Uroš Matić
I am an archaeologist and Egyptologist specialized in violence, ethnicity, gender and settlement archaeology of ancient Egypt.
I obtained my PhD at the Institute for Egyptology and Coptic studies of the University in Münster in 2017. In my doctoral thesis I dealt with violent treatments of enemies and prisoners of war in New Kingdom Egypt under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Angelika Lohwasser (IAEK, WW-Universität Münster) and Prof. Dr. Anthony Spalinger (University of Auckland). This research was supported by the Ministry of Youth and Sport of the Republic of Serbia, Delta Foundation and the Foundation for Postgraduates in Egyptology (Vienna). The thesis was marked with a double summa cum laude and rewarded with Philippika prize for 2018 of the German publishing house Harrassowitz. It was also awarded with the Best Publication Award of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in 2020.
From 2018 to 2019 I conducted Post Doc research at the Institute for Egyptology and Coptic studies of the University of Münster on cosmetic substances and utensils in Egyptian New Kingdom Nubia. During this research I was a guest scholar at the OREA-Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. This research was conducted within the German DAAD PRIME Post Doctoral program for 2018-2019.
From 2019 to 2023 I worked as a senior field archaeologist at the excavations of the Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period settlement in Kom Ombo and studied 3rd millennium BCE pottery from the site.
In 2022 I received the research grant of the Foundation for Postgraduates in Egyptology (Vienna) to study the ancient Egyptian lists of spoils of war.
Since 2024 I am working as a postdoctoral researcher in project ´Colonial Infrastructures´ in Technical Museum in Vienna.
I was a lecturer at the University of Münster (2016-2021), University of Vienna (2022) and University of Graz (2022-present).
Supervisors: Prof. Dr. Angelika Lohwasser and Prof. Dr. Anthony Spalinger
I obtained my PhD at the Institute for Egyptology and Coptic studies of the University in Münster in 2017. In my doctoral thesis I dealt with violent treatments of enemies and prisoners of war in New Kingdom Egypt under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Angelika Lohwasser (IAEK, WW-Universität Münster) and Prof. Dr. Anthony Spalinger (University of Auckland). This research was supported by the Ministry of Youth and Sport of the Republic of Serbia, Delta Foundation and the Foundation for Postgraduates in Egyptology (Vienna). The thesis was marked with a double summa cum laude and rewarded with Philippika prize for 2018 of the German publishing house Harrassowitz. It was also awarded with the Best Publication Award of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in 2020.
From 2018 to 2019 I conducted Post Doc research at the Institute for Egyptology and Coptic studies of the University of Münster on cosmetic substances and utensils in Egyptian New Kingdom Nubia. During this research I was a guest scholar at the OREA-Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. This research was conducted within the German DAAD PRIME Post Doctoral program for 2018-2019.
From 2019 to 2023 I worked as a senior field archaeologist at the excavations of the Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period settlement in Kom Ombo and studied 3rd millennium BCE pottery from the site.
In 2022 I received the research grant of the Foundation for Postgraduates in Egyptology (Vienna) to study the ancient Egyptian lists of spoils of war.
Since 2024 I am working as a postdoctoral researcher in project ´Colonial Infrastructures´ in Technical Museum in Vienna.
I was a lecturer at the University of Münster (2016-2021), University of Vienna (2022) and University of Graz (2022-present).
Supervisors: Prof. Dr. Angelika Lohwasser and Prof. Dr. Anthony Spalinger
less
InterestsView All (77)
Uploads
Books by Uroš Matić
Das Sonderheft vereint verschiedene Perspektiven auf die wissenschaftliche Untersuchung dieses spannenden Phänomens und gibt einen umfangreichen Einblick in das noch recht junge Forschungsfeld, welches sich mit Tattoos und anderen Körpermodifikationen in der Vergangenheit beschäftigt und trotz seiner zeitlichen Tiefe einen hohen aktuellen Bezug aufweist.
The chapters included in the first part deal with themes in world archaeology that have little or no focus on gender, such as the Third Science Revolution (e.g. ancient DNA, stable isotopes analyses, big data), posthumanism (e.g. new materialism, symmetrical archaeology and the ontological turn) and digital archaeology and heritage. The second part focuses on themes in which gender archaeology has made serious advances (intersectionality, social inequality, violence, mobility). The third part deals with themes crucial for contemporary archaeology and society, namely, gender education, gender representation in museum exhibitions and the future of gender archaeology. The volume concludes with a coda chapter that critically assesses the preceding contributions and the volume as a whole. The book offers a gender-balanced and inclusive authorship consisting of both well-established and early career researchers closely connected to the EAA, whose professionally, culturally and geographically diverse backgrounds and experiences enrich the viewpoints discussed in the chapters. The targeted audience is archaeologists from all theoretical and scientific backgrounds at all stages of their career.
Were men the only hunters and producers of tools, art and innovation in prehistory? Were women the only gatherers, home-bound breeders and caregivers? Are all prehistoric female depictions mother goddesses? And do women and men have equal career chances in archaeology? To put it short, no. However, these are some of the gender stereotypes that we still encounter on a daily basis in archaeology from the way archaeologists interpret the past and present it to the general public to how they practice it as a profession.
This booklet is as a short but informative and critical response by archaeologists to various gender stereotypes that exist in the archaeological explanation of the past, as well as in the contemporary disciplinary practice. Gender and feminist archaeologists have fought for decades against gender stereotypes through academic writing, museum exhibitions and popular literature, among others. Despite their efforts, many of these stereotypes continue to live and even flourish, both in academic and non-academic settings, especially in countries where gender archaeology does not exist or where gender in archaeology is barely discussed. Given this context and the rise of far right or ultraconservative ideologies and beliefs across the globe, this booklet is a timely and thought-provoking contribution that openly addresses often uncomfortable topics concerning gender in archaeology, in an attempt to raise awareness both among the professionals and fans of the discipline.
The booklet includes the 21 most commonly encountered gender stereotypes in archaeology (see table of contents below IMAGE 1), from the classical image of men as hunters and producers of tools, art and innovation, and women as gatherers and home-bound breeders to queer archaeology being practiced by gay and lesbian researchers or the equal career opportunities of women and men in archaeology. Each stereotype is explained and deconstructed in 250 words by authors consisting of archaeologists with expertise on gender in the past and in contemporary archaeology, most of them being members of the Archaeology and Gender in Europe (AGE) Community of the European Association of Archaeologists. In addition, the stereotypes are beautifully illustrated by Serbian award-winning artist Nikola Radosavljević.
What will you find in the booklet?
Are you curious to discover which are the 21 stereotypes deconstructed in the booklet? See their list and authors below! Apart from these, the booklet will also include an introduction and a bibliographic list where you will find two references for each gender stereotype, in case you would like to read more about them!
Man the hunter and field archaeologist vs. woman the gatherer and laboratory analyst | Bettina Arnold | University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, United States
Only women cooked in past societies | Margarita Sánchez Romero | University of Granada, Spain
Men were active producers of tools, art and innovation, while women were passive home-bound breeders | Bettina Arnold | University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, United States
Only women took care of the old and sick in past societies | Margarita Sánchez Romero | University of Granada, Spain
Only women cared about children in past societies | Katharina Rebay-Salisbury | Austrian Archaeological Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria
Women were young, thin and beautiful in the past, while men were young, tall and powerfully built | Brigitte Röder | University of Basel, Switzerland
Only men were violent in past societies | Uroš Matić | Austrian Archaeological Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria
Prehistoric societies were either matriarchal or patriarchal | Julia Katharina Koch | Archäologisches Landesmuseum Hessen, Germany
Prehistoric female depictions are mother goddesses | Bisserka Gaydarska | Durham University, United Kingdom
Families always consisted of a father, a mother and children | Julia Katharina Koch | Archäologisches Landesmuseum Hessen, Germany
Two adult women buried together are the lady and her chambermaid | Julia Katharina Koch | Archäologisches Landesmuseum Hessen, Germany
Sex and gender are the same | Katharina Rebay-Salisbury | Austrian Archaeological Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria
The binary sex and gender system is natural | Sandra Montón-Subías | Pompeu Fabra University, Spain
There are only two genders | Pamela Geller | University of Miami, United States
Gender as studied by gender archaeologists is an ideology | Uroš Matić | Austrian Archaeological Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria
Gender archaeology is practiced only by women and gay men | Rachel Pope | University of Liverpool, United Kingdom
Gender archaeology is only about women | Doris Gutsmiedl-Schümann | Freie Universität Berlin, Germany
Same sex practices are a “modern” invention or a disorder | Uroš Matić | Austrian Archaeological Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria
Queer archaeology is just gay and lesbian researchers writing about gay and lesbian people in the past | Bo Jensen | Kroppedal Museum, Denmark
Women have equal career chances in archaeology as men | Maria Mina | University of the Aegean, Greece
Archaeology is free of harassment, assault, intimidation and bullying | Laura Coltofean and Bisserka Gaydarska | University of Barcelona, Spain and Durham University, United Kingdom
1. Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder: An Introduction to Gender and Corporeal Aesthetics in the Past
Uroš Matić
2. The Queen’s Beauty: Leadership as an Aesthetic and Embodied Practice in Ancient Mesopotamia
Helga Vogel
3. Beauty Treatments and Gender in Pharaonic Egypt: Masculinities and Femininities in Public and Private Spaces
Uroš Matić
4. An unknown ancient Egyptian tool (for wig maintenance?)
Kira Zumkley
5. Fresco, Fresco on the Wall... Changes in Ideals of Beauty in the Late Bronze Age Aegean
Filip Franković
6. Gender, perfume and society in ancient Athens
Isabelle Algrain
7. Mirrors in the funerary contexts of Moesia Superior: Roman hegemony, beauty and gender
Vladimir D. Mihajlović
8. Looking for trouble. Beautiful bodies in Viking Age Scandinavia, c. 750 to 1050 A.D.
Bo Jensen
9. From Moon-faced amrads to Farangi-looking Women: Beauty Transformations from the 19th to early 20th century in Iran
Mariam Dezamkhooy
10. Afterword
Papers by Uroš Matić
connotations that different body poses might have had in different parts of the LBA Eastern Mediterranean. Finally, it addresses the connection between body poses, movement and changing ideologies in the LBA Aegean.
BCE) reveal traces of trauma caused by violence. Several blows to his head produced
cuts, allowing scholars to identify the weapons of the attackers. Considering that among
these weapons were Levantine Middle Bronze Age II chisel-shaped, socketed axes, and
that Middle Bronze Age II material culture is attributed to ‘Asiatics’ and the subjects
of the 15th Dynasty (Hyksos), it is widely accepted that Seqenenre Tao died in conflict
with the Hyksos forces. This paper analyses the culture-historical background behind
this reasoning. Evidence for the use of weapons of foreign origin by the Egyptian forces
is presented along with the possible mechanisms of their acquisition. The entanglement
of weapons with the ethnic identity of their users is brought into question, allowing for
several possible perpetrators and scenarios in which Seqenenre Tao died.
Das Sonderheft vereint verschiedene Perspektiven auf die wissenschaftliche Untersuchung dieses spannenden Phänomens und gibt einen umfangreichen Einblick in das noch recht junge Forschungsfeld, welches sich mit Tattoos und anderen Körpermodifikationen in der Vergangenheit beschäftigt und trotz seiner zeitlichen Tiefe einen hohen aktuellen Bezug aufweist.
The chapters included in the first part deal with themes in world archaeology that have little or no focus on gender, such as the Third Science Revolution (e.g. ancient DNA, stable isotopes analyses, big data), posthumanism (e.g. new materialism, symmetrical archaeology and the ontological turn) and digital archaeology and heritage. The second part focuses on themes in which gender archaeology has made serious advances (intersectionality, social inequality, violence, mobility). The third part deals with themes crucial for contemporary archaeology and society, namely, gender education, gender representation in museum exhibitions and the future of gender archaeology. The volume concludes with a coda chapter that critically assesses the preceding contributions and the volume as a whole. The book offers a gender-balanced and inclusive authorship consisting of both well-established and early career researchers closely connected to the EAA, whose professionally, culturally and geographically diverse backgrounds and experiences enrich the viewpoints discussed in the chapters. The targeted audience is archaeologists from all theoretical and scientific backgrounds at all stages of their career.
Were men the only hunters and producers of tools, art and innovation in prehistory? Were women the only gatherers, home-bound breeders and caregivers? Are all prehistoric female depictions mother goddesses? And do women and men have equal career chances in archaeology? To put it short, no. However, these are some of the gender stereotypes that we still encounter on a daily basis in archaeology from the way archaeologists interpret the past and present it to the general public to how they practice it as a profession.
This booklet is as a short but informative and critical response by archaeologists to various gender stereotypes that exist in the archaeological explanation of the past, as well as in the contemporary disciplinary practice. Gender and feminist archaeologists have fought for decades against gender stereotypes through academic writing, museum exhibitions and popular literature, among others. Despite their efforts, many of these stereotypes continue to live and even flourish, both in academic and non-academic settings, especially in countries where gender archaeology does not exist or where gender in archaeology is barely discussed. Given this context and the rise of far right or ultraconservative ideologies and beliefs across the globe, this booklet is a timely and thought-provoking contribution that openly addresses often uncomfortable topics concerning gender in archaeology, in an attempt to raise awareness both among the professionals and fans of the discipline.
The booklet includes the 21 most commonly encountered gender stereotypes in archaeology (see table of contents below IMAGE 1), from the classical image of men as hunters and producers of tools, art and innovation, and women as gatherers and home-bound breeders to queer archaeology being practiced by gay and lesbian researchers or the equal career opportunities of women and men in archaeology. Each stereotype is explained and deconstructed in 250 words by authors consisting of archaeologists with expertise on gender in the past and in contemporary archaeology, most of them being members of the Archaeology and Gender in Europe (AGE) Community of the European Association of Archaeologists. In addition, the stereotypes are beautifully illustrated by Serbian award-winning artist Nikola Radosavljević.
What will you find in the booklet?
Are you curious to discover which are the 21 stereotypes deconstructed in the booklet? See their list and authors below! Apart from these, the booklet will also include an introduction and a bibliographic list where you will find two references for each gender stereotype, in case you would like to read more about them!
Man the hunter and field archaeologist vs. woman the gatherer and laboratory analyst | Bettina Arnold | University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, United States
Only women cooked in past societies | Margarita Sánchez Romero | University of Granada, Spain
Men were active producers of tools, art and innovation, while women were passive home-bound breeders | Bettina Arnold | University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, United States
Only women took care of the old and sick in past societies | Margarita Sánchez Romero | University of Granada, Spain
Only women cared about children in past societies | Katharina Rebay-Salisbury | Austrian Archaeological Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria
Women were young, thin and beautiful in the past, while men were young, tall and powerfully built | Brigitte Röder | University of Basel, Switzerland
Only men were violent in past societies | Uroš Matić | Austrian Archaeological Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria
Prehistoric societies were either matriarchal or patriarchal | Julia Katharina Koch | Archäologisches Landesmuseum Hessen, Germany
Prehistoric female depictions are mother goddesses | Bisserka Gaydarska | Durham University, United Kingdom
Families always consisted of a father, a mother and children | Julia Katharina Koch | Archäologisches Landesmuseum Hessen, Germany
Two adult women buried together are the lady and her chambermaid | Julia Katharina Koch | Archäologisches Landesmuseum Hessen, Germany
Sex and gender are the same | Katharina Rebay-Salisbury | Austrian Archaeological Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria
The binary sex and gender system is natural | Sandra Montón-Subías | Pompeu Fabra University, Spain
There are only two genders | Pamela Geller | University of Miami, United States
Gender as studied by gender archaeologists is an ideology | Uroš Matić | Austrian Archaeological Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria
Gender archaeology is practiced only by women and gay men | Rachel Pope | University of Liverpool, United Kingdom
Gender archaeology is only about women | Doris Gutsmiedl-Schümann | Freie Universität Berlin, Germany
Same sex practices are a “modern” invention or a disorder | Uroš Matić | Austrian Archaeological Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria
Queer archaeology is just gay and lesbian researchers writing about gay and lesbian people in the past | Bo Jensen | Kroppedal Museum, Denmark
Women have equal career chances in archaeology as men | Maria Mina | University of the Aegean, Greece
Archaeology is free of harassment, assault, intimidation and bullying | Laura Coltofean and Bisserka Gaydarska | University of Barcelona, Spain and Durham University, United Kingdom
1. Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder: An Introduction to Gender and Corporeal Aesthetics in the Past
Uroš Matić
2. The Queen’s Beauty: Leadership as an Aesthetic and Embodied Practice in Ancient Mesopotamia
Helga Vogel
3. Beauty Treatments and Gender in Pharaonic Egypt: Masculinities and Femininities in Public and Private Spaces
Uroš Matić
4. An unknown ancient Egyptian tool (for wig maintenance?)
Kira Zumkley
5. Fresco, Fresco on the Wall... Changes in Ideals of Beauty in the Late Bronze Age Aegean
Filip Franković
6. Gender, perfume and society in ancient Athens
Isabelle Algrain
7. Mirrors in the funerary contexts of Moesia Superior: Roman hegemony, beauty and gender
Vladimir D. Mihajlović
8. Looking for trouble. Beautiful bodies in Viking Age Scandinavia, c. 750 to 1050 A.D.
Bo Jensen
9. From Moon-faced amrads to Farangi-looking Women: Beauty Transformations from the 19th to early 20th century in Iran
Mariam Dezamkhooy
10. Afterword
connotations that different body poses might have had in different parts of the LBA Eastern Mediterranean. Finally, it addresses the connection between body poses, movement and changing ideologies in the LBA Aegean.
BCE) reveal traces of trauma caused by violence. Several blows to his head produced
cuts, allowing scholars to identify the weapons of the attackers. Considering that among
these weapons were Levantine Middle Bronze Age II chisel-shaped, socketed axes, and
that Middle Bronze Age II material culture is attributed to ‘Asiatics’ and the subjects
of the 15th Dynasty (Hyksos), it is widely accepted that Seqenenre Tao died in conflict
with the Hyksos forces. This paper analyses the culture-historical background behind
this reasoning. Evidence for the use of weapons of foreign origin by the Egyptian forces
is presented along with the possible mechanisms of their acquisition. The entanglement
of weapons with the ethnic identity of their users is brought into question, allowing for
several possible perpetrators and scenarios in which Seqenenre Tao died.
Vienna explores Austrian involvement in colonial infrastructural and transport projects. One of
these is the construction of the Suez Canal in Egypt by the 'Compagnie universelle du canal
maritime de Suez' ('Suez Canal Company') formed by French diplomat Ferdinand de Lesseps in
1858. One of the engineers involved with the project since 1846 was the citizen of the Austrian
Empire, Alois Negrelli (born Luigi Negrelli, 1799-1858). The Technical Museum in Vienna holds
the bequest of Alois Negrelli which counts around 2150 archival materials, out of which 750 deal
with the Suez Canal. Among these materials are hand written documents, technical drawings, and
private as well as professional correspondences. Next to these, the archive of the Technical
Museum in Vienna contains the travelogue of Carl Junker, member of the Austro-German delegation who visited Egypt in 1847, and photo album of Justin Kozlowski, documenting the
work on the Suez Canal and its opening in 1869. This paper will present some of the unpublished
documents on the construction of the Suez Canal and focus on the subalterns who built the Suez
Canal and worked in Port Said
War is a particularly human activity. Yet we have dragged many nonhuman animal species into our conflicts. Horses, donkeys, camels, elephants and dogs are some of the animals that have fought and died alongside humans, while donkeys, mules and cattle carried provisions, and other animals were eaten or sacrificed (e.g. for divination) during military campaigns. In the aftermath of battle, vultures and other animals pecked at the fallen on the battlefield. Even further behind the scenes, animal bodies were exploited in the production of, for example, elements of armour, weapons and chariots, and the hunting and killing of animals may have functioned as a kind of practice for war. This year's Advent Conference will explore this theme from the third to the first millennium BCE in the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East.
War is a particularly human activity. Yet we have dragged many nonhuman animal species into our con icts. Horses, donkeys, camels, elephants and dogs are some of the animals that have fought and died alongside humans, while donkeys, mules and cattle carried provisions, and other animals were eaten or sacriced (e.g. for divination) during military campaigns. In the aftermath of battle, vultures and other animals pecked at the fallen on the battle eld. Even further behind the scenes, animal bodies were exploited in the production of, for example, elements of armour, weapons and chariots, and the hunting and killing of animals may have functioned as a kind of practice for war.
My Ph.D research deals with violent treatments of enemies and prisoners during the New Kingdom Egypt (c. 1550-1070 BC). They include torture (caging; beating and harassment; sun exposure), mutilation (hand cutting; phalli cutting; ears cutting; eye removal; branding) and execution (burning; impalement; decapitation; hanging upside-down). The attestations are visual and written with scarce bioarchaeological evidence (often problematically ethnically attributed based on culture-historical “pottery equals people” premise). My aim is to explore the relations between violence and the body of Others by comparing the treatments of enemies and war prisoners with those violent treatments of the criminals in Egypt or the damned in the Egyptian Underworld. The workshop concentrating on working symmetrically in anthropology and archaeology can prove beneficial for my research on many levels. Firstly, because I deal with bodies as subjects and objects of violence, as arenas for violence, intrusion and fragmentation and with body parts as corporeal fragments, but simultaneously as potential trophies and commodities. Violent treatments produce blurred lines between body parts and things. Secondly, because certain violent treatments are not exclusive for enemies and war prisoners but other Others such as the criminals and the damned, thus potentially blurring the lines between the world of the native and foreign, living and the dead. Finally, my participation in the workshop could help me to critically review my work done so far. My contribution to the workshop is a body centered research which does not a priori privilege the body but allows it to be understood as a thing, primarily a thing which can be hurt in many different ways, using many different methods, elements and other things. Additionally, working on both visual and written evidence of a literate society allows closer look at the meaning levels behind the violent treatments of the body.
Ägyptologie und Archäologie. Eine detaillierte Übersicht und Diskussion verschiedener theoretischer
Ansätze (kulturhistorische, prozessuale, postprozessuale, mikro- und symmetrische Archäologie) sowie
Paradigmen im Hintergrund (z. B Kulturkreislehre, Neopositivismus, Strukturalismus, Poststrukturalismus,
Feminismus, Postkolonialismus, Akteur-Netzwerk-Theorie) stehen dabei im Mittelpunkt.
Im Kurs wird der historischen Kontextualisierung verschiedener Theorien in der Archäologie besondere
Aufmerksamkeit gewidmet. Der Dozent wird die Themen einführen, im Detail werden sie in Referaten
der Studierenden diskutiert. Die Aufgabe der Studierenden ist es, sich durch Lesen der Texte zu
einem bestimmten Thema für Diskussion vorzubereiten und daran aktiv zu beteiligen. Als allgemeine
Vorbereitung für den Kurs sollten die Studierenden die Hauptliteratur gelesen haben.
Literatur:
Hauptliteratur:
Johnson, M. 2011. Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Willey-Blackwell.
Trigger, B. 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eggert, M. K. H, und Veit, U. (Hrsg.) 2013. Theorie in der Archäologie. Zur jüngeren Diskussion in Deutschland.
Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher 10. Münster: Waxmann.
Besonders für Ägyptologen/innen:
Carruthers, W. (Hrsg.) 2014. Histories of Egyptology: Interdisciplinary Measures. London und New York: Routledge.
Verbovsek, A., Backes, B., und Jones, C. (Hrsg.) 2011. Methodik und Didaktik in der Ägyptologie. Herausforderungen
eines kulturwissenschaftlichen Paradigmenwechsels in den Altertumswissenschaften. Ägyptologie
und Kulturwissenschaft 4. München: Wilhelm Fink.
Zusätzliche Literatur:
Biehl, P. F., Gramsch, A., und Marciniak, A. (Hrsg) 2002. Archäologien Europas. Geschichte, Methoden und
Theorien. Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher 3. Münster: Waxmann.
Das Denkkollektiv laut Fleck ist der „Träger geschichtlicher Entwicklung eines Denkgebietes, eines bestimmten Wissensbestandes und Kulturstandes, also eines besonderen Denkstils.“ Dementsprechend soll in diesem Vortrag besprochen werden, wie sich ein Kolonialdenkstil entwickelt hat und welche koloniale Ideen zwischen den Ägyptologen (Heinrich K. Brugsch, William M. F. Petrie, James H. Breasted, Hermann Junker, Nina d. G. Davies, Donald B. Redford), Sudanarchäologen (George A. Reisner, Bruce Trigger) und Anthropologen (Samuel G. Morton, Felix von Luschan, Grafton E. Smith, Charles G. Seligman, Eugen Strouhal) “ausgetauscht” wurden. Es wird argumentiert, dass die Forschungsgeschichte Ägyptens und Nubiens im Neuen Reich durch drei Hauptideen geprägt wurde, nämlich: 1. wissenschaftlicher Rassismus 2. sozio-kulturelle Evolution und 3. kolonialer und imperialer Diskurs. Ohne eine kritische Reflexion dieser Ideen können sowohl die Ägyptologie als auch die Sudanarchäologie weder ihre Entwicklung noch ihre gegenwärtige Position sowie oft als selbstverständlich angesehene Konzepte und Ideen verstehen. Um vorwärts zu gehen, müssen wir uns oft zurückwenden.
Theme: 6. material culture studies and societies
Keywords: gender, inequality, social archaeology, theory, material culture
Social injustice and environmental destruction are linked to patriarchal capitalist societies in the current global social discourse. Some decolonial feminists have even claimed that patriarchy did not
really exist outside Europe before the advent of modern colonialism. Such discourse usually ignores archaeological research demonstrating that patriarchal systems appeared in different regions of the world long before the modern era. Gerda Lerner’s famous book ‘The Creation of Patriarchy’situated its emergence in ancient Mesopotamia and made use of archaeological and written sources to support her thesis. Since then, other archaeological and anthropological works have provided
explanations for the emergence of patriarchy and documented its presence in prehistoric and/or oral societies with the help of material culture.
We contend that archaeology has much to offer to the current debate on patriarchy and welcome discussions and case studies from all over the world that include (but are not limited to) one or more of the following issues:
What is patriarchy and how can we identify it using material culture? How can developments in different regions be recorded and reconstructed using archaeological methods? Are there regions where turning points in the formation of patriarchy are recorded? Are there cases where patriarchy existed without a material correlate that can be identified archaeologically? How are patriarchy and material culture inter-related? What is the relationship between patriarchy and gender? How does patriarchy create and sustain gender norms? How do people go work around them and what are the consequences? How are masculinity and femininity constructed under patriarchal systems? Are unequal gender systems always patriarchal? Are there non-patriarchal unequal societies? Are there unequal societies without unequal gender?
Contact:
[email protected]
virility. Moreover, the paper argues that there was a gradual change in the depictions of male nudity around 1420/1400 BCE. In the period between ca. 1700–1420/1400 BCE, male nudity was restricted to representations of boys and defeated warriors. After ca. 1420/1400 BCE, most depictions of male nudity represented figures of power and authority with erect penises/phalli. We believe that the depictions of male nudity in combination with phalli were used to accentuate masculinity of such figures.