Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: A Spanish Perspective

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018 Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology 10.1007/978-3-319-51726-1_1027-2 Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: A Spanish Perspective Sandra Montón-Subías1 and Enrique Moral1 (1)Departament d’Humanitats, ICREA, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain Sandra Montón-Subías (Corresponding author) Email: sandra.monton@upf.edu Enrique Moral Email: enrique.moral@upf.edu Without Abstract Introduction In the 1970s, in the aftermath of second-wave feminism, feminist scholars identified androcentric sexist biases behind scientific research, which included archaeology. They noticed that both the professional practice and the interpretation/presentation of the past were permeated by values enmeshed in the twentieth-century hegemonic gender system and argued for a culture of equality within the discipline. In the following decade, Spanish archaeology began to incorporate this critique, led until then by archaeologists mainly working in Norway and the USA. Since then, the momentum gained by a growing number of researchers has turned feminist and gender studies into one of the most dynamic fields of the discipline in Spain, a field in its own right both in the general context of gender and feminist archaeology and in the particular context of theoretical and methodological discussion in the Iberian Peninsula. Also here, feminist researchers have promoted self-criticism and reflexivity within the discipline, provided alternative interpretations to problems previously examined, and developed new fields of inquiry. This has not included, at least until very recently, the queer archaeologies that developed from the end of the 1990s in English-speaking and Scandinavian countries. Because of this, the majority of this entry focuses only on the development of feminist and gender archaeologies, since queer archaeology is a promising but still incipient field in Spain. Definition Gender, feminist, and queer archaeologies refer to those archaeologies that explicitly problematize sex, gender, and/or sexuality in interpretations of the past and/or in the present practice of the discipline itself. Feminist and queer archaeologies are politically engaged with the end of patriarchy and, therefore, promote a cultural change in the discipline to remove its sexist and heterosexist biases. The archaeology of gender may have such a political dimension, but this is not always the case – there are both feminist and non-feminist archaeologies of gender. When the political dimension is not present, the archaeology of gender only broadens the content of other interpretive frameworks in considering the sociocultural interpretation of sexual difference as a structural principle in society, therefore adding gender to the study of the past. Historical Background In Spanish archaeology, the explicit interest in questioning androcentrism and problematizing questions linked to the experiences and practices of women began only a little later than in the pioneering countries, since the first related paper was published at the end of the 1980s (Sanahuja and Picazo 1989). Since then, the rejection of the double discrimination of women, in the profession and in the explanation/presentation of the past, has promoted a critical review of archaeological practices and narratives, new hypotheses for interpreting and reinterpreting the archaeological record, and new analytical categories for understanding historical dynamics. Currently, the volume of publications is such that there are already compilations that track events until present day (e.g., to mention just a few, Díaz-Andeu and Montón-Subías 2012; Zarzalejos 2008). As in Norway and the USA, Spain also incorporated these concerns from feminist perspectives. However, both the theoretical-methodological context that received them and the interpretive model behind were different. While in the aforementioned countries processual archaeology already had a lengthy history and the post-processual move was beginning to emerge, in Spain culture history prevailed, being the description of archaeological materials the primary concern. This traditional way of understanding and practicing archaeology was primarily questioned from historical materialism – well-informed, nonetheless, by the processual methodology so popular in the English-speaking world. This early theoretical phase should be understood within the context of the unique political and historical situation of Spain at that time. The Spanish University had just experienced a transition due to the end of the Francoist dictatorship in 1975, and a number of archaeologists engaged in Marxism – and, in the case of some women, feminism too – were recruited into the team (on this process, see Vicent 1994). For the previous reason, the first feminist archaeologists in Spain were also immersed in Marxist ideology. This union between Marxism and Feminism initially led to the distrust of gender archaeologists in the USA and England, which were seen as examples of historical idealism and low-intensity political practice. From this standpoint the category of gender was initially met with suspicion, perhaps even dismissal, and the concept of sex was preferred: “relations between the sexes” and “sexual roles,” among others, were the expressions in use (Colomer et al. 1993: 5). This explicit wish to differ from gender archaeologies has continued through the years in proposals linked to the Marxist tradition (Vila Mitjà et al. 2017 being the latest), which has sometimes sought bonds with feminism connected to the French and Italian theories of sexual difference (Sanahuja 2002). That is why in Spain, apart from the fact that there are “feminist” and “non-feminist” archaeologies of gender, there are also “gender” and “non-gender” feminist archaeologies. Despite the fact that in the 1980s interest in gender studies was very minor in Spanish archaeology, it had a significant weight within the group of professionals interested in promoting theoretical debate within the discipline. For instance, one of the sessions of the first and only “Reunión de Arqueología Teórica” (Meeting of Theoretical Archaeology, RAT), held in Santiago de Compostela in 1992, was devoted to “Arqueología y Mujeres” (Archaeology and Women). This was the first time that the discussion of androcentrism in the discipline, including concerns on the professional practice, was transferred from individuals and specific groups to a wider national academic framework. The session provided much-needed reference for female archaeologists who had personal experience of sexism and spurred interest in the issue. At the end of the 1990s, the first book about archaeology and feminism was published (Colomer et al. 1999). It was a reader with 12 seminal works, mostly produced in England and the USA, but also in Norway, Sweden, and Mexico, aimed at facilitating access to the Spanish-speaking public to some of the most significant contributions in the development of feminist archaeology. It was also at the end of the 1990s when, faced with the ever-growing Anglophonic production and the influence of other disciplines like anthropology or history, the archaeology of gender (strictly speaking, that which incorporates gender as an analytical category) also entered into Spanish academia. The path for feminist archaeologies different to the earlier Marxist ones was then open. Finally, it was during the first years of the twenty-first century that feminist and gender archaeologies were firmly established in Spain. In this period, the first monographs were published. In the year 2000, for instance, the Seminario de Arqueología y Etnología Turolense dedicated the 22nd volume of its journal, Arqueología Espacial, to gender and space in archaeology. Furthermore, new gatherings of women in archaeology were organized in different universities. The first was the course “Archaeology and Gender” that took place at Granada in 2003 (Sánchez-Romero 2005). Inspired by the Wedge conference procedure, and its influential Engendering Archaeology, this occasion also saw various archaeologists discuss their ways of understanding and practicing feminist and gender archaeology in front of the student body of the university. Soon after, thematic seminars on specific questions, such as “maintenance activities” (see below), held in Barcelona in 2005 and 2007 (Montón-Subías and Sánchez Romero 2008), began to be organized. In 2006, the Museum of Prehistory in Valencia organized the first museum exhibition of women in prehistory (Soler 2006). Originally designed with a provincial character, it soon aroused the interest of other Spanish museums and institutions, generating debates, courses, and circuits of academic dissemination where it was exhibited. In recent years the administrations in charge of some archaeological sites have expressed interest on gender and feminist debates by organizing courses and seminars such as Women, genders and archaeology, organized by World Heritage Dólmenes de Antequera in 2015, or Gender and Maintenance Activities, organized by the Roman site of Camp de les Lloses in 2017. Also in the past few years, queer stances have flourished within Iberian archaeology, thanks to events such as the XVIII Meeting of Young Researchers in Archaeology celebrated in 2017 in Vitoria (Basque Country) and devoted to queer and “transfeminist” studies or the exhibition TRANS*, held in the same year in the Museum of America, Madrid, on the diversity of gender roles and identities within the American continent. Key Issues/Current Debates In over 30 years of research on gender and feminist archaeology in Spain, works on diverse themes have been published. Drawing on the critique of androcentrism, concerns similar to those demonstrated first in the pioneering countries have prospered. Thus, we have publications on the work and contributions of women in the past; on the labor situation of female archaeologists; on the sexist of archaeological discourse and language, verbal and nonverbal; on new ways of presenting the past and reflections on fundamental concepts, like those of space, time, and identity; and on new categories of historic analysis (a more detailed examination of those works can be seen in Díaz-Andreu and Montón-Subías 2012). Some of these concerns have been brought together around two specific lines of inquiry that Spanish archaeologists have and are contributing to the global scene: maintenance activities and the sociohistorical construction of gendered personhood and self-identity (see also Montón Subías and Lozano 2012). The maintenance activities approach was raised at the beginning of the 1990s by a group of researchers at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and within the emphasis given by a feminism of Marxist inspiration to the analysis of women’s work and material conditions. The proposal was initially aimed at investigating a specific sphere of social production and reproduction, a sphere that had been forgotten in traditional master narratives (including those of Marxism). Soon other researchers joined their efforts. They shared with them concern and dissatisfaction of the sexist biases affecting the practice of archaeology and the motivation to join new categories of analysis to evaluate the practices and experiences of women. Inevitably, many of these contributions, although not all, exceeded the original theoretical framework, adding and/or combining concerns stemming from feminist theories different to the Marxist ones. Currently, this approach continues to be enriched by the contributions of different researchers within and outside of Spain (see, e.g., Montón-Subías and Sánchez-Romero 2008). The concept of maintenance activities embraces under a single expression all basic activities necessary to create, regulate, stabilize, sustain, and reproduce (in the short, medium, and long term) society’s lifeways. Related to the management of everyday life and the well-being of all of its members, they include, grosso modo, caregiving, cooking and food processing, basic textiles, hygiene and public health, the socialization of children, and the fitting out and organization of residential space. Specialized in maintaining the group’s social connections and bonds, they are part and parcel of the relational framework in which they take part and which they create. Although chrono-geographically variable in its cultural forms, what remains stable is the structural function to which the term refers to (González Marcén et al. 2008: 4). With slight variations, the study of the previous tasks, in their possible conjugations, is what often appears in the analyses of maintenance activities (see Montón-Subías and Lozano 2012, and Sanahuja 2002: 172–189 for a review of the Marxist perspective). The approach emphasizes, therefore, the structural character of these activities, whose ultimate function is to guarantee the reiteration and recurrence of the group’s activities and/or to channel any changes in the latter into new reiteration and recurrence patterns or, in other words, into new ways of everyday life management (for a wider discussion, see González Marcén et al. 2008). Because of this, it has been unveiled as a tool with great potential to evaluate social dynamics over vast lapses of time and periods considered as transitions (see, for instance, section “ Historical Background” in Montón-Subías and Sánchez-Romero 2008). Analyzing daily life in the long run, their forms of permanence and change, allows us to better understand the articulation of the different variables – also those considered macro – that integrate the social fabric, as well as their changes and modifications. In this already established approach, one of the most recurrent debates has referred to the nature of the association between women and these practices. Do these perspectives homogenize the experience of women and confine them to this unique field of action (Picazo 1997: 60; González Marcén et al. 2008: 3; Lozano 2011: 31)? It is true that the proposal was initially partly aimed at interpreting the experiences and practices of women in an alternative way and that, therefore, there was an implicit link between maintenance activities and practices carried out by women. But already in the initial contributions, it was stressed that their dismissal by mainstream archaeology was due to their association with the female sphere in modern times. Subsequently, their relational character and their recurrent rhythm, in direct opposition to change, individuality, and power -the values highlighted by history, which is the discourse created to legitimate modernity (Hernando 2012)- were added as main reasons in their concealment. In any case, many different works have insisted that the association between women and maintenance activities has a historical genealogy, that women are also found in other realms, and that in the origins of humankind the whole group would have been involved in their practice. Indeed, subscribing the perspective of maintenance activities and suggesting that an important part of the times and roles of many women has been overlooked do not mean defending that maintenance activities represent the whole set of (potential) activities carried out by women (in fact some of the professionals that work on maintenance activities also investigate the presence of women in other spheres of action, traditionally assigned to men [Sánchez-Romero and Moreno Onorato 2005]). It does, of course, mean understanding this sphere of action in its singularity and articulating it with the rest of the social, economic, political, and ideological variables that orchestrate the course of life for human societies. The feminist politics in this line of inquiry is underpinned by reflection on the values that should be integrated in the writing of history and how they might help in building a new form of public rationality. With the inspiration of authors grouped around the “ethics of care,” like Nancy Chodorov or Carol Gilligan, unorthodox Marxist authors like Anna Jónasdóttir, and others linked to the feminism of difference connected to the Milan Women’s Bookstore Collective such as Luisa Muraro and Adriana Cavarero, emphasis is placed on the value of relationality and interdependence. This endeavor is shared with another of the most original contributions of feminist archaeology in Spain: that which analyzes the historical reasons for gender inequality in the Western world starting from the study of the mechanisms through which we construct self-identity. This line of investigation, which arose in Madrid in the late 1990s, started from a different point than the majority of feminist studies. It did not initially focus on women, but rather on the way that human beings construct their identity (Hernando et al. 2011; Hernando 2012). On the basis of her own previous ethnoarchaeological work in oral societies and drawing from studies in psychology, sociology, philosophy, and anthropology that had already examined the differences between relational and individualized identity, Hernando suggested that individuality and relationality constitute “packages” of characteristics that are combined in complex and dynamic ways within one single person, depending on their position of power or control in the social group. The author analyzed the genealogy of contemporary gender identities in the Western world, concluding that, initially, all men and women in human societies would have had relational identities (similar, in structural terms, to those that characterize contemporary hunter-gatherers). This means, according to Hernando, that the so-called feminine identity would not be but the “relational identity” typical of both men and women in the beginnings of humankind, which allows her to escape from essentialisms linked to sex. In accordance with this perspective, men would have been slowly and gradually developing individuality, while women would have maintained the relational identity until modern times. Since then women would have also developed characteristics of individuality, but by virtue of their different historical trajectories, there would be a difference between the current individuality of men and women. Obviously, this line of work was aimed at analyzing the reasons of this differentiation or, in other words, the genesis of the patriarchal order. To this end, Hernando accepted that the extreme fragility of the Homo offspring played an important role in the differentiation of identity trajectories between males and females, although unlike other approaches, she did not argue that the central tenet of this differentiation was due to biological factors, but rather to cultural factors related to differential mobility between men and women. Caring for the highly dependent human offspring would have implied travelling shorter distances or less mobility for women than for men. This fact would have been critical in hunter-gatherer societies, considering the vital importance that oral societies place on the spatial dimension in the construction of the world (Hernando et al. 2011). These initial subtle differences in mobility did not establish power relationships between the sexes, but could have constituted the base for a progressive increase of masculine individuality and, with this, the subsequent appearance of the patriarchal order. International Perspectives Feminist archaeology in Spain has always shown great interest in knowing debates generated abroad. This openness has led researchers to integrate similar concerns from other countries and to develop strategies to internationalize their own reflections. Out of this, exchanges and collaborations have followed, which make this field one of the most dynamic and international in Spain. These external influences were first expressed through the weight that the “Women the gatherer” movement of US anthropology in the 1970s had in the interest in issues related to the origins of humankind (Querol 2001; Sanahuja 2002). Some years later, in the RAT of 1992, the title “¿Somos todas hombres?” (Are we all men?) was selected to present a paper about sexism in the practice of contemporary Spanish archaeology. It was the recognition paid by a group of Spanish female archaeologists to the first workshop on the subject, Were they all men, held in Norway in 1979. Equally decisive was the arrival of Engendering Archaeology, published by Meg Conkey and Joan Gero in 1991, that would inspire many later works on feminist and gender archaeology in Spain (see also Cruz Berrocal 2009: 124). Spanish feminist and gender archaeologies have repaid this initial input bringing to the global scene more examples of how sexist and androcentric values have inappropriately influenced archaeological practice and archaeological knowledge and alternative or new interpretations of an archaeological record that, as a consequence, begins to be much more renowned internationally. The Iberian Iron Age is an outstanding example (Prados and Izquierdo 2006; García-Luque and Rísquez 2008). It has also contributed new analytical categories or perspectives, such as the ones reviewed in the previous section. This spirit of internationalizing Spanish production has resulted in diverse forums. There have been international conferences in Spain, such as seminars on maintenance activities in Barcelona, which have brought together peninsular and abroad archaeologists to reflect on concrete aspects of the approach (Montón-Subías and Sánchez-Romero 2008). In the same vein, conferences abroad have been attended, including the organization of sessions in the annual editions of the EAA (European Association of Archaeologists) and the SAA (Society for American Archaeology). And publications on platforms of international scope have also appeared (e.g., Cruz Berrocal 2009; Montón-Subías 2010; Lozano 2011; Hernando et al. 2011; Moral 2016a), however mostly in English (in January 2018 only 8 of the 101 journals listed for archaeology in the Thomson Reuters Arts and Humanities citation index were in Spanish). It is important to value the extra effort that this fact implies and the situation of double (or triple, or quadruple) demand faced by many of these archaeologists: on the one hand, to find a way in a national and international academia dominated by androcentric power structures, and on the other hand, to do it in an international academia of Anglo-American hegemony, much more receptive to the empirical cases proposed by Spaniards than the theoretical approaches generated in our language. In fact, by the works cited in the English-speaking world, one could reach the misleading conclusion that there are very few theoretical contributions outside of its own linguistic area. Furthermore, forums of debate to bring together Spanish-speaking feminist archaeologists from both sides of the Atlantic have also been created. For example, the interest in exploring the relationship between feminism and historical materialism has joined Spanish archaeologists with representatives of the Latin American Social Archaeology (see, e.g., Vargas 2004). A recent example of another Ibero-American (or Americo-Iberian) collaboration is the book Museos Arqueológicos y Género. Educando en Igualdad (Prados and López 2017), a compilation of essays written by scholars from Ecuador, Mexico, and Spain that aims to expose the way in which archaeological museums can and must transmit an inclusive history in order to contribute to an education in gender equality. The promotion of multilateral, international contacts is also behind the presence of several Spanish archaeologists in the creation and functioning of AGE, the Archaeology and Gender in Europe working party of the European Association of Archaeologists ( http://​www.​archaeology-gender-europe.​org/), a network designed to bring scholars of different nationalities and academic traditions together in order to develop and exchange information on gender in archaeology in its many dimensions (Dommasnes and Montón-Subías 2012). This internationalist vocation has been in part supported by the Spanish research policy conducted after the Francoist dictatorship in relation to the concession of research fellowships for research residencies in foreign research centers (Díaz-Andreu and Montón Subías 2012). Thanks to these visits, for example, the first news of the influential Were they all men and Engendering Archaeology reached Spain. Future Directions The strength and importance that research on feminist and gender studies holds in Spanish archaeology is established. This said, it should be also clarified that there are obstacles and challenges, both internal and external, for this research. The explicit involvement or the affinity of many of these researchers with feminism and the resulting critique of academic androcentrism, often experienced in first person, cause doubt, reticence, hostility, and rejection in one part of the academic establishment. Without doubt, the progressive popularization of the issue has diminished public critiques, as they would be perceived as politically incorrect. However, from less visible platforms, such as, among others, anonymous decision-making panels, a veiled discrimination may act against research and candidacies related to the investigations of gender; a form of discrimination that is not only more difficult to identify but also more difficult to challenge. Furthermore, the very dynamic nature and development of this research raises questions that demand greater attention and confront challenges of a different character depending on whether or not the research has a political involvement. A first necessary challenge would be to explicitly clarify the differences and affiliations among feminist archaeologies, archaeologies of gender, and women’s archaeologies to avoid conceptual ambiguities. In fact, conceptual ambiguity has begun to happen already within archaeologies of gender. Since the popularization of the issue in the 1990s, some authors have just “targeted” gender, but ignored or rejected its original critical theoretical framework. In these works, gender is no longer a concept but instead a term with which to designate women and, to a lesser extent, also men. By incorporating gender as only a word, one can continue writing about men and women in a conceptual framework that perpetuates stereotypes and gender roles characteristic of the traditional imaginary and from the same androcentric positions confronted initially by feminist and gender archaeologies. Although the original desire of those who devote themselves to gender archaeology from a feminist position was and is to transform the mainstream, the opposite effect has oftentimes resulted from “less politicized” approaches. In these cases, the mainstream has transformed gender archaeology, blurring its feminist critique. Still, it should remain clear that in Spain, currently, the majority of the works on gender are elaborated from engagement with feminism. As in other countries, also here feminist and gender research has mainly been identified with that of women. Indeed, women were the first who drew from their gender stereotypes and expressed the need to find themselves in another way in written history. This being acknowledged, it is however now important to associate feminist and gender archaeologies not only with women, especially when this fact particularizes their study and prevents the understanding of the social and power dynamics of which they are part. While it is important, for example, to continue writing historiographies about female archaeologists, it is even more vital to incorporate women in the general historiography of the discipline. Precisely, to move in this dual field, which is not incompatible, constitutes one of the most important challenges that feminist archaeologies face. On the other hand, questioning the “hegemonic gender system” from which history has been written also means understanding that men of the past have been constructed following the dominant contemporary model of masculinity, a model which has assigned them a particular way of being and behaving, associated with success, individuality, change, power, heterosexuality, aggression, and violence. But, above all, it means understanding that the very writing of history has been associated with these values, and oversized activities, such as war, related with them. Despite the fact that in 1998 Thomas Dowson published an article in the 14th edition of the Catalan journal Cota Zero calling for queer archaeology (see “ Engendered Archaeologies,” this volume) and that the construction of masculinity has become a growing concern in other fields of the social sciences in Spain, this issue has not yet had major impact in the archaeology of our country. For the last years, however, prevailing assumptions related to the hegemonic model of masculinity have begun to be questioned to critically reevaluate the supposedly structural character of warfare and warriors in the Argaric Bronze Age of Southeast Iberia (Aranda et al. 2009). Likewise, some archaeologists have recently adopted queer stances to contest gender and sexual categories in their research, deeply influenced by the Spanish “transfeminist” movement (see Higuero 2015; Moral 2016a, b). As occurs in other countries, feminist archaeologists in Spain also should reflect more upon the implementation and the implications of their political involvement in archaeological practice. Building a new disciplinary culture should imply awareness and change of the different forms that patriarchal power structures adopt (in field work, in the teaching of the discipline, in PhD supervision, in academic management, or, among others, in the nature of the links with nonprofessional communities interested in archaeology (on this last aspect, see Gonzalez Marcén 2005). Otherwise, we run the risk of modifying archaeological discourse – the most visible front – but perpetuating an androcentric structure through the gears of its production. Cross-References Engendered Archaeologies The Development of Gender, Feminist and Queer Archaeologies (Australian Perspective) The Development of Gender, Feminist and Queer Archaeologies (European Perspective) The Development of Gender, Feminist and Queer Archaeologies (USA Perspective) References Aranda, G., S. Montón-Subías, and S. Jiménez-Brobeil. 2009. Conflicting evidence? Weapons and skeletons in the Bronze Age of south-east Iberia. Antiquity 83 (322): 1038–1051. CrossRef Colomer, L., S. Gili, P. González Marcén, S. Montón Subías, M. Picazo, C. Rihuete, M. Ruiz, M.E. Sanahuja, and M. Tenas. 1993. Género y Arqueología: las mujeres en la prehistoria. Arqcrística 6: 5–7. Colomer, L., P. González Marcén, S. Montón Subías, and M. Picazo. 1999. Arqueología y teoría feminista. In Estudios sobre mujeres y cultura material en arqueología. Icaria: Barcelona. Cruz Berrocal, M. 2009. Feminismo, teoría y práctica de una arqueología científica. Trabajos de Prehistoria 66 (2): 25–43. CrossRef Díaz-Andreu, M., and S. Montón-Subías. 2012. Gender and feminism in the prehistoric archaeology of Southwest Europe. In A companion to gender prehistory, ed. D. Bolger, 438–457. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Dommasnes, L., and S. Montón-Subías. 2012. European gender archaeologies in historical perspective. Journal of European Archaeology 15 (3): 367–391. CrossRef García-Luque, A., and C. Rísquez. 2008. Maintenance activities in the funerary record. The case of Iberian cemeteries. In Engendering social dynamics: The archaeology of maintenance activities, BAR international series, ed. S. Montón-Subías and M. Sánchez-Romero, vol. 1862, 49–56. Oxford: Archaeopress. González Marcén, P. 2005. Redes de complicidades y objetos vividos. In Arqueología y Género, ed. M. Sánchez Romero, 491–499. Granada: Universidad de Granada. González Marcén, P., S. Montón-Subías, and M. Picazo. 2008. Towards an archaeology of maintenance activities. In Engendering social dynamics: the archaeology of maintenance activities, BAR international series, ed. S. Montón-Subías and M. Sánchez-Romero, vol. 1862, 3–8. Oxford: Archaeopress. Hernando, A. 2012. La fantasía de la individualidad. Sobre la construcción sociohistórica del sujeto moderno. Madrid: Katz. (English translation (2017) The Fantasy of Individuality. On the Sociohistorical Construction of the Modern Subject. New York: Springer). Hernando, A., G. Politis, A. González Ruibal, and E. Beserra Coelho. 2011. Gender, power and mobility among the Awá-Guajá (Maranhão, Brasil). Journal of Anthropological Research 67 (2): 189–211. CrossRef Higuero, A. 2015. Sesgos de género en la interpretación de los restos óseos humanos. Journal of Feminist, Gender and Women Studies 2: 49–55. Lozano, S. 2011. Gender thinking in the making: Feminist epistemology and gender archaeology. Norwegian Archaeological Review 44 (1): 21–39. CrossRef Montón-Subías, S. 2010. Black swans and archaeological interpretation. Norwegian Archaeological Review 43 (1): 1–11. CrossRef Montón-Subías, S., and S. Lozano. 2012. La arqueología feminista en la normatividad académica. Complutum 23 (2): 163–176. Montón-Subías, S., and M. Sánchez-Romero. 2008. Engendering social dynamics: The archaeology of maintenance activities. In BAR international series 1862. Oxford: Archaeopress. Moral, E. 2016a. Qu(e)erying sex and gender in archaeology: A critique of the “third” and other sexual categories. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 23: 788–809. CrossRef Moral, E. 2016b. Heterotopías en conflicto. Sexualidad, colonialismo y cultura material en las Islas Marianas durante el siglo XVII. In Entre ciência e cultura: Da interdisciplinaridade à transversalidade da arqueología (Actas das VIII Jornadas de Jovens em Investigação Arqueológica), ed. I. Pinto Coelho, J. Bento Torres, L. Serrão, and T. Ramos, 229–232. Lisboa: CHAM, IEM. Picazo, M. 1997. Heart and home: The timing of maintenance activities. In Invisible people and processes, ed. J. Moore and E. Scott, 59–67. London/New York: Leicester University Press. Prados, L., and I. Izquierdo. 2006. The image of women in Iberian culture (6th-1st century B.C.). In Proceedings of the XVIth international congress of classical archaeology (Boston)/Associazione Internazionale di Archeologia Classicca, ed. C. Mattusch, A. Donohue, and A. Brauer, 490–495. Oxford: Oxbow. Prados, L., and C. López. 2017. Museos arqueológicos y género. In Educando en igualdad. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Querol, M.A. 2001. Adán y Darwin. Madrid: Síntesis. Sanahuja, M.E. 2002. Cuerpos sexuados, objetos y prehistoria. Madrid: Cátedra. Sanahuja, M.E., and M. Picazo. 1989. Los estudios de las mujeres a lo largo de la Prehistoria y en la Antigüedad griega: estado de la cuestión. Arqueocrítica 1: 32–37. Sánchez Romero, M. 2005. Arqueología y Género. Granada: Universidad de Granada. Sánchez Romero, M., and A. Moreno Onorato. 2005. Mujeres y metalurgia: el caso de Peñalosa (Baños de la Encina, Jaén). In Arqueología y género. Monografías de Arte y Arqueología, ed. M. Sánchez Romero, 261–281. Granada: Universidad de Granada. Soler, B. 2006. Les dones en la prehistòria. Valencia: Museu de Prehistòria. Vargas, I. 2004. Hacia una teoría feminista en arqueología. Otras Miradas 4 (002): 62–75. Vicent, J. 1994. Perspectivas de la teoría arqueológica en España. In Sexto Coloquio Hispano-ruso de Historia, 215–222. Madrid: Fundación Cultural Banesto. Vila Mitjà, A., J. Estévez, F. Lugli, and J. Grau. 2017. La reproducción en la Prehistoria. Madrid: CSIC & La Catarata. Zarzalejos, M. 2008. Los estudios de arqueología del género en la Hispania Romana. In Arqueología del Género. 1er Encuentro Internacional en la UAM, ed. L. Prados and C. Ruiz, 297–326. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.