Archaeology of Women
Code: 106866Credits: 6
| Degree programme | Type | Course |
|---|---|---|
| Archaeology | OB | 3 |
Contact lecturer
- Name :
- Cristina Rihuete Herrada
- Email :
- cristina.rihuete@uab.cat
Group languages
You can consult this information at the end of the document.
Prerequisites
None.
Objectives
The main goals of the course are:
(1) to analyze androcentric biases in archaeological theory & practice
(2) getting acquainted with the main alternatives posed by feminist social theory & activism
(3) to delve in the diversity of human experience from a gender standpoint
(4) to show the interdisciplinary nature of gender studies in archaeology through a wide array of case studies
(5) focusing on new methodologies and analytical procedures which are nowadays available for a gender-sensitive archaeology
Learning outcomes
- CM13 (Innovatively apply the theoretical and methodological procedures of archaeology to society's demands by assuming inclusive perspectives in terms of cultural diversity and gender.) Innovatively apply the theoretical and methodological procedures of archaeology to society's demands by assuming inclusive perspectives in terms of cultural diversity and gender.
- CM14 (Recognise the ethical and social implications of the different approaches and procedures of archaeology to adapt the analysis to the requirements of democratic values and practices.) Recognise the ethical and social implications of the different approaches and procedures of archaeology to adapt the analysis to the requirements of democratic values and practices.
- CM15 (Propose a theoretical and methodological conceptualisation of archaeology that is consistent with perspectives of the past from cultural and gender diversity, inclusion and non-sexism.) Propose a theoretical and methodological conceptualisation of archaeology that is consistent with perspectives of the past from cultural and gender diversity, inclusion and non-sexism.
- KM25 (Recognise the main androcentric and Eurocentric biases in archaeological accounts and propose alternatives through inclusive analyses that incorporate relevant issues related to women and environmental, historical, and cultural diversity.) Recognise the main androcentric and Eurocentric biases in archaeological accounts and propose alternatives through inclusive analyses that incorporate relevant issues related to women and environmental, historical, and cultural diversity.
- SM25 (Infer specific hypotheses about past societies from material remains, displaying the ability to interpret empirical evidence in the light of analogical reasoning and from a gender perspective.) Infer specific hypotheses about past societies from material remains, displaying the ability to interpret empirical evidence in the light of analogical reasoning and from a gender perspective.
Contents
The contents of the course are organised in the three major blocks.
The first one is a general introduction to gender perspective and deals with the conception of women in Western society as well as the path and plurality of feminism and its impact in History, Humanities and Social Sciences.
The second is devoted to key concepts in feminist critique applied to archaeological practice and representations of the past: sexism, androcentrism, gender, patriarchy, family, sexuality, ethics of care and work/labour.
The third block delves into the wide array of topics that have been studied with a gender perspective starting with the first alternatives to androcentric explanations on the origins of humanity and sexual division of labour. This section includes many case studies from all over the world and different time periods that have to do with funerary practices, settlement & territory analysis, social and economic interpretation of material remains, symbolism and biomolecular archaeology (paloediet, kinship and biological relatedness).
The syllabus will cover the following topics:
1. Feminist activism and social theory in historical perspective and its impact in the research with a gender perspective.
2. Androcentrism.
3. Sex and Gender.
4. Women archaeology, gender archaeology, feminist archaeology, queer archaeology and transfeminist archaeology
5. Critique and methodological alternatives to androcentrism and gender stereotypes in archaeology
6. Patriarchy, matriarchy and matricentric/ginecentric societies.
7. Body, kinship and ancestry: palaeogenetics and mobility stories.
The detailed syllabus of the topics, including descriptors and bibliographic and electronic resources, is updated on the Moodle platform.
Learning activities and methodology
| Title | Hours | ECTS | Learning outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tuition, essays, reviews and discussions | 20 | 0.8 | CM13, CM14, CM15, KM25, SM25 |
| Teoria | 40 | 1.6 | CM13, CM14, CM15, KM25, SM25 |
| Homework and studying for tests | 30 | 1.2 | CM13, CM14, CM15, KM25, SM25 |
Class-room activities
- Lectures with ICT support
- Debate and work in groups. Collective evaluation of texts and video documentaries. Single/collective presentations and round evaluations.
Monitored activities
- Scheduled meetings for the discussion of specific doubts and topic contents.
- Guidance and counselling on specific doubts and topics.
Autonomous activities
- Individual study, text-reading, bibliography and documentary search.
- Written essays & oral presentations
Notice: Within the schedule set by the centre or degree programme, 15 minutes of one class will be reserved for students to evaluate their lecturers and their courses through questionnaires.
Assessment
Continuous assessment activities
| Title | Weight | Hours | ECTS | Learning outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active involvement in discussions and workshops | 15 | 10 | 0.4 | CM13, CM14, CM15, KM25 |
| Tests | 85 | 50 | 2 | CM13, CM14, CM15, KM25, SM25 |
Continuous Assessment
Continuous assessment consists of four assessment components: three knowledge-assimilation tests and one final written exam covering the full syllabus, as well as active participation in class.
In order to pass the course, students must obtain:
- an average mark equal to or higher than 5 in the three tests, and
- a mark equal to or higher than 4.75 in the final written exam.
The final grade will be calculated as follows:
- Average mark of the three tests: 45%
- Final written exam: 45%
- Active participation in class (debates and analysis of materials): 10%
Assessment Calendar
At the beginning of the course, and prior to each assessment activity, students will be informed (in class and via Moodle) of the procedures and dates for the review of grades.
In the event that assessment activities cannot be conducted on-site, their format will be adapted to the tools available within the UAB Virtual Campus. Coursework, activities, and participation will be carried out through forums, wikis and/or online discussions via Moodle.
Erasmus and exchange students who request to advance an exam must present a document from their home university justifying their request.
Single Assessment
The single assessment modality consists of four assessment components: three case-study questionnaires, each including an individual oral presentation, and one final in-person written exam.
At the beginning of the course, students will be informed via Moodle of the specific requirements and procedures for the questionnaires.
The final grade will be calculated as follows:
- Average mark of the three questionnaires: 50%
- Final written exam: 50%
Requirements to Pass the Course
- Submission of all assessment components within the established deadlines.
- An average mark of at least 5 out of 10 across assessment components.
- According to UAB academic regulations, when the submission of assessment activities is equal to or less than 30%, the grade will be 'not assessable'.
- Any academic misconduct during an assessment activity (including plagiarism or cheating) will result in a mark of 0 for the corresponding component.
Resit
Students who have completed the assessment components within the established deadlines are eligible to take the resit exam.
The resit will consist of a written exam covering the full syllabus and will be held on the official dates established by the Faculty.
Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies is permitted exclusively for bibliographic search, information retrieval, and text editing purposes.
Students must:
(i) clearly identify the parts generated with AI;
(ii) specify the tools used; and
(iii) include a critical reflection on how these tools have influenced the process and the final outcome.
Failure to disclose the use of AI in assessed activities will be considered a breach of academic integrity and will result in a mark of 0 for the activity, with no possibility of resit, and may lead to further disciplinary measures in serious cases.
Bibliography
[in bold type: reading recommended]
(1) RESEARCH WITH A GENDER PERSPECTIVE: concepts and contributions of feminist theory and epistemology
Arruza, Cinzia; Bhattacharya, Tithi; Fraser, Nancy (2019), Manifiesto de un feminismo para el 99%. Herder, Barcelona.
Azpiazu, Jokin (2017), Masculinidades y feminismo. Virus, Barcelona.
Beauvoir, Simone (1999 [1949]), El segundo sexo. Cátedra, Madrid.
bell hooks (2017 [2000]), El feminismo es para todo el mundo. Traficantes de Sueños, Madrid. https://traficantes.net/libros/el-feminismo-es-para-todo-el-mundo
Braidotti, Rosi (2004), Feminismo, diferencia sexual y subjetividad nómade. Gedisa, Barcelona [veure capítols 4 i 6 com a bibliografía rellevant del tema 3].
Braidotti, Rosi (2022), Feminismo posthumano. Gedisa, Barcelona
Butler, Judith (1990), Gender Trouble. Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge, London [traducción al castellano en Paidós, Barcelona, 2001, El género en disputa. Feminismo y la subversión de la identidad]
Butler, Judith (2004), Undoing Gender. Routledge, New York [traducción al castellano en Paidós, Barcelona, 2004, Deshacer el género].
Ciccia, Lu (2022), La invención de los sexos. Cómo la ciencia puso el binarismo en nuestros cerebros y cómo los feminismos pueden ayudarnos a salir de ahí. Siglo XXI, Buenos Aires.
Davis, Ángela (2022 [1981]), Mujeres, raza y clase, Akal, Madrid.
Despentes, Virginie (2018), Teoría King Kong. Literatura Random House, Barcelona.
Fausto-Sterling, Anne (2000), Sexing the Body. Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. Basic Books, New York [traducción al castellano en Melusina, Sta. Cruz de Tenerife, 2006, Cuerpos sexuados. La política de género y la construcción de la sexualidad].
Faye, Shon (2021), Trans. Un alegato por un mundo más justo y más libre. Blackie Books, Barcelona.
Federici, Silvia (2018), El Patriarcado del Salario. Críticas feministes al marxisme. Traficantes de Sueños, Madrid, https://traficantes.net/libros/el-patriarcado-del-salario
Firestone, Sulamith (1973), The Dialectic of sex. Johnathan-Cape, London [traducción al castellano en Kairós, Barcelona, 1976, La dialéctica del sexo]
Galindo, María (2021), Feminismo Bastardo. 2ª edición, Mujeres Creando, La Paz.
Haraway, Donna (1995), Ciencia, cyborgs y mujeres. Cátedra, Col. Feminismos. Madrid. [original de 1991 Simians, Cyborgs and Women; https://monoskop.org/images/f/f3/Haraway_Donna_J_Simians_Cyborgs_and_Women_The_Reinvention_of_Nature.pdf]
Herd, Gilbert (ed.) (1994),Third Sex, Third Gender: Beyond Sexual Dimorphism in Culture and History. Zone Books,New York.
Jónasdóttir, Anna G. (2011), “¿Qué clase de poder es “el poder del amor”?”, Sociológica, 26(74): 247-273.
Leacock, Eleanor Burke (1981), Myths of Male Dominance: Collected Articles on Women Cross-culturally. Monthly Review Press, New York.
Lugones, María (2011), “Hacia un feminismo descolonial”, La manzana de la discordia, 6(2): 105-119.
Martín, María (2019), Ni por favor ni por favora. Como hablar con lenguaje inclusivo sin que se note (demasiado). Libros de la Catarata, Madrid.
Meana Suárez, Teresa (2002), Porque las palabras no se las lleva el viento... Por un uso no sexista de la llengua. Ajuntament de Quart de Poblet. Descargas en https://www.observatoriodelainfancia.es/oia/esp/documentos_ficha.aspx?id=1089
Millet, Kate (1977), Sexual Politics. Virago, Londres.
Moreno, Amparo (1986), El arquetipo viril protagonista de la historia. Ejercicios de lectura no androcéntrica.La Sal, Barcelona.
Pateman, Carole (1988), The Sexual Contract. Polity Press, Cambridge [traducción al castellano en Antrhopos, Barcelona, 1975, El contrato sexual ]
Rich, Adrienne (1980), “Compulsory heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence”, Signs, 5-4: 631-660.
Rich, Adrienne (2019) [original de 1976], Nacemos de mujer. La maternidad como experiencia e institución. Traficantes de Sueños, Madrid.
Rubin, Gayle (1986), “El tráfico de mujeres: notas sobre la “economia política” del sexo”, Nueva antropología, VIII (30), pàgs. 95-145.
Varela, Nuria (2019), Feminismo 4.0. La cuarta ola. Ediciones B, Barcelona.
Vergès, Françoise (2022), Un feminismo descolonial. Traficantes de Sueños, Madrid. Disponible en https://traficantes.net/libros/un-feminismo-descolonial
Wollstonecraft, Mary (1792, 2005), Vindicación de los derechos de la mujer. Istmo, Col. Fundamentos, Madrid.
(2) GENDER PERSPECTIVE IN ARCHAEOLOGY. Theory, methods and applications.
AAVV, (2006), Les dones en la Prehistòria. Museu de Prehistòria de València, Diputació de València.
Adovasio, James; Soffer, Olga; Page, Jake (2007), The Invisible Sex. Uncovering the true roles of Women in Prehistory. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California [traducción al castellano en Lumen, Barcelona, 2008, El sexo invisible: el verdadero rol de las mujeres en la prehistoria].
Arnold, Bettina y Wicker, Nancy L. (eds.) (2001), Gender and the Archaeology of Death. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek.
Bickle, Penny; Hofmann, Daniela; Souvatzi, Stella; Cintas-Peña, Marta; Rebay-Salisbury, Katharina; Schauer, Peter; Khalil, Umair; Shaw, Daniel; Van Vleet, Krista E. (2025), “Moving to Stay in (a Woman’s) Place. Was Patrilocality the Dominant Mode of Postmarital Residence across Later European Prehistory?”, Current Anthropology, 66 (6); DOI https://doi.org/10.1086/738727
Berrocal, Mª Carmen (2009), “Feminismo, teoría y práctica de una arqueología científica”, Trabajos de Prehistoria, 66 (2), pàgs. 25-43.
Bertelsen, Reidar; Lillehammer, Arnvid; Naess, Jenny-Rita (eds.) (1987 [1979]), Were They All Men?. An Examination of Sex Roles in Prehistoric Society, AmS-Varia, Museo Arqueológico de Satavanger, Satavanger.
Bolger, Diane (ed.) (2013), A Companion to Gender Prehistory. Col. Blackwell Companions to Anthropology, Wiley-Blackwell
Brück, Joanna (2021), “Ancient DNA, kinship and relational identities in Bronze Age Britain”, Antiquity, 95 (379): 228-237; https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.216
Celdrán, Eva; Lull, Vicente; Micó, Rafael; Oliart, Camila; Rihuete Herrada, Cristina; Valério, Miguel (2025), “Kinship and Gender in Bronze Age Argaric Society”, en Antonio Blanco y Eva Alarcón (eds.), A Social Archaeology of Kinship in Iberia and Beyond. Recent Multistranded Approaches from aDNA to Household Archaeology. Sidestone Press, Leiden, pp. 111-138. DOI https://www.sidestone.com/books/a-social-archaeology-of-kinship-in-iberia-and-beyond
Cintas Peña, Marta (2020), La desigualdad de genero en la prehistòria ibérica. Una aproximación multi-variable. BAR International Series 2990, Oxford [tesis doctoral original de 2018 disponible en https://idus.us.es/handle/11441/77665
Cintas-Peña, Marta, Garrido Pena, Rafarl, Herrero-Corral, Ana M.; Flores, R.; Waterman, Anna J.; Díaz-Zorita, Marta; Díaz del Río, Pedro; Peate, David W. (2023), “Isotopic Evidence for Mobility in the Copper and Bronze Age Cemetery of Humanejos (Parla, Madrid): a Diachronic Approach Using Biological and Archaeological Variables”, Journal of Archaeological Method & Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-023-09633-6
Colomer, Eulàlia; González, Paloma; Montón, Sandra; Picazo, Marina (comp.) (1999), Arqueología y teoría feminista. Estudios sobre mujeres y cultura material en arqueología. Icaria-Antrazyt, Barcelona.
Coltofean-Arizancu, Laura; Gaydarska, Bisserka; Matić, Uroš (2021), Gender stereotypes in archaeology. A short reflection in image and text. Sidestonepress, descàrrega gratuïta en línia https:// https://www.sidestone.com/books/gender-stereotypes-in-archaeology
Coltofean-Arizancu, Laura; Gaydarska Bisserka; Plutniak Sébastian; Marta Hlad, Laura Mary; Allgrain, Isabelle; Pasquini, Béline; Vandevelde, Ségolène; Stamataki, Elisavet; Janežič, Polona; Wouters, Barbora; Sengeløv, Amanda (2023), “Harassment, assault, bullying and intimidation (HABI) in archaeology: a Europe-wide survey”, Antiquity, 97(393): 726-744. https://doi:10.15184/aqy.2023.58
Cobb Hannah, Crellin Rachel J. (2022), “Affirmation and Action: A Posthumanist Feminist Agenda for Archaeology. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 32(2): 265-279. doi:10.1017/S0959774321000573
Conkey, Margaret W. i Spector, Janet F. (1984), “Archaeology and the Study of gender”, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 7, pàgs. 1-38.
Coto, Maria; Delgado, Lara; López, Lourdes, Martín, Jesús; Pastor, Ana; Ruiz, Apen; Yubero, María (2020), Informe sobre el acoso sexual en arqueología (España). Barcelona, Granada y Madrid. DOI: 10.5281 /zenodo.3662763. https://zenodo.org/record/3662763#.YMCuZ27tZ0s
Davis-Kimball, Jeannine (2002), Warrior women. An archaeologist’s search for history’s hidden heroins. Warner Books, New York.
Díaz-Andreu, Margarita i Sørensen, Mary Louise Stig (1998), Excavating Women. A History of Women in European Archaeology. Routledge, London.
de Miguel, Patxuka (2024), “Paleopatologías de la maternidad y la primera infància”, en Agustí, Bibiana y Majó, Tona (eds.), Actas del XVI Congreso Nacional e Internacional de Paleopatología, Girona, Asociación Española de Paleopatología, Barcelona, pàgs. 23-33.
Dowson, Thomas A. (1998), “Homosexualitat, teoria queer i arqueologia”, Cota Zero, 14, pàgs. 81-87.
Eller, Cynthia (2000), The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won’t Give Women a Future. Beacon Press, Boston.
Eisler, Riane (2021[1987]), El cáliz y la espada. De las diosas a los dioses. Culturas pre-patriarcales. Capitán Swing, Madrid [original en ingles de 1987].
Escoriza, Trinidad; González, Andrea; Castro, Pedro (2015), “Representaciones figurativas, mujeres y arqueología”, Menga, 6, pàgs. 17-32.
Esparza, Ángel; Palomo-Díez, Sara; Velasco-Vázquez, Javier; Delibes, Germán; Arrroy-Pardo, Eduardo; Salazar García, Domingo (2017), “Familiar kinship? Palaeogenetic and isotopic evidence from a triple burial of the Cogotas archaeological culture (Bronze Age, Iberian Peninsula)”, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 36(3), pàgs. 223-242.
Garofalo, Evan M. y Garvin, Heather M. (2020), “The confusion between biological sex and gender and potential implications of misinterpretations”, en Klales, Alexandra R. (ed.), Sex estimation of the human skeleton: history, methods and emerging techniques biological sex, Academic Press, Londres, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815767-1.00004-3
Gaydarska, Bisserka; Rebay-Salisbury, Katharina; Ramírez Valiente Paz, et al. (2023), “To Gender or not To Gender? Exploring Gender Variations through Time and Space. European Journal of Archaeology, 26(3): 271-298. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2022.51
Gaydarska , Bisserka; Matić, Uroš; Coltofean, Laura; Díaz-Guardamino, Marta (2024), “Let’s talk about gender – the place of gender in corrent archaeological debates”, en Matić, Uroš; Gaydarska, Bisserka; Coltofean, Laura; Díaz-Guardamino, Marta (eds.), (2024), Gender Trouble and Current Archaeological Debates, Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-68157-8_1
Gero, Joan M.; Conkey, Magaret (eds.) (1991), Engendering Archaeology. Women and Prehistory. Blackwell, Oxford.
Grömer, Karina (2016), The Art of Prehistoric Textile Making: The development of craft traditions and clothing in Central Europe. Natural History Museum, Viena. http://www.oapen.org/search?identifier=604250&fbclid=IwAR2WmepKKCeIkP9RZW3OOJYE_UKPXNpvZtIfrX9WBcsQW_QPgPTotLgulqY
Hernando, Almudena (2012), La fantasía de la individualidad. Sobre la construcción sociohistórica del sujeto moderno. Katz Editores, Madrid.
Herrán, Mikel (2024), Sodomitas, vagas y maleantes. Historia de España desde Atapuerca a Chueca. Planeta, Madrid.
Hollimon, Susan E. (2017), “Bioarchaeological approaches to non binary genders. Case studies from Native North America”, en Sabrina C. Agarwal y Julie K. Wesp (eds.), Exploring Sex and Gender in Bioarchaeology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pàgs. 51-69.
Koch, Julia Katharina; Wiebke Kirleis (eds.) (2020), Gender Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies. Sidestone Press, Leiden. Lectura en línia i descàrrega oberta https://www.sidestone.com/books/gender-transformations-in-prehistoric-and-archaic-societies
Kodaş Ergul; Baysal, Emma L; Özkan Kazim (2024), “Bodily boundaries transgressed: corporal alteration through ornamentation in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic at Boncuklu Tarla, Türkiye”, Antiquity, 98(398): 323-342. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2024.28
Lerner, Gerda (1986), The Creation of Patriarchy, Oxford University Press [traducción al castellano en Crítica, Barcelona, 1990, La creación del patriarcado].
López Bertrán, Mireia (2014), ”Cossos i gèneres: perspectives d’anàlisi i aplicacions a l’arqueologia”, Saguntum Extra 15 (en Desmuntant Lara Croft. Dones, Arqueologia i Universitat), pàgs. 33-39.
Lull, Vicente; Rihuete, Cristina; Risch, Roberto; Bonora, B.; Celdrán, E.; Fregeiro, Mª I.; Molero, C.; Moreno, A.; Oliart, C.; Velasco, C. (2021), “Emblems and spaces of power during the Argaric Bronze Age at La Almoloya, Murcia”, Antiquity, 95(380): 329-348. http://doi:10.15184/aqy.2021.8
Martin, Debra, L.; Ralston, Claira, E. (2023), Gender violence in the American Southwest (AD 1100-1330). Mothers, sisters, wives, slaves. Routledge, Londres.
Martínez Pulido, Carolina (2012), La senda mutilada. La evolución humana en femenino. Biblioteca Nueva-Minerva, Siglo XXI, Madrid.
Moen, Marianne; Pedersen, Unn (eds.) (2024), The Routledge Handbook of Gender Archaeology. Routledge, Londres
Moral de Eusebio, Enrique (2014), “¿Es el sexo al género lo que la naturaleza a la cultura? Una aproximación queer para el análisis arqueológico”, Arqueoweb, 15, pàgs. 248-269.
Nelson, Sarah H. (2006), Handbook of Gender in Archaeology. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek.
Novak, Shannon (2006), “Beneath the façade: a skeletal model of domestic violence”, en Gowland, Rebecca y Knüsel, Christopher (eds.) (2006), Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains, Oxbow Books, London, pàgs. 238-252.
Nowell, April; Chang, Melanie, L. (2014), “Science, the Media, and Interpretations of Upper Paleolithic Figurines”, American Anthropologist, 116 (3), pàgs. 562–577; https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.1212
Prados, Lourdes i López Ruiz, Clara (eds.) (2017), Museos arqueológicos y género. Educando en igualdad. Servicio de Publicaciones-Universidad Autónoma de Madrd.
Rebay Salisbury, Katharina (2024), “Sex, gender and the Third Science Revolution”, en Matić, Uroš; Gaydarska, Bisserka; Coltofean, Laura; Díaz-Guardamino, Marta (eds.), (2024), Gender Trouble and Current Archaeological Debates, Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-68157-8_2
Risch, Robert; Haak, Wolfgang; Krause, Johannes; Meller, Harald (2023), “Kinship, Sex, and Biological Relatedness. The contribution of archaeogenetics to the understanding of social relations”, Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle, 28, pàgs. 9-25 https://books.ub.uni-heidelberg.de//propylaeum/catalog/book/1280
Robb, John y Harris, Oliver J.T. (2018): “Becoming gendered in European prehistory: was Neolithic gender fundamentally different?”, American Antiquity 83 (1), 128-147. http://doi:10.1017/aaq.2017.54
Saini, Angela (2023), The Patriarchs. The Origins of Inequality.Beacon Press, Boston.
Sanahuja Yll, Mª.Encarna (2002), Cuerpos Sexuados. Objetos y Prehistoria. Cátedra, col. Feminismos, Madrid.
Sánchez Romero, Marga (2022), Prehistorias de mujeres. Destino, Barcelona.
Shipman, Pat (2014), “El difícil trance del parto humano”, Investigación y Ciencia, 452, pàgs. 36-40.
Søfaer, Joanne R. (2006), “Gender, bioarchaeology and human ontogeny”, en Gowland, Rebecca i Knüsel, Christopher (eds.), Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains, Oxbow Books, Oxford, pàgs. 155-167.
Soriano, Eni; Herrero Corral, Ana Mª, Garrido, Rafael; Majó, Tona (2021), “Sex/gender system and social hierarchization in Bell Beaker burials from Iberia”, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 64, 101335; 10.1016/j.jaa.2021.101335
Stone, Linda (2020), Kinship and Gender. 6a edició, Westview Press, Oxford.
Tilley, Lorna; Schrenk, Alecia, A. (eds.) (2017), New Developments in the Bioarchaeology of Care. Further Case Studies and Expanded Theory, Springer, Nova York.
Weismantel, Mary (2013), “Towards a transgender archaeology. A Queer rampage through prehistory”, Susan Stryker i Aren Z. Aizura (eds.), The Transgender Studies Reader 2, Routledge, New York, pàgs. 319-334.
Wołoszyn, Janusz Z.; Piwowar, Katarzyna (2015), “Sodomites, Siamese Twins, and Scholars: Same-Sex Relationships in Moche Art”, American Anthropologist, 117(2): 285-301.
Zarzuela, Paloma; Martín, Jesús; Donat, M. (2019), “Una radiografía necesaria del sector desde una mirada de género”, Arqueoweb, 19, pàgs. 34-49.
Zuckerman, Molly K. y Crandallb, John (2019), “Reconsidering sex and gender in relation to health and disease in bioarchaeology”, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 54: 161–171
Software
Standard
Course groups and languages
The information provided is provisional until November 30. After this date, you will be able to consult the language of each group through this link. To access the information, you will need to enter the course CODE
| Type of teaching | Group | Language | Semester | Shift |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (TE) Theory | 1 | Catalan | first semester | morning-mixed |
| (PAUL) Classroom practices | 1 | Catalan | first semester | morning-mixed |