CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 129Gender and Feminist StudiesHistorical and Cultural Archaeology StudiesGender, Sexuality, and Education

Sexuality Studies in Archaeology

Voss, Barbara L.·2008·Annual Review of Anthropology
DOI 10.1146/annurev.anthro.37.081407.085238
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Does sexuality have a past? A growing body of archaeological research on sexuality demonstrates that the sexual politics of the past were as richly varied and complex as those of the present. Furthermore, investigations of past sexualities have much to say about conventional archaeological topics such as state formation, subsistence and settlement systems, and the emergence and elaboration of symbolic systems, and they have made methodological and theoretical contributions to the archaeology of social identities and visual representations. To date, most research has clustered into five groupings: reproduction management, sexual representations, sexual identities, prostitution, and the sexual politics of institutions. The most intriguing new development is the growing application of queer theory as an archaeological methodology for investigating nonsexual as well as sexual matters. In particular, queer theory provides a methodological bridge between archaeological research on sexuality and research on other aspects of social identity.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev.anthro.37.081407.085238

Cites

111 of 111 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. Arnold B, 2002, Pursuit of Gender: Worldwide Archaeological Approaches, 239
  2. Bahn PG, 1986, Rock Art Res., 3, 99
  3. Bevan L, 2001, Indecent Exposure: Sexuality, Society, and the Archaeological Record
  4. Bevan L. 2001b. Sex and death: sexual differentiation in mortuary ritual and grave goods as sexual symbols. See Bevan 2001a, pp. 122–29
  5. Brendel OJ, 1970, Studies in Erotic Art, 3
  6. Byrne D, 2005, Perm. Arch. Sex. Gend. Rights in Asia: 1st Int. Conf. Asian Queer Stud.
  7. Byrne D. 2007. Excavating desire: dissonant heritage at Campuan, Bali. Presented at Aust. Archaeol. Conf., Sydney
  8. Chase SM. 1991. Polygyny, architecture and meaning. Archaeol. Gend: Proc. Annu. Conf. Archaeol. Assoc. Univ. Calgary, 22nd , ed. D Walde, ND Willows, pp. 150–58
  9. Clarke JR, 2003, Roman Sex, 100 B.C. to A.D. 250
  10. Cohen A. 1996. Portrayals of abduction in Greek art: rape or metaphor. See Kampen 1996, pp. 117–35
  11. Conkey MW, 1995, Feminisms in the Academy, 199
  12. Costello JG. 2000. Red light voices: an archaeological drama of late nineteenth-century prostitution. See Schmidt & Voss 2000, pp. 160–75
  13. Davis W. 1996. Winckelmann's “homosexual” teleologies. See Kampen 1996, pp. 262–76
  14. Dover KJ, 1978, Greek Homosexuality
  15. Eger AA, 2007, J. Rom. Archaeol., Suppl. Ser., 65, 131
  16. Ellis P. 2001. Sexual metaphors in the Neolithic. See Bevan 2001a, pp. 56–63
  17. Elsner J. 1996. Naturalism and the erotics of the gaze: imitations of Narcissus. See Kampen 1996, pp. 247–61
  18. 10.1111/j.1095-9270.2003.tb01441.x · DOI
  19. Foucault M, 1978, The History of Sexuality
  20. Frontisi-Ducroux F. 1996. Eros, desire, and the gaze. See Kampen 1996, pp. 81–100
  21. Gero JM, 2004, Combining the Past and the Present: Archaeological Perspectives on Society, 3
  22. Gilchrist R. 2000. Unsexing the body: the interior sexuality of medieval religious women. See Schmidt & Voss 2000, pp. 89–103
  23. Halsall G. 2001. Material culture, sex, gender and transgression in sixth-century Gaul: some reflections in the light of recent archaeological debate. See Bevan 2001a, pp. 130–46
  24. Hollimon SE, 1997, Women in Prehistory: North American and Mesoamerica, 173
  25. Hollimon SE. 2000. Archaeology of the ‘Aqi: gender and sexuality in prehistoric Chumash society. See Schmidt & Voss 2000, pp. 179–96
  26. Joyce RA. 2000a. A precolumbian gaze: male sexuality among the ancient Maya. See Schmidt & Voss 2000, pp. 263–83
  27. 10.1080/713781489 · DOI
  28. Kampen NB, 1996, Sexuality in Ancient Art: Near East, Egypt, Greece, and Italy
  29. Kampen NB. 1997. Epilogue: gender and desire. See Koloski-Ostrow & Lyons 1997, pp. 267–77
  30. Karskens G, 1999, Inside the Rocks: The Archaeology of a Neighborhood
  31. Kauffman Doig F, 2001, Sexo y Magia Sexual en el Antiguo Perú/Sex and Sexual Magic in Ancient Peru
  32. Kokkinidou D, Nikolaidou M. 1997. Body imagery in the Aegean Neolithic: ideological implications of anthropomorphic figurines. See Moore & Scott 1997, pp. 88–112
  33. Larco Hoyle R, 1965, Checán: Essay on Erotic Elements in Peruvian Art
  34. Looper MG, 2002, Ancient Maya Women, 171
  35. Lucy SJ. 1997. Housewives, warriors and slaves? Sex and gender in Anglo-Saxon burials. See Moore & Scott 1997, pp. 150–68
  36. McGinn TA, 2002, J. Rom. Archaeol. Suppl., 47, 7
  37. Meskell L, 2007, Material Beginnings: A Global Prehistory of Figurative Representation, 143
  38. Meskell L, 2003, Embodied Lives: Figuring Ancient Maya and Egyptian Experience
  39. Prine E. 2000. Searching for third genders: towards a prehistory of domestic spaces in middle Missouri villages. See Schmidt & Voss 2000, pp. 197–219
  40. Rega E. 1997. Age, gender and biological reality in the Early Bronze Age cemetery at Mokrin. See Moore & Scott 1997, pp. 229–47
  41. Rubin G. 2000. Sites, settlements, and urban sex: archaeology and the study of gay leathermen in San Francisco, 1955–1995. See Schmidt & Voss 2000, pp. 62–88
  42. Schmidt RA. 2000. Shamans and northern cosmology: the direct historical approach to mesolithic sexuality. See Schmidt & Voss 2000, pp. 220–35
  43. Scott E. 2001. The use and misuse of rape in prehistory. See Bevan 2001a, pp. 1–18
  44. Seifert DJ. 1994. Mrs. Starr's profession. See Scott 1994, pp. 149–73
  45. Seifert DJ, 2005, Hist. Archaeol., 39
  46. Solli B, 1999, Glyfer Och Arkeologiska Rum: En Vanbok, 341
  47. Voss BL. 2000a. Colonial sex: archaeology, structured space, and sexuality in Alta California's Spanish-colonial missions. See Schmidt & Voss 2000, pp. 35–61
  48. Wilkie LA. 2000. Magical passions: sexuality and African-American archaeology. See Schmidt & Voss 2000, pp. 129–42

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Voss, B. L.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Voss, Barbara L.
Venue
Annual Review of Anthropology
Publisher
Annual Reviews
Published
2008-10-01
Volume
37
Issue
1
Pages
317-336
ISSN
  • 0084-6570 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-4290
DOI
10.1146/annurev.anthro.37.081407.085238
OpenAlex
W2130750121
Cited by
129
References
111
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 9
FWCI
1.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Annual Review of Anthropology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Historical and Cultural Archaeology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Sexuality, and Education
Keywords
sexuality, archaeology of sexuality, queer theory, social identity, reproductive management, sexual representation, sexual identity, prostitution, sexual politics, state formation, symbolic systems, visual representation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review