt - 1992a. Kvinnor och barn under medeltid — ett om Kvi nneforskning 111992. antropologiskt perspektiv på några skelett- 1992b. Från hjältinnor till genus. Forntid, arkeo- material. In: Lövkrona, I. (red): Kvinnospå&. i logi och könsmakt. Häften för kritiska studie& medeltid. Kvinnovetenskapliga studier 1.Lund 2/1992. University Press. 1992c. Om nokre reiskapar som var meir enn -1992b. Scandinavian Women During the Medie- reiskapar. Gavlen 2/1992. val Period; Health, Childbirth and Childcare. 1993a. Feminist Archaeology in . A Collegi um A nt& opologi cum. Vol. 16,No. I/1 992. Summary. In: Bericht :u& Tagung der Archäo- Zagreb. logi nnen 1992 in Kiel. Kiel. Janzon, G. O. 1993. Tre gotländskor. Histo&/ska 1993b.Fragment från västnorska grottor. G&.ot- Nyheter Nr. 55. tan 3/1993. Jennbert, K. 1984: Den produktiva gåvan. T&'adi- 1994a. Antikvarien, synålen och svärdet. Forsk- ti on och innovation i Sydskandina»/en fö& om-

ningshistoriska aspekter på gravar och köns- k& i ng 5300 å & sedan, Acta Archaeologica ideologi. Kontaktstenci I XXXV/1. Umeå. Lundensia 4:16. 1994b. Poles Apart. Have There Been Any Male — 1991.Kvinnor och introduktion av odling. and Female Graves? Cu& rent Sveedi sh A rchaeo- K.A.N. 12.

Curren& Sweelish Archaeology. Vo/. 3, 1995 Gender-Cri&ical Archaeotogy in Sweden 117

Johnsen, B. 1991.En siffra i statistiken. K.A.N. 12. This Virgin Text: Between Sex and Gender in Jämställd? /984/85. Resultat av RAÄ och SHMMs Archaeology. In: Bapty &Yates (eds) :Archaeo- jämställdhetsenkät. Unpublished report. Stock- logy after Structuralism. Post-structurali sm holm. and the Practice ofArchaeology. Routledge K.A.N. (Kvi nner i Arkeologi i Norge) No. 12. Spe- London. cial Issue on Swedish Archaeology. Norr, S. 1991.Grundutbildningen i Uppsala 1965- Kulturmiljövård 3/1990. Tema: Ett annat per- 1990.K.A.N. 12. spektiv. Pérez,ploateringg.B.I. & Browall, H. 1992.Arkeologi och ex- Kästner, S. 1993.Abriss einer Forschungsge- Betänkande av HUR-utredningen. schichte zum Themenkomplex "Matriarchat" SOU 1992:137.Stockholm. aus archäologischer Sicht. In: Bericht zur Tag- Petré, B. 1993.Male and Female Finds and Sym- ung de& Archäologinnen 1992 in Kiel. Kiel. bols in Germanic Iron Age Graves. Current Lagerlöf, A. 1989.Dold ojämställdhet i forskar- Swedish Archaeology 1. samhället. Forntid och Nutid 1989:18. Pettersson, B. 1994. Kvinnor och män i Birka. — 1990.Vilken/vilkas arkeologi bedriver vi? Rap- META 94:1. port från den kvinnoarkeologiska konferansen Rubin, G. 1975.The Traffic in Women: Notes on i Uppsala 6-8 nov. 1989.Kulturmijlö vå rd 3/90. the Political Economy of Sex. In: Reiter, R. — 1991.Riksantikvarieämbetets Fornminnesav- (ed): Toward an Anth&opology of Women. delning. Funderingar kring jämställdhet. New York, Monthly Review Press. K.A.N. 12. Ryberg, E. 1986. Hanna Rydh — en bortglömd Lindman, G. 1990.Arkeologin på 90-talet - Vad forskare. K.A.N. 2. blir vårt bidrag? K.A.N. 9-10. - 1990.Hanna Rydh — förmedlare av förhistorien. Lundström, I. 1993.Kvinnan i labyrinten. Histo- Fornvä nnen. riska Nyheter Nr. 55. Spector, J.D. & Whelan, M.K 1988. Incorpora- Magnus, B. 1990. Kvinner i kulturminnevernet- ting Gender into Archaeology Courses. K.A.N. noen norske refleksjoner. Kulturmijlö vård 3/ 7. 1990. Stjernquist, B. 1975. Kvinnans sociala ställning i -1993. Den gullsmykkete kvinnen rakte ham forntiden. LUM (Lunds Universitet Meddelar) begeret. Historiska Nyheter nr. 55. N&.. 16, 1975. Magnusson, G. 1990. Kvinnors arbete - ett dolt Strömberg, A. 1993.Male or Female? A metho- kulturlandskap. Ku itu rmi jlö vå rd 3/1990. dologi cal study ofgrave gifts as sex-i ndi cators —1991a.Fornminnesinventeringen —av tradition en in Iran Age burials from Athens. Studies in männens värld. K.A.N. 12. Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature. — 1991b. Kvinnor inom jämhanteringen. En kom- Pocket-book 123. Paul Åströms förlag. Par- mentar till några äldre bilder. K.A.N. 12. ti lle. Mandt, G. & Na:ss, J. R. 1986. Hvem skapte og Strömberg, M. 1991.Min erfarenhet av att vara gtenskaper vår fjerne fortid? Struktur og inn- kvinnlig akademiker. K.A.N. 12. hold i norsk arkeologi i perspektivet: Hvor Svedin, M. 1991.Våndan att våga välja C-upp- mannlig er vitenskapen? K.A.N. 3. sats med feministisk inriktning!! K.A.N. 12. META. Medeltidsarkeologisk Tidskrift 1994:1. Tomasdotter-Hed, A. 1991.Behöver vi två arkeo- Lund. Special issue on gender. logiska vetenskaper? Om kvinnoarkeologins Moore, H. 1988.Feminism and Anthropology. vara eller icke vara. K.A.N. 12. Polity Press. Thålin-Bergman, L. (ed) 1975. 0 forna tiders Nordbladh, J. 1991.Kvinnor och män i universi- kvinnor. Stockholm. tetsvärldens arkeologi. K.A.N. 12. — 1990.Arkeologi och kvinnor —kvinnor och arkeo- - 1991b. Ingen tobak - inget halleluja. Forskar- logi. Kulturmi jlö vå rd 311990. utbildningens dilemma: mötesplats för fri- Ullén, I. 1993a.Den attraktiva makten. Historiska hetskamp och maktsträvanden. In: Larsson & Nyheter nr. 55. Ryberg (red) : Arkeologi och makt. University - 1993b. Bronsålderskomplexet vid Apalle, Upp- of Lund. Institute of Archaeology. Report land. In: Burström, M. (red): Pågående av- Series No. 40. handli n gsarbet en vi d den A rkeo logi ska i nsti- Nordbladh, J. & Yates, T. 1990.This Perfect Body, tutionen, Stockholms universitet, VT 1993.

Curren& Swedish Archaeotogy, Vol. 3, 1995 118 Tove Hj prungdal

SAR. Stockholm Archaeological Reports Nr. Ryberg (red): Arkeologi och makt. University 26, 1993. of Lund. Institute of Archaeology. Report Welinder, S. 1986.Review of K.A.N. , Kvinner i Series No. 40. Arkeologi i Norge 1. Fornvännen. —1992.Människor och landskap. Societas Arch- 1987. Kvinnligt och manligt i mesoliticum. aeologica Upsaliensis. Uppsala. K.A.N. 4 — 1993a.Pots, Females and Food. Current Swedish 1988.Review of Kyle, G. (ed) 1987:Handbok i Archaeology 1. svensk kvinnohistoria. Fornvä nnen. - 1993b. Kvinnor i kinesisk arkeologi. K.A.N. 15. 1989a. Arkeologi med stort Q. Universitetets - 1993c.Review of B. Sawyer 1992:Kvinnor och Oldsaksamling. Å rbok 1986/88. familj i det forn- och medeltida Skandinavien. 1989b.An experiment with the analysis of sex Occasional Papers on Medieval Topics 6. and gender of cremated bones. TOR Vol. 22 Skara. Fornvä nnen. 1988-1989. — 1993d. Mijlö, kultur och kulturmijlö. Stockholm. 1990.Det mångtydiga landskapet. Kulturmijlö- -1994.The Ethnoarchaeology of a Swedish Vil- vård 3/1990. lage. Current Swedish Archaeology 2. 1991a.Grundutbildningen vid Stockholms uni- Wennstedt Edvinger, B.1993.Genus och dj ursym- versitet. K.A.N. 12. bolik. Om den norrländska fång stkulturens 1991b.Doktorer i arkeologi på 1900-talet. K.A.N. organisation med avseende på kön. Arkeolo- 12. giska Studier vid Umeå Universitet l. 1991c.Uppdragsverksamhetens säsongsan- Wienberg, J. 1993.Tavse romanske tårne. META ställda arbetskraft. K.A.N. 12. 1993:3-4. 1991d. Landsantikvarier och länsantikvarier. Wylie, A. 1992. Workplace issues for women in K.A.N. 12. archaeology: the chilly climate. K.A.N. 13-14. 1991e.Fördummande förmedling. In: Larsson &

SEMINAR PAPERS There are probably additional seminar papers Gustafsson, J. 1993.Från Hanna Rydh till Märta touching upon the topic of gender in some way Strömberg. En studie av kvinnors insatser or other. The papers listed below explicitly men- inom svensk arkeologi. Uppsala. tion gender, feminism, or male and female (buri- Gustavsson, A. & Jonsson, H. 1990.Kvinnor, män als). och makt. Göteborg. Hulth, H. &Jahn, K. 1992.Den lilla skillnaden. Om Andersson, E. 1993.Jungfrun i tornet. Om kvinnor kö nsmarkeringarijärnåldersgravar. Uppsala. och kvi nnoartefakter på Lindholmen. Lund. Josefson, K. 1992.Nycklarna i de gotländska gra- Annuswer, B. 1983. Vendeltida gotländska mans- varna från folkvandringsti d. Lund. gravar. En källkritisk studie. Uppsala. Kjebon, B.1992.Eg tvedfli ckans roll i bronså lderns Brusling, A. 1992.Döda män klär i rutigt - Mans- samhälle. Enjämförande studie med utgångs- dräkten under yngre järnålder. Uppsala. punkt från bronsstatyetter och hä llristningar. Carlson, I. 1992.Portabel konst - den bärbara Stockholm. människan under senpaleolitikum. Lund. Knutman, R. 1989. Venus-statyetter. Lund. Carlsson, Y. 1993.Kvinnan på 1re. Stockholm. Knutsson, H. 1992.En källkritisk studie av arkeo- Enocson, E. 1989. Rites de passage under yngre logisk könsbedömning utifrån de skånska järnålder? En analys av några föremålskate- stridsyxegravarna i Mats Malmers "Jungneo- gorier i kvinnogravar från Lovö och Spånga litische Studien". Lund. socknar i Uppland. Stockholm. Kyhlberg, K. 1983.Kvinnor och män i uppländska Franzén, B. 1983.En vapengrav från Lilla Vi, runinskrifter — en metodstudie. Stockholm. Djursdala sn i Småland under romerskjä rn- Lindvall, C. &Tibe, A.M. 1993.Famijlestrukturen ålder. Vad var denna mans funktionlposition i på Lundagravfältet. Lund. det småländska samhället? Stockholm. Matthing, O. 1992. Vendeltida vapengravar på Gidlöf, K. 1992.Samekvinnans sociala ställning i Gotland; bönder, krigare eller stormä n? Upp- äldre tid. Samiska gravari Sverige och Norge sala. under samisk jä må lder. Lund. Norlander, Å. &Pedersen, V. 1985.Kvi nnans drä kt-

Cunent Swedish Archaeology, Vol. 3, 1995 Gender-Critica! Archoeology in Sweden 119

skick och samhällsställning i Danmark under Stockholm. äldre bronså lder. Göteborg. Ross, K. 1993.Kvinnans rolli bronsåldernsjord- Olsson, M. 1991.Som de levde begravdes de och brukssamhälle. Uppsala. - - -? Graven som spegelbild av arbetsdel- Sanell, Ch. 1992.Hur var den vikingatida kvinnan ning och status mellan man och kvinna under klädd? Enjämförelse mellan arkeologisk forsk- stenåldern. Lund. ning och vad som visas på museerna. Umeå. Pettersson, B. 1994.Indiana Jones på Birka. Om Stål, E.& Stål, Y. 1981.Gravfynd- könsbestämning arkeologi och popularisering. Lund. — sysselsättning - könsroll? Göteborg. Rodenborg, E. 1990. Neolitiska kvinnostatyetter: Wennstedt, B. 1983.En semiotisk bearbetning av Gudinneavbildningar eller barnleksaker? kvinnodräkten i Birka. Umeå.

Current Swedish Archaeology, Vol. 3, l995